HomeMy WebLinkAboutPSI Agenda - 2024-04-22Planning & Strategic Initiatives Committee
Agenda
Monday, April 22, 2024, 6:30 p.m. - 9:00 p.m.
Council Chambers
City of Kitchener
200 King Street W, Kitchener, ON N2G 4G7
People interested in participating in this meeting can register online using the delegation registration
form at www.kitchener.ca/delegation or via email at delegation kitchener.ca. Please refer to the
delegation section on the agenda below for in-person registration and electronic participation
deadlines. Written comments received will be circulated prior to the meeting and will form part of the
public record.
The meeting live -stream and archived videos are available at www.kitchener.ca/watchnow.
*Accessible formats and communication supports are available upon request. If you require
assistance to take part in a city meeting or event, please call 519-741-2345 or TTY 1-866-969-9994.*
Chair: Councillor P. Singh
Vice -Chair: Councillor D. Chapman
Pages
1. Commencement
2. Disclosure of Pecuniary Interest and the General Nature Thereof
Members of Council and members of the City's local boards/committees are
required to file a written statement when they have a conflict of interest. If a
conflict is declared, please visit www.kitchener.ca/conflict to submit your written
form.
3. Consent Items
The following matters are considered not to require debate and should be
approved by one motion in accordance with the recommendation contained in
each staff report. A majority vote is required to discuss any report listed as
under this section.
3.1 Private Street Naming —130 Otterbein Road, DSD -2024-180 3
4. Delegations
Pursuant to Council's Procedural By-law, delegations are permitted to address
the Committee for a maximum of five (5) minutes. All Delegations where
possible are encouraged to register prior to the start of the meeting. For
Delegates who are attending in-person, registration is permitted up to the start
of the meeting. Delegates who are interested in attending virtually must register
by 4:30 p.m on April 22, 2024, in order to participate electronically.
4.1 Item 6.1 - Kristen Barisdale, GSP Group
5. Discussion Items
5.1 Corporate Climate Action Plan (CorCAP) 2.0 45 m 17
Pivot: Net -Zero, DSD -2024-074
(Staff will provide a 5 -minute presentation on this matter.)
6. Public Hearing Matters under the Planning Act (advertised)
This is a formal public meeting to consider applications under the Planning Act.
If a person or public body does not make oral or written submissions to the City
of Kitchener before the proposed applications are considered, the person or
public body may not be entitled to appeal the decision to the Ontario Land
Tribunal and may not be added as a party to a hearing of an appeal before the
Ontario Land Tribunal.
6.1 Official Plan Amendment Application 15 m 66
OPA24/003/L/AP, Zoning By-law Amendment
Application ZBA24/003/VAP, 15 Laurentian
Drive, Kitchener Waterloo Christian School
Society, DSD -2024-092
(Staff will provide a 5 -minute presentation on this matter.)
6.2 Official Plan Amendment Application 90 m 113
OPA24/002/J/BB, Zoning By-law Amendment
Application ZBA24/002/JBB, 135-161 Jackson
Avenue and 135 Brentwood Avenue, Sanjiv
Shukla (1000190771 ONTARIO INC.), DSD -
2024 -061
(Staff will provide a 5 -minute presentation on this matter.)
7. Information Items
7.1 None.
8. Adjournment
Marilyn Mills
Committee Coordinator
Page 2 of 400
Staff Report
J
IKgc.;i' r� R
Development Services Department www.kitchener.ca
REPORT TO: Planning and Strategic Initiatives Committee
DATE OF MEETING: April 22, 2024
SUBMITTED BY: Garett Stevenson, Director of Development and Housing Approvals,
519-741-2200 ext. 7070
PREPARED BY: Paige Thompson, Student Planner, 519-741-2200 ext. 7078
WARD(S) INVOLVED: Ward 1
DATE OF REPORT: March 27, 2024
REPORT NO.: DSD -2024-180
SUBJECT: Private Street Naming — 130 Otterbein Road
RECOMMENDATION:
That the City of Kitchener acknowledge that MHBC intends to name a private street:
"Otterbein Crescent" within a multiple residential development located at 130
Otterbein Road, and further,
That the City's Legal Services division be directed to proceed with the required
advertising, preparation, and registration of the necessary By-law for the naming of
"Otterbein Crescent".
REPORT HIGHLIGHTS:
• The purpose of this report is that the applicant is seeking Council approval to name a
private street within the residential development located at 130 Otterbein Road.
• The key finding of this report is that the applicant is proposing to name the private street
as "Otterbein Crescent". Staff are satisfied that the proposed private street name is
appropriate and support the street naming request.
• There are no financial implications as there is no impact to the capital or operating
budget.
• Community engagement included the information posted to the City's website with the
agenda in advance of the council/committee meeting.
• This report supports the delivery of core services.
BACKGROUND:
MHBC is seeking Council approval to name a private street within the residential
development located at 130 Otterbein Road. The proposed multiple residential development
received conditional approval of Site Plan Application SP21/084/0/LT for a 49 unit stacked
townhouse development in September 2021.
*** This information is available in accessible formats upon request. ***
Please call 519-741-2345 or TTY 1-866-969-9994 for assistance.
Page 3 of 400
REPORT:
The applicant is proposing to name the private street shown on Appendix `D' "Otterbein
Crescent". The naming of the private street will eliminate the need for a Multiple Unit
Identification Sign at the entrance to the site, and offers improved site navigation for
emergency services, residents, and visitors.
The proposal has been circulated to internal departments and all concerns have been
addressed. The dwellings will be addressed in accordance with the City's Street Naming
and Addressing Policy. The Region has approved the proposed street name. Staff are
satisfied that the proposed private street name is appropriate and support the street naming
request.
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.
PREVIOUS REPORTS/AUTHORITIES:
• Municipal Act, 2001
• Planning Act
REVIEWED BY: Tina Malone -Wright, Manager, Development Approvals
APPROVED BY: Justin Readman, General Manager, Development Services Department
ATTACHMENTS:
Appendix A
— 130 Otterbein Road
— Site Plans
Appendix B
— 130 Otterbein Road
— Private Street Name Request
Appendix C
— Agency Comments —
130 Otterbein Road
Appendix D
— 130 Otterbein Road
— RPLAN (00296 -600)
Page 4 of 400
z
O �
Z)
Z 0
i
E
16
�.-�-E DoE,
o ¢ Q E o
N Q Q cR .
E F- E
N R
U Q E E T o 0 0 o
U) Z o v ¢ E E .w
Voe¢ Nrn °'�[a Y
corn o o N K d Y Y
U oa S °1 a c`o m C7
LU
�¢�a�� mm add
`o `o .�5 Y E
0
Cn N U � m � Q d i d >> m m d�
ass as
�A aftmxslim �loo,zo.tqN
�JOIA
11
i
N
w (00
LL
0
I U L
Lo
LAD
co c
i -
/� LL
J LO LL =
O Q z
00 �N
Z
� Z
N oZj ¢
M a o
)
l H
vZ
Z Q V a
J w =
O °°
Z = "
Q O
C
_U
� U
JO z LL
a-
a_ a c) o Y
U) w
z w w
Q It
a- J
LU Q
F-- LU
O
J N
O NN N
N O N
N N L6 O
N WO N
N N
W NO c) m W
� m Q N H W
W j 6 CQ W CO
cn LU Of 5;
/ > m J d O
W O W>> w U
E
0
m
N
o N
N C:)
N
W
O N
i LU
O
O
� � J
� w
o U Q
U) r-)
z
n
0
O
z Q
a Q
J O
Lu z
W m
U w
m
J O
0 o
a h h
i
N
w (00
LL
0
I U L
Lo
LAD
co c
i -
/� LL
J LO LL =
O Q z
00 �N
Z
� Z
N oZj ¢
M a o
)
l H
vZ
Z Q V a
J w =
O °°
Z = "
Q O
C
_U
� U
JO z LL
a-
a_ a c) o Y
U) w
z w w
Q It
a- J
LU Q
F-- LU
O
J N
O NN N
N O N
N N L6 O
N WO N
N N
W NO c) m W
� m Q N H W
W j 6 CQ W CO
cn LU Of 5;
/ > m J d O
W O W>> w U
E
0
m
N
o N
N C:)
N
W
O N
i LU
O
O
� � J
� w
o U Q
U) r-)
z
n
0
O
z Q
a Q
J O
Lu z
W m
U w
m
J O
0 o
E
16
mm x O
Q dE w 00
a-
< E= ¢�/0/�
o NC/)
d dN LADU W
E ~ ~ E m
v�
U�
o H U
`V N N
E J ¢x
E OO
=N m o orn Q o �= J LO
�a �.�
Uzo ��� �a Y z 2E ID Z
��Mwo>.�� �vUo =off Q
a m sofa YY� w N o. d=� 00 J
H v as Q� na a m ni a m w J H U A\ C7
`mo o_ m= ai Y Y m m m 'a Q
UI�Q m mmw ora ���ii ii a�E o o 2 ¢mow z
LLI¢¢a y N 0
F- Eo Q Y�Y.N. E E E E E o owo w► a
(nNU -o r2 ��0— 0- zz'� zoU U) M W
>
C/ Q w
6 G q S J w
M9'S 9 S 4 5
O� � 11 6 s U O
idu v a Nn s) Q U) w
A3bo1 s s3a�-u nw Z w w
h also oad Q �� o
��O18 J J
w (D
wO �
qo o °� E 5 J
(D)1 n 9 ^tlou Ol
� Jw
Jj PZ
LL N N O M
� I 3 lloydsy N N N N O CD
OQ O/ a a�i� N W N CSI
_ N
cr } N OM w co
:11C siawW o�pRy vayaW sacJ o Jj / S Lu c,,! Q ON � m
vLU
�j 9 s£ I M ° o og aoxS LL w Of} Da 0
o wow>>wU
to ALL n 0
aMa
E"
O
E N
Z 3 £
�oManuO /9I a] v LO
Ih S I O N I ��, J o
N
LL�j IoM anuQ c O I O O N
O�
vj iJ W _ E I� / wU\\- f O J
O
Z '�aAl2AUQo a mGa Lo w
.o h ° 5 J W
— m 0o U ►�((`-"�� Z U Q
3
C:' Cf)
e
o h u
wM A��a Z
e a o
SL 64I dnoAaApQ �' - at �i
_ cI n m N
h
iwii,�l P V O -D
s V E
a O
��m 332 V
0
era`s o
6, � ��'� 9. ��� wato _ • as �L � �
LI I
o6, off^ 1� dao �n� o
\�o%® aJy Q wcc) z
�fi ���� ® 9 �� W LU
m
% b�L� W
9
/j m 0
{y>6,p 17
O O
a J �
O
3
0
mm x
o�
Q a E
LU CD Q
F H C7! r�
N N X U> O « w
N min UO OO
c� www LO Iry
� w E m0 C?
7:,7- c O
Q
Q M M Q
M N ci
Q No 00 �� E� Q wC=7 � Oo
2 N-ZEO E m N ¢ S \ V' I..- u
U¢ N M v m a E Y Z m o Of Z O z
co c cod w o> `m W ¢ m \
U) g E. �IT rn o o do a
my E-2 L naa mma m Cn .. U) c) 00 (.7
Qm ao o'er �YY m m co 'a
of Z v'
c'¢Q_-co <° Y' .1`0 `o a`_ EU) E ? °ern �wZ N � = Q O
J
s •-•- ._ c E E o Ow0 M a o
cnNU �m�¢ a -a» mm0- (f) F
U " o T g
° _ ��
a ¢ o
�LL EQ z J w
o
N4- Z M
U) m
eh J O z w
/ 7 y pie o w w
a m
O O
W Y
y0 Z W W
I.'vy7 arae) G6 s04Ob a �Jy 6 c
JJaap'- 11
N
W Q
os 0 9 cYO��O��� U
W
y% �s J� ���
1
SL O ` ae 9 g Od O N N M
N
N W p N
wM
¢ N H W
�� LU 6 LU CQ W CO
» 0
O W W U
c Z LL ¢ w O
a O ✓ \ D� 5b S 5
/ \
a
y 2 z o � o° ON
\ hF 0 3
N .z c�
hF P o/ I a oN
C%S ` 13 Q o
_ O CD p N
ti� J w
o
6ui;�aod ao}isin I E Q
co
J�
M
z
o Q
°p J
Z o �
W z
W w
m
�l `8so 6)U w
4�d m
o
+ FIF
i% =F
Y E °A
February 26, 2024
P L A N N I N G
URBAN DESIGN
LANDSCAPE
ARCHI.l LC_C UF�L
Mr. Eric Schneider
Senior Planner
City of Kitchener
Planning Division, 6th Floor
200 King Street West,
Kitchener ON, N2G 4G7
Dear Mr. Schneider:
RE: Request for Private Street Naming
130 Otterbein Road (Blocks 3 and 4, Plan 58M-654, Kolb Creek Subdivision),
Kitchener
OUR FILE 19129D
On behalf of our client, Kolb Creek Land Corp., please accept this letter as our request for the creation
of a private street for the condominium development planned at 130 Otterbein Road, in the City of
Kitchener.
We kindly ask that the City consider Nitin Jain Street as the preferred private street name within the
site plan. We have confirmed availability of the street name with Amalia Walker of the Region of
Waterloo. We ask that City staff also provide confirmation of the acceptability of the proposed street
names. A reference plan has been prepared by MTE (OLS) for the purposes of the Street Naming By-
law, and is included in this submission.
The following documents are included in this submission to support our request:
• A cheque payable to City of Kitchener in the amount of $1,375.00 representing the 2024
fee for Private Street Naming.
• A cheque payable to City of Kitchener in the amount of $1,650.00 representing the legal
fees for processing the Private Street Naming Request.
• Reference Plan identifying the limits of the private street (shown as Part 1 and 2), prepared
by MTE (OLS) Ltd.
• Copy of current Site Plan for 130 Otterbein Road.
• Correspondence from Regional staff confirming acceptability of proposed street name.
200-540 Bingemans Centre Drive Kitchener, ON I N2B 3X9 519-576-3650 www.mhbcplan.cam
Page 8 of 400
We kindly ask that staff prepare a report, to be presented at the next available Community and
Infrastructure Services Committee, to support approval of the creation of the private street. Please
contact the undersigned with a confirmed Community and Infrastructure Services Committee date to
approve the request.
A hard copy if the above -noted materials will be delivered to the City under separate cover.
If you require any additional information please contact the undersigned.
Yours truly,
MHBC
Dave Aston, MSc, MCIP, RPP
Partner
CC. Nitin Jain
Garett Stevenson
Luisa Vacondio, BES, MCIP, RPP
Planner
Page 9 of 400
Good Morning Paige and Tara,
VVnhave discussed with our client and they are fine with the proposed private street name of
Otterbein Crescent to address Fire Prevention's request. Can you kindly advise on the next
steps to bring the private street naming by-law to Council to finalize?
Thank you,
Luisa
MHBCPlanning, Urban Design & Landscape Architecture
540 Bingemans Centre Drive, Suite 200 1 Kitchener I ON I N213 3X9 I T 519 576 3650
Follow us: Webpage | Linkedin | Facebook | X | Vimeo | Instagram
14 1
From: Paige Thompson
Sent: Maroh'l4'241:58PIVI
To: Dave Aston
Cc:TaraZhan8 >
Subject: 13UOtterbeinRoad Private Street Name Request
Hello Dave,
I hope this email finds you well. I am reaching out to you regarding your private street name request for
13OOtterbeinRoad.
We were advised by Fire Prevention staff to change the street name to "Otterbein Crescent" instead of
"Nitin Jain Street" as it meets the City's street naming policies and is consistent with the Council's
Addressing Policy.
If you have any questions or need further clarification, please feel free to reach out. Thank you for your
understanding and cooperation.
All the best,
Page 10 of 400
Paige Thompson
Planning Student I Planning Division I City of Kitchener..P.2.e,Thom son kitchener,ca
Thanks Derrick, I appreciate it.
The city would prefer to keep with the naming policy, so Otterbein Crescent is advised to the applicant
as the street name.
Tara, please let the occupant know when you return.
Thanks,
�
Fire Prevention Officer I City of Kitchener
519®741®2200 Ext. 5509 1 TTY 1®866®969®9994 I Jlirnimii.ir::irirnl�iitclheineir„c
From: Derrick Hambly < l..l.g.M i.y@regiionofwaterVoo.ca>
Sent: Wednesday, March 13, 2024 10:44 AM
To: Jennifer Arends <.J_en_r�.ii. - r Aird.inds_ .I kitdhen_erxa.>; Paige Thompson
<IPa_i.ge.Thomi soinCfkirtclheiner.ca>; Chris Rumig <ru.inm.ii ere iioinofwaterlloo.ca>; Dave Seller
<Dave.Se.II.I_"!r.�m_kitclheineir._ca>; Beth Bruno <.B t1h.:_IE3r n .@.kitc.Ihen_er.ca>; Tara Zhang
<Tara.Zlhangklhin.r .a.>
....o.....
Subject: RE: Private Street Naming Request - 130 Otterbein Road
Hi Jennifer,
Thanks for the detailed response.
Our preference is no duplicates at all, although this would probably be a less impactful duplication than
some other scenarios I can think of.
Based on your description it sounds like Otterbein Crescent would adhere to the City's street naming
policy, and ultimately the City is the authority when it comes to street names.
Regards,
Derrick
Derrick Hambly, GIS Analyst
Region of Waterloo I dhambly(cDregionofwaterloo.ca
Page 11 of 400
From: Jennifer Arends <.leinniifer.AreindsC@kitclheneir.ca>
Sent: Wednesday, March 13, 2024 9:45 AM
To: Derrick Hambly <.Q_pdao b.J. giioinoffwaterVoo.ca>; Paige Thompson
<I.:i. e. hom .son kutcher�er.ca>; Chris Rumig <Crpvo_ureuonofwaterlloo.ca>; Dave Seller
<Dave.Se.VI_ _r _kitc_hener.ca>; Beth Bruno <Beth..Br ruq_ _kitc........................................ er.>; Tara Zhang
<Tara.Zhan ex kitchener.ca>
...............................................
Subject: RE: Private Street Naming Request - 130 Otterbein Road
"EXTERNAL ALERT** This email originated from outside the Region of Waterloo.
Verify any links or attachments before clicking/opening.
Hi Derrick,
It's my understanding that our fire crews are trained to identify crescent with the same proper name as
the parent street as providing two access points from a parent street with the same proper name. It's
Part of the city's street naming policy under 4.2.(b)(iii) that all proposed streets having two connections
to a parent street bear the suffix, Crescent. One crescent extending from the parent street should bear
the same proper name as the parent street.
Now the clause does say should so it isn't a hard and fast rule — but I believe the suffix Crescent would
still be useful for our crews to identify the street as having two connections to a parent street. Under
clause iv of the same area of the policy identified that all proposed local roads over than cul-de-sacs and
crescents bear the suffix street, drive, avenue or trail — so using the Street suffix wouldn't align with
Kitchener's policy.
Let me know your thoughts on using the suffix crescent.
Thank you,
Jennifer Arend
Fire Prevention Officer I City of Kitchener
519®741®2200 Ext. 5509 I TTY 1®666®969®9994 I Ileininiiffeir„areinCI�iitclheineir„c
Page 12 of 400
From: Derrick Hambly <[ ¢.:I rmb�.Y. r g.ii_onoffwateirlloo...ca>
Sent: Wednesday, March 13, 2024 9:24 AM
To: Jennifer Arends < _ _.nJa.��_r r _r7_dsf k.J..c eu�_e_U .>; Paige Thompson
<I.:i. e.l hom .son kutcher�er.ca>; Chris Rumig <Crpvo_ureuonofwaterlloo.ca>; Dave Seller
<(Dave.Se.VI_ _r _kitc_hener.ca>; Beth Bruno <Betlh..Br m a_ _kitc........................................ r >; Tara Zhang
<Tara.Zhan ex kitchener.ca>
...............................................
Subject: RE: Private Street Naming Request - 130 Otterbein Road
Some people who received this message don't often get email from dha bly@regionofwaterloo.ca. Learn why this is
important
Good morning,
The Region would be opposed to Otterbein Crescent, as it is a duplication of the existing Otterbein Road.
As a rule, we do not support duplicate street names due to the potential for confusion in an emergency
situation.
Regards,
Derrick
Derrick Hambly, GIS Analyst
Region of Waterloo I dham bly(@regionofwaterloo.ca
From: Jennifer Arends <1_e_on.in.ifer.Are_nds..c _k:itclhen_e.ir.ca.>
Sent: Wednesday, March 13, 2024 8:44 AM
To: Derrick Hambly <DIINa_m..bl . r .giiain_offwaterll q:ca>; Paige Thompson
<IP ig .: l pinm12srm l�ii.tclh ineir._ca>; Chris Rumig <Crui>nil r�g.iionc G ry irllga c >; Dave Seller
<y..II.I._r._kiclhm.r.c>; Beth Bruno .L. ineir.ca>; Tara Zhang
<Tara.Zlhang%kclhinlr.ca>
.. .....................
Subject: RE: Private Street Naming Request - 130 Otterbein Road
**EXTERNAL ALERT** This email originated from outside the Region of Waterloo.
Verify any links or attachments before clicking/opening.
Hi Tara,
The city street naming policy would dictate that we'd prefer Otterbein Crescent — as this is a crescent off
that street and I don't believe there are any existing crescents.
Thank you, let me know if you have any questions.
Fire Prevention Officer I City of Kitchener
519®741®2200 Ext. 5509 I TTY 1®666®969®9994 I Ilelnniifer„arends lkiitchener„ca
Page 13 of 400
From: Derrick Hambly <[ a.:f mb.J. (e ire iionofwaterlloo.ca>
Sent: Tuesday, March 12, 2024 1:46 PM
To: Paige Thompson <I..'...�.i.g�.,.11:lh_¢ i ..ps .im..: lkii.t .lh irreir.._ >; Chris Rumig <.0 it ir0.ii I@iregiioinofwaterlloo.ca>;
Dave Seller <Dave:Se.V.I_e_r. _kG tchener.._xa>; Jennifer Arends <J.e.n.nffe.r Are_nds.@.ki:teh _w_er.e .>; Beth Bruno
<Be'th.BrunoCa)ki'tchener.ca>
Cc: Tara Zhang <[AEg.aZ_ _ro.g kiitchener.ca>
Subject: RE: Private Street Naming Request - 130 Otterbein Road
Some people who received this message don't often get email from dha bly c�regionofwaterloo.ca. Learn why this is
important
Hi Paige,
I can confirm that Nitin Jain Street has been reserved for this development, so MHBC may go ahead
with using that name.
Regards,
Derrick
Derrick Hambly, GIS Analyst
Region of Waterloo I dham bly(@regionofwaterloo.ca
From: Paige Thompson <Iii .iige.Thompsoin(@kitcheiner.ca>
Sent: Tuesday, March 12, 2024 10:02 AM
To: Derrick Hambly < l-J.a_rn_bl.y. _r -..g onofwateHoo.ca>; Chris Rumig <Cir mi Oregiionofwaterloo.ca>;
Dave Seller <[feye eIII_er. ..kiitcherner.ga>; Jennifer Arends <Jennffer Airernds_ _k:itel i�eir cp>; Beth Bruno
<Betlh.113runo kitchener.ca>
.....................................................................................................................
Cc: Tara Zhang l iitchen_er.._�a>
Subject: Private Street Naming Request - 130 Otterbein Road
**EXTERNAL ALERT** This email originated from outside the Region of Waterloo.
Verify any links or attachments before clicking/opening.
Hi everyone,
Please see the attached formal request from MHBC seeking a private street naming request for 130
Otterbein Road. See attached for supporting documents and fees.
The letter requests:
Nitin Jain Street
If you have any comments, please advise me and Tara Zhang (t.r.z.ti.r�ll<ft.hmer.,e) by: March 26,
2024.
Thank you,
Paige Thompson
Page 14 of 400
Planning Student I Planning Division I City of Kitchener,Pa_' e.Chornson hitrheneU.ca
Page 15 of 400
/ gay
HA
E&vee
\\ H cai=`Uei
M"spa§38��
6 a00000000000000000
.......t8a5hkm-man
Staff Report
Development Services Department www.kitchener.ca
REPORT TO: Planning and Strategic Initiatives Committee
DATE OF MEETING: April 22, 2024
SUBMITTED BY: Anna Marie Cipriani, Corporate Sustainability Officer, 519-741-2200
ext. 7322.
PREPARED BY: Anna Marie Cipriani, Corporate Sustainability Officer, 519-741-2200
ext. 7322
Hilary Irving, Sustainability Advisor, 519-741-2200 ext. 7137
Luke Reesor-Keller, Project Manager, Facilities and Energy
Management, 519-741-2600 ext. 4610
WARD(S) INVOLVED: Ward(s)
DATE OF REPORT: April 3, 2024
REPORT NO.: DSD -2024-074
SUBJECT: Corporate Climate Action Plan (CorCAP) 2.0 Pivot: Net -Zero
RECOMMENDATION:
That the 2023 City of Kitchener Corporate greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions inventory
update be received for information; and,
That Council endorse a corporate 2050 net -zero target; and,
That the second -generation Corporate Climate Action Plan (CorCAP) 2.0 Pivot: Net -
Zero, Attachment A to DSD -2024-074 be endorsed; and further,
That the Corporate Climate Action Plan (CorCAP) 2.0 Pivot: Net -Zero, Attachment A
to DSD -2024-074, be submitted to the Federation of Canadian Municipalities, Partners
for Climate Protection Program in support of renewed Milestones 1 - 3.
REPORT HIGHLIGHTS:
• Corporate Climate Action Plan (CorCAP) 2.0, Pivot. Net -Zero (Attachment A to report
DSD -2024-074) provides a progress update to the end of 2023 on City of Kitchener's
corporate GHG reduction target. Currently a 5% GHG reduction is noted from 2016-
2023. It is uncertain if this reduction will be sustained without continued intentional
changes to our operations. There are two promising trends - sustained reduction in
GHGs from streetlights and a potential decoupling of growth and GHGs in Corporate
Facilities and Fleet and Equipment.
• The report also ushers a second -generation corporate climate action plan for the City
of Kitchener and seeks endorsement of a net -zero by 2050 target for the organization.
*** This information is available in accessible formats upon request. ***
Please call 519-741-2345 or TTY 1-866-969-9994 for assistance.
Page 17 of 400
• The plan strategically focusses on and prioritizes Facilities (Arenas, Administrative
Buildings, and Pools) and Fleet and Equipment — areas where the most significant
impact can be made in reducing corporate GHGs.
• The three overarching pathways to net -zero are identified as energy efficiency, fuel
switching and generating local renewable energy.
• Setting a net -zero target means pivoting our organization. The focus now in our work
towards a net -zero 2050 target is in driving down corporate emissions through the three
pathways and in the future ensuring that any persisting corporate GHG emissions are
removed from the atmosphere.
• There are 47 actions in the plan to 2027 (Attachment B to report DSD -2024-074) that
are foundational to further defining the roadmap of our pivot to net -zero; also outlined
are action timelines and resourcing.
• Staff intend to report the progress on several indicators yearly near Earth Day
(Attachment A to report DSD -2024-074, Pivot. Net -Zero Appendix C)
• The financial implications of the organization achieving net -zero are roughly estimated
at $250M in additional capital funding over the next 25 years or $10M/year.
• Community engagement on the plan included involvement of Kitchener's Climate
Change and Environment Advisory Committee
• This report supports Cultivating a Green City Together: Focuses a sustainable path
to a greener, healthier city; enhancing & protecting parks & natural environment
while transitioning to a low -carbon future; supporting businesses & residents to
make climate -positive choices.
BACKGROUND:
Council previously declared a climate emergency. A first -generation corporate climate
action plan was endorsed by Council (DSD -2019-094) and closed -out on March 7, 2022
(DSD -2022-072). This is a second -generation corporate climate action plan. Pivot. Net
Zero (Attachment A) presents 47 actions to be implemented through to 2027 (Attachment
B) that are anticipated to position the organization well in a pivot to net -zero emissions by
2050. Actions are focussed on reducing GHG emissions in Facilities, and Fleet and
Equipment; as these focus areas offer the greatest opportunity for impact.
If business as usual continues, our community is anticipated to experience a 5°C increase
by the 2080s. We are currently at 1.1 °C higher and it is anticipated that at 2°C higher than
pre -industrial temperatures, the worst impacts of climate change will be experienced. GHG
emissions persist in the atmosphere for decades or longer. This underscores the urgency
of climate action work and the need for deep, rapid, and sustained GHG emission
reductions, achieved by an energy transition and marked by following the pathways of
energy efficiency, fuel switching and generating local renewable energy. The magnitude of
a pivot from an 8% GHG reduction target to net -zero is significant. The implementation of
this second -generation plan will enable this pivot when coupled with significant investment
to do so at scale.
In the summer of 2021 through report DSD -2021-94, Kitchener Council endorsed the
Community Climate Action Plan (TransformWR). This plan adopted community GHG
reduction targets of 50 per cent by 2030 and 80 per cent by 2050. Since these community
targets were set in 2018, there has been a growing understanding and global consensus
that in order to avoid the worst impacts of climate change we need to achieve net -zero
emissions globally by 2050. Despite the 2050 community target being less than net -zero
Page 18 of 400
and less than what is recommended today as best practice; the actions in TransformWR
set our community up for success in a net -zero future.
REPORT:
Our existing corporate GHG reduction target is 8% by 2026. From our 2016 baseline, in
2023 we are seeing a 5% decrease in corporate GHG emissions. In order to sustain these
reductions, Pivot. Net -Zero identifies 47 actions to 2027 strategically focussing on Facilities,
and Fleet and Equipment as these focus areas combined generate 90% of our corporate
emissions. Fossil fuels play an important role in our facilities (for space heating and domestic
hot water). Space heating alone accounts for approximately 80% of natural gas use at
facilities. While in our Fleet and equipment — gasoline and diesel are significant. Gasoline is
used primarily for lighter duty vehicles and diesel in medium and heavy-duty vehicles.
The carbon intensity of different energy sources differs. Electricity is the source of 46% of
our corporate energy in 2023, yet only accounts for 12% of our corporate GHGs. Natural
gas by comparison is the source of 43% of our energy used in 2023— yet accounts for 65%
of our corporate GHGs. Transitioning to lower carbon energy sources can make a
significant impact on our corporate GHGs.
Facilities are responsible for more than half of Kitchener's corporate GHG emissions
(56%). 85% of these GHG emissions are due to natural gas consumption used for space
and water heating. Certain facility types emerge as priority areas for making impact
including Arenas, Administrative Buildings and Pools (Attachment A— Figure 4). Eight of
our top 10 emitting facilities fall into these three categories, including six within the Sport
Division (Arenas and Pools) (Attachment A — Figure 5).
The Fleet Division at the City of Kitchener is an integral part to service delivery across
many departments. In total, Fleet is responsible for nearly 600 on and off-road vehicles
and equipment, and approximately 500 small handheld pieces of equipment. With strong
and consistent support across the entire organization to "electrify when and where
possible", fleet has added 14 battery electric vehicles (BEVs) to their fleet of light duty
vehicles (LDVs). LDVs include cars, cargo vans, SUVs and smaller pick-up trucks and
they make up 40% of our fleet assets but are only responsible for 20% of fleet emissions.
The marketplace currently offers electric options for many LDVs, and this vehicle type is
most ready to transition to zero -emission options. By contrast, the medium and heavy-duty
vehicle marketplace is limited in its offering of zero emissions vehicle options. Vehicles in
this category include dump trucks, large pick-up trucks (e.g., Ford 550) and fire trucks.
Medium and heavy-duty vehicles represent 35% of our total fleet assets and 63% of our
fleet and equipment emissions (Attachment A — Figure 6). Therefore, even by electrifying
all of our light-duty vehicles, the majority of emissions from this focus area will persist until
viable options present in the marketplace. Making significant and sustained corporate fleet
GHG reductions will continue to be a challenge not readily remedied within the next 5
years.
Pivot. Net -Zero seeks Council's support of a net -zero 2050 target while maintaining our
current 2026 target of an 8% reduction from our 2016 baseline. There are 47 actions
(Attachment B) identified in the plan from 2024-2027 along with the anticipated year of
budget requests, target completion dates and the divisions that will lead and support these
actions. These actions are foundational to developing a roadmap that will align net -zero
Page 19 of 400
actions best with multiple priorities across the organization (e.g., deferred maintenance,
asset renewal, capital planning), streamlining the most strategic approach to making
progress on a new net -zero target. Staff intend to report on progress indicators
(Attachment A, Pivot Net -Zero Appendix C) yearly near Earth Day. Scaling up and
directing funding sources within municipal control to accelerate corporate climate action
work is needed in addition to seeking outside support (e.g., through advocacy and grants).
STRATEGIC PLAN ALIGNMENT:
This report supports Cultivating a Green City Together: Focuses a sustainable path to
a greener, healthier city; enhancing & protecting parks & natural environment while
transitioning to a low -carbon future; supporting businesses & residents to make
climate -positive choices.
FINANCIAL IMPLICATIONS:
Significant capital investments will be required to sustain deeper corporate GHG reductions.
As technological solutions emerge and are deployed across our organization, we may see
financial benefits such as decreased capital expenditures and operational savings for
instance. It is estimated that $250M in additional capital funding will be needed over the next
25 years (or $10M/year) to work towards achieving net -zero GHG emissions by 2050. Such
a substantial investment in this corporate focus would likely require the use of several
financing options such as pursuing external grant funding opportunities, utilizing ongoing
funding from the City's energy reserve fund, potentially issuing debt, and consideration of
other funding strategies. For context, a 1% increase to the City's tax rate generates $1.6M
in additional revenue. Ongoing advocacy with other levels of government for funding will be
important as the City will not be able to achieve this new target without significant funding
being provided from other levels of government.
COMMUNITY ENGAGEMENT:
Throughout the development of the report staff informed and consulted the Climate Change
and Environment Committee. Motions from the committee include the following:
January 18, 2024:"That the committee support the City of Kitchener corporate net -zero by
2050 target and incorporate periodic updates to the Climate Change and Environment
Committee.
February 15, 2024: "That the committee support the City of Kitchener proposed metrics for
annual reporting on progress towards our corporate goal of net -zero carbon emissions by
2050".
March 21, 2024: "That the committee endorse the draft City of Kitchener Corporate Climate
Action Plan 2.0 Pivot: Net -Zero, with emphasis on the urgent need to assess the potential
and value of expanding additional funding sources within our control".
PREVIOUS REPORTS/AUTHORITIES:
• DSD -2024-074
APPROVED BY: Justin Readman
ATTACHMENTS:
Page 20 of 400
Attachment A — Pivot: Net-Zero
Attachment B — Pivot: Net-Zero Actions by Division (Appendix B)
Page 21 of 400
CorCAP 2.0 — Pivot: Net -Zero (2023-2027)
1 Introduction..........................................................................................................................................5
1.1 Climate Change 101 and Local Impacts........................................................................................5
1.2 The Context Regarding Net-Zero..................................................................................................
5
1.2.1 Pivoting towards Net -Zero Future........................................................................................5
Climate imperative to achieve net-zero............................................................................................6
Managing risk and preparing for opportunities................................................................................6
1.3 Two generations of Climate Action at the City of Kitchener........................................................7
1.3.1 First Generation....................................................................................................................7
1.3.2 Second Generation................................................................................................................7
1.3.3 CorCAP 2.0 Framework.........................................................................................................8
1.3.4 Influence and Impact............................................................................................................8
1.4 Corporate GHG Inventory.............................................................................................................9
1.4.1 Variations in GHG Intensity.................................................................................................10
1.5 Strategic Priorities by Focus Area...............................................................................................11
1.5.1 Facilities...............................................................................................................................11
1.5.2 Fleet & Equipment..............................................................................................................13
1.5.3 Streetlighting.......................................................................................................................14
1.5.4 Staff Travel..........................................................................................................................14
1.5.5 Corporate Waste.................................................................................................................15
1.6 Historical Trends 2016 — 2023....................................................................................................15
1.6.1 Noteworthy Trends in the data...........................................................................................16
Sustained GHG reduction in Streetlighting.....................................................................................16
Servicegrowth and GHGs...............................................................................................................16
COVID-19 Pandemic impacts on GHGs...........................................................................................16
ElectricityGrid.................................................................................................................................16
HeatingDegree Days.......................................................................................................................17
Corporate and Community Emissions.............................................................................................17
2 The Plan — Pivot: Net-Zero..................................................................................................................18
2.1 Corporate priority pathways.......................................................................................................18
2.2 Facilities Focus Area....................................................................................................................18
2.2.1 Defining a Net -Zero building...............................................................................................18
2.2.2 Facilities Energy Management Program.............................................................................19
Energy Management Practices.......................................................................................................19
1
Page 22 of 400
CorCAP 2.0 — Pivot: Net -Zero (2023-2027)
EnergyManagement Policy............................................................................................................19
Energy Management Monitoring System.......................................................................................19
Facilities Energy Management Technical Advisory Committee......................................................19
2.2.3 Corporate Green Building Standard....................................................................................19
2.2.4 GHG Reduction Pathway Development..............................................................................20
2.2.5 Arenas Strategy...................................................................................................................20
2.2.6 Pool Strategy.......................................................................................................................20
2.2.7 Facility Acquisition & Decommissioning Policy...................................................................20
2.2.8 Solar Strategy......................................................................................................................21
2.2.9 HVAC fuel switching modelling...........................................................................................21
2.2.10 Ice Resurfacing Pilot............................................................................................................21
2.2.11 HVAC Fuel Switching...........................................................................................................21
2.3 Fleet and Equipment...................................................................................................................22
2.3.1 Fleet Asset Management Plan............................................................................................22
2.3.2 Fleet Efficiency....................................................................................................................22
FleetTelematics..............................................................................................................................22
FleetUsers Working Group.............................................................................................................22
Corporate Fuel Efficiency Policy......................................................................................................22
Fleet Driver Training & Corrective Procedures...............................................................................23
Right-sizing......................................................................................................................................
23
EfficientRoute Planning..................................................................................................................23
Fleet Equipment Review Process....................................................................................................23
2.3.3 Fuel Switching.....................................................................................................................23
Electrifying vehicles and equipment...............................................................................................23
EVCharging Infrastructure..............................................................................................................24
EV Charging Station Asset Management Plan................................................................................24
Zero Emissions Vehicle (ZEV) Transition Strategy / Sustainable Fleet Strategy .............................24
AlternativeFuels.............................................................................................................................
25
LowerCarbon Fuels.....................................................................................................................25
Biodiesel 5, Biodiesel 20, and Ethanol Blend 10%..................................................................25
RenewableDiesel....................................................................................................................25
Propane...................................................................................................................................
25
Compressed Natural Gas.........................................................................................................25
2
Page 23 of 400
CorCAP 2.0 — Pivot: Net -Zero (2023-2027)
Zero Tailpipe Emission Fuels.......................................................................................................25
Hydrogen.................................................................................................................................
25
2.3.4 Fleet Integrated Renewable Energy & Storage Systems.....................................................26
2.4 Streetlights..................................................................................................................................26
2.5 Staff Travel..................................................................................................................................
26
2.6 Corporate Waste.........................................................................................................................26
2.7 Implementation..........................................................................................................................27
2.7.1 Capacity Building, Readiness and Timing............................................................................27
Corporate Climate Change Literacy Modules.................................................................................27
2.7.2 Partners and Engagement...................................................................................................27
ProjectTeams and Staff..................................................................................................................27
Kitchener Climate Change and Environment Advisory Committee................................................27
Community......................................................................................................................................
27
Dataholders....................................................................................................................................28
En ova...............................................................................................................................................
28
SWR.................................................................................................................................................
28
Research and Innovation Partners..................................................................................................28
2.7.3 Funding Net-Zero................................................................................................................28
Expanding existing Funding Sources within our control.................................................................28
Energy Management Reserve Fund................................................................................................28
Fleet Replacement Reserve Fund...................................................................................................29
Gra nts..............................................................................................................................................
30
Advocacy.........................................................................................................................................
30
2.7.4 Future Considerations.........................................................................................................30
Refrigerant Fugitive Emissions........................................................................................................30
EmbodiedCarbon...........................................................................................................................30
OffsetPolicy....................................................................................................................................30
2.7.5 Informed and Integrated Decision Making.........................................................................31
PolicyAlignment.............................................................................................................................31
Strategic Planning, Business Plans and Budgets.............................................................................31
2.7.6 Accountability and Reporting.............................................................................................31
External Reporting Frameworks.....................................................................................................31
Legislated....................................................................................................................................31
3
Page 24 of 400
CorCAP 2.0 — Pivot: Net -Zero (2023-2027)
3
4
5
Voluntary...............................................................................................................................
InternalReporting Frameworks................................................................................................
CarbonBudgets.....................................................................................................................
Reporting on Progress towards Net-Zero.............................................................................
Corporate..........................................................................................................................
FocusAreas.......................................................................................................................
Fleet..............................................................................................................................
Facilities.........................................................................................................................
Project Level Indicators.................................................................................................
Reserve Fund Indicators................................................................................................
2.8 Conclusion.............................................................................................................................
APPENDIX A— Corporate GHG Inventory, Baseline Adjustments & Methodology .......................
3.1 Methodology.........................................................................................................................
3.2 Assets in the GHG Inventory.................................................................................................
3.2.1 2016 Baseline Adjustment............................................................................................
3.2.2 Facilities Inclusion Criteria............................................................................................
Appendix B — Summary of CorCAP 2.0: Pivot Net -Zero Actions by Division .................................
Appendix C —Annual Progress Reporting.....................................................................................
31
31
31
31
32
32
32
32
33
33
33
34
34
34
35
35
37
38
4
Page 25 of 400
CorCAP 2.0 — Pivot: Net -Zero (2023-2027)
I II n .t it o d u Ct I o in
I. Climate Change 101. and Local Impacts
Climate change is a global problem being experienced and addressed at the local level in municipalities
across the globe. At its core (and the focus of this report), climate change is a result of decades of
burning of fossil fuels for energy. When fossil fuels are burned, they release greenhouse gases (GHGs)
into the atmosphere — including carbon dioxide (CO2) and methane (CH4). This addition of GHGs to our
atmosphere keeps radiant heat in, warming the planet through the intensification of the natural
greenhouse effect that otherwise helps to regulate earth's surface temperatures.
Over time, this has resulted in an increase in average global surface temperatures. Recent data shows
2023 as the hottest year on record, with average temperatures nearly 1.5°C higher than pre -industrial
(1850-1900) levels. It is anticipated that, at 2°C higher than pre -industrial temperatures, communities
across the globe will experience the worst impacts of climate change. At home in Canada, temperatures
are rising twice as fast as the global average — and three times as fast in Canadian Arctic communities.
Specifically in our region, local climate modelling completed in 2022 predicts warmer, wetter, and wilder
weather with more extreme heat and extended heat waves, warmer overnight temperatures and fewer
days that fall below -15°C. We have already witnessed the effects of a warming climate by an increase in
both frequency and severity of extreme weather events that can damage infrastructure and disrupt
services. These events include ice storms, heavy rainfall, severe thunderstorms, prolonged heat waves
and droughts. Further to this, these effects disproportionately affect vulnerable communities,
exacerbating inequalities and undermining efforts to achieve sustainable development. Mitigation
efforts aim to reduce GHG emissions, limit temperature rise, and minimize the severity of climate
impacts, thereby safeguarding ecosystems, protecting livelihoods, and ensuring a more resilient and
equitable future for all. Given the urgency and scale of the challenge, concerted action at the individual,
community, corporate, and governmental levels is essential to mitigate climate change and preserve a
habitable planet for current and future generations.
What we have come to know as "business as usual" regarding energy consumption is anticipated to lead
towards a 5°C increase in global average temperatures. This underscores the urgency of climate action
work and the need for deep, rapid, and sustained GHG emission reductions, achieved by an energy
transition off fossil fuels.
1..2 The Context Regarding Net Zero
1.2.1 Pivoting towards Net -Zero Future
The City is preparing for a net -zero emissions energy future. Achieving net -zero emissions means cutting
greenhouse gas emissions from human activities to as close to zero as possible, with any remaining
emissions re -absorbed from the atmosphere.
Because most emissions are caused by burning fossil fuels for energy, achieving net -zero emissions is
mostly about achieving a clean energy transition, moving our energy use step-by-step off fossil fuels and
to other non -emitting forms of energy. Net -zero is a meaningfully different target than common
previous commitments, which often had a final goal of producing fewer emissions than are currently
being produced in a final target year, using a percentage -based reduction. However, when these kinds
of targets are achieved, significant emissions will continue to be produced every year after the target is
reached. When additional GHGs are released into the atmosphere, mostly through energy use, those
Page 26 of 400
CorCAP 2.0 — Pivot: Net -Zero (2023-2027)
emissions and their impact remain in the atmosphere for decades, or even centuries. Adding emissions
to the atmosphere is like adding water to a bathtub; as long as you are adding more water to the tub
than is draining from it, the water in the tub will rise and eventually overflow.
Achieving net -zero and getting emissions as close to zero as possible will mean transitioning the City
away from fossil fuel use for energy. This means making systemic changes to our activities and assets,
and treating interim emissions reduction targets as a guideline to indicate whether we are on track to
achieve the speed and scale of change that is needed to avert the worst impacts of climate change and
reach net -zero by 2050.
Chirnate uimlpeiratiive to achieve irnet-zeiro
There are two main reasons for the City to prepare for a net -zero energy future, by undertaking our own
transition away from fossil fuels. First the guidance of organizations like the Intergovernmental Panel on
Climate Change (IPCC), acknowledges the imperative to achieve net -zero emissions globally by mid-
century to avoid the worst impacts of climate change.
The City is far from alone in acknowledging that imperative. There is broad global agreement on the
need to achieve net -zero emissions, where we no longer add more GHGs to the atmosphere from
human activities, by mid-century. Canada has joined countries around the world that have committed to
achieving net -zero carbon emissions by 2050, and to reduce emissions to 40-45% below 2005 levels by
2030. More recently, in December 2023, the COP28 negotiations representing nearly 200 countries,
resulted in a consensus statement committing to contribute to global efforts for "transitioning away
from fossil fuels in energy systems, accelerating action in this critical decade, so as to achieve net zero
by 2050.
Climate change is a global problem with local causes and local solutions. Given these efforts across the
world, The City of Kitchener has a responsibility as an organization to do our part by addressing our
corporate GHGs - the GHGs that are emitted by way of our service delivery to the community.
Managing irisk and preparing for olplporW niitiies
The second reason to undertake the City's energy transition to prepare for a net -zero future is to
manage risk and prepare for future opportunities. Energy systems are changing around us, and lower
carbon technologies are changing the way we get and use energy. In this context, there are policy and
regulatory risks to the City that arise from continuing business as usual, as energy systems change
around us. Currently, as is the case in many countries, pollution pricing is in effect across Canada, which
highlights the financial risk of inaction regarding an energy transition. The City spent approximately
$654,000 on the federal pollution pricing benchmark in 2023 through its fuel and electricity bills, and
this number is currently scheduled to rise over time. These costs are in addition to the volatility
associated with fossil fuel prices, which can unexpectedly put pressure on budgets for municipalities.
There is also a social cost to inaction in the energy transition. For every tonne of GHG emitted from our
operations, there is additional damage to society felt through the impacts of climate change. According
to Environment and Climate Change Canada's estimate for the social cost of carbon, Kitchener's GHG
emissions for 2023 can be equated to approximately $2.8 million in societal damages. Conversely, as
GHG emissions are reduced (or otherwise removed from the atmosphere), it will be possible to quantify
the benefit this has to society.
Page 27 of 400
CorCAP 2.0 – Pivot: Net -Zero (2023-2027)
While specific policy mechanisms may change overtime, climate- and emissions -related policies are
likely to be a continuing and growing feature of the policy and regulatory landscape in the coming
decades. Advancing the City's corporate energy transition best prepares the City to withstand and
prosper under various climate and energy policy initiatives.
Preparing to achieve net -zero will also put the City in the best position to take advantage of clean energy
opportunities in the coming decades as the policy and industry environment evolves. Governments at
various levels are increasingly investing in and funding the energy transition. Provincial policies and
investments enabling the development of clean tech industries, such as EV battery manufacturing, have
been increasing as well. Funding opportunities can be linked to specific GHG performance, and it is
reasonable to expect that these requirements could become more common for various types of funding.
Aligning City capital investments and operating practices to achieve net -zero will put the City in a strong
position to remain competitive in the evolving funding and investment landscape.
1,3 two generations of Climate action at the City of Kitchener
1.3.1 First Generation
The City of Kitchener has long been committed to taking action against climate change, exemplified by
our membership in the Federation of Canadian Municipalities – Partners for Climate Protection (FCM
PCP) dating back to its inception in the early 1990s. The PCP program is funded by ICLEI—Local
Governments for Sustainability (ICLEI Canada) and the Federation of Canadian Municipalities' Green
Municipal Fund. Kitchener voluntarily reported actions that reduced our corporate GHG emissions
starting around 2008.
In 2018, the City established the Sustainability Office, solidifying its commitment to climate action in our
corporate structure. In 2019 the office published the inaugural Kitchener Corporate Climate Action Plan
(CorCAP 1.0 - DSD -19-094), and reported on its ,Ipirpgrss,.
CorCAP 1.0 set a Corporate GHG reduction target of 8% by 2026 from a 2016 baseline year. The year
following its publication, on March 11', 2020, the World Health Organization declared COVID-19 a
Global Pandemic. This declaration brought a swift and significant drop in corporate GHG emissions
because of lockdowns that shut down City facilities and enacted work from home orders. What this
meant is that in 2020 the City of Kitchener exceeded this 8% GHG reduction target. However, in the
years since, corporate GHG emissions have rebounded.
The first generation CorCAP was closed out March 7, 2022 (DSD 2022-072) and the City of Kitchener
achieved FCM PCP Milestones 1-5.
1.3.2 Second Generation
This second -generation corporate climate action plan sets out to achieve the same 8% target endorsed
in CorCAP 1.0, along with making a much deeper commitment to being net -zero by 2050. The magnitude
in shift from an 8% reduction target to net -zero target is significant. Realizing sustained GHG reductions
and indeed a net -zero future does not rest on a suite of individual, one-off projects. Kitchener will need
to make significant capital investments, strategic, systemic, and deeply integrated changes to corporate
processes, business planning and policies along with the willingness to adopt and integrate promising
solutions as they become available. This second -generation plan seeks to orient the organization in
making sustained GHG reductions and in the direction of progress on this net -zero goal.
Page 28 of 400
CorCAP 2.0 — Pivot: Net -Zero (2023-2027)
1.3.3 CorCAP 2.0 Framework
This report is Part 1 of 3 related bodies of work. Parts 1 and 2 focus on climate change mitigation, with
Part 1 focusing on driving down our corporate GHG emissions. Part 2 will focus on decarbonizing our
communities energy supply Q i.tchener.._Ut:iHiit:iies.._ lea.n_._IErrp_e_Irgy._S.tra.g) and reducing our overall
community energy demand (ira_sfc�.irrrn.._V.If2). Part 3 will shift focus to climate change adaptation
through the City of Kitchener Corporate Climate Adaptation Plan, complemented by the ,iF.3.� up.m qF
Waterloomm�ni�y �.i.a2
i,ii.......................... ..1a.ti_pin t"Ila_2.
1.3.4 Influence and Impact
The City of Kitchener corporate GHG emissions represent less than 1% of our total region -wide
community emissions. Nonetheless this 1% of emissions is accepted as our corporate responsibility.
Municipalities additionally have influence on over 50% of community GHG emissions and this focus is
the work of Phase 2 of this plan which includes Kitchener Utilities' Clean Energy Transition Strategy and
TransformWR our community climate action plan.
Strategically focusing effort in areas within our control is the focus of this plan. GHG emissions are
commonly classified into three scopes and as under our direct or indirect control. Scope 1 emissions are
under our direct control (e.g., corporate fleet and equipment and natural gas combustion in our
facilities); whereas scope 2 and 3 are indirect emissions. Indirect emissions are not in our direct control
(e.g., emissions from the electricity that is generated offsite that we consume at our facilities).
Page 29 of 400
CorCAP 2.0 — Pivot: Net -Zero (2023-2027)
1.4 Corporate GHG Inventory
The City of Kitchener reports on GHG emissions in five corporate focus areas, presented below in Figure
1. These corporate focus areas are consistent across most if not all municipalities. GHG emissions are
calculated based on energy consumption (fuel, electricity, natural gas) and emissions factors from
verified sources (these details are further described in Appendix A).
iim If=aciiliitiies
n� Ifsleet: & II::::quilpment:
Staff II ravel)
Stireetllightiing
ni Waste
M.
Figure 1— 2023 Corporate GHG Emissions by Focus Area
In 2023, the City of Kitchener emitted 10,947 tonnes of GHGs (COze). Ninety percent of these emissions
came from two corporate focus areas — Facilities (56%) and Fleet & Equipment (34%), which is a typical
distribution when looking back over the last several years. When we look at our corporate sources of
energy within these two focus areas (Figure 2) particularly the types of fossil fuels we rely on, we see
natural gas playing an important role in our facilities (for space heating and domestic hot water). Space
heating alone accounts for approximately 80% of facilities natural gas use. While in our fleet &
equipment — gasoline and diesel are significant. Gasoline is used primarily for lighter duty vehicles and
diesel in medium and heavy-duty vehicles.
Page 30 of 400
CorCAP 2.0 — Pivot: Net -Zero (2023-2027)
f acilitics
II.Je:c;tric:ity
IIIIIIIIII Ethanol Bland (10%)
ON1111111111 Propaiie
0 1.,000 2,000 3,000 4,000 !.'000 6,000 7„000
t CO.2e
Figure 2 - 2023 Facilities and Fleet & Equipment GHG Emissions by Energy Type
As GHG emissions on their own can be difficult to relate to, utility costs offer an alternative way to look
at energy consumption across the City. Table 1 below outlines costs by energy source for both Facilities
and Fleet & Equipment focus areas. We can expect to see a shift in the distribution of these costs as the
transition away from fossil fuels unfolds, and with the introduction of renewable energy sources. These
savings could be used towards various financing mechanisms to support meeting the costs of this
transition.
Table 1- 2023 Utility and Fuel Costs
Energy Source
2023 Cost
Gasoline (includes gasoline and ethanol blend)
$956,502
Diesel (includes petroleum diesel and biodiesel blends)
$1,086,535
Propane — fleet & equipment
$5,137
Fleet Total
$2,048,174
Propane - facilities
$14,808
Electricity
$4,481,485
Natural Gas
$1,115,797
Facilities Total
$5,612,090
Grand Total
$7,660,264
1.4.1 Variations in GHG Intensity
When it comes to GHG emissions, not all energy sources are equal. This becomes clear when comparing
energy consumption to GHG emissions for different energy sources (Figure 3). The variation in GHG
intensities between different energy sources becomes clear. For instance, electricity is the source for
46% of our corporate energy in 2023, yet only accounts for 12% of our corporate GHGs. Natural gas by
comparison is the source of 43% of our energy used —yet accounts for 65% of our corporate GHGs.
10
Page 31 of 400
CorCAP 2.0 — Pivot: Net -Zero (2023-2027)
Similarly, fleet fuels account for 11% of total corporate energy used, but 22% of corporate GHGs
emissions.
This data provides insight into how transitioning to lower carbon energy sources is important, why it is
sound for this to be a corporate priority and how a corporate energy transition can make a significant
impact on our corporate GHGs and in our corporate journey to net -zero.
Electrudty
F: a ee
un Naturs Gas;
Propane
Energy Consumption by IFnergy Source
0.03%
46%
114mussions by Energy SOUrce
1%
Figure 3 - 2023 Energy Consumption vs Emissions by Energy Source
1.5 Strategic Priorities by Focus Area
1.5.1 Facilities
Facilities are responsible for more than half of Kitchener's corporate GHG emissions (56%). Eighty-five
percent of these GHG emissions are due to natural gas consumption used for space and water heating -
equivalent to 48% of total corporate emissions. Looking at the data with both a facility and energy type
lens, enables a more granular and strategic understanding of Facilities and their contribution to
corporate GHGs. Certain facility types emerge as priority areas for making impact including Arenas,
Administrative Buildings and Pools (Figure 4). This is underscored by looking at the corporate Top 10
GHG emitting facilities (Figure 5), 8 of which fall into these 3 categories, including 6 within the Sport
Division (Arenas and Pools).
11
Page 32 of 400
CorCAP 2.0 — Pivot: Net -Zero (2023-2027)
Areirias
Adirniiiistrative I3uddiiigs IIIIIIIIIIIIIII
Pools IIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIII
Culture & ...intertainirnent IIIIIIIIIIIIIIII
Corni,nuriity Centres IIIIIIIIIIIIIII (III
(:ire Station
Spoifts F:adhty VIII
I braries IIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIII
Golf Coi.irse
1="U11111ing Radon
Parking Garage
Flarks & CerneLaries
0 200 400 600 800 1,000
t CO2e
11111111111 missions from Natural Gas 11 rn(ssions from I lecffidty
1,200 1,400
Figure 4 — 2023 Corporate GHG Emissions by Energy Source and Facility Type
12
Page 33 of 400
CorCAP 2.0 — Pivot: Net -Zero (2023-2027)
r.lie Asad
Kitchener Olaeratioiis I:::aa ilityr
I<itcheiie.r City IHall IIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIII
or'e.st Iieighit.s Pool acid I...ibrrary
Centre irr the Square IIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIII
Slaortsworld Ar'e:rr'ira
:.are itlhaulat Centre l: cx:
Ac:tiva Slaortslalex IIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIII
Kitc::hener' IMarket IIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIII
GraiidIver Recreation Corrflalex
0 .1.00 200 300 400 Soo 600 700 800
IIIIIIIII I:::missioras'fr'osn Natural Gas lE.rnis.sions'Frorn I:::lec'tridty
Figure 5 - 2023 Top 10 GHG Emitting Facilities
1.5.2 Fleet & Equipment
The Fleet Division at the City of Kitchener is an integral part to service delivery across many
departments. In total, Fleet is responsible for nearly 600 on and off-road vehicles and equipment, and
approximately 500 small handheld pieces of equipment.
With strong and consistent support across the entire organization to "electrify when and where
possible," fleet has added 14 battery electric vehicles (BEVs) to their fleet of light duty vehicles (LDVs).
LDVs include cars, cargo vans, SUVs and smaller pick-up trucks and they make up 40% of our fleet assets
but are only responsible for 20% of fleet emissions (Figure 6). The marketplace currently offers electric
options for many LDVs. This vehicle type is most ready to transition to zero -emission options.
By contrast, the medium and heavy-duty vehicle marketplace is limited in its offering of zero emissions
vehicle options. Vehicles in this category include dump trucks, large pick-up trucks (e.g., Ford 550) and
fire trucks. These two categories represent 35% of our total fleet assets and 63% of our fleet and
equipment emissions (Figure 6). Therefore, even by electrifying all of our light-duty vehicles, the
majority of emissions from this focus area will persist until viable options present in the marketplace.
Making significant and sustained corporate fleet GHG reductions will continue to be a challenge not
readily remedied within the next 5 years.
13
Page 34 of 400
CorCAP 2.0 — Pivot: Net -Zero (2023-2027)
in Heavy Duty
Me&unn DULY
dill L.igh'tt Duty
E gLflponr, nt
of IFleet Assets
56 of Fleet IEimksioins
Figure 6 — GHG Emissions by Fleet Vehicle Class, not including Small Equipment
1.5.3 Streetlighting
The City of Kitchener is responsible for a network of approximately 18,325 Cobra Head streetlights and
2,689 decorative post -top lights. Acknowledging the opportunity to reduce GHG emissions from
electricity to power lights and for impressive cost savings, in 2017 the City undertook an extensive LED
conversion project, converting 15,636 of its Cobra Head streetlights. Cost and energy savings were
immediate and significant. In April 2017 (pre -conversion), electricity use for streetlights was
approximately 802,000 kWh, and the following April consumption fell to approximately 350,000 kWh.
More recently in 2022/2023, a similar project was done for all the City's decorative post -top lights, with
an estimated pay -back period of 10.7 years.
In addition to converting lighting to LED, both projects included the expansion of the City's adaptive
smart network which allows lights to be controlled (e.g., dimmed) and monitored from a remote and
central location. The City's development manual has been updated to require all new subdivisions to
include LED lighting fixtures that are equipped with smart nodes for compatibility with the adaptive
smart network. Streetlighting is a successful example of achieving significant and sustained GHG
emissions.
1.5.4 Staff Travel
Staff travel includes travel for work purposes and does not include how staff commute to/from work. In
most GHG reporting frameworks, reporting on staff travel is voluntary and for Kitchener it is a new focus
area added to our inventory with CLT support on November 1, 2022. Moving forward, this focus area
will be included in our reporting of performance measurement from 2021 and subsequent years of
reporting. In this case, staff travel includes vehicle mileage claimed by employees who used a personal
vehicle for work purposes only. The main purpose in including it as a focus area, is to provide a more
wholistic view of staff travel related to service delivery to the community to complement fleet reporting
and capture GHGs from service delivery by staff who do not use fleet vehicles.
14
Page 35 of 400
CorCAP 2.0 — Pivot: Net -Zero (2023-2027)
1.5.5 Corporate Waste
This focus area includes waste generated at City facilities and from street level and park waste
receptacles. While waste may appear to be a small part of corporate emissions (6.5%), methane from
waste is much more harmful and potent than other GHGs. From 2016 — 2023, GHG emissions from
corporate waste have increased by 26%.
1.6 Historical Trends 231..6 — 2023
Target setting is a common exercise amongst organizations, ushering in the magnitude and direction of
an intended change. In doing so, progress can be tracked against a set baseline year. Figure 7 illustrates
this progress. The red dotted line indicates the target for 2026 — which is an 8% reduction from 2016.
Comparing 2016 to 2023, we have seen an overall 5% reduction in GHG emissions. While this is a
promising trend, it is unknown whether this will be sustained in the coming years, or if it is a matter of
both internal and external influences that cause a fluctuation in energy consumption and therefore GHG
emissions. Table 2 describes the energy consumption and resultant greenhouse gas emissions over time
and shows how corporate GHG reductions overall have not been consistent nor sustained to date. The
sections that follow describe important trends seen in our progress during this time period. Appendix A
outlines the City of Kitchener corporate GHG inventory, baseline adjustments and calculation
methodology.
14,000
1..2,000
8,Q}0o
as
t^J
0
U
I....o
6,000
4,000
2,000
0
201..6
202:2
EM
loin=f::adlities utMMIUYlYllEN f:sleet & f: quill Illlllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllf StaffFil
Strecetlig1l iiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiillillillillillillilliillillilI Waste — — 026..4..arget 8%
Figure 7 - Corporate GHG Emissions 2016 — 2023
15
Page 36 of 400
CorCAP 2.0 — Pivot: Net -Zero (2023-2027)
Table 2 - Corporate GHG Emissions vs Consumption by Focus Area
1.6.1 Noteworthy Trends in the data
Sustained GI IG reduction in Streetlighting
Significant and sustained GHG reductions are maintained in the Streetlighting focus area. This is due to
the extensive, efficiency -focused LED conversion project in 2017 for the cobra head streetlights, and
2022 for decorative post -top lights.
Service growth and GI IG.s
Expansion of service has not increased GHG emissions in facilities and fleet focus areas. Kitchener is
among the fastest growing communities in Canada and likewise City of Kitchener service delivery is
expanding. We see growth in both facilities and fleet whose inventory of assets have both grown.
Facilities has acquired new buildings as the City seeks to expand services to the community and since
2017, fleet has expanded its pool by 100 vehicles (an increase of nearly 20%). This decoupling of growth
and GHG emissions is promising and can be sustained into the future by implementing Pivot: Net Zero
actions.
COVID 1..9 Pandemic impacts on GI IGs
The pandemic had significant impacts on service delivery. During this time fleet emissions increased
slightly (3%) due to restrictions that limited one staff member per fleet vehicle. This resulted in workers
driving alone in additional vehicles. In 2022, when operations returned to normal and the same
restrictions were still in place, fleet emissions rose 17%. By 2023 the restrictions had been removed and
fleet GHG emissions fell back down to pre -pandemic levels. By contrast, the facility shutdowns resulted
in a significant reduction in electricity and natural gas consumption and an overall decrease in corporate
GHG emissions of 19% (2020) and 13% (2021). Perhaps the biggest learning from Covid-19 and this body
of work is that organizations can make swift and impactful decisions that impact corporate GHGs.
Electricity Grid
Ontario's Electricity Grid is known for being "clean," with nearly 90% of electricity coming from zero
emissions sources, it currently has one of the lowest carbon intensity factors in the world. Since 2016
16
Page 37 of 400
2016-2021
2016-2022
2016-2023
% Change
% Change in
% Change in
% Change in
% Change in
% Change in
Consumption
Emissions
Consumption
in
Consumption
Emissions
Emissions
Buildings -
-24%
-48%
-13%
-41%
-10%
-34%
Electricity
Buildings -
-15%
-15%
+4%
+4%
-5%
-5%
Natural Gas
Fleet &
-1%
+8%
+9%
+17%
0%
+7%
Equipment
Staff Travel
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
Streetlighting
-62%
-74%
-61%
-73%
-61%
-71%
Waste
+5%
+5%
+15%
+15%
+26%
+26%
Grand Total
-
-13%
-
1%
-
-5%
1.6.1 Noteworthy Trends in the data
Sustained GI IG reduction in Streetlighting
Significant and sustained GHG reductions are maintained in the Streetlighting focus area. This is due to
the extensive, efficiency -focused LED conversion project in 2017 for the cobra head streetlights, and
2022 for decorative post -top lights.
Service growth and GI IG.s
Expansion of service has not increased GHG emissions in facilities and fleet focus areas. Kitchener is
among the fastest growing communities in Canada and likewise City of Kitchener service delivery is
expanding. We see growth in both facilities and fleet whose inventory of assets have both grown.
Facilities has acquired new buildings as the City seeks to expand services to the community and since
2017, fleet has expanded its pool by 100 vehicles (an increase of nearly 20%). This decoupling of growth
and GHG emissions is promising and can be sustained into the future by implementing Pivot: Net Zero
actions.
COVID 1..9 Pandemic impacts on GI IGs
The pandemic had significant impacts on service delivery. During this time fleet emissions increased
slightly (3%) due to restrictions that limited one staff member per fleet vehicle. This resulted in workers
driving alone in additional vehicles. In 2022, when operations returned to normal and the same
restrictions were still in place, fleet emissions rose 17%. By 2023 the restrictions had been removed and
fleet GHG emissions fell back down to pre -pandemic levels. By contrast, the facility shutdowns resulted
in a significant reduction in electricity and natural gas consumption and an overall decrease in corporate
GHG emissions of 19% (2020) and 13% (2021). Perhaps the biggest learning from Covid-19 and this body
of work is that organizations can make swift and impactful decisions that impact corporate GHGs.
Electricity Grid
Ontario's Electricity Grid is known for being "clean," with nearly 90% of electricity coming from zero
emissions sources, it currently has one of the lowest carbon intensity factors in the world. Since 2016
16
Page 37 of 400
CorCAP 2.0 — Pivot: Net -Zero (2023-2027)
the grid has continued to improve — exemplified by a 30% reduction in its emissions factor between
2016 and 2023. This can clearly be seen in the City's GHG emissions from electricity (Table 2). Between
2016 and 2023, our electricity consumption fell by 10%, however emissions fell by 34%. It is important
to note the potential risks and benefits associated with changes in the carbon intensity of the electricity
grid. Such changes are largely out of our control.
i --seating Degree Bays
Heating degree days (HDD) is a way of quantifying energy demand to heat buildings based on outside
temperatures. During colder winters with more heating degree days, it is anticipated that energy
consumption for space heating (i.e., natural gas), and the associated GHG emissions, would be higher.
There were 2,142 HDD in the first quarter of 2022 and (Table 2) Kitchener notes a 4% increase in natural
gas consumption and emissions. By comparison there were 1,179 HDD in the first quarter of 2023 and a
5% decrease in natural gas consumption and emissions.
Corporate and Community Emissions
Neither corporate nor community GHG emissions have experienced sustained reductions since their
baselines. Both plans are entering second generation plans. Kitchener will need to make significant
capital investments, strategic, systemic, and deeply integrated changes to corporate processes, business
planning and policies along with the willingness to adopt and integrate promising solutions as they
become available to make sustained GHG reductions. This second -generation plan seeks to orient the
organization in the direction of making progress on a net -zero goal.
17
Page 38 of 400
CorCAP 2.0 — Pivot: Net -Zero (2023-2027)
2 leis I' lain — [vot Net Zero
2.1. Corporate priority pathways
In line with our Community Climate Action Plan called ,.'U::Ua_r s[pri o lft, there are three pathways to
sustained GHG reduction that emerge as best bet pathways and as corporate priorities:
1. Energy conservation/efficiency - use less energy/demand less energy and use energy more
efficiently
2. Fuel switching — shift to lower carbon energy sources, transition off fossil fuels
3. Generate renewable energy —generate energy from renewable sources
The plan of actions that follow seeks to prioritize these three pathways in City of Kitchener Facilities and
Fleet & Equipment focus areas in order to best orient the organization towards a net -zero goal by mid-
century. These actions and reporting on them covers the near, short, and medium term of 2024-2027.
Actions are summarized in table format in Appendix B.
2„2 Facilities IF=ocus Area
City facilities contribute the largest portion of Corporate GHG emissions while providing vital programing
space and services to the community. Facilities account for 56% of Kitchener's total corporate GHG
emissions. These emissions represent the largest opportunity for GHG emissions reduction within City
capital planning and operations. The magnitude of the pivot from an 8% corporate reduction target to
net -zero facilities is significant. Sustained GHG reduction in facilities will be critical to reaching 2026 and
2050 targets.
The portfolio of the facilities focus area includes more than 60 major facilities spanning arenas, pools,
community centers, libraries, performance spaces, office, and maintenance facilities. Most of these
facilities are over thirty years old (average age approximately 42 years). Minimizing GHGs was not a
priority at the time these facilities entered service. Facilities were designed almost exclusively to rely on
fossil fuels for energy, especially natural gas for spacing heating, domestic hot water needs, arena
refrigeration, and pool heating. Further to this, building insulation standards were not as efficient at that
time. Fossil fuel reliance has been the default and most economical design choice in our community. The
consideration of GHG emissions during facility design, construction and refurbishment is a newer
practice for both the City and the building industry. Energy systems are continuing to change. The costs
of carbon are anticipated to increase. Lower carbon technologies are increasingly being understood as
important to ensure municipal service delivery is resilient in the face of climate change.
2.2.1 Defining a Net -Zero building
The challenge is to bring the portfolio of facilities in line with the emissions reduction goals of the City of
Kitchener. A Net -Zero Energy building is one which produces at least as much energy as it consumes
annually. The strategy for achieving Net -Zero Energy is to reduce building operational energy as much as
possible through an efficient building envelope, mechanical and electrical systems and then to install the
required on-site renewable energy generation such as solar photovoltaic arrays to offset the remaining
loads. A strategic approach which leverages policy, process, and planning, is required to develop the
best path to GHG reductions within the City's portfolio of facilities and make progress towards net -zero
buildings.
W.
Page 39 of 400
CorCAP 2.0 — Pivot: Net -Zero (2023-2027)
2.2.2 Facilities Energy Management Program
Organizations often pursue energy efficiency, sustainability, and reduced carbon emissions because they
are valued as the "right thing to do." Financial impacts and long-term viability often determine which
initiatives are pursued, including those for energy management. The benefits of improved energy
management and energy performance in facilities will be monitored and communicated to enable data
informed decision-making across the organization.
Energy Management Practices
Successful energy management requires vertical and horizontal involvement and commitment across an
organization. Every level of the organization is responsible and can be accountable for ensuring
continuous improvement and ongoing effectiveness of the energy management program. Staff are
exploring ways to formalize and standardize our energy management practices. One possibility is
following the process laid out by Natural Resources Canada's 50001 Ready Navigator Canada. This free,
on-line program provides step-by-step guidance on implementing an energy management system and
building a culture of structured energy improvement that are anticipated to lead to deeper and
sustained savings without requiring external audits or certifications.
Energy Management Policy
To support the integration of best energy management practice and integrating data into decision
making, an energy management policy is proposed. This policy is intended to formally define the energy
data collected, targets and objectives for energy use, and provide direction on data driven energy
decision making.
Energy Management Monitoring System
The collection and use of corporate utility data is cumbersome, especially for facilities. Facilities
Management and Sustainability Office staff will lead the development of a corporate energy
management monitoring system. In this way all energy consumption across the organization can be
brought together, monitored, and analyzed to support more integrated and informed decision making
across the organization. The GIS team is well positioned to improve the current monitoring. The goal will
be to streamline this data collection across City facilities and provide a central database where this data
can be reviewed on a regular basis to provide up to date reporting on the performance of City facilities
and support informed decision-making.
Facilities Energy Management 'Technical Advisory Committee
The Facilities Energy Management Committee consists of facilities staff who support strategic planning
and implementation of GHG reduction in facilities. The goal is to reduce the GHG emissions of City
facilities with cost-effective, safe, practical, and maintainable technologies. The committee seeks to
provide a forum for feedback between facilities design and operations/maintenance groups, provide
input and ideas on facilities energy (HVAC, Electrical) projects, comment on design options for planned
projects, identify new projects/opportunities for improvement, discuss risks and rewards of new
technologies.
2.2.:3 Corporate Green Building Standard
The development and implementation of a Corporate Green Building Standard will provide clear
guidance to City projects including new buildings and existing building retrofits. Setting specific targets
for energy efficiency and sustainability goals will help ensure new projects and renovations are
19
Page 40 of 400
CorCAP 2.0 — Pivot: Net -Zero (2023-2027)
contributing to corporate GHG emissions reduction goals. The project will engage a consultant to
develop this standard and to provide financial implication information to allow for energy performance
targets within this standard to be identified and achieved. Funding for this body of work was approved
in 2024 budget.
A community green development standard is currently in development across our region led by
WRCommunity Energy. Best practice when implementing a community standard is that the municipality
first enacts a more stringent internal standard. The internal standard development intends to
coordinate with the community standard development to demonstrate City leadership in this area.
2.2.4 GHG Reduction Pathway Development
A suite of City of Kitchener's highest GHG emitting facilities (across the portfolio of Kitchener Arenas,
Administrative Buildings and Pools) will be grouped together to identify a strategic sequence of GHG
reduction measures called "the GHG reduction pathway." This will expedite corporate GHG reduction
while supporting the management of capital costs and reducing operating costs. It is anticipated that the
recommended measures will be replicable to other City facilities within the same facility type across the
facilities' portfolio. This work is essential to integrate energy and GHG reductions into longer-term
Facilities' capital planning. The goal is the development of a long-range capital asset management plan
(AMP) for each facility to achieve GHG reductions. The development of these plans will be a multi-year
project.
Staff intend to work with a consultant (funds allocated in 2024 budget) to prepare application to FCM's
Community Buildings Retrofit (CBR) initiative/ GMF GHG Reduction Pathways grants. Bundling the
studies on these facilities would maximize grant funding eligibility and provide the most actionable
information to the City for the least investment.
2.2.5 Arenas Strategy
This strategy is intended to inform, and guide integrated and informed strategic action in Kitchener's
existing arenas. Energy, asset management, community service delivery needs, and programming will be
integrated into this strategy. This is the top immediate priority due to the GHG emission per square foot
of facility and the relatively simple payback period.
2.2.6 Pool Strategy
Like arenas, pools are heavy energy consumers and given their unique systems and functionality, will
require special attention to strategize their best path(s) towards net -zero. In doing so, a similar
approach to the Arenas Strategy described above should be employed, with a target completion date of
2026.
2.2.7 Facility Acquisition & Decommissioning Policy
Existing buildings can prove extremely challenging to retrofit whether the focus is GHGs or related to
other priorities such as accessibility, programming needs and new legislation. As part of a more
strategic, integrated, and coordinated asset management plan of our facilities, the development of a
Facility Acquisition Policy, and a Facility Decommissioning Policy is recommended. This is expected to
support more informed decision-making in prioritizing investment in facilities.
20
Page 41 of 400
CorCAP 2.0 — Pivot: Net -Zero (2023-2027)
2.2.8 Solar Strategy
Photovoltaic solar panels are a robust, mature technology for the generation of local renewable energy.
In 2011 the City installed its first (and only) solar array at the Kitchener Operations Facility under the
feed -in tariff (FIT) program developed to encourage and promote the use of renewable energy in
Ontario. In 2023 the 2,660 -panel array generated 615,126 kWh of electricity, all of which was exported
back into the grid, resulting in approximately $390,605 of revenue. The FIT program ended in 2016 and
it is anticipated that future arrays will not generate as much revenue. Current regulations allow for net -
metering at the facility level (generating credits for each unit of electricity a facility produces and
exports to the grid and debits for grid electricity used reducing the overall facility consumption).
To expand the use of solar at City facilities, the proposed Energy Management Program includes
provision for the development of a solar strategy by a consultant (funds approved in 2024 budget). This
body of work will include a high-level scan of City facilities to identify and rank the best Kitchener
facilities and locations (e.g., roof mount, ground mount, over -parking canopy) to deploy solar panels.
The highest ranked locations would then receive further design and investigative work including panel
layout, costing, grid connection investigation, and structural sign -off, and timing with other capital
improvements (e.g., roof membrane or asphalt replacement). The end product will identify the best
projects for the City to pursue, well defined, costed, and ready for implementation. Locations at other
facilities would be ranked to provide a roadmap for future implementation. Outcomes would inform a
future funding request to support implementation.
2.2.9 HVAC fuel switching modelling
2024-2027 HVAC projects are currently in the design phase, with both BAU (Business As Usual) and
energy upgrade options being costed in preparation for tender in 2024-2027. It is expected that the
HVAC equipment being replaced now will be in use for up to 25 years, making the timing for energy
upgrades optimal. Approved in the 2024 budget is funding for energy modelling consulting work to
provide information on HVAC upgrade options. This will support decision making on energy and GHG
reduction investments in our facilities, through an informed, data driven and cost-effective process.
2.2.10 Ice Resurfacing Pilot
A pilot program is underway exploring the use of mechanical de -aeration for ice resurfacing water. This
has the potential to significantly reduce the GHG emissions of arenas as the use of cooler water for
resurfacings saves energy by reducing the amount of water heating needed and a reduced load on the
refrigeration plant. Currently this is being trialed at one location. If the pilot is successful, this will be
implemented at other arenas.
