The URL can be used to link to this page

Home My WebLink AboutPSI Agenda - 2024-10-07Planning & Strategic Initiatives Committee Agenda Monday, October 7, 2024, 6:00 p.m. - 8:00 p.m. Council Chambers - Hybrid City of Kitchener 200 King Street W, Kitchener, ON N2G 4G7 People interested in participating in this meeting can register online using the delegation registration form at www.kitchener.ca/delegation or via email at delegation kitchener.ca. Please refer to the delegation section on the agenda below for in-person registration and electronic participation deadlines. Written comments received will be circulated prior to the meeting and will form part of the public record. The meeting live -stream and archived videos are available at www.kitchener.ca/watchnow. *Accessible formats and communication supports are available upon request. If you require assistance to take part in a city meeting or event, please call 519-741-2345 or TTY 1-866-969-9994.* Chair: Councillor P. Singh Vice -Chair: Councillor D. Chapman Pages 1. Commencement 2. Disclosure of Pecuniary Interest and the General Nature Thereof Members of Council and members of the City's local boards/committees are required to file a written statement when they have a conflict of interest. If a conflict is declared, please visit www.kitchener.ca/conflict to submit your written form. 3. Consent Items The following matters are considered not to require debate and should be approved by one motion in accordance with the recommendation contained in each staff report. A majority vote is required to discuss any report listed as under this section. 3.1 Private Street Naming, 980 and 1018 Hidden Valley Road, DSD -2024- 3 325 3.2 Q24-122 Audit Services - FIN -2024-450 4. Delegations Pursuant to Council's Procedural By-law, delegations are permitted to address the Committee for a maximum of five (5) minutes. All Delegations where possible are encouraged to register prior to the start of the meeting. For Delegates who are attending in-person, registration is permitted up to the start of the meeting. Delegates who are interested in attending virtually must register by 4:00 p.m. on October 7, 2024, in order to participate electronically. 4.1 Item 6.2 - Scott Patterson, Patterson Planning Consultants 4.2 Item 6.2 - Shaun Harvey 5. Discussion Items 5.1 None 6. Public Hearing Matters under the Planning Act (advertised) This is a formal public meeting to consider applications under the Planning Act. If a person or public body does not make oral or written submissions to the City of Kitchener before the proposed applications are considered, the person or public body may not be entitled to appeal the decision to the Ontario Land Tribunal and may not be added as a party to a hearing of an appeal before the Ontario Land Tribunal. 15 6.1 Zoning By-law Amendment Application 20 m 18 ZBA24/018/T/TS, 9-27 Turner Avenue, 1000918377 Ontario Inc., DSD -2024-415 (Staff will provide a 5 -minute presentation on this matter.) 6.2 Zoning By-law Amendment Application 60 m 72 ZBA24/019/T/ES, 60 Trussler Road, 1000160668 Ontario Corp., DSD -2024-432 (Staff will provide a 5 -minute presentation on this matter.) 7. Information Items 7.1 None 8. Adjournment Mariah Blake Committee Coordinator Page 2 of 224 Staff Report l IKgc.;i' r� R Development Services Department www.kitchener.ca REPORT TO: Planning and Strategic Initiatives Committee DATE OF MEETING: October 7, 2024 SUBMITTED BY: Garett Stevenson, Director of Development and Housing Approvals, 519-741-2200 ext. 7070 PREPARED BY: Ben Suchomel, Student Planner, 519-741-2200 ext. 7074 WARD(S) INVOLVED: Ward 3 DATE OF REPORT: September 17, 2024 REPORT NO.: DSD -2024-325 SUBJECT: 980 and 1018 Hidden Valley Road— Private Street Naming RECOMMENDATION: That the City of Kitchener acknowledge that Evaya Developments Inc. intends to name a private street: "Bridlewood Crescent" within a multiple residential development located at 980 and 1018 Hidden Valley Road; and further, That the City's Legal Services division be directed to proceed with the required advertising, preparation, and registration of the necessary By-law for the naming of "Bridlewood Crescent". REPORT HIGHLIGHTS: • The purpose of this report is the applicant is seeking Council approval to name a private street within the residential development located at 980 and 1018 Hidden Valley Road. • The key finding of this report is that the applicant is proposing to name the private street as "Bridlewood Crescent" Staff are satisfied that the proposed private street names are appropriate and support the street naming request. • There are no financial implications as there is no impact to the capital or operating budget. • Community engagement included the information posted to the City's website with the agenda in advance of the council/committee meeting. • This report supports the delivery of core services. BACKGROUND: • Evaya Developments Inc. is seeking Council approval to name a private street within the residential development located at 980 and 1018 Hidden Valley Road. The proposed multiple residential development received conditional approval of Site Plan Application SP24/028/H/BB for 26 units (lots) intended to each accommodate a single detached dwelling on June 3rd, 2024. *** This information is available in accessible formats upon request. *** Please call 519-741-2345 or TTY 1-866-969-9994 for assistance. Page 3 of 224 REPORT: The applicant is proposing to name the private streets shown on Appendix `D' as "Bridlewood Crescent". The naming of the private streets will eliminate the need for a Multiple Unit Identification Sign at the entrance to the site, and offers improved site navigation for emergency services, residents, and visitors. The proposal has been circulated to internal departments and all concerns have been addressed. The dwellings will be addressed in accordance with the City's Street Naming and Addressing Policy. The Region has approved the proposed street names. Staff are satisfied that the proposed private street names are appropriate and support the street naming request. STRATEGIC PLAN ALIGNMENT: This report supports the delivery of core services. FINANCIAL IMPLICATIONS: Capital Budget — The recommendation has no impact on the Capital Budget. Operating Budget — The recommendation has no impact on the Operating Budget. COMMUNITY ENGAGEMENT: INFORM — This report has been posted to the City's website with the agenda in advance of the council / committee meeting. REVIEWED BY: Malone -Wright, Tina — Manager of Development Approvals APPROVED BY: Readman, Justin — General Manager, Development Services ATTACHMENTS: Appendix A — Site Plan Application SP24/028/H/BB - 980 and 1018 Hidden Valley Road Appendix B — Applicant Request — 980 and 1018 Hidden Valley Road Appendix C — Agency Comments — 980 and 1018 Hidden Valley Road Appendix D — Private Street Name Plan - 980 and 1018 Hidden Valley Road Page 4 of 224 r N3aa�N �/ I I I oak°a `�-- I l l I I - Iel I< am I I a� I ISI . I I �A i o moo, I I I I I I i a�s� Ne,d a3,duvo� s.aebas�3a s ao, �_'�� " - aae—was Nv�e a3a3isin3n os r�o�e '��-��, 'A _ s ion .m �. ass we Nv�d 3Aowsw � y i an s«o ,��ir - I w� _ o� ., : eg=g oaooaaaaaaaaaaa }b odd¢ _.; 88 aeeeeveeveee _ a -Urc _ �€ i sm_a. it .omeA;9.n�coasa r N3aa�N �/ I I I oak°a `�-- I l l I I - Iel I< am I I a� I ISI . I I �A i o moo, I I I I I I i a�s� Ne,d a3,duvo� s.aebas�3a s ao, �_'�� " - aae—was Nv�e a3a3isin3n os r�o�e '��-��, 'A _ s ion .m �. ass we Nv�d 3Aowsw � y i an s«o ,��ir - I June 17, 2024 Garret Stevenson Director of Development and Housing Approvals City of Kitchener Planning Division, 6t" Floor 200 King Street West Kitchener, ON N2G 4G7 Dear Mr. Stevenson: RE: Private Street Naming Request Lands Subject to Draft Approval of Plan of Condominium Application 30CDM-23204 980 and 1018 Hidden Valley, City of Kitchener OUR FILE 21221'A' On behalf of our client, Evaya Developments Inc., please accept this letter as our request for the creation of one private street for the development at the lands municipally known as 980 and 1018 Hidden Valley Road in the City of Kitchener (Lots 5 and 7, Plan 1519 and Blocks 59 and 60, Plan 58M- 422). These lands were recently subject to the approval of an Official Plan Amendment (OPA 46), passing of a Zoning By-law Amendment (By-law No. 2024-060), draft approval of a Plan of Condominium (Application 30CDM-23204) and conditional approval of a Site Plan Application (SP24/028/H/BB). We kindly ask the City to consider "Bridlewood Crescent" as the preferred private street name for the right-of-way extending through the subject lands. We confirm that our firm has reserved this street name with the Region of Waterloo and we have confirmed with the City of Kitchener Addressing Analyst that only one street name is required. Our client is requesting this name to provide municipal addressing to the residential units within the proposed development (i.e. eliminate the need for a Multiple Unit Identification Sign). The following materials have been attached to our submission package to support our request for a private street name: 1. A copy of the Proposed Private Street Naming Plan; 2. A copy of the Draft Plan of Vacant Land Condominium, prepared by MHBC and signed by J.D. Barnes Limited (surveyor); 3. A digital copy of the cheque payable to the City of Kitchener in the amount of $1,375.00 representing the 2024 fee for Private Street naming; and 4. A digital copy of the cheque payable to the City of Kitchener in the amount of $1,650.00 representing the legal fees required to process the application and creation of a private street. 200-540 Bin ernans Centre Drive Kitchener ON N2B 3X9 g � ,. � 519-576-3650 � www.mhbcplan.com Page 6 of 224 We kindly ask that Staff prepare a report to support the approval of a private street within the subject lands and we ask that this report be brought to the next available Planning and Strategic Initiatives Committee meeting. We furthermore request confirmation of this meeting date when it is known. Should you require any additional information, please contact the undersigned. Yours truly, MHBC Rachel Neiser, MSc Intermediate Planner CC. Andrea Sinclair, MHBC Brian Bateman, City of Kitchener Damian and Danielle Jaworski, Evaya Developments Inc. Page 7 of 224 RE: Private Street Naming Request -980 and 1018 Hidden Valley R.. 0 Derrick Harnbly <DHarnblyl ( D f GBen SUChornel 6/28/20"' Cc Arwa Alzoor; Chris RUMig; Dave Seller; Beth BI'Unol Jennifer Arends, +4 otheirs of This sender DHIaiiinIbIlyCrk)i-egiloiriof�t,�atei-llcfo.c!a !is from outside your organizatlion. . ........ ........ ......... . . .... .... . .. ...................... t 11 11 Y Start youir reply all with: rt f 'I ............................................................................................................................................................................. ............. . ....... ........... ................. Hi Beni, I can confirm that MHBC has already reserved Bridlewood Crescent for this development, so they may proceed with using the name. Regards, Dierrlck Derrick Harnbly, GIIS Analyst Region of Waterloo I d�hiamiblly@regiionofvv,aterlo,o.c:a RE: Private Street Naming Request -980 and 1018 Hidden Valley R... 0leth, Brunio fo OBenSUChornel� crUrflig Ld�regionofwaterloo,ca; 6/2 B/2 024 dhambly@regionofwaterloo,ca� +6 otheirs Cc Arwa Alzoor (ou You relp1hed to tNs message on 7/3/2024 8:41 AM. Hi Beni, I believe we need a Reference Pllan, to proviide a, regiistera,ble legal description for the lands that will form, part of the priivate road, in, order to prepare and register the By-law. This its typicakly one of the documents included iin the submission package. Kind Regards, Beth, Bruino Legal Services Administrator 1I Legall Services 1I The Corporation of the City of Kitchener 5119-7411-2200, Ext. 77113 1I TTY 1-866-969-9994 1 beth.bruno(a)-kitchenier.ca 1I www.kitchiener.ca Page 8 of 224 RE Private Street Naming Request -980 and 1018 Hidden Valley Read- Comments Bell Suclhoine� R,,,I,, ':�') is�rdyAll > F.i—d IS lis 0,th gir,— E;:42 Am Good morning, Befit, i wanted to reach out to you this morning to confirm that the 2. 980 and 1018 Wdden Valley Road Draft Plan of Vacant Land Condominium Slgned Api,62024 is the reference plan. Thank you, Kind regards, Ben Suchomet Student Panner I Planning and Housing Policy I City of Kitchener 519-741-2200ext. 70741 11 RE: Private Street Naming Request -980 and 1018 Hidden Valley Road- Central Beth Bruno T,, 10 Elu Such.,i "'i) Y-fti—lild this ir—g, - 7,,3,,2024 i o24 AM. Good Manning Bar,, Reply A) Reply All `*._rowed 0, ... 7, t,'202,j ;:52 AM Afeyousure- I don't tinink it iis7 rine private street nursing by-law would normally need to be registered an. true before if,. condominium Plan is registered, so a separate reference plan would be used. if I'm wrong or missing something let me know, Kind Regards, Beth Bruno Legal Services Administrator I Legal Services I The Corporation of the City of Kitchener 519-741-2200, Ext 7713 117 TY 1-B66-969-9994 I beth bruno(chkilcherner. ca I www latcheiner. ca QBell Suchoinel Tone ,,,hhcpl- .in Cr.A— Al—, Good morning, Recital, 11 hope this message finds you well. I am reaching out to request for you to submit a Draft Reference Plan for Private Street. Please let mi, knew if yea have gry additional question, or --err- Kind regards, Ben SUchonnet Student Planner I Nanning and Housing Policy I City of Kitchener 519 741-2200 ext. 70741 ben.,suchcrmeI@Mtcheri j RE: Private Street Narning Request - 980 and 1018 Hidden Valley Road- Follow Up Rachep Mese) rneiseir@rnhbcpdan corn:, OR, I S,'ch.r-1 1-r A— Al,—i; Aitdi- Sind�ii Fhis sender rnevsei,�e ii —n is lioin outside your orpi-stion, "'i) You replied to this i on 3/9/2024 2,00 NO. MEW Reply 0:i RplP AN 3 F.re,sird IS ... r1l Rerdy Reply All > I :,V 1111A IIs thudraft ,ufv,.rsoplan sitar) tern for firaliLing the implementation of the street wnie (i.e. earn come al Meo, please CCAndreaSinclair on all rsrnimrnnirarions for this flue a, i M111 be leaving for maternity leave at the IvsglnrnngofAi,ugiust Thank you, RACHEL NEISER, 10Sc I Intermediate Planner MH EC Planning, Urban Design & Landscape Architecture linnialser.@mIrthcpancorn Follow us: WA�ea e I funkedin I Pacebook I XII Virneo I h1gagram mlURBAN DESlGN & LANDSIC AN MHBC ARCl-llTE(-,-iURE iliswmrw .,Wiy k,, thenred �Jd—sf�, ) ,d t f of -i thM,,. Ii ro,iid-t4, Pmfs,.d,.d .—,ut I— d,sd ... - N—i,—,`rrud,.,— pi, �,p Page 9 of 224 RF: Private Street Naming Request -4780 and 1018 Hidden Valley Road- Follow Up 0Ben Sucholnef ` ( Repfy .ra ReplyAll ( Fe ! iit f '" Ra ro l to reg 21124, ) lIM (c Ar AI- A l a tiir�cl air M Rachel, A draft reference plan is required by our legal department in corder to prepare the private street naming report. After the meeting, the registerecl reference plan can be submitted to legal, however we do require the draft plan to be included within the report. Please let me know the timing of the submission and if we can make the next PSIC meeting, otherwise we may have to delay until a later date. Kind regards, Ben Suchonnet Student Planner I Pilannhtg and Housing. Poilicy I City of Kitchener 519-741-2200 ext. 70741 ben.sLlc,fliome«akIGGliener.c.a I uuPtr mi RF: Private Street Naming Request - 980 and 110118 Hidden Valley Read- Follow Up (�^'} Ben S `) Reply `rp R,hyAll m Po d ••• I Bac Alrova Atlarrar !„ 1r. �;,na. >i 1Yll y° r h I Poser; R4 i chancel .... (.c And— Sinclair (, o,')You reph,d tatii mesas(}, an 7/300!20241'.22 RM. Hii Rachel, Thank you for getting hack to me on this. we would require the document, earlier to provide enough time for our legal staff and other agenues to review and provide comments. Meetdng the review time and finalizing the report for Rhe August meeting might be challenging. Therefore, I recommend defer ng the application to the September meeting. Please let me know iif you have any concerns Reaarcta, Arwa Alzoor Mert I D—l.pment & Hau,in�g Approval, I City of Kitchen.. 1-741-2200 ext 7847 1 arwa ak mjfl iij' .pra¢ellseta a I. �,.. .. M i RF: Private Street Naming Request - 980 and 1018 Hidden Valley Road- Follow Up Ben Suchomei ° a P,ply c( ReplpAll h F.—id Iu.. ... to RadidN'ser — — — —i ,r r4113 l "r. Furst ,lair; <vwa Ftfzoor Good afternoon, R-1,6, As we have yet to receive the required document, at the appropriate time to provide enough time for our legal staff and other agencies to review and provide comments, unesting the circulation deadline and finalizing the report for August will not be possible. Therefore, the private street naming apploation for 980 and 1015 Hidden valley Road will be deferred to the September meeting as long as the requested documents are provided. Please feel free to reach out if you have any questions or concerns. Thank you! !find regards, Ben Suchonnet Student Planner I Planning and Hooking Policy i City of Kitchener 519-741-2200 ext. 70 74 1 be�i.wuchomed� 11riltchener.ca V Flu FID N ORm MMMOONM Page 10 of 224 RF: Private Street Naming Request - 980 and 1018 Hidden Valley Road- Follow Up RacheP Neiser meiser@mhbcp�an.cam:, R,ply 11,) ReplyAll > IF— .. d I$ ... r. 0 Ban 3-homel Iii, 7"3iW'-"' 2:27 I'll C, And— Sindei,; A ... aAl—,; L.-V—ndo Hill Ban, We are wor ung to have the reference plan prepared. In this instance, can you please confirm the cut-off date for Inclusion on the September PW ineeting? "9,o, Lup. MI be taking .— tho file arougside Aindrea after this weel, 0 ain going on r—te, noty I-tv.). pease ii,ducia her on applicable cornaiguicabous. Thank you, RACHEL NEISER, Id Sc I Intermediate Planner MHBIC Pl—fl.g, Urban D..ign & La.d.-p. Anuhh.mun. 540 Bingernans Centre Drive, Suite 2081 I Kitchener 11 ON I N2B 3X9 I T 519 576 3650 X 818 1 F 519 576 6121 I Follow us: Webpage I Linkedin I Facebook I X I Virneo I Inftagrarn _ F1 B . A N N I N (,-'t URBAN DESKN LANDSCAPF Ria — it., "Y —eb) ard negrroaim if-rabon tnate prulegad, corifirdontal, poteciedoroherrara e—niptf— dish.—, N-- ', oo,fidr— pnolle,, PINAISIM D'11r— IS noriS Ifyo,a — withe inIanded erJi r S" utirded ol, ly fir, rildno P win rfui pean, Wyfua u � vitu edfabe-1 1 and cWien this enia[ wit o"ding, rmixVirg or for—Ii rig it io mmae RF: Private Street Naming Request - 980 and 1018 Hidden Valley Road- Follow Up Ben Sucho�rne I" Poach , 111,� ... : I-LIIII'Ve-ndi. Cc A,O—Sind-; A... AI—jr Good afitarrount, l & Wild, The cut-off date for inclusion on the September PSIC rrocting is August 08, 2024. Plg.,c lot me know if have any quearan, or concerns. Kind regards, Ben SILIchonnet Student Planner I Planning and Housing Policy I City of Kitchener 519-74'1-2200 ext. 7074 1 ben.suchome[Cwhatcnernerica I RE: Private Street Naming Request - 980 and 1018 Hidden Valley Road- Follow Up Arwa Alzctor 1, Igger-Suchorrel, Andrea Sonclait L,,jea'facondio (" Rarral 111-cr Good morning, Andrea and Luisa, Reply R,pIy All > F --J IIS M, Reply Rady All ) Forward IS ... T, 'e'1 t, C, t7 A I A I trust this Prnaf finds you —11. 11 am foilo roing upon this application as planning dkd not hear back toga rd Ing the Hidden, Valley private street -ming. Let ore kcc,, if I — unsung -String Thankycu & have agreag day! ReU.ids, Aiwa Auer., Planner I Dcociopment & Housing Approvals I City of Kildierer 519-741-2200 act 7847 1 0 0 9) 0 (D 0 G Page 11 of 224 RE: Private Street Naming Request - 990 and 1018 Hidden Valley Road- Follow Up elIsa Vacond1c, 1vacorrdicr@inhbcpIan coin, Ar,va Alzooc 0 Ben Si,jdiori Air Sinclair I his a ende I Na -1600;d rahbcP Ian r0111 Is train Oi-ta I de YOLI I agcnri fM FullFullmw ru h C- in I t ,LJ cr, N,d n, , day, S, int h, r'1'1, 2024, Ce� —22-41-111-11finwical.,11 534 K R Stall YOLJI elply all with: I Re—i-d,ti-I . ....... � I I � r.11 3 r I '„II„) r"dr,"'Ir Q Reply n i Reri r `--d IS ... Hi A—, Please find attached the reference parra for the private street painting. Kindly advisewhen you expect to or mi item to Council for approveL. Thankyou, LLI!Sa LUISAVAC ON DIO, BES, MCI P, RPP I Senior Ptanner I I Pl rd `v( I I',) () 540 Binge mans Centre Drive, Suite 200, Kitchener ON, N2B3X9 ()l "i T:5119 .576 3650 MHBC 1-l” C A, I't C- 519-729-8564 A i)C --il i E(- I MiF 0000 RE: Private Street Naming Request - 980 and 1018 Hidden Valley Road- Follow Up 0 Arvda Alzoor 1176 1” Li,jiso Vaccrorin: 0 Pan Suchorcell Andrea Sinclair Hello Lusa, This can be added to the W 07 Planning and strategic lirritilati— con"nittee (psi) agenda please let — knew f that works Thank you ReU.,d,, Ani Al— Plarneri Development & Housing Approvals I City of Kitchener 519741-2200 ext 7847 ca I III , TAI avrei RE: Private Street Naming Request -980 and 1018 Hidden Valley Road- Comments Ben Suchomei l: Behr On— Ar— Al—, 542 KE Good afternoon, beth, Now in Tara's absence, both Arwa All Planner, Bced, and I will be handling the private road naming request for 980 and 1019 Hidden Voliley Road. I Have attached the revised R-Nau for your reference. A, for the status of the application, Planorng Staff have now scheduled the application to be added to the agenda for the PSIC meeting on October 7th. Please let me kin., if you have any oddrt—.] questions or Kind regards, Ben Suchorl Student Planner I Pianning and Housing Policy I City of KirGherier 519 741-2200 ext. 7074 1 help, sLichomelft kit G)iener.cEr i Pply 1,() Rapiry At > Forward Wo v, i. I'rrrII1n114 Reply 1K1 Ri,plyMn > NeIrl , Page 12 of 224 From: Dave Seller <DsoseLe I ler@10tcKe tier, r.,@> Sent: Th—clay, SoI)te.b,, 12, 202410:07 AM To: Ben Suchornel Subject: TS comments: Private Street Naming Request -980 and 1018 Hidden Valley Road N. G(.— Ei — Seller. C' F.T. Ti wispottation PII-Mriq Analyst I T,.u,puQsfliuo Services 6 City of KhAore, 914-783-8162 1 .1...1Y 1 866 969 9994 1 dame -1 eirf��kitcheue,xa Fli, Gity of Kitchener is lnode miziny Il, phone %yotent, rend heypn ming August 19, 2024 you van w,',,ih me threcily M 619-783-8152, RE: Private Street Naming Request -980 and 1018 Hidden Valley Road- Comments Derrick Harnbly , DHanibVyregi,,nofviatei,ioo.ca Rell R,li All > Fer—M Krm I Hk Hen ed YIV,11,M):,VIPI1I CArwaNzoor; ED—Seller ; Jen riferAreiids, gethDinuio; teninterWit—; David He- hert, Firepre vestimr(SM); (JiiisR,uniq J) F rrs der Oild rubls,Of egio nut-iterio o- is from outs i de Yo it Stail you' reply all v,th: N Ben, I sari confirm that MHBc has already reserved Bridlewcard crescent for this developnwrit, so they inay go ahead with i this name. Regards, Deti D—ok H..blyr GIB Analyst R.g,.n cfW.i I AMmbOv 7renipmcAwatarVno.ra Page 13 of 224 w c� J Ll p p d U � m m 00 p N z¢ N 1N30S3?J01317VA N300N 1H U) Q w J CL _� H O in < Z W N W Z CL m 00. *i w U l' U LU QNQ () a a ca c~i) m z m CD w v O a % /I w 0, LU x i /y o�aF Q oid 0 J z / c.m lBLE Q ray °/ era oasz 4'i W Ln Y tij N'C m 000,Ez LUJ Q ° W a Al IF cq / P O r e� z�LL OM1 ? - S2 O O Of Of / W J \' y oi, o cn p 0 V cl {P ae w LU p Z GO LU w r � — s Z r 30b1d S ° t 0 2 by3nOHS 30x030 00 _ it w O W ♦� > 00 �/♦ W N N O N co 0— StaffReport xmllf f ER finance and (orporate Services Department www.kitchener ca REPORT TO: Finance and Corporate Services Committee DATE OF MEETING: October 7, 2024 SUBMITTED BY: Ryan Scott, Chief Procurement Officer, 519-741-2200 ext. 7214 PREPARED BY: Jenny Ung, Procurement Specialist, 519-741-2200 ext. 7216 WARD(S) INVOLVED: N/A DATE OF REPORT: September 16, 2024 REPORT NO.: FIN -2024-450 SUBJECT: Q24-122 Audit Services RECOMMENDATION: That Quotation Q24-122 Audit Services, be awarded to KPMG LLP, Kitchener, ON, at their estimated fee of $589,300 plus HST of $76,609 for a total of $665,909 for a three (3) year term with an option to renew for two (2) additional one (1) year terms beginning with the fiscal year ending December 31, 2024, for the Corporation of the City of Kitchener, its Boards and Municipal Enterprises including the Waterloo Region Municipalities Insurance Pool with the fiscal year ending May 31, 2025, and further; That Chapter 103 of the City of Kitchener's Municipal Code be amended to reflect the appointment of KPMG LLP as the City's Auditor for the fiscal years 2024, 2025, and 2026. Upon the recommendation of the Chief Financial Officer, Council may consider a by-law amendment to extend KPMG LLP's appointment for fiscal years 2027 and 2028 at the appropriate time. BACKGROUND: In accordance with City Policy GOV-BOA-066 Audit Committee — Terms of Reference; delegated authority to approve and appoint an external auditor falls within the responsibility of the Audit Committee. The Audit Committee is a sub -committee of the Finance & Corporate Services Standing Committee which deal with detailed matters relating to: corporate financial statements; the audit process, general oversight of financial controls/reporting; compliance with financial regulations/policies; and, risk management. The external auditor appointed reports directly to the Audit Committee. Under Section 296(3) of the Municipal Act, an auditor shall not be appointed for a term exceeding five years. The Audit Committee appointed KPMG for the period of 2019-2023 and they have now completed their five (5) year term and an auditor needs to be appointed for the next term. REPORT: *** This information is available in accessible formats upon request. *** Please call 519-741-2345 or TTY 1-866-969-9994 for assistance. Page 15 of 224 Quotations were advertised publicly on the City of Kitchener website. Documents were downloaded by four (4) interested parties and by the closing date of Friday August 23, 2024, two (2) quotations had been received. The following quotations were received: Grant Thornton LLP Toronto ON KPMG LLP Kitchener ON All submissions were reviewed and rated by the selection committee, comprised of: Mayor B. Vrbanovic, Chair, Audit Committee, Councillor S. Davey, Chair, Finance and Corporate Services Committee, J. Lautenbach, Chief Financial Officer, K. Fischer, Director of Financial Reporting & ERP Solutions, and C. Tasker, Internal Auditor. The selection committee rated the quotation submissions on the following criteria: • Company Profile and Qualifications • Technical Experience and Understanding • Methodology • Scheduling • Value -Added Services • Cost of Fees The selection committee recommends awarding the project to KPMG LLP, Kitchener, Ontario. STRATEGIC PLAN ALIGNMENT: The recommendation of this report supports the achievement of the City's strategic vision through the delivery of core services. FINANCIAL IMPLICATIONS: The total 2024 audit fee is $31,400 higher than the 2023 audit fee and increases by an inflationary amount each year (3.5%). Staff note that recent changes in auditing and accounting standards have contributed to an increase in the extent and complexity of work required for these services. Funding for the City's audit fees are provided from various operating and enterprise account codes. The City of Kitchener's portion of the fees is $355,600 over the three-year contract term. The remainder is funded directly by the individual boards (Belmont Improvement Area Board of Management, Kitchener Downtown Improvement Area Board, Kitchener Public Library Board, the Centre in the Square Inc.) and the Waterloo Region Municipalities Insurance Pool. In addition to the City and it's boards, KPMG provided fees for Kitchener Housing Inc., Kitchener Non -Profit Property Management Inc., which will be approved by their Board and the Municipal Accommodation Tax Review which will be approved by and shared with local area municipalities. Page 16 of 224 COMMUNITY ENGAGEMENT: INFORM — This report has been posted to the City's website with the agenda in advance of the council / committee meeting. APPROVED BY: Jonathan Lautenbach, Chief Financial Officer, Financial Services Department Page 17 of 224 Staff Report J IKgc.;i' r� R Development Services Department www.kitchener.ca REPORT TO: Planning and Strategic Initiatives Committee DATE OF MEETING: October 7, 2024 SUBMITTED BY: Garett Stevenson, Director of Development and Housing Approvals, 519-741-2200 ext. 7860 PREPARED BY: Tim Seyler, Senior Planner, 519-741-2200 ext. 7860 WARD(S) INVOLVED: Ward 1 DATE OF REPORT: September 9, 2024 REPORT NO.: DSD -2024-415 SUBJECT: 9-27 Turner Avenue Zoning By-law Amendment Application ZBA24/018/T/TS 1000918377 Ontario Inc. RECOMMENDATION: That Zoning By-law Amendment Application ZBA24/018/T/TS requesting to amend Zoning By-law 2019-051, for 100918377 Ontario Inc. be approved in the form shown in the Proposed `Proposed By-law' and `Map No. 1' attached to Report DSD -2024- 415 as Attachment `A'. REPORT HIGHLIGHTS: • The purpose of this report is to evaluate and provide a planning recommendation regarding a Zoning By-law Amendment application for the properties located at 9-27 Turner Avenue. • It is Planning staff's recommendation that the Zoning By-law Amendment application be approved. The proposed application represents an opportunity to provide `missing middle' housing that addresses a need in our community. • Community engagement included: o Circulation of a preliminary notice to residents and property owners within 240 metres of the subject site; o Installation of a large billboard notice sign on the property; o Follow up one-on-one correspondence with members of the public who responded to the circulation or saw the billboard sign; o Neighbourhood Meeting held on September 5, 2024; o Notice advertising of the statutory public meeting was circulated to all residents and 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 September 20, 2024. *** This information is available in accessible formats upon request. *** Please call 519-741-2345 or TTY 1-866-969-9994 for assistance. Page 18 of 224 • This report supports the delivery of core services. • These applications were deemed complete on July 24, 2024. The Applicant can appeal these applications for non -decision after October 25, 2024. EXECUTIVE SUMMARY: The owner of the subject lands addressed as 9-27 Turner Avenue is proposing to change the zoning from `RES -4' in Zoning By-law 2019-051 to `RES -5' with Site Specific Provision (410), to further regulate the Floor Space Ratio (FSR) and the rear yard setback. A Holding Provision is also requested to be applied to the property by the Region for approval for a stationary noise study. Staff are recommending that the application be approved. BACKGROUND: The City of Kitchener has received an application for a Zoning By-law Amendment from 1000918377 Ontario Inc. for a development concept that proposes a stacked townhouse multiple dwelling building with thirty (30) residential units. The properties currently consist of a single detached dwelling, and 2 single detached dwellings with 2 Additional Dwelling Units (ADU) (Attached), 2 triplexes, for a total of 7 units on all the properties. The subject property is identified as `Community Area' 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). Site Context The subject lands are municipally addressed as 9, 15, and 27 Turner Avenue. The subject lands are in close proximity to Victoria Street North and have frontage onto Turner Avenue. The lot area of the subject site is approximately 0.33 hectares, and the lot frontage is approximately 55.0 metres. The lot currently contains a single detached dwelling, and 2 single detached dwellings with 2 Additional Dwelling Units (ADU) (Attached), 2 triplexes, for a total of 7 units on the properties. The surrounding neighbourhood contains a mix of low-rise residential uses, medium rise residential uses, and commercial uses, including an adjacent Arby's restaurant. Page 19 of 224 SUBJECT AREA 1 Figure 1 - Location Map: 9-27 Turner Avenue Figure 2 — Existing buildings at 9-27 Turner Avenue The proposal will be subject to the City of Kitchener's Rental Replacement By -Law 2024- 132, which was passed by Council on June 24, 2024. The Rental Replacement By -Law requires applicants that are proposing to demolish or convert six or more rental units to provide compensation to existing tenants, and to replace demolished or converted units with affordable rental units for a period of 10 years. This zoning by-law application relates to three properties which contain a combined seven rental units. In advance of the next stages of the planning process (i.e. site plan and demolition control), Staff will be working with the applicant and any tenants to determine what form of tenant compensation is required, and the number of rental replacement units required in the proposed redevelopment. Page 20 of 224 J 40 Figure 1 - Location Map: 9-27 Turner Avenue Figure 2 — Existing buildings at 9-27 Turner Avenue The proposal will be subject to the City of Kitchener's Rental Replacement By -Law 2024- 132, which was passed by Council on June 24, 2024. The Rental Replacement By -Law requires applicants that are proposing to demolish or convert six or more rental units to provide compensation to existing tenants, and to replace demolished or converted units with affordable rental units for a period of 10 years. This zoning by-law application relates to three properties which contain a combined seven rental units. In advance of the next stages of the planning process (i.e. site plan and demolition control), Staff will be working with the applicant and any tenants to determine what form of tenant compensation is required, and the number of rental replacement units required in the proposed redevelopment. Page 20 of 224 The By -Law protects rental units that are subject to a Planning Act application whether or not the units are located in one building, or are located in multiple buildings on multiple lots subject to the same application. Additionally, Units in buildings that have been vacant for less than six months are subject to the By -Law's obligation to provide an equal number of affordable rental units in the proposed development. REPORT: The applicant is proposing to develop the property with a 30 -unit multiple dwelling in the form of stacked townhouses. Thirty-six (36) surface parking spaces, including five (5) visitor parking spaces, and two (2) barrier free parking spaces are proposed. Figure 4 — Development Concept 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, 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; k) The adequate provision of employment opportunities; Page 21 of 224 p) The appropriate location of growth and development; q) The promotion of development that is designed to be sustainable, to support public transit and to be oriented to pedestrians; r) The promotion of built form that, (i) Is well-designed, (ii) Encourages a sense of place, and (iii) Provides for public spaces that are of high quality, safe, accessible, attractive and vibrant; s) The mitigation of greenhouse gas emissions and adaptation to a changing climate. These matters of provincial interest are addressed and are implemented through the Provincial Policy Statement, 2020, as it directs how and where development is to occur. The City's Official Plan is the most important vehicle for the implementation of the Provincial Policy Statement, 2020 and to ensure Provincial policy is adhered to. The Ministry of Municipal Affairs and Housing has approved an integrated province -wide land use planning policy document, replacing the current Provincial Policy Statement and A Place to Grow: Growth plan for the Greater Golden Horseshoe, with a singular Provincial Planning Statement (PPS) which will come into effect October 20, 2024 (after a decision is made on this application). The Ministry of Municipal Affairs and Housing is currently consulting on transition provisions for the 2024 PPS. A final decision on this matter is currently scheduled for Council on October 21, 2024, after the 2024 PPS will come into effect. In anticipation of Council's decision on or after October 20, 2024, staff have also evaluated this application for conformity with the proposed 2024 PPS as well. The Ministry of Municipal Affairs and Housing is currently consulting on transition provisions for the 2024 PPS. A final decision on this matter is currently scheduled for Council on October 21, 2024, after the 2024 PPS will come into effect. In anticipation of Council's decision on or after October 20, 2024, staff have also evaluated this application for conformity with the proposed 2024 PPS as well. Provincial Policy Statement, 2020: The Provincial Policy Statement (PPS) provides policy direction on matters of provincial interest related to land use planning and development. Section 1.4.3(b) of the PPS promotes all types of residential intensification, and sets out a policy framework for sustainable, healthy, liveable and safe communities. The PPS promotes efficient development and land use patterns, as well as accommodating an appropriate mix of affordable and market-based residential dwelling types with other land uses, while supporting the environment, public health and safety. Provincial policies promote the integration of land use planning, growth management, transit -supportive development, intensification, and infrastructure planning to achieve cost-effective development patterns, optimization of transit investments, and standards to minimize land consumption and servicing costs. To support provincial policies relating to the optimization of infrastructure, transit and active transportation, the proposed zoning facilitates a compact form of development which efficiently uses the lands, is in close proximity to transit options, and makes efficient Page 22 of 224 use of both existing roads and active transportation networks. The lands are serviced and are in proximity to parks, trails and other community uses. Provincial policies are in support of providing a broad range of housing. Planning staff is of the opinion that the proposed application will facilitate the intensification of the subject property with a low-rise development that is compatible with the surrounding community, helps manage growth, is transit -supportive and will make use of the existing infrastructure. No new public roads would be required for the proposed development and Engineering staff have confirmed there is capacity in the sanitary sewer to permit intensification on the subject lands. Based on the foregoing, staff is of the opinion that this proposal is in conformity with the PPS. Provincial Policy Statement, 2024: The Provincial Planning Statement (PPS), 2024 is a streamlined province -wide land use planning policy framework that replaces both the Provincial Policy Statement, 2020 and A Place to Grow: Growth Plan for the Greater Golden Horseshoe, 2019 while building upon housing -supportive policies from both documents. The PPS 2024 came into force on October 20, 2024. The PPS 2024 provides municipalities with the tools and flexibility they need to build more homes. Some examples of what it enables municipalities to do are; plan for and support development and increase the housing supply across the province; and align development with infrastructure to build a strong and competitive economy that is investment -ready. Sections 2.1.6 and 2.3.1.3 of the PPS 2024 promotes planning for people and homes and supports planning authorities to support general intensification and redevelopment while achieving complete communities by, accommodating an appropriate range and mix of land uses, housing options, transportation options with multimodal access, employment, public service facilities and other institutional uses, recreation, parks and open space, and other uses to meet long-term needs. Policies further promote, improving accessibility and social equity, and efficiently using land, resources, and existing infrastructure. According to the Province, the PPS 2024 provides municipalities with the tools and flexibility they need to build more homes. Some examples of what it enables municipalities to do are; plan for and support development and increase the housing supply across the province; and align development with infrastructure to build a strong and competitive economy that is investment -ready. Sections 2.1.6 and 2.3.1.3 of the PPS 2024 promotes planning for people and homes and supports planning authorities to support general intensification and redevelopment while achieving complete communities by, accommodating an appropriate range and mix of land uses, housing options, transportation options with multimodal access, employment, public service facilities and other institutional uses, recreation, parks and open space, and other uses to meet long-term needs. Policies further promote improving accessibility and social equity, and efficiently using land, resources and existing infrastructure. Page 23 of 224 Based on the foregoing, staff is of the opinion that this proposal is in conformity with the PPS 2024. 