Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutDSD-2025-035 - Zoning By-law Amendment Application ZBA25/001/K/EW - 924-944 King Street WestStaff Report J IKgc.;i' r� R Development Services Department www.kitchener.ca REPORT TO: Planning and Strategic Initiatives Committee DATE OF MEETING: June 16, 2025 SUBMITTED BY: Garett Stevenson, Director of Development and Housing Approvals, 519-783-8922 PREPARED BY: Evan Wittmann, Senior Planner, 519-783-8523 WARD(S) INVOLVED: Ward 10 DATE OF REPORT: June 5, 2025 REPORT NO.: DSD -2025-035 SUBJECT: Zoning By-law Amendment Application ZBA25/001/K/EW 924-944 King Street West RECOMMENDATION: That Zoning By-law Amendment Application ZBA25/001/K/EW for 924-944 King Street West for 1000100206 Ontario Inc. and 1000187534 Ontario Inc. c/o Dez Capital Corporation be APPROVED in the form shown in the `Proposed By-law', and `Map No. 1' attached to Report DSD -2025-035 as Attachments 'Al' and `A2' and further That Council adopt the Urban Design Brief for 924-944 King Street West attached to Report DSD -2025-035, prepared by GSP group, dated November 2024 as Appendix `1'. REPORT HIGHLIGHTS: • The purpose of this report is to evaluate and provide a planning recommendation regarding the Zoning By-law Amendment Application for the subject lands located at 924 to 944 King Street West. It is Planning staff's recommendation that the Zoning By- law Amendment be approved. • Community engagement included: o Circulation of a preliminary postcard to property owners and residents within 240 metres (in the City of Kitchener) and 120 metres (in the City of Waterloo) of the subject site; o Installation of a large billboard notice sign on the subject site; o Virtual Neighborhood Meeting held on February 19, 2025; Follow-up one-on-one correspondence with members of the public; o Notice of the public meeting was published in The Record on May 23, 2025; and *** This information is available in accessible formats upon request. *** Please call 519-741-2345 or TTY 1-866-969-9994 for assistance. Page 45 of 316 o Postcard advising of the statutory public meeting was circulated to all residents and property owners within 240 metres (in the City of Kitchener) and 120 metres (in the City of Waterloo), and those who responded to the preliminary circulation; This report supports the delivery of core services. This application was deemed complete on January 15, 2025. The Applicant can appeal this application for non -decision at any time — (90 days from being deemed complete is April 15, 2025). o The applicant was cooperative in addressing staff concerns and revising their concept, which extended the final decision date into June, beyond the appeal date for non -decision. EXECUTIVE SUMMARY: GSP Group, applicant on behalf of the owner of 924 through 944 King Street West, Dez Capital Corporation, is proposing to amend Zoning By-law 2019-051 to change the zoning of the properties to the `High Rise Growth Zone (Limited) (SGA -3) with site-specific provisions'. The application is strictly a Zoning By-law Amendment; no Official Plan Amendment Application is required. A single site-specific amendment is required to address built form transition to adjacent SGA -1 lands. Staff are also recommending additional site- specific provisions to ensure the development maintains its positive built form transition elements. BACKGROUND: The City of Kitchener received a Zoning By-law Amendment Application for a development concept of a 28 -storey mixed-use building containing 341 dwelling units. The proposal includes a podium/base containing parking and commercial space. Prior to the submission of ZBA25/001/K/EW, the applicant submitted a request through the implementation of the "Growing Together" and its associated City initiated Zoning By-law Amendment to change the proposed zoning of the subject site to `SGA -3' or `SGA -4', which was not brought forward with staff's final recommendation on Growing Together. The staff report (DSD -2024-128) outlined that a site-specific application is the recommended approach for the applicant, as site-specific provisions were not contemplated in this initial implementation of the Growing Together West zoning. On January 15, 2025, the site-specific Zoning By-law Amendment application was deemed complete. After discussion with the applicant, the proposal was revised, now proposing 329 units with reduced massing at the mid -sections of the development. The proposal remains 28 storeys in height. The lands are designated `Strategic Growth Area B' in the City's Official Plan and are zoned `Mid Rise Growth Zone (SGA -2)' in Zoning By-law 2019-051. Site Context The subject site is addressed as 924 through 944 King Street West. The subject site is located on the north side of King Street West, across from the intersection of King Street West and Mt. Hope Street. The subject site has a lot area of approximately 0.31 hectares with a frontage of approximately 83 metres on King Street West and a depth of Page 46 of 316 approximately 38 metres. Dodds Lane provides access to the rear area of the subject site and abuts the length of the subject site. / "ii � a �� � „� � � .�� � P 2 re '„r , i � s !'u'> � m a nib f •„..���� � S "� , � � e� ///fir' ill✓�� �:r �H, ,�p` �iiiP 94�i�1 �� "*w ua�m � i�. � 1[ g � �� �` i P%F arae �q,: • ,xw,. ! m' f� ,%f`�ul i� UT P %'7"� ��- /��iply"/i� �//i(y+ vl Q1 ri ,"i l �n .arcs Figure 1: Location Map — 924-944 King Street West Three buildings currently occupy the subject site. 924-938 King Street West is a three storey, mixed-use building containing 18 residential dwelling units with five commercial tenants. As the existing building contains more than 6 dwelling units, the City's Rental Replacement By-law will apply at demolition. One commercial building is located at 940 and 944 King Street West and is currently occupied by a dental office and pharmacy. The surrounding area consists of a low-rise residential neighbourhood to the northeast of the subject site, Grand River Hospital to the south, large surface parking areas along King Street West, and new high-rise development at the intersection of Pine Street and King Street West. The Grand River Hospital ION Station Stop is located roughly 100 metres from the subject site. Page 47 of 316 Figure 2: View 1 of the Subject Site (Intersection of King Street West and Mt. Hope Street) Figure 3: View 2 of the Subject Site (Intersection of King Street West and Mt. Hope Street) Page 48 of 316 Figure 4: View of Dodds Lane leading to the Subject Site Figure 5: Rear view of the Subject Site Page 49 of 316 Proposal Iterations November 30th, 2023 (SGA -3 request #1, Growing Together West submission) The original proposal for the subject site consisted of a 30 -storey, 319 dwelling unit mixed- use development. The primary tower portion of the proposed development was set back 8.4 metres from Dodds Lane and there was less design articulation and stepping components. V37 �i � MBIM WAMIAAAA�� GYY XWWYW WYY KING ST J Figure 6: Initial proposal prepared for Growing Together West January 26th, 2024 (SGA -3 request #2) The proposal was revised for the subsequent SGA -3 request, now proposing a 30 -storey development, with two options presented consisting of 322 or 320 dwelling units. The design included additional stepping components at the 5th 12tH and 18th storeys, aligning with the SGA -3 provisions for tall buildings. The tower portion remained closer to Dodds Lane, being set back 8.1 metres. Page 50 of 316 wv�fi ✓m,��� a«rrrr�;,aamw;�(�%lir, rc r/ r�/ 10"E�11 ''w,,,,z„ IKOM.1LA Figure 7: Second proposal, first option, prepared for Growing Together West Oudds IN r / r / t ,// / �/ � / ON WERE e Figure 8: Second proposal, second option, prepared for Growing Together West January 15th, 2025 (site-specific ZBA Application #1) Following the Council approval of Growing Together West, without the requested change for these lands, additional revisions were made to the proposal and submitted with the site-specific Zoning By-law Amendment Application. The tower portion set back was increased to 10.2 metres from Dodds Lane, the height was reduced to 28 storeys, and Page 51 of 316 stepping was maintained at floors 5, 12, and 18. The dwelling unit count was increased to 341 units. ...... . ...... t .......... . 11� KING Si W Figure 9: Third proposal, prepared for the initial submission of the site-specific Zoning By-law Amendment. 6M I I I I I 4-4-1- -4 ---- --- I -- ---------------- SOUTH ELEVATION - KING ST. WEST Figure 10: Rendering of the third proposal, prepared for the initial submission of the site-specific Zoning By-law Amendment. Page 52 of 316 May 13, 2025 (site-specific ZBA Application #2) Following the Neighbourhood Meeting on February 19th, 2025, and staff and agency review, additional planning justification was requested from the applicant, and design revisions were also requested. The applicant made revisions, now presenting a development concept of 329 dwelling units, maintaining a similar percentage of unit types. Notably, the number of 3 -bedroom units increased from 20 to 23. The focus of this revised proposal is the reduction in height at the mid -sections of the proposed development. Where the proposed development as part of the first site-specific submission had stepping at the 12th and 18th floors, the revised plan now steps at the 10th and 16th floors. This revision decreases the number of units that have a more direct sight -line to the low-rise community and lessens the impacts of both the physical massing of the building and the shadows it casts. Figure 11: Fourth and final proposal. Page 53 of 316 SOUTH ELEVATION - KING ST. WEST Figure 12: Rendering of the final proposal. Proposal SGA -3 SGA -3 SGA -3 ZBA ZBA request #1 request #2 request #2 Application Application (GT) (GT) Option (GT) Option #1 #2 (final) 1 2 Height 30 30 30 28 28 (storeys) Dwelling 314 322 320 341 329 Units 3 Bedroom - - - 20 23 Units Setback to 8.4 8.1 8.1 10.2 10.2 Lane metres Gross Floor 36,700 40,407 39,570 34,390 33,691 Area (m2) Stepping Floors 4 and Floors 5, 12, Floors 5, 12, Floors 5, 12, Floors 5, 10 16 and 18 and 18 and 18 and 16 Table 1: Summary of Changes REPORT: Page 54 of 316 Planning Act 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, a. Is well-designed, b. Encourages a sense of place, and c. 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 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. Section 2.1.6 directs planning authorities to support the achievement of complete communities by: a) 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; b) improving accessibility for people of all ages and abilities by addressing land use barriers which restrict their full participation in society; and Page 55 of 316 c) improving social equity and overall quality of life for people of all ages, abilities, and incomes, including equity -deserving groups. Section 2.3.1.3 directs planning authorities to support general intensification and redevelopment while achieving complete communities by accommodating an appropriate range and mix of housing options and prioritizing planning and investment in the necessary infrastructure and public service facilities. Section 2.4 contains the policies for Strategic Growth Areas, which include Major Transit Station Areas. Strategic Growth Areas, in their achievement of complete communities, are to accommodate significant population and employment growth, accommodate and support transit networks, and support affordable, accessible, and equitable housing. Major Transit Station Areas served by Light Rail Transit are to achieve a minimum density of 160 people and jobs per hectare and are to be planned to promote land uses and built form that support the achievement of the minimum density target. Planning staff are of the opinion that the proposal is in conformity with the PPS. The proposed development contributes a mix of uses as commercial space is provided at grade with residential units above, supports intensification, and provides housing in a Strategic Growth Area contributing to the density targets of the area, and is supportive of transit. Region of Waterloo Official Plan 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 Region Official Plan (ROP) is now an Official Plan for area municipalities which are responsible for implementation of the ROP until it is repealed or amended through a future Area Municipal planning exercise. The subject site is designated `Urban Area' and `Built -Up Area' on Schedule 3a of the ROP. Urban Area policies of the ROP identify that the focus of the Region's future growth will be within the Urban Area and the proposed development 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 proposed 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 has indicated they have no objections to the proposed application. Page 56 of 316 Planning staff are of the opinion that the proposal is in conformity with the ROP. The subject site is within both the Urban Area and Built -Up Area, and is therefore appropriately located for redevelopment. The built form is compact, and the mix of uses contributes to 15 -minute neighbourhoods. City of Kitchener Official Plan In accordance with the provisions of the Planning Act, the City of Kitchener is required to prepare and update its Official Plan. The Official Plan (OP) is a legal document that contains goals, objectives and policies to manage and direct physical and land use change and their effects on the cultural, social, economic and natural environment within the city. This Plan provides a framework for decision-making and plays a number of essential roles in the future planning of the city. Section 3 of the OP provides the policies for the urban structure of the city, establishing that growth should be contained to the City's Urban Area and in appropriate locations for growth within the Built -Up Area. Further, minimum density targets and residential intensification targets set by the Province and Region are to be exceeded, when feasible. Section 3.C.2 establishes the Urban Structure of the city, which is composed of Intensification Areas including the Urban Growth Centre (Downtown), Protected Major Transit Station Areas, City Nodes, Community Nodes, Neighbourhood Nodes, Urban Corridors, and Arterial Corridors. They are connected by transit corridors and the integrated transportation system which are key elements in shaping growth and built form. As Intensification Areas, these areas are generally intended to provide for a broad range and mix of uses in an area of higher density and activity than surrounding areas. The objectives of Intensification Areas include achieving higher densities than the surrounding areas within proximity of transit stop locations, while maintaining a compatible interface and built form transition to the surrounding area. The subject site is located within a Protected Major Transit Station Area (PMTSA) as shown on Map — 2 — Urban Structure, and as such is an area intended to achieve higher densities than the surrounding area. Following the direction of Policy 3.C.2.17, the planned function of Protected Major Transit Station Areas, in order to support transit and rapid transit, is to: a) provide a focus for accommodating growth through development to support existing and planned transit and rapid transit service levels; b) provide connectivity of various modes of transportation to the transit system; c) achieve a mix of residential, office (including major office), institutional (including major institutional) and commercial development (including retail commercial centres), wherever appropriate; and, d) have streetscapes and a built form that is pedestrian -friendly and transit -oriented The proposed development includes commercial space at -grade, contributing to the mix of uses in an appropriate location, and the density of the development is supportive of transit. Page 57 of 316 Policies a) through d) above should not be interpreted to mean that every property located within a Protected Major Transit Station Area is necessarily appropriate for major intensification. As the depth of subject site is roughly 38 metres, the requirement to maintain a distance of 30 metres from 'SGA -1' zoned land cannot feasibly be met (i.e. A tower portion 8 metres wide is not feasible), and effectively limits the height of development on the subject site to 8 storeys. In assessing the suitability of the subject site for a major intensification, the unique attributes of the property need to be considered. The subject site is at the intersection of Mt. Hope Street and King Street West. With the introduction of the LRT track along King Street, right -in, right -out developments will be and are commonplace along this stretch of King Street. The King Street West and Mt. Hope Street intersection is a full movement intersection, meaning cars travelling in either direction on King Street West or Mt. Hope Street have no turning/travel restrictions. With the primary vehicle entrance to the proposed development being located at this intersection, vehicles coming from Waterloo can turn left into the proposed development, cars leaving the proposed development can turn either left or right onto King Street West, and cars coming to the development from Mt. Hope Street can continue straight through the intersection. While the City of Kitchener is progressive in reducing car reliance and has no minimum parking requirement in SGA zones, the Owner is proposing some parking based on their assessment of market demand. As the subject site has access to a full movement intersection, from a vehicle transportation perspective, the proposed development is appropriate and mitigates concerns regarding how the site is accessed. An important consideration in the assessment of building height is the impact on the future development potential of neighbouring properties. A frontage of roughly 65 metres across four properties is available along King Street West between the subject site and the 900 King Street West development, leaving sufficient room for physical separation for future development. Further to the Urban Structure and PMTSA policies, Section 4 of the OP provides the policy framework regarding housing. The impacts of special, or site-specific, zoning regulations are to be reviewed to ensure: a) Any new buildings and any additions and/or modifications to existing buildings are appropriate in massing and scale and are compatible with the built form and the community character of the established neighbourhood and will have regard to Section 11 of this Plan, the City's Urban Design Manual, and any site-specific Urban Design Brief or Urban Design Report and Urban Design Scorecard. d) New buildings, additions, modifications and conversions are sensitive to the exterior areas of adjacent properties and that the appropriate screening and/or buffering is provided to mitigate any adverse impacts, particularly with respect to privacy. e) The lands can function appropriately and not create unacceptable adverse impacts for adjacent properties by providing both an appropriate number of parking spaces and an appropriate landscaped/amenity area on the site. Page 58 of 316 Notwithstanding the above policies, site-specific applications which seek to amend the Zoning By-law will consider the following factors: a) Compatibility with the planned function of the subject lands and adjacent lands; b) Suitability of the lot for the proposed use and/or built form; c) Lot area and consolidation as further outlined in Policy 3.C.2.11; d) Compliance with the City's Urban Design Manual and Policy 11.C.1.34; e) Cultural heritage resources, including Policy 15.D.2.8; and f) Technical considerations and other contextual or site specific factors To provide direction regarding the compatibility and impacts of development, Section 11 of the OP establishes Urban Design policies. For new, tall building development, Policy 11.C.1.34 directs for the consideration of design principles including physical separation, overlook, relative height, floor plate area, building length, tower placement, orientation and building proportion, among others. This is to: a) Mitigate environmental impacts caused by tall buildings such as shadows, accelerated winds, access to light and sky and more; b) Create high-quality design relationships between the built forms of multiple adjacent or nearby towers that account for occupant privacy and quality of life, contribute toward a visually interesting skyline, and ensure good compatibility between buildings in dense, urban environments. c) Ensure good compatibility with surrounding low and mid -rise contexts. d) Ensure that the development of future, adjacent or nearby tall buildings is not frustrated and can continue to achieve high-quality design principles. Specific design policies apply for a proposed development in a PMTSA. A high standard of urban design is required, and will be supported by a site-specific urban design brief to demonstrate how the development application exemplifies high quality urban design and will contribute to the public realm and placemaking in the station area and around the station stop. An Urban Design Brief was submitted, along with supplemental commentary, as part of the application. A key component of built form transition is privacy. Generally, privacy impacts are most prevalent at the lower levels of buildings, as sightlines are more direct than at the taller portions of a building. The residential units provided in the podium of the proposed development, being levels one to five, face King Street West only, and no units face the low-rise neighbourhood to the northeast of the subject site. The rooftop area of the podium is large enough that landscaping could also be added to screen the low-rise properties from view at this level. Additionally, the tower portion of the building is oriented as close as feasible to King Street West, which limits the direct view from the lower levels of the tower. The podium height of five storeys is a compatible height to low rise building. Additionally, while Dodds Lane is generally narrow, it does provide a break in built form and adds to the physical separation from the lot line of the subject site to the low-rise neighbourhood. The final proposal improves the impact of the massing in the middle and upper portions of the building from earlier iterations. Based on staff feedback, the height was reduced at the mid, stepped back section of the proposed development to lessen the impacts of the massing, shadows, and privacy. The tower portion of the development is located as far as Page 59 of 316 possible towards King Street West, away from the low-rise community, and is designed with stepped elements to lessen the impact of the tower massing. Section 15 of the OP provides the Land Use Policies for a Complete and Healthy Kitchener. The land use designation that applies to the subject site is 'Strategic Growth Area B' (SGA -B) as shown on Map 3 — Land Use. Growing Together West introduced three land use designations for the Protected Major Transit Stations Areas: SGA -A, SGA -B, and SGA -C. However, these three designations implement four zones: SGA -1, SGA -2, SGA -3, and SGA -4. The land use designations were deliberately chosen as a means to provide higher level policy direction, with each designation implementing two zones (i.e. The `SGA -A' designation implements the SGA -1 and SGA -2 zones, and the `SGA -B' designation implements the SGA -2 and SGA -3 zones, hence the lack of need for an Official Plan Amendment with this application). The policies are generally constructed to convey that `SGA -A' designated land may be smaller sites further from the LRT station, and on a local road, and may be more appropriate for lower to mid -rise built form, where larger properties on a major road would be more appropriate for tall built form and are therefore `SGA -B' or `SGA -C'. The `SGA -B' land use designation is intended to accommodate significant intensification at building heights between those in the `SGA -A' land use designation and those in the `SGA - C' land use designation, at both medium and high-density forms. Lands designated 'SGA - B' are also intended to serve as a transition between Low Rise Residential Uses on lands within the `SGA -A' land use designation, and medium and high density uses within the `SGA -C' land use designation. Permitted land uses in this designation include a range of medium and high-density residential housing types including those permitted in the Medium Rise Residential and High Rise Residential land use designations, and some compatible non-residential uses such as retail, commercial entertainment, restaurants, financial establishments, hotels, personal services; office; health-related uses such as health offices and health clinics; institutional uses such as hospitals, daycare facilities, religious institutions, community facilities, and educational establishments; social service establishment; and studio and artisan -related uses. The 'SGA -2' zone was, in some scenarios, implemented on smaller or shallower lots, where an assembly of lots would be required for development, and the exact assembly of properties is unknown. In this scenario, the properties being assembled were known, as the property owner was involved in the implementation of Growing Together West; however, a site-specific provision was needed, which was not included in the final recommendation for Growing Together West. The subject site is designated `SGA -B', which permits building heights up to 28 storeys. As such, the OP identifies the subject site as a potential location for development taller than the 8 storeys afforded in the `SGA -2' zone. Planning staff are of the opinion that the proposal is in conformity