HomeMy WebLinkAboutDSD-2024-061 - Official Plan Amendment Application OPA24/002/J/BB - Zoning By-law Amendment Application ZBA24/002/J/BB - 135-161 Jackson Ave and 135 Brentwood Ave - Sanjiv Shukla 1000190771 Ontario Inc.Staff Report
r
NJ :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
i Private Amenity Space
`(treed)
Re -orientation `�� Enlarged
of Building s -'
along Jackson.
POPS removed'
E \
-
4
s $
_11-111-10 t I-II.- It
�
P
-----------------
-
ice'-
` I Ifs
I I „
€EE1) Id —
I Increased Side Yard Setback
€
4 & Step Back of Upper Level liltkL
CLL
14
Figure 3 — Revised Conceptual Site Plan, March 2024
Step back of
top level
l --
T_Ti
_.
• T _
• !i
b /
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.
r.G-_Ia3+ i e�. rats -
4
Brentwood
Ave.
0
h
OW
~Pjj€ti•lY��[4
k • x � I
E I wo, rr.-•i,r,
Figure 6 — Proposed Servicing through 136 Brentwood Avenue
Page 119 of 400
BLOCK A
Step Back
128 Brentwood
UNIT A z UNIT k23
'
UNIT A24 UNIT A23
f'b
3
a
UNIT n.. ,
'r
SURFACE
PARKING
UNIT n_. -
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.
r.G-_Ia3+ i e�. rats -
4
Brentwood
Ave.
0
h
OW
~Pjj€ti•lY��[4
k • x � I
E I wo, rr.-•i,r,
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 25 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.
Provision
RES -5
pro"$Od
Justification
Minimum Lot Area
495 m2
2.4ha
Complies
Minimum Lot Width
19.0 m
147 m
Complies
Minimum/max. Front
*4.0 m16.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 INE HEARD
19 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 by staff on March 26, 2024
309 households were circulated and notified. Ad posted in the
45 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 ands lit
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.
•erimeter trees and
p
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
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 attachec
Schedule `A'.
Page 140 of 400
APPENDIX 1 Notice of the Meeting of Planning & Strategic Initiatives
Committee of April 22, 2024
NOTICE OF PUBLIC MEETING)
�or a development in your neighbourhood
135-161 Jackson Ave. Et 136 Brentwood Ave. I�rc-���
Have You rVoice Heard!
Concept Drawing
Planning & Strategic Initiatives Committee
Date: April 22, 2024
Location, Council Chambers,
Kitchener City Hall
200 King Street West
orVirtual Zoom Meeting
[ Lo kitchener.calmeetings
af1c 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, visa:
' www.kitchener.cal
��,14Ii.aPlanningApplication
s
of c on:act:
Floor Space Maximum Rear Yard Brian Bateman, Senior Planner
Ratio of 1.0 12.5 Metre setback of brian.bateman(�)kitchener.ca
Building Height 6.1 Metres 519.741.2200x7869
The City of Kitchener will consider applications to amend the City's Official Plan and
Zoning By-law thatwould allowfor 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 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
1 Z
m m wmx
co m LL o
Lf) Q Z am 04
0
W Q Q U o Q O p o
WQ�Q ami ` >
U U �
= J O S -2 o p> N Q z
V a H U o (30- w Q m z
H_JHJ m -W U o a N L Q
YVWd �� y UY Qi a
L a) U Z W = z
O LL>+ °� o ov -0 U � W Qi w
Z w v � •� a) C � 2
F-_ W U O£ Q 0 Z
Q
U as n m w �� w o
v Q o
CLz Q
f/1 Q J J 0 w
a `F-
J m z
Q w
U z o
z W
LL O 0N o
0
LU
U)
w
b�ON
LO
N
ti Al X00 U
w o
CO Of o =
w o U
O w
J W
Z U o
6- Z O
O
z
O CO ~ ww
=C� Q 0 m
w M
W QQ
ALV O z
CO o O
Q Q
V� U
J
a-
0- M
Q
BY-LAW NUMBER
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 floorspace 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
Mayor
Clerk
2024.
Page 147 of 400
L
... N'Nbld NI.
a
LU
N
:
�w a �_ o N
1 Se C)
N, N
v- y;
N
z / 9
1
1
1
.Vl� 1�1�
00
1
1
M 1
1
1
1
1
1
M O
M
U)
LO O
C 0
o w
J
U
U
U
w
Q
0
Of
°
�z
�
o
Of
LU
w
Z
af
0
0
o
Z w
z
z
O
W
p
N
W
o
U
of
Of
w z p z
Z O 0 N O
Oz
w
O rn
�
p rn
U)
OU
Of N
W o N p w
>
N!a
p
N!a
Z:)
W
W z NJ) p>
O
J
> O=
J
> O=
�
p O o Q J J J
0
♦—J
"' Z
U) W
Q>z
FJ
Z
Q>z
X
JLLI Q Q Z F F ♦—
Q z> w z z z
�j w
�Op
Z d
w
-
= Z Op
d
X
U p W- w w w w
W
o
J
U)
U)
♦- (n (�
Z
fn
W
p U>W
00>
Z
♦- W W W W
0 Of Of Of
O
W
O W
W U a
W
W U a
d'
Z
—
LLIZ
La O (n Q W W W
U Z
Q
H Of
W
W a Z
(n
W
W a Z
Z
p Q (n (n (n
Q Z d' d' d'
U
O^
HJ
� o^
HJ
w
C7
J Q Z p o o o
m=
W O 6O
0
W 0LLILL,
a
N�Z
ZW
aN
n n n
Q��
L
M
ooZ�LAN
m U Z OU) of of of
L
... N'Nbld NI.
a
LU
N
:
�w a �_ o N
1 Se C)
N, N
v- y;
N
z / 9
1
1
1
.Vl� 1�1�
00
1
1
M 1
1
1
1
1
1
M O
M
U)
LO O
C 0
o w
J
U
U
U
w
Q
0
w
Q
0
0
z
0>
M
�o
r
Oz
co_
r`
w
m
0Q
Z
z
O
LLi
IL
ti
Q
aCz
0
0
�oY
o
Q
LOLO
/o
.'v
9
135-161 JACKSON AVE
& 136 BRENTWOOD
AVENUE KITCHENER
URBAN DESIGN BRIEF
April 2024 1 File No. 22184A
III
MHBC
P L A N N I N G
URBAN DESIGN
& LANDSCAPE
ARCHITECTURE
Page 149 of 400
MHBC
CONTENTS
1.0 INTRODUCTION 1
2.0 EXISTING SITE CONDITIONS 4
2.1 EXISTING CONDITIONS 5
2.2 EXISTING VEGETATION AND TOPOGRAPHY 6
3.0 NEIGHBOURHOOD CONTEXT AND CHARACTER ANALYSIS 7
3.1 IMMEDIATE CONTEXT 8
3.2 SURROUNDING CONTEXT 10
4.0 DESCRIPTION OF PROPOSED DEVELOPMENT
4.1 PROPOSED SITE DESIGN
4.2 BUILDING DESIGN
4.3 LANDSCAPE DESIGN
5.0 RESPONSE TO POLICIES & GUIDELINES
5.1 CITY OF KITCHENER OFFICIAL PLAN
5.2 CITY OF KITCHENER URBAN DESIGN MANUAL
6.0 SUMMARY
16
17
20
22
23
24
26
w
Page 150 of 400
-z
■
t fir. �, •y ', � .� ��� �' - ..
E wk
LAN
® .ten nrqm1,119, -,�lm
1.0 INTRODUCTION
it7AM
✓< k y
i
MHBC
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
2.0 EXISTING SITE
CONDITIONS
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.
2.1 EXISTING CONDITIONS
Five (5) of the former individual lots have trapezoidal -
shapes and include dwellings that vary in street
line setback from approximately 7.5 metres to 13.0
135-161 JACKSON AVE, KITCHENER I urban design brief
metres. The built -forms of these five lots directly front
their respective streets and have access via paved
driveways. One (1) 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 at Jackson Avenue and Brentwood Avenue
Page 155 of5400
0
MHBC
2.2 EXISTING VEGETATION AND
TOPOGRAPHY
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
•* 1 r4.ti
F lmqr
7-
;5.0 NEIGHBOURHOOD
CONTEXTAND
CHARACTER ANALYSIS
eW
r: � e
Page 157 of 400
0
MHBC
3.1 IMMEDIATE CONTEXT
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 (East)
8 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.
135-161 JACKSON AVE, KITCHENER I urban design brief
Figure 3.4 - Single -detached dwellings along Brentwood Avenue (South)
Figure 3.5 - Single -detached dwellings along Jackson Avenue (West)
Page 159 of9400
MHBC
3.2 SURROUNDING CONTEXT
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.
r`
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,
E
r4F�o •.
� c
S.
t✓
op
.,..�.v
= `►� Eastwood Resiential M
_ Neighbourhood._
`-"- Eastwood
>a' Colleg Institute
ar:AW
kway Golf
Figure 3.6 - Existing land uses
10
way Gardens
s
oS�P
Al
_ r
Nomery s
irk a 0 tl
w m;
Eastwo6d Christian.,;
Sph Church
Residential
Open Spaces
_
s v
r
Institutional Commercial
Mixed -Use
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
135-161 JACKSON AVE, KITCHENER I urban design brief
Figure 3.7 - High-rise apartment dwellings at 1414 King Street E
Figure 3.8 - Commercial plaza at Montgomery and King Street E
Figure 3.9 - Recently developed dwelling along Jackson Avenue
Page 161 01400
MHBC
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.
135-161 JACKSON AVE, KITCHENER I urban design brief
Figure 3.13 - Existing vehicle circulation
iXpress Route
GRT Transit Route i
Figure 3.14 - Existing transit routes
Figure 3.15 - Existing pedestrian and cycling routes
Page 163 03400
0
MHBC
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.
Figure 3.16 - Montgomery Park
Figure 3.17 - Rockway Gardens
Figure 3.18 - Iron Horse/Trans-Canada Trail
14 Page 164 of 400
4.0 DESCRIPTION
OF PROPOSED
DEVELOPMENT
a
4.1 PROPOSED SITE DESIGN
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 ofstacked 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
Figure 4.1 - Proposed Site Plan (SRM Architects + Urban Designers, March 21, 2024)
135-161 JACKSON AVE, KITCHENER I urban design brief
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 7.5m side yard
to provide for additional separation and minimize
overlook conditions to rear yards of the Brentwood
BRENTWOOD AVE.
Page 167 07400
MHBC
BLOCK C
BLOCK B
Figure 4.2 - Stepped building form follows site grading (SRM Architects + Urban Designers, March 21, 2024)
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
BLOCK A
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
1.0 Type'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 - Vehicle and pedestrian circulation
135-161 JACKSON AVE, KITCHENER I urban design brief
Vehicles
Pedestrians i
.Y
Page 169 o19400
MHBC
4.2 BUILDING DESIGN
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.
135-161 JACKSON AVE, KITCHENER I urban design brief
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 Door stepbacks to Increase privacy (SRM Architects+ Urban Designers, March 21, 2024)
Page 171 of'4OO
MHBC
4.3 LANDSCAPE DESIGN
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.
N 8420
SFTFiGy � � ,
q<c�TYq RaR �
REFER TO TREE
(j00
0
�\ MANAGEMENT PLAN
S FOR I or.ATIONS
RETAININGWALL
ysoo
ASPHALTPAVEMENT o
6100
Figure 4.6 -Proposed common amenity area next to existing vegetation (SRM Architects + Urban Designers, March 21, 2024)
W
O
O
BALCONY
m1�o
o
71
It
RETAINING WALL
®OB
TRANSFORMER PAD—
BOLLARD
22 Page 172 of 400
■
5.0 RESPONSE TO
POLICIES &GUIDELINES
MHBC
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 CITY OF KITCHENER OFFICIAL PLAN
Section 11 of the City of Kitchener Official Plan contains
Urban Design policies. It is intended that the urban
design policies will provide guidance and direction as
the city grows, develops, and evolves. The 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
streetscape.
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 unitswill 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
�7
June 21, 12 pm
135-161 JACKSON AVE, KITCHENER I urban design brief
• 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 (SRM Architects + Urban Designers, March 21, 2024)
Page 175 05400
MHBC
5.2 CITY OF KITCHENER URBAN DESIGN
MANUAL
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.
135-161 JACKSON AVE, KITCHENER I urban design brief
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
0
MHBC
Page 178 of 400
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 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.
135-161 JACKSON AVE, KITCHENER I urban design brief
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,
; ;' �e7 � //' 0 - t �� �
Trevor Hawkins, M. Plan, MCIP, RPP
Partner
Juliane vonWesterholt, B.E.S, MCIP, RPP
Associate
Page 179 09400
0
MHBC
Page 180 of 400
III
MHBC
P L A N N I N G
URBAN DESIGN
& LANDSCAPE
ARCHITECTUR
Page 181 of 400
NOTICE OF PUBLIC MEETING
for a development in your neighbourhood
135-161 Jackson Ave. ft 136 Brentwood Ave. - KITCHENER
Concept Drawing
00
Floor Space Maximum Rear Yard
Ratio of 1.0 12.5 Metre Setback of
Building Height 6.1 Metres
Have Your Voice Heard!
Planning & Strategic Initiatives Committee
Date: April 22, 2024
Location: Council Chambers,
Kitchener City Hall
200 King Street West
orVirtual 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:
www.kitchener.ca/
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 thatwould 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@kitchener.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.
1IPage
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/traveIwise).
➢ The 'Sustainability Statement Terms of Reference' can be found on the City's website under
'Planning Resources' at ... https://www.kitchener.ca/SustainabilityStatement
21 Page
Page 184 of 400
N*
Region of Waterloo
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 SERVICES
Community Planning
150 Frederick Street 8th Floor
Kitchener Ontario N2G 4A Canada
Telephone: 519-575-4400
TTY: 519-575-4608
Fax: 519-575-4466
www.regionofwaterloo.ca
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.smartaboutsalt.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)
riteria:(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
east expensive or
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
ooling,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 christine.goulet@kitchener.ca
0 e 0 C •oomWo
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.ruiz@enovapower.com. Learn why this is important
Good Morning Brian,
I 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 <Brian.Bateman@kitchener.ca>
Sent: Tuesday, February 20, 2024 8:35 AM
To: Ricardo Ruiz <ricardo.ruiz@enovapower.com>
Cc: Garett Stevenson<Garett.Stevenson@kitchener.ca>; Sandro Bassanese
<Sandro.Bassanese@kitchener.ca>
Subject: RE: Circulation for Comment - 135-161 Jackson Ave. & 136 Brentwood Ave. (OPA/ZBA)
CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the organization. Do not click links or open attachments
unless you recognize the sender and know the content is safe.