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. Policies of the Growth Plan promote growth within strategic growth areas including community areas, in order to provide a focus for investments in transit and other types of infrastructure. Policy 2.2.6.1(a) states that municipalities will support housing choice through the achievement of the minimum intensification and density targets in this plan by identifying a diverse range and mix of housing options and densities, including additional residential units and affordable housing to meet projected needs of current and future residents. Policies 2.2.1.4 states that complete communities will: a) feature a diverse mix of land uses, including residential and employment uses, and convenient access to local stores, services, and public service facilities; b) improve social equity and overall quality of life, including human health, for people of all ages, abilities, and incomes; c) provide a diverse range and mix of housing options, including additional residential units and affordable housing, to accommodate people at all stages of life, and to accommodate the needs of all household sizes and incomes; d) expand convenient access to: i. a range of transportation options, including options for the safe, comfortable and convenient use of active transportation; ii. public service facilities, co -located and integrated in community hubs; iii. an appropriate supply of safe, publicly -accessible open spaces, parks, trails, and other recreational facilities; and iv. healthy, local, and affordable food options, including through urban agriculture; e) provide for a more compact built form and a vibrant public realm, including public open spaces; f) mitigate and adapt to the impacts of a changing climate, improve resilience and reduce greenhouse gas emissions, and contribute to environmental sustainability; and g) integrate green infrastructure and appropriate low impact development. The Growth Plan supports planning for a range and mix of housing options and higher density housing options that can accommodate a range of household sizes in locations that can provide access to transit and other amenities. Planning staff is of the opinion that the application conforms to the Growth Plan. Regional Official Plan (ROP): The subject lands are designated "Urban Area" and "Built -Up Area" on Map 3a of the Regional Official Plan (ROP). Section 1.6 of the Regional Official Plan establishes the Page 24 of 224 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. The Region of Waterloo have indicated they have no objections to the proposed application, subject to the required Holding Provision. (Attachment `C'). Planning staff are of the opinion that the application conforms to the Regional Official Plan. City of Kitchener Official Plan (OP) 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 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. 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. Site specific increase to allow up to a maximum Floor Space Ratio (FSR) of 0.75 may be permitted without an amendment to the Official Plan, provided the development meets the general intent of Official Plan policies and is compatible (Section 15.D.3.11). Planning staff is of the opinion that the requested Zoning By-law Amendment will facilitate a low rise housing form that conforms with the Low Rise Residential land use designation in the City's Official Plan. The proposal provides an additional low density housing type within the neighbourhood with a maximum FSR of 0.75. Transportation The City's Official Plan contains policies to develop, support, and maintain a complete, convenient, accessible and integrated transportation system that incorporates active transportation, public transit, and accommodates vehicular traffic. In regard to alternate modes of transportation, objectives of the Official Plan include promoting land use planning and development that is integrated and conducive to the efficient and effective operation of public transit and encourages increased ridership of the public transit system. The City shall promote and encourage walking and cycling as safe and convenient modes of transportation. Page 25 of 224 The proposed development aims to increase density on an existing site that is served well by public transit, with access to Grand River Transit Routes 20 and Xpress Route 204. The proposed development is required to provide safe, secure indoor bicycle storage to encourage active transportation. Staff is of the opinion that the requested Zoning By-law Amendment conforms with the transportation policies of the City's Official Plan. Outdoor amenity space will also be provided for the residents, and locations of bicycle spaces will be confirmed. Urban Design The City is committed to achieving a high standard of urban design, architecture and place -making to positively contribute to quality of life, environmental viability and economic vitality. Urban design is a vital component of city planning and goes beyond the visual and aesthetic character of individual buildings and also considers the functionality and compatibility of development as a means of strengthening complete communities. Urban Design policies in 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 high quality urban design in the review of all development applications through the implementation of the policies of the Official Plan and the City's Urban Design Manual. The proposed development concept includes two 3 storey buildings that are oriented appropriately within the existing context of the neighbourhood. Pedestrian connectivity throughout the site is provided through pedestrian walkways from the parking area to the unit entrances. On-site amenity area is achieved through at -grade passive amenity space at the side of the building, as well as private unit balconies. 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.1.9. 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. 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: The City will encourage the provision of a range of innovative housing types and tenures such as rental housing, freehold ownership and condominium Page 26 of 224 ownership including common element condominium, phased condominium and vacant land condominium, as a means of increasing housing choice and diversity. Based on the above housing policies, staff is of the opinion that the application conforms to the Official Plan. Proposed Zoning By-law Amendment: The subject lands are currently zoned `Low Rise Residential Four Zone (RES -4)' in Zoning By-law 2019-051. The applicant has requested to change the zoning to `Low Rise Residential Five Zone (RES -5)' and add a Site Specific Provision (410) in Zoning By-law 2019-051. The requested change in zoning category is to permit the proposed use of a "Multiple Dwelling" (greater than 4 units). Site -Specific Provision (410) is proposing: a) The maximum Floor Space Ratio shall be 0.75. b) The minimum rear yard setback shall be 3.6 metres Holding Provision (92) has also been added requiring the owner to complete a Stationary Noise study, to the satisfaction of the Region of Waterloo. Floor Space Ratio: The Floor Space Ratio (FSR) is to ensure compatibility with the surrounding neighbourhood and to ensure development does not exceed the density presented in the concept plans. The applicant has submitted a concept plan that has been initially reviewed by Staff. Planning staff have no concerns with the increase in floor space ratio, and the proposed development is compatible with the surrounding neighbourhood. A maximum FSR is permitted in the Low Rise Residential land use designation which applied to the subject and surrounding lands. Rear yard setback: The rear yard setback requirement is to ensure adequate separation from surrounding lands and to ensure appropriate amenity space for future tenants. The lands adjacent to the rear lot line are also occupied with a multiple dwelling that is approximately the same height as the proposed development. Only a small portion of the development is located 3.6 metres from the rear lot line, as the rest of the space is occupied by required parking, Accordingly, adequate separation from the adjacent existing low rise residential development has been achieved and will be maintained. An amenity space is also proposed on the property, in an alternate location, which will be refined through the site plan process. Proposed Zoning By-law Amendment Conclusions Staff is of the opinion that the proposed Zoning By-law Amendment to change the zoning of the subject lands to `RES -5' with Site Specific Provision (410), and Holding Provision (92) represents good planning as it will facilitate the redevelopment of the lands with a 30 - unit multiple dwelling in the form of stacked townhouses, which is compatible with the existing neighbourhood, and is a good example of gentle intensification within a new infill Page 27 of 224 development. Staff are supportive of the proposed development and recommend that the proposed Zoning By-law amendment be approved as shown in Attachment `A'. Planning staff are of the opinion that the proposed Zoning By-law Amendment application is consistent with policies of the Provincial Policy Statement, conforms to the Growth Plan for the Greater Golden Horseshoe, the Regional Official Plan and the City of Kitchener Official Plan, and represents good planning. Department and Agency Comments: Circulation of the Zoning By-law Amendment was undertaken in April to all applicable City departments and other review authorities. No major concerns were identified by any commenting City department or agency and any necessary revisions and updates were made. Copies of the comments are found in Attachment `C' of this report. The following Reports and Studies were considered as part of this proposed Zoning By- law Amendment: Planning Justification Report Prepared by: K. Smart Associates Limited, July 9, 2024 Architectural Drawings Prepared by: Gerrards Design and Drafting Inc., June 18, 2024 Urban Design Brief Prepared by: K. Smart Associates Limited, July 9, 2024 Functional Servicing Brief, Grading Plan & Stormwater Management Report Prepared by: JPE Engineering, July 10, 2024 Tree Preservation and Enhancement Plan Repot Prepared by: Jackson Arboriculture Inc, May 1, 2024 Environmental Noise Study Prepared by: JPE Engineering, July 10, 2024 Sustainability Statement Prepared by: K. Smart Associates Limited, May 24, 2024 Two (2) persons provided comments A City -led Neighbourhood Meetings held on September 5, 2024 and five (5) different users logged on Page 28 of 224 860 households (residents and property owners) were circulated and notified Staff received written responses from 3 residents with respect to the proposed development. These are included in Attachment `D'. The residents were concerned with the traffic, and site specific questions such as height of the buildings, parking location and tree protection. A Neighbourhood Meeting was held on September 5, 2024. A summary of what we heard, and staff responses are below. What We Heard Staff Comment A Parking Justification Report was not required as part of the application as the proposed development meets the requirements of the Zoning By-law and provides additional parking spaces above the minimum required. The applicant is also proposing Class A and Class B Concerns that not enough parking is bicycle parking that provides an additional provided on site, within the existing transportation alternative which can reduce the neighbourhood, and with overflow number of motor vehicles demand for residents street parking from the neighbouring of the future development. religious institution at specific times of the day The religious institution is aware of the situation and has been working internally to provide services at different times of the day in order to limit the amount of people at specific times of the day. On -street parking is permitted for a limit of 3 hours at a time and if there are concerns By-law staff can be contacted. A tree preservation and protection plan has been reviewed by City Environmental Staff, there is no concerns with the provided plan, and a landscape Concerns over existing and plan will be required as part of a Site Plan neighbouring trees on site application. Tree protection fencing will be a requirement around all on site and neighbouring trees to ensure that trees experience no negative impacts. Proposed elevations and site plan were provided Site specific concerns about location as part of a complete Zoning By-law application. of access aisle and building A detailed review will be undertaken at site plan dimensions including height stage taking these comments into account. Page 29 of 224 Planning Conclusions: In considering the foregoing, staff are supportive of the Zoning By-law Amendment. Staff is of the opinion that the subject application is consistent with policies of the 2020 and 2024 Provincial Policy Statements, conforms to Growth Plan for the Greater Golden Horseshoe, the Regional Official Plan, and the City of Kitchener Official Plan and represents good planning. Staff recommends that the application be approved. The proposed application represents an opportunity to provide an alternative housing form within an existing neighbourhood that addresses a need in our community. STRATEGIC PLAN ALIGNMENT: This report supports the delivery of core services. FINANCIAL IMPLICATIONS: Capital Budget — The recommendation has no impact on the Capital Budget. Operating Budget — The recommendation has no impact on the Operating Budget. The requirement for a municipality to refund planning application fees if a decision is not made within a prescribed timeframe, introduced by Bill 109, More Homes for Everyone Act, 2022, has been rescinded. Decisions on Zoning By-law Amendment applications are still required within 90 days to avoid potential appeals to the Ontario Land Tribunal for non- decision. COMMUNITY ENGAGEMENT: INFORM — This report has been posted to the City's website with the agenda in advance of the Council / Committee meeting. A large notice sign was posted on the property and information regarding the application was posted to the City's website in early June. Following the initial circulation referenced below, an additional postcard advising of the statutory public meeting was circulated to all residents and property owners within 240 metres of the subject lands, those responding to the preliminary circulation and who attended the Neighbourhood Meetings. Notice of the Statutory Public Meeting was also posted in The Record on September 20, 2024 (a copy of the Notice may be found in Attachment `B'). CONSULT — The proposed Zoning By-law Amendment was circulated to residents and property owners within 240 metres of the subject lands on July 30, 2024. In response to this circulation, staff received written responses from 3 members of the public, which were summarized as part of this staff report. Planning staff also responded to emails from the residents. PREVIOUS REPORTS/AUTHORITIES: • Planning Act, R.S.O. 1990, c. P.13 • Growth Plan, 2020 • Provincial Policy Statement, 2020 • Proposed Provincial Policy Statement, 2024 • Region of Waterloo Official Plan Page 30 of 224 • City of Kitchener Official Plan, 2014 • City of Kitchener Zoning By-law 2019-051 REVIEWED BY: Malone -Wright, Tina — Manager, Development Approvals, Development and Housing Approvals Division APPROVED BY: Readman, Justin - General Manager, Development Services ATTACHMENTS: Attachment A — Proposed By-law and Map 1 Attachment B — Newspaper Notice Attachment C — Department and Agency Comments Attachment D — Public Comments Page 31 of 224 DSD -2024-415 Attachment "A" PROPOSED BY — LAW , 2024 BY-LAW NUMBER OF THE CORPORATION OF THE CITY OF KITCHENER (Being a by-law to amend By-law 2019-051, as amended, known as the Zoning By-law for the City of Kitchener — 1000918377 Ontario Inc. — 9-27 Turner Avenue) WHEREAS it is deemed expedient to amend By-law 2019-051 for the lands specified above; NOW THEREFORE the Council of the Corporation of the City of Kitchener enacts as follows: 1. Zoning Grid Schedule Number 178 of Appendix "A" to By-law Number 2019-051 is hereby amended by changing the zoning applicable to the parcel of land specified and illustrated as Area 1 on Map No. 1, in the City of Kitchener, attached hereto, from Low Rise Residential Four Zone (RES -4) to Low Rise Residential Five Zone (RES -5) with Site Specific Provision (410) and Holding Provision (92H). 2. Zoning Grid Schedule Number 178 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. 3. Section 19 of By-law 2019-051 is hereby amended by adding Section 19 (410) thereto as follows: "410. Notwithstanding Table 7-6 of this By-law within the lands zoned Low Rise Residential Five Zone (RES -5) and shown as affected by this subsection on Zoning Grid Schedule Number 178 of Appendix `A', the following special regulations shall apply: a) The maximum Floor Space Ratio shall be 0.75. b) The minimum Rear Yard Setback shall be 3.6 metres." 4. Section 20 of By-law 2019-051 is hereby amended by adding Holding Provision (92H) thereto as follows: Page 32 of 224 DSD -2024-415 Attachment "A" "92. Notwithstanding Section 7 of this By-law within the lands zoned Low Rise Residential Five Zone (RES -5) and shown as being affected by this subsection on Zoning Grid Schedule Number 178 of Appendix "A"; a) A satisfactory preliminary and detailed stationary noise studies have 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 on-site sensitive points of reception and the impacts of the development on adjacent noise sensitive uses." PASSED at the Council Chambers in the City of Kitchener this day of , 2024. Mayor Clerk Page 33 of 224 �z W U) Z W Q O N W ry Z O ONS � O Q LL W Z rn J >p= LL o Q L�cnrn N Z Q > Z Q o Wa0 fn 0U> m Q � -a_ LU LU W W OF- (/) � w a Q z Of U)U)z Q LU M ~O w pipLU J U) m Wtn02= W 0 Ow �o ai Z aaic� ofLL O J� LU z O c N Q © C a La It (j X N wo� Z INN CO is I _o j W LU Z i i ^�^++ W W W d 2 Z=QQ i Z i IN ) O Y i i '�� v W i W zZ i i o O 1> N y 1\ 0 O Q (N J F X � LL o Z Q m o `) N Q � W } U m 00 Z of O z LU z O w N Q a La It (j X N wo� Z INN CO rz _o j W LU Z Q Z ^�^++ W W W d 2 Z=QQ Z W Z W 2 IN ) O Y w '�� v W W zZ co u �w y Q z Q O� Z ~ 4.0 w } - a �♦a V 0 m J w ppuuuu Q LU 'III Z U 0 Z — LL CN Li - Cb O 0 o � C/j N O N mllm I00L W C) N N W >- _j 0 W J Q W � U Q w 0 O i w w � uuuu U Z T— O > ' < Q Of Z o z N� a Lc) w M 00 �s C N IIIIIIIII C) O I O NOTICE OF PUBLIC MEETING for a development in your neighbourhood 9-27 Turner Avenue Concept Drawing IIv�l i �i It I6 e 3 w e i i. ii ti g Have Your Voice Heard! Planning & Strategic Initiatives Committee Date: October 7, 2024 Location: Council Chambers, Kitchener City Hall 200, King Street West orV'irtual Zoom Fleeting Go to kitchener.ca/meetings and select: • Current agendas and reports (posted 10 days before meeting) • Appear as a delegation • Watch a meeting To learn more about this project, including information on your appeal rights, visit: www.kitchenenca/ PlanningApplications or contact: '''ic e asE?d Tim Seyler, Senior Planner tim.seyler@kitch ener.ca 519.741.2200 x7860 The City of Kitchener will consider an application for a Zoning By-law Amendment to facilitate the development of a multiple dwelling in the form of stacked townhouses consisting of 30 units. The application proposes to change the Zoning Category from `RES-4'to `RES -5', to permit an increased Floor Space Ratio (FSR) of 0.75, and a rear yard setback of 3.6 metres. Page 35 of 224 "Attachment C" City of Kitchener OPA & ZBA Comment Form Project Address: 9-27 Turner Ave, Kitchener Application Type: Official Plan Amendment & Zoning Bylaw Amendment Comments Of: Urban Design Commenter's Name: Katey Crawford Email: Katey.Crawford@kitchener.ca Phone: 519-741-2200 ext. 7157 Date of Comments: August 12th, 2024 ❑ I plan to attend the meeting (questions/concerns/comments for discussion) ❑X No meeting to be held ❑ I do NOT plan to attend the meeting (no concerns) 1. Documents Reviewed • Site Plan (Concept), prepared by K. Smart Associates Limited • New Multi -Residential Building Elevations, prepared by Gerrards Design & Drafting Inc. • Functional Grading Plan, prepared by JPE Engineering • Tree Preservation & Enhancement Plan, prepared by Jackson Arboriculture Inc. • Tree Preservation & Enhancement Plan Report, prepared by Jackson Arboriculture Inc. • Urban Design Brief, prepared by K. Smart Associates Limited. 2. Site Specific Comments & Issues: Site Plan Comments • 135 sq. m of amenity is required. Extend outdoor amenity by eliminating building B end unit. • The class 'A bike storage shown at the corner of the site is problematic. Relocate bike parking to a more accessible and visible location. • Reduce double loaded parking drive aisle to 7.3m minimum in effort to gain additional landscape buffer. • Reduce single loaded drive aisle to 6.3m minimum in effort to gain additional landscape buffer. • Remove parallel parking space and relocate waste storage units to allow for required landscape buffer and parking landscape island. See mark-up below. Page 36 of 224 • Offset sidewalk connection adjacent to Building A. A 3 -meter offset is required as per Urban Design Manual • Snow will need to be removed from the site due to limited landscaping. Make note on the plan. • Provide 1.8m height fence within property to screen parking areas. 135 sq.m of amenity is equired. extend >utdoor amenily by eliminating auilding b end unit, age shown at corner of the is Arnatic. crate bike aging to a more ossible and Ye location I omoved from the site due to limited landscaping Offset Sidewalk connectior adjacent to Building A to o.a""._ - allow for privacy. A 3 rnete� offset is required as per Urban Design Manual space and relocate waste 30 storage units to allow for required landscape buffer ce.. � ,, and parking landscape " island C,.��, tl CAASs A Sk�ACXS RrtOMOED - t- .,^�, CLASS 9 SPACES rdMARED - & Reduce single loaded " drive aisle, to G.3m __ minimum in effort to gain m additionallandscape Ir .lp9 NU9$3EF2 r%afE ,aa..M zz APRk 2,024 MULTIPLE DWELLING PR SITE PLAN (CON PRO �P,ro,,icle 1.83m height fence °in property to 5creerro17 ing areas.. rc,9raarxras9ocrar�: Tree Management Comments • The trees along the west property line will be impacted by development/grading and will likely go into decline. Suggest removal and replacement planting with better quality and more suitable species. Permission letter will be required. See below. • Please note, permission letters allowing for impact and/or removal of trees will be required from adjacent property owners prior to site plan approval. Page 37 of 224 educe parking rime aisle to .3rn mVninWr71 In ' ...., lfort to pain dd tional ndscape buffer. 7"' 135 sq.m of amenity is equired. extend >utdoor amenily by eliminating auilding b end unit, age shown at corner of the is Arnatic. crate bike aging to a more ossible and Ye location I omoved from the site due to limited landscaping Offset Sidewalk connectior adjacent to Building A to o.a""._ - allow for privacy. A 3 rnete� offset is required as per Urban Design Manual space and relocate waste 30 storage units to allow for required landscape buffer ce.. � ,, and parking landscape " island C,.��, tl CAASs A Sk�ACXS RrtOMOED - t- .,^�, CLASS 9 SPACES rdMARED - & Reduce single loaded " drive aisle, to G.3m __ minimum in effort to gain m additionallandscape Ir .lp9 NU9$3EF2 r%afE ,aa..M zz APRk 2,024 MULTIPLE DWELLING PR SITE PLAN (CON PRO �P,ro,,icle 1.83m height fence °in property to 5creerro17 ing areas.. rc,9raarxras9ocrar�: Tree Management Comments • The trees along the west property line will be impacted by development/grading and will likely go into decline. Suggest removal and replacement planting with better quality and more suitable species. Permission letter will be required. See below. • Please note, permission letters allowing for impact and/or removal of trees will be required from adjacent property owners prior to site plan approval. Page 37 of 224 I— Paaennx!�4N'�� OJ�a�kxlMnq u4vmg3 ¢rwe Indtwi z9fM uw.,�,�A«T4.R r�.�a�,..xrx,mn'meu14 These* trees will be impacted by 1 develo pme ntrg rad i rig and will likely go into decline. Suggest rernoval and dx t replacement planting with better quality and more suitable species. Permission letter will Building Elevations • Provide a flat rough structure for both buildings to reduce massing and better integrate the built form into the low-rise neighborhood context. • Show and note colours and materials. Urban Design Brief Comments • Update brief as per comments above. • Page 9 notes the commercial site is to the east of the subject site. However, it's to the west. Revise wording. • Page 9 notes the single detached dwellings adjacent to the site are to the west of the subject site. However, it's to the east. Revise wording. • Provide amenity space details and precedent images. • Update brief with updated elevations, showing flat roof design and colours. Updated Plans/Reports Required 1. Updated Urban Design Brief 2. Updated Site Plan 3. Updated TMP 4. Revised Elevations Page 38 of 224 Project Address: 9 - 27 Turner Avenue Application Type: Zoning By-law Amendment Application ZBA24/018/T/TS Comments of: Environmental Planning — City of Kitchener Commenter's Name: Carrie Musselman Email: carrie.musselman@kitchener.ca Phone: 519-741-2200 X 7068 Date of Comments: September 2, 2024 1. Plans, Studies and Reports submitted as part of a complete Planning Act Application: • Tree Preservation and Enhancement Plan Report: 9-27 Turner Ave, prepared by Jackson Arboriculture Inc., dated March 21, 2024 (Revised May 2024). 2. Site Specific Comments & Issues: I have reviewed the studies as noted above to support a zoning bylaw amendment to support the development of a 30 -unit multiple dwelling (stacked townhouses), and note: — The Arborist Report found a total of 29 trees located on the subject properties, in the road right-of- way, and within six metres of the property boundary of neighbouring properties. — No rare, threatened or endangered tree species were documented in the tree inventory. — 11 trees are to be retained. Tree protection fencing is recommended to be installed around trees noted for retention. — The removal of 18 trees included in the tree inventory will be required to accommodate the proposed development. — The Arborist Report has noted three trees (No. 2, 9, and 17) in shared ownership that are proposed to be removed to facilitate the development. o To proceed with the development as designed, written agreement to remove trees in shared ownership will be required. o If a property owner does not agree to tree removal, the proposed development will not be able to proceed as designed, it will need to be modified from what has been submitted for further review and approval. — An ecologically sound tree replacement plan (to support the future site plan application) should be considered to mitigate tree removals. Environmental Planning staff can support the Zoning By Law Amendment. Staff believe the above noted comments/concerns can be addressed through the City's Site Plan process and/or through condition(s) of site plan approval. 3. Policies, Standards and Resources: Tree Management Page 39 of 224 • As per Section 8.C.2.16. of the Official Plan, the City will require the preparation and submission of a tree management plan in accordance with the City's Tree Management Policy (available on the City's Website), where applicable, as a condition of a development application. o Any tree management plan must identify the trees proposed to be removed, justify the need for removal, identify the methods of removal and specify an ecologically sound tree replacement scheme and any mitigative measures to be taken to prevent detrimental impacts on remaining trees. • policy 8.C.2.6., the City will incorporate existing and/or new trees into the streetscape or road rights-of- way and encourage new development or redevelopment to incorporate, protect and conserve existing healthy trees and woodlands in accordance with the Urban Design Policies in Section 13 (Landscape and Natural Features) of the Urban Design Manual and the Development Manual. Page 40 of 224 From: Christine Goulet <Christine.Goulet@kitchener.ca> Sent: Friday, August 9, 2024 7:52 AM To: Tim Seyler <Tim.Seyler@kitchener.ca> Subject: RE: Circulation for Comment - 9-27 Turner Avenue (ZBA) Hi Tim, Engineering has reviewed the functional servicing and are in support of the zone change with special provisions for a max sanitary peak flow of 1.38L/s. Kitchener Utilities has reviewed the water distribution and found it acceptable. Thanks, Christine Goulet, C.E.T. Project Manager I Development Engineering 519-741-2200 Ext. 7820 Page 41 of 224 Address: 9-27 Turner Avenue Owner: 1000918377 Ontario Inc. Application: Zoning By-law Amendment #ZBA24/018/T/TS Comments Of: Park Planning Commenter's Name: Lenore Ross Email: Lenore. ross@kitchener.ca Phone: 519-741-2200 ext 7427 Date of Comments: Aug 12 2024 Documents Reviewed: I have reviewed the documentation noted below submitted in support of a ZBA to construct a 30 -unit multiple dwelling in the form of stacked townhouses. To facilitate this development, the owner has requested to amend the zone category from 'RES -4' to 'RES -Yin Zoning By-law 2019-051. A Site -Specific Provision is also being requested for an increase in the Floor Space Ratio (FSR) to 0.75, and a reduced rear yard setback of 3.6m. • Planning Justification Report • Urban Design Brief and 3D massing model • Building Elevations and Floor Plans • Proposed Site Plan • Tree Preservation Plan and Report • Environmental Noise Study Site Specific Comments & Issues: There are minor updates required to the documentation noted below to address Park Planning's concerns with the proposed ZBA application. Park Planning can provide conditional support to the applications subject to receiving satisfactory updates to the documentation noted. Comments on Submitted Documents The following comments should be addressed at this time. Urban Design Brief — K. Smart Associates Limited dated July 9 2024 As noted in Park Planning's Presubmission comments, the site is within the Rosemount Planning Community and through Places and Spaces — An Open Space Strategy for Kitchener, this community has been identified as underserved with active neighbourhood park space and the site is beyond the recommended walking distance to active neighbourhood park space and the required Urban Design Brief should provide details for a robust on-site outdoor amenity space with good solar access and protection from wind. This amenity space will be required as part of the site plan design and should include seating and play equipment for residents of all ages and abilities. The UDB should provide conceptual details for on-site amenity spaces including commentary and precedent images to guide detailed site design through the site plan application. A revised Urban Design Brief is required. Page 42 of 224 Preliminary Site Plan - K. Smart Associates Limited dated July 8 2024 • The location of the future sidewalk with respect to the front property line should be confirmed through Transportation Planning and Development Engineering. • Urban Design may wish to comment on the proposed location for the deep well garbage storage units Policies. Standards and Resources: • Kitchener Official Plan • City of Kitchener Park Dedication Bylaw 2022-101 and Park Dedication Policy MUN-PLA-1074 • 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 Anticipated Fees: Parkland Dedication The parkland dedication requirement for this submission is deferred and will be assessed at a future Site Plan Application. Parkland dedication will be assessed based on the land use class(es) and density approved through the ZBA and required as a condition of Site Plan Approval as cash -in -lieu of land in accordance with the Planning Act, City of Kitchener Bylaw 2022-101 and the Park Dedication Policy MUN-PLA-1074. 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 0.318344 ha site with 30 proposed units (demolition and credit for 3+1+3 units) is $88,090 Calculation: 23 units/1000units x $3,830,000/ha = $$88,090 (alternate rate Bylaw 2022-101) 0.318344 ha x 0.05 x $3,830,000 = $60,963 (5% rate Bylaw 2022-101) 0.318344 ha x 0.10 x $3,830,000 = $121,926 (More Homes Built Faster Act 10% cap) Page 43 of 224 From: Deeksha Choudhry <Deeksha.Choudhry@kitchen er.ca> Sent: Friday, August 2, 2024 4:31 PM To: Garett Stevenson <Garett.Stevenson@kitchener.ca>; Katey Crawford <I<atey.Crawford@kitchener.ca> Cc: Tim Seyler <Tim.Seyler@kitchener.ca> Subject: Re: Circulation for Comment - 9-27 Turner Avenue (ZBA) Tim - the subject properties have no heritage status so no heritage planning comments or concerns. Thanks, Kind Regards, Deeksha Choudhry, MSc., BES Heritage Planners Development and Housing Approvals Divisions City of Kitchener Zoo King Street West, 6th Floor I P.O. Box 11181 Kitchener ON N2G 4G7 519-741-2200 ext. 7602 deeksha. choudhrv(&kitchener. ca �Nu 0113iffirr% Page 44 of 224 To: Tim Seyler, Senior Planner, City of Kitchener From: David Tsai, Project Manager Adjacent Development Third Party Projects Review — GO (Heavy Rail) Metrolinx Date: September 3, 2024 Re: City of Kitchener — 9 — 27 Turner Avenue (ZBA24/018/T/TS) — Zoning By-law Amendment Application, Submission 1 Metrolinx Response Metrolinx has reviewed the first submission of a Zoning By-law Amendment Application for 9 — 27 Turner Avenue, Kitchener. It is our understanding that the subject development proposes to construct a 30 -unit stacked townhouse complex. The subject site is non -adjacent to the Metrolinx Rail Corridor, Guelph Subdivision, to which Metrolinx operates the Kitchener GO Service. Our previous comments dated January 17, 2024, remain applicable and have been updated below. Please refer to Appendix A for detailed Metrolinx comments that will need to be addressed as part of the application review. Responses to each comment should be provided in the next submission to demonstrate how they have been addressed. Should you have any questions or concerns, please do not hesitate to contact me. Best regards, David Tsai, Project Manager Adjacent Development Third Party Projects Review — GO (Heavy Rail) Metrolinx 20 Bay Street Suite 600, Toronto Page 45 of 224 Appendix A: Metrolinx Comments and Proponent Responses Item Metrolinx ZBLA Submission 1 Comments (Sep 3, 2024) Proponent/Consultant Response Noise Impact Study 1. We are in receipt of an Environmental Noise Study prepared by JPE Engineering, dated July 10, 2024. The most up-to-date Metrolinx rail volume data is referenced in the study. However, the Metrolinx warning clause prescribed under comment 2 below should also be included in the report. We will require that the final noise study be submitted for review and its recommendations shall be adhered to in order for approval. Agreements 2. The Proponent shall provide confirmation to Metrolinx, that the following warning clause will be inserted into all Development Agreements, Offers to Purchase, and Agreements of Purchase and Sale or Lease of each unit within 300 metres of the Railway Corridor. Please note that the previously provided warning clause has since been updated per the below: Warning: Metrolinx and its assigns and successors in interest has or have a right-of-way within 300 metres from the subject land. There may be alterations to or expansions of the rail or other transit facilities on such right-of-way in the future including the possibility that Metrolinx or any railway entering into an agreement with Metrolinx to use the right-of-way or their assigns or successors as aforesaid may expand or alter their operations, which expansion or alteration may affect the environment of the occupants in the vicinity, notwithstanding the inclusion of any noise and vibration attenuating measures in the design of the development and individual lots, blocks or units. 3. The Owner shall grant Metrolinx an environmental easement for operational emissions, which is to be registered on title for all uses within 300 metres of the rail right-of-way. Included is a copy of the form of easement for the Proponent's information. The Proponent may contact David.Tsai@metrolinx.com with any questions and to initiate the registration process at their earliest convenience. Wording of the easement is included below and registration of the easement will be required prior to clearance of Site Plan Approval. (It should be noted that the registration process can take up to 6 weeks). A City for Everyone Working Together — Growing Thoughtfully — Building Community Page 46 of 224 4 The Owner shall be responsible for all costs for the preparation and registration of agreements/undertal<ings/easements/warning clauses as determined appropriate by Metrolinx, to the satisfaction of Metrolinx. A City for Everyone Working Together — Growing Thoughtfully — Building Community Page 47 of 224 From: Planning <planning@wcdsb.ca> Sent: Monday, August 12, 2024 3:38 PM To: Tim Seyler <Tim.Seyler@kitchener.ca> Subject: Fw: Circulation for Comment - 9-27 Turner Avenue (ZBA) Good afternoon, The Waterloo Catholic District School Board has reviewed the subject application and based on our development circulation criteria have the following comments)/condition(s): A) That any Education Development Charges shall be collected prior to the issuance of a building permit(s). Jennifer Passy, BES, MCIP, RPP (she/her) Manager of Planning Waterloo Catholic District School Board Phone: 519-578-3677, ext. 2253 Cell: 519-501-5285 Please note: The offices of the WCDSB are closed on Fridays throughout the summer, and the Planning Department will be shut down from Friday, July 26th to Monday, August 5th (inclusive). All email received during this time will be reviewed and processed as soon as possible upon staff's return. A City for Everyone Working Together — Growing Thoughtfully — Building Community Page 48 of 224 From: Melissa Larion <mlarion@grandriver.ca> Sent: Friday, August 2, 2024 2:24 PM To: Tim Seyler <Tim.Seyler@kitchener.ca> Subject: FW: Circulation for Comment - 9-27 Turner Avenue (ZBA) Hi Tim, The subject lands are not regulated by GRCA. We have no comments. Regards, Melissa Il....ariioirn, IlMClllf I, If�lf elf � Suuulg eirvup. or o[ IF°Il4rrir7iiiing and IIRegi� .allla tiiI IVr s iraird IRiver Coir7iservatioin Authority Office: 519-621-2763 ext. 2247 Email: mlarion(a-)grand river. ca I ,irlrstwit�ikatci�Ilimediyelr.:..........,.....,i..... «,....... A City for Everyone Working Together — Growing Thoughtfully — Building Community Page 49 of 224 Application type: Comments of: Commenter's name Email: Phone: Date of comments: Comments due: Project address: City of Kitchener Zoning By-law Amendment comments Zoning By-law Amendment ZBA24/018/T/TS Transportation Services Dave Seller dave.sel ler@ kitchener.ca 519-741-2200 e 7369 August 12, 2024 September 2, 2024 9-27 Turner Avenue Development proposal The owner is proposing to construct a 30 -unit multiple dwelling in the form of stacked townhouses with one full moves access onto Turner Avenue. Based on the site plan that was submitted the total vehicle parking requirement of 1.15 sp/unit is being satisfied with 35 spaces (30 residential plus 5 visitor). The bike parking minimum requirements for Class A (15 spaces) and Class B (6 spaces) are both being satisfied. Conclusion Transportation Services have no concerns with this ZBA application. Consideration be given to providing a portion of the Class A bicycle parking from within the units in Buildings A/B. A City for Everyone Working Together — Growing Thoughtfully — Building Community Page 50 of 224 Tim Seyler Senior Planner City of Kitchener 200 King Street West, 6t" Floor P.O. Box 1118, Kitchener, ON N2G 4G7 Dear Mr. Seyler, 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. reeg ionofwaterloo.ca Will Towns 1-519-616-1868 File: 014/2/24018 September 10, 2024 Re: Zoning By-law Amendment ZBA24/018 9-27 Turner Avenue K. Smart Associates Ltd. (c/o Zaid Kashef Al Ghetaa) on behalf of 1000918377 Ontario Inc. City of Kitchener On behalf of the property owner, K. Smart Associates Ltd. has submitted a zoning by- law amendment (ZBA) application for a development proposal at 9-27 Turner Avenue in the City of Kitchener. The applicant proposes to demolish three existing residential dwellings (which contain seven rental units) on the individual parcels and redevelop the consolidated site with a 30 -unit stacked townhouse complex in two buildings. The Region provided pre -submission comments on a previous development concept for these lands in January 2024. The site is located in the Urban Area and Delineated Built Up Area in the Regional Official Plan; designated Low Rise Residential in the City's Official Plan; and zoned Low Rise Residential -4 (RES -4). The ZBA proposes to change the zone category to RES -5 to permit the proposed built form (stacked townhomes) and seeks relief from maximum FSR and minimum rear -yard setback requirements. The Region has had the opportunity to review the proposal and offers the following: Community Planninq Provincial Policy Statement 2020 The PPS encourages the development of livable communities. It also provides a framework for planning authorities to ensure the wise use of resources while protecting Ontario's long-term prosperity and environmental and social well-being. It directs growth to built-up areas and promotes a mix of land uses that efficiently use resources, Document Number: 4770758 Version: 1 Page 1 of 5 Page 51 of 224 minimize negative environmental impacts, and support active transportation and transit use. The Planning Justification Report prepared by K. Smart Associated (dated July 9, 2024) provides a review of applicable PPS policies in Section 4.2. The development proposes an intensified use of serviced (and underutilized) land in proximity to transit services and expands the range of housing options in the neighbourhood. Overall, Regional staff are satisfied that the proposal is consistent with the PPS. Growth Plan for the Greater Golden Horseshoe The Growth Plan recognizes the Greater Golden Horseshoe (GGH) as a fast-growing and dynamic region. It directs development in a way that supports economic prosperity, the environment, and quality of life — specifically emphasizing intensification, compact built form, and housing choice in built-up areas. The Planning Justification Report provides a review of applicable Growth Plan policies in Section 4.3, including comments on the proposed development's emphasis on intensification and proximity to transit services. The site's location within the Built Up area on underutilized, serviced land is in keeping with Growth Plan direction, and therefore Regional staff are satisfied that the application conforms with the Growth Plan. Regional Official Plan Section 1.6 of the Regional Official Plan establishes 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 percent annually for the City of Kitchener. 