with the OP. Zoning By-law 2019-051 Through the implementation of Growing Together West Project, property owners were invited to make submissions to the City to request revisions the proposed Official Plan Page 60 of 316 land use designations and Zoning categorization. The subject site was proposed to be the designated `SGA -B' and zoned `SGA -2' Zone. On November 30th, 2023, the applicant submitted a request to change the proposed land use designation to `SGA -C', and to the zoning to `SGA -4'. A revised request was submitted January 26th, 2024 indicating support for the `SGA -B' land use designation as proposed, but maintained the request for either the `SGA -3' or `SGA -4' zoning. In Staff Report DSD -2024-128, staff recommended maintaining the `SGA -2' zoning, which was approved by Council. The `SGA -3' zone carries a provision limiting maximum building height to 30 metres within 30 metres of `SGA -1' zoned (or other low-rise residential zones) properties. The development proposed by the applicant to support their request could not meet this provision, and would require a site-specific provision. During the implementation of Growing Together West, site-specific requirements were not considered, and deferred requests to submit a site-specific application. This would also provide the applicant with the opportunity to prepare supporting technical documents that could address potential concerns with the site-specific requests. Following the scoping of the ongoing appeal to the implementation of Growing Together West, the subject site is now solely zoned `Mid Rise Growth Zone (SGA -2)' in Zoning By- law 2019-051 and Council can now consider a site-specific amendment. Proposed Zoning By-law Amendment The proposed Zoning By-law Amendment is proposed to change the zoning of the subject site from the' SGA -2' Zone to the `SGA -3' Zone, with a site-specific amendment to permit a maximum building height of 96 metres within 30 metres, but no closer than 15 metres of `SGA -'1 zoned properties, where the maximum height is 30 metres within 30 metres of `SGA -1' zoned properties. In addition to this site-specific amendment, additional site-specific provisions are added to address built form transition, as well as a Holding Provision. The Holding Provision will be used to ensure transportation noise, stationary noise, and vibration studies are completed and the mitigation measures implemented, as necessary. The details of the Zoning By-law Amendment are: a) The maximum building height within 30 metres of a lot with an SGA -1 zone or a lot with a low-rise residential zone shall be 96 metres; b) The minimum yard setback from the lot line of Dodds Lane for storeys 6 to 28 shall be 15 metres; c) The maximum building height for storeys 6 to 10 shall be 32.5 metres; d) The maximum building length for storeys 6 to 10 shall be 60 metres; e) The maximum building height for storeys 11 to 16 shall be 52.1 metres; f) The maximum building length for storeys 11 to 16 shall be 54 metres; g) The maximum building height for storeys 17 to 28 shall be 96 metres; h) The maximum building length for storeys 17 to 28 shall be 48 metres; i) No dwelling units are permitted within 15 metres of the lot line of Dodds Lane in a building base, being storeys 1 to 5. Maximum building height and setback in proximity to SGA -1 zoned land Page 61 of 316 The site-specific provision to permit building height above 30 metres if set back at least 15 metres addresses the `SGA -3' Zone provision that sets a maximum building height of 30 metres within 30 metres of `SGA -1' zoned properties. As noted in this report, this is the Ione SGA -3 zone provision that requires amendment to facilitate the proposed development. As the subject site is 38 metres in depth, this provision cannot be met by tall buildings. Nonetheless, the subject site is an ideal location for development above the eight storeys that would generally be permitted as -of -right. The `SGA -3' zone provides three provisions regarding transition to low rise zones: 1. Maximum building height within 15 metres of a lot with an SGA -1 zone or a lot with a low-rise residential zone: 20 metres. 2. Maximum building height within 30 metres of a lot with an SGA -1 zone or a lot with a low-rise residential zone: 30 metres. 3. Minimum yard setback where the lot abuts a lot with an SGA -1 zone or a low-rise residential zone: 7.5 metres. The zone provisions to limit building height in proximity of low-rise zones was an outcome of community engagement through the development of Growing Together West as a means of easing transition between the taller built forms permitted in the 'SGA -3' and `SGA -4' zones and nearby lower -rise areas. The first and third provisions are maintained by the proposed development. The height of the podium is 19.3 metres and is within 15 metres of the `SGA -1' zoned properties lot line, meeting the requirement of the zone provision. Dodds Lane separates the subject site from the `SGA -`1 zoned properties, and as such does not "abut". The physical distance from the lot line of the `SGA -1' zoned properties and the proposed development is approximately 8 metres, meeting the intent of the provision. The height of the podium is an integral component of the proposed development's transition to the low rise neighbourhood. As noted above, the 19.3 metre height of the podium complies with the maximum height restriction within 15 metres of `SGA -1' zoned land, and the proposed five levels complies with the maximum base height of 6 levels permitted in the `SGA -3' Zone. The podium is the nearest portion of the proposed development to the low-rise neighbourhood, and at the proposed height, complies with all zone provisions. Five storeys is an appropriate transition to low-rise built forms, such as low rise detached housing. The resultant zoning provisions are a function of height and transition, which calls for justification regarding if (1) the height of the proposal is appropriate for the location, and (2) is appropriate transition in place that meets the intent of the zone provision? In addition, the introduction of a site-specific provision for built form transition relies on the unique aspects of the subject site. This is necessary to avoid future applicants from simply "designing" their way out of meeting zone provisions and address OP policy 3.C.2.17 stating that not every property located within a PMTSA is necessarily appropriate for major intensification. As indicated in the assessment of the OP above, the proposed development conforms to urban design and transition policies. Maximum building height and length at select storeys Page 62 of 316 The site-specific provisions to limit building height at specific floors corresponds to the floor plate provision of the `SGA -3' Zone. In the SGA -3 (and SGA -4) zone, limits are introduced on the building length and floor plate area at different height ranges so as to ensure tall buildings are managed as they get taller. The specific storey ranges are: 1-6; 7- 12; 13-18; 19-36; 37+. In the ZBA submission, the proposed development maximized the building length in each range. As these ranges and limits are used to manage the height of tall buildings, staff are of the opinion that it would be more appropriate to lower these height ranges to assist in the transition to the low rise neighbourhood, as the 30 metre height limit within 30 metres of these properties could not be attained. The applicant was cooperative in making changes, which included lowering the mid -sections of the building. No dwellina units permitted within 15 metres of Dodds Lane within the podium The site-specific provision that prohibits dwelling units from being oriented towards the low-rise neighbourhood is implemented to respond to privacy concerns to the community. As noted in the assessment of the OP, privacy impacts are the most prevalent at the low levels of buildings where sightlines are most direct. By prohibiting where dwellings can be located in the base of the building, privacy concerns can be mitigated. Department and Agency Comments: Circulation of the Zoning By-law Amendment Application was undertaken to all applicable City departments and other review authorities. The comments are included in Attachment `C'. Additional justification was requested from the applicant to support the requested site- specific amendment. The following Reports and Studies were considered as part of this proposed Zoning By- law Amendment: Planning Justification Report Prepared by: GSP Group, December 2024 Planning Justification Addendum 1 Prepared by: GSP Group, March 12, 2025 Planning Justification Addendum 2 Prepared by: GSP Group, May 13, 2025 Urban Design Brief: Prepared by: GSP Group, November 2024 Architectural Package (including site plan, elevations, floor plans, shadow study): Prepared by: ABA Architects, December 11, 2024 Revised Architectural Package (including site plan, elevations, floor plans, shadow study): Prepared by: ABA Architects, May 9, 2024 Transportation Impact Study Prepared by: Paradigm Transportation Solutions Limited, December 2024 Transportation Impact Study Addendum Page 63 of 316 Prepared by: Paradigm Transportation Solutions Limited, May 7, 2025 Functional Servicing and Stormwater Management Report Prepared by: Walter Fedy, October 1, 2024 Geotechnical Report Prepared by: Englobe Corp, October 4, 2024 Noise Study Prepared by: SLR Consulting, December 9, 2024 Wind Study Prepared by: SLR Consulting, December 9, 2024 Sustainability Statement Prepared by: GSP Group, December 18, 2024 Vegetation Management Plan Prepared by: GSP Group, December 16, 2024 Community Input and Staff Responses: Staff received written responses from 15 community members with respect to the proposed development. The comments received are included in Attachment 'D'. A Neighbourhood Meeting was held on February 19, 2025. A summary of what we heard, and staff responses are noted below. What We Heard Staff Comment The proposed development will cast large The shadow study submitted by the shadows over the neighbourhood applicant demonstrates the shadow impacts at 2 -hour intervals at each solstice/equinox. The summer solstice, where outdoor activity is at its greatest, shows generally minor shadow impacts to the neighbourhood. An inadequate supply of parking is The SGA zones do not require a minimum proposed amount of parking be provided. The intent of this provision is supported by the proximity to rapid transit and the walkability of the area. Future tenants will be aware of the number of parking spaces their unit will have, and it is not expected that tenants will purchase/rent an apartment that does not provide a compatible number of parking spaces. Further, the Planning Act prohibits any minimum parking requirements in PMTAs throughout Ontario. As such, Council cannot require a Page 64 of 316 Page 65 of 316 minimum parking rate for the proposed development. The proposed development will generate Transportation staff have reviewed the too much traffic Traffic Impact Study, and Addendum, prepared by the applicant team and do not have concerns with the level of traffic that would be generated. As noted above, the main vehicle access to the proposed development is from King Street. The height and density are too great for Based on the above planning analysis, the the site height and density are consistent with and in conformity to the Provincial Planning Statement, Region of Waterloo Official Plan, and City of Kitchener Official Plan. Stepbacks and setbacks, as recommended by staff, are a standard practice used to regulate building mass and appearance. PMTAs are a strategic growth area that are planned for growth, and properties with frontage along King Street are planned for increased building heights and densities. The construction of tall buildings will have Staff evaluate development applications negatively psychological impacts to those and proposed built -form using applicable living in the area legislation and Council -approved documents, including the Official Plan and the Urban Design Manual. These include measures to guide physical separation, setbacks, shadow impact, lighting, wind, noise, and more to create safe and livable communities. Dodds Lane is inappropriate for access All vehicle movements will have access to and is not a sufficient buffer to a tall the full movement access along King building Street West. Access to below grade parking is from Dodds Lane only. Access to the podium parking does not require vehicles to travel on Dodds Lane. Vehicles may exit the site using Dodds Lane, which leads to a right turn only onto King Street West. All vehicles may also exit the site using the full movements access along King Street West. As such, it is not anticipated that the majority of traffic will use Dodds Lane for access/egress. Page 65 of 316 Current business tenants will need to move Two commercial units are provided in the which could put them out of business proposed development which could serve as the new locations for the existing businesses. The property owner was advised of the potential impacts to their tenants and were encouraged to work with them on their lease agreements and potential relocation. There is insufficient park land in the area to As identified in Places and Spaces: An support the development Open Space Strategy for Kitchener, the KW Hospital Planning Community is currently critically underserved. Cash -in - lieu of parkland will be collected at the Site Plan Approval stage, the funds of which can be contributed to improving the provision of parkland and potential land acquisition over time. The development will also include on-site amenity space for residents of the building. There will be a loss of privacy due to the Generally, privacy impacts are most additional units prevalent at the lower levels of buildings, as sightlines are more direct than at the taller portions of a building. The dwelling units provided in the podium of the proposed development, being levels one to five, face King Street West only, and no units face the low-rise neighbourhood to the northeast of the subject site. The rooftop area of the podium is large enough that landscaping could also be added to screen the low-rise properties from view at this level. Additionally, the tower portion of the building is oriented as close as feasible to King Street West, which limits the direct view from the lower levels of the tower. New development should prioritize As the subject site is within a PMTSA, affordable units inclusionary zoning, or the provision of affordable units, will be a component of the development. Currently, the gross leasable residential floor area to be provided as affordable dwelling units is 1 %. The 18 rental dwelling units on the Subject Site are subject to the Rental Replacement By-law. The Rental Replacement By -Law Page 66 of 316 requires applicants that are proposing to demolish or convert six or more rental units to offer compensation to existing tenants, and to replace demolished or converted units with affordable rental units for a period of 10 years. The By -Law protects rental units that are subject to a Planning Act application whether or not the units are located in one building, or are located in multiple buildings on multiple lots subject to the same application. Units in buildings subject to an application that have been vacant for less than six months are subject to the By - Law's obligation to provide an equal number of affordable rental units in the proposed development. Tenants are offered the choice of three forms of compensation: 1. A rent payout equal to 10 times the monthly rent of the unit, and an agreement to vacate the unit thereafter. 2. A rent exemption for a period of one year, and an agreement to vacate the unit thereafter. 3. A temporary replacement unit provided by the applicant and rented at the same rate as their existing unit, and the first right of refusal to accept a permanent replacement unit in the proposed development once complete. Planning Conclusions It is important to ensure that the intent of the SGA Zone regulations, as approved by Council, are maintained and implemented consistently. Policies in the Official Plan provide criteria that must be evaluated where relief is being sought to the SGA zoning regulations. There may be site-specific reasons and criteria that make amendments to the approved regulations appropriate. In this case, staff worked with the applicant to revise the development proposal to ensure that the intent of the regulations approved by Council is maintained. Staff are satisfied with the site-specific design as revised for the subject site. Page 67 of 316 Consideration of this site-specific application should not be taken as a precedent for other applications within strategic growth areas. All applications must be reviewed and considered for their own merit and general compliance with the regulations in the zoning By-law and intent of the Official Plan. Built -form zoning regulations are a critical component of building a healthy, safe environment for all who live, work, and visit Kitchener's PMTSAs, while still allowing for abundant housing supply. In considering the foregoing, staff are supportive of the Zoning By-law Amendment Application. Staff are of the opinion that the subject application is consistent with policies of the Provincial Planning Statement (2024), conforms to the Regional Official Plan, and the City of Kitchener Official Plan and represents good planning. Staff recommends that the application be approved. STRATEGIC PLAN ALIGNMENT: This report supports the delivery of core services. FINANCIAL IMPLICATIONS: Capital Budget — The recommendation has no impact on the Capital Budget. Operating Budget — The recommendation has no impact on the Operating Budget. COMMUNITY ENGAGEMENT: INFORM — This report has been posted to the City's website with the agenda in advance of the Council / Committee meeting. One large notice sign was posted on the property and information regarding the application was posted to the City's website in January of 2025. Following the initial circulation referenced below, an additional postcard advising of the statutory public meeting was circulated to all Kitchener residents and property owners within 240 metres and Waterloo residents and property owners within 120 metres of the subject site, and those responding to the preliminary circulation. Notice of the Statutory Public Meeting was also posted in The Record on May 23, 2025 (a copy of the Notice may be found in Attachment `B'). CONSULT — The proposed Zoning By-law Amendment was circulated to Kitchener residents and property owners within 240 metres and Waterloo residents and property owners within 120 metres of the subject site on May 17, 2025. In response to this circulation, staff received written responses from 15 members of the public, which were summarized as part of this staff report. Planning staff also had one-on-one conversations with residents on the telephone and responded to emails. PREVIOUS REPORTS/AUTHORITIES: Planning Act, R.S.O. 1990, c.P.13 Provincial Planning Statement, 2024 Region of Waterloo Official Plan Page 68 of 316 • City of Kitchener Official Plan • City of Kitchener Zoning By-law 2019-051 • Growing Together — Protected Major Transit Station Area Land Use and Zoning Framework DSD -2024-005 • Supplemental Report to DSD -2024-005: Growing Together — Protected Major Transit Station Area Land Use and Zoning Framework DSD -2024-128 REVIEWED BY: Tina Malone -Wright, Manager, Development Approvals, Development and Housing Approvals Division APPROVED BY: Justin, Readman, General Manager of Development Services ATTACHMENTS: Attachment Al - By-law to amend Zoning By-law 2019-051 Attachment A2 - Map No. 1 Attachment B - Newspaper notice Attachment C - Department and Agency Comments Attachment D - Public Comments Attachment E - Original Proposal - Site Plan Attachment F1 - Second Proposal — Option 1 Site Plan Attachment F2 — Second Proposal — Option 2 Site Plan Attachment G - Third Proposal - Site Plan Attachment H - Final Proposal - Site Plan Attachment I — Urban Design Brief, dated November 2024 Page 69 of 316 PROPOSED BY — LAW ,2025 BY-LAW NUMBER OF THE CORPORATION OF THE CITY OF KITCHENER (Being a by-law to amend By-law 2019-051, as amended, known as the Zoning By-law for the City of Kitchener - 1000100206 Ontario Inc. and 1000187534 Ontario Inc. — 924-944 King Street West) WHEREAS it is deemed expedient to amend By-law 2019-051 for the land specified above; NOW THEREFORE the Council of the Corporation of the City of Kitchener enacts as follows: 1. Zoning Grid Schedule Number 39 of Appendix "A" to By-law Number 2019-051 is hereby amended by changing the zoning applicable to the parcels of land specified and illustrated as Area 1 on Map No. 1, in the City of Kitchener, attached hereto, from Mid Rise Growth Zone (SGA -2) to High Rise Growth Zone (Limited) (SGA -3) with Site Specific Provision (435) and Holding Provision (113H). 2. Section 19 of By-law 2019-051 is hereby amended by adding Section 435 hereto as follows: "435. Notwithstanding Table 6-5 of this By-law within the lands zoned High Rise Growth Zone (Limited) (SGA -3) and shown as affected by this subsection on Zoning Grid Schedule Number 39 of Appendix `A', the following special regulations shall apply: a) The maximum building height within 30 metres of a lot with an SGA -1 zone or a lot with a low-rise residential zone shall be 96 metres; b) The minimum yard setback from the lot line of Dodds Lane for storeys 6 to 28 shall be 15 metres; Page 70 of 316 c) The maximum building height for storeys 6 to 10 shall be 32.5 metres; d) The maximum building length for storeys 6 to 10 shall be 60 metres; e) The maximum building height for storeys 11 to 16 shall be 52.1 metres; f) The maximum building length for storeys 11 to 16 shall be 54 metres; g) The maximum building height for storeys 17 to 28 shall be 96 metres; h) The maximum building length for storeys 17 to 28 shall be 48 metres; i) No dwelling units are permitted within 15 metres of the lot line of Dodds Lane in a building base, being storeys 1 to 5." 3. Section 20 of By-law 2019-051 is hereby amended by adding Holding Provision 113H hereto as follows: "(113H). Notwithstanding Section 6 of this By-law within the lands zoned High Rise Growth Zone (Limited) (SGA -3) with Holding Provision 113H and shown as affected by this subsection on Zoning Grid Schedule Number 39 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 satisfactory Detailed Transportation Noise, Stationary Noise Study, and Vibration Study has been completed, and implementation measures have been addressed, to the satisfaction of the City and/or Region, and this holding provision has been removed by by-law." PASSED at the Council Chambers in the City of Kitchener this day of , 2025. Mayor Clerk Page 71 of 316 m FL C7 � D � N Dz LU W H M N Lij LU JY LL E Qw� 0 z 0 (DM N w to Q > a m N w.,zx O Q z w z z J Ln co > w 0zO� JZNN0NNNN d ? o N N O O Z N Q N z F 2 H H W o U Z W Q Y J � ~ D °° _ O�U> m x000�a iu Y z w C� g Z O z z Q LU UL� O C� d U) Q w� W W cn cn c? U) Q J WM- EE W z N Q z L Q � W W dC� C,) o- 0 XN+ coN a Z 0'CO U)Z w o�wo z �� w X 2 2 �,�a�o_0_0_ O pW 0W' N �zw Q W �z L) o�o 3<O �xx a� CDLU Z H Z Z �� m z4l— x ww0x�o Q c� N Cl) yr �� Q a¢ Q www2 zxQU W H Z H fA Of z QQ�F�Q r w o o o o m Z O (A CA (A CA e oC)LLL N(nOY� Cis �6 Jl Wp 04 v^" �_ = :C? W Z W N NZ to co (9 ao �,� (Z� Z U' Go 2 a W �� > � ,�-- Q OU) o _ N .... liy = Q 2 Q 7 Z Q r^ Q= TLI) co vC) y, ( J J Lu r v ^ ^1^ m a J Q (nv (' JIJ Q LU > opo Z U o Z LL M N y�(Vi) O O 9L37nO3HOS_ 37nGgHOS - - - - - - - -C? 65 �Q Q C7 i IIID 0 LOo N W CD C14 WC) � N O W l W 'r' Z o W O� V 0 CU) LU N = Z � T U) Q r ZZ0 Z Q) N^_ O Q IIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIII Z Q Z< � (7 T 1 z Q N IIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIII ' Q Q In O ' co O O M T N 0 0 O N n �j3 O NOTICE OF PUBLIC MEETING for a development in your neighbourhood 924944 King Street West Concept Drawing Have Your Voice Heard! Planning & Strategic Initiatives Committee 329 II )We ll. ll. II ir.,ll �. 28 � � i Y �.� Et 338 Bicycl.e II a lr IV< II � g S,:) a c s Date: June 16, 2025 Location: Council Chambers, Kitchener Citi 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: wwwAitchenenca/ PlanningApplications or contact: Evan Wittmann, Senior Planner evan.wittmann@ kitchener.ca 519.783.8523 The City of Kitchener will consider an application to amend Zoning By-law 2019-051 to permit a 28 -storey mixed-use development with 329 dwelling units, 182 vehicle parking spaces, and 338 bicycle parking spaces. Two commercial units are proposed at grade, and indoor and outdoor amenity space on the sixth level. The proposed design includes a five -storey podium, with step backs at the 10th and 16tb4 byeM Urking is ro osed below -grade, with the remaining spaces located in e o L P P g g P P Date: February 27, 2025 To: Evan Wittmann From: Jason Brule Subject: Zoning By-law Amendment Application Fariborz Fallah 924-944 King Street West, Kitchener ZBA 25/001/K/EW Klr',o rf,-v".R The below comments have been prepared through the review of the supplied Functional Servicing & SWM Report dated October 01, 2024 prepared by WalterFedy; in support of the above noted application. Sanitary: 1. Proposed flows were verified in the City's model and indicate no capacity related concerns for this development. 