2.2.11 HVAC Fuel Switching
Several facilities throughout the City are undergoing a conversion of their Heating, Ventilation and Air
Conditioning (HVAC) systems from natural gas to heat pump systems. These replacements are made
when equipment is scheduled to be replaced. Fire Headquarters and Forest Height Community Centre
are locations where conversions are underway. These facilities will serve as pilot projects to explore the
installation costs, maintenance requirements and any challenges to conversion.
21
Page 42 of 400
CorCAP 2.0 — Pivot: Net -Zero (2023-2027)
2.3 Fleet and Equipment
In this focus area, the same pathways to net -zero apply. The City is focusing on fuel efficiency,
transitioning away from fossil fuels, and seeking to integrate renewable energy generation and energy
storage to support this transition.
2.3.1 Fleet Asset Management Plan
The most recent Fleet Asset Management Plan was completed in 2018 and is due to be updated based
on a 5 -year revision timeline. This work will offer a holistic view of fleet and its assets and position fleet
well to make decisions regarding reducing GHGs as a priority.
Updating the AMP will provide the opportunity to capture EVs within the AMP, along with their
estimated service lives and document any operations and maintenance activities. The AMP would do
well to also include a longer-term replacement forecast with estimates for what/when certain vehicles
may transition to electric, or other zero -emissions options (e.g., hydrogen). This exercise would help to
define an infrastructure replacement gap and position the fleet division well in seeking additional capital
funds or other means of financing as needed. This work would also support the establishment of a well-
defined asset inventory. This work is currently underway and will be complete by the end of 2024.
2.3.2 Fleet Efficiency
Fleet Telematics
One hundred percent of City of Kitchener on -road fleet vehicles are equipped with telematics devices
that provide valuable data on fleet fuel consumption and driving behaviors including excessive idling,
harsh acceleration, harsh breaking and speeding —all of which can result in increased fuel consumption
and GHGs. With this data in hand, fleet supervisors can identify and support improving these behaviors
on a driver -by -driver basis.
Fleet Users Working Group
The fleet users working group (FUWG) meets monthly and includes management from different
divisions that use fleet vehicles and equipment for service delivery. This provides the opportunity for
common issues amongst fleet users to be brought forward and discussed with input from multiple
divisions at the same time. Considering Fleet's responsibility to reduce GHG emissions from vehicles, the
FUWG is an excellent existing conduit to support discussing fleet related matters including energy use
and reducing GHG emissions from fleet.
Corporate Fuel Efficiency Policy
The Corporate Fuel Efficiency Policy (#316) is in place to educate and outline the responsibilities and
obligations of employees who drive or operate City of Kitchener vehicles and equipment, with respect to
optimizing fuel efficiency. For instance, the policy states that vehicles shall not idle for more than 10
seconds, shall not exceed a maximum road speed of 90km/hr., and that harsh braking and cornering
shall be minimized. The policy also includes guidelines for vehicle and equipment acquisition. Currently,
the policy indicates that the City will purchase hybrid vehicles whenever possible. Staff intend to review
the policy in 2024 and update this to electric, to align with the approach to "electrify where and when
possible".
22
Page 43 of 400
CorCAP 2.0 — Pivot: Net -Zero (2023-2027)
Fleet Driver Training & Corrective Procedures
The Fleet Safety and Compliance team is responsible for the delivery and preparation of the Defensive
Driver training course which all fleet users are required to complete at onboarding and every 3 years
during their tenure with the City. This course discusses driving behaviors that can increase fuel
consumption and helps to enforce the corporate fuel efficiency policy. For instances where driver
behaviors are not meeting expectations, fleet developed a Guidelines for Addressing Unacceptable
Driving Behaviors, to be used to ensure corrective measures are taken in a fair and consistent manner
for all drivers.
Additional free training resources exist including the SmartDriver training program offered by the
federal government. These resources could be used to supplement existing training or as a remedial
action for drivers whose behaviors are not improving with other interventions.
To improve the outcomes of training and to have better adherence to the Corporate Fuel Efficiency
Policy, the fleet user working group will consider strategies to improve driver behaviors for each
relevant behavior (e.g., ways to further reduce idling).
Right sizing
An effective way to reduce fuel consumption is by ensuring the right vehicle is being used for the right
job. There are currently some fleet vehicles in use that are over -sized for their use. Staff intend to
complete an audit of these vehicles to identify which ones may be replaced with smaller alternatives. It
is anticipated the Sustainability Office will support this work with Fleet as lead in 2024.
Efficient Route Planning
Efficient route planning saves both time and fuel. Fleet, in collaboration with the fleet user groups, can
assess opportunities for route optimization.
Fleet Equipment Review Process
The Fleet Equipment Review is an annual process that is followed to identify which fleet vehicles and
equipment need to be replaced, which can be deferred for replacement and where any fleet vehicles
need to be added. The process also identifies vehicles that could be replaced with a smaller unit (i.e.,
right -sizing) and identifies which units that have been flagged for replacement can be replaced with an
electric or hybrid equivalent.
2.3.3 Fuel Switching
While electricity is a key energy source in our fleet's energy transition, it is not the only one expected to
supply our fleet and equipment with lower carbon energy solutions. Evaluating shifting to transitional
fuels is part of the fuel switching pathway especially for vehicle types where the marketplace does not
offer ready options. Examples of transition fuels currently in use include propane, biodiesel 5 and 20.
Electrifying vehicles and equiprnent
Since 2017, 14 battery electric (BEV) cars and two battery electric cargo vans have been added to the
City of Kitchener fleet, resulting in a 75% reduction in operations and maintenance costs when
comparing BEV cars and their traditional internal combustion engine (ICE) counterparts. This year (2024)
the City plans to transition several cargo vans and two ice -resurfaces to electric. These efforts continue
to contribute to the City's progress in achieving Transform WR action 2.1.2 to "Plan and begin to
implement a transition to zero -emission vehicles for municipal fleets, working towards a goal of at least
23
Page 44 of 400
CorCAP 2.0 — Pivot: Net -Zero (2023-2027)
half of municipal vehicles being zero emissions by 2030". When considering only cars in the fleet, this
goal has already been achieved, however when looking at all passenger fleet vehicles, only about 4% are
electric or zero -emissions.
There is also a concerted effort to electrify small hand tools and equipment, turf maintenance
equipment, as well as utility vehicles as these are widely available and there is budget to procure them.
Like vehicles, there are some limitations to electrifying smaller equipment, particularly battery life —
which is not long enough to support some crews for an entire shift (e.g., parks and forestry). Staff will
continue to seek options and opportunities to remove this barrier (e.g., through seeking opportunities
for more integrated and mobile charging solutions).
EV Charging Infrastructure
Along with BEVs, the City owns 45 EV Charging Stations at various locations throughout the City. Most of
these stations are fleet facing only with a small number available for public use. Twenty of these stations
were added to the network through the Zero Emissions Vehicle Infrastructure Program (ZEVIP) funded
by Natural Resources Canada which the City received in 2021. There is one level 3 charger at the
Kitchener Operations Facility, and the remaining ports are for level 2 charging.
EV Charging Station Asset Management Man
While fleet vehicles are not new corporate assets, the charging infrastructure to support them is
relatively new. Installing, owning, and managing EV chargers is a new responsibility within the
organization. The development of an asset management plan for this infrastructure will support the
management, maintenance, and decision-making about the future charging infrastructure system.
Decisions such as sizing, capacity, and geographic spread of the stations, creating a forecast for
replacements, further deployment and to enable more integrated charging systems with solar and
battery potential on location. This work will be supported by the Sustainability Office, Fleet, GIS, and
Asset Management and is anticipated to be complete in 2025.
Zero Emissions Vehicle (ZEV) 'Transition Strategy / .Sustainable Fleet Strategy
Building on the work of the Fleet AMP and EV Station AMP, a ZEV Transition Strategy will help to
position fleet to both electrify fleet vehicles and look forward to implementing other zero -emissions
technologies as they become available. This will also help prepare for Provincial and Federal targets for
ZEV sales with more models anticipated. In December 2023, the Federal Government put in place a sales
mandate to ensure at least 20% of new light-duty vehicles sales will be ZEV by 2026, at least 60% by
2030 and 100% by 2035. Also outlined are goals for medium and heavy-duty vehicles — including a 100%
sales target by 2040 for a subset of vehicle types based on feasibility. Fleet has already exemplified their
commitment to electrifying vehicles and equipment where currently feasible, this strategy can provide
the opportunity to explore solutions for user groups facing operational constraints to electrification.
Another key component of this work will be to assess infrastructure needs (EV Charging Station) as the
electrified fleet expands. Attention will be given to the capacity of our network of charging stations, and
also the electricity grid. This work will need to engage with Enova and other local energy stakeholders to
ensure the pace we electrify is in line with the power supply. This project will be completed by an
external consultant in 2025 and managed by Fleet with support from the Sustainability Office.
24
Page 45 of 400
CorCAP 2.0 — Pivot: Net -Zero (2023-2027)
Alternative Fuels
Lower Carbon Fuels
Acknowledging the limitations heavier -duty vehicles have when it comes to zero -emissions options,
alternative fuels can be an effective and simple way to reduce emissions in this vehicle category. Drop-in
fuels, or those that can be used one-for-one without having to make changes to a vehicle are
particularly attractive given the simplicity in implementing them. The fuels listed below are examples of
temporary emission reduction measures until zero -emission options are available across the entire fleet.
Biodiesel 5, Biodiesel 20, and Ethanol Blend 10%
Since 2011 fleet has been using biofuel blends to replace traditional petroleum diesel and gasoline.
These have mostly included Biodiesel 5% and Ethanol Blend 10%, replacing the majority of traditional
diesel and gasoline, respectively. In addition to having a slightly lower emissions factor compared to
their full petroleum counterparts, the biodiesel or biofuel components are made from renewable
sources (e.g., vegetable oil), are biodegradable and are generally less toxic. A Biodiesel 20% blend (which
has lower emissions than a 5% blend), is used instead of Biodiesel 5% in the summer months (May —
October). It can only be used during this time as it is less stable than Biodiesel 5% and does not perform
well in colder temperatures.
Renewable Diesel
One limitation to biodiesel blends is that higher concentration blends are not stable in colder
temperatures. An alternative that performs better in colder climates is renewable diesel. Like biodiesel,
renewable diesel can be made from feedstocks such as vegetable oil, however it is processed in a
different way resulting in a product that does not have the same limitations as traditional biodiesel
blends. Further to this, renewable diesel does not need to be blended with petroleum diesel, resulting in
an even lower emission factor up to 70-80% below traditional petroleum diesel.
Propane
Fleet has also introduced the use of propane by retrofitting existing diesel vehicles to run on propane —
which has an emission factor approximately 30% lower than diesel. Propane will continue to be relied on
as a temporary emission reduction measure until other opportunities present.
Compressed Natural Gas
Compressed natural gas (CNG) is another lower -emission alternative that has a similar emission factor to
propane. In the past City of Kitchener has used CNG for fleet fueling, however it has not been used in
more recent years. Staff intend to assess the re -introduction of CNG as a fleet fuel based on the upfront
cost to install fueling stations, retrofit new and existing vehicles, GHG reductions, and the operational
costs/savings (fuel, maintenance, etc.) over the lifetime of a vehicle.
Zero Tailpipe Emission Fuels
Hydrogen
There is potential for hydrogen to play a role in many sectors as they move towards a net -zero future.
The Province of Ontario and Government of Canada alike have Hydrogen strategies that outline its
importance for decarbonizing several industries, including transportation. Considering Ontario's
relatively "clean" electricity grid, it is well positioned to produce and store green hydrogen which uses
electricity at off-peak times to separate pure hydrogen gas (H2) from water (H2O). The City of Kitchener
25
Page 46 of 400
CorCAP 2.0 — Pivot: Net -Zero (2023-2027)
has already proven its interest in hydrogen by partnering with the University of Waterloo on a feasibility
study to produce and store hydrogen within the City.
In the context of the City's fleet, hydrogen may be a more realistic zero -emissions solution for heavier -
duty vehicles that face limitations to electrification (vehicle size, climate, etc.). Hydrogen -fuel cell
electric vehicles (FCEV) that use hydrogen to produce electricity on board are fairly limited in supply, but
more are becoming available. Another option may be to use hydrogen -diesel co -combustion which
involves retrofitting existing diesel vehicles with a conversion kit, allowing hydrogen to supplement
diesel usage. Staff will continue to assess the feasibility of piloting this emerging technology.
2.3.4 Fleet Integrated Renewable Energy & Storage Systems
As the electrified fleet continues to expand, attention will need to be given to the impact this will have
on the wider electricity grid. This challenge can provide a chance to explore innovative solutions with
Enova and other local energy stakeholders. These include Energy Storage, Vehicle to Grid Initiatives and
Integrated Energy Systems.
All these solutions rest on the same idea — to supplement on—peak electricity demand and provide a
load displacement opportunity. For instance, the Kitchener Operations Facility already has 25 EV
charging stations. Another large influx of chargers and thus demand on the electricity grid may pose
some issues when it comes to supply. On-site solutions for energy storage (batteries to store electricity
generation during off-peak times), or energy generation (solar to charge BEVs, excess stored in batteries
or put back into the grid), can position the City well to confidently expand their electrified fleet.
2.4 Streeffights
Streetlights have completed an extensive retrofit to LED lighting. Annually, approximately 50% of the
utility cost avoidance from the Streetlight LED Light Retrofit Management Project is directed to the
energy reserve fund. More recently ornamental street lighting was also converted to LED and once debt
is paid off, it is anticipated that 50% of these energy savings will transfer to the Energy Reserve Fund as
well.
2.5 Staff Travel
This new focus area offers a more wholistic view of staff travel to deliver service to the community by
including personal vehicle use. The City of Kitchener is a member of TravelWise, an internationally
recognized workplace program available to employers across Waterloo Region. The program aims to
encourage employees to take transit, cycle, walk and carpool to work instead of driving alone. This
program supports staff using active transportation for work-related purposes, including a corporate GRT
Transit Pass, carpool matching software and reimbursement for emergency rides home.
2.6 Corporate Waste
Waste generated within City facilities and in public spaces including parks and at road -level is collected
by varying City divisions and third -party haulers before making its way to local transfer stations. Waste
generated outside facilities and waste generated inside facilities will require different approaches when
it comes strategies to reduce waste production.
The City is legislated under Ontario Regulation 102/94: Waste Audits and Waste Reduction Workplans to
conduct an annual waste audit for City Hall. This report not only estimates annual waste production and
26
Page 47 of 400
CorCAP 2.0 — Pivot: Net -Zero (2023-2027)
diversion rates at City Hall but makes recommendations for a waste reduction work plan. Some specific
recommendations of the Waste Reduction Work Plan in the 2022 Audit include:
• Consider targets for diversion rates for different waste streams including mixed recyclables
(95%), compostable fibers (85%), food/organic waste (90%)
• Education and promotion regarding waste reduction
Conducting a Corporate Waste Assessment is a next step for the organization in gathering a wholistic
view of corporate waste management ahead of identifying opportunities and strategies for reduction
and diversion.
2.1 Implementation
2.7.1 Capacity Building, Readiness and Timing
The timing and deployment of actions can depend on internal and external factors. Internally these may
include resource capacity related to finances, staffing and staff literacy. External factors include market
readiness (e.g., zero -emission vehicles options), partner availability and legislative requirements. Staff
will continue to build capacity and support readiness to accelerate action implementation.
Corporate Climate Change Literacy Modules
Staff are working to develop a literacy module to be delivered via the City of Kitchener's Learning
Management System (LMS). The introductory module is designed to inform staff on the impact of
burning fossil fuels, local impacts of climate change, our sources of Corporate GHG emissions and
pathways to net -zero. Participants will be more aware and more likely to consider climate action not
only in their work, but also at home.
Upon the successful roll-out of Module #1, staff will work to develop additional modules to introduce
specific work the City has done to reduce GHGs and to develop an internal conduit to deliver content to
ensure staff across the organization are aware of and up to date on matters of sustainability within a
municipal setting.
2.7.2 Partners and Engagement
Project Teams and Staff
All actions in this plan rely on collaboration across departments and some also benefit or rely on cross
organization and/or sectoral collaboration in the community. Staff will continue to identify and bring the
right people to the table to accelerate and implement the work.
Kitchener Climate Change and Environment Advisory Committee
In August 2022, the Terms of Reference for this long-standing environmental -related advisory
committee was expanded to include supporting and advising Council on implementing climate change
goals and policies. Staff will continue to engage this advisory committee on implementation of this and
other related work.
Community
Staff will seek to engage the public in this work. It is important that the community and facility patrons
understand the contribution our facilities and services make to corporate GHGs and the kinds of changes
that will support GHG reduction. Community members are partners in this work.
27
Page 48 of 400
CorCAP 2.0 — Pivot: Net -Zero (2023-2027)
Kitchener Utilities, Kitchener Fleet Systems Specialists, local School Boards and Enova hold key utilities
consumption data in support this work. There is a need to continue to prioritize support for the systems
and staff capacity that maintain and share this data.
For City facilities that are operated by another party and there is utilities cost recovery or sharing
arrangement in place, staff will seek third party utilities data sharing arrangements for The Museum,
Kitchener Public Library, Centre in the Square, Conrad Centre for Performing Arts, Homer Watson
Gallery House, and the Gymnastics/ Judo Centre.
Enova
Staff will continue with quarterly meetings with Enova staff to ensure continued information sharing as
we continue to electrify and expand our renewable energy production including solar power generation.
S\A/R
Sustainable Waterloo Region (SWR) is a social enterprise nonprofit. The City of Kitchener is a pledging
member of its Impact Network (formerly Regional Sustainability/Carbon Initiative). Their program
offerings focus on organizational sustainability practices and target setting, commuting options,
regenerative building practices, community greenhouse gas impacts, and electric vehicle adoption.
City of Kitchener will continue:
• To maintain its membership and revise its corporate target within the Impact Network with
Council support of this report,
• Yearly reporting in SWR's Annual Member Survey,
• Its membership in Travelwise,
• To leverage the Drive Zero program building corporate literacy and support for net zero vehicle
adoption.
Research and Innovation Partners
Staff will continue to work with universities, colleges, and local business/innovation sector to accelerate
climate action.
2.7.3 Funding Net -Zero
Expanding existing Funding Sources Within our control
Climate action as described in this plan is an investment. Municipalities are scaling up and directing
funding sources within their control to accelerate corporate climate action work. For the City of
Kitchener to be successful in moving towards net -zero by mid-century, funding for the work must be
prioritized. It is estimated that $250M in additional capital funding is needed over the next 25 years or
$10M/year. For context, a 1% increase to the City's tax rate generates $1.6M in additional revenue.
There is an urgent need to assess the potential and value of establishing additional funding from sources
within our direct control.
Energy Management Reserve Fund
The total current asset replacement value (CRV) of City -owned facilities equals $1,950 million. Facilities
receive annual average funding of $12.3 million, significantly less than the 2016 Canadian Infrastructure
Report Card (CIRC) recommended reinvestment rate of 1.7%-2.5% of CRV, which would maintain
NN
Page 49 of 400
CorCAP 2.0 — Pivot: Net -Zero (2023-2027)
facilities in a state of good repair. This funding difference results in a significant annual funding gap, and
the addition of GHG reduction measures will further increase this gap. However, as asset management
practices mature organizationally, and strategies that prioritize and align capital renewals with GHG
reduction pathways are employed, it is expected that the funding gap can be reduced while also
achieving GHG reduction targets. Currently this reserve fund invests in work that supports the net -zero
facilities pivot along with other related works across the organization.
Due to progress made across our assets, projects with a short-term ROI, often called "low hanging fruit"
are now limited across the organization. Considering this and in preparation to support the necessary
framework and projects of CorCAP2.0, a second -generation Reserve Fund Policy FIN -RES -2036 was
endorsed by CLT with an administrative policy update on November 22, 2023. The priority focus for
project funding from the Reserve Fund is to support projects that enable:
a. Energy conservation (using less energy, using energy more efficiently)
b. Fuel switching (conversion to lower carbon energy sources)
c. Generating renewable energy (local renewable energy for corporate use)
d. Funding consultancy to support projects that are anticipated to enable a, b, c, or e.
e. Identify and provide matching funds for related grant applications /external funding opportunities
to enable a, b, c, or d.
Facilities -related projects seeking funding will be evaluated by prioritizing projects resulting in the greatest
reduction in GHG emissions. Any projects with a short-term ROI (1-5 years) will also be prioritized to
accelerate available funds in the reserve and continued progress. Projects with a longer ROI will not be
excluded.
The Funding sources for the Reserve Fund have expanded to include:
1. Streetlight LED Light Retrofit Management Project utility cost avoidance (annual transfer of
approximately 50% of total cost avoidance)
2. FM utility accounts (water, natural gas, electricity, and propane) (annual transfer target at 75%
of total cost avoidance)
3. Budget adjustment from FM utility accounts (permanent budget reallocation)
These new funding sources support accelerating the most impactful projects anticipated to result in
reducing corporate GHG emissions. An SOP and project evaluation form will complement the policy. The
policy is set for review in November 2026.
Fleet Replacement Reserve Fund
The entire City of Kitchener fleet is valued at approximately $75 million and average annual funding of
approximately $7.5 million is used for vehicle replacements and additions to the fleet. Fleet
replacements and additions are funded by the Fleet & Equipment Replacement Reserve Fund which is
financed by fleet user groups based on straight line depreciation of their vehicles. In other words, every
year user groups pay into the reserve an amount equivalent to the yearly depreciation of their vehicles.
Acknowledging the higher upfront costs of EVs (approximately 20% higher than traditional ICE vehicles),
and the capital investment needed for infrastructure to support them (e.g., EV charging stations); each
year a portion of the Reserve Fund ($50,000) is allocated to support initiatives for greening the City
fleet. Despite this, the Reserve is still underfunded due to inflationary pressures across the entire new
vehicle market in addition to higher up -front costs to replace ICE vehicles with BEVs. These factors have
combined to accelerate the annual spending against the Reserve which is now anticipated to fall into a
29
Page 50 of 400
CorCAP 2.0 — Pivot: Net -Zero (2023-2027)
deficit by 2026 including an annual greening the fleet funding gap of approximately $200,000. To
address this, the 2024 budget has approved $320K from Fleet Capital Reserves for upgrades to fleet
vehicles projected to have a GHG reduction of 38 t CO2e compared to the ICE equivalent. However, this
is a one-time influx of funds, and thought must be given to other funding mechanisms to help close this
funding gap over the longer term.
Grants
Grants while not a sustainable source of funding have and do play an important role in accelerating
corporate climate action work. It is supportive to continue to prioritize corporate administrative support
for grant applications.
In addition to pursuing funding opportunities through government grants, advocacy efforts will be
important at all levels of government. The City's efforts to reduce GHG emissions ladder up to Canada's
Agenda 2030 and its commitment to reach net -zero greenhouse gas emissions by 2050. Advocacy will
include communicating our goals and progress to government. Communicating with policy makers will
help to connect mutual priorities clearly and purposefully.
2.7.4 Future Considerations
Refrigerant Fugitive Emissions
Direct (Scope 1) fugitive emissions from the leakage of refrigerants are a future work consideration.
Refrigerants are used for arena ice -making and facility HVAC systems. Use of refrigerants in our facilities
is expected to increase over the coming years as additional heat pump systems are installed. The Global
Warming Potential (GWP) of proposed refrigerants should be reviewed and lower GWP refrigerants
should be selected where available. Future work could include the addition of reporting of these
emissions in Scope 1 and creation of standards for directions of refrigerant selection.
Embodied Carbon
Embodied carbon factors in the carbon emissions resulting from the raw materials, manufacturing and
transportation associated with building materials and supplies. As transparency in the supply chain of
materials improves, more opportunities are anticipated to emerge that will enable bringing embodied
carbon into decision-making. How to calculate/incorporate the embodied carbon of procured products,
how the supply chain can enable increasing transparency and tools that can enable embodied carbon to
be more easily factored into product procurement decisions is recommended for future consideration as
it is anticipated that over time industry will enable this level of transparency and accountability to be
possible. The procurement bylaw may be a place to include such considerations in the future. Staff
propose reporting on an embodied carbon indicator for new construction as this is achievable when
included as part of the scope of work for any new build.
Offset Policy
Carbon offsets can either be bought or sold by an organization — acting as a mechanism to reach
emission reduction goals when additional absolute reductions become difficult to achieve or be used as
a source of revenue. In the case of the City of Kitchener, offsets may be considered as a final option,
bridging the gap between "as close to zero as possible," (through efficiency, fuel switching and
generating renewable energy) and net -zero. Offsets are beyond the scope of Pivot: Net -Zero, however
30
Page 51 of 400
[orCAP2]]—Pivot: Net -Zero (ZO23'3O27)
the City should be positioned to integrate them in future emission reduction strategies (or revenue
streams).
2I5 Informed and Integrated Decision Making
Policy Alignment
Moving beyond the actions listed in this report, the organization will continue to seek ways to embed
into every decision, the climate action direction set bvCouncil.
Strategic Planning, Business Plans and Budgets
Business plans, workplans and budgets across the organization will invest in and accelerate high priority
GHGemission reduction and renewable energy opportunities.
27.6 Accountability and Reporting
External Reporting Frameworks
Legislated
For municipalities in Ontario, sustainability and climate change planning and reporting remain voluntary,
except for 0 Reg 507/18, which was revoked in 2023 and replaced by 0 Reg 25/23: Broader Public
Sector: Energy Reporting and Demand Management Plans. The regulation defines what public agencies
(including all municipalities) must report on regarding energy usage in their facilities, including a
summary of annual greenhouse gas emissions, and a description and results of any energy saving
activities. The next mandatory reporting cycle isJuly 20Z4.
Voluntary
The City of Kitchener currently reports into two voluntary reportinQfromevvorks— Partners for Climate
Protection facilitated by the Federation of Canadian Municipalities (PCP) and Sustainable Waterloo
Region's (SWR) Impact Network.
The PCP program has five milestones from creating baseline emissions inventory to monitoring and
reporting results — this report isintended tofulfil milestones 1-3.
SWR's Impact Network involves yearly reporting to SWR on GHG emissions and reduction targets, as
well as projects the City would like to highlight. This provides the opportunity to benchmark ourselves
against local peer municipalities.
Internal Reporting Frameworks
[QCb0n Budgets
A carbon budget is a lagging indicator and difficult to measure. It is not anticipated to meaningfully drive
decision making and therefore is not a focus for our organization. Broadly the overall trend towards net -
zero over time is an important lagging indicator to follow. Staff intend to report
et'zeroovertimeisanimportant|a80in0indioatortofo||ovv.Staffintendtoreport the most recent year's
data around Earth Day (April 22) each year, as outlined in the following section.
Reporting on Progress towards Net -2erO
There is a growing commitment to measure climate action progress and impact. The CorCAP 2.0 seeks to
develop and establish an evolutionary practice to drive the direction we want to join. Some indicators
presented below will look back at whether the intended result was achieved. They are not predictive,
but such indicators do clarify and confirm patterns that are occurring overtime and may be in progress
31
Page 52 of 400
CorCAP 2.0 — Pivot: Net -Zero (2023-2027)
(lagging indicators). By contrast other indicators look ahead, anticipate trends, can be predictive and
relevant to our objectives, informing direction towards or away from objectives. These indicators
(leading indicators) can evolve over time as the organization's needs change and the work matures.
Currently there is useful data being collected regarding our fossil fuel use and our progress towards net -
zero. To date, the data has not been analyzed, integrated, or utilized to inform corporate decision
making. This is the intent of this second -generation CorCAP. Indicators currently available to the
organization which support gauging progress include corporate and division (even facility and
equipment level) information. Strategically aligning and integrating reporting across the organization will
serve our progress monitoring well. Yearly, for the most recent year of data in time for Earth Day the
Sustainability Office will report on the following corporate indicators:
Corporate
• Total Consumption by Energy Source (GJ)
• Total corporate electricity costs ($)
• Total corporate natural gas costs ($)
• Total corporate propane costs
• Total gasoline costs ($)
• Total diesel costs ($)
• Total GHG emissions by Energy Source (Tonnes CO2e)
• Total GHG emissions by Corporate Focus Area (Tonnes CO2e)
• Renewable Energy generated (solar kWh)
• % of Energy consumption from fossil fuel sources
• City of Kitchener New Construction as designed Embodied Carbon (Tonnes CO2e)
• Corporate Spending on Carbon Pollution Pricing
• Social cost of emissions from annual City energy usage ($)
Focus Areas
At the next level of granularity, Indicators at the divisional level that complement this work and will be
reported annually include:
Fleet
• Total Energy Use by Fuel Type (unit) — by fleet vehicle type
• Energy/GHG per km
• % ZEV fleet and equipment
• % of Zero emissions light duty vehicles
Facilities
These indicators will be reported in the Facilities Asset Management Planning in Levels of Service annual
reporting.
• Utility cost (Annual cost of energy $, Energy Cost per Intensity $/m2)
• Annual building energy consumption (all fuels) (GJ)
• Annual GHG emissions by facility (Tonnes CO2e)
Annual GHG emission intensity by facility (kgCO2e/M2)
• Cost/Energy/GHGs by facility per hour of operation (arenas, community centres)
32
Page 53 of 400
CorCAP 2.0 — Pivot: Net -Zero (2023-2027)
• Renewable Energy Generated (kWh)
Project Level Indicators
To aid in decision making at a project level, where possible the following indicators may be included:
• Return on Investment (years)
• GHG Reductions / $ spent
Reserve Fund Indicators
Reserve fund indicators are reported on annually by finance as part of the Budget process.
2.8 Conclusion
In summary, these recommended actions position the City of Kitchener to pivot in the direction of net -
zero. Across the entire organization we will strategically advance actions that enable the City of
Kitchener to be more energy efficient, fuel switch and generate renewable energy while working
towards a net -zero future for our organization.
33
Page 54 of 400
CorCAP 2.0 — Pivot: Net -Zero (2023-2027)
3 AlI.)If.)If::."N II — Coirpnor to II NG Inventory, B sehine Adjustments &
Methodology
3.1 Methodology
GHG emissions have been calculated using consumption data collected from utility bills for electricity
and natural gas, and from FLINT for fleet fuels. Table 3 below outlines the emission factors used to
convert consumption data into GHG emissions for 2023. The most up to date emission factors published
by the Governments of Canada and Ontario have been used. For staff travel, an average emission factor
based on a variety of makes and models was used.
Table 3 - Emission Factors
Energy Source
Unit
Emission Factor
(g CO2e /unit)
Electricity
kWh
0.03
Natural Gas
m3
1.93
Biodiesel 5
L
2.70
Diesel
L
2.71
Ethanol Blend (10%)
L
2.24
Gasoline
L
2.32
Propane
L
1.54
Electricity
L
0.03
Staff Travel
km
0.19
Waste
mt
481.70
3.2 Assets in the GHG Inventory
To track and report on our Corporate GHG emissions consistently from year to year, it is important to
have a well-defined inventory of assets and sources that are included and updated in corporate GHG
reporting. Table 4 below outlines the assets and sources reported on in each focus area.
Table 4 - Assets and Sources included in GHG Inventory
Focus Area
Sources
Facilities
85 facilities
All on -road heavy, medium, and light duty vehicles and off-road equipment (loaders,
Corporate
backhoes etc.) that use 6 different types of fuel. Given the process by which small
Fleet &
handheld equipment is re -fueled, it is difficult to accurately track their fuel
Equipment
consumption and therefore handheld equipment is not included in the GHG
inventory for fleet.
Streetlights
Outdoor Streetlights
Waste collected from city facilities and street level / park waste receptacles including
Waste
large Moloks.
Staff Travel
Staff mileage claims for work-related, personal -vehicle use
34
Page 55 of 400
CorCAP 2.0 — Pivot: Net -Zero (2023-2027)
3.2.1 2016 Baseline Adjustment
The Facilities Inventory that was used in the 2016 GHG Inventory (our baseline year) omitted several
buildings when compared to the 2022 inventory. This omission makes it difficult to make a fair
comparison and track progress on our current target of an 8% reduction by 2026, net -zero by 2050 and
any interim targets yet to be set.
To address this challenge the 2016 Baseline year has been adjusted using the subset of emissions from
buildings not in the 2016 inventory, but that were in the 2022 inventory, when the criteria for inclusion
was formerly endorsed and applied to this reporting. Only buildings that were under the City's
ownership/control in 2016 and therefore would have met the Facilities Inclusion Criteria, were used. In
certain cases where major renovations or retrofits were identified that would have impacted energy
consumption, data from before the work took place was used. Considering this, eighteen buildings were
used in the adjustment calculation. The sum of their 2022 (or earlier) emissions was simply added to the
facility GHG emissions initially reported on in 2016.
• 44-50 Gaukel Street Commercial
• 79 Joseph Street Commercial
• Bridgeport Child Care Centre
• Cameron Heights Pool
• Centre in the Square
• Downtown Community Centre
• Grand River Recreation Complex
• Gymnastics/Judo Centre
• Harry Class Pool Pumphouse
• Homer Watson House and Gallery
• Huron Natural Area Comfort Station
• Kitchener Public Library
• The Boathouse
• The Registry Theatre
• The Museum
• Victoria Park Comfort Station Jubilee
• Victoria Park Machine Shop
• Victoria Park Pavilion
The 2 facilities in bold above are buildings that were added to the inventory between 2020 and 2021,
based on the Facilities Inclusion Criteria (outlined below), a third building, the Conrad Centre for the
Performing Arts, was also added based on the criteria, however it was not owned by the City in 2016
and therefore not included in the baseline adjustment. The remaining sixteen buildings were added to
the inventory around 2019/2020, but it is unclear why they had not been included in previous years.
This now means that our GHG baseline is 12,3330 tCO2e, and thus our target absolute GHG emissions for
2026 is 11,343 tCO2e, as outlined in Table 5 below.
Table 5 - Previous vs Adjusted Baseline and Target
3.2.2 Facilities Inclusion Criteria
On October 27th, 2022, CLT approved the inclusion criteria listed below. Based on these criteria and from
this date onward, the City of Kitchener corporate GHG inventory includes facilities that meet these
criteria.
35
Page 56 of 400
Previous (tCO2e)
Adjusted (tCO2e)
2016 Emissions Baseline
10,191
11,514
2026 Absolute Emissions Target
9,376
10,593
3.2.2 Facilities Inclusion Criteria
On October 27th, 2022, CLT approved the inclusion criteria listed below. Based on these criteria and from
this date onward, the City of Kitchener corporate GHG inventory includes facilities that meet these
criteria.
35
Page 56 of 400
CorCAP 2.0 — Pivot: Net -Zero (2023-2027)
1. SFU scale rank — include facilities that rank SFU 3, 4 or 5
The Supporting Functional Use (SFU) scale is used as a best practice in asset management to
rate buildings critical to City operations. On this scale, facilities ranked 1 are low and those
ranked 5 are the most critical to City operations and
2. Ownership status— include facilities for which:
i. the City owns and operates the facility, or
ii. the City owns the facility, and it is operated by another party, or
iii. the City rents/leases from another party and
3. Utility bill payment responsibility - include facilities where:
i. the City pays for utilities, or
ii. the City has some cost recovery/sharing arrangement in place with the facility operator, or
iii. there is direct payment of utility bills by the operator (no cost sharing)
36
Page 57 of 400
CorCAP 2.0 — Pivot: Net -Zero (2023-2027)
4 ppen N If:3 — Summary of CorCAP 2.0Pivot Net -,hero Actbns Iby
DMsbn
Please see Attachment 6 to the Council Report.
37
Page 58 of 400
CorCAP 2.0 — Pivot: Net -Zero (2023-2027)
5 Alppen N C — AInInUaII Progress Relporthng
Staff intend to report progress on the following indicators yearly around Earth Day.
Type
Metric
Data Sources
Utility (Gas and Electricity) Bills provided by
Total Annual Consumption by
Corporate
utility, Fuel consumption provided by Fleet
Energy Source (GJ)
Systems Specialist pulled from FLINT.
Consumption data by energy source
Total Annual GHG Emissions by
Corporate
multiplied by applicable emission factor
Energy Source (t COze)
from verified source.
Consumption data by focus area multiplied
Total Annual GHG Emissions by
Corporate
Corporate Focus Area (t COze)
by applicable emission factor from verified
source.
Annual Renewable Energy
Corporate
Metered by Enova
Generated (kWh)
Energy consumed (GJ) from fossil fuels
of Annual Energy Consumed from
Corporate
(natural gas, fleet fuels, propane) divided by
Fossil Fuels
total energy consumed (GJ) x 100.
Total cost of electricity, natural gas,
Corporate
Annual Total Utility Cost
propane, diesel, and gasoline for the assets
included in GHG inventory.
Annual Fleet and Facilities GHG emissions
Corporate Spending on Carbon
(tonnes COze) x minimum national carbon
Corporate
Pollution Pricing
price for reporting year (Q irbp.!2 E2Ij.u,u�12.0.
n) ...................... .
GHG emissions from all sources (tonnes
COze) x Environment and Climate Change
Corporate
Social Cost of Carbon
Canada's yearly estimate for social cost of
carbon ($/tonne)(.E.CCC Social Cost of.GljG.s )
.....................................................................................................
Fleet &
Fuel Quantities x applicable conversion
Equipment
Total Energy Use by Fuel Type
factor (L x GJ/L)
Fleet &
Total Fleet GHGs / total KM driven (for on -
Equipment
GHG Per KM
road passenger vehicles)
Fleet &
% of fleet and equipment that are
# of ZEV emission vehicles & equipment/
Equipment
zero emissions
total fleet assets (all categories)
# of ZEV emission vehicles / Light-duty
Fleet &
% of Light-duty fleet that is zero-
vehicles (cars, SUVs, Van & Chassis > 4,500
Equipment
emissions
kg)
Total annual cost of all fleet fuels (gasoline,
Fleet &
ethanol 10, diesel, biodiesel blends,
Annual Fuel Cost
Equipment
propane) — from Fleet Systems Specialist via
Flint
M.
Page 59 of 400
CorCAP 2.0 — Pivot: Net -Zero (2023-2027)
Type
Metric
Data Sources
Total cost of electricity, natural gas and
Facilities
Annual Utility Costs
propane associated with Facilities in GHG
inventory via utility bills
Utility consumption x applicable conversion
Facilities
Energy Use by Facility
factor (unit of energy x GJ/unit of energy)
Facilities
GHGs by Facility
-
Facilities
Energy use by Facility Type
-
Facilities
GHGs by Facility type
-
39
Page 60 of 400
saRlllln aaleMuaaols + iues
saualawaD+ laed
al33eal + speob — suopeaado
salllllln aaleM pue seg
dnoag 2umAoM aasn ;aal j
3aalj
RUA sal;Illaed
MENEM
anuanaa
suollnlosda3+dab uij
RUA;asst'+ Suluueld 'ulj
suopeaado lelaueulj
SaOlAAbS 161oueuld, l
uoileliodsuejl
Aallod 2uisnOH pue 2uluueld
A3lllgeulelsns - aal}}o Ng
ouuaaulRu3
;uawdolana4 Dluaouoa3
slenoaddy 2uisnOH +'na4
Ruipps
uol;enouul gaal
palelsl2aj
leBaj
UH
lav]
2ulja laeN pue swwoD
saalnJas alejodio:)
;cods
SMS + UJRJd pooganoggRlaN
aa!j
aalnaas aauao;snD a}eaodaoD
luauaaaaoJu3 noel/l9
'. saa��uas /},$IWYIUAUA4�i.1
c
0
z E'oN
N
p
N
N
p
N
N
N
N
u
o
0
Q
0
0
Q
0
0
0
0
Gl
oa
co
�
m
\
C
\
C
\
C
�n
N
O
N
\
C
\
C
a
N
O
N
a
N
O
N
a
N
O
N
in
N
O
N
>
E
v v
y
v m
�
c
4c
v Eo
E cmu m
m v v
y .E ° E
v
a m Lo
w v
E
R v m
L E
R a mu
L m
16
a
m " w 4
U
¢
=� Q C m
a o
C m u
`o ra '—
Z T
O_
? =�
O m N
c
v L N
O m
m
O
m
o (o) a
�o
o S o
° o '>
o
>%
m
0
6 m L E>
a O
am Y
m
E L =>
O= @
o>
m L
m
L) o E a
N
Q R Z
M
�
w 2'�
w w H u
u (7 a o—
O in
in in
0
C:)
0
v
0
N
0)
m
a
sal}Illln .IaleMwaols + lues
sa a alawaD + ala ed
o!jjcjl + speoy — suollejado
salllllln aaleM pue seg
dnojE) 2ul m jasn laalj
laalj
SuW so!lw7ej
anuanay
suo!1nIOS&II+day ulj
SUN lassV+Suluueld'ulj
suolleaado lelaueulj
saIIAAaS jejZWeulj
uolleliodsuejl
(allod 8ulsnoH pue Ouluueld
Allllgeulelsns - aaljjo W9
yulaaaul2u3
luawdolanad alwouoa3
slenoaddV SulsnOH +'nad
2ulpllne
uollenouul gaal
polels!Sol
legal
yH
IHHV3
BullalieA pue swwoD
sa:)lnJaS alejodjoD
laodS
sanS + wgad pooganogg3laN
aa!j
aalnaaS jawolsnD aleaodaoD
luowauao;u3 MelAq
saalnaaS llunwwoo
c
0
N
N
C5
a
: EN
O
N
O
N
O
p
p
O
O
w
C
O
w
C
O
't
N
O
N
O
O4
O
O
WN
O
tD
O
N
O
WN
c
O
(D
-a
m
N
O
N
N
O
N
N
O
N
N
O
N
N
O
N
Q
Z
v
N
O
N
C
'o
u
c
O
C
o
W
c
O
\
c
\
c
\
C
V1
N
O
N
q
O
m
c
O
v
tl0
v
c
a v
v
v
0
oQ
bA
v
to
O
O
u
C
"
N
v
C
LL
C
�i
v
io
U—
C 2
b�
v M
N
N
° UI
O "
N O
O LL O
2
O N
'
C
0 3 0
UI
• °
ca p
a 'z
° '7
ra
a E
o °�
E
° v�
N
$ a
Ol
N m
�n c
LL E
v°
v N O.
a
3 m
c
m io
c
° `o
y
p
° N°
v
E
a
—
.6
�'—
v°
c v
c v
° °-
u
E'�
n
a`—'
.'3 r>
c
o
E
Y
'�U.
oaoo�a
rl
N
N
c -I
M
c -I
a
c -I
>°
Euo���u,�
VI
c -I
O N
LO.
c -I
O- O
I�
c -I
O v c
r�u
W
N
O°
T
N
N O m
rcu ;?u
o
N
O� v
via
N
-O
vu�
N
o a
ou
N
O�
a
N
N O
O
V
O
N
N
Im
m
a
sailipin .IaleMwaols + lues
sa a alawaD + ala ed
o!jjcjl + speoy — suollejado
salllllln aaleM pue seg
dnojE) 2ul m jasn laalj
laalj
SuW so!lw7ej
MEMO
anuanay
suo!1nIOS&II+day ulj
SUN lassV+Suluueld'ulj
suolleaado lelaueulj
saIIAAaS jejZWeulj
uolleliodsuejl
(allod 8ulsnoH pue Ouluueld
Allllgeulelsns - aaljjo W9
yulaaaul2u3
luawdolanad alwouoa3
sleno.iddV SulsnOH +'nad
2ulpllne
uollenouul gaal
polels!Sol
legal
yH
IHHV3
BullalieA pue swwoD
sa:)lnJaS alejodjoD
laodS
sanS + wgad pooganogg3laN
aa!j
aalnaaS jowolsnD aleaodaoD
luowauao;u3 MelAq
saalnaaS llunwwoo
c
0
16
'o
'o
'o
E
oz
C
O
N
O
N
N
O
N
o
W
c
O
v
N
O
N
w
c
O
w
C
O
N
O
N
o
to
c
O
N
O
N
�n
N
O
N
(D
OD
m
o
bD
C
O
oD
C
O
Vt
N
O
N
N
N
O
N
by
C
O
oD
C
O
C
N
O
N
oD
C
O
w
C
O
bq
C
O
w
C
O
V1
N
O
N
bD
C_
O
w
C
O
t0
N
O
N
N
N
O
N
b4
C
�
S_
>
NOD
O
D1 N
Y
O
vNNi
O
c0u
NNmc3
'v
O!G
°oE>�
CvObvi
LMo>
N9
v
�n.
.
ov
0
N
>
o
ovc
E>
vi
N
L6
N
ouin'n73
r-:
N
Do
N
ai
N
UnEaU
o
M
°uw
c -i
M
° B
r.i
M
u'm n2
m
M
° v
a
M
uoQ
vi
M
salllpin aalernwaols + lues
sa a alawaD + ala ed
al};ejl + speoy — suollejadp
salllllln aaleM pue seg
dnoaE) 2ul m jasn laalj
laalj
SuW so!lw7ej
NONE
anuanay
suo!3nIOS&II+day ulj
SUN lassV+Suluueld'ulj
suolleaado lelaueulj
saIIAAaS jejZWeulj.
uolleliodsueji
J
(allod 8ulsnoH pue Ouluueld
Al!I!geulelsns - aaljj0 W9
yulaaaul2u3
luawdolanad alwouoa3
sleno.iddV SulsnOH +'nad
2ulpllne
uollenouul gaal
polelsiSol
legal
yH
IHHV3
BullalieA pue swwoD
saalnJaS alejodjoD
hods
sans + wgad pooganogq3laN
aa!j
aalnaaS jawolsnD aleaodaoD
luowaaao;u3 MelAq
saalnaas �ti�iunwwo�
+,
c
0
16
'o
'o
'o
'o
E
o
c
O
c c
O
O
c
O
o
N
0
N
0
N
0
N
0
N
(D
0p
3
m
bA
C
O
m
O
b9
C
O
mU c
O
tlq
C
O
O
C
c
c
C
C
c
a+ f0
Y
N
s0+
U
O
C
T
o c o
'�
E
OU
v
c c
O U
`_ N
C
O.
C
O
.0
E
U L
U
Q N N .-
O C c
C L
O v U v
E
0 y E
l6 N
N 00 2
O y
G
N LL
7
U
Ol c
O
O
X c O«
Y C R
LL
W E
41 0
a
C L
C N N>
U
E N
C O
C N p_ O_
C O
C Q>
O
-6 3 E
C t6 >
C a C
c
C .-
C O.
vii
O
u Er
N- �+
our
r-:
O N X a
u m o
O E u '6
u Q
d Ul 0
�zuu
0` C 3
¢
0 0
u,�
0 OJ
u�aQ
Q O aL+ m N
o 0 ou
N R N
cc��
salllp;n aaleMwaols + Iues
sa a alawaD + ala ed
o!jjcjl + speoa — suolleaado
salllllln aaleM pue seg
dnoaE) 2ul m aasn laalj
laalj
SuW so!lw7ej
NONE
anuanaa
suo!1nIoS&II+dayulj
J
SUN lassV+Suluueld'ulj
suolleaado lelaueulj
saIIAAaS jejaWeulJ,
uolleliodsuejl
(allod 8ulsnoH pue Ouluueld
Allllgeulelsns - aaljjo W9
Oulaaaul2u3
luawdolanad alwouoa3
slenoaddV SulsnoH +'nad
2ulpllne
uollenouul gaal
polels!Sol
legal
?IH
IHHV3
BullalieA pue swwoD
saalnJaS alejodjoD
hods
sans + wgad pooganogq3laN
aa!j
aalnaaS aawolsnD aleaodaoD
luowauao;u3 MelAq
saalnaas llunwwoo
J
c
0
m
E
: E
V
o
°c°
O
a
W
O
N
00
3
m
C
C
N
O
u
n
OU C
a m
C
t6 N
3 c
3
c E a
0 '
a
U P
a
u o
0
v
0
LO
N
m
m
a
Staff Report
J
IKgc.;i' r� R
Development Services Department www.kitchener.ca
REPORT TO: Planning and Strategic Initiatives Committee
DATE OF MEETING: April 22, 2024
SUBMITTED BY: Garett Stevenson, Director of Development & Housing Approvals,
519-741-2200 ext. 7070
PREPARED BY: Andrew Pinnell, Senior Planner, 519-741-2200 ext. 7668
WARD INVOLVED: Ward 6
DATE OF REPORT: April 5, 2024
REPORT NO.: DSD -2024-092
SUBJECT: 15 Laurentian Drive
Official Plan Amendment Application OPA24/003/L/AP
Zoning By-law Amendment Application ZBA24/003/L/AP
Owner: Kitchener Waterloo Christian School Society
RECOMMENDATION:
That Official Plan Amendment Application OPA24/003/L/AP for Kitchener Waterloo Christian
School Society be adopted, in the form shown in the Official Plan Amendment attached to
Report DSD -2024-092 as Attachment `A' and, accordingly, forwarded to the Regional
Municipality of Waterloo for approval; and
That Zoning By-law Amendment Application ZBA24/003/L/AP for Kitchener Waterloo
Christian School Society be approved in the form shown in the Proposed By-law and Map
No. 1, attached to Report DSD -2024-092 as Attachment `B'.
REPORT HIGHLIGHTS:
The purpose of this report is to evaluate and provide planning recommendations regarding the
Official Plan Amendment (OPA) and Zoning By-law Amendment (ZBA) Applications requested
by Kitchener Waterloo Christian School Society for the subject property, addressed as 15
Laurentian Drive. It is Planning staff's recommendation that the OPA be adopted and the ZBA
be approved.
The proposed amendments would permit future expansion options for the abutting Laurentian
Hills Christian School, located at 11 Laurentian Drive, which is under the same ownership.
The subject property may be used for an expansion of the existing surface parking area or to
accommodate additional outdoor play space for students.
Community engagement included:
o Circulation of a preliminary notice letter to property owners within 240 metres of the
subject property;
o Installation of a notice sign on the property;
o Virtual neighbourhood meeting held on January 30, 2024;
*** This information is available in accessible formats upon request. ***
Please call 519-741-2345 or TTY 1-866-969-9994 for assistance.
Page 66 of 400
o Postcard advising of the statutory public meeting was circulated to all property owners and
occupants within 240 metres of the subject property and those who responded to the
preliminary circulation;
o Notice of the public meeting was published in The Record on March 28, 2024.
This report supports the delivery of core services.
These applications were deemed complete on January 20, 2024. The Applicant can appeal
these applications for non -decision after May 19, 2024.
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY:
The owner of the subject property is requesting to change the land use designation from `Low Rise
Residential' to `Institutional' in the City of Kitchener Official Plan and to change the zoning from
`Low Rise Residential Two Zone (RES -2)' to `Neighbourhood Institutional Zone (INS -1)' with Site
Specific Provision (391). These amendments would permit future expansion options for the
abutting Laurentian Hills Christian School, which is under the same ownership. The property may
be used for an expansion of the existing surface parking area or to accommodate additional
outdoor play space for students. The Region of Waterloo has requested the site specific provision
to prohibit geothermal wells. Planning staff recommends that the Official Plan Amendment be
adopted, and the Zoning By-law Amendment be approved.
BACKGROUND:
Kitchener Waterloo Christian School Society has made applications for an Official Plan
Amendment (OPA) and a Zoning By-law Amendment (ZBA) for the property addressed as 15
Laurentian Drive, shown in Figure 1. These applications will permit future expansion options for the
abutting Laurentian Hills Christian School (private school) located at 11 Laurentian Drive, which is
under the same ownership.
Through a separate, future planning application, the owner also is considering the possibility of an
expansion of / renovation to the existing school building that would occur on the 11 Laurentian
Drive property only (not the subject property). This proposal may involve changes to the north side
of the existing school building and an update to the surface parking area. After the OPA and ZBA
have been decided, the applicant may submit a Site Plan Application to clarify the details of how
15 Laurentian Drive would function with the overall changes to the school site.
Page 67 of 400
V�
µ5 N 4
4�
SUBJECTS
AREA
.1
I tl
fdd
Figure 1 — 15 Laurentian Drive ("Subject Area"
The subject property is presently designated "Low Rise Residential' in the 2014 Official Plan and is
zoned "Low Rise Residential Two Zone (RES -2)" in By-law 2019-051.
The RES -2 Zone permits primarily low density residential uses: Single Detached Dwelling,
Attached Additional Dwelling Units, Detached Additional Dwelling Units, Hospice, Small
Residential Care Facility, and Home Occupation.
Site Context
The subject property has approximately 13.7 metres of frontage on the south side of Laurentian
Drive, east of Westmount Road East, within the Laurentian Hills Planning Community. The
property is approximately 522 square metres in area and is located immediately north and east of
Laurentian Hills Christian School (private school). The property contains a single detached
dwelling that was constructed in approximately 1971 as part of the low rise residential subdivision
to the east.
The subject property is located close to several other schools:
• Laurentian Public School (WRDSB) — located 70 metres to the west, on the opposite side
of Westmount Road East;
• Trillium Public School (WRDSB) — 225 metres to the east; and
• Monsignor Haller Catholic School (WCDSB) — 520 metres to the east.
Laurentian Hills Plaza (including, for example, Freshco, Remax, Anytime Fitness) and a recently
constructed commercial building (pharmacy/ drug store and professional offices) are located on
the opposite side of Laurentian Drive.
The lands south of Laurentian Hills Christian School are used as a 60 -metre -wide hydro corridor
and community path. A low density residential neighbourhood is located further to the south.
The property was purchased by the current owners in 2015 and is being rented for residential
purposes. The current tenants were advised in early November 2023 that they would be required
Page 68 of 400
to relocate by June 30, 2024. At this time, no formal offers have been made by the school with
respect to assisting with the move.
Planning staff has confirmed that 15 Laurentian Drive (subject property) and 11 Laurentian Drive
(abutting school property) have merged under the Planning Act and are legally considered one
property. However, for the purposes of this report and for simplicity, these are referred to as
individual properties.
REPORT:
The owner is requesting an Official Plan Amendment (OPA) and a Zoning By-law Amendment
(ZBA) to permit future expansion options for the abutting Laurentian Hills Christian School located
at 11 Laurentian Drive, which is under the same ownership. The property may be used for an
expansion of the existing surface parking area or to accommodate additional outdoor play space
for students. A conceptual plan showing an outdoor play space for school students is provided
below (Figure 2). However, it should be noted that the owner is still exploring all options for
expansion. Accordingly, the purpose of the subject OPA and ZBA is to change the overall
permitted land use to institutional and to provide expansion options, not to facilitate a specific
development proposal / site concept. In any event, the owner intends to ultimately demolish the
existing single detached dwelling at some future point in time.
Page 69 of 400
Laurentian Drive
15 Laurentian urive
Preliminary Concept
(Potential Expansion
Option): Outdoor Play
Space For School
Students
11 Laurentian Drive -
Existing School Use
MITIM7
Preliminary Concept
15 Laurentian
Existing
Low Rise
Residential
Use
11"
................................. - MM-
....... . ......
111 1 � I
M
Figure 2 — Preliminary Concept (Potential Expansion Option): Outdoor Play Space for School
Students
Page 70 of 400
Planning Analysis:
Planning Act, R.S.O. 1990, c. P.13 25.
Section 2 of the Planning Act establishes matters of provincial interest and states that the Minister,
the council of a municipality, a local board, a planning board and the Tribunal, in carrying out their
responsibilities under this Act, shall have regard to, among other matters, matters of provincial
interest such as (emphasis added):
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;
i) The adequate provision and distribution of educational, health, social, cultural and
recreational facilities;
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. Policy 1.1.1 of the PPS states that healthy, livable,
and safe communities are sustained by several means including, "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 and long-term care homes), recreation, park and open space, and other uses to meet
long-term needs." (emphasis added)
The PPS promotes efficient development and land use patterns, as well as accommodating an
appropriate mix of land uses, while supporting the environment, public health and safety. Provincial
policies promote the integration of land use planning, growth management, transit -supportive
development, intensification, and infrastructure planning to achieve cost-effective development
patterns, optimization of transit investments, and standards to minimize land consumption and
servicing costs.
Page 71 of 400
To support Provincial policies relating to the optimization of infrastructure, transit and active
transportation, the requested Official Plan designation and zoning facilitate the expansion of
institutional use; the subject property is located near bus transit (including iXpress service and
local GRT routes); and the proposal makes use of both existing roads and active transportation
networks. The property is serviced and is in proximity to parks, trails and other community uses.
In addition, Policy 1.3.1 of the PPS states that, "Planning authorities shall promote economic
development and competitiveness by: a) providing for an appropriate mix and range of
employment, institutional, and broader mixed uses to meet long-term needs".
Planning staff is of the opinion that the requested amendments will increase the viability of an
existing institutional use and enhance the mix of uses within the community, thereby promoting
economic development and competitiveness. It should be noted that the expansion of land for
institutional use is rare, and the subject applications represent a unique opportunity to add to the
City's institutional land inventory. Moreover, no new public roads or services would be required for
the proposal.
Based on the foregoing, staff is of the opinion that this proposal is in conformity with the PPS.
A Place to Grow: Growth Plan for the Greater Golden Horseshoe, 2020 (Growth Plan):
The Growth Plan supports the achievement of complete communities that are designed to support
healthy and active living and meet people's needs for daily living throughout an entire lifetime, and
feature a mix of land uses, convenient access to stores, services, and public service facilities.
Making efficient use of land and infrastructure, providing for a range, and mix of housing types,
jobs, and services, at densities and in locations which support transit viability and active
transportation is important.
Policy 2.2.1.4 states that applying the policies of the Growth Plan will support the achievement of
complete communities that (emphasis added):
a) feature a diverse mix of land uses, including residential and employment uses, and
convenient access to local stores, services, and public service facilities;
b) improve social equity and overall quality of life, including human health, for people of all
ages, abilities, and incomes;
c) provide a diverse range and mix of housing options, including additional residential units
and affordable housing, to accommodate people at all stages of life, and to accommodate
the needs of all household sizes and incomes;
d) expand convenient access to:
i. a range of transportation options, including options for the safe, comfortable and
convenient use of active transportation;
ii. public service facilities, co -located and integrated in community hubs;
iii. an appropriate supply of safe, publicly -accessible open spaces, parks, trails, and
other recreational facilities; and
iv. healthy, local, and affordable food options, including through urban agriculture;
e) provide for a more compact built form and a vibrant public realm, including public open
spaces;
f) mitigate and adapt to the impacts of a changing climate, improve resilience and reduce
greenhouse gas emissions, and contribute to environmental sustainability; and
g) integrate green infrastructure and appropriate low impact development.
The subject lands are located within the City's delineated Built -Up Area. Planning staff is of the
opinion that the requested amendments will assist in achieving a complete community by
expanding the existing, viable institutional use. The impact of losing one residential unit is
Page 72 of 400
negligible considering the thousands of dwelling units that have been approved and not yet built or
are within the planning phase.
Planning staff is of the opinion that the requested amendments conform to the Growth Plan.
Regional Official Plan (ROP):
Urban Area policies of the ROP identify that the focus of the Region's future growth will be within
the Urban Area. The subject lands are designated Built -Up Area in the ROP. Growth is directed to
the Built -Up Area of the Region to make better use of infrastructure that can assist in transitioning
the Region into an energy efficient, low carbon community.
The proposal assists the gradual transition of existing neighbourhoods within the Region into 15 -
minute neighbourhoods with a broad mix of land uses where people can meet their daily needs for
goods, services, and employment within a 15 -minute trip by walking, cycling, and rolling, and
where other needs can be met by taking direct, frequent, and convenient transit. 15 -minute
neighbourhoods include an appropriate mix of jobs, local stores, and services, a full range of
housing, transportation options and public service facilities. They are also age -friendly places and
may take different shapes and forms appropriate to their contexts.
The requested amendments will increase the land area devoted to an institutionally designated
and zoned property, thereby facilitating the expansion of an existing institutional use. Such
increases are rare, and allocation of new institutional land typically occurs only during the initial
application of small pockets of land through secondary and community planning exercises. The
expansion may also increase the usability / functionality of the school use.
Development in the Built -Up Area is intended to provide gentle density that assists in providing
opportunities for residents to use alternative forms of transportation (e.g., walking, rolling, strolling).
The school is adjacent to an existing transit route (Route 12/Westmount) and is located adjacent to
Regional and City roads where sidewalks and trails are located, facilitating walking to/from the
existing school.
Section 2.F of the Regional Official Plan establishes policies for intensification targets within the
Delineated Built -Up Area, which is set at 60% annually for the City of Kitchener. It is not intended
that the 60% target would apply to individual developments, but rather that it is to be achieved over
the entire Built -Up Area. Planning staff advises that many other development opportunities exist to
achieve the intensification target.
The Region of Waterloo has indicated it has no objections to the proposed application, subject to
site specific provision in the Zoning By-law prohibiting geothermal wells (see Attachment `D'). The
Region prohibits geothermal energy systems within wellhead protection sensitive areas because
they have the potential to contaminate ground water — the region's main source for drinking water.
Planning staff is of the opinion that the applications conform to the Regional Official Plan.
Requested Official Plan Amendment to City of Kitchener Official Plan, 2014:
The applicant is requesting to change the land use designation of the subject property from Low
Rise Residential to Institutional. No other changes to the Official Plan are requested. Planning
staff commentary regarding applicable Official Plan policies and the details of the requested
amendment are below.
The City of Kitchener Official Plan (OP) provides the long-term land use vision for Kitchener. The
vision is further articulated and implemented through the guiding principles, goals, objectives, and
Page 73 of 400
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.
Urban Structure
The subject property is identified as Community Areas on Map 2 — Urban Structure of the Official
Plan. The planned function of this Urban Structure Component is to provide for residential uses
and non-residential supporting uses intended to serve the immediate residential areas. Policy
3.C.2.51 states, "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 as shown on Map 3 and detailed
in Sections 15.D.3, 15.D.7, 15.D.10 and 15.D.11" (emphasis added). The applicant is not
requesting a change to the urban structure.
Land Use Desianation
The subject property is currently designated Low Rise Residential on Map 3 — Land Use of the City
of Kitchener Official Plan. The Low Rise Residential land use designation is intended to
accommodate a full range of low density housing types, including single detached dwellings,
additional dwelling units, semi-detached dwelling, street townhouse dwellings, cluster townhouses,
low-rise multiple dwellings, special needs housing, and other forms of low density residential use.
The current designation permits a maximum Floor Space Ratio of 0.6, but site-specific increase up
to 0.75 may be considered where it can be demonstrated that the increase is compatible and
meets the general intent of the Official Plan. The maximum height limit in the Low Rise Residential
designation is 3 storeys or 11 metres, though heights may be increased to 4 storeys or 14 metres
in certain circumstances. Within this designation, the predominant land use is residential.
However, it is intended that complementary non-residential land uses be integrated, subject to
locational criteria and zoning.
As aforementioned, the applicant is requesting to change the land use designation of the subject
property from Low Rise Residential to Institutional. No other changes to the Official Plan are
requested. The Official Plan states that the primary use of land designated Institutional is for
institutional uses that that are of a community or regional nature (e.g., secondary and post-
secondary educational facilities, long-term care facilities, and social, cultural and administrative
facilities). This designation also includes small-scale institutional uses that are compatible with
nearby uses such as public and private elementary schools, libraries, day care centres, and places
of worship.
It should be noted that the City's institutional land inventory is vulnerable to attrition through
conversion because residential development tends to yield higher property values than institutional
uses. Accordingly, Policy 15.D.7.3 states that, "The City may designate small scale institutional
uses as Institutional in order to protect areas for institutional use and ensure their continued
contribution to supporting a complete community." This policy highlights the importance of
protecting institutional uses and ensuring their continuation. It also highlights the valuable
contribution that institutional lands make in achieving complete community.
Policy 15.D.7.5 provides direction for considering an OPA for new institutional uses. Although the
subject OPA is not for a new institutional use, but rather an expanded institutional use, this policy
nonetheless provides useful guidance. Under this policy, the City is to have regard to the following
considerations:
Page 74 of 400
Policy
Consideration
Planning Staff Response
Number
a)
The lands are within walking distance to
The subject property is on the GRT local
existing or planned public transit.
route #12 and within 680m of iXpress
route #201.
b)
The location would contribute to creating
The proposal would expand an existing,
and maintaining a walkable and
viable institutional use, thereby supporting
complete community.
the planned function and complete
community.
C)
The lands can incorporate a strong
The proposal may strengthen the existing
focus on the creation of links for
institutional use, which may support use of
pedestrians and cyclists with
existing active transportation networks that
surrounding uses.
are in the neighbourhood.
d)
The compatibility of the proposed
The subject lands are likely to be used for
community institutional use with
play space or parking area to support the
surrounding height, massing and scale
existing institutional use. No buildings are
of other community institutional uses or
proposed on the subject property. The Site
adjacent residential buildings.
Plan Approval process would review
physical changes to the site and assist
with ensuring compatibility.
e)
Whether the lands are of an appropriate
The lands would expand the existing
size to accommodate such use,
institutional use, including the possibility of
buffering as necessary to ensure
an enlarged parking area. Any institutional
compatibility with adjacent uses,
use on adjacent low rise residential
recreational amenities as necessary and
development would be buffered or
sufficient on-site parking.
mitigated through the site plan process,
fencing, and zoning (e.g., setbacks).
f)
The location of community institutional
The applicant advises that while there are
uses to form neighbourhood focal points
no formal agreements in place, the
and to facilitate and encourage the
existing surface parking facility and
sharing of complementary facilities.
playground/play fields are regularly used
informally by the surrounding community; it
is expected that this will continue. In
addition, the gym is regularly rented out to
several community sports groups and
organizations; it is expected that this
practice will also continue. Also, the
subject applications would increase the
size of the existing institutional hub, noting
there are 4 existing schools in the area.
g)
The adequacy of municipal
The City's Engineering Services advises
infrastructure.
that it has no concerns with the subject
applications, regarding infrastructure or
otherwise.
h)
For large sized institutional uses, the
The abutting private school is not
lands are located on a Regional Road,
considered a large-sized institutional use.
Arterial Street or Major Community
Notwithstanding, while Map 11 identifies
Collector Street.
Laurentian Dr as a Minor Neighbourhood
Collector Street, Westmount Rd (which the
subject property would have frontage on
via consolidation) is identified as a
Regional Road.
Page 75 of 400
In summary, Planning staff is of the opinion that the requested OPA satisfies the considerations of
Policy 15.D.7.5. The requested Institutional land use designation will assist in achieving a complete
community by expanding an existing, viable institutional use. The subject property and proposal
are close to transit, do not require servicing upgrades, and support and strengthen the use of
existing active transportation networks within the neighbourhood.
Proposed Official Plan Amendment Conclusions:
The Official Plan Amendment Application requests that the land use designation as shown on Map
3 — Land Use of the 2014 Official Plan be changed from Low Rise Residential to Institutional to
permit future expansion options for the abutting Laurentian Hills Christian School. The subject
property may be used for an expansion of the existing surface parking area or to accommodate
additional outdoor play space for students. Based on the above noted policies and analysis,
Planning staff is of the opinion that the requested OPA represents good planning and recommends
that it be adopted in the form shown in Attachment W.
Requested Zoning By-law Amendment to Zoning By-law 2019-051:
The subject lands are currently zoned Low Rise Residential Two Zone (RES -2) in Zoning By-law
2019-051. The existing zoning permits a variety of low density residential land uses, as follows:
• Single Detached Dwelling,
• Additional Dwelling Units (both Attached and Detached),
• Hospice,
• Small Residential Care Facility, and
• Home Occupation.
The applicant is requesting an amendment to change the zoning from Low Rise Residential Two
(RES -2) to Neighbourhood Institutional (INS -1) under By-law 2019-051. The Institutional zoning
provisions state that, "The Institutional zones apply to lands designated Institutional in the Official
Plan." Accordingly, the requested `INS -1' Zone appropriately implements the Institutional land use
designation of the Official Plan. The `INS -1' Zone permits a wide variety of institutional uses, as
follows:
• Adult Education School
• Artisan's Establishment
• Cemetery
• Community Facility
• Continuing Care Community
• Cultural Facility
• Day Care Facility
• Elementary School
• Funeral Home
• Health Clinic
• Hospice
• Hospital
• Large Residential Care Facility
• Place of Worship
• Post -Secondary School
• Secondary School
Page 76 of 400
• Small Residential Care Facility
• Social Service Establishment
A comparison of the current `RES -2' Zone and requested `INS -1' Zone is provided below, along
with a comparison / commentary by Planning staff:
Regulation
Current RES -2 Zone
Requested
Planning Staff Comparison /
(Regulations for
INS -1
Comment
Single Detached
Zone
Dwellings)
Min Lot Area
411 square metres
N/A
No comment.
Min Lot Width
13.7 metres
15 metres
The subject property is only
13.75m wide. However,
Planning staff have confirmed
that the subject property has
merged on title with the
abutting school property and,
therefore, the width is greater
than 15 metres. Accordingly,
this issue has been resolved.
Min Front Yard
Minimum front yard
6 metres
If the school building was to
Setback
shall be the
expand in the future, the
established front yard
minimum setback would be
minus one metre
reasonably consistent with the
(Appendix D)
Laurentian Drive street wall,
which is estimated to have an
average setback of 7.5 metres.
Max Front Yard
The maximum front
N/A
No comment.
Setback
yard shall be the
established front yard
plus one metre
(Appendix D)
Minimum Interior
1.2
3 metres
This setback would be
Side Yard Setback
superseded by the below
regulation (i.e., minimum yard
setback to a lot with a low rise
residential zone).
Minimum yard
N/A
7.5 metres
This 7.5m will provide an
setback abutting a
adequate buffer to the adjacent
lot with a low rise
single detached dwelling should
residential zone
the school building expand in
the future. The existing single
detached dwelling will become
legal non -conforming until its
expected future demolition.
Minimum Rear Yard
7.5 metres
7.5 metres
No comment. The setbacks are
Setback
the same.
Maximum Lot
55%
N/A
No comment.
Coverage
Maximum Building
11.0 metres
14 metres
Building height in INS -1 is a full
Height
storey higher, however, the
Page 77 of 400
In addition, as discussed in the Regional Official Plan section of this report, the Region has
requested that a site specific provision be applied to prohibit geothermal wells. Both Planning staff
and the applicant are agreeable to the application of this provision.
Proposed Zoning By-law Amendment Conclusions:
Based on the above zoning review, Planning staff is of the opinion that the requested ZBA
represents good planning. The requested zoning would properly implement the Official Plan
designation requested through the corresponding OPA and would permit the enlargement of the
institutional land use as well as the institutional expansion options contemplated by the applicant.
In this regard, Planning staff recommends that the ZBA be approved in the form shown in
Attachment `B'.
Department and Agency Comments:
Preliminary circulation of the OPA and ZBA applications was undertaken on January 16, 2024 to
applicable City departments and other review authorities. All concerns were satisfactorily
addressed through the application review. At the request of the Region, Planning staff is
recommending a site specific provision to prohibit geothermal wells. Department and Agency
comments have been included as Attachment `D'.
The following reports, documents, and plans were considered as part of this requested OPA and
ZBA applications:
• Planning Justification Letter
Prepared by: GSP Group, December 13, 2023
• Notice of Source Protection Plan Compliance
Prepared by: GSP Group, December 13, 2023
• Preliminary Concept Plan
Prepared by: GSP Group (as amended by City staff), December 12, 2023
• Surrounding Uses Map
Prepared by: GSP Group, December 2023
Page 78 of 400
setback to low rise residential is
also greater (7.5 m), and a 14
m building height is still
considered low rise. Planning
staff has no concerns.
Maximum Floor
N/A
1
The subject property has
Space Ratio
merged with 11 Laurentian Dr,
which ensures that compliance
will be maintained in the event
of any future building
expansion.
Minimum
N/A
20%
No comment.
Landscaped Area
Maximum number
3
N/A
Building height in INS -1 is
of storeys
regulated though the maximum
building height regulation which
limits the height to 14 m.
In addition, as discussed in the Regional Official Plan section of this report, the Region has
requested that a site specific provision be applied to prohibit geothermal wells. Both Planning staff
and the applicant are agreeable to the application of this provision.
Proposed Zoning By-law Amendment Conclusions:
Based on the above zoning review, Planning staff is of the opinion that the requested ZBA
represents good planning. The requested zoning would properly implement the Official Plan
designation requested through the corresponding OPA and would permit the enlargement of the
institutional land use as well as the institutional expansion options contemplated by the applicant.
In this regard, Planning staff recommends that the ZBA be approved in the form shown in
Attachment `B'.
Department and Agency Comments:
Preliminary circulation of the OPA and ZBA applications was undertaken on January 16, 2024 to
applicable City departments and other review authorities. All concerns were satisfactorily
addressed through the application review. At the request of the Region, Planning staff is
recommending a site specific provision to prohibit geothermal wells. Department and Agency
comments have been included as Attachment `D'.
The following reports, documents, and plans were considered as part of this requested OPA and
ZBA applications:
• Planning Justification Letter
Prepared by: GSP Group, December 13, 2023
• Notice of Source Protection Plan Compliance
Prepared by: GSP Group, December 13, 2023
• Preliminary Concept Plan
Prepared by: GSP Group (as amended by City staff), December 12, 2023
• Surrounding Uses Map
Prepared by: GSP Group, December 2023
Page 78 of 400
Community Input & Staff Responses
140 households (occupants and property owners) were circulated
and notified
2 people/households provided comments
A City -led Neighbourhood Meeting was held on January 30, 2024
In response to community circulation related to the proposed applications, Planning staff received
written responses from 2 households. These are found in Attachment 'E'. All comments that staff
received from the community regarding the proposal, along with staff responses, are noted below:
What Staff Heard from the Community
Staff Response
Proposed Play Space:
Planning staff must clarify that the purpose of the
Support for the school getting a green
OPA / ZBA is to permit future expansion options for
space.
the abutting school. The property may be used for
an expansion of the existing surface parking area or
to accommodate additional outdoor play space for
students. The exact usage of the parcel of land is
not yet determined.
Student Safety:
Transportation Services staff notes that there is a
Is the field in front of the play structure
provision in City's Traffic and Parking By-law to
going to be fenced / gated? There is a
prohibit stopping adjacent to the school property,
traffic safety concern that play space is
along Laurentian Drive. If parents are dropping off
located close to the pick-up and drop off
on Laurentian Drive, community members may
areas that the school students' parents
contact By-law Enforcement. Through any future
use on Laurentian Drive and the parking
Site Plan process for a play space, parking area, or
lot of the commercial development on the
otherwise, City staff will evaluate whether a fence /
opposite side of Laurentian Drive.
gate is warranted and should be installed.
The school's priority should be to use the
land for additional parking space.
Currently, although the by-law states no
on -street parking between 8:30-4pm in
the school zone, school students' parents
still park on the street to drop-off and
pick-up. There is a concern that school
students will continue to dart onto the
street, between parked cars
Planning Conclusions
In considering the foregoing, Planning staff recommends that the Official Plan Amendment be
adopted, and the Zoning By-law Amendment be approved. Staff is of the opinion that the subject
Page 79 of 400
applications are consistent with policies of the Provincial Policy Statement, and conform to Growth
Plan for the Greater Golden Horseshoe, the Regional Official Plan, and the City of Kitchener
Official Plan. Moreover, the proposal represents good planning.
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 - Bill 109, More Homes for Everyone Act, 2022 introduced a requirement for a
municipality to refund planning application fees if a decision is not made within a prescribed
timeframe. Decisions on Zoning By-law Amendments, when combined with an Official Plan
Amendment, are required within 120 days to retain planning application fees, for applications
received after July 1, 2023. A decision must be made by Council prior to May 19, 2024 or the
Planning Division must issue an application fee refund of $12,800.00, being 50% of the $25,600.00
Major Zoning By-law Amendment Application fee. The Development and Housing Approvals
Division does not have a funding source or budget for refunding planning application fees.
COMMUNITY ENGAGEMENT:
INFORM — This report has been posted to the City's website with the agenda in advance of the
Committee / Council meeting. A notice sign was posted on the subject property and information
regarding the application was posted to the City's website in January 2024. Following the initial
circulation referenced below, an additional postcard advising of the Neighbourhood Meeting was
sent by mail. A third postcard was mailed with notice of the statutory public meeting was circulated
to all owners and occupants within 240 metres of the subject property and those who responded to
the preliminary circulation. Notice of the Statutory Public Meeting was also posted in The Record
on March 28, 2024 (a copy of the Notice is attached as Attachment `C').
CONSULT — The requested OPA and ZBA were originally circulated to property owners within 240
metres of the subject property on January 19, 2024. In response to this circulation, staff received
written responses from 2 households, which are paraphrased as part of this staff report and
attached as Attachment 'E'. A virtual neighbourhood meeting was held on January 30, 2024, notice
for which was sent via postcard to all owners and occupants within 240 metres and those who
responded to the original circulation notice.
PREVIOUS REPORTS/AUTHORITIES:
• Planning Act, R.S.O. 1990, c. P.13
• Provincial Policy Statement, 2020
• A Place to Grow: Growth Plan for the Greater Golden Horseshoe, 2020
• Regional Official Plan, Regional Municipality of Waterloo, 2015
• City of Kitchener Official Plan, 2014
• City of Kitchener Zoning By-law 2019-051
REVIEWED BY: Tina Malone -Wright— Manager, Development Approvals
APPROVED BY: Justin Readman — General Manager, Development Services
Page 80 of 400
ATTACHMENTS:
Attachment `A'
— Proposed Official Plan Amendment
Attachment `B'
— Proposed By-law and Map No. 1
Attachment `C'
— Newspaper Notice
Attachment `D'
— Department and Agency Comments
Attachment `E'
— Community Comments
Page 81 of 400
AMENDMENT NO. _ TO THE OFFICIAL PLAN
OF THE CITY OF KITCHENER
CITY OF KITCHENER
15 Laurentian Drive
Page 82 of 400
AMENDMENT NO. _ TO THE OFFICIAL PLAN
OF THE CITY OF KITCHENER
CITY OF KITCHENER
15 Laurentian Drive
iinFx
SECTION 1 TITLE AND COMPONENTS
SECTION 2 PURPOSE OF THE AMENDMENT
SECTION 3 BASIS OF THE AMENDMENT
SECTION 4 THE AMENDMENT
APPENDICES
APPENDIX 1 Notice of the Meeting of Planning & Strategic Initiatives
Committee of April 22, 2024
APPENDIX 2 Minutes of the Meeting of Planning & Strategic Initiatives
Committee
APPENDIX 3 Minutes of the Meeting of City Council
Page 83 of 400
AMENDMENT NO. —TO THE OFFICIAL PLAN OF THE CITY OF KITCHENER
SECTION 1 – TITLE AND COMPONENTS
This amendment will be referred to as Amendment No. xx to the Official Plan of the City of
Kitchener (2014). This amendment is comprised of Sections 1 to 4 inclusive.