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 Planning Justification Report also reviews applicable ROP policies in Section 4.4. The proposed additional density will contribute to the achievement of Kitchener's intensification target for the Delineated Built Up Area, while the proposed built form (stacked townhouses) are encouraged in the ROP as a form of missing -middle housing in the Delineated Built -Up Area. Additionally, the lands are located in proximity to existing transit services on Frederick Street and Victoria Street North, as well as employment uses 160m north of the site. Regional staff are satisfied that the application contributes to the development of a more compact, complete community conforms to the ROP overall. Corridor Planning Condition of Approval for ZBA Approval of the noise study is required prior to final approval of the ZBA application. Document Number: 4770758 Version: 1 Page 2 of 5 Page 52 of 224 Environmental & Stationary Noise Staff note that a noise study entitled Environmental Noise Study 9, 15 & 27 Turner Avenue Kitchener, Ontario prepared by JPE Engineering (dated July 10, 2024) was submitted in support of this application. The study considered both environmental (rail and road) and stationary sources, and was circulated to a third -party peer reviewer for review and comment. Comments from the peer reviewer will be provided under separate cover. Should the application proceed to Council for approval prior to the receipt of peer review comments, the Region will require a holding provision until the preliminary study is completed and a detailed noise study addressing final design of the site and its impact on surrounding sensitive land uses and itself is prepared and accepted by the Region. Required wording for the holding provision is as follows: That a holding provision shall apply to the entirety of the subject lands until satisfactory preliminary and detailed stationary noise studies have 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. Conditions of Future Site Plan Application No additional approvals will be required prior to final approval of a future site plan application. Note, however, that a site plan pre -consultation fee of $300 and a site plan review fee of $805 will be required for the review and approval of a future site plan application. Hydrogeology and Water Programs/Source Water Protection The property is not located within a Part IV area of the Clean Water Act, or within a Wellhead Protection Sensitivity Area as per ROP mapping. In accordance with Regional guidelines, the developer is advised that they will be required to complete a Salt Management Plan for the subject property to the Region's satisfaction as part of a future site plan application. Housing Services The following Regional policies and initiatives support the development and maintenance of affordable housing: - Regional Strategic Plan o Strategic Priority 1 is "Homes for All" in the 2023-2027 Strategic Plan. 10 -Year Housing and Homelessness Plan o Contains an affordable housing target for 30 percent of all new residential development between 2019 and 2041 in Waterloo Region to be affordable to low- and moderate -income households. - Building Better Futures Framework Document Number: 4770758 Version: 1 Page 3 of 5 Page 53 of 224 o Demonstrates Regional plans to create 2,500 units of housing affordable to people with low to moderate incomes by 2025. Region of Waterloo Official Plan o Section 3.A (Range and Mix of Housing) contains land use policies that ensure the provision of a full and diverse range and mix of permanent housing that is safe, affordable, of adequate size, and meets the accessibility requirements of all residents. The Region supports the provision of a full range of housing options, including affordable housing. Should this ZBA be approved, staff recommend that the applicant consider providing a number of affordable housing units on the site, as defined in the ROP. Rent levels and house prices that are considered affordable according to the ROP 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 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 the homes. Staff further recommend meeting with Housing Services to discuss the proposal in more detail and to explore opportunities for partnerships or programs and mechanisms to support a defined level of affordability. Affordability For the purposes of evaluating the affordability of a rental unit, based on the definition of affordable housing in the Regional Official Plan, the average rent is compared to the least expensive of: A unit for which the rent does not exceed 30 per cent of the gross annual $1,960 household income for low- and moderate -income renter households 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) 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. Please do not hesitate to contact Housing Serivices staff directly at JMaanMiedema(c)-a)or by phone at 226-753-9593 should you have any questions or wish to discuss in more detail. Document Number: 4770758 Version: 1 Page 4 of 5 Page 54 of 224 Fees Please be advised that the Region is in receipt of fees for the ZBA review ($3,000) and peer review of the environmental noise study ($5,085). These were received and deposited on August 14, 2024. Conclusions & Next Steps Regional staff have no objection to the proposed application, provided the following is addressed: • A holding provision is applied to these lands requiring Regional acceptance of the preliminary noise study and completion of a detailed noise study prior to site plan approval. Note also that peer review comments in relation to the preliminary stationary noise study submitted in support of this application will be provided under separate cover once received from the third -party peer reviewer. 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 the undersigned. Yours truly, Will Towns, RPP Senior Planner C. MHBC Planning Inc. c/o Andrea Sinclair (Applicant) Charcoal Properties Ltd. c/o Tom Wideman (Owner) Document Number: 4770758 Version: 1 Page 5 of 5 Page 55 of 224 Tim Seyler Senior Planner City of Kitchener 200 King Street West, 6t" Floor P.O. Box 1118, Kitchener, ON N2G 4G7 Dear Mr. Seyler, 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. reeg ionofwaterloo.ca Will Towns 1-519-616-1868 File: 014/2/24018 September 25, 2024 Re: Zoning By-law Amendment ZBA24/018 9-27 Turner Avenue K. Smart Associates Ltd. (c/o Zaid Kashef Al Ghetaa) on behalf of 1000918377 Ontario Inc. City of Kitchener On behalf of the property owner, K. Smart Associates Ltd. has submitted a zoning by- law amendment (ZBA) application for a development proposal at 9-27 Turner Avenue in the City of Kitchener. The applicant proposes to demolish three existing residential dwellings (which contain seven rental units) on the individual parcels and redevelop the consolidated site with a 30 -unit stacked townhouse complex in two buildings. The Region provided pre -submission comments on a previous development concept for these lands in January 2024. The site is located in the Urban Area and Delineated Built Up Area in the Regional Official Plan; designated Low Rise Residential in the City's Official Plan; and zoned Low Rise Residential -4 (RES -4). The ZBA proposes to change the zone category to RES -5 to permit the proposed built form (stacked townhomes) and seeks relief from maximum FSR and minimum rear -yard setback requirements. Further to Regional comments provided on September 10, 2024 in relation to the above -noted ZBA application, Regional staff now have the following to provide to the City of Kitchener in relation to the noise study submitted in support of this application: Environmental & Stationary Noise Study A noise study entitled Environmental Noise Study, 9, 15 & 27 Turner Avenue, Kitchener, Ontario prepared by JPE Engineering (dated July 10, 2024) was submitted in support of this application. The study considers both environmental (rail and road) and stationary Document Number: 4787315 Version: 1 Page 1 of 3 Page 56 of 224 sources, and was circulated to the Region's third -party peer reviewer for review and comment. These comments have now been received by Regional staff and are appended to this letter. A summary of required changes identified by the peer reviewer is provided below. - Submission Documentation: o Revisions to the Consultant Noise Statement (signature). o Note that JPE Engineering is confirmed as an approved Regional noise study reviewer. Transportation Sources: o Minor modelling clarifications. o Please note that peer review comment 4 d) d. requesting more specific glazing detail may be addressed through the detailed noise study required prior to site plan approval. Stationary Sources: o Updating of sound power levels and operating times for worst-case stationary sources. o Inclusion of worst-case points of reception located at plane of window locations. Required heights would be each of the floors shown in the architectural drawing set or justification of the worst-case elevation. o A compliance table of predicted stationary source noise levels comparing to applicable sound level limits (NPC -300). o Inclusion of quasi -impulsive penalty from auto shop operations at 961 Victoria Street North, or justification on why it is not applicable is required. Recommendations for the future detailed noise study: o Future submissions or revisions must also show the analysis and findings which demonstrate that the cumulative impacts of the on-site HVAC equipment are compliant with the criteria at points of reception off-site. o HVAC or mechanical equipment be selected prior to site plan approval and that the manufacturer's sound levels for the selected equipment be reviewed to provide assurance that the sound level criteria will be met at the points of reception on-site and off-site. The review should be completed by a qualified acoustical consultant experienced in environmental noise, who is on the Region's Pre -Qualified Consultants for Noise Studies List. The applicant is asked to address these comments in an addendum letter to the existing study and submit to the Region for review, unless results are significantly altered (in which case an updated Environmental Noise Study is required). Please note that resubmission may be subject to additional fees as per the Region's Fees and Charges By-law 23-062, and fees will be confirmed at the time of resubmission. As indicated in the Region's comments dated September 10, 2024, should the application proceed to Council for approval prior to resubmission and Regional acceptance of the noise study, the Region requires a holding provision until the Document Number: 4787315 Version: 1 Page 2 of 3 Page 57 of 224 preliminary study is completed and a detailed noise study addressing final design of the site and its impact on surrounding sensitive land uses and itself is prepared and accepted by the Region. Required wording for the holding provision is as follows: That a holding provision shall apply to the entirety of the subject lands until satisfactory preliminary and detailed stationary noise studies have 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. Fees Please be advised that the Region is in receipt of fees for the ZBA review ($3,000) and peer review of the environmental noise study ($5,085). These were received and deposited on August 14, 2024. Updated Conclusions & Next Steps Regional staff have no objection to the proposed application, provided the following is addressed: Preliminary Environmental Noise Study revisions are provided to the Region for review and acceptance. A holding provision is applied to these lands requiring Regional acceptance of the preliminary noise study and completion of a detailed noise study prior to site plan approval. 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 the undersigned. Yours truly, Will Towns, RPP Senior Planner C. K. Smart Associates c/o Steve Jefferson (Applicant) 1000918377 Ontario Inc. c/o Janelle Hale (Owner) Document Number: 4787315 Version: 1 Page 3 of 3 Page 58 of 224 600 Southgate Drive Tel: +1.519.823.1311 Guelph ON Canada Fax: +1.519.823.1316 �Si N1G 41D6 E-mail: solutions@rwdi.com September 20, 2024 Will Towns, RPP Regional Municipality of Waterloo 150 Frederick Street, 8th Floor. Kitchener, ON N2G 4J3 wtown.s...@.regionofwaterlloo.ca Re: Reply to Peer Review - Noise Response 9,15, & 27 Turner Avenue Kitchener, Ontario RWDI Reference No. 2300540 Dear Melissa, The Region of Waterloo has retained RWDI to conduct a peer review for a proposed office development (the Development) located at 9,15, & 27 Turner Avenue Kitchener, Ontario. The Development proposes a 30 -unit stacked townhome development in two buildings. The applicant was required to submit an Environmental Noise Study for transportation and stationary noise as part of a Zoning By -Law Amendment (ZBA) application for the site. The review considered the Noise Report titled "Environmental Noise Study - 9, 15, & 27 Turner Avenue Kitchener, Ontario" by JPE Engineering and dated July 10, 2024. This review reflects best practices for land -use planning, as well as guidelines and policies mandated by the Regional Municipality of Waterloo (RMOW), the City of Waterloo and, where applicable, the Province of Ontario. Where differences in guidance may exist, the City of Waterloo and RMOW have provided direct guidance to this peer reviewer on their expectations. In all cases, the direction and policies of the RMOW take precedence. Comments requiring action by the applicant are highlighted throughout this document for ease of identification. The Noise Study reviews the potential sources of environmental noise in the area a. Road traffic noise from adjacent high traffic streets, which is appropriate. b. Rail traffic noise from the Metrolinx rail line, which is appropriate. c. Offsite stationary sources were assessed from surrounding commercial and industrial buildings, which is appropriate. d. Points of Reception (POR) were identified in the Noise Report according to NPC -300. The identified PORs were only assessed for transportation sources. Assessment of PORs are required for stationary sources, and require additional locations as discussed further below. e. Stationary noise emissions from the Development to nearby residential dwellings have been evaluated. Based on the assessment given in the Noise Report, noise levels from the Development appear to meet the minimum exclusionary stationary noise limits of the MECP at on POR, but require further clarification. BEST ,,, MANAGED This document is intended for the sole use of the party to whom it is addressed and may contain information that is privileged ;COMPANIES and/or confidential. Ifyou have received this in error, please notify us immediately. Accessible document formats provided upon Page (,Q 2 Platin -member request. ® RWDI name and logo are registered trademarks in Canada and the United States of America. Will Towns, RPP Region of Waterloo RW D I #2300540.59 SEPTEMBER 20, 2024 Submission Documentation 1. A Consultant Declaration Statement, complete with commissioning by a Commissioner of Oaths (or notarization by a Notary Public) has been provided as required, but verification that the individual is on the Region's approved consultant's list is required. 2. An Owner's Declaration Statement has been provided as required, but appears to be incorrectly signed (Not an actual signature, includes no PDF signature verification). 1. Surface Transportation guideline limits are addressed in Section 2.1 of the Noise Report. 2. Indoor sound level limits for road and rail traffic noise are presented in Table 1 and is further described in Section 2.1 of the Noise Study, which appropriately aligns with the guidance documents for road noise in NPC -300. Table 2 lists the appropriate mitigation and warning clauses for road and rail noise sources. 3. Road data is summarized in Table 4 and Section 3.1 of the Noise Study. The following is noted: a. The 10 -year future road traffic information for the surrounding roadways was provided by the Region. The data was valid at the time of the Noise Study and is provided in Appendix B. b. Road traffic impacts were evaluated from Victoria Street North, River Road E, and Frederick Street which is considered appropriate due to the low volumes on other surrounding roads. 4. Rail data is summarized in Table 5 and Section 4.1 of the Noise Study. The following is noted: a. Rail data for the CN and CP subdivisions were not considered as recommended by the Region of Waterloo, with supporting documentation. b. Rail data for Metrolinx was obtain from Metrolinx for future volumes with supporting documentation, which is considered appropriate. c. Speeds and the application of whistle sounding is appropriate for this area of Metrolinx rail. 2. Modelling of road and rail traffic noise was completed using STAMSON version 5.04. The following is noted: a. The sample STAMSON output files were provided in Appendix B. i. Rail traffic data (volumes, speeds, etc.) do not align with the data specified in the report for the Metrolinx rail lines. The STAMSON output file indicates modelled counts are greater than those supplied by Metrolinx. Predicted results are considered conservative. ii. Reflective ground (value 2) for the rail modelling was applied, and is appropriate for the assessed lands. iii. Train whistling noise has been included in the assessment and is considered appropriate for the considered rail lines. Page 60 of 224 Page 2 Will Towns, RPP Region of Waterloo RW D I #2300540.59 SEPTEMBER 20, 2024 iv. The number of house rows was modelled as 1 with a house density of 95 % for the Metrolinx portion of the STAMSON modelling. Avalue of 95% is considered high and not representative of the intervening structures. A value 70% appears more suitable. The model should be updated orjustification to support the use of 95% be provided. v. Reflective Ground (value 2) for the road modelling was applied and is considered appropriate. vi. Road traffic data (volumes, speeds, truck percentages, etc.) align with the data provided specified in the RMOW traffic data for the three assessed roadways. vii. The terrain is modelled as flat or gently sloping with no barrier and is considered appropriate for both the road and rail. viii. A receptor height of 9 m for both rail and road are considered appropriate for the development upper window. ix. The angles of exposure for both rail and road are considered appropriate. x. A road gradient of 0% was applied and considered appropriate. 3. Predicted impacts from road and rail traffic noise was presented in Table 8 and Section 5.1. The following is noted: a. Predicted noise levels exceed the minimum requirements and require controls put in place. 4. Mitigations and recommendations for road and rail noise are outlined in Section 6 and Section 7. The following is noted: a. The Noise Study indicates that provision for central air conditioning for all units in the development is required, which is considered appropriate. b. A standard proximity to railway line warning clause is recommended (RMOW Noise Study Type D warning clause) and considered appropriate. c. A standard NPC -300 Type A warning clause has been recommended, and is appropriate. d. Preliminary exterior wall and glazing requirements are outlined in the Noise Study as follows: a. All internal spaces were found to require the OBC standard STC requirements using an assumption of 27%window-to-floor area (Appendix D: Special Building Components). The value appears to be low when compared to the architectural drawings, but is generally considered appropriate. b. The Noise report used the IBANA calculation method for determining the transmission loss of the various fa4ade components and is appropriate. c. For corner units, it is unclear if calculations are for a single wall, with noise entering from a single fagade or if both fa4ades have been considered. d. While these recommendations appear typical, the study must be updated prior to site Plan Approval to account for actual window -to -floor ratios, and details of the method used, and example calculations should be provided. Since noise enters the unit from 2 facades on corner units, a confirmation is required that glazing requirements for corner unit rooms has been considered. Page 61 of 224 Page 3 Will Towns, RPP Region of Waterloo RW D I #2300540.59 SEPTEMBER 20, 2024 3. The NPC -300 guideline is used for assessment of stationary sources by the consultant. We concur that this is the current practice in the Region. 4. The report states that the nature of the area suggests a Class 1 urban acoustic environment. The modelled influence of road traffic on the development is consistent with this observation. Description of this acoustic environment as Class 1 is appropriate. S. Stationary -source noise was evaluated from the HVAC equipment associated with each unit of the building. The evaluation of HVAC equipment noise on the dwellings considers the impact of the development on itself and is in keeping with Regional precedent. 6. An overall sound level of 80 dBA was used for HVAC equipment, and is considered a low relative to our experience. If alternative equipment is selected, the sound level results may be different. Since the equipment selection and its placement are significant to ensuring compliance, the following recommendations are made: a. It is recommended that the HVAC equipment selection be finalized prior to building plan approval and that the manufacturer's sound levels for the selected equipment be reviewed to provide assurance that the sound level criteria will be met at the points of reception. The review should be completed by a qualified acoustical consultant experienced in environmental noise, who is on the Region's Pre -Qualified Consultants for Noise Studies List. b. Prior to occupancy, a sound level verification and sign -off is required to ensure that the sound levels from the installed HVAC equipment under predictable worst-case operation meet the sound level requirements at all points of reception on and off-site. The verification and sign -off shall be completed by a qualified acoustical consultant experienced in environmental noise, who is on the Region's Pre -Qualified Consultants for Noise Studies List. 7. The modelling of sound propagation was done in the DBMap software package. a. The DBMap software appears to meet the requirements for an "Acceptable Noise Model" for the use in modelling environmental noise impacts but is uncommonly used. DBMap has ISO -17534 quality assurance information on their website but has yet to validate to the most recent test suite which is currently unavailable. Hence, it is listed as being "Out -of -Date" in 2024(.http.s:!lnoisetoolls.netlusers/iso-1 _75341 -results/). The model will be considered acceptable subject to the additional information requested herein. b. The ISO 9613 sound propagation algorithms used in DBMap are a suitable model. c. The model settings are provided and reviewed below. i. The relative humidity setting is appropriate. ii. The temperature setting (15 C) is higher than the local common practice (i.e., 10 C) but is acceptable for this equipment and its expected summertime usage. Page 62 of 224 Page 4 Will Towns, RPP Region of Waterloo RW D I #2300540.59 SEPTEMBER 20, 2024 iii. The application of up to 2 reflections is suitable. iv. Ground surface characteristics are described as "hard ground" with G=O. The use of "hard ground" is appropriate. 8. The Noise Report assesses off-site stationary sources listed in Table 7 and Section 3.3.2. The following is noted: a. HVAC sound power levels were modelled at 80 dBA for all units with 100%/50% duty cycles for day and nighttime hours respectively, and is suitable. b. Noise from the adjacent Arby's is assessed by modelling noise from the ordering speaker and idling vehicles. The modelling assumes 6 minutes of operation for the ordering speaker per hour with a single car idling for 20 minutes. These operating assumptions appear low for a worst-case hour in our experience. Busy drive-thrus commonly have 20-30 minutes of speaker operation, apply a 5 dB penalty for annoyance, and may have 5 or more idling vehicles consistently through a worst-case hour. The analysis should be revised to be conservative or specific justification for this Arby's location provided. i. The drive through is the nearest source to the building B. c. Noise from the auto shop located at 961 Victoria Street North is assessed as two point - sources representing the open doors of the shop. The sources were modelled at a height of 1 m. The sound power levels is 90 dBA with a 50% operating time. This is appropriate for the location. i. Review of the auto shop website indicates tire services are provided, indicating the use of impact drivers for potential long periods. Impact sounds are considered quasi -impulsive and should be assessed in the Noise Report with the appropriate 10 dB penalty per NPC -104. 9. Section 4.2 of the Noise Report states that points of reception (PORs) are not defined as the noise modelling provides noise contour results at various elevations. Section 5.2 reviews the results of the stationary source modelling. The following is noted: a. PORs are required to be assessed at worst-case locations and operations for stationary sources as defined in NPC -300: i. "The acoustic assessment of stationary source noise impacts at a point of reception must address the predictable worst case noise impact." b. As no summary table is provided for PORs with direct comparison with stationary noise limits, the reader must interpret the noise isopleths. A table showing the predicted noise results for worst-case locations at development buildings comparing to appropriate limits is required. c. Drawings N-2 through N-3 in Appendix C show sound level contour plots from the model used for assessing the impacts from stationary noise sources: i. No details on the contours are provided to assist in the interpretation of the contours, such as the spacing of the base evaluation points. Contours are the interpolation of these base points and may be significantly misinterpreted if setup incorrectly. The Noise Report is required to assess at a worst-case Page 63 of 224 Page 5 Will Towns, RPP Region of Waterloo RW D I #2300540.59 SEPTEMBER 20, 2024 location as noted above and the use of contours alone is insufficient. The use of either "receivers" or "building evaluations" common in many noise modelling software is recommended. ii. Daytime contours from drawing N-3 for an elevation of 7.5 m height show the 50 dBA isopleth potential exceeding plane of window limits for "Building B". This result should be confirmed and addressed. iii. The analysis only assesses impacts at 1.5 m and 7.5 m elevations. The development has three full floors above grade, all of which should be considered with the worst-case impacts reported. The modelling at 1.5 m and 7.5 m appear unrepresentative of the plane of window locations shown in the architectural drawings. Please demonstrate that the reported results represent the worst-case elevation for the stationary sources. iv. The contour plots illustrate that the sources were evaluated cumulatively. This shows agreement with the Region's position that cumulative impact from stationary sources should be considered. 10. The report considers impact of the surroundings on the development and impact of the development. Section 5.2 states that the noise impacts from the development will meet sound level limits. a. Based on the latest analysis it is reasonable to expect that offsite noise levels can achieve the sound level limits. b. Any future submissions or revisions of the report must also show the analysis and findings which demonstrate that the cumulative impacts of the on-site HVAC equipment are compliant with the criteria at points of reception off-site. 11. The Conclusions and Recommendations section summarizes the recommendations that the report has specified and is applied to all units of the development, as is appropriate. a. An NPC -300 Type A Warnings Clause for road and rail transportation sources, which is appropriate. b. An NPC -300 Type D Warnings Clause for road and rail transportation sources and air conditioning, which is appropriate. c. An NPC -300 Type E Warnings Clause adjacent industrial/commercial land -uses, which is appropriate. d. A requirement for provision of central air conditioning or a forced air heating to which central air conditioning can be added is specified for all units, and is considered appropriate. Page 64 of 224 Page 6 Will Towns, RPP Region of Waterloo RW D I #2300540.59 SEPTEMBER 20, 2024 12. Based on the current mechanical equipment selection, all outdoor HVAC units are to be centrally located on the rooftop of each building, as is appropriate in this situation. 13. The report provides a concluding statement concerning feasibility of the development, as is expected. The revised environmental noise study provided for 9,15, & 27 Turner Avenue in Kitchener, Ontario presents an assessment for road traffic and on-site stationary sources. The Region of Waterloo seeks assurance that the sound levels and impacts are accurate and complete. The peer review concludes that the statement of feasibility is supported based on the information available, with the following notes. • Stationary source impacts need to be updated and revised: o Updating of sound power levels and operating times for worst-case stationary sources considered are required. o Inclusion of worst-case PORs located at plane of window locations is required. Required heights would be each of the floors shown in the architectural drawing set or justification of the worst-case elevation considered. o A compliance table of predicted stationary source noise levels comparing to applicable sound level limits. o Inclusion of quasi -impulsive penalty from the auto shop operations, or justification on why it is not applicable is required. • Any future noise submissions or revisions of the report must also show the analysis and findings which demonstrate that the cumulative impacts of the on-site HVAC equipment are compliant with the criteria at points of reception off-site. • Since compliance of the on-site and off-site impact from the on-site noise sources is strongly dependent on the equipment selection and its placement, the following is noted. Q It is recommended that HVAC or mechanical equipment be selected prior to building plan approval and that the manufacturer's sound levels for the selected equipment be reviewed to provide assurance that the sound level criteria will be met at the points of reception on-site and off-site. The review should be completed by a qualified acoustical consultant experienced in environmental noise, who is on the Region's Pre -Qualified Consultants for Noise Studies List. o Prior to occupancy, a sound level verification and sign off is required to ensure that the sound levels from the installed HVAC or mechanical equipment under predictable worst-case operation meet the sound level requirements at all points of reception on- site and off-site. The verification and sign -off shall be completed by a qualified acoustical consultant experienced in environmental noise, who is on the Region's Pre -Qualified Consultants for Noise Studies List. Page 65 of 224 Page 7 Will Towns, RPP Region of Waterloo RW D I #2300540.59 SEPTEMBER 20, 2024 Without addressing these items, it is not possible to provide assurance that the values, results, and conclusions are reasonable. A letter addendum may be considered sufficient regarding the above, providing the results and conclusions are unchanged. Otherwise, a revised Noise Study is considered necessary. Yours truly, RWDI Aeler, M.Sc., P.Eng. % Senior Noise & Vibration Engineer Page 66 of 224 Page 8 Will Towns, RPP Region of Waterloo RWDI #2300540.59 SEPTEMBER 20, 2024 This report entitled Reply to Peer Review- Noise Response for 9,15, & 27 Turner Avenue in Kitchener, Ontario, Cambridge and dated September 20, 2024 was prepared by RWDI AIR Inc. ("RWDI") for the Region of Waterloo ("Client'). The findings and conclusions presented in this report have been prepared for the Client and are specific to the peer review described herein ('Project'). The conclusions and recommendations contained in this report are based on the information available to RWDI when this report was prepared. Because the contents of this report may not reflect the final design of the Project or subsequent changes made afte r the date of this report, RWDI recommends that it be retained by Client during the final stages of the project to verify that the results and recommendations provided in this report have been correctly interpreted in the final design of the Project. The conclusions and recommendations contained in this report have also been made for the specific purpose(s) set out herein. Should the Client or any other third party utilize the report and/or implement the conclusions and recommendations contained therein for any other purpose or project without the involvement of RWDI, the Client or such third party assumes any and all risk of any and all consequences arising from such use and RWDI accepts no responsibility for any liability, loss, or damage of any kind suffered by Client or any other third party arising therefrom. Page 67 of 224 Page 9 "Attachment D" From: Sent: Wednesday, August 28, 2024 7:51 PM To: Tim Seyler <Tim.Seyler@kitchener.ca> Cc: Subject: RE: 9-27 Turner Ave, Kitchener You don't often get email from Hi Tim, Thank you for your email. We have further questions and concerns below in bllue. We both will be joining the meeting on September 5th Thank you, Bob Ward & Heather Kurtin From: Tim Seyler <T > Sent: Tuesday, August 27, 2024 8:54 AM To: Cc: Subject: RE: 9-27 Turner Ave, Kitchener Hi Bob and Heather, Thanks for the email and the questions. I believe most of your questions can be answered by reviewing the online documents that are provided. Here is a link, and you can click on the submitted documents such as the proposed site plan, grading plan, elevations of the buildings etc. �:ui maims l..st '721424. I've also tried to answer your questions in red below. Also I hope you will be attending the neighbourhood meeting next week to hear more details about the proposal, and at that time you can ask questions of staff and the applicant. Please let me know if you have other questions. Thanks, Tim Seyler, BES, MCIP, RPP Senior Planner I Development & Housing Approvals Division I City of Kitchener 519-741-2200 ext. 7860 1 TTY 1-866-969-9994 1 Tim.Seyler@I<itchener.ca Page 68 of 224 From: Sent: Sunday, August 25, 2024 5:55 PM To: Tim Seyler <1I]im.Seyll Cc: Scott Davey <L3(:::��.i)ay @)IdreIl P-ru Subject: 9-27 Turner Ave, Kitchener You don't often get email from Hello, We reside at the proposed development site. We have concerns and questions as follows. Is this a condo or apartments? At this time the owner has not specified the tenure of the building. What side of the building will the driveway be on? Obviously, our preference would be next to Arby's. As per the proposed site plan the buildings are oriented towards the street and the commercial properties. The driveway is being proposed next to your property. What is the placement and orientation of the building on the lot? See above. Where will the parking lot be and how many spaces? Please see the proposed site plan for the layout of the parking. There are 36 spaces being provided. 