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
000000000
From: Ricardo Ruiz <ricardo.ruiz@enovapower.com>
Sent: Friday, February 16, 2024 4:02 PM
To: Brian Bateman <Brian.Bateman@kitchener.ca>
Subject: RE: Circulation for Comment - 135-161 Jackson Ave. & 136 Brentwood Ave. (OPA/ZBA)
You don't often get email from ricardo.ruiz@enovapower.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,
Ricardo Ruiz (he/him) C.E.T. I Distribution Design Supervisor
Office Number: 519-745-4771 Ext. 6304
Mobile Number: 519-497-6221
ricardo.ruiza-enovapower.com
www.enovapower.com
From: Brian Bateman <Brian.Bateman@kitchener.ca>
Sent: Friday, February 16, 2024 3:37 PM
To: Ricardo Ruiz <ricardo.ruiz@enovapower.com>
Subject: FW: Circulation for Comment - 135-161 Jackson Ave. & 136 Brentwood Ave. (OPA/ZBA)
CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the organization. Do not click links or open attachments
unless you recognize the sender and know the content is safe.
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
000000000
From: Christine Kompter<Christine.Kompter@kitchener.ca>
Sent: Thursday, January 18, 2024 3:00 PM
To: MTO - Jeremiah Johnston (Jeremiah.Johnston@ontario.ca) <ieremiah.iohnston@ontario.ca>;
_DL_#_DSD_Planning <DSD-PlanningDivision@kitchener.ca>; Bell - c/o WSP <circulations@wsp.com>;
Carlos Reyes <Carlos.Reyes@kitchener.ca>; Darren Kropf <Darren.Kropf@kitchener.ca>; Dave Seller
<Dave.Seller@kitchener.ca>; David Paetz <David.Paetz@kitchener.ca>; Ellen Kayes
<Ellen.Kayes@kitchener.ca>; Enova Power Corp. - Greig Cameron <greie.cameron@enovapower.com>;
Enova Power Corp. - Shaun Wang <shaun.wane@enovapower.com>; Fire Prevention (SM)
Page 195 of 400
<FirePrevention@kitchener.ca>; French Catholic School Board <planification@cscmonavenir.ca>; GRCA -
Planning (planning@grandriver.ca) <planning@grandriver.ca>; Landuse Planning
<landuseplanning@hydroone.com>; Jim Edmondson <Jim.Edmondson@kitchener.ca>; Justin Readman
<Justin.Readman@kitchener.ca>; Katherine Hughes<Katherine.Hughes@kitchener.ca>; Mike Seiling
<Mike.Seiling@kitchener.ca>; Ontario Power Generation <Executivevp.lawanddevelopment@opg.com>;
Park Planning (SM) <Park.Planning@kitchener.ca>; Region - Howard Chang
(SChang@regionofwaterloo.ca) <SChang@regionofwaterloo.ca>; Planning Applications
<planningapplications@regionofwaterloo.ca>; Property Data Administrator (SM)
<PropDataAdmin@kitchener.ca>; Robert Morgan <Robert.Morgan@kitchener.ca>; Steven Ryder
<Steven.Ryder@kitchener.ca>; Sylvie Eastman <Sylvie.Eastman@kitchener.ca>; UW-WUSA (Feds)
(pres@wusa.ca) <pres@wusa.ca>; Viamonde School Board - Daniel Stojc <stoicd@csviamonde.ca>;
WCDSB - Planning <planning@wcdsb.ca>; WRDSB - Board Secretary (elaine burns@wrdsb.ca)
<elaine burns@wrdsb.ca>; WRDSB - Planning <planning@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
o�aooomoo
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:
https://enovapower.com/disclaimer
Page 196 of 400
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:
https://enovapower.com/disclaimer
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 1 TTY 1-866-969-9994 iennifer.arends(a�kitchener.ca
From: Sherry Handsor <Sherry.Handsor@kitchener.ca> On Behalf Of Fire Prevention (SM)
Sent: Thursday, January 18, 2024 3:04 PM
To: Jennifer Arends <Jennifer.Arends@kitchener.ca>
Subject: FW: Circulation for Comment - 135-161 Jackson Ave. & 136 Brentwood Ave. (OPA/ZBA)
From: Christine Kompter<Christine.Kompter@kitchener.ca>
Sent: Thursday, January 18, 2024 3:00 PM
To: MTO - Jeremiah Johnston (Jeremiah.Johnston@ontario.ca) <ieremiah.iohnston@ontario.ca>;
_DL_#_DSD_Planning <DSD-PlannineDivision@kitchener.ca>; Bell - c/o WSP <circulations@wsp.com>;
Carlos Reyes <Carlos.Reyes@kitchener.ca>; Darren Kropf <Darren.Kropf@kitchener.ca>; Dave Seller
<Dave.Seller@kitchener.ca>; David Paetz <David.Paetz@kitchener.ca>; Ellen Kayes
<Ellen.Kayes@kitchener.ca>; Enova Power Corp. - Greig Cameron <greig.cameron@enovapower.com>;
Enova Power Corp. - Shaun Wang <shaun.wang@enovapower.com>; Fire Prevention (SM)
<FirePrevention@kitchener.ca>; French Catholic School Board <planification@cscmonavenir.ca>; GRCA -
Planning (planning@grandriver.ca) <planning@grandriver.ca>; Landuse Planning
<landuseplanning@hydroone.com>; Jim Edmondson <Jim.Edmondson@kitchener.ca>; Justin Readman
<Justin.Readman@kitchener.ca>; Katherine Hughes<Katherine.Hughes@kitchener.ca>; Mike Seiling
<Mike.Seiling@kitchener.ca>; Ontario Power Generation <Executivevp.lawanddevelopment@opg.com>;
Park Planning (SM) <Park.Planning@kitchener.ca>; Region - Howard Chang
(SChang@regionofwaterloo.ca) <SChang@regionofwaterloo.ca>; Planning Applications
Page 198 of 400
<planningapplications@regionofwaterloo.ca>; Property Data Administrator (SM)
<PropDataAdmin@kitchener.ca>; Robert Morgan <Robert.Morgan@kitchener.ca>; Steven Ryder
<Steven.Ryder@kitchener.ca>; Sylvie Eastman <Sylvie.Eastman@kitchener.ca>; UW-WUSA (Feds)
(pres@wusa.ca) <pres@wusa.ca>; Viamonde School Board - Daniel Stojc <stoicd@csviamonde.ca>;
WCDSB - Planning <planning@wcdsb.ca>; WRDSB - Board Secretary (elaine burns@wrdsb.ca)
<elaine burns@wrdsb.ca>; WRDSB - Planning <planning@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 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 TTY 1-866-969-9994 christine.kompter@kitchener.ca
•�Eio00m D
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, 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
•e00oomoo
From: Planning <plannine@erandriver.ca>
Sent: Thursday, January 11, 2024 9:38 AM
To: Christine Kompter <Christine.Kompter@kitchener.ca>
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 Gallaugher
Engineering & Planning Services Technical Assistant
Grand River Conservation Authority
400 Clyde Road, PO Box 729
Cambridge, ON N1 5W6
Office: 519-621-2763 ext. 2320
Toll-free: 1-866-900-4722
Email: agallaugher(cD randriver.ca
Page 200 of 400
www.grandriver.ca I Connect with us on social media
From: Christine Kompter<Christine.Kompter@kitchener.ca>
Sent: Wednesday, January 10, 2024 2:41 PM
To: _DL_#_DSD_Planning <DSD-PlanningDivision@kitchener.ca>; Bell - c/o WSP
<circulations@wsp.com>; Carlos Reyes <Carlos.Reyes@kitchener.ca>; Darren Kropf
<Darren.Kropf@kitchener.ca>; Dave Seller <Dave.SelIer@kitchener.ca>; David Paetz
<David.Paetz@kitchener.ca>; Ellen Kayes <Ellen.Kayes@kitchener.ca>; Enova Power Corp. - Greig
Cameron <greig.cameron@enovapower.com>; Enova Power Corp. - Shaun Wang
<shaun.wang@enovapower.com>; Fire Prevention (SM) <FirePrevention@kitchener.ca>; French
Catholic School Board<planification@cscmonavenir.ca>; Planning <planning@grandriver.ca>; Landuse
Planning <landuseplanning@hydroone.com>; Jim Edmondson <Jim.Edmondson@kitchener.ca>; Justin
Readman <Justin.Readman@kitchener.ca>; Katherine Hughes <Katherine.Hughes@kitchener.ca>; Mike
Seiling <Mike.Seiline@kitchener.ca>; Ontario Power Generation
<Executivevp.lawanddevelopment@ope.com>; Park Planning (SM) <Park.Planning@kitchener.ca>;
Region - Howard Chang (SChane@reeionofwaterloo.ca) <SChane@reeionofwaterloo.ca>; Planning
Applications<plannineapplications@reeionofwaterloo.ca>; Property Data Administrator (SM)
<PropDataAdmin@kitchener.ca>; Robert Morgan <Robert.Morgan@kitchener.ca>; Steven Ryder
<Steven.Ryder@kitchener.ca>; Sylvie Eastman <Sylvie.Eastman@kitchener.ca>; UW-WUSA (Feds)
(pres@wusa.ca) <pres@wusa.ca>; Viamonde School Board - Daniel Stojc <stoicd@csviamonde.ca>;
WCDSB - Planning <planning@wcdsb.ca>; WRDSB - Board Secretary (elaine burns@wrdsb.ca)
<elaine burns@wrdsb.ca>; WRDSB - Planning <planning@wrdsb.ca>
Cc: Brian Bateman <Brian.Bateman @kitchener.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 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
0006060000
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)
Very well,
MTO maintains the same position on permits as previously provided.
Thank you,
Jeremiah Johnston Corridor Management Planner
Corridor Management Section
Ministry of Transportation Operations Branch West
659 Exeter Road, London, ON N6E 1L3
M: (226)-980-6407
From: Brian Bateman <Brian.Bateman@kitchener.ca>
Sent: January 18, 2024 4:01 PM
To: Johnston, Jeremiah (MTO) <Jeremiah.Johnston@ontario.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
0"" � 00000
From: Johnston, Jeremiah (MTO) <Jeremiah.Johnston@ontario.ca>
Sent: Thursday, January 18, 2024 3:59 PM
To: Brian Bateman <Brian.Bateman@kitchener.ca>
Subject: RE: Circulation for Comment - 135-161 Jackson Ave. & 136 Brentwood Ave. (OPA/ZBA)
Good afternoon Brian,
Has the development changed since MTO commented at Pre -con in 2022?
Page 202 of 400
Thank you,
Jeremiah Johnston Corridor Management Planner
Corridor Management Section
Ministry of Transportation Operations Branch West
659 Exeter Road, London, ON N6E 11-3
M: (226)-980-6407
From: Christine Kompter<Christine.Kompter@kitchener.ca>
Sent: January 18, 2024 3:00 PM
To: Johnston, Jeremiah (MTO) <Jeremiah.Johnston@ontario.ca>; _DL_#_DSD_Planning <DSD-
PlanningDivision@kitchener.ca>; Bell - c/o WSP <circulations@wsp.com>; Carlos Reyes
<Carlos.Reyes@kitchener.ca>; Darren Kropf <Darren.Kropf@kitchener.ca>; Dave Seller
<Dave.Seller@kitchener.ca>; David Paetz <David.Paetz@kitchener.ca>; Ellen Kayes
<Ellen.Kayes@kitchener.ca>; Enova Power Corp. - Greig Cameron <greig.cameron@enovapower.com>;
Enova Power Corp. - Shaun Wang <shaun.wang@enovapower.com>; Fire Prevention (SM)
<FirePrevention@kitchener.ca>; French Catholic School Board <planification@cscmonavenir.ca>; GRCA -
Planning (planning@grandriver.ca) <planning@grandriver.ca>; Landuse Planning
<landuseplanning@hydroone.com>; Jim Edmondson <Jim.Edmondson@kitchener.ca>; Justin Readman
<Justin.Readman@kitchener.ca>; Katherine Hughes<Katherine.Hughes@kitchener.ca>; Mike Seiling
<Mike.Seiling@kitchener.ca>; Ontario Power Generation<Executivevp.lawanddevelopment@opg.com>;
Park Planning (SM) <Park.Planning@kitchener.ca>; Region - Howard Chang
(SChang@regionofwaterloo.ca) <SChang@regionofwaterloo.ca>; Planning Applications
<planningapplications@regionofwaterloo.ca>; Property Data Administrator (SM)
<PropDataAdmin@kitchener.ca>; Robert Morgan <Robert.Morgan@kitchener.ca>; Steven Ryder
<Steven.Ryder@kitchener.ca>; Sylvie Eastman <Sylvie.Eastman@kitchener.ca>; UW-WUSA (Feds)
(pres@wusa.ca) <pres@wusa.ca>; Stojc, Daniel <stoicd@csviamonde.ca>; WCDSB - Planning
<planning@wcdsb.ca>; Elaine Burns <elaine burns@wrdsb.ca>; WRDSB - Planning
<planning@wrdsb.ca>
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 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
777777777
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:
Commenter's Name:
Email:
Phone
Park Planning
Lenore Ross
Lenore. ross@kitchener.ca
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
IBauu-
S of 400
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 —235 M2 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 IVIHBC 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
Id of 400
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 CommentlnE 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 -
low 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 <Brian.Bateman@kitchener.ca>
Sent: Tuesday, March 26, 2024 9:42 AM
To: Steven Ryder <Steven.Ryder@kitchener.ca>
Cc: Darren Kropf <Darren.Kropf@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 I.I. I 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
OX0.06000060
From: Brian Bateman
Sent: Tuesday, March 19, 2024 10:22 AM
To: Steven Ryder <Steven.Ryder@kitchener.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
000000000
From: Brian Bateman
Sent: Monday, March 18, 2024 4:36 PM
To: Steven Ryder <Steven.Ryder@kitchener.ca>
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
��e�oom�o
From: Brian Bateman
Sent: Tuesday, March 5, 2024 9:32 AM
To: Katey Crawford <Katey.Crawford@kitchener.ca>; Lenore Ross <Lenore.Ross@kitchener.ca>; Steven
Ryder <Steven.Ryder@kitchener.ca>
Cc: Sandro Bassanese <Sandro.Bassanese@kitchener.ca>
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
600MOOO - 0
From: Juliane vonWesterholt <ivonwesterholt@mhbcplan.com>
Sent: Friday, March 1, 2024 6:11 PM
To: Brian Bateman <Brian.Bateman@kitchener.ca>
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.
J u LACIM VOVU westeKhoLt
JULIANE von WESTERHOLT BES, MCIP, RPP
Associate
Follow us: Webpage I Linkedin I Facebook I X I Vimeo I Instagram
-o&-qO■P%4o- P L A N N I N G
URBAN DESIGN
& LANDSCAPE
HBC ARCHITECTURE
This communication is intended solely for the named addressee(s) and may contain information that is privileged, confidential, protected or
otherwise exempt from disclosure. No waiver of confidence, privilege, protection or otherwise is made. If you are not the intended recipient of
this communication, please advise us immediately and delete this email without reading, copying or forwarding it to anyone.
