Loading...
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.
Home
My WebLink
About
PSI Agenda - 2023-06-19 - Part One
Planning & Strategic Initiatives Committee Agenda Monday, June 19, 2023, 4:30 p.m. - 6:00 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. MEETING PART ONE - 4:30 p.m. - 6:00 p.m. 2. Commencement This meeting will begin directly following the Community and Infrastructure Services Meeting at approximately 4:30 p.m. 3. Disclosure of Pecuniary Interest and the General Nature Thereof Members of Council and members of the City's local boards/committees are required to file a written statement when they have a conflict of interest. If a conflict is declared, please visit www. kitchener. ca/conflict to submit your written form. 4. Consent Items The following matters are considered not to require debate and should be approved by one motion in accordance with the recommendation contained in each staff report. A majority vote is required to discuss any report listed as under this section. 4.1 Draft Plan of Condominium 30CDM-23202, 630 and 690 Benninger 4 Drive, Activa Holdings Inc., DSD -2023-252 5. Delegations Pursuant to Council's Procedural By-law, delegations are permitted to address the Committee for a maximum of five (5) minutes. All Delegations where possible are encouraged to register prior to the start of the meeting. For Delegates who are attending in-person, registration is permitted up to the start of the meeting. Delegates who are interested in attending virtually must register by 2: 30 p.m. on June 19, 2023, in order to participate electronically. 5.1 None at this time. 6. Discussion Items 6.1 Inclusionary Zoning - Policy and 45 m 41 Implementation Directions, DSD -2023-258 (Staff will provide a 10 minute presentation on this matter.) 6.2 Growing Together - Engagement Summary 20 m 136 Report Overview, DSD -2023-251 (Staff will provide a 5 minute presentation on this matter.) 7. 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. 7.1 Plan of Subdivision Application 30T-22202 and 20 m 210 Zoning By-law Amendment Application ZBA22/021 /N/KA, 1000 New Dundee Road, Cache Developments (New Dundee) Inc., DSD - 2023 -237 (Staff will provide a 5 -minute presentation on this matter.) 8. Information Items 8.1 Quarterly Development Applications Update 2023 Q2, DSD -2023-276 339 Page 2 of 350 9. Recess Planning and Strategic Initiatives Part Two will reconvene at approximately 6:30 p.m. Please visit www.kitchener.ca/meetings for Part Two of this agenda. Mariah Blake Committee Administrator Page 3 of 350 Staff Report r NJ :R Development Services Department www.kitchener.ca REPORT TO: Planning and Strategic Initiatives Committee DATE OF MEETING: June 19, 2023 SUBMITTED BY: Garett Stevenson, Interim Director of Planning, 519-741-2200 ext. 7070 PREPARED BY: Tim Seyler, Planner, 519-741-2200 ext. 7860 WARD(S) INVOLVED: Ward 5 DATE OF REPORT: May 19, 2023 REPORT NO.: DSD -2023-252 SUBJECT: Draft Plan of Condominium (Vacant Land) 30CDM-23202 630 and 690 Benninger Drive Activa Holdings Inc. RECOMMENDATION: 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-23202 for 630 and 690 Benninger Drive in the City of Kitchener, subject to the conditions as shown in Appendix "A". REPORT HIGHLIGHTS: The purpose of this report is to provide a planning recommendation to approve the proposed Vacant Land Condominium for the property located at 630 and 690 Benninger Drive. Community engagement for the Vacant Land Condominium included: o Circulation of a notice letter to owners of property within 240 metres of the subject property; o Staff received 1 neighbourhood response and corresponded directly with the member of the public; and, o Notice of the public meeting was advertised in The Record on May 26, 2023. This report supports the delivery of core services. EXECUTIVE SUMMARY: The owner of the property at 630 and 690 Benninger Drive is proposing to obtain draft approval for a 5 -unit Vacant Land Condo (VLC), four (4) of the units each comprising of residential stacked townhouses, and the fifth unit comprising of a commercial unit to allow for the phasing of construction. Staff is supportive of the proposed application that would allow the development of the subject site. BACKGROUND: The Owner, Activa Holdings Inc., has made application to the City of Kitchener for a Draft Plan of Vacant Land Condominium. *** This information is available in accessible formats upon request. *** Please call 519-741-2345 or TTY 1-866-969-9994 for assistance. Page 4 of 350 rr 10+09 �! OW L'WRENTKM WI�ST n e,►.+�re ��i ty Figure 1: Location map The subject properties are an irregular-shaped through lot, with frontage onto Benninger Drive and Nathalie Street, and abuts Ottawa Street South. The subject properties are identified as `Community Area' on Map 2 — Urban Structure. The lands addressed 630 Benninger Drive are designated `Mixed Use' in the City's Official Plan and zoned `Mixed Use One Zone (MIX -1) with Special Use Provisions (27) and (69)' in Zoning By-law 2019-051. The lands addressed 690 Benninger Drive are designated `Low Rise Residential' in the City's Official Plan and zoned `Low Rise Residential Five Zone (RES -5) with Special Use Provisions (297), (301) and (303)' in Zoning By-law 2019-051. The proposed uses are permitted. The applicant has submitted Site Plan Applications (SP21/016/B/CD and SP21/016/B/CD) and they have received Full Site Plan Approval for residential stacked town developments, providing 305 stacked townhouse dwelling units with surface parking. At this time there has been no formal site plan application for the Commercial unit proposed. REPORT: The owner of the subject lands is proposing a vacant land condominium which will consist of a total of five (5) units. Four (4) of the units will each contain residential stacked townhouses, landscaped areas and surface parking. The 5t" unit will contain a commercial development. Internal drive aisles, walkways, landscaped areas, and below grade will make up the common elements. The owner has received Site Plan approval for Site Plan Applications SP21/016/B/CD and SP21/016/B/CD and building permits have been issued for a portion of the units which are currently under construction. The residential development consisting of 4 units to be developed with residential stacked townhouse dwellings, and 1 commercial unit is permitted on the lands as per the policies in the City's Official Plan and regulations in the City's Zoning By-law 2019-051. Page 5 of 350 The vacant land condominium application proposes to create Units 1 through 5 and a common element area as shown on the Vacant Land Condominium Plan (attached as Appendix "A"). The purpose of the vacant land condominium application is to permit the individual ownership (tenure) of each of the residential dwellings within the property. 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. Housing related policies in the PPS encourage providing an appropriate range and mix of housing options and densities to meet projected market-based needs of current and future residents. The PPS also promotes directing the development of new housing towards locations where appropriate levels of infrastructure and public service facilities are available to make efficient use of land. The proposed development is consistent with the PPS. A Place to Grow: Growth Plan for the Greater Golden Horseshoe, 2020 (Growth Plan): The Growth Plan promotes development that contributes to complete communities, creates street configurations that support walking, cycling and sustained viability of transit services and which creates high quality public open spaces. Policy 2.2.6.1(a) states that municipalities will support housing choice through the achievement of the minimum intensification and targets in this Plan, as well as the other policies of 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. Planning staff are of the opinion that the applications conform to the policies of the Growth Plan. Regional Official Plan (ROP), 2023: The subject site is located within the Urban Area and Designated Greenfield Area in the Regional Official Plan. Permitted uses of the Urban Area and Designated Greenfield Area in the ROP include a mix of housing uses including condominium units. Regional policies support a diverse range and mix of permanent housing options including the housing style proposed through this application. The subject lands fall within the `built boundary' delineated by the Province in the Growth Plan and identified in the Regional Official Plan. Policy 2.G.1.2 (Table 4) sets a minimum density target of 65 residents and jobs combined per gross hectare of land. This proposal would contribute additional housing to achieve the Designated Greenfield Area target. In addition, policy 2.G.1.2 states that in reviewing development applications, the Region and area municipalities will ensure that development occurring within the urban area is planned and developed in a manner that: Will ensure that new development taking place in designated greenfield areas will be planned, designated, zoned and designed to: • is serviced by a municipal water and wastewater system • promote a more compact built form by meeting or exceeding the minimum density targets set out in Table 4 • establish a street network with frequent connections and pathways to surrounding areas, a high degree of internal connectivity and adopt as complete streets approach that ensures the needs and safety of all road users are considered and appropriately accommodated. Page 6 of 350 Based on Staff review and comments from the Region of Waterloo, Staff is of the opinion that the application conforms to the Regional Official Plan. Official Plan The lands are designated Neighbourhood Node and Community Area within the City's urban structure. The planned function of Neighbourhood Nodes is to serve the day-to-day commercial needs of surrounding residential areas and are encouraged to be cycling and pedestrian friendly. 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. The subject property is designated as `Mixed Use' and `Low Rise Residential' in the City's Official Plan (OP). Lands located within the Mixed-use designation in the Official Plan are intended to be flexible and responsive to land use pattern changes and demands and permit a broad range of uses at different scales and intensities depending on the lands' geographic location and identification at the urban structure level. As such, an appropriate and compatible mix and range of commercial, and residential uses, at different scales and intensities will be encouraged and supported within lands designated Mixed Use depending on their location within the City's Urban Structure. Lands located within the `Low Rise Residential' designation in the Official Plan are intended to accommodate a full range of low-density housing types which may include townhouse dwellings in a cluster development, and other forms of low-rise housing. The City's Official Plan contains policies that speak to provision of housing, including redevelopment: Policy 4.C.1.22: The City will encourage the provision of a range of innovative housing types and tenures such as rental housing, freehold ownership and condominium ownership including common element condominium, phased condominium, and vacant land condominium, as a means of increasing housing choice and diversity. Policy 4.C.1.12. The City favours a land use pattern which mixes and disperses a full range of housing types and styles both across the city as a whole and within neighbourhoods. Based on the above housing policies, staff is of the opinion that the application conforms to the Official Plan. Department and Agency Comments: A copy of all comments received from the commenting agencies and City departments are attached as Appendix "C". There are no outstanding concerns with the proposed applications. Community Input and Staff Responses: Staff received 1 written response from a nearby resident (attached as Appendix "D"). The resident had questions about the commercial use on the property and the height of the residential units. Planning staff responded directly to the resident by email to answer their questions and concerns. STRATEGIC PLAN ALIGNMENT: This report supports the delivery of core services. FINANCIAL IMPLICATIONS: There are no financial implications associated with this recommendation. COMMUNITY ENGAGEMENT: INFORM — This report has been posted to the City's website with the agenda in advance of the committee meeting. A notice of the public meeting was placed in the newspaper on May 26, 2023 (Appendix "B"). Page 7 of 350 CONSULT — The Application was circulated to property owners within 240 metres of the subject lands on March 22, 2023 as per Planning Act requirements. This report will be posted to the City's website with the agenda in advance of the committee meeting. PREVIOUS REPORTS/AUTHORITIES: • Zoning By-law 2019-051 • Official Plan, 2014 • Regional Official Plan, 2023 (amended by ROPA 6) • Provincial Policy Statement, 2020 • Planning Act, 1990 • Growth Plan, 2020 • Site Plan Applications SP21/016/B/CD and SP21/016/B/CD REVIEWED BY: Malone -Wright, Tina— Interim Manager of Development Review, Planning Division APPROVED BY: Justin Readman - General Manager, Development Services ATTACHMENTS: Appendix "A" — Draft Aaaroval Conditions and Draft Plan of Condominium 30CDM-22203 Appendix "B" — Newspaper Notice Appendix "C" — Department and Agency Comments Appendix "D" — Neighbourhood Comments Appendix "E" -- Approved Site Plans: SP21/016/B/CD and SP21/016/B/CD Page 8 of 350 Appendix "A" DSD -2023-252 DRAFT PLAN OF CONDOMINIUM 30CDM-23202 630 & 690 Benninger Drive Activa Holdings Inc. RECOMMENDED CONDITIONS OF DRAFT APPROVAL 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, of the City of Kitchener, hereby grants draft approval to Condominium Application 30CDM-23202 for 630 & 690 Benninger Drive in the City of Kitchener, subject to the following conditions: That this approval applies to Draft Condominium 30CDM-23202 owned by Activa Holdings Inc., dated March 1, 2023 proposing a Vacant Land Condominium Plan for 4.44 hectares of land comprised of 5 units and common elements. Unit 1: Commercial space Units 2-5: Residential units Common Elements: Internal drive aisle, walkway, landscape area, and below grade. 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, 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 vii), 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. 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; Page 9 of 350 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 c. 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. e. 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. vi) That Despite the best efforts of the Waterloo Region District School Board (WRDSB), accommodation in nearby facilities may not be available for all anticipated students. You are hereby notified that students may be accommodated in temporary facilities and/or bussed to a school outside the area, and further, that students may, in future, be transferred to another school. For information on which schools are currently serving this area, contact the WRDSB Planning Department at 519-570-0003 ext. 4419, or email plan ning(a)wrdsb.ca. Information provided by any other source cannot be guaranteed to reflect current school assignment information. In order to limit liability, public school buses operated by the Student Transportation Services of Waterloo Region (STSWR), or its assigns or successors, will not travel on privately owned or maintained right-of-ways to pick up students, and potential busing students will be required to meet the bus at a congregated bus pick-up point. Page 10 of 350 vii) 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. 5. That the Owner covenant and agree in writing 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 shall provide an undertaking that the new home purchasers will be advised in Offers of Purchase and Sale of the location of Centralized Mail Boxes. 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. 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) to provide reference plan(s) showing the easements to Hydro, communication/ telecommunication companies, and the City, to the satisfaction of the City's Manager of Development Review; (b) 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; (c) to ensure that there are no conflicts between utility or municipal service easement locations and any approved Tree Preservation/Enhancement Plan; (c) if utility easement locations are proposed within lands to be conveyed to, or presently owned by the City, the Owner shall obtain prior written approval from the City's Manager of Development Review or, in the case of parkland, the City's General Manager of Development Services; and (d) to provide to the City's Manager of Development Review, a clearance letter from each of Hydro, Bell Canada and other pertaining communication/telecommunication companies. Such letter shall state that the respective utility company has received all required grants of easements, 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 as may be identified through the Site Plan process to the satisfaction of the City's Manager of Development Review. 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. Page 11 of 350 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. 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 the Applicant/Owner agrees to 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; 13. That the development agreement (if necessary) be registered by the City of Kitchener against the land to which it applies and a copy of the registered agreement be forwarded to the Commissioner of Planning, Development and Legislative Services for the Regional Municipality of Waterloo prior to final approval of the condominium plan; 14. That the Condominium Declaration be completed to the satisfaction of the Region of Waterloo and a copy forwarded to the Region prior to final approval of the condominium plan; 15. That prior to final approval, the Owner/Applicant submit a Salt Management Plan to the satisfaction of the Region. Furthermore, the Owner/Applicant must enter into a registered development agreement with the Regional Municipality of Waterloo to secure implementation of the accepted Salt Management Plan, and to make provisions through the Condominium Declaration for the implementation of the recommendations of the Salt Page 12 of 350 Management Plan, all to the satisfaction of the Commissioner of Planning, Development and Legislative Services for the Regional Municipality of Waterloo. 16. That prior to final approval, the Owner/Applicant enter into a registered development agreement with the Regional Municipality of Waterloo to secure implementation of the accepted noise study entitled, "Block 131 and 132 Trussler Subdivision Noise Impact Study Proposed Development at Ottawa Street South and Trussler Road, Kitchener, ON" (Stantec Consulting, December 11, 2020), all to the satisfaction of the Commissioner of Planning, Development and Legislative Services for the Regional Municipality of Waterloo; Notwithstanding the above, the agreement must include a provision to complete a detailed stationary noise study for commercial Unit 1 prior to site plan approval. 17. That the Owner/Applicant include provisions through the Condominium Declaration for the implementation of the recommendations of the noise study entitled "Block 131 and 132 Trussler Subdivision Noise Impact Study Proposed Development at Ottawa Street South and Trussler Road, Kitchener, ON" (Stantec Consulting, December 11, 2020). Without limiting the foregoing, the Declaration must include the following provision related to the installation of mechanical equipment (e.g., HVAC systems) as it applies to Unit 1, "That commercial Unit 1 is to contain sufficiently sized mechanical and silencing equipment so as not to exceed the Ministry of the Environment and Climate Change's sound level limits at the closest noise -sensitive receptor, in accordance with NPC -300 Guideline or its successor." 18. That the Owner/Developer enters into an agreement with the City of Kitchener to be registered on the title to the property that provides: a. "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." i. "Despite the best efforts of the Waterloo Region District School Board (WRDSB), accommodation in nearby facilities may not be available for all anticipated students. You are hereby notified that students may be accommodated in temporary facilities and/or bussed to a school outside the area, and further, that students may, in future, be transferred to another school. " ii. "For information on which schools are currently serving this area, contact the WRDSB Planning Department at 519-570-0003 ext. 4419, or email planninp(d)wrdsb.ca. Information provided by any other source cannot be guaranteed to reflect current school assignment information. " iii. "In order to limit liability, public school buses operated by the Student Transportation Services of Waterloo Region (STSWR), or its assigns or successors, will not travel on privately owned or maintained right- of-ways to pick up students, and potential busing students will be required to meet the bus at a congregated bus pick-up point." b. That in cases where Agreements of Purchase and Sale have already been executed, the Owner/Developer sends a letter to all purchasers which includes the above statements a) i., ii. and iii. Page 13 of 350 c. Prior to final approval, the WRDSB advises in writing to the Approval Authority how the above condition(s) has/have been satisfied. 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 18 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), iii), iv), v) & vii), and 12 through 17 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. Draft approval will be reviewed by the Manager of Development Review from time to time to determine whether draft approval should be maintained. 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 has adopted By-law 96- 025, pursuant to Section 69 of the Planning Act, R.S.O. 1990, c.P. 13, to prescribe a tariff of fees for application, recirculation, draft approval, modification to draft approval and registration release of plans of condominium. 5. This draft plan was received on March 12, 2023 and deemed complete on March 17, 2023 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 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 15th. 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 survey has been completed and the final plan prepared to satisfy the requirements of the Registry Act, they should be forwarded to the City of Kitchener. If the plans comply with the terms of the approval, and we have received assurance from the Regional Municipality of Waterloo and applicable clearance agencies that the necessary arrangements have been made, the Manager of Development Review signature will be endorsed on the plan and it will be forwarded to the Registry Office for registration Page 14 of 350 The following is required for registration and under The Registry Act and for our use: Two (2) original mylar Five (5) white paper prints One (1) digital copy Page 15 of 350 Eti O co co C In N c� 7 9 �IIIIII� � w NOTICE OF PUBLIC MEETING for a development in your neighbourhood 630 ft 690 Benninger Drive . R Have Your Voice Heard! Planning & Strategic Initiatives Committee Date: June 19, 2023 i; Location: Council Chambers, I -- Kitchener City Hall 200 King Street West ,a orVirtual Zoom Meeting - 1 Go to kitchener.ca/meetings and select: • Current agendas and reports Proposed Condominium Plan (posted 10 days before meeting) • Appear as a delegation • Watch a meeting To learn more aboutthis project, including ,r1©� information on yourappeal rights,visit: A www.kitchener.ca/ in,m PlanningApplications NW P or contact: Tim Seyler, Planner vacant Land Mixed Condominium Use tim.seyler@kitchener.ca 519.741.2200 x7860 The City of Kitchener will consider an application proposing a Vacant Land Condominium (VLC) which will consist of 5 units, with 4 of the units for residential purposes and 1 unit for commercial use. A VLC is like a plan of subdivision except the road is privately -owned ratherthan publicly owned and lots are referred to as "units" in a VLC. 4 of the units will each contain residential townhoe units ad ttpe�unit will contain a commercial development. Internal drive aisle���rds p T ty area, walkways and below grade will make up the common elements. Region of Waterloo PLANNING, DEVELOPMENT AND LEGISLATIVE SERVICES 150 Frederick Street, 8th Floor Kitchener ON N2G U Canada Telephone: 519-575-4400 TTY: 519-575-4608 Fax: 519-575-4449 www.regionofwaterloo.ca File: D19-20/23202 May 19, 2023 Tim Seyler, MCIP, RPP Planner Community Services Department City Hall P.O. Box 1118 200 King Street West Kitchener, ON N2G 4G7 Dear Mr. Seyler: Post Circulation Comments Plan of Vacant Land Condominium 30CDM-23202 Activa Holdings Inc. 630 and 690 Benninger Drive CITY OF KITCHENER Regional staff has reviewed the above noted application and provide the following comments at this time. The applicant is proposing a vacant land condominium which will consist of 5 units representing each with common element areas. Total 304 residential units. • Unit 1 — 0.213ha, Commercial space • Unit 2 — 1.295ha, 136 residential units • Unit 3 — 1.080ha, 76 residential units • Unit 4 — 0.14ha, 12 residential units • Unit 5 — 1.716ha - 80 residential units Internal drive aisles, landscaped amenity area, and walkways will make up the common elements. This property has approved site plans SP21/016/B/CD & SP21/017/B/CD which are currently under construction. The lands form part of Stage 1 of Plan of Subdivision 30T-08204 (Activa Trussler) which subsequently registered in 2019 as Blks 131 and 132, 58M-642. Most Region requirements were addressed as part of this process and/or secured through a Region Document Number: 4387902 Version: 1 Page 1 of 6 Page 18 of 350 development agreement with the Developer at that time; and as part of the site plan applications. Noise Study Pursuant to a registered agreement with the Region (WR1168317, February 8, 2019) the applicant has completed a road traffic noise and stationary noise (both on-site & off-site) study entitled, "Block 131 and 132 Trussler Subdivision Noise Impact Study Proposed Development at Ottawa Street South and Trussler Road, Kitchener, ON" (Stantec Consulting, December 11, 2020). A copy of the study and the Region's acceptance letter dated February 14, 2022 are attached for your reference. Regarding road traffic noise, the study has concluded certain units will require provision for air conditioning and noise warning clauses. These have been identified in Tables 5-1 and 5-2 and Figure 2 of the noise study. With respect to stationary noise, the study indicated detail design of the commercial component (Unit 1) of the development has not yet been determined, and that a future noise study will be required if determined necessary. The study recommendations will need to be secured in a further registered agreement with the Region, and included in the condominium declaration. These have been set out in conditions of draft approval set out below. Salt Management Plan Pursuant to the Region agreement noted above, the applicant submitted a salt management plan for this site entitled, "Trussler North Subdivision, Kitchener, Ontario, Blocks 129, 130, 131 and 132, Salt Management Plan" (Stantec, November 19, 2021) and a response to Region Comments on the SMP (Stantec, April 11, 2022). The response letter addresses catch basins and impermeable clay liners under each snow storage area, extending 1 m beyond the snow storage area limits. Submission of a revised salt management plan for this current condominium application will be required (i.e., for Blocks 131 and 132) to address the Region's additional comments identified in an email from Heather McLeod, P. Geo., Hydrogeologist dated April 13, 2022 (3:18 pm). Implementation of the revised SMP must be secured in a further agreement with the Region and by way of the condominium declaration. These requirements can be included as conditions of draft approval. Housing General The following Regional policies and initiatives support the development and maintenance of affordable housing: • Regional Strategic Plan Document Number: 4387902 Version: 1 Page 2 of 6 Page 19 of 350 o Objective 4.2 requires the Region to make affordable housing more available to individuals and families. • 10 -Year Housing and Homelessness Plan o contains an affordable housing target which is that 30% of all new residential development between 2019 and 2041 in Waterloo Region is to be affordable to low and moderate income households. • Building Better Futures Framework o shows how the Region plans to create 2,500 units of housing affordable to people with low to moderate incomes by 2025. • Region of Waterloo Official Plan o Section 3.A (Range and Mix of Housing) contains land use policies that ensure the provision of a full and diverse range and mix of permanent housing that is safe, affordable, of adequate size, and meets the accessibility requirements of all residents. The Region supports the provision of a full range of housing options, including affordable housing. Should this plan of condominium application move forward, staff recommend that the applicant consider providing a number of affordable housing units on the site, as defined in the Regional Official Plan. Rent levels and house prices that are considered affordable according to the Regional Official Plan are provided below in the section on affordability. 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. 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). Document Number: 4387902 Version: 1 Page 3 of 6 Page 20 of 350 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. Please do not hesitate to contact Judy Maan Miedema, Principal Planner (Housing & Development) directly by email at JMaanMiedema(d)-regionofwaterloo.ca should you have any questions or wish to discuss in more detail. Regional Development Charges The Owner/Applicant should also be advised that any future development on the subject lands will be subject to provisions of Regional Development Charge By-law 19-037 or any successor thereof. Region Application Fee The Region's fee for this condominium application is $3,150.00 plus $100.00 per unit to a maximum of $6,150.00. For is application, the fee is $6,150.00. To Regional staff's knowledge, this fee is outstanding and must be paid prior to draft approval. Regional staff has no objection to draft approval of Plan of Condominium 30CDM-23202 subject to receipt of the required application fee noted above, and the following conditions of Draft Approval set out below. Document Number: 4387902 Version: 1 Page 4 of 6 Page 21 of 350 Conditions of Draft Approval 1) That the Owner/Applicant agrees to stage development of this condominium in a manner satisfactory to the Region of Waterloo and the City of Kitchener, including any easements or other requirements as a result of staging; 2) That the development agreement (if necessary) be registered by the City of Kitchener against the land to which it applies and a copy of the registered agreement be forwarded to the Commissioner of Planning, Development and Legislative Services for the Regional Municipality of Waterloo prior to final approval of the condominium plan; 3) That the Condominium Declaration be completed to the satisfaction of the Region of Waterloo and a copy forwarded to the Region prior to final approval of the condominium plan; 4) That prior to final approval, the Owner/Applicant submit a Salt Management Plan to the satisfaction of the Region. Furthermore, the Owner/Applicant must enter into a registered development agreement with the Regional Municipality of Waterloo to secure implementation of the accepted Salt Management Plan, and to make provisions through the Condominium Declaration for the implementation of the recommendations of the Salt Management Plan, all to the satisfaction of the Commissioner of Planning, Development and Legislative Services for the Regional Municipality of Waterloo. 5) That prior to final approval, the Owner/Applicant enter into a registered development agreement with the Regional Municipality of Waterloo to secure implementation of the accepted noise study entitled, "Block 131 and 132 Trussler Subdivision Noise Impact Study Proposed Development at Ottawa Street South and Trussler Road, Kitchener, ON" (Stantec Consulting, December 11, 2020), all to the satisfaction of the Commissioner of Planning, Development and Legislative Services for the Regional Municipality of Waterloo; Notwithstanding the above, the agreement must include a provision to complete a detailed stationary noise study for commercial Unit 1 prior to site plan approval. 6) That the Owner/Applicant include provisions through the Condominium Declaration for the implementation of the recommendations of the noise study entitled "Block 131 and 132 Trussler Subdivision Noise Impact Study Proposed Development at Ottawa Street South and Trussler Road, Kitchener, ON" (Stantec Consulting, December 11, 2020). Without limiting the foregoing, the Declaration must include the following provision related to the installation of mechanical equipment (e.g., HVAC systems) as it applies to Unit 1, "That commercial Unit 1 is to contain sufficiently sized mechanical and silencing Document Number: 4387902 Version: 1 Page 5 of 6 Page 22 of 350 equipment so as not to exceed the Ministry of the Environment and Climate Change's sound level limits at the closest noise -sensitive receptor, in accordance with NPC -300 Guideline or its successor." All the above, to the satisfaction of the Commissioner of Planning, Development and Legislative Services for the Regional Municipality of Waterloo. Should you have any questions, please do not hesitate to contact the undersigned. Yours truly, Shilling Yip, MCIP, RPP Senior Planner cc. Pierre Chauvin / Rachel Wolff, MHBC Planning Attachments. Document Number: 4387902 Version: 1 Page 6 of 6 Page 23 of 350 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(cr�kitchener.ca March 23, 2023 Attn: Activa Holdings Subject: Vacant land Condominium application 30CDM-23202 for 630 & 690 Benninger Dr., 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. Tim Seyler Page 24 of 350 Condominium Circulation Response Form Notice for Application for Draft Approval - Plan of Condominium (Vacant Land) File Number: 30CDM-23202 Location: 630 & 690 Benninger Drive Owner: Activa Holdings Inc. Cross Reference: Site Plan Application: SP21/016/B/CD & SP21/017/B/CD No Concerns, no requirements Parkland Dedication has been satisfied through Kitchener Draft Agreement (KDA) 30T-08204 (58M-642 and 58M-643). Street trees have also been accommodated through the subdivision. Parks & Cemeteries Department/Agency April 13 2023 Date Lenorel2o-a- Signature of Representative Page 25 of 350 City of Kitchener Draft Plan of Condominium Comments Project Address: 630 & 690 Benninger Drive File Number: 30CDM-23202 Site Plan Application: SP21/016/B/CD & SP21/017/B/CD Comments Of: Transportation Services Commenter's Name: Dave Seller Email: dave.seller@kitchener.ca Phone: 519-741-2200 ext. 7369 Date of Comments: March 22, 2023 630 & 690 Benninger Drive a. Plan is acceptable. Page 26 of 350 Planner/Staff on File: Tim Seyler From: Niall Melanson, C.E.T., 519-741-2200 x 7133 Subject: Site Address: 630-690 Benninger Drive Owner: Activa Holdings Inc. Type of Application: ❑ Site Plan ❑ Zone Change ❑ Official Plan Amendment ® Plan of Condominium (Vacant Land) d. Engineering Comments Vacant Land Condo Comments: 1. A servicing plans for SP21 /016/B/CD and SP21 /017/B/CD have been accepted by Engineering. 2. The proposed services throughout the property, including storm and sanitary sewers, watermain, and stormwater infrastructure, must be within the "common element' in the declaration and reference plan or located in easements in the reference plan, and be registered on title to the properties, in favour of the condo board regardless of depth or location allowing the condo board maintenance access. The declaration and or reference plan must be reviewed and approved to the satisfaction of the Engineering Division prior to condo registration. Page 27 of 350 April 18, 2023 Re: Circulation for Comment - Draft Plan of Vacant Land Condominium 30CDM-23202 (630 & 690 Benninger Drive) File No.: 30CDM-23202 Municipality: Kitchener Location: 630 & 690 Benninger Drive Owner/Applicant: Hi Tim, The Waterloo Region District School Board (WRDSB) has reviewed the above -noted application that proposes the development of vacant land condominium blocks containing 304 residential units. The WRDSB offers the following comments. Student Accommodation At this time, the subject lands are within the boundaries of the following WRDSB schools: • Southridge PS (Junior Kindergarten to Grade 6); • Queensmount PS (Grade 7 to Grade 8); and • Forest Heights Cl (Grade 9 to Grade 12). Please be advised that student accommodation pressures currently exist at Southridge PS and Forest Heights Cl. The WRDSB's 2020-2030 Long -Term Accommodation Plan projects long- term over -utilization at these facilities. Interim student accommodation measures, including portable classrooms, are presently on-site and may be required until an alternative accommodation solution is in place. The WRDSB has designated this subject property and the adjacent lands as a "Development Area" and have assigned it to temporary Holding Schools before occupancy or sales in order to alleviate development growth related pressure at the originally assigned 'home schools'. Student Transportation The WRDSB supports active transportation, and we ask that pedestrians be considered in the review of all development applications to ensure the enhancement of safety and connectivity. WRDSB staff are interested in engaging in a conversation with the municipality and Region, and applicant to review the optimization of pedestrian access to public transit, and municipal sidewalks so students may access school bus pick-up points. Please be advised, Student Transportation Services of Waterloo Region (STSWR)'s school buses will not travel on privately owned or maintained rights-of-way to pick-up/drop-off students. Transported students will be required to meet the bus at a congregated bus pick-up point. STSWR may have additional comments about student pick-up point(s) placement on municipal rights-of-way. WRDSB Draft Conditions Concerning any future declaration or agreement, the WRDSB requests the following inclusions in the conditions of Draft Approval: 1. That the Owner/Developer shall include the following wording in the condominium declaration to advise all purchasers of residential units and/or renters of same: Page 28 of 350 o. "Despite the best efforts of the Waterloo Region District School Board (WRDSB), accommodation in nearby facilities may not be available for all anticipated students. You are hereby notified that students may be accommodated in temporary facilities and/or bussed to a school outside the area, and further, that students may, in future, be transferred to another school." b. For information on which schools are currently serving this area, contact the WRDSB Planning Department at 519-570-0003 ext. 4419, or email planninq(a-)wrdsb.ca. Information provided by any other source cannot be guaranteed to reflect current school assignment information. C. "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" 2. That the Owner/Developer enters into an agreement with the City of Kitchener to be registered on the title to the Property that provides: a. "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." i. "Despite the best efforts of the Waterloo Region District School Board (WRDSB), accommodation in nearby facilities may not be available for all anticipated students. You are hereby notified that students may be accommodated in temporary facilities and/or bussed to a school outside the area, and further, that students may, in future, be transferred to another school." ii. For information on which schools are currently serving this area, contact the WRDSB Planning Department at 519-570-0003 ext. 4419, or email plan ning(a-)wrdsb.ca. Information provided by any other source cannot be guaranteed to reflect current school assignment information. N. "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" 3. That in cases where Agreements of Purchase and Sale have already been executed, the Owner/Developer sends a letter to all purchasers which include the above statements. 4. That the Owner/Developer supply, erect and maintain a sign (at the Owner/Developer's expense and according to the WRDSB's specifications), near or affixed to the development sign, advising prospective residents about schools in the area and that prior to final approval, the Owner/Developer shall submit a photo of the sign for review and approval of the WRDSB. 5. Prior to final approval, the WRDSB advises in writing to the Approval Authority how the above condition(s) has/have been satisfied. Education Development Charges Please be advised that any development on the subject lands is subject to the provisions of the WRDSB's Education Development Charges By-law, 2021, amended in 2022 or any successor thereof and may require the payment of Education Development Charges for these developments prior to issuance of a building permit. The WRDSB requests to be circulated on any subsequent submissions on the subject lands and reserves the right to comment further on this application. If you have any questions about the comments provided, don't hesitate to contact the Page 29 of 350 undersigned. Regards, a B Q H,cTSCHOO\" Senior Planner Waterloo Region District School Board 51 Ardelt Avenue, Kitchener ON, N2C 2R5 Email: brandon coveney(aa-)wrdsb.ca Page 30 of 350 From: Planning <planning@wcdsb.ca> Sent: Wednesday, April 19, 2023 12:03 PM To: Tim Seyler <Tim.Seyler@kitchener.ca> Subject: RE: Circulation for Comment - Draft Plan of Vacant Land Condominium 30CDM-23202 (630 & 690 Benninger Drive) Good Afternoon Tim, 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 and the Waterloo Catholic District School Board reach an agreement regarding the supply and erection of a sign (at the developer's expense and according to the Board's specifications) affixed to the development sign advising prospective residents about schools in the area. C) That the developer shall include the following wording in the condominium declaration to advise all purchasers of residential units and/or renters of same: "In order to limit risks, public school buses contracted by Student Transportation Services of Waterloo Region (STSWR), or its assigns or successors, will not travel on privately owned or maintained right-of-ways to pick up and drop off students, and so bussed students will be required to meet the bus at a congregated bus pick-up point." If you require any further information, please contact me by e-mail at Jordan.Neale@wcdsb.ca. Thank you, Jordan Neale Planning Technician, WCDSB 480 Dutton Dr, Waterloo, ON N2L 4C6 519-578-3660 ext. 2355 Page 31 of 350 From: SHLLAKU Paul <Paul.Shllaku@hvdroone.com> Sent: Tuesday, March 28, 2023 9:07 AM To: Christine Kompter<Christine.Kompter@kitchener.ca> Subject: City of Kitchener -630 and 690 Benninger Drive-30CDM-23202 Hello, We are in receipt of your Plan of Condominium application, 30CDM-23202 dated March 22,2023. 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' the Owner/Applicant should consult their local area Distribution Supplier. Where Hydro One is the local supplier the Owner/Applicant must contact the Hydro subdivision group at Subdivision@HydroOne.com or 1-866-272-3330. 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 MENV HELP SEARCH hydrone Customers Affected:. O >5000 © 501-5000 0 51-500 O 21-50 O —20 O Multiple 0 Crew — service Area Com] If you have any further questions or inquiries, please contact Customer Service at 1-888-664-9376 or e- mail CustomerCommunications@HydroOne.com to be connected to your Local Operations Centre If you have any questions please feel free to contact myself. Thank you, Dennis De Rango Specialized Services Team Lead, Real Estate Department Hydro One Networks Inc. Tel: (905)946-6237 Email: Dennis.DeRango@HydroOne.com Page 32 of 350 pili '! Montreal �(J p Ottaw � o .00 Fill t p o © oKawanhe 9rAlla aaa r ,L.kes � n Rurlr O!►�7� Ptterpgrau9h Kin ® • ceqdw.- Vratepl P'rvr� N ® P J @ram o Toronto _ o ars 4 Kitcae ississauga- a iltan \ Go gle t.� fi J o _) ochest®ns aai. T.— �r 1-1. If you have any further questions or inquiries, please contact Customer Service at 1-888-664-9376 or e- mail CustomerCommunications@HydroOne.com to be connected to your Local Operations Centre If you have any questions please feel free to contact myself. Thank you, Dennis De Rango Specialized Services Team Lead, Real Estate Department Hydro One Networks Inc. Tel: (905)946-6237 Email: Dennis.DeRango@HydroOne.com Page 32 of 350 From: Chris Foster -Pengelly <cfosterpengeIly@grandrive r.ca> Sent: Friday, March 24, 2023 3:10 PM To: Tim Seyler <Tim.Seyler@kitchener.ca> Subject: RE: Circulation for Comment - Draft Plan of Vacant Land Condominium 30CDM-23202 (630 & 690 Benninger Drive) Hi Tim, The subject lands are not regulated by the GRCA under Ontario Regulation 150/06. As such, we will not be providing comments. We trust that the City will ensure appropriate stormwater management for the site. Thank you, Chris Chris Foster -Pengelly, M.Sc. Office: 519-621-2763 ext. 2319 Toll-free: 1-866-900-4722 www.grandriver.ca I Connect with us on social media Page 33 of 350 From: circulations@wsp.com <circulations@wsp.com> Sent: Tuesday, March 28, 2023 1:43 PM To: Tim Seyler <Tim.Seyler@kitchener.ca> Subject: Draft Plan of Condominium (30CDM-23202), 639 & 690 Benninger Dr., Kitchener 2023-03-28 Tim Seyler Kitchener Attention: Tim Seyler Re: Draft Plan of Condominium (30CDM-23202), 639 & 690 Benninger Dr., Kitchener; Your File No. 30CDM-23202 To Whom this May Concern, 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." Upon receipt of this comment letter, the Owner is to provide Bell Canada with servicing plans/CUP at their earliest convenience to plannineanddevelopment@bell.ca 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 34 of 350 We note that WSP operates Bell Canada's development tracking system, which includes the intake and processing of municipal circulations. However, all responses to circulations and requests for information, such as requests for clearance, will come directly from Bell Canada, and not from WSP. WSP is not responsible for the provision of comments or other responses. Should you have any questions, please contact the undersigned. Yours truly, Juan Corvalan Senior Manager - Municipal Liaison Email: plannineanddevelopment@bell.ca Page 35 of 350 From: Natalie Nagy < Sent: Tuesday, April 4, 2023 3:26 PM To: Tim Seyler <Tim.Seyler@kitchener.ca> Subject: File # 30CDM-23202 Hello, I recieved a notice for application for draft approval in the mail for 630 & 690 Benninger Drive. I just have a few questions in regards to these buildings I live at . Firstly, what will comprise of the unit that will be used for commercial use and secondly how tall will these units be. I'm concerned about them being taller then a house and blocking my sun at the front of the home. Thank you for sending this out! Natalie N From: Tim Seyler Sent: Wednesday, April 5, 2023 9:40 AM To: 'Natalie Nagy' <nataliebnagy@gmail.com> Subject: RE: File # 30CDM-23202 Hi Natalie, Thanks for the email. I've attached the site plans for the properties so that you can get more of a visual on what will be constructed. The units will be for different blocks of the stacked townhouses, and there will not be anything over approximately 3 storeys in height. The use is permitted in the zoning and the purpose of this application is to permit the individual ownership (the tenure) of each of the units. Each of the townhouse blocks will be in their own ownership then. A vacant land condo application is a bit different than a standard condo application and I'd be happy to give you more information or give you a call if you need more information. As for the commercial unit, at this time the City doesn't have any current site plan applications for that block, so we don't have any specifics on what type of commercial use it would be. A variety of commercial uses are permitted in that space including retail, restaurant, etc. Thanks, Tim Seyler, BES, MCIP, RPP Planner I Planning Division I City of Kitchener 519-741-2200 ext. 7860 1 TTY 1-866-969-9994 1 Tim.Seyler@kitchener.ca a'- '1 01 Jj ioa so O_F-M LZ ���iJ Page 36 of 350 PARKING NOTES: - PARKING FOR UNITS 1 AND 10 ARE PROVIDED IN THE FORM OF ONE DRIVEWAY PARKING SPACE AND ONE GARAGE PARKING SPACE PER UNIT - FOR THE PURPOSES OF THE ABOVE: ALL PARKING SPACES ARE 5.5M IN LENGTH, DRIVEWAY SPACES ARE 2.6M IN WIDTH AND GARAGE PARKING SPACES ARE 3.OM IN WIDTH -ELECTRIC VEHICLE PARKING SPACES PROVIDED - 52 (48 GARAGE, 4 SURFACE) 1 1 1 LOT III \10T121 FH H Q SOT s z Q U 7 gENNWGER DRNE 58 Sw1N Lot Width �I M ,ase roa II S�REE� Floor Space Ratio 6. NOTE: w� O ��pwP Front Yard - ALL ASPHALT AREAS �wosc neo wa„ TO BE DEFINED WITH Int. Side Yard 0.15M HIGH POURED Ext. Side Yard CONCRETE CURBING SITE STATISTICS -ALLAVAILABLESPACE = 23 593 BETWEEN THE STREET c=?2323E Zoning- R6 (612R, 663R, 665R) Parking Required- 120 spaces (1.5 spaces/unit) Ext. Side Yard AND BUILDING SHOULD 1139 Lot Area- 19,359ml Parking Provided- 154 spaces (Ottawa St) BE LANDSCAPED Building Coverage- 4,878m' (25.2%) Parking Space Minimum Dimensions- 2.6m x 5.5m Rear Yard Landscaped Area- 9,332ml (48.2%) Garage Space Minimum Dimensions- 3.Om x 5.5m Corner Lot — — — — 4.57m Daylight Visibility Triangle (DVT) Asphalt / Hard Surface Area- 5,149ml (26.6%) Number of Visitor Spaces Required - 12 Driveway Access (frc Ls Light Standard Barrier Free Spaces- 3-4 spaces (Type A - 2, Type B - 2) Height (max.) REVISED: SITE PLAN APPLICATION N SITE PLAN 0 5 10 20 SCALE 1:1,000 30 BLOCK 131, R.P. 58M-642 ACTIVA HOLDINGS INC. City of Kitel DEVELOPMENT SERVICES DEF BLOCK 131, STAGE 1 - 690 BENNINGER DR. DATE: JULY 19,2021 K:\8784CE-Activa-Trussl er-BI oc NATHALIE STREET NORTH SOUTH i — — — — 4.57m Daylight Visibility Triangle (DVT) Zoning- MIX -1 (Site Specif E Transformer Location 13213 Multiple DwellingRE GM Gas Meter Lot Width 15 m°• m°° m°° HM Hydro Meter Floor Space Ratio 0.( DS Double Stacked Meters 1 TS Triple Stacked Meters rniFront Yard . atr,ar.¢t� 1A (N z o° Int. Side Yard 1.; ALL ASPI ?oning- MIX -1 (Site Specific Provisions 27 and 69) �•►.� Ext. Side Yard 1.f m,= n MULTIPLE RESIDENTIAL BJocKK "6029 A=� 1.( DRIVEW/ BEINANF 3uilding Coverage- 9,443m2 (27.7%) Number of Units- 225 Orr aWq 3.( ALL AVAI M Number of Visitor Spaces- 25 required Rear Yard 7.! �.° (Ottawa St) Corner Lot 7.( Driveway Access Hi (from Nathalie St Intersectio Height (max.) Multiple Dwelling 14 3213 Towns 12 �. AI No. of Storeys 4 No. of AttachedUnits16 NORTH � PARKIN SOUTH S Residentia (1.0-1.3 sp Residentia (N z o° Int. Side Yard 1.; ALL ASPI ?oning- MIX -1 (Site Specific Provisions 27 and 69) �•►.� Ext. Side Yard 1.f m,= n MULTIPLE RESIDENTIAL BJocKK "6029 A=� 1.( DRIVEW/ BEINANF 3uilding Coverage- 9,443m2 (27.7%) Number of Units- 225 Orr aWq 3.( ALL AVAI M Number of Visitor Spaces- 25 required Rear Yard 7.! �.° (Ottawa St) Corner Lot 7.( Driveway Access (from Nathalie St Intersectio Height (max.) Multiple Dwelling 14 3213 Towns 12 NATNA"�E ORES No. of Storeys 4 No. of AttachedUnits16 NORTH � PARKIN SOUTH S Residentia (1.0-1.3 sp Residentia B�NGeg Electric Ve ° "°°p350.E (20% of rE " ' 2esVa28 22A Electric Ve 3 • —,. (22 garagE � �v 2a� I Parking Sr BlOCKO �' ., 8 BBOCK q ass 276 278 f Garage Sp NP o� Bicycle Pa Class A -1 Class B 273Ts' �� - .^£ 27 _andscaped 31TE STATISTICS o° �.°, aa- 2sa zsz_ �9 3 255= 6a 262 I 269 ALL ASPI ?oning- MIX -1 (Site Specific Provisions 27 and 69) �•►.� BLOCKJ257 259 261 263 • 26q_ 66 POURED C otArea- 34,042m= MULTIPLE RESIDENTIAL BJocKK "6029 A=� �° DRIVEW/ BEINANF 3uilding Coverage- 9,443m2 (27.7%) Number of Units- 225 Orr aWq ALL AVAI Area- 14 894m2 (43.8%) Number of Visitor Spaces- 25 required STREET Sp BUILDING Asphalt / Hard Surface Area- 9,705m2 (28.5%) Number of Barrier Free Spaces- 7 required, 7 provided (Type A- 3, Type B- 4) uTH 99 ,°29,28.E REVISED SITE PLAN APPLICATION N SITE PLAN -OVERALL o 5 , AUGUST 17, 2022 BLOCK 132, PLAN 58M-642 ACTIVA HOLDINGS INC. SCALE 1,750 City of Kitcl 630 BENNINGER DRIVE DATE JULY26,2021 DEVELOPMENT SERVICES DEP K iKRAnA NATHALIE STREET 128 Vault LOT 97 K:18784DA \\�4- P FH LOT J4 Z LOT 98 LIMIT of EASEMENT EF I Fc � INII—El W LOT 99 LOT 73 Nw �a.d.ail .gym cone ro IRE ROUTE LOT 72 1—CSW'US Fj TIRE ,', sign "r 7MIT —M—i/ n yr T 3.4 ®D C 1 8 CA 7 h LOT 100 LOT 71 149 152 _ � s �ooPPas, a aTu to a°1id1 o DST 2 1 rt� to PoTcd LOT 101 153-1,36145 0 148 0. mfo 5talrs — LOT7C Ed 141-144 U H dTa Vault on 02 3 0 73 1 Q 1 57-1 0 m a 3 �mee U Q W — LOT 69 161-.164 3 137-140 m Z LIT 1F1 6 E 1—E z Ds—ED M o "= < 12 12 133 136 z LOT H SEES ° 165168 ® ® �valo,Pa��R V/ m LOT 104 169-172 u 9 129-132 U o Y 5.5 ( — LOT 105 O 125-128 m LOT 173-176 U �aa M G LOT 106 o — 177 180 I 121-124 LOT 107 NOTE: LNDs�„ e' �> ° 117-120 — -ALL ASPHALT AREAS TO BE DEFINED WITH 181 184 ��a, Q – LOT 108 0.15M HIGH POURED CONCRETE CURBING smc -ALL AVAILABLE SPACE BETWEEN THE STREET 185.1 14 w �" o 09 n AND BUILDING SHOULD BE LANDSCAPED tM 1 13-1 16 w� ---- 4.57m Daylight Visibility Triangle (DVT) 189-192 Y 0 ss N 109-112 Q LOT110 Transformer Location U .1 3 � GM Gas Meter �ab.al 193-196 O m 3 0 MD—PED OT 111 HM Hydro Meter E 105-108 m DS Double Stacked Meters 197-200 ° FIT TS Triple Stacked Meters a 1 Ol -104 LANDSCAPED NORTH 2°' 204 �D a vv s =`ter— _ _ _ _ C NORTH Iha 205 208 FC FF ER REVISED SITE PLAN APPLICATION I� SITE PLAN- NORTH AUGUST 17, 2022 0 5 10 20 3o BLOCK 132, PLAN 58M-642 ACTIVA HOLDINGS INC. SCALE 1: 1,000 City of Kitcl 630 BENNINGER DRIVE DATE JULY 26, 2021 DEVELOPMENT SERVICES DEP K:18784DA ° ti Eo � 133-136 �� o12� a M � s G) 165 168 .P.12 ® - m j� 169-172 — °. e.e ( 129-132 � —67 0 _ 125-128 °' C•RES 173-176 v 3 m 1O„°6 ���� � O - 177180 - 121-124 °' 1-66 g 1°n 7 ° 181 184 185 188 60,6° 113-116 60,6, of zQ.m 5.5 - 109-112 6a X0,63 �O,62 189-192 193-196 O 105-108 m 197 200 Y 101 - 04 rLOTH ” 6°,,,- °„z °"°' r 60,,, NORTH 201 204L�5'5m �_ - - --,, z NORTH °, °, ,,6 ,, o� o 205 208 SOUTH SOUTH Amenityn� y Area L213-216m ' NINC'ER p[2N 0 %�5r.5H s g EN 221 224 ° ° ® 2 e� s 11 225-228 z 711 °�, . r e 285 287 .23 C7 229-232 ° 1P� 233236 dm 2� i= BLOCKN w o � w � O o A 5.5 H /ti oama �6� — 1 227 cis �ame wa "pb vEo s wry .sarcoma aa a m �e v= . ws � em 5.5 O Nei°sago^E � �„249 250- 252- 254- 251 2531 256- 255 258- 260- 262- 62- BLOC KJ 257 o 259 261 263 BLOCKK — — 4.57m Daylight Visibility Triangle (DVT) "e 029° E Transformer Location NOTE: ASPHALT AREAS TO BE DEFINED WITH 0.15M HIGH TT GM Gas Meter AW -ALL A STREET HM Hydro Meter POURED CONCRETE CURBING SOUTH = DS Double Stacked Meters -ALL AVAILABLE SPACE BETWEEN THE STREET AND n=92.919 TS Triple Stacked Meters BUILDING SHOULD BE LANDSCAPED REVISED SITE PLAN APPLICATION SITE PLAN - SOUTH 0 5 10 20 30 AUGUST 17, 2022 SCALE 1: 1,250 BLOCK 132, PLAN 58M-642 ACTIVA HOLDINGS INC. City of Kitcl DEVELOPMENT SERVICES DEF 630 BENNINGER DRIVE DATE JULY 26, 2021 K:18784DA Staff Report r NJ :R Development Services Department www.kitchener.ca REPORT TO: Planning and Strategic Initiatives Committee DATE OF MEETING: June 19, 2023 SUBMITTED BY: Garett Stevenson, Interim Director, Planning Division, 519-741-2200 ext. 7070 PREPARED BY: Tim Donegani, Senior Planner, 519-741-2200 ext. 7067 WARD(S) INVOLVED: Ward(s) 3, 9,10 DATE OF REPORT: June 8, 2023 REPORT NO.: DSD -2023-258 SUBJECT: Inclusionary Zoning - Policy and Implementation Directions RECOMMENDATION: That staff, in coordination with the Cities of Waterloo and Cambridge; and the Region of Waterloo, be directed to use the Discussion Paper in Attachment 1 as the basis for further consultation with the development industry, affordable housing providers, other affected groups and the public; and, That staff, in coordination with the Cities of Waterloo and Cambridge; the Region of Waterloo, be directed to develop a draft Inclusionary Zoning Official Plan policy and implementing Zoning By-law amendments, for Council's consideration, in accordance with the directions set out in the Discussion Paper (Attachment A) and with consideration of the results of the consultation process and any subsequent analysis. REPORT HIGHLIGHTS: • The purpose of this report is to release the policy and implementation directions for inclusionary zoning (IZ) as the basis for further community engagement and drafting Official Plan Policies, Zoning and implementation guidelines. • The proposed IZ policy directions outlined in this report would provide for a modest but meaningful number of new affordable units every year to help address housing affordability needs alongside other crucial initiatives and investments in affordable housing. • The financial implications are a moderate anticipated reduction in Development Charge, Community Benefit Charge and Park Dedication revenue associated with affordable units. • Community engagement included in person and online engagement with 1,100 people representing a broad range affected groups including the development industry, housing providers, potential tenants of IZ units, and the public. • This report supports the delivery of core services. BACKGROUND: Housing affordability has become a significant challenge for residents in Waterloo Region and across Ontario. Inclusionary Zoning (IZ) is a planning tool that can help address local affordability challenges by enabling municipalities to require a certain percentage of affordable housing units within new private developments containing 10 or more dwelling units in Major Transit Station Areas (MTSAs). The Cities of Kitchener, Cambridge and Waterloo, in collaboration with the *** This information is available in accessible formats upon request. *** Please call 519-741-2345 or TTY 1-866-969-9994 for assistance. Page 41 of 350 Region of Waterloo ("the Partners") are exploring IZ to increase the amount of affordable housing near ION rapid transit stops. While IZ must be implemented at the area municipal level, the Partners recognize the importance of adopting a consistent, region -wide approach. A region -wide approach would support consistent and clear policy requirements for the development industry; create efficiencies in implementation across area municipalities through shared guidelines and agreement templates; maintain the relative attractiveness for investment in residential development across the cities MTSAs; and, centralize administration, monitoring and enforcement. Such an approach can be designed to reflect differences in market areas across the region. This report presents a set of directions for a region -wide IZ policy. The policy directions reflect current trends in market housing prices and rents, housing construction costs, local housing supply and demand, an assessment of financial feasibility of IZ and a review of best practices across North America. A creative and flexible policy approach is recommended to ensure that an IZ program can address housing needs that aren't being met by the market, adapt to changing market conditions and to enable market innovation while ensuring affordable housing outcomes. The policy directions also reflect feedback from development industry, affordable housing providers, people facing housing affordability challenges and the general public. REPORT: IZ has been used successfully in municipalities across North America to create a sustainable affordable housing supply. It is different from other approaches in that it doesn't require significant government subsidy. Instead, IZ works by capturing a share of the increased land value achieved through development approvals, investment in the ION transit system, and increasing demand for centrally located housing, and directing this toward the creation of affordable housing. The reliance of IZ on the increase in land values to offset the cost of the affordable units means that the program is best suited to provide moderately affordable units — housing that is affordable to moderate income households whose incomes fall within the 30th -60th percentile of the income range. Moderate income households typically have incomes that are too high to be eligible for subsidized or community housing, but are too low to compete in the market. Moderate income renter households have annual incomes between $40,600 and $58,900. Ensuring the provision of moderately affordable housing helps to support mixed -income complete communities and overall community health and prosperity. It can also help create movement along the housing continuum, freeing up units that are more deeply affordable for those who need them. Because IZ is not reliant on government funding programs and is focused on moderately affordable housing, it can complement other programs that focus on other parts of the housing spectrum, such as emergency and transitional housing, deeply subsidized affordable housing, and supportive housing. The adoption of an IZ policy would work alongside, not in replacement of, these other programs and approaches. Staff estimate that an IZ program could result in new affordable units being occupied starting in 2024-27 and increase to 60 affordable units per year by 2031, including 27 in Kitchener. This modest but meaningful amount of new affordable housing is one of the tools, and not the panacea for affordability challenges, that is needed alongside initiatives and investments in affordable housing in outlined in Housing for All and the Region of Waterloo's 10 year Housing and Homelessnes Plan, Building Better Futures, and other strategic initiatives. The Planning Act and Ontario Regulation 232/18 regulate the process by which an IZ policy can be adopted, and the contents of IZ policy and zoning by-law provisions. The Partners have Page 42 of 350 completed or are working toward the completion of all the necessary studies and assessments required under the legislation. The studies and MTSA designations/delineations in Table 1 will help inform the development of appropriate Official Plan IZ policies to they are are both financially viable and effective. Table 1. Provincial Requirements Prior to the Adoption of an Inclusionary Zoning Policy Provincial Description Date Council reports / Requirement Completed Ministerial decision Housing Housing supply and demand Kitchener: DSD -20-006. Assessment information to be considered 2020 Cambridge: pending Report in the development of an IZ Waterloo: IPPW2020-071 policy. Summary: Results of both Kitchener's and Waterloo's Housing Assessment Reports confirmed that housing affordability has declined in both cities and that low and moderate income households are the most affected. In addition to planning for more supply in general, there is a specific need for more non -market housing (including supportive housing) and more primary rental housing to meet the needs of residents. Analysis of the potential Kitchener: DSD -20-150 impacts on the housing 2020 Cambridge: 21-130(CD) Financial market and financial viability Waterloo: IPPW2020-071 Impact of IZ. Analysis and Update to the inputs into the Peer Review Financial Analysis to reflect 2022 Attachment 2 of this report market changes. Summary: Financial model outputs showed that financial viability was highest in "prime" market areas, and more challenging in the short term for "established" and "emerging" market areas. Gradual increases to set aside rates and limiting IZ policies to larger buildings could help minimize negative financial impacts. The financial model update was facilitated through and supported by Provincial Streamline Development Approval funding. Delineation of MTSAs in the Minister of Municipal Affairs Designation of Region of Waterloo Official and Housing approval of MTSAs Plan indicating where IZ can 2023 Region of Waterloo Official be required. Plan Amendment 6: ERO 019-5952 In addition to the required studies and MTSA policies, the Partners have: 1) Assessed the potential implications of Bill 23 on the feasibility of IZ, 2) Conducted a jurisdictional scan of best practices, and 3) Gathered feedback from the public and groups most likely to be impacted by IZ. The results of this work are summarized here and detailed in the Discussion Paper in Attachment 1 to this report. 1. Bill 23 More Homes Built Faster Act, 2022: Proposed changes to O.Reg 232/18 will 1) limit the proportion of units or floor area of a building that can be required to be affordable to 5%, 2) limit the duration the IZ units are required to be affordable to 25 years, and 3) Page 43 of 350 limit the minimum required rents for affordable rental units to 80% Average Market Rent' and the minimum required ownership cost to 80% Average Market Resale Price. The Development Charges Act was amended to exempt affordable units secured through IZ from paying development charges (DCs). Community benefits charges (CBCs) and parkland exemptions are anticipated. The recommended directions would comply with the proposed regulations. Taking all of these proposed changes into account, staff are of the opinion that the recommended IZ direction would provide a modest but meaningful supply of affordable housing that would have a significant impact on the affordable housing supply over time. 2. Jurisdictional Scan: Key findings from the jurisdictional scan suggest that IZ works most effectively in strong housing markets and is best used to secure moderately affordable housing. Financial and non-financial incentives are often used in tandem with IZ programs to ensure financial viability. Centralized administration and enforcement are important to ensure consistent and effective implementation over the long term. 3. Public and Interest Group Feedback: Staff consulted with representatives from the development industry, housing advocacy groups, non-profit housing providers, moderate income individuals likely to benefit from an IZ program and the public at large. There was general support for establishing an IZ program. Community and housing affordability parties encouraged the partners to maximize affordability outcomes. The development industry urged a measured and flexible approach to mitigate impacts on financial viability and housing supply. Policy Directions The proposed policy directions summarized in Table 2 seek to balance community objectives to increase the supply of affordable housing with market feasibility to ensure continued viability of residential development. They also reflect proposed amendments to Ontario Regulation 232/18 that set limits on the number of affordable units, minimum rents and prices and length of time that affordable units that can be required. They are built around the following principles for an IZ program: 1. Moderate Affordability - Secure housing that is affordable to moderate income households and is not otherwise being provided by the market. 2. Partner with development community - To achieve housing targets the Partners need developers to build new affordable units under IZ. Residential development projects must be viable. 3. Minimize land market disruption - Provide early signals and transition time for the land market to adjust to IZ. 4. Long term sustainability - IZ policy should be viable without subsidies or significant incentives. 5. Capture Value in new density - direct some of the increased land value achieved through development approvals, investment in the ION transit system toward affordable housing. Average Market Rent (AMR) is a figure published by CMHC that represents the rents across the private rental housing stock including older stock and unit rented below market due to rent control. Rents in new market developments are significantly (approx. $700/mo) higher than AMR. Page 44 of 350 Policy Parameter Policy Direction Rationale 1. Location An IZ policy should apply to all 24 Provides consistent and clear pc Provincial Requirement: An IZ MTSAs in Waterloo Region, with the development industry, i policy can only be adopted within different requirements for emerging, monitoring efficiencies across are a MTSA or an area subject to a established and prime market areas reflecting station areas' differing c Community Planning Permit (See #4). financial impact of IZ and creatE System as directed by the for investment and development ; Minister 2. Size of Development Buildings with 50 or more residential Focus program on larger dev Provincial Requirement: Limited units potential negative impacts on the to buildings with 10 or more units missing middle and medium de recognizing that these built significant financial obstacles in N 3. Affordable Unit Tenure Affordable units should be provided as Proposed amendments to O.Reg rental units, either within a an ownership unit to be a minirr condominium building or within a Market Resale Price (AMRP), w purpose-built rental building. only those households in the to[ range. These are high income housing needs can already be ME Focusing on rental tenure woi program addresses the needs of high income households. Policy Parameter Policy Direction Rationale 4. Set Aside Rate Proportion of GFA (gross leasable or Proposed amendments to O.Reg Provincial Requirement: salable area) dedicated to affordable aside rate to 5%. A low initial Proposed maximum 5% of total units should start low and transition relatively slow transition to the m; units or Gross Floor Area slowly upward to a maximum of 5%, in avoid market disruption and signE accordance with the local market policy intentions. Financial conditions. suggests that stronger (prime) • MTSAs within Prime Market Areas absorb the costs associated should start at 2% and increase to compared with weaker (emergin 5% by 2031. help ensure development viabili • MTSAs within Established Market crucial to meeting Cities' housing Areas should start at 1% and increase to 3% by 2031. • MTSAs within Emerging Market Areas should start at 0% and increase to 2% by 2031. • A list of which MTSAs are within the prime, established, and emerging market areas is within Table 3 and Attachment 1. Policy Parameter I Policy Direction I Rationale 5. Level of Affordability I . Affordable rental units in condo Provincial Requirement: Proposed policy can't require IZ unit rents to be less than 80% Average Market Rent or IZ unit prices to be less than 80% Average Market Resale Price. buildings should not exceed 100% Average Market Rent. ($1,063- $1,590 in 2022 depending on unit size). Affordable rental units in purpose- built rental buildings should not exceed 30% of the median renter household income in the regional market area as defined by CMHC, or Average Market Rent, whichever is greater (In 2023, this would be $1425 - $1,590, depending on unit size) The proposed affordable rents k maximize affordability with fin, housing providers. 100% AMR is per month lower than what a rentE in market rent for a vacant uni- calculation includes older, rent -c result, 100% AMR is well below the market. The proposed rents that are affordable to moderate consistent with most other jui Moderate income households' ai generally not well served by the r funded housing programs. Tr affordable rent for purpose-built r with CMHC's Mortgage Loar program for rental developments. streamline approvals processes, on desirable purpose built rental: more financially challenging condominium developments) an units that are affordable to households are provided in purpc 6. Eligible Households Low or moderate income households, Eligibility requirements would er having a gross annual income at or units are only available to low a below the 60th percentile of households. regional renter household income range; and with a maximum income at time of occupancy of 3.3 times the IZ unit rent. Policy Parameter Policy Direction Rationale 7. Duration IZ units should be maintained as Duration maximizes positive impr. Proposed Provincial affordable for 25 years. the affordable housing supply w Requirement: Maximum 25 years proposed regulations. The impl could support options for affordat where IZ units are owned by a (see #10)2. 8. Incentives IZ units are exempt from development The high cost of providing struc charges. Community benefits charges significant impact on the finar and parkland dedication exemptions development and limits the poterr are forthcoming. and market units in areas we Minimum required parking rates for Reduction in overall residen developments within MTSAs should be combined with the removal of p reduced or eliminated, and no parking affordable units would help to should be required for IZ affordable providing affordable units and is ; units. proximity of the developments Additional heights and densities for alignment with other city objectiv developments in MTSA should be gas reduction and active transr considered where appropriate. commitments). Increases in permitted develo densities in MTSAs concurrent w an IZ program can help offset & the program. 2 Third sector refers to non-profit, co-operative, and other types of mission -aligned affordable housing providers Policy Parameter Policy Direction Rationale 9. Offsite Units The required affordable units in a new Enabling offsite units provide development application may be creativity, partnerships and co provided in a development located on efficiencies and minimize pro fc an alternative site, provided that the affordable units, while still achievi alternative site is in an MTSA within the program to create high quali same municipality. Opportunities include developers sector organizations to create off: sector' owned building and locz within buildings having lower cc lower cost sites and with more This approach can leverage m, more deeply affordable units, periods and opportunities for or compared to onsite units alone. 10. Administration and The Region of Waterloo has expressed Centralized administration by go Implementation an interest in taking a leading role in mission-aligned, arm's length monitoring, enforcement and waitlist sufficient operational funds is management. The Cities of Kitchener, consistent monitoring and enforcE Cambridge and Waterloo will secure Enabling third sector ownershi affordable units through the affordable rental units within con development review process, in address condominium develop( accordance with IZ Implementation capacity to operate affordable L Guideline Document (to be developed). affordability beyond 25 years. Should the IZ program require rental as the tenure for affordable units (see item #3), implementation should include pathways for a third sector to own affordable units created in a condominium building. The Region may be able to assist with financing to support third sector ownership. Policy Parameter Policy Direction Rationale 11. Monitoring Report to council on successes and The financial impact model that s Provincial Requirement: Report challenges of IZ and adjust policy policy direction is based on currE every two years (biennially) and requirements as needed and proposed provincial regulati Assessment report refresh every policy may be warranted to enal 5 years fewer IZ units, different afford; response to market and regulator Table 3. Recommended Set Aside Rates STRATEGIC PLAN ALIGNMENT: This report supports the delivery of core services. FINANCIAL IMPLICATIONS: Capital Budget — As with affordable, attainable and non-profit housing units, IZ units are exempt from City Development Charges and Regional Development Charges. Community Benefits Charges and Park Dedication exemptions are anticipated in the near term. The mandatory incentives for IZ are directionally aligned with existing City policies exempting affordable units from DCs and parkland dedication. The incremental impact of IZ on these revenue sources is anticipated to be modest, but will be monitored and considered through future budgeting and updates to relevant by-laws. Operating Budget — The draft approach to implementation would see administration and enforcement undertaken by the Region. As the number of IZ units grows operating needs will emerge for dedicated resources that will have Regional budget implications. The Cities intend to secure IZ units through the development approvals process with existing resources. Consulting services may be required to assist with biennial policy review and 5 -year assessment report reviews. Page 51 of 350 Set Aside Rate and Date of Occupancy Market Area and MTSA 2024-2027 2028-2030 2031+ Prime Market Areas • University of Waterloo • Laurier - Waterloo Park • Central Station 2% 3% 5% • Victoria Park/Kitchener City Hall • Queen/Fredrick Established Market Areas • Conestoga • Research & Technology Park • Waterloo Public Square/ Willis Way 1 % 2% 3% • Grand River Hospital • Kitchener Market • Main • Downtown Cambridge Emerging Market Areas • Northfield • Borden • Mill • Block Line • Fairway o 0 /0 o 1 /0 ° 2 /o • Sportsworld • Preston • Pinebush • Cambridge Centre Mall • Can-Amera • Delta STRATEGIC PLAN ALIGNMENT: This report supports the delivery of core services. FINANCIAL IMPLICATIONS: Capital Budget — As with affordable, attainable and non-profit housing units, IZ units are exempt from City Development Charges and Regional Development Charges. Community Benefits Charges and Park Dedication exemptions are anticipated in the near term. The mandatory incentives for IZ are directionally aligned with existing City policies exempting affordable units from DCs and parkland dedication. The incremental impact of IZ on these revenue sources is anticipated to be modest, but will be monitored and considered through future budgeting and updates to relevant by-laws. Operating Budget — The draft approach to implementation would see administration and enforcement undertaken by the Region. As the number of IZ units grows operating needs will emerge for dedicated resources that will have Regional budget implications. The Cities intend to secure IZ units through the development approvals process with existing resources. Consulting services may be required to assist with biennial policy review and 5 -year assessment report reviews. Page 51 of 350 These implications will be further detailed in future reports to council. COMMUNITY ENGAGEMENT: INFORM and CONSULT The Partners commissioned the development of two videos to help explain affordable housing and IZ in plain terms. The Partners have conducted in person and online consultation, including interviews, surveys, focus groups, and presentations and meetings with development industry representatives, the Waterloo Region Home Builders Association, moderate income earners, affordable housing providers, housing advocates and the general public. Approximately 1,100 individuals have been engaged in the project. Key themes from the engagement activities undertaken since December 2022 were included in report DSD -2023-071. PREVIOUS REPORTS/AUTHORITIES: • DSD -20-006 Affordable Housing Strategy Phase 2: Housing Needs Assessment • DSD -20-150 Inclusionary Zoning for Affordable Housing: Background and Fiscal Impact Analysis • DSD -2022-501 Bill 23 More Homes Built Faster Act — Kitchener Comments • DSD -2023-071 Inclusionary Zoning for Affordable Housing: Status Update • Planning Act CO-AUTHORS: Michelle Lee, Senior Policy Planner, City of Waterloo Matthew Blevins, Senior Planner - Reurbanization, City of Cambridge Judy Maan Miedema, Principal Planner, Region of Waterloo REVIEWED BY: Natalie Goss, Manager, Policy Planning and Research Ryan Hagey, Director of Financial Planning & Reporting APPROVED BY: Justin Readman, General Manager of Development Services ATTACHMENTS: Attachment 1 — Inclusionary Zoning Policy and Program Directions Discussion Paper Attachment 2 — Memo: Inclusionary Zoning Development Model Update Page 52 of 350 Inclusionary Zoning Policy and Program Directions for Cambridge, Kitchener and Waterloo Discussion Paper June 2023 Page 53 of 350 ExecutiveSummary.......................................................................................................................................4 Introduction.................................................................................................................................................. 9 IZ as a tool to create Affordable Housing.................................................................................................9 Benefits and Limitations of IZ.................................................................................................................10 LegislativeFramework................................................................................................................................ 12 MTSAPlanning Framework.....................................................................................................................14 IZPolicy Parameters.................................................................................................................................... 23 Evaluation of Financial Impacts of IZ......................................................................................................23 Set -Aside Rate........................................................................................................................................26 Level of Affordability (Maximum Rent or Price)..................................................................................... 28 Durationof Affordability......................................................................................................................... 34 Tenureof IZ Units....................................................................................................................................35 Unit Size and Number of Bedrooms.......................................................................................................37 LocationWithin Projects.........................................................................................................................38 DesignCriteria.........................................................................................................................................39 Timing of Construction and Occupancy..................................................................................................40 Exemptions.............................................................................................................................................41 OffsiteUnits............................................................................................................................................43 Accessibility............................................................................................................................................. 45 Incentivesand Offsets................................................................................................................................46 Mandatory or Voluntary (Incentive zoning)...........................................................................................46 ParkingRequirements.............................................................................................................................48 Implementation and Administration.......................................................................................................... 51 Incorporating IZ Requirements into Development Approvals Processes...............................................51 AdministeringIZ Units.............................................................................................................................52 Appendix 1— Jurisdictional Scan of Inclusionary Zoning (IZ) Frameworks .................................................. 56 Appendix 2 — How Planning Act Requirements are Addressed.................................................................. 