Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutDSD-2024-010 - Zoning By-law Amendment Application ZBA19/003/P/KA - 86 Pinnacle Drive - A & F Greenfield Homes Ltd. and Rosu Developments Inc.Staff Report Development Services Department www.kitchener.ca REPORT TO: Planning and Strategic Initiatives Committee DATE OF MEETING: January 22, 2024 SUBMITTED BY: Garett Stevenson, Director, Development and Housing Approvals, 519-741-2200 ext. 7070 PREPARED BY: Katie Anderl, Project Manager - Planning, 519-741-2200 ext. 7987 WARD(S) INVOLVED: Ward 4 DATE OF REPORT: January 4, 2024 REPORT NO.: DSD -2024-010 SUBJECT: Zoning By-law Amendment ZBA19/003/P/KA 86 Pinnacle Drive A & F Greenfield Homes Ltd. and Rosu Developments Inc. RECOMMENDATION: That Zoning By-law Amendment Application ZBA19/003/P/KA for A & F Greenfield Homes Ltd. and Rosu Developments Inc. be approved in the form shown in the `Proposed By-law', and `Map No. 1, attached to Report DSD -2024-010 as Attachment W. REPORT HIGHLIGHTS: • The purpose of this report is to evaluate and provide a planning recommendation regarding a Zoning By-law Amendment Application for the property located at 86 Pinnacle Drive. • It is Planning staff's recommendation that the Zoning By-law Amendment Application be approved. The proposed application represents an opportunity to provide 'missing middle' housing that addresses a need in our community. • Community engagement included: o circulation of a preliminary notice letter to property owners within 120 metres of the subject site in May 2019, and a recirculation of the updated application to property owners and residents within 240 metres of the subject site and any individual previously engaged in the application process, in December 2022; o installation of a notice sign on the property; o an initial neighbourhood meeting was held September 10, 2019 and a second neighbourhood meeting was held January 10, 2023; 0 on-site small group meeting February 1, 2023; o postcard advising of the statutory public meeting was circulated to all property owners within 240 metres of the subject site, and those who responded to the preliminary circulation, and *** This information is available in accessible formats upon request. *** Please call 519-741-2345 or TTY 1-866-969-9994 for assistance. Page 291 of 476 o notice of the public meeting was published in The Record on December 29, 2023. • This report supports the delivery of core services. EXECUTIVE SUMMARY: Planning Staff is recommending approval of the requested Zoning By-law Amendment Application to change the zoning from `Residential Four Zone (R-4)' in Zoning By-law 85-1 to `Low Rise Residential Five Zone (RES -5) with Site -Specific Provision (386)' in Zoning By-law 2019-051 to permit a 16 unit stacked back-to-back townhouse building. BACKGROUND: The City of Kitchener received an application for a Zoning By-law Amendment from A & F Greenfield Homes Limited for a development concept that proposes a three-storey 16 unit multiple dwelling in May 2019. At that time the City was initiating work on the Lower Doon Land Use Study which was intended to review current issues, zoning and land use designations in the Lower Doon and Conestoga College area. Following preliminary circulation and an initial neighbourhood meeting, the applicant agreed to pause the subject application while City -initiated work was progressing on the Lower Doon Land Use Study. The study was endorsed by Council in March 2021 and follow-up steps included bringing forward a City initiated Official Plan Amendment and Zoning By-law Amendment. The subject application remained on hold through 2021 and much of 2022. In November 2022, the applicant submitted a revised development concept for a 16 -unit stacked back-to-back townhouse (multiple dwelling). Notice of the revised application and an invitation to a second Neighbourhood Meeting was circulated in December 2022. The neighbourhood meeting was held in January 2023 and a follow-up on-site small group meeting was held in February 2023 with a small group of residents. As a result of the consultations, the applicant prepared a further revised concept to respond to concerns of residents in March 2023. Throughout the spring and summer of 2023, work was also progressing on the City initiated Official Plan and Zoning By-law Amendments for Lower Doon. The applicant again elected to hold off on pursuing the site-specific proposal in order to better understand the City's direction on the comprehensive amendments. Recommendations on the Lower Doon Secondary Plan and Implementing Zoning were brought before Committee for a Statutory Public Meeting in October 2023 and were considered by Council in November 2023. Staff recommended a mix of `Low Rise Residential (RES -4) Zone' and `Low Rise Residential (RES -5) Zone' for much of Lower Doon bound by Pinnacle Drive to the west, Doon Valley Drive to the south and Old Mill Road to the north. Following deliberations, Council elected to rezone the majority of these lands `RES -4' with the exception of lands which were previously zoned `R-6' which were rezoned to `RES -5'. An appeal has been filed with the Ontario Land Tribunal regarding the Zoning By-law Amendment for Lower Doon and, at time of writing, the Official Plan Amendment has not yet been approved by the Region of Waterloo. The `RES -4' zone permits a range of low rise dwelling types including multiple dwellings up to 4 units. The proposed `RES -5' zone would permit a low-rise multiple with more than 4 units. The subject lands, being subject of a site-specific application did not proceed as part of the final zoning by-law for the Lower Doon area and remain zoned `Residential Page 292 of 476 Four Zone (R-4)' in Zoning By-law 85-1. A separate decision for this property is required, and based on the site-specific application and the merits of this development proposal. The applicant has revised their requested zoning by-law amendment application from the initial 2019 submission to align with the current development proposal for a stacked back- to-back townhouse with sixteen (16) residential units and proposes to bring the lands into Zoning By-law 2019-051 with RES -5 zoning. Site -Specific Provision (386) is proposed to require a minimum side yard setback of 2.5 metres and an increased front yard setback of 6.5 metres. The subject property is identified as `Community Areas' on the City's Urban Structure (Map 2 - City of Kitchener Official Plan), designated as `Low Rise Residential' (Map 3 - City of Kitchener Official Plan) and is zoned `Residential Four Zone (R-4)' in Zoning By-law 85-1. Site Context The subject lands are comprised of one lot addressed as 86 Pinnacle Drive and is located on the east side of Pinnacle Drive. The lot area of the subject site is approximately 0.215 hectares and the lot frontage is 42.3 metres. The lands currently contain a vacant single detached dwelling and accessory structures. As the existing building is vacant, there are no existing tenants being displaced with this proposed application and redevelopment. Through the review and evaluation of this application, the development concept was revised from the initial submission which proposed a 16 unit low-rise apartment style building (Figure 3) to a 16 unit stacked, back-to-back townhouse (Figures 4 and 5). The neighbourhood consists of a mix of low-rise dwelling types including single detached dwellings, semi-detached dwellings, cluster townhouses, and a commercial building at the corner of Doon Valley Drive and Pinnacle Drive (Figures 6 — 11). There is variation in building type and built form, architectural styles, building height, colours materials, age of construction, lot sizes, and building setbacks on Pinnacle Drive and throughout the neighbourhood. The images on the following pages show the location of the subject lands (86 Pinnacle Dr) and surrounding lots, provide images of the existing house at 86 Pinnacle Dr, the original and updated development concepts, and an overview of the existing Pinnacle Drive streetscape and existing dwellings. Page 293 of 476 411 -1 1 4b 45 44 43 V47 0 113 1 9 9 a 7 36 I USAI 71 4) 4U 70 Q -74 96 116 20 z4 z 27 --)L 71. F&O 73 S9 14 bo 58 75 Sr56 55 �-�3 -3 3SU 36 2 so 3 3' (;0 3 IS9 4 ['41 So Al 49 4.) 98 41 91 444 49 46 47 48 Figure 1 - Location Map (86 Pinnacle Drive) Page 294 of 476 ERROR -fps : r to a Al M r r o 3�'�' t� s l a y�1R _ •'"'� w ��" '°x-. f ��r ■ a:`.+t s' 1, i ;gri�x',�F,`r `IL^A ��kt� Rasivpul e 3ist app Nfg c• `t ' �Tn p �t + HF y1.p TD BE i J'R - PP T' LINt N83'5V10'W4E.9m _ XELOGATI 3 I y Slip ETz N� SNOW Y0 STORAGE `FIRE RO m-I>� Mm"- w f GARBAGE _22 �n h k 5W 2100 - urGalNs a 1I 1 2 6ti li NEW E—IGAS �� 1 01*2 03 oa U 07r08 QND6 a g a © LANDSCAPER. 4 09}10 1162 y J ARS- � a _. SPACE 15r16 i3f14 ,0 m. O a SET SACK 2.5m� pRDPERTY LINE 487 ,Vy 61.45m SITE PLAN 16 UNITS 1 } '-,LLE: 1 s:: 22 CAR PARKING (1.40 Parking per Unit) L11 r r,,r. F 8 OUTDOOR BICYCLES & 10 INDOOR BICYCLE PARKING Figure 4 — Current Development Concept (2023) Figure 5 — Rendering of Current Development Concept (2023) Page 296 of 476 Figure 6 — Existing semi-detached dwellings at 70-80 Pinnacle Drive (January 4, 2024). Figure 7 — Existing single -detached dwellings at 71 — 83 Pinnacle Drive (January 4, 2024). Page 297 of 476 Figure 8 — Existing single detached dwellings at 95 — 103 Pinnacle Drive (January 4, 2024) Figure 9 — Existing cluster townhouse at 50 Pinnacle Drive (January 4, 2024). Page 298 of 476 All REPORT: A & F Greenfield Homes is proposing to develop 86 Pinnacle Drive with a 16 -unit low-rise multiple dwelling. Twenty-two (22) surface parking stalls are proposed together with 10 Class A and 8 Class B bike parking spaces, barrier free parking and electric vehicle charging. A private outdoor amenity space is provided at grade. The applicant is seeking a site-specific regulation to permit a minimum interior side yard setback of 2.5 metres rather than 3.0 metres and an increased minimum front yard setback of 6.5 metres rather than 4.5 metres. Table 1 below highlights the development concept statistics. Table 1. Proposed Development Concept Statistics To facilitate the proposed development a Zoning By-law Amendment has been requested. The lands are currently zoned `Residential Four Zone (R-4)' in Zoning By-law 85-1. The subject application would remove the subject lands from Zoning By-law 85-1 and bring the lands into the new Zoning By-law 2019-051. The lands are proposed to be rezoned `Low Rise Residential Five Zone (RES -5) with Site Specific Provision (386)'. Planning Analysis: Provincial, Regional, and City planning policy provide guidance that must be considered when evaluating changes in land use permissions as discussed below. 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, d) The conservation of features of significant architectural, cultural, historical, archaeological or scientific interest; f) The adequate provision and efficient use of communication, transportation, sewage and water services and waste management systems; g) The minimization of waste; h) The orderly development of safe and healthy communities; Page 300 of 476 Development Concept Number of Units 16 dwelling units Parking Spaces 22 parking spaces (2 barrier free, 3 visitor) Total Building Height 3 storeys (10.75 metres) Class A Bicycle Parking (weather protected secured) 10 spaces Class B Bicycle Parking (outdoor visitor) 8 spaces Electric Vehicle Ready Parking Stalls 20% of parking spaces Floor Space Ratio 0.58 Unit Types 16 — two bedroom To facilitate the proposed development a Zoning By-law Amendment has been requested. The lands are currently zoned `Residential Four Zone (R-4)' in Zoning By-law 85-1. The subject application would remove the subject lands from Zoning By-law 85-1 and bring the lands into the new Zoning By-law 2019-051. The lands are proposed to be rezoned `Low Rise Residential Five Zone (RES -5) with Site Specific Provision (386)'. Planning Analysis: Provincial, Regional, and City planning policy provide guidance that must be considered when evaluating changes in land use permissions as discussed below. 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, d) The conservation of features of significant architectural, cultural, historical, archaeological or scientific interest; f) The adequate provision and efficient use of communication, transportation, sewage and water services and waste management systems; g) The minimization of waste; h) The orderly development of safe and healthy communities; Page 300 of 476 j) The adequate provision of a full range of housing, including affordable housing; p) The appropriate location of growth and development; q) The promotion of development that is designed to be sustainable, to support public transit and to be oriented to pedestrians; r) The promotion of built form that, (i) Is well-designed, (ii) Encourages a sense of place, and (iii) Provides for public spaces that are of high quality, safe, accessible, attractive and vibrant; s) The mitigation of greenhouse gas emissions and adaptation to a changing climate. These matters of provincial interest are addressed and are implemented through the Provincial Policy Statement, 2020. 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. The Ministry of Municipal Affairs and Housing is proposing an integrated province -wide land use planning policy document, potentially replacing the Provincial Policy Statement and A Place to Grow: Growth Plan for the Greater Golden Horseshoe, with a singular Provincial Planning Statement (PPS) which is in draft form and not in effect at the time this report was prepared. Provincial Policy Statement, 2020 The Provincial Policy Statement (PPS) provides policy direction on matters of provincial interest related to land use planning and development. Section 3(5) of the Planning Act requires that a decision of the council of a municipality shall be consistent with the policy statements 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. 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. Efficient development patterns optimize the use of land, resources and public investment in infrastructure and public service facilities. These land use patterns promote a mix of housing, including affordable housing, employment, recreation, parks and open spaces, and transportation choices that increase the use of active transportation and transit before other modes of travel. Policy 1.1.1 of the PPS states that, "Healthy, liveable and safe communities are sustained by: a) promoting efficient development and land use patterns which sustain the financial well-being of the Province and municipalities over the long term; b) accommodating an appropriate affordable and market-based range and mix of residential types (including single -detached, additional residential units, multi -unit housing, affordable housing and housing for older persons), employment (including industrial and commercial), institutional (including places of worship, cemeteries Page 301 of 476 and long-term care homes), recreation, park and open space, and other uses to meet long-term needs; e) promoting the integration of land use planning, growth management, transit - supportive development, intensification and infrastructure planning to achieve cost- effective development patterns, optimization of transit investments, and standards to minimize land consumption and servicing costs; g) ensuring that necessary infrastructure and public service facilities are or will be available to meet current and projected needs; h) promoting development and land use patterns that conserve biodiversity; and i) preparing for the regional and local impacts of a changing climate." The PPS notes that settlement areas include urban areas and rural settlement areas, and include cities, towns, villages and hamlets, and policy 1.1.3.1 states that settlement areas shall be the focus of growth and development. Policy 1.1.3.2 states that land use patterns within settlement areas shall be based on densities and a mix of land uses which; a) efficiently use land and resources; b) are appropriate for, and efficiently use, the infrastructure and public service facilities which are planned or available and avoid the need for their unjustified and/or uneconomical expansion. e) support active transportation f) are transit supportive, where transit is planned, exists or may be developed. Policy 1.1.3.3 Planning authorities shall identify appropriate locations and promote opportunities for transit -supportive development, accommodating a significant supply and range of housing options through intensification and redevelopment where this can be accommodated taking into account existing building stock or areas, including brownfield sites, and the availability of suitable existing or planned infrastructure and public service facilities required to accommodate projected needs. Policy 1.1.3.4 identifies that appropriate development standards should be promoted which facilitate intensification, redevelopment and compact form, while avoiding or mitigating risks to public health and safety. Policy 1.4.3 promotes providing an appropriate range and mix of housing, supports all types of housing options and residential intensification (in accordance with 1.1.3.3), promotes densities for new housing that efficiently uses land, resources, infrastructure and public service facilities, which supports the use of active transportation and public transit, and supports development standards which minimize the cost of housing and which promotes compact form while maintaining public health and safety. Policies of section 2.6 speaks to protection of cultural heritage resources. The subject property has been evaluated and does not contain and is not adjacent to a significant built heritage resource or a cultural heritage landscape. Staff note that through the Lower Doon Land Use Study Implementation, Council adopted an Official Plan Amendment which created the Lower Doon Cultural Heritage Landscape (CHL). The subject property was considered as part of the work which established the CHL however was not included as part of it, and is not contiguous or adjacent to lands which were included in the new CHL. Page 302 of 476 The subject lands are identified on Map 2 of the Official Plan as being `Community Areas' and designated on Map 3 as `Low Rise Residential' which is considered a settlement area. The proposed development represents a compatible intensification of the subject lands. As is further discussed in the following sections of this report, planning staff is of the opinion that the proposed application will contribute to an appropriate mix of housing types within the context of the surrounding neighbourhood. The subject lands are within an existing neighbourhood with adequate servicing capacity, road network capacity, and other required infrastructure and therefore represents a cost-effective development pattern that minimizes land consumption and servicing costs. The property is served by existing public transit and has good access to an integrated cycling network including off-road trails, multi -use pathways and on -street cycling lanes. Based on the above, staff is of the opinion that this proposal is in conformity with the PPS. A Place to Grow: Growth Plan for the Greater Golden Horseshoe, 2020 (Growth Plan): The Growth Plan supports the development of complete and compact communities that are designed to support healthy and active living, make efficient use of land and infrastructure, provide for a range and mix of housing types, jobs, and services, at densities and in locations which support transit viability and active transportation. The Growth Plan recognizes that many communities are facing issues of housing affordability, which are being driven primarily by sustained population growth and factors such as a lack of housing supply with record low vacancy rates. To address this challenge, polices of the Growth Plan provide direction to plan for a range and mix of housing options, including additional residential units, in particular, higher density housing options that can accommodate a range of household sizes in locations that can provide access to transit and other amenities. The Growth Plan places strong emphasis on optimizing the use of the existing urban land supply and supports an intensification first approach to development and city -building, one which focuses on making better use of existing infrastructure and public service facilities, and less on continuously expanding the urban area. The Growth Plan requires that municipalities achieve minimum density requirements to meet growth forecasts. Planned growth is directed to settlement areas, and as outlined in section 2.2.1 c) to delineated built up areas, locations with existing or planning transit and public services facilities (such as police and fire protection, schools, community centres, parks, etc.). Specific density targets are provided by the Region of Waterloo. Housing Policies of section 2.2.6.1(a) states that municipalities will support housing choice through the achievement of the minimum intensification and targets in this plan by identifying a diverse range and mix of housing options and densities which shall be implemented through zoning by-laws. The proposed development will help to achieve intensification and density targets to achieve the Growth Plan population forecasts. The Growth Plan emphasizes the development of complete communities. Section 2.2.1.4 states that complete communities will: a) feature a diverse mix of land uses, including residential and employment uses, and convenient access to local stores, services, and public service facilities; b) improve social equity and overall quality of life, including human health, for people of all ages, abilities, and incomes; Page 303 of 476 C) provide a diverse range and mix of housing options, including additional residential units and affordable housing, to accommodate people at all stages of life, and to accommodate the needs of all household sizes and incomes; d) expand convenient access to: i. a range of transportation options, including options for the safe, comfortable and convenient use of active transportation; ii. public service facilities, co -located and integrated in community hubs; iii. an appropriate supply of safe, publicly -accessible open spaces, parks, trails, and other recreational facilities; and iv. healthy, local, and affordable food options, including through urban agriculture; e) provide for a more compact built form and a vibrant public realm, including public open spaces; f) mitigate and adapt to the impacts of a changing climate, improve resilience and reduce greenhouse gas emissions, and contribute to environmental sustainability g) integrate green infrastructure and appropriate low impact development. The proposed development represents residential intensification, which will contribute to a greater mix of housing types in the neighbourhood. The proposed zoning will support a housing option that will help make efficient use of existing urban lands, infrastructure, parks, roads, trails, and transit. Planning staff is of the opinion that the application conforms to the Growth Plan. Regional Official Plan (ROP): Urban Area policies of the ROP identify that the focus of the Region's future growth will be within the Urban Area. The subject lands are within the Urban Area and designated Built - Up Area in the ROP. Through ROP Amendment 6 the Region has set a minimum target that 60% of new growth will occur within the delineated Built -Up Area. Policies 2.B.1.1 supports intensification within the Urban Area and delineated Built Up Area through gentle density and missing middle housing options. Policy 2.D.5 requires area municipalities to establish policies in their official plans and implementing zoning by-laws to permit missing middle housing on residential lots located within an Urban Area. Missing middle housing includes stacked townhouses, multi-plexes, apartments and other low-rise housing options. The Region acknowledges that while strategic growth areas (such as Major Transit Station Areas) will play the primary role in achieving the intensification targets, intensification will also occur more broadly within existing neighbourhoods through gentle density. The ROP envisions this transition to occur gradually over time as new opportunities arise for infill, redevelopment, additional residential units, new missing middle housing options, development of vacant and/or underutilized lots, and the expansion or conversion of existing buildings. Regional policies require the City to plan for a range of housing in terms of form, tenure, density and affordability to satisfy the various physical, social, economic and personal support needs of current and future residents. Regional staff have indicated that they have no objections to the proposed applications (Attachment `C'). Planning staff are of the opinion that the application conforms to the Regional Official Plan. Page 304 of 476 City of Kitchener Official Plan (OP): The City of Kitchener OP provides the long-term land use vision for Kitchener. The vision is further articulated and implemented through the guiding principles, goals, objectives, and policies which are set out in the Plan. The Vision and Goals of the OP strive to build an innovative, vibrant, attractive, safe, complete and healthy community. The applicant has applied to change the zoning of the subject lands from `Residential Four Zone (R-4)' in Zoning By-law 85-1 to `Low Rise Residential Five Zone (RES -5) (386)' in Zoning By-law 2019-051. The effect of the proposed Zoning By-law Amendment is to increase the range of permitted low-rise and low-density dwelling types on the subject lands in order to permit a multiple dwelling with 16 units in a stacked, back-to-back townhouse form, whereas the current zoning permits single and semi-detached dwelling types with up to 2 additional dwelling units. Complete Community The vision articulated in the Official Plan is to build an innovative, vibrant, attractive, safe, complete and healthy community contributing to an exceptional quality of life. A complete community creates and provides access to a mix of land uses including, a full range and mix of housing. Planning for a complete community will aid in reducing the cost of infrastructure and servicing, encourage the use of public transit and active modes of transportation, promote social interaction, and foster a sense of community. The applicant is proposing to contribute to a complete community with a 16 -unit multiple dwelling. Urban Structure The subject lands are identified as `Community Areas' in the City's Urban Structure (Map 2). The planned function of Community Areas is to provide residential uses as well as non- residential supporting uses intended to serve the immediate residential areas. Policy 3.C.2.51 states that within areas identified as Community Areas on Map 2, the applicable land use designation may include Low Rise Residential, Medium Rise Residential, High Rise Residential, Open Space, Institutional and/or Major Infrastructure and Utilities. Limited intensification may be permitted within Community Areas in accordance with the applicable land use designation on Map 3 and the Urban Design Policies in Section 11. The proposed development must be sensitive to and compatible with the character, form and planned function of the surrounding context. The proposed development of 16 units represents an appropriate intensification of the subject lot, with a low-rise, low-density multiple dwelling. The proposed zoning is permitted by the Low Rise Residential land use designation, and the built form is compatible with surrounding low-rise land uses including single detached dwellings, semi-detached dwellings and cluster townhouse dwellings. Land Use Designation The subject lands are designated `Low Rise Residential' in the City's Official Plan (Map 3). This designation and associated policies were not changed as a result of the Lower Doon Land Use Study. Low Rise Residential areas are intended to accommodate a full range of low density housing types including single detached, semi-detached, townhouse, and low- rise multiple dwellings. The Low Rise Residential designation states that the City will encourage and support the mixing and integrating of innovative and different forms of housing to achieve and maintain a low-rise built form. No buildings shall exceed 3 storeys or 11 metres in height. No Official Plan amendment is required to implement the proposed Page 305 of 476 Zoning By-law Amendment. Planning staff is of the opinion that the requested zoning by- law amendment will facilitate a housing form that conforms with the Low Rise Residential land use designation in the City's Official Plan. Urban Design The City is committed to achieving a high standard of urban design, architecture and place -making to positively contribute to quality of life, environmental viability and economic vitality. Urban design is a vital component of city planning and goes beyond the visual and aesthetic character of individual buildings and also considers the functionality and compatibility of development as a means of strengthening complete communities. Urban Design Policies in Section 11 of the City's OP outline areas which should be considered. In the opinion of staff, the proposed zoning will facilitate a development that will meet the intent of these policies, specifically: Streetscape; Safety; Universal Design; Site Design; Building Design, and Massing and Scale Design. The Planning Justification and Urban Design Report (October 6, 2022) was prepared in support of the subject application and is supported by Urban Design staff. Streetscape — The proposed development concept includes a 3 -storey building that orients massing and unit entrances towards the street line along Pinnacle Drive. The building is staggered so that the setback is varied and follows the angle of the road. Through the review of the application, and in response to comments from residents, the front yard setback has been increased and a minimum of 6.5 metres is recommended. While there is significant variation in setbacks along Pinnacle Drive ranging from less than 1 metre to more than 20 metres, the building has been aligned to so that it is generally in keeping with the setback of other dwellings on the east side of Pinnacle Drive. Street fronting facades include front doors, porches, and Juliet balconies facing the street. Safety — As part of the site plan approval process, staff will ensure Crime Prevention Through Environmental Design (CPTED) principles are achieved and that the site meets the Ontario Building Code and the City's Emergency Services Policy. Universal Design — The development will be designed to comply with Accessibility for Ontarians with Disabilities Act and the Ontario Building Code. Site Design, Building Design, Massing and Scale — The proposed development is of a scale that is compatible with the existing built form of the surrounding neighbourhood. Staff note that compatible should not be interpreted to mean "the same as" or even as "being similar to". The fact that the proposed development is a low-rise multiple dwelling does not mean that it is not compatible with surrounding dwellings and land uses; it is a form of housing that will allow additional people to live in the community. The proposed low-rise building has a maximum height that complies with the Low Rise Residential designation which limits heights to 3 storey and 11 metres. Adverse shadow and wind impacts are not generally associated with low rise forms of development. The building addresses the street and parking is oriented away from the public realm, which allows for landscaping and walkway connections between the building and street improving the public realm and pedestrian connectivity. Through the site plan review process, landscaping, lighting and details of grading and stormwater management will be Page 306 of 476 addressed. Staff note that the proposed multiple dwelling with 16 units is subject to site plan control and a Development Agreement, whereas smaller multiple dwellings with 10 units or fewer are not subject to site plan control. Site Plan control provides an opportunity for staff to review and approve details of the site design, ensures that the development is built to plan, and through the registration of a development agreement ensures that the development is maintained in accordance with the site plan in perpetuity. In response to comments of neighbouring property owners, the developer has amended the building design to include traditional design features such as a pitched roof rather than a mansard roof or a contemporary flat roof which were contemplated in earlier designs. Windows and balconies have been designed to face the street or overlook the parking area, minimizing overlook to the side yard and rear yards of adjacent properties. Planning and Urban Design Staff have reviewed the proposed development concept and are of the opinion that the proposed low-rise low-density multiple dwelling is compatible with surrounding low-rise residential land uses and has been designed to be functional and safe. Transportation The City's Official Plan contains policies to develop, support, and maintain a complete, convenient, accessible, and integrated transportation system that incorporates active transportation, public transit, and accommodates vehicular traffic. The proposed development provides sufficient on-site parking in accordance with zoning by-law regulations. Sufficient parking, barrier free parking, bicycle parking and visitor parking can be accommodated to achieve by-law requirements. Staff note that parking is provided at the maximum rate of 1.4 spaces per unit permitted by the zoning by-law in order to accommodate as much parking on site as possible in order to respond to resident concerns. In regard to alternate modes of transportation, objectives of the Official Plan include promoting land use planning and development that is integrated and conducive to the efficient and effective operation of public transit and encourages increased ridership of the public transit system. The City shall promote and encourage walking and cycling as safe and convenient modes of transportation. The proposed development aims to increase density on an existing site that is served well by public transit, with access to Grand River Transit Route 10 on Pinnacle Drive, and several routes connecting at Conestoga College including I -Xpress Routes 201, 203 and local routes 16, 36, 57, 61, 76 and 100, providing convenient transit options for future residents. The surrounding area has a well established cycling network with a combination of off-road trails, multi -use pathways, and on -road cycling lanes. The proposed development concept includes provision of safe, secure, weather protected bicycle storage to support active transportation. Staff is of the opinion that the requested zoning by-law amendment conforms with the transportation policies of the City's Official Plan. Parkland The proposed development includes private outdoor amenity space for residents. The parkland dedication requirement for this submission will be assessed at the time of Site Plan Approval and will be subject to the Parkland Dedication Policy in effect. Page 307 of 476 Public Health and Safety Official Plan policies seek to minimize and mitigate land use conflicts between sensitive land uses and natural hazards, sources of noise and vibration, potential contamination, and aviation safety hazards. The subject lands are not impacted by a flooding hazard, have not been identified as requiring a Record of Site Condition, are not impacted by road or rail noise or vibration sources, and are not impacted by aviation safety hazards. Housing The City's primary objective with respect to housing in the Official Plan is to provide for an appropriate range, variety and mix of housing types and styles, densities, tenure and affordability to satisfy the varying housing needs of our community through all stages of life. This low rise multiple dwelling proposal is a "missing middle" housing type and provides an option that bridges the gap between high density residential towers and single detached dwellings. The proposed housing type is an important segment in Kitchener's housing continuum and the proposed development will further help to achieve the City's housing commitments to the Province. Policies 4.C.1.7, 4.C.1.8 and 4.C.1.9 permit the City to require a site plan, elevation drawings, and other submissions to support and demonstrate that a proposed development or redevelopment is compatible with the surrounding neighbourhood, that any site specific zoning regulations have been reviewed to ensure that regard is had to urban design policies, that adverse impacts are not created or are mitigated and that redevelopment respect existing character and is sensitive to neighbourhood context. The required plans have been submitted and staff is satisfied that the proposed development achieves a positive relationship to the street, is compatible with the surrounding built form and community character and that adverse impacts are minimized. The proposed reduction to the side yard setback from 3.0 metres to 2.5 metres is appropriate as is further discussed in the zoning by-law regulations. In accordance with 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. Policies 4.C.1.13 and 4.C.1.22 encourage the provision of a range of housing types and styles that are compatible with surrounding land uses, which support the development of complete communities, are transit supportive, and which support varied tenures including rental housing, freehold ownership and condominium ownership as a means of increasing housing choice and diversity. The proposed development introduces a low-rise housing type into this area increasing housing choice and dwelling styles, in a form that is compatible with surrounding residential land uses and supports housing choice and diversity. Planning staff is of the opinion that the proposed zoning by-law amendment complies with housing policies of the Official Plan. Cultural Heritage Policies of the Official Plan seek to conserve cultural heritage resources. The property municipally addressed as 86 Pinnacle Drive was identified on the Heritage Kitchener Inventory of Historic Buildings and was re-evaluated in in 2014 as part of the Council Page 308 of 476 approved 4 -step listing process for the listing of non -designated property of cultural heritage value or interest on the City's Municipal Heritage Register. The re-evaluation was completed by an evaluation sub -committee, made up of members of Heritage Kitchener and Heritage Planning staff and concluded that the property did not merit listing as a non- designated property of cultural heritage value or interest, or meet the criteria for designation under Ontario Regulation 9/06. Through the Lower Doon Land Use Study Implementation, Council adopted policies which created the Lower Doon Cultural Heritage Landscape. The subject lands and Pinnacle Drive were included as part of the Lower Doon Cultural Heritage Landscape Study Area which recommended that Willow Lake Park and the upper section of Pinnacle Drive from the intersection of Amherst Drive to Old Mill Road met the criteria for a Cultural Heritage Landscape. The remainder of the subject lands and lower section of Pinnacle Drive did not meet the criteria to be included as part of the CHL. As this property has no heritage status and is not adjacent to the boundaries of the CHL, Heritage Planning staff have no concerns or issues with the proposed development. Policy Conclusion Planning staff are of the opinion that the proposed Zoning By-law Amendment Application is consistent with policies of the Provincial Policy Statement, conforms to the Growth Plan for the Greater Golden Horseshoe, the Regional Official Plan and the City of Kitchener Official Plan, and represents good planning. Proposed Zoning By-law Amendment: The subject lands are currently zoned `Residential Four Zone (R-4)' in Zoning By-law 85-1. The applicant has requested to change the zoning to `Low Rise Residential Five Zone (RES -5) with Site Specific Provision (386)' in Zoning By-law 2019-051. The requested change in zoning category is to permit the proposed use of "Multiple Dwelling". Official Plan policies indicate that where special zoning regulations are requested for residential intensification or a redevelopment of lands, the overall impact of the site- specific zoning regulations will consider compatibility with existing built form; appropriate massing and setbacks that support and maintain streetscape and community character; appropriate buffering to mitigate adverse impacts, particularly with respect to privacy. The applicant has requested that a site-specific provision be added to the lands to permit a side yard setback of 2.5 metres rather than 3.0 metres for the southern lot line. The purpose of requiring a 3.0 metre side yard for multiple dwellings is to accommodate for possible building projections such as driveways, balconies, porches, walkways and exit stairs which are permitted within required side yards, in order to provide adequate space for access to rear yard areas and for maintenance purposes. The proposed building design proposes only limited windows in the internal side yards, and no balconies or doors in order to respond to concerns of overlook onto neighbouring homes and yards. A minimum side yard of 2.5 metres provides sufficient space for site functions including grading and landscaping. Balconies and openings are provided to the front and rear of the building, and the driveway is located north of the building. Staff is of the opinion that the proposed reduction to the side yard setback is appropriate. Page 309 of 476 Staff recommend that an additional regulation be implemented to require a minimum front yard setback of 6.5 metres rather than 4.5 metres, in keeping with the development concept. Setbacks along Pinnacle Drive are variable, and the proposed building provides for a staggered frontage with setbacks increasing from north to south along the front lot line. This is consistent with the established orientation of the neighbouring semi-detached dwellings. Staff note that the southern point of the building is setback about 13 metres from the street which is in keeping with the single detached dwelling to the south. Staff is of the opinion that the proposed `RES -5' zone is appropriate for the subject lands. The proposed low-rise, low-density development represents a built form that is compatible with surrounding low-rise residential land uses including single detached dwellings, semi- detached dwellings, and low-rise multiple dwellings (cluster townhouses). The proposed `RES -5' zone has recently been applied to lands in the surrounding area and the form of development permitted by the zone is appropriate in the context of the low-rise residential neighbourhood. As discussed in the context of Official Plan Policies, the proposed zoning and development achieve appropriate urban design and align with housing policies by helping facilitate additional housing units and modest intensification in a `missing middle' form. The lands are located on a transit route and in proximity to the Conestoga College Transit hub and are located in an area well served by cycling infrastructure. Proposed Zoning By-law Amendment Conclusions Staff is of the opinion that the proposed zoning by-law amendment to change the zoning from `Residential Four Zone (R-4)' in Zoning By-law 85-1 to `Low Rise Residential Five Zone (RES -5) with Site -Specific Provision (386)' in Zoning By-law 2019-051 represents good planning as it will facilitate the redevelopment of the lands with a missing middle housing form that is compatible with the existing neighbourhood, and increases the supply of housing. Staff are supportive of the proposed development and recommend that the proposed Zoning By-law amendment be approved as shown in Attachment `A'. Department and Agency Comments: Preliminary circulation of the Zoning By-law Amendment Application was undertaken August 21, 2019 and recirculation of the updated proposal November 15, 2022 to applicable City departments and other review authorities. No major concerns were identified by any commenting City department or agency. Copies of the comments are found in Attachment `C' of this report. The following reports and studies were considered as part of this proposed Zoning By-law Amendment: • Planning Justification Report Prepared by IBI Group, February 27, 2019) • Planning Justification and Urban Design Report Prepared by IBI Group, October 6, 2022 • Parking Justification Report Prepared by IBI Group, February 27, 2019 • Functional Grading, Servicing and Stormwater Management Report Page 310 of 476 Prepared by IBI Group, April 22, 2019 (updated September 27, 2022) • Tree Preservation Plan Prepared by IBI Group, submitted April 2019 (updated October 3, 2022) • Site Plan Prepared by Marsh Katsios, (updated October 5, 2022 and March 9, 2023) • Building Elevations and Architectural Drawings Prepared by Marsh Katsios, (updated October 14, 2022 and March 9, 2023) Community Input and Staff Response: WHAT WE HEARD 2019 Circulation (120 metres) 132 addresses 2022 Circulation (240 metres) 245 addresses (occupants and property owners) were circulated and notified 66 people/households/businesses provided written comments City -led Neighbourhood Meeting (September 10, 2019) - 31 participants signed in City -led Neighbourhood Meeting (January 10, 2023) - 41different users logged on Small Group On -Site Meeting (February 