SECTION 2 – PURPOSE OF THE AMENDMENT
The purpose of the Official Plan Amendment is to amend Map 3 – Land Use by redesignating the
portion of lands identified on Schedule 'A' from Low Rise Residential to Institutional.
SECTION 3 – BASIS OF THE AMENDMENT
Plannina Analvsis:
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 (emphasis added):
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;
i) The adequate provision and distribution of educational, health, social, cultural and
recreational facilities;
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.
Page 84 of 400
Provincial Policy Statement, 2020:
The Provincial Policy Statement (PPS) provides policy direction on matters of provincial interest
related to land use planning and development. Policy 1.1.1 of the PPS states that healthy,
livable, and safe communities are sustained by several means including, "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 and long-term care homes), recreation, park and open space, and other
uses to meet long-term needs." (emphasis added)
The PPS promotes efficient development and land use patterns, as well as accommodating an
appropriate mix of land uses, while supporting the environment, public health and safety.
Provincial policies promote the integration of land use planning, growth management, transit -
supportive development, intensification, and infrastructure planning to achieve cost-effective
development patterns, optimization of transit investments, and standards to minimize land
consumption and servicing costs.
To support Provincial policies relating to the optimization of infrastructure, transit and active
transportation, the requested Official Plan designation facilitates the expansion of institutional
use; the subject property is located near bus transit (including Xpress service and local GRT
routes); and the proposal makes use of both existing roads and active transportation
networks. The property is serviced and is in proximity to parks, trails and other community uses.
In addition, Policy 1.3.1 of the PPS states that, "Planning authorities shall promote economic
development and competitiveness by: a) providing for an appropriate mix and range of
employment, institutional, and broader mixed uses to meet long-term needs".
Planning staff is of the opinion that the requested amendments will increase the viability of an
existing institutional use and enhance the mix of uses within the community, thereby promoting
economic development and competitiveness. It should be noted that the expansion of land for
institutional use is rare, and the subject applications represent a unique opportunity to add to the
City's institutional land inventory. Moreover, no new public roads or services would be required
for the proposal.
Based on the foregoing, staff is of the opinion that this proposal is in conformity with the PPS.
A Place to Grow: Growth Plan for the Greater Golden Horseshoe, 2020 (Growth Plan):
The Growth Plan supports the achievement of complete communities that are designed to
support healthy and active living and meet people's needs for daily living throughout an entire
lifetime, and feature a mix of land uses, convenient access to stores, services, and public
service facilities. Making efficient use of land and infrastructure, providing for a range, and mix
of housing types, jobs, and services, at densities and in locations which support transit viability
and active transportation is important.
Policy 2.2.1.4 states that applying the policies of the Growth Plan will support the achievement
of complete communities that (emphasis added):
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;
4
Page 85 of 400
c) provide a diverse range and mix of housing options, including additional residential
units and affordable housing, to accommodate people at all stages of life, and to
accommodate the needs of all household sizes and incomes;
d) expand convenient access to:
i. a range of transportation options, including options for the safe, comfortable
and convenient use of active transportation;
ii. public service facilities, co -located and integrated in community hubs;
iii. an appropriate supply of safe, publicly -accessible open spaces, parks, trails,
and other recreational facilities; and
iv. healthy, local, and affordable food options, including through urban
agriculture;
e) provide for a more compact built form and a vibrant public realm, including public
open spaces;
f) mitigate and adapt to the impacts of a changing climate, improve resilience and reduce
greenhouse gas emissions, and contribute to environmental sustainability; and
g) integrate green infrastructure and appropriate low impact development.
The subject lands are located within the City's delineated Built -Up Area. Planning staff is of the
opinion that the requested amendments will assist in achieving a complete community by
expanding the existing, viable institutional use. The impact of losing one residential unit is
negligible considering the thousands of dwelling units that have been approved and not yet built
or are within the planning phase.
Planning staff is of the opinion that the requested amendment conforms to the Growth Plan.
Regional Official Plan (ROP):
Urban Area policies of the ROP identify that the focus of the Region's future growth will be
within the Urban Area. The subject lands are designated Built -Up Area in the ROP. Growth is
directed to the Built -Up Area of the Region to make better use of infrastructure that can assist in
transitioning the Region into an energy efficient, low carbon community.
The proposal assists the gradual transition of existing neighbourhoods within the Region into
15 -minute neighbourhoods with a broad mix of land uses where people can meet their daily
needs for goods, services, and employment within a 15 -minute trip by walking, cycling, and
rolling, and where other needs can be met by taking direct, frequent, and convenient transit. 15 -
minute neighbourhoods include an appropriate mix of jobs, local stores, and services, a full
range of housing, transportation options and public service facilities. They are also age -friendly
places and may take different shapes and forms appropriate to their contexts.
The requested amendments will increase the land area devoted to an institutionally designated
property, thereby facilitating the expansion of an existing institutional use. Such increases are
rare, and allocation of new institutional land typically occurs only during the initial application of
small pockets of land through secondary and community planning exercises. The expansion
may also increase the usability / functionality of the school use.
Development in the Built -Up Area is intended to provide gentle density that assists in providing
opportunities for residents to use alternative forms of transportation (e.g., walking, rolling,
strolling). The school is adjacent to an existing transit route (Route 12M/estmount) and is
located adjacent to Regional and City roads where sidewalks and trails are located, facilitating
walking to/from the existing school.
Page 86 of 400
Section 2.F of the Regional Official Plan establishes policies for intensification targets within the
Delineated Built -Up Area, which is set at 60% annually for the City of Kitchener. It is not
intended that the 60% target would apply to individual developments, but rather that it is to be
achieved over the entire Built -Up Area. Planning staff advises that many other development
opportunities exist to achieve the intensification target.
The Region of Waterloo has indicated it has no objections to the proposed application, subject
to site specific provision in the Zoning By-law prohibiting geothermal wells. The Region prohibits
geothermal energy systems within wellhead protection sensitive areas because they have the
potential to contaminate ground water — the region's main source for drinking water.
Planning staff is of the opinion that the application conforms to the Regional Official Plan.
Requested Official Plan Amendment to City of Kitchener Official Plan, 2014:
The applicant is requesting to change the land use designation of the subject property from Low
Rise Residential to Institutional. No other changes to the Official Plan are requested. Planning
staff commentary regarding applicable Official Plan policies and the details of the requested
amendment are below.
The City of Kitchener Official Plan (OP) provides the long-term land use vision for Kitchener.
The vision is further articulated and implemented through the guiding principles, goals,
objectives, and policies which are set out in the Plan. The vision and goals of the OP strive to
build an innovative, vibrant, attractive, safe, complete and healthy community.
Urban Structure
The subject property is identified as Community Areas on Map 2 — Urban Structure of the
Official Plan. The planned function of this Urban Structure Component is to provide for
residential uses and non-residential supporting uses intended to serve the immediate residential
areas. Policy 3.C.2.51 states, "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 as
shown on Map 3 and detailed in Sections 15.D.3, 15.D.7, 15.D.10 and 15.D.11" (emphasis
added). The applicant is not requesting a change to the urban structure.
Land Use Designation
The subject property is currently designated Low Rise Residential on Map 3 — Land Use of the
City of Kitchener Official Plan. The Low Rise Residential land use designation is intended to
accommodate a full range of low density housing types, including single detached dwellings,
additional dwelling units, semi-detached dwelling, street townhouse dwellings, cluster
townhouses, low-rise multiple dwellings, special needs housing, and other forms of low density
residential use.
The current designation permits a maximum Floor Space Ratio of 0.6, but site-specific increase
up to 0.75 may be considered where it can be demonstrated that the increase is compatible and
meets the general intent of the Official Plan. The maximum height limit in the Low Rise
Residential designation is 3 storeys or 11 metres, though heights may be increased to 4 storeys
or 14 metres in certain circumstances. Within this designation, the predominant land use is
Page 87 of 400
residential. However, it is intended that complementary non-residential land uses be integrated,
subject to locational criteria and zoning.
As aforementioned, the applicant is requesting to change the land use designation of the
subject property from Low Rise Residential to Institutional. No other changes to the Official Plan
are requested. The Official Plan states that the primary use of land designated Institutional is
for institutional uses that that are of a community or regional nature (e.g., secondary and post-
secondary educational facilities, long-term care facilities, and social, cultural and administrative
facilities). This designation also includes small-scale institutional uses that are compatible with
nearby uses such as public and private elementary schools, libraries, day care centres, and
places of worship.
It should be noted that the City's institutional land inventory is vulnerable to attrition through
conversion because residential development tends to yield higher property values than
institutional uses. Accordingly, Policy 15.D.7.3 states that, "The City may designate small scale
institutional uses as Institutional in order to protect areas for institutional use and ensure their
continued contribution to supporting a complete community." This policy highlights the
importance of protecting institutional uses and ensuring their continuation. It also highlights the
valuable contribution that institutional lands make in achieving complete community.
Policy 15.D.7.5 provides direction for considering an OPA for new institutional uses. Although
the subject OPA is not for a new institutional use, but rather an expanded institutional use, this
policy nonetheless provides useful guidance. Under this policy, the City is to have regard to the
following considerations:
Policy
Consideration
Planning Staff Response
Number
a)
The lands are within walking distance
The subject property is on the GRT local
to existing or planned public transit.
route #12 and within 680m of Xpress
route #201.
b)
The location would contribute to
The proposal would expand an existing,
creating and maintaining a walkable
viable institutional use, thereby
and complete community.
supporting the planned function and
complete community.
C)
The lands can incorporate a strong
The proposal may strengthen the existing
focus on the creation of links for
institutional use, which may support use
pedestrians and cyclists with
of existing active transportation networks
surrounding uses.
that are in the neighbourhood.
d)
The compatibility of the proposed
The subject lands are likely to be used
community institutional use with
for play space or parking area to support
surrounding height, massing and scale
the existing institutional use. No buildings
of other community institutional uses or
are proposed on the subject property.
adjacent residential buildings.
The Site Plan Approval process would
review physical changes to the site and
assist with ensuring compatibility.
e)
Whether the lands are of an
The lands would expand the existing
appropriate size to accommodate such
institutional use, including the possibility
use, buffering as necessary to ensure
of an enlarged parking area. Any
compatibility with adjacent uses,
institutional use on adjacent low rise
recreational amenities as necessary
residential development would be
and sufficient on-site parking.
buffered or mitigated through the site
Page 88 of 400
In summary, Planning staff is of the opinion that the requested OPA satisfies the considerations
of Policy 15.D.7.5. The requested Institutional land use designation will assist in achieving a
complete community by expanding an existing, viable institutional use. The subject property and
proposal are close to transit, do not require servicing upgrades, and support and strengthen the
use of existing active transportation networks within the neighbourhood.
Proposed Official Plan Amendment Conclusions:
The Official Plan Amendment application requests that the land use designation as shown on
Map 3 — Land Use of the 2014 Official Plan be changed from Low Rise Residential to
Institutional to permit future expansion options for the abutting Laurentian Hills Christian School.
The subject property may be used for an expansion of the existing surface parking area or to
accommodate additional outdoor play space for students. Based on the above noted policies
and analysis, Planning staff is of the opinion that the requested OPA represents good planning
and recommends that it be adopted in the form shown in Schedule W.
SECTION 4 — THE AMENDMENT
The City of Kitchener Official Plan (2014) is hereby amended as follows:
a. Amend Map No. 3— Land Use by designating the lands municipally addressed as 15
Laurentian Drive as Institutional instead of Low Rise Residential, as shown on the
attached Schedule W.
Page 89 of 400
plan process, fencing, and zoning (e.g.,
setbacks).
f)
The location of community institutional
The applicant advises that while there
uses to form neighbourhood focal
are no formal agreements in place, the
points and to facilitate and encourage
existing surface parking facility and
the sharing of complementary facilities.
playground/play fields are regularly used
informally by the surrounding community;
it is expected that this will continue. In
addition, the gym is regularly rented out
to several community sports groups and
organizations; it is expected that this
practice will also continue. Also, the
subject applications would increase the
size of the existing institutional hub,
noting there are 4 existing schools in the
area.
g)
The adequacy of municipal
The City's Engineering Services advises
infrastructure.
that it has no concerns with the subject
applications, regarding infrastructure or
otherwise.
h)
For large sized institutional uses, the
The abutting private school is not
lands are located on a Regional Road,
considered a large-sized institutional use.
Arterial Street or Major Community
Notwithstanding, while Map 11 identifies
Collector Street.
Laurentian Dr as a Minor Neighbourhood
Collector Street, Westmount Rd (which
the subject property would have frontage
on via consolidation) is identified as a
Regional Road.
In summary, Planning staff is of the opinion that the requested OPA satisfies the considerations
of Policy 15.D.7.5. The requested Institutional land use designation will assist in achieving a
complete community by expanding an existing, viable institutional use. The subject property and
proposal are close to transit, do not require servicing upgrades, and support and strengthen the
use of existing active transportation networks within the neighbourhood.
Proposed Official Plan Amendment Conclusions:
The Official Plan Amendment application requests that the land use designation as shown on
Map 3 — Land Use of the 2014 Official Plan be changed from Low Rise Residential to
Institutional to permit future expansion options for the abutting Laurentian Hills Christian School.
The subject property may be used for an expansion of the existing surface parking area or to
accommodate additional outdoor play space for students. Based on the above noted policies
and analysis, Planning staff is of the opinion that the requested OPA represents good planning
and recommends that it be adopted in the form shown in Schedule W.
SECTION 4 — THE AMENDMENT
The City of Kitchener Official Plan (2014) is hereby amended as follows:
a. Amend Map No. 3— Land Use by designating the lands municipally addressed as 15
Laurentian Drive as Institutional instead of Low Rise Residential, as shown on the
attached Schedule W.
Page 89 of 400
APPENDIX 1: Notice of the Planning & Strategic Initiatives Committee Meeting (April 22, 2024)
NOTICE OF PUBLIC MEETING
for a de rn n in you r neigh bourhood
15 Laurentian Drive 1� NF -R
kw"p6m P-
. . . . . . . . ..
Concept Drawitig
Have Four" of Heard!
Manning & $trategic loitiatives Committee
Date: April 22,2024
1 ocation: Council Chambers,
Kitchener City Hall
200 King Street. West
_QrVirtual Zoom Meeting,
too to, kitchen er.ca/meetin
gs
and 5
Currermt agendas and reports
(postred 10 days, befbre Nn titin
0, Appear aq a Bele tion
0 Mid I arne�etil ig
To learn Moreabout thi�a r,)r&j'ect, ii,ricluding
inforniation On Your appeal dgltts, visit:�
wwwAftcherver.ca/
PlanningApplications
or co tart:
Andrew Pinnett Senior Manner
andrewpi,nnell,�,4) kitchener' ca
5,19.741,22,00 x7668
The City, of Kitchener 'Will consider applications for Official Plan and Zoning B -law
amendments to ire" de.9ignate the property from "Low, Rise R-esidenlrial" to '1:nstilutiona I"
in the Official IF lon arid to rezoine the prop" from ILow Rise Residential Two Zone
"RES - 2"' to Neighboi.whoDd Insfitutiona[Zone "INS -l". The property is pi'oposed,to be,
redesignated and rezoned to permit futwe expansion option for the school located at
11 Laurentian DTVve. The lands may be used for an expansion of ffic existing surface
parking area or to accornmodateadditiona I outdoor play space fir sttiidents.
Page 90 of 400
APPENDIX 2: Minutes of the Planning & Strategic Initiatives Committee Meeting (April 22, 2024)
10
Page 91 of 400
APPENDIX 3 - Minutes of the Meeting of City Council (April 29, 2024)
11
Page 92 of 400
O
(o m0
C)
w> C) 0
Z Z (1) C)
Ef)
LLIL
-J LV C: C%4
0 < z
<
C) co z
D 0- N z
(D 0 <
z 13 0) La
- -1
LU z m Z 0-
Z LLj F-�
LL 0 z
0 a) m a) M LU 2
LL —J L) C: LU
0 Z T T- E o C) 02
ffi -0 -1 F --
LU E ':5 M Z Of
E c: E <
0 Z LU 0-
0 0 E 2— LU 4.5 Lu
Z < LL
< LU
LU
;lIO M z
0 of
LU
co
>IF -
4 -J Z
LLI
A�47L A, 2E
(D
LL z
wLL
0 >
LU
-V "M
LLI
U)
LLI
N
C)
C6
N
U)
LU
CD <
F- D
LU
rf I I I I I I I I I I I I 1 11
W
LL
4W w
w
U) 0
N:
'O'V""A
Z
. . . . CO
—N7 'N
C
0 z
0 0 <
W% %
v P�V-P�V'N U) z
i% ii ii,ir 0-1 LU
........ Lu < 0
F F F F {,'-y , Y+ F s F s'�F T
)%
;•9ul L u
)Ti lULO
ui
IL : tk.
PROPOSED BY — LAW
2024
BY-LAW NUMBER
OF THE
CORPORATION OF THE CITY OF KITCHENER
(Being a by-law to amend By-law 2019-051, as
amended, known as the Zoning By-law for the City of
Kitchener
— Kitchener Waterloo Christian School Society — 15
Laurentian Drive)
WHEREAS it is deemed expedient to amend By-law 2019-051 for the lands
specified above;
NOW THEREFORE the Council of the Corporation of the City of Kitchener
enacts as follows:
1. Zoning Grid Schedule Numbers 90 and 91 of Appendix "A" to By-law Number 2019-
051 are hereby amended by changing the zoning applicable to the parcel of land
specified and illustrated as Area 1 on Map No. 1, in the City of Kitchener, attached
hereto, from Low Rise Residential Two Zone (RES -2) to Neighbourhood
Institutional Zone (INS -1) with Site Specific Provision (391).
2. Zoning Grid Schedule Numbers 90 and 91 of Appendix "A" to By-law Number 2019-
051 are hereby further amended by incorporating additional zone boundaries as
shown on Map No. 1 attached hereto.
3. Section 19 of By-law 2019-051 is hereby amended by adding Site Specific
Provision (391) thereto as follows:
"(391). Within the lands zoned INS -1 and shown as being affected by this
subsection on Zoning Grid Schedule Numbers 90 and 91 of Appendix "A",
Geothermal Energy Systems shall be prohibited."
4. This By-law shall become effective only if Official Plan Amendment No. _ (15
Page 94 of 400
Laurentian Drive) comes into effect, pursuant to Section 24(2) of The Planning
Act, R.S.O. 1990, c. P. 13, as amended.
PASSED at the Council Chambers in the City of Kitchener this day
of 2024.
Mayor
Clerk
Page 95 of 400
Z wa
z
W O z w
rn �i
z O
Z O J W Z Q Z ui¢a
NN J 0 IN
w ZQQNWIN
OQN Z DoE
p z rn z 0 O N p D w O z
o O P IN co � H Q
4 z IN
zQ�w� oac ;cIN
Q QHz QQQQ M O Q
o UUnpQZ— rn
N Z of Z N i W Z0� LU Z Z Z Q W 00
Q \ Q
QIN
D z `2 0 wL w W' _w w w w Q � W O } M J
J o a 2 Q of z O Un U) U) Un U z z CO f-- O O z
to w O U_ O==Ow W W W W C7 WQ p 2E --
O Z
Q m rr O IL J�WUQrrrYrYrY Lu Lu LU LU o 00 w� _z J N z
W O Cn W O�O�JaCn Cn Cn (� J LL Qz W Q
O wp O z Q N LJ
Q H � O= [L o� W m=���OfOf� �ZxN Q m Q a
U LU co LU cz Z O= NLU 0-0000 w w HE_jzW N N 0 �W
CL w
W Zw U) O
WwoLU w (Y NLU
p Z~ Q O Z 2 O W W W W NM-t Loy! ,� �i W w d 2 Z z W�
o wz _ ���,xU�(�(�(�(n OUwH w Z Q
M QQ LL—F-LD U—��ZO (Y� �.1 NUn0Y 4-j_p
Z
I Z U)�� VIII w: w G Lu Z w
LU
C)
rn W I W Q w
2 I Z yl y ¢ Q +LU
Ja
I m V of
Q
lllluuu I �pOG C� w
Z_ U o
a Z LL
..... n, >- �N LL
O
.... , cPRTIs?- pR I Ufl r ,
Q
r'
� U
CV
O CV
N o
00
- GRE.......... .. Z N
KIMgER`Y , }
w
... I o � O Q
I Lo W O ('
m
N N W
LL
N o W
V I Q
06 3 nicoHost6 37 U Q
- - - -'` 89 3 /103H�S - - - - - - I - - - - - - - - - - - - 3 - - - - - cA O
I
�ITTI-EF Q
-•""'•�"`""' uuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuVuuuuuuuuu �oIlo W —
WIW Z
a U)
I
_._.•-.� SIO =
umu W W
r
I
22
U
N uviI y Q w Z
Q� I' Q O U Q
I Z (A Z
I 'H J LU
ra.Q °
% , l a � o D
c) Lr)
LU u) �
Lr
NOTICE OF PUBLIC MEETING
for a development in your neighbourhood
15 Laurentian Drive
Concept Drawing
II ma [�31y �i s II 3,es � (J "ii i', ii ; i
I I ii,.
") , ���� Q Q:' V�.,p m ll s e
Have Your Voice Heard!
Planning & Strategic Initiatives Committee
Date: April 22, 2024
Location: Council Chambers,
Kitchener City Hall
200, King Street West
o Virtual Zoom Meeting
Go to kitchener.ca/meetings
and select:
• Current agendas and reports
(posted 10 days before meeting)
• Appear as a delegation
• Watch a meeting
To learn more about this project, including
information on your appeal rights, visit:
wwwAitchenenca/
PlanningApplications
or contact:
Andrew Pinnell, Senior Planner
andrew.pinnell@ kitchener.ca
519.741.2200 x7668
The City of Kitchener will consider applications for Official Plan and Zoning By-law
amendments to redesignate the property from "Low Rise Residential" to "Institutional"
in the Official Plan and to rezone the property from Low Rise Residential Two Zone
"RES -2" to Neighbourhood Institutional Zone "INS -1". The property is proposed to be
redesignated and rezoned to permit future expansion o. ons
hg xi�tdVatedons for sc o� at
y
11 Laurentian Drive. The lands may be used for an ex alsurface
parking area or to accommodate additional outdoor play space for students.
Andrew Pinnell
From: Barbara Steiner
Sent: Friday, February 9, 2024 3:02 PM
To: Andrew Pinnell
Subject: City Envl Planning RE: 15 Laurentian Drive (OPA/ZBA)
Andrew
There are no natural heritage features or functions of local, Regional, Provincial or national significance known to be
located on, or adjacent to, the subject property. Treed vegetation subject to the City's Tree Management Policy is
limited and restricted to planted, landscaping elements.
We have no concerns with the OPA or ZBA.
At the time of revision to the Site Plan for 11 Laurentian Drive to incorporate this lot, a Tree Preservation / Enhancement
Plan (TPEP) should be completed as part of a complete application for review by Urban Design staff. In that regard, we
can further advise that a search of historic records does not indicate that there is a condition / requirement to retain
trees at 15 Laurentian Drive associated with a previous development approval. HOWEVER, please note the TPEP should
confirm that no tree species regulated / protected under the Ontario Endangered Species Act will be impacted. The only
tree species that occurs in Kitchener that are so protected are the Butternut / White Walnut and Black Ash, and the
Province's Ministry of Environment, Conservation and Parks (MECP) should be consulted if these species are found. It is
very unlikely that either of these species is present.
Barbara Steiner
Senior Environmental Planner I Planning I City of Kitchener
519-741-2200 X7293 I TTY 1-866-969-9994 1 barbara.steiner aC)kitchener.ca
Page 98 of 400
Andrew Pinnell
From: Deeksha[houdhry
Sent: Wednesday, February 14.20244:44PK4
To: Andrew Pinnell; Jessica Vieira; MikeSei|ing
Subject: Re: Circulation for Comment - 15 Laurentian Drive (OPA/ZBA)
Hello,
Yes, heritage planning staff have no comments or concerns.
Thanks!
Deeksha Choudhry, MSc., BES
Heritage Planner I Planning Divisio
200 King Street West, 6th Floor
519-741-2200 ext. 7602
171 City of Kitchener
,".0. Box 1118 1 Kitchener ON N2G 4G7
Page 99 of 400
Andrew Pinnell
From: ]asonBn/|e
Sent: Wednesday, January 17'20242:43PK4
To: Andrew Pinnell
Page 100 of 400
Andrew Pinnell
From: Dave Seller
Sent: Friday, January 19, 2024 9:13 AM
To: Andrew Pinnell
Subject: TS comments: OPA/ZBA 15 Laurentian Drive
City of Kitchener
Application Type: Official Plan Amendment OPA24/003/L/AP
Zoning By-law Amendment ZBA24/003/L/AP
Project Address: 15 Laurentian Drive
Comments of: Transportation Services
Commenter's name: Dave Seller
Email: days..,s�II1 it Ikii��lrn im�ir.,
Phone: 519-741-2200 ext. 7369
Date of comments: January 18, 2024
Development proposal
The owner is proposing to redesignate and rezone the subject property to permit future expansion options for the
school located at 11 Laurentian Drive. The lands may be used for an expansion of the existing surface parking area or to
accommodate additional outdoor play space for students, including a new play structure.
Parking supply analysis
If additional vehicle parking is provided within 15 Laurentian Drive that the following, be provided:
• Update parking count within the site statistics.
• Site plan be updated with new vehicle parking area.
• Proper vehicle drive aisles are provided within the parking area.
Parallel parking dimensioning be noted on the site plan.
o Interior spaces 2.4 m in width and 6.7 m in length
o End spaces 2.4 m in width and 5.5 m in length
Typical parking drive aisle widths be noted on the site plan.
0 7.3m double loaded parking
0 6.7m single loaded parking
0 6.1m with no parking on either side of the drive aisle.
Conclusion
Based on the plans submitted, Transportation Services have no concerns with the proposed application to accommodate
additional outdoor play space for students, including a new play structure.
Dave Seller, C.E.T.
Traffic Planning Analyst Transportation Services I City of Kitchener
519-741-2200 ext. 7369 TTY 1-866-969-9994 1 dave.seller(a)-kitchener.ca
i
Page 101 of 400
Andrew Pinnell
From:
Sent:
To:
Subject:
Attachments:
No concerns with this one.
Thank you.
Jennifer Arends
Jennifer Arends
Tuesday, January 16, 2024 1:22 PM
Andrew Pinnell
FW: Circulation for Comment - 15 Laurentian Drive (OPA/ZBA)
15 Laurentian Dr -Dept Agency Circ Letter.pdf
Fire Prevention Officer I City of Kitchener
519-741-2200 Ext. 5509 I TTY 1®666-969-9994 I peniri feir,.airends lkii clheineir..ca
Page 102 of 400
City of Kitchener
Zone Change / Official Plan Amendment Comment Form
Address: 15 Laurentian Dr
Owner: Kitchener Waterloo Christian School Society
Application: OPA24/003/L/AP and ZBA24/003/L/AP
Comments Of: Park Planning
Commenter's Name: Lenore Ross
Email: Lenore.ross@kitchener.ca
Phone: 519-741-2200 ext 7427
Date of Comments: Jan 17 2024
❑ 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 an OPA and ZBA to change
the land use designation from Low Rise Residential to Institutional and to change the zoning
from `Low Rise Residential Two Zone (RES -2)' to 'Neighbourhood Institutional Zone (INS -1)' in Zoning
By-law 2019-051 to permit an expansion of the existing surface parking area or to accommodate
additional outdoor play space for students, including a new play structure.
GSP Group - Preliminary Concept Plan; completed applications; Agency circulation letter.
2. Site Specific Comments & Issues:
Parks and Cemeteries has no concerns with the proposed Official Plan and Zoning Bylaw amendments
and can provide clearance for these applications to proceed.
ADVISORY COMMENT:
The municipal boulevard in front of 15 Laurentian Dr has sufficient soil volumes to support a new
street tree and tree protection measures and/or required new plantings will be addressed through a
required future development application.
3. Policies, Standards and Resources:
• Kitchener Official Plan
• 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
A City for Everyone
Working Together — Growing Thoughtfully — Building Community
Andrew Pinnell
From: Mike Seiling
Sent: Wednesday, February 14, 2024 9:40 PM
To: Andrew Pinnell; Jessica Vieira; Deeksha Choudhry
Subject: Re: Circulation for Comment - 15 Laurentian Drive (OPA/ZBA)
Building has no comments or concerns for play ground area.
Thanks
Mike
Mike Seiling
Building Division
519.741.2200 Ext. 7669
Page 104 of 400
Andrew Pinnell
Senior Planner
City of Kitchener
200 King Street West, 6th Floor
P.O. Box 1118, Kitchener, ON
N2G 4G7
Dear Mr. Pinnell,
PLANNING, DEVELOPMENT
AND LEGISLATIVE SEPVICES
Community Planning
150 Frederick Street 8th Floor
Kitchener Ontario N2G 4A Canada
Telephone: 519-575-4400
TTY: 519-575-4608
Fax: 519-575-4466
www.regionofwaterloo.ca
Melissa Mohr 1-226-752-8622
File: D17/2/24003
C14/2/24003
February 13, 2024
Re: Proposed Official Plan Amendment OPA 24/03 and
Zoning By-law Amendment ZBA 24/03
15 Laurentian Drive
GSP Group (C/O Kristen Barisdale) on behalf of
Kitchener Waterloo Christian School Society/Laurentian
Hills Christian School
CITY OF KITCHENER
GSP Group has submitted a site-specific Official Plan Amendment and Zoning By-law
Amendment Application for a development proposal at 15 Laurentian Drive (referred to
as subject lands) in the City of Kitchener.
The Owner is proposing to redesignate and rezone the subject lands to permit the future
expansion of the school located at 11 Laurentian Drive in Kitchener. The lands may be
used for an expansion of the existing surface parking area or to accommodate an
additional outdoor play space for students including a new play structure.
The subject lands are located in the Urban Area and designated Built Up Area in the
Regional Official Plan. The site is designated Low Rise Residential in the City of
Kitchener Official Plan and zoned Low Rise Residential Two (RES -2) Zone in the City of
Document Number: 4603735 Version: 1
Page 105 of 400
Kitchener Zoning By-law. The applicant has requested an Official Plan Amendment to
redesignate the subject lands from the Low Rise Residential to the Institutional
Designation and a Zoning By-law Amendment to rezone the subject lands from the Low
Rise Residential Two Zone (RES -2) zone to the Neighbourhood Institutional (INS -1)
Zone.
The Region has had the opportunity to review the proposal and offers the following:
Regional Comments
Consistency with Provincial Legislation and Regional Official Plan Conformity
The subject lands are designated "Urban Area" and "Delineated Built Up Area" on Map
2 of the Regional Official Plan (ROP) and the site is designated Low Rise Residential in
the City of Kitchener Official Plan. The site is adjacent to an institutional use and the
proposal is to facilitate the expansion of the adjacent institutional use (Laurentian Hills
Christian School).
Built Up Area Policies:
Section 1.6 of the Regional Official Plan establishes the overview of the Regional
Planning Framework and Section 2.13.1 and 2.0 establish policies for the Urban System.
Section 2.F of the Regional Official Plan establishes policies for intensification targets
within the Delineated Built -Up Area, which is set at 60% annually for the City of
Kitchener. Furthermore, development in the Built Up Area is intended to provide gentle
density that's assists in providing opportunities for residents to use alternative forms of
transportation (e.g. walking, rolling, strolling). The school is adjacent to an existing
transit route (Route 12/Westmount) and is located adjacent to Regional and City Roads
where sidewalks and trails are located; facilitating walking to/from the existing school.
Regional staff have the following technical comments relating to the proposal:
Region of Waterloo International Airport:
The development is located within the Airport Zoning Regulations, with a maximum
allowable height of 511 m ASL.
Should a construction crane be required as part of the construction process for the
development, a Land Use Application must be submitted to NAV Canada. The
application can be found here: https://www.navcanada.ca/en/aeronautical-
information/land-use-program.aspx
Further to the above, the development may be subject to noise and the presence of
flying aircrafts. As part of a future consent application (if applicable), the following noise -
Document Number: 4603735 Version: 1
Page 106 of 400
warning clause shall be required to be implemented through a registered development
agreement with the Owner/Developer and the Regional Municipality of Waterloo:
"This parcel of land is located within or in close proximity to one of the flight paths
leading into and out of the Region of Waterloo International Airport and that directional
lighting along this path and noise from aircraft using the flight path may cause concern
to some individuals."
Stationary Noise:
As there are commercial land uses north of the subject lands and the school and
proposed playground are considered a sensitive land use, Regional staff recommend
that the following noise warning clause be implemented through a registered
development agreement between the owner/applicant and the City of Kitchener through
a future consent application (if applicable):
"Please be advised that due to the proximity of the adjacent commercial plaza, noise
from the commercial plaza may at times be audible."
Hydrogeology and Water Programs/Source Water Protection
In accordance with Regional Council's position relating to geothermal energy, a
prohibition on Geothermal Wells as defined in Chapter 8 of the Region Official Plan
shall be implemented within the site specific Zoning By-law amendment, including
vertical open and closed loop geothermal energy systems. The required wording for the
prohibition is:
Geothermal Wells are prohibited on site. A geothermal well is defined as a vertical well,
borehole or pipe installation used for geothermal systems, ground -source heat pump
systems, geo-exchange systems or earth energy systems for heating or cooling; including
open -loop and closed-loop vertical borehole systems. A geothermal well does not include
a horizontal system where construction or excavation occurs to depths less than five
meters unless the protective geologic layers overlaying a vulnerable aquifer have been
removed through construction or excavation.
The Regional Municipality of Waterloo will require a salt management plan to be
prepared to the satisfaction of the Regional Municipality of Waterloo as part of a future
site plan application. Regional staff encourage the Owner/Developer to incorporate the
following design considerations with respect to salt management into the design of the
site and within the salt management plan:
• Ensuring that cold weather stormwater flows are considered in the site design.
Consideration should be given to minimize the transport of meltwater across the
Document Number: 4603735 Version: 1
Page 107 of 400
parking lots or driveway. This also has the potential to decrease the formation of ice
and thereby the need for de-icing.
• Directing downspouts towards pervious (i.e. grassy) surfaces to prevent runoff from
freezing on parking lots and walkways.
• Locating snow storage areas on impervious (i.e. paved) surfaces.
• Locating snow storage areas in close proximity to catchbasins.
• Using winter maintenance contractors that are Smart About SaItTM certified.
• Using alternative de-icers (i.e. pickled sand) in favour of road salt.
The proponent is eligible for certification under the Smart About SaItTM program for this
property. Completion of the SMP is one part of the program. To learn more about the
program and to find accredited contractors please refer to:
http://www.smartaboutsait.com/. Benefits of designation under the program include cost
savings through more efficient use of salt, safe winter conditions by preventing the
formation of ice, and potential reductions in insurance premiums.
Please be advised that the Region does not support infiltration of chloride laden runoff
from parking lots.
Fees:
Please be advised that the Region is in receipt of the Official Plan Amendment review
fee of $7,000.00 and the Zoning By-law Amendment Review fee of $3,000.00 (total
$10,000) deposited January 25, 2024.
Conclusions:
The Region has no objection to OPA24/02 and ZBA24/02 subject to the following to be
implemented within the Zoning By-law:
1. Inclusion of a geothermal prohibition in the zoning by-law amendment. The required
wording for the prohibition is:
Geothermal Wells are prohibited on site. A geothermal well is defined as a vertical
well, borehole or pipe installation used for geothermal systems, ground -source heat
pump systems, geo-exchange systems or earth energy systems for heating or cooling;
including open -loop and closed-loop vertical borehole systems. A geothermal well
does not include a horizontal system where construction or excavation occurs to
depths less than five meters unless the protective geologic layers overlaying a
vulnerable aquifer have been removed through construction or excavation.
Document Number: 4603735 Version: 1
Page 108 of 400
Next Steps:
Please be advised that any future development on the lands subject to the above -noted
application will be subject to the provisions of Regional Development Charge By-law 19-
037 or any successor thereof.
Further, please accept this letter as our request for a copy of the decision pertaining to
this application. Should you have any questions, please do not hesitate to contact me.
Yours truly,
Melissa Mohr, MCIP, RPP
Senior Planner
C. GSP Group Inc. C/O Kristen Barisdale (Applicant), Kitchener Waterloo Christian School Society (Laurentian
Hills Christian School) C/O Carolyn Van Zwol (Owner)
Document Number: 4603735 Version: 1
Page 109 of 400
Andrew Pinnell
From: Planning <planning@wcdsb.ca>
Sent: Thursday, February 1, 2024 3:29 PM
To: Andrew Pinnell
Subject: RE: Circulation for Comment - 15 Laurentian Drive (OPA/ZBA)
You don't often get email from planning@wcdsb.ca. Learn why this is important
Good Afternoon Andrew,
The Waterloo Catholic District School Board has reviewed the subject application and has no comments to add.
If you require any further information, please contact me by e-mail at Jordan. Neale@wcdsb.ca.
Thank you,
Jordan Neale
Planning Technician, WCDSB
480 Dutton Dr, Waterloo, ON N2L 4C6
519-578-3660 ext. 2355
Page 110 of 400
Andrew Pinnell
From:
Sent:
To:
Subject:
Hi Andrew,
This is Heidi Miller
Heidi Stroeder
Tuesday, February 6, 2024 11:29 AM
Andrew Pinnell
Regarding proposed 15 Laurentian
I would have loved to have joined the zoom meeting on January 30, however, I was out of the country.
I am excited that the school is getting a green space, it will make the neighbourhood that much nicer.
Just had a few questions with the continuing development of this property.
Is the development site address 15 Laurentian Dr one of the existing home properties or multiple existing home
properties?
Is the field in front of the play structure going to be fenced/gated ?
I do worry about that play space being close to the pick up and drop off areas that the school's parents use on Laurentian
drive and in 720/750 Westmount shopping and professional centres parking lots. Are the children potentially in harms
way of this vehicle traffic?
I look forward to hearing from you Andrew, and can't wait to see how the proposal will beautify the area!
Heidi
Sent from my Whone
Page 111 of 400
Andrew Pinnell
From:
Laurie Griffith
Sent:
Sunday, February 4, 2024 10:27 AM
To:
Andrew Pinnell
Subject:
15 LaurentianDrive
Andrew
Was away from work and couldn't be around for the meeting Jan 30th for the proposal for 15 Laurentian Drive.
If anything my opinion would be to make that land into additional parking space. Right now, although the by-law states
no parking between 8:30-4pm in the area of the school, parents of the school still park on the street to drop their
children off and pick them up. My concern is the children as I have witnessed and been involved in the kids darting out
onto the street in between the cars parked both at drop off and pickup. The school has plenty of land to build
playgrounds and or add to the existing one currently there, that really should not be their priority.
Thank you for taking your time to read this email
Laurie Griffith
Page 112 of 400
Staff Report
J
IKgc.;i' r� R
Development Services Department www.kitchener.ca
REPORT TO: Planning and Strategic Initiatives Committee
DATE OF MEETING: April 22, 2024
SUBMITTED BY: Garett Stevenson, Director of Development & Housing Approvals,
519-741-2200 ext. 7070
PREPARED BY: Brian Bateman, Senior Planner, 519-741-2200 ext. 7869
WARD(S) INVOLVED: Ward 10
DATE OF REPORT: March 22, 2024
REPORT NO.: DSD -2024-061
SUBJECT: 135-161 Jackson Avenue and 135 Brentwood Avenue
Official Plan Amendment Application OPA24/002/J/BB
Zoning By-law Amendment Application ZBA24/002/J/BB Sanjiv
Shukla (1000190771 ONTARIO INC.)
RECOMMENDATION:
That Official Plan Amendment Application OPA24/002/J/BB for 1000190771 ONTARIO INC.
be adopted, in the form shown in the Official Plan Amendment attached to Report DSD -
2024 -061 as Attachment `A', and accordingly forwarded to the Region of Waterloo for
approval;
That Zoning By-law Amendment Application ZBA24/002/J/BB requesting to amend Zoning
By-law 2019-051, for 1000190771 ONTARIO INC. be approved in the form shown in the
Proposed `Proposed By-law', and `Map No. 1' attached to Report DSD -2024-061 as
Attachment `B'; and further;
That the Urban Design Brief, prepared by MHBC and attached to Report DSD -2024-061 as
Attachment `C', be adopted, and that staff be directed to apply the Urban Design Brief through
the Site Plan Approval process.
REPORT HIGHLIGHTS:
• The purpose of this report is to evaluate and provide a planning recommendation regarding
Official Plan and Zoning By-law Amendment applications for the properties located at 135-
161 Jackson Avenue and 136 Brentwood Avenue.
• It is Planning staff's recommendation that these applications be approved. The proposed
applications represent an opportunity to redevelop lands with 120 units, where the majority of
the lands (135-161 Jackson Avenue) are presently zoned `RES -5, a zone which already
permitting multiple dwelling (i.e. stacked townhouse units).
• An Official Plan Amendment is requested for increased building height and Floor Space Ratio
in the Low Rise Residential land use designation.
• The owner is requesting a site-specific regulation to allow for a building height of 12.5 metres,
a maximum Floor Space Ratio (FSR) of 1.0, and minimum interior southerly side yard
*** This information is available in accessible formats upon request. ***
Please call 519-741-2345 or TTY 1-866-969-9994 for assistance.
Page 113 of 400
setback of 7.5 metres, a reduced rear yard setback of 6 metres, and a parking rate of 1.02
parking spaces per dwelling unit.
• The increased building height is a result of the owner wishing to raise the basement level an
additional 1.5 metres (5 feet) in elevation to be able to provide more natural lighting into
basement units.
• Through the review of the applications, changes were made to the development proposal in
response to community and staff comments:
o A tree savings area has been increased in size as a result of increasing side yard
setback and shifting/ re -orientation of one of the townhouse blocks, proposed along
Jackson Avenue, away from an existing wooded area along the northern property
boundary.
o The setback from the rear lot line of adjacent Brentwood properties has been
increased from 3 metres as -of -right to 7.5 metres, and by further 1.8 metre step
back has been incorporated for the top level to further mitigate overlook, height, and
massing concerns.
o Six (6) existing detached dwellings are proposed to be demolished. Renters have
long term leases and have been made aware of the proposed re -development.
o Total dwelling unit numbers have decreased from 121 to 120.
• Community engagement included:
o circulation of a preliminary notice to property owners within 240 metres of the subject
site;
o installation of a large billboard notice sign on the property;
o a neighbourhood meeting held in February 2024;
o an informal meeting with residents on March 10, 2024;
o an on-site meeting with residents on March 26, 2024;
o follow up one-on-one correspondence with members of the public who responded to the
circulation or saw the billboard sign;
o notice advising of the statutory public meeting was circulated to all property owners
within 240 metres of the subject site, and those who responded to the preliminary
circulation; and
o notice of the public meeting was published in The Record on March 28, 2024.
• This report supports the delivery of core services.
• These applications were deemed complete on January 10, 2024. The Applicant can appeal
these applications for non -decision after May 9, 2024.
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY:
1000190771 Ontario Inc. is seeking Official Plan and Zoning By-law Amendments to grant site
specific amendments that would allow for increased building height and Floor Space Ratio (FSR),
increased side yard setbacks, a decreased rear yard setback and a reduction in number of
required parking spaces to allow the development of 118 multiple dwellings (stacked townhomes)
and two street fronting townhouses with 121 surface parking spaces on six existing lots within the
Eastwood Neighbourhood. These are addressed municipally as 135-161 Jackson Avenue and 136
Brentwood Avenue. Two vehicular accesses are proposed: one off Jackson Avenue and a second
one is required for an emergency service access off Brentwood Avenue. Full municipal services
will be provided to service the development proposal through the Brentwood Avenue connection.
The subject property is identified as `Community Areas' on the City's Urban Structure (Map 2 - City
of Kitchener Official Plan) and designated as `Low Rise Residential' (Map 3 - City of Kitchener
Official Plan). The lands addressed as 135-161 Jackson Avenue are zoned `Low Rise Residential
Five Zone (RES -5)' and the lands addressed as 136 Brentwood Avenue are zoned `Low Rise
Residential Four Zone (RES -4)' in Zoning By-law 2019-051. The existing `RES -5' zoning already
permits multiple dwellings (stacked townhomes) as -of -right. These lands have been zoned to
permit multiple dwellings, cluster or stacked townhouses, since 1994. Staff recommends that the
applications be approved.
Page 114 of 400
REPORT:
The subject lands are irregularly shaped and comprise six (6) consolidated parcels of land each
containing a single detached dwelling and accessory structures, resulting in a total area of
11,337.5 m2 (1.13 ha) in a predominantly low rise residential neighbourhood. They are located
north-east of the intersection of Brentwood Avenue and Jackson Avenue, with approximately 95
metres of frontage along Jackson Avenue and approximately 15.25 metres of frontage along
Brentwood Avenue. There is a significant grade change of approximately 5 metres across the site.
For zoning purposes, Jackson Avenue is considered the front lot line, the opposite lot line closest
to Montgomery Road is the rear lot line and all other lot lines are considered interior lots lines. The
location of the subject lands is illustrated in Figure 1.
Figure 1 — Aerial Photo of Subject and Surrounding Lands
The surrounding area is characterized by a mix of low rise residential uses including single
detached, semi-detached and three-storey multiple dwellings. Eastwood Collegiate Institute is
located to the south, as are commercial uses along Weber Street, while Montgomery Park and the
Conestoga Parkway are located to the east.
The proposed development (Figure 2) that was submitted with the application to the City included
the construction of five (5) stacked townhouse blocks with 118 units and two (2) street townhouse
units, resulting in a total of 120 units. Building heights are proposed at 12.5 metres (3.5 storeys) at
the highest grade elevation and 13.75 metres (4 storeys) at the lowest grade elevation opposite
the rear of the Brentwood properties. The owner has requested a height increase to raise the
Page 115 of 400
basement level an additional 1.5 metres (5 feet) in elevation to be able to provide more natural
lighting into basement units. Due to an increase in height and the slope of the land, more above
ground building area is exposed, resulting in an increased Floor Space Ratio to 1.0 (a measure of
all floor area above grade on a lot). It is important to note that the requested increases in height
and FSR do not translate in additional units being proposed that could otherwise be built if the
basement level was lowered and height met the as -of -right regulation of 11 metres. Moreover,
given the slope, at the lowest grade elevation building height can be 12.1 metres within 3 metres of
the common property line with Brentwood properties under the as -of -right regulations in the `RES -
5' zone. Building Height means, "the vertical distance between the highest elevation of the finished
ground immediately surrounding the perimeter of the building and the uppermost point of the
building. For all uses except a single detached dwelling with or without additional dwelling unit(s)
(attached), at no point shall the vertical distance between the lowest elevation of the finished
ground immediately surrounding the perimeter of the building and the uppermost point of the
building exceed 110% of the maximum building height in the applicable zone".
Figure 2 — Initial Conceptual Site Plan, January 2024
Through the circulation of the application there has been several positive revisions made to plan
(see Figure 3) in response to both staff and resident comments. These include:
• Upper storey step backs provided to transition the built form into the neighborhood.
• Street fronting townhouse typology without individual driveway access points provide a
complimentary built form with very few disruptions to the Jackson Avenue streetscape.
• Built form is facing Jackson Avenue to activate the street front and reduce visibility to
internal surface parking.
Page 116 of 400
• Building fagades complimentary to the neighborhood while remaining modern in
appearance. Materials such as red brick masonry and a warm colour palette are proposed
to be utilized.
• Lower -level storeys sunken into grade to decrease building height appearance at grade.
• Functioning rear yard setbacks sufficient to provide sensitive transition, particularly to
Brentwood properties, and landscaping/tree planting between property lines and buildings.
• Parking is serviced well with pedestrian connections adjacent which lead in and out of the
site.
• An on-site amenity space on site strategically placed to maximize tree preservation,
centrally located with oversight from adjacent buildings and is appropriate in size based on
urban design manual calculation requirement.
• Landscape areas sufficient to provide required plantings adjacent to the street, offset
property lines and within amenity area.
A second access off Brentwood Avenue is proposed. This access splits vehicle movements to/from
the site, allows for a servicing connection, and ensures a secondary emergency access in the
event of one of roads are closed. Both sanitary and storm connections are also required through
the Brentwood access to service the development.
The owner will be required to obtain Site Plan Approval to facilitate the development of a multiple
residential proposal. Final site details will be reviewed through the site plan process.
Page 117 of 400
Figure 3 — Revised Conceptual Site Plan, March 2024
Page 118 of 400
Figure 4 — Proposed Renderings (Brentwood view)
Note — 1.8m step back of upper level with no patios
Figure 5 — Cross -Section Showing Relationship of the Proposed Building to Brentwood
Homes (Note: Step back of the top level)
As noted earlier and to reiterate, building height is measured from the highest grade
elevation. For purposes of the by-law attached to this report, a maximum building height is
noted from both the highest and lowest grade elevation of the property.
Figure 6 — Proposed Servicing through 136 Brentwood Avenue
Page 119 of 400
Planning Analysis:
Proposed Official Plan Amendment
To accommodate the proposed development, an amendment to the Official Plan is being
requested to allow an increase in the maximum permitted Floor Space Ratio (FSR) and building
height in the `Low Rise Residential' land use designation.
In this designation, the City's Official Plan states that the maximum permitted FSR is 0.6. Policy
15.D.3.11 states that site-specific increases to allow up to a maximum FSR of 0.75 may be
considered without the need for an OPA, where it can be demonstrated that the increase is
compatible and meets the general intent of the policies of the Official Plan.
Building height in the OP is capped at 11 metres and 3 storeys for lands not having frontage on a
Regional Road or City Arterial Street.
15.D.3.12. No building will exceed 3 storeys or 11 metres in height, at the highest grade
elevation. Relief from the building height may be considered for properties with
unusual grade conditions and for buildings and/or structures with increased floor to
ceiling heights and architectural features provided the increased building height is
compatible with the built form and physical character of the neighbourhood.
15.D.3.13. Notwithstanding Policy 15.D.3.12, a maximum building height of 4 storeys or 14
metres, at the highest grade elevation, whichever is the lesser, may be permitted on
lands having primary frontage on to a Regional Road or City Arterial Street.
Given the sloping nature of the lands and grade change across the site and the proposed increase
of building height, the redevelopment of the subject lands will require an OPA to permit a FSR of
1.0, and a building height greater than 11 metres. It is important to note that the OPA is not
requesting a change of land use but rather seeking a site-specific policy to permit an increase in
both FSR to 1.0 from 0.6 and height to 12.5 metres from 11 metres.
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;
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
Page 120 of 400
(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 1.4.3 (d) of the PPS promotes densities for
new housing which efficiently use land, resources, infrastructure, and public service facilities. The
PPS sets out a policy framework for sustainable healthy, liveable, and safe communities. The PPS
promotes efficient development and land use patterns, as well as accommodating an appropriate
mix of affordable and market-based residential dwelling types with other land uses, while
supporting the environment, public health, and safety. Provincial policies promote the integration of
land use planning, growth management, transit -supportive development, intensification, and
infrastructure planning to achieve cost-effective development patterns, optimization of transit
investments, and standards to minimize land consumption and servicing costs.
Planning staff is of the opinion that the proposed applications will contribute to an appropriate mix
of low rise 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 infill project that minimizes
land consumption and servicing costs. There are a variety of low-rise residential uses throughout
the immediate areas. Multiple dwellings are currently permitted in the Official Plan and Zoning By-
law for these properties. 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.
Policy 2.2.6.1(a) Municipalities will support housing choice through the achievement of the
minimum intensification and targets in this plan by identifying a diverse range and mix of housing
options and densities, including additional residential units and affordable housing to meet
projected needs of current and future residents.
Policy 2.2.1.4(c) This plan will support the achievement to provide a diverse range and mix of
housing options within the city.
The proposed multiple dwelling residential development will provide a greater mix of housing types
in the neighbourhood. Planning staff is of the opinion that the development proposal conforms to
the Growth Plan.
Page 121 of 400
Regional Official Plan (ROP):
The subject lands are located in the "Urban Area" and designated "Built -Up Area" on Schedule 3a
of the Regional Official Plan (ROP). Permitted uses of the Urban Area and Built -Up Area in the
ROP include residential uses among others. In addition, the subject lands are designated `Low
Rise Residential' in the City of Kitchener Official Plan. The Low Rise Residential designation
permits residential uses.
The ROP outlines a hierarchy of development based on Strategic Growth Areas, which include
Urban Growth Centres, Major Transit Station Areas, Urban Corridors and Urban Nodes followed by
gentle intensification within the Built -Up Area. The subject lands are located in the Built -Up Area.
On April 11, 2023, the Minister of Municipal Affairs and Housing (MMAH) approved the Region of
Waterloo's Regional Official Plan Amendment (ROPA) No. 6 with modifications. Section 1.6 of the
Regional Official Plan establishes the overview of the Regional Planning Framework and Section
2.13.1 and 2.0 establish policies for the Urban System. Section 2.F of the Regional Official Plan
establishes policies for annual intensification targets within the delineated Built -Up Area, which is
set at 60% for the City of Kitchener. Furthermore, development in the Built -Up Area is intended to
provide gentle density and other missing middle housing options that are designed in a manner
that supports the achievement of 15 -minute neighbourhoods.
An Environmental Noise report entitled "Road Traffic and Stationary Noise Impact Study, 135-161
Jackson Avenue, Kitchener" prepared by JJ Acoustic Engineering Ltd., dated October 30, 2023
has been received. The Region is requesting a Holding Provision until the updates to the noise
study have been received and accepted by the Region.
Staff have incorporated this wording as part of a Holding provision in the Zoning By-law.
Regional comments are provided in Attachment 'E'.
City of Kitchener Official Plan:
Urban Structure
The subject lands are identified as a `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. Community Areas may have
limited intensification with development being sensitive and compatible with the character, form,
and planned function of the surrounding context.
Land Use Designation & Proposed Site -Specific Amendment
The subject lands are designated `Low Rise Residential' in the City's Official Plan (Map 3). 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 (i.e., stacked
townhouses). 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. However, policy
15.D.3.12 supports an increase in building height due to unusual slopes providing it is compatible
with surrounding lands. An Official Plan Amendment is required to add a Specific Policy Area to
permit a maximum Floor Space Ratio (FSR) of 1.0 and a maximum height of 12.5 metres, prior to
any development occurring on the lands. To assess this request, Policy 15.D.3.3 of the Official
Plan requires that re -development and/or intensification take into consideration the following:
a) compatibility of building form with respect to massing, scale, design;
b) the relationship of housing to adjacent buildings, streets and exterior areas;
c) adequate and appropriate parking areas are provided on site; and,
Page 122 of 400
d) adequate and appropriate amenity areas and landscaped areas are provided on site.
Provincial, Regional and City policy support the integration of `missing middle" forms of housing
(i.e. low rise multiples) in established residential areas. Kitchener has been a leader in that regard
by having policies in its Official Plan since 1994 that encourage integrating various forms of low
rise housing within its residential neighbourhoods. The majority of the subject lands, 135-161
Jackson Avenue, are already currently zoned `RES -5' which already permit multiple dwellings up to
3 storeys and 11 metres in height. A multiple dwelling is therefore a compatible building form
presently supported by policy and zoned accordingly. The use of the property is already
established. The amendment proposes additional building height and FSR to improve the quality
and compatibility of the built form with increased basement heights to allow for more natural light
into the units and an increased setback and step back from the adjacent residential properties to
support an appropriate transition. The re -design incorporates two key design elements to improve
the scale and design and reduces the impact of height and massing. These are increased side
yard setbacks and building step backs. For these reasons, the proposal satisfies the "compatibility"
test.
The proposal is for multiple dwellings with a building height of 12.5 metres. Additional height is
being requested to raise the basement level above grade so that natural light can penetrate
basement units. By raising the height and due to the slope of the property, more above ground
building floor area is exposed thus resulting in an increase Floor Space Ratio to 1.0. This triggers
an application and public process. This allows staff the opportunity to assess the proposal for
scale, massing and design. To that end, an increased side yard setback along with a step back of
the top floor have been proposed. Buildings are oriented along Jackson Avenue to better address
the streetscape. These measures are captured in the Urban Design Brief and will be implemented
by zoning through the application of a Site Specific Provision.
As this is infill within an established neighbourhood, the relationship of the proposal to existing
buildings is very important, particularly to existing one and one and half storey detached dwellings
situated along Brentwood Avenue. These properties will directly interface with the development
and be exposed to four storeys in their rear yards due to the slope of land. The owner has
proposed a 6.9 metre side yard setback. Staff has assessed this request and has suggested that,
given the height and massing proposed adjacent to affected Brentwood properties, the setback
should be increased to 7.5 metres (typical rear yard setback) and a step back be incorporated as
part of the building design.
Increasing the setback and incorporating a step back of the 4t" floor will result in; improved building
separation to better achieve a 45 degree angular plane which is an accepted design `best practice';
mitigating overlook into back yards and reducing building massing; and enhanced tree -savings as
buildings are further away from root zones of existing trees situated along that edge thereby
increasing their survivability. It should be recognized that the as -of -right zoning requires only a 3
metre side yard setback for a building height of 11 metres. Therefore, a 7.5 metre setback is a
considerable improvement over the as -of -right condition. Staff is of the opinion a positive building
relationship has been achieved with the latest re -design.
The owner is proposing 121 spaces for 120 dwelling units in addition to providing 130 Class `A'
and `B' bicycle spaces. The area is served by several bus routes. Surface parking is situated
internal to the site away from existing surrounding properties to minimize impact. Two vehicular
access points are proposed to split the traffic entering/existing the site and to also allow access for
emergency vehicles in event one of the accesses is blocked. For these reasons, staff is of the
opinion that "adequate and appropriate" parking test is satisfied.
The owner had originally proposed a Privately Owned Park Space (POPS) adjacent to Jackson
Avenue. Through the review, it was determined a POPS was not the preferred approach of Parks
Page 123 of 400
staff. Alternatively, a private amenity space is now proposed internal to the site. It has a dual
function of providing passive recreation for occupants while incorporating a many existing trees
that are of intrinsic value to the neighbourhood. Staff is therefore satisfied there is appropriate
amenity space provided on site.
As such, Planning staff is of the opinion that the requested Official Plan Amendment proposing an
increase in height and FSR will facilitate a housing form that conforms with the Low Rise
Residential land use designation in the City's Official Plan for reasons stated above.
Urban Design
The City is committed to achieving a high standard of urban design, architecture, and place -
making to positively contribute to quality of life, environmental viability and economic vitality. Urban
design is a vital component of city planning and goes beyond the visual and aesthetic character of
individual buildings and considers the functionality and compatibility of development as a means of
strengthening complete communities.
Urban Design policies in the 2014 Official Plan support creating visually distinctive and identifiable
places, structures and spaces that contribute to a strong sense of place and community pride, a
distinct character and community focal points that promote and recognize excellence and
innovation in architecture, urban design, sustainable building design and landscape design.
The City requires a high-quality urban design of development applications. The subject lands have
been designed in accordance with the policies in the Official Plan and with the principles of the
Urban Design Manual. These are outlined in the attached Urban Design Brief and will be used to
direct the development through a future site plan application. Some of the key highlights are high
quality design and construction, transit supportive development, positive streetscape edge and
enhanced landscape design. The proposed development requires site plan approval and will be
subject to further review.
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.
Policy 4.C.1.8 states that where special zoning regulations are requested, proposed, or required to
facilitate residential intensification or a redevelopment of lands, the overall impact of the special
zoning regulations will be reviewed, but not limited to the following to ensure, that:
a) Any new buildings and any additions and/or modifications to existing buildings are
appropriate in massing and scale and are compatible with the built form and the community
character of the established neighbourhood.
b) Where front yard setback reductions are proposed for new buildings in established
neighbourhoods, the requested front yard setback should be similar to adjacent properties
and supports and maintain the character of the streetscape and the neighbourhood.
c) New additions and modifications to existing buildings are to be directed to the rear yard and
are to be discouraged in the front yard and side yard abutting a street, except where it can
be demonstrated that the addition and/or modification is compatible in scale, massing,
design, and character of adjacent properties and is in keeping with the character of the
streetscape.
Page 124 of 400
d) New buildings, additions, modifications, and conversions are sensitive to the exterior areas
of adjacent properties and that the appropriate screening and/or buffering is provided to
mitigate any adverse impacts, particularly with respect to privacy.
e) The lands can function appropriately and not create unacceptable adverse impacts for
adjacent properties by providing both an appropriate number of parking spaces and an
appropriate landscaped/amenity area on the site.
Policy 4.C.1.9 states that residential intensification and/or redevelopment within existing
neighbourhoods will be designed to respect existing character. A high degree of sensitivity to
surrounding context is important in considering compatibility.
Policy 4.C.1.12 notes that the City favours a land use pattern which mixes and disperses a full
range of housing types and styles both across the city as a whole and within neighbourhoods.
Policy 4.C.1.22 encourages the provision of a range of innovative housing types and tenures such
as rental housing, freehold ownership and condominium ownership including common element
condominium, phased condominium, and vacant land condominium, as a means of increasing
housing choice and diversity.
Staff is of the opinion this proposal satisfies Section 4 Housing policies. The re -development
proposal incorporates appropriate vegetation buffers and has an enhanced side yard setback to
affected Brentwood Avenue properties to improve compatibility and mitigate impacts associated
with proposed site-specific regulations for height and FSR.
Natural Heritage
The subject property is not of natural heritage significance and therefore do not require the
submission of an Environmental Impact Statement. The subject properties do however contain
trees and vegetation that are subject to the City's Tree Management policies. In that regard, an
Arborist's report and Tree Management Plan were submitted and has been reviewed and accepted
by staff. A tree savings area is proposed.
Transportation & Parking
As a parking reduction is being sought and are therefore subject to several policies such as: 1. To
ensure adequate parking standards and regulations are in place and enforced; and 2. The City
may consider adjustments to parking requirements for properties within an area or areas, where
the City is satisfied that adequate alternative parking facilities are available, where developments
adopt transportation demand management (TDM) measures or where sufficient transit exists or is
to be provided and 3. To reduce parking space demand in support of active transportation and
transit and potential redevelopment of surface parking lots especially in intensification areas.
In the opinion of staff, these lands are in walking distance to several public bus routes located on
Weber Street, King Street and Ottawa Street. In addition to having access to public transportation,
the applicant is proposing to add 124 Class `A' and 6 `B' bicycle spaces providing alternate modes
of transportation besides a vehicle. As such, staff is of the opinion the intent of the aforementioned
policies are being achieved with this development proposal supporting a minor reduction from 1.1
to 1.02 parking spaces per dwelling unit.
Policy Conclusion
The proposed use of land is permitted in the Low Rise Residential land use designation in the
Official Plan. The proposed amendment is more a function of ensuring the design is appropriate
and compatible, serviceable and any impacts associated with increased FSR/height can be
mitigated. The conceptual plan is functional and serviceable. Compatibility has been achieved with
a 7.5 metre side yard setback to increase separation and incorporating of a step back to break up
the massing and improve compatibility. Therefore, Planning staff are of the opinion that the
Page 125 of 400
proposed Official Plan 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 majority of the subject lands, 135-161 Jackson Avenue, are currently zoned 'Low Rise
Residential Five Zone (RES -5)'. Multiple dwellings are a permitted use. The owner is requesting a
Site Specific amendment for additional height and FSR permissions. This is reflected as Site -
Specific Provision (339) in the By-law attached to this report.
The table below illustrates the zoning, parking, and bicycle regulations and whether the proposal
complies. Justification is provided where a regulation is not being met and why. These are in bold.
Page 126 of 400
Minimum Lot Area
495 ml
2.4ha
Complies
Minimum Lot Width
19.0 m
147 m
Complies
Minimum/max. Front
*4.0 m/6.Om
6.Om
Complies
Yard Setback
Minimum Interior
**3.0 m
Northerly Property
Complies and
Side Yard Setbacks
Line: 3.0 m
exceeds what would
Southerly Property
be required as -of -
Line: 7.5 m
right
Minimum Rear Yard
7.5 m
6.Om
Site Specific
Setback
Regulation Required
— given deep
backyards of affected
Montgomery Road
properties that are
zoned RES -5 and the
fact this backs onto
several existing 3
storey multiple
dwellings, impact is
considered minimal.
Maximum Height
***11.0 metres from
12.5 metres from the
Site Specific
highest grade to 12.1
highest grade and
Regulation Required
to the lowest grade
approximately 13.7
— see justification
(definition of height
metres to the lowest
provided in the
allows for up to a
grade — due to slope
section of this report
10% increase due to
of property
titled, Land Use &
slope conditions)
Proposed Site -
Specific Amendment
Maximum Floor
0.6
1.0
Site Specific
Space Ratio
Regulation Required
- additional above
ground floor area due
to increased height
and slope of land
contribute to an
increase in FSR. To
address the impact,
the owner is
proposing to increase
the southerly side
Page 126 of 400
*As per Residential Intensification in Established Neighbourhoods Study ("RI ENS"), the front yard
setback of development / redevelopment is the average of the abutting front yard or exterior side
yard setback plus or minus 1 -metre. For the frontage along Jackson Avenue, the abutting sites are
90 Brentwood Avenue and 171 Jackson Avenue. 90 Brentwood Avenue has a minimum exterior
side yard setback of approximately 1.8 metres at its closest point from its primary dwelling; 171
Jackson Avenue has a front yard setback of approximately 8.2 metres. The average of the two
setbacks is approximately 5.0 metres, providing a flexible front yard setback range of 4.0 metres to
6.0 metres
**Regulation 4.19 of By-law 2019-051 does not apply in this instance. The intent of this regulation
is to ensure transition occurs from development along major roadways to abutting low rise
residential properties and not from low rise residential to low rise residential.
***The established height is 11m because the height of dwellings on abutting lots along Jackson
Ave, are one and two storeys in height.
Page 127 of 400
yard setback and
incorporate building
step backs. The
effect is improved
separation and
relationship, reduced
overlook and reduced
massing.
Maximum Number of
3
3.5-4.0
Site Specific
Storey's
Regulation Required
- see above
Minimum
20%
32%
Complies
Landscaped Area
Minimum Combined
1.1
1.02 / unit
Site Specific
resident & visitor
Regulation Required
Parking Rate
— given proximity to
several public transit
routes and provision
of 130 Class A & B
bicycle spaces, staff
can support a minor
reduction at this
location.
Maximum Parking
1.4 / unit
1.03/ unit
Complies — does not
Rate
exceed maximum
Total Parking
130
121
See parking rate
Required
above
Barrier Free Parking
1+3% of required
2 spaces
Complies
Rate
spaces
Class A Bicycle
0.5 spaces/dwelling
130
Exceeds the
Space Requirement
unit =
requirements as part
59
of TDM measures
proposed
Class B Bicycle
6
6
Complies
Space Requirement
*As per Residential Intensification in Established Neighbourhoods Study ("RI ENS"), the front yard
setback of development / redevelopment is the average of the abutting front yard or exterior side
yard setback plus or minus 1 -metre. For the frontage along Jackson Avenue, the abutting sites are
90 Brentwood Avenue and 171 Jackson Avenue. 90 Brentwood Avenue has a minimum exterior
side yard setback of approximately 1.8 metres at its closest point from its primary dwelling; 171
Jackson Avenue has a front yard setback of approximately 8.2 metres. The average of the two
setbacks is approximately 5.0 metres, providing a flexible front yard setback range of 4.0 metres to
6.0 metres
**Regulation 4.19 of By-law 2019-051 does not apply in this instance. The intent of this regulation
is to ensure transition occurs from development along major roadways to abutting low rise
residential properties and not from low rise residential to low rise residential.
***The established height is 11m because the height of dwellings on abutting lots along Jackson
Ave, are one and two storeys in height.
Page 127 of 400
Holding Provision (84H)
A Holding Provision has been added requiring the owner to complete the Noise Study submitted
with the application to the satisfaction of the Region of Waterloo.
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
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.
WHAT WE HEARD
� 55 people provided written comments
One (1) Neighbourhood Meeting was held February 21, 2024, One
(1) meeting was held by Councillor Stretch on March 10, 2024 and
One 1 on-site meeting was held b staff on March 26 2024
O g Y
309 households were circulated and notified. Ad posted in the
Record on March 28, 2024. Supporting documentation with updates
posted on City's website
Department and Agency Comments:
Preliminary circulation of the Zoning By-law Amendment Application was undertaken in February
2024 to applicable City departments and other review authorities. No major concerns were
identified by any commenting City department or agencies. Copies of the comments are found in
Attachment `E' of this report.
The following reports and studies were considered as part of this proposed Official Plan and
Zoning By-law Amendments:
• Completed Application Form and Fees for Applications for an Official Plan Amendment and
Zoning By-law Amendment
• Planning Justification Report
• Notice of Source Protection Plan Compliance (Valid Section 59 Notice)
• Urban Design Brief / Neighbourhood Character Analysis (Updated)
• 3D Massing Model (Updated)
• Conceptual Site Plan (Updated)
• Existing Conditions Plan
• Tree Management Plan and Arborist Report (Updated)
• Sustainability and Energy Conservation Report
• Preliminary Building Elevation Drawings
• Preliminary Floor Plans
Page 128 of 400
• Preliminary Grading Plan
• Functional Servicing Report (FSR)
• Water Distribution Report
• Truck Turning Templates
• Transportation Impact Study
Community Input and Staff Response:
Staff received written responses from fifty-five (55) residents with respect to the proposed
development. These can be found in Attachment `F'. A summary of what was heard, and staff
responses are noted below.
What We Heard
Staff Comment
Traffic & Parking Concerns
The majority of the lands are already zoned `RES -5' in
By-law 2019-051 which allows the use of multiple
• Will Create too much traffic
dwellings. Regardless, of whether this application is
• Streets are narrow
approved or not, multiple dwellings can be built as -of-
• Traffic impact not evaluated
right. Consequently, additional traffic will occur. A Traffic
comprehensively
Impact Study was completed, however, and it shows that
• Pedestrian safety concerns
expected peak hour traffic entering and leaving the
• Not enough parking
subject lands is approximately 1 car per minute. This is
proposed
well within acceptable levels as there are multiple street
• Spillover of visitor parking
connections in and out of the neighbourhood.
onto neighbouring streets
Transportation staff do monitor traffic volumes on many
• Why the need for two
city streets to collect volume and speed data. Concerns
access points?
expressed around pedestrian safety and traffic in the
• Will Brentwood access
neighbourhood have been provided to Transportation
have buffering/fencing to
staff to see if any of the streets would qualify for formal or
screen views?
informal traffic calming measures - Traffic calming - City
of Kitchener.
The owner has requested a reduction in the required
parking spaces from 1.1 spaces (inclusive of visitor) to
1.02 spaces (inclusive of visitor) per dwelling unit. This
amounts to a reduction of 9 spaces. To offset the
requested decrease, the owner is providing 130 Class A
and 6 Class B bicycle spaces to encourage alternate
modes of transportation. This, combined with the fact the
site is within walking distance to several Regional
roadways where public transit is provided, a reduction
can be supported in accordance with policy directives.
Visitor parking will be provided on site; however, there
may be instances where a visitor may choose or must
park on surrounding streets. Parking is permitted on City
streets in accordance with by-laws and posted
regulations. Any infractions should be directed to By-law
Enforcement.
The owner is requesting to provide a secondary access to
Brentwood Avenue to service the development and split
Page 129 of 400
the traffic entering and existing the site. This is typical for
a development of this size. It would also allow Emergency
Service vehicles into the site in event Jackson is closed.
Staff do not have any major concerns with the access but
do recognize the impact it can have on adjacent
properties. To mitigate, a number of design measures can
be implemented such as fencing in combination with
vegetation screening. This will be examined in more detail
at the Site Plan review stage.
Compatibility & Intensification
Concerns
• Too dense
• Too high (height)
• Too much development in
the surrounding area
• Doesn't fit with surrounding
character
• Overlook
• Buildings too close to
Multiple dwellings are a permitted use in the existing
RES -5 zone. The stacked townhouse building form used
in the proposal is considered a compatible building form
within established residential areas.
The request is for an increase in the allowable building
height by 1.5 metres and a corresponding increase in
floor space ratio of 1.0. This request does not increase
the unit count that could otherwise be achieved through
meeting the as -of -right zoning for height and lowered
FSR. Staff must consider if the proposed increase in
Brentwood properties
• Shadow
height and FSR create additional adverse impacts over
• Massing
and above what is already allowed as -of -right. A design-
• Exceptions to height &
based approach was used to examine the massing, scale
massing should not be
and relationship of the proposal with existing adjacent
allowed
development to achieve design compatibility and to
• More people/more noise
mitigate impacts. To achieve this given the proposed
height and FSR, several measures have been
• Fencing
incorporated including increasing the southerly side yard
setback to 7.5 metres from the Brentwood properties and
incorporating a building step back of 1.8m for the top
level. As -of right, the owner could locate an 11 metre high
(12.1 metre due to the slope) building with no step back
to within 3 metres of the Brentwood properties. Step
backs are used to break up building massing and add
visual interest while reducing overlook onto neighbouring
properties. In addition, the townhouse block closest to
171 Jackson has been re -oriented to along Jackson Ave.
This design change eliminates the overlook concerns of
the previous design to 171 Jackson and saves more
mature trees along the northerly property boundary.
Buildings will not create shadow impact. Overall, the unit
count has decreased to 120 dwelling units and 121
parking spaces.
The requested increase in building height would allow the
basement level to be raised 1.5 metre further above
grade allowing natural light into basement units. This
would create a better and more desirable living
environment for occupants in their basement. From this
standpoint, exceptions should be considered and are
allowed under legislation. What this does however is
trigger a public review and decision-making process to
Page 130 of 400
Page 131 of 400
determine whether it is acceptable to Council. Under as -
of -right zoning there isn't that mechanism for public
involvement and Council decision. Having to go through a
public process allows for review and potential
improvements with an opportunity for the public to weigh
in.
The City does not assess nor regulate noise generated
from people.
Fencing will be explored during the Site Plan review stage
of the development approvals process.
Servicing Concerns
Full municipal services exist within the Jackson and
• Capacity issues
Brentwood Avenue rights-of-way. Engineering and Enova
• Electricity
staff have not identified any servicing and/or capacity
issues with existing municipal services and electricity for
this proposal. A thorough review of servicing, grading,
storm water management and electricity will occur at the
detailed design phase of the project. All servicing costs
from the street into the site are borne by the developer.
• Parks
Parks staff has indicated there is sufficient parks space
for the Eastwood community and will therefore be asking
for cash -in -lieu of parkland dedication through the Site
Plan Application Approval process. Upgrades to
Montgomery Park are planned for the near future. A
private amenity space is proposed on-site.
• Crime
There is no evidence to suggest this development
proposal will lead to an increase in crime.
Environmental Impacts
These properties are not identified as having any cultural
• pond
or natural heritage significance that would initiate the
• Wooded area
preparation of air, wildlife, bird, reptile, or other
• Goose Impact Study
environmental impact studies.
• perimeter trees and
The site does however contain a number of trees and
vegetation
vegetation that are subject to the City's Tree
• Air quality
Management Policy. An Arborist's report and Tree Plan
• Effect on streams
have been prepared in accordance with that policy which
has been reviewed and accepted by staff. Many of the
perimeter trees along the common property boundaries
are proposed to be retained. Additional trees and
vegetation plantings will be required through the Site Plan
Application Approval process.
Any surface run-off from development within the City is
subject to the City's Storm Water Management Policies
for water quality and quantity. This will be evaluated by
Engineering staff in the detailed design phase of the
project.
Page 131 of 400
Heritage
These properties are not listed on the heritage register.
• Property should be
Therefore, heritage policies do not apply.
protected
Construction & Dust
• Hours of operation
The City has by-laws and regulations around construction
• Dust
hours of operations and dust control. Construction hours
allowed are 7 days a week from 7am-7pm. Dust control
is a requirement of the Site Plan Agreement.
Noise Concerns/impacts
A Noise study was submitted in accordance with the
Ministry of the Environment and Climate Change
(MOECC) guideline called Environmental Noise Guideline
- Stationary and Transportation Sources - Approval and
Planning (NPC -300). The review and approval of this
study lies with the Region of Waterloo who has delegated
approval authority. Through correspondence received
and attached to this report, Regional staff have advised
City staff that they have no concerns with the findings of
the study and that recommendations to mitigate noise are
to be implemented through a Section 51 agreement with
the Region.
Property Values Impacts
Planning staff are not able to predict the impact of a new
development on property values. For assessment
purposes, which is used to calculate taxes, MPAC
assesses property based on up to 200 different factors
including the size of lot and house, the quality of
construction, as well as many others. The assessed value
usually differs from the market value of a property, and
market value is influenced by numerous factors as well.
RIENS
The report_was approved by council on March 20,
2017. Since that time, staff has completed the following:
• Public information and awareness - A educational
guide has now been published to provide more
information on the development process and how
citizens can provide feedback. Paper copies are
available at City Hall, 6th Floor, Planning Division
or check out the online version.
• Process enhancements — new Signs are now
posted on the property and Postcard circulation to
residents within 240 metres of the subject lands.
• New zoning rules for the location of garages,
heights of buildings and front yard setbacks are
now in effect.
• Urban Design Guidelines have been updated.
All of these measures have been used for this proposal.
Page 132 of 400
Schools
School planning and enrollment responsibility falls with
County's School Boards. No issues were identified with
the proposal.
Tenure
According to the owner, this will be a condominium
• Condo or Rental
development.
• No. of bedrooms
The City does not regulate the number of bedrooms,
• Regulations for non -owner
whether it can be rented or owner occupied or who can
occupancy
live there. That would be considered people zoning
violating the Human Rights Code.
Meeting Format & Circulation
Was done in accordance with the City's engagement
Notice
policies as approved by Council. The City's circulation
requirements significantly exceed all requirements in the
Planning Act.
STRATEGIC PLAN ALIGNMENT:
The recommendation of this report supports the achievement of the City's strategic vision through
the delivery of core service.
FINANCIAL IMPLICATIONS:
Capital Budget — The recommendation has no impact on the Capital Budget.
Operating Budget - Bill 109, More Homes for Everyone Act, 2022 introduced a requirement for a
municipality to refund planning application fees if a decision is not made within a prescribed
timeframe. Decisions on Zoning By-law Amendments, when combined with an Official Plan
Amendment, are required within 120 days to retain planning application fees, for applications
received after July 1, 2023. A decision must be made by Council prior to May 9, 2024 or the
Planning Division must issue an application fee refund of $12,800.00, being 50% of the $25,600.00
Major Zoning By-law Amendment Application fee. The Development and Housing Approvals
Division does not have a funding source or budget for refunding planning application fees.