70 2 Page 54 of 350 Page 55 of 350 Executive Summary The Cities of Kitchener, Cambridge and Waterloo, in partnership with the Region of Waterloo are exploring Inclusionary Zoning (IZ) as a means to increase the amount of affordable housing near the ION rapid transit stops. IZ is a tool that allows municipalities to require a certain percentage of affordable housing units within new private developments containing 10 or more dwelling units in Major Transit Station Areas (MTSAs). The tool has been implemented successfully in a number of jurisdictions across North America. IZ is unique from other affordable housing programs in that it can provide new affordable units over time without reliance on significant government subsidies. It also can help ensure the creation of new affordable units in areas near light rail transit, which can help to counter the impacts of rising land values and gentrification that are typically associated with large transit investments. While IZ can't address all the region's housing challenges, it can be used to create a sustainable supply of affordable units for moderate income households who are unable to afford market rents. More moderate cost housing can take pressure off the subsidized housing system by providing affordable housing options for those households who have the capacity and desire to leave the subsidized housing system. Used in combination with other tools, such as ongoing government investments in emergency, temporary and subsidized housing, and adopting planning policies and regulations that enable an appropriate housing supply, IZ is a promising tool to support a healthy housing system. This discussion paper reviews and recommends policy options for a coordinated, Regional IZ policy and program. Policy recommendations are based on legislative requirements, a review of best practices from other jurisdictions, feedback obtained through public engagement, and modelling of the potential financial impacts on the local housing market. Key recommended policy and implementation directions and rationale are identified below: 1. Locations: An IZ policy should apply to new residential developments in all 24 MTSAs in Waterloo Region. Policy requirements should be tailored to the market for each MTSA. Rationale: To ensure the program maximizes IZ unit potential in strong markets and signals policy intentions to emerging markets to inform private market land transactions. 2. Building size: IZ should apply only to buildings with 50 or more residential units (exact threshold to be determined as part of development of draft zoning). Rationale: Focus program on larger developments to avoid potential negative impacts on the financial feasibility of missing middle and medium density housing types, recognizing that these built forms already face significant financial obstacles in MTSAs. 3. Affordable unit tenure: Affordable units should be provided as rental units within a condominium building (see 10. Administration) , within a purpose-built rental building or offsite. Rationale: Proposed Provincial IZ regulations set limits on minimum affordable rents and prices. 0 Page 56 of 350 While the proposed minimum of 80% Average Market Rent (AMR)' is affordable to households in the moderate income range, the proposed minimum of 80% Average Market Resale Price (AMRP) for an affordable ownership IZ unit would be affordable to only those households in the top 20th percentile of the income range. Ownership units within the 80% AMRP bracket are already provided by the market without the need for an IZ policy and associated administration and enforcement. 4. Set-aside rate: Proportion of units or Gross Floor Area to be affordable should start low and transition slowly upward to a maximum of 5%, in accordance with the local market conditions. MTSAs considered to fall within Prime Market Areas should start at 2% and increase to 5% by 2031; MTSAs within Established Market Areas should start at 1% and increase to 3% by 2031; MTSAs within Emerging Market Areas should start at 0% and increase to 2% by 2031. Rationale: Proposed amendments to O. Reg. 232/18 limit set-aside rate to 5%. A low initial set-aside rate and relatively slow transition to the maximum rate will help avoid market disruption and signal to the market future policy intentions. Financial feasibility modeling suggests that stronger (prime) markets can better absorb the costs associated with an IZ policy compared with weaker (emerging) markets. 5. Level of Affordability: Affordable rental units in condo buildings should not exceed 100% Average Market Rent. Affordable rental units in purpose-built rental buildings should not exceed the greater of MLI select rent (currently $1,425) or 100% of average market rent. Rationale: A minimum affordability threshold of 100% AMR (proposed for condominiums) falls within the limits proposed by the Province and provides rental units that are affordable to most moderate income households. The proposed affordable rents balance city objectives for greater affordability with financial feasibility for housing providers. The slightly higher proposed affordable rent for purpose-built rental buildings aligns with Canadian Mortgage and Housing Corporation's (CMHC) Mortgage Loan Insurance Select program for rental developments. Alignment with this program can help streamline project planning and design, and limit financial impact on purpose-built rentals which are typically more financially challenging to develop than condominium developments. This approach can ensure the provision of some units that are affordable to moderate income households in purpose-built rentals. Eligible households: Households eligible for the affordable units should be low or moderate income households, having a gross annual income at or below the 60th percentile of regional renter household income range; and with a maximum monthly income at time of occupancy of 3.3 times the IZ unit rent. In 2021, low and moderate income household would have a before tax income of less than $58,900. 7. Duration that units would be affordable: Affordable units should be maintained as affordable for 25 years. Rationale: Proposed amendments to O.Reg 232/18 limit duration of affordability to 25 ' . Average Market Rent (AMR) is calculated yearly by CMHC through their annual rent survey. Average Market Rent (AMR) represents the rents across the entire private rental housing stock and includes older stock and units rented below market due to rent control. Typical new units rents are approximately $700 per month more than AMR. Page 57 of 350 years. A shorter term of affordability would limit the positive impact of the program on the affordable housing supply. The implementation program will support options for affordability beyond 25 years where IZ units are owned by the third (non-profit, co-operative and other mission -aligned) sector (see #10). 8. Incentives: Affordable units provided through IZ are exempt from Development Charges. IZ units (prorated portion) will also be exempted from Community Benefits Charges and Parkland Dedication Charges but these exemptions are not yet in force. The minimum required parking rates for developments within MTSAs should be as low as possible and should range from 0 to no higher than 0.7 spaces/unit where possible, with no parking requirements for IZ units. Additional heights and densities for developments in MTSAs should be considered through comprehensive updates to the planning framework as well as on a site-specific basis, where appropriate. Rationale: The high cost of providing structured parking has a significant impact on the financial feasibility of a development and limits the potential yield of affordable and regular units in areas well served by transit. Reduction in overall residential parking rates, combined with the removal of parking minimums for affordable units would help to offset the cost of providing affordable units and is appropriate given the proximity of the developments to rapid transit and alignment with other city objectives (e.g., greenhouse gas emissions reduction targets and commitments). Increases to development heights and densities concurrent with the introduction of an IZ program can help offset the financial impact of the program, particularly for developers who purchased properties prior to IZ program adoption. 9. Offsite units: The required affordable units identified through a development application may be provided in a development located on an alternative site, provided that the alternative site is in an MTSA within the same municipality. Rationale: Offsite units are a crucial option to make IZ rental units work for condominium developments. They provide opportunities for creativity, partnerships and cost-sharing to create efficiencies and minimize pro forma impacts of the affordable units, while still achieving the intent of the IZ program to create high quality affordable units in mixed income communities near transit. Opportunities could include developers partnering with non-profit organizations to create offsite units within a non-profit owned building, and locating affordable units within buildings having lower construction costs, or on lower cost sites. The provision of offsite units was a concept that was widely supported by both representatives from the development industry and affordable housing providers as a tool to create affordable units that could be constructed and maintained in a cost-effective manner. This approach can leverage more affordable units, more deeply affordable units, longer affordability periods and opportunities for on-site support as compared to onsite units alone. 10. Administration and implementation: The Region of Waterloo has expressed an interest in taking a leading role in monitoring, enforcement and waitlist management. The Cities of Kitchener, Cambridge and Waterloo will secure affordable units through the development review process, in accordance with IZ Implementation Guideline Document (to be developed). Should the IZ program require rental as the tenure for affordable units (see item #3), implementation should include pathways for a third sector (non-profit, co-operative or other mission aligned housing provider) to own affordable units created in a condominium building. The Region may be able to 11 Page 58 of 350 assist with financing to support third sector ownership. Rationale: Centralized administration by government or a single mission -aligned, arm's length organization with sufficient operational funds is required to ensure consistent monitoring and enforcement of the program. Enabling third sector ownership and operation of affordable rental units within condo developments will address condominium developers' concerns about capacity to operate affordable units and will ensure affordability beyond 25 years. 11. Monitoring and reporting: An IZ program should be reviewed and modified as necessary, every two years to respond to land development economics and changing market conditions. If requirements are too lax during periods of strong development economics, the program will miss opportunities to deliver on affordability outcomes. If it is too demanding in weak economic conditions, it could stifle the development of much needed housing supply, affordable or otherwise. The Partners will report biennially on the IZ program and table potential amendments to these programs to optimize the program and respond to emerging issues and trends. Recommended Set-aside Rates Market Area and MTSA Set-aside Rate and Date of Occupancy* Station Area 2024-2027 2028-2030 2031+ Prime Market Areas • University of Waterloo • Laurier- Waterloo Park 2% 3% 5% • Central Station • Victoria Park/Kitchener City Hall • Queen/Fredrick Established Market Areas • Conestoga • Research & Technology Park • Waterloo Public Square/ Willis Way • Allen 1% 2% 3% • Grand River Hospital • Kitchener Market • Main • Downtown Cambridge Emerging Market Areas • Northfield • Borden • Mill • Block Line • Fairway 0% 1% 2% • Sportsworld • Preston • Pinebush • Cambridge Centre Mall • Can-Amera • Delta *Set-aside rate applies to total GFA of proposed development Page 59 of 350 Recommended Maximum Rents for IZ units Unit Type 2022 Maximum Rent for Affordable Rental Unit Unit Type Purpose-built Rental Building* Condominium Building** Bachelor $1,425 $1,075 1 bedroom $1,425 $1,245 2 bedroom $1,454 $,1,469 3+ bedroom $1,689 $1,689 *Calculated as the greater of 100% AMR or MLI Select definition of affordability (currently $1,425). **Calculated as 100% AMR Page 60 of 350 Introduction Over the next 30 years, Waterloo Region's population is forecasted to grow to 923,000 people, representing an increase of 306,000 new permanent residents and non -permanent residents or about 121,080 new households. The Region of Waterloo Official Plan directs 87% of this growth (105,975 households) to the Cities of Kitchener, Waterloo and Cambridge. A corresponding 105,975 new housing units will be required to accommodate the forecasted growth, with the majority of units focused in built-up areas, and in particular, within strategic growth areas such as Major Transit Station Areas (MTSAs). To accelerate the building of new housing to address current supply challenges as well as the forecasted growth, the Province has asked municipalities to commit to a housing pledge to achieve 70,000 of the total 105,975 units by 2031 (35,000 new units in Kitchener, 16,000 new units in Waterloo, and 19,000 new units in Cambridge). To meet the needs of current and future residents, The Region of Waterloo has set a needs -based target of 30% of all new housing to be affordable to low and moderate income households. The magnitude of the need for affordable housing now and in the future is great. Approximately 22% of existing households (47,860 households) in the Cities of Kitchener, Cambridge, Waterloo live in housing that costs more than 30% of their gross annual income , with tenant households more likely to live in unaffordable housing (36.9%) than homeowners (13.9%). An additional 31,790 new affordable units will be needed by 2051 to meet the Region's 30% affordable housing target. These statistics likely underestimate the magnitude of the housing affordability challenge — they do not account for individuals who would prefer to live on their own but who must live with family or roommates to keep housing costs down; households that would like to move to the region but can't afford to; or households that were forced to leave the region to find more affordable housing. A portion of the new affordable housing units will need to be constructed within the region's 24 MTSAs. Access to transit is an important, often necessary, housing consideration for households with low and moderate incomes. Such households may not own personal vehicles or may choose to reduce their household costs by relying on transit rather than cars. Housing near high-quality transit can provide low and moderate income households with affordable access to jobs, shopping and amenities. In Kitchener - Cambridge -Waterloo, about 14% of lower income households use public transit compared to 4% of higher income households'. The creation of affordable housing within MTSAs ensures that public investments in higher order transit have the potential to benefit everyone. Despite greater reliance of low and moderate income households on transit, areas served by high quality transit also tend to be unaffordable places to live. Public Investment in rapid transit stimulates private investment and the development of new, less affordable housing which displaces low income households. Ontario municipalities have few tools available to them to ensure the provision of some affordable housing within MTSAs. This discussion paper explores a tool called "Inclusionary Zoning" (IZ) which leverages private and public investment for the creation of affordable housing in MTSAs. IZ as a Tool to Create Affordable Housing IZ is a tool enabled through the Planning Act that allows municipalities to require private developers to include a certain percentage of affordable housing units within new developments containing 10 or more dwelling units and located in an MTSA. The tool can be used to create affordable rental and/or ownership units. The level of affordability, the proportion of affordable units, and the duration that Page 61 of 350 those units must remain affordable are determined by the municipality based on local housing needs and market feasibility and must be set out in the IZ policy and regulations. What differentiates IZ from other affordable housing planning tools is that it gives municipalities the authority to require - as opposed to encourage or incentivize - private developers to build affordable housing as part of their residential developments. Used in combination with other affordable housing policies and incentives, this tool has been demonstrated in the United States and other jurisdictions to be effective in providing affordable housing for certain types of households, such as working households with moderate incomes that have been priced out of the market due to rising housing costs. IZ works by allowing municipalities to leverage the additional land value achieved through public investment (e.g. government investment in ION), increased density, development approvals and growing demand for centrally located housing near transit (and other amenities) to require the provision of affordable housing. IZ directs a portion of this enhanced land value toward the creation of affordable units. Under the right economic conditions, IZ programs can sustain themselves over the long term without reliance on government grants, although many programs do offer some form of cost offset for the developer of IZ units, such as additional density or height permissions, modified development standards, and/or fee waivers" Because IZ programs can reduce revenues for developers as a result of lower rents and sale prices for the affordable units, the programs must be carefully designed to ensure that the overall residential development continues to be financially viable for private market housing providers. Areas with strong housing markets have been found to be best suited for IZ programs. Key program considerations that affect the financial viability of IZ include: • Set-aside rate (proportion of units or floor area of a building required to be affordable) • Level of affordability (the discount in price or rent as compared to the market) • Duration of affordability (the length of time an affordable unit must remain affordable) • Tenure of affordable units (rental vs. ownership) Where the economics of development cannot support IZ on its own, a municipality can adopt financial and planning measures to assist in the financial viability of the project. These measures can also be used to achieve greater program impact, such as increasing the set-aside rate, the level of affordability, or the duration of affordability. Measures can include financial incentives such as reducing or deferring fees and charges, and supportive planning permissions such as increased height or density, and/or reduced parking requirements. The gradual phase-in of IZ policies and/or the use of temporary financial incentives can also be used to offset development pro forma impacts until the market adjusts to the new policy framework. Benefits and Limitations of IZ While IZ is a promising tool to increase the amount of moderately affordable housing within stations areas, it does not replace other tools and approaches that can help address the full range of housing needs across the housing spectrum, such as emergency and temporary housing, deeply affordable housing and supportive housing. IZ has been found in other jurisdictions to be best suited for the creation of a sustainable supply of moderately affordable housing for people who can't afford market rate rents and prices, but whose incomes disqualify them for subsidized affordable housing (e.g. Region 10 Page 62 of 350 of Waterloo community housing). Used in combination with other tools and programs, such as federally and Provincially funded affordable housing, municipal grants and programs and supportive local planning policies and regulations, IZ has the potential to create a sustainable supply of affordable housing to support households that have been priced out of the housing market. A key benefit of IZ is its potential to yield a meaningful supply of affordable housing over the long term without reliance on municipal funding or subsidies. Because IZ requires affordable units to be created within new residential developments, it is most effective in strong market areas that are experiencing residential growth. Since 2011, the fastest growing areas within the Region have been located in close proximity to a developing or established LRT stop. As much as 42% of the Region's population growth occurred in the Central Transit Corridor between 2018 and 2019 alone ". Strong demand for housing within MTSAs is anticipated to continue. Based on household growth forecasts, intensification targets and anticipated Provincial IZ regulations, an IZ program could be expected to produce approximately 60 affordable units per year in the medium term (starting in 2031) and 99 units affordable units per year over the long term across the Region. Table 1 provides a further breakdown of the anticipated annual yield of IZ units by municipality under a scenario that assumes a 2-3% set-aside rate in the medium term and a 5% set-aside rate in the long term. Table 1. Estimated annual yield of affordable units under IZ program, by municipality * Forecasted number of units within 50+ unit buildings located within MTSAs ** Forecasted number of IZ units at proposed 2031 set-aside rates averaged across MTSAs *** Forecasted number of IZ units at max (5%) set-aside rates An additional benefit of IZ is that it can ensure the creation of affordable units in locations that are close to services, amenities, and higher order transit. Non-profit affordable housing providers have reported challenges with acquiring land in MTSAs due to high land values and an inability to compete with private market builders. An IZ program can address this issue by ensuring that affordable housing is included in all developments of a certain size within MTSAs. To help offset the cost of providing affordable units at below market prices or rents, IZ regulations can put downward pressure on land prices, much like any other zoning regulation or site conditions that reduce development value of a property. Exemptions from development charges, community benefit charges and parkland fees for affordable units created through an IZ policy can further help offset the cost of providing affordable units. Municipalities can 11 Page 63 of 350 Estimated IZ units in Estimated IZ units in Municipality Total units in MTSAs* medium term ** long term (units/year) (units/year) (units/year)*** Kitchener 698 27 35 Cambridge 741 25 37 Waterloo 532 12 27 Total 1 1,971 60 99 * Forecasted number of units within 50+ unit buildings located within MTSAs ** Forecasted number of IZ units at proposed 2031 set-aside rates averaged across MTSAs *** Forecasted number of IZ units at max (5%) set-aside rates An additional benefit of IZ is that it can ensure the creation of affordable units in locations that are close to services, amenities, and higher order transit. Non-profit affordable housing providers have reported challenges with acquiring land in MTSAs due to high land values and an inability to compete with private market builders. An IZ program can address this issue by ensuring that affordable housing is included in all developments of a certain size within MTSAs. To help offset the cost of providing affordable units at below market prices or rents, IZ regulations can put downward pressure on land prices, much like any other zoning regulation or site conditions that reduce development value of a property. Exemptions from development charges, community benefit charges and parkland fees for affordable units created through an IZ policy can further help offset the cost of providing affordable units. Municipalities can 11 Page 63 of 350 provide additional incentives to ensure development feasibility in certain market areas, or to achieve specific affordable housing objectives. While IZ can't address all of the region's housing challenges, it can be used to create a sustainable supply of affordable units for moderate income households who can't afford market rents but whose incomes are too high to be eligible for subsidized housing (e.g. Region of Waterloo community housing). By increasing the supply of affordable housing for moderate income households, IZ can also help relieve the pressure on the limited subsidized housing supply by providing affordable options for households who have the desire and financial capacity to move out of subsidized housing. Used in combination with other tools, such as investments in more emergency, temporary and subsidized housing, IZ is a promising tool to support a healthier housing system Legislative Framework The legislative authority for IZ is included within Planning Act sections 16(4-13), 16(24.1.2-24.1.3); 16(36.1.2); 34(11.0.6); 34(19.3-19.3.1); 35.2(1-9) and Ontario regulation 232/18. Among other things it: 1. Prescribes that IZ can only be applied within approved Protected Major Transit Stations within upper tier or single tier Official Plans; or within community planning permit areas that are mandated by the Province 2. Prescribes IZ policies must be preceded by as assessment report that includes specified content and analysis and must be updated every 5 years 3. Sets out the prescribed content and details of IZ Official Plan policies and Zoning By-laws 4. Allows for by-laws and policies to include incentives and other standards that are not prescribed by the Planning Act 5. Requires municipalities to report on IZ biennially In October 2022, the Province released proposed regulatory changes for comment. The detailed language of these regulations has yet to be released and are not yet in force and effect. The proposed regulation would: • Limit the set-aside rate (proportion of units that can be required to be affordable) to 5% • Limit the maximum time period for IZ units to be maintained as affordable to 25 years • Limit the minimum rent of IZ affordable rental units to 80% of average market rent • Limit the minimum price of IZ affordable ownership units to 80% of average resale price. The proposed lower threshold for IZ unit rents is below the current shared definition of affordable included in the PPS, Regional Official Plan and City Official Plans and generally align with staff's proposed approach to the maximum rent that can be charged for IZ rental units. Currently, Affordable is defined as: a) in the case of ownership housing, the least expensive of: 1. housing for which the purchase price results in annual accommodation costs which do not exceed 30 percent of gross annual household income for low and moderate income households, or 12 Page 64 of 350 2. housing for which the purchase price is at least 10 percent below the average purchase price of a resale unit in the regional market area; b) in the case of rental housing, the least expensive of: 1. a unit for which the rent does not exceed 30 percent of gross annual household income for low and moderate income households; or 2. a unit for which the rent is at or below the average market rent of a unit in the regional market area. The proposed minimum ownership price for IZ units is expected to be significantly higher than current shared definition of affordable from the 2020 Provincial Policy Statement, Regional and City Official Plans and has had significant impact on staff's proposed approach. Although uncertainty remains regarding the details of price and rent limits, staff expect that the Table 2 values for 2022 will be implemented by the Province. Table 2. Affordable Rents and Prices under Current Definitions and Proposed Provincial O. Reg. 232/18 *price based on 2021 figures, rents based on 2022 figures Details of the Partners' analysis and comments on the proposed changes are included in Kitchener Report DSD -2022-501. The recommendations in this discussion paper assume that the proposed Provincial regulation will come into force as drafted. As of November 2022, IZ units are exempt from paying Development Charges. Recent legislative changes also exempt IZ units (prorated portion) from Community Benefits Charges and Parkland Dedication Charges but the exemptions are not yet in force. This discussion paper outlines how each of these legislative requirements for IZ was or will be addressed. This is itemized further in Appendix 2. 13 Page 65 of 350 Current PPS, proposed Provincial Unit type ROP, OP regulations maximum IZ definition of unit price/rent affordable Affordable Rent Bach $1,063 $860 1BR $1,240 $996 2BR $1,454 $1,175 3BR $1,470 $1,351 Affordable Price $385,500* 1 $512,309* *price based on 2021 figures, rents based on 2022 figures Details of the Partners' analysis and comments on the proposed changes are included in Kitchener Report DSD -2022-501. The recommendations in this discussion paper assume that the proposed Provincial regulation will come into force as drafted. As of November 2022, IZ units are exempt from paying Development Charges. Recent legislative changes also exempt IZ units (prorated portion) from Community Benefits Charges and Parkland Dedication Charges but the exemptions are not yet in force. This discussion paper outlines how each of these legislative requirements for IZ was or will be addressed. This is itemized further in Appendix 2. 13 Page 65 of 350 MTSA Planning Framework The Planning Act requires municipalities to delineate MTSAs in their Official Plans prior to or concurrent with the adoption of an IZ policy and by-law. In additional to delineating MTSAs, municipalities must also identify: (a) minimum density requirements (residents and jobs) planned for each station area, (b) permitted land uses, and permitted buildings or structures on lands in each station area, and (c) minimum densities for buildings and structures on lands in each station area. Prior to the Province's enactment of More Homes Built Faster Act in 2022, the Planning Act required the MTSA provisions to be addressed through the adoption of an amendment to the Region of Waterloo's Official Plan. MTSA boundaries MTSA boundaries were delineated by the Region of Waterloo as part of an amendment to the Region of Waterloo Official Plan (ROPA 6). ROPA 6 is now in effect, following the adoption by Regional Council in August 2022 and approval by the Minster of Municipal Affairs and Housing on April 11, 2023. ROPA 6 identifies 24 Major Transit Station Areas across Waterloo, Kitchener and Cambridge. The station areas include lands around transit stops for both Stage 1 and planned Stage 2 ION light rail transit route. Each MTSA typically includes lands within a 500 to 800 metre radius of the transit stop, representing about a 10 -minute walk. Their precise boundaries are shown in Figures 1, 2, and 3. Once changes to Provincial legislation removing the Region of Waterloo's planning responsibilities come into effect, lower tier municipalities will be required adopt the MTSA provisions directly within their own official plans to implement IZ. Based on communications with MMAH, staff anticipate that the timing for removal of the Region's planning authority will be winter 2024 at the earliest. The amended official plans would then require approval by the Minister of Municipal Affairs and Housing (MMAH) before the plan and any IZ policies can be implemented. Until such time as these changes are in effect, the Minister's approval of ROPA 6 enables IZ across all 24 MTSAs. MTSA minimum required densities In addition to delineating MTSA boundaries, ROPA 6 includes minimum density requirements for each station area. All but three MTSAs are required to plan to achieve a minimum density of 160 residents and jobs per hectare. In many MTSAs, the planned density would enable significant residential growth to occur in medium and high density buildings where IZ can apply. Permitted land uses, buildings and structures and associated densities within MTSAs The Cities of Kitchener, Cambridge and Waterloo will be required to identify the permitted land uses, buildings and structures, and the minimum densities for those buildings and structures within each designated MTSA. While some of these requirements are already in place through existing Official Plans and zoning by-laws, the Cities will need to review the current permitted uses in the context of the minimum required densities in each MTSA and amend their planning frameworks if necessary to meet the targets. City of Waterloo City of Waterloo contains eight MTSAs. 1. Conestoga 14 Page 66 of 350 2. Northfield 3. Research & Technology Park 4. University of Waterloo 5. Laurier -Waterloo Park 6. Waterloo Public Square 7. Willis Way 8. Allen Figure 1. City of Waterloo MTSAs as per the Region of Waterloo Official Plan 15 Page 67 of 350 E 7 N t65 , 1 -i I�ilTflr j1 � I y"T• ��nrc i= westmauM Rd f ',.A. Conestoga Station - 4a y'�"'^'�,i fir' '�•�. i p ,C eu Research & Technology Park Station - 4c 15 Page 67 of 350 E N t65 , Northfield Station -4bµ i= westmauM Rd f ',.A. University of Waterloo Station -4d 15 Page 67 of 350 Waterloo City Council adopted Station Area Plans for five of the eight MTSAs (Conestoga, Northfield, R&T Park, University of Waterloo and Laurier -Waterloo Park) and incorporated these areas into the Official Plan in 2017 (Region of Waterloo approval in 2018). The remaining MTSAs are located within the City's Urban Growth Centre and were deemed to already have a robust planning framework to support intensification and a mix of uses, including residential uses. An updated Zoning By-law was approved in 2018 to reflect the changes introduced through the Station Area Plans. Opportunities for residential development and the application of IZ is constrained in a number of Waterloo's MTSAs due to limited land available for residential uses. A significant proportion of the lands within the Northfield, the Research and Technology Park and the University of Waterloo MTSAs are designated for employment which prohibits residential uses. Employment lands and open space make up a large proportion of the Laurier - Waterloo Park MTSA. The MTSAs with the greatest potential for new residential development are Conestoga, Waterloo Public Square and Willis Way and Allen. The R&T Park, Northfield and Conestoga MTSAs may have additional potential for a mix of uses that include residential uses, subject to a review of employment lands that have been removed from the Regional Employment lands as part of a recent Municipal Comprehensive Review. 16 Page 68 of 350 "4 I,- 4 - .: ary54gP0fi gfld96F'� Rd � {ad W Waterloo Public Square Station °nr vH 'm SiF , ';, vnlrl� vl�y i Sraficsn G � i Laurier - Waterloo Park Station - 5a�,� e ealmounr RV, 5�� enssk y� Waterloo Public Square and Willis Way Station - 5b,.... t �sra �ca� ark �o c •s, s Py + {l 4 Grand River Hospital Station - 5d Allen Station - 5c Waterloo City Council adopted Station Area Plans for five of the eight MTSAs (Conestoga, Northfield, R&T Park, University of Waterloo and Laurier -Waterloo Park) and incorporated these areas into the Official Plan in 2017 (Region of Waterloo approval in 2018). The remaining MTSAs are located within the City's Urban Growth Centre and were deemed to already have a robust planning framework to support intensification and a mix of uses, including residential uses. An updated Zoning By-law was approved in 2018 to reflect the changes introduced through the Station Area Plans. Opportunities for residential development and the application of IZ is constrained in a number of Waterloo's MTSAs due to limited land available for residential uses. A significant proportion of the lands within the Northfield, the Research and Technology Park and the University of Waterloo MTSAs are designated for employment which prohibits residential uses. Employment lands and open space make up a large proportion of the Laurier - Waterloo Park MTSA. The MTSAs with the greatest potential for new residential development are Conestoga, Waterloo Public Square and Willis Way and Allen. The R&T Park, Northfield and Conestoga MTSAs may have additional potential for a mix of uses that include residential uses, subject to a review of employment lands that have been removed from the Regional Employment lands as part of a recent Municipal Comprehensive Review. 16 Page 68 of 350 'c 9 Waterloo Public Square Station 'm SiF , ';, vnlrl� vl�y i Sraficsn G � i e ealmounr RV, � - `+g•g tel. �' Waterloo Public Square and Willis Way Station - 5b,.... t �sra a> + {l 4 Grand River Hospital Station - 5d Waterloo City Council adopted Station Area Plans for five of the eight MTSAs (Conestoga, Northfield, R&T Park, University of Waterloo and Laurier -Waterloo Park) and incorporated these areas into the Official Plan in 2017 (Region of Waterloo approval in 2018). The remaining MTSAs are located within the City's Urban Growth Centre and were deemed to already have a robust planning framework to support intensification and a mix of uses, including residential uses. An updated Zoning By-law was approved in 2018 to reflect the changes introduced through the Station Area Plans. Opportunities for residential development and the application of IZ is constrained in a number of Waterloo's MTSAs due to limited land available for residential uses. A significant proportion of the lands within the Northfield, the Research and Technology Park and the University of Waterloo MTSAs are designated for employment which prohibits residential uses. Employment lands and open space make up a large proportion of the Laurier - Waterloo Park MTSA. The MTSAs with the greatest potential for new residential development are Conestoga, Waterloo Public Square and Willis Way and Allen. The R&T Park, Northfield and Conestoga MTSAs may have additional potential for a mix of uses that include residential uses, subject to a review of employment lands that have been removed from the Regional Employment lands as part of a recent Municipal Comprehensive Review. 16 Page 68 of 350 Potential timing for the adoption of an IZ Policy and zoning regulation would align with the City's review and update of its Official Plan. These updates will include amendments to the station area boundaries and the addition of the 3 Uptown station areas, in accordance with ROPA 6. Updates to the Official Plan are proposed to be brought to council in three phases, starting the fall 2023 and continuing into 2024. Detailed timing for the release of updated MTSA policies is outlined in Table 3. City of Kitchener The City of Kitchener has 12 transit stops and 10 MTSAs 1. Grant River Hospital 2. Central Station 3. Victoria Park/Kitchener City Hall 4. Queen/Fredrick 5. Kitchener Market 6. Borden 7. Mill 8. Block Line 9. Fairway 10. Sportsworld (planned for Phase 2 Ion) Figure 2. City of Kitchener MTSAs as per the Region of Waterloo Official Plan 17 s.� /,6"IS itchQnerCity 11, SP hall Station . C °e pe 9 hd 4_ Victoria Park C° Station ?�9srE �q c Victoria Park and Kitchener City Hall Station - fib Page 69 of 350 � h Frederick Station ;n Cyd F E Queen Station y pc �qd Queen and Frederick Station - 6c,,,,,,� 9 y r, este y p` F"he, scE 0 .a] Kitchener Market Station - 6d r✓ i I e1oc 6�ceyt O Blockline Station -7c 18 "HEI F Y,iwaY Rd 5 i .r E 1 -N F, i �h i Fairway Station - Td Page 70 of 350 Sportsworld Station - 8a �,„,,,. Kitchener's MTSAs have been established through the approval of the ROPA 6. Kitchener has launched Growing Together to update Kitchener's planning framework in MTSAs in station areas 1-7. Growing Together is the continuation of the ongoing planning review process that began with Planning Around Rapid Transit Stations (PARTS) and advanced through the Neighbourhood Planning Review (NPR) project. This work builds upon PARTS and NPR while also responding to new direction from the Province, implementing the updated Regional Official Plan, and addressing new and emerging City priorities. City staff plan to coordinate IZ amendments as part of Growing Together, which will be presented to council by the end of 2023 for approval. The timing of updating statutory planning documents for station areas 8-10 has yet to be determined. City of Cambridge The City of Cambridge contains seven proposed transit stops and seven MTSAs. 1. Preston 2. Pinebush 3. Cambridge Centre Mall 4. Can-Amera 5. Delta 6. Main 7. Downtown Cambridge 19 Page 71 of 350 Figure 3. City of Cambridge IVITSAs as per the Region of Waterloo Official Plan q_g%w:. SAartlz gay Preston Station - 8b ®- -01 A 3 Blahops%'A m L 70 —A, Pinebush Station - Bc Can-Arnera Station - 9a 20 Page 72 of 350 A Blahops%'A Cambridge Centre Mail Station -8d Can-Arnera Station - 9a 20 Page 72 of 350 V f , ` A 4zrk YV511 AdW Y V Q I i NdM-Sq ream s! L: Soum Sq ' a Main Station - 9c�, The City of Cambridge is currently working on secondary plans for the three core areas (Galt, Hespeler and Preston) as well as identified nodes and corridors within the city. The secondary plans encompass all seven MTSAs and will include policies to facilitate IZ. Opportunities for residential development and the application of IZ is constrained in two of the MTSAs within the Urban Growth Centre due to existing and proposed restrictions related to heritage conservation as well as flood plain and a floodplain special policy area. The remaining MTSA areas are generally surrounded by a mix of designations permitting multiple residential, commercial and some employment uses. There are opportunities in the form of vacant and underutilized properties within the MTSA areas that would allow for a significant increase in density with potential for a higher number of units through IZ. Table 3. Milestones for Delineating MTSAs to enable IZ Milestone Cambridge Waterloo Kitchener MTSA boundaries Anticipated Q4 2023 Anticipated Q4 2023 Anticipated Q4 2023 delineated in City OPs 1a North Ma ] for MTSAs 1-7. Timing Sq Cambridge Centre Mall :7 and Can-Amera. MTSAs 1-5 already Timing on remaining delineated in OP. MTSAs TBD. MTSA density targets in Anticipated Q4 2023 Completed. Anticipated Q4 2023 P+J/ha in City OPs for Pinebush, for MTSAs 1-7. Timing Cambridge Centre Mall on MTSAs 8-10 TBD. and Can-Amera. Timing on remaining Downtown Cambridge Station - 9d�,,,,, The City of Cambridge is currently working on secondary plans for the three core areas (Galt, Hespeler and Preston) as well as identified nodes and corridors within the city. The secondary plans encompass all seven MTSAs and will include policies to facilitate IZ. Opportunities for residential development and the application of IZ is constrained in two of the MTSAs within the Urban Growth Centre due to existing and proposed restrictions related to heritage conservation as well as flood plain and a floodplain special policy area. The remaining MTSA areas are generally surrounded by a mix of designations permitting multiple residential, commercial and some employment uses. There are opportunities in the form of vacant and underutilized properties within the MTSA areas that would allow for a significant increase in density with potential for a higher number of units through IZ. Table 3. Milestones for Delineating MTSAs to enable IZ Milestone Cambridge Waterloo Kitchener MTSA boundaries Anticipated Q4 2023 Anticipated Q4 2023 Anticipated Q4 2023 delineated in City OPs for Pinebush, for MTSAs 6-8. for MTSAs 1-7. Timing Cambridge Centre Mall on MTSAs 8-10 TBD. and Can-Amera. MTSAs 1-5 already Timing on remaining delineated in OP. MTSAs TBD. MTSA density targets in Anticipated Q4 2023 Completed. Anticipated Q4 2023 P+J/ha in City OPs for Pinebush, for MTSAs 1-7. Timing Cambridge Centre Mall on MTSAs 8-10 TBD. and Can-Amera. Timing on remaining MTSAs TBD. City OP policies Anticipated Q4 2023 Completed. Some Anticipated Q4 2023 regarding permitted for Pinebush, updates anticipated for MTSAs 1-7. Timing uses Cambridge Centre Mall Q4. on MTSAs 8-10 TBD. and Can-Amera. Timing on remaining MTSAs TBD. 21 Page 73 of 350 Milestone Cambridge Waterloo Kitchener City OP minimum Anticipated Q4 2023 Completed. Some Anticipated Q4 2023 densities applying to for Pinebush, updates anticipated for MTSAs 1-7. Timing buildings and land Cambridge Centre Mall Q4. on MTSAs 8-10 TBD. and Can-Amera. Timing on remaining MTSAs TBD. IZ policies and zoning Coordinated with Coordinated with OP Coordinated with approved by Cities Secondary Plans Q4 updates Q4 2023 — Q4 MTSA OP and Zoning. 2023-Q4 2024. 2024. Anticipated Q4 2023. Assessment Report Certain studies and analyses are required prior to adopting an IZ policy and by-law, the contents of which are set out in Ontario Regulation 18/232 under the Planning Act. These analyses are to be included in an assessment report and considered in the development of Official Plan policies and regulations that implement IZ. The assessment report must contain: 1. An analysis of demographics and population in the municipality. 2. An analysis of household incomes in the municipality. 3. An analysis of housing supply by housing type currently in the municipality and planned for in the official plan. 4. An analysis of housing types and sizes of units that may be needed to meet anticipated demand for affordable housing. 5. An analysis of the current average market price and the current average market rent for each housing type, taking into account location in the municipality. 6. An analysis of potential impacts on the housing market and on the financial viability of development or redevelopment in the municipality from IZ by-laws, including requirements in the by-laws related to the matters mentioned in clauses 35.2 (2) (a), (b), (e) and (g) of the Act, taking into account: i. value of land, ii. cost of construction, iii. market price, iv. market rent, and V. housing demand and supply. 7. A written opinion on the analysis described in paragraph 6 from a person independent of the municipality and who, in the opinion of the council of the municipality, is qualified to review the analysis. The assessment report must be updated every 5 years. The Cities of Kitchener and Waterloo have each developed a housing assessment containing an analysis of items 1-5. The Kitchener Housing Needs Assessment was presented to Kitchener Council in 2020 as background to Housing For All in report DSD -20-006. Waterloo's Housing Needs and Demand Analysis was presented to Waterloo Council in 2020 as part of report IPPW2020-071. An update report (21- 22 Page 74 of 350 130(CD)) to Cambridge Council in 2021 directed staff to undertake a Housing Needs Assessment. Cambridge will be initiating this work in 2024. In partnership with the Region of Waterloo, the Cities of Kitchener Cambridge and Waterloo contracted land economists N. Barry Lyon Consultants Limited (NBLC) to carry out an IZ Financial Impact Study"' (item 6), and urbanMetrics to provide a peer review of the study" (item 7). The Financial Impact Assessment included a model that tested various policy parameters across a number of MTSAs to determine the impact of these parameters on the achievement of affordable IZ units and development feasibility. Policy parameters included set-aside rate, duration of affordability, depth of affordability, tenure of affordable units. The Financial Impact Assessment and peer review were presented to Kitchener city council through report #DSD -20-150, Waterloo city council through report IPPW2020-071 and Cambridge city council through report 21-130(CD). NBLC was contracted in 2022 to update the financial model to reflect changes in material and labour costs and changes to the housing market. A memo outlining the update and approach is included as an attachment to this report. This model update was prepared with support from the Province of Ontario through the Streamlined Development Approval Fund. The views expressed in the publication do not necessarily reflect those of the Province. IZ Policy Parameters IZ programs can vary widely across a range of policy parameters. Key policy parameters that influence both the viability and effectiveness of an IZ policy include: • Set-aside rate (proportion of units or floor area of a building required to be affordable) • Level of affordability (the discount in price or rent as compared to the market) • Duration of affordability (the length of time an affordable unit must remain affordable) • Tenure of affordable IZ units (rental vs. ownership) Additional policy parameters could include: • Unit size and number of bedrooms • Location within projects • Design criteria • Timing of construction and occupancy • Exemptions • Offsite units • Accessibility • Incentives and offsets The subsequent sections describe the pro forma model, best practice review and affordability assessments used to assess the housing and financial impacts of an IZ policy under a range of policy scenarios and subject to a range of different parameters (above). Evaluation of Financial Impacts of IZ In 2020 the Partners hired N. Barry Lyon Consultants Limited to carry out a financial impact study as required by the Planning Act and regulations. The study explains that IZ works by leveraging the value created through increases in density, development approvals, investment in LRT and increasing demand 23 Page 75 of 350 for centrally located housing and directing some of that value toward the creation of affordable housing. In this way IZ programs can be designed to work without government subsidies. Because IZ programs result in lower revenues for developers through lower rents or sales prices than would otherwise be the case, the Provincial legislation requires that IZ programs be designed to ensure that residential development continues to be financially viable for private market housing providers. Key policy parameters that affect the achievement of affordable housing objectives and influence development feasibility include: • Set-aside rate (proportion of units required to be affordable); • Duration of affordability (how long affordability must be maintained); • Level of Affordability (maximum IZ unit rents and prices), and • Tenure of affordable units (rental vs. ownership). NBLC's financial impact study uses an approach called Residual Land Value (RLV) analysis to test if prototypical residential projects in a sample of 10 MTSAs across the Region are viable across several policy scenarios. The policy scenarios tested the impacts of the key parameters above, along with other factors (e.g. lot size, building heights, incentives). The analysis was based on the following principles: 1. Affordability — Secure affordable housing that is not otherwise being provided by the market. 2. Partner with development community — To achieve housing targets the Cities need developers to build new affordable units under IZ. Residential development projects must continue to be viable. 3. Minimize land market disruption — Provide early signals and transition time for the land market to adjust to IZ 4. Long term sustainability — IZ policy should be viable without financial incentives. Incentives may be used to achieve affordability objective beyond what is supported by land economics Study highlights include: • The costs of IZ cannot be passed onto the market rate units in a building through higher prices/rents because developers are already pricing units as high as the market will bear. • Developer profits are not reduced under IZ. Without the prospect for sufficient profit, developers will not be motivated to build. • Instead, an IZ policy will put downward pressure on land value. • If an IZ policy is too onerous, land value will be reduced by too much, so a residential redevelopment project cannot displace the existing land use and will not be viable. • A modest and carefully designed IZ policy is financially viable in the near term in some MTSAs with the strongest residential market conditions. • MTSAs are not all equally capable of delivering new units. A robust IZ policy was viable in a few MTSAs but not others. A geographically uniform approach to IZ is not recommended. Instead, the initial focus of IZ should be on MTSAs with strong residential markets. • In weaker submarkets, the policy framework should be set up now, with very low affordability requirements in the near term. These requirements can increase gradually as weak submarkets improve. IZ can deliver a modest but meaningful number of affordable units in the near term. There is significant 24 Page 76 of 350 value however in setting up an IZ framework to prepare for a more ambitious policy as development economics improve in the future. Frequent monitoring and adjustment of an IZ policy is critical. • The Cities should provide an early signal to residential developers and MTSA landowners that an IZ policy is coming. When coupled with transition policies, this approach provides time for the market to adjust to an IZ policy and minimize land market disruption. UrbanMetrics undertook a peer review of NBLC's study as required by the regulation. Their review was supportive of NBLC's approach and findings. The above analysis is based on January 2020 data. There has been rapid change in the housing market since that time, and the Partners identified a need to update the analysis. The Partners retained NBLC to update the financial modeling to include all 24 MTSAs using Q3 2022 revenues, costs and macroeconomic changes. This work was partially supported by the Provincial Streamlined Development approvals fund. The deliverable of this work was a dashboard that the Partners have used to test the impact on financial viability of different policy parameters, cost and revenue assumptions, affordability levels, fee exemptions, incentives, etc. The key findings of the update is that development economics are for more challenging now than in early 2020, primarily due to higher construction costs and interest rates. More locations and types of development are now no longer viable even without an IZ requirement. The model compares the development value to the value of the land based on its existing use. This is shown conceptually in Figure 4. Where the development value is higher than the existing use value, development is likely to be viable. IZ policy requirements put downward pressure on development value and if too stringent can make development unviable. This would reduce the supply of new housing and is an undesirable policy outcome. The degree of change in development value in response to IZ requirements is also important. The development value is negative in all cases but condominium developments in prime market areas. The fundamentals of site development economics are extremely challenging as compared to the past decade. Accordingly, a modest IZ policy approach is recommended. Low set-aside rates in the short term, with comparatively small impacts on development viability, are recommended for established and emerging station areas to send clear signals to the market that IZ units will be required once market conditions improve. Establishing a program of set-aside rates now will ensure that the program's requirements are taken into consideration in land transactions and will help reduce market disruptions. The analysis cannot capture certain nuances arising from the nature of a historical land purchase or the capitalization of land costs through the operation of an income -generating use. Nor can it contemplate the acquisition of land at speculative values, not fully appreciating the magnitude of impacts from future policy adjustments. Similarly, this analysis cannot account for all potential variations in the value of alternative land uses in a given area. Actual valuations will vary from property to property according to a wide range of site conditions and incumbent landowner expectations. Nevertheless, the model is a helpful tool for evaluating the development economic and housing supply implications of an IZ policy. 25 Page 77 of 350 Figure 4. Example of Development and Existing Use Land Value Across Different IZ Policy Options =Development Value Existing Use Value Set -Aside Rate What does this concept mean? A set-aside rate refers to the proportion of a market rate building that is required to be affordable. The rate can be calculated as either the proportion of affordable units out of the total number of units in a building, or the proportion of gross floor area dedicated to the affordable units out of the total gross floor area of a building. Draft regulations have been proposed by the Province to limit the set-aside rate to 5%. What are best practices/options we have seen in other communities? Set-aside rates vary widely across jurisdictions. Toronto and Mississauga have set-aside rates ranging from 5-10% of gross floor area, although these programs will need to be modified to meet Provincial regulations, if amended. US IZ policies tend to have higher set -asides. In some US programs, the provision of IZ units is voluntary and higher set -asides are required when associated with site specific zoning amendments to permit higher heights and densities than would normally be permitted. What does the financial model tell us? The financial model shows that the set-aside rate is one of the most impactful policy levers on project viability. High set-aside rates reduce project revenue, and in turn reduce the development value of a property. If the development value drops below the value of the property under its current use, a property owner would no longer be motivated to sell, which could limit transactions in the market for the development of new medium and high density residential buildings in MTSAs. Should a developer purchase lands at a value that is higher than the true development value of the property, the lost revenues due to IZ cannot easily be offset and the project may no longer be economically viable. Market forces in early 2023 make development economics a challenge. Residual land values for high rise condominiums are generally high enough to displace current land uses in prime MTSAs without the requirement for IZ units. However, weaker submarkets and rental development typically do not typically generate sufficient value to displace the current uses, even without IZ. Staff propose a low set-aside rate 26 Page 78 of 350 that comes into force gradually so that affordable units can be delivered as the various markets mature, and so that developers and landowners can plan for the impact of IZ. What we heard Feedback from both the Waterloo Region Home Builders Association and infill -focused developers included a preference for a cautious and conservative approach to set-aside rates to limit potential impact of reduced revenues on a development. They were concerned that IZ may not have the intended effect of putting downward pressure on land values and could instead put upward pressure on the rents/prices of market units or reduce the financial viability of development. They provided strong support for a phased implementation of set-aside rates in order to allow time to build these requirements into their investment decisions and to minimize land market disruption. Individuals representing housing advocacy groups and members of the public generally supported maximizing set-aside rates, including rates that exceeded the 5%, although some shared the same concerns with the development industry regarding the possibility that high set-aside rates could put upward pressure on the cost of market units. Recommendations 1. Adopt set-aside rates that are proportionate to the strength of the market within each MTSA ranging from 3-5% by 2031, with a plan to maximize the number of affordable units in the long term. Set-aside rates should be tailored to the market strength of the MTSA/submarket where they apply. Setting a uniform set-aside rate, either across or within municipalities, risks stifling development. This could prevent the development of much needed market -rate housing. 2. Set-aside rates should be calculated as a percentage of the gross salable area (GSA) or gross leasable residential areas (GLA) of a development rather than percentage of units2. This approach could provide flexibility to developers to determine the number of affordable units and bedrooms, while ensuring a consistent proportion of a development is dedicated to affordable units. 3. Where the set-aside calculation would result in the requirement for less than 57 m2 of GLA/GSA for IZ units, no IZ units should be required. This area represents the average unit size. 4. Set-aside rates should start low and gradually increase to minimize land market disruption, allow time for the developers to build IZ requirements into pro forma, improve policy acceptance and reduce risks for negative impacts on the supply of new units. Transitions are important in all markets including prime market areas where land transaction prices are close to the modeled redevelopment land values. It will take time for the land market to adjust to the downward pressure put on land value by the IZ program. 5. Adopt a set-aside rate that considers the tradeoffs between the other key policy levers (depth, tenure and duration of affordability). 6. Monitor the performance of the IZ program frequently and tune policy requirements, including the set-aside rate, as required. 2 Staff understand the GLA and GSA to be consistent but clearer than the Provincial terminology of "gross floor area to be occupied by affordable housing units" 27 Page 79 of 350 Table 4. Recommended Set-aside Rates Station Area 2024-2026 occupancy 2027-2029 occupancy 2030+ occupancy Prime • University of Waterloo • Central Station • Victoria Park/Kitchener City Hall 2% 3% 5% • Queen/Fredrick • Kitchener Market • Downtown Cambridge • Main Established • Conestoga • Waterloo Public Square 1% 2% 3% • Willis Way • Allen • Grand River Hospital Emerging • Borden • Mill • Fairway • Sportsworld 0% 1% 2% • Pinebush • Cambridge Centre Mall • Can-Amera • Delta Nuances to reflect different planning frameworks across the three cities are considered in the Incentives and Offsets section of this report. Level of Affordability (Maximum Rent or Price) What does this concept mean? The definition for affordable housing is shifting as a result of newly introduced Provincial policy, legislation and draft regulations, and these shifts will have implications for any IZ policy adopted by the Partners. Broadly, the Canadian Mortgage and Housing Corporation (CMHC) defines affordable housing as housing for which the cost doesn't exceed 30% of a household's pre-tax income. A similar but more nuanced Provincial definition for affordable housing is contained within the current Provincial Policy Statement 2020, however this definition is proposed to be eliminated from the Provincial Planning Statement as per a draft released in the spring of 2023. Draft regulations for IZ released by the Province in October 2022 propose a market-based rather than income -based definition for affordable housing and set a maximum rather than minimum level of affordability. Affordable housing under the draft IZ regulations is limited to: • Rental units with rents at or above 80% of average market rent 28 Page 80 of 350 • Ownership units at or above 80% of the average resale price. The final regulations have yet to be released and they are not yet in force and effect. However, staff assume that the regulations enacted by the Province will bring forward the proposed limits on affordable unit rents and prices and that any future IZ framework will need to align with these limits. Average re -sale prices in each regional market area are currently gathered by the Province using data from Real Property Solutions. Average Market Rent (AMR) in each regional market area is calculated yearly by CMHC through their annual rent survey. Average Market Rent (AMR) represents the rents across the entire private rental housing stock and includes older stock and units rented below market due to rent control. Rents in new market developments are significantly higher than AMR. NBLC's primary research found that rents in new development in MTSAs were $2.75-$3.30 per square foot. This is approximately $700/mo more than AMR. CMHC rental market survey data from 2022 revealed that AMR is about $500- $700 per month lower than what a renter would expect to pay for a vacant unitll. i'l CMHC. (2023). Rental Market Survey Data Tables for Kitchener -Cambridge -Waterloo. October 2022. URL: https://www.cmhc-schl.gc.ca/en/professionals/housing-markets-data-and-research/housing-data/data-tables/rental- m a rket/renta I -market -rep ort -d ata -tables The Province has signaled that they will continue to provide these values through the release of an annual housing bulletin to assist in the determination of affordable rents and prices. A comparison of affordable rents and prices under the current PPS framework, and the proposed regulations are shown in Table 2. Minimum rents for IZ units under the proposed Provincial regulations are lower than what could be considered affordable under the current definition of affordable in the 2020 PPS and the shared definition of affordable in the Region of Waterloo Official Plan and City Official Plans. These rents would be affordable to low (bachelor only) and moderate income renter households (Figure 5). Moderate income renter households (calculated as the 40th -60th percentile of incomes across renter households) earned $40,400-58,900 in 2021. Affordable rent for these households would be a maximum of $1,010-$1,490. Minimum ownership prices for IZ units would be affordable only to households in the top 20% of the regional household income range (Figure 6) and would not meet the definition of affordable in the 2020 PPS. The minimum affordable home ownership price under the proposed IZ regulations would exceed the affordable threshold (30% of household income) for moderate income households (calculated as the 40th -60th percentile of incomes across all households) who earned $71,100— 104,800 in 2021. 29 Page 81 of 350 Figure 5. Affordability of 80% Average Market Rents to Low, Medium and High Income Households (bars represent rents at 30% of a household's gross annual income) $3,000 1 1 $2,500 $2,000 $1,500 $1,000 $500 Low Income Moderate Income High Income 2 bedroom 1 bedroom bachelor Figure 6. Affordability of 80% Average Market Resale Price to Low, Medium and High Income Households (bars represent prices at 300/6 of a household's gross annual income) $800,000 $700,000 $600,000 Min IZ unit price (80% AMP) $500,000 Min IZ unit price $400,000 — _ — _ _ — _ (80% AMP for Condo) $300,000 0 $200,000 ti rn � t • • t ih $100,000 "• Low Income Moderate Income High Income 30 Page 82 of 350 What are best practices/options we have seen in other communities? In accordance with the PPS 2020, the Cities of Toronto and Mississauga adopted an income and market- based definition for affordability. These definitions, along with many other income -based definitions used in US jurisdictions, would no longer be possible under the proposed new Provincial regulations, since they include a requirement for some rents to be lower than 80% AMR. The City of Ottawa's draft framework adapted the PPS definition to focus on only moderate income households, which could be feasible under the draft regulations provided that the final rent is no lower than 80% AMR. Notwithstanding the proposed market-based definition of affordability and limits on the level of affordability, there may still be an opportunity for IZ to target households who face significant housing changes. An IZ program could set minimum IZ unit rents for different unit sizes and establish eligibility requirements for each based on household characteristics (e.g., household income and sizes). This approach could help ensure that larger households with low per capita incomes are matched with correctly sized affordable units and that smaller households can't occupy units with an excess number of bedrooms. A similar approach was used in the City of Toronto's IZ program, as follows: "Affordable rental housing and affordable rents means housing where the total monthly shelter cost (gross monthly rent, inclusive of utilities for heat, hydro, hot water and water) is at or below the lesser of one times the average City of Toronto rent, by dwelling unit type, as reported annually by the Canada Mortgage and Housing Corporation, or 30 percent of the before -tax monthly income of renter households in the City of Toronto as follows: • Studio units: one-person households at or below the 50th percentile income; • One -bedroom units: one-person households at or below the 60th percentile income; • Two-bedroom units: two -person households at or below the 60th percentile income; and • Three-bedroom units: three-person households at or below the 60th percentile income." A scan of American jurisdictions showed that the vast majority of IZ programs targeted affordability toward 51-80% of area median income. In 2021 Waterloo Region's area median income (AMI) across all household sizes was $87,200. The Affordable rent at 50% of AMI would be $1,090/mo. The Affordable rent at 80% AMI would be $1,744. Based on 2021 incomes, the proposed Provincial limits and definition for affordable rents for bachelor and one -bedroom units would fall below 50% AMI, while affordable rents for two- and three-bedroom units would fall between 51% and 80% AMI. What does the financial model tell us? Like set-aside rates, unit rents and prices are another policy lever that can have a significant impact on the financial viability of IZ. NBLC financial modelling shows improved viability of an IZ program under a 100% AMR scenario (rather than 80% AMR scenario). IZ unit rents at 100% AMR would continue to be affordable to moderate income renters. If rent increases continue to outpace renter incomes, the proposed rent (100% AMR) and Provincially proposed minimum rent (80% AMR) could become unaffordable to moderate income renters. The Partners should continue to monitor affordability levels to ensure IZ rental units remain affordable to moderate income renters. What we heard 31 Page 83 of 350 Development industry representatives expressed concerns about potential impacts of very low IZ rents or prices on pro forma. They generally expressed a preference for an IZ program to focus on moderate rather than deeply affordable units to manage these impacts. Some developers expressed concern that if IZ unit rents were too low, it could present marketing and operational challenges in a mixed income building. Builders of purpose-built rental housing communicated that alignment with CMHC funding programs could help them deliver IZ units in a financially feasible way. CMHC's Mortgage Loan Insurance (MLI select) is a key program that is commonly used to deliver mixed income buildings with attractive loan terms. MLI select requires developers to provide a certain percentage of units to rent at 30% of median renter income. We also heard from most stakeholders that CMHCs' Average Market Rent (which is based on an average of the rents of both occupied units [some of which are subject to rent control], and vacant units) is typically much lower than the average rents of vacant units alone. Since the former calculation does not reflect the rents needed for an adequate return, development industry stakeholders did not prefer the AMR method for setting rents. Members of the broader community expressed a strong preference for deeply affordable units that would support households in the low and very low income range. Despite frustrations around the limitations of IZ to create deeply affordable units, some community members recognized value in creating moderately affordable units in areas well service by transit and as a low-cost tool to enable movement of households through the housing system. Recommendations • Rental should be the only tenure for affordable units in an IZ program. Under the proposed Provincial regulations, the minimum IZ ownership unit price would be $512,309 in 2021. This price is only affordable to high income households making $125,600 or more in 2021, and who are relatively well served by the market (See Tenure). This income range is not identified as an area of need by either Kitchener's or Waterloo's housing needs assessments. • Staff recommend that the minimum affordable rent for an IZ unit be 100% AMR rather than the anticipated Provincial minimum of 80% AMR. 100% AMR is far below the rents that are typically charged in new purpose-built rental buildings or rented condominiums and below the rents that tenants must pay for new tenancies of old stock. 100% AMR would provide affordable rental housing to moderate income renter households making $40,400-58,900 in 2021. Furthermore, while low income households are in deepest need, the viability of an IZ program is significantly improved at moderate rather than low rents. Core housing need is not only a problem for low income households, both also for moderate income households, particularly those households that are large or that support extended family. Further, developers foresee significant operational challenges in mixed income buildings marketed towards low income households. • An IZ program should work alongside (not instead of) government programs that support more deeply affordable housing. Providing more units that are affordable to moderate income households through IZ can indirectly benefit all low and moderate income households though increasingthe supply of affordable units. Providing affordable housing to moderate income households will help reduce pressure on market and non -market units that are affordable to low income households. 32 Page 84 of 350 Figure 7. Affordability of 100% Average Market Rents to Low, Medium and High Income Households (bars represent rents at 30% of a household gross annual income) $3,000 $2,500 $2,000 $1,500 $1,000 $500 Low Income Moderate Income High Income 3 Bedroom 2 Bedroom 1 Bedroom Table 5. Comparison of incomes and affordable rents based on Ministry of Municipal Affairs and Housing (MMAH) and Canadian Mortgage and Housing Corporation (CMHC) definitions and program criteria Renter Household MMAH 2021 MMAH CMHC renter CMHC Income distribution income (census Affordable rent median income Affordable derived) (30% of income) (CMHC MLI select rent (30% of criteria) income) 40th percentile $40,400 $1,010 N/A N/A 50th percentile' $49,200 $1,230 $57,000 $1,425 (median) 60th percentile $58,900 $1,490 N/A N/A • Staff recommend that the maximum rent charged for IZ units in condominiums be set at 100% of average market rent. The rent for IZ units in purpose-built rental buildings should be the greater of MLI select rent (currently $1,425) or 100% of average market rent. Bachelor -2 bedrooms would be affordable to moderate income renters. 3 bedrooms would be slightly above the affordability threshold for moderate income renters but would be affordable to 3 Discrepancies in median income are primarily due to different data sources (Census for MMAH and Canadian Income Survey and Survey of Labor and Income Dynamics for CMHC. Both are reputable Statistics Canada data sources) 33 Page 85 of 350 moderate income households considered across the income distribution of all types of households. Although these higher rents for three bedroom units are not ideal from an affordability needs perspective, they help mitigate the financial disincentives to build three bedroom units. Proposed income criteria would ensure that these units be rented to moderate income households, but they could be spending more than 30% of income on housing. Condominium fees, property taxes, insurance and maintenance should be the owner's responsibility. Utilities and parking spaces tent could be in addition to the maximum permitted rent. Table 6. Recommended Maximum Rents for IZ units Unit Type 2022 Maximum Rent for Affordable Rental Unit Unit Type Purpose-built Rental Building* Condominium Building** Bachelor $1,425 $1,063 1 bedroom $1,425 $1,240 2 bedroom $1,454 $,1,454 3+ bedroom $1,590 $1,590 *Calculated as the greater of 100% AMR or MLI Select definition of affordability (currently $1,425). **Calculated as 100% AMR Duration of Affordability What does this concept mean? Duration of affordability refers to the amount of time for which IZ units must remain at affordable rents or prices before reverting to market rents or prices. In the case of an IZ rental unit, rent would need to meet the required level of affordability for the specified program duration. Once the period of affordability is expired, the owner of the rental unit would be able to increase the rent to a market rent. For an IZ ownership unit, the resale price would be restricted for the specified program duration. Restrictions on IZ ownership units could include a requirement that the owner return a portion of the net proceeds of a unit's sale to the municipality and/or maximum income criteria for new owners. The regulatory approach proposed by the Province in the Fall 2022 includes a maximum affordability period of 25 years. What are best practices/options we have seen in other communities? A survey of other communities shows that duration of affordability can range from 25 to 99 years. Los Angeles, New York and San Francisco require affordability in perpetuity. Toronto's affordability period is 99 years, and Vancouver's is 60 years. Chicago and Los Angles both require a 30 -year period of affordability. Mississauga's affordability period is 25 years for rental and 50 years for ownership. What does the financial model tell us? 34 Page 86 of 350 Duration of affordability is a moderately important driver of financial viability, but less important than other policy parameters such as set-aside and level of affordability. The financial implications of duration are described in the Tenure of IZ units section of this report. What we heard Almost all community stakeholders expressed a desire for long term affordability and a frustration with the proposed 25 -year maximum term. Some developers expressed a desire for a short period of affordability to provide an incentive to build a project (i.e. they were intuitively more sensitive to this variable than the model would suggest). Recommendations • The recommended duration of affordability is 25 years, which is the maximum term under the proposed regulations. Longer terms of up to 99 years could be appropriate if it were enabled by Provincial regulation. A long period of affordability is recommended to ensure the affordable housing can make a lasting impact. • Municipalities should explore partnership with non -profits to expand the period of affordability beyond 25 years where possible, as described in the Implementation and Administration section of this report. Tenure of IZ Units What does this concept mean? IZ can be used to create both affordable ownership housing and affordable rental housing. Combined with different building ownership models, IZ units can generally have any of the following three tenure structures: 1. Affordable ownership units within a condominium building 2. Affordable rental units within a condominium building 3. Affordable rental units in a market rental building Rental units typically support households with moderate and low incomes for whom ownership housing is not an affordable option. The creation of IZ rental units, either within a purpose-built rental building or within a condominium building, can provide direct support to households that face barriers to finding affordable housing. An IZ program that emphasizes and supports the creation of IZ rental units as a priority would provide affordable housing for moderate income households in need. Under current economic conditions, condominium construction typically results in better financial returns than new purpose-built rental housing. As a result, condominium development is preferred by builders, in most cases. In certain markets, adding a requirement for IZ units within purpose-built rental buildings could further reduce the financial feasibility of development. Despite the financial challenges of constructing purpose-built rental housing, Waterloo Region has experienced new purpose-built rental developments that target high income renters. An IZ program should balance the benefit to the community of requiring affordable rental units with the possible negative financial impacts of IZ on purpose-built rental housing that could discourage these types of development. 35 Page 87 of 350 What are best practices/options we have seen in other communities? Rental IZ programs are more common than ownership, but both are used widely. Both Mississauga's and Toronto's IZ policy frameworks provide for affordable ownership and affordable rental. The set-aside rate in these programs is lower for rental units than for ownership units. This reflects the fact that the maximum affordable rental threshold of $1,580-1,650 per month represents lower annual housing costs to households than affordable ownership units at the maximum affordable price of $338,000-423,000 (due to the way these thresholds are defined in Provincial policy). Rental units are more deeply affordable and have a greater impact on development pro forma than affordable ownership units. Toronto does not require IZ units in purpose-built rental buildings until 2026, and Mississauga's framework exempts purpose-built rental buildings from its IZ program entirely, presumably owing to their challenging economics, even without an IZ policy, as compared to condominium apartments. Furthermore, it does not prescribe whether affordable units be rented or owned. The approach is similar in Mississauga. 