HomeMy WebLinkAboutDSD-2025-025 - Official Plan Amendment Application OPA24/012/K/ES - Zoning By-law Amendment Application ZBA24/024/K/ES - 4611 King Street East - Imperial Oil Ltd.Staff Report
l
IKgc.;i' r� R
Development Services Department www.kitchener.ca
REPORT TO: Planning and Strategic Initiatives Committee
DATE OF MEETING: January 27, 2025
SUBMITTED BY: Garett Stevenson, Director of Development and Housing
Approvals, 519-783-8922
PREPARED BY: Eric Schneider, Senior Planner, 519-783-8918
WARD(S) INVOLVED: Ward 3
DATE OF REPORT:
REPORT NO.
January 10, 2025
DSD -2025-025
SUBJECT: Official Plan Amendment Application OPA24/012/K/ES
Zoning By-law Amendment Application ZBA24/024/K/ES
4611 King Street East
Imperial Oil Limited c/o LJM Developments
RECOMMENDATION:
That Official Plan Amendment Application OPA/24/012/K/ES for Imperial Oil Limited
c/o LJM Developments requesting to add Policy 15.D.12.80 to Section 15.D.12 and to
add Specific Policy Area 80 to Map 5 — Specific Policy Areas in the Official Plan to
facilitate a mixed use development having 726 residential dwelling units and 1,892
square metres of commercial space within two towers atop a shared podium with
building heights of 22 and 33 storeys and a Floor Space Ratio (FSR) of 7.9, be
approved, in the form shown in the Official Plan Amendment attached to Report DSD -
2025 -025 as Attachments 'Al' and `A2',
That Zoning By-law Amendment Application ZBA24/024/K/ES for Imperial Oil
Limited c/o LJM Developments be approved in the form shown in the `Proposed By-
law', and `Map No. 1', attached to Report DSD -2024-025 as Attachments `131' and
`B2'.
REPORT HIGHLIGHTS:
• The purpose of this report is to evaluate and provide a planning recommendation
regarding the Official Plan Amendment and Zoning By-law Amendment Applications
for the subject lands located at 4611 King Street East. It is planning staff's
recommendation that the Official Plan and Zoning By-law Amendments be approved.
• The proposed amendments support the creation of 726 dwelling units, and associated
podium commercial space on an underutilized site that is currently vacant.
• Community engagement included:
*** This information is available in accessible formats upon request. ***
Please call 519-741-2345 or TTY 1-866-969-9994 for assistance.
Page 1687 of 1997
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 Virtual Neighbourhood Meeting held on October 16, 2024;
o Two in person on-site neighbourhood meetings held October 4, 2024 and October
18, 2024 with Planning Staff. In-person neighbouhood meeting held October 30,
2024 with Planning Staff, Ward Councillor, and applicant.
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 Meetings;
o Notice of the public meeting was published in The Record on January 3, 2025.
• This report supports the delivery of core services.
• This application was deemed complete on August 30, 2024. The Applicant can appeal
this application for non -decision after December 28, 2024.
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY:
LJM Developments of the subject lands addressed as 4611 King Street East is proposing
to add a Specific Policy Area in the City of Kitchener Official Plan, and to change the
zoning to Mixed Use Three Zone (MIX -3) and add a Site Specific Provision in Zoning By-
law 2019-051. Staff are recommending that the applications be approved.
BACKGROUND:
The City of Kitchener has received applications for Official Plan Amendment and Zoning
By-law Amendment from Imperial Oil Limited c/o LJM Developments for a development
concept of a mixed-use building containing two residential towers atop a shared
podium/building base containing 726 dwelling units as well as office and retail commercial
space.
The applications originally requested building heights of 25 and 30 storeys. Through
circulation and review, the applicant has shifted density away from the rear of the site
towards the front of the site (along King Street East) and the tower heights have been
revised to 22 and 33 storeys as a result. The location of the rear tower has shifted further
from the property line shared with existing low-rise residential lands. Further, the applicant
has agreed to meet the City's transition to low rise residential zoning regulation, meaning
no building height will exceed 12 metres within 15 metres of a low-rise residential property.
This is not reflected on the revised plan and the podium/building base will be either shifted
in location or reduced in height in order to comply with the transition standard. An updated
concept is being developed and will be conceptually presented at the Planning and
Strategic Initiatives Meeting by the Applicant.
Through the circulation, adjacent and nearby residents raised concerns regarding potential
impacts to private wells as a result of the development. The applicant has retained a
professional hydrogeologist, who provided a response letter dated November 7, 2024
(Attachment `G'). The letter states that the applicant will provide complete a
hydrogeological investigation which will include a private water well survey which includes
properties within 250 metres of the subject lands. The survey will allow the applicant's
hydrogeologist to assess concerns related to potential adverse impacts to nearby
Page 1688 of 1997
residential water supply wells. The applicant has committed to monitor and if necessary,
mitigate potential negative impacts on water quality or quantity.
The lands are currently designated `Commercial' in the City's Official Plan and are
currently zoned "Arterial Commercial" in Zoning By-law 2019-051 with Site -Specific
Provision (88). Site specific provision (88) permits the use of the lands for a Veterinary
Clinic.
Site Context
The subject lands are addressed as 4611 King Street East. The site is located on the
south side of King Street East. The subject lands have a lot area of 0.74 hectares with a
frontage of approximately 72 metres on King Street East. To the east of the site, Highway
401 crosses over King Street East and represents the municipal boundary with the City of
Cambridge. Access to the 401 West is available with on -ramps to the east of the site.
Access to the Conestoga Expressway is available 2 kilometres west of the site. The
subject lands are currently vacant, and formerly contained a gas station. The surrounding
neighbourhood includes low-rise residential lands to the south, and arterial commercial
uses along King Street East.
°u°�.
M> r�
1
SUBJECT Wi
AREA
�:.�a�����✓yid. ���• �r
r
h,
Cfj r
mr�
�G
Figure 1 - Location Map: 4611 King Street East
Page 1689 of 1997
REPORT:
The applicant is proposing to redevelop the subject lands with a mixed use development
containing 726 dwelling units, 1,892 square metres of commercial space within the
podium/building base and three levels of underground parking. The proposed
development contains two residential towers of 33 and 22 storeys in height, as revised,
with a shared 7 storey podium/building base. Retail units on the ground floor would front
onto King Street East, and a large office unit is proposed on the second floor of the
podium/building base. One vehicular access is proposed on King Street East (right in, right
Out). A total of 493 vehicular parking spaces are proposed. 404 bicycle parking spaces
are proposed, with 398 secure indoor spaces within the underground parking garage and
6 outdoor temporary spaces on the surface level for short-term and visitor use. Outdoor
amenity areas are proposed at grade at the rear of the site as well as on top of the
podium/building base.
Figure 2 — View of Subject Lands (View from King Street)
Page 1690 of 1997
Figure 3 - View of Subject Lands (View of Rear of Site looking West)
Figure 4 - View of Subject Lands (View of Rear of Site looking South)
Page 1691 of 1997
Figure 5 — View of Subject Lands (East Side Property Line- Looking towards MTO
Lands)
Figure 6 — View of Subject Lands (West Side Property Line- Looking towards Goemans
Appliances)
Page 1692 of 1997
Storeys)
Figure 8: Revised Concept Plan (22 and 33 Storeys)
Page 1693 of 1997
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 Planning Statement, 2024, 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 Planning Statement, 2024 and to ensure Provincial policy is adhered to.
Provincial Planning 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.
Section 2.2.1 b) states that planning authorities shall provide for an appropriate range and
mix of housing options and densities to meet projected needs of current and future
Page 1694 of 1997
residents by permitting and facilitating all types of residential intensification, including the
redevelopment of underutilized commercial sites.
Policies further promote, improving accessibility and social equity, and efficiently using
land, resources, and existing infrastructure.
Planning staff is of the opinion that this proposal in in conformity with the PPS.
Regional Official Plan (ROP):
Bill 23, More Homes Built Faster Act, 2022, introduced significant changes to the Planning
Act to streamline the development process and increase housing supply across the
province. Planning responsibilities from the Region of Waterloo have been transferred to
the City of Kitchener and other area municipalities as of January 1, 2025. The ROP is now
an Official Plan for area municipalities who are responsible for implementation of the ROP
until it is repealed or amended through a future Area Municipal planning exercise.
The subject lands are designated `Urban Area' and `Built -Up Area' on Schedule 3a of the
Regional Official Plan (ROP). The subject lands are located along a Regional
Intensification Corridor (King Street East). 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 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 development
also proposes units with a range of bedroom counts and unit sizes, which serve to
enhance the mix of unit types in the area and is appropriately located along a corridor well -
served by transit. The Region of Waterloo have indicated they have no objections to the
proposed application. (Attachment `D'). Planning staff are of the opinion that the
applications conform to the Regional Official Plan.
City of Kitchener Official Plan (OP):
The City of Kitchener OP provides the long-term land use vision for Kitchener. The vision
is further articulated and implemented through the guiding principles, goals, objectives,
and policies which are set out in the Plan. The Vision and Goals of the OP strive to build
an innovative, vibrant, attractive, safe, complete, and healthy community.
The subject lands are within an `Arterial Corridor' (Map 2 — Urban Structure) in the City of
Kitchener Official Plan. The subject lands are designated `Commercial' (Map 3 — Land
Use) in the City of Kitchener Official Plan. The Commercial land use designation permits
commercial and service commercial uses. The range of uses are dependent on the Urban
Structure.
The applicant is proposing to amend the Official Plan to add a Specific Policy Area to
permit the use of retail and dwelling units within an Arterial Corridor Urban Structure.
Page 1695 of 1997
Urban Structure
The Official Plan establishes an Urban Structure for the City of Kitchener and provides
policies for directing growth and development within this structure. Intensification Areas
are targeted throughout the Built-up Area as key locations to accommodate and receive
the majority of development or redevelopment for a variety of land uses. Primary
Intensification Areas include the Urban Growth Centre, Protected Major Transit Station
Areas, City and Community Nodes and Urban Corridors, and Secondary Intensification
Areas include Neighbourhood Nodes and Arterial Corridors in this hierarchy, according to
Section 3.C.2.3 of the Official Plan. The subject lands are located within an Arterial
Corridor. The planned function of an Arterial Corridor is to provide for a limited range of
retail and service commercial uses intended to predominately serve those travelling by
automobile and to accommodate a limited range of land extensive retail uses which
require outdoor storage or sales.
The uses of retail and dwelling units are not contemplated in to be included as permitted
uses or in the planned function of Arterial Corridors in the Official Plan. The applicant is
requesting an amendment to add these uses through the establishment of a Special Policy
Area (80). Justification provided by the applicant states the site achieves the planned
function of the Arterial Corridor as it will be developed with ground level and second floor
commercial uses that address King Street East and serve the arterial corridor. The
dwelling units will be located above and behind those commercial uses. The applicant
also states the site acts as a gateway to the City of Kitchener as it is located adjacent to
the municipal boundary to Cambridge, and a gateway to the Region of Waterloo as it is
located adjacent to the Highway 401 off ramp into the City of Kitchener/City of Cambridge.
Commercial Land Use Designation Policies
The policies listed below are in regard to the permitted uses within Arterial Corridors. The
applicant is requesting to establish a Site -Specific Policy to permit retail and dwelling units,
notwithstanding the following policies:
15. D. 5.16. The permitted uses on lands designated Commercial and identified as a
Protected Major Transit Station Area, City Node, Community Node, Arterial
Corridor or Urban Corridor on Map 2, may include:
a) auto service stations which may include car washes, gas stations and/or gas
bars;
b) commercial entertainment uses as an accessory use within a hotel, motel,
restaurant or planned commercial recreation complex,
c) commercial recreation;
d) conference /convention /exhibition facilities;
e) drive-through facilities;
f) financial establishments;
g) funeral homes;
h) hotels and motels;
i) health offices and health clinics;
j) office;
k) personal services;
I) religious institutions;
m) restaurants;
Page 1696 of 1997
n) sale, rental, service, storage or repair of motor vehicles, major recreational
equipment and parts and accessories for motor vehicles or major recreational
equipment, and,
o) vehicle and recreational equipment sales/rental and service.
15. D. 5.17. In addition to Policy 15.D.5.16, the permitted uses on lands designated
Commercial and identified as a Protected Major Transit Station Area, City Node,
Community Node or Urban Corridor on Map 2:
a) will include retail, and may include retail commercial centres where they are
permitted in accordance with the applicable policies in Section 3. C.2; and,
b) may include dwelling units, where appropriate, provided that they are located in
the same building as compatible commercial uses and are not located on the
ground floor to a maximum Floor Space Ratio of 2.0.
15. D. 5.20. Lands designated Commercial and identified as an Arterial Corridor on Map 2:
a) are not intended to accommodate retail activities that are more appropriately
located and otherwise permitted in the Urban Growth Centre (Downtown), or
on lands designated Commercial Campus, Mixed Use, or on lands designated
for commercial uses within Urban Corridors. Accordingly, permitted retail uses
will be restricted to only retail uses that are:
i) accessory to a warehouse, storage or distribution facility;
ii) form part of an establishment relating to the servicing of motor vehicles or
major recreational equipment,
iii) accessory to or contained within permitted service commercial uses;
iv) require large enclosed or open storage areas to sell bulky, space intensive
goods;
v) convenience retail.
b) will also permit a limited range of light industrial uses which by the nature of
their operation are well suited for location on Regional Roads and City arterial
streets. Accordingly, the following uses may also be permitted:
i) contractor's establishment, with the exception of craftsman shops used for
the production of handmade or custom commodities, industrial uses that
engage in on-site manufacturing or processing will not be permitted,
ii) manufacturing uses will be permitted on specific properties zoned to permit
manufacturing as of the date of approval of this Plan;
iii) warehousing; and,
iv) wholesaling.
Page 1697 of 1997
15. D. 5.2 1. The City will have regard to the following criteria when considering development
or redevelopment applications for new uses in lands designated Commercial
and identified with an Arterial Corridor on Map 2 and/or justification to expand or
create a new Commercial land use designation within an Arterial Corridor on
Map 2:
a) the uses are not compatible or feasible to locate in the other lands designated
for commercial uses or within the Urban Growth Centre (Downtown);
b) the use requires exposure and accessibility afforded by Regional or City
Arterial Streets given the nature of their goods and services;
c) the use relies on business from and exposure to the travelling public; and/or,
d) the use is not required to locate within an industrial employment area due to
the characteristics of the operation.
Staff acknowledge that a Specific Policy Area is required to be established to permit the
uses of retail and dwelling units on the subject lands. There are certain factors that
encourage consideration for allowing the use of retail and dwelling units, despite the OP
policies that do not permit them as -of -right.
Firstly, the subject applications present a unique opportunity to provide for intensification
on an underutilized parcel of land that has been vacant for decades. Use of existing land
within the built-up area is desirable to create an efficient use of resources and
infrastructure.
Secondly, the site contains a known plume of contaminated groundwater, and these
applications would require a Record of Site condition to be filed with the Province that
would require the lands to be remediated or risk assessed for use as residential. In order
to construct the proposed underground parking levels, the applicant will be required to
remove some of the contaminated groundwater from the existing known plume on site that
will need would be properly treated. This helps to remediate, revitalize, and re -use a site
that was formerly used as a gas station and contains known contaminants as identified in
the Phase I and Phase II Environmental Site Assessments that have been completed on
the site.
Thirdly, the City's new Official Plan Comprehensive Review (Kitchener 2051) is exploring
new ways to spread density throughout the City's intensification areas, allowing greater
permissions for mixed use, spreading residential density throughout the city in order to
respond to rapidly evolving land use needs. In order to meet the City's ambitious housing
pledge, Staff and Council acknowledge that permissions for housing density in more
places and leveraging underutilized lands to unlock potential for intensification will be
important strategies to employ both on a policy level, and when considering individual
development applications such as this one.
Lastly, the King Street East corridor between Highway 8 and Highway 401 is evolving,
largely due to a significant portion of lands within a Protected Major Transit Station Area
Page 1698 of 1997
(PMTSA). City Staff are currently working on a project to bring to Council in the second
quarter of 2025 for approval of new land use policies and permissions for the lands within
the PMTSA called "Growing Together East". The land use changes aim to align with City
objectives to:
• Address the housing crisis by improving housing choice and affordability in
Kitchener's MTSAs
• Address the climate emergency by creating transit -supportive communities. This
includes maximizing the use of existing infrastructure and leveraging new
infrastructure.
• Encourage a shift towards active transportation and transit within complete
communities that provide for daily needs
• Help bring more people, activity, life and diversity to Kitchener's MTSAs
Although the subject lands are approximately 200 metres outside of the PMTSA area
(east), it is expected that there will be increased focus and interest in intensification and
redevelopment in areas just outside of MTSA's, especially along major transportation
corridors like King Street East.
Urban Design Policies:
The City's urban design policies are outlined in Section 11 of the City's OP. In the opinion
of staff, the proposed development satisfies these policies including: Streetscape; Safety;
Universal Design; Site Design; Building Design, and Massing and Scale Design. To
address these policies, an Urban Design Brief was submitted and has been reviewed by
City staff. The Urban Design Brief is acceptable and outlines the vision and principles
guiding the site design and informs the proposed zoning regulations.
Streetscape — The proposed concept includes retail storefronts along King Street East with
individual pedestrian entrances. The podium/building base is situated along King Street
East and encompasses over 50% of the site's frontage. Building entrances and windows
on the ground floor articulate the building and provide visual interest at street level.
Opportunities for landscape (planting beds) between the building and the sidewalk are
available and shown on the concept plan.
Safety — As with all developments that go through Site Plan Approval, staff will ensure
Crime Prevention through Environmental Design (CPTED) principles are achieved and
that the site meets emergency services policies. Staff will ensure that Driveway Visibility
Triangles (DVTs) are provided to ensure adequate visibility for motorists, cyclists, and
pedestrians at the site entrance.
Universal Design — The development will be designed to comply with Accessibility for
Ontarians with Disabilities Act and the Ontario Building Code. Barrier -Free parking is
provided within underground and above -grade parking.
Site Design, Building Design, Massing and Scale — The massing and distribution of density
has been revised as a result of Staff and Neighbourhood comments. First, the tower at the
rear of the site (Building B) has been reduced by 3 storeys, from 25 to 22 storeys. These 3
storeys have been added to the tower at the front of the site (Building A). Secondly, the
location of Building B has been shifted by approximately 3 metres to the northeast, further
Page 1699 of 1997
from lands zoned low rise residential, now meeting the transition to low rise zoning
regulation. In regards to building design, the applicant has selectively provided balconies
to ensure that they are not projecting towards the low rise residential lands and are instead
facing internal, facing MTO owned lands, or facing King Street East. This is in response to
privacy concerns of existing adjacent low rise residential lands.
Shadow Impact Analysis
The applicant has completed a Shadow Impact Analysis in addition to the Urban Design
Brief. Staff have reviewed the study and are satisfied the shadow study meets the
requirements outlined in the City of Kitchener Urban Design Manual.
Tower Desian
Both proposed towers are classified as a "Compact Slab Tower" as the proposed tower
floor plates are less than 850 square metres in area, with a greater than 1.6 ratio of the
building length and width. The towers are on a shared 7 -storey podium/building base. The
tower massing is broken up vertically by variation and the articulation of building materials
and balconies. The building includes a 3 -storey portion along King Street East as a
building step-down.
Transportation Policies:
The Official Plan supports an integrated transportation system which incorporates active
transportation, allows for the movement of people and goods and promotes a vibrant,
healthy community using land use designations and urban design initiatives that make a
wide range of transportation choices viable.
On Map 2 of the City's Official Plan, King Street East adjacent to the subject lands is
identified as a Light Rail Transit Corridor. However, the subject lands are not within a
Protected Major Transit Station Area. The site is located 1.2 km east of the planned King
and Sportsworld Ion Station Stop (Ion Phase 2). Protected Major Transit Station Areas are
generally an 800 metre radius from Light Rail Transit Station Stops.
The subject lands are in close proximity (under 5 minute walk) to existing Grand River
Transit bus pads on King Street East for routes iXpress 203 and 206, providing region
wide access and connectivity. Pedestrian sidewalks exist in front of the subject lands and
extend west. The sidewalk does not continue east and ends before the Highway 401 West
on-ramp. The Region of Waterloo does not have any conceptual plan and there is no
funding in the Region's 10 -year capital forecast to extend sidewalk under Highway 401
and toward the municipal boundary to Cambridge.
The site is not currently well -served by on- or off-street cycling facilities. A Multi -Use Trail
(MUT) exists on the north side of King Street (opposite side of the subject lands) between
Sportsworld Drive and Gateway Park Drive. The MUT is proposed to be extended on King
Street between Sportsworld Drive and the Freeport Bridge in future phases of construction
in 2028-2029.
Vehicular access is provided in a single point of access from King Street East. The access
is located on the west side of the site in order to be as far as possible from the on ramp to
Highway 401 (westbound) that is located east of the site. Vehicular movements are to be
right in, right out only. There is an existing concrete median along King Street East, with a
Page 1700 of 1997
break for U-turns in front of the subject lands. The median break would be removed in the
future when the LRT is constructed on the centre line median and U-turns would no longer
be available to vehicles exiting the site and travelling west on King Street East. City staff
have flagged concerns for vehicle movements both current and future to Regional
transportation staff.
The proposed Official Plan Amendment and Zoning By-law Amendment Applications
support a dense residential development. The typology of the proposed buildings will
result in a compact built form that fosters walkability within a pedestrian -friendly
environment that allows walking to be safe, comfortable, barrier -free and a convenient
form of urban travel.
Housing Policies:
Section 4.1.1 of the City's Official Plan contains policies with the primary objective 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. The proposed development increases the range of dwelling units available in
the city. The development is contemplated to include a range of unit types including, one-,
two- and three-bedroom units. The wide range of units, in this location, will appeal to a
variety of household needs and directly responds to the need for more housing during the
current housing crisis.
Section 4.C.1.3 states that the majority of new residential growth in the Built -Up Area will
occur within Intensification Areas. The site is within a secondary intensification area
(Arterial Corridor). Section 4.C.1.6 states that the City will identify and encourage
residential intensification and redevelopment including infill opportunities in order to
respond to changing housing needs and as a cost-effective means to reduce infrastructure
and servicing costs by minimizing land consumption and making better use of community
infrastructure.
Official Plan Conclusions
The Official Plan Amendment Application requests that Policy 15.D.12.80 be added to
Section 15.D.12 and that Map 5 — be amended to add `Specific Policy Area 80'. Based on
the above -noted policies and planning analysis, staff is of the opinion that the proposed
Official Plan Amendment represents good planning and recommends that the proposed
Official Plan Amendment be approved in the form shown in Attachment `A'.
Proposed Zoning By-law Amendment:
The subject lands are currently zoned "Arterial Commercial" in Zoning By-law 2019-051
with Site -Specific Provision (88). Site specific provision (88) permits the use of the lands
for a Veterinary Clinic.
The applicant has requested an amendment to change the zoning from `Arterial
Commercial (COM -3)' to `Mixed Use Three Zone (MIX -3)'. The applicant is also requesting
to remove the existing Site -Specific Provision (88) from the subject lands and replace it
with a new Site -Specific Provision (417). The new site specific provision would establish
new development standards for the proposed concept, including height, Floor Space
Ratio, parking, and setbacks.
Page 1701 of 1997
Four (4) Holding Provisions are proposed to be established to require a Record of Site
Condition, a Noise Study, and confirmation of Sanitary Servicing and Stormwater
Servicing.
Official Plan policies indicate that where special zoning regulations are requested for
residential intensification or a redevelopment of lands, the overall impact of the site
specific zoning regulations will consider compatibility with existing built form; appropriate
massing and setbacks that support and maintain streetscape and community character;
appropriate buffering to mitigate adverse impacts, particularly with respect to privacy;
avoidance of unacceptable adverse impacts by providing appropriate number of parking
spaces and an appropriate landscaped/amenity area.
Staff offer the following comments with respect to Site -Specific Provision (417):
a) The maximum Floor Space Ratio (FSR) shall be 7.9.
The purpose of this regulation is to limit the maximum Floor Space Ratio (FSR) and
ensure development does not exceed the density presented in the concept plans. Floor
Space Ratio (FSR) is used to measure the overall massing of the above grade portions of
the development, in order to quantify the overall density of the site. The applicant has
provided a revised development concept that demonstrates adequate building scale and
orientation, and transition to low-rise residential lands to justify a requested increase in
Floor Space Ratio to 7.9. Further, the applicant has provided a concept plan
demonstrating functional access, loading, parking, on site circulation, and robust amenity
to demonstrate that a building of this typology with the proposed density and Floor Space
Ratio of 7.9 can function appropriately on the lands.
b) The maximum building height shall be 110 metres and 33 storeys (Tower A) and 75
metres and 22 storeys (Tower B)
The purpose of this regulation is to regulate the maximum building height for the proposed
development. The proposed building heights of the two towers are generally in accordance
with the City's Tall Building Guidelines. The applicant has provided a Shadow Impact
Analysis that demonstrates that the standards for sunlight and shadow impacts in the
City's Urban Design Guidelines are met. The proposed building height represents a high-
rise form of development that is appropriate in an intensification area in the City Official
Plan and the King Street East regional intensification corridor in the Regional Official Plan.
The maximum height regulation represents Building A on the proposed concept plan,
which is located along King Street East and is further from the low rise residential lands
that abut the rear of the site. Building B at the rear of the site is a shorter tower at 22
storeys and approximately 75 metres tall.
C) That the minimum interior side yard setback shall be 3 metres.
The purpose of this regulation is to regulate the building setback to adjacent properties
and provide for an adequate building setback for landscaping and amenity areas. The
proposed setback of 3 metres is from a 3 storey portion of the podium/building base
abutting the MTO lands. The MTO has permitted site development up to 3 metres away
Page 1702 of 1997
from their property lines. No impacts to abutting residential lands or commercial lands are
affected by this site specific provision and no impacts to those lands are expected.
D) That the minimum percent of non-residential gross floor area shall be 3%.
The purpose of this regulation is to establish a required minimum for non-residential floor
area (retail/office space) for the development. This represents a decrease from the typical
minimum of 20% of non-residential floor area that would be required to be provided in the
base `MIX -3' zone. Staff acknowledge that viability for non-residential floor space is
typically along the street front on the ground floor level where it is visible to foot traffic. The
applicant is also providing a substantial office unit (approximately 1,200 square metres) on
the second floor of the podium/building base. Staff are of the opinion that the proposed
1,892 square metres of non-residential floor area will achieve the City's objective in
promoting a compatible mix of uses within the same building and provide adequate
commercial and service opportunities to the on-site dwelling units as well as the
surrounding neighbourhood.
E) The maximum number of storeys in the base of a tall building shall be 7 storeys.
The `MIX -3' zone permits a maximum of 6 storeys in the base of a tall building. This is to
foster a human scale pedestrian realm along the street lines. In order to address this, the
applicant is including a 3 storey stepdown along King Street that will break up the massing
at ground level and provide for a better transition in height toward the streetscape. Urban
Design staff have reviewed the massing, orientation, stepdowns, and heights proposed for
the podium/building base and are satisfied with the proposed design.
F) That the minimum vehicle parking be a rate of 0.57 parking spaces per dwelling unit.
The purpose of this regulation is to provide for a parking rate which is appropriate for the
development. The proposed ratio results in a parking rate of 0.57 parking spaces per
dwelling unit. The subject lands have adequate access to public transit. Bicycle storage
will be provided within the development for residents and visitors. The requested Zoning
By-law Amendment for high density development is encouraged to be transit -supportive,
and parking ratios lower than 1 parking space per dwelling unit actively encourage transit
and active transportation use. The future Phase 2 Ion Rapid transit corridor is along King
Street East and although the site is not located within a Protected Major Transit Station
Area, it is approximately 1.2 km away from a proposed station stop that would provide
access to regional rapid transit. The applicant has provided a Transportation Demand
Management plan as part of their Transportation Impact Study and it has been reviewed
and deemed acceptable by the Region of Waterloo Corridor Planning Department and the
City's Transportation Services staff.
G) That Geothermal energy systems shall be prohibited.
The purpose of this regulation is to protect sensitive groundwater areas. The Region of
Waterloo requires a prohibition on geothermal energy on the subject lands.
Holdinq Provisions (97H), (98H), (99H), (100H)
Planning staff are recommending the following Holding Provisions as part of the Zoning
By-law Amendment:
Page 1703 of 1997
No residential use shall be permitted until such time as:
97H: A Record of Site Condition is submitted and approved by the Ministry of the
Environment, Conservation and Parks.
98H: A Noise Study is completed and approved and recommended implementation
measures are established.
99H: Acceptance of sanitary flows from the City of Cambridge is received.
100H: Acceptance of stormwater management flows from the Region is received.
Staff offer the following comments with respect to Holding Provisions (97H), (98H), (99H),
(100H):
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 Site -Specific Provision (417).
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 development or 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 `Mixed Use Three Zone (MIX -3) with Site Specific Provision (417)
and Holding Provisions 97H, 98H, 99H, and 100H' represents good planning as it will
facilitate the redevelopment of the lands with a mixed-use development that is compatible
with the existing neighbourhood, which will add visual interest at the street level, provide
more housing units and choice for the community, provide enhanced landscaping that will
contribute to the streetscape, 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 Attachment `B'.
Department and Agency Comments:
Circulation of the Official Plan Amendment and Zoning By-law Amendment Applications
was undertaken to all applicable City departments and other review authorities. Concerns
with the original Transportation Impact Brief were raised by the Region of Waterloo and
the Ministry of Transportation. Consequently, a more fulsome Transportation Impact Study
Addendum with a TDM report was prepared by the applicant. Concerns with servicing
were addressed through holding provisions. Copies of the comments are found in
Attachment `D' of this report.
The following Reports and Studies were considered as part of this proposed Official Plan
Amendment and Zoning By-law Amendment:
Planning Justification Report
Prepared by: GSP Group, August 2024
Page 1704 of 1997
Urban Design Brief
Prepared by: Kirkor Architects and Planners with GSP Group, June 2024
Architectural Package (including site plan, elevations, floor plans, shadow study)
Prepared by: Kirkor Architects and Planners, June 11, 2024
Noise Impact Study
Prepared by: JJ Acoustic Engineering Ltd, March 21, 2024
Functional Servicing and Stormwater Management Report
Prepared by: MTE Consultants Inc, May 22, 2024
Site Grading and Servicing Plan
Prepared by: MTE Consultants Inc, March 28, 2024
Removals Plan
Prepared by: MTE Consultants Inc, March 18, 2024
Pedestrian Wind Comfort Assessment
Prepared by: RWDI, May 6, 2024
Sustainability Statement
Prepared by: Kirkor Architects and Planners, June 28, 2024
Transportation Impact Brief
Prepared by: Paradigm Transportation Solutions Limited, July 2024
Phase I ESA
Prepared by: Golder Associates, June 2017
Phase II ESA
Prepared by: Golder Associates, December 2017
Tree Protection Plan
Prepared by: Adesso Design Inc, June 10, 2024
Community Input & Staff Responses
Staff received written responses from 20 residents with respect to the proposed
development. These are included in Attachment `E'. A virtual Neighbourhood Meeting was
held on October 16, 2024. Three (3) in-person neighbourhood meetings were held: first
two on-site meetings were held on October 4, 2024 and October 18, 2024 with Planning
Staff. Approximately 25-30 residents participated in those meetings. The third in-person
neighbouhood meeting was held on October 30, 2024 and included Planning Staff, Ward
Councillor Jason Deneault, and Applicant (planning consultant) and the Owner. A
summary of what we heard, and staff responses are noted below.
Page 1705 of 1997
WHAT WE HEARD
Approximately 20 people provided written comments.
A City -led virtual Neighbourhood Meeting held on October 16,
2024 and approximately 37 different users togged on three (3)
n �� further on-site, in-person meetings.
_56 households (occupants and property owners) were
IJ111
circulated and notified.
if
What We Heard
Staff Comment
Buildings are too tall and close to
The design of the development has been revised to
Low Rise Residential lands.
respond to neighbouhood concerns. The height of the
Privacy of existing low rise
tower at the rear (Building B) has been reduced from
neighbourhood to the rear of the
25 storeys to 22 storeys. The location of the tower has
site will be compromised by high
been pushed approximately 3 metres further from the
rise development and balconies
property lines abutting low rise residential lands. No
overlooking backyards.
balconies are proposed on the building fagades that
face the low rise residential lands and design efforts
have been made to orient the balconies towards the
east, north, and west to minimize overlook in response
to privacy concerns.
Further, the applicant has agreed to revise the concept
plan further to fully comply with the City's Transition to
Low Rise Residential zoning regulations, which limit
building height to 12 metres (4 storeys) within 15
metres of low rise residential lands.
Concerns regarding impacts to
The applicant responded to concerns heard at the
private wells as a result of
neighbourhood meeting in regards to private wells.
development.
The applicant has retained a professional
hydrogeologist, who provided a letter dated November
7, 2024 (Attachment `G'). The letter states that the
applicant will provide complete a hydrogeological
investigation which will include a private water well
survey which includes residents within 250 metres of
the subject lands. The survey will allow the applicant's
hydrogeologist to assess concerns related to potential
adverse impacts to nearby residential water supply
Page 1706 of 1997
Page 1707 of 1997
wells. The applicant has committed to monitor and if
necessary, mitigate potential negative impacts on
water quality or quantity.
The City does not regulate private wells, they are
regulated at a provincial level (permits issued by the
Ministry of Environment). Issues between two or more
private property owners regarding wells are a civil
matter.
Impacts of shadows from the tall
A Shadow Study has been submitted. Staff have
building.
reviewed the study and are satisfied the shadow study
meets the minimum requirements, as related to
shadow impacts and will have minimal impacts on
adjacent properties. Staff note that the greatest
shadow impacts occur to the north of the site, going
across King Street and away from the abutting low rise
residential lands.
The site is not well served by
Provincial planning policy, as well as the Regional
community or commercial
Official Plan and Kitchener Official Plan, contain
amenities, and is not a good
policies to encourage intensification on underutilized
location for residential
and vacant parcels of land. The proposal is seeking to
intensification.
add commercial and employment opportunities on-site
in the form of retail space and a large office space.
The surrounding neighbourhood is well served by
other existing commercial uses including restaurants
and retail options.
Vehicle Access will not function
The original submission noted a full movement access
well.
on King Street. This has been revised to a Right in,
Right Out (RIRO) only access, meaning left turns in
and out are prohibited. Vehicles exiting the site and
wishing to travel west towards Sportsworld Drive will
have use of a median break in King Street East for U
turns immediately across from the subject lands.
Transportation Staff at the Region of Waterloo and the
City of Kitchener have deemed the levels of service to
be acceptable, albeit not ideal. Staff note that the
median break for U turns would be eliminated upon
potential construction of Phase 2 Ion Rapid Transit, as
the LRT tracks are proposed to run in the centre
median along this portion of King Street East.
The development will cause more
King Street East is a Regional road. The nearby
traffic to unacceptable levels.
Highway 8 and 401 are under the jurisdiction of the
Ministry of Transportation (MTO).
Page 1707 of 1997
Planning Conclusions
In considering the foregoing, staff are supportive of the proposed Official Plan Amendment
and Zoning By-law Amendment Applications to permit 4611 King Street East to be
developed with a mixed-use building development containing two (2) towers with 726
dwelling units and commercial and office uses. Staff is of the opinion that the subject
applications are consistent with policies of the Provincial Planning Statement, conform to
the Regional Official Plan, and the City of Kitchener Official Plan and represent good
planning. It is recommended that the applications be approved.
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.
Page 1708 of 1997
Staff acknowledge that this section of the King Street
East corridor contains high traffic volumes as an
existing condition (approximately 45 thousand vehicles
daily). Staff identify that future plans by the MTO to
construct a Highway 8 flyover to Highway 401 would
have the potential to significantly reduce traffic along
this portion of King Street East, as motorists would no
longer be required to exit Highway 8 to access the 401
West.
The applicant has provided a revised Transportation
Impact Study that has been accepted by the Region of
Waterloo and City of Kitchener Transportation Staff.
Ministry of Transportation (MTO) staff are reviewing
the updated study.
The movements for pedestrians
Staff will work with the applicant at the Site Plan
and cyclists will be dangerous at
Approval stage to ensure the site entrance is designed
the vehicle site entrance.
for safe use by pedestrians, cyclists, and motorists.
Parking will be insufficient.
The City's policies for this building typology encourage
Transit Supportive Development. This includes
providing for less than 1 parking space per dwelling
unit to encourage transit use, as well as other forms of
transportation including active transportation. The
proposed parking rate in the development helps the
City achieve its goals for a modal shift from automobile
dependence.
Planning Conclusions
In considering the foregoing, staff are supportive of the proposed Official Plan Amendment
and Zoning By-law Amendment Applications to permit 4611 King Street East to be
developed with a mixed-use building development containing two (2) towers with 726
dwelling units and commercial and office uses. Staff is of the opinion that the subject
applications are consistent with policies of the Provincial Planning Statement, conform to
the Regional Official Plan, and the City of Kitchener Official Plan and represent good
planning. It is recommended that the applications be approved.
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.
Page 1708 of 1997
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 September 2024.
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 Meeting. Notice of the Statutory Public Meeting was also
posted in The Record on January 3, 2025 (a copy of the Notice may be found in
Attachment 'C').
CONSULT — The proposed Official Plan Amendment and Zoning By-law Amendment were
circulated to residents and property owners within 240 metres of the subject lands in
September 2024. In response to this circulation, staff received written responses from 20
members of the public. One virtual neighbourhood meeting and 3 in-person
neighbourhood meetings were held.
PREVIOUS REPORTS/AUTHORITIES:
• Planning Act, R.S.O. 1990, c. P.13
• Provincial Planning 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 of Development Approvals,
Development and Housing Approvals Division
APPROVED BY: Readman, Justin— General Manager, Development Services Department
ATTACHMENTS:
Attachment A —
Proposed Official Plan Amendment
Attachment B —
Proposed Zoning By-law Amendment
Attachment C —
Newspaper Notice
Attachment D —
Department and Agency Comments
Attachment E —
Public Comments
Attachment F —
Revised Concept Plan
Attachment G
— Hydrogeology Letter
Page 1709 of 1997
Attachment "A" DSD -2025-025
AMENDMENT NO. XX TO THE OFFICIAL PLAN
OF THE CITY OF KITCHENER
CITY OF KITCHENER
4611 Kina Street East
Page 1710 of 1997
INDEX
SECTION 1
SECTION 2
SECTION 3
SECTION 4
APPENDICES
APPENDIX 1
APPENDIX 2
APPENDIX 3
AMENDMENT NO. XX TO THE OFFICIAL PLAN
OF THE CITY OF KITCHENER
CITY OF KITCHENER
4611 King Street East
TITLE AND COMPONENTS
PURPOSE OF THE AMENDMENT
BASIS OF THE AMENDMENT
THE AMENDMENT
Notice of the Meeting of Planning and Strategic
Initiatives Committee of January 27, 2025
Minutes of the Meeting of Planning and Strategic
Initiatives Committee — January 27, 2025
Minutes of the Meeting of City Council — February 10,
2025
Page 1711 of 1997
Attachment "A" DSD -2025-025
AMENDMENT NO. XX TO THE OFFICIAL PLAN OF THE CITY OF KITCHENER
SECTION 1 — TITLE AND COMPONENTS
This amendment shall be referred to as Amendment No. XX to the Official Plan of the City
of Kitchener. This amendment is comprised of Sections 1 to 4 inclusive.
SECTION 2 — PURPOSE OF THE AMENDMENT
The purpose of the Official Plan Amendment is to amend Section 15.D.12 the Official Plan
by adding Policy 15.D.12.80 to the text and Specific Policy Area 80 to Map 5of the Official
Plan.
SECTION 3 — BASIS OF THE AMENDMENT
The subject lands are designated `Commercial' in the City of Kitchener Official Plan.
Planning Analysis:
Planning Act, R.S.O. 1990, c. P.13 25.
Section 2 of the Planning Act establishes matters of provincial interest and states that
the Minister, the council of a municipality, a local board, a planning board and the
Tribunal, in carrying out their responsibilities under this Act, shall have regard to, among
other matters, matters of provincial interest such as:
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 Planning Statement, 2024, 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 Planning Statement, 2024 and to ensure Provincial policy is adhered to.
Provincial Planning Statement, 2024:
Page 1712 of 1997
Attachment "A" DSD -2025-025
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.
Section 2.2.1 b) states that planning authorities shall provide for an appropriate range
and mix of housing options and densities to meet projected needs of current and future
residents by permitting and facilitating all types of residential intensification, including
the redevelopment of underutilized commercial sites.
Policies further promote, improving accessibility and social equity, and efficiently using
land, resources, and existing infrastructure.
Planning staff is of the opinion that this proposal in in conformity with the PPS.
Regional Official Plan (ROP):
Bill 23, More Homes Built Faster Act, 2022, introduced significant changes to
the Planning Act to streamline the development process and increase housing supply
across the province. Planning responsibilities from the Region of Waterloo have been
transferred to the City of Kitchener and other area municipalities as of January 1, 2025.
As a result, the Region no longer has a ROP as it is now an Official Plan for area
municipalities who are responsible for implementation of the ROP until it is repealed or
amended through a future Area Municipal planning exercise.
The subject lands are designated `Urban Area' and `Built -Up Area' on Schedule 3a of
the Regional Official Plan (ROP). The subject lands are located along a Regional
Intensification Corridor (King Street East). 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 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
4
Page 1713 of 1997
Attachment "A" DSD -2025-025
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 development also proposes units with a range of bedroom counts
and unit sizes, which serve to enhance the mix of unit types in the area and is
appropriately located along a corridor well -served by transit. The Region of Waterloo
have indicated they have no objections to the proposed application. Planning staff are of
the opinion that the applications conform to the Regional Official Plan.
City of Kitchener Official Plan (OP):
The City of Kitchener OP provides the long-term land use vision for Kitchener. The
vision is further articulated and implemented through the guiding principles, goals,
objectives, and policies which are set out in the Plan. The Vision and Goals of the OP
strive to build an innovative, vibrant, attractive, safe, complete, and healthy community.
The subject lands are within an `Arterial Corridor' (Map 2 — Urban Structure) in the City
of Kitchener Official Plan. The subject lands are designated `Commercial' (Map 3 —
Land Use) in the City of Kitchener Official Plan. The Commercial land use designation
permits commercial and service commercial uses. The range of uses are dependent on
the Urban Structure.
The applicant is proposing to amend the Official Plan to add a Specific Policy Area to
permit the use of retail and dwelling units within an Arterial Corridor Urban Structure.
Urban Structure
The Official Plan establishes an Urban Structure for the City of Kitchener and provides
policies for directing growth and development within this structure. Intensification Areas
are targeted throughout the Built-up Area as key locations to accommodate and receive
the majority of development or redevelopment for a variety of land uses. Primary
Intensification Areas include the Urban Growth Centre, Protected Major Transit Station
Areas, City and Community Nodes and Urban Corridors, and Secondary Intensification
Areas include Neighbourhood Nodes and Arterial Corridors in this hierarchy, according
to Section 3.C.2.3 of the Official Plan. The subject lands are located within an Arterial
Corridor. The planned function of an Arterial Corridor is to provide for a limited range of
retail and service commercial uses intended to predominately serve those travelling by
automobile and to accommodate a limited range of land extensive retail uses which
require outdoor storage or sales.
The uses of retail and dwelling units are not contemplated in to be included as permitted
uses or in the planned function of Arterial Corridors in the Official Plan. The applicant is
requesting an amendment to add these uses through the establishment of a Special
Policy Area (80). Justification provided by the applicant states the site achieves the
planned function of the Arterial Corridor as it will be developed with ground level and
second floor commercial uses that address King Street East and serve the arterial
corridor. The dwelling units will be located above and behind those commercial uses.
The applicant also states the site acts as a gateway to the City of Kitchener as it is
located adjacent to the municipal boundary to Cambridge, and a gateway to the Region
Page 1714 of 1997
Attachment "A" DSD -2025-025
of Waterloo as it is located adjacent to the Highway 401 off ramp into the City of
Kitchener/City of Cambridge.
Commercial Land Use Desianation Policies
The policies listed below are in regard to the permitted uses within Arterial Corridors.
The applicant is requesting to establish a Site -Specific Policy to permit retail and
dwelling units, notwithstanding the following policies:
15. D. 5.16. The permitted uses on lands designated Commercial and identified as a
Protected Major Transit Station Area, City Node, Community Node, Arterial
Corridor or Urban Corridor on Map 2, may include:
a) auto service stations which may include car washes, gas stations and/or gas
bars;
b) commercial entertainment uses as an accessory use within a hotel, motel,
restaurant or planned commercial recreation complex;
c) commercial recreation;
d) conference /convention /exhibition facilities;
e) drive-through facilities;
f) financial establishments;
g) funeral homes;
h) hotels and motels;
i) health offices and health clinics;
j) office;
k) personal services;
I) religious institutions;
m) restaurants;
n) sale, rental, service, storage or repair of motor vehicles, major recreational
equipment and parts and accessories for motor vehicles or major
recreational equipment, and,
o) vehicle and recreational equipment sales/rental and service.
15. D. 5.17. In addition to Policy 15.D.5.16, the permitted uses on lands designated
Commercial and identified as a Protected Major Transit Station Area, City
Node, Community Node or Urban Corridor on Map 2:
a) will include retail, and may include retail commercial centres where they are
permitted in accordance with the applicable policies in Section 3. C.2; and,
b) may include dwelling units, where appropriate, provided that they are
located in the same building as compatible commercial uses and are not
located on the ground floor to a maximum Floor Space Ratio of 2.0.
15. D. 5.20. Lands designated Commercial and identified as an Arterial Corridor on Map 2:
a) are not intended to accommodate retail activities that are more appropriately
located and otherwise permitted in the Urban Growth Centre (Downtown), or
on lands designated Commercial Campus, Mixed Use, or on lands
Page 1715 of 1997
Attachment "A" DSD -2025-025
designated for commercial uses within Urban Corridors. Accordingly,
permitted retail uses will be restricted to only retail uses that are:
i) accessory to a warehouse, storage or distribution facility;
ii) form part of an establishment relating to the servicing of motor vehicles or
major recreational equipment,
iii) accessory to or contained within permitted service commercial uses;
iv) require large enclosed or open storage areas to sell bulky, space
intensive goods;
v) convenience retail.
b) will also permit a limited range of light industrial uses which by the nature of
their operation are well suited for location on Regional Roads and City
arterial streets. Accordingly, the following uses may also be permitted:
i) contractor's establishment, with the exception of craftsman shops used
for the production of handmade or custom commodities, industrial uses
that engage in on-site manufacturing or processing will not be permitted,
ii) manufacturing uses will be permitted on specific properties zoned to
permit manufacturing as of the date of approval of this Plan;
iii) warehousing; and,
iv) wholesaling.
15. D. 5.21. The City will have regard to the following criteria when considering
development or redevelopment applications for new uses in lands designated
Commercial and identified with an Arterial Corridor on Map 2 and/or
justification to expand or create a new Commercial land use designation
within an Arterial Corridor on Map 2:
a) the uses are not compatible or feasible to locate in the other lands
designated for commercial uses or within the Urban Growth Centre
(Downtown);
b) the use requires exposure and accessibility afforded by Regional or City
Arterial Streets given the nature of their goods and services;
c) the use relies on business from and exposure to the travelling public; and/or,
d) the use is not required to locate within an industrial employment area due to
the characteristics of the operation.