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, OALA, CSLA
Senior Urban Designer / Development and Housing Approvals / City of Kitchener
519-741-2200 ext. 7157 / TTY 1-866-969-9994 Katey.Crawford(a)-kitchener.ca
Page 213 of 400
From: Brian Bateman <Brian.Bateman@kitchener.ca>
Sent: Monday, March 18, 2024 5:13 PM
To: Katey Crawford <Katey.Crawford@kitchener.ca>; Sandro Bassanese
<Sandro.Bassanese@kitchener.ca>
Cc: Garett Stevenson <Garett.Stevenson@kitchener.ca>
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
@ Q0a) G4
From: Brian Bateman
Sent: Monday, March 18, 2024 4:56 PM
To: Katey Crawford <Katey.Crawford@kitchener.ca>; Sandro Bassanese
<Sandro.Bassanese@kitchener.ca>
Cc: Garett Stevenson <Garett.Stevenson@kitchener.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
000"00m00
From: Juliane vonWesterholt <ivonwesterholt@mhbcplan.com>
Sent: Monday, March 18, 2024 4:49 PM
Page 214 of 400
To: Brian Bateman <Brian.Bateman@kitchener.ca>
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.
J L'CUR we VOVU westerhoLt
JULIANE von WESTERHOLT BES, MCIP, RPP
Associate
Follow us: Webpage I Linkedin I Facebook I X I Vimeo I Instagram
PLANIBJING
URBAN DESIGN
LANDSCAPE
MHBC I ,ARCHITECTURE
This communication is intended solely for the named addressee(s) and may contain information that is privileged, confidential, protected or
otherwise exempt from disclosure. No waiver of confidence, privilege, protection or otherwise is made. If you are not the intended recipient of
this communication, please advise us immediately and delete this email without reading, copying or forwarding it to anyone.
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 planning@wcdsb.ca. Learn why this is important
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 (STSWR), or its assigns or successors, will not travel on privately
owned or maintained right-of-ways to pick up and drop off students, and so bussed
students will be required to meet the bus at a congregated bus pick-up point."
If you require any further information, please contact me by e-mail at Jordan. Neale@wcdsb.ca.
Thank you,
Jordan Neale
Planning Technician, WCDSB
480 Dutton Dr, Waterloo, ON N2L 4C6
519-578-3660 ext. 2355
From: Christine Kompter<Christine.Kompter@kitchener.ca>
Sent: Thursday, January 18, 2024 3:00 PM
To: MTO - Jeremiah Johnston (Jeremiah.Johnston@ontario.ca) <ieremiah.iohnston@ontario.ca>;
_DL_#_DSD_Planning <DSD-PlanningDivision@kitchener.ca>; Bell - c/o WSP <circulations@wsp.com>;
Carlos Reyes <Carlos.Reyes@kitchener.ca>; Darren Kropf <Darren.Kropf@kitchener.ca>; Dave Seller
<Dave.Seller@kitchener.ca>; David Paetz <David.Paetz@kitchener.ca>; Ellen Kayes
<Ellen.Kayes@kitchener.ca>; Enova Power Corp. - Greig Cameron <greig.cameron@enovapower.com>;
Enova Power Corp. - Shaun Wang <shaun.wang@enovapower.com>; Fire Prevention (SM)
<FirePrevention@kitchener.ca>; French Catholic School Board <planification@cscmonavenir.ca>; GRCA -
Page 216 of 400
Planning (planning@grandriver.ca) <planning@grandriver.ca>; Landuse Planning
<landuseplanning@hydroone.com>; Jim Edmondson <Jim.Edmondson@kitchener.ca>; Justin Readman
<Justin.Readman@kitchener.ca>; Katherine Hughes<Katherine.Hughes@kitchener.ca>; Mike Seiling
<Mike.Seiling@kitchener.ca>; Ontario Power Generation <Executivevp.lawanddevelopment@opg.com>;
Park Planning (SM) <Park.Planning@kitchener.ca>; Region - Howard Chang
(SChang@regionofwaterloo.ca) <SChang@regionofwaterloo.ca>; Planning Applications
<planningapplications@regionofwaterloo.ca>; Property Data Administrator (SM)
<PropDataAdmin@kitchener.ca>; Robert Morgan <Robert.Morgan@kitchener.ca>; Steven Ryder
<Steven.Ryder@kitchener.ca>; Sylvie Eastman <Sylvie.Eastman@kitchener.ca>; UW-WUSA (Feds)
(pres@wusa.ca) <pres@wusa.ca>; Viamonde School Board - Daniel Stojc <stoicd@csviamonde.ca>;
Planning <planning@wcdsb.ca>; WRDSB - Board Secretary (elaine burns@wrdsb.ca)
<elaine burns@wrdsb.ca>; WRDSB - Planning <planning@wrdsb.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 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
OOffibEivOGm D
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
PLANNING
DEPARTMENT
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. `in order to limit risks, public school buses contracted by Student Transportation
Services of Waterloo Region (STSWR), or its assigns or successors, will not travel on
privately owned or maintained right-of-ways to pick up and drop off students, and so
bussed students will be required to meet the bus at a congregated bus pick-up point"
2. That the Owner/Developer enters into an agreement with the City of Kitchener to be registered on
the title to the Property that provides:
a. "All agreements of purchase and sale or leases for the sale or lease of a completed home
or a home to be completed on the Property must contain the wording set out below to
advise all purchasers of residential units and/or renters of same."
"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 planningO-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 (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"
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
Waterloo Region District School Board
�^ 51 Ardelt Avenue
Kitchener ON, N2C 2R5
T: 519 570-0003
w: wrdsb.ca
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, 6t" Floor I P.O. Box 1118 1 Kitchener ON N2G 4G7
519-741-2200 ext. 7425 1 TTY 1-866-969-9994 1 christine.kompter@kitchener.ca
000000000
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 important
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:Hwww.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 Young
Sent: Thursday, February 1, 2024 1:20 PM
To: Brian Bateman
Subject: N2H 2E1 Proposed Development
[You don't often get email from earn why this is important at
https://aka.ms/LearnAboutSenderidentification ]
Hello Mr.Bateman,
I have some questions about the development as I have a property beside 136 Brentwood. When would
be a good time to contact you?
Thank you,
Best regards,
Sent from my iPhone
Page 224 of 400
From: Jim Laturney
Sent: Tuesday, February 6, 2024 9:53 AM
To: Brian Bateman; Mayor; Stephanie Stretch
Subject: 135 Jackson Variance Request
Attachments: 135 Jackson response to CofK Building .pdf
Follow Up Flag: Follow up
Flag Status: Completed
Some people who received this message don't often get email from •v this is in 0-I .JrIL
Page 225 of 400
Brian Bateman, Senior Planner
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.
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 = 133 (not including the townhouse garage spots)
To all the variances in this case I 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%. 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
should be required to have the remaining trees and trees on adjacent property impacted by
Page 226 of 400
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 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
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 Laturney
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 Learn why this is
iP)1r:o� L�r1L
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 8, 2024 4:30 PM
To: Brian Bateman
Subject: 135-161 Jackson Ave & 136 Brentwood Ave
You don't often get email from Learn why this is important
Hello Brian,
Appreciate being asked to share concerns, albeit truly bemused as to why - when the
development is already advertising its listings, according to some resident who have suffered
themselves to look 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 to "check the boxes".
Having said that, I will voice the following:
T. 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 family -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 is low.
3, Community upgrades (recent) positioned as democratically chosen to benefit residents
are, by far the majority, used only by those driving by car from other areas and have
disrupted our greenspace - Montgomery Park - 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 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 (1 per unit) to the area, as well as,
most assuredly, at least 3/ that many more in co -habitants vehicles. My question is, where
will they park? In the streets? How will the intersections (at Brentwood, Montgomery,
Sheldon & Weber) and snowplowing accommodate the added 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 - 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.
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 take responsibility and telling us this
development(s) is coming, whether we want it to or not.
Respectfully,
C.A. Liebig
Christine A. Liebig
Mentor I Brand Story & Strategy
boundless
ACCELERATOR
(formerly Innovation Guelph)
Office:
Mobile:
Web: $oundlessAccelerator.ca
Email:
361 Southgate Drive, Guelph, ON N1G 3MS
This message 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 inform us. We also ask thatyou kindly delete this message
from your mailbox and do not forward it (in whole or in part) to anyone else, as the information may be priviledged. Thank
you foryour cooperation and understanding.
Page 231 of 400
From:
Dennis &/or Barb
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 why 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 5M13 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.
■ 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.
= 1 am not sure how you plan but this is not a good one.
4 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: Denise Fischer
Sent: Wednesday, February 7, 2024 1:59 PM
To: Brian Bateman
Subject: 135-161 Jackson Ave 136 Brentwood
[You don't often get email from earn why this is important at
https://aka.ms/LearnAboutSenderldentification J
Hi Brian I have lived on Sheldon Ave for the past 44 years. We are a tight knit community.
I have concerns about the number of units being built on Jackson/Brentwood. We are losing so many
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 at the top of Sheldon. And the increased traffic on Sheldon is already upsetting . There are
already issues with the narrowing of both Mckenzie & Sheldon.
Regards, Denise
Sent from my iPhone
Page 233 of 400
From:
Jim Laturney
Sent:
Wednesday, January 31, 2024 11:39 AM
To:
Brian Bateman
Subject:
135-161 Jackson Ave Kitchener
Attachments:
135-161 Jackson.pdf
You don't often get email from earn why this is important
Jim Laturney
Page 234 of 400
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 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 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.
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.
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 Hergott
Sent: Wednesday, February 7, 2024 8:57 AM
To: Brian Bateman
Subject: 135-161 Jackson Ave and 136 Brentwood Ave, Kitchener
You don't often get email from Learn why this is important
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 going to reach out because
there is a general feeling that you will do what ever you want to do to make money for the 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 to move.
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 thinking?? Please consider our concerns.
Barb Hergott
Page 237 of 400
From: Stella
Sent: Friday, February 9, 2024 4:04 PM
To: Brian Bateman; Internet - Council (SM)
Subject: 135-161 Jackson Ave and 136 Brentwood Ave
Some people who received this message don't often get email from: llllllllllllllllllll.earn why this is important
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 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 is too 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 to Kitchener 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. 1 would like to see less than half dwelling units proposed and more outdoor green space on the
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
Sent: Saturday, January 20, 2024 7:28 AM
To: Brian Bateman
Subject: 135-161 Jackson Ave. & 136 Brentwoad Avc. Development
You don't often get email from Learn why this 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.
I 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?
I appreciate your time.
Thankyou
Stephanie Patten
Get Outlook for iOS
Page 239 of 400
From: Rachel Ostrander
Sent: Friday, February 9, 2024 6:20 PM
To: Brian Bateman; Internet - Council (SM)
Subject: 136-161 Jackson and 136 Brentwood - concerns and
Some people who received this message don't often get email from Lt:as is
important
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, I would like to make it clear I am absolutely against this proposed development and rezoning to
minimize the rear setback limit and increase building height.
While typically development can be great for KW this particular proposal is not 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 some just a few of my key questions:
1. Has a gap capacity assessment been completed assessing the existing utility supply and the
incremental demand placed on the area by this proposal and other developments? I would 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 to wildlife in the
neighbourhood. Has there been an assessment completed on the species of wildlife in the area
and how they will be impacted when these habitats are removed ?
3. 120 units will greatly impact the traffic in the area by almost doubling the number of Gars 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 on how traffic's impacts will be managed ?
4. I 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
be amplified 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 to hearing the responses to some of these concerns and will attend the meeting on Feb
21st,
Best Regards,
Page 240 of 400
From: Thomas van der Hoff
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
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!
• •, i i •I�
Deputy Director
Recreation and Community Services
Office: 1
WOOLWICH
":W TOWN SHIP
Woolwich.ca I EngageWR I Facebook I Instagram I Twitter
This email may contain confidential information. If you received this email in error, please notify the sender and delete the email. Please consider the
environment before printing
Page 241 of 400
From:
Amber Elliott
Sent:
Saturday, January 20, 2024 8:44 AM
To:
Brian Bateman
Subject:
Application Number: ZBA24/002/J/BB
[You don't often get email from earn why this is important at
https:Haka.ms/LearnAboutSenderldentification j
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 I, 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 be called.
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 really. 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 of ICI work, high rise buildings and small
residential projects, and geotech information is always 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. So be prepared to have a lot of feedback, as this community won't hold
back. Please let us now everything, so we can be best prepared.
Page 242 of 400
Thank you for your time and consideration,
Amber Elliott
Page 243 of 400
From: Natalie Sebastian
Sent: Sunday, February 4, 2024 12:22 PM
To: Brian Bateman; Internet - Council (SM)
Cc: Stephanie Stretch
Subject: Below is a letter from 152 Jackson ( the owner doesn't have internet or does
email ,I have agreed to write her letter )
You don't often get email from Learn why this is important
Millie Eckert
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..
WHY CAN WE NOT HAVE A MEETING FACE TO FACE!
Mildred Eckert
Kindest regards,
Natalie
www.enpointeandiustdance.ca
On Friday, February 2, 2024 at 03:07:25 p.m. EST, Internet - Council (SM) <council@kitchener.ca>
wrote:
Dear Natalie,
Page 244 of 400
am sharing your comments with the Planner that is overseeing
this application at 135 Jackson, Brian Bateman. I have also sent
your comments to Cllr 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://app2.kitchener.ca/AppDocs/OpenData/AMANDA
DataSets/701880 POSTCARD%20(NOTICE%20&%20NIM)%20(
135%20Jackson).pdf
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 the
residents who participated in the information session.
Elizabeth Leacock
Page 245 of 400
Constituency Assistant to Council I Office of the Mayor and
Council I City of Kitchener
519.741.2200 x7792 ( TTY 1-866-969-9994
elizabeth.leacock@kitchener.ca
" info<:kitchener.ca
519-741--2345
k..
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>
Subject: Proposed Development in your Neighbourhood - Jackson & Brentwood !
You don't often get email from Learn why this is 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 neighbourhoods study
Page 246 of 400
Residential intensification in established
neighbourhoods study
Policy and regulation review of developments in established
communities.
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 247 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 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 Sebastian
Page 248 of 400
From: Megan Bailey
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 why this is important
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 up 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.
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 up 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 I 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 "701880_23057_2023 -11 -29_135 -
Page 249 of 400
161 Jackson Ave_OPA-ZBA Set" seems to imply additional trees exist which don't actually
L N,Ndsl?
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
be implying to me that it's going to be more private than it is. If the developer wanted to put a tree 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 be good to limit parking to one side of the 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.
I would also like to request that if any of my comments are to become 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 at risk.
Thanks!