90% of American IZ programs provide for both rental and ownership units" What does the financial model tell us? Staff estimate the fair market value of the typical IZ rental unit under the proposed policy parameters would be approximately $300,000 with variation based on unit size, building type and location. This figure is calculated using an income -based approach to property valuation based on net operating income for IZ units for 25 years and then reverting to market rents starting in year 26. This approximates the value we expect IZ units transact at on the open market, rather than a price mandated by policy. The financial impact of an IZ rental unit to a development pro forma is modelled as the difference between this sale price and market price of a unit sold as a market ownership condominium unit. Requiring IZ units to be rental has more impact on financial viability than requiring ownership units. Staff recommend this approach nevertheless because IZ ownership units priced according to proposed Provincial regulations would be affordable to only high income households. Set-aside rates, rents and duration of affordable requirements have been calibrated to address this finding. The municipalities cannot control the sale price of IZ rental units. The preference is that they be sold to third sector providers as described in the Implementation and Administration section of this report. What we heard A number of local rental housing providers consulted for this study confirmed that a modest set-aside rate for IZ units within their purpose-built rental buildings could be financially feasible and suggested that IZ program requirements align with CMHC's financial support programs for rental construction, such as MLI Select and Rental Construction Financing. These programs, which are typically required to ensure the financial feasibility of purpose-built rental housing developments, set out minimum a point system addressing affordability levels, set-aside rates and duration requirements and other criteria unrelated to affordability. The alignment with CMHC programs would enable purpose-built rental developments to count the affordable units that they are already creating toward the IZ requirement 36 Page 88 of 350 but could also secure IZ units within purpose-built rental developments geared toward high end of market rents. In consultation with condominium developers around the concept of IZ units in a condominium building, most expressed a strong preference to not own and operate IZ rental units long term. The typical condominium development business model sees the developer ending its association with a project shortly after ownership of all units is transferred. A successful IZ rental in condo program should provide a pathway for condominium developers to cease their obligations to the site/project shortly after condominium registration. Recommendations An IZ program should be used to create affordable rental units only. The affordable rental units should be provided in a purpose-built rental or in a condominium building. • Condominium developers could hold and rent their IZ units, sell them to a third party at their fair market value, or preferably, sell them to a third sector housing provider. Any rental IZ unit owner should be required to uphold maximum rent, income eligibility, and reporting criteria. Condominium fees, property taxes, insurance and maintenance would be the responsibility of the owner. Utilities and parking spaces leases could be in addition to the rent. Leasing would be a shared responsibility of the owner and administrator. These commitments will be secured through agreements registered on title. • Condo and purpose-built rental developers should be provided with flexibility within an IZ program to adopt a variety of ownership operations models, as needed (See Offsite Units). • Program requirements for IZ in purpose-built rental buildings should align with CMHC's affordability requirements for rental construction financing and grant programs. • Review and refinements of this policy approach should occur as part of the mandatory 2 -year or 5 -year review of IZ. Unit Size and Number of Bedrooms What does this concept mean? An IZ program can specify the gross floor area of IZ affordable units as well as the number of bedrooms. What are best practices/options we have seen in other communities? To promote equity and inclusion, all IZ units should be livable, functional and integrated visually with market -rate units within the same building. IZ affordable units should be comparable in size to market rate units containing the same number of bedrooms unless it is demonstrated that a different unit size is desirable to achieve a particular housing need. Where IZ and market rate units differ in size, IZ units are sometimes required to meet minimum standards to ensure that they are functionally equivalent to the market rate units. Table 7 shows a range of minimum IZ unit sizes adopted by other municipalities Table 7. Minimum IZ Unit Size Requirements by Municipality 37 Page 89 of 350 City Minimum IZ Unit Size Requirements (square metres) Studio 1 BR 2 BR 3+ BR Toronto, ON 87 100 Boulder, CO 28 44 Los Angeles, CA No less than 90% of average floor area of market units with same # bedrooms San Francisco, CA 33 51 74 93 Chicago, IL 39 56 81 102 Some municipalities manage the financial impacts of requiring large bedrooms by allowing the housing authority to authorize fewer IZ affordable units in exchange for units with more bedrooms in accordance with a bedroom equivalency. For example, Portland Oregon permits the calculation of set-aside rates based on number of bedrooms rather than units. A developer can satisfy an IZ requirement by creating a few large units or many smaller units. Los Angeles sets out an equivalency table whereby a three- bedroom unit is considered to be equivalent to 2 studio units, 1.5 one -bedroom units or 1.25 two- bedroom units. IZ set-aside requirements that focus on percent of GFA rather than percent of total units could provide additional flexibility to developers to offer larger unit sizes, where feasible. What does the financial model tell us? The Partners have modeled a program where the suite mix of IZ units mirrors that of the market units. For high rise buildings this is 0-10% bachelors, 45%-50% one bedrooms and 40-50% two bedrooms. Requirements for larger IZ units is expected to have a significant pro forma impact. Because of its potential to significantly impact a development's pro forma, any minimum bedroom requirements for IZ units should be considered as part of the larger IZ financial impact analysis. Any requirements that IZ units be larger than market units should be matched with less onerous requirements in other parts of the policy. What we heard Local developers have reported that it is economically challenging under current (2022) market conditions to provide family -sized units with three or more bedrooms. Consultation with housing providers, moderate income households and organizations that support them, and the public at large have differing opinions on what unit sizes are in greatest demand. Recommendations • The unit sizes and number of bedrooms for IZ units should be generally consistent with the unit sizes and number of bedrooms of market units. Location Within Projects What does this concept mean? Affordable housing units created through an IZ program are typically located within a building with market rate units (But also see Offsite Units). The location of affordable units refers to whether the affordable units are concentrated within the building (e.g. located on a single floor) or dispersed throughout the building. 38 Page 90 of 350 What are best practices/options we have seen in other communities? Most IZ programs require that IZ affordable units be dispersed throughout a development, with no single building or floor containing a disproportionate number of IZ affordable units. Some exceptions may apply where there are programming and supports that can be more efficiently or effectively delivered to tenants who share specific needs, such affordable units that are specifically geared to seniors and who would benefit from being close to certain amenities or accessibility features. What does the financial model tell us? The financial model does not consider the location of affordable units within buildings. The locations of IZ units within a development is unlikely to have significant financial impact on its pro forma. What we heard Feedback from both the development industry and members of the community emphasized a desire for IZ units not to be concentrated. In contrast, some affordable housing providers saw the potential for administration and service efficiencies if the IZ units could be grouped. These providers were particularly interested in the possibility of grouping IZ units within offsite units (See Offsite Units). Recommendation Where possible, IZ units should be dispersed throughout a development. However, there should be some flexibility to consider concentration of units where such an approach will benefit the IZ affordable unit occupants. Design Criteria What does this concept mean? Additional design criteria include building and unit performance standards and design guidelines that ensure a minimum standard of quality and design for IZ affordable units and equitable access to common building amenities. Examples include minimum standards for storage areas, closets, balconies, kitchen cabinets, counters, flooring, furnaces and appliances, and/or equal access to building entrances, common areas and amenities. What are best practices/options we have seen in other communities? A number of jurisdictions have adopted design criteria for developers to ensure that affordable IZ units are livable and that IZ unit occupants have reasonable access to building features. For example, Boulder Colorado has adopted "Livability Standards" to guide the design of IZ units. These standards include minimum room dimensions, layouts for efficient floor plans that enable functional furniture configurations, minimum kitchen cabinetry requirements and closet sizes. Finishes and appliances in IZ units are permitted to be "functionally equivalent" to those provided in market units, which means they must be able to provide the same function, but do not need to be an identical brand, finish, or product. For example, IZ affordable units could have laminate countertops, while market -rate units could have granite countertops, provided that both offer the same functionality. What does the financial model tell us? The financial model did not provide pro forma analyses for different interior design options. 39 Page 91 of 350 What we heard Feedback from developers indicated that interior unit design and finishes have a relatively minor impact on pro formas and IZ feasibility and there was limited interest in exploring functionally equivalent design options because of the limited financial offset that such an approach could provide. Community feedback indicated a preference for equitable approaches to interior design, finishes and access to amenities. Recommendations • Affordable IZ units should share the same entrances, common areas, and amenities as market - rate units and additional fees or charges should not be applied to affordable unit residents for access to these amenities. • Given the administrative and cost burden of implementing and monitoring interior design, minimum interior design standards for IZ units should be considered only where it has been demonstrated through a biennial program review that they are necessary to ensure equitable and functional designs and finishes in IZ units. Timing of Construction and Occupancy What does this concept mean? Timing of construction refers to the time frame that any IZ affordable units must be constructed and available for occupation within the sequencing and context of the broader development. The timing requirements are usually set out in the legal agreement between the municipality and the developer and are registered on title. They ensure completion of the affordable units by creating a financial incentive for the developers to fulfil their IZ unit obligations. What are best practices/options we have seen in other communities? Most IZ programs surveyed have established timing requirements that require the IZ units to be constructed and occupied before or concurrent with the market rate units. These programs include Toronto, Montreal, Vancouver, Chicago, and Los Angeles. What does the financial model tell us? The financial model did not provide pro forma analyses for construction timing. What we heard No feedback was provided about the timing of construction. Recommendations • IZ units should be constructed and occupied concurrently or prior to the construction and occupancy and in proportion to market rate units. Similar timing requirements should also apply to offsite units. If the IZ unit timing requirements for offsite units cannot be met, (due to construction delays at the offsite for example), IZ units requirements should be met in the building generating the IZ requirement until such time as they can be met offsite. Hs Page 92 of 350 • Requirements for construction and occupancy should be incorporated into the IZ zoning by-law, implementation guidelines, and individual legal agreements. Exemptions What does this concept mean? There may be certain situations in which it is not necessary or does not make sense to require affordable units through IZ. Establishing exemptions ensures that certain developments are not discouraged as a result of the IZ requirements. The Planning Act (O. Reg. 232/18) exempts the following developments from IZ requirements: An IZ by-law does not apply to a development or redevelopment where, a) The development or redevelopment contains fewer than 10 residential units; b) The development or redevelopment is proposed by a non-profit housing provider or is proposed by a partnership in which, a. a non-profit housing provider has an interest that is greater than 51 per cent, and b. a minimum of 51 per cent of the units are intended as affordable housing, excluding any offsite units that would be located in the development or redevelopment; c) On or before the day an official plan authorizing IZ was adopted by the council of the municipality, a request for an amendment to an official plan, if required, and an application to amend a zoning by-law were made in respect of the development or redevelopment along with an application for either of the following: a. approval of a plan of subdivision under section 51 of the Planning Act, or b. approval of a description or an amendment to a description under section 9 of the Condominium Act, 1998; or d) On or before the day the IZ by-law is passed, an application is made in respect of the development or redevelopment for a building permit, a development permit, a community planning permit, or approval of a site plan under subsection 41 (4) of the Planning Act. What are best practices/options we have seen in other communities? Municipalities are permitted to provide further exemptions beyond those included in the Planning Act. The City of Toronto's adopted IZ framework provides exemptions for: ■ developments containing fewer than 100 dwelling units and less than 8,000 m2 of residential GFA; ■ developments that will be owned and operated by: o a non-profit housing provider with 100% ownership interest; or o a non- profit housing provider in a partnership in which: ■ the non-profit housing provider has an ownership interest that is greater than 51%; and ■ a minimum of 51% of the dwelling units will be affordable housing units; ■ student residences, retirement homes, nursing homes, and residential care homes. The City of Mississauga's adopted IZ framework provides exemptions for: 41 Page 93 of 350 • Portions of a development or redevelopment containing long-term care buildings, retirement buildings, hospices, staff/student residences, or group homes • Region of Peel or Peel Housing projects • Developments subject to an existing affordable housing contribution secured before the date of passage of an IZ Official Plan Amendment through a 5.37 (density bonusing) agreement, development agreement, 5.51 agreement, 5.45 agreement or other form agreement with the City, to the satisfaction of the Commissioner of Planning and Building • Purpose-built rental buildings What does the financial model tell us? Staff explored insight from the financial model in determining an appropriate threshold for the minimum project size to which IZ should apply. Mid rise developments are generally more financially challenging than high rise developments. However in weak markets, Residual Land Value for low and medium rise development can be stronger than high density. On smaller sites and in smaller projects, such as tall towers on small lots or in missing middle and mid rise housing typologies, the development economics tend not be more challenging. What we heard The Partners did not receive significant feedback on exemptions. Recommendations To eliminate circumstances where IZ would be overly financially challenging, the following should be exempt from IZ requirements: • Buildings with 50 units or less. This figure seeks to strike a balance between maximizing the number of units that can be provided through an IZ program and not disincentivizing missing middle housing forms. The recommended threshold is lower than in Toronto or Mississauga in recognition that small projects may be economically preferred to larger ones in weaker market areas. • Staff anticipate that exempting building of 50 unit or less will provide an incentive, on the margin, for development just under this threshold. Staff considered but have not recommended a varying set-aside rate by project size. This was not supported by the financial model, could be confusing and because of the relatively narrow band of set-aside rates (1-5%). Staff will monitor the potential impacts of this threshold effect and recommend adjustments as needed. • Residential and long-term care facilities, including retirement homes, group homes, and hospices • Student residences built or operated by a post -secondary institution • Region of Waterloo Housing, including Community Housing, Alternative Housing, and Supportive Housing • Exemptions already specified in O. Reg. 232/18 under the Planning Act Page 94 of 350 Offsite Units What does this concept mean? Permitting offsite units may be one way to reduce financial impact on development and increase the feasibility of IZ. It could enable developers to construct IZ units in lower cost areas and/or in buildings with lower construction costs. It also provides opportunities for developers to partner with other developers and with affordable housing providers for the construction of offsite IZ units. Offsite units can help solve the business problem of requiring IZ rental units in condominium buildings. The Planning Act (O. Reg. 232/18) places the following restrictions on municipalities regarding the permission of offsite units: 1. Offsite units shall not be permitted unless there is an official plan in effect in the municipality that sets out the circumstances in and conditions under which offsite units would be permitted. 2. Offsite units shall be located in proximity to the development or redevelopment giving rise to the by-law requirement for affordable housing units. 3. The land on which the offsite units are situated shall be subject to an Inclusionary Zoning by-law. 4. Offsite units shall not be used to satisfy the by-law requirement to include a number of affordable housing units, or gross floor area to be occupied by affordable housing units, that applies to the development or redevelopment in which the offsite units are permitted. What are best practices/options we have seen in other communities? Toronto requires an agreement registered on title for both sites when offsite units are on land not owned by the same person as the original site. The City of Toronto's adopted IZ framework permits offsite IZ units at the discretion of the City. Builders must meet the following requirements: • The offsite affordable housing units provide for an improved housing outcome; • The offsite affordable housing units shall be ready and available for occupancy on a timely basis commensurate with completion of the residential units in the proposed development or redevelopment; and • The offsite affordable housing units shall be located in proximity to the proposed development or redevelopment. The requirements for proximity will be met if the offsite development is located within the same market area category The City of Mississauga's adopted IZ framework also permits offsite IZ units, once again at the discretion of the City. Builders must meet a similar set of requirements: • The offsite housing must be located within an IZ area (MTSA) • Offsite IZ units shall be located in proximity to the proposed development or redevelopment giving rise to the affordable housing requirement. Proximity is deemed to be a site located within the same IZ area. • The offsite contribution results in an improved housing outcome, such as: o Delivery of units occurs sooner than if the units were delivered in the development giving rise to the affordable housing requirement 43 Page 95 of 350 o The provision of affordable rental housing, or the provision of more deeply affordable units than required o The provision of a greater number of affordable GFA than required • Offsite units shall not be used to satisfy affordable housing requirements that apply to the development or redevelopment in which the offsite units are permitted What does the financial model tell us? The financial model is not structured to analyze offsite units. The option for offsite units can only improve financial viability. What we heard Both developers and non-profit housing providers see offsite units as an exciting opportunity for innovation in a way that meets the affordability goals of an IZ program while potentially avoiding some of its downfalls. It could: • Provide economies of scale for administrative costs whereby the region only needs to manage relationships with a few nonprofit housing providers • Provide opportunities for non -profits, who have a mandate to provide long-term affordable housing, to partner with developers for the ownership and operation of buildings containing IZ units. Non-profit ownership could support a longer term of affordability than the proposed maximum of 25 years. • Provide opportunities to build units in low-cost locations or using lower cost construction methods • Leverage additional funding to potentially create more units or deeper levels of affordability. Non-profit partners are well positioned to secure CMHC funding and financing, long amortization periods and have ability to fundraise to deliver more affordable units via offsite IZ units than the private sector could, either onsite or offsite. • Provide a steady pipeline of new units into the nonprofit sector that is not dependent on senior government funding programs • Provide opportunities for on-site supports at scale Conversely, we heard from the community at large that mixed income buildings that would be secured through on-site IZ units is an important goal that should be upheld. Community members expressed concerns about the possibility of creating poor quality housing in offsite buildings and stigma regarding offsite units. Recommendations • Offsite units should be permitted to provide flexibility in an IZ program and to facilitate, where possible, the transfer of IZ unit ownership to the third sector. Building and maintaining relationships with non-profit and affordable housing providers in the region will be important to facilitate offsite units. Developers are not permitted to provide Cash In Lieu (CIL) of IZ units but the regulations do not prohibit partnerships with affordable housing providers or other developers. Agreements will be needed on title to secure the units and there may be benefits to coordinated agreements with multiple developers if they are providing IZ units for different developments in the same offsite building. 44 Page 96 of 350 • Offsite IZ units should be provided in an MTSA within the same municipality as the donor development • Offsite IZ units can be within a mixed income building or a building with only affordable units • Units could be built by a non-profit, developer or consortium of developers • Offsite IZ units need to be in addition to affordable units that a developer would otherwise be required to provide. • The timing of occupancy of IZ units, whether on site or offsite, must be coincident with market units. In the case of offsite units, construction timing of the offsite unit project may not align with the building generating the IZ requirement. In the cases where the occupancy of the building generating the IZ requirement (donor site) precedes the construction of the project receiving the offsite units (recipient site), IZ units must be provided at the donor site until IZ units at the recipient site are ready for occupancy. If the recipient site project does not proceed for whatever reason, IZ units would be provided at the donor site long-term. Enabling offsite units generally supports the community goal of creating mixed income communities in MTSAs, even though not all offsite units will be located in mixed income buildings. Community concerns about ensuring a high quality of design and amenities for offsite buildings can be managed through appropriate urban design and development review processes. The offsite unit option will be critical to achieving market acceptance of requiring IZ rental units in condominium buildings. Offsite units, properly secured by agreements, will allow the private and non-profit sectors to innovate in the delivery of affordable units. Staff intend to report back on the successes and challenges of offsite unit provision biennially and will adjust this approach as needed. Accessibility What does this concept mean? Accessibility is defined by CMHC as the manner in which housing is designed, constructed or modified to enable independent living for persons with diverse abilities. In this discussion paper, accessible units are those that meet or exceed Building Code accessibility requirements. Such units are designed to provide, among other things, adequate turn spaces, minimum doorway and corridor widths, and power door operators. They are supported by other accessibility features throughout a building that permit a barrier -free path of travel and access to and from public areas such as entrances, hallways and amenity areas. A minimum of 15% of units within a multi -unit residential building must be designed with basic accessibility features. What are best practices/options we have seen in other communities? Individuals with disabilities are more likely to live in households that spent more than 30% of their total household income on shelter'. The proportion of unaffordable housing was higher for persons with disabilities in renter households with a subsidy (41.4% compared with 34.9% for the total population) and without a subsidy (45.0% compared with 34.5% for the total population). Notwithstanding the correlation between income, housing and disability, a recent review of the Region of Waterloo's community housing waitlist reveals that only 123 out of 7642 (1.6%) of households on the waitlist required accessible units. The reasons for the low proportion of individuals with a disability on the Page 97 of 350 waitlist are unclear and may not be representative of need (e.g. individuals with disabilities may be choosing not to register with the housing waitlist for a variety of reasons, such as long wait times). It could also reflect that the disabilities reported in the broader population are not all physical disabilities that require accessibility housing. The City of Toronto's Draft Implementation Guidelines states that "Reasonable efforts shall be made to provide at least twenty percent (20%) of IZ affordable housing units within a proposed development as fully accessible housing units." Several CMHC housing grant programs require an accessibility standard of 20% of greater, and common areas that are barrier free. What does the financial model tell us? The financial model did not provide pro forma analyses for accessible units over and above the 15% required by the Building Code. What we heard Members of the public generally expressed a desire for at least 15% of IZ units to be accessible. Some members of the public expressed an interest in requiring a higher proportion of accessible units for the IZ units than is currently required by the Building Code. Development industry did not provide feedback on accessibility requirements, although it is understood that increasing the accessibility requirements for IZ units beyond the Building Code requirement could result in additional costs and impacts on a development's pro forma. In a review of accessibility features added to newly constructed buildings, including apartments, CMHC concluded that the costs: "although not insignificant, are nonetheless much lower than the cost of converting an existing dwelling in order to make it accessible."" Recommendations • An IZ program should require that the Building Code's 15% accessibility requirements be distributed proportionally throughout market and IZ units. Developers should be encouraged to achieve a minimum of 20% accessibility in IZ units, where possible, and to ensure that IZ units are adaptable to enable later retrofit if needed. Incentives and Offsets IZ programs can be supported by a range of incentives or "offsets" that mitigate financial impacts of providing the affordable units. They can include, but are not limited to, additional height and density in exchange for the IZ units, flexible or reduced planning regulations (e.g. reduced parking) and waivers or reductions in municipal fees and charges. The Planning Act requires that incentives be considered in developing an IZ framework. Additional Height and Density What does this concept mean? Under the Planning Act, a developer or builder can seek permission from council through a zoning by- law amendment for additional height or density than what is permitted for their property as of right in M. Page 98 of 350 the zoning by-law. Assuming all other costs remain fixed, additional height or density can increase the revenues of a development and make a development project more lucrative. A development's as -of -right approved heights and densities can be combined with different set-aside rates to achieve different outcomes. For example, a zero or low set-aside rate can be applied to the as - of -right height and density of a building, while a higher set-aside rate can be applied to the additional height and density. IZ programs that only apply a set-aside rate to the additional height and density portion of a building can be considered voluntary, since no IZ units are required as part of the as -of -right height unit permissions. Conceptually, these types of programs work in a similar manner to the former s. 37 bonusing provisions of the Planning Act. The Planning Act allows for mandatory IZ. The Act requires municipalities to consider incentives, and a voluntary approach to IZ may be contemplated. What are best practices/options we have seen in other communities? Historically many Ontario communities, including Toronto, Waterloo and, to a limited extent, Kitchener have used the former community benefits (height and density bonusing) provisions of s. 37 of the Planning Act to secure affordable housing or funds for affordable housing through developments that request height or density above and beyond what is permitted by the base zoning. The ability to use this tool was removed from the Planning Act in 2019. Vancouver has successfully used a height and density bonusing approach to secure affordable units. Many American IZ programs use height and density bonusing to help offset the cost of IZ units. Density bonusing has been found to work well in areas zoned for lower density, but can have diminishing returns in areas that are already zoned for high-rise construction. According to a 2016 study by the Centre for Housing Policy "After a certain height and density, land costs become an increasingly smaller portion of overall development costs, and the benefits of the extra density do not provide the same level of subsidy that they would in a smaller -scale project.""" Neither Toronto nor Mississauga IZ frameworks proposed additional height or density in association with the IZ by-law. What does the financial model tell us? The financial model analysis in this report assumes a mandatory IZ program and a single set-aside rate for developments with a range of built forms that are associated with a relatively fixed height and density. It does not test scenarios that involve different set-aside rates applied to additional height or density. In practice, it is not uncommon for a developer to seek additional height and density to help improve project viability. What we heard Some industry stakeholders noted that requests for increased density are typical for most sites that will be redeveloped. A mandatory system with a single set-aside rate was generally preferred because it is more clear and simple to calculate than the voluntary or incentive systems discussed. This increases certainty that is crucial to project viability. Most community stakeholders also preferred a mandatory system. Community engagement did not reveal a strong majority opinion on the idea of permitting higher heights and densities to secure more affordable housing. 47 Page 99 of 350 Recommendations • A mandatory IZ program is recommended as it sets clear expectations and is simpler to understand and administer. A mandatory system allows developers and land owners to clearly understand what is required and build these assumptions into their investment decisions. A mandatory system also ensures that IZ units will be provided. A voluntary system is not recommended since it is more effective in relatively stable low density zoning environments where land transactions tend to align closely with zoning permissions. • The implementation of an IZ policy should be coordinated with comprehensive updates to planning frameworks within MTSAs that include greater height and density permissions. Additional height and density permissions can help offset the financial impacts on the land market in many cases. Parking Requirements What does this concept mean? The zoning bylaws of all three cities require a certain number of off-street vehicle parking spaces be provided in association with the development of new residential units. This varies between municipalities, location and structure type and other factors. Municipalities can reduce or eliminate vehicle parking requirements for IZ units, or for the entire development that includes IZ units to help offset the cost of IZ. Major Transit Station Areas are well served by higher order transit that provides a rationale for lower parking requirements. What are best practices/options we have seen in other communities? Mississauga reduces the parking required for IZ units by 30-50% and Toronto exempts IZ units from parking requirements. What does the financial model tell us? Structured parking has been reported by a number of developers as costing $50,000-$100,000 per space, depending on if it is located in the podium of a building or below ground. Any requirement to provide parking above and beyond what the market demands has significant implications on financial viability. Reductions in parking requirements for both IZ units and for the entire development that is subject to IZ requirements can significantly improve the financial viability of a project. The revenue associated with the sale or rental of parking spaces does not cover its costs. The financial impact model assumes a parking ratio of 1.0 space per unit in emerging market areas, 0.7 spaces per unit in established market areas and 0.5 spaces per unit in prime areas. All market areas assume an additional 0.1 visitor spaces per unit. These assumptions approximate a market -based demand for parking and do not reflect the parking required by zoning. Parking requirements more than these can negatively impact financial viability. Exempting IZ units from parking in a prototypical high rise within a prime market area at a 5% set-aside rate can yield approximately $200,000 in value to the project. Exempting all units in the same project would generate approximately $2.1m in value. These increases in value can help offset the financial implication of IZ and improve financial viability and new supply. M." Page 100 of 350 What we heard We heard broad support from both developers and community members for eliminating parking minimums for IZ units. There was some support for reducing or eliminating parking requirements for all residential development in MTSAs as a way to support affordability in general. Recommendations • No parking should be required for IZ units. The minimum required parking rates for developments within MTSAs should be as low as possible and should range from 0 to no higher than 0.7 spaces/unit, where possible. Financial Incentives What does this concept mean? Municipalities can provide financial incentives to developers to help offset some of the financial impact of providing IZ units. In November 2022, changes were made to the Planning Act and Development Charges Act that exempt IZ Units from City and Regional Development Charges (DCs). A regulatory proposal to exempt IZ units from Community Benefit Charges (CBCs) and Park Dedication is not yet in effect Additional financial incentives could include the waiver or reduction of: • Planning application fees • Building permit fees • Property taxes Municipalities could also offer one time capital grants or ongoing subsidies. Additional incentives to private developers would need to be administered through a Community Improvement Plan, Municipal Capital Facilities Agreement or similar provision to address anti bonusing provisions of section 106 of the Municipal Act. What are best practices/options we have seen in other communities? Neither Toronto nor Mississauga offer financial incentives through their IZ programs. Prior to Bill 23, Ottawa was investigating the potential for financial incentives in the form of fee waivers or tax increment equivalent grants and reduced taxes for those who own/rent an affordable unit to mitigate impacts from assessed value that do not reflect affordable prices. An American study found that financial incentives to support IZ programs were relatively uncommon. "...[I]ncentives include waivers, reduction or deferral of development and administrative fees and/or financing fees (17%), expedited processing (13%), concessions on the size and cost of finishes of affordable units (11%), tax relief abatement (6%), and direct public subsidy (4%)'x." What does the financial model tell us? Financial incentives have a direct positive impact on the financial viability of development. Every dollar of upfront fee waivers or capital subsidy has approximately one dollar impact on costs, residual land value and development viability (with some devaluation based on timing of the incentive in the Page 101 of 350 development lifecycle.) The impact of ongoing incentives like property tax waivers or operating subsidies are proportional to their net present value. The mandatory incentives are incorporated into the pro forma model. These incentives have a modest positive impact on the financial viability of the IZ program. The total value of the mandatory fee exemptions, assuming a one -bedroom IZ unit in a condominium tower in Kitchener, is approximately $30,000 per IZ unit (Table 8). Table 8. Value of Mandatory Incentives Fee or Change Value (Kitchener) Regional Development Charges $20,044 City Development Charges $8,399 Central, $10,854 Suburban Community Benefits Charges $0 CBCs have been established in Waterloo but not in Cambridge or Kitchener Parkland Dedication Fee $2,020 typical per Bill 23 Total $30,463-$32,918 What we heard Through public engagement with the development industry and public, staff have conveyed the principle that to work, an IZ policy would need to be financially sustainable over the long term. This means that it can't rely on significant municipal subsidy. Possibly as a result of messaging that significant municipal subsidy would not be available for an IZ program, the development industry did not express significant interest in financial incentives beyond the mandatory incentives. There was no public consensus on providing financial incentives to help offset the impacts of inclusionary zoning on development viability. Some expressed concern with providing any incentives, including the mandatory incentives. The most interest in additional financial incentives was for developments that provide better affordability outcomes than under the mandatory policy. Recommendations • Staff do not recommend additional financial incentives for IZ units in addition to the mandatory Development Charges, Community Benefit Charges and Parkland Dedication Fee exemptions. 50 Page 102 of 350 Implementation and Administration IZ programs, like all affordable housing programs, require active and ongoing administration, monitoring and program adjustment to ensure that they continue to provide affordable housing to eligible households over the affordability term. Without appropriate oversight and enforcement, affordable units secured through IZ programs can be lost through increased rents, subletting, illegal sale or foreclosure. Reports from some jurisdictions suggest that inconsistent administration can make it more difficult for certain eligible households to obtain IZ units, which can undermine program effectiveness, public support and trust'. In extreme cases, inadequate monitoring and enforcement has led some municipalities to release the affordable units back into the market and abandon the program entirely". Program monitoring and data collection are important to meet the legislative requirements of IZ, evaluate how well the program is meeting its objectives and to inform any program modifications in response to changing housing needs or land and development economics. Implementation and administration of IZ generally involves the following key tasks: Incorporating IZ requirements into development approvals processes • Help developers understand their options/obligations to meet IZ requirements • Review and approve developments that are consistent with IZ policies and regulations • Coordinate municipal approvals with IZ housing administrators • Establish legal agreements and register agreements on title Administering IZ units • Set and monitor affordable rents or prices • Select owners/tenants who meet the eligibility requirements • Monitor eligibility over time and manage unit turnover • Enforce IZ agreements Monitoring and reporting program outcomes • Track key housing metrics to inform program evaluation and updates • Report annually on IZ program • Review and refine program in accordance with regulations and changing housing needs/land economics Incorporating IZ Requirements into Development Approvals Processes Area municipal planning staff implement Official Plan policies and Zoning By-laws that set out the requirements for IZ through the development approvals process. Many jurisdictions develop IZ Implementation Guidelines which can help municipal staff communicate how program parameters such as the number of IZ units or affordable rents and prices will be calculated and where there may be flexibility for different development scenarios. Examples of Implementation Guidelines include City of Toronto's Draft Inclusionary Zoning Implementation Guidelines", City and County of San Franciso's Inclusionary Affordable Housing Program Monitoring and Procedures Manual"and the City of Chicago's Affordable Requirements Ordinance Rulesx" 51 Page 103 of 350 Contents of the IZ Implementation Guidelines should communicate in plain language any IZ provisions set out in Ontario Regulation 232/18 under the Planning Act along with other program requirements as deemed appropriate, including: • Size of developments or redevelopments subject to the IZ by-law • Geographic areas subject to IZ by-law • Any exemptions from the by-law • Income range for households that would be eligible for IZ affordable housing units • Housing types and sizes of units that would be authorized as IZ affordable housing units • Tenure of units subject to IZ policies • Number of affordable housing units, or the gross floor area to be occupied by the affordable housing units • Duration that affordable housing units will be maintained as affordable • Measures or incentives to support the creation of IZ units and how they will be calculated • Rents or prices of IZ units and how they will be calculated • The approach to determine the percentage of the net proceeds to be distributed to the municipality from the sale of an affordable housing unit, including how net proceeds would be determined. • The circumstances in and conditions under which offsite units would be permitted • Accessibility requirements for IZ units • Location of IZ units within buildings • Timing of IZ unit construction Municipalities can also consider requiring developers to submit an affordable housing plan as part of a complete application that demonstrates how the developer plans to address the requirements set out in the IZ Implementation Guidelines. The plan and the details therein would form the basis of an agreement registered on title of the lands proposed to be (re) developed pursuant to Section 35.2 (2)(i) of the Planning Act. Recommendations • The Partners should develop IZ Implementation Guidelines in conjunction with an IZ program. • The Partners should work with area municipal and Regional solicitors to create a template for basic terms and conditions and signatories for any legal agreements that will be required as part of an IZ program. Administering IZ Units Successful IZ programs in the US and Canada are typically administered by government agencies or publicly funded non-profit housing organizations (e.g. arms -length Housing Authorities or Land Trusts) and supported with adequate and scalable revenue sources to reflect the size and complexity of the IZ program over time'. Publicly coordinated, administered and funded IZ programs have been found to result in better tracking and monitoring of IZ affordable units compared to programs administered by the private sector. IZ programs administered by a government agency, or arm's length housing organization benefit from the alignment of organizational mandates with the objectives of IZ, as well as 52 Page 104 of 350 a centralized and consistent monitoring approach. In some cases, the public sector may be able to leverage existing affordable housing administration expertise and resources to support implementation. Some development industry representatives interviewed for this project indicated that they do not have the capacity, resources or interest to manage IZ units over the long term. Their preference would be for a single administrative body across Waterloo Region to oversee and manage the units. The Region of Waterloo has expressed an interest in administering an IZ program. Table 9. Comparison of Administrator Options Advantages / Disadvantages Region of Waterloo Non-profit Advantages Efficient - Could leverage Potentially Lower Cost— Non- existing staff expertise and some profit may be able to operate at extra capacity (in short term) lower cost (lower salaries) or secure additional outside funding Predictable - Existing positive Capacity building—Opportunity working relationship and trust to build capacity and expertise between Region and area in Non-profit housing sector municipalities Easy - Could be established fairly quickly and easily through Joint Service agreement or similar model (precedents exist) High Stability over Long Term - ROW and municipal mandates unlikely to change, lower staff turnover etc. Accountability and Control — ROW staff more directly accountable to senior management council Disadvantages Potentially Higher Cost — Region Low Capacity — Existing housing may have higher salaries and non -profits already facing may not have access to external capacity challenges funding opportunities Capacity building — reduced Uncertain Interest/Expertise - opportunity to build community Confirmation needed that NFPs capacity for program would be interested and could administration develop the expertise to carry out the work Low stability over long term - Changing NFP priorities and/or potentially high staff turnover may reduce capacity and program stability 53 Page 105 of 350 Eligibility and Waitlists Eligibility requirements are maximum income levels and other criteria that households must meet to rent or own an IZ unit. These criteria help ensure that affordable units are available to those who need them. A waitlist is a list of prescreened individuals and households that is maintained by an Administrator to create a transparent and efficient process for matching those needing housing with available IZ units. Waitlists are typically used to support the tenant selection process for IZ rental units. Toronto's Draft Inclusionary Zoning Implementation Guidelines require that an eligible household's gross annual household income cannot exceed four times the annual rent of the IZ unit. Toronto also identifies additional household eligibility criteria to ensure appropriate allocation of units, including: a. Minimum age of 18; b. Have legal status in Canada; c. Not be in arrears with a social housing provider or are in arrears but have an active payment plan in good standing; d. Have good credit history e. Not have a lease for another rental unit at the time of occupation (some flexibility to overlap may be needed) f. Not own, in whole or in part, any form of residential real estate in Canada or abroad. g. Have limited assets and wealth h. Occupancy standards, including a minimum of one and a maximum of two persons per bedroom; A maximum of one bedroom for spouses. Many US jurisdictions use Area Median Income (Average) to determine eligibility. While the measurement of income differs, the same general principle used by Toronto typically applies: that is, eligible households must have a maximum income that corresponds with the level of affordability of a unit. The City of Toronto and several US jurisdictions have adopted IZ programs that rely on private rental building owners or unit owners to identify eligible renters and owners. While this approach has the benefit of reducing administrative cost to the administrator of the IZ program, there are risks to leaving tenant or owner selection entirely in the hands of property management companies or private unit owners, including lack of consistent or transparent application of eligibility rules. Lack of transparency and oversight in the selection process could lead to problems with fair access to units, including the possibility that IZ units will be made available to eligible friends and family first before they are available to the broader community or that units may be made available to ineligible households. Requiring IZ unit owners to select tenants from a centralized waitlist of eligible tenants is a more efficient approach for both tenants and administrators. It enables advance screening and speedy tenant selection, and reduces the sign up burden for tenants by enabling them to sign up to a single centralized waitlist rather than multiple waitlists. Administrators benefit from more consistent and compliant implementation which can help reduce the need for enforcement. The process by which IZ affordable units are awarded to eligible households should be open and transparent and set out in publicly available guidelines; selection options could be either through first served basis or by lottery. Feedback from rental housing providers operating in the Region of Waterloo demonstrated a willingness to work with an IZ administrator to identify potential eligible tenants (e.g. from a waitlist) but they also 54 Page 106 of 350 expressed a preference to retain decision making authority over final tenant selection. Rental housing providers felt it was important than they had a final say on the tenant to reduce financial risk and minimize possible landlord -tenant or tenant to tenant conflicts. Recommendations • The Partners should continue to explore options, costs and capacity for the Region of Waterloo to serve as the administrator of an IZ program. • The IZ Administrator should be responsible for developing a waitlist of eligible tenants and owners in accordance with the IZ Implementation Guidelines. • Approaches to select from the waitlist should consider first come first served and by lottery. • Owners of rental buildings should maintain final decision making authority over tenant selection from the waitlist. • Eligible households should be those who are within the moderate income range (below the 60th percentile of the income in the regional market area). In addition, the gross annual income of an eligible household should not exceed 3.3 times the affordable rent of an IZ rental unit. Other eligibility criteria should be considered. Monitoring and Reporting The Planning Act requires municipalities to establish a procedure for monitoring to ensure that the required number of affordable housing units, or the required gross floor area to be occupied by affordable housing units, is maintained for the required period of time. The primary tool to ensure compliance with the terms of IZ policy and by-law is the legal agreement that developer is obliged to enter into with the subject city (and potentially also the administrator — e.g. The Region of Waterloo). Ongoing monitoring and enforcement of the agreement would occur through the annual reports by the property owners regarding unit rents/prices, to be submitted to the administrator. Under the Provincial regulations, municipalities are also required to publicly report on the status of the affordable housing units required in the IZ by-law every two years. The report must contain: 1. The number of affordable housing units. 2. The types of affordable housing units. 3. The location of the affordable housing units. 4. The range of household incomes for which the affordable housing units were provided. 5. The number of affordable housing units that were converted to units at market value. 6. The proceeds that were received by the municipality from the sale of affordable housing units. The Planning Act further requires municipalities to update their housing assessment reports within five years of IZ official plan policies coming into effect. The purpose of this regular update is to determine whether any aspects of the IZ program need to be modified. Recommendations • The Partners should continue to work to create a consistent approach and centralized location for monitoring reporting. 55 Page 107 of 350 • Any IZ program should be regularly reviewed and adjusted in accordance with any findings from the biennial IZ housing reports and 5 -year housing assessment updates. W.. Page 108 of 350 Appendix 1—Jurisdictional Scan of Inclusionary Zoning (IZ) Frameworks City of Toronto I City of Vaneom Approach Require IZ as a percentage of large-scale developments and inter Require IZ within PMTSAs at an assigned set-aside rate rentals/ownership in specific areas of the City The City of Toronto has adopted an IZ policy that would require new In 2019 it was found that the City of Vancouver was no - residential developments to include affordable housing units, creating vacancy has been less than 1% since 2014 mixed -income housing. In areas that are designated IZ Market Areas and The City of Vancouver has density bonusing measures ii Background PMTSAs a subset of the MTSAs. include affordable housing and amenities In 2017 the City of Vancouver also implemented Inclusi developments that are required. Intended to deliver de income households Mandatory or Mandatory Mandatory for all large developments Voluntary Voluntary for all developments within the specified areas Median Total Income (2020) (CAD $) Median Total Income (2020) (CAD $) Income All families: $96,700 All families: $98,640 Figures Couple families: $104,960 Couple families: $104,350 Lone -parent families: $59,120 Lone -parent families: $60,710 For developments within MTSAs Large Developments: Toronto OP IZ Map Involve a land parcel or parcels having a total site size c Toronto ZB IZ Amendment Contain 45,000 m2 (484,375 ft.2) or more of new devel Developments Meet at pre -app phase to discuss the appropriate mix c Impacts Required as a condition of development approval — apr Unencumbered dirt sites are the priority mechanism to Bonusing: In specific zones set out by Density Bonus & Public Ben Figure 1: Shows Density bonus Zones in Vancouver Tabe 2: Density Bonus Contributions Rates Bonusing comes in the form of cash in lieu for social ho Purpose built rental project with fewer than 140 units (until 2026) Large Developments: Condo with fewer than 100 units or 8000m2 GFA - Where an unencumbered dirt site is and cannot be pro, Non -profits, student residences, and residential care homes of an Air Space Parcel may be required — upon evidencE Exemptions Bonusing: Found in Table 3: Exemptions from Density Bonus Contributions Retention of pre -1940s houses — subject to meet the Zc Secured market rental housing — subject to meet the Zc For-profit affordable rental housing — subject to meet t 58 City of Toronto City of Vancom Socia I housing —subject to meet the DLC By-law definit Policy group Seniors supportive or assisted housing that is secured n rental increase limit and meeting the Zoning & Develop 35% below market rental units covering 35% of secures - Financial Incentives are only permitted should the application propose Buildings with 100% residential GFA as secured rental housing an additional affordable housing units (above -and -beyond IZ set-aside rental are eligible for negotiated (case-by-case if a contribution is requirements) and/or units with deeper levels of affordability. are reasonable to secure rental housing For below rental projects the Faily Room: Housing Mix Policy for - 35% defined as 2 or more bedrooms Typical approach to bonusing is cash is contribution to the City fo $39/m2 to $1,410/m2 for development above and beyond permi Incentives & - (without inflation index calculated) https://vanco Bonusing development/annual-inflation-index.aspx (so with $42.43/m2) Bonusing: The City of Vancouver's IZ zoning uses bonusing to provide aff Base density with no density bonus Additional density in exchange for affordable housing or amer Cash in -lieu —for specific zones that allow for extra density, uK determined by the density bonus contribution rate 2022 — require 5-10% of condo developments as affordable housing Large Developments: By 2030- increase requirements t 8-22% 30% of total residential floor area (20% social housing t Set-aside Rate target Unencumbered dirt sites are the priority mechanism to Bonusing: - based on the net additional floor area above base dens Unit Mix section 6 of the draft IZ Large Developments: 6.1. - Reasonable efforts shall be made to satisfy Section 3.0 (Unit The design of the social housing must comply with the Housing D Guidelines) of the City's Growing Up urban design guidelines with following: respect to the unit mix and sizes of IZ affordable housing units Location and Site Planning Unit Design 6.1.1- 25% of IZ affordable housing units are 2 -bed or 3 -bed units Indoor and outdoor Amenity Spaces Requirements and at least 10% of IZ affordable housing units are 3 -bed Dwelling Unit Floor Areas 6.1.2 — minimum is 87 sqm for 2 -bed IZ affordable housing and Wheelchair Accessible and Adaptable Units 100 sqm for a 3 -bed IZ affordable housing average IZ affordable Energy and Environmental Design housing unit is 90 sqm for 2 -bed units, 106 sqm for 3 -bed units Crime Prevention Through Environmental Design Construction Standards 58 59 City of Toronto I City of Vancom 6.2 — unit share shall be proportional to those of those units at For below market rental projects, the Family Room: Housing Mix market -rate - 35% defined as 2 or more bedrooms 6.3 —1 -bed units are preferred over studios —1 -beds may replace studios to satisfy 6.2 6.4— minimum unit sizes by bedroom type are at least proportional to market -rate unit sizes 6.5 — For minimum unit size see section 6.5.1 and 6.5.2 6.6 - indistinguishable — in appearance, access, quality, and functionality—from market units 6.7 — must have central heating and cooling with individual controls 6.8—the number of affordable units with a balcony, patio, and/or terrace shall be proportional to the number of market units 6.9 — laundry facilities with the same access and conditions as market -rate (ensuite or common laundry) 6.10 - shall have equivalent finishes, fixtures, and features to market -rate — do not need to be identical but need to be new and of good quality in terms of performance, durability, and appearance Setting rents and ownership prices based on new income -based definitions Large Developments: of affordable housing in the official plan. This link defines affordability: Moderate incoming housing: $30,000 to $80,000/year 1 https://www.toronto.ca/legdocs/mmis/2021/ph/bgrd/backgroundfile- Affordable rental rates 172507.pdf If development provides units at the outlined prices ca! Recommended Affordable Rent Definition: To be eligibility for new tenants: 25% of income spent c Affordable rental housing and affordable rents means housing where the exceed 4 times annual rent total monthly shelter cost (rent plus utilities) is at or below the lesser of: Building operator will verify eligibility for existing tenants in Depth of (1) one times the average City of Toronto rent; or the Vancouver Charter Affordability (2) 30% of the before -tax monthly income of renter households in the City Will test tenants every 5 years after initial occupancy of Toronto as follows: Existing tenants cannot have a household income that i studio units: one-person households at the 50th percentile income) income; ($32,486) If a resident fails to qualify operator will issue a notice 1 one -bedroom units: one-person households at the 60th percentile Act income; ($43,600) two-bedroom units: two -person households at the 60th percentile income; ($73,901) three-bedroom units: three-person households at the 60th percentile income. ($74,301). Option for Affordable units can be provided as either affordable ownership or Large Developments: affordability affordable rental at the discretion of the developer. 59 City of Toronto City of Vancom Ownership or Rental - Rental units can be privately owned but units will be se rents through a Housing Agreement with the City of Va Affordability Period 99 years 60 years or the life of the building, whichever is greater for all so( section 565.2 of the Vancouver Charter Sources https://www.toronto.ca/legdocs/mmis/2021/ph/bgrd/backgroundfile- https://bylaws.vancouver.ca/bulletin/bulletin-density-bonus-zon 172128.pdf City of Toronto IZ https://www.toronto.ca/wp-content/uploads/2021/10/8672-CityPIanning- https://bylaws.vancouver.ca/zoning/policy-below-market-rental- https://vancouverplan.ca/wp-content/uploads/Vancouver-Plan-�- https://vancouver.ca/people-programs/creating-new-market-Ler Draft-Inclusionarv-Zoning-Implementation-GuidelinesOct2021.pdf https://guidelines.vancouver.ca/guidelines-technical-housing-de! https://www.toronto.ca/legdocs/mmis/2021/ph/bgrd/backgroundfile- https://vancouver.ca/home-property-development/density-bone 172507.pdf https://www.toronto.ca/legdocs/bylaws/2021/law0941.pdf https://www.toronto.ca/legdocs/bylaws/2021/laLA .pcIf Den sity%20Relaxati ons%20for%20Amenities%20(in%2Dkind),rei https://vancouver.ca/home-property-development/annual-inflat 61 City of Ottawa Montgomery Co Mandatory to require a set-aside rate that uses AM Approach Require IZ within PMTSAs via an assigned set-aside rate development within four major categories of develc IZ is currently under review - final report due in 2023 - Montgomery County's moderately priced Ottawa had the third highest rents for major urban centre in Ontario (2018- the US's first, IZ laws. It was implemented 2020) a full range of housing choices in the coup intention of IZ is to provide more purpose-built rentals sizes. An MPDU is a county government -n - Target to have 20% of all new res units be affordable (70% of which are within affordable to households earning 65 peru the definition of core affordability and 30% within market affordability) terms garden -style apartments and 70 percent f IZ not to target households with the definition of "core affordability" The program's implementation involves b local government performing regulatory a Affordability Targets: Low to moderate - those people in the lowest 60% income building industry producing the housing. Background distribution for regional market Between 12.5 and 15 percent of the total Ownership calculation will include households with incomes in the lowest 60% high-rise building of 20 or more units mus of the income distribution MPDU regulation. Rental 60% for renters of the income distribution Effective October 31, 2018, development< - are required to make a payment to the He requirement on-site. Three agencies within Montgomery Count MPDU program: Montgomery County Plai Housing and Community Affairs (DHCA), a (HOC). Mandatory or Mandatory Mandatory Voluntary Median Total Income (Ottawa -Gatineau) (2020) (CAD $) The most recent 5 -year estimate for Mont Income All families: $107,290 income is $100,352 (source: 2012-2016 Ai Figures Couple families: $117,110 Estimate). Lone -parent families: $65,050 AMI figures For developments in MTSAs and lands subject to Community Planning Permit Systems In Montgomery County, affordable housing general PMTSA Map 26 PMTSAs 12.5-15% is based on building typology for the four zoned one-half acre or smaller that are served by se *Considering including an Official Plan policy pursuant to paragraph 10 of subsection 3(1) serviced are exempt Developments of Ontario Regulation 232/18 that would allow off-site units only where those units are to Income -Restricted Affordable Housing: A Impacts be assumed by a non-profit housing provider. built under a government regulation or a affordable to households at or below the IZ will apply to new developments and additions to existing buildings for 50 units or more Under this program, income requirement! residential units or 3,500 square metres of residential GFA even if there is less than 50 income (AMI) for garden apartments, and units apartments. Income -Restricted Workforce Housing: Ch Offsite units Code defines housing that is affordable to 62 City of Ottawa Montgomery Co must be in the same PMTSA as parent development AMI or less as workforce housing. Income must be an added benefit (set-aside exceeded) or mix of unit types must be government regulation and workforce hoi better than on parent development basis. When a master plan refers to workf similar quality (similar finishes) housing goals or requirements, householc off-site must be ready for occupancy before or contemporaneous the parent area median income. Workforce housing i development market rents. do not need a ZBA but need to prove intent of Op is maintained Market -rate Affordable Housing: Market -i affordable to households earning no mor( based on unit and household sizes. These and their rents are lower than the median affordable dwelling units are not income -i not defined in the Montgomery County C( Rent -Restricted Affordable Housing: This 1 Montgomery County Code or commonly ( increases are limited and no income tests preservation of market -rate affordable he establishes the baseline rent (priced to be restrictions (such as requiring a rent incre guideline). N/A If you provide 25 percent MPDUs, you are Exemptions school impact taxes under §52-49 and §5: Other exemptions are outlined within vari Investigating the potential for financial incentives in the form of fee waivers or tax If you provide 20 percent MPDUs, you are Incentives & increment equivalent grants offered through a Community Improvement Plan category of public benefit points for optio employment zones. Bonusing Possible reduced taxes for those who own/rent an affordable unit to mitigate impacts If you provide 25 percent MPDUs, you are from assessed value that exceeds affordable prices school impact taxes under §52-49 and §5: Determined by GFA not number of units10% for ownership across all PMTSAs *pre Bill 23 12.5%- 15% is mandatory in the Bethesds 10% for purpose-built rentals in PMTSAs *pre Bill 23 Bethesda Overlay Zone. Effective on October 31, 2018, planning ai City of Ottawa staff was directed to consider a 20% set-aside rate but found 20% was Census tracts have a median income of 1E Set-aside Rate unfeasible. median income will have a legal requirem A third -party financial assessment recommends harmonized requirements The planning areas currently included in tl across all PMTSAs Darnestown, Travilah, Potomac, North Be 63 City of Ottawa Montgomery Co Unclear on most aspects of unit design To help make MPDUs available at an affordable pric Requiring set-aside rate by GFA gives more flexibility to require larger unit sizes MPDUs may be smaller in terms of square and accessible units exceed maximum sizes specified in the ap Unit mix requirements in the OP policies or zoning regulations to ensure that a The finishes of MPDUs may be of a lower sufficient number of multi -bedroom units are set-aside as affordable example, Formica countertops instead of, cabinetry instead of hard wood finishes, s instead of top-of-the-line fixtures, etc.). In single-family detached subdivisions, Mf Some interior space, such as basements, t unfinished, and extra bathrooms may be r minimum specifications are met per the a Unit Design Further design guidelines for MPDU developers: Requirements Unit types (promote but not required, du{ subdivision Bedroom mix—single family subdivision n waived Multi -family dwellings must match the mz Ensure liveability requirements are met (i. Townhome regulations (i.e. back-to-back otherwise demonstrated) Garden apartments — a mix of MPDU and single garden apartment stairwell Locational features, innovative site and bE MPDUs, permit enough cluster of singles are to be built along or before other dwel IZ Targets: Moderate income households are within the 401h to 601h distributions Maximum Income Limits for MPDU Rentals: 601h = 30% of total income to be affordable Link: Depth of Target is 40-60 See Table 1: (Targets) - Do not renew leases where earnings are 1 - Affordability Affordability Ownership = $420,000 the AIM It is desired that non-profit could purchase these units and then convert the units to affordable rentals Affordable units can be provided as either affordable ownership or affordable rental at Both Rentals and Sale Ownerships. the discretion of the developer. The Montgomery County Department of f Option for income eligibility for the MPDU programs affordability eligibility by for -sale dwellings and rentals Ownership or income for garden -style, 70 percent of arE Rental apartments) and for workforce housing (8 Income limits are based on the area medi Department of Housing and Urban Develc 64 City of Ottawa Montgomery Co Affordability Period 99 -year affordability period for ownership units - Non-profit may purchase the units from for-profit developers and move In 2004, the Montgomery County Council amended sale MPDUs from 10 years to 30 years and for renta ownership units to rental if possible 25 -year affordability period for purpose-built rentals (if and when subject to IZ)After period ends the City is allowed to take 50% of the proceeds of the sale of an affordable unit Sources https://pub-ottawa.escribemeetings.com/filestream.ashx?Documentld=73819 https://montgomeryplanning.org/planning/housing https://pub-ottawa.escribemeetings.com/filestream.ashx?Documentld=73817 https://pub-ottawa.escribemeetings.com/filestream.ashx?documentid=90399 https://www.montgomerycountymd.gov/DHCA/ho https://www.montgomerycountvmd.gov/DHCA/MF https://pub-ottawa.escribemeetings.com/filestream.ashx?Documentld=73822 https://ottawa.ca/en/planning-development-and-construction/official-plan-and-master- https://www.montgomerycountvmd.gov/DHCA/MF memorandum AMI figures https://www.housingfinance.com/policy-legislation plans/new-official-plan/volume-1#section-7fe49ebf-c933-4670-9794-c17c11fa1235 https://documents.ottawa.ca/sites/documents/files/section4 op en.pdf created -bymontgo mere -county -program o https://www.montgomerycountvmd.gov/DHCA/MF https://www.housingfinance.com/policy-legislation created -bymontgo mere -county -program o New York City, NY I Boston, Approach pp Mandatory for all developments that meet criteria for size and number of units. A combination of mandatory and voluntary IZ polici Based on an AMI calculation. Bonusing is a method of action. needed to facilitate development otherwise volunt� New NYC MIH Program Implemented in 2016 for Mandatory, but originally started as Known as an Inclusionary Development Policy — firs Voluntary in 1987. https://www.toronto.ca/wp-content/uploads/2019/11/98le CityPlanning-Mandatory-Inclusionary-Housing-in-NYC.pdf - Since 2022 Mayor Wu has been working u requirements for IDP from 10 to 7 for ren from 13% to 20% and deepening affordah The City has separated itself into three housing zon across the City. The three zones were revised in 201 Background requirements. The zones determine the amount of from 13% to 20% is now required in Zone A and B c Zone category determines a value in calculations fo Zone A, contribution for the equivalent of 18% of th Zone Factor of $380,000 per unit; Zone B 15%, $30( https://www.bostonplans.org/getattachment/9lc3 65 New York City, NY Boston, - Zone A: the neighbourhood median fell in - Zone B: the neighbourhood median fell in foot - Zone C: the neighbourhood median fell in Mandatory or Mandatory Mandatory Voluntary Median household income USD $70, 663 (2017-2021) in 2021 dollars Median household income USD $81,744 (2017-202: Income Figures httos://www.census.gov/quickfacts/fact/table/newyorkcitynewvork# httos://www.census.pov/quickfacts/fact/table/bosl Under the proposal, the City Planning Commission and ultimately the City Council Applies to any residential Proposed Project of ten o would apply one or both of these two requirements to each Mandatory Inclusionary Housing area: - Financed by the City 25% of residential floor area must be for affordable housing units for - On property owned by the City or the BRE residents with incomes averaging 60% AMI ($46,620 per year for a family - That requires zoning relief. of three), or 30% of residential floor area must be for affordable housing Proposed Policy: IZ units for residents with incomes averaging 80% AMI ($62,150 per year for a family of three Developments that do not need zoning re *In addition to one or both of the options above, the City Council and the support income -restricted housing. City Planning Commission could decide to apply one or both of the The trigger for participation will be lowers following options: Under the new policy, rather than require requirements will be calculated in square Developments Deep Affordability Option production of family -sized units. Impacts - 20% of the total residential floor area must be for housing units for residents with incomes averaging 40% AMI ($31,080 per year for a family Asset Limits of three) No direct subsidies could be used for these units except where Properties set-aside for incomes of less than 80% AI needed to support more affordable housing Properties set-aside for incomes more than 80% AN Applicants for rental units where all household mer Workforce Option 30% of the total residential floor area must be for housing units for Income guidelines vary by development, but most E residents with incomes averaging 115% AMI ($89,355 per year for a family with incomes up to 70% and homebuyers with into of three) (AMI). No units could go to residents with incomes above 135% AMI ($104,895/year for a family of 3) Options selected will be chosen by the City Council during their vote on the rezoning of the subject property. - The Workforce Option and Deep Affordability Option can only be mapped in conjunction with one of the other options, and no public funding, as M.- New York City, NY Boston, defined in the Zoning Resolution, is permitted for the Workforce Option. The Workforce Option is not available in Manhattan Community Boards 1- 8. No direct subsidies could be used for these affordable housing units - This could not apply to Manhattan Community Districts 1-8, which cover south of 96th Street on the east side and south of 110th Street on the west side N/A The Proposed Project is financed as one e proposed project are income restricted of The Proposed Project is a Dormitory As specified in applicable sections in the z Exemptions Proposed projects may choose to meet their IDP re 18% of the total number of units multiplied by the € B, or C) or half the difference between the average price per unit, by unit type Incentives & Affordable housing is mandatory and permanent. N/A Bonusing Bonusing is available for developments Mandatory Inclusionary Housing will result in more affordable housing for a wider Citywide, Proposed Projects subject to IDP may me range of New Yorkers, all of it required as a condition to build housing on the land. It the total number of units On-site. (a higher rate is b is responsive to neighborhood needs, with a set of income mix options that the City Planning Commission and Council can work together to apply within each rezoned Set-aside Rate area through the land use process. - 25% of residential floor are (RFA) 60% AMI ($46,620 per year for a family of three), or 30% of RFA 80% AMI ($62,150 per year for a family of three) additional policies can be put in place (said in development impact section) Unit design follows the HPD design guidelines for New Construction that address the All IDP Units are comparable in design and quality t following needs: Not be stacked or concentrated on the sa Accessible design + construction Be consistent in bedroom count with the Unit Design Equitable & healthy buildings Have comparable square footage as units Requirements Sustainability Flood resistant Active design Aging in place Commercial and retail spaces 67 New York City, NY I Boston, Require IZ within PMTSAs via an assigned set-aside rate Generally speaking, Inclusionary units must be affordable to low income households Affordable to households earning between 80% to Depth of earning up to 80% of Area Median Income (AMI) and rents capped at 30% of 80% of (AMI). AMI found here: Find out if you qualify Affordability AMI. However, in some Special Districts, depending on the district, a density bonus - one -bedroom units will be priced at or below the maximum purchase price for the 4th income decile or rented at or b Background may be granted for moderate and/or middle income units (125%- 175% AMI). Option for Both rental and ownership Both rental and ownership affordability - three-bedroom units will be priced at or below the maximum purchase price for the 6th income decile or rented at or Ownership or Mandatory or Mandatory minimums and funding/incentives Rental Affordability Period Permanent 30 years, with a subsequent extension of 20 more y total of 50 years. https://www1.nyc.gov/assets/planning/download/pdf/plans studies/mih/mih report.pdf https://www.bostonplans.org/protects/standards/i IHP https://www.opnc.org/development-guidelines/incl zoning/#:—:text=To%20ensure%20that%20there%2 https://www.nyc.gov/site/planning/zoning/districts-tools/inclusionary-housing.page https://zr.planning.nVc.gov/article-ii/chapter-3#23-012 https://zr.planning.nyc.gov/appendix-f-inclusionary-housing-designated-areas-and- http://www.bostonplans.org/housing/income-asse- Sources mandatory-inclusionary-housing-areas https://www.bostonpla ns.org/news-calendar/new_s strategy -for -inclusive -growth -b https://www.nyc.gov/assets/hpd/downloads/pdfs/services/hpd-design-guidelines- for-new-construction.pdf https://www.bostonplans.org/getattachment/da67 https://www.bostonplans.org/getattachment/9lc3 City of Mississauga Approach Require IZ within PMTSAs via an assigned set-aside rate To provide a range of affordable prices and rents, the City, in consultation with the Region of Peel, will establish maxim annual basis during the affordability period for affordable ownership housing units and affordable rental housing units accordance with Implementation Guidelines: - one -bedroom units will be priced at or below the maximum purchase price for the 4th income decile or rented at or b Background the 4th renter income decile; - two-bedroom units will be priced at or below the maximum purchase price for the 5th income decile or rented at or b the 5th renter income decile; and - three-bedroom units will be priced at or below the maximum purchase price for the 6th income decile or rented at or for the 6th renter income decile. The City also receives a portion of the net proceeds from the sale of affordable owner: Mandatory or Mandatory minimums and funding/incentives Voluntary W City of Mississauga Median Total Income (Toronto) (2020) (CAD $) All families: $96,700 Income Figures Couple families: $104,960 Lone -parent families: $59,120 Developments Impacts Requires affordable housing units in new developments in the Major Transit Station Areas (MTSAs). More specifically n proposing 50 or more residential units, or 3,600 sqm or more of GFA, and located within specified IZ Areas. The percenl Housing and rentals vary depending on each specific IZ Area, and the time period. This will provide a range of affordabl IZ By-laws will not apply to: long-term care buildings, retirement buildings, hospices, staff/student residences, group homes, or not -for profit built Region of Peel or Peel Housing Corporation projects; approved development, as specifically identified as exempt in the zoning by-law, that is already subject to an affordab requirement as of June 22, 2022. IZ By-laws will apply to additional development permissions for such lands; Exemptions development or redevelopment meeting the exemption criteria under the Planning Act or related Ontario Regulations notwithstanding 7.3.2, in no case will IZ By-laws apply to development or redevelopment of less than 10 residential ur Projects where non-profit housing provider has an interest that is > 51% and > 51% of units are affordable. Projects with rezoning and / or OPA application(s) along with a subdivision or condominium application at the adopted. Projects with a building permit or site plan application at the time the IZ By-law is passed. Financial incentives will not be provided for affordable housing units provided in accordance with Policy 7.3.2 of this PIZ Incentives & Bonusing identify reductions to parking rates for affordable rental housing units and affordable ownership housing units in accon recommendations of City-wide parking studies. Mississauga's IZ Official Plan Policy (August 10, 2022): After an initial phase-in period, Mississauga's Official P that range from 5% to 10% depending on the location in the city. Set-aside Rate Proposed Change to Provincial Regulation O.Reg. 232/18: Currently, there is no upper limit to the set-aside ra Regulation. The Province of Ontario is proposing to limit the maximum set-aside rate a municipality can requi See Table 2 Unit Design N/A Requirements Mississauga's IZ Official Plan Policy (August 10, 2022): Mississauga's current Official Plan policies indicate that costs no more than 30% of gross annual household income. The IZ policy is targeted to housing for moderate For affordable ownership units, this equates to prices that are no greater than about 50% to 60% of resale ms For affordable rental units, this equates to rents that are no greater than Average Market Rent as established Depth of Affordability Housing Corporation (CMHC). Proposed Change to Provincial Regulation O.Reg. 232/18 : Currently, there are no price/rent requirements in Other Provincial policy documents define affordability as housing that costs no more than 30% of gross annus The Province is proposing to require that municipalities cannot set the affordable price any lower than 80% o' ownership units M. City of Mississauga The Province is proposing to require that municipalities cannot set the affordable rent any lower than 80% of rental units. Option for affordability N/A Ownership or Rental Mississauga's IZ Official Plan Policy (August 10, 2022): Currently, ownership units must stay affordable for 99 stay affordable for 25 years (plus a 5 -year phase out). Affordability Period Proposed Change to Provincial Regulation O.Reg. 232/18: The current Provincial Regulations do not set any lir term. The Province is proposing to change the regulation so that the maximum affordability period a municip; https://yoursay.mississauga.ca/inclusionary-zoning-policy-for-affordable-housing Sources Next steps doc https://www.mississauga.ca/city-of-mississauga-news/news/more-affordable-housing-for-mississauga-inclusionary-zor 70 Appendix 2 — Planning Act Requirements and How Addressed The Table below sets out a comprehensive list of the provisions and requirements and outlines how each issue is or will be addressed Planning Act Requirements How Addressed 16(4) Official Plan may include IZ policies where Region Official Plan Amendment No 6 Includes MTSAs have been identified or in community Identifies PMTAS. It was adopted in August 2023 Planning Permit Areas and approved by the Minster in April 2023. Lower tier municipalities (now forming part of an upper -tier municipality without planning responsibilities) will be amending their Official Plans to identify PMTSAs in ROPA 6 as per the Planning Act 16(6)OP must include IZ goals and objectives and Needs to be included in Cities' Official Plans measures and procedures to attain these 16(9) Prepare an assessment report before See Assessment Report section of this report adopting IZ policies 16(10) Assessment reports must be updated The Partners must plan, and budget assessment every 5 years to determine if IZ policies should be report updates as described in the monitoring amended and reporting section of this report 16(16) where there is upper planning authority IZ Current regime to be replaced by bill 23 on a date can only apply where upper tier OPs have PMTSA to be proclaimed. It is expected to be no earlier identified, delineated and include minimum than Winter 2024. targets for person and jobs per hectare; as well as policies requiring lower tier OPs to regulate land use and minimum building densities in upper tier official plan 16(15) Where there is no upper tier planning Assuming the regime will be in effect. IZ must be authority IZ can only apply where (Area co -incident with or follow updated lower tier OP Municipal) OPs have PMTSAs identified, policies for MTSAs that include these provisions delineated and include minimum targets for person and jobs per hectare, regulations regarding use and minimum densities for buildings 17(24.1.2-24.1.3); 17(36.1.2); 34(11.0.6); No action required 34(19.3-19.3.1) IZ zoning by-laws and OP policies, requirements and standards cannot be appealed except by the Minster 35.2(1) Council may pass zoning by-laws to give (There are no prescribed standards) effect to IZ policies under section 16(4). It must include any prescribed Provincial standards 35.2(2)a an IZ bylaw shall require and specify the See Set -Aside Rate section of this report number of affordable housing units required or; the gross floor area required 35.2(2)b an iz by-law shall require that units be See discussion of Duration of Affordability section maintained as affordable for a period of time of this report Page 122 of 350 71 Planning Act Requirements How Addressed (c -d) may require that the affordable housing See discussion on Unit Size and Number of units meet additional requirements and Bedrooms section of this report standards specified in the by-law Needs Assessment Report (2020), City of (e -f) may provide for measures and incentives to See discussion of Incentives and Offsets section support those policies of this report g) shall require that when the affordable housing See Unit Ownership and Occupation section of units are sold or leased, they be priced or leased this report at the rent determined under the by-law through the Regional Official Plan, A Cambridge (h) shall include the prescribed provisions and Various provisions about the prescribed matters; and housing studies. Ii) shall require that the owners of any to enter See Implementation and Administration section into agreements with the municipality, dealing of this report with the matters mentioned in clauses (a) to (h) and ensuring continued compliance 35.2(3-4) council shall establish a procedure to See Implementation and Administration section ensure that affordability is maintained of this report 35.2(5) council may authorize the provision of See Incentives and Offsets section of this report required affordable units offsite 35.2(6) Council may not accept cash in lieu of Cash in lieu not included in by-law or policy affordable units (7) Agreements may be registered on title See Implementation and Administration section of this report (8) The remedies for non-compliance with an See Implementation and Administration section agreement outlined in section 446 of the of this report Municipal Act are Applicable (viz right of entry, adding cost to tax roll, charge interest and apply liens) (9) municipalities shall provide prescribed reports See Monitoring and Reporting section of this and information concerning affordable units. report O. Reg. 232/18 Requirements How Addressed 1 An analysis of demographics and population in An analysis of all the requirements is addressed the municipality. in the 2020 NBLC report, The Kitchener Housing Needs Assessment Report (2020), City of Waterloo, Need and Demand Analysis (2020), and Region of Waterloo Housing and Homelessness Assessment (2019). Cambridge is intends to ensure are these requirements are addressed through the Regional Official Plan, A Cambridge Official Plan Official Plan review, and ongoing housing studies. 