Page 1716 of 1997
Attachment "A" DSD -2025-025
Staff acknowledge that a Specific Policy Area is required to be established to permit the
uses of retail and dwelling units on the subject lands. There are certain factors that
encourage consideration for allowing the use of retail and dwelling units, despite the OP
policies that do not permit them as -of -right.
Firstly, the subject applications present a unique opportunity to provide for
intensification on an underutilized parcel of land that has been vacant for decades. Use
of existing land within the built-up area is desirable to create an efficient use of
resources and infrastructure.
Secondly, the site contains a known plume of contaminated groundwater, and these
applications would require a Record of Site condition to be filed with the Province that
would require the lands to be remediated or risk assessed for use as residential. In
order to construct the proposed underground parking levels, the applicant will be
required to remove some of the contaminated groundwater from the existing known
plume on site that will need would be properly treated. This helps to remediate,
revitalize, and re -use a site that was formerly used as a gas station and contains known
contaminants as identified in the Phase I and Phase II Environmental Site Assessments
that have been completed on the site.
Thirdly, the City's new Official Plan Comprehensive Review (Kitchener 2051) is
exploring new ways to spread density throughout the City's intensification areas,
allowing greater permissions for mixed use, spreading residential density throughout the
city in order to respond to rapidly evolving land use needs. In order to meet the City's
ambitious housing pledge, Staff and Council acknowledge that permissions for housing
density in more places and leveraging underutilized lands to unlock potential for
intensification will be important strategies to employ both on a policy level, and when
considering individual development applications such as this one.
Lastly, the King Street East corridor between Highway 8 and Highway 401 is evolving,
largely due to a significant portion of lands within a Protected Major Transit Station Area
(PMTSA). City Staff are currently working on a project to bring to Council in the second
quarter of 2025 for approval of new land use policies and permissions for the lands
within the PMTSA called "Growing Together East". The land use changes aim to align
with City objectives to:
• Address the housing crisis by improving housing choice and affordability in
Kitchener's MTSAs
• Address the climate emergency by creating transit -supportive communities. This
includes maximizing the use of existing infrastructure and leveraging new
infrastructure.
• Encourage a shift towards active transportation and transit within complete
communities that provide for daily needs
• Help bring more people, activity, life and diversity to Kitchener's MTSAs
Although the subject lands are approximately 200 metres outside of the PMTSA area
(east), it is expected that there will be increased focus and interest in intensification and
Page 1717 of 1997
Attachment "A" DSD -2025-025
redevelopment in areas just outside of MTSA's, especially along major transportation
corridors like King Street East.
Urban Desian Policies:
The City's urban design policies are outlined in Section 11 of the City's OP. In the
opinion of staff, the proposed development satisfies these policies including:
Streetscape; Safety; Universal Design; Site Design; Building Design, and Massing and
Scale Design. To address these policies, an Urban Design Brief was submitted and has
been reviewed by City staff. The Urban Design Brief is acceptable and outlines the
vision and principles guiding the site design and informs the proposed zoning
regulations.
Streetscape — The proposed concept includes retail storefronts along King Street East
with individual pedestrian entrances. The podium/building base is situated along King
Street East and encompasses over 50% of the site's frontage. Building entrances and
windows on the ground floor articulate the building and provide visual interest at street
level. Opportunities for landscape (planting beds) between the building and the sidewalk
are available and shown on the concept plan.
Safety — As with all developments that go through Site Plan Approval, staff will ensure
Crime Prevention through Environmental Design (CPTED) principles are achieved and
that the site meets emergency services policies. Staff will ensure that Driveway Visibility
Triangles (DVTs) are provided to ensure adequate visibility for motorists, cyclists, and
pedestrians at the site entrance.
Universal Design — The development will be designed to comply with Accessibility for
Ontarians with Disabilities Act and the Ontario Building Code. Barrier -Free parking is
provided within underground and above -grade parking.
Site Design, Building Design, Massing and Scale — The massing and distribution of
density has been revised as a result of Staff and Neighbourhood comments. First, the
tower at the rear of the site (Building B) has been reduced by 3 storeys, from 25 to 22
storeys. These 3 storeys have been added to the tower at the front of the site (Building
A). Secondly, the location of Building B has been shifted by approximately 3 metres to
the northeast, further from lands zoned low rise residential, now meeting the transition
to low rise zoning regulation. In regards to building design, the applicant has selectively
provided balconies to ensure that they are not projecting towards the low rise residential
lands and are instead facing internal, facing MTO owned lands, or facing King Street
East. This is in response to privacy concerns of existing adjacent low rise residential
lands.
Shadow Impact Analysis
The applicant has completed a Shadow Impact Analysis in addition to the Urban Design
Brief. Staff have reviewed the study and are satisfied the shadow study meets the
requirements outlined in the City of Kitchener Urban Design Manual.
Tower Desian
Page 1718 of 1997
Attachment "A" DSD -2025-025
Both proposed towers are classified as a "Compact Slab Tower" as the proposed tower
floor plates are less than 850 square metres in area, with a greater than 1.6 ratio of the
building length and width. The towers are on a shared 7 -storey podium/building base.
The tower massing is broken up vertically by variation and the articulation of building
materials and balconies. The building includes a 3 -storey portion along King Street East
as a building step-down.
Transportation Policies:
The Official Plan supports an integrated transportation system which incorporates active
transportation, allows for the movement of people and goods and promotes a vibrant,
healthy community using land use designations and urban design initiatives that make a
wide range of transportation choices viable.
On Map 2 of the City's Official Plan, King Street East adjacent to the subject lands is
identified as a Light Rail Transit Corridor. However, the subject lands are not within a
Protected Major Transit Station Area. The site is located 1.2 km east of the planned
King and Sportsworld Ion Station Stop (Ion Phase 2). Protected Major Transit Station
Areas are generally an 800 metre radius from Light Rail Transit Station Stops.
The subject lands are in close proximity (under 5 minute walk) to existing Grand River
Transit bus pads on King Street East for routes Npress 203 and 206, providing region
wide access and connectivity. Pedestrian sidewalks exist in front of the subject lands
and extend west. The sidewalk does not continue east and ends before the Highway
401 West on-ramp. The Region of Waterloo does not have any conceptual plan and
there is no funding in the Region's 10 -year capital forecast to extend sidewalk under
Highway 401 and toward the municipal boundary to Cambridge.
The site is not currently well -served by on- or off-street cycling facilities. A Multi -Use
Trail (MUT) exists on the north side of King Street (opposite side of the subject lands)
between Sportsworld Drive and Gateway Park Drive. The MUT is proposed to be
extended on King Street between Sportsworld Drive and the Freeport Bridge in future
phases of construction in 2028-2029.
Vehicular access is provided in a single point of access from King Street East. The
access is located on the west side of the site in order to be as far as possible from the
on ramp to Highway 401 (westbound) that is located east of the site. Vehicular
movements are to be right in, right out only. There is an existing concrete median along
King Street East, with a break for U-turns in front of the subject lands. The median
break would be removed in the future when the LRT is constructed on the centre line
median and U-turns would no longer be available to vehicles exiting the site and
travelling west on King Street East. City staff have flagged concerns for vehicle
movements both current and future to Regional transportation staff.
The proposed Official Plan Amendment and Zoning By-law Amendment Applications
support a dense residential development. The typology of the proposed buildings will
result in a compact built form that fosters walkability within a pedestrian -friendly
environment that allows walking to be safe, comfortable, barrier -free and a convenient
form of urban travel.
10
Page 1719 of 1997
Attachment "A" DSD -2025-025
Housing Policies:
Section 4.1.1 of the City's Official Plan contains policies with the primary objective 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. The proposed development increases the range of dwelling units
available in the city. The development is contemplated to include a range of unit types
including, one-, two- and three-bedroom units. The wide range of units, in this location,
will appeal to a variety of household needs and directly responds to the need for more
housing during the current housing crisis.
Section 4.C.1.3 states that the majority of new residential growth in the Built -Up Area
will occur within Intensification Areas. The site is within a secondary intensification area
(Arterial Corridor). Section 4.C.1.6 states that the City will identify and encourage
residential intensification and redevelopment including infill opportunities in order to
respond to changing housing needs and as a cost-effective means to reduce
infrastructure and servicing costs by minimizing land consumption and making better
use of community infrastructure.
SECTION 4 — THE AMENDMENT
The City of Kitchener Official Plan (2014) is hereby amended as follows:
a) Part C, Section 15.D.12 Area Specific/Site Specific Policy Areas is amended by
adding Policy 15.D.12.80 thereto as follows:
4980. 4611 King Street East
Notwithstanding the Arterial Corridor urban structure identification and
policies and the Commercial land use designation and policies, applied to
the lands located at 4611 King Street, retail and office uses and dwelling
units will be permitted.
Four (4) Holding Provisions will be applied to residential uses and will not
be removed through a By-law Amendment until such time as the City of
Kitchener is in receipt of a Record of Site Condition, Noise Study, Sanitary
Servicing Flows Acceptance, and Stormwater Servicing Flows
Aceeptance.
b) Map No. 5 — Specific Policy Areas is amended by adding Specific Policy Area '80,
4611 King Street East' as shown on the attached Schedule W.
11
Page 1720 of 1997
APPENDIX 1
NOTICE OF PUBLIC KEETING
for a development in your neighbourhood
46,11 Kine Street East
6o ' nce-pt Drawi rig
,J vi e I I I I
Y nreyI)
Attachment "A" DSD -2025-025
Have Your Voice Heard!
Planning &Strategic initiatives Committee
Date: January 22, 2025
Location: Council Chambers,
Kitchener City Hall
200 King Street West
orV!rtual Zoom Meeting,
Co to kitcheineir.ca/meetings
and sellect:
Current agendas and reports
(posted '10 days III meeting
Appear as a delegation
Watch a meeting
To learn I-nore about this project, including
information on
your appeall rip
,11its, visit:
www.kitchener.ca/
PlanningAPPlicatioins
or contact:
Eric Schneider, Senior Planner
eric.sbhn6der(, Ochenerca
519.783.8918
"i"he City of Kitchener wifl consiider applications for an Official Plan Amendment and a
Zoning By-law Amendment to facifitate the development of the site with a miixed use
clevellopinient consisting of two towers (25 and 30 -storeys) atop a 7 -storey podium
having a Floor Space Ratio of 7.8, with 726 dwelling units, 1,892 square metres of
commercial space, and 501 parking spaces.
12
Page 1721 of 1997
Attachment "A" DSD -2025-025
APPENDIX 2 Minutes of the Meeting of Planning and Strategic
Initiatives Committee — January 27, 2025
13
Page 1722 of 1997
Attachment "A" DSD -2025-025
APPENDIX 3 Minutes of the Meeting of City Council — February 10,
2025
14
Page 1723 of 1997
�Z
a
a
a
W
L
?:>
L
'^
NI
N
(n
(n
U)W
WW/
1
L�j LU
� Y x
LL
LO
a a LU
Y
a
(n
Q
(n
N
o
a
LU
LO
LOQ
O
O
o
W Q Q
o)
N
N
N
N
J
O U
06
ow
06
C7
z
Va
W
O w
CO
H -1
YQZD
N
ca
in
in
�,
d�
O
N
L Q
W a
LL V
00
°'
°'
a=i
�'
_
z
z
~
U
Q
Y
Y
aY
z
rOrLU
LLZ_
V
rn
N 0)
rn
-0
(nom
W
W 2
r W Vcl
O
�
M
Z
a
Q a
N
d
co
�"
M"
Q
H CCD
W
o
C
d
Q
Q
Q
V
O -
m
i1 z
J
Qw
U
z
(�
IIIIIIIIIIIIO
LL
Z
w
O
N66
o
IIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIII
O
0
O
w
CO
44/
co
�
o
o
LO
N
LO
O
N
�1/
LU O
VO
O>
O O
LU O
Q
2
w
Q
3
U
ds
U
Q
o
L
o
W
J
Q
W
Q
H
U)
J
0
W
Z
LV
Y
V
�
�
Z
Q
U_
J
d
d
Q
DSD -2024 -XXX Attachment "B1"
PROPOSED BY — LAW
, 2025
BY-LAW NUMBER
OF THE
CORPORATION OF THE CITY OF KITCHENER
(Being a by-law to amend By-law No. 2019-051, as amended, known as the
Zoning By-law for the City of Kitchener — Imperial Oil Limited c/o LJM
Developments
— 4611 King Street East)
WHEREAS it is deemed expedient to amend Zoning By-law 2019-051 for the
lands
specified above;
NOW THEREFORE the Council of The Corporation of the City of Kitchener enacts
as
follows:
Zoning Grid Schedule Number 296 of Appendix "A" to By-law 2019-051 is hereby
amended by changing the zoning applicable to the parcel of land specified and
illustrated as Area 1 on Map No. 1, in the City of Kitchener, attached hereto, from
Arterial Commercial Zone (COM -3) with Site Specific Provision (88) to Mixed Use
Three Zone (MIX -3) with Site Specific Provision 417 and Holding Provisions (97H),
(98H), (99H), and (100H).
2. Section 19 of By-law 2019-051 is hereby amended by adding Section 19 (417)
thereto as follows:
"417. Notwithstanding Sections 5.6 and 8.3 of this By-law, for the lands zoned
MIX -3 and shown as being affected by this subsection on Zoning Grid
Schedule Number 296 of Appendix "A", the following special regulations
shall apply:
i) The maximum Floor Space Ratio shall be 7.9;
Page 1725 of 1997
DSD -2024 -XXX Attachment "B1"
ii) The maximum Building Height shall be 110 metres and 33 Storeys
for the portion of the lands within 32 metres of King Street East;
iii) The maximum Building Height shall be 75 metres and 22 storeys
for the portion of the lands greater than 32 metres from King Street
East;
iv) The minimum Interior Side Yard shall be 3 metres;
v) The minimum percent of non-residential gross floor area shall be
3%;
vi) The maximum number of storeys in the base of a tall building shall
be 7 storeys;
vii) The minimum residential parking rate shall be 0.57 parking spaces
per Dwelling Unit;
viii) Geothermal Wells are prohibited on site. A geothermal well is
defined as a vertical well, borehole or pipe installation used for
geothermal systems, ground -source heat pump systems, geo-
exchange systems or earth energy systems for heating or cooling;
including open -loop and closed-loop vertical borehole systems. A
geothermal well does not include a horizontal system where
construction or excavation occurs to depths less than five meters
unless the protective geologic layers overlaying a vulnerable
aquifer have been removed through construction or excavation."
3. Section 20 of By-law 2019-051 is hereby amended by adding Section 20 (97H)
thereto as follows:
"97H. Notwithstanding Section 8 of this By-law within the lands zoned
Mixed Use Three Zone (MIX -3) and shown as being affected by this
subsection on Zoning Grid Schedule Number 296 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 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 City is in receipt of a letter
Page 1726 of 1997
DSD -2024 -XXX Attachment "B1"
from MECP advising that a Record of Site Condition has been
completed to the satisfaction of the MECP."
4. Section 20 of By-law 2019-051 is hereby amended by adding Section 20 (98H)
thereto as follows:
"98H. Notwithstanding Section 8 of this By-law within the lands zoned
Mixed Use Three Zone (MIX -3) and shown as being affected by this
subsection on Zoning Grid Schedule Number 296 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 City."
5. Section 20 of By-law 2019-051 is hereby amended by adding Section 20 (99H)
thereto as follows:
"99H. Notwithstanding Section 8 of this By-law within the lands zoned
Mixed Use Three Zone (MIX -3) and shown as being affected by this
subsection on Zoning Grid Schedule Number 296 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) The City of Kitchener has received a letter from the Manager of
Development Engineering, City of Cambridge stating that the
proposed sanitary flows are acceptable, to the satisfaction of the
Director of Housing and Development Approvals."
6. Section 20 of By-law 2019-051 is hereby amended by adding Section 20 (100H)
thereto as follows:
"100H. Notwithstanding Section 8 of this By-law within the lands zoned
Mixed Use Three Zone (MIX -3) and shown as being affected by this
subsection on Zoning Grid Schedule Number 296 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) The City of Kitchener has received a letter from the Manager of
Corridor Planning, Region of Waterloo stating that the stormwater
Page 1727 of 1997
DSD -2024 -XXX Attachment "B1"
management flows are acceptable, to the satisfaction of the
Director of Housing and Development Approvals."
7. This By-law shall become effective only if Official Plan Amendment No. _, 4611
King Street East comes into effect, pursuant to Section 24(2) of The Planning Act,
R.S.O. 1990, c. P.13, as amended.
PASSED at the Council Chambers in the City of Kitchener this day of
. 2025.
Mayor
Clerk
Page 1728 of 1997
z --
M
O =
W I�
W
z 00
0°°Mv
NZ ZM
o> JO2Or
O Q W
a 2°I°o
_ J 2aLU0- n
M 0 LL (If LL O
LU O Q W W W a O
a a0_
Q z(j) U) z
_ = o
L) , ol�plt -a N
m W W O��� 0= J
U) 2<<LL Q ° m
umu
• .. •' • � � uuuuuuuuuuuuuuul
P • • 1 • • �� IIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIII �.- �,,,,
' • • �I•� IIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIII
� I � IIIIIIIIIIII
• Z � IIIIIIIII �'
• • �1 IIIIIIIIIIIIII
IIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIII
uuuu��lluuuu
IIIIIIIIIIII M
I �
I 1
O
uuuuuluuluuluuu
U
1
1
1 �
NIN
ter`Ji
1
Vly
c M �
��.
uumuiiuuuuuum
1 uuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuu11111111111110001
I
� O �
1 U
1
0
6 M r
N00
9�' li
Q
o
z
�
o
LUJ
a
Q
0
O
(n
r
F
H
O
N
W •
N
wLU x
LLvE
W
i W o N
1 YW`l���
0
m
Q
0
Z
Q
4
Q
0
N
Z N Z
m
OZ
Q
T
=
� � ►�r�� ' 4� gg
cD
J
U
IN Z (n O J Z
Q
IN
Q
WN
ILL
LO
00
LU
vJ
J 0
I. -g = 0 ?
J
W
ea>zON
Q
IN
z
Y
Y
===U U) 0 W
=
O
F-rn
U m�
N
N
c7
DQ0Wx
U U H
C7
Z
W
Q� LU
U U
CD
W' O Z
2
J
�
O
\
z
Z
LU
T� J W
W Q U)
D
O
LU
a: LL
z0
CN
It
Q
J
r- 2E af 2 0
JO
JO
CDQ
Wp
�zXN
O
N
m
Q
a
�z
C F 3 W
eOQOx
LL
U)
(nJ
DWO�
�Jwz
N
M
O
�LU
7 V--, M
����
•
WWd2
Z
o U ()
r•
Z 2 Q U
LJJ
z
^H
i
IN U) 0
w
z
LOLI
CO
D
m
LU
U_
�
�t V 111
W
Q
>
Q
(n
Q
Z
Lu
m
a
V o
Z
W
p
f
O
LL
"o
N
O
s?
i45
l�
N
O
LO
O
C9i
r
C)
N
w
o
W
i
w
W
O
Q
a
=)
W
Q
a
o�
Q
LU
uvi
o
Q
LUJ
MN1
(n
r
W •
1 YW`l���
4
Q
�
Q
�
� � ►�r�� ' 4� gg
cD
�z
NOTICE OF PUBLIC MEETING
for a development in your neighbourhood
4611 King Street East
Concept Drawing
Have Your Voice Heard!
Planning & Strategic Initiatives Committee
Date: January 27, 2025
Location: Council Chambers,
Kitchener City Hall
200, King Street West
o Virtual Zoom Fleeting
Go to kitchener.ca/meetings
and select:
• Current agendas and reports
(posted 10 days before meeting)
• Appear as a delegation
• Watch a meeting
To learn more about this project, including
information on your appeal rights, visit:
www.kitchenenca/
PlanningApplications
or contact:
Eric Schneider, Senior Planner
eric.schneider@ kitchener.ca
519.783.8918
The City of Kitchener will consider applications for an Official Plan Amendment and a
Zoning By-law Amendment to facilitate the development of the site with a mixed use
development consisting of two towers (25 and 30 -storeys) atop a 7 -storey podium
having a Floor Space Ratio of 7.8, with 726 dwelling units, 1,892 square metres of
commercial space, and 501 parking spaces. Page 1730 of 1997
Engineering Comments:
I have reviewed their functional servicing and offer the following:
1. The sanitary flows run to the City of Cambridge and they have identified that they have no
capacity and therefore they do not support an increase in the sanitary flows. Further questions
on this should be directed to Sarah Austin at The City of Cambridge .,st:i_u�S.._rrtiUu¢. soca
2. KU has reviewed the water distribution. They note that they cannot have a 250mm
service. They will need to show it as 300mm within the ROW and reduce it once on private
property. They will also need to prepare a P&P for King Street to submit for a Form 1.
3. Region will ask for a backflow preventer on the storm service on private property,
4. Developer must be aware of neighbouring property's wells and their impact to them.
Thanks,
Christine Goulet, C.E.T.
Project Manager I Development Engineering
519-741-2200 Ext. 7820
Page 1731 of 1997
From: Katrina Fluit
To: "cdahmer(almte85.com"; Melanie Weisenbera
Cc: Kiel Moreau; William Towns; Eric Schneider; 'Brandon Flewwellina"
Subject: 4611 King Street East - Regional Comments on Servicing Grading and SWM report
Date: Tuesday, October 29, 2024 3:31:20 PM
Attachments: DOCS ADM IN-#4786332-vl-Removals Plan KM RedlineOl 20241003.1df
DOCS ADMIN-#4786325-vl-Functional Site Grading and Servicing Plan KM RedlineOl 20241003.odf
Hello ALL,
Staff have reviewed the Servicing and Grading drawings and SWM report submitted in support
of the OPA/ZBA at 4611 King Street East. Please see regional comments written out below and
in the redline drawings attached to this email.
The storm sewer on King Street East is not sized to accommodate predevelopment or post
development storm drainage from this site. When the storm sewer was designed and installed
as part of the King Street reconstruction project, drainage from the site was not accounted for
since the existing property is Lower than the road and had no status as a potential
development. The existing drainage pattern is towards the south and should be maintained.
Alternatively, to continue with the development as proposed, the developer will have to install
a new sewer to drain the site or replace the existing sewer on King Street with a sewer of
sufficient capacity.
Please provide an updated SWM Report outlining how the development will address the
drainage issues on the site.
Drawing C1.1 (Removals Plan):
1. Show existing sidewalk removals
Drawing C2.1 (Functional Site Grading & Servicing Plan):
1. Extend existing CB lead and keep this as a DSICBMH and realign it with the new
entrance curb. The Region does not want any CB grates within the paved access.
2. Confirm there is no conflict between proposed hydrant and existing buried hydro
conduit.
3. Confirm if this sanitary service can be directionaLLy drilled under King Street East (RR08).
Alternatively if trenching is required, show limits of reinstatements to asphalt, curbs,
boulevard, sidewalk including 1.0m step joints, as per RMW 207 and 208.
4. Staff strongly suggest that the proposed service connections for this development be
installed using trenchless technology given the newly reconstructed status of King
Street and the significant disruption to traffic that an open -cut trench across the road
would create.
5. Existing 1 00m gas main runs along King Street East (RR08) behind existing curb.
Existing gas service is present, servicing this property. Confirm with Kitchener Utilities
and add to drawing.
6. Move proposed water valve to property line.
7. Confirm the City of Kitchener has reviewed and approved the proposed watermain
connection.
8. Confirm the City of Kitchener has reviewed and approved the proposed sanitary sewer
Page 1732 of 1997
connection.
General Comments:
1. Please note that in addition to a complete Site Plan Application, the applicant must
obtain Municipal Consent and Work Permit approval(s) from the Region of Waterloo
prior to proceeding. Municipal Consent and Work Permit applications are to be applied
for through the Region's website at the following Link:] ;t;t,ip.a: /Irirrrn, �:r.:..ip. t ,irnitir l;,o ,8f
2. As part of the Drawings to be submitted for the Municipal Consent Application, the
applicant shall submit a Composite Utility Plan that show how the proposed
development will be serviced by Enova (hydro), Bell/Rogers, Kitchener Utilities (gas),
etc.
3. As part of the Drawings to be submitted for the Municipal Consent Application, the
applicant shall submit Landscaping Drawings and show any proposed features along
the Regional Right -of -Way (i.e. trees, sod, furniture, etc.). Please note that no enhanced
landscape features (shrubs, planter boxes, etc.) or similar site furniture (benches,
tables, etc.) are permitted to be installed within the Regional Road allowance, unless
the City of Kitchener agrees to be fully responsible including ownership and
maintenance. Otherwise enhanced landscaping features and site furniture are to be
installed entirely within private property.
4. Please note that if shoring and tie -backs are proposed, which encroach the Regional
Right -of -Way along King Street East (RR08), a separate Municipal Consent Application
will be required. As part of this application, detailed shoring and tie -back drawings will
need to be provided and reviewed by Region staff. The applicant will also need to enter
an Encroachment Agreement with the Region.
Please let me know if you have any questions or concerns about these comments.
Thankyou,
Katrina Fluit
Transportation Planner
Planning, Development and Legislative Services
Region of Waterloo
150 Frederick Street, 8th Floor, Kitchener ON N2G 4J3
IKIF;1ltuiit,c req iionofwateirlloo..ca
Page 1733 of 1997
Eric Schneider
Senior Planner
City of Kitchener
200 King Street West, 6th Floor
P.O. Box 1118, Kitchener, ON
N2G 4G7
Dear Mr. 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: 519-616-1868
File: D17/2/24012
C14/2/24024
January 8, 2025
Re: Official Plan Amendment OPA24/012 and Zoning By-law
Amendment ZBA24/024
4611 King Street East
LJM Developments (c/o Brandon Flewwelling, GSP
Group) on behalf of Imperial Old Ltd.
City of Kitchener
Regional staff have received site-specific Official Plan amendment (OPA) and zoning
by-law amendment (ZBA) applications for a development proposal at 4611 King Street
East in the City of Kitchener. The applicant is proposing a mixed-use development with
726 dwelling units, 1,242 square metres of office space, and 650 square metres of retail
space (office/retail proposed at grade and on the second level). The building would also
consist of two towers (25 and 30 storeys) situated atop a seven -storey shared podium.
A range and mix of unit types are proposed, including one -bedroom, one -bedroom plus
den, two-bedroom, and three-bedroom. 501 parking spaces (surface and underground)
and 404 bicycle parking spaces are proposed as well. Note that the Region provided
pre -consultation comments on a previous proposal for these lands in fall 2023.
The lands are designated Urban Area and Built Up Area in the Regional Official Plan
(ROP), and located along a Regional Intensification Corridor (King Street East) as per
Map 2 of the ROP. Note that the site is located adjacent to the boundary of the
Sportsworld Station Major Transit Station Area (MTSA).
The site is also designated Commercial in the City's Official Plan and zoned Arterial
Commercial (COM -3). The OPA is required to change the land use designation to High
Rise Residential, while the ZBA seeks to change the zone category to Mixed Use Three
Document Number: 4862439 Version: 1 Page 1 of 4
Page 1734 of 1997
(MIX -3) and relief from site-specific requirements for maximum building height,
maximum floor space ratio, and maximum number of storeys.
Further to Regional comments dated October 22, 2024, Regional staff have the
following to provide in relation to a Transportation Impact Study provided by the
applicant as an update to the previously -submitted Transportation Impact Brief:
Transportation Impact Brief Update
Regional staff received and reviewed the Transportation Impact Brief (TIB) entitled 4611
King Street East, Kitchener, Transportation Impact Brief dated July 3, 2024 and
prepared by Paradigm Transportation Solutions Ltd., as submitted with the application.
In previous comments, Regional staff indicated concerns with the findings of the TIB,
including the proposed full -movement access to King Street East. The applicant was
advised to consider acquiring additional lands south of the property to facilitate access
to Limerick Drive, thereby providing a connection to the signalized intersection at
Sportsworld Drive and King Street East and facilitating a more feasible access
arrangement to and from the site. A Transportation Demand Management (TDM) plan
was also requested as part of the TIB. These items were discussed at a meeting with
the applicant on October 31, 2024.
Staff have now received a Transportation Impact Study (TIS) prepared as an update to
the TIB provided with the application, along with a comment response letter addressing
key issues identified by the Region and Ontario Ministry of Transportation (MTO).
Regional staff have the following comments to provide on the updated documents:
- The applicant's consultant should have evaluated whether a right -turn lane into
the site is warranted; however, Transportation Planning would be unlikely to
approve this measure on King Street East and therefore this is not critical.
- Impacts to the Regional road associated with the proposed development are not
anticipated to be significant, and no upgrades to Regional infrastructure are
required. The TIS identifies a right-in/right-out access as requested by the
Region.
- A TDM plan has been submitted with the TIS that is satisfactory (see below for
additional comments).
- Overall, Regional staff consider the TIS acceptable in that impacts to Regional
infrastructure are not anticipated to be significant.
On an advisory basis, and notwithstanding Regional acceptance of the TIS as identified
above, Regional staff wish to provide the following with respect to the viability and
functioning of the site over the long term. The following are provided to the City and
MTO for their consideration:
- Comment #11 (addressed to MTO staff) in the response letter indicates that the
existing median break adjacent to the subject lands can be used to support U-
turn movements and therefore provide bi-directional access to King Street East.
The City should be advised that this option is applicable only in the short term.
The existing median break will be closed in the future with the construction of
Document Number: 4862439 Version: 1 Page 2 of 4
Page 1735 of 1997
Stage 2 ION Light Rail Transit, and therefore does not constitute a viable U-turn
opportunity long term. U-turn activity may shift to nearby intersections once the
median break is closed.
Table 5.2 in the TIS projects that delays leaving the site in both the AM and PM
peak hours will be long, leading to significant queuing on-site.
Regional staff are of the view that these concerns and associated impacts to
residents could be addressed by:
o The construction of the access ramp from Highway 8 southbound to
Highway 401 westbound (i.e. "Highway 8 Interchange Improvements" as
identified in Table 5.3 in the TIS), which would redistribute traffic away
from King Street East and mitigate delays at the proposed site access
location; and/or
o The provision of additional or alternate site access via Limerick Drive,
which would permit site traffic to access the signalized intersection at King
Street East and Sportsworld Drive.
To make future residents aware of the long-term access arrangement, please note that
the following warning clause should be included in all agreements of Offers of Purchase
and Sale, lease/rental agreements and condominium declaration associated with the
development:
Purchasers/tenants are advised that the approved alignment for Stage 2
ION Light Rail Transit is adjacent to the development within the King
Street East right-of-way. The site's access to King Street East is
designed for right -in and right -out movements only, and the median gap
along the site's frontage will be closed once Stage 21ON is constructed.
Finally, Grand River Transit staff have reviewed the TDM plan provided in
Section 7 of the TIS and have the following comments to provide on an advisory
basis:
The applicant should clarify how many residential and commercial bicycle
parking spaces will be provided. 369 residential (363 Type A and 6 Type B) and
8 commercial/retail spaces (4 Type A and 4 Type B) are required as per the
zoning bylaw. However, a total of 167 spaces are identified Section 7.1.2 and
404 bicycle parking spaces were included in Section 7.3.
7.2 Potential Policies, Programs, and Strategies:
o Regional staff supports the provision of an unbundled parking plan as an
impactful TDM/transit-supportive measure for this site.
o In relation to the proposed car -share program — the applicant is advised
that the most established car -sharing program in Waterloo Region is
Communauto. The applicant should contact Janet MacLeod
imacleod(a)-communauto.ca to learn more about opportunities available
locally.
o Providing subsidized transit passes as proposed incurs significant
financial and administrative costs. This initiative requires a commitment
Document Number: 4862439 Version: 1 Page 3 of 4
Page 1736 of 1997
from the owner/applicant to manage, administer, and fund the full cost of
monthly transit passes for residents. If this is to be considered by the
applicant, further consultation and confirmation of expectations between
all three parties (Applicant, City, Region — GRT) is required as soon as
possible.
Environmental & Stationary Noise
Peer review comments associated with the environmental and stationary noise study
have not yet been received by Regional staff but will be provided to the City as soon as
possible (along with interpretation and acceptance of comments pertaining to the
Regional road noise source). In line with the implementation of Bill 23 and associated
changes to areas of authority within the Regional planning framework effective January
1, 2025, acceptance of the stationary noise and non -Regional road transportation
components of the study will be the City's responsibility.
Fees
The Region is in receipt of OPA ($7,000) and ZBA ($3,000) review fees, as well as peer
review fees for the noise study ($5,085). All fees were received on October 9 and 10,
2024.
Conclusions & Next Steps
As described above, Regional staff are satisfied overall that the findings and
recommendations of the Transportation Impact Study are satisfactory — impacts to the
Regional road resulting from the proposed development are not anticipated to be
significant from traffic volume or functional perspectives, and the TIS proposes a right-
in/right-out access to King Street East as requested by the Region.
In addition to the above and as outlined in previous comments, the Region would have
no concerns with the application, provided the amending zoning by-law includes a site-
specific geothermal prohibition. The Region requests a copy of the decision pertaining
to this application.
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.
Should you have any questions, please do not hesitate to contact the undersigned.
Yours truly,
Will Towns, RPP
Senior Planner
Document Number: 4862439 Version: 1 Page 4 of 4
Page 1737 of 1997
Hi Eric,
No heritage planning comments or concerns for this application.
Thanks!
Kind Regards,
Deeksha Choudhry, MSc., BES
Heritage Planners Development and Housing Approvals Divisions City of Kitchener
200 King Street West, 6th Floor I P.O. Box 1118 1 Kitchener ON N2G 4G7
519-741-220o ext. 7602
deeksha. choudhrv(&kitchener. ca
Page 1738 of 1997
City of Kitchener
Zone Change / Official Plan Amendment Comment Form
Address: 4611 King St E
Owner: Imperial Oil Limited
Application: OPA24/012/K/ES and ZBA24/024/K/ES
Comments Of: Park Planning
Commenter's Name: Lenore Ross
Email: Lenore.ross@kitchener.ca
Phone: 519-741-2200 ext 7427
Date of Comments: Oct 16 2024
❑ 1 plan to attend the meeting (questions/concerns/comments for discussion)
0 No meeting to be held
❑ I do NOT plan to attend the meeting (no concerns)
Documents Reviewed:
I have reviewed the documentation noted below submitted in support of Official Plan Amendment is
requested to change the land use designation from 'Commercial" to "High Rise Residential" and Zoning
By-law Amendment to change the Zoning from `Arterial Commercial' (COM -3) to `Mixed Use Three' (MIX -
3) and add a site-specific provision for development standards.
• Official Plan Amendment Application Form
• Zoning By-law Amendment Application Form
• Planning Justification Report
• Architectural Package (elevations, renderings, floor plans, shadow study)
• Functional Site Grading and Servicing Plan
• Urban Design Brief
• Wind Study
• Noise Impact Study
• Site Statistics
• Tree Protection Plan
Site Specific Comments & Issues:
Park Planning has no significant concerns with the proposed Official Plan and Zoning Bylaw amendments
and can provide conditional support subject to the minor updates to submitted studies are noted below.
Comments on Submitted Documents
Pedestrian Wind Assessment — Rowan Williams Davies & Irwin Inc. (RWDI) dated May 6 2024
The report outlines the desktop estimation of pedestrian wind conditions without wind -tunnel testing and
provides a screening -level estimation of potential wind conditions and offers conceptual wind control
measures for improved wind comfort, where necessary. The report further states that in order to quantify
and confirm the predicted conditions or refine any of the suggested conceptual wind control measures,
A City for Everyone
Working Together — Growing Thoughtfully — Building Community
Pabg ,A if 1997
City of Kitchener
Zone Change / Official Plan Amendment Comment Form
physical scale model tests in a boundary -layer wind tunnel would be required; this full wind tunnel test
will be a requirement of Final Site Plan approval.
The report identifies several areas of potential concern for pedestrian wind safety and pedestrian wind
comfort at entrances, drop off areas, sidewalks walkways, parking lots and amenity spaces. and provides
recommendations for wind control solutions. Wind -tunnel testing is recommended to quantify the level
and frequency of high wind activity, confirm the need for wind control features and to optimize mitigation
efforts and these mitigations measures should be incorporated into Building and Landscape design to
achieve the required wind attenuation.
Tree Protection Plan, Tree Tables and Preliminary Landscape Plan L1-L3 - Adesso Design dated
2024.06.10.
L2- Endangered Species Notes. Reference is incorrect, please remove.
L3 — Large Canopy Deciduous Street Trees are noted to be planted by the City of Kitchener— please remove
reference to the City of Kitchener. King St E is a Regional road and any required street trees will be
reviewed through the Site Plan application and approved by the Region of Waterloo in conjunction with
the City of Kitchener (Urban Design and Park Planning) and planted by the developer. With the existing
and planned overhead hydro and the proposed ION Stage 2 catenary lines, large statured tree planting
may be limited.
Urban Design Brief — GSP Group dated June 2024
Section 5.10 Amenity Areas indicates that the "outdoor rooftop amenity located between the towers,
measuring 880 square meters. This outdoor plaza is designed for various social and amenity functions for
residents, complementing the indoor spaces".
As noted in Park Planning's Presubmission comments, "Robust on-site outdoor amenity spaces with good
solar access and protection from wind and noise will be required as part of the site plan 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." Further details, including commentary and precedent images
illustrating seating and play equipment for residents of all ages and abilities is required in a revised Urban
Design Brief.
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
A City for Everyone
Working Together — Growing Thoughtfully — Building Community
P499463of 1997
City of Kitchener
Zone Change / Official Plan Amendment Comment Form
Anticipated Fees:
Parkland Dedication
The parkland dedication requirement for the OPA and ZBA application is deferred and will be assessed at
a future Site Plan Application. Parkland dedication will be assessed based on the land use class(es) and
density approved through the OPA and ZBA and required as a condition of Final Site Plan Approval as cash -
in -lieu of land.
Dedication requirements are subject to the Planning Act, Parkland Dedication Bylaw, Park Dedication
Policy and rates in effect.
The site is located within the Pioneer Tower West Planning Community and while this neighbourhood
has been identified in Places and Spaces: An Open Space Strategy for Kitchener as being well served
overall with active neighbourhood park space, the distribution, access and connectivity of active
neighbourhood park space is not ideal and this site is located 1.2km from Pioneer Grove Parkette (no
play equipment) and 1.8km from Settlers Grove Park on a route with discontinuous sidewalk
infrastructure.
Given the distance to active public park space, the provision of robust on-site outdoor amenity spaces
with good solar access, protection from wind, noise and incorporating seating and play equipment for
residents of all ages and abilities will be critical to this proposal. The developer should provide a clear
commitment to providing robust on-site amenities including children's play facilities.
An estimate of required parkland dedication was provided at the presubmission application, and this
estimate has been revised to reflect the updated development proposal with increased FSR and
additional residential units. If further changes are made to the development proposal, a revised
estimate will be required.
An estimate is provided using the approved land valuation of $19,768,000/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 0.7360ha site with 726 proposed units,
1892.6M2 commercial and an FSR of 7.83 is $1,454,925.00
Calculation: 726 units/1000 units/ha x $19,768,000/ha = $14,351,568 (alt. rate Bylaw 2022-101)
0.7360 ha x $19,768,000/ha x 0.05 = $727,462 (5% rate Bylaw 2022-101)
726 units x $11,862 = $8,611,812 (City of Kitchener capped rate)
0.7360ha x $19,768,000/ha x 0.1 = $1,454,925 (More Homes Built Faster Act)
A City for Everyone
Working Together — Growing Thoughtfully — Building Community
P499 M 3of 1997
Eric Schneider
To: Stefan Hajgato
Subject: RE: 4611 King Street East- Updated TIS
From: Stefan Hajgato <Stefan.Hajgato@kitchener.ca>
Sent: Friday, December 27, 2024 2:15 PM
To: 'Johnston, Jeremiah (MTO)' <Jeremiah.Johnston@ontario.ca>; William Towns <wtowns@regionofwaterloo.ca>; Eric
Schneider <Eric.Schneider@kitchener.ca>
Cc: Vallve, Nina (MTO) <nina.vallve@ontario.ca>; Malik, Rafiq (MTO) <Rafiq.Malik@ontario.ca>; Katrina Fluit
<KFluit@regionofwaterloo.ca>
Subject: RE: 4611 King Street East- Updated TIS
Hi All,
City Transportation staff have no comments on the updated material received from the Applicant.
However, City Transportation staff request to be included on any discussions regarding King St or the Highway
ramps in this area to be aware of any potential impacts.
Thanks,
Stefan Hajgato, P.Eng. (he/him)
Transportation Planning Analyst I City of Kitchener
519-783-8957 1 TTY 1-866-969-9994
Page 1742 of 1997
City of Kitchener
PRE -SUBMISSION CONSULTATION COMMENT FORM
Comments Of:
Commenter's Name:
Email:
Phone:
Date of Comments:
Address:
1. Site Specific Comments and Issues:
Transportation
Stefan Hajgato
Stefan.Hajgato@kitchener.ca
(519) 741-2200 e 7410
October 18, 2024
4611 King Street East
• Accessible parking will need to be located closer to the principal pedestrian entrance.
• City staff request that the active transportation connections from the north side of the building
to King Street East are more clearly identified.
• A longer throat length will be required to the first parking space on the west side of the drive
aisle.
• A Transportation Demand Management (TDM) Plan will need to be provided to support the
reduced parking rate as the subject site is located outside of the PMTSA area. However, City staff
are generally supportive of a reduced parking rate for this site and have no concerns with the
Parking Assessment included in the 4611 King Street East Transportation Impact Brief (TIB) dated
2024-07.
• City staff request that the applicant considers implementing one-way counterclockwise
circulation around the internal traffic island, east of the internal parking garage access.
• City staff would like clarification of where waste collection will occur.
• Pending the layout of the internal parking structure, which was not provided to City staff at this
time, a Swept Vehicle Path Analysis may be required. However, City staff have no concerns with
the surface level vehicle circulation at this time for any TAC HSU or smaller design vehicle.
• City staff will need to confirm with Regional and MTO staff regarding how vehicles will exit the
subject site to go westbound, and if future eastbound vehicles will be permitted to perform a U-
turn at the Hwy 401 WB Off -Ramp as identified in the TIB dated 2024-07.
2. Plans, Studies and Reports to submit as part of a complete Planning Act Application:
• Vehicle Swept Path Analysis using AutoTURN or equivalent software (TBD)
3. Anticipated Requirements of full Site Plan Approval:
• Pavement Marking and Signage Plan (PMSP)
4. Policies, Standards and Resources:
• Urban Design Manual
• Zoning bylaw - City of Kitchener
Page 1743 of 1997
5. Anticipated Fees:
• N/A.
Page 1744 of 1997
City of Kitchener
Zone Change Comment Form
Address: 4611 King St E
Owner:
Application #: ZBA24/024/K/ES - OPA24/012/K/ES
Commenter's Name: Pegah Fahimian
Email: Pegah.fahimian@kitchener.ca
Phone: 519-741-2200 Ext. 7342
Date of Comments: Oct 18, 2024
❑ I plan to attend the meeting (questions/concerns/comments for discussion)
0 No meeting to be held
❑ I do NOT plan to attend the meeting (no concerns)
1. Documents Reviewed:
• Urban Design Brief- GSP, June 2024
• Architecture Plans — Krikor Architects
• Shadow Study- GSP, June 2024
• Wind Study - Pedestrian Wind Assessment — RWDI, May 2024
2. Site -Specific Comments & Issues:
I have reviewed the documentation (as listed above) to support an OPA / ZBA to change the land use
designation from 'Commercial" to "High Rise Residential" and Zoning By-law Amendment to change the
Zoning from 'Arterial Commercial' (COM -3) to 'Mixed Use Three' (MIX -3) and add a site-specific
provision for development standards.
3. Comments on Submitted Documents
Design Brief- GSP, June 2024
Tall Building Design Analysis: Physical separation: The proposal needs to fully meet the tall building
guidelines, specifically with regard to separation as the guidelines are an excellent compatibility test for
proposals exceeding their zoning permissions. The tower separation distance for tower A is estimated
to be 18m, and for tower B is estimated to be 16.5m. The proposed tower separation from the adjacent
property to the south and east is deficient as per Tall Building Design Guidelines (TBDG). The proposal
will need to be modified until the resulting built form meets its corresponding separation target.
Scale and Transition: The proposed towers do not show an appropriate transition to the existing low-
rise directly adjacent to the south of this project. Further setback or physical separation is to be
considered for this location. Urban Design Staff is not supportive of placing a 25 -storey tower in close
proximity to the adjacent low-rise neighborhood. Due to its scale, height, mass and proximity to the
adjacent low-rise neighbourhoods, the proposed tower will create an enclosed structure that hinders
sky view and creates an overwhelming scale. You may consider lowering the tower's height while
increasing the setback to achieve good separation and compatibility while mitigating unwanted impacts.
This will help transition to the adjacent neighborhood and benefit sky views, sun/shadow and
microclimate.
A City for Everyone
Working Together — Growing Thoughtfully — Building Community
P49 464bf 1997
City of Kitchener
Zone Change Comment Form
• A compatibility study should be provided to address potential impacts on the adjacent low-rise
residential. This report should identify existing and potential compatibility issues and identify and
evaluate options to achieve appropriate design, buffering, transitions, and separation distances.
Recommended measures intended to eliminate or mitigate negative impacts and adverse effects
should be provided.
On-site Amenity area:
• Required amenity space calculations are contained in the Urban Design Manual and include two
parts — one for a general amenity area and one for children's play facilities in multiple residential
developments. (2m2 x #units) + (2.5m2 x #bedrooms - #units) = outdoor amenity space.
• The Urban Design Brief should be updated to include text and conceptual images that demonstrate
the commitment to providing sufficient and appropriate amenity space for all potential residents
on-site. Ensuring a robust on-site amenity for this development block is crucial as this community
lacks active parkland. The amenities must cater to a range of ages and abilities, not just passive
lounge spaces. Preliminary landscape plan should be provided to show the location of playground
area and outdoor amenity space.
Shadow Studies, GSP, June 2024
Written confirmation should be provided that the proposal will maintain access to at least 5 hours of
cumulative direct sunlight to nearby sidewalks and open spaces.
Architecture Package- KIRKOR Architects
As detailed below, key design considerations must be addressed through a redesign of the site plan to
create a more functional site for residents and ensure the project fits in the context of the
neighborhood.
• The City's Tall Building Guidelines should be consulted to inform the revised design of the site with
respect to:
o Tower dimensions, configuration, separation and overlook
o Location of amenity space(s)
o Podium characteristics
• The proposed visitor parking is highly visible from King Street. You may consider reducing the
number of visitor parking spaces and relocating them to underground/structural parking.
A City for Everyone
Working Together — Growing Thoughtfully — Building Community
P499 44bf 1997
City of Kitchener
Zone Change Comment Form
• Active uses should be along King Street, including retails with outdoor patios or residential amenity
areas.
• The proposed long podium A should be broken down using enhanced detailing and articulation.
• The building facades fronting King Street should contain the primary residential and commercial
entrances and the appropriate amount of glazing and articulation, particularly along the lower 5m
where the building addresses the sidewalk.