Megan Bailey and Wesley Sadgrove
Page 251 of 400
From: Kimm Kay
Sent: Wednesday, January 31, 2024 3:39 PM
To: Brian Bateman
Subject: Concerned Home Owner - Ward 10 - Sheldon Ave. N.
Attachments: Response To Proposed Development in Jackson Ave., Kitchener - Ward 10.pdf
You don't often get email from Learn why this is important
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.
The prospect 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 apartment/townhouse
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 and
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.
Best regards, Kim
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:Haka.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 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.
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: Jim Laturney
Sent: Tuesday, February 6, 2024 1:14 PM
To: Brian Bateman; Mayor; Stephanie Stretch
Subject: Eastwood area developments
Some people who received this message don't often get email from -ca. Learn why this is important
Brian:
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
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. When 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.
Jim Laturney
Page 255 of 400
From: Elizabeth Leacock on behalf of Internet - Council (SM)
Sent: Friday, February 2, 2024 3:07 PM
To: Brian Bateman;
Cc: Stephanie Stretch
Subject: FW: Proposed Development in your Neighbourhood - 135 Jackson &
Brentwood !
Dear Natalie,
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 Cllr 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://app2.kitchener.ca/AppDocs/OpenData/AMANDA
DataSets/701880 POSTCARD%20(NOTICE%20&%20NIM)%20(
135%20Jackson).pdf
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 the
residents who participated in the information session.
Elizabeth Leacock
Constituency Assistant to Council I Office of the Mayor and
Council I City of Kitchener
519.741.2200 x7792 I TTY 1-866-969-9994
elizabeth.leacock(aD.kitchener.ca
Page 256 of 400
�0 Q
info kitchener.ca
519--741-2345
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.
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 fro? Learn why this is 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 neighbourhoods study
Residential intensification in established
neighbourhoods study
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
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.
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
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 Sebastian
Page 258 of 400
Kindest regards,
Natalie
www.enpointeandiustdance.ca
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 !
Good morning Brian and Stephanie,
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 21St at 7pm. To join go to www.zoom.us/loin, enter
meeting ID# 82817583252 or participate by phone dial
1.647.558.0588 and enter meeting ID# 828 1758 3252
Specific question can be submitted to the planner at
brian.bateman(cD-kitchener.ca r 51-741-2200 x7869
Thanks so much,
Elizabeth Leacock
Constituency Assistant to Council I Office of the Mayor and
Council I City of Kitchener
519.741.2200 x7792 I TTY 1-866-969-9994
elizabeth.leacockp,kitchener.ca
0101-1700V'D C) c
we'to ere III
for arca�f •
# •
Confidentiality Nofice: 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
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 why this is 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 neighbourhoods study
Residential intensification in established
neighbourhoods study
Policy and regulation review of developments in established
communities_
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.
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
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 Sehastian
Page 262 of 400
From: Stephanie Stretch
Sent: Tuesday, February 13, 2024 4:03 PM
To:
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,
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 Stephanie. Stretch @ Kitchener. ca
77777 7
Customers can now connect with the City of Kitchener anytime by calling
the 2417 Corporate Contact Centre at 519-741-2345
From: Gabriel
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 hsppening 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
On Thu., Feb. 1, 2024, 4:11 p.m. Stephanie Stretch,<Stephanie.Stretchekitchener.ca> wrote:
Hi Gabriele,
Leave this with me for a few days and I'll see what I can do. Maybe a hybrid meeting in person with
others joining on line? I'll get back to you once I know what's possible.
Thanks
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 Stepha n ie. Stretch OD Kitchener. ca
Customers can now connect with the City of Kitchener anytime by calling the 24/7
Corporate Contact Centre at 519-741-2345
From: Gabriele
Sent: Thursday, February 1, 2024 3:10 PM
To: Stephanie Stretch<Stephanie.Stretch@kitchener.ca>
Subject: Re: Development on Jackson
Page 264 of 400
You don't often get email from . Learn why this is important
Several households are not into zoom. Now that the pandemic 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,<Stephanie.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
applicant/owner. No decisions will be made at the meeting.
I have also included Brian Bateman in this email so that he can help answer any questions you may
have, as he is the lead planner on this 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.
To join go to http://www.zoom.us/loin, enter meeting ID# 82817583252 or participate by phone dial
1.647.558.0588 and enter meeting ID# 828 1758 3252
Specific question can be submitted to the planner at brian.bateman@kitchener.ca r 51-741-2200
x7869
Thank you and let me know how you would like to connect.
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 Step ha nie.Stretch@Kitchener.ca
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
-----Original Message -----
From: noreply@kitchener.ca <noreply@kitchener.ca> On Behalf Of Gabriele
Sent: Tuesday, January 30, 2024 11:03 AM
To: Stephanie Stretch <Stephanie.Stretch@kitchener.ca>
Subject: Development on Jackson
[You don't often get email from Learn why this is important at
https://aka.ms/Lea rnAboutSenderldentifi cation ]
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 be possible?
Thanks
Gabriele
Origin: https://www.kitchener.ca/en/council-and-city-administration/councillor-stephanie-
stretch.aspx
This email was sent to you by Gabriele
https://www.kitchener.caZ.
through
Page 266 of 400
From: Natalie Sebastian
Sent: Tuesday, February 6, 2024 4:12 PM
To: Stephanie Stretch; Brian Bateman
Subject: Jackson Ave
You don't often get email from Learn why this is imlortant
Stephanie and Brian
Why is this listed on the developers site ?
I thought this was a proposal!! I I
https://www.livabl.com/kitchener-on/new-homes/page-2
in Kindness,
Natalie
Page 267 of 400
From: Kelly Karges.
Sent: Sunday, February 4, 2024 5:27 PM
To: Brian Bateman
Subject: Jackson Development
[You don't often get email from earn why this is important at
https://aka.ms/LearnAboutSenderldentification )
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 on some level by those receiving it.
Thank you,
Kelly Karges
Page 268 of 400
From: Doug Wilson
Sent: Tuesday, February 13, 2024 9:08 AM
To: Brian Bateman
Subject: Proposed Development 135 - 161 Jackson Avenue
You don't often get email from Learn why this is important
Hello Brian,
We own a residence on Brentwood Avenue.
Regarding this proposed development, can you tell me if the developer has already submitted
an application for an Official Plan Amendment? Would the developer also need an amendment to the
Regional Official Plan?
Thanks,
Doug Wilson
Doug Wilson
President,
Cambridge Butterfly Conservatory
2500 Kossuth Road
Cambridge, ON
N3H 4R7
Page 269 of 400
From: Robert Young
Sent: Thursday, February 8, 2024 8:39 PM
To: Brian Bateman; Internet - Council (SM); 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 in pollution to the air quality.
* Will the property be level with my property or will it be higher and casting a shadow?
* Will there be privacy?
* Snow removal at my driveway and property line?
Councillor Stretch, what are my options as a resident 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
ll You don't often get email from tarn wh this is important
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
tieighbourhood. 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 Nvith 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. This 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 informatiost again: If I could
be so thorough and come from his background/ experience, I would be covering the same details
d
"Brian Bateman, Senior Planner
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 =133 (not including the townhouse garage spots)
To all the variances in this case I 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, 472,49S 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"
or:
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.
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. When
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
run off or will the houses on Montgomery and Brentwood take the brunt of the run off in their
yards and basements. Has any consideration been given to an underground storage tank?
The water can then be used to flush toilets and water the landscaping. This will save on the
Page 275 of 400
storm water management, water usage and sewage charges on bill from the Kitchener
Utilities
If you have gotten this far, thank you for reading this email.
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
You don't often get email from Learn why this 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.
I . 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?
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.
t 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,
Kelly Karges
Page 278 of 400
From: Melanie Cameron
Sent: Wednesday, January 31, 2024 3:26 PM
To: Brian Bateman
Cc: Marguerite Love; Internet - Council (SM)
Subject: Query re Proposed Development at 135-161 Jackson Ave and 136 Brentwood
Ave
You don't often get email from earn why this is important
Hello, Brian.
I'm the daughter of Marguerite (Love) Cameron (cc'ed in here, along with Ward 10 Councillor, Stephanie
Stretch).
Marguerite owns and resides at 140 Brentwood Ave, located immediately to the right of 136 Brentwood
Ave.
We plan to attend the February 21 meeting to learn more about this proposal. In the meantime, we
have several questions and are wondering if you're able to answer 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 140 Brentwood side lot -line?
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,
on behalf of Marguerite (Love) Cameron
Page 279 of 400
From:
Dennis &/or Barb
Sent:
Tuesday, February 6, 2024 3:58 PM
To:
Brian Bateman
Subject:
RE: 135-161 Jackson Ave & 136 Brentwood
You don't often get email from Learn why this is important
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 we will be meeting before this Zoom.
Please send paperwork to 159 Brentwood Avenue Kitchener On N2H2C9
Regards,
Barbara Maslanko and Dennis Gibson
From: Brian Bateman <Brian.Bateman@kitchener.ca>
Sent: February 6, 2024 3:49 PM
To: 'Dennis &/or Barb'
Cc: Garett Stevenson <Garett.Stevenson@kitchener.ca>
Subject: RE: 135-161 Jackson Ave & 136 Brentwood
Thank you for the request. I can have the City's Legal Dept. send it directly to your lawyer. Please send
me his name and contact information at your earliest convenience.
Brian Bateman, MCIP, RPP
Senior Planner
City of Kitchener
519-741-2200 x7869, TTY 1-866-969-9994
0TUT'D
tiA.�. na
From: Dennis &/or Barb
Sent: Tuesday, February 6, 2024 12:03 PM
To: Brian Bateman <Brian.Bateman kitchener.ca>
Subject: Re: 135-161 Jackson Ave & 136 Brentwood
You don't often get email from darn why this is important
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 3 storey apartments so he built the mansion. We have been asked by counsel to get 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 Outlook for iOS
From: Brian Bateman <Brian.Bateman@kitchener.ca>
Sent: Tuesday, February 6, 2024 11:37:08 AM
To: 'Dennis &/or Barb'
Cc: Garett Stevenson<Garett.Stevenson@kitchener.ca>; Stephanie Stretch
<Stephanie.Stretch@kitchener.ca>
Subject: RE: 135-161 Jackson Ave & 136 Brentwood
Hello Dennis & Barb,
I wanted to acknowledge receipt of your email and voicemail noting concerns to the development
proposal. They will be taken under consideration in the staff report. A virtual Neighbourhood Meeting
has been arranged for February 21, 2024, at 7 pm. No decisions will be made and it's an opportunity to
be informed of the process, the proposal and ask questions of staff and/or the applicant/owner. Hope
you can attend. If not, it will be recorded and posted on the 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
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 from Learn why 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:
Page 281 of 400
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 5M13 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.
o 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.
4 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.
Get Outlook for iOS
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 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.
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
21 with the meeting. Please keep encouraging people to attend.
Brian do you have anything else to add?
Thank you,
Stephanie Stretch
Councillor, W+ rd 10 1 Office of the Mayor and CoLmcil I City of Kitchener
519-741-2766 ext.2786 I TTY 1-866-969-9994 1 Stephanie.Stretcffienerxa
Customers can now connect with the City of Kitchener anytime by calling the 24/7
Corporate 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 Learn why this is important
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/groups/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 30, 2024 4:35 PM
To: Gabriele
Cc: Brian Bateman
Subject: RE: Development on Jackson
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
applicant/owner. No decisions will be made at the meeting.
I have also included Brian Bateman in this email so that he can help answer any questions you may have,
as he is the lead planner on this 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.
To join go to
https:HcanOl.safelinks.protection.outlook.com/?url=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.zoom.us%2Fjoin&data=05%7
CO2%7CBrian. Bate man%40kitchener.ca%7Cbe46fcab8ac14b1bf705O8dc21db5e67%7Cc703d79153f643a
59255622eb33alb0b%7C0%7CO%70638422473263567948%7CUnknown%7CTWFpbGZsb3d8eyJWljoiM
C4wLjAwMDAiLCJQljoiV2luMzliLCJBTil6lklhaWwiLCJXVC16Mn0%3D%7C0%7C%7C%7C&sdata=Va9CvDrU
mQg3TfCmzSAIVePwyhTg4up6Mg6u6JgkHac%3D&reserved=0, enter meeting ID# 82817583252 or
participate by phone dial 1.647.558.0588 and enter meeting ID# 828 1758 3252
Specific question can be submitted to the planner at brian.bateman@kitchener.ca r 51-741-2200 x7869
Thank you and let me know how you would like to connect.
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 Stephanie.Stretch@Kitchener.ca
Customers can now connect with the City of Kitchener anytime by calling the 24/7 Corporate Contact
Centre at 519-741-2345
-----Original Message -----
Page 285 of 400
From: noreply@kitchener.ca <noreply@kitchener.ca> On Behalf Of Gabriele
Sent: Tuesday, January 30, 2024 11:03 AM
To: Stephanie Stretch <Stephanie.Stretch@kitchener.ca>
Subject: Development on Jackson
[You don't often get email from Learn why this is important at
https://aka.ms/LearnAboutSenderldentification ]
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 be possible?
Thanks
Gabriele
Origin:
https./%cano1.sa fel inks.protecticn.outlool.cam/Nuri=https%3A 2F 2Fwww_kitch ener_ca 2Fen%2Fcoun
ciI-and-city-administration%2FcounciIIor-stephanie-
stretch.aspx&data=05%7CO2%7CBrian.Bateman%40kitchener.ca%7Cbe46fcab8ac14b1bf70508dc21db5e
67%7Cc703d79153f643a59255622eb33a1bOb%7CO 7CO 7C638422473263576020%7CUnknown%7CT
WFpbGZsb3d8eyJWljoiMC4wLjAwMDAiLCJQljoiV21uMzIiLCJBTi161k1haWwiLCJXVC16Mn0%3D%7CO%7C%
7C%7C&sdata=13riEJJUuVZxcy8kcEDr7dCgspTnXNPea BNHOodjYOQ%3D&reserved=O
This email was sent to you by through
https://can01.safelinks.protectlon.outlook.corn/?url=https%3A%2F°..2Fvwww.kitrhenerca 2F&.data=05`isb
7CO2%7CBriian.Sateman 40kitchener.ca 7Cbe46fcab8acl4blbf7O5O8dc2ldb5e67%7Cc7O3d79153f643
a59255622eb33a1b0b%7CO%7CO%7C638422473263582131%7CUnknown%7CTWFpbGZsb3d8eyJWljoi
MC4wLjAwMDAiLCJQljoiV21uMzliLCJBTil6lk1haWwiLCJXVC16Mn0%3D%7CO%7C%7C%7C&sdata=pVCdnc
KE3AwnU UkrBLwskUPzd34R7zt%2BJtUtglsaxms%3D&reserved=0.