2 An analysis of household incomes in the An analysis of all the requirements is addressed municipality. in the 2020 NBLC report, The Kitchener Housing Page 123 of 350 72 O. Reg. 232/18 Requirements How Addressed 3 An analysis of housing supply by housing type Needs Assessment Report (2020), City of currently in the municipality and planned for in Waterloo, Need and Demand Analysis (2020), and the official plan. Region of Waterloo Housing and Homelessness Assessment (2019). Cambridge is intends to 4 An analysis of housing types and sizes of units that may be needed to meet anticipated demand ensure are these requirements are addressed for affordable housing. through the Regional Official Plan, A Cambridge Official Plan Official Plan review, and ongoing 5 An analysis of the current average market price and the current average market rent for each housing studies. housing type, taking into account location in the proposed to be tailor based on the market of municipality. each individual MTSA 6 An analysis of potential impacts on the housing market and on the financial viability of affordable housing units would be provided. development or redevelopment in the 4. The range of housing types and sizes of units municipality from IZ by-laws, taking into account: that would be authorized as affordable housing i. value of land, units. ii. cost of construction, iii. market price, iv. market rent, and v. housing demand and supply. 7. A written opinion on the analysis described in This is addressed in Urban Metrics' peer review paragraph 6 from a person independent of the dated September 16, 2020. municipality and who, in the opinion of the council of the municipality, is qualified to review the analysis. Official Plan Policies I How issues are addressed Official plan policies described in subsection 16 (4) of the Act shall set out the approach to authorizing IZ, including the following: 1. The minimum size, not to be less than 10 See Exemptions section of this report residential units, of development or redevelopment to which an IZ by-law would apply. 2. The locations and areas where IZ by-laws IZ is anticipated to apply to all 24 MTSAs in would apply. Waterloo Region. Policy requirements are proposed to be tailor based on the market of each individual MTSA 3. The range of household incomes for which See Eligibility and waitlist section of this report affordable housing units would be provided. 4. The range of housing types and sizes of units See Unit Size and Number of Bedrooms section of that would be authorized as affordable housing this report units. Page 124 of 350 73 Official Plan Policies How issues are addressed 5. the number of affordable housing units, or the See discussion of Set -Aside Rate section of this gross floor area to be occupied by the affordable report housing units, that would be required. 6. the period of time for which affordable See discussion of Duration of Affordability section housing units would be maintained as affordable. of this report 7. How incentives would be determined See Incentives and Offsets section of this report 8 how the price or rent of affordable housing See Maximum Rent of Price section of this report units would be determined 9. the approach to determine the percentage of See Unit Ownership and Occupation section of the net proceeds to be distributed to the this report municipality from the sale of an affordable housing unit, including how net proceeds would be determined 10. The circumstances in and conditions under See Incentives and Offsets section of this report which offsite units would be permitted, 11. the circumstances in which an offsite unit See Incentives and Offsets section of this report would be considered to be in proximity to the development or redevelopment giving rise to the by-law requirement for affordable housing units. 12. the procedure required under subsection 35.2 See Monitoring and Reporting section of this (3) of the Act to monitor and ensure that the report required affordable housing units are maintained for the required period of time 13. net proceeds of sale Affordable Ownership not recommended A by-law and registered agreement may require a portion of the proceeds of a sale of an affordable ownership housing unit be distributed to the municipality (no more than 50%) 14. Offsite Units See Incentives and Offsets section of this report Offsite units cannot be provided unless there are circumstances and conditions that need to be satisfied spelled out in the official plan. Offsite units must be in proximity to the subject development, located on lands where IZ policies apply, and not be double counted Page 125 of 350 74 Citations ' Cui, B., Boisjoly, G., Miranda -Moreno, L., & EI-Geneidy, A. (2020). Accessibility matters: Exploring the determinants of public transport mode share across income groups in Canadian cities. Transportation Research Part D: Transport and Environment, 80, 1-16. i' Sturtevant, L.A. (2016). Separating Fact from Fiction to Design Effective Inclusionary Housing Programs. Centre for Housing Policy. URL: https://ihiusa.org/wp-content/uploads/Seperating-Fact-from-Fiction.pdf NBLC. (April 2020). The Cities of Cambridge, Kitchener, Waterloo & Region of Waterloo Evaluation of Potential Impacts of an Affordable Housing Inclusionary Zoning Policy. URL: https://www.engagewr.ca/13136/widgets/52675/documents/39907 iV urban Metrics. (September 16, 2020). RE: Evaluation of Impacts of Inclusionary Zoning Policy — Peer Review (Kitchener / Cambridge / Waterloo, Ontario) URL: https://www.engagewr.ca/13136/widgets/52675/docu ments/39908 V Wang, R. and Balachandrian, S. (2021). Inclusionary Housing in the United States. URL: https://groundedsolutions.org/sites/default/files/2021-01/Inclusionary Housing US v1 O.pdf V' Randle, J., and Thurston, Z. (2022). Housing Statistics in Canada. Housing Experiences in Canada: Persons with disabilities. Statistics Canada. Release date: June 10, 2022. URL: https://wwwl50.statcan.gc.ca/nl/pub/46-28- 0001/2021001/article/00011-eng. htm V'' CMHC. (2016). Cost of Accessibility Features in Newly -Constructed Modest Homes. URL: https://assets.cmhc- schl.gc.ca/sf/prosect/archive/publications/research insight/68668.pdf?rev=996c7fa5-83b4-4d55-81cb- 863403e3748c Viii Sturtevant, L.A. (2016). Separating Fact from Fiction to Design Effective Inclusionary Housing Programs. Centre for Housing Policy. URL: https:Hihiusa.org/wp-content/uploads/Seperating-Fact-from-Fiction.pdf 'X Wang, R. and Balachandrian, S. (2021). Inclusionary Housing in the United States. URL: httos://groundedsolutions.org/sites/default/files/2021-01/Inclusionary Housing US v1 0.0f X City of Chicago. (2020). Inclusionary Housing Task Force Staff Report. September 2020. URL: https://www.chicago.gov/content/dam/city/depts/doh/ihtf/doh ihtf report.pdf X' Jacobus, R. (n.d.). Delivering on the Promise of Inclusionary Housing: Best Practices in Administration and Monitoring. Policyl-ink. URL: https://www.policylin k.org/sites/default/files/DE LIVER INGPROMISE INCLUSIONARYZONING FINAL.PDF X" R] City of Toronto. (2021). Draft Inclusionary Zoning Implementation Guidelines. URL: https://www.toronto.ca/wp- content/uploads/2021/10/8672-CityPlanning-Draft-Inclusionary-Zoning-Implementation-GuidelinesOct2021.pdf xiii San Francisco (City and County). (2018). Inclusionary Zoning Affordable Housing Program Monitoring and Procedures Manual. URL: https://Sfplanning.org/sites/default/files/documents/legis/inclusionary-affordable- requirements/Inclusionary Affordable Housing Program Manual.pdf xiv City of Chicago. (2021). Affordable Requirements Ordinance Rules. URL: https://www.chicago.gov/content/dam/city/depts/doh/aro/ARO Rules Oct 2021.pdf Page 126 of 350 nb1c N. Barry Lyon Consultants Ltd. Memorandum City of Waterloo To: City of Kitchener City of Cambridge Region of Waterloo From: N. Barry Lyon Consultants Limited Date: September 22, 2022 RE: Inclusionary Zoning Development Model Update User Manual 1.0 Introduction N. Barry Lyon Consultants Limited (`NBLC') has been retained collectively by the Cities of Waterloo, Kitchener, Cambridge and the Region of Waterloo (`the client group' to update a financial model that was previously prepared for the same client group to consider opportunities for Inclusionary Zoning (IZ) in 2019. This financial model is intended to aid key staff and decisionmakers in testing inclusionary zoning policy parameters and their impacts on underlying development economics. This memorandum provides further information on how to utilize the attached financial model, but also how to interpret its results. 2.0 Disclaimer, Model Use and Distribution The attached Excel file contains spreadsheets related to research and analysis conducted in support of an assessment of IZ throughout the study area. These spreadsheets have been provided to select staff at the Cities of Waterloo, Kitchener, Cambridge, and the Region of Waterloo for internal review and testing purposes only. Any structural changes made may cause the model to cease to function correctly. The distribution of this material beyond the client group is prohibited. These spreadsheets and their results are highly sensitive to changes in formulas or data. NBLC assumes no responsibility for the contents of these spreadsheets after distribution to key staff in the client group. Moreover, NBLC makes no representation with respect to financial modelling results without detailed study and independent verification. Inclusionary Zoning Model Manual Kitchener Waterloo Cambridge, Septmeber 2022 NBLC Docket #22-3586 Page 127 of 350 The conclusions and results contained in this analysis have been prepared based on both primary and secondary data sources. NBLC makes every effort to ensure the data is correct but cannot guarantee its accuracy. It is also important to note that it is not possible to fully document all factors or account for all changes that may occur in the future and influence the viability of any development. A major variable affecting the outcomes of this analysis is the rapidly changing cost of construction. The findings of this analysis reflect market conditions (revenues and costs) as of mid -2022. The hard costs of high-density housing have seen dramatic increases over the past two years because of supply chain and labour constraints related to the COVID-19 pandemic. Combined with rising interest rates, there is currently a significant degree of uncertainty in the near-term outlook for residential development projects. More importantly, while we have developed hard cost assumptions using up to date industry information, the actual costing of each project could vary significantly for many reasons including geotechnical complexity, environmental remediation, site scale and location, among others. Additionally, the selection of the test sites and typologies, while intended to be reflective of common forms of development in some of the Region's key market areas, are not able to capture the nuance of all development forms, ownership conditions, and site-specific characteristics across the cities. Also related is the nature of development or redevelopment potential throughout some areas of the cities. This analysis isolates evaluation to one single development phase. However, in some locations, the nature of redeveloping areas is such that larger sites will result in multi -phase developments. Project pre -development approval timelines are also consistent throughout the test sites in this review, however, we acknowledge that in practice, some projects could get delayed while others may proceed faster. The pace at which a project proceeds from conception to building permit can be a particularly important consideration. This analysis cannot capture certain nuances arising from the nature of a historical land purchase or the capitalization of land costs through the operation of an income -generating use. Nor can it contemplate the acquisition of land at speculative values, not fully appreciating the magnitude of impacts from future policy adjustments. Similarly, this analysis cannot account for all potential variations in the value of alternative land uses in a given area. Actual valuations will vary from property to property according to a wide range of site and incumbent landowner expectations. NBLC, therefore, assumes no responsibility for losses sustained as a result of implementing any recommendation arising in this analysis. This analysis has been prepared solely for the purposes outlined herein and is not to be relied upon, or used for any other purposes, or by any other party without the prior written authorization from NBLC. 3.0 Key Changes From Previous Model Since the completion of our initial analysis (Spring 2020), several key changes have been made within our model that are worth highlighting. Revenue Inputs New condominium apartment pricing in Waterloo Region has undergone substantial growth since the previous study, as shown in Figure 1. During the previous study, our testing assumed average index values ranging from $480 to $675 psf, which was based on market comparables at the time. Our current model utilizes significantly Inclusionary Zoning Model Manual pg. 2 Kitchener Waterloo Cambridge, Septmeber 2022 NBLC Docket #22-3586 Page 128 of 350 higher project index pricing, with values ranging from $847 to $1,044 psf. These assumptions are supported by several new projects that have successfully pushed pricing thresholds in Waterloo Region. Similarly, it is increasingly common for new condominium apartment projects to charge an additional fee for parking. We have included a separate parking fee at all of our test sites, whereas previously, many of the softer market areas included parking in the purchase price. As pricing has continued to grow, many new projects are offering increasingly compact unit sizing to keep end pricing down for purchasers. Given this, we have modelled slightly smaller unit sizing than in the previous iterations of this model. Most of the sites were previously modelled with an average unit size between 750 and 850 square feet. Our current model uses average unit sizing of between 618 to 713 square feet, depending on the market area. Finally, market evidence suggests that the level of demand for new condominium apartment units has grown considerably since the previous study, likely as an increasing number of would-be low-rise purchasers have been priced out of the market. This change has resulted in us using higher absorption rates than in the previous model. Figure 1— Condominium Apartment Project Average Opening Index Price, KCW, 2013 to 2022 (Weighted by Number of Units) $1,400 $1,200 `— $1,000 a` X a� $800 c $600 CLO $400 $200 Q 01* OWaterloo O Kitchener qqb1ik O Cambridge C� dODO 0 $0 I� Jan -2013 Jan -2014 Jan -2015 Jan -2016 Jan -2017 Jan -2018 Jan -2019 Jan -2020 Jan -2021 Jan -2022 Jan -2023 Opening Date Source: Altus Group Cost Inputs The cost of construction has experienced considerable escalation since the previous study. While Statistics Canada does not produce a Building Construction Index for KCW, Figure 2 illustrates the rate of cost escalation for new apartments in the GTA — a reasonably proxy for KCW. After modest growth for several years, supply chain challenges and labour shortages have pushed the cost of construction up significantly since 2020. From Q2 2020 to Q2 2022, the average cost of construction has risen by 36% for 5+ storey apartments and 61% for apartments under five storeys. Our current model has utilized the most up to date costing information from the 2022 Altus Canadian Construction Cost Guide. However, we note that this is published in the first quarter of each year, and costs have continued to inflate throughout 2022. Our current model has also used the most up to date soft costs, including the most up to date municipal fees, many of which have increased since the previous analysis. This includes planning fees, building permit fees, Inclusionary Zoning Model Manual pg. 3 Kitchener Waterloo Cambridge, Septmeber 2022 NBLCDocket #22-3586 Page 129 of 350 parkland dedication rates, and development charges. Further, we have utilized a Community Benefit Charge (`CBC') equivalent to 4% of the land value in our model. This charge was not present in the previous model. Finally, it is worth noting that the current model uses construction loan interest rates that are much higher than in the previous model. The current model uses a construction loan interest rate of 6.45% (prime plus 100bps), whereas the previous model utilized a construction loan interest rate of 4.50%. Figure 2 — Building Construction Price Index, GTA, Indexed to Q1-2017 190 180 170 1601 1.50 1401 1301 120 110 100 Q1 Q2 Q2 Q4 Q1 Q2 Q2 Q4 Q1 Q2 Q2 04 Q1 Q2 Q2 Q4 Q1 02 Q2 Q4 Q1 02 2017 2018 2019 2020 2021 2022 �5+ Storeys —<5 Storeys 4.0 Development Value vs. Existing Use Value Underpinning our analysis is the concept that each parcel of land has both a Development Value (DV) and an Existing Use Value (EUV). The DV is the parcel's value to someone who wants to build something on the land. In our circumstances, this refers to what a residential developer would be willing to pay to acquire the parcel. The EUV is the value of the land based on its existing use. When the DV is greater than the EUV, redevelopment is likely. When the EUV is greater than the DV, redevelopment is unlikely. On their own, inclusionary zoning policies will reduce a parcel's DV as the developer would be required to construct a portion of units at a production cost that is below the market value of those units. This reduction in DV can be sustainable if a parcel's DV remains above its EUV, however, the rate and magnitude of change can also be notable and significant as it relates to projects which are currently in the development pipeline, and/or where developers have already acquired parcels with intentions for near-term development. If the policies become so onerous that the DV falls below the EUV, this parcel would no longer be considered a candidate for redevelopment. This would reduce the supply of land that could be used for new housing — an unintended and undesirable consequence. Inclusionary Zoning Model Manual pg. 4 Kitchener Waterloo Cambridge, Septmeber 2022 NBLC Docket #22-3586 Page 130 of 350 Conversely, municipalities can offer incentives, both financial and non-financial, that help to offset the reduction in DV brought on by the introduction of inclusionary zoning policies. These offsetting measures can help ensure that the municipality is still able to achieve its affordable housing objectives through inclusionary zoning, without negatively impacting the supply of land available for redevelopment. In many jurisdictions where IZ policies are considered to be successful, offsetting measures play a significant role in policy design and calibration. 5.0 Interpreting the Dashboard Understanding this economic concept of DV and EUV, our model attempts to quantify the impact that inclusionary zoning policies and offsetting measures may have on the DV value of typical sites across a variety of geographies in Waterloo Region. In the chart at the bottom of our dashboard, a test site's DV is shown as a bar for each of the four adjustable policy arrangements. This DV can then be compared against the site's EUV, as input by the user, which is displayed as a line in the same chart. From this, two key findings should be considered: The DV Relative to the EUV. Most importantly, if the DV of the test site falls below the EUV value, this would be considered an undesirable outcome. It would mean the inclusionary zoning policy has sterilized the site from redevelopment, thereby restricting the potential supply of new housing, both market and non -market. The Rate/Magnitude of Change in the DV From the Status Quo. The rate of change in the DV is also important. Too significant of a drop in a short period of time could lead to landowners withholding their lands from the market, even if the DV remains above the EUV, until pricing has recovered. Again, this too could mean that the inclusionary zoning policy has restricted the supply of new housing, both market and non -market. 6.0 How to Utilize the Dashboard Under the tab `Land Values and User Inputs' tab of the workbook, existing land values can be input for each of the ten MTSAs. This value should be expressed on a $million per acre basis. These values could represent the value of a prevailing land use typology, more general averages, or a specific site value within that MTSA's market area, presumably based on data provided by realty services or appraisals. However, it is also important to acknowledge instances where a premium could be required as part of a land transaction in order to entice an existing land/ business owner to sell their site. Once these existing land use values have been entered, various policy parameters can be adjusted under the `Dashboard' tab in the workbook to arrive at a DV for each scenario. To begin, the MTSA to be tested can be selected in cell H10. Various policy parameters and offsetting measures can be selected in columns C through Column F. As these parameters are adjusted, the DV bar will adjust in real-time. Inclusionary Zoning Model Manual Kitchener Waterloo Cambridge, Septmeber 2022 NBLC Docket #22-3586 pg. 5 Page 131 of 350 Of note, while the parameters can be adjusted in the first Column (Column C), it is optimal to leave this column as is', so that it represents the existing baseline policy. This allows the user to easily see the impact of inclusionary zoning policies and offsetting measures on the DV. Figure 3 — All Four Policy Scenarios Produce a DV that is Higher than the EUV (Redevelopment is Likely) ttttiDeve'openentValue —Existing Use Value Figure 4 — Three of the Four Policy Scenarios Produce a DV that is Lower than the EUV (Redevelopment is Unlikely) E 0 =Development Vale —Existing Use Value Some Scenarios May Not be Viable In some instances, a combination of development and policy parameters may not `pencil', meaning that even if there were no land costs associated with the development, the costs of the project would outweigh the potential revenue. In these instances, a developer would not go ahead with the development under any circumstance. When this happens, the DV bar will display as a negative and the residual land value shown in row 45 will be highlighted in red. Solving Calculation Errors As the Dashboard's background model utilizes multiple circular references (e.g., often elements related to parkland calculations/ property tax/ land transfer tax), there may be instances where iterative calculations produce an error, outputting "N/A" instead of numerical values. If this happens, the calculation error can be broken with the `Model Fix Button' on the `Dashboard' tab (1-113). Simply select "Fix" from the drop-down menu, then revert to "OK". This button must be set to "OK" for the model to calculate properly. Inclusionary Zoning Model Manual Kitchener Waterloo Cambridge, Septmeber 2022 NBLC Docket #22-3586 pg. 6 Page 132 of 350 If this does not properly fix the broken calculations, please ensure that iterative calculations are turned on within Excel's options. To do this go to Excel's options page under the `File' tab, and under `Formulas', ensure that `Enable Iterative Calculation' is selected. 7.0 Model Parameters Descriptions The following section describes the selection parameters from our dashboard. Development Selections ■ MTSA — Selects one of the ten MTSAs. Each MTSA has been assigned market parameters that best reflect its local area. ■ Lot Size (Site Area) —Can beset between 0.5 acres and 1.5 acres. Of note, in order to accommodate parking, smaller lot sizes may result in some high-rise building typologies surpassing the standardized 24 -storeys. Information regarding buildimg height is shown in row 28 in the `Dashboard' tab of the workbook. ■ Development Type — This selects the building typology to be tested. This is based on a high-level review of recent apartment projects in Waterloo Region, with input from staff. The following table highlights key built - form parameters. ■ Principle Tenure —This selects the principle tenure for the market units in the development. Of note, due to prevailing economic conditions, most rental projects do not `pencil' in Waterloo Region, and therefore do not represent the DV of these hypothetical developments. ■ Commercial Space At -Grade — This selection determines whether the hypothetical development includes commercial space at grade, or if the building is entirely residential. Table 1 ■ AH Set Aside Rate — This selects what percent of the building's residential GFA will be dedicated to non - market housing. ■ IZ Unit Tenure — This selects the tenure of the non -market housing units with options for either condominium ownership, purpose-built rental, or rented condominium units. Of note, affordable condominium ownership rates have not been provided to NBLC. As such, under the `Land Values and User Inputs' tab, these values can be input manually. Inclusionary Zoning Model Manual Kitchener Waterloo Cambridge, Septmeber 2022 NBLC Docket #22-3586 pg. 7 Page 133 of 350 Input Low -Rise Apartment Mid -Rise Apartment High -Rise Apartment Comments/ Source/Units Site Area 43,560 43,560 43,560 square feet Gross Floor Area (GFA) 90,000 130,000 225,000 square feet Residential GFA 85,000 125,000 217,000 square feet Commercial GFA 5,000 5,000 8,000 square feet Total Storeys Before Bonus Density 6 12 24 storeys Construction Period 1.5 2.5 3.5 estimate Podium Storeys 6 4 6 estimate ■ AH Set Aside Rate — This selects what percent of the building's residential GFA will be dedicated to non - market housing. ■ IZ Unit Tenure — This selects the tenure of the non -market housing units with options for either condominium ownership, purpose-built rental, or rented condominium units. Of note, affordable condominium ownership rates have not been provided to NBLC. As such, under the `Land Values and User Inputs' tab, these values can be input manually. Inclusionary Zoning Model Manual Kitchener Waterloo Cambridge, Septmeber 2022 NBLC Docket #22-3586 pg. 7 Page 133 of 350 ■ Duration of Affordability —Selects whether the non -market housing units will be maintained at affordable rates for 25 years or in perpetuity. This only applies to rented non -market units, not affordable ownership units. ■ Set Aside Application —Selects whether the affordable housing set aside rate is applied to the project's total residential GFA or just to any bonus residential GFA that may be provided as an offsetting measure. ■ Depth of Affordability — Selects the depth of affordability for the non -market housing units as a percentage of AMR (CMHC average market rent). ■ Additional Density — Sometimes additional density can offset the negative impact of inclusionary zoning policies. This allows bonus density to be applied to the project as a percent of the total residential GFA. ■ Parking Ratio (Relative to Market) — This selection allows a reduction in the number of parking units that are required for the non -market units relative to what is required for the market rate units. For example, if a parking ratio of 1.0 is utilized for the market rate units, a 50% reduction would mean the non -market units have a parking ratio of 0.5. ■ DC Waiver — These selections allow for a percentage reduction in the Development Charges (both local and regional). ■ Parkland Waiver — This allows for a percentage reduction in the parkland dedication fees. ■ BP Fee Waiver — This allows for a percentage reduction in the building permit fees. ■ Planning Fee Waiver — This allows for a percentage reduction in the planning fees. ■ Waiver Rebate Application —This determines whether the DC waiver, the parkland waiver, the BP waiver, and the planning fee waiver are applied to all units in the development or just the non -market units only. ■ Property Tax Abatement —This allows for a percentage reduction in property taxes (either local or regional) for the non -market units for the duration of their affordability period. ■ Capital Subsidy — This allows for an upfront, one-time capital subsidy contribution to any of the development scenarios. Market Areas Finally, while not a selectable parameter, our model has three categorical market areas — Prime, Established, and Emerging — with each MTSA being assigned one of these market areas. Each of market areas comes with a set of parameters that best reflect existing market conditions in Waterloo Region. These parameters are shown below in Table 2 and the market area assigned to each MTSA is shown in Table 3. Inclusionary Zoning Model Manual Kitchener Waterloo Cambridge, Septmeber 2022 NBLC Docket #22-3586 pg. 8 Page 134 of 350 Table 2 Table 3 MTSA Market Areas Prime Established Emerging Unit Mix and Size Market Area Conestoga Waterloo Avg. Unit Size 618 650 713 Studio (%) 10% 10% 0% One -Bedroom (%) 50% 45% 50% Two -Bedroom (%) 40% 45% 50% Three -Bedroom (%) 0% 0% 0% Parking & Locker Emerging Hespeler Road Cambridge Residential Parking Ratio (Market) 0.5 0.7 1.0 Commercial Parking Ratio 2.0 2.0 2.0 Visitor Parking Ratio 0.1 0.1 0.1 Storage Locker Ratio 0.75 0.75 0.75 Pricing and Absorptions Market Index Price (Condo) $1,040 $920 $850 Parking Sale Price (Condo) $50,000 $40,000 $30,000 Locker Sale Price (Condo) $7,500 $7,500 $7,500 Sales Absorption Rate 40 30 20 Market Index Price (Rental) $3.30 $3.05 $2.75 Parking Price (Rental) $150 $120 $100 Locker Price (Rental) $75 $75 $75 Net Lease Rate $30 $25 $20 Rented Condo OpEx Excl. Property Tax $5,311 $5,590 $6,128 Table 3 MTSA Market Areas MTSA Municipality Market Area Conestoga Waterloo Established University of Waterloo Waterloo Prime Uptown Waterloo Waterloo Established Midtown Waterloo Established Downtown Kitchener Kitchener Prime Rockway Kitchener Emerging Fairway Kitchener Emerging Preston Cambridge Emerging Hespeler Road Cambridge Emerging Downtown Cambridge/ Main Cambridge Prime Disclaimer: The conclusions contained in this analysis have been prepared based on both primary and secondary data sources. NBLC makes every effort to ensure that data is correct but cannot guarantee its accuracy. It is also important to note that it is not possible to fully document all factors or account for all changes that may occur in the future and influence the viability of any development. NBLC, therefore, assumes no responsibility for losses sustained as a result of implementing any recommendation provided in this analysis. This report has been prepared solely for the purposes outlined herein and is not to be relied upon, used for any other purposes, or by any other party without the prior written authorization from N. Barry Lyon Consultants Limited. Inclusionary Zoning Model Manual Kitchener Waterloo Cambridge, Septmeber 2022 Pg- 9 NBLC Docket #22-3586 Page 135 of 350 Staff Report r NJ :R Development Services Department www.kitchener.ca REPORT TO: Planning and Strategic Initiatives Committee DATE OF MEETING: June 19, 2023 SUBMITTED BY: Garett Stevenson, Interim Director of Planning, 519-741-2200 Ext. 7070 PREPARED BY: Adam Clark, Senior Urban Designer, 519-741-2200 Ext. 7027 Richard Kelly-Ruetz, Senior Planner, 519-741-2200 Ext. 7110 John Zunic, Senior Planner, 519-741-2200 Ext. 7685 WARD(S) INVOLVED: Wards 9 & 10 DATE OF REPORT: May 19, 2023 REPORT NO.: DSD -2023-251 SUBJECT: Growing Together — Engagement Summary Report Overview RECOMMENDATION: That staff use the community input as summarized in the Growing Together Engagement Summary attached as Attachment A to report DSD -2023-251 to inform continued work on Growing Together. REPORT HIGHLIGHTS: • The purpose of this report is to update Council on the result of the Growing Together community engagement workshops held in March and April 2023. • Community engagement included 12 interactive workshops, including three targeted community workshops for residents of the Major Transit Station Areas (MTSA), three broad community workshops, and several other stakeholder workshops. • To inform of the Growing Together workshops, in March over 10,000 postcards were mailed to residents, an advertisement was placed in the WR Record, and an EngageWR project page launched. • Over the course of the workshop engagements, over 500 people participated and shared input on where low, mid-, and high-rise buildings should locate. Clear patterns emerged around where participants placed different built forms. The workshop engagement feedback will be used to inform, along with technical considerations, the development of draft land use and zoning direction to be released in early summer 2023. This will launch a 2 -month engagement process on draft land use and zoning. • This report supports the delivery of core services. BACKGROUND: The City of Kitchener is growing and faces many challenges. There is a housing affordability crisis and Council has declared a climate emergency. Land use policies and zoning regulations can play a role in addressing these challenges. *** This information is available in accessible formats upon request. *** Please call 519-741-2345 or TTY 1-866-969-9994 for assistance. Page 136 of 350 Major Transit Station Areas (MTSAs) have unique provincial and regional policies, and intensification around transit is a core fundamental principle of Ontario's planning framework. The City has launched Growing Together to implement these policies by updating the City's planning framework in MTSAs. Throughout 2023, the City is engaging on the Growing Together project, starting with a series of interactive workshops using a 3D -printed model of the Growing Together geography. This report summarizes and analyses the feedback collected at these community engagement workshops. REPORT: Growing Together is the continuation of the ongoing planning review process that began with Planning Around Rapid Transit Stations (PARTS) and advanced through the Neighbourhood Planning Review (NPR) project. Over 20 engagements were held during these projects to gather community input. Growing Together is among several housing - related studies and initiatives the City is currently undertaking. -_ f I ----I Municipal Housing Bill13, Sill 23, Bill 104 Shared Accommodations Evictions & DSsplacement Pledge Implementation Plan By-law (incl. Lodging House) Toolkit Implementation Growing Together Lower Doan Land Use Rental Replacement By-law Engagement summary study Implementation Implementation Missing Middle and Eviction &Displacement Eviction & Displacement Affordable Housing Study Welapage & Online Toolkit Options Update Reporting Update Inclusionary Zoning Direction Rental Replacement By-law Information Report Growing Together Implementation Inclusionary Zoning Implementation Details and timeline of ongoing City housing -related initiatives Growing Together focuses on the land use and zoning framework for seven of Kitchener's 10 MTSAs (west of the expressway), which include the Urban Growth Centre and Downtown Kitchener. The seven MTSAs are as follows: 1. Grand River Hospital 5. Kitchener Market 2. Central Station Innovation District 6. Borden 3. Victoria Park / Kitchener City Hall 7. Mill 4. Frederick / Queen Page 137 of 350 Victoria Pa Map of the 7 MTSAs within the Growing Together study area The final boundaries of the seven MTSAs have been established by the Region of Waterloo's Official Plan and approved by the Province in April 2023 (Regional Official Plan Amendment Number 6). An updated land use planning framework in the Growing Together MTSAs is needed to: • Meet the Municipal Housing Pledge target of 35,000 new units by the end of 2031 submitted to the Province by Council resolution on March 20, 2023; • Enable `Missing Middle' housing to increase housing choice and diversity. The Growing Together geography would be the first to see new `Missing Middle' permissions consistent with the recommendations of the Enabling Missing Middle and Affordable Housing Feasibility Study endorsed by Council on May 8, 2023; • Require affordable housing as part of new developments (Inclusionary Zoning). Inclusionary Zoning directions are being considered in a coordinated manner by Kitchener, Waterloo, and Cambridge with next steps being advanced in each municipality in June 2023 (DSD -2023-239). Provincial policy dictates that MTSAs are the only geography where inclusionary zoning policies can be applied; and, • Consider the pursuit of a downtown District Energy System which is a key part in growing more sustainably, reducing building -related greenhouse gas emissions, and supporting a prosperous and resilient energy transition. As part of the public launch of Growing Together, staff ran several community workshops. The Growing Together workshop format was intentionally designed to be: • Equitable: To reach a more diverse and representative range of community members; • Educational: To create an intuitive exercise using realistic building types and quantities to simulate growth and set expectations for future change; and • Measurable: To collect community input that can be meaningfully analyzed and quantified. Page 138 of 350 Growing Together has won two awards to date: 1. A Smart50 award, an international award honouring the 50 most transformative smart projects of the year. Additionally, at the Smart Cities Connect conference in Denver in May 2023, Growing Together was announced as one of the top 3 projects overall. These awards were presented to Council on May 29, 2023. 2. A 2023 Excellence in Municipal Systems award by the Municipal Information Systems Association of Ontario. Community Workshop Overview The Growing Together workshop featured a 3D -printed physical model representing the seven MTSAs west of the expressway. Participants were asked to place yellow buildings representing 18,000 new housing units across the seven MTSAs, an amount consistent with the Housing Pledge target of 35,000 new units by the end of 2031. The yellow buildings included different building types represented by low, medium, and high-rise buildings, and consistent with the types of developments currently being built in the MTSAs and expected to be built in the future. White buildings on the physical model represent the existing context. Staff were engaged in discussion with participants about their priorities, concerns, and ambitions for what Kitchener's MTSAs could become. Community workshop at the Kitchener Market on March 25th (link to video) Six workshops were designed and organized to engage community members in two categories: three focused workshops for residents of specific dwelling types within the Growing Together MTSAs, and three community workshops that were open for anyone to attend. As part of advertising the three focused workshops, 10,598 postcards were mailed to property owners and residents for the following three categories: • Low-rise detached dwelling residents (3,013 postcards); • Low-rise apartment residents (2,937 postcards); • Mid -rise and high-rise apartment residents (4,648 postcards). Page 139 of 350 To date, staff have run six community workshops that form the core of this report. The following table details the community workshops that were held in March and April 2023. Date Group/Event March 21 2023 Focused Community Workshop Mid -rise and High-rise Residents Location Participants Kitchener City Hall 60 Rotunda March 23 2023 Focused Community Workshop: Kitchener Public 75 Low-rise Detached Residents Library March 25 2023 Community -Wide Workshop Kitchener Market 370 March 27 2023 Community -Wide Workshop Stanley Park 25 Community Centre March 30 2023 Community -Wide Workshop Forest Heights KPL 20 April 4 2023 Focused Workshop: Low-rise Downtown 12 Multiple Residents Total Communitv Centre Staff also held additional stakeholder workshops with the following groups: • Downtown Community Working Group (January 24); • City of Kitchener Planning Staff (March 1); 562 • City Council (April 17); • Waterloo Region District School Board Geography Teachers (April 21); • Waterloo Region Association of Realtors (May 2); and, • City of Cambridge, City of Waterloo, and Region of Waterloo planners (May 18). Key Takeaways from Community Workshops There were several consistent themes across all workshops; • Broad support for growth and intensification within the MTSAs, with participants highlighting favourable access to transit, services, and amenities. • Transit -oriented development contributes to a walkable and vibrant downtown Kitchener by bringing a greater and more diverse mix of people to the core. • Additional green space and parks is needed as the city grows. • Participants stated their concern for housing affordability and accessibility. • Some participants shared concerns with tall buildings, including impacts on shadows, wind, and urban design. • Some participants voiced their support for tall buildings as part of a vibrant city, citing enhanced visual interest and variety of streetscapes at the street -level. • There was support for a variety of housing styles and types across the MTSAs to serve the full range of needs in the community and to provide options for people who want to live here. An interest in larger residential units with multiple bedrooms was commonly expressed. • There was interest in seeing taller buildings developed on lands that are currently vacant, industrial, or underutilized. • Workshop participants placed the most and the highest growth in the Urban Growth Centre, particularly around Central Station, followed by Borden Station and Mill Station. Higher growth was also directed along King, Victoria, Charles, Ottawa, and Weber. Many participants noted the importance of community infrastructure keeping pace with new growth, particularly schools, hospitals, and grocery stores. Page 140 of 350 Growing Together Engagement Summary Report The Growing Together Engagement Summary Report is appended as Attachment A and contains a detailed summary of what was heard as part of the six workshops. The appended report also contains corresponding analysis of where people placed buildings and makes observations about growth opportunities in the MTSAs. The analysis is an integral part in the development of draft land use and zoning materials, which are currently planned to be released for consultation in early summer. Left: A close-up photo from the March 25th workshop. Right: The same area in an image from the subsequent smart model analysis. Next Steps At this time, the next steps and general timing for the Growing Together project are as follows.. • The engagement summary will be posted to the Growing Together engage page for the public and other stakeholders to review; • In early summer, a guide with draft direction on land use and zoning within Kitchener's MTSAs will be available; • Over the summer months, staff will continue to engage with the community on the draft direction on land use and zoning at several community events and will continue to solicit input through the EngageWR project webpage; • In late summer/early fall 2023, a full set of draft materials, including draft Official Plan policies and zoning regulations, will be available for review and comment; and • Council consideration of decision on amendments to the Official Plan and Zoning By- law towards the end of 2023. 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. Page 141 of 350 COMMUNITY ENGAGEMENT: INFORM — This report has been posted to the City's website with the agenda in advance of the council / committee meeting. CONSULT — See Attachment A — Growing Together Workshop Engagement Summary. PREVIOUS REPORTS/AUTHORITIES: • DSD -20-151 Downtown District Energy Pre -Feasibility Study and Business Case • DSD -2023-063 City of Kitchener Municipal Housing Pledge • DSD -2023-071 Inclusionary Zoning for Affordable Housing: Status Update • DSD -2023-197 Downtown Kitchener Vision and Growing Together - Council Strategy Session REVIEWED BY: Natalie Goss, Manager, Policy & Research APPROVED BY: Justin Readman, General Manager, Development Services Department ATTACHMENTS: Attachment A — Growing Together Workshop Engagement Summary Page 142 of 350 Growing Together What We Heard: Workshop Engagement Summary Detailing Public Workshop Engagements Held in March and April of 2023 Prepared by: LURA Consulting & City of Kitchener Page 143 of 350 Contents ProjectOverview........................................................................................................................ 1 Engagement and Communications Approach............................................................................ 1 Summary of Workshop Results.................................................................................................. 6 NextSteps................................................................................................................................14 Appendix A: Summary and Analysis of Community Workshops.................................................15 Appendix B: Engagement and Communications Materials........................................................58 Appendix C — City of Kitchener Downtown Community Working Group Meeting #7 Summary..62 Page 144 of 350 City of Kitchener — Growing Together — Phase 1 Engagement Summary Report Project Overview The City of Kitchener is growing and faces many challenges. There is a housing affordability crisis and Council has declared a climate emergency. Land use policies and zoning regulations can play a significant role in addressing these challenges. Major Transit Station Areas (MTSAs) have unique provincial and regional policies, and intensification around transit is a core fundamental principle of Ontario's planning structure. The City has launched Growing Together to implement these policies by updating the City's planning framework in MTSAs. Kitchener's MTSAs have been established through the approval of the Region of Waterloo's Official Plan. Growing Together is the continuation of the ongoing planning review process that began with Planning Around Rapid Transit Stations (PARTS) and advanced through the Neighbourhood Planning Review (NPR) project. Over 20 engagements were held through these projects to gather community input. These engagements are detailed in Appendix B of this report. Growing Together focuses on the land use and zoning framework for seven of Kitchener's ten MTSAs (the MTSAs west of the expressway), which include the Urban Growth Centre and Downtown Kitchener. The seven MTSAs are as follows: 1. Grand River Hospital 2. Central Station Innovation District 3. Victoria Park & Kitchener City Hall 4. Frederick & Queen 5. Kitchener Market 6. Borden 7. Mill Throughout 2023, the City is engaging on the Growing Together project, which began with a series of interactive workshops using a 3D -printed model of the Growing Together geography. This report summarizes and analyses the feedback collected at these community engagement workshops, which were held in March and April of this year. Engagement and Communications Approach The last few years have seen many changes to the provincial and regional planning frameworks. Several new City priorities have emerged as well. Due to these changes, it was important that staff meaningfully re-engage with the community to explore what these changes mean. An interactive workshop format was chosen to ensure that this re-engagement was accessible, represented realistic parameters for future change, and led to community feedback that is implementable within the current land use planning process. Those changes, how they have impacted the project, and how they led to the creation of the Growing Together Workshop can be found in the workshop presentation. The Growing Together workshop format was intentionally designed to be: • Equitable: To reach a more diverse and representative range of community members. • Educational: To create an intuitive exercise using realistic building types and quantities to simulate growth and set expectations for future change. • Measurable: To collect community input that can be meaningfully analyzed and quantified. 1 Page 145 of 350 City of Kitchener — Growing Together — Phase 1 Engagement Summary Report An Award -Winning Process Growing Together has won two awards to date: • A Smart50 award, an international award honouring the 50 most transformative smart projects of the year. Additionally, at the Smart Cities Connect conference in Denver in May 2023, Growing Together was announced as one of the top 3 projects overall. • A 2023 Excellence in Municipal Systems award by the Municipal Information Systems Association of Ontario. Ontario Figure 1: The Logos for the Smart 50 Awards and MISA Ontario How the Workshops Were Organized The initial suite of 6 workshops were designed to engage community members in two categories; three focused workshops for residents of the Growing Together MTSAs, and three community -wide workshops that were broadly advertised for anyone to attend. How We Reached Out In March 2023, a project webpage and email address were launched to provide details about the project, workshop engagements, and information on ways to stay involved. A presentation detailing the workshop exercise and explaining the context around the exercise was posted on the project webpage. The Growing Together engage webpage received 1,400 total visits through April 19th, 2023. Postcard Notices As part of advertising the three targeted workshops, 10,598 postcards were mailed to property owners and tenants for the following three categories: 2 Page 146 of 350 City of Kitchener — Growing Together — Phase 1 Engagement Summary Report fable 1: Target Audience of Postcards and Number of Postcards Mailed Target Audience Description # of Postcards Low-rise detached People who live in single detached, duplex, and 3,013 dwelling residents triplex dwellings. Low-rise apartment People who live in small apartments that are 4 2,937 residents storeys or less. Mid -rise and high- People who live in apartments in mid -rise and 4,648 rise apartment high-rise buildings. residents TOTAL 10,598 A sample postcard is in Appendix B. Growing Together Card Deck A card deck was prepared with key facts about growth, housing, and land development in the City of Kitchener. This card deck was meant to be informative for workshop participants and was made available at the individual sessions. A sample from the card deck is in Appendix B. A .pdf of the full card deck is available on the Growing Together engage page. Advertisement in The Record A notice (Appendix B) advertising the 3 community -wide workshops was posted in the Waterloo Region Record on March 17th, 2023, in printed and online formats. News Release A City of Kitchener news release was sent on March 9, 2023 that highlighted project information and invited the community to engage online or in person at the three community -wide workshops. Email Notification The Growing Together Engage page allows anyone interested in this project to sign up for e-mail subscriptions to receive updates and notices of events relating to the project. 80 community members are subscribed to the engage page. Additionally, email notification was sent to everyone on the notification list to update them on the project and direct them to the Growing Together Engage page. How the Workshop Works The Growing Together workshop is based around an accurate, 3D -printed physical model representing the 7 MTSAs west of the expressway, at a 1:1000 scale. White buildings represent the existing context. Yellow buildings represent 18,000 new housing units, an amount consistent with our Housing Pledge target of 35,000 units by the end of 2031. These units are represented by 6 different typical buildings in three broad categories of low, medium and high-rise development, consistent with the types of development the MTSAs are experiencing and are likely to experience moving forward. A detailed methodology is available here. 3 Page 147 of 350 City of Kitchener — Growing Together — Phase 1 Engagement Summary Report Figure 2: A photo from the April 17th Council Strategy Session Workshop. Each workshop asked participants to place the provided buildings within the Growing Together geography. Staff were in continuous discussion with participants about their priorities, concerns, and ambitions for what Kitchener's MTSAs will become. To date, staff have run 12 workshops in total, including a suite of 6 community workshops that form the core of this report and the analysis we have produced. The other workshops included groups such as City Staff, Waterloo Region District School Board teachers, the Waterloo Region Association of Realtors, and others. The full list can be found in Appendix B. Table 2: Location and Number of Participants at Engagement Events Date Group/Event Location March 21 2023 Focused Community Workshop, Kitchener City Hall Mid -rise and High-rise Residents Rotunda March 23 2023 Focused Community Workshop, Kitchener Public Low-rise Non -multiple Residents Library March 25 2023 Community Wide Workshop Kitchener Market March 27 2023 Community Wide Workshop Stanley Park Community Centre March 30 2023 Community Wide Workshop Forest Heights KPL April 4 2023 Focused Workshop, Low-rise Downtown Community Multiple Residents Centre Total Participants 60 75 370 25 20 12 The results of each workshop were captured at the end of each event. Each workshop was photographed in detail. Each building placed by a community member was recreated in a digital smart model unique to each workshop. 4 Page 148 of 350 City of Kitchener - Growing Together - Phase 1 Engagement Summary Report Figure 3: Left: A close-up photo from the March 25th workshop. Right: The same area in an image from the smart model. The smart model contains information about every building within it; how many housing units it represents, and how many people and jobs are contained within. It provides instant access to data on station area density, people to job ratios, and more. What makes this so unique and valuable is that staff can directly align the community input received with various technical land use planning requirements, making direct comparisons possible, translating workshop results into mapping and datasets with real-world applicability. '- w Ere.�.siav nx=.R c1 Fila Teals Dara Dpkpns Help t e.,.a•==�. onr e, ,,,, cyrvxs our Whole Rat 41T/Bliek Land Use a- .......,... . Add F.W" Edt Lewd Use' E= w _Kohl J cd l KI Add Iles Land Use v*es Is the sum low E IAdd only Paddng vuluss to the sum natal urvI Primary Uric. Ppadmanl _ Bacandry unit:Rasidual rve1 Ei uoaaaF.NFA FaalarInlenlaC @p 94 NFA Re. Tecmce: F-25 % NFAFador LoggiwF 75 % cnn-1GFA per Apadmam: 90.00 mr „ NFA pet Amanmerr4.�..m` Whale PWl I Land Uses I City Bkds � Cly Blocku land Uses 4 City Bkcb Laved U4e Summary(Exeal U* + Buildings compWx HaLlirg4 Complex Buildings Land Uaes CpmpWx BUildiwgs Paas Bulking Sm.y Grass Fkpr Areas (Excel Orly} P""g1.90 Building M0350 49.5 49.5 0.1 1 4.85 9.9 2.07 74.25 1.98 C.. Emslllg-Parldug 39.6 1 ! 1 I layer0 Building M0251 49 5 495 -.. 01 1 495 99 2 97 74.25 190 Packing SPaaes 190 {;nrs F�s9ng,Park" 390 _. 1 I 1 Y U"M Building 1110352 49.5 49.5 0.1 1 4.95 9 2.97 74.75 I.98 Packing 1:98 Cars Exrsllwg_P.,kCg 39.6 1 1 1 1 LayacU Spaces Building 1110353 495 19.5 01 1 495 9.9 2.97 7425 1.90 Packinpacesg S 1.98 Cars ERSI!Ikg Pa+kmg 39.8 f 1 1 I LaY.0 Building 1110354 30*11] 75011 1209 40 90.000.0 L875.0 375.0 9.375.0 375.0 Auxft is 630.0 Residenls WorkshopHghRes 24.000.0 1 1 1 f Buld.g_E.d pec W Building ill0355 5760 578.0 9.0 1 2304.0 72.0 1aA 380.9 14.4 Shoos 144 Empkvees- Warkshao_Re9ail 463.0 1 ! f Y 8uiking_Envolooas_W Building MOM 407'20 10060 _ 120 _ 4 12,0960 2520 544 1110 50.4 Apartments_ 8064 Residents Workshop HlghRes 32250 I 1 f I aulding Envelopes W Building 1110357 6.490.0 1.296A i0.9 5 20,738,0 1,296.8 398.0 6,720.0 2592 SPsces 2592 Cars WorkshopPkmg 5,184,0 1 f- I �BwW.e_Emdopes_W Figure 4: A screenshot of the digital smart model. Testing the Workshop Format Prior to the community workshops, the workshop format was trialed with the Downtown Community Working Group that was formed to guide the Downtown Vision project. Their feedback helped shape the final workshop format and served as an opportunity to hear from that group on how growth and change can be shaped from their perspective. The feedback received is detailed in Appendix C. 5 Page 149 of 350 City of Kitchener — Growing Together — Phase 1 Engagement Summary Report The workshop was tested on a second occasion internally at the Planning Division Staff Meeting on March 1St, with the intention of evaluating the format for final improvements. Figure 5: Left: A photo from the January 24th workshop with the Downtown Community Working Group. Right, a photo from the March 1st Planning Division Staff Meeting workshop. Summary of Workshop Results Consolidated Results from the Six Public Workshops Through the 6 public workshops, staff consulted with 562 total participants. The following pages summarize the feedback received and document the smart modeling analysis across these 6 workshops combined. Following this broad summary are summaries and analyses for each workshop individually in Appendix A. A summary of the April 17th Council workshop is also available in Appendix A. Key Findings, Overall Summary There were several consistent themes across all workshops; • Broad support for growth and intensification within the MTSAs, with participants highlighting favourable access to transit, services, and amenities. • Transit -oriented development contributes to a walkable and vibrant downtown Kitchener by bringing a greater number of more diverse people to the city core. • Additional green space and parks needs to be considered as the city grows. 6 Page 150 of 350 City of Kitchener — Growing Together — Phase 1 Engagement Summary Report • Participants stated their concern for housing affordability and accessibility. • Some community members shared concerns with tall buildings, including their impacts on shadows, wind, and urban design. Others supported tall buildings as part of a vibrant city, adding visual interest and variety to the architecture and urban design of the Kitchener. • Staff heard multiple perspectives supporting a greater variety of housing styles and types, to serve the full range of needs in the community and to provide options for people who want to live here. An interest in larger units was commonly expressed. • There was consistent interest in seeing high-rise development on currently vacant, industrial, or underutilized lands. • Workshop participants placed the most and the highest density growth in the Urban Growth Centre — particularly around the Central Station/Innovation District stop — and surrounding the Borden and Mill stops. Higher density growth was also directed along King Street, Victoria Street, Charles Street, Ottawa Street and Weber Street. • Many community members noted the importance of community infrastructure keeping pace with new growth, particularly schools, hospitals, and grocery stores. Mapping Summary The maps below show the combined results of the six community workshops. The first map demonstrates where low, medium, and high-rise buildings were placed by all 562 workshop participants combined. Key Findings, Overall Building Placement Low � Medium / High Figure 6: Map showing where all buildings were placed by workshop participants across the six public workshops. 7 Page 151 of 350 City of Kitchener — Growing Together — Phase 1 Engagement Summary Report As seen in the image above; • Medium and high-density growth was focused at LRT stops, along the LRT corridor and also along major streets like Victoria Street, Charles Street, King Street, and Ottawa Street. • Significant growth was also focused on large "opportunity sites" such as various large surface parking lots and existing industrial lands around the Borden and Mill Stations. • Low-rise growth was generally placed in existing low-rise neighbourhoods. In some cases, low-rise buildings were placed in areas otherwise populated by mid and high-rise buildings. In other cases, mid and high-rise buildings were placed within existing low-rise neighbourhood contexts. However, broadly across the workshops, low-rise buildings were placed within low-rise existing neighbourhood contexts. • A large amount of new high-density growth was placed within the Urban Growth Centre (downtown). Workshop participants demonstrated significant "room to grow" within downtown Kitchener, and broadly indicated a preference for the continued build out of the downtown and other key areas over a more `even' distribution of high-rise forms across the Growing Together geography. Key Findings, Low-rise Building Placement Figure 7: Map showing where low-rise buildings were placed across the six public workshops. 8 Page 152 of 350 City of Kitchener — Growing Together — Phase 1 Engagement Summary Report As seen in the image above; • A significant concentration of low-rise buildings was placed near the Kitchener Market, generally between Cedar Street, King Street East, Stirling Avenue, and Weber Street East. Other areas of focus include Victoria Park and the Mt. Hope/Breithaupt Neighbourhood. • Aside from these areas of focus, low rise buildings were broadly placed across the entire MTSA geography. • In general, low-rise buildings were placed further away from LRT stations than other forms of growth and within existing low-rise neighbourhoods. Key Findings, Mid -rise Building Placement Figure 8: Map showing where mid -rise buildings were placed across the six public workshops. • Mid -rise buildings were distributed fairly evenly throughout the MTSAs, with no obvious concentrations observed in one particular area. • These buildings were often placed on larger roads like Ottawa Street, King Street, Courtland Avenue, Weber Street, or Victoria Street. They usually lined these streets. • In general, mid -rise buildings were placed on the outside edges of low-rise neighbourhoods, appearing to serve as a "transition" between high and low-rise buildings. We can see this along Benton Street, Courtland Ave., Ottawa Street, and others. • Mid -rise buildings were often placed in the same areas as high-rise buildings, indicating that a mix of mid and high-rise forms was often preferred for larger opportunity sites, with multiple buildings at a range of heights. 9 Page 153 of 350 City of Kitchener — Growing Together — Phase 1 Engagement Summary Report Key Findings, High -Rise Building Placement High Figure 9: Map showing where high-rise buildings were placed across the six public workshops. • High rise buildings were generally clustered in the immediate vicinity of LRT stations. • The Urban Growth Centre (downtown) also saw a significant concentration of high-rise buildings placed there. This suggests capacity for continued growth. • Borden Station received a significant amount of new high-rise growth surrounding the station stop. • A few tall buildings were placed in the "Civic District" near Centre in the Square and the Kitchener Central Library. • The north-east side of King Street (opposite Grand River Hospital) saw a concentration of high-rise buildings. The hospital side did not receive many tall buildings, with the notable exception of the large parking lot at Union/King, which saw significant growth added. • Victoria Street, Mill/Stirling, and the Catalyst 137 property also saw tall buildings placed there, despite these areas being slightly further away from LRT stations. These areas were viewed as underutilized "opportunity sites" with large lots that are further away from low rise neighbourhoods and could be suitable for significant density. • Very few tall buildings were placed in the middle of an existing low-rise neighbourhood. 10 Page 154 of 350 City of Kitchener — Growing Together — Phase 1 Engagement Summary Report Key Findings, `Best Fit' of all Building Placement Figure 10: A map showing a broadly generalized `best fit' of all building placement. • This map removes the low/medium/high categories and shows a broadly generalized best fit of where all growth was placed throughout all six workshops combined. It shows that some form of growth can happen nearly everywhere within the Growing Together MTSAs. • The least amount of growth was placed within parks and cemeteries, followed by the existing low-rise residential areas the furthest away from ION stops, such as the far southwest of the Mill station and the westernmost extremes of the Grand River Hospital Station. However, some growth was placed in every part of each MTSA at one point or another. • Because this layers all 6 workshops together, areas of greater transparency indicate areas where fewer workshops concentrated buildings. Areas of greater opacity indicate areas where there was the most consensus around locating growth. These areas include the Urban Growth Centre boundary within the concentrated placement of buildings in the Central Station/Innovation District, Victoria Park/City Hall and Queen/Frederick MTSAs. This again shows strong community support for continued intensification of Downtown Kitchener. • Intensification can also be read strongly along the entirely of the LRT route; along King Street, Charles and Duke, and Borden and Ottawa. • Additional concentrations are clearly seen surrounding the Borden stop, including nearly all of the Borden MTSA (with the exception of the cemetery). The Mill stop sees a similar concentration around the station stop, but also extending along the rail corridor within underutilized industrial lands. 11 Page 155 of 350 City of Kitchener — Growing Together — Phase 1 Engagement Summary Report Key Findings, Aggregated Data Analysis A full quantitative analysis is available for each community workshop in Appendix A. An aggregated summary of that analysis covering all workshops combined is provided below. • On average, participants placed 16,116 of the 18,000 units, or 90% of the provided housing. This ranged from a low of 68% to a high of 98%, with higher turnout workshops generally placing more of the buildings (suggesting that more participants led to higher overall participation in the exercise). • People placed the most growth in the Central station (22% of all units). The fewest number of units were placed in the Market station (6%). Significant growth was placed in the Urban Growth Centre (35% of all units). The following table shows the average distribution of units across the six community workshops. Table 3: Number of Units Placed in MTSAs (Average of all Engagement Sessions) Ma'or Transit Station Areas Total GRH Central City Queen Market Borden Mill UGC* MTSA Hall Units 16,116 1,731 3,947 1,968 1,326 1,066 3,527 2,550 6,211 Placed % of 90% 10% 22% 11% 7% 6% 20% 15% 35% 18k *The UGC boundary includes portions of the Central, City Hall, Queen, and Market MTSAs • Including existing buildings, the largest amount of total people, on average, would be living in the Central station (11.5k). The smallest populations are found in the Grand River Hospital (5.9k) and Market (5.0k) station areas. • Including existing buildings, the largest amount of total jobs, on average, would be located in the Central station (7.4k). The lowest job totals are found in the Borden (2.0k) and Market (2.0k) stations. • Including existing buildings, the lowest people -to -jobs ratio is found in the Grand River Hospital (1.13 people per job) and Frederick and Queen station areas (1.27 people per job). The highest ratio is found in the Borden station (3.28 people per job). A common best practice is to target a ratio of between 2:1 and 3:1, which is a mix of people and jobs that leads to a good balance of daytime and evening activity to support local businesses and other amenities. Generally speaking, an area with a ratio of less than 2:1 means we should consider ways to add additional housing. An area with a ratio of greater than 3:1 means we should consider ways to add additional employment. 12 Page 156 of 350 City of Kitchener — Growing Together — Phase 1 Engagement Summary Report Table 4: Number of New People and Jobs in MTSAs (Average of all Engagement Sessions) Major Transit Station Areas MTSA Total GRH Central City Queen Market Borden Mill UGC MTSA 154 125 201 Hall 209 115 146 84 341 Total People 51141 ' 5,854 11,520 8,707 6,801 5,049 6,696 6,513 19,608 Total Jobs 29,504 ' 5,164 7,351 5,295 5,334 1,972 2,041 2,346 16,146 Ppl/Job Ratio 1.73 1.13 1.57 1.64 1.27 2.56 3.28 2.78 1.21 • On average, the workshops met the provincial minimum density target of 160 people and jobs per hectare for Central Station, City Hall & Victoria Park and Queen & Frederick stations (green in map below). It did not reach the minimum density targets for Grand River Hospital, Kitchener Market, Borden or Mill stations (red in map below). • Significant capacity was demonstrated in the Urban Growth Centre, achieving an average density across the workshops of 341 people and jobs per hectare. Table 5: Density of People and Jobs per Hectare in MTSAs (Average of all Engagement Sessions) Major Transit Station Areas MTSA Total GRH Central City Hall Queen Market Borden Mill UGC Density 154 125 201 250 209 115 146 84 341 13 Page 157 of 350 City of Kitchener — Growing Together — Phase 1 Engagement Summary Report Figure 11: A map showing whether, on average, each station was able to meet its minimum density target through the workshop exercise. Next Steps In early summer, draft land use and zoning direction will be available for review and comment. That overview will detail how the community input summarized here has been considered in the draft directions into the project moving forward. It will also summarize how the policies being developed through Growing Together are being designed to align with various City priorities and objectives. Community engagement on draft directions will occur in person at events and virtually through the Growing Together engage page. In late summer/early fall, a full set of draft materials, including draft Official Plan land uses and policies, and zoning regulations will be available for review and comment. Council consideration of a decision on amendments to the Official Plan and Zoning By-law are expected towards the end of 2023. 14 Page 158 of 350 City of Kitchener — Growing Together — Phase 1 Engagement Summary Report Appendix A: Summary and Analysis of Community Workshops Mid -Rise and High -Rise Resident Workshop (March 21, 2023) Engagement Event Overview • Focused engagement for residents of mid -rise and high-rise apartments living within the MTSAs. • 60 participants in the workshop. • 4,648 promotional postcards mailed to residents. • Held in the Kitchener City Hall Rotunda on March 21St, 2023, from 2pm-8pm Figure 12: Photo of the workshop in progress. Staff spoke with a former Forest Heights resident of 20+ years who moved downtown because his partner felt it would be better for their lifestyle. He was indifferent about the change at the time but now thinks it was a good fit for this stage of their life. Y 15 Page 159 of 350 City of Kitchener — Growing Together — Phase 1 Engagement Summary Report Figure 13: Image from the smart model of the workshop results. Several people expressed that they enjoyed the workshop exercise and that it helped them to visualize the amount of housing that the City needs to plan for. Where People Placed Growth "We need to develop in empty spaces that are widely underutilized like the Borden Station Area and Airboss factory." One person who recently moved from the GTA to the Kaufman Lofts discussed the need for more services, amenities, and events in the downtown core and major transit station areas. They stressed a need for greater growth as it will bring more of these services, amenities, and events to the Downtown and the MTSAs. The following "heat map" represents where workshop participants placed low, medium, and high- rise housing units through the workshop exercise. Concentrations of growth are found around ION LRT stops. Parts of Victoria Street and Ottawa Street also see significant growth potential identified. 16 Page 160 of 350 City of Kitchener — Growing Together — Phase 1 Engagement Summary Report rr /f LOW `L�, ✓ Medium High ti�> Figure 14: A heat map of where participants placed low, medium and high-rise buildings. • 98% of the 18,000 total units were allocated during the workshop. • Growth was generally placed near MTSA station stops, along the ION route, and throughout the Downtown. • Low-rise growth was distributed widely. • Mid -rise growth was also placed broadly throughout, but more mid -rise buildings were placed closer to ION stops. "The ION is very convenient. Multiple participants stacked towers on top of Many stops are already very busy office buildings, expressing a desire for and have a lot of use. But Mill and vertical mixed use. Others stacked towers on Borden are not as busy as other top of towers, noting that specific locations stops. More development would (the hub, for example) could be density help fix that." carriers beyond the tallest building typology provided. High-rise growth was placed in closer proximity to station stops and on large opportunity sites. The placement of low, medium and high-rise buildings can be seen separated out in the maps below. A fourth map shows a continuous map zone capturing all growth, as placed by participants. 17 Page 161 of 350 City of Kitchener — Growing Together — Phase 1 Engagement Summary Report Low PW Figure 15: A series of four maps showing where participants placed low, medium, and rise growth, as well as a best fit map of all growth combined. • People placed the most growth in the Central station (24% of all units). The fewest number of units were placed in the City Hall/Victoria Park station (9%). Significant growth was placed in the Urban Growth Centre (39% of all units) Table 6: Number of Units Placed in MTSAs (Mid -Rise and High -Rise Resident Workshop) Major Transit Station Areas Total GRH Central City Queen Market Borden Mill UGC* MTSA Hall Units 17,571 2,352 4,297 1,682 1,534 1,739 3,255 2,711 6,947 Placed % of 98% 13% 24% 9% 9% 10% 18% 15% 39% 18k *The UGC boundary includes portions of the Central, City Hall, Queen, and Market MTSAs • Including existing buildings, this workshop resulted in the largest amount of total people living in the Central station (12.2k). The smallest populations are found in the Borden (6.2k) and Market (6.2k) station areas. However, the distribution of population among station areas is relatively even in this workshop scenario compared to some others. • Including existing buildings, this workshop resulted in the largest amount of total jobs being located in the Central (7.7k) station. The lowest job total is found in the Borden station area (1.4k). 18 Page 162 of 350 City of Kitchener — Growing Together — Phase 1 Engagement Summary Report • Including existing buildings, the lowest people to jobs ratio is found in the Frederick and Queen station area (1.3 people per job). The highest ratio is found in the Borden station (4.4 people per job). Table 7: Number of New People and Jobs in MTSAs (Mid -Rise and High -Rise Resident Workshop) Major Transit Station Areas MTSA Total GRH Central City Queen Market Borden Mill UGC MTSA 161 130 212 Hall 219 136 127 97 359 Total People 53,619 ' 6,891 12,206 8,306 7,182 6,150 6,209 6,666 20,957 Total Jobs 30,572 ' 4,554 7,688 5,693 5,540 2,128 1,411 3,559 16,707 Ppl/Job Ratio 1.75 1.51 1.59 1.46 1.30 2.89 4.40 1.87 1.25 • This workshop met minimum density targets for Central Station, City Hall & Victoria Park, and Queen & Frederick stations (green in map below). It did not reach the minimum density targets for Grand River Hospital, Kitchener Market, Borden or Mill stations (red in map below). • Significant capacity was demonstrated in the Urban Growth Centre, achieving a density in this workshop of 359 people and jobs per hectare. Table 8: Density of People and Jobs per Hectare in MTSAs (Mid -Rise and High -Rise Resident Workshop) Major Transit Station Areas MTSA Total GRH Central City Hall Queen Market Borden Mill UGC Density 161 130 212 250 219 136 127 97 359 19 Page 163 of 350 City of Kitchener — Growing Together — Phase 1 Engagement Summary Report Figure 16: A map showing which MTSAs would meet their minimum required density targets as a result of this workshop. I Multiple participants stacked towers on top of office buildings, expressing a desire for vertical mixed use. Others stacked towers on top of towers, noting that specific locations (the hub, for example) could be density carriers beyond the tallest building typology provided. What We Heard & What We Saw There is a significant amount of recurring interest in specific services and amenities; hospital access to serve a growing population was top of mind for many. More grocery stores were often noted as a need. Staff wanted to better understand the comments and asked for clarification, as there are many small grocery stores operating in our MTSAs; people generally meant larger -format, nationally branded grocers. Participants in this workshop generally agreed that growth and intensification is inevitable and would prefer to see high-rise buildings continue to be built along the LRT. Participants expressed that the city could accommodate the most growth near LRT stations such as Borden and Mill. Feedback expressed general satisfaction with the way Kitchener has been developing tall buildings over the last several years. One participant called for more interesting, `less boxy' architectural forms. One participant cautioned against creating `canyons' of too -similar towers. When discussing building height, participants noted that the downtown could accommodate high- rise developments in line with currently proposed developments. Participants in the workshop noted they would like to see architecturally significant building design and high-quality building materials in new developments. 20 Page 164 of 350 City of Kitchener — Growing Together — Phase 1 Engagement Summary Report Some participants expressed a need for more `family -sized' units in Kitchener's MTSAs. However, since `family' means many different things to many different people, staff wanted to better understand this concern. People generally meant that they did not believe there were large enough units being created within new developments to serve the needs of households with multiple children. One participant suggested that building height does not concern him, but unit size does. Participants commented on the housing affordability crisis and wanted to see the City encourage affordable housing. Participants had questions about the definitions of affordability and would like to see the definition broadened. It was expressed that larger units for larger household sizes should be provided through new development. be Several comments were made by participants indicating they enjoy living in high-rise buildings downtown and that they would be happy to see more tall buildings downtown. They noted this would bring vibrancy and life to the streets of downtown. More people living downtown would encourage new businesses, such as a downtown grocery store. Participants expressed interest in seeing mixed-use buildings hosting new companies and housing units. CParking/traffic was discussed thoughtfully; with some concerned about the impact of additional cars on existing roads, but with others talking through cycling, transit, and trail opportunities as ways to help people rely less often on personal vehicles. Some participants believe that a personal vehicle is still necessary, even downtown. Others feel the opposite, and rely on the ION, cycling, and other methods to get around. While participants generally supported more housing development downtown, concern about traffic management was expressed. Participants spoke about the need to ensure that City infrastructure and services such as water, transportation and fire can meet the needs of an increased population. Participants also spoke of the need for more green space to accommodate additional residents. Specifically, they mentioned the Iron Horse Trail/Schneider Creek as important opportunities for green space. 21 Page 165 of 350 City of Kitchener — Growing Together — Phase 1 Engagement Summary Report Figure 17: An additional photo of the workshop. 22 Page 166 of 350 City of Kitchener — Growing Together — Phase 1 Engagement Summary Report Low -Rise Non -Multiple Resident Workshop (March 23, 2023) Engagement Event Overview ➢ Focused engagement for residents of low-rise non -multiple homes within the MTSAs. ➢ 75 participants in the workshop. ➢ 3,013 promotional postcards mailed to residents. ➢ Held in the Central Branch Kitchener Public Library on March 23 d 2023 from 6pm-8pm Residents discussed the positive benefits that the MTSA geography has — walkability, access to transit, shops, grocery stores, entertainment. They discussed how it is important to protect these functions/activities and that growth should accommodate these positive 1 attributes. Figure 18: Photo from the workshop. Figure 19: Image from the smart model of the workshop results. 