1, 2023) Staff received written responses from 66 residents/households/businesses with respect to the proposed development. These can be found in Attachment `D'. A summary of what we heard, and staff responses are noted below. What We Heard Staff Comment The proposed low-rise The applicant has updated the form of the development multiple form of housing is from an apartment style building to a stacked townhouse inconsistent with other in order to respond to resident concerns. While both are development in Lower Doon considered low-rise multiples, the stacked townhouse is and does not match the a ground -oriented form that is more consistent with the character or architectural cluster townhouse multiples on nearby sites. The design established in the proposed stacked townhouse complies with maximum neighbourhood. height regulations of Zoning By-law 2019-051 of 11.0 metres. This height represents a 0.5 metres increase from By-law 85-1 and was updated for all low-rise residential zones as part of the Comprehensive Review Page 311 of 476 Page 312 of 476 of the Zoning By-law to align with Official Plan policies. The units are designed to have front doors, porches and windows fronting the street. Urban Design staff observe that residential buildings in the surrounding area have a variety of architectural styles, colours and materials, rather than one consistent style (see Figures 6 - 10). Existing buildings consist of a mix of single -detached, semi-detached and cluster townhouses with a mix of heights, rooflines, setbacks, etc. The proposal is too dense The proposed development is a low-rise residential use, for the subject site. which is permitted in the Low Rise Residential land use designation in the Official Plan. The scale and massing are compatible with the surrounding neighbourhood and the development concept complies with the maximum floor space ratio of 0.6. The site comfortably accommodates the maximum amount of parking permitted by the zone, and also provides for a shared outdoor amenity space for residents. The proposed 2 - storey, 2 -bedroom units are approximately 100 m2 which is larger than many 2 bedroom dwelling units. The subject lot is one of the larger lots in the neighbourhood and represents an opportunity for a low- rise, low-density multiple development as proposed by the applicant. Council has approved RES -4 zoning for other lands previously zoned R-4 in the Lower Doon area which will limit opportunities to introduce additional housing types such as cluster townhouses and multiple dwellings. Concerns were identified The proposed building has been oriented so that that the development will balconies and most windows face either the street (public impact privacy of realm), or overlook the on-site amenity space and neighbours. parking area, with a substantial separation from rear yard neighbours. The original design oriented the building so that many units overlooked the side yard and the back yard of the neighbours, which was a concern. The building has also been updated to remove upper storey balconies from the front elevation to respond to concerns of neighbours across Pinnacle Drive. Concerns were raised The revised site design introduces a large onsite private regarding lack of green amenity space for residents. Detailed design will occur space and amenity space through the site plan approval process, however the onsite. space indicated on the concept site plan exceeds minimum space requirement of 72 m2 based on Page 312 of 476 Page 313 of 476 requirements of the Urban Design Manual. Trees located on the site will need to be removed, however the owner will be required to plant new trees as part of the landscaping plan required through the Site Plan and will be required to plant street -trees. Concerns that the proposed The City's Heritage planner has commented on this development will remove a development proposal and comments are summarized in heritage resource. the preceding section of this report. The existing house was previously identified on the Heritage Kitchener Inventory of Historic Buildings. The property was evaluated as part of the Council -approved 4 -step listing process for the listing of non -designated property of cultural heritage value or interest undertaken by a subcommittee of Heritage Kitchener members and staff. The evaluation concluded that the property did not merit listing on the City's Municipal Heritage Register. As such, the property municipally addressed as 86 Pinnacle Drive has no heritage status, and the existing building may be removed. Heritage was also a consideration of the Lower Doon Land Use Study. Through the study this property was not identified as a heritage resource, and this section of Pinnacle Dr was also not identified as having characteristics that would warrant further protection. There were however recommendations for a Cultural Heritage Landscape which was adopted through the recent Official Plan Amendment for Lower Doon Land Use Study Implementation. The subject lands are outside of the Cultural Heritage Landscape and no further consideration is required. Residents raised concerns From a design perspective it is strongly preferred to have about a parking lot being parking located behind buildings as this helps to improve located in the rear yard. the streetscape with buildings having pedestrian connections and porches address the street, rather than a front yard parking lot, or several large driveways with numerous cars as could be the case for a single - detached, semi-detached or street -fronting townhouse dwellings. With respect to site specific design of the parking lot, staff note that the lands are somewhat lower than surrounding properties, and the lot will be fenced, providing a visual barrier to help prevent neighbouring dwellings from headlight glare. Further, lighting is required to be designed to minimize light spilling onto neighbouring lands, and this is reviewed and approved Page 313 of 476 Page 314 of 476 as part of the Site Plan. A review of lighting is not available without site plan control. Concerns about lack of on- The proposed development does not require a reduction site parking. to parking, and in fact provides the maximum number of spaces permitted by Zoning By-law 2019-051 (1.4 parking spaces per dwelling unit) which includes visitor and Barrier Free Spaces. In accordance with the by-law, secure and weather protected bike parking area has been included and this will accommodate 10 bicycles, in addition to 8 standard outdoor bike spaces. Concerns with on -street Transportation Services have been made aware of the parking concerns regarding on -street parking and staff are investigating to determine if changes to street parking signage and/or bylaws are required. Concerns with visibility at Transportation Services have been made aware of the driveway entrance to concerns regarding visibility at the driveway entrance Pinnacle Drive and a more detailed review will be undertaken through the site plan process. Staff note that the large trees and bushes along the street edge will be removed as a result of the development and new landscaping will be installed which will be designed to protect visibility for vehicles exiting the site. Lack of Sidewalks on Staff heard several concerns from residents that Pinnacle Drive Pinnacle Drive does not currently have sidewalks, which is a concern for pedestrians and especially children walking to and waiting for school buses. A preliminary design for sidewalks for Pinnacle Drive, Doon Valley Drive and Amherst Drive was developed and circulated to the neighbourhood about 5 years ago. Work and funding were paused due to the pandemic in 2020. This area will be re-evaluated for funding in 2024. Concerns with student The proposed development is a form of multiple housing and nuisance residential housing that will help to address housing associated with student needs in the City. The City cannot restrict housing housing (noise, car doors, choices based on demographic characteristics or age. smoking) Nuisance is often a matter for by-law enforcement and residents are urged to contact by-law if there is an infraction with respect to matters such as excessive noise, cars being parked inappropriately, garbage being stored inappropriately etc. Page 314 of 476 The 16 unit development is subject to site plan control which means that the City can review, approve and enforce site related matters such as lighting, organization of parking, provision of suitable bicycle parking facilities, confirmation of how garbage will be handled, and provision of snow storage areas. These items are reviewed and approved in accordance with by-law and urban design manual standards, and the owner (and subsequent owners) are bound by a Development Agreement which requires the site be maintained in accordance with the approved plan. Planning Conclusions: In considering the foregoing, staff are supportive of the Zoning By-law Amendment Application. Staff is of the opinion that the subject application is consistent with policies of the Provincial Policy Statement, conforms to Growth Plan for the Greater Golden Horseshoe, the Regional Official Plan, and the City of Kitchener Official Plan and represents good planning. Staff recommends that the application be approved. STRATEGIC PLAN ALIGNMENT: This report supports the delivery of core services. FINANCIAL IMPLICATIONS: Capital Budget — The recommendation has no impact on the Capital Budget. Operating Budget — The recommendation has no impact on the Operating Budget. COMMUNITY ENGAGEMENT: INFORM — • This report has been posted to the City's website with the agenda in advance of the Council / Committee meeting. • A standard City Issued notice sign was posted on the property in 2019. • Information regarding the application was posted to the City's website in 2021. • Preliminary notice letter and comment form was provided to property owners within 120 metres of the subject lands in May 2019 (and in accordance with standard circulation procedures at that time). • A postcard advising of an updated development proposal was circulated to all residents and property owners within 240 metres of the subject lands, and those responding to the preliminary circulation in December 2022. • A postcard advising of the Statutory Public Meeting was circulated to all residents and property owners within 240 metres of the subject lands, and those responding to the preliminary circulation in January 2024. • Notice of the Statutory Public Meeting was also placed in The Record on December 29, 2023 (a copy of the Notice may be found in Attachment `B'). Page 315 of 476 CONSULT — • Preliminary notice letter and comment form was provided to property owners within 120 metres (later expanded to 240 metres) of the subject lands in May 2019 (and in accordance with standard circulations procedure at that time). • An in person Neighbourhood Meeting was held September 10, 2019 and 31 individuals signed in. • A virtual Neighbourhood Meeting was held January 10, 2023 and 41 separate participants logged -on. • A small group neighbourhood meeting was held February 1, 2023 and included approximately 15 residents. • Staff received written correspondence including emails, comment forms and letters from 66 separate addresses representing individuals, households and businesses/organizations which are summarized as part of this staff report and attached in Attachment `D'. • Planning staff also had one-on-one conversations with residents on the telephone and responded to emails. PREVIOUS REPORTS/AUTHORITIES: • Planning Act, R.S.O. 1990, c. P.13 • Growth Plan, 2020 • Provincial Policy Statement, 2020 • Regional Official Plan • City of Kitchener Official Plan, 1994 • City of Kitchener Zoning By-law 85-1 • City of Kitchener Zoning By-law 2019-051 • DSD -2023-434 - Lower Doon Land Use Study Implementation REVIEWED BY: Tina Malone -Wright - Manager, Development Approvals, Planning Division APPROVED BY: Justin Readman, General Manager - Development Services ATTACHMENTS: Attachment A — Proposed By-law with Map 1 Attachment B — Newspaper Notice Attachment C — Staff and Agency Comments Attachment D — Neighbourhood Comments Attachment D1A — Community Comment Matrix Attachment D1 B — Community Comments (Handwritten) Attachment D2 — Letter Attachment D3A — Resident Letter 1 Pt 1 Attachment D313 — Resident Letter 1 Pt 2 (studies) Attachment D4 — Resident Letter 2 Attachment D5 — 2019 NIM Attendees Page 316 of 476 Attachment "A" — Proposed Zoning By-law Amendment PROPOSED BY — LAW , 2024 BY-LAW NUMBER OF THE CORPORATION OF THE CITY OF KITCHENER (Being a by-law to amend By-law 85-1, as amended, and By-law 2019-051, as amended, known as the Zoning By-laws for the City of Kitchener - A & F Greenfield Homes Ltd. and Rosu Developments Inc. — 86 Pinnacle Drive WHEREAS it is deemed expedient to amend By-law 85-1 and By-law 2019-051 for the lands specified above; NOW THEREFORE the Council of the Corporation of the City of Kitchener enacts as follows: 1. Schedule Number 256 of Appendix "A" to By-law Number 85-1 is hereby amended by removing therefrom the lands specified and illustrated as Area 1 on Map No. 1 attached hereto. 2. Schedule Number 256 of Appendix "A" to By-law Number 85-1 is hereby further amended by removing the zone boundaries as shown on Map No. 1 attached hereto. 3. Zoning Grid Schedule Number 256 of Appendix "A" to By-law Number 2019-051 is hereby amended by adding thereto the lands specified and illustrated as Area 1 on Map No. 1 attached hereto, and by zoning the lands specified and illustrated as Area 1 thereafter as Low -Rise Residential Five Zone (RES -5) with Site Specific Provision (386). 4. Zoning Grid Schedule Number 256 of Appendix "A" to By-law Number 2019-051 is hereby further amended by incorporating additional zone boundaries as shown on Map No. 1 attached hereto. 5. Section 19 of By-law 2019-051 is hereby amended by adding Section 19 (386) thereto as follows: "(386). Notwithstanding Table 7-6 of this By-law within the lands zoned RES -5 and shown as affected by this subsection on Zoning Grid Schedule Number 256 of Appendix `A', the following special regulations shall apply: Page 317 of 476 2024. Attachment "A" — Proposed Zoning By-law Amendment a) the minimum interior side yard setback shall be 2.5 metres; b) the minimum front yard setback shall be 6.5 metres." PASSED at the Council Chambers in the City of Kitchener this day of Mayor Clerk Page 318 of 476 1 86U R-3 319 ——————————R -6192R —— ———I1 R-6 -11^1*1W 1111 ♦ 1 ♦ ♦ ♦ � ii 4_ 67R MAP NO. 1 T& F GREENFIELD HOMES LTD.; DEVELOPMENTS INC. 86 PINNACLE DR 0 Z O R-6 461 U 701 R R-5 P 319U U) ) R SUBJECT AREA(S) < Q � N r- z LU AMENDMENT TO BY-LAW 85-1 AND 2019-051 O AREA 1 - } FROM RESIDENTIAL FOUR ZONE (R-4) WITH SPECIAL USE PROVISION 319U 319 UNDER BY-LAW 85-1 TO LOW RISE RESIDENTIAL FIVE ZONE (RES -5) HERST DR WITH SITE SPECIFIC PROVISION (386) UNDER BY-LAW 2019-051 R-6 461 U SCHEDULE 2_56_ SCHEDULE 255 0 50 100 METRES SCALE 1:4,000 DATE: NOVEMBER 23, 2023 1-3 OQ �O O U BY-LAW 85-1 C-1 CONVENIENCE COMMERCIAL ZONE C-6 ARTERIAL COMMERCIAL ZONE 1-3 MAJOR INSTITUTIONAL ZONE R-3 RESIDENTIAL THREE ZONE R-4 RESIDENTIAL FOUR ZONE LO00R-5 RESIDENTIAL FIVE ZONE N,N R-6 RESIDENTIAL SIX ZONE Lu, Lu BY-LAW 2019-051 p 0, NHC-1 NATURAL CONSERVATION ZONE UW� OSR-2 OPEN SPACE: GREENWAYS ZONE � y y RES -1 LOW RISE RESIDENTIAL ONE ZONE i v FLOODING HAZARD SLOPE EROSION HAZARD i iGo SIGNIFICANT WILDLIFE HABITAT AND iN ♦ ♦ LANDFORMS i0 ZONE GRID REFERENCE iW SCHEDULE NO. 256 iV OFAPPENDIX'A' 10 KITCHENER ZONING BY-LAW 85-1 AND 2019-051 ZONE LIMITS ZONING BY-LAW AMENDMENT ZBA19/003/P/KA OFFICIAL PLAN AMENDMENT N/A City of Kitchener FILE ZBA19003PKA_MAP1 DEVELOPMENT SERVICES DEPARTMENT, PLANNING mxd Appendix B — Newspaper Notice NOTICE OF PUBLIC MEETING � for a development in your neighbourhood �-� 86 Pinnacle Drive rc Concept Drawing Have Your Voice Heard! Plan ning& Strategic Initiatives Committee Date: January 22.2024 Location, Council Chambers, Kitchener City Hall 200 Ding Street West or Virtual Zoom Meeting Go to kitchen er.calmeetings and select: * Current agendas and reports {posted 10 days before meeting} Appear as a delegation • Watch a meeting To learn more aboutthis project, including information on Your appeal rights. visit. 1 300 www.kitchener.cal Pla nn i ngApplications o r conta ct: Back -to -Back 22 Parking 16 Dwelling Katie Anderl, Project Manager Stacked Spaces Units katie.anderl0kitchener.ca Townhouse 519.741.2200 x7987 The City of Kitchener will consider a site specific application to amend Zoning By-law 85-1 and 2019-051 for the property located at 86 Pinnacle Drive. The subject lands were not included in the Lower Door Land Use Studer Implementation and are proceeding separately. The applicant is proposing to develop the property with a 16 -unit. back-to-back stacked townhouse. The applicant is proposing to change the zoning from R-4 zone in Zoning By-law 85-1 to RES -5 zone with Site Specific Provision 386 in Zoning By-law 2019-051 to permit the proposed lova-rise multiple dwelling. Page 320 of 476 Katie Anderl From: Mike Seiling Sent: Wednesday, November 16, 2022 4:06 PM To: Katie Anderl Subject: FW: Circulation for Comment - 86 Pinnacle Drive (ZBA - Recirculation) Attachments: Department & Agency Recirc Letter (Nov 2022).pdf; ZBA19003PKA.pdf Building; no concerns From: Christine Kompter<Christine.Kompter@kitchener.ca> Sent: Wednesday, November 16, 2022 3:46 PM To: Rojan Mohammadi <Rojan.Mohammadi@kitchener.ca>; Carrie Musselman<Carrie.Mussel man@kitchener.ca>; Deeksha Choudhry <Deeksha.Choudhry@kitchener.ca>; Dave Seller <Dave.SelIer@kitchener.ca>; Katie Wood <Katie.Wood@kitchener.ca>; Region - Shilling Yip <syip@regionofwaterloo.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>; Enova Power Corp. - Greig Cameron <greig.cameron@enovapower.com>; Enova Power Corp. - Shaun Wang <shaun.wang@enovapower.com>; Feds <vped@feds.ca>; GRCA - Planning (planning@grandriver.ca) <planning@grandriver.ca>; Greg Reitzel <Greg.Reitzel@kitchener.ca>; Hydro One - Dennis DeRango <landuseplanning@hydroone.com>; Jim Edmondson <Jim.Edmondson@kitchener.ca>; Justin Readman <Justin.Readman@kitchener.ca>; Katherine Hughes <Katherine.Hughes@kitchener.ca>; Mike Seiling <Mike.Seiling@kitchener.ca>; Ontario Power Generation <Executivevp.lawanddevelopment@opg.com>; Park Planning (SM) <Park.Planning@kitchener.ca>; Region - Planning <PlanningApplications@regionofwaterloo.ca>; Property Data Administrator (SM) <PropDataAdmin@kitchener.ca>; Robert Morgan <Robert.Morgan@kitchener.ca>; Steven Ryder <Steven.Ryder@kitchener.ca>; Sylvie Eastman <Sylvie.Eastman@kitchener.ca>; 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 - 86 Pinnacle Drive (ZBA - Recirculation) Please see attached — additional documents can be found in ShareFile. 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 049"'k6000000 Page 321 of 476 Katie Anderl From: Katie Wood Sent: Thursday, November 17, 2022 12:04 PM To: Katie Anderl Subject: FW: Circulation for Comment - 86 Pinnacle Drive (ZBA - Recirculation) Attachments: Department & Agency Recirc Letter (Nov 2022).pdf; ZBA19003PKA.pdf Hey Katie, I checked the sanitary flows and they are the same as previously accepted. I have also confirmed with KU that the water distribution is satisfactory. Engineering has not concerns with the zone change proposed. Sincerely, Project Manager) Development Engineering I City of Kitchener 519-741-2200 ext. 7135 1 TTY 1-866-969-9994 1 katie.wood 0kitchener.ca From: Christine Kompter<Christine.Kompter@kitchener.ca> Sent: Wednesday, November 16, 2022 3:46 PM To: Rojan Mohammadi <Rojan.Mohammadi@kitchener.ca>; Carrie Musselman<Carrie.Mussel man@kitchener.ca>; Deeksha Choudhry <Deeksha.Choudhry@kitchener.ca>; Dave Seller <Dave.SelIer@kitchener.ca>; Katie Wood <Katie.Wood@kitchener.ca>; Region - Shilling Yip <syip@regionofwaterloo.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>; Enova Power Corp. - Greig Cameron <greig.cameron@enovapower.com>; Enova Power Corp. - Shaun Wang <shaun.wang@enovapower.com>; Feds <vped@feds.ca>; GRCA - Planning (planning@grandriver.ca) <planning@grandriver.ca>; Greg Reitzel <Greg.Reitzel@kitchener.ca>; Hydro One - Dennis DeRango <landuseplanning@hydroone.com>; Jim Edmondson <Jim.Edmondson@kitchener.ca>; Justin Readman <Justin.Readman@kitchener.ca>; Katherine Hughes <Katherine.Hughes@kitchener.ca>; Mike Seiling <Mike.Seiling@kitchener.ca>; Ontario Power Generation <Executivevp.lawanddevelopment@opg.com>; Park Planning (SM) <Park.Planning@kitchener.ca>; Region - Planning <PlanningApplications@regionofwaterloo.ca>; Property Data Administrator (SM) <PropDataAdmin@kitchener.ca>; Robert Morgan <Robert.Morgan@kitchener.ca>; Steven Ryder <Steven.Ryder@kitchener.ca>; Sylvie Eastman <Sylvie.Eastman@kitchener.ca>; 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 - 86 Pinnacle Drive (ZBA - Recirculation) Please see attached — additional documents can be found in ShareFile. Comments or questions should be directed to Katie Anderl, Senior Planner (copied on this email). Page 322 of 476 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 C^TH]fly7V7o7 Zo7�: Page 323 of 476 From: Katie Pietrzak Sent: Monday, May 27, 2019 4:08 PM To: Katie Anderl Subject: 86 Pinnacle Drive Hey Katie In response to the Zone Change Application ZBA19/003/P/KA Engineering has the following comments: 1. The water distribution was accepted by Kitchener Utilities. 2. The sanitary flows are so minimal (less than 2 L/s) that there is no capacity issues proposed within the sanitary sewers. Engineering has no concerns with less than 2L/s coming from the proposed property. Please note that this is for zone change comments only and not for the site plan and SWM comments. That will be done through the site plan process. If you have any questions feel free to contact me. Sincerely, I ahe PietrzakC.E.T. Project Manager) Development Engineering I City of Kitchener 519-741-2200 ext. 7135 1 TTY 1-866-969-9994 1 katie.pietrzak@kitchener.ca You M ( C=' Page 324 of 476 City of Kitchener COMMENT FORM Project Address: 86 Pinnacle Drive Application Type: Zoning By-law Amendment ZBA/19/003/P/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: November 29, 2022 Comments required no later than: December 9, 2022 1. Plans, Studies and Reports submitted as part of a complete Planning Act Application: • Functional Grading, Servicing and Stormwater Report, 86 Pinnacle Drive, City of Kitchener, IBI Group. dated September 27, 2022. • Tree Preservation Plan (Sheet L-1 and L-2), IBI Group, dated 2022-10-05. • 86 Pinnacle Drive, Kitchener Planning Justification and Urban Design Report. IBI Group, dated October 6, 2022. 2. Site Specific Comments & Issues: I have reviewed the studies as noted above submitted in support of a zoning bylaw amendment [Residential Four Zone (R-4) to Residential Six Zone (R-6)] to permit a multiple residential development at 86 Pinnacle Drive. • The original application proposed a 2 -storey apartment style multiple dwelling containing 16 dwelling units. The applicant has amended their proposal to include 16 unit stacked, back-to- back townhouse development (multiple dwelling). Tree Preservation / Natural Heritage • There are no natural heritage features or functions of local, Regional, Provincial, or national significance on, or adjacent to the subject property. • As several trees are on the property, a Tree Preservation Plan was required to be submitted as part of a complete application to support the associated Zoning By-law Amendment (ZBA19/003/P/KA). I completed a review of the Tree Preservation Plan (TPP) (Sheet L-1 and Sheet L-2) that was prepared by IBI Group dated 03/2019 received April 24, 2019, and noted: o The TPP inventoried 38 trees on or near the subject property, 33 trees were recommended to be removed to accommodate the proposed development and associated grading. o Of the 33 trees to be removed only 8 were evaluated to be in good condition. o Three trees to be retained are located along the edge of the property boundary and will be protected during grading/construction. If possible, the design should be amended so that the landscaped buffer around Trees 3, 4, 5 and 6 all weeping Norway spruce in good condition be enlarged so that they can be retained. o Tree ID 19 and Tree ID 35 are in joint ownership and/or near the subject property. The removal of any trees on the property line or offsite will require the permission of the property owner. A City for Everyone Working Together — Growing Thoughtfully — Building Community Page 325 of 476 Based on my review of the supporting studies the Zoning By Law Amendment can be supported. At the time of the site plan application tree retention may be further evaluated. 3. Policies. Standards and Resources: As per Section 8.C.2 — Urban Forests of the Official Plan ... o policy 8.C.2.16., the City requires the preparation and submission of a tree management plan in accordance with the City's Tree Management Policy (available on the City's Website), as a condition of a development application. o policy 8.C.2.6., the City will incorporate existing and/or new trees into the streetscape or road rights-of-way and encourage new development or redevelopment to incorporate, protect and conserve existing healthy trees and woodlands in accordance with the Urban Design Policies in Section 13 (Landscape and Natural Features) of the Urban Design Manual and the Development Manual. 4. Anticipated Fees: • N/A A City for Everyone Working Together — Growing Thoughtfully — Building Community Page 326 of 476 Grand River Conservation Authority 400 Clyde Road, P.O. Box 729 Resource Management Division Cambridge, Ontario N1 R 5W6 Andrew Herreman, Resource Planning Phone: (519) 621-2761 ext. 2228 Technician Fax: (519) 621-4945 E-mail: aherreman@grand river.ca PLAN REVIEW REPORT: City of Kitchener Katie Anderl DATE: June 3, 2019 YOUR FILE: ZBA19/003/P/KA GRCA FILE: ZBA19-003-P-KA RE: Zoning By-law Amendment ZBA19/003/P/KA 86 Pinnacle Drive, City of Kitchener A & F Greenfield Homes Ltd. GRCA COMMENT*: We received a request for comments on a pre -submission application regarding 86 Pinnacle Drive. Please be advised that the subject lands do not contain features regulated by the GRCA. Therefore, we will not participate in the review of this application. We trust the City will ensure appropriate stormwater management measures are implemented where applicable. We trust this information is of assistance. If you have any questions, or require additional information, please contact the undersigned. Sincerely, Andrew Herreman, CPT Resource Planning Technician Grand River Conservation Authority * These comments are respectfully submitted as advice and reflect resource concerns within the scope and mandate of the Grand River Conservation Authority. Page 1 of 1 Page 327 of 476 Katie Anderl From: Victoria Grohn Sent: Wednesday, July 17, 2019 9:48 AM To: Katie Anderl Subject: RE: ZBA19/003/P/KA - 86 Pinnacle Drive Hi Katie, Further to my email below, the property municipally addressed as 86 Pinnacle Drive was previously identified on the Heritage Kitchener Inventory of Historic Buildings. The property was re-evaluated as part of the Council - approved 4 -step listing process for the listing of non -designated property of cultural heritage value or interest on the City's Municipal Heritage Register. The evaluation concluded that the property did not merit listing. As such, the property municipally addressed as 86 Pinnacle Drive has no heritage status. Victoria Victoria Grohn Heritage Planner I Planning Division I City of Kitchener 519-741-2200 ext. 7839 1 TTY 1-866-969-9994 1 victoria.grohn(aD-kitchener.ca From: Victoria Grohn Sent: Friday, June 7, 2019 4:02 PM To: Katie Anderl <Katie.Anderl@kitchener.ca> Subject: ZBA19/003/P/KA - 86 Pinnacle Drive Hi Katie, Please see the attached comment form. Victoria Victoria Grohn Heritage Planner I Planning Division I City of Kitchener 519-741-2200 ext. 7839 1 TTY 1-866-969-9994 1 victoria.grohn(cDkitchener.ca Page 328 of 476 Department/Agency Comment Form Zoning By-law Amendment ZBA19/003/P/KA Address: 86 Pinnacle Drive Owner: A & F Greenfield Homes Limited If you have NO concerns or comments, please complete and return. flano�l Departme /Agency Name (Print) Signature of Representative Date Please direct all correspondence to: Katie Anderl, Senior Planner Phone: 519-741-2200 x7987 Email: katie.anderl@kitchener.ca Fax: 519-741-2624 Mail: City Hall 200 King Street West, 6th Floor, PO Box 1118 Kitchener, ON N2G 4G7 Page 329 of 476 City of Kitchener Heritage — OPA/ZBA Comment Form Project Address: 86 Pinnacle Drive File Number: ZBA19/003/P/KA Comments Of: Heritage Planning Commenter's Name: Deeksha Choudhry Email: deeksha.choudhry@kitchener.ca Phone: 519-741-2200 ext. 7291 Date of Comments: December 1, 2022 Heritage Planning staff has reviewed the following material for the proposed development on the lands municipally addressed as 86 Pinnacle Drive to provide the comments outlined below: • Concept Plan for the proposed development at 86 Pinnacle Drive; • Updated Planning Justification Report and Urban Design Report; • Proposed Site Plan for the proposed development at 86 Pinnacle Drive 1. Site Specific Comments: The subject property municipally addressed as 86 Pinnacle Drive has no heritage status. The property municipally addressed as 86 Pinnacle Drive was previously identified on the Heritage Kitchener Inventory of Historic Buildings. The property was then re-evaluated as part of the Council approved 4 - step listing process for the listing of non -designated property of cultural heritage value or interest on the City's Municipal Heritage Register. The evaluation concluded that the property did not merit listing. 2. Heritage Planning Comments As this property has no heritage status, Heritage Planning staff have no concerns or issues with the proposed development. A City for Everyone Working Together — Growing Thoughtfully — Building Community Page 330 of 476 City of Kitchener Zone Change / Official Plan Amendment Comment Form Address: 86 Pinnacle Dr Owner: A&F Greenfield Homes Limited Application: Zoning Bylaw Amendment ZBA19/003/P/KA recirculation Comments Of: Parks and Cemeteries Commenter's Name: Lenore Ross Email: Lenore. ross@kitchener.ca Phone: 519-741-2200 ext 7427 Date of Comments: Dec 12 2022 ❑ 1 plan to attend the meeting (questions/concerns/comments for discussion) ❑X No meeting to be held ❑ I do NOT plan to attend the meeting (no concerns) 1. Documents Reviewed: I have reviewed the documentation noted below submitted in support of a Zoning Bylaw Amendment to change from R-4 zone to R-6 zone to permit multiple dwelling (stacked townhouse); permit a parking ratio of 1.375 spaces per unit (whereas the original proposal proposed a ratio of 1.25 spaces per unit). By-law 85-1 currently requires 1.75 spaces per units. Applicant Cover letter_ IBI Group dated Oct 06 2022 Planning Justification and Urban Design Report — IBI Group dated Oct 06 2022 Conceptual Site Plan — Marsh Katsios Site Plan rev #12 dated Oct 05 2022 Conceptual Floor Plans and Elevations - Marsh Katsios A2 rev #10 dated Oct 14 2022 and A3 -A10 rev #9 dated Aug 04 2022 Tree Management Plan — IBI Group rev#1 dated Oct 05 2022 2. Site Specific Comments & Issues: Parks and Cemeteries has no significant concerns with the proposed Zoning Bylaw amendment and has no objection to the application. The parkland dedication requirement will be deferred at the Zoning By-law Amendment application and assessed at a future Site Plan Application. Parkland dedication will be assessed based on the land use class(es) and density approved through the ZBA and required as a condition of Site Plan Approval. Parkland dedication will be taken as cash -in -lieu of land. There are no existing street trees that will be impacted by the proposed development and the requirement for new street trees will be assessed at the site plan application. 3. Comments on Submitted Documents No comments or concerns A City for Everyone Working Together — Growing Thoughtfully — Building Community 18aw ? of 476 City of Kitchener Zone Change / Official Plan Amendment Comment Form 4. Policies, Standards and Resources: • Kitchener Official Plan Policy • City of Kitchener Park Dedication Bylaw 2022-101 and Park Dedication Policy • City of Kitchener Development Manual • Cycling and Trails Master Plan (2020) • Chapter 690 of the current Property Maintenance By-law • Places & Spaces: An Open Space Strategy for Kitchener • Multi -Use Pathways & Trails Masterplan • Urban Design Manual 5. Anticipated Fees: Parkland Dedication The parkland dedication requirement for this submission is deferred and will be assessed at a future Site Plan Application. Parkland dedication will be assessed based on the land use class(es) and density approved through the ZBA and required as a condition of Site Plan Approval Parkland dedication is required for the application as cash -in -lieu of land according to Bylaw 2022-101 Dedication requirements are subject to the Parkland Dedication Policy and rates in effect. Please be advised that an updated Parkland Dedication Policy and By-law were approved by City of Kitchener Council on August 22 2022. This update includes but is not limited to changes to the classes of lands requiring Parkland Dedication, standard land assessment values for determining Parkland Dedication, Parkland Dedication exemption categories and transition provisions for in -progress applications. The Bylaw is under appeal. Further changes to the Bylaw may be required as a result of the Bill 23 — More Homes Built Faster Act. A City for Everyone Working Together — Growing Thoughtfully — Building Community aw of 476 Department/Agency Comment Form Zoning By-law Amendment ZBA19/003/P/KA Address: 86 Pinnacle Drive Owner: A & F Greenfield Homes Limited If you have NO concerns or comments, please complete and return. Department/Agency Name (Print) I / 0 Si ure of lrepreseTntative Date Please direct all correspondence to: Katie Anderl, Senior Planner Phone: 519-741-2200 x7987 Email: katie.anderl@kitchener.ca Fax: 519-741-2624 Mail: City Hall 200 King Street West, 6th Floor, PO Box 1118 Kitchener, ON N2G 4G7 Page 333 of 476 Region of Waterloo Katie Anderl Senior Planner City of Kitchener 200 King Street West P.O. Box 1118 Kitchener, ON N2G 4G7 Dear Ms. Anderl, PLANNING, DEVELOPMENT AND LEGISLATIVE SERVICES Community Planning 150 Frederick Street 8th Floor Kitchener Ontario N2G 4A Canada Telephone: 519-575-4400 TTY: 519-575-4608 Fax: 519-575-4466 www.regionofwaterloo.ca Carolyn Crozier 575-4757 ext. 3657 File: C14-60/2/19003 June 10, 2019 Re: Proposed Zoning By -Law Amendment ZBA19/003/P/KA 86 Pinnacle Drive A & F Greenfield Homes Limited CITY OF KITCHENER Regional staff has completed its circulation of the above -noted proposed Zoning By-law Amendment and provide the following comments for your consideration. The applicant is proposing a Zoning By -Law Amendment to change the existing zoning from Residential (R4) to Residential (R6) to permit a low rise multiple dwelling, and to allow for a reduced parking ratio. The subject lands are designated Low Density Residential in the City of Kitchener Official Plan and Built -Up Area within the Region of Waterloo Official Plan. Community Planning Water Services Water Services staff have reviewed the Functional Grading, Servicing and Stormwater Management Report prepared by IBI Group dated April 22, 2019 and provide the following comments: Document Number: 3027520 Page 334 of 476 The applicant has not identified the use of an individual pressure reducing device. The applicant is advised that the subject property is located in Kitchener Zone 2 (W) with a static hydraulic grade line of 361 mASL. Any development with a finished road elevation below 304.8 mASL will require individual pressure reducing devices on each water service in accordance with Section B.2.4.7 of the Design Guidelines and Supplemental Specifications for Municipal Services for January 2019. Archeology and Cultural Heritage The property at 86 Pinnacle Drive contains a historic structure (house built circa 1883). The structure is not protected by any heritage status. Regional Cultural Heritage staff will not be requesting the submission of an archaeological assessment in support of the proposed development application. The applicant is advised that if archaeological resources are discovered during future development or site alteration of the subject property, the applicant will need to immediately cease alteration/development and contact the Ministry of Tourism, Culture and Sport. If it is determined that additional investigation and reporting of the archaeological resources is needed, a licensed archaeologist will be required to conduct this field work in compliance with S. 48(a) of the Ontario Heritage Act. If human remains/or a grave site is discovered during development or site alteration of the subject property, the applicant will need to immediately cease alteration and must contact the proper authorities (police or coroner) and the Registrar at the Bereavement Authority of Ontario in Compliance with the Funeral, Burial and Cremation Services Act, 2002 S. 96 and associated Regulations. Corridor Planning No concerns. Fees The Regional acknowledges receipt of the required Zone Change application fee. Summary In summary, Regional Staff has no objection to approval of the proposed Zone Change Application. General Comments Any future development on the lands subject to the above -noted application(s) will be subject to the provisions of Regional Development Charge By-law 14-046 or any successor thereof. Document Number: 2750528 Page 335 of 476 Should you have any questions, please do not hesitate to contact the undersigned. Yours truly, Carolyn CrozirMSc.Pl, MCIP, RPP Principal Planner Document Number: 2750528 Page 336 of 476 N* Region of Waterloo Katie Anderl, MCIP, RPP Senior Planner City of Kitchener 200 King Street West, 6t" Floor P.O. Box 1118, Kitchener, ON N2G 4G7 PLANNING, DEVELOPMENT AND LEGISLATIVE SERVICES Community Planning 150 Frederick Street 8th Floor Kitchener Ontario N2G 4A Canada Telephone: 519-575-4400 TTY: 519-575-4608 Fax: 519-575-4466 www.regionotwaterloo.ca File: C14-60/2/19003 December 8, 2022 Dear Ms. Anderl, Re: Proposed Zoning By -Law Amendment ZBA 19/03 86 Pinnacle Drive IBI Group on behalf of A & F Greenfield Home Limited CITY OF KITCHENER The applicant is proposing to amend the Zoning By-law from Residential Four Zone (R4) to Residential Six Zone (R6) to construct a three (3) storey, 16 unit, back-to-back townhouse (multiple dwelling) development. A special provision to permit a parking ratio of 1.375 spaces per unit is also proposed whereas 1.75 spaces per unit is currently required. The property currently contains a single detached dwelling. Regional staff has reviewed the proposed application and offer the following comments for the City's consideration: Consistency with Provincial Legislation and Regional Official Plan Conformity The Provincial Policy Statement, 2020 (PPS) promotes building strong, heathy communities by encouraging the development of liveabe and resilient neighbourhoods that protect the environment, public health and safety of Ontarians. Settlement areas are intended to accommodate the majority of growth within the province and provide a range of housing types that efficiently use land and resources. In addition, the Growth Plan for the Greater Golden Horseshoe (Growth Plan) provides growth targets for each municipality to achieve regarding residents and jobs per hectare. The proposed application is consistent with the intent of the PPS and the Growth Plan. Page 337 of 476 Regional Official Plan The subject lands are designated "Urban Area" and "Built -Up Area" on Schedule 3 of the Regional Official Plan (ROP). Permitted uses of the Urban Area and Built -Up Area in the ROP include a mix of housing uses including, but not limited to supportive and affordable housing options. The Region directs the majority of intensification to the Urban Growth Areas and Major Transit Station Areas. Policy 2.D.1 provides general development policies for Urban Areas and requires that the proposed application contribute to the creation of a complete community through development patterns, densities and a mix of land uses that support walking, cycling and use of transit as well as protects the natural environment and respects the scale, physical character and context of established neighbourhoods. In ROP Chapter 3, the Region encourages Area Municipalities to provide a range of housing in terms of form, tenure, density and affordability to support the various physical, social, economic and personal support needs of current and future residents in neighbourhoods where health, safety, servicing and other reasonable standards or criteria can be met. Regional Official Plan Amendment 6 On August 18th, 2022, the Regional Municipality of Waterloo adopted ROP Amendment number 6 (ROPA 6), which will come into force and effect upon approval by the Minister of Municipal Affairs and Housing. Key objectives contained within the amendment include a new approach to accommodate the forecasted growth within 15 -minute neighbourhoods, which are compact, well-connected places where the everyday needs of residents for goods, services and employment can be met. A well-designed 15 -minute neighbourhood will contain a mix of land uses that provide for a variety of incomes and household sizes. The development densities will support a range of services and high quality public spaces. These policies also apply to designated greenfield areas to ensure that new neighbourhoods enable people reduce dependence on vehicle trips and are places that prioritize walking, cycling and transit. Population and employment forecasts anticipate 409,200 people and 170,500 jobs within the City of Kitchener by 2051. Over 60 percent of new residential growth within the Region is anticipated to occur within delineated built-up areas. The Region and area municipalities will collaborate to develop and adopt a strategy to meet or exceed the minimum targets set out in policy 2.F.2. The minimum intensification target set out for Kitchener is 60 percent or approximately an additional 31,660 units between 2022 and 2051. Additionally, a minimum target of 30 percent of new ownership and rental housing is to be affordable and accommodate a variety of housing options to address the needs of 2 Page 338 of 476 range of income and household incomes, sizes and ages. The Region will promote the inclusion of additional built forms including duplexes, triplexes, four-plexes, multiple dwellings and apartments. The proposed application is consistent with ROP policies regarding urban areas. Housing Comments 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. The Region supports the provision of a full range of housing options, including affordable housing. Rent levels and house prices that are considered affordable according to the Regional Official Plan are provided below in the section on affordability. Staff recommend that the applicant consider providing a number of affordable housing units on the site, as defined in the Regional Official Plan, if the Zoning By-law amendment is approved. 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. 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 $385,500 results in annual accommodation costs 3 Page 339 of 476 which do not exceed 30 percent of gross annual household income for low and 30 per cent of the gross annual 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 Bachelor: "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. Cultural Heritage The property at 86 Pinnacle Drive possesses the potential for the recovery of archaeological resources because of the presence of an historic structure on the property (c. 1883) and proximity to other historic structures, the proximity to water courses, including the Grand River and its location within an historic core area. Regional Cultural Heritage staff will not require the submission of an archaeological assessment in support of the proposed development application. However, the applicant should be aware that: 4 Page 340 of 476 If archaeological resources are discovered during future development or site alteration of the subject property, the applicant will need to immediately cease alteration/development and contact the Ministry of Tourism, Culture and Sport. If it is determined that additional investigation and reporting of the archaeological resources is needed, a licensed archaeologist will be required to conduct this field work in compliance with S. 48(a) of the Ontario Heritage Act; and/or, If human remains/or a grave site is discovered during development or site alteration of the subject property, the applicant will need to immediately cease alteration and must contact the proper authorities (police or coroner) and the Registrar at the Bereavement Authority of Ontario in Compliance with the Funeral, Burial and Cremation Services Act, 2002 S. 96 and associated Regulations. General Comments Any future development on the lands subject to the above -noted application will be subject to the provisions of Regional Development Charge By-law 19-037 or any successor thereof. In conclusion, the Region has no objections to the proposed zoning by-law amendment. Please accept this letter as our request for a copy of the decision pertaining to this application. Should you have any questions, please do not hesitate to contact me. Yours truly, 91L__ cAv7e�_� Jennifer Catarino, MCIP, RPP Senior Planner David Galbraith, IBI Group (via email) A & F Greenfield Home Limited (via email) Page 341 of 476 From: Dave Seller Sent: Wednesday, June 5, 2019 1:21 PM To: Katie Anderl Subject: ZBA comments: 86 Pinnacle Drive Hi Katie, Transportation Services have reviewed the IBI Parking Justification Report (February 27, 2019) and provide the following remarks. 