Page 286 of 400
From: Thomas van der Hoff
Sent: Tuesday, February 6, 2024 11:22 AM
To: Lenore Ross; Brian Bateman
Cc: Stephanie Stretch
Subject: RE: [EXT] RE: Application #ZBA24/002/J/BB - 135 Jackson Ave
Some people who received this message don't often get email from 11111111111111111111111111111111Wearn why this is
e�r�t_Lani.
Thanks again for the detailed response, Lenore.
Looking forward to the playground replacement at Edmund Green, and I know the community and
frequent pickleball users will appreciate the court lining.
Have a great week.
l hO1M + VGLt,V dP.V }f cc-
UTV
Deputy Director
Recreation and Community Services
Office:
W�DOLWICH
—ACT 01
Woolwich.ca I EngageWR
This email may contain confidential information. If you received this email in error, please notify the sender and delete the email. Please consider the
environment before printing,
From: Lenore Ross <Lenore.Ross@kitchener.ca>
Sent: Tuesday, February 6, 2024 10:41 AM
To: Thomas van der Hoff ; Brian Bateman <Brian.Bateman@kitchener.ca>
Cc: Stephanie Stretch<Stephanie.Stretch@kitchener.ca>
Subject: RE: [EXT] RE: Application #ZBA24/002/J/BB - 135 Jackson 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
From: Thomas van der Hoff
Sent: Sunday, February 4, 2024 8:06 AM
To: Lenore Ross <Lenore.Ross@kitchener.ca>; Brian Bateman <Brian.Bateman@kitchener.ca>
Cc: Stephanie Stretch <Stephanie.Stretch@kitchener.ca>
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 why this is
1111 u'i ii
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 of Woolwich
From: Thomas van der Hoff
Sent: Friday, February 2, 2024 1:46:29 PM
To: Lenore Ross <Lenore.Ross@kitchener.ca>; Brian Bateman <Brian.Bateman kitchener.ca>
Cc: Stephanie Stretch<Stephanie.Stretch@kitchener.ca>
Subject: RE: [EXT] RE: Application #ZBA24/002/J/BB - 135 Jackson Ave
Thanks Lenore!
Have a wonderful weekend.
11 VGWIi der }f 0�
Deputy Director
Recreation and Community Services
Office:
WOOLWICH
3ft.1-W NSHIP
Woolwich.ca I EngageWRI Facebook I Instaclram I Twitter
This email may contain confidential information. If you received this email in error, please notify the sender and delete the email. Please consider the
environment before printing.
From: Lenore Ross <Lenore. Ross@kitchener.ca>
Sent: Friday, February 2, 2024 1:37 PM
To: Thomas van der Hoff <tvanderhoff@woolwich.ca>; Brian Bateman <Brian.Bateman hikitchener.ca>
Cc: Stephanie Stretch <Stephanie.Stretch@kitchener.ca> w
Subject: RE: [EXT] RE: Application #ZBA24/002/J/BB - 135 Jackson 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 as cash in lieu of land is recommended.
Page 289 of 400
Link to Places and Spaces webpage htt s: www.kitchener.ca en strate ic- lans-and- rojects arks-
strategic-plan.aspx? mid_=25203
Link to Spaces document — it is
large! https://www.kitchener.ca/en/resourcesGeneral/Documents/INS PARKS_ Places and Spaces _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, MCIP, RPP
Parks Planning and Development Project Manager
Development and Housing Approvals I Development Services I City of Kitchener
519-741-2200 ext 7427 1 TTY 1-866-969-9994 1 Lenore.Ross@Kitchener.ca
Discover nature in the city: www.kitchener.ca/parks
A City for Everyone — Working Together — Growing Thoughtfully — Building Community
t;-�r.;•i o
From: Thomas van der Hoff _
Sent: Thursday, February 1, 2024 8:14 PM
To: Brian Bateman <Brian.Bate man@kitchen er.ca>
Cc: Stephanie Stretch <Stephanie.Stretch@kitchener.ca>; Lenore Ross <Lenore.Ross@kitchener.ca>
Subject: RE: [EXT] RE: Application #ZBA24/002/J/BB - 135 Jackson Ave
Page 290 of 400
Some people who received this message don't often get email from tvanderhoff@woolwich.ca. Learn why this is
Thanks Brian. Happy to discuss Lenore.
ThcWi Gid V Git li def-} f 0 fT
Deputy Director
Recreation and Community Services
Office: 519-514-7024
WOOLWICH
-13TOWNSHIP
Woolwich.ca I EngageWR I Facebook I Instagram I Twitter
This email may contain confidential information. If you received this email in error, please notify the sender and delete the email. Please consider the
environment before printing.
From: Brian Bateman <Brian.Bateman@kitchener.ca>
Sent: Thursday, February 1, 2024 10:21 AM
To: Thomas van der Hoff
Cc: Stephanie Stretch <Stephanie.Stretch@kitchener.ca>; Lenore Ross <Lenore. Ross@kitchener.ca>
Subject: [EXT] 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. I have copied Parks so
they have an opportunity to view your comments and respond in kind. I have received a few comments
so far related to parkland. Hope you are able to attend the Neighbourhood Meeting on February 21
starting at 7pm.
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, 2024 8:29 AM
To: Brian Bateman <Brian.Bateman@kitchener.ca>
Subject: Application #ZBA24/002/J/BB - 135 Jackson Ave
You don't often get email from tvanderhoff@woolwich.ca. Learn why this is important
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!
vaw der 9c7F
Deputy Director
Recreation and Community Services
Office: 519-514-7024
WOOLWICH
TOWNSHIP
Woolwich.ca I EngageWR I Facebook I Instagram I Twitter
This email may contain confidential Information. If you received this email in error, please notify the sender and delete the email. Please consider the
environment before printing.
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
rYou don't often get email from Learn why this is important
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 of Kitchener
519-741-2200 x7869, TTY 1-866-969-9994
GTnm
v 0 •� 0
From: Christine Liebig
Sent: Thursday, February 8, 2024 4:30 PM
To: Brian Bateman <Brian.Bateman@kitchener.ca>
Subject: 135-161 Jackson Ave & 136 Brentwood Ave
r
You don't often get email from
Hello Brian,
Learn why this is important
Appreciate being asked to share concerns, albeit truly bemused as to why - when the
development is already advertising its listings, according to some resident who have suffered
themselves to look 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 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 past 14 yrs is a
gem that the city has long overlooked and underappreciated. A family -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 is low.
3. Community upgrades (recent) positioned as democratically chosen to benefit residents
are, by far the majority, used only by those driving by car from other areas and have
disrupted our greenspace - Montgomery Park - 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 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 (1 per unit) to the area, as well as,
most assuredly, at least 3/4 that many more in co -habitants vehicles. My question is, where
will they park? In the streets? How will the intersections (at Brentwood, Montgomery,
Sheldon & Weber) and snowplowing accommodate the added load & congestion -
particularly when added to Eastwood Collegiate traffic?
Page 294 of 400
Obviously, Vve are call well aware cal the housing ciisis. And I'm not a "nol in my rack 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
development(s) is coming, whether we want it to or not.
Respectfully,
C.A. Liebig
Christine A. Liebig
Mentor I Brand Story & Strategy
boundless
ACCELERATOR
(formerly Innovation Guelph)
Office:
Mobile:
Web: BoundlessAccelerator.ca
Email: Christine.
361 Southgate Drive, Guelph, ON N1G 3M5
I hm earessa a kw J5c err ,ce:r11 as cr p jr1 rf a d1ss2rssi(JU hE!tween ChrigOne A- t ielbig crrr,i the a dgIrt ssee whose nrrrrr,? is speciriej
alxrvr. Should rvu hrrv€ recerh ed 1hie mesmgv by rrl)srdke, frr`euse inform rrs. We also crsh thaty wr kindly dtlwe this rrres�7�>e.li �rr�
your mailbox and do not forward it (in whole or in part) to anyone else, as the information may be priviledged Thank you for
your cooperation and understanding.
Page 295 of 400
From: Dennis &/or Barb
Sent: Wednesday, February 7, 2024 6:35 PM
To: Brian Bateman; Internet - Council (SM)
Subject: Re: 135-161 Jackson Ave & 136 Brentwood
You don't often get email from Learn why this is important
Brian,
We will also require from your legal department the following:
installation of new roadway in existing neighbourhood by removing residential dwelling.
• Traffic study results for the addition of 120 unit min 120 cars to 240 cars.
■ 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, we will need confirmation on Hydro 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 to tear down currently has 5 cars in its driveway? What is the solution
proposed for these issues.
■ Oro-medonte will not adjust height bylaws ever; this is from experience had to change the
engineering plans for a garage by 1.5" to meet 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 Maslanko and Dennis Gibson
Get Outlook for iOS
From: Brian Bateman <Brian.Bateman@kitchener.ca>
Sent: Wednesday, February 7, 2024 5:00:00 PM
To: 'Dennis &/or Barb'
Subject: RE: 135-161 Jackson Ave & 136 Brentwood
Page 296 of 400
Zoning bylaw - City of Kitchener — By-law 2019-051, Zoning Schedule 174 lists the zoning of the subject
property and you can find permitted uses and regulations therein in the ZB. The previous ZB was By-law
85-1. My understanding is most of the subject lands in By-law 85-1 were zoned R-6 since approximately
1994 but will dig up that information.
Brian Bateman, MCIP, RPP
Senior Planner
City of Kitchener
519-741-2200 x7869, TTY 1-866-969-9994
From: Dennis &/or Barb
Sent: Tuesday, February 6, 2024 3:58 PM
To: Brian Bateman <Brian.Bateman@kitchener.ca>
Subject: RE: 135-161 Jackson Ave & 136 Brentwood
You don't often get email from -earn why this is important
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 we will be meeting before this Zoom.
Please send paperwork tc
Regards,
Barbara Maslanko and Dennis Gibson
From: Brian Bateman <Brian.Bateman@kitchener.ca>
Sent: February 6, 2024 3:49 PM
To: 'Dennis &/or Barb' >
Cc: Garett Stevenson <Garett.Stevenson@kitchener.ca>
Subject: RE: 135-161 Jackson Ave & 136 Brentwood
Thank you for the request. I can have the City's Legal Dept. send it directly to your lawyer. Please send
me his name and contact information at your earliest convenience.
Brian Bateman, MCIP, RPP
Senior Planner
City of Kitchener
519-741-2200 x7869, TTY 1-866-969-9994
Page 297 of 400
From: Dennis &/or Barb
Sent: Tuesday, February 6, 2U24 IZ:U:3 NM
To: Brian Bateman <Brian.Bateman(c@kitchener.ca>
Subject: Re: 135-161 Jackson Ave & 136 Brentwood
You don't often get email from dr.whistler(@hotmail.com. Learn why this is important
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 3 storey apartments so he built the mansion. We have been asked by counsel to get 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 Maslanko and Dennis Gibson
Get Outlook for iOS
From: Brian Bateman <Brian.Bateman@kitchener.ca>
Sent: Tuesday, February 6, 2024 11:37:08 AM
To: 'Dennis &/or Barb' 71
Cc: Garett Stevenson <Garett.Stevenson kitchener.ca>; Stephanie Stretch
<Stephanie.Stretch@kitchener.ca>
Subject: RE: 135-161 Jackson Ave & 136 Brentwood
Hello Dennis & Barb,
I wanted to acknowledge receipt of your email and voicemail noting concerns to the development
proposal. They will be taken under consideration in the staff report. A virtual Neighbourhood Meeting
has been arranged for February 21, 2024, at 7 pm. No decisions will be made and it's an opportunity to
be informed of the process, the proposal and ask questions of staff and/or the applicant/owner. Hope
you can attend. If not, it will be recorded and posted on the 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
TOT
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 Learn why 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?
b 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.
• 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.
• 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.
Get Outlook for iOS
Page 299 of 400
From: propertyappraisal,
Sent: Friday, February 9, 2024 6:02 PM
To: Brian Bateman
Subject: Re: 135-161 Jackson Avenue and 136 Brentwood Avenue
You don't often get email from Leam why thl5 Es [wartans
In regards to the proposed development I submit my following 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) is not adequate to
house such a large multi -residential development
4) Do to the size of this development it should have incorporated a designated kids
playpark/greenspace, since these types of units are typically purchased/rented by young families or
immigrants.
5) Environmental Assessments and Traffic Studies need to be completed to rule out negative impacts of
this neighborhood development.
6) Recently, large scale residential developments have had financial difficulties resulting in work not
being completed on schedule or not at all. `Vylho will me monitoring to make sure this development does
not end up incomplete which will negatively impacts the community.
Warm Regards,
Steven
Sent from my Bell Samsung device over Canada's largest network.
Page 300 of 400
From: Andy Kheir
Sent: Monday, February 5, 2024 1:34 PM
To: Stephanie Stretch; Mayor
Cc: Anita Zapletan Csonti; Elizabeth Leacock; Brian Bateman
Subject: Re: Development and our Neighbourhood
You don't often get email fror, Learn why this is important
Thank you for the reply, but what developments are you speaking of? (information you
have learned) You do not list them/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 - everyone
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 - Google 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! IL
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.
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
stage two on Feb 21 with the meeting. Please keep encouraging people to attend.
Brian do you have anything else to add?
Thank you,
Stephanie Stretch
Councillor, Ward 10 i Office of the Mayor and Council I City of Kitchener
519-741-2786 ext.2786 I TTY 1-866-969-9994 I Stephanie. Stretch(a)Kitchener.ca
Page 304 of 400
Customers can now connect with the City of Kitchener anytime by calling the 24/7 Corporate
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 Learn why this is important
Hi Stephanie,
I notice that you are not active in our neighbourhood conversations, especially with
development projects.
I think you may benefit from seeing the conversation online:
https://www.facebook.com/groups/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.
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:
DoubleA Mcl
Sent:
Tuesday, February 20, 2024 9:09 AM
To:
Brian Bateman
Cc:
Garett Stevenson; Lenore Ross; Sandro Bassanese; Stephanie Stretch
Subject:
Re: FW: Response To Proposed Development 135 - 161 Jackson Ave.
Kitchener
Attachments:
image002.png
You don't often get email from Learn why this is important
Good morning,
For the public record this is Aaron McLaughlin of
Thank you.
On Tue, Feb 20, 2024, 6:50 a.m. Brian Bateman <Brian.Bateman@kitchener.ca> wrote:
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.
Brian Bateman, MCIP, RPP
Senior Planner
City of Kitchener
519-741-2200 x7869, TTY 1-866-969-9994
7777777DD
From: DoubleA Mcl
Sent: Monday, February 19, 2024 9:56 AM
To: Mayor <mayor@kitchener.ca>; Stephanie Stretch <Stephanie.Stretch@kitchener.ca>; Internet -
Council (SM) <council@kitchener.ca>; Brian Bateman <Brian.Bateman(a@kitchener.ca>
Subject: Response To Proposed Development 135 - 161 Jackson Ave. Kitchener
Page 307 of 400
Some people who received this message don't often get email from doubleamcl{=lhmail.com. Learn why this is important
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.