23 Page 167 of 350 City of Kitchener — Growing Together — Phase 1 Engagement Summary Report r"Ottawa and Borden got a lot of density during the activity. It is a large area that is underutilized and right on the LRT. It is realistic for it to be taller here, adding office buildings, and a broader mixed of uses." �x Where People Placed Growth The following "heat map" represents where workshop participants placed low, medium, and high-rise housing units during the workshop exercise. Concentrations of growth are found around ION LRT stops, particularly the Grand River Hospital and Borden stations. Growth was also distributed throughout the Urban Growth Center and by the Mill station stop. Several comments noted "Mixed use development should be on King Street, near parking lots in the the LRT. It would make sense to see business on the downtown that could be ground floor and housing above." redeveloped. Figure 20: A heat map of where participants placed low, medium and high-rise buildings. 24 Page 168 of 350 City of Kitchener — Growing Together — Phase 1 Engagement Summary Report "Stirling and Courtland could be redeveloped. It doesn't back onto many houses and it wouldn't be disruptive to develop. It is also close to a station and very convenient" "I think there should be more high-rises downtown. I want it to be more vibrant, give more life to the city, and attract business, restaurants, and places where people can walk to work". • 96% of the 18,000 total units were allocated during the workshop. Growth was generally placed near MTSA station stops, along the ION route, and throughout the west end of Downtown. Low-rise growth was distributed widely. Mid -rise growth was also placed broadly throughout but often placed closer to ION stops. High-rise growth on large opportunity sites and on lands in close proximity to station stops. • The placement of low, medium and high-rise buildings can be seen separated out in the maps below. Low High "Best Fit" of All Growth Figure 21: A series of four maps showing where participants placed low, medium, and rise growth, as well as a best fit map of all growth combined. • People placed the most growth in the Borden station (31 % of all units). The fewest number of units were placed in the Queen and Frederick and Market stations (3% in each). Significant growth was placed in the Urban Growth Centre (30% of all units) 25 Page 169 of 350 City of Kitchener — Growing Together — Phase 1 Engagement Summary Report Table 9: Number of New Units in MTSAs (Low -Rise Non -Multiple Resident Workshop) Major Transit Station Areas Total GRH Central City Queen Market Borden Mill UGC MTSA Hall Units 17,301 2,448 3,981 1,509 562 503 5,647 2,654 5,474 Placed 53,236 ' 7,012 11,602 7,958 5,516 4,128 10,294 6,726 18,242 % of 96% 14% 22% 8% 3% 3% 31% 15% 30% 18k 30,967 ' 6,229 7,275 4,864 5,109 1,679 3,123 2,687 15,457 • People placed the most new units in Central station. While this is the most populated MTSA today, this suggests that people see additional capacity for growth. • Including existing buildings, this workshop resulted in the largest amount of total people living in the Central station (11.6k) and Borden station (10.3k). The smallest population is found in the Market station area (4.1 k). • Including existing buildings, this workshop resulted in the largest amount of total jobs being located in the Central (7.3k). The lowestjob total is found in the Market station area (1.7k). • Including existing buildings, the lowest people to jobs ratio is found in the Frederick and Queen station area (1.08 people per job). The highest ratio is found in the Borden station (3.3 people per job). Table 10: Number of New People and Jobs in MTSAs (Low -Rise Non -Multiple Resident Workshop) Major Transit Station Areas Total GRH Central City Queen Market Borden Mill UGC MTSA Hall Total People 53,236 ' 7,012 11,602 7,958 5,516 4,128 10,294 6,726 18,242 Total Jobs 30,967 ' 6,229 7,275 4,864 5,109 1,679 3,123 2,687 15,457 Ppl/Job Ratio 1.72 1.13 1.59 1.64 1.08 2.46 3.30 2.50 1.18 • This workshop met minimum density targets for Central Station, City Hall & Victoria Park, Queen & Frederick and Borden stations (green in map below). It did not reach the minimum density targets for Grand River Hospital, Kitchener Market, or Mill stations (red in map below). • Significant capacity was demonstrated in the Urban Growth Centre, achieving a density in this workshop of 321 people and jobs per hectare. 26 Page 170 of 350 City of Kitchener — Growing Together — Phase 1 Engagement Summary Report Table 11: Density of People and Jobs per Hectare in MTSAs (Low -Rise Non -Multiple Resident Workshop) Major Transit Station Areas MTSA Total GRH Central City Hall Queen Market Borden Mill UGC Density 16 1 150 201 229 183 95 224 90 321 Figure 22: A map showing which MTSAs would meet their minimum required density targets as a result of this workshop. "Mill and Ottawa can accommodate growth. The houses "The Market Squarearea is underutilized, there are getting to be around 70 years old and it could be and well -located along a great place to raise a family." transit." What We Heard & What We Saw Participants shared that housing near transit is necessary because it can allow more accessible connections to amenities, including shops and entertainment. Participants also spoke about the positive impact of more people living downtown, including more vibrant street life, foot traffic to support businesses, improved public realm and a more diverse community. Participants noted that mixed-use development would encourage walkability. Participants noted they would like the City to direct growth to the under-utilized areas of the MTSAs, including redeveloping factory spaces in and around Borden Station and behind the Metz development. Participants want the City and Region to facilitate the development of more affordable housing. 27 Page 171 of 350 City of Kitchener — Growing Together — Phase 1 Engagement Summary Report Participants discussed the importance of gradually transitioning building heights from high-rise buildings to low-rise neighbourhoods. Specific locations mentioned for high-rise buildings included: • Mill Street/Borden Parkway • Mill Street/Ottawa Street South • Stirling Ave South/Courtland Ave East • Charles Street West/Francis Street South. CAhis session there was some general opposition to growth among certain participants. Specific concerns noted include what they felt was an over -emphasis on high-rise buildings and the need to balance development with greenspace and community -building efforts. Concern was also noted regarding the potential for wind tunnels and shadowing. The need to plan for traffic considerations was also noted. Other participants expressed frustration with the anti -tower sentiment they heard from some others. They mentioned that they were excited about how Kitchener is growing. They believe that intensification brings great benefits with respect to local business and retail options, the quality of the public realm and the diversity of people occupying downtown, etc. Participants noted the need for green space within the MTSAs, especially park space near the new buildings. They also mentioned that all the new units need access to city services. Participants also noted the need to protect heritage buildings. 11 Figure 23: An additional photo of the workshop. 28 Page 172 of 350 City of Kitchener — Growing Together — Phase 1 Engagement Summary Report Low -Rise Multiple Resident Workshop (April 4, 2023) Engagement Event Overview • Focused engagement for residents of low-rise multiple homes within the MTSAs. • 12 participants in the workshop. • 2,937 promotional postcards mailed to residents. • Held in the Downtown Community Centre on April 4th, 2023, from 2pm-8pm "Not everyone can afford a detached house. We need to provide options. Apartments are way more affordable than houses these days." Figure 24: Photo from the workshop. 29 Page 173 of 350 City of Kitchener — Growing Together — Phase 1 Engagement Summary Report Figure 25: Image from the smart model of the workshop results. One resident noted that it would be nice to have intensification focused in close proximity to ION Stations without being directly at the stations themselves. Where People Placed Growth CMultiple participants indicated that they do not want to see all of the growth and intensification focused exclusively along King Street. Some residents mentioned that they would love to live closer to transit if the cost of those units were lower. The following "heat map" represents where workshop participants placed low, medium, and high- rise housing units through the workshop exercise. Concentrations of growth are found around ION LRT stops, particularly the Borden and Mill stations. Buildings were also distributed throughout the Urban Growth Centre. 30 Page 174 of 350 City of Kitchener — Growing Together — Phase 1 Engagement Summary Report A couple noted that the Catalyst 137 site is massive and could be redeveloped to house a lot of people while having great access to the Iron Horse Trail. Some discussed a lack of safety when crossing Weber Street and would prefer to live on the City Hall side of Weber where they can better access transit, shops, and services they need. They said that Weber limits their housing choices in the MTSAs because of safety. • 68% of the 18,000 total units were allocated during the workshop. This is due to low overall turnout at the workshop. • Growth was generally placed near MTSA station stops, along the ION route, and throughout the west end and central Downtown. Overall, growth is distributed more evenly than other workshops, with taller buildings often located further away from ION stops. The placement of low, medium and high-rise buildings can be seen separated out in the maps below. A fourth map shows a continuous map zone capturing all growth, as placed by participants. 31 Page 175 of 350 City of Kitchener — Growing Together — Phase 1 Engagement Summary Report Figure 27: A series of four maps showing where participants placed low, medium, and rise growth, as well as a best fit map of all growth combined. • People placed the most growth in the Mill station (21% of all units). The fewest number of units were placed in the Queen and Frederick (4%) and Market stations (2%). Moderate growth was placed in the Urban Growth Centre (17% of all units) Table 12: Number of New Units in MTSAs (Low -Rise Multiple Resident Workshop) Major Transit Station Areas Total GRH Central City Queen Market Borden Mill UGC* MTSA Hall Units Placed 12,321 ' 21085 1,316 1,959 683 308 2,196 3,773 2,985 % of 18k 68% 12% 7% 11% 4% 2% 12% 21% 17% *The UGC boundary includes portions of the Central, City Hall, Queen, and Market MTSAs • Including existing buildings, this workshop resulted in the largest amount of total people living in the City Hall/Victoria Park station (8.6k) and Mill station (8.4k). The smallest population is found in the Market station area (3.8k). • Including existing buildings, this workshop resulted in the largest amount of total jobs being located in the Central (8.0k). The lowestjob total is found in the Borden station area (1.4k). • Including existing buildings, the lowest people to jobs ratio is found in the Central station area (0.9 people perjob). The highest ratio is found in the Mill station (3.6 people perjob). 32 Page 176 of 350 City of Kitchener — Growing Together — Phase 1 Engagement Summary Report Table 13: Number of New People and Jobs in MTSAs (Low -Rise Multiple Resident Workshop) Ma'or Transit Station Areas MTSA Total GRH Central City Queen Market Borden Mill UGC MTSA 138 120 162 Hall 186 90 98 103 289 Total People 44,647 ' 6,378 7,199 8,600 5,701 3,828 4,492 8,449 14,120 Total Jobs 27,565 ' 4,141 8,039 4,893 5,113 1,669 1,382 2,328 16,225 Ppl/Jo b Ratio 1.62 1.54 0.90 1.76 1.12 2.29 3.25 3.63 0.87 • This workshop met minimum density targets for Central Station, City Hall & Victoria Park, and Queen & Frederick stations (green in map below). It did not reach the minimum density targets for Grand River Hospital, Kitchener Market, Borden or Mill stations (red in map below). • Even with so few buildings placed overall, significant capacity was again demonstrated in the Urban Growth Centre, achieving a density in this workshop of 289 people and jobs per hectare. Table 14: Density of People and Jobs per Hectare in MTSAs (Low -Rise Multiple Resident Workshop) Major Transit Station Areas MTSA Total GRH Central City Hall Queen Market Borden Mill UGC Density 138 120 162 241 186 90 98 103 289 33 Page 177 of 350 City of Kitchener — Growing Together — Phase 1 Engagement Summary Report Figure 28: A map showing which MTSAs would meet their minimum required density targets as a result of this workshop. What We Heard & What We Saw Participants commented on the notion of walkability and expressed that connectivity and frequency of transit lines would benefit development within MTSAs. Many participants did question why there was so much anticipated growth for the MTSAs, but noted that if the City does need to grow, it would indeed make most sense along the LRT routes and within MTSAs where residents can easily access transit and amenities. Staff spoke with a participant who owns a small rental building. They generally like growth and are excited that Kitchener is growing and is in a better place now than it used to be. They think that older buildings should be preserved in some cases and that heritage is important. They think that there should be a grocery store and some more mixed use in the area. That would serve Kitchener well. There was a preference expressed for more growth to be accommodated within existing neighbourhoods surrounding the stations so that people feel a part of a neighbourhood. Specific mention was made to intensify near Mill Station, and numerous participants said the area of the Ottawa Street South corridor near Mill Street is a place which can accommodate growth. Mill Street and Stirling Ave were also noted as a specific location well-suited for growth. One participant expressed excitement about the growth and intensification of the downtown and the potential for more business and mixed-use commercial buildings to open. 34 Page 178 of 350 City of Kitchener — Growing Together — Phase 1 Engagement Summary Report Participants generally favoured a variety of housing sizes and affordability and encouraged a greater variety of housing choices in neighbourhoods. Participants discussed having neighbourhoods intensified by building more low and mid -rise units within them. Some people preferred to have more growth accommodated in neighbourhoods surrounding the stations so that people can still have denser housing options while living "in the neighbourhoods" themselves and not "along busy streets". Participants noted that high-rises should be well -integrated into neighbourhoods if they are to be built. Some concern was expressed regarding the amount of concrete used in high-rise buildings and the lack of open sky. Some participants noted wanting to see heritage buildings maintained. Participants expressed an interest in seeing green space accompanying new development. One resident was interested in hearing about district energy plans for the downtown and supported those initiatives. It was noted that most people find detached houses unaffordable, and more housing options should be provided. The Catalyst site was mentioned as a place which should be redeveloped for housing. 35 Page 179 of 350 City of Kitchener — Growing Together — Phase 1 Engagement Summary Report Community -Wide Workshop (March 25, 2023) Engagement Event Overview ➢ Community -wide engagement open to all. ➢ 370 participants in the workshop. ➢ Held at the Kitchener Market on March 25th, 2023, from 7am-2pm Several participants were interested in the ways we would report this exercise back to the public, as well as how we would translate this exercise into our digital model for analysis. Several participants expressed a great appreciation for being able to participate in a workshop that can more directly inform the planning process as compared to other methods of engaging. Figure 29: Photo from the workshop. 36 Page 180 of 350 City of Kitchener — Growing Together — Phase 1 Engagement Summary Report Figure 30: Image from the smart model of the workshop results. "Change and progress has negative impacts for a few people but many positive impacts for many people over the longer term." �1- Where People Placed Growth The following "heat map" represents where workshop participants placed low, medium, and high- rise housing units through the workshop exercise. Concentrations of higher densities are found around ION LRT stops, particularly the Central and Borden stations. Density was also distributed throughout the Urban Growth Center and along the ION route generally. Many participants noted how important downtown Kitchener is to them and how much better it will be with more people living there, particularly with respect to feeling safer and more comfortable downtown, especially at night. "The downtown is kind of quiet. It needs more life and businesses." 37 Page 181 of 350 City of Kitchener — Growing Together — Phase 1 Engagement Summary Report Several participants identified the Borden MTSA and King/Ottawa area as a key area for development, in order to create a cluster of `stuff' to serve the surrounding neighbourhoods. • 96% of the 18,000 total units were allocated during the workshop. • Growth was more strongly correlated to the ION line itself compared to other workshops, with buildings being distributed fairly linearly along the transit route between Grand River Hospital and Borden stations. Low-rise growth was distributed widely. Mid -rise and high-rise growth followed the ION route quite closely in this workshop. The placement of low, medium and high- rise buildings can be seen separated out in the maps below. A fourth map shows a continuous map zone capturing all growth, as placed by participants. 38 Page 182 of 350 City of Kitchener — Growing Together — Phase 1 Engagement Summary Report LOW Major Transit Station Areas Total GRH Central City Queen Market Borden Mill UGC MTSA Hall Units 17,264 3,192 4,814 1,981 1,164 950 3,819 1,343 7,099 Placed % of 96% 18% 27% 11% 6% 5% 21% 7% 40% 18k • Including existing buildings, this workshop resulted in the largest amount of total people living in the Central station (12.9k). The smallest population is found in the Mill station area (4.6k). • Including existing buildings, this workshop resulted in the largest amount of total jobs being located in the Central (6.9k) station area. The lowest job total is found in the Borden station area (1.4k). • Including existing buildings, the lowest people to jobs ratio is found in the Frederick and Queen station area (1.11 people per job). The highest ratio is found in the Borden station (4.98 people per job). 39 Page 183 of 350 City of Kitchener — Growing Together — Phase 1 Engagement Summary Report Table 16: Number of New People and Jobs in MTSAs (March 25th Workshop) Major Transit Station Areas MTSA Total GRH Central City Queen Market Borden Mill UGC MTSA 159 160 211 Hall 216 128 143 61 355 Total People 53117 ' 8,249 12,947 8,692 6,600 4,900 7,139 4,589 20,946 Total Jobs 29,729 ' 5,835 6,891 4,882 5,942 2,932 1,433 1,814 16,329 Ppl/Job Ratio 1.79 1.41 1.88 1.78 1.11 1.67 4.98 2.53 1.28 This workshop met minimum density targets for Grand River Hospital station, Central Station, City Hall & Victoria Park, and Queen & Frederick stations (green in map below). It did not reach the minimum density targets for Kitchener Market, Borden or Mill stations (red in map below). Significant capacity was demonstrated in the Urban Growth Centre, achieving a density in this workshop of 355 people and jobs per hectare. Table 17: Density of People and Jobs per Hectare (March 25th Workshop) Major Transit Station Areas MTSA Total GRH Central City Hall Queen Market Borden Mill UGC Density 159 160 211 242 216 128 143 61 355 Figure 33 A map showing which MTSAs would meet their minimum required density targets as a result of this workshop. 40 Page 184 of 350 City of Kitchener — Growing Together — Phase 1 Engagement Summary Report What We Heard & What We Saw A couple with a newborn who currently live in a 2 -bedroom apartment expressed that they love living in a walkable area and would like more options for larger units to serve their needs. Without those larger unit options, they are instead looking at small detached houses and townhouses instead. Participants noted that density is ideally achieved through a mix of mid and high-rise units and that low-rise units should be allowed everywhere within the MTSAs. Other community members expressed concerns about high-rises, noting increased traffic and lack of parking. Montreal was identified as an example of a city that has dense, low-rise neighbourhoods. Community members commented that they liked Montreal's dense neighbourhoods because they are walkable and diverse, with many amenities. Multiple participants, including one who had duplexed their home and a couple who lived in the Victoria Park neighbourhood, expressed that parking is a barrier to development and that the City should remove parking requirements, particularly near transit stations. Participants generally favour new housing developments along the LRT and pointed out that the transit hub should have nearby amenities such as shops and restaurants. Participants would like the City to encourage mixed-use buildings with mixed retail options at grade. Specifically, participants noted they would like to see lands near Borden Station, King/Victoria, and King/Ottawa developed with mixed -uses providing access to amenities for nearby neighbourhoods. Participants spoke about downtown's importance and would like to see it busier and more vibrant and noted that more people living downtown would contribute positively towards this. They expressed that they would like to see downtown become more activated, with a better pedestrian experience and an emphasis on walkability. Many participants indicated they would like more housing style variety in new developments, particularly larger unit sizes. Numerous participants noted they were looking for larger units to accommodate their families but were having issues with affordability. Parks and green space were noted numerous times as a necessary ingredient of a community. Participants would also like to see high-quality public realm and community space in the downtown area. Public services, such as schools, were important considerations for an increasing population. 41 Page 185 of 350 City of Kitchener — Growing Together — Phase 1 Engagement Summary Report "It's very important that "All that low-rise (referring to "Our preference is we don't keep building the low-rise areas of the to not live above the h on our farmland." workshops model) sure takes 6 storey. That's too up a lot of space, doesn't it?" high for us." Figure 34: An additional photo from the workshop. 42 Page 186 of 350 City of Kitchener — Growing Together — Phase 1 Engagement Summary Report Community -Wide Workshop (March 27, 2023) Engagement Event Overview ➢ Community -wide engagement open to all. ➢ 25 participants in the workshop. ➢ Held at the Stanley Park Community Centre on March 27th 2023 from 2pm-8pm . p - Figure 35: Photo from the workshop. Figure 36: Image from the smart model of the workshop results. 43 Page 187 of 350 City of Kitchener — Growing Together — Phase 1 Engagement Summary Report Where People Placed Growth The following "heat map" represents where workshop participants placed low, medium, and high- rise housing units through the workshop exercise. Concentrations of growth are found along the ION LRT route, particularly in the MTSAs surrounding downtown. Low Medium High Figure 37: A heat map of where participants placed low, medium and high-rise buildings. A member of the Conestoga College Student Association discussed the importance of housing for a growing student population. "We moved to downtown to be in the downtown action. We'd love to continue to live downtown but find construction and parking to be a continuous issue." • 95% of the 18,000 total units were allocated during the workshop. • Very little growth was placed in the Grand River Hospital MTSA in this workshop. Most buildings were concentrated in the downtown along the ION route, along Victoria Street, and along Ottawa Street. The industrial areas on the west side of the Mill station were also allocated high-rise growth. The placement of low, medium and high-rise buildings can be seen separated out in the maps below. A fourth map shows a continuous map zone capturing all growth, as placed by participants. 44 Page 188 of 350 City of Kitchener — Growing Together — Phase 1 Engagement Summary Report High Figure 38: A series of four maps showing where participants placed low, medium, and rise growth, as well as a best fit map of all growth combined. • People placed the most growth in the Mill station (23% of all units). The fewest number of units were placed in the Grand River Hospital station (0%). Significant growth was placed in the Urban Growth Centre (38% of all units) Table 18: Number of New Units in MTSAs (March 27th Workshop) Major Transit Station Areas Total GRH Central City Queen Market Borden Mill UGC MTSA Hall Units 17,123 6,796 Placed 0 3,554 1,758 2,374 2,577 2,761 4,098 % of 95% 0% 20% 10% 13% 14% 15% 23% 38% 18k • Including existing buildings, this workshop resulted in the largest amount of total people living in the Central station (10.9k). The smallest population is found in the Grand River Hospital station area (3.0k). • Including existing buildings, this workshop resulted in the largest amount of total jobs being located in the Central (6.9k) station area. The lowest job total is found in the Market station area (1.8k). • Including existing buildings, the lowest people to jobs ratio is found in the Grand River Hospital station area (0.57 people per job). The highest ratio is found in the Mill station (4.75 people per job). 45 Page 189 of 350 City of Kitchener — Growing Together — Phase 1 Engagement Summary Report Table 19: Number of New People and Jobs in MTSAs (March 27th Workshop) Major Transit Station Areas MTSA Total GRH Central City Queen Market Borden Mill UGC MTSA 159 95 189 Hall 235 151 141 104 356 Total People 52,810 ' 10,902 8,508 8,487 7,437 5,424 9,036 10,902 21,166 Total Jobs 30156 ' 6,852 6,098 5,167 1,755 3,062 1,901 6,852 16,186 Ppl/Job Ratio 1.75 0.57 1.59 1.40 1.64 4.24 1.77 4.75 1.31 • This workshop met minimum density targets for Central Station, City Hall & Victoria Park, and Queen & Frederick stations (green in map below). It did not reach the minimum density targets for Grand River Hospital, Kitchener Market, Borden or Mill stations (red in map below). • Significant capacity was demonstrated in the Urban Growth Centre, achieving a density in this workshop of 356 people and jobs per hectare. Table 20: Density of People and Jobs per Hectare (March 27th Workshop) Major Transit Station Areas MTSA Total GRH Central City Hall Queen Market Borden Mill UGC Density 159 95 189 261 235 151 141 104 356 Figure 39 A map showing which MTSAs would meet their minimum required density targets as a result of this workshop. 46 Page 190 of 350 City of Kitchener — Growing Together — Phase 1 Engagement Summary Report What We Heard & What We Saw Participants spoke about the benefits of living within an MTSA boundary, including walkable amenities and access to transit and other public services. Participants would like the City to continue establishing green space within MTSAs and noted the importance of playgrounds. Students from the nearby college noted that more student housing should be available, lessening the burden on affordable units in the area. Younger students recommended that housing be built near transit to access everything they need, including schools. A professor from the University of Waterloo discussed the importance of tower separation between tall buildings. A group of grade 7 and 8 students discussed how development should be near transit because they can access things they need more easily. The considered impacts from buildings such as shadows and wind to not be the most important issues when it comes to development. One community member expressed concern about living in high rises and would like to see bigger units and a better housing type mix considered. 47 Page 191 of 350 City of Kitchener — Growing Together — Phase 1 Engagement Summary Report Community -Wide Workshop (March 30, 2023) Engagement Event Overview ➢ Community -wide engagement open to all. ➢ 20 participants in the workshop. ➢ Held at the Forest Heights KPL on March 30th 2023 from 2pm-8pm. Figure 40: Photo from the workshop. Figure 41: Image from the smart model of the workshop results. 48 Page 192 of 350 City of Kitchener — Growing Together — Phase 1 Engagement Summary Report Where People Placed Growth The following "heat map" represents where workshop participants placed low, medium, and high- rise housing units through the workshop exercise. Concentrations of higher densities are found around ION LRT stops, particularly the Central and Borden stations. Density was also distributed throughout the Urban Growth Center and along the ION route generally. ,ure 42: A heat map of where nts placed low, medium and high-rise buildings. "Development should occur in Borden (the MTSA). It's underused, with a lot of factory space and open areas that could be filled with housing. There aren't enough services there now, and development would help provide direction." • 84% of the 18,000 total units were allocated during the workshop. • Growth was more strongly correlated to the ION line itself compared to other workshops, with buildings being distributed fairly linearly along the transit route, albeit with very few buildings places in the Grand River Hospital, Market and Mill Station Areas The placement of low, medium and high-rise buildings can be seen separated out in the maps below. A fourth map shows a continuous map zone capturing all growth, as placed by participants. 49 Page 193 of 350 City of Kitchener — Growing Together — Phase 1 Engagement Summary Report High Figure 43: A series of four maps showing where participants placed low, medium, and rise growth, as well as a best fit map of all growth combined. People placed the most growth in the Central station (32% of all units). The fewest number of units were placed in the Grand River Hospital (2%) and Market stations (2%). Significant growth was placed in the Urban Growth Centre (44% of all units) Table 21: Number of New Units in MTSAs (March 30t' Workshop) Major Transit Station Areas Total GRH Central City Queen Market Borden Mill UGC MTSA Hall Units Placed 15114 ' 311 5,717 2,921 1,639 321 3,483 723 7,967 % of 18K 84% 2% 32% 16% 9% 2% 19% 4% 44% Including existing buildings, this workshop resulted in the largest amount of total people living in the Central station (14.3k). The smallest population is found in the Grand River Hospital (3.6k) and Mill station areas (3.6k). Including existing buildings, this workshop resulted in the largest amount of total jobs being located in the Central (7.4k) station area. The lowest job total is found in the Market station area (1.7k). Including existing buildings, the lowest people to jobs ratio is found in the Grand River Hospital station area (0.73 people perjob). The highest ratio is found in the Borden station (3.61 people per job). 50 Page 194 of 350 City of Kitchener — Growing Together — Phase 1 Engagement Summary Report Table 22: Number of New People and Jobs in MTSAs (March 30t'' Workshop) Major Transit Station Areas MTSA Total GRH Central City Queen Market Borden Mill UGC MTSA 148 96 230 Hall 215 91 141 51 364 Total People 49.417 3,576 14,265 10,176 7,318 3,852 6,620 3,609 22,217 Total Jobs 28,035 4,905 7,362 5,341 5,135 1,669 1,835 1,789 15,971 Ppl/Job Ratio 1.76 0.73 1.94 1.91 1.43 2.31 3.61 2.02 1.39 • This workshop met minimum density targets for Central Station, City Hall & Victoria Park, and Queen & Frederick stations (green in map below). It did not reach the minimum density targets for Grand River Hospital, Kitchener Market, Borden or Mill stations (red in map below). • Significant capacity was demonstrated in the Urban Growth Centre, achieving a density in this workshop of 364 people and jobs per hectare. Table 23: Density of People and Jobs per Hectare in MTSAs (March 30t' Workshop) Major Transit Station Areas MTSA Total GRH Central City Hall Queen Market Borden Mill UGC Density 148 96 230 277 215 91 141 51 364 Figure 44 A map showing which MTSAs would meet their minimum required density targets as a result of this workshop. 51 Page 195 of 350 City of Kitchener — Growing Together — Phase 1 Engagement Summary Report What We Heard & What We Saw One participant had recently experienced a disability and was looking to move closer to downtown to be closer to transit and other services that they need. This person was struggling to find options that were affordable and suited their needs. They preferred a smaller apartment in a low-rise form, such as a backyard home, multiplex or apartment building. They still valued their independence and didn't feel suited to a retirement home or the assisted living arrangements available to them. �w Community members agreed that new housing developments should be built along transit routes. They noted that housing should be developed near services and amenities. It was noted that areas around Borden Station could be developed into housing. Building housing would then attract other services and amenities to the site. Additional dwelling units (ADUs or backyard homes) were also cited as another way for the City to accommodate increased density. Community members spoke about the need for investment in transportation infrastructure, including buses, GO transit and cycling. Participants commented that focus should be placed on building spaces for children as the city grows. Affordability concerns were noted amongst participants, with one indicating that co-operative and non-profit style affordable housing is preferable when discussing affordability. Community members suggested the City mandate affordability targets. The City -owned property at Courtland and Borden was noted as having the potential for affordable housing and community space. 52 Page 196 of 350 City of Kitchener — Growing Together — Phase 1 Engagement Summary Report Council Workshop (April 17, 2023) Engagement Event Overview Focused engagement with members of Kitchener City Council. 11 participants in the workshop. Held in the Kitchener City Hall Learning Room on April 17th, 2023, from 3pm-4:30pm Through a council strategy session, Kitchener City Council participated in the Growing Together Workshop. This was an opportunity for Council to complete the same exercise as our public participants, provide feedback, and better understand the ways growth and change are shaping Kitchener's MTSAs. Figure 45: Photo from the workshop. 53 Page 197 of 350 City of Kitchener — Growing Together — Phase 1 Engagement Summary Report Figure 46: Image from the smart model of the workshop results. Where Council Placed Growth The following "heat map" represents where workshop participants placed low, medium, and high- rise housing units through the workshop exercise. This workshop demonstrates a very even mix of low, medium and high across each MTSA. Higher densities are placed in closer proximity to the ION route, particularly along Charles Street. LOW Medium High Figure 47: A heat map of where participants placed low, medium and high-rise buildings. 54 Page 198 of 350 City of Kitchener — Growing Together — Phase 1 Engagement Summary Report • 92% of the 18,000 total units were allocated during the workshop. • Growth was generally placed very consistently across the geography, with fewer clusters of density as compared to other workshops. • Low-rise growth was distributed widely, predominately in existing low-rise areas. • Mid -rise growth was also placed broadly throughout, but more mid -rise buildings were placed closer to the ION route. • High-rise growth was placed in patterns that are very similar to mid -rise growth. The placement of low, medium and high-rise buildings can be seen separated out in the maps below. A fourth map shows a continuous map zone capturing all growth, as placed by participants. Medium Major Transit Station Areas Total GRH Central City Queen Market Borden Mill UGC* MTSA Hall Units 16,647 3,687 4,439 913 1,231 1,894 2,659 1,824 4,666 Placed 55 Page 199 of 350 City of Kitchener — Growing Together — Phase 1 Engagement Summary Report Major Transit Station Areas MTSA Total GRH Central City Queen Market Borden Mill UGC* MTSA 155 151 200 Hall 225 139 132 64 324 % of 92% 20% 25% 5% 7% 11% 15% 21% 26% 18k 52,058 ' 9,073 12,292 7,058 6,687 6,360 5,273 5,316 16,890 *The UGC boundary includes portions of the Central, City Hall, Queen, and Market MTSAs • Including existing buildings, this workshop resulted in the largest amount of total people living in the Central station (12.3k). The smallest populations are found in the Borden (5.3k) and Mill (5.3k) station areas. However, the distribution of population among station areas is relatively even in this workshop scenario compared to some others. • Including existing buildings, this workshop resulted in the largest amount of total jobs being located in the Central (6.5k) and Queen & Frederick (6.3k) stations. The lowest job total is found in the Mill station area (1.4k). • Including existing buildings, the lowest people to jobs ratio is found in the Frederick and Queen station area (1.05 people perjob). The highest ratio is found in the Mill station (3.74 people per job). Table 25: Number of New People and Jobs in MTSAs (City Council Workshop) Major Transit Station Areas MTSA Total GRH Central City Queen Market Borden Mill UGC MTSA 155 151 200 Hall 225 139 132 64 324 Total People 52,058 ' 9,073 12,292 7,058 6,687 6,360 5,273 5,316 16,890 Total Jobs 28,886 ' 4,177 6,468 5,668 6,362 2,146 2,642 1,423 17,101 Ppl/Job Ratio 1.80 2.17 1.90 1.25 1.05 2.96 2.00 3.74 0.99 • This workshop met minimum density targets for Central Station, City Hall & Victoria Park, and Queen & Frederick stations (green in map below). It did not reach the minimum density targets for Grand River Hospital, Kitchener Market, Borden or Mill stations (red in map below). • Significant capacity was demonstrated in the Urban Growth Centre, achieving a density in this workshop of 324 people and jobs per hectare. Table 26: Density of People and Jobs per Hectare in MTSAs (City Council Workshop) Major Transit Station Areas MTSA Total GRH Central City Hall Queen Market Borden Mill UGC Density 155 151 200 227 225 139 132 64 324 56 Page 200 of 350 City of Kitchener — Growing Together — Phase 1 Engagement Summary Report Figure 49: A map showing which MTSAs would meet their minimum required density targets as a result of this workshop. What We Heard & What We Saw Council expressed the importance of staying consistent with the plan to build up around the ION LRT. They talked about the integration of green development standards and district energy. Members of council also spoke to the importance of providing for more opportunities to build missing middle housing supply, to create better connectivity and walkability in the MTSAs, and to plan for green space and parkettes. Council also spoke to the importance of built form transition between areas of low-rise and high- rise buildings, while continuing to build up along Kitchener's mixed-use corridors. Council identified opportunities for growth to be directed to Charles Street, Mill Street, Stirling Ave, Victoria Street and more, as well as on underutilized surface parking lots. There was also an interest in seeing more office and mixed-use in the Borden station area. One councilor noted a concern that some constituents had been in contact with them to express that the workshop format was not their preferred way to engage. 57 Page 201 of 350 City of Kitchener — Growing Together — Phase 1 Engagement Summary Report Appendix B: Engagement and Communications Materials Previous Engagements Over 20 engagements were held throughout the Planning Around Rapid Transit Stations (PARTS) and Neighbourhood Planning Review (NPR) projects that continue to inform the Growing Together work. Those engagements included; • Planning Around Rapid Transit Stations (PARTS) Central Plan o Community Engagement Session 1, November 19th 2014. A feedback report was produced for this engagement. Stakeholder and Landowner Interviews held December 9th and 10th, 2014. A feedback report was produces for these engagements. o Attendance at the Downtown Neighbourhood Alliance General Meeting, May 23 2015, to engage with the neighbourhood associations in and around the PARTS geography and encourage their participation in the process moving forward. o Community Engagement Session 2, May 26th 2015 • Planning Around Rapid Transit Stations (PARTS) PARTS Midtown & Rockway Plans o Public Information Centre 1, May 5th 2016. o Public Information Centre 2, September 29th 2016 o Stakeholder Workshop, December 14th & 15th, 2016 o Public Information Centre 3, May 18th, 2017 • Neighbourhood Planning Review (NPR) o A series of seven open houses were held for residents of each existing secondary plan neighbourhood area in the MTSAs. These were held between May 29th 2018 and April 18th 2019. ■ Midtown Secondary Plan ■ Victoria Park Secondary Plan ■ Cedar Hill & Schneider Creek Secondary Plan ■ Former Victoria Street Secondary Plan ■ Rockway Secondary Plan ■ King Street East Secondary Plan ■ Civic Centre Secondary Plan o A series of six urban design charrettes were also held in this time period to develop urban design guidelines specific to each neighbourhood. These were approved in 2019. o A statutory public meeting was held in December 2019, with a follow up report presented to council in June 2021. While the workshop summary details the feedback and analysis received at the 6 community workshops, 12 workshops in total have been run to date with a variety of groups and stakeholders. That full list is provided below: Table 27: History of Growing Together Engagement Workshops Date Group/Event Location Participants January 24 Downtown Community Working Downtown Community 19 2023 Group Centre March 1 2023 City of Kitchener Planning Staff Kitchener City Hall 30 March 21 2023 Focused Community Workshop, Kitchener City Hall 60 Mid -rise and Hiah-rise Residents Rotunda 58 Page 202 of 350 City of Kitchener — Growing Together — Phase 1 Engagement Summary Report Date Group/Event Location Participants March 23 2023 Focused Community Workshop, Kitchener Public 75 Housing Low-rise Non -multiple Residents Library Mobility March 25 2023 Community Wide Workshop Kitchener Market 370 March 27 2023 Community Wide Workshop Stanley Park 25 Community Centre March 30 2023 Community Wide Workshop Forest Heights KPL 20 April 4 2023 Focused Workshop, Low-rise Downtown Community 12 Multiple Residents Centre April 17 2023 Council Strategy Session Kitchener City Hall 11 April 21 2023 WRDSB Geography Teachers Downtown Community 28 Centre May 2 2023 Waterloo Region Association of Bingemans 30 Realtors Conference Centre May 18 2023 Cambridge/Kitchener/Waterloo Kitchener City Hall 10 Planners Total Growing Together Engagement Materials 690 The engagement and communications process included a variety of engagement materials, as shown below. Sample Postcard Notice Krr�lvER GROWIN TOGETHER) PLANNING FOR KITCHENERS MAJOR TRANSIT STATION AREAS To team mote about the project and see additional availabledates and mimes, visit wwwxngagewr WVvwinVogelher YOU'RE INVITED TO A WORKSHOP ON: March 23 2023 Begin ting at Spm at IGldt�rer Public library, 85 Queen S, N. Meeting Roan D w FIA& as Land Use a Zoning Growth 8 Change Housing Sas,ts Mobility Submit comrnent5to. Additlonolinformatiort City of Kitchener Join us for a hands -an workshop where we will use a 3D printed Adam Clark Senior Urban designer model of Kitchener to explore how growth and change are 514.741-2206 x 7027 shaping the areas around the ION light-rail system. Paricipate in growingtogethercHitcherecca aguldedworkshop heginningat6ptn 200 King St W. Kitchener ON, N2G 4G7 Current status: r Communityworkshopsinspring PuhlishdraItpok Broad mmmunityarduakeholderengagementon Remmmendation reporthrought 1 2623 to explore themes of growth, docunenuineady 3 draft materiatsinorder tofinalize arecommendation 4 tocouncil lardedsion drange.housing. andmure, summer2023. to be considered by Planning Committee andCouncil Figure 50: A sample of one of the postcards that were mailed out to residents. 59 Page 203 of 350 City of Kitchener — Growing Together — Phase 1 Engagement Summary Report Newspaper Article (left) and Flyer Handout (right) NOTICE OFA PLANNING STUDY Growing Together Workshops 1,` E NER Join Us At These Events! Dare: Mamh25,2023 Time: 7:00 a.m. - 2:00 p.m. Location: Kitchener Market 300 King Street East Date: Mamh27,2023 Time: 2'00 p.m. - 8:00 p.m. Location: Stanley Park Comm unity Centre 505 Franklin St N. AM 0 0 Date: March 30, 2023 ©f"I i © Time: 2'00 March p.m. 30, 2 :00 p.m. IILocation: Forest Heights Library RP 251 Fischer -Hallman Rd. Land Use I& Growth it Housing Zoning Change To learn moreaboutthrs pmieet,visit Oremailusat www.kitchenecea/gruwingtogether growingtogether@ itchener.ca City planning staffare engagingwith the communitythrough a series ofworkshops that explore. in a hands-on way. how growth and change are occurring in the areas surrounding the ION light rail system in Kitchener. Through the Growing Together project we will be updating our policies to address issues concerning housing and growth. The workshop is centered around a 31) -printed model of the city where participants can explore these issues together with staff In a fun, all -ages and abllities exercise. You can drop-in at anytime and stay as briefly or as long as yorid like[ Figure 51: The Record Ad published to advertise the Growing Together workshops. � GROWING K R TOGETHER low 00 ��_ 0 0 Land Use Growth& Housing Sustainability Built Fo Zoning Change Figure 52 The flyer handout made available at the workshops to direct people to the engage page. 60 Page 204 of 350 Visit us online! am� w .rengagewcca/growinglogethergmwinglogelher(Mkitchener.ca Learn more, give us your feedback and participate in other online activities. Check back regularly for project updates and more! low 00 ��_ 0 0 Land Use Growth& Housing Sustainability Built Fo Zoning Change Figure 52 The flyer handout made available at the workshops to direct people to the engage page. 60 Page 204 of 350 City of Kitchener — Growing Together — Phase 1 Engagement Summary Report Sample of Growing Together Card Deck Growing Together Net Housing Gain For every residential unit lost to demolition, 47 are built in Kitchener. 0 00000 00000 00000 00000 00000 00000 00000 00000 000000 Saurce: City of Kitchener Figure 53 Left; A sample of the front of the Growing Together card deck. Right; A sample of the back of one of the cards from the Growing Together card deck. 61 Page 205 of 350 City of Kitchener — Growing Together — Phase 1 Engagement Summary Report Appendix C: City of Kitchener Downtown Community Working Group Meeting #7 Summary The seventh Downtown Community Working Group (DCWG) meeting was held on January 24, 2023, from 4:30 to 7:00 pm at the Downtown Community Centre. 19 of 29 members were in attendance. Discussions at the meeting are summarized below. Growth and Housing Activity The following input was collected during the activity as the group worked through two different considerations in a hands-on growth and housing activity: 1. Adding 18,000 units of housing to provide more housing choice. 2. Adding an additional 13,500 units to provide housing affordability. Consideration 1 Input following the first consideration included the following: • Important to have low-rise units to make it feel like a neighbourhood — to allow for a transition from existing lower density neighbourhoods to higher density development. • Want to see additional housing units near transit stations. • Want to see mid -rise units over the old police station and other business. • Add low-rise units to support the population of people experiencing homelessness, near to where they are staying now. • Use former industrial lands for housing. • Develop housing on the parking lot at Charles and Water Streets. • There is underutilized land near the square. Consideration 2 Input following the second consideration included the following: • Density can be a good thing if done in a mixed way. • This is a good visual reminder that density does not mean the entire city gets demolished; we can intensify but still retain our identity. • It is really amazing that we can add this much density and the city remains vibrant. • If there is this much density, there needs to be schools and other supports in place. • Need to include how traffic will work with and around this new growth. • The corridors can handle the density we need to add. Roundtable Discussions — Growth and Housing Following the activity, DCWG members were asked to engage in small roundtable discussions on growth and housing in DTK. Discussions from each roundtable are summarized below. What locations are suitable for low, medium, or high-density growth? Why? Group 1 • It is important for all areas to have a mix of density and types of housing. 62 Page 206 of 350 City of Kitchener — Growing Together — Phase 1 Engagement Summary Report • Density should be concentrated near the LRT line. • Medium and higher density areas need supports and amenities such as schools, shops, and parks. • All areas need to include green space. • Medium and high density should be concentrated along transit lines. • Important to examine opportunities for additional units in laneways, backyards etc. • Need to disperse density across the City of Kitchener and not just downtown. • Necessary to protect green space and build around it. • Proximity to the LRT should determine the density. • Growth should occur in corridors such as Queen and Ottawa. • Have low and medium density as buffer areas for established neighbourhoods. • Use underutilized land like parking lots; avoid demolition for environmental reasons. • Important to protect green space. • Limit sprawl of growth outside of the city. • Distribute the higher density, have transition zones, options for families. • Ensure higher density is livable (i.e., people, excitement, parks, and green space.) • Medium and high density along the corridors. How would you organize and distribute intensification? Group 1 • Close to ION stations and other transit, across from hospital. • Creation of destinations near amenities. • Clustering in a way that makes sense. • Mixed use is important. Group 2 • Ensure that space is left for businesses, arts, and culture. • Integrate the new construction into the existing fabric of the city. • Proximity to shops, restaurants, and groceries. • Organize in an integrated fashion, services need to be present before density. Group 3 • Intensification near the transit routes. • Understand what is enticing people to move to Kitchener. • Mixed use is important. • We need to encourage the public's understanding of this topic. 63 Page 207 of 350 City of Kitchener — Growing Together — Phase 1 Engagement Summary Report • Organized alongside schools, parks, daycares, and businesses. • Mixed use and distributed, not all in the same spot. • Development that works across socio-economic spectrum. • Growth should be across the city. How important are housing choice and affordability to you and is this reflected in this exercise? Group 1 • Diversity in housing choice and supply mix i.e.: deeply affordable units. • Rent control should be considered. • Variety of housing types is very important. • Expansion of housing types, not just single units. Group 2 • Housing choice and affordability are incredibly important. • Supply is not enough to drive affordability. • City needs to look at other options to encourage affordability and housing type diversity. • Encourage people to move through the housing spectrum. Group 3 • Variety of housing is very important, mix needs to include the missing middle. • Need to have more medium sized dwelling units. • Encouragement of co-op housing. • Density can be achieved without relying on high rises (i.e.: multigenerational housing). Group 4 • Encourage affordable housing across the city; this is currently lacking. • Choice of housing form is important, range of unit sizes. • City could incentivize missing housing types. • Important to destigmatize rental units. Based on our discussion today, how would you summarize the future of growth and housing in downtown Kitchener in a single statement? Group 1 • Intentionally planned neighbourhoods with a diversity of housing types and densities including affordable and accessible housing. Welcoming to everyone and a diversity of transportation types. Group 2 • Intentional, thoughtful, livable, diverse, and unique. 64 Page 208 of 350 City of Kitchener — Growing Together — Phase 1 Engagement Summary Report • Communities should feel unique and `not cookie cutter'. Group 3 • Well designed, intentional, integrated. • Livable, transit -oriented, mix of housing types. • Downtown Kitchener is well designed, intensified core neighbourhood, where housing is integrated with commercial retail, arts, culture, and green space. Group 4 • Livable, variety, mixed income. • The future of growth and housing in DTK offers well thought out, livable housing, with a variety of choices and walkable amenities. Growth and Housing Activity Input The group also provided input on the growth and housing activity, summarized below: • Low-density foam blocks do not stay in place. • A delight to be in an optimistic attitude in the group — excited to envision more buildings. • Having the ability to make some of the housing unit pieces modular, so that they can be stacked. • Label more streets, trails, and green spaces. • Show the rail lines more clearly. • Addition of transit terminals would be good. • The model shows that there is still a lot of white space — the city has not been erased even when we add the density. • Actively encourage participants to be creative and to dive into the exercise. 65 Page 209 of 350 Staff Report r NJ :R Development Services Department www.kitchener.ca REPORT TO: Planning and Strategic Initiatives Committee DATE OF MEETING: June 19, 2023 SUBMITTED BY: Garett Stevenson, Interim Director of Planning, 519-741-2200 x.7070 PREPARED BY: Katie Anderl, Senior Planner, 519-741-2200 x.7987 WARD INVOLVED: Ward 4 DATE OF REPORT: May 29, 2023 REPORT NO.: DSD -2023-237 SUBJECT: Zoning By-law Amendment Application ZBA22/021/N/KA, Draft Plan of Subdivision Application 30T-22202 RECOMMENDATION: That the City of Kitchener, pursuant to Section 51 (31) of the Planning Act R.S.O. 1990, Chapter P 13 as amended, and delegation by-law 2002-64, grant draft approval to Plan of Subdivision Application 30T-22202 in the City of Kitchener, for Cachet Developments (New Dundee) Inc., subject to the conditions attached to Report DSD -2023-237 as Appendix `A'; and further, That Zoning By-law Amendment Application ZBA22/021/N/KA to amend Zoning By-law 2019- 051 for Cachet Developments (New Dundee) Inc. be approved in the form shown in the "Proposed By-law" and "Map No. 1" attached to Report DSD -2023-237 as Appendix "B"; REPORT HIGHLIGHTS: The purpose of this report is to provide a planning recommendation regarding a Draft Plan of Subdivision and a Zoning By-law Amendment to allow the subject lands to be developed with townhouse development including 127 units, and open space to be dedicated to the City of Kitchener. Planning staff recommend approval of the applications subject to the conditions outlined in the report. The development proposal represents good planning. Community engagement included: o installation of large billboard notice signs on the property; o a notice of application circulation letter to all property owners within 240 metres; o a Neighbourhood Meeting was held on December 1, 2022; o discussions with interested members of the public; o a notice of the statutory public meeting sent to all property owners within 240 metres; and o notice of the public meeting was given in The Record on May 26, 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 210 of 350 EXECUTIVE SUMMARY: The owner of the subject lands, addressed as 1000 New Dundee Road, is proposing to change the zoning from `Future Use Zone (FTR-1)' to `Natural Conservation Zone (NHC-1)' and `Low Rise Residential Five Zone (RES -5) with Site -Specific Provision (368) and Holding Provision 48H' to permit a 127 unit cluster townhouse development and natural open space. The owner is further proposing a Plan of Subdivision consisting of 2 blocks. Block 1 is proposed to be developed, and Block 2 contains Blair Creek and associated wetlands and is proposed to be conveyed to the City of Kitchener as open space. Staff are recommending that the applications be approved. BACKGROUND: Cachet Developments (New Dundee) Inc. have requested draft approval of a Plan of Subdivision and approval of a Zoning By-law Amendment for lands located at 1000 New Dundee Road. The lands are located south of Dodge Drive and are approximately 10 hectares in size. The portion of the site closest to New Dundee Road is currently agricultural, and the lands closest to Dodge Drive contain Blair Creek and an associated wetland complex. The lands are currently zoned Future Use Zone (FTR-1) in By-law 2019-051. The purpose of this zone is to permit existing uses until such time as a future development application can ensure the orderly development of land. This may include the delineation of any natural heritage features on the lot and subsequent application of the NHC-1 zone on any of these features. Nearby lands on Dodge Drive and immediately east and west of the site on New Dundee Road are developed with single detached dwellings on estate lots. Lands south of New Dundee Road are located in North Dumfries Township and are outside of the urban area. Figure 1 — 1000 New Dundee Road REPORT: The applicant is proposing to develop the subject site with a 127 unit condominium townhouse development, with private roads, private park/amenity space and a private stormwater management pond. The developable portion of the lands is shown as Block 1 (see Figure 2 below). Block 2 contains Blair Creek and the associated wetlands and is proposed to be conveyed to the City. Page 211 of 350 The townhouse development is contemplated to be a `Common Elements Condominium'. In this form of condominium residents own their lots (containing the townhouse unit) freehold, however are tied to the Common Elements of the condominium which in this case will include shared facilities including private roads, a private storm water management pond, and private park and amenity spaces, a retaining wall and noise walls, as well as internal sidewalks. The condominium corporation will also be responsible for ongoing maintenance of these site features. Garbage collection, snow removal, and maintenance of shared features will also be the responsibility of the condominium corporation. There are many examples of Common Elements Condominiums throughout the City and these are usually developed on a Block within a Plan of Subdivision. Typically, a plan of subdivision is used to create public roads, park blocks, etc. in addition to lots and blocks, however in this case, only two blocks are being created. The open space block is proposed to be conveyed to the City and the development block is being created so that once a site plan has been approved, the City can create the Common Element Condominium. The next steps in the development process include Site Plan, passing of a by-law to lift Part Lot Control, and Draft Plan of Common Elements Condominium. The conceptual site plan for the townhouse development is included in Figure 3 below. I .. I EXISTING rt I;ESOENTIAZ 0 BLOCK 2 - - NATURAL HERITAGE SYSTEM 5.41ha (13.37ac) W€TLA,© OAST EV svNG FACIOI E EXISTING NATURAL xERITAGF AfB€Ai _ . — - ,i FXlSjrNG I � Figure 2 — Proposed Plan of Subdivision Page 212 of 350 Figure 3 — Conceptual Site Plan Page 213 of 350 The proposed Zoning By-law Amendment seeks to rezone the lands from `Future Use Zone (FTR- 1)' to `Natural Conservation Zone (NHC-1)' for those lands which are undevelopable due to the natural features and their buffers, and `Low Rise Residential Five Zone (RES -5)' zone with a Site - Specific Provision and Holding Provision for those lands which are proposed to be developed. Policy Conformity Planning Act, R.S.O. 1990, c. P.13 25. Section 2 of the Planning Act establishes matters of provincial interest and states that the Minister, the council of a municipality, a local board, a planning board and the Tribunal, in carrying out their responsibilities under this Act, shall have regard to, among other matters, matters of provincial interest such as, • 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 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 is well-designed, encourages a sense of place, and 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, 2020, as it directs how and where development is to occur. The City's Official Plan is the most important vehicle for the implementation of the Provincial Policy Statement, 2020 and to ensure Provincial policy is adhered to. Provincial Policy Statement (PPS) The Provincial Policy Statement (PPS) provides policy direction on matters of provincial interest related to land use planning and development. The PPS sets out principles to achieve "healthy, liveable and safe communities". The PPS is supportive of efficient development patterns that optimize the use of land, resources, and public investment in infrastructure and public service facilities. Further, the PPS directs the development of new housing to locations where appropriate levels of infrastructure and public service facilities are or will be available to support current and projected needs and promotes densities for new housing which efficiently uses land, resources, infrastructure, and public service facilities. Section 3(5) of the Planning Act requires that a decision of the council of a municipality shall be consistent with the policy statement that are in effect on the date of decision and shall conform with the provincial plans that are in effect on that date, or shall not conflict with them, as the case may be. The PPS focuses growth and development within urban and rural settlement areas and promotes land use patterns that are based on densities and land uses that efficiently use land, resources, infrastructure and public service facilities. Land use must be carefully managed to accommodate appropriate development to meet the full range of current and future needs, while achieving efficient development patterns and avoiding significant or sensitive resources and areas which may pose a risk to public health and safety. PPS policies support the provision of a range and mix of housing options and densities to meet the needs of current and future residents and at densities and in locations that are transit supportive. Policies require that natural features shall be protected for the long-term and that the long-term ecological function and biodiversity of natural heritage systems, Page 214 of 350 should be maintained, restored or, where possible, improved, recognizing linkages between and among natural heritage features and areas, surface water features and ground water features. The proposed development is directed outside of hazard lands, including those impacted by a flooding hazard, and stormwater management is designed to protect ground and surface water features. A Place to Grow: Growth Plan for the Greater Golden Horseshoe (Growth Plan) Part of the Vision of the Greater Golden Horseshoe (GGH) is to ensure municipalities have sufficient housing supply that reflects market demand and what is needed in local communities. The Growth Plan directs Planning authorities in the Region of Waterloo to plan for a population of 923,000 people and 470,000 jobs by 2051. This would mean a population increase of approximately 299,070 in comparison to the Region's 2020 population of 623,930. The forecasted growth to the 2051 horizon is allocated to each municipality in the Region based on the following considerations: the vast majority of growth will be directed to settlement areas that have a delineated built boundary, have existing or planned municipal water and wastewater systems, and can support the achievement of complete communities. As one of three cities in the Region, it can be expected that Kitchener will be allocated a significant amount of the additional population growth. The subject lands are within the City's delineated Designated Greenfield Area. New development taking place in designated greenfield areas must be planned, designated, and zoned in a manner that supports the achievement of complete communities, supports active transportation, and encourages the integration and sustained viability of transit services. The Growth Plan notes that complete communities should be designed to meet people's needs for daily living throughout an entire lifetime by providing convenient access to an appropriate mix of jobs, local services, public service facilities, and a full range of housing to accommodate a range of incomes and household sizes. Complete communities support quality of life and human health by encouraging the use of active transportation and providing high quality public open space, adequate parkland, opportunities for recreation, and access to local and healthy food. Complete communities support climate change mitigation by increasing the modal share for transit and active transportation and by minimizing land consumption through building compact, mixed-use communities. The subject lands are located within the City's Designated Greenfield Area, an area within the Settlement Boundary that is designated for growth. Policy 2.2.7.1 states that new development taking place in designated greenfield areas will be planned, designated, zoned and designed in a manner that: a) supports the achievement of complete communities; b) supports active transportation; and c) encourages the integration and sustained viability of transit services. Policy 2.2.7.2 requires that the minimum density target applicable to the designated greenfield area for Waterloo Region is not less than 50 residents and jobs combined per hectare. The minimum density for Kitchener's designated greenfield area, as required by Regional Official Plan policy 2.G.1.2 (Table 4) is 65 people and jobs per hectare and Kitchener Official Plan policy 3.C.1 14.a) is 55 residents and jobs combined per hectare. The proposed density of this development is approximately 77 people and jobs per hectare (the natural heritage lands are excluded from this calculation as they are not developable). The proposed development is a low-rise, low-density, multiple form of housing and is located within the City's urban area. Lands north of New Dundee Road are rapidly urbanizing and the proposal makes efficient use of the lands helping to meet minimum density requirements. The lands are designated for low rise residential development and the proposal will increase the amount and variety of housing available in this part of the City. A mix of uses including commercial and mixed use and residential are planned along New Dundee Road. Municipal services have recently been constructed in the vicinity of the subject lands and will be extended to service these lands by the Page 215 of 350 developer. The proposal to convey Blair Creek and the associated wetlands will help to protect and preserve this important natural feature and its functions for the long term. New Dundee Road is a Regional Road and is scheduled for reconstruction in about 2030. The City will continue to advocate for the inclusion of transit, pedestrian and cycling facilities to be added to New Dundee Road. The development is planned to be pedestrian and cycling friendly and will connect to the future facilities on New Dundee Road. Planning staff is of the opinion that the proposed applications are consistent with the Provincial Policy Statement and conform to the Growth Plan. Regional Official Plan The subject lands are within the Urban Designated Greenfield Area established in the Regional Official Plan (ROP). The ROP (Policy 2.G.1.2 Table 4) requires that greenfield areas serving primarily a residential function will meet or exceed a minimum density of 65 residents and jobs combined per hectare. The proposed development will help achieve minimum required densities. ROP policies require new communities to have sidewalks, community trails and bicycle pathways that provide linkages within the neighbourhood and to other neighbourhoods, transit stops, employment areas, school sites, food destinations, and community facilities. The subject lands are located in a rapidly urbanizing part of Kitchener which is planned to have a mix of uses when it is built out. The proposal will be designed to connect to future transit, pedestrian and cycling facilities at such time as they are constructed within the Region's right-of-way. Regional Planning have provided comment on the proposed applications, including subdivision approval conditions, and overall have no objections to the proposed applications. Official Plan The City of Kitchener OP provides the long-term land use vision for Kitchener. The vision is further articulated and implemented through the guiding principles, goals, objectives, and policies which are set out in the Plan. The Vision and Goals of the OP strive to build an innovative, vibrant, attractive, safe, complete and healthy community. The Official Plan establishes an Urban Structure for the City of Kitchener and provides policies for directing growth and development within this structure. The subject lands are identified as being located within the `Community Area' and `Green Area' on Map 2 of the Official Plan. The planned function of Community Areas is to provide for residential uses, and the function of Green Areas is to protect and conserve the ecological functions and features that these spaces provide. The subject lands have two land use designations: lands shown as Block 1 on the proposed Draft Plan of Subdivision are designated Low Rise Residential and are proposed to be developed with condominium townhouses; and lands shown as Block 2 are designated Natural Heritage Conservation. Official Plan policies permit the exact boundary between Natural Heritage and developable lands to be determined based on appropriate Environmental Studies. In support of the application the developer provided an Environmental Impact Study (EIS) which is used to confirm the limits of the natural areas, setbacks, development limits, and impacts to the natural environment, and recommended mitigation measures to protect the adjacent natural heritage features. The EIS recommends a 30 metre buffer to the wetland limit, which will be vegetated with enhancement plantings to further protect and enhance the wetland feature. These natural features include Blair Creek and Roseville Swamp Cedar Creek (recognized provincially significant wetland), Regional Core Environmental Feature, is regulated by the Grand River Conservation Authority, and is identified in the Official Plan as being affected by the Flooding Hazard Overlay. The natural and hazard features together with the 30 metre buffer are included in the Natural Heritage Designation and are protected and will be conveyed to the City. Page 216 of 350 The Low Rise Residential land use designation permits a full range of low density housing types, including cluster townhouses. Policies permit a maximum floor space ratio (FSR) of up to 0.75 where it is compatible, and heights of up to 4 storeys or 14 metres on lands having frontage on a Regional Road. The applicant is requesting site-specific zoning regulations to permit the maximum FSR to be increased to 0.75 and a maximum height of 14 metres in accordance with these policies. New Dundee is a Regional Road, and staff is of the opinion that the increase in density is compatible. The subject lands are well separated from surrounding development with the creek and wetland to the north, the private stormwater pond to the east, and a large setback with a grade change to the dwelling to the west. Further, the increase in FSR is mainly required to permit units to have lookout or walkout basements where grading permits. This helps increase light and liveable space for residents and allows for additional visual access to the natural area and the SWM pond. Staff is of the opinion that the proposed development concept and Zoning By-law Amendment comply with policies of the Official Plan. Kitchener Growth Management Plan (KGMP) 2019-2021 The subject lands (Parcel 114 on KGMP Map) are identified as Priority `B' which supports consideration of development applications and initiatives to be actively worked on with high priority in the coming 2 -year timeframe. Priority B applications may require some additional infrastructure. The developer will be required to extend water and sanitary infrastructure from the east and under New Dundee Road. These extensions are not eligible for Development Changes and will be fully funded by the Developer. The City and Region are satisfied with the servicing solution and it will be implemented through separate processes and contracts. Proposed Zoning By-law Amendment The subject lands are currently zoned `Future Use Zone (FTR-1)' in Zoning By-law 2019-051. The purpose of this zone is to permit existing uses until such time as a future development application can ensure the orderly development of land. This may include the delineation of any natural heritage features on the lot and subsequent application of the NHC-1 zone on any of these features. The applicant has completed the required studies to delineate the appropriate boundary between the developable land and the natural heritage feature and staff recommend that the lands be rezoned as shown on Map 1 and in the proposed By-law (see Appendix `B'). Area 1 — Natural Conservation (NHC-1) to the natural feature and buffer, which will be conveyed to the City for long-term protection. Staff note that a small portion of the NHC lands which only include floodplain will be retained with Block 1 (condominium lands) and is proposed to be incorporated into the on-site amenity and stormwater area and remains undevelopable. The City and GRCA are satisfied with the proposed boundary of the `NHC-1' Zone. Area 2 — Low Rise Residential Five Zone (RES -5) with Site Specific Provision 368 and Holding Provision 48H. RES -5: • The proposed zone permits the full range of low rise residential uses, including the proposed cluster townhouse development. Site -Specific Provision 368: • To permit a Floor Space Ratio (FSR) of up to 0.75 and a building height of 14.0 metres. As discussed in the previous section this is consistent with location and the `Low Rise Residential' designation. • To permit ground floor units without a private patio. Units fronting New Dundee Road have been designed as rear lane towns and will be provided with private porches and balconies/ roof -top terraces, rather than an at -grade patio. • To permit front porches with a depth of 1.0 metres (rather than 1.5 metres) and steps to be located a minimum of 2.0 metres from a street line (rather than 3.0 metres). The rear lane Page 217 of 350 towns are designed to front onto New Dundee Road. Porches with steps have been included in order to provide for an attractive fagade which will be designed so that it can connect to a private sidewalk and any future pedestrian sidewalk on the road. The reduced porch depth and stair projection provides flexibility in the design and accommodates for variation in porch design and grades should more or fewer stairs be required to access the porch. Holding Provision 48H: • The Holding Provision requires that a clearance is provided by the City's Director of Engineering confirming that services are available or that acceptable arrangements have been made for their provision. Municipal services do not currently extend to the subject lands, however are located in the vicinity and must be extended from the east, beneath New Dundee Road. All costs associated with the extension of these services is the responsibility of the developer and is not considered a Development Charge eligible expense. Additional work and agreements are required between the City, the Region and the developer to facilitate the extension of services, and the lands cannot be developed until this work is complete. Staff is of the opinion that it is appropriate to zone the lands for the proposed residential development, subject to the proposed Holding Provision. The proposed zoning for the subject lands complies with the land use designations, and staff is of the opinion that they are appropriate for the proposed subdivision. Proposed Draft Plan of Subdivision The proposed Plan of Subdivision provides for two blocks. Block 1 is proposed to be developed with 127 condominium townhouse units. Block 2 includes Blair Creek and associated wetlands and buffer and is proposed to be conveyed to the City of Kitchener. The primary purpose of the subdivision is to facilitate the Common Elements Condominium process, as discussed previously. Staff recommend that the applicant be required to enter into a modified version of the standard residential subdivision agreement, with conditions as outlined in Appendix `A'. Staff recommends that Parts 2, 3, 4 and 5 of the Standard Residential Agreement be excluded, as there are no facilities or works (including roads, sidewalks, infrastructure, etc.) which will be dedicated to the City. Conditions of approval facilitate the dedication of the Natural Heritage lands, provide for ongoing protection and monitoring of the Natural Heritage Conservation feature and functions. The conditions also provide for a number of warning clauses and notices to be registered on title on lands which will be sold to future residents including for example, noise warning clauses, notice regarding mailboxes, and notice regarding maintenance responsibility for retaining and noise walls. Conditions of the Region of Waterloo, Grand River Conservation Authority, school boards and utilities are also included as per their comments and requirements. Department and Agency Comments All requirements have been addressed or are included as conditions of approval. The following Reports and studies were considered as part of this review: • Environmental Impact Study, prepared by Geoprocess Research Associated Inc. (August 4, 2022, revised February 10, 2023) • Environmental Noise Feasibility Study, prepared by Valcoustics Canada Ltd. (August 4, 2022, revised Feb 28, 2023) Page 218 of 350 • Functional Servicing and Stormwater Management Report prepared by MTE Consultants Inc. (August 4, 2022, revised March 2, 2023) • Hydrogeological Assessment Report, prepared by MTE Consultants Inc. (July 28, 2022) • Phase 1 ESA, prepared by MTE Consultants Inc. (March 17, 2017) • Planning Justification Report, prepared by GSAI (August 2022) • Preliminary Site Plan, prepared by Hunt Design Associates (July 2022, revised March 3, 2023) • Preliminary Elevations, prepared by Hunt Design Associates (June 2022) • Proposed Draft Plan of Subdivision, prepared by GSAI (June 27, 2022, revised March 3, 2023) • Stage 1 -2 Archaeological Assessment, prepared by Amick Consultants Limited (August 19, 2021) • Stage 1 -2 Ministry Letter re: Archaeological Assessment (August 20, 2021) • Sustainability Statement, prepared by GSAI (August 4, 2022) • Transportation Impact Study and Access and Circulation Review, prepared by Paradigm Transportation Solutions Limited (July 2022, revised February 2023) Community Input & Staff Responses iTA: lad ITA �: I Ae1:I 108 addresses (occupants and property owners) were circulated and notified Approximately 7 people/households/businesses provided written comment A City -led Neighbourhood Meeting was held on December 1, 2022 10 different users logged on Staff received written responses from 7 individuals. A copy of comments and staff responses can be found in Appendix `E' — Community Consultation. An overview of the identified concerns and staff responses are found below. Impacts to Natural Heritage Conservation Features Staff received several questions and concerns with respect to potential impacts to Blair Creek, the associated wetlands and its features and functions. The applicant has submitted an Environmental Page 219 of 350 Impact Study in support of the application. The purpose of this study is to evaluate the natural feature and make recommendations regarding its long-term protection and conservation. This study is reviewed by the City, the Region, and the Grand River Conservation Authority and the findings are implemented through the recommended zoning, and though the conditions of the Plan of Subdivision. The study recommends that a 30 metre buffer be provided to the edge of the wetland feature. Most of this buffer is currently within the agricultural field, beyond the edge of the wetland, and it will be planted in accordance with a Buffer Enhancement Planting Plan to protect the feature. The lands, including the buffer, will be conveyed into public ownership, and will be fenced along the boundary with the development to prevent access by the public. No trails or public access are permitted through this sensitive feature and there will be no access to Dodge Drive from the condominium. Future residents will be provided with information about the natural feature including recommendations on preferred plants for private gardens to help prevent invasive species from entering the natural area. The site will be designed and engineered to help infiltrate storm water wherever possible, including infiltration galleries, to facilitate infiltration of clean run-off from roofs to help maintain ground water and underground flows to creek and wetland. A private stormwater management facility will capture and clean surface run-off before it enters the creek, and engineered features will help to slow flows to the creek in times of flood and help maintain baseflow during dryer times. Staff in consultation with the Region and GRCA are satisfied that the appropriate measures will be included to protect the natural heritage conservation features and their functions. Increases to Traffic and Capacity of New Dundee Road A number of questions and concerns were received regarding traffic levels and speeds on New Dundee Road. The applicant has submitted a Transportation Impact Study (TIS) in support of the application. This study indicates that no upgrades are required to New Dundee Road as a result of this development. However, the Region of Waterloo has planned a series of upgrades to New Dundee Road over the coming years. This is necessary as the community is developed to handle the background levels of traffic. Such upgrades include new roundabouts at New Dundee Road and Robert Ferrie Drive and at New Dundee Road and Fischer Hallman Road. The eastern section of New Dundee Road from Robert Ferrie Drive to Executive Place will be rebuilt in 2024/2025. The section of New Dundee Road west of Robert Ferrie Drive is scheduled for reconstruction in about 2030. The Region has not initiated design work on this section, however City staff will advocate for the inclusion of pedestrian and cycling infrastructure. The subject site will be designed and planned to have future connections to a sidewalk or multi -use trail. With respect to speed limits, the Region has indicated that speeds will be lowered to 60 km/hour on New Dundee Road in proximity to the planned roundabouts and upon completion for the section of the road being rebuilt east of Robert Ferrie Drive. There are no immediate plans to reduce speed limits on other sections of New Dundee Road. This would be considered when subsequent sections of New Dundee Road are redeveloped. Site lines and driveways were evaluated in the Transportation Impact Study based on existing speeds. Provision of On-site Amenity Space and Landscaping Staff received questions about access to parks for the subject development. Staff acknowledge that it will be difficult for residents to walk to city parks in surrounding neighbourhoods, however the proposed development includes two on-site amenity areas. A large central area will include play facilities, and a secondary amenity space is included adjacent to the stormwater management pond and will be a more passive space. The site, amenity areas and stormwater management pond will be landscaped, and new trees will be planted. In addition, the 30 metre buffer, which forms part of the Natural Heritage Conservation lands will also be intensively planted in accordance with an approved Buffer Enhancement Planting Plan and conveyed to the City along with the natural feature. Parkland dedication (or cash -in -lieu) will be required through the subsequent Site Plan Approval process. Page 220 of 350 Servicing Availability Sanitary sewers and watermain for the subject lands will be extended, at the cost of the developer, from the east along New Dundee Road. Stormwater run-off will be managed through a private on- site stormwater management pond, and various infiltration galleries. As services are not presently available, staff are recommending that a Holding Provision be applied to the lands so that no development may occur until satisfactory arrangements have been made. Impacts to Private Wells A neighbouring resident raised concerns about potential impacts to private wells on nearby properties. Staff confirm that the project will need to be designed so that there will be no impacts to existing wells. Further monitoring of private wells may be required through the detailed planning for site servicing through the Site Plan Approval stage. Proposed Height and Density Staff received concerns with respect to the proposed height and density of the subject development. The applicant is proposing a mix of two-storey and three-storey townhouses. While they have requested to utilize the maximum permitted height of 14.0 metres, and density of 0.75, this increase is largely due to the units which have walk -out or look -out basements which contribute to the floor space ratio, and the peaked design of the roof on some of the three-storey units which contributes to the overall height. The proposed townhouses are well separated from neighbouring houses, and the proposed height will not cause overlook onto surrounding yards. Staff is of the opinion that the proposed height and density are appropriate for this site. Impacts to Schools Notice of this application was circulated to the Waterloo Catholic and Waterloo Region District School Boards. As New Dundee Road does not have pedestrian facilities, both school boards have provided comment and indicate that students will be bused to school from this development. At such time as pedestrian facilities are available, additional opportunities to walk to school may become available. Staff note that trails or other pedestrian connections through the natural area are not possible due to the sensitivity of this feature. Provision of Public Transit Concerns were raised regarding access to public transit. The subject lands are not currently well served by Grand River Transit, and the nearest route is located near the intersection of New Dundee Road and Robert Ferrie Drive, which is about a 15 minute walk. This neighbourhood is an urbanizing area and new transit routes may be added in the future, as development and demand increases. In the meantime, the subject development has provided private garages with driveways (some units may have double garages and driveways from private lanes), as well as shared visitor parking on- site. The design provides for ample parking for the development and no parking reduction is proposed. 