1. The rational provided in the report to reduce the parking rate to 1.44 parking spaces per unit for 23 on-site parking spaces is acceptable. It should be noted that there was no reference of visitor parking in the conclusion and recommendations section. Therefore, an inclusive rate of 15% be applied, which results in, 4 visitor parking spaces and 19 tenant parking spaces for the proposed 23 on-site parking spaces. Site plan comments 2. Driveway visibility triangles be illustrated along the property line. 3. Barrier free and visitor signs be noted on the plan. 4. Truck movement plan be submitted for garbage pick-up. AutoTURN be used to illustrate truck turning movements. 5. Sidewalks internal to the site be 1.5 metres and 1.8 metres when adjacent to parking. Dimensioning be taken from back of curb. 6. Plan A1.01 notes one visitor parking space is being provided, this is insufficient. Additional visitor parking to be provided on-site. Dave Seller, C.E.T. Traffic Planning Analyst I Transportation Services I City of Kitchener 519-741-2200 ext. 7369 1 TTY 1-866-969-9994 1 dave.seller@kitchener.ca a Page 342 of 476 Katie Anderl From: Rojan Mohammadi Sent: Monday, December 5, 2022 11:17 AM To: Katie Anderl Subject: 86 Pinnacle Drive - Urban Design Comments Hi Katie, Here are my comments on the recirculation for the above noted address: TM P: • Written permission for removal of or impact to trees in joint ownership along property lines is required • Please properly outline the property line on the plan • Details regarding Tree preservation fencing should be from City of Kitchener not Hamilton • Please ensure TPF is located 1.0+ outside of the dripline where appropriate Site plan: • It is recommended to relocate the gas/electrical meters location to a more appropriate space if possible Thank you Rojan Mohammadi MA, MCIP, RPP, PMP (She/Her) Senior Urban Designer I Planning Division I City of Kitchener 519-741-2200 x 7326 1 TTY 1-866-969-9994 1 Roi'an.mohammadi kitchener.ca 0 ��l� C)10(D000 Page 343 of 476 Katie Anderl From: Planning <planning@wcdsb.ca> Sent: Thursday, December 1, 2022 1:11 PM To: Katie Anderl Subject: RE: Circulation for Comment - 86 Pinnacle Drive (ZBA - Recirculation) 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). If you require any further information, please contact me by e-mail at Jordan. Neale@wcdsb.ca. Thank you, Jordan Neale Planning Technician, WCDSB 480 Dutton Dr, Waterloo, ON N2L 4C6 519-578-3660 ext. 2355 From: Christine Kompter<Christine.Kompter@kitchener.ca> Sent: Wednesday, November 16, 2022 3:46 PM To: Rojan Mohammadi <Rojan.Mohammadi@kitchener.ca>; Carrie Musselman<Carrie.Musselman@kitchener.ca>; Deeksha Choudhry <Deeksha.Choudhry@kitchener.ca>; Dave Seller <Dave.SelIer@kitchener.ca>; Katie Wood <Katie.Wood@kitchener.ca>; Region - Shilling Yip <syip@regionofwaterloo.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>; Enova Power Corp. - Greig Cameron <greig.cameron@enovapower.com>; Enova Power Corp. - Shaun Wang <shaun.wang@enovapower. corn >; Feds <vped@feds.ca>; GRCA - Planning (planning@grandriver.ca) <planning@grandriver.ca>; Greg Reitzel <Greg.Reitzel@kitchener.ca>; Hydro One - Dennis DeRango <landuseplanning@hydroone.com>; Jim Edmondson <Jim.Edmondson@kitchener.ca>; Justin Readman <Justin.Readman@kitchener.ca>; Katherine Hughes <Katherine.Hughes@kitchener.ca>; Mike Seiling <Mike.Seiling@kitchener.ca>; Ontario Power Generation <Executivevp.lawanddevelopment@opg.com>; Park Planning (SM) <Park.Planning@kitchener.ca>; Region - Planning <PlanningApplications@regionofwaterloo.ca>; Property Data Administrator (SM) <PropDataAdmin@kitchener.ca>; Robert Morgan <Robert.Morgan@kitchener.ca>; Steven Ryder <Steven.Ryder@kitchener.ca>; Sylvie Eastman <Sylvie.Eastman@kitchener.ca>; Planning <planning@wcdsb.ca>; WRDSB - Board Secretary (elaine_burns@wrdsb.ca) <elaine_burns@wrdsb.ca>; WRDSB - Planning <planning@wrdsb.ca> Cc: Katie Anderl <Katie.Anderl@kitchener.ca> Subject: Circulation for Comment - 86 Pinnacle Drive (ZBA - Recirculation) Caution - External Email - This Message comes from an external organization. Do NOT click on unrecognized links or provide your username and/or password. Page 344 of 476 Please see attached — additional documents can be found in ShareFile. 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 OD9)vOOm6)O Disclaimer -This email and any files transmitted with it are confidential and contain privileged or copyright information. You must not present this message to another party without gaining permission from the sender. If you are not the intended recipient you must not copy, distribute or use this email or the information contained in it for any purpose other than to notify us. If you have received this message in error, please notify the sender immediately, and delete this email from your system. We do not guarantee that this material is free from viruses or any other defects although due care has been taken to minimize the risk. Any views expressed in this message are those of the individual sender, except where the sender specifically states them to be the views of the Waterloo Catholic District School Board. Page 345 of 476 From: Sent: To: Cc: Subject: Attachments: Hi Katie, No comments, (please see attached) Shawn Shawn Callon <shawn callon@wrdsb.ca> Tuesday, May 14, 2019 2:12 PM Planning Katie Anderl; Christine Kompter Re: Circulation for Comment - Zoning By-law Amendment (86 Pinnacle Drive) 86Pinnacle.pdf On Monday, 13 May 2019 15:50:51 UTC -4, Christine. Kompter@ kitchen er.ca wrote: Please see attached. Comments or questions should be directed to Katie Anderl — Senior Planner (katie.anderl@kitchener.ca; 519-741-2200 x7987). Sincerely, Christine Kompter Administrative Assistant I Planning Division I City of Kitchener 200 King Street West, 6th 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 DDDDDDDDD Page 346 of 476 Address Date Comment 6C-350 Doon Valley Dr 9/16/2019 Hard copy comment form Kitchener ON N2P 2M9 83 Pinnacle Drive 1/11/2023 Much appreciated, thanks Katie. And I appreciate all your hard work on this, your candor at the meeting Kitchener ON yesterday, and working with the community. I'm sure it's not easy. N2P 1138 ---------------------------------- 83 Pinnacle Dr, Kitchener, ON N2P 1138 83 Pinnacle Drive 1/10/2023 Hi Katie, Kitchener ON N2P 1138 I'm adding my voice to the others in saying no to rezoning 86 Pinnacle Drive. My wife and I are new additions to the community and live directly across the street from 86 Pinnacle. We chose this neighborhood because it's a safe and welcoming place to raise our baby daughter. Right now, despite problems that many communities grapple with (like trash, noisy cars, and neglected property standards), there is a fine balance that is at work in this community that's keeping everyone that lives here relatively happy and safe. The proposed zoning changes will fundamentally alter that balance. 1. The current infrastructure does not support a building as big as the size in the proposal. By cramming that many units in such a small area, we'll see more foot traffic and car traffic on an already busy small street that doesn't even have a sidewalk! Plus, this street is a bus route and located near a transit hub. Why would we want to maximize parking spaces in such a tiny area? We should be optimizing for more sustainable solutions that prioritize public transit. Houses on our street with ultra wide driveways look like used car lots right now. Please don't add another. 2. The character of the neighborhood would fundamentally change. Adding a building that size will totally eclipse the others. Why even have zoning regulation anyway if we're just going to make exceptions on singular plots of land? Why even consider rezoning a plot of land before Page 347 of 476 Address Date Comment the Lower Doon Development Plan is complete? Allowing the construction of what amounts to a monstrosity of a building in context with the current homes in the neighborhood is a cynical way to pay homage to Kitchener's past that many houses here represent. 3. We are barely keeping up with the externalities that absent and negligent landlords in the neighborhood create. Amherst Dr is currently strewn with broken glass, piles of garbage and illegal rooming houses. We need cooperation from Conestoga in housing their students and ensuring everyone has access to a safe and healthy place to live. This building will terraform Pinnacle into another Amherst by dumping too many people into too small a space and magnify the problems we already have. Where will my daughter play? Where will she ride bikes with friends? Where will she take walks with her family? I want her to be able to thrive in the place she grows up and not have to worry about tripping over yet another broken beer bottle or dodging yet another careless driver. This neighborhood has value way beyond becoming a dangerous and lifeless warehouse for Conestoga college students. Once the character of a neighborhood fundamentally changes, there is no going back. The living history of lower Doon, one of Kitchener's oldest neighborhoods, will be erased. A thriving and balanced community with young families, students, and seniors will be erased. And, in its place, we'll simply have another forgotten part of the city, lost to developers chasing a quick buck at the expense of everyone else, including the students they pretend to serve. ------------------------------- 74-105 Pinnacle Dr 1/24/2023 Dear Katie Anderl, Kitchener ON I am writing to follow up on the Zoom meeting we had on January 10th regarding the rezoning proposal N2P1B8 for 86 Pinnacle Dr. As discussed during the meeting, I have a number of concerns about the proposal that I would like to express. I believe the proposed rezoning would have a negative impact on the community. Many residents have expressed their valid concerns about the potential for increased traffic, noise, and loss of green space. The traffic in the area is already heavy and I am concerned that the proposed development would only exacerbate the problem. Furthermore, I would like to bring to your attention that the latest traffic survey was done several years ago before the construction of 50 Pinnacle Drive which has already Page 348 of 476 Address Date Comment increased the traffic in the area. I am concerned about the bus stop being right across from 86 Pinnacle Dr and having all those cars coming in and out of the complex and the cars that will park on the street. Additionally, I have concerns about the potential for the rezoning to negatively impact property values and the overall quality of life in the area. It's worth noting that the vast majority of the residents in the area strongly oppose the proposal and believe that it would have a detrimental effect on the community. Thank you for your time and consideration. Sincerely, ------------------------------------------- 95 Pinnacle Dr 1/17/2023 >> To Katie and to whom else it concerns, Kitchener ON >> N2P 11-17 >> I am a newer resident of Lower Doon and quite frankly it shocks me what is being proposed at 86 Pinnacle. A development of this magnitude and approval of R6 zoning on this particular lot is completely ridiculous. Has anyone from the city been to this site? I'd love for you to stand across the street and picture it. Picture it towering over the small white farmhouse that sits right next to it. The older gentlemen who lives there, whose wife passed away a few years ago and who is hanging on to this property because she loved it so much and he is honouring her by keeping it just the way she liked it. >> It saddens me to know that the city is quick to approve such a development. To build such a monstrosity on a single lot, and shove 16 tiny units with a 22 car parking lot is beyond me and clearly details the GREED of some developers (one of whom lives on a MASSIVE gated property with a single MANSION in the middle) and the approval of such proposal makes it seem the city also doesn't care about it's residents either. Not only does it not fit the aesthetic of the neighbourhood, but will just be the beginning of such developments in our community. Developments like these that will slowly deteriorate the neighbourhood, taking away the character of our city by not protecting the history of the area and its heritage homes. As an Art History graduate, I was beyond excited to find a home in this neighbourhood. Being so close to the Homer Watson Gallery surrounded by local heritage homes showing first hand the rich history of Kitchener's past, right on Pinnacle Drive! The College should have more responsibility for creating student housing on its own land, not developers bulldozing over a small community of quiet families. Page 349 of 476 Address Date Comment >> We knew we were purchasing a home close to a college with many students in the area. But the amount of cars blaring music, noise and disruption heard at 2-3am from local college students is already beyond acceptable. The garbage accumulated and lack of neighbourhood upkeep from some landlords and tenants will only get worse and worse. What will become of this neighbourhood? How will this impact my family and other families in the community? >> This development directly impacts my family. I have a young child that is ---- and a baby that is -------- I am also a elementary school teacher. Students from my school live in this neighbourhood, in homes directly across and behind 86 Pinnacle Drive. There is also a school bus stop directly across from this site. Having a building of this capacity with double, if not TRIPLE the amount of traffic and cars parked on this street. For a street that has NO SIDEWALKS on either side, where people and families have to weave in and out of the cars parked on the road to walk down the street, as well as the speed at which some people drive on Pinnacle Drive, TERRIFIES me that there will be soon a FATAL accident. For all the little bodies that need to travel to and from this bus stop, or even go for a walk through the neighbourhood, they have to risk their life? What message is this sending, that the city doesn't care? >> I beg of you, please reconsider this proposed development. Please revisit the site yourself, walk through the neighbourhood, walk down Pinnacle Drive and imagine what this could do to this neighbourhood. >> Thank you, >> ------------------- (resident on Pinnacle Drive) Page 350 of 476 Address Date Comment None provided 1/9/2023 Good morning and Happy New Year everyone. I'm writing to share some of my concerns with the rezoning of 86 Pinnacle Drive and the impact that an R6 zoning approval will have on the community in Lower Doon. Many families like ours, believe our homes to be safe, and comfortable places for our kids to play without concern for overcrowding of vehicles and traffic. If 86 Pinnacle is developed as currently planned, it will pose risks to the safety of the community. The sheer size of the development being proposed with 16 stacked units is in contradiction with the community safety, traffic management, and comfort that Lower Doon has been known for, and was considered as families have settled down locally. We believe in progression, and contributing to the growth of the community that maintains the current density objectives, sustains vegetation and green initiatives, and reduces over crowding and traffic concerns. Please consider development under the R4 zoning laws which can make this happen and still contribute to the growth of the beloved Lower Doon community. Thank you for your consideration. -------------------- and family 95 Pinnacle Drive 11/30/2020 My name is ------------------ my family and I live at 95 Pinnacle Drive, across from 86 Pinnacle Drive where Kitchener, ON there has been an application to amend the zoning classification of the property. N2P 1138 I am writing today to address our concern and displeasure with the proposed application ZBA19/003/P/KA. I cannot make out the number clearly as there is an obstruction on the sign. Firstly, the proposed development by the owners ROSU DEVELOPMENTS INC.; A & F GREENFIELD HOMES LTD is disturbingly out of character with the existing landscape of the peaceful and quiet street being Pinnacle Drive. The proposed application would impact aesthetics of the neighbourhood, natural heritage, as well as disrupt sightlines for a number of homes. Development would cause the removal of existing vegetation and would increase traffic thereby impacting the safety of my child and other children within the community. Page 351 of 476 Address Date Comment The height of the proposal is absurd and any future development should be aligned with the height of homes and houses abutting the subject site or within close proximity. The development proposal of course is geared to attract students, some of which have no regard for the community or neighbours in the area. In essence, this proposal would lead to an increased administrative burden on the tax payers of the City of Kitchener, calls and emails to by-law officers would flood in, not to mention calls to local police departments should disturbance escalate or continue without resolve. Upon completion, review and approval of the Lower Doon Study in Q3 2021, should Option 3 "Release the Pressure" be a preferred option to planners and council. I would then suggest the landowners of 86 Pinnacle (ROSU DEVELOPMENTS INC.; A & F GREENFIELD HOMES LTD) work with the City of Kitchener, Conestoga College and the Doon Golf course in a public-private partnership to develop student geared residences on open fields and areas closer to Highway #401 and West of Homer Watson away from existing residences. I will reiterate that the proposal for 86 Pinnacle Drive is not conforming to the existing uses abutting and surrounding the property and increased traffic will likely impact the safety and well being of others within the area. Upon my research and review, A & F GREENFIELD HOMES LTD owns six (6) properties within Waterloo Region. Properties which they own whether they developed or not, are on busier, high traffic streets such as Courtland Ave and King Street. Pinnacle Drive is not even remotely close to such high traffic roads, therefore why would we permit a high density building/proposal for 86 Pinnacle Drive? The answer is, the City of Kitchener should not approve the amendment. I am confident that the planning department at the City of Kitchener would not even consider an amendment to the existing zoning classification as the proposal put forth by the developer is truly an outlier to the community. This is a community fostering the growth and development of children and families, not meant to escalate noise, increase traffic and promote disorderly conduct. We look forward to working together to build a better, safer Lower Doon and ultimately City of Kitchener. Page 352 of 476 Address Date Comment 95 Pinnacle Drive 2/3-7/2023 Hi ------------------, Kitchener, ON The R-6 zone would not translate to RES -6. The parallel zone to R-6 would be RES — 5 (we condensed N2P 1138 the number of zones from 9 to 7 so the numbers shifted a bit) . RES — 5 is also a low rise residential zone. The RES zones are attached for reference. https://app2. kitchener.ca/appdocs/ZonebVIaw2019/PublishedCurrentText/SECTION%207% 20- %20Residential%20(RES)%20Zones//Section%207.pdf Regards, Katie From: --------------------------------------------------------- Sent: Monday, February 6, 2023 5:51 PM To: Katie Anderl <Katie.Anderl@kitchener.ca> Cc: --------------------------------------------• --------------------------------------- Subject: Re: Zoning Question - 86 Pinnacle Drive Hi Katie, If R6 is approved does it automatically translate to RES6 or would that happen on a. Couple of years... note that building height under RES6 is 25 metres. Kindly advice. ----------------------------------- On Feb 3, 2023, at 12:43 PM, Katie Anderl <Katie.Anderl@kitchener.ca> wrote: Hi--------------------------------------- I'm glad you were able to attend on Wednesday and thanks for the follow-up. Mid -late week next week is fine for updated comments. The current R-4 zone permits single and semi-detached dwellings. The lot is about 40 m wide and if the owner were to propose to sever the lands, they could likely create lots to allow for 2 semi-detached dwellings, four single detached dwellings, or some combination. New provincial rules now permit up to three dwelling units on a lot and therefore each half of a semi- or each single could contain up to 3 dwelling units. This represents a possible total of about 12 units under the existing R-4 zone. Page 353 of 476 Address Date Comment Site Plan control is a tool that the City can use to undertake a detailed review of how a site functions and how it is laid out. It is currently only available for developments with more than 10 units on a lot. So it would not be a tool we can use for single or semi-detached dwellings, but is available for the multiple dwelling. While the zoning controls things like the height and setbacks (including for singles or semi's), through site plan, we can make sure the site design and layout complies with our guidelines and best practices. We review and approve the engineering design, landscaping design, lighting design (i.e. making sure that there is lighting for safety and that fixtures are full cut-off to reduce glare, and are dark sky compliant), we can make sure they have things like snow storage areas, appropriately sized garbage and recycling facilities, that the driveway and parking areas are designed to accommodate for a garbage truck and the cars that use the site. We also ensure that there are amenities like a bike storage room or a back yard outdoor area, and that the site has pedestrian sidewalks and connections to the street and internally. Through site plan control, the City also holds financial securities (Letter of Credit) to ensure that the development is built to plan, and we enter into an agreement that is registered on title, to ensure that the site is maintained as approved (i.e. the owner cannot make changes to the buildings or parking areas without prior approval from the City — and this agreement is enforceable). Please let me know if I can provide any additional information. Regards, Katie From-------------------------------------- Sent: Friday, February 3, 2023 9:26 AM To: Katie Anderl <Katie.Anderl@kitchener.ca> Cc: ----------------------------------• ------------------------------------ Subject: Zoning Question - 86 Pinnacle Drive Hi Katie, Thank you for coordinating the meeting on Wednesday at 86 Pinnacle Drive between the community, the applicant and the City of Kitchener. The persons on this email thread are owners of the three (3) homes directly across from 86 Pinnacle, and who are most impacted by the proposed application. Page 354 of 476 Address Date Comment I am kindly requesting clarity with respect to a comment you made regarding the current zoning of 86 Pinnacle Drive. What is the maximum number of dwellings/units that can be built on the property today under the current zoning? I believe you said the property under the current zoning could be severed into two (2) parcels which i would assume have two distinct PINS, with each parcel allowing up to a maximum of 6 units. I also assume that the City of Kitchener would need to permit the severance for two lots to come to fruition. Let's assume I'm correct at this point, we would be looking at potential 12 units (6 dwellings/units per lot X 2 lots = 12). Given each lot would be a separate permit application for construction, being under 10 units the City would lose site plan control. Can you outline what is gained when the City has site plan control? Feel free to correct me if my thinking veered from fact at any point... it was so damn cold and ink was not coming out of my pen quick enough. Our group of neighbors (those most impacted and across the street) would like to submit our comments by the end of next week. We would like to ensure our understanding is correct. Thank you. ------------------------------------- 95 Pinnacle Drive 2/9/2023 Hi Katie, Kitchener, ON Please see attached for your review and consideration, a note from the Directly Impacted Owners N2P 1138 pertaining to the zoning change application at 86 Pinnacle Drive. Do not hesitate to contact me if you have any questions regarding the attached or would like to further discuss the application in general. Our group is open and willing to engage in further discussions in an effort to achieve a mutually beneficial design and plan for all parties involved. Kindly forward any revised renditions you receive from the IBI Group. Furthermore, you have our permission to forward our message directly to David Galbraith for implementation of our asks. Thank you. ------------------------ and Neighbours 1763 Old Mill Rd 1/9/2023 Dear Ms. Anderl, Kitchener ON My husband and I moved to the Lower Doon neighbourhood in 2022 to raise our young children as we N2P 1H7 were attracted to the character of the neighbourhood, in particular the predominantly single-family homes and cultural heritage of the neighbourhood. We would like to raise our concerns about the Page 355 of 476 Address Date Comment proposed rezoning of 86 Pinnacle Drive from R4 zoning to R6 zoning. We do not support the zoning change for the following reasons: The proposal for 16 -unit, back-to-back staked townhouse with 22 parking spaces is too high of a density of units and people for this lot and neighbourhood. The continued densification of housing and people in the neighbourhood is changing the character of this predominantly single home neighbourhood. This precedent will prompt further changes to a neighbourhood that will forever change the character and cultural heritage of Lower Doon. The proposed development is more appropriate for major arterial roads. The proposed dense housing will increase vehicular traffic, noise, street parking and endanger pedestrians on local roadways. We provide the following recommendations to ensure redevelopment of the property is done with consideration for the safety and character of the neighbourhood: Maintain existing R4 zoning and develop appropriate housing within the existing zoning bylaw to maximize development on the property Ensure development is consistent with the character of the neighbourhood including side yard and front -yard setbacks Minimize impacts to traffic and on -street parking Ensure pedestrian safety by limiting the increase in vehicular traffic and tenants of the proposed housing Make a more concerted effort to direct higher density housing on the lots located south of Homer Watson Drive in Lower Doon where there is underdeveloped vacant land rather than in a neighbourhood that is predominantly single -house lots. Thank you for your consideration, ------------------------------------------- 1763 Old Mill Rd Page 356 of 476 Address Date Comment 28 Morningview Place 1/11/2023 Although I missed last night's virtual meeting, I would like to share my thoughts on the rezoning Kitchener, ON proposal. I have lived in the Mill Park area for 26 years and have seen the decimation of the heritage N2P 1Z2 status of lower Doon. What was once a nice neighbourhood is now student housing, which has caused many conscientious homeowners to leave the neighbourhood. Although the city has been aware of the numerous issues in lower Doon, the concerns have been largely ignored. Houses which no longer adhere to proper fire codes, houses with too many bedrooms, parking violations, noise and garbage issues - ignored. Mill Park Drive is often used as a street racing road at night - very dangerous on a dark, narrow, winding road with no sidewalks. The cars involved have had extra noise exhausts - as seen on several cars parked in lower Doon. These issues are foreseeable when zoning and bylaw rules are ignored or bypassed. Once you head down this path, it is never reversed. As for the property currently at issue - 86 Pinnacle Drive - why on earth would there be any question of rezoning for R6 designation when there is a building boom going on a short distance away in Southwest Kitchener? I also think it's inexcusable to remove heritage designation to appease a potential developer. Developers in this area have ruined the once idyllic setting. What has the city done in the last 30 years to work with the community and listen to their voices? What has the city done to honour the past and preserve the precious little history we have? We have a museum and Pioneer Village, but the neighbouring community's history and pioneer roots are torn down - sadly ironic. There are plenty of apartment buildings on Old Carriage Drive and multi -unit newer buildings in the area. How much more should the residents of Lower Doon have to endure? Why aren't you looking at ways to preserve what little is left of the heritage designated buildings and surrounding area? Why, for example, are the mill ruins on Old Mill Road fenced off and left to crumble? That has been a meeting spot for families, popular area for family and wedding photos, a small reminder of what was there before the area was developed 30+ years ago? Why was a pumping station allowed to be built on Willow Lake Park? As the song goes, "They paved paradise, put up a parking lot". For once, listen to the residents and do WHAT IS RIGHT! ---------------------------------- Page 357 of 476 Address Date Comment 39 Doon Valley Dr 5/22/2019 1 do not support the application to turn R4 into R6 on Pinnacle Drive. I do not support any conversion of Kitchener ON an existing single family home to R6 in Lower Doon. N2P 1A9 This is again a precedent setting proposal. In order to accommodate the proposed parking (which is insufficient), there needs to be backyard parking. This is unacceptable. Every landlord in Lower Doon would suddenly increase the amount of parking for all of their homes by paving over their backyards. This is a monumental change in privacy for Lower Doon. Paving over the entire site is not respecting the existing established neighbourhood. The proposed front yard setback is not respectful of the neighbouring properties. This development would completely change the building styles along Pinnacle and has far reaching implications. I was incredibly shocked to see the omission of a site plan from this package of information. The parking area is not indicated on a site plan, the neighbouring homes are not indicated. This is deceitful. There is no useful information provided.... FSR, density, green space etc. There is no outdoor space, other than a parking lot. This is nothing more than a "Northdale" site plan. It is an apartment style building. Lower Doon deserves a better conversation about our future than to allow a precedent setting development. 39 Doon Valley Dr 06/03/2019 Hello Christine and Katie, Kitchener ON N2P 1A9 Looking at the zoning plan you provided. It is easy to see how rezoning 86 Pinnacle will result in the eventual rezoning of most of the properties on Pinnacle. It is also easy to see how Amherst will also be rezoned. Once an R3 property exists next to an R4 rezoned "R6 backyard parking lot property" the rest will follow. Allowing this rezoning will reduce the front yards to nothing more than a strip of grass, it will result in a loss of backyard privacy, a loss of green space and completely change Pinnacle. Page 358 of 476 Address Date Comment Northdale in Waterloo is an easy example and shows the development future of Lower Doon. While 86 Pinnacle is only 2 stories or 2 1/2; once you realize there are window wells. It is a small step and just a small variance to 3 storeys... exactly as Northdale. To allow this development is to open the floodgates. 114 Doon Valley Drive is currently for sale and is advertising itself as a redevelopment property. 30 Amherst recently sold it is beside a vacant for sale R4 property. 10 Pinnacle is for sale a large rundown property 11 Amherst is for sale 54 Durham is for sale right beside 58 Durham which is for sale 58 Durham is for sale 49 Orchard Mill is for sale 5 Orchard Mill is for sale Is the City of Kitchener going to allow even the heritage homes to intensify and create backyard parking? Rezoning just this one property has far-reaching impacts. Sincerely, ----------------------- 39 Doon Valley Dr 9/9/2019 Hello Christine, Kitchener ON There have been many concerning developments in Lower Doon recently. N2P 1A9 Lower Doon is finding itself in the midst of serious change and there appears to be a lack of communication with the City of Kitchener. 1. 19 Durham (church on Durham) - Building being torn down without the Mayor or yourself being involved. 2. Sidewalk Survey and Plan - the Regional Administrator has not even done a "Site Visit" to see what exists in Lower Doon. Page 359 of 476 Address Date Comment 3. A bus hub - being designed and finalized without input from the community. 4. 86 Pinnacle -This home is/was also of heritage interest. A proposed development plan with a site plan that contains insufficient parking, despite most of the site being devoted to a parking lot. The notice on this proposed development and meeting should be distributed to the entire neighbourhood by the City of Kitchener. The proposed project is precedent setting and as such the neighbourhood should be involved. The proposed plan is not in keeping with the neighbourhood of Lower Doon or the Lower Doon Secondary Plan. Item 1.2 in the Secondary Plan specifically states: "1.2 That two family residential (semi-detached or duplex) be permitted to develop only along Pinnacle Drive between Amherst and Doon Valley Drive, along Amherst Drive between Pinnacle Drive and Drummond Drive and along Doon Valley Drive between Pinnacle Drive and the southerly projection of Drummond Drive." 5. Several Homes have also been sold. There have been major renovations taking place and NO permits are being posted indicating a level of compliance with regulations. 30 Amherst 58 Durham I will conclude with a letter from the Mayor dated almost a year ago. Sincerely, ---------------------------------------- Lower Doon 39 Doon Valley Dr 09/16/2019 My name is --------------- I live at 39 Doon Valley Dr. Kitchener ON N2P 1A9 I live in one of the ------------------------------ along the small stretch that is Pinnacle Dr in Lower Doon. I am against this rezoning: Simply put: Page 360 of 476 Address Date Comment The proposed development is in the wrong place. It does not fit with the character of Lower Doon. It is not in keeping with the streetscape of Pinnacle Dr. Pinnacle Dr. is homes with generous front yards, backyards and side yards, front doors, porches, garages driveways. - not parking lots. It is too intense, too many units on a small parcel of land. Maximum allowable density for low rise, low density is 30 units/ hectare not 60 or 75. It is not in keeping with the low density, low rise character of Lower Doon. Lower Doon is not in an intensification zone. 15.D.3.10. OP There is an insufficient # of parking stalls despite the entire site being paved over to make room for parking. Parking in Lower Doon is a huge issue. This site should definitely not be rezoned. It is precedent setting. I haven't heard a single word about how this precedent setting project would affect the rest of Lower Doon. Which it clearly would. As a permanent resident I do not want monster lodges surrounded by parking lots. This proposal is a "Northdale site plan". Northdale is the student development at the university of Waterloo and Laurier - all building and parking - no landscaping. This style of site plan has also been pursued on major arterial roads - Bridgeport, Erb, Westmount - not in the middle of a neighbourhood. This style of site plan is also in keeping with commercial properties -parking surrounding the building - again not in the middle of a residential neighbourhood. The Lower Doon Secondary plan, consolidated in 2004, is very clear on what can be built in Lower Doon along Pinnacle. It very specifically states as the second item. "1.2 That two family residential (semi-detached or duplex) be permitted to develop only along Pinnacle Drive between Amherst and Doon Valley Drive, along Amherst Drive between Pinnacle Drive and Drummond Drive and along Doon Valley Drive between Pinnacle Drive and the southerly projection of Drummond Drive." Page 361 of 476 Address Date Comment This document represents the intentions for building on Pinnacle very clearly. This proposed development does not meet the requirement. Heritage. No matter how you feel about the importance of heritage, I believe that we all need to be mindful of the fact that there is a heritage associated with Lower Doon. I believe that we best respect that heritage by keeping it low density and low rise. Neighbourhoods like ours are going to become scarce in the push towards intensifying. The City has declared where this intensity should occur through maps and words. They should honour their documents. Lower Doon is not in an intensification zone. Now is not the time to loose Lower Doon to Northdale model near the universities in Waterloo. Zoning is the basic only tool we have to maintain a low density, low rise neighbourhood. There is nothing else. The zoning of Lower Doon and what that zoning states about what can be built is fundamental. Nothing underscores the client's and the lack of respect for the neighbourhood character more than the "architectural feature" of a "mansard roof". The Mansard roof front and centre on this development is ridiculous. It has absolutely nothing to do with the heritage on Pinnacle Dr., nothing to do with the Heritage of Lower Doon. NO to rezoning. 39 Doon Valley Dr 1/8/2023 Absolutely No Rezoning to 86 Pinnacle, Lower Doon Kitchener ON The proposed development of 86 Pinnacle is taking a sledgehammer to Lower Doon. This zoning N2P 1A9 amendment seeks to destroy the character of Lower Doon. The plan presented is a giant building that does not respect the neighbours. The massive building footprint is too large. And most egregiously it imposes on the neighbourhood the prospect of massive parking lots. These parking lots, as there will be many more in the future, will destroy everyone's backyards and all thoughts about privacy (those that back onto the property and beyond - parking lot lights, noise and car exhaust do not stop at fence lines) To understand where this type of development is heading, we should all drive to Columbia Street in Waterloo, between King Street and the University of Waterloo. Massive building blocks with backyard Page 362 of 476 Address Date Comment and under building parking lots. It is disposable, shoebox architecture. And yes it is extremely ugly and characterless. And while Planning Staff and the Contractor will say that this is different; it is not. Other developers will take this precedent and in the end Lower Doon will be a paved over neighbourhood as ridiculous as Columbia Street in Waterloo. These type of developments have been approved for major arterial roads such as Columbia Street, Weber Street, Erb Street and Bridgeport Street in Waterloo. And most recently on Ottawa Street, near Sunrise Centre. These are major arterial roads and this type of development may be acceptable on them. The rezoning of 86 Pinnacle is in the middle of a neighbourhood on a neighbourhood street not on a 4 lane arterial road. The neighbours behind the Ottawa Street are not happy. Their privacy is gone. However, the Ottawa Street development does not threaten to be the norm for the entire neighbourhood. The 86 Pinnacle development does threaten to turn the entire neighbourhood into massive buildings, parking lots and roads. That's it. Lower Doon is paved over. The Ottawa Street Development will destroy 2 single family homes and replace them with a 3 storey, 20 unit building 23 parking spaces on a backyard parking lot. KW record Dec 21, 2022. That is the future vision of Lower Doon. That is what they are offering. Go drive down Columbia Street towards the University of Waterloo see how many trees are growing. Take a look at the 3 storey apartment blocks, the parking lots and garbage containers. Don't take my word for it. Can intensity on this site be achieved differently? Absolutely! Send the developer back to the drawing board with his architects. Design within the constraints of R4 or Res 4 with an eye on Bill 23; which we will hear about relentlessly. Res 4 allows for 4 units. These could be 4 units that fit into the character of the neighbourhood with front yards, backyards, driveways and garages. There are 2 lots. So 8 units. Heck shared driveways would be even less intrusive. Have a look at 71 Pinnacle. The developer purchased an R4 lot. Knowing it was an R4 lot. This proposed development is a boring typical multi unit building. It says nothing about the history or character of Pinnacle Road which has existed since the early 1800's. Lower Doon is Kitchener's oldest neighbourhood. We have history of Indigenous and Mennonite settlements in Lower Doon. This proposed building sets a precedent for all of Lower Doon that cannot be undone. There will be many more developments and many more even larger developments than this one. This is the issue before us with respect to this development. Is this the future for Lower Doon? Second point. Why are we having this discussion prior to the creation of a Lower Doon Secondary Plan. The Lower Doon Secondary Plan has been underway for years. We were promised community consultations in early 2023. I am guessing that the developer does not want to have those discussions. He doesn't live here. Neither do the City Planners. We have in good faith walked around Page 363 of 476 Address Date Comment this neighbourhood with the Consultants and City Planners. Many options have been discussed that would positively influence development. But clearly the developer doesn't want these discussions to become reality. Instead we get massive building blocks, parking lots and garbage containers. Let's finish the Secondary Plan and create our Special Policy Area as promised by the City of Kitchener. Let's create a better vision for Lower Doon and the City of Kitchener. Let's put quality of life first for the residents of this neighbourhood. Third Point. A full in person meeting must be held. This affects every single resident in Lower Doon, many will not and cannot "Zoom In". We have experience with these non inclusionary meeting styles. Most taxpayers are unfamiliar with Zoom meetings; do not exclude the people who pay the bills, look after our community and live here. For the sake of this neighbourhood. Hold an in person meeting so that everyone has the opportunity to attend. I say no to rezoning. The developer should work with R4. ------------------------------ 39 Doon Valley Dr 1/7/2023 Good Morning Christine, Kitchener ON N2P 1A9 I would like to request an in person meeting for the entire Lower Doon neighbourhood with respect to the potential rezoning of 86 Pinnacle. There are members of our neighbourhood that are not able to access zoom meetings. Given the potential of this rezoning to completely change development in Lower Doon; every member of this community deserves the opportunity to see and understand the drawings. Posting the drawings on line will not suffice. The neighbourhood needs to understand the drawings and the ramifications for the future. In-person meetings have returned to the business community and the benefits of face to face meetings are recognized. Only a zoom meeting to discuss the impact of this potential zone change to 86 Pinnacle would be discriminatory and undemocratic. This potential zone change is not in keeping with the character of Lower Doon. Nor is it similar to the other R6 properties in Lower Doon. In Lower Doon we have front doors, front yards, backyards, driveways and garages. The massive building proposed is none of these things. Page 364 of 476 Address Date Comment When the neighbourhood walked around the neighbourhood with the Planning consultants hired to review Lower Doon and City Planning Staff, we discussed the character of Lower Doon and City of Kitchener Planning Staff made recommendations to the citizens of Lower Doon about front doors, garages and driveways and this was well received. I understand that this was all informal. However, all of these conversations have been thrown out the window with this proposal to rezone 86 Pinnacle. The project appears to be a massive building block and equally large parking lot. There are many other ways to achieve intensification many other possible options, that are not a sledge hammer for the historical neighbourhood of Lower Doon. Again, an in person meeting is requested so that all the residents of the Lower Doon neighbourhood may attend. Kindly ------------------------------- 39 Doon Valley Dr 12/19/2022 Good Morning Councillor Christine Michaud, Planner Katie Anderl and Mayor Vrbanovic Kitchener ON "We'll be developing draft materials and will undertake a broad community engagement campaign in N2P 1A9 early 2023, where we will present those materials, including new and/or revised policies, regulations, guidelines, and visualizations for Lower Doon." (Taken from the city of Kitchener website with respect to Lower Doon Land Secondary Plan) The neighbourhood of Lower Doon requests that the planning of the Secondary Plan for the Lower Doon Neighbourhood continue prior to initiating a Development Proposal for 86 Pinnacle, which seeks to fundamentally change the Land Use policies of Lower Doon. This appears to be yet another attempt by a developer to impose their vision of Lower Doon onto our existing neighbourhood, without allowing the completion of the process for the development of the Secondary Plan for the Lower Doon neighbourhood. We ask that the neighbourhood information night for 86 Pinnacle be postponed indefinitely to allow for the completion of the Secondary Plan for the Lower Doon Neighbourhood as described on the City of Kitchener webpage. Page 365 of 476 Address Date Comment We also ask that all neighbourhood information meetings be held in person. We have been through several zoom meeting which have locked out citizens of Lower Doon. This is an unacceptable method for conducting meetings in which everyone has the right to be included and heard. As a final note, rushing any information meeting over the Christmas holidays is incredibly disrespectful. This is a time for families. Because of the unique holiday break this year many people will be enjoying holidays until January 8, 2023 and giving the neighbourhood only a few days to prepare a rebuttal to an absurd development proposal is unacceptable. ------------------------- 74-105 Pinnacle Dr 1/24/2023 Dear Katie Anderl, Kitchener ON N2P 1138 1 hope this email finds you well. I am writing to follow up on the Zoom meeting we had on January 10th regarding the rezoning proposal for 86 Pinnacle Drive. As we discussed during the meeting, I have a number of concerns about the proposal that I would like to express. First and foremost, I believe the proposed rezoning would have a negative impact on the community. Many residents have expressed their valid concerns about the potential for increased traffic, noise, and loss of green space. The traffic in the area is already heavy and we are concerned that the proposed development would only exacerbate the problem. Furthermore, we would like to bring to your attention that the latest traffic survey was done several years ago before the construction on 50 Pinnacle Drive which has already increased the traffic in the area. Additionally, I have concerns about the potential for the rezoning to negatively impact property values and the overall quality of life in the area. It's worth noting that the vast majority of the residents in the area strongly oppose the proposal and believe that it would have a detrimental effect on the community. Thank you for your time and consideration. Sincerely, ------------------------------------------ 66 Orchard Mill Cres. 09/09/2019 Hello Katie, Kitchener ON Page 366 of 476 Address Date Comment N2P 1T2 Unfortunately I will not be available to attend tomorrow's neighbourhood meeting re 86 Pinnacle. If the development is to be truly oriented towards retirement living, I would question the 2 storey concept. Most retirement developments eliminate stairs to address mobility issues that may come with aging. Is this really just another student housing project with a softer sell to the planning dept? I will be interested in the outcome of the meeting. Thanks. --------------------------- 66 Orchard Mill Cres. 52- 105 Pinnacle Drive 05/27/2019 1 am opposed to this amendment. Kitchener ON This would be a precedent for multi -unit buildings which would change the character of the N2P 1138 neighbourhood. Too, due to the overabundance of space required for student parking, there would be a lack of parking space for the unit dwellers as well as their family and friends. Thank You. ------------------------ 105 Pinnacle Drive Unit 52 152 Doon Valley Drive 06/05/2019 1 also concur with ----------------`s assessment of the situation. This type of development, at this time, Kitchener ON would set a precedent that could remake the entire Doon area. This is especially the type of N2P 1132 application that should be denied in the absence of an overall policy framework for the Lower Doon Area. Until the task force report is prepared for this area ( I have doubts that the City will ever get it done) no development, such as this, should be considered. Conestoga College in their letter to the City also indicated the need for this larger task force study to be completed before development applications are considered. Page 367 of 476 Address Date Comment If this development is allowed to proceed, a current student landowner could easily buy up several adjoining homes, convert them to higher density without the requisite front yard setbacks and convert the backyard areas to parking. This is exactly what many of the student landowners are looking for to expand their properties to get a higher cash flow. If this were to occur, the community would have an endless series of fights with both LPAT and the City. Although the current owner may have good intentions, what he is proposing will cause major problems for the community down the road. This application should not be considered until an overall student housing and development policy is prepared for Lower Doon. --------------------------- 152 Doon Valley Drive 55-105 Pinnacle Dr. 06/03/2019 I concur with the concerns other senders on this email trail. Kitchener, ON I purchased a home in this area with the expectation that the zoning in a heritage area would be N2P 1138 somewhat upheld to find it becoming a poorly kept and constantly challenged with zoning and multiple housing developments. Please do not allow this change to happen. ----------------------- 2013 Old Mill Road 7/12/2019 Dear Mr. Mayor and Councillor Michaud, Kitchener, ON 86 Pinnacle (now looking for an R6 zoning) was included on the city's Municipal Designated List of N2P 1E4 homes as well as being included on the heritage map when we proposed making Lower Doon into a Heritage District. Victoria Groh, city's Heritage Planner, told me a heritage sub-commitee went to look at 86 Pinnacle and it was that committee which took it off the Municipal Designated List. I would like to know THE REASON for removing it from that list, together with a copy of the report made by that sub -committee. This property was HABITABLE - and has still not been demolished - the landlord who applied for the change in the zone was living in it up to the time the notice was posted Thank you for your help in this matter. Sincerely, ----------------------------------- cc: Page 368 of 476 Address Date Comment 1. Marg Rowell, President, Architectual Conservacy of Ontario, Waterloo Branch. 