The neighbourhood covers only approx 0.6 square kilometres (excluding Montgomery park) and is
MAde up of a rnix of residential building types_ These inClijdrs close to 3010 properly spaCed 1.5-2 stcarey
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 of the 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 Rockway and will add 503, 616, and 403 units 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 of life 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 of an existing 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 is simply unacceptable given the location.
Approving Intunsification around the perimeter of an existing neighbourhood with proper provisions
for increased infrastructure, rnanaging the construction process, and the increased traffic is one thing.
Building in the centrt5 of a block of longterm occupled residences is a different endeavour altogether,
Secause 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 sensitiviityy.
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 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 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 is never a permanent downgrade.
The proposed design shows 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
marry new residents into the space as possible without providing for tine 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 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 of building 2.5 storeys 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 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 of the 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 an option 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)
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
slorrw 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 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 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 <hello@enak.ca>
Sent: Friday, January 19, 2024 5:52 PM
To: Christine Kompter
Cc: Internet - Council (SM); _DL —#— COR _ Off ice-of-the-Mayor-&-Council-Staff;
Justin Readman; Garett Stevenson; Tina Malone -Wright; Brian Bateman
Subject: Re: Notice of Proposed Development & Neighbourhood Meeting - 135-161
Jackson Ave. & 136 Brentwood Ave.
Attachments: i mage010.j pg
You don't often get email from hello@enak.ca. Learn why this is important
Thanks shared with neighbour social media.
iVI,J ti.
www anak ra
On Thu, Jan 18, 2024, 3:42 PM Christine Kompter <Christine.Kompter@kitchener.ca> 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 (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
Page 312 of 400
From: Courtney Smith
Sent: Friday, February 9, 2024 6:32 PM
To: Brian Bateman
Subject: Re: Proposed Development - 135-161 Jackson Ave and 136 Brentwood Ave
You don't often get email frog Learn why this is important
Thanks Brian. Can you specify which document relates to each question? I 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@kitchener.ca> wrote:
Thanks, Courtney, for your comments. They will be taken under consideration. Here is the list of
studies that were required of the developer and under review: SUPPORTING dOCUMENTS
(kitchener.ca). Hope you can attend the meeting on Feb. 21 at 7 pm.
Brian Bateman, MCIP, RPP
Senior Planner
City of Kitchener
519-741-2200 x7869, TTY 1-866-969-9994
qlq �Iilg �rnol�
From: Courtney Smith
Sent: Friday, February 9, 2024 3:52 PM
To: Internet - Council (SM) <council!a kitchener.ca>; Brian Bateman <Brian.Bate mane kitchener.ca>
Subject: Proposed Development - 135-161 Jackson Ave and 136 Brentwood Ave
Some people who received this message don't often get email from earn why this is
Important
Hi there
Page 313 of 400
I am looking forward to the meeting on Feb 21 about the above mentioned proposed development. I
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?
I 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.
—CDLl.irst�y
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
You don't often get email from Learn why this is important
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?
3, 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
Kindest regards,
Natalie
www.enpointeandjustdance.ca
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.
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.
To join go to www.zoom.us/loin, enter meeting ID# 82817583252 or participate by
phone dial 1.647.558.0588 and enter meeting ID# 828 1758 3252
Page 317 of 400
Specific question can be submitted to the planner at brian.bateman(aD-kitchener.ca
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 Stephanie. Stretch@Kitchener.ca
19
r! - `
V i � - tube .
Customers can now connect with the City of Kitchener anytime by calling the 24/7 Corporate
Contact Centre at 519-741-2345
From: Natalie Sebastian
Sent: Thursday, January 25, 2024 3:58 PM
To: Internet - Council (SM) <council(W-kitchener.ca>
Subject: Proposed Development in your Neighbourhood - Jackson & Brentwood
You don't often get email from Learn why this is important
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.
Page 318 of 400
I am unclear why Kitchener paid thousands of dollars for this and we completely ignore
this.
Residential intensification in established neighbourhoods study
Page 319 of 400
Residential intensification in established
neighbourhoods study
Policy and regulation review of developments in established
communities.
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:
• 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.
Page 320 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
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 Sebastian
Page 321 of 400
From: Renee Richards
Sent: Sunday, February 4, 2024 4:44 PM
To: Brian Bateman; Stephanie Stretch
Subject: Worried
same peciple who received this messEg,-- dnn't often get email from Learn why this is important
Good day
Re:135 Jackson townhomes project
This is our back yard that is going to be destroyed! All those trees to be cut 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 we so desperately need. The squirrels, the rabbits, etc. How
about the foxes? What will happen to all of them?
What about all traffic that this will create? The noise in the neighborhood will be unreal. We understand
the need for housing but that is too huge for that area. If that was in your backyard how would you
feel???
Thankyou
Renee & Malcolm Richards
Page 322 of 400
From: Gina Georgiou
Sent: Thursday, February 22, 2024 1:10 PM
To: Brian Bateman
Subject: 135 Jackson Ave Meeting
Ycm don't often get emall frorr Learn why this is important
Good Morning Brian.
missed last nights meeting, and I cant seem to find it on the portal.
Could you please send me the link at your earliest convenience?
Thankyou
Gina
Page 323 of 400
From: Jim Laturney
Sent: Thursday, February 22, 2024 9:45 AM
To: Brian Bateman
Subject: 135 Jackson Ave.
You don't often get email from -Learn why this is important
Brian:
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 m they will be at 14.5 m (47.5') is a 5 story building.
I got some answers from the meeting last night but I'm left with a few more questions.
1- What is EV charger ready? as opposed to having chargers installed
2 - Is the parking calculation way off? They include parking spaces in front of the townhouses
facing Jackson (these are private parking) and the Handicap spaces as public parking removing
these the parking is at 0.95 not at 1.03 as they state.
3 - Because the address is on Jackson are property lines toward Fairmont and Brentwood
considered as the side of the property so the set back will only be 3m? Or will the set back be
considered as a rear yard as the homes on Fairmont and Jackson their rear yards meet the
property under development?
Jim Laturney
Page 324 of 400
From:
Scot Cameron
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 why this is important
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
roofJines 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 frog: Learn 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 of reports illustrating the impact of similar 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 a significant portion of the existing greenspace which plays a positive role in reducing
noise (and pollution).
3. 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 or townhouses.
5. Regulations for Non -Owner Occupancy: Could you provide information on the regulations
that will be enforced concerning non -owner occupancy within the proposed development?
6. Number of Sleeping Spaces per Unit: It would be beneficial to understand 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
resources.
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 of a 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.
Sincerely,
Dr. Heather Cameron
Page 328 of 400
From: Natalie Sebastian
Sent: Monday, February 26, 2024 12:15 PM
To: Stephanie Stretch; Mayor; Brian Bateman
Subject: Development in Eastwood neighbourhood
You don't often get email frori Learn why this is important
Stephanie
I attended the Zoom meeting on Feb. 21 concerning the proposed development of 135 Jackson Ave. To
say the least I'm angry 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.
My mother in law who lives directly across from this Was not able to phone in !! That was
suppose to be an an alternative.
What could she possibly have gotten from the images or questions presented ?
If appears this is a done deal and the meeting was a smoke screen because it was probably required to
happen. Just like last time for 102 Clive 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. I 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 .I'm sure someone has already submitted this!.The
Neighbourhood Assc. have suggested an in person meeting on the site at 135 Jackson 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 7 cars on the 124 parking space. This is what 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, 2024 11:46 AM
To:
Brian Bateman
Subject:
Development on Jackson & Bentwood
You don't often get email from I,�r, :.why this is important
Hi Brian, as a neighbour of the Development at the above area , we are not in support
of allowing the
amendment to the by-law regulations, to increase the height of buildings by 1.5m (5 feet) over
what is allowed.
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 is allowed.
I 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 to ask the builder to comply.
Thank you
Allison & Jeff Rawlins
Page 331 of 400
From: Natalie Sebastian
Sent: Tuesday, March 12, 2024 2:16 PM
To: Brian Bateman; Stephanie Stretch
Subject: Development on Jackson & Brentwood
You don't often get email a iLeafn ela.v this ' im
Page 332 of 400
-
, 1—
+ t
ja
a.
000
14
a F a f ki-
a.
e
,
M1
All
- ,
- e
' r ,
r I.
yy.��� ,•rte:: :+.!�';.
a
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
www.en ointeand'ustdance.ca
Page 336 of 400
From: Renee Richards
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 fro Learn why this is
important
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, 2024 12:21 PM
To: Elizabeth Leacock; Anita Zapletan Csonti
Cc: Berry Vrbanovic; Brian Bateman
Subject: FW: 135 Jackson Ave.
fyi
From: Jim Laturney
Sent; Thursday, February 22, 2024 10:04 AM
To: Mayor <mayor@kitchener.ca>; Stephanie Stretch <Stephanie.Stretch@kitchener.ca>
Subject: 135 Jackson Ave.
II Some people who received this message don't often get email from am why this is important
Mr. Mayor:
The area to email the councillors only has 2000 characters I have more than that to say. I would
appreciate if you would forward this to all the councillors.
Mayor of the City of Kitchener and Councillors:
If the City deems neighbourhoods are essential to the life of the city why have Eastwood and Rockway been singled out for
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 of infill housing needs to respect the existing residents adjacent to the infill site as wells existing residents in the
area. This has not been accomplished for this project proposed for 135 Jackson Ave.
This project is unlike most other infill projects, on other projects you may have 3 adjacent properties with this project there
are 28 adjacent family homes.
I accept that there will be a housing project on this site, but it must conform to City specifications (Official Plan)
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 to income (30% of gross family income for rent).
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
534 Charles St E (King, Charles, Ottawa and Borden) 850 units
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
135 Jackson 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
summer 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 be very dusty unless a dust control plan is in place, to water the property and
onsite roadways. This site is surrounded by existing houses and they must be protected from dust etc during construction.
On site construction parking: There must be on site 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. As well as emergency
vehicle need access to the area.
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.
Demolition: Demolition of 136 Brentwood and 135 - 161 Jackson Ave. must happen at the same time, not in stages as in the
proposal. If any of these houses are left abandoned they will attract squatters as the homeless shelter is almost within sight.
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.
As stated before that this is literally in the middle of a neighbourhood completely surrounded by houses.
Is there any guarantee that is project does not end up like the Condo building on Fergus 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
the project should be in place before construction starts
Page 341 of 400
Will the area streets, Montgomery, Brentwood, Jackson, Edmund, Raymond, Sheldon and McKenzie able to carry 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 to pay attention to the no exit sign in Eastwood parking lot on to Montgomery.
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.
One of my biggest concerns is after housing is approved for all the open space in the city when will someone turn to the city
parks for space, Cherry Park, Breithaupt Park and even Montgomery Park, this housing at all costs is going to change Kitchener
into Mississauga and I don't want to see that.
In closing I just ask that you follow the present Zoning regulations regarding this project and keep the requirements as stated
in the plan. Just a reminder you work for the taxpayers in the City of Kitchener not the Federal, Provincial or Regional
governments.
I will gladly discuss any and all of this if anyone wishes.
Jim Laturney
Page 342 of 400
From: Stephanie Stretch
Sent: Monday, February 26, 2024 1:53 PM
To: Brian Bateman
Subject: FW: Jackson Avenue Development
Did you get this one?
From: patti blue
Sent: Thursday, February 22, 2024 9:23 AM
To: Stephanie Stretch <Stephanie.Stretch@kitchener.ca>
Subject: Jackson Avenue Development
You don't often get email from earn why this is important
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
to happen, as this is the shortest route for cars to access 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 on Sheldon Ave.
When they narrowed Sheldon a few years ago we asked for speed bumps and it was turned
down as 911 calls are frequent to the Condominium at the end of Sheldon.
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 26, 2024 1:26 PM
To: Brian Bateman
Subject: FW: Jackson street development
-----Original Message -----
From: Cathy Timmerman
Sent: Saturday, February 24, 2024 5:02 PM
To: Stephanie Stretch <Stephanie.Stretch@kitchener.ca>
Subject: Jackson street development
[You don't often get email from : Learn why this is important at
https:Haka.ms/LearnAboutSenderldentification ]
Sent from my iPad
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 in our neighbourhood.
Page 345 of 400
From: Stephanie Stretch
Sent: Friday, February 23, 2024 11:49 AM
To: Brian Bateman
Subject: Fwd: 135 Jackson Ave.
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 Stephanie.Stretch(&Kitchener.ca
Customers can now connect with the City of Kitchener anytime by calling
the 2417 Corporate Contact Centre at 519^741-2345
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 Learn why this is important
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 RESS
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: Barb Hergott
Sent: Monday, February 26, 2024 9:13 AM
To: Brian Bateman
Subject: Jackson Ave Project
You don't often get email from Learn why this is important
Good morning.
I am still not understanding why there needs to be so many units in a lot in the middle of a quaint
neighbourhood block. With not enough parking spaces. Residents/visitors/holiday etc gatherings there
is just setting up parking issues in and around the neighbourhood. Bike parking? What are you trying to
attract? We are "central" 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 at the end of Sheldon 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 a long time? No one answered the question about whether the existing brick
wall can be left as is.
From the February 21st meeting, the traffic flow fellow -he spoke a lot without saying much, and
certainly not answering questions. The Montgomery/Weber St intersection is very busy now, especially
when Eastwood Collegiate is active. This is a 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.
Barb Hergott
Page 348 of 400
From:
Barb Hergott
Sent:
Monday, February 26, 2024 12:01 PM
To:
Brian Bateman
Subject:
Jackson Avenue
You don't often get email fro. -i earn why this is important
I forgot to add 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 fro-, Learn why this is important
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.
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 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
Sent: Thursday, February 22, 2024 2:46 PM
To: Brian Bateman
Subject: Proposed Jackson/Brentwood Development
You don't often get email from . Learn why this is important
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 I 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
>100 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: DoubleA Mc
Sent: Wednesday, March 6, 2024 11:17 AM
To: Brian Bateman
Subject: Questions for March 10 unofficial meeting
Attachments: Questions for March 1024 unofficial meeting.pdf
You don't often get email fro Learn why this is importani.
Good morning Mr Bateman.
For your records please find the attached questions submitted to Councillor Stretch for the March 10
meeting.