2. Please submit a traditional sanitary sizing design sheet with detailed design confirming that the selected size of outlet pipe and slope has the capacity. Water (Angela Mick, Kitchener Utilities): 3. The report should make comment on what is available in the system and whether it can support the site. Attached is a nearby test you can reference. Looks like the existing service is a 100mm. Storm and Stormwater Management: 4. Note: SWM fees with respect to retention or quality are assessed and calculated in the year in which they are to be paid. �'11'11 Q'r,4Jul f3 Jason Brule, C.E.T. Engineering Technologist Page 74 of 316 HYDRANT FLOW TESTREF ORT PROJECT 1111D CLIENT NAME BULDNG AODRESS 864KTW U:sm an, Arif Mt IKinng StreetWest Kitchener,Ontano MAIN SIZE I MATERIALINA 00 N IF IC- Looped 'mr, op DGn's"n"J pHcispNta Sr tion? Ti! n Hot kar, E w 7�.oke t)' vvoju � 131 TESTED BY: AA DATE June 14-24 TIME t0g,.00 PM Page 75 of 316 LECroEND: ,,TATdC H'(DRAIPJ W RESIDUAL HYDR3N7 Test � "�h�urml�er t�rtFicet IPitc�k E�puiii,�lli�k Trrdal .P'irtcdec:d��l �,a�at�e f�usclhar ct vire {iiia F eaclii7g FIIVc Flow flow ak, Rre sire a k;ce mt D itVV t tlpsug) S Ip�r 411sgpmb 70pesi (psig) f. wis gpirrt Stait.lc Itp'Ya. R kdw'A fAfAs, t7 kdw'Ya. TC, hJd". 1 d "' 4T 4 1 d ks5 1�� "d �d��'� T1 2 2 2.47 41 932', 1864 5004 67 EI.� 100 go 80 70 50 50 ww+ 40 30 20 10 a i f i I f i 0, 500 11000 1500 2900 2'Sr00 Flow, gpmn Note., Report is in accordance with appdiicable bylaws skaindards, aind NIFPA 291 Reconirw en deed f raictke for Water Row Testing and Marking of Hydlrants, Page 76 of 316 Markup Response Form Application Date Date Returned: Rogers Ref. No. January 17, 2025 February 4, 2025 G250392 Location / Municipality: Mary St/Kitchener Applicant: N/A Applicant Ref. No.: N/A Rogers Communications Outside Plant Engineering 800 York St London, ON N6A 5131 Rogers Communications has reviewed your drawing(s) as requested. Our comments follow below with an "X" indicating Rogers' stance on your proposed plan. Markup Response is valid for 6 months from the date issued. Please inform Rogers Communications a minimum of 6 - 12 months in advance of the proposed construction schedule in order to coordinate our plant relocation. Contact Ontario One Call at 1-800-400-2255 or www.on1call.com at least 5 business days before beginning work to obtain utility locates. Hand dig / Vac truck when crossing, or within 1.0m of existing Rogers plant. Plant is to approximation. Comments: ❑X Markup Only Not for PUCC Approval �X For your Rogers Communications currently has existing plant as marked on your drawing. Our standard depth in this Reference municipality is: 1m. Please ensure you maintain clearances of 0.3m vertically and 0.6m horizontally. ❑ No Conflict Rogers Communications currently does not possess existing plant in the area indicated on your attached plans. ❑ CONFLICT Your proposed construction appears to encroach within existing Rogers Communications plant. Please ensure you maintain clearances of 0.3 m vertically and 1 m horizontally. For hand dig maintain 0.6 m and for directional bore maintain 1.0 m horizontally. Please relocate your proposed construction to allow adequate clearance. CAUTION NOTES: ❑ Use vactruck and expose ducts, maintain minimum of 0.6m clearance. XX Rogers Communications has aerial plant in this area, as it is indicated on the attached plans. ❑X Fiber Optic Cable is present in the area of your proposed construction. Please obtain locates and maintain minimum 1.0m/1.0m clearance. ❑ Proposed Fiber Optic Cable in a joint use duct structure . ❑ Plant currently under construction. Sasmita Roul Rogers. MOC(a)telecon.ca February 4, 2025 DATE Page 77 of 316 Application number Comments of: Commenter's name Email: Phone: Project address: Date of comments: Comments due: Amanda: Preamble City of Kitchener Zoning By-law Amendment comments ZBA25/001/K/EW Transportation Dave Seller Dave.Seller@kitchener.ca (519) 783-8152 924-944 King Street West February 25, 2025 February 28, 2025 25-100946 As part of a complete Zoning By-law amendment application, a Transportation Impact Study (TIS) was submitted (December 2024) by Paradigm Transportation Solutions Limited in support of this application. A Multi -modal Level of Service (MMLOS) analysis was used in determining the level of service of different users along street segments and at intersections. The typical level of service analysis focused on vehicles metrics exclusively, such as, delay and volume to capacity ratios. An MMLOS analysis provides insight on all road users and can be used to determine if improvements are needed to encourage individuals to use more sustainable modes of travel. Paradigms analysis followed the Ontario Traffic Council (OTC) Multi -Modal Level of Service guidelines (February 2022). Development proposal The applicant is proposing a 28 -storey mixed-use building with 341 residential units and 659 m2 (7093 ft2) of ground floor commercial space. The site will be serviced by one full moves vehicle access along King Street West, opposite Mt. Hope Street. A secondary access is proposed to Dodds Lane and intended for loading/garbage pick-up. The development is estimated to generate 87 AM and 90 PM peak hour vehicle trips. The vehicle trips included the residential and commercial uses. A trip reduction for internal capture trips was included within the analysis. A total of 182 parking spaces being provided. Intersection analysis 2024 Existing Traffic Below are the study intersections and a portion of the locations are within the City of Waterloo. Transportation Services review focused on intersections only within the boundary of Kitchener. Based on the below list, our review focused on the signalized intersection of King Street West (Regional Road 15) at Mt. Hope Street. Reviewed intersections • (City of Kitchener) King Street West (Regional Road 15) at Mt. Hope Street - signalized A City for Everyone Working Together — Growing Thoughtfully — Building Community Page 78 of 316 • (City of Waterloo) King Street West (Regional Road 15) at Union Street East - signalized • (City of Waterloo) Union Street East at Herbert Street - unsignalized • (City of Waterloo) Union Street East at Mary Street - unsignalized Based on different criteria within the OTC manual, LOS base targets are established for walking, cycling, transit, trucks and cars. As there are no dedicated cycling facilities along King or Mt. Hope in this area, no analysis was completed but targets were established. As noted above in the preamble, MMLOS analysis was used for the signalized intersection of King Street West (Regional Road 15) at Mt. Hope Street, the results meet or exceed the base targets (see results below). TABLE•D SUMMARY 2030 Background Traffic As noted above in the preamble, MMLOS analysis was used for the signalized intersection of King Street West (Regional Road 15) at Mt. Hope Street, see results below. The results meet or exceed the base targets (see results below). TABLE 4.2: :.CKGROUND MULTI -MODAL LEVEL OF SERVICE SUMMARY It should be noted that the background traffic calculations included other developments in the area, specifically: • 900 King Street West o Estimated 50 AM and 45 PM peak hour trips o 231 residential units o 25 -storey • 203-207 King Street South and 10-16 John Street West o Estimated 122 AM and 146 PM peak hour trips 0 338 residential units 0 2467 ft2 daycare space 0 7112 ftz commercial space 0 27 -storey • 209-217 King Street South, 11 John Street West and 176-180 Caroline Street South A City for Everyone Working Together — Growing Thoughtfully — Building Community Page 79 of 316 o A TIS was not available for this development but trip distribution and site statistics were used from the above 203-207 King Street South development to calculate the number of vehicle trips based on methods consistent with the 203-207 King Street South development. o Estimated 80 AM and 90 PM peak hour trips 0 347 residential units 0 24 -storey 2030 Total Traffic Operations In this scenario, the fourth leg of the intersection (site access) is added. The MMLOS analysis was used for the signalized intersection of King Street West (Regional Road 15) at Mt. Hope Street. The results meet or exceed the base targets (see results below). Transportation Demand Management (TDM) analysis This development is well situated to take advantage of the existing alternative modes of transportation available in the area to reduce vehicle dependency. There are several Grand River Transit (GRT) routes and ION light rail that are less than 300 m from this development. They include the following routes: 4, 7, 16, 91 and ION light rail. These routes offer connectivity to a broader transit network throughout the Region of Waterloo and within Kitchener itself. The walkability for pedestrians accessing the site and surrounding area can easily be achieved, as sidewalks are provided generally on both sides of roadways in the surrounding area which provide connections to entertainment, employment and commercial uses. There are existing cycling opportunities located within an 8 to 10 minute walk from this development. There is access to the Iron Horse Trail and Spur Line trail. Car sharing is another option available that allows someone to rent a vehicle that is intended to substitute the ownership of a personal private vehicle. This makes vehicle use affordable for occasional use. There are car sharing vehicles located within a 4 to 8 minute walk from this development. King Street West U-turn lane Transportation Services supports the recommendation to repaint the exiting eastbound u -turn lane along King Street West at Mt. Hope Street to a left turn lane to accommodate left turn and u -turn traffic movements. A City for Everyone Working Together — Growing Thoughtfully — Building Community Page 80 of 316 Conclusion Based on the conclusions within the TIS, Transportation Services are of the opinion that this development will not negatively impact the intersection of King Street West at Mt. Hope Street. The MMLOS meets or exceeds the LOS base targets the intersection of King Street West at Mt. Hope Street. It should be noted that Paradigm completed the typical level of service analysis on vehicle metrics, such as, delay and volume to capacity ratios (v/c) for the intersection of King Street West at Mt. Hope Street, under the 2030 total traffic operations. Mt. Hope Street and the new site access are both operating with delays of 11.6 seconds or less in the AM or PM peak hours. The v/c ratios for Mt. Hope Street and the new site access are estimated at 0.15 or lower in the AM and PM peak hours. Total traffic includes forecasted background traffic plus site development traffic. Transportation Services have no operational concerns with the city roadway or proposed site access. Dodds Lane at Pine Street vehicle traffic As vehicle access is being proposed to Dodds Lane, the TIS is to be updated to include the intersection of Dodds Lane and Pine Street, as well as a portion of site generated traffic accessing Herbert and Mary Streets. The TIS has zero site generated traffic accessing these streets in either the AM or PM peak hours. The traffic consultant provides a traffic brief that only includes the Dodds Lane and Pine Street intersection as the study area. As there are minimal existing volumes, the analysis only needs to include the future background (existing medical building at 18 Pine Street and 900 King St W) and total future horizons of the additional intersection. Attached for your reference is the TIS completed by Salvini Consulting for 900 King St W. A City for Everyone Working Together — Growing Thoughtfully — Building Community Page 81 of 316 City of Kitchener Comment Form Project Address: 924 — 944 King St. W. File Number: ZBA25/001/K/EW Date of Pre -Submission Meeting: Feb 11, 2025 Comments Of: Policy Planning Commenter's Name: Adam Clark Email: adam.clark@kitchener.ca Phone: 519-783-8931 Date of Comments: Jan 24, 2024 ❑ I plan to attend the meeting (questions/concerns/comments for discussion) ❑ I do NOT plan to attend the meeting. X❑ No meeting to be held 1. Plannine Context: • The subject properties are within the Grand River Hospital Protected Major Transit Station Area as defined in the City of Kitchener's Official Plan. Policy 3.C.2.17 of the Kitchener Official Plan notes that the planned function of Major Transit Station Areas is to: provide a focus for accommodating growth through development to support existing and planned transit and rapid service levels; provide connectivity of various modes of transportation to the transit system; achieve a mix of residential, office (including major office), institutional (including major institutional) and commercial development (including retail commercial centres), wherever appropriate; and have streetscapes and a built form that is pedestrian -friendly and transit -oriented. • On March 18th, 2024 Kitchener City Council approved the Growing Together planning framework for Protected Major Transit Station Areas. The associated Official Plan amendment is approved and in effect. The zoning by-law amendment is currently under appeal. In the interim, the subject property is required to be dual -tested against both the Growing Together SGA -2 zoning and the MU -2 zoning in City of Kitchener Zoning By-law 85-1. • In the 85-1 by-law, the subject property is zoned MU -2, with special regulation 497R applied to the property. 497R restricts maximum building height to 18m. • There are no special regulations applied through the SGA -2 zoning in the 2019 bylaw. A City for Everyone Working Together — Growing Thoughtfully — Building Community Page 82 of 316 The subject property is designated with a Strategic Growth Area B land use and a Strategic Growth Area 2 zone. The SGA -13 land use permits buildings of up to 28 storeys. The SGA -2 zone permits buildings of up to 8 storeys. There are no parking minimums or floor -space -ratio density maximums but built -form is regulated, including maximum building length and floor plate area, physical separation, and transition to low-rise. • A Zoning By-law Amendment is required for a 28 -storey development on the subject properties. A critical compatibility test will be full compliance with the Strategic Growth Area 3 zoning by- law regulations, which would match the general proposal of 28 -storeys. Relief from the land use and zoning regulations can be considered through a planning justification, particularly with respect to official plan policy 15.D.2.5 which states: 15.D.2.5. Notwithstanding Policy 4.C.1.8 and 4.C.1.9, site specific applications which seek relief from the implementing zoning through a minor variance(s) or amendment to the Zoning By-law, and/or seek to amend this Plan will consider the following factors: a) compatibility with the planned function of the subject lands and adjacent lands; b) suitability of the lot for the proposed use and/or built -form; c) lot area and consolidation as further outlined in Policy 3.C.2.11; d) compliance with the City's Urban Design Manual and Policy 11.C.1.34; e) cultural heritage resources, including Policy 15.D.2.8; and, f) technical considerations and other contextual or site specific factors. Comments: • Staff recommend waiting for an update on the status of the appeals to the bylaw, which may allow the application to proceed as a ZBA to City of Kitchener Zoning By-law 2019-051 only and not City of Kitchener Zoning By-law 85-1, significantly simplifying the process. This would eliminate the need for relief from parking minimums, FSR maximums, and a number of other regulations in the MU -2 zone. • The proposal meets most but not all of the regulations of the SGA -3 zone, with the notable exception of the built -form transition regulation. It achieves; o A minimum 6m physical separation to side and rear lot lines for storeys 7 through 12 o A minimum 9m physical separation to side and rear lot lines for storeys 13 through 18 o A minimum 12m physical separation to interior side lot lines. However, only roughly 10.5m to the rear lot line is achieved. This is also where the building does not meet the built -form transition regulation. o A maximum 60m (60m) building length for storeys 7-12 and a maximum floor plate area of 2,000m2 (-1,164m2). A City for Everyone Working Together — Growing Thoughtfully — Building Community Page 83 of 316 o A maximum 54m (54m) building length for storeys 13-18 and a maximum floor plate area of 1,200m2 (-1,048m2). o A maximum 48m (48m) building length for storeys 19-28 and a maximum floor plate area of 1,000 (-931m2). o The front yard setback of 6m for storeys 7+ is also met. o In the opinion of planning staff, with the exception of the rear setback to the tower (physical separation and built form transition), the proposed building meets the intent of the SGA -3 zone. • The built -form transition regulation requires that within 15m of a lot with an SGA -1 zone, the maximum building height shall not exceed 20m. It also requires that within 30m of a lot with an SGA -1 zone, the maximum building height shall not exceed 30m. o The applicant proposal seeks a maximum of 20m building height within 10m, rather than 15m. o This can and should be tailored more closely to the specific application. In this case, without changing the proposal, it appears that a site-specific zoning regulation could be revised to a maximum height of 20m within 14m of a lot with an SGA -1 zone. This would represent a significantly more minor change than what is proposed and have no impact on the development as proposed. o This still requires an increase from 30m building height within 30m of the SGA -1 property to a 28 storey, or approximately 95m maximum instead. This is not a minor change and the planning justification should be updated to reflect that. It currently states: "While the Proposed Development does require minor revisions to the existing regulations pertaining to maximum building height proximate to low rise residential uses, these revisions are very minor in nature with the overall design and character of the building meeting the intensification objectives of redevelopment within Major Transit Station Areas while being mindful and sensitive to existing, surrounding residential uses." • More than tripling the permitted height from 30m within 30m of SGA -1 to approximately 95m is not minor in nature and should not be characterized as such. The planning justification and any related materials need to updated to provide a more substantive justification. This should include detailed, context -specific justification that applies to this specific development proposal in this specific location. This updated justification should include: o Analysis of the approved/under construction projects of 900 King St. W. and 864 King St. W. and the urban form, built context and environmental conditions being created in this area of midtown that may act as precedent in the justification. How are these approved projects evolving this area of Midtown? Provide detailed analysis of the emerging urban fabric of this area and demonstrate how the proposal represents good planning despite not meeting the built -form transition regulation. A City for Everyone Working Together — Growing Thoughtfully — Building Community Page 84 of 316 Figure 1 Discuss how the emerging context of this area of Midtown supports the development as proposed, including precedent approvals at 900 King St. W. and 864 King St. W. o Detailed analysis of the project's proximity to the Grand River Hospital ION stop, as well as community infrastructure such as the hospital. o Site-specific breakdown of the geometry of the development parcels; the maximum available parcel depth, the inability to consolidate for greater parcel depth due to the lane, the assembly of enough property to meet the SGA -3 regulations fully to both interior side lot lines and the front yard. Again, provide specifics in the justification for why this development in this location represents good planning despite not meeting the built -form transition regulation. o Discussion of potential architectural solutions to help better achieve the intent of compatible transition to the neighbouring low-rise area; how does the building design compensate for the lack of physical built -form transition? How does it protect for the privacy and safety of both low-rise neighbouring residents and residents of this building? How does it mitigate potential environmental impacts from shadow and wind? As one possible example; discuss how the physical separation to the west of approximately 23m is significantly larger than the required 12m (for the 28 storey portion of the tower), and how this additional open space mitigates some of the above impacts. o Demonstrate the impact of sightlines from the residential units on the north side of the building. As the parking podium occupies the first 5 storeys, there may be a way to demonstrate that the impact of unit overlook is mitigated. The following image is for A City for Everyone Working Together — Growing Thoughtfully — Building Community Page 85 of 316 demonstration purposes only, to show the kind of analysis necessary for the planning justification: • The viewshed at the bottom of the image demonstrates that 6th floor residents cannot see into the adjacent rear -yards due to the massing and placement of the building. The middle viewshed demonstrates that 7th floor residents cannot see into the adjacent rear -yards either, but can see into the existing neighbouring buildings. This is at a combined horizonal and vertical distance of approximately 36m. The top viewshed demonstrates that the 8th floor residents can see into the adjacent rear -yards at a combined horizontal and vertical distance of approximately 32m. At the Stn floor this is also 32m, at the 10th floor it is 33, increasing from there. There is possibly a justification, using such an analysis that the proposed built form maintains at least 30m visual separation and therefore, in combination with other factors, meets the intent of the built -form transition regulation. The above is not a formal City analysis or justification, it is provided as an example of the type of analysis and rigor that could constitute an appropriate level of justification for such significant relief from a particular regulation. Inclusionary Zoning: Inclusionary Zoning (IZ) is a land -use planning tool, authorized through the Planning Act, that can be used by municipalities to require affordable housing units in new residential and mixed-use A City for Everyone Working Together — Growing Thoughtfully — Building Community Page 86 of 316 developments located in Protected Major Transit Station Areas (PMTSAs). This tool has been used successfully in a number of jurisdictions to create a modest but meaningful supply of affordable housing. On March 18, 2024, Council passed By-law 2024-068 to amend Zoning By-law 2019-051 and By-law No. 2024-069 to amend Zoning By-law 85-1, and Amendment 48 to the Official Plan (in full force and effect). The amending by-laws requires affordable housing units in new developments to be included as part of market housing development within PMTSAs. The subject property is located within the Grand River Hospital PMTSA, an Established Area. Inclusionary Zoning set-aside rates (percentage of gross leasable residential floor area to be provided as affordable units) are determined at the date of building permit issuance for above grade permits issued after January 1, 2025. In December 2024, council adopted amendments to the IZ framework that would extend the exemption date to January 1, 2026, but there have not yet been approved by the approval authority. Additional information is provided in the Inclusionary Zoning Implementation Guideline. The set aside rates and effective date are not up-to-date in the draft guideline, and reference should be made to the amending by-laws. Plans, Studies and Reports to submit as part of a complete Planning Act application: Inclusionary Zoning Implementation Brief. Please refer to Section 7 of the Inclusionary Zoning Implementation Guideline for additional information. The Inclusionary Zoning Implementation Brief must be submitted as part of a complete Site Plan application. Policies, Standards and Resources: • Official Plan Zoning By-law Inclusionary Zoning Implementation Guidelines — Please contact Elyssa Pompa, Planner (Policy) at elyssa.pompa@kitchener.ca for the most up-to-date version of the Inclusionary Zoning Implementation Guidelines document. A City for Everyone Working Together — Growing Thoughtfully — Building Community Page 87 of 316 City of Kitchener Comment Form Project Address: 924 — 944 King St. W. File Number: ZBA25/001/K/EW Comments Of: Development Planning Commenter's Name: Evan Wittmann Email: evan.wittmann@kitchener.ca Phone: 519-783-8523 Date of Comments: Mar 3, 2025 1. Planning Context: • The subject site is located within the Grand River Hospital Protected Major Transit Station Area ("PMTSA") as defined in the City of Kitchener's Official Plan (the "OP") • Policy 3.C.2.17 states provides policy direction for PMTSA's: "The planned function of [PMTSA's], in order to support transit and rapid transit, is to: a) provide a focus for accommodating growth through development to support existing and planned transit and rapid service levels, b) provide connectivity of various modes of transportation to the transit system; c) achieve a mix of residential, office (including major office), institutional (including major institutional) and commercial development (including retail commercial centres), wherever appropriate, and d) have streetscapes and a built form that is pedestrian friendly and transit -oriented. Policies a) through d) above should not be interpreted to mean that every property located within a [PMTSA] is necessarily appropriate for major intensification." • On March 18th, 2024 Kitchener City Council approved the Growing Together planning framework for PMTSA's. The associated OP amendment is approved and in effect. The zoning by-law amendment is currently under appeal. In the interim, the subject site is required to be dual - tested against both Zoning By-law 2019-051 (Growing Together implementation) and Zoning By- law 85-1. • While dual testing is the continued approach, it is anticipated that the appeal will be scoped prior to a Council decision on the subject application, and the Growing Together zoning of Zoning By-law 2019-051 will be in force and effect for the subject site. A City for Everyone Working Together — Growing Thoughtfully — Building Community Page 88 of 316 • The subject site is designated "Strategic Growth Area B" (SGA -B) on the land use map (Map 3) of the OP. Section 15.D.2 provides policy direction for Strategic Growth Areas. • Site specific applications must consider the following criteria, listed in Policy 15.D.2.5: a) compatibility with the planned function of the subject lands and adjacent lands; b) suitability of the lot for the proposed use and/or built form; c) lot area and consolidation as further outlined in Policy 3.C.2.11; compliance with the City's Urban Design Manual and Policy 11.C.1.34; d) cultural heritage resources, including Policy 15.D.2.8; and e) technical considerations and other contextual or site specific factors. • The subject site is at the edge of a Strategic Growth Area designation, and as such Policy 15.D.2.37 applies, which states: Where new development or redevelopment is proposed at the edge of a strategic growth area land use designation, the scale and massing will consider compatibility with and transition to the adjacent land use designation. The subject site is proposed to be zoned Strategic Growth Area 2 (SGA -2) zone under Zoning By- law 2019-051. The submitted application requests to change this zone to SGA -3. No OP amendment is required. • The SGA -3 zone establishes a variety of built form provisions, including maximum building length and floor plate area, physical separation, and transition to low-rise properties. • Under Zoning By-law 85-1, the subject site is zoned MU -2, with special regulation 497R applied to the property. 