2. Heritage Ontario. 2013 Old Mill Road 9/7/2019 In the 27 years I have lived here I have not seen any commitment to keep what Heritage we have in Kitchener, ON Lower Doon. I do not believe the city's Heritage Department is autonomous -I see it as being joined at N2P 1E4 the hip to the Planning Department and taking direction from their mandate, i.e., development - whereas its mandate should be preserving heritage. When we first came to Lower Doon there were still insitu some of the large walls of the Grist Mill overlooking the Grand River but, for the want of a few bags of concrete, they were allowed to crumble until they had to be torn down. Similarly, the Bush Inn was left to fall into disrepair until it was considered unsafe and had to be demolished. We presently have a farm house built in 1883 that is under the threat of demolition and now we have just had a Church demolished that was built in 1868. This Church could have been refurbished at no cost to the city because there was a foundation in place that could have provided money to do that; however, Heritage did not take that up and it was left to fall into disrepair and for vandals to further destroy until it was considered unsafe and then, that too, had to be demolished. Letting things falls into disrepair and then demolishment seems to be the mandate for heritage here in Lower Doon. But maybe there was no need for all these demolitions. Buildings from the 1800's were built to last and often appearances are just cosmetic and architectural engineers (not city engineers) should be employed to look at the these buildings and especially the foundations before they are torn down. When the Presbyterian Church here was recently overhauled the engineers were amazed at how bedrock the foundations were and even the walls still had a perfect plumb line. As one engineer said, "I don't think a house built today would have a plumb line like that in a hundred and sixty-four years time!" I believe the foundation of the church just demolished would have been the same, but we will never know that now. England can fit into one of the lakes here and has over 70 million people but they can manage to hang on to what heritage they have and that's because Heritage fights to keep it where it can. Even if Canadians don't want heritage on their doorstep it is a wise city that keeps some beauty and recreational areas alive as not everybody can afford a cottage and people need a place to go to not far Page 369 of 476 Address Date Comment from where they live for recreation. In the past, despite its huge land mass, Canada was much more aware of its people's needs, providing the green space of the Don Valley in Toronto and the Victoria Park in Kitchener, but since then lack of vision and the greed of money surrounding development have taken over. Children are indeed lucky if a tiny space for a slide and swing are allowed in future housing developments. Lower Doon had all the bones for the making of a beautiful village here for future generations to enjoy but, sadly, it is very obvious to me that where the city's Heritage department is concerned that is not to be - development is the name of the game here. With great sadness, Take care, ----------------- 2013 Old Mill Road 5/23/2023 Thank you------------- for looking into this. I am just shaking my head in disbelief. I also support all the Kitchener, ON concerns you have reported to the city via our Councillor on the zone change that is being requested. I N2P 1E4 trust Christine will now take this matter up with the Planning Department on our behalf and advise you accordingly. I also don't believe any zone change can be made in any residential community without an official notice being posted or a public meeting held on the matter. Was a notice posted? I don't walk around there anymore. Take care ------------------------------- 2013 Old Mill Road 12/10/2022 It's so unfortunate but, as I have been saying for 27 years, the Kitchener Planning Department lacks Kitchener, ON VISION which requires imagination; however, you can learn it to some degree by looking at your past N2P 1E4 mistakes (and the mistakes other municipalities have made) but one only has to look at Lower Doon to see the mistakes Planning has made here - but can they learn from that? I do not believe so. I believe they will carry on in the same old manner and will continue being afraid of doing something brave and new for the community of Lower Doon. Page 370 of 476 Address Date Comment ---------------------------------- 99 Pinnacle Dr 1/8/2023 1 am emailing you to also let you know that we who also live on pinnacle Drive do not agree with the Kitchener Ontario rezoning of 86 Pinnacle Dr. N2P 1B8 I already have enough issues with students and don't need that much more. I have bought this place for me and my family and to have to deal with a nuisance that I do from day today with the students that live beside me and I have to deal with more is unacceptable. I hope that also you are a mother and have a family and also would understand that when you come out of your house the first thing your kids are not inhaling if somebody else is secondhand smoke because they won't listen to you and we'll smoke by the fence also it being 2 o'clock in the morning and having your daughter woken up on school days because your neighbours once again, the students decide to blast music out of their cars and not give a care about the people around them. I would hope that you as a mother would understand when your child can get up in the morning because she was woken up and couldn't fall back asleep for a couple of hours and then take them to school and deal with that and then have to deal with the school because your kids were sleeping in class. On numerous occasions, I had to also call By Law because students decided that they were going to park and stay parked for a couple days by my house. Please for the sake of pinnacle. Let me live in peace and my kids to live to this fullest. Sincerely 99 pinnacle 548 Mill Park Drive, 1/9/2023 We are opposed to the requested rezoning of 86 Pinnacle Drive, Kitchener from R4 to R6. Kitchener, ON As residents of the community, we would like to see the character of the neighbourhood maintained, N2P 1W1 and not further impacted in negative ways such as high intensity incompatible with surrounding properties; expected overcrowding; problems related to on street parking, increased traffic and noise; and making it more difficult for pedestrians to safely walk in the area, as there are no sidewalks. There are probably more reasons that this property should be developed in a way to be consistent with the Page 371 of 476 Address Date Comment neighbourhood; to avoid overcrowding; to reduce street parking; and to ensure that children and their families living in Lower Doon are safe. When we compare the existing house on the property to the proposed development as shown in the Concept Drawing, we cannot see how that could possibly be a reasonable use of that property in this neighbourhood. Yours truly, ------------------------------------------------ 548 Mill Park Drive, Kitchener, ON N2P 1W1 63 - 105 Pinnacle Dr 06/24/2019 Dear Christine and Katie, Kitchener, ON N2P 1138 1 am writing to express our disapproval of the application to rezone 86 Pinnacle Drive. Such a proposed development would lead to an even further degradation of our neighbourhood that began with the unchecked development of low-cost, overcrowded student housing in the area, particularly on Amherst Avenue. The size of building, the density of inhabitants in it, and the loss of green space to paved parking lots could very well lead to further loss of the same to accommodate cars for students. It also creates a precedent for multi-storey apartment style housing in Lower Doon. That sort of building has already been disapproved earlier when a propose student housing project was denied by the OMB. I am not in favour of the rezoning of the land, nor the proposed project for it. I want my neighbourhood to remain entered around families in their own homes, with green space readily available on their own property. Thanks for including my concerns in your research. Sincerely, -------------------------- 105 Pinnacle Drive, #63 Page 372 of 476 Address Date Comment 22 Sydenham St 1/10/2023 Hi Kitchener I attended the meeting this evening. I am really tired of defending our neighborhood. It would be nice if the city planners simply declined proposals that don't meet current zoning. There is a real concern in this neighborhood for the balance of owner occupied housing and student housing. There are student areas in other cities that become very run down. Is that contemplated by the city? Student housing is needed in this area but proper location etc needs to be determined. I do worry about my owner occupying neighbours leaving the area. I live on Sydenham St which is half student half owner occupied. There is definitely a drain on resources. The fire department is next door a few times a year. I am not in favour of changing the zoning Regards ---------------------------------------- 22 Sydenham St Kitchener 544 Mill Park Dr. 08/27/2019 We oppose the changing of the zoning for 86 Pinnacle Dr. We do not believe it is oriented towards Kitchener ON retirement living. It is planned as another student housing. Considering the fact that there are 'for N2P 1W1 rent" signs outside student houses all year long that would indicate that no more are needed. The population is dense enough in this area of the city already. 544 Mill Park Dr. 09/04/2019 1 disagree with changing the zoning. There are so many student housing in the neighbourhood now, Kitchener ON that there is never a time that rental signs are not out. Also your paper says that 86 Pinnacle Dr, now N2P 1W1 contains a single detached dwelling and detached garage and shed. Come and have a look before your send out notices. There is building going on there now. This is not right. 544 Mill Park Dr. 1/11/2023 This is not in keeping with the rest of the neighbourhood. Lower Doon should be maintained as it Kitchener ON is. We should keep some areas for future generations. Page 373 of 476 Address Date Comment N2P 1 W 1 ------------------------------------- 544 Mill Park Dr. 1834 Old Mill Road 09/20/2019 We are -------------------- of 1834 Old Mill Road and we are 100% opposed to the rezoning of 86 Pinnacle Kitchener ON Drive, the would-be first of many single family homes turned apartment buildings in Lower Doon. Our N2P 1E2 bylaws restrict this high-density and MUST be upheld. No applications to exacerbate insufficient parking, irreplaceable loss of our mature trees and yard space or permits for crafty "Mansard Roof' - type add-ons should even be considered. Serious attention must be brought here to witness the issues caused by such cramming -in but also the beauty we cherish and stand to lose. To allow this rezoning now would be to invite future chaos and devastate the character of our neighbourhood and quality of living. 95 Pinnacle Drive 09/16/2019 We are in agreement with ------------- ---------- and others, who have expressed concerns with the Kitchener ON rezoning of properties in Lower Doon, inclusive of 86 Pinnacle Drive, which is across the street from our N2P 1138 single family home. 599 Mill Park Drive 01/01/2019 We want to express our opinion about the by-law change request from R4 to R6. We would like to Kitchener ON maintain the current R4 level to preserve our neighbourhood environment. At a time when people N2P 1V4 become increasingly worried about climate change, we need to ensure that trees, green spaces and back yards are preserved, while automobile traffic is reduced. That is one reason Kitchener has built the ION train. We therefore believe that the property should remain at R4 level. 648 Mill Park Dr 08/17/2019 Please note that I am not in agreement to rezone 86 Pinnacle from R4 to R6. Enacting Holding Provision Kitchener ON is appropriate in this case. N2P 1W1 Feel free to contact me about this matter. I live in the neighborhood. 400 Doon Valley Dr 06/26/2019 Good afternoon, we reside at 400 Doon Valley Drive and we do not support: Kitchener ON - the rezoning of 86 Pinnacle from R4 to R6. The property should remain at R4. Further no rezoning N2P 1134 should be considered and a holding pattern on all property until the Lower Doon Study is complete /planned for later this year. Page 374 of 476 Address Date Comment 400 Doon Valley Dr 1/10/2023 Good morning, I would like to add my opposition to any change in zoning at this time and request an in Kitchener ON person meeting. Isn't it time the Planners and others looked at this historic area in the manner it should N2P 1134 be. Adding more student housing is not the answer and with this density to this property outrageous. Very disappointed with the lack of respect for the people who live here. For once listen to the residents requests. Regards, --------------------- 2083 Old Mill Rd 1/12/2023 Hi Katie Kitchener, Ont. I say NO to rezoning 86 Pinnacle Dr N2P 1E4 3G-350 Doon Valley Dr 06/05/2019 As a resident that would be affected by the change proposed for 86 Pinnacle Dr.,l strongly object to that Kitchener ON type of development in the area. Let's keep Lower Doon a pleasant place in which to live. N2P 2M9 Page 375 of 476 Address Date Comment 1165 Doon Village Road 1/9/2023 Katie - Kitchener ON Resident -------------------------- raises key points why this re -zoning of 86 Pinnacle should NOT happen. N2p 1A7 She provides strong evidence why this application should NOT be considered at this time. Lower Doon has been promised the finishing off of its Planning Document recently completed and paid for by the city/city taxpayers, a document which will guide the development suitable for Lower Doon. Most important in this document is the cultural heritage assessment with recommendations completed by longtime heritage consultant Carl Bray. These recommendations need to be put in place immediately. When development was proposed for the Doon Area in the mid -1970's and the city's planning department promised in its Official Plan to recognize the heritage, nothing in the form of by- laws seemed to this day to have come about. Bray's report clearly states what needs to be done. No more eating away at the remaining elements of Lower Doon's heritage; complete the Secondary Plan as promised first before any new applications are considered. If regular planning applications do not respect what exists, then the Heritage that is left will be eaten away. What is left of this old neighbourhood will disappear. So complete the plan before any new applications are considered. -----------------------------I Doon resident since 1976. 1165 Doon Village Rd Katie, I am unable to attend this meeting. Here are my comments to this architectural proposal for the Kitchener ON new structure and new proposal for this lot. It is unthinkable to consider this type of structure, its N2P 1A7 appearance -size and style does not fit within the community. It is not relevant in style and size. And if the existing house has to be demolished then why are its materials not used in the new structure. IT DOES NOT FIT! IT DOES NOT COMPLY WITH ANY OF THE PLANNING DOCUMENTS FOR THIS AREA! ------------------------- No address provided 09/22/2019 1 agree totally with ---------------- - No to rezoning. Lower Doon is bit by bit loosing the historical value that exists. I don't feel that rezoning should happen. 57-105 Pinnacle Dr 05/30/2019 Hard copy comment form Kitchener ON N2P 1138 Page 376 of 476 Address Date Comment 632 Mill Park Drive 06/27/2019 1 wanted to voice my concern about the proposed re-zoning at 86 Pinnacle; we moved to Lower Doon Kitchener ON from downtown Toronto recently and chose our new home precisely for the serene, family N2P 1W1 neighborhood that it is. Further re-development in the area will destroy the character of our home. Not only does this proposal threaten the character of our home's surroundings now, it sets a really awful precedent that, if followed, will completely erode the attraction of Lower Doon and other single dwelling regions. And let's be honest: if it is student residences, we already have a property-value- pounding, low-rise student ghetto on Amherst - we don't need a new elevated one. Even if it is not inhabited by students, this area does not need the habitation pressure that a complex will give. Parking needs alone will further erode the beauty of the neighborhood. Please listen to the valid concerns of our neighborhood and at the very least allow the holding provision until a study is complete. 632 Mill Park Drive 1/7/2023 Hello Katie, Kitchener ON We are concerned about the proposed development as it will change the feel of the N2P 1W1 neighbourhood. We don't need the increased traffic caused by the increased density of16 stacked units nor are we satisfied that the aesthetics will remain as they are today, conducive to a "family neighbourhood" of detached homes. Please consider another area that is more in-line with the proposed buildings. The school must have access to the many opportunities within 300 metres of the College right now... others will have already expressed their concerns much more eloquently, but the main purpose of this letter is to illustrate that the community is not in favour. Best Regards, ------------------ No address provided 1/9/2023 Good morning Katie; I would like to add my voice to the many emails I have seen with regards to the outrage expressed by many of the citizens of Lower Doon, who are unanimously against the Development Proposal for 86 Pinnacle Drive, as well as the City holding this meeting by way of Zoom instead of an in person meeting! The Development Proposal for 86 Pinnacle Drive should be put on hold until the Lower Doon Land Secondary Plan has been completed & discussed & agreed upon by & with the Constituents (Citizens) of Lower Doon & surrounding areas! Page 377 of 476 Address Date Comment During my unsuccessful run for Ward 4 in the October Municipal Election I met with several constituents from Lower Doon whom had a very serious concern about no sidewalks on Pinnacle Drive as their Children were getting off the bus right across from 86 Pinnacle Drive & they had to walk on the road to get home! Another constituent from Lower Doon, has been constantly sending me emails, right up until last week complaining about Students parking on the streets (even in front of fire hydrants) as well as clogging up the streets with parked cars all the time! This constituent has been threatened by students when he tries to resolve these issues! I think it is important that we meet to address & resolve all these issues & concerns before we proceed with the Development Proposal for 86 Pinnacle Drive! Truly, ----------------------- 616 Mill Park Dr 1/9/2023 Hello Kitchener Ontario I am formally emailing my concerns related to 86 pinnacle drive. The agreed upon development is not N2P 1W1 being proposed to change not just by style but by zoning number as well as number of occupants. My concerns below: - The style of the new proposal is not reflecting the heritage look of the street that the city spent lots of money on in the last few years trying to maintain through the heritage research - the new proposal suggests that more occupants would live there but there is not enough parking area to reflect the number of occupants on the street. - There is no side walk on this road. Proper street drainage and sidewalk for students and families with small children walking to bus should take priority. - Currently there are issues with cars driving down pinnacle too fast, lawns spilling onto street asphalt due to lack of side walk and improper drainage. Adding such a large building unit to the street will only add to this issue. Preparing this road for flood protection should be priority Although I am happy a development is in place to deal with this empty lot, this new proposal does not keep any of the cities promises in place ( rejuvenation of the heritage look of pinnacle , creating a safe place to walk, helping to control the density issue in this area in terms of cars and habitants. ) I am also concerned about the environmental impacts of building such a large Page 378 of 476 Address Date Comment building on this space. We need more greenspace for drainage specifically near the rivers. If you build over so much ground with foundations, flooding around existing properties might happen. Thank you for seeing my concerns. , ----------------------- Resident of lower doon -------------------------- 83 Pinnacle Dr 07/12/2019 Kitchener ON Our family home is directly opposite 86 Pinnacle Drive. (We are at #83.) N2P 1138 We love where we live! The neighbourhood is eclectic and we are used to the students and families who live here. We don't want to live in a densely populated area, where green spaces are lost to parking lots, and neighbours become strangers. My husband and I strongly oppose the rezoning of the area. The new development which just went up has significantly increased the population of our neighbourhood, and we do not want to see the area become even more densely populated. Please consider our needs and wishes and do not proceed with any rezoning. We understand that a study of the area is on the docket for this year. We ask that this take place before any new development is approved. We appreciate your time and consideration and look forward to your response. 60 - 105 Pinnacle Dr 06/25/2019 We do not support the rezoning of 86 Pinnacle from R4 to R6 Kitchener, Ontario The property should remain R4 N2P 1138 142 Doon Valley Drive 06/05/2019 I do not support the application to change R4 into R6 at 86 Pinnacle. Kitchener ON N2P 1132 Page 379 of 476 Address Date Comment In the recent years the number of people living in Lower Doon has increased dramatically, putting a strain on roads, waste management service and the natural environment. Negative effects from pollution is on the rise and the loss of trees and green space will not help any. If the city plans to begin a study of Lower Doon by the end of 2019 then continuing to build at an increased intensity is very short sighted. I am confident that the planning department will see that this plan is not a reasonable one for this area. 35-50 Pinnacle Drive 1/9/2023 I am writing to express that I am opposed to the rezoning 86 Pinnacle Drive. Kitchener, ON As a new resident of 50 Pinnacle Drive (new townhouse development of Cook Homes) for the last 2 N2P OH8 years where an existing sidewalk and visitor parking spaces have been included, I have witnessed unsafe and increased street parking and traffic on Pinnacle Drive. There are many young children in my development who catch the bus on Pinnacle Drive. After I came home from work today I decided to take a walk on Pinnacle Drive, which has no sidewalks on either side, towards the community trail and passed by 70, 72, 74 and 76 Pinnacle Drive which are one property away from the proposed 86 Pinnacle Drive development. These are two duplexes that hold 21 cars in their driveways adjacent to Pinnacle Drive. I have had to stop walking and stand on a neighbour's lawn so I don't get hit by the jockeying of cars that back out onto Pinnacle Drive out of these two driveways, all the while looking to make sure I don't get hit by a car or a Grand River Transit bus. I don't feel safe walking on this street day or night. Not only is this development proposal to R6 zoning change not in character with Lower Doon, it is too intense for the neighborhood. I have witnessed many overflow cars from Amherst Drive parking now on Pinnacle Drive which necessitates pedestrians and drivers to stop so that one car can safely go through. If you are not aware, Amherst Drive consists mainly of homes that are renting to students and there are signs that prohibit parking on that street. Well now they are parking on Pinnacle Drive where there aren't any signs prohibiting them from doing so. I ask that you come and visit Pinnacle Drive and Lower Doon and see how this zoning change will have a detrimental effect to the residents living here. Stop the R6 rezoning of 86 Pinnacle Drive . Regards ------------------------------------- Page 380 of 476 Address Date Comment 35-50 Pinnacle Drive Kitchener, ON N2P OH8 ----------------------------------- 611 Mill Park Dr 06/27/2019 A big NO to rezoning Pinnacle Drive Kitchener. Kitchener ON N2P 1V4 611 Mill Park Dr 1/9/2023 We (the following names) say NO to rezoning 86 Pinnacle Drive. Kitchener ON --------------------- N2P 1V4 --------------------- --------------------- -------------------- -------------------- ---------------------- There has been way too many complaints with bylaw since the Conestoga College student basically 'took over' all of the streets in the surrounding areas of Pinnacle Drive. We do not want our character of Lower Doon changed nor do we want more negative impacts like there already is in our neighbourhood. There are family homes that pay taxes to have a livable, quiet neighborhood - why take this away? The developer is only looking for money. Over crowing tenants, garbage and constant by law infractions - that would be the future outcome should this rezoning be changed. KEEP R4 ZONING! A2-350 Doon Valley Dr 09/10/2019 I am writing to express my complete dismay with the city planning. Doon is a historical area of Kitchener, ON Kitchener and should be a pleasant residential area for outdoor pleasure along the river enjoyed by the N2P 2M9 taxpayers of this city. Instead the city planners appear to bend to the will of the college and intensification(everywhere) at the expense of the residents that have lived in this area for generations and have contributed to our rich history. Page 381 of 476 Address Date Comment We do not need any more student housing in the area behind the college. I believe the housing should be concentrated across the road on the other side of Homer Watson. Let families enjoy a little peace. Please no more zoning changes!!! One day when the business cycle once again changes we will be left with a bunch of cheap housing that will be an eyesore and none of the quality workmanship that was part of the past. 2013 Old Mill Road 1/9/2023 1 have lived in Lower Doon for over 30 years and I agree with this email below as well as -------------------- Kitchener, ON email dated today on this very same matter. N2P 1E4 I just want to add it is a fact that landlords in Lower Doon have been allowed in the past to rip apart properties here breaking the Ontario Building Code law in doing so - and with absolute impunity by not being taken to court by the city for that action, which is what Canadian law says should have happened. That should make us all worry about future actions which may require similar attention. However, I do believe this new and younger generation of residents here will "see through" the narratives and can visualize clearly the dire consequences this zoning change would have on our neighbourhood. The city cannot already take care of Lower Doon. Doon Village Road is a nightmare to drive on - it's a wonder nobody has sued the city for car damage - and I received no reply to my email on having the very small historic road at the top of Roos Street paved over which is full of large holes and could so easily have been done the day they paved the bridge. I also worry the city won't keep the other "historic" promises they have made for Lower Doon which is slowly being turned into a concrete jungle. At an OMB Hearing - which the residents paid for and won - it was the Judge who said in her summary that this city had treated the residents of Lower Doon in that matter (similar to the present one) very badly indeed. --------------------------- 2013 Old Mill Road Kitchener, ON N2P 1E4 none 1/7/2023 Hi Katie, Completely oppose the zoning change proposal for 86 Pinnacle Drive. The change from R4 to R6 is unnecessary and the property cannot accommodate 16 stacked units. Page 382 of 476 Address Date Comment As a creative planner could you not agree that one could achieve growth through the current R4 zoning? Current occupants living on site are 0 ... using the current zoning can surely demonstrate growth. The units will present more cars and more on street parking on a quiet street without any sidewalks. What if a family or child gets struck by a vehicle? The cars on Pinnacle Drive street are mostly driven by students above the speed limits and are loud and idle for long times. You will only be perpetuating this. If somebody gets hit, this would be on you for endorsing such a terrible plan. The units will be overcrowded. We know they will be rentals geared to students in the community who spent no more than 4 months in our neighbourhood at a time. The overcrowding will present another issue, health and fire risk to neighbouring properties. Im sure you dont care but there will be more garbage floating around our streets and the balconies will store more crap, diminishing the aesthetic appeal of our street. Can Conestoga College assist with making growth available through the development of one of their many empty parking lots? There aren't any family homes there and its near college thereby negating increased vehicular traffic. The City of Kitchener should work with the community to formalize the Lower Doon development plan prior to any proposals. You should not force unprecedented development down our throats to appease greedy developers in the name of "battling housing issues". --------------------- 6C-350 Doon Valley Dr 06/03/2019 1.What do you like or dislike about the proposed Zoning By -Law Amendment? Kitchener ON The information presented is limited but it strikes me that this will not fit into Lower Doon or the N2P 2M9 community on Pinnacle Drive presently. (Single family homes, former cottages, unique heritage buildings). I walk on this street regularly. Lower Doon is a heritage neighbourhood and Pinnacle has most of the heritage buildings. Lower Doon needs to be identified as a heritage area like Upper Doon rather than be further abused. Lower Doon and Upper Doon both started from the same root. An apartment on this street is going in the wrong direction. This design does not fit — other than as a Page 383 of 476 Address Date Comment money maker for a developer who will vanish and doesn't live here. It is hard to imagine why a group of senior citizens would even want to live in this building with so many young and immature students already straining the neighbourhood. These students have potential but they are very YOUNG and do not possess very many good neighbour life skills. 2.What changes do you suggest for the proposed Zoning By -Law Amendment? I do not support this application to turn R4 into R6 at 86 Pinnacle. I do not support the conversion of any existing single family home to R6 in Lower Doon. It should be no more than R-4 in order to prevent any MORE entrepreneurial and greedy illegal excesses in our neighbourhood. I am also against re- zoning parking spaces (1.75 to 1.25) to fit a lot that is too small. If these two requested zoning changes are allowed we will be faced with more unscrupulous moves from greedy landlords who have already renovated (without permits or permissions and some in contravention of MPA 45 — August 2002) most of our Lower Doon 4 bedroom homes into illegal rooming houses. They will then pave their backyards to allow even more parking spaces, thus increasing their monetary gains and further destroy Lower Doon. We have found that we really cannot trust most developers/landlords to treat Lower Doon permanent residents fairly or the City to protect Lower Doon and its permanent tax -paying residents from abuse. We need to keep the only protection we seem to have in place. Current zoning. 3 -Any additional comments? This zoning change is precedent setting. Every landlord in Lower Doon with an ALREADY ILLEGAL rooming house could suddenly increase the amount of parking for all of their homes by paving over their backyards. This is a monumental change in privacy for Lower Doon. Paving over the entire site does not respect the existing established neighbourhood. The proposed front yard setback proposed here is not respectful of the neighbouring properties. This development would completely change the building styles along Pinnacle and that has far reaching implications, none of which I am willing to even contemplate. Since there was no site plan in the package of information it is hard to adequately evaluate what is being proposed here or the effects it would have on neighbouring homes, where real people live. Can you imagine your backyard with a parking lot behind it? There doesn't seem to be any outdoor space other than parking - NOT very appealing. A development without green space does not fit this neighbourhood or promote good mental health for residents. The only other building (90 Doon Valley) even remotely like this in the neighbourhood adds nothing positive to community life. It is ugly but mercifully quiet. Let us not make this mistake again please. Page 384 of 476 Address Date Comment 6C-350 Doon Valley Dr 09/12/2019 Additional Comments motivated by my attendance at the Neighbourhood Information Meeting (Sept. Kitchener ON 10) N2P 2M9 -This proposed development should not be allowed to go ahead until it conforms to current city zoning guidelines WITHOUT CHANGE being required. The changes proposed by this developer will make this look like the current offerings in the university area(s) of the City of Waterloo — this is not acceptable in any way, shape or form. -Lower Doon has been victimized by Conestoga College's need for student housing for years and land developers with no interest in community building and an avid, greedy interest in their own economic growth have violated Lower Doon for what appears to be years. (I only arrived here in 2004 — it was a rude awakening. I was and am appalled but I do not have the physical and energy resources to move again.) -History of Doon: Doon is the original ROOT of early permanent settlements in Waterloo Region which started in the early 1800's. Even MORE significantly Indigenous communities existed LONG before that. According to Joe Mancini (The Working Centre) two Kitchener indigenous settlements from the 1500's can now be identified near Schneider and Strasburg Creeks, both running to the Grand River. These areas became Doon! This new proposed project has no respect for any of this history and only perpetuates the violation of Lower Doon by developers. I would like to use the "R" word in place of "violation" here but realize it might be very offensive to many people. The bottom line is that what has happened here in Lower Doon already, the violation supported by the City and the College needs to be stopped, NOW. -Lower Doon is a historic jewel in Waterloo Region. This established neighbourhood needs to have planning protections (Like Upper Doon) put in place to safeguard this history and the still rural nature of the area rather than allowing one more developer or the College to take further advantage of us and further submerge the historic value of this setting. -The City of Kitchener appears to be unable to effectively enforce by-laws and MPA 45 (August 2002 OMB Ruling) designed to make housing safe and civilized for EVERYBODY in Lower Doon. When we complain that there are numerous (80-150 we have heard from various sources) illegal lodging houses, that houses are duplexed in contravention of MPA 45, that the kids have not done their garbage (AGAIN!) and their cars are parked on lawns (AGAIN!) it feels like we work here not live here. None of us who are working to maintain things moved here to work without pay doing municipal tasks. Page 385 of 476 Address Date Comment -Nobody should have to live like we do in Lower Doon and still have to pay taxes that we do. Some of us have to work really hard down here because the City appears to be incapable of running Lower Doon effectively and we have to pick up the slack. Enough already. No more proposals for any kind of re- zoning down here until the City (or perhaps an Amalgamated Region) gets a handle on the illegal activities going on down here now. -The Province has been approached with the City's complaint that they can't enforce certain legalities down here. -Following from some of the above points it can be seen that the design we saw at the Neighbourhood Information Meeting is dramatically out of place. For instance, what is the design doing with a proposed MANSARD ROOF? This would fit well in Montreal or Quebec City but not in Kitchener (or any part of Waterloo Region) and particularly not in Lower Doon. (My background is French Canadian and I did study housing design at the post -secondary level). The proper approach here is to maintain the historic and Ontario rural flavour of Lower Doon. -The proposed design is said to be designed for seniors. The developer did this to placate a group of us who were originally unnerved by all of this. He didn't seem to understand he couldn't say "seniors only." What kind of developer is this?? - No seniors I know are likely to enjoy apartment living here with no outdoor space and not enough room to park two cars. There are no services for seniors in Lower Doon and a smallish development like this with no common element type space or outdoor space will have very little appeal. Result — more students — we are already overun with students in Lower Doon. No more needed. PROVIDING HOUSING FOR COLLEGE STUDENTS IS NOT OUR JOB! Students are what they are — not really designed for co-operative neighbourhood living just yet. Not mature enough yet to be good neighbours. Give them a few years and most will be fine — but they won't be in Lower Doon any more. We will only have more young, immature ones. -There is NO more undeveloped land in Lower Doon. If this project is approved you are opening the door to a flood of applications to tear down existing housing owned by landlords who are illegally renting by the room to students and unattached people. They will then build new (Waterloo -like) buildings with paved back yards and no green space or front yards. Families have already been driven out of much of Lower Doon. Zoning By-law Amendment ZBA19/003/P/KA is a precedent -setting application. The City or an Amalgamated Region must resist this. Page 386 of 476 Address Date Comment -A completed Land Use study in Lower Doon MUST precede any future application for approval for zoning changes in Lower Doon. Current tax -paying permanent residents who have been ignored until now must have input. D O O N 4 FOUNDf D_ Ib©O POPULATION - _ _ 44a �Ii�Yww�ata a• FEOAIER R.WATSpM R.CA_ 100 CHILDREN USF TWLS HKHTMY ONLY TH15 HIGHWAY IS THEIR SIOEWA" DO DRIVE CAREFUL From the Grace Schmidt Room Collection at Kitchener Public Library 6C-350 Doon Valley Dr 1/6/2023 To: Katie Anderl (Kitchener Planning Department) Kitchener ON Christine Michaud (Councillor Ward 4, Kitchener) N2P 2M9 Berry Urbanovic (Mayor, Kitchener) From: -----------------------(Lower Doon Taxpayer, Kitchener) Date: January 6, 2023 As an over -taxed permanent resident of Lower Doon, I am very disappointed to hear about the new possible plans for 86 Pinnacle. They fly in the face of the promise that was made by the City to present a new Secondary Plan for Lower Doon as a Special Policy Area BEFORE any other development was considered for Lower Doon. The development vision for 86 Pinnacle being proposed currently makes huge changes to what is allowed in Lower Doon. The above order that was promised is pretty easy to understand and the changes being suggested by The Planning Department here are wrong and by that I mean morally wrong. Put on the brakes now. No matter what the developers want. No developers should be sneaking in under the wire here. If this happens everything we value in Lower Doon changes. Page 387 of 476 Address Date Comment A proposal/"vision" that was supposed to be looked at AFTER a new Secondary Plan was presented have now gone to the front of the line. What is going on in Lower Doon from a student renter safety viewpoint and the City's ability to control the various avaricious and greedy landlords who have preyed on Lower Doon all the time I have ever lived here is mind-boggling and hugely disappointing. At our house we are paying over $6 000 in property taxes. Why? Darned if I know. This is a semi- detached condominium by the way. Seems odd to pay that much in taxes to me. Especially when things have never been right down here and appear to be threatened with further erosion currently. I have lived in Lower Doon for over 18 years... and I am just so tired of fighting this same kind of fight against developers/ landlords and getting nowhere here. The problem is with our now overabundant student housing in Lower Doon that has broken rules with impunity. Landlords have been breaking the rules here for years and getting away with it over and over again. We all know that. That needs to stop before anything else is approved. I was on the team of Lower Doon residents that opposed and won at the OMB with respect to PL170535 (Owl Properties) in 2017. At least we had almost 4 years of peace from that decision — which was morally right. The right thing happened there. And now it appears we are back to where we were before the OMB ruling and starting all over again. Very disappointing. I am very tired of seeing City Staff more or less ham strung by changes in laws. For example, Doug Ford's short-sighted recent housing laws that make their jobs harder to do. I am horrified that Tom Ruggles' fire department for instance, appears to have faced incredible blockages in enforcing or improving fire safety precautions here in Lower Doon. An inordinate amount of time and tax -payer dollars appears to be going into making housing -type dwellings for multiple students or other independent renters safe. We appear to be spending far too much tax -payer money on blocking shady landlords for negligible positive effects. And on top of everything else is the historic significance of Lower Doon as the birthplace of Waterloo Region. This has been chronically ignored while I have lived here and the stories we hear from longer term residents tell us that history has always been ignored down here in favour of Conestoga College. More of the above. This is shameful. And it seems as if this is all about money and power not doing the right thing. I wouldn't want my grandchildren living in any of these "rooming houses" in Lower Doon. One factor that is always missing in these discussions is the age of the individuals living in overcrowded, illegal housing attracting mostly young people (students) away from their parents' homes for the first time. They have little or no life experience and frequently behave in ways that are unsafe. People die Page 388 of 476 Address Date Comment doing this — we all know that. We nearly lost some a few years ago on Mill Park in Lower Doon. The fire was so bad that nothing has ever happened to the land that remains. They tore down the house and it now is surrounded by an ugly fence years later. It was lucky nobody died! Another bad incident involving shady housing in Lower Doon that appears to have never been prosecuted. That was an illegal house — was there ever a negative sanction for that landlord??? Why are we still looking at the negative results years later? Why are permanent residents and city still staff banging their heads on the wall and getting nowhere? Student readiness to live on their own must be discussed. Young students are not adults. Don't ever forget it. They need some laid -on structure for a while after leaving home, for example the high rise "student" apartments at Homer Watson and Old Carriage Drive. There is some structure and support for the residents as they transition to adulthood. And yes, I am aware we can't and don't have laws about who can live in a house and who can't but we would be doing our young people a favour if we made their living accommodations more likely to be safe and less crowded somehow. I am not sure what that is now with all these changes but the current situation is not tenable and due to get worse it would appear. I know things are getting worse not better. More and more landlords seem willing to provide unsafe conditions to make money. I taught secondary school in Ontario for 30 years and became very familiar with students about to leave home for school. I taught social science with respect to child and adolescent behaviour and development. Most of these students beginning the transition to adulthood were quite nice (some weren't and they represent much more risk) but that does not mean any of them are really all ready to live on their own when they leave home. When they live in an overcrowded house it is a dangerous house. And we have several of them in Lower Doon it would appear. And we can't do much about it. That is just plain ridiculous. I made this point over and over again during the OMB PL170535 (Owl Properties) hearing in 2017. Lower Doon adults won that case and as a result the students didn't get new unsafe house. I know the OMB listened. It doesn't really matter what Doug Ford thinks or what Bill 23 says... we can't have students away from home who die or are injured because of their housing choices. Our current government at Queen's Park is way out of control presently and flying blind it appears. Page 389 of 476 Address Date Comment In some way common sense is going to have to eventually prevail here. Let's try to work to make it harder for greedy property owners in Lower Doon to put these kids in danger. Sincerely, ----------------------------------------- 6C-350 Doon Valley Drive, Kitchener, ON, N2P 2M9 None 1/7/2023 Keep the character of lower Doon. Don't need to invite more future development. We need more trees not more houses. 