5 of which are visitor spaces, and 2 are barrier free spaces. What does "barrier free spaces" mean? Has the affect of traffic and parking on the street been considered? Street parking is already busy without the addition of a 30 -unit building. Traffic is a consideration that we do take under consideration. Our transportation staff are currently reviewing the traffic in the area, and will be providing comments. What tree(s) will be removed from the property directly beside us. We are concerned about the health and preservation of our large maple tree in the rear yard. Some trees will be required to be removed, and you can see the Tree preservation plan provided. Tree protection fencing will be required during development to ensure the health of your tree on your property. Trees 26, 28 and 29 are proposed to be removed and they provide great protection from wind for our tree (27). We are very concerned for the preservation and safety of our tree. What is the estimated duration of the project and estimated completion date? I do not have the specifics of the construction timelines. What is being proposed for proper drainage away from our property as the neighbouring property is higher than ours? This is a big concern due to the fact that we are the lowest house on the street. A grading plan is required to ensure the appropriate drainage takes place, the grading plan shows a retaining wall on the side adjacent to your property. What is the retaining wall constructed of? What will happen with the existing retaining wall joining our driveway with the neighbouring driveway? Will it be replaced with a new retaining wall? Will the property be regraded so that a retaining wall is no longer required? Is that even an option? See above. We don't see anything regarding the existing retaining wall joining our driveways. What is the plan for this? The existing retaining wall is in poor condition and is not on our property however is leaning towards our driveway. As there are three parking spots along the exiting driveway retaining wall, will there also be a privacy fence installed there? Will there be a privacy fence and trees for the back yard? Privacy and security is obviously a major concern. Page 69 of 224 A privacy fence is required to be installed when parking is adjacent to a residential zone and this will be required for this development. What is the height of the privacy fence and what material will it be constructed of? We see that the area right next to the privacy fence is labelled "snow storage". Often, fencing is pushed during snow piling and clearing. What will be done to ensure the integrity of the fence isn't compromised? Will there be a hedge and greenspace between the new building and our driveway? There is limited greenspace being proposed between the building and your driveway. The owners will be required to provide appropriate landscaping and that will be reviewed by our Urban Designers. Will there be an enclosure around the garbage area proposed at the front of the property next to our driveway? Will we be looking at garbage from the front of our home? We have great concern about the affect of construction vibrations from machinery and tamping to our shop floor and house foundation. Bob Ward & Heather Kurtin Page 70 of 224 From: PFK LAND Sent: Saturday, August 31, 2024 10:56 AM To: Tim Seyler <Tim.Seyler@kitchener.ca> Subject: 9-27 Turner Avenue -Comments You don't often get email from - Tim Seyler, Senior Planner, File Manager: Having reviewed the current development application plans. The applicant wishes to maximize the land use and requires relief from the rear yard setback. This disregard for current minimums unfortunately has become the norm. Essentially, all existing trees will be removed, and the current, largely permeable site will now become impermeable. We would question the 5 -year pre/post storm controls, and suggest they be increased. (minimally 25 year storm). Offsite, we would prefer the boulevard profile be preserved, and do not support sidewalks all along Turner. The fact that pedestrians use the roadway helps to slow traffic, particularly when the nearby Mosque floods the neighborhood with vehicular and pedestrian traffic. At other times Turner has become a 1/4 mile speedway shortcut from Frederick to Victoria. The intersection is dangerous. Please keep us informed of progress. Thank you, P. Kaudewitz Long-time resident. Virus -free, yr.::..yq.::. Page 71 of 224 Staff Report l IKgc.;i' r� R Development Services Department www.kitchener.ca REPORT TO: Planning and Strategic Initiatives Committee DATE OF MEETING: October 7, 2024 SUBMITTED BY: Garett Stevenson, Director of Development and Housing Approvals, 519-741-2200 ext. 7070 PREPARED BY: Eric Schneider, Senior Planner 519-741-2200 ext. 7843 WARD(S) INVOLVED: Ward 7 DATE OF REPORT: September 17, 2024 REPORT NO.: DSD -2024-432 SUBJECT: Zoning By-law Amendment Application ZBA24/019/T/ES 60 Trussler Road 1000160668 Ontario Corp. RECOMMENDATION: That Zoning By-law Amendment Application ZBA24/019/T/ES requesting to amend Zoning By-law 2019-051, for 1000160668 Ontario Corp. be approved in the form shown in the `Proposed By-law', and `Map No. 1', attached to Report DSD -2024-432 as Attachment 'Al' and `A2'. REPORT HIGHLIGHTS: • The purpose of this report is to evaluate and provide a planning recommendation regarding the Zoning By-law Amendment application for the subject lands located at 60 Trussler Road. It is planning staff's recommendation that the Zoning By-law Amendment be approved. • The proposed amendment supports the creation of 64 dwelling units on an underutilized site that formerly contained one single detached dwelling that has been demolished. • Community engagement included: o circulation of a preliminary notice letter to property owners and residents within 240 metres of the subject site; o installation of a large billboard notice sign on the property; o follow up one-on-one correspondence with members of the public; o Neighbourhood Meeting held on September 12, 2024; o postcard advising of the statutory public meeting was circulated to all residents and property owners within 240 metres of the subject site, those who responded to the preliminary circulation; and those who attended the Neighbourhood Meeting; o notice of the public meeting was published in The Record on September 13, 2024. • This report supports the delivery of core services. *** This information is available in accessible formats upon request. *** Please call 519-741-2345 or TTY 1-866-969-9994 for assistance. Page 72 of 224 • This application was deemed complete on July 12, 2024. The Applicant can appeal this application for non -decision after October 10, 2024. EXECUTIVE SUMMARY: The owner of the subject lands addressed as 60 Trussler Road is proposing to change the Zoning from `Low Rise Residential One Zone' (RES -1) to Low Rise Residential Five Zone (RES -5), and to add a Site Specific Provision in Zoning By-law 2019-051. Staff are recommending that the application be approved. BACKGROUND: The City of Kitchener has received an application for a Zoning By-law Amendment from 1000160668 Ontario Corp. for a development concept that proposes 3 three-storey multiple dwelling buildings with sixty-four (64) residential units. 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). Site Context The subject lands are municipally addressed as 60 Trussler Road. The subject lands are on the east side of Trussler Road between Highland Road West and Cora Drive. The lot area of the subject site is approximately 0.61 hectares and the lot frontage is 36.6 metres. The lot is vacant, and formerly contained a single detached dwelling, demolished in 2022. The surrounding neighbourhood is comprised of a mix of residential, industrial, and commercial uses, as well as park space (Waldau Woods Park). Y> . 1, 11 SUBJECT AR A q µY4 J Y l' rr'^Ym, Figure 1 - Location Map: 60 Trussler Road Page 73 of 224 Figure 2 — View of Existing Vacant Site REPORT: The applicant is proposing to redevelop the subject property with three (3), 3 -storey stacked townhouse buildings totalling 64 dwelling units. The balance of the lands includes amenity areas, surface parking, patio spaces, and landscaped areas. Through the review and evaluation of this application, the development concept was slightly revised from its initial submission. The applicant has removed one dwelling unit, in order to reduce unit count and comply with minimum parking standards. The original concept required 74 parking spaces and proposed to provide 73 which require relief from the City's Zoning By-law. The applicant removed one unit, lowering the requirement to 73 parking spaces resulting in compliance with minimum parking standards. The building height was also reduced by 0.6 metres (total height of 11 metres) in order to comply with the existing maximum permitted height in the current and proposed zoning. The applicant has also responded to the neighbourhood request for a taller fence as a visual barrier, and has added a site specific to require a 2.4 metre high visual barrier fence rather than the City's minimum standard of 1.8 metres. Page 74 of 224 Figure 3- Concept Plan 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, 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; k) The adequate provision of employment opportunities; p) The appropriate location of growth and development; q) The promotion of development that is designed to be sustainable, to support public transit and to be oriented to pedestrians; r) The promotion of built form that, (i) Is well-designed, (ii) Encourages a sense of place, and (iii) Provides for public spaces that are of high quality, safe, accessible, attractive and vibrant; s) The mitigation of greenhouse gas emissions and adaptation to a changing climate. These matters of provincial interest are addressed and are implemented through the Provincial Policy Statement, 2020, as it directs how and where development is to occur. The City's Official Plan is the most important vehicle for the implementation of the Provincial Policy Statement, 2020 and to ensure Provincial policy is adhered to. The Ministry of Municipal Affairs and Housing has approved an integrated province -wide land use planning policy document, replacing the current Provincial Policy Statement and A Place to Grow: Growth plan for the Greater Golden Horseshoe, with a singular Provincial Planning Statement (PPS) which will come into effect October 20, 2024. The Ministry of Municipal Affairs and Housing is currently consulting on transition provisions for the 2024 PPS. A final decision on this application is currently scheduled for Council on October 21, 2024, after the 2024 PPS will come into effect. In anticipation of Council's decision on or after October 20, 2024, staff have also evaluated this application for conformity with the proposed 2024 PPS as well. Page 75 of 224 Provincial Policy Statement, 2020: The Provincial Policy Statement (PPS) provides policy direction on matters of provincial interest related to land use planning and development. Section 1.4.3(b) of the PPS promotes all types of residential intensification, and sets out a policy framework for sustainable, healthy, liveable and safe communities. The PPS promotes efficient development and land use patterns, as well as accommodating an appropriate mix of affordable and market-based residential dwelling types with other land uses, while supporting the environment, public health and safety. Provincial policies promote the integration of land use planning, growth management, transit -supportive development, intensification, and infrastructure planning to achieve cost-effective development patterns, optimization of transit investments, and standards to minimize land consumption and servicing costs. To support provincial policies relating to the optimization of infrastructure, transit and active transportation, the proposed zoning facilitates a compact form of development which efficiently uses the lands, is in close proximity to transit options, and makes efficient use of both existing roads and active transportation networks. The lands are serviced and are in proximity to parks, trails and other community uses. Provincial policies are in support of providing a broad range of housing. Planning staff is of the opinion that the proposed application will facilitate the intensification of the subject property with a low-rise development that is compatible with the surrounding community, helps manage growth, is transit -supportive and will make use of the existing infrastructure. No new public roads would be required for the proposed development and Engineering staff have confirmed there is capacity in the sanitary sewer to permit intensification on the subject lands. Based on the foregoing, staff is of the opinion that this proposal is in conformity with the PPS. Provincial Policy Statement, 2024: The Provincial Planning Statement (PPS), 2024 is a streamlined province -wide land use planning policy framework that replaces both the Provincial Policy Statement, 2020 and A Place to Grow: Growth Plan for the Greater Golden Horseshoe, 2019 while building upon housing -supportive policies from both documents. The PPS 2024 came into force on October 20, 2024. The PPS 2024 provides municipalities with the tools and flexibility they need to build more homes. Some examples of what it enables municipalities to do are; plan for and support development and increase the housing supply across the province; and align development with infrastructure to build a strong and competitive economy that is investment -ready. Sections 2.1.6 and 2.3.1.3 of the PPS 2024 promotes planning for people and homes and supports planning authorities to support general intensification and redevelopment while achieving complete communities by, accommodating an appropriate range and mix of land uses, housing options, transportation options with multimodal access, employment, public service facilities and other institutional uses, recreation, parks and open space, and other uses to meet long-term needs. Policies further promote, improving accessibility and social equity, and efficiently using land, resources, and existing infrastructure. Page 76 of 224 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. Policies of the Growth Plan promote growth within strategic growth areas including major transit station areas, in order to provide a focus for investments in transit and other types of infrastructure. Policy 2.2.6.1(a) states that municipalities will support housing choice through the achievement of the minimum intensification and density targets in this plan by identifying a diverse range and mix of housing options and densities, including additional residential units and affordable housing to meet projected needs of current and future residents. Policies 2.2.1.4 states that complete communities will: a) feature a diverse mix of land uses, including residential and employment uses, and convenient access to local stores, services, and public service facilities; b) improve social equity and overall quality of life, including human health, for people of all ages, abilities, and incomes; c) provide a diverse range and mix of housing options, including additional residential units and affordable housing, to accommodate people at all stages of life, and to accommodate the needs of all household sizes and incomes; d) expand convenient access to: i. a range of transportation options, including options for the safe, comfortable and convenient use of active transportation; ii. public service facilities, co -located and integrated in community hubs; iii. an appropriate supply of safe, publicly -accessible open spaces, parks, trails, and other recreational facilities; and iv. healthy, local, and affordable food options, including through urban agriculture; e) provide for a more compact built form and a vibrant public realm, including public open spaces; f) mitigate and adapt to the impacts of a changing climate, improve resilience and reduce greenhouse gas emissions, and contribute to environmental sustainability; and g) integrate green infrastructure and appropriate low impact development. The Growth Plan supports planning for a range and mix of housing options and, in particular, higher density housing options that can accommodate a range of household sizes in locations that can provide access to transit and other amenities. Planning staff is of the opinion that the application conforms to the Growth Plan. Regional Official Plan (ROP): The subject lands are designated "Urban Area" and "Built -Up Area" on Schedule 3a of the Regional Official Plan (ROP). Urban Area policies of the ROP identify that the focus of the Region's future growth will be within the Urban Area and the proposed development Page 77 of 224 conforms to Policy 2.F of the ROP as the proposed development will support the achievement of the minimum intensification targets within the delineated Built -Up Area. Growth is directed to the Built Up Area of the Region to make better use of infrastructure that can assist in transitioning the Region into an energy efficient, low carbon community. Furthermore, intensification within the Built -Up Area assists the gradual transition of existing neighbourhoods within the Region into 15 -minute neighbourhoods that are compact, well connected places that allow all people of all ages and abilities to access the needs for daily living within 15 minutes by walking, cycling or rolling. The applicant has proposed stacked townhouses, which is encouraged as a form of missing -middle housing in the Delineated Built -Up Area. This development, while proposing only residential uses, introduces additional units and housing types to a neighbourhood that already includes some townhomes and is in proximity to transit services on Highland Road West, employment uses, and a Regional Employment Area (185m north of the site). The Region of Waterloo has indicated they have no objections to the proposed application. (Attachment `C'), provided a requested holding provision for noise and record of site condition is applied. Planning staff are of the opinion that the application conforms to the Regional Official Plan. City of Kitchener Official Plan (OP) 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 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. The Low Rise Residential designation states that the City will encourage and support the mixing and integrating of innovative and different forms of housing to achieve and maintain a low-rise built form. No buildings shall exceed 3 storeys or 11 metres in height. No Official Plan amendment is required to implement the Zoning By-law Amendment application. The maximum building height has been amended to be less than 11 metres. Planning staff is of the opinion that the requested Zoning By-law Amendment will facilitate a housing form that conforms with the Low Rise Residential land use designation in the City's Official Plan. Transportation The City's Official Plan contains policies to develop, support, and maintain a complete, convenient, accessible and integrated transportation system that incorporates active transportation, public transit, and accommodates vehicular traffic. In regard to alternate modes of transportation, objectives of the Official Plan include promoting land use planning and development that is integrated and conducive to the efficient and effective operation of public transit and encourages increased ridership of the Page 78 of 224 public transit system. The City shall promote and encourage walking and cycling as safe and convenient modes of transportation. The proposed development aims to increase density on an existing site that is served by public transit, with access to Grand River Transit Routes 1 & 77. The proposed development is required to provide safe, secure indoor bicycle storage to encourage active transportation. Staff is of the opinion that the requested Zoning By-law Amendment conforms with the transportation policies of the City's Official Plan. Urban Design The City is committed to achieving a high standard of urban design, architecture and place -making to positively contribute to quality of life, environmental viability and economic vitality. Urban design is a vital component of city planning and goes beyond the visual and aesthetic character of individual buildings and also considers the functionality and compatibility of development as a means of strengthening complete communities. Urban Design policies in 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 will require high quality urban design in the review of all development applications through the implementation of the policies of the Official Plan and the City's Urban Design Manual. The proposed development concept includes a street facing building (building A), that orients massing and unit entrances towards the street line along Trussler Road. Street fronting articulation includes at -grade patios as well as second and third floor balconies. Pedestrian connectivity throughout the site is provided through pedestrian walkways from the unit entrances alongside the building leading to the sidewalk on Trussler Road. On-site amenity area is achieved through one at grade passive amenity space at the rear of building A, one at grade amenity space at the rear of building B, as well as private unit balconies. Housin 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.1.9. 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. 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. Page 79 of 224 Policy 4.C.1.22: The City will encourage the provision of a range of innovative housing types and tenures such as rental housing, freehold ownership and condominium ownership including common element condominium, phased condominium and vacant land condominium, as a means of increasing housing choice and diversity. Based on the above housing policies, staff is of the opinion that the application conforms to the Official Plan. Policy Conclusion Planning staff are of the opinion that the proposed Zoning By-law amendment is consistent with policies of the Provincial Policy Statement, conforms to the Growth Plan for the Greater Golden Horseshoe, the Regional Official Plan and the City of Kitchener Official Plan, and represents good planning. Proposed Zoning By-law Amendment: The subject lands are zoned `Low Rise Residential One Zone (RES -1)' in Zoning By-law 2019-051. The applicant has requested to change the zoning to `Low Rise Residential Five Zone (RES -5)' and add a Site Specific Provision (411) and Holding Provision (93H) in Zoning By-law 2019-051. The requested change in zoning category is to permit the proposed use of a "Multiple Dwelling". Site -Specific Provision (411) a. Permit a minimum interior side yard setback of 2.4 metres b. Require a visual barrier with a minimum height of 2.4 metres Side Yard Setback: The interior side yard requirement is intended to provide pedestrian access for site functionality and adequate building separation. The request for a 2.4 metre setback rather than the required 3 metres is for one of the three proposed buildings (Building A) and is on the north property line abutting the parking lot for the existing industrial facility on the neighbouring lands (Heroux Devtek). This reduction brings building A further from the existing low-rise residential lands to the south and allows for a landscaped drive aisle and pedestrian walkway alongside the drive aisle. The proposed 2.4 metre setback maintains pedestrian access and contributes to provision of a functional site for vehicles and pedestrians along the main entrance. Adequate building separation can be achieved, as the existing industrial building to the north is located over 60 metres from the property line and is buffered by the site's employee parking area and landscaped buffers. Visual Barrier Heiaht: The City's Zoning By-law requires a visual barrier to be a minimum of 1.8 metres (6 feet) in height. This is typically achieved with a board -on -board wood fence. As a response from requests from abutting property owners, the applicant has agreed to increase the height of the fence to 2.4 metres (8 feet) in order to provide additional screening and privacy. Page 80 of 224 Landscaping will also be provided south of the proposed parking area, to buffer the parking lot from the adjacent rear yards along Cora Drive and Rauch Court. Holding Provision (93H) Planning staff are recommending the following holding provision as part of the Zoning By- law Amendment: That a holding provision shall apply to the entirety of the subject lands until such time as a Stationary Noise Study is submitted and approved and implementation measures addressed to the satisfaction of the Regional Commissioner of Planning, Housing and Community Services, if necessary, and until a satisfactory Record of Site Condition has been submitted to the Ministry of Conservation and Parks, and that the Record of Site Condition and Ministry Acknowledgement Letter are provided to the Regional Municipality of Waterloo. This Holding Provision shall not be removed until the City of Kitchener is in receipt of a letter from the Regional Commissioner of Planning, Housing and Community Services advising that such noise study or studies has been approved and an agreement, if necessary, has been entered into with the City and/or Region, as necessary, providing for the implementation of any recommended noise mitigation measures. Staff offer the following comments with respect to Holding Provision (93H). Official Plan policies require that holding provisions will be applied in those situations where it is necessary or desirable to zone lands for development or redevelopment in advance of the fulfillment of specific requirements and conditions, and where the details of the development or redevelopment have not yet been fully resolved. A Holding provision may be used in order to facilitate the implementation of the change in zoning to `Low Rise Residential Five Zone' (RES -5) and the establishment of Site -Specific Provision (411). The City will enact a by-law to remove the holding symbol when all the conditions set out in the holding provision have been satisfied, permitting redevelopment in accordance with the zoning category assigned. Proposed Zoning By-law Amendment Conclusions Staff is of the opinion that the proposed Zoning By-law Amendment to change the zoning of the subject lands to 'RES -5' with Site Specific Provision 411 represents good planning as it will facilitate the redevelopment of the lands with a 64 -unit multiple dwelling that is compatible with the existing neighbourhood, which will add visual interest at the street level, and which will appropriately accommodate on-site parking needs. Staff are supportive of the proposed development and recommend that the proposed Zoning By-law amendment be approved as shown in Attachments 'Al' and `A2'. Department and Agency Comments: Circulation of the Zoning By-law Amendment was undertaken in August to all applicable City departments and other review authorities. No major concerns were identified by any commenting City department or agency. Copies of the comments are found in Attachment "C" of this report. The following Reports and Studies were considered as part of this proposed Official Plan Amendment and Zoning By-law Amendment: Page 81 of 224 Planning Opinion Report Prepared by: Patterson Planning Consultants, June 2024 Urban Design Report Prepared by: Patterson Planning Consultants, June 2024 Building Floor Plans, Elevations, Sections, Renderings Prepared by: Reinders and Law Ltd, June 4, 2024 Tree Management Plan Prepared by: Hill Design Studio, April 5, 2024 Truck Turning Plan Prepared by: Patterson Planning Consultants, June 2024 Functional Site Servicing and Stormwater Management Report Prepared by: GM Blue Plan Engineering, May 24, 2024 Geotechnical Report: Prepared by: Chung & Vander Doelen, October 30, 2020 Sustainability Statement Prepared by: Patterson Planning Consultants, June 2024 Civil Engineering Plans Prepared by: GM Blue Plan Engineering, February 29, 2024 Environmental Noise Impact Study Prepared by: GHD Limited, April 16, 2024 Fire Route Plans Prepared by: Patterson Planning Consultants, June 2024 Transportation Impact Study Prepared by: Paradigm Solutions Limited, May 2024 Thirty -Seven (37) people provided comments A City -led Neighbourhood Meetings held on September 12, 2024 and approximately Thirty -One (31) different users logged on Page 82 of 224 283 households (occupants and property owners) were circulated% and notified (including 6 within Wilmot Township) Staff received written responses from 37 residents with respect to the proposed development. These are included in Attachment `D'. A Neighbourhood Meeting was held on September 12, 2024. In addition, staff had follow-up one-on-one correspondence with members of the public. A summary of what we heard, and staff responses are noted below. What We Heard Staff Comment Loss of privacy will occur on The applicant has designed the site to locate the abutting lots addressed on Cora buildings as close to the north property line Drive. (industrial lands) and furthest from the south property line (low-rise residential lands — Cora Drive and Rauch Court rear yards). The buildings greatly exceed the minimum 3 metre side yard setback, with proposed setbacks of approximately 9 metres for building A and 18 metres for buildings B and C. A visual barrier will be required on the abutting property line — a special regulation provision is recommended to increase the minimum height of the visual barrier from 1.8 metres to 2.4 metres. Infrastructure and Sanitary The City's Engineering staff have provided clearance Service Capacity that there is adequate sanitary capacity for the proposed development. Cars are speeding on Trussler This section of Trussler Road was approved for Hot Road, this development will Spot Improvements in the 2024 Vision Zero report exacerbate the issue & approved by City Council in May 2024. Hot Spot suggestion that Trussler Road Improvements will include a series of raised should be a cul-de-sac and not a measures (humps) that will be installed in the fall of through road. 2024. Transportation Staff have provided this location to the Waterloo Region Police Service (WRPS) as a Selective Traffic Enforcement Program (STEP) location. Police are assigning resources here. Concerns raised by some of the residents relate to cut through traffic of heavy duty vehicles which is not a factor of this application, however City Transportation staff have been made aware and mitigation measures are proposed as outlined above. Parking is insufficient for the The applicant is meeting the minimum parking development standards in the zoning by-law and has withdrawn their request for a reduction in parking. Page 83 of 224 Water drainage could occur onto The applicant is required to prepare a Stormwater abutting lands Management Plan to the satisfaction of the City's Engineering division, in which they ensure that all stormwater is infiltrated on site or directed to the City's stormwater infrastructure within the right-of- way on Trussler Road. The site will be required to be graded to ensure no stormwater drains onto abutting lands. Catch basins are proposed to be installed within the parking area. Currently, storm water on site is not currently controlled and either infiltrates or sheet flows off-site. The height should be reduced to 3 storeys and 11 metres in height is permitted 2 storeys currently in the existing RES -1 zoning. As of right, a 3 storey detached dwelling could be constructed 3 metres from the side property line abutting the existing homes on Cora Drive. The applicant is not requesting an increase in building height as part of this application and has positioned the proposed buildings on the north side of the property, away form the existing residential uses. Lighting standards erected in the The applicant is required to submit a site lighting parking lot will cast light and plan from a professional lighting engineer that cause nuisance to abutting demonstrates that the lighting standards are dark properties sky compliant and that there are cut offs installed to prevent light trespass onto abutting lands. The City's urban design staff will review and approve the lighting plan through the site plan process to ensure these standards are met. Concerns about site location in a The Region of Waterloo requires the applicant to source water protection area prepare a "risk management plan" under the Clean Water Act, and requires any future condominium corporation to adhere to it, including standards regarding the application of road salt to the parking area. Loss of trees on site will occur The applicant will be required to plant new trees in the landscaped and amenity areas as part of a landscape plan through site plan approval. Question as to whether the site Applicant has advised that the units are intended to was affordable, or rent -geared- be condominiums for market value. to -income Planning Conclusions: In considering the foregoing, staff are supportive of the Zoning By-law amendment. Staff is of the opinion that the subject applications are consistent with policies of the 2020 and Page 84 of 224 2024 Provincial Policy Statements, conform to Growth Plan for the Greater Golden Horseshoe, the Regional Official Plan, and the City of Kitchener Official Plan and represent good planning. Staff recommends that the application be approved. The proposed application represents an opportunity to provide `missing middle' housing that addresses a need in our community. 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 — The recommendation has no impact on the Operating Budget. COMMUNITY ENGAGEMENT: INFORM — This report has been posted to the City's website with the agenda in advance of the Council / Committee meeting. A large notice sign was posted on the property and information regarding the application was posted to the City's website in early June. Following the initial circulation referenced below, an additional postcard advising of the statutory public meeting was circulated to all residents and property owners within 240 metres of the subject lands, those responding to the preliminary circulation and who attended the Neighbourhood Meetings. Notice of the Statutory Public Meeting was also posted in The Record on September 13, 2024 (a copy of the Notice may be found in Appendix C). CONSULT — The proposed Zoning By-law Amendment was circulated to residents and property owners within 240 metres of the subject lands on August 8, 2024. In response to this circulation, staff received written responses from 37 members of the public, which were summarized as part of this staff report. Planning staff also had one-on-one conversations with residents on the telephone and responded to emails. PREVIOUS REPORTS/AUTHORITIES: • Planning Act, R.S.O. 1990, c. P.13 • Growth Plan, 2020 • Provincial Policy Statement, 2020 • Proposed Provincial Policy Statement, 2024 • Region of Waterloo Official Plan • City of Kitchener Official Plan, 2014 • City of Kitchener Zoning By-law 2019-051 REVIEWED BY: Malone -Wright, Tina — Manager, Development Approvals, Development and Housing Approvals Division APPROVED BY: Readman, Justin - General Manager, Development Services Page 85 of 224 ATTACHMENTS: Attachment Al — Proposed By-law Attachment A2 — Map No. 1 Attachment B — Newspaper Notice Attachment C — Department and Agency Comments Attachment D — Neighbourhood Comments Attachment E — Concept Plan Page 86 of 224 DSD -2024-432 Attachment "A" PROPOSED BY — LAW , 2024 BY-LAW NUMBER OF THE CORPORATION OF THE CITY OF KITCHENER (Being a by-law to amend By-law 2019-051, as amended, known as the Zoning By-law for the City of Kitchener — 1000160668 Ontario Corp. — 60 Trussler Road) WHEREAS it is deemed expedient to amend By-law 2019-051 for the lands specified above; NOW THEREFORE the Council of the Corporation of the City of Kitchener enacts as follows: 1. Zoning Grid Schedule Numbers 7 and 10 of Appendix "A" to By-law Number 2019-051 are hereby amended by changing the zoning applicable to the parcel of land specified and illustrated as Area 1 on Map No. 1, in the City of Kitchener, attached hereto, from Low Rise Residential One Zone (RES -1) to Low Rise Residential Five Zone (RES -5) with Site Specific Provision (411) and Holding Provision (93H). 2. Zoning Grid Schedule Numbers 7 and 10 of Appendix "A" to By-law Number 2019-051 are hereby further amended by incorporating additional zone boundaries as shown on Map No. 1 attached hereto. 3. Section 19 of By-law 2019-051 is hereby amended by adding Section 19 (411) thereto as follows: "411. Notwithstanding Table 7-6 of this By-law within the lands zoned Low Rise Residential Five Zone (RES -5) and shown as affected by this subsection on Zoning Grid Schedule Numbers 7 and 10 of Appendix `A', the following special regulations shall apply: a) The minimum side yard setback shall be 2.4 metres. b) The minimum height for a visual barrier shall be 2.4 metres." 4. Section 20 of By-law 2019-051 is hereby amended by adding Holding Provision (93H) thereto as follows: "93. Notwithstanding Section 8 of this By-law within the lands zoned Low Rise Residential Five Zone (RES -5) and shown as being affected by this Page 87 of 224 DSD -2024-432 Attachment "A" subsection on Zoning Grid Schedule Numbers 7 and 10 of Appendix "A", no residential uses shall be permitted until such time as the following condition has been met and this holding provision has been removed by by-law: a) A detailed transportation (road) and stationary noise study has been completed and implementation measures recommended to the satisfaction of the Region. b) A satisfactory Record of Site Condition is submitted and approved to the satisfaction of the Ministry of the Environment, Conservation and Parks or any successor Ministry ("MECP"). This Holding Provision shall not be removed until the Region is in receipt of a letter from MECP advising that a Record of Site Condition has been completed to the satisfaction of the MECP." PASSED at the Council Chambers in the City of Kitchener this day of 2024. Mayor Clerk Page 88 of 224 EL Z (n 1- W W 21 W LU W W W o Z W LU z W z ZN O z N J rn E O IN Z� w Q Z O W N O Z U 0 IN IN O N W[If IN z N ZIN d N U) Z 2 0> Q N 4 0 w JU) 2 zr0��ww Un J > Q 2 Q D W O > Q J J J J J W W Q L.L p J> Q Q Q Q Q > N ♦- J- U Z Q Qz H H H H H > z Q> Z W p Of W Z Z Z Z Z Q w X00 H W W W w w WO Q p z1Y— 2 0 U) p p 0 U� )-w (7 _ J W 0- Cf)0 z .. (n <n (n v) !n z p CO O z > 2 w p to m �5 0 OU Of z z U��(Z� Of � Q z z wO W WUa Ln<0IN Jawwwww ILL z w N Q F �w o— �p�� U) U) U) U) C/n W�- 0 z Q LJ Q H IY W d C7 0) 2 LL]z IY Of Of Ir af 1 r Z x N 0 a w CO U) N P ww W Q a p Jp� N N Q z L) g O HJ 00000 �pWZ Z �w J .-. 