COMMUNITY ENGAGEMENT:
INFORM — This report has been posted to the City's website with the agenda in advance of the
Council / Committee meeting. A large billboard notice sign was posted on the property and
information regarding the application was posted to the City's website. Following the initial
circulation referenced below, an additional courtesy notice of the public meeting was circulated to
all property owners within 240 metres of the subject lands, those responding to the preliminary
circulation and Notice of the Public Meeting was posted in the Waterloo Region Record on March
28, 2024 (a copy of the Notice in Attachment `D').
CONSULT — The proposed Zoning By-law Amendment was originally circulated to property owners
within 240 metres of the subject lands in February 2024. In response to this circulation, staff
received written responses from 55 residents, which are included in Attachment `F'. A
Neighbourhood Meeting was held on January 19, 2023, Councillor Stretch held a meeting with
residents on March 10, 2024, and a follow up on-site meeting attended by 5 residents with
staff/Councillor Stretch on March 26, 2024.
PREVIOUS REPORTS/AUTHORITIES:
Page 133 of 400
• Zoning By-law 2019-051
• Official Plan, 2014
• Regional Official Plan, 2010 and ROPA 6
• Provincial Policy Statement, 2020
• Planning Act, 1990
• A Place to Grow Growth Plan, 2020
REVIEWED BY: Tina Malone -Wright, Manager of Development Approvals, Development and
Housing Approvals Division
APPROVED BY: Justin Readman - General Manager, Development Services
ATTACHMENTS:
Attachment A - Proposed Official Plan Amendment
Attachment B - Proposed By-law and Map No. 1
Attachment C - Urban Design Brief
Attachment D - Newspaper Ad
Attachment E - Department and Agency Comments
Attachment F - Community Consultation Comments
Page 134 of 400
AMENDMENT NO. TO THE OFFICIAL PLAN
OF THE CITY OF KITCHENER
135, 139, 147, 153 and 161 Jackson Avenue and 136 Brentwood Avenue
Page 135 of 400
INDEX
SECTION 1 TITLE AND COMPONENTS
SECTION 2 PURPOSE OF THE AMENDMENT
SECTION 3 BASIS OF THE AMENDMENT
SECTION 4 THE AMENDMENT
APPENDIX 1 Notice of the Meeting of Planning & Strategic Initiatives
Committee of April 22, 2024
APPENDIX 2 Minutes of the Meeting of Planning & Strategic
Initiatives Committee — April 22, 2024
APPENDIX 3 Minutes of the Meeting of City Council — April 29, 2024
Page 136 of 400
AMENDMENT NO. TO THE OFFICIAL PLAN
OF THE CITY OF KITCHENER
SECTION 1 — TITLE AND COMPONENTS
This amendment shall be referred to as Amendment No. XX to the Official Plan of the City
of Kitchener 2014 Official Plan. This amendment is comprised of Sections 1 to 4 inclusive
and Schedule 'A'.
SECTION 2 — PURPOSE OF THE AMENDMENT
The purpose of this amendment is to add a Specific Policy Area to the text of the 2014
Official Plan to increase the maximum Floor Space Ratio and maximum building height
permitted on the subject lands and to also amend Map 5: Specific Policy Areas.
SECTION 3 — BASIS OF THE AMENDMENT
The subject lands are located at 135, 139, 147, 153 and 161 Jackson Avenue and 136
Brentwood Avenue. The subject lands are located within the Urban Area and Built -Up
Area. The Urban Area is intended to accommodate most of the City's Growth. The
Built -Up Area is intended to contribute to the Region's 2022-2051 minimum
intensification target and minimum total unit development count of 60% and 31,660
units, respectively, for the City of Kitchener.
The subject lands are further identified as being within the `Community Areas' of the
City's Urban Structure. The planned function of Community Areas is to provide for
residential uses as well as non-residential supporting uses intended to serve the
immediate residential areas. 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 subject lands are designated `Low Rise Residential' in the City's Official Plan (Map
3). 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 (i.e., stacked townhouses). 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. However, policy 15.D.3.12
supports an increase in building height due to unusual slopes providing it is compatible
with surrounding lands.
Page 137 of 400
The Low -Rise Residential designation permits a maximum Floor Space Ratio (FSR) of
0.6 with permissions up to a maximum FSR of 0.75, without an Official Plan
Amendment, where it can be demonstrated that the increase in FSR is compatible and
meets the general intent of the Official Plan policies.
The subject lands are proposed 118 multiple dwelling units with a Floor Space Ratio
approximately 0.99, and a height of approximately 12.5 metres at the highest grade
elevation. The proposed development will introduce a total of 118 additional residential
units, which will contribute towards the growth targets for the Built -Up Area of the City of
Kitchener, provide for appropriate intensification, and support transit and active
transportation uses in an area well serviced by existing and planned transit. In turn, in
order to implement this development an Official Plan Amendment is necessary.
An Official Plan Amendment is required to add a Specific Policy Area to permit a
maximum Floor Space Ratio (FSR) of 1.0 and a maximum height of 12.5 metres.
To assess this request, Policy 15.D.3.3 of the Official Plan requires that re -development
and/or intensification take into consideration the following:
a) compatibility of building form with respect to massing, scale, design;
b) the relationship of housing to adjacent buildings, streets and exterior areas;
c) adequate and appropriate parking areas are provided on site; and,
d) adequate and appropriate amenity areas and landscaped areas are provided on
site.
Provincial, Regional and City policy support the integration of `missing middle" forms of
housing (i.e.. low rise multiples) in established residential areas. In that regard,
Kitchener has been a leader by having policies in its Official Plan that encourage
integrating various forms of low rise housing within neighbourhood. These policies have
been in place since the 1990's and existing properties pre -zoned in anticipation of future
re -development. The subject properties, these lands, are currently zoned `RES -5' which
already permits multiple dwellings up to 3 storeys and 11 metres in height. A multiple
dwelling is therefore a compatible building form already supported by policy and zoned
accordingly. The proposal is for multiple dwellings with a building height of 12.5 metres.
Additional height is being requested to raise the basement level above grade so that
natural light can penetrate basement units. By raising the height and due to an existing
slope, additional above ground building floor area is exposed thus resulting in having to
increase the Floor Space Ratio to 1.0 beyond the 0.6 policy threshold. This allows staff
the opportunity to assess the proposal for scale, massing and design. To that end, an
increased side yard setback along with a step back of the top floor have been proposed.
These measures are captured in the Urban Design Brief and implemented by zoning
through Site Specific Regulation Provision .
Page 138 of 400
The re -design incorporates two key design elements that improve the scale and design
and reduces the impact of height and massing. These are increased side yard setbacks
and building step backs. For these reasons, the proposal satisfies the "compatibility"
test.
Because this is infill within an established neighbourhood, the relationship of the
proposal to existing buildings is important, particularly to existing one to one and half
storey detached dwellings situated along Brentwood Avenue. These properties directly
interface with the development and are exposed to four storeys due to the slope of land.
The owner has proposed a 6.9 metre side yard setback. Staff has assessed this request
and has suggested that, given the height and massing proposed adjacent to affected
Brentwood properties, the setback should be increased and a step back incorporated as
part of the building design. Increasing the setback and incorporating a step back of the
4t" floor will result in: 1. Improved building separation to better achieve a 45 degree
angular plane which is an accepted design `best practice'; 2. Mitigating overlook into
back yards and reducing building massing; and 3. Enhanced tree -savings as buildings
are further away from root zones of existing trees situated along that edge thereby
increasing their survivability. It should be recognized that the as -of -right zoning requires
only a 3 metre side yard setback for a building height of 11 metres. Therefore, a 7.5
metre setback is a considerable improvement over the as -of -right condition. Staff is of
the opinion a positive building relationship has been achieved with the latest re -design.
The owner is proposing 121 spaces for 118 units in addition to providing 130 Class `A'
and `B' bicycle spaces. The area is served by several bus routes. Surface parking is
situated internal to the site and away from existing surrounding properties to minimize
impact. A minor reduction in parking is proposed but given location and TDM measures,
a reduction can be supported. Two vehicular access points are proposed to split the
traffic entering/existing the site and to also allow access for emergency vehicles in event
one of the accesses is blocked. For these reasons, staff is of the opinion the "adequate
and appropriate" parking test is satisfied.
The subject lands are located within a 5-10 minute walk from the Weber Street East and
King Street East Existing Transit Corridors, and are surrounding by a variety of
residential uses, including single -unit and multiple -unit dwellings, that range from 1 -
storey to 3 -storeys in height. The proposed development includes a medium intensity
residential development at a low-density and with a low parking rate to support transit
usage and active transportation modes. The site will include a variety of transportation
demand management measures in order to encourage the use of alternative modes of
transportation including public transit.
The maximum Floor Space Ratio, building height, rear -yard setbacks for the building, as
well as on-site parking will be regulated in the site-specific amending zoning by-law to
ensure urban design elements are implemented and on-site constraints are addressed.
Page 139 of 400
As such, Planning staff is of the opinion that the requested Official Plan Amendment
proposing an increase in height and FSR will facilitate a housing form that conforms
with the Low -Rise Residential land use designation in the City's Official Plan for reasons
stated above.
The proposal is consistent with the Provincial Policy Statement, conforms to the Growth
Plan and complies with the Regional Official Plan, as it promotes walkability, is transit -
supportive, provides missing middle housing, maximizes the use of existing and new
infrastructure, and assists in development of this area as a compact and complete
community. The proposed development is compatible and implements the
redevelopment vision for the Low -Rise Residential designation and Built -Up Area as
prescribed in the Official Plan and is, therefore, good planning.
SECTION 4 — THE AMENDMENT
1. The 2014 City of Kitchener Official Plan is hereby amended as follows:
a) Section 15.D.12 Area Specific/Site Specific Policy Area is amended by
adding new 15.D.12.73 thereto as follows:
I5.D.12.73. 135, 139, 147, 153 and 161 Jackson Avenue and 136
Brentwood Avenue
Notwithstanding the Low Rise Residential land use
designation and policies, on lands municipally known as 135,
139, 147, 153 and 161 Jackson Avenue and 136 Brentwood
Avenue:
a) The maximum permitted Floor Space Ratio will be 1.0;
and,
b) Generally no building will exceed 12.5 metres and 3.5
storeys in height at the highest grade elevation and 13.7
metres and 4 storeys in height at the lowest grade
elevation.
b) Map 5 — Specific Policy Areas is amended by adding Specific Policy Area
No. 73 to the lands municipally known as 135, 139, 147, 153 and 161
Jackson Avenue and 136 Brentwood Avenue, as shown on the attached
Schedule `A'.
Page 140 of 400
APPENDIX 1 Notice of the Meeting of Planning & Strategic Initiatives
Committee of April 22, 2024
NOTICE OF PUBLIC MEETIN� G
�or a development in your neighbourhood
135-161 Jackson Ave. Et 136 Brentwood Ave.
KIR,T]ENE,
Have Your Voice Heard!
Planning & Strategic Initiatives Committee
Date: April 22,, 2024
Location: Council Charnbers,
Kitchener City Hall
200, King Street West
"Virtual Zoom Meeting
Go to kitchener.ca/meetings
and select:
0 Current agenclas and reports,
Concept Drawing (posted 10 days before meeting)
a Appear as a delegation
0, Watch a rneeting,
'To learn more about this project® includi ng
infbrrmation on your appeal rights, visit:
ww.kitchener.ca/
00 w
0 PlanningApplications
or contact:.
ll ,f rj 11 1; t-F�' ( 11"Illk '3 x, I 111' 1 1 rT I Brian Bateman, Senior Planner
brianbaternan( kitchener.ca
519,."741.2200 x7869
The City ofIKitcheiner w[II consider applications to arneind the City's Official Plan and
Zoning By-law, that would a1low for an increased Floor Space R atio WSW, building height,
reduced parking requirements and a ireduced rear yard setback to alllow for the
cilevelopment of 5 stacked townhome buildings, having 118 dwe[ling units, on Illanids
currently zoned foir multiple dwelflings.
Page 141 of 400
APPENDIX 2 Minutes of the Meeting of Planning & Strategic
Initiatives Committee — April 22, 2024
Page 142 of 400
APPENDIX 3 Minutes of the Meeting of City Council — April 29, 2024
Page 143 of 400
i:--eW_1TIVA0INLVA 11.1V
OF THE
CORPORATION OF THE CITY OF KITCHENER
(Being a by-law to amend By-law No. 2019-051, as amended, known as
the Zoning By-law for the City of Kitchener — 135, 139, 147, 153 and 161
Jackson Avenue, and 136 Brentwood Avenue)
WHEREAS it is deemed expedient to amend Zoning By-law 2019-051;
NOW THEREFORE the Council of The Corporation of the City of
Kitchener enacts as follows:
1. Schedule Number 174 of Appendix "A" to By-law 2019-051 is hereby
amended by changing the zoning applicable to the parcel of land
specified and illustrated as Area 1 on Map No. 1 attached hereto, from
Low -Rise Residential Five Zone (RES -5) to Low -Rise Residential Five
Zone (RES -5) with Site Specific Provision (393) and Holding Provision
(84H).
2. Schedule Number 174 of Appendix "A" to By-law 2019-051 is hereby
amended by changing the zoning applicable to the parcel of land
specified and illustrated as Area 2 on Map No. 1 attached hereto, from
Low -Rise Residential Four Zone (RES -4) to Low -Rise Residential Five
Zone (RES -5) with Site Specific Provision (393) and Holding Provision
(84H).
3. Zoning Grid Schedule Number 174 of Appendix "A" to By-law Number
2019-051 is hereby further amended by incorporating additional zone
boundaries as shown on Map No. 1 attached hereto.
4. Schedule 19 to By-law 2019-051 is hereby amended by adding Site
Specific Provision (393) thereto as follows:
Page 145 of 400
"(393) Notwithstanding Tables 5-5, 7-6, Section 7.5 and Section 7.6
of this By-law, for the lands zoned RES -5 and shown as being
affected by this subsection on Zoning Grid Schedule Number
174 of Appendix "A" the following regulations shall apply:
i) The maximum floor space ratio shall be 1.0;
ii) The maximum permitted building height shall be 12.5 metres
and 3.5 storeys at the highest grade elevation and 13.7
metres and 4 storeys at the lowest grade elevation;
iii) The minimum setback from lots abutting those properties
municipally addressed on Montgomery Road shall be 6.0
metres;
iv) The minimum setback from lots abutting those properties
municipally addressed on Brentwood Avenue shall be 7.5
metres;
v) Despite the maximum building height of 13.7 metres at the
lowest grade elevation, the building height shall not exceed
11.0 metres within 9.3 metres of a RES -4 zone;
vi) Steps may encroach within the required front yard setback;
vii) The minimum required combined residents and visitor parking
rate shall be 1.02 combined resident and visitor parking
spaces per unit; and
viii)Geothermal Wells are prohibited on site. A geothermal well is
defined as a vertical well, borehole or pipe installation used
for geothermal systems, ground -source heat pump systems,
geo-exchange systems or earth energy systems for heating
or cooling; including open -loop and closed-loop vertical
borehole systems. A geothermal well does not include a
horizontal system where construction or excavation occurs to
depths less than five meters unless the protective geologic
Page 146 of 400
layers overlaying a vulnerable aquifer have been removed
through construction or excavation."
5. Section 20 of By-law Number 2019-051 is hereby amended by adding
Holding Provision (84H) thereto as follows:
"(84H) Notwithstanding Section 7 of this By-law, within the lands zoned
RES -5 and shown as being affected by this subsection on Zoning
Grid Schedule Number 174 of Appendix "A", only those uses that
lawfully existed on the date of passing of this By-law shall be
permitted until such time as a Noise Study has been completed and
implementation measures addressed to the satisfaction of the
Region. The detailed stationary noise study shall review the potential
impacts of noise (e.g. HVAC systems) on the sensitive points of
reception and the impacts of the development on adjacent noise
sensitive uses."
6. This By-law shall become effective only if Official Plan Amendment No. _,
135, 139, 147, 153 and 161 Jackson Avenue, and 136 Brentwood Avenue
comes into effect, pursuant to Section 24(2) of The Planning Act, R.S.O.
1990, c. P.13, as amended.
PASSED by Council this _day of 2024.
Mayor
Clerk
Page 147 of 400
a
LU
nO
O
--
O
Z
N
n
p
0�
pZ
W
W
LU Z
w
H
O w
W Z W
212
Z
O
w
O
N
w
O
U
0� w Z O Z
0� N O
Q
m
N
LU
Z Cl)
0
0-1Z
p
c)
00
w
cn
O Z O
U LU ONOpw
m
LO
=
Ow
w
U } cn
CO
N
O
N
C7
w
J
wZ —
> O=
J
wZ —
> U=
p
W
cwn z 0 Z >- f- � LL
D 0N O Q J J J
p
O
C
CO 00
N
Q
N
—
M J Q Q Z
U
♦-
Z
J
1-
J
LL
.. �......
♦- ♦- ♦-
0Wp(If N Z LUN
Wd W
W W
QN
H 0 O
Z
w
� 0 O
Z
O W w w w w
W 0— p p
to
—
w
0 U>
—
w
o U>
(n
Z
W~
2 H z iii w w w
Q
m
O w
��
wUd
w
���
WUa
r
z 2��U���
Z Q w w w
w
d
d
z
Lf) Z�O
O
a
H cr
W
Z
d'
�p
W
z
r
Z O) Q Z d' Of Of
F-
LUCi H2O
cl
���
UD
Q
���
0
ODp
W
1:
= NUO0Qa���
C� JQ 000
LLI
IIIIIIIIIIpll
IIIIII
Z
<
m
W W O�O=p
W Q�O=p
QLU
NZ
MZ Q N U (n (n (n
ai
f
aaof
LL
0
--
a��°�Q
O)
m °�°m°?
z o -
a
LU
nO
O
o
o
a
Q
W
Q
N
m
J m aX
a E
O
pZ
'1=
IIIIII
a
=
U
H
Q
212
'� c
a
m
Q
�
0
�
Lc
00m
m
m
<
LU
J
\
m
o
=
J
w
U } cn
CO
N
O
N
C7
O
ZZJ
U
W C9
O
\
O
z
p
O
p
wp¢O Z
N
Q
N
Z
L�
OJ
U
a�ZXN O
Co
Q
^+ a
W F
LL
.. �......
w
0Wp(If N Z LUN
Wd W
W W
O
w
Q
pIL =
Z
W
1
ZIQU
oN O Y
Z
ppp
1
1
17 0)
p
r
Z
p
LU
w
�..
Ulu
O
_
Z
LLQ
1
1
>
O w
~
z
M
�
-
3:
Q
�
LLI
IIIIIIIIIIpll
IIIIII
Z
<
J
� 1
�
Z
'♦a
O
f
m
J
>
O)
LU
O
U
Z
IL
C14
O
<
LL
1
'
N
O
c3'
O
�,
n r
1
o
o
�
N
O
N
J'Jw
'1=
IIIIII
OW' O
Ln w O
=
U
212
'� c
Q
y:
<
CV
o
W
rn
'
U
Q
Z
cy
co
O
W
�
1
Q
1
p
1
ppp
1
1
17 0)
p
r
Z
O
Z
O
O
_
w
m
1
1
Z
~
z
M
�
�
LLI
IIIIIIIIIIpll
IIIIII
<
� 1
Z
O)
O
U
1
C14
O
<
1
c3'
O
�,
n r
1
LO
Cl)
r�ieorti✓a««rrr,�1,uP1 l� %// %G4; Ilr�i/i ��/ �,, ii/,,,,, ii t J�� ��o�� i //r, N
i
11F/,<;;%: i;,;pp
Sarl
%'� i�,,,Io� s %,,,pm�',p� J�%%'� 4ttuNONm}jS'KFi, �3DJS)�StfJaJ1N��1yulri/,
/,' � � Illl flllroflW9M(1 )�tH 11i0 A011✓YIaJb / /{o� % o�
�/r 1mal�,,'%i%aiiiiii/lia�lr/lN�iari�rahvioiam�„
r///�� ;
,,% % r i,
' f
r,
135-161 JACKSON AVE
136 BRENTWOOD
AVENUE KITCHENER
MHBC
L A N N� N
URBAN DESIGN BRIEF (JRBAN DESKIN
& I ANL S (';:,' A P ::
Page 149 of 400
All
1 0 IIII N I°"'l[ III)uc°"1°"'IIII III
Z °° IN IIIA IIII °°T TIMIMS ,
2.1 EXISTING CONDITIONS 5
2.2 EXISTING VEGETATION AND TOPOGRAPHY 6
IN IIII........1� G 1I 1I B 0 u IIIA IIIA°°IIIII[" IN I°"'lEX I AIWD CplAIAII3AG I IIII IIIA°ANAII ,
IMMEDIATE3.1 CONTEXT
••1 1 � 11
EXINAIM10241dwfu
5.1 CITY OF KITCHENER OFFICIAL
5.2 CITY OF KITCHENER URBAN DESIGN
., SLJIMIMARW
Page 150 of 400
� iNTRooucTi❑
.� .�,,
. .. ��
MacNaughton Hermsen Britton Clarkson Planning
Limited ("MHBC Planning") has been retained by
Sanjiv Shukla (the "Owner") to prepare an Urban
Design Brief in support of the proposed development
at 135, 139, 147, 153 and 161 Jackson Avenue, and
136 Brentwood Avenue in the City of Kitchener (herein
referred to as the "subject lands" or the "site"). The intent
of the Urban Design Brief is to provide an evaluation of
how the proposed development achieves high quality
urban design, a comfortable pedestrian experience,
appropriate height and transitions to the surrounding
context, conformity with the City's Official Plan, and
alignment with the City's Urban Design Manual.
The subject lands consolidate six (6) individual lots
containing single -detached dwellings each and are
located north-east of the intersection of Jackson Avenue
and Brentwood Avenue in the City of Kitchener. The
lands are approximately 1.13 hectares in area and are
situated within a 5 -minute walking distance from major
bus routes.
The applicant is proposing to redevelop the site with
a multiple dwelling built -form containing two (2) street
townhouses and 118 stacked townhouses, for a total of
120 units, with at -grade and private balcony amenity
spaces and 121 surface parking spaces (see Figure
1.1). A Floor Space Ratio (FSR) of 1.0 is proposed for
the entire site. A reduced parking rate is proposed to
encourage transit -usage. 118 in -unit bicycle parking
spaces and 12 outdoor bicycle spaces are proposed
to encourage active transportation.
To facilitate the Proposed Development, Official Plan
Amendment ("OPA") and Zoning By-law Amendment
("ZBA") applications are required. An Urban
Design Brief was identified as one of the application
requirements during pre -submission consultation. This
Urban Design Brief has been prepared according to
the guidelines provided by City of Kitchener staff in the
Formal Consultation Comments document and includes
the following topics:
• An analysis of site conditions, neighbourhood
analysis, and contextual fit;
• An overview of the applicable policy context and
design requirements as they relate to the City of
Kitchener Official Plan and Urban Design Manual;
• An analysis of the proposed design features as they
relate to the applicable urban design policies and
guidelines; and,
• A summary of the conclusions regarding the
proposed redevelopment of the subject lands.
This Urban Design Brief has considered, and must
be read in conjunction with, the following plans and
studies supporting the applications for an Official Plan
Amendment and a Zoning By-law Amendment:
• Planning Justification Report, prepared by MHBC
Planning, dated November, 2023 and revised by
March 22, 2024 cover letter
• Architectural Drawing Package, prepared by SRM
Architects, revised March 21, 2024
• Tree Management Plan, prepared by Hill Studio
Inc., revised March 20, 2024
• Preliminary Grading Plan, prepared by MTE
Consultants, revised March 15, 2024
• This Design Brief recommends a revised preferred
concept plan that will be further refined through the
more detailed Site Plan Approval process.
2 Page 152 of 400
Figure 1.1 - Proposed concept plan
Page 153 oNOO
'�/iii
u
r'
The subject lands are irregularly shaped and have
a total area of approximately 1.13 hectares with
approximately 95 metres of frontage along Jackson
Avenue and approximately 15.3 metres of frontage
along Brentwood Avenue (see Figure 2.1 ). The subject
lands are comprised of six (6) individual lots, each
containing a single detached dwelling with accessory
structures, consolidated into one (1) large lot that can
be accessed from Jackson Avenue and Brentwood
Avenue.
1 IEXIIS FII IN G C"" 0 IN IC:) II FII (I S
Five (5) of the former individual lots have trapezoidal -
shapes and include dwellings that vary in street
line setback from approximately 75 metres to 13.0
metres. The built -forms of these five lots directly front
their respective streets and have access via paved
driveways. One (1 I of the former individual lots is
irregularly shaped and is located internal to the block.
This lot includes a pond and a long, paved driveway
leading to a large house located central to the site and
block, and is setback at a distance of approximately
58.5 metres from the street line along Jackson Avenue.
The dwellings range in height from 1- to 2 -storeys and
generally utilize brick and vinyl for building material with
brown and grey shingles for their roofs. The roofs are
pitched / open gable and front entrances and porches
are generally canopied or recessed, with some variety
in built -form and articulation.
Figure 2.1 - Location of the subject lands atJackson Avenue and Brentwood Avenue
Page 155 of5400
2.2 IEXIIS..FII IN G V IE C If;;;; rA]l 110 IN AIN If
F011:10GIRAINHY
The site is hilled and contains significant grade changes
(approximately 5m across the site, as illustrated on
Figure 2.2. The subject lands slope upwards towards
the north and west boundaries of the site, and have the
lowest elevation at the south and east boundaries of
the site.
The subject lands contain grassed lawns, shrubs and
bushes, and large and mature trees throughout the
site with a cluster of mature trees existing on the north
portion of the property, within the rear yard of the former
lot at 161 Jackson Avenue. A row of mature street trees
are located along Jackson Avenue with mowed lawns,
mature trees, and shrubs, bushes or other plantings
existing on the front lawns (see Figures 2.3 and 2.4).
The existing building and structures are proposed to be
demolished to facilitate the proposed development.
Mature trees are proposed to be retained to the extent
feasible, as illustrated on the Tree Management Plan
prepared by Hill Design Studio Inc.
Figure 2.2 - site grading towards North and West boundaries
Figure 2.3 - Existing vegetation on Jackson Avenue
Figure 2.4 - Existing row of mature trees on Jackson Ave
6 Page 156 of 400
/1111111/i/ii%/
,,, ,,,,,
,,,,,, r,
x;;;
,rii EEe,::::i. EEEEEE
,,,,,
,,;;
.uu
,
••,,,,,,,,,,,,,/ ��������jj//
xxxxxxxxx,nn„
,,,,,,,,r.
,,,,,.o.
........./
' ,,,,,,,,,,,,,,
'
;;,E, Ilia
/1111111/i/ii%/
.'11 11 M MII.....If.)IIA... II..... c o IN...rl:..:..:x .
The subject lands are located on a large residential
block along a local road at the periphery of the
Eastwood neighbourhood that is underutilized and has
access to existing infrastructure and services. The block
includes a mix of residential uses, including single -
detached dwellings and low-rise multiple -unit building
forms, such as triplexes and six-plexes. The surrounding
blocks also includes low-rise residential uses. The block
to the east of the subject lands contains Montgomery
Park. Figures 3.1 to 3.5 below illustrate the subject lands
and immediate surroundings.
The immediate neighbourhood includes a mix of
residential and open space / parks uses, as described
below:
NORTH: North of the subject lands are single -
detached dwellings that transition to multi -unit building
forms, such as triplexes and four-plexes, across the
street and as Fairmount Road approaches Montgomery
Road. Dwellings vary in height from 1 -storey to
3 -storeys, and lots are slightly wider, providing room
for larger building footprints. Dwellings utilize red-
brick, multi -coloured brick, beige stone -work, and
white or beige vinyl. Entrances for the single -detached
dwellings are canopied, recessed or designed for
visual enhancement.
EAST: To the east of the subject lands are multi -unit built
forms, including triplexes and six-plexes, that range in
2.5 -storey to 3 storeys in height. The built -forms include
red brick and beige stone -work, large bay windows,
wood balconies to the sides of the buildings, and
hipped roofs with grey shingles. Site design includes
long driveways to the sides of the buildings that connects
to surface parking in the rear.
Figure 3.1 - Aerial photograph showing Immediate Site Context
Figure 3.2 - Residential dwellings along Fairmount Road (North)
Figure 3.3 - Triplexes and six-plexes along Montgomery Road (Fast]
a Page 158 of 400
SOUTH: To the immediate south of the subject lands
are single -detached 1- to 2 -storey post-war housing,
largely characterized by red -brick and white -vinyl
dwellings, large windows, driveways to the side of the
dwellings, and open gable roofs with some articulation.
WEST: Directly to the west of the subject lands is a
residential block consisting of single -detached and
semi-detached building forms. Newer development
to the west of the site invites contemporary, yet
compatible, development into this area of the Eastwood
neighbourhood. Building forms, styles and material are
consistent with the remainder of the neighbourhood,
except for the new semi-detached development.
The immediate neighbourhood is characterized by lots
with large front yards and large rear yards. Front yard
setbacks are generally long and consistent along each
road, but vary in the neighbourhood, from 8 -metres to
20 metres. Front yard setbacks taper along the east
side of Jackson Avenue where the subject lands are
located. Rear yards also vary in size from 10 metres to
60 metres. Side yard setbacks are shorter and vary from
2 metres to 6 metres. Overall, lots are characterized as
long and narrow.
The immediate neighbourhood also contains large and
mature coniferous and deciduous trees that are located
in front yards, rear yards and along the street line.
Figure 3.4 - Single -detached dwellings along Brentwood Avenue (Southi
Figure 3.5 - Single -detached dwellings along Jackson Avenue (West)
Page 159 of9400
.2U IR IR O L IN I'.) II IN C COIN 11 I X11
The subject lands are located within the Eastwood
Neighbourhood, which is situated within the central
area of Kitchener and extends from King Street East
to the south, Highway 7 to the north, Highway 7 and
Highway 8 to the east, and Ottawa Street North to
the west. This neighbourhood is in proximity to the King
Street East neighbourhood, which contains Light Rail
Transit stations.
Sportstield
�Q
1
//
l u
�O
,
EastwoodResiE
/0' "
Neighbourho
ro
u
x� r
gure 3.6 - Existing and uses
Built Form/Uses
The Eastwood neighbourhood contains a range
of established residential, institutional, commercial,
open space, and park uses (see Figures 3.6 to 3.12).
Residential uses include a mix of single detached,
semi-detached, low-rise multiple dwelling forms
(including triplexes and six-plexes), and mid to high-
rise apartment buildings. The mid to high-rise dwelling
forms are generally located on or near the periphery
of the neighbourhood, approaching King Street East,
Resideriiial Insiifutioncal Commercial
Open Spaces //////i MixecJ Ut,c,
e
10 Page 160 of 400
Ottawa Street North, and towards the Downtown
Core. Several mixed-use, high-rise building forms are
proposed along King Street East, to the north of or
immediate south of Ottawa Street North. Commercial
uses are located along King Street East and Weber
Street East, with minimal small-scale commercial and at-
home businesses existing throughout the neighbourhood
and the nearby vicinity.
The neighbourhood was developed in the 1940s -1970s
and predominantly contains post-war and mid-century
styles and forms of development, with certain pockets
including newer development. Lots are generally
rectangular or trapezoidal -shaped. Building shapes
and sizes are small in scale and are situated on lots
that have deep lot depths with lot widths that range
from 40 to 50 feet. Low-rise housing ranges in height
from 1 -storey to 3 -storeys and largely contains high-
pitched and gable roofs with canopied and recessed
entrances and porches, and brown and grey roof
shingles. Building materials include brick and vinyl.
Garages vary in location and applicability. Garages
may be attached, detached, located to the sides of
buildings or located to the sides of the buildings in the
rear yards within in separate structure. Driveways are
paved, long and located to the sides of the dwellings
leading to attached or detached garages, and/or
resulting in outdoor parking.
Newer development within the neighbourhood
offers contemporary designs that represent current
architecture, building materials, details, colours and
textures. A recently developed semi-detached dwelling
across the street from the site, at 130 and 132 Jackson
Avenue offers a contemporary beige palette including
stonework with beige -coloured vinyl siding and
cladding for the second (2nd) storey (see Figure 3.9).
The roof is long pitched, uses warm -brown shingles, and
provides for additional articulation of the roof through
projection, recesses and boxed gable style of roofing
above the second -storey windows, providing distinction
and visual variety between the semi-detached units. The
garages are attached, extend beyond the first -storey
front building facade, are located toward the front lot
line, and are designed with an open gable roof that
Figure 3 7 - High-rise apartment dwellings at 1414 King Street E
Figure 3.8 - Commercial plaza at Montoomery and King Street E
Figure 3.9 - Recently developed dwelling along Jackson Avenue
Page 161 01400
connects the two units. The condition with the garage
projecting beyond the front building facade (snout
house) is not typical of the neighbourhood, despite the
site's conformance with zoning regulations at the time
of construction.
The neighbourhood also contains a secondary public
school, known as the Eastwood Collegiate Institute.
The School includes a wide, L-shaped built -form that
measures 3-4 storeys in height and provides for variation
in massing through facade articulation, the use of various
materials, step -backs, protruding walls, and recessing
windows. The school's massing respects the existing
grading of the neighbourhood and results in varying
heights throughout the built -form. The school's building
materials include red brick, light grey cement cladding,
and metal. Additional schools, such as Sunnyside Public
School, Rockway Mennonite Collegiate and Franklin
Public School are located in close proximity and service
the residents of the neighbourhood.
Figure 3.10 - Multi -unit dwellings along Montgomery Road
Figure 3.11 - Eastwood Collegiate Institute
Figure 3.12 - St Anne Catholic school
12 Page 162 of 400
Circulation
The Eastwood neighbourhood is bound by major
roads, including:
• Highway 7 - a Provincial Highway to the north and
west;
• Highway 8 - a Provincial Highway to the west;
• King Street East - a Regional Road and an Existing
Transit Corridor to the south; and,
• Ottawa Street North - a Regional Road and an
Existing Transit Corridor to the east.
Ottawa Street North is also identified as a Cycling
Route and provides access to the GRT iXpress bus route.
The neighbourhood also contains Weber Street East,
which is another Regional Road and Planned Transit
Corridor. The interior of the neighbourhood consists of
a modified grid of local streets, with connections to the
surrounding Regional Roads and Provincial Highways
(see Figures 3.13 and 3.14.
The neighbourhood is well serviced by local and
regional bus routes, with direct connection the
Downtown Core, major retail hub of Fairview Mall, and
the City of Waterloo. The Borden iON station is located
within walking distance from the neighbourhood,
cycling distance from the site, and just beyond the
intersection of Charles Street and Borden Avenue. The
Borden iON station provides eastbound/westbound
access to the remainder of the City and extends into
Waterloo, further improving access to the remainder of
the City and the Region.
The neighbourhood also includes an established
sidewalk network (see Figure 3.15) that provides
walkable access to various parks, commercial uses and
institutional uses in and near the neighbourhood.
Figure 3 13 - Existing vehicle circulation
Figure 3.14 - Existing transit routes
Figure 3.15 - Existing pedestrian and cycling routes
Page 163 0400
Open Space/Parks and Natural Heritage
The Eastwood neighbourhood and site have access
to nearby open spaces, parking and trails, including
Montgomery Park, Rockway Gardens and Rockway
Golf Course, Iron Horse Trail, Schneider Creek
Greenway, the Aud Neighbourhood Leash Free Dog
Park and Skate Park, and Stanley Park Conservation
Area. Montgomery Park is situated within the
neighbourhood and offers a larger open field, with a
playground, basketball courts, and disc golf amenities
(see Figures 3.16 and 3.17. A trail that is located along
the periphery of Rockway Golf Course is located
within a 10 -minute walk distance from the site. The trail
connects with the Iron Horse Trans / Canada Trail along
the Schneider Creek Greenway. The Iron Horse Trans
/ Canada Trail which is a Primary Multi -Use Pathway
/ Connection that connects Downtown Kitchener to
Uptown Waterloo (see Figure 3.18). The open space
context plan graphic, Figure 3.19, illustrates parks and
open spaces in the broader surrounding context.
Summary
The Eastwood community is an established
neighbourhood that is well suited for intensification
based on the current mix of land uses and building
forms, proximity to existing and planned transportation
networks, access to existing and planned infrastructure,
and abundant open spaces.
"mNg"'.
Figure 3.16 - Montgomery Park
Figure 3.17 - Rockway Gardens
Figure 3.18 - Iron Horse/Trans-Canada Trail
14 Page 164 of 400
Figure 3.19 - Existing parks and open spaces
Page 165 ofE400
.....................................................
i,
.................
4. ]1 ID IR O II.,' I l.) S11 II IE ID II G IN
The site has been designed to provide a low-density
residential development that will provide a compact
built form, complement the surrounding residential
neighbourhood and establish prominent street frontage
along Jackson Avenue, enhance the public realm while
remaining compatible with the established front yards
of the neighbourhood. The site has a total gross floor
area (GFA) of 10,811 m2.
The proposed development consists of street townhouse
block (2 units) and Five (5) blocks of stacked townhouses
(118 units), totaling a proposed unit count of 120 units
(see Figure 4.1). The site layout provides a 3 storey built
form with a step back on the upper floors for blocks
A,B,C, and D, which provide for a transition in height and
massing along Jackson Avenue and along the common
property line with the lots fronting Brentwood Avenue,
creating a stepped form that responds to the existing
low-rise buildings in the surrounding neighbourhood
and respects the natural grading of the site to the extent
feasible (see Figures 4.2).
The two street townhouses as well as a 22 unit Block
D front Jackson Avenue. Four remaining stacked
townhouse blocks are located along the site's perimeter.
Three blocks of stacked townhouses located along the
southern property line have been stepped back and
have been positioned to provide for a 75m side yard
to provide for additional separation and minimize
overlook conditions to rear yards of the Brentwood
BRENTWOOD AVE.
Figure 4.1 - Proposed Site Plan (SRM Architects + Urban Designers, March 21, 2024)
Page 167 07400
Figure 4.2 - Stepped building form follows site grading (SRM Architects + Urban Designers, March 21, 20241
Avenue properties. One stacked townhouse Block E
located at the rear of the site and backing onto the rear
lots along Montgomery Street have been modified to
provide for internal sidewalk connections. A drive -aisle
surface parking and common amenity area occupy the
spaces between the buildings. The stacked townhouse
Block D and the 2 Street town houses are setback
between 4.0 metres and 6.0 metres from Jackson
Avenue, which respects the established streetscape,
while providing transitioning of setbacks between
the abutting site and facilitating sufficient space for a
landscaped boulevard. The stacked townhouse Block
E provides a 3.0 metres setback from the adjacent
residential properties along the north property line.
These stacked townhouses to the rear of the site are
setback 6.0 metres from the adjacent residential
properties, which have an average rear yard ranging
from approximately 36-40m.
An amenity space is proposed to be located central
to the site adjacent to the mature trees that are being
protected along the northern property line. This space
will include a playground, seating and grassed area
that is sensitive to the surrounding protected trees, thus
providing a space for intimate gathering on the site
alongside an active amenity space.
Pedestrian entrances to the site are provided from
Jackson Avenue and Brentwood Avenue. Pedestrian
circulation is provided through the site providing
access to the stacked townhouses, amenity spaces and
surface parking, and providing for safe and accessible
circulation throughout the site (see Figure 4.3).
Walkways connect to the existing public infrastructure
located along Jackson Avenue and Brentwood
Avenue. The individual entrances and walkways to the
stacked townhouses enhance the pedestrian realm and
walkability.
Vehicular entrances are proposed from two points
of entry/exit along Jackson Avenue and Brentwood
Avenue. The accesses connect to an internal drive aisle
that provides access to the multiple dwelling built forms
and the 121 surface parking spaces located central to
the site and along the drive aisle near to Brentwood
Avenue. The multiple dwellings are located closest
to the limits of the site to reduce visual impacts of the
proposed surface parking from the public realm along
Jackson Avenue.
Bicycle parking is located on the site for both residents
and visitors. 118 Type 'A' bicycle parking spaces are
within the 118 units, meeting the bicycle parking rate of
1.0Type'A' spaces per unit. 12 Type'B' bicycle spaces
are proposed behind Block D and adjacent to the
proposed mailboxes proximate the outdoor amenity
area along the northern property line.
Other site design considerations, such as lighting and
signage, will be determined through the detailed design
and addressed through subsequent Site Plan Approval
applications.
18 Page 168 of 400
Figure 4 . 3 Vehide crud pedesfricin cjiculoljon
Page 169 of9400
4.2 13 U II II... ID II Ill If;) If;;;; II G I ll
The proposed development employs a contemporary
style regarding the selection and application of
materials (see Figure 4.4�. The stacked townhouses
create a low-rise massing that is similar in height and
function to the adjacent properties. Lower level storeys
are sunken into the grade to decrease building height
at grade, while offering sufficient daylight to lower
units. Street fronting stacked townhouse typology
without individual driveways provide a complementary
built form with very few disruptions to the streetscape.
The 2 street townhouses along Jackson Avenue provide
for a 'semi-detached' style of building form along the
street interface that is similar in size and scale as the
surrounding neighbourhood.
The colour palette is comprised of a combination of
red brick, white and beige panels which are alternated
on the three levels, to create distinction between the
three storeys and each unit. Massing articulation and
wall projections are used between the units to create
distinction between each unit. Building facades are
complimentary to the neighbourhood, while remaining
modern in appearance. Front entrances are canopied
and platform steps are used to provide for a porch -style
front entrance. The 3 -storey stacked townhouses have
also been stepped back on the top level to minimize
overlook and reduce the massing, and the appearance
and impact of the proposed building height. Balconies
are provided on the first, second and third floors along
Jackson Avenue, providing private amenity space for
use by residents. Balconies and windows use a clear
glass to maximize access to sunlight throughout the
year. The street fronting stacked townhouse typology
facing Jackson Avenue helps activate the street front
and reduces the visibility into the parking areas.
Figure 4.4 - Proposed material palette of red brick and white and beige panel (SRM Architects + Urban Designers, March 21, 2024)
20 Page 170 of 400
Blocks A, B, C which back onto the rear lots along
the Brentwood properties, do not have balconies on
the third floor, so as to minimize overlook. The upper
units are 2 storey units that have been stepped back to
reduce the massing impact and overlook. The stacked
townhouses taper in height, as they respect the natural
grading of the site. In addition, the stacked townhouse
blocks employ flat terraces to minimize visual impacts
on the surrounding neighbourhood. Balconies and
windows use a clear glass to maximize access to
sunlight throughout the year.
The proposed development has been designed with
consideration to the existing built form context consisting
of low-rise developments (see Figure 4.5). The use of
building materials, massing orientation, step -backs, and
amenity space, in collaboration with the natural grading
assist in creating a human scale of development that
complements the surrounding neighbourhood and
creates a comfortable and engaging pedestrian
environment. The building design demonstrates a
contemporary architectural expression and utilizes high
quality materials.
Building materiality may be subject to change through
the detailed design process during Site Plan Approval.
Figure 4.5 - Upper Aoor stepbacks to increase privacy (SRM Architects + Urban Designers, March 21, 2024)
Page 171 of1400
.3 II,,, I If;) 11°1If;;;; [YES11GIN
Trees and plantings will be provided throughout the
site to provide screening from adjacent properties,
to minimize visual impacts on the surrounding
neighbourhood, and to integrate with the landscaping
of the surrounding neighbourhood. Existing and mature
trees are proposed to be retained to the extent feasible
and the amenity space is located adjacent to the
mature trees creating an enhanced central amenity
area for the residents.
The site's landscape design will be further refined
through the detailed design process at Site Plan.
c f1�� `rrR:'ci
` rl i
r 0/ T r
CC.l,e1 4 R)l ,
rt -4r
rJr7
Ia'.. 1(I 411III2h�U
I
I
C=I(( lu FI1NFQ I'I NI III AN
4,A( I.. MAI I IUN 3,
I YI':,, FNIJ , 1TI 0
//
v ///
,,,,,,,r,.. �..�/////
;;,,,//�
"`
,r. ,,,,, 6..% . ,. .. / l r ✓, , /7 f / /r//i. / :/ J / , /(r ! /f If. /. l / ./ .lr/.,,. rl /
rpm. �,.✓�A r,✓'//lr, r� ,,,,,/1 /// � / 2/.�/� ,r c, r,. � r,,,�/,f ,.. 1% J %..; ., ../ /,,. r, / „
/ /J,,,,rr/ � /, .✓ I%ii0.( .;;,/ /// rl//p///, /i!r fl,r% r � �ir:. it/s f l r „r: fj/ / J. / „rJ,'✓1 f
/ If// /r 1x// r/// ;,J. .. �. If� ,r%/ r�/ % .. I! r /. ,✓' .. / � „ � �..., r,r. /,. a � �. rir
� ^iy,�Yr / / / �l �d 1 ✓. ➢��rr ��,. �. /,
� � l l
!
,..., /
„
///
// ///
//// //�/
!'5Y r,,, �//////
,;;i f,{i`Nlr,J/// �� r
J" :/.. s/.
e..r .. rr ,.. %// lv /f� r.,r. ,srrr^/i .,,/.�% h r ,
/,;. '/�///%,� ,../ rr ":%..� hr✓ ,/. r / „fi ,, /Fk d
_ a „ , rf 11 J / y ✓/,, , �% / // � , i. J, � ., rrr =-.,
i r/.✓/.1ryrH 1/l. /,/ � l / ...I.r,////,II,: �%/r l/!//%/.���J/��JJ,:, r%�..>rI r/lhi% ,r/
s.,, ,� IF i� � ,;/%�r%/.!,����/,rr/�f�%/�//,.//l/C(/r^�"Ir"lY,./L/G✓���.✓J�lll rnrr�tutd(rfFi �. r»1/�.r.✓�rf{.z ���'d.���d "1G.
//////////////%///�r'
,iiiiiiirr�
/ ���j
i1Wll HOX G III(N' Il IIARKIIN6 .,1111 AA..I{
� �/
aaaaaaaaaaaaaaa, C (
I
I I
/
r /
J /
/
/
/
/
/
/
/
/
/
/
c
/
/
/
/
/
/
/
Ir1.:1/{INIIV(i f1/111..--
NJ f/dININ() ..,��
O
/ r'''Sf\ 1 I1/1A/I PilI1//:: Nl C) MIN(.,
-i
BOIIAIM
u \
✓
Figure 4.6 - Proposed common amenity area next to existing vegetation )SRM Architects + Urban Designers, March 21, 2024)
22 Page 172 of 400
The Planning Justification Report (submitted concurrently
with this report) provides a comprehensive analysis of
the Provincial, Regional and City planning policies. The
following section discusses the City's Urban Design
policies and how the proposed development has
achieved the City's design objectives.
5.1 cII..ry I: 11611 FC 1111 l::.::.: IN I[::::Ifs 0 If If II C11 A 11... 11:111 AIN
Section 11 of the City of Kitchener Official Plan contains
Urban Design policies. It is intended that the urban
design policies will provide guidance and direction as
the city grows, develops, and evolves. The proposed
development meets the City's urban design objectives
by achieving a high standard of urban design. The
following is a summary of how the proposal meets
the relevant design policies from Section 11 (Urban
Design) of the current Official Plan in response to
specific policies:
11.C.1.1 — The proposed development employs
a high quality of urban design that complements
present-day architecture and the surrounding
neighbourhood.
11.C.1.11 — The proposed development
supports the character of the street by providing
sufficient landscaping, low-rise built -forms and
functional design complementing the surrounding
neighbourhood. The proposed front yard setbacks
provide sufficient space for a landscaped
boulevard. The street facing stacked townhouse
built -form complements the low rise development
located across the street along Jackson Avenue
and present a 21 /2 storeys in height and provide
step -backs to the 3rd -storey of the attached low-
rise built form, facilitating a pedestrian -oriented
environment and reducing the massing along the
streetsca pe.
11.C.1.13 — Sufficient human -scaled lighting and
circulation spaces will be provided throughout the
site. Lighting will be further investigated through
the detailed design process during the Site Plan
Approval stage.
• 11.C.1.15 — Vehicular access will be provided from
Jackson Avenue and Brentwood Avenue. Accesses
and the proposed drive -aisle are designed to
facilitate emergency vehicular movement. All
buildings and units will be designed and constructed
to meet the requirements of the Ontario Building
Code and other applicable regulations. Parking
is well serviced with pedestrian connections which
lead in and out of the site.
• 11.C.1.16 — The proposed development includes
Five (5) barrier -free parking spaces and has been
designed to provide accessible circulation for
all users of the site. Private and common amenity
spaces are provided throughout the site, five
barrier -free parking spaces are located nearest
to the multiple dwellings, and the proposed site
design uses hard -surface materials to provide
safe and universally accessible circulation through
the site. The site design and barrier -free parking
spaces will be designed and constructed to meet
the requirement of the Ontario Building Code
and other accessibility related legislation and
regulations.
• 11.C.1.22 — A Shadow Study was not required,
but has been included in this report for information
purposes only. The Shadow Study, attached as
Appendix A, demonstrates that unacceptable
adverse impacts are not generated bythe proposed
development and associated site design; minimal
shadowing occurs on the surrounding residential
properties during the summer, spring and autumn
seasons; and, shadowing impacts adhere to
the City of Kitchener guidelines (see Figure 5.1 ).
Further, the site design and proposed landscaping
throughout the site provides shade and protection
from sun exposure, and mitigates the potential urban
island heat effect. Building massing and design
provides opportunity for independent applications
of tools to reduce energy demands. The proposed
development is considered to be appropriate with
regards to its shadowing context.
24 Page 174 of 400
r r r R uiiiii h
lune, 21, 0 pin
• 11.C.1.26 & 11.C.1.29 — The subject lands are
well serviced by existing infrastructure that supports
additional density within the neighbourhood.
• 11.C.1.27 — The subject lands are located proximate
to two Existing Transit Corridors and one Planned
Transit Corridor, and have access to local, regional
and provincial bus routes within a 5- to 10 -minute
walking distance. The proposed development
proposes a reduced combined resident and visitor
parking rate of 1.03 spaces per unit, and provides
for modest intensification with a transit -supportive
density and design.
• 11.C.1.28 — The proposed infill development offers
a low-rise massing height and built -form, and a front
yard setback that is consistent with the established
front yard along the streetscape. The proposed
development is compatible with the surrounding
neighbourhood.
• 11.C.1.27 & 11.C.1.31 — The proposed development
includes bicycle parking and pedestrian
connections throughout the site to encourage active
transportation usage. The proposed development
also applies height transitioning and divides
building massing through articulation and upper
storey step backs to activate the streetscape and
provide for a pedestrian -oriented, safe, accessible,
and functional relationship to the street.
• 11.C.1.33 — The proposed development utilizes
a high standard of urban design and a creative
and responsive form, facade and style that is
compatible with and complements the surrounding
neighbourhood. The site has been designed
to minimize adverse impacts on the adjacent
properties and public realm by providing the
following: appropriate interior side yard, rear yard
and front -yard setbacks; landscaping elements
for screening, and a low-rise form that respect the
natural grading of the site, to be complementary
of the roof lines of the block, to the extent feasible.
Figure 5.1 - Selected June shadow study results iSRM Architects + Urban Designers, March 21, 20241
Page 175 of5400
5.2 cii r1( I: IK II FC II II II..... I II..... IIS L 1113AI l If;;;; IIG IN
MAIN UAII...
The City's Urban Design Manual contains detailed
guidelines that apply to all development within the
City. The Urban Design Guidelines contained within
the Manual represent a framework for establishing
Kitchener's future urban form. It sets out a number of
design principles that should be followed in the design
of new communities, sites and buildings. The purpose
of the Guidelines is to ensure the new development is
consistent with the City's Vision for urban design. Below
is an analysis of how the proposed development,
associated site design and landscaping design considers
the City -Wide guidelines, Central Neighbourhood
guidelines, and Low -Rise Multi- Residential guidelines
within the City of Kitchener Urban Design Manual.
Site Design
The street interface of the site has been designed to
be pedestrian -oriented and minimize the massing
along the frontage by stepping back the upper floor
of the stacked townhouse block and through building
articulation and variations in colour palette. This
provides a neighbourhood -style development that
contributes to the sense of place and local character of
the Eastwood neighbourhood.
The site has been designed with active uses, including
a central amenity space internal to the site and well
situated adjacent to the mature trees so as to maximize
tree retention. The building design of the street facing
elevations incorporates architectural details that support
a human -scaled public realm.
The setbacks proposed provide appropriate buffering
and distance from the adjacent residential properties.
The UDM guidelines encourage a rear yard setback
of 10 metres for unit blocks with more than 2 storeys.
The intent of this provision is to provide appropriate
distance from adjacent residential uses. The residential
properties to the rear contain rear -yard setbacks that
range from 27 metres to 43 metres from the dwellings.
The proposed rear -yard setback for the proposed
development is 6 metres. This provides distance of
between 35 metres to 49 metres between the stacked
townhouses proposed at the rear of the site and the
built forms located to the rear of the site. Based on
the foregoing, appropriate buffering and distance is
provided from the adjacent residential uses. Additionally,
for the units proposed along the common property line
with the lots fronting Brentwood Avenue, a 7.5m side
yard has been provided whereas a 3.Om side yard is
required as the blocks of stacked townhouses present
as a rear yard although this is a side yard. Also the third
storey is stepped back and no balconies are facing
these lots on the third storey in order to provide further
separation and reduction in massing which minimizes
overlook.
Vehicular parking spaces and circulation are located
largely central to the site, providing opportunity for
natural surveillance, and are screened from the public
realm.
Building Form & Design
The City of Kitchener Urban Design Manual guides new
development to be contemporary in nature, whilst being
respectful and complementary of the neighbourhood
character. The proposed development will be designed
in a contemporary fashion, meaning that the building
represents present-day architecture, with varied details,
materials, colours and textures. This is in keeping with
proposed developments within the surrounding area
and the eclectic character of the neighbourhood as a
Central Neighbourhood in the City of Kitchener.
The development proposes a transition in height from
3 -storeys at the street interface to 31 /2 -storeys internal
to the site, and provides for an appropriate front yard
setback that provides yard transition from the abutting
sites and meets the intent of the established front yard
setbacks of the Residential Intensification of Established
Neighbourhoods Study (REINS.
The proposed development introduces additional
housing options to the neighbourhood through the
development of street townhouses and stacked
townhouses. Stacked townhouses are a type of missing
middle housing that provide attainable housing options
26 Page 176 of 400
in desired neighbourhoods.
The proposed development includes 3 -storey stacked
townhouses along the Jackson Avenue frontage,
creating a compatible street interface.The proposed
development also proposes fencing, landscaping
and plantings along the boundaries of the site and
throughout the site to further screen the development
from the surrounding properties.
Massing techniques are incorporated into the building
design, including building articulations such as upper
storey step backs, projections and recesses, which
when combined with variations in colour, materials, and
texture, aid in the reduction and diversification of the
building massing and enhance the streetscape.
All building elevations will be designed to provide
transparency, architectural continuity, visual interest,
and contextual sensitivity. No blank walls are proposed.
Through the inclusion of proposed windows and
balconies, there will be sufficient natural surveillance
onto the surrounding public streets without creating
overlook situations.
Minimal shadowing impacts are anticipated on
the surrounding residential neighbourhood, as
demonstrated by the Shadow Study prepared by SRM
Architects Inc.
Sustainability & Landscaping
The development proposes to retain as many existing
and mature trees located on the site to the extent
feasible. The development also proposes to apply
additional landscaping and plantings throughout the
site to meet the neighbourhoods landscaping character
and to support the existing landscaped street interface.
The propose landscape areas are sufficient in size to
provide required plantings adjacent to the street, offset
property lines and within amenity areas.
Energy efficient light fixtures will be used, and over -
lighting will be avoided throughout the development.
Circulation
Pedestrian walkways are provided throughout the site,
are continuous across driving aisles and accesses,
and connect to the multiple dwellings on the site and
to the surrounding land uses to improve connectivity,
encourage active transportation and to create an
efficient, safe and intuitive pedestrian network.
The site has been designed with modest reductions in
parking to reduce the demand of private automobiles
and to encourage active modes of transportation. The
site incorporates convenient and secure options for
bicycle parking.
Vehicle circulation is contained within the site interior.
Access is provided from two points of entry/exit and
connect to an internal drive -aisle. The drive aisle is
flanked by walkways that allow additional pedestrian
access to buildings' entrances.
Other Considerations
The site details for screening services and utilities,
coordination of waste and recycling, and snow storage
will be considered through the site plan review process
and prior to final site plan approval.
Other sections of the City-wide guidelines, including
Services and Utilities, Waste and Recycling, and
Snow Storage will be considered through the detailed
site plan review process and prior to final site plan
approval.
Page 177 of7400
�_a
This Urban Design Brief concludes that the Proposed
Development incorporate a high-quality of urban
design through the following:
• Creating a compact, low-rise built form that
provides additional housing options for residents,
respects the local eclectic character of the
neighbourhood, and minimizes impacts on the
surrounding neighbourhood;
• Providing a transition of height, massing and
setbacks from the surrounding residential uses, with
changes in height and articulation that respect the
existing grading and sloping challenges of the site;
• Complementing the surrounding residential post-
war to mid-century eclectic character through
material palette, front yard setbacks, and street -
oriented forms,-
Encouraging
orms;
Encouraging transit -usage and active transportation
through parking reductions and on-site bicycle
parking; and,
• Implementing appropriate landscaping and
fencing to minimize impacts on the pedestrian
realm and adjacent properties.
It is our opinion that the proposed Official Plan
Amendment and Zoning By-law Amendment
applications respect the intent, policies and guidelines
of the City of Kitchener Official and the city-wide
objectives of the City of Kitchener Urban Design
Manual. Based on the assessment in the Urban Design
Brief, the proposed development is appropriate and
reflects good urban design.
Respectfully submitted,
Trevor Hawkins, M. Plan, MCIP, RPP
Partner
Juliane vonWesterholt, B.E.S, MCIP, RPP
Associate
Page 179 of9400
//// /iaaaaaaaaaaa<
NOTICE OF PUBLIC MEETING
for a development in your neighbourhood
135-161 Jackson Ave. & 136 Brentwood Ave.
Concept Drawing
II II.00 r ,,"°.SIpa( e
I:' a'iuo of 0
1 2 , 5 11"' el. re S e ' b a .off 4 :`n I< o ,f
B U i Il. (�] a t"'11) I I (.. i . ['11 i. ° .:If IIS\11 l
Have Your Voice Heard!
Planning & Strategic Initiatives Committee
Date: April 22, 2024
Location: Council Chambers,
Kitchener City Hall
200, King Street West
o Virtual Zoom Fleeting
Go to kitchener.ca/meetings
and select:
• Current agendas and reports
(posted 10 days before meeting)
• Appear as a delegation
• Watch a meeting
To learn more about this project, including
information on your appeal rights, visit:
www.kitchenenca/
PlanningApplications
or contact:
Brian Bateman, Senior Planner
brian.bateman@ kitchener.ca
519.741.2200 x7869
The City of Kitchener will consider applications to amend the City's Official Plan and
Zoning By-law that would allow for an increased Floor Space Ratio (FSR), building height,
reduced parking requirements and a reduced rear yard setback to allow for the
development of 5 stacked townhome buildings, having 118 dwelling units, on lands
currently zoned for multiple dwellings. Page 182 of 400
City of Kitchener - Comment Form
Project Address: 135-161 Jackson Avenue & 136 Brentwood Avenue
Application Type: OPA and ZBA
Comments of: Environmental Planning (Sustainability) — City of Kitchener
Commenter's name: Gaurang Khandelwal
Email: Gaurang.khandelwal@I<itchener.ca
Phone: 519-741-2200 x 7611
Written Comments Due: NA
Date of comments: February 8, 2024
1. Plans, Studies and/or Reports submitted and reviewed as part of a complete application:
• Sustainability Statement —135-161 Jackson Avenue & 136 Brentwood Avenue, prepared by
MHBC, dated November 22, 2023.
2. Comments & Issues:
I have reviewed the documentation (as listed above) to support an Official Plan Amendment and a Zoning
By-law Amendment proposing to develop the subject property with 4 street facing townhouses and 116
stacked townhouses for a total of 120 units, regarding sustainability and energy conservation and provide
the following:
• Although the Ontario Building Code (OBC) is advanced, going forward all developments will need
to include robust energy conservation measures as the City (and Region of Waterloo) strive to
achieve our greenhouse gas reduction target.
• Based on my review of the supporting documentation, the Official Plan and Zoning By-law
Amendments can be supported.
• A Sustainability Statement (as per the City's Terms of Reference) will be required as part of a
complete Site Plan Application. It can build upon the information already provided, including the
opportunities and strategies identified at this stage, and can further explore and/or confirm
which additional sustainable measures are best suited to the development.
• It is recommended that more progressive measures that go beyond the OBC be explored to
further energy conservation, generation and operation, and benefit future residents/tenants.
• Potential items for further consideration:
o The use of alternative water supply and demand management systems such as rain
water harvesting and grey water reuse, or design of the site and building for "readiness"
to add these systems in the future.
Page 183 of 400
o The use of alternative or renewable energy systems to meet new energy demand
created by the development (i.e. ground source or air source heat pumps, roof -top solar
photovoltaic panels, solar thermal hot water system, capture of waste heat from
industrial processes to use for thermal energy needs, etc), or design of the site and
building for "readiness" to add these systems in the future.
3. Policies, Standards and Resources:
• Kitchener Official Plan Policy 7.C.4.5. The City will encourage and support, where feasible and
appropriate, alternative energy systems, renewable energy systems and district energy in
accordance with Section 7.C.6 to accommodate current and projected needs of energy
consumption.
• Kitchener Official Plan Policy 7.C.6.4. In areas of new development, the City will encourage
orientation of streets and/or lot design/building design with optimum southerly exposures. Such
orientation will optimize opportunities for active or passive solar space heating and water heating.
• Kitchener Official Plan Policy 7.C.6.8. Development applications will be required to demonstrate,
to the satisfaction of the City, energy is being conserved or low energy generated.
• Kitchener Official Plan Policy 7.C.6.27. The City will encourage developments to incorporate the
necessary infrastructure for district energy in the detailed engineering designs where the
potential for implementing district energy exists.
4. Advice:
➢ As part of the Kitchener Great Places Award program every several years there is a Sustainable
Development category. Also, there are community-based programs to help with and celebrate
and recognize businesses and sustainable development stewards (Regional Sustainability
Initiative - http://www.sustainablewaterlooregion.ca/our-programs/regional-sustainability-
initiative and TravelWise - http://www.sustainablewaterlooregion.ca/our-programs/travelwise).
➢ The 'Sustainability Statement Terms of Reference' can be found on the City's website under
'Planning Resources' at ... https://www.kitchener.ca/SustainabilityStatement
21II"age
Page 184 of 400
Brian Bateman
Senior Planner
City of Kitchener
200 King Street West, 6t" Floor
P.O. Box 1118, Kitchener, ON
N2G 4G7
Dear Mr. Bateman,
PLANNING, DEVELOPMENT
AND LEGISLATIVE SEPVICES
Community Planning
150 Frederick Street 8th Floor
Kitchener Ontario N2G 4A Canada
Telephone: 519-575-4400
TTY: 519-575-4608
Fax: 519-575-4466
www.regionofwaterloo.ca
Melissa Mohr 1-226-752-8622
File: D17/2/24002
C14/2/24002
February 13, 2024
Re: Proposed Official Plan Amendment OPA 24/02 and
Zoning By-law Amendment ZBA 24/02
135-161 Jackson Avenue and 136 Brentwood Avenue
MHBC Planning (C/O Juliane von Westerholt) on behalf
of 100019071 Ontario Inc. (C/O Sanjiv Shukla)
CITY OF KITCHENER
MHBC Planning has submitted a site-specific Official Plan Amendment and Zoning By-
law Amendment Application for a development proposal at 135-161 Jackson Avenue
and 136 Brentwood Avenue (referred to as subject lands) in the City of Kitchener.
The applicant has proposed to demolish the existing dwellings on each lot, amalgamate
the properties and construct 4 street facing townhouses along the Jackson Street frontage
with 116 stacked townhouses in five clusters internal to the site for a total of 120 units
with 128 on-site parking spaces. A privately owned public space (POPS) is proposed as
an amenity area along the Jackson frontage.
The subject lands are located in the Urban Area and designated Built Up Area in the
Regional Official Plan. The site is designated Low Rise Residential in the City of
Kitchener Official Plan and zoned RES -5 Zone in the City of Kitchener Zoning By -
Document Number: 4603969 Version: 1
Page 185 of 400
law. The applicant has requested an Official Plan Amendment to add a special policy
to permit an FSR of 1.0 (whereas a maximum FSR of 0.6 is permitted) and a building
height of 12.5 metres (whereas a maximum height of 9 m is permitted). The applicant has
requested a Zoning By-law Amendment to permit a new site specific provision to permit
an FSR of 1.0 (whereas a maximum FSR of 0.6 is permitted); a maximum building height
of 12.5 metres (whereas a maximum height of 9m is permitted), a parking reduction and
a reduced front and rear yard setback.
The Region has had the opportunity to review the proposal and offers the following:
Regional Comments
Consistency with Provincial Legislation and Regional Official Plan Conformity
The subject lands are designated "Urban Area" and "Delineated Built Up Area" on Map
2 of the Regional Official Plan (ROP) and the site is designated Low Rise Residential in
the City of Kitchener Official Plan.
Built Up Area Policies:
Section 1.6 of the Regional Official Plan establishes the overview of the Regional
Planning Framework and Section 2.13.1 and 2.0 establish policies for the Urban System.
Section 2.F of the Regional Official Plan establishes policies for intensification targets
within the Delineated Built -Up Area, which is set at 60% annually for the City of
Kitchener. Furthermore, development in the Built Up Area is intended to provide gentle
density and other missing middle housing options that are designed in a manner that
supports the achievement of 15 -minute neighbourhoods. The proposed density will
contribute to the achievement of Kitchener's intensification target for the delineated Built
Up Area of the City of Kitchener. In addition, the applicant has proposed stacked
townhouses throughout the development, which is encouraged as a form of missing
middle housing in the Delineated Built -Up Area of the Region.
Region of Waterloo International Airport:
The development is located within the Airport Zoning Regulations, with a maximum
allowable height of 404.5m ASL.
A Land Use Application must be submitted to NAV Canada for the buildings and any
cranes. The application can be found here: https://www.navcanada.ca/en/aeronautical-
information/land-use-program.aspx
In addition to the above, the development may be subject to noise and the presence of
flying aircrafts. Regional staff shall require the following noise -warning clause be
implemented through a registered development agreement between the
Document Number: 4603969 Version: 1
Page 186 of 400
Owner/Developer and the Regional Municipality of Waterloo through a future consent or
condominium application:
"Prospective purchasers and tenants are advised that all units in this plan of condominium
are located within or in close proximity to one of the flight paths leading into and out of
the Region of Waterloo International Airport and that directional lighting along this path
and noise from aircraft using the flight path may cause concern to some individuals."
Environmental Noise (Road and Stationary Noise) Study:
An Environmental Noise report entitled "Road Traffic and Stationary Noise Impact
Study, 135-161 Jackson Avenue, Kitchener" prepared by JJ Acoustic Engineering Ltd.
dated October 30, 2023 and associated peer review fee of $5,085.00 have been
received and provided to the Region's third party peer reviewer. Regional staff have
received the attached comments, which indicate that clarification is required regarding
the traffic modeling, copies of the STAMSON output files and additional support is
required in order to ensure the values, results and conclusions contained in the study
are reasonable.
The items requested in the attached set of comments shall be provided prior to a
recommendation being made to the City of Kitchener on the file. Alternatively, the
Region will require a Holding Provision until the updates have been received and
accepted by the Region. The required wording for the holding provision is:
That a holding provision shall apply to the entirety of the subject lands until a
satisfactory detailed transportation (road) and stationary noise study has been
completed and implementation measures addressed to the satisfaction of the Regional
Municipality of Waterloo. The detailed stationary noise study shall review the potential
impacts of noise (e.g. HVAC systems) on the sensitive points of reception and the
impacts of the development on adjacent noise sensitive uses.
Corridor Planning:
Official Plan Amendment and Zoning By-law Amendment Stage:
Please note that the implementation of any accepted implementation measures
contained in the accepted noise study shall be implemented through the development of
the site and included in the site plan (if required) and secured through future
agreements with the Regional Municipality of Waterloo and/or City of Kitchener as part
of a future consent/condominium application.
Hydrogeology and Water Programs/Source Water Protection
Regional staff have reviewed the Functional Servicing and Stormwater Management
Report (MTE, 2023) and request that the developer incorporate contingency oversizing
Document Number: 4603969 Version: 1
Page 187 of 400
of the proposed infiltration galleries by 15% to account for future decline in performance.
In addition, Please be advised that the Region does not support permanent active or
passive dewatering controls for below -grade infrastructure (e.g. foundations, slabs,
parking garages, footings, piles, elevator shafts, etc.) therefore, Below -grade
infrastructure requiring dry conditions shall be waterproofed. Therefore, the Region
shall require a Functional Servicing/Stormwater Management Report as part of the
future Site Plan Application for our records.
As a hydrogeology study has not been submitted as part of the Complete Application for
the Official Plan Amendment and Zoning By-law Amendment, a prohibition on
Geothermal Wells as defined in Chapter 8 of the Region Official Plan shall be
implemented within the site specific Zoning By-law amendment, including vertical open
and closed loop geothermal energy systems. The required wording for the prohibition
is:
Geothermal Wells are prohibited on site. A geothermal well is defined as a vertical well,
borehole or pipe installation used for geothermal systems, ground -source heat pump
systems, geo-exchange systems or earth energy systems for heating or cooling; including
open -loop and closed-loop vertical borehole systems. A geothermal well does not include
a horizontal system where construction or excavation occurs to depths less than five
meters unless the protective geologic layers overlaying a vulnerable aquifer have been
removed through construction or excavation.
Finally, the Region supports clean rooftop runoff directed to the infiltration gallery and
for chloride laden runoff from parking lots/internal drives to be directed to the storm
sewer and shall require a salt management plan to be prepared to the satisfaction of the
Regional Municipality of Waterloo as part of a future site plan application. Regional staff
encourage the Owner/Developer to incorporate the following design considerations with
respect to salt management into the design of the site and within the salt management
plan:
• Ensuring that cold weather stormwater flows are considered in the site design.
Consideration should be given to minimize the transport of meltwater across the
parking lots or driveway. This also has the potential to decrease the formation of ice
and thereby the need for de-icing.
• Directing downspouts towards pervious (i.e. grassy) surfaces to prevent runoff from
freezing on parking lots and walkways.
• Locating snow storage areas on impervious (i.e. paved) surfaces.
• Locating snow storage areas in close proximity to catchbasins.
• Using winter maintenance contractors that are Smart About SaItTM certified.
• Using alternative de-icers (i.e. pickled sand) in favour of road salt.
Document Number: 4603969 Version: 1
Page 188 of 400
The proponent is eligible for certification under the Smart About SaItTM program for this
property. Completion of the SMP is one part of the program. To learn more about the
program and to find accredited contractors please refer to:
http://www.smartaboutsait.com/. Benefits of designation under the program include cost
savings through more efficient use of salt, safe winter conditions by preventing the
formation of ice, and potential reductions in insurance premiums.
Housing Services
The following Regional policies and initiatives support the development and
maintenance of affordable housing:
• Regional Strategic Plan
• 10 -Year Housing and Homelessness Plan
• Building Better Futures Framework
• Region of Waterloo Official Plan
The Region supports the provision of a full range of housing options, including
affordable housing. Should this development application move forward, staff
recommend that the applicant consider providing a number of affordable housing units
on the site, as defined in the Regional Official Plan. Rent levels and house prices that
are considered affordable according to the Regional Official Plan are provided below in
the section on affordability.
In order for affordable housing to fulfill its purpose of being affordable to those who
require rents or purchase prices lower than the regular market provides, a mechanism
should be in place to ensure the units remain affordable and establish income levels of
the households who can rent or own the homes.
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.
Policy 3.A.6 in the Regional Official Plan Amendment 6 applies to this site. It states:
"Where a development application proposing residential uses is submitted for a site
containing one hectare or more of developable land, the Region and the area
municipalities will require, a minimum of 30 percent of new residential units to be
planned in forms other than single -detached, semi-detached, and street fronting and
single unit condominium townhouse units. Examples of other potential housing forms
may include, but are not limited to: duplexes; tri-plexes; four-plexes; multi-plexes;
stacked and back-to-back townhouses; and apartments."
Document Number: 4603969 Version: 1
Page 189 of 400
A review of the proposed unit types in the Planning Justification Report indicates that
this proposal adheres to Policy 3.A.6.
Policy 3.A.15 in the Regional Official Plan Amendment 6 states:
Area municipalities will develop official plan policies and implementing zoning by-laws to
regulate the demolition of existing residential rental buildings with six or more units
consistent with the following criteria:
(a) where the replacement of rental units is permitted, any replacement units will include
the same or higher number of units of comparable bedroom mix and affordability, and
(b) where the demolition of rental units is permitted, existing tenants will be
compensated in accordance with the regulations of the Residential Tenancies Act,
2006.
Please be advised that if the existing single detached buildings to be demolished are
rental tenure, Policy 3.A.15 of the Regional Official Plan applies.
For the purposes of evaluating the affordability of an ownership unit, based on the
definition in the Regional Official Plan, the purchase price is compared to the least
expensive of:
Housing for which the purchase price
results in annual accommodation costs
which do not exceed 30 percent of gross
$418,100
annual household income for low and
moderate income households
Housing for which the purchase price is
at least 10 percent below the average
$679,300
purchase price of a resale unit in the
regional market area
*Based on the most recent information available from the PPS Housing Tables (2022).
In order for an owned unit to be deemed affordable, the maximum affordable house
price is $418,100.
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
A unit for which the rent does not exceed
30 per cent of the gross annual $1,960
household income for low and moderate
income renter households
Document Number: 4603969 Version: 1
Page 190 of 400
A unit for which the rent is at or below the Bachelor: $1,075
average market rent (AMR) in the 1 -Bedroom: $1,245
regional market area 2 -Bedroom: $1,469
3 -Bedroom: $1,631
4+ Bedroom: n/a
"Based on the most recent information available from the PPS Housing Tables (2022)
In order for a rental unit to be deemed affordable, the average rent for the proposed
units must be at or below the average market rent in the regional market area as shown
above.
Fees:
Please be advised that the Region is in receipt of the Official Plan Amendment review
fee of $7,000.00 and the Zoning By-law Amendment Review fee of $3,000.00 (total
$10,000) deposited January 25, 2024. In addition, the peer review fee totalling
$5,085.00 has been received and deposited January 11, 2024.
Conclusions:
The Region has no objection to OPA24/02 and ZBA24/02 subject to the following to be
implemented within the Zoning By-law:
1. That the attached comments regarding the noise study be addressed to the
satisfaction of the Regional Municipality of Waterloo prior to a recommendation being
brought forward to the City of Kitchener. Alternatively, the Region shall accept a
Holding Provision apply to the entirety of the subject lands until a satisfactory
transportation and stationary noise study is received and implementation measures
addressed to the satisfaction of the Regional Municipality of Waterloo. The required
wording for the holding provision is:
That a holding provision shall apply to the entirety of the subject lands until a
satisfactory detailed transportation (road) and stationary noise study has been
completed and implementation measures addressed to the satisfaction of the
Regional Municipality of Waterloo. The detailed stationary noise study shall review
the potential impacts of noise (e.g. HVAC systems) on the sensitive points of
reception and the impacts of the development on adjacent noise sensitive uses.
2. Inclusion of a geothermal prohibition in the zoning by-law amendment. The required
wording for the prohibition is:
Document Number: 4603969 Version: 1
Page 191 of 400
Geothermal Wells are prohibited on site. A geothermal well is defined as a vertical
well, borehole or pipe installation used for geothermal systems, ground -source heat
pump systems, geo-exchange systems or earth energy systems for heating or cooling;
including open -loop and closed-loop vertical borehole systems. A geothermal well
does not include a horizontal system where construction or excavation occurs to
depths less than five meters unless the protective geologic layers overlaying a
vulnerable aquifer have been removed through construction or excavation.
3. The Owner/Applicant is advised that the Owner/Applicant will be required to provide
the Final Functional Servicing and Stormwater Management Report to the Region
through the site plan application.
Next Steps:
Please be advised that any future development on the lands subject to the above -noted
application will be subject to the provisions of Regional Development Charge By-law 19-
037 or any successor thereof.
Further, please accept this letter as our request for a copy of the decision pertaining to
this application. Should you have any questions, please do not hesitate to contact me.
Yours truly,
Melissa Mohr, MCIP, RPP
Senior Planner
C. MHBC Planning Inc. C/O Juliane vonWesterholt (Applicant), 100019071 Ontario Inc. C/O Sanjiv Shukla
(Owner)
Document Number: 4603969 Version: 1
Page 192 of 400
From:
Christine Goulet
Sent:
Friday, January 12, 2024 12:29 PM
To:
Brian Bateman
Subject:
135-161 Jackson/136 Brentwood OPA/ZBA
Hi Brian,
I have reviewed the proposed sanitary peak flow and the development is approved for 4.4L/s.
Kitchener Utilities is satisfied with the water distribution report. The SWM report will be reviewed in
detail at time of site plan application.
Thanks,
Christine Goulet, C.E.T.
Project Manager I Development Engineering I City of Kitchener
519-741-2200 Ext. 7820 1 TTY 1-866-969-9994 1 ! l!e..itsaiirn :g ul kJiI..c l ineir
Page 193 of 400
From: Ricardo Ruiz <ricardo.ruiz@enovapower.com>
Sent: Tuesday, February 20, 2024 9:59 AM
To: Brian Bateman
Cc: Garett Stevenson; Sandro Bassanese; Taofeeq Aremu
Subject: RE: Circulation for Comment - 135-161 Jackson Ave. & 136
Brentwood Ave. (OPA/ZBA)
You don't often get email from ricardo.ruizCAenovapower.co . Learn why this is important
Good Morning Brian,
confirmed this morning that the design for this project has not been started. At this point, there
is no hydro servicing issue preventing this development from moving forward.
There will likely be trees that will require removal or trimming along Jackson Avenue if the
overhead poles/wires need to be replaced/extended.
Please let us know if you hear anything different and we can assist where we can.
Thanks,
Ricardo
From: Brian Bateman <,i:3.ir arn.Bate.ir�_a_ ...�g lkitc.lherner.pa>
Sent: Tuesday, February 20, 2024 8:35 AM
To: Ricardo Ruiz<ri_eardp.lrp.z.._ernvpower.com>
Cc: Garett Stevenson < arett.._S.tevein.,sora..@.I is c I e ln_ irc a.>; Sandro Bassanese
<Sandro.Ba.s.sane.se k�telh_e_oneir.ca>
....................................................................................... .._...........