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 - Upon registration, there will be ongoing operations costs for the maintenance of the Natural Heritage lands being dedicated to the City. There will also be ongoing revenue in the form of residential property tax revenue. Development Charges will be paid to the City, the Region, and school boards at the time of building permit issuance. Page 221 of 350 COMMUNITY ENGAGEMENT: INFORM — This report has been posted to the City's website with the agenda in advance of the Council / Committee meeting. Notice signs were posted on the property and information regarding the application posted to the City's website in September 2022. Notice of the Public Meeting was posted in The Record on May 26, 2023 (a copy of the Notice may be found in Appendix `C'). CONSULT — The applications were originally circulated to property owners within 240 metres of the subject lands in September 2022. In response to this circulation, staff received letters and emails from 7 respondents. Written comments are included in Appendix `E'. A Neighbourhood Meeting was held on December 1, 2022 and 10 users participated. PREVIOUS REPORTS/AUTHORITIES: • Municipal Act, 2001 • Planning Act, R.S.O. 1990, c. P.13 • Provincial Policy Statement, 2020 • A Place to Grow: Growth Plan for the Greater Golden Horseshoe, 2020 • Regional Official Plan, 2010 • City of Kitchener Official Plan, 2014 • Kitchener Growth Management Strategy • Kitchener Growth Management Plan 2019-2021 • Zoning By-law 2019-051 • City of Kitchener Urban Design Manual REVIEWED BY: Malone -Wright, Tina— Interim Manager of Development Review, Planning Division APPROVED BY: Justin Readman, General Manager, Development Services ATTACHMENTS: Appendix A — Draft Plan and Conditions of Draft Approval Appendix B — Proposed Zoning By-law Amendment Appendix C — Newspaper Notice Appendix D — Department and Agency Comments Appendix E — Community Comments Page 222 of 350 Draft Approval Conditions Draft Plan of Subdivision Application 30T-22202 Zoning By-law Amendment ZBA22/021/N/KA 1000 New Dundee Road Cachet Developments (New Dundee) Inc. That this approval applies to Plan of Subdivision 30T-22202 for Cachet Developments (New Dundee) Inc. as shown on the attached Plan of Subdivision prepared by the City of Kitchener dated May 18, 2023 which shows the following: Block 1 Multiple Residential (127 units) Block 2 Open Space/Floodplain 2. CITY OF KITCHENER CONDITIONS: 2.1 That the Subdivider shall enter into a modified City Standard Residential Subdivision Agreement as approved by CITY Council, respecting those lands shown outlined on the attached Plan of Subdivision dated May 18, 2023, which shall include: PART 1, except condition 1.25 which shall be deleted; PART 2, all conditions deleted; PART 3, all conditions deleted; PART 4, all conditions deleted; PART 5, all conditions deleted, save and except condition 5.2 (which is renumbered to 5.1); PART 6, all conditions deleted, save and except conditions 6.3 (which is renumbered to 6.1), 6.5 (which is renumbered to 6.2), 6.12 (which is renumbered to 6.3). The following special conditions shall be added to the City Standard Residential Subdivision Agreement: PART 1: General Conditions: 1.28 All contracts between the SUBDIVIDER and any contractor for any work to be done pursuant to this Agreement shall be subject to the approval of the CITY'S Director of Operations and without limiting the generality of the foregoing, every contract shall: a) be with a contractor acceptable to the CITY'S Director of Operations; b) contain a provision binding the contractor to file performance and material and labour bonds and liability insurance satisfactory to the CITY'S Director of Operations, with in the case of liability insurance, the CITY named as an additional insured; c) provide that the work of the contractor shall at all times be subject to the inspection of the CITY or CITY'S consulting engineer and be performed in accordance with the terms of this Agreement; Page 223 of 350 d) provide that the contractor shall co-operate with the inspectors and engineers at all times, submit materials used for any tests required and comply with any directions given by the inspectors and engineers, to ensure compliance with the plans and specifications; e) provide that the contractor shall supply a work schedule which may be updated as deemed necessary by the CITY, for the approval of the CITY'S Director of Engineering Services which work calendar shall provide for the work to be carried forward with reasonable expedition and which work calendar shall be adhered to so far as is reasonably possible; f) include an acknowledgment by the contractor that the contractor looks only to the SUBDIVIDER and not to the CITY for payment of this work. Part 2 — Prior to Grading 2.1 Prior to Grading or Registration, whichever may occur first, and in consideration of the wooded character of the subdivision lands and the CITY'S desire to minimize the impact of development on the treed areas worth retaining, the SUBDIVIDER agrees to submit a Detailed Vegetation Plan including stewardship initiatives„ approved grading, suitable silt and vegetation protection measures to be erected along the outer edge of the wetland buffer area (boundary of Block 2) as required by the Tree Management Policy, and to obtain approval from the CITY'S Director, Planning in consultation with the Grand River Conservation Authority, and the CITY'S Director, Parks and Cemeteries. a) The SUBDIVIDER shall provide a digital copy of the approved Detailed Vegetation Plan including grading to the CITY'S Director of Planning. b) The SUBDIVIDER agrees to implement all approved measures including temporary vegetation protection fencing for the protection of isolated trees, tree clusters and woodlands as approved in the Detailed Vegetation Plan including and to provide written certification from the SUBDIVIDER's Environmental Consultant to the CITY's Director of Planning that all protection measures have been implemented and inspected, in accordance with the CITY's Tree Management Policy. 2.2 Prior to area grading, servicing, and registration of any stage within the plan of subdivision, the SUBDIVIDER shall submit an Environmental Impact Study, and to obtain approval from the CITY'S Director, Planning in consultation with the CITY'S Director, Parks and Cemeteries, Region of Waterloo, and the Grand River Conservation Authority. 2.3 The SUBDIVIDER agrees to prepare and implement the Buffer Enhancement Planting Plan, for the section of land between the provincially significant wetland and development to be approved by the CITY'S Director of Planning in consultation with the CITY'S Director, Parks and Cemeteries. The Buffer Enhancement Planting Plan shall identify opportunities for enhancements and plantings of native plant species, with the objective to convert the agricultural field into a wet meadow Page 224 of 350 marsh and meadow community and provide a vegetated structural barrier that will help to discourage encroachment and reduce yard waste dumping into the wetland. The SUBDIVIDER shall provide a Letter of Credit based on 100% of the estimated cost of all works, prior to Site Plan Approval, to the satisfaction of the CITY'S Director of Planning in consultation with the CITY'S Director, Parks and Cemeteries. The Letter of Credit shall be based on an approved Cost Estimate of all works required to implement the Buffer Enhancement Planting Plan. The letter of credit will be reduced once the City is in receipt of confirmation from the SUBDIVIDER's Landscape Architect that all applicable works, as outlined in the approved Cost Estimate, are completed. 2.4 The SUBDIVIDER agrees to prepare and implement a detailed "during - development" monitoring program and will include three phases: "pre - construction", "during -construction" and "post -construction", in accordance with the Upper Blair Creek (Kitchener) Functional Drainage Study. The monitoring program is to be approved by the CITY's Director of Engineering Services in consultation with the CITY's Director of Planning, the General Manager, Infrastructure Services, the Grand River Conservation Authority and the Regional Municipality of Waterloo. a) The "pre -construction" monitoring program will document current conditions, including surface water and hydrogeological conditions, and be used as baseline information to compare conditions through the "during" and "post" construction monitoring periods. The pre -construction program is to be approved by the CITY'S Director of Engineering Services in consultation with the CITY'S Director of Planning, the General Manager, Infrastructure Services, the Grand River Conservation Authority, and the Regional Municipality of Waterloo. b) The SUBDIVIDER agrees to submit, obtain approval of and implement a detailed "during -construction" monitoring and response program. The during - construction program is to be approved by the CITY'S Director of Engineering Services in consultation with the CITY'S Director of Planning, the General Manager, Infrastructure Services, the Grand River Conservation Authority and the Regional Municipality of Waterloo. The purpose of the "during -construction" monitoring program is to ensure the stormwater management system/facility satisfies the design criteria specified in the Upper Blair Creek (Kitchener) Functional Drainage Study (UBCFDS) and to ensure water temperature, erosion, stream channel erosion, sedimentation and siltation control measures and groundwater mounding are maintained and function as approved. The during -construction monitoring and response program shall also monitor impacts to Environmentally Sensitive Policy Area 39 and other significant vegetation on the property. The "during -construction" monitoring and response program is to remain in place until 90% of the pond catchment area is stabilized (buildings are constructed and lots/blocks are sodded or vegetated) to the satisfaction of the CITY's Director of Engineering Services. Page 225 of 350 The SUBDIVIDER further agrees to implement any remedial action deemed necessary as a result of the aforementioned monitoring program at their sole expense to the satisfaction of the CITY'S Director of Engineering Services in consultation with the Grand River Conservation Authority. c) The SUBDIVIDER agrees to submit, obtain approval of, and implement a detailed "post -construction" monitoring program. The post -construction program is to be approved by the CITY'S Director of Engineering Services in consultation with the Director of Planning, the General Manager, Infrastructure Services, the Grand River Conservation Authority and the Regional Municipality of Waterloo. The purpose of the "post -construction" monitoring program is to ensure that the stormwater management system/ facility continues to satisfy the design criteria specified in the Upper Blair Creek (Kitchener) Functional Drainage Study (UBCFDS) and to identify any specific additional monitoring and maintenance requirements that may be necessary, including but not limited to water temperature, erosion, stream channel erosion, sedimentation and siltation control measures and groundwater mounding. The post -construction monitoring and response program shall also monitor impacts to Environmentally Sensitive Policy Area 39 and other significant vegetation on the property. The post -construction monitoring program shall extend for a two- year period after 90% of the pond catchment area is stabilized (buildings are constructed and lots/blocks are sodded or vegetated) to the satisfaction of the CITY'S Director of Engineering Services and coincide with the maintenance guarantee period required in the CITY's Standard Form Residential Subdivision Agreement. The SUBDIVIDER further agrees to implement any remedial action deemed necessary as a result of the aforementioned monitoring program at their sole expense to the satisfaction of the CITY'S Director of Engineering Services in consultation with the Grand River Conservation Authority. 2.5 The SUBDIVIDER agrees that prior to Grading and Servicing of Block 1, the stormwater management facilities will be constructed, vegetated, and operational, in accordance with the associated Site Plan Approval for Block 1, to the satisfaction of the CITY's Director of Engineering Services in consultation with the Director, Parks and Cemeteries and the Grand River Conservation Authority. PART 4: Prior to Application for or Issuance of Building Permits 4.1 The SUBDIVIDER agrees to install permanent, maintenance free fencing along the northern boundary of Block 1, to the satisfaction of the CITY's Director of Planning in consultation with the Director, Parks and Cemeteries, the Grand River Conservation Authority, and the Regional Municipality of Waterloo. 4.2 The SUBDIVIDER agrees to undertake any measures required to ensure proper water pressure to all lots and blocks within the proposed plan of subdivision to the satisfaction of the CITY's Director of Engineering Services or the CITY's Chief Building Official in consultation with CITY's Director of Utilities. Page 226 of 350 PART 6: Other Timeframes 6.4 The SUBDIVIDER agrees to implement all the recommendations of the Environmental Impact Study for a period of no less than 5 years from the date of draft plan approval to the satisfaction of the City's Director of Planning. 6.5 That prior to registration, the SUBDIVIDER agrees to prepare a Homeowner's Environmental Stewardship Guide for purchasers and/or tenants which provides information about the natural heritage features within the subdivision along with advice about good stewardship of these areas, to the satisfaction of the CITY'S Director of Planning in consultation with the Grand River Conservation Authority and the Regional Municipality of Waterloo. Furthermore, the SUBDIVIDER agrees to distribute this brochure to purchasers/tenants. 6.6 The SUBDIVIDER agrees to include the following clause in all agreements purchase and sale with home buyers, where parcels of tied lands contain retaining walls: "Purchasers are advised that a retaining wall is located on this property. The owner of this property also owns their section of the retaining wall. The retaining wall is not in public ownership. Monitoring, maintenance, inspection, repair and replacement of this retaining wall, including any associated costs, are the sole responsibility of the property owner. The City of Kitchener is in no way responsible for this retaining wall. Should this retaining wall fail, it is the property owner's responsibility to repair or replace his/her section of the wall, at his/her cost. 6.7 That the SUBDIVIDER agrees to include the following clauses in all agreements of purchase and sale with home buyers, and/or Rental Agreements, which advise: a) that the home/business mail delivery will be from a designated Community Mailbox. b) that identifies the exact Community Mailbox locations. The SUBDIVIDER further agrees that the location of all Community Mailbox facilities will be shown on maps, information boards and plans, including maps displayed in the sales office. 6.8 The SUBDIVIDER agrees to include the following clauses in applicable offers of purchase and sale and tenancy agreements, which shall be registered on the title of the lands immediately upon registration: " Purchasers/tenants are advised that given the sensitive environmental features contained within the lands, no public access will be permitted onto or through Block 2. This shall include passive recreational access and formal access routes including walkways, trails or footpaths." 6.9 The SUBDIVIDER agrees to include a clause in all agreements of purchase and sale with home buyers, and/or rental agreements, that: Page 227 of 350 2.1 a) provides the contact information for the four (4) School Boards in the Region to ensure that purchasers have contacts at the respective Boards for school boundary and other related school accommodation inquiries. b) public school buses operated by the Student Transportation Services of Waterloo Region (STSWR), or its assigns or successors, will not travel on privately owned or maintained right-of-ways to pick up students, and potential busing students will be required to meet the bus at a congregated bus pick-up point. 6.10 The SUBDIVIDER agrees that no grading is permitted within Block 2, save and except that which may be required to facilitate the implementation of the Buffer Enhancement Planting Plan. 6.11 The SUBDIVIDER agrees that no grading or servicing of Block 1 is permitted, until such time as Site Plan Approval has been granted and a s.41 Development Agreement has been registered on title. 6.12 That the SUBDIVIDER agrees to include the following statement in all agreements of purchase and sale and/or rental agreements that may be entered into pursuant to Section 52 of the Planning Act, prior to the registration of this plan: "The lot, lots, block or blocks which are the subject of this agreement of lease or purchase and sale are not yet registered as a plan of subdivision. The fulfillment of all conditions of draft plan approval, including the commitment of water supply and sewage treatment services thereto by the Region and other authorities, has not yet been completed to permit registration of the plan. Accordingly, the purchaser should be aware that the vendor is making no representation or warranty that the lot, lots, block or blocks which are the subject of this agreement or lease or purchase and sale will have all conditions of draft plan approval satisfied, including the availability of servicing until the plan is registered." 6.13 The SUBDIVIDER agrees to dedicate an easement providing access to Block 2 to the CITY by the registration of the Plan of Subdivision, to the satisfaction of the CITY Solicitor, in consultation with the City's Manager of Parks and Cemeteries. That prior to final approval of the plan to be registered, the SUBDIVIDER shall fulfill the following conditions: ON 3 0 The CITY Standard Residential Subdivision Agreement be registered on title. The SUBDIVIDER shall submit copies of the final plan for registration to the CITY'S Director of Planning and shall obtain approval therefrom. The SUBDIVIDER agrees to commute all local improvement charges outstanding on any part of the lands and to pay all outstanding taxes on the lands. The SUBDIVIDER shall install within the subdivision any required geodetic monuments under the direction of the CITY'S Director of Engineering Services, with co-ordinate values and elevations thereon and submit for registration the Page 228 of 350 plans showing the location of the monuments, their co-ordinate values, elevations and code numbers as prescribed by the Surveyor General of Ontario. 5. The SUBDIVIDER shall make satisfactory arrangements with Kitchener -Wilmot Hydro for the provision of permanent electrical services to the subdivision and/or the relocation of the existing services. Further, the SUBDIVIDER acknowledges that this may include the payment of all costs associated with the provision of temporary services and the removal of such services when permanent installations are possible. 6. The SUBDIVIDER shall make satisfactory arrangements for the provision of permanent telephone services to the subdivision and/or the relocation of the existing services. Further, the SUBDIVIDER acknowledges that this may include the payment of all costs associated with the provision of temporary services and the removal of such services when permanent installations are possible. 7. The SUBDIVIDER shall make arrangements for the granting of any easements required for utilities and municipal services. The SUBDIVIDER agrees to comply with the following easement procedure: (a) to provide copies of the subdivision plan proposed for registration and reference plan(s) showing the easements to HYDRO, and telephone companies and the CITY, to the CITY'S Director of Planning. (b) 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; (c) to ensure that there are no conflicts between utility or municipal service easement locations and any approved Tree Preservation/Enhancement Plan; (d) if utility easement locations are proposed within lands to be conveyed to, or presently owned by the CITY, the SUBDIVIDER shall obtain prior written approval from the CITY'S Director of Planning and CITY'S Director of Engineering Services or, in the case of parkland, the CITY'S Director of Operations; and (e) to provide to the CITY'S Director of Planning, a clearance letter from each of HYDRO and telephone companies. Such letter shall state that the respective utility company has received all required grants of easement, or alternatively, no easements are required. 8. The SUBDIVIDER shall dedicate an easement providing access to Block 2 to the CITY by the registration of the Plan of Subdivision, to the satisfaction of the CITY Solicitor. 9. To expedite the approval for registration, the SUBDIVIDER shall submit to the CITY'S Director of Planning, a detailed written submission documenting how all conditions imposed by this approval that require completion prior to registration of the subdivision plan(s), have been satisfied. Page 229 of 350 10. The SUBDIVIDER agrees to convey to the CITY the following lands for the purposes stated therein, at no cost and free of encumbrance, concurrently with the registration of each stage of the plan of subdivision within which the identified blocks are located: Block 2 Open Space/Floodplain 14. The SUBDIVIDER agrees that if servicing or grading has not commenced prior to registration, a Detailed Vegetation Plan is to be submitted for approval by the CITY'S Director of Planning. The Detailed Vegetation Plan shall also show approved grading. The SUBDIVIDER agrees to implement all of the measures identified in the approved Detailed Vegetation Plan including delivering all information contained in the approved Detailed Vegetation Plan to prospective purchasers to ensure that the requirements are carried out as specified. 15. That prior to registration, the SUBDIVIDER agrees to prepare a Homeowner's Environmental Stewardship Guide for purchasers and/or tenants which provides information about the natural heritage features within the subdivision along with advice about good stewardship of these areas, to the satisfaction of the CITY'S Director of Planning in consultation with the Grand River Conservation Authority and the Regional Municipality of Waterloo. 16. The SUBDIVIDER agrees to obtain the appropriate land use plan, from the City of Kitchener, for the area being subdivided in order to satisfy Condition 1.22 of the Subdivision Agreement. 17. That prior to registration and conveyance of Open Space Block 2 the SUBDIVIDER shall remove any garbage or debris from Block 2 to the satisfaction of the CITY'S Director of Parks and Cemeteries in consultation with the Regional Municipality of Waterloo. The SUBDIVIDER shall treat these lands as required by the Kitchener Tree Management Policy (2002) Section 3.3.1.6 including the removal of any garbage or debris to the satisfaction of the CITY'S Director of Planning and the CITY'S Director of Parks and Cemeteries. 18. (2.5) Prior to Grading or Registration, whichever may occur first, and in consideration of the wooded character of the subdivision lands and the CITY'S desire to minimize the impact of development on the treed areas worth retaining, the SUBDIVIDER agrees to submit a Detailed Vegetation Plan including stewardship initiatives, approved grading, suitable silt and vegetation protection measures to be erected along the outer edge of the wetland buffer area (boundary of Block 2) as required by the Tree Management Policy, and to obtain approval from the CITY'S Director, Planning in consultation with the Grand River Conservation Authority, and the CITY'S Director, Parks and Cemeteries. a) The SUBDIVIDER shall provide a digital copy of the approved Detailed Vegetation Plan including grading to the CITY'S Director of Planning. b) The SUBDIVIDER agrees to implement all approved measures including temporary vegetation protection fencing for the protection of isolated trees, tree Page 230 of 350 clusters and woodlands as approved in the Detailed Vegetation Plan including and to provide written certification from the SUBDIVIDER's Environmental Consultant to the CITY's Director of Planning that all protection measures have been implemented and inspected, in accordance with the CITY's Tree Management Policy. 3. REGIONAL MUNICIPALITY OF WATERLOO CONDITIONS: That the plan for final approval may incorporate a lot pattern for all blocks in which townhouse lots are permitted, at a density not exceeding the density identified in the draft approval conditions; 2. That the SUBDIVIDER agrees to stage the development of this subdivision in a manner satisfactory to the Regional Commissioner of Planning, Development and Legislative Services; 3. That the subdivision agreement be registered by the City of Kitchener against the lands to which it applies and a copy of the registered agreement be forwarded to the Regional Commissioner of Planning, Development and Legislative Services prior to final approval of the subdivision plan; 4. That any dead ends and open sides of road allowances created by this plan of subdivision shall be terminated in 0.3 metre reserves, to be conveyed to and held in trust by the City of Kitchener until required for future road allowances or the development of adjacent land. 5. That the SUBDIVIDER enter into an Agreement for Servicing with the Regional Municipality of Waterloo to preserve access to municipal water supply and municipal wastewater treatment services prior to final approval or any agreement for the installation of underground services, whichever comes first. Where the SUBDIVIDER has already entered into an agreement for the installation of underground servicing with the area municipality, such agreement shall be amended to provide for a Regional Agreement for Servicing prior to registration of any part of the plan. The Regional Commissioner of Engineering and Environmental Services shall advise prior to an Agreement for Servicing that sufficient water supplies and wastewater treatment capacity is available for this plan, or the portion of the plan to be registered; 6. That the SUBDIVIDER includes the following statement in the registered subdivision agreement and in all agreements of lease or purchase and sale and/or rental agreements that may be entered into pursuant to Section 52 of the Planning Act, prior to the registration of this plan: "The lot, lots, block or blocks which are the subject of this agreement of lease or purchase and sale are not yet registered as a plan of subdivision. The fulfillment of all conditions of draft plan approval, including the commitment of water supply and sewage treatment services thereto by the Region and other authorities, has not yet been completed to permit registration of the plan. Accordingly, the purchaser should be aware that the vendor is making no representation or Page 231 of 350 warranty that the lot, lots, block or blocks which are the subject of this agreement or lease or purchase and sale will have all conditions of draft plan approval satisfied, including the availability of servicing until the plan is registered." 7. That, prior to registration or servicing, whichever comes first, the Functional Servicing and SWM Report (MTE, Revised March 2, 2023) and/or future amendments thereto) be completed to the satisfaction of the Regional Commissioner of Planning, Development and Legislative Services. Without limiting the foregoing, the Report must address the following: a) Location of the proposed 300mm dia watermain within the New Dundee Road right-of-way. b) Location of the proposed 300mm dia sanitary sewer within the New Dundee Road right-of-way. 8. That, the SUBDIVIDER enter into a development agreement with the Regional Municipality of Waterloo to provide that prior to any grading, construction, or servicing of the plan of subdivision, whichever comes first, the SUBDIVIDER submit a final lot grading and drainage plan for the entire plan for review and approval to the satisfaction of the Regional Commissioner of Planning, Development and Legislative Services. The lot grading and drainage plan must include the following for New Dundee Road (Regional Road 12): a) cross sections along New Dundee Road and the abutting development. The cross sections should extend 5m into the private property and be provided at 10m intervals along the entire frontage of the property in addition to cross sections at the proposed main driveway and emergency access. The cross sections should show proposed development grades in matching to the existing and proposed grades along New Dundee Road, including property line, hydro poles, and other features as necessary. The developer is responsible to ensure whatever is constructed today meets current standards without the need for retaining walls and allows for future integration with Regional road works. 9. That, the SUBDIVIDER enter into a development agreement with the Regional Municipality of Waterloo to provide that prior to any grading, construction or servicing of the plan of subdivision, whichever comes first, the SUBDIVIDER submit a final detailed stormwater management plan to the satisfaction of the City of Kitchener, Grand River Conservation Authority, and the Regional Commissioner of Planning, Development and Legislative Services. 10. That prior to registration, the SUBDIVIDER decommissions any monitoring and private wells (not used for long term monitoring) and septic systems on the property in accordance with O. Reg. 903 prior to any grading on the property; and furthermore, that the SUBDIVIDER enter into an agreement with the City of Kitchener to decommission any long term monitoring wells no longer used for such Page 232 of 350 purposes, all to the satisfaction of the Regional Commissioner of Planning, Development and Legislative Services. 11. That the boundaries and buffers of Core Environmental Features (Provincially Significant Wetland, Significant Woodland) within and contiguous to the subject lands be interpreted as depicted on Map 5, Site Plan, in the "Environmental Impact Study, 1000 New Dundee Rd, Kitchener' (GeoProcess Research Associates, last updated February 10, 2023). 12. That the Core Environmental Features and associated buffers on the subject lands be placed in natural heritage conservation zoning pursuant to Policy 7.A.2 of the Regional Official Plan. 13. That prior to any clearing of vegetation on the site, or final approval of all or any part of this plan of subdivision (whichever occurs first), the SUBDIVIDER enter into an agreement with the Regional Municipality of Waterloo, that no clearing of vegetation on the site occur during the bird breeding season (April 1 —August 31) in compliance with the Migratory Birds Convention Act unless it can be ascertained by a qualified expert that no birds covered by the Act are observed to be breeding in or adjacent to the affected area. 14. That prior to any land clearing, grading or other site alteration, the SUBDIVIDER ensure compliance with the Endangered Species Act. 15. That, prior to final approval, the SUBDIVIDER shall install permanent fencing along the common boundary of Blocks 1 and 2, with signage identifying the Core Environmental Feature, and that the fence be installed to the satisfaction of the City of Kitchener and the Regional Commissioner of Planning, Development and Legislative Services, in consultation with the Grand River Conservation Authority and the Region. 16. That, prior to registration and any land clearing, grading, or the installation of services, the SUBDIVIDER submit a detailed erosion and sediment control plan acceptable to the Regional Municipality of Waterloo and the City of Kitchener, in consultation with the Grand River Conservation Authority, in order to prevent sedimentation into Core Environmental Features. 17. That, prior to registration, the SUBDIVIDER submit landscaping and planting plans for all buffer areas contiguous to Core Environmental Features, and that recommended plantings shall consist of locally -appropriate, self-sustaining native vegetation to the satisfaction of the Regional Municipality of Waterloo and the City of Kitchener, in consultation with the Grand River Conservation Authority. 18. That, prior to registration, the SUBDIVIDER submit a detailed monitoring plan for Core Environmental Features and associated buffers on the subject lands as outlined in the "Environmental Impact Study, 1000 New Dundee Rd, Kitchener" (GeoProcess Research Associates, last updated February 10, 2023) to the satisfaction of the Regional Municipality of Waterloo and the City of Kitchener, in consultation with the Grand River Conservation Authority. Page 233 of 350 19. That, prior to registration, the SUBDIVIDER develop a brochure or other similar information tools for new home purchasers and residents which provides information about the natural heritage features contiguous to the subdivision, along with advice about how they can be good neighbours to and stewards of these areas, and that the brochure be to the satisfaction of the Regional Municipality of Waterloo and the City of Kitchener, in consultation with the Grand River Conservation Authority. 20. That prior to final approval, the SUBDIVIDER remove any debris and/or garbage from Core Environmental Features within the subject lands to the satisfaction of the Regional Municipality of Waterloo and the City of Kitchener. 21. That, prior to registration, the SUBDIVIDER enter into an agreement with the Regional Municipality of Waterloo to distribute source water protection and winter salt management information with all offers to purchase and/or rental agreements, to the satisfaction of the Regional Commissioner of Planning, Development and Legislative Services. 22. That, prior to registration, the SUBDIVIDER enter into an agreement with the Regional Municipality of Waterloo to complete salt management plan for Condo Townhouse Block 1 prior to site plan approval to the satisfaction of the Regional Commissioner of Planning, Development and Legislative Services. Furthermore, that the agreement contains a provision to include implementation of the salt management plan by way of declaration associated with any future applications for plan of condominium. 23. That, prior to registration of this plan of subdivision, or prior to commencement of any construction work, whichever comes first, the SUBDIVIDER must enter into an agreement with the Regional Municipality of Waterloo to obtain a Municipal Consent and Work Permit for New Dundee Road (Regional Road 12) from the Region for such works. 24. That, prior to registration of this plan of subdivision, or prior to commencement of any construction work, whichever comes first, the SUBDIVIDER enters into an agreement with the Regional Municipality of Waterloo to provide engineering drawings which include details of boulevard restoration for New Dundee Road (Regional Road 12), to the satisfaction of the Regional Commissioner of Planning, Development and Legislative Services. Without limiting the foregoing, the submission is to include any geotechnical recommendation provided to the SUBDIVIDER by the Region. As part of geotechnical work, the SUBDIVIDER will be required to complete a soil characterization report, to support the movement of excess soils. Conducting sampling analysis plan, assessment of past uses per requirements as set out in O. Reg. 406/19, as well as identification of any dewatering needs. Any restoration beyond 50% of road cross section, will require full road restoration. All to the satisfaction of the Regional Commissioner of Planning, Development, and Legislative Services. Page 234 of 350 25. That, prior registration, the SUBDIVIDER enter into an agreement with the Regional Municipality of Waterloo to provide for implementation of the recommendations of the accepted report entitled, "1000 New Dundee Road, Kitchener, ON, Transportation Impact Study and Circulation Review" (Paradigm Transportation Solutions Limited, February 2023), to the satisfaction of the Regional Commissioner of Planning, Development and Legislative Services. 26. That, prior to registration of this plan of subdivision, the SUBDIVIDER enter into a development agreement with the Regional Municipality of Waterloo to obtain prior to site plan, a Regional Road Access Permit for New Dundee Road (Regional Road 12). 27. That prior to registration, the SUBDIVIDER enter into a development agreement with the Regional Municipality of Waterloo to provide, prior to site plan approval and at no cost to the Region, daylight triangles along New Dundee Road and any proposed access, to the satisfaction of the Regional Commissioner of Planning, Development and Legislative Services. 28. That prior to registration, the SUBDIVIDER enter into a development agreement with the Regional Municipality of Waterloo to grant any easements at no cost to the Region as necessary for road improvements along New Dundee Road, to the satisfaction of the Regional Commissioner of Planning, Development and Legislative Services. 29. That prior to registration, the Regional Municipality of Waterloo review and accept the noise study (and any addendum thereto) entitled, "Environmental Noise Feasibility Study, 1000 New Dundee Road, Proposed Residential Development, Kitchener, Ontario" (Valcoustics, August 4, 2022), to the satisfaction of the Regional Commissioner of Planning, Development and Legislative Services. Furthermore, the SUBDIVIDER enter into a development agreement with the Regional Municipality of Waterloo to provide for the implementation of the accepted Noise Study and Addendum. The agreement shall include, but not limited to, securities for the construction of noise attenuation barriers recommended in the Study, and a detailed Noise Study at site plan. 30. That prior to registration, the SUBDIVIDER enter into a development agreement with the Regional Municipality of Waterloo to provide for installation of a 1.5m high chainlink fence where deemed necessary along New Dundee Road (Regional Road 12) by the Region, to the satisfaction of the Regional Commissioner of Planning, Development and Legislative Services. 31. That prior to registration, the SUBDIVIDER enter into a development agreement with the Regional Municipality of Waterloo to require that prior to site plan approval the City of Kitchener and the Regional Municipality of Waterloo make arrangements (including entering into an agreement) to provide for servicing of this plan of subdivision within the New Dundee Road (Regional Road 12) road allowance, to the satisfaction of the Regional Commissioner of Transportation Services. Page 235 of 350 4. OTHER AGENCY CONDITIONS: Grand River Conservation Authority 1. Prior to any grading or construction on the site and prior to registration of the plan, the owners or their agents submit the following plans and reports to the satisfaction of the Grand River Conservation Authority. a) A detailed final stormwater management report in accordance with the 2003 Ministry of the Environment Report entitled "Stormwater Management Planning and Design Manual" and in keeping with the 1000 New Dundee Road Functional Servicing and Stormwater Management Report (dated March 2, 2023, prepared by MTE Consultants I nc). b) Final Lot Grading, Servicing, and Storm Drainage Plans. c) A final erosion and sediment control plan in accordance with the Grand River Conservation Authority's Guidelines for erosion and sediment control, indicating the means whereby erosion will be minimized and sediment maintained on-site throughout all phases of grading and construction. d) The submission and approval of a Development, Interference with Wetlands and Alterations to Shorelines and Watercourses permit from the GRCA prior to any grading or construction in the regulated area. Waterloo Reaion District School Board 2. That the Owner/Developer agrees that 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. Despite the best efforts of the Waterloo Region District School Board (WRDSB), accommodation in nearby facilities may not be available for all anticipated students. You are hereby notified that students may be accommodated in temporary facilities and/or bussed to a school outside the area, and further, that students may, in future, be transferred to another school. ii. For information on which schools are currently serving this area, contact the WRDSB Planning Department at 519-570-0003 ext. 4419, or email planning@wrdsb.ca. Information provided by any other source cannot be guaranteed to reflect current school assignment information. iii. 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 3. That the Owner/Developer supply, erect and maintain a sign (at the Owner/Developer's expense and according to the WRDSB's specifications), near or affixed to the Page 236 of 350 development sign, advising prospective residents about schools in the area and that prior to final approval, the Owner/Developer shall submit a photo of the sign for review and approval of the WRDSB. Waterloo Catholic District School Board 4. That Education Development Charges shall be collected prior to the issuance of a building permit(s). 5. That the OWNER and the WCDSB reach an agreement regarding the supply and erection of a sign (at the developer's expense and according to the Board's specifications) affixed to the development sign advising prospective residents about schools in the area. 6. That the OWNER shall agree in the in the Subdivision Agreement to advise all purchasers of residential units and/or renters of same, by inserting the following clause in all offers of Purchase and Sale/Lease: "In order to limit liability, public school buses operated by the Student Transportation Services of Waterloo Region (STSWR), or its assigns or successors, will not travel on privately owned or maintained right-of-ways to pick up students, and potential busing students will be required to meet the bus at a congregated bus pick-up point." 7. 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. 5. CLEARANCE CONDITIONS 1. That prior to the signing of the final plan by the CITY'S Director of Planning, the Director shall be advised by the Regional Commissioner of Planning, Development and Legislative Services that Conditions 3.1 to 3.31 have been carried out to the satisfaction of the Regional Municipality of Waterloo. The clearance letter from the Region shall include a brief statement detailing how each condition has been satisfied. 2. That prior to the signing of the final plan by the CITY'S Director of Planning, the Director, shall be advised by the telephone company that Conditions 2.1.6 and 2.1.7 have been carried out satisfactorily. The clearance letter should contain a brief statement as to how the conditions were satisfied. 3. That prior to the signing of the final plan by the CITY'S Director of Planning, the Director shall be advised by Kitchener -Wilmot Hydro that Conditions 2.1.5 and 2.1.7 have been carried out satisfactorily. The clearance letter should contain a brief statement as to how the conditions were satisfied. 4. That prior to the signing of the final plan by the CITY'S Director of Planning, the Director shall be advised by the Grand River Conservation Authority that Condition 4.1 has been Page 237 of 350 carried out satisfactorily. The clearance letter should contain a brief statement as to how the condition was satisfied. 5. That prior to the signing of the final plan by the CITY'S Director of Planning, the Director shall be advised by the Waterloo Region District School Board that Conditions 4.2 — 4.3 have been carried out satisfactorily. The clearance letter should contain a brief statement as to how the condition was satisfied. 6. That prior to the signing of the final plan by the CITY'S Director of Planning, the Director shall be advised by the Waterloo Catholic District School Board that Conditions 4.4 — 4.7 have been carried out satisfactorily. The clearance letter should contain a brief statement as to how the condition was satisfied. NOTES The owner/developer is advised that the provisions of the Regional Development Charge By-law 19-037 are applicable. 2. The final plans 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 plan to advise the Regional Municipality of Waterloo and the City of Kitchener Planning Division of any changes in ownership, agent, address, and phone and fax numbers. 4. The owner/developer is advised that the Regional Municipality of Waterloo has adopted By -Law 23-009, pursuant to Section 69 of the Planning Act, R.S.O. 1990 c. P.13, as amended, to prescribe a tariff of fees for application, recirculation, draft approval, modification to draft approval and registration release of plans of subdivision. 5. The owner/developer is advised that pursuant to Regional By -Law 23-009, the current fee for review of a road traffic noise study is $500.00, payable to the Regional Municipality of Waterloo upon submission of the study for review. 6. This draft plan was received on or after April 14, 2022 and shall be processed and finally disposed of under the Planning Act, R.S.O. 1990, c. P.13, as amended by S.O. 2022, c. 12 (Bill 109). 7. The Owner is advised that draft approval is not a commitment by the Regional Municipality of Waterloo to water and wastewater servicing capacity. To secure this commitment the owner/developer must enter into an "Agreement for Servicing" with The Regional Municipality of Waterloo by requesting that the Region's Planning, Development and Legislative Services Department initiate preparation of the agreement. When sufficient capacity is confirmed by the Region's Commissioner of Engineering and Environmental Services to service the density as defined by the plan to be registered, the owner/developer will be offered an "Agreement for Servicing". This agreement will be time limited and define the servicing commitment by density and use. Should the "Agreement for Servicing" expire prior to plan registration, a new agreement will be required. Page 238 of 350 The owner/developer is to provide the Regional Municipality of Waterloo with two print copies of the proposed plan to be registered along with the written request for a servicing agreement 8. To ensure that a Regional Release is issued by the Regional 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 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 15th. Regional staff can not 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. 9. When the survey has been completed and the final plan prepared to satisfy the requirements of the Registry Act, they should be forwarded to the City of Kitchener. If the plans comply with the terms of approval, and we have received an assurance from the Regional Municipality of Waterloo and the applicable clearance agencies that the necessary arrangements have been made, the Manager of Development Review's signature will be endorsed on the plan and it will be forwarded to the Registry Office for registration. The following is required for registration under The Registry Act and the Region's purposes: One (1) original mylar Three (3) mylar copies Four (4) white paper prints Page 239 of 350 �j EXISTING �/ /�S 5N o: I RESIDENTIAL ��E o / V G I PART -R- 620 4. PLAry ,�;� 0 I �%Y C� PART 3, PU1N 58R-2820 Q�210 E i� M8°43'401��� 154,40 20,08 N045�5 w� 75.54 N�5°1131E q � EXISTING ATURAL HERITAGE AREA PART -2, PLAN 58R-4887 ---�/ Y EXISTING RESIDENTIAL ` PART 1, NI,87 - — - Cq / / PART 2, PLAN 58R-7220 K EXISTING i NATURAL HERITAGE BLOCK 2 AREA OPEN SPACE/FLOODPLAIN 5.41 ha (13.37ac) WETLAND IMIT RT 2, PLAN 58R-2820 EXISTING FL ODLINE - _ 30m WETLAND 306s 1-1 2a_a2 za.ls 'I -e-24 i7.zs B=a� �e 1,19 69 e, o EXISTING 7777--7777-770 121 1945 278 e � � ,RE"SIDENTIAL I.oa --'PART I, PLAN 58R-7290 BLOCK MULTIPLE RESIDENTIAL S & SWM POND ,�- 127 UNITS 4.60ha (I1.37ac) / /N56 00 / Land Use' aos9 STAGE ONE LAS 77 2';O --L �' Block 1 Mull 35.77 NEW DUNDEE ROAD 77.91 i Block 2 OpE T EXISTING Tot,, EXISTING NATURAL HERITAGE RESIDENTIAL AREA REVISED: SUBDIVISION APPLICATI( PLAN OF SUBDIVISION 0 20 40 60 80 CACHET DEVELOPMENTS (NEW DUNDEE) INC. I SCALE: 1:2500 BEASLEYS NEW, SURVEY PT LOT 2, RP 58R-2820 PART 2 1 DATE: MAY 18, 2023 ZONE BYLAW AMENDMENT City of Kitc Development Services Departi 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 — Cachet Developments (New Dundee) Inc. — 1000 New Dundee Road) 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 Numbers 208, 209 and 250 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 Future Use Zone (FTR-1) to Natural Conservation Zone (NHC-1). 2. Zoning Grid Schedules Numbers 208, 209, 250 and 251 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 2 on Map No. 1, in the City of Kitchener, attached hereto, from Future Use Zone (FTR-1) to Low Rise Residential Five Zone (RES -5) with Site Specific Provision (368), and Holding Provision (48H). 3. Zoning Grid Schedules Numbers 208, 209, 250 and 251 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. 4. Section 19 of By-law 2019-051 is hereby amended by adding Site Specific Provision (368) thereto as follows: Page 241 of 350 "368. Notwithstanding Sections 4 and Section 7 of this By-law within the lands zoned RES - 5 and shown as being affected by this subsection on Schedule Numbers 208, 209, 250 and 251 of Appendix `A', the following special regulations shall apply: a) The maximum Floor Space Ratio shall be 0.75, and shall be calculated based on a lot area of 4.6 hectares (being Block 1, 30T-22202 and including lands which are zoned NHC-1 located within this block). b) The maximum Building Height shall be 14.0 metres. c) A Private Patio Area shall not be required. d) The minimum depth of a porch associated with a dwelling unit shall be 1.0 metre. e) Steps and access ramps that exceed 0.6 metres above ground level shall be located a minimum of 2 metres from a street line." 5. Section 20 of By-law 2019-051 is hereby amended by adding Holding Provision (48H) thereto as follows: "48. Notwithstanding Section 7 of this Bylaw, within the lands zoned RES -5 and shown as being affected by this Subsection on Schedule Numbers 208, 209, 250 and 251 of Appendix "A": No person shall develop or redevelop lands until such time as a clearance letter is received from the City's Director of Engineering advising the City's Director of Planning that adequate City services are "available (1)" or that "acceptable arrangements (2)" have been made therefor, and the holding provision has been removed by by-law. This holding provision shall apply to all uses except those uses existing on lots existing on October 11, 1994. (1) "Available" means the necessary provision of municipal services to the level of construction, state of completion, or period of commissioning as the City's Director of Engineering determines to be appropriate. Page 242 of 350 (2) "Acceptable Arrangements" means that the necessary agreements for the provision of services and/or roadworks have been entered into with the City, as the case may be and registered on title, engineering design has been approved and the necessary and related financial guarantees have been received by the relevant municipality." PASSED at the Council Chambers in the City of Kitchener this day of 2023. Mayor Clerk Page 243 of 350 S- SR -3 R S4 N i NHC-1 SUBJECT ARE, OSR-3 RE -2 - R -5 (3 ) � OSR-3 AMENDMENT TC (308) 310 ► p�p AREA 1 - FROM FUTUREI 'V�cV TO NATURAL CC W OSR-2 j ZONE (NHC-1) RES -1 ' a� WSW RES -1 _ AREA 2 - (316) RES -1 C�iiZ ��_ FROM FUTURE l OSR-2 y ���R TO LOW RISE RE RES -1 �* ������ " WITH SITE SPEC AND HOLDING P BY-LAW 2019-05' _ EUF-1 EXISTING ^ ��� ��� �^� ��^��^�ti � -^�-- -,,, ^�� —#'- A ^^_ � FTR-1 FUTURE U NHC-1 NATURAL OPEN SPF �-^ OSR 3 OPEN SPF MANAGEMENTZ [E2p9��^ DU[E2p8 �� ^� ••.. ^ ��^� ��� R i� RES -1 LOW RISE RES -2 LOW RISE --r- - - Q RES 3 LOW RISE i (334) RES -4 LOW RISE BLOCK -�....�...`.�..,.�..`.__... V, RES -5 LOW RISE MULTIPLE RESIDENTIAL & SWM POND � � � • UNITS 4.6 4.60ha (11.37ac) AREA 2 Scvt4 X2,0 e�� _ ZONE GRID REFS RES -1 SCHEDULE ; OF APPEND OA' KITCHENER ZON ZONE MAP NO. 1 CACHET DEVELOPMENTS (NEW DUNDEE) INC. 1000 NEW DUNDEE RD NORTH UMFRIES 0 50 100 METRES SCALE 1:4,000 DATE: MAY 8, 2023 FLOC SIGN • • HABI' ZONING BY-LAW AMENDMENT ZBAA' SUBDIVISION APPLICATION 30T-222 City of Kitchener Appendix "C" — Newspaper Notice NOTICE OF PUBLIC MEETING for a development in your neighbourhood 1000 New Dundee Road Irci�nr� Proposed Subdivision MN 0 0 177 Natural Heritage Floor Space Townhouse Dedicated to Ratio of Units City 4.75 Have Your Voice Heard! Planning & Strategic Initiatives Committee Date: June 19, 2023 Location- Council Chambers. Kitchener City Hall 200 King Street West arVirtual Zoom Meeting Go to kitche ne r.ca/meeti ngs and select: • Current agendas and reparts (posted 10 days before meeting) • Appear as a delegation • Watch a meeting To learn more about this project, including information on your appeal rights, visit: www.kitchener.ca/ Planni ngAppl ications or contact: Katie Anderl, Senior Planner katie.ander[CgAitchener.ca 519.741.2200 x7987 The City of Kitchener will consider applications for a Zoning By-law Amendment and a Draft Plan of Subdivision to permit the lands to be split into two blocks. Block 1 is proposed to be zoned 'Residential Five Zone (RES -5)' with a Site -Specific Provision and is proposed to be developed with a 127-u nit condominium townhouse development and includes private park spaces and a private stormvvater management pond. Block 2 contains Blair Creek, associated wetlands and a buffer and is proposed to be zoned 'Natural Conservation Zone (N HC -1)' and dedicated to the City of Kitchener. Page 245 of 350 Katie Anderl From: Mike Seiling Sent: Friday, September 16, 2022 12:18 PM To: Katie Anderl Subject: FW: Circulation for Comment - 1000 New Dundee Road (Subdivision/ZBA) Attachments: department & agency letter - 1000 New Dundee Rd.pdf, Draft Plan of Subdivision.pdf, Map 1A.pdf, Map 1B.pdf Building; no concerns From: Christine Kompter<Christine.Kompter@kitchener.ca> Sent: Friday, September 16, 2022 10:38 AM To: asage@northdumfries.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.Seller@kitchener.ca>; David Paetz <David.Paetz@kitchener.ca>; Ellen Straus <EIIen.Straus@kitchener.ca>; Feds <vped@feds.ca>; GRCA - Planning (planning@grandriver.ca) <planning@grandriver.ca>; Greg Reitzel <Greg.Reitzel@kitchener.ca>; Hydro One - Dennis DeRango <landuseplanning@hydroone.com>; Jim Edmondson <Jim.Edmondson@kitchener.ca>; Justin Readman <Justin.Readman@kitchener.ca>; Katherine Hughes <Katherine.Hughes@kitchener.ca>; K -W Hydro - Greig Cameron <gcameron@kwhydro.on.ca>; Mike Seiling <Mike.Seiling@kitchener.ca>; Ontario Power Generation<Executivevp.lawanddevelopment@opg.com>; Park Planning (SM) <Park.Planning@kitchener.ca>; Region - Planning <PlanningApplications@regionofwaterloo.ca>; Property Data Administrator (SM) <PropDataAdmin@kitchener.ca>; Robert Morgan <Robert.Morgan@kitchener.ca>; Steven Ryder <Steven.Ryder@kitchener.ca>; Sylvie Eastman <Sylvie.Eastman @kitchener.ca>; WCDSB - Planning <planning@wcdsb.ca>; WRDSB - Board Secretary (elaine_burns@wrdsb.ca) <elaine_burns@wrdsb.ca>; WRDSB - Planning <planning@wrdsb.ca> Cc: Katie Anderl <Katie.Anderl@kitchener.ca> Subject: Circulation for Comment - 1000 New Dundee Road (Subdivision/ZBA) Please see attached. Additional documentation can be found in AMANDA folders 22-120757 & 22- 120760 (City staff) and ShareFile (external agencies). Comments or questions should be directed to Katie Anderl, Senior Planner (copied on this email). Christine Kompter Administrative Assistant I Planning Division I City of Kitchener 200 King Street West, 6t" Floor I P.O. Box 1118 Kitchener ON N2G 4G7 519-741-2200 ext. 7425 1 TTY 1-866-969-9994 christine.kompter@kitchener.ca e(F419", 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Page 246 of 350 City of Kitchener COMMENT FORM Project Address: 1000 New Dundee Road Application Type: Proposed Plan of Subdivision 30T-22202 Zoning By-law Amendment ZBA22/021/N/KA Site Plan Application SP22/134/N/KA 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 3, 2022 Comments required no later than: October 18, 2022 1. Plans, Studies, and Reports submitted as part of a complete Planning Act Application: • Environmental Impact Study 1000 New Dundee Rd, Kitchener. August 2, 2022. GeoProcess Research Associates Inc. • 1000 New Dundee Road, Functional Servicing and Stormwater Management Report. August 4, 2022. MTE Consultants Inc. • 1000 New Dundee Road Subdivision, Hydrogeological Assessment Report. July 28, 2022. MTE Consultants Inc. • Planning Justification Report, Zoning By-law Amendment and Draft Plan of Subdivision. August 2022. Glen Schnarr & Associates Inc. (GSAI). 2. Site Specific Comments & Issues: I have reviewed the studies as noted above to support an amendment to the Zoning By-law (ZBA), Draft Approval of a Plan of Subdivision, and concurrent Site Plan Application (SPA) for a cluster townhouse development for the property located at 1000 New Dundee Rd and provide the following general comments and specific remarks requiring further information: a) The subject property is approximately 10 ha in size with Blair Creek, Roseville Swamp Cedar Creek (recognized provincially significant wetland, PSW). Regulatory Floodplain, and woodlands occupying the northern extent of the subject property, and agricultural lands occupying the southern portion of the property b) The proposed Plan of Subdivision will create two blocks. The proposed site plan for Block 1 will occupy an approximate area of 4.53 ha and contains 36, 3 -storey traditional townhouse units, 27, 3 -storey rear lane townhouse units and 64, 2 -storey traditional townhouse units. There will be 254 parking spaces provided and 21 visitor spaces. A 1,756 mZ park land, 1,256 mZ amenity area and SWM facility are also proposed. Block 2 will contain Blair Creek, associated wetlands and a buffer and is proposed to be zoned Natural Heritage Conservation and dedicated to the City of Kitchener. Page 247 of 350 Tree Inventory c) The tree survey (within the proposed developable portion) included an inventory of 95 trees. Twenty-one different tree species were recorded with DBH ranging from 10-60 cm. The species observed were considered common and secure within Ontario. d) No SAR tree species were observed during the tree inventory. e) It was determined that 69 trees will be retained and a total of 26 trees have been proposed for removal. f) The tree survey recommended removal of public owned trees (Tree 3, 4, 8, 80, 93) and boundary trees that are in joint ownership (Tree 79, 81). g) The subdivider will need to provide conformation that they have permission to remove the public and joint ownership trees to proceed as recommended. Buffers & Enhancement Planting h) A 30 m vegetation protection zone (VPZ) has been proposed to separate the PSW from the development. This will provide a vegetated structural barrier that will help to discourage encroachment and reduce yard waste dumping into the PSW. It will also increase the overall width of the NHS around the development and provide additional wildlife habitat functions. i) Native Plant Seed Collection and/or plant material should be considered for this development specifically for the Buffer Enhancements. One option is Kayanase (www.kayanase.ca) who is an ecological restoration and native plant and seed non-profit organization, dedicated to improving the health of Mother Earth using science -based approaches and Traditional Ecological knowledge that has been recognized by the Six Nations of the Grand River community, Six Nations Elected Council, and the Confederacy Council. j) A Buffer Enhancement Planting Plan will be required as a component of the EIS. k) Fencing is proposed along the development edge of the VPZ combined with plantings designed to reduce human access to the PSW has been recommended. Plantings should include thorny species and plants that form dense growth. 1) Exclusionary fencing to prevent wildlife from entering the construction site is recommended. Where required, redirect wildlife to areas where they can avoid the potential for incidental take, and still have access to habitats. Exclusionary fencing should be monitored daily throughout construction. Perform wildlife rescue and relocation efforts (as required). m) The EIS will need to be updated to provide fencing details and location. Environmental Impact Study n) It has also been recommended that an education stewardship pamphlet be provided to the homeowners which will outline information on the beneficial actions they can follow to help protect and enhance the natural areas adjacent to the development. o) A copy of the Environmental Stewardship Brochure will be required as an appendix to the EIS. p) A "during -development" environmental monitoring program that will include three phases: "pre - construction", "during -construction" and "post -construction should be developed, submitted and approved as part of the Environmental Impact Study. Lands to be Conveyed (Block 2 on the Draft Plan of Subdivision) q) The buffer and natural heritage conservation lands will be dedicated to the city. r) A hazard tree assessment will be required prior to Block 2 being conveyed to the City. The hazard tree assessment can be scoped, further discussion with staff is recommended. Any A City for Everyone Working Together — Growing Thoughtfully — Building Community Page 248 of 350 recommendations and/or removals outlined in the assessment must be completed prior to the City's acceptance of the lands. s) The City will require an easement through Block 1 to assess Block 2. t) The Stormwater Management infrastructure (headwall) will need to be relocated so that its solely on Block 1 not on the lands to be conveyed to the City. Species at Risk (SAR) u) The SAR species and candidate Significant Wildlife Habitat (SWH) are in the PSW which is to be protected with a 30 m VPZ and fenced from the residential development. Water Balance v) A water balance and erosion threshold analysis has been provided to provide an assessment of groundwater inputs, thermal regulation, and long-term channel stability. w) For the portion of the site draining towards the wetland, surface water runoff volumes are expected to be matched post development (747 m3 pre and 778 m3 post). However, the timing of when that water is being directed towards the wetland on an annual basis is variable (MTE, 2022). x) There will be a reduction in the volume of water being discharged into the wetland in the early spring, with higher volumes during the growing season (May to September). This redistribution of surface flow contributions to the wetland is considered beneficial as water losses are occurring when there is a surplus of water and before the growing season has started. The majority of this water would not be used by the wetland and is quickly conveyed by Blair Creek to the Grand River. The increase in surface flow during the growing season will provide water when wetland vegetation and wildlife can take advantage of it. This is particularly important during drier growing seasons. Stormwater Management j) The stormwater controls for the development use a treatment train approach, meaning it employs multiple treatment systems (in a consecutive order) to manage stormwater flows. The advantage of this approach is it provides greater flexibility and opportunities to discharge water into the natural environment in a manner that more closely mimics 'natural' conditions. k) Of particular importance for this development is providing water to the wetland in a distributive form across the landscape. This offers opportunities forgroundwater recharge, which is important for thermal mitigation to Blair Creek and controlling/reducing the volume of surface water discharged to the environment by maximizing groundwater infiltration. 1) The treatment of stormwater will be managed through a series of infiltration galleries that are located throughout the site. These infiltration galleries will be sized to manage frequent storm events up to the 25 mm storm. This will result in no surface discharge from the site under events less than 25 mm. Larger events will be directed to a wet pond, which will discharge to an infiltration gallery, with excess water discharged north to the wetland complex as dispersed surface flow. It is understood that all runoff generated on the roadway will be conveyed to an oil - grit separator, followed by a wet pond, end -of -pipe infiltration gallery, and into Blair Creek. The purpose of this approach is to remove appropriate levels of total soluble solids (TSS) prior to entering the system. m) The on-site storm sewers will be sized to convey the flows generated by the 5 -year design storm event. The runoff collected in the storm sewers will be directed to an OGS unit located at the east side of the Site, and then on to a stormwater management facility, followed by an end -of -pipe infiltration gallery. The runoff generated on the Site will ultimately discharge to Upper Blair Creek at the northeast corner of the Site. A City for Everyone Working Together — Growing Thoughtfully — Building Community Page 249 of 350 It is understood that the stormwater management and water balance proposed by MTE (2022) is preliminary in nature and will be refined at the detailed design stage of the project. The detailed design will include additional details specific to the stormwater management strategy, recommendations for facility operation, and requirements for maintenance. Erosion Assessment n) An erosion assessment was completed to determine if the proposed stormwater strategy effectively mitigated erosion impacts to the downstream reaches of Blair Creek (MTE, 2022). o) Using the previously established unitary erosion control release rates and assessment framework developed in the Upper Blair Creek Functional Drainage Study, storm flows generated from the site were input to a model developed for Blair Creek that includes hydromodification from other development sites in the area, allowing for consideration of cumulative influence on Blair Creek. p) The model estimated flows for a 39 -year continuous period and compared the exceedance time of a previously established erosion threshold discharge immediately downstream of the subject property. q) The results indicated that the erosion threshold exceedance time was not increased under the proposed conditions scenario, suggesting that the proposed stormwater strategy effectively mitigates the downstream erosion impacts to Blair Creek. Thermal Mitigation r) The proposed SWM design incorporates a distributive groundwater recharge approach which should maintain and even enhance the existing shallow groundwater flow to the wetland and Blair Creek. s) The SWM design is also intended to help mitigate thermal impacts to Blair Creek as the frequent storm events are all directed to the infiltration galleries and not discharge directly into the creek. It is anticipated these measures will help to maintain the hydrology of the PSW, maintain the thermal regime of Blair Creek and reduce downstream erosion risks. As the frequent storm events have the greatest potential to impact thermal loading to Blair Creek, by directing them to the swallow groundwater table and ultimately having it reach Blair Creek as groundwater inputs, long term thermal impacts are not anticipated. t) The Hydrogeological Assessment Report demonstrates a sufficient regard for matters related to potential groundwater issues, such as, but not limited to, seasonal groundwater level fluctuations, infiltration impacts, source water supply issues, groundwater mounding, and short-term construction dewatering. Based on the estimated average linear groundwater velocity (0.4m/day) predicted travel times to Blair Creek, located approximately 85m north of the northern most edge of development, will achieve greater than six-month (180 -day) travel time and therefore temperature impacts to Blair Creek are not anticipated. 3. Proposed Plan of Subdivision and Zoning By Law Amendment: Based on my review of the supporting studies the Plan of Subdivision (dated September 16, 2022) and corresponding Zoning By Law Amendments (MAP NO. 1 dated September 16, 2022) can be supported subject to the following Draft Plan of Subdivision conditions... conditions may be amended subject to further discussion with agencies, staff and the applicant: Prior to Area Grading or Servici A City for Everyone Working Together — Growing Thoughtfully — Building Community Page 250 of 350 1) The SUBDIVIDER agrees to submit an Environmental Impact Study, and to obtain approval from the CITY'S Director, Planning in consultation with the CITY'S Director, Parks and Cemeteries, Region of Waterloo, and the Grand River Conservation Authority. 2) In consideration of the wooded character of the subdivision lands and the CITY'S desire to minimize the impact of development on the treed areas worth retaining, the SUBDIVIDER agrees to submit a Detailed Vegetation Plan including stewardship initiatives, suitable silt and vegetation protection measures to be erected along the outer edge of the wetland buffer area (boundary of Block 2) in consultation with the Grand River Conservation Authority, as required by the Tree Management Policy, and to obtain approval from the CITY'S Director, Planning in consultation with the CITY'S Director, Parks and Cemeteries. a) The SUBDIVIDER shall provide a digital copy of the approved Detailed Vegetation Plan including grading to the CITY'S Director of Planning. b) The SUBDIVIDER agrees to implement all approved measures including temporary vegetation protection fencing for the protection of isolated trees, tree clusters and woodlands as approved in the Detailed Vegetation Plan including and to provide written certification from the SUBDIVIDER's Environmental Consultant to the CITY's Director of Planning that all protection measures have been implemented and inspected, in accordance with the CITY's Tree Management Policy. 3) The SUBDIVIDER agrees to prepare and implement the Buffer Enhancement Planting Plan, on Figure XXX of the Environmental Impact Study (GeoProcess Research Associates Inc., dated XXXXX and approved XXXXX), for the section of land between the provincially significant wetland and development to be approved by the CITY'S Director of Planning in consultation with the CITY'S Director, Parks and Cemeteries. The Buffer Enhancement Planting Plan shall identify opportunities for enhancements and plantings of native plant species, with the objective to convert the agricultural field into a wet meadow marsh and meadow community and provide a vegetated structural barrier that will help to discourage encroachment and reduce yard waste dumping into the wetland. Where the implementation of the Buffer Enhancement Planting Plan cannot be completed prior to area grading, the SUBDIVIDER shall provide a Letter of Credit based on 100% of the estimated cost of all works, prior to Site Plan Approval, to the satisfaction of the CITY'S Director of Planning in consultation with the CITY'S Director, Parks and Cemeteries. The Letter of Credit shall be based on an approved Cost Estimate of all works required to implement the Buffer Enhancement Planting Plan. The letter of credit will be reduced once the City is in receipt of confirmation from the SUBDIVIDER's Landscape Architect that all applicable works, as outlined in the approved Cost Estimate, are completed. 4) The SUBDIVIDER agrees to prepare and implement a detailed "during -development" monitoring program and will include three phases: "pre -construction", "during -construction" and "post - construction", in accordance with the Upper Blair Creek (Kitchener) Functional Drainage Study. The monitoring program is to be approved by the CITY's Director of Engineering Services in consultation with the CITY's Director of Planning, the General Manager, Infrastructure Services, the Grand River Conservation Authority and the Regional Municipality of Waterloo. A City for Everyone Working Together — Growing Thoughtfully — Building Community Page 251 of 350 a) The "pre -construction" monitoring program will document current conditions, including surface water and hydrogeological conditions, and be used as baseline information to compare conditions through the "during" and "post" construction monitoring periods. The pre - construction program is to be approved by the CITY'S Director of Engineering Services in consultation with the CITY'S Director of Planning, the General Manager, Infrastructure Services, the Grand River Conservation Authority, and the Regional Municipality of Waterloo. b) The SUBDIVIDER agrees to submit, obtain approval of and implement a detailed "during - construction" monitoring and response program. The during -construction program is to be approved by the CITY'S Director of Engineering Services in consultation with the CITY'S Director of Planning, the General Manager, Infrastructure Services, the Grand River Conservation Authority and the Regional Municipality of Waterloo. The purpose of the "during -construction" monitoring program is to ensure the stormwater management system/facility satisfies the design criteria specified in the Upper Blair Creek (Kitchener) Functional Drainage Study (UBCFDS) and to ensure water temperature, erosion, stream channel erosion, sedimentation and siltation control measures and groundwater mounding are maintained and function as approved. The during -construction monitoring and response program shall also monitor impacts to Environmentally Sensitive Policy Area 39 and other significant vegetation on the property. The "during -construction" monitoring and response program is to remain in place until 90% of the pond catchment area is stabilized (buildings are constructed and lots/blocks are sodded or vegetated) to the satisfaction of the CITY's Director of Engineering Services. The SUBDIVIDER further agrees to implement any remedial action deemed necessary as a result of the aforementioned monitoring program at their sole expense to the satisfaction of the CITY'S Director of Engineering Services in consultation with the Grand River Conservation Authority. c) The SUBDIVIDER agrees to submit, obtain approval of, and implement a detailed "post - construction" monitoring program. The post -construction program is to be approved by the CITY'S Director of Engineering Services in consultation with the Director of Planning, the General Manager, Infrastructure Services, the Grand River Conservation Authority and the Regional Municipality of Waterloo. The purpose of the "post -construction" monitoring program is to ensure that the stormwater management system/ facility continues to satisfy the design criteria specified in the Upper Blair Creek (Kitchener) Functional Drainage Study (UBCFDS) and to identify any specific additional monitoring and maintenance requirements that may be necessary, including but not limited to water temperature, erosion, stream channel erosion, sedimentation and siltation control measures and groundwater mounding. The post - construction monitoring and response program shall also monitor impacts to Environmentally Sensitive Policy Area 39 and other significant vegetation on the property. The post -construction monitoring program shall extend for a two-year period after 90% of the pond catchment area is stabilized (buildings are constructed and lots/blocks are sodded or vegetated) to the satisfaction of the CITY'S Director of Engineering Services and coincide with the maintenance guarantee period required in the CITY's Standard Form Residential Subdivision Agreement. The SUBDIVIDER further agrees to implement any remedial action deemed necessary as a result of the aforementioned monitoring program at their sole expense to the satisfaction of the CITY'S Director of Engineering Services in consultation with the Grand River Conservation Authority. A City for Everyone Working Together — Growing Thoughtfully — Building Community Page 252 of 350 5) The SUBDIVIDER agrees that prior to grading and servicing the approved stormwater management facilities will be constructed, vegetated, and operational to the satisfaction of the CITY's Director of Engineering Services in consultation with the Director, Parks and Cemeteries and the Grand River Conservation Authority. Prior to the issuance of Buildine Permits 6) The SUBDIVIDER agrees to install permanent, maintenance free fencing along the northern boundary of Block 1 as indicated by the permanent fencing designated on Figure XXXX of the Environmental Impact Study (GeoProcess Research Associates Inc., dated XXXX and approved XXXX), to the satisfaction of the CITY's Director of Planning in consultation with the Director, Parks and Cemeteries, the Grand River Conservation Authority and the Regional Municipality of Waterloo. 7) The SUBDIVIDER agrees to implement all the recommendations of the Environmental Impact Study (GeoProcess Research Associates Inc., dated XXXX and approved XXXXX) for a period of no less than 5 years from the date of draft plan approval to the satisfaction of the City's Director of Planning. 8) That the SUBDIVIDER enters into an agreement with the City to distribute to all purchasers of lots within the subdivision the publication Listing of Trees -Shrubs Native to the Region of Waterloo and Invasive Alien Species (Region of Waterloo, 1993) along with an Environmental Stewardship Brochure as per Appendix XXXXX of the Environmental Impact Study (GeoProcess Research Associates Inc., dated XXXX and approved XXXX). Prior to final approval of the plan to be reeistered, the SUBDIVIDER shall fulfill the followine conditions: 9) The SUBDIVIDER agrees that if servicing or grading has not commenced prior to final approval of the plan, a Detailed Vegetation Plan is to be submitted for approval by the CITY'S Director of Planning. The Detailed Vegetation Plan shall also show approved grading. The SUBDIVIDER agrees to implement all of the measures identified in the approved Detailed Vegetation Plan including delivering all information contained in the approved Detailed Vegetation Plan to prospective purchasers to ensure that the requirements are carried out as specified. 10) The SUBDIVIDER agrees to include a warning clause that no access will be granted onto or through Block 2 in the future (i.e no school walkways or trails) 4) Conditions of Approval in Principal (AIP) and/or Full Site Plan Approval: a) The Subdivision Agreement has been registered. b) The proposed development is in accordance with the approved EIS. 5) Policies, Standards and Resources: • KOP 7.C.2.23. Development, redevelopment or site alteration will only be permitted on lands adjacent to the Natural Heritage Conservation features where an Environmental Impact Study or other appropriate study has determined to the satisfaction of the City, Region, Grand River Conservation Authority and/or Province, as appropriate, that approval of the proposed development, redevelopment or site alteration would not result in adverse environmental impacts on the natural heritage feature or the ecological functions of the feature. • KOP 7.C.2.28. Development, redevelopment, and/or site alteration will not be permitted on lands adjacent to Significant Wildlife Habitat unless it is demonstrated through an Environmental Impact A City for Everyone Working Together — Growing Thoughtfully — Building Community Page 253 of 350 Study or other appropriate study to the satisfaction of the City, Region, Grand River Conservation Authority and/or Province, as appropriate, that there will be no adverse environmental impacts on the natural heritage feature or the ecological functions of the feature. • KOP 7.C.2.52. Any required Environmental Impact Study will be completed in accordance with the Environmental Impact Studies Policies in Section 17.E.11. • KOP 7.C.2.53. An Official Plan Amendment will not be required for consideration of a Zoning By-law Amendment to change the legal use of land on all, or part of adjacent lands provided it conforms to the policies of the abutting Official Plan land use designation and is supported by the required Environmental Impact Study as set out in the Environmental Impact Studies Policies in Section 17.E.11. • KOP 7.C.2.58. Notwithstanding Policy 7.C.2.57, where feasible, the City will consider acquiring land to protect and improve the Natural Heritage System. • As per Section 8.C.2 — Urban Forests of the Kitchener 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. Guiding documents with respect to the natural heritage features and functions on or near the property are as follows: • Kitchener Natural Heritage System Technical Background Report. June 2014. City of Kitchener. o https://www.kitchener.ca/en/resourcesGeneral/Documents/DSD PLAN Natural Herita ge Systems Background Report.pdf • Tree Management Policy. Rev. Nov. 2001. City of Kitchener. o https://www.kitchener.ca/en/resourcesGeneral/Documents/INS OPS Treemanagemen tpolicy.pdf • Grand River Conservation Authority— Policies and Guidelines o https://www.grandriver.ca/en/Planning-Development/Policies-and-guidelines.asnx • Region of Waterloo Official Plan: Chapter 7 -The Greenlands Network o https://www.regionofwaterloo.ca/en/resources/Regional-Official-Plan/10 - Chaoter 7 Consolidated ROP 2015-access.odf • Blair Creek Subwatershed plan was completed in 1997 and updated in 2010. o 2020 State of the Watershed Report for Upper Blair Creek o Cumulative Effects Monitorine - Blair Creek Case Stud 6) Anticipated Fees: • unknown A City for Everyone Working Together — Growing Thoughtfully — Building Community Page 254 of 350 r� March 30, 2023 MTE Consultants Inc. Lynn Ingram 520 Bingemans Centre Drive Kitchener, ON N2B 3X9 Dear Ms. Ingram Re: 1000 New Dundee Road, ZBA22/021/N/KA Functional Servicing and Stormwater Management Report City of Kitchener Comments ENGINEERING SERVICES Niall Melanson, C.E.T. Project Manager 200 King St. W. — 9t" Floor Kitchener, ON N2G 4G7 Phone: (519) 741-2200 ext. 7133 niall.melanson@kitchener.ca Please be advised that the City of Kitchener Engineering Division and Kitchener Utilities have reviewed the Functional Servicing and Stormwater Management Report (March 2, 2023) for the proposed Zoning Bylaw Amendment at 1000 New Dundee Road and generally support the approach. Sanitary Servicing 1) It would be the City's preference that the 300mm diameter sewer along New Dundee Road be run at a minimum of 0.5%. 