0 Q Z} C.J Z O J J J J J O d W ZQ��O = Q �? —ONw— N N M v Ln wW0- Z �H JIM -i Z: dadzc) � � Un co cn uh z=QU W Z �af ai < LL - Q m°WWW°zo °cUnoY 2 W a LU o2o M IIIIIIIIII N u� 1 ti W 0 v � N to W N W VVppuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuup IIVIIIIIIII ' N > r O m U � m , � um Q U umuuuuu -�w N O uullllllllluuuuuuuuuuuuuu , � Q 0, 1- J QLU CV OQ� 1 a ♦ V♦ 0 M m J 1 J w > LU t1 I Z U p o p yv Z JI�I O Li- u)e 111111 N O w' i W =ICS �rijul umuuuul �p m rn, O CT? N uuuuuuuuulmml ulll10uu 0 o co M (� 1 ",-- ----- - - -- _� - ---- - ------ c/) W w DO 1 � � p ' w o w eo , v> ai cL CD w IL Jill 1 JLLJ Q U Q LU IIII, O 1 v � , II � QIIIIIIIIIIIII 5�� ' ' 1 O W W , r U p 1 ■ O 1 O FE of J , % Q w 1 ` Z U) 1 U) C 1 � Cfl ' C coo c CD 0 1 0 1 � 1 NOTICE OF PUBLIC MEETING for a development in your neighbourhood 60 Trussler Road Concept Drawing 64 II )we i i. ii t t Have Your Voice Heard! Planning & Strategic Initiatives Committee Date: October 7, 2024 Location: Council Chambers, Kitchener City Hall 200, King Street West orV'irtual Zoom Fleeting Go to kitchener.ca/meetings and select: • Current agendas and reports (posted 10 days before meeting) • Appear as a delegation • Watch a meeting To learn more about this project, including information on your appeal rights, visit: www.kitchenenca/ PlanningApplications or contact: Eric Schneider, Senior Planner eric.schneider@ kitchener.ca 519.741.2200 x7843 The City of Kitchener will consider an application for a Zoning By-law Amendment to facilitate the redevelopment of the site with the removal of the existing single detached residential building and replacing it with three (3) 3 -storey stacked townhouse buildings having a total of 64 dwelling units, a Floor Space Ratio of 0.57 and 73 parking spaces. The Zoning By-law Amendment would change the Zoning m RE- to - nd also include sites ecific p rovisions for an increase in buildin h�i , ce uired p q parking, and a reduction in side yard setback. Eric Schneider 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. reeg ionofwaterloo.ca Will Towns 1-519-616-1868 File: C14/2/24019 September 10, 2024 Senior Planner City of Kitchener 200 King Street West, 6t" Floor P.O. Box 1118, Kitchener, ON N2G 4G7 Dear Mr. Schneider, Re: Zoning By-law Amendment ZBA24/019 60 Trussler Road 1000160668 Ontario Corp. c/o Patterson Planning Consultants Inc. City of Kitchener On behalf of the property owner, Patterson Planning Consultants Inc. has submitted a zoning by-law amendment (ZBA) application for a development proposal at 60 Trussler Road in the City of Kitchener. The applicant is proposing to develop a currently -vacant lot with three, three-storey multi - residential buildings (stacked/back-to-back townhomes) containing a total of 64 units, 73 parking spaces, and an outdoor amenity area. A vacant land condominium proposing low- density residential use of these lands was draft approved in September 2021 by the City of Kitchener (30CDM-21207). The property is located in the Urban Area and Delineated Built Up Area in the ROP; designated Low Rise Residential in the City's Official Plan; and zoned Low Rise Residential One (RES -1). The ZBA seeks to change the zone category to RES -5 to permit the proposed form, and seeks site-specific relief from side -yard setback, parking, and building height requirements. The site is located in the Urban Area and Delineated Built Up Area in the Regional Official Plan; designated Low Rise Residential in the City's Official Plan; and zoned Low Rise Residential -4 (RES -4). The ZBA proposes to change the zone category to RES -5 to permit the proposed built form (stacked townhomes) and seeks relief from maximum FSR and minimum rear yard setback requirements. Document Number: 4773883 Version: 1 Page 1 of 8 Page 91 of 224 The Region has had the opportunity to review the proposal and offers the following: Community Planning Provincial Policy Statement (PPS) 2020 The PPS encourages the development of livable communities. It also provides a framework for planning authorities to ensure the wise use of resources while protecting Ontario's long-term prosperity and environmental and social well-being. It directs growth to built-up areas and promotes a mix of land uses that efficiently use resources, minimize negative environmental impacts, and support active transportation and transit use. Policy 1.2.6 requires the assessment of compatibility in instances where sensitive uses are proposed in proximity to industrial facilities. The Planning Opinion Report prepared by Patterson Planning Consultants Inc. (dated June 2024) provides a review of applicable PPS policies. The development proposes an intensified use of serviced (and underutilized) land in proximity to transit services, expands the range of housing options in the neighbourhood and proposes some diversity in unit types (both one and two-bedroom units proposed). PPS policy 1.2.6 is not explicitly addressed in the Planning Opinion Report— however, compatibility in this location relates primarily to stationary noise, and these issues are addressed in the Updated Environmental Noise Impact Study prepared by GHD Group Ltd. (dated April 16, 2024). This study is discussed in a later section. Overall, Regional staff are satisfied that the proposal is consistent with the PPS. Growth Plan for the Greater Golden Horseshoe The Growth Plan recognizes the Greater Golden Horseshoe (GGH) as a fast-growing and dynamic region. It directs development in a way that supports economic prosperity, the environment, and quality of life — specifically emphasizing intensification, compact built form, and housing choice in built-up areas. The Planning Opinion Report provides an analysis of applicable Growth Plan policies, including comments on the proposed development's emphasis on intensification and proximity to transit services. The site's location within the Built Up area on underutilized, serviced land is in keeping with Growth Plan direction, and therefore Regionals staff are satisfied that the application conforms with the Growth Plan. Regional Official Plan 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 percent 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. In addition, the applicant has proposed stacked townhouses throughout the development, which is encouraged as a form of missing - Document Number: 4773883 Version: 1 Page 2 of 8 Page 92 of 224 middle housing in the Delineated Built -Up Area. This development, while proposing only residential uses, introduces additional units and housing types to a neighbourhood that already includes some townhomes and is in proximity to transit services on Highland Road West, employment uses, and a Regional Employment Area (185m north of the site). Staff are satisfied that the application conforms to the ROP. Corridor Planning Condition of Approval for ZBA Approval of the noise study and would be required prior to final approval of the ZBA. Environmental & Stationary Noise Staff note that a noise study entitled Updated Environmental Noise Impact Study Proposed Residential Development 60 Trussler Road, Kitchener, Ontario dated April 16, 2024, and prepared by GHD Group Ltd. was submitted in support of this application. Stationary noise sources from proximate industrial uses within 500m of the site were included in the analysis. The study was circulated to a third -party peer reviewer for review and comment, and comments from the peer reviewer will be provided under separate cover. Should the application proceed to Council for approval prior to the receipt of peer review comments, the Region will require a holding provision until the preliminary study is completed and a detailed noise study addressing final design of the site and its impact on surrounding sensitive land uses and itself is prepared and accepted by the Region. Required wording for the holding provision is as follows: That a holding provision shall apply to the entirety of the subject lands until satisfactory preliminary and detailed stationary noise studies have 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. Region of Waterloo International Airport (Advisory) Please be advised that the lands are subject to the Region of Waterloo International Airport Zoning Regulations issued under the federal Aeronautics Act. The purpose of the Regulations is two -fold: 1) to prevent lands adjacent to or in the vicinity of the Region of Waterloo International Airport site from being used or developed in a manner that is incompatible with the safe operation of the airport or an aircraft; and 2) to prevent lands adjacent to or in the vicinity of facilities used to provide services relating to aeronautics from being used or developed in a manner that would cause interference with signals or communications to and from aircraft or to and from those facilities. It is the landowner's responsibility to be aware, and to make all users of the land aware of the restrictions under these Regulations, which may include but are not limited to height restrictions on buildings or structures, height of natural growth, interference with Document Number: 4773883 Version: 1 Page 3 of 8 Page 93 of 224 communications, and activities or uses that attract birds. While not a concern with the proposed application, please be advised that the height limit at this location is approximately 157m above ground level. All buildings and cranes must not exceed this height. Other A Site Plan pre -consultation fee of $300 and a Site Plan review fee of $805 will be required for the review and approval of a future Site Plan application. Record of Site Condition In accordance with the Region's Implementation Guideline for the Review of Development Applications on or Adjacent to Known and Potentially Contaminated Sites, a Record of Site Condition (RSC) is required due to the presence of a "high" potential threat of contamination in the Region's Threats Inventory Database on adjacent lands (associated with Heroux Devtek Aerospace Product and Parts Manufactural facility at 1665 Highland Road West). As the RSC and associated Acknowledgement Letter from the Ministry of Environment, Conservation and Parks (MECP) have not been submitted as part of a complete application, Regional staff will require a holding provision implemented through the ZBA requiring the submission of the RSC and MECP Acknowledgement Letter to the Region's satisfaction. Alternately, the City's Chief Building Official may provide the Region with written confirmation that an RSC is required under O. Reg 153/04. Required wording for the holding provision is as follows: That a holding provision shall apply to the entirety of the subject lands until a satisfactory Record of Site Condition has been submitted to the Ministry of Conservation and Parks, and that the Record of Site Condition and Ministry Acknowledgment Letter are provided to the Regional Municipality of Waterloo. Risk Management & Source Water Protection The subject property located in a Part IV area of the CWA (WHPA). No Section 59 notice submitted with application; circulated to RMO for comment. RMO staff indicate property is in a source protection area where Risk Management Plan or prohibition polices implemented by the Region of Waterloo may apply. A Notice of Source Protection Plan Compliance (Section 59 Notice) is required. Under the 2022 Grand River Source Protection Plan, a Risk Management Plan for salt application may be required for proposed and/or altered surface parking and vehicle driveway areas greater than 200 square metres. Design considerations with respect to salt management that will form the Risk Management Plan include; - Minimizing the transport of meltwater across the parking lots or driveways - Directing downspouts away from paved areas Document Number: 4773883 Version: 1 Page 4 of 8 Page 94 of 224 Locating snow storage areas on impermeable (ie paved) surfaces that drain directly to catch basins Note that the Region does not support any engineered and/or enhanced infiltration of runoff originating from paved surfaces within chloride Issue Contributing Areas. The above noted property is within a chloride Issue Contributing Area. Engineered and/or enhanced infiltration features may include ponds, infiltration galleries, permeable pavers, ditches, swales, oil -grit separators, etc. A Valid Notice of Source Protection under Section 59 of the Clean Water Act has not yet been provided in support of this application. It is our understanding that the applicant is currently working with the Regional Risk Management Official (rmo(a-)-regionofwaterloo.ca) to update an existing Risk Management Plan for the property to reflect the development concept. Provided the Section 59 Notice is issued, staff will have no concern with source protection in relation to this application. Water Services Regional staff have reviewed the Functional Servicing Report provided in support of the application and have no comments or concerns with the servicing proposal. Waste Management The subject lands are located approximately 1 km from the boundary of an active Regional landfill site. Staff have considered land use compatibility in accordance with the Ministry of the Environment, Conservation and Parks' (MECP) Guideline D-4. As part of a future plan of condominium application, Regional staff will require as a condition of draft approval that the following warning clause be included in all offers of purchase and sale, lease and rental agreements, and the condominium declaration: "Due to proximity to the Waterloo Regional Waste Management Centre, odour levels on this property may occasionally cause concern for some individuals." This warning clause shall be secured in a registered agreement with the City of Kitchener or the Regional Municipality of Waterloo. Housing Services The following Regional policies and initiatives support the development and maintenance of affordable housing: - Regional Strategic Plan o Strategic Priority 1 is "Homes for All" in the 2023-2027 Strategic Plan. - 10 -Year Housing and Homelessness Plan o Contains an affordable housing target for 30% of all new residential development between 2019 and 2041 in Waterloo Region to be affordable to low and moderate income households. - Building Better Futures Framework Document Number: 4773883 Version: 1 Page S of 8 Page 95 of 224 o Demonstrates Regional plans to create 2,500 units of housing affordable to people with low to moderate incomes by 2025. Region of Waterloo Official Plan o Section 3.A (Range and Mix of Housing) contains land use policies that ensure the provision of a full and diverse range and mix of permanent housing that is safe, affordable, of adequate size, and meets the accessibility requirements of all residents. The Region supports the provision of a full range of housing options, including affordable housing. Should this Zoning By-law amendment be approved, 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. Affordability For the purposes of evaluating the affordability of an ownership unit, based on the definition in the Regional Official Plan, the purchase price is compared to the least expensive of: Housing for which the purchase price results in annual accommodation costs which do not exceed 30 percent of gross $395,200 annual household income for low and moderate income households Housing for which the purchase price is at least 10 percent below the average $740,000 purchase price of a resale unit in the regional market area "Based on the most recent information available from the PPS Housing Tables (2023). For an owned unit to be deemed affordable, the maximum affordable house price is $395,200. For the purposes of evaluating the affordability of a rental unit, based on the definition of affordable housing in the Regional Official Plan, the average rent is compared to the least expensive of: Document Number: 4773883 Version: 1 Page 6 of 8 Page 96 of 224 A unit for which the rent does not exceed 30 per cent of the gross annual household $2,040 income for low and moderate income renter households A unit for which the rent is at or below the Bachelor: $1,164 average market rent (AMR) in the regional 1 -Bedroom: $1,346 market area 2 -Bedroom: $1,658 3 -Bedroom: $2,039 4+ Bedroom: n/a *Based on the most recent information available from the PPS Housing Tables (2023) 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. Please do not hesitate to contact Housing Services staff directly at JMaanMiedema(a)regionofwaterloo.ca or phone at 226-753-9593 should you have any questions or wish to discuss in more detail. Fees Please be advised that the Region is in receipt of fees for the ZBA review ($3,000, deposited August 22, 2024) and peer review of the environmental noise study ($5,085, received August 21, 2024). Conclusions & Next Steps Regional staff have no objection to approval of the proposed application, provided the following are addressed: • A Valid Section 59 Notice is provided to the Region. • A holding provision is applied to these lands requiring Regional acceptance of the preliminary noise study and completion of a detailed noise study prior to site plan approval. • A holding provision is applied to these lands requiring submission of a Record of Site Condition and Ministry Acknowledgement letter to the Region. • Inclusion of a warning clause related to proximity to an active Regional landfill in any future agreements of purchase and sale, lease/rental agreements, and condominium declarations is secured in a registered development agreement as part of a future Planning Act application. Note also that peer review comments in relation to the preliminary stationary noise study submitted in support of this application will be provided under separate cover once received from the third -party peer reviewer. 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. Document Number: 4773883 Version: 1 Page 7 of 8 Page 97 of 224 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 the undersigned at wtowns regionofwaterloo.ca. Yours truly, Will Towns, RPP Senior Planner C. Patterson Planning Consultants Inc, c/o Scott Patterson (Agent) 1000160668 Ontario Corp. c/o Michael Brenner (Owner) Document Number: 4773883 Version: 1 Page 8 of 8 Page 98 of 224 Eric Schneider From: NiaUK4elanson Sent: Wednesday, September 18,2024 2:08 PM To: Eric Schneider Cc: Angela Mick; Primmer, Sarah Subject: 60 Trussler Road, ZBA24-019-T-ES - Engineering Clearance Please be advised that Engineering and Kitchener Utilities can provide our clearance for the ZBA application. Niall Me|ansun, C.E.T. Project Manager, Development Engineering, City ofKitchener 519-741-2200x7133 2UOKing St. VV,Kitchener, ONN2G4G7 Page 99 of 224 Hey Eric, This is not regulated by the GRCA and we have no comments. Thanks, I revor 11I leywood F?,esouirce [�1l4nineir Grand River Conservation ALAUhoirity 400 Clyde Road, PO Box 729 Cambridge, ON N1 R 5W6 Phone: 519-621-2761 ext. 2292 Email :.!.I.h..e.Y 22.d..agj� ! d.!j.v..e..i.r g.a.. . ... ..... .... .... . ..... .... . . .... .... I with us on soriall innedia ......... ......................... ................ ................................................................................................................................................................ Page 100 of 224 City of Kitchener ZBA comments Application type: Zoning By-law Amendment ZBA24/019/T/ES Project address: 60 Trussler Road Comments of: Transportation Services Commenter's name: Dave Seller Email: dave.seller@kitchener.ca Phone: 519-741-2200 e 7369 Date of comments: August 22, 2024 Comments due: September 5, 2024 As part of a complete Zoning By-law amendment application, a Transportation Impact Study (TIS) was submitted (May 2024) by Paradigm Transportation Solutions Limited in support of this application. Transportation Services reviewed the TIS and offer the following comments. Development proposal The applicant is proposing to redevelop the site with 64 -unit townhouse development with a total of 73 parking spaces. The development is estimated to generate 28 AM and 34 PM peak hour vehicle trips and the site will be serviced by one full moves access along Trussler Road. The assumed build out for this development is 2027. Intersection analysis The two intersections noted below were reviewed under existing 2024 base year traffic conditions and both intersections are operating within acceptable levels of service and within capacity during the AM and PM peak hours. • Trussler Road at Snyder's Road East (Wilmot Township)/Highland Road West (Regional Road 6) - unsignalized • Trussler Road/Highview Drive at Ira Needles Boulevard (Regional Road 70) - roundabout The two intersections noted above were reviewed under 2032 future background traffic conditions and are both operating within acceptable levels of service and within capacity during the AM and PM peak hours. The intersection of Trussler Road/Highview Drive at Ira Needles Boulevard (Regional Road 70) noted that Highview Drive is operating with a LOS E and v/c of 0.71 in the PM peak hour. While delay is noted, there remains excess vehicle capacity for this movement. Trussler Road is operating with a LOS C and v/c of 0.93 in the PM peak hour. The three intersections below were reviewed under 2032 future total traffic conditions and are operating within acceptable levels of service and within capacity during the AM and PM peak hours, A City for Everyone Working Together — Growing Thoughtfully — Building Community Page 101 of 224 except where noted. Future total traffic includes forecasted background traffic plus site development traffic. • Trussler Road at Snyder's Road East (Wilmot Township)/Highland Road West (Regional Road 6) - unsignalized • Trussler Road/Highview Drive at Ira Needles Boulevard (Regional Road 70) - roundabout • Trussler Road at site access (NEW) — unsignalized The intersection of Trussler Road/Highview Drive at Ira Needles Boulevard noted that Highview Drive which is operating with a LOS E and v/c of 0.76 in the PM peak hour. While delay is noted, there remains excess vehicle capacity for this movement. Trussler Road is operating with a LOS C and v/c of 0.93 in the PM peak hour. The new site access to Trussler Road is forecasted to operate with a LOS B or better and v/c ratios of 0.03 or lower in the AM and PM peak hours. Transportation Demand Management (TDM) analysis There are two Grand River Transit (GRT) routes less than 700m from this development. They include routes: 1 and 77. These routes offer connectivity to a broader transit network throughout the Region of Waterloo and within Kitchener itself. The walkability for pedestrians accessing the site and surrounding area is possible as sidewalks are generally provided on both sides of roadways in the surrounding area. While Trussler Road doesn't have any dedicated cycling facilities, Ira Needles Boulevard and Highland Road West do have cycling facilities available. There is also an off-road trail that connects Trussler Road to Ira Needles Boulevard through Waldau Woods Park. Left turn lane analysis A left turn lane analysis was completed along Trussler Road at the site access, utilizing the Ministry of Transportation (MTO) Geometric Design Standards for the 2032 Background and 2032 Total future traffic conditions and it was determined that a left turn lane along Trussler Road is not warranted. Transportation Services supports Paradigms conclusions. AutoTURN swept path analysis The following Transportation Association of Canada (TAC) design vehicle was reviewed for loading/garbage: • Medium Single Unit (MSU) - acceptable Conclusion Based on the analysis within the TIS, Transportation Services supports Paradigms recommendation that the development be approved and that there are no provisions for any off-site transportation network improvements. A City for Everyone Working Together — Growing Thoughtfully — Building Community Page 102 of 224 Good morning Eric, The Waterloo Catholic District School Board has reviewed the subject application and based on our development circulation criteria have the followingcomment(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 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 (htips://www.wcdslb.ca/elbow us/cs/pllnniing/). C) That the developer shall include the following wording in the site plan agreement/ future condominium declaration to advise all purchasers of residential units and/or renters of same: "In orderto 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." Jennifer Passy, BES, MCIP, RPP (she/her) Manager of Planning Waterloo Catholic District School Board Phone: 519-578-3677, ext. 2253 Cell: 519-501-5285 Page 103 of 224 City of Kitchener OPA & ZBA Comment Form Project Address: 60 Trussler Road, Kitchener Application Type: Zoning Bylaw Amendment Comments Of: Urban Design Commenter's Name: Katey Crawford Email: Katey.Crawford@kitchener.ca Phone: 519-741-2200 ext. 7157 Date of Comments: September 4th 2024 ❑ I plan to attend the meeting (questions/concerns/comments for discussion) X❑ No meeting to be held ❑ I do NOT plan to attend the meeting (no concerns) 1. Documents Reviewed • Zoning By-law Amendment Application Form • Floor Plans, Building Elevations, and Building Sections • Renderings • Concept Site Plan • Civil Engineering Plans • Noise Study • Urban Design Report • Tree Management Plan 2. Site Specific Comments & Issues: There are updates required to the documentation noted below to address urban design concerns with the proposed ZBA application. Site Plan Comments • A 3.9 -meter -wide front yard setback is measured to the corner of the building, not 4.7m as noted on the plan. A City for Everyone Working Together — Growing Thoughtfully — Building Community Page 104 of 224 • A revised site layout/approach to bicycle storage is required. Indoor designated bike storage is encouraged to prevent window obstruction from bike lockers and allow for additional landscaping and buffering on site. • Show location of Class B bike parking on the plan. • Landscape medians are required at the end of drive aisles. • 0.3m wide landscape strips between concrete walkways and private patios will not be able to support plant material. Bring sidewalks up to the patio to increase landscape buffers offset north property line. • Provide a 1.5m minimum width landscape buffer along all property lines, (measured at edge of curb) to allow for landscape buffer and tree planting. • Walkways abutting parking stalls require a minimum of 1.8m width. • The proposed ground floor balconies/patios should be a minimum of 11 square meters in size. • 1.8m high wood screen fence is required offset property lines. • Deep well waste storage to be noted on the plan. At grade "earth bin" are unacceptable. Encourage adding a 3rd bin for compost/organic material disposal in addition to garbage and recycling. Built Form Comments • Provide a flat rough structure for all buildings to reduce massing and better integrate the built form into the low-rise neighborhood context. • Show and note colours and materials. Utilize a material and colour palette that is sympathetic to the neighborhood and less cold in appearance. • Utilize masonry along the entire front fagade of Building A, facing Trusser to improve articulation and appearance facing the public realm. • Lower level patios are to be removed facing Trussler, as previously requested to allow for landscaping and an improved interface with the public realm. Tree Management Plan Comments • Written permission for removal of or impact to trees in joint ownership along property lines is required. • There are numerous trees off property and in shared ownership which will be impacted where removal would be necessary. Has there been any consideration or efforts to re -design the site to preserve quality vegetation? Given the limited setbacks proposed, it will likely not be possible to replace trees at a 3:1 rate on site. Provide additional enhanced landscape buffer in effort to retain trees off property. Urban Design Report Comments • Provide conceptual details for on-site amenity spaces in the Urban Design Report including commentary and precedent images to guide detailed site design. A play space with play equipment, seating and a shade structure element is required. A City for Everyone Working Together — Growing Thoughtfully — Building Community Page 105 of 224 • Please include the amenity area calculation in the urban design brief, following the formula provided. (2m2x #units) + (2.5M2 x #bedrooms - #units) = outdoor amenity space. • Update report based on comments above. A City for Everyone Working Together — Growing Thoughtfully — Building Community Page 106 of 224 PLANNING I 11 E�p r�aJl��w 111 Ru]umi RE umii mou Eric Schneider Senior Planner City of Kitchener Eric.Schneider@kitchener.ca September 6, 2024 Re: Circulation for Comment - 60 Trussler Road (ZBA) File No.: Municipality: Kitchener Location: 60 Trussler Road Owner/Applicant: 1000160668 Ontario Corp./Patterson Planning Consultants Inc. Dear Eric, The Waterloo Region District School Board (WRDSB) has reviewed the above -noted application that proposes the development of a 64 unit low rise residential/ stacked townhouses. The WRDSB offers the following comments. Student Accommodation At this time, the subject lands are within the boundaries of the following WRDSB schools: • Meadowlane Public School (Junior Kindergarten to Grade 6); • Westheights Public School (Grade 7 to Grade 8); and • Forest Heights Collegiate Institute (Grade 9 to Grade 12). Please be advised that student accommodation pressures currently exist at Forest Heights Cl. The WRDSB's 2020-2030 Long -Term Accommodation Plan provides detailed enrolment projections for schools in this review area. Interim student accommodation measures, including portable classrooms, are presently on-site and may be required until an alternative accommodation solution is in place. Additionally, the WRDSB may conduct a boundary review or designate this property as a "Development Area" and assign it to Holding Schools before occupancy or sales. 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, 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. WRDSB Draft Conditions Concerning any future declaration or agreement, the WRDSB requests the following inclusions in the conditions of Draft Approval: 1. That the Owner/Developer shall include the following wording in the condominium declaration to advise all purchasers of residential units and/or renters of same: Page 107 of 224 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." a. "For information on which schools are currently serving this area, contact the WRDSB Planning Department at 519-570-0003 ext. 4419, or email planning(d).wrdsb.ca. Information provided by any other source cannot be guaranteed to reflect current school assignment information. " a. `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" 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 plannin_q( wrdsb. ca. Information provided by any other source cannot be guaranteed to reflect current school assignment information. " In order to limit risks, public school buses contracted by Student Transportation Services of Waterloo Region (STSWR), or its assigns or successors, will not travel on privately owned or maintained right-of-ways to pick up and drop off students, and so bussed students will be required to meet the bus at a congregated bus pick-up point" 3. That in cases where Agreements of Purchase and Sale have already been executed, the Owner/Developer sends a letter to all purchasers which include the above statements (conditions 2 a. i., ii., and iii.). 4. That the Owner/Developer supply, erect and maintain a sign (at the Owner/Developer's expense and according to the WRDSB's specifications), near or affixed to the development sign, advising prospective residents about schools in the area and that prior to final approval, the Owner/Developer shall submit a photo of the sign for review and approval of the WRDSB. 5. Prior to final approval, the WRDSB advises in writing to the Approval Authority how the above condition(s) has/have been satisfied. Page 108 of 224 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, Sarah West Senior Planner Waterloo Region District School Board sarah west(a)-wrdsb.ca 519 570 0003 x4439 cc: L. Agar, WRDSB Page 109 of 224 City of Kitchener Zoning Bylaw Amendment Comment Form Address: 60 Trussler Road Owner: 1000160668 Ontario Corp. Application: Zoning By-law Amendment #ZBA24/019/T/ES Comments Of: Park Planning Commenter's Name: Lenore Ross Email: Lenore.ross@kitchener.ca Phone: 519-741-2200 ext 7427 Date of Comments: Aug 12 2024 Documents Reviewed: I have reviewed the documentation noted below submitted in support of a Zoning By-law Amendment to change the zoning from 'Low Rise Residential One Zone (RES -1)' to 'Low Rise Residential Five Zone (RES - 5)' is requested to facilitate the use of multiple dwelling. A site-specific provision is also being sought for side yard setback, parking reduction of one parking space, and increase in building height. • Zoning By-law Amendment Application Form • Floor Plans, Building Elevations, and Building Sections • Renderings • Concept Site Plan • Planning Opinion Report • Civil Engineering Plans • Noise Study • Urban Design Report • Tree Management Plan Site Specific Comments & Issues: There are minor updates required to the documentation noted below to address Park Planning's concerns with the proposed ZBA application. Park Planning can provide conditional support to the application subject to receiving satisfactory updates to the documentation noted. Comments on Submitted Documents The following comments should be addressed at this time. Urban Design Brief — Patterson Planning Consultants Inc. dated June 2024 As noted in Park Planning's Presubmission comments, the site is within the Forest Heights Planning Community and while this community has been identified as being well served overall with active neighbourhood park space the subject site is isolated from and beyond typical walkshed distances to existing neighbourhood park facilities. The provision of robust onsite recreational amenity space will be important for future residents of the proposed development and the required Urban Design Brief should provide details for a robust on-site outdoor amenity space with good solar access and protection from wind. This amenity space will be required as part of the site plan design and should include seating and A City for Everyone Working Together — Growing Thoughtfully — Building Community aw of 224 City of Kitchener Zoning Bylaw Amendment Comment Form play equipment for residents of all ages and abilities. The UDB should provide conceptual details for on- site amenity spaces including commentary and precedent images to guide detailed site design through the site plan application. A revised Urban Design Brief is required. Proposed Site Plan on City template, architectural renderings and preliminary floor plans — Reinders + Law Ltd. Based on the proposed preliminary site plan, architectural renderings and preliminary floor plans, the stacked secure bicycle storage units will obstruct windows. A revised site layout/approach to bicycle storage is required. A City for Everyone Working Together — Growing Thoughtfully — Building Community aw of 224 City of Kitchener Zoning Bylaw Amendment Comment Form Policies, Standards and Resources: • Kitchener Official Plan • City of Kitchener Park Dedication Bylaw 2022-101 and Park Dedication Policy MUN-PLA-1074 • 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 Anticipated Fees: Parkland Dedication Parkland dedication requirements will be deferred at the Zoning By-law Amendment application and assessed at a future Site Plan Application. Parkland dedication will be assessed based on the land use class and density approved through the ZBA and required as a condition of Site Plan Approval. Parkland A City for Everyone Working Together — Growing Thoughtfully — Building Community Page -3-0 I aw of 224 City of Kitchener Zoning Bylaw Amendment Comment Form dedication will be taken as cash -in -lieu of land according to the Planning Act, Parkland Dedication Bylaw 2022-101 and Parkland Dedication Policy MUN-PLA-1074 in effect. If Site Plan Approval in Principle/Conditional Approval is issued within five (5) years of Nov 05, 2021, a credit for the demolished residential unit will be applied. 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 0.6127 ha site with 64 proposed units (possible credit for demolition of 1 units if AIP by Nov 05 2026) is $234,664 Calculation: 63 units/1000units x $3,830,000/ha = $241,290 (alternate rate Bylaw 2022-101) 0.6127ha x 0.05 x $3,830,000/ha = $117,332 (5% rate Bylaw 2022-101) 0.6127ha x $3,830,000/ha x 0.1 = $234,664 (More Homes Built Faster Act 10% cap) A City for Everyone Working Together — Growing Thoughtfully — Building Community PW4-01 of 224 Fromm: Dave Thomas ' Sent Monday, September lt), I_vL+".j,"m To: Eric Schneider Subject: Opposition to Proposed High -Density Development at 60 Trussler Road M Some people who received this message don't often get email from _yLhLis is important We are writing to express our strong opposition to the proposed high-density 64 -unit stacked townhouse development at8OTrueeherRoad, adjacent Lnour property a1 Aalong-term residents ofthis neighborhood, having Lived here for over 25 years, we deeply value the character and tranquility of our low-density, single-family residential. area. This proposed development threatens to significant(y atter the nature of our community and negatively impact both our property and the surrounding area. Privacy and Overtook Issues: The proposed 3 -story deveLopment wouLd severeLy compromise the privacy of our backyard. The height and density of the new buildings are LikeLy to overtook our property, which is a significant concern. Additionatty, the potential. for increased Lighting from the development coutcl further invade our privacy and diminish our comfort. Noise and Traffic Concerns: The proposal includes 73 parking spaces for 64 units, which seems insufficient given that many families may own nnukipievehioiea. Overfiovvparking onto Cora Drive, where street parking iaei/eady Limited, Could pose safety risks and further inconvenience residents. Increased traffic from the development is also Likely tolead tomore safety concerns and congestion inour area. Impact on Environment and Community: We are particularly concerned about the removal of mature trees that currently serve as a buffer from noise originating from the factory on Highland Road. The toss of these trees would not only increase noise Levels but also diminish the visual and environmental quality of the neighborhood. The current green space, which contributes to the area's charm, wilt be reptaced by buildings and a parking lot. Fencing and Buffering: To mitigate the impact on privacy and noise, we request the inclusion of adequate fencing, idealLy 8 feet tal.L. This measure is crucial for maintaining the quality of Life for current residents. Infrastructure and Services: The infrastructure was previousty deemed adequate for the proposed five houses, and we are unaware of any updates to accommodate the demands of 64 units. We are concerned about whether current services and infrastructure can support such a large-scale development. Financial Considerations: It is important to note that the city received $14 million from the province for new housing initiatives, with the program active for three years. We are concerned that financial. incentives may be inftuencingthe decision to approve this development without fully considering its impact on current residents and the neighborhood. We feet this devetopment witl. have a significant negative impact on the value of properties in the area. In conclusion, we betieve that the proposed development is incompatible with the character of our low-density neighborhood and will have considerable negative effects on our community. We urge you to reconsider the proposal and take these concerns into ocnount. Page 114 of 224 Thank you for your attention to this matter. Sincerely, David Thomas MaryJane Thomas Page 115 of 224 Eric Schneider From: Susan Benner Sent: Monday, September 16, 2024 8:34 AM To: Bil loannidis; Eric Schneider Subject: Notice of decision, 60 Trussler Road [Some people who received this message don't often get email from - earn why this is important at https:Haka.ms/LearnAboutSenderidentification ] Hello Bil and Eric. Thank you for the opportunity to get involved in the zoom discussion around the development at 60 Trussler Road. I would like to be notified of the council decision as offered in Step 4 of the planning process. Regards Susan Benner Sent from my iPad Page 116 of 224 Eric Schneider From: --- � Sent Friday, September 13,202412:61 PM To: Eric Schneider Subject: Trussler rd development You don't often get email from Hi Eric. I saw some of the meeting last night on this. Where artificial lighting is concerned, is it possible to add a request that the lights, in addition to full cut off directed down, that they at max are 3000k ( in line with city street lights) and preferably 2200k -2700k for best environmental and human health aspects. I'd also like to see, should this development move forward, that the parking lot lights be set on a dimmable schedule for overnight control, 11prn to 5am. In addition to the above I'd like to also see the use of shielding to prevent back and side light throw that may create light trespass problems for others. I believe you saw my reply to Bil as well? Shawn Nielsen Page 117 of 224 Eric Schneider Fromm: 6arahKnechte| - ~ Sent Friday, September 13L202411:S4AK4 To: Eric Schneider Subject: Trussler Rd. Housing Complex ,'I"' YOU don't often get email from ' �MILhIthis is important | sat in on the meeting last night and didn't hear an answer tothe sanitation question. How has that issued been resolved? I also heard the request of changing it to a 2 story town house with the message being they already reduced it. They reduced it because they don't have enough parking spaces to meet the bi-law, so they definitely didn't meet it with their first plan. Climate Change! It is all I hear about federally and world wide. "The ice caps are melting .... we need to reduce carbon footprints" and yet the enormous trees that have sat in the lot behind my house are all coming down? Have there been environmental considerations taken into account? Fumes from 63 cars starting that will go directly into the backyard of all the houses that live on Cora. I am opposed to this housing complex for all the reasons I've listed and the lack of privacy my family will now have because of a 3 story complex that looks directly into my yard. I didn't buy this house 20 years ago with the knowledge of the zoning laws being changed. That affects the value of my house, my privacy, my health and wellbeing. Will I be compensated for that? | should be! I am tired of hearing from the province that we have a housing crisis. We have a population crisis! SarahKnechte| Page 118 of 224 Eric Schneider From: Zabrina Wilson Sent: Thursday, September 12, 2024 8:08 PM To: Eric Schneider Subject: Re: 60 Trussler Rd [You don't often get email from . Learn why this is important at https:Haka.ms/LearnAboutSenderldentification ] Hi Eric You just said in the meeting that no environmental study needs to be done. You said to me that you do not believe any blanding's turtles are here. You didn't assure me of that. You said you would forward my request. In the meeting it sounds like you said nothing will be done. I'm pretty sure there has been no assessment of the area done. Therefore you cannot say that there are no turtles in the area. We have many ponds/swamps in this area. We have seen this turtle multiple times. I will bring this to the ministry of environment as well. They have this turtle listed as a protected animal. Thank you Zabrina Wilson Sent from my iPhone > On Sep 12, 2024, at 5:07 PM, Eric Schneider <Eric.Schneider@kitchener.ca> wrote: > Hi Zabrina, thank you for your email. > I do not believe any blandings turtles have been identified on the subject lands, but when they are, the city would require exclusionary fencing to keep them out of the construction activity throughout development. > I will forward your request to our Environmental Planning staff in regards to this matter. > Eric Schneider, MCIP, RPP > Senior Planner I Development and Housing Approvals Division I City of Kitchener > (519) 741-2200 ext 7843 1 TTY 1-866-969-9994 1 eric.schneider@kitchener.ca > -----Original Message----- • From: Zabrina Wilson > Sent: Thursday, September 12, 2024 4:47 PM > To: Bil loannidis <Bil.loannidis@kitchener.ca>; Eric Schneider <Eric.Schneider@kitchener.ca> > Subject: 60 Trussler Rd 1 Page 119 of 224 Eric Schneider From: janette graf-king Sent: Thursday, September 12, 2024 6:54 PM To: David Andrews Cc: Eric Schneider, biLioannidis@kitchener.ca Subject: Re: Comments on Proposed Stacked Townhouse Development Here are my questions for tonight in case I cant get into the meeting. To:Eric Schneider Thu 9/12/2024 6:51 PM 1. How are you going to address the extra traffic from 73 vehicles, the delivery vehicles for those units and the family and friends visitor parking? Where will they park and what happens to trussler Rd.? 2. How are you going to address the lack of water penetration into the ground when you paved and built over most of the 1.5 acre site? And what about the water protection that is supposed to be happening in this area with signs even posted for that? 3. Why are there no rights to the existing residence on Cora that back onto this site or the surrounding area to allow this type of overcrowding three stories high and building right to the edge of the property? 