• Consider stepbacks for the upper storeys in the tower, both to increase articulation/visual interest in
the building and create room for shared outdoor amenity space. This will also facilitate the
transition to low-rise neighbourhoods.
• All at -grade parking should be wrapped with active uses.
• The area between the building's face and the property line should be well integrated with the street
and public realm to deliver high-quality and seamless private, semi -private and public spaces.
• The tower should step back from its base a minimum of 3m along any street -facing elevations.
• The underground parking structure should have a sufficient setback from the property lines to
accommodate the necessary soil volume to support required large-statured, high canopied trees.
Perimeter trees should not be located on the garage slab roof. Within the site, required tree
plantings can be accommodated on the garage slab but will still require standard minimum soil
volumes.
• Provide natural surveillance by employing high percentages of glazing, and active uses at ground
level and incorporate more units with patios and windows/balconies on the main facade with views
onto King Street.
• The proposed towers should have unique top features that are architecturally excellent, highly
visible and makes a positive contribution to the image of Kitchener developing skyline.
• Provide materiality and texture shifts at the podium and across the towers and incorporate
variations in tower setbacks from the base to distinguish the tower form from the podium.
• Wind assessment and shadow study required for outdoor amenity and the pedestrian realm.
• Residential and commercial entrances should be clearly identified and offer access from both the
public realm and the private parking side of the building. The proposed main entrance is to be
further enhanced to create visual interest at the street edge. (for example cantilevered entrance
canopy, corrugated -metal panels and fritted glass.
• Balconies may be staggered in a creative pattern to lighten the structure and provide private
outdoor space for the units.
• Towers are highly visible elements of the urban environment and must meet Kitchener's highest
standards for design excellence. The building should be designed and clad with different materials
and colours so that they read as distinct from one another.
• All utilities should be coordinated with the landscape design and with building elevations to provide
a high-quality pedestrian experience with the site and from the public realm. Infrastructure should
be located within the building in mechanical/electrical rooms and exterior connections located
discretely and incorporate physical screens or landscape plating as required. Surface transformers or
service connections visible from the public realm are not supported.
A City for Everyone
Working Together — Growing Thoughtfully — Building Community
P499 W%f 1997
City of Kitchener
Zone Change Comment Form
Wind Study - Pedestrian Level Wind — Preliminary Impact Assessment.
The submitted preliminary Wind Study indicates that the proposed development is significantly taller than
the existing surroundings and includes two towers that will interact with the prevailing winds. As a result,
areas of increased wind speed are predicted where comfort conditions will not be suitable.
A full Wind tunnel study should be provided for review at the site plan application stage. A revised design
proposal that addresses the wind impacts outlined in the submitted wind study should be developed.
A City for Everyone
Working Together — Growing Thoughtfully — Building Community
P499 W%f 1997
Eric Schneider
Senior Planner
City of Kitchener
200 King Street West, 6th Floor
P.O. Box 1118, Kitchener, ON
N2G 4G7
Dear Mr. 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: D17/2/24012
C14/2/24024
October 22, 2024
Re: Official Plan Amendment OPA24/012 and Zoning By-law
Amendment ZBA24/024
4611 King Street East
LJM Developments (c/o Brandon Flewwelling, GSP
Group) on behalf of Imperial Old Ltd.
City of Kitchener
Regional staff have received site-specific Official Plan amendment (OPA) and zoning
by-law amendment (ZBA) applications for a development proposal at 4611 King Street
East in the City of Kitchener. The applicant is proposing a mixed-use development with
726 dwelling units, 1,242 square metres of office space, and 650 square metres of retail
space (office/retail proposed at grade and on the second level). The building would also
consist of two towers (25 and 30 storeys) situated atop a 7 -storey shared podium
connecting the towers. A range and mix of unit types are proposed, including 1 -
bedroom, 1 -bedroom plus den, 2 -bedroom, and 3 -bedroom. 501 parking spaces
(surface and underground) and 404 bicycle parking spaces are proposed as well. Note
that the Region provided pre -consultation comments on a previous proposal for these
lands in fall 2023.
The lands are designated Urban Area and Built Up Area in the Regional Official Plan
(ROP), and located along a Regional Intensification Corridor (King Street East) as per
Map 2 of the ROP. Note that the site is located adjacent to the boundary of the
Sportsworld Station Major Transit Station Area (MTSA).
The site is also designated Commercial in the City's Official Plan and zoned Arterial
Commercial (COM -3). The OPA is required to change the land use designation to High
Document Number: 4807274
Version: 1
Page 1 of 9
Page 1749 of 1997
Rise Residential, while the ZBA seeks to change the zone category to Mixed Use Three
(MIX -3) and seek relief from site-specific requirements for maximum building height,
maximum floor space ratio, and maximum number of storeys.
The Region has had the opportunity to review the proposal and offers the following:
Community Planning
Provincial Planning Statement (PPS) 2024
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, function compatibly with surrounding land
uses, and support active transportation and transit use.
The Planning Justification Report (PJR) prepared by GSP Group (dated August 2024)
reviews applicable PPS policies in section 4.2. (While the PJR reviews PPS 2020, a
decision on this application will be made after October 20, 2024, at which point the
updated PPS 2024 will take effect — for the purposes of this proposal, the application of
PPS policies does not differ significantly between the two versions.) Regional staff note
that the application proposes an intensified use of land within a designated built-up area
and corridor identified as appropriate for intensification. While services must be
extended to the subject lands (and a storm service connection remains to
demonstrated), services are in the vicinity and connections are feasible.
The proposal would also enhance the mix of available housing in the area (which
includes an established low-rise neighbourhood to the south and east, as well as a
number of proposed multi -residential buildings along King Street East along the future
ION light rail alignment). Though not located within the MTSA, the development is within
comfortable walking distance of both existing and planned transit services and proposes
pedestrian connections to existing sidewalks. Overall, Regional staff are satisfied that
the application is consistent with the PPS.
Regional Official Plan
ROP policies are reviewed in Section 4.4 of the PJR. Section 1.6 of the ROP
establishes the Regional Planning Framework and Section 2.13.1 and 2.0 establish
policies for the Urban System, including for Regional Intensification Corridors. Section
2.F establishes policies and 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 support the achievement of 15 -minute neighbourhoods. The
proposed application provides for residential density that will contribute to the
achievement of Kitchener's intensification target for the Delineated Built Up Area, while
providing commercial and employment components beneficial to both existing and
future residents of the development and surrounding neighbourhood. The development
also proposes units with a range of bedroom counts and unit sizes, which serve to
enhance the mix of unit types in the area, and is appropriately located along a corridor
well -served by transit.
Document Number: 4807274 Version: 1 Page 2 of 9
Page 1750 of 1997
Section 2.D.6 of ROPA 6 establishes policies for ensuring that development within
strategic growth areas — which include Regional Intensification Corridors — is transit -
supportive. This section requires that applicants in these areas provide compact built
form, a mix of uses, and integration of and connectivity to active transportation options.
The site's proximity to existing and planned transit stops, connection to sidewalks on
King Street East, and on-site bicycle parking provides support for the application in
these areas, while the built form proposes high density within 200 metres of an Xpress
bus stop.
In addition, Chapter 3 of ROPA 6 establishes policies for housing in the Region — the
provision of a range of unit types in the development meets the policy intent of section
3.A. Overall, Regional staff are satisfied that this application conforms to the ROP.
Environmental Threats & 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
and as identified in Regional pre -submission comments (dated October 3, 2023), a
Record of Site Condition (RSC) is required in association with the ZBA application due
to the presence of known sources of contamination on the subject lands as per the
Region's Threats Inventory Database.
As the RSC and associated acknowledgement letter from the MECP have not been
submitted as part of a complete application, Regional staff 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.
Corridor Planning
Conditions of OPA & ZBA Approval
Approval of the noise study and Transportation Impact Brief Study would be required
prior to final approval of the OPA and ZBA applications.
Environmental Noise (Transportation and Stationary Sources) Study
Regional staff have received the noise study entitled Road Traffic and Stationary Noise
Impact Study, 4611 King Street East, Kitchener, Ontario dated March 21, 2024 and
prepared by JJ Acoustic Engineering Ltd. submitted with the application. This has been
circulated to the Region's third -party peer review consultant; comments will be provided
under separate cover once received.
Document Number: 4807274 Version: 1 Page 3 of 9
Page 1751 of 1997
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
detailed environmental and stationary noise studies have been completed and
implementation measures addressed to the satisfaction of the Regional Municipality of
Waterloo. The detailed environmental and stationary noise study shall review the
potential impacts of noise (e.g. transportation noise, HVAC systems) on the sensitive
points of reception and the impacts of the development on adjacent noise sensitive
uses.
Transportation Impact Brief
Regional staff have received the Transportation Impact Brief (TIB) entitled 4611 King
Street East, Kitchener Transportation Impact Brief dated July 3, 2024 and prepared by
Paradigm Transportation Solutions Ltd.
Regional staff have concerns with the findings of the TIB, including the function of the
proposed full -movement access to King Street East (whereas right-in/right-out only was
identified as the Region's preferred design in pre -submission comments dated October
3, 2023). The applicant could consider acquiring additional lands south of the property
to facilitate access to Limerick Drive, thereby providing a connection to the signalized
intersection at Limerick Drive and King Street East and facilitating a more feasible full -
movement access arrangement to and from the site. The Regional Transportation
Planner will follow up directly with Paradigm staff and the applicant to arrange a meeting
to address TIB concerns as soon as possible.
GRT staff note that the transportation demand management (TDM) plan requested at
pre -submission has not been provided in the TIB. Please provide a TDM plan to
Regional staff for review and information.
Conditions of Future Site Plan Application
Approval of the lot grading plan/stormwater management report and Access Permit
would be required prior to final approval of a future site plan application.
Access Permit/Access Regulation
A Regional Access Permit will be required for the proposed access to King Street East.
Due to the center median, proximity to MTO ramps, and future ION Stage 2 alignment
all access from King Street East to the site will be right-in/right-out only. The applicant
will be responsible for all costs associated with the proposed access. The fee for the
issuance of the permit is $230.
Document Number: 4807274 Version: 1 Page 4 of 9
Page 1752 of 1997
The proposed access must comply with the Regional Access Policy, being between
7.6m and 9.Om wide at the property line. The application for an Access Permit can be
found on the Region's website at
https://forms.regionofwaterloo.ca/ePay/PDLS-Online-Payment-Forms/Commercial-
Access-Perm it-Ap pl ication
Stormwater Management & Site Grading
Staff have received the report entitled 4611 King Street West Functional Servicing and
Stormwater Management Report dated May 22, 2024, as well as the drawings entitled
Functional Site Grading and Servicing Plan and Removals Plan, both dated June 6,
2024, all prepared by MTE Consultants Inc. Detailed comments on these plans will be
provided under separate cover, though staff note that the proposed connection to
Regional stormwater services on King Street East is not supportable.
The applicant must submit a Landscape Plan for approval. This plan should include
proposed plantings and landscaping, including those within the Regional Right of way,
all to the satisfaction of the Regional Municipality of Waterloo. Please note that any new
trees within the Regional Right-of-way will be assessed for feasibility and may not be
permitted.
The site must be graded in accordance with the approved plan and the Regional Road
allowance must be restored to the satisfaction of the Regional Municipality of Waterloo.
Please be advised that the any new servicing connections or update to the existing
servicing would require Regional approval through a separate process of Municipal
Consent.
Grand River Transit (GRT)
Staff note that the site is in close proximity to the proposed Sportsworld (ION) Station,
as well as Route 206 iXpress stops (bi-directional) within 200-400 metres of the subject
lands. No stop infrastructure upgrades are required, though the applicant is encouraged
to consider additional measures to make the development more transit -supportive: as
identified above in relation to the TIB, please provide a TDM report for the Region's
review.
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.
Region of Waterloo International Airport
Region of Waterloo International Airport staff have reviewed the application on the basis
of its proposed height and location within the obstacle protection area of Runway 26
departures. This area has a minimum estimated allowable elevation of 481 metres
above sea level (ASL). Architectural drawings submitted in support of the application
propose a maximum building elevation of 402.5 metres ASL. This leaves 78.5 metres
available above the building for any cranes, which is expected to be sufficient.
Document Number: 4807274 Version: 1 Page S of
Page 1753 of 1997
The developer will need to submit a Land Use application to Nav Canada, and obtain a
letter of no objection to the satisfaction of the Region.
https://www.navcanada.ca/en/aeronautical-information/land-use-program.aspx
Since the building is proposed to exceed 90 metres in height, the developer will also
need to submit an Aeronautical Assessment Form to Transport Canada and comply
with all requirements. More information can be fond here:
https://tc.canada.ca/en/aviation/general-operating-flight-rules/marking-Iighting-
obstacles-air-navi_. aq tion
Source Water Protection & Risk Management
This site is not located in a wellhead protection sensitivity area (WPSA) as identified in
the ROP, nor within an area regulated by the Clean Water Act. Please note that there is
a large plume of contaminated groundwater directly beneath the property. The
construction dewatering for the proposed three levels of underground parking will draw
this plume further toward the property and the footprint of the building, and the applicant
will therefore be dealing with contaminated dewatering discharge. This plume has been
appropriately identified in the Phase I and II Environmental Site Assessment reports
submitted in support of the application. However, Regional staff will require a prohibition
on geothermal energy systems open, closed loop and horizontal systems) to be written
into the site-specific zoning by-law amendment for this property. The required wording
for the prohibition is:
Geothermal energy systems are prohibited on-site. A geothermal energy
system is defined as a vertical well, borehole or pipe installation used for
geothermal systems, ground -source heat pump systems, geo-exchange
systems or earth energy systems for heating or cooling; including open -
loop and closed-loop vertical borehole systems or a horizontal system.
In addition, in keeping with ROP policy, Regional staff advise that the developer will be
required to complete a Salt Management Plan (SMP) to the Region's satisfaction as
part of a future site plan application. As part of the SMP, HWP would encourage the
proponent to incorporate design considerations with respect to salt management,
including:
- Ensure that cold weather stormwater flows are considered in the site design.
Consideration should be given to minimize the transport of meltwater across the
parking lots or driveway. This also has the potential to decrease the formation of
ice and thereby the need for de-icing.
- Directing downspouts towards pervious (i.e. grassy) surfaces to prevent runoff
from freezing on parking lots and walkways.
- Locating snow storage areas on impervious (i.e. paved) surfaces.
- Locating snow storage areas in close proximity to catchbasins.
- Using winter maintenance contractors that are Smart About SaItTM certified.
- Using alternative de-icers (i.e. pickled sand) in favour of road salt.
Document Number: 4807274 Version: 1 Page 6 of 9
Page 1754 of 1997
The proponent is eligible for certification under the Smart About SaltTM program for this
property. Completion of the SMP is one part of the program. To learn more about the
program and to find accredited contractors please refer to
http://www.smartaboutsait.com. Benefits of designation under the program include cost
savings through more efficient use of salt, safe winter conditions by preventing the
formation of ice, and potential reductions in insurance premiums.
Water Services
Regional staff have reviewed the FSR prepared by MTE Consultants Inc. dated May
22, 2024 submitted in support of the application and have no concerns in relation to the
proposed water and wastewater connections.
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, which aims for 30 percent of all
new residential development between 2019 and 2041 in the Region to be
affordable to low and moderate income households.
- Building Better Futures Framework
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.
o Section 2.D.2.7 (MTSA Policies) contains policies that support the use of
inclusionary zoning by the area municipalities as a means of requiring
affordable housing in Major Transit Station Areas.
The Region supports the provision of a full range of housing options, including
affordable housing. Should these amendments be approved, staff recommend that, in
addition to any inclusionary zoning requirements, 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 Regional Official Plan are
provided in the following section.
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.
Document Number: 4807274 Version: 1 Page 7 of 9
Page 1755 of 1997
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
$2,040
which do not exceed 30 percent of gross
$395,200
annual household income for low and
moderate income households
Bachelor: $1,164
Housing for which the purchase price is
1 -Bedroom: $1,346
at least 10 percent below the average
$740,000
purchase price of a resale unit in the
3 -Bedroom: $2,039
regional market area
4+ Bedroom: n/a
"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:
A unit for which the rent does not exceed
30 per cent of the gross annual
$2,040
household 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
1 -Bedroom: $1,346
regional 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(c)-a)or 226-753-9593 should you have any questions
or wish to discuss in more detail.
Document Number: 4807274 Version: 1 Page 8 of 9
Page 1756 of 1997
Fees
The Region is in receipt of OPA ($7,000) and ZBA ($3,000) review fees, as well as peer
review fees for the noise study ($5,085). All fees were received on October 9 and 10,
2024.
Conclusions & Next Steps
Regional staff request that the applicant address concerns with the findings of the
Transportation Impact Brief (i.e. access issues) and finalize the study prior to City
Council's consideration of this application. Regional staff will contact the applicant to
discuss as soon as possible.
Once the Transportation Impact Brief is finalized and access concerns addressed, the
Region would have no concerns with the application, provided:
A holding provision is applied to the property requiring acceptance of the
preliminary noise study by the Region and the completion of a detailed noise
study prior to site plan approval.
A holding provision is applied to the entirety of the property requiring submission
of an RSC and MECP acknowledgement letter to the Region.
The amending zoning by-law includes a site-specific geothermal prohibition as
outlined above.
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. Brandon Flewwelling, GSP Group (Applicant)
Document Number: 4807274 Version: 1 Page 9 of 9
Page 1757 of 1997
City of Kitchener - Comment Form
Project Address: 4607-4611 King St E
Application Type::
Comments of: Environmental Planning (Sustainability) — City of Kitchener
Commenter's name: Mike Balch
Email: mike.balch@kitchener.ca
Phone: 519-741-2200 x 7110
Written Comments Due: October 21, 2024
Date of comments: November 5, 2024
1. Plans, Studies and/or Reports submitted and reviewed as part of a complete application:
• Sustainability Statement 4607-4611 King St E as prepared by Clifford Korman, dated June 28,
2024
2. Comments & Issues:
I have reviewed the supporting documentation (as listed above) to support a site plan application
proposing two mixed use office/residential towers, regarding sustainability and energy conservation,
and provide the following comments:
- Although the Ontario Building Code (OBC) is progressive, going forward all developments
will need to include energy conservation measures that go beyond the OBC as the City (and
Region of Waterloo) strive to achieve our greenhouse gas reduction target.
- A Sustainability Statement (as per the City's Terms of Reference) will be required as part of a
complete Site Plan Application which can further explore and/or confirm additional
sustainability measures that are best suited to the development as the design evolves.
- Upon review of the supporting documentation, the Official Plan and Zoning Bylaw
Amendments can be supported as several sustainable measures have been proposed or
are being considered for the development.
- The development proposes several sustainable measures including:
o The compact and efficient design of an underutilized lands
o Control measures to improve stormwater runoff quantity and quality
o The consideration to encourage greater public transit use
o Pedestrian supportive design
o On-site secure bike parking promoting active transportation
o Building orientation for southern exposure reducing heating requirements
o Cool/light coloured roofing material
o Consideration for the reuse and recycling of construction and building materials
1 1 u: a g e
Page 1758 of 1997
o On-site garbage, recycling, and compost
Potential items for consideration are:
o If the development will utilize low flow plumbing fixtures to reduce water demand
o Consideration of alternative or renewable energy systems to meet new energy
demand created by the development (i.e. ground source or air source heat pumps,
roof -top solar photovoltaic panels, solar thermal hot water system, capture of waste
heat from industrial processes to use for thermal energy needs, etc), or design of the
site and building for "readiness" to add these systems in the future.
3. Conditions of Site Plan Approval:
• To submit a revised Sustainability Statement to the satisfaction of the City's Director of Planning.
Further, the approved sustainability measures recommended in the Sustainability Statement will
be implemented in the landscape, stormwater management, and building design, to the
satisfaction of the City's Manager of Development Review.
4. Policies, Standards and Resources:
• Kitchener Official Plan Policy 7.C.4.5. The City will encourage and support, where feasible and
appropriate, alternative energy systems, renewable energy systems and district energy in
accordance with Section 7.C.6 to accommodate current and projected needs of energy
consumption.
• Kitchener Official Plan Policy 7.C.6.4. In areas of new development, the City will encourage
orientation of streets and/or lot design/building design with optimum southerly exposures. Such
orientation will optimize opportunities for active or passive solar space heating and water heating.
• Kitchener Official Plan Policy 7.C.6.8. Development applications will be required to demonstrate,
to the satisfaction of the City, energy is being conserved or low energy generated.
• Kitchener Official Plan Policy 7.C.6.27. The City will encourage developments to incorporate the
necessary infrastructure for district energy in the detailed engineering designs where the
potential for implementing district energy exists.
5. Advice:
➢ As part of the Kitchener Great Places Award program every several years there is a Sustainable
Development category. Also, there are community-based programs to help with and celebrate
and recognize businesses and sustainable development stewards (Regional Sustainability
Initiative - http://www.sustainablewaterlooregion.ca/our-programs/regional-sustainability-
initiative and TravelWise - http://www.sustainablewaterlooregion.ca/our-programs/travelwise).
➢ The 'Sustainability Statement Terms of Reference' can be found on the City's website under
'Planning Resources' at ... https://www.kitchener.ca/SustainabilityStatement
2 1 u: a g e
Page 1759 of 1997
The Ministry of Transportation (MTO) has completed a review of the OPA/ZBA
submission documents provided for the site located at 4611 King Street East, Kitchener.
The documents circulated have been considered in accordance with the Public
Transportation and Highway Improvement Act (PTHIA), MTO's Highway Corridor
Access Management Manual, and all other related MTO policies.
The site has frontage along Highway 401, which is designated as a Controlled Access
Highway (CAH). As such, all requirements, guidelines and best practices in accordance
with this classification and designation shall apply;
The owner should be aware that the property falls within MTO's Permit Control Area
(PCA), and as such, MTO Permits are required before any demolition, grading,
construction or alteration to the site commences. In accordance with the Ontario
Building Code, municipal permits may not be issued until such time as all other
applicable requirements (i.e.: MTO permits/approvals) are satisfied. As a condition of
MTO permit(s) MTO will require the following for review and acceptance;
The following comments are based on information received to date, and are subject to
change upon new or updated documents being provided.
Access
MTO's desirable access connection offset spacing criteria at this location is 150 m
measured westerly from the beginning of the westbound on-ramp taper to Highway 401.
The site does not have adequate frontage to meet desirable MTO's spacing
requirements. As such, alternative access should be considered by the applicant.
Should alternative access not be available, MTO may consider accepting a right in -right
out access to the site, at the westerly limit of the site, if supported by MTO's review and
acceptance of a Traffic Impact Study.
Additionally, the Region as the road authority of this section of King Street should also
review and approve the location of the proposed right in -right out access, given the
proximity to the dropped curb/ U-turn opening in the raised median.
Traffic Impact Assessment
Typically, MTO would require the owner to submit a Traffic Impact Study (TIS) to MTO
for review and acceptance, indicating the anticipated volumes of traffic and its impact
upon the provincial highway network with the following requirements:
• The TIS will be prepared by a Registry, Appraisal and Qualification System
(RAQS) qualified transportation consultant in accordance with MTO TIS
Guidelines attached.
Page 1760 of 1997
• The MTO list of Prequalified Engineering Service Providers (ESPs), completing
Traffic Impact Analysis is publicly available on MTO Technical Documents
website, under Qualifications.
• MTO will be available to review the TIS scope of work (Terms of Reference
(TOR)) once prepared, to ensure MTO concerns and requirements are
addressed.
• Should improvements be identified as warranted and as a condition of MTO
permits, the improvements will be designed and constructed to the standards and
approval of MTO at the cost of the applicant.
• MTO suggests the owner engage in pre -consultation with MTO to discuss the
existing and proposed trip distribution in tabular and a diagram with the volumes
distributed in the network..
• MTO staff would be avaible to attend a pre -study meeting.
• The TIS should include an operational review/analysis of any proposed access
location, and identify any potential impacts to the provincial highway system, and
surrounding road network.
MTO comments on TIB submitted
A Traffic Impact Brief was prepared and submitted to MTO without prior consultation. As
a result, clarification of the following comments is required:
Assumptions:
o The TIB relies on 2031 traffic forecasts referenced in the TIA Report for
Stage2 ION. — Please provide a copy of the report referenced.
o The report should consider and analyze both existing and future
conditions.
o What are the expected timelines of the Stage2 ION project and what is the
expected timeline of the proposed development, should this application be
approved?
Trip Generation:
• Why is equation used even with a R2 <0.75 ?
o In a mixed-use development, it is likely that there would be trips internal to
the site. Can Paradigm please provide comment on this, if / how it was
factored into the trip generation.
o How was the pass -by trip percentage determined? There is no pass -by
trip table for subject LUC's.
Trip Distribution:
o Please provide justification for Sportsworld Dr trips as this appears to be
less attractive being parallel to Highway 401.
o Figure 4.3 Confusion: Hwy 401 WB Off -Ramp AM Peak Hour— 59 trips
are shown making a U -Turn but the same are assigned to Hwy 401 On -
Page 1761 of 1997
Ramp. Same for all remaining figures. Provide a sketch/layout of the
intersections for clarity.
No existing traffic counts were provided. — Please provide counts for MTO
facilities.
Development Impacts:
How is this justifiable to assume that the development will have no
impacts at the intersection of Hwy 401 EB off ramp LT lanes which would
have a LOS F with the development traffic? No existing performance
measures were provided to compare with.
No separation distance is provided between the site entrance and King St
SB to Hwy 401 WB on-ramp. This will help to assess weaving conflicts
between exiting —140 trips destined SB and Hwy 401 on-ramp traffic.
Under existing conditions (i.e. without Signalized ramp terminals) where is
it anticipated that site traffic would complete U-turns on King Street?
Building and Land Use Permit
Subject to the above access and Traffic Impact Assessment requirements being met,
MTO Building and Land Use (BLU) Permit(s) would be required. As a condition of
permits MTO would require the following for review:
The applicant would be required to submit; Site Plans, Grading Plans, Drainage
Plans, Erosion Control Plans and Site Servicing Plans for MTO review and
acceptance. These plans shall clearly identify all structures/works (existing and
proposed). MTO would require all buildings, structures and features integral to
the site to be located a minimum of 3 metres from all existing MTO property
limits, inclusive of integral parking, fire lanes and stormwater management
facilities.
As a condition of MTO permits, to ensure that stormwater runoff from this
property does not adversely affect the Highway drainage system or the highway
corridor, MTO would require the owner to submit a Storm Water Management
Report along with the above -noted grading/drainage plans for the proposed
development for our review and approval.
For a comprehensive set of MTO drainage related documentation requirements,
please refer to the following link:
http://www.mto.gov.on.ca/engIish/publications/drainage-management.shtmI
MTO provides the following comments on the SWMR provided.
Page 1762 of 1997
For the purpose of MTO permits, the report must be prepared in accordance with
MTO Stormwater Management Requirements for Land Development Proposals,
attached.
Please confirm diameters of existing storm pipes referenced in the report.
Please use MTO IDF Curves for pre/post-development to calculate peak flows.
Sign Permit
MTO Sign Permit(s) would be required for any exiting or proposed signage visible from
the Highway property limit. A MTO sign permit will be required prior to installation of
signs. This is inclusive of any temporary signage.
General Comments
MTO permits for development will not be available to the applicant until such a time that
MTO comments are addressed to the satisfaction of MTO.
If there are any questions, please direct them to me by email.
Thank you,
Jeremiah Johnston
Corridor Management Planner I Highway Operations Branch
Ministry of Transportation I Ontario Public Service
(226)-980-6407 1 jerem iah.johnston@ontario.ca
Ontario 0
Taking pride in strengthening Ontario, its places and its people
Page 1763 of 1997
Ontario �Y�
MTO Stormwater
Management
Requirements for Land
Development Proposals
2009
(References Updated April 2022)
Standards & Contracts Branch
Highway Design Office
Page 1765 of 1997
Contents
1.0 About this Document............................................................................................. 1
1.1 Purpose of this Document..................................................................................
1
1.2 The Role of MTO Drainage Directives in this Document ....................................
3
1.3 Summary of Tasks.............................................................................................
3
1.4 Requirements Checklists...................................................................................4
2.0 MTO Approvals.....................................................................................................
6
3.0 Identifying Drainage Issues...................................................................................
8
3.1 Outlining the Status of the Land Development Proposal ....................................
8
3.1.1 Preliminary or Detail SWM Report...............................................................
8
3.1.2 Land Use Designations................................................................................9
3.1.3 Conditions of Approval (Draft Plan of Subdivision or Site Plan) .................
10
3.1.4 Regulatory Approval Process....................................................................
11
3.1.5 MTO Permits.............................................................................................
12
3.2 Reviewing Previous Drainage Studies.............................................................
13
3.2.1 Previous Drainage Studies........................................................................
13
3.2.2 Previous Environmental Study Reports, Preliminary Design Reports and
Detail Design Reports for Provincial Highways......................................................
15
3.3 Establishing the Need for Water Quality Treatment .........................................
16
3.4 Identifying Fish Habitat Requirements.............................................................
17
4.0 Identifying Drainage Impacts...............................................................................
18
4.1 Analyzing the Receiving Drainage System ......................................................
18
4.2 Identifying Components of the Receiving Drainage System ............................
18
4.3 Obtaining an Outlet to the Highway Drainage System .....................................
20
4.4 Identifying Criteria that Regulate the Receiving Drainage System ...................
22
4.5 Identifying Existing Drainage Problems............................................................24
4.6 Assessing Impacts to the Receiving Drainage System ....................................
25
5.0 Checking the Capacity of the Highway Drainage System ....................................
30
5.1 Checking the Design Capacity of the Highway Bridge or Culvert .....................
30
Page 1766 of 1997
5.2 Checking the Design Capacity of the Highway Storm Sewer or Roadside Ditch
32
5.3 Checking the Design Capacity of the Highway Stormwater Management
DetentionFacility....................................................................................................... 33
6.0 Mitigating Impacts to the Receiving Drainage System ........................................ 36
6.1 Providing Stormwater Management Controls ................................................... 36
6.2 Modifying the Receiving Drainage System.......................................................42
7.0 Finalizing Construction and Operation Issues ..................................................... 45
7.1 Providing Temporary Sediment and Erosion Control During Construction....... 45
7.2 Clarifying Ownership, Operation and Maintenance Responsibilities ................ 46
Appendix A — Requirements Checklists........................................................................ 48
Figure 1: Task Summary Chart....................................................................................... 4
Table 1: Determining when a SWM Report is Required .................................................. 7
Table 2: Components of the Receiving Drainage System ............................................. 20
Table 3: Analysis of Receiving Drainage System..........................................................26
Table 4: Documenting the Computational Methodology ................................................ 28
Page 1767 of 1997
1.0 About this Document
This document is a guidance tool developed to specify the requirements and mandate
of the Ministry of Transportation of Ontario (MTO) related to stormwater management
(SWM) for municipal development. It outlines specifically what information should be
included in Stormwater Management Reports required in support of applications for
Encroachment and/or Development and Land Use Permits. The information is for use
by consultants, developers, municipalities, other government agencies and MTO staff.
Land development proposals are routinely submitted to the MTO to obtain appropriate
approvals. SWM Reports may accompany these proposals to present the drainage
works associated with the proposed land development and to identify any potential
impacts to the highway drainage works. This guidance report, MTO Stormwater
Management Requirements for Land Development Proposals (2022), was developed to
provide the proponent with a comprehensive set of MTO documentation requirements
that might have to be satisfied before obtaining an MTO approval. The approach used in
this document is consistent with the approach applied in the planning and design of
provincial highways (Highway Drainage Design Standards, 2008), the planning and
design of stormwater management controls (Stormwater Management Planning and
Design Manual, 2003), and the watershed management approach.
111°�)wiqipose of' this IIICii iiia ,,,, iiir
This document was developed to enable the drainage practitioner to identify all drainage
related impacts to the highway, caused by the proposed land development, at the
earliest possible design stage. As issues are identified, MTO requirements can then be
considered and incorporated into the design. Finally, the drainage practitioner can
consider MTO documentation requirements when completing the SWM Report, to
ensure that each issue has been resolved. If MTO requirements are appropriately
considered when completing these tasks, the number of iterations involved with
identifying and resolving drainage issues should be reduced; helping to minimize review
and approval time frames.
The purpose of this document is to strengthen the management of highway drainage
works by implementing the modern drainage management approach to the
management and control of highway corridors. Its objective is to consider the use of
alternative drainage management techniques while maintaining the integrity of the
highway infrastructure. This document ensures consistency in the application of
drainage management practices across all MTO regions of the province, while also
ensuring that regulatory concerns are addressed in a consistent and comprehensive
SWM Requirements for Land Development Proposals 1
Page 1768 of 1997
manner. Additionally, it helps to minimize potential liabilities incurred by the MTO in the
approval of drainage works associated with a proposed land development.
It is important to note the following:
Those who investigate, develop and/or submit land development proposals to
use the highway drainage system or right-of-way, do so at their own risk. The
MTO cannot be held responsible for any expenditure incurred, both monetary
and non -monetary losses, if the review of the proposed land development is
delayed or not approved.
• It is the responsibility of the proponent to familiarise themselves with MTO
requirements, to provide all information required by the MTO for the evaluation of
the proposed land development, and to satisfy all MTO requirements.
• Any MTO approval is for conveyance of stormwater runoff from the proposed
land development only. The MTO is primarily concerned with impacts to the
highway drainage system. Wherever stormwater runoff discharging from the
proposed land development may impact the highway drainage system, impacts
to the highway right-of-way should be assessed, and the capacity of the highway
drainage system must be checked.
• Responsibility for regulating stormwater runoff to ensure that the proposed land
development will not impact the riparian rights of upstream or downstream
property owners resides with the municipality and other regulatory agencies.
However, the MTO recognises that the property of riparian landowners located
upstream or downstream of the highway right-of-way cannot be damaged by
stormwater runoff discharging from the proposed land development. Even though
this responsibility is within the mandate of the regulatory agencies, MTO may
become liable if the stormwater runoff from the proposed land development is
conveyed through a highway drainage system and damages any riparian
property located upstream or downstream of the highway right-of-way.
Consequently, the MTO reserves the right to request that the proponent complete
drainage impact analysis of the proposed land development to determine if any
drainage impacts will occur to the receiving drainage system, including the
highway drainage system, because of the proposed land development.
• The MTO may alter requirements presented in this document, since an extensive
SWM Report is not always required. The MTO may make provisions to accept a
drainage impact analysis that has a lower level of detail associated with it,
provided that the proponent submits a plan showing how stormwater runoff from
the proposed land development will be conveyed to the receiving drainage
system. The proponent must be able to demonstrate that drainage impacts to the
highway right-of-way or upstream/downstream riparian landowners will not occur,
SWM Requirements for Land Development Proposals 2
Page 1769 of 1997
and that the capacity of the highway drainage system will not be exceeded
because of stormwater runoff discharging from the proposed land development.
""'1 he III° IIII III ""'1 0 IID uir liii iiiaage 1111irectives iii iiia this IIICii ui ,,,, iiiri
MTO Drainage Directives are MTO policies and standards that are to be applied
whenever highway drainage works are being designed or may be impacted by works
external to the MTO right-of-way. There are three relevant directives:
• PHY Directive B-012: Petition drains under the Drainage Act for both private and
MTO petitions.
• PHY Directive B-013: Agricultural piped drains discharging into the highway right-
of-way.
• PHY Directive B-014: Drainage management policy for highway corridors.
The requirements set out in this document conform to these directives. Some portions
of the directives have been directly incorporated into the appropriate sections (complete
with references) for discussion purposes only. It is the responsibility of the designer to
refer to the original directive for instruction.
I Ill
ui ui� .iii , of
A brief explanation of the document structure is provided by Figure 1. This "Task
Summary Chart" provides an illustration using coloured layers of the tasks associated
with SWM Reports.
SWM Requirements for Land Development Proposals 3
Page 1770 of 1997
r
MTO ADorovals
uatfining the Reviewng g.ntnbtishing
Status of the Previous thin Need for G�C�ntut i
ish H bit '91
Development ?% Drainages" �„r i� Wate ` OU�ia!'f&tyRequirement's
r pq tulle Treatment nt
Identifying, Drainage leaves
Identifying Obl mr'u,ing an t antmtying c6teria tdnntirying Assessing
compnnruntn of OLIVO to the,, that Regulate the xi ting Impacts to Ilia,
the Receiviing, Kgihwy Receiving Drainage Receiving
cr-Mn ge system DeaJoage Systeni Drainage yst m Problems Drainage System
heing the Design CheOinq the I nnugn Cap 'ity Checking the Design
capacity of the Highway rot the Highway Storm, Sewer capaic tyr at t'h
Bridge or Cuivert or Roaft to Ditch Wghw,ay Dat ntion Faciikly
///%% /%//p- -
provWi ug t rmw ter �oditying the Receiving
nnganient Controls Drainage System
iltigating Impacts o the
. w
rov4ng Erosionand Sediment II tnrwtyung Operation and
Controls During Construction Mauntenance Responsibilities
All
i r.. .
Figure 1: Task Summary Chart
IlRequiirelments ChedlIkIllists
The checklists presented in Appendix A provide a comprehensive list of documentation
requirements to be included in a SWM Report submitted to the MTO. It is the
responsibility of the drainage practitioner to determine the applicability of the potential
documentation requirements. The selection should be based on the suitability to each
land development proposal and will depend on the scale and nature of the proposed
land development. The checklists include:
• Checklist 1: Background Information Required to Identify Drainage Issues.
• Checklist 2: Receiving Drainage System Information.
SWM Requirements for Land Development Proposals 4
Page 1771 of 1997
Checklist 3: Assessing Impacts to the Receiving Drainage System
• Checklist 4: Construction Operation and Maintenance Issues.
• Checklist 5: Supplemental Drainage Information.
These checklists should be used to ensure that the various tasks presented in this
document have been considered, addressed, and documented in the SWM Report, and
that all drainage issues and impacts have been identified and mitigated to the
satisfaction of the MTO.
SWM Requirements for Land Development Proposals 5
Page 1772 of 1997
2.0 MTO Approvals
Before proceeding with the SWM Report, the proponent should first determine if a SWM
Report needs to be submitted to the MTO. A SWM Report is generally required by MTO
with a Land Development Proposal to support the following MTO approvals
• A Public Transportation and Highway Improvement Act (PTHIA) Permit:
which may be a Building and Land Use Permit or an Encroachment Permit.
o A Building and Land Use Permit is required when a structure is to be
constructed within the highway corridor control area. The control area
varies depending on the type of structure (e.g. the control area for a
shopping centre is 800m). To determine if a Building and Land Use Permit
is required, contact the local MTO District Office.
o An Encroachment Permit is generally required when any work is to be
completed within the highway right-of-way. To determine if an
Encroachment Permit is required, contact the local MTO District Office.
• Conditions of Approval: apply to Site Plan or Draft Plan of Subdivision
proposals. During the circulation process, the MTO may request Conditions of
Approval. Each condition must be cleared by the MTO before the proposal is
approved. For clarification, contact the MTO Regional Highway Planning and
Design Office or the local MTO District Office.
Refer to Table 1 to determine when a SWM Report is required to support either of the
above noted approvals.
SWM Requirements for Land Development Proposals 6
Page 1773 of 1997
Table 1: Determining when a SWM Report is Required
SWM Requirements for Land Development Proposals 7
Page 1774 of 1997
A SWM Report is required when:
Development
Proposals
���
• drainage related Conditions
Outside the'°°°°
��°
of Approval have been
Jurisdiction of
--
-
requested by MTO
the PTHIA
,, ,,,,;�„,,,,,���a�,,,;urlsdictlonfPTHIA
I—jo
j , , d
%������/„ %'„/
• a Building and Land Use
Permit is required; and/or
',��`°”
• drainage related Conditions of
Approval have been requested
Jurisdiction
by MTO.
of PTHIA
��u�� ;yn�
• a Building and Land Use
Development
Permit is required; and/or
Proposals
�,
• an Encroachment Permit is
Within the'°°°°°°°°°°°°°°°
required; and/or
Jurisdiction of
drainage related Conditions
the PTHIA;.:,,,.
Jurisdiction
of Approval have been
of PTHIA
requested by MTO
%///,J II///rr,/i///%���//%%�%r///
•
a Building and Land Use
Permit is required; and/or
• drainage related Conditions
of Approval have been
°i .........
G
iirmp
uimm
�
Jurisdiction
requested by MTO.
�..
of PTHIA
Table 1: Determining when a SWM Report is Required
SWM Requirements for Land Development Proposals 7
Page 1774 of 1997
3.0 Identifying Drainage Issues
Having determined that a SWM Report is required by the MTO, the proponent should
review all the following drainage issues related to the proposed land development.
• Outlining the Status of the Land Development Proposal:
o Preliminary or Detail Stormwater Management Report.
o Land Use Designations.
o Conditions of Approval (Draft Plan of Subdivision or Site Plan).
o Regulatory Approval Process.
o MTO Permits - Establishing the Need
• Reviewing Previous Drainage Studies:
o Previous Drainage Studies.
o Previous Environmental Study Reports, Preliminary Design Reports and
Detail Design Reports for Provincial Highways.
• Establishing the Need for Water Quality Treatment:
o Documentation Required in SWM Report.
o Relevance to MTO.
• Identifying Fish Habitat Requirements:
o Documentation Required in SWM Report.
o Relevance to MTO.
OutIllihinling the Status III IIII aind IIICii IIII Ill iii iiri't 11i°',Iirqjjposall
A proposed land development requires approvals from the municipality and regulatory
agencies. The SWM report should outline the status of the land development proposal
by providing documentation on the following areas.
„ 1 „ 1 RrdIlmIlnary Oiir IIC;;; liilllSWIM Report
At the preliminary stage, the SWM report will typically outline all potential impacts that
are caused by the proposed land development, recommend mitigative works, and
demonstrate the feasibility of the mitigative works.
At the detailed stage, the SWM report will typically provide the detailed design and
demonstrate adherence with all requirements that have been set.
Documentation Required in SWM Report
SWM Requirements for Land Development Proposals 8
Page 1775 of 1997
Clarify whether the report is preliminary or detailed in nature.
Relevance to MTO
• The types of comments provided by the MTO will depend on whether the report
is preliminary or detailed.
• MTO review of the SWM report at the preliminary stage is to set requirements for
approval.
• MTO review of the SWM report at the detailed stage is to issue final approval.
„ 1 „2 III,,,,,,, and sIIC;;; lii iii t1 ans
The local municipality typically plans and regulates the development of private land by
approving areas for development and designating the type of land development (e.g.,
residential, commercial, industrial) that is permitted. Land use planning designations are
documented in municipal planning documents such as:
• Official Plans.
• Official Plan Amendments.
• Secondary Plans.
• Secondary Plan Amendments; and
• Zoning By-laws.
Land development proposals must be in conformance with municipal planning
documents.
Documentation Required in SWM Report
The SWM report should clearly indicate all land use designations, particularly those
associated with land drainage (i.e., hazard land or flood plain designations).
Conformance with the hazard land or flood plain designations must be clearly
documented in the report. If changes to these designations are required to
accommodate the proposed land development, the report should provide information
regarding the required zoning changes. Any unresolved issues associated with the
proposed changes should be highlighted complete with the steps that are being taken to
resolve them.
Relevance to MTO
It may be too soon in the municipal approval process for the MTO to conduct a review of
the SWM report, if the land use designation has not been approved (i.e. by the
SWM Requirements for Land Development Proposals 9
Page 1776 of 1997
municipality). Contact the local MTO District Office or MTO Regional Highway Planning
and Design Office for clarification.
As an agent of the crown, MTO will not approve a SWM report that will contravene the
mandate or authority of another regulatory agency.
„ 1 „ 3 Conditions of ApprovaIlI II'..'. r fIII::::'III iii of II 'Iii lii liian Our Ste
IIP 11 a un)
During the circulation process, regulatory agencies, including the MTO, may request
Conditions of Approval. These conditions could include the requirements for submitting
a SWM report.
As the preliminary and detail designs are submitted to the various regulatory agencies,
the conditions will have to be cleared. Any drainage conditions set by the MTO would be
reviewed and clearance will be contingent on satisfying the requirements of the MTO,
as outlined in this guide.
The MTO may place a requirement for a SWM Report on a Site Plan or Draft Plan of a
Subdivision to address issues related to:
• On site stormwater management detention facilities.
• Temporary sediment and erosion control during construction.
• Provisions for a suitable outlet.
• Limits related to design flow capacity associated with a highway water crossing
or the highway surface drainage system.
• Ownership of SWM facilities.
Documentation Required in SWM Report
The report must clearly indicate the drainage related requirements imposed by the MTO
and document how they are satisfied by the proposed submission.
The report should also provide all other Conditions of Approval that pertain to land
drainage, which regulatory agency is responsible for clearing the condition, and the
status of the clearance with that agency.
Relevance to MTO
• To provide clearance of a Condition of Approval, the MTO must ensure that all
Conditions of Approval imposed by the MTO are addressed satisfactorily.
SWM Requirements for Land Development Proposals 10
Page 1777 of 1997
In some cases, the MTO may circulate a land development proposal that is
beyond the jurisdictional control of the Public Transportation and Highway
Improvement Act, and will not require a permit from the MTO (e.g.,
Encroachment Permit, Building and Land Use Permit) to be issued for the
proposed land development. In such cases the MTO will address any highway
drainage concerns by requesting suitable Conditions of Approval during the
circulation process.
• As an agent of the crown, the MTO will not clear any Condition of Approval until
those of all regulatory agencies have been cleared; or an approval in principle is
provided. Confirmation of final approval should be forwarded to the MTO.
• The MTO can issue an approval in principle for the SWM Report if it is required
by the proponent to secure clearances from other regulatory agencies.
• Conditions imposed by other regulatory agencies should not compromise the
highway drainage system.
• Should a Condition of Approval of another regulatory agency conflict with those
of the MTO, or vice versa, a meeting between the parties may be warranted to
resolve the conflict.
„ 1 A I III Our pIp rO 111 1::::1 rOC
In addition to the local municipality, the Ministry of Northern Development, Mines,
Natural Resources and Forestry (MNDMNRF), MECP, and the local conservation
authority (where applicable) may also review the SWM Report. In some cases, the
Department of Fisheries and Oceans may also be involved. Refer to Statutory Mandate
of the Regulatory Agencies for a summary of regulatory agency mandates.
Documentation Required in SWM Report
The report should indicate all the regulatory agencies involved in the review of the land
development proposal and provide an update on the status of approvals with each of
the agencies. Copies of documentation (i.e. letters of approval, permits, etc.) from the
various regulatory agencies involved should be appended to the proposal as they
become available.
Relevance to MTO
• As an agent of the crown, MTO will not provide an approval that will contravene
the mandate or authority of another regulatory agency. As a result, the MTO
requires the SWM Report to be approved by all regulatory agencies; or an
approval in principle is provided by the regulatory agency. Confirmation of final
approval should be forwarded to the MTO.
SWM Requirements for Land Development Proposals 11
Page 1778 of 1997
• The MTO will review the requirements set by the regulatory agencies to ensure
that the MTO requirements will not conflict with those of another agency, and vice
versa.
• Should the requirements of other regulatory agencies conflict with the MTO
requirements, or vice versa, a meeting may be warranted to resolve the
controversial aspects of the SWM Report.