497R restricts maximum building height to 18m. Comments: • The proposed development would intensify underutilized lots along King Street West within a PMTSA. This is in keeping with the general policy direction of the OP and SGA -B land use designation. • In principle, the proposed development can be supported; however, additional justification (and/or design revisions) is required regarding built form transition. The requested amendment to permit 95 metres of height within 30 metres of SGA -1 zoned properties is a large departure from the permitted maximum height of 30 metres. • This justification can be provided in a revised Planning Justification Report/Addendum: o Provide commentary on how the proposed development meets OP policy 15.D.2.37, provided above. o Although the 28 -storeys proposed is consistent with the permissions of the OP, a reduced height could contribute to the justification for relief from the built -form transition provisions of the SGA -3 zone. OP Policy 15.D.2.63 directs that maximum building heights less than 28 storeys are permitted. A City for Everyone Working Together — Growing Thoughtfully — Building Community Page 89 of 316 o This justification could also include a discussion of the revisions made following the Council decision to refuse the subject site being zoned SGA -3 through the approval of Growing Together. o Please refer to the comments provided by Policy Planning staff for additional feedback regarding built -form transition justification, as well as a recommendation on the site-specific provision regarding height within 15 metres of SGA -1 properties. • There has been significant opposition from the community regarding the application. Their comments outline concern with: o Shadow impacts on neighbouring low rise properties o Provision of affordable housing o Use of Dodds Lane as a secondary access and being an insufficient buffer to the proposed development o Lack of park space in the area o Loss of privacy o Excessive height and density for the location o Negative psychological impacts of tall buildings o Light and noise pollution In a revised Planning Justification Report/Addendum, please provide commentary on how these concerns are addressed. A City for Everyone Working Together — Growing Thoughtfully — Building Community Page 90 of 316 PLANNING D PA Tr m E Nioir via email Evan Whittmann Senior Planner City of Kitchener evan.whittmann@kitchener.ca February 27, 2025 Re: ZBA25/001/K/EW Municipality: Kitchener Location: 924-944 King Street West Owner/Applicant: Fariborz Fallah/GSP Group The Waterloo Region District School Board (WRDSB) has reviewed the above -noted application for a Zoning By-law Amendment to permit the development of a 28 storey mixed-use building with 341 dwelling units. The WRDSB offers the following comments: Student Accommodation At this time, the subject lands are assigned to the following WRDSB schools: • Elizabeth Zeigler PS (Junior Kindergarten to Grade 6) • MacGregor PS (Grade 7 to Grade 8) • Kitchener -Waterloo Cl (Grade 9 to Grade 12) The WRDSB is experiencing significant enrolment pressure at schools located in the City's core. Portable classrooms are located on-site to provide additional capacity on an interim basis. If additional students continue to materialize, the WRDSB may designate this area as a Development Area and assign it to schools that have space or explore boundary adjustments where feasible. Student Transportation The WRDSB supports active transportation, and we ask that pedestrians be considered in the review of all development applications to enhance safety and connectivity. Please be advised that Student Transportation Services of Waterloo Region (STSWR)'s school buses will not travel privately owned or maintained right-of-ways 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 right-of-ways. WRDSB Draft Conditions Concerning any future declaration or agreement, the WRDSB requests the following conditions: Page 91 of 316 1. That the Owner must agree in the Condominium Declaration and/or Site Plan Agreement to notify all purchasers of residential units and/or renters of same, by inserting the following clauses in all offers of Purchase and Sale/Lease: "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 plannir7 cg?wrdsb,ca. Information provided by any other source cannot be guaranteed to reflect current school assignment information." c. "To limit liability, public school buses operated by the 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 students, and potential busing students will be required to meet the bus at a congregated bus pick-up point." 2. That the Owner supplies, erects and maintains 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 shall submit a photo of the sign for review and approval of the WRDSB; Education Development Charges Please be advised that any development on the subject lands is subject to the provisions of the WRDSB's Education Development Charges By-law, Amended in 2022 or any successor thereof and may require the payment of Education Development Charges for these developments before building permit issuance. 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, please contact the undersigned. Regards, Waterloo Region District School Board 51 Ardelt Avenue, Kitchener ON, N2C 2R5 Email: a ily®bum aco wr sb.ca Page 92 of 316 City of Kitchener Zone Change / Official Plan Amendment Comment Form Address: 924-944 King St W Owner: Fariborz Fallah (1000100206 and 1000187534 Ontario Inc.) Application: ZBA25/001/K/EW Comments Of: Commenter's Name: Email: Phone Date of Comments: Documents Reviewed: Park Planning Lenore Ross Lenore.ross@kitchener.ca 519-783-8917 Feb 25 2025 No meeting to be held I have reviewed the documents noted below submitted in support of a ZBA to redevelop the property to construct a 28 -storey mixed-use building, with 341 dwelling units, two commercial units, 182 vehicle parking spaces, and 350 bicycle parking spaces. To facilitate this development, the owner has requested to amend the Zoning By-law from Mixed Use Corridor (MU -2) to Mixed Use Corridor (MU -3) with site specific provisions in Zoning By-law 85-1, or amend from SGA -2 to SGA -3 in Zoning By-law 2019-051 should it come into force and effect during the review process. Site-specific provisions are requested for an increased Floor Space Ratio, increased height, parking requirement reduction, and rear yard setback. • Application Cover Letter • Application Form • Architectural Package • Concept Drawing • Functional Servicing Report • Noise Study • Planning Justification Report • Urban Design Brief • Vegetation Management Plan • Wind Study Site Specific Comments & Issues: Park Planning has no significant concerns with the proposed Zoning Bylaw amendment and can provide conditional support subject to the minor updates to submitted studies are noted below. A City for Everyone Working Together — Growing Thoughtfully — Building Community PI 0H of 316 City of Kitchener Zone Change / Official Plan Amendment Comment Form Comments on Submitted Documents The following comments should be addressed at this time. Planning Justification Report — GSP Group dated Dec 2024 page 7 — Surrounding Uses and Context - The Report states "The Site is also close to (a) range of existing parks, open space and recreational facilities, including Mount Hope Cemetery, Mary Allen Park, Don McClaren Arena and a playground and outdoor place space associated with King Edward Public School. The Site is located within walking distance to the Iron Horse Trail to the south and the Waterloo Spur Line Trail to the north." This statement inaccurately characterizes the public recreational and park amenities that are available and should be revised and acknowledge the following: Mary Allen Park is within the City of Waterloo; Gildner Green is a local neighbourhood park approximately 650m from the site and is the only local neighbourhood park in the KW Hospital Planning Community; the play area and outdoor space associated with King Edward School is owned by the Waterloo Region District School Board and is not considered a public park. As identified in Places and Spaces: An Open Space Strategy for Kitchener, the KW Hospital Planning Community is currently critically underserved with active neighbourhood park space with only 1.5 sq.m/person and the proposed redevelopment will exacerbate this deficit. The provision of robust on-site amenities suitable for all ages, including children's play facilities, will be critical to this proposal. 2. As part of Park Planning's Presubmission comments, the following was requested: "a Planning Justification Report (PJR) should be submitted to the satisfaction of Parks & Cemeteries staff. The PJR should include an analysis and discussion of how the proposed development will impact the existing neighbourhood including the availability of services and infrastructure related to parks, open space, urban forests and community facilities relative to the change in planned function and significant increase in density specifically referencing the objectives and policies and in Part C Section 8: Parks, Open Space, Urban Forests and Community Facilities and indicate specifically how the development proposal will implement/ achieve the policy objectives. This component of the PJR is outstanding and required. A revised Planning Justification Report is required. Urban Design Brief GSP Group dated November 2024 1. Page 7, 3rd paragraph — Street and Block Pattern — This statement inaccurately characterizes the public recreational and park amenities that are available and should be revised and acknowledge the following: Gildner Green is a local neighbourhood park approximately 650m from the site and is the only local neighbourhood park in the KW Hospital Planning Community; the play area and outdoor space associated with ("Walter St Park") King Edward School is owned by the Waterloo Region District School Board and is not considered a public park. Cherry Park is more than a kilometer away from the subject site. A City for Everyone Working Together — Growing Thoughtfully — Building Community P e0Mof316 City of Kitchener Zone Change / Official Plan Amendment Comment Form As identified in Places and Spaces: An Open Space Strategy for Kitchener, the KW Hospital Planning Community is currently critically underserved with active neighbourhood park space with only 1.5 sq.m/person and the proposed redevelopment will exacerbate this deficit. The provision of robust on-site amenities suitable for all ages, including children's play facilities, will be critical to this proposal. 2. Page 33, Section 5.7 of the Urban Design Brief - Street and Landscape Design - speaks briefly to the future detailed design of the proposed onsite amenity spaces indicating that "the intent is for it to serve as a durable, low -maintenance space, primarily featuring hard surfaces. The vision includes incorporating soft landscape elements, such as raised planting beds with small canopy trees and shrubs, along with a children's play area. Various seating options, movable furnishings, shade structures and fireplace features are planned to accommodate different group sizes and provide flexibility for a range of activities." Given the critical lack of active public park infrastructure in this Planning Community, additional language and precedent images should be included indicating a stron commitment to provide a robust onsite outdoor amenity space. 3. There is a small at -grade landscaped area shown adjacent to King St W that is noted as not being directly accessible from King St W. It is understood that this space is over a servicing easement and cannot include structures or tree planting, consideration should be given to a design that allows resident access (pet relief station) and / or commercial patio use. A revised Urban Design Brief is required. Pedestrian Wind Study SLR Consulting dated Dec 09 2024 1. A qualitative pedestrian wind assessment has been undertaken and should be revisited once building and landscape design has been finalized and submitted for review and approval as a condition of final site plan approval. 2. Decreased levels of pedestrian wind comfort are anticipated in at several sensor locations and these impacts should be mitigated through revisions to building design and specific landscape elements to reduce the negative impacts. E.g. senor locations #3, #5, #8, #10, #11, #17, #18,(terrace) #20, Policies, Standards and Resources: • Kitchener Official Plan • City of Kitchener Park Dedication Bylaw 2022-101 and Park Dedication Policy MUN-PLA-1074 • City of Kitchener Development Manual • Cycling and Trails Master Plan (2020) • Chapter 690 of the current Property Maintenance By-law • Places & Spaces: An Open Space Strategy for Kitchener • Multi -Use Pathways & Trails Masterplan • Urban Design Manual Anticipated Fees: Parkland Dedication A City for Everyone Working Together — Growing Thoughtfully — Building Community P06 6 of 316 City of Kitchener Zone Change / Official Plan Amendment Comment Form The parkland dedication requirement for this submission is deferred and will be assessed at a future Site Plan Application. Parkland dedication will be assessed based on the land use class(es) and density approved through the ZBA and required as a condition of Site Plan Approval Since the amount of physical land that could be acquired through Parkland Dedication is neither sufficient or suitable for active park development, Parkland Dedication as cash in lieu of land will be required for the application. A City for Everyone Working Together — Growing Thoughtfully — Building Community P"066 of 316 600 Southgate Drive Tel: +1.519.823.1311 Guelph ON Canada Fax: +1.519.823.1316 �Si N1G 41D6 E-mail: solutions@rwdi.com April 15, 2025 Evan Wittmann City of Kitchener 200 King St W, Kitchener, ON N2G 4G7 ewittmann@kitchener.ca Re: Peer Review - Noise 924-944 King Street West, Kitchener RWDI Reference No. 2509082 Dear Evan, The City of Kitchener has retained RWDI to conduct a peer review of a Noise Study for the proposed development located at 924 - 944 King Street West in the City of Kitchener. The Noise Study was completed in support of a Zoning Bylaw Amendment application. The proposed development is understood to be a 28 -storey residential tower atop a 6 -storey mixed use podium. The review considered the SLR report titled "924 - 944 King Street West, Kitchener, ON Environmental Noise Assessment", SLR Project Number 241.031676.00001, and dated December 9, 2024 (Noise Study). This review reflects best practices for land -use planning, as well as guidelines and policies mandated by the City of Kitchener (the City) and, where applicable, the Province of Ontario. Where differences in guidance may exist, the City has provided direct guidance to this peer reviewer on their expectations. In all cases, the direction and policies of the City take precedence. Comments requiring action by the applicant are highlighted throughout this document for ease of identification. 1. The Noise Study reviews the potential sources of environmental noise in the area. a. Transportation noise from the surrounding roadways and LRT, which is considered appropriate. i. Vibration has not been assessed, given the setback from the ION LRT and the proposed development, assessment of potential vibration impacts should be provided in future updates of this report. b. Offsite stationary sources were assessed from surrounding facilities, which is considered appropriate. i. There is a Traction Power Substation (TPSS) for the ION LRT located at 904 King Street West which has not been included in this assessment. ii. HVAC units on the 201 Pine Street medical building are located within 100 m of the proposed development. iii. Future submissions/revisions to the Noise Study should include a review of these noise sources. BEST 02024 RWDI AIR Inc ('RWDI") ALL RIGHTS RESERVED MANAGED This document is intended for the sole use of the party to whom it is addressed and may contain information that is privileged and/or COMPANIES confidential. Ifyou have received this in error, please notify us immediately. RWDI aims to accommodate. Ifyou require this document ���e 97 of 316 patiri-rruwbe, 1 different format in order to aid accessibility, please contact the sender of this document, email solutions@rwdi.com or call +1.519.823.13 1 rwd I.c(3 02024 RWDI name and logo are registered trademarks in Canada and the United States of America Evan Wittmann City of Kitchener APR I L 15.2025 2. Noise assessment guidance and limits are cited from Ministry of Environment, Conservation and Parks (MECP) publication NPC -300 and the Regional Municipality of Waterloo Noise Policy Implementation Guideline as is appropriate. 3. The Noise Report includes the appropriate commissioned Consultant's Declaration Statement and the Owner's Declaration Statement in accordance with RMOW requirements. „ 4. Indoor sound level limits for transportation noise are summarized in Section 2.1 of the Noise Study, which appropriately align with the guidance documents. 5. Noise Warning Clause and Ventilation requirements for transportation noise are summarized in Section 2.4 of the Noise Study, which appropriately align with the guidance documents. 6. Transportation noise levels were evaluated at the podium and both towers as shown in Figure 2 and Figure 3 and summarized in Table 7 of the Noise Study. These locations are considered acceptable representations of worst-case impacts for the development. 7. Road Data is summarized in Table 5 of the Noise Study. The following is noted: a. The future road traffic information was provided by the Region. The data remains valid at this time. 8. LRT Data is summarized in Table 6 of the Noise Study. The following is noted: a. The LRT traffic volumes were derived based on discussions with RMOW staff and calculations based on headways which is appropriate. 9. Modelling of road traffic noise is based on methods from the ISO 9613-2 standard as implemented in the Cadna/A software package. a. Sound emission rates for road sources were calculated using ORNAMENT, which is the MECP's road traffic noise algorithm, and combined with ISO 9613 for propagation purposes. b. Road noise sources have been modelled as line sources, as is appropriate. c. Figure D.1 provides a Cadna/A versus STAMSON comparison for the western facade provided in Appendix D along with a STAMSON output file. d. Cadna/A road source inputs have been provided. e. Ground absorption modelled as reflective (GA = 0.0), which is appropriate. 10. Table 7/8, and Figures 2 through 4, summarize the road traffic modelling results. a. The worst-case sound level for each fa4ade has been presented, which is appropriate. b. Recommendations are provided concerning the excess sound levels. C. The report states that the buildings will either need to be provided with provisions for future installation of central air conditioning or need to be equipped with central air conditioning systems depending on their location and proximity to the transportation sources. The report correctly assigns these requirements to the appropriate locations within the development. Page 98 of 316 Page 2 Evan Wittmann City of Kitchener APR I L 15.2025 1111-111 11. The Noise Study initially identifies the surroundings as a Class 1 area, which is appropriate and also recommends that the development site be designated as a Class 4 area. Designation of the area as Class 4 results in higher allowed sound levels at the facade compared to the Class 1 designation and, in this case, removes any need for noise controls at the Grand River Hospital (GRH). The RMOW and the City expect to see analysis of requirements to meet Class 1 limits before Class 4 designation is contemplated. The building design and specific mitigation must be further evaluated before a Class 4 designation would be considered. Examples can include consideration for changes to site configuration and source -based mitigation. 12. A review of the stationary noise sources included in the Noise Study was completed. The following is noted: a. Potential sources of stationary noise considered in the Noise Study were identified during site visits within the area on September 10, 2024. b. Identified significant noise sources include: i. Rooftop HVAC equipment associated with office buildings nearby. ii. Mechanical equipment associated with Grand River Hospital. In general, inclusion of the above equipment is considered appropriate. iii. There is a Traction Power Substation (TPSS) for the ION LRT located at 904 King Street West which has not been included in this assessment. iv. HVAC units on the 201 Pine Street medical building are located within 100 m of the proposed development. v. Future submissions/revisions to the Noise Study should include a review of these noise sources. c. Modelling appears to assess the Grand River Hospital stationary sources separately from the other stationary sources identified surrounding the development. This is not consistent with the Region's position that impact from stationary sources should be considered cumulatively. In future submissions/revisions to the Noise Study, stationary source results should be presented and assessed cumulatively. d. Representative sound level data for the modelled equipment was taken from SLR's sound database or on-site measurements, which is acceptable. e. The noise study indicates that modelling for the Grand River Hospital will be updated with information presented in Hospital's AAR, when it is received, which is appropriate. Future modelling of the Grand River Hospital should include consideration for any proposed hospital expansion should information be available. f. Generally, the duty cycles utilized for sources at the Grand River Hospital are reasonable and appropriate. The Air -Cooled Condenser Unit duty cycle of 45 mins during the daytime/evening should be verified with GRH operators. g. Office building HVAC duty cycling of 100% during the daytime/evening and 50% during the night-time is considered acceptable. Page 99 of 316 Page 3 Evan Wittmann City of Kitchener APR I L 15.2025 13. Modelling was completed in the Cadna/A software package. The following is noted: a. The ISO 9613 sound propagation algorithms in Cadna/A area suitable model. b. The application of a 0.2 general ground absorption factor, which is considered appropriate. 14. Modelled daytime/evening and nighttime sound level impacts on the proposed development site are shown in Figures 6 through 10, respectively of the Noise Study. The following is noted: a. The Class 4 sound level limits are shown to be met, based on results presented in the CadnaA building evaluation. 15. A sample calculation for all sources at a representative worst-case point of reception is required. 16. An assessment of development mechanical systems on the proposed development was not included in the Noise Study. In the absence of specific information, a general discussion has been included, which is considered acceptable at this stage. 