4. Why is the city allowing variances on the height and tot set back restrictions on top of the zone change? 5. What happens to public transit for these homes? Does this mean that on top of all the traffic deliveries and visitors we will be getting buses on Trussler? 6. Will the city be reducing all our tax dollars due to the devaluing of our of our homes? Which this will do? 7. Will the city be increasing the number of police and the presence in this area to accommodate the increase in crime but moreover the neighbourhood disputes that are going to start to happen? A great example is what happened in Stratford! 8. Will the city consider keeping the height at two stories reducing the number of units And building normal 2 story townhomes? Hence what we would have is less cars more green space, Neighbors less volume of people to fight with neighbors and would help in keeping the neighborhood a little more like it is now? 9. What and who is this developer that they would be able to purchase a property without proper zoning? Page 120 of 224 YO.Are there any city councilors, f8Dlik/D18r0herGo[friends that are part Ofthis deV8iOpDl8Dt7 11.Why does the city not send this developer down tDKitchener South area where there is tots and tots of lands that could be developed into a neighborhood that would be new and everybody would know what they're buying into? 12. Where is the green space and area for the kids and animals for this property? 13. How does the city think it's ()KtObuild right UptOthe sidewalk and have G2Ofoot wide driveway coming iDoff oft[U8SiHrwhen there's traffic coming off highland getting i0the Expressway? 14. Where is at( the snow going in the winter for the 73 vehicle parking Lot? 15. Why are our councillors and the mayor not protecting and supporting the residents of their city both none paying and tax paying tax dollars? Why is the developer rights supersede at[ of the residents iDthis whole CO[De[7 16. Does the city OfKitchener and the mayor think this i88smart move tUallow this tOhappen tD8beautiful existing neighborhood? 17. Does council and the mayor see Kitchener moving to be a beautiful town or being destroyed bvall this overcrowding in fitting? 18. My last question is does City Council know that Waterloo region is ranked the second highest crime [8t8 in [)Dt8[iO7 j8D8tte g[@f-king Respectfully, Janette Lynn Graf -King Sales Representative Re/Max Real Estate Centre (licensed since April 1987) Page 121 of 224 Eric Schneider From: K4.D.K4enchenton Sent: Thursday, September 12'2O244:48PM To: Eric Schneider Subject: Re: Proposed development at 60 Trussler Road You don't often get email from Learn why this My apologies, here isour letter again. Ma j&BryanK4enchenton September 12,ZO24 Mr. Eric Schneider, We just found out recently that a new stacked townhouse development is proposed for our neighbourhood. This iSOnback OfCora Drive, off TrusslerRoad inKitchener. VVemoved tothis neighbourhood about eight years ago. VVefound alocation that isquiet and has little traffic going through our neighbourhood. It's a quiet place with reasonable people density. This isour retirement home. VVemoved inknowing that there would b2nOmore new homes being built inour area that would change the dynamics ofour living condition. Now we're faced with the possibility ofour quiet neighbourhood being overpopulated k«the addition mf 64 dwelling units on such a small piece of property. If it was going to be several single -dwelling homes it would be much more in keeping with the neighbourhood and would not add significant population to our quiet community. Having been in the construction business myself, I am all for building more homes, but not at the expense of the neighbouring community. /tseems tODlethat "dOU3[S"are the main reason for this development and not taking into consideration how building a densely populated area will affect the existing neighbourhood. But | guess that iswhere you come in. You are not influenced b«adeveloper trying tonnakeaSrnuchnnOn2yaS he can on a piece of property. You are concerned about the big picture ofhow this will impact the neighbourhood around that development. Another concern isVValclauWoods, the beautiful, protected green space behind our homes. Quite anumber Ofneighbours already walk through there, often with dogs, and most care enough about the neighbourhood to clean up after their pets. But if many more dogs were added, lots more people, and a trail of food garbage, the space would not stay enjoyable for|ong.Af2vvyoungpeoplern22tUpinthereandth2ycangetrovVdy.|t would be the only place that the younger generation has to go to around here, so it could get intimidating for the rest ofuswho walk there regularly, ifmany more were added. We'd likely beforced tOstop using the trail. Page 122 of 224 We believe you will make the right decision and the best decision for our neighbourhood. And we believe the best decision is either to cancel this new d2ve/oprnent or scale it down to single-family homes, /'nn sure the developer will make a reasonable profit building single-family homes and it will be a win-win forall of us. Let's find a middle ground for all of us so that everyone is satisfied with the outcome Thank you for your consideration in this matter and we look forward to seeing you at the virtual Zoom meeting. Sincerely, Bryan and K4a jK4enchenton From: Eric Schneider <Ehc.6chneidar@kitchenecca> Sent: September 12,20Z49:44AM Tb:'M. D. Menchonton' Subject: RE: Proposed development inour neighbourhood I don't believe I received that from Bryan, can you resend possibly? Eric Sckncicler, MCK,QPP 8eniorPbuocr | Dur6oyzoco1and Hoomi Approvals Division / C�dvo[Kitc6cucr (519)741'2200cz17843 1 Tff1-066-969-9994 | From: K4.D.Menchentor Sent: Wednesday, September 4,ZO244:41PK4 To: Eric Schneider <Eric.Schneider@kitchener.ca> Subject: Proposed development inour neighbourhood You don't often get email frorr Learn why this isjn2porta rLt Hd/O Mr. Schneider, Earlier, my husband Bryan Menchenton sent you our feedback on the proposed development ofstacked townhouses inour area ofKitchener. I'm not certain ifhehad the correct address, This was for the property a1 60 Trussler Road in Kitchener. 0) Page 123 of 224 Thank you for considering our concerns. Marj Menchenton Page 124 of 224 Eric Schneider From: Zabrina Wilson Sent: Thursday, September 12, 2024 4:47 PM To: Bil loannidis; Eric Schneider Subject: 60 Trussler Rd [Some people who received this message don't often get email frorr i. Learn why this is important at https:Haka.ms/LearnAboutSenderldentification ] Hello I have just realized that my email is late. I apologize but still need to ask my question about the construction that might take place. I currently live at right on the corner of Cora and Trussler. Although I am completely against this construction, my question has to do with something else. How does the city plan to protect the Blanding's turtles that are in this area? I believe they are living at a pond down behind my house. I have encountered them a few times going across Trussler Rd directly in front of this vacant lot. They are an endangered species and must be protected!! With all this construction that could be happening as well as the added traffic, I fear that we will lose the small population that is living here. Looking forward to your response! Zabrina Wilson Sent from my iPhone Page 125 of 224 Eric Schneider From: David Andrews > Sent: Thursday, September 12, 2024 3:49 PM To: Eric Schneider Cc: Bil loannidis Subject: Re: Proposed Development- 60 Trussler Road [You don't often get email from i. Learn why this is important at https://aka.ms/LearnAboutSenderldentification ] Thank you Eric. I assume the capacity assessment is being based on theoretical pipe capacity not specific conditions in the subsystem. Regards, Dave. Sent from my iPhone > On Sep 12, 2024, at 3:39 PM, Eric Schneider <Eric.Schneider@kitchener.ca> wrote: > Hi David, > I believe Councillor loannidis has answered the first question. > In regards to the second question, the servicing capacity reports provided by the applicant are being reviewed currently by our Engineering and Stormwater Utilities Staff. They have confirmed that sanitary flow capacity is available, they are still reviewing the water flow. > Regards, > Eric Schneider, MCIP, RPP > Senior Planner I Development and Housing Approvals Division I City of Kitchener > (519) 741-2200 ext 7843 1 TTY 1-866-969-9994 1 eric.schneider@kitchener.ca > -----Original Message----- * From: David Andrews > Sent: Wednesday, September 11, 2024 11:03 AM > To: Eric Schneider <Eric.Schneider@kitchener.ca> > Cc: Bil loannidis <Bil.loannidis@kitchener.ca> > Subject: Proposed Development- 60 Trussler Road > [You don't often get email from Learn why this is important at https://aka.ms/LearnAboutSenderldentification ] 5 Page 126 of 224 > Hi Eric, > To ensure transparency and avoid misinformation, could you please confirm that the proponents f development do not include any City Staff, Elected Officials or their families. > or the proposed > Would you also be able to confirm whether City staff have reviewed and approved the servicin re proposed development based on current area infrastructure conditions. g quirements for the > Regards, > David Andrews > Sent from my iPhone Page 127 of 224 Eric Schneider From: STEVE RUDAK Sent: Thursday, September 12, 2024 1:48 PM To: Eric Schneider Subject: Neighbourhood Meeting Sept 12 Attachments: Neighbourhood Meet Questions for Sept 12 2024.docx YOU don't often get ernail frorn learn -w�h_jbj�i�t,Lrj t Hello Eric Here are the five items that we discussed "last week and then some additional questions. I hope you are able to address these during the neighbourhood meeting for a good understanding. Thank you, I Page 128 of 224 1. Sidewalk, Bike lane transportation and shopping Highland needs to be completed with sidewalk and a bike lane on at least on one (1) side. Until now there has been no need, however, this development and another on Highland, will have many residents utilizing this route and currently it is nothing less than dangerous! According to city planning sidewalk work is not part of the ten (10) year plan for sidewalks. Will the city build sidewalks and bike lanes on Highland now, to mirror that which was completed in 2023 on Highland from Ira Needles to Westheights? 2. PlayMround. What is in it for the children? What is their activity plan outside their homes? 3. Variance. - virtu, cne ciry ro a ree to allow build inI closer to current standards. What added value is therefor the city, to entertain a proposal for new residents to be pushed in closer to each other? Why does the city bring this item to its residents? is there no criteria to city planning that is important? 4. Storm system -- - •• �••= u.�u una aemana on the s stem will increase si ni "cc If there are sewer backup issues, the city will immediately point to climate change to relieve themselves of any responsibility of flooding due to overload of existing systems. .1C VVC1 uucKun nappened to lust allowed it to be built S. Parking. to enhancements. ane developer is mal interested in buying !E that would otherwise be Page 129 of 224 i ne aeveiopment needs 96 spaces minimurn just to rneet 2014, statistics for On Sept 10 at 6 pm, there were 121 cars parked on Cora and Roach, does not include cars in closed garages, a motorcycle, a troiler. On Sept 11 at 12 noon, there were 83 cars parked on Cora and Roach, does not include cars in closed garages. On Sept 12 at 1 pm, there were 89 cars parked on Cora and Roach, does not include cars in closed garages. The developer should observe demographic and other relevant statistics and incorporate in its proposal to help expedite approvals. EMMM��M 6. What is the square footage of the units and number of bedrooms? 7. Is garbage collection/removal to be on city property or on the development property? 8. Will the parking be ready for electric charging? 9. What is in it for the existing residents? Please send notice of decision to me. Thank you, Page 130 of 224 Is it a requirement far the developer to ensure there are enough spaces far the quantity of units? Is it wise for a developer to look at statistics and to propose build adequate to statistics that have the potential to impact development decisions? The area between Ira Needles and West Heights is where a person was found deceased from a hit and run incident approximately 4 years ago? There were no sidewalks but there was construction of the townhouses and the large apartment which was build WAY TOO CLOSE TO THE ROUNDABOUT! The roundabout: at Highland and Ira Needles is an aggressive traffic circle, for driving let alone for pedestrian and bike traffic. The turn in to the shoppers drug also and aggressive place M Zoning Change Page 131 of 224 Eric Schiieider Sent: Wednesday, September 11'2O246:28Pk4 To: Bi| |oennidis Cc Berry Vrbanmvic;Anita Zep|etan[sont Eric Schneider Subject: Re: 60 Trussler townhouse development Some people who received thbmeaagedon't often get email from shawnknieben@gmaiimm. Thanks 8ii Is this development something that could be stopped or are we in a situation do you feel of only being able to scale it back? It doesn't fit into the neighborhood. it's overly aggressive and jammed into a small narrow piece of land, sandwiched between a factor parking lot and other property owners backyards. Can the existing infrastructure really handle this development? It's a decades old neighborhood with decades old There's also many more concerns by people invested in our neighborhood. Shawn Nielsen OnSep 112024 ot6:O9p.m,Bi||oannidis wrote: HiSh3wD, Thankyou foryour email. To answeryour question I am not a fan of the development. 8il /VaDnicliS City OfKitchener Councillor Ward 7 Corporate Contact Centre 519-741-2345 inf0@Kitchener.Ca From: Shawn Nielsen Sent: Wednesday, September Il,ZuZ4/:ZUAM To: 8i||oonnidis<BiUoonnidis@ki1chenerza>; Berry Vrbanmvic<berryxrbanovic@ki1chener.oa> Some people who received this message don't often get email from LL2earn wh �Mis is Page 132 of 224 Bil - With the public meeting for this set for tomorrow I am expecting a reply to my question posed to you two days ago; which is snore than enough time for you to reply. As councilor for my ward 7, please have the courtesy to answer the question. -------- Forwarded Message -------- Subject:60 Trussler townhouse development Date:Mon, 9 Sep 2024 12:37:31-0400 Frorn:Shawn Nielsen To:bil.ioannidis@jLitchener.ca <pii.ioanrUjgjs c��citchener.ca> Bil - are you for or against this overly aggressive townhouse development? It would have a negative effect on my neighbourhood and property. Page 133 of 224 Eric Schneider ffm From Violet Balzer Sent Wednesday, September 11,2O245:31 PM /o: Eric Schneider Subject: Re: Opposition 10Development at6OTnuss|erRoad, Kitchener You don't often get email from ' [)ea[ E['C/ Thanks for acknowledging my letter of opposition to 60 Trussler Ro,;A Is it still possible for me to be a delegate at the meeting tomorrow? I jusi found out that this option is available. Sorry for the late request. On Tuesday, September 10, 2024 at '10:43:01 a.rn. EDT, Eric Schneider <eric.schneider@kitchener.ca> wrote: Thanks for providing comments for this development application. | can confirm your comments have been received and will be included in the public record, | understand you have concerns about the proposed intensification of this site, as it relates to compatibility, height, green space, and traffic, Have You had 8chance ioreview the Studies and repo�sthat were provided bythe applicant? They can U8accessed atkitchener,oe/p|onningapp|ioations Third Party Appeals (appeals from residents) are nolonger allowed inOntario after the provincial government passed Bill 185onJune Gofthis year. Please let meknow ifyou Would like hodiscusothe application over the phone before the neighbourhood meetingon Thursday. My phone number iolisted below. 10 Page 134 of 224 Eric Schneider, MCIP, RPP Senior- Planner I Development and Housing Approvals Division I City of Kitchener (519) 741-2200 ext 7843 1 TTY 1-866-969-9994 1 eric.schneidpr �ic;pier.c, From: Violet Balzer, Sent: Wednesday, August 28, 2024 10:22 AM To: Eric Schneider <Eric. Schneider@kitchener.ca> Cc: bil.loannidis@kitcherier.ca Subject: Opposition to Development at 60 Trussler Road, Kitchener You don't often get email frot-n earr7 why this is im ortant Good Day Eric, We live on Trussler Road and wish to express our STRONG opposition to the proposed development at 60 Trussler Road. Originally, this property was a single home lot, which was sold and a reasonable proposa was planned to subdivide it into 5 executive lots. [--lowever, the current proposal for 64 dwelling units wit[ --i 73 parking spaces is excessive and incompatible with our neighborhood. A development of that size was never planned for this area and approval of such overcrowding on this lot would be negligent abuse of maintaining the faith in our Mayor and Councilors to consider why Our bylaws have been written and passed as they currently stand. We request that the City halt this application and restrict any future application to remain within all current bylaws / easements and consider the existing Communities where such applications are entertained Bylaw enforcements are for everyone and cannot be changed to pad the pockets of developers We are shocked that this proposal was allowed to get this far in the planning stages While we understand some development is necessary, it should enhance, not overwhelm, the area. We firmly oppose increasing the building height to 11.6 meters arid urge that any new structure be restricted to 2 stories. Additionally, reducing the side yard setbacks and reducing / removing or turning green space into parking lots is unacceptable. Our community needs areas for recreation, tranquility, and a sense of home. 11 Page 135 of 224 Furthermore, Trussler Road already faces traffic issues, and adding more density without addressing these problems needs to be addressed. We were promised traffic calming measures this year, and this proposal seems to disregard that commitment. Also, to date, no traffic calming measures have been put in place. If you have any further information regarding this application or how to best understand our appeal rights we would like to receive it prior to the ZOOM meeting so that we are prepared. Thank you for considering our concerns. Best regards, Violet & David Balzer 12 Page 136 of 224 Eric Schneider From: ' Mary Bland Sent: VVednesday, September11,202412:35PM To: Eric Schneider; Bi| |oennidis Subject: Re: Property development TrUssler Road Kitchener. You don't often get email hom . Good Afternoon, Eric &Bill, Thank you so much for your email, we appreciate the clarification on the zoning application. We also appreciate all the detailed information on how the new development process works that Bill kindly sent in an earlier email, Unfortunately, we cannot attend the meeting due to a prior engagement but thank you for recording our concerns. After reading Bill's email we have a clearer understanding of the obstacles that you face with the OLT and appreciate the constant battles you must face with the developers. While the OLT are legally doing their job it certainly doesn't feel like they ethically look at the whole picture. It is easy for people to constantly approve developments when it doesn't personally impact them. Thank you for trying to change this application and if you can get the applicant to listen to our concerns and find a solution that works for everyone that would be great. Warmest regards, Phil and Mary Bland Get Outlook for iOS From: Eric Schneider <Ehc.Sohneider@khzhener.ca> SentTuesday,September 1O,Z02412:1SPIM To: Mary Bland i||oannidis<BiUoannidis@kitchener.ra> Subject: RE: Property development Truss|erRoad Kitchener. Hi Mary, Thanks for providing comments for this development application. | can confirm your comments have been received and will beincluded inthe public record. The application to build 5 detached homes on the site was a "Vacant Land Condominium". That proposal did not require a Zoning By-law Amendment, like this application, as the use of detached homes is currently permitted under the RES -1 zone. This application is for Zoning By-law Amendment, which is a different type of development application. | understand you have concerns related to noise, traffic, parking, and impact to amenities. Let me know if you would like to discuss further, my phone number is listed below. We are also hosting an online Zoom meeting on Thursday if you wish toattend. 13 Page 137 of 224 Eric Schn«idec31LIP, RPP SooboP6uoo/ | Housingy AnocovalsDivisicx / Cbvn[Kic|euc, From: Mary Bland > Sent: Wednesday, September 4,2O249:3GAK4 To: Eric Schneider <Eric.Schneider@kitchenerza>;8U|mannidis<8ii|oannidis@kitchenerca> Subject: Property development Truss|erRoad Kitchener. Some people who received thbmessagedon'tnfte get email from i. Learn Good Morning Councilor, /O8DDidi8and Mr. Schneider / hope this eUl8iifinds you well. /@rDwriting t0express OU[CODCeOlGabOUt@pn]pOGeddeVek}p[D8UtDDt/CefD[04St8CkedUDit88tth8 top OfT[UsSie[road iOKitchener. The site was once 8single-family home, the land was sold and @proposed dHVetOpDl8DtOf5(UXUry bungatows was then posted on the tand which was a good fit for the community. Since then, we have now gone to the 64 town houses. We are not councitors or planners so have no concept of [low the zoning taws work but how can something be rezoned to a completely different project. This is a small. low-density community and to build 64 town houses on this location will impact this smatt community immensely. This development wiR overtook neighbour's properties, reducing the privacy for the famities who spend time with their Young children in a quiet environment. The potential noise tevels are a serious concern for all. the properties that VViKback onto the proposed development. Also, with this development comes tl"ie issue of traffic which as I am sure you are both aware is major problem everywhere. With this new residence comes aDestimated 64-128cars which then causes more high-Vo[UDO8traffic, concerns for road safety, increased noise. VV/Kthe extra cars OrVi8i1orSpark on the small. number Ofstreets VV8have where the local. children play? We could talk about the impact on the schoots and area amenities as wett as many other issues but I am sure you are futty aware of these potential. probtems. Communities, friends and families tatk and the new developments are a hot topic of conversation which |smore negative than positive. The general consensus i8that this 8Dla/iiS@complete waste 0ftime 8S the public are not being heard. We hope to prove them wrong and start to have a little faith in the City of Kitchener decision Dl8k8[G. To conclude we are strongly opposing this development and hope that you can find a different atternative tOthe town houses. Best Regards 14 Page 138 of 224 Phil & Mary Bland 15 Page 139 of 224 Eric Schneider You don't often get email hnm Eric, DARRENAU Tuesday, September 1O'2024537PK4 Eric Schneider Re: 6OTruss|erroad �i. I have looked through what you have here and obviously I am not urban planner or am I am engineer that would be able to contest anything I see. So yes, I would expect you would have a plan but if you know the area this is proposed in you would see that the space is not that available for more lanes ect? Now are You also going let everyone know that the towers have also been approved by the land tribunal on highland closest to Trussler? For the life ofnne|cannot fathom how i1isall going towork especially since vveborder Wilmot township, Way to many people crammed into the corner of Kitchener ..... Sent from Outlook for Android From: Eric Schneider <Ehc.Schneider@kitchenecca> Sent: Tuesday, September 10,2OZ41O:51:53AM Tb:'DARRENAL|' Cc: Bi| |oannidis<BiUoannidis@khzhenecca> Subject: RE: 60 Trussler road Hi Darren, Thanks for providing comments for this development application. | can confirm your comments have been received and will beincluded inthe public record. In regards to current infrastructure, have you had a chance to review the studies and reports that were provided by the applicant? They can be accessed at I<itchener.ca/planningapplications . There are civil engineering plans and studies that speak to the projected and available servicing capacities for sanitary servicing, water flow, and storm servicing. There is also a Transportation Impact Study that speaks to the current and projected traffic. If you would like to discuss further, please give me a call at my extension listed below. Eric Schneider, MUP, RPP S000rPlaunc, | Dcvnloponcu1and lousing 8nocovalsDivisioo | Chyo[Kbchrnor (f19)741-22O0ext 7046 1 ]l -Y1 -d66-969-9994 1 0 0 0 g", 0 800 " Ilizow From: DARREN4L|, Sent: Saturday, August 31, 2024 11:b2 AM 16 Page 140 of 224 To: Eric Schneider <EhcSchneider@khzhenecco> Subject: 60 "Frussler road Some people who received this message don't often get email from Gentlemen, VVeare residents of this small three street community and have been told of a proposal to double our community with stacked housing on Trussler road. I would like it to be know that we whole heartedly disagree with the size of this proposed development. With the incredible building going on at the corners of Ira needles Blvd and Highland Road it has become increasingly evident that the current infrastructure can't handle even the amount of people and vehicles that are now living in those new buildings not to mention the eventual completion of even more currently under construction now. If you agree to the number of units that are proposed you will only be adding to a litany of problems with current congestion that has already been created by your past approvals. Gentlemen, simply put itistoo much .... too fast with the current infrastructure not able 10handle the number of residents you are being asked toallow into that small area. Please think this through and I welcome you to come out to the area and look at this proposed site and the impact it will also have onthe home owners onCora dr. Thanks for listening, Darren Ali Sent from Outlook for Android 17 Page 141 of 224 Eric Schneider You don't often get emai|hvn-i` |have tons' |1was already zezonedto5lots why Rezoning? Why are they allowed to increase height of building that effects all the neighboring properties? Why dmall the residents in this area have no say? How can this happen in a quiet alcove when they have already redeveloped dozens and dozens of units on Highland where they are prepared for the increased traffic? Why does our zoning not matter any more? How can they destroy our city with over developing existing residential neighborhoods that are not zoned for this type of housing? We are not happy in this neighborhood as it has already been overdeveloped around us and now your destroying all the neighborhoods. Do we riot have some rights as well???? 'This iscraziness!!!!! On Sept 10, 2024 12:01 p.m., Eric Schneider <Eric.Schneider@kitchener,ca> wrote: Hi Janette, thanks for calling me last week. Let me know if you have any other questions, Eric ScIiiieider, MCIP, RPP Suzio^Iqaou*z | 1-lotising i AnnoomJxDidsioo | Citro[Kbc6cou, (5 19) 741-2200 ext 7843 1 '1 FY 1-866-969--9994 1 crJc.sc1ineider"L(-hener.ca Frnnn:janette graf king Sent: Tuesday, September 3,20243:41Pk4 To: Eric Schneider <Eric.Schneider@ki1chenerza> Subject: i am opposed to the zone change for 60 Trussler road, kitchener -- your info is also misleading 18 Page 142 of 224 You don't often get email frorn Learn by this is f ortmmlijt Your information on the internet is incorrect on top off all the other things about this rezoning. Please contact me regarding this at The City of Kitchener has received an application for a vacant land condominium consisting of 5 residential units, and common element areas. An internal drive aisle, walkway, and landscaped areas will make up the common elements. In keeping with physical distancing measures recommended by Public Health due to COVID-1 9, an electronic public meeting will be held by the Planning & Strategic Initiatives Committee, a Commit -tee of Council which deals with planning matters, on: Monday, September 13, 2021 at 7:00 p.m. (live -stream video available at kitchen er. ca/watch now) If you wish to make written and/or verbal comments either in support of, or in opposition to, the above noted proposal you may register as a delegation at kitchener.ca/delegations or by contacting Legislated Services at 519-741-2200 ext. 2203 by no later than 4:00 p.m. on September 13, 2021. A confirmation email and instructions for participating in the meeting electronically with be provided once your registration is received. If a person or public body would otherwise have an ability to appeal the decision of the City of Kitchener to the Local Planning Appeal Tribunal, but the person or public body does not make oral submissions at a public meeting or make written submissions to the City of Kitchener prior to approval/refusal of this proposal, the person or public body is not entitled to appeal the decision. ADDITIONAL INFORMATION is available by contacting the staff person noted below or by viewing the report contained in the meeting agenda (posted 10 days before the meeting at www....11.(I.i.1ch.e.n..e..r...ca -- click on the date in the Calendar of Events and select the appropriate committee). Eric Schneider, Planner- 519-741-2200 x7843 (TTY: 1-866-969-9994); er..i....c...Isl-chn..e-i.dr�<.i.."t.ch...e...n."le'r,,."Ic-la —0-4,– – – RespeCtfUlly, Janette Lynn Graf -King Sales Representative Re/Max Real Estate Centre (licensed since April 1987) 19 Page 143 of 224 Member of Life Time Achievement Club Hall of Fame Club Platinum Club We are never to busy for your referrals which are greatly appreciated! 20 Page 144 of 224 Eric Schneider Frorr To: You don't often get email from Thank you Eric, UseThompson Tuesday, September 1[\2O2411/RAK4 Eric Schneider 8i| |oannidis Re: Proposed Development at 60 I-russler Road I appreciate your confirmation, and the answers to some of my questions. I have no further questions at this time. I will be attending the call on Thursday, but am not optimistic that we have much hope in fighting this development, asproposed. —Usa On Tuesday, September 10, 2024 at 11:20:53 a.m. EDT, Eric Schneider <eric.sch�ieider@l<itc�iener.ca> wrote: Hi Lisa, 'Thanks for providing comments for this development application. | can confirm Your comments have been received and will be included in the public record. | understand you have concerns with the proposed development, as laid out in your To answer your question about Row Houses, no, the applicant did not consider this building typology when they Submitted plans to the City for review. Row houses and stacked hzwnhouoea are both Linder the RES -5 zone eothere would be no difference in zone category change request, 3 storeys is the maximum height in all Low Rise zones in the city (RES -1 to RES -5). Therefore, 3 storeys is already permitted on the lands if they were detached dwellings, like the Vacant Land Condo that was approved in 2021 for 5 detached homes, Let me know if You would like to discuss further on the phone. 21 Page 145 of 224 Eric Schneider, M011, RPP Senior Planner | Development and Housing Approvals Division | (1iv of Kitchener (519) 741-2200 ext 7843 1 TTY 1-866-969-9994 1 eric.schneider()kitche From: Lisa Thompson ce� Sent: Tuesday, September 3.2U241O-15AM To: Eric Schneider <Ehc. Schneiden@kitchener.oa> Cc: Bi||oannidie<BiUoonnidio@kih:hener.c@> Subject: Proposed Development at 60 TrUssler Road You don't often get cmai|from __ Good morning Eric, Please see the attached document pertaining to the proposed development at 60 TrUssler Road. I will be participating on the September 12th Zoom Meeting. Please note that I am requesting a notice of decision. Lisa Thompson 22 Page 146 of 224 Eric Schneider Fruun: Mary Bland Sent Monday, September 9, 2024 10:65 AM To: Bi||oannidis;Eric Schneider Cc: Anita Zap|etanCsond Subject: Re: Property development Trussler Road Kitchener. Sorne people who received this message don't often get ernail frorn rnbland@uwaterloo.ca. Good Morning Bill, Thank you so much for responding to my email, we really do appreciate it. The virtual meeting is on the 12th which unfortunately we are unable to attend which is why I emailed you and Mr Schneider, I will wait until we hear about the outcome of the rneeting before pursuing this further. I am hopeful that the meeting will bring something positive for our small Community. Warmest Regards Phil & Mary Bland Get Outlook for iOS Sent: Saturday, Geptember7,2O241O:4B:52AK4 To: Mary Bland ^ ; Eric Schneider <Eric.Schneider@kitchenerza> Cc: Anita Zop|etanCsonb<4nita.Zap|etan[smn1i@kiLchenerza> Subject: Re: Property development Truss|erRoad Kitchener. Good day Mary and Phil, Thank you for your ernail and valid concerns. I would be more than happy to discuss Your concerns 519-590-5398. 8i| |oannidis Councillor Ward 7 City of Kitchener Sent: Wednesday, Sep1ember4,2O249:l5:O6am. To: Eric Schneider <Eric.Schneider@kitchenerza»;8i||oannidis<BiUoannidis@kitchenerzax Subject: Property development Truss|erRoad Kitchener. Somepeople who received this message don't often get email from .Learn ALhAthis Good Morning Councilor, |08UUid|Sand Mr. Schneider 23 Page 147 of 224 I hope this email finds you well. I am writing to express our concerns about a proposed development notice for 64 stacked units at the top of Trussler road in Kitchener. The site was once a single-family home, the land was sold and a proposed development of 5 luxury bungalows was then posted on the land which was a good fit for the community. Since then, we have now gone to the 64 town houses. We are not councilors or planners so have no concept of how the zoning laws work but how can something be rezoned to a completely different project. This is a small low-density community and to build 64 town houses on this location will impact this small community immensely. This development will overlook neighbour's properties, reducing the privacy for the families who spend time with theiryoung children in a quiet environment. The potential noise levels are a serious concern for all the properties that will back onto the proposed development. Also, with this development comes the issue of traffic which as I am sure you are both aware is major problem everywhere. With this new residence comes an estimated 64 -128 cars which then causes more high-volume traffic, concerns for road safety, increased noise. Will the extra cars or visitors park on the small number of streets we have where the local children play? We could talk about the impact on the schools and area amenities as well as many other issues but I am sure you are fully aware of these potential problems. Communities, friends and families talk and the new developments are a hot topic of conversation which is more negative than positive. The general consensus is that this email is a complete waste of time as the public are not being heard. We hope to prove them wrong and start to have a little faith in the City of Kitchener decision makers. To conclude we are strongly opposing this development and hope that you can find a different alternative to the town houses. Best Regards Phil & Mary Bland 24 Page 148 of 224 Eric Schneider From: Trish Royle ' Sent: Thursday, Septembe/5, 2U/4rw4 To: Eric Schneider You don't often get email from Learn why thj�� Dear Eric, | feel that this townhouse complex that is possibly going to be built on Truss|er is a horrible idea. It will increase traffic in the area. There will not be enough parking and I can see visitors to the townhouse complex using Cora to park, not leaving enough parking for visitors on Cora. The backyard privacy for the houses on Cora wil be non existent and it will lower the value of their homes. Do not have enough schools in the area and kids are getting bused already. No infrastructure to support area, and the sewer and storm drains are older and maybe more cost to the taxpayers. Why would you want to build a townhouse complex beside a factory. Stop ruining our city 25 Page 149 of 224 Eric Schneider MEMMEMOMMMUMEMMEMMMMANOMM Fronn: June Gemmell ^ Sent: Thursday, September 5, 2024 6:15 PM To: Eric Schneide�Bi| |nannidb Subject: 60 Trussler Road - Proposed Development Some people who received this message don't often get email fron Dear Sirs, This is in response to notice of the proposed development above. We reside at 30 Cora Drive, our property backing onto this proposed development. Below is a list of our grave concerns for ourselves and our entire neighborhood ofsingle family dwellings: 1. Row of pine trees along fenceline must remain for privacy, communal lighting and sun blockage. l In total disagreement with proposed increased building height. These units would be towering above homes and backyards down entire Cora Drive. 3. Proposed 64 dwelling units with only 73 parking spaces is unrealistic, considering most households own at least vehicles. Concern is parking will dramatically increase along Cora Drive and Trussler Road in the spring/summer months. And where will additional/overload parking beprovided inwinter? 