• The MTO can issue an approval in principle for the SWM Report if it is required
by the proponent to secure clearances from other regulatory agencies.
„ 1 „5 II 1:::::1&rrNts
As part of the MTO's mandate under the Public Transportation and Highway
Improvement, certain land development proposals will require that an Encroachment
Permit, Building and Land Use Permit, Entrance Permit, or Signage Permit be obtained
from the MTO.
Issuance of these permits will depend on the jurisdictional requirements (i.e., setback
distance between the proposed land development and the highway right-of-way) for
each type of permit. Contact the local MTO District Office for further clarification.
Documentation Required in SWM Report
The report should indicate which permits are required from MTO.
A background check on the site, with the assistance of the local MTO District Office,
would turn up any previous permits that may have been issued in the past for the
proposed land development. Clarification on the validity of the previous permit, and any
changes to the MTO drainage practice that might affect the required permit can also be
obtained. All relevant issues should then be summarised in the SWM report (e.g., partial
construction of the proposed land development, validity of permit, expiry dates,
conditions of approval of the permit, applicability of the previous conditions on current
land development proposals, and ownership of the property, etc.).
Relevance to MTO
• Where the MTO has issued a permit, the status and applicability of that permit for
the proponent or the proposed land development must be determined.
• Should approvals of other regulatory agencies conflict with the MTO
requirements, or vice versa, a meeting may be warranted to resolve the
controversial aspects of the SWM Report.
SWM Requirements for Land Development Proposals 12
Page 1779 of 1997
• The MTO can issue an approval in principle if it is required by the proponent to
secure clearances from other regulatory agencies.
32IIII° ,,,, liii liii iiiag 111::3irevious IICi iiir liii iiiaStudies
The SWM Report should document any previously completed drainage studies that are
to be used for the proposed land development by providing documentation on the
following areas.
3 „ „ 1 IRir lous Ilf;;;;)raIlnage Studes
Previous drainage studies include the following:
• Watershed, sub -watershed, and master drainage plans provide the goals,
objectives, and criteria for the management of resources in a watershed, sub -
watershed, or area of specific interest.
• Preliminary SWM Reports are typically submitted at the earlier stage of design to
outline all potential impacts that are caused by the proposed land development,
recommend mitigative works, and demonstrate the feasibility of the mitigative
works.
• Detailed SWM Reports are typically submitted at the detailed design stage to
provide the detailed design and demonstrate adherence with all requirements
that have been set.
• Other types of drainage studies could include (sources include conservation
authorities, MNDMNRF, MECP, and municipalities):
o Flood Damage Reduction Program Studies (FDRP studies).
o erosion control studies.
o flood control studies.
o combinations of the above.
Documentation required in SWM Report
Where a previous drainage study is in existence and any objectives, goals, design
criteria and other elements from that study are intended to be used in the proposed
SWM report, the report must clearly indicate if MTO formally endorsed the previous
drainage study.
• If MTO endorsed the previous drainage study documentation of relevant
objectives, goals, design criteria and other elements of the referenced study must
be included (with clear references to its source). This may include:
o Limits on regulatory flood flows and water levels.
SWM Requirements for Land Development Proposals 13
Page 1780 of 1997
o Water quality objectives.
o Fish habitat restoration or protection objectives.
o Identification of flood or erosion prone areas.
o The type of drainage system that is required.
o Requirements for stormwater management controls.
Adherence of the SWM Report to the referenced drainage study must also be clearly
documented. When making submissions based on previously completed drainage
studies, changes that have occurred to MTO drainage practice must be considered (i.e.,
the MTO continually updates its drainage practice). Other agencies also undertake
these types of updates. Contact the MTO Regional Highway Planning and Design Office
to determine if changes have occurred to the MTO drainage practice since the previous
drainage study was completed. If there has been changes, the proponent must
demonstrate how the previously completed drainage study is in conformance with
current MTO drainage practice.
• If MTO did not endorse the previous drainage study, there may be two
reasons. The SWM Report should document which of the following reasons
apply.
o The MTO may not have endorsed the previous drainage study since the
MTO was not on the circulation list and had not reviewed it. In this case,
the previous drainage study should be reviewed by the MTO for
conformity to the MTO drainage practice. Should the study be acceptable
to the MTO, an endorsement can be issued. Once complete, the proposed
SWM Report can be reviewed based on conformity to the previous
drainage study.
o The MTO may not have endorsed the previous drainage study because of
a disagreement with certain objectives, goals, design criteria or other
elements of the previous drainage study. Determine the aspects of the
previously completed drainage study that were not acceptable to the MTO.
Once this has been established there are two options available.
■ If the proposed SWM Report does not encompass any area of
disagreement, the MTO can review the SWM Report in isolation of
the previously completed drainage study. The review would be
based on conformity with current MTO drainage practice.
■ If the proposed SWM Report encompasses an area of
disagreement, a meeting between all supporting regulatory
agencies is warranted to sort out those controversial aspects of the
previously completed drainage study. During this activity, the MTO
is not able to review the proposed SWM Report and would be
SWM Requirements for Land Development Proposals 14
Page 1781 of 1997
unable to approve the SWM Report, issue any permits for the
proposed land development, or clear any Conditions of Approval.
Relevance to MTO
• Any previous drainage study that was endorsed by the MTO must be referenced
in the SWM Report
• The SWM Report must show conformance with the previous drainage study if it
was endorsed by the MTO.
• The review of the SWM Report may be accelerated if the MTO endorsed a
previous drainage study.
• The review of the SWM Report can be delayed if a previous drainage study, not
endorsed by the MTO, will be referenced. Any disputes should be identified
before first submission.
3. 2.2 Illiirm Iii Reports, , IlliirdII Iii iirn Iii iii it
IDesIlgn III::Re offs and II tIii III DesIlgn III:Rep iris fair III::: ur0 Iii n lii 1l1
IIffigliways
When proposing to discharge stormwater runoff from a proposed land development into
the highway right of way, either in the highway surface drainage system or into a
highway water crossing, it may be necessary to obtain design information regarding the
highway drainage works. To obtain this information or data, it is prudent to consult with
the MTO Regional Highway Planning and Design Office. Information may be available
from environmental study reports, preliminary design reports and detail design reports.
This information should be used to check the capacity of the existing highway drainage
system.
Documentation Required in SWM Report
The SWM Report should provide documentation on the relevant objectives, goals,
design criteria and other elements of the previous highway design report (with clear
references to its source), such as:
• Limits on regulatory flood flows and water levels.
• Water quality objectives.
• Fish habitat restoration or protection objectives.
• Identification of flood or erosion prone areas.
• Drainage system requirements.
SWM Requirements for Land Development Proposals 15
Page 1782 of 1997
• Requirements for stormwater management controls.
Relevance to MTO
• Existing or future highway needs should not be compromised by the proposed
land development.
3 3„, Need 11111 it iiir lin
�� ��, ilii ilii l� � � Ir” Ir li, ,,�
Generally, in land development proposals, the MECP will determine the need for
stormwater management quality control. The document titled Stormwater Management
Planning and Design Manual (MOE 2003), provides general guidance on the planning
and design of stormwater quality control facilities.
The need for stormwater management quality control is based on the sensitivity of the
receiving drainage system, and may be a requirement placed on the proposed land
development by the regulatory agencies before any impact assessment has been
completed.
Documentation Required in SWM Report
Document the requirements, if any, for water quality that has been placed on the
proposed land development by the regulatory agencies.
Relevance to MTO
• As an agent of the crown, MTO will not provide an approval that will contravene
the mandate or authority of another regulatory agency.
• The MTO reserves the right to input into water quality requirements imposed
upon the land development proposal, when drainage from a land development
will be entering the highway surface drainage system and will be conveyed to a
receiving drainage system. Requirements set by the regulatory agencies should
not conflict with the requirements of MTO, and vice versa.
• The primary concern for the MTO is with regards to the riparian rights of
upstream or downstream landowners. If the MTO could become unduly exposed
to legal action, MTO reserves the right to impose or increase, whichever is
applicable, the requirements imposed upon the land development proposal. An
MTO drainage representative should be contacted for clarification.
• Should the requirements of other regulatory agencies conflict with MTO
requirements, or vice versa, a meeting may be warranted to resolve the
controversial aspects of the SWM Report. For stormwater management quality
control requirements refer to, Providing Stormwater Management Controls.
SWM Requirements for Land Development Proposals 16
Page 1783 of 1997
" iii iiia IIII°°° liii IIID IIID II liii° Illl:::Zequllli iiir iii ii
Generally, in land development proposals, the MNDMNRF, DFO, or the local
conservation authority will determine fish habitat requirements. Since fish habitat
requirements are based on the sensitivity of the receiving drainage system,
requirements may be set before any impact assessment has been completed.
Documentation Required in SWM Report
Document the requirements, if any, for fish habitat mitigation that have been placed on
the proposed land development by the regulatory agencies. Clarify that the proposed
method of mitigation will not impact the highway drainage system. Refer to the
appropriate section listed below for more detail.
• Checking the Design Capacity of the Highway Bridge or Culvert.
• Checking the Design Capacity of the Highway Storm Sewer or Roadside Ditch.
• Checking the Design Capacity of the Highway Stormwater Management
Detention Facility.
Relevance to MTO
• As an agent of the crown MTO will not provide an approval that will contravene
the mandate or authority of another regulatory agency.
• MTO reserves the right to input into fish habitat mitigation requirements imposed
upon the land development proposal when the proposed method of mitigation
may cause an impact to the highway water crossing. Requirements set by the
regulatory agencies should not conflict with the requirements of the MTO, and
vice versa. Contact the MTO Regional Environmental Section for further
guidance.
• Where any proposed method of fish habitat mitigation is to be placed within the
highway right -of way, refer to the following sections. Contact the MTO Regional
Environmental Section for further guidance.
o Fundamental Purpose of Highway Right-of-way and Drainage System.
o Drainage Works by Outside Parties Constructed within the Highway Right-
of-way.
o Consider a Planned Shared Use of the Drainage System.
o Legal Agreements.
• Should the requirements of other regulatory agencies conflict with MTO
requirements, or vice versa, a meeting may be warranted to resolve the
controversial aspects of the SWM Report.
SWM Requirements for Land Development Proposals 17
Page 1784 of 1997
4.0 Identifying Drainage Impacts
Ainallyziing tilieIIII°pec ,,, liii liii iiiag 111)iraiinage System
Before proceeding with the tasks in this grouping, the following tasks should have been
completed:
• Determining if a SWM Report needs to be submitted to MTO; and
• Identifying Drainage Issues.
The MTO is primarily concerned with impacts to the highway drainage system.
Wherever stormwater runoff discharging from the proposed land development may
impact the highway drainage system, impacts to the highway right-of-way should be
assessed, and the capacity of the highway drainage system must be checked.
However, the MTO recognises that the property of riparian landowners located
upstream or downstream of the highway right-of-way cannot be damaged by stormwater
runoff discharging from the proposed land development. Even though this responsibility
is within the mandate of the regulatory agencies, the MTO may become liable if the
stormwater runoff from the proposed land development is conveyed through a highway
drainage system and damages any riparian property located upstream or downstream
of the highway right-of-way.
For these reasons, the MTO reserves the right to request that the proponent complete a
hydrologic analysis and/or a hydraulic analysis of the proposed land development to
determine if any drainage impacts will occur to the receiving drainage system, including
the highway drainage system, as a result of the proposed land development. This task
is completed in:
• Identifying Components of the Receiving Drainage System.
• Obtaining an Outlet to the Highway Drainage System.
• Identifying Criteria that Regulates the Receiving Drainage System.
• Identifying Existing Drainage Problems.
• Assessing Impacts to the Receiving Drainage System.
4 2 111deiritilify1ing CaiimIjjpaiineirvtsof the IIID liii liii iiia 1111 iiir liii iin
System
The SWM Report should document all the components of the receiving drainage system
that will convey stormwater runoff from the proposed land development. Documentation
SWM Requirements for Land Development Proposals 18
Page 1785 of 1997
of the receiving drainage system should proceed to a location upstream and/or
downstream of the proposed land development, where it can be shown that a drainage
impact will not exist.
The SWM Report should also include the specific information presented in Table 2 -
Components of the Receiving Drainage System, for all the identified components of the
receiving drainage system.
The SWM Report should also present the organisation or person responsible for the
operation and maintenance, or stewardship of the identified components of the
receiving drainage system. The following organisations or persons could have these
responsibilities.
• MTO (provincial highways): the SWM Report should clearly identify which
components of the receiving drainage system are part of the highway drainage
system (contact the MTO Regional Highway Planning and Design Office for
details). The existing highway drainage system could include:
o highway bridges or culverts
o highway storm sewers or roadside ditches
o the highway major system
o highway stormwater management detention facilities
o highway erosion protection works.
• MNDMNRF (i.e., for crown land).
• Local conservation authority (where they exist).
• Local municipality or roads authority.
• Federal Department of Transportation.
• Riparian landowners.
• Petition awards or municipal drains should also be identified, where they exist.
Component
Relevant Information to be Provided in SWM Report
Stream Channel
cross-section configuration, slope, lining material,
Systems (natural or
alignment/meander pattern
manmade
Trunk Storm
tributary area and applicable information presented for
Sewers
storm sewers see below
Storm Sewers
material (e.g. CSP, concrete, etc.), diameters, lengths,
slopes, inverts, junctions, catch basin and/or maintenance
hole spacing and layout, and inlet/outlet configuration (e.g.
head walls, wing walls, flared entrances, flow splitter, etc.)
SWM Requirements for Land Development Proposals 19
Page 1786 of 1997
Roadside Ditches
cross-section configuration, slopes, inverts, ancillary
structure (check dams, drop structure, etc.) and lining
material
Major System
roadway surface, median drains, boulevards and storage
areas within the right-of-way, swales, and channels or
roadside ditches conveying the major storm runoff away
from roadway to the receiving streams, channels, ravines
trunk storm sewers or ponds
Bridges
soffit elevation, span arrangement, pier details, abutments,
and superstructure
Culverts
culvert type (e.g. elliptical, box, open footing, etc.), culvert
configuration (e.g. single barrel, double barrel, etc.),
diameter or span/rise, length, slope, material (e.g. CSP,
concrete, etc.), and inlet/outlet configuration (e.g. head
walls, wing walls, flared entrances, etc.)
Stormwater
type of facility (wet, dry, extended wet, etc.), location and
Management
layout, size, length to width ratio, detention time, inlet and
Facilities
outlet configuration, emergency spillway, flow
splitter/bypass location, type and capacity, maintenance
access, special safety requirements, grading and planting
strategy, maintenance procedures/responsibilities,
setbacks from highway, and ownership
Erosion Protection
lining material/cover work, bank drainage, buffers strips,
Works
runoff diversions, drop structures, energy dissipators,
stilling basins, chutes, retaining walls and check dams
Dams
size of reservoir, dam height, type, operational rule curve,
spillway location, maintenance procedures/responsibilities,
and ownership
Waterbodies
name, location
Natural Recharges
volume and location
or Depression
Areas
Tile Drains
location, property ownership
Table 2: Components of the Receiving Drainage System
Where a suitable drainage outlet does not exist, and stormwater runoff is conveyed
downstream as sheet flow, the sheet flow component should be presented in the SWM
Report as being part of the receiving drainage system and assessed accordingly.
Obtaiinihing ain OutIlleI1he IIII °°°[ liii IIIDway 111iiYiiraihinage System
The SWM Report should provide the location of the drainage system outlet for the
proposed land development, and indicate the legal rights associated with that outlet.
Conflicts with existing or future highway drainage works must also be noted.
SWM Requirements for Land Development Proposals 20
Page 1787 of 1997
Documenting Future Highway Drainage Works
Contact the MTO Regional Highway Planning and Design Office for information
regarding future highway works. The SWM report should identify future highway
drainage works that may be associated with any of the following:
• New highways
• Lane widenings
• Addition of travelling, passing or truck climbing lanes
• Addition of right or left turning lanes
• Interchange or intersection improvements
• Structure replacement and widenings
• Roadside ancillary facilities
• Improvements to the existing highway drainage system
Documenting if the Proponent Has the Right to Outlet to the Highway Drainage
System
This section contains excerpts from PHY Directive B014 (Policy Area 2: Drainage of
Lands Owned by Others) which have been modified to suit the purposes of this
document. This section does not replace PHY Directive B014. Refer to PHY Directive
B014 when evaluating MTO drainage policy matters.
Before MTO permission is given to use the highway drainage system for a drainage
outlet, the SWM Report should document how the following requirements have been
satisfied.
The proponent is a riparian landowner.
The drainage area that corresponds to the proposed drainage outlet is within the
natural drainage tributary area (i.e., stormwater runoff is not being diverted).
iii. The proposed land development does not interfere with the rights of upstream or
downstream riparian owners (including the MTO) to drain their land.
iv. Any stormwater runoff that is proposed to be discharged into a highway drainage
system shall not be allowed if the runoff may potentially contravene the mandate
of another regulatory agency. If any regulatory agency advises that contravention
has occurred subsequent to approval, the source may be disconnected by the
MTO on written request of that agency.
V. The proponent has demonstrated satisfactorily that there is no feasible
alternative solution.
SWM Requirements for Land Development Proposals 21
Page 1788 of 1997
Where any of the above noted conditions are not satisfied, the MTO reserves the right
to reject any land development proposal that may be harmful to its interests (refer to
PHY Directive B014, Policy Area 2: Drainage of Lands Owned by Others). In such
cases, an MTO drainage representative should be contacted for clarification.
Documenting if the Proposed Outlet Conflicts with the Highway Drainage System
The SWM Report should clearly indicate whether the proposed outlet will conflict with
the existing highway drainage system, or with any future highway drainage works.
Where a conflict with future highway works has been identified, the SWM report must
document how the conflict was resolved.
The MTO does not generally allow drainage works associated with land development
proposals to be located within the highway right-of-way, as they should be confined
within the land development property boundaries; however, where a mutual benefit is
recognized, PHY Directive B014 provides guidance. The MTO Regional Highway
Planning and Design Office must be contacted before making such a recommendation.
The following sections should be reviewed.
• Fundamental Purpose of Highway Right-of-way and Drainage System.
• Drainage Works by Outside Parties Constructed within the Highway Right-of-
way.
• Consider a Planned Shared Use of the Highway Drainage System
• Legal Agreements
IIII ii iiif ii ia ii�ii°i�iia that IID a II IAe 11IRecelviing
Illliraiinage Systern
Criteria used to regulate impacts to the receiving drainage system should be
documented in the SWM Report. Regulating criteria are presented below.
Highway Drainage Design Criteria
The SWM Report must identify the design criteria for the components of the highway
drainage system (i.e. that form part of the receiving drainage system) whose capacity
may be impacted by stormwater runoff discharging from the proposed land
development. For details on MTO drainage design criteria refer to Highway Drainage
Design Standards 2008 or refer to Design Criteria for Highway Drainage Works. Other
highway design criteria may also be applied. Contact the MTO Regional Highway
Planning and Design Office for further details.
SWM Requirements for Land Development Proposals 22
Page 1789 of 1997
Where a previous drainage study has been referenced for highway drainage design
criteria, refer to Reviewing Previous Drainage Studies.
Other Drainage Design Criteria
The local conservation authority and/or municipality should be contacted for design
criteria applicable to the component of the receiving drainage system for which they
have operational and maintenance responsibilities.
Where a previous drainage study has been referenced for drainage design criteria
related to other components of the receiving drainage system (i.e. other than the
highway drainage system), refer to Reviewing Previous Drainage Studies.
Drainage Management Policy of Regulatory Agencies
Provincial regulatory policies for drainage management include:
• Provincial Policy Statement: Natural Heritage, Water Quality and Quantity,
Natural Hazards and Human Made Hazards (Planning Act)
• Provincial Water Quality Objectives (Ontario Water Resources Act)
• Official Plans, Secondary Plans, and Zoning By-laws (Planning Act, Municipal
Act)
• Fill, Construction and Alteration of Waterway (Conservation Authorities Act)
The above noted policies are recognised by the MTO. Where required by the regulatory
agencies, the SWM Report should document compliance with these policies.
Drainage Management Policy of MTO
Drainage management policies are issued by the MTO under the authority of the Public
Transportation and Highway Improvement Act through the following directives.
PHY Directive B014 presents MTO drainage policy conforming to common law
precedents. The fundamental basis of this directive is to ensure that stormwater runoff
discharging from any highway drainage works will not infringe upon the riparian rights of
landowners located upstream or downstream of the highway right-of-way. The
proponent must recognise that the MTO will not approve a land development proposal if
the riparian rights of any landowner may be infringed upon by the proposed land
development.
MTO drainage policy for private piped drains on the highway right-of-way is detailed in
PHY Directive B217 and B213 and should be reviewed when matters related to
municipal drains or tile drainage apply to the proposed land development. In such
SWM Requirements for Land Development Proposals 23
Page 1790 of 1997
cases, the SWM Report must document how the procedure in either directive was
followed.
Standards of Practice Identified through Manuals and Guidelines
Manuals and guidelines are prepared to implement the design criteria and regulatory
policy of a provincial agency, local municipality, or local conservation authority. Manuals
and guidelines present acceptable design applications and/or computation
methodologies that conform to design criteria and regulatory policy, and they should be
reviewed accordingly. Standard manuals and guidelines that are issued by provincial
agencies and are applicable to land development proposals include:
• Highway Drainage Design Standards (MTO 2008);
• Stormwater Management Planning and Design Manual (MOE 2003); and
• River and Stream Systems: Flooding Hazard Limit Technical Guide (MNR 2002).
This document does not present examples on the application of the various
computational methodologies or design applications presented within the manuals listed
above; however, references are provided where appropriate.
The local conservation authority and municipality should be contacted for manuals or
guidelines that are applicable in their local jurisdiction.
Where Conflicts Exist between MTO and the Regulatory Agencies
As an agent of the crown, the MTO will not approve a land development proposal that
will contravene the design criteria, drainage management policy, or the guidelines and
manuals of the regulatory agencies, provided that the integrity of the highway drainage
system is not compromised. Should any design criteria, drainage management policy,
guideline or manual of a regulatory agency conflict with a design criterion, drainage
management policy, guideline or manual of MTO, or vice versa, a meeting between the
parties may be warranted to resolve the conflict.
111daintifyihing II' liiiliii iiia IIID lr liii iiia IIII°:1 Ir IIIIII iia
Before proceeding with an impact assessment, any existing drainage problems that may
be aggravated by stormwater runoff from the proposed land development must be
identified.
Upstream or Downstream Riparian Property
SWM Requirements for Land Development Proposals 24
Page 1791 of 1997
The SWM Report should identify any existing drainage problems and associate each
problem with the appropriate riparian property owner. Existing drainage problems could
include:
• Flooding of property
• Erosion of the stream bed and/or sediment accumulation
• Bank slumping
• Degraded water quality
• Lack of a sufficient drainage outlet
Visit the site, if possible, to assess drainage conditions in the area. Contact the local
conservation authority, municipality, MECP, MNDMNRF, or MTO office for information.
Highway Right-of-way
The SWM Report should identify any existing drainage problems associated with the
highway right-of-way, including:
• Flooding on the highway surface or highway overtopping at the bridge or culvert
• Erosion on the highway right-of-way surface (e.g., roadside ditches)
• Erosion/sedimentation build-up at a highway bridge or culvert crossing
• Exceeding the capacity of the highway bridge or culvert
• Exceeding the capacity of the highway storm sewer system or roadside ditch
• Exceeding the capacity of the highway stormwater management detention facility
Contact the local MTO District Office for information. Visit the site, if possible
(permission from the local MTO District Office may be required).
Documenting Existing Drainage Problems
Having identified existing drainage problems, the cause of the problem should be
assessed to determine the potential for further aggravation (refer to Assessing Impacts
to the Receiving Drainage System). If existing drainage problems were not identified,
the SWM Report should document the steps taken to reach such a conclusion.
liii ing III iiia IIIA " " IIIA ,,,, 11IReceliviing IICii iiir liii iiiaSysteirn
The MTO reserves the right to request that the proponent determine if any potential
drainage impacts will occur to the property of upstream or downstream riparian
SWM Requirements for Land Development Proposals 25
Page 1792 of 1997
landowners, including the highway right-of-way, as a result of the proposed land
development. The SWM Report should provide documentation on the following areas.
Hydrologic and Hydraulic Analysis of the Receiving Drainage System
Complete a hydrologic analysis and a hydraulic analysis of the receiving drainage
system, for the pre -development scenario and the post -development scenario(s). The
level of detail required in the analysis should be considered before proceeding. The goal
of the analysis is to identify potential impacts to the property of upstream or downstream
riparian landowners (including the highway right-of-way) which may result from the
construction of the proposed land development. The analysis should calculate peak
flows, water surface elevations and flow velocities, at different reference points and for
the frequencies presented in Table 3.
Reference points in the receiving drainage
system:
Parameters to be
Calculated'
Range of
Frequencies2
i. Immediately upstream of the proposed
• Peak flows
• Low flows
land development; or immediately upstream
• Water surface
• 2 yr
of the proposed outlet to the receiving
elevations
• 5 yr
drainage system.'
• Flow Velocities
• 10 yr
-And-
• Run-off Volumes5
• 25 yr
ii. Immediately downstream of the
• 50 yr
proposed land development; or immediately
• 100 yr
downstream of the proposed outlet to the
• Regulatory
receiving drainage system.'
Storm
-And-
iii. Immediately upstream of the highway
drainage system.
-Or-
iv. Along the highway drainage system.3
-And-
-. Immediately downstream of the highway
drainage system.
-And-
vi. Control point located downstream of the
highway right-of-way.
-And-
i. Where a known drainage problem(s)
have been identified either in the highway
right-of-way; and/or upstream or downstream
of the highway right-of-way.
Table 3: Analysis of Receiving Drainage System
SWM Requirements for Land Development Proposals 26
Page 1793 of 1997
Notes:
1. Where the peak flows discharging from the proposed land development will be
controlled on-site via stormwater management controls at pre -development levels
for range of frequencies specified, reference points i), ii) and/or iv) need only be
analyzed.
2. Where the specified range of frequencies or number of reference points in the
receiving drainage system is reduced, the SWM report should clearly document
the rational used to reduce the level of detail.
3. May be required when stormwater runoff from the proposed land development
discharges directly into the highway surface drainage system.
4. May be used for water quality controls, fish habitat requirements or for erosion
protection works.
5. Optional: may be required where a sufficient outlet does not exist.
The SWM Report must present peak flows, water surface elevations, and flow
velocities, calculated for the range of frequencies and reference points presented in
Analysis of Receiving Drainage System - Table 3. A table should be presented that
compares the results for the pre -development scenario to the results for the post -
development scenario(s). Any differences must be clearly presented.
Check the Capacity of the Highway Drainage System
The SWM Report should include documentation regarding the capacity of the highway
drainage system. Refer to Design Criteria for Highway Drainage Works for more
information on appropriate criteria or contact the MTO Regional Highway Planning and
Design Office for details. By completing the following tasks, the capacity of the highway
drainage system can be checked.
• Checking the Design Capacity of the Highway Bridge or Culvert.
• Checking the Design Capacity of the Highway Storm Sewer or Roadside Ditch.
• Checking the Design Capacity of the Highway Stormwater Management
Detention Facility.
Documenting Computational Methodology
The SWM Report should document the computational methodology used to analyze the
components of the receiving drainage system, including the highway drainage system.
The SWM Report should also document which method was selected, why it was
applicable and include any assumptions that were part of the computation. In addition,
include the information presented in Table 4.
SWM Requirements for Land Development Proposals 27
Page 1794 of 1997
Computational Method
Documentation in SWM Report
• Flow Rate Calculation
method used, applicability and
• Assessing Channel Erosion
assumptions
• Assessing Roadway Surface
Flooding
• Assessing the Potential for
Scour
Identifying Catchment Inputs
method used, applicability and
assumptions, the selection of input
parameters used in the flow rate
calculation
Selecting Precipitation Data
the type (synthetic, historic, IDF,
continuous, etc.), meteorologic station,
storm duration (where applicable) and the
discretization time step (where
applicable).
• Performing Culvert Analysis
method used, applicability and
• Performing Bridge Analysis
assumptions, performance curves, and
input parameters (expansion/contraction
coefficients, roughness coefficients, etc.)
• Assessing Flow in Open
method used, applicability and
Channels
assumptions, input parameters
• Assessing Flow in Storm Sewers
(expansion/contraction coefficients,
roughness coefficients, etc.), and starting
water surface elevations
• Assessing Flow in Stormwater
method used, applicability and
Management Detention Facilities
assumptions, and stage- storage -
discharge relationship
Table 4: Documenting the Computational Methodology
Identifying Impacts to the Receiving Drainage System
Impacts to the receiving drainage system will not occur if the analysis of the receiving
drainage system determined that the proposed land development would not:
• increase peak flows, water surface elevations, or flow velocities at the reference
points and range of frequencies specified in Analysis of Receiving Drainage
System - Table 3; or
• cause the capacity of the highway drainage system to be exceeded.
In such a case, MTO will not require mitigation. The SWM Report should clearly
document the results of the analysis and rationalise that impacts to the receiving
drainage system will not occur. It should be recognised that mitigation may still be
required by other regulatory agencies.
SWM Requirements for Land Development Proposals 28
Page 1795 of 1997
Impacts to the receiving drainage system will occur and mitigation may be required by
the MTO if the analysis of the receiving drainage system determined that the proposed
land development does not satisfy either of the conditions noted above.
Recommending Mitigative Works
The SWM Report should clearly present an assessment of the identified impacts with
regards to risk. Each impact should be compared against the risk criteria listed below.
Risk Criteria: where each of the identified impacts do not satisfy all of the following risk
criteria, the MTO will require that mitigation be provided for that impact (the required
level of mitigation must then be established):
• Damage will not occur to the property of riparian landowners located upstream or
downstream of the highway right-of-way.
• The structural integrity of the highway right-of-way will not be threatened.
• The safety of the travelling public will not be threatened.
The Level of Mitigation: the SWM Report must clearly present the following;
• The level to which peak flows are reduced using stormwater management
controls to restore water surface elevations and/or flow velocities, at the
reference points and range of frequencies specified in Analysis of Receiving
Drainage System - Table 3, to a level(s) that will satisfy the risk criteria; and/or
• the level to which peak flows are reduced using stormwater management
controls to restore the capacity of the highway drainage system to a level(s) that
will satisfy the risk criteria; and/or
• modifications that are proposed to the receiving drainage system, including
erosion protection works, to restore water surface elevations and/or flow
velocities, at the reference points and range of frequencies specified in Analysis
of Receiving Drainage System - Table 3, to a level (s) that will satisfy the risk
criteria.
Where a conflict with future highway works has been identified, the SWM Report must
document how the conflict was resolved, which may only be achieved by applying one
of the methods presented above.
SWM Requirements for Land Development Proposals 29
Page 1796 of 1997
5.0 Checking the Capacity of the Highway
Drainage System
The capacity of the highway drainage system should be checked as part of the
receiving drainage system analysis. Complete the following tasks, depending on the
highway drainage works that form part of the receiving drainage system.
• Checking the Design Capacity of the Highway Bridge or Culvert.
0 Checking the Design Capacity of the Highway Storm Sewer or Roadside Ditch.
Checking the Design Capacity of the Highway Stormwater Management
Detention Facility.
Glheclkiing theIII liii iia CaIjjpacity of fllieIIID liii IIIDway 111:,,:1iiridge air
Cullveirt
Where the proposed land development will be discharging to a receiving drainage
system that leads to a highway bridge or culvert, the design capacity of the existing
highway bridge or culvert must be examined. The SWM Report must present the
following parameters calculated at the upstream face of highway bridge or culvert using
the total catchment area which must include the proposed land development area:
a. Peak flow rate, headwater level and flow velocity (at the highway bridge or culvert
outlet) at the design flow frequency with the proposed land development area at
pre -development conditions;
b. Peak flow rate, headwater level and flow velocity (at the highway bridge or culvert
outlet) at the design flow frequency with the proposed land development area at
post -development conditions;
c. Peak flow rate and the corresponding headwater level calculated using the
regulatory storm with the proposed land development area at pre- development
conditions; and
d. Peak flow rate and the corresponding headwater level calculated using the
regulatory storm with the proposed land development area at post- development
conditions.
The SWM Report must document if the capacity of the highway bridge or culvert will be
exceeded because of stormwater runoff discharging from the proposed land
development. Review the following conditions and report the results in the SWM Report.
If the capacity is exceeded, an impact should be identified in the SWM Report.
SWM Requirements for Land Development Proposals 30
Page 1797 of 1997
Where the pre -development peak flow (calculated in a) is less than or equal to the
design flow capacity; or the pre -development headwater level (calculated in a) is less
than or equal to the allowable headwater level, the capacity of the highway bridge or
culvert is not exceeded if:
• The post -development peak flow rate (calculated in b) is less than the design flow
capacity; and
• The post -development headwater level (calculated in b) is less than the allowable
headwater level; and
• Any relief flow over the highway bridge or culvert (calculated in d) is less than the
allowable depth of flow on the highway surface; and
• The post -development flow velocity (calculated in b) does not cause erosion or
scour; and
• Fish passage (for highway culverts only), river ice, and debris flow are not
affected
If a highway bridge or culvert has excess capacity that is to be used to accommodate
stormwater runoff from the proposed land development, the portion of the excess flow
capacity allocated to the proposed land development must be presented in the SWM
Report.
An allocation of excess flow capacity will not be approved by the MTO if the excess flow
capacity is required for future highway works; or if the excess flow capacity causes a
drainage impact to the property of riparian landowners located upstream or downstream
of the highway right-of-way.
Where the pre -development peak flow (calculated in a) is greater than the design flow
capacity; or the pre -development headwater level (calculated in a) is greater than the
allowable headwater level, the capacity of the highway bridge or culvert is not exceeded
if:
• The post -development peak flow rates (calculated in b and d) are less than or
equal to the pre -development peak flow rates (calculated in a and c); and
• The post -development headwater levels (calculated in b and d) are less than or
equal to the pre -development headwater levels (calculated in a and c); and
• The post -development flow velocity (calculated in b) is less than or equal to the
pre -development flow velocity (calculated in a); and
• Fish passage (for highway culverts only), river ice, and debris flow are not
affected
SWM Requirements for Land Development Proposals 31
Page 1798 of 1997
Glheclkiirig theIIIC liii iii CaIjjpacity of t1heIII liii IIIA iiriii
Sewer ar 111:1oadside IIICIiii°III
Where the proposed land development will be discharging to a receiving drainage
system that leads to a highway storm sewer or roadside ditch, the design capacity of the
existing highway storm sewer or roadside ditch must be examined. The SWM Report
must present the following parameters calculated at the location where external
stormwater runoff enters the highway storm sewer or roadside ditch, using the total
catchment area which must include the proposed land development area:
• Peak flow rate and the corresponding depth of flow and flow velocity calculated
using the design flow frequency with the proposed land development area at pre -
development conditions;
• Peak flow rate and the corresponding depth of flow and flow velocity calculated
using the design flow frequency with the proposed land development area at
post -development conditions;
• Peak flow rate and the corresponding depth of flow calculated using the
regulatory storm and the proposed land development area at pre- development
conditions; and
• Peak flow rate and the corresponding depth of flow calculated using the
regulatory storm and the proposed land development area at post- development
conditions.
The SWM report must document if the capacity of the highway storm sewer or roadside
ditch will be exceeded because of stormwater runoff discharging from the proposed land
development. Review the following conditions and report the results in the SWM Report.
If the capacity is exceeded, the impacts should be identified in the SWM Report.
Where the pre -development peak flow (calculated in a) is less than or equal to the
design flow capacity, the capacity of the highway storm sewer or roadside ditch is not
exceeded if:
• The post -development peak flow rate (calculated in b) is less than the design flow
capacity; and
• Freeboard requirements (for the highway roadside ditch only) are satisfied; and
• The post -development depth of flow (calculated in b and d) is less than the
allowable depth of flow; and
• The post -development flow velocity (calculated in b) does not cause erosion or
scour.
SWM Requirements for Land Development Proposals 32
Page 1799 of 1997
If a highway storm sewer or roadside ditch has excess capacity that is to be used to
accommodate stormwater runoff from the proposed land development, the portion of the
excess flow capacity allocated to the proposed land development must be presented in
the SWM Report.
An allocation of excess flow capacity will not be approved by the MTO if the excess flow
capacity is required for future highway works.
Where the pre -development peak flow (calculated in a) is greater than the design flow
capacity, the capacity of the highway storm sewer is not exceeded if:
• The post -development peak flow rate (calculated in b and d) is less than or equal
to the pre -development peak flow rate (calculated in a and c); and
• The post -development depth of flow along the highway surface (calculated in b
and d) is less than or equal to the pre -development depth of flow along the
highway surface (calculated in a and c); and
• The post -development flow velocity (calculated in b) is less than or equal to the
pre -development flow velocity (calculated in a).
Glhedllkiing theIII liii iii CaIjjpacity of theIII liii IIIA
Stairilmwateir III iii l „ iiia IIIC ,,, iiiriliii iiri Facillity
Where the proposed land development will be discharging to a receiving drainage
system that leads to a highway stormwater detention facility, the design capacity of the
existing highway stormwater management detention facility must be examined. The
SWM Report must present the following parameters calculated using the tributary area,
which must include the proposed land development area:
• Peak flow rates calculated at the location where external stormwater runoff
enters the highway stormwater detention facility using the design flow
frequencies with the proposed land development area at pre -development
conditions;
• Peak flow rates calculated at the location where external stormwater runoff
enters the highway stormwater detention facility using the design flow
frequencies with the proposed land development area at post -development
conditions;
• Maximum storage volume used, headwater level, and peak flow rates and
velocities (at the outlet of the highway stormwater detention facility) determined
by routing the peak flows calculated in (a) through the design stage -storage -
discharge relationship;
SWM Requirements for Land Development Proposals 33
Page 1800 of 1997
Maximum storage volume, headwater level, and peak flow rates and velocities (at
the outlet of the highway stormwater detention facility) determined by routing the
peak flows calculated in (b) through the design stage -storage -discharge
relationship;
Peak flow rate and the corresponding depth of flow in the emergency spillway
calculated using the regulatory storm with the proposed land development area
at pre -development conditions; and
Peak flow rate and the corresponding depth of flow in the emergency spillway
calculated using the regulatory storm with the proposed land development area
at post -development conditions.
The SWM Report must document if the capacity of the highway stormwater
management detention facility will be exceeded because of stormwater runoff
discharging from the proposed land development. Review the following conditions and
report the results in the SWM Report. If the capacity is exceeded, an impact should be
identified in the SWM Report.
Where the pre -development maximum storage volume used (calculated in c) is less
than or equal to the allowable storage volume; or the maximum pre -development
headwater level (calculated in c) is less than or equal to the allowable headwater level;
or the maximum pre -development peak flow rate (calculated in c) is less than or equal
to the design flow capacity, the capacity of the highway stormwater management
detention facility is not exceeded if:
• The post -development peak flow rates (calculated in d) are all less than the
design flow capacity; and
• The post -development headwater levels (calculated in d) are all less than the
allowable headwater level; and
• The post -development storage volumes (calculated in d) are all less than the
maximum storage volume; and
• The post -development depth in the emergency spillway (calculated in f) is
contained within the emergency spillway; and
• The post -development flow velocities (calculated in d) do not cause erosion or
scour.
If a highway stormwater management detention facility has excess storage volume
capacity that is to be used to accommodate stormwater runoff from the proposed land
development, the portion of the excess storage volume capacity allocated to the
proposed land development must be presented in the SWM Report.
SWM Requirements for Land Development Proposals 34
Page 1801 of 1997
An allocation of excess storage volume capacity will not be approved by the MTO if the
excess storage volume capacity is required for future highway works.
Where the maximum pre -development storage volume used (calculated in c) is greater
than the allowable storage volume; or the maximum pre -development headwater level
(calculated in c) is greater than the allowable headwater level; or the maximum pre -
development peak flow rate (calculated in c) is greater than the design flow capacity,
the capacity of the highway stormwater management detention facility is not exceeded
if:
• The post -development peak flow rates (calculated in d and f) are less than or
equal to the pre -development peak flow rates (calculated in c and e); and
• The post -development headwater levels (calculated in d) are less than or equal
to the pre -development headwater levels (calculated in c); and
• The post -development storage volumes (calculated in d) are less than or equal to
the pre -development storage volumes (calculated in c); and
• The post -development depth in the emergency spillway (calculated in f) is less
than or equal to pre -development depth in the emergency spillway (calculated in
e); and
• The post -development flow velocities (calculated in d) are less than or equal to
the pre -development flow velocities (calculated in c).
SWM Requirements for Land Development Proposals 35
Page 1802 of 1997
6.0 Mitigating Impacts to the Receiving
Drainage System
Before proceeding with the tasks in this grouping, the following tasks should have been
completed:
• Determining if a SWM Report needs to be submitted to the MTO;
• Identifying Drainage Issues;
• Analyzing the Receiving Drainage System; and
• Checking the Capacity of the Highway Drainage System.
The MTO is primarily concerned with impacts to the highway drainage system.
Wherever stormwater runoff discharging from the proposed land development may
impact the highway drainage system, impacts to the highway right-of-way should be
assessed, and the capacity of the highway drainage systems must be checked.
However, the MTO recognises that the property of riparian landowners located
upstream or downstream of the highway right-of-way cannot be damaged by stormwater
runoff discharging from the proposed land development. Even though this responsibility
is within the mandate of the regulatory agencies, the MTO may become liable if the
stormwater runoff from the proposed land development is conveyed through a highway
drainage system and damages any riparian property located upstream or downstream
of the highway right-of-way.
During the analysis of the receiving drainage system, impacts were identified, and it was
determined that a method of mitigation is required by the MTO to mitigate the impact.
Impacts may be mitigated by:
• Providing Stormwater Management Controls; or
• Modifying the Receiving Drainage System, which includes erosion protection.
6.1 11 Pirovildling Stainirnwateir 11ftinageimeirit Caintrolls
If impacts have been identified such that stormwater management controls may be
required to mitigate these impacts, the SWM Report must provide documentation on the
following areas.
Documenting the Need for Stormwater Management Quantity Control
SWM Requirements for Land Development Proposals 36
Page 1803 of 1997
The need for stormwater management controls originates from the need to mitigate
impacts that the proposed development may cause to the receiving drainage system.
The local municipality, conservation authority, MNDMNRF, MECP, and the DFO may
also require stormwater management quantity control. These organisations should be
consulted in conjunction with the MTO.
When the need for stormwater management quantity control originates from a previous
drainage study, refer to Reviewing Previous Drainage Studies.
Documenting MOE Requirements for Stormwater Management Quantity Control
Stormwater management quantity control requirements for land development proposals
are stated in the document Stormwater Management Planning and Design Manual
(MOE 2003).
Where MOE requirements are set in a previous drainage study, refer to Reviewing
Previous Drainage Studies.
Documenting MTO Requirements for Stormwater Management Quantity Control
Where a stormwater management quantity control facility is to be located within the
highway right-of-way, refer to the Highway Drainage Design Standards (MTO 2008) for
information on developing a stormwater management design.
Where a stormwater management quantity control detention facility is to be located
within the property proposed for development, methods documented in the Stormwater
Management Planning and Design Manual (MOE 2003), are generally suitable, except
for the following techniques.
• Parking lot or roof top storage: the MTO does not recognise any benefit from
the attenuation of stormwater runoff using parking lot or roof top storage, where
the control is achieved through an orifice device or a roof top control device.
MTO's concern is that as the continued functioning of such a control device
cannot be guaranteed. The MTO will consider an alternative form of control
devices (e.g. a short segment of storm sewer, equal to the diameter of the
required orifice that leads from a manhole to and is directly connected to the
storm sewer system). In general, it should be demonstrated that the failure of a
storage facility will not result in unsusceptible impacts to the Highway Drainage
System.
• Grassed ditches and swales: The runoff hydrograph is attenuated due to the
resistance offered by the grassed surface and some degree of quantity control
can thereby be achieved. The long-term viability, operation and maintenance of
grassed swales and ditches will be a concern to MTO. MTO reserves the right to
SWM Requirements for Land Development Proposals 37
Page 1804 of 1997
reject the benefits achieved from conveyance controls, where the long-term
viability, operation and maintenance cannot be reasonably guaranteed.
• Infiltration facilities: the MTO does not accept the location of an infiltration
facility, within a proposed land development area, where it may impact the
structural integrity of the highway sub -grade. If the use of infiltration facilities was
a requirement of a regulatory agency, and no other stormwater management
control option could be utilised, the infiltration facility should be located where it
can be demonstrated that there will be no impact to the highway sub -grade.
• Roof leader disconnection and cisterns: in general, MTO does not accept the
benefits from roof leader disconnection and cisterns if the continuing functioning
and long-term reliability cannot be guaranteed.
Where MTO requirements are set in a previous drainage study, refer to Reviewing
Previous Drainage Studies.
Selecting the Level of Water Quantity Control
The level to which peak flows will be reduced depends upon the level of mitigation that
is required, and the degree to which MTO is exposed to risk. MTO reserves the right to
impose a higher level of control upon the land development proposal (i.e. as compared
to the requirements of other regulatory agencies). In such cases an MTO drainage
representative should be contacted for clarification. Peak flows must be reduced to a
level that will restore:
• water surface elevations and/or flow velocities, at the reference points and range
of frequencies specified in Table 3, to a level(s) that will satisfy the risk criteria;
and/or
• the capacity of the highway drainage system to a level(s) that will satisfy the risk
criteria.
Documenting the Need for Stormwater Management Quality Control
The need for stormwater management quality control is based on the sensitivity of the
receiving drainage system and may be a requirement placed on the land development
proposal by the regulatory agencies before any impact assessment has been completed
for the proposed land development.
Documenting MOE Requirements for Stormwater Management Quality Control
Generally, in land development proposals, the MOE will determine the need for
stormwater quality control. The Stormwater Management Planning and Design Manual
(MOE 2003) provides general guidance on the planning and design of stormwater
management quality control facilities.
SWM Requirements for Land Development Proposals 38
Page 1805 of 1997
Documenting MTO Requirements for Stormwater Management Quality Control
Where a stormwater management quality control facility is to be located within the
highway right-of-way, refer to the Highway Drainage Design Standards (MTO 2008
Where a stormwater management quality control detention facility is to be located within
the property proposed for development, methods documented in the Stormwater
Management Planning and Design Manual (MOE 2003), are generally suitable except
for infiltration facilities.
Selecting the Level of Water Quality Control
The level of control will depend on the sensitivity of the receiving drainage system.
The MTO reserves the right to input into the level of control for water quality treatment
imposed upon the land development proposal, when drainage from the proposed land
development will be entering the highway surface drainage system and will be
conveyed to the receiving drainage system. In such a case, the primary concern for
MTO is with regards to the riparian rights of upstream or downstream landowners. If the
MTO could become unduly exposed to legal action, MTO reserves the right to impose
or increase, whichever is applicable, the level of control imposed upon the land
development proposal. An MTO drainage representative should be contacted for
clarification.
Identifying Design Criteria for Stormwater Management Controls
Where a previous drainage study has been referenced for design criteria, refer to
Reviewing Previous Drainage Studies.
Parking Lot or Roof Top Storage
• The device used to achieve the parking lot or roof top storage.
• The location and layout of the proposed parking lot or roof top storage locations.