17. When the applicable information becomes available, an assessment of the development mechanical systems on itself and its surroundings is required. Reference to this requirement should be made in the Noise Study. Demonstrated compliance with applicable sound level limits for these sources must be shown prior to final planning approval. The development will be responsible for any required mitigation to reduce sound levels regardless of the stage of design or planning approval process. Conclusions 18. The Recommendation section summarizes the mitigation requirements of the Noise Study. The environmental noise study provided for the 924 - 944 King Street development in Kitchener presents an assessment for transportation and surrounding stationary noise sources. At this time, the required changes are not significant. However, a supplementary letter or amendment is required to clarify and revise the results and conclusions presented in the Noise Study. Key items to be revised in the Noise Study are outlined below: • Future submissions/revisions to the Noise Study should review and consider noise impacts from the Traction Power Substation and the HVAC on 201 Pine St. • Future submissions/revisions to the Noise Study, stationary source results should be presented and assessed cumulatively. Page 100 of 316 Page 4 Evan Wittmann City of Kitchener APR I L 15.2025 • A sample calculation for all sources at a representative worst-case point of reception is required. • The building design and specific mitigation to meet Class 1 limits must be further evaluated before a Class 4 designation can be considered. Examples can include consideration for changes to site configuration and source -based mitigation. • Development mechanical systems must be assessed when more detailed mechanical information becomes available. We trust that this is the information required at this time. Please do not hesitate to contact us with any questions. Yours truly, W I Khali Hussein, P.Eng. Senior Noise & Vibration Engineer This report entitled Peer Review- Noise, 924-944 King Street West, Kitchener, was prepared by RWDI AIR Inc. ("RWDI") for the City of Kitchener ("Client'). The findings and conclusions presented in this report have been prepared for the Client and are specific to the peer review described herein ("Project'). The conclusions and recommendations contained in this report are based on the information available to RWDI when this report was prepared. Because the contents of this report may not reflect the final design of the Project or subsequent changes made after the date of this report, RWDI recommends that it be retained by Client during the final stages of the project to verify that the results and recommendations provided in this report have been correctly interpreted in the final design of the Project. The conclusions and recommendations contained in this report have also been made for the specific purpose(s) set out herein. Should the Client or any other third party utilize the report and/or implement the conclusions and recommendations contained therein for any other purpose or project without the involvement of RWDI, the Client or such third party assumes any and all risk of any and all consequences arising from such use and RWDI accepts no responsibility for any liability, loss, or damage of any kind suffered by Client or any other third party arising therefrom. Page 101 of 316 Page 5 Evan Wittmann From: Jennifer Arends Sent: Monday, February 24, 2025 7:58 AM To: Evan Wittmann Subject: FW: Circulation for Comment - 924-944 King Street West (ZBA) Hi Evan, I don't think I've sent you comments on this one. A couple comments. No fire access from Dodd's lane due to width restrictions. All fire access must be from King Street. No rooms with exterior access only permitted from Dodd's lane. Garbage room, Transformer and switch gear room appear to be off Dodd's lane — does not meet OBC requirement for fire access. Fire hydrant is access the street over the Ion track. Strongly recommend providing a private fire hydrant on the property so that in the event of a fire the Ion service would not be disrupted. Backup fire pumps in addition to fire pumps required where fire department pumping capacity cannot be provided at higher elevations. Pumping capacity for vehicles is 203psi/1400 kpa. Additional mechanical areas may be required at higher elevations to accommodate fire pump and backup fire pump. Thanks, Jennifer Arends Fire Prevention Officer 1 City of Kitchener 519-783-7983 1.Verr_in_i. e..r..arein_ s.2llcirtcIneine_r„ga. From: Fire Prevention (SM) Sent: Friday, February 21, 2025 2:04 PM To: Jennifer Arends Subject: FW: Circulation for Comment - 924-944 King Street West (ZBA) From: Evan Wittmann <li;;veru.,.` /ilttm_ainln_ _ i.tclh in_e_r::ca.> Sent: Friday, February 21, 2025 1:19 PM To: Bell <cVrc lla.tV in_s..�_ elll.ca>; Darren Kropf <I[ arr n IKre 1p Ikii lh in ir. >; Dave Seller <[ v elll it lkir clh_ in r ca>: David Paetz <If)avid.Ilia_etz.@..l irtc_hein. ir._ca>; Enbridge - Lewis Oatway <Ileyris_:n.atnnray_ inlbirii ge. s�inn>; Enova Power Corp. - Greig Cameron <gireiig.cameron enova ower.com>; Enova Power Corp. - Shaun Wang <slha�unowrarngrtnva�avrr.crru>; Fire Prevention (SM) <Fi_rg('rniann(Vci.cnr.c>; French Catholic School Board _.............. < ian:iisfuca:tion �.s� ¢�_n.ay! rn_ raca>; Grand River Hospital - Sylvia Rodas <SyVy.i_a..Rod s_ grlhpsrr:aarpoaa>; GRCA - Planning .............................. (pVarrn.V_ng_".graO ruYer.:_ca.) <.IpVannu_n.g_4 .8.ra_nd_r..iYer._ca>; Landuse Planning <Iand�use.12.Ia_n_n..ing. _In_y�Egnnp �p:M>; Katherine Hughes <Katherine._F uuglh s ki_tc_heneir._ca>; Mike Seiling <p�P .k ei_V.un ku chennr ca>; NavCAN <commercWreVations navcanada ca>, Ontario Power Generation <Execud ev .VawanddeveVo ment o com>; Park ................................................................ B.....................................................................12..........................�........f2g........................ Planning (SM) < ar . Iannun (I� clhen r.ca>; Regional Clerk <regi_ nall_clerle _re.giono a.tedoo.ca>; Region -Howard Chang (angreuonp(veraterlo ca) <SChanregisnruana1 eUVo ca>, Planning Applications <Ipianruunga.ppluca o ns regi.o.in (rnraterVna .ca>; Region of Waterloo International Airport < d..a.iir ortconstructio.n.......wca.>; Property Data Administrator (SM) <Pro Da.ta.Ad.Mjir..tchereir.,..ca>; .....................................................................e inr .......................................................................................................................... Page 102 of 316 Rogers «v cn8r.:.:Per .uts rcuores rs.ccnrrl>; Stefan Hajgato <5. $ n..V..N jg a 0< t h ner ca>; Sylvie Eastman <SYjY.0 o as rnan ku�cheroer >, UW-WUSA (Peds) (r s u�sa ca) <pres wusa >, Viamonde School Board -Daniel _............ Stojc <stoicdcsvuarrngnde>, WCDSB -Planning <pVannurngCvvcc9sb>, WRDSB - Planning <piaropngrsoca> Cc: Christine Kompter <Chrisdine.Kpmp.gr_ .Vcu_tcV�_ _n_ .r.ca.> Subject: RE: Circulation for Comment - 924-944 King Street West (ZBA) Good afternoon, If you have not done so, reminder to please forward me your comments on this application by the end of next week. Thank you, Evan Wittmann (he/him), RPP, MCIP Senior Planner I Development and Housing Approvals Division I City of Kitchener 519-783-8523 I TTY 1-866-969-9994 1 evan.wittmann@kitchener.ca From: Christine Kompter<Clhlrii_s.dn_e...IKra.irrn�njg.ir lkir lh in it c > Sent: Friday, January 17, 2025 12:22 PM To: _DL_Team _DSD -Planning <.i rnt St1 {:Iain iniing !hi ch inelr.ca>; Bell <circullatii_gins( belll.ca>; Darren Kropf <1Darren.1Kro f kiitclhener.ca>; Dave Seller <1D ve..Sellleir Ikirtcheiner.ca>; David Paetz <I[�avid.V�aetz cglk cheiner.ca>; 12.................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................... Enbridge - Lewis Oatway <Iliis:q.Y.�erVriage:cln>; Subdivisions (SM) <Siiiisiipins(Ikiilhinir.>; Enova Power Corp. - Greig Cameron<gireig.cainn eiron@enova ppAgE.cq.irn>; Enova Power Corp. - Shaun Wang <slhaun.wang eingva onreir.cgl >; Fire Prevention (SM) <IFi_irePirev intigin..C�.11 i:Iclh n r.na>; French Catholic School Board .................................................. <P.!29.....................................ir.ca>; Grand River Hospital - Sylvia Rodas <S1ia...Rds . GRCA - Planning .y_oa (VnIlainniiin iraindiriiver ca < Ilaininiiin randriver.ca>; Landuse Planning <Ilainduse Ilanniin rah dirooine com>; Justin .............................g_ c.g........................................................) I.............................g_� 8........................................................ g.....................................1P.............................8........._Y......................................................... Readman <.uuasdirn:.Rea_d. 1a n.Ilki.tcll ener.ca>; Katherine Hughes <IKa:tlherii.irne IhJu Ih s@.! fi clheineir..ca>; Mike Seiling <Vllilk ,.S ii.liiin l irtc ein it ca>; NavCAN <coinnimeirciiallrelatioins irnavca.i2ada. ca>; Ontario Power Generation .__.... .................................................................................................... <1f::xecutuvevpo_V�Mg. d.d.gv Orr rn rro.t ppg.c >; Park Planning (SM) <Park.Plannung u c roc >; Regional Clerk <regicern_a.l_clerkf rc oprtip.(ver .t UVgcu.ca>; Region - Howard Chang (Kb.a_ng rc uonof a.t rloo.._ca.) <SCihang rcyigrnofwa�edoo ca>, Planning Applications <p0a rpungairn�nluc oons rpguonr Fwalt rVcn¢nock>; Region of Waterloo International Airport <Ia V.aprp rrgp n_stru�cdon_f.r .guonof atedoo ca>, Property Data Administrator (SM) < P ranpl( ar s ulnen _10tc.heun_er.ca>; Rogers <s nro r:.. ermi s_ rcp.rc�g r.s.c rn>; Stefan Hajgato <Stefan Viae ato _�otcheneU ca>, Sylvie Eastman <, lyie EaslL.nnan kitchener.ca.>; UW-WUSA (Feds) (pr sa uv sa.ca) < p..E s �nruasa.ca>; Viamonde School Board - Daniel Stojc <s.t.o cj. .gsv a_rrno nc e_oca>; WCDSB - Planning <p0rrnungvcdsl ca>; WRDSB - Planning<p0arrrnungwrdsk� ca> ............ Cc: Evan Wittmann <Evan.Wittrnann@kitchener.ca> Subject: Circulation for Comment - 924-944 King Street West (ZBA) Please see attached. Additional documentation can be found in AMANDA folder 25 100946 (City staff) and Slhal..e.E.i.t. . (external agencies). Comments or questions should be directed to Evan Wittmann, Senior Planner van.wrttmainn !Kit.chener.ca; 519-783-8523. :............................._.....................................�........................................................... Christine Kompter Administrative Assistant I Development Services Department - Planning I City of Kitchener 200 King Street West, 6t" Floor I P.O. Box 1118 1 Kitchener ON N2G 4G7 (NEW) S19-783-81471 TTY 1-866-969-9994 1 christine.kompter@I<itchener.ca Page 103 of 316 Page 104 of 316 Evan Wittmann From: Angela Wang <awang@grandriver.ca> Sent: Monday, January 20, 2025 11:15 AM To: Evan Wittmann Subject: RE: Circulation for Comment - 924-944 King Street West (ZBA) You don't often get email from awang@ grandriver.ca. Learn why this is important Hi Evan, Please be advised that the subject lands are not regulated by the GRCA under Ontario Regulation 41/24. As such, we will not be providing comments on this application. Kind regards, Angela Wang Intermediate Resource Planner Grand River Conservation Authority 400 Clyde Rd Cambridge, ON N1R 5W6 Office: 519-621-2763 ext. 2270 Email: w ..n randier yi..i�..... _ri_rn t._Jnr.ii lh..._us.._on._social media From: Christine Kompter < h.rus.tu.ne...V(om..pl!.U. .Vc tchgu�.erxa.> Sent: January 17, 2025 12:22 PM To: _DL_Team _DSD -Planning < nn S .:::6 larru urng ki cin_ ner.ca>; Bell <cir ul tuortis.. _ VI. >; Darren Kropf <Darren Kro r ku1tchener.ca>; Dave Seller <Dave Seller kitchener ca>; David Paetz <David Paetz kitchener.ca>; ..................................................12.....��.............................................r............................................................@�.............................................................................................................................................................................. Enbridge -Lewis Oatway <Vorus.tayrulbriagpuu>; Subdivisions (SM) <5uusurtsVcuU1�nr.>; Enova Power Corp. - Greig Cameron <greig cireiroin.`�er�o�rapowgir_aninn>; Enova Power Corp. -Shaun Wang <slhauin.wang inrnyafa w r.c inn>; Fire Prevention (SM) <IFi_rePireventio ..0 1ki:tclhe ner:ca>: French Catholic School Board .................................................. <pini.......................................iior......._.... Grand River Hospital - Sylvia Rodas <5y1yia...Rs : Planning _oad < Ilarrrn........ lra12diriiy r a>; Landuse Planning <Ilai2�ua..... nrniing lhy r Arne cc�gm>; Justin Readman <Justiirn if&a�iinC.liitrlhrnir.c>; Katherine Hughes<IKatlheriine.11Nuglhslkitlhrnir g>; Mike Selling ................................................. <Milke.S ii.liting(a lkirtgln in .nr., a.>; NavCAN <commeirciiallrelations lmayE lma a. >; Ontario Power Generation ................................................................................ <IE::xecutiivev .Vawain y ll lin irn.t apg..ggj .>; Park Planning (SM) <Par_k._PIainin.il_ng. _Ikptglh In r.c >; Regional Cleric .................................................. <ir gii_o.na.I_ Ierk. .Irggitolnofwaterlloo.ca>; Region - Howard Chang (Sg_ .ing r .,iio not a.terlo ...ca) .......... <SC1haingfirgp12.fw.tirllo.c>; Planning Applications <pllinrniiingIiicatii_ insirgiirin.fwa.tirlle>; Region of .... Waterloo International Airport <I dlaur ortconstrucdon@re uonofwatedooxa>; Property Data Administrator (SM) <Pmp..Q�.r�d��r�nura Vci.tcln une ...... ga>; Rogers <s rogr:.:perm s. ( r�i.rag��rs.com>; Stefan Hajgato <Stefan FI jgato _O<.itchener ca>, Sylvie Eastman <, lyio East:rnan( ikiitcherr_e_r ca.>; UW-WUSA (Feds) (.I2r <pr s wusa.ca>; Viamonde School Board - Daniel Stojc <sto cc9_ .syuarpro ncie_.ca>; WCDSB - Planning <plar7nung ynrcdsl ._gg>; WRDSB - Planning <p.! .r7.rpurag «cards ca> ............ Cc: Evan Wittmann <Evan.Wittmannl@kitchener.ca> Subject: Circulation for Comment - 924-944 King Street West (ZBA) Page 105 of 316 Please see attached. Additional documentation can be found in AMANDA folder 25 100946 (City staff) and Slha,if..FJI, . (external agencies). Comments or questions should be directed to Evan Wittmann, Senior Planner vanorttmann kutcheneu oca; 519-783-8523. :............................._................................................................................................ Christine Kompter Administrative Assistant I Development Services Department - Planning I City of Kitchener 200 King Street West, 6t" Floor I P.O. Box 1118 1 Kitchener ON N2G 4G7 (NEW) 519-783-81471 TTY 1-866-969-9994 1 christine.kompter@kitchen er.ca i Page 106 of 316 Evan Wittmann From: Planning <planning@wcdsb.ca> Sent: Tuesday, February 18, 2025 9:43 AM To: Evan Wittmann Subject: Re: Circulation for Comment - 924-944 King Street West (ZBA) Attachments: RE: Notice of Pre -submission Consultation - 924-944 King Street West (OPA/ZBA) You don't often get email from planning@wcdsb.ca. Learn why this is important Good morning, The board's previous comment(s) provided on November 6, 2023, remain applicable to the subject application. Please see attached for reference. Thankyou. Kind regards, Isabelle Lung Ler PLanning Technician ••RUMV 519-578-3677 x 2355 .b. , From: Christine Kompter Sent: Friday, January 17, 2025 12:22 PM To: —DL—Team—DSD-Planning ; Bell ; Darren Kropf ; Dave Seller; David Paetz ; Enbridge - Lewis Oatway ; Subdivisions (SM) ; Enova Power Corp. - Greig Cameron ; Enova Power Corp. - Shaun Wang ; Fire Prevention (SM) ; French Catholic School Board ; Grand River Hospital - Sylvia Rodas ; GRCA - Planning (planning@grandriver.ca) ; Landuse Planning ; Justin Readman ; Katherine Hughes ; Mike Seiling ; NavCAN ; Ontario Power Generation ; Park Planning (SM) ; Regional Clerk; Region - Howard Chang (SChang@regionofwaterloo.ca) ; Planning Applications; Region of Waterloo International Airport; Property Data Administrator (SM) ; Rogers ; Stefan Hajgato ; Sylvie Eastman ; UW-WUSA (Feds) (pres@wusa.ca) ; Viamonde School Board - Daniel Stojc ; Planning; WRDSB - Planning Cc: Evan Wittmann Subject: Circulation for Comment - 924-944 King Street West (ZBA) Caution - External Email - This Message comes from an external organization. Do NOT click on unrecognized links or provide your username and/or password. Please see attached. Additional documentation can be found in AMANDA folder 25 100946 (City staff) and Slha.r..e.E.il. . (external agencies). Comments or questions should be directed to Evan Wittmann, Senior Planner vanowrttmann kitchene�roca; 519-783-8523. :...................................................................@........................................................... Christine Kompter Administrative Assistant I Development Services Department - Planning I City of Kitchener 200 King Street West, 6t" Floor I P.O. Box 1118 1 Kitchener ON N2G 4G7 (NEW) 519-783-81471 TTY 1-866-969-9994 1 christine.kompter@kitchener.ca do s �r • Page 107 of 316 Disclaimer - This email and any files transmitted with it are confidential and contain privileged or copyright information. You must not present this message to another party without gaining permission from the sender. If you are not the intended recipient you must not copy, distribute or use this email or the information contained in it for any purpose other than to notify us. If you have received this message in error, please notify the sender immediately, and delete this email from your system. We do not guarantee that this material is free from viruses or any other defects although due care has been taken to minimize the risk. Any views expressed in this message are those of the individual sender, except where the sender specifically states them to be the views of the Waterloo Catholic District School Board. Page 108 of 316 Evan Wittman Senior Planner City of Kitchener 200 King Street West, 6t" Floor P.O. Box 1118, Kitchener, ON N2G 4G7 Dear Mr. Wittman, 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: C14/2/25001 February 28, 2025 Re: Zoning By-law Amendment ZBA25/001/K/EW 924-944 King Street West GSP Group on behalf of 1000100206 & 1000187534 Ontario Inc. c/o Fariborz Fallah City of Kitchener Regional staff have received a zoning by-law amendment (ZBA) application for a development proposal at 924-944 King Street West in the City of Kitchener. The applicant proposes to redevelop the property (which currently contains a range of low- rise commercial uses) with a 28 -storey mixed-use building comprised of 341 dwelling units, two commercial units, 182 parking spaces, and 350 bicycle parking spaces. Note that the Region provided pre -submission comments on a similar (319 unit) concept in November 2023. The lands are located in the Urban Area and Delineated Built Up Area in the Regional Official Plan (now an Official Plan of the City of Kitchener) and located within the Grand River Hospital Major Transit Station Area (MTSA); currently designated Mixed Use Corridor and to be designated Strategic Growth Area 2 (Mid -Rise) in the City's Official Plan; and currently zoned Mixed Use Corridor 2 and to be zoned Strategic Growth Area 2 (Mid -Rise) in the City's zoning by-law. The ZBA seeks to change the zoning category to Mixed Use Corridor (MU -3) to permit the proposed built form, or amend to SGA -3 should the Growing Together come into force and effect prior to approval. Site-specific provisions are requested for increased floor space ratio (FSR) and height, and reduced parking and rear yard setback. The Region has had the opportunity to review the proposal and offers the following comments. Document Number: 4914564 Version: 3 PAgq ajD@ of 316 Corridor Planning Approval of the Environmental Noise Study and Transportation Impact Study are required prior to final approval of the ZBA application. Environmental Noise Study Regional staff have received and reviewed the Noise Study entitled Environmental Noise Assessment 924-944 King Street West, Kitchener, Ontario dated December 9, 2024 and prepared by SLR Consulting (Canada) Ltd. The report indicates that the dominant source of noise around the site is Regional Road No. 8 (King Street West) and the Grand River Transit ION LRT. The report indicates that acoustical impacts are above acceptable levels and mitigation, including warning clauses and the provision for air conditioning, are required to ensure indoor noise levels do not exceed acceptable levels noted in NPC -300 and NPC -216. Regional staff agree with the report's recommendations, and no changes are required in support of the ZBA application. The report indicates that for all units, the requirements of the Ontario Building Code (OBC) will provide adequate sound insulation. Since the noise source, King Street West, is a roadway within the Region's jurisdiction, a registered development agreement as a condition of a future condominium or consent application to implement the recommendations of the noise study will be required. The report recommends a range of noise warning clauses associated with both environmental and stationary noise sources. In addition to those recommended in the study, Regional staff require the following Type A clause be registered on title for all dwelling units. The owner will be required to enter into an agreement with the Region to require inclusion of the following clause(s) in agreements of Offers of Purchase and Sale, lease/rental agreements and condominium declarations. Type A: Purchasers/tenants are advised that sound levels due to increasing road traffic may on occasionally 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, Conservation and Parks. The report recommends the following noise warning clause be registered on title for all residential units on the east, south, and west fagades of the proposed building. Type C: This dwelling unit has been designed with the provision for adding central air conditioning at the occupant's discretion. Installation of central air conditioning by the occupant will allow windows and exterior doors to remain closed, thereby ensuring that the indoor sound levels are within the sound level limits of the Municipality and the Ministry of the Environment, Conservation and Parks. Prior to the issuance of any building permits, a Professional Engineer shall certify that the noise attenuation measures, including the provision for central air conditioning are Document Number: 4914564 Version: 3 pAgE) 3# @ of 316 incorporated in the building plans. Upon completion of construction, a Professional Engineer will certify that the dwelling units have been constructed accordingly. Transportation Impact Study Regional staff have received the Transportation Impact Study (TIS) report entitled 924- 944 King Street West, Kitchener, ON Transportation Impact Study, dated December 3, 2024 and prepared by Paradigm Transportation Solutions Ltd. In light of this review and previous scoping meetings with City staff and the applicant, Regional staff are satisfied that the TIS is acceptable and no changes are required in support of the ZBA application. The following comments are provided for the applicant's consideration addressed in a resubmission of the TIS: - The eastbound left turn/U-turn movement appears to be accommodated within the existing storage. This should be noted in the TIS report as part of an update associated with a future site plan application. - A Transportation Demand Management (TDM) Checklist has not been included in the TIS. Due to the site's proximity to the Grand River Hospital ION Station, the TDM Checklist must be submitted as part of a future site plan application, in which the applicant must consider how the development could be made more transit -supportive. - A functional design of the proposed access must be included when submitting the Regional Road Access permit application (see below). - Details on the required modifications to the traffic signal operation must be provided as part of the Regional Road Access permit submission as well. - Pavement markings and signage will need to be changed in order to convert the existing U-turn lane to a left -turn lane as proposed. This may be addressed when the Regional Road Access Permit is submitted. Conditions of Future Site Plan Application Approval Approval of the Regional road widening land dedication, access permits, lot grading/servicing plans and stormwater management report are required prior to approval of a future site plan application. Road Widenin At this location, Regional Road #15 (King Street West, Kitchener) has a designed road allowance width of 30.0 metres, as designated in Schedule `A' of the ROP. Regional staff estimate that an approximate road widening of 2.5 metres will be required along the King Street West frontage of the proposed development. The Owner/Applicant must engage an OLS to prepare a draft reference plan which illustrates the required road allowance widening. Prior to registering the reference plan, the OLS should submit a draft copy of the plan to the Transportation Planner for review (tkineaIDregion ofwaterloo.ca). An electronic copy of the registered plan is to be provided subsequently be email as well. Further instructions will come from the Region's Legal Assistant with regard to document preparation and registration. The land must be dedicated to the Region for road allowance purposes without cost and free of encumbrance. All land dedications should be identified on the site plan. Document Number: 4914564 Version: 3 p4gq 3# A of 316 Access Permits A Regional Access Permit will be required to close the existing access to King Street East. There is no fee for this permit. A Regional Access Permit will also be required for the proposed access, which must comply with the Regional Access Policy. The issuance fee for this permit is $230. As described above, functional design and traffic signal operation details will be required in support of the permit application for the new (realigned) access to King Street West. The application for Regional Access Permits can be found on the Region's website at: https://forms.regionofwaterloo.ca/Planning-and-Economic-Development/Close-an- Access-Access-Perm it -Application Stormwater Management and Site Grading Storm sewers within the Regional road right-of-way are generally sized and designed to only accommodate stormwater from the right-of-way and in some instances off-road surface drainage under existing conditions. A private