Subject: RE: Circulation for Comment - 135-161 Jackson Ave. & 136 Brentwood Ave. (OPA/ZBA)
Thanks, Ricardo. Appreciate you getting back to me quickly.
Brian Bateman, MCIP, RPP
Senior Planner
City of Kitchener
519-741-2200 x7869, TTY 1-866-969-9994
From: Ricardo Ruiz <irii_card ...iru ii . !2cgMg.12p er.,_ m.>
Sent: Friday, February 16, 2024 4:02 PM
To: Brian Bateman <Brianmn.@kltdhener.ca>:.B .i.i_.,
Subject: RE: Circulation for Comment - 135-161 Jackson Ave. & 136 Brentwood Ave. (OPA/ZBA)
You don't often get email from ricardo.ruizCEbenovapower.com. Learn why this is important
Hi Brian,
Page 194 of 400
To my knowledge, there should be no hydro servicing issue preventing the development from
occurring. Some of the poles that are existing will require to be replaced with taller poles in
order to service this project.
The designer on this job is off this afternoon. I will discuss with him on Tuesday and let you
know if anything has come up that I am not aware of. I will get back to you as soon as I can.
Thanks,
IRicardo Il uiiz: (Ihe/Ihiirn) O,.IE„1C°„ 11 IDistribution Desigin Supervisor
Office Number: 519-745-4771 Ext. 6304
Mobile Number: 519-497-6221
ri_c rdo.,_r ii . ernova g!LA .com
From: Brian Bateman<Birian.Bateman(@kitclheneir.ca>
Sent: Friday, February 16, 2024 3:37 PM
To: Ricardo Ruiz<ri_cardp.,.iriz.CnpvK�ower.com>
Subject: FW: Circulation for Comment - 135-161 Jackson Ave. & 136 Brentwood Ave. (OPA/ZBA)
Hi Ricardo,
Need your assistance with a hydro servicing matter that has been raised by members of the public
commenting to a proposed development proposal on Jackson Ave. Residents seem to think there is a
hydro servicing issue in the area that would prevent the development from occurring. Can you shed
some light on this? I suspect like many developments they will have to upgrade hydro but that is typical
for most developments. Appreciate a response. Thanks.
Brian Bateman, MCIP, RPP
Senior Planner
City of Kitchener
519-741-2200 x7869, TTY 1-866-969-9994
From: Christine Kompter <Ihrii_stir.in_.:.IICr.in7.�pteirCkirtclneneir.ca>
Sent: Thursday, January 18, 2024 3:00 PM
To: MTO - Jeremiah Johnston Q.!!�r!Mjh Jonstn Tontri ..c .) <Il Igri�lnroe>:
..ha..:
_DL_# DSD Planning <SSI[ :. Il in inning gvisiir�in kitchernes ca>; Bell - c/o WSP < pr�ullaripins( s .cc inm>;
Carlos Reyes < Ilcst Darren Kropf <arren.(.rp.pff _Icitchner ca>; Dave Seller ___
<� y�.S...... . ..lki. clhener.ca.>; David Paetz <, avi_d_.P etz I i. lh rr r >; Ellen Kayes
<EIIVein.IKay s.@J i.tclheiner.,ca>; Enova Power Corp. -Greig Cameron < r i m Uprae inpYa it inm>;
......................................
Enova Power Corp. -Shaun Wang <slhasinBinpvincarm>; Fire Prevention (SM)
Page 195 of 400
<FirePreven'tion(@kitchener.ca>; French Catholic School Board<planification@cscmonavenir.ca>; GRCA -
Planning UlanninE@i;randriver.ca) < IanninE randriver.ca>; Landuse Planning
<landuseplannini;@hydroone.com>; Jim Edmondson <Jim.Edmondson@kitchener.ca>; Justin Readman
<Justin.Read rnan@kitchener.ca>; Katherine Hughes<ICatirerine.iVuEires@kitchener.ca>; Mike Seiling
<Mike.SeiIinIftitchener.ca>; Ontario Power Generation<Executivevp.lawanddevelopryient@op .com>;
Park Planning (SM) <Park.PlanninE@kitchener.ca>; Region - Howard Chang
(SChani;@reEionofwaterloo.ca) <SChanE@reEionofwaterloo.ca>; Planning Applications
<planninEapplicationsreEionofwalerloo.ca>; Property Data Administrator (SM)
<Pro�aDalaAdrr�in@kilchener.ca>; Robert Morgan <Robert.MorEan@kilchener.ca>; Steven Ryder
<Steven.Rycler@krtchener.ca>; Sylvie Eastman <Sylvie.Ea5tman@kitchener.ca>; UW-WUSA (Feds)
(p es@wusa.ca) <pL s@wusa.ca>; Viamonde School Board - Daniel Stojc <stojcd@csviamonde. ca>;
WCDSB - Planning <planninE@wcdsb.ca>; WRDSB - Board Secretary (elaine burns(@wrdsb.ca)
<elaine burnsr@wrdsb.ca>; WRDSB -Planning < )1anninE@wrdsb.ca>
Subject: Circulation for Comment - 135-161 Jackson Ave. & 136 Brentwood Ave. (OPA/ZBA)
Please see attached. Additional documentation can be found in AMANDA folders 24-100398 & 24-
100402 (City staff) and ShareFile (external agencies). Comments or questions should be directed to
Brian Bateman, Senior Planner (brian.bateman@kitchener.ca; 519-741-2200 x7869).
Christine Kompter
Administrative Assistant I Planning Division I City of Kitchener
200 King Street West, 6t" Floor I P.O. Box 1118 Kitchener ON N2G 4G7
519-741-2200 ext. 7425 1 TTY 1-866-969-9994 christine.kompter@kitchener.ca
r
This correspondence is directed in confidence solely to the addressees listed above. It may contain
personal or confidential information and may not otherwise be distributed, copied or used by the
intended recipient. If you are not the intended recipient, please delete the e-mail and any attachments
and notify the sender immediately. Click on the link to read the additional disclaimer:
ht,bras.//enovapower.com/disclaimer
Page 196 of 400
Enova
This correspondence is directed in confidence solely to the addressees listed above. It may contain
personal or confidential information and may not otherwise be distributed, copied or used by the
intended recipient. If you are not the intended recipient, please delete the e-mail and any attachments
and notify the sender immediately. Click on the link to read the additional disclaimer:
h.s. enova ower.com d' sc imemeir
Page 197 of 400
From: Jennifer Arends
Sent: Tuesday, January 23, 2024 7:24 AM
To: Brian Bateman
Subject: FW: Circulation for Comment - 135-161 Jackson Ave. & 136
Brentwood Ave. (OPA/ZBA)
Attachments: Agency Circulation Letter - OPA-ZBAJackson.pdf
Hi Brian,
I've reviewed the submission attached. No comments from fire regarding zoning and planning
amendments. They'll have to go through fire route design, provide and MUI sign and most likely private
fire hydrants from what's illustrated in their mockup — but that will go into more detail with site plan
phase.
Thank you,
Jennifer Arends
Fire Prevention Officer I City of Kitchener
519®741®2200 Ext. 5509 I TTY 1®866®969®9994 I inni(er;arerd Ikitoheneroa;,,i,
From: Sherry Handsor <SOnerr...i: rr ar O<utc0:rer7_e_r ca.> On Behalf Of Fire Prevention (SM)
Sent: Thursday, January 18, 2024 3:04 PM
To: Jennifer Arends <12.9n(Eef.a _indsC . uJ c(tierr_ _r.. a>
Subject: FW: Circulation for Comment - 135-161 Jackson Ave. & 136 Brentwood Ave. (OPA/ZBA)
From: Christine Kompter <Ihiris:time:ICcria>
Sent: Thursday, January 18, 2024 3:00 PM
To: MTO - Jeremiah Johnston (IgEg.Mi_a_h p nstra_rr.. _pn arie�.:_ca) <ieremoah,iphnston ontario.ca>•
....................
_DL_#_DSD_Planning <DS_I)::.I{IVa.nn _rn ov.i_sion_ _Vcit he_rn r.aca>; Bell - c/o WSP <ci_rcuJ_Uti.on.s.(_ sp com>;
Carlos Reyes < ar0o' .1 s.. _I�u.krtO on_ _ro_ca.>; Darren Kropf <,Darre .oi(ro.l�f kitchener.ca>; Dave Seller
<If?ave_.Se.(l_e_r.@.._ki.tchener.ca.>; David Paetz <Davnu_¢�_._P_ etz_.(a tclh_ _rl_ .r.o a.>; Ellen Kayes
<IE; i.Ven_._Ota. es..@.ki:tc en_e_r ca.>; Enova Power Corp. - Greig Cameron <,�reigocameron einova�power.com>;
Enova Power Corp. - Shaun Wang <shau�n.wan ..@..g!o.!2yg.power.com>; Fire Prevention (SM)
<::.irePreven:.i_rnrn.. kiteh nera_ca>; French Catholic School Board <pL_ELocatoon u scmonaver7ir.ca>; GRCA-
Planning(l2.Ila.rn.rniinglrain,d,ri�e.r.a a) <ng� girain,d,iriiveir.ca>; Landuse Planning
<tarnd us llaininiiing Ihydir in a nrrl>; Jim Edmondson <)_iim.Edirnondsnru _�iitclheine.ir ca>; Justin Readman
< Lus:tjin.0 e iman Iriitcln rn irara>; Katherine Hughes <ICa lh r%ink.Il::Nuuglh s.. ..k...c_herneir.ca.>; Mike Seiling
<Miilke.Se'iillliirn .�_I�ii.tclhn1er.ca>; Ontario Power Generation<Execn,utiivevp.la�n<.a.in_e�_a�_ vnllr nin rnt. _n.p .genj >;
.................................................. ..._.........................................................
Park Planning (SM)<Pa.irlk:_Pllaininiing.(?�'_iiaclneineir:_ca>; Region -Howard Chang
(S Ih ing. .ire.gionof a_terl_oo...ca) <SQha_n'.,@ iir�rnnft at rinn:c >; Planning Applications
Page 198 of 400
<.12.11 rnrn f .R�.lf .1211_i �.... n.s( g�..o n_ca r e_rl rs::ca>; Property Data Administrator (SM)
<If.r.0222 aAdmin@kutchener.ca>• Robert Morgan <.R h.ert,Mor an@kutclheiner.ca>; Steven Ryder
g ....................................
<.Steven,Ryder@kutchener.ca>; Sylvie Eastman <SyVvue.Eastman@kotchener.ca>; UW-WUSA (Feds)
(pares@wuu.sa.ca) < r s.. yduus .,_c >; Viamonde School Board - Daniel Stojc <scdCc�csvoamondeaca
.toi>;
WCDSB - Planning <ganning@wcdsb.ca>; WRDSB - Board Secretary (p..!gj _ burns@wrdsb.ca)
<eV_g.jae burnswrd.sb.ca>; WRDSB - Planning <12V _ri_ri. Bg.Z_ re
Subject: Circulation for Comment - 135-161 Jackson Ave. & 136 Brentwood Ave. (OPA/ZBA)
Please see attached. Additional documentation can be found in AMANDA folders 24-100398 & 24-
100402 (City staff) and Shaire_Fill_e (external agencies). Comments or questions should be directed to
Brian Bateman, Senior Planner briian.baternan r lkirtdhener.ca 519-741-2200 x7869 .
(.................................................................................................................................., )
Christine Kompter
Administrative Assistant I Planning Division I City of Kitchener
200 King Street West, 6t" Floor I P.O. Box 1118 Kitchener ON N2G 4G7
519-741-2200 ext. 7425 1 TTY 1-866-969-9994 christine.kompter@I<itchener.ca
r / / a1 ME'S
Page 199 of 400
From: Christine Kompter
Sent: Thursday, January 11, 2024 9:41 AM
To: Brian Bateman
Subject: FW: Circulation for Comment - 135-161 Jackson Avenue & 136
Brentwood Avenue (OPA/ZBA)
Christine Kompter
Administrative Assistant I Planning Division I City of Kitchener
200 King Street West, 61h Floor I P.O. Box 1118 Kitchener ON N2G 4G7
519-741-2200 ext. 7425 1 TTY 1-866-969-9994 christine.kompter@I<itchener.ca
�11=1)/W`1112Oil
0''MAM
From: Planning < Il rnmirlg gr ru ri�rer ca>
Sent: Thursday, January 11, 2024 9:38 AM
To: Christine Kompter <�Ihristine.VC.oinnp1gL@
Subject: RE: Circulation for Comment - 135-161 Jackson Avenue & 136 Brentwood Avenue (OPA/ZBA)
Good Morning Christine,
Thank you for circulating the GRCA on this application. In review of our regulatory mapping,
there do not appear to be any GRCA regulated features present on the property. As such, we
will not be providing comments. We trust that the municipality will review stormwater
management for the site.
Have a great day!
Ashley Gallllllauu,uglheur
Engineering Ill:Illlaniruiin 1:3eivilces 'llm'ecIhniicalll Assistaint.
3)icaind li.liveir COuIY: uvaiuoiru Aui.hoir"lii.
400 Clyde Road, PO Box 729
Cambridge, ON N1 R 5W6
Office: 519-621-2763 ext. 2320
Toll-free: 1-866-900-4722
Email: a. �Illl.�u.u.g.1 e!Ep irairndiriiveir„ca
Page 200 of 400
nrw .: .lr „Ind„Iril
............................ r. it„In :...wiitll�......u�...... in...... ociiall mediia
........ ......... ...........
From: Christine Kompter <Ihiriis.tiiin:Il<rimirkiithernir>
Sent: Wednesday, January 10, 2024 2:41 PM
To: _DL_#_DSD—Planning <If)S_�D-Plan_in_iir�g!f)i:vii_siiion_ Ikiit lh in r >; Bell - c/o WSP
< iiircu.Il tiigins_... .1.._cq.irn>; Carlos Reyes <C rugs.,Ifgvq�@.Ikil.tclhcincr.ca>; Darren Kropf
<t)airirein.IKirora. !ki .1...e..rneir qa>; Dave Seller <Dave. elller kii:t _h ingira >; David Paetz
<Daviid.Paetz..@..Ikiitclhener,.ca>; Ellen Kayes <,F,II.Ilgin.IK gs..t .lkii:tclhgin it q >; Enova Power Corp. -Greig
_......... ............
Cameron<gjrc.iig.cirnerginingoringrqir.qqirn>; Enova Power Corp. - Shaun Wang
<slhauin.wain .@_gingr .i2q gir.ccrinm>; Fire Prevention (SM)<If:ii_re_R.irgvgntiiqn.@Iki.tclh_en r,.ca>; French
.................................................. .
Catholic School Board <p.Ili!2J.fii_ca.tiIon. rs irngrn orginiir:q >; Planning <Inll ininiiint gir in iriivgir.c >; Landuse
Planning <Il in useglla_in_in� n.g_@Ihydrggn .cq_m.>; Jim Edmondson <Uiirn din in sarin IkiitcIn ingir.ca>; Justin
Readman <Justiin.Read ma_in ..Il<iitclhingir qa>; Katherine Hughes <IKatheiriln_e...II..I_ug.Itj sgi .kirtnlheineir.ca>; Mike
Seiling <.Mi.Ike...Seiii. fig.. _Ikitche n ir._ca>; Ontario Power Generation
<Executtvevp..lingygllcalnirgintE?_q.K.cprn>; Park Planning (SM) <Il1 irllc.IF�Va_n_9_i_n.g.�_Ikitclheingr:ca>;
...................................................
Region -Howard Chang (S Ihnin (a_r..gfq_m_gffwaterloo qa) <S Iha_in @. q onoffyvaterl_oo.,_c >; Planning
Applications <q.l ininrin pplocatr.oins@ir gooinofwaterlloo c >, Property Data Administrator (SM)
< rolnC3 t dirrniinC .Ikl.tclh in ir.c >; Robert Morgan <,Rglb r.t.M irg in Ikltclhener..ca>; Steven Ryder
............
<Steven.Ry gr.��.._kitclhe_uJ_cr.ca.>; Sylvie Eastman<S.XVvue.._E:a_s:trrtan.@_�utchen r._ca.>; UW-WUSA (Feds)
..........................................
(ares@wuusa.ca) <prgs.. us ..c >; Viamonde School Board - Daniel Stojc <s.totcd@csvtamondeaca>;
WCDSB - Planning < Lannon wcdsb.ca>; WRDSB - Board Secretary (p.!gjn_c burns@wrdsb.ca)
<et.a.Jae burns a wrd.sb.ca>; WRDSB - Planning <pV _rn_rning.@_ .r
Cc: Brian Bateman <1E:IrP.a_rD.olE ate_m_an..@_Ec tcheu�_e_r.ca.>
Subject: Circulation for Comment - 135-161 Jackson Avenue & 136 Brentwood Avenue (OPA/ZBA)
Please see attached. Additional documentation can be found in AMANDA folders 24-100398 & 24-
100402 (City staff) and Slhairq_Rill_e (external agencies). Comments or questions should be directed to
Brian Bateman, Senior Planner briian.baterrtain r !kirtdhener.ca 519-741-2200 x7869 .
(..............................................................................................................................., )
Christine Kompter
Administrative Assistant I Planning Division I City of Kitchener
200 King Street West, 6t” Floor I P.O. Box 1118 Kitchener ON N2G 4G7
519-741-2200 ext. 7425 1 TTY 1-866-969-9994 christine.kompter@I<itchener.ca
Vin, irff'777
Page 201 of 400
From:
Johnston, Jeremiah (MTO) <Jeremiah.Johnston@ontario.ca>
Sent:
Thursday, January 18, 2024 4:03 PM
To:
Brian Bateman
Subject:
RE: Circulation for Comment - 135-161 Jackson Ave. & 136
Brentwood Ave. (OPA/ZBA)
IMI If..0 rnaiintaiilns the carne Ipo iitiioln on 1peirirniits as Iplreviiou sIly provided.
Ph in lk you,
Jeireiinni4lh Johnston Corridor Management Planner
Corridor Management ,Section
Ministry of Transportation Operations Branch West
659 IE::xeter Road, (London, ON IN6E 1.11.3
M: (22.6)..980..6407
From: Brian Bateman <Bina_9_:_Bate mo _8.. _Vcitc_ ern m.._c >
Sent: January 18, 2024 4:01 PM
To: Johnston, Jeremiah MTO <Jeremiah.Jolhnston ointaroo.ca>
........................................
.................................................��................................................
Subject: RE: Circulation for Comment - 135-161 Jackson Ave. & 136 Brentwood Ave. (OPA/ZBA)
CAUTION -- EXTERNAL E-MAIL - Do not click links or open attachments unless you recognize the
sender.
Same building form but a little different site configuration. Underground parking gone for just surface
parking
Brian Bateman, MCIP, RPP
Senior Planner
City of Kitchener
519-741-2200 x7869, TTY 1-866-969-9994
From: Johnston, Jeremiah (MTO) <J_ r miia_h..,Jolhinsto n..0?_r in.t rii_ .,_ a.>
Sent: Thursday, January 18, 2024 3:59 PM
To: Brian Bateman <Brii:a.in:_B t _m_ in..@Ikil.tclhein_e.ir.,ca>
Subject: RE: Circulation for Comment - 135-161 Jackson Ave. & 136 Brentwood Ave. (OPA/ZBA)
Good afternoon IBIriian,
IHas the devellolprnent changed siilnoe IIS"'1FO ooirnrnented at IPlre coin in 2022?
Page 202 of 400
1C halnik your,
JereInniia[i Johnston Corridor Managernent Planner
Corridor Management Section
IMinistry of'Fransportatioin Operations Branch West
659 IE::xeter Road, Londono ON N6E 1.113
IM: (22.6)..980..6407
From: Christine Kompter < Ihrilstirine IICe im ir( kilt hen...r .c.a..>
Sent: January 18, 2024 3:00 PM
To: Johnston, Jeremiah (MTO) <JeremValh.Jolhnston ointairuc�.ca>; _DL_#_DSD_Planning <.DSID.-
.........................................................................................��'.............................................
ILII rnrniin l iiyilsipin Ikiitclhen ir.ca>; Bell - c/o WSP < iirc l iiipirs srr: cninm>; Carlos Reyes
..
<Carlos.ReyesQ Ikitpin rneir.c >; Darren Kropf <Da.rrein.Kro)p.(_ Idtdhe.iner.ca>; Dave Seller
......... .........
<t7.ye..Selll.e.ir.. .kll.clhein_e_r,p .>; David Paetz <, yid'_.,_P_ etz Iki. cl........................................
>; Ellen Kayes
<EIIVein.ICayesIki.tplrnpin_e_r.,.>; Enova Power Corp. -Greig Cameron <reirrrrprfleinayrypv�airinm>;
Enova Power Corp. - Shaun Wang <slh u n.vyr r� _�.inpv 12p r m>; Fire Prevention (SM)
<If:::irePreventi_pru_ _kotchen.er.ca>; French Catholic School Board<RVanufocatuon@c.scmonavenor.ca>; GRCA-
Planning (1p.V_rn_rn.iln,p@ randriver.ca) <pnVannun; randirVveir.ca>; Landuse Planning
<VandusepVannun @hydrooneocom>; Jim Edmondson <lumalE: duvuondson@.I<itche n_ _r ca>; Justin Readman
...................................................................................n..........................
<Justin.Readman.@.kitch ner..ca>: Katherine Hughes <Ka.th.eri_ne_o_i..i_u.ghes@kVtchener.ca>; Mike Seiling
..................................................................... ..............._.......................................
<Mike.Se.:iVirug. _O<i: c_On ro ro.c >; Ontario Power Generation <IE.: ecutuv y olawanddeveVo u7nent o couu7o>;
..........._... _ __.. .
Park Planning (SM) <ETar ....?Ja_on_on.i.n @kitchener.ca>; Region - Howard Chang
(S i1_ ng. _reguonofwaterloooca) <S _ha_n Ore uonofwaterl000ca>; Planning Applications
<Ipll mmiingplral2ll:ip�tipIns.0 _Ir .gJI_c>n.2f�rake_rl22 c >; Property Data Administrator (SM)
<P olpDat AdmiinC kutclhoinor c >; Robert Morgan <,R lka.elrt._IMlpirgain. lkil clhelnpr pa>; Steven Ryder
<Steven..lft v plr 1kirtplh_einer.ca>; Sylvie Eastman <Syllviie........................................ Ikiitelh inelr:e >; UW-WUSA (Peds)
..........................................
( hese uus :ep) <pres uus .c >; Stojc, Daniel <s crjp psvii I on.de:c. >; WCDSB - Planning
<pllnniingwcdslt c>, Elaine Burns <ellailinebur nsrwrdsVn c>, WRDSB - Planning
..........................................
.............
Subject: Circulation for Comment - 135-161 Jackson Ave. & 136 Brentwood Ave. (OPA/ZBA)
CAUTION -- EXTERNAL E-MAIL - Do not click links or open attachments unless you recognize the
sender.
Please see attached. Additional documentation can be found in AMANDA folders 24-100398 & 24-
100402 (City staff) and Slha_re_Fil_e. (external agencies). Comments or questions should be directed to
Brian Bateman, Senior Planner broan.Ibateman !kit cheiner.ca; 519-741-2200 x7869).
........................................................................................................................
Christine Kompter
Administrative Assistant Planning Division I City of Kitchener
200 King Street West, 6t" Floor I P.O. Box 1118 Kitchener ON II 4G7
519-741-2200 ext. 7425 TTY 1-866-969-9994 christine.kompter@kitchener.ca
DDDDDDDDD
Page 203 of 400
Page 204 of 400
City of Kitchener
Zone Change / Official Plan Amendment Comment Form
Address:
135-161 Jackson Ave and 136 Brentwood Ave
Owner:
100019071 Ontario Inc. (Sanjiv Shukla)
Application:
OPA24/002/J/BB and ZBA24/002/J/BB
Comments Of: Park Planning
Commenter's Name: Lenore Ross
Email: Lenore. ross@kitchener.ca
Phone: 519-741-2200 ext 7427
Date of Comments: Jan 112024
X❑ I plan to attend the meeting (questions/concerns/comments for discussion)
❑ 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 an OPA and/or ZBA to to
redevelop the subject properties with 4 street facing townhouses along the Jackson Street frontage
with 116 stacked townhouses in five clusters internal to the subject lands for a total of 120 units with
128 on-site parking spaces. A Privately Owned Public Space (POPS) is proposed as an amenity area
along the Jackson Avenue frontage. Both Official Plan and Zoning By-law Amendments are required
to support this development proposal.
• Completed and signed Official Plan and Zoning By-law Amendment application forms
• A Planning Justification Report, prepared by MHBC Planning, dated November 2023;
• An Urban Design Brief, prepared by MHBC Planning, dated November 2023;
• An Architectural package, including the Site Plan, elevations, and floor plan drawings,
prepared by SRM Architecture, dated November 23rd ,2023
• An Existing Conditions dated December 22, 2022, Site Servicing and Grading Plans, prepared
by MTE, dated September 21st, 2023;
• Shadow Study, prepared by SRM Architecture, dated November 20th, 2023;
• Arborist Report and Tree Management Plan, prepared by Hill Design Studio, dated Nov 28
2023
• Various renderings of the proposed development; SRM Architects
2. Site Specific Comments & Issues:
Parks and Cemeteries has no significant concerns with the proposed Official Plan and Zoning Bylaw
amendments and can provide conditional support subject to the minor updates to submitted studies
are noted below.
A City for Everyone
Working Together — Growing Thoughtfully — Building Community
City of Kitchener
Zone Change / Official Plan Amendment Comment Form
3. Comments on Submitted Documents
1) Parkland Dedication
a) The site is within the Eastwood Planning Community and through Places and Spaces — An
Open Space Strategy for Kitchener, this community has been identified as well served with
active neighbourhood park space and the development site is within the recommended
walking distance to existing active neighbourhood park space and acquiring additional
physical public parkland in this location is not a priority and parkland dedication and full cash
in lieu of land is recommended.
b) The development concept illustrates a POPS (Privately Owned Publicly Accessible Space) at
the front property line. If this is considered by the City, full public access easements would
be required to be registered on title and all maintenance responsibilities would remain with
the developer and the future residents/condominium corporation. The City's Park Dedication
Bylaw 2022-101 and Park Dedication Policy permit the City to consider such arrangements
and allow a partial credit of 25% of the POPS land area towards the required park dedication
requirements. Parkland dedication credit is not provided for any structure, improvements or
plantings.
Based on the preliminary site plan submitted with the OPA/ZBA an estimate is provided using
the approved land valuation of $3,830,000/ha and a dedication rate of 1ha/1000 units; a
maximum dedication of either land or CIL of 10% and a capped rate of $11,862/unit. The
estimated cash -in -lieu park dedication for the proposed 1.13375ha site with 120 proposed
units (demolition and credit for 6 units) of $434,226 as cash in lieu of land.
Calculation:
114 units/1000 units x $3,830,000/ha = $436,630 (alternate rate Bylaw 2022-101)
1.13375ha x 0.05 x $3,830,000/ha = $217,113 (5% rate Bylaw 2022-101)
1.13375ha x $3,830,000/ha x 0.1 = $434,226 (More Homes Built Faster Act 10% cap)
A second estimate is provided including the option for a —235mz POPS space (utilizing the
Council approved 25% land credit- 0.0235ha x 0.25 x $3,830,000 = $22,501) of $411,725 as
cash in lieu of land in addition to the proposed POPS subject to registered public access
easements, maintenance agreements and finalization of design details through a site plan
application.
2) Arborist Report and Tree Management Plan, prepared by Hill Design Studio, dated Nov 28
2023
a) The Plan and Report indicate that a total of four (4) City owned street trees (#122, #123, #125
and #126) are proposed for removal. Three of these street trees are assessed as being in
'Good' condition and one (#125) is identified as 'Dead'. An ISA valuation of all City owned
trees in Fair or better condition is required.
A City for Everyone
Working Together — Growing Thoughtfully — Building Community
City of Kitchener
Zone Change / Official Plan Amendment Comment Form
b) City records indicate there is an existing City owned street tree located within the boulevard
at 136 Brentwood Ave; please confirm and revise.
c) The proposed site layout and driveway configuration for street TH F3 and F4 should be revised
to better protect the existing street trees. Consider providing parking at grade internal to the
site.
d) Any City owned trees approved for removal will require financial compensation to the
approved ISA valuation as a condition of final Site Plan approval.
3) Urban Design Brief prepared by MHBC Planning, dated November 2023; Architectural
package, including the Site Plan, elevations, and floor plan drawings, prepared by SRM
Architecture, dated November 23rd,2023 and Park renderings prepared by SRM Architects.
a) The proposed site layout and driveway configuration for Street TH F3 and F4 should be revised
to better protect the existing street trees.
b) The Urban Design Brief and various conceptual renderings illustrate a fence enclosing the
proposed POPS and a solid landscape bed adjacent to the public realm. Low fencing adjacent
to the parking lot is certainly warranted but if this amenity space is to be considered as POPS,
the interface with the public realm will need to be revised to present a clear and welcoming
entrance to the public. Fencing that does not allow direct access from the street or that
obscures clear sight lines should not be included. If pursued at the Site Plan application stage
and supported, Parks and Cemeteries will, in conjunction with Urban Design, review and
approve all landscape elements associated with the proposed POPS.
4. Policies, Standards and Resources:
• Kitchener Official Plan
• 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:
The parkland dedication requirement for this submission is deferred and will be assessed at a future Site
Plan Application. Parkland dedication will be assessed based on the land use class(es) and density
approved through the OPA and ZBA and required as a condition of Site Plan Approval
It is recommended that parkland dedication for the application be taken as cash -in -lieu of land in
accordance with the Planning Act, City of Kitchener Bylaw 2022-101 and the Park Dedication Policy.
A City for Everyone
Working Together — Growing Thoughtfully — Building Community
City of Kitchener
Zoning By-law Amendment Comment Form
Project Address: 135-161 Jackson Avenue & 136 Brentwood Avenue
File Number: OPA2024/02/J/BB
ZBA2024/02/J/BB
Date of Site Plan Review Committee Meeting: No meeting, email circulation
Comments Of: Transportation Services
Commenter's Name: Steve Ryder
Email: steven.ryder@kitchener.ca
Phone: (519) 7412200 x 7152
Date of Comments: January 22, 2024
❑ I plan to attend the meeting (questions/concerns/comments for discussion)
❑ I do NOT plan to attend the meeting (no concerns)
1. Recommendation of Commenting Division:
X❑ Transportation Services has no objections to the proposed Official Plan Amendment (OPA) for the
subject property. At this time, Transportation Services does have concerns with the proposed Zoning By-
law Amendment (ZBA) to rezone the subject site for the purpose of construction of a 124 -unit multiple
dwelling development plus four (4) street fronting townhouses. Please see the following comments (with
comments/questions directed towards the traffic consultant highlighted in yellow):
• The proposed ZBA application requests a parking reduction to a combined (residential plus visitor)
parking rate of 1.03 spaces per unit but there is no indication of what the split between residential
and visitor spaces will be. The traffic assessment notes that 128 spaces will be provided (which
differs from the final application) but also does not indicate what the split would be.
o The applicant must ensure that all parking needs for this development are provided
internal to the site and there is no reliance for on -street parking on local streets to provide
visitor parking.
o Transportation Services would like to ensure that a specific number of visitor spaces are
maintained through the parking reduction. The subject site would typically require 0.1
spaces per unit for visitor parking, or 13 spaces (124 units).
A City for Everyone
Working Together — Growing Thoughtfully — Building Community
Page 208 of 400
• The Traffic Assessment completed by Paradigm Transportation Solutions Ltd. notes that it is
assumed that secure bicycle parking will be available "in unit". The submitted conceptual site plan
also notes that 120 Class A secured bike spaces will be provided "in unit".
o While providing a secured bike space within a unit is achievable, there are specific
dimensions and language in the Zoning By-law 2019-051 that must be met to be
considered a Class A space. It cannot be assumed that a "unit" is considered a Class A bike
space and the bicycle parking spaces must be shown appropriately in the site and floor
plans of the development.
• The requested parking reduction from 132 to 124 spaces is not justified by any additional TDM
measures beyond what is required under the Zoning By-law. Aside from an extra six (6) Class B
bike racks there is no mention of any additional measures to help mitigate the demand for
residential parking as part of the proposed development.
o The Traffic Assessment notes that parking unbundled from units and sold separately
would make the site eligible for a 9% reduction in parking by using the City of Kitchener's
PARTS TDM Checklist.
o The submitted Planning Justification Report notes that the site is eligible for the 9%
parking reduction but does not specify what measure would permit the reduction.
• Transportation Services staff recommend changes be made to the conceptual site plan and ZBA
application so that they align and provide more justification for the proposed reduction in
parking before support can be offered for both the proposed OPA & ZBA applications.
TRAFFIC IMPACT OF PROPOSED DEVELOPMENT:
• Staff acknowledge that the estimated trip generation of the proposed development results in
approximately 61 new trips in the morning (AM) peak hour, and 72 new trips in the afternoon
(PM) peak hour.
o This yields roughly 1 new trip per minute in the AM peak hour, and just over 1 new trip
per minute in the PM peak hour.
o Most of the generated trips from the site are estimated to use the Jackson Ave access,
which would mean Jackson Ave would see the biggest increase of daily traffic as a result
of the proposed development.
o While this number does appear to significantly increase the number of trips during the
peak hours along Jackson Ave, it should be noted that existing volumes along Jackson Ave
in the area of the proposed site access is very low.
• Staff notes that while a second access off Brentwood Ave may not be ideal from a neighbourhood
perspective, it will aid in a better distribution of trips generated by the site itself.
• In regard to the estimated trip distribution, was any consideration given to the proximity to the
highway via a traffic signal at Weber/Montgomery as opposed to accessing Weber via Jackson
Ave (where minor street stop control is the only traffic control)?
A City for Everyone
Working Together — Growing Thoughtfully — Building Community
Page 209 of 400
From: Steven Ryder
Sent: Tuesday, March 26, 2024 10:42 AM
To: Brian Bateman
Cc: Darren Kropf
Subject: RE: MHBC's Responses to Your Comments - Jackson
Hi Brian,
Sorry for the delay, We do not have any concerns with the proposed parking rate. The response matrix
they provided did not have any concerns from me, either.
Thanks,
Steve
From: Brian Bateman <,R_iruan. ateman k'itcheneu,ca>
�P..........................................................
Sent: Tuesday, March 26, 2024 9:42 AM
To: Steven Ryder <St veu�.Ry�eo OCot�l��ro�u c�>
Cc: Darren Kropf <,D r e .o�Cr�u.l�f @kitchener.ca>
Subject: RE: MHBC's Responses to Your Comments - Jackson
Hello Steve,
Just following up as I have not received a response and my report is past due. Unless I receive a
response by tomorrow, I will assume TP has no concerns with the applicant's request for a 1.02 parking
spaces (inclusive of visitor) instead of 1.1. 1 must move forward with the report going to April 22
PSIC. Please contact me should you have any concerns.
Brian Bateman, MCIP, RPP
Senior Planner
City of Kitchener
519-741-2200 x7869, TTY 1-866-969-9994
i
From: Brian Bateman
Sent: Tuesday, March 19, 2024 10:22 AM
To: Steven Ryder <S.tg e.1 ._R.rdeirI@llJtcheneir.ca>
Subject: RE: MHBC's Responses to Your Comments
Hi Steve,
Attached is the latest revised plan for your information.
Brian Bateman, MCIP, RPP
Senior Planner
City of Kitchener
Page 210 of 400
519-741-2200 x7869, TTY 1-866-969-9994
r7
`
From: Brian Bateman
Sent: Monday, March 18, 2024 4:36 PM
To: Steven Ryder <S1.9.ye r_ Ryc r. _Orut l _ _rD roc ,>
Subject: FW: MHBC's Responses to Your Comments
Hi Steve,
Just following up on my email sent you on March 5. Are you satisfied with their responses to your
comments? Please advise. Thanks.
Brian Bateman, MCIP, RPP
Senior Planner
City of Kitchener
519-741-2200 x7869, TTY 1-866-969-9994
From: Brian Bateman
Sent: Tuesday, March 5, 2024 9:32 AM
To: Katey Crawford <,KtyrausrfprII<ia lernir.>; Lenore Ross <Il..irncr:Rgss(Ikiilhinr.>; Steven
Ryder < t y in.If y it J. itclhener ca>
..
Cc: Sandro Bassanese <San_d_irq._Bas.sane lku....._._ u� lh u >
...
Subject: FW: MHBC's Responses to Your Comments
Hi Katey, Lenore & Steve,
Juliane from MHBC has provided me with a response matrix to staff comments and is attached for your
consideration. Can you kindly review and advise me if your concerns have been addressed satisfactorily
by March 12, please and thank you. Katey/Sandro — I would kindly ask that, given the
concerns/questions of residents particularly around the Urban Design Guidelines, could you provide me
with a detailed response on how this proposal meets the Guidelines so I can include it in my report and
be able to answer any questions that will arise at Committee. Steve— if you could provide me with a
paragraph or two regarding traffic, that would also be appreciated. Please reach out if you have any
questions in the meantime.
P.S. —Juliane said to me before she left on vacation, that the updated site plan is coming but it needs to
be matched up with the grading plan. I am hoping it is available shortly. My understanding is they have
agreed to the changes that Katey proposes but on working on the setbacks.
Brian Bateman, MCIP, RPP
Senior Planner
City of Kitchener
519-741-2200 x7869, TTY 1-866-969-9994
Page 211 of 400
I I ' '1111
R,
From: Juliane vonWesterholt <Lvonwe5terWr_@mhbcpVan.com>
Sent: Friday, March 1, 2024 6:11 PM
To: Brian Bateman <113rian.113ateman.@.kft�b.p
...................................................................... . . UgE�.>
Subject: comment summary tables Jackson Ave
Hi Brian,
Here is the material for the Jackson Ave site. Hope this will keep you going. I will be away until March
18th when I am back in office. Take care.
JULIANE von WESTERHOLT BES, IVICIP, RPP
Associate
Follow
® Webpage I Linkedin I Facebook I X I Vimeo I Instagrarn
P L A N N I N G
URBAN DESIIGN
LANDSCAPE
MHBC ARCHIJECTUIRE
0161 WISH IIIININIIIIII WO-NOW1111164111 ^ WIN
Page 212 of 400
From:
Katey Crawford
Sent:
Thursday, March 28, 2024 12:41 PM
To:
Brian Bateman
Cc:
Sandro Bassanese
Subject:
RE: revised site plan and engineering plans
Follow Up Flag:
Follow up
Flag Status:
Flagged
Hi Brian.,
I am supportive of the OPA/ZBA conditional on an updated and approved Urban Design Brief. The
applicant has demonstrated general compliance with Urban Design Guidelines/policy by providing the
following:
• Upper storey step backs are provided to transition the built form into the neighborhood.
• Street fronting townhouse typology without individual driveway access points provide a
complimentary built form with very few disruptions to the Jackson Ave streetscape.
• Built form is facing Jackson Ave to activate the street front and reduce visibility to
parking.
• Building fagades are complimentary to the neighborhood while remaining modern in
appearance. Materials such as red brick masonry and a warm colour palette are being
utilized.
• Lower -level storeys are sunken into grade to decrease building height appearance at
grade.
• Functioning rear yard setbacks are sufficient to provide sensitive transition, and
landscaping/tree planting between property lines and buildings.
• Parking is serviced well with pedestrian connections adjacent which lead in and out of the
site.
• Amenity space on site is strategically placed to maximize tree preservation, is centrally
located with oversight from adjacent buildings and is appropriate in size based on urban
design manual calculation requirement.
• Landscape areas are sufficient to provide required plantings adjacent to the street,
offset property lines and within amenity area.
Best,
Katey
Katey Crawford, GALA, CSLA
Senior Urban Designer / Development and Housing Approvals / City of Kitchener
519-741-2200 ext. 7157 / TTY 1-866-969-9994 IKatey„CrawfordPIkii cheneir„ca
]4 Ems// /t I ,
777— 111111"1 1 1
Page 213 of 400
From: Brian Bateman <,Briian.Baterna ..� Ikitdhern ir.ca>
Sent: Monday, March 18, 2024 5:13 PM
To: Katey Crawford <,K .ta.y.,..ir Fair .. _!ki che_rn ir.c >; Sandro Bassanese
<Saindiro.Bassainese !kiitdheineir.ca>
........................................................................................ .....................
Cc: Garett Stevenson < aret.t....S.Leve.inspin mii:tclhen_e:�r:_c.a.>
Subject: RE: revised site plan and engineering plans
Hi Katey,
FYI - These are the policies we have to consider with their application request to amend the OP/ZBA:
a) compatibility of building form with respect to massing, scale, design;
b) the relationship of housing to adjacent buildings, streets and exterior areas;
c) adequate and appropriate parking areas are provided on site; and,
d) adequate and appropriate amenity areas and landscaped areas are provided on site.
Could use your assistance in addressing these for the report. Thanks.
Brian Bateman, MCIP, RPP
Senior Planner
City of Kitchener
519-741-2200 x7869, TTY 1-866-969-9994
% / i F775/774/47/5'
6 �
From: Brian Bateman
Sent: Monday, March 18, 2024 4:56 PM
To: Katey Crawford <,K 1ey it Fair ( !kitc nerneir.c >; Sandro Bassanese
<Sandiro.Bassane sekirtcheineir.ca>
...................................................................................................................................................
Cc: Garett Stevenson <.G siren...:S. eveins in lkii:t�lhein_eir._ca.>
Subject: FW: revised site plan and engineering plans
Hi Katey/Sandro,
See attached — looks like they incorporated most of your suggested changes. Let me know your
thoughts.
Brian Bateman, MCIP, RPP
Senior Planner
City of Kitchener
519-741-2200 x7869, TTY 1-866-969-9994
From: Juliane vonWesterholt <1vgi2est! _Eb.gllt@ >
Sent: Monday, March 18, 2024 4:49 PM
Page 214 of 400
To: Brian Bateman <111ria t m n
................... ...... . ..
Subject: revised site plan and engineering plans
Hi Brian,
I am forwarding the revised site plan and engineering plans for you. I will forward additional
information, as it becomes available. I will follow up with a summary cover letter for you to describe the
site plan changes, but I am just getting back from holidays.
M
JULIANE von WESTERHOLT BES, MCIR RPP
Associate
Follow
® Webpaqe I Linkedin I Facebook I X I Vimeo I Instagram
LA N N I N G
URBAN DESIIGN
LANDSCAPE
MHBC ARCHIJECTUIRE
MINOR I WORMN
Page 215 of 400
From: Planning <planning@wcdsb.ca>
Sent: Wednesday, January 31, 2024 10:26 AM
To: Brian Bateman
Subject: RE: Circulation for Comment - 135-161 Jackson Ave. & 136
Brentwood Ave. (OPA/ZBA)
You don't often get email from DlannincaCa)wcdsb.ca. Learn why this is irnDortant
Good Morning Brian,
The Waterloo Catholic District School Board has reviewed the subject application and based on our
development circulation criteria have the following comment(s)/condition(s):
A) That any Education Development Charges shall be collected prior to the issuance of a building
permit(s).
B) That the developer and the Waterloo Catholic District School Board reach an agreement
regarding the supply and erection of a sign (at the developer's expense and according to the
Board's specifications) affixed to the development sign advising prospective residents about
schools in the area. A sign specifications document can be found at the bottom of the board's
planning department web page (https://www.wcdsb.ca/about-us/cs/planning/).
C) That the developer shall include the following wording in the site plan agreement to advise all
purchasers of residential units and/or renters of same:
"In order to limit risks, public school buses contracted by Student Transportation Services
of Waterloo Region (STS WR), or its assigns or successors, will not travel on privately
owned or maintained right-of-ways to pick up and drop off students, and so bussed
students will be required to meet the bus at a congregated bus pick-up point."
If you require any further information, please contact me by e-mail at Jordan. Neale@wcdsb.ca.
Thank you,
Jordan Neale
Planning Technician, WCDSB
480 Dutton Dr, Waterloo, ON N2L 4C6
519-578-3660 ext. 2355
From: Christine Kompter <CIhlrii_s.din_e.aII< rm.Ipteir@kiitcheneir.ca>
Sent: Thursday, January 18, 2024 3:00 PM
To: MTO - Jeremiah Johnston (:Igjr m.ii_a_h..,.Up.lrfl.1.nst..on..@_csln1 lriio._ga)<.jeiremiiah.iohinsroin@oinrtar'io.ca>;
_DL_#_DSD_Planning <DS_ P. i ininpin . .....iipin�?.Ikitcln rn it c >; Bell - c/o WSP <rjircu lla.t:ioins. _ sta._cp.inm>;
Carlos Reyes <.C.......... irllo...Ry�s..@.�ii:k�lh�in�ir:ca.>; Darren Kropf <, a ir�inrpf(c�Iki�clhfiqer c.a>; Dave Seller
< va..,S .IIIa~ir l irtglh in r. >; David Paetz <,D. ii.d P_ggt�_.@ IJ�i.tdhener.ca>; Ellen Kayes
<IE:::Illlein.IKaysIkirtclhinalir.>; Enova Power Corp. - Greig Cameron <rii.rriiraaininrapvir.im>;
Enova Power Corp. - Shaun Wang <slhausuin. in _gli .gy 12p r: prrJ>; Fire Prevention (SM)
<If:::irelilrev in.ti_rrrn_�_kirtch ineir._ca>; French Catholic School Board <p fi_ca. ii_pin s imc rn or in_iir:ca>; GRCA -
Page 216 of 400
Planning (g.Il rnrn ing gframdrivgr. ...ca) < Il in in r..F. n it or it >; Landuse Planning
<Ilandu.se..1 ink _ hydr2o.i e,_cam.>; Jim Edmondson <Jtlm_ Edmondson _kitchener.ca>; Justin Readman
................................... .....................................................................................
<Justun.Readrnan.=x_kptc g_rocu,.c >; Katherine Hughes <,O< Ihgr%pgoa..�u.hes@I<itchener.ca>; Mike Selling
<Wke Sg.i_fi g.@_Dcp:�c_67�uJ�r..c�>; Ontario Power Generation <IE.: ecutuveypolawarrddeveVopment@opg.._cg_upo>;
Park Planning (SM) <Pg_UIQ.Na.u�_nJ..n.g. _O i c.ho efrocg>; Region - Howard Chang
( h_ uJg. _Lg ionofwaterloo.ca) <SQha_n.g.A_r gionofwaterloo.ca>; Planning Applications
<pVann'iin alp. _D.:..scg....:i_0 ._s.....Lgg onofwaterloo.ca>; Property Data Administrator (SM)
< q.pfp t .imniin�lkirtclh in it >; Robert Morgan <,.R lb irt..l@ M. irga L@ ii�c.lh�in�r ��>; Steven Ryder
<Steven„Ift cia~ir Ikir glhgingr:g >; Sylvie Eastman <Syllviig:F s. m in �iitclheiner.c >; UW-WUSA (Peds)
..........................................
( irgs uus .c) <prgs uu gac >; Viamonde School Board - Daniel Stojc <s: 2j.!.d..) ..yii monde._ca>;
Planning <Pllann ing wcdsb >, WRDSB - Board Secretary (gl2.ii e_ u.uirins( wirds c.�)
Il.aii.irgg_l�urrns�rrdsl2:>; WRDSB - Planning <gllrnrniing rdsd.ca>
......... ............
Subject: Circulation for Comment - 135-161 Jackson Ave. & 136 Brentwood Ave. (OPA/ZBA)
Caution - External Email - This Message comes from an external organization. Do NOT click on
unrecognized links or provide your username and/or password.
Please see attached. Additional documentation can be found in AMANDA folders 24-100398 & 24-
100402 (City staff) and SD a.12._Eil_g (external agencies). Comments or questions should be directed to
Brian Bateman, Senior Plannerbruan.bateman ......kitchener.ca;.. 519-741-2200 x7869).
.............................................................................................................
Christine Kompter
Administrative Assistant I Planning Division I City of Kitchener
200 King Street West, 6th Floor I P.O. Box 1118 Kitchener ON N2G 4G7
519-741-2200 ext. 7425 1 TTY 1-866-969-9994 christine.kompter@kitchener.ca
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
Page 217 of 400
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 218 of 400
From: Emily Bumbaco <emily_bumbaco@wrdsb.ca>
Sent: Wednesday, January 31, 2024 10:04 AM
To: Brian Bateman; Planning
Subject: Re: [Planning] Circulation for Comment - 135-161 Jackson Ave. &
136 Brentwood Ave. (OPA/ZBA)
You don't often get email from emily bumbaco(@wrdsb.ca. Learn why this is important
ING
w ��„';,�� 111 rm w 'r
Brian Bateman
Senior Planner
City of Kitchener
brian.bateman(@kitchener.ca
January 31, 2024
Re: Circulation for Comment - 135 and 161 Jackson Ave (OPA/ZBA)
File No.: OPA24/002 ZBA24/002
Municipality: Kitchener
Dear Brian,
The Waterloo Region District School Board (WRDSB) has reviewed the above -noted application an Infill
development containing approximately 120 residential units in the form of multiple
dwellings. The WRDSB offers the following comments.
Student Accommodation
At this time, the subject lands are within the boundaries of the following WRDSB schools:
• Sheppard Public School (Junior Kindergarten to Grade 6);
• Sunnyside Public School (Grade 7 to Grade 8); and
• Eastwood Collegiate Institute (Grade 9 to Grade 12).
The WRDSB's 2020-2030 Long -Term Accommodation Plan provides detailed enrolment projections for
the long-term at these facilities.
Student Transportation
The WRDSB supports active transportation, and we ask that pedestrians be considered in the review of
all development applications to ensure the enhancement of safety and connectivity. WRDSB staff are
interested in engaging in a conversation with the City of Kitchener, and applicant to review the
optimization of pedestrian access to public transit, and municipal sidewalks so students may access
school bus pick-up points.
Student Transportation Services of Waterloo Region (STSWR)'s school buses will not travel privately
owned or maintained rights-of-way to pick-up/drop-off students. Transported students will be required to
meet the bus at a congregated bus pick-up point. STSWR may have additional comments about student
pick-up point(s) placement on municipal rights-of-way.
Page 219 of 400
WRDSB Conditions
Concerning any future declaration or agreement, the WRDSB requests the following inclusions:
1. That the Owner/Developer shall include the following wording in the condominium declaration to
advise all purchasers of residential units and/or renters of same:
a. "Despite the best efforts of the Waterloo Region District School Board (WRDSB),
accommodation in nearby facilities may not be available for all anticipated students.
You are hereby notified that students may be accommodated in temporary facilities
and/or bussed to a school outside the area, and further, that students may, in future,
be transferred to another school."
b. "For information on which schools are currently serving this area, contact the WRDSB
Planning Department at 519-570-0003 ext. 4419, or email planning@wrdsb.ca.
Information provided by any other source cannot be guaranteed to reflect current
school assignment information."
c. `7n order to limit risks, public school buses contracted by Student Transportation
Services of Waterloo Region (STSWR), or its assigns or successors, will not travel on
privately owned or maintained right-of-ways to pick up and drop off students, and so
bussed students will be required to meet the bus at a congregated bus pick-up point"
2. That the Owner/Developer enters into an agreement with the City of Kitchener to be registered on
the title to the Property that provides:
a. All agreements of purchase and sale or leases for the sale or lease of a completed home
or a home to be completed on the Property must contain the wording set out below to
advise all purchasers of residential units and/or renters of same. "
"Despite the best efforts of the Waterloo Region District School Board (WRDSB),
accommodation in nearby facilities may not be available for all anticipated
students. You are hereby notified that students may be accommodated in
temporary facilities and/or bussed to a school outside the area, and further, that
students may, in future, be transferred to another school."
"For information on which schools are currently serving this area, contact the
WRDSB Planning Department at 519-570-0003 ext. 4419, or
email planning(a)wrdsb.ca. Information provided by any other source cannot be
guaranteed to reflect current school assignment information. "
iii. "in order to limit risks, public school buses contracted by Student
Transportation Services of Waterloo Region (STSWR), or its
assigns or successors, will not travel on privately owned or
maintained right-of-ways to pick up and drop off students, and so
bussed students will be required to meet the bus at a congregated
bus pick-up pointe
3. That in cases where Agreements of Purchase and Sale have already been executed, the
Owner/Developer sends a letter to all purchasers which include the above statements (2 a. i., ii.,
and iii.).
Page 220 of 400
4. That the Owner/Developer supply, erect and maintain a sign (at the Owner/Developer's expense
and according to the WRDSB's specifications), near or affixed to the development sign, advising
prospective residents about schools in the area and that prior to final approval, the
Owner/Developer shall submit a photo of the sign for review and approval of the WRDSB.
5. Prior to final approval, the WRDSB advises in writing to the Approval Authority how the above
condition(s) has/have been satisfied.
Please be advised that any development on the subject lands is subject to the provisions of the
WRDSB's Education Development Charges By-law, 2021 or any successor thereof and may require the
payment of Education Development Charges for these developments prior to issuance of a building
permit.
The WRDSB requests to be circulated on any subsequent submissions on the subject lands and reserves
the right to comment further on this application.
If you have any questions about the comments provided, don't hesitate to contact the undersigned.
Sincerely,
Emily Bumbaco
Senior Planner
On Thu, Jan 18, 2024 at 2:59 PM Christine Kompter <Christine.Kompter@kitchener.ca> wrote:
Please see attached. Additional documentation can be found in AMANDA folders 24-100398 & 24-
100402 (City staff) and ShareFile (external agencies). Comments or questions should be directed to
Brian Bateman, Senior Planner (brian.bateman@kitchener.ca; 519-741-2200 x7869).
Christine Kompter
Administrative Assistant I Planning Division I City of Kitchener
200 King Street West, 6th Floor I P.O. Box 1118 1 Kitchener ON N2G 4G7
519-741-2200 ext. 7425 1 TTY 1-866-969-9994 1 christine.kompter@kitchener.ca
Iq 11771101
Page 221 of 400
Page 222 of 400
From: Renee Richards
Sent: Sunday, February 4, 2024 4:28 PM
To: Brian Bateman; Stephanie Stretch
,
" Some people who received this message don't often get email from Learn why this is imporkant
I would really like to know how this can happen? A pre -selling units 135 Jackson Ave townhomes! I just
saw that...
""It'appears' as though city councillors and the possibly the mayor *may have been* making side deals:
https://www.livabl.com/kitchener-on/135-Jackson-avenue-townhomes (credit Frank and Helen for a
heads up) I suggest that everyone directly question all city councillors and the mayor directly *before*
the meeting about how the developer in any way feels confident enough to be pre -selling units when
the consultation phase has not even occurred.
Thankyou
Renee Richards
Page 223 of 400
From: Robert YounglINIIIIJIMIJIM
Sent: Thursday, February 1,2O241:2OPK1
To: Brian Bateman
Subject: N3H2ElProposed Development
[You don't often get email kom arnvvhythisisimportantat
https://aka.ms/LearnAboutSender|dendhcahon]
HeUmK8c8ateman,
I have some questions about the development as I have a property beside 136 Brentwood. When would
beagood time tmcontact you?
Thank you,
Best regards,
Sent from my iPhone
Page 224 of 400
From: Um LaturneyIIIIIIIIIIEW
Sent Tuesday, February EiZO249S3AM
To: Brian Bateman; Mayor; Stephanie Stretch
Subject: 13SJackson Variance Request
Attachments: 135 Jackson response toCofK Building .pdf
Follow UpFlag: Follow up
Some people who received this message don't often get email from ly-1—hu" —hrool—tan"I
Page 225 of 400
Brian Baternan., Senior Planner
City of Kitchener
Brian this will forward to the mayor, Stephanie Stretch and posted the Eastwood
Neighbourhood Association R]ceboOkpage
| come from abackground inthe electrical industry and Health and Safety, inboth these
areas there is a set of minimum standards not to be crossed.
VVeall know that this site will berezoned for the project itisjustannatterofoettingbto0t
the City of Kitchener standards.
I have to assume the City of Kitchener Planning department and council spent time and
money onestablishing our minimum standards for building in Kitchener to maintain the quality
of life for adjacent residents and new residents alike. | also assume these nninirnunn standards
were not kept secret sothe developer, engineers and architects had all these standards when
developing aplan for this site, and chose toignore them.
FSR: The floor space ratio is requested to be increased by 166% form .6 to 1 so they can put
more building on the 1.13 hectare lot.
WIN
7.S is an adequate space for construction and leisure use when completed.
Parking: Parking should be12/unit toallow for visitor and owner's parking. The parking
space #s should not include the 4 garage parking spots or the 6 Handicap spots. So 127 parking
spaces +5Handicap =133(not including the townhouse garage spots)
EV Charging: The city should require at least 5% of the parking spots have access to a charging
station this would be5-7charging stations. These can beuser pay charging stations. The
equipment provided by the developer and the cost of electricity and capital should be paid by
the user Vfthe EVcharger.
Trees: Save orreplace 1O96more trees scheduled toberemoved aslisted 1O3,1D4,4O2,4Q3,
4O5,421,422,423,424,42S,4Z6,427,47Z,495and 496besaved. This will beabout anextra
1096. 1 find it puzzling in section 3.1 of the Arborist Report that trees on adjacent lots are listed
in Good condition while the subject site they are listed as Fair. Before construction starts the
trees should be pruned, fertilized and protected at least as far as the drip line. The owner
Page 226 of 400
their construction taken care mffor 5years. |fatree were todie orhave toberemoved itmust
be replaced by a tree with at least a 5" diameter.
Site Fencing: An 8' privacy fence (at the developers expense) should be installed around the
subject site prior to start of construction to prevent construction waste and workers from
encroaching onthe adjacent properties.
Road Conditions and, Construction Traffic: The contractor under the Highway Traffic Act is
required to keep the roadway clear of mud and debris (the roadway should be cleaned at least
twice aday during construction) until the lot ispaved. There should bepAo Construction traffic
signs posted on Mackenzie, Sheldon, Raymond, Edmund, Jackson and Fairmont. All
construction traffic must use Montgomery to Brentwood the Brentwood to 136 for entry to the
0ustCmntmJ: The constructor must have a dust control plan in place before construction starts.
Such as listing that the site will be watered as required to prevent dust enveloping the adjacent
properties. The adjacent properties should not have to suffer living in a dust bowl because of
construction. This site isliterally inthe middle ofaneighbourhood.
Building Permit: The developer wants to dm this in 2 phases. Build the 3 units that back on to
the Brentwood properties and 1O5parking spaces. This implies tornethat they don't have the
money or unwilling to spend the money to build this out all at the same time. VVedonot want
this to end up like the building on Fergus Ave. in Kitchener, bankrupt not complete or even
enclosed from the weather left torot. The projectnnustbebui|toutinasing|ephasevvitha
timeline of 2.5 years from when the first home is demolished to occupancy permits issued for
all the units. (fthis goes in2phases the construction timeline may be5years, not fair tothe
neighbouring property owners. All the buildings scheduled for demolition should betaken
down at the same time, so we don't have abandon houses to attract problems. This site should
bebuilt out completely before Kitchener allows occupancy.
There should also be an adjusted work time for the site This is in the middle of a
neighbourhood work should only be permitted from 08:00 to 17:00 Monday to Friday. The only
work allowed on the weekends or statutory holiday is interior work on an enclosed building.
The constructor must be required to provide off street parking for construction vehicles and
workers. These streets have been narrowed during street reconstruction and the extra on
street parking will cause problems for the area residents as well as emergency vehicles.
As stated before that this is literally in the middle of a neighbourhood completely surrounded
by houses.
Traffic Patterns and Parking: Fire Routes must be established on Brentwood, Jackson, Fairmount
The city should put a 4 way stop at Jackson and Brentwood. Along with 3 way stops at
Brentwood and Edmund and Brentwood and Raymond to discourage traffic from the comple,,i
Page 227 of 400
using Brentwood to Sheldon to Mackenzie to Ottawa. The traffic should be encouraged to go
Brentwood to Montgomery to Weber.
Thank you:
Jim LaLurney
Page 228 of 400
From:
Frank Smeding
Sent:
Sunday, February 4, 2024 10:36 AM
To:
Brian Bateman
Cc:
Internet - Council (SM)
Subject:
135-161 JACKSON AVE application
Some people who received this message don't often get email from ,earn vyh�LthjY� 9
1
ii n1jgULaLi Lt
Good morning so I can properly comment &prepare for the meeting
Please advise the following
Are the 120 plus units going to be rental units or individually purchased
When approved when will the demolition/construction begin
Thanks Frank
Page 229 of 400
From: Christine Liebig
Sent: Thursday, February O,2O244:3OPM
To: Brian Bateman
Subject: 135-161 Jackson Ave & 136 Brentwood Ave
You don't often get email from
Hello Brian,
Appreciate being asked toshare concerns, albeit truly bemused us1Vwhy - when the
development is already advertising its listings, according to some resident who have suffered
themselves 10look into the matter.
Moreover, after reviewing the robust development plans online, it's hard to see how anything will
impact the project from moving forward. So again, merely a (with respect) bureaucratic
exercise 10"check the boxe<'
Having said that, I will voice the following:
l. This neighbourhood, in which I have had the privilege of living in for the past 14 yrs is a
gem that the city has long overlooked and underappreciated. A tamily-focused,
inclusive, old -forested neighbourhood close to the core that is truly one -of -a -kind and an
exemplar of urban living, and represents a beautiful and authentic example of what
'\a community" actually means.
2. In recent years, many neighbours have voiced safety, as well as other concerns to the
City & Councillors and received mere platitudes. So regrettably our trust in the sincerity of
the City asking for feedback blow.
3. Community upgrades (recent) positioned as democratically chosen to benefit residents
are, byfar the majority, used only bythose driving bycar from other areas and have
disrupted oorgreenspoce Montgomery Pork to the point where very few, if any, local
residents walk through there any more.
4. Finally, and most relevant to this call for feedback: There are 3 developments going upin
three blocks (Sheldon, Clive & Jackson) inthe next l-3years, which, instead ofincluding
underground parking, will bring over 3OOnew cars (l per unit) tothe area, oswell as,
most assuredly, at least % that many more in co -habitants vehicles. Myquestion is, where
will they park? In the streets? How will the intersections (at Brentwood, Montgomery,
Sheldon & Weber) and snowplowing accommodate theadded load &congestion
particularly when added to Eastwood Collegiate traffic?
Obviously, we are all well aware of the housing crisis. And I'm not a "not in my back yard"
proponent. But if the City truly had vision, there is plenty of commercial land available in
Kitchener to accommodate these "flat and wide" developments that are closer to, or even in
the midst of, amenities suited for 1-2 bedroom units, rather than so profoundly disrupting the
fabric of a quiet, family -residential neighbourhood, because a developer has slowly and
meticulously purchased one single-family homes after another, under different guises.
Thankfully, some people have choices |ostay ortoleave. Others, who have chosen this
neighbourhood as a quiet urban oasis, close to schools for their young families, and seniors who
have lived here for decades are not as flexible, will suffer the brunt of the developments you
have chosen tosupport.
Page 230 of 400
It's regrettable that the city views its citizens as tokens to appease with a postcard and a virtual
meeting - which is not accessible to many - rather than fake responsibility and telling us this
development(s) is coming, whether we want if to or not.
Respectfully,
C.A. Liebig
Christine A. Liebig
Mentor I Brwid Story & Strategy
>boundless
ACCELERATOR
(formerly Innovation Guelph)
Office:
Mobile:
Web: BoundlessAccelerator.ca
Einail:
361 Southgate Drive, Guelph, ON N1G 3MS
This messa,ye has been sent as a part of a discussion between Christine A. Liebig and the addressee whose name is specified
above.Should.you have received this message by mistake, please in1brin us, We also ask that.you kindly delete this message
frorn your mailbox and do notfta-ward it (in whole or in port) to anyone else, as the information may be privile(d yed, Aank
you foryour cooperation and understunding.
Page 231 of 400
From:
Dennis &/or BarblININSIMINIM
Sent:
Tuesday, February 6, 2024 9:40 AM
To:
Brian Bateman
Subject:
135-161 Jackson Ave & 136 Brentwood
Follow Up Flag: Follow up
Flag Status: Completed
You don't often get email from Learn %Aft his is iMQortant
Mr. Bateman,
My family and I are residents of the Brentwood and Jackson area for over 30 years and are opposed to
this proposed development of the as we call it the Mansion Site. The original owner of this site was
refused development on the following basis:
a ruin the character of the neighbourhood established by Architect Schwartz you would not do
this on Lydia St.
9 Hydro services are over 50 years old and cannot accommodate this development. Area fed from
5TS from Enova on feeder 51VI13 which is maxed out, who would be paying for new hydra
services to the area? Or have you even considered this
0 Sewar, water infrastructure in the area was updated about 15 years ago and to add this type of
development who is paying for upgrade to accommodate.
0 Kitchener landfill was only good for approximately 15 more years for the current population this
is irresponsible to add this many residents.
With the new proposed apartment in the same area on King St the schools in the area cannot
already handle the areas students, Shepard PS, Saint Anne CS, Sunnyside Middle School, and
Eastwood Cl with all these new families.
0 What about the traffic? You add over a hundred cars to our quiet neighbourhood?
They are also proposing tearing down Mr. Silver's house for a driveway in the middle of
Brentwood; all I going and outgoing traffic will shine lights continually into Dave's, Carl's,
Margurite's and Sue's house. As you can see this is not just a neighborhood we all know each
other and watch out for the seniors out area.
0 This developer has been buying up homes in our neighborhood and renting them out to
students to the total destruction of these homes. They do not clean their snow, rake leaves,
leave garbage all over the place to chase residents from our area which we have maintained for
over 30-50 years. This development is not an improvement it is a destruction of the
architectural character of our neighbourhood.
0 1 am not sure how you plan but this is not a good one.
Infrasturure, schools, traffic, hydro, gas restriction would destroy our mature trees, increase
traffic for residents and students to unsafe levels.
This is a neighbourhood of people who built Kitchener: John Wynn's KW Transport School,
numerous Schneider Foods retires, Minister at St. Paul's, numerous ATS employees, employees
at Google, etc
We have a quiet neighbourhood of friends which this development will destroy.
Page 232 of 400
From:
DenbeFbzher
Sent:
Wednesday, February 7,JO241:59PK4
To:
Brian Bateman
Subject:
135-161 Jackson Ave 136 Brentwood
[You don't often get email from rnvvhythisbimportantat
Hi Brian | have lived onSheldon Ave for the past 44years. VVeare atight knit community.
| have concerns about the number mfunits being built onJackson/Brentwoo6. VVeare losing somany
trees, adding increased vehicle traffic and changing our neighborhood. We already have several other
building projects that are increasing the population of our small community.
The increased water & hydro consumption is worrisome. My water pressure fluctuates from the
buildings atthe top of Sheldon. And the increased traffic on Sheldon is already upsetting . There are
already issues with the narrowing ofboth Mckenzie &She|don.
Regards, Denise
Sent from myiPhone
Page 233 of 400
From:
JimLa1unney
Sent:
Wednesday, January 3l,2O24I1:39AM
To:
Brian Bateman
Subject:
135-IGIJackson Ave Kitchener
Attachments:
135-161 Jackson.pdf
You don't often get email fmm
Jim Laturney
Page 234 of 400
_11esponse To Proposed Development
161 • Ave. Kitchener
The Eastwood neighbourhood has been dealing with the fallout from the homeless
shelter at 1668 King St.E. for a few years now. We have had cars broken into, property
damage and theft, a large potion of which can be attributed to the presences of the
homeless shelter.
The existing area has about 275 single family houses, 16 apartment building (3 floor
walkups) consisting of about 80 units and a condo complex at 260 Sheldon Ave.N.
consisting of 94 units for a total of about 470 living units or between 940 and 1880
residents.
The City of Kitchener must look at a neighbourhood as a whole before approving
new housing complexes in existing neighbourhoods. With the scheduled influx of
residents we are looking at the population of the area bounded by Montgomery, Weber
St., Ottawa St. and the expressway to be 134% of existing. This does not even
consider the possibility of 4000-7000 new residents of the apartment tower complex
planned for King St.E., Montgomery and Weber. According to Census Canada Breslau
only had about 5000 residents as of 2021.
In late 2023 the Threshold Group opened their expanded group home and affordable
housing units at 290 Sheldon Ave. N.. This complex has 24 units this will bring up to 75
new residents in the area. Again only 1 access from Sheldon Ave. N. at the dead end.
There is another housing development approved and scheduled for 295 Sheldon
Ave. N., a 40 unit complex with 2 buildings and only 44 parking spaces and only 1
point of access Sheldon Ave. N. at the dead end. This can bring in between 80 and
160 new residents to this project.
Where about 15 people lived in 3 houses we now have a possibility of 235 residents
added to the end of the street (only 1 access from Sheldon Ave. N. at the dead end).
Now the city of Kitchener wants to approve a 120 unit complex to the
neighbourhood with only 124 parking spaces. We can expect 240-480 new residents.
If this development is approved this complex should not be allowed to have a cellular
antennas on the building. This will cause increased exposure to RIF radiation in the
area residents. With the push toward electric vehicles I have not seen any requirement
for EV chargers in the complex, there should be a requirement for 10% of the parking
space to have access to EV charging or 13 EV changing stations. All E -bike storage
must be stipulated to be outside due to the number of fires caused by Lithium -Ion
batteries, there should be some sort of charging station in this area so residents will not
need to take these units inside to charge.
Page 235 of 400
With this development in the middle of an existing neighbourhood the construction
times should be changed from 7 am to 8 am Monday to Friday. No excavation,
concrete pouring or paving like work is to be done on the weekends. There needs to
be strict dust controls during construction, this needs to monitored and enforced. To
protect the existing residents, this should be done by a third party consultant paid for
by the developer with authority to shut down construction if the dust controls are not
working or not being used. The roads must be kept clear of mud etc..
Parking is a large concern with up to 480 residents. With 124 parking spaces are not
enough. This will lead to on street parking. The streets have been narrowed as they
were rebuilt and any parking on the street causes problems for traffic and emergency
services. The streets surrounding the complex should become Fire Routes so there is
only parking on 1 side of the roadway at times the bylaws permit. Brentwood,
Montgomery, Jackson and Fairmount should have these designations and enforced.
Sheldon Ave.N. from Fairmount to the dead end should also be designated as a Fire
Route due to the number of vehicles that will be at the dead end. This should be done
before construction begins as the area will get clogged with construction vehicles
during the build. As part of the permit process the developer should be required to
provide off street parking for construction vehicles.
I have concerns about the availability of services for the influx of residents to the
neighbourhood (bounded by Montgomery, Weber St., Ottawa St. and the expressway).
Is there enough Hydro, water, sewage capacity, natural gas, park space, schools and of
course Police, Fire and Ambulance services. If the infrastructure needs to be increased
this causes a disturbance in the community with roads being dug up, most of which
having just been rebuilt in the last 5-7 years.
There must be controls in place to prevent any or all of these developments ending
up like the condo complex on Fergus Ave. Kitchener with worked stopped the building
not completed or weathered in and the purchasers of the condos are without a place to
live or their money. There should be as part of the building permit a time line to start
and a max of 3 years to full occupancy (or allowed occupancy of every uint in the
complex). If the buildings are not complete within 3 years from the start date the
building permit expires and they must stop work and apply for a new building permit
with a cost which should be 50% higher than the original building permit.
The developer must be able to prove they have the finances to complete the project
on time.
Just because the City of Kitchener can does not mean you must build on any open
lot or redundant building. You must consider the neighbourhood you are looking at
and what effect this will have on the existing residents. Remember you work for us the
tax payer of the City of Kitchener and not for the province or the federal governments.
Jim Laturney
Page 236 of 400
From: Barb HergottIONOMMONNOM
Sent: Wednesday, February 7,20248S7AK4
To: Brian Bateman
Subject: 1]5-16lJackson Ave and l36Brentwood Ave, Kitchener
You don't often get email from
There is much concern in our lovely neighbourhood about all of this development.
Do you really care/want to hear our concerns?? So many neighbours are not goingto reach out because
there is a general feelingthatyou will do whatever you want to do to make moneyforthe city, with no
real concerns for the residents already here.
We bought houses here and spent hard earned money, thought, and time to create homes for our
families. Now with the economy the government created, many can not afford to move, many do not
want tomove.
But the increased traffic, people and problems will take away the sense of community in this
neighbourhood. And the height of these buildings overlooking what is now back(and front) yards with a
sense of privacy enjoyed daily by all of us. Would you want this done to your neighbourhood, and your
home value??
What are you thinNn8??Please consider our concerns.
8arbHeqJott
Page 237 of 400
From: Stella
Sent: Friday, February 9,2O244:O4PK4
To: Brian Bateman; Internet - Council (SM)
Subject: 135-1G1Jackson Ave and 136Brentwood Ave
Some people who received this message don't often get email ko*
Hello Brian and Councillor,
I am submitting my concerns regarding 135-161 Jackson Ave and 136 Brentwood Ave.
When the single family home across the street from me was converted to a rental duplex we were
originally told by the building department that the occupancy limit was 8. Inquiries were made when
neighbours noticed more people and suddenly we were told the occupancy limit was 10. There are
currently more than 10 people residing in that duplex but the building department or the city does not
monitor ordoanything about it.
1. Who is going to monitor the occupancy limit of the units being proposed?
2. How many of the units are rentals?
3. The increase to the number of people living in the area will negatively impact the neighbourhood.
This proposed development istoo large.
4. The current greenspace available to local people is already too small for the current population of the
neighbourhood. No one from the city regularly monitors Mongomery Park; perhaps if it were monitored
vehicles would not illegally park on and ruin the grass by the tennis courts.
5. The increase intraffic will negatively impact the neighbourhood.
6. This neighbourhood has already seen an increase in traffic do to the city approving zoning changes
and development even though over 99% of the residents were opposed; who is representing the people
who live here?
7. Are there other rental properties in the neighbourhood owned by this developer? If so, are the
properties maintained toKitchener Property Standards?
8. In the last few years many single family homes that have sold in the area have become slum rentals;
garbage on the properties, parking on front lawns, no one shovelling the sidewalks, etc. How can we
trust the city to look after the current residents interests when nothing is currently being done to
protect our property values and standards.
9. | would like tosee less than half dwelling units proposed and more outdoor green space onthe
development property for its future residents.
10. A huge decline in the number of toads has occurred surrounding the proposed development area.
This has taken place since the development properties were purchased. Has anyone from the city
checked into toad or other species decline in the area after this land was purchased?
Page 238 of 400
From: Stephanie Patten VININEENEENNIMMINEW
Sent: Saturday, January 20, 2024 7:28 AM
To: Brian Bateman
Subjects 135-161 Jackson Ave. & 136 Brentwoad Avc. Development
i
1
You don't often get email from Learn whY his is important
Good morning,
I am a neighbour in the Eastwood neighbourhood who lives on Brentwood ave, right across the street
from where this proposed development "might" be built. I am so incredibly upset by this plan that I have
been having trouble finding the correct words to express my concerns.
I do not understand the necessity of ruining our small neighbourhood with this monstrosity. We already
have 6-8 large scale condominiums going up within a 2-3km radius from our home. Why are these
additional units also helpful?
What I can see happening is increased crime, increased car accidents due to the new 200+ neighbours
and their guests, increased utility usage - does this mean our water pressure will be affected? Can our
sewer system handle this? Our power system? Internet lines? Will the neighbours who have worked
their butts off to purchase their home be forced to compensate for this new development ?
The developer who purchased and is destroying this land, do they or have they ever even lived in our
neighbourhood so they could know what damage they are causing? My neighbours all along Brentwood
and fairmount are distraught. We will be forced to not only live in the thick of construction for now
many years? But will have our entire living arrangements changed because of this development.
! know I'm not alone when I say our household was hit hard with depression since the pandemic, a lot of
my neighbours have had the same struggles going on. And being able to step outside of our homes and
see sky and sun is important. The thought of walking out my front door and all I can see are these
buildings blocking the sunshine is depressing so far beyond comprehension. I can't even fully explain the
negative implications this will certainly have.
The land would be better used for something our neighbourhood could actually benefit from. A
community centre and large park for the kids? A new sports field or place for a skating rink for our
budding athletes in the neighbourhood. Or just keep the incredible maple pond mansion the way it is!
No one even knew it was for sale!
Do we even have any chance fighting this thing? Or has the plan been accepted and the city just wants
to think we have a voice in this?
appreciate your time.
Thank you
Stephanie Patten
i • •
Page 239 of 400
From: OstranderlIMMINNIJIMMINJIMMMEM
Sent: Friday, February 9,2O2462OPM
To: Brian Bateman; Internet Council (SM)
Subject: I36-16lJackson and 156Brentwood concerns and
Some people who received this message don't often get email from
� imVpoltal�
Hello Brian,
I am emailing you about the proposed development on 136-161 Jackson and 136 Brentwood. I am a
resident of the eastwood neighborhood and live on Brentwood.
Firstly, lwould like tnmake dclear iao/absolutely againatthdoproyoseddevonyozeotaodro;oobnAto
minimize the rear setback limit and increase building height.
While typically development can 6cgreat for KVVthis particular proposal isnot moving the needle of
progress in a way that creates overall benefit to the City and its residents. Additionally, the lot selected
for development is not suited to a development in general given its completely enclosed by residential
houses.
I have many questions and concerns, the following are sorne just a few of my key questions:
L Has a gap capacity assessment been completed assessing the existing utility supply and the
incremental demand placed outhe area hythis proposal and other developments? lwould like
to see this assessment and any supporting recommendations. We frequently have issues with
sewage backstops and other utility infrastructure and this proposal will only exacerbate current
issues.
2. The existing pond and mature trees provide important ecological habitats towildlife in the
neighbourhood. Has there been an assessment completed on the species of wildlife in the area
and how they will bcimpacted when these habitats are removed ?
3' 120 units will greatly impact the traffic in the area by almost doubling the number of cars in
the neighborhood. There are only a handful of entries and exits and the impact on traffic will be
significant. i would be concerned for the number of children and elderly who live in the area.
please comment oohow traffic's impacts will bemanaged ?
4,, 1 would like to see a more detailed assessment on impacts to water drainage. Paving over porous
soil and removal of trees will certainly increase flood risks in the area. The proposed lot for the
development has grading such that surrounding lots already have flooding issues. this will only
beamplified with the current proposal.
5 The land was built by the gentleman who originally developed eastwood neighbourhood. the
current structure is a neighbourhood landmark and the neighbourhood itself was established in
the 1940s. Has the city considered the heritage that it would be demolishing and what's its
formal response ?