• The volume controlled and the corresponding water surface elevation.
• Maintenance procedures/responsibilities: refer to Clarifying Operation and
Maintenance Responsibilities.
Stormwater Management Detention Facilities
• The location and layout of the detention facility should be confined within the land
development property boundaries. The MTO does not generally allow detention
facilities to be located within the highway right-of-way; however, where a mutual
benefit is recognized, PHY Directive B014 provides guidance. The MTO Regional
SWM Requirements for Land Development Proposals 39
Page 1806 of 1997
Highway Planning and Design Office must be contacted before making such a
recommendation. The following sections should be reviewed.
• Fundamental Purpose of Highway Right-of-way and Drainage System.
• Drainage Works by Outside Parties Constructed within the Highway Right-of-
way.
• Consider a Planned Shared Use of the Highway Drainage System.
• Legal Agreements.
Issues to consider when selecting the location and configuration are as follows.
• Maintenance access should be sufficient to allow for the passage of equipment
required for the dredging and removal of sediment.
• Multiple storage facilities located in the same drainage basin will affect the timing
of the hydrograph as it travels downstream. This could increase or decrease
peak flows in downstream locations. Coordination of stormwater management
detention facilities with other drainage structures, on a watershed or sub
watershed basis, is a primary consideration.
• The size of a detention facility is typically measured in terms of surface area and
depth.
• Inlet and outlet configuration: the design of the outflow control will determine
the outlet flow rate and hence the detention time for the facility. The outlet may
include devices such as weirs, orifice plates, perforated risers, or a combination
of them.
• A flow splitter may be needed to direct the stormwater runoff into the quality
control facility. When the required storage volume has been captured, the flow
splitter will divert the stormwater runoff to a quantity control facility or back to the
receiving drainage system.
• Emergency spillway location, type and capacity: an emergency spillway
should be designed to pass the regulatory flood, without failure, under blocked
outlet conditions. Reference should be made to the River and Stream Systems:
Flooding Hazard Limit Technical Guide (MNR 2002) for design criteria related to
potential loss of life from dam failure.
• Maintenance access provisions should be included to ensure access to trash
racks, and for removal of sediment. Access ramps should be designed to support
maintenance equipment.
SWM Requirements for Land Development Proposals 40
Page 1807 of 1997
• Special safety requirements: roadside safety for errant vehicles should be
considered where detention facilities are located near a highway (consult the
MTO Regional Highway Planning and Design Office for further details).
• A minimum freeboard depth: as a guide use 0.3m.
• Maintenance procedures/responsibilities: refer to Clarifying Operation and
Maintenance Responsibilities.
• Setbacks from highway: the Public Transportation and Highway Improvement
Act mandates the MTO to enforce setback requirements, for structures
constructed within certain distances from the highway right-of-way. The
stormwater management detention facility is considered to begin at the berm toe
of slope, which should generally be setback 14m from the highway property line.
Contact the local MTO District Office or the MTO Regional Highway Planning and
Design Office for more details.
• Ownership: refer to Clarifying Operation and Maintenance Responsibilities.
Analyzing and Documenting Results of the Design
Where stormwater management quantity controls are provided, the approach used in
the analysis of the receiving drainage system should be repeated with one change: the
proposed stormwater control is added to the receiving drainage system. Re- calculate
peak flows, water surface elevations, or flow velocities at the reference points and range
of frequencies specified in Table 3. The SWM Report should present results in a table
that compares the results for the pre -development scenario to the results for the post -
development scenario(s). The computational methodology used in the design of the
stormwater management controls must be documented in the SWM Report.
The SWM Report must also document that the identified impact has been mitigated by
the proposed stormwater management controls by showing that peak flows have been
reduced to a level to that will restore:
water surface elevations and/or flow velocities, at the reference points and range
of frequencies specified in Table 3, to a level(s) that will satisfy the risk criteria;
and/or
• the capacity of the highway drainage system to a level(s) that will satisfy the risk
criteria.
Where stormwater management quality controls are provided, the SWM Report must
document how MECP and/or MTO requirements were satisfied by the proposed design.
The documentation as noted in the above section may also be required if there is a
concern that the proposed controls will impact the receiving drainage system.
SWM Requirements for Land Development Proposals 41
Page 1808 of 1997
Where stormwater management quality and quality controls are provided, the SWM
Report must provide the documentation as noted in both sections noted above.
6 2 IlModify1ing theIIID Ilii i"
iii ung 111iralkiriage System
If modifications to the receiving drainage system, including the highway drainage
system, may be required to mitigate the identified impacts, the SWM Report must
provide documentation on the following areas. Modifications to the receiving drainage
system include erosion protection works.
Documenting the Need to Modify the Receiving Drainage System
Before the proposed modification can be approved, the SWM Report must provide
documentation on the areas listed below. This step should be completed at the earliest
possible stage of design and should include the tasks presented below.
Documenting the Requirements of the Organizations Identified as responsible for
Operation and Maintenance
Whenever modifications to the receiving drainage system are proposed, the
organization responsible for the operation and maintenance for the component that is to
be modified, must be contacted to ensure that they approve the proposed modification.
For modifications to highway drainage works, the MTO Regional Highway Planning and
Design Office must be contacted before making any recommendation to modify a
highway drainage works. The MTO does not generally allow highway drainage works to
be modified unless it can be demonstrated that alterations will be of benefit to the
highway; however, where a mutual benefit is recognised, Directive B014 provides
guidance. The following sections should be reviewed.
• Fundamental Purpose of Highway Right-of-way and Drainage System.
• Drainage Works by Outside Parties Constructed within the Highway Right-of-
way.
• Consider a Planned Shared Use of the Highway Drainage System.
• Legal Agreements.
Where the MTO Regional Highway Planning and Design Office has accepted the
proposal to modify the highway drainage works, the SWM report must document the
basis of the approval.
For modifications to other components of the receiving drainage system (i.e. other
than the highway drainage system), contact the local municipality, and/or the local
conservation authority. Where the responsible organisation has accepted the proposal
SWM Requirements for Land Development Proposals 42
Page 1809 of 1997
to modify the receiving drainage system, the SWM Report must document the basis of
the approval.
Documenting Requirements of the Regulatory Agencies
Whenever a modification is proposed to any component of the receiving drainage
system (including the highway drainage system), the regulatory agencies must be
contacted to ensure that the proposed modification will comply with their respective
mandates. Contact the local municipality, local conservation authority, the MNDMNRF,
MECP, DFO, and in some cases the DTO.
In the case where the proposed modifications do not involve the highway drainage
system, the MTO Regional Highway Planning and Design Office should be contacted to
ensure that MTO drainage policy are not compromised by the proposed modifications.
The SWM Report must document all the regulatory agencies that were contacted, and
the basis of the approval of the proposed modification.
Identifying the Receiving Drainage System Modification
The SWM report should present the component of the receiving drainage system that is
to be modified along with a description of the proposed modification(s). Refer to Table 2
for relevant information about the modification that should be provided in the SWM
Report.
Identifying Design Criteria used in the Receiving Drainage System Modification
Where modifications to the highway drainage system have been accepted by the MTO
Regional Highway Planning and Design Office, design criteria for highway drainage
works along with the design procedures and considerations presented in the Highway
Drainage Design Standards (MTO 2008), must be followed to the satisfaction of the
MTO Regional Highway Planning and Design Office. The SWM Report must document
how the highway drainage works design criteria were satisfied.
Where modifications to other components of the receiving drainage system (i.e. other
than the highway drainage system) have been accepted by the organisation responsible
for its operation and maintenance, the design criteria of that organisation must be
followed to their satisfaction. The SWM Report must provide appropriate
documentation.
Design criteria, drainage management policy, or the guidelines and manuals of other
regulatory organisations should also be considered. The SWM Report should document
the process followed to contact other regulatory organizations and the criteria that were
proposed as a result.
SWM Requirements for Land Development Proposals 43
Page 1810 of 1997
Should any design criteria, drainage management policy, guideline, or manual of a
regulatory agency conflict with a design criterion, drainage management policy,
guideline or manual of MTO, or vice versa, a meeting between the parties may be
warranted to resolve the conflict.
Analyzing and Documenting the Results of the Modification
The approach used in the analysis of the receiving drainage system should be repeated
with one change: the proposed modifications to the receiving drainage system must be
included. Re -calculate peak flows, water surface elevations, or flow velocities at the
reference points and range of frequencies specified in Table 4. The SWM report must
present the results in a table that compares the results for the pre -development
scenario to the results for the post -development scenario(s). The SWM report must also
document that the identified impact has been mitigated by the proposed modifications
by showing that:
Water surface elevations and/or flow velocities, at the reference points and range
of frequencies specified in Table 7, are restored to a level(s) that will satisfy the
risk criteria; and/or
• The capacity of the highway drainage system is restored to a level(s) that will
satisfy the risk criteria.
The computational methodology used in the modification of the receiving drainage
system must also be documented in the SWM report.
The SWM report must document how MTO requirements, and requirements of the other
regulatory agencies were satisfied by the proposed modification.
For simple erosion protection works: if the proposed modification only involves simple
erosion protection works such as lining material or rip -rap placement, the SWM report
need only document how the proposed method will provide the necessary erosion
protection for the flow velocities at the reference points and range of frequencies
specified in Table 7. Where the erosion protection works are major, such as drop
structures, the procedures noted above must be followed.
SWM Requirements for Land Development Proposals 44
Page 1811 of 1997
7.0 Finalizing Construction and Operation
Issues
Before proceeding with the tasks in this grouping, the following tasks should have been
completed:
• Determining if a SWM Report needs to be submitted to MTO;
• Identifying Drainage Issues;
• Analyzing the Receiving Drainage System;
• Checking the Capacity of the Highway Drainage System; and
• Mitigating Impacts to the Receiving Drainage System.
Before the MTO can issue an approval for a land development proposal, the following
tasks must be completed:
• Providing Temporary Sediment and Erosion Control During Construction; and
• Clarifying Ownership, Operation and Maintenance Responsibilities.
1 111�lirovlldling I ii IIIA ilr ii liii iiia ,,,, iiia inIllfiiiiii iiir liii iiiCaintiroll
IDwriing Cainstructilain
Where applicable, the MTO will require that a sediment and erosion control plan
stamped by a Professional Engineer be submitted prior to final approval. Issues to be
addressed are listed below. For further details on sediment and erosion control during
construction, refer to the Highway Drainage Design Standards (MTO 2008).
• Construction timing and the proposed construction timeframe and timing
constraints for construction (spring, fall constraints) should be noted.
• Construction phasing and timeframes for the different phases should be
included. Indicate whether the entire site is to be developed all at once or
whether the proposed land development is to be phased. Sediment control
techniques must address both pre -serviced and serviced phases of construction.
• Stabilization requirements and the allowable timeframe for land to remain
exposed before it is stabilized with sod, mulch, or hydroseeding, should be noted.
Indicate provisions for the stockpiling of soil.
• Siltation fencing locations should be located at the site boundary at all side
slope and down gradient locations. Siltation fence should also be used to protect
SWM Requirements for Land Development Proposals 45
Page 1812 of 1997
significant features (i.e., provides a limit for grading activities) and to control dust,
nuisance problems to homeowners in existing surrounding land developments.
• Access/mud mat locations should be located at each entrance/exit location to
the construction site. The mat can be removed once the access locations are
paved. The number of access locations to a construction site should be
minimized (1 or 2).
• Catch -basin controls, where used, prevent the migration of sediment into the
storm sewers.
• Rock check dam locations should be in overland swale systems which outlet to
the receiving waters.
• Siltation basins can be used to service larger drainage areas (stormwater
detention facilities can be used as temporary sediment basins during
construction, wherever possible).
• Topsoil stockpile storage locations for soil storage piles and their distance
from roads and drainage channels should be clearly shown. Timeframes and
proposed works for the stabilization and remediation of topsoil stockpiles should
be provided.
• Inspection and maintenance requirements of the sediment and erosion control
works should be noted. Maintenance should be performed as required to ensure
the proper operation of sediment and erosion controls, and the works should be
inspected after each storm to ensure proper operation.
iiia iirieiii IIID liii I iir
IIII iiirliil° „ 1i IIS Illi ,,,, ii iiia aind II liii iiia° ,,,, iiia iiia ,,,,
IIll°lesIllpiirisllli II liii IIII liii l
The MTO cannot issue final approval until responsibility for operation, maintenance and
ownership of any drainage works has been clarified.
Documentation Required in SWM Report
The SWM Report should document who will be assuming ownership and long-term
maintenance responsibilities associated with the drainage work, to ensure that the
drainage works will remain in good working order and function properly according to its
original design. Long-term operation and maintenance responsibilities include costs.
Where required, the SWM Report should also propose an appropriate legal mechanism,
such as:
• Legal agreements with the municipality;
• Legal agreement with the owner;
SWM Requirements for Land Development Proposals 46
Page 1813 of 1997
• Conditions issued through a Building and Land Use or Encroachment Permit; or
• Conditions registered on title (site plan agreement or a subdivision agreement).
The MTO Regional Highway Planning and Design Office should be contacted for
clarification. Refer to PHY Directive B014 for additional guidance. The following sections
should also be reviewed.
• Fundamental Purpose of Highway Right-of-way and Drainage System.
• Drainage Works by Outside Parties Constructed within the Highway Right-of-
way.
• Consider a Planned Shared Use of the Highway Drainage System
Relevance to MTO
• MTO will not assume the costs for any maintenance and operation associated
with a drainage works that is not part of the highway drainage system.
• MTO must clarify who should be contacted, legal or otherwise, if repairs, or
maintenance is required to a drainage works.
• MTO must ensure that appropriate legal mechanisms are in place to ensure
future enforcement regarding operation and maintenance costs associated with
the drainage works.
SWM Requirements for Land Development Proposals 47
Page 1814 of 1997
Appendix A — Requirements Checklists
SWM Requirements for Land Development Proposals 48
Page 1815 of 1997
Checklist 1: Background Information
Required to
Identify Drainage Issues
Items or Elements Discussed in SWM
Applicable
Is it
Comments
Report
Documented?
Preliminary Stormwater Management
Report?
o
Detail Stormwater Management Report?
a
0
L
a
Zoning Status of Land Development
0
Proposal:
- Current Designation
Amendments
m
Existence of MTO Conditions of Approval
on:
-
R
- Draft Plan of Subdivision
0
- Site Plan
Status of Regulatory Agencies
Approvals/Permits:
- MNR
- MOE
- Conservation Authority Municipality
- Others:
Watershed, sub -watershed or master
drainage studies
Approved SWM reports for same site
m
Approved detailed SWM reports for same
site
as
MTO Environmental Study Reports
.R
L
MTO Preliminary Design Reports
a�
c
P
MTO Detail Design Reports
m
m
Other drainage studies:
- Flood Damage Reduction Program Study
- Erosion Control Study
- Flood Control Study
- Others:
Page 1816 of 1997
Checklist 1: Background Information
Required to
Identify Drainage Issues
Items or Elements Discussed in SWM
Applicable
Is it
Comments
Report
Documented?
='
Requirements:
MOE
E
MNR
L
MTO
� �
Others:
Requirements:
MOE
=
MNR
N
MTO
Others:
Page 1817 of 1997
Checklist 2: Receiving Drainage
tem Information
Items or Elements Discussed in SWM Applicable Is it Comments
Report Documented?
Page 1818 of 1997
Components (other than highway drainage
system):
- Stream channel
- Storm sewers
- Roadside ditches
- Bridges, culverts
- Stormwater management facilities
- Other:
Operation and Maintenance
Responsibilities for Components (other
than highway drainage system):
- Agency
- Organization
o
- Person
a
- Other:
E
L
E
Highway Drainage System:
a�
- Bridge
N
- Culvert
- Storm sewer
- Roadside ditch
- Major system
p
- Stormwater management facility
- Other:
U
DC
Right to Outlet:
- Alternative outlets
- Into highway drainage system
- Into receiving drainage system upstream
of highway
- Into receiving drainage system
downstream of highway
Future Highway Works:
- New highway, expansions, rehabilitation
- Maintenance works
- Drainage works
- Identified conflicts with outlet from the
proposed development
Page 1818 of 1997
Checklist 2: Receiving Drainage
tem Information
Items or Elements Discussed in SWM Applicable Is it Comments
Report Documented?
Page 1819 of 1997
Criteria Regulating Receiving Drainage
System:
- Highway design criteria
- Policy of regulatory agencies
- MTO policy
- Manuals and guidelines
- Conflicts between MTO and Regulatory
Agencies
Known Drainage Problem:
- Upstream or downstream riparian
property
- Lack of sufficient drainage outlet
Highway Right -of -wad
- Flooding or overtopping of highway
bridge or culvert
- Erosion on highway right-of-way
- Erosion at highway bridge or culvert
- Silt in culvert
- Flooding of riparian property
- Erosion on riparian property
- Water quality
Page 1819 of 1997
Checklist 3: Assessing Impacts to the Receiving Drainage System
Page 1820 of 1997
Items or Elements Discussed in SWM
Applicable
Is it
Comments
Report
Documented?
- Upstream of proposed land development
- Downstream of proposed land
a°
development
a)
- Upstream of highway drainage system
- Downstream of highway drainage system
Along highway drainage system
- Control point
- Known drainage problems
m
- Peak Flows
- Water surface elevations
a) U
- Flow Velocities
Rv
- Runoff Volume
ca
a
Range of Frequencies to be Analyzed:
- low flow events (water quality or fisheries)
- 2 year
- 5 year
- 10 year
U)
- 25 year
- 50 year
- 100 year regulatory storm
U
Desiqn Storm Events:
- Type and duration
- Rainfall records and station
- Rainfall discretization
- Input parameters
R
D
m-
Discretization and areas
ca
- Land use, soil types, vegetation cover
as
slope and infiltration parameters (CN)
E
- Pervious and impervious areas, directly
connected areas, travel length, slope and
time to peak or time of concentration
L)
- Recession constants
ami
- Computational time step
- Rational method runoff coefficient
L
Page 1820 of 1997
Checklist 3: Assessing Impacts to the Receiving Drainage System
Page 1821 of 1997
Items or Elements Discussed in SWM
Applicable
Is it
Comments
Report
Documented?
Bridges and culverts:
- Allowable headwater level
- Design flow capacity
- Regulatory storm
E
m
UStorm
sewer, roadside ditches and manor
v)
system:
- Design flow frequency
- Freeboard requirements
M
- Allowable depth of flow on highway
o
surface
- Regulatory storm
3
as
=
Stormwater Management Detention
Facilities:
- Design flow capacity, design flow
Qfrequencies
v
- Allowable storage volume and headwater
level
- Design stage -storage discharge
relationship
- Freeboard requirements
- Regulatory storm
- Culvert analysis
o
- Bridge analysis
- Flow in open channels
- Assessing channel erosion (including
roadside ditches)
0
- Flow in storm sewers
'
- Roadway surface flooding
- Flow in stormwater management
CL
0
detention facilities
- Scour potential
- Computer models
o
Post -development to Pre -Development
o
Scenario Comparison:
- Suitability of reference points
a
- Peak flow rates
E E
- Water surface elevations
U
- Flow velocities
0
0
- Runoff volumes
Page 1821 of 1997
Checklist 3: Assessing Impacts to the Receiving Drainage System
Page 1822 of 1997
Items or Elements Discussed in SWM
Applicable
Is it
Comments
Report
Documented?
Impacts:
- Increased peak flows at references points
- Increased water surface elevations at
reference points
- Increased flow velocities at reference
points
- Capacity of highway drainage system
Recommendation for Mitigative Works:
- Level of mitigation required at references
points
- Level of peak flow reduction
- Level of water surface elevation reduction
- Level of erosion protection required (due
to flow velocities)
Stormwater Management Controls:
- Water quality and/or water quantity
facilities
- Type
- Size
- Location (setback from highway)
- Roof top or parking lot controls
- Device used
- Location and layout
N
- Volume controlled
Q
- Operation and maintenance
o
L-
responsibilities
0-
U)
c
Modifications to the Receiving Drainage
System:
>
- Modifications to highway drainage works
- Modification to other components of
receiving drainage system
- Erosion protection
Results of Modifications:
- Peak flows at references points restored
- Water surface elevations at reference
points restored
- Level of erosion protection/ flow velocities
at reference points
- Capacity of highway drainage system
Page 1822 of 1997
Checklist 4: Construction Operation and Maintenance Issues
Page 1823 of 1997
Items or Elements Discussed in SWM
Applicable
Is it
Comments
Report
Documented?
1; E
m
u- y
Drainage Plan:
N
- Interim drainage system layout,
m m
components and timeframe of use
E
- Final drainage system layout and
.E
components
� L
Q
During Construction:
m
E
- Temporary erosion control works, layout,
;i
location and timeframe of use
Maintenance scheduling of temporary
LO
erosion control works
M E-
- Maintenance schedule of permanent
o v
erosion works
o
- Maintenance on highway drainage
W
system during construction
as
m
=
Party Responsibilities for:
o
- owner of site drainage system
c
- maintenance of site drainage system
a
- maintenance of permanent erosion
a
control works
O
- maintenance on highway drainage
6- c
system after construction
M
- Legal Agreements
.E
- MTO maintenance responsibilities
OM
Page 1823 of 1997
Checklist 5: Supplemental Drainage Information
Page 1824 of 1997
Items or Elements Discussed in SWM
Applicable
Is it
Comments
Report
Documented?
c
0
ca
y
Documentation to Support Selection of:
- Level of detail used in analysis
a
- Hydrologic and hydraulic computer
models
m
- Selection of computational methods
ca
c
0
ca
Documentation:
- Location/site map
R-
Land use map
a
- Soils map
-a
- Natural resources map
R
- Proposed land development and grading
Q
plan
- Drainage plans
- Catchment discretization schematic
- Drainage system connectivity flowchart
- Stormwater management plan
ii
- In -stream works plan
- Temporary sediment and erosion control
- Location of stream cross-sections
Input and Output Parameters:
M
- Soil types and CN numbers
C
- Stormwater management works
- Design storm events
-a
- Hydrologic computational parameters
c�a
- Stage -storage -discharge curves
- Hydrologic analysis results
M
- Hydraulic computation
- Water surface elevations
- Flow velocities
Page 1824 of 1997
Checklist 5: Supplemental Drainage Information
Page 1825 of 1997
Items or Elements Discussed in SWM
Applicable
Is it
Comments
Report
Documented?
SWM report prepared and signed by a
Professional Engineer
_m
ii
Copies of correspondence:
a
- Letters of approval
E
- Copies of permits
v
- Municipality acceptance of ownership of
site drainage system
- Other:
L
C
Q
Q
Hydrologic modelling input and output:
- Disk copy; or
- Computer printout
a>
a
Eli
L
J
Hydraulic modelling input and output:
- Disk copy; or
- Computer printout
Page 1825 of 1997
_
_
.O
4w
i
O
m
LL
0
CL
s
4w
am
O
LL
L:
Q)
4w
m
4)
ma
O
m
Q
O
x
O
V
Q
Re: Circulation for Comment - 4611 King Street East (OPA/ZBA)
File No.: ZBA24-024-K-ES
Municipality: Kitchener
Location: 4611 King Street East
Owner/Applicant: Imperial Oil Limited
Eric,
The Waterloo Region District School Board (WRDSB) has reviewed the above -noted application that
proposes the development of 726 dwelling units along with office space and retail uses in two towers. The
WRDSB appreciates the note that a range of bedroom counts are to be provided including 3 bedroom
units, this helps us assess the attractiveness to families of school age children. We offer the following
additional comments.
Student Accommodation
At this time, the subject lands are within the boundaries of the following WRDSB schools:
• Grand View Public School (Junior Kindergarten to Grade 6)
• William G. Davis Public School (Grade 7-8)
• Preston High School (Grade 9 to Grade 12)
While no accommodation pressure is currently modelled for this area in the WRDSB's 2020-2030 Long -
Term Accommodation Plan, there is potential for pressure to be realized as additional lands are
contemplated for residential conversion. Interim student accommodation measures, including portable
classrooms, may be required until an alternative accommodation solution is in place. Alternatively, the
WRDSB may conduct a boundary study 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 appreciates the detailed pedestrian routing planning
offered in the Urban Design Brief and PJR. We ask that pedestrians continue to be considered in the
review of this application to ensure the enhancement of safety and connectivity. STSWR may have
additional comments on the location of future school bus pick-up and drop-off 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:
a. "Despite the best efforts of the Waterloo Region District School Board (WRDSB),
accommodation in nearby facilities may not be available for all anticipated students.
You are hereby notified that students may be accommodated in temporary facilities
and/or bussed to a school outside the area, and further, that students may, in future,
be transferred to another school."
b. "For information on which schools are currently serving this area, contact the WRDSB
Planning Department at 519-570-0003 ext. 4419, or email planninp(a)wrdsb.ca.
Information provided by any other source cannot be guaranteed to reflect current
school assignment information. "
Page 1827 of 1997
`7n order to limit risks, public school buses contracted by Student Transportation
Services of Waterloo Region (STSWR), or its assigns or successors, will not travel on
privately owned or maintained right-of-ways to pick up and drop off students, and so
bussed students will be required to meet the bus at a congregated bus pick-up point"
2. That the Owner/Developer enters into an agreement with the City of Kitchener to be registered on
the title to the Property that provides:
a. All agreements of purchase and sale or leases for the sale or lease of a completed home
or a home to be completed on the Property must contain the wording set out below to
advise all purchasers of residential units and/or renters of same. "
"Despite the best efforts of the Waterloo Region District School Board (WRDSB),
accommodation in nearby facilities may not be available for all anticipated
students. You are hereby notified that students may be accommodated in
temporary facilities and/or bussed to a school outside the area, and further, that
students may, in future, be transferred to another school."
ii. "For information on which schools are currently serving this area, contact the
WRDSB Planning Department at 519-570-0003 ext. 4419, or email
planninp(a)wrdsb.ca. Information provided by any other source cannot be
guaranteed to reflect current school assignment information"
iii. "in order to limit risks, public school buses contracted by Student
Transportation Services of Waterloo Region (STSWR), or its
assigns or successors, will not travel on privately owned or
maintained right-of-ways to pick up and drop off students, and so
bussed students will be required to meet the bus at a congregated
bus pick-up 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.
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
Page 1828 of 1997
Senior Planner
Waterloo IRegiori District Scho6� Board
51 Ardelt Avenue
Kitd-iener ON, N2 -C, 2R5
TC 519 570-0003
w: wrdsb.ca
Page 1829 of 1997
Eric Schneider
°° PROTECTED���������&
John VVisenbero(
Thursday, January 9,2O259:3OAK4
Eric Schneider
RE: [EXTERNAL] Fwd: 4611 king street
Feedback 3.pdf
Here's my latest feedback in addition to what I've already sent in the past.
Thanks again for your patience with all my involvement!
From: John VVimenber8
Sent: Wednesday, January 8,2OZ51I:17AM
To: Eric Schneider <Ehc.Schneider@kbchener.oa>
Subject: RE: [EXTER@AUFwd�46l1king street
Thanks for the quick response, Eric.
|nresponse kzitem #2,the design ufthe site requires 1OO96ofpedestrians tocross the driveway by King Street.
There is no alternative means for pedestrians to enter or exit the site. Motorists will be unabte to enter or exit the
site during pedestrian crossings. This could create Bqueue PnKing Street 8ttimes, and will certainty worsen the
internal site queueing which already exceeds driveway capacity, If only 75 pedestrians cross during peak hour
(10.3% of total site units) the driveway could be blocked for 10 of 60 minutes when using a walking speed of
1.0m/s. I don't think it is unreasonable to expect queueing on King Street to enter this site during peak hours due to
the site density and single point of entry/exit. I recommend re -thinking the impact of pedestrians.
As for cycling, the current configuration of the area will require cyclists to share the road with motorists. The traff ic
study indicates 6% total traffic are heavy vehicles, and although the traff ic study doesn't break it down further I
think it's safe to assume most of the heavy vehicles will be using the RH lane for 401 access. Is the city
recommending installation of a mutti-use trail between the site and Tu Lane?
Page 1830 of 1997
UA,
I
to cn CO C OL
11 . . . .. . .
co
4-1
(n
cn co ca
Co
W 0 LO 4-J
CO L-
cn
W
04-0 L-
4 -J* 45
4-d
E -4cJ 0 CN
o 4-
0
N n c C:
.2 0
c: co T -
co
0 0
w > 0
:3
cn co
CD 4=
0 co
CL cn L-
E 0 4�
E
CL 0
+- (n I Page 1831 of 1997
832 of 1997
1833 of 1997
Im,
it m
KING STREET EAST
Page 1834 of 1997
•
E
CO 0
a r
0
CD
41
4�
CO (D
>
4�
V) > a)
a) =
:2
FO
Q-
0
f2
4b
>A 0
'Tt
0
cu to
>
(D
0
4
0
0 2
x
(1)
> c
Z Cu
4- CL
co
M
0
(D 0
+1
0
—
Ca Ca
uj
4�
41
C7 co
CC 4-
CO
P
cr
—M clou
0)
0
M 0
0 4--
0 0) cu
cu (1)
Cu
co
(f)
.0
P-
cu C:
C )
E 0
0
q•
E
m
m
835 of 1997
........
..........
Fl,
..........
".n.
.. ....
............
2_2
CAU
A Ip I
. . .. ..... .
. ......... .. .. ............
a...
.........
-him-
. . . ........
Wro
hu
. . . .. . ...........
116APk,
. ..........
......... ..
aim a
........... . ..... . . ..
P`
................
Om"
M Q7
KOO—
h
nk
. L:
WWI
a
................
..... ....
.
—
TwZ4 _K
m#77V
. ..... . ..........
W aE
M
......... .
. . . .....
.. . . . .. ....
. . ........ .
......... ......
NO
4-4
Yq
...........
..........
Fl,
2_2
CAU
A Ip I
I
MW I
-him-
. . . ........
Wro
hu
. . . .. . ...........
116APk,
. ..........
......... ..
aim a
........... . ..... . . ..
P`
h
nk
WWI
a
................
..... ....
.
—
TwZ4 _K
m#77V
. ..... . ..........
W aE
M
......... .
...... .. .
. . ........ .
......... ......
...........
..........
. .........
CAU
A Ip I
I
. . . ........
Wro
hu
116APk,
. ..........
......... ..
�15
.............
: FM
qN
illlylwwl
of 1997
..........
CAU
A Ip I
I
of 1997
..........
I
. . . ........
Wro
hu
116APk,
. ..........
......... ..
aim a
........... . ..... . . ..
P`
of 1997
Page 1837 of 1997
Page 1838 of 1997
Eric Schneider
From: JohnVVisenbero
Sent: Wednesday, January 8, 2025 11:17 AM
To. Eric Schneider
Subject: RE: [EXTERNAL] Fwd: 4611 king street
°ePROTECTED N%,:#qM
Thanks for the quick response, Eric.
|nresponse %oitern#2,tile design Cfthesiterequires 10,096of pedestrians to cross the, driveway by King street,
There is no alternative means for pedestrians to enter or exit the site. Motorists will be unable to enter or exit the
,site during pedestrian, crossiogs.This could create a qUeUe ori King Street atijnnos,and will cortaimt'�vvWmGerrtNe
internal site queueing which already exceeds driveway capacity. If only 75 pedestrians cross during peak hour
(110.3% of total site units) the driveway could be blocked for 10 of 60 minutes when using a walking speed of
1.0rm/s.t don't think, it, iQunreasonable, To expect queU6Urigon KingStreet to enter this, site during peak hours dme to
the site density and single point of entry/exit. I recommend re -thinking the impact of pedestrians.
As for cycling, the current configuration of the area will require cyclists to share the road with motorists. The traff ic
study indicates 6% total traffic are heavy vehicles, and although the traff ic study doesn't break it down further I
think it's safe to assume most of the heavy vehicles will be using the RH lane for 401 access. Is the city
recommending installation of a multi -use trail between the site and Tu Lane?
John Wisenberg
From: Eric Schneider <EricSchneider@kbchenecca>
Sent: Wednesday, January Q,2O25lO:O8AM
To: John VVisenberg
Subject: RE: [EXTERNAL] Fwd: 4611 king -street
��
Page 1839 of 1997
Eric Schneider
From:
SHARON VERLEY,
Sent:
Sunday, January 5, 2025 6:32 PM
To:
Eric Schneider
Cc:
Stephanie Brown; Wendy Johnston; Steph Rawson;
Marlene Bennett
Subject:
Council Meeting
Hi Eric,
How are you? Just wondering about the meeting on January 27th I don't see anything
on the city calendar.
Please advise.
Thanks
Sharon Verley Entz, M.Sc Ed
22
Page 1840 of 1997
Eric Schneider
— PROTECTED Mf,�-,tAW
Hi Eric,
John Wisenberg
Monday, December 30, 2024 4:35 PM
Eric Schneider
RE: [EXTERNAL] Fwd: 4611 king street
I hope you had a good holiday! I am preparing more feedback in response to the updated traffic study. I have a few
questions maybe you can answer:
1) Did Paradigm/UM indicate that the previous traffic study had mistakes that were corrected in the second
study and it should not be used? Or is it simply a different analysis (changed assumptions)? Some of the
forecast values are substantially different. The original study was stamped by P.Eng (and likely peer
reviewed by another P.Eng), so if both forecasts are considered possibilities than that is important to note.
2) Pedestrians & bicyclists are not accounted for in any of the traffic analyses (primarily the site driveway
enter/exit). Do you know if this was agreed upon with your team, or was this a choice made by the
developer?
See below from "Guidelines for using Synchro 11 -Toronto Transportation Services Division". I
could not find a comparable document from Kitchener/ROW.
a In some circumstances, where the intersection is approaching or is at capacity, the use of more
site specific parameters may be appropriate. Under such cases, the use of assumed values must
be discussed with City staff. Site-specific data regarding pedestrians, bicycle use and transit use
may also be critical in planning analysis, particularly when dealing with multi -use developments,
higher development densities, and proximity to higher -order infrastructure.
Thankyou,
From: Brittany Krueger
Sent: Friday, December 20, 2024 7:54 AM
To: John Wisenberg,
Subject: [EXTERNAL] Fwd: 4611 king street
---------- Forwarded message ---------
From: Eric Schneider <E.rieJi_ChD ide,r@?katc _eD.r.l: >
Subject:4611 king street
SHARON
Seip a>, Jeannie and Rollie
Jim Csel
Stephanie Brown
Amanda Heywood
. Wendv Johnston
Jackson
2,
Page 1841 of 1997
Eric Schneider
From: Steph Rawson
Sent: Friday, December 20, 2024 2:15 PM
To: Eric Schneider
Subject: Re: 4611 king street
Hi Eric,
That's good to hear about the commercial space possibility being leased for amenities such as a smaller
grocery store. I wasn't sure if that was the case. I don't know why but I though the space didn't offer enough
parking for groceries to be an option? I'm assuming that's for larger scale stores like Sobey's.
I guess it's also hard to know if the commercial space will be in demand for businesses, I'm thinking of the
empty storefronts under the newer Garment Street Condos.
It's difficult because if the developer could guarantee amenities to allow for residents to access what they
need without a car that would be great but we won't know that until it's too late. My concern is that the
development will be completed with the plan for residents not to need a car but if stores do not open up in
the area then people are stuck without adequate parking which would likely result in overflow parking in our
neighbourhood.
don'tRegarding the parking cost note, I was mostly just trying to bring to light that likely the developer is wanting to
cut down on the required parking because it will save them over $22 million in development costs. Let's be
honest, they IIMhow the build affects the community or if the new residents will find that they
have purchased r condo with the belief that they can get around easily with public transitow where in
r
fact they require a car for daily use. * So yes they need more parking*
Thank you for the note back!
Steph
From: Eric Schneider cEric.Schneider@kitchener.ca>
Sent: December 20, 2024 4:38 PM
To: 'Steph Rawson'
Subject: RE: 4611 king street
Hi Steph,
Yes, I have heard from other residents. I should have been more specific. The tower portion of the building (22 storeys)
has shifted further from the low rise res zones (about 3 metres). The tower sits on top of the podium, or building base.
am still doing a detailed review of the new plan, and I appreciate your comments.
I do appreciate the concerns for walkability and amenities nearby. I think it is important to consider, because the
applicant is requesting to change the land use designation and zoning to allow for residential units here, in an area
zoned for arterial commercial. I think what can positively contribute to the provision of amenities for future residents
(and for existing residents in the neighbourhood) is that the proposal is for a mixed use building, and not fully
residential. The mixed use includes a rather substantial amount of office space on the second floor, and retail on the
ground floor totaling 20 000 square feet (7000 for retail). We are seeing examples of mixed use buildings providing
32
Page 1842 of 1997
Can you clarify your concerns/thoughts on the parking? I see you have provided information on the cost of underground
parking. You are wanting more parking to be provided, correct?
The MTO is currently reviewing the revised transportation impact study and is consulting with the Region. I am hoping
we will have more clarity by the end of January by the time of the meeting.
Eric Schneider, MCIP, RPP
Senior Planner Development and Housing Approvals Division I City of Kitchener
519-783-8918 I'I'Y 1-866-969-9994 1 eric.schneider a7kitchener.ca
664)0000(o,
���rlll
1�p1�11�1�P1°��II
From: Steph Rawson
Sent: Thursday, December 19, 2024 4:55 PM
To: Eric Schneider {Eric.Schneider@kitchener.ca>
Subject: Re: 4611 king street
Hi Eric,
I'm probably echoing other people's comments but the footprint of the new design is exactly the same
distance from every properly line. The difference of the three story change in regards to overlook and privacy
is well... insulting.
We will be curious to knowthe MTO accepts this traffic studyseemed unimpresseda
wholethat that went into the first study. Will we know prior to Jan 27t� if the MTO has given permission to build?
The process seems likea moot pointdecision.
I'm still concerned about the lack of amenities for the future residents with the developer pushing for non -
personal vehicle transportation. I grew up in Toronto and appreciate a walkable city, I never owned a car until
I moved to Kitchener. At that time, I could walk for all necessities. The closest grocery store to the site is a 59
minute walk or 22 minutes by bus not considering transfer / waiting time.
Sorry I feel like this is a bit of a repetition, I'm just disappointed that the developer didn't make more
substantial changes to the height of the building and the parking. It's apparent that they are more concerned
about their profit than meeting the needs of their future residents. I'd like to see a study about the cost of
putting in adequate parking that's currently required by Kitchener Bylaws.
"A good rule of thumb, for the Toronto area, is that it costs $70,000- 80,000 per parking space to build
underground. That assumes an efficient parking layout and favourable geotechnical and environmental
conditions."
L�Ltp r .ww l,iwirarl pr)lig � 'gnla 1' .ial c u :rlwiLip
a Tali' Oa §L teXt= %2 o(1% 2 I� ri ,,fle�',ZQrif, 1a�,Lord.) �av�)Uratl
00�t�l�6r���yir �r��-tier 1 l
%20conditions,
3
Page 1843 of 1997
Eric Schneider
From: Stephanie Rich
Sent: Thursday, December 19, 2024 1:56 PM
To: Eric Schneider
Subject: Re: 4611 king street
Hey Eric,
I'm confused about your comment that it has been shifted further away from our houses? The drawing shows it is
3meters (balcony) and 10 meters(building) from the line still. Am I reading it wrong ?
Steph
Sent from my iPhone
On Dec 19, 2024, at 1:50 PM, Stephanie Rich <stephanie-rich@hotmail.com> wrote:
Sent from my iPhone
From: Eric Schneider <eric.schneider@kitchener.ca>
Date: December 19, 2024 at 1:19:44 PM EST
To: SHARON VERLEY Stephanie Brown
Bob Seip Jeannie and Rollie
t>, Amanda Heywooc >, Jim Csehi
-, Wendy Johnst( , Brittany
Krueger janinice JacKso
Julie Mitchell Michael Collin
7, Magda Cober , Mariesa Bagchus
Matt Vandermeersch
', Keith Martin , Frania
Banks >, Tammv Scurr n>, Jim and
Jenny Graham Mike Milloy
Doreen Crawford
James Mellish >, Sarita And Darin Persad
>, Sue Adams Lauren Furlop
>_ i, Kathe Johnston
rystyna And Rogelio Lejarza < 1>, MJ
Pizzio
Keith Reycraf
Aubrey
McDonald
Sheila Mansion
, Scott
Warnez
i>, Adam Bears
Steph
Rawson •
i>, Sean Mcclinchey
Marg Kissick
+m>, Maria Chepikova-Forouzanfar
If
i>, Emilia and Nathan Npsitse
Weldon
Johnston <
Monika Jones <
n Schmiedendorf n>, Conner Means
47
Page 1844 of 1997
Eric Schneider
To: Vern Martin
Subject: RE: 4611 king street
From: Vern Martin
Sent: Monday, December 16, 2024 4:47 PM
To: Eric Schneider <Eric.Schneider@kitchener.ca>
Subject: Re: 4611 king street
Hi Eric,
Just digesting your message... Does this mean that the January 6 meeting at City Council with the Developer
has been delayed? If so, let me know right away and I'll cancel our neighbourhood meeting that we were going
to have tomorrow.
Vern
Page 1845 of 1997
Eric Schneider
To; [ole1te0'8anion
Subject: RE: Fw: 4611 king street
From: Colette O'Banion
Sent: Monday, December 26,2D241:0OPM
To: Eric Schneider <Eric.Schneider@kUzhener.ca>
Subject: Fwd: Fw: 4611 king street
Hi Eric,
Please add and _ tothe email chain for information regarding this project.
As a resident of Limerick drive we would be also like to be informed of any information regarding the application of this
development.
Thank you,
Colette & Pat{]'Banion
Page 1846 of 1997
Eric Schneider
To: Vern Martin
Subject: RE: 4611 king street
From: Vern Mardr
Sent: Monday, December 16,2U248:2SAM
To: Eric Schneider <Eric.Schneider@kitchener.ca>
Subject: Re: 461lking street
Good morning Eric,
Juts 8 quick question fOryou—.. Is there any update information since this earlier email? We are planning on
having a neighbourhood meeting Tuesday night (tomorrow) and if there is any update information, I'd like to
pass italong tothe group.
Look forward to hearing from you.
Vern Martin
VP of Pine Grove Community Association
(mobile)
Page 1847 of 1997
Eric Schneider
To: Andrew Heywood
Subject: RE: 4611 king street
From: Andrew Heywood
Sent: Friday, November 29,2O247:2IPK4
To: Eric Schneider <EricSchneider@kKohener.ca>
Subject: Re: 46l1king street
Thanks Eric, very interesting reading! I am currently working away and was not able to attend the original date for the
council meeting, I should be available for the new date, however in light of what you just shared it could be possible UM
have achange Vfheart!
Have agreat weekend
Regards,
Andrew
Sent from my iPhone
First, we received MTO comments.
Second, the applicant has provided a response letter in regards to private wells. MTE provided the letter
to UM directly, but it was just forwarded to me yesterday.
Both are attached to this email. Please forward to others not included here as needed.
if anyone is interested in another on site meeting, I have time next week on Wednesday at 4PM. Or as
the weather gets colder if others would prefer to meet here at City Hall I can book a meeting room.
Eric Schneider, MCIP, RPP
Senior Planner |.Development and Housing uppronuxDhdsioo | CiWo[Kitc6encz
Page 1848 of 1997
Eric Schneider
From: Stephanie Rich ^
Sent: Saturday, December 14,2O24]:Q1 PM
To: Eric Schneider
Subject: Re: Reports
Afternoon Eric,
Hope you're having a nice weekend,
Question regarding the upcoming January meeting. Curious whether you think itwould itwill proceed ornot? |
assumed if the applicant had completed all the required things the MTO had requested to be considered for the permit,
that we would had heard ... with Christmas looming in the next week and a half, that doesn't leave much time for them
to have the reports and surveys completed.
If the MTO required things haven't been completed, then will the meeting still proceed ? I had just assumed that if the
K4TO won't currently provide them with the permits at this point, then the City wouldn't really be able tovote in favour
ofthaprojeci—
ThonksEhc!
Stcph
Sent from myiPhone
> On Nov 6, 2024, at 4:55 PM, Eric Schneider <eric.schneic1erCq)kitchener.ca> wrote:
>HiSharon,
�
> Still noformal comments from the MTOhave been received.
> In regards to the wells, the applicant has asked their engineering consultant, MTE,tolook into it. | will provide updates
when available,
�
> The traffic consultant, Paradigm, is currently working on the update to the traffic study.
�
�
�
> Eric Schneider, K4C|P,RPP
>5enior Planner | Development and Housing Approvals Division | City ofKitchener
>(5l9)741-22OOext 7843|TTY 1-D6G-959-9g94|ehcschneider@kitzhenecca
> The City of Kitchener is modernizing its phone system, and beginning November 12, 2024 you can reach me directly at
519-783-8918.
�
*----- Original Message ---
* From: SHARON VERLEY^ �>
* Sent: Tuesday, November 5, 2024 9:49 PM
�
Page 1849 of 1997
Eric Schneider
From: SHARON VERLEY
Sent: Friday, November 15, 2024 1 i;J, him,
To: Sarah West; Sharon Verley-Entz; Carla Johnson; Carla Johnson; Eric Schneider
Cc:
iaw.com
Subject: Re: Inquiry re: 4611 King St (Fw: Support Request from User of BusPlanner Web)
Thanks Sarah for your response.
I'm a teacher with our school board and I teach at William G Davis. Our classes are full!
My daughter attends Grandview PS their school is full. My son attended Davis and
Preston years ago and even though we had an influx of students for a while (portables at
Davis and at Preston PS where the Deeridge kids once attended) the class sizes are
enormous.
>>If the high yield is applied to the 4611 King St project, around 75 students might be generated across Junior
Kindergarten to Grade 12. Roughly 6 students per grade. These students are currently directed to Grand View
Cambridge, William G. Davis and Preston High School.
Just wondering how and where you factor these stats in. What if these units
become rental properties with multiple families? What will the numbers look
then? R
Also there is a huge high rise across the street on Langs Drive ... many, many
units with the same possible outcome renters/owner ... what would the scenario
look '"' then?
Deeridge Units also there will be two units as well as another proposed
building 4396 King Street East proposal. Uri
here 'http5.//La
,.w A.
QlDe�•:��Lp.df
Other things to consider: Traffic, Bus drivers are hard to find and keep... ets
Also have you spoken with our city planning department. Eric Schneider has
been . great resourcefor # him here,
Thanks * • • # forward to hearing # you.
Sharon Verley-Entz, NI.Sc Ed
On Friday, November 15, 2024 at 09:12:36 AM EST, Sarah West <sarah-westG7a wrdsb.ca> wrote:
91
Page 1850 of 1997
Hello Sharon,
I have been asked to prepare a response to your inquiry on behalf of the Planning Services Team at
the WRDS13. Please review my response and don't hesitate to get in touch if I can add clarity to
anything.
Question: How does the WRDSB plan to address the influx of new residents from 4611 King St and
other developments, such as the Deer Ridge project?
School boards are one of the commenting agencies in the planning approvals process and, as such, are
provided with information about all development proposals in the region. Through our standard process, we
receive development proposals, review and respond if required and then track the details of the unit counts
and types in our development tracking system.
Different types of units yield different amounts of student -aged populations; things like the size of the unit, the
bedroom counts and the attractiveness of the unit to families all influence how many students we can expect
from a given project.