20-105 Pinnacle Drive 06/26/2019 Hard copy comment form Kitchener ON N2P 1138 99 Pinnacle 06/03/02019 I completely agree with Ms. ----------, and Mr. --------------- as well on this matter. Kitchener ON I would also like to add that the front yard set back of this property is not in keeping with the set backs N2P 1138 of the surrounding houses. I am at 99 Pinnacle Drive, this property is across the street from myself and my family. 99 Pinnacle 9/24/2019 Mr. Sloan, Kitchener ON First of all, I would like to thank you for the opportunity to form a group and allow the residents of N2P 1138 Lower Doon to have a voice in the planning survey of our neighbourhood. I would like to be a part of that group. Secondly, I am the woman who mentioned that this building would be too close to the edge of the street, and because it is on a bend in the road, it would create a blind turn on the street and be unsafe. I've thought of this some more, and further to that point, this is a double wide property with VERY old trees on it. We already have water streaming down our street when it rains. If this property gets clear cut, and paved over like in the proposal, it will dramatically increase the amount of rain water that will end up on the roadway. Come to our street next time it rains, and watch the "river" of water that goes down our street. We just had a huge development go in behind this property, and the "river" situation has already worsened because of it. Page 390 of 476 Address Date Comment Thirdly, you mentioned at the meeting, that you are aware of the mistrust between the Planning Department in the City of Kitchener and the community of Lower Doon. I think that the first step in regaining our trust or an olive branch as my mother would say, would be to put a hold on all developments and zone change applications until the study of Lower Doon has been completed (I believe Yvonne Fernandes had mentioned a couple of ways to do it). I'm sure you have noticed that the residents of this neighbourhood have all lived here a very long time, and it is these people who have been waiting many many years for this study to take place. I think it's fair to ask then, that the developers who have only owned property in this neighbourhood for a very short time, to wait the year or two it will take to complete the study. This study could save a lot of time for both the City and residents, and taxpayer money. If the City decides that: Lower Doon is not worth protecting. The historic buildings, sites and stories of first settlers coming here have no value. The mature trees that are a part of the gorgeous walking trails that connect Lower and Upper Doon, Homer Watson House, and the Walter Bean Trail, are not what the city wants to see here. That the damage is done to this neighbourhood, the value is lost and it's easier to rezone the neighbourhood for students and lodging homes. If the City decides to overturn the current Bi -laws, then we won't have any more Community Meetings to show up for. We the residents of Lower Doon, the second and third generations of families that have been living here, that love this place, can all sell our homes and find a nice quiet, historic community at the edge of a river in some other city. But, if the City decides that: The history is still worth protecting. The historical landmarks and buildings have value. The trees and walking trails are important for all residents of Kitchener to be able to come see, and use. That the promise the City of Kitchener made many years ago, that this neighbourhood would not be over run, over -developed, and have the historic assets it brings to our city comprised. Page 391 of 476 Address Date Comment That the adjacent land to the current College Residence, the land by New Dundee road, or the multitude of land that Conestoga College owns is a more appropriate place to erect student purpose housing. If the City of Kitchener decides that the current bi-laws and zoning restrictions are going to be upheld, then this zoning application and any more in the future, can be denied without recourse, or the need for all the meetings. Lastly, I think the most frustrating part for me with this application, is that we just finished with (and won) a very similar application with OMB. We had to raise the money, take time off work, and take time away from our families in order to have the laws and bi-laws of our community to be upheld. We live hear because of the history, because our families have lived here for generations, because we love having this gorgeous park -like residential neighbourhood in the city, because we love the walking trails and all the old sites that remain today. Look at all the time, and money we spend trying to uphold the history of our neighbourhood. We think it's worth saving for future generations, all we want is for the City to back us up. Thank you for your time, ---------------------------------------- Raising the third generation in 99 Pinnacle Drive Page 392 of 476 Address Date Comment 27 Morningview Place 12/25/2023 Dear Ms Anderl: Kitchener ON N2P 1Z2 The Concept Drawing does not remotely match the proposal. As per: >the orientation of the building does not match the lot there is no >sidewalk or room for one there is no possibility of green space between >the non-existent sidewalk and the road. >there is no illustration of the driveway access that will be required >for 22 vehicles there is no lot plan showing the location of the >proposed parking lot Overall the concept is a shoddy, glossy attempt tp glamorize a project that will inevitably end up downgrading the neighbourhood. With this lack of care in the presentation of project material one can only question the quality of the actuality. I am not against well-designed projects for which the developer will earn some income but this project smacks of an attempt to maximize profits, no doubt using the least costly materials available - the inevitably result being a future slum area and student housing with all the foreseeable issues. Accordingly we firmly believe the change of zoning request be denied. The developer purchased the property based on R4 zoning which permits 8 units and therefore was well aware of those limitations. Those are the rules in place and the developer should either abide by those rules or sell the property to another developer who will abide by those rules. ---------------------------- 27 Morningview Place 29-105 Pinnacle Drive 08/26/2016 We are not able to attend the information meeting due to a prior commitment. Below is our feedback. Kitchener, ON N2P 1B8 As a neighbour of the property requesting the change here is my input: Page 393 of 476 Address Date Comment 1. We do not object to the change from R-4 to R-6 for the purpose of developing a 16 unit apartment building. 2. We STRONGLY object to the request for the change to the parking ratio. Rational: 1. No matter what type of tenants they claim to be geared towards, there is no means to limit the tenants to this group (we had heard seniors) therefore the parking requirements need to be based on any type of group renting. 2. Most of the properties in this area have insufficient parking for their tenants, meaning a LOT of cars parked overnight on the street (creating a mess in the winter) and/or finding them parking ILLEGALLY in our complex, where we actually have more than the required parking spaces. 3. In addition to on -street parking by existing tenants, there is significant on -street parking during the day due to the proximity to the college, where day time parking is only available for a fee. On any given day there are probably a few hundred cars on side streets in Lower Doon that belong to students attending classes who do not live in this area. Any new build should not be further contributing to this parking issue. 4. Most families and/or seniors have 2 cars. Simple fact. Anyone who thinks otherwise should be checking where they found their statistics. The only exception may be low income. Since there is no indication that this complex is for low income families, that exception is invalid. 5. There are NO amenities within walking distance of this complex. No stores, restaurants (except maybe Taco Bel l/McDona Ids/Ti m Hortons) or any other facilities. Car or bus is required to get just about anywhere. When amenities are not within walking distance, most tenants have one or more vehicles. Page 394 of 476 Address Date Comment 6. There are many options for building design whereby the additional parking spaces can be incorporated under the building if surface parking is not available. If this required a 3 storey building instead of 2 storey, that would be acceptable. We see no reason why an exemption for parking is justified. 6G-350 Doon Valley No comment — wish to stay informed Drive N2P 2M9 1857 Old Mill Rd 07/03/2019 Absolutely disagree with approval of rezoning 86 Pinnacle Drive R4 to R6! Kitchener, N2P 1E3 I have been a Kitchener resident living at 1857 Old Mill Rd, Kitchener, since 1974 - quick math = 45 yrs. Over that time span, I have witnessed my neighbourhood getting transformed from gravel road surface (Old Mill Rd) rural agriculture, with open fields on small farms, into a dense housing neighbourhood. Not to my liking for the picturesque Doon environment I loved, is now transformed into (basically) a dense student housing. That is NOT keeping with the character of the neighbourhood as elected past mayors of this city pledged! If this new rezoning application if approved, it will further erode what is left of the character of our neighbourhood by allowing backyard parking. BTW, I note that the site plan projects a total of 23 parking spots per unit! That density is normally found in a downtown area NOT a rural site! I MUST challenge this rezoning application with the strongest possible opposition. 1857 Old Mill Rd 12/19/2023 Morning Al I: Kitchener, I TOTALLY concur with all the comments just shared by------------------------ Interesting that while the N2P 1E3 developer has had ample time - and behind the scenes - to have another try at transforming the land parcel in question, but thusly affecting the rest of this community, we home owners who live here have to suffer - if approved - the consequences of the proposed rezoning. FYI, I've lived & raised our family in this 1857 Old Mill Rd residence, since 1976! BTW, the original, still existing mail structure of this house was built in 1875! Page 395 of 476 Address Date Comment Over time, but most often of late, the changes undertaken by land developers imposed onto this neighbourhood - driven mainly (IMO) by the marketplace forces resulting from the growth success of Conestoga College campus; have transformed what was previously a quiet, sparsely populated R11 zoned, single family residence, rural setting, that also included 3 farms (now all gone) to present (mostly) student rental housing - whether these rentals conform to rental housing designation or (more likely) NOT! I WILL be participating in the upcoming meeting WHICH SURELY NEEDS to be POSTPONED to a later date! Respectfully ---------------------------- 1857 Old Mill Rd 1/9/2023 Hello Katie... Kitchener, Just FYI ... I am a 76 (in 2 wks) year old senior who has lived, & raised my family, at 1857 Old Mill Rd since N2P 1E3 1974. So you can imagine the changes I've seen since Mr Don Cardillo, (I believe he was at the time, Kitchener mgr of development - later Kitchener mayor) held a community meeting with the Doon residents. As a representative of City of Kitchener, Don PROMISED that 'the character & features of our historical DOON community would be maintained". Empty promise! First landmark to be torn down to develop that site was the Philadelphian meeting House (church) which borders our residence's west property line. That promise and many more, have been broken - without much explanations - over the last 5 decades! Little wonder Politicians are not so easily trusted! My details... ------------------------------ 1857 Old Mill Rd Kitchener, N2P 1E3 None provided 1/5/2023 Hello, - the proposed zoning change from R4 to R6 at 85 Pinnacle Drive is unprecedented for the community and residents of Lower Doon. - the City of Kitchener can meet growth objectives utilizing the current R4 zoning for a site which is currently vacant; Page 396 of 476 Address Date Comment - the proposed zoning is absurd in which it would allow buildings up to 25m tall up from the current 11m height restriction; - the proposed conception is far from the characteristics of the surrounding properties; - the building will be overcrowded and not enough parking for vehicles in which parking would spill onto the streets. There will be increased vehicular traffic and with no sidewalks it will pose safety risks to children and families in the area; - the City of Kitchener should work in partnership with Conestoga College to develop density buildings on the many vacant parking lots that plague the college lands which are far in distance from family homes; - development proposed and the zoning change will deteriorate the Community of Lower Doon and will impact the quality of living for families in the community especially those abutting the property. Thank you. 20 Pinnacle Dr 6/3/2019 1 concur with ----------------- assessment. In my opinion the proposal is neither compatible nor sensitive Kitchener ON with the character, form and planned function of the surrounding context. N2P 1B7 ------------------------------ 20 Pinnacle Drive 20 Pinnacle Dr 1/9/2023 Good Morning Kitchener ON The last meeting that I attended with the City via zoom, I was able to hear and see, but I was unable to N2P 1B7 be seen and heard. Therefore I am sending a question with follow ups by email in advance. The Application states that the proposed Floor Space Ratio (FSR) is 0.6. Are the basement apartments included in the Building Floor Area when calculating the FSR? If excluded please answer my follow up questions. Is the floor area of the basement apartments excluded from the calculation of FSR because the apartments are located totally below grade? Is FSR used by the City as a density measure ie. a higher ratio indicates a denser development? If so can you explain the City's rationale for excluding below grade floor area, whether inhabited or not, from the calculation of Building Floor Area but excluding attic floor area only if the attic is uninhabited as per the definition of Building Floor Area? Is the Basement floor area approximately 0.33% of the other 3 floors combined? If the basement floor area is added to the Building Floor Area and divided by the lot size is the ratio approximately 0.80? Page 397 of 476 Address Date Comment Thank you for your attention to the foregoing. I will submit some comments after the meeting for your consideration. Best regards, -------------------------- 20 Pinnacle Drive 06/27/2019 NO 636 Mill Park Dr 1/7/2023 1 am a resident of this neighborhood and want to oppose the rezoning of this area to r6. This is clearly Kitchener ON not the area for this type of development. N2P 1W1 Concerned ------------------------------------ 636 mill park drive 2075 Old Mill Rd 06/30/2019 We're at 2075 Old Mill Rd., and the consensus around here matches these - NO Rezoning!! Yes we will Kitchener ON leave ourselves open to what is happening in Waterloo, around universities. High rise after high N2P 1E4 rise. This is not acceptable for our little community. When will the city realize this??------------- 35 Durham St. 09/04/2019 1 have lived on Durham Street for 21 years now and have seen our small neighbourhood change a lot Kitchener, ON over those years. N2P 1G3 My concern about any building in this area is parking and another exit to Homer Watson. I would disagree with any more development until another exit to Homer Watson is put in place. There is only one way to get onto Homer Watson and that is past the college which is more and more jam packed each year. Also, parking is a real problem in this neighborhood already. Cars line our streets. I call by- law often about parking on grass, across sidewalks, and on the street during the day. Admendments to parking should NEVER be made in this area. Students have cars, a lot of them. Seniors also have cars and have visitors. I am not opposed to development but it needs to add to our neighbourhood not cause more calls to by- law. 19 Mill View Street 1/9/2023 To, Kitchener ON The City of KITCHENER N2P 1W7 Senior Planner : Katie Anderi Page 398 of 476 Address Date Comment Ward 4 Councillor : Christine Michaud City Of Kitchener Mayor : Berry Vrbanovic ---------------------------- from 19 Millview Street - Kitchener- N2P 1W7 Ontario is absolutely opposing for the proposed zone change to be made. We live in this neighbourhood since 1984. Please KEEP R4 zoning and NO to R6 zoning change proposed. Development proposal is too intense for the neighbourhood. Reasons to oppose are... 1) Too intense of a proposed plan and NOT compatible with surrounding properties. 2) Similar proposals built on major arterial roads, which Pinnacle Drive is not. 3) This will OVERLY CROWD by putting 16 stacked units under zone R6 so please DO NOT CHANGE. 4) Increased vehicle traffic, parking and noise (Cars, Car music, speeding, fumes, Carbon food print of our neighbourhood). 5) Jeopardizing Safely with increased street traffic and no side walks. 6) Privacy and quiet neighbourhood ; please do not disturb the ambiance & natural beauty this neighbourhood holds. 7) Narrow street Pinnacle Drive can cause health hazards by increasing carbon foot prints. 8) The rental homes in clusters alone has created driving hazards for us, have had been hit by a car in the past by a student. Thank you very much. Would appreciate you study our concerns. From, -------------------------------------------- 19 Mill View Street Kitchener - N2P 1W7 ONTARIO Page 399 of 476 Address Date Comment 536 Mill Park Drive 07/05/2019 1 stand with-------------,-------------------,------------------,--------------- and others in opposing the application Kitchener, Ontario for 86 Pinnacle Drive to be rezoned to R-6 to permit a two storey, 16 unit apartment building with N2P 1W1 (insufficient) parking in the REAR of the property. This is wrong in every way possible. I've said in letters and presentations to Kitchener City Council and the OMB that I believed previous applications from other landlords would be precedent setting. But if this application were to be approved, it would be like opening the flood gates. You'd likely have every landlord - and some homeowners - in Lower Doon lining up to pave their backyards and / or replace their single family home with as many apartments as the property would hold. And that would be the end of Lower Doon. I am 100% against this application. 536 Mill Park Drive 09/05/2019 Hard copy comment Form Kitchener, Ontario N2P 1W1 536 Mill Park Drive 1/9/2023 Ms. Anderl and Mayor Vrbanovic, Kitchener, Ontario For over 10 years, my wife and I have lived on Mill Park Drive in Lower Doon. N2P 1W1 We are against the proposed rezoning for 86 Pinnacle Drive. Along with several other permanent residents of Lower Doon, I made a presentation to the OMB in May 2018, in opposition of the proposed Owl Properties development. When I finished, one of Owl's lawyers asked me, "You live a kilometre away from the development site — why do you even care?" My response was that the proposed development would be precedent -setting — that if approved, there would no stopping the destruction of Lower Doon. In the May 28th newspaper I was quoted as saying "My fear is Lower Doon as we know it will cease to exist." The proposed development at 86 Pinnacle Drive is no less COMPLETELY out of character with our neighbourhood, no less precedent setting, no less a threat to the future of Lower Doon. No doubt the landlords and developers are lining up behind A & F Greenfield Homes. As Ms. Thomas asked in her email attached below, have you driven around University, Albert, Columbia and King in Waterloo? Neighbourhoods replace by antiseptic concrete hallways. Page 400 of 476 Address Date Comment And I join the rest of the permanent residents of Lower Doon who have asked that tomorrow's meeting be rescheduled so that it can be held in-person. That said, why is this meeting even taking place at this time? Why is this proposal even being considered before the Lower Doon Secondary Plan is completed? Is the Secondary Plan meaningless — nothing more than an empty promise? I know that at City Hall, you count opposition or support of an initiative by the number of emails and/or phone calls you receive. I don't know what the numbers are sitting at, but walk around our neighbourhood and talk to the permanent residents and you'll hear that the outrage over the proposed rezoning is there. The permanent residents of Lower Doon packed meetings at Doon Valley Golf Club and City Hall in opposition of the Owl Properties proposal. We hand-delivered to City Hall a petition with over 400 signatures in opposition of the development. And we fought the OMB on our own. To the developers, Lower Doon is nothing more than an investment opportunity to be exploited. To the permanent residents, it is our home. It is where we live. We care about Lower Doon. If the proposed rezoning is allowed and the development proceeds, 86 Pinnacle Drive will forever be known as Lower Doon's Ground Zero. Respectfully, ------------------------------ 536 Mill Park Drive 2/1/2023 Ms. Anderl, Kitchener, Ontario While I won't be able to attend today's site walk, let me restate my position so there is no N2P 1W1 misunderstanding. • I am against the proposed rezoning for 86 Pinnacle Drive. • I do not believe that any applications such as this should even be considered before the Lower Doon Secondary Plan is completed. Respectfully, ------------------------------------------- 540 Mill Park Dr 1/10/2023 Dear Katie, Mayor Vrbanovic and Councillor Michaud: Kitchener ON N2P 1W1 I understand that there is a virtual meeting tonight regarding the above matter. Page 401 of 476 Address Date Comment I have lived in the area now for more than 16 years and this zoning change scares me. I understand the need for more housing in our city. I have helped at A Better Tent City myself. However, to put that large a building in that small space does not make sense to me and it sets a precedent for future buildings. I can see this type of structure being built on major roadways but not on this small roadway. We sometimes have trouble with passing a bus with street parking. It also disturbs me that more vegetation will be lost. This area is also not set up for this amount of increased growth. Nor should it be. It is a heritage area — one of few left in the city. Do we want every little nook in our city looking like Toronto? The only people that are benefiting from this are the developers. They don't care what the area will look like. Please don't get caught up in this. The infrastructure also isn't set up for all this growth either. Until that is all set up I believe the city should slow down a bit on its building plans. This area has been given the prison, all the student housing changes, the pot plant (which actually gives off foul smelling odors although they said it wouldn't) and now again all these zoning changes. It is a beautiful historical part of the city with trails second to none. Please do not rezone this area. Let's keep it manageable and beautiful. May I also mention one other item while I am at it? We do not have a decent playground for our children. The one we have is by the new water treatment building and sitting on the corner close to the road and traffic. When I drove thru the Hidden Valley subdivision this past summer I noticed this beautiful park with a boat, swings and structures on a large piece of land. Funny thing is, when we drive by it no one is using it. This doesn't make sense to me either. We have a small slide structure along with an old swing frame again sitting way too close to the Page 402 of 476 Address Date Comment road. It is always well used. There are many parents with children in this neighborhood that I am sure would appreciate an updated playground. Thank you for your time. I really hope you do not make this zone change. Sincerely, ----------------------------------- 23 Morningview PI 1/14/2023 My wife, ---------------, and I are residents of 23 Morningview Place. Purpose of our email is to say NO to Kitchener ON rezoning 86 Pinnacle Drive Kitchener. N2P 1Z2 This proposal is not compatible with surrounding properties. Our serene community is not suitable for high traffic and intense crowding. In the interest of safety and peace for the families and children in Lower Doon, please maintain normal residential neighborhood as it was intended by the original settlers. As the representatives of this community Thanks for listening! Best regards, --------------------------- 10G-350 Doon Valley Dr 09/04/2019 Comment Form Kitchener, Ontario N2P 2M9 My wife and I cannot attend the September 10th meeting at 6.30 pm. It is our 53rd. wedding anniversary and we have other plans. We have lived at the Mill Club for over 13 years and have seen many changes during this time. The main thing that we have noticed is the Cities', seemingly, total disregard for the long term tax- paying residents of our community. The College is taking priority. You only need to look at the traffic chaos in the first week of school. Road works, lane closures, police presence and, of course, accidents. Page 403 of 476 Address Date Comment The addition of a further residence for students will only serve to add problems to the permanent residents. We have more that enough places for students to stay locally, and with the 600 to 1000 plus city buses that will be passing our homes each day, there must be adequate locales that the students can find accommodation. We say NO to the application. 2G-350 Doon Valley Dr 06/03/2019 My name is --------------- and I am a permanent resident and tax payer in Lower Doon. I am opposed to Kitchener, Ontario the proposed application to re -zone 86 Pinnacle from R4 to R6. I do not support any conversion of an N2P 2M9 existing family home to R6 in Lower Doon. I completely agree with and support all of the comments that Ms. ----------- has made in her email below. The proposed plan for 86 Pinnacle is completely out of character for the surrounding homes, and does not represent good planning. This development is precedent setting. If allowed to continue it will eventually provide reason for every property to be developed in the same extent resulting in; • Loss of front yard setback • Loss of backyard • Loss of green space and privacy • Parking covering most of the site • Insufficient parking for the number of units I respectfully request that you review the OMB Case # PL170535 that Ms. --------------- sent to you. This is quite simply, just more of the same. 2G-350 Doon Valley Dr 07/02/2019 In addition to my comments below I also want to acknowledge that in the "we want your input" Kitchener, Ontario document that was sent by the City following the City receiving a re -zoning application for 86 Pinnacle N2P 2M9 Drive, it is noted that A&F Greenfield Homes proposes to build a "seniors oriented apartment building." In fact a representative of A&F Greenfield Homes called neighbours to his property on a Sunday morning prior to submitting the re -zoning application, in order to share his site plan. He confirmed this was to be a "seniors building" and a "high class one" at that. This developer should Page 404 of 476 Address Date Comment know that you can't say that it is going to be a "seniors building" unless you plan on building a retirement home or long term care facility. There was no support for this project from any permanent residents that attending the meeting. 2G-350 Doon Valley Dr 09/20/2019 1 wish to reiterate my comments below. I do not support the rezoning application for 86 Pinnacle. The Kitchener, Ontario proposed plan for 86 Pinnacle is completely out of character for the surrounding homes, and does not N2P 2M9 represent good planning, and it is precedent setting. It is long overdue time that the City Planning Department start to make good planning decisions in Lower Doon. You don't have to look any further than the staff report recommending support for the Owl Properties proposal for a 47 unit stacked townhouse development — that went before LPAT - Case number PL 170535. Please review this case and all the reasons it did not represent good and proper planning. As 86 Pinnacle is just more of the same. Of utmost importance is the fact that 60 bedrooms in the proposed plan were beyond the reach of a 60 m fire hose length. This translates to 60 lives. Admittedly, I don't understand how planning officials and their manager can be allowed to maintain employment when such poor planning decisions are supported. NO to any conversion of an existing family home to R6 in Lower Doon. 2G-350 Doon Valley Dr 1/8/2023 Katie, Mayor Vrbanovic and Craig, Kitchener, Ontario I invite you to refresh your memories by reading the LPAT report in it's entirety, which N2P 2M9 is attached. Though this proposal represented more intensity than what is currently being proposed at 86 Pinnacle, the proposal for 86 Pinnacle represents all the problematic aspects that Ms. Zuidema addresses in her report of July 20, 2018, with just slightly less numbers. Massing & Height, Density, Intensity, Poor Planning, Parking, Safety etc. Mr. Luis presents a thorough and accurate assessment of what the permanent residents of Doon are, and have been facing, and how the residents have been trying to get the City of Kitchener to exercise good planning in the historic area of Lower Doon for years now. Why is the community still waiting for this? New proposals should not be accepted for consideration by the City until your homework for planning in Lower Doon is complete. From Ms. Zuidema's report; While the City and Conestoga College have made some efforts to provide proper student housing over the years, it is clear from the history of this area and its policy framework that both the City and the College have much more work to do. Page 405 of 476 Address Date Comment Also from Ms. Zuidema's report I would like to highlight the following statement; [7] While the City attended as a party, it called no evidence to support its own municipal council decision to refuse the applications. That job was left to others. While this is shameful, it represents just what the City of Kitchener intended, which was to have the residents of Lower Doon take up the fight. This removed City of Kitchener from taking a stand on student housing in Lower Doon which may not have been seen in the best of light by Conestoga College. As Mayor Vrbanovic told me personally; "Conestoga College is a very important to the City of Kitchener." So the permanent residents of Lower Doon raised several tens of thousands of dollars for legal representation, and those named in Ms. Zuidema's report attended two weeks of hearings. We seem to be at a tipping point again at this time, as you have heard from many permanent residents. The email that was sent out by Ms.Anderl, with a meeting date over Zoom ( that would potentially block participants from the meeting and information) and very little lead time for the residents of Lower Doon to review all documents has been done to this group in the past, and as you've seen from email responses this is totally unacceptable. In closing, I think it's fair to say that the permanent residents of Lower Doon are prepared to do whatever is necessary, whether it be media attention and more, to highlight this situation in Lower Doon, in particular including the City's non -response to responsible planning in the historic neighbourhood of Lower Doon. With regards, ------------------ 122 Doon Valley Drive 06/03/02019 Hello neighbours, Kitchener, On. The ----------- family are in agreement with --------------- assessment, we concur N2P1B2 with all the concerns that have been put forward. We CANNOT allow the Rezoning of 86 Pinnacle. 09/16/2019 Hello Katie, I would like to add my voice to strongly disagreeing with the proposed zone change. Not only will it be precedent setting and continue to degrade what little history is left in the community but it will also open the doors for numerous other requests for zone change application. Page 406 of 476 Address Date Comment As the former Councillor for this Ward, I recall asking staff, before I finished my term that the Lower Doon Land Use Study be initiated as soon as possible due the increased pressure on the Lower Doon area from the College's growing student population. I also stated at the meeting on Tuesday Sept. 10th that the Planning department has numerous tools at their disposal that can be used to put a hold on any further development applications/zone changes and Official Plan amendments until the study was completed. I mentioned two of these tools at the PIC. One was the holding provision which although not the best option would put development applications on hold. The second was an interim control bylaw, this tool I believed was used for the Rosenburg plan and /or the Cedar Hill area both needed further study at the time these control measures were implemented. I believe that the community deserves that one of these control measures be implemented as soon as it is possible for Council to approve them. The Terms of Reference have been set, stakeholders have been canvased over the last year and staff are considering consultant applications. A proper study of the area can only be done if one of these measures are taken and without the constant barrage of applications by developers. I look forward to hearing any further developments on this application. Warm Regards, Yvonne Fernandes Community Liaison Doon Pioneer Park Community Association Former City of Kitchener Councillor for Ward 4 2010-2018 1/9/2023 Hello Katie, Page 407 of 476 Address Date Comment I have been copied on many of the emails that have been sent to you from residents of Lower Doon. As the former Councillor of this area, you as well as many planning staff are aware of the numerous attempts to control the housing situation in the Lower Doon area. This development will only add to the challenges that are continuously occurring in this area. I realize that planning staff cannot "people zone" but the history of this area is well documented and despite many efforts by bylaw/fire/ planning staff like Mr. Garett Stevenson and myself as former Councillor in effort to maintain a balanced community has failed. We all know that almost every development in that area that is multiple housing creates opportunities for unsafe student housing to occur. Unfortunately the City's fire department lost their court case against a landlord who owns a house that has been converted into 10 bedrooms. Sadly this means that people living in these kinds of situations could be living in very unsafe conditions. I recognize that this is beyond your ability to control but what is within your control is supporting an application like the one at 86 Pinnacle. This developer was originally proposing a senior housing development. I am sure the change to the proposal is a result that the developer would not make the profit that they were hoping to make with the original plan. I kindly request that you do whatever is within your control to halt or change this proposal to create a more balanced community. I support the many comments and concerns that have been raised by residents like---------------,---------- -------------- and ------------------ just to mention a few. With Respect and Warm Regards, Yvonne Fernandes Community Liaison Doon Pioneer Park Community Association Former City of Kitchener Ward 4 Councillor (2010-2018) Internet Response I just saw that there is a planning application for Address: 86 PINNACLE DR Application Number: No address or email ZBA19/003/P/KA provided the description says it's for a senior development. Well, i think this will not be safe for the elderly people because there are many students who rent in that area who take over the streets and cause trouble for the local residents. THis will be a nightmare if you approve. You will be putting the seniors at Page 408 of 476 Address Date Comment risk. The students have no respect for the law. the students drive their cars on the grassline and Pinnacle has no sidewalks. this is really bad. You need to increase the POLICE presence there if you approve this. The students already cause so much problems like blocking the roads with their cars - and hang out - they will clash with the seniors. Wow. such a terrible idea with the senior development. You need to have housing for seniors in a quiet place but pinnacle is chaos on friday and Saturdays' because the police do not visit to deter the students. The students take over the street and they block the streets. Wow. 59 Pinnacle Drive 1/9/2023 1 am very much against the rezoning of 86 Pinnacle Drive.l have too many reasons against this change to Kitchener ON list them here. N2P 1138 ----------------------------- owner of 59 and 37 Pinnacle Drive Kitchener. 37 Pinnacle Drive Kitchener ON N2P 1138 Page 409 of 476 1 t_ I\!`! (_I iF.Nl:.R Circulation Response Form 86 Pinnacle Drive (ZBA19/003/P/KA) 1'4L1 c,1`'-1' { WtiLi�f1�1L'=Lois 1-�i 1i11 i�\ �5 --D I ?