Page 353 of 400
Questions for Marchl0/24 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
Sent: Thursday, February 22, 2024 12:48 PM
To: Brian Bateman
Subject: RE: 135-161 Jackson Ave and 136 Brentwood Ave
You don't often get email fra Learn wh t Is is irn oriant
Hi Brian,
I 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:
Thank you or your comments. They will be taken under (—onsiderat.ion_ Hope you can attend the
Neighbourhood Meeting on the 211t
Brian Bateman, MCIP, RPP
Senior Planner
City of Kitchener
519-741-2200 x7869, TTY 1-866-969-9994
777777777
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 this message don't often get email fron Learn why this is important
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 is too 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 to Kitchener 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. 1 would like to see less than half dwelling units proposed and more outdoor green space on the
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 Bateman, MCIP, RPP
Senior Planner
City of Kitchener
519-741-2200 x7869, TTY 1-866-969-9994
0000, 00000
From: Cathy Scott
Sent: Tuesday, March 12, 2024 2:09 PM
To: Brian Bateman <Brian.Bateman@kitchener.ca>
Subject: infill development in the Eastwood neighbourhood
You don't often get email from Learn why this is important
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.) will
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 Kheir
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_U rban_Design_Manua l.pdf
You don't often get email from Learn why this is important
.. including attachments for review
On Saturday, February 24, 2024 at 03:26:37 p.m. EST, Andy Kheir <andykheir@rogers.com> wrote:
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.
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 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 waked in 45 minutes - REAL WORLD. This impacts mass
transit usage extrapolation, parking usage, and traffic usage in the neighbourhood.
- Why is a RAISED around (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 -
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 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.
Andv Kheir
Page 362 of 400
Cover Letter
Maps showing approved developments within 1 km of the
Rockway Centre
My concerns about project and requirements for building the
project
Neighbourhood concerns and posts
Section 7 Residential zones City Of Kitchener as of March
21/22
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 aiEtruls-tic endeavour to add more housing stack in
Kitchener, This project is to maximize the 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 should come from the people who buy these
units, First if this was altruistic the design would have been to city specifications with 4
3 floor walk up rentals placed In the cantre 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 I unit, FSR greater than .6, height allowance to be taller and set backs
reduced. How can Handicap parking spaces and the 4 at the ,Jackson Ave. town
houses be included as they are not 'public" parking. The City of Kitchener and by
extension its council is to Mame for all this corning to pass. Part of the planning team
for the developer on this project Ineludes a relatively recent City of Kitchener Planning
Department employee. She should have known or have known where to find the RES5
zoning specs so I assume they just decided to ignore the specs, they are shown on the
drawings.
The part of 135 Jackson Ave. backing on to Montgomery is 3 m higher than the
ground level for the residences on Montgomery. The developer's design team said
they would reduce this to 2 m during construction this means the units backing on to
Montgomery will only be 14.5 rn above the rear yards. This is equivalent to a 5 story
building looming over them. Every at 11 m which is the max height for RES5 it will be
13 m. There are 24 balconies overlooking the adjacent properties with a height of at
Feast of 5 m above their yards. If block E was turned and connected to block D it
would fit with a 6 m set back on the west side of the lots To reduce overview on to the
adjacent lots on Fairmont intense evergreen planting to give everyone privacy.
Blocks A, B and C meet the required set backs, the elevation of Block C is 13.220 m as
per drawing D3.3 this is even outside of the 12.5 m request. To reduce overview of
Page 364 of 400
adjacent yards on Brentwood I would suggest intensive evergreen planting of trees at
least 6 m in height.
To approve this project it should conform to all of the RES5 design criteria and
heavily plant evergreen trees of 6 m around the property to reduce overview of adjacent
properties.
This is an infill build it should have more controls on the design and building than a
new build in a large open area.
Jim Laturney
Page 365 of 400
\/
�
Page 388 0 400
Page 367 of 400
r.L
13
cl)
:3
90
-D.
ti CD
�lc CC)
CD•
CL
C0
90 R
Cil I
96
03
C: C.In
;W� CO
=3 N3
;::p C)
61
><
4,
En
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 respect the privacy and land use of adjacent properties not be overshadowed with
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 Municipal governments all have been pushing for
more housing at all costs, All branches of government have pulled a number for now
housing out of the air and are pushing to meet his at all costs, there will be a Federal
election soon. Even If the City of- itchener did not allow the project it is a good bet
that if would be appealed and get a Ministers exemption (like the Amazon building In
Blair),
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.
Multiple Residential — a building containing three or more dwelling units.
Standards
•For Multiple Residential buildings the setback should be 10.0m for anything above 2
storeys tall, regardless of height, and especially when adjacent to single detached properties.
*The proposed design does achieve the bare minimum of 3.0 m (<10 feet) 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 6 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.
Performance Bond
The developer should be required to submit a performance bond to the City of
Kitchener of the project cost plus 10%. This will ensure the project will be completed
in a timely manner and not left unfinished like the project on Fergus Ave. Kitchener.
Trees
Save 10 rnore trees as ilsted 103,104, 402, 403, 405, 421, 422, 423, 424, 425, 426,
427, 472, 405 and 406 be saved, This will be about an antra 10%. 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. Befere construction starts the
trees should be pruned, fertilized and protected at least as far as the drip line. The
owner should be requlred to have the remaining trees and trees on adjacent property
Page 368 of 400
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.
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, families 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 not 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 9m 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 m.
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 must be
Page 369 of 400
respected and protected. This needs to be enforced by Kitchener By-law enforcement
officers.
Fire Routes
Fire Routes on Brentwood, Jackson, Fairmount and Montgomery surrounding the
project should be in place before construction starts.
Traffic Control
We should press the city to 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 using Brentwood to Sheldon to Mackenzie to Ottawa. The traffic should be
encouraged to go Brentwood to Montgomery to Weber.
Building Permit
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. There should be a time limit on the permit to
ensure of timely construction. ie: 2.5 years demolition to every unit having an
occupancy 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.
This site should be built out completely before Kitchener allows occupancy.
Overlook of Adjacent Properties
The developer/designers must be required to mitigate the overlook of adjacent
properties.
This property is 2 - 3 m higher than existing properties on Brentwood, even at 11 m the
building will appear to be a 5 story building with views into the back yards and homes
of the adjacent properties.
Ontario Disabilities Act
Are the ground floor units accessible under the ODA. Is this not a requirement?
Why have & Handicap spaces and no access to the units.
City 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 returned the
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.
Maltiple Residential a building Containing three or more dwelling unit.s.
.Standards
.For Multiple Residential buildings the setback should be 10.0m for anything above 2
storeys tall, regardless of height, and especially when adjacent to single detached properties.
-The proposed design does achieve the bare minimum of 3.0 m (<10 feet) 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-design.aspx
https://Nvww.kitchener.ca/.. JDS D_PLAN_Urban_Design_Manual ...
Section 10
Mid -Rise Buildings (4-8 storeys)
10.2.1 COMPATIBIL17T
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 & Ransition
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 (fiom property lines) and Stepbacks (from the edge of the base to upper-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
and. Orientation should all be considered as factors contributing to good compatible design, not just on'
ian:individual site but throughout an axea.
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 activities from
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 building's 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 unit/amenity locations.
Provide stepbacks for 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 necessarily
benefit from extensive decorative elements or frequent changes in colour, material or forms. 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 a stepback may be met through greater setbacks
instead.
10.35 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 enormously 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 further 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 areas from 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. Where possible,
locate these elements away 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 fully 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 TOWNHO USES & LOW-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
means designing low-rise multi-residential buildings for urban life and a human experience; to be
designed for 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 or fewer, except along arterial roads,
where they may be up to four storeys in height.
7�pologies
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 Low-Rise
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 forms 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 massed, 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 form 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 an 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 from a public sidewalk to maintain visibility and connectivity. Limit
townhouse block length and provide greater articulation for longer blocks.
Design all building elevations facing any streets, parks, trails and open spaces to appear and function
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 and/or back-to-
back. Avoid back-to-front facing relationships.
Provide a minimum facing separation distance between buildings or blocks of units of 12m for P 2-
storey buildings and 15mfor 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 a fntnctional 'back yard' is provided in an interior yard, a minimum 75pi interior yard setback
should be provided, Additlolnally, a landscaped setback between the property line and the back yard
should be prtryided to allow foT privacy screenhW.
DO not allow driveways to be a dominant front -yard jw ure. Place A? the rmr of h+dldfags wherever
Possible. Otherwise, miniWze their impact through site layola and landscape design.
Did You Know? Gadd compatibility requLres a good faith, collaborative effortNm all to understand
a4d respond to neighbourhouat strengths and weaknesses and site-specific opportunities and
constraims.
Scale & Transition
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 3-4 storeys adjacent to 1-2 storey buildings.
For sites adjacent to commercial and/or employment uses, use additional transition measures such
arc increased setbacks, enJmnced landscape screening and building organization and orientation that is
designed intentionally 10 provide enhanced ronnpadbili.ty,
Consider the &=sing, height, length, depth, roof dvAgrn, rmveria& and rhythou of neighbouring
huildfngs when designing for compatibility_ Avoid direct replication of elennFnts, patrricularly of
hi'sto,rical buildlrag styles shrtt cannot be replicated au henticolly with coneemporary materials and
construction. practices.
11.2.2 BUILDING COMPONENTS
Porches, Balconies & Patios
Organize porches, balconies and patios to reduce overlook onto other private spaces.
11.3.4 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 surface parking areas and providing
permeable or semi permeable surface materials as alternatives to concrete or asphalt.
Preserve natural drainage flow and incorporate vegetated swales 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.
1135 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 pedestrianlvehicle 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 opportunities 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, and finally through enhanced enclosures where no other option exists.
Page 376 of 400
Response to Proposed Development 135-161 & 136 Brentwood Ave.Jackson Ave. Kitchener
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.
The neighbourhood covets only approx D.6 square kllometres (excluding
Montgomery park) and Is made up of a mix of residential bullding types. Thane
Include close to 300 MID" spacers 1.5-2 storey single farolly homes with
desirable fent, fear, and side yards, leas then 20 datached low riga (2.5 storey
walkup!�) apartment buildkigs on spacious tots, and a mid rise condo complex
tucked away In a quiet corner of the naig€ ticurhmd against the eypress y.
This amounts to apprQxlniately 470 flying units providIng liqusing for between
940 and 1880 residents, and a populat on density of oppmxfmately 1,400-2,685
residents per square Idlometre.
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 addedl 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.
Furlfteirriure. the City has gone ahead and changed the surrounding zoning
between Weber &tang to MOW the aonversinn of existing r.Fngle Morey retail
space into high rise resMenlial Wwers.These buildings mark a slgni€ cant
departure from any attempt to 'fit into' the sumo undaig neighbourho oft's of
EastwioN and RoQ way and will add 503, 616, and 403 units reispective}y.
A4ftogether ttlese projeots amount to adding a grand total of between 4000-7000
new residents to the immediake area. This v iK hrl an inGtease of250-30011/
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 of life in the surrounding areas for the existing
taxpayers,
Page 377 of 400
Response to Proposed Development 135-169 & 136 Brentwood Ave.Jackson Ave. Kitchener
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 recognise that the City may need to approve development here
at some point, but the currently proposed design Is simply 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 endeavour 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
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 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 is never a permanent downgrade.
The proposed design shows no respect or consideration for these site specific or
communal aspects, nor does the aesthetic fit or compliment the surrounding
homes In anyway.
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
Page 378 of 400
Response to Proposed Development 135-161 & 136 Brentwood Ave.Jackson Ave. Kitchener
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
sumounding single row of charming private 1.5 storey residencas on the block. It
shouldn't lock hike a juxtaposilion of opposite ideas.
The Internal implications of building 2.5 storeys la,llar than the origircaliyl
intentfcnally private hackyards surrounding It Is the most problematic of all. Such
structures would directly impact, tha quality of life In alf abuttlritf residen noes.
blocking an extrerne propodon of the ctharuwlse consistent low 11.5 slorey
nefgihbourhopd skylines. the natural dight and sightlines, while slmullaneowAy
eliminating any and all privacy In both bnayards and rear facing) doom and
wlridows. This would be felt especially by the residents an Brentwood as the
proposed fmished grade is also signlricantfy uphill. this part of (he proposal is
Insulting. It shows ani audacity, disregard, and almost contempt for the privacy
and standard of Irving of the existing resldants and incoming residents alike.
Such on arrangement could crinly serve to destabidizae property values in troth Ma
short and Icng torn while dostroying forever tho fongstand Ing posIM copulation
of the area.
Exacerbating the situation, in order to allow as muoh parking as po& lJbla can the
Interior, the plans have the bulldings pla d such that they encroach an the
property litres around the perimeter. This makes their her ht effecOely even taller
for lice surrounding residents. Yet the plans stlli fail to provide inadequate parkhg
for the new residents as well its no provf5lon for visitor or service parking. This
will only resuft in parking overhovArtg onto sidesireets Ihrnucghout the
neighbaurhood. Considering this added tratfic and congestion the City should
tberl also allow for front yard parking (driveway wfdanirig) and ba respryrrshle for
widening all the existing bouievafd driveways and curb openings sn residents
have an option besfcles tandem parking,
Not only are the buNding placed too okrse to the property boundaries. but it
sheers no provisions for visual orphysdcaI separation betA*en the new wv kout
patios (acrd three galleries of balconies above) and the existfng private
backyards, for security andfvr privacy, Where an existing bean and maaanry wall
has separated a single residence on the astate for ttte past three decades, the
surrounding homeowners se€rm to be reit with the fasponsibillty or loping a
whole housing complex of now population and their pets from entering their
yards. Some of the neighbouring prropailles have no firm of fond -rig at all.
The plaruS show no provisions for runoff from the cinvolope.d grade and thc.
Irnpenneable sttrfdoes of roofs and parking [at that will be Introduced. Where
there is now a retention pond and berm keeping water from rurtnincg downhill Irito
Page 379 of 400
Response to Proposed Development 135-161 & 136 Brentwood AV6,Jackson Ave, Kitchener
backyards and basements, the plans show a consistent downward slope 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
flees 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 f=encing:
An B' 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
Page 380 of 400
Response to Proposed Development 135-161 & 136 Brentwood Ave.Jaekaon Ave. Kitchener
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 watit% to do this In 2 phases. Build the 3 unas that baf. k can to the
Brentwood properties and 105 parking spades. 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 Forguls Ave. In Rehener,
ban irrupt not comp lets or even enclosed from the weather Wt to rot. The project
must Ise bulit out in a singla phase with a firnelfne of 2.5 years from when the first
hams $3 denlah0ed to cmupancy permits issued for all tfla units. If this goes in 2
phais€ts the construettton timaline may he 5 years, riot fair to the nelghbouring
property owners. All the brulldings scheduled for dernolitiorl should be taken down
at the same time, so we don't have abandon housras to attract prablems. This site
should bit built out Wmp>lW0/ before Wtchener allows ccctrpanry.
Adjusted noise bylaw:
There should also be an adjusted work time for t" site. This Is In the middle of a
nefghbuurhood work should only be permitted fmm 08, 0 l to 17:00 Monday to
Friday. The only work allowed on w&ekonds should be on Saturdays only and
only for In tenor work once the buildings are andosed.,
The constructor must he required to provide off street parking acid
acptornmodatiotx If necessary for wnstruclicll vehicFes and worisars. Thasea greats
have been mirrowed d using street reconstruchon and the extra on street parking
will cause prgblems for The area residents as well as erneargoncy vehicles, As
slated be€ora thla is literally in iha middle of a neighbourhoad 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 Webe~.