stormwater connection to any storm sewer on to King Street West will be discouraged where an alternate stormwater connection is available, including infiltration if soil conditions and Source Protection under the Clean Water Act permit, or if it is determined that the King Street West storm sewer does not have the sufficiency (condition and capacity) to accommodate private stormwater flows from this site. It is the responsibility of the applicant's engineering consultant to determine an appropriate stormwater outlet from this site and the sufficiency of the receiving storm system if there is no other option available and to include this information in the stormwater management report (SWM). The applicant or their consultant should contact Malcolm Lister, Manager, Technical Services for the Region at mlister(a)_regionofwaterloo.ca or 519-575-4432 to determine if any engineering plans and/or further technical information for King Street West is available which may be of assistance. The applicant must submit a detailed Existing Conditions and Removals Plan, Landscaping Plan, Site Grading & Drainage Control Plan, Site Servicing Plan along with a SWM report (electronic copies) to the Commissioner of Planning, Development and Legislative Services, Region of Waterloo for approval. This should include drainage details for the subject property, abutting properties and the public road allowance so as to ensure compatible drainage. This should also show all existing and proposed connections to the municipal storm sewers, sanitary sewers and water mains, all existing infrastructure removals, all proposed vegetation and plantings, and all detailed erosion and siltation control features, all to the satisfaction of the Regional Municipality of Waterloo. Please note that the study and plans may be subject to a peer review at the owner/applicant's expense. Please note that any servicing removals on King Street West will be subject to additional requirements to ensure proper abandonment beneath the ION tracks. Once complete servicing drawings are received, further comments will be provided. The applicant is encouraged to reuse as many existing services as possible, and minimise the need for any new service connections. The site must be graded in accordance with the approved plan and the Regional Road allowance must be restored to the Reigon's satisfaction. Any new servicing connections or updates to existing servicing within the Document Number: 4914564 Version: 3 p4ge[ 3# ? of 316 Regional right-of-way would require Regional approval through a separate process of Municipal Consent. Grand River Transit The subject property is well served by transit with four conventional bus routes offering two-way service adjacent to the property, along with close access to ION light rail transit service. Grand River Transit (GRT) has no plans to relocate or add a transit stop adjacent to this property. The applicant should be made aware that if the need for new or relocated transit amenities is identified in the future, the applicant may be required to make provisions for this infrastructure as part of a future Planning Act Application. Transportation Demand Management: GRT Transportation Demand Management (TDM) staff generally support the reduced automobile parking supplies, and encourages applicant to consider implementing TDM measures in tandem to support residents in choosing sustainable transportation options. The current design requires residents to exit the building to access the residence from the bike room on the first floor. The applicant should consider providing access to a stairwell from bike room so residents do not need to exit the building. Other bike parking notes for the applicant's consideration include: - The expected routes from the secure bike storage room to the exterior of the building should have automatic (power -opening) doors (activated by keycard or similar) to minimize difficulty when entering or exiting the room with a bike. - The swept path of doors should not interfere with preferred route of travel, or sliding doors should be used. - A bike fix -it station should be considered, consisting of a selection of bike tools, a work stand, and an air pump. - A bike washing station (hose hook up and drainage) could be considered. - Some space in the bike room should be designated for non -conventional bike types, including tandems, trailers, fat bikes, cargo bikes, tricycles, children's bikes, etc. - Ensure the aisles within the bike room are wide enough to allow for space to load and unload bicycles for racks (medium-sized adult bikes are approximately 175cm in length), or purchase stacked racks that can accommodate a narrow aisle. Other A site plan pre -consultation fee of $300 and review fee of $805 will be required for the review and approval of a future site plan application. Region of Waterloo International Airport Staff from the Region of Waterloo International Airport have reviewed the application and have no concerns with the proposal. The development is located outside of the federal Airport Zoning Regulation area, but within the obstacle protection area of various Instrument Flight Procedures with an estimated allowable elevation of 547 metres above seal level (or 1794 feet). The architectural package submitted in support of this application show a building height of 99.2m. Assuming a ground floor elevation of 336 Document Number: 4914564 Version: 3 pAge, 3# J of 316 metres ASL, the overall building elevation would be 435 metres ASL. This leaves sufficient clearance for any cranes. The developer will need to submit a Land Use application to Nav Canada for the building and crane, and obtain a letter of no objection to the Region's satisfaction. The developer will also need to submit an Aeronautical Assessment form to Transport Canada, and comply with all requirements. Source Water Protection & Risk Management This site is located in a wellhead protection sensitivity area as identified on Map 6 of the ROP, a Chloride Issue Contributing Area, and a source protection area subject to Part IV of the Clean Water Act (WHPA C-4 associated with the Parkway Wellfield). The Regional Risk Management Official (RMO) has indicated that the Section 59 Notice submitted is invalid. The addressing is incorrect and salt application is not listed on Schedule 1. Please be advised the RMO has reached out to the applicant directly to begin negotiating a Provisional Risk Management Plan. Once complete, a valid Section 59 Notice will be issued. Housinq Services The Region of Waterloo is the Service System Manager for housing locally and is therefore required by legislation to create a plan to address affordable housing and homelessness every 10 years for the geography it covers. The plan must outline current housing needs, develop objectives and targets related to meeting housing needs, and commit to actions to meet these targets. To fulfill this role, the Region establishes, administers, and funds housing and homelessness programs and services, and operates housing directly. Specifically: The 10 -Year Housing and Homelessness Plan for Waterloo Region contains an affordable housing target which is that 30 percent of all new residential development between 2019 and 2041 in Waterloo Region be affordable to low - and moderate -income households. The Building Better Futures Framework shows how the Region plans to create 2,500 units of housing affordable to people with low to moderate incomes by 2025. Regional staff note that the Planning Justification report indicates that the developer is planning to provide 18 affordable units as required by the Rental Replacement by-law. The Region supports the provision of affordable housing. Should this development application move forward and all necessary applications be approved, staff recommend that the applicant consider providing additional affordable housing units on the site, as defined in the Provincial Policy Statement. Rent levels and house prices that are considered affordable according to the Provincial Policy Statement are provided below in the section on affordability. These are the levels and prices for which developments will be eligible for Regional Development Charge exemptions. 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 Document Number: 4914564 Version: 3 p4g% 3# 4 of 316 place to ensure the units remain affordable and establish income levels of the households who can rent or own the homes. Staff further recommend meeting with Housing Services to discuss the proposal in more detail and to explore opportunities for partnerships or programs and mechanisms to support a defined level of affordability. According to the Provincial Planning Statement 2024 (PPS 2024), an affordable house price is the lesser of the following values: A price 10 percent below the average purchase price of a resale market unit; or A price for which payments would not exceed 30 percent of gross annual household income at the 60th percentile. For an ownership unit of any dwelling type (i.e. single, semi, towns, apartment) to be deemed affordable, the proposed house price in the City of Kitchener must be at or below is $370,100 (Provincial Bulletin, June 2024). According to the PPS 2024, affordable rent is the lesser of the following values: Average market rent provided annually by the Canada Mortgage and Housing Corporation; or Rent which would not exceed 30% of gross annual renter household income at the 60th percentile. For a rental unit to be deemed affordable, the rent for the proposed units in the City of Kitchener must be at or below Source: Provincial Bulletin, June 2024): - Studio $1,117 - One Bedroom: $1,322 - Two Bedroom: $1,594 - Three+ Bedroom: $1,779 Please do not hesitate to contact Housing Services staff directly at JMaanMiedema(cD-regionofwaterloo.ca or 226-753-9593 should you have any questions or wish to discuss in more detail. Environmental Threats & Site Contamination (Advisory) The Region's Threats Inventory Database identifies only "low" environmental threats on the subject lands associated with past land uses. The following graphic is provided to the City on an advisory basis — note that low threats are identified by the yellow dots. Document Number: 4914564 Version: 3 pQgE� 3# fi of 316 Fees The Region acknowledges receipt of the ZBA ($3,000) review fee as required by Regional By-law 24-052 (received February 28, 2025). Conclusions & Next Steps Regional staff would have no objection to approval of this application, provided: - A Provisional Risk Management plan is negotiated to the satisfaction of the Regional Risk Management Official and a valid Notice of Source Protection Plan Compliance (Section 59 Notice) is issued and provided to the Region and City. 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 cc. Kristen Barisdale, GSP Group (Agent) Fariborz Fallah, 2000100206 & 1000187534 Ontario Inc. (Owner) Document Number: 4914564 Version: 3 Pa -#g% 3# @ of 316 Evan Wittmann From: Planning <planning@wcdsb.ca> Sent: Monday, November 6, 2023 2:30 PM To: Andrew Pinnell Subject: RE: Notice of Pre -submission Consultation - 924-944 King Street West (OPA/ZBA) Good Afternoon Andrew, The Waterloo Catholic District School Board has reviewed the subject application and based on our development circulation criteria have the following comment(s)/condition(s): A) That any Education Development Charges shall be collected prior to the issuance of a building permit(s). B) That the developer and the Waterloo Catholic District School Board reach an agreement regarding the supply and erection of a sign (at the developer's expense and according to the Board's specifications) affixed to the development sign advising prospective residents about schools in the area. A sign specifications document can be found at the bottom of the board's planning department web page (https://www.wcdsb.ca/a bout- us/cs/planning/). If you require any further information, please contact me by e-mail at Jordan. Neale@wcdsb.ca. Thank you, Jordan Neale Planning Technician, WCDSB 480 Dutton Dr, Waterloo, ON N2L 4C6 519-578-3660 ext. 2355 From: Christine Kompter Sent: Thursday, October 26, 2023 4:26 PM To: 'natalie. hardacre@waterloo.ca' ; _DL_#_DSD_Planning ; Bell - c/o WSP ; Canada Post - Brad Biskaborn (brad.biskaborn @ca nada post. postescanada.ca) ; Carlos Reyes ; Darren Kropf ; Dave Seller; David Paetz ; Ellen Kayes ; Enova Power Corp. - Greig Cameron ; Enova Power Corp. - Shaun Wang; Fire Prevention (SM) ; GRCA - Planning (planning@grandriver.ca) ; Hydro One - Dennis DeRango ; Justin Readman ; Park Planning (SM) ; Region - Howard Chang (SChang@regionofwaterloo.ca) ; Region - Planning; Region - Risk Management; Robert Schipper ; Rogers (SWOGR- PERMITS@ rci.rogers.com) ; Sanitary Storm Approvals (SM) ; Steven Ryder; Planning; WRDSB - Planning Cc: Andrew Pinnell Subject: Notice of Pre -submission Consultation - 924-944 King Street West (OPA/ZBA) Caution - External Email - This Message comes from an external organization. Do NOT click on unrecognized links or provide your username and/or password. Page 117 of 316 For your information — please see attached. A pre -submission consultation meeting has been scheduled as detailed below. A meeting request will be sent to those invited to attend. If you are not required to attend this meeting but have comments related to this proposal, please contact the assigned file planner noted below. PLEASE NOTE: PRE -SUBMISSION CONSULTATION APPLICATIONS ARE 'CONFIDENTIAL'. FOR CITY STAFF REFERENCE: *** CIRCULATION AND COMMENTING PROCESSES ARE NOW DONE DIRECTLY THROUGH AMANDA— PLEASE CHECK YOUR TASK LIST AND SEE LINK FOR DETAILED INSTRUCTIONS, AMANDA folder #23- 23-125046 COMMENTS DUE BY: MINIMUM ONE WEEK BEFORE MEETING MEETING DATE & TIME: November 23, 2023 — 1:00 — 2:00 p.m. (staff only meeting scheduled for November 16th) MEETING LOCATION: MSTeams—virtual meeting SITE: 924-944 King Street West APPLICANT/AGENT: Kristen Barisdale, GSP Group Inc. PROPOSAL: An OPA and ZBA are requested to facilitate a preliminary development concept that involves the consolidation of several properties. The development concept consists of a 30 -storey mixed-use building, comprising ground floor commercial retail units along King Street and residential use above (319 dwelling units). The development concept proposes a Floor Space Ratio of 11.66 and incorporates a 4 -storey podium and tower step -backs at the rear of the building, adjacent to Dodd's Lane. The concept proposes a total of 195 parking spaces within one level of underground parking and four levels of structured, podium parking (residential rate of 0.52 spaces / unit; commercial rate of 1 space / 22.5 m2 GFA). STAFF/AGENCIES INVITED TO ATTEND: Andrew Pinnell, Pegah Fahimian, Policy Planning (delegate), Garett Stevenson (optional), Tina Malone -Wright (optional), Sandro Bassanese (optional), Heritage Planning (delegate), Engineering (delegate), Transportation (delegate), Park Planning (optional), Utilities (optional), Regional Planning (delegate), Region — Transit Development (optional), City of Waterloo (delegate). Comments or questions should be forwarded to Andrew Pinnell, Senior Planner(a_yr�nr.._pinneOVCekotchener.ra; 519- 741-2200 x7668). Christine Kompter Administrative Assistant I Planning Division I City of Kitchener 200 King Street West, 6t" Floor I P.O. Box 1118 Kitchener ON N2G 4G7 519-741-2200 ext. 7425 1 TTY 1-866-969-9994 christine.kompter@kitchener.ca Page 118 of 316 Page 119 of 316 Evan Wittmann From: Aminu Bello <Aminu.Bello@waterloo.ca> Sent: Tuesday, March 11, 2025 10:05 AM To: Evan Wittmann Cc: Christine Kompter Subject: RE: Circulation for Comment - 924-944 King Street West (File: ZBA25/001/K/EW) Some people who received this message don't often get email from aminu.bello@waterloo.ca. Learn why this is important Good morning, The City of Waterloo staff has no concerns with the proposed Zoning By-law Amendment at 924-944 King Street W, Kitchener. Transportation staff agree with the TIS assumptions and have no comments from a transportation perspective. If the proposal changes (density, access, etc.) in the future staff may request an updated TIS. At the pre -consultation application stage, Engineering staff advised their review is not necessary given the property location. Regards Aminu From: Christine Kompter Sent: January 17, 2025 4:22 PM To: Zoning Preconsultation Cc: Evan Wittmann Subject: [EXTERNAL] Circulation for Comment - 924-944 King Street West (ZBA) CAUTION: This email originated from outside the organization. Do not click links or open attachments unless you recognise the sender and know the content is safe. Please see attached. Additional documentation can be found in AMANDA folder 25 100946 (City staff) and a..r..e.E.JI.e. JI. (external agencies). Comments or questions should be directed to Evan Wittmann, Senior Planner vain.wrttmainin Ikit herneir.ca 519-783-8523. :............................._............................................................ ........... ...... ............ ..... .., Christine Kompter Administrative Assistant I Development Services Department - Planning I City of Kitchener 200 King Street West, 6t" Floor I P.O. Box 1118 1 Kitchener ON N2G 4G7 (NEW) 519-783-81471 TTY 1-866-969-9994 1 christine.kompter@I<itchener.ca Page 120 of 316 Evan Wittmann From: Christine Kompter Sent: Friday, January 17, 2025 12:45 PM To: Sylvie Eastman; David Paetz; Michele Kamphuis Cc: Evan Wittmann Subject: RE: Circulation for Comment - 924-944 King Street West (ZBA) I will forward this to the file planner — please direct any future correspondence to Evan Wittman instead of myself. Christine Kompter Administrative Assistant I Development Services Department - Planning I City of Kitchener 200 King Street West, 6t" Floor I P.O. Box 1118 1 Kitchener ON N2G 4G7 (NEW) S19-783-81471 TTY 1-866-969-9994 1 christine.kompter@kitchen er.ca jmar' From: Sylvie Eastman Sent: Friday, January 17, 2025 12:39 PM To: David Paetz Cc: Christine Kompter; Michele Kamphuis Subject: FW: Circulation for Comment - 924-944 King Street West (ZBA) Depending on where the proponent wants the gas meter, we may need to upsize the existing 32mm gas main to 100mm. Thanks, Sylvie (she/her) 519-783-8757 (office) 519-498-9553 (mobile) Please respond to non -emergency messages within your normal working hours. From: Christine Kompter <.0fru_s.ku_rJ_e_o_V<cn_�nn_�ater@Vcutclheneroca> Sent: Friday, January 17, 2025 12:22 PM To: DL Team DSD -Planning <: ren S .::: la�n�nu_E.g.. .V ii cln_ener.ca>; Bell <ircul t.uou s.. ineVloc >; Darren Kropf <[)arren.Kro i «�kutcheneroca>; Dave Seller <[) vo Sell r kutchener ca>; David Paetz <David Paetz kutchener.ca>; ..................................................I(�.....�:............................................r....................................................................................................................................................................................................................................... Enbridge -Lewis Oatway <ieus_oeavua..rnlbridge.cprra>; Subdivisions (SM) <Suauvusuu�s.C_icurrUo>; Enova Power Corp. -Greig Cameron <gUoig cauueroul(eno�rapowr au1n>; Enova Power Corp. - Shaun Wang <slhauin.wang irk a a Jnr iraccrinm>; Fire Prevention (SM) <IFi_irePireven_tipin..@.II<is clhe n r.ca>: French Catholic School Board .................................................. <B.!2.i!.i_ ii_ca.iioin cscr r rr v iniilr ca>; Grand River Hospital - Sylvia Rodas <S.}�jyi_a...Rodas( girlhpsp. ain. >; GRCA - Planning .................................... (pllair�rniiing_girindrilr:ca)<Igllainini.ing_guraindriveir:ca>; Landuse Planning <IlinnJsIlrnrningInyirpImni0>; Justin Readman <.Uuastiii .R ea_d.im_an.@Jki:tcherner...ca>; Katherine Hughes <IKa.therii.ime 11-ju�uglJ .s@ lkic ineir.ca>; Mike Sailing <Iilke.Siiliiin.Ikii.tceirneir.ca>; NavCAN<ceirrrnirrneiraallrligi7sImaclrnada.c>; Ontario Power Generation Page 121 of 316 <Executuvev oV vv Y V a uvo. u . apgo upr>; Park Planning (SM) < ..ark,.....I ung ��.pt�D��ner ca>; Regional Clerk ............................. ............... <regi_gn .I_ lerk. .E2gion.o.(:wateUVcrc.ca>; Region - Howard Chang (�g_hq_ng.° r�gu���� �.��rl�0.ca) <SClhang re igrti aFwa�orVoo c >, Planning Applications <pV roprog (p lu a o_dans _rggionofwaterV_c�o. a>; Region of Waterloo International Airport <pda r ortconstruucdon are uonoff ate�rVcrc > Property Data Administrator (SM) <¢ irgpl[ .t irniiin 1ki h ir�_�r.c >; Rogers <s ro r...�eri�niits.."�irEii.,:rStefan Hajgato <Stefain IINa ato Ikutclheineir cru>, S Ivie Eastman <S Ilvie Eastman Ikiitcheneir.ca>; UW-WUSA Feds ares wusa.ca ............................................Vg.......................................................................... Y X....................................................................................................................... ( ) (.I .............._......................................) <pira~s �nruas .c >; Viamonde School Board - Daniel Stojc <s o c _ s li imgirncj >; WCDSB - Planning <pll inrniii7go v a Ib,a >; WRDSB - Planning <p.lg.9.!2ii.ing Cc: Evan Wittmann <IE;;uan Wittrm_air�n. .!Siitclheiner:ca> Subject: Circulation for Comment - 924-944 King Street West (ZBA) Please see attached. Additional documentation can be found in AMANDA folder 25 100946 (City staff) and a..r..e.E.JI.e. i . (external agencies). Comments or questions should be directed to Evan Wittmann, Senior Planner (evan.wittirmann(o)lki tcheneir.ca: 519-783-8523. Christine Kompter Administrative Assistant I Development Services Department - Planning I City of Kitchener 200 King Street West, 6th Floor I P.O. Box 1118 1 Kitchener ON N2G 4G7 (NEW) 519-783-8147 1 TTY 1-866-969-9994 1 christine.kompterCcDkitchen er.ca jmar' Page 122 of 316 Evan Wittmann From: aidan van heyst < Sent: Friday, February 28, 2025 11:35 PM To: Evan Wittmann; Stephanie Stretch Subject: 924-944 King St W Some people who received this message don't often get email from . Learn why this is important Dear Evan and Stephanie, am writing to you about concerns regarding the proposed zoning change and development proposed for 924-944 King St W. am a resident of Mary Street and I currently work in the mining and environmental permitting sector. am keenly aware of the many regulations that restrict developments based on environmental concerns. For me, I see the regulations as a way for the government to protect those who cannot protect themselves. Many of these regulations came about due to mistakes made in the past and keeping to these regulations is keeping health and safety in the forefront. In my job, when I see a company trying to get around regulations or have exemptions from the rules, I see it as them skirting responsibility and trying to do things easier for cheaper. And I honestly see this zoning amendment request the same way. It is an easy way for the city to build something easy and to turn a buck. There are many high-rise developments being built in this area already - has there been a cumulative assessment on the housing requirements of the city considering the new developments? Is a building such as the one proposed still required to meet housing demands? Or will there still be a lack of affordable housing units and a surplus of luxury one -bedroom units? Instead of building another high-rise where it may not be needed, why can't the city take some responsibility for its citizens and require that the developer include a sufficient number of affordable housing units? People in our communitywho are unhoused cannot wait for the market to adjust to the increased surplus of apartments and wait for rents to decrease. There is so much uncertainty in the world right now - who knows if rents will ever decrease to a level where they are actually affordable. The city needs to take action and demand that affordable units are being built. There is an entire city block across the street that is zoned SGA3 but is currently being used as a parking lot that sits empty most of the time. Why can't we build high rise apartments there and make good use of the space that is otherwise wasted? On the side of King Street next to single family homes, why not build mid -rise buildings (as is being done on similar stretches of King Street in Waterloo) and subsidize affordable housing units? I think that as a citywe are at a crossroads. The city can continue to allow these developers to make money while people in the community cannot afford rent, or the city can protect its citizens and demand better of these developers. We have the chance to build a wonderful and thriving community, but I don't think that can be done by ignoring the people suffering the most and changing the rules for the highest bidder. Thankyou, Page 123 of 316 Aidan Van Heyst Resident of Mary Street Page 124 of 316 Evan Wittmann From: Elizabeth Stevens Sent: Wednesday, February 26, 2025 9:20 PM To: Evan Wittmann; Stephanie Stretch Cc: Subject: 924-944 King St W Some people who received this message don't often get email from . Learn why this is important Dear Evan and Stephanie, I write this with very small hope that your request for community feedback is genuine and solicited in good faith, and that it might make a difference. I am a resident of Mary Street and I am writing to share concerns about the development plan for "my backyard", specifically, the GSP Application for 924-944 King Street West. Many of the citizens of Kitchener -Waterloo, and most of my neighbours, appreciate the responsibility of municipal and provincial governments to increase density, particularly on arterial roads and around transit stations. However, this proposed development goes beyond what is reasonable, and in fact, is in conflict with The City's own democratically developed Official Plan, Zoning By -Laws, and Design