Currently, we have two different yield templates for high-density units reflecting the variance we can expect to
see: a higher -yielding and a lower -yielding template. Note that while the range is significant between these two
yields, the total anticipated yield from either model is not likely to generate a high volume of students.
If the high yield is applied to the 4611 King St project, around 75 students might be generated across Junior
Kindergarten to Grade 12. Roughly 6 students per grade. These students are currently directed to Grand View
Cambridge, William G. Davis and Preston High School.
It is understood that additional redevelopment proposals exist for many of the commercial lands in the
Sportsworld Drive area.
The timing for these projects and how concurrent or subsequent they are can introduce significant variability
into projection models.
That said, the schools listed above have the available pupil places to permit significant enrolment growth
before creating overutilization pressures.
From an accommodation standpoint, we plan to monitor the timing of these developments and refine projection
models as units begin to be occupied and generate students. Should accommodation pressure materialize, the
board has several tools available to address this, including;
• Portable Classrooms
• Creating a Development Area and assigning students to a holding school with space
• Boundary review
Request capital for school addition, if sustained long-term pressure and building and site configuration
support it
I hope this information is helpful in understanding how development activity informs school accommodation
planning.
Thank you
Sarah West
Senior Planner
Waterloo Region District School Board
92
Page 1851 of 1997
51ArdebAvenue, Kitchener ON, N2C 2R5
Phoqe�51@-57O-Q003x443Q
Emai[
Website: www,wrd,,l
m
Page 1852 of 1997
Eric Schneider
From:
SHARON VERLEY
Sent:
Thursday, November 14, 2024 10:18 PM
To:
Eric Schneider
Subject:
MTO
Hi Eric,
Still nothing from the MTO?? Very happy for the new meeting date of ]an 6th.
Thanks,
Sharon Verley-Entz, M.Sc Ed
9111
Page 1853 of 1997
lEric Schneider
From: Steph Rawson
Sent: Thursday, November 14,2024622PK4
/o: Eric Schneider
Subject: Re: Dec 2nd Council Meeting
Hi Eric,
Interesting... I'll keep my fingers crossed this is good news for us.
I let Sharon and the group know and we'll disseminate it to the neighborhood.
Have agood evening!
Steph
From: Eric Schneider <Eric.Schneider@kitchener.ca>
Sent: Thursday, November 14,2O344:57:Z2PMI
To: 'StephRawson
Subject: RE: Dec 2nd Council Meeting
Hi3teph,
Eric Schneider, MCIP,BPP
Senior Planner | Development and fiousiApprovals Division | City ofKitchener
0 41
From: Steph Rawson
Sent: Friday, November 8, 2024 9:20 PM
Subject: Dec 2nd Council Meeting
Hi Eric,
Looking to confirm that the Dec 2nd meeting is a planning and strategic initiatives meeting?
I'm assuming that's a standing committees meeting with the earlier deadline for delegation registration.
95
Get Outlook for iOS
9 1`5
Page 1855 of 1997
'Eric Schneider
From: 5tephRawson
Sent: Friday, November 8, 2024 9:20 PM
To: Eric Schneider
Subject: Dec 2nd Council Meeting
Hi Eric,
Looking to confirm that the Dec 2nd meeting is a planning and strategic initiatives meeting?
I'm assuming that's a standing committees meeting with the earlier deadline for delegation registration.
Thanks!
StephRaic
Page 1856 of 1997
From:
SHARON VERLEY
Sent:
Friday, November 8, 2024 9:12 PM
To:
Eric Schneider
Subject:
4396 King Street East - Kitchener
Eric,
Regarding 4396 King Street East proposal. When is that building set to start?
Sharon
Sharon Verley-Entz, M.Sc Ed
KI?
Page 1857 of 1997
From: SHARON VERBY`
Sent: Wednesday, November 62O246:12PK4
To: Vern Martin; Stephanie Brown; StephRawson; Wendy Johnston; Bennett Marlene; Jason
Deneau|t;James Bennett; Eric Schneider
Subject: Re: Reports
Sharon tz,]\1.Sc Ed
Hi Sharon,
Still m]formal comments from the MTO have been received,
In regards tothe wells, the applicant has asked their engineering consultant, MTE` to look into it. | will provide updates
when available.
The traffic consultant, Paradigm, is currently working on the update to the traffic study,
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.schneicle[&h��
The City of Kitchener is modernizing its phone system, and beginning November 12, 2024 you can reach me directly at
519-783-891&
Original
Fmm:SHARON VERLEY
Sent Tuesday' November 5, 2024 9:49 PM
To: Eric Schneider<EIic. Sohna>: Venn Martin
StephRawaon
' f°;Bennett Marlene
< ,James Bennett
Subject: Reports
�-SbephanieBrovvn
/venuyuonnsLc-
/amonDeneau|t
Just following up from our last meeting together. Any updates from the MTO on the 4611 King Street Pr�e�?Has �e
builder provided an Updated hydro geo survey report including our wells? Has the builder provided an Updated trafficreport?'
Regards, Sharon
Sent from myiphone
1113
>OnNov fi2O24 at4:16PM, Eric Schneider <Ehc5chneider@khzhenecca>wrote:
>HiSandor,
�
> The region has requested an addendum to the Traffic Report based on access and transportation demand management
(TUM).
�
> Eric Schneider, &4C|P,RPP
>8eninr Planner | Development and Housing Approvals Division | City of Kitchener
> (519) 741-22OQext 7Q43 | TTY 1-866-969-9994 | ericschneider@kitchenecoa
> The City of Kitchener is modernizing its phone system, and beginning November 12, 2024 you can reach me directly at
519-783-89I8.
�
�
�
•----- Original Message ---
• From: SAND(JRFUUOP
• Sent: Monday, October J1,2O244:4BPK4
• To: Eric Schneider <Eric.Schneider@kitcbenecca>
•Subiect: Re: 4611 king street east
�
> [You don't often get email from sandorf@rogers.com. Learn why this is important at
https:8aka.nns/LemrnAboutSender|dentificatimn]
> Thanks for answering myquestions.
> There isalot ofpages ... | have only gone through maybe half. Sofar there isalot ofmisinformation from the builder
and the traffic report. The building seems to make sense for the city in a lot of ways, just not at that exact location, and
not with all the amendments they are asking for.
�
> Who's responsibility isittndoatrue traffic report, not one that was done during the king street construction?
�
>Thanks,
�
>Sandor
�
Page 1859 of 1997
Eric Schneider
00 PROTECTED
Morning Eric,
John Wisenbero(TIVIVIQ ' '
Tuesday, November 5, 20L+o:Z| AM
Eric Schneider
Driveway
Driveway LOS.pdf
Couldn't help myself, here's another small one. I'm sure you guys have already figured this one out. This is based
off numbers from the traffic study.
,H)7
0
a 6
E F
0
m
(D 0
0)
0
<
0
TJ
La0
0
<
<
<
CD
O'Q
<
1r
0 m
3
::1
m
=T
CD
CD
IYi
0
0
CD
Cd
CD
C)
0
CD
CD
(D
(D
CL
cD
0
CD
0
CL
r-+<
'D
3
<
CD
CD
:y
:<
cD
0
0
rr
C
CD
C)VJ
CD Ei
=r
co
C/)
0
CD
m
< 0)
`moiCD
W
c)
O'Q
CD
(1)
5. 0
=3
CD
CD
CD
C) Ch
0 T
=T
—
CD
(Dz
<
0
0
'w^
CDCD
—
'g ,
3
0.
r
cn
m
m
CD
<
0
r+
=7
CD
CD
CL
CO
(D
CD
C/)
0
_0
(D
44a
0
a 6
`1861 of 1997
R
1r
IYi
uwr
•
`1861 of 1997
From: SteohRa*son
Sent: Monday, November4,20Z48:46PK4
To: Eric Schneider
Subject: Fw: City Water and Sewer Hook Up Costs
Hi Eric,
I wanted to forward an email from the Engineering Dept for the City of Kitchener. I had sent an inquiry of what the cost
would be for water and sewage hook up if it came to that. Steph Brown had mentioned 150K, which I thought was
steep, but apparently is lower what the possible cost would be. It sounds like sewage would need to cross the 401 into
Cambridge, I'm assuming for topography?
In case you are having meetings with the developers about contingency plans if well water if effected I think this is good
information for them to know. Your colleague also stated that the cost and responsibility to provide this service, if
required, lands with the developer.
I attached my initial inquiry and Nadiya's response below.
Get Outlook for iOS
From: Internet - Engineering 9th floor (SK4)menginoehng@kitchenecca>
Sent: Friday, November 1,2O244:O7PKq
Cc: Building (SM)<bui|din8@khzhenecca>
Subject: RE: City Water and Sewer Hook Up Costs
Hello,
It is not possible to estimate the cost per household for full municipal service extension. An approved engineering design
would need to completed, and ideally the project tendered for construction to understand actual costs. Each extension
of municipal services is very unique and there are so many factors to consider. In this case, sanitary sewers would likely
not be able to drain to King Street East and would likely require a 401 crossing into Cambridge which would raise the
cost substantially and require a cross-border servicing agreement. I am not sure how many homes would be considered
in this extension but ifi1only for a snoe|| area, $150k per property is likely a low estimate.
Note, ifadevelopment application impacts private wells, it is the developers' responsibility to extend municipal services
to impacted properties.
Any questions, please advise.
NadiyaK4ahida
Program Assistant, Development Engineering | Engineering Services | City of Kitchener
519-741-2200 ext. 74I1|TTY 1-8GG-969-9994| nadiya.mahida@kitchenerza
--- Original Message ---
108
From: Building (SWY)<bui|ding@kbchenecoa>
Sent: Friday, November Y,2O24 3:01 PM
To: 2433(SW4)<2433@kkzhenecca>;Internet - Engineering 9th floor (SK1)<engineehng@kbchener.oa>
Subject: FW: City Water and Sewer Hook UpCosts
Engineering Connecting LoCity Infra
24]5 - Building Permit Requirements
----- Original Message ---
Fronn: Internet -UtiUdes(SK4) <utiUties@kitchenerca>
Sent: Friday, November 1,2034l2:44PK8
To: Building (SM)<bui|ding@kitchener.ca>
Subject: FW: City Water and Sewer Hook Up Costs
----- Original Message -----
From: noreply@kitchener.ca <noreply@kitchener.ca>
Sent: Friday, November l,2D2412:35PK4
To: Internet- Utilities (3K4)<uti|ibes@kitchenerza>
Subject: City Water and Sewer Hook Up Costs
Hello,
I was wondering if there is an average cost you could share if someone wanted to hook up to city water and sewer?
I live at 66 Limerick Drive in Kitchener and we are researching what this would costper household ifthe developer was
topay for the infrastructure k]come into the neighborhood.
There is a concern that the development will impact personal wells and we will need to change our water supply and
sewage to city. The initial number rumored is $150,000 per home.
{)rigirl|
��
Page 1863 of 1997
Eric Schneider
From: Vern Martin
Sent: Friday, November 1, 2024 1:34 PM
To: Eric Schneider, 'SHARON VERLEY
C: Steph Rawson; Stephanie Rich; Wendy Johnston; Bennett Marlene
Subject: Re: 4611 King Street: Update
Hi Eric,
During the meeting on the site with the developer this week, the right -in, right -out design of the property
access was clearly stated. When asked what the routing would be for someone leaving the property who
wants to head toward Kitchener, the answer from the developer was that the person would have to go right
out of the property, then east on King St and do a U-turn at the lights.... one assumes that the lights he was
referring to were the ones immediately south of the 401.... this is where the off ramp for eastbound 401 traffic
meets King St. One has to wonder about this routing particularly in view of the changes that the LRT will also
be making to King St.
Are the developer's comments consistent with your understanding as well and with what comments that the
Region has provided? Is this issue discussed by the Region in a document that you might be able to provide?
From: Eric Schneider <Eric.Schneider@kitchener.ca>
Sent: Friday, November 1, 2024 1:16 PM
To: 'SHARON VERLEN
Cc: Vern Martin Steph Rawson : Stephanie Ric
>: Wenciv ionnsion ; Bennett Marlene
Hi Sharon,
The meeting was with the Region, not the MTO. I am still trying to get full comments from the MTO.
The meeting with the Region determined that it will not be a full access (left turns in or out), the access would be Right
in Right out only.
Senior Planner I Development and Housing Approvals Division I City of Kitchener
(519) 741-2200 ext 7843 I TTY 1-866-969-9994 1 eric.schneider@kitchener.ca
The City of Kitchener is modernizing its phone system, and beginning November 12, 2024 you can reach me directly at
519-783-8918.
Page 1864 of 1997
Eric Schneider
From: SHARDNVERLEY »
Sent: Friday, November 1,20241:32PK4
To: Eric Schneider
Cc: Vern Martin; StephRawson; Stephanie Rich; Wendy Johnston; Bennett Marlene
Subject: Re: 4611 King Street: Update
Oh I apologize. I thought there was a meeting with the MTO. I've also called the corridor management department and
left messages for some contacts there, Hopefully they will connect with both of us by next week so we can have some
answers, Thanks for everything you've done for my neighbourhood thus far Eric, I do appreciate your prompt responses
and your kind manner.
Have a great weekend and we will connect soon!
Sent from my iPhone
> On Nov 1, 2024, at 1:16 PIVI, Eric Schneider <Eric.Schneider@kitchener.ca> wrote:
>HiSharon,
�
> The meeting was with the Region, not the MTO. I am still trying to get full comments from the MTO.
> The meeting with the Region determined that itwill not beafull access (left turns inoroutithe access would beRih1
-
in Right out only.
�
�
�
* Eric Schneider, MOR RPP
*Seniur Planner | Development and Housing Approvals Division | City of Kitchener
* (519) 741-2200 ext 7843 1 TTY 1-866-969-9994 1 eric.schneider@kitchener.ca
> The City of Kitchener is modernizing its phone system, and beginning November 12, 2024 you can reach me directly at
519-783+8918.
�
�
�
>----- Original Message ---
» From: SHARON VERLEY<sevedey@vogers.com>
> Sent: Friday, November 1, 20249:58AK4
>Tu:Eric Schneider <Eric.5chneider@kitchenecca>
> Cc: Vern K4anhn S1eph Ravvsor
i>; Wendy Johnstor
> Subject: 4611 King Street: Update
1com>; Stephanie Ricf �
Bennett Marlene
•HiEric,
• How are you? Would you be able to provide an update regarding the meeting with the MTO, consultant and builder
yesterday?
• Thanks, Sharon
• Sent from myiPhone
���
Page 1865 of 1997
Eric Schneider
From: SHARON VERLEY
Sent: Friday, November 1,2O249:58AK4
To: Eric Schneider
Cc: Vern Martin; GtephRawson; Stephanie Rich; Wendy Johnston; Bennett Marlene
Subject: 4611 King Street: Update
Hi Eric,
How are you? Would you be able to provide an update regarding the meeting with the IVITO, consultant and builder
yesterday?
Thanks, Sharon
Sent from noyPhone
Page 1866 of 1997
Eric Schneider
smmmmmum
From: John Wisenberg (TMMC}
Sent: Thursday, October 31, 2024 3:47 PIVI
To: Eric Schneider
Subject: RE: Feedback again
smmzff�5O �
L
fluonding outhe-las Vim e. _-TbLs is -what happens
obyjaus_ fixed lastmistaLeWDaryro _wAenJsaet0_Q rtT_uC_b_tLrae Wokhng-aLthis stuff, 1_mi_s_s_ffi__P,
MiU"o1LrjnhD2a
EeB_en_d1D"0_[ryhbB"JewthQu"t _dL L dnfierihlQthere .fir Qd lb
Good afternoon Eric,
Th a nks ap
gairi for all of: Y'OUrsupport in regards to our neighborttot'id and tl'ris deve(opmorit. See arta ched for' my
revised feedback report that I think is more focused on municipal and provincial priorities (not necessarily the
neighbourhood's priorities).
I realize that the need for housing is an overwhelming problem and that there could be a workable solution for this
site., lalso reatize that not all developirients like ti,fls'fit" all, of U'le giAdelines set out by each, 1( -,wet of guvert iniew. In
this particular case, however, I think the developer is pushing the boundaries in what would be acceptable in
regards to watkabiLity, transit access, and traffic impact to the region and to the residents who would Live here.
To summarize my main concerns:
1) The province, region, and city each provide some level of guidance on what is considered walkable. I
think this particular site will always have poor walkability due to the 401 and road/intersection layout
in the area.
aM Complete Streets Kitchener includes a scorecard. Distance to pedestrian crossing& length of
pedestrian crossing are the two main problemsr?ll don't believe the future LRT tracks can be
considered a refuge island in regards to length of pedestrian crossingE.
b:,, ROW'officAal pl�in target i ciea ting pedestrian -f riend ly envii onnien ts tl"ia t a llf)w wa[kil-Ig to, be safe,
comfortable, barrier -free and convenient. The 401 will always be a barrier to walking or biking in
one direction.
ROW corridor design guidelines recommend 400m intersection spacing on community connector
roads "to reflect transportation priority of the street by ensuring optimal traffic flows". The distance
to the closest intersection crosswalk is beyond 400mMThis area specifically has few crossings
because of the vehicle transportation priority[?]This dynamic is unlikely to change for another 15-20
years(]
dE?1 Ontario —A Place to Grow indicates walkable neighbourhoods as "roads Laid out in a well-
c0n neclectrietwork, destirlations that are, easi ly acces,,iibIe by transit andiactive transponation,
sidewatks wrath n1ininjr31 interruptions for Vehicle access, and a pedcs,.,,tdari friendly envifanmera
atong roads to enc'ourage acfivc� transportation," Pedestrh,,,?ns will rained to cr(),ss 6private
r,iaveways and Ix sicle strer:It to reeach the rnearctst pedestrian cto.,,,,singg acro."i's King Stre-et E,,")SP
Lirnerh* has a very, hwge raf,,fitis trUTI Which nUWAIS f(Whigher S.)m,-gid righl turr�s froa? Kin�Q t
to atso hsive to, cross the drivew�,"�
y "s ervk,'Ink,,� th is (.1e, Vf,,,' fop rr% e n t whic, h writ be
lw-f'artho busiestdrive,way cell rail'.
eF?1 Kitchener Cycling Master Plan indicates King Street from Sportsworld Drive to Highway 401 as an
area where on -street biking should be avoided.
115
Page 1867 of 1997
tlf
C-QD"I sMJ_bIs__$Ae_LS_jftQ lea v
3j_La_tkaNeIQ!nthe_ap�t wo�Idgawqn i s_o_tb_eLe_.aft tkaaUW
due _t_Q_LaCk_Qf_MUIA_Ibelieve_nQ_U_Us_pjanned.ejth
req_uirejLeA_ev o t _(�I) �If thj_s_dB_YQLQD_m_QaCn!D_p_r �ce_d��
_eftff _0 pay
sh_nuc n t is si-d�of j.n.g street. I also believe the cil;y
ould—re-qu-es-t-th-"Qy-e-LWer-tQ rQtD --e w a 1, k_M�= �t
U t -e-tb B -s Ld _d_QYft7MaMIQmaWe�hI ELX
tion_jat tb_Q.aLte_eatjMce,
2) Tr'at'isitshiouldb,eavial len,iodeof travel for° this levet of derisit r,,, r tl tevels of over°timent want to
increase transit rise over, tilm., There are also well uriderstood barriers, which deter people from using
transit (watking distance, numbers of trall,s,it routes arvallabte, tack of bike paths).
OM (';row[ng"Fogel, Vter't a- rVe tS rnI 5-10 IT11rILIte VVBIk to, t0glier order transit stops. iXpress is considered a
hligher order transit stop at the regional level, Does 0fis, inofti,desituations where runty one diecfion
of iXpress, is accessVa?
bE The provinci,,il policy stcqernent defines frequora transjt',�Is Service that runs at least everyl 5
m1rues; in both, direr,,tions throi,ighout the dray airid into the &,tciining eve cloy, of the w(.."ek. They also
define higher order transit as tarn in that gemera(fy operates url partially or CWII�Afitel,Y
I�J,91'Rs-of -'way, outside of n'tixed traf fic, and fl"wrefore can OchjeVe levetts of speed ari(.] retiability
greato,o- than rriixed-traffic. 11 maybe another decade or two Until GRF,servkn,., operates at the
targeted frequency, altl)otffIr this is a chk,:ken or the eiL,19 issueffThe iXpress sGitvi(,,:e will be stack m
Ifaffic,just like evr,ryoae et,se on KingStreelff,,71?r�re is a srnaU dedicated One at the inter.^�ection on
Shantz Hill, and 401 will have a dedicated bus lane upon completion, but in the area immediately
surrounding this development there is no increase in reliability vsnpersonal automobile[?]
c City of Kitchener officjal plan targets a rrltixiniurn walking distance of 4,50, 1 netres tri a tranit shop,
Again, the question is if a single stop traveling in a single direction is considered adequate rapid
transit for this developmentD,? The walking distance is 950m to the return bus stop of the bus routes
on King StreetDI
d, Ontario - A !Trace to Grow: A cornpr0rensive and cOntin Ljous active, transportation network with
offer a viable alternative to the private automobile for personal travel. Simplysaid, this location is
ideal for personal automobile travel on the 4010? There is no lot in the Sportsworld area that is farther
from the GO stationD
e
) ):,
,q I r
anic since, th,"
14 Iu4w 1 six=_I V _tnj Lne4:9 L -L' Se tq( tj'!9�Ll/pgLvLrlce fo"invest in such, a 3) lar
rraffir linpact at this location ori King Street East is not onCo.only a Cracer for tlhe_C�C'al residents,Thiswill
impact all users of this, road (roughly 46,0100 per clay according to ROW), The Impact woni"t be large, WA it
wound be ipermanent.
a. The province is considering building a tunnel under the 401 to reduce gridlock. They are passing
legislation to allow the province to remove bike lanes from roads to allow increase vehicle traffic. These
actions are not intended to support the flow of single -occupant vehicles, they are intended to support
economic movement of goods and services.
b, Provincial Policy StaternenL New developnient prcip(,)Sr;�d on "djacerit lands to, existrig or planned
corridorsarid tram spoi tation facilities should, 1' -"re coi'ripatible with, and supportive of,, the lorig-terrn
PUrPoses O�f the corridor and shm,fld be designed to avoid, or wtiere avoidance is not possible, niinirnize
and i-nifigate negatave on arid adverse effects, from the corridor and transportation facilities, I
believe this dc velopment corm be considered a pe:irjnanenl adddion o( -500+ vehicles of traffir; to ttw 401
King St Easl. The pf,)or access to b"ansft hglicat&d above will rernain a
1hr,"ir reliance on
G; Connecting the G renter Golden Moqirifing grid[ock is a, Sr,gnjfficarit strain on [lie. region's
,Paconorny, and targetr�d highwayext3�irmor�is and irnproven'iemtsare a key part of fie solution: Work, wttlj
Infrastructure Ontario and Melfolinx to develop transit-orierrted cornn"wrift4s crccs) at new and VLW5Aing
tfallsit sLffions to provide more optiDns torpeople to kve and work' near transit, lnc,:rease ha ti§,no SLIpply,
hICILrding affordabk.,a housing, increase transit ridership, support econornc development, and reduce
g ridlock. The (,,Yevelopied ITa S c"hosen a sife c,,)f hdare PMT,13A on purposu, W P(J unfortunate y the
arcess to transit oub.;,ide offim PAP rs roovch Nw-,vse than inskle of the PAV'ISA. Afthough liars, raaradatri
L L6
Page 1868 of 1997
support the target of increasing housing supply, it will not support the targets of living/Working near transit
or reducing gridlock.
d. Ontario - A Place to Grow: Municipalities should designate and preserve lands within settlement areas
located adjacent to or near major goods movement facilities and corridors, including major highway
interchanges, as areas for manufacturing, warehousing and logistics, and appropriate associated uses
and ancillary facilities. This property is one of the last remaining properties in Kitchener available adjacent
to a major highway interchange. It would be Suitable for logistics / warehousing upon completion of the
highway 8 f/yover.
e, ROW - Moving Forward: 1"oster a Strong Eilconorny, The Regiori's transportation systerri plays a n'tajor
role in the Regjon'8 ecQnorny, In addition to moving goods to, froai, or Within the Regfon, it provides
essantial connections between residents, businesses, and employees. When developing tl i,e 2.018 T'Mf I it
is important to propose changes to the transportation system that will Make the., ecoriorny more resilient
and pfornote a healthy worktome. These changes may inCIU(Je improving the quality of active
transportation (walking and cycling) options iiri the Region, finding, ways to manage congestion, or
inipmOng travel firnes along major goods rnovenerit corridors, I bet eve this, appjlrcanfhas not cansidered
OCtive hansporta tion as a paordy- Other deveioprrrents tufther down )Ong Streel havo selected site 5 thal
are farmore inclusive of rrwfli-�nvdal transit accoss.'This location also does not allow the region to
rna,nage Congestion ganeralod by this sAe as they will have a private, arcest.zi pom to King Streot East,
f hQq,
the, nun)IL
Ls'lt'L, board,, hqVgyqlJ1 e qL�
_belje�L_ flocKf
infrasUickire inq
_cjose,.19!����LCQ, 1V&10r t1iis clevelqvmn��n� is CrIff —icult This
P-romm
�C§—tre t± —0fr0-1ALU§,,9A�!-4 !qJflqmber of igdljLst(lal I CQMnlerd,al LISPNs, especially With ttje
from now _Lhe
Teg
ideq§,,)yi(still 61oa�USin transit
My surni-riary ended Lip being quite a t�,R longer than I expected, there's a lot to digest, My personal opinion is, that this
developer is preying orithe fact that the region does require more housing (badly), rhey have also dfliberaWy ctiosen a
location oulside of the Future Pm-rSA area - there are pracically no transit improvernents planned withun ar"I 10001,111 walk,
of this lbcation, Kitchener has also put 0'emendous effort into providing clear guidance to dev e lope rs,what and where this
type of development is preferred by developing the Growing f'ogether plarliqlpoficies. I suspect the econornics, of building
in this location are more favourable than building inside of the 'I MT (I cour d be wrong) dale to the fact that this lot is
vacan,, and larn worried that ftfture developers wiH cho,r)5e to avoid the PUT SA area's as well, I his, could lead to rniss'mg
PTM,15A, density tarqetal, or reduc�-,d ridership I"01 (Utdro U I' 'I'll" StMiorls, etc,
I've spent a tremendous amount of time reading about all of this stuff and it has certainly been interesting / educational,
but I think I need to take a break from it for a while. I am looking forward to reading your final report later in November.
Thanks for reading.
From: John Wisenberg
Sent: Thursday, October 31, 2024 3:21 IDIVI
To: Eric Schneider <eric.schneide chener.ca>
Subject: Feedback again
Good afternoon Eric,
Thanks again for efl.1 of yotu slappoll i'll regards to our neighboi'ho,(,,,id and this clevetopi-nont, See atlael"ied for my
revised feedback report that I think is more focused on municipal and provincial priorities (not necessarily the
neighbourhood's priorities).
I realize that the need for housing is an overwhelming problem and that there could be a workable solution for this
site. I also realize that not all developments like this 'fit' all of the guidelines set out by each level of government. In
this particular case, however, I think the developer is pushing the boundaries in what would be acceptable in
regards to walkabitity, transit access, and traffic impact to the region and to the residents who would live here.
117
Page 1869 of 1997
Eric Schneider
From: 5teohRawson
Sent: Wednesday, October 30, 2024 5:53 PM
To: Jason Deneau|tEric Schneider
Subject: Today's meeting
I just wanted to say thank you both forjoining us this afternoon and Eric for setting it up.
| know the issues we are presenting are repetitive as best at this point and your patience is very much appreciated. |
think today was important so that the developer and planner have a full idea of how motivated the community is about
the proposed plans.
We will be dedicating certain spokespersons to talk to specific topics for the city council meeting in December.
Again, thank you for taking the time and extending your workdays to be part of these conversations.
130
Eric Schneider
From: ]eannieLeForge ,
Sent: Sunday, October 27'2O242:5OPM
To: Eric Schneider
Subject: Additions toyour email list 4611 King S1Eproposed zone change
HiEhc-
Ouraddressesane:
131
Eric Schneider
From: SLephRawson
Sent: Saturday, October 2ti2O248:35AK4
To: Eric Schneider
Subject: Re: Hydrology Study and Dec 2nd Date
Thanks Eric,
Makes sense, we'll see if they have anything to share at the meeting.
Hope you had anice weekend!
Steph
Get
From: Eric Schneider <Eho.Schneider@Ntchenecca>
Sent: Friday, October 2S,2Q349:ll13AK4
To: 'Steph Rawson' <steph40l@hotmail.com>; Vern Martin <vernmartin265@outlook.com>; SHARDNVERLEY
<aever|ey@roQerx.cVnn>
Cc: Wendy Johnston <wendyjohnston2O2O@Qmai|zom>, Stephanie Rich <stephanie-rich@hotmai|.com>;Bennett
K4ar|ene<madenebennett55@gmaiicom>
Subject: RE: Hydrology Study and Dec 2nd Date
The importance of the date of December 2 nd was discussed at the last on site meeting with residents,sorry you were not
able tumake that meeting,
Hypothetically we could delay the recommendation to Council until January. But it would mean the 120 days the
the "non -decision" to the Ontario Land Tribunal (OLT). If that were to happen, all local control would be removed and
the decision would be made at the provincial level.
I am aware that the applicant (UM) has appealed another application they had in Kitchener at 1593 Highland Road West
for non -decision, which was then subsequently approved exactly as requested by the applicant by the OLT. Staff did not
have an opportunity to negotiate changes to the development to improve design and reduce impacts to neighbourhing
low rise residential lands on Rauch Court. | am trying to avoid that scenario this time, and that is why | think it is
important 1omeet the December I"udate.
The applicant has been made aware of the concern regarding impact to wells, and at the time of the on site meeting
next week with them they will have had a couWe of weeks for their Prolect team look i_+_ i op. iliote—gir *r*vi
Eric Schneider, MC/P, RPP
Senior Planner | Development and HOUi Approvals Division | City n[Kitchener
(S19) 741'2200 ext 7843 1 TTY 1-066'969-9994 1
1 2
Eric Schneider
From: S4NDORFULDP
Sent: Saturday, October 2fi20242:49AK4
To: Eric Schneider
Subject: Re: 4611 king street east
Attachments: Planning Justification Report.pdf,Transportation Impact Brief.pdf
[You don't often get email from aandurf@rogers.00m.Learn why this isimportant et
Hi Eric,
Just following up about my traffic report question. You mention that the traffic report by Paradigm was under review.
What were the findings from this review? Is the builder responsible for a current traffic report?
Thanks,
Sandor
Sent from my iPhone
>UnOct 21,2Q24 a14:48PM, lA0DORFULOP wrote:
> Thanks for answering my questions.
> There is a lot of pages ... I have only gone through maybe half. So far there is a lot of misinformation from the builder
and the traffic report. The building seems to make sense for the city in a lot of ways, just not at that exact location, and
not with all the amendments they are asking for.
�
> Who's responsibility isittudoatrue traffic report, not one that was done during the king street construction?
�
>Thanks,
�
>Sandor
�
> Sent from myiPhone
�
>> On Oct 18, 2024, at 2:04 PM, Eric Schneider <Eric.Schneider@kitchener.ca> wrote:
w
>>HiSandmr,
x/
>> Here is the traffic impact brief that was prepared as part of this application. It is currently being reviewed by the City,
the Region, and the K4TO.
�x
>> For the answer about the duplex, the Regional Official Plan and City Official Plan both state that any new
development, including adding a residential unit in a duplex, must be on full municipal services. This application is site
specific and is not proposed to change zoning or services on other private properties.
155
>> The list of amendments the developer is asking for is in the Planning Justification Report, attached. There are further
details about the requested amendments included aswell.
>> If the application were to be approved, the applicant would need to get a permit from NavCanada, a federal agency
that regulates heights ofbuildings and cranes for airport purposes.
>> Regards,
>> Eric Schneider, MC|P,RPP
>> Senior Planner | Development and Housing Approvals Division | City of Kitchener
>>/519\741-22OOext 7843 | TTY I-86G-568-g994|eric.schneider@kitchenecca
x�
x�
>>----- Original Message ---
>> From: SAND(}RFULOP ~
-
>> Sent: Thursday, October 17,2O24I1:O24K1
>>Tb:Eric Schneider <Eric.Schneider@Ntchenecco>
x>Subject: Re: 4611king street east
>> [You don't often get email from Learn why this isimportant at
https:8aka.nos/LearnAboutSender|dend0cation]
>> Sent from my iPhone
>>>>OnOct I7,2O24,at9:51AM, SANDORFULOP
>>>HiErick,
>>> Did you and Brandon actually think that we wanted to hear about brick colour last night?
>>> The important questions were not answered. What is the plan for lack of parking, for bikes and cars? What is the
plan for the extra traffic, the hazard this will cause on Edgehill and king s1reet(entrance10 building in close proximity to
401onrannp)? Where is the study for what this construction will do to our wells, and who will pay for our new well if
needed? How are the people living in this building(without bike/car) getting to a bus stop/shopping? | can tell you that
there a few people in our neighbourhood right now that are renting without a car/bike .... and they run across king
street(4lanes oftruf0c). People will take the shortest line totheir destination. Not sure why everyone isokwith not
addressing these issues/hazards.
>>> Your answer to Jim last night was weak, about why the city didn't allow him to put up a duplex. What exactly does o
well have todowith it? If the city makes the amendments for this builder and ignores their own rules/policies, will those
changes apply toeveryone inthis area going forward?
>>> Please send mealist ofall the amendments this builder isasking for.
>>> Also, I witnessed at least 15 helicopters and a couple airplanes yesterday above our homes. |sthis being considered
when deciding the night ofthis building?
>x>Thank you,
136
>>> Sandor
>>> Sent from my Whone
IM
Page 1875 of 1997
From:
Sent:
To:
Subject:
You don't often get email from
Hi Eric,
Pat O'Banion
Saturday, October 26, 2024 12:08 AM
Eric Schneider, Colette O'Banion
ZBA24/024/K/ES 4611 King St. E
,ern mt4this Linortant
My wife Colette and I attended the online meeting last week to discuss issues
surrounding the new development on King st. We live at ust
around the corner from the proposed site. We have a few concerns we wanted to
bring forward regarding this new development. Some of the issues we are
concerned about are...
The increase in crime that comes with placing a large number of people in
high density living conditions. This will not only impact crime within the
building itself but crime that will spill out into the immediate neighboring
areas. According to the article Crime Attractors, Generators and Detractors
(B. Kinney, P. Brantingham, K. Wuschke, M. Kirk, P. Brantingham, 2008),
crime centers around areas considered to be "activity nodes". This
article states that "Activity nodes that pull a large number of people
towards them act as crime generators.,,
The parking requirement analysis which appears to be based on obsolete and
old data. There is clearly an increase in the number of people living per
bedroom given the cost of living increases and the influx of immigration in
Canada over the last few years. People cannot afford the luxury of having a
"two person per room" maximum anymore. A parking requirement estimate of
0.68 cars per unit seems to be very low and will likely be three or four
times higher than that including parking for guests. The subsequent required
overflow parking will leave our street continuously clogged with cars on
both sides of the street.
* The traffic volume on King st. will be intolerable when weighing in the
numerous new high rise dwellings both currently under construction and
planned for near future construction. Traffic on King street is already
very congested with the number of trucks coming from the numerous terminals
on Maple Grove Rd., car and truck traffic from highway 8 headed to the west
bound 401, regular traffic passing through this area and people that already
live in this area.
* Property values will be affected. The desirable aspect of our neighbourhood
being "A piece of the country in the middle of the city" will be
destroyed. We have already seen the scenic loss of the land area between
Limerick and King street that is now covered with a massive dirt hill. With
this aspect influencing property values, once it has been destroyed, the
property values that go along with it will also decrease.
* our water well has recently seen a substantial decrease in production and
will likely need to be replaced. The current highway construction
contractor has provided a hydrogeologist to assess the impact of the
construction on our well. While he does not believe the current
construction is to blame, it does seem very coincidental that numerous wells
Page 1876 of 1997
in the area have experienced failures all around the same time. We are
concerned that additional construction will impact our well to the point
where we no longer have any water for our property. We cannot be
responsible for adding a new $20,000 well everytime a new project is started
around us.
Unfortunately, our house will be in the line of sight for some of the
balconies for this high rise building. We are concerned about the loss of
privacy in our back yard now that dozens of units will be staring directly
into our property from a high vantage point.
The addition of many thousands of residents and their daily activities, the
cars for this new building both coming and going as well as parking on our
street will greatly increase the noise pollution for our home.
Thanks for your time to review these points. I hope you can see how our area is
really not prepared to absorb a high rise residence of this size in addition to
the other high rise buildings both planned and currently under construction.
Please feel free to contact me if you have any questions or comments about these
points.
Regards,
Patrick & Colette O'Banion
Kitchener, Ont.
References
Kinney, Bryan & Brantingham, Patricia & Wuschke, Kathryn & Kirk, Michael &
Brantingham, Paul. (2008). Crime Attractors, Generators and Detractors: Land Use
and Urban Crime opportunities. Built Environment. 34. 62-74.
10.2148/benv.34.1.62.
Pat O'Banion
www.MachLiUeTooIsWarehouL(LqRM
Machine Tods Warehouse oriFace,bo,o.o.k
1,:39
Page 1877 of 1997
Eric Schneider
From: Steph Rawson
Sent: Friday, October 25,2O248:42AK4
To: Vern Martin; SHARON VEKLEY; Eric Schneider
Cc: Wendy Johnston; Stephanie Rich; Bennett Marlene
Subject: Hydrology Study and Dec 2nd Date
Hi Eric
Since the Oct 16th meeting have you received any updates from the developer on if a hydrology report will be provided
prior tnthe Dec 2nd date?
Currently from talking to the Ministry of the Environment it's my understanding that a report only required if the
developer required de -watering over 400,000 L a day and those reports and assessments are required closer to that
time of development (years from now). The region won't be completing a report because it doesn't effect main regional
We are considering hiring an independent hydrologist since it seems that this requirement is being overlooked.
|fvveneed 1mprovide our own report is there apossibility Lopush back the council meeting date if the report cannot be
completed in the next 5 weeks? We feel that councillors should have this information prior to making any decisions,
especially ifheight and proximity amendments are also being voted on.
Thank you,
StephRaic(and the rest nfour subcommittee)
From: SLephRawson
Sent: Friday, October 25,2O247:58AM
To: Vern Martin
Cc: Wendy Johnston,
K8adcnp
Subject: Re: King street Proposal MOEE email
'; Stephanie Rich
My name is Branclan Chowan, I'm the area supervisor with the Ministry of Environment, Conservation and Parks' Guelph
District Office. Your question was forwarded along to our office for review.
The Environmental Protection Act contains legislation pertaining to construction site dewatering and includes
requirements that a water taking report he completed for any construction site dewatering that would occur during the
construction. The water taking report is required to consider the expected area of influence for each clewatered work
11101
Page 1878Of1997
area, and any potential impact on other water users in the expected area of influence. A contingency plan is also
required if unexpected impacts on other water users occur. This process would be if construction site dewatering is less'�
than 400,0001- per day. They WfXflclai,scm brr rcquired to r(�'qgjster the aictivity on the Enviroarric!ntal Activity and Sector -
Registration system.
If the water to in will exceed 400,0OOL per day, a, I'lerrnit to 'i'alke ester application WOUld be recltdred to be submitted
to a ministry hydrogeologist fcpr review and addRionad coi-iditions may be placed on a peirm it, 8nd that r,eqoested arnount
of water taking would not Ibe permitted WIN such a perrnit ire iSSUf,-,A 'I"his process also considers potential on
other water users.
For clarity, the above reports are required to be completed by qualified professionals and are typically completed by a
consultant. If the ministry is not satisfied with what has been completed, additional questions or clarifications may be
requested by the ministry.
These would be the only requirements that the ministry would have with relation to water taking at a development.
Hoping this is helpful.
Thanks,
Brandan
Brandan Chowanj Area Supervisor (A) I Provincial Officer# 1693 1 Guelph District Office I Ontario Wnlstry of thotnvlronniem
Conseivat[on and PapIs ( 1, Stone RIDad VV'Qkt, F10(jr i1SW I Giiellih, ON I NIG,02 1519-831 9411,
Plr;asc consider the uiviranment kforo printing tWs crnaN
NO M I � I igl'105fff�'Q is c') I i fidentimll rid rn,y be pir (vV I ered mid exemI:nC f rorn <Nc I undof ifl It N a bkiavv. I I you aV e nano the Intende (IV oopl(Ult oV yam :I[,,o I I V o I VVI at 4 1 dffl VIdu'Ji or
mgani? atim I, jiny wa�' ( o� I ywg' oV d("ty � I UtIon of d �I� nlu�' sage by You Is I, U If IIY prot I i I: J[ Lc� d� I 1� you I I vM It I if r wmri Indication Mn error, pieD,fl rc V I fact Irle by rates e inai I a a[d de I utc dila
dy
unr \Ah, Wrwt po h(�m II oin You I low vv'is lily "ei vIc(!�' You call jmovidv fpr�dh'wk 4t p-888-745 8888 oi rintaNio
Page 1879 of 1997
From rhhsraic
Sent: Wednesday, October EL20249:27AM
To: Eric Schneider; Jason Deneau|t
Subject: 4611 King Street East Proposal
111 Some people who received this message don't often get email hnn
Hello Eric and Jason,
I'm ernai|ingtohighlight sonne concerns that I have regarding a new development behind my home. As a first
generation Canadian I cannot articulate how much it meant to be able to purchase a new home with my wife
at Kitchener. We have volunteered within this community at PRIDE Stables for 10 years
providing therapeutic horse riding for persons with disabilities. We managed to purchase a beautiful home On
a 2.5 acre lot which backs partially on to Crown (MTD) land and the other portion on to (what was supposed
tobe) commercial property. The new development would bemere metres from our backyard and tower over
the landscape looking directly in to our yard. My wife and | are both police officers with The Waterloo Regional
police and are very appreciative of the privacy that we currently have. There are a staggering number of
concerns regarding such a development being placed directly behind our house inaneighbourhood built in
the 1940's is not hooked uptOthe city's water system. Further to this, the proposed residential development
boasts a'respectfUl'presence; a point which is counter -intuitive as I do not see any respect with regard to the
living space encroachment in to mine and my neighbours' properties. I'm aware that you have probably
received a slew ofennails and | hope to keep mine short and concise. Please take in to consideration the
impact that residential development would truly have tothis small neighbourhood vs. commercial, amedical
facility would beaneeded addition to the local area, less impactful on the skyline, and less invasive to our
privacy.
Thank you kindly for your time,
m ChhsRaiC
From: S1ephRawson
Sent: Tuesday, October 22,2O242:22Pk4
To: Eric Schneider
Subject: Re: 4611 King Street East Building Proposal
Thanks for trying to connect by phone, sorry I was in the US without network service.
You've answered my questions and I saw the update for the meeting next week with the developer. We appreciate you
arranging that.
Get Outlook for iOS
nenerT
Sent: Friday, October 18, 2024 1:56:01 PM
To:'Steph Rawson'
Subject: RE: 4611 King Street East Building Proposal
look today. Yes, I was referring to the Southwestern point in the subject property, Your property is approximately 101
metres from the proposed location of the tower at the rear.
The vote inDecember will befor all parts ofthe applications, the OPA,ZBA,and site specifics requested aspart ofthe
| believe the turnout at the virtual meeting was between 3]-35participants.
Eric Schoeider,MC/P, RPP
Senior Planner | Development and Housing Approvals Division | Cio/o[Kbc6em.e,
(S19)741-220Uext 7843 1 7l,Y1'866-969'9994 1
I Y1.4
Page 1881 of 1997
From:
Wendy Johnston
Sent:
Tuesday, October 22, 2024 1:5O PM
To:
Stephanie Rich
Cc,
Eric Schneider; SHARON VERLEY; Andrew Heywood; Bob Seip; Krystyna And Roaelin
L 'acza;]im[sehi;KeithRevcmftBdttanyKrueg*r;]u|ieK4itcheU;
Magda Cober; Sheila Mansion; Steph Rawson; Sean Mcclinchey; Mariesa Bagchus; Matt
Vandenneesch(Emilia and Nathan Npsitse TammyScurr;
Weldon Johnston; ; Mike MiUoy; Doreen Crawford; SohtaAnd
Darin Peoad; Bvie Hall; Sue Adams; Lauren Fudop;]ackie Hathedy-K4ortin; Kathe
Johnston
Subject:
Re: 4611 king street
Eric,
Thankyou-thisisagreatupdate|
Wendy
OnTue, Oct 22, 2024 at 1:45 PM Stephanie Rich wrote:
Amazing,
Thanks Eric !
On Oct 22, 2024, at 1:19 PM, Eric Schneider < e ric.sch neido r0 kitc lie ne r. ca> wrote:
Hello all,
One of the topics discussed on Friday was the possibility of an on-site meeting with the applicant
have requested this and the applicant (Brandon Flewwelling of GSP Group) and members of the
ownership/developer group (UM) have agreed to meet on site next week.
On site meeting with developer
BRM
149
Eric Schneider
Subject:
Amazing,
Thanks Eric
51eph
Sent from nnyiPhmne
Stephanie Rich
Tuesday, October 22,20/4 //+z,/n
Eric Schneider
SHARON VERLEY, Andrew Heywood;Bob Seip; KrystynaAnd Rooe|ioLearza ]im[sehi;
Keith RevcraftWendy Johnston; Brittany Krueger; Julie Mitchell;
Magda Cober; Sheila Mansion; Steph Rawson; Sean Mcclinchey; Mariesa Baqchus; Matt
Vandermeersch; Emilia and Nathan Npsitse; Tammy Scurr;
Weldon Johnston; /; Mike K4iUoy; Doreen Crawford; Sarita And
Darin Persad; Elvie Hall; Sue Adams; Lauren Furlop; Jackie Hatherly-Martin; Kathe
Johnston
Re: 4611 king street
One of the topics discussed on Friday was the possibility of an on-site meeting with the applicant. I have
requested this and the applicant (Brandon Flewwelling of GSP Group) and members of the
owners hi p/deve lo per group (UM) have agreed to meet on site next week.
Dnsite meeting with developer
Wednesday, October 3O,ZO24
4-5PK4
|anogoing topost this information on our website (kitchener.ca/planningapplications) but please spread
the message tothose not onthis email list.
Eric Sclineider, MCIP, RPP
Senior Planner | Development and Approvals Division | City o[Kitchener
(519)741-220Oext 7843 1 T7Y1'866-969-9994 1
<imageOO1pn0�
154
�
a
>----- Original Message --
>From: SANDORFULOP _
> Sent: Thursday, October 17, 202411:02AM
>To:Eric Schneider <Eric.Schneider@kitchenecca>
>Subiect: Re: 4611 king street east
�
> [You don't often get email from nwhy this isimportant at
�
> Sent from rnyiPhone
>>OnOct 17,2O24,a19:51AM, S4ND0RFULDP wrote:
>>HiErick,
>> Did you and Brandon actually think that we wanted to hear about brick colour last night?