6. The "playground" currently proposed is minuscule and does nothing to compensate for the
neighborhood for the lost biodiversity and green space. Please comment on how the city plans to
push back to the developer to incorporate more green space than is currently proposed to
preserve mature trees while achieving its objectives ?
Look forward tohearing the responses tosome ofthese concerns and will attend the meeting noFeb
Best Regards,
Page 240 of 400
From: Thomas van der HoffINEENEENNINNIM
Sent: Saturday, January 20, 2024 8:29 AM
To: Brian Bateman
Subject: Application #ZBA24/002/J/BB - 135 Jackson Ave
You don't often get email from tvanderhoff@woolwich.ca. Learn why this is important
I
Hi Brian,
Sharing a perspective for consideration by the City in regard to parkland at the proposed development
at 135 Jackson Ave. As a resident of the neighbourhood, my family frequents the park on Montgomery
Rd. In reviewing the development application, it appears parkland has been included. Considering the
development is within the assumed 400 metre Parks Master Plan standard for proximity to the nearest
neighbourhood playground (100 metres from the park), there is opportunity for the City to receive cash -
in -lieu of parkland dedication, allocating these funds to the existing park which is in much need of
replacement and expansion of the existing playground.
The existing playground equipment is of significant vintage, and is primarily focused on the older age
range. The Eastwood neighbourhood is seeing a turnover of older residents with an influx of younger
families in recent years, and replacement of the existing playground would not only serve the new
residents but those who currently live here. A larger playground would be warranted as well,
considering the number of new residents who will be visiting the park.
This re -allocation of development lands also provides further opportunity for adding additional units
and/or parking.
Food for thought. Thanks Brian!
oolwic;h.ca I fin_ a e IR I IF gbook I ro to ram twitter
Ns e¢ewo l imroay S'wa hn rrm7fidoMial hi fomwa on If you wcelver.9 this c,mai6 in mror, ple se nobfV the s<Mrrder and te kt e Phe r T aH F k Mme ,.onsidor Hhc!
urrirM¢vordr RIM Ilrrfolli pxilrrting
Page 241 of 400
From: Amber Elliott
Sent: Saturday, January 2lZOI48:44AM
To: Brian Bateman
Subject: Application Number: ZBA24/002/J/BB
[You don't often get email hom rnvvhythisisimportantat
Hello Brian,
I am an Operations Coordinator for a major specialty deep foundation construction company in the KW
area. I wanted to reach out as 1, as well as, the community have some major concerns for this build. I live
in the area, right behind where this development is being proposed and I would urge you to take
consideration of many things.
1. This area has had a growth in property damage and theft. (My cousin in an office for KW and has been
to many calls and can duly this) Do with this information what you wish, but more people means more
foot traffic, and more required security.
2. The parking is a huge situation for EVERYONE in this area. The township already didn't listen to the
outstanding no's we had for the park being turned into a disk golf course. So appropriate parking
numbers need to be established. One parking per unit is absolutely ridiculous for any complex. The
money coming from this development, the parking should be expanded. (Parking garage) 3. Those of use
to back onto the property, highly suggest that a proper and well designed fence be established around
the entire property. We will not permit residence to come on to our property and use the parking we
have in front of our streets to then walk the "easy way" through our lots and then into their building.
Law enforcement will becalled.
4. This area has a large amount of long time home owners, and we have gotten use to the new to here
members that are joining this area, but there needs to be defined rules and processes that members
follow. My expectations are that this is not an owner built apartment building and that these units will
be sold and resold. My hope is that members of the sales area take consideration that those who are
buying will need to be told and reminded the community expectations. We do not take kindly to those
who disrupt the lives we have created. Human nature rea||y. We have a very active community watch,
and security setup ourselves. We demand respect to our community and properties.
I reviewed the documents, and I will mentioned that you do not appear to have a geotechnical
investigation completed. This is something that you are going to need to take into consideration. If you
already have, I believe that it is important to share that document with the public. As I mentioned I work
for a deep foundations company, and this property, with how it sits, and its required structure, I suggest
taking into consideration the soils and sampling. We do lots ofICI work, high rise buildings and small
residential projects, and 0eotech information isalways an high recommendation, especially for city
planned work.
I write this to you, not to urge you to stop the production and halt growth to the area, but to bring forth
the overwhelming concerns that the community has, and some advice on how to correct and follow
through. Operations and preparedness is my speciality, so I appreciate you taking the time to review this
email and request that you take this information with high consideration. You will be going to the
meeting taking place tomorrow. Sobeprepared tohave alot offeedback, asthis community won't hold
back. Please let usnow everything, sowecan bebest prepared.
Page 242 of 400
Thank you for your time and consideration,
Amber Elliott
Page 243 of 400
Fromm: Natalie Sebastian
Sent: Sunday, February 4,2O2413:22PIVI
To: Brian Bateman; Internet - Council (SM)
Cc: Stephanie Stretch
Subject: Below isaletter from 152Jackson < the owner doesn't have )nterne1ordoes
email ,| have agreed towrite her letter
)
h You don't often get email frnm
Millie Eckert0
Just got notice they want to go ahead with a big development on our street.
I know we need more housing BUT this development does not belong in a small
neighborhood like ours.
We had a nice quiet family neighborhood until a big developer came in and bought
up 5 family homes. Now he wants to tear them down and put a townhouse complex for
120 units plus parking for 124 cars. Our small street cannot handle all that traffic. What
about the sewers?
This street is not the place for a big complex. These developers do not live in our city,
but come in here and ruin our nice quiet neighborhoods. I'm sure the city councillors
would not want it on their street..
41/WY Ca
Kindest regards,
Natalie
OnFriday, February 2.2O24adO3:U7:35p.m.EST, Internet - Council (SyN)<uoumj|@hitchenacca>
Page 244 of 400
I am sharing your comments with the Planner that is overseeing
this application at 135 Jackson, Brian Bateman. I have also sent
your comments to ClIr Stephanie Stretch.
There will be a neighbourhood information session held. Details to
join are in the link below and', by way of this email, I am asking
you be added to the list for
updates. https-HapP2.kitchenerca/A oDocs/OpenData/AMANDA
pp
DataSets/701880 POSTCARD2�o�Q,(NOTICE%20&%20UIMY/o?O
135%2OJackson).Pd
Following that, staff will consolidate the feedback in order to
finalize a recommendation to be considered by Planning
Committee and City Council.
9 0- 0 -0 0- 0
11MR.110INg, I w$e,
91 Ml 1! 14101 1ON11MAMIMMUNAI 11 0 11 Z 0 1 61
AMI MWIM. =0
Page 245 of 400
Confidentiality Notice: This email correspondence (including any attachments) may contain information which is confidential;
privileged; and/or exempt from disclosure under applicable law. It is intended only for the use of the designated recipient(s) listed
above. Any unauthorized use, distribution or disclosure is strictly prohibited. If you are not the Intended recipient, or have otherwise
received this message by mistake, please notify the sender immediately by replying via email, and destroy all copies of this original
correspondence (including any attachments), Thank you for your cooperation,
From: Natalie Sebastian <na
Sent: Thursday, January 25, 2024 3:58 PM
To: Internet - Council (SM) <council@kitchener.ca>
You don't often get email from _ _, __
I am writing as a private citizen of the Ward 10 property located at in
Kitchener N21-1 3P7 to express my vehement opposition to the proposal redevelopment
per planning application 135-161 Jackson & 136 Brentwood Ave.
I am unclear why Kitchener paid thousands of dollars for this and we completely ignore
Page 246 of 400
- Increased intensity of traffic in, out and through the community, in an area where traffic
enforcement is already lacking in its effectiveness to establish safe travel speeds and
compliance with road safety regulations.
- Increased traffic noise, again in an area where traffic enforcement is already lacking in
its effectiveness to ensure that vehicles operated in and around the community meet
established legislated vehicle noise emission standards, resulting in further worsening
of street noise already above a reasonable level due to traffic both along Highway 7 and
within the community's own streets.
- Increased general noise directly caused by the population intensification in an area
already plagued by noise not only from the aforementioned lack of enforcement of
established legislated vehicle noise emission standards, but by increased air traffic in
and out of the municipal international airport (YKF).
- Increased disruption by construction activities as the developer would implement
planned facility.
- Increased crime due to the intensification of population in the community that this
project will cause.
- Erosion of our voices as voters and as property owners within the physical boundaries
of this neighbourhood.
I ask that the City of Kitchener to:
1. Deny this application and prevent the project from going forward,
2. Withhold • use any funds from the tax base at the municipal, regional, provincial,
and federal levels into which our community residents contribute, saving those funds
from being diverted away from the neglected community standards enforcement already
plaguing this community to further enhance profitability of the commercial interests of
this property owner and commercial entities working with them.
3. Reject this application with prejudice so as to set a precedence to not further
entertain applications of this nature in this community going forward by this applicant or
• other .«•
I,. Not prove the ineffectiveness of democratic process by reviewing and subsequently
ignoring this request.
5. BE BETTER in its proactive and EFFECTIVE informing of residents affected by
proposals such as these (all residents, at least within a 1 km radius of proposed project
rkites).
Sincerely,
Natalie Sebastian
Page 248 of 400
From: Megan BaileyV§1N1111kVN11J&M
Sent: Thursday, February 8, 2024 10:09 PM
To: Brian Bateman
Subject: Comments - 135-161 Jackson Ave
You don't often get email from Learn
Hello Brian,
I live at immediately adjacent to Block D of the proposed development.
My first comment is that having the written comment period before the meeting seems
problematic. I do not know entirely what I am supposed to be commenting on. There also could
be something that comes Lip at the meeting that I would like the comment on but can't because it
appears the only written comment period is before the meeting, and I have no idea how much
time would actually be available for verbal comments.
I'm also not sure if I am only providing comments on the adjustments that the developer wants to
the zoning, or if I am to be commenting on the actual project itself.
C�
Overall, this does seem like a reasonable development, and probably a good location for a
townhouse development. But, I do have some complaints, and as this appears to be the only time
to make written comments I am going to make them, even if they don't end Lip being relevant.
Existing Fence — at least part of the 'existing fence' along the north side of the development and
171 Jackson probably won't survive construction.
Stop signs at Jackson and Fairmount, and Jackson and Brentwood — many, many vehicles run
these stop signs every day. This development would obviously result in more cars and more
pedestrians, I am concerned someone is going to get hurt, though f do not know how to improve
these stops.
Weber St. — I already see pedestrians attempting to cross Weber St at Jackson Ave every
morning that I wait at the bus stop. It seems very unsafe with the blind bend for cars heading
downtown. It would be nice if this development is approved for there to either be some sort of
pedestrian island added, or at a minimum, an additional safe crossing point on Weber St
somewhere between Ottawa and Eastwood Collegiate, which google maps says is about 750m
without a crossing.
`Backyards'/'Sideyards' — it's not clear to me what is going behind these buildings. Is this just
free green space or are they backyard belonging to units on lower floors of the buildings.
Trees — it's nice that some trees are going to be kept from the existing forested area, but a lot of
larger trees that are in decent shape are going to be cut down which is disappointing. It also
seems like a lot of the preserved trees are mostly being preserved because of it being on someone
else's property. My other concern is that the document called "701,880230572023 -11 -29135 -
Page 249 of 400
l61Jackson Ave_()PA-ZBA Set" seems Loimply odditioou|hzcncxiutnhiubdon`tuotoa|y
This is the same area on the map (including the backyard of my house), and there are no trees there.
The plan does not show any trees being planted or maintained on that side of the building. It seems to
beimplying Lnmethat it's going tobemore private than itis. |fthe developer wanted toput atree on
Page 250 of 400
that side of the fence I wouldn't complain, and I feel like it would also be better for whomever ends up
living there too.
Parking — there doesn't seem to be any/much visitor parking, which isn't a huge deal as there is street
parking around barring any snow events, but I do have some concerns regarding street parking, at least
on Jackson between Brentwood and Fairmount. I'm pretty sure street parking is currently allowed on
both sides of the street, though it is currently nighttime so I am not going to go out and confirm that,
which if both sides were to be full of parked cars, navigating up and down the hill could be perilous. It
could begood tolimit parking toone side ofthe street.
Privacy — it isn't great going from a bungalow on the one side, even if the current garage and edge of the
house at 161 Jackson are currently closer than the new development, to a taller/3 story building with
balconies looking down into your backyard. I get that we need more housing in the area for sure, it's just
unfortunate that the backyard surrounded by trees is going to be mostly gone.
| would also like torequest that ifany ofmycomments are tobecome public, please refrain from using
my full name with my address, as I work in a position where that information has the potential to put my
safety a1risk.
Megan Bailey and Wesley Sadgrove
Page 251 of 400
From: Kimm KayIIIII§IffIIIIffMINN$M
Sent: Wednesday, January 31, 2024 3:39 PIVI
To: Brian Bateman
Subject: Concerned Home Owner - Ward 10 - Sheldon Ave. N.
Attachments: Response To Proposed Development in Jackson Ave., Kitchener - Ward IO.pdf
You don't often get email from
Dear Brian,
I trust this message finds you well. I sure that you may have already received input from
various residents in our locality, but I believe it's crucial for you to hear from the
collective voice of our community.
Residing on Sheldon Ave. N. for the past 8 years with my husband and three daughters
(ages 8, 6, and 4), 1 cannot express enough how deeply disappointed I am with the
current state of our once -beautiful mature neighborhood. The challenges we face
extend beyond the existing issues, such as the presence of a large group home at the
dead end of Sheldon, where recent incidents have involved a SWAT team addressing a
man wielding a knife. This, unfortunately, is just one of many unsettling occurrences.
e## ` of constructing 40 stacked townhouses at the end of our street without
adequate parking raises concerns about the potential impact on our community.
Furthermore, the proposed development of a substantial a pa rtment/town house
complex on Jackson Ave., encompassing Maple Pond and the charming historic houses
in its vicinity, is alarming.
Past attempts to voice our concerns in meetings have often been met with responses
suggesting that we should be grateful for the 'buffer' between our neighborhood an,#'
the highway. However, this approach does not consider the sustainability of such
irresponsible and shortsighted growth in our community.
I sincerely hope you will listen at the upcoming virtual meeting on Feb 21 that is
planned to discuss the newly proposed developments. Additionally, I urge you to re-
think the rezoning for the proposed development. Our community can no longer bear
the consequences of unchecked growth, which is leading to increased dangers on our
streets and making our neighborhood unsafe for our children to play, Many residents
are becoming frustrated and feel compelled to relocate, feeling as if we are being forced
out of our homes. How would you like it if it was right next to you and your family? I
don't think you would.
M M�
Page 252 of 400
From: Jamie Bester
Sent: Wednesday, January 31, 2024 12:54 PM
To: Stephanie Stretch; Brian Bateman
Subject: Eastwood Neighbourhood Proposal
[You don't often get email from earn why this is important at
https://aka.ms/LearnAboutSenderldentification ]
Good afternoon,
As a concerned citizen and resident of this direct community for over 20 years, I would like to present
the following concerns:
Response To Proposed Development
135 - 161 Jackson Ave. Kitchener
The Eastwood neighbourhood has been dealing with the fallout from the homeless shelter at 1668 King
St.E. for a few years now. We have had cars broken into, property damage and theft, a large potion of
which can be attributed to the presences of the homeless shelter.
The existing area has about 275 single family houses, 16 apartment building (3 floor walkups) consisting
of about 80 units and a condo complex at 260 Sheldon Ave.N. consisting of 94 units for a total of about
470 living units or between 940 and 1880 residents.
The City of Kitchener must look at a neighbourhood as a whole before approvingnew housing complexes
in existing neighbourhoods. With the scheduled influx of residents we are looking at the population of
the area bounded by Montgomery, Weber St., Ottawa St. and the expressway to be 134% of existing.
This does not even consider the possibility of 4000-7000 new residents of the apartment tower complex
planned for King St.E., Montgomery and Weber. According to Census Canada Breslau only had about
5000 residents as of 2021.
In late 2023 the Threshold Group opened their expanded group home and affordable housing units at
290 Sheldon Ave. N.. This complex has 24 units this will bring up to 75 new residents in the area. Again
only 1 access from Sheldon Ave. N. at the dead end.
There is another housing development approved and scheduled for 295 Sheldon Ave. N., a 40 unit
complex with 2 buildings and only 44 parking spaces and only 1 point of access Sheldon Ave. N. at the
dead end. This can bring in between 80 and 160 new residents to this project.
Where about 15 people lived in 3 houses we now have a possibility of 235 residents added to the end of
the street (only 1 access from Sheldon Ave. N. at the dead end).
Now the city of Kitchener wants to approve a 120 unit complex to the neighbourhood with only 124
parking spaces. We can expect 240-480 new residents. If this development is approved this complex
should not be allowed to have a cellular antennas on the building. This will cause increased exposure to
RF radiation in the area residents. With the push toward electric vehicles I have not seen any
requirement for EV chargers in the complex, there should be a requirement for 10% of the parking space
to have access to EV charging or 13 EV changing stations. All E -bike storage must be stipulated to be
outside due to the number of fires caused by Lithium -Ion batteries, there should be some sort of
charging station in this area so residents will not need to take these units inside to charge.
With this development in the middle of an existing neighbourhood the construction times should be
changed from 7 am to 8 am Monday to Friday. No excavation, concrete pouring or paving like work is to
be done on the weekends. There needs to be strict dust controls during construction, this needs to
monitored and enforced. To protect the existing residents, this should be done by a third party
consultant paid for by the developer with authority to shut down construction if the dust controls are
not working or not being used. The roads must be kept clear of mud etc..
Page 253 of 400
Parking is a large concern with up to 480 residents. With 124 parking spaces are not enough. This will
lead tmonstreet parking. The streets have been narrowed asthey were rebuilt and any parking nnthe
street causes problems for traffic and emergency services. The streets surrounding the complex should
become Fire Routes so there is only parking on 1 side of the roadway at times the bylaws permit.
Brentwood, Montgomery, Jackson and Fairmount should have these designations and enforced. Sheldon
Ave.N. from Fairmount to the dead end should also be designated as a Fire Route due to the number of
vehicles that will be at the dead end. This should be done before construction begins as the area will get
clogged with construction vehicles during the build. As part of the permit process the developer should
berequired 10provide off street parking for construction vehicles.
I have concerns about the availability of services for the influx of residents to the neighbourhood
(bounded by Montgomery, Weber St., Ottawa St. and the expressway). Is there enough Hydro, water,
sewage capacity, natural gas, park space, schools and of course Police, Fire and Ambulance services. If
the infrastructure needs to be increased this causes a disturbance in the community with roads being
dug up, most ofwhich having just been rebuilt inthe last S-Jyears,
There must be controls in place to prevent any or all of these developments ending up like the condo
complex on Fergus Ave. Kitchener with worked stopped the building not completed or weathered in and
the purchasers of the condos are without a place to live or their money, There should be as part of the
building permit a time line to start and a max of 3 years to full occupancy (or allowed occupancy of every
uintinthe romp|ex). If the buildings are not complete within 3years from the start date the building
permit expires and they must stop work and apply for a new building permit with a cost which should be
50Y6higher than the original building permit.
The developer must be able to prove they have the finances to complete the project on time.
Just because the City of Kitchener can does not mean you must build on any open lot or redundant
building. You must consider the neighbourhood you are looking at and what effect this will have on the
existing residents. Remember you work for us the tax payer of the City of Kitchener and not for the
province o/the federal governments.
Thank you for your time and considering those that this is directly affecting. Looking forward to hearing
from you.
Jamie
Page 254 of 400
From: ]imbtunnay
Sent: Tuesday, February 6,2O241:14PK8
To: Brian Bateman; Mayor; Stephanie Stretch
Subject: Eastwood area developments
Some people who received this message don't often get emai|from 1111IMMca. Learn why this is important
I have just been in contact with someone who has a handle on the developments proposed for
this area.
1770 King St. E.
503 units
1668 King St.E
616 units
1253 King St. E.
403 units
295Sheldon Ave. N.
40 units
Clive
40 units
(Between Montgomery and Fairmount)
135 Jackson
120 units
Charles and Borden
2tovvers?
King, Charles, Ottawa
and Borden
21ovvers?
20 Ottawa St. N.
2toxvers?
aswell as
Corner Delroy and Weber St.
Fergus Ave. beside the Beer Store
These developments can bring inbetween GOOO 12,OOOmore residents tothe area. When will
the City say no more inthis area. 12,000 is about 2.5times the size ofBreslau from the 2O21
Census.
Some ofthese will have 1obestopped before weget overwhelmed. As|wrote tomayor before
if|wanted tolive inMississauga | would have moved there.
Jim Laturney
Page 255 of 400
From:
Elizabeth Leacock onbehalf ofInternet ' Council (SK4)
Sent:
Friday, February 2, 20243:07PIVI
To:
Brian Bateman;
Cc:
Stephanie Stretch
Subject:
FW: Proposed Development inyour Neighbourhood 135Jackson &
Brentwood !
I am sharing your comments with the Planner that is overseeing
this application at 135 Jackson, Brian Bateman. I have also sent
your comments to Clir Stephanie Stretch.
There will be a neighbourhood information session held. Details to
join are in the link below and, by way of this email, I am asking
you be added to the list for
Following that, staff will consolidate the feedback in order to
finalize a recommendation to be considered by Planning
Committee and City Council.
Then Council's decision will be communicated back to this
residents who participated in the information session. I
Constituency Assistant to Council I Office of the Mayor an
Council I City of Kitchener
519.741.2200 x7792 I TTY 1-866-969-9994
Page 256 of 400
Info Aftchener.ca
51i9 -741-2345
. . . . .. . .. ....................... .. .. .. .........................
Confidentiality Notice: This email correspondence (including any attachments) may contain information which is confidential; privileged; and/or exemptfrom
disclosure under applicable law. It is intended only for the use of the designated recipient(s) listed above. Any unauthorized use, distribution or disclosure is
strictly prohibited. If you are not the intended recipient or have otherwise received this message by mistake, please notify the sender immediately by replying via
email, and destroy all copies of this original correspondence (including any attachments). Thank you for your cooperation.
Sent: Thursday, January 25, 2024 3:58 PM
To: Internet - Council (SM) <council@ kitchener.ca>
Subject: Proposed Development in your Neighbourhood -Jackson & Brentwood
1
You don't often get email frost Learn whir this ,.1s,important
I am writing as a private citizen of the Ward 10 property located at -- in
Kitchener N2H 3P7 to express my vehement opposition to the proposal redevelopment
per planning application 135-161 Jackson & 136 Brentwood Ave.
I am unclear why Kitchener paid thousands of dollars for this and we completely ignore
this.
Residential intensification in established np:ighbourhoods study,
Residential intensification in established
neighbourhoods study
Policy and reguation cd
U:j l1,R11 d6es
Page 257 of 400
motivating factor in my decision to purchase my home here. This neighbourhood would
be severely impacted by not only the visual uglification of the surrounding neigbourhood
by way of impositions of tall structures on the skyline, but also by the unwanted
population intensification which will manifest itself in many ways, including but not
limited to:
- Increased intensity of traffic in, out and through the community, in an area where traffic
enforcement is already lacking in its effectiveness to establish safe travel speeds and
compliance with road safety regulations.
- Increased traffic noise, again in an area where traffic enforcement is already lacking in
its effectiveness to ensure that vehicles operated in and around the community meet
established legislated vehicle noise emission standards, resulting in further worsening
of street noise already above a reasonable level due to traffic both along Highway 7 and
within the community's own streets.
- Increased general noise directly caused by the population intensification in an area
already plagued by noise not only from the aforementioned lack of enforcement of
established legislated vehicle noise emission standards, but by increased air traffic in
and out of the municipal international airport (YKF).
- Increased disruption by construction activities as the developer would implement
planned facility.
- Increased crime due to the intensification of population in the community that this
project will cause.
- Erosion of our voices as voters and as property owners within the physical boundaries
of this neighbourhood.
1. Deny this application and prevent the project from going forward,
2. Withhold from use any funds from the tax base at the municipal, regional, provincial,
and federal levels into which our community residents contribute, saving those funds
from being diverted away from the neglected community standards enforcement already
plaguing this community to further enhance profitability of the commercial interests of
this property owner and commercial entities working with them.
3. Reject this application with prejudice so as to set a precedence to not further
entertain applications of this nature in this community going forward by this applicant or
by other applicants.
4. Not prove the ineffectiveness of democratic process by reviewing and subsequently
ignoring this request.
5. BE BETTER in its proactive and EFFECTIVE informing of residents affected by
proposals such as these (all residents, at least within a 1 km radius of proposed project
sites).
Sincerely,
Natalie Sebastiar
Page 258 of 400
Kindest regards,
101F.M. 1 rE
Page 259 of 400
From: Elizabeth Leacock on behalf of Internet - Council (SM)
Sent: Friday, January 26, 2024 11:07 AM
To: Stephanie Stretch; Brian Bateman
Subject: FW: Proposed Development in your Neighbourhood - Jackson & Brentwood
Brian, I see that you are the planning contact for this site plan
application. Would you take a look at the email below, and
comment on the list of asks/suggestions by the resident to assist
Stephanie in responding to the resident please.
I also believe there is a Virtual Zoom Meeting for the public on
February 21 st at 7pm. To join go to www.zoom. us/join , enter
meeting ID# 82817583252 or participate by phone dial
1.647.558.0588 and enter meeting ID# 828 1758 3252
•
Constituency Assistant to Council I Office of the Mayor an•
Council I City of Kitchener
519.741.2200 x7792 I TTY 1-866-969-9994
elizabeth.leacqq����,�,
Page 260 of 400
strictly prohibited. If you are not the intended recipient, or have otherwise received this message by mistake, please notify the sender immediately by replying via
email, and destroy all copies of this original correspondence (including any attachments). Thank you for your cooperation.
From: Natalie Sebastian
Sent: Thursday, January 25, 2024 3:58 PM
To: Internet - Council (SM) <council@kitchener.ca>
Subject: Proposed Development in your Neighbourhood - Jackson & Brentwood !
You don't often get email from . Learn wh tt7is is im octant
I am writing as a private citizen of the Ward 10 property located at _ _ in
Kitchener N2H 3P7 to express my vehement opposition to the proposal redevelopment
per planning application 135-161 Jackson & 136 Brentwood Ave.
I am unclear why Kitchener paid thousands of dollars for this and we completely ignore
this.
Residential intensification in established neicihbourhoods study,
Residential intensification in established
neighbourhoods study
Policy ":md (cr;ii.lhk�-)n Ir'�vl, °r/ nr r e"v I.hl;:,m fls Irl n,;1ahllshcd
C01) 1 f'I11.J 1 1 11 i e s
The Eastwood neighbourhood within which I live is a quiet and serene older wartime
neighbourhood consisting of mainly single-family dwellings, which is the primary
motivating factor in my decision to purchase my home here. This neighbourhood would
be severely impacted by not only the visual uglification of the surrounding neigbourhood
by way of impositions of tall structures on the skyline, but also by the unwanted
population intensification which will manifest itself in many ways, including but not
limited to:
Page 261 of 400
• Increased intensity of traffic in, out and through the community, in an area where traffic
enforcement is already lacking in its effectiveness to establish safe travel speeds and
compliance with road safety regulations.
• Increased traffic noise, again in an area where traffic enforcement is already lacking in
its effectiveness to ensure that vehicles operated in and around the community meet
established legislated vehicle noise emission standards, resulting in further worsening
of street noise already above a reasonable level due to traffic both along Highway 7 and
within the community's own streets.
- Increased general noise directly caused by the population intensification in an area
already plagued by noise not only from the aforementioned lack of enforcement of
established legislated vehicle noise emission standards, but by increased air traffic in
and out of the Municipal international airport (YKF).
• Increased disruption by construction activities as the developer would implement
planned facility.
• Increased crime due to the intensification of population in the community that this
project will cause.
• Erosion of our voices as voters and as property owners within the physical boundaries
of this neighbourhood.
1. Deny this application and prevent the project from going forward,
2. Withhold from use any funds from the tax base at the municipal, regional, provincial,
and federal levels into which our community residents contribute, saving those funds
from being diverted away from the neglected community standards enforcement already
plaguing this community to further enhance profitability of the commercial interests of
this property owner and commercial entities working with them.
3. Reject this application with prejudice so as to set a precedence to not further
entertain applications of this nature in this community going forward • this .•• •
by other #•
4. Not prove the ineffectiveness of democratic process by reviewing and subsequently
ignoring this request.
5. BE BETTER in its proactive and EFFECTIVE informing of residents affected by
proposals such as these (all residents, at least within a 1 km radius of proposed project
sites).
Page 262 of 400
From: Stephanie Stretch
Sent: Tuesday, February 13, 2024 4:03 PM
To: "" 9I�
NNW
Attachments: i mage002. png
Follow Up Flag: Follow up
Flag Status: Flagged
Hi Brian,
Can you follow up with Gabriele? And cc me?
Thank you,
,, =
Councillor, Ward 10 1 Office of the Mayor and Council I City of Kitchener
519-741-2786_ext.2786 I TTY 1-866-969-9 994 1 Stephanie.StretchCa�Kitchener.ca
...... . .....
� II
Customers can now connect with the City of Kitchener anytime by calling
the 2417 Corporate Contact Centre at 519-'74°1-2346
From: Gabriele
Sent: Tuesday, February 13, 2024 2:24 PM
To: Stephanie Stretch <Stephanie.Stretch@kitchener.ca>
Subject: Re: Development on Jackson
Hello Stephanie,
I'm unable to meet before the meeting, as well as unable to attend the meeting. Please let me know
what considerations have been given in regards to height/towering over properties on Brentwood and
Fairmount. How will you deal with increased traffic considering the other developments happening in
the area? Remember parents stop and wait to pick up students from school using Jackson all the way
up the hill as well as along Brentwood and Montgomery What has been done to reduce the traffic. What
about runoff into the lower yards on Brentwood. How much greenspace excluding Montgomery park
and Eastwood's soccer field has been included in the development? What about the trees at 161? Take
them down for a small fine? What about a parking garage or hidden driveway? Rental or ownership?
What percentage is affordable? No 'flop housing' please as the current landlord is practising. This has
resulted in an unstable and unsafe neighbourhood. What about sewer capacity and water pressure,
how will that affect the area? With our property values going down, will we see a reduction in taxes?
Where can we see an actual plan? The diagram on the sign and the postcards do not do justice to the
magnitude of the undertaking. Will you be sending out emails with the minutes of the meeting? If so
please include me.
Page 263 of 400
Regards
Gabriele
Hi Gabriele,
Leave this with mefor ofew days and I'll see what | can do. Maybe ahybrid meeting inperson with
others joining online? I'll get back toyou once | know what's possible.
Councillor, Ward 10 1 Office of the Mayor and CQu0d| | City of Kitchener
519-741-2786ext.2786 I TTY 1-866-969-9994 |
Corporate Contact Centre at 619-741-2345
Sent: Thursday, February l,2OZ43:l0PK4
To: Stephanie Stretch
Subject: Re: Development onJackson
Page 264 of 400
You don't often get email from , - Le a r n A�yjh�i LL�l —mp—o ��t j1!1t
Several households are not into zoom. Now that the pandernic is behind us, I feel a gathering at a
public space would be less discriminating. The telephone suggestion does not allow for visual content.
On Tue., Jan. 30, 2024, 4:35 p.m. Stephanie Stretch, <Step ha n i e.Stretch @ kitchener.ca> wrote:
Hi Gabriele,
Yes absolutely that is possible. What works best for you? Phone or in person? I am happy to connect
but also encourage you to contact Brian Bateman. He is the lead planner on this file and will be able to
answer any questions you might have. If you are able, please attend the Neighbourhood Meeting on
Feb 21@ 7pm via zoom where you can ask any questions you might have of staff and/or the
app|icant/owner.Nodecisions will bemade atthe meeting.
I have also included Brian Bateman in this email so that he can help answer any questions you may
have aaheisthe lead planner onthis file.
Please share this meeting information with neighbours as your feedback is important and crucial at
this time.
Virtual Zoom Meeting for the public on February 21st at 7pm.
Tojoin 8obz enter meeting |D#828175O32S3orparticipate byphone dial
l.647.558.O588and enter meeting |D#828I7583252
Specific question can hesubmitted tothe planner at rS1-741-2ZOO
x7669
Thank you and let me know how you would like to connect.
Stephanie Stretch
Councillor, Ward 1O|Office ofthe Mayor and Council ICity nfKitchener
Customers can now connect with the City of Kitchener anytime by calling the 24/7 Corporate Contact
Centre at 519-741-2345
Page 265 of 400
--- Ohgina|Message---
From: nore Skitchener.ca OnBehalf OfGabriele
Sent: Tuesday, January 3O,2O24Il:O3AK4
To: Stephanie Stretch
Subject: Development onJackson
[You don't often get email from Learn why this is important at
There is a new development in the works on Jackson Ave -135 -161. The neighbourhood has many
questions, and concerns. Personally I would like to speak with you regarding the development. Would
that bepossible?
Thanks
Gabriele
Origin:
This email was sent to you by Gabriele
Page 266 of 400
From: Nato|ieSebastian
Sent: Tuesday, February 6,20I44:12PK4
To: Stephanie Stretch; Brian Bateman
Subject: Jackson Ave
You don't often get email
Stephanie and Brian
Why isthis listed unthe developers site ?
| thought this was apnoposa|!!!!
httpa://www]ivabicom/kitchenepon/new-homes/poge-Z
in Kindness,
Page 267 of 400
From: KargesfAMINIMMOMIM
Sent: Sunday, February 4,2O24S:37PK4
To: Brian Bateman
Subject: Jackson Development
(You don't often get email from 11111M,earn why this isimportant a1
Hello,
I reside on Brentwood Avenue directly behind the site of the proposed development. I will be sending a
follow up email with feedback requested by the City as it relates to this project. Today I am reaching out
as a neighbour just informed us (and all others in the area) that this development is already being
advertised on livabl.com. I am wondering why the city is holding a meeting with those affected by this
development, when it seems as though the developer is confident that these plans will come to fruition
despite the fact that there may be extensive concerns of those that will be impacted. At this stage -
according to the card I was sent in the mail -the council has not finalized its decision and needs to
complete the process outlined on the card. It is clear that this developer is eager to get through this
phase and begin turning a profit. Is the city of Kitchener holding this meeting to placate the residents of
Brentwood and Jackson Ave or will our feedback actually be considered? I feel as though it is in bad faith
to allow advertising of this development to commence at this stage. The message that is being relayed is
that this project will proceed as planned despite those spearheading it having to go through the motions
as outlined. I would request that the City of Kitchener kindly ask the developer to remove all advertising
pertaining to this project until a formal decision has been reached. The neighbourhood is asking for the
respect and platform to be able to provide feedback as outlined, and to feel as though this information is
being considered onsome level bythose receiving it.
Thank you,
Page 268 of 400
From: Doug Wilson
Sent: Tuesday, February 13,2O249:08AK8
To: Brian Bateman
Subject: Proposed Development 135 - 161 Jackson Avenue
11
You don't often get email fmm
Hello Brian
We own a residence on Brentwood Avenue.
Regarding this proposed development, can you tell me if the developer has already submitted
anapplication for anOfficial Plan Amendment? Would the developer also need anamendment tothe
Regional Official Plan?
Thanks,
Doug Wilson
�
Doug Wilson
President,
Cambridge Butterfly Conservatory
25QOKossuth Road
Cambridge, ON
N3H4R7
Page 269 of 400
From: Robert Young
Sent: Thursday, February 8,2O248:39PK4
To: Brian Bateman; Internet - Council (SK4);Hailey Young
Subject: Proposed Development In My Neighborhood.
I have a property on Brentwood - 132 next to 136, 1 have concerns regarding
* the number of vehicles that would be coming and going throughout the day and night idling beside my
house, the headlights on my windows day and night. Potential for 124 vehicles??
the increase inpollution tothe air quality.
Will the property be level with my property or will it be higher and casting a shadow?
*Will there beprivacy?
Snow removal at my driveway and property line?
Councillor Stretch, what are myoptions asaresident and property owner?
I am slowly renovating 132 Brentwood; when my Daughter is finished University I was going to give it to
her, she was born in Kitchener and raised in this house, She is excited to raise her family there. Does not
look like it will be a quiet wooded area now. Concrete jungle.
Page 270 of 400
From: Karen Reed
Sent: Thursday, February 8, 2024 9:17 AM
To: Brian Bateman; Internet - Council (SM)
Cc: Stephanie Stretch
Subject: Proposed Development Jackson Ave., Kitchener
You don't often get email fromO1l1115N1ffi1NN11=,,earnwh �thislsim p®rtaryt
To whom this concerns,
I am writing to express some thoughts with respect to the above mentioned development. I expect
you are hearing from many in this neighbourhood and are aware that we are not certain that our
voices matter. I am sure you know that there is 'pre -sales' advertised for that development that there
are questions about the relevancy of the online meeting. Is there a reason that the meeting is online?
Clearly an online meeting is much less impactful and effective than in person. It also excludes those
that are not adept with the 'tech approach' and are then excluded.
I think something not mentioned but is hopefully implied is the impact this kind of development
will have on the mental health of those in the neighbourhood. You may not take that concern
seriously. However, anyone who moved to this neighbourhood chose it for what it already was. We
were an established quiet family oriented community, not an "up and coming neighbourhood" as
was described in one real estate ad. Sadly, a number of homes have been bought by'investors' who
have turned them into rentals which already has had an impact on the community. I am not in
opposition to rental homes but am against anything that has a negative impact on the
neighbourhood. I live beside one such property and am stressed over the disregard for properties,
neighbours, sense of community etc— At this point and as described in one of the paragraphs
below, the neighbourhood as we once knew it, appears to be dissolving. I didn't move here because
I wanted to live in a big overgrown, overpopulated, metropolis. If you take into consideration all of
the developments underway here, this is what this small neighbourhood is becoming. I guess if
someone came along with an offer I couldn't refuse, in light of what appears to be transpiring to my
neighbourhood, I would be gone. I moved approximately 20 years ago because of what this area was
and am distressed to see how we are being infringed upon. 'Phis development, by the very nature of
what is being proposed, will not blend in to the current area.
The best expression of concerns that have been made in great detail come from our neighbour Jim
Laturney, of whom You have already heard from but I shall include is information again: If I could
be so thorough and come from his background/experience, I would be covering the same details
(d
City of Kitchener
Brian this will forward to the mayor, Stephanie Stretch and posted the Eastwood
Neighbourhood Association Facebook page
I come from a background in the electrical industry and Health and Safety, in both these areas
there is a set of minimum standards not to be crossed.
Page 271 of 400
We all know that this site will be rezoned for the project it is just a matter of getting it to fit the
City of Kitchener standards.
I have to assume the City of Kitchener Planning department and council spent time and money
on establishing our minimum standards for building in Kitchener to maintain the quality of life
for adjacent residents and new residents alike. I also assume these minimum standards were
not kept secret so the developer, engineers and architects had all these standards when
developing a plan for this site, and chose to ignore them.
FSR: The floor space ratio is requested to be increased by 166% form .6 to 1 so they can put
more building on the 1.13 hectare lot.
Building Height: The increase from 9 m to 12.5 m is a 138% increase in height. These
buildings will tower over the adjacent properties with direct nightlines into their backyards
and homes.
Set Back: From. 7.5m to 6m is 80% of what it should be. At 6m there is barley room to move
construction equipment around the buildings without encroaching on the adjacent properties.
7.5 is an adequate space for construction and leisure use when completed.
Parking: Parking should be 1.1 / unit to allow for visitor and owner's parking. The parking
space #s should not include the 4 garage parking spots or the 6 Handicap spots. So 127 parking
spaces + 6 Handicap = 1.33 (not including the townhouse garage spots)
To all the variances in this case 1 would say No
EV Charging: The city should require at least 5% of the parking spots have access to a charging
station this would be 6 - 7 charging stations. These can be user pay charging stations. The
equipment provided by the developer and the cost of electricity and capital should be paid by
the user of the EV charger.
Trees: Save or replace 10% more trees scheduled to be removed as listed 103,104, 402, 403,
405, 421, 422, 423, 424, 425, 426, 427, 472,495 and 496 be saved. This will be about an extra
10%. I find it puzzling in section 3.1 of the Arborist Report that trees on adjacent lots are listed
in Good condition while the subject site they are listed as Fair. Before construction starts the
trees should be pruned, fertilized and protected at least as far as the drip line. The owner
should be required to have the remaining trees and trees on adjacent property impacted by
their construction taken care of for 5 years. If a tree were to die or have to be removed it must
be replaced by a tree with at least a 5" diameter.
Site Fencing: An 8' privacy fence (at the developers expense) should be installed around the
subject site prior to start of construction to prevent construction waste and workers from
encroaching on the adjacent properties.
Road Conditions and Construction Traffic: The contractor under the Highway Traffic Act is
required to keep the roadway clear of mud and debris (the roadway should be cleaned at least
twice a day during construction) until the lot is paved. There should be No Construction
traffic signs posted on Mackenzie, Sheldon, Raymond, Edmund, Jackson and Fairmont. All
construction traffic must use Montgomery to Brentwood the Brentwood to 136 for entry to the
site.
Dust Control: The constructor must have a dust control plan in place before construction
starts. Such as listing that the site will be watered as required to prevent dust enveloping the
Page 272 of 400
adjacent properties. The adjacent properties should not have to suffer living in a dust bowl
because of construction. This site is literally in the middle of a neighbourhood.
Building Permit: The developer wants to do this in 2 phases. Build the 3 units that back on to
the Brentwood properties and 105 parking spaces. This implies to me that they don't have the
money or unwilling to spend the money to build this out all at the same time. We do not want
this to end up like the building on Fergus Ave. in Kitchener, bankrupt not complete or even
enclosed from the weather left to rot. The project must be built out in a single phase with a
timeline of 2.5 years from when the first home is demolished to occupancy permits issued for
all the units. If this goes in 2 phases the construction timeline may be 5 years, not fair to the
neighbouring property owners. All the buildings scheduled for demolition should be taken
down at the same time, so we don't have abandon houses to attract problems. This site should
be built out completely before Kitchener allows occupancy.
There should also be an adjusted work time for the site This is in the middle of a
neighbourhood work should only be permitted from 08:00 to 17:00 Monday to Friday. The
only work allowed on the weekends or statutory holiday is interior work on an enclosed
building.
The constructor must be required to provide off street parking for construction vehicles and
workers. These streets have been narrowed during street reconstruction and the extra on
street parking will cause problems for the area residents as well as emergency vehicles.
As stated before that this is literally in the middle of a neighbourhood completely surrounded
by houses.
Traffic Patterns and Parking: Fire Routes must be established on Brentwood, Jackson,
Fairmount and Montgomery surrounding the project should be in place before construction
starts.
The city should put a 4 way stop at Jackson and Brentwood. Along with 3 way stops at
Brentwood and Edmund and Brentwood and Raymond to discourage traffic from the complex
using Brentwood to Sheldon to Mackenzie to Ottawa. The traffic should be encouraged to go
Brentwood to Montgomery to Weber.
Thank you:
Jim Laturney"
HE
The Eastwood neighbourhood has been dealing with the fallout from the homeless shelter
at 1668 King St.E. for a few years now. We have had cars broken into, property damage
and theft, a large potion of which can be attributed to the presences of the homeless
shelter.
The existing area has about 275 single family houses, 16 apartment building (3 floor
walkups) consisting of about 80 units and a condo complex at 260 Sheldon Ave. N,
consisting of 94 units for a total of about 470 living units or between 940 and 1880
residents.
The City of Kitchener must look at a neighbourhood as a whole before approvingnew
housing complexes in existing neighbourhoods. With the scheduled influx of residents we
Page 273 of 400
are looking at the population of the area bounded by Montgomery, Weber St., Ottawa St.
and the expressway to be 134% of existing. This does not even consider the possibility of
4000-7000 new residents of the apartment tower complex planned for King St.E.,
Montgomery and Weber. According to Census Canada Breslau only had about 5000
residents as of 2021.
In late 2023 the Threshold Group opened their expanded group home and affordable
housing units at 290 Sheldon Ave. N.. This complex has 24 units this will bring up to 75 new
residents in the area. Again only 1 access from Sheldon Ave. N. at the dead end.
There is another housing development approved and scheduled for 295 Sheldon Ave. N., a
40 unit complex with 2 buildings and only 44 parking spaces and only 1 point of access
Sheldon Ave. N. at the dead end. This can bring in between 80 and 160 new residents to
this project.
Where about 15 people lived in 3 houses we now have a possibility of 235 residents added
to the end of the street (only 1 access from Sheldon Ave. N. at the dead end).
Now the city of Kitchener wants to approve a 120 unit complex to the neighbourhood with
only 124 parking spaces. We can expect 240-480 new residents. If this development is
approved this complex should not be allowed to have a cellular antennas on the building.
This will cause increased exposure to RF radiation in the area residents. With the push
toward electric vehicles I have not seen any requirement for EV chargers in the complex,
there should be a requirement for 10% of the parking space to have access to EV charging
or 13 EV changing stations. All E -bike storage must be stipulated to be outside due to the
number of fires caused by Lithium -Ion batteries, there should be some sort of charging
station in this area so residents will not need to take these units inside to charge.
With this development in the middle of an existing neighbourhood the construction times
should be changed from 7 am to 8 am Monday to Friday. No excavation, concrete pouring
or paving like work is to be done on the weekends. There needs to be strict dust controls
during construction, this needs to monitored and enforced. To protect the existing residents,
this should be done by a third party consultant paid for by the developer with authority to
shut down construction if the dust controls are not working or not being used. The roads
must be kept clear of mud etc..
Parking is a large concern with up to 480 residents. With 124 parking spaces are not
enough. This will lead to on street parking. The streets have been narrowed as they were
rebuilt and any parking on the street causes problems for traffic and emergency services.
The streets surrounding the complex should become Fire Routes so there is only parking on
1 side of the roadway at times the bylaws permit. Brentwood, Montgomery, Jackson and
Fairmount should have these designations and enforced. Sheldon Ave.N. from Fairmount to
the dead end should also be designated as a Fire Route due to the number of vehicles that
will be at the dead end. This should be done before construction begins as the area will get
clogged with construction vehicles during the build. As part of the permit process the
developer should be required to provide off street parking for construction vehicles.
I have concerns about the availability of services for the influx of residents to the
neighbourhood (bounded by Montgomery, Weber St., Ottawa St. and the expressway). Is
there enough Hydro, water, sewage capacity, natural gas, park space, schools and of
course Police, Fire and Ambulance services. If the infrastructure needs to be increased this
causes a disturbance in the community with roads being dug up, most of which having just
been rebuilt in the last 5-7 years.
There must be controls in place to prevent any or all of these developments ending up like
the condo complex on Fergus Ave. Kitchener with worked stopped the building not
completed or weathered in and the purchasers of the condos are without a place to live or
Page 274 of 400
their money. There should be as part of the building permit a time line to start and a max of
3 years to full occupancy (or allowed occupancy of every uint in the complex). If the
buildings are not complete within 3 years from the start date the building permit expires and
they must stop work and apply for a new building permit with a cost which should be 50%
higher than the original building permit.
The developer must be able to prove they have the finances to complete the project on
time.
Just because the City of Kitchener can does not mean you must build on any open lot or
redundant building. You must consider the neighbourhood you are looking at and what
effect this will have on the existing residents. Remember you work for us the tax payer of
the City of Kitchener and not for the province or the federal governments.
***Please also note how the many developments are going to impact the area:
(reliable information as collected by a member of our neighbourhood, Jim L)***
1770 King St. E. 503 units
1668 King St. E 616 units
1253 King St. E. 403 units
295 Sheldon Ave. N. 40 units
Clive 40 units
(Between Montgomery and Fairmount)
135 Jackson 120 units
Charles and Borden 2 towers?
King, Charles, Ottawa and Borden
2 towers?
20 Ottawa St. N. 2 towers?
as well as
Corner Delroy and Weber St.
Fergus Ave. beside the Beer Store
These developments can bring in between 6000 - 12,000 more residents to the area. Wher
will the City say no more in this area. 12,000 is about 2.5 times the size of Breslau from the
2021 Census.
Some of these will have to be stopped before we get overwhelmed. As I wrote to mayor
before if I wanted to live in Mississauga I would have moved there.
*And this is also something that should be considered" (again, the brilliant work of
Jim L.)
The high point in this project is 161 Jackson Ave. and all the run off water runs toward
Montgomery and Brentwood.
Storm Water Management this area has been a storm water sink for at least 50 yrs most of
the houses in the area were built in the 50's and 60's. From my rough calculations this
property is about 165,000 sq. ft. or 15329 sq. m. it is going from 98% green space with a
retention pond to 98% hardscape. This will allow aprox. 2690 litres / hour run off with a
25mm/hr rain fall. With an all day rain it will shed about 21520 litres in and 8 hour period
(equivalent to filling your car 269 times). Where is all this water going to go? Is there a
retention system underground on the property to hold and slowly dissipate the storm water
W&WAN A
"N IN k16111111- NI Ae-mil Nal" I
11 MINIMUM
IN@ V-111TAH74
Page 275 of 400
storm water management, water usage and sewage charges on bill from the Kitchener
Utilities
Sincerely,
—Karen
Page 276 of 400
From: Kelly Karges
Sent: Tuesday, February 20, 2024 9:03 PM
To: Brian Bateman, Internet - Council (SM)
Subject Proposed Development Jackson Avenue
�1 You don't often get email from NEMEMINIMMEMLearn why ti-ii.s is important
Hello,
I hope this email finds you well. I am writing to provide feedback ahead of tomorrow's information
session. I am the homeowner at 124 Brentwood Avenue, and reside directly behind the proposed
development. I have reviewed the documents available on the city's website. There has been much
discussion occurring among those who would be affected by this plan. Although I am absolutely not
opposed to development and housing, I am very much opposed to the plan put forth by the Jackson
Avenue owner.
Although the property of 135 Jackson Avenue occupies a large space quite literally in the centre of the
block, this should not equate to the new owner/developers having the bulk of authority and free rein to
do whatever they please. They most certainly should not be granted permission to skirt existing zoning
laws. It is unsettling to think that the developers can simply buy up properties in a mature
neighbourhood and create upheaval to maximize upon a business venture.
There are many aspects of this plan that do not seem feasible. I will list some of them.
J., The space is simply too small. The developers would like to cram several buildings into this area.
It is not realistic and it infringes upon all the surrounding neighbours who encompass the full
perimeter of this proposed development. The parking alone will not realistically support all the
residents within the units.
2 The proposed buildings will be too close to the existing property lines
3, The proposed height of the buildings are unacceptable and will obliterate privacy.
4., The owner plans to demolish the wall that separates 135 Jackson from the surrounding
properties. Why?
5, Having two entrances via the demolition of homes on Brentwood and Jackson is disruptive to
the neighbourhood and will create major traffic congestion, increased parking on the road
(often utilized by residents of Brentwood as the majority of homes utilize tandem parking due to
narrow driveways). Traffic studies need to be prolonged and repeated at different times of the
year. I know a traffic study has been submitted. I do not believe it is thorough enough.
6, People choose to live in mature, established neighbourhoods to avoid development such as
this.
7, Approving this proposal would be prioritizing the financial gains of a developer. This does not
appear to be affordable housing. This level of development is not necessary here in this space.
8, Concerns that construction will drive displaced rodents/rats into surrounding homes.
9, High-rise construction to commence on King/Montgomery-there are ongoing efforts to address
housing issues -the development on 135 Jackson appears opportunistic and unnecessary.
10. Any development on that property would need to be scaled down extensively and should
consider how it integrates into an established neighbourhood. This developer is attempting to
completely reconfigure and dismantle the block to accommodate an over ambitious project.
Page 277 of 400
We are prepared to convene with neighbours and seek litigious advice should this development be
approved as is.
Thank you for your time,
KeUyKarQes
Page 278 of 400
From: Melanie Cameron
Sent VVedneyday, January 31,2O243:26PK4
To: Brian Bateman
Cc: Marguerite Love |nternet-Cound| (SM)
Subject: Query neProposed Development ot1S5-161Jackson Ave and 136Brentwood
Ave
N
You don't often get email knm
J
Hello, Brian.
I'm the daughter of Marguerite (Love) Cameron (cc'ed in here, along with Ward 10 Councillor, Stephanie
Marguerite owns and resides at 140 Brentwood Ave, located immediately to the right of 136 Brentwood
We plan to attend the February 21 meeting to learn more about this proposal. In the meantime, we
have several questions and are wondering ifyou're able toanswer these.
1/ We see the proposal outlines a rear yard setback of 6.1 metres. What is the proposed setback from
the side lot -line of 140 Brentwood Ave?
2/ Is there fencing / a barrier proposed between what is now 136 Brentwood and 140 Brentwood, to
help mitigate impact of traffic noise of the some 124 vehicles, plus bicycles, that would now be passing
immediately along the I4OBrentwood side |Nt-Une?
3/ Presumably, proceeding with this proposal would greatly impact quality of life in the 140 Brentwood
residence, as well as significantly lessen resale value of the 140 property. Does the developer or City
have a proposal for how to recompense the current owner of 140 Brentwood Ave?
Thank you for your time with our questions. We look forward to hearing from you.
Melanie Cameron,
Page 279 of 400
From: Dennis &/o/Barb
Sent: Tuesday, February 6,2O243:58PK4
To: Brian Bateman
Subject: RE: 135-161Jackson Ave &l36Brentwood
You don't often get email frory Learn why this is nt
Brion,
Your legal department can send me directly the paperwork me as head of our action commitee; as we
have three individuals in our neighbourhood who are representing all of us and themselves in this
matter wewill be meeting before this Zoom.
Please send paperwork to 159 Brentwood Avenue Kitchener On N2H2C9
Regards,
Barbara K4as|ankoand Dennis Gibson
From: Brian Bateman <Bhan.Bateman@kkchenecca>
Sent: February 6,2OZ43:4BPK8
To: 'Dennis Qor Barb'
Cc: GarettStevenson <Garett.Stevenson@Ntchener.ca>
Subject: RE: 155-161Jackson Ave &136Brentwood
Thank you for the request, I can have the City's Legal Dept. send it directly to your lawyer. Please send
mehis name and contact information etyour earliest convenience.
Brian Bateman, MCIP, RPP
Senior Planner
City of Kitchener
519-741-2200 x7869, TTY 1-866-969-9994
From: Dennis &/n/Barb
Sent. Tuesday, February 6,2U241l:O3PK4
To: Brian Bateman
Subject: Re: 135-16lJackson Ave &I36Brentwood
You don't often get email from
Mr. Bateman,
Before the meeting the neighbours' lawyer has ask for the paperwork when this area was rezoned. Over
3Oyears ago vve have the documentation and the original owner told us all he was not allowed to build
his proposed 3storey apartments sohebuilt the mansion. VVehave been asked bycounsel toget the
documentation of when the City of Kitchener rezoned our area, paperwork, and Mayor in office. We
Page 280 of 400
would also need how a driveway is zoned; proposed building plan is removing a residential dwelling to
install a roadway; is this legal?
We all look forward to your prompt response and our lawyer for the neighbourhood will acting on our
behalf.
Regards,
Barbara Maslanko and Dennis Gibson
Get gutLook for [QS
From: Brian Bateman
Sent: Tuesday, February 6,2O2411:37:O8AK4
To: 'Dennis &/orBarb'
Cc: Garett Stevenson Stephanie Stretch
Subject: RE: 13S-161Jackson Ave &l36Brentwood
Hello Dennis &Barb,
I wanted to acknowledge receipt of your email and voicemail noting concerns to the development
proposal. They will betaken under consideration inthe staff report, Avirtual Neighbourhood Meeting
has been arranged for February 21,2O24,at7pm. Nodecisions will bemadeand it's anopportunity tm
be informed of the process, the proposal and ask questions of staff and/or the applicant/owner. Hope
you can attend. /fnot, itwill berecorded and posted onthe City's website for viewing later. See
attached for meeting details.
Brian Bateman, MCIP, RPP
Cenior Planner
City of Kitchener
519-741-2200 x7869, TTY 1-866-969-9994
0 00 Vi 01 a)
From: Dennis &/or Barb
Sent: Tuesday, February 6,2O249:4OAK4
To: Brian Bateman
Subject: 135-161Jackson Ave &136Brentwood
You don't often get email from
�
Mr. Bateman,
My family and I are residents of the Brentwood and Jackson area for over 30 years and are opposed to
this proposed development ofthe aswecall itthe Mansion Site. The original owner ofthis site was
refused development onthe following basis:
Page 281 of 400
* ruin the character ofthe neighbourhood established byArchitect Schwartz you would not do
this on Lydia Gt.
*
Hydro services are over 50 years old and cannot accommodate this development. Area fed from
5TS from Enova on feeder 5M13 which is maxed out, who would be paying for new hydro
services tothe area? prhave you even considered this
w
Sewar, water infrastructure in the area was updated about 15 years ago and to add this type of
development who ispaying for upgrade toaccommodate.
�
Kitchener landfill was only good for approximately 15 more years for the current population this
isirresponsible toadd this many residents.
w With the new proposed apartment in the same area on King St the schools in the area cannot
already handle the areas students, Shepard PS, Saint Anne CS, Sunnyside Middle School, and
Eastwood Owith all these new families.
m What about the traffic? You add over a hundred cars to our quiet neighbourhood?
m They are also proposing tearing down Mr. Silver's house for a driveway in the middle of
Brentwood; all | going and outgoing traffic will shine lights continually into Dave's, Carl's,
K4argu/ite'aand Sue's house. Asyou can see this isnot just aneighborhood waall know each
�
This developer has been buying up homes in our neighborhood and renting them out to
students tothe total destruction ofthese homes. They donot clean their snow, rake leaves,
leave garbage all over the place to chase residents from our area which we have maintained for
over 3O-5Oyears. This development isnot mnimprovement itisadestruction ofthe
architectural character ofour neighbourhood.
� |amnot sure how you plan but this isnot agood one.
� |nfrasturune, schools, traffic, hydro, gas restriction would destroy our mature trees, increase
traffic for residents and students to unsafe levels,
�
This is a neighbourhood of people who built Kitchener: John Wynn's KW Transport School,
numerous Schneider Foods retires, Minister at St. Paul's, numerous ATS employees, employees
at Google, etc
°
We have a quiet neighbourhood of friends which this development will destroy.
Page 282 of 400
From: Stephanie Stretch
Sent: Monday, February 5, 2024 12:37 PM
To: Andy Kheir
Cc: Anita Zapletan Csonti; Elizabeth Leacock; Brian Bateman
Subject: RE: Development and our Neighbourhood
Hello Mr. Andy Kheir,
I am hearing from many constituents about the 135 Jackson proposal. I wanted to pass on
some information I have learned and wanted you to keep encouraging neighbours to attend
the Feb 218t meeting and formally write the file manager Brian Bateman and myself with
their questions and their comments so that they can be captured in a meaningful and
useful way.
If you aren't aware of this link to new developments for more info, see here.
You can also refer to the process here. We are currently at stage one and moving into
1111111MIJIM21 with the meeting. Please keep encouraging people to attend.
Brian do you have anything else to add?
Thank you,
Colx-lciflor, Ward 10 1 Off c --e of UIC, May orand Cot,inc,11 I City of J<jLctrler�(er
519-741-2786 exL2786 I TT'Y 1-8366-969-9994
I NJ
Customers can now connect with the City of Kitchener anytime by calling the 24/7
Corporate Contact Centre at 519-741-2345
From: Andy Kheirsommmmmmmmmsm
Sent: Sunday, February 4, 2024 3:43 PM
To: Stephanie Stretch <Step ha nie.Stretch @ kitchener.ca>
Subject: Development and our Neighbourhood
You don't often get email from Learn wh_y this is imp®rtant
Hi Stephanie,
I notice that you are not active in our neighbourhood conversations, especially with
development projects.
Page 283 of 400
I think you may benefit from seeing the conversation online:
https://www.facebook.com cliroulDs/EastwoodNAKitchener
............ -
I think everyone in the Eastwood neighbourhood is getting fed up with the decisions
from the city that are PRE -MADE before consultation and being imposed on us.
As our representative, you *should be* part of the regular discussions.
BTW - Almost everyone HATES the 135 Jackson proposal! How is this being pre -sold
already??? We haven't even had the consultation meeting? Has this been decided
before the process began??
Regards.
Andy Kheir
Page 284 of 400
From: Stephanie Stretch
Sent: Tuesday, January 3O,2O244:35PK1
To: Gabriele
Cc: Brian Bateman
Subject: RE: Development on Jackson
Hi Gabriele
Yes absolutely that ispossible. What works best for you? Phone orinperson? |amhappy 1mconnect but
also encourage you to contact Brian Bateman. He is the lead planner on this file and will be able to
answer any questions you might have. If you are able, please attend the Neighbourhood Meeting on Feb
21 @ 7pm via zoom where you can ask any questions you might have of staff and/or the
app|icant/owner.Nodecisions will bemade aLthe meeting.
I have also included Brian Bateman in this email so that he can help answer any questions you may have,
asheisthe lead planner onthis file.
Please share this meeting information with neighbours as your feedback is important and crucial at this
time.
Virtual Zoom Meeting for the public on February 21st at 7pm.
Tojoin goto
N±ps://oanO1.safe|inks.protedjun.out|uok.com/?ud=h1tp`/`3A`/`2F�/`2Rwww.moomud&2Fjoin8Ldata=O5�/`7
CO2%7[8ria n.Bate manY&4Okitch enecca%7Cbe46fcab8acl4b1bf7O5OQdcZ1dbSe67Y67Cc7OSd79153f643a
692SS62ZebS3a16Ob967CO%7CO%7C63842247S253567948967CUnknown%7[TVVFpbGZsb3d8ey]VV|iniK4
[4wUAwMDAiU](lUoiVIluMz|iU]RTi|6|klhaVVwiUOXVO6K4nU%3DY67CO%7C%7C%7[&sdatn=Va8[vDrU
mQg3Tf[mzSA|VePwyhTq4up6K4qGu@8kHac%]D&reserved=0,enter meeting IDH 828I75832S2or
participate byphone dial 1.647.SS8.OS8Dand enter meeting |D#83817S8]2S2
Specific question can be submitted to the planner at b rian. bate man@ kitchener.ca r 51-741-2200 x7869
Thank you and let me know how you would like to connect.
Stephanie Stretch
Councillor, Ward 1O1Office ofthe Mayor and Council ICity ofKitchener
Customers can now connect with the City of Kitchener anytime by calling the 24/7 Corporate Contact
Centre aL519-741-2345
Page 285 of 400
From: noreply@kbchener.ca«norep|yQakitchenecoa>OnBehalf OfGabriele
Sent: Tuesday, January 3O,20J411:O3AM
To: Stephanie Stretch <Stephanie.5tnetch@kitchenecca>
Subject: Development onJackson
[You don't often get email from Learn why this isimportant at
There is a new development in the works on Jackson Ave -135 -161. The neighbourhood has many
questions, and concerns. Personally I would like to speak with you regarding the development. Would
that bepossible?
Thanks
Gabriele
Origin:
hs;-s;//cauOi.�,aNmhn���r����mm.mo����.mmn\/�m�1���ps�.�������2Fv���.k�chemec����F�r��pcuon
ci I -a nd-city-a dministratjon9A2FcounciUopstephanie-
stret h.aspx&da1a=OS967[O2967C8rian.Bateman%4Oki1cheneccaY{7[be46fcab8ac14b2bf7O5O8dc21db5e
6707Cc7O3d79153f643o59355622eb33a1bOb%7C0%7CO%7[638422473263576020%7CUnkoowny67[T
VVFpbGZsb3d8e\dVVUoiMC4vvUAwMDAiK]DUoiV2|uK8z/iL[JBTi|5/k1haVVwiUOXVC|6K4nO%3D%7[OY67C%
7[Y&7[&sdata=|3riEUUuVZxcy8kcEDr7dCqspTnXNPea BNHOodjY00%3D&reserved=O
This email was sent to you bylONNINIONNINIFANMIMEIINOMJIMM- through
Page 286 of 400
From: Thomas van der H
Sent: Tuesday, February G,202411:Z2AM
To: Lenore Ross; Brian Bateman
Cc: Stephanie Stretch
Subject: RE: [EXT]RE: Application #Z8AZ4/OOZ/]/BB 135Jackson Ave
Some people who received this message don't often get email fromNOWEENEEMENES earn why this
Thanks again for the detailed response, Lenore.
Looking forward to the playground replacement at Edmund Green, and I know the community and
frequent picNebaUusers will appreciate the court lining.
Have a great week.
Thcmcw Va*V d»x yoff
Deputy Director
Recreation and Community Services
!gngaq2M
mis arnaill nray cm"am confidmitiw/nmnnatmn,nx"o,auo/vrummn=m/in"ml,pleasennmvmowenu",andmyloremeaman.pl�as°="smo,um
From: Lenore Ross <Lenore.Ross@Ntchenecca>
Sent: Tuesday, February 6'2OZ41O:4lAM
To: Thomas van der Hoff Brian Bateman xBrion.Bateman@kitchener.ca>
Cc: Stephanie Stretch <Stephanie.Stnetch@kitchener.ca>
Subject: RE: [EXT] RE: Application #ZBA24/802A/BB 135Jackson Ave
Good morning Thomas,
The City's Parkland Dedication Bylaw and Parkland Dedication Policy do not currently allocate the funds
collected from a specific development application to park improvements or park acquisition within the
subject Planning Community or neighbourhood; the funds are utilized across the City based on priorities
and identified needs.
Page 287 of 400
The play equipment at Montgomery Park was installed in 1994 and our typical playground life cycle is
about 25 years. We inspect all playgrounds regularly for safety and compliance and prioritize playground
replacements where we can no longer get replacement parts or the equipment is not compliment with
current standards. Although Montgomery Park playground is past typical life expectancy it is still in
good and safe condition and will likely be renewed within the next 5 years.
This year we have plans to resurface and repaint the existing courts at Montgomery Park and to include
pickleball facilities along with some parking upgrades. The Neighbourhood Development Office (NDO)
also has some place making projects planned with the community, including additions to the disc golf
course at Montgomery Park; this work is planned over the course of the next year or so.
While we currently have no park or facility improvement plans for Knollwood Park, we are looking to
upgrade the playground at Edmund Green within the next 2 years and will be including accessible
pathways at the same time.
Finally, we are reviewing the amenities and condition of recreation facilities at the Aud — including the
skate park—to determine future needs and projects.
Regards,
Lenore
Sent: Sunday, February 4, 2024 8:06 AM
To: Lenore Ross<L,eriore,Rc)ss(0)kutci-�ener.c:a}; Brian Bateman <Brian,Baternan @kitchener.ca>
Cc: Stephanie Stretch �5��6roa:�:'ue.St:retch kitcW�trr�r�r.cw��
Subject: Re: [EXT] RE: Application #ZBA24/002/J/BB - 135 Jackson Ave
Some people who received this message don't often get: email from tvanderhoff woolwich.ca. Learn wh this is
knN N;tttµw
Thanks Lenore,
One additional comment and question. If the City does opt to receive cash in lieu of parkland, it would
be nice to see a portion reinvested into the neighbourhood, which would be warranted by the additional
residents, and age and size of the playground. The other amenities within Montgomery Park are in fine
condition, however many parents in the neighborhood opt to forgo the playground to visit other parks.
Possibly a question for the department that oversees asset management, but does the City have a
usefull life assigned to playground assets, and if so what is the age? Outside of part replacements (swing
seating, etc.), much of the playground equipment in the area (Knollwood Park, Edmund Green,
Montgomery Park) appears to be twenty five plus years old. Do you know if any of these
playgrounds are in the ten year capital forecast for replacement?
Thanks,
Thomas van der Hoff
Page 288 of 400
Deputy Director
Recreation and Community Services
Township ofWoolwich
From: Thomas van der Hoff
Sent Friday, February 2,20241:4G:Z9PK4
To: Lenore Ross ; Brian Bateman
Cc: Stephanie Stretch
Subject: RE: [EXT]RE: Application #Z8A24/OO2/1/BB 135Jackson Ave
Thanks Lenore!
Have a wonderful weekend.
Va4i/ der f/off
Deputy Director
Recreation and Community Services
[ U { { TwRter
Tids ounalI may co: ntaln confidrmfi�d �nfoinr:ition. If you Necowed this om ail In cum', please nobly ffie so ndm wid do ele, Vic ounid 1:11ease consWeir Vie
From: Lenore Ross
Sent: Friday, February 2,ZO241:37PM
To: Thomas van der Hoff Brian Bateman
Cc: Stephanie Stretch
Subject: RE:[EXT RE: Application #ZBAZ4/OO2/l/BB-1]5Jackson Ave
Hello Thomas and Councilor Stretch,
The site is within the Eastwood Planning Community and through Places and Spaces — An Open Space
Strategy for Kitchener, this community has been identified as well served with active neighbourhood
park space and the development site is within the recommended walking distance to existing active
neighbourhood park space; acquiring additional public parkland in this location is not a priority and
parkland dedication ascash inlieu ofland isrecommended.
Page 289 of 400
Link to Places and Spaces webpage htt s: www.kitchener.ca en strata ic- lens -and- ro°acts arks-
strate ic- len. k02 mid„ =25203
Link to Spaces document — it is
large! htt s: www.kitchener.ca en resources0eneral DocumentsIS PARKS Places and paces Spa
The parkland dedication requirement will be deferred at the Official Plan Amendment/Zoning By-law
Amendment applications and assessed at a future Site Plan Application. Parkland dedication will be
assessed based on the land use classes, residential units and density approved through the OPA and ZBA
and required as a condition of final Site Plan Approval.
The developer has proposed that the area at the front of the site be developed as a POPS (Privately
Owned Publicly Accessible Space). If this is considered by the City, full public access easements would
be required to be registered on title and all maintenance responsibilities would remain with the
developer and the future residents/condominium corporation. The Planning Act and City's Park
Dedication Bylaw 2022-101 and Park Dedication Policy permit the City to consider such arrangements
and allow a partial credit of 25% of the POPS land area towards the required park dedication
requirements. Any built features or landscaping within the POPS are not eligible for parkland dedication
credits. If the POPS is pursued by the developer and considered by the City, Parks in conjunction with
Urban Design would review and approve the proposed POPS.
The City has additional site design guidance for multi -residential developments that relate to the
provision of private onsite amenity spaces and the conceptual design and renderings of the amenity
space and POPS provided with the OPA/ZBA submission and the Urban Design Brief can be used to help
guide that design at the site plan stage.
Regards,
Lenore
Lenore Ross MSc, MUP, RPP
Parks Planning and Development Project Manager
Development and Housing Approvals I Development Services ( City of Kitchener
519-741-2200 ext 7427 1 TTY 1-866-969-9994 1 I_enore.Ross@Kitchener.ca
Discover nature in the city: �vww.kitchener.ca/arks
City for Everyone w Working Together — Growing ThoughtfullyBuilding Community
0
1034. V 000��//_0
From: Thomas van der Hoff
Sent: Thursday, February 1, 2024 8:14 PM
To: Brian Bateman <Brian.Baternan kitchenermmmm.ca>
n�
Cc: Stephanie Stretch <Ste hanie.StretchQkrtcl-rener.ca>, Lenore Ross <Lenore,Roxs chener.ca>
Subject: RE: [EXT] RE: Application 4ZBA24/002/J/BB - 135 Jackson Ave
Page 290 of 400
Some people who received this message don't often get email from Le§rnw1�1his is
N bni����
Thanks Brian. Happy to discuss Lenore.
Thoinzw Va*v de4- ��
Deputy Director
Recreation and Community Services
Office: 519-514-7024
IgD_q@_qeW0R� JY0ga=UTvyither
Th is orrm I may ;onta�" conme"fia,information. xyou received this °=o it /"ei Y or, please notify the sender a"au°letethe wrviail. Pl*as°=onsid or tile
environment before pirinfing,
From: Brian Bateman
Sent: Thursday, February 1,2O241O:21AM
To: Thomas van der Hoff
Cc: Stephanie Stretch Lenore Ross
Subject: [EXTj RE: Application #ZBA24/002/J/BB - 135 Jackson Ave
[EXTERNAL EMAIL] DO NOT CLICK links or attachments unless you recognize the sender and know the content
is safe.
Hello Thomas,
Thank you for the parkland comments as it relates to the development proposal. | have copied Parks »o
they have anopportunity toview your comments and respond inkind. | have received afew comments
sofar related toparkland. Hope you are able toattend the Neighbourhood Meeting onFebruary I1
starting at7pm.
Brian Bateman, MCIP, RPP
Senior Planner
City of Kitchener
519-741-2200 x7869, TTY 1-866-969-9994
Page 291 of 400
From: Thomas van der Hoff
Sent: Saturday, January 20, 20248:29&M
To: Brian Bateman
Subject: Application #ZBA24/002/J/BB - 135 Jackson Ave
You don't often get email from
Hi Brian,
Sharing a perspective for consideration by the City in regard to parkland at the proposed development
at 135 Jackson Ave. As a resident of the neighbourhood, my family frequents the park on Montgomery
Rd. In reviewing the development application, it appears parkland has been included. Considering the
development is within the assumed 400 metre Parks Master Plan standard for proximity to the nearest
neighbourhood playground (100 metres from the park), there is opportunity for the City to receive cash -
in -lieu of parkland dedication, allocating these funds tmthe existing park which is in much need of
replacement and expansion ofthe existing playground.
The existing playground equipment is of significant vintage, and is primarily focused on the older age
range. The Eastwood neighbourhood is seeing a turnover of older residents with an influx of younger
families in recent years, and replacement of the existing playground would not only serve the new
residents but those who currently live here. A larger playground would be warranted as well,
considering the number ofnew residents who will be visiting the pork.
This re -allocation of development lands also provides further opportunity for adding additional units
and/or parking.
Food for thought. Thanks Brian!
Va+i/ der #off
Deputy Director
Recreation and Community Services
Office: 519-514-7024
LWyoolwichn.gaU���AgWMR � Egceb2,�� �7witter
Mis, omon nmy contain"sum,ua//"formu""nvoonwoivodmmampnmmor, p�=m°"onxmasm"us°"u*ewh� Nywonpk!�is°C""=mn,the
°"woomo"�m^forpnx"u"m,
Page 292 of 400
From: Christine Liebig
Sent: Tuesday, February 20, 2024 9:46 AM
To: Brian Bateman
Subject: Re: 135-161 Jackson Ave & 136 Brentwood Ave
You don't often get email from learn why this is im ortant
Good morning Brian,
Thank you for the invitation. However, I regret I am unable to attend tomorrow's meeting.
If I may, I'd like to add one additional item/concern (over and above the parking congestion
issue) as "food for thought".
If not for this project, then perhaps the next in another Kitchener neighbourhood...
In a nutshell....
Obviously, the Eastwood Neighbourhood's R4 zoning designation opened the doors to such a
development...
And again, the housing crisis in Kitchener (as everywhere in Canada) notwithstanding...
However, please do consider that developments such as the one proposed, buy up (for the
most part) perfectly sound, affordable single-family homes in residential neighbourhoods.
As such, developments such as the one proposed render core urban areas with easy access to
schools and amenities inaccessible to middle income families with more than one child by
removing availability and choice.
For example, a single teacher with a family of 3 can afford to live in our Eastwood
neighbourhood (and many do). They cannot afford to live in Westmount nor Deer Ridge (and
often not even subdivisions in -and -around New Hamburg) and so must consider emerging
communities such as Listowel and then face a lengthy commute.
This has a significant structural and societal impacts in the long term, which I'm sure you as
planners can (and do) appreciate.
Thank you, Brian. I appreciate the opportunity to voice my concerns as a resident of the
Eastwood Neighbourhood in question and as someone born and raised in this city.
Respectfully,
Christine
From: Brian Bateman < Brian. Bateman@kitchener.ca>
Sent: February 9, 2024 9:33 AM
To: Christine Liebig
Subject: RE: 135-161 Jackson Ave & 136 Brentwood Ave
Hi Christine,
Thank you for your comments. They will be considered as part of the staff report. Hoping you can make
it on February 21, 2024 at 7 pm to the Neighbourhood Meeting. No decisions will be made.
Page 293 of 400
Brian Bateman, MCIP, RPP
Senior Planner
City ofKitchener
519-741-2200 x7869, TTY 1-866-969-9994
(01111
0 0 0 0 0 0 0=
From: Christine Liebig
Sent: Thursday, February 8,2O244:30PK4
To: Brian Bateman <8rion,8otenoan@kitchenerza>
Subject: 135-161Jackson Ave &13GBrentwood Ave
You don't often get email from
Hello Brian,
Appreciate being asked to share concerns, albeit truly bemused as to why - when the
development is already advertising its listings, according to sorne resident who have suffered
themselves to look into the mothsc
Moreover, after reviewing the robust development plans online, it's hard to see how anything will
impact the projectfrom moving forward. 3Oagain, merely a (with respect) bureaucratic
exercise to"check the boxes"
Having said that, I will voice the following:
1' This neighbourhood, in which I have had the privilege of living in for the pastl4yrs iso
gem that the city has long overlooked and underoppu*cioted.Afnmily-focused'
inclusive, o|d4onastedneighbourhood close tothe core that is truly one-of-o-kindand on
exemplar of urban living, and represents a beautiful and authentic example of what
'tx community" actually means.
2. In recent years, many neighbours have voiced safety, as well as other concerns to the
City & Councillors and received mere platitudes. So regrettably our trust in the sincerity of
the City asking for feedback blow.
3�. Community upgrades (recenUpositioned oodemocratically chosen tobenefit residents
are, by far the majority, used only by those driving by car from other areas and have
disrupted our g/eenspoce Montgomery Park tuthe point where very few, ifany, local
residents walk through there any more.
4. Finally, and most relevant to this call for feedback: There are 3 developments going up in
three blocks (Sheldon, Clive & Jackson) in the next 1-3 years, which, instead of including
underground parking, will bring over 300 new cars (I per unit) to f he area, as well as,
most assuredly, at least 3/4 that many more in cc -habitants vehicles. Wyquestion is, where
will f hey park? In the streets? How will the intersections (at Brentwood, Montgomery,
Sheldon & Weber) and snowplowing accommodate the added load &congestion
particularly when added ioEastwood Collegiate traffic?
Page 294 of 400
ob"40t)MY, "Ove ole WeV aviare of li"ie hr,,�us4lg An�J I rn nol a "nol in rrly back yard"
proponent. But if the City truly had vision, there is plenty of commercial land available in
Kitchener to accommodate these "flat and wide" developments that are closer to, or even in
the midst of, amenities suited for 1-2 bedroom units, rather than so profoundly disrupting the
fabric of a quiet, family -residential neighbourhood, because a developer has slowly and
meticulously purchased one single-family homes after another, under different guises.