2) Please note that the sanitary sewer extension along New Dundee Road will be privately funded and not eligible for DC funding. 3) Further evaluation of alternative sanitary outlets should be reviewed. Water Servicing: Comments provided by Angela Mick 4) Kitchener Utilities has no concerns. Stormwater Management: 5) The stormwater management design approach will be reviewed during detailed design. Further submissions will not be required at this time. Sincerely, Niall Melanson, C.E.T. Project Manager Qacge 255 of 350 SAGeneral\03-06-002 Site Plan Files\Site Plans\1000 New Dundee Road\ZBA22 021 N KA\1st Submission\448 New Dundee Road - FSSWM ep Comments.docx From: Niall Melanson Sent: Monday, May 1, 2023 1:35 PM To: Katie Anderl Cc: Lynn Ingram; Ken Hanes; Angela Mick Subject: FW: 1000 New Dundee Road, ZBA22/021/N/KA Good afternoon Katie Engineering and Kitchener Utilities can now provide our clearance for the ZBA application. Thanks Niall Melanson, C.E.T. Project Manager, Development Engineering, City of Kitchener niall.melanson(@kitchener.ca, 519-741-2200 x 7133 200 King St. W., Kitchener, ON N2G 4GX From: Lynn Ingram <Llneram@mte85.com> Sent: Wednesday, April 26, 2023 11:34 AM To: Niall Melanson <Niall.Melanson@kitchener.ca> Cc: Angela Mick <Angela.Mick@kitchener.ca>; Katie Anderl <Katie.Anderl@kitchener.ca>; Ken Hanes <KHanes@mte85.com> Subject: RE: 1000 New Dundee Road, ZBA22/021/N/KA Hi Niall, Please find the attached response letter to your comments. Please let me know if any further concerns. Thanks. Lynn Lynn Ingram, P.Eng. Manager, Site Development Division MTE Consultants Inc. T:519 -743-6500x1381 Lingram(c)mte85.com 520 Bingemans Centre Drive, Kitchener, Ontario N213 3X9 www.mte85.com Twitter Linkedln Instagram Facebook Notice: The electronic information provided is confidential and privileged, and may not be used for purposes other than work related to the subject project. Redistribution or copies to others made without written permission from MTE Consultants Inc. is strictly prohibited. MTE assumes no liability or responsibility, and makes no guarantee or warranty with respect to the data contained, either expressed or implied. From: Niall Melanson <Niall.Melanson@kitchener.ca> Sent: Thursday, March 30, 2023 12:32 PM To: Lynn Ingram <Lingram@mte85.com> Cc: Angela Mick <Angela.Mick@kitchener.ca>; Katie Anderl <Katie.Anderl@kitchener.ca> Subject: 1000 New Dundee Road, ZBA22/021/N/KA Good afternoon Lynn Page 256 of 350 Please find attached Engineering & KU comments related to the ZBA submission at 1000 New Dundee Road. I am happy to discuss alternative sanitary routes if you would like. Thanks Niall Melanson, C.E.T. Project Manager, Development Engineering, City of Kitchener niall.melanson@kitchener.ca, 519-741-2200 x 7133 200 King St. W., Kitchener, ON N2G 4GX Page 257 of 350 March 20, 2023 Administration Centre: 400 Clyde Road, P.O. Box 729 Cambridge, ON N1 R 5W6 Phone: 519-621-2761 Toll free: 1-866-900-4722 Fax: 519-621-4844 www.grandriver.ca via email 30T-22202 - 1 000 New Dundee Road Katie Anderl, MCIP, RPP, Senior Planner DSD - Planning Division Kitchener City Hall, 6t" Floor 200 King Street West, P.O. Box 1118 Kitchener, ON N2G 4G7s Dear Ms. Anderl, Re: SP22/134/N/KA, ZBA22/021/N/KA & 30T-22202 - Second Submission 1000 New Dundee Road, Kitchener Cachet Developments (New Dundee) Inc. Grand River Conservation Authority (GRCA) staff has reviewed the above -noted application develop to the lands as a Common Elements Condominium townhouse development with private amenity space and a private stormwater management pond. Recommendation Based on our review of the materials submitted with this application, the GRCA has no objection to the proposed zoning by-law amendment and recommends draft plan approval, subject to the conditions detailed below. The GRCA is not in a position to support approval of the site plan application at this time. The GRCA has comments that should be addressed prior to site plan approval. Please see below for our detailed comments. Documents Reviewed by Staff Staff have reviewed the following documents submitted with this application, received by GRCA staff March 6, 2023: • Comment response matrix, dated March 3, 2023. • Draft Plan of Subdivision, prepared by Glen Schnarr & Associates Inc. (GSAI), dated March 3, 2023 • Site Plan, prepared by Hunt Design Associated Inc., dated March 3, 2023. • Environmental Impact Study 1000 New Dundee Rd, Kitchener, prepared by GeoProcess Research Associates Inc., dated February 10, 2023. • 1000 New Dundee Road Subdivision Functional Servicing and Stormwater Management Report, prepared by MTE Consultants, revised March 2, 2023. • Planning Justification Report, prepared by GSAI, dated August 2022. GRCA Comments GRCA has reviewed this application under the Mandatory Programs and Services Regulation (O.R. 686/21), including acting on behalf of the Province regarding natural hazards identified in Section 3.1 of the Provincial Policy Statement (PPS, 2020), as a regulatory authority under Ontario Regulation 150/06 and as a public body under the Planning Act as per our CA Board approved policies. Member of Conservation Ontario, representing Ontario's 36 Conservation Authorities I The Grand - A Canadian Heritage River Page 258 of 350 The GRCA has no objection to approval of the zoning by-law amendment. The GRCA has no objection to draft plan approval subject to the following conditions: 1) Prior to any grading or construction on the site and prior to registration of the plan, the owners or their agents submit the following plans and reports to the satisfaction of the Grand River Conservation Authority. a) A detailed final stormwater management report in accordance with the 2003 Ministry of the Environment Report entitled "Stormwater Management Planning and Design Manual" and in keeping with the 1000 New Dundee Road Functional Servicing and Stormwater Management Report (dated March 2, 2023, prepared by MTE Consultants Inc). b) Final Lot Grading, Servicing, and Storm Drainage Plans. c) A final erosion and sediment control plan in accordance with the Grand River Conservation Authority's Guidelines for erosion and sediment control, indicating the means whereby erosion will be minimized and sediment maintained on-site throughout all phases of grading and construction. d) The submission and approval of a Development, Interference with Wetlands and Alterations to Shorelines and Watercourses permit from the GRCA prior to any grading or construction in the regulated area. We trust that the municipality will ensure the Subdivider's Agreement between the owners and the municipality contain provisions for the completion and maintenance of the works in accordance with the approved plans and reports noted in Condition 1) above. Prior to Site Plan Approval and in support of final design and the clearance of draft plan conditions, the following comments are to be addressed to the satisfaction of the GRCA. Final calculations are needed to clearly demonstrate that lot and grading plans are adequate for the purpose of the control of flooding and erosion, and that there will be no adverse hydrologic impact on adjacent wetland or watercourse features. Final detailed plans are needed to demonstrate that there will be no encroachment into the recommended 30 meter wetland buffer zone. 1. Please provide a table summarizing the catchment characteristics and hydrologic parameters used. 2. Please provide sizing details and calculations for the infiltration galleries in accordance with the MOE SWM Design Guidelines (2003). 3. Please provide a monthly water balance (including precipitation, evapotranspiration, runoff, recharge) for the wetland comparing existing and proposed conditions. Comments 1 and 2 above must be addressed in order to the GRCA to review the revised water balance. 4. Please provide cross-sections for the SWM facility and infiltration trenches proposed, complete with outlet details, stabilization notes, riprap, etc. A figure should be provided with the seasonally high groundwater contours overlayed on the proposed conditions to compare infiltration gallery inverts vs. groundwater elevations. 5. According to the SWM report, "an outlet control structure downstream of the wet pond" is proposed. The plans should be revised to show the location of this structure. Please confirm that this structure will be situated outside the 30 meter wetland buffer zone. 6. The location of the associated end -of -pipe infiltration gallery not shown. Please confirm that this structure will avoid the 30 meter wetland buffer zone. 7. The GRCA understands that groundwater contours on EC1.1 represented Seasonal High groundwater elevations and that ongoing groundwater monitoring is being Page 259 of 350 completed by MTE. Please update seasonal high groundwater contours at detailed design, if required. 8. Please overlay seasonally high groundwater contours over a plan showing the inverts of the infiltration trenches. 9. Please complete the recommended Groundwater Mounding Analysis and Construction Dewatering Impact Analysis recommended in the Hydrogeological Assessment. 10. Please conduct in-situ infiltration tests to confirm infiltration rates for the proposed infiltration facilities as recommended in the Hydrogeological Assessment. 11. The EIS report provides a brief discussion of the proposed stormwater management plan for this site. The water balance discussion is also very concise. Infiltration volumes are expected to increase by approximately 127%. The impact of groundwater mounding within the wetland is a concern. We also note that surface runoff toward the wetland is expected to decrease between February and April but is expected to increase between May and October. A revised EIS will be required to confirm that the final stormwater management plan will not result in an adverse impact to the form or function of the wetland or Blair Creek. The current site plan identifies a "new wetland limit" and a "new 30 m wetland limit". We presume the current site plan illustrates the wetland limit as verified by the GRCA on May 27, 2022 and the 30 m wetland buffer limit. Please ensure that detailed site, grading, and erosion and sediment control plans are labelled more accurately. 12. It is requested that the final pre- and post -development stormwater volumes being directed to the wetland and Blair Creek be presented and discussed in an EIS addendum. Anticipated hydrologic impacts on the form and function of adjacent wetland communities and Blair Creek must also be considered and summarized to the extent possible. A statement of actual or potential hydrologic impacts on the adjacent wetland and watercourse is requested, in accordance with GRCA policy. Please note that our review of the final stormwater management strategy and the results of the final water balance may impact lot configurations and sizing. The GRCA acknowledges receipt of the subdivision fee for this application of $8,044.95. For municipal consideration Please be advised that on January 1, 2023, a new Minister's regulation (Ontario Regulation 596/22: Prescribed Acts — Subsections 21.1.1 (1.1) and 21.1.2 (1.1) of the Conservation Authorities Act) came into effect. As a result, non -mandatory technical review services that the GRCA formerly provided under agreement with municipalities (e.g., technical reviews related to natural heritage and select aspects of stormwater management) will no longer be provided beyond a transition period. To assist our municipalities, we will continue to provide our advisory services for up to 6 months (July 1, 2023) for files under review prior to January 1, 2023 to minimize disruptions to approval processes. On this basis, we offer the following for municipal consideration: 13. Section 6.1.1 of the EIS states: "There will be a reduction in the volume of water being discharged into the wetland in the early spring, with higher volumes during the growing season (May to September). This redistribution of surface flow contributions to the wetland is considered beneficial as water losses are occurring when there is a surplus of water and before the growing season has started. The majority of this water would not be used by the wetland and is quickly conveyed by Blair Creek to the Grand River." Does this imply that surplus surface water runoff will also be conveyed quickly toward Blair Creek and if so how will this affect surface water temperatures? Page 260 of 350 14. Increased surface water depths and prolonged inundation or flooding within treed sections of the wetland could cause tree dieback, reduced shading, and a reduction in allochthonous inputs. The close relationship between the wetland and creek should be factored into to the monitoring plan for this site. 15. The proposed monitoring plan is not entirely consistent with the recommendations of the Functional Drainage Study. Fish and benthic invertebrate sampling was recommended by the FDS. Typically, adjacent wetland areas as well as the 30 m buffer zone/VPZ are monitored using a fixed -plot method. Species richness, % exotic species, and calculation of an overall Floristic Quality Index (FQI) score for each wetland vegetation sampling plot is recommended. Should you have any questions, please contact the undersigned at Chris Foster -Pengelly 519- 621-2763 ext. 2319 or cfosterpengelly@grandriver.ca. Sincerely, Chris Foster-Peni4y, M.Sc. Assistant Supervisor of Resource Planning, Engineering and Planning Services Copy: Hatim Jafferjee, Cachet Development (New Dundee) Inc., owner (via email) Jessie Ha Kong, Cachet Development (New Dundee) Inc., owner (via email) Mark Condello, Glen Schnarr & Associates Inc., applicant (via email) Page 261 of 350 City of Kitchener Site Plan / Zone Change / Subdivision Comment Form Address: 1000 New Dundee Road Owner: Cachet Homes Application: ZBA22/021/N/KA; 30T-22202; SP22/134/N/KA March 2023 resubmission Comments Of: Parks and Cemeteries Commenter's Name: Lenore Ross Email: Lenore. ross@kitchener.ca Phone: 519-741-2200 ext 7427 Date of Comments: March 20 2023 ❑ I plan to attend the meeting (questions/concerns/comments for discussion) ❑X No meeting to be held ❑ I do NOT plan to attend the meeting (no concerns) 1. Documents Reviewed: I have reviewed the revised documentation submitted in support of a Draft Plan of Subdivision and an amendment to the Zoning By-law (ZBA) for the property located at 1000 New Dundee Road. Together with the ZBA and Subdivision, the applicant has also applied for Site Plan Approval (SP) for a cluster townhouse development. 2. Site Specific Comments & Issues: Parks and Cemeteries can provide support of the proposed ZBA22/021/N/KA and 30T-22202 Parkland Dedication 1 The City of Kitchener Park Dedication Bylaw 2022-101 and Park Dedication Policy have recently been updated and new parkland dedication criteria, rates and land values have been approved by Council on August 22, 2022. The Bylaw is under appeal. 2 The site is within the Doon South Planning Community and through Places and Spaces — An Open Space Strategy for Kitchener, this community has been identified as underserved with active neighbourhood park space with only 4.1m2 / person available within the community. A rating of "High" has been assigned to this Planning Community and it is recommended that physical land dedication be pursued through Planning applications to address the shortfall in planned park space within the community. As there is no suitable on-site land for active park space, an option for off-site dedication of land is possible with the balance being provided as cash in lieu. Off-site lands will be valued at the same rate as the development site. Off-site lands should generally be within 500m of the proposed development and meet the requirements as identified in Municipal Code Chapter 273.1.4.1, and Development Manual Section L and under the Park Dedication Policy, Section 5 Since this application was deemed complete, the Province has introduced new legislation — Bill 23/ More Homes Built Faster Act - that impacts Parkland Dedication. A City for Everyone Working Together — Growing Thoughtfully — Building Community Paaw g"Al of 350 City of Kitchener Site Plan / Zone Change / Subdivision Comment Form The cash -in -lieu parkland dedication is calculated for the 4.49ha site (developable area) using 5% land dedication rate and the $3,830,000 per hectare Residential — Medium (<2 FSI) land valuation class is $859,535. Calculation: 4.49ha x 0.05 x $3,830,000 = $859,535 127 units/1000 units x $3,830,000 = $486,410 Bill 23/ More Homes Built Faster Act cap of $1,719,670 is not reached .3 Further discussions are required with Parks and Cemeteries staff if suitable off-site land for parkland dedication is available. .4 Parkland Dedication is required to be satisfied prior to Final Site Plan approval. 3 Natural Lands and Buffers 1 It is understood that the Natural Lands and associated buffer as identified as Block 2 on proposed draft plan will be conveyed to the City of Kitchener prior to Registration of the Subdivision .2 Prior to Registration and conveyance of the Natural Lands to the City the requirements of the Tree Management Policy Section 3.3.16 Treatment of Lands to be Conveyed, should be satisfied. Because of the restricted access to the Natural Lands the extent of hazard removals may be scoped in consultation with CITY'S Director, Planning in consultation with the CITY'S Director, Parks and Cemeteries. .3 Permanent 1.5m chain link and wildlife exclusion fencing will be required along the boundary between Block 1 and Block 2 and located 150mm from the property line on private lands. .4 City access to the Block 2/Natural Lands through Block 1 from New Dundee Road will be required and secured by means of a permanent easement to be registered on title as a condition of final site plan approval. .5 The required access easement should be a path of travel approximately 1.5m in width and graded to accommodate maintenance personnel only; vehicular access is not required. Hard surfacing is not required along the length of the easement only an unobstructed path of travel. A single gate capable of being locked should be provided in the boundary fencing at the access point. The preliminary location, grading of the required access appears suitable and will be confirmed at the Site Plan application. 4 Environmental Impact Study — including Appendix A: Tree Protection Plan pdf pg 63-73 .1 The report and map identify numerous trees within Block 1 along the New Dundee Road right of way that require removal to facilitate the proposed development. New Dundee Road is a regional road and Parks and Cemeteries will defer comments regarding these trees to City Environmental Planning and the Region of Waterloo. 2 The Report recommends a 30m vegetation protection zone and a Buffer Enhancement Planting Plan will be required and should be included in the updated EIS. This plan should A City for Everyone Working Together — Growing Thoughtfully — Building Community Paaw g -_-29i of 350 City of Kitchener Site Plan / Zone Change / Subdivision Comment Form include: Details of fencing/gates, signage; Native species as per the EIS in consultation with GRCA and City Environmental Planning .3 A cost estimate for the required buffer enhancement plantings and associated fencing and demarcation will be required prior to Registration, any grading /surface works or Final Site Plan approval .4 The approved Buffer Enhancement Planting Plan and associated fencing and demarcation should be implemented prior to Registration, any surface works or Final Site Plan approval .5 Should implementation of the approved Buffer Enhancement Planting Plan and associated fencing and demarcation not be possible prior to Registration, any grading / surface works or Final Site Plan approval. Securities for 100% of the approved cost estimate will be required to be held until final acceptance by the City at a minimum of 3 years following initial acceptance. .6 In -field placement of the proposed buffer enhancement plantings should accommodate the access path. 7 Functional Servicing and Stormwater Report — Existing Conditions, Functional Grading and Functional Servicing. 1 The preliminary access path of approximately 1.5m in width is required through Block 1/ Development site to the Natural Lands appears acceptable detailed design to be confirmed at site plan 8 Proposed Site Plan 1 the conceptual access path will include an easement from New Dundee Road to the Natural Lands to be implemented as a condition of final sit plan approval. 3. Policies, Standards and Resources: • Kitchener Official Plan As per Section 8.C.2 — Urban Forests of the Official Plan ... o policy 8.C.2.16., the City requires the preparation and submission of a tree management plan in accordance with the City's Tree Management Policy (available on the City's Website), as a condition of a development application. o policy 8.C.2.6., the City will incorporate existing and/or new trees into the streetscape or road rights-of-way and encourage new development or redevelopment to incorporate, protect and conserve existing healthy trees and woodlands in accordance with the Urban Design Policies in Section 13 (Landscape and Natural Features) of the Urban Design Manual (UDM) and the Development Manual. o Please see UDM Part C, Section 13 and www.kitchener.ca/treemanagement for detailed submission requirements • City of Kitchener 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 A City for Everyone Working Together — Growing Thoughtfully — Building Community aw of 350 City of Kitchener Site Plan / Zone Change / Subdivision Comment Form • Parks Strategic Plan • Multi -Use Pathways & Trails Masterplan • Urban Design Manual 4. Anticipated Fees: Parkland Dedication The parkland dedication requirement for 30T-22202 and SP22/134/N/KA is required as a combination of cash -in -lieu and land. Off-site lands will be valued at the same rate as the development site. The cash -in -lieu parkland dedication is calculated for the 4.49ha site (developable area) using the 5% land valuation and the $3,830,000 per hectare Residential — Medium (<2 FSI) land valuation class. Calculation: 4.49 ha x $3,830,000 x 0.05 = $859,535 Bill 23/ More Homes Built Faster Act rates and caps applied A City for Everyone Working Together — Growing Thoughtfully — Building Community PM8 of 350 City of Kitchener Zoning By-law Amendment & D.P. of Subdivision Comment Form Project Address: 1000 New Dundee Road File Number: ZBA22/021/N/KA & 30T-22202 Comments Of: Transportation Services Commenter's Name: Steve Ryder Email: steven.ryder@kitchener.ca Phone: (519) 7412200 x 7152 Date of Comments: March 16, 2023 ❑ I plan to attend the meeting (questions/concerns/comments for discussion) ❑ I do NOT plan to attend the meeting (no concerns) 1. Recommendation of Commenting Division: Zoning By-law Amendment comments: • Transportation Services does not have any concerns with the proposed Zoning By-law Amendment to re -zone both proposed Blockl and Block 2 of the proposed subdivision plan. Plan of Subdivision comments: • Given that the proposed subdivision would not include any roadway/transportation features, Transportation Services does not have any concerns with the proposed Plan of Subdivision. 2. Conditions of Site Plan Approval in Principle: • N/A 3. Conditions of the S. 41 Development Agreement: ❑ Traffic Control Signs (2e) ❑ Special Condition(s): A City for Everyone Working Together — Growing Thoughtfully — Building Community Page 266 of 350 4. Policies. Standards and Resources: o N/A: 5. Anticiaated Fees: o N/A A City for Everyone Working Together — Growing Thoughtfully — Building Community Page 267 of 350 Katie Anderl From: Jessica Vieira Sent: Thursday, October 27, 2022 1:56 PM To: Katie Anderl Subject: 1000 New Dundee Road - Heritage Comments Hi Katie, 1000 New Dundee Road does not possess any heritage status itself. The subject property is adjacent to the Dodge Drive Cultural Heritage Landscape (CHL), and is within proximity to the Groh Drive CHL, as per the 2014 CHL Study (CHLS) prepared by The Landplan Collaborative Ltd and approved by Council in 2015. The CHLS serves to establish an inventory and was the first step of a phased CHL conservation process. Also located in proximity to the north-west of the subject property is 320 Dodge Drive, which is designated under Part IV of the Ontario Heritage Act. As the natural heritage system on the subject property is being maintained and conveyed to the City, providing for an approximate 150 metre buffer between these existing heritage resources and the new proposed development on the site, there are no anticipated heritage impacts and no heritage concerns. Kind regards, Jessica Vieira, BES Heritage Planner I Planning Division I City of Kitchener 200 King Street West, 6t" Floor I P.O. Box 1118 1 Kitchener ON N2G 4G7 519-741-2200 ext. 7041 1 iessica.vieira@kitchener.ca 000000000 Page 268 of 350 Katie Anderl From: LANDUSEPLANNING <LandUsePlanning@HydroOne.com> Sent: Wednesday, September 28, 2022 2:04 PM To: Christine Kompter; Katie Anderl Subject: Kitchener - 1000 New Dundee Road -SP22-134 30T-22202 Hello, We are in receipt of your Site Plan & Draft Plan of Subdivision Applications, 30T-22202 dated XXXXXXXX. 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: Stormcentre (hydroone.com) Please select " Search" and locate address in question by entering the address or by zooming in and out of the map ■MEN MENU HELP SEARCH Customers Affected: 0 >5000 0 501-5000 0 51-500 0 21-50 {=20 f 0 0 0 PA r Huntsvrl ■ 17 qr;��ia Kawartha � � Lakes t1_1 Peter rough Ll If Hydro One is your local area Distribution Supplier, please contact Customer Service at 1-888-664-9376 or e-mail CustomerCommunications@HvdroOne.com to be connected to your Local Operations Centre Thank you, Kitty Luk Records Administrator I Land Use Planning Hydro One Networks Inc. 185 Clegg Road 1 Page 269 of 350 Katie Anderl From: circulations@wsp.com Sent: Monday, September 19, 2022 8:37 AM To: Katie Anderl Subject: ZBLA (ZBA22/021/N/KA), Draft Plan of Subdivision (30T-22202) and Site Plan Application (SP22/134/N/KA), 1000 New Dundee Rd., Kitchener 2022-09-19 Katie Anderl Kitchener Attention: Katie Anderl Re: ZBLA (ZBA22/021/N/KA), Draft Plan of Subdivision (30T-22202) and Site Plan Application (SP22/134/N/KA), 1000 New Dundee Rd., Kitchener; Your File No. SP22/134/N/KA,ZBA22/021/N/KA,30T-22202 To Whom this May Concern, 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." Upon receipt of this comment letter, the Owner is to provide Bell Canada with servicing plans/CUP at their earliest convenience to planninganddevelopment@bell.ca 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 270 of 350 We note that WSP operates Bell Canada's development tracking system, which includes the intake and processing of municipal circulations. However, all responses to circulations and requests for information, such as requests for clearance, will come directly from Bell Canada, and not from WSP. WSP is not responsible for the provision of comments or other responses. Should you have any questions, please contact the undersigned. Yours truly, Juan Corvalan Senior Manager - Municipal Liaison 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 conformitelcap(cDwsp.com afin que nous puissions rapidement traiter votre demande. Notez que ce ne sont pas tous les messages transmis par WSP qui constituent des messages electroniques commerciaux. Page 271 of 350 Katie Anderl From: Planning <planning@wcdsb.ca> Sent: Thursday, January 13, 2022 4:56 PM To: Katie Anderl Subject: RE: Notice of Presubmission Consultation Mtg (ZBA/Condo/Subdv/SP) - 1000 New Dundee Road Good Afternoon Katie, The Waterloo Catholic District School Board has reviewed the subject application and based on our development circulation criteria have the following comment(s)/condition(s): A) That any Education Development Charges shall be collected prior to the issuance of a building permit(s). B) That the developer and the Waterloo Catholic District School Board reach an agreement regarding the supply and erection of a sign (at the developer's expense and according to the Board's specifications) affixed to the development sign advising prospective residents about schools in the area. C) That the developer shall include the following wording in the subdivision agreement / condominium declaration 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." D) 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." "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." E) 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. F) Additionally, the Waterloo Catholic District School Board would encourage long-term plans for upgrading New Dundee Road to provide a full urban cross section which would promote improved connectivity for pedestrians of all ages between the proposed development and the existing and planned community. If you require any further information, please contact me by e-mail at Jordan. Neale@wcdsb.ca. Page 274 of 350 From: Brandon Coveney <planning@wrdsb.ca> Sent: Tuesday, April 18, 2023 9:20 AM To: Katie Anderl Cc: Planning Subject: Re: [Planning] FW: Circulation for Comment - 1000 New Dundee Road (Subdivision/ZBA) Good Morning, thank you for the clarification. Please see below for our revised comments with conditions included: April 18, 2023 (revised from April 17, 2023) Re: Circulation for Comment - 1000 New Dundee Road (Subdivision/ZBA) Municipality: Kitchener Location: 1000 New Dundee Road Owner/Applicant: Cache Developments Inc Hi Katie, The Waterloo Region District School Board (WRDSB) has reviewed the above -noted application that proposes amendments to facilitate the construction of 127 condominium townhouses. The WRDSB offers the following comments. Student Accommodation At this time, the subject lands are within the boundaries of the following WRDSB schools: • J.W. Gerth PS (Junior Kindergarten to Grade 6); • Doon PS (Grade 7 to Grade 8); and • Southwood SS (Grade 9 to Grade 12). The WRDSB's 2020-2030 Long -Term Accommodation Plan provides information on student enrolment and accommodation at these schools. Doon PS is currently experiencing accommodation pressure. Interim student accommodation measures, including portable classrooms, are presently on-site and may be required until an alternative accommodation solution is in place. The WRDSB has designated this subject property and its adjacent lands as a "Development Area" in the Development Area Annual Report 2022-2023 and have assigned it to temporary Holding Schools before occupancy or sales in order to alleviate development growth related pressure at the originally assigned 'home schools'. Student Transportation The WRDSB supports active transportation, and we ask that pedestrians be considered in the review of all development applications to ensure the enhancement of safety and connectivity. WRDSB staff are interested in engaging in a conversation with the municipality and the Region, and applicant to review the optimization of pedestrian access to public transit, and municipal sidewalks so students may access school bus pick-up points. Please be advised that Student Transportation Services of Waterloo Region (STSWR)'s school buses will not travel on privately owned or maintained rights-of-way to pick-up/drop-off students. Transported students will be required to meet the bus at a congregated bus pick-up point. STSWR may have additional comments about student pick-up point(s) placement on municipal Page 275 of 350 rights-of-way. WRDSB Draft Conditions Concerning any future declaration or agreement, the WRDSB requests the following inclusions in the conditions of Draft Approval: 1. That the Owner/Developer shall include the following wording in the condominium declaration to advise all purchasers of residential units and/or renters of same: a. "Despite the best efforts of the Waterloo Region District School Board (WRDSB), accommodation in nearby facilities may not be available for all anticipated students. You are hereby notified that students may be accommodated in temporary facilities and/or bussed to a school outside the area, and further, that students may, in future, be transferred to another school." b. For information on which schools are currently serving this area, contact the WRDSB Planning Department at 519-570-0003 ext. 4419, or email plan ninq(cDwrdsb.ca. Information provided by any other source cannot be guaranteed to reflect current school assignment information. c. "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" 2. That the Owner/Developer enters into an agreement with the City of Kitchener to be registered on the title to the Property that provides: a. "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." i. "Despite the best efforts of the Waterloo Region District School Board (WRDSB), accommodation in nearby facilities may not be available for all anticipated students. You are hereby notified that students may be accommodated in temporary facilities and/or bussed to a school outside the area, and further, that students may, in future, be transferred to another school." ii. For information on which schools are currently serving this area, contact the WRDSB Planning Department at 519-570-0003 ext. 4419, or email planningAwrdsb.ca. Information provided by any other source cannot be guaranteed to reflect current school assignment information. N. "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" 3. That in cases where Agreements of Purchase and Sale have already been executed, the Owner/Developer sends a letter to all purchasers which include the above statements. 4. That the Owner/Developer supply, erect and maintain a sign (at the Owner/Developer's expense and according to the WRDSB's specifications), near or affixed to the development sign, advising prospective residents about schools in the area and that prior to final approval, the Owner/Developer shall submit a photo of the sign for review and approval of the WRDSB. 5. Prior to final approval, the WRDSB advises in writing to the Approval Authority how the above condition(s) has/have been satisfied. Page 276 of 350 Education Development Charges Please be advised that any development on the subject lands is subject to the provisions of the WRDSB's Education Development Charges By-law, 2021, amended in 2022 or any successor thereof and may require the payment of Education Development Charges for these developments prior to issuance of a building permit. The WRDSB requests to be circulated on any subsequent submissions on the subject lands and reserves the right to comment further on this application. If you have any questions about the comments provided, don't hesitate to contact the undersigned. Regards, Brandon Coveney Senior Planner Waterloo Region District School Board 51 Ardelt Avenue, Kitchener ON, N2C 2R5 Email: brandon coven ey(a)-wrds b. ca On Tue, Apr 18, 2023 at 8:31 AM Katie Anderl <Katie.Anderl@kitchener.ca> wrote: Hi Brandon, If you have conditions that you would like in the Subdivision Agreement or Condo Agreement please let me know. The condo will follow as a next step, but we are including subdivision agreement (it will apply broadly to the whole block) Thanks, Katie From: Brandon Coveney <brandon covenev@wrdsb.ca> Sent: Monday, April 17, 2023 5:37 PM To: Katie Anderl <Katie.Anderl@kitchener.ca> Subject: Re: [Planning] FW: Circulation for Comment - 1000 New Dundee Road (Subdivision/ZBA) Page 277 of 350 You don't often get email from brandon coveney@wrdsb.ca. Learn why this is important Hi Katie, Apologies for the second email. I sent our response and then second guessed myself regarding the status of this proposed development. I'm wondering if I should also include our typical condo conditions clauses at this stage or whether they would be inappropriate for the ZBA? Our previous planner -on -file did not submit comments on the initial pre -con circulation and I want to ensure our conditions are included for before draft approval. I would appreciate the input! Thanks, Brandon Coveney Senior Planner Waterloo Region District School Board 51 Ardelt Avenue, Kitchener ON, N2C 2115 On Fri, Apr 14, 2023 at 3:48 PM Katie Anderl <Katie.Anderl@kitchener.ca> wrote: Hi, We are preparing to finalize this application for Zoning By-law Amendment, Plan of Subdivision to Committee shortly. I just wanted to confirm whether there were any comments or conditions that your required? This is intended to be common elements condo (will also require a future Site Plan and Condominium Application) with 127 townhouse units. Page 278 of 350 Thanks, Katie From: Christine Kompter<Christine.Kompter@kitchener.ca> Sent: Friday, September 16, 2022 10:38 AM To: asage@northdumfries.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>; Feds <vped@feds.ca>; GRCA - Planning (planning@grandriver.ca) <planning@grandriver.ca>; Greg Reitzel <Greg.Reitzel@kitchener.ca>; Hydro One - Dennis DeRango <landuseplanning@hydroone.com>; Jim Edmondson <Jim.Edmondson@kitchener.ca>; Justin Readman <Justin.Readman@kitchener.ca>; Katherine Hughes<Katherine.Hughes@kitchener.ca>; K -W Hydro - Greig Cameron <gcameron@kwhydro.on.ca>; 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 <plannine@wcdsb.ca>; WRDSB - Board Secretary (elaine burns@wrdsb.ca) <elaine burns@wrdsb.ca>; WRDSB - Planning <plannine@wrdsb.ca> Cc: Katie Anderl <Katie.Anderl@kitchener.ca> Subject: Circulation for Comment - 1000 New Dundee Road (Subdivision/ZBA) Please see attached. Additional documentation can be found in AMANDA folders 22-120757 & 22- 120760 (City staff) and ShareFile (external agencies). Comments or questions should be directed to Katie Anderl, Senior Planner (copied on this email). Christine Kompter Administrative Assistant I Planning Division I City of Kitchener 200 King Street West, 6t" Floor I P.O. Box 1118 1 Kitchener ON N2G 4G7 519-741-2200 ext. 7425 1 TTY 1-866-969-9994 1 christine.kompter@kitchener.ca Page 279 of 350 000000000 Page 280 of 350 N, 14 Region of Waterloo Katie Anderl, MCIP. RPP Senior Planner DSD — Planning Division City of Kitchener 200 King Street W. Kitchener, ON N2G 4G7 Dear Ms. Anderl: PLANNING, DEVELOPMENT AND LEGISLATIVE SERVICES Community Planning 150 Frederick Street 8th Floor Kitchener Ontario N2G U Canada Telephone: 519-575-4400 TTY: 519-575-4508 Fax: 519-575-4466 www. regionofwaterl oo.ca Shilling Yip (226) 753-1064 (C) Files: D18-20/22202 C14-60/2/22021 November 24, 2022 ZBA 22/021 /N/KA Plan of Subdivision 30T-22202 Cachet Developments (New Dundee) Inc. 1000 New Dundee Road CITY OF KITCHENER Region staff has reviewed the above -noted applications and provides the following comments for your consideration at this time. The applicant is proposing to develop the lands with a 127 unit common elements condominium townhouse development which includes private amenity space and a private SWM pond. The proposed plan of subdivision will create two blocks — Block 1 to be developed with the townhouses, and Block 2 to contain Blair Creek, associated wetlands and a buffer. Block 2 is proposed to be re -zoned Natural Heritage Conservation and dedicated to the City of Kitchener. The lands are designated Urban Area "Designated Greenfield Area", and "Core Environmental Feature" in the Regional Official Plan (ROP). Density Policy 2.D.17 of the ROP requires development within the Designated Greenfield Area achieve a density of 55 residents and jobs per hectare. Staff is currently reviewing the density proposed for this site. Document Number: 4225176 Version: 1 Page 281 of 350 -2 - Water Services Water Services Engineering and Planning staff has no concern with the applications and offer no comments. Hydrogeology & Water Programs (Source Water Protection) Water Services Hydrogeology & Water Programs staff is reviewing the applications, and comments provided as soon as they are available. Environmental Planning Region Environmental Planning staff is reviewing the applications, and comments provided as soon as they are available. Corridor Planning Corridor Planning staff provides the following comments at this time. For the ZBA Application: Functional Servicing and Stormwater Management (SWM) Report Staff continues to review the Functional Servicing & Stormwater Management Report (MTE, August 4, 2022). It is noted that this section of New Dundee Road (Region Road 12) is currently scheduled for Rural Rehabilitation in 2030 which includes cycling lanes on both sides. If the applicant wishes to proceed with providing sanitary services for this site in advance of the Region's road project in 2030, the works will need to be completed as part of a City contract. The owner's consultant should contact Mr. Saman Ajamzadeh, C.E.T., rcji at (519) 575- 4557 Email: SAiamzadeh(a)regionofwaterloo.ca of the Region's Design & Construction Division for further information in regard to this road project. Environmental Noise Staff has reviewed the report entitled "Environmental Noise Feasibility Study 1000 New Dundee Road Proposed Residential Development, Kitchener, Ontario", dated August 4, 2022 as prepared by Valcoustics Canada Limited and provide following comments. Road Traffic Noise The noise study has been prepared to assess the noise attenuation measures required to address transportation noise from New Dundee Road. It is determined that the proposed development will require various noise control measures for various blocks, e.g. designing the buildings with the provision of air conditioning, installation of central air conditioning, special building components, noise attenuation barriers (located along New Dundee Road with returns for the Blocks 101 and Block 111 to reduce the noise levels in the backyards of dwellings in these blocks. Document Number: 4225176 Version: 1 Page 282 of 350 -3 - Two 1.8m high noise attenuation barriers with returns are required along New Dundee Road at southerly limits of Block 1 and Block 11. The Minimum Noise Abatement Measures Table 3 - Note 5D states, "Purchasers/occupants are advised that the acoustical berm and/or barrier as installed shall be maintained, repaired or replaced by the owner". Staff notes that this does not comply with the Region's Noise Policy. In the case of a plan of subdivision, the noise attenuation barriers along the Regional road must be located in the Regional road right-of-way with an offset of 150mm (at the foundation level) from the property line; and be maintained by the Region. A 55% replacement fund of the actual cost, and 100% security held by the Region will be required for construction of the walls. The noise attenuation barrier on private lands will be owned, maintained and replaced by the Region as necessary. Funds as noted above, also apply to these portions of the barrier. Stationary Noise Section 2.2 of the report noted, stationary noise from a commercial facility located on south side of New Dundee Road, namely Offspring Recreational Products Inc located at 1091 New Dundee Road. The report noted that stationary noise from this facility is not expected to be significant. The report has also assessed that noise from a single dwelling at 1110 New Dundee Road, which includes a garage for residential purposes, which was permitted through a minor variance in 2018. The report has also identified this development as not having any stationary noise impacts for the proposed development Staff concurs with the assessment of these two stationary noise sources. No mitigation is required in this regard. Staff generally concurs with the recommendations of the report with the exception of the arrangements for the maintenance of the noise attenuation barriers as noted above; and that the proposed development is feasible from a noise perspective. As a condition of draft approval for the subdivision, the following recommendations of the noise study must be implemented through a registered agreement with the Region: That the developer agrees to implement the recommendations of the report ""Environmental Noise Feasibility Study 1000 New Dundee Road Proposed Residential Development, Kitchener, Ontario", dated August 4, 2022 as prepared by Valcoustics Canada Limited and further agrees that: 1) Blocks 2, 3, 10 and 12 a) The dwellings will be installed with forced air -ducted heating system suitably sized and designed with provision of adding central air conditioning. Document Number: 4225176 Version: 1 Page 283 of 350 b) The following noise warning clauses will be required to be included on all offers of purchase, deeds and rental agreements for the building/dwelling units: Type A: "Purchases/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 occasions 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 the Environment, Conservation and Parks." Type C: "The purchasers / tenants are advised that this dwelling has been designed with the provision of adding central air conditioning at the occupant's discretion. Installation of central air condition by the occupant in low and medium density developments will allow windows and exterior doors to remain closed, thereby ensuring that the indoor sound levels are within the sound level limits of the Region of Waterloo and the Ministry of Environment, Conservation and Parks (MECP)." 2) Blocks 1, 11 and 13 to 17 (All Inclusive): a) The dwellings will be installed with forced air -ducted heating system suitably sized and designed; and be installed with a central air condition prior to occupancy. b) The buildings/dwelling units will be constructed with upgraded exterior wall construction meeting STC 54 (Brick Veneer or equivalent). c) The buildings/dwelling units will be installed with windows meeting a minimum STC rating of 32. d) The following noise warning clauses will be required to be included on all offers of purchase, deeds and rental agreements for the building/dwelling units: Type A: "Purchases/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 occasions interfere with some activities of the dwelling occupants as the sound levels exceed the sound level limits of the Municipality and the Ministry of the Environment, Conservation and Parks." Type B: "This dwelling has been supplied with a central air conditioning system which will allow windows and exterior doors to remain closed, thereby ensuring that the indoor sound levels are within the sound level limits of the municipality and Ministry of the Environment." 3) Noise Attenuation Barriers: a) A 1.8m high noise attenuation barrier, with foundation offset 0.15m on and along New Dundee Road (RR #12) right-of-way located south of Block 1 as per Figure 2 of the report with a minimum density of 20 kg/m2 will be constructed by the developer. This noise barrier will be owned, maintained and replaced by the Region. b) A 1.8m high noise attenuation barrier, with foundation offset 0.15m on and along New Dundee Road (RR #12) right-of-way located south of Block 11 as per Figure 2 of the Document Number: 4225176 Version: 1 Page 284 of 350 -5 - report with a minimum density of 20 kg /M2 will be constructed by the developer. This noise barrier will be owned, maintained and replaced by the Region. c) Two 1.8m high noise attenuation barriers (returns), located on Block 1 as per Figure 2 of the report with a minimum density of 20 kg/m2 will be constructed by the developer. This noise barrier will be owned, maintained and replaced by the Region. d) Two 1.8m high noise attenuation barriers (returns), located on Block 11 as per Figure 2 of the report with a minimum density of 20 kg/m2 will be constructed by the developer. This noise barrier will be owned, maintained and replaced by the Region. e) Prior to construction of the noise attenuation barriers mentioned in sections (a), (b), (c) and (d) above a Noise Wall Design Report prepared by a qualified Professional Engineer must be provided to the Regional Commissioner of Planning, Development and Legislative Services for approval. The wall design report must include the details as per sections 7.2 of Region's Implementation Guideline for Noise Policies. f) The developer must provide a cost estimate for the construction of the above noise attenuation barriers as mentioned in (a), (b), (c) and (d) above, to the satisfaction of the Region. g) The developer must provide 100% security for the cost of construction of the above mentioned noise attenuation barriers as mentioned in (a), (b), (c) and (d) above. The security be released following inspection and acceptance of the above mentioned noise attenuation barriers by the Regional staff and provision of Certificate of Compliance as mentioned in clause (j) below. h) The developer will provide funds to the amount of 55% cost of construction of the noise attenuation barrier as mentioned in item (a), (b), (c) and (d) above including its foundation, for the replacement of the same. These funds will be kept by Region of Waterloo. i) The above mentioned noise barriers will be constructed to the satisfaction of the Region within 1 year of issuance of building permit for the development, by the area municipality. j) Upon construction of the noise walls in (a), (b), (c) and (d) above, a certificate of compliance from a Professional Engineer qualified in acoustics will be required. k) Implementation That prior to the issuance of any building permits, the City of Kitchener's Building Inspector will certify that the noise attenuation measures are incorporated in the Document Number: 4225176 Version: 1 Page 285 of 350 WON building plans and upon completion of construction, the City of Kitchener's Building Inspector will certify that the dwelling units have been constructed accordingly. For the Plan of Subdivision Scoped Transportation Impact Study (TIS); Access & Site Circulation: Staff continues to review the report "Transportation Impact Study and Access and Circulation Review" (Paradigm, July 2022). Pending acceptance of the above -noted report: • Functional plans and cost estimates will be required for any road and intersection improvements. • An agreement to provide funds for any road improvements at the private accesses will be required. All costs related with any private street entrances will be the owner's responsibility. • All works within the Regional right-of-way will be completed by the Regional forces through a Regional contract. • The Region must have financial and physical resources for the identified road and intersection improvements. Road Dedication A dedicated road widening is not required to comply with the ROP designated width of New Dundee at this location (30.48m). 7.62m daylight triangles (DLTs) will be required at both sides of the proposed condo/private roads. However, additional lands may be required for the road/intersection improvements, which may be identified through functional plans and pending acceptance of the scoped TIS as mentioned above. Additional lands may also be required for purpose of any noise berm/barrier and grading purposes as identified through the feasibility noise study and detailed grading plans. All costs associated with the road dedication would be owner's responsibility. Easements Any permanent/temporary easements may also be required for purpose of the grading and the noise attenuation berm/barrier as would be identified through the TIS, the functional grading & servicing plans and the noise study as mentioned in the above mentioned comments. Transit Plannina (Adviso There are no transit service plans for this vicinity. The closest transit service would be available at New Dundee/Robert Ferrie or New Dundee/Pinnacle intersections. There would be no transit requirements. However, staff notes that provision for pedestrian connection to future urbanised road section be considered, as deemed appropriate by the City of Kitchener. Document Number: 4225176 Version: 1 Page 286 of 350 Site Servicing / Work Permit / Municipal Consent (Advisory) A Municipal Consent will be required for the installation of any proposed/required service connections. Also, 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 in this regard, please visit https://rmow.permitcentral.ca/ Conditions for Future Condominium / Consent Application Stage Detailed Environmental Noise Study As mentioned in the application the subject site will be a condominium townhouse development. Staff notes that any the recommendations of the detailed environmental noise study through a registered agreement will also be a Regional condition for any future plan of condominium/consent application(s) as may be required for the proposed development. Archaeology Cultural Heritage staff has reviewed the document titled: "Stage 1-2 Archaeological Assessment of 1000 New Dundee Road (AMICK, Aug. 19, 2021) and the associated Ministry Acknowledgement Letter and have no comments. No further action is required. Housing General The following Regional policies and initiatives support the development and maintenance of affordable housing: • Regional Strategic Plan o Objective 4.2 requires the Region to make affordable housing more available to individuals and families. • 10 -Year Housing and Homelessness Plan o contains an affordable housing target which is that 30% of all new residential development between 2019 and 2041 in Waterloo Region is to be affordable to low and moderate income households. • Building Better Futures Framework o shows how the Region plans to create 2,500 units of housing affordable to people with low to moderate incomes by 2025. • Region of Waterloo Official Plan o Section 3.A (range and Mix of Housing) contains land use policies that ensure the provision of a full and diverse range and mix of permanent housing that is safe, affordable, of adequate size, and meets the accessibility requirements of all residents. The Region supports the provision of a full range of housing options, including affordable housing. Rent levels and house prices that are considered affordable according to the Regional Official Plan are provided below in the section on affordability. Document Number: 4225176 Version: 1 Page 287 of 350 WE Should this plan of subdivision move forward, staff recommend that the applicant consider providing a number of affordable (affordable as defined in the Regional Official Plan) 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. 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. In addition, staff recommend considering other ways of providing a mix of housing types on the site, such as secondary dwelling units within or accessory to the proposed town house units. Policy 3.A.5 in the Regional Official Plan applies to this site. It states: "Where a development application proposing residential uses is submitted for a site containing two hectares or more of developable land, the Region and Area Municipalities will require, wherever appropriate, a minimum of 30 per cent of new residential units to be planned in forms other than single -detached and semi-detached units, such as town homes and multi -unit residential buildings." A review of the proposed unit types on the Draft Plan of Subdivision indicates that this proposal adheres to Policy 3.A.5. The Regional Official Plan was amended in August 2022 and Policy 3.A.5 was updated to the following: "Where a development application proposing residential uses is submitted for a site containing one hectare or more of developable land, the Region and the area municipalities will require, a minimum of 30 percent of new residential units to be planned in forms other than single -detached, semi-detached, and street fronting and single unit condominium townhouse units. Examples of other potential housing forms may include, but are not limited to: duplexes; tri-plexes; four-plexes; multi-plexes; stacked and back-to-back townhouses; and apartments." 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: Document Number: 4225176 Version: 1 Page 288 of 350 IS!OE 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. Please do not hesitate to contact Judy Maan Miedema, Principal Planner (Housing & Development) directly by email at JMaanMiedema(a)regionofwaterloo.ca should you have any questions or wish to discuss in more detail. Proposed Zoning By-law Amendment Staff continues to review the proposed zoning for the lands. Document Number: 4225176 Version: 1 Page 289 of 350 -10 - Regional Development Charges Any future development on the subject lands will be subject to provisions of Regional Development Charges By-law 19-037 or any successor thereof. Other Staff acknowledges the Region's required review fees for the applications were received September 23, 2022. Staff continues to review the applications. If you have any questions, please feel free to contact me (226) 753-1064 (C). Yours truly, Shilling Yip, MCIP, RPP Senior Planner cc. Applicant Document Number: 4225176 Version: 1 Page 290 of 350 N, 14 Region of Waterloo PLANNING, DEVELOPMENT AND LEGISLATIVE SERVICES Community Planning 150 Frederick Street 8th Floor Kitchener Ontario N2G U Canada Telephone: 519-575-4400 TTY: 519-575-4508 Fax: 519-575-4466 www. regionofwaterl oo.ca Shilling Yip (226) 753-1064 (C) Files: D18-20/22202 C14-60/2/22021 January 18, 2023 Katie Anderl, MCIP. RPP Senior Planner DSD — Planning Division City of Kitchener 200 King Street W. Kitchener, ON N2G 4G7 Dear Ms. Anderl: Plan of Subdivision 30T-22202 Cachet Developments (New Dundee) Inc. 1000 New Dundee Road CITY OF KITCHENER Further to the Region's comments of November 24, 2022, staff provides the following additional comments at this time. Environmental Planning The subject lands include Significant Woodland and Provincially Significant Wetland areas which are designated as Core Environmental Features in the Regional Official Plan (ROP). Documents provided in support of the proposed development included the "Environmental Impact Study, 1000 New Dundee Rd, Kitchener" by GeoProcess Research Associates, dated August 4, 2022 (the EIS). The EIS is satisfactory to regional environmental planning staff, and the recommendations provided therein are requested to be implemented through the Plan of Subdivision or site plan, as applicable. The lands designated as Core Environmental Feature and the associated buffers (all lands north of the"30m wetland setback" on Map 5, Site Plan), should be placed in a Natural Heritage Conservation zone. Document Number: 4283914 Version: 1 Page 291 of 350 -2 - The following advisory comments are offered, but no response or updates are required to address these comments: Map 2 — Natural Heritage Features in the EIS is missing the Significant Woodland component on the west side of the site, which generally aligns with the limits of the WODM5-1 polygon depicted on Map 3. There is no need to update the Natural Heritage Map, this is provided for information only as the entire area is within the "Core Environmental Feature" designation due to the presence of the Provincially Significant Wetland (PSW) • Future reports are requested to follow and reference the Region's Greenlands Network Implementation Guideline, and to identify any Regionally Significant organisms, in accordance with the applicable lists from the Region. If the site plan is modified, including any changes to the stormwater management strategy, revisions should be circulated to environmental planning for further review. Water Services Hydrogeology and Water Programs (HWP) HWP staff generally support Draft Plan Approval (DPA) of the proposed plan of subdivision. The Chloride Impact Study recommended that a Salt Management Plan be completed for the private parking / internal roads created as part of this proposed development. If this will be subject to a future condominium application; HWP staff has requested that, as a condition of DPA, the developer enter into a development agreement to complete a Salt Management Plan as part of a complete application for the future Plan of Condominium application. There are no further requirements prior to DPA. Staff continues to review the applications. If you have any questions, please feel free to contact me (226) 753-1064 (C). Yours truly, Shilling Yip, MCIP, RPP Senior Planner cc. Applicant Document Number: 4283914 Version: 1 Page 292 of 350 N, 14 Region of Waterloo PLANNING, DEVELOPMENT AND LEGISLATIVE SERVICES Community Planning 150 Frederick Street 8th Floor Kitchener Ontario N2G U Canada Telephone: 519-575-4400 TTY: 519-575-4508 Fax: 519-575-4466 www. regionofwaterl oo.ca Shilling Yip (226) 753-1064 (C) Files: D18-20/22202 C14-60/2/22021 June 1, 2023 Katie Anderl, MCIP. RPP Senior Planner DSD — Planning Division City of Kitchener 200 King Street W. Kitchener, ON N2G 4G7 Dear Ms. Anderl: WY_V*411PAII ► UX I Plan of Subdivision 30T-22202 Cachet Developments (New Dundee) Inc. 1000 New Dundee Road CITY OF KITCHENER Further to the Region's comments of November 24, 2022 and January 18, 2023 staff provides the following final comments at this time. Density Further to the Region's comments of November 24, 2022 regarding density, Regional Official Plan (ROP) Amendment No. 6 requires that Designated Greenfield Areas within the City of Kitchener achieve within the horizon of the ROP, a minimum density target of 65 residents and jobs per hectare in the urban designated greenfield areas across the City. This development will contribute to the achievement of this target. Corridor Planning Noise Study Corridor Planning staff continues to review the Noise Study entitled, "Environmental Noise Feasibility Study, 1000 New Dundee Road, Proposed Residential Development, Kitchener, Ontario" (Valcoustics, August 4, 2022) and Addendum dated February 28, 2023. Review and acceptance of the Study will be provided under separate cover. In the meantime, staff notes minor changes in one of the noise wall proposed is assessed Document Number: 4388126 Version: 1 Page 293 of 350 in the report while in general other recommendations of the report are not changed. Although, the report demonstrates that the proposed development is feasible with the recommended various noise attenuation measures, the following is required prior to acceptance of the report. The applicant must identify requirements and details of any easements and parcels of lands to be dedicated to the Region and/or the City for the proposed noise barriers on New Dundee Road and on Private Lands, typical X - sections of the proposed noise barriers should be prepared based on the Functional/Detailed Site Grading Plan which must show the grades and elevations for top and bottom of the foundations, barrier and berms (if required) and spot grades around the walls/foundations. Staff supports placing the noise walls within the future common elements condominium lands. Where the noise walls cannot be accommodated within the condominium, the wall(s) must be maintained by the landowner. Appropriate agreement(s) and/or easements in favour of the condominium corporation (or Region) may be required to ensure long-term maintenance of the wall(s) by the landowner. As noted above, details regarding implementation will be provided under separate cover. The above must be identified on the grading and other development plans. A detailed noise study will be required as part of site plan. The review and implementation of noise study recommendations have been secured through Region draft approval condition 29 attached. Functional Servicina and Stormwater Manaaement (SWM) Reaort Staff provides the following comments on the Functional Servicing and Stormwater Management Report dated August 4, 2022 as prepared by MTE. The report mentions that there are no sanitary or water services available along New Dundee Road; and new service for water will be provided by extension from 200mm diameter municipal watermain currently terminated within the existing easement adjacent to 730 New Dundee Road which will be further upsized to 300mm diameter. A new 200mm private water service will enter the southeast corner and continue to north and west into the private property. The report also notes that there is no sanitary servicing within the New Dundee Road fronting the proposed development. It is proposed that the municipal sanitary sewer will be extended from the intersection of Dodge Drive/New Dundee intersection approximately 755m east of the proposed development. Regarding storm servicing, it is proposed that a private storm sewer system will be installed on site and will be designed to convey the flows generated by 5 year design storm event. It is also mentioned that the runoff will ultimately discharge to Upper Blair Creek at the northeast corner of the site. The report has mentioned in section 4.0 that the storm flows for the 25mm to 100 year storm event will be attenuated to allowable flow rates as illustrated in the "Upper Blair Document Number: 4388126 Version: 1 Page 294 of 350 -3 - Creek Functional Drainage Study". From Corridor Planning's stormwater management perspective, there are no major concerns with the SWM Report. However, the report mentions that drainage from the frontage of the site will flow overland towards the roadside ditch on New Dundee. In this regard, the consultant must confirm that the existing road side has sufficient capacity for the intended flows from the subject site. This requirement may be addressed as part of the final SWM report included as Region draft approval condition 9. Please be advised, this Report must be approved by the Region (and the City) taking into account the additional comments related to the road corridor noted below. New Dundee Road Reconstruction The Region's Design & Construction staff provide the following comments at this time. Grading Staff request the Developer's consultant provide cross sections along New Dundee Road and the abutting development. The cross sections should extend 5m into the private property and be provided at 10m intervals along the entire frontage of the property in addition to cross sections at the proposed main driveway and emergency access. The cross sections should show proposed development grades in matching to the existing and proposed grades along New Dundee Road, including property line, hydro poles, and other features as necessary. The developer is responsible to ensure whatever is constructed today meets current standards without the need for retaining walls and allows for future integration with Regional road works. Sanitary Per the functional servicing plan, the proposed 300mmo sanitary is shown along the north shoulder. The Region's typical location is down the centre of the road. Sanitary sewer location within the right-of-way, will require Region of Waterloo Municipal Consent approval. Contact Jim Ellerman, E: Jellerman(a�regionofwaterloo.ca to make arrangements. Provide cross sections showing the sanitary sewer. Watermain Per the functional servicing plan, the proposed 300mm watermain is shown in the north ditch line. The Region's typical location for watermain is within the paved portion of the roadway, or shoulder, and in this case should match the alignment of adjacent (to the east) existing dead end 150mmo watermain in the north shoulder. Watermain location will require Region of Waterloo Municipal Consent for location approval. The Developer is asked to contact the Region of Waterloo Corridor Management group (Jim Ellerman, E: Jellerman(a)regionofwaterloo.ca) to discuss further. Document Number: 4388126 Version: 1 Page 295 of 350 • Provide cross sections of watermain. Road Restoration • Road restoration must meet Region of Waterloo standards and is subject to geotechnical recommendation provided to the developer (to be circulated with the Region). As part of geotechnical work, the developer will be required to complete a Soil Characterization Report, to support the movement of excess soils. Conducting sampling analysis plan, assessment of past uses per requirements as set out in O.Reg 406/19, as well as identification of any dewatering needs. Any restoration beyond 50% of the road cross section, will require full road restoration. Minimum road restoration requirements; Recommended by the Region's geotechnical consultant and will be applied along the adjacent section to the east (Executive PI to Robert Ferrie Dr in 2024 under a separate Region contract). Surface Course — SP12.5 FC2 mm - 1 lift (50mm) Tack coat 0.20 litres/m2, shall be slow set, non -tracking (SS -1 HH) Binder Course — SP19.Omm PGAC 58-28 - 2 lifts (60mm + 65mm) Granular base — 2 options (550mm Gran A) or (600mm of Gran B followed by 150mm Gran A) Regional Road Work Permit • Regional road work permit will be required for road occupancy, including any pre or post construction activity taking place on the Regional Right-of-way. Contract for Proposed Services • It is expected that the developer will be required to enter in an agreement with the City and /or Region for construction of the development servicing work on New Dundee Rd. The Region and City are in discussions regarding the form and conditions for such an agreement and will advise when completed. As you know, any work within the Region's right-of-way must be completed by the City under a City contract, this requirement has been secured in Region draft approval condition 31. Traffic/ Road Closures • Should a road closure be required, the developer is to confirm detouring options, timing, etc, through discussions with both City and Region traffic. As this is a developer / City driven initiative, will the City allow use of local roads for detouring? Document Number: 4388126 Version: 1 Page 296 of 350 -5 - Contact Mike Jones, E: MJones(a)-regionofwaterloo.ca to arrange for meeting with Regional staff. Scoped Transportation Impact Study (TIS); Access & Site Circulation Staff has reviewed the Transportation Impact Study (TIS) dated February 2023 as prepared by Paradigm in conjunction with further clarification received dated May 17, 2023 and can advise that the Study is satisfactory. Nothing further is required at this time. Review comments follow below: • There are no road/intersection improvements on New Dundee Road. • Some trees are identified which must be removed to achieve and maintain the required sight visibility at the proposed Condo Road (private street). • There are no Regional concerns for the identified tree removals. • The identified trees must be removed at owner's cost and additional trees be planted in lieu of the removed trees, as to the satisfaction of the City of Kitchener. • The identified property frontage within the private property fronting the New Dundee Road must be maintained free of any plantation/visual obstructions by the developer /future Condominium Corporation. • The tree removal and preservation plan must be approved by the City of Kitchener. • A Regional road Access Permit will be required for the main site entrance and the Emergency Access at the east property side. • The access must meet the Regional standards for a private road with a minimum throat width of 9.Om extending for minimum 1 vehicle length should be shown on the development plans. Implementation of above, must be secured by way of a development agreement with the Region. This has been included in Region draft approval condition 25. Access The Proposed Westerly Access (the only Site Access) being a commercial 2 -way access on High Speed (posted >70kmph) must have minimum 9.Om throat width at property line and minimum 7.6m curb radii to comply with Regional Access Policy. The plans show only 7.1 m access width with 7.86m width at the property line which would not meet Regional standards. A minimum throat width of 9.Om extending for minimum vehicle length should be shown on the development plans. On the proposed private Condo Road, 7.62m Daylight Triangles (DLT) would be required to be dedicated to the Region. These should be shown on the development plans. Document Number: 4388126 Version: 1 Page 297 of 350 WON The above may impact the building setbacks required by the City. An Access Permit with applicable fee (currently $230) will be required for any access on New Dundee Road (RR #12). Any redundant access will be closed and will also require an access permit (no application fee). Application permit application is available at: https://forms. regionofwaterloo.ca/ePay/PDLS-Online-Payment-Forms/Commercial- Access-Perm it -Application Road Dedication A dedicated road widening is not required to comply with the ROP designated width of New Dundee at this location (30.48m). Site Gradina & Stormwater Manaaement Storm sewers within the Regional road right-of-way are generally sized and designed to only accommodate stormwater from the right-of-way and in some instances off road surface drainage under existing conditions. A private stormwater connection to any storm sewer on New Dundee Road (RR #12) will be discouraged where an alternate stormwater connection is available, including infiltration if soil conditions and Source Protection under the Clean Water Act permit, or if it is determined that the New Dundee storm sewer does not have the sufficiency (condition and capacity) to accommodate private stormwater flows from this site. It is the responsibility of the applicant' s engineering consultant to determine an appropriate stormwater outlet from this site and the sufficiency of the receiving storm system if there is no other option available and to include this information in the stormwater management report. The applicant or their consultant should contact Mr. Malcolm Lister, manager, Technical Services for the Region of Waterloo at 519-575-4432 or mlister@regionofwaterloo.ca to determine if any engineering plans and/or further technical information for New Dundee Road (RR #12) is available which may be of assistance. The applicant must submit electronic copies of detailed Site Grading & Drainage Control Plan(s) and Site Servicing Plan(s) along with a SWM report for Regional review and approval. This should include drainage details for the subject property, abutting properties and the public road allowance so as to ensure compatible drainage and to show thereon all existing and proposed connections to the municipal storm sewers, sanitary sewers and water mains and all detailed erosion and siltation control features, all to the satisfaction of the Regional Municipality of Waterloo. The site grading must be compatible with the existing road grades and the proposed reconstruction project of New Dundee Road. The 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 There are no transit service plans for this vicinity. The closest transit service would be available at New Dundee/Robert Ferrie or New Dundee/Pinnacle intersections. There would be no transit requirements. However, staff note that provision for pedestrian connection to future urbanised road section be considered, as deemed appropriate by the City of Kitchener. Document Number: 4388126 Version: 1 Page 298 of 350 Site Servicing / Work Permit / Municipal Consent A Municipal Consent will be required for the installation of any proposed/required service connections. Also, 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 in this regard, please visit https://rmow.permitcentral.ca/ Proposed Zoning By-law Amendment Staff has reviewed the latest zoning by-law amendment proposed, and have no concerns. Regional staff has no objection to draft approval of Plan of Subdivision 30T-22202 subject to the Region's comments of November 24, 2022, January 18, 2023, above -noted comments, and the following conditions of draft approval set out below. Draft Approval Conditions Attached. If you have any questions, please feel free to contact me (226) 753-1064 (C). Yours truly, 1A Shilling Yip, MCIP, RPP Senior Planner Attachment. cc. Applicant Document Number: 4388126 Version: 1 Page 299 of 350 Region of Waterloo Draft Approval Conditions Draft Plan of Subdivision Application 30T-22202 Zoning By-law Amendment ZBA22/021/N/KA 1000 New Dundee Road Cachet Developments (New Dundee) Inc. (May 31, 2023) 3. REGIONAL MUNICIPALITY OF WATERLOO CONDITIONS: 1. That the plan for final approval may incorporate a lot pattern for all blocks in which townhouse lots are permitted, at a density not exceeding the density identified in the draft approval conditions; 2. That the SUBDIVIDER agrees to stage the development of this subdivision in a manner satisfactory to the Regional Commissioner of Planning, Development and Legislative Services; 3. That the subdivision agreement be registered by the City of Kitchener against the lands to which it applies and a copy of the registered agreement be forwarded to the Regional Commissioner of Planning, Development and Legislative Services prior to final approval of the subdivision plan; 4. That any dead ends and open sides of road allowances created by this plan of subdivision shall be terminated in 0.3 metre reserves, to be conveyed to and held in trust by the City of Kitchener until required for future road allowances or the development of adjacent land. 5. That the SUBDIVIDER enter into an Agreement for Servicing with the Regional Municipality of Waterloo to preserve access to municipal water supply and municipal wastewater treatment services prior to final approval or any agreement for the installation of underground services, whichever comes first. Where the SUBDIVIDER has already entered into an agreement for the installation of underground servicing with the area municipality, such agreement shall be amended to provide for a Regional Agreement for Servicing prior to registration of any part of the plan. The Regional Commissioner of Engineering and Environmental Services shall advise prior to an Agreement for Servicing that sufficient water supplies and wastewater treatment capacity is available for this plan, or the portion of the plan to be registered; 6. That the SUBDIVIDER includes the following statement in the registered subdivision agreement and in all agreements of lease or purchase and sale and/or rental agreements that may be entered into pursuant to Section 52 of the Planning Act, prior to the registration of this plan: Document Number: 4388125 Version: 2 Page 300 of 350 "The lot, lots, block or blocks which are the subject of this agreement of lease or purchase and sale are not yet registered as a plan of subdivision. The fulfillment of all conditions of draft plan approval, including the commitment of water supply and sewage treatment services thereto by the Region and other authorities, has not yet been completed to permit registration of the plan. Accordingly, the purchaser should be aware that the vendor is making no representation or warranty that the lot, lots, block or blocks which are the subject of this agreement or lease or purchase and sale will have all conditions of draft plan approval satisfied, including the availability of servicing until the plan is registered." 7. That, prior to registration or servicing, whichever comes first, the Functional Servicing and SWM Report (MTE, Revised March 2, 2023) and/or future amendments thereto) be completed to the satisfaction of the Regional Commissioner of Planning, Development and Legislative Services. Without limiting the foregoing, the Report must address the following: a) Location of the proposed 300mm dia watermain within the New Dundee Road right-of-way. b) Location of the proposed 300mm dia sanitary sewer within the New Dundee Road right-of-way. 8. That, the SUBDIVIDER enter into a development agreement with the Regional Municipality of Waterloo to provide that prior to any grading, construction, or servicing of the plan of subdivision, whichever comes first, the SUBDIVIDER submit a final lot grading and drainage plan for the entire plan for review and approval to the satisfaction of the Regional Commissioner of Planning, Development and Legislative Services. The lot grading and drainage plan must include the following for New Dundee Road (Regional Road 12), a) cross sections along New Dundee Road and the abutting development. The cross sections should extend 5m into the private property and be provided at 10m intervals along the entire frontage of the property in addition to cross sections at the proposed main driveway and emergency access. The cross sections should show proposed development grades in matching to the existing and proposed grades along New Dundee Road, including property line, hydro poles, and other features as necessary. The developer is responsible to ensure whatever is constructed today meets current standards without the need for retaining walls and allows for future integration with Regional road works. 9. That, the SUBDIVIDER enter into a development agreement with the Regional Municipality of Waterloo to provide that prior to any grading, construction or Document Number: 4388125 Version: 2 Page 301 of 350 servicing of the plan of subdivision, whichever comes first, the SUBDIVIDER submit a final detailed stormwater management plan to the satisfaction of the City of Kitchener, Grand River Conservation Authority, and the Regional Commissioner of Planning, Development and Legislative Services. 10. That prior to registration, the SUBDIVIDER decommissions any monitoring and private wells (not used for long term monitoring) and septic systems on the property in accordance with O. Reg. 903 prior to any grading on the property; and furthermore, that the SUBDIVIDER enter into an agreement with the City of Kitchener to decommission any long term monitoring wells no longer used for such purposes, all to the satisfaction of the Regional Commissioner of Planning, Development and Legislative Services. 11. That the boundaries and buffers of Core Environmental Features (Provincially Significant Wetland, Significant Woodland) within and contiguous to the subject lands be interpreted as depicted on Map 5, Site Plan, in the "Environmental Impact Study, 1000 New Dundee Rd, Kitchener" (GeoProcess Research Associates, last updated February 10, 2023). 12. That the Core Environmental Features and associated buffers on the subject lands be placed in natural heritage conservation zoning pursuant to Policy 7.A.2 of the Regional Official Plan. 13. That prior to any clearing of vegetation on the site, or final approval of all or any part of this plan of subdivision (whichever occurs first), the SUBDIVIDER enter into an agreement with the Regional Municipality of Waterloo, that no clearing of vegetation on the site occur during the bird breeding season (April 1 — August 31) in compliance with the Migratory Birds Convention Act unless it can be ascertained by a qualified expert that no birds covered by the Act are observed to be breeding in or adjacent to the affected area. 14. That prior to any land clearing, grading or other site alteration, the SUBDIVIDER ensure compliance with the Endangered Species Act. 15. That, prior to final approval, the SUBDIVIDER shall install permanent fencing along the common boundary of Blocks 1 and 2, with signage identifying the Core Environmental Feature, and that the fence be installed to the satisfaction of the City of Kitchener and the Regional Commissioner of Planning, Development and Legislative Services, in consultation with the Grand River Conservation Authority and the Region. 