-'C- c. -71 o SOL. b S i+ IFU ' i b -� T C7 C -o I 1 I W, ; 12 '; T� 2 ' . -a--Tb C f- 11 U 4 CT Thank you for taking the time to fill out this form. To ensure that we receive only one set of comments from each individual, staff can only consider comments if they include a name and address. Please note that all comments contained on this form may be used as part of a public staff report; however your name, email, phone number and signature will be kept confidential. Separate letters or emails are also welcome. Address: 1 d� ��7v Postal Code: Z Please direct all correspondence to: Katie Anderl, Senior Planner Phone: 519-741-2200 x7987 Mail: City Hall Email: katie.anderl@kitchener.ca 200 King Street West Fax: 519-741-2624 6th Floor, PO Box 1118 Kitchener, ON N26 4G7 kf- Page 410 of 476 COMMENT FORM Zoning By-law Amendment ZBA19/003/P/KA Address: 86 Pinnacle Drive 1. What do you like or dislike about the proposed Zoning By-law Amendment? I do not support the application to turn R4 into R6 zoning on Pinnacle Drive. I do not support the conversion of any existing single family home to R6 in Lower Doon. 2. What changes do you suggest for the proposed Zoning By-law Amendment? Leave the zoning as R4 single family. - -3. Any additional comments? This proposed development will increase traffic volume in the area. The population density in Lower Doon has already increase with the addition of two condominium communities on Pinnacle Drive. Can the historical Huron Bridge accommodate the increase traffic? The existing character of the neighbourhood needs to be maintained in Lower boon just as it is in Upper Doon. This development will detract from our heritage area. We have several heritage homes in the area, as well as walking and biking trails which makes the area attractive. Another suburban development on Pinnacle is not supported. Thank you for taking the time to fill out this form. To ensure that we receive only one set of comments from each individual, staff can only consider comments if they include a name and address. Please note that all comments contained on this form may be used as part of a public staff report; however your name will be kept confidential. Separate letters or emails are also welcome. Name (print); Signature: Date: Address: ; Postal Code: 0aP I fig' Please direct all correspondence to: Katie Anderl, Senior Planner Phone: 519-741-2200 x7987 Email: katie.ander{ kitchener.ca Mail: Kitchener City Hall, 61h Floor 200 King Street West, P.O. Box 1118 Kitchener, ON N2G 4G7 Page 411 of 476 COMMENT FORM �.I IVI 1F-NFR Zoning By-law Amendment ZBA19/003/P/KA Address: 86 Pinnacle Drive 1. What do you like or dislike about the proposed Zoning By-law Amendment? This development is not respectful of the existing character of the neighborhood. I'm against over intensification of the site. The city is not taking Into consideration the character of the Lower Doon neighborhood. The city of Kitchener has NO ability or right to regulate that seniors reside in the proposed Complex. Also, Backyard parking is not acceptable. I 2. What changes do you suggest for the proposed Zoning By-law Amendment? I request Comprehensive Study be done BEFORE any new development in Lower Doon take place. I support a development, just NOT a development that is NOT respectful of the existing character of the neighborhood 3. Any additional comments? I do not support changing the zoning of this property from R4 to R6 Thank you for taking the time to fill out this form. To ensure that we receive only one set of comments from each individual, staff can only consider comments if they include a name and address. Please note that all comments contained on this form may be used as part of a public staff report; however your name will be kept confidential. Separate letters or emails are also welcome. Marne (printf; Signature: Date: 6/26/19 Address: 20-105 PINNACLE DRIVE, KITCHENER, N2P 1138 Postal Code: Please direct all correspondence to: Katie Anderl, Senior Planner Phone: 519-741-2200 x7987 Email: katie.anderl@kitchener.ca Mail: Kitchener City Hall, 6th Floor 200 King Street West, P.O. Box 1118 Kitchener, ON N2G 4G7 Page 412 of 476 - Circulation Response Form 86 Pinnacle Drive (ZBA19/003/P/KA) -�,,,� CAn�� dkf� � �G � /%✓,vG� -�v L�%✓'���� �l�K�-�i�J/��,�`1� .%c�• � i1 �f%L�t:�/1-C�Lf.��'J Thank you for taking the time to films I u this form. o ensure that we receive only one �t of comments from Y g T Y each individual, staff can only consider comments if they include a name and address. Please note that all comments contained on this form may be used as part of a public staff report; however your name, email, phone number and signature will be kept confidential. Separate letters or emails are also Welcome. Name: Signature Date: Address: —.3S2) . oaV 61,41-1-G� �� >✓'( (fes, �i! U C�f� . Postal Code: Please direct all .correspondence to: Katie Anderl, Senior Planner Phone: 519-741-2200 x7987 Mail- City Hall Email: katie.anderl@kitchener.ca 200 King Street West Fax: 519-741-2624 61h Floor, PO Box 1118 Kitchener, ON N2G 4G7 Page 413 of 476 Neighbourhood Information Meeting R Comment Form 86 Pinnacle Drive (ZBA19/003/P/KA) -z- , i~4S? U il- P / 1) r R r Ji!-- K r V) -I2 L'e'i`- L , � &,,—) C I. (S (011 r G Thank you for taking the time to fill out this form. Please return completed copies no later than September 20, 2019. Please note that all comments contained on this form will be included as part of a public staff report; however your name, email, phone number and signature will be kept confidential. Separate letters or emails are also welcome. Name: Signature: Date: Address: Postal Code: Please direct all correspondence to: Katie Anderl, Senior Planner Phone: 519-741-2200 x7987 Email: katie.anderl@kitchener.ca Fax: 519-741-2624 Mai,; City Hall 200 King Street West 6th Floor, PO Box 1118 Kitchener, ON N2G 4G7 Page 414 of 476 } COMMENT FORM Zoning By-law Amendment ZBA19/003/P/KA Address: 86 Pinnacle Drive is What do you like or dislike about the proposed Zoning By-law Amendment? _. What changes do you suggest for the proposed Zoning By-law Amendment? Any additional comments? JU� 1.2 2019 PLANNING DIVISION Thank you for taking the time to fill out this form. To ensure that we receive only one set of comments from each individual, staff can only consider comments if they include a name and address. Please note that all comments contained on this form maybe used as part of a public staff report; however your name will be kept confidential. Separate letters or emails are also welcome. blame sprint): Signature. Ji Date: Address: Postal Code: v), P ti By Please direct all correspondence to: Katie Anderl, Senior Planner Phone: 519-741-2200 x7987 Email: katie.anderl@kitchen er.ca 4 �-5- 1� Yc N �) Acj�— Mail: Kitchener City Hall, 6th Floor 200 King Street West, P.O. Box 1118 Kitchener, ON N2G 4G7 Page 415 of 476 COMMENT FORM Zoning By-law Amendment ZBA19/003/P/KA Address: 86 Pinnacle Drive 1. What do you like or dislike about the proposed Zoning By-law Amendment? 'IUj'Y. 3 NTNG n,, 2. What changes do you suggest for the proposed Zoning By-law Amendment? 3. Any additional comments? Thank you for taking the time to fill out this form. To ensure that we receive only one set of comments from each individual, staff can only consider comments if they. include a name and address. Please note that all comments contained on this form may be used as part of a 'public staff report; however your name will be kept confidential. Separate letters or emails are also welcome. Name (print): Signature: Date: J UW az ! i i y �!Address: � j $ 1"' ��, ir�- � V - f Postal Code: Please direct all correspondence to: Katie Anderl, Senior Planner Mail: Kitchener City Hall, 6th Floor Phone: 519-741-2200 x7987 200 King Street West, P.O. Box 1118 Email: katie.anderl@kitchener.ca Kitchener, ON N2G 4G7 Page 416 of 476 I COMMENT FORM 1:d u:m R Zoning By-law Amendment ZBA19/003/P/KA - Address: 86 Pinnacle Drive �., What do you like or dislike about the proposed Zoning By-law Amendment? What changes do you suggest for the proposed Zoning By-law Amendment? 3. Any additional comr /v 0 r P7"' i Thank you for taking the time to fill out this form. To ensure that we receive only one set of comments from each individual, staff can only consider comments if they include a name and address, Please note that all comments contained on this form may be used as part of a public staff report; however your name will be kept confidential, Separate letters or emails are also welcome. Name (print): Signature: Date: f, Address: Postal Coder Please direct all correspondence to: Katie Anderl, Senior Planner - Mail: Kitchener City Hall, 6th Floor Phone: 519-741-2200 x7987 200 King Street West, P.O. Box 1118 Email; katie.anderl@kitchener.ca Kitchener, ON N2G 4G7 Page 417 of 476 COMMENT FORM Zoning By-law Amendment ZBA19/003/P/KA Address: 86 Pinnacle Drive What do you like or dislike about the proposed Zoning By-law Amendment? .1 F What changes do you suggest for the proposed Zoning By-law Amendment? 3. Any additional comments? P.— - - _ . - - M Thank you for taking the time to fill out this form To ensure that we receive only one set of comments from each individual, staff can only consider comments if they include a name and address. Please note that all comments contained on this form may be used as part of a public staff report; however your name will be kept confidential. Separate letters or emails are also welcome. Name (print): Signature: mcov�� Date: 2119 Address: Postal Code: Please direct all correspc Katie Anderl, Senior Planner Phone: 519-741-2200 x7987 Email: katie.anderi kitchener.ca Mail: Kitchener City Hall, 61h Floor 200 King Street West, P.O. Box 1118 Kitchener, ON N2G 4G7 Page 418 of 476 CONESTOGA STUDENTS INC Sana Banu, President Conestoga Students Incorporated Room 2A106 299 Doon Valley Drive, Kitchener, Ontario N2G4M4 January 31, 2023 Katie Anderl, Senior Planner City of Kitchener 200 King Street West, Kitchener, Ontario N2G 4G7 RE: Support for Proposed Development at 86 Pinnacle Drive Dear Katie Anderl, On behalf of Conestoga Students Inc., the official student association of Conestoga College representing over 24,000 students, I would like to express our support for the infill development proposed at 86 Pinnacle Drive. As an organization that has been rooted in the Lower Doon community for 50 years, we have been one of many stakeholders who have worked to ensure students are welcomed and become respectful members of the community through initiatives such as the Town and Gown Committee, the creation of the Student Living Guide, tenant rights and responsibilities education, and more. Today, the Lower Doon community is a hub for students to settle and pursue postsecondary education, while living alongside long-term local community members. As Conestoga College has grown its footprint in Lower Doon, students have not been able to find housing near the Doon campus due to the opposition of the local residents to any form of new development that is not a single-family detached dwelling. As this opposition has continued for years, compounded by a general lack of housing availability more broadly across the Region of Waterloo for both rental and market dwellings, we continue to encounter challenges in providing all persons in our communities with increased housing options. Neighbourhoods and communities should be developed to allow all persons to have options for where they want to live, and they should not be restricted to specific demographic groups. This includes ensuring a mix of residential dwellings, including single- family, semi-detached, townhome, and apartments, to create communities with a range of housing types and prices. The proposed infill development for 86 Pinnacle Drive is an example of how underutilized land can be repurposed to gently increase the density of existing neighbourhoods, thoughtfully and respectfully, while increasing the types of available housing. The amended CON ESTOGASTUDENTS.COM 519-748-5131 299 DOON VALLEY DRIVE 93®!/@CSTUDENTSINC CSI@CONESTOGAC.ON.CA KITCHENER, ON N2G 4M4 Page 419 of 476 • •J Z49;197M;d' STUDENTS INC proposal that has been submitted demonstrates respect for the previously raised concerns of local neighbours regarding landscaped areas, parking availability, development height, and privacy. It has also added amenities, such as secure, weather-protected bicycle parking, to encourage more sustainable lifestyles of its future residents. Adding an additional 16 dwelling units to the neighbourhood is a step forward in contributing to the estimated 70,800 units needed in Waterloo Region to address the housing supply shortage. Therefore, CSI supports the development of 86 Pinnacle Drive, for its positive impact on the neighbourhood's housing supply, thoughtfulness and respect for local residents, and impact on the diversity of dwelling types available in the neighbourhood. CSI appreciates the opportunity to submit our comments regarding this development and looks forward to continuing to work with stakeholders to improve housing availability and affordability in the community. Sincerely, Sana Banu, President CON ESTOGASTUDENTS.COM 519-748-5131 299 DOON VALLEY DRIVE WTV@CSTUDENTSINC CSI@CONESTOGAC.ON.CA KITCHENER, ON N2G 4M4 Page 420 of 476 February 6, 2023 Prepared by the Citizens of Lower Doon Subject: Citizens Opposed to the Zoning Amendment ZBA19/003/P/KA to permit a multiple residential dwelling, stacked back to back townhouse development at 86 Pinnacle, Kitchener. Please find attached a list of issues prepared by the citizens of Lower Doon with respect to the proposed AF Greenfield Development at 86 Pinnacle, City of Kitchener. Our list is divided into six sections as described as follows. A. Issues related to the Unfinished New Secondary Plan for Lower Doon B. Issues Related to Applicants Planning Justification Report C. Issues Related to Applicants Parking Justification Report D. Issues Related to Site Specific Planning E. Conclusion Introduction Lower Doon is Kitchener's oldest neighbourhood. It is a small, self contained community of single family residences, semi-detached units, duplexes, lodging houses, three multiple unit developments and Conestoga College. The community has significant local history. The earliest documented evidence of human settlement in the area goes back to the 1500s when at least 2 indigenous groups existed in the Kitchener area, although it is believed that the area was used much earlier. The first Mennonites to the region settled in Lower Doon in 1800. The Community includes a rich "heritage and environmental landscape" comprised of a number of heritage residences, Homer Watson House and Gallery, Schneider's Creek and Willow Lake Park formerly the mill pond from 1830, the ruins of the Adam Ferrie Mill and the Grand River. A. Issues Related to the Unfinished New Secondary Plan City of Kitchener webpage: "We'll be developing draft materials and will undertake a broad community engagement campaign in early 2023, where we will present those materials, including new and/or revised policies, regulations, guidelines, and visualizations for Lower Doon." 1. If the rezoning of 86 Pinnacle is allowed to proceed; never again could it be said that an intense box like development would not be "sensitive to and compatible with the character, form and function" of Lower Doon. This development would set a new precedent; not by consensus and not the vision of the residents that live in Lower 1 of 16 Page 421 of 476 Doon. The neighbourhood has been participating in the development of a New Secondary Plan for Lower Doon. This process remains unfinished. The process is clearly outlined in the presentation dated April 5, 2022. 2. The Land Use Review by the Planning Partnership and Bray Heritage presented a Final Report which made 23 Recommendations. This Report was accepted by Council on March 22, 2021. Recommendation 17-- Prepare 7: Prepare urban design guidelines for the Lower Doon Neighbourhood to ensure compatibility. These guidelines are used to help direct the form and character of new development. These guidelines would define the nature and character of the neighbourhood based on the pattern of lots, streetscape conditions, building form/style and cultural heritage. The neighbourhood should be allowed to finish this process and the Applicant should redesign the project to fit the new policies and guidelines that will be developed; or alternatively build within the current Zoning, Official Plan Policies and Urban Design Guidelines. The Applicant initiated rezoning application of 86 Pinnacle represents an attempt to circumvent the process that has been developed for the creation of new policies and guidelines for development in Lower Doon. If the application is granted it will render the process moot. City of Kitchener: The Lower Doon Secondary Plan project will review and update the existing planning, including: • Official Plan policies • Zoning by-laws • Urban Design Guidelines • Cultural heritage policies/guidelines 3. From the City of Kitchener: 2023 - Winter. -Draft Secondary Plan policies, zoning, urban design guidelines, demonstration concepts - Winter -Spring: Community engagement regarding draft secondary plan materials - Summer. Draft consolidated Secondary Plan - Fall. Report to Council The Applicant states Section 3.4 Lower Doon Land Use Study, Planning Justification and Urban Design Report 2022 "The applicant agreed to the pause the processing of the development application until the completion of the Land Use 2of16 Page 422 of 476 Study in response to comments received from the community and land use planning staff at the City." The Land Use Process has not yet been completed. Council should not permit rezoning until the process is completed. 4. The proposed rezoning of 86 Pinnacle would become the precedent for all future development in Lower Doon. The Applicant has suggested that 50 Pinnacle is a similar development. 50 Pinnacle is not a precedent for 86 Pinnacle. This is a false. equivalence. 50 Pinnacle does not front on Pinnacle Drive, it is a townhome development tucked away from Pinnacle. 86 Pinnacle is a new housing type with incompatible features and not in keeping with the character of Lower Doon. It is a development in the wrong location. The proposed development belongs on an arterial road just as many other similar developments have been proposed for Trussler Road, New Dundee Road, Fisher Hallman, Victoria Street and Ottawa Street. 50 Pinnacle are 3 bedroom townhomes and a condo corporation. The 3 bedroom units at 50 Pinnacle maintain the character of Lower Doon with front yards, front doors, front porches, garages, backyards, gable roof lines and heritage lighting. The parking is contained within the site and all edges of the development maintain private backyard space for the residents. The backyards of 50 Pinnacle coincide with the backyards of the neighbouring existing residences. In maintaining private space the neighbourhood continues to maintain a desirable quality of life. The proposed development has a minimal front yard with a setback not in keeping with the neighbouring front yards. Zoning Bylaw 85-1 The average of the front yards of the abutting lots, plus 1.0 metre; This would be consistent with the City of Kitchener Planning Review Guidelines "achieving a consistent building setback". See the following renderings: 3of16 Page 423 of 476 IMF L Yr� .i �� :•i: r✓ MORl- vE The proposed development has virtually no backyard and would instead have a large parking lot with minimal setbacks. The small amenity space offered is a snow dump for winter months. There is no private backyard space for the residents of the proposed development at 86 Pinnacle. The building offers minimal setbacks and a backyard parking lot; infringing on the neighbouring homes backyards. This represents a complete departure from the character of Lower Doon. Quality of life is an issue when there is no landscaping around your home. The minimal setbacks and minimal landscaping indicate little regard for surrounding residences and the established functioning of the neighbourhood. 5. The residents of the neighbourhood of Lower Doon, as many other residents in neighbourhoods in Kitchener generally lack the planning vocabulary and knowledge to shape their neighbourhoods. In permitting the process of developing new Policies and Guidelines for the New Secondary Plan of Lower Doon, the neighbourhood will be given -opportunity to share in shaping their home. 6. The neighbourhood of Lower Doon exists with Conestoga College and this relationship can not be overlooked. "Northdale" in Waterloo is the student neighbourhood in Waterloo, adjacent to the University of Waterloo and pro Laurier University and offers a lens through which to see development in Lower Doon. Northdale is a residential neighbourhood that was once comprised of smaller residences and historical homes. It is still transforming and is now a student only neighbourhood. Lower Doon is at the beginning of the process that took place in Northdale. The first part of that process was the expulsion and exclusion of the permanent residents. This is not a desired methodology for Lower Doon. The lessons offered by Northdale in Waterloo are current and relevant. The exclusion of the permanent residents in Northdale is well documented - See attached article. "Constructing a College Town: Displacement in a Student Housing Building Boom". Nick Remington & Evelyn Hofmann, September 13, 2017 A careful study of how to achieve success without destroying the neighbourhood of Lower Doon should be included in the process. Understanding the dynamics of development in Northdale that has occurred over the last 2 decades is an opportunity to avoid the failures that are present in Northdale. Northdale is currently a student only neighbourhood without diversity of resident. See attached article "Post-studentification? Promises and pitfalls of a near -campus urban intensification strategy" Nick Remington, Institute national de la recherche scientifique, Canada, Urban Studies Journal Limited 2021 5of16 Page 425 of 476 Northdale photos 2023 7. Lower Doon has an existing Secondary Plan. There are policies and regulations for Lower Doon. According to the City. "The existing policies and regulations for Lower Doon were developed over 20 years ago, with some dating back to the late 1970s." The existing Secondary Plan of Lower Doon along with the corresponding zoning Bylaw 85-1, that the Applicant now wishes to use, instead of allowing the neighbourhood the ability to create a new more relevant Secondary Plan, prohibits multi unit residential. 1.2. That two family residential (semidetached or duplex) be permitted to develop only along Pinnacle Drive between Amherst and Doon valley Drive. 8. From the City of Kitchener recommendations for developing the New Secondary Plan Protect Heritage Recommendations ® Protect designated heritage properties ® Identify, protect, and celebrate additional heritage attributes, properties, and landmarks City Next Steps ® Retain a heritage consultant to assist in the development of a Heritage Character Area (Upper Pinnacle Drive) 6of16 Page 426 of 476 ® Develop policies and guidelines to protect key heritage assets Pinnacle Drive is a road that has existed since early 1800's. There are many homes on Pinnacle that are not protected but were built in the 1800s including the home that the Applicant wishes to demolish. The character of Lower Doon and Pinnacle Drive has a strong heritage component. There are 3 protected heritage homes, on this short stretch of road. The Proposal disregards the obvious heritage character of Pinnacle Drive and Lower Doon; as the proposed development has no heritage character and has ignored the obvious heritage precedents and inspiration on Pinnacle Drive. The creation of a new Secondary Plan also includes community engagement. The proposed rezoning is significant in that it sets a precedent that will render community engagement moot. An engagement meeting for the first proposed development was held in 2019. The engagement was held at the Museum and everyone was invited. The Applicant redesigned the project as a result. There has been another community engagement in 2023 with a limited opportunity for the neighbourhood to engage. Those without technology were denied attendance at the meeting. There has been no attempt by the Applicant to reach out to those that were unable to attend. S. Issues Related to Applicants Planning Justification Report Planning Act Provincial Policy Statement 2014 Growth Plan for the Greater Golden Horseshoe The City of Kitchener's Official Plan complies with the Ontario Planning Act, the Provincial Policy Statement and the Growth Plan for the Greater Horseshoe Area. The City of Kitchener has planned intensification as required by Provincial legislation. Lower Doon and the subject site in particular are located within a community area. The Official Plan directs that the majority of the necessary intensification will occur in areas other than community areas. Section 3.C.2.52 of the Official Plan states as follows: "Limited intensification may be permitted within Community areas in accordance with the applicable land use designation on Map 3 and the Urban Design Policies in Section 11. The proposed development must be sensitive to and compatible with the character form and planned function of the surrounding context." 7of16 Page 427 of 476 It is our submission that the Applicant's Planning Justification falls short of justifying the requested Rezoning. Planning Justification The following paragraph numbers correspond to the Applicant's Planning Justification. The quotes are statements from that report. 6.1. Location within the Regional and City Built up Area. The applicant states the Region's Official Plan and Kitchener's Official plan promote context sensitive infill/intensification within built up areas. The subject site is in a Community Area within the Built Up Area. Kitchener's Official Plan states: "limited intensification may be permitted.... Any residential development on the subject property will contribute to the Region's and the City's goals that 45% of all new residential development occur within the Built Up Area. 6.2. Provides for a Range and Mix of Housing Options "The proposed development includes 16 stacked back to back townhouse units, thereby helping support the provision of various housing options in the community. Boththe city and the Region support the provision of a full and diverse range of housing that is safe, affordable, of adequate size and accessible." There are many townhomes in Lower Doon. There are many stacked townhouses in the City of Kitchener. Any residential development would help support the provision of various housing options. Any development doubtlessly would be safe and of adequate size. The development is not said to be affordable housing nor will it be accessible. The applicant states that the development is "geared towards older persons". The developer has never explained how the development is geared towards seniors. The stairs to the units and within each of the units would suggest otherwise. There is not a nearby senior's centre nor are there any services or retail within walking distance. 6.3. Compatible with Surrounding Neighbourhood "The proposed development will be architecturally sympathetic to its context in terms of massing, architectural detailing and materialization. Several traditional design elements including dormer, Georgian styled windows and mansard roof are proposed in order to provide a classical feel." Page 428 of 476 In fact the proposal will be substantially more massive than any of the houses adjacent or across Pinnacle Drive from the development. All of the homes surrounding this development are 1 1/2 storeys or 2 storey homes with gabled or simple rooflines. The existing homes have landscaped front yards, side yards, backyards, garages, front doors and compliment each other. The proposed development is about 8X the size of the small, 1 1/2 storey neighbouring home. 6 homes and all of their setbacks directly surround the front and side of this massive development. The proposed setbacks vary dramatically from all of the houses in the vicinity of the development and in particular from the two dwellings on either side of the development fronting Pinnacle Drive. The development will be the only residence in Lower Doon with a flat roof. The elevations show no dormers, Georgian styled windows, mansard roof and do not suggest a classical feel or any character feel for Lower Doon. The short street of Pinnacle drive has 3 historical homes, which could serve as inspiration. In fact the exact same building as the one proposed for Lower Doon is proposed for New Dundee Road. New Dundee is a major arterial road. The proposed building is not complimentary to Lower Doon in any way. Proposed Development More than 3 storey's tall and 83' wide REAR VIEW REAR VIEW 9of16 Page 429 of 476 Neighbouring house - 1 1/2 storey's tall and 26' wide 5 homes in front and beside development 10 of 16 Page 430 of 476 Similar Development on New Dundee Road z- a The Applicant asserts that the proposed development will compliment the neighbouring townhouse use. The Applicant provides no analysis to justify its assertion. 6.5 No increase in Floor Space Ratio beyond what is permitted by the City of Kitchener Official Plan The applicant states that the FSR is .58 below the acceptable .6. It is important to note that FSR is a measure of the intensity of use of the site. It is the measure of a building's floor area in relation to the size of the lot. The basement is not included in the calculation of the FSR as per the definition of "Floor Space Area" in the By-law, but the excluded basement area is to be living space and will contribute to the intensity of use of the property. le the need for parking. 6.6. Transit Supportive and Active Transportation Supported The subject property is on a bus line but not on the ION. There are good recreational walking trials in Lower Doon but they are not maintained during the winter. There are no nearby services, shopping or entertainment venues in Lower Doon. 7.2 Urban Design Manual The Kitchener Urban Design Guidelines address Infill Development and is referenced on page 42. 6.2 of the Applicant's Planning Justification and Urban Design Report. "Design Buildings at a scale which is compatible with adjacent structures. New buildings should respect the established heights and setbacks in the neighbourhood. " 11 of 16 Page 431 of 476 The proposal has a building frontage of 83 feet which is almost twice as wide as any nearby residence. The adjacent residence has a building 26 feet wide and the adjacent semi detached residence is 41 feet wide. The proposed front yard setback does not respect the immediate neighbours. The building height is similar to some of the homes in the neighbourhood, however the neighbour's roofs are all peaked. The front facade of the proposed development has a flat roof, front balconies, a box structure and modern look which is in no way compatible with the surrounding built form. The guidelines further stye that buildings should be designed to "Respect the invisible lines" created by existing neighbourhood building features such as cornices, gable heights, porch elevations, similar roof pitches and other defining elements" The Urban Design Guidelines 11. 2.0 New Buildings should be consistent with the existing neighbourhood setback pattern. Then goes further and states "avoid back to front facing relationships. The proposal reverses the existing relationship of front yard and parking and suddenly places the parking in the rear thus creating a back to front relationship with the town homes behind. Urban Design Review 11.C.1.11. The massing of the proposed development is greater than the massing of any of the nearby properties. The Applicant asserts: "Design Elements from the existing neighbourhood have been incorporated into the proposed development". There is no analysis to support the Applicant's assertion. It is a massive box shape, 3 floor. flat roofed design and has incorporated nothing from the existing nearby neighbourhood. 11.C.1.22 "the landscaped area of 30% will provide ample space for tree planting" However, there is little space between the parking lot and the rear yard fence. There is insufficient space between the driveway and the fence line for any tree planting and there is insufficient space between the building mass and fence line of the neighbouring property for any tree planting. Any tree plantings close to the building would block views and all sunlight to the below grade portion of the development. The open amenity area to the rear will be used as a snow dump in the winter months. 12 of 16 Page 432 of 476 11.C.1.29 "The proposed development will redevelop the existing site to enhance the existing neighbourhood and streetscape through high-quality design and context sensitive intensification" The Applicant provides no explanation as to how its development will enhance the existing neighbourhood and streetscape. Nor do they explain how the proposed intensification is context -sensitive. 11.C.1.33.a) "The proposed built form features a high-quality of design which compliments the existing neighbourhood." There is no explanation how this building, which is very different from any of the built form in the neighbourhood, compliments the existing neighbourhood. And further: "The massing and scale of the proposed building are similar to the buildings in the surrounding neighbourhood." The Applicant's rendering clearly demonstrates that the proposed building will have a much larger footprint than any of the surrounding residences. The parking lot in the rear of the proposed development is in no way similar to the surrounding neighbourhood. "Various design elements found in the existing neighbourhood have been incorporated into the design of the building. " The Applicant has not described any of the design elements found in the existing neighbourhood, nor what design elements in the new building the Applicant is referencing. 1 "It was designed to complement the surrounding neighbourhood through massing" The Applicant fails to provide any massing and scale information either about its proposal or the surrounding neighbourhood. e) 13 of 16 Page 433 of 476 "the proposed build will have roof projections, dormers with windows and keystones and an entrance canopy with pillars. " The Elevations and Floor Plan 2022 submitted by the Applicant contain none of the forgoing. C. Issues Related to Applicants Parking Justification Report By email correspondence dated November 13, 2018, Dave Seller wrote to the Applicant's Planner as follows: "Transportation Services isn't opposed to a reduced parking rate for this use (senior's - orientated residential apartment building, provided proper justification is provided and makes sense." And Further he wrote, "1. Why are you not proposing to conduct parking occupancy observations of like uses as part of your justification? I would think this would be an opportunity to draw comparisons between observed data and the 2016 TTs data. Keep in mind that the residents are active in this area and providing comparisons to conclude that the parking will be adequate for the needs of the on-site residents is important." The Applicant chose to conduct a parking utilization survey at 278 Carwood Avenue, Kitchener claiming in its Parking Justification Report "this location was chosen due to similar intended occupants (seniors living independently), similar urban contexts and similar access to sustainable transportation options." Parking Utilization was observed over 2 different 12 hour periods and the peak parking utilization was .48. parking spaces per dwelling unit. The Applicant failed to note the differences between the applicant's proposed 2 bedroom condominium apartments and the units at 278 Carwood Avenue. The differences are as follows: a) 278 Carwood Drive provides geared to income housing. 86 Pinnacle is to be market condominiums b) The landlord (Kitchener Housing Inc.) at 278 Carwood rents to Seniors. 86 Pinnacle is being developed as condominium units and the Applicant can not control who will occupy the units in the near or long term. 14 of 16 Page 434 of 476 c) There are 22 one bedroom units at 278 Carwood and 5 two bedroom units (81 % of the units are one bedroom). All the units at 86 Pinnacle are 2 bedroom units. d) Parking Spaces are an extra charge at 278 Carwood. The Applicant has not stated whether parking will be an extra charge. The forgoing differences will inevitably result in different parking utilization rates at 86 Pinnacle Drive than at Carwood Avenue. One can learn that 278 Carwood Avenue is a property consisting primarily of 1 bedroom units rented to seniors with limited means simply by typing 278 Carwood Avenue" into the search engine. It is concerning that the Applicant would offer as opinion based in part on "parking Utilization at a comparable development in the City of Kitchener when they knew or ought to have known that the chosen development for comparison was remarkably different than the proposed development at 86 Pinnacle It creates a prism through which to view all of the Applicants assertions that its development will be sensitive to and compatible with the character, form and planned function of the surrounding context. D. _ Issues Related to Site Specific Planning 1. The Issue of Community and Public Opposition to the Project - The permanent residents of Lower Doon oppose the rezoning of 86 Pinnacle. 2. The Issue of Appropriate intensification and Housing Variety Lower Doon is a small self contained neighbourhood and has seen the building of three R6 higher density multi unit developments. This demonstrates that the community is in conformity with the intention of provincial and community policy with regards to intensification. 3. The Proposed Development consists of 2 lots as per JD Barnes Limited Surveying mapping. Lot 5 and Lot 6. Registered Plan 578 4. The Current Zoning Bylaw applicable to Lower Doon is 85-1 86 Pinnacle is zoned R4. R4 does not permit Multi Unit Developments. The Existing Secondary Plan for Lower Doon would not permit Multi Unit Developments. 5. The new Zoning Bylaw developed for the City of Kitchener is 2019-51. 86 Pinnacle would be rezoned RES -4. City of Kitchener Report DSD -2022-088 states R4 Properties with lots 15 m or wider convert to RES -4. The subject property is a total of 34.4 meters and consists of 2 lots both greater than 15m. 15 of 16 Page 435 of 476 RES -4: Low Rise Residential Four Zone — the purpose of this zone is to accommodate a range of low density dwelling types that allow up to four dwelling units on a range of lot sizes in low rise areas According to the city of Kitchener: Zoning bylaw 2019-051 is the new City's two zoning bylaws and is gradually replacing our older zoning bylaw. About 80% of Kitchener's properties are within bylaw 2019-051. Note: On March 21, 2022 Council passed an amendment to bylaw 2019-051 as part of Stage 2B of our comprehensive review of the zoning bylaw (CRoZBy). The folders below do not yet reflect this amendment because it is currently under appeal. However, the amendment must still be considered for all new permit applications. The Applicant utilizes the existing Zoning Bylaw however there is no attempt to reference the Existing Secondary Plan. The New Zoning Bylaw, despite the appeal of the Zoning Bylaw recommends that the amendment must still be considered for all new permit applications. The Applicant would be justified to look to RES -4 and develop each lot with 4 units. 6. Given the recommendations in the Final Report by the Planning Partnership and Bray Heritage which was accepted by the City of Kitchener Council as part of the Land Use Review and the new zoning bylaws of 2019-051 as well as the Lower Doon neighbourhood's significant interest in maintaining the character of Lower Doon it is unlikely that the proposed Zoning Amendment ZBA19/003/P/KA would be accepted. The Applicant is overreaching and the proposal should be denied. E. Conclusion In summary, the requested Official Plan Amendment to permit the proposed development of the subject lands for a 16 unit stacked back to back townhouse is inappropriate and will result in undue negative impacts on abutting lands and the Lower Doon Community. The proposal is neither sensitive to nor compatible with the character and form of the surrounding community. The proposal fails to comply with the Urban Design Manual. The Proposal is supported by bald assertion. The Proposal does not constitute good planning and is not in the public interest. 16 of 16 Page 436 of 476 F SU40 Student Housing Building Boom — Berkeley Planning Journal Date: Janua lmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmw h_midis:/lberkeleyp(annincgjcurnal.corn/uruanfrincie12017tccnstructina-a-collece Tokkiri-cii-qr�lacernerit in-a-�fLi(Jent-housirig-huildirig-bourn Constructing CollegeTown:isStudent Housing i ! Boom Nick Revin ton & Evelfn Horns nn September 13, 2017 Waterloo, Ontario, a city of about 100,000 people in a metropolitan area of roughly half a million, is home to both the University of Waterloo and Wilfred Laurier University. Substantial increases in enrollment at these institutions over the 2000s and early 2010s have contributed to a recent building boom in privately - developed, off -campus, purpose-built student apartments centred on the Northdale neighbourhood, located between the two universities (Figures 1, 2). While the formerly middle-class postwar suburban neighbourhood dominated by single -detached bungalows had previously been increasingly occupied by student renters, the municipality has since acted as an enabler by rezoning much of the area to accommodate high-rise residential towers—in some cases up to 25 storeys (Figure 3). These drastic urban changes engender displacement in a number of forms across spatial scales ranging from the local to the transnational and at various temporal moments. Figure 1: The location of Northdale and adjacent universities. Numbers indicate the locations of photos in this essay. Map Source: 2016 Google Page 437 of 476 Page 438 of 476 Figure 3: Student housing towers, some up to 25 storeys, now dominate what was previously a low-density suburban neighbourhood characterized by single-family homes and strip malls. Photo: Author The first form of displacement unfolding in Northdale is direct displacement. Here, student housing development aligns most closely with conventional understandings of new -build gentrification and property - led urban redevelopment. Relatively affordable market -rate apartment buildings are boarded up, torn down, and replaced with student suites only months later, their former inhabitants forced to live elsewhere (Figure 4). New mid- and high-rise student buildings also physically take the place of the post-war bungalow homes that were there before (Figure 5). Figure 4: On the left, a relatively low -rent apartment building is boarded up prior to demolition in February, 2016. On the right is the same site in October, with student housing development well underway. Photo: Author Page 439 of 476 Figure 5: Bungalow homes such as these are typical of Northdale's original development. Photo: Author One might counterclaim that since some of these houses were owner -occupied, this is not truly displacement as owners were well -compensated for selling their properties to developers, which— presumably—they did of their own volition. This perspective overlooks the actual sequence of events: as high-rise developments took hold on the edge of the blocks along arterial roads and houses mid -block were leased to students, the character and morphology of the neighbourhood itself changed. The change is partly social: student neighbourhoods are notorious for rowdy behaviour, unkempt properties, and parking issues, and Northdale is no different (Figure 6). It is also physical: new buildings remake the streetscape, and quite literally cast shadows across the institutions of the neighbourhood (Figure 7). This portends a second form of displacement, or rather, displacement, whereby a neighbourhood's initial inhabitants no longer find themselves belonging in the area through a loss of sense of place (see "Me nJ- I_liid gn'r fi,�ti n: its histories, trI or ;_ and criti ,l r s ;hied"l2�LQavidson and Lees), especially, in this case, elderly residents wishing to age in place. They are out -of -place; in a word, displaced. Many are thus coerced to sell out. As these homes are rented or redeveloped to house more students, a vicious cycle is perpetuated. Displacement begets displacement begets displacement.... Figure 6: Couches on the lawn and waste and recycling bins in disarray (at right) form common complaints against student tenants in areas such as Northdale. Photo: Author Page 440 of 476 Figure 7: A modest Ukrainian Orthodox church is overshadowed by new buildings near Wilfred Laurier University, just outside the Northdale neighbourhood. While this particular development is not marketed specifically to students, its proximity to the university means it will likely be heavily occupied by students and young professionals. Photo: Author A third form of displacement is that of e�r,(c-IlLsr =rapt y �isl-�lacerrrer)i. That is, households who might otherwise move into this area are prevented from doing so. In theory, landlords cannot discriminate against non- students. But in practice, the student housing developments are marketed uniquely and aggressively to students. Agents of larger rental companies allegedly distribute fliers to freshman students (who typically reside on -campus for their first year) as early as the first day of orientation week. These campaigns are designed to instill a sense of urgency to find accommodation for the second year right away. of course, the panic is manufactured. The oversupply of bed spaces in student housing is estimated to be approxirata tely_ Yet these surplus student units are unlikely to be occupied by non -student households (with perhaps the not -insignificant exception of recently graduated students). Indeed, it is hard to imagine a family with young children or a couple of elderly pensioners eagerly signing a lease to an apartment in a building otherwise full of undergraduate students. Furthermore, landlords are able to charge more by renting individual rooms within a unit to students than they are renting the whole unit to, say, a family. Rents are thus priced to be unconducive to non -student tenants. Many suites would be far too large for all but the largest families to fill anyway. The student housing neighbourhood thereby becomes an exclusive one. These forms of displacement are problematic for a number of reasons. Not only are direct displacement and displacement incredibly disruptive to the everyday lives of (former) neighbourhood residents, but all of these types of displacement serve to exclude non -students from important locational qualities, many of which are especially valuable to more marginal sectors of the population, including those with lower incomes or the elderly who are unable to drive. The neighbourhood is one of the best -served by transit in the city, with bus routes to all corners of the region, including three rapid bus routes (one of which will soon be replaced with light rail rapid transit). It is relatively proximate to shopping, services, and employment opportunities in Uptown Waterloo (the city's historic centre), as well as to Waterloo Park, a major urban green space. The city's Northdale Cornmunity improvement Man of 012 calls for further quality of life improvements including