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 APPLICABLE ZONES
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 low 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 purpose of this zone is to accommodate
medium density dwelling types and some complementary non-residential uses in medium
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.
7.2 PERMITTED 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.
City of Kitchener Zoning By-law 2019-051 Office Consolidation: March 21, 2022
Page 382 of 400
SECTION 7
Table 7-1: Permilteci.Uses within the Residential . ones
Use RES -1 I IS,2 RES- RBB -4 'IDBS -S
Residential Uses
Single Detached Dwelling
Additional Dwelling Units
(Attached)(1)
Additional Dwelling Units
J J ✓ ,� J
J ✓ J
Page 2of9
Semi -Detached Dwelling
J
J
I Townhouse Dwelling – Street
✓(3)
J(4)
Townhouse Dwelling – Cluster
✓(4)
✓
Multiple Dwelling _
✓(3)
— J
,/ --
J
Lodging House
✓
✓
✓
Continuing Care Community
J
✓
J
Hospice
✓
_
,i
J
✓
✓
Residential Care Facility, Small ✓ ✓
✓
✓
J
Residential Care Facility, Large
✓
✓
✓
Non -Residential Uses
Artisan's Establishment (5)
✓
✓
Community Facility (5)
–
✓
Convenience Retail (5)
Day Care Facility (5)
✓
✓
✓
Financial Establishment (5) i
✓
Health Mice (5)
✓
Home Occapation (8} ,/ J _
J
✓
Personal Services (5)
Studio (5)
� ; �
✓
Additional Regulations for Permitted Uses Table 7-1
(1) Shall be permitted in accordance with 4.12.1 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 8.
(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 Zoning By-law 2019-051 Office Consolidation: March 21, 2.022
Page 383 of 400
SECTION 7 Page 3 of 9
7.3 REGULATIONS
The regulations for lots in a residential zone are set out in Tables 7-2 through 7-7 below.
Table 7-2: For Single Detached Dwellings
Regulation RES -1 (5) RES -2 (5) RES -3 (5) RES -4 (5) 'RES= (5) RES -6 RES -7
Minimum Lot 929m2(1) 411 m2 288m2 235m2 235m2
Area
Minimum Lot 24.0m(2)i 13.7m 10.5m 9.Om 9.Om
1Mdth
Minimum Corner
Lot Width 24.0m(2) 15.Om 13.8m 12.8m 12.8m
_
Minimum Front
Yard or Exterior 6.Om (3) 0 4.5m(3) 4.5m(3) 4.5m(3) 4.5m(3)
Yard Setback
Maximum Front
Yard Setback (3) (3) (3) (3) (3)
Minimum Interior
Side Yard 3.Om 1.2m 1.2m 1.2m 1.2m
Setback _T
Minimum Rear 7.5m 7.5m 7.5m 7.5m 7.5m
Yard Setback
Maximum Lot
Coverage 55%(4) 55%(4) ( 55%(4) 55%(4) 55%(4)
Maximum
Building Height I1.0m(6) I1.0m(6) 11.0m(6) 11.0m(6) 11.0m(6)
_
Maximum number 3 3
of storeys_ 3
Additional Regulations for Single Detached Dwellings Table 7-2
(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 Aqoprdb, D - Established N! hbojg_6iggdsAroa, the minimum and
maximum front yard shall be in accordance with Section 7.6.
(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 lands identified In the rnaximum building helght shall
be in accordance with Section 7.5.
City of Kitchener Zoning By-law 2019-051 Office Consolidation: March 21 2022
Page 384 of 400
SECTION 7 Page 4 of 9
Maximum number .� I
of storeys
Additional Regulations for Semi -Detached Dwelling Unit Table 7-3
(1) For lands identified in Appendix D — Esta,hlished Neighbourhoods Area, the minimum and
maximum front yard shall be in accordance with Section 7.6.
(2) 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.
(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 lands identified in Appendix, r — Central Netc�hix:r hoods, the maximum building height shall be
in accordance with Section 7.5.
City of Kitchener Zoning By-law 2019-051 Office Consolidation: March 21, 2022
Page 385 of 400
Table 7-3:
For Semi -Detached
Owe]
lir n
Regulation
RES -1
RES -2
RES -3 (3)
RES -4 (3)ISS
RES -6
Minimum Lot Area
210m2
260m2
210m2 _
7.5m
12.Om
_
Minimum Lot Width
_
9.3 m
_
_7.5m
12.Om
Minimum Corner
Lot Width
12.Om
_
Minimum Front
Yard or Exterior
4.5m (1)
4.5m(1)
4.5m(1)
Yard Setback
(1)
(1)
Maximum Front
(1)
Yard Setback
Minimum Interior
Side Yard Setback
_
1.2m
1.2m
1.2m
Minimum Rear Yard
7.5m
7.5m
_
7.5m i
Setback
e
55%(2)
55%(2)
55%(2)
Maximum Lot
_Coverage
Maximum Building
Height
11.0m(4) I
11.0m(4)
11.0m(4) i
Maximum number .� I
of storeys
Additional Regulations for Semi -Detached Dwelling Unit Table 7-3
(1) For lands identified in Appendix D — Esta,hlished Neighbourhoods Area, the minimum and
maximum front yard shall be in accordance with Section 7.6.
(2) 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.
(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 lands identified in Appendix, r — Central Netc�hix:r hoods, the maximum building height shall be
in accordance with Section 7.5.
City of Kitchener Zoning By-law 2019-051 Office Consolidation: March 21, 2022
Page 385 of 400
SECTION 7
TO le 7 - E2r StMet Town ho!1§V Dwelling Units
Regulation REs-1 RES -2 RES -3 RES -4 (4) ARES
Minimum Lot Area _ 148m2 135m2
Minimum Lot Wdth
(Internal Unit) 6. Om 5.5m
Minimum Lot Width —
(External Unit) IO.Om 9.5m
_Minimum Comer Lot Width 12.Om 11.5m
Minimum Front Yard or --
Exterior Yard Setback 4.5m(1) 4.5m(1)
Maximum Front Yard
Setback ( t) (1
Minimum Interior Side Yard
Setback f 2.5m 2.5m
Minimum Rear Yard
Setback 7.5m 7.5m
Rear Yard Access
Maximum Lot Coverage 5 _ z S /0 °' o
3 � 55%(3)
Maximum BgMJ 2g Height 11.0m(511.0m 5)
Maximum number of 3
storevs
Page 5 of 9
Additional Regulations for Street Townhouse Dwelling Units Table 7-4
(1) For lands identified in Appendix D — Established Nclahbourhoods Area, the minimum and
maximum front yard shall be in accordance with Section 7.6.
(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) For lands identified InC—Car.ii-gid 1,8
in accordance with Section 7.5,
City of Kitchener Zoning By-law 2019-051
the maximum building height shall be
Office Consolidation: March 21, 2022
Page 386 of 400
SECTION 7
TAhIs 7-5. For Cluster Tpwnho use Q�r Mira Units
Page 6 of 9
Regulation
RES -1
RES -2
RES -3
1 E$ 4
'RES -6(3)6(3)
RES -7
Minimum Lot Area
J
525m2 525m2
Minimum Lot Width
19.Om 19.Om
I
Minimum Front
Yard or Exterior
Yard Setback
_
4.5m (5) 3.Om
p
Minimum Interior
Side Yard Setback
4.5m 4.5m
Minimum Rear Yard
Setback
6.0m 4.5m
Minimum
Landscaped Area
20% 2
Minimum Floor
pace Ratio
0.6(1)(4)
Maximum Floor
-�
Space Ratio
0.tl
2.0(1)
7.5m
Minimum Building
Height
Maximum Building
__Hejght
11.0m (6)
25.Om
Maximum Number
of Storeys
3
6
i
Minimum Number
of Dwelling Units
6
Private Patio Area I I
2=2=].
_
Additional Regulations for Cluster Townhouse Dwelling Units Table 7-5
(1) Combined total floorspace 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 not 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 lands identified inAo�aer,ai;� - CSa�fi h�c1 !e�c�Slbo��rhec��s Area, the minimum and
maximum front yard shall be in accordance with Section 7.6.
(6) For lands identified in an ,=10 gn3„ C - Ge
;1`i 00rhoods, the maximum building height shall
be in accordance with Section 7.5.
City of Kitchener Zoning By-law 2019-051 Office Consolidation: March 21, 2022
Page 387 of 400
SECTION 7 Page 7 of 9
'cable 7-6: For Multiple Dvvellin sand Non -Residential Uses
Regulation RES -1 I RES -2 I RES -3 I RES -4 (6) RES -6 (6) 1 RES -7 (6)
Minimum Lot Area
Minimum Lot Width _
Minimum Front
Yarn or Exterior
Yard Setback
Minimum Interior
Side Yard Setback
Minimum Rear Yard
Setback
Minimum
Landscaped Area
Minimum Floor -
Space Ratio _
Maximum Floor
Space Ratio
iI 15.Om 19.0m(1) 30.Om 30.Om
4.5m (8) 4.5m (8) 3.Om 3.Om
3.0rn &0m 4.5m 4.5m (5)
7,5m 7.5n7 �— 7.5m 7.5m (5)
20% 20 20% 20%
0.6(2)(7) 2.0(2)(7)
0_6 0.6 2.0(2) 4.0(2)
heicghl ! 11.0m 14.0 m
Maximum Building
Height
11.0m(9) 11.0m(9) 25.0m (5)
Maximum numberof storeys
Minimum number of a
dwelling units 5 5
Maximum number _
of dwelling units 4
Private Patio Area — 3) (3) (3)
Maximum Gross
F700rArea of
Individual Non- 60Om2(4) ! 600m2(4)
Residential Use
Additional 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-law 2019-051 Office Consolidation: March 2.1, 2022
Page 388 of 400
SECTION 7
Page 8 of 9
(7) 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 floor space ratio.
(8) For lands identified in (appendix D -- Established Neighbourhoods Area, the minimum and
maximum front yard shall be in accordance with Section 7.6.
(9) For lands Identified in &ppandix C — Cerrtr-ll i,Jwighborhoods, the maximum building height shall be
in accordance with Section 7.5,
Table 7-7: L+ndninp House. e; JHbspice, Continaitng Care Community, Small
Etuidenfiial Care Facility and Larne Residiemtjal.Care Faculty
Ieguiation RES -1 RES -2 I RES -3 RES RES -5 J RES--6--FRES-
[-Reg
ES-6 RES -7
Regulations -(1) (1) (1) (1) L(1) (1)
Additional Regulations for Table 7-7
(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 or small 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.
7.4 OUTDOOR STORAGE
No outdoor storage shall be permitted in a RES zone.
7.5 LANDS LOCATED IN APPENDIX C — CENTRAL NEIGHBOURHOODS
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
lot(s), abutting the affected lot, the height of the two principal buildings on the next
adjacent lot with a low-rise residential zone are considered.
7,6 LANDS L=OCATED IN APPENDIX D — ESTABLISHED NEI GHBOURH00DS AREA
ay 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,
Ll} The 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
Page 389 of 400
SECTION 7 Page 9 of 9
7.7 OTHER APPLICABLE REGULATIONS AND SECTIONS
For other applicable regulations and sections see Section 3: Definitions, Section 4:
General Regulations and, Section 5: Parking, Loading, and Stacking.
City of Kitchener Zoning By-law 2099-051 Office Consolidation: March 21, 2022
Page 390 of 400
From: DoubleA Mcl
Sent: Monday, February 26, 2024 3:06 PM
To: Mayor; Stephanie Stretch; Internet - Council (SM); Brian Bateman
Subject: Re: Response To Proposed Development 135 - 161 Jackson Ave. Kitchener
Soill e people who mteived this message don't often get email From
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 Mr Bateman.
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 ;rote:
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.
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 of the 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 Rockway and will add 503, 616, and 403 units 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 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
recognise that the City may need to approve development here at some point, but the currently
proposed design is simply 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 endeavour 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 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 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 is never a permanent downgrade.
The proposed design shows 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
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 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 of building 2.5 storeys 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
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 of the 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 an option 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
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
slope 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 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 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
Page 393 of 400
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
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 394 of 400
From: DoubleA Mcl
Sent: Monday, March 4, 2024 6:24 PM
To: Brian Bateman
Subject: Response to Neighbourhood Meeting -Proposed Development 135-161
Jackson & 136 Brentwood Ave. Kitchener
Attachments: Response to Neighbourhood Meeting -Proposed Development 135-161
Jackson & 136 Brentwood Ave. Kitchener.pdf
"fou don't often ale[ ernaiI fc i earn why this is important
Hello Mr Bateman,
Your email was omitted from my original send.
Sending the attached PDF on to you now such that it might be added to the report and public record.
Thanks.
Page 395 of 400
From: janice hamalainen
Sent: Tuesday, February 27, 2024 4:55 PM
To: Brian Bateman
Subject: development slated for 135-161 Jackson
Attachments: kitchenerplanning135JacksonFebruary2024.docx
You don't often get email from janice.hamalainen@bell.net. Learn whyi�his is import,;
I have attached a letter regarding my concerns for the development of 135-161 Jackson
Av. Kitchener. Thank you for your attention to this matter.
Janice Hamalainen
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 l 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, 2024 9:26 AM
To: Brian Bateman; Internet - Council (SM)
Subject: neighbourhood development
You don't often get email from Learn why this is important
I lc 10,
My name is Marguerite Cameron. I am the owner and resident at
Kitchener. This summer I will have lived in this friendly, quiet, family oriented neighbourhood for 25
years. I am concerned about the proposed roadway into the development behind me. My house 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 of property to the perimeter of the house. Because of the width of the 136 Brentwood
Avenue property this would not be possible. Therefore, cars using the roadway would be very close to
the perimeter of these two houses. This is nor acceptable. There will be traffic noise, backed up traffic
waiting to enter Brentwood Avenue and, at night, lights reflecting into the houses. Has the builder
considered this at all?
Also, when the house and garage at 136 Brentwood Avenue are demolished, my back yard will be totally
open to the public. Has the builder considered this at all? What is he proposing as a solution?
Thank you for your consideration of my concerns,
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
Follow Up Flag: Follow up
Flag Status: Flagged
You don't often get email from earn why this is important
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.
b. 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
From:
Sent: Wednesday, March 20, 2024 10:37 AM
To: Brian Bateman
CC: Stephanie Stretch
Subject: Jackson/Brentwood Development
Follow Up Flag: Follow up
Flag Status: Flagged
You don't often get email from Learn why this is important
Note to Brian Bateman —Senior Planner
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 should be
significantly reduced in size or reconfigured altogether. The concerns of the people 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 will be) communicated to you.
James Buschert
Page 400 of 400