>> The important questions were not answered. What is the plan for lack of parking, for bikes and cars? What isthe plan
for the extra traffic, the hazard this will cause on Edgehill and king street/entrancetobuilding inclose proximity 1o4O1
on ramp)? Where is the study for what this construction will do to our wells, and who will pay for our new well if
needed? How are the people living in this building/without bike/car) getting to a bus stop/shopping? | can tell you that
there a few people in our neighbourhood right now that are renting without a car/bike .... and they run across king
street(4lanes oftnaffic). People will take the shortest line totheir destination. Not sure why everyone isokwith not
addressing these issues/hazards.
>> Your answer toJim last night was weak, about why the city didn't a||ovv him to put up a duplex. What exactly does
well have todowith it? If the city makes the amendments for this builder and ignores their own rules/policies, will those
changes apply toeveryone inthis area going forward?
>> Please send nnealist ofall the amendments this builder isasking for.
>> Also, I witnessed at least 15 helicopters and a couple airplanes yesterday above our homes. |sthis being considered
when deciding the night ofthis building?
>> Thank you,
>>Sandor
>> Sent from myiPhone
�
���
Page 1884 of 1997
Eric Schneider
From:
SHARON VERLEY
Sent:
Friday, October 18, 2024 3:47 PIVI
To:
Eric Schneider
Subject:
Fwd: 4611 king street
I've sent my comments to the Tom Rutledge who I met with regarding my well issues and the ongoing construction of
the IVITO. I await to hear back.
Sent from my Phone
Begin forwarded message:
From: SHARON VERLEY
Date: October 18, 2024 at 3:41:12 PIVI EDT
To: Tom Rutledge <tom.rutledge@parsons.com>
Subject: Fw: 4611 king street
Good afternoon.
Please see article attached.
I do have some questions about the dirt hill, but IT hold off on those for
now. A more pressing issue is the proposed development on the land
adjacent to your site. What is the MTO's position on this? The development
is likely to generate a tremendous amount of traffic.Hi Good Afternoon Tom,
I do have questions about the dirt hill but I will put them on hold. More
pressing issues is the proposed development on the land beside by your site.
What is the MTO's position on this? There will be a tremedous amount of
traffic.
Sharon
Two mixed-use towers ,�ropgsed. next to Hw m 401 in Kitchener
............ -
160
Page 1885 of 1997
A'MNI�Ca
From: Mike Milloy
Sent: Friday, October 18, 2024 12:57 PM
To: SHARON VERLEY; 'Andrew Heywood'; Eric Schneider, Stephanie Brown; Bob Seip;
Krystyna And Rogelio Lejarza; Jim Csehi; Keith Reycraft; Wendy Johnston; Brittany
Krueger; Julie Mitchell agda Cober; Sheila Mansion; Steph
Rawson; Sean Mcclinchey; Mariesa Bacichus; Matt Vandermeersch; Emilia and Nathan
Npsitse; Tammy Scurr; ; Weldon Johnston;
Doreen Crawford; Sarita And Darin Persad; Elvie Hall; Sue
Adams; Lauren Furlop; Jackie Hatherly-Martin; Kathe Johnston, 01
Subject: RE: 4611 king street
You don't often get email from yarn whythis is import„anI,
Sharon
Some comments for this afternoons meeting
Planning for high density residential requires support services and amenities non of which are in our area
Park and playgrounds don't exist
The city has our neighbourhood community centre listed as Pioneer Park which is not accessible without a car and
a 10 minute drive
No schools in our area, currently our kids are bused with times of over 40 minutes each way to get to St. Annes in
Kitchener
Road access they are planning both left in and left out to the building, this is impossible with the proximity to the
westbound ramp and the busy King st. The region just completed the re -work and took away the left/left to
Limerick as it was deemed unsafe so how can it now be acceptable for some 400 units
I cant see how MTO will sign off on the entrance and the building so close with the long term plan of the flyover
Transit stops? Only one new bus stop at Limerick, there is no room close to 401
They are offering lots of bike racks, king st is not a bike friendly zone
Are they looking to buy a house and try to get a second entrance onto Limerick this would be a big problem
Our streets do not have sidewalks and are do not have street lights, with 400 units there will be interest in
bypassing the busy King st traffic by driving down Edgehill to limerick then to the building we cannot handle any
additional traffic safely
Mlke
........:
-1991
,,,_ ___._._.
w, gatemanrnil,Loa,go—m
From: SHARON VERLEY <
Sent: October 16, 2024 6:35 PM
o:'Andrew Heywood' < >; Eric Schneider <eric.schneider@kitchener.ca>; Stephanie Brown
mom>; Bob Seip ca>; Krystyna And Rogelio Lejarza
167
Page 1886 of 1997
Il
You don't often get email from
°° PROTECTED rAf,*t50k
JohnVVisenbero
Friday, October 18\2O24833AK4
Eric Schneider
RE: 4G11King Street 4OLimerick Drive Feedback
Are you abLe to please point me towards planning department recommendation reports to counciL? I'm having a
hard time finding where they are stored online. I'm looking for the reports on these properties in particular:
0 43SGKing St. East
0 2980 King St. East
| have noticed afew things recently about the traffic studies that | find interesting. There ieadifference between
the 4396 and 4611 traff ic studies (conducted by the same company), they seem to use diff orent source data. For
example, there is a 15% difference in volume between the two reports for the same intersection in their future
forecast (2O31inone report and 2O32inthe other —Looking ataportmvvoridand king street in1arnection).
The other traff ic related item I've noticed is when comparing the ROW claiLy average traff ic voLume to the
deveLopers peak Load traffic voLume forecast. I think this comparison reaLLy shows that the street is basicaLLy
aLways near peak toad during the day (if we use the deveLopers traff ic volume numbers).
HERMIMIM
From: Eric Schneider <Ehc.Schneider@khzhenecca>
Sent: Tuesday, October 15,2O244:52PM
To: John VVisenbeqJ
Subject: [EXTERNAL]RE: 4GllKing Street 48Limerick Drive Feedback
°° PROTECTED RN,*,*MC`
Hi John,
Thank you for providing comments on this development application. It is certainly helpful to hear from you as your
property directly abuts the subject lands. Thank you for your thoughtful and analytical comments in regards to this
application. It is helpful in my consideration of the application and I appreciate it.
Yes you can still speak and ask questions directly to the applicant at the virtual meeting tomorrow ifyou choose. Also
feel free to give me a phone call if you wish.
1h
Page 1887 of 1997
You don't often get email from
Hi Eric,
Steph Rawson
Thursday, October 17, 2024 8:23 AM
Eric Schneider
Re: 4611 King Street East Building Proposal
IMG_3984jpeg; IMG_3985jpeg
why this is important
I think the meeting went well, it'll be interesting to see what the developer comes back to with the private well issue. I
think you know I spoke with Brendan Chowan from MECP, he did mention that if everything was granted that the
developer would be responsible for providing temporary water supply. He believes that if there is an issue it would come
during the development but once the project is completed there shouldn't be an issue, unless somehow a water source
was permanently redirected. We were talking more about the concept of dewatering. If the high rise concept is granted
I'd want to know what plans are in place if something was to effect the water supply.
I was a bit confused when you said tower B was 16 or 18 metres from the back property line. Perhaps you were referring
to Jim's next door? For us, based on the Planning Justification Report (pdf of 12/44) it looks like the rear right back
corner of the building will be 8.2 metres from our property (not including the patios) and the underground parking line
at 3 metres from our property (patio lines just over that) I attached a copy of the pic, the X is generally where our plastic
shed is and the yellow is our property. The light dashed line that runs perpendicular to the building and looks like it
would intersect the larger patio with the tables and chairs is the MTO fence that runs across the back of our garden /
trees.
Before the last site meeting I actually mapped out the tower B footprint using bricks and sticks. I checked the specs
based on property lines and feel like it's pretty close. Last meeting seemed busy so I didn't want to interrupt with my
"tour", lol.
Unfortunately, I won't be able to meet on Friday
but if you have time Steph Brown is aware and can point out the dimensions. There are two measurements along the
back, the one farther from the rear property line is the building itself and the closer is what I believe the patio line is.
One of the measurements is in the middle of the junk pile near our fence, that's how close the building is planned to be.
If this sounds like jibberish I'm off today and available by phone.
I'd also like to clarify what is being voted on in Dec. Is it just the rezoning? Or will council be voting on the other
amendments like height, parking and distance to properties?
I'm very much hoping that the city (and possibly the OLT) see that this is the only development in the area proposed to
back onto residential properties, every other one is directly beside commercial areas. There is so much room for growth
in the area without building in a way that directly impacts people's privacy and enjoyment of their property (for
example, luckily we aren't naked hot tub people, but a lot are...)
Stephanie Raic
111111 1111
I 7, 1
Page 1888 of 1997
From:
James Bennett
Sent:
Wednesday, October 16,2U24EL38PK4
To:
Eric Schneider
Subject:
Re: Eric Schnreider re 4611 King steast
Eric | appreciate time was limited @ the virtual meeting but | was disappointed my written questions were notansvvened
and that I wasn't allowed to pose them directly to you and Brad. Can you please answer the them in due course? Can
you also confirm we will be provided with the MTO's and Region's comments on the development once you receive
them. Thanks, Jamie.
From: Eric Schneider <Ehc.Schneider@kbchener.ca»
Sent: Wednesday, October 1[i3O344:52:34PM
To: James Bennett
Subject: RE: Eric Schnreider re 4611 King steast
HiJames, other residents are hoping tomeet with memtthat time so|hope you don't mind if|open the invitation to
other neighbours, much like what was done a couple weeks ago. if you would prefer to meet one-on-one, we can
arrange for another time or|can come abit earlier.
SEW
From: James Bennet-,
Sent: Wednesday, October 16, 2024 12:24 PM
To: Eric Schneider <Eric.Schneider@kitchener.ca>
Subject: RE: Eric Schnreider re 4611 King st east
Great! See you then!
From: Eric Schneider
Sent: October 16,2O2412:l7PM
To: James Bennett
Subject: RE: Eric Schnreider re 4611 King steast
Following the virtual meeting tonight, I can meet in person on site this Friday at 413M.
Eric Schneider, MCIP, RPP
8eokrPlauo�r | Development and Housing Approvals Division | City o[Kitchener
(519)741-22UOext 7Q48 1 TTY 1-866-969-9994 |
118
Page 1889 of 1997
r
From:
Andrew Heywood
Sent:
Wednesday, October 16, 2024 4:50 PM
7o:
Eric Schneider
Cc:
SHARON VERLEY
Subject:
Re: 4611 king street
[You don't often get email from
n why this is important at
https://aka.ms/LearnAboutSenderldentification )
unfortunately I am unable to attend tonights meeting as I have a scheduling conflict due to a plant shutdown I am
currently managing.
> On Jun 16, 2024, at 4:38 PM, Eric Schneider <Eric.Schneider@kitchener.ca> wrote:
> Hi Andrew, thanks for coming to the first half of the discussion a couple weeks ago. I am also looking forward to the
neighbourhood meeting tonight. After the meeting, let me know if you would like to discuss further on the phone or in
person.
> Thanks,
> Eric Schneider, MCIP, RPP
5 Senior Planner I Development and Housing Approvals Division I City of Kitchener
s (519) 741-2200 ext 7843 1 TTY 1-866-969-9994 1 eric.schneider@kitchener.ca
5 -----Original Message-----
* From: Andrew Heywood
* Sent: Saturday, October 5, 2024 7:30 PM
> To: Eric Schneider <Eric.Schneider@kitchener.ca5
> Cc: Jason Deneault <Jason.DeneauIt@kitchener.ca>; SHARON VERLEY
> Subject: 4611 king street
> [Some people who received this message don't often get email fron- -earn why this is
important at https://aka.ms/LearnAboutSenderldentification ]
5 Hi Eric,
> Thanks for coming out yesterday to meet with residents.
> Sorry I had to leave for another site meeting so missed the second half of the discussion.
> As you could see from the turn out, there are many concerned residents that are anxious about the effects that this
proposal will have on the neighbourhood.
ME
Page 1890 of 1997
From:
Michael Collins
Sent:
Wednesday, October 1fi2O24113Pk4
To:
Eric Schneider
Subject-
e4611 King 5tEast
Hi Eric, Thank You for meeting with us on site.
Many reasons and concerns that this project must not be approved.
The current traffic onKing St is horrific, as you experienced trying to leave the meeting, the addition of the apt will
create further Chaos
The developer tried to buy an adjacent property on Limerick, indicating their intention of access to this quite street. This
must not happen, it would turn Limerick, Edgehill Dr, and Helen Ave into a freeway for apartment traffic going north
bound
The car parking allotment is inadequate for the number of units, this will necessitate unreasonable parking on the
streets ofthe neighbourhood,
It is insane that there is no requirement for a water table study and possible effects on the local water table given that
this property has petroleum contamination and the entire neighbourhood, Limerick, Helen and Edgehill are on wells.
This property is zoned commercial in the official plan, not high density residential.
The height of the building will cast shadows on many of the adjacent properties, negatively affecting gardens.
The construction will take several years, subjecting this quite neighbourhood to unreasonable noise.
Thank You for considering these concerns.
Michael Collins
MR
Page 1891 of 1997
From: Stephanie Rich .
Sent: Tuesday, October 15,2O249:21 PM
To: Eric Schneider, Jason Deneau|t
Subject: Response to 4611 King StEKit
Attachments: 4611 King Street, Kitchenecdocx
Please find my written response attached regarding the 4611 King St East, Kitchener, proposed building
development.
Thank you,
Stephanie Brown
190
Page 1892 of 1997
Contents
INTRODUCTION...,,,"
TRAFFIC CONGESTION ........,
POTENTIAL FINANCIAL LOSS
TRANPORTATION IMPACT BRIEF ....... . .....��,w �..., �..�.�. ..,..��,. , ..�......,�,..., �.,., ;,
PARKING AND BUILDING REQUIREMENTS,____... ...... ........,,
NOISEIMPACT STUDY_, ... ���...............�...�� ......... ....�,,.� ..��..... ,�...�.,.��.,m.,.. ,,.. ,,,.....10
ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT STUDIES AND OUR WELLS . ......,.
CONCLUSION,,..,...,..,.w,.,.,.
INTRODUCTION
I am a resident of Limerick Drive and reside behind the currently vacant piece of property located at
4611 King Street East, Kitchener. I am aware that the piece of property is currently zoned "COM -3"
which is purposed to accommodate retailing/commercial uses "predominately serving the travelling
public within the Arterial Corridors". COM -3 zoning prohibits the construction of dwelling units and
retail units. My understanding is that zoning is created by the Region, taking into account current and
future traffic congestion, the current character of the community and community needs. There are a
number of high-rises that had been proposed and planned within the area, all closer to Sportsworld
drive. All of these buildings are better suited in their locations, as well as far more reasonable for
residents, including providing enough parking for the future residents of those buildings. I have
reviewed the submissions completed by the developer for this proposal including the Justification
Report and completely disagree that this proposal is in the best interests of the community. Of utmost
importance to note, the Traffic Impact assessment report was completed based on the completion of
two major changes which have not been completed, and will not be completed for YEARS. 1) the
highway 8 to 401 west overpass and ramp and 2) the LRT next phase to the area of the 401. It is
completely irrational to justify this proposal based on these two things that do not exist.
COM -3: Arterial Commerci,al — the purpose of this zonae is to accommodate the retailiing of
bulky, space intensive goods; and service commercial uses predominately serving the
travelling public within Artedal Corridors,
TRAFFIC CONGESTION
This area of community is a heavily travelled stretch of road and is currently the only access in the area
for residents to access the 401 westbound. As described by the City of Kitchener, this area is not suited
for a residential build, specifically a high density, high-rise apartment building. The current congestion
in this area is intolerable, and the access to 401 eastbound is not open right now. The access is
scheduled to re -open October 2024 and the traffic congestion in the area will increase when it does.
Page 1893 of 1997
Currently it takes upwards of 5 minutes for residents of Limerick Drive to turn right onto King Street
East, west of the proposed property. Prior to the reconstruction of King Street, Limerick Drive residents
had access to turn left, westbound, on King Street. With that being said, it was always absolutely
impossible to do so because of current traffic congestion. Constructing a building closer to the 401
ramps, specifically a high -traffic, dense property, will result in intolerable traffic congestion at one of the
Regions main arteries and create significant safety concerns. Most importantly, the builder suggesting
the residents will be able to turn left out of the property is extremely misleading and will create safety
issues.
POTENTIAL FINANCIAL LOSS
The builder has described the current neighbourhood as "Residential properties within the
neighbourhood consist of older, prestigious lots as well as the large-scale "Deer Ridge" subdivision
consisting of contemporary homes built from the 1990s to the present day. These houses are primarily
constructed with neutral -toned brick and siding with dark shingled roofs. The majority of these houses
contain two or more garages with covered porches and range in height from 1 to 3 storeys."
Construction of a 25 and 30 story building 10 feet from the back of our properties is inconceivable. The
construction of the proposed buildings will take away all privacy of the neighbouring residential
properties. More importantly on a personal level, myself and many others on the street have financially
dedicated ourselves to our properties. Meaning, I have invested in my property including putting in a
$350,000.00, 1200 square foot in-law suite for my handicapped mother, a $100,000.00 shop for my
father in law, a pool/oasis for my family, as well as a full home renovation 2 years ago to ensure this
could be our forever home. The sightline from my property to this building I estimate will be
approximately 98% and I would suggest that every single person involved in this process (except the
builder...) would agree that a building so egregious would absolutely have a negative financial effect on
my and other neighbor's property. The approval of this build will financial devastate my family. The city
of Kitchener has made a commitment to the community to not permit builds in the city that would
negatively impact the current community. Policy 4.0.1.8 requires "Any new buildings and any additions
and/or modifications to existing buildings are appropriate in massing and scale and are compatible with
the build form and the community character of the established neighbourhood.' Based on this
information alone, the city should not approve this proposal. Also, the policy also requires, "where front
yard setback reductions are proposed for new buildings in established neighbourhoods, the requested
front yard setback should be similar to adjacent properties and supports and maintain the character of
the streetscape and the neighbourhood." The proposed building is not conducive to the neighbouring
properties and severely affects the character of the streetscape and neighbourhood.
Page 1894 of 1997
PoHcYy 4.C.1.8 establishes ttiat where a specW zoning re,gulation(s) or, rnirior vadance(s)
ias/arfrregUested, prol4med or required to facititate re;sidernfiani inteansific afiorr or, a
redevelopment of lands, the over'Ml impact of the spc.a.,uril zoning regullaif.ion(s) or rinirncnr
vadanc,e(s) will be reviewed, but riot lirnited to the WbMnq to ernsrrre, that,
Any new buRdings and any additions arid/or rrnodMi ations to existing buildings are
appropriate in rnnassirng and scale and are compatible with the built form and the
c.ornnnu.unRy character of the established neighbourhood.
Where front yard setback redu.rofiorns are proposed for new buildings lion established
neighbourhoods, the requested front yard setback shoWd be sin"iiiar to adjacerut
prole erfies and supports anrrid mairntairi the character of the streetscape and the
neighbor.irhood.
The builder's response stating that the massing of the proposed development is appropriate in scale and
massing is outrageous. A 240 foot building approximately 10 feet from a properties backyard would
absolutely destroy the property's privacy and abolish the property's value.
As previously mentioned the builder completed a Transportation Impact Brief. UM is seeking an
exemption for an egregious amount of City By-laws pertaining to parking, traffic and building. The City
Zoning By -Law 2019-051 requires a minimum of 871 parking spaces, including 74 residential tenant
spots, 74 visitor, 34 office parking spaces, and 19 commercial spots. The proposal only provides the
development with 505 parking spaces, representing a 366 spot deficit. There are no locations which
provide any additional parking, except for street parking in our neighbourhood on Limerick Drive and
Edgehill Drive. Our small community does not have sidewalks or streetlights. The neighbourhood is full
of very young children, who are required to walk in the middle of the road to be seen by quickly
travelling vehicles. The children are picked up for school on numerous school buses which go through
the neighbourhood between 8 am and 9 am. The Waterloo District School Board has recognized our
community as a high-risk safety location, and therefore the bus stops at all children's homes, to prevent
them from being in the roadway. The roadway is not large enough for vehicles to be parked on the
road, and also have normal traffic and the buses safely pass and stop. It is simply not wide enough to
accommodate street parking. The proposed building is going to have approximately 730 units, aka
bedrooms, plus additional office and retail. The approval of a building with a 366 parking space deficit
would be setting the community, an arterial gateway to Sportsworld and the Region, up for failure.
Approval of the plan must ensure that traffic in this location is manageable. It is extremely short sighted
of the builder to believe that individuals moving within throwing distance of the 401 will not be needing
a vehicle. The Region of Waterloo is becoming a part of the GTA and I would suggest that a large reason
a person would want to live so close to the 401 is because they intend to use the 401. This area of the
city is unlivable without a vehicle. There is NO grocery store and extremely limited access to transit.
Our walkable park is approximately 3 kilometers away and the closest walkable convenience store is
approximately 15-20 minutes away. This area does not have bicycle lanes, has very high traffic
congestion and it does not have sidewalks towards Cambridge. We have highways blocking pedestrian
Page 1895 of 1997
traffic both east and west of the proposed buildings and it is completely irrational for a builder to
attempt to propose the area as accessible to people without vehicles. The proposed buildings would be
under construction for years. King Street does not allow street parking and the proposed development
requires the digging of almost the entire property to develop the underground parking area. There
would be no locations for the construction workers to park. They would be required to park on King
Street, which would absolutely impact access to the 401, or they would be required to park in our
neighbourhood which would cause the aforementioned safety issues. There is simply nowhere to park
unless they are going to park in residences' driveways.
Other high-rise buildings have been approved and have begun construction on King street past
Sportsworld drive . This area does not share a property line to residential low-rise homes and yet is still
only 14 stories tall. The builder has proposed that because this one building has been approved and is
being developed that now the entire rest of the community should also become high-rises. The other
building is not affecting nearby property values of residences, it provides more parking spots than units
and it is far nearer to the transportation station at Sportsworld drive. The builder's request to develop a
building twice as tall, with half as much parking spaces, with the severe already existing traffic
conditions at their doorstep is absurd. The conditions during construction would shut down access to
the 401 with construction workers illegally parking on king Street, blocking access to the 401, or with
construction workers parking in our neighbourhood causing safety issues, for YEARS. Once construction
was complete the parking and traffic issues would get worse, with nowhere NEAR enough parking for
the amount of people in the units. Not to mention that none of the residents will be able to get in to or
out of the driveway due to extreme already high traffic congestion.
5.4, Trairngrjortatio n fnripact Brief
Paradigm Transportation Softitions Limited was retained by LJM Developrunernts to prepare
a Transportation prnpact Brief for the Proposed Devepopr nernt.
A summary of the Transportatior° irnpact Brief is fisted below.
Under 2031 background traffic cor ditions (without the proposed development),
nearby app study intersections are forecast to operate: with several critical movements
in both the AM peak hour and FIM peak hour. Critical .movements are not forecast at
King :Street lust and the Westbound Highway 401 On -/Off• [Ramp;
Deveioprnent of thne site is estimated to generate 226 trips in the AM peak hour arid
286 trips in the FW peak hour;
City of Kitchener Zoning l:3y-paw 2019-051 requires a minimum of minimurn of 87
spaces, comprising 744 residential tenant spaces, 74 residential visitor spaces, 34
office parking spaces, and 19 commerciaVretail parking spaces, _p..he proposed
supply of 606 parking spaces represents a potential deficit of 666 spaces.
iTE parkkig demand data suggests a peak parking demand of 603 spaces, which is
less than the mirnirriurn required number of spaces (871 spaces), but greater than
the proposed parking supply (606 spaces).
Page 1896 of 1997
The City of Kitchener requires Multiple Residential Buildings to have 1.0 parking spaces per dwelling unit
at the minimum. I would suggest generally it is common for a residence with two or more bedrooms to
have two vehicles. I also believe that individuals choosing to live seconds from the 401, it is highly likely
that these individuals will be using the 401. Not only has the builder proposed a plan to build a
development with approx. 730 units/bedrooms, and only approx. 500 parking spaces, the builder has
completely discounted the fact that the location is NOT walkable and the residents will need vehicles to
get to school and get groceries.
Page 1897 of 1997
6 Parking Assess in nt
6.1 Required Parking Supply
The City of Kitchener maintains two zoning by-laws (ZBLs): 2019-051
and 85-1. Review of the City of Kitchener online zoning tool indicates
the subject site is governed by ZBL 2019-051. Section 5 of ZBL 2019-
$51 defines minimum and maximum parking rates. Table 6.1
;.,ummarizes
or rates applicable to the site.
'TABLE 6.1: CITY OF KITCHENER ZONING BY-LAW PARKING
REQUIREMENTS
Table 6.2 summarizes the parking requirements for the site and
indicate a minimum of 871 spaces (including 74 visitor spaces) and a
maximum of 1, 113 spaces. The proposed supply of 505 parking
spaces represents a potential deficit of 366 spaces.
TABLE 6.2: PARKING REQUIREMENTS
Page 1898 of 1997
The builder has also proposed aZoning by-law amendment. The existing by-laws are inplace for a
reason and although one amendment may be tolerable to existing residents, the builder has proposed a
development that would require many by-law exemptions which the builder has highlighted in the
following table:
W . . . . . . .................... . . ....................................
residentkil Zone F I I
i0in land
Page 1899 of 1997
Max. niurnber of sloi,
'10 stor-eys
31 storeys
_YO
base of a rrilid-rise budding or tall
rnl6fi.sif" buikfings and fall
buklorgs
Max,,, fiewspace tatio
2
7,83 Vol
Yes
develqprnenl
gross noor area
flio(�)r area
i0in land
Page 1899 of 1997
"Section 7.3.6 The proposed uses of the,Site are compatible with the surrounding area" section of the
builders justification report proposes that it respects the existing built form of the surrounding area.
This could not be further from the truth. The neighbouring commercial properties are 1-2 stories in
height and set back from King Street. The proposed building would be at MIMIMUM 23 stories higher
than all nearby properties. The builder alleges that the proposed development is "respectful" to the
residences behind the property which I consider to be extremely insulting. I would suggest the builder is
delusional if they expect anyone to want the CN Tower mere feet away from their once private
properties. The City of Kitchener requires that any new builds be respectful to the existing built form of
the surrounding area. This proposal is not. Townhouses? Sure. 25 and 30 story twin towers?
Absolutely not.
7 3 k' hie proposed se uses of the Site are, compatible atilb e soith ifuurr aa.ruu�roarrrusfluurg armasa
The Proposed fDevelr"sfrrr�rent respects the e astirrt lar.ailt fornr� of the Msurn,.)i uindirng area, The
Proposed Developrnirn nt its situated towards, the frontage of ti°re Site, redrruees the tower
helghts towards the rear of the,, Sete, and provides a lr Wsaape buffer to rirnEU0rnr7e iurrridaaats
on properties to tike SOU01. I°lie Kk)g Street Eat frontage wuli cre�_Aera striong street
presence and featuure rnulfipkl street: errtrauroes to thie r*ivrrieroial units, Rnarlld, the
Nopos,ed Develaafa'nerd %MH l:re OsuaCly alrp,:rrahng for the syrr171OUndir7garea and be seen as
as f atelad deveioprnerrt trona l..tlghw ay 4101 into d`' alredrrw.r f egioir°r.
"Section 7.3. The Site -specific provisions of the OPA and BA are appropriate" insinuates that the 25 and
30 story condo building would be similar to the 1-2 story existing commercial and 1-2 story existing
residential. There are currently NO similar properties abutting the vacant property, nor are their any in
sight to the vacant property similar to what is being proposed. There are similar buildings being
developed on King Street across from Sportsworld Drive, however this area does not overlook
residential properties. They also have provided their prospective tenants with adequate parking and
space to accommodate living in an area that is not walkable, and is heavily dependent on having a
vehicle. The section focuses on shifting the site away from an automobile oriented commercial site.
There is not a single person that would not agree the region needs more housing. HOWEVER, putting
housing up in an area that is NOT walkable, with not enough parking and no alternatives is not a good
solution.
7.3. " "f he, Site-specific Iprovislons of the OPA and ZlBA alire appropriate
rop riiate
Revo,ning the Site frc)m "1014.3 1 to iA1X-3(XX) is consistent with the as of dght hei ht
g usr;,ighbor.rr�i�°�r�aod orrr itte rt. The � s �d � f ,� r
for tlar:.� ��:��ilrrr ���arr�d surrounding � ff'tre� ra°ro ilk �snr irs��rfr�r�rar�"wt a fr���rr�c a, rw.r sl°mlf�tira,
the Site away from an autorruolaule oruerrted sotvimercrprsll site focusing cinservice omourrrr,wirrsiia i
uses to a rniared use high -der7slitwy a fevelopirnerrrt- Providing a mix of iresirienfialll, Doir ararercial
and office W.rrnes MH C.r'tglize r^niunicipaal aservuarrs g rad trans ortatlr n urr° ore eff'eic.flvel .
The builders Transportation Impact Brief expresses that the site driveway is forecast to operate at LOS F
in both the AM and PM peak hours. They have projected the driveway will provide limited opportunities
Page 1900 of 1997
for the vehicles to enter King Street traffic. The increased traffic in the area will result in increased
congestion in an already very congested area.
Under 2031 total traffic conditions (with r
development), critical movements are forecast at all study
intersections. e site rive is forecastoperate at LOS F
In both the AM peak hour and PM peakwith V/e ratios
.. ...... ...............................
f" ar16gi n"Trairnsportafloin Fpollu1ioTIsv Urnfted � Page i G
�N
4611 Kiing Street East, Kftc seiner I rii-anspor�taRlon k-n�..hact Brief � 230375 I 02��_�07
drivewayless than 0.8,2. Forecast operations at -the site driveway reflect
the high volume of eastbound traffic on King Street lEast, which
provide limited opportunities for
traffic stream on King Street East.
In 2023, during the King Street construction I had communication with the City of Kitchener regarding
the king Street plans. We were advised that although King Street has been modified to be ready for the
LRT continuing to the 401, that there was NO budget for the projected work and would not be "done
any time soon". Additionally, we were advised that the current construction site at King / 401 would be
used by the Region of Waterloo, as a construction site for the foreseeable future. They also advised it
would be used for the future connect between Highway 8 and the 401 westbound. The city employee
advised me the connection between 8 and 401 will not be happening until the year 2040. Building a
massive apartment building that is going to SEVERELY impact traffic, but justifying it using two things
that are not currently in place and will not be for YEARS is absurd. The traffic impact assessment was
recommended based on solely on the existence of these two things.
Page 1901 of 1997
4 Ftfture Conditions
4.1 Road Configuration and Traffic Volumes
NOISE IMPACT STUDY
I have reviewed the Road Traffic and Stationary Noise Impact Study which states "This Study has
determined that the potential environmental noise impact from road traffic noise is significant." And
Page 1902 of 1997
within the reports a warning was listed: "Purchasers/tenants are advised that despite the inclusion of
noise control features in the development and within the building units, sound levels due to increasing
road traffic may on occasions interfere with some activities of the dwelling occupants as the sound levels
exceed the sound level limits of the Municipality and the Ministry of the Environment." Although getting
more housing into the region is important, it is equally as important to ensure it is being doing
appropriately. Also, our community has already been drastically affected by noise changes which
occurred when the city tore down houses at the end of Limerick for construction of an access road. The
noise levels continued to increase drastically when the construction site "berm" was built and our
homes were covered in dust.
ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT STUDIES AND OUR WELLS
I have reviewed both Environmental Impact Assessments. As presented in the reports there are 44
domestic wells on properties within 300 meters of the proposed development. One of these wells is my
family well. Our well supplies our home with water that has very high concentrate of iron. To combat
the iron, our family also has an extensive filter system to ensure our water is safe for consumption.
Based on the Impact Assessment, the proposed development area ground water generally flows
towards the east/southeast, which is towards my home.
As previously mentioned, the city requires that a new development does not adversely affect existing
properties. The builder's proposal describes re -directing the ground water from the south side of the
property to the new drainage at the other side of the property. A study has not been completed to
determine the level of impact on the nearby residences. With that being said I believe a reasonable
person would believe that if ground water naturally flows towards the residences on Limerick as the
builder has stated, and that water is re -directed, that the development with likely affect our wells.
Page 1903 of 1997
Envlro na rsrntw;sl t"rds,eptor,
feature% the Site,
esEc9�rrrcs�s,"sn�A�aaactts+�e seuuseaves were observed on m�si. — -
rdaaaraclw atrrr use
ddornestic mCls were located WOr 300 rda of ffie Site.
-h . ,A Ti ...
Site Hydrogeology
The groundwater monitoring results from the activities conducted at the Site in 2017 are presented
in Table 1 and M. below:
LNAPL (mm)
Based on the depth to groundwater measurements and surveyed well casing elevations,
groundwater elevations were A for each well, Groundwaterused to
estimate a groundwater flow direction for the Site.
The groundwater elevations were determined by subtracting the measured depth to shallow
groundwaterwfor the newly installed wells
Iwo W"allig mo,"
illustrated *r) Fio '11 1•
W M11 IN
CONCLUSION
Throughout the reports provided by the builder, there are numerous areas that express concern
regarding the parking, by-law amendments, noise, environmental impact and mostly the traffic impact.
There was also a Wind Study report completed. The wind Study had the following conclusion, "The
Proposed buildings are significantly taller than buildings in the existing surroundings, and therefore will
cause an increase in wind speeds around them." I find this conclusion most interesting because although
many areas of concern were highlighted within the reports, the builder has maintained many irrevocably
wrong facts. The builder has reported to the city that the development will fit in to the community, will
not affect the traffic negatively, and that the location chosen does not require adequate parking for the
future residents. All of these things are untrue. "The proposed buildings are significantly taller than
buildings in the existing surroundings". The builders Transportation Impact Brief expresses that the site
driveway is forecast to operate at LOS F in both the AM and PM peak hours. They have projected the
driveway will provide limited opportunities for the vehicles to enter King Street traffic. The increased
traffic in the area will result in increased congestion in an already very congested area. The proposal is
significantly inadequate for parking requirements based off of the city's by-law minimal parking
requirements.
There are a number of reasons why this proposal is not supported by myself and every community
member living in the area. The reasons range from the following:
Inadequate environmental impact assessment including assessment on the 44 dwelling wells
within 300 meters of the proposed development. It is highly likely that the construction will
Page 1904 of 1997
severely impact the 44 residential dwelling wells in and area and no study has been conducted
to confirm or refute this. The impact report also addresses that fact that in excess of 70
additional trees will be cut down from the property and substantially less then 30 will be
replaced. The area has suffered SIGNIFICANTLY environmentally from the last 2 years of
construction and the area needs to heal. (King Street construction, 401 construction...)
A Traffic Impact Brief which was completed based solely on the construction on two things that
will not be constructed for over a decade was done. The proposed location is inadequate at the
very least to support to current and future traffic, without including the additional proposed
development. The proposal not only does not take in to consideration other proposed
buildings, it also relies upon the region building a ramp from highway 8 to the 401, and the LRT
continuing to the 401. Neither of these things are budgeted to occur in the next decade. They
are completely ideologic at this point and both require a substantial amount of work and
resources before their presence should be considered as the main basis for a huge
development. Outside of the two futuristic developments, the proposal strictly listed the
extreme issues with the traffic congestion in the area.
The City's parking by-laws require at minimum 1.0 parking spot per unit. The builders are
alleging that the community is walkable, and parking will not be required because the residents
will walk everywhere. The schools are not walkable. The parks are not walkable. The grocery
stores are not walkable and other required amenities are not walkable. This community has a
walking score of under 50. The sidewalks do not continue under the 401, nor do they continue
under highway 8. It is absurd to believe any person living in this area is not going to have at
least one vehicle per unit, if not numerous. Other similar proposed buildings in the area,
despite being even CLOSER to transportation have planned for double the parking spaces the
builder has. The nearby community, my community, our community is NOT parking friendly.
The area does not have sidewalks, nor does it have street lights. The city has classified the area
as high-risk for children with the bus, and therefore all children are picked up directly in front of
their homes, and not at communal bus stops. The community cannot support the over flow of
residents parking on the streets and also the current by-laws do not support this. As equally
important, we cannot support the construction workers parking on king Street blocking access
to the 401, or in our community blocking the bus access and causing safety issues for the
children.
The Traffic Impact brief expresses how over congested King Street is near the 401, as well as
explains that the future proposed development has an LOS of Fail. The approval of this
development would take an already horrible situation in to an intolerable one. It is painful
driving only a few minutes in our community via King Street during peak times and I cannot
fathom more traffic and congestion being added into the mix.
The City of Kitchener current by-laws stipulate that any new builds cannot change the current
characteristic of a community. The low rise "prestigious" properties that abut the proposed
land are exactly that. Low-rise properties that pay a lot in property taxes to maintain their
privacy. Myself, along with many others in the community have invested everything we have
into these properties, instead of purchasing cottages or going on vacations like others. If you
remove our privacy for the thing we have paid a high expense to obtain and maintain, you are
taking away our future financial stability. The privacy that we will lose not only affects our
Page 1905 of 1997
properties value, it also affects our mental health. If and when my property value falls by 40%
directly resulting from the build, I'd like to know who is going to be held responsible?
There are numerous... numerous... by-laws which the builder is requesting an exemption from.
How many exemptions does it take for the asks to become unreasonable? The by-laws are set
in place to set a precedent and guidelines for other proposals. Approval of a development that
is completely egregious and inconsiderate to its surroundings sets a horrible standard for others
to follow. The by-laws are also set in place to maintain a respectful environment between
existing and new builds.
Thank you,
Stephanie BROWN
76 Limerick Drive, Kitchener
Page 1906 of 1997
Eric Schneider
From:
FRANO3PIZZ|O
Sent:
Wednesday, October 9,2O2421OPK4
To:
Eric Schneider
Subject:
Re: 4611 King Street East
YuvdooYoftcngetemai|fmmfpizzio@mueo.com.
I appreciate it Eric that you took the time to respond. Thank you.
Mary Jane Pizzio
On Tuesday, October 8, 2024 at 04:23:09 pm. EDT' Eric Schneider <eric.00hnekjer@khohener.oa> wrote'.
He||o. thank you for providing comments on this development application. | can confirm they have been received and will
be included in the public record.
-nfrastructure, and traffic,
if you would like to discuss anything further, please give rne a call.
Senior Planner | Developmentand Housing Approvals Division | City nfKitchener
(519) 741-2200 ext 7843 1 TTY 1-866-969-9994 1 erie.schneider
Ir 11 f
0 10 V 0 CI) a) 11, C,
From: FRANCOP|ZZ|{}
Sent: Sunday, October 0'2UZ42:Ul FJK8
To: Eric Schneider <Eric. Schneider@kitchener.ca>
193
Eric Schneider
From. James Bennett
Sent: Tuesday, October 8, 2024 4:07 PM
To: Eric Schneider; Michael Collins; Marlene Bennett; Marg Kissick; Cheryl Harvey;
Subject: RE: Eric Schnreider re 4611 King st east
You don't often get email from My this is important
Eric thank you for sending me these reports . For some reason I don't appear to be on the
mailing/emailing list for notices about this proposed development. I have kept abreast from information
sharing with my neighbors. Would you please make sure that myself and Marlene Bennett as the
residents of t which is the corner property to Limerick Dr are added to your distribution list.
I will be very interested in seeing the Region's and MTO's comments. Given the traffic issues with such
Limited access and egress off King St and its proximity to the 401 WB ramp and the future planned
flyover I cant see them green lighting this project.
I couldn't attend at your site visit last week but will try and participate in the virtual meeting which l
understand is being scheduled for October 16th. Can you please confirm the time and send the
Zoom/Teams link. I would be very interested in attending at the site with you to discuss the issues even
on short notice so please let me know when you are going to be on site again. Thanks for your continued
assistance to the resident neighbors in this matter.
From: Eric Schneider <Eric.Schneider@kitchener.ca>
Sent: September 27, 2024 4:53 PM
11715431'*111
n>; Marg Kissick <.
Subject: RE: Eric Schnreider re 4611 King st east
Thanks James,
ael Collins /larlene Bennett
The functional servicing report speaks to water run off (stormwater management). Water table study was not requested
by the Region of Waterloo (approval authority for source water) and the applicant has included the online requirement
from the Region that states the site is not in a source water protection area, attached.
This application is for land use change/ zoning change. If it is approved, the details of the servicing, soil works, etc. would
be reviewed at a later stage, site plan approval and building permits. Our Engineering staff would require a Geotechnical
report that speaks to the soils and water on site. They would ensure that it does not have adverse impacts on well water
of surrounding lands.
Hope that helps, let me know if you have any questions you want to discuss. You can call my extension below to speak
with me directly.
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.schne�oder�Catchemer ca
19
Page 1908 of 1997
Eric Schneider
You don't often get email from
Hi Don,
Thanks for your quick reply.
Steph Rawson
Monday, October 7,2U24119PK4
Don Corbett
Eric Schneider
Re: Hydrology Study Inquiry
m. Legm why this is important
That's too bad, would it be worth me reaching out to someone at the provincial level?
Here's my concern, I'm hopeful that the city will vote against changing the zoning for the proposed development but we
recently learned the decision likely will be escalated to the Ontario Land Tribunal if the city votes against the
developers.
As community we are talking about hiring a hydrologist for an independent study but of course would prefer if it was
provided by one of the governing bodies.
VVeare just wondering, if the zoning is passed and a large scale condo is constructed and dries out the wells of 100
homes who's responsible isthat?
I've CC'd Eric so he's aware that a report isn't required by the Region as he thought.
Happy toalso chat by phone is that's easier,
Steph Raic
From: Don Corbett <DCorbet@regionofw/atedoo.ca>
Sent: Monday, October 7,2O241:O5:28PM
Tn:'steph40l@hotmai|.com'<steph401@ho1mai|zom>
Subject: RE: Hydrology Study Inquiry
Hi Stephanie unfortunately, Water Services at the Region of Waterloo has no interests with respect to private wells,
unless there are specific concerns related to interference with private wells associated with the operation of one of the
Region's municipal water supply wells. The regulation and protection of private wells are a Provincial interest under the
Water Resources Act. |nthis case the proposed development is not in a wellhead protection area associated with a
Region well and Water Sen/ices staff will not require the proponent to submit a "hydro" report.
�197
Don
Don Corbett, P.Geo./he/him\
Senior Hydrogeologist I Hydrogeology and Water Programs
DCorbet @regionofv/atedoo.ca | Region ofWaterloo
Cell: 1-519-503-4157
----- Original Message ---
Fronn: norep|y@regionofvvater|oo.ca<nonep|y@regionofvvater|oo.caxOn Behalf DfStephanie Raic
Sent: October 6,2O242:l2PKX
To: Water Services <waterservices@regionofwaterloo.ca>
Subject: Hydrology Study Inqurity
CAUTION! EXTERNAL SENDER
Were you expecting this email? TAKE A CLOSER LOOK. Is the sender legitimate?
DDNOT click links oropen attachments unless you are 1OO96sure that the email issafe.
Hello,
There is a re -zoning application being managed by the City of Kitchener for 4611 King St E and we wanted to inquire if a
hydro study will be done by the Region prior to the city council meeting in December. I am one of the effected residents
and the neighbourhood is concerned how the rezoning and proposed condo build will impact our well water.
Eric Schneider with the City of Kitchener advised that the Region would undertake that report.
BIT, in Z am
Origin: d-wastewateLaspx? mid =25482
This email was sent to you by Stephanie Rai
1��
Page 1910 of 1997
Eric Schneider
From:
FRANCO PIZZIO
Sent:
Sunday, October 6, 2024 2:01 PM
:
Eric Schneider
Cc:
jason.denault@kitchener.ca
Subject: 4611 King Street East
You don't often get email from i n why this is important
We were unable to attend the site meeting on Friday. However we have concerns regarding this project.
We have lived at for over 45 years well before all the expansion in this area. It is a very
desirable area defined by how many neighbors have lived here for many years. It has access to the 401 if
they ever open access ramps, but also has the feel of country living.
This whole area is on well and septic which brings up many concerns.
That property has been vacant for many years due to ground contamination. Has anything been done to
clean it up? These towers only have access to #8 with only a right turn down Shantz Hill. To gain access
to #8 to Kitchener are they going to divert traffic to Limerick and then down Edgehill to turn left to #8?
With all the towers being planned for this area it is a shame that this site
is being considered. We want to keep our privacy without everyone
looking in our back yard.
As for the bicycles and lanes I can't imagine anyone taking their lives in their hands to maneuver #8
either way, The intersection at the bottom of Shantz Hill is already a bottleneck. When there was
construction on #8
it sometimes took me 45 minutes from downtown Preston to home.
Since we are seniors and we are hoping to enjoy the wonderful surroundings we have and peace and quiet
as long as possible.
1,99
Page 1911 of 1997
Eric Schneider
From:
Andrew Heyw000
Sent
Saturday, October 5,2O247:]0PK4
To:
Eric Schneider
Cc:
Jason Deneau|t;SHARON VERLEY
Subject:
4611 king street
[Some people who received this message don't often get email from nnwhy this isimportant
Hi Eric,
Thanks for coming out yesterday tomeet with residents.
Sorry I had to leave for another site meeting so missed the second half of the discussion.
Aayou could see from the turn out, there are many concerned residents that are anxious about the effects that this
proposal will have onthe neighbourhood.
I am very concerned that no one is considering a hydrology report on how this construction will affect all of the local
wells, septic systems and the known natural springs in the area. Also the local water courses and run off that enter the
Grand River as once this proposed area is disturbed all kinds of contaminants could be released.
I personally have a dug well, which relies on a water source only 8 ft deep and I have grave concerns that this disturbance
will either empty my well or contaminate my water source, Could you please advise who | need to fo1|mvv LIP with for
redress of my concerns and to have on record in the event that this project continues?
As for the earmarked piece of land, everyone is shocked that a known contaminated parcel of land is now being
considered for housing redevelopment? how is this even possible without environmental studies being undertaken on
the ecological impact this will have?
726dwellings with noplanned vehicle access other than onto King street, and only 51Oparking spots? VVherevviUaUthe
other vehicles beparking orare you assuming the 4O4bicycles will beused inwinter? and what about visitor parking for
friends and relatives?
Exiting onto King Street has recently been made extremely difficult due to the recent road layout changes, how is it
expected to exit from this proposed site without traffic controls implemented on King Street, that already has very heavy
traffic during the morning and evening commutes, the site is within meters of the 401 on ramp, where 2 lanes try to get
across to access the highway! Where is the traffic impact study? This is a regional road not a city road.
A once sought after neighbourhood that pays higher taxes for the benefits it holds is being devalued by property
developers, do we get re assessed for the cle valuation of our properties and receive a tax reduction? Please advise who
can be contacted to raise this concern?
I have not even gone into the details of current residents privacy being taken away.
What about the fact there are no grocery stores to support at least a possible further 1400 head count (assuming each
dwelling is co habited) in the area. This is in addition to the Deer Ridge Point tower that is nearing completion down the
street, is there any thoughts or plans for infrastructure?
200
Page 1912Of1997
Finally, there was a resident from Deer Ridge in attendance who advised the group that the city and planning
department steamroUedover their concerns and went ahead with the Deer Ridge Point tower block that isnow nearing
conclusion, isthis going to be the same? This tower is now rental units only, so we can only imagine the types of tenants
that will beengulfing the area!
From first impressions kappears the current residents are being paid lip service asamatter ofcourse, sothat down the
line you can claim people were consulted.
Asstated inthe flyer, italready advise toknow our appeal rights, this suggests tVmethat there isalready arubber stamp
inplace without any due diligence having been done.