streetscaping, active transport infrastructure, and mixed-use developments. The irony is that despite a professed vision to create an "inclusive" community in Northdale, the current reality suggests that the benefits of these improvements will accrue to an exclusive segment of the population, namely middle-class students (Figure 8). Page 441 of 476 Figure 8: Plans for Northdale call for improved urban amenities and the creation of a mixed-use district. Rather than foster an inclusive and diverse community, many new businesses—such as the smoothie bar and marijuana paraphernalia shop in this recent development—serve primarily the young student population. Photo: Author Underlying these three tendencies is a fourth form of displacement associated with the transnational migration of students to Waterloo's universities. In fact, as overall enrollment has increased, international students have accounted for an increasing share of the total, even qifseeing lt,(2e t recline in the number of domestic students in recent years, forming an important target market for student housing developers (Figure 9). Our intent is certainly not to pin local displacements upon the actions of foreign students. Rather, we would like to point out that even apparently voluntary decisions to study abroad are heavily influenced by global neocolonial power relations that generally (though not universally) position -Nest4anrver i ie,, as -- at lest disc _r �i�� J— gli €v��� i tt� 'sn��lt��tE�i� .For many, studying abroad is a ICH K cf social or cultural cistinctie viewed as necessary to get ahead, or as anitcr alternative snLrrc of �restie for those not admitted to top institutions in their home country. So while these transnational movements are not a form of forced displacement in any strict sense, neither are they completely neutral, structured as they are by the globally uneven geographies of higher education and power relations of neo -imperialism. It is also worth noting that many (but certainly not all) international students may del socially enc[ c{ti,Itui-llv rnaifginalizec —symptoms remarkably parallel to those of displacement. Page 442 of 476 Figure 9: Signs in Mandarin advertising fast-food delivery in the food court of a student housing complex speak to the targeting of growing numbers of transnational students as an important market for developers. Photo: Author There is a temporal dimension to these displacements, each of which can be placed on a continuum from having already occurred to being currently underway. Direct displacement is nearly (but not entirely) complete, except perhaps around the edges of the neighbourhood. Indeed, it was largely complete even in advance of the Northdale plan, which cites the presence of very little owner -occupied housing at that time; much of tine rental marx.et ka yearend to students. Displacement has followed a parallel trajectory as redevelopment has fostered both a changing landscape and sense of place, while encouraging direct displacement. In some ways, however, displacement may lie closer to the current end of our continuum, as early direct displacement did not entail large-scale re - workings of the built environment as do recent and ongoing developments. Contemporary concern exists for the preservation of important cultural and historical landmarks including the commemorative Veteran Green and one of Ontario's first projects to house returning soldiers in 1946, later complemented by small homes constructed in 1948 for the same purpose (Figure 10). While the heritage value of these small homes is recognized in the Northdale plan, it offers few substantial protections. However, they do remain largely physically intact to date. Page 443 of 476 Figure 10: Small houses such as this one were built in the late 1940s to house soldiers returning from World War II, and are considered by many to be an important part of Waterloo's built heritage. The sign in the window, advertising a popular bar, is a common mark of student occupancy. Photo: Author Exclusionary displacement and the transnational displacements of students, meanwhile, are better characterized as ongoing phenomena. Unless more forceful measures are put in place to encourage affordable housing options for non -student residents, it is unlikely that exclusionary displacement can be reversed in Northdale. There is something of a feedback loop at play, where high concentrations of students dissuade non -students from locating there, regardless of the urban amenities on offer. The UK exl��l i n uu gp_ that policies to undo student concentrations within particular neighbourhoods range from ineffective (hoping students can be syphoned out of the neighbourhood by purpose-built developments) to deeply problematic (draconian and discriminatory restrictions on student rentals above some threshold). Transnational student mobilityis likely Lq continue as long as global power structures continue to exist, whether these construct Western institutions as "superior," valuate the cultural and symbolic capital of elites` study abroad, or incentivize schools to increase foreign student enrollment to maintain growth. Many of these issues are recognized locally. In September, 2016, the city—along with the Canada Mortgage and Housing Corporation—hull a forum to discuss repurpc��ing sur�lLis Studer t musing to address shortages of affordable housing and other needs. Time will tell if planners are able to reverse the negative effects of displacement and fulfil the Northdale plan's promise of creating an inclusive community. Evelyn Hofmann is a master's student in the School of Architecture at the University of Waterloo. Her thesis research is focused on the relation between contemporary border space in France and virtual utopian forces of migration. Nick Revington is a doctoral candidate in the School of Planning at the University of Waterloo. His research interests include housing, urban change, and the role of capital therein. Page 444 of 476 <<' Check for updates Article Urban Studies 1-19 Post-studentification? Promises © Urban Studies journal Limited 2021 and pitfalls of a near -campus Article reuse guidelines: sagepub.com/journals-permissions DOI: 10.1177/00420980211021358 urban intensification strategy journals.sagepub.com/home/usj ($SAGE Nick Revineonol Institut national de la recherche scientifique, Canada Abstract The concentration of students in neighbourhoods through processes of studentification has often precipitated conflicts with other residents centred on behavioural issues and perceived neigh- bourhood decline. Dominant policy responses have been exclusive in nature, attempting to restrict where students can live or to encourage them to live in purpose-built student accommo- dation in designated areas. Drawing primarily on interviews with key informants in Waterloo, Canada, I examine a process of `post-studentification' where non -student residents are instead integrated into student -dominated neighbourhoods through urban intensification, promoted by an alternative policy approach. I outline this process and its links to other forms of urban change. Despite the promise of a more inclusive strategy to mitigate the challenges of studentification, I find that post-studentification is subject to several pitfalls related to local planning objectives, local contingencies and inequalities with respect to class, age and gender. Keywords gentrification, post-studentification, universities, urban development, youthification N Ail Received June 2020; accepted May 2021 Page 445 of 476 2 Urban Studies 00(0) Studentification, the process by which stu- dents become concentrated in particular neighbourhoods, is increasingly recognised as a global phenomenon. Recent studies doc- ument cases in Canada (Revington et al., 2020), Chile (Prada, 2019), China (He, 2015), Spain (Garmendia et al., 2012), the United States (Foote, 2017) and elsewhere since the process was identified in the United Kingdom over a decade ago (Smith, 2005). Despite the benefits that students bring to communities, studentification is associated with several issues relating to student beha- viour, poor property upkeep and the displa- cement of other residents, particularly in the Anglo-American context. Policies to miti- gate these issues generally fall into two inherently exclusive camps: attempts to limit where students live within an urban area, and efforts to encourage students to live in purpose-built student accommodation (PBSA) in particular areas. Student housing is one aspect of the broader `town and gown' relationship between universities and cities. Processes of studentification are therefore central to near -campus urban (re)development in a variety of international contexts (Nakazawa, 2017; Perry and Wiewel, 2005; Wiewel and Perry, 2008). This type of (re)development is implicated in other processes of urban change such as gentrification or `youthifica- tion' (Moos, 2016), whereby young adults are concentrated in certain areas (Bose, 2015; Moos et al., 2019). Drawing primarily on key informant interviews, I investigate the emergence of a novel policy approach to studentification and near -campus urban development, and a distinct trajectory of urban change associated with it, in Waterloo, Ontario, Canada. This policy and process of `post- studentification' represents a potential alter- native, based on a purportedly more inclu- sive urban vision, to existing policies meant to mitigate the perceived negative impacts of studentification. Examining the unfolding of this process illustrates the dynamism of studenti- fication (Kinton et al., 2018) and its links to other facets of urban change (Moos et al., 2019), along with pitfalls that inhibit this inclusive potential from being realised. The City of Waterloo (population 133,000), about 100 km west of Toronto and one of three urban jurisdictions within the Region of Waterloo (population 560,000), is home to the University of Waterloo (UW) and Wilfrid Laurier University (WLU). As the universities witnessed rapid enrolment growth over the 2000s, studentification of some near -campus neighbourhoods meant that by the early 2010s, they had developed a reputation as a notorious `student ghetto' (Waterloo Chronicle, 2010). Since then, the city has made a concerted effort to revitalise these areas. I begin by reviewing trajectories of stu- dentification, emphasising several of its most common variants, relationships to other dimensions of urban change, and political and policy responses. Next, I sketch a con- ceptual outline of post-studentification. I then describe the methods and introduce Waterloo's history of studentification. Subsequently, I empirically describe emer- ging post-studentification in Waterloo. Then, I evaluate this case of post-studentification from three perspectives: its achievement of local policy objectives, its local contingencies and its consequences for urban inequality. Finally, I reflect on theoretical and practical Corresponding author: Nick Revington, Centre Urbanisation Culture Societe, Institut national de la recherche scientifique, 385 rue Sherbrooke Est, Montreal, QC H2X I E3, Canada. Email: nick.revington@inrs.ca Page 446 of 476 Revington 3 implications regarding (post-)studentification and related urban processes. studentification Studentification is a dynamic process (Kirton et al., 2018) exemplifying several diverse trajectories. `Classic' studentification involves students living in shared accommo- dation within the existing housing stock (Smith, 2005). With enrolment increases out- pacing institutional provision of housing, small-scale investor -landlords purchase housing to rent to students, and occasionally convert interior common spaces to addi- tional bedrooms. This piecemeal investment often inflates property values even as the physical quality of the housing deteriorates. This type of studentification occurs within established neighbourhoods, with the great- est potential for `town and gown' conflicts as student lifestyles clash with those of existing residents (Smith, 2008). Disruptive beha- viour, noise, poor property upkeep and parking issues are oft -cited concerns in such neighbourhoods, sometimes alongside other deep-seated changes including the closure of schools and reorientation of businesses (Hubbard, 2008; Munro and Livingston, 2012; Sage et al., 2012; Smith, 2005, 2008). Existing residents are often displaced from a neighbourhood they perceive to be declining. A corporatised `new -build studentifica- tion' (Sage et al., 2013) subsequently emerged as private developers realised that students constitute a significant source of rental housing demand, while universities themselves could not fully accommodate this demand and existing rental housing was often of poor quality. Resulting PBSA typi- cally features higher -end amenities catering to a student lifestyle, all-inclusive rent and heightened security measures (Hubbard, 2009; Kenna, 2011). The luxury, quasi -gated nature of these developments raises concerns about the segregation of students from other residents, and of wealthier students from their poorer peers (Smith and Hubbard, 2014). An extreme result is what Smith (2018) has called `super-studentification': the emergence of ultra -luxury housing aimed at the absolute wealthiest of students. PBSA also became attractive in policy discourse, to address the perceived issues of `classic' studentification by redirecting stu- dents away from established neighbour- hoods (Hubbard, 2009; Smith, 2008). This strategy is not guaranteed to be successful (Revington et al., 2020; Sage et al., 2013) but, where it is, the outcome is often `de- studentification'. De-studentification refers to an emptying of neighbourhoods of stu- dents, either as local enrolment declines, or as students are shuffled into new PBSA or other near -campus housing developments (Kinton et al., 2016, 2018; Mulhearn and Franco, 2018). De-studentification therefore results in the vacancy of neighbourhood housing units, or their re -conversion to other uses such as single-family housing. Studentification has also been linked to other urban processes. Several studies con- sider the spatial and temporal overlaps between studentification and other urban changes (Foote, 2017; Moos et al., 2019; Revington, 2018). Urban universities often seek to gentrify their surroundings to create an attractive environment for prospective students and faculty (Bose, 2015; Ehlenz, 2019; Etienne, 2012; Mapes et al., 2017). Likewise, a by-product of central -city revita- lisation might be to attract more students to a gentrified area (Bromley et al., 2007). Studentification and gentrification may also coincide as students, and PBSA develop- ments, actively displace working-class neigh- bourhoods (Pickren, 2012; Sage et al., 2012). Conversely, students may be `marginal gen- trifiers' (Rose, 1984) who, attracted to cheap rents, prime a neighbourhood for subse- quent gentrification (Davison, 2009). There Page 447 of 476 4 Urban Studies 00(0) is also evidence that studentification can lead to youthification, or a concentration of non- student young adults in dense urban areas (Moos, 2016), as it shapes post -graduation housing preferences (He, 2015; Sage et al., 2013; Smith, 2005). Studentification and youthification may occur simultaneously if urban amenities cater to young adults regardless of educational status (Ma et al., 2018; Moos et al., 2019). While some municipalities have addressed studentification issues through increased law enforcement (Evans -Cowley, 2006), else- where researchers have documented a dis- course of `thresholds', whereby non -student residents view their neighbourhoods reach- ing a `tipping point' once a certain number of households are student -occupied. Once this threshold is reached, according to this narrative, the neighbourhood is irreparably changed and becomes a distinct student area. This discourse is hugely problematic from a moral standpoint, as it adopts discri- minatory attitudes considered unacceptable in the context of race or ethnicity, effectively penalising all students for the behaviours of a subset (Hubbard, 2008; Munro and Livingston, 2012). Yet, it remains a central feature in many attempts to regulate studen- tification through policy. In practice, the threshold discourse has manifested in attempts to limit the number of students residing in an area. One approach places restrictions on rental hous- ing (Ruiu, 2017), sometimes directly limiting the number of properties in an area that can be rented to students (Hubbard, 2008). Indirectly, regulations may target students by capping the number of unrelated persons that can live together (Pickren, 2012) or by requiring a minimum distance between rented houses (Revington et al., 2020). An alternative strategy encourages PBSA devel- opment in designated areas (Hubbard, 2009; Sage et al., 2013; Smith, 2008). While the framing of new -build studentification is more positive, as it focuses on providing housing for students rather than explicitly restricting it, ultimately the policy objective remains the same: reducing the number of students in established neighbourhoods to ensure a `balanced' mix of population (Smith, 2008). conceptual Another type of neighbourhood transition that might be referred to as `post-studentifi- cation' is possible, whereby heavily studenti- fied neighbourhoods adopt a more `balanced' (Smith, 2008) mix of population that retains a high proportion of students while gaining other residents. From a conceptual standpoint, beyond an influx of non -students into a previously (and perhaps still) student -dominated area, post- studentification would involve shifts in urban development from the unique provi- sion of PBSA towards housing that accom- modates a broader range of residents, and public and private amenities that cater to a more diverse population. The specific char- acteristics of new residents are not central to the definition of post-studentification, and therefore the links to other processes of urban population change remain an empirical question. For example, post-stu- dentification could represent a process of marginalisation where residents lacking other options are forced to live in a student precinct, or a process of gentrification as quality amenities attract high-income residents. However, the potential for post- studentified neighbourhoods has important theoretical and policy implications given the centrality of student/non-student conflicts in local politics of the `town and gown' rela- tionship in a variety of international Page 448 of 476 Revington contexts (Nakazawa, 2017). In particular, the concept of post-studentification contests the inevitability of the threshold discourse. It allows for alternative trajectories of stu- dentification, which may result in vastly dif- ferent outcomes, including an ostensibly more inclusive brand of urbanism than the threshold discourse promotes. Commentators have observed a `blurring' between accommodation for students and other populations, particularly young adults, with firms increasingly occupying both PBSA and co -living niches, or offering hous- ing targeted to both groups simultaneously (CBRE, 2020; Uyttebrouck et al., 2020; Winchester, 2021). Some PBSA providers have begun offering `similarly managed properties upon graduation', with `develop- ments promising "hassle -free graduate hous- ing"' (Hubbard, 2009: 1908). This blurring extends to lifestyles, as `many recent gradu- ates may continue to deploy their cultural capital, in lieu of economic capital, by carving out distinctive residential niches, and reproducing the cultural practices of studenthood to maintain social and cultural identities' (Smith and Holt, 2007: 156). Meanwhile, condominium developments have allowed buy -to -let investors to access these asset classes, and enabled owner - occupation by non -students (Mulhearn and Franco, 2018; Revington and August, 2020). These trends represent a reaction to per- ceived or anticipated overbuilding in the PBSA sector, as owners reposition assets to appeal to a wider market, and as a response to broader housing market challenges facing young adults in particular. Some examples of university -led revitalisa- tion may also represent post-studentification instead of conventional gentrification if the incumbent population is low-income because it is temporarily poor students as opposed to long-term working-class residents (Ehlenz, 2019; Moos et al., 2019). This distinction is 0 important insofar as these schemes differ in the social and physical issues they purport to address, and in their impacts, for instance via displacement. Here, post-studentification represents a response to the particular social, behavioural and physical issues that studenti- fication presents, distinct from the concerns of revitalisation projects that attempt to address concentrated poverty through mixed - income redevelopment (Lees, 2008; Rose et al., 2013). Despite similarities to de-studentification, post-studentification differs in several impor- tant regards. Smith (2008: 2552) defines de- studentification as: the reduction of a student population in a neighbourhood which leads to social (for example, population loss), cultural (for exam- ple, closure of retail and other services), eco- nomic (for example, devalorisation of property prices) and physical (for example, abandon- ment of housing) decline. Kinton et al. (2016: 1619) emphasise that de- studentification is dependent on a large oversupply of student housing, attributable to `lower proportions of students living off - campus and lower population densities in some classically studentified neighbour- hoods'. In contrast, as the ensuing case demonstrates, post-studentification bears none of these hallmarks of decline, nor does it entail a decrease in the student population. Private developers and landlords may expand their target market from students to a broader range of population as a response to de-studentification (Kinton et al., 2016) but this trend does not depend on de-studentification per se. Rather, post- studentification represents a mutation of the studentification process that begins to dis- solve the distinction between students and other residents. Nor is post-studentification to be equated with co -living. However, inas- much as co -living is integrated into Page 449 of 476 6 Urban Studies 00(0) studentified neighbourhoods, it may be one element thereof. The Waterloo case provides an example of post-studentification as an explicit policy approach for dealing with stu- dent housing issues. I examine incipient post-studentification in Waterloo, Ontario, drawing on semi - structured key informant interviews (n = 33) in the local real estate and plan- ning sectors (developers, brokers, landlords, property managers and planners), student organisations and universities, to outline the driving factors behind post-studentification as both policy and process. Interviews, con- ducted in June -November 2018 and aver- aging approximately 45 minutes in length, were recorded, transcribed verbatim and manually coded. Codes were assigned according to predefined themes and to new themes that emerged in the process of analy- sis (Palys and Atchison, 2014). Each theme was subsequently re -coded, resulting in finer distinctions between sub -themes and new general themes. This procedure resulted in a refined picture of urban planning and devel- opment in Waterloo's near -campus neigh- bourhoods. The study is also informed by a systematic review of planning documents and news media in the context of a larger research project on studentification (Revington, 2021; Revington and August, 2020; Revington et al., 2020). Context: Studentification in Waterloo Waterloo is often held as a paragon of the knowledge economy within Canada. The region forms the western terminus of the `Toronto -Waterloo Innovation Corridor', which claims the second-largest concentra- tion of tech start-up firms globally (Corridor, n.d.), and local development stra- tegies have emphasised high-tech industry following deindustrialisation and the loss of traditional manufacturing employment. However, Waterloo is the longstanding home of several major insurance firms' headquarters and accompanying high -order service employment. UW, WLU and poly- technic Conestoga College play a crucial role in the local economy, with UW particularly known for its connections to local industry, its role in regional innovation and its strengths in engineering and computer sci- ence (Bramwell and Wolfe, 2008). With strong employment growth in the local tech sector, the region experiences substantial endogenous demand for housing. However, Waterloo also sees considerable spillover from nearby Toronto's expensive housing market. Regional and provincial growth controls limit low-density urban sprawl, gen- erating substantial demand for apartments and condominiums as a cheaper alternative to detached home ownership. Studentification in Waterloo is detailed extensively elsewhere (Charbonneau et al., 2006; Revington, 2021; Revington and August, 2020; Revington et al., 2020). In brief, as enrolment increased rapidly at UW and WLU over the early 2000s, the existing municipal lodging house licensing system became untenable. This system had sought to limit concentrations of students by insti- tuting a minimum -distance separation between lodging houses. Increasing housing demand from students therefore led to early studentification farther afield from the cam- puses and strong incentives for landlords to flout the rules in near -campus neighbour- hoods. A court challenge in 2003 rendered the lodging house bylaw unenforceable. Meanwhile, the city was running out of developable land, with no prospect of annex- ing additional space within the regional gov- ernment framework. Intensification along Page 450 of 476 Revington 7 'fable 1. Population and dwelling characteristics, Northdale neighbourhood a 2001 2006 2011 2016 Homeownership rate 29% (67%) 19% (70%) n/a (70%) 631. (68%) Population aged 20-24 24%(77o) 54% (8%) 53%(77.) 63%(7-/o) Dwellings in apartments, five storeys or more 18%(117.) I I % (10%) 13%(107.) 68% (1 1 %) Total dwellings 955 940 620 1460 Source: Calculated by the author based on census data (Statistics Canada, 2018). Note: Kitchener -Cambridge -Waterloo Census Metropolitan Area in parentheses! Census tract 106.0 1, which contains Northdale. nodes and corridors was seen as the solution to both the land supply issue and residents' concerns about studentification in near - campus neighbourhoods. This planning model was adopted in 2005 in the hopes that new apartments developed in the nodes and corridors near the universities would draw students out of other residential areas. Despite early PBSA construction in the nodes and corridors — largely low-rise apart- ments containing four five -bedroom units each — students continued to concentrate in the Northdale neighbourhood, an area of suburban detached houses between UW and WLU. Northdale has long been a student area. While the census does not directly identify post -secondary students, and tends to under- count students in situ as they are often enumerated at their `permanent' residence (i.e. at their parents' house) rather than at their `temporary' term -time address, the cen- sus tract containing Northdale nonetheless registered strong evidence of studentification in 2001, with nearly a quarter of residents aged 20-24 (over three times the metropoli- tan average) and a homeownership rate less than half the metropolitan average (Table 1). By 2006, over half the population was aged 20-24, and the homeownership rate had fallen by a third. A 2011 survey of Northdale found that in the three survey subareas, respectively, 77%, 81% and 97% of dwelling units were student -occupied (MMM Group, 2012b). Existing residents expressed frustration with the ongoing impacts of studentification, namely rowdy behaviour, noise and physical deterioration of the neighbourhood, which made it difficult to sell their houses to poten- tial long-term residents. Investors, mean- while, preferred to buy properties in the designated nodes and corridors where they could redevelop at higher density. These investors increasingly included large finan- cial players building bigger PBSA projects (Revington and August, 2020). Land clear- ing related to accelerating development explains the substantial drop in total dwell- ings in the neighbourhood between 2006 and 2011 (Table 1). In response to public pressure, the city commissioned the Northdale Land Use and Community Improvement Plan Study in 2012 (hereafter `Northdale Plan'), with the following vision statement: `By 2029, Northdale is revitalized and reurbanized into a diverse, vibrant and sustainable neigh- bourhood, integrated with educational, resi- dential, commercial, cultural, heritage and recreational functions, and improved open space, pedestrian, cycling and transit net- works' (MMM Group, 2012a: 25). Attracting non -students is a centrepiece of this vision, as the plan aims to `provide a new opportunity for permanent residents to Page 451 of 476 0 Urban Studies 00(0) 00 0 N ,.. stoga Parkway � WA_t,h.R1,00 y% .tib ,z oestoga 1P110 . aCollege IN a a wtlhid Laur�et r ak S $ems ullivetsi#v s 1trieloo40 4 ADM - ltt, s $ PBSA Building Permits Wilfrid U.1vjteeloo- Laurier U. Satellite Campus c Ph u•niac3, Sovial'Alork Primary Campus Y v Northdate Plan = 5� ` 219ciaster U. o Downtown �os� Waterloo Region # Nodes (Conceptual) �" Canipus 0 1 2 Kilometres Corridors (Conceptual) F Ii f.11 l K I T C 11 `, N El R Figure 1. Planning and PBSA development in Waterloo. Source: Created by the author with data from the Region of Waterloo. live in a mixed use, urban neighbourhood' (MMM Group, 2012a: 24) and accommo- date `a diverse demographic including stu- dents, families and professionals' (MMM Group, 2012a: 26). While not specified in the plan, respondents expressed that the long-term goal is for one in three residents to be non -students (planner PO4; Councillor Jeff Henry). To achieve these ends, the Northdale Plan allows for intensification throughout the neighbourhood, with maximum heights ranging from six to 25 storeys. The plan des- ignates much of the neighbourhood for mixed use, requiring ground -floor retail spaces in residential buildings and a higher standard of urban design. It incentivises smaller one- and two-bedroom units - in contrast to the preponderance of five - bedroom units that previously dominated development in the neighbourhood - through changes to the development fee structure and by tying parking requirements to the number of bedrooms rather than the number of units. The plan relies heavily on market development to catalyse neighbour- hood change, but has also been accompanied by municipal investments in the public realm. The plan has resulted in sustained redeve- lopment in the near -campus area (Figure 1), making Waterloo by far the largest concen- tration of PBSA in Canada, with over 17,000 bedrooms (Revington and August, 2020). By 2016, nearly two-thirds of the population were 20-24, over two-thirds of dwellings were in apartments of five storeys or more (Table 1) and the homeownership rate was a paltry 6%. With several large residential projects completed, the total number of Page 452 of 476 Revington 9 K«.. U) 2500 4.43 E +4 1�v 22000 , 1500 0 2.99 1000 PBSA Building Permits, City of Waterloo 4.888 4.68 4.98 4.63 4..884 l - 4.96 �a R7 4.49 hRpt \ 4.51 i I 3.17 J4 occupancy Date Units =: Bedrooms Average Bedrooms per Unit Figure 2. PBSA building permits, City of Waterloo. Source: Calculated by the author with data from the Region of Waterloo. dwellings had rebounded to exceed 2006 lev- els by 55%, signifying intensified studentifi- cation but also enabling an incipient process of post-studentification. Contrary to other prominent examples (Bose, 2015; Ehlenz, 2019; Etienne, 2012; Mapes et al., 2017), Waterloo's universities have had a minimal role in near -campus urban redevelopment. While they did con- struct some new residences on existing uni- versity lands — and WLU acquired some private PBSA, largely with a view to long- term land banking rather than providing housing, per se — by and large, development has been left up to the private sector to build and the municipality to regulate, with little involvement of either university. Residential development A primary factor in this incipient process of post-studentification has been a reorientation of the actual residential development activity from a focus exclusively on students to a broader market. As developers realised the PBSA market was becoming saturated, some deliberately shifted the style of building they constructed and correspondingly the demo- graphics to which they marketed their prod- ucts. One planner (PO2) observed that `they are being marketed now towards students - slash -young professionals, and there's an additional emphasis on this, young profes- sionals'. For a developer (L10): What we build now is we focus more on what I'd refer to as market condos or market units, a typical unit layout and type of building that would be generic for any urban centre, and build them near universities. Another (R06) agreed that in addition to students, `we were trying to appeal to people who actually work in Waterloo' because `they can afford something that is a little bit better than what a student could'. While Page 453 of 476 0 500 0 0. J4 occupancy Date Units =: Bedrooms Average Bedrooms per Unit Figure 2. PBSA building permits, City of Waterloo. Source: Calculated by the author with data from the Region of Waterloo. dwellings had rebounded to exceed 2006 lev- els by 55%, signifying intensified studentifi- cation but also enabling an incipient process of post-studentification. Contrary to other prominent examples (Bose, 2015; Ehlenz, 2019; Etienne, 2012; Mapes et al., 2017), Waterloo's universities have had a minimal role in near -campus urban redevelopment. While they did con- struct some new residences on existing uni- versity lands — and WLU acquired some private PBSA, largely with a view to long- term land banking rather than providing housing, per se — by and large, development has been left up to the private sector to build and the municipality to regulate, with little involvement of either university. Residential development A primary factor in this incipient process of post-studentification has been a reorientation of the actual residential development activity from a focus exclusively on students to a broader market. As developers realised the PBSA market was becoming saturated, some deliberately shifted the style of building they constructed and correspondingly the demo- graphics to which they marketed their prod- ucts. One planner (PO2) observed that `they are being marketed now towards students - slash -young professionals, and there's an additional emphasis on this, young profes- sionals'. For a developer (L10): What we build now is we focus more on what I'd refer to as market condos or market units, a typical unit layout and type of building that would be generic for any urban centre, and build them near universities. Another (R06) agreed that in addition to students, `we were trying to appeal to people who actually work in Waterloo' because `they can afford something that is a little bit better than what a student could'. While Page 453 of 476 10 Urban Studies 00(0) developers emphasised market shifts, plan- ners highlighted the Northdale Plan's incen- tives for smaller units: `the hope is' that the plan will `bring about that balance' between students and non -students by having `that right product, and having a product that is more attractive to non -students' (PO4). Not - In -My -Backyard -ism prevalent elsewhere in the city is less likely to be experienced in stu- dent -dominated Northdale (P06; Revington, 2021), making it an attractive location for non- PBSA development. These dynamics are captured in local build- ing permit data (Figure 2). While the average number of bedrooms per unit of PBSA hov- ered just below five into the mid -2010s, this fig- ure plummeted to below two for projects completed in 2016-2018. Since there is no legal distinction between PBSA and other apart- ments in Ontario, its classification here is deter- mined by regional planners based on how the development is marketed, which has been `becoming more and more difficult over time' (P02), a poignant illustration of how post- studentification represents a blurring between conventional PBSA and housing targeting other demographics. For one broker and property manager (L09), the distinction between student hous- ing and the rest of the market is becoming irrelevant: I don't think there is [a definition of student housing] anymore ... it's so diverse that I think it's somewhat become meaningless and some of the student housing, or housing rented by students, could easily be rented by non- students, whether they be twenty years old, thirty years old, or seventy years old, and cer- tainly some of them could well also be owned and lived in long term [by] families. Population changes One long-term goal of the Northdale Plan is for one in three Northdale residents to be a non -student, a clear policy of post- studentification. Progress towards this goal is unclear. According to the councillor for the ward containing Northdale, Jeff Henry, `it's not information you can collect, and nobody really does collect it'. Nonetheless, interviewees indicated that a process of post-studentification was underway. Several key informants reported non- students increasingly moving into buildings in and around Northdale. One broker's (R02) client had a development near UW that was `seeing more non -students rent there than students now, overall'. Planners monitoring development around Northdale observed developers selling condos to non- students for owner -occupation. As one plan- ner (P03) explained, `There's a lot of techies that would look at these buildings as a stop- gap to something else,' for instance while saving to buy a larger house. The area is close to major nodes of professional employ- ment, including the universities, UW's Research and Technology Park, adjacent offices and Uptown Waterloo, making it ideal for young professionals. According to Ulrike Gross, responsible for WLU's real estate portfolio, `it's really a terrific opportu- nity to be very close to where they work and what that means is that you get away from the homogeneous student ghetto and to a more diverse demographic living in this housing area'. Reportedly, this trend is par- tially driven by tech companies `looking for large-scale rentals, so they're taking blocks, you know, 10, 12 units at a time' to house employees, but also to some extent by seniors looking to downsize (R02). High-density housing mitigates some of the negative aspects of studentification, inducing some non -students to live in or near Northdale. According to one planner (P06), `there's not that opportunity in an apartment building, to have great big, huge outdoor parties [... ] which, when it gets out of hand, can be negative'. A broker (R04) agreed that despite its shortcomings, `it's still Page 454 of 476 Revington I I way better than those run-down houses with kids urinating on the bushes on Friday night and sun -tanning up on the roof . Another element driving post- studentification in Waterloo has been high regional housing prices. For one developer (L10), `there's other towns with universities [in Ontario] where you can still buy a house for like CA$250,000, whereas in Waterloo, you'd be hard pressed to buy one for less than CA$500,000. So that's an important factor for us.' Young professionals in the tech sector see these condos as affordable relative to other major centres of the tech industry like Toronto or San Francisco. Moreover, the tight housing market has mitigated against the urban decline associ- ated with de-studentification (Kinton et al., 2016) of other neighbourhoods precipitated by the high volume of new development in Northdale. New amenities Undoubtedly, part of the neighbourhood's success in attracting non -student residents has depended on improvements to public and private amenities. One planner (PO4) explained: `That's needed to support and have a complete neighbourhood, so people have a place they're hoping to live, work, learn and play.' An economic development planner reported, `now all of a sudden, going from zero amenities, there's over 25 shops and stores now in Northdale' (P05). For one broker (RO1), this was a `big driver' in mak- ing the neighbourhood appealing, `especially as things go forward, where buildings are built with amenities in them. So amenities being, you know, Asian restaurants, or Wacky Tabacky [marijuana paraphernalia] shops, or whatever it is, I think that's becom- ing more and more important.' While some of these amenities certainly remain oriented to the student demographic, others have become a `kind of hidden gem type place' (student leader, S01) that, at least anecdo- tally, attracts customers from across the region. In a sense, Northdale is becoming `almost a second downtown if you will' (broker R02), and with additional developments ongoing, `we won't recognize it, and I think everyone's going to be pretty happy with the end result, considering where we came from' — a heavily studentified neighbourhood of run-down housing, few amenities and a neg- ative public perception. As a result, `Other people are going to want to go there on a Friday night besides students, right? And other people will be there on a July after- noon, because all the students are gone.'l Indeed, that is the as -yet unrealised ideal of post-studentification. `From a city stand- point, that would be desirable, wouldn't it?' (R04). The city has invested in public infrastruc- ture, including streetscaping and parkland. Infrastructure provided by the regional gov- ernment, like the new light rail line that passes between Northdale and UW, may also encourage development. According to one planner (P06), `it's transit -supportive development, or maybe the transit is sup- porting the high-density development', but ultimately the outcome is `a more complete and attractive street'. Meanwhile, WLU is working closely with the local school district and the City of Waterloo to create a com- munity space on joint properties in the area. This section advances a critique of post- studentification as experienced in Waterloo. First, the Northdale Plan is limited in its ability to attract a substantial diversity of residents. Second, where it has succeeded, it has benefited from local contingencies that may not exist in all contexts. Finally, and Page 455 of 476 12 Urban Studies 00(0) most importantly, post-studentification has reinforced urban inequalities along the axes of class, gender and age. Achieving intended outcomes Despite attracting new types of housing, res- idents and amenities — and the enthusiasm of some planners and real estate profession- als regarding these changes — in other respects, the Northdale Plan is less certain to meet its goals. Northdale continues to hold a negative perception as a studentified area or little more than a `nice student ghetto' (broker R04), a challenge that also faces de- studentified neighbourhoods (Kinton et al., 2016). Another (R03) concurred that `those buildings are typically in locations most ren- ters wouldn't want to live, because they're in student -ghettoised areas'. Therefore, the appeal to non -students remains limited: Once you kind of graduate, you're looking for more: I don't want to deal with roommates anymore, [... ] I kind of want my own space. And I can probably find cheaper living not in a student area. Because as soon as you don't have to live right by the university, your options are a lot more open. (Property man- ager L04) Some questioned whether the type of hous- ing provided — increasingly, small one- and two-bedroom condos — would be suitable for families (P02). As a result, non -student residents in Northdale are often marginal non -students: `acquaintances, friends or spouses of stu- dents' (property manager L09) or recent graduates. A researcher at a brokerage (R05) suggested that: people would probably live there because it's comfortable for them because they moved there when they were in school, and then when they start to make more money, they'll move out of there [... ] I don't think someone's going to physically move in to this if they haven't lived in [PBSA] before. In other words, while `that's no longer [... ] technically considered a student', it represents `a very similar demographic and profile very often, and a very similar lifestyle' (1,09). It is therefore unclear to what extent non -student residents are meaningfully different from stu- dents with respect to the planning goal of achieving a mixed population. Moreover, while the goal of one in three Northdale residents being non -students is perhaps realistic, it is not particularly ambitious, and there is no mechan- ism for monitoring it. Another challenge pertains to the neigh- bourhood's mixed-use component, particu- larly retail space. Balancing the quantities and timing of individual uses is a common issue in mixed-use development (Beauregard, 2005). Despite some successful businesses, interviewees noted that others have struggled and several spaces remained vacant (prior to the COVID-19 pandemic). New retail spaces compete with successful pre-existing com- mercial plazas at either end of the neighbour- hood, yet Northdale lacks key services such as a grocery store. Local contingencies Whatever the benefits and flaws of post- studentification, the question remains to what extent the process is likely to unfold in other contexts, and therefore whether post- studentifica.tion is a feasible alternative to seg- regationist strategies to deal with studentifica- tion, such as limitations on the number of student -occupied houses within an area or encouraging PBSA away from established neighbourhoods (Hubbard, 2008, 2009; Pickren, 2012; Revington et al., 2020; Ruiu, 2017; Sage et al., 2013; Smith and Hubbard, 2014). Several contextual elements in Page 456 of 476 Revington 13 Waterloo that have contributed to post- studentification may not be present everywhere. For one interviewee, the blurring between housing for students and non -students was specific to the local economic development focus on high-tech industry, which has bol- stered housing demand. `London [Ontario] has a great university, no one stays in London. They go there to get their degree. Waterloo, they come there and they stay there and they open up business' (R04). As a result, `Waterloo has an advantage that Toronto would have, that maybe McGill [University, in Montreal] would have, that Kingston [home to Queen's University] wouldn't have. [... ] There's just that natural employment base there.' UW is known for spurring spin-off businesses and generating talented workers for the regional economy (Bramwell and Wolfe, 2008). While the vol- ume of tech employment is important, so is its location proximate to the universities. Office space along Phillip Street, immedi- ately north of Northdale, has recently seen `close to 4000 new jobs, wherein all these companies are hiring young talent', accord- ing to an economic development planner (P05). `So if you're in fourth year university, fifth year university, come out of school, where you going to live? Well, probably nearby.' Other place -specific features such as Waterloo's recently revitalised central Uptown area are attractive to young work- ers and students alike, as one broker (R04) described: `It's like Nashville, it's just a cool place.' While comparisons to the country music capital of the world may be hyper- bolic, both the City and Region have emphasised graduate attraction and retention in their economic development strategies by, among other things, seeking to ensure a variety of cultural amenities and housing types (e.g. City of Waterloo, 2017; Malone Given Parsons, 2014). Waterloo's `planning for "cool"' (Vinodrai, 2018) extends beyond Northdale. For post- studentification to occur, a planner (P05) summarised, `you need high growth univer- sities, [... ] and you need a strong tech sector and economy'. In contrast, cities with weaker employment and housing markets may not be able to realise intensive develop- ment supportive of post-studentification. Even with this type of development, the resulting surplus of housing could lead to more afford- able rents, but also de-studentifica.tion, disin- vestment and decline in some parts of the city (Kirton et al., 2016; Mulhearn and Franco, 2018). Implications for urban inequality Post-studentification in Waterloo is effec- tively a form of gentrification, representing a continuation from studentification-as- gentrification, as PBSA has displaced more affordable housing and non -student popula- tions (Revington and August, 2020). As one student leader (S01) said, `if you're looking for more affordable rent, you can't ... you have to move further out, essentially'. This relationship is intrinsic, according to a plan- ner (P05): if you want to attract a more diverse neigh- bourhood, it can't all be run-down student housing. So the idea of walk-in clinics, new streets being developed, high-end finishes, that means the cost of the projects goes up [...]