Thankfully, some people have choices - to stay or to leave. Others, who have chosen this
neighbourhood as a quiet urban oasis, close to schools for their young families, and seniors who
have lived here for decades are not as flexible, will suffer the brunt of the developments you
have chosen to support.
It's regrettable that the city views its citizens as tokens to appease with a postcard and a virtual
meeting -- which is not accessible to many -- rather than take responsibility and telling us this
developments} is coming, whether we want if to or not.
Respectfully,
C.A. Liebig
Christine A. Liebig
Mentor I Brand Story & Strategy
boundless
ACCELERATOR
(fin-merly lnnovwtion Guelph)
Office -
Mobile:
Web� Bobridles sAccelerator,ca
E'niail: (Airistine . .......
361 Southgate Drive, Guelph, ON NI G 3M5
,�Ow�x(�ge a heig 4ris
�Afiac 1 1, iehiyp wid the w4h,,ess�,.,,o Idif"l.w nowe 4M ypn. qh'd
AAV X41JIM41 ��ua �wre jv'cewo] tiara, , ,
your mailbox a 1 nd do not s.w� b.) p)ecm;e,iq4h,Au us, 0'e olso auk thatyou kindly, "Woe Mo; awsi,age, Makn
fbrvv,,,ud it (in whole or ha part) to (,v- !one else, as the in1brinution may be privilec4qed, Thank youji)r
your cooperation and understanding�
Page 295 of 400
From: Dennis &/or BarbINNEEMENNIMM
Sent: Wednesday, February 7,ZO246:35PM
To: Brian Bateman; Internet Council (SM)
Subject: Re: 135-161 Jackson Ave & 136 Brentwood
�
You don't of -ten get email hnm
m
Brian,
We will also require from your legal department the following:
m installation of new roadway in existing neighbourhood by removing residential dwelling.
w Traffic study results for the addition of 120 unit min 120 cars to 240 cars.
w If new roadway can be installed that inflicts detriment to neighbours well being who will be
effected by vehicular lights.
* Environmental study results on Montgomery Park stream and wildlife for increase in human
population and traffic.
° Need results of sewar and water capacity currently and if new infrastructure has to be installed.
* There is no indication were visitors to the proposed buildings are parking; concern as Brentwood
is emergency road if there is an issue on Weber St are they parking on Jackson and Brentwood.
* Again, vvewill need confirmation onHydro supply.
°
Height of the buildings are in a migratory path of Canada geese; was there a study done we
need results.
�
Concern they are only designing for Single car households; according to Census Canada most
Ontario workers commute between 25-85 Km and most partners do not work in the same place.
That means Two car households. There is no space for 240 cars, visitors cars etc. For example
the house they propose 1mtear down currently has 5 cars in its driveway? What isthe solution
proposed for these issues.
�
Oro-medonte will not adjust height bylaws ever; this is from experience had to change the
engineering plans for agarage by1.5"tomeet their bylaws.
We would appreciate again all the responses to these statements above to prepare for the meeting.
All parties have been blind copied on these emails and sent you updates.
Regards,
Barbara k4as|ankuand Dennis Gibson
From: Brian Bateman <Bhan.Bateman@khzhenecca>
Sent: Wednesday, February 7,ZO245:O0:OOPK4
To: 'Dennis &/n/Barb'
Page 296 of 400
7.2!2joE bylaw -_City of Kitc�erjLr — By-law 2O18-U5I,Zoning Schedule l74lists the zoning ofthe subject
property and you can find permitted uses and regulations therein inthe ZQ. The previous ZBwas By-law
85-1. My understanding is most of the subject lands in By-law 85-1 were zoned R-6 since approximately
1994but will dig upthat information.
Brian Bateman, MCUP, RPP
Senior Planner
City ofKitchener
519-741-2200 x7869, TTY 1-866-969-9994
0 0 V 0 111111a',,/�Ilo 1 0
From: Dennis &/orBarb ` _
Sent: Tuesday, February 6,20Z42:58PK4
To: Brian Bateman <Brian.Bateman@»kitchenerzu>
Subject: RE: 135-161 Jackson Ave & 136 Brentwood
You don't often get email from
Brian,
Your legal department can send me directly the paperwork me as head of our action commitee;as we
have three individuals in our neighbourhood who are representing all of us and themselves in this
matter vvewill bemeeting before this Zoom.
Regards,
Barbara K4as|ankoand Dennis Gibson
From: Brian Bateman
Sent: February 6,2O243:49PKA
To: 'Dennis &/orBarb' �
Cc:Garet Stevenson
Subject: RE: I35-161Jackson Ave &13GBrentwood
Thank you for the request. | can have the City's Legal Dept. send lit directly toyour lawyer. Please send
mehis name and contact information atyour earliest convenience.
Brian Bateman, IVICIP, RPP
Senior Planner
City of Kitchener
519-741-2200 x7869, TTY 1-866-969-9994
0 001 1) 111M 0
Page 297 of 400
From: Dennis &/orBarb
Sent: Tuesday, February b,2U24lz:o3prW
To: Brian Bateman
Subject: Re: 1]5-161Jackson Ave &136Brentwood
You don't often get email from
Mr. Bateman,
Before the meeting the neighbours' lawyer has ask for the paperwork when this area was rezoned. Over
30 years ago we have the documentation and the original owner told us all he was not allowed to build
his proposed 3storey apartments sohebuilt the mansion. VVehave been asked bycounsel toget the
documentation of when the City of Kitchener rezoned our area, paperwork, and Mayor in office. We
would also need how a driveway is zoned; proposed building plan is removing a residential dwelling to
install a roadway; is this legal?
We all look forward to your prompt response and our lawyer for the neighbourhood will acting on our
behalf.
Regards,
Barbara Mas|ankoand Dennis Gibson
From: Brian Bateman
Sent: Tuesday, February 6,2O2411:37:O8AM
To: 'Dennis &/or Barb' �
Cc: 6arettStevenson ; Stephanie Stretch
Subject: RE: 135-1G1Jackson Ave & 136 Brentwood
Hello Dennis &Barb,
I wanted to acknowledge receipt of your email and voicemail noting concerns to the development
proposal. They will betaken under consideration inthe staff report. Avirtual Neighbourhood Meeting
has been arranged for February 21,2O24,at7pm. Nudecisions will bemade and it's anopportunity to
be informed of the process, the proposal and ask questions of staff and/or the applicant/owner. Hope
you can attend. |fnot, kwill berecorded and posted onthe City's website for viewing later. See
attached for meeting details.
Brian Bateman, MCIP, RPP
Senior Planner
City of Kitchener
519-741-2200 x7869, TTY 1-866-969-9994
0 0104� D a) 0
1/0
Page 298 of 400
From: Dennis &/or Barb
Sent: Tuesday, February 6, 2024 9:40 AM
To: Brian Bateman <Brian.Bateman kitchener.ca>
Subject: 135-161 Jackson Ave & 136 Brentwood
You don't often get email fror k -,a n„yyhy this is important
Mr. Bateman,
My family and I are residents of the Brentwood and Jackson area for over 30 years and are opposed to
this proposed development of the as we call it the Mansion Site. The original owner of this site was
refused development on the following basis:
ruin the character of the neighbourhood established by Architect Schwartz you would not do
this on Lydia St.
Hydro services are over 50 years old and cannot accommodate this development. Area fed from
5TS from Enova on feeder 51VI13 which is maxed out, who would be paying for new hydro
services to the area? Or have you even considered this
Sewar, water infrastructure in the area was updated about 15 years ago and to add this type of
development who is paying for upgrade to accommodate.
Kitchener landfill was only good for approximately 15 more years for the current population this
is irresponsible to add this many residents.
With the new proposed apartment in the same area on King St the schools in the area cannot
already handle the areas students, Shepard PS, Saint Anne CS, Sunnyside Middle School, and
Eastwood Cl with all these new families.
What about the traffic? You add over a hundred cars to our quiet neighbourhood?
They are also proposing tearing down Mr. Silver's house for a driveway in the middle of
Brentwood; all I going and outgoing traffic will shine lights continually into Dave's, Carl's,
Margurite's and Sue's house. As you can see this is not just a neighborhood we all know each
other and watch out for the seniors out area.
0 This developer has been buying up homes in our neighborhood and renting them out to
students to the total destruction of these homes. They do not clean their snow, rake leaves,
leave garbage all over the place to chase residents from our area which we have maintained for
over 30-50 years. This development is not an improvement it is a destruction of the
architectural character of our neighbourhood.
0 1 am not sure how you plan but this is not a good one.
Infrasturure, schools, traffic, hydro, gas restriction would destroy our mature trees, increase
traffic for residents and students to unsafe levels.
6 This is a neighbourhood of people who built Kitchener: John Wynn's KW Transport School,
numerous Schneider Foods retires, Minister at St. Paul's, numerous ATS employees, employees
at Google, etc
0 We have a quiet neighbourhood of friends which this development will destroy.
•
Page 299 of 400
From: pvopertyoppnaisa
Sent: Friday, February 9,2O246:O2PK8
/o: Brian Bateman
Subject: Re: 135-161Jackson Avenue and 136Brentwood Avenue
0
You don't often get email from
m
|nregards tothe proposed development | submit myfollowing concerns:
1) Do to the large size of the proposed development (120 dwelling units) the increased traffic will
negatively affect neighbourhood property values (increase noise along with pedestrian safety).
2) Since, the majority of new builds are purchased by investors for rentals I am concerned the units will
be overcrowded (exceed occupany limits) which results in lack of maintenance and garbage
accumulation.
3) Existing community/neighbourhood infrastructure and park space (greenspace) isnot adequate tu
house such olarge multi -residential development
4)Dotothe size ufthis development itshould have incorporated adesignated kids
playpark/greenspace, since these types of units are typically purchased/rented by young families or
immigrants.
5)Environmental Assessments and Traffic Studiesneedtobecomp|e1edtnnuheoutne8ativeimpactsof
this neighborhood development.
6) Recently, large scale residential developments have had financial difficulties resulting in work not
Wnpcompleted omschedule 4),rnot EAa11.Who, will me mordtoriMg tomake sure this development do&�
not endupincomplete which will negatively impacts the community.
Warm Regards,
Sent frorn n-iy BeH Samsung device over Canada's largest network,
Page 300 of 400
From: Andy KheirGINNNESSIMIJIMM
Sent: K8onday, February S,2OZ4134PM
To: Stephanie Stretch; K4eyur
Co: Anita Zap|etanCsonti; Elizabeth Leacock; Brian Bateman
Subject: Re: Development and our Neighbourhood
You don't often get email
Thank you for the reply, but what developments are you speaking of? (information you
have learned) YOUdOnDtlistthe0/it.
As well, perhaps someone, anyone, can explain the traffic assessment to us:
- It does NOT have an impact assessment for Sheldon Ave. N and McKenzie - everyona.
in the neighbourhood uses McKenzie to get to the highway. Absolutely a fact - it was
either not foreseen or covered up.
- It does NOT address the poor visibility from Jackson to Weber St. for exiting - almost
impossible to do safely during normal hours (see Google Earth for visibility - it doesn't
take a genius on this one).
64 Jackson Ave - Goggk Maps
- It does NOT address the narrow width of Jackson Ave for traffic. BTW - It doesn't even
have curbs!.,. that is how low the density and traffic is on that street now! You'll have to
remove any parking on Jackson, BTW... there is no room to pass otherwise!
- It does NOT address the impact on school safety (doubles traffic flow around the high
school alone)
- It flatly states an incorrect JUDGMENT/OPINION - that a DOUBLING of traffic is
'moderate' and that it'will not be significantly impacted' - HOW?? It doubles them! It
ignores usage patterns!
"Based on the existing volumes on the surrounding roadways and the moderate
increases due to the Site Traffic, the study area roadways will not be significantly
impacted by the proposed development."
Page 301 of 400
- Poor visibility - Jackson to Weber - where is the exit to a busy road??
Page 302 of 400
- Narrow road - 120 units?? That is conservatively 240 - 500 residents.
BTW:
- Where is the environmental impact study? Old growth trees replaced by saplings is
NOT an environmental impact study.
- Where is the water run off plan?
- Where is the crime increase assessment?
- Where is folded impact from high-rise development on Weber St./King St. at
Montgomery that is already approved?
- Where is the folded impact from the development at the end of Sheldon Ave N? (how
did this ever get approved?)
- Where is the folded impact from the possible development on Clive? (where were the
full consultations for the zoning change on this one??? - single unit dwelling to ... what
is it - 40 units?? How? Gentle densification?? NOT FOR US!)
Taking ONE project, perhaps - but ALL of these projects together? What is the FULL
impact of them together? Nothing about infrastructure for the whole. No full traffic
Page 303 of 400
impact for all projects. No full environmental impact of taking over half of the green -
space in a neighbourhood.
The city is ruining neighbourhoods by piecemeal! When you only assess one project at
a time, it looks like a good idea - but the area has FAR too much development already
planned - this is ridiculous!
An answer to these questions would be appreciated before the meeting so that we can
have discussion!
On Monday, February 5, 2024 at 12:36:57 p.m. EST, Stephanie Stretch
<stephanie.stretch@kitchener.ca> wrote:
Hello Mr. Andy Kheir,
I am hearing from many constituents about the 135 Jackson proposal. I wanted to pass
on some information I have learned and wanted you to keep encouraging neighbours to
attend the Feb 21st meeting and formally write the file manager Brian Bateman and
myself with their questions and their comments so that they can be captured in a
meaningful and useful way.
You can also refer to the process here. We are currently at stage one and moving inim
stage two on Feb 21 with the meeting. Please keep encouraging people to attend. I
MME232M
Uz=
6110-61�- �
Page 304 of 400
Contact Centre at 519-741-2345
From: Andy Kheir
Sent: Sunday, February 4, 2024 3:43 PM
To: Stephanie Stretch <Stephanie, Stretch@kitchener.ca>
Subject: Development and our Neighbourhood
You don't often get email from, Learn2Lthis is important
Hi Stephanie,
I notice that you are not active in our neighbourhood conversations, especially with
development projects,
go won MI_
9�m WNWWW" '' 1 000000 11 1 "1 IM
I think everyone in the Eastwood neighbourhood is getting fed up with the decisions
from the city that are PRE -MADE before consultation and being imposed on us.
Page 305 of 400
BTW - Almost everyone HATES the 135 Jackson proposal! How is this being pre -sold
already??? We haven't even had the consultation meeting? Has this been decided
before the process began??
Regards.
Andy Kheir
Page 306 of 400
From:
Doub|eAK4d
Sent:
Tuesday, February 2l2O249:O8AM
To:
Brian Bateman
Cc:
Garett Stevenson; Lenore Ross; Sandro 8assanese; Stephanie Stretch
Subject:
Re: FW: Response ToProposed Development 13S-1G1Jackson Ave,
Kitchener
Attachments:
ima8e002.png
You don't often get email fromis !Mp_Qrtant
Gond morning,
For the public record this is Aaron McLaughlin of
Thank you.
Hi
I just wanted to acknowledge receipt of your detailed comments but would kindly ask that you provide
your name and address for the public record. Thank you in advance.
City ufKitchener
From: Doub|eAkic|
Sent: Monday, February 19,ZU249:56AM
To: Mayor ; Stephanie Stretch Internet
Council (SM) Brian Bateman
Page 307 of 400
Some people who received this message don't often get email from
The Eastwood area of Kitchener is a gem. Originally developed three qua/tem of century ago it is a
stunning example ofthe simple urban beginnings and cultural history ofthe City ofKitchener. The
modest predominantly red brick homes speak ofa better time before the single family home became
oversized, overbuilt, over designed, and crammed together without regard for privacy, space, or
The neighbourhood covers only app rox0.6square kilometres (excluding K4ont8omerypar�and�
�d
n^Cm�mf�mJxofnes|demt�building tm30@prapedys�paced 1.5-25tmrey
single family homes with desirable front, rear, and side yards, less then 20 detached low rise (2.5 Storey
walkups) apartment buildings on spacious lots, and a mid rise condo complex tucked away in a quiet
corner ofthe neighbourhood against the expressway.
This amounts to approximately 470 living units providing housing for between 940 and 1880 residents,
and a population density of approximately 1,400-2,685 residents per square kilometre.
The neighbourhood was originally designed for this density and having resided here for the past 15
years, I'd say it has worked well, making it a consistently desirable and sought after place to live.
However, recent construction developments on Sheldon Ave N have already been added/ approved,
resulting in 24 & 40 new units and between 64 and 235 new residents where there was previously
around 15 in single detached homes. With a single point of access on Sheldon at the dead end and no
published provisions for a respective increase in infrastructure to support the influx of vehicular and
pedestrian/ transit traffic.
Furthermore the City has gone ahead and changed the surrounding zoning between Weber & King to
allow the conversion of existing single storey retail space into high rise residential towers.These
buildings mark a significant departure from any attempt to 'fit into' the surrounding neighbourhoods of
Eastwood and Rmckwayand will add 5O3,616,and 4O3units respectively.
Altogether these projects amount to adding a grand total of between 4000-7000 new residents to the
immediate area. This will be an increase of 250-300% resulting in a population density of around 6666-
11,666 residents per square kilometre.
Not only are these projects entirely contrary to building within the existing atmosphere of the area, but
the City has yet to publish how they plan to improve the existing infrastructure and local amenities to
support this new population, while maintaining the quality oflife in the surrounding areas for the
existing taxpayers.
Now the City of Kitchener wants to approve yet another complex of 120 units to be crammed literally
into the centre ofenexisting neighbourhood block.
We understand that the property owner wants to develop and sell properties on this site, and we
recognise that the City may need to approve development here at some point, but the currently
proposed design issimply unacceptable given the location.
Appm:v ng lnti2ns�fi(.,aUk')n around pwhmnetermfan ex|stmg neighh1OLr100d With prmperprov|sjon�
for imcremsedkmfmstrwCtwre,nmanmgingthe «mmatrNcl|omprocess, and the 6vc/ew,�c,,,dtraffic th6mg.
BwNdimgill the cemcr""', of ab|mCk�!',,)fllomg, term oc.cup|edres|dence$lsadifferev�endeavour mltogmther.
beumu#e,,� there are �,,!N|ndngresidents living derec%lymd1acemL1tt,'Pthis site omall $p.dms, itbecvnmos a
mmm�'�umootecomnp|e*that antoWsgreater nmspomsffiUUtymind requires �,pecje|coms|&,rot|on
and sems'inv|tV.
Page 308 of 400
This could also mean it is more work for the City and less profitable for the owner/developer, but to do
this properly some concessions will need tobemade.
Any development of this land should have to maintain compatibility with the surrounding aesthetic and
only enhance the functionality, quality, and ideally value of living here overall. It needs to work with
the existing building standards/ spacing/ heights/ styles/ features.
The purpose of the application & consultation process and the planning department itself is to
safeguard the interests ofresidents in existing communities that already work, by being realistic,
judicious, and creative about how things like
population growth are integrated.
In this case that means approving only proposals that work with the existing zoning, building type,
style, & standards ofthe community, inacomplimentary way.
Good planning isnever apermanent downgrade.
The proposed design shows no respect or consideration for these site specific or communal aspects,
nor does the aesthetic fit orcompliment the surrounding homes inany way.
To the contrary the design purposefully shirks the established zoning bylaws in an effort to stack as
rnany ou,,iw residents into the space as �clssjNle without prov[din� for the minimurn clesIgn sUamdmrds.
The developer seems to be operating on the presumption that the City of Kitchener will approve the
project anyway even with these deficiencies.
If the developer seeks variations and zoning changes, this should require approval by City Council. City
Council decisions should be subject to appeal. Beyond the municipal level the existing residents should
have the opportunity to take the case to the Ontario Land Tribunal. Depending on the resistance and
objection of the community, this should be the process before any changes are made to this site.
The City must consider the outward appearance of allowing a complex of modern, long, flat roofed,
buildings to be built more than twice all tall as the surrounding single row of charming private 1.5
storey residences on the block. It shouldn't look like a juxtaposition of opposite ideas.
The internal implications ofbuilding 2.5storeys taller than the originally/ intentionally private
backyards surrounding it is the most problematic of all. Such structures would directly impact the
quality of life in all abutting residences, blocking an extreme proportion of the otherwise consistent low
1.5 storey neighbourhood skylines, the natural light and sightlines, while simultaneously eliminating
any and all privacy in both backyards and rear facing doors and windows. This would be felt especially
by the residents on Brentwood as the proposed finished grade is also significantly uphill. This part of
the proposal is insulting. It shows an audacity, disregard, and almost contempt for the privacy and
standard ofliving ofthe existing residents and incoming residents alike. Such an arrangement could
only serve to destabilize property values in both the short and long term while destroying forever the
longstanding positive reputation ofthe area.
Exacerbating the situation, in order to allow as much parking as possible on the interior, the plans have
the buildings placed such that they encroach on the property lines around the perimeter. This makes
their height effectively even taller for the surrounding residents. Yet the plans still fail to provide
inadequate parking for the new residents as well as no provision for visitor or service parking. This will
only result in parking overflowing onto sidestreets throughout the neighbourhood. Considering this
added traffic and congestion the City should then also allow for frontyard parking (driveway widening)
and be responsible for widening all the existing boulevard driveways and curb openings so residents
have an option besides tandem parking.
Not only are the building placed too close tothe property boundaries, but it shows no provisions for
visual or physical separation between the new walkout patios (and three galleries of balconies above)
Page 309 of 400
and the existing private backyards, for security and/or privacy. Where an existing berm and masonry
wall has separated a single residence on the estate for the past three decades, the surrounding
homeowners seem to be left with the responsibility of keeping a whole housing complex of new
population and their pets from entering their yards. Some of the neighbouring properties have no firm
of fencing at all.
The plans show no provisions for runoff from the developed grade and the impermeable surfaces of
roofs and parking lot that will be introduced. Where there is now a retention pond and berm keeping
water from running downhill into backyards and basements, the plans show a consistent downward
sl pe into neighbouring properties on Brentwood.
The plans show a fictitious depiction of the existing trees around the perimeter of the property which
have been neglected since the property changed hands. Some have expired and others that were
damaged by the windstorm of 2022, have been left standing. The development will require the
destruction of the other trees on the property. The plans make no provision for the full or partial
replacement of any of the mature trees on or around the property.
Beyond the details of this particular proposal, any development of this site will require special
measures so as not to cause undue inconvenience, disturbance, or stress for the existing residents who
will have to live through the demolition and construction process.
Site Fencing:
An 8' privacy fence (at the developers expense) should be installed around the subject site prior to start
of work to prevent debris and workers from encroaching on the adjacent properties.
Finished Fencing:
The fence bylaw height is 8ft based on level properties of 1.5-2 storey construction. If there is an
immediate grade upwards after the property line the cense height should be allowed to rise
appropriately to compensate. In some cases the grade is too steep and the grade becomes the privacy
and this site already has that feature on the downhill side.
However the construction of structures taller than the surrounding residences (within or beyond the
original zoning), should entail a matching increase in the allowable fence and privacy screen heights for
neighbouring properties. In either case construction of this property barrier should be the
responsibility of the developer such that it be consistent in style and construction (be it timber or
masonry or a combination).
Road Conditions and Construction Traffic:
The contractor under the Highway Traffic Act is required to keep the roadway clear of mud and debris
(the roadway should be cleaned at least twice a day during construction) until the lot is paved. There
should be No Construction traffic signs posted on Mackenzie, Sheldon, Raymond, Edmund, Jackson and
Fairmont. All construction traffic must use Montgomery to Brentwood the Brentwood to 136 for entry
to the site.
Dust Control:
The constructor must have a dust control plan in place before construction starts. Such as listing that
the site will be watered as required to prevent dust enveloping the adjacent properties. The adjacent
properties should not have to suffer living in a dust bowl because of construction. This site is literally in
the middle of a neighbourhood.
Building Permit:
The developer must be able to prove they have the finances to complete the project on time.
The developer wants to do this in 2 phases. Build the 3 units that back on to the Brentwood properties
and 105 parking spaces. This implies to me that they don't have the money or unwilling to spend the
money to build this out all at the same time. We do not want this to end up like the building on Fergus
Ave. in Kitchener, bankrupt not complete or even enclosed from the weather left to rot. The project
Page 310 of 400
must be built out in a single phase with a timeline of 2.5 years from when the first home is demolished
to occupancy permits issued for all the units. If this goes in 2 phases the construction timeline may be 5
years, not fair to the neighbouring property owners. All the buildings scheduled for demolition should
be taken down at the same time, so we don't have abandon houses to attract problems. This site
should be built out completely before Kitchener allows occupancy.
Adjusted noise bylaw:
There should also be an adjusted work time for the site. This is in the middle of a neighbourhood work
should only be permitted from 08:00 to 17:00 Monday to Friday. The only work allowed on weekends
should be on Saturdays only and only for interior work once the buildings are enclosed.
The constructor must be required to provide off street parking and accommodation if necessary for
construction vehicles and workers. These streets have been narrowed during street reconstruction and
the extra on street parking will cause problems for the area residents as well as emergency vehicles. As
stated before this is literally in the middle of a neighbourhood completely surrounded by houses.
Traffic Patterns and Parking:
Fire Routes must be established on Brentwood, Jackson, Fairmount and Montgomery surrounding the
project should be in place before construction starts.
The city should put a 4 way stop at Jackson and Brentwood. Along with 3 way stops at Brentwood and
Edmund and Brentwood and Raymond to discourage traffic from the complex using Brentwood to
Sheldon to Mackenzie to Ottawa. The traffic should be encouraged to go Brentwood to Montgomery to
Weber.
Provisions for Wildlife:
Another thing to consider is the environmental fallout of eliminating a greenspace that has existed for
nearly 3/4 of a century and an ecosystem of mature trees, woodland animals, waterfowl, and
amphibians that has existed since the pond was built approx 30 years ago. All residents here can attest
to the diverse flora and fauna that will be missed. The existing animals should be relocated before
construction begins rather than simply displaced by destruction of habitat. Displacement would only
serve to overload the surrounding areas and burden the surrounding community with having to
witness the struggling and death.
Any future development should also include provisions for the replacement of existing trees.
For many of the existing residents who have worked hard to live here and continue to work hard to
improve their homes, to make the neighbourhood better, this could be their forever home or family
legacy. Your responsibility is to those people.
Page 311 of 400
From: Eastwood Neighbourhood Association Kitchener <he||o@enakca>
Sent: Friday, January 19,2O245:5ZPM
To: ChricLineKompter
Cc: Internet Council (SK4);_DL _#_ COR _ Off lce-o�the-��ayo��\-Cound|-S1af�
]ustinReadman; GorettStevenson;Tina K4a|one-VVrigh1;Brian Bateman
Subject: Re: Notice ofProposed Development & Neighbourhood Meeting 'l35 -16I
Jackson Ave. &136Brentwood Ave.
Attachments: imaBe010jp0
11
You don't often get email from helb@ena�ca. L(larn why thisjis; Important
Thanks shared with neighbour social media.
On Thu, Jan 18, 2024, 3:42 PM Christine Kompter wrote:
For your information — the attached postcard will be circulated to property owners and
occupants within 240m of the subject property. If you have any questions please contact Brian
Bateman ,Senior Planner 519-741-2200 x7869).
ChrisdneKonmpter
Administrative Assistant | Planning Division | City ofKitchener
200 King Street West, 611 Floor | P.O. Box 1118 | Kitchener ON N2G4G7
Page 312 of 400
From: CourtneySmbh
Sent: Friday, February 9'2OZ46:32PK8
To: Brian Bateman
Subject: Re: Proposed Development 135-161Jackson Ave and 136Brentwood Ave
You don't often get email
Thanks Brian. Can you specify which document relates to each question? | am not as familiar with each
type of consultant or study.
Much appreciated!
On Fri, Feb 9, 2024 at 4:25 PM Brian Bateman <Brian. Bate man(@ kitche ner.ca> wrote:
Thanks, Courtney, for your comments. They will betaken under consideration. Here isthe list of
studies that were required ofthe developer and under review:
|kitdleIer.ca\ Hope you can attend the meeting onFeb. 21at7pm.
City of Kitchener
From: Courtney Smith
Sent: Friday, February 9,2O243:52PK4
To: Internet 'Council (SM) Brian Bateman
Subject: Proposed Development 135-161 Jackson Ave and 136 Brentwood Ave
Some people who received d`umeoauedon1uftengetrmai|fmm
&IR erila—n�
Hi there
Page 313 of 400
am looking forward to the meeting on Feb 21 about the above mentioned proposed development.
am hoping to learn more and get some answers to some of the questions I have as a neighbour in the
area.
Some questions that come to mind are:
- Affordability - has thought been given to what amount of these dwellings will be affordable? Will
there be social housing or affordable rental units available to help support the need in the community?
- Environmental - what studies have been conducted around the environmental impact of this
development? This will take away from the natural landscaping and replace it with
structures/pavement. Has a study been conducted? What will the impact be to the local creek
nearby?
-Water flow -along the same lines, what studies have been done around the flow of water? Natural
landscape and several trees will be replaced with blacktop and wondering what the impact will be to
storm water systems and to the neighbouring houses. There has been water damage to houses in the
area and this is a high concern as it could create further water flow issues and also impact house
insurance for the area.
- Local infrastructure - with the addition of 120 new dwellings and potentially more people to the area,
there will be increased needs in terms of amenities in the area (i.e. grocery stores, doctors, gas
stations/charging stations, child care, etc). The local stores and other amenities appear to be at
capacity - has thought been put into how might new stores and amenities be added into this area to
support more people? Has a child care centre been thought of to add to this space? Is there capacity
for local police and ambulances to care for this addition of people? Further to this, there has been an
increase in vandalism to private property - will police be able to respond to more calls related to this
with more buildings in the area?
- Traffic - with adding 124 new vehicles to the area, I have concerns about safety for pedestrians and
local bikers. How will the flow of traffic be managed and monitored? Will traffic flow change? What
will the impact be to our streets with more vehicle traffic and will that impact property taxes?
--- Historical site - what has been done to ensure that this is not a historical site?
Decision - has the decision already been made around this site? Or is there an opportunity for
adjusting plans based on the feedback from the meeting?
know this is a lot - and studies have probably been conducted. I am hoping to have this information
shared and understood at the meeting on Feb 21.
Page 314 of 400
Thank you for taking the time to read and hopefully respond to these questions.
- crur°rc:nev
Page 315 of 400
From: Natalie Sebastian
Sent: Wednesday, January 31, 2024 9:12 AM
To: Stephanie Stretch
Cc: Brian Bateman
Subject: Re: Proposed Development in your Neighbourhood - Jackson & Brentwood !
Follow Up Flag: Follow up
Flag Status: Flagged
I
You don't often get email from Learn why t,„jris is imggrtant,
Good Morning Stephanie & Brian,
Thank you both for your speedy response. Yes I plan on attending the meeting and am
encouraging as many neighbours as possible to attend.
Brian Can you tell me ahead of time if the Eastwood Neighbour hood is still zoned as a
R-6 zone as discussed with yourself & email Sept 9 2019 @ 4:19?
Stephanie can you tell me the current rules & by- laws that are "still " being followed by
RIENS study for this neighbourhood? Our last councilor Sarah Marsh was "sometimes"
able to help us navigate around the wording and understanding.
Brian Planning Department has approved the build? If they have approved it - will it go to
the Planning & Strategic Initiatives Committee for review/approval before it goes to Council?
I understand that purely based on "intensification", privacy or shade this is a mute point. The
provincial government has mandated that all cities must intensify rather than build outside the
city. However is I would like to make sure our neighbours know what the City's rules for
intensification are in this historically older neighbourhood?
a. Zoning — is this plot of land currently zoned for intensification? what is allowed in the
area? A meeting held at Rockway Centre 4 years ago by city planner ( yourself) it
was explained the R6 to about 50 neighbours and that the building height could only be
3 stories. The plans presented don't indicate that,
b. RIENS — Residential Intensification in Existing Neighbourhoods. This City document
outlines what can be built in existing neighbourhoods including how far away new builds
have to be from existing neighbours etc. special attention to the height
restrictions. Does this expensive study paid by Kitchener council no longer matter?
c, Urban Design Guidelines - Where can I find this document? this document will tell
explain what type of buildings should look like, what the traffic flow should be etc.
etc. This document was being updated by the City as well — there are sections for the
entire city as well as specific sections for specific neighbhour hoods.
Thank you for your time in answering these questions ahead of meeting I do not want to
waste anyone's time if I am bringing up points that are mute. Time and time again we
have been disappointed with concerns being brought up and it doesn't seem to matter.
There is quite a bit of apathy amongst many of us.
Stephanie, our neighbourhood is small and older. Many do not have means to "zoom"
this presents a barrier for our older neighbours. I would love to discuss with you a
means to reach out further other than "phoning in a meeting"
Page 316 of 400
Natalie
On Tuesday, January 30, 2024 at 04:17:16 p.m. EST, Stephanie Stretch
<stephanie.stretch@kitchener.ca> wrote:
Hi Natalie,
Thank you so much for your detailed feedback. I hear you and acknowledge that you
are vehemently opposed to the proposal. I have forwarded your concerns on to Brian
Bateman the file planner so they will be considered as part of the process. You will also
find his contact information below. He will be able to answer any questions you might
have.
I also strongly encourage you to attend the Neighbourhood Meeting on Feb 21 @ 7pm
via zoom where you can continue to add your concerns to the process and ask any
questions you might have of staff and/or the applicant/owner, No decisions will be made
at the meeting.
i
are Ing InTormation wan neign5ours as your teedbaCK IS importaff
and crucial at this time.
I a! Loll 1714 IVN 0 WE 1��' qqk 11
Page 317 of 400
Specific question can be submitted to the planner at brian.bate 5kitchener
r 51 -741-2200 x7869
Thank you,
Stephanie Stretch
Councillor, Ward 10 1 Office of the Mayor and Council I City of Kitchener
519-741-2786 ext.2786 I TTY 1-866-969-9994 1
NN I
^ontact Centre at 519-741-2346
From: Natalie Sebastian
Sent: Thursday, January 25, 2024 3:58 PM
To: Internet - Council (SM) <2guncil @kit.chenerca>
Subject: Proposed Development in your Neighbourhood - Jackson & Brentwood
You don't often get email from Learn -hy this is jrnporjgqt
I am writing as a private citizen of the Ward 10 property located at in
Kitchener N21-1 3P7 to express my vehement opposition to the proposal redevelopmen!
per planning application 135-161 Jackson & 136 Brentwood Ave.
Page 318 of 400
I am unclear why Kitchener paid thousands of dollars for this and we completely ignore
this.
R,ecoid e,nfial O'AenMficalion in established nei
--q
Page 319 of 400
- Increased traffic noise, again in an area where traffic enforcement is already lacking in
its effectiveness to ensure that vehicles operated in and around the community meet
established legislated vehicle noise emission standards, resulting in further worsening
of street noise already above a reasonable level due to traffic both along Highway 7 and
within the community's own streets.
- Increased general noise directly caused by the population intensification in an area
already plagued by noise not only from the aforementioned lack of enforcement of
established legislated vehicle noise emission standards, but by increased air traffic in
and out of the municipal international airport (YKF).
- Increased disruption by construction activities as the developer would implement
planned facility.
- Increased crime due to the intensification of population in the community that this
project will cause.
- Erosion of our voices as voters and as property owners within the physical boundaries
of this neighbourhood.
I ask that the City of Kitchener to:
1. Deny this application and prevent the project from going forward,
2. Withhold from use any funds from the tax base at the municipal, regional, provincial,
and federal levels into which our community residents contribute, saving those funds
plaguing this community to further enhance profitability of the commercial interests of
this property owner and commercial entities working with them.
3. Reject this application with prejudice • as to set a precedence • not
entertain applications of •: going forward by applicant or
by other applicants.
4. Not prove the ineffectiveness of democratic process reviewing • subsequently
ignoring -•
5. BE BETTER in its proactive • EFFECTIVE informing of - •- affected by
proposals such as these (all residents,-. .• of proposed • • _
Sincerely,
Natalie Sebastian
Page 321 of 400
From: Renee Richards(1110111101111111M
Sent: Sunday, February 4,2OZ44:44PM
To: Brian Bateman; Stephanie Stretch
Subject: Worried
whmremo�ved 1,his don't otrmgetcrnu|
Good day
Re:135Jackson townhomesproject
This isour back yard that isgoing tobedestroyed! All those trees tobecut down , what with our clean
air? What will happen to the wildlife living there and have been living there forever? So many species of
birds and migratory birds. All the bees that ma so desperately need. The squirrels, the rabbits, etc. How
about the foxes? What will happen toall ofthem?
What about all traffic that this will create? The noise in the neighborhood will be unreal. We understand
the need for housing but that istoo huge for that area. |fthat was inyour backyard how would you
feel???
Thank you
Renee &Malcolm Richards
Page 322 of 400
From: GinaGeoqgiou
Sent: Thursday, February 2l2O241:10PM
To: Brian Bateman
Subject: 135 Jackson Ave Meeting
Ymmg"m�mltznget erwn is is i!pp rtant
Good Morning Brian.
| missed last nights meeting, and | cant seem tOfind itODthe portal.
Could you please send rD8the link 8tyour earliest convenience?
Th8nkyOu
G|O8
Page 323 of 400
From: ]imLaturney
Sent Thursday, February 2Z,2O249:45AM
To. Brian Bateman
Subject: 135 Jackson Ave.
You don't often get email from
The storm water management was addressed to my satisfaction with the installation of
underground surge tanks.
The height even at 11 m gives me problems as the property is 2m higher than the Montgomery
properties. This will mean the buildings are al ready at 13 m above the adjacent properties on
Montgomery. At 12.5 nn they will be at 14.5 no (47.5') is a 5 story building.
| got some answers from the meeting last night but |'rn left with a few more questions.
1 - What isEVcharger ready? asopposed hohaving chargers installed
2- |sthe parking calculation way off? They include parking spaces infront ofthe townhouses
facing Jackson (these are private parking) and the Handicap spaces as public parking removing
these the parking is at 0.95 not at I.03 asthey state.
3 - Because the address is on Jackson are property lines toward Fairmont and Brentwood
considered asthe side mfthe property snthe set back will only be3nn7 0rwill the set back he
considered as a rear yard as the homes on Fairmont and Jackson their rear yards meet the
Page 324 of 400
From:
Scot CameronfoliMMIlillillilliVElliln=,
Sent:
Thursday, February 22, 2024 8:37 AM
To:
Brian Bateman
Cc:
Melanie Cameron; Mark Morton; heather Cameron
Subject:
135 Jackson Ave
You don't often get email from earn wh)L
tjhis is im
Dear Mr. Bateman,
I trust this message finds you well. My name is Scot Cameron, and I am writing to you as
the concerned son of a long-time resident at I attended the meeting
last night where various zoning issues were discussed, and while I acknowledge that the
project aligns with existing zoning regulations, I am compelled to express my serious
reservations about the potential ramifications of this development.
Foremost among my concerns is the glaring inadequacy of the parking ratio, especially
in light of the possibility that a percentage of units might be used for multi -tenant
rentals. It is imperative that this issue be thoroughly addressed, either by increasing the
available parking spots or revisiting the number of units proposed.
Furthermore, I am deeply troubled by the potential misuse of the development, given
the current rental market trends. The dismissive response to these concerns, asserting
that the municipality does not regulate people and issues must be directed to bylaw
only after occupancy, strikes me as shortsighted. Addressing such concerns during the
zoning process for condominium developments seems not only logical but also a
proactive measure that prevents unnecessary burdens on residents.
While the encroachment of the development on adjacent properties is a general
concern, my particular worry centers on the impact on 132 and 140 Brentwood. The
proposed changes threaten to render their side yards unsightly and unusable, exposing
them to constant vehicular and pedestrian traffic. The resultant noise and disruption,
including headlights flashing into their homes, are significant issues that should not be
overlooked. Transforming these homes into de facto corner lots will undoubtedly affect
their value, and the assertion that financial impact is not a concern for approval raises
questions about the fairness of the process, especially when contrasted with the city's
financial gains from parks and recreation projects as well as potential taxes.
It is disheartening to witness meticulous attention given to details such as trees and
rooflines while overlooking the profound psychological and financial impact on the
affected residents, My mother, now in her 80s, has contemplated selling her home
Page 325 of 400
annually, and the current circumstances only intensify these considerations.
Unfortunately, the value of her property will undoubtedly be negatively impacted by this
development. The prevailing attitude that meeting regulations suffices falls short,
especially when it appears to favor the developer's interests over the well-being of the
community.
I ask you to carefully reconsider these aspects and ensure that the concerns of long-
standing residents are given the attention they deserve. Balancing development with the
welfare of the community is paramount, and I trust that your commitment to fairness
and equity will guide the decision-making process.
Thank you for your time and consideration.
Sincerely, Scot Cameron
Page 326 of 400
From: Heather Cameron
Sent: Sunday, February 25, 2024 7:45 PM
To: Brian Bateman
Subject: 135 Jackson Development Proposal - Post Planning Meeting Concerns
You don't often get email frorLearn why this is important
Dear Mr. Bateman,
I trust this letter finds you well. Thank you for the opportunity to hear about the proposed development
at 135 Jackson at the Neighborhood Planning Meeting.
I am writing to bring attention to certain issues and seek clarification regarding the proposed residential
development. I appreciate the city's commitment to responsible and transparent development, and I am
hopeful that addressing the following concerns and the concerns raised during the planning meeting will
contribute to the overall success and sustainability of the project.
1. Parking: A major point of concern at the neighborhood meeting was parking as it relates to
both the allowance for reduced number of parking spaces for the proposed development and
the potential impact on the neighborhood. The responses during the meeting did not alleviate
concerns that appropriate studies had been done to justify the amendment and raised a further
concern that if spaces weren't enough on the site, residents would have to reactively manage
the issue themselves by contacting bylaw. A few follow-up questions and requests for data are
below:
o When was the ratio of 1.3 spots per dwelling unit established? Is there ongoing
assessments to understand whether this ratio is reasonable given the current state of
car -dependency in the region? This is critical given that recent data from Statistics
Canada shows that Waterloo region has the second highest rate of car -dependency in
Canada, and that the rate of vehicle registration is on the rise. While the council clearly
noted that they were not in the business of regulating people and that people who have
more than one car could opt not to purchase a unit, it seems most responsible to
acknowledge the likelihood of these issues so that they can be addressed proactively.
o What data is available to support the appropriateness of the current parking ratio
regulations in similar builds in the city? It would be ideal to have some case studies to
understand whether the tenants of such dwellings do in fact only have 1 vehicle per unit
or whether they create any additional burden on neighborhood streets.
o It would seem prudent to ensure that the existing regulation is indeed excessive
before making any concessions to lower the ratio. Alternatively, it would be appropriate
to limit the number of dwellings.
o As was noted in the meeting, it is crucial that overall plan the parking amendment are
not approved in isolation but are considered in the context of planned and ongoing
development projects on shared roadways and nearby neighbourhoods, ensuring that
any approvals and concessions align with the broader context of healthy and sustainable
neighborhood growth.
Page 327 of 400
o The provision ofreports illustrating the impact ofsimilar developments on
neighborhood parking burden, the appropriateness of the current ratio, and data -driven
rationale for justifying an amendment would be useful to inform decision-making for
council and to potentially alleviate concerns from residents.
2. Noise: The noise study included in the plans and reports for this project appears to be
focused solely on the impact of existing neighborhood noise upon the planned site. Is there also
a study being conducted to assess the impact of the planned site on the existing neighborhood,
both in terms of the planned building amenities, people density, and increased vehicular traffic?
Such a study would be important to understand the impact of the planned development and to
inform approvals and any mitigation measures, Such a study should also consider that the new
building site will primarily be hard surfaces. Importantly, the new development will also
eliminate asignificant portion ofthe existing gneenspacewhich plays apositive role inreducing
noise (and pollution).
I Building Timeline: At the community meeting, it was noted that development could
potentially begin in early 2025 if approved, As the building plan includes 5 phases, is it possible
to share the potential duration of development or any details on the phasing?
4. Type of Development (Condos or Townhouses): It was unclear based on the response on
behalf of the developer whether the proposed residential development will consist of
condominiums ortownhouses.
6. Number of Sleeping Spaces per Unit: |twould bebeneficial tounderstand the proposed
number of sleeping spaces per unit. This information is vital in understanding the potential
population density and its implications on local services, parking needs, and community
7. Assurances Regarding Approval Process: As the approval process progresses, we seek
assurances that decisions made regarding the issues above will be taken into due consideration
during the subsequent phases, especially when reviewing building plans for occupancy.
Understanding that the current phase focuses on zoning issues, it is essential that the
community is assured that decisions in future phases are part ofa holistic approach to
development that considers all relevant factors.
I appreciate your dedication to maintaining an open dialogue with the community, and I look forward to
receiving more information and clarification on these matters. Your efforts to address these concerns
will undoubtedly contribute to a collaborative and successful development process.
Dr. Heather Cameron
Page 328 of 400
From: SebastianNOMMEMEMENEMM
Sent Monday, February Z6,2OZ412:15PK4
To: Stephanie Stretch; Mayor; Brian Bateman
Subject: Development inEastwood neighbourhood
You don't often get email
11
Stephanie
I attended the Zoom meeting on Feb. 21 concerning the proposed development of 135 Jackson Ave. To
say the least |'m angry at the pro developer attitude | sensed from the City of Kitchener staff at the
meeting. If this meeting was to ally the fears and concerns about this project it did not work in fact it
probably made the neighbourhood residents more concerned.
K8ymother inlaw who lives directly across from this Was not able tophone in/!That was
suppose tobaananalternative.
What could she possibly have gotten from the images or questions presented ?
If appears this is a done deal and the meeting was e smoke screen because it was probably required to
happen. Just like last time for 1O2Clive Rd.
The meeting convener never pushed any one from the developer's people or Kitchener staff to fully
answer a question. All the questions posed at the end of the meeting were not answered. There was
never an end time published for the meeting I expected the meeting to continue until all the questions
were answered.
AFTER discussion in the neighbourhood Many individuals in this neighborhood
Stopped their meeting . | know that this site will be developed but it should conform to neighbourhood
and City standards.
There are certain rules and regulations in place concerning zoning for RES5 if the developer submits
non -conforming plans they should have been sent back for revisions. With their request for 12.5 m tall
building an
d the property being 2 m higher than the adjacent properties on Montgomery it will appear to be a 5
story building in their back yard. The height for RES5 is 11m If anything this is too high compared to
existing properties, 9m would be more acceptable Ym sure someone has already submitted this!.The
Neighbourhood Assc. have suggested an in person meeting onthe site at 1B5Jackson with you,
councilor Stretch and any from the planning department who may add information. This will put
everything we have been talking about in real life not an abstract set of drawings. For example the
drawing presented showed 7cars onthe 124 parking space. This iswhat 75 looks like | BE HONEST
Page 329 of 400
A response from you would be appreciated concerning our concerns and a possible meeting time and
date.
Natalie Sebastian
in Kindness,
Natalie
Page 330 of 400
From:
Allison Rawlins
Sent:
Monday, March 18,202411:46AM
To:
Brian Bateman
Subject:
Development onJackson &Bentwood
You often get ernad��
Hi Brian, aeaneighbour ofthe Development atthe above area .vveare not insupport
of allowing the
amendment to the by-law regulations, to increase the height of buildings by 1.5m (5 feet) over
what isallowed.
We feel in an established neighborhood like Eastwood it's not fair for owners who love there
yards and privacy, to be subjected to someone building houses that now peer into these yards
and houses over and above what |aallowed.
| also would suggest that if and when the building starts that someone supervises the reins
suggested portion and not wait until it's too late toask the builder kzcomply.
Thanhyou
Page 331 of 400
From: Natalie Sebastian INEENNOWNIIIINNEM
Sent: Tuesday, March 12, 2024 2:16 PM
/o: Brian Bateman; Stephanie Stretch
Subject: Development onJackson &Brentwood
You don't often get email
Page 332 of 400
Good morning Brian,
We had a meeting Sunday March 10/24 with councillor Stephanie Stretch where she
explained the process. As a group we are not opposed to development of this
property but still have several questions.
We are looking for respect during the planning and construction phases of this project.
At the end of construction the developer and construction crews are gone and what is
left behind will be there for 50 years.
At this time developers do not respect Kitchener's zoning criteria because every project
presented to Kitchener has a request for variances usually parking or height. If the city
agrees to these and the project moves ahead. Then you get push back after the project is
complete due to lack of parking or the high cost due to less parking than required i.e.:
Victoria St. S. near Bramm St.
During the meeting Traffic was brought up with every single neighbor that attended the
meeting. At the Zoom meeting, the traffic consultant brought in completely dismissed
this.
How is this possible?
My question to you. Has anyone from the city ever been on any of these streets at 8:15
am? 2:30? When Eastwood school is starting or finishing?
Has anyone from the city ever been on any of these streets during football season on
the weekends? (from mid July- mid October)
Has anyone from the city ever been on any of these streets on a Friday night during the
Ranger game?( September until end of March)
Has anyone seen the parking situation at 206 Montgomery Road when a variance was
allowed to take down the city trees, allow the front lawn to be completely concrete and
parking is now 14 cars and on weekends more on the street (which by the way you
said would never be allowed)
Many people at the meeting were concerned about the questions that were not
answered on the Zoom meeting.
Brian respectfully I ask you to take some of the concerns and how building 120 units in
addition to the units being built on Sheldon and eventually on Clive will change the
landscape of this older neighborhood. Above is a picture of Sheldon where there were
over 50 trees.
The plan for this development on Jackson is proposing 154 trees will be cut down from
the 167. Even with "softscape " planting. This will take years. Less than 4 years ago
Sarah Marsh city councillor said that the city of Kitchener is committed to keeping our
green space.
Page 335 of 400
What is the city going to take into consideration??
Kindest regards,
Natalie
Page 336 of 400
From: Renee RichardsiIIIIIIININNINJIMM
Sent: Monday, February 26, 2024 2:40 PM
To: Brian Bateman; Mayor; Stephanie Stretch
Subject: Eastwood neighborhoods
Some people who received this message don't often get email froffINNEEMEMEM Learn whythis is
i
�ft1p��i t,��r7t,
Good afternoon
As the rest of this great neighborhood we are opposed to this big development in the middle of our
block. Fairmount, Sheldon, Montgomery & Brentwood.
We understand that housing is needed but not that many. People will be stacked up like sardines. Too
many units, too high, not enough parking space, too noisy, too much traffic, etc.
We would want a in person meeting before you make any decisions. Questions were NOT answered in
the Zoom meeting. Thank you.
Renee & Benny Richards
Page 337 of 400
From:
Stephanie Stretch
Sent:
Thursday, February 22,2O2412:Z1PM
To:
Elizabeth Leacock; Anita Zap|etanCsond
Cc
Berry Vrbanovic;Brian Bateman
Subject:
FW: 135 Jackson Ave.
fyii
From: Jim Laturn
Sent Thursday, February 22,3U3410:04AM
To: Mayor <mayur@kitchener.ca>;Stephanie Stretch <5Lephanie.8tretch@kbchener.ca»
Subject: lSSJackson Ave.
�
Some people who received this message don't often get email from am whv this is imDortant
m
Mr. Mayor:
The area to email the councillors only has 2000 characters I have more than that to say. |xvou|d
appreciate ifyou would forward this toall the councillors.
Mayor of the City of Kitchener and Councillors:
If the City deems neighbourhoods are essential wthe life ^fthe city why have Eastwood and xockwybecndndedomm,
destruction.? The area residents are dealing with the fallout from the Homeless Shelter at 1668 King St. E.. There has been an
increase in crime in the area as well as now due to insurance claims for theft and damage the area residents insurance rates will
be increasing.
The process ofinfill housing needs x/respect the existing residents adjacent mthe infill site a`wells existing residents inthe
area. This has not been accomplished for this project proposed forzasJacksunxve.
This project isunlike most other infill projects, onother projects you may have aadjacent properties with this project thee
are zoadjacent family homes.
I accept that there will be a housing project on this site, but it must conform to City specifications (Official Plan)
1: realize that with the Federal, Provincial and Regional governments take no prisoners attitude for more housing with no
direction confuses me. The building of condos is not building affordable housing. Building rental units is where this should start
with geared mincome (3u%nfgross family income for rcnd.
Page 338 of 400
The City of Kitchener must look at a neighbourhood as a whole before approving new housing complexes in existing
neighbourhoods, the developers only look at their lot and how much money they can make from it. With the scheduled influx
of residents we are looking at the population of the area bounded by Montgomery, Weber St., Ottawa St. and the expressway
to be 134% of existing. This does not even consider the possibility of 4000-7000 new residents of the apartment tower complex
planned for King St.E., Montgomery and Weber. According to Census Canada Breslau only had about 5000 residents as of 2021.
Within a 10 minute walk from the corner of Weber St. N. there are 4359 units proposed for development. These are the
proposals I know of. I know they all have reports saying there is enough services at their location. With 3 proposals within 2
blocks, 322 Charles E., 50 Borden and 534 Charles E. there may be enough services for their project but is there cumulatively
enough services in the area?
Most of the proposed projects with reduced parking and also reduced set backs from adjacent properties (according to the
written proposal to the city)
322 Charles St E (between Stirling and Pandora) 163 units
1 tower 17 stories
50 Borden (Charles and Borden) 1224 units
2 towers 57 & 51 stories
3 towers 32, 27 & 15 stories
20 Ottawa St. N. 400 units
4 towers 22, 6, 6 & 4 stories
1253 King St. E. (at Sheldon) 403 units
1668 King St. E (presently the homeless shelter) 616 units
1770 King St. E. 503 units
291- 295 Sheldon Ave. N. 40 units
101 Clive 40 units
1351ackson 120 units
4359 units
I come from a background of the Electrical industry and Health and Safety. Each of these has a set of standards. These are
minimum standards, there is no "lets make a deal". If you go below the standard you have to go back and do it again to meet
or surpass the standards.
Page 339 of 400
I have to assume that the City of Kitchener spent time and money on establishing their Official Plan (minimum standards) and
these are available to the public and developers.
With respect to the variances requested for 135 Jackson Ave. project they come no where near the city specifications for:
Specs
Request
Floor Space Ratio .6
1.
Set Back 7.5 m
6 m
Height 11 m
12.5 m
Parking 1.3
1.1
Set Back: You need 5m to get construction machinery between the building and the property line. If the building is concrete
block there will not be enough room for scaffolding and a forklift to service the brick layers. At no time should construction
equipment extend beyond the property line.
Height: With the proposed buildings being 12.5 meters high all the adjacent houses are single story, 2 story of 3 floor walk up
apartments. This summer you can be in your back yard with friends and relatives having a B B Q in relative privacy. Next
sumrner there will be a building looming overt your backyard with sight -lines into your yard as wells your house. On
Montgomery the buildings will be 14.5 above the back yards. The property at 135 Jackson is 2m higher than the properties on
Montgomery.
Parking: The parking for this project is 124 spaces this includes 6 Handicapped and 4 driveway spaces for the Townhouses on
Jackson Ave. in reality it is 114 parking spaces or .95 instead of 1.3
Storm Water: According to the design company they will be installing underground storage tanks for storm water run off,
Tree Management: The proposal calls for 154 trees to be removed. At least 10% of these trees are not in a building footprint
and should be replaced with native species trees at least 5" diameter. According to the plan these trees should be replaced as
listed 103,104, 402, 403, 405, 421, 422, 423, 424, 425, 426, 427, 472, 495 and 496. The trees on adjacent properties affected by
the development should be looked after by the developer so that they will not die off because of trauma caused by
construction.
Property Fencing: Before construction commences an 8' wood privacy fence should be installed on the property line at the
developer's expense to keep out construction waste and trespassing.
Page 340 of 400
Dust Control: During construction this site will bevery dusty unless adust control plan ismplace, u`water the property and
onsite roadways. This site is surrounded by existing houses and they must be protected from dust etc during construction.
onsite construction parking: There must bconsite parking for construction vehicles and workers. The streets are too narrow
to allow all day parking and will impede the local residents ability to leave or return to their driveways. xowell asemergency
vehicle need access u`the area.
Road Conditions and Construction Traffic: The contractor under the Highway Traffic Act is required u`keep the roadway clear
of mud and debris (the roadway should be cleaned at least twice a day during construction) until the lot is paved. There should
be No Construction traffic signs posted on Mackenzie, Sheldon, Raymond, Edmund, Jackson and Fairmont. All
construction traffic must use Montgomery uzBrentwood the Brentwood to1aofor entry tothe site.
Demolition: Demolition ofz3hBrentwood and 1as z*zJackson Ave. must happen zuthe `amctime, not instages asinthe
proposal. If any of these houses are left abandoned they will attract squatters as the homeless shelter isalmost within sight.
Building Permit: The developer wants tudothis /nzphases. Build the sunits that back unu`the Brentwood properties and
/osparking spaces. This implies oomethat they don't have the money orunwilling mspend the money mbuild this out all at
the same time. We do not want this to end up like the building on Fergus Ave. in Kitchener, bankrupt not complete or even
enclosed from the weather left /orot. The project must hebuilt out inasingle phase with atimeline of2Syears from when
the first home isdemolished tooccupancy permits issued for all the units. nthis goes inaphases the construction timeline
may besyears, not fair tothe neighbouring property owners. All the buildings scheduled for demolition should bctaken down
at the same time, sowedon't have abandon houses »oattract problems. This site should bebuilt out completely before
Kitchener allows occupancy.
There should also be an adjusted work time for the site This is in the middle of a neighbourhood work should only be
permitted from uo:0ou,17moMonday mFriday. The only work allowed unthe weekends urstatutory holiday isinterior work
unanenclosed building.
As stated before that this bliterally inthe middle of a neighbourhood completely surrounded by houses.
|sthere any guarantee that uproject does not end uvlike the Condo building onFergus Ave.? Work stopped, building not
complete or even weathered in. The building is left to rot.
Traffic Patterns and Parking: Fire Routes must be established on Brentwood, Jackson, Fairmount and Montgomery surrounding
Page 341 of 400
Will the area streets, Montgomery, Brentwood, Jackson, Edmund, Raymond, Sheldon and McKenzie able /ocarry the
increased traffic? There is all ready a traffic jam on Montgomery in the morning and afternoon for drop off and pick up of
Eastwood students. They don't tend mpay attention tothe noexit sign inEastwood parking lot nntoMontgomery.
The city should put a4way stop at Jackson and Brentwood. Along with away stops a/Brentwood and Edmund and
Brentwood and Raymond to discourage traffic frorn the complex using Brentwood to Sheldon to Mackenzie to Ottawa. The
traffic should heencouraged maoBrentwood mMontgomery tvWeber,
One ofmvbiggest concerns is after housing isapproved for all the open space inthe city when will someone turn mthe city
parks for space, Cherry Park, an,xhaup«Park and even Montgomery Park, this housing 'uall costs ugoing tnchange Kitchener
into Mississauga and | don't want tusee that.
mclosing |just ask that you follow the present Zoning regulations regarding this project and keep the requirements as stated
inthe plan. Just reminder you work for the taxpayers inthe City ofKitchener nottheFederal,Pmvincia|orRegona|
I will gladly discuss any and all of this if anyone wishes.
]knLagumey
Page 342 of 400
Fromm: Stephanie Stretch
Sent: Monday, February 26,2O24l:SSPK4
To: Brian Bateman
Subject: FW: Jackson Avenue Development
From: paLdb|ue
Sent Thursday, February 22,2O249:23AK4
To: Stephanie Stretch <Stephanie.Stretch@kitohener.ca>
Subject: Jackson Avenue Development
You don't often get email from
Good morning Stephanie,
I attended the meeting that was held last night and very disappointed with the response
received from the traffic survey!!
When this was completed did anyone take into account the narrowing of McKenzie Avenue?
Already it has become an issue with parking allowed on one side of the road
I welcome all councilors to try to drive down the street when there are events being held at the
Auditorium!
With the increase of traffic as the result of this new development it will be an accident waiting
tohappen, asthis isthe shortest route for cars tnaccess the expressway.
As it is when there are cars parked on the street and another car is coming from Sheldon Ave.
and feel they have the right away and there is certainly no common courtesy anymore, you
have to try to pull over with little room,
To add to this frustration I followed a Amazon driver one day as I came home for lunch as he
blocked the street to do a delivery and then got back in his van and moved up 2 houses to
repeat exactly the same thing.
Imagine this happening with more cars trying to get to Ottawa street it will cause frustration
and accidents!
I live on the corner of Brentwood and Sheldon Ave and already witness the speed that cars
drive onSheldon Ave.
When they narrowed Sheldon a few years ago we asked for speed bumps and it was turned
down as911calls are frequent tothe Condominium atthe end ofSheldon.
Page 343 of 400
They are now going to development more housing units at the end of Sheldon which will now
increase the volume even more.
Further more cars come down Montgomery from Weber to Fairmont to access the expressway
quicker as there is only 1 stop sign.
They fly down Fairmount and Sheldon which I witness all the time when I am out walking!
I truly understand that we need more housing however, is it not bad enough that we have had
an increase of crime because of One Roof and then the Homeless Shelter and now this?
The city has made our beautiful neighbourhood full of crime and now they want to cause
accidents, and what will it take to open their eyes. A lost of life?
Patti Blue
Page 344 of 400
From: Stephanie Stretch
Sent: Monday, February 262O341:2GPK8
To: Brian Bateman
Subject: FW: Jackson street development
----- Original Message ---
Fmm: Cathy Tim merman
Sent: Saturday, February 24,2O245:O2PK4
To: Stephanie Stretch <Stephanie.Stretch@ki1cheneccm>
Subject: Jackson street development
[You don't often get email from Learn why this isimportant at
Sent from myWad
This development is much too large for the site and will fundamentally change the very nature of our
neighbourhood. I am in favour of infills but this is much too large and we already have many proposals
for developments inour neighbourhood.
Page 345 of 400
From: Stephanie Stretch
Sent: Friday, February 23, 2024 11:49 AM
To: Brian Bateman
Subject: Fwd: 135 Jackson Ave.
Councillor, r 10 1 Office of - Mayor and Councilof
r
Customers can nowconnect with the City of Kitchener anytime by calling
the 24/7 Corporate Contact Centre at 519-741-2345
From:
- 1 -
From: Jim Laturney
Sent: Friday, February 23, 2024 10:34:57 AM
To: Mayor <mayor@kitchener.ca>; Stephanie Stretch <Stephanie.Stretch@kitchener.ca>
Subject: 135 Jackson Ave.
Some people who received this message don't often get email from LLarn whthis is im ortant
Mr.Mayor:
I attended the Zoom meeting on Feb. 21 concerning the proposed development of 135
Jackson Ave. To say the least I'm appalled at the pro developer attitude I sensed from the City
of Kitchener staff at the meeting. If this meeting was to ally the fears and concerns about this
project it did not work in fact it probably made the neighbourhood residents more
concerned. If appears this is a done deal and the meeting was a smoke screen because it was
probably required to happen.
The meeting convener never pushed any one from the developer's people or Kitchener staff
to fully answer a question. All the questions posed at the end of the meeting were not
answered. There was never an end time published for the meeting I expected the meeting to
continue until all the questions were answered. I know that this site will be developed but it
should conform to neighbourhood and City standards.
When city staff say they are negotiating with the developer on certain aspects of the project
it makes me crazy. There are certain rules and regulations in place concerning zoning for RES5
if the developer submits non -conforming plans they should have been sent back for
revisions. With their request for 12.5 m tall building and the property being 2 m higher than
the adjacent properties on Montgomery it will appear to be a 5 story building in their back
yard. The height for RESS is 11m If anything this is too high compared to existing properties,
9m would be more acceptable I will include a rendered drawing about the height. The
Neighbourhood Assc. have suggested an in person meeting on the site at 135 Jackson with you,
Page 346 of 400
councilor Stretch and any from the planning department who may add information. This will
put everything we have been talking about in real life not an abstract set of drawings.
A response from you would be appreciated concerning our concerns and a possible meeting
time and date.
Jim Laturney
Page 347 of 400
From: HergottvVENEENNNNOM
Sent: K8onday, February 26, 20249:13AK8
To: Brian Bateman
Subject: Jackson Ave Project
You don't often get email
Good morning.
|mmstill not understanding why there needs tobeso many units inalot inthe middle ofaquaint
neighbourhood block. With not enough parking spaces. Residents/visitors/ho|idayetc gatherings there
is just setting up parking issues in and around the neighbourhood. Bike parking? What are you trying to
attract? VVeare "cento|"Kitchener NOT downtown Kitchener.
Front page of the paper Friday February 23, 2024: "Kitchener exceeds housing target". Why are you
allowing this cramming in as many units as you can into a quiet, well established neighborhood, that
clearly was already planned with apartment buildings (that fit in) for extra housing, as well as a high rise
condo atthe end ofSheldon Ave.
Why are single dwelling townhouses that would fit in the hood, not being considered? Something for
Canadian families that desperately want to own a home and raise their families. Not more "units" to be
bought, and rented causing more issues for everyone and by law (whose hands are clearly tied most of
the time)
And why are buildings planned around the property, instead of in the middle part of the property, thus
providing more space, privacy and noise control for already existing homes, that have been well
established and here for long time? No one answered the question about whether the existing brick
wall can beleft asis.
From the February 21st meeting, the traffic flow fellow -he spoke a lot without saying much, and
certainly not answering questions. The Montgomery/VVeberSt intersection is very busy now, especially
when Eastwood Collegiate is active. This is o main entry/exit(and only traffic light controlled) to our
neighbourhood. How can he even suggest that the extra traffic will only create a "moderate" impact???
Please do not ruin our hood.
8arbHergott
Page 348 of 400
From:
Barb HergotteNNEENMEEMM
Sent:
Monday, February Z6,2OZ412:OlPM
To:
Brian Bateman
Subject:
Jackson Avenue
You don't often get email
| forgot toadd another huge point:
If nicer townhouse units went in there, also the elderly and disabled demographic could have nice
housing options and perhaps remain in their beloved neighbourhood and community.
Why does everything have to be higher density than fits the space and neighbourhood??
This area has certainly done our part in diverse housing options.
Barb Hergott
Page 349 of 400
From: Andy Kheir
Sent: Saturday, February 24, 2024 3:27 PM
To: Mayor; Brian Bateman; Stephanie Stretch
Subject: Jackson Development Meeting
You don't often get email fronANIENJINJIMEMM Learn why this isimportant
Hello All,
Just to let you know, the sentiment from almost everyone in the neighbourhood is that
the meeting was highly highly unproductive and biased.
The fact that Brian was already in talks with the developer PRIOR to the meeting to
resolve issues proved this to many people - the city had already made a decision prior
to the meeting. This violates the city's OWN rules regarding development - the public
session is the FIRST discussion that should occur.
As said, the overwhelming majority of the residents believe that this development was
pre -approved, and comments frequently used such as "which is very close" did not help.
fa mog #r.4 1 ygyfa-j ml a I lr�ma LIL* il
Of specific concern (though there are MANY more) would be questions that were
deliberately side stepped:
- How can the studies include non -real world hypothetical measurements? A 10 minute
walk has NOTHING to do with the zones indicated in the meeting. The majority of the
10 minute zone cannot be walked in 45 minutes - REAL WORLD. This impacts mass
transit usage extrapolation, parking usage, and traffic usage in the neighbourhood.
- Why is a RAISED ground (it was raised for the current building) being used as the
baseline for the building height? This should be the common level.. i.e. - the level of the
houses on Brentwood and Montgomery. Either the' builder needs to re -level the land to
common height, or lower the buildings accordingly. The ground was ARTIFICIALLY
raised by a previous developer. As such, the maximum height should NOT be gauged
from the artificially raised level - never addressed.
- How does this development FIT WITH the neighbourhood? - this IS in the bylaws - it
should NOT be simply ignored because other items are spelled out.
- How are building scale bylaws/regulations/guideline being conformed to? This does
NOT comply with RIENS guidelines AT ALL, but side-stepped because OTHER
regulations comply - this is NOT how the city should make decisions ... this is like
saying that your allowed to drive on a road, so driving backwards is just a technicality -
breaking guidelines and regulations should NOT be overlooked! The city seems to be
whatever it wants, with complete disregard to its OWN regulations and guidelines -
READ THE RIENS REPORT - READ THE GUIDELINES! We never voted for this type
of development!!! No one would approve ruining established neighbourhoods at the
whim of out of town developers!
Page 350 of 400
Everyone I have spoken to is fed up with the city doing whatever it wants with complete
disregard to its own regulations, bylaws, and guideline!
Brian - we never voted for you, but you work for the CITY that represents the
RESIDENTS, not out of town developers!.
Barry - we voted for you - you represent US!
Stephanie - you were appointed to REPRESENT US - not the developer.
I think that the OVERWHELMING sentiment here is that the meeting was structured to
accomplish the developer's goals, and NOT to fulfill the real reason for having public
consult - we should have A REAL meeting addressing proper concerns! No PRE -
DISCUSSIONS with the developer! It should be in-person and MUCH longer! I know
dozens have emailed regarding the abysmal attitude of the meeting - including the
dismissive nature that Brian took!
This MASSIVE development INSIDE the neighbourhood proper is NOT wanted, not
NEEDED (we can review the numbers! - I can prove it!), and will result in a citizen revolt
against all counsellors and the mayor. Most people in this neighbourhood have a
massive amount of connections with other people in the city (they have been here up to
80 years, with their parents owning the house previously!).
This is not going to be the easy 'let's slide this development in' project that you are
hoping for.
Let's have a REAL meeting with OUR mayor and OUR counsellor to discuss our real
and valid concerns properly!
Stephanie and Mayor Barry - ruining neighbourhoods is NOT a good mandate to run a
city.
Andy Kheir
Page 351 of 400
From: Dan Scott���Nll
Thursday, '! I 46 •..
To:
Subject Proposed Jackson/Brentwood Development
You don't often get email from . Learn wew this i.s irnortant
Good afternoon Brian,
My name is Dan Scott. I live at Ave in Kitchener. About a block away from the proposed
project.
I understand and agree with the need to increase density within the city for better, more sustainable
urban environments.
From 2017 to 20211 was the site supervisor for a 66 unit, multiple building, medium density
development in Woodstock that shares many similarities with this proposed project. Drawing on that
experience 1 would like to make a few comments and concerns with the proposal.
1. 1 sincerely hope the artistic rendering of the playground remains. The development in Woodstock was
a block away from the nearest park however the kids were not permitted to venture that far and would
find inappropriate/dangerous places to play within the complex. Damaged buildings, belongings,
running infront of cars, and thus resentment from many parties to the kids hurt the community.
2. The number of parking spots to duelling units is concerning. The Woodstock project had 66 units and
5100 parking spaces (5 visitor incl). The city had trouble dealing with the spill over of the parking onto
neighboring streets. Congestion and winter night parking was the big issues. With the price of housing,
even one bedrooms are often shared by two young professionals which have their own vehicles. The
vast proximity to the LRT, the distance to many places of work, and the expressway close by create a
trifecta of commuter vehicle demands. I would rather see taller buildings and more parking spots for
such a development. The Woodstock development also included handicap parking spots; I have never
seen them utilized due to the nature of the building layout and architecture.
3. Traffic flow management seems to be very poor for this development. Entrances and exits are within
the neighborhood when the development is next to a less developed road, Montgomery, doesn't
optimize traffic flow. Improving this aspect will definitely help fend off resistance from the closest
neighbours. I understand the developer doesn't have direct access, however I hope this can be rectified
to benefit everyone.
4. Fence height. While I don't have a dog in this one whatsoever, helping the neighbours keep their
privacy with a taller fence should help fend off local resistance as well.
I'm sorry if there have been amendments to the plan that were discussed last night with the zoom
meeting. I was unable to attend the event.
If you want to speak further on this issue, my cell is
Cheers,
Page 352 of 400
From: McOMENNONNINININEM
Sent Wednesday, March 6,ZOZ41I:17AM
To: Brian Bateman
Subject: Questions for March l0unofficial meeting
Attachments: Questions for March 1O24unofficial meedng.pdf
m
Good morning K4rBateman.
For your records please find the attached questions submitted to Councillor Stretch for the March 10
meeting.
A.
Page 353 of 400
Questions for Marchl 0/24 unofficial meeting -Proposed Development 135-161 Jackson
& 136 Brentwood Ave. Kitchener
Feb 5/24
From Neighbourhood meeting:
Next Steps
1. If you haven't provided comments yet, please email or call Brian Bateman with your comments.
2. City staff will evaluate feedback from this meeting.
3. Staff will discuss outstanding issues and possible solutions with the applicant.
4. City Staff will prepare a report and recommendation that will consider community feedback, for the
Planning & Strategic Initiative Committee's consideration at the statutory public meeting.
5. City council will decide the Zoning By-law Amendment and The Region will decide the official plan
Amendment
What is the purpose of the Urban Design Manual?
Which 'City Staff' are evaluating our feedback?
Which issues are being discussed with the applicant?
What revisions are being recommended?
Will there be a revised design?
Will we have access to the 'City Staff' report?
Who is on the Planning & Strategic initiative Committee?
Will they walk around the neighbourhood before voting on April 22/24?
When is City Council voting on the zoning bylaw?
When is Regional Council voting on changes to the Official Plan?
Will they walk around the neighbourhood before voting on the amendments?
Does the proposal need to pass votes by all three groups in order to be built?
Please provide examples of similar development projects and how they were shaped
by the voice of the existing residents?
What strategies are most effective in facilitating these changes?
Please outline the appeal process for City Council decisions?
Please outline the appeal process for Region of Waterloo decisions?
What can we do now to prepare for the appeal process for both Civic and Regional
votes?
How long does an appeal to the Ontario Land Tribunal take?
Will the community have time to organize and seek an OLT appeal before construction
begins?
How does a community typically handle splitting the associated costs of an appeal?
Would the developer consider expanding the project to include the houses on
Fairmount & Brentwood? Or the entire block for that matter?
Page 354 of 400
From: Stella INNUMMENNUM
Sent Thureday, February 22,2OZ412:4OPIVI
/o: Brian Bateman
Subject: RE: 135-16lJackson Ave and 1]6Brentwood Ave
You dum,�(en �?,ete==
Hi Brian,
| was not able to attend the zoom meeting.
Is there a list of answers to the questions residents submitted?
Warm regards,
Stella
On Feb 12, 2024 10:52 a.m., Brian Bateman <Brian.Bateman@kitchener.ca> wrote:
Thankyou cwyour comweNs. They will be taken mmUlerC#nsiden*Uon. mapeyoLi ir,)naftem6the
Neighbourhood Meeting onthe 21't,
City of Kitchener
From: Stella
To: Brian Bateman <Brian. Bateman@ kitchener.ca>; Internet - Council (SM) <council@ kitchener.ca>
Subject: 135-161 Jackson Ave and 136 Brentwood Ave
Some people who received d`umessamedun'toftengetemai| frorw
Hello Brian and Councillor,
Page 355 of 400
I am submitting my concerns regarding 135-161 Jackson Ave and 136 Brentwood Ave.
When the single family home across the street from me was converted to a rental duplex we were
originally told by the building department that the occupancy limit was 8. Inquiries were made when
neighbours noticed more people and suddenly we were told the occupancy limit was 10. There are
currently more than 10 people residing in that duplex but the building department or the city does not
monitor or do anything about it.
1. Who is going to monitor the occupancy limit of the units being proposed?
2. How many of the units are rentals?
3. The increase to the number of people living in the area will negatively impact the neighbourhood.
This proposed development istoo large.
4. The current greenspace available to local people is already too small for the current population of
the neighbourhood. No one from the city regularly monitors Mongomery Park; perhaps if it were
monitored vehicles would not illegally park on and ruin the grass by the tennis courts.
5. The increase in traffic will negatively impact the neighbourhood.
6. This neighbourhood has already seen an increase in traffic do to the city approving zoning changes
and development even though over 99% of the residents were opposed; who is representing the
people who live here?
7. Are there other rental properties in the neighbourhood owned by this developer? If so, are the
properties maintained toKitchener Property Standards?
Page 356 of 400
8. In the last few years many single family homes that have sold in the area have become slum rentals;
garbage on the properties, parking on front lawns, no one shovelling the sidewalks, etc. How can we
trust the city to look after the current residents interests when nothing is currently being done to
protect our property values and standards.
9. | would like iosee less than half dwelling units proposed and more outdoor green space mnthe
development property for its future residents.
10. A huge decline in the number of toads has occurred surrounding the proposed development area.
This has taken place since the development properties were purchased. Has anyone from the city
checked into toad or other species decline in the area after this land was purchased?
Warm regards,
Stella
Page 357 of 400
From: Brian Bateman
Sent: Tuesday, March 12, 2024 4:06 PM
To: 'Cathy Scott'
Subject: RE: infill development in the Eastwood neighbourhood
Hi Cathy,
Thank you for your comments. They will be recorded for the file and be taken under
Please note that the subject lands are zoned RES -5 which allows the use of multiple
dwellings (since 1994) and therefore the owner could develop these lands with townhouses through a
Site Plan Approval process only. This would not require Council's approval or public input since it would
comply with zoning. What he is asking for requiring Council's approval however is not increased unit
density or a different use, but a change to the zoning regulations to allow for an increase in building
height from 3 to 3.5 storeys (11m -12.5m) and a corresponding increase in above ground building floor
space ratio from 0.6 to 1.0. This is being requested so that the basement level can be raised 5 feet above
ground level to allow natural light into basement units. To try and put this into perspective, if the
basement level was fully underground, the building height and floor space ratio would less meaning this
development would likely comply with the zoning regulations with no change in use, building form and
layout or building massing from what is being proposed. In other words, the number of units could be
similar in a stacked townhouse building form under the as -of -right zoning scenario. Given this, the
question from Planning's perspective is, "does raising the building height 1.5 metres and a
corresponding increase in building area create any further impacts than what would already be allowed
as -of -right through the zoning that's in place"? That is what is being assessed and it will require Council's
approval with public input. Hope this information sheds some understanding of this application.
Brian RPP
SeniorPlanner
City of Kitchener
519-741-2200 x7869,
00000000 0�1/lll
From: Cathy Scott
Sent: Tuesday, March 12, 2024 2:09 PM
To: Brian Bateman <Brian,Bate man 0kitchener.ca>
Subject: infill development in the Eastwood neighbourhood
You don't often get email from ipgLAh this is im rtant
Hello, Mr. Bateman
I am becoming increasingly concerned at the amount of development that is being approved within, and
adjacent to, this residential neighborhood, which is bounded by Ottawa St., the Expressway, Weber St.
E., and Montgomery Ave.
One developer is buying houses in this neighbourhood whenever they come up for sale, to assemble
land in three areas of the neighbourhood, and is proposing to add
three townhouse developments, totalling 181 stacked townhouses.