4. Communal lighting and noise disruption created by 64 families in an otherwise quiet, dark and peaceful environment inour backyards, istotally objectionable, Please know that we are only adamantly opposed to this type of development, narnely 3 storey stacked townhouses, in this neighborhood. We chose yo purchase and moved to 30 Cora Drive frorn Muskoka 8 years ago, and have thoroughly enjoyed the shade, peaceful surroundings, great neighbours, quiet and darkness of this location. Thank you for your time and consideration. Regards, June 6\David GemmeU 26 Page 150 of 224 Eric Schneider WOMMEaffm Fron} Patricia King -Edge ' I , Sent: Thursday, September 5,2O244:52PK4 To: 8i| |oannidis; Eric Schneider Subject: 60 Trussler Rd Townhornes NOT OK Some people who received this message don't often get email fror ` ToWhom |1May Concern, We as a community are disheartened to learn of the planned construction of 64 unit stacked townhomes at 60 Trussler Rd. It was originally laid out to be 5 executive homes which aligned with the surrounding homes arid style of neighbourhood. This new plan of stacked townhomes does not fit this neighborhood and brings many concerns to the table. Not to mention how fishy this whole situation is. The property sold for nearly 1.3 million in 2020 as a single family home with a shop and -then sold for two and a half times more at 3.3 million only a Couple years later for a vacant lot without any zoning changes! Seems like somebody has a backdoor plan they knew would be approved. Everything about this situation is wrong. This high density living does not fit with alow density community ThisisgoingtnneQaiive|yimpactthevo|ueof surrounding homes. I myself am a Real Estate Agent and I live on Walclau Cres. We have recently had 2 new build constructions each worth, in my opinion 2 million dollars. Other homes on Walclau and in the surrounding area are making improvements and increasing their value including my own home. When we all bought here, the surrounding streets and community were taken into deep consideration. This is a highly sought after neighbourhood. These tovvnhonneswill affect the value ofour homes significantly. In order for this proposed plan to move for -ward a zoning change needs to take place along with variances. These changes are going to affect many properties in the future which will likely affect the value of the surrounding homes yet again. When this neighbourhood was planned arid developed these intentions were not part of it and it should not be considered today. These townhomes are going to increase the density of this neighbourhood significantly. We have had several multi story buildings developed at the corner ofIra Needles and Highland, along with stacked townhomesand multi units being developed along Highland Rd. Truss|erRdand 8|eamshas 2very large new subdivisions underway. There is now a newly accepted subdivision with a planned 262 to 410 units being built at Trussler and Bleams. There is pending land on Highland near Glasgow awaiting some type of development as far as we understand as well. With all these new residents comes the need for space, amenities, services, schools, dmctunms, places for kids and families to walk and play, transportation options and/or parking availability. Our infrastructure in this area is not near ready to take on this many new occupants. This will significantly impede the already existing residents and their families. From what is already developed, we have more theft, trespassing, security problems and parking issues. | can't imagine how terribly worse these proposed 64 units will only add to these concerns. The loss of our green spaces and areas for families to just get outside and exist in the elementsisnext 0oeliminated. My neighbours and I are constantly catching people walking their dogs and dumping garbage on the small bit of surrounding farmland. My family owns acreage on Trussler Rd including a forested area. We are daily asking people to leave the property as they are trespassing. They think it is a public area to walk dogs and play with their kids. When we planted roots here we were surrounded by fields. Although we understand development and change is going to happen, this amount and this fast without the proper space and infrastructure backing it is just beyond frustrating. This gorgeous, safe and well cared for City mfKitchener is rapidly turning into something worse than Tor -onto. Iffil Page 151 of 224 I RAF FICM Let's address one of the biggest issues that is in this city, TRAFFIC. With the traffic that the Ira Needles amenities bring in, the newly developed subdivisions and units along Ira Needles, the ample people that flow in for Costco, this area of town is going to be impossible! So much traffic flows in from the highway and up Trussler to Snyder's Rd from people out of town attending the Golden Triangle Sikh Association on Snyder's Rd. We have road safety and speed concerns as it is not being addressed on Trussler from them coming and going. Now we are going to add more people and more traffic and we can't even address and fix the current traffic and speed issues at hand. We have also addressed the same concerns for Waldau Cres and Chris Wilkinson, our Counsellor has done absolutely nothing to address this. All we asked for is a 30 km/h speed sign as suggested from an OPP and we can't even get that in place. Our children's safety is at risk on these streets. We have had countless encounters of the kids almost getting hit by a car while getting on and off the bus on Trussler Rd. Yet nobody wants to help address these safety concerns and all that seems to happen is the problem compiles. We can not turn left going North on Trussler Rd. When we come home from the arena in New Hamburg, we have to get off at Petersburg and come home on Snyder's Rd because it is impossible to turn left off the highway. Many changes are needed before any more consideration is given to making this a more high density area. So many other changes need to currently be made in order to keep up with the already underway development of the area. Our schools, doctors, stores and streets are bursting at the seams. We need more road safety implemented, more green space for communities, better road structure and traffic development. PLEASE for the well being and safety of our families do not accept these proposed 64 units to be added at 60 Trussler Rd. We as a community, as parents and residents ask you to consider our well being and safety ahead of someone's pocketbook. Sincerely, Patricia King -Edge Q Page 152 of 224 Eric Schneider Sent: Thursday, September 5,2O243:Z5PK4 To: Eric Schneider Cc Bi| |manniclis Subject: RE: 60 Trussler Road zoning exemption Hello Eric, | did not receive a reply to my email below, but reply to this proposed development are to be submitted bySeptember 5 1 do not understand what is permitted, what this developer is asking for in increased building height and decreased side yard setback. Our neighbourhood also did not receive much notice for such a large project proposal on a small building lot. Below are my comments and additional questions with the proposed 64 units on 60 Trussler Drive. This property was previously a single residence with a shop and a fruit orchard. After sale, the residence and shop were torn down, and |O0kS like some trees removed, and then a real estate listing was for 5Vr6deluxe condos. If developed in similar lot widths tn [Ora Drive there would be 11 single residences. The property requires an 3Cc8Ss road, So even 11 single residences would be smaller and/or closer than neighbouring residences. No matter how nnuch density increases, developers want more. This zoning request is for 64 units that will tower over existing residences, and build on0/pave over almost every inch Ofthe property. The sketch shows two storey building, the description says 3 storey, but the concept drawing seems to have 4 storeys. The concept drawing does not show how these units would fit, how a road access would take up much of the property, and since I don't see any trees I assume the remaining trees will be removed. The information does not say ifthese will b2condos orrental properties. Regardless, 73 parking spaces would not besufficient resulting inparking overflowing tDneighbouring streets. Parking Onthe end ofRauch Court (two storey town houses) is not sufficient and parked vehicles are around the keyhole, and upand down the street. It also does not say if these are surface parking or will be built below ground. Below ground would add additional issues ofconstruction onneighbours. Recent headlines have shown people don't want shoe -box sized condos. People need places to raise a family. VVeneed topromote decentralization not densific3tiOn. A few of the issues a property with this many units are listed below High density property beside 8 |ovv density street will reduce values of existing residences. Three (or four) story buildings will tower over existing neighbours and reduce quality ofproperty enjoyment. Removal of green space and trees will increase rainfall going to storm sewers. We have been told for quite a few years to install rain barrels, and make changes to decrease rainfall going into sewers. Why permit this ifour sewers can't handle existing rains? 29 Page 153 of 224 LCILK UI JUIIIUIUIII 11111dJU ULLUIC, t Jbptel.ldIIY WIIUIILL) IIIUIIICU WILII Lne IIUrnUer UI new large dparUnenCS at Ira Needles and Highland, and along Highland. This includes streets, schools, and utilities. The water pressure to my residence has already decreased over the last few years. Schools are over crowded already. Traffic, speeding traffic and traffic noise is already increasing. Zoning exemptions over and above the already increased density changes should not be permitted. We should not all lose what we love about our homes and neighbourhood. What is lost can never be restored. We should be able to have pride in our homes, our neighbourhoods, our cities, and our country. Canadian pride, mental health, friendliness are all suffering. We need more homes but not at the expense of all that is great about our neighbourhoods and country. Thanks Lynn Johnson c.c. Bil loannidis From: > Sent: September 1, 2024 2:39 PM To: 'eric.schneider@kitchener.ca' <eric.schneider@kitchener.ca> Cc: 'bilioannidis@kitchener.ca' <bilioannidis@kitchener.ca> Subject: 60 Trussler Road zoning exemption Hello Eric, I live on Cora Drive and am concerned about the request for zoning height change and decreased side yard setback. The height exemption request is 11.6 metres, which to me is 38 feet higher. Google tells me the average height of a storey in an apartment is 10 feet. Does the requested exemption equate to one? two? three? additional stories on the stacked units? The card I received says the concept is for 3 buildings of 3 storeys each, yet picture show 2 storeys. How tall would these proposed stacked townhouses be? How much is the decreased year setback that has been requested? How many units would be permitted with no zoning exemption? Thanks Lynn c.c. Bil loannidis, ward 7 councillor 30 Page 154 of 224 Eric Schneider From: Darlene Royle ` Sent: Thursday, September 5,ZO242:2ZPK4 To: Eric Schneider Subject: Stop the Tnuss|erRoad townhouses [You don't often get ennai|from . Learn why this isimportant at This Would negatively impact our neighborhood with more traffic, overflow parking or) our streets,backyard privacy, and not enough room inour schools. We have a very small subdivision for such a large townhouse complex in a very small area! Thank you `~'Ca1pneRoyle Sent from my iPhone Sent from my iPhone 31 Page 155 of 224 From: Dana B` . I � Sent: Thursday, September 5,2O241:4OPM To: Bi| |oannidis; Eric Schneider Subject: 68Truss|erRoad Development Feedback Attachments: KitchenerDeve|opments4df I just wanted to send you my thoughts on the 60 Trussler Road development that's proposed. I live on Cora Drive. I'm 26 years old, and have been here my whole life. Cora Drive is where my childhood home is. I'm sure you've already gotten many other e-mails with concerns regarding privacy for backyards on Cora, light pollution (parking lot lights), noise pollution, lack of parking (will overflow park on Cora?), and so on. I second all of that. You can assume I echo most of the concerns coming from others in ffie area. I wanted to draw your attention to an idea that has a bit of a narrative. I've attached a PDF with my thoughts on the general area, and at the end I tie it all back together to the 60 Trussler Road development. I hope you can take the time to read through it. I used PDF as I had a lot of images I wanted to refer to. I also want to make clear that I understand that you two are not the ones proposing this development. I'm not upset with you, and I respect the hard work you do for the community. I'm just frustrated at the way our city is being developed, with a sharp increase in housing density that does not consider access to greenspace, and the negative impact on surrounding already established neighbourhoods. I also know that my comments might be a bit of screaming into the void since even if the city of Kitchener says no to certain aspects of the development, the Ontario Land Tribunal (OLT) can just overrule it. I know that the Region of Waterloo has a "Building Better Futures Initiative" to build 2,500 affordable homes before the end of 2025, so that this project will probably go ahead no matter what. As much as this development upsets me, I'm at least glad it's not 16 storey condos, because I could legitimately see that getting approved with the way our region is rapidly expanding. So, we can't say let there be no development at 60 Trussler Road whatsoever. I understand that something needs to and will be built there. Something that would make me, and I'm sure a lot of th people in the surrounding area more comfortable, is if they were 2 storeys instead of 3. This would minimize sightlines of seeing the buildings themselves, as well as keep the backyards on Cora Dri 11 and Rauch Court a little more private. It would also keep it more in line with the surrounding single family homes not going higher than 2 storeys. Thank you for taking the time to read through what I have to say. I know this project has probably created some headaches for you as well. 10M Dana Burrell Interior Designer BID I NCIDQ I ARIDO 33 Page 157 of 224 ,It C14 C14 4- 0 00 U') Tl - a) 0) ca a- WIN Vy 0 � u 0 tLr 0 0 O 0 v CZ m 4— res va 0 4— (1) It C14 N 4— O 0) T— O 0) ca a— V) -0 C: 0 .— Q) Lo Ln 0 0 ruo 4- E v) 41 Ln 0 0 Q) CSt 0 0O qj 0 0 CZ -s— o -y- 4- 4- C 4-1 ctz 0 urr, i>> 4U- 0)its 4- > >,rZ V CD Q) I— k'O - 0 0 -T 0 4- CZ Ln 4-0 > rr) U CU > cn > W (u cn C7 Q) E o 0 L- 0- " ,0 Q) E w Q) Ln L- CD n (",j Ln 0- -0 4- 4-1 Q) Q) U > U) 4 -n Q) L E C . �-n 0 u yr Q) (D CD 4- 4- 4-14� n I M '4- 4- 0' 4-14- Q) ?> o 0 Q) " 0 0 0 0-0 testi - 4- LA L - -0 0 0' 0 -0 0 14- :3 0 0 0 > O :3 o coW as w u 4- - 1 0 M 0 CD - 0 0 � CL qz v -r- >1 E >, C: ivq -0 T 43 M 0) I— (u ro 0(t3 O C u M Q) .-0,- E 4 -iii 0 0 4-C V) 0 Ln V) E ® 0 0 0 CD -0 Q) u 0) 14— C: 0 4- E > 0 LA 0 ®a - 0 0 0 L- a) > 00 C: :t-4- > 0) roE 4- 0 cD0 0 Ln CO 0 0 C: 4- :3 4- o 0 0 ay Im m 'q 42 A Vai 3: Q) V) L- > A— 4- 0 Q) w 0 0 0 U 0 Cp r— 4- 0 (1) - 4CU Q 4- 0 0 V) E > 0 (3) m u m Q- 0 Q) -C E 0 cz- 4- C: 0 :3 0 a) -0 M 4— yr L/I 0 C3) vs Q) 0r0 Ri 0--a 0 E I-- S� 3 ryi C\j CD k.0 u kn 0) --Fo 0 CD cm:E -0 Q - Q) O4-1 4-1 < 0 4- c cCs (1) cis 0 4- o 0 4- -0 E 4-1 (A CL 0 1:5 4- 4-1 4- va Q) m cz v) u m 0 CU U M X m 14— > > E v) L4 0 co .2 >Q) 4- Q) V) Q) Q) 4- 0 > Z 0 E U rp0 as Q) Ln -Q) > 1 ,It C14 C14 4- 0 00 O 0) ca a- 'A Ln 0 CL 4- 0 - LD 0 4- 0 CSU 4- -0 0 c 0 u -c E I m I M Ln M (A V) u E o C3) W 0 Ln -0 Ln 0 cn -0 +' eo q) T :) LA 0) Evi Ln- = 0) 0 E 0-0 -0 L- . Ln a) E 0 4- 0 0 0 0-4--C 0 Q) C- > 0 u C -,6)- , > 4- -Se. – — Q) 0 (U 0) T 0),- m _0 0 -r u E 0 -0 o o Ln -r Q) 0) 0 -0 Q) Ln CL u m 0 a) E '- Q) C- — -c — w c: 0 Ln 4-1 C: 0 Q) > a) 4- 0) T 0 U I- 0 E E E - +5 4-' E qJ 0 0 , u o u 0 J) 4E Q - .2 4 - CT 4 a) -0 E di 0- to 0 0 a) Ln C)) 0 :3 -- o 14- Cyt U, 0 Q) -0 E 0 0 0 U 76 vi Qi V, Ln ul 0 0 -0 u 4- ro 0— 0 M U 4-1 o u ' Lo co I M I I -0 E - -�- L- V� m a) 0 0• Ln Ln V) a) 3: E 0) 1 # +� C 0-0 (D1 0 1ro Ln Ln 0 Ln E 0 Ln ce -o E 0 wu Ln c Ln 0 0 0 1. 0) 4- 0 Un Ln !E Ln> 0) 30: 4u) (7 D) =0) u u o -t2 4- 0)r -- V) C: 41 -0 E c- m (U LA -0 Q) Ln 0-0 Q) o E — — 3: V) Ln 0 E o uQ -E r- a) +1 V) >�' n •u 'A u 4- E o • o v) 0 U 4- 0 01 4- (1) (L) L- — _0 u 0- > > 4- •1.CU U 4- _0 •0 o -0 S- 4- vo • Lf) tA V) V) (D 4- 4- Q) LA >1 0 7E_ � > C > 0- crs 0 0 o 4- 0 - c Ln Q) Q) 0 un > 0 E res 4-1 L- c Cu 0 0 4- — 0) E m (D 4- E 0 0 4- 0) 0 -0 E - -�- L- V� m a) 0 0• Ln Ln V) a) 3: E 0) 1 # +� C 0-0 (D1 0 1ro Ln Ln 0 Ln E 0 Ln ce -o E 0 wu Ln c Ln 0 0 0 1. 0) 4- 0 Un Ln !E Ln> 0) 30: 4u) (7 D) =0) u u o -t2 4- 0)r -- V) C: 41 -0 E c- m (U LA -0 Q) Ln 0-0 Q) o E — — 3: V) Ln 0 E o uQ -E r- a) +1 V) >�' n •u 'A u 4- E o • o v) 0 U 4- 0 01 4- (1) (L) L- — _0 u 0- > > 4- •1.CU U 4- _0 •0 o -0 S- 4- vo • Lf) tA ,It C14 C14 4- 0 00 a) C3) w 0 , ca a- = 4— � 0 4- W vi .- 0 O 4- 14- D Qy 0 a) C)- Q) > -zit0 Q) 0 O E -0 res � res Ln CD 4 - I'D eo vi 0 0)4- 0 O c Ln -0 C: 0 m -0 U 0-0 0 > eo qt W 0') _0 0 -Fjj Ln -S- 4- Ln Q) E -0 0 crs 0 ro CD D W = 0 -a u0 E > u ) Q E 0 -0 a) .VE a) > -0 E E w0 0_ .4 - Cy u 0 -0 > > E a) o -0 -0" E CL 0 E 0- 0 Z) m - From: oampcosta _ Sent: Thursday, SepW/^uer�zO� + /u.4*AM To: Eric Schneider; 8i||oannidis Cc: Costa, Herc Subject: Proposed Deve|opementat 60Truoder Rd. Re: Zone change 0 Some people who received this message don't often get email from Learn why this is i tant Hero&Karen Costa Hello, We received the notification card in the mail indicating a proposed zone change,aheight increase to3storey high, a] building complex equalling 64 dwellings with 73 parking spaces. We appreciate that we have been asked for our comments, and with that, we THANK YOU for reviewing our comments, concerns and questions. Overall, vveGREATLY OPPOSE this proposal. This will change our street and our community. When vvepurchased our land (30 years ago) the zoning was completed then and it is this reason why we purchased our land and built our (forever) home. At the time of land purchase, we were informed that Ira Needles Blvd. was to be constructed within 5 yrs, to which I believe took 12 yrs at completion. Before Ira Needles Blvd., ALL that traffic travelled our street, to which caused a lot of noise and delays to us. The traffic would be lined up well past our home, for the cars stopped at the Highland Rd stop sign. We needed to add an extra 10-20 min (true story) to our travel time, just to get out onto our street. We DO NOT Since the Highland/Ira Needles highhses have erupted our traffic has increased 10 fold already, including (prohibited) trucks that STILL use our street as a cut thru. We understand that 2 more highrises are coming to Highland Rd, near Glasgow. Therefore we again, will have that increased traffic from these new future hi8hhsas. Toadd ANOTHER 73 more cars(Proposed parking spots) travelling our street is not acceptable and disheartening for our street and home life. The VVALDAUFOREST and TRAIL The proposed change would mean increased forest and Trail use. This is of GREAT concern to us. Our whole house is right beside a section of the walking trail (it's only a couple of feet from our property and house). This causes EXTREME easy access toour property and house. People can and do"hide"inthe forest. Our experiences have been: -Rocks thrown aLour home with window damage -Rocks and stricks thrown at our dog -Drug deals (exchanges) -Theft deals(exchanges) -our home itself has been broken into -Our retaining wall(along the walking trail) has been graffitied 2x -Seen people attempt/hurt animals (this week, a man tried to capture/to harm? a snake) -Kids like to cut sapling trees down for their entertainment -People will climb our wall to cut thru our front lawn instead of using the trail 34 -The Oktoberfest, look for a key/coin contest, was a horrible week of 100's(maybe 1000'x) of people on our property everywhere disrupting it (and the forest), during all 24 hours of the day(s), ®This year (and it's not the first time) we had kids enter our property and steal from our shed/property to build a fort, in the forest. This is a reported incident with by-law and police. problems or us (with our circumstances as stated)and for the forest. If the proposal is approved we will be strongly asking the City to move that section of the walking trail away from our property line and house. HOME VALUE If approved, this will devalue our home. Is the City of Kitchener going to reimburse that loss? This will make our property LESS appealing to potential buyers. HOME TAXES If approved, will our house taxes be lowered? !! 1t ►1 ► 1 With rentals, people come and go. Currently, I can say I recognize the people from our neighbourhood, I talk them and know most people that walk by our home(sidewalk and trail). There's a sense of trust, respect and looking out for each other. This proposed zone change would CHANGE that feeling. We already have the Penelope Dr. complex. When that was constructed came more people and a timely observation to our property and home issues that have occurred, as listed above. .. e Please advise our concerns and questions. Reg Question: Furthermore, a question that we have never pursued... can a hidden forest walking trail be located a couple of feet from an owners property line/house?? At our land purchase time, the trail itself was not 'established'. When it became established, yrs later, we didn't foresee any of the said issues, as we didn't feel the trail was greatly used(this then increased greatly after the Penelope complex arrived). Ultimately we have zero privacy for most of our property because of a section of the walking trail. Most people will stay on the established trail, but a section of it, is too close and too hidden in relation to our home. This has been proven that it's too attempting/too easy/too hidden for some people to resist. Please advise. Sent from my Galaxy Tabs' S2 Page 180 of 224 Eric Schneider Fro -n: Kevin Am"97mo- Sent: Thursday, September 5, 2O249:34 AM To: Bi||oannidis;Eric Schneider Subject: 60Tnuss|erRd Development 0 Some people who received this message don't often get email from 0 --� Good Morning I am a 30 + year resident of Cora Drive and grew up just west of Trussler Road on Highland. Over the years |have seen many changes inthe area. Myhome backs onto the vvood[otwhere | played anachiidao Ithink kiefair tosay I know the area well. The proposed devetopment on the lot at 60 Trussler Road concerns me, as this is something that eclipses all the changes | have seen here inrnyLifetime. | fully understand and annasupporter oflimiting urban sprawl but this proposal seems wrong onaomany fronts. When the lot inquestion was sold several years ago there was quickly a proposal to turn what was once a singLe residence lot into what I recall. being a 5 unit devetopment. That scale of change seemed tomake sense to me, and could be seen as an evolution that reftected the changes in housing between the early 90's when I moved here to the current day. This new proposal is too much. The addition ufthis many units at their density is so far out of step with the current residential. makeup that I cannot support it or believe it wouLd be supported by the city. My concerns can be summarized as follows 0 The height of the proposed structure dwarfs the existing residential properties and brings privacy concerns to those who directly border the deveLopment. The scale is aLL wrong. Longtime residents already refer to 38 Cora as the albatross in reference to a outlier in the neighborhood. 0 Decreased setbacks once approved set a precedent for future applications. Soonsomeonewil.l. want to build another building that wants to cover a greater portion of the Lot and decrease the green space. 10, Traffic has aLways been a concern on Cora Drive as before the addition of Ira NeedLes aLL residences in the area were only accessibLe by using Cora Drive. We certainly don't need more 4, Thnpropomndnhan8evvoubideUnbeiyhaveoneQativeoveraKinnpaciontheneoidenheiappmaLand thus value, ofthe neighborhood. I guess the developer apply for variances and then seek to modify the existing regulations to suit their plans. As resident of the area I strongly oppose the approval of the proposal as it currently stands. |tfeeistonnethat this iaa proposal ioonattempt to maximize returns on the land by adding as many units as possible. The original. 5 unit proposal would make sense. This does not. Thanks for your time 36, From: Dianne Ambrose Sent: Thursday, September 5, 20249:13AK4 To: Eric Schneider; Bi||oannidis Subject: Proposed Development at 60 Trussler Road Some people who received this message don't often get email from Learn wh1this is important Mr Schneider Mc|oannidia Re: Proposed Development at8OTmaate/Road I would Like to submit my opposition to the proposed development of 3 stacked townhouses at 60 Trusster Road. This area is for the most part a residential neighbourhood consisting of single detached homes. Adding 3 stacked townhouses, each being e3-atoreybuilding will add a substantial number mfresidents twour neighbourhood which I'm not sure vvecan support. TruoeLerroad has already been stated for traffic ce\rningand adding 64 dwelLings in such a smaLL, confined space on TrussLer Road will just make traff ic in our area much worse. Visitors to these units witL inevitably park on our streets which wilL Lead to increased traffic on nearby residential streets. A5well, itwill substantially impact the enjoyment Vfour properties asvu*wiKnow have 3story buildings towering over our yards with p8DpieLooking into our yards. ALot Ofnlyneighbours have been here for a very Long time, and it is unfair that the privacy and hence enjoyment of their backyards is taken away frorn them. The property in question was never zoned for this kind of development and so anyone onour street who purchased 8home will. have been caught cO[npi8te[yoff guard bythis change and their property uaiUeSwill. surety decrease aSvViKthe enjoyment OftheirprQperty. |tiSunfai[. |tseems vVehave lost at[ focus ODwhat isbeing built anymore and itinuUabout just getting aemuch housing built with aamany pmopi8aayou can within each development. There is so much housing already being built in our area, and it concerns me that this is the focus without any thought to other infrastructure Like roads, schools, and hospitals. Ira Neadineiaabeadyovery busy road and continues to be very busy even after widening it to two lanes in both directions. |ernvery much against this development and strongly feet that the proposed stacked town houses are not a good fit for our neighborhood. 3 8, Eric Schneider From: BrandonB6|hante Sent: Thursday, September 5,ZO248:31AK4 To: biUjoannidis@kitchener.ca;Eric Schneider Subject; 60Trusder Road Kitchener- NO, TO TOWN HOME DEVELOPMENT - Importance: High You don't often get email from . Good morning, |arnwriting inSTRONG opposition tothe proposed 54 stacked townhomesproposed for 6OTruss|erRoad, Kitchener. There are a number of reasons why I strongly oppose this proposed development. The houses in this area especially, on Trussler are single family homes, This keeps traffic at a reasonable level. If the proposed 64 stacked units are built, at an average of 4 people per unit, there would be an additional 256 people added to this street. Not to mention at minimum 2 vehicles per unit, so an additional 128 vehicles with only 73 proposed parking spots, and that does not take into account visitors of the residents. Traffic and speeding is already an issue on Trussler, now add parking along with additional traffic, it will get exponentially worse and much more unsafe for the children and adults in the local community. People live on the outskirts of the city and pay a premium to live here for many reasons. Community safety, privacy, amongst others. The listed reasons, not to mention property value will all be affected with a development of this size. Crime is on the rise in Kitchener Waterloo, and introducing this many people in such a condensed area, with the types of properties/houses inthe surrounding area isaninvitation for bad actors. The infrastructure isnot set upinthis area for this many people all gtonce. This means the construction and development that it would take to bring it up to standard would be intense, which the people in this area are not willing toendure, for something that will have anegative effect onthere lives. | know for afact |donot just speak for myself when I say that this development is NOT wanted or needed in this area. A few years ago the property was a single family home, which was bought and torn down. There was a zoning change to build 5 estate homes on the property, which | believe most were okay with, as it blends and fits in the area, which was acceptable. I've lived in this area for over 14 years, and have never had something this ridiculous proposed for this area. There is no way this development should beapproved. Brandon BriDhante� APRMCnsiulationlInc. Please consider the environment before printing this message. Confidential. This emaomacontain private, confidential, and privileged material for the sole use of the addressee. If you a re not the intended recipient, please 39 return this ernail to the sender immediately and permanently delete it,. Thank you 4o Page 184 of 224 From: _ Sent Wednesday, September 4`2O241O:54PM To: Eric Schneider, Bil loanniclis Subject: Regarding Proposal for 60 Trussler Road (Application Number: ZBA24/019/T/ES) TiManie]akop|icand James Moser � Somemevple who wece�,veilthis mnessagcdon't mffianget erna hom i. @ Hello Eric Schneider and Bit |oannidia, VVeare writing toyou eaowners of ,ohome located onthe southern property tine ofthe proposed new multi -residential buiidatGOTruaaierRoad inKitchener. Our backyard faces this Lot. VVepurchased our home last year and at the time of purchase, knew the city had approved 5 tots for that site in 2021. Kvvevvouidhave known there was potential that a three-story 64 -unit condo complex with 3 buildings could be put there, we would not have purchased this home with that being put right in the backyard. As you probably suspect, we are writing to express our deep concerns with this change tothe current zoning. 0 There are just too many peophaproposed tobe living onthis small tot which used tohave only one family Vnit. This proposal does not correlate tothe cukunaand feeling ofthe current community, which iGkovv density'quint,undooirn. Multi -residential units would not b8|nkeeping with the entire rest ofthe area. Why change the original. pLanning for a low-density area on the very last tot in an otherwise finished Low density area? The fact that the buildings are going to be three stories high, allows them to tower over all the other houses on Cora drive and Rauch Court. Not only does that take away any privacy we have, blocks out the enjoyment of the sun in our backyards, but a(so allows some of the building residents to view what is happening on Cora Drive and affects the privacy of the owners on the south side of Cora Drive too. A three- story building wilL loom over our homes and be easily visibLe from the surrounding streets. The amount oftraffic proposed onthis small lot will. behigh. Not only will that affect the capacity onthe current streets in the neighbourhood for traffic and parking, but no other homeowner in this neighbourhood has 73 parking spots right intheir backyard. This will bring oo/ noise, pollution, and the flashing of heaclUghts and taill.ights at at[ hours of the day and night. This is unfair, so close to our properties and our backyards which should be a place of calm, not a busy Lane way with dozens of cars constantly going back and forth. This smaLL tot, and the proposed design, bring the cars just too close for us to ignore. There wit[ belarge streettights erected on this tot, to illuminate the site for resident safety.This isunfair to have tohave Lights inour backyard glaring a1all hours. This disrupts our serene, tranquil space and takes 0 As an addition to what we mentioned earlier; we are concerned about the value of our home with a VVeworry about the location ofthe building's garbage cans and recycling for this many residents. There is nothing in the proposal to outline where this will be kept and if put near the homes, could cause odours that would beunpleasant and affect the enjoyment ofour properties. � Page 185 of 224 We would hope that if this proposal is approved by the city, you would consider the following and make it mandatory in their approval requests: � Limit the buildings to two stories tOred Uce the number Ofunits and number ofpeople living inthis srnaL\ area. Keep a snmanybarQe trees ompoaaibba,inciudingtheeve rgreenaonthe eouthpropertyUne.Potendaity, plant evergreens along the property line to hide the buildings from the backyards of the surrounding homes. Garbage and recycling to be put as far away from the surround lots, so put it on the northern property line of the lot. We are hoping that by writing to you, you will take our concerns seriously. We hope we have expressed our concerns so that you will review this request from all angles. We hope you seriously consider how a three-story building inOur backyard really reduceSthe enjoyment ofthemurroundingprop8rtiest0inC|uU8Vurhnnne. We welcome you tuvisit our home and see the property in person before making your decision. The artist rendering of the Lot and buildings makes the tot took much wider and the buildings much further away than they actually would be. This is not the tot, or the area, for a 64 -unit complex. We respectfully request you deny this application and deny the rezoning Dfthis small tot from RES-1tnRES-5. ThankyOU, Tiff anie]ekopUcand James Moser �� Page 186 of 224 From: LisaVanGa|en Sent: Wednesday, September 4,2O249:22PK4 To: Bi||oanniclis;Eric Schneider Subject: Truss|erRmad proposed development � Some people who received this message don't often get email from Learn this is i � Gentlemen: I have noticed a sign posted on a property south of the Heroux Devtek facility on Trussler Road that troubles me. While I undentandtheneedforhoudngandthecurrentpushforhigh-denyitydeve|opment|donotbe|ievethispropertyis suitable for the model being presented. Truss|erRoad isacountry road bridging the City ofKitchener and the Township oJWilmot. The west side isfarmland and sing|efanni|ydvveU|ngs,vvhUetheeastaideisprimari|ydetochedhomesonvvmU-maLuredstreets.Thenaishigh-density housing already inthe area, but itissized inkeeping with the surrounding homes. and in this case, neighbouring townships. The increase in construction traffic alone would further damage an already aged road. The addition of 64 families would impact the traffic immensely, congesting a small neighbourhood that already experiences limited access and egress. This is the edge of the city, and is not well established with bus routes or easy access to amenities, so it will be expected that the new residents will bedriving, 86most 0fthose who live here d$now, Lowering the speed limit has riot deterred drivers from using the north portion of Trussler Road as a by. -pass to reach Ira Needles Blvd. at Highview, a popular method of reaching Hwy. 7.Adding a potential of 100 more vehicles on a daily basis /n such a small area is prospect that needs tobetaken seriously. As a long-time resident, | can attest tothe challenges we face in winter on Truss|er Road. Increasing the traffic will not make iteasier orsafer for our children asthey wait for school buses, orfor seniors, oranyone for that matter, trying to cross from one side to the other. Parking is limited and I wonder where all of the trades will put their vehicles when working on such a small lot. The overflow is sure to impact the people living on Cora Drive, preventing them from enjoying their own space and access. I urge you to reconsider the proposal to place such a development on the property currently before you, and revisit options that better suit the area itisbeing placed in. 13 A 7 M M, 11 M From: Sandra Paprocki Sent: Wednesday, September 4, 2024 9:01 PM To: Eric Schneider Cc: Bil loanniclis Subject: Re: Proposed Development at 60 Trussler Road, Kitchener Scorlle pv�vpko v.'bt) tecpd,vc,-(J tfiks message don't often get email from Learn why�m important this is i Dear Sirs, rill I Mr.-] JOIN] m4gly Malmoxe Ellin I IL* I a I We are writing to voice our concerns regarding the proposed construction of 64 stacked townhomes on a property that formerly held only one home. There are many reasons to halt this construction. The traffic flow is a major consideration. We have advocated over the years for traffic calming measures, and despite the speed limit being dropped to 40km/hr the cars continue to zoom past at speeds well over 60km/hr. If is difficult to stand outside and have a conversation with your neighbour because of the volume of traffic. That will only get much worse with the addition of potentially 74 more cars on the street. There is basically also no public transit available on Trussler Road, which would mean all those people would be driving. And we really don't want buses rumbling by constantly. It is unsafe to walk down HIghland Road to Ira Needles as there is no sidewalk. The roundabout at Highland and Ira Needles is already a nightmare. This new build would only make it so much worse. Ira Needles was installed to take traffic off of Trussler Road and we were cut off at Highview Drive to deter excessive traffic. Please do not take a step backwards. Our community is a close knit, family neighbourhood, most of whom have lived here for decades. Please help us keep our streets quiet and safe for the children who live here, Sincerely, Sandra and Dan Paprocki 114 Page 188 of 224 Eric Schneider From: Jennie Paquette Sent: Wednesday, September 4.2O248:46PM To: Eric Schneider Subject: URGENT: 60 Trussler Rd, Kitchener You don't often get email from Learn wbyj�� Hi Eric, I am writing this evening to express my concerns about this new possible development in my small neighbourhood. I amaresident mf .VVehave 2children and adog and love the small, caring community weare currently part of. My concerns about taking this single dwelling |o1 and changing it to 64 homes are as follows: 1. Currently we are zoned to attend Meadowlane Public School within the WRDSB. This school is small and has a wonderful set of teachers and supportive parents. It is however on the other side of Forest Heights, off McGarry. This development would most definitely increase the population of our small school and require more bussing, which as it stands is not an easy feat within the board. We are also zoned for St Dominic Savio Catholic School in the WCDSB, which has outgrown itself and currently has over 4 portables. This is also a school that requires bussing of students, which once again is not easy atthis time within the region. 2. Our house is on the corner of Trussler and Costain. We see the traffic concerns on a daily basis as it is with larger trucks, dump trucks, high speeds, etc. There have been several accidents at the corner, which have been brought to the cities attention but to little change. A new development, of this size, will only add to the traffic concerns already in place. 3. Although this doesn't directly affect us, | feel for the people who will be backing to this development and will lose all sense of privacy within their own property. These new homes will over look the fences of my neighbours and take away the truly old feel ofthese lovely large lots that m/eare privy to. 4. The changing of the building requirements to allow for this development will open up our tiny neighbourhood of large lots tomore ofthese large developments that vvejust cannot support. 5. I'm concerned about parking and where cars will go when there are not places available within the complex lot. We donot have the infrastructure 10support cars parked along the road. Please take these concerns seriously as you consider this development and know that we do not support it. Thank you. Jennie Paquette am Page 189 of 224 1E Wednesday, September 4, 202 8:20PIVI 8i||oannidis;Eric Schneider Feedback on 60 Trussler Road Development Some people who received this message don't often get email fron Dear Mr. Schneider and Mr. |oannidis, I am writing to you both with concern about the planned development at 60 Trussler Road of stacked townhouses and a parking lot. This news is very concerning to me and my family and to everyone in my community. | live at with rnyhusband, Joseph, and I-yearo|dson, Dominic. Myback fence borders the plot ofland, so this development impacts my family directly, My understanding is that a three-storey building could be built looking down into our backyard, and due to the variances requested, it may be built close to our fence line. I am concerned about the impact of this development on my family: - A high number of strangers will have a view into my backyard, where my small child and future children will play. We highly value our privacy, and we also don't want to expose our children to being watched by people we don't know, The parking lot will probably be brightly lit and have people coming and going at all hours. I have a disability and sensory issues and chose my house for the peace and quiet of this neighbourhood. This development will increase traffic, light, noise, and the population density of this area. - My family and all families in this neighbourhood will see their property values decrease. If we choose to leave due to T-117.0011 am I am also concerned about the impact on this community and the City of Kitchener: - The increased traffic and population density means increased noise and light pollution, more speeders, and a higher rate ofcrime. The parking for tenants and guests will overflow onto Cora Drive, increasing the traffic onthis street and putting our children atrisk. This neighbourhood does not have the public transportation or schools to accommodate this number of new people. The location is not safe for walking. With 64 new households, the foot traffic onTruss|erand Highland will increase, but there is no sidewalk on the far side of Trussler Road or on either side of Highland Rd. The school bus and bus stop capacity could increase to unsafe levels. Increased light and noise pollution will negatively impact the local wildlife. The green space and old-growth trees will be removed. This area has a high water table. How will our collection systems be impacted if we completely pave over this lot? I'm concerned about anincreased risk offlooding. This neighbourhood is beautiful, quiet, peaceful, and safe. I understand the need for increased housing, but that cannot come atthe expense ofthe hard-working families inthis area. |1isespecially not right that this developer will profit greatly from this development while o8ofthe families inthis community will lose hard-earned money and our peaceful way of life. This development is unethical for the reasons stated above and many more. Sincerely, M Page 190 of 224 Kato Bartolo m Page 191 of 224 You don't often get email from Good Evening Jeff Paquette � Wednesday, September 4,2O24816PK4 Eric Schneider **URGENT** 60T/usde/Road I am writingyou to express my angertowards this development of 6OTrussLer Road from even being a consideration. Myname /aJeffrey Paquette and | have been aresident of since 2006. First off this was a single-family home now being converted to 64 Unit stack town homes. How eneyouand the city working in our best interest? This creates a multitude of issues short and long term. |arnnot sure how the city can even consider the volume Vfunits being built Onthe size Vfproperty that imbeing proposed. VVhatvv*uidyouduif this was inyour backyard? Existing prpbtems-, TRAFFIC - Industrial traffic that should not beonthe street - Large Connnnerciaithat should not bemnthe street - Speed around the Trusoiurcorner off the round about o 3motor cycles landed inthe ditch due tospeed and corner o 2cars inthe ditch due tocorner 1flipped over o Multiple collisions nnthe corner o Cement truck fallen over p Dino'otrucking togravel pit not allowed onstreet but are o Transports to Erb not allow onthe street but are o Traffic from Dev1ek iavery fast o Entourage / Bell Service trucks fast and don't pay attention o Traffic tuthe temple iafast o The only people who drive reasonable in the area are neighborhood residents o SPEED SPEED SPEED||!! Now your goal imtoallow for G4high density residents tothe area plus all the construction traffic and move in 1reNo. Your allowance of this votume of housing is irresponsible and dose not consider the neighbourhood residents. What about the crime issues inour neighborhood? |tiaalready higher than bneeds tobe. VVarealize there ioaright ofthe landowner tobuild something there. This ieacceptable. Some town homes S-8 (1Ornox)'bungalows, back splits etc. But 64unit 3story unit iaunacceptable and vveaaacommunity viiinot allow this tohappen. 