Guidelines. We are in a position to plan a healthy, vital densification of our city. However, Tall Buildings such as this one will not get us there. Residents of Tall Buildings, greater than 10 storeys, are at greater risk for becoming disconnected from street life and their communities. Daniel Capon, in the Canadian Journal of Public Health, has written that detachment and isolation is a risk factor for mental health difficulties, and this isolation grows with increased building height. Even for passersby, building height can have negative psychological impact. Walking or driving through the Tall buildings along King Street at Columbia in Waterloo, you will likely experience some level of psychological stress. With 5 or 6 storey buildings, visual connection between pedestrians and residents is maintained, and along with that, a sense of well-being. Sense of personal safety can also be compromised by the disconnection created by Tall Buildings. And even more than that, research in the early 1980s found that within lower to middle income areas, taller buildings are associated with higher rates of property crime (Oscar Newman, Defensible Space, 1982) In addition, the negative environmental impacts of Tall Buildings are considerable. In a 2012 report, Patrick Condon from the University of British Columbia highlighted that high rises use almost twice as much energy per square foot as mid -rise structures due to the effects of sun and wind on the tall Page 125 of 316 structure. He also noted that high-rise buildings are built largely of steel and concrete, materials which are 10 times more greenhouse gas intensive than wood, more often used in the construction of low rise and mid -rise buildings. Finally, Tall buildings cast significant shadows over the surrounding neighbourhoods, with a reduction in sunlight that can have negative implications for the health of humans, animals and plants. We have a unique opportunity to increase the density of the City of Kitchener in a thoughtful, healthy way. Approval of the rezoning application flies in the face of healthy city design and would be squandering our opportunity to design our best possible city for now and the future. Densification can occur with low to mid -rise buildings, and in so doing, respecting the integrity of our neighborhoods as well as contributing to the health of our current and future citizens and the environment in which we live. Thank you. Respectfully, Elizabeth Stevens (Resident, Owner and Psychologist), Page 126 of 316 Evan Wittmann From: Sent: To: Subject: You don't often get email from Dear Sir, Alanna McKillop < > Sunday, February 23, 2025 10:25 PM Evan Wittmann Letter Formatting Issue re:924-944 King St. W. Learn why this is important I am resending you a previous email as I am concerned that there may have been a formatting issue and that you may not have been able to view my email in its entirety. I apologize for any inconvenience. Re: 924-944 King St W. To Whom It May Concern: This letter is written regarding the GSP Group Application for a Zoning By -Law Amendment to the properties along the King St. corridor including 924-944 King St. West, Kitchener. Recently, the Dez Capital Corporation has proposed a development along this section of King St. corridor that would consist of a 28 storey mixed use building that includes both retail and residential units. Currently, these lands are soon to be designated SGA2, allowing for Medium Intensity Mixed Corridor use (MU2) which allows for building heights of 24m (approximately 8 storeys) and a Floor Space Ratio of 1.0 - 4.0. In December of 2024, the GSP group put forth an application to rezone this area to an SGA3 designation; thereby allowing for building heights of up to 28 storeys (their site specific building equalling 99.2 m in height) with a redesignated Floor Space Ratio equalling 11.66. am writing to you today, to state my opposition for the rezoning of these lands while encouraging you to maintain the current Strategic Growth Plan - keeping this area designated as SGA2. Having attended the virtual zoom meeting on February 19th, I was both shocked and dismayed with the `positive spin' that was placed on this development by the developer. I am the current owner and resident of 49 Mary St. and have lived at this residence for 27 years. My property lies directly behind a portion of this proposed development with Dodd's Lane lying between my backyard and this proposed building. I have numerous concerns and my arguments against this development stand as follows: Sunlight- In reviewing the Shadow Study, I have found that on the best day of the year, June 21 st, my property will not begin to receive sunlight until after 2pm (page 8 of Shadow Analysis). This lack of sunlight will have devastating effects on my vegetable garden and the plants in my yard. This will greatly hamper the use and enjoyment of my property while adding to the list of problems that occur with reduced vegetation in urban environments. Privacy- Floor Plans (page 2 and 3 of Floor Plans) indicate that there will be 8 balconies per floor overlooking my backyard. That amount totals (8 balconies) x (22 floors with balconies) = 176 balconies Page 127 of 316 looking into my backyard. Where is the use and enjoyment of my yard? Transportation- The GPS Group has proposed that Dodd's Lane will act as a secondary entrance/exit for this building. Dodd's Lane is just that -- it is a lane and just barely wide enough to accommodate a single vehicle. While the developer proposes that the King St. will act as the main vehicle entrance, any traffic on Dodd's Lane will be too much. Vehicles can not pass each other. With the newly constructed building at the corner of King and Pine St., and the fact that residents will only be able to make a right hand turn from Pine St. on to King St., significant traffic flow increases as well as increased noise/emission levels will inevitably follow on the residential streets of Mary, Herbert and Pine Streets. Wind and Wind Tunnel Effect- While street level Wind Studies are required for the proposed development, there are no such studies for the properties bordering this building. It must be noted that while this proposed building will act as a buffer to the properties on its northern side, any openings within the building's framework (e.g., the vehicle entrance tunnels or the service easement on the west side of this building) will actually act to increase wind flow on surrounding properties. As we typically receive winds from the south-west, this will also impact our properties (as it did when houses were removed on Park St. for the building of the Sunlife parking lot—we lost 2 mature and 3 semi -mature trees during the first summer storm, our neighbours and the Mount Hope cemetery also sustained significant damage). Light Pollution- In order to maintain safety within Dodd's Lane, this building will inevitably engage in the use of nighttime lighting practices. This will cause a great deal of light pollution to surrounding properties, again, affecting the quality, use and enjoyment of these properties. Infrastructure- Our province has encouraged and mandated the development of high-density residential areas. And while we receive funding to meet government housing targets, I am wondering whether or not we have also taken appropriate steps to ensure that this development is successful? While we may end up with more places for people to reside, I question if we will be able to support this growth with the necessary medical, emergency and social services needed with such population growth? Does our city have a viable strategic growth plan for this, as the newly designated hospital is not set to open until 2034 — as just one example. Land use metrics (Height Transition Requirements)- It is my understanding that the property to the south- west of this area (Sunlife parking lot) is designated as SGA3 and that this proposed development would be situated on land that has been designated SGA2. The reason for such designations is to meet `Transition Zone Requirements' as per our current City Planning By -Laws. The properties (924-944 King St.) are on narrow lots which do not uphold the current practice or future plans for this area. By allowing a 28 storey building on this site we would be breaking with the practice of requiring adequate transition zones between low-rise residential zones and surrounding areas. It is also my understanding that the current SGA3 zoning by-law only allows for buildings up to a height of 25 storeys, and if approved, this site specific plan would further exceed and violate current city zoning by-laws for even SGA3 zones . All of those reasons being stated, I implore you to stick with your Strategic Plan and maintain the current building designation of SGA2 for the north side of the King St. corridor between Union and Pine Streets. am not against development in my backyard. I understand the need for housing and support reasonable initiatives, which include the building of 8 storey developments in my backyard. I also understand that `failed cities' and dystopian outcomes begin with a lack of foresight and future planning. I therefore encourage you to carefully consider the future of our city as you move forward in this matter. Page 128 of 316 Thankyou. Respectfully, Alanna Leis (Resident and Owner) Page 129 of 316 Evan Wittmann From: Heidi Johnston < > Sent: Wednesday, February 19, 2025 7:34 PM To: Evan Wittmann Subject: Proposed 924-944 King St. Follow Up Flag: Follow up Flag Status: Flagged You don't often get email from . Learn why this is important Hello Evan am a Registered midwife with my current clinic location is at 926 King St. W, Kitchener. Prior to moving to this current location, our clinic was 900 King St W, Kitchener. There is very limited space suitable for medical offices around Grand River Hospital. would be very disappointed if this proposal would be approved. would willing to discuss further with you if you are interested. Thankyou. Heidi Johnston Registered Midwife Kitchener -Waterloo Midwifery Associates i Page 130 of 316 Evan Wittmann From: Evan Wittmann Sent: Frida , Februa 21, 2025 9:43 AM To: Cc: Stephanie Stretch Subject: 924-944 King Street Development Application Good morning, Thank you for providing your feedback and comments. They have been received. I've copy/pasted your email below and added some commentary (in red) regarding your question about municipal services: Thank you for taking the time to read this letter. I was late getting in to the Zoom Meeting last night on changing the official plan to allow for greater height of structures along the King Street corridor. I asked specific questions as to the affect of increased density on property values in our neighbourhood and the seeming race to put the cart before the horse as far as development goes. The new hospital is still many years off. Has there been an increase in any of the services provided by government to offset such an influx of new residents to the area? I'm talking police services, ambulatory services, increased emergency staffing for existing hospitals, as well as a push for more family doctors in the area. Will existing infrastructure both above ground and underground be enough to handle the increase in density of new construction or will taxpayers be footing the bill for the developer's gain. Through the development process, the City and Region levy something called Development Charges (DC's) to the developer. DC's are implemented under the notion that "growth pays for growth", so that as the City grows, municipal services like sewers/servicing infrastructure, fire response, police, libraries, rec centres, etc have funds allocated to them to handle increased demand. And who is this Mike _ that spoke so passionately as to what constitutes a neighbourhood and what he thinks of longtime residents who, after a lifetime of work, only wish to build some estate value for their children and next of kin. I personally felt insulted by this man who is not a neighbour in my neighbourhood. I have apartment buildings directly behind my house and have friends who reside there for God's sake. Those apartments were already there when I bought my property 40 years ago and I definitely consider all people who reside near me as neighbours. It is obvious to me that our council has no interest in aesthetics. This isn't some Chicago skyline we are creating here with the architecture of a Frank Lloyd Wright. Instead I fear we are just building filing cabinets in the sky. Filing cabinets for people. Aesthetics be damned. What Mr. Developer wants, Mr. Developer gets. I fear that the City Of Kitchener is going down a path not taken by its neighbour Waterloo, by amending the City Plan to allow structures of heights 3 times greater. Thanks for listening Evan Wittmann (he/him), RPP, MCIP Senior Planner I Development and Housing Approvals Division I City of Kitchener 519-783-8523 1 TTY 1-866-969-9994 1 evan.wittmann(cD-kitchener.ca Page 131 of 316 Jack McKillop Good Afternoon Evan and Stephanie, wanted to ask you to take a few minutes from your busy schedule to consider some of the concerns expressed by myself, my neighbours, and greater community members in general, regarding the proposed construction project at 924-944 King Street The opposition to having such a sizable tower on this site is based on a number of issues including but not limited to: -Increased light and noise pollution. - The issues of on street parking and concerns of the increase in residential street traffic and vehicle emissions. - Traffic safety— as there an increasing number of young families with small children moving in to this area. - Loss of privacy in many of the neighbouring residences from the many balconies looking directly into private backyards. - The shadow studies indicate that at certain times of the year the shadow area of this tower will reach well beyond Weber Street to the northeast. And will leave many nearby properties, including my own, in complete shade for most of the day. ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- The official city zoning for the King Street corridor from Pine Street to Union Street currently zoned MU2) is proposed to be change to an SGA2 designation, with a maximum height of 8 storeys. The SGA2 designation also allow for a for a Floor Space Ratio (FSR) of 1.0; the amendment being asked for by the developer is a change to an 28 storeys and an FSR of 11.66 This drastic and sudden increase in the height of this `point tower' also deviates from the city's own requirements/concept for the transition from low rise to high rise developments, adjacent to residential neighbourhoods. The consultant for GSP Group suggested that the presence of Dodd's Lane was a sufficient enough set back to negate this height transition requirement. This suggestion is not at all in keeping with the intention of this planning/zoning policy. am a bit confused as to why these official plans exist if they can so quickly and easily be dismissed at the request of any developer. Page 132 of 316 With this building there will undoubtedly be a considerable increase in residential street traffic due to a project of this size, especially when factored with the additional traffic from the Spur Line development on Roger Street, the newly constructed apartment near Union and Mary Streets, and the point tower at the corner of King and Pine Streets, as well as the proposed 44 storey project at this same corner. The answer for many of these issues seems simple enough. Reduce the height to the 8 storeys, and reduce the number of units, to more closely match with the allowed height and SFR in the official city plan. This would then be more in keeping with the height transition requirements allowed in the current city planning bylaw. This would also reduce the traffic burden in the area and reduce the necessity of unwanted street parking. An overall reduction in the height of the tower would also greatly reduce the loss of privacy related to nearby properties and reduce the impact of shadow issues, etc. The residents of this neighbourhood well understand the necessity for the city to increase available housing. And, they also understand the necessity for `building up and not out' in order to preserve our valuable surrounding farmland. A housing development, a building in keeping with the official city plan, would be a welcome addition to this neighbourhood. This is not a NIMBY situation. There are many other sites within the city that would be far better suited to support a project of this size. We just don't believe that this location is the proper location for a looming 28 story tower. Thank you for your consideration. Sincerely, J. McKillop Jack Page 133 of 316 Evan Wittmann From: Heather Love < > Sent: Thursday, February 27, 2025 9:30 AM To: Evan Wittmann Cc: Stephanie Stretch Subject: Re: 924-944 King Street West Development Application Some people who received this message don't often get email from . Learn why this is important Dear Evan and Stephanie, Since I know we are closing in on the final day for public comments regarding the 924-944 King Street West Development Application, I wanted to share a few more thoughts for your dossier on the project. As I know you are aware, there is widespread consensus among the Mary Street side of the neighborhood that we are happy to see development and densification along King Street in accordance with the city's zoning plan. This current application, obviously, far exceeds the currently outlined target heights for this area. I am also aware that there is likely very little we can do to prevent this development going forward—and by "we," I am including both the residents of the neighborhood AND you folks working at the city, given current provincial policies and practices, which are likely to simply override any attempt by the city to guide and limit development to keep with the plan that we probably spent millions of dollars developing. This is obviously disheartening (and infuriating), and I imagine you may even share my sentiments. If I am correct that we are pretty much hamstrung here, and bound to accept SOME kind of proposal from this developer, since they know they have recourse to a provincial body that will green -light their project, then my request is this: can you please do everything in your power to ensure that the neighborhood gets as much benefit as possible out of the developer in terms of supporting local infrastructure, community needs, funding for projects, etc. Some possibilities: • I would like to see both large and small parks IN THIS AREA (not in removed locations that won't actually serve the many thousands of new residents that are about to be living here; if nobody is going to rip up the Sun Life asphalt, could we at least have these developers—in both the Waterloo and Kitchener sides of this King street stretch—contribute to a fund to allow the cities to collectively buy out the two dilapidated houses on Mary Street between Union and John so we can bulldoze them and make a neighborhood park?). • I would like to see affordable housing units IN EXCESS OF the miniscule percentages required in the "set-aside requirements." • I would like to see developers contributing to the revamping of transportation corridors, street lighting infrastructure, etc. (especially if they are trying to make Dodds Lane a resident through -way) • I would like to see funding set aside to help local schools expand their capacities (there are portables everywhere ALREADY, and if we are about to get 5+ high-rise apartment buildings, where are all the new kids going to go??). I imagine that much of this type of work doesn't usually get funded by a developer; however, I also imagine there are creative ways to encourage some kind of support. Basically, if you know that this is going to go forward, please try to squeeze out as many community -oriented "fringe benefits" as you are able. I'll leave it at that for now. Thank you both for the work you do to collate community feedback, consider proposals from multiple perspectives, and work within the constraints of the current system to shape the city's development in as positive ways as you can. Best wishes, Heather Love (owner and resident Heather A. Love (she/her/hers) Page 134 of 316 I acknowledge that I live and work on the traditional territory of the Attawondoron (Neutral), Anishinaabeg and Haudenosounee peoples. The University of Waterloo is situated on the Haldimand Tract, the land promised to the Six Nations that includes ten kilometers on each side of the Grand River. In my teaching and research, 1 am committed to recognizing and respecting this territory. From: Evan Wittmann Date: Monday, February 10, 2025 at 2:10 PM To: Heather Love Cc: Stephanie Stretch Subject: RE: 924-944 King Street West Development Application Hi Heather, When the appeals are resolved, parties/residents that have submitted written comments on the process or requested to be updated will receive a notification. The appeals are specific to a small number of properties elsewhere in the City — but nevertheless the whole By-law is yet to be in effect. We continue to test new applications against the new framework so amendments can be more easily integrated. Talking to our policy team, this past June we included our Inclusionary Zoning policies into the City's Official Plan. The affordable dwelling rates are listed in a table in Section 4.C.1.46: 4.+x.1.46 Development subject to Inclusionary Zoning shall provide a Iminnmurn percentage of neer gross leasable residential floor area as affordable dwelling units in accordance °ithii Table 3. Table 3: Inclusionary Zoninq Set -Aside Requirements, Market area Protected) Major Transit Station area Minimum Percentage Residential) Floor Area affordable dlwell'ing units Permiit issuance, of Gross Leasable to be provided as by date o building 21125- 2027-2028 2029- 203,1+ 2026 2030+ Prii mie Central •Victoria Park and Kitchener City Hlall, 2% 2-3% 24% 5% Queen and Frederick Established Grand Fiver Hospital • Kitchener Market 1 % 1-2'% 1-3% 5% Burden mill 924— 944 King St W is within the Grand River Hospital station area, and be subject to the rate in effect when a building permit is issued. These are indeed minimums and we will work with the applicant to deliver more than the minimum. Page 135 of 316 Parkland dedication is acquired as either a land conveyance, or as cash -in -lieu. As the site itself is not large enough to meaningfully convey public park space on-site, it is likely that when/if the application gets to the Site Plan Approval stage, they will be required to pay their parkland dedication as cash -in -lieu. If the developer has other/off-site land available to them that could meet their parkland dedication requirements, it could be pursued. This is something we will discuss with the developer. Council is also aware of the growing pressure of rapidly intensifying neighbourhoods, and these areas, including the Grand River Hospital station area, have been identified as needing improvements. Evan Wittmann (he/him), RPP, MCIP Senior Planner I Development and Housing Approvals Division I City of Kitchener 519-783-8523 1 TTY 1-866-969-9994 1 evan.wittmann@kitchener.ca From: Heather Love Sent: Friday, February 7, 2025 2:01 PM To: Evan Wittmann Cc: Stephanie Stretch Subject: Re: 924-944 King Street West Development Application You don't often get email from Learn why this is important Dear Evan and Stephanie, Thanks for these responses. I appreciate you taking the time to follow up. Interesting to hear that there is an appeal of the zoning plan ongoing — are we likely to receive updates when that has been resolved so that we know whether anything has changed in the nearby zoning areas? I'll be interested in any info you find out regarding parks and affordable units. Based on what I've seen with the other recent nearby developments, the numbers have seemed pretty small (maybe 5% total units designated affordable? I am less certain with the park contributions), so hopefully there's room to push for more than the minimum. Stephanie — I just tried you on the number you'd left in your voicemail yesterday. Feel free to give me a call at 812-340-5962 if you're available this afternoon; otherwise, we can aim to connect again next week. Thanks very much, Heather Heather A. Love (she/her/hers) I acknowledge that I live and work on the traditional territory of the Attawandoron (Neutral), Anishinaabeg and Haudenosaunee peoples. The University of Waterloo is situated on the Haldimand Tract, the land promised to the Six Nations that includes ten kilometers on each side of the Grand River. In my teaching and research, 1 am committed to recognizing and respecting this territory. From: Evan Wittmann <Eyani t.m2nnkik hener..a> ,...__ Date: Friday, February 7, 2025 at 9:27 AM To: Heather Love < > Cc: Stephanie Stretch <Stenhan e...Stret�h..�?