Page 358 of 400
My concerns are as follows:
One of these developments is being added to the end of Sheldon Ave., a dead-end street, at the end of
which are presently an eight storey condo building and a multi-storey rental building. Sheldon Ave. is
the primary entrance/exit road for these buildings. The future development, already underway, will
add at least 35 cars to the traffic on this street, as well as street parking, since there is limited parking on
the property of the townhouse development. Parking and traffic are concerns about this development,
particularly in view of the other two developments which are proposed
- Two of these developments would be added to areas .in the middle of residential blocks, between the
backyards of existing houses. One concern is that these are areas that accommodate underground
water, which flows from higher land west of Ottawa St. These areas currently absorb water run-off, as
they are low-lying areas which receive run-off from the higher area west of Ottawa St. I am concerned
that this water will have nowhere to go, but will back up underground and into the yards and
basements of the surrounding houses. I asked about this at the online meeting with the developer and
city staff. The developer's engineer did not seem aware of the presence of underground water, but said
there would be a 'tank' underground to collect run-off. There is currently a pond on the property, which
collects water. I am concerned that an underground tank will be inadequate to avoid problems with
run-off, particularly in anticipation of more severe weather events, associated with climate change.
- I am concerned that the development currently pending approval (on Jackson and Brentwood Sts.) wili
build 124 townhouses on 2.8 acres, which is higher than the allowed density, and it will pave over most
of the property for parking lot. There are insufficient parking spots for residents' and visitors' parking,
which I anticipate will spill out onto the surrounding streets. The density of this development,
the concentration of traffic, and increased noise will reduce privacy, quality of life and property values
of the surrounding residences.
Another major concern is that the developer is proposing only one -bedroom and two-bedroom units in
all these developments, which do not allow for family accommodation, but does allow the developer to
maximize profits, at the expense of loss of greenspace and quality of the neighbourhood. Most alarming
is the lack of any deeply affordable housing.
I want to assure you that I am very much in favour of increasing the housing supply in Kitchener, and in
favour of infill development rather than sprawling onto farm land and other environmentally sensitive
lands. I strongly oppose the Ford government's careless approach to increasing our housing supply. I
am aware of the pressure they are exerting on municipalities and of the frustration of dealing with the
Ontario Land Tribunal.
However, this level of intensity for a small neighbourhood must be reconsidered in view of the many
highrise projects planned for the adjacent lands on Weber St., Ottawa St. and King St., all of which are
within half a kilometre of the Eastwood Neighbourhood. Several highrises are planned for Montgomery
Ave. between Weber St.,and King St., as well as the land of the former Schwaben Club. There are
highrises planned for three corners of King and Ottawa, which will fill the blocks along Ottawa St., from
Charles St. to Weber St. Further highrises are planned for King and Borden, Charles and Sydney, and,
most recently, for King and Sydney. Surely there must be some consideration for preserving some
greenspace, some sense of community and quality of residential life. I think that the City of Kitchener
can increase housing supply with gentler density, without turning the centre of the city into the concrete
jungle that exists in downtown Toronto.
Page 359 of 400
I urge you, the planning department and City Council to give mine and my neighbours' concern the
weight they deserve, to avoid these detrimental effects on the quality of our neighbourhood, which, I
believe, can be avoided.
Catherine Scott
Page 360 of 400
From: Andy KheirJ110111MIJBININUM
Sent: Saturday, February 24, 2024 3:31 PM
To: Mayor; Brian Bateman; Stephanie Stretch
Subject: Re: Jackson Development Meeting
Attachments: DSD—PLAN—UD_10_Multiple_Residential.pdf;
DSD—PLAN—Urban—Design_Manual.pdf
You don't often get email fromommmmmmom Learn &ty_thi is im octant
.. including attachments for review
On Saturday, February 24, 2024 at 03:26:37 p.m. EST, Andy Kheir <andykheir@rogers.com> wrote:
Just to let you know, the sentiment from almost everyone in the neighbourhood is that
the meeting was highly highly unproductive and biased.
The fact that Brian was already in talks with the developer PRIOR to the meeting to
resolve issues proved this to many people - the city had already made a decision prior
to the meeting. This violates the city's OWN rules regarding development - the public
session is the FIRST discussion that should occur.
As said, the overwhelming majority of the residents believe that this development was
pre -approved, and comments frequently used such as "which is very close" did not help.
At a minimum, the zoning variances are wholly opposed by almost everyone here. We
also believe that the city is NOT listening to its OWN mandates. See attached.
Of specific concern (though there are MANY more) would be questions that were
deliberately side stepped:
- How can the studies, include non -real world hypothetical rineasurements? A, 10 minute
walk has, NOTHING to do with the zones indicated in the meeting. The imajority, of the
10 minute, zone cannot be walked in 45 minutes - REAL WORLD,, This impacts mass
transit usage extra pola flo n, parking usage, and traffic usage in the neighbourhood,
-Wby is a RAISED ground (it was, raised for the current building) being used as the
baseline for, the building height? This should be, the, comrnon, level.. i[,e, - the level of the
houses on Brentwood and Montgomery. Either the builder needs to re -level the land to
common height, or lower the buildings accordingly. The ground was ARTIFICIALLY
raised by a previous developer. As such, the maximum height should NOT be gauged
from the artificially raised level - never addressed.
- How does this development FIT WITH the neighbourhood? - this IS in the bylaws - it
should NOT be simply ignored because other items are spelled out.
- How are building scale bylaws/regulations/guideline being conformed to? This does
NOT comply with RIENS guidelines AT ALL, but side-stepped because OTHER
regulations comply - this is NOT how the city should make decisions ... this is like
saying that your allowed to drive on a road, so driving backwards is just a technicality -
Page 361 of 400
breaking guidelines and regulations should NOT be overlooked! The city seems to be
whatever it wants, with complete disregard to its OWN regulations and guidelines -
READ THE RIENS REPORT - READ THE GUIDELINES! We never voted for this type
of development!!! No one would approve ruining established neighbourhoods at the
whim of out of town developers!
Everyone I have spoken to is fed up with the city doing whatever it wants with complete
disregard to its own regulations, bylaws, and guideline!
Brian - we never voted for you, but you work for the CITY that represents the
RESIDENTS, not out of town developers!.
Barry - we voted for you - you represent US!
Stephanie - you were appointed to REPRESENT US - not the developer
I think that the OVERWHELMING sentiment here is that the meeting was structured to
accomplish the developer's goals, and NOT to fulfill the real reason for having public
consult - we should have A REAL meeting addressing proper concerns! No PRE -
DISCUSSIONS with the developer! It should be in-person and MUCH longer! I know
dozens have emailed regarding the abysmal attitude of the meeting - including the
dismissive nature that Brian took!
This MASSIVE development INSIDE the neighbourhood proper is NOT wanted, not
NEEDED (we can review the numbers! - I can prove ifl), and will result in a citizen revol']
against all counsellors and the mayor. Most people in this neighbourhood have a
massive amount of connections with other people in the city (they have been here up to
80 years, with their parents owning the house previously!).
This is not going to be the easy 'let's slide this development in' project that you are
hoping for.
Let's have a REAL meeting with OUR mayor and OUR counsellor to discuss our real
and valid concerns properly!
Stephanie and Mayor Barry - ruining neighbourhoods is NOT a good mandate to run a
city.
Andv Kheir
Page 362 of 400
Cover Letter
Maps showing approved
Rockway Centre
My concerns about project and requirements for building the
project
Section 7 Residential zones City Of Kitchener as of Mairch
2,1/22
Page 363 of 400
'135 - 161 Jackson & 136 Brentwood
Ward 10 City Councillor Stephanie Stretch:
This is my opinion and in no way do I speak for the Eastwood Neighbourhood
Association or area residents.
By no means is, this project an altruistic endeavour to add nor housing stock in,
Kitchener, This project is to inaxifnize ttte developers Return on investment, this Is not
necessarily a bad thing but not on the backs of the residents on the adjacent
properties. Any, Return on Investment shmi1d come from the people Who buy these,
units, First If this was altruistic the design would have beert to city specifications With 4
3 floor w',,,,flI( up rentals pface(l In the centre of the lot with parking around but it's not.
If the developer designed the project to RES5 design criteria the zone change would
have gone thru and there could have been shovels in the ground this April. They want
to squeeze an extra floor per block meaning an extra 40 units meaning approximately
16 million dollars in sales at the cost of the neighbours privacy.
The residents on the adjacent properties are the ones going to pay for this by loss
of privacy in their own back yards.
In the past few years I do not believe that any project has been approved without
variances to the zoning regulations or change to the Official Plan. It may be parking at
less than 1.1 / unit, FSR greater than .6, height allowance to be taller and set backs
s,"c')duced., Flow cart 11andicap parking spaces and the 4 at the Jackson Ave, town
houses be hicluded as they are not "public" parking. I he Ci,ty of Kitchenew and by,
extension its council is to 1)1arne for all this cornirig tip pass,. Pail!: of the planriing team
for the developer on this project
fr[ClUdes, a relatively recent City of l(itchenier Planning
Department en'iployee. She stiot,M have 10"lown or have knownwhere to find the IIFS5
zoning spw',�s so I assurne they jusit dbck,led to Ignore, the specs, t[tely are -%-Ilowrl, on the
drawings
The pwl- of 135 Jackso,ii Ave. on to Montgomery is 3 rn [,flgller tljan thee,
!,.jround level for the reslidertces on Motitgoniery, 'rlie developer'.s, design tearg-ts'aid
they WOU'd reduce this Iii 2, m dL1fl['1g Construct "ion, this riteansthe ivilts, ba,cklng on'to
Montgoi riery will only be 14,5 rn above fl* rearyards, "T"hLe, Is equivalent to a 5, story
Nfliding, loorrning over thein, Even at 11 rn, which is the niax heigl-ft ft')r RES5 it will be
13 ra, There are, 4 balconies overlooldngthe adjacent propertles Witt) a lleigi"It of at
least of 5 m above Choir yards., If block E was tui i wd and corinected,to block D it
would fit witl'i a 6 rn set back, on 11"ie west side of the IoL To reduce overview on to the
adjacent lots an Fairmont intense evergreen PJarifirig to, give eweiyone; privacy.
Blocks A, B and C meet the required set backs, the elevation of Block C is 13.220 m as
per drawing 83,3 this is even OUtside of the 12.5 carr request, To reduce overview of
Page 364 of 400
adjacent yards on Brentwood I would suggest intensive evergreen planting of treesVI
least 6 rn in height.
To approve this project it should conform to all of the RES5 design criteria and
M-21 00,
This is an infill build it should have more controls on the design and building than a
new build in a large open area.
IMM��
Page 365 of 400
366 of 400
Page 367 of 400
csacn .
0
2.cad
S2.
r
it
(^
CR
t? c
r°+
b. �
w•
ca
t a
:ra
N�
L
cc
Page 367 of 400
135-161 Jackson Ave. &'136 Brentwood Ave.
Does everyone at this meeting wish this development was not going to happen? Yes
Everyone at the meeting realize there is going to be some sort of development at this
site may not this one but development no less.
Our purpose is to have this done in manner that will blend in with the neighbourhood
and
a complete loss of privacy.
All we want is the developer and the City of Kitchener to follow the zoning rules they
established in 2022.
The Federal, Provincial, Regional and Murkilpall governments all have been pushing for
more housing at all costs, Ail branches of governmerit, have piEilled a number for now
housing out of the air and are PUstflng to rneet his, at all Costs, there will be, a. Federal,
efection smr°i. Even if the City of Kitchener did not allow the project it, is, a, good bet
that 11would be appealed and get a Ministers exemption (like the Amazon building in,
Blair),
Definitions
Cluster Townhouse - means as multiple dwelling divided vertically into three or more townhouges by
common wally which prevent internal access between units- This shall not include as street townhouse.
Multiple Residential - a building containing three or more dwelling units,
Standards
-For Multiple Residential buildings the setback should be JODrnfor atkything above 2
storeys tall, regardless q
,f height, and especially when adjacera to single detachedproperdes.
o7he proposed design does achieve the bare minimumqf 3,0 m (<10Jeet) between apartment buildings.
-Max height should be limited tar .11.(1 m.
-The preferred number ofilwelling units should ranv, e between 4-6 unity within a block. Additional
units to a =airnum of 8 units per block rmiy be considered subject to providing appropriate enhanced
design details.
-Increase rear yard set --back to 10 rnetres for 3 storey units backing onto single detached properties.
Performance and
The developer should be required to submit a performance bond to the City of
Kitchener of the project cost plus 10%. This wHI ensure the project will be completed
in a timely manner and not left unfinished Ilike the project on Fergus Ave, Kitchener
Trees
Save I 01,1,fi r'nore trees as fisted 1013,1014, 4,02, 403, 405, 421 1, 422, 423, 4,24, 425, 426,
il27,,472,,4495rand 49(,'ibesavticl, ltinct tlxizZling in
Ser,3401"I 3,1 of tW Arborist Report'IIlat Iffies oil adjacent lots are listed frr GoGd
(',',,0mJ[fl.o,n while Hle sul)iect s1tethey are, fistecl as FaIr. Betore, cormitrUction starts the
trees shoul'd be pruned, ferfilized and protan trod at least'as far as the drip line, The
owner stwuld be nxIlAred to have thc,) re,,niairiing trees r',)nd trees on x1jacent propmty
Page 368 of 400
impacteN by their construction taken care of for 5 years. If a tree were to die or have t*
be removed it must be replaced by a tree with at least a 5" diameter.
Fencing
The existing brick fence to remain and be kept in good condition. Any new fencing
installed is to match the existing brick fence and comply to city by-law concerning
fencing. The property is to be fenced where it meets adjacent properties.
Demolition
When demolition occurs all structures must be removed at the same time as soon as
the house is unoccupied. This is to prevent squatters and campers from setting up. If
the structures are not removed as soon as the become unoccupied the owner must
supply security to prevent squatters and campers.
On-site Parking
The developer/contractor should be responsible to have on site parking not on street
parking for workers and construction vehicles,
Road Conditions
The Contractor by law (Highway Traffic Act) is responsible to keep the streets clean of
mud etc. make sure this is enforced, The street should be cleaned at least once a day
more if required,
Parking
124 parking spots are not enough there should be at least 128 to accommodate the
116 units in the blocks, f&nflles with 2 cars and visitors, The parking plan includes 4
parking spaces in front of Jackson Ave, townhouses unless these are public spaces
they should riot be included or the 6 Handicap spaces
Set Back
According to section 10 of the City of Kitchener Urban Design Manual id more than 2
stories the set back should be 10m not the 6m proposed.
Is the set back to the houses on Brentwood Ave. considered side or rear set back as
the address is 135 Jackson Ave, or a rear set back as it is the rear of the 3 blocks.
Building Height
The proposed height of 12.5m is above the gm in the Manual. At 11 m the buildings
will tower over the adjacent homes as the property under development is considerably
higher. This property is 320 m above sea level and the adjacent properties are 317 rm
City of Kitchener RES5 zoning maximum height is 11 m and a max of 3 stories. Zoning
Section 7 Table 7-6,
Dust Control
A dust control policy and plan must be in place before, construction or site preparation
starts. This site is surrounded by housing and their properties and health rnust be
Page 369 of 400
respected and protected. This needs to be enforced by Kitchener By-law enforcement
officers.
Fire Routes
Fir6 Routes on Brentwoo �_Jadwc
project should be in place before construction starts.
Ontario Disabilities Act
Are the ground floor units accessible under the ODA, Is this not a requirement?
Why have 6 I-landIcap spaces and no access to the Units,
it of Kitchener Urban Design Manual
Our problems started when the city planning department received the drawings and
did not follow the manuaL They should have checked them and then returnedthe
drawings to the developer with a note. "This project does not meet the existing
requirements of the zoning, Please make adjustments and re file if you desire,"
Page 370 of 400
Definitions
Cluster Townhouse — means a multiple dwelling divided vertically into three or more townhouses by
common walls which prevent internal access between units. This shall not include a street townhouse.
Hu"Ifilde"?, Residential builifingg three or mop,,, elwelfingx iofits.
Standards
-For Multiple Residential buildings the setback should be 10-Omfor anything above 2
storeys tall, regardless of height, and especially when adjacent to single detached properties.
-The proposed design does achieve the hare minimum of 3.0 m (< 10 between apartment buildings.
-Max height should be limited to 11.0 m.
-The preferred number of dwelling units should range between 4-6 units within a block. Additional
units to a maximum of 8 units per block may be considered subject to providing appropriate enhanced
design details.
-Increase rear yard set -back to 10 metres for 3 storey units backing onto single detached properties.
From: https://www.kitchener.ca/..Jdevelopmen..Jurban-desigii.aspx
https://Nvww.kitchener.cal.,JDSD—PIAN�_Urban Design__Manual...
Section 10
Mid -Rise Buildings (4-8 storeys)
.10.2.1 COMPATIB&ITY
Massing & Placement
Provide massing that responds to the existing and planned context of the area, including concentrating
height and mass toward more intensive adjacent areas, and responding to the character and rhythms of
low rise adjacent areas.
Scale & Transition
Complement adjacent built form through compatible height, scale, building length, massing, and
materials.
Sensitively transition to surrounding urban contexts, accounting for both the existing context and the
planned vision for an area.
Implement design cues (materials, architectural features, colours, rhythms)from good surrounding
built form.
Implement Setbacks (from property lines) and Stepbacks (from the edge of the base to zipper -level
storeys) to help achieve good transitions.
Mid -rise buildings are to have a human -scaled relationship to the public realm.
In areas with existing or planned tall and/or mid -rise buildings, Relative Height, Separation, Overlook
a4d.Orientation should all be considered as factors contributing to good compatible design, not just on
�an:irzdividual site but throughout an,'qrra.
Base Design
Integrate above ground structured parking into the base design and place it behind active uses along
street edges. Refer to the Design for Structured Parking section of this manual.
Where it is not feasible to integrate service/utility/parking activities underground or within the building
mass, use high-quality architectural elements and landscape design to screen these activitiesom
public view and limit unwanted activity.
Maintain established or planned setbacks to create continuous street walls.
Building Design
Page 371 of 400
Separation refers to the physical and perceived space between a tower and its surroundings. Achieving
adequate separation requires a unified design approach covering the following interdependent
considerations; Physical Separation and Tower Overlook.
Physical Separation is the measured setback in metres from a tall building tower's faces to its side and
rear property lines, or to the centre line of an abutting lane, trail or easement.
Physical Separation is calculated by multiplying the buildings Height by the tower Length and dividing
by 200.
When adjacent towers are on the same site, the total Separation between towers is to be calculated as
the sum of each individual Physical Separation,
Overlook
Mitigate the actual and perceived massing impacts of a mid -rise building by breaking up the mass
horizontally and vertically, through the creative 'incorporation of changes in materials, balcony and
floor plate design, architectural features and unitlamenity locations.
Provide stepbacksfor upper storeys where a mid -rise building is taller than the existing or planned
streetline height for- that area.
Provide rear and side stepbacks for upper storeys to provide contextually appropriate transitions from
mid -rise buildings to lower -rise surrounding neighbourhoods.
Provide side stepbacks for upper storeys where appropriate to create space between neighbouring mid -
rise buildings, increasing skyview and sunlight access.
Integrate mechanical penthouses with the overall architectural expression of the building. Where
visible, screen with high-quality materials and consider surrounding with a green roof, andlor rooftop
amenity space.
Avoid placing telecommunication equipment on mid -rise buildings.
Provide consistent, clean, contemporary massing and materials. Mid -rise buildings do not necessaril ' Y
benefitfrom extensive decorative elements or frequent changes in colour, material orfor ms -Smaller
mid -rise buildings in particular can quickly become too 'busy'visually.
Additional Information: It is understood that requiring stepbacks on multiple or all sides of a building
can be impractical. In some cases, the intent of stepback may be met through greater setbacks
instead.
10.3-5 CULTURAL & NATURAL HERITAGE
Many of Kitchener's most highly valued cultural heritage resources are mid -rise inform. Many others
are low-rise, but feature additions which create new hybrid mid -rise forms, New mid -rise buildings and
additions to existing heritage resources are to be respectful and complementary to Kitchener's
established cultural heritage assets and landscapes. This consideration should extend to existing
buildings without cultural heritage designations that may nevertheless have architectural or historical
value, including the appropriate conservation of styles and eras that may not currently be in favour
(such as brutalist, mid-century or late modernist, international -style, post-modernist, etc.)
Did You Know? Kitchener has been fortunate in that many of its cultural heritage assets have been
preserved. This has contributed enonnously to Kitchener's eclectic, vibrant identity. The ongoing
conservation of all building types, styles, and eras will be tremendously important in perpetuating this
identity as development accelerates,
10.3.6 SITE FUNCTION
Vehicular Access & Parking
Locate parking at the rear of buildings or underground, wherever possible. Some surface parking may
be provided to the side of buildings where necessary to meet minimum parking requirements, but that
Page 372 of 400
parking must be set back than the related buildings, be visually screened from the public realm
and shared spaces, and not cause conflicts of any kind with pedestrian or cyclist movement.
Locate structured parking entrances to the rear or side of buildings. Where garage access is provided
along a street frontage, ensure that it does not pose a pedestrian safety risk and that it is attractively
and positively integrated into the architectural design of the building.
Screen parking are asfrom the public realm and shared spaces with landscaping, low screening walls,
berms, and other well designed site features.
Provide secure, indoor bicycle parking, located for the convenience and safety of cyclists.
Design all site circulation for cyclists and pedestrians as well as motorists, including alternate
materials and colours for pedestrian crossings and sharrow markings where cyclists need to use drive
aisles to property access and move through a site. Cyclist and motorist circulation routes should be
separated wherever possible, favouring the safety and convenience of cyclists.
Sites should be limited to one vehicular access driveway wherever possible.
Servicing & Utilities
Incorporate all private, on-site servicing , meters and utility elements into the design of the building
and show on building elevation drawings as part of the site plan approvals process, Mere possible,
locate these elements ay from public view. Otherwise, screen these elements visually with
landscaping and architectural features that are integrated into the building design as a whole.
Waste & Recycling
Provide adequate space for waste vehicles and containers, Locations of waste containers should not
block fire routes, parking or sidewalks.
Waste and recycling storage areas are to be felly enclosed and placed where they are not visible from
the public realm.
Provide safe, weather protected areas for the sorting of recyclables. Include options for organic
materials wherever possible.
Where facilities are located outside, provide safe, continuous pedestrian access such that the use of
these is not frustrated by motorists (parking or driving) or snow storage locations, and that they can be
accessed without requiring passage through shared amenity spaces.
Low -Rise Multi -Residential
11 .1 .1 TCS WNHOUSES & LO RISE MULTI -RESIDENTIAL SITES
Introduction
Low-rise multi -residential buildings and townhouses provide important housing options for Kitchener
residents. Well designed low-rise multi -residential buildings help add density to new and established
neighbourhoods at a compatible, complementary scale. They help diversify communities, improve
housing variety and increase affordability.
It is important that townhouses and low-rise multi -residential buildings integrate into their It
neighbourhoods and that the people who live there are made to feel like they belong. This includes
having an active and direct relationship with the public realm, sidewalks, trails and open spaces. It
rneans designing low-rise multi -residential buildings for urban life and a human experience; to be
designedfor pedestrians, cyclists and transit users.
What is a Low -Rise Multi -Res Building?
Townhouses and Low-rise multi -residential buildings exist in many forms. These typologies are listed
below, Low-rise multi -residential buildings are three storeys orfewer, except along arterial roads,
where they may be up tofour storeys in height.
Typologies
Page 373 of 400
Low Rise Hybrid Buildings Low rise hybrid buildings are typically 3 to 4 storeys in height and share
side and back walls and have units stacked vertically. Ground level units have direct access whereas
upper units gain access through a shared entrance,
A Vision, for
Townhouses and Low-rise multi -residential buildings are important as they help create a transition
between mid -and -high-rise buildings and lower density neighbourhoods. They can bring activity and
continuity to the streestcape when designed as an integrated, unified part of their neighbourhood, Low-
rise multi -residential buildings are also a valuable alternative to taller for when seeking to achieve
greater densities in established or new low-rise neighbourhoods.
Low-rise multi -residential buildings are to be designed with a rational and specific architectural
intent. This means that whatever their visual style, buildings are to be nzassed, clad, articulated and
detailed authentically, such that they reflect the needs, behaviours and tendencies of both occupants
and community members, Architectural elements are to be integrated rather than decorative. They are
to be complementary of neighbourhood character but not direct replications of existing features,
particularly where a change in typology (such as taking a characteristic from a single detached house
and applying it to an apartment building) would render those features out of scale, awkward or
inappropriate,
11.2.1 COMPATIBILITY
Massing & Placement
All built form elements visible from the public realm or shared spaces are to be designed to a high level
of quality that Is consistent with the architectural expression of, the project as a whole.
Minimize the visual impact of parking through the thoughtful placement, orientation and articulation of
built for as well as garage, parking structure and surface parking design.
'
Provide appropriate visual variety in massing, materials, colours and articulation both within the
elements of individual unit and between units. Avoid repetition that hinders wayfinding or creates a
homogeneous built form, while also avoiding visual clutter.
For stacked townhouses, apartment buildings and hybrid buildings, a contemporary architectural style
is generally preferred.
Design unit accesses to be clearly defined, consistent, easy to identify and without adding unnecessary
visual clutter to a building's elevations.
Site buildings to face and activate the public realm. Buildings should occupy a minimum of 75% of a
site's street frontage. Front doors should directly address the street and public realm.
Provide direct building access front a public sidewalk to maintain visibility and connectivity. Limit
townhouse block length and provide greater articulation far longer blocks.
Design all building elevations facing tiny streets, parks, trails and open spaces to appear andfiinction
as fronts, including features such as porches, front doors and large windows.
New buildings should be consistent with the existing neighbourhood setback pattern.
Site buildings such that units in opposing blocks are consistently facing front -to -front andlor back--to-
back. Avoid back-to-ftontfacing relationships.
Provide a ininimum facing separation distance between buildings or blocks of units oj]2mfor P 2 -
storey buildings and Ism for 3 or 4 -storey buildings,
All available space between the street and the building is to be landscaped, including street trees and
entry features,
Avoid any situation in which a back yard fronts onto a public street.
Page 374 of 400
Where afurca "'flonal 'backywd`is Provided in an, interioryard, a mininuan 7,5m interior Yardsetback
,should be przx4ded. Additionally, alirrulsoarhreal setlaara. betiveen the pmtwrly line and rhe bar* yard
w1u,Wd be provided to all("ov,pr fori vacy xc'rec'-nirw
Do ne,4 allc�w drivewety.v it) lflhje,.'�e to the rear qfbuddhigs whertprr
possible. Ofhe,m4se, oninW7,e their inypactthrough site
Did You Know? G'ood cornpafiblhv requirits a ga ")odfiWh' colla&')rafive effi),ri firon's all to understarul
alWrrspond to and Iveaknesses and site_specfg^ e,)p1,P4yrtun ,'lies and
constrail'as
Scale & 7Yansition
Provide articulated vertical and horizontal massing elements which give a building or block of
buildings visual and spatial depth and variety while maintaining a human -scaled experience.
For stacked townhouse blocks, apartment or hybrid buildings longer than 35m, provide stepbacks for
upper storeys where appropriate, to add diversity and amenity to the urban fabric. Consider stepbacks
for buildings of, 34 storeys adjacent to 1-2 storey buildings.
For sites adjacent to commercial andlor employment uses, use additional transition measures such
wt increasedswNwAs, arrlrarrrr ea trrrrrlsa atnrr screpolixg and 1nd1ding organization, and orientation, th' ar is
tonic uvide enhanced ronoparibifity,
Ci,wsider the nutssing,height, length,th, rool't
del) lesigro, rnalerhils arum dr thins of nt,,�18,hbourbq,,'
buildings when designingfor compagibWy Y
Avold direct replicadon o)� edtvitents, partg'cuhzr�y qj
Noork"al 4"'annot be, pvilh conteonporary inalerfalsand
corn str race iorm prowtic eq,,.
112.2 BUILDING COMPONENTS
Porches, Balconies & Patios
Organize porches, balconies and patios to reduce overlook onto other private spaces
113.4 SHARED SPACES
Landscaping
Respect and enhance the existing landscape design of streets and neighbouring properties.
Preserve and integrate existing trees, vegetation and natural landscape features into the landscape
design of new development.
Minimize impervious surfaces by reducing, driveway and stirfac e parking areas and providing
.
permeable or semi -permeable surface materials as alternatives to concrete or asphalt.
Preserve natural drainage flow and incorporate vegetated sivales where appropriate.
Employ native, non-invasive vegetation and drought -tolerant species.
Consider green roofs on buildings or structured parking.
Provide soft landscape distributed throughout the site, including tree cover over parking areas,
sidewalks, laneways, driveways and other hard surfaces.
113 S SITE FUNCTION
Vehicular Access & Parking
Locate parking at the rear of buildings or underground, where possible. Where parking is provided in
front of a building, limit driveway widths and use shared driveways to minimize the frequency of curb
cuts, increasing space for on -street parking and reducing pedestrian/vehicle conflicts.
Separate pedestrian, cyclist and motorist circulation where possible to maximize safety and comfort.
Where routes are shared between modes, include alternate materials and colours for pedestrian
crossings and markings for cyclists using drive aisles to navigate a site.
Minimize the visual impact of front garages by limiting their width to less than 50% of the facade,
encouraging single -car garages in tandem parking with front yard landscaping.
Page 375 of 400
Limit driveway widths to provide greater area for landscaping, particularly to incorporate stormwater
management and opportupities for low• impact development.
For townhouse units less than 6 metres wide, avoid individual front garages, Avoid the creation of
basement garages that, require sloped front driveways.
Use landscaping, building placement, low screening walls and other site features to conceal views of
parking areas from the street and neighbouring properties.
Locate parking areas and their access points away from street corners, Garages should not project
ahead of the front facade of the building.
Provide convenient and accessible bicycle parking. For apartments, provide secure, indoor bicycle
parking. Ensure that sites and neighbourhoods, are designed to accommodate cyclists,
Servicing & Utilities
Integrate all private servicing, meters, HVAC equipment and utility elements into the design and
minimize their visual impact, particularly from the public realm and on-site shared spaces.
Waste & Recycling
Provide adequate space for waste vehicles and containers, Locations of waste containers should not
block fire routes, parking or sidewalks and should be adequately separated from shared spaces such
that their functionality does not impact shared spaces users or activities,
Waste and recycling storage areas are to be fully enclosed and screened from public view, first through
their location, placement and orientation, then through passive screening elements such as
landscaping, andfinally through enhanced enclosures where no other option exists.
Page 376 of 400
Response to Proposed Oevelopment 135-161 & 136 Wantwood Ave.,fackson Ave, Kitchwtar
The Eastwood area of Kitchener is a gem, Originally developed three quarters of
a century ago It Is a stunning example of the simple urban beginnings and
cultural history of the City of Kitchener, The modest predominantly red brick
homes speak of a better time before the single family home became oversized,
overbuilt, over designed, and crammed together without regard for privacy,
space, or livability,
']'he rkeighbourflopct cajvjwqs only approx 0,6 squwa kflonietmf� �6xotud8jjg
Montgotoary park), end Is maide up of a infix of reWderttial ba lldhig typia&,'Thoss,
Inclode close, lo 300 prol,')edy spaced 1.5-2 8forey singte fatally horylop,,wllh
desirable front, rear, and side yardq. less then 20 ctolaurrhod low riAe (2,5 8,,towey
walkups) aparfi'nr,.,n1 buildings ua spa0owq lots, and a mid rise a)rido ccimpkws
tucked aw"ayin aquietmirnerof theneighbouthood agalostthe expres""'Way
This arTIOU]IhS 40 0,,'jjpj'oXi9'nW0ly 4710 Ilving units ryrovidli ig howsing for betwee"ri
1)40 and 1880 residen1s, and a poprilaton densi(y of ipproxfmaWy 1,400-Z685
re,sidents per square kflorrieji-u
The neighbourhood was originally designed for this density and having resided
here for the past 15 years, I'd say It has worked well, making it as consistently
desirable and sought after place to live.
However, recent construction developments on Sheldon Ave N have already
been added/ approved, resulting in 24 & 40 new units and between 64 and 235
new residents where there was previously around 15 in single detached hornos.
With a single point of access on Sheldon at the dead end and no published
provisions for a respective increase in infrastructure to support the Influx of
vehicular and pedestrian/ transit traffic.
Furtherfolared the City ttas gone dhead and changed surrcajnd1na.,j 7oning
between Weber & 1<1419 to aN',Ow the convereikir) of oxiMng is(Oroy reh-.kl
space into lrioaglr ri°se ic)wers rhese buildhigs onark a sigr1joarit
dopartu,re fh:mi ,,kray rA'ttempl to'fit into Me, surrounding
Eas(v/i'),',id and M)r*way and will �,'Wd 503, 61 G, and, 403 unRs
AR,c'm,o0her projectsvirowint to ackEng, a grand to,W of botvmprr 40100-7000
niew r'e,sadents, to the irrunmJfale arna. "mis mu b(I Oin, jne,'�,roase V 260-300%
resulting in a populafion density of around 6666-11,666 residents per square
idfornetre,
Not only are these projeciz entirely contrary to buRdling within the exisfing
atrnosphere of the area, but the City has yet to pubHsh how they plan to 4-nprove
the existing Infrastructure and local amenities to support alis new populaf.10n,
while mairitaining the quality of life in the surrounding areas for the exisfing
taxpayem,
Page 377 of 400
Now the City of Kitchener wants to approve yet another complex of 120 units to
be crammed literally Into the centre of an existing neighbourhood block.
We understand that the property owner wants to develop and sell properties on
this site, and we recQgnfse that the City may need to approve development her
at some point, but the currently proposed design Is simply unacceptable given
the location.
special consideration and sensitivity.
This could also mean it Is more work for the City and less profitable for the
ownerldeveloper, but to do this properly some concessions will need to be
made.
Any development of this land should have to maintain compatibility with the
surrounding aesthetic and only enhance the functionality, quality, and ideally
value of living here overall. It needs to work with the existing building standards
spacing/ heights/ styles/ features.
The purpose of the application & consultation process and the planning
department Itself Is to safeguard the Interests of residents In existing
communities that already work, by being realistic, judicious, and creative abou
how things like
population growth are integrated.
In this case that means approving only proposals that work with -the existing
zoning, building type, style, & standards of the Community, in a Complimentary
way
Good planning is never a permanent downgrade.
The proposed design shoves no respect or consideration for these site specific or
communal aspects, nor does the aesthetic fit or compliment the surrounding
homes In any way,
To the contrary the design purposefully shirks the established zoning bylaws in
an effort to stack as rinany new residents into the space as possible without
providing for the minirnurn design standards, The developer seems to be
operating on the presumpticIn that the City of Kitchener will approve the project
anyway even with these deficiencies.
If the developer seeks variations and zoning changes, this should require
approval by City Coundl, City Council decisions should be subject to appeal.
beyond the municipai levO the existing residents should have the opportunity to
take the case to the Wade LanclTrIbunal. Depending on the resistance and
Page 378 of 400
Response to Proposed Developnient 135-161 & 136 Brentwood Avo,Jackson Ave, Kitchener
o ection of the
made to this site.
The City must consider the outward appearance of allowing a complex of
modern, long, flat roofed, buildings to be built more than twice all tall as the
.armee nd[ng single row of ct(6annlnijl pr[vate 1.5 sloroy res[dences on, tile JiloO, IN
shouldn'(Wok like as juxtaposkjon of opposite, Ideas.
The IntUrnal implicatlon5 of building 2, 19, storey's W111or than, tyle originally/
intentiollany priviate baokyards virrounding it N, the arios,,J problematic of aM. Such,
structuras viov[d d[re,(Aly Irnpact the quality of life In affabutflng resldencms,
blocl,dng an extrorne 11roporlicynof the othionxise consistetlt fow L5 storey
nalghbourhood Oyllnefs, Me natural light aild Mghtlines,, white 8[mulballeowsly
eliminathig sny and all priviticy In both bac' kyards and rear facing doors and
'windows, Thl.5wouki be Pratt especially by the rasiderlts on Brerdwood as the
proposed finisfivid prade Is also significantly uphilL Tfils part, of (M propirival is
lnj-�vlUr1O. It, shows arl, audacity, disregard, and alimost contampt for' I'lle pgiVacy
and standbi'd of Wing of ttj('t e4sting restdarAs and hilcornflng residents afike,,
Such an arrangenient coWd only serve, to destabilize prOparty values hi both ktarw
Otart and long wun wttlle det'ftoyinq foryver tho fongstanding po.ffive, ropi ltatlon
of fi'm ,area,,
EXAcurbijUng the situation, jin urder to aflcwi !A, rnurJl parking as pos,4ble oi) awn
Intedor, the ratans have the buildings Placed swrfi thal, lhey emcroach on thn
property line"'; arourld, the This rnzO�i°) (belr holo hl of fechvfaly raven Wl lea
for Oar-* sufta,l,ajndlng Yet the pfians still W1 to tirovklo lr(adrarjuatri parldng
for the rkwiv reflderils as welt ata no provlslora U, 01sitor or servilce harking. .... miis
Wit orily lesLA in T"Oddrig. overflowir°ig ollto l4il"�,tia I lo Lit t1te ,
Consixtel"ing, (4N added traffk.,-zind c*i igeslion, #to, Uy shDIA(f
fher�r alsll) 011ow for rrort yrwrl parking (difveway be responsible for
wldannq M'lthcl) exisfliq �Orflevard drlveway'h al'id' ctjrb oponn,4tris sacra , re8kjents
6n opflon t'weslthm tandein parking,
Not only are the bUil&qj placed too r lrandn to dao prnperty boundaries,, bul, It
shovn� nr) pe'0103k"Ins (Of vF;VW, or Physflcal separation botwoen the now wall(OIA
patios (and thme galtei"k,,s of baironies above) and the exhg[ng pdvaie,
bac*ywds, for serurity aro,' Mara Privacy, Wheire iln r".ixlsl4ig (fi
berm anna%,miry wallhas seijomtoid a singlie re,-J,4c4r'Pc,,e on flie� (.'isfate for hind; I,',$ , arO Hiroo dvadbs, the
vgrcjrondng liar neownQrs seem to ble the reqponsft.'Alf°yr 1°W kt'm'pinp -,
-Odllrjk� I"rowshig cwnplex of new papuhatirm and fl'Wr pelra ftw'ri enerinfy the[r
yards, Soma i of the ni.mgtiE)mtring propertiehavo no firrrr of at ald-
Ifte I'Aa ri�i shoiw no p(civisia rl!3 for I unciff (rorr. (I m dovolcq),ed qn,'irle, and fi"ie
lrnpierrn(-able (.If roO16 and Parking lot that will be
there ki now a reteoti'-)n pcond and 1-)erni keeping arcate r frrarnw njtaflng do!tvonh,M ln(o
Page 379 of 400
Response to Proposed Development 135-161 & 136 Brentwood Ave Jackson Ave, Kitchener
backyards and basements, the plans show a consistent downward slope Into
neighbouring properties on Brentwood.
Thq 5k#w V. :Kq-*1v'7 490iQtJ#,A*,f ItNt 9xisti6,* tred-s ar*f, the
'khe property which have been neglected since the property changed hands.
Some have expired and others that were damaged by the windstorm of 2022,
have been left standing. The development will require the destruction of the other
�rees on the property The plans make no provision for the full or partial
replacement of any of the mature treeson or around the property,
Beyond the details of this particular proposal, any development of this site will
re I UiTe SPM)al measures so as not to cause undue inconvenle
or stress for the existing residents who will have to live through the demolition
*nd construction process.
Site Fencing:
An 3° privacy fence (at the developers expense) should be installed around the
subject site prior to start of work to prevent debris and workers from encroaching
on the adjacent properties,
Finished Fencing;
The fence bylaw height is Bit based on level properties of 1.6- storey
construction. If there Is an Immediate grade upwards after the property line the
Pence height should be allowed to rise appropriately to compensate. In some
cases the grade Is too steep and the grade becomes the privacy and this site
,already has that feature on the downhill side.
However the construction of structures taller than the surrounding residences
(wltWn or beyond the original zoning), should entail a matching increase In the
allowable fence and privacy screen heights for neighbouring properties. in either
case construction of this property barrier should be the responsibility of the
developer such that it be consistent in style and construction (be, R timber or
masonry or a combination).
Road Conditions and Construction Traffic:
The contractor under the Highway Traffic Act is required to keep the roadway
clear Of MLJd and debris (the roadway should be cleaned at least twice a day
during construction) until the lot Is paved. There should be No Construction traffic
.signs posted on Mackenzie, Sheldon, Raymond, Edmund, Jackson and
Fairmont. All construction traffic must use Montgomery to Brentwood the
Brentwood to 136 for entry to the site,
Dust Control:
The constructor must have a dust control plan in place befor -6, construction starts.
Such as fisting that the We will be watered as required to prevent dust
Page 380 of 400
N4ponsa to Proposed DevOopment 135-161 & 136 Brer1twood Ava,Jacksor Ave, Kkchene�
enveloping the adjacent properties. The adjacent properties should not have to
suffer living In as dust bowl because of ronstruction, This site Is literally In the
middle of a neighbourhood,
Building Permit:
The developer must be able to prove they have the finances to complete the
project on time.
The devotoper war1t,,i to do, flits, 1112 phases, Btiild the Sun[fs that bads on to the
Brentwood' prope ries and,105 parking spaces, Thi's Implies ki rise that thay don't
have the mon;py or unwiliIiiig ti:j spend Me monty to build [hh,,, ot,if all at the rrarrrrr
arae. We do not waill Uli.,s to, end up Eke the buRdhig i.,oi Forguo Ave, H Kitchener,
bankropt not cornplete or t,�wn ronclosedfrorn the vieaWiar left to rot. The projeot
nnust be bulft ol"11 in a singie phase w0b as tirneffne of 25 years frant wtuj�ji jjsp, first
horrie W, deniolisfitoo'to amvpancy pear4ts, ls,,7,,4,ued for all the unftq� if 11 -flu, goes lrl 2
phwws the construction firn efine 1118Y ba, 5 yaars,, rant fair to ffie nolghbot,xing,
property "iers. Ali fl°ie buJwirqjs scheduled for do rnolltlwi rhould be taken ifowr;
at the same time, so we don't have abanxfon housas toattrAnt problarns, 1"his sites,
should be buill, out (x)rnplete[Y berbre Kitdkoner -,dfovos ocot,it3aricy,
Adjusted noise bylaw,"
Thzire 91'11c-xtld allio bean ray jmtad work, hrrie for SlteThis 15 In IN oAfiJk,,% of a
shotd(f Only lie p w-, mittod frorn WMk) 17:00 Monday arra
IryrtdsayW The only work al[r)wed on weekends shoi,jld be c�m Saturdays only and
only frn, lnte6nrwork, WICe th() lhdldirrDs tira onriosed,
The constroctor lire, raqqired W [,,`si-uvldav street parking arIr,1
If' glocemamy for ""Im"iveodi�ors. Thrim�; s1ra'ets
have beery ruurarwcad, do,r[rig, Sireed", and, (he ex[rni (,m
vert cause, Problems fix V'�,e area residents, as weft af� As
Stated before this Is, Me rally ah tllu o0ghbourhrmnd
�,,,urrotvirfed by hausea
Traffic Patterns and Parkir-Ig:
Fire Routes must be established on Brentwood, Jackson, Fairmount and
Montgomery surrounding the project should be In place before construction
starts.
The city should put as 4 way stop at,lackson and Brentwood, Along with 3 way,
stops at Brentwood and Edmund and Brentwood and Raymond to discourager
traffic from the complex using Brentwood to Sheldon to Mackenzie to Ottawa,
The traffic should be encouraged to go Brentwood to Montgomery to Webw,
Page 381 of 400
SECTION 7 Page 1 of 9
SECTION 7 .- Residential Zones (RES)
The Residential Zones apply to lands designated Low Rise Residential, Medium Rise
Residential and High Rise Residential in the Official Plan.
'7.1 APj_eL_j_C6 _8L9_Zq_,Ng,_q,
RES -1: Low Rise Residential One Zone — the purpose of this zone is to accommodate
limited dwelling types in areas with an estate character and/or limited municipal services
in lbw rise areas.
RES -2: Low Rise Residential Two Zone — the purpose of this zone is to accommodate a
limited range of low density dwelling types on larger lots than the RES -3 Zone in low rise
areas.
RES -3: Low Rise Residential Three Zone — the purpose of this zone is to accommodate
a limited range of low density dwelling types on smaller lots than the RES -2 Zone in low
rise areas.
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.
RES -5: Low Rise Residential Five Zone — the purpose of this zone is to accommodate the
widest range of low density dwelling types on the widest range of lot sizes in low rise
areas.
RES -6: Medium Rise Residential Six Zone the r purpose of this zone is to accommodate
medium density dwelling types and some complementary non-residential uses In rnediurn
rise residential areas.
RES -7: High Rise Residential Seven Zone — the purpose of this zone is to accommodate
high density dwelling types and a range of complementary non-residential uses in high
rise residential areas.
7a2 USES
No person shall, within any Residential Zone use or permit the use of any lot or erect, alter
or use any building or structure for any purpose other than those permitted uses within
Table 7-1 below.
Clty of Kitchener Zoning By-law 20,19-051 Office Consolldation: March 21 2022
Page 382 of 400
SECTION 7 Page 2 of 9
U se RE
...........
Residential Uses
Single Detached Dwelling
_Xdik!,�n
(Attached)(1)
')id
jit�idn�
Petached)(2) v
Townhouse Dwelling –Street
...... .. ......
/(3)
V(4)
use Dwelling – Cluster
...... .. ..................
V(4)
Dwelling
vp
v
v
Lodging House . ..... .. ..........
. ... . .....
— -------
Continuing Care Community
v
. . ....
✓
Hospice
. ...........
v
.. ...........
v
V,
si ei;F0 acility, Large
. ..
. ... ........ .
Non -Residential Uses
�4rtisera's Establishment (5") ....
........
V
I/
Co munity Facility (5)
v
Cra.
rivenience Retail (5)
. .................
r, e Facility (5)"
in�rarslsleblrslr�rrarml (5}
V
hleafth Ofrk,�e (5)
.
.......
.. .... . ... .....
Home Occupa6aa (6)
.........
V
V
Office (5)
Personal sotvices (5)
........... . . . . . . . . . .. ... .................... . . .
Additional Regulations for Permitted Uses Table 7-1
(1) Shall be permitted in accordance with 4.121 and 4.12.2.
(2) Shall be permitted in accordance with 4.12.3.
(3) The maximum number of dwelling units in a dwelling shall be 4.
(4) The maximum number of dwelling units in a dwelling shall be &
(5) Permitted non-residential uses must be located within a multiple dwelling (despite the definition
of multiple dwelling in Section 3) and are limited in size in accordance with the regulations in
Table 7-6.
(6) Shall be permitted in accordance with 4.7.
City of Kitchener Zonivg By.law 2019-051 Office Consolidatlon.- March 2'l 2022
Page 383 of 400
23�
Jai Rfel NL IIM
The regulations for lots in a residential one are set out in Tables 7-2 through 7-7 below.
Regulation RES -1 (6) RES -2 (5) RES -3 (6) RES -4 (6) _,RE&(A) RES -6 RES -7
Minimum Lot 929M2(j) M2 8M2 M2 2
Area 411 28 235 235m
inimum Lot .. .......... . ..... .. . - -----
Width 24.0m(2) 13.7m 10.5m 9.Om 9.Om
m
1 m
Minimum Corner 24.Omi(2)' 15.0 . . ... ... . . . . .. 28
Lot Width
Minimum Front
Yard or Exterior
Yard Setback
.M
aximum Front
Yard Setback
inimum Interior
(3) 1 (3) 1 (3) (3) (3)
Side Yard 3.Om t2n'i 1.2m 1.2m 1.2m
Setback
Minimum Rear 7.5m 7.5m 7.5m 7.5m 7.5m
Yard Setback
................. . . . . . . . . . ............. . . ........
Maxi „Etat
Cove 55%(4) 55%(4) 5�5%(4) 55%(4) 55%(4)
Maximum . .... ...
Building. rght I 1.0m(6) 11.0m(6) 11 Om(6) 11.0m(6) 1.1.0m(6)
Maximum number
"Olf storeys 3 3
Additional Regulations for Single Detached Dwellings Table 7-
(1)
-(1) The minimum lot area shall be 0.4 hectares on lots without full municipal services.
(2) The minimum lot width shall be 30.0 metres on lots without full municipal services.
(3) For lands identified in LgLj�Lr��iL,,Eblishad Nslahbourhoods frog, the minimum and
maximum front yard shall be un accordance gait with Section 7. 11 6.
(4) A combined total of 55 percent for all buildings and structures on the lot. Accessory buildings or
structures, whether attached or detached, and additional dwelling units (detached) shall not exceed
15 percent.
(5) The regulations within Table 7-2 shall not apply to an existing single detached dwelling on an
existing lot with or without one existing additional dwelling unit (attached),
(6) For larids Wer,Kied fn /'� ; � � � � I ' ", " I , 0 10 max[niuln build'41"I helglit Shall
be in accordance with Section "-7-.5. , , ,
C"Ity of KItcheiner Zoning By-law 2019-061 Office Consolidation: March
Page 384 of 400
Table 7.3.- fqr§WJQ , It
j.M
.qtar,kqd mt gj
j Qnj
.7
Regula.
tion' S,--,"-2 ...... . .. . ......... R ES-3 (3) RES-4 (3) R&— -WE—S-6
...........
int um Lot Area 260M2 21 OM2 210m2
. . ................ . .... .
Minimum Lot Width 9.3 m 7.5m 7.5m
. ............... ....... . .. .. .. .......... . ........ . .....
Minimum Comer 12.Om 12.Om 12.Om
Lot Width I.
Minimum Front
Yard or Exterior 4.5m (1) 4.5m(1) 4.5m(1)
Yard Setback
Maximum Front (1) 0)
Yard Setback
Mirsi mum Interior 1.2m 1.2m 1.2m
Side Yard Setback
111111-1-11-- . . . .. ...................... . . . . ............
Minimum tear.:.-_-.__
Setback 7.5m 7.5m 7.5m
"Ma A I m . um I- Lot„ I 1" ................
550/,0(2) 55%(2) 55%(2)
oyerag
M�Iq aximum Building 11 Om(4) 11. Om(4) I I. Om(4)
_tl ._._ ... ....... . . . . .... ................. ...............
Maximum number
of Storey
Additional Regulations for Semi-Detached Dwelling Unit Table 7-
(1) For lands identified in Appendix Q – Established Ne,!qjjbourhogds ALga the minimum and
maximum front yard shall be in accordance `w�lthSeci7i(;n 7.6.
(2) A combined total of 55 percent for all buildings and structures or) the lot, Accessory buildings or
structures, whether attached or detached, and additional dwelling units (detached) shall not
exceed 15 percent.
(3) The regulations within Table 7-3 shall not apply to an existing semi-detached dwelling on an
existing lot with or without one existing additional dwelling unit (attached).
(4) For Iands identified i n C – C e DD ra 1 N3 e� i C!, Ic ->iD Lih o q
the maximum building height shall be
in accordance with Section 7.5.
Cily of Kitchener Zorflng By4aw 2019051 Office Consoldation: Mai 12l 2022
Page 385 of 400
Page 5 of 9
.. ..
....
Regulation RES -1 RES�2 RE,S-3 RES -
Minimum Lot Area 143m2 135m2
(Internal Unrt� 6.Om 5.5m
Minimum Lot Width
eit I O.Om 9.5mAg�—..
Minimum Comer Lot Width
12.Om 11, 5m
Minimum Front Yard or
Exterior Yard Setback 4.5m(1) 4.5m(1)
............. . ..
-ff9iimum Front Yard .......... . . . . ........ .
. ....... ...
Setback (i)
Minimum Interior aideYard
Setback 2.5m 2.5m
.. ........ . . ........ .
Minimum Rear Yard
Setback 7.5m 7.5m
6' i i i �'Y a —
rd —cc" e s -'s— ---- - --- . ....
aximu�
1��m Lot Co�v2er�ao Ilei ht _5 6 - — ---------
5 OZo
3
MUM
Maxi i�uildir
11 -ON151)
Maximum number of
s( . I ............ "I'll, I . .... ............. ..........
Additional Regulations for Street Townhouse Dwelling Units Table 7-4
(1) For lands' identified in Ap2englix Q - EstablishedNeighbou)-hoods Area the minimum and
maximum front yard shall be in a—ccordance with Sectl—on7.6—.--'
(2) Each dwelling unit shall have an unobstructed access at grade or ground floor level, having a
minimum width of 0.9 metres, from the front yard to the rear yard of the lot either by:
a) direct access on the lot without passing through any portion of the dwelling unit; or,
b) direct access through the dwelling unit without passing through a living or family room, dining
room, kitchen, bathroom, bedroom, or recreation room or any hallway that is not separated by
a door to any such room; or,
c) access over adjacent lands which, if the lands are not owned by the City or the Region, is
secured by a registered easement.
(3) A combined total of 55 percent for all buildings and structures on the lot. Accessory buildings or
structures, whether attached or detached, and additional dwelling units (detached) shall not
exceed 15 percent,
(4) The regulations within Table 7-4 shall not apply to an existing street townhouse dwelling on an
existing lot with or without one existing additional dwelling unit (attached),
(5) Foy lands idenfitied irr � '': � �:", " (",
- I 1�11', - , ' 1 �-� , the- rilaArnuin boil&i,g 1-ieiq[i4shiall [,,,)e
ill accordance witl"� Sedion 7,,5 . . .....
Gity of Kitchener Zoning By4amf 20,19-061 Office Consdidatiow MaLc. ...h 21 2022
...... . ..
Page 386 of 400
ZYMM
able _7_—§.,F aw l lu 0LT9ffnlLo , 11
. . . . ...........
Regulation, REQ 1l RES -23 4RES-5RES-
(3) 7 _RES -6 (3
kinimurn Lot Area 25
5M2
. .. . ..... 'RW
inimum Lot Width 19.Om I " 9. , Om - . . .... .
. ..... ..... ... . . .........
Yard or Exterior 4.5m (5) 3.0m
Setback
......... . . ........
Minimum Interior
Side Yard Setback 4.5m 4.5m
imum Rear Yard
Setback 6.0m 4.5m
Minimum
_4_a(i0s_qqP d6rea....20% 20%
MinimumFloor . . .............. ............. .. ... ... . . ....... .
c 0�6(1)(4)
q.Ratio
. ... ....... ........ _ . . .........
Maximum Floor
Spqqq Ratio 0,6 2.0(1)
. .. . ............ .. . . ......... .... .. .. . .. . . ......
Minimum Building I
Heiht .... 7.5m . .. ............ .. . . . . .................... .
Maximum Building
f lei ht 11.0m (6 25.0m
Maximum Number
. .............. . ....... . . ...... — -- ---------- . . ......... . . ...... . . . . . . . ......
of Storeys
Minimum Number
of DWOI�IqLIq#�� 5
Private' Patio Area . .......... - - — - ----- -- --------- --------
.. . ...... .
Additional IlRegulations for Cluster Townhouse Dwelling Units Table 7-5
(1) Combined total floor space ratio of all uses on the lot,
(2) For each dwelling unit located at ground floor level, a private adjacent to the dwelling unit with
direct access to such dwelling unit shall be provided.
(3) The regulations within Table 7-5 shall riot apply to an existing cluster townhouse dwelling on an
existing lot.
(4) Individual buildings will not be required to achieve the minimum floor space ratio where there is an
approved Urban Design Brief that includes a Master Site Plan that demonstrates the overall
development can achieve the minimum floorspace ratio,
(5) For (ands identified in A!opondh.,, Q
the min ML M and
maximum front yard shall be in accordance with Section 7.6.
(6) For lands identified in
iiiaxipnii,iiLrtii/c/ifig/7eg/its�ialI
be in accordance with Sectile on
Gity of 11Kiiitchener Zoi fing By-law 2019-051 Office Consolidatiow Marc 'J Na -
Page 387 of 400
Minimum Front
Yard or Exterior
Yatd Setback
Minimum Interior
Side Yard Setback
Setback
J�fin_i _U-m
Lands
Min—imurn Floor
Maximum Floor
I
1. Ori
ig.1)_
�O,qm
30.0rn
4.5m (8)
4.5m (8)
3.Om
3.Om
3.Om
3.orn
4.5m
4.5m (5)
. . ..
7,5rn
7Lrn,
7.5m
....... . .
7.5m (5)
20%
20%
...........
20%
20%
. ..............................
0.6(2)(7)
.
2.0(2)(7)
.. . ............ —
01,6
0.6
2.0(2)
.... ..... .
4.0(2)
11.0m
14.0 m
Maximum Building
11.0m (9) 11.0m (9) 25.0m
Maximum number
of stool
Minimum number of . . . ............
�cfwq �hqn�tts
Maximum number
of dwe
Private Patio Area
_M� „rvrd , m" GG______ross..... . .... (3) . .... ..... Q)
f:k)or.Aroa of
bid[vidual Non- 600m2(4) 600m'(4)
re ides Use
. . ...........
AddWIonal Regulations for Multiple Dwellings and Non -Residential Uses Table 7-6
(1) A multiple dwelling up to 4 dwelling units shall have a minimum lot width of 15.0 metres.
(2) Combined total Floor Space Ratio of all uses on the lot,
(3) For multiple dwellings with 4 dwelling units or more, each dwelling unit located at ground floor level
shall have a patio area adjacent to the dwelling unit with direct access to such dwelling unit,
(4) The total gross floor area of all non-residential uses shall not exceed 25% of the total gross floor
area on a lot.
(5) The maximum building height shall be 25 metres within 15 metres of a lot with a (RES -6) Medium
Rise Residential Six Zone.
(6) The regulations within Table 7-6 shall not apply to an existing multiple dwelling on an existing lot
City of Kitchener Zoning By -haw 2019-061 Office Consolidation , .4a,Tqlh 2111,120'.22.
Page 388 of 400
approved Urban Design Brief that includes a Master Site Plan that demonstrates the overall
development can achieve the minimum floor space ratio.
(8) For lands identified in &pp
L1gcL(,-)q_ur11o_odq A
_ the minimum and
maximum front yard shall be in accordance with Section 7.6.
(9) f -,*r Iv.x,,Vjs I4m1*tIfiei iA &i22Landix C - Cejcrtral t,!,l ighborkRo_ds, the mvxlmum &v#Ohig hedght sKpil be
in accordance with Section 7.5.
Table,
Mq1tin'ityup
� _UMI
J
LaggRes-df
.
&f acillt
ZMEENG9M
rFj 11
ES -3 RES -4 R.E-S-5 --'RES-6 11 '�:'
0 1(1) (1)7
(1) Where permitted in Table 7-1, shall be in accordance with the regulations of the RES Zone and
dwelling type in which the lodging house, hospice orsmall residential care facility is located.
Where permitted in Table 7-1, a large residential care facility and continuing care community
shall be in accordance with the regulations of the RES zone for multiple dwellings,
W
N
W
OUTDOOR STOR&gfi
No outdoor storage shall be permitted in a RES zone.
LANDS LOCATED IN APPENDIX C - CENTRAL NEIGHBOURHO
a) For permitted uses subject to this regulation, the maximum building height shall be
9.0 metres for new buildings and additions to existing buildings that would increase
the building height by more than 1.0 metres, where the height of the two principal
buildings on both abutting lots is less than 6.5 metres. Where there are vacant
abutting the affected lot, the height of the two principal buildings on the next
adjacent lot with a low-rise residential zone are considered.
LANDS LOCA E I X D - ESTABLISHE 1 9 LJO
OCA -D-P-N I - —0""IS!,kREA,
a)
For permitted uses subject to this regulation, the minimum front yard shall be the
established front yard minus one metre. In all other cases, the minimum front yard
shall be in accordance with the regulations table for the permitted use. Despite the
foregoing, no part of any building used to accommodate off street parking shall be
located closer than 6 metres to the street line; and,
LlThe maximum front yard shall be the established front yard plus one metre. In all
other cases there is no maximum front yard.
City of Kitchener Zoning By-law 2019-051 Office Corisolidahom March,21
Page 389 of 400
SEunON 7 Page 9 of 9
7.7 s
City of Kftchene!r Zorlilig By-law 2019-061 Office Consdidation: March 21, 2022
Page 390 of 400
From: Dmub|eAK8d
Sent Monday, February 26,2O343:O5PM
/o: Mayor; Stephanie Stretch; Internet -Council (SM); Brian BaLemah
Subject: Re: Response To Proposed Development 135 - 161 Jackson Ave. Kitchener
N
Good afternoon,
I am writing to follow up on this email as I have yet to receive any form of response other than receipt
confirmation from the mayor's office and K4rBateman.
I'd like someone to reply before I send my second email response to the public meeting.
Thank you, Aaron McLaughlin
On Mon, Feb 19, 2024 at 9:55 AM DoubleA Mcl ro e:
The Eastwood area of Kitchener is a gem. Originally developed three quarters of a century ago it is a
stunning example of the simple urban beginnings and cultural history of the City of Kitchener. The
modest predominantly red brick homes speak of a better time before the single family home became
oversized, overbuilt, over designed, and crammed together without regard for privacy, space, or
The neighbourhood covers only approx 0.6 square kilometres (excluding Montgomery park) and is
made up of a mix of residential building types. These include close to 300 properly spaced 1.5-2 storey
single family homes with desirable front, rear, and side yards, less then 20 detached low rise (2.5 storey
walkups) apartment buildings on spacious lots, and a mid rise condo complex tucked away in a quiet
corner ofthe neighbourhood against the expressway.
This amounts to approximately 470 living units providing housing for between 940 and 1880 residents,
and a population density of approximately 1,400-2,685 residents per square kilometre.
The neighbourhood was originally designed for this density and having resided here for the past 15
years, I'd say it has worked well, making it consistently desirable and sought after place to live.
However, recent construction developments on Sheldon Ave N have already been added/ approved,
resulting in 24 & 40 new units and between 64 and 235 new residents where there was previously
around 15 in single detached homes. With a single point of access on Sheldon at the dead end and no
published provisions for a respective increase in infrastructure to support the influx of vehicular and
pedestrian/ transit traffic.
Furthermore the City has gone ahead and changed the surrounding zoning between Weber & King to
allow the conversion of existing single storey retail space into high rise residential towers.These
buildings mark significant departure from any attempt to 'fit into' the surrounding neighbourhoods of
Eastwood and Rockwayand will add 503'6I6,and 4O3units respectively.
Altogether these projects amount to adding a grand total of between 4000-7000 new residents to the
immediate area. This will be an increase of 250-300% resulting in a population density of around 6666-
11,666 residents per square kilometre.
Not only are these projects entirely contrary to building within the existing atmosphere of the area, but
the City has yet to publish how they plan to improve the existing infrastructure and local amenities to
Page 391 of 400
support this new population, while maintaining the quality of life in the surrounding areas for the
existing taxpayers.
Now the City of Kitchamerwam1sto, approve yet ammthercorn�|e,xm( '120 units to be crammmedVtemm|Ky
into the centre ofunexisting neighbourhood block.
We understand that the property owner wants to develop and sell properties on this site, and we
recognise that the City may need to approve development here at some point, but the currently
proposed design issimply unacceptable given the location.
Approving intensification around the perimeter of an existing neighbourhood with proper provisions
for increased infrastructure, managing the construction process, and the increased traffic is one thing.
Building in the centre of a block of long term occupied residences is a different encleavour altogether.
Because there are existing residents living derectly adjacent t to this site on all sides, it becomes a
much more complex proposition that entails greater responsibility and requires special consideration
and sensitivity.
This could also mean it is more work for the City and less profitable for the owner/developer, but to do
this properly some concessions will need tobemade.
Any development of this land should have to maintain compatibility with the surrounding aesthetic and
only enhance the functionality, quality, and ideally value of living here overall. it needs to work with
the existing building standards/ spacing/ heights/ styles/ features.
The purpose of the application & consultation process and the planning department itself is to
safeguard the interests of residents in existing communities that already work, by being realistic,
judicious, and creative about how things like
population growth are integrated.
In this case that means approving only proposals that work with the existing zoning, building type,
style, & standards of the community, in a complimentary way.
Good planning isnever apermanent downgrade.
The proposed design shows no respect or consideration for these site specific or communal aspects,
nor does the aesthetic fit orcompliment the surrounding homes inany way.
To the contrary the design purposefully shirks the established zoning bylaws in an effort to stack as
many new residents into the space as possible without providing for the minimum design standards.
The developer seems to be operating on the presumption that the City of Kitchener will approve the
project anyway even with these deficiencies.
If the developer seeks variations and zoning changes, this should require approval by City Council. City
Council decisions should be subject to appeal. Beyond the municipal level the existing residents should
have the opportunity to take the case to the Ontario Land Tribunal. Depending on the resistance and
objection of the community, this should be the process before any changes are made to this site.
The City must consider the outward appearance of allowing a complex of modern, long, flat roofed,
buildings tobe built more than twice all tall asthe surrounding single row of charming private 1.5
storey residences on the block. it shouldn't look like a juxtaposition of opposite ideas.
The internal implications ofbuilding 2Sstoreys taller than the originally/ intentionally private
backyards surrounding itisthe most problematic ofall. Such structures would directly impact the
quality of life in all abutting residences, blocking an extreme proportion of the otherwise consistent low
1.5 storey neighbourhood skylines, the natural light and sightlines, while simultaneously eliminating
any and all privacy in both backyards and rear facing doors and windows. This would be felt especially
by the residents on Brentwood as the proposed finished grade is also significantly uphill. This part of
the proposal is insulting. It shows an audacity, disregard, and almost contempt for the privacy and
Page 392 of 400
standard of living of the existing residents and incoming residents alike. Such an arrangement could
only serve to destabilize property values in both the short and long term while destroying forever the
longstanding positive reputation ofthe area.
Exacerbating the situation, in order to allow as much parking as possible on the interior, the plans have
the buildings placed such that they encroach on the property lines around the perimeter. This makes
their height effectively even taller for the surrounding residents. Yet the plans still fail to provide
inadequate parking for the new residents as well as no provision for visitor or service parking. This will
only result in parking overflowing onto sidestreets throughout the neighbourhood. Considering this
added traffic and congestion the City should then also allow for front yard parking (driveway widening)
and be responsible for widening all the existing boulevard driveways and curb openings so residents
have anoption besides tandem parking.
Not only are the building placed too close to the property boundaries, but it shows no provisions for
visual or physical separation between the new walkout patios (and three galleries of balconies above)
and the existing private backyards, for security and/or privacy. Where an existing berm and masonry
wall has separated a single residence on the estate for the past three decades, the surrounding
homeowners seem to be left with the responsibility of keeping a whole housing complex of new
population and their pets from entering their yards. Some of the neighbouring properties have no firm
offencing atall.
The plans show no provisions for runoff from the developed grade and the impermeable surfaces of
roofs and parking lot that will be introduced. Where there is now a retention pond and berm keeping
water from running downhill into backyards and basements, the plans show a consistent downward
slope into neighbouring properties nnBrentwood.
The plans show a fictitious depiction of the existing trees around the perimeter of the property which
have been neglected since the property changed hands. Some have expired and others that were
damaged by the windstorm of 2022, have been left standing. The development will require the
destruction of the other trees on the property. The plans make no provision for the full or partial
replacement nfany mfthe mature trees unoraround the property.
Beyond the details ofthispardcu|arpvopoya|,anydeve|opmentofthissitewiUnequirespecia|
measures so as not to cause undue inconvenience, disturbance, or stress for the existing residents who
will have to live through the demolition and construction process.
Site Fencing:
An 8' privacy fence (at the developers expense) should be installed around the subjectsite prior tostart
of work to prevent debris and workers from encroaching on the adjacent properties.
Finished Fencing:
The fence bylaw height is 8ft based on level properties of 1.5-2 storey construction. If there is an
immediate grade upwards after the property line the cence height should be allowed to rise
appropriately to compensate. In some cases the grade is too steep and the grade becomes the privacy
and this site already has that feature onthe downhill side.
However the construction of structures taller than the surrounding residences (within or beyond the
original zoning), should entail a matching increase in the allowable fence and privacy screen heights for
neighbouring properties. In either case construction of this property barrier should be the
responsibility of the developer such that it be consistent in style and construction (be it timber or
masonry oracombinadon).
Road Conditions and Construction Traffic:
The contractor under the Highway Traffic Act is required to keep the roadway clear of mud and debris
(the roadway should be cleaned at least twice a day during construction) until the lot is paved. There
Page 393 of 400
should be No Construction traffic signs posted on Mackenzie, Sheldon, Raymond, Edmund, Jackson and
Fairmont. All construction tc*Mic must use Montgomery to Brentwood the Brentwood to 136for entry
tothe site.
Dust Control:
The constructor must have dust control plan in place before construction starts. Such as listing that
the site will be watered as required to prevent dust enveloping the adjacent properties. The adjacent
properties should not have tosuffer living in a dust bowl because of construction. This site is literally in
the middle ofaneighbourhood.
Building Permit:
The developer must be able to prove they have the finances to complete the project on time.
The developer wants to do this in 2 phases. Build the 3 units that back on to the Brentwood properties
and 10S parking spaces. This implies to me that they don't have the money or unwilling to spend the
money to build this out all at the same time. We do not want this to end up like the building on Fergus
Ave. in Kitchener, bankrupt not complete or even enclosed from the weather left to rot. The project
must be built out in a single phase with a timeline of 2.5 years from when the first home is demolished
to occupancy permits issued for all the units. If this goes in 2 phases the construction timeline may be 5
years, not fair to the neighbouring property owners. All the buildings scheduled for demolition should
be taken down at the same time, so we don't have abandon houses to attract problems. This site
should bebuilt out completely before Kitchener allows occupancy.
Adjusted noise bylaw:
There should also be an adjusted work time for the site. This is in the middle of a neighbourhood work
should only be permitted from 08:00 to 17:00 Monday to Friday. The only work allowed on weekends
should be on Saturdays only and only for interior work once the buildings are enclosed.
The constructor must be required to provide off street parking and accommodation if necessary for
construction vehicles and workers. These streets have been narrowed during street reconstruction and
the extra on street parking will cause problems for the area residents as well as emergency vehicles. As
stated before this is literally in the middle of a neighbourhood completely surrounded by houses.
Traffic Patterns and Parking:
Fire Routes must be established on Brentwood, Jackson, Fairmount and Montgomery surrounding the
project should be in place before construction starts.
The city should put a 4 way stop at Jackson and Brentwood. Along with 3 way stops at Brentwood and
Edmund and Brentwood and Raymond to discourage traffic from the complex using Brentwood to
Sheldon to Mackenzie to Ottawa. The traffic should be encouraged to go Brentwood to Montgomery to
Weber.
Provisions for Wildlife:
Another thing to consider is the environmental fallout of eliminating a greenspace that has existed for
nearly 3/4 of a century and an ecosystem of mature trees, woodland animals, waterfowl, and
amphibians that has existed since the pond was built approx 30 years ago. All residents here can attest
to the diverse flora and fauna that will be missed. The existing animals should be relocated before
construction begins rather than simply displaced by destruction of habitat. Displacement would only
serve to overload the surrounding areas and burden the surrounding community with having to
witness the struggling and death.
Any future development should also include provisions for the replacement of existing trees,
For many of the existing residents who have worked hard to live here and continue to work hard to
improve their homes, to make the neighbourhood better, this could be their forever home or family
legacy. Your responsibility istothose people.
Page 394 of 400
From: McIIIIIIIIjIIIIIIINIMM
Sent: Monday, March 4,3U246:24PK4
To: Brian Bateman
Subject: Response tmNeighbourhood K4eeting-Pnoposed Development 135-161
Jackson &l36Brentwood Ave. Kitchener
Attachments: Response to Neighbourhood Meeting-Pro posed Development I35'161
Jackson &136Brentwood Ave. Kitzhener.pdf
'You c6, ' t� Ohe 1-1 qet m 1,1,44 fro
Hello K4rBateman,
Your email was omitted from myoriginal send.
Sending the attached PDF on to you now such that it might be added to the report and public record.
Page 395 of 400
From: janioe6ama|ainen
Sent: Tuesday, February 27,20244:55PK8
To: Brian Bateman
Subject: development slated for 135-161Jackson
Attachments: kitchenerplanningl35JacksonFebruary2O24,docx
You don't often get email fromjanke.hama|aimm@belimet.
|have attached a letter regarding my concerns for the development of 135-161 Jackson
/\V. Kitchener. Thank you for your attention tOthis matter.
Page 396 of 400
N2H2C9
February 26, 2024
Dear Mr. Bateman
I am writing to you with regard to the proposed development for properties listed as 135-161
Jackson and 136 Brentwood. I have many concerns with this development and I will highlight
three in this letter.
First is the proposed height of the 5 Town House blocks. The developer proposes 3.5 stories for
the five blocks which are not to exceed 12.5m. in height. At the present time the height
restriction is I lm. Although the additional height of the complex buildings seems minimal the
fact that the lowest part of the land in question rises 2m above the abutting backyards on
Brentwood puts the total additional height at 14.5m above the surrounding properties. The
complex will tower over the properties on the north side of Brentwood. With balconies facing
onto the neighbouring backyards and homes, any privacy and enjoyment of backyards will be
jeopardized. Keeping the development to 2.5 stories will fit in with the existing apartment
buildings on Montgomery and Fairmount.
Second, if during construction the steep embankment that faces the backyafds on Brentwood is
destabilized a landslide would bring all this earth into these backyards. Although actions may be
taken to mitigate this, there is no guarantee the embankment will remain stable.
Third, although the Transportation study advised there will not be a large affect on the volume of
traffic in the neighbourhood, with the addition of 120 cars in a small space that does not seem
possible. Both Jackson and Brentwood will see many more cars on the street, especially when
individuals go out and return from work. It will add to the volume of traffic already experienced
when Eastwood Collegiate opens and closes for classes.
Approximately 65 years ago a developer made a proposal to develop this land. There was a
housing crises because of the many young families that were started after the second world war.
Even with consideration for the need for housing the proposal was turned down because it was
considered detrimental to the existing neighbourhood. It is unfortunate that we are now in the
same position and must advocate for our neighbourhood.
Thank you for your attention.
Yours truly
Janice Hamalainen
Page 397 of 400
From: Marguerite Love
Sent: Sunday, February 25,ZOZ49:26AK4
To: Brian Bateman; Internet Council (SM)
Subject: neighbourhood development
You don't often get email from
Myname is Marguerite Cameron. |amthe owner and resident at
Kitchener. This summer I will have lived in this friendly, quiet, family oriented neighbourhood for 25
years. |amconcerned about the proposed roadway into the development behind me. Myhouse and
the one on the other side of 136 Brentwood Avenue will be very much affected by this roadway. These
houses will become corner houses with traffic regularly coming in and out of the
development. Generally corner houses have a buffer from the roadway of a boulevard, sidewalk and
several feet o[property tothe perimeter u[the house. Because ofthe width ofthe 136Brentwood
Avenue property this would not bepossible. Therefore, cars using the roadway would bevery close io
the perimeter ofthese two houses. This isnor acceptable. There will betraffic noise, backed uptraffic
waiting to enter Brentwood Avenue and, at night, lights reflecting into the houses. Has the builder
considered this atall?
Also, when the house and garage atI3GBrentwood Avenue are demolished, myback yard will betotally
open tothe public. Has the builder considered this atall? What isheproposing asasolution?
Thank you for your consideration ofmyconcerns,
Marguerite Cameron
Sent from Mail for Windows
Page 398 of 400
From: Cheryl Geiger
Sent: Monday, March 25, 2024 6:09 PM
To: Brian Bateman
Subject: Brentwood/Jackson Development Proposal
Fallow Up Flag: Follow up
Flag Status: Flagged
You don't often get email from .Pqrn why tLia.s i oant
To Whom It May Concern,
RE: New Development in the Eastwood Neighbourhood
We understand that there is a proposal for a development at the corner of Jackson and Brentwood. Our
family have been long time residents in this community. We welcome new families to the neighbourhood as
that is what keeps our community vital and growing. We would, however, like to make sure that the
proposal meets the city's current building guidelines so as to retain the integrity of this pleasant
neighbourhood. We ask for the following considerations:
1. All present regulations from the City of Kitchener be followed for design, size, height and placement of
the buildings as well as parking spaces required to allow this development.
2. Require the developer mitigate the sight lines into adjacent yards and homes.
3. Request the developer keep as many of the trees as possible especially those on the Brentwood side to
reduce the sight lines and preserve the embankment in the backyards of those houses on Brentwood. Add
landscaping to reduce the impact of the trees removed.
A. The existing brick fence remains and is kept in good condition, any other fencing match the existing
fencing and city bylaws be followed.
5. The development be completed in one phase with a dead line for completion from demolition to full
occupancy permitted. If possible add a penalty for not meeting the deadline. It is not acceptable to have
another development that is stalled mid project as the Weber St and Fergus Ave Kitchener development
has.
6. Demolition for the houses to be removed to occur immediately following the last tenant moving out to
prevent squatters and campers. If not demolished the owner will be required to have security to prevent
squatters and campers. We don't need another uncontrolled encampment started.
7. Work times should be 08:00-17:00 Monday to Friday with no weekend work on the site unless it is
inside finishing.
8. On site parking for the construction workers to be provided to keep the streets clear and passable.
9. Roads to be kept clean and free of debris by the developer as per the Highway Traffic Act.
10. A dust control plan implemented with a penalty for failure to comply.
1 1. The city needs to establish Fire routes around the project before construction starts. A four way stop at
Jackson and Brentwood, with 3 way stops at Brentwood and Edmund and Brentwood at Raymond to deter
use of Brentwood to Sheldon to Mackenzie to Ottawa.
Thank you in advance for your consideration in this matter.
Sincerely,
The Geiger family
Page 399 of 400
Sent: Wednesday, March 20, 2024 10:37 AM
To: Brian Bateman
Q: Stephanie Stretch
Subject: Jackson/Brentwood Development
Follow UpFlag: Follow up
Flag Status: Flagged
You don't often get email from LL
Note toBrian Bateman — Senior Pkannor
RE: the Jackson/Brentwood proposed development
I recently attended a neighborhood meeting on March 19, 2024, at the Rockway Centre and was
informed that March 27 was the last day you will be colLecting information for report.
As a long-time resident of the nearby area, I would like to add my comments for your consideration.
The proposed development is too large and out of context with nearby houses. It will negatively
affect the quality of life for those nearby for many reasons discussed at the meeting. It shoutcl be
significantly reduced in size or roconfigured altogether. The concerns of the peopte at the meeting
are legitimate, I will not list them here since they appear to be well documented, and I believe they
have been (or wilt be) communicated toyou.
]annoaBuauhert
Page 400 of 400