16. That, prior to registration and any land clearing, grading, or the installation of services, the SUBDIVIDER submit a detailed erosion and sediment control plan Document Number: 4388125 Version: 2 Page 302 of 350 acceptable to the Regional Municipality and the City of Kitchener, in consultation with the Grand River Conservation Authority, in order to prevent sedimentation into Core Environmental Features. 17. That, prior to registration, the SUBDIVIDER submit landscaping and planting plans for all buffer areas contiguous to Core Environmental Features, and that recommended plantings shall consist of locally -appropriate, self-sustaining native vegetation to the satisfaction of the Regional Municipality of Waterloo and the City of Kitchener, in consultation with the Grand River Conservation Authority. 18. That, prior to registration, the SUBDIVIDER submit a detailed monitoring plan for Core Environmental Features and associated buffers on the subject lands as outlined in the "Environmental Impact Study, 1000 New Dundee Rd, Kitchener" (GeoProcess Research Associates, last updated February 10, 2023) to the satisfaction of the Regional Municipality of Waterloo and the City of Kitchener, in consultation with the Grand River Conservation Authority. 19. That, prior to registration, the SUBDIVIDER develop a brochure or other similar information tools for new home purchasers and residents which provides information about the natural heritage features contiguous to the subdivision, along with advice about how they can be good neighbours to and stewards of these areas, and that the brochure be to the satisfaction of the Regional Municipality of Waterloo and the City of Kitchener, in consultation with the Grand River Conservation Authority. 20. That prior to final approval, the SUBDIVIDER remove any debris and/or garbage from Core Environmental Features within the subject lands to the satisfaction of the Regional Municipality of Waterloo and the City of Kitchener. 21. That, prior to registration, the SUBDIVIDER enter into an agreement with the Regional Municipality of Waterloo to distribute source water protection and winter salt management information with all offers to purchase and/or rental agreements, to the satisfaction of the Regional Commissioner of Planning, Development and Legislative Services. 22. That, prior to registration, the SUBDIVIDER enter into an agreement with the Regional Municipality of Waterloo to complete salt management plan for Condo Townhouse Block 1 prior to site plan approval to the satisfaction of the Regional Commissioner of Planning, Development and Legislative Services. Furthermore, that the agreement contains a provision to include implementation of the salt management plan by way of declaration associated with any future applications for plan of condominium. Document Number: 4388125 Version: 2 Page 303 of 350 23. That, prior to registration of this plan of subdivision, or prior to commencement of any construction work, whichever comes first, the SUBDIVIDER must enter into an agreement with the Regional Municipality of Waterloo to obtain a Municipal Consent and Work Permit for New Dundee Road (Regional Road 12) from the Region for such works. 24. That, prior to registration of this plan of subdivision, or prior to commencement of any construction work, whichever comes first, the SUBDIVIDER enters into an agreement with the Regional Municipality of Waterloo to provide engineering drawings which include details of boulevard restoration for New Dundee Road (Regional Road 12), to the satisfaction of the Regional Commissioner of Planning, Development and Legislative Services. Without limiting the foregoing, the submission is to include any geotechnical recommendation provided to the SUBDIVIDER by the Region. As part of geotechnical work, the SUBDIVIDER will be required to complete a soil characterization report, to support the movement of excess soils. Conducting sampling analysis plan, assessment of past uses per requirements as set out in O. Reg. 406/19, as well as identification of any dewatering needs. Any restoration beyond 50% of road cross section, will require full road restoration. All to the satisfaction of the Regional Commissioner of Planning, Development, and Legislative Services. 25. That, prior registration, the SUBDIVIDER enter into an agreement with the Regional Municipality of Waterloo to provide for implementation of the recommendations of the accepted report entitled, "1000 New Dundee Road, Kitchener, ON, Transportation Impact Study and Circulation Review" (Paradigm Transportation Solutions Limited, February 2023), to the satisfaction of the Regional Commissioner of Planning, Development and Legislative Services. 26. That, prior to registration of this plan of subdivision, the SUBDIVIDER enter into a development agreement with the Regional Municipality of Waterloo to obtain prior to site plan, a Regional Road Access Permit for New Dundee Road (Regional Road 12). 27. That prior to registration, the SUBDIVIDER enter into a development agreement with the Regional Municipality of Waterloo to provide, prior to site plan approval and at no cost to the Region, daylight triangles along New Dundee Road and any proposed access, to the satisfaction of the Regional Commissioner of Planning, Development and Legislative Services. 28. That prior to registration, the SUBDIVIDER enter into a development agreement with the Regional Municipality of Waterloo to grant any easements at no cost to the Region as necessary for road improvements along New Dundee Road, to the Document Number: 4388125 Version: 2 Page 304 of 350 5 satisfaction of the Regional Commissioner of Planning, Development and Legislative Services. 29. That prior to registration, the Regional Municipality of Waterloo review and accept the noise study (and any addendum thereto) entitled, "Environmental Noise Feasibility Study, 1000 New Dundee Road, Proposed Residential Development, Kitchener, Ontario" (Valcoustics, August 4, 2022), to the satisfaction of the Regional Commissioner of Planning, Development and Legislative Services. Furthermore, the SUBDIVIDER enter into a development agreement with the Regional Municipality of Waterloo to provide for the implementation of the accepted Noise Study and Addendum. The agreement shall include, but not limited to, securities for the construction of noise attenuation barriers recommended in the Study, and a detailed Noise Study at site plan. 30. That prior to registration, the SUBDIVIDER enter into a development agreement with the Regional Municipality of Waterloo to provide for installation of a 1.5m high chainlink fence where deemed necessary along New Dundee Road (Regional Road 12) by the Region, to the satisfaction of the Regional Commissioner of Planning, Development and Legislative Services. 31. That, prior to registration, the City of Kitchener and the Regional Municipality of Waterloo make arrangements (including entering into an agreement) to provide for servicing of this plan of subdivision within the New Dundee Road (Regional Road 12) road allowance, to the satisfaction of the Regional Commissioner of Transportation Services. CLEARANCE CONDITIONS That prior to the signing of the final plan by the CITY'S Director of Planning, the Director shall be advised by the Regional Commissioner of Planning, Development and Legislative Services that Conditions 3.1 to 3.XX have been carried out to the satisfaction of the Regional Municipality of Waterloo. The clearance letter from the Region shall include a brief statement detailing how each condition has been satisfied. 2. That prior to the signing of the final plan by the CITY'S Director, shall be advised by the telephone company 2.1.7 have been carried out satisfactorily. The clearan brief statement as to how the conditions were satisfied. Director of Planning, the that Conditions 2.1.6 and ce letter should contain a Document Number: 4388125 Version: 2 Page 305 of 350 3. That prior to the signing of the final plan by the CITY'S Director of Planning, the Director shall be advised by Kitchener -Wilmot Hydro that Conditions 2.1.5 and 2.1.7 have been carried out satisfactorily. The clearance letter should contain a brief statement as to how the conditions were satisfied. 4. That prior to the signing of the final plan by the CITY'S Director of Planning, the Director shall be advised by the Grand River Conservation Authority that Condition 4.1 has been carried out satisfactorily. The clearance letter should contain a brief statement as to how the condition was satisfied. 5. That prior to the signing of the final plan by the CITY'S Director of Planning, the Director shall be advised by the Waterloo Region District School Board that Conditions 4.2 — 4. have been carried out satisfactorily. The clearance letter should contain a brief statement as to how the condition was satisfied. 6. That prior to the signing of the final plan by the CITY'S Director of Planning, the Director shall be advised by the Waterloo Catholic District School Board that Conditions 4.4 — 4.7 have been carried out satisfactorily. The clearance letter should contain a brief statement as to how the condition was satisfied. NOTES 1. The owner/developer is advised that the provisions of the Regional Development Charge By-law 19-037 are applicable. 2. The final plans 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 plan to advise the Regional Municipality of Waterloo and the City of Kitchener Planning Division of any changes in ownership, agent, address, and phone and fax numbers. 4. The owner/developer is advised that the Regional Municipality of Waterloo has adopted By -Law 23-009, pursuant to Section 69 of the Planning Act, R.S.O. 1990 c. P.13, as amended, to prescribe a tariff of fees for application, recirculation, draft approval, modification to draft approval and registration release of plans of subdivision. 5. The owner/developer is advised that pursuant to Regional By -Law 23-009, the current fee for review of a road traffic noise study is $500.00, payable to the Regional Municipality of Waterloo upon submission of the study for review. 6. This draft plan was received on or after April 14, 2022 and shall be processed and finally disposed of under the Planning Act, R.S.O. 1990, c. P.13, as amended by S.O. 2022, c. 12 (Bill 109). Document Number: 4388125 Version: 2 Page 306 of 350 7. The Owner is advised that draft approval is not a commitment by the Regional Municipality of Waterloo to water and wastewater servicing capacity. To secure this commitment the owner/developer must enter into an "Agreement for Servicing" with The Regional Municipality of Waterloo by requesting that the Region's Planning, Development and Legislative Services Department initiate preparation of the agreement. When sufficient capacity is confirmed by the Region's Commissioner of Engineering and Environmental Services to service the density as defined by the plan to be registered, the owner/developer will be offered an "Agreement for Servicing". This agreement will be time limited and define the servicing commitment by density and use. Should the "Agreement for Servicing" expire prior to plan registration, a new agreement will be required. The owner/developer is to provide the Regional Municipality of Waterloo with two print copies of the proposed plan to be registered along with the written request for a servicing agreement 8. To ensure that a Regional Release is issued by the Regional 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 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 15th. Regional staff can not 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. 9. When the survey has been completed and the final plan prepared to satisfy the requirements of the Registry Act, they should be forwarded to the City of Kitchener. If the plans comply with the terms of approval, and we have received an assurance from the Regional Municipality of Waterloo and the applicable clearance agencies that the necessary arrangements have been made, the Manager of Development Review's signature will be endorsed on the plan and it will be forwarded to the Registry Office for registration. The following is required for registration under The Registry Act and the Region's purposes: One (1) original mylar Three (3) mylar copies Four (4) white paper prints Document Number: 4388125 Version: 2 Page 307 of 350 Appen Name Date Comment Oliver 12/6/2022 Hi Oliver, Markovski I've had a chance to review your questions in more details and have obtained input from a cou colleagues. Please see our responses below in blue. Regards, Katie From: ----------------------- Sent: Tuesday, December 6, 2022 3:04 PM To: Katie Anderl <Katie.Anderl@kitchener.ca> Cc: -------------------------- Subject: 1000 New Dundee Road - Feedback on Proposed Development Project Thank you for hosting the Virtual Zoom Meeting on December 1, 2022 regarding the proposed 1000 New Dundee Road, and thank you for the opportunity to provide feedback on the propos information shared was very good, and helpful in gaining additional understanding on the prop As a follow up to the Zoom Meeting, I would like to bring up the following items regarding the your further considerations and response. Specifically, I would like to learn more about the fol obtain some additional information: 1. Impact to Local Wetland at Adjacent Blair Creek Blair Creek is located immediately to the North of the proposed development and serves as ha and bird species, in addition to having an important role as a water source and tributary to the watershed. As such, I am concerned that a 30 -meter buffer may not be sufficient to fully prote habitat from the development works. Would like to understand how the 30 -meter buffer was the logic and research behind this demarcation. Furthermore, what long-term measures will b existing natural habitat and what the developer will do to protect and promote this existing na There is no one -size -fits -all buffer width. While a typical buffer width around waterbodies and v width can be adjusted (wider or narrower) based on relevant factors. An effective buffer width The sensitivity and functions of the natural feature that is to be protected (2) The functions whi Appen perform (3) The setting (e.g. slopes, soils, surface drainage, groundwater conditions and flows) adjacent land uses and activities. In this case, the appropriate buffer width of 30 metres was d environmental impact study. 2. Traffic Along New Dundee Road As raised a few times during the Dec. 15Y Zoom Meeting, the New Dundee Regional Road was fl meeting attendance as road of concern, especially if additional volumes of vehicles are added s development. The current state of the road may not be suitable to safely accommodate the pi development. The curvature around the development area, combined with the high -speeds (e combined with very road low light levels in the area may create a bottle -necks as residential cc proposed development try to enter and merge with the high-speed traffic from New Dundee R the Dec. 15Y meeting, the development will have only a single entrance/exit to a very busy regio an area of concern to pedestrians and vehicular traffic. As communicated at the Dec. 15Y meeti integrate traffic lights, roundabouts, or to widen the regional road, it may be an area where ad may need to be done. Please provide additional information on how the existing road infrastri the additional traffic load from the proposed development works, and what additional measur integrate a new community located next to a busy regional road. How would the additional of and the future link with Strasburg Rd. and New Dundee Road work as additional traffic volume Dundee Road? The applicant has completed a Traffic Impact Study (available online: https://app2. kitchen er.ca/AppDocs/OpenData/AMANDADataSets/Supportinq Documents Lisi is currently being reviewed by Regional Transportation Planners and provides a sight line analy movement calculations to determine if new turning lanes are required — the study does not rece left turn lane based on projections. As additional lands in the surrounding area are developed, i Strasburg Road extension are built, there will be new intersections and roundabouts constructe be lowered in proximity to these new intersections west of the subject lands. Regional staff hat limits are planned to be lowered to 60 km/hr from Executive Place to approx. 400 m west of Ro road and intersection improvements are completed in 2024. 3. Community Integration Appen How will the proposed development area integrate with the existing community, adjacent to tl the meeting, it appears that this will be a fenced -in area, with no proposed new sidewalks, trai reach the adjacent community and integrate into the surrounding communities. If the long-tei where communities are integrated, then the proposed development should attempt to find a I fabric of the community, the historic context of the area, and its natural features. It would be, development can better integrate within the existing adjacent trails, road, bicycle, and pedestr to learn more about how the City and Developer will work towards creating links to existing bu environments. Especially, how would children from the new development safely reach the nei located further to the north of the proposed project area by foot? Is there enough nearby corn support new residential homes? Currently the area has very little commercial (e.g., grocery st( centres, etc.) that are located within a proximity of the proposed development site. While pedestrian connections through the natural area to Dodge Drive are not possible, as this providing for pedestrian connections along New Dundee Road will be important. As the design Dundee is developed the City will continue to advocate for pedestrian and cycling connections. bussed to schools for the time being. There are also commercially zoned lands along New Dun( Reichert/Robert Ferrie and near Reidel Drive to help meet the needs of the community. Additioi likely be considered through the development of the Dundee North community. 4. Landscaping Plan The proposed development should look at ways to add to the natural features of the site and f landscaping along the northern part of the site (adjacent to Blair Creek) that will add mature tr native habitats to enhance the natural and wildlife habitat enjoyed by the migratory birds and adjacent wetland. Moreover, what landscaping plans will be added to the development to allc property owners to continue to enjoy the natural (undeveloped) features of the proposed proj The buffer (to the Creek, Wetland, Woodlands) will consist of existing, and planted vegetation. necessary to enhance the buffer area by adding trees, shrubs and other vegetation. Native spec possible and natural selection by encouraging a healthy mix of young and old trees will be encu installed along the edge of the buffer. The fencing will help to clearly mark the buffer extent an intrusion (e.g. pedestrians, pets, garbage, etc.). Appen 5. Road Closures at New Dundee Road At the Dec. V meeting, it was stated that New Dundee Road will be closed for sewer pipe layo infrastructure works that will support the proposed development site. Would like to know hov will be closed for (approximate timeline at this point), and what mitigation measures will be ad in the area to get around the proposed infrastructure work. At this time the details of the service extension are continuing to be developed and will need to approved by the Region. As more details are available we will share these with the community. Thank you for the opportunity to provide feedback and input to the proposed development we you require any additional information. Regards, Oliver Markovski JL Masse 9/23/2022 Hi Mickey, Thanks for reaching out and responding to the circulation. I wanted to confirm that I received 5 these lands. I will take a bit of a closer look into the zoning of your property and will respond L In the meantime, as there is no municipal address, I just wanted to confirm that I have the ri& the -----------------------------------, correct? For reference, the development application is for the (agricultural field is the lands proposed for development). <IMAGE REDACTED> Thanks, Katie Appen From: JL Masse Sent: Friday, September 23, 2022 11:00 AM To: Katie Anderl <Katie.Anderl@kitchener.ca>; Christine Michaud <Christine.Michaud@kitcher Cc: Subject: re: Application for development in our neighbourhood. Good day, we have been advised of the planning development in our neighbourhood. We own a -------- property which is recognized as-----------------------------------. First we would like to know where planned in reference to our property. We have bought the lot many years ago during my care( ------- We have planned to build our retirement home on the said property. We are still in wor and living in the ----------------------------------- area, but are planning on retiring within the next y( During these many year of ownership, we knew that although it is a lower area but even prior 1 driveway installed and an area suitable to build a bonafide farm and a house. Realizing that so on the type of septic system and type of building that could be erected on the said piece of prc have been willing to adapt too. In the past few years we have seen a fair amount of developm general area mainly because of the township and developers ability to maneuver around the r( so called flood plane. We are not really opposing the proposed development of the subdivision by Mark Condello, G Inc, but we would like to ensure that we can build a bonafide farm on that parcel of land that v almost 20 years. Please advise. Thank you in advance Mickey JL Masse (Mickev) Appen Annalee 09/22/2022 Hi, Moore Our Engineering and utilities staff are currently reviewing the servicing strategy for the site. services would need to be extended along New Dundee Road (from the east) and would not Dodge Drive. Katie -----Original Message ----- From: Annalee------------- Sent: Thursday, September 22, 2022 3:50 PM To: Katie Anderl <Katie.Anderl@kitchener.ca> Subject: Re: Application for development 1000 New Dundee Road Thanks. I am curious where they will run the water, sewer and gas from. As you know we don't and the gas and (soon sewer) run down Dodge Drive. Annalee > On Sep 22, 2022, at 9:26 AM, Katie Anderl <Katie.Anderl@kitchener.ca> wrote: > Hi Annalee, > Thanks for reaching out. The information will be posted on our website, however there is so between me making the request to post and it going 'live'. I have attached a pdf copy of the cc Subdivision Plan for your information. Any you could check back using this link in a few days tc information. httos://can0l.safeIinks.r)rotection.outlook.com/?url=httr)s%3A%2F%2FexDerience.arcRis.coml, e61bd043209clf16d16a3ced0c%2Fpage%2FHighlighted-Applications%2F%3Fdata id%3Ddata! Planning Applications Active 5584%253A1159%26views%3Dview- 2 Featurelnfo art&data=05%7C01%7CKatie.Anderl%40kitchener.ca%7C08580447146b4c c703d79153f643a59255622eb33alb0b%7CO 7CO 7C637994729925501967%7CUnknown%71 MC4wLiAwMDAi LCJQlioiV2luMzl iLCJBTil61 klhaWwi LCJXVC16Mn0%3D%7C3000%7C%7C%7C&z MtIJYecyXJIQOwlP1mPvOGn%2Fy%2Fn1Y1s%3D&reserved=0 Appen > The area of lands closest to Dodge Drive contains Blair Creek and is proposed to be zoned Na Conservation and is proposed to be dedicated to the City. The section of lands closest to New to be zoned RES -5 to permit the condominium townhouses. > If you have any questions or comments you can email them to my attention. > Thanks, > Katie > Katie Anderl > Senior Planner I Planning Division I City of Kitchener > 519-741-2200 x7987 I TTY 1-866-969-9994 1 katie.anderl@kitchener.ca W > -----Original Message----- * From: Annalee ----------------------------------- > Sent: Thursday, September 22, 2022 7:19 AM > To: Katie Anderl <Katie.Anderl@kitchener.ca> > Subject: Application for development 1000 New Dundee Road > Good morning Katie, we received a postcard in the mail about this. The pictures on the card impossible to read. I had hoped it would be available on the planning site but it isn't. Do you r please? > Also, if we have concerns about this development how do we voice them? > Thank you > Annalee Moore Appen ------------------------------------ Kitchener Annalee 10/12/2022 Hi Katie, here are some concerns we have about developing this property. Moore 1. What impact will it have on the wetlands behind it? 2. Big concerns with the increased traffic on New Dundee Road. 3. What impact will running services have down New Dundee Road from the East? 4. Overall environmental impact. 5. The swamp area behind it is known for its salamander population. I am not sure if they are J1 since they are in the area. 6. The creek is already running very low this year so what impact could this have down the roar 7. 1 want to make sure that this subdivision doesn't include any drilled wells as that could impa only have a 30 foot well. Please keep me informed of any updates and I would definitely encourage you to have commu Annalee 12/01/2022 Hi Annalee, Moore We do have a recording of the meeting and a copy of the presentation that will be uploaded tc can access them via this link: https://app2.kitchener.ca/AppDocs/OpenData/AMANDADataSets/Supporting Documents List posted under the "Engagement" heading. If you have further questions of comments after you have had a chance to review please let mE At this time, the final servicing plan is still under review by the City and the Region. My unders sanitary services will need to be extended along New Dundee Road from the east, however I w gas line would be extended from. Kind Regards, Katie From: Annalee ---------------------------------- Sent: Wednesday, December 7, 2022 2:54 PM To: Katie Anderl <Katie.Anderl@kitchener.ca> Appen Cc: Christine Michaud <Christine.Michaud@kitchener.ca> Subject: Re: You're Invited to a Neighbourhood Information Meeting - 1000 New Dundee Road Hi Katie, I wasn't able to attend last week. Would you have information you can share with ME It looks like they are already planning on running gas lines up Dodge and then down New Dund development been approved? Thanks Annalee Tim 10/11/2022 Hi Tim, Hasenpflug Thanks for the questions and comments below. I have provided brief responses below and haN the plans for your reference. I acknowledge the postcard provide very little space for images, k information available on our website (https://experience.arcgis.com/experience/bb2db3e6lbdO43209clfl6dl6a3cedOc/) . The proposed height of 13.5 metres represents a 3 storey building with a peaked roof, and tak( grades. The applicant is proposing a range of unit types including 2 and 3 storey units (elevatic website). The Natural Heritage area is Block 2 on the proposed plan (shown in green) and includse Blair wetlands, as well as a 30 m buffer area. This parcel is proposed to be conveyed to the City as r term protection and preservation as part of the Natural Heritage system. With respect to servicing, the applicant is proposing to extend services along New Dundee Roa serving plans are currently under review by the City and Regional Engineering staff. They have also prepared a traffic study which is currently being reviewed by the Region and Cil to evaluate whether there are any improvements needed on New Dundee due to this developr Region of Waterloo is planning some improvements on New Dundee Road at Robert Ferrie anc Appen believe that construction is scheduled for the summer of 2024 (https://www.engagewr.ca/kitc roundabout/widgets/101854/photos/24199) (https://www.engagewr.ca/proposed-roundabo new-dundee). I am also following up with my regional colleagues to see if there are any other New Dundee that may be of interest. Kind Regards, Katie From: --------------------------------------------- Sent: Tuesday, October 11, 2022 6:17 PM To: Katie Anderl <Katie.Anderl@kitchener.ca>; Christine Michaud <Christine.Michaud@kitcher Subject: New Dundee Road - 127 Townhouse Units My comments with this build are as follows: 1) The drawing that was submitted to area residence is so small that it is un readable. 2) Is 13.5 metres height a standard build 3) What does Natural Heritage dedicated to City 4) Another build on New Dundee road but where is the infrastructure to support this proj traffic. (Traffic needs to be addressed soon from the region as New Dundee road feels 5) 127 Townhomes seem to be very high density build. Regards, Tim Hasenpflug Tony Christie May 5, Hi Tony, 2023 Our standard for such fencing would be a 1.5 metre high chain link fence. The retaining wall we up to about 2.0 m high the fence would be on top. The purpose of the fence is to prevent access and so there will be no gate to allow residents in - walking or any other purpose. However, there will be a locked gate which will be accessible to to access to the wetland from the south (and access will be provided over the condo for that p Appen be responsible for the long term maintenance of the wetlands that are being dedicated to us. corporation is responsible for maintenance of the private property including the fence. This re in the subdivision agreement and a future site plan agreement. Regards, Katie From: Tony Christie ---------------------------------- Sent: Tuesday, May 9, 2023 3:14 PM To: Katie Anderl <Katie.Anderl@kitchener.ca> Subject: Re: Fence? Hi Katie, Great. Thanks. I can't make out if the fenc(es) are specced in any detail. (Type? Height? Materi Responsibility for maintenance, repairs, etc.? Responsibility for remediation of pollution, litter, OVER fenc(es), ATV's and Dirt Bikes (motorbikes) despoiling the natural heritage areas, trail ne As one walks through the new neighbourhoods to the north of Dodge Drive, one is struck by th problems, despite fences, and barricades. And one is struck by the lack of remediation over tir Is the City, as the Partyvwho grants development permits, responsible for remediation or enfoi Thanks, Tony Sent from my iPhone On May 9, 2023, at 2:08 PM, Katie Anderl <Katie.Anderl@kitchener.ca> wrote: Hi To Appen Yes, the is a fence proposed along the boundary---------------------------------------. There is a fence of the towns backing onto the wetland, and a fence/retaining wall along the western property access to the wetland/natural area and to the adjacent private properties. Kind Regards, Katei -----Original Message ----- From: Tony Christie ---------------------------------------- Sent: Friday, May 5, 2023 1:23 PM To: Katie Anderl <Katie.Anderl@kitchener.ca> Subject: Fence? Hi Katie, Hope this finds you well. Earlier you seemed to indicate that a fence was something worthy of Thx Tony Tony Christie April 27, Wow! What a nice clear answer! Perfect! Thanks. 2023 Sent from my iPhone > On Apr 28, 2023, at 8:34 AM, Niall Melanson <Niall.Melanson@kitchener.ca> wrote: > Good morning Tony > This would be a privately designed and funded project to extend the sanitary sewer and watE Road. Once constructed and placed on initial acceptance the infrastructure goes on a 2 year m; being accepted (owned) by the City. With that said, Kitchener Utilities is responsible for operat through the maintenance period. > New Dundee Road is a Regionally owned road (RR12). The Region and the City are still in disc like this specific construction to proceed. In a typical situation where private money is fully fun Appen at the owners discretion whether to publicly or privately tender the construction. The City has that developers follow which includes posting guarantees with the City and signing into an Eng > I am happy to discuss further with you if you would like. > Thank you. > Niall Melanson, C.E.T. > Project Manager, Development Engineering, City of Kitchener > niall.melanson@kitchener.ca, 519-741-2200 x 7133 > 200 King St. W., Kitchener, ON N2G 4GX > -----Original Message----- > From: Katie Anderl <Katie.Anderl@kitchener.ca> > Sent: Friday, April 28, 2023 8:10 AM > To: Niall Melanson <Niall.Melanson@kitchener.ca> > Subject: FW: 1000 N Dundee > Hi Niall, > Please see Tony's additional comments below. They are very specific - are you able to help rE give him a call? > Thanks, > Katie > -----Original Message----- > From: Tony Christie ---------------------------------------- > Sent: Thursday, April 27, 2023 7:55 PM > To: Katie Anderl <Katie.Anderl@kitchener.ca> > Subject: Re: 1000 N Dundee > Thx. This obviously has to be coordinated with the City, at least at the point of connection to infrastructure. And I suppose that once installation is complete the City then operates and mai I suppose ownership of the extensions becomes the City's at some point. Appen > What is the Citiy's Involvement during the construction phase. Does the developer put the jo otherwise contract with installers, or is the City responsible for this and simply bills the develor > Thanks, > Tony > Sent from my iPhone >> On Apr 27, 2023, at 4:42 PM, Katie Anderl <Katie.Anderl@kitchener.ca> wrote: >> Hi Tony, >> I've reached out to our Engineering staff and they have confirmed that only sanitary and wa The developer will construct a private stormwater management facility on-site. >> Regards, >> Katie >> -----Original Message----- » From: Tony Christie ---------------------------------------- >> Sent: Thursday, April 27, 2023 1:38 PM >> To: Katie Anderl <Katie.Anderl@kitchener.ca> >> Subject: 1000 N Dundee >> Hi again Katie, >> Hi Katie, >> Are thes the services under discussion? >> 1. potable water mains, >> 2 sanitary sewers, >> 3 storm sewers >> Thanks, >> Tony Hi Tony, Costs associated with this service extension are the responsibility of the developer. Katie Appen From: Tony Christie ---------------------------------- Sent: April 27, 2023 9:23 AM To: Katie Anderl <Katie.Anderl@kitchener.ca> Subject: Re: 1000 New Dundee Road Thanks, Katie. What will the extension of services cost? Who bears this cost? Sent from my iPhone > On Apr 27, 2023, at 8:38 AM, Katie Anderl <Katie.Anderl@kitchener.ca> wrote: > Hi Tony, > I've attached a copy of the proposed draft plan for your information which shows the 2 block hectares and the development block is 4.6 hectares. > Servicing is proposed to be extended along New Dundee from the direction of Robert Ferrie. > Please let me know if you have further questions, > Katie > -----Original Message----- > From: Tony Christie ---------------------------------------- > Sent: Wednesday, April 26, 2023 7:54 PM > To: Katie Anderl <Katie.Anderl@kitchener.ca> > Subject: 1000 New Dundee Road > Hey Katie, hope this finds you well. Couple questions. About 1000 New Dundee Rd. > 1. The application designates 2 "blocks" (the built part and the wetland, etc part). Can you pl size(s) of these? > 2. You'd mentioned that services (water, sewers, idk what all) would be extended from the a Appen and Robert Ferrie? (Or have I got this wrong?) > Sent from my iPhone > <1000 New Dundee - Draft Plan.pdf> Tony Christie 10/11/2022 Hi Tony, The roadway you are seeing internal to the site is actually a private condominium road, and we street and provide access/frontage---------------------------------------------------------------. The condo couple of metres below the grade -------------------------- and a retaining wall constructed near th of 1000 New Dundee Road. With respect to access to commercial, currently New Dundee Road has a rural cross-section (2 ditches). However as Doon and the south part of the City of Kitchener continues to grow this F improved by the Region. You may be aware that a roundabout is planned near Robert Ferrie a Hallman. I believe that construction is scheduled for the summer of 2024 (https://www.engag dundee-road-roundabout/widgets/101854/photos/24199) (https://www.engagewr.ca/propos fischerhallman-and-new-dundee). I expect that over the coming years the Region will also rebs Dundee so that it becomes more urban. At such time as its rebuilt they would likely include pe facilities such as sidewalk and bike lanes or a multi -use trail that will facilitate better access alo clarity, this site is proposed to be 127 units (not 500) and would ensure that the sidewalks inte to connect at regular intervals to sidewalks or a Multi -use pathway which may be constructed The applicant has also prepared servicing plans that are being reviewed by the City and Region that services would need to be extended from the east (Robert Ferrie) along New Dundee Roa( Kind Regards, Katie From: Tony Christie ----------------------------------------- Sent: Wednesday, October 19, 2022 8:48 AM To: Katie Anderl <Katie.Anderl@kitchener.ca> Subject: Re: Questions and concerns re "Development" Proposal Appen I'm trying to think where the nearest city and other services are. So how does this community drinking water, sewage, storm water mgt„ natural gas etc. grids? From: Tony Christie --------------------------------------- Sent: October 19, 2022 8:38 AM To: Tony Christie --------------------------------------- Subject: Re: Questions and concerns re "Development" Proposal Also, the purple areas on the map you sent me appear only to be accessible via a route that in( on Regional Road 12. How might the planning process facilitate and ecourage safe foot, bicycle communication between the proposed development and these? 500 plus units means lots of k people, pets... Sorry to pester you with these sporadic micro -questions. I work a full time job and can only usE during the day. From: Tony Christie --------------------------------------- Sent: October 19, 2022 8:13 AM To: Katie Anderl <katie.anderl@kitchener.ca> Subject: Re: Questions and concerns re "Development" Proposal Thanks, Katie, Re access to a public road. The plan appears to have a substantial roadway dead -ending Tony From: Katie Anderl <Katie.Anderl@kitchener.ca> Sent: October 18, 2022 3:22 PM To: Tony Christie --------------------------------------- Cc: Richard Kelly-Ruetz <Richard.Kelly-Ruetz@kitchener.ca> Subject: RE: Questions and concerns re "Development" Proposal Hi Tony, Appen My colleague Richard will be able to help with respect to questions about the zoning and desig property. I've cc'd him here. It looks like your property is designated Natural Heritage Conser) Rise Residential ------------------------------ It also has the same FTR zone as 1000 New Dundee Ro; owner proposed development, the boundary between the developable area and wetlands woL environmental studies. The development proposal would have to be evaluated through a full r would likely include environmental, engineering/servicing plans and reports, planning studies rri With respect to your questions regarding the development application I can provide the follow Schools — both the public and catholic school boards and will provide comment. Transit — I don't believe that Grand River Transit currently has a route on this section of New D new neighbourhoods grow and there is further development in the south pat of Kitchener, the transit routes and may elect to add bus routes over time. Retail — there are a number of commercial (purple) and mixed use (light blue) sites planned in 1 shown on the map below. I don't know whether these would provide for a grocery store, how opportunity for other neighbourhood scale commercial uses. Trespass onto neighbouring lands —the developer will be required to install a fence between tl the protected environmental area to prevent access. ---------------------------------------------------- - Appen If you have specific questions about the zoning of your property or the designation or the proc applied Richard will be able to assist you. Thanks, Katie From: Tony Christie --------------------------------------- Sent: Monday, October 17, 2022 1:28 PM To: Katie Anderl <Katie.Anderl@kitchener.ca> Subject: Re: Questions and concerns re "Development" Proposal Sorry Katie if my statement re seeking legal advice sounds belligerent. It's not meant to. I'm als any severance/development potential ------------------------------------ understanding these mattes don't mean to imply that I have any dispute with the 2014 designation. On its face it seems inn perhaps I don't understand it fully and it behooves (ha!) me to do so. Yours non-beligerently, Tony From: Tony Christie --------------------------------------- Sent: October 17, 2022 12:19 PM To: Katie Anderl <katie.anderl@kitchener.ca> Subject: Re: Questions and concerns re "Development" Proposal 4. What responsibility, if any, does the developer assume to prevent trespass, dumping, etc ---. Thx Tony From: Tony Christie ----------------- Sent: October 17, 2022 12:08 PM Appen To: Katie Anderl <katie.anderl@kitchener.ca> Subject: Re: Questions and concerns re "Development" Proposal Thanks, Katie. I'm still a bit confused by the 2014 designation and I'm seeking legal advice to hE my mind. As you might imagine, I'm a bit taken aback that this is the first I'm hearing of it, eigh A couple further questions have occured to me. 1. Where will the children go to school? 2. Where will the residents be expected to ago for food, etc. 3. What sort of public transit is planned? Thanks, Tony From: Katie Anderl <Katie.Anderl@kitchener.ca> Sent: October 12, 2022 4:20 PM To: Tony Christie --------------------------------------- Subject: RE: Questions and concerns re "Development" Proposal Hi Tony, I have provided some additional information and explanation on the various lines shown on th Subdivision (attached) — which I believe is what you are referencing. Below, I've pasted an exc Environmental Impact Study completed by the applicant for 1000 New Dundee Road which me the environmental features. With specific regard to your questions (I've provided responses in blue): Appen Appen 1.Under what aegis has a portion of the property at ---------------------------------------- been desigr Heritage Area"? When and how did this designation come into existence? The Natural Heritage Conservation Designation was applied to the property through the City's conformity with the Reginal Official Plan and Provincial Policy Statement to recognize the envir Creek, Regulatory Floodplain, Provincially Significant Wetland) located on the subject property Grand River Conservation Authority (see attached map). The environmental features have beE development prohibited for many years. The Natural Heritage Conservation designation recogi and the natural feature (creek and wetland complex). The label on the plan recognizes this de 2. What process has led to the purported change to the "Wetland Limit" such that there is a nE wetland limit extend onto the property at ---------------------------------------? The wetland limit it not 'new' but has been 'refined'. An Environmental Impact Statement (EIS) Region and/or GRCA to support a development application if adjacent to lands designated Nat Conservation. A requirement of an EIS is to accurately depict/survey the location of environm( inventories and surveys are conducted that will often result in refinements to more accurately features from what has been mapped in the Official Plan and/or by the Grand River Conservati in this area is quite large and extends upon multiple properties. 3. How does the Existing Floodline relate to the two (old and new) Wetland Limits? What is a F Wetland Limit? How are these determined? The "floodline" and the "wetland limit' denote different features and they are not necessary cc - The 'Floodline' indicates the extent of flooding hazard. In the case of a flooding situation, thi! how far the flood may extend to based on the elevation of the lands. The GRCA establishes the and this would have been in place for many years. The dark blue line on the map above is the by the GRCA, and you can see that it continues--------------------------------------------------------------. the floodline cannot be developed. - The 'wetland limit' is the edge of the edge of the natural feature. This boundary is establishe GRCA on site. In short, the edge of the wetland is staked in the field and agreed to by environr the environmental consultants, City, Region and GRCA and then surveyed. This is shown as the map above. The wetland limit has not been studied on the lands ------------------------- so the exa expect it would continue from where the established line ends at the property line and would Appen there. In this case, this is a provincially significant wetland and there is also a 30 metre buffer buffer ensures that any development occurs well away from the sensitive natural feature in or it. Should someone propose new development at ---------------------------------------they would ha, types of studies as at 1000 New Dundee to establish the wetland limit. ---------------------------------------is currently zoned "Future Use Zone (FTR-1)" in the City's new zoi approved by Council in March. The purpose of this zone is to allow existing uses (such as a hou studies/applications can be done to confirm the boundary between developable areas and nat property. The FTR-1 zone recognizes that your property has both developable land and natural meant to be a "holding zone" of sorts until more studies are completed. Please let me know if you have any further questions. Thanks! Katie From: Tony Christie --------------------------------------- Sent: Tuesday, October 11, 2022 5:11 AM To: Katie Anderl <Katie.Anderl@kitchener.ca> Subject: Re: Questions and concerns re "Development" Proposal Further to Question 2. in my previous email... How does the Existing Floodline relate to the twc Limits? What is a Floodline? What is a Wetland Limit? How are these determined? 1. Under what aegis has a portion of the property at -- "Existing Natural Heritage Area"? When and how did this designation come intc What process has led to the purported change to the "Wetland Limit" such tha Thanks, Tony Christie Appen Tony Christie 09/22/2022 Thanks for the PDF files and web links. Hard copies would be better still. From: Tony Christie Sent: September 22, 2022 1:52 PM To: Katie Anderl <katie.anderl@kitchener.ca> Subject: ---------------------------------- Anthony Christie ---------------------------------- -------------------------------- Kitchener, ON ------------------ From: Katie Anderl <Katie.Anderl@kitchener.ca> Sent: September 22, 2022 1:01 PM To: Tony Christie ---------------------------------- Subject: RE: ----------------------------------------- Hi Anthony, I have received your email and voicemail with respect to the notice your received about a prop New Dundee Road. Attached, please find PDF copies of the images included on the postcard — to read. On the Proposed Draft Plan of Subdivision, the green area of land closest to Dodge Drive conta proposed to be zoned Natural Heritage Conservation and dedicated to the City. The lands clos and shown as yellow is proposed to be zoned to permit the condominium townhouses. Additional information and reports will be posted on our website shortly, however there is son making the request to post and it going 'live' . You should be able to find additional informatio https://experience.arcgis.com/experience/bb2db3e6lbd043209clfl6dl6a3cedOcZ Appen With respect to the application process, this post card is intended to be a preliminary notice — highlevel comments or questions you might have. We will schedule a Neighbourhood Informa and there will continue to be additional opportunity to provide input after the October 12 at ai Neighbourhood Information Meeting. If you could confirm your mailing address I'd be happy to add you to our list of parties who are informed and receiving future correspondence about this application. Thanks, Katie From: Tony Christie ----------------------------------- Sent: Thursday, September 22, 2022 12:33 PM To: Katie Anderl <Katie.Anderl@kitchener.ca> Subject: ---------------------------------- Hello Ms Anderl, My name is Anthony Christie. I am I received your postcard sketching, in extreme miniature, what looks to be a substantial townh ------------------------------------------------- . In order to comment in any sort of informed manner I %A than is provided on the card. The card suggests I might be able to get this by visiting www.kitchener.ca/planningapplications but this website doesn't work very well on my phone's can find nothing relevant there. Please with all possible haste send me full sized hard copies of any and all documents associat( such as might be of interest and use in helping me understand what is being asked if me by Oct change that date to, say, January 12th, 2023, in order that I have time to do whatever may nee Thanks Anthony Christie Appen ---------------------------------- ---------------------------------- Kitchener, ON Tom 12/02/2022 Hello Woodcock Thank you for the information, and the contact info for the PM of the New Dundee Road desigi information, I agree that effects from storm water at this development will minimal on ground presumably the Roseville Swamp. I am less convinced about the salt, particularly since this dev many more in the area. However, I will be sure to read the entire water report when I get the c Best wishes, Tom Tom Woodcock, Ph.D. Planning Ecologist rare Charitable Research Reserve 1679 Blair Road, Cambridge ON N3H 4R8 phone: 519-650-9336 x121 fax: 519-650-5923 email: tom.woodcock@raresites.org website: raresites.org From: Katie Anderl <Katie.Anderl@kitchener.ca> Sent: December 5, 2022 1:50 PM To: Tom Woodcock <Tom.Woodcock@raresites.org> Cc: Carrie Musselman <Carrie.Mussel man@kitchener.ca> Subject: RE: 1000 New Dundee Road Hi Tom, Thanks for providing these additional comments. We have provided a number of responses be The reports and studies submitted by the applicant in support of their application are all availa EIS, SWM, etc) should you wish to review them more closely: https://app2.kitchener.ca/AppDocs/OpenData/AMANDADataSets/Supporting Docum Appen Thanks again for your participation in the process, Katie From: Tom Woodcock <Tom.Woodcock@raresites.org> Sent: Friday, December 2, 2022 11:42 AM To: Katie Anderl <Katie.Anderl@kitchener.ca> Cc: Carrie Musselman<Carrie.Mussel man@kitchener.ca>; Tom Woodcock <Tom.Woodcock@r Subject: RE: 1000 New Dundee Road Dear Katie and Carrie I attended the neighbourhood meeting last night on Zoom, thank you for hosting that and pro\ adjacent property owners. I would like to submit the following comments, which I am happy tc • Overall I think that the design of the development is good, with a higher than required parking. I have no doubt that existing roadways can handle a relatively small amount o although this may not be the case as more density and greenfield developments enter on our experiences with larger subdivisions and traffic concerns near our land trust pr( am not in favour of increasing number or capacity of roads to improve the convenience vehicle operators, particularly only for short "rush hour" periods each day. More about however • 1 was pleased to see that the natural heritage area around Blair Creek and its buffer ar( area, rather than simply as extended amenity areas for recreation of the residents. We our own properties that trails lead to many issues, such as dumping, dogs, motorized v etc., so it is good that exclusion fencing and signage is planned to protect the area, incl had to speak to other municipalities about buffers being used for trails, structures, etc, that the area be appropriately monitored and managed by the City to prevent these is: years and decades to come. The City will have an access easement from the southern side of the property to respond to any concerns. • 1 had asked a question in the Q+A last night about the discharge from the SWM pond, l did not seem equipped to address the concern, so I thought I would provide the comm Appen a. The discharge of the SWM pond into Blair Creek requires more explanation. Tl describing an infiltration gallery was confusing, as that is not something that *i have, however the respondent may have been referring to a cooling trench to addition to thermal issues, stormwater discharged to Blair Creek would also hZ Unlike other pollutants such as fertilizers and metals, there is no mechanism b' salt can be removed from water, short of reverse osmosis or distillation/evapo stormwater pond is collecting water from roads and driveways (as opposed to measures, see below) a winter bypass should be considered to mitigate salt. b. I do not imagine that the GRCA would support winter stormwater discharge to 23 they are not allowed to comment on water pollution issues in their evaluati c. Preferred modern stormwater management on residential properties would it which may have led to the confusion described above. Clean runoff (i.e. that fr has not been in contact with motor vehicle traffic) would pass into the gallerie level of the lot (or maybe a few lots for townhouses). This supports groundwat water, without salt. Division of stormwater based on its source, with separate be considered for this project to support groundwater and Blair Creek (and po! The City of Kitchener has adopted a Watershed Planning Process for development within the Ci the City of Kitchener Integrated Stormwater Management Master Plan (ISWM-MP) documents objectives for stormwater management within the City of Kitchener. • The stormwater controls for this development will use a treatment train approach, m treatment systems (in a consecutive order) to manage stormwater flows. The advar provides greater flexibility and opportunities to discharge water into the natural env, more closely mimics 'natural' conditions. • Of particular importance for this development is providing water to the wetland in a c landscape. This offers opportunities for groundwater recharge, which is important for Creek and controlling/reducing the volume of surface water discharged to the et groundwater infiltration. • The treatment of stormwater will be managed through a series of infiltration galleries t the site. These infiltration galleries will be sized to manage frequent storm events up to result in no surface discharge from the site under events less than 25 mm. Larger ever pond, which will discharge to an infiltration gallery, with excess water discharged nortF dispersed surface flow. Appen • It is understood that all runoff generated on the roadway will be conveyed to an oil-gi wet pond, end -of -pipe infiltration gallery, and into Blair Creek. The purpose of tf appropriate levels of total soluble solids (TSS) prior to entering the system. • The on-site storm sewers will be sized to convey the flows generated by the 5 -year des. collected in the storm sewers will be directed to an OGS unit located at the east side o stormwater management facility, followed by an end -of -pipe infiltration gallery. • The runoff generated on the Site will ultimately discharge to Upper Blair Creek at the ni • The proposed SWM design incorporates a distributive groundwater recharge approach even enhance the existing shallow groundwater flow to the wetland and Blair Creek. • The SWM design is also intended to help mitigate thermal impacts to Blair Creek as the all directed to the infiltration galleries and not discharge directly into the creek. It is c will help to maintain the hydrology of the PSW, maintain the thermal regime of Blair Cre erosion risks. • The Hydrogeological Assessment Report demonstrates a sufficient regard for me groundwater issues, such as, but not limited to, seasonal groundwater level fluctuations, water supply issues, groundwater mounding, and short-term construction dewaterin( average linear groundwater velocity (0.4m/day) predicted travel times to Blair Creek, ) north of the northern most edge of development, will achieve greater than six-montf therefore temperature impacts to Blair Creek are not anticipated. • A chloride impact assessment for the Site was prepared as part of the storm water man( impacts to the groundwater system, and if necessary, mitigate the impacts by propos and construction techniques. The assessment requires the calculation of the salt loadinc the groundwater so as to ensure that groundwater chloride concentrations will remain Guidelines established by the Ministry of the Environment, Conservation and Parks (ME MOE). The results indicated that the proposed design will meet the Ontario Drinkin Reasonable Use Concept limit. My concern for rare's own property in the Roseville Swamp feature includes discourag features on the south side of New Dundee Rd. It is good that sound and privacy barrier the development will be installed, at least over part of the southern boundary. The key attention of residents to the conservation land, and not providing an easy means of ac concerned by the discussion of road upgrades on New Dundee Rd scheduled for 2030. road adjacent to the Roseville Swamp is not developed, I would suggest no multi -use ti access to our property be included in future, but confined to the north side of the roac Appen contact information for those working on this project at the Region, I would like to exp implications of increasing human access to the properties. Please contact Saman Ajamzadeh (project manager) Ph — 226-750-7503, Email — saiamzadeh@regionofwaterloo. ca for additional information future improvements to P Thankyou Tom Tom Woodcock, Ph.D. Planning Ecologist rare Charitable Research Reserve 1679 Blair Road, Cambridge ON N3H 4R8 Appen .-Pity of Kitchener- Planning Division E 200 King Street W est, fit' Floor Box "1118itchener DN N2GG7 Staff Report r NJ :R Development Services Department www.kitchener.ca REPORT TO: Planning and Strategic Initiatives Committee DATE OF MEETING: June 19, 2023 SUBMITTED BY: Stevenson, Garett — Interim Director of Planning, 519-741-2200 ext. 7070 PREPARED BY: Stevenson, Garett — Interim Director of Planning, 519-741-2200 ext. 7070 WARD(S) INVOLVED: All Wards DATE OF REPORT: June 6, 2023 REPORT NO.: DSD -2023-276 SUBJECT: Significant Planning Applications Update - Quarterly Report RECOMMENDATION: For Information BACKGROUND: Planning staff provide a quarterly update report every March, June, September, and December of each year of all current significant development applications. It is important to be providing greater transparency on significant development applications with the community and Council. REPORT: Attached to this report, the Significant Planning Applications Quarterly Report (Q2 2023) provides a summary of the current Planning applications under review at the time of the preparation of this report. The current significant development applications section includes Subdivision, Official Plan Amendment, and Zoning By-law Amendments that have not received final approval. These are the bulk of the applications that Planning Staff consult with the community on an application specific basis. Significant development applications include property specific proposals as well as new greenfield communities (subdivisions). Additional details on the development applications can be found using the online mapping tool available at www.kitchener.ca/planningapplications. 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. *** This information is available in accessible formats upon request. *** Please call 519-741-2345 or TTY 1-866-969-9994 for assistance. Page 339 of 350 COMMUNITY ENGAGEMENT: INFORM — This report has been posted to the City's website with the agenda in advance of the Council / Committee meeting. CONSULT — Significant development application specific engagements are undertaken for Official Plan Amendment, Zoning By-law, and Subdivision applications. Engagement includes mailing postcards to property owners and occupants of all buildings within 240 metres of the subject lands, publishing a newspaper notice when the application is first circulated and when the statutory public meeting is scheduled, as well as informal community meetings including Neighbourhood Meetings and/or site walks. A large plain language sign is also posted on the property. PREVIOUS REPORTS/AUTHORITIES: There are no previous reports/authorities related to this matter. APPROVED BY: Justin Readman — General Manager, Development Services ATTACHMENTS: Attachment A — Significant Planning Applications Quarterly Report (Q2 2023) Page 340 of 350 Attachment A — Significant Planning Applications Quarterly Report (Q2 2023) Current Significant Development Applications Subdivision (SA), Official Plan Amendment (OPA), Zoning By-law Amendment (ZBA) WARD 1 104 WOOLWICH ST Proposal: Two 3.5 -storey multiple dwellings (stacked townhouses) with 24 dwelling units each (total of 48 dwelling units). File Number: OP18/007/W/AP Description: The owner is requesting a Site -Specific Policy to allow an FSR of up to 0.9. Application Type: OPA Status: This application has been circulated and Planning staff are accepting and reviewing comments. File Number: ZBA18/009/W/AP Description: The owner is requesting to change the zoning from Agricultural (A-1) to Residential Six Zone (R-6) along with a Site Specific Provisions to: a) reduce the minimum front yard from 4.5 metres to 1.0 metres, b) eliminate the requirement for Private Patio Areas for at -grade dwelling units, c) increase the maximum Floor Space Ratio from 0.6 to 0.9, and d) reduce the required parking from 1.75 spaces per unit to 1.2 spaces per unit. Application Type: ZBA Status: This application has been circulated and Planning staff are accepting and reviewing comments. Staff Contact: Andrew Pinnell Neighbourhood Meeting Date: TBD Owner: 1238455 ONTARIO LIMITED Applicant: GSP GROUP INC Update Since Last Quarterly Report: Planning Staff and the Applicant are considering input provided through the initial circulation. 26 STANLEY AVENUE & 31 SCHWEITZER STREET Proposal: The Site is proposed to be developed with a residential subdivision consisting of 42 single detached dwelling lots, 12 semi-detached dwelling lots (total of 24 dwellings) and a 5 -unit street -townhouse block totaling 71 residential units. The Proposed Development will be accessed by a future municipal road connecting to Stanley Avenue. File Number: 30T-21201 Description: A residential plan of subdivision consisting of single detached dwellings, semi-detached dwellings, and townhouse dwellings, totaling 72 units. Application Type: SA Status: This application has been circulated and Planning staff are accepting and reviewing comments. File Number: ZBA21/19/S/BB Description: To rezone the Site from Residential Four (R-4) and Residential Five (R-5) to the Low Rise Residential Five (RES -5) Zone with a Site -Specific Provision to permit a maximum building height of 12.5 metres. Application Type: ZBA Status: This application has been circulated and Planning staff are accepting and reviewing comments. Staff Contact: Brian Bateman Neighbourhood Meeting Date: May 31, 2022. Owner: Newo Holdings Limited Applicant: GSP Group Inc. Update Since Last Quarterly Report: A Neighbourhood Meeting was held on May 31, 2022 and Planning Staff and the Applicant are considering input provided at the Neighbourhood Meeting. Page 341 of 350 WARD 2 New Applications 2934 King Street East Proposal: An 11 -storey mixed use building containing 77 dwelling units and approximately 800M2 of ground floor commercial space. A Floor Space Ratio (FSR) of 2.52 is proposed. 157 parking spaces are proposed within 2 underground parking levels. File Number: OPA23/005/K/ES Description: The applicant is proposing a site-specific policy area to permit a maximum Floor Space Ratio (FSR) of 2.52. Application Type: OPA Status: This application has been circulated and Planning staff are accepting and reviewing comments. File Number: ZBA23/009/K/ES Description: The applicant is proposing to add a site-specific provision to the existing `General Commercial Zone (COM -2)' zoning on site for increase in Floor Space Ratio to 2.52, yard setbacks, building height, parking location and maximum, and visibility triangles. Application Type: ZBA Status: This application has been circulated and Planning staff are accepting and reviewing comments. Staff Contact: Eric Schneider Neighbourhood Meeting Date: June 20, 2023 Owner: 2748244 Ontario Inc. Applicant: Evans Planning Update Since Last Quarterly Report: New Application. This application has been circulated and Planning staff are accepting and reviewing comments. 50 Thaler Ave Proposal: The WCDSB received funding from the Ministry of Education to construct a new 527 Catholic elementary school and 88 space childcare centre on the WCDSB Property. As part of the redevelopment plans for the future elementary and childcare centre, the WCDSB and City of Kitchener have explored options to reconfigure Kinzie Park and the school lands to improve the layout, function and access for both properties. File Number: OPA23/009/T/CD Description: To redesignate this portion of the site from Institutional to Open Space, and vice versa. Application Type: OPA Status: This application has been circulated and Planning staff are accepting and reviewing comments. File Number: ZBA23/014/T/CD Description: To rezone a portion of the WCDSB Property from Neighbourhood Institutional (INS -1) to Open Space: Greenways (OSR-2), and vice versa. Application Type: ZBA Status: This application has been circulated and Planning staff are accepting and reviewing comments. Staff Contact: Craig Dumart Neighbourhood Meeting Date: TBD Owner: City of Kitchener and Waterloo Applicant: GSP Planning Catholic School Board Update Since Last Quarterly Report: New Application. This application has just been received. Page 342 of 350 WARD 3 New Applications 1018 Hidden Valley Rd Proposal: A 26 unit (lot) single detached vacant land condominium development. File Number: OPA23/006/H/BB Description: A site-specific policy to permit the proposed net residential density of 8 units per net hectare, whereas a maximum of 4 units per hectare is currently permitted. Application Type: OPA Status: This application has been circulated and Planning staff are accepting and reviewing comments. File Number: ZBA23/010/H/BB Description: To change the zoning of the subject lands from Residential One (R-1) to Residential Two (R-2) under Zoning By-law 85-1. Application Type: ZBA Status: This application has been circulated and Planning staff are accepting and reviewing comments. Staff Contact: Brian Bateman Neighbourhood Meeting Date: June 21, 2023 Owner: Eva a Development Inc. Applicant: MHBC Planning Update Since Last Quarterly Report: New Application. This application has been circulated and Planning staff are accepting and reviewing comments. Page 343 of 350 WARD 4 448 NEW DUNDEE RD Proposal: A condominium development with 24 single detached houses with frontage onto a private condominium road. Description: To change the zoning to Residential Six (R-6) to permit File Number: ZBA20/003/N/AP Description: the application requests to change the zoning from R-1 Application Type: ZBA Zone (allows single detached dwellings on lots with a min. lot area of spaces are to be provided throughout the site. The proposed residential development also includes a central 4,000 m2 and min. lot width of 30 m2) to R-6 (allows single detached Staff Contact: Katie Anderl dwellings on lots with a min. lot area of 235 m2 and min. lot width of Owner: A & F GREENFIELD HOMES 9 m2). Application Type: ZBA Status: This application has been circulated and Planning staff are Update Since Last Quarterly Report: accepting and reviewing comments. Staff Contact: Andrew Pinnell Neighbourhood Meeting Date: November 25, 2021. Owner: HAYRE PROPERTIES INC Applicant: GSP Group Inc. Update Since Last Quarterly Report: Planning Staff and the Applicant are considering input provided at the Neighbourhood Meeting. Additional technical study is underway. 86 PINNACLE DR Proposal: A 3.5 storey 16 -unit multiple residential building. File Number: ZBA19/003/P/KA Description: To change the zoning to Residential Six (R-6) to permit through one full -movement access driveway from New Dundee Road a multiple residential dwelling. Application Type: ZBA Status: This application has been circulated and Planning staff are spaces are to be provided throughout the site. The proposed residential development also includes a central accepting and reviewing comments. Staff Contact: Katie Anderl Neighbourhood Meeting Date: January 10, 2023 Owner: A & F GREENFIELD HOMES Applicant: IBI Group LTD Update Since Last Quarterly Report: A revised development concept was received and shared with the community through a second Neighbourhood Meeting and on-site meeting. Planning Staff and the Applicant are considering input provided on the revised concept. 404-430 NEW DUNDEE RD Proposal: The proposed development intends to establish ten (10) stacked townhouse buildings containing a total of 160 residential dwelling units on the subject lands. Each building would contain sixteen (16) dwelling units. Access to the property is proposed through one full -movement access driveway from New Dundee Road that would connect to the internal private road system. Parking is provided at a rate of 1.15 spaces per dwelling unit, for a total of 186 parking spaces. All parking spaces are surface level, and secure indoor bicycle storage spaces are to be provided throughout the site. The proposed residential development also includes a central common amenity area. File Number: OPA22/014/N/BB Description: To add a special policy area to the Low Rise Residential designation such that the subject lands be permitted a maximum Floor Space Ratio (FSR) of 0.9 and a density exceeding 30 units per hectare Application Type: OPA Status: This application has been circulated and Planning staff are accepting and reviewing comments. File Number: ZBA22/025/N/BB Description: The Zoning by-law amendment is proposing re -zoning the subject lands from R-1 in By-law 85-1 to RES -5 in By-law 2019- 051 with a site-specific provision for FSR, building height, parking, and visitor parking. Application Type: ZBA Status: This application has been circulated and Planning staff are accepting and reviewing comments. Staff Contact: Brian Bateman Neighbourhood Meeting Date: January 19, 2022 Owner: Klondike Homes Ltd. Applicant: MHBC Planning Update Since Last Quarterly Report: Planning Staff and the Applicant are considering input provided at the Neighbourhood Meeting. Page 344 of 350 WARD 5 ROCKCLIFFE DR (FREURE SOUTH) Proposal: A new community with 471 new residential units including single detached, street townhouses & multiple dwellings. Parkland open space & stormwater management facilities are also proposed. File Number: OP16/001/R/KA Description: To change the designation of the easterly portion of land to high rise residential, designate a future park area as open space, and to adjust the limits of wooded areas designated as open space. Application Type: OPA Status: This application has been circulated and Planning staff are accepting and reviewing comments. File Number: ZC16/009/R/KA Description: To change the zoning from Restricted Business Park (B- 2) to residential and natural heritage conservation zones. Application Type: ZBA Status: This application has been circulated and Planning staff are accepting and reviewing comments. File Number: 30T-16201 Description: The plan of subdivision includes single detached, street townhouses & multiple dwellings along with parkland open space & stormwater management facilities. Application Type: SA Status: This application has been circulated and Planning staff are accepting and reviewing comments. Staff Contact: Katie Anderl Neighbourhood Meeting Date: TBD Owner: FREURE DEVELOPMENTS Applicant: MHBC PLANNING LTD LIMITED Update Since Last Quarterly Report: No update at this time. Archeological assessment work continues. 2219 OTTAWA ST S & 808 TRUSSLER RD Proposal: A new community with 240-409 new residential units including single detached, street townhouses & multiple dwellings. Institutional uses, a multi -use trail, a stormwater management system, parkland and open space blocks for the conservation of natural features on the property are also proposed. The existing buildings on the property will be demolished for the proposed development with the exception of the Shantz House, which will ultimately be designated a heritage property. File Number: OPA22/009/0/AP Description: The lands are currently designated Low Rise Residential, Natural Heritage Conservation and Mixed Use. The amendment proposes to align the proposed land uses with the proposed Plan of Subdivision. A Mixed Use land use designation is proposed on Blocks 11 and 12 to accommodate higher density multiple -residential developments. The Natural Heritage Conservation designation is proposed to apply to lands on which environmental features are located. Blocks 15, 16 and 18 are proposed to be designated as Open Space. Blocks 15 and 16 are proposed to be public parks, totaling 0.478 hectares of parkland. Block 18 is proposed to accommodate the stormwater management pond. Application Type: OPA Status: This application has been circulated and Planning staff are accepting and reviewing comments. File Number: ZBA22/016/0/AP Description: The Subject Lands are currently zoned Agricultural (A- 1) in Zoning By-law 85-1. The amendment proposes to bring the lands into Zoning By-law 2019-051 and apply the following zoning categories; RES -5 Low Rise Residential Five Zone with Site Specific Provisions, INS -1 Neighbourhood Institutional Zone with Site Specific Provisions, OSR-1 Recreation Zone, OSR-3 Open Space: Stormwater Management Zone, and NHC-1 Natural Heritage Conservation Zone. Application Type: ZBA Status: This application has been circulated and Planning staff are accepting and reviewing comments. Page 345 of 350 File Number: 30T-22201 Description: The plan of subdivision includes single detached, street townhouses & multiple dwellings along with parkland open space & stormwater management facilities. Application Type: SA Status: This application has been circulated and Planning staff are accepting and reviewing comments. Staff Contact: Andrew Pinnell Neighbourhood Meeting Date: TBD Owner: Kitchener Trussler Holdings Applicant: Polocorp Inc. Inc. Update Since Last Quarterly Report: The initial circulation of the notice of application is completed and a Neighbourhood Meeting will be held this year. 490 HURON RD Proposal: The development proposal includes three multiple residential apartment buildings and commercial development along Huron Road and a combination of structured and surface parking. Full build out of the subject lands is anticipated to occur in phases. Vehicular access to the proposed development is proposed from both Huron and Strasburg Roads with two accesses from Huron Road and one access from Strasburg Road. File Number: OPA22/012/H/CD Description: The purpose of the OPA is to amend the existing special policy area for the subject lands to allow for a maximum height of 17 storeys within the portion of the site that is designated `Mixed Use'. Application Type: OPA Status: This application has been circulated and Planning staff are accepting and reviewing comments. File Number: ZBA22/019/H/CD Description: To amend the site specific zoning regulations for the portion of the lands zoned MIX -3 to permit the ground floor of any building located within 25 metres of the Strasburg Road street line to have a minimum height of 4.5 metres, that no minimum or maximum percent of non-residential gross floor area be required, to permit a maximum building height of 17 storeys and 53 metres, to permit a maximum FSR of 3, and that no minimum Ground Floor Street Line Fagade Width as a Percentage of the Width of the Abutting Street Line shall apply. Application Type: ZBA Status: This application has been circulated and Planning staff are accepting and reviewing comments. Staff Contact: Craig Dumart Neighbourhood Meeting Date: TBD Owner: 2517293 Ontario Inc. Applicant: MHBC Planning Ltd. Update Since Last Quarterly Report: The initial circulation of the notice of application is completed and a Neighbourhood Meeting will be held this year. Page 346 of 350 WARD 8 400 WESTWOOD DR Proposal: To demolish the existing house and create four new lots for single detached dwellings. File Number: ZBA21/012/W/ES Description: To rezone the developable portion of the lands to site specific Residential Four (R-4). Application Type: ZBA Status: This application has been circulated and Planning staff are accepting and reviewing comments. Staff Contact: Eric Schneider Neighbourhood Meeting Date: January 13, 2022 Owner: NASIR BROMAND, ZAKIA Applicant: IBI GROUP BROMAND Update Since Last Quarterly Report: A Neighbourhood Meeting was held with the community on January 13, 2022. Planning Staff and the Applicant are considering input provided at the Neighbourhood Meeting. WARD 8 — New Applications 1154 Queens Blvd Proposal: A three storey 10 unit residential building. File Number: ZBA23/015/Q/ES Description: To change the zoning from Residential Four Zone (RES -4) to Residential Five Zone (RES5) with Site -Specific Provision to permit a front yard setback is hereby reduced from 10.23 ±metres to 4.97 ±metres and to permit the side yard setback reduced from 3.0 metres to 2.5 ±metres Application Type: ZBA Status: This application has been circulated and Planning staff are accepting and reviewing comments. Staff Contact: Eric Schnider Neighbourhood Meeting Date: TBD Owner: Sunset Hills Estates Group Applicant: Dryden Smith and Head Planning Consultants Update Since Last Quarterly Report: New Application. This application has just been received. Page 347 of 350 WARD 9 130-142 VICTORIA ST S Proposal: A 25 storey mixed use building which includes 249 dwelling units and 4 retail units on the ground floor. File Number: OPA22/004//V/KA Description: The applicant is requesting a new Site Specific Policy be added to the current Mixed Use designation to permit a maximum FSR of 12.73. Application Type: OPA Status: This application has been circulated and Planning staff are accepting and reviewing comments. File Number: ZBA22/006/V/KA Description: The applicant is proposing to add Special Regulations to the existing MU -1 proposes an FSR of 12.73, a height of about 86 metres, as well as reductions to setbacks and reduced parking. Application Type: ZBA Status: This application has been circulated and Planning staff are accepting and reviewing comments. Staff Contact: Katie Anderl Neighbourhood Meeting Date: July 18, 2022 Owner: 1936026 ONTARIO INC Applicant: IBI Group Update Since Last Quarterly Report: A Neighbourhood Meeting was held with the community on July 18, 2022. Planning Staff and the Applicant are considering input provided at the Neighbourhood Meeting WARD 9 — New Applications 50 BORDEN AVE S Proposal: a mixed-use development consisting of two towers (57 storeys and 51 storeys in height) having 1,224 dwelling units and 7,240 m2 of commercial and institutional space. File Number: OPA23/004/B/KA Description: Site-specific regulations propose a Floor Space Ratio (FSR) of 16.1, a reduced rear yard setback, and a parking reduction to permit 618 parking spaces Application Type: OPA Status: This application has been circulated and Planning staff are accepting and reviewing comments. File Number: ZBA22/008/B/KA Description: Site-specific regulations propose a Floor Space Ratio (FSR) of 16.1, a reduced rear yard setback, and a parking reduction to permit 618 parking spaces Application Type: ZBA Status: This application has been circulated and Planning staff are accepting and reviewing comments. Staff Contact: Katie Anderl Neighbourhood Meeting Date: June 6, 2023 Owner: Woodhouse Investments Inc Applicant: IBI Group Update Since Last Quarterly Report: A Neighbourhood Meeting was held with the community on June 6, 2023. Planning Staff and the Applicant are considering input provided at the Neighbourhood Meeting Page 348 of 350 417 KING ST W Proposal: A 55 storey mixed use building with 622 residential units with ground floor commercial units. A total of 184 vehicle parking spaces and 311 bicycle parking spaces are proposed for the development. File Number: OPA23/007/K/CD Description: To add a Specific Policy to allow for a Floor Space Ratio Description: To add a Special Policy Area to permit a maximum FSR (FSR) of 21. Application Type: OPA Status: This application has been circulated and Planning staff are Status: This application has just been received and will be circulated accepting and reviewing comments. File Number: ZBA23/01 1 /K/CD Description: To change the zoning of the subject lands to Warehouse Description: To add a site-specific Special Regulation Provision to District Zone (D-6) with a Special Regulation Provision to permit a the existing CR -2 zone which would add the following provisions; a floor space ratio of 21; to allow for residential uses; to allow for a reduction in the minimum side yard abutting the street from 3.0 m to reduction in parking to 0.29 parking spaces per dwelling unit and 0 0.0 metres; a reduction in the minimum front yard from 3.0 m to 1.5m; space for non residential uses; to permit a rear yard and east side a reduction in the minimum rear yard from 19.6m to 7.5m; a yard setback of 0 metres; and to permit a 1.1 metre west side yard maximum Building Height of 39.3m; a reduction in parking from 1.25 setback. Application Type: ZBA Status: This application has been circulated and Planning staff are Parking spaces for non-residential uses; and, an increase in Floor accepting and reviewing comments. Staff Contact: Craig Dumart Neighbourhood Meeting Date: July 11, 2023 Owner: Vanmar Constructors Applicant: MHBC Planning Update Since Last Quarterly Report: New Application. This application has been circulated and Planning staff are accepting and reviewing comments. 93-99 Benton St/39-43 St George St Proposal: A 12 -storey mixed-use building, with ground floor commercial uses and 99 residential units. An FSR of 5.0 is proposed File Number: OPA23/008/B/ES Description: To add a Special Policy Area to permit a maximum FSR of 5.0 (whereas 2.0 is permitted). Application Type: OPA Status: This application has just been received and will be circulated shortly. File Number: ZBA23/01 1 /K/CD Description: To add a site-specific Special Regulation Provision to the existing CR -2 zone which would add the following provisions; a reduction in the minimum side yard abutting the street from 3.0 m to 0.0 metres; a reduction in the minimum front yard from 3.0 m to 1.5m; a reduction in the minimum rear yard from 19.6m to 7.5m; a maximum Building Height of 39.3m; a reduction in parking from 1.25 spaces per unit to 0.5 spaces per unit including visitor spaces; zero Parking spaces for non-residential uses; and, an increase in Floor Space Ratio from 2.0 to 5.0. Application Type: ZBA Status: This application has just been received and will be circulated shortly. Staff Contact: Eric Schnider Neighbourhood Meeting Date: TBD Owner: 1000249553 Ontario Inc. Applicant: MHBC Planning Update Since Last Quarterly Report: New Application. This application has just been received. Page 349 of 350 WARD 10 22 WEBER ST W Proposal: A 19 -storey multiple residential building with 162 units, including 25 barrier free units. A total of 24 parking spaces are proposed at grade. File Number: OPA20/005/W/JVW Description: The applicant is now proposing to amend the designation to High Density Commercial Residential with a Special Policy Area in order to permit a floor space ratio (FSR) of 7.8. Application Type: OPA Status: Under appeal File Number: ZBA20/013/W/JVW Description: The subject lands are currently zoned Commercial Residential Three (CR -3) in Zoning By-law 85-1. The applicant is proposing the same base zone with site specific special regulations to permit; an increase in height to 19 storeys, an increase in Floor Space Ratio to 7.8, To require a minimum ground floor fagade height of 4.5m, to reduce the required minimum landscaped area required from 10% to 8%, to reduce front and rear yard setbacks, and to reduce the required on-site parking to 24 spaces, including 8 visitor parking spaces. Application Type: ZBA Status: Under appeal Staff Contact: Garett Stevenson Neighbourhood Meeting Date: Sept. 8, 2021 & March 3, 2022. Owner: 30 DUKE STREET LIMITED Applicant: MHBC PLANNING LTD Update Since Last Quarterly Report: Council refused the related Heritage Permit Application on August 22, 2022. This appeal was adjourned. This application has been appealed to the Ontario Land Tribunal (formerly LPAT) which has suspended this matter for a period of 6 months. A request for an adjournment was approved by the OLT. The Applicant is directed to provide a written status update to the OLT and parties by no later than July 6, 2023. Page 350 of 350