4$ Page 192 of 224 a Looking overtop ofour neighbour's properties a for the area wit[ bonolonger 0 Zoning chanaes that can impact other Lots within the community 0 Vfri.a,n -being requested tVbuild closer toproperty lines a can create the potential ofincreased crime within the community 6 [a0Oowa\wfour green spaces and old growth trees 0 $to [O]w�t0[will have anegative impact Onour collection systems 0OnthefeeLondcubureOfourne|ghborhomd 0 can negatively b8impacted * which iaalready busting out o1the seams �Overflow par n ofnew development tenants can linger ontocommunity streets � through our community streets Please respect the community and do not aLLowthe volume of housing to be built. Notice: This message may contain information which is confidential and protected by copyright or which may contain any other intellectual property rights, The use of the MEL TRIC0l8&4RECHAL0Dand TECHN0R011 trademarks without the prior written consent Qfour company /sforbidden. Ifyou are not the intended recipient ofthis message please delete itand all copies. 49 Eric Schneider From: Jeff Fernandes ° Sent: Wednesday, September 4,20248l6PM To: 8i||oannidis;Eric Schneider Subject: Regarding the development being proposed at60TrusderRoad. 0 Some people who received this message don't often get email from Lea rn why 0 Hey guys, K4yname isJeff Fernandes, current owner and resident a1 .| received the pamphlet regarding the three-story building being proposed to be built behind my backyard. I have the following questions: 1. What happened to the original proposal? Is anything that was agreed upon that meeting still being applied to this project? 2. Will these buildings be low income/affordable housing units? What would be the proposed completion date? 3. Are there any plans to mitigate the extra noise, light pollution, traffic that an extra 100 or so people residing in these units bring? 4. A 3 storey building in this neighborhood would be unprecedented, especially since this is the edge of kitchener, where most resident's come to escape the noise and the hustle of the kitchener core, In saying that, we currently do have two story townhomes within our neighborhood, which doesn't affect the look, feel, noise, traffic and privacy concerns of the neighbors around them. Could the plan be adjusted to be only 2 story townhomes since precedence has been set already within our neighborhood? I believe two story units would alleviate most of the concerns the residents of this neighborhood would have. Is Page 194 of 224 You don't often get email from Dear Mr. Schneider, Jose Rodrigues Wednesday, September 4`2U247:50PK0 Eric Schneider 6OTnuss|erRoad Development proposal |tiswith great concern and disappointment unlearning about this development proposal. Enabling the construction OfG4units onless than 2 acres ofland iscaving intoadeveloper's greed. Very high density housing including parking and 3 story units which requires zoning change will transform our very quite community into heavy traffic area and undesirable neighborhood . We all know housing is in short supply, the first proposal for this land acouple Vfyears ago was understandable. Two story buildings should bethe limit tofit inwith the rest ofthe neighborhood . �� Page 195 of 224 Eric Schneider You don't often get email from M.[\Meuhenton Wednesday, September 4, 20244:41Pk4 Eric Schneider Proposed development inour neighbourhood townhouses in our area of Kitchener. I'm not certain if he had the correct address. This was for the property at 60 Trussler Road in Kitchener. 52 Page 196 of 224 Eric Schneider From: Brian Benner Sent: Wednesday, September 4, 2024 12;31 PM To: Bil loannidis; Eric Schneider Subject: 60 Trussler Road ,;, Some people who received this message don't often get email from m. Learn why this is important t Good afternoon, Mr. Schneider and Mr, Ioannidis, my name is Brian Benner, I live at , and I am writing today to let you know that I am strongly op aye to the proposed development at 60 Trussler Road. Here are my concerns, 1. I Fie proposed development is suggesting 64 dwelling units but only 73 parking spots, Will there be ample parking at this location, or Will the overflow come to my street (Cora brine)? luring periods of increased street parking demands (i.e.: Christmas, Easter, Thanksgiving, rummer, parties, etc,) there is already an issue with extra parking for the residents of Cora Drive. I can only imagine that problem with be amplified if this proposed housing plan is approved. 2. I fear that changing the zoning to allow for this high density dwelling with impact other lots, setting my neighborhood up for extreme changes. I see many of these hyper of developments in the region, but I felt they WOLOds t reach me bared on our current country like setting. I""he very reason we purchased this home in 2003. 3. road safety is a real concern for me. The cars are already speeding down Cora Drive to get to and from Ira l" eedles/ niders Goad and adding 64 dwelling unit,s to the area will increase traffic, increase noise, and further risk pedestrian safety from racing motorists. I often feel unsafe walking in my neighbourhood (Cora give, Penelope give, Ira Needles, Trussler load) due to speeding, You could argue that reduced speed limit Would fix that issue but the recent reduction of the speed limit on Trussler road is a prime example of how that's not the answer. Those Who drove 60km/hr+ before the reduction are still driving at that rate of speed. ``hose who drove 0km/hr before the reduction are now driving the posted 4 km/hr, It's fine to reduce the speed limit but if there's no enforcement there's really no point. 4. I believe this development will change the landscape and impact the feel and culture of my neighbourhood® affecting my property valam, I worry that this building plan could deter potential buyers as this may no longer be viewed as a relatively safe and quiet community. 5. There could be an increase in crime within my community because of the proximity of this high-density dwelling. . The months of construction traffic, dust and noire will directly impact the enjoyment and serenity of my home. 11 5 Page 197 of 224 T This plan will call for the removal of old growth trees and green space, The families that would be living in this proposed plan will have no where to go for outdoor activities. There are no parks in this n6ghbourhood for the children "to get their, exercise and there doesnt seem to be an allowance for green space at the location of the proposed development. Waldau Woods is currently as very nice spot for a lovely short stroll but I®m afraid that the children fromm this property development will be attracted to this location and this may lead to destructive behaviour and impact my privacy as our property backs onto Waldau Woods, 8. I'm concerned about the access to public transit for these residents. There is a bus stop at Highland Rd/Ira Needlles, but no sidewalks along that portion of Highland Road® making that a very dangerous passage, There is also a bus stop on Penelope/Ira Needles but crossing Ira Needles to reach Penelope is treacherous. I refer to that street as Ira eedw�a because that's exactly what it is. Very few vehicles drive at the posted speed limit of 0k /hr and there is seldom police presence to deter this behaviour. 9. Are the local schools prepared for the potential increase in n population? Would the people who would be attracted to this type of development not be better serviced by a location with plans in pllace for increased student demand? When this property was sold 3-4 years ago there were posted plans for a 5 -unit development. In my opinion, a housing unit of that design would be better suited for this neighbourhood, I thank you for taking my concerns to heart and hope that a much more appropriate building plan will be considered, &ncv,e regards® Brian Beriner 'A Page 198 of 224 From: Susan Benner Sent: Wednesday, September 4, 2024 11:02 AM To: Eric Schneider; Bil loannidis Subject: 60 Trussler Road Some people who received this message don't often get email from Learn why this is important i Good morning, Mr. Schneider and Mr. Ioannidis, my name is Susan Denner, I live at , and I am writing today to let you know that I am strop l asosed to the proposed development at 60 Trussller load, Here are my concerns. ) The proposed development is suggesting 64 dwelling units but only'73 parking spotso WHl there be ample parking at this location, or will the overf low come to my street (Cora l rive)? During periods of increased street parking demands (i.e.: Christmas, Easter, Thanksgiving summer parties, etc.) there is already an issue with extra parking for the residents of "fora lbrive, I can only imagine that problem with be amplified if this proposed housing plan is approved, 2) 1 -ear, that changing the zoning to allow for this high density dwelling With impact other lots, setting my neighborhood up for extreme changes, I see many of these types o developments in the region, but I -felt they wouldn't reach me bused on our current country like setting, The very reason we purchased this home in 2003, ) Road safety is a real concern for me. The cars are already speeding down Cora Drive to get to and from Ira Needles/ niders Road and adding 64 dwelling units to the area Will increase traffic, increase noise, and further risk pedestrian safety from racing motorists, I often feel unsafe Walking in my neighbourhood (Cora Drive, Penelope Drive, Ira Needles, TrUSSler FZoad) due to speeding. You could argue that reduced speed limit would fix that issue but the recent reduction of the speed limit on Trussler Road is a prime example of how that's not the answer. Those Who drove 6 km/hr+ before the reduction are still driving at that rate of speed, "hose who drove 50km/hr before the reduction are now driving the posted 4km/hr, t®s -dine to reduce the speed limit but i there's no enforcement there's really no pointe 4) 1 believe this development will change the landscape and impact the feel and culture o my neighbourhood, affecting my property value, I worry that this building plan could defer potential buyers as this may no longer be viewed as a relatively safe and quiet community. 5) There could be an increase in crime Within my community because of the proximity of this high-density dwelling, 6) ,,,,i,°he months of construction traff ic, dust and noise will directly impact the enjoyment and serenity of my home. Page 199 of 224 7) This plan will call for the removal of old growth tree and green space. The families that would be living in this proposed plan will have no where to go for outdoor activities, There are no parks in this neighbourhood for the children to get 'their exercise and there doesn'-f seen to be an allowance for green space at the location of the proposed development aldauu Woods is currently a very nice spot for a lovely short stroll but ems afraid that the children from this property development will be attracted to this location and thus may lead to destructive behaviour, and impact my privacy as our property backs onto WaHau Woods, I'm concerned about the access to public transit for these residents. There is a bus stop at HighlandRd/Ira Needles, but no sidewalks along that portion of highland load, making That a very dangerous passage. There is also a bus stop on Penelope/Ira Needles but crossing ;bra Needles to reach Penelope is treacherous, I refer to that street as Ira �2eedwo because that's exactly ghat it is, Very few vehicles drive at the posted speed limit of 0km/hr and there is seldorn police presence -to deter -this behaviour, g) Are the local schools prepared for the potential increase in population? Would the people who would be attracted to this type of development not be better serviced by a location with plans in place for increased student demand? When this property was sold 3. years ago there were posted plans for a5 -unit development. In my opinion, a housing omit of that design would be better suted for this neighbourhood. I thank you for taking my concerns to heart and hope that a much rr'nore appropriate building plan will be considered. Sincere regards, Bissau Benner 56 Page 200 of 224 From: Mary Bland Sent: Wednesday, September 4, 2024 9:35 AM To: Eric Schneider; Bil loannidis Subject: Property development Trussler Road Kitchener. Some people who received this message don't often get email from AMALhthis is im ortan� Good Morning Councilor, loannidis and Mr. Schneider I hope this email finds you well. I am writing to express our concerns about a proposed development notice for 64 stacked units at the top of TrussLer road in Kitchener. The site was once a single-family home, the Land was sold and a proposed development of 5 Luxury bungalows was then posted on the land which was a good fit for the community, Since then, we have now gone to the 64 town houses. We are not councilors or planners so have no concept of how the zoning laws work but how can something be rezoned to a completely different project. This is a small Low-density community and to build 64 town houses on this location will impact this small community immensely. This deveLopment will overlook neighbour's properties, reducing the privacy for the famiLies who spend time with their young children in a quiet environment. The potential, noise leveLs are a serious concern for a1L the properties that wiLL back onto the proposed deveLopment. A[so, with this deveLopment comes the issue of traffic which as I am sure you are both aware is major probLem everywhere. With this new residence comes an estimated 64 -128 cars which then causes more high-volume traffic, concerns for road safety, increased noise. WiLL the extra cars orvisitors park on the smaLL number of streets we have where the Local children play? We could talk about the impact on the schools and area amenities as well as many other issues but I am sure you are fully aware of these potential problems. Communities, friends and famiLies taLk and the new developments are a hot topic of conversation which is more negative than positive. The general. consensus is that this email. is a compLete waste of time as the public are not being heard. We hope to prove them wrong and start to have a LittLe faith in the City of Utchener decision makers. To conclude we are strongly opposing this development and hope that you can find a different alternative to the town houses. Best Regards a4l&U__U,9�01 9A,* Page 201 of 224 Im Page 202 of 224 You don't often get email from Dear Mr. Schneider, Harry Weiss Tuesday, September 3'2O24S:22PK4 Eric Schneider Project at 60 Trussler Rd. We |ke on Penelope Dc Just a block away from the site in question. Penelope has all single houses, whereas Rauch Court has only semis. The house across from us has about 14 occupants, the one beside us has been altered to house 3 different families. Behind our property are 85 Townhomes. Many families, many cars. Some cars are parked on the street 24/7. Needless tosay, planning 64 more units is not acceptable. There are very many children in this neighbourhood. There are about 4 school buses picking the children up. This points to an unsafe neighbourhood. Harry & Trudy Weiss �9 From: Janette graf-king Sent: Tuesday, September 3, 2024 3:41 PM To: Eric Schneider Subject: i am opposed to the zone change for 60 Trussler road, kitchener -- your info is also misleading Y(oti don't often get ernall from Learn why this is important Your information on the internet is incorrect on top off all the other things about this rezoning. Please contact me regarding this at The City of Kitchener has received an application for a vacant land condominium consisting of 5 residential units, and common element areas. An internal drive aisle, walkway, and Landscaped areas will make up the common elements. 111WIM ' . I of Council which deals with planning matters, on: i'Tionday, September 13, 2021 at 7:00 p.m. L ............... If you wish to make written and/or verbal comments either in support of, or in opposition to, the above noted proposal. you may register as a delegation at kitchener.ca/delegations or by contacting Legislated Services at 519-741-2200 ext. 2203 by no Later than 4:00 p.m. on September 13, 2021. A VWQ4�QA_r_,*. your registration is received. If a person or public body would otherwise have an abillity to appeat the decision of the City of Kitchener to the Locat PLanning Appeall. Tribunal, but the person or pubLic body does not make oral submissions at a public meeting or make written submissions to the City of Kitchener prior to approvall./ref usal of this proposal, the person or public body is not entitled to appeal the decision. ADDITIONAL INFORMATION is availabLe by contacting the staff person noted below or by viewing the report contained in the meeting agenda (posted 10 days before the meeting at www. kit c fteLifte.,rozo - click ........... . .... . ... . ......... . ....... . ... on the date in the CaLendar of Events and seLect the appropriate committee). Respect -fully, 0 Janette Lynn G""��r-'aff-King SAes Representative Re/Max Real Estate Centre (licensed since April 1987) 60 Page 204 of 224 - -w Member of Life Time Achievement Club 61, Eric Schneider From: Holly Burrell Sent: Tuesday, September 3, 2024 1:43 PM To: Eric Schneider; Bi||oannidis Subject: proposed development at 60 Trussler Rd Good afternoon, I just wanted to submit my comments/cluestions/concerns regarding the proposed development at6DTruss|er Road in Kitchener. |can't think of anyone who wants 64 stacked townhouses in their backyard. What happened to 5 executive homes? Much more reasonable, but I'm guessing not as profitable. They are going to provide 73 parking spaces ... for 64 units?? Where will the overflow park? What about visitor parking? Will Cora Drive belined with cars onacontinual basis? Have the developers provided a plan for a park/green space for these residents? Playground equipment for their children? Or, once again, are they just assuming the small park inVVa|daUWoods will suffice? Have the traffic concerns been addressed? There isalready a high volume of(speeding) traffic using Trussler Road. Assuming there will only be one outlet from this development, I can't imagine the traffic congestion and increased risk toCyc|iSts/pedestrians. | struggle tounderstand how putting 64units Dnoproperty that previously held one ranch bungalow makes sense. |understand the need for development in the community, but this plot of land is not large enough to support this proposal. I mean, technically it is, but just because you can, doesn't mean you should. | have lived inthe area for 30 years. I have seen many changes over this time. Sadly, this development will likely bethe final straw, forcing rnetOfind somewhere that has the same vibe that this neighbourhood once had. | have previously communicated with Bi|,and understand that the developers usually get the rubber stamp from the OLT with little or no regard for the concerns of the nearby community. I'm sure there are other issues that I haven't even thought of, I hope that the combined voices of the local residents will at least be considered. Thank you for your time and have a great day, Holly Burrell 62 You don't often get email from !i Thank you Bill, Sent from Yahoo Mail for Whone Lisa Thompson ~ Tuesday, September S,2O2411:35AK4 8i||oann)dis;Eric Schneider Re: Proposed Development at 60 Trussler Road On Tuesday, September 3, 2024, 11�01 AM, Bill loannidis <B!I.Ioannidis@kitchener.ca> wrote: City of Kitchener Councillor Ward -7 Corporate Contact Centre 5I9-741-2345 info@Kitchene/.ca From: Lisa Thompson ^ - ' z~ Sent: Tuesday, September 3,2O24l0:14Axx To: Eric Schneider <Eric3chneider@kitchenerza> Cc: 8i||oannidis<Bii|oannidis@kitchenerza> Subject: Proposed Development et6OTrusderRoad You don't often get email from Good morning Eric, Please see the attached document pertaining to the proposed development at GOTruss|er Road. Lisa Thompson 63 From: Bi| |oannidis Sent Tuesday, September 3,2D2411l)1AK4 To: Eric Schneider; Lisa Thompson Subject: Re: Proposed Development at 60 Trussler Road Thanks Lisa. Nice chatting with you. Bi| |o@nnidis City ofKitchener Councillor Ward 7 Corporate Contact Centre 519-741-2345 info@Kitchen2r.ca From: Lisa Thompson Sent: Tuesday, September 3,28241O:14AM To: Eric Schneider <Eric.Schneider@kitchenerza> Cc: Bi| |oannidis<8iUoannidis@ki1chenerza> Subject: Proposed Development at6OTruss|erRoad i, Learn wh this is imggqant Good morning Eric, Please seethe attached document pertaining to the proposed development at 6OTruss|erRoad. lwiU be participating onthe September 12th Zoom Meeting. Please note that I am requesting a notice of decision. Lisa Thompson 65 Eric Schneider Good morning, Darren, Tuesday, September 120410:52AK4 D4RRENALL Eric Schneider Anita Zap|etan[sonii Re: 60 Trussler road Thank you for your email. | too have concerns about the proposed development. Feet free tOconnect with DlVVat51S-5SO-53S8. Bi| |oannidiG City OfKitchener Councillor Ward 7 519-741-2345 Sent: Saturday, August 31, 2024 11:51 AM To: Eric Schneider <Eric.Schneider@kitchener.ca> Subject: 60 Trussler road Some people who received this message don't often get email from da/ Gentlemen, We are residents of this small three street community and have been told of a proposal to double our community with stacked housing on Trussler road. I would like it to be know that we whole heartedly disagree with the size of this proposed development. With the incredible building going on at the corners of Ira needles Blvd and Highland Road it has become increasingly evident that the current infrastructure can't handle even the amount of people and vehicles that are now living in those new buildings not to mention the eventual completion of even more currently under construction now. If you agree to the number of units that are proposed you will only be adding tmalitany ofproblems with current congestion that has already been created by your past approvals. Gentlemen, simply put it is too much .... too fast with the current infrastructure not able to handle the number of residents you are being asked to allow into that small area. Please think this through and I welcome you to come out to the area and look at this proposed site and the impact it will also have onthe home owners mnCora dr. Thanks for listening, 66 Sent from Outlook for Android, Page 210 of 224 From: To: Subject: You don't often get email from Good morning Eric, Lisa Thompson Tuesday, September 3,202410:15AM Eric Schneider Bi| |oanniclis Proposed Development a160TrussksrRoad 60 Trussler Road docx Please See the attached document pertaining to the proposed development at 60Tru5S|er Road. IwU| be participating unthe September 12th ZOOnl Meeting. Please note that I am requesting a notice of decision. Lisa Thomloson (5 To: Eric Schneider, Senior Planner— City of Kitchener From: Lisa Thompson, Resideni HODOMI M31 .1 =11331, =93 a My home directly abuts the property in question. Let me start by saying that I recognize that there is a housing crisis, and that the City of Kitchener has committed to intensification. I know that development on this property is inevitable. The proposed development is simptytoo much. This property was the former site of one residential dwelling, with an outbuilding. To build 65 dwelling units is a 6500% increase, which to me is beyond what could be considered reasonable. The fact that a bylaw amendment, along with an increase in approved building height is required for this development is a primary concern. This area is zoned RES -1. Stacked townhouse are not a compatible addition to this community. Nowhere in this area are there three-story dwellings. In addition to the height of these buildings being an issue, stacked townhouses will have balconies, which will impact our privacy. The desirability and propertyvaLue of my home will plummet. No one will want to Live on "that side" of Cora D rive. A development proposal was already received and approved for this property, and this feels Like a bait and switch. I would ask the City of Kitchener to stand by its original decision. Failing that - I would ask this question: Were cluster or row townhouses even considered? Would they not be a much better compliment to the existing neighbourhood? Homeowners like me made very specific choices when we bought our homes, We wanted a Low-rise neighbourhood, to Live in a community where we connect with our neighbours. When the City places a higher priority on the wishes of developers (who don't live in the area, or care about the residents) than they do on the Long-time residents who have paid taxes, they send a message that we don't matter. Are future residents more important than current ones? I see the term "mitigation" used in the supporting documents. This isn't mitigation, this is maximization, or more factually- a money grab. I also seethe planner using Language such as "would be a welcome compatible addition to this neighborhood". This development is neither welcome, nor compatible. Some of my specific concerns: PubLic Transportation This area of Kitchener is not well serviced by public transit (a fact which is noted in the planning opinion report). There are no sidewalks on Highland Road, and it is a dangerous Page 212 of 224 road for pedestrians. Building a development that is Likely to attract buyers who will rely on public transportation in an area that does not offer easy access to public transportation would seem to be out of step with the City of Kitchener's guidelines. Site. eIn 9 I believe the amount of parking allocated for this development will not meet the needs of the residents, as this area is vehicle dependant. I see that 73 parking spaces are proposed, with 10 of those being designated Visitor Parking. With 64 dwellings, that allocates one spot per unit (minus one). In an area that ML force its residents to rely on personal transportation, I would expect that more than one resident per dwelling will have a car. How will that issue be addressed? It's Likely that residents will utilize visitor parking. This will cause residents and visitors to seek street parking. There is no space for street parking on this piece of Trusster Road (and would be a safety issue if people park illegally). I am quite concerned the parking pressure will spill over to Cora Drive, as it is the only other alternative. There is an incredible amount of traffic pressure on TrussLer Road, most specifically by the 7/8 highway access points. The development of the lands along TrussLer Road/Ottawa Street is adding to an already existing traffic issue. Because of the volume of traffic on Trussler Road, it has become almost impossible to make Left turns when exiting the highway. People are going to be killed. This specific area of Forest Heights can be considered very attractive because of its access to Highway 7/8. Adding another high- density development that is Likely to add to that issue should be delayed or reconsidered until TrussLer Road can be improved. There is also the monstrous high-rise approved nearby on Highland Road that will further impact this problem. TrussLer Road around the proposed development is already slated for traffic calming, so this development will just add to that issue. S.A.,e-Tralfic There are 38 houses on Cora Drive. This development proposes 64 dwelling units. That is almost twice the number of dwellings being shoehorned into a much smaller space, the space of about 12 of our homes. The plan uses the term "driveway" but Let's be honest, that will be equivalent to a road. A road that runs along our backyards. We will be subject to the comings and goings of 65+ cars in our back ard. Sadly, it would be preferable to have the roadway against our backyards, as opposed to three story stacked townhornes peering down on us. The Loss of privacy, and impact of noise and air pollution will be devasting to us. We have spent a Lot of time and money creating a backyard that we use and enjoy. IBM Page 213 of 224 � don't feet that the uniqueness of this piece of land is being adequately considered. This V • a parcel of land fronting a city street, this is a very thin, long piece of (and that abuts — • homes, and will greatly negatively • our enjoyment • • home's • are not being met by this proposed development: a New buildings, additions, modifications and conversions are sensitive to the exterior areas oMa dja c en t properties and th a t the appropriate screening and10r buffering is provided to mitigate any adverse impacts, particularly with respect to privacy. * Any new buildings and any additions and/or modifications to existing buildings are appropriate in massing and scale and are compatible with the built Lbrm and the community character oMthe established neighbourhood. Mffd=- Residential intensification and/or redevelopment within existing neighbourhoods will be designed to respect existing character. A high degree odsensitivity to I return to my original question. Inthe city does go back on its previous approval and allows a change tot e development to this property wouldn't row townhouses be the most reasonable option? The Patterson Planning Consultants have been hired by the developer, and it is in their best interests to deliver a plan that provides the highest ROI to the "numbered company" that hired them. This means presenting a plan with the most possible dwellings. They do not care about the current residents, or the impact this will have on our Lives. Who is this numbered company, and why do they hide themselves? I respectfully request that the City of Kitchener task the developer with coming back with an alternative development proposal. I would also ask that an 8ft fence be guaranteed to be built along the abutting properties, and that every effort should be made to save as many of the old growth trees on the property as possible. Just because something can be done, doesn't mean it should be. I believe this development proposal falls into that category. 14M. IEMETO= Page 214 of 224 Eric Schneider From: BrendaK4enaod Sent: Sunday, September 1,2O248:23PK4 To: Eric Schneider; Bi||oannidis Subject: proposed development of 60 Trussler Road 110 Some people who received this message don't often get email from b rtant HiEric and Bi[ ff-TIMMMWITO MIR The structure istoo large for that space ofland. The proposed plan states there will be73parking spaces, however, city of Kitchener by-law requires 74 for this zone type, RES -5. The by-law requires 1 parking space per dwelling and 0.15 visitor parking space per dwelling. This brings the total required spaces to 73.6, which necessitates 74 parking spaces. Also, a source states the proposed plan has a Floor Space Ratio of 0.57 and minimum FSR, as required by the city ofKitchener by-law isO.6O. The structures do not fit in with the site lines of the neighbourhood, and, with being 3stories high, will impede onthe privacy of existing homes, Allowing the rezoning of this property sets the precedent for allowing larger developments in the future. Presently, this is 8 quiet and peaceful neighbourhood, and 8 d8V8lopDl8Dt of such high density greatly threatens that peace and quiet. With regard to existing municpal water, sewage and storm run-off, how is the city dealing with the increase of demand ofthese services? Won't removing green space and replacing it with the 3 structures, concrete and pavement increase the risk offlooding inthe area? How are garbage, recylcing and snow removal vehicles supposed to have adequate access to the area? |fthere ison-site garbage storage, will increase unwanted animals and smells. In conclusion, | am very opposed to the proposed development of6OTruss|er Road. Thank you for your time and consideration ofthese concerns. Brenda. NYou don't often get email from w Hello Eric, ^ �September Sund�e1,20242:39PK4 Eric Schneider bi|ioannidis@kkchenecca 60 Trussler Road zoning exemption The height exemption request b11.Gmetres, which 1Vmeis38feet higher. Google tells rnethe average height ofustorey inanapartment is10feet. Does the requested exemption equate to one? two? three? additional stories on the stacked units? The card I received says the concept is for 3 buildings of 3 storeys each, yet picture show 2 storeys. 1111111llljllj��I 11 11 11 How much is the decreased year setback that has been requested? Thanks Lynn cc.8i||oannidis,ward 7councillor � Page 216 of 224 From: Sent: To: You don't often get email from SYLVIA LAMMERS Sunday, September 1, 2024 11:58 AM Eric Schneider Trussler rd housing development Hi there To whom it may concern [UNW11111WOMI 9 As a long time resident living on costain crt just off Trussler rd, I am very concerned regarding the new housing development proposed for the land behind Devtek. I'm concerned about: -Added traffic on Trussler rd -it's a. high density project in. a low density neighborhood -possible overflow parking spilling onto ajacent streets. -higher buildings overlooking neighbors L,.# 71 Page 217 of 224 Sent from Rogers Yahoo Mail for Whone IN Page 218 of 224 Eric Schneider From: Gary Lammer! Sent: Sunda\\Septemoer /,202411:53AK4 To: Eric Schneider Subject: Tmss|errdhousing development [You don't often get email from � ^rnwhy this isimportant aL Hi there Towhom itmay concern Asalong time resident living on costain crt just off Trussler rd, I am very concerned regarding the new housing development proposed for the land behind Devtek. I'm concerned about: -Added traffic onTruss|errd -it's a high density project in a low density neighborhood -possible overflow parking spilling onto ajacent streets. -higher buildings overlooking neighbors Gary Lammers . . Gary Lammers Z3, Eric Schneider From: D&RRENAN Sent: Saturday, August 3|,202411:52AM To: Eric Schneider Cc: Bi||uannidis Subject: 60 Trussler road Some people who received this message don't often get email from ' Gentlemen, We are residents of this small three street community and have been told of a proposal to double our community with stacked housing on Trussler road. I would like it to be know that we whole heartedly disagree with the size of this proposed development. With the incredible building going omatthe corners ofIra needles Blvd and Highland Road i1has become increasingly evident that the current infrastructure can't handle even the amount of people and vehicles that are now living in those new buildings not to mention the eventual completion of even more currently under construction now. If you agree to the number of units that are proposed you will only be adding to a litany of problems with current congestion that has already been created by your past approvals. Gentlemen, simply put it is too much .... too fast with the current infrastructure not able to handle the number of residents you are being asked to allow into that small area. Please think this through and I welcome you to come out to the area and look at this proposed site and the impact it will also have onthe home owners onCora dr. 11111171nd &V MO Darren Ali �- 74 Eric Schneider From: Violet Balzer Sent: Wednesday, August 28, 2024 10:22 AM To: Eric Schneider Cc: bil.loannidis@kitchener.ca Subject: Opposition to Development at 60 Trussler Road, Kitchener A You don't often get email from -earn why this We live on Trussler Road and wish to express our STRONG opposition to th'; proposed development at 60 Trussler Road. Originally, this property was a single home lot, which was sold and a reasonable proposal was planned to subdivide it into 5 executive lots. However, the current proposal for 64 dwelling units with 73 parking spaces is excessive and incompatible with our neighborhood. A development of that size was never planned for this area and approval of such overcrowding on this lot would be negligent abuse of maintaining the faith in our Mayor and Councilors to consider why our bylaws have been written and passed as they currently stand. We request that the City halt this application and restrict any future application to remain within all current bylaws / easements and consider the existing communities where such applications are entertained Bylaw enforcements are for everyone and cannot be changed to pad the pockets of developers We are shocked that this proposal was allowed to get this far in the planning stages While we understand some development is necessary, it should enhance, not overwhelm, the area. We firmly oppose increasing the building height to 11.6 meters and urge that any new structure be restricted to 2 stories. Additionally, reducing the side yard setbacks and reducing / removing or turning green space into parking lots is unacceptable. Our community needs areas for recreation, tranquility,, and a sense of home. Furthermore, Trussler Road already faces traffic issues, and adding more density without addressing these problems needs to be addressed. We were promised traffic calming measures this year, and this proposal seems to Page 221 of 224 disregard that commitment. Also, to date, no traffic calming measures have been put in lace® Tf you have any further information regarding this application or how to best understand our appeal rights we would like to receive it prior to the ZOOM meeting so that we are prepared. mne r-mansweam. = 7G Page 222 of 224 101 You don't often get email from Hi SarahKnechte| Monday, August 1S\2O246:O4AM Eric Schneider Lot ontmss|ernj Learn why this We spoke a few years ago about the lot on trussler. There is a new sign about it now being re zoned into a 64 unit housing complex. | am absolutely furious aboutthis—| didn't move into o neighborhood to have my backyard looking onto housing complex. I haven't been notified of this change in zoning, I also asked specifically the last time we spoke if this was the case and it wasn't. Has the rezoning passed already? | want the details ofthis. Sarah 71 LU J n o r [D � z_ f D a U N II I� II J (n �a Cn in a = U 6 Y a w N r J N Z v N Q 'O a V N in Wd G = �¢ 6 y .` � om a m J N o m QJ aCCC,W� `u a' dU N Z;5 NU�aO�Q a a cC zzli �ZODU ?3m F o w i > K LU U H Cf) I g w 0 W 0 Z W w I z I I I ` I I I 0 co I `.I I I N N I 1 I o n o o � N o N LU CO 0 I I I Z I O W Z 14 ui I EI I LU cl -- Of :.�.0 Of I U) U) Of .: ,..