. There's no more cheap housing. This class -based exclusion is unsurprising as housing in high -amenity mixed-use areas is often less affordable than elsewhere (Moos et al., 2018). In theory, the intermixing of students and non -students could be desirable for reducing age segregation and fostering intergenera- tional understanding rather than exacerbat- ing town and gown conflict (Revington, 2021). However, in practice this is limited, Page 457 of 476 E since post-studentification has tended to involve `marginal non -students'. These recent graduates, dropouts, young profes- sionals and friends or partners of students often have similar lifestyles to that of stu- dents (Smith and Holt, 2007), and while they may be slightly older than most students, they do not contribute substantially to alter- ing the neighbourhood's age profile. Post- studentification can therefore be considered a form of youthification (Moos, 2016), pro- viding a concrete link between youthification and universities (Moos et al., 2019) and rein- forcing age segregation. These class- and age -based inequalities also intersect with issues of gender. As fem- inist scholars note, urban planning and development are often masculinist as they overlook social reproduction and care work, and emphasise interurban competition and profit (Curran, 2018). This is true of Northdale, where post-studentification has been driven by economic development stra- tegies that favour competition based on the highly gendered tech sector. The Kitchener - Cambridge -Waterloo metropolitan area is one of only two in Canada with a higher male share of the unmarried, university - educated 25 -34 -year-old population (Flanagan, 2018).2 Meanwhile, public amenities specifically geared to the young professional and stu- dent population that dominates the neigh- bourhood, rather than children or older adults, are not necessarily conducive to social reproduction and care work. The lack of amenities for these groups reinforces age segregation by reducing the area's appeal to them. Likewise, the increasing prevalence of one- and two-bedroom apartments suggests a lack of housing appropriate for larger households with children, as one planner (P02) was hesitant to outright admit: But definitely marketing towards these smaller units, it may be an issue because one thing that Urban Studies 00(0) we have been hearing — so this isn't something we're saying, but something we're hearing — is kind of the lack of family-oriented sized units, or units in buildings that might be of interest to a family. This type of housing also limits possibilities for multi -generational living, which could otherwise offset age segregation (Curran, 2018). Post-studentification in Northdale is per- ceived to entail young professionals tempo- rarily occupying a lower step on a housing ladder, reflecting and reproducing certain gendered assumptions about housing. First, there is an expectation that family and detached home ownership are the eventual goal, and second, that high-density urban environments are not appropriate for raising children (Curran, 2018; Fincher, 2004; Kern, 2010; Raynor, 2018). Negative perceptions (and ongoing realities) of studentification in Northdale likely reinforce these assumptions, even where five -bedroom units in older PBSA may technically be large enough to suitably house larger households with children. r Post-studentification represents a dynamic evolution of the studentification process that brings non -student residents into studentified areas and witnesses a blurring of the distinc- tion between housing intended for students and that targeted towards other demographics. Contrary to de-studentification, however, post-studentification is not associated with a declining student population and an influx of other residents to fill the resulting void. On a conceptual level, through the potential to integrate a diversity of residents across a wide cross-section of the population, post- studentification offers the possibility of a more inclusive, equitable urbanism than is advanced by conventional processes of stu- dentification and associated exclusionary Page 458 of 476 Revington policy responses. Existing policy approaches have sought to achieve `balanced' popula- tions by limiting the number of students in an area or by encouraging the construction of exclusive PBSA set apart from other neighbourhoods (Hubbard, 2008, 2009; Pickren, 2012; Revington et al., 2020; Ruiu, 2017; Sage et al., 2013; Smith and Hubbard, 2014). Alternatively, greater enforcement of regulatory codes risks disproportionate impact on racialised low-income non -student residents (Bose, 2015; Evans -Cowley, 2006). Yet in Waterloo, where the city has adopted an explicit policy of post- studentification relying heavily on market- based redevelopment to revitalise the near - campus Northdale neighbourhood, the result has not been a diverse and inclusive urbanism. In practice, post-studentification in Waterloo has been largely limited to a marginal non -student demographic includ- ing friends of students and young profes- sionals. Northdale has not entirely shed its reputation as a student area, and small apartments are perceived as unsuitable for families. Post-studentification has therefore represented a continuation of gentrification and the displacement of affordable housing, has had minimal capacity to reduce age seg- regation and has reproduced gendered assumptions regarding urban development. For post-studentification to actually result in a more diverse and equitable urbanism would require vastly more support for public services and amenities catering to a broader range of residents, such as schools and affordable housing options, as well as provi- sions to ensure housing perceived as suitable for households with children. In short, it has suffered many of the shortcomings of conventional market-driven redevelopment schemes (Lees, 2008; Rose et al., 2013). While some elements of post- studentification are widespread, such as a blurring of the boundaries of both student housing and lifestyles (CBRE, 2020; IR Hubbard, 2009; Smith and Holt, 2007; Uyttebrouck et al., 2020; Winchester, 2021), the Waterloo case suggests that post- studentification is most likely in cities that Foote (2017) describes as `knowledge nodes'. These cities host large research -intensive uni- versities and have experienced strong growth in professional employment, attracting young adults and resulting in comparatively expensive housing markets. However, the Waterloo experience also suggests that absent deeper interventions, post-studentification will likely be limited to a hybrid mix of PBSA, co - living apartments and condominiums geared towards young professionals. While connections between studentifica- tion and youthification have been identified (Moos et al., 2019; Revington, 2018), the particular pathways of this relationship remain largely unspecified. This study finds that post-studentification is closely tied to youthification, and therefore represents one `mechanism of youthification' (Ma et al., 2018). Youthification follows studentifica- tion within a neighbourhood due to the char- acteristics of the local housing stock, public and private amenities and broader regional housing and employment market trends. Specifically, high housing costs and local planning provisions have favoured the devel- opment of high-density housing, beyond five -bedroom units in PBSA, in near -campus neighbourhoods where students already live. That youthification proceeds from studen- tification via the mechanism of post- studentification lends empirical support to the notion that studentification shapes stu- dents' post -graduation housing decisions (He, 2015; Sage et al., 2013; Smith, 2005; Smith and Holt, 2007), albeit in a limited way. Former students may remain in a familiar neighbourhood and housing arrangement as they bide their time before they are able to realise longer-term housing aspirations. These long-term aspirations may be quite unlike those offered in PBSA: life in studentified Page 459 of 476 16 Urban Studies 00(0) neighbourhoods might shape former stu- dents' tolerance for certain types of housing rather than their ultimate preference. Further research is needed to determine the extent of post-studentification in other contexts, and the potential for more success- ful policies of post-studentification, however defined. Empirically, examples of more `complete' processes of post-studentification, with a more diverse population, would offer important theoretical and practical insight. Contingencies of the studentification process — for instance as differently expressed in China (He, 2015), Spain (Garmendia et al., 2012) or Chile (Prada, 2019) compared with Anglo-American contexts — may produce alternative variations of post-studentification, presenting opportunities for crucial compara- tive research. Likewise, research should revisit Northdale in the future to see how (or whether) it has evolved as build -out is completed and the neighbourhood matures: Will incipient post-studentification remain limited, as at present, or will it achieve its promise of a more diverse community? Alternatively, will it be a passing phenom- enon as the neighbourhood reverts to a more `typical' studentified neighbourhood? These questions are not merely of quaint local importance, but are crucial to a broader discussion of how cities may respond positively to the challenges posed by studentification (Smith, 2008). The answers would illuminate possibilities to transform town—gown relations to build diverse near -campus neighbourhoods. Acknowledgements This article is adapted from my doctoral disserta- tion at the University of Waterloo. Thank you to Markus Moos, Martine August, Pierre Filion and Tara Vinodrai for their guidance. Samantha Biglieri, Margaret Ellis -Young, Maxwell Hartt, Filipa Pajevic and three anonymous reviewers also provided constructive comments on earlier versions of the article. Errors and omissions remain my own. Declaration of conflicting interests The author declared no potential conflicts of interest with respect to the research, authorship, and/or publication of this article. Funding The author disclosed receipt of the following financial support for the research, authorship, and/or publication of this article: This research was supported by a Social Sciences and Humanities Research Council of Canada CGS - Doctoral Scholarship (grant number 767-2016- 1258). Views expressed in this article are purely those of the author and do not necessarily reflect those of the funding body. Nick Revington Oo https://orcid.org/0000-0001- 5165-4440 Notes 1. Due to co-operative education programmes with rotating work terms at both universities, not `all' students are gone during the summer, although there are certainly fewer. 2. The gap is small, with 180 more unmarried university -educated men than women in the 25-34 age bracket, but nonetheless unusual, with only Calgary exhibiting the same pat- tern. There are 4515 more unmarried men than women at any education level in this age bracket in Kitchener -Cambridge -Waterloo (Flanagan, 2018). References Beauregard RA (2005) The textures of property markets: Downtown housing and office con- versions in New York City. Urban Studies 42(13): 2431-2445. Bose S (2015) Universities and the redevelopment politics of the neoliberal city. Urban Studies 52(14): 2616-2632. Page 460 of 476 Revington 17 Bramwell A and Wolfe DA (2008) Universities and regional economic development: The entrepreneurial University of Waterloo. Research Policy 37: 1175-1187. Bromley RDF, Tallon AR and Roberts AJ (2007) New populations in the British city centre: Evi- dence of social change from the census and household surveys. Geoforum 38: 138-154. CBRE (2020) Europe co -living report. Available at: https://www.cbre.co.uk/research-and- reports/Europe-Co-living-Key-Trends-and- Key-Cities (accessed 9 February 2021). Charbonneau P, Johnson LC and Andrey J (2006) Characteristics of university student housing and implications for urban develop- ment in mid-sized cities. Canadian Journal of Urban Research 15(2): 278-300. City of Waterloo (2017) Waterloo student accom- modations. Report ## CTTEE2017-004. Avail- able at: https://www.waterloo.ca/en/governor ent/resources/Documents/Cityadministration/ Student-housing-report-2017.pdf (accessed 4 February 2021). Corridor (n.d.) Toronto -Waterloo region. Avail- able at: https://thecorridor.ca/ (accessed 17 February 2021). Curran W (2018) Gender and Gentrification. New York, NY: Routledge. Davison G (2009) Carlton and the campus: The university and the gentrification of inner Mel- bourne 1958-75. Urban Policy and Research 27(3): 253-264. Ehlenz MM (2019) Gown, town, and neighbor- hood change: An examination of urban neigh- borhoods with university revitalization efforts. Journal of Planning Education and Research 39(3): 285-299. Etienne HF (2012) Pushing Back the Gates: Neighborhood Perspectives on University - Driven Revitalization in West Philadelphia. Philadelphia, PA: Temple University Press, Evans -Cowley JS (2006) The effect of neighborhood - based code enforcement in university commu- nities: The case of the Ohio State University. Planning Practice & Research 21(1): 109-120. Fincher R (2004) Gender and life course in the narratives of Melbourne's high-rise housing developers. Australian Geographical Studies 42(3): 325-338. Flanagan R (2018) All the single laddies? Water- loo Region's odd gender gap explained. CTV News, 3 May. Available at: https://kitche ner.ctvnews.ca/all-the-single-laddies-waterloo- region-s-odd-gender-gap-explained-1.3914062 (accessed 1 August 2019). Foote NS (2017) Beyond studentification in United States college towns: Neighborhood change in the knowledge nodes, 1980-2010. Environment and Planning A 49(6): 1341-1360. Garmendia M, Coronado JM and Urefia JM (2012) University students sharing flats: When studentification becomes vertical. Urban Stud- ies 49(12): 2651-2668. He S (2015) Consuming urban living in `villages in the city': Studentification in Guangzhou, China. Urban Studies 52(15): 2849-2873. Hubbard P (2008) Regulating the social impacts of studentification: A Loughborough case study. Environment and Planning A 40: 323-341. Hubbard P (2009) Geographies of studentifica- tion and purpose-built student accommoda- tion: Leading separate lives? Environment and Planning A 41: 1903-1923. Kenna T (2011) Studentification in Ireland? Ana- lysing the impacts of students and student accommodation on Cork City. Irish Geogra- phy 44(2-3): 191-213. Kern L (2010) Gendering reurbanisation: Women and new -build gentrification in Toronto. Popu- lation, Space and Place 16: 363-379. Kinton C, Smith DP and Harrison J (2016) De- studentification: Emptying housing and neigh- bourhoods of student populations. Environ- ment and Planning A 48(8): 1617-1635. Kinton C, Smith DP, Harrison J, et al. (2018) New frontiers of studentification: The commo- dification of student housing as a driver of urban change. The Geographical Journal 184: 242-254. Lees L (2008) Gentrification and social mixing: Towards an inclusive urban renaissance? Urban Studies 45(12): 2449-2470. Ma Z, Chenggu L, Liu Y, et al. (2018) The trans- formation of traditional commercial blocks in China: Characteristics and mechanisms of youthification. City, Culture and Society 14: 56-63. Page 461 of 476 18 Urban Studies 00(0) Malone Given Parsons (2014) Waterloo region economic development strategy. Available at: https://www.regionofwaterloo.ca/en/ resources/waterloo-region-economic-developm ent-strategy-access.pdf (accessed 4 February 2021). Mapes J, Kaplan D, Turner VK, et al. (2017) Building `College Town': Economic redevelop- ment and the construction of community. Local Economy 32(7): 601-616. MMM Group (2012x) Northdale land use and community improvement plan study final report. Waterloo, ON: MMM Group. MMM Group (2012b) Student accommodation study: Final - 2011 monitoring report. Water- loo, ON: MMM Group. Moos M (2016) From gentrification to youthifica.- tion? The increasing importance of young age in delineating high-density living. Urban Stud- ies 53(14): 2903-2920. Moos M, Revington N, Wilkin T, et al. (2019) The knowledge economy city: Gentrification, studentification and youthification, and their connections to universities. Urban Studies 56(6): 1075-1092. Moos M, Vinodrai T, Revington N, et al. (2018) Planning for mixed use: Affordable for whom? Journal of the American Planning Association 84(l):7-20. Mulhearn C and Franco M (2018) If you build it will they come? The boom in purpose-built stu- dent accommodation in central Liverpool: Des- tudentification, studentification and the future of the city. Local Economy 33(5): 477-495. Munro M and Livingston M (2012) Student impacts on urban neighbourhoods: Policy approaches, discourses and dilemmas. Urban Studies 49(8): 1679-1694. Nakazawa T (2017) Expanding the scope of stu- dentification studies. Geography Compass 11: e12300. Palys T and Atchison C (2014) Research Deci- sions: Quantitative, Qualitative, and Mixed Methods Approaches. 5th edn. Toronto: Nel- son Education. Perry DC and Wiewel W (eds) (2005) The Univer- sity as Urban Developer: Case Studies and Analysis. Armonk, NY: M.E. Sharpe. Pickren G (2012) `Where can I build my student housing?' The politics of studentification in Athens -Clarke County, Georgia. Southeastern Geographer 52(2): 113-130. Prada J (2019) Understanding studentification dynamics in low-income neighbourhoods: Stu- dents as gentrifiers in Concepcion (Chile). Urban Studies 56(14): 2863-2879. Raynor K (2018) Social representations of chil- dren in higher density housing: Enviable, inev- itable or evil? Housing Studies 33(8): 1207-1226. Revington N (2018) Pathways and processes: Reviewing the role of young adults in urban structure. The Professional Geographer 70(1): 1-10. Revington N (2021) Age segregation, intergenera- tionality, and class monopoly rent in the stu- dent housing submarket. Antipode 53(4): 1228-1250. Revington N and August M (2020) Making a market for itself. The emergent financializa- tion of student housing in Canada. Environ- ment and Planning A 52(5): 856-877. Revington N, Moos M, Henry J, et al. (2020) The urban dormitory: Planning, studentification, and the construction of an off -campus student housing market. International Planning Studies 25(2): 189-205. Rose D (1984) Rethinking gentrification: Beyond the uneven development of Marxist urban the- ory. Environment and Planning D: Society and Space 1: 47-74. Rose D, Germain A, Bacqu6 M -H, et al. (2013) `Social mix' and neighbourhood revitalization in a transatlantic perspective: Comparing local policy discourses and expectations in Paris (France), Bristol (UK) and Montr6al (Canada). International Journal of Urban and Regional Research 37(2): 430-450. Ruin ML (2017) Collaborative management of studentification processes: The case of New- castle upon Tyne. Journal of Housing and the Built Environment 32: 843-857. Sage J, Smith D and Hubbard P (2012) The diverse geographies of studentification: Living alongside people not like us. Housing Studies 27(8): 1057-1078. Page 462 of 476 Revington Sage J, Smith D and Hubbard P (2013) New -build studentification: A Panacea for balanced com- munities? Urban Studies 50(13): 2623-2641. Smith D (2008) The politics of studentification and `(un)balanced' urban populations: Les- sons for gentrification and sustainable com- munities? Urban Studies 45(12): 2541-2564. Smith D (2018) Super-studentification in global cities. Paper presented at the American Associ- ation of Geographers' Annual Meeting, New Orleans, USA, 12 April 2018. Smith DP (2005) `Studentification': The gentrifi- cation factory? In: Atkinson R and Bridge G (eds) Gentrification in a Global Context: The New Urban Colonialism. New York, NY: Routledge, pp. 73-90. Smith DP and Holt L (2007) Studentification and `apprentice' gentrifiers within Britain's provin- cial towns and cities: Extending the meaning of gentrification. Environment and Planning A 39:142-161. Smith DP and Hubbard P (2014) The segregation of educated youth and dynamic geographies of studentification. Area 46(1): 92-100. Statistics Canada (2018) Census Profile Tables. Canadian Census Analyser [database]. Tor- onto: CRASS. E Uyttebrouck C, van Bueren E and Teller J (2020) Shared housing for students and young profes- sionals: Evolution of a market in need of regu- lation. Journal of Housing and the Built Environment 35: 1017-1035. Vinodrai T (2018) Planning for `cool': Millennials and the innovation economy of cities. In: Moos M, Pfeiffer D and Vinodrai T (eds) The Millennial City: Trends, Implications, and Prospects for Urban Planning and Policy. New York, NY: Routledge, pp. 27-37. Waterloo Chronicle (2010) City review will address student ghetto issues. 19 January. Available at: https://www.therecord.com/ news-story/5886495-city-review-will-address- student-ghetto-issues/ (accessed 30 January 2018). Wiewel W and Perry DC (eds) (2008) Global Uni- versities and Urban Development: Case Studies and Analysis. Armonk, NY: M.E. Sharpe. Winchester J (2021) Playing it safe and sustain- able: Here's why PBSAs are embracing co - living. The class trend report: Fast forwarding our future. Amsterdam: The Class Founda- tion. Available at: https://digitaltrendreport. theclassof2020.org/chapter-2/why-pbsa-is-emb racing-coliving (accessed 9 February 2021). Page 463 of 476 To Katie Anderl, Thank you for coordinating the on-site meeting between the City of Kitchener, the Applicant and the Community, that took place on February 1, 2023. 1 am writing on behalf of the Directly Impacted Owners residing at 83, 95 and 99 Pinnacle Dr. These directly impacted owners have provided written comment prior to attending the virtual information sessions. The proposed application will set a precedent and impact many in the community (future development applications) we feel as though we are the most acutely impacted being immediately across from the proposal, and all have young children and plan to grow in our homes. We believe in our neighborhood and we also believe in the value of compromise and working together to make something better. Adding something that didn't exist before, even if it's very different than what's already there, can be beneficial. After hearing from the city and Applicant, and after some thought and discussion, we believe there is a mutually agreeable path forward if the site is ultimately rezoned to R-6. Just the same, the current proposal by the Applicant in its current form is not that path forward. For ease of understanding, I'm outlining the definitions of the terms that will be set out throughout this email: Applicant — Rosu Developments represented by Adrian and Daniel Rosu Application — Proposed stacked townhomes at 86 Pinnacle Dr. Community — The broader community members of Lower Doon including the Directly Impacted Owners Directly Impacted Owners — Owners residing at 83, 95 and 99 Pinnacle Dr. The City — City of Kitchener The Meeting — On-site meeting dated February 1, 2023 at 86 Pinnacle Dr. Virtual Meeting—January 10th, 2023 virtual meeting The Application should be mutually agreed upon by the City, the Applicant, the Community and most importantly the Directly Impacted Owners. The Application should meet growth objectives outlined by the City, conform to the neighbourhood features (historical homes, vegetation, enhanced curb appeal through landscaping and spatial awareness) respect current residents, sight lines (proper setbacks) and increase the livability of the area. When discussing the Application in its current form, we need to be realistic: this is a neighborhood with a large population of students adjacent to a large post -secondary institution. Although the units will be sold and owned, the occupants of this building will likely be short term tenants in the form of students (1 to 2 semesters) or Airbnb rentals. If you look at the four large, detached homes recently built on Drummond Street, 2 of them are Airbnb, while another is rented to students. The remaining home is a young couple looking to leave because of the adjacent neighbours. It's quite possible that in the first 2 years the units will be 95%+ rental occupied (likely by students). Fundamentally, students and short- term renters have varied schedules. They are much less likely than an owner occupant to think about Page 464 of 476 property values, home upkeep, or even their neighbours. Despite transit options, students in a suburban environment like Lower Doon depend on cars and it shows: there are currently a staggering number of cars to each house in our neighborhood. All together, they create a ton of noise (bass pounding/car doors slamming/honking). We will never change student behaviours but we can mitigate some of the negative issues through design management in the Application and promote livability without disturbing our homes and families. I understand that the City cannot control the buyers of the proposed development, but regardless of what's ultimately built on the property, the fact that this is an attractive area for student occupants absolutely needs to be considered. Not one particular Application, including the Application presented is going to solve the housing crisis, in fact this Application is a drop of water in the vast ocean of housing issues. As such, do not feel as though it is your duty to cram 5lbs of planning into a 11b bag. We do not need to achieve maximum size and number of units on each application submitted to the City in order to solve the housing crisis. All properties zoned R6 are different in nature, from their size (acreage), siting within a neighbourhood (intersection,/flow of traffic), abutting property type. What do the Directly Impacted Owners Want to See? Regardless of what structure (or structures) are ultimately placed on the property, our main objective is to ensure that the neighborhood continues to be a place to grow for every demographic as well as our own families. And, after hearing directly from the applicant at the in-person meeting on February 15Y, we aren't totally against the idea of'upzoning' the property to R-6, but there are fundamental issues with the current proposal that need to be addressed and amended in order to gain any endorsement from the Directly Impacted Landowners. With tweaks to the current proposal, we believe it's possible to maximize livability in and compatibility with the neighborhood in the event that the property is rezoned to R-6. We fully expect another drafted rendition to be forwarded to the Community by David Galbraith from the IBI Group. Any revised sketches should conceptually include our requested amendments, in which we feel we're proposing in a good faith effort to compromise with the applicant and ensure there is a mutually beneficial outcome at the end of this story. Improvements to the proposal, we'd like to see: 1. Balconies shouldn't front Pinnacle Dr. Street -facing balconies are not wanted by the Directly Impacted Owners for several reasons including diminishment of curb appeal, enhanced noise, reduced property standards (litter). Likely, this isn't going to be a setting for a bistro set. These balconies could likely act as storage units for overflow items (winter tires/bed frames and other furniture) which will reduce curb appeal of the home of the Directly Impacted Owners due to the vista across from our front porches and bedrooms of our children. The balconies could also promote and outdoor hangout where nuisance will ensue. Page 465 of 476 In a discussion with David Galbraith from IBI, he had stated that the Applicant would remove the balconies from those units fronting Pinnacle Dr. Removal of all balconies are preferred to keep peace and noise levels tolerable. We look forward to any future rendition to remove streetside balconies. 2. The number of units and height of the building needs to be reduced We believe that the number of units and building height go hand in hand. Towards the conclusion of the meeting on February 15Y, @Christine stated that the number of units could be reduced. The current number of units in the proposal is 16 with 2 rooms each: this is excessive for the site. To our earlier points, we're not solving the housing crisis with one application and we don't need to cram as much as we can into one development, which will stick out like sore thumb. A reduction in building height leading to 10-12 units would be most desirable for the Community especially the Directly Impacted Owners. It would reduce vehicle traffic as well as overflow street parking, along with making sense of the current 22 allotted parking spaces (to be discussed in next point). Additionally, we could see a reduction in noise levels and disturbances and nuisance. We would like @Christine to affirm that this type of development is precedent setting for our community. If this is the first development of its kind in Lower Doon, then why do we need to go so heavy on units and height? The City should take a "low and slow" incremental approach whereby the Application resubmits a design proposal with a reduced amount of units and the City can properly review and assess the successes and failures of development over time. Let's not shock the community. Just because 16 units is the maximum that can be crammed into the space, does not mean we should start there. In summary, 16 units is too much for the first of its kind proposal. 10 —12 is much more reasonable. Do not misconstrue our request to reduce units and as opportunity to increase bedrooms. Units and bedrooms go hand in hand, the maximum number of bedrooms would tie into the current parking currently set at 22 spaces. Page 466 of 476 3. Parking needs to change As mentioned above, parking spaces should be more aligned with the number of bedrooms, not units. Students will likely move in, and most have cars (during the meeting, you would have seen the "used car lots" which exists from 70 to 80 Pinnacle Dr.). Each semi-detached home houses 6 cars. This means two things: each of these 3 bedroom homes has 6 students and secondly, they all drive. A reduction in units would help curb excessive parking demand and requirements on Pinnacle Dr., directly across from 86 Pinnacle. This area already plays different roles at different times of the day. It's a city bus route, a school bus route and pickup/drop off zone, a main roadway in the neighborhood, and a busy pedestrian pathway serving both the college and parks system. All of this becomes exponentially more complicated with the addition of street parking. Plus, for the owners, given the curvature of the road that occurs just past 86 Pinnacle Dr, it is already difficult when backing out of the driveway of 95 and 83 Pinnacle Dr. when cars are parked in front of the home. With the current parking rules on the street, an increase of 16 units in that small area will increase overflow parking substantially, and ultimately add to the congestion and decrease safety in the area. We appreciate that the current application maximizes safety by including one roadway in and out of the property but would also like to see a "NO PARKING" area directly in front of 95 Pinnacle Dr. Taken together, this would mitigate parking and safety concerns. If an R-6 zone is granted to the applicant, can the City consider making parking unavailable on the area below highlighted in red? Note that due to the overflow parking from the semi- detached homes at 105 Pinnacle Dr, parking is already prohibited in front of 99 and 103 Pinnacle Dr. Page 467 of 476 Below is a snapshot of the school bus dropping off children, whereby the bus is stopped in the middle of the road and children walk hand in -hand to their home with their parents. School children and their parents await the arrival of the school bus every morning in front of the trail and exit the school bus onto Pinnacle Dr. which as depicted below currently does not have any cars parked near and around the point of entry/exit. The Application will cause overflow parking onto the west side of Pinnacle Dr., pushing children further onto the road as they exit the school bus and walk home. School children some without the aid of their parents will be required to walk along Pinnacle Dr. trying to pass parked vehicles situated within the subject area. This poses as a deathly safety hazard and is just plain irresponsible. There is an opportunity to curb the risk ensued by school children and their parents by restricting parking 24hrs/7days a week withing the red highlighted area above. Page 468 of 476 4. The proposed building needs to move farther away from the road The current setback outlined in the Application is very close to the road and would make the building seem incredibly imposing in context with the other structures in the neighborhood. After a discussion with David Galbraith of IBI Group, he presented an option to push the building 3m farther from the road if one parking space was eliminated, thereby reducing the proposed parking spaces from 22 down to 21. While parking is imperative, the Directly Impacted Owners would concede one parking space for the building to realize a farther setback from Pinnacle Dr. With this change plus a reduction in total units, we feel this would be a reasonable amendment that would balance parking concerns with an eye to the feel of the neighborhood. The proposed site plan amendment would increase the distance of the building from 4.5m to 7.5 at the closest point. In summary, we would endorse a farther setback of minimum 3m and concession of one parking space if the number of units are also reduced. 5. The proposed building needs a Condo Corporation The creation of a Condo Corporation is an important aspect of the Application. The Condo Corporation would see private garbage pickup and contribute to the upkeep of the property. An issue in the area which By -Law constantly combats is the storage of garbage containers on front porches and occupants leaving empty bins and garbage containers for days on end after pickup. Furthermore, nobody follows the 3 bag maximum policy and landlords fail to inform their tenants of any garbage schedule. The Condo Corporation will also ensure regular maintenance of the building structure (roof, windows etc.) as some properties are deteriorating quicker than they should due to a lack of care. This includes yard care pertaining to any grass areas and vegetation management on site. Other factors considered in the Condo Corporation documents could be security cameras in the parking lot used to deter theft and nuisance. Rules pertaining to acceptable window covers (not blankets or flags of sort). There needs to be a minimum standard to which these units are occupied. In summary, a Condo Corporation would be preferred over pure fee simple ownership. We do not believe that a building with 10-12 units could even exist without an overarching corporation to coordinate management and ensure compliance with all relevant laws and policies. Page 469 of 476 6. Material/Design/Exterior Cladding needs to conform to the look and feel of the neighborhood The exterior cladding of the proposed building is ridiculous and does not conform with the heritage aspect of Lower Doon. There are heritage homes and a great amount of history in our community. While not every home conforms to that standard, the more we add that don't, only further dilutes the look and feel of the area. This type of Application sets a precedent and as such needs to be thoroughly reviewed and properly treated before the gates fly wide open. There is an opportunity here to blend the existing housing inventory with something new and special. While it isn't a residential building, the recently built pumping station at the entrance of willow lake park is a great example of this. Bigger buildings can conform to the look and feel of our neighborhood. If there is a design standard that the city is following for the creation of municipal infrastructure in the area, we would ask that the city shares this standard with the Applicant. Below is an example of the recently completed City of Kitchener water infrastructure building located on Old Mill Road just west of Pinnacle Drive. The masonry and exterior cladding along with the overall complexion of the building is more aligned with how any newly proposed substantive building should appear, which is reminiscent of and pays honor to heritage characteristics. If this building sets a new precedent for our neighbourhood, we should be taking a page out of the book adopted by the City of Kitchener when erecting an abnormal type structure within our community. We feel that the adoption of this building concept and design should spill onto other properties looking to be constructed. There are even security cameras which discreetly blend in with the features of the building. Page 470 of 476 In summary, the Directly Impacted Owners do not support the current exterior design and want to see more effort on part of the Applicant to work with the Community and the City to develop a structure that would fit with the neighborhood. The current proposal lacks substance, creativity and appears to be cost cutting and "standard". 7. Applicant profit motive should not be the deciding factor The City cannot cater an Application to be maximally financially feasible for the Applicant. Every builder has their own Return on Investment and can achieve benefit pricing from trades, contractors and suppliers through economy of scale. Though the profit earned by the Applicant is no concern of ours, the City cannot approve the current proposal due the Applicant being unable to achieve and meet their financial goals otherwise. There is a path to profit from the perspective of the Applicant, regardless of whether this space is ultimately rezoned. The point is no matter what, the Applicant will make a profit on the lands. The City and Community should not allow profit to be the driver to settle on more units and cheap building materials. If the Applicant is unable to achieve and meet their financial goals, it may be best that they consider selling the property, even to a developer that is looking to create something different and unique in our community. In summary, the Directly Impacted Owners don't want to hear arguments about financial feasibility from the Applicant or their consultants, it does nothing to solve the greater issues at play. Furthermore, financials should not be of concern to the city, a better built structure would garner a higher price in the open market and may even attract the clientele that Christine mentioned might move into the building, during the meeting of February I't Page 471 of 476 Closing Comments Of course, we don't share the property; however, we do share the community. As stated at the meeting, what's being considered isn't just a place to put people or a place to make a profit. After the decisions are made and the space is developed, we, the neighborhood, and the people that come to occupy the property at 86 Pinnacle will need a place to thrive, not just exist. Our goal is healthy and safe families and individuals in a healthy and safe community, and we believe you share that goal. Change is hard, and given the current political climate and housing crisis, we understand that change is sometimes necessary. At the same time, positive change is within all our control. There is a way to maximize livability under the current zoning as well as an R-6 zoning designation. But there is also a way to destroy it, as illustrated in the current application. If we do this right, we can all win. Increasing density and adding more housing options is a social good that benefits the city and society in general. Creating a unique profit opportunity for the developer means they can benefit from their enterprise. The neighborhood can benefit from sustainable growth and smart development. But whatever outcome is chosen, at the end of the day, we need to be able to answer the question: has this change increased livability for everyone in the area? We're confident that what we're proposing is one way to get there and ultimately answer "yes, it does". Recognizing that this is not an easy job with many technical variables and emotions to consider, we're putting our trust in you, the city, and the process to ensure the livability of the community doesn't decline. We look forward to opportunities for continued dialogue and compromise in pursuit of the best outcome possible. Page 472 of 476 lf'�7 [" 1AX-1 tFNFR' SIGN -IN SHEETZBA/19/003/PIKA — 86 Pinnacle Drive - Neigh bourhood'i nformation MeetingSeptember 10, 2019_Please sign in below if you wish to be notified of decisions pertaining to the proposed Zoning By-law Amendment.Name Mailing Address Postal Code E-mail Address* bL&, Uri (~\, 'lC I h\)/l l 8m | Kr -7 ` /) / � [� >0 | ,. //U7 /\/ Would you like more information about the Lower Doon Land Use Study? __ Page 473 of 476 SIGN -IN SHEET _ ZBA/19/003/P/KA — 86 Pinnacle Drive - Neighbourhood Information Meeting September 10, 2019 Please sign in below if you wish to be notified of decisions pertaining to the proposed Zoning By-law Amendment. Name Mailing Address Postal Code mv-11, t 'c� f L zZfJ ,/y T E-mail Address* • Would you like more information about the Lower Doon Land Use Study? Page 474 of 476 rry -4 ��,[ -F(J[[,'NjR SIGN -IN SHEET ZBA/19/003/P/KA — 86 Pinnacle Drive - Neighbourhood Information Meeting September 10, 2019 Please sign in below if you wish to be notified of decisions pertaining to the proposed Zoning By-law Amendment. Name Mailing Address Postal Code /'/�,z6-S: o ®coe�l VA14,g- °,De� daP X11 q OldlllilLLil AU:2 9 2- Page 475 of 476 1-`_1r4::11,,,,1 SIGN -IN SHEET ZBA/19/003/P/KA - 86 Pinnacle Drive Neighbourhood Information Meeting September 10, 2019 Please sign in below if you wish to be notified of decisions pertaining to the proposed Zoning By-law Amendment. Name Mailing Address <2-L Sy�fVN4\C&rn (JZ�:C&uud�P� Postal Code �32_� \ 8 2- E -mail Address* Would you like more information about the Lower Doon Land Use Study? Page 476 of 476