I look forward to your early response, considering that comments/complaints have to be filed by October 16th
Regards,
Andrew HeyvvoodPEn8
2W
Page 1913Of1997
You don't often get emai|hom
Hello Eric,
Bob McColl
Friday, October 4, 2024 2:54 PM
Eric Schneider
A question re: 4611 King St E
Alm �RMat
I received a notice via the newspaper regarding the proposed development at 4611 King St. and I have a couple of
questions.
How deep inthe ground will the foundations for these buildings be?
|sthere aRecord ofSite Condition for this property?
Are you aware that most of the homes on Limerick and Edgehill are on private wells and septic?
|sthere aproposed Site Plan available?
I am planning to attend the virtual meeting on Oct 16 and I may have more questions then.
Regards
Bob McColl
202
Page 1914Of1997
Eric Schneider
Fro Marg Kissi6
Sent: Friday, October 4, 2024 8:23 AM
To: Eric Schneider
Cc: Jason Deneault; BVrbanovic@regionofwaterloo.ca;
RDeutschmann@regionofwaterloo.ca; CJames@regionofwaterloo.ca;
M Harris@ regionofwaterloo.ca; KariWilliams@regionofwaterloo.ca
Subject: Proposed development at 4611 King St E
Hello Eric,
am copying our city council and Regional representatives to draw these issues to their attention as well.
I'd like to begin by reinforcing the concerns I know have been raised by my immediate neighbours:
1. Concern that our wells might be adversely affected by the extensive foundation construction interfering with
the aquifers that provide our water.
2. Concern that site construction negatively impacts the existing historical contamination of the site to affect the
quality of our water.
-1 - 4 11 0 4 -
MR&WQ14161NA11• - M HM _ • ^• • • — .�, .•- .' ♦ - • � - • ♦• -
• - • +� -•••• -+ • • • - - • -♦ • -
4. • - proposed • of - •- parking spaces Oust 423 of 1 spaces total)
grossly inadequate for s proposed - •-ntial units, leading to residentsand visitors parking on our
nearby residential• • expect mostoccupants choosing to live at the • 11 /Hwy 8 intercharill
would be commuting to their employment.
5. Concern that the area is not bicycle -friendly. It's great to have storage for bikes allocated, but riding a bike
along King is a risky venture, especially towards Cambridge with 401 ramps along the way. Pedestrians are
even more at risk if they head in that direction.
1. 1 note that the two other nearby developments (at Sportsworld Crossing/King ST. and Sportsworld
Drive/King St.) will add 1142 residential units to the area. The Urban Design Brief indicates the area is
"serviced by parks" and lists the tiny green spaces in Deer Ridge. I can't imagine those will provide any
recreation opportunities to the residents of the 7 new residential towers underway and proposed in the area.
Instead, I expect many of the 4611 King St E residents (perhaps 1200 or more people) will use our adjacent
residential neighbourhood as their green space, since there is no other available.
2. How will residents, guests, employees, and customers make left turns in and out of this development without
the assistance of a traffic light? Turning right out of Limerick onto King often requires a considerable wait; a left
turn from or into the site will be very challenging, especially during peak hours. Is the developer expecting the
Region's taxpayers to pay to reconfigure King St. access — a two-year King St. construction project including
centre platforms was just completed!
?,0,3
Page 1915 of 1997
3. 1 wonder about how this proposed development fits the overall context of the area. It is the only large
development directly adjacent to an established residential area. The character of the neighbourhood would
change dramatically if this proposal proceeds. The 4220 and 4396 King developments are in commercial
areas. There are also opportunities for development near TuLane St at the former Landmark and Indigo sites
or the small plaza opposite — also commercial zoned and currently underutilized. What other plans, even very
tentative ones, are underway? What will happen with the undeveloped land further west along King St and
closer to the 401 ?
Please clarify the process for assessing this proposal following the neighbourhood information meeting on
October 16. 1 note that a Planning Committee meeting is scheduled for December 2.
Maraaret Kissick
20,1
Page 1916 of 1997
From:
Julie Mitchell
Sent:
Thursday, October 3, 2024 8:01 AM
To:
Eric Schneider
Subject:
Re: King street Proposal
Hello Eric,
|amalocal area resident included onthis email chain. | appreciate the time you are taking tomeet with usinperson
ahead nfthe virtual meeting. We have all been and will continue to be affected with the vast amount of development
occurring in our neighborhood so | appreciate the extra effort to hear our voices.
| will beattending tomorrow's meeting at4pm. | would like toclarify where this meeting istaking place. When you
reference "on site" are you meaning the proposed site of development (4611 King St)?
This neighborhood has been subjected to many disruptions from MTO as well as the city over the last 4 years with no
sight to the end of disruptions in the near future. The noise, dirt/debris and increased traffic on our streets (Edgehill Dr)
from people trying to avoid the back log on King Street has been steadily increasing. | live onGreensviewDrive and am
also affected greatly byall the work being done mnthe 4O2. The volume ofnoise | live with daily isbecoming
On the first correspondence from Sharon, she shared a flyer advertising the proposed development and virtual
meeting. How was this distributed? | did not receive this notice vie Canada post or in my mailbox. Could you please
explain how the city determines the area size/ number of houses these types of notices should be sent to? I would have
thought I would have been included on this notice since I live on Greensview Drive at the end of Limerick Drive where
the proposed towers will overlook,
Regards,
Julie Mitchell
Sent from my iPhone
On Oct 2, 2024, at 9:14 AM, Eric Schneider <eric.schneider@kitchener.ca> wrote:
No, just myself.
1',,ric Schneider, MCIP, RPP
Senior Planner | Development and Housing Approvals Division | City o[Kitc6en
cr
(5 19) 741-2200 ext 7843 1 YI-Y 1-866-969-9994 1 eri(%schneider&itclrencr ca
<|rnageOO2.pn8>
<innage003,png>
205
Page 1917Of1997
From: SHARON VERLEY
Sent: Tuesday, October 1, 2024 6:56 PM
To: 'Stephanie Rich'; Jason Deneault; Eric Schneider
Cc: Tammy Scurr; i; Jim Csehi; Keith Reycraft; Wendy Johnston;
Brittany Krueger; Doreen Crawford; Julie Mitchell; Sarita And Darin Persad; Elvie Hall; Sue
Adams; Lauren Furlop; n; Magda Cober; Sean Mcclinchey;
Mariesa Bagchus; matt.vandermeersch(cDgmail.com; Emilia and Nathan Npsitse;
' ma Entz; Geoff Isley; Mark Parsons; Jen Isley; Steve
vrenu-u5; uuraon Stott; Peter Linn
Subject: Re: King street Proposal
Thanks, Eric! Most of us will be attending on Friday at 4 pm. I will also extend
an invitation to the Deeridge residents, as many are interested in speaking
with you. Peter Linn be attending?
Sharon Verley-Entz, M.Sc Ed
M
The virtual neighbourhood . eg is important- _ be residents wo cannot attend
meetings in person, and it is also recorded and uploaded to our website, so that others can view later if they can't make it
that evening.
However, I am always willing to meet with residents in person on site to discuss the application in person if that is what
they prefer. I will be on site this Friday October 4t�l from 4:001PM-5:OOPM if anyone would like to come by and discuss the
application the City has received.
�E wVRIM ENAMBEIRM
Page 1918 of 1997
Eric Schneider
From: SHAR0NVERB�
Sent: Tuesday, October 1,2O24O:09AK4
To: Sean K4c[|inchey;Chris Helmer
Cc: ' ' '� inie Rich; Jason Deneuu|t;Tammy Scurr;
n[sehi;Keith Revcmft;Wendy Johnston; Brittany Krueger;
uoreen Lmwron1;Ju|/e m/zcneU; SoritaAnd Darin Persad; E|vie Hall; Sue Adams; Lauren
r//doP ' ^ ~` -^ ^�agda[ober; Mariesa8agchus;
m/aand Nathan Npsitse;
~aEntz; Geoff Isley; Mark Parsons; Jen Isley; Eric
Schne/uc/,-3=.= ..=..—+ .......Stott; Peter Linn
Subject: Re: King street Proposal
You don't often get email from
Yes we aUthoughtofthat— might collectively look at hiring Hydrogeo|ogis1: Chris Helmer. We will connect with him
after the meeting onOct 15.How does that sound Sean?
Sent from myiPhone
On Oct 1, 2024, at 7:54 AM, Sean McClinchey
wrote:
Good morning all, another thought I had was , when digging the hole for the parking underground- they
will be pumping dry the water table again ! Many bad things will result in that!
Have agreat day all , Jessie and | will beonthe meeting
.
Regards
SeanK4c[|inchey
FrVn StephanieRid .�
Sent: Monday, September 3O,2O244/49:32PM
To: SHARON VERLEY /son Deneeu|t'jeson.deneau|1@kitchenerza>
Cc: Tammy Scurr< n>;
mx;Jim [sehi' {eithReycnaft
sienza>;Wendy ]ohnsLor Brittany Krueger
.com>; Doreen [rawfor Jie Mitchell
'SaritaAnd Darin Persa' ie Hal'
ue Adam- -itza>; Lauren Fur|op ` 4in
\4agda[nber
Page 1919Of1997
Eric Schneider
From:
Steph Rawson
Sent:
Monday, Septer,, .,Ci .i0, 2024 4:53 PM
To:
Eric Schneider
Cc:
Jason Deneault
Subject:
4611 King Street East Building Proposal
Some people who received this message don't often get email from e
rn wh this is imortar7'
Hi Eric and Jason,
I'm writing to highlight some issues I'm hoping that will be addressed on the October 16th meeting for the
proposed zoning change to 4611 King St East.
My family moved tc
recently sold vacant site.
,itchener and are one of the properties directly to the South of the
I'm hoping that the City of Kitchener makes the decision to not change zoning from COM -3 (88) however I do
appreciate that our region is growing and requires additional housing.
Here are my concerns in relation to the 25 and 30 story or any high rise building being developed.
J,. Livability Impact for Condo Tenants
UM developments is hoping to build two towers with a total of 726 units and 501 parking
spaces. By having less than one parking spot per unit it appears that they developers are
assuming that the majority of the tenants will not have private cars and believes that the area is
suitable for walking to public transport and amenities.
L This section of King St E does not currently have sidewalks, this was not added during
recent King St E roadwork.
ii. The closest main transportation hub is Sportsworld which is a 15-20 minute walk.
iiL Ion construction planned to start in 2032, at best.
iv. Currently scoring for a home currently listed for sale at Limerick Drive and King Street
East have a walk score of 51, transit score of 47 and a bike score of 44 (all out of 100).
For reference condos at 5 Wellington Street South near downtown Kitchener has walk
score of 93 and a transit score of 70.
V. The closest grocery store is Costco, which requires a car to transport their items.
vi. The closest pharmacy is at Sportsworld (1.2 km away)
vii. The closest LCBO or Beer Store is in Preston 2.5 km away.
b. This location is well suited for commuters driving to work with the close proximity to the 401 an
highway 8. Having a appropriate amount of parking for a residential building should reflect this.
c. Traffic concerns for vehicles accessing the building.
E The property is 100 metres from the current 401 Westbound ramp.
ii. Outside of high traffic hours vehicle traffic is often travelling above the posted speed
limit (often 20-30 km over) to prepare for the 401.
6',
Page 1920 of 1997
iii. This concern may be mitigated once the new 401 ramp is completed which I understand
will start construction in 2040.
iv. The Region of Waterloo has just repaved an installed medians down King St E for the
future ion (assuming). There is limited ability to turn left from the South side of King
Street and likely will not be able to be done safety without additional traffic controls.
L Is the developer aware the houses along Limerick Drive have their water sourced by well
and septic?
ii Has @hwjrogeo|ogystudy been completed by the developers?
[ii Who is liable if construction impacts our ability to access water?
Interior traffic and parking
i. It's assumed that there will bean increase in street parking inthe residential area of
Limerick and Edgehill Drive, every residential area is impacted when larger condo's are
developed, especially when they are only planning for 0.6 paring spaces per unit.
i1. Many people purchase condo units as investments and then rent them out, it's realistic
that many 2-3 bedroom units will be shared renting space for professionals and students
who often has car per person.
iii. Increased street parking will increase risks to pedestrians and children walking to the
bus, there are no sidewalks in this area and additional street parking will force people
into walking iOthe middle ofthe roadway Ordarting around parked cars.
3' Personal Impacts:
a. Building proximity to property line
L Proposed plan has residential patios 3 metres from the south property line. It appears
that units from this second 'respectfully developed' building will be less than lO metres
from out current 0napit.
b. Building height and privacy.
i' The significant height ofthe proposed buildings donot allow for any attempts at
maintaining privacy.
d. Damage tofencing and property
L The plans to build are quite close tothe property line, I'm assuming astudy was done on
the soil composition and they are aware there is a lot of sand. For example the beach
volleyball pit onour property was sourced byour neighbour's soil when they put ina
pool....
4. *on a personal note, my husband and | are both Region of Waterloo first responder5and cannot place
enough value on privacy and the impact on our mental health in being able to relax and live freely
without having hundreds ofpeople living along our property line and being able tolook down into our
2,64
Thank you for taking the time to read this. I am hoping that the City of Kitchener believes that developing this
*• commercially can be as much of a benefit to our growing population as high-rise housing. For example, a
medical centre for the increasing needs of the community.
One last thing to note was I was not sent a notice of the development or meeting and heard about it through
our neighbours, this is concerning considering how our property is directly impacted.
Stephanie Raic
Page 1922 of 1997
From: Stephanie Rich
Sent: Monday, September 30, 2024 4:50 PM
: SHARON VERLEY; Jason Deneault
Cc: Tammy Scurr; Jim Csehi; Keith Reycraft; Wendy Johnston;
Brittany Krueger; Doreen Crawford; Julie Mitchell; Santa And Darin Persad; Elvie Hall; Sue
Adams; Lauren Furlop; ida Cober; Sean Mcclinchey;
Mariesa Bagchus, cilia and Nathan Npsitse;
j; Jona Entz; Geoff Isley; Mark Parsons; Jen Isley; Eric
Schneider; Steve Vrentzos; Gordon Stott; Jason Deneault; Peter Linn
Subject: Re: King street Proposal
Good evening Jason,
Myself and many others intend to attend the virtual meeting on October 16th. With that being said, we are all extremely
concerned that a) our voices will not be heard virtually and b) there will not be enough time given to review all of the
impacted areas with the proposal.
We would very much appreciate this meeting being held in person, with an option for some to chime in online. Is there
any chance that this could be arranged? I believe I could arrange a location in the Region that could accommodate
everyone looking to attend.
I'm sure yourself and all other involved understand the severity of what is at stake for the residents in the area and we
would like to ensure we are heard appropriately.
On Sep 30, 2024, at 1:09 PM, SHARON VERLEY Ote,
Yes, the reference to Preston Springsexample osresidents
impactsuccessfully challenged the city. Jason, what's the update on the noise
study?
1. Proposal for the site beside Goemans
2. Three additional buildings going in where Tim Hortons
3. • more buildings wh- _ current• • - building • - •
Honestly, that's a lot of construction! On top of that, we've already endured
• much with the regional•,,• • Street, Baxter,•• • • Drive—as
well as - 401!
26G
Page 1923 of 1997
From: Jeannie LeForge�
Sent: Monday, September 3O'2O244:11 PM
To: Eric Schneider; Jason Deneau|t
Subject: Proposed high-rise development at 4611 King 5t East
Hi, Eric -
We have some concerns about the proposed development at 4611 King St East:
2. Please provide an update on the groundwater study on the plume of petroleum pollution that is travelling south from
the old gas stations on Highway 8. What will happen to the petroleum pollution monitoring well sites WM-21, WM-22,
WM-23, WM-24, and WM-25 located on the property?
2. Our neighbourhood wells are a major concern, and we believe that a water table study must be done to protect and
guarantee our water supply.
3. What light pollution reduction protocols does the developer propose?
4` Will the City consider installing bicycle lanes along Highway 8? There is no access to bike trails and bicycles are not
permitted on sidewalks.
5. The proposed ratio of car to bike parking is NOT realistic. The site will need car parking, not bicycle parking.
Thank you.
Rollie Galbraith &Jean LeForge
�7 7
Page 1924Of1997
1-4
From-, SHARON VERLEY
Sent: Monday, September 30, 2624 1:09.
:09 PM
To: Stephanie Brown; Tammy Scurr; Jim Csehi; Keith Reycraft;
Wendy Johnston; Brittany Krueger; Doreen Crawford; Julie Mitchell; Sarita And Darin
Persad; Elvie Hall; Sue Adams; Lauren Furlop, Magda
Cober; Sean Mcclinchey; Mariesa Baqchus, milia and
Nathan Npsitse, i.ca; Jona Entz; Geoff Isley; Mark Parsons; Jen
Isley; Eric Schneider
Cc: Steve Vrentzos; Gordon Stott; Jason Deneault; Peter Linn
Subject: Re: King street Proposal
You don't Own gel eiriall frcim irn why this is impqrtant,
Yes, the reference to Preston Springs was an example of how residents successfully
challenged the city. Jason, what's the update on the noise impact study?
1. Proposal for the site beside Goemans
2. Three additional buildings going in where Tim Hortons is
3. Two more buildings where the current Deer Ridge building is located
I've personally spoken with almost everyone on this email chain regarding the proposed
site, and none of them are in agreement. I've also spoken with several residents in the
Pioneer Tower and Deer Ridge areas, and they are deeply concerned about the potential
traffic issues.
While I understand that the land has been sold, there should not be an application for
commercial use. There's already too much traffic, too much population growth in this
area, and insufficient infrastructure. Our schools are at capacity, and some have pointed
out the lack of a proper grocery ea concerns continue.
We will be on the virtual call on October 16, along with residents from Deer Ridge and
Pioneer Tower.
Sharon Verley-Entz, M.Sc Ed
On Monday, September 30, 2024 at 10:49:09 AM EDT, Eric Schneider <eric. sch n eider@ kitchener. ca> wrote:
Mi
Page 1925 of 1997
Mfl&%ffy=-
From: SHARON VERLEY
Sent: Saturday, September 28, 2024 2:49 PM
To: Stephanie Brown; Tammy Scurr; om; Jim Csehi; Keith Reycraft;
Wendy Johnston; Brittany Krueger; Doreen Crawford; Julie Mitchell; Sarita And Darin
Persad; Elvie Hall; Sue Adams; Lauren Furlop; i; Magda
Cober, Sean Mcclinchey; Mariesa Bagchus, )m; Emilia and
Nathan Npsitse; i; Jona Entz; Geoff Isley; Mark Parsons; Jen
Isley
Cc: Steve Vrentzos; Gordon Stott; Jason Deneault; Eric Schneider; Peter Linn
Subject: Fw: King street Proposal
You don't often gc-t etnafl fu,)iman&why tki§.�r3iMp2rt a nj
6"
Neighbours, Attached is communication I Received from Jason Ward 3 City
Counsellor... Still waiting to hear from Steve and Gordon (Bylaw) regarding a few things
I mentioned in my email.
Steve, please advise if the attach document is the most updated zoning bylaw.
y)1sLDSD fLAN RRR Z61.1, sectio
vv�* �11 11MIll
t'!Lt,rj,
9 . .........
�gPaip 6 1 L
ion
lion
h ftp s JLap
Z,726,80,9 Cg g&,,p
rawir qjAd
Noise Impact Study
I raffic.1 i..t!t-ps: 2 Mi ftci
Noise%
4611 King St E 130 & 25 fl I Proposed - Printab
Version i
Sharon Verley-Entz, M.Sc Ed
285
Page 1926 of 1997
---Forwarded Message---
Frmmm: Jason Deneau|t <|ason.deneau|tn5kihnhennrua>
To: SHARON VERLEY
Sent: Saturday, September 28, 2024 at OZ00:47 PM EDT
Subject: Re: King street Proposal
Hi Sharon,
Thanks for your email. | agree with you that there has been a significant amount of development in the Spodswndd area
in the last few years, | do also question when the Traffic impact statements suggest that most roads can handle the
increased traffic. | am having e meeting this Monday to discuss how the TIS are developed and what goes into them.
During the Pandemio, most organizations including the city had to pivot to online meetings. If anything, online
meetings provide a more convenient and accessible opportunity for the public to be engaged, not having to leave their
house todrive toalocation.
Last|y, as we all know' there is a severe housing shortage in our Province but more importantly in our city. We need @||
kinds of housing and when the focus is on protecting our green spaces and fie|de, the only way to provide that housing is
to build up. Having said that, the online meeting is agreat opportunity to bring your concerns forward. Nothing has been
decided nor have / seen any more information that ioalready available onthis specific site.
Please trust me when | soy that city staff and council do take comments and concerns into consideration when dealing
with developers on new developments.
Please don't hesitate to reach out if you have any more questions or concerns
Thanks
Jason Deneault
Ward 3 City Councillor
From: SHARON VERLEY
Sent: Saturday, Septemoer28, 2024 12]01:06 PM
To: Eric Schneider <Ehc.Schneider@kitchener.ca>;Steve Vrentzos<Steve.Vren1zos@kitchenerza>;Gordon Stott
<Gordon.Stot @kitchener.ca>; Peter Linn <p|inn@regionofwater|on.ca>;Jason Deneou|t
<Jason.Denesu|t@kituhenerza>
Subject: King street Proposal
Gentlemen, I'm floored that the city is considering putting two buildings on King Street after all of the construction we've
endured with the 401, King Street, Sportsworld and DeerRidge over the past two years, Every decision impacts us and no
one considered to connect with us first. This deal is done I assume but have you considered the amount of traffic, schools
(which I work which are at capacity) and additional infrastructure that would impact us? What about our wells?
Steve/Gordon -is the max height for buildings in our area not 22 storeys? What about view to backyards?
Jason/Eric Please have a proper meeting not a virtual one, Rent a venue or have it on one ofour front lawns and explain
your reasoning for all ofthis.
Sharon
A6
Page 1927Of1997
From:
James Bennett ~ —_-,.~. °~�.�w^~
Sent
Friday, September 20246i5SPW
To:
Eric Schneider; Michael Collins; Marlene Bennett; Marg Kissick;Cheryl Harvey;
Subject:
Re: Eric Schnreider re 4611 King st east
You don't often get email hon Learn Why this is im ortant
Thanks Eric.
From: Eric Schneider <Ehc.Schneider@kkchenecco>
Sent: Friday, September 27, 2024 4:52:51 PKA
To: Jamp`o~-- ''
, ^
K4arQKisdu`'
Subject: RE: Eric Schnreiderre 4611 King st east
Thanks James,
Marlene Bennett
m>;Cheryl Harve � -�-- ---^
I I fie] fill I Ign jag m 11ilig IT:] air.] -4
MIT it toes not nave aciverse impac s Won we Wwa er
of surrounding lands.
Hope that helps, let me know if you have any questions you want to discuss. You can call my extension below to speak
with me directly.
Eric Schneider, MCIP, RPP
Senior Planner | Development and HouDivision | CbvofKjtnkcouc
(519)74l-2200ext 7843 1 TTY 1-866-969-9994 1
ggplp
0 0 G - 011
From: James Bennett
Sent: Fricl,?)�, Seiteti4er 27, 2024 10:55,1111
UM
Page 1928 of 1997
T: Michael Collins Schneider {Eric.Schneider@kitchener.ca>; Marlene Bennett
m>; Marg Kissick Harve,
t>
Subject: Re: Eric Schnreider re 4611 King st east
i
1,;
You don't often get email from 3rn LA this is im octant
Eric, I live C I would request that you also copy me with the studies my neighbor Michael Collins has asked
fo r.
As you are no doubt aware all of the residential properties on Limerick, Helen and Edgehill in the neighborhood adjacent
to this development are on wells and septics which work fine. We have serious concerns about how the development
may effect our wells and need to have some guarantees by the City that if the wells are adversely impacted we won't be
required to pay Local Improvement charges for hook up to City water.
IMM13393MM
From: Michael Collins I""
Sent: Friday, September 27, ZUZ4 �):Z:J:Dv AIM
To: eric.schneider@kitchener.ca <eric.schneider@kitcheneE.ca,>
Subject: Eric Schnreider re 4611 King st east
Re Proposal 4611 King st East
Please send a copy of the shadow study, ground water run off study, and water table study. Thank You
Michael Collins
294
Page 1929 of 1997
Page 1930 of 1997
re
Page 1931 of 1997
Page 1932 of 1997
95
H
CD
0
0
L. -
co
—
cn
(D
—
E
>
co
cn
LU
+-j
cn
co
cn
cn
U)
E
4-f
0
0
U)
to
C:
Co
>
4-J
CO
_0
U)
!E
N
co
(D
C)-
0
CY)
Page 1933 of 1997
V
4-J
c
(D
c
cu
C/)
7C3
(D
+—
L:
cc
70
co
co
(D
(D
_0
-0co
cn
<
cn
4.,
x
a)
E
0
0
0
4�
_0
c
0)
>1
+-j
0
a)
0
4-1
>4
L.+-;
0
+,
E
0)
(n
0
W
0-
0
co
C
E4-J
_0
<
cn
0
LO
:3
0
E
C)
m
CO
Q)
EQ�
70
C17
<
0
N
>
0
4-J
<
U)
0
0
CO
CY)
CO
co
uj
4-3
0co
Q")
4-d
-0
Cl)
W
:E
0
-C=
C14 0
CY) -r
-)� 4-
ei
Page 1934 of 1997
We
SM,
cn
Q)
0
>
0
0
co
—0
C)
co
0
Co
+-
CO
0
co
E
a)
E
A
cu
0
-0
cu
c
a)
cz
0
C:
+-
T
E
E
4—
E>
0
CY)
0
CY)
0
0
0
L-
(D
0
L-
(D
4-j
Cn
Page 1935 of 1997
m
[a
.
<
C/)
4)
U)
bb
S--
70
44
U)
1:
4-
4)
0
U)
to
U)
U)
X
r
r -
he
co
0
U)
co
a)
(1)
cc
4-J
I-
—
M
:3
0
4-
C-
U)
C:
0
z
0
Page
1936 of 1997
�>
0
Cl)
(1)
U)
0
--
U)
a)
:3
0
4—
0
co
0
06
(3)
0
0
_0
0
U)
CY)
c
CO
(1)
CO
L-
0
CN
M
U)
CT3
+,
U)
(3)
70
C/)
D
CO
C:
m
Wc
CO
(D
m
:3
0
-0
E
E
2)
cl)
r_
0
0
�O
W
C:
4-J
"
CC
LO
0
(3)
0
(D
<
m
[a
.
<
C/)
4)
4)
44
4-
4)
•
U)
to
X
r
r -
he
4-
0
00
0
cn
4-
C-
4)
0
Page
1936 of 1997
I
937 of 1997
C)
U)
0
W
C:
C4
L—
C.)
C:
z
(n
cc
U)
CI)
cu
bn
L=
cu
ul
z
0
E
cu
E
co
cu
(D
Q)
a)
0
0
cn
_0
cn
_0
0
a)
>
0
cu
to
CU
0
(D
4-J
Q)
M
CL
0
cl)
0
M
C:
0
CO
UJ
CD
ZCJ
(D
U)
>
0 -
(D
0
CY)
Co
4-J
C-4
0
LM
co
-0
:3
0
-Y
co
CZ
A
Co
4—
U)
0
(D
0
_r_
70
(D
C)
a)
E
(D
CL
(D
cc
C:
CL
�2
cn
0
E
cn
771
0-0
cn
E
E
0
. LO
_0
0
C
F—
5,0
0
0
(D
Q)
Z)
0
0
U—
0
(D
I
937 of 1997
rtz
L"
Page 1938 of 1997
0
4-1
cz
U)
co
cz
7C)
0
4-J
L-
0
cr)
a)
4-J
E
A
co
E
0
0
C-)
C:
ca
4--J
cn
®
1
4-J
Eryryyy
0a)
0
M
CU
4_j
U)
VJ
0
0
Q)
C6
:3
0
co
3:
E
CO
co
U)
0
cu
4-3
)W
.
U)
w
0
(D
L-
4-J
C f)
x
L O
m
0
CU
CO
—
n
0
(D
. —
0
cc$
0
_0
4-
U)
0
q
(n
-0
0
4-J
n
co
0
4 -cc
4-1
-0
M
0
"
CO
Cl)
2
L-
W0
4-J
�r-
_0
C
0
C/)
CO
ry
CO
4-
0
C)
Cf)
m
..;z
+
U)
0
C
0
-0
4-J
_0
U)
Page 1938 of 1997
I
Page 1939 of 1997
E
cz
U)0
0
0
a)
co
C14
A
_0
U)
0
_0
1
a)
0
0
Co
a)
0-
0
CO
=
0
c
0
C/)
a®
>,
Ln
L=
0
00
0
LO
L2
C)
cu
L—
Q)
-C
NT
CY)
x
I
Page 1939 of 1997
Page 1940 of 1997
co
N
cu
IL
1-0
cc
CL
i
Cc
10,
cD
A
Ca
m
00
r
Page 1940 of 1997
Page 1941 of 1997
cn
co
CO
cu
A
U
Co
cc
CO
0
0
Page 1941 of 1997
WA
•
C7 `--
LO 0CD
`TVA
j4,o
E E
/(VY:) LO CO
4W
j
ern.✓
m/wuJ
�
E �
�
3:
�E
imp
CY)Lo
V— l��Y
%
```[[� �ww��///jjj
"wry
'rrws/
Wd
cc
cc
co
o
cc
0
anrapr
mmnr
Lv
r�✓4
U
M
LO
J
cu
�✓
°ij
rC\
�✓
fV cnp�q/�
cu
to ///ryry p�p�ryb
WJ cn
/may p�//�y
�✓/ co
pppgyb r
w .�.
C ca
0+
_r_
W
Q)
Q)
Wco
co A w [ci(o
^VJ
*�
W✓
�/ ' ✓
//
Page 1942 of 1997
M
RR
M.-
0 M
N
a
I
MA
El I
Page 1943 of 1997
Mill
Fr.,
I
I
I
I
Page 1944 of 1997
0
0%
"
mggimj
;i
a 1945 of 1997
. . . . . . ... . ... .
M jA� "I 'n ov I
Page 1946 of 1997
I
I*
4-
> Cc
E
cc E
C)
0 -0
4- C:
.0
r— a)
M C.)
-0 _0
(2) (a)
.x cu
E >
0 (1)
Cc
cc
U) :3
U)
_0
a)
0
(1) -0
-0 D
CL CO
E C)
0
U)
_0
41
03
biD
U)
rL
0 Eu
4-
M cc
X
•
Co
4-
"
a)
+1
C: cc _0
M a) a)
" 4 -
to ca
r— co
4�
U)
A' • a)U)
-0 C:
Cj :3
-0
0 -0 -0
sI
U)
0
q3 47 0
to toE >
C co
'r-
:3:3
'0 '0 > w
0 >
a) CD
cr cy "0 E
0
� 0 US
C-0
E E cr
0 LO >
Cl)
m
c C: 0
0 0
CO (D U)
0 0
41 as U) 0 qy
C :3
E 0 0
70
0 CD (Dcc -0
0 0 6 M
G
a)
age 1947 of 1997
Yap
CL
O
0
+�4
CO
L -
0
0
4,-J
Ul)
0
4-)
0
E
4-
0 -
0
_0
E
4-
C:
Ln
E
0taA
cu
Z
4-J
< -00 Page 1948 of 1997
>1
a)
>
-0
%I-
0
E
:V3
4,
V�
CU
0
c
4� V)
0
4-d
u
u
cn
CO
0
C:
>
C:
Q)
ro
E
co
LA
_0
cv
0
4-
0
4�
0
0
_0
>(1)
-0
(1)
co
4-
C:
C:
C:
co
z
CIO
0
4--j
0
O
u
0
4�
4-d
Ln
bn
0
I -Z
co
0
CO
E
co
_0
co
L-
cu
LO
V)
C:
ro
4-
4-J
O
a)
co
Q)(U
cn
0
C)
cy
a)
4-
0
co4-J
CL
Q)
_0
-a
w
"
-o
. L<
0
4-J
C:
C:
m
0
L-
C:
u
a)
E
0
cv
O
co
_0
Ln
L-
0-0
Q)
a)
co
co
7A C:
:N
Q)
0
U
cu
co
q-
0
-+Z
5<
C:
0
0
U)
(U
L-
0
E
0
m
W
+�
ca
Co
4�
LO
=3
0
:3
O
0
0-
C,3
4 �
a)
C:
Cl)
C:
z
4�
0
4�
0
ca
0
—
u
(D
V)
41
>
.cu
CO
4-
40
E
Q)cllu
�n-
m
O
0Q)
ca
Ln
4—
0
>
ECll
cu
co
E
C:
0
0
u
Cy
0
"a
<
qJ
Yap
O
0
4,-J
Ul)
0
0
0
E
4-
0 -
0
_0
E
4-
C:
Ln
E
0taA
V)
Z
4-J
< -00 Page 1948 of 1997
oil
Page 1949 of 1997
AM
Page 1950 of 1997
Ll
9
m
a
0
4-
(n
LLJ
z
Z,
LJ
Page
cl)
i�
(D
Z Page 1951 of 1997
p IvId,
0
ApY
0
I'D
Oa
M
70
0
cn
0
u)
Q)
CO
C:
co
CU
L-
0
co
Q)
x
cn
CD
M
0
0
cu
:3
0
(D
Q)
70
>
>
�O
>
4—J
co
=
E
bn
o
L-
(10
4--J
. Ln
D-
M
0
C:
4-
4-1
0
C/)
co
a)
C)
C:
E
cn
Co
4c
(D
Z
0
<
<
:3
0
U)
CD
A
co
4-J
N
—
0
Ll-
a
L-
C)
,
>
L.L
A
a
0
4-
(n
LLJ
z
Z,
LJ
Page
cl)
i�
(D
Z Page 1951 of 1997
6
�
cc 0
(1) U)
CL 6
Y) E
4-
c 2
co 0
4-
cu 0
4-
CY)
4� C)
_0 04
cc
+� a)
cc _0
_0 co
E
C
Q)
(D
0 -0 0
co
ca
0
cu cu
0
0 0 4—
0 ryt
Z
4-
E :3
4—
tz
>
cn 0 co
cll 0 0
CU
cu
C14
co
0
N
>
0 CO
co
Cll cn 0
E Q)
C)
0 (D _0 4-
> C: C:
Co 0
4— cu
CU -"e
4�
Qi
-0
U)
CCS E
14 0
0 ;--
C/) > co
a)4-
a)CO 0 C/)
Om 0
0 C:
4-1 Q) W cn 0-
L- Q)
0 0
4— CO Q)
cll
E
E E CO
=3
0
>
ca > 0
N > cu m
C7 c 0
CU
Fes—
CU
Ln
0 W
I-- C`J
of 1997
'A
ti
............
...........
. ... . . . . .
•
PRIM
of 1997
co
L;7-
4—
ca
ca
Q
c�
a)
co
ca
c
. p
""
U-
N
U)LO
ca ca
O
(3)
cid
co
C/i
•_0
®
4)
N
v)
U)
N
0
N
E
D
.E
'J
�
vi
(D
c
W
(D
0
.
Q3
U
.X
r,
r
N
Lm
co
Li
VI
.. ..
N
CO
A
�-
>.
._
co
c�
-0i
®e
U
.�
d
CO_
J
`�
JU)
>
ca
coyy
-0d
a))
y��
`'�—
.`ter
clo
' `2
v)
4n
00
cu
0
L
.
0
LtJ
LL
CD
rn
cry
LL
(f)
'm
pp
Page 1954 of 1997
I
! I
Page 1955 of 1997
0
0
0 co
cu cu 0
0
4-
0 -0 " 0
co c
to (1)
0 4�
CL Q
co•E
c •0
co
-0
co 0 Q)
C/)
L-
0
cu
(D L- >
0 70
-0 co
0
•
co a) c
0
0
0 0
0
bo co
E
Ln o
X a
co 0 >
0 4-
•
m
E
-0
0
-0
to CO
0 tw
U) (D •
0 _0 M #E
C .—
_0
Co r-
0 #c 0
-Z 0
•
mm
E
0 0 >
bo ID
M
.0 cu a)
0 m #0- 0
O -Z z E
C/)
a) >
vi vi n cu
C�
CO
rn
0
0 co
4— zt
Page 1956 of 1997
E
0m
O
C)
a
E
M
0-0
cu
EO
>
45
C:
(D
0
c:
—0
3:
--
"
O
a)
W
C:
0
-0
>
c
_0
4-
E•
•
0
a)
-0
0
0
0
CD
4
c
0
cn
E
m
00
C)
m
0
a)
E
CNC)
*
4-J
O
co
0
0
0
0
0
0
>
0
C:
0
co
Co
CU
>
ca
0
'E
:3ca
C
co
_0
0
a7L-
E
E
.r-
E
co
5
C:
C)
0
a)
C:
C:
0
.2ai
lao
to
0
-0
-�e
0
12C
0
0
tf
(D
E-
0
a
CD
0
.0
ca
5
cn
0
co
CO
Cc
r
Co
co
L-
0
0
bo
4�
U)
0
C:
0
0
0--0
a)
a)
ay
0
."
a)
>
(L)
Q)
CL
4�
o
.>
-0
L-
O
L
U)
cc
0
0
co
a)
4�
4-
0
m
.-
0
cn
00
4�
(D
(D
0
'�j
co
(1)
CO
-0
C'4
-0
4—
0
�
Q)
0
U)
O
co
0
>
00
c:
E
T-
0
E
w
cc
a)
0
0-0
0
(n
0
cn
to
:3
a)
0
m —
0-
L-
CU
>
0
0
r-
0
0-0
>
0
0
ay
10 -
co
cu
a
a
E
o
m
0
ca
o
°�ry
-o
o
r-
0
-
E3
co
-0
L-
0-.0
0
-0
0
0
S
:3
+-
"
cc
bD
US
C6
(DC/)
ca
+
co
CO
U)
co4—
co
3:
-0
-0
00CCS
-0
0
r-
CJ
co
a)
E
(D
bc:D
4c.n
4-�
co
a)
Z;
E
al
Ecu
-0
'-
0
0
CO
-2
Q --O
:3
>
3
a7
cn bA
0
E
N
co
E
0m
of 1997
C)
a
E
>
>
45
0
c:
c
E•
•
-0
0
0
a
c
E
m
00
CNC)
*
0
E
0
0
0
0
E
0
>
0
0
of 1997
6
co
E
C6
0
CL
0
(n
4-1
E
0
_0
w
c
'E
rZ
CO
-C
Cii0
0
U)
co
-0 0
0 E
E p
to 4-
0 0 c
co co
75 0
4- cu
C:
Cu E
E -ca.
0 . 2
0
c
ca
_0m
0 0
> r
E 0
E -21 E
0 M CO
O co p t
C) 0
0 5 c -
w C/)
0
0
0
C ca M 0
0
co 0 0-
E E 40 CL "
0
0
a-0 t m
E m 0
0
_0 U) U)
cn
-0
co C: _0 0
0
E
0 -0
>a
o co
-0
0
Cl) U O r-
0 x 0
CL 0
=CO
0-
E
M E
0
(10
E
B
_0
-0 C:
C: cu
cu
co
0 cn
co
4— CU
0
E u)
0 CU
> a)
0
E
co n
-00
0"
0OL
bD CL
" cu
.0 -0
F C:
E c�
CD
c:
bD
0 0
0
r— CU
a) bn
0
m
-0
a)
a)
" =3
CU
4-
E
(D CO
E
(D
U) 0
C: M
'F m
cu
U) CO
-0 Ca
to
U)
Q)
OL
-0
m cu
a)
cu
r_
to
cn
-0 cu
-0 E
-5 w
0 C:
0
CL)
cu
•
cn
"0 cc
-0
m
0 C:
0 cu
I
1958 of 1997
Ira
C
Page 1959 of 1997
CO
■
4-J
CL
CL
0
I'— C)
CL
E
CL
0
(D
>
0
14-
>, -j
4-1 0
>
CL
0
0
0
CL
E%—
CL:
ca
0
0 cp
cu
0
Page 1959 of 1997
Page 1960 of 1997
/;
4
4
A
A
19
Cow'
M-
1
L
. . .
H
O
Page 1961 of 1997
I-
a
P
16
z
CL
ffi
IS
'!
w
Z
.......... .. .
5,E
�E t- E
Ci
Ol v
vi
I-
a
963 of 1997
P
z
CL
o-�
w
w
Z
.......... .. .
963 of 1997
Page 1964 of 1997
13
co
U)
cc
co (3) > 0
4-J
CCS
co
U) 70
cuCC5E 0
cu 0
4-J cn 0
0 4-j
cn Q)
U)
E
0 a
0 C: Co
cz 0 0
> >
a) a > M 4-1
0 m cu m m
E
cu 0 4-d E
0 a)
E cn
co 0
> cD
a) = CU a) N
0
0 0 > E E
coCD
L- M
cz a) (D r
T -0
0 to
>, 0 (3) 0.— 0 Cl)
0 -
co >1
CO CO 0 CO
CO 0- C)QJ
X Cl bo
4 4-J
cc U) )OD 0L
C)
7C3 :D 0 co
4- C)
>11 C-0
Co.,
Cj) 00 CD -0 Cc
Co U) 0
0 C0 CO
4-
>1 L) E 0Cn
4- 4-
7C3 0 CT,3
Co 70— 4--J m
CO E 0
cn cn cu cu
0
E
z E o +a)
cn 0 0 0
0 LLJ C: a) 0
4-J
-r-
0
CO 70 co Q) -0 C:
CU CU CU CO 0 co 0 Co
U) w 0 cQ
a)
0
01 a 0,
Page 1965 of 1997
t-
rt « r
• % sI
{ o �
e
4
966 of 1997
1\
Page 1967 of 1997
E
Z
E
40
0
—
0
0
0
00
a)
,-0
(3)
05
0
4-
a)
(1)
0
0
0
w
Co
ca
to
0
0
0
0
co
CC
1\
Page 1967 of 1997
w
r
.,
•
•
•
,
"""
•cn
*
co
•
,
•
•CC
•
,
`
w
"
r
,s
.
,
0
r
to.
r
•
cc
•
CO
C
E
0,
to
•
z
0
0
0.
E
20
LO
w
0
E
0-
0
0
"
C)
----
T)
-
a
- —
----------- - - -
Page 1970 of 1997
Page 1971 of 1997
Page 1972 of 1997
r
11
Ll
Page 1973 of 1997
Page 1974 of 1997
Page 1975 of 1997
X."
mul
IH
Page 1975 of 1997
Page 1976 of 1997
iii
Page 1977 W 1997
ic
sic GOV
CalOW
coU
03
coco
hUScocoo
Cc
•Co
rC
cooocolLIJ
GD4-J
10
Page 1977 W 1997
Page 1978 of 1997
V
Ell IN
Page 1979 of 1997
g
i
___ ___ _ y>.�} _
2 x- _ _
R o 3T1f10Z13J1A 3OI-M�—w�9
+rJ 4 V V ! V..'°'�1 4 4
"' ssa uu ,ss.e xan aa�i.uaa ,.v.
0 ; .t.' I' i,
N
Ro
aQ�IID
Ix
■e
g
i
___ ___ _ y>.�} _
2 x- _ _
R o 3T1f10Z13J1A 3OI-M�—w�9
+rJ 4 V V ! V..'°'�1 4 4
"' ssa uu ,ss.e xan aa�i.uaa ,.v.
0 ; .t.' I' i,
■e
g
i
___ ___ _ y>.�} _
2 x- _ _
R o 3T1f10Z13J1A 3OI-M�—w�9
+rJ 4 V V ! V..'°'�1 4 4
"' ssa uu ,ss.e xan aa�i.uaa ,.v.
0 ; .t.' I' i,
ANTE ConSU11tants
f�jo�),
520 DIY"Ilve, OIri�taCrrh:;) �`,4 B w'rX9
November 7, 2024
MTE File No.: C53549-200
Eric Schneider, MCIP, RPP
Senior Planner, Development and Housing Approvals Division
City of Kitchener
200 King Street West
Kitchener, ON N2G 4V6
Email: cArie; S lhi,,ei(Je�ir� i �oe�
Dear Eric:
Ea Applications for Official Plan Amendment and Zoning By -Law Amendment
MTE Consultants Inc (MTE) was retained by LJM Developments ("LJM") to provide a
professional opinion on a proposed redevelopment for the property located at 4611 King Street
East in Kitchener, Ontario ("Site").
MTE understands that the proposed redevelopment would include mixed land use (residential
and commercial). MTE further understands that on October 30th, 2024, LJM met with nearby
residents to listen to their comments and concerns associated with the redevelopment plans.
Reportedly, residents were concerned that the construction of the proposed development would
have adverse impacts on the water quality and/or water quantity with their potable water supply
wells. MTE understands that the nearby residents currently depend on their wells for their
household water supply and drinking water.
Based on a review of available Ministry of the Environment, Conservation and Parks (MECP)
Water Well Information System records, there are 84 well records within 250 metres of the Site.
The 84 well records are categorized as follows:
• 39 domestic water supply wells;
• 4 commercial water supply wells;
• 11 monitoring wells or test holes; and
• 30 as not used or unknown.
MTE notes the average depth of the domestic or commercial water supply wells is
approximately 40 meters below ground surface (MBGS) with approximately 75% of water wells
as being completed within the underlying bedrock aquifer. With the exception of well record
6501114 the average depth of a water supply well completed within the overburden was 37
mbgs, while the average depth to bedrock was noted to be approximately 40 mbgs. This
indicates that those wells completed in the overburden likely obtain their water supply from an
extensive aquifer, commonly referred to as the contact aquifer, which is located directly above
the bedrock surface.
u Mnc e rs,is rrt ygeV'f69fof 1997
Eric Schneider, MCIP, RPP
November 7. 2024
In order to understand and mitigate potential impacts to nearby water supply wells prior to Site
Plan Approval, MTE will be retained by UM to complete a Hydrogeological Investigation and
associated subsurface investigations which will characterize the underlying soil stratigraphy,
hydrogeology and water quality at the Site. These investigations will include a private water well
survey which includes a door-to-door water well survey of residents within 250 m of the Site.
This survey will allow MTE to characterize surrounding water supply wells (depth, water source,
location, etc.) in context to the proposed redevelopment. Additionally, the door-to-door well
survey will aid in confirming the presence and types of water wells identified by the MECP water
well records and/or identify absence water wells that do not have a well record (e.g. dug wells).
The information obtained through the investigation will be used to assess concerns related to
potential adverse effects to nearby residential water supply wells. In the event potential adverse
effects are identified, MTE will work with LJM and nearby residents to develop a monitoring and
mitigation plan to assess nearby residential water wells during redevelopment and mitigate
potential negative impacts on water quality or quantity.
Should you have any questions, please do not hesitate to contact the undersigned.
Yours Truly,
TE Consultants Inc.
Fraser Cummings, c®, P.Geo
Hydrogeologist
519-743-6500 ext. 1248
�a.siuuruuruiiiiugpiii ul ,I c.loirn
TFC: jmm
M:\53549\200\Reports\Hydrogeology\53549-200_2024-11-07_ltr_ Development Letter - 4611 King Street East, Kitchener.docx
MTE Consultants I C53549-200 I Applications for Official Plan Amendment and Zoning By-law Amendment — 4611 King St. E I November 7, 2024