_k%tche_n Subject: 924-944 King Street West Development Application Page 136 of 316 Hi Heather, Thank you for reaching out about the development proposal we received for 924-944 King Street West. I've copied your email below and added my commentary in red. Happy to chat further and answer any other questions you may have! Hi there, I am a resident of Mary St E, and received a message about a proposed development on King St between Union and Pine. I believe this is in the area newly designated for 6-10 (or maybe 6-8?) stories, since it's in the LRT development/densification zone. The new proposal, though, is for 28 stories. Correct – through a policy planning initiative called "Growing Together", the City of Kitchener took a closer look at the areas surrounding LRT stations (our Protected Major Transit Station Areas) to help support transit and align with Provincial policies. Growing Together rezoned the site to an "SGA -2" zone (Strategic Growth Area 2), which permits a .. ht uS, to 8 storet[s. However, k ' I framework has been Fwealed and is therefore not wet in Pffprt gAdtaxaL e're expecting in a few months this appeal will be resolved. Two comments that I wanted to make, that I am hoping you can pass on or follow up with me about: 1. I am all for new densification around us, but I do question the proposed new height here, and I wonder why the city is considering such a dramatic increase that goes well beyond the very recently proposed guidelines. Given our current political climate, province -wise, I am guessing there is not really anything we can do, though, to stop this new building. While the City has worked towards the new permissions for a height of 8 storeys, landowners are ultimately allowed to submit a development application of their own design and scale, and the City is obligated to process the application. The City circulates the application to our various departments (transportation, parks, fire, etc) for comments, and together with public comments, we try to work with the applicant on making revisions. As revisions are made (or are not made) my role is to make a professional recommendation either supporting approval or refusal of the application (if the proposal is in the "public interest"), and Council makes the decision. 2. Given that there are now at least 4 (if not 5 or 6) very large apartment buildings going in right by this LRT stop, and we are looking at therefore a multi -thousand person increase of residents over the next few years; and given that our area has already been designated as lacking in necessary/recommended green space; I am wondering what, if anything, is being done jointly with the cities of Waterloo and Kitchener and the larger region to address this lack. My "pie I. The sky" dream would be to turn the large (and very under -used) parking lot across the road (owned by Sun Life, I believe) into a park—maybe with a couple of smaller parkades at opposite corners... what would be required to make something like that happen?? Our parks department is circulated on the application and will be providing comments. New development is required to provide what is called "parkland dedication" in either the form of land or cash -in -lieu when an application hits the "Site Plan Approval" stage (this comes after getting the necessary land use approvals, ie, a Zoning By-law Amendment, which is before us now). I'll check in with our parks staff if we have plans for the area. We certainly need more housing, so full speed ahead with building (reasonable and well planned) more units. Maybe let's try to make a decent percentage of them somehow affordable. But while we do that, let's also build up the necessary infrastructure for people to engage in outdoor leisure, community building, and more! Page 137 of 316 TheChyhasatoo|caUed"|ndusionaryZmning'thatmUovvstheChytosecureaffmrdab|eunhsindeve|opmentvvhhin Major Transit Station Areas. I'll check in with our policy staff on what rate would be secured for this proposal. My phone number is |'U also send this message tothe Waterloo city folks (Stephanie Stretch in particular) and the regional councillors. Thanks! Heather Evan VVittmonn(he/him),RPP, [WC|P Senior Planner I Development and Housing Approvals Division I City ofKitchener Page 138 of 316 Evan Wittmann From: Stephanie Stretch Sent: Friday, February 7, 2025 9:44 AM To: Evan Wittmann Subject: Fw: 924 King St Stephanie Stretch Councillor, Ward 10 1 Office of the Mayor and Council I City of Kitchener 5:19.741....2755 e t,27S I�TTYI....SS .959. 994 I.S..t.e .ha.Se![1....c1h .................................................:.................................................................................................................. ......................................................................................................................................................... a.K.i.itchener.ca �4E11IEE1 I E ............................................... . 4 KitchenerCustomers can now connect with the City of From: Heather Love Sent: Friday, February 7, 2025 9:36:13 AM To: Stephanie Stretch Cc: Subject: Re: 924 King St You don't often get email from Www(-miriiwwwr 11 rww9;;1;!wiiw wwliw wwiiir Dear Stephanie and Julie, Thanks for following up. I'll try to give you a call a little later this morning, but just a quick note here to confirm that yes, this is the development I was referring to. I know there is another one a little farther down—right across from the hospital parkade, on the other side of Pine St, for something like 44 stories (across from the 25 -story building that's moved on to interior work now); but I believe that one has already received the "go ahead." Am I correct that this area is currently zoned for around 6 -storey buildings? One thing to add, based on the drawings on the card: this building appears to be MUCH wider than the tower at the corner of King and Pine (the one that's 25 storeys). When that building was proposed, a lot of the conversation at the council meeting was focused on how it needed to be so high so that it could be NARROW and therefore cause less overall disturbance to the surrounding neighbours (i.e. it was a "needle" tower that would only cause shade for a very short time each day on any given property in the vicinity). If that was the case being made, then this new design seems a bit of a slap in the face to nearby residents who were also assured multiple times that just because one tall building was going to go in at the end of the block, it did NOT mean that we would be opening the floodgates to multiple high rises along the Union --> Pine stretch of King street. Again, I am fairly sure that there is little we can do about this building, since the general MO right now in the province seems to be "build, build, build!" (and yes, we need the units). From what Julie shared with me, it looks like the Sun Life/Hospital parking lot across the road are zoned for 30 -story builds... I would be MORE than happy to put my support behind this newest proposed building if the trade off was that that giant flat area could be turned into a park so that the many thousands of new residents in the area (as well as folks like me who already live here) would have that local benefit! Probably wishful thinking... but... ?? Okay, signing off now (realizing that this isn't really all that "short" of a note after all—sorry!!). I'll hope to speak with you later. Best wishes, Heather Page 139 of 316 Heather A. Love (she/her/hers) I acknowledge that I live and work on the traditional territory of the Attawandaron (Neutral), Anishinaabeg and Haudenosaunee peoples. The University of Waterloo is situated on the Haldimand Tract, the land promised to the Six Nations that includes ten kilometers on each side of the Grand River. In my teaching and research, I am committed to recognizing and respecting this territory. From: Stephanie Stretch Date: Thursday, February 6, 2025 at 5:22 PM To: Heather Love Cc: Subject: 924 King St Hi Heather (and Julie) I called and left a message for you Heather. I want to make sure I am capturing allyour concerns and passing them on to staff so that they can be reviewed by council. Can you confirm that you are talking about the development at 924 King St? I have attached the information post card. Thanks and looking forward to connecting soon. Stephanie Stretch Councillor, Ward 10 1 Office of the Mayor and Council I City of Kitchener 519-741-2786 1 TTY 1-866-969-9994 1 Step hain� � eQ_»LireLch @IICiiLc "�eir�er. c www.StephanieStretch.ca r%h .10 Illd� rr u f Illi °VA ISI Customers can now connect with the City of Kitchener anytime by calling the 24/7 Corporate Contact Centre at 519-741-2345 Page 140 of 316 Evan Wittmann From: Karen Cameron < Sent: Wednesday, February 26, 2025 8:16 PM To: Evan Wittmann; Stephanie Stretch Subject: King St proposed development Some people who received this message don't often get email from . Learn why this is important To Whom It May Concern: This letter is written regarding the GSP Group Application for a Zoning By -Law Amendment to the properties along the King St. corridor including 924-944 King St. West, Kitchener. The Dez Capital Corporation has proposed a development along this section of King St. corridor that would consist of a 28 storey mixed use building that includes both retail and residential units. Currently, these lands are soon to be designated SGA2, allowing for Medium Intensity Mixed Corridor use (MU2) which allows for building heights of 24m (approximately 8 storeys) and a Floor Space Ratio of 1.0 - 4.0. A recent application in fall of 2024 to redesignate this area as SGA3 was denied. The city suggested they would entertain a site specific plan in the future. In December of 2024, the GSP group put forth an application to rezone this area to an SGA3 designation; thereby allowing for building heights of up to 28 storeys (their site specific building equalling 99.2 m in height) with a redesignated Floor Space Ratio equalling 11.66. This development clearly is in violation Of Land use metrics (Height Transition Requirements)- It is my understanding that the property to the south-west of this area (Sunlife parking lot) is designated as SGA3 and that this proposed development would be situated on land that has been designated SGA2. The reason for such designations is to meet 'Transition Zone Requirements' as per our current City Planning By -Laws. The properties (924-944 King St.) are on narrow lots which do not uphold the current practice or future plans for this area. By allowing a 28 storey building on this site we would be breaking with the practice of requiring adequate transition zones between low-rise residential zones and surrounding areas. It is also my understanding that the current SGA3 zoning by-law only allows for buildings up to a height of 25 storeys, and if approved, this site specific plan would further exceed and violate current city zoning by-laws for even SGA3 zones . I am an owner and resident at 47 Mary St, so this development is directly behind my property. I attended many of the meetings for the current 26 Story development at the corner of Pine and Mary. Our neighbourhood raised the concern at that time that allowing that building to go up, against many city bylaws, would cause a cascade of high buildings to be developed along the neighbouring corridor. We were assured that our concerns were not valid, that the exceptions at Pine and Mary were made as a "one time variance" due to the location of the other building directly across from the Grand River Hospital and at the transit hub/LRT stop. We were also assured that in accordance with the transition planning, further development along the corridor would be in accordance with this city plan and would be 6-8 story development buildings. There is no reasonable interpretation of the Transition Zone Requirements that encompass several different height gradients all in the same development. The Sunlife parking lot, on the opposite side of King St, would be logical for development, and is already zoned as SGA3. Current use of the parking lot is minimal, as many of the Sunlife employees work remotely since the Covid pandemic. Perhaps the developers could be enticed to build there instead --at least then there would be a true street dividing the high rise proposed from the current 2 story homes on Mary St. The site at 924-944 King St could then be developed as a low rise unit with an adjacent Page 141 of 316 park. There is NO dedicated green space currently proposed, so instead of buying the way out of this "obligation", this should be enforced with any further development. I am not opposed to development, IF you have proven there is an actual housing need. I am concerned that there is an abundance of high rise buildings built across Kitchener and Waterloo, and I am not convinced anyone is looking at the total picture to ensure continued development is indicated. I am opposed to evicting the current residents at Eddison Flats, negating the paucity of affordable housing that currently exists in this neighbourhood , and focussing instead on high revenue housing development. 1 % of the proposed development is to be considered as affordable housing. Currently , apartment vacancies are rising, rental prices are dropping , as demand is also dropping. The enormous decrease in international students to the Region must be taken into account, as previous housing rental demands are no longer applicable. Lower mortgage rates and the re -adoption of the 30 year term will entice more residents to look to buy instead of rent. Other concerns include lack of planning/ infrastructure to support additional residents. We are already an underserviced neighbourhood for health care, and without significant recruitment on the part of the City of Kitchener, there will not be any access to Primary Health Care for new residents in this area. Traffic, snow clearing, and transit already snarl the flow of cars and buses along King St in this area. Dodds Lane --is a one way alley, and not the robust two lane street consistently referred to by the planners and developers as the avenue available to handle all of the increased vehicular traffic associated with an enormous new development. Please take all of the many reasons listed above to seriously reconsider this development proposal . If you look to King St North and the abundance of high rise buildings creating a dark tunnel along the roadway, it should be evident what a significant impact this will have to completely change the present character of the current landscape. Karen Cameron Page 142 of 316 Evan Wittmann From: rasha hanna < > Sent: Thursday, February 13, 2025 5:24 PM To: Evan Wittmann Subject: Hi good afternoon I disagree on the development on 924-944king street You don't often get email from . Learn why this is important Hi good evening Evan, I'm writing to you regarding an application For the development on 924-944king street west Kitchener, Ontario ... I don't support this development at all and I don't agree with it all ...and I do not want this place to be demolished to turn to a building. We have our own pharmacy (which it's our own business) at 944 king street west Kitchener, Ontario ... I'm one of the pharmacist who is working there as well my parents too ....Honestly we have been there since 2007.......a lot of our patients comes to the pharmacy from around this area so it's easier for them and other patients as well is convenient for them to come to this Location ....Also, many people comes to us from the grand River hospital as well .... so our pharmacy will be so effected bythis project and a lot of our patients will leave our pharmacy.lf this project happens and us relocating will effect our pharmacy and our business will be effected .... this is the only source of Living and we don't have any other pharmacy... Even to find another place there a lot of renovations and constructions to be done in the place and it will cost a lot and has to be approved to have a pharmacy ......(The rent outside is so high that we can't afford it and as well as the cost of doing a brand new pharmacy we can't afford it) As well, this is not just a place I go to work too but honestly my parents memories in this place ...So this is heart breaking for me to see this place to be demolished. So I'm asking you to put yourself instead of me and see how I feel ....Please I'm askingyou from the bottom of my heart This project can not be approved..... As well, other businesses at 924-944 king street west Kitchener, Ontario Will be effected and they also do not support this ... Plus there are too many projects done in king street. Thank you so much and thank you for you're time to read this. Get Outlook for iOS Page 143 of 316 Evan Wittmann From: screenworks < Sent: Friday, February 28, 2025 5:21 PM To: Evan Wittmann Cc: stephanie.strech@kitchener.ca Subject: 924-944 King st West You don't often get email from screen -works@ bell net.ca. Learn why this is important Jack McKillop Good Afternoon Evan and Stephanie, I wanted to ask you to take a few minutes from your busy schedule to consider some of the concerns expressed by myself, my neighbours, and greater community members in general, regarding the proposed construction project at 924-944 King Street The opposition to having such a sizable tower on this site is based on a number of issues including but not limited to: -Increased light and noise pollution. - The issues of on street parking and concerns of the increase in residential street traffic and vehicle emissions. - Traffic safety — as there an increasing number of young families with small children moving in to this area. - Loss of privacy in many of the neighbouring residences from the many balconies looking directly into private backyards. - The shadow studies indicate that at certain times of the year the shadow area of this tower will reach well beyond Weber Street to the northeast. And will leave many nearby properties, including my own, in complete shade for most of the day. The official city zoning for the King Street corridor from Pine Street to Union Street currently zoned MU2) is proposed to be change to an SGA2 designation, with a maximum height of 8 storeys. The SGA2 designation also allow for a for a Floor Space Ratio (FSR) of 1.0; the amendment being asked for by the developer is a change to an 28 storeys and an FSR of 11.66 This drastic and sudden increase in the height of this 'point tower' also deviates from the city's own requirements/concept for the transition from low rise to high rise developments, adjacent to residential neighbourhoods. The consultant for GSP Group suggested that the presence of Dodd's Lane was a sufficient enough set back to negate this height transition requirement. This suggestion is not at all in keeping with the intention of this planning/zoning policy. I am a bit confused as to why these official plans exist if they can so quickly and easily be dismissed at the request of any developer. With this building there will undoubtedly be a considerable increase in residential street traffic due to a project of this size, especially when factored with the additional traffic from the Spur Line development on Roger Street, the newly constructed apartment near Union and Mary Streets, and the point tower at the corner of King and Pine Streets, as well as the proposed 44 storey project at this same corner. The answer for many of these issues seems simple enough. Reduce the height to the 8 storeys, and reduce the number of units, to more closely match with the allowed height and SFR in the official city plan. This would then be more in keeping with the height transition requirements allowed in the current city planning bylaw. This would also reduce the traffic burden in the area and reduce the necessity of unwanted street parking. An overall reduction in the height of the tower would also greatly reduce the loss of privacy related to nearby properties and reduce the impact of shadow issues, etc. Page 144 of 316 The residents of this neighbourhood well understand the necessity for the city to increase available housing. And, they also understand the necessity for 'building up and not out' in order to preserve our valuable surrounding farmland. A housing development, a building in keeping with the official city plan, would be a welcome addition to this neighbourhood. This is not a NIMBY situation. There are many other sites within the city that would be far better suited to support a project of this size. We just don't believe that this location is the proper location for a looming 28 story tower. Thank you for your consideration. Sincerely, J. McKillop Jack Page 145 of 316 Evan Wittmann From: Sandra Ouellette Sent: Friday, February 28, 2025 12:54 PM To: Evan Wittmann; Stephanie Stretch Subject: GSP application for 924-944 King St. W. Some people who received this message don't often get email from . Learn why this is important Hi there. I'm writing to you to tell you how there should not be a 28th floor building put on King St. near Union St. There are so many reasons why it shouldn't happen: negative environmental effects, negative psychological effects for those who live nearby and negative effects on those that would have to move. There should be transition zones between high development and low rise residential areas. It is a by-law that was put in place for a reason and should be followed. Any new tall building, if it is actually needed, should be placed on the opposite side of King and is already zoned as SGA3. It was a shame when the trees were taken down years ago to create a parking lot that is not fully used. understand that development has to happen but I don't believe this tall building should be put on King St. W. It's unnecessary and detrimental. Please reconsider planning. Do not ruin the neighborhood. Thanks foryour time. Sandra Ouellette Page 146 of 316 Evan Wittmann From: simon nuk < > Sent: Wednesday, February 26, 2025 11:07 PM To: Evan Wittmann Cc: Stephanie Stretch Subject: 924-944 King Street West Some people who received this message don't often get email from . Learn why this is important Hello Evan, I am an owner and resident on Mary Street and am informing you of my strong opposition to the zoning amendment of 924-944 King Street West. Simply put, a 28 storey building has no place directly beside a residential neighborhood. All of my neighbours that I have talked to are similarly opposed to a 28 storey highrise. understand and support the need for more housing, but we need to build housing in residential areas at a more human scale. I very much agree with our existing growth plan that supports zoning of an 8 storey building, which is an appropriate size for this location, allowing for density without literally overshadowing the surrounding homes. For example, there is a 7 storey building at the corner of Mary and Union, which fits in quite well with the neighbourhood fabric because of its appropriate scale. Please do not sell out our existing great, livable neighbourhoods by making the same mistakes that Toronto has and allowing developers to incrementally dismantle our well thought out growth plan. We need to balance both density and livability... the answer is not to build as tall as possible. Regards, Simon Nuk Page 147 of 316 Evan Wittmann From: Rita K. Thomas < > Sent: Tuesday, February 18, 2025 1:42 PM To: Evan Wittmann; Stephanie Stretch Cc: Eric Schneider; Subject: 924 to 944 King St. W. You don't often get email from . Learn Why this is important Hi Evan, It is with real concern that I received notification of yet another development of monstrous proportions for King St. West behind the Union -Pine section of Mary Street. 1) 1 am left wondering how this is possible in light of the following excerpt from a council meetings held 23 January 2024: 924 to 944 King St, W. To apply an SGA -C land use and SGA -4 zone rather than the recommended SGA -8 land use and SGA -2 zone, Revised submission requests either SGA -3 or SGA -4. Nov. 30th 2023, Jana 26th 2024 Change not made. Shallow lots in this area make it difficult for a tall building to meet transition regulation. Said regulation has also been revised based on community feedback to add a second 'tier' limiting height to 30m within 30m of low-rise zoned areas. SGA -E3 land use allows ZBA pathway for SGA -3 zone up to 25 storeys. As such, a site[1]specific application is the recommended approach. Secondly, why/how was this particular block of King St. W. chosen for development next? 2) This is the third over -sized (I am tempted to say 'monstrous' again) building that the Union -Pine section of the Mary Street neighbourhood has been exposed to. My concerns for the first development are equally applicable now, if not more so, to the residents of this neighbourhood. a) PARKING: 890-900 was approved with only 48% parking spaces provision. Worst case scenario —where will 52% of residents park? The expected parking provision for 864-876 King St. W. is 66% and for this latest development 53.6%. Where will those without vehicle parking spots park? b) Bicycles— provision of secure cycle storage. Whilst I am in favour of encouraging more people to take to their bikes, cyclists are extremely rare in KW. Besides which I am willing to guess that most cyclists will also have a car for grocery shopping, taking their children to school, going to appointments, the theatre, cinema, restaurants etc. Not to mention that we live in Canada and cycling in the winter can be impossible. The development of 924-944 includes bicycle parking for 350 bikes! I have lived in Mary Street for 30 years and I don't think I've seen 350 cyclists in Kitchener -Waterloo in all of those years let alone in recent times. This space could be reduced for cycle parking and additional vehicle parking spaces provided. LRT & GRT—the LRT provides a single route from Kitchener's Fairview Mall to Waterloo's Conestoga Mall, with no branches off it. It may require two or three GRT routes to get you to your destination. In other words, this is yet another argument for the provision of more vehicle parking. ION, KW Agreement Requirement this development is relevant to the 'PARTS' documentation [Planning Around Rapid Transit] as it relates to the 'Central Stations of the LRT' (in the case the Grand River Hospital station), which states a requirement of 0.9 parking spaces/unit irrespective of size i.e. assuming 420 units in a 44 storey building 0.9 x 420 = 378, Not including ION's requirement of 0.1/unit for visitors i.e. 0.1 x 420 = 42 for a total of 420! Although, 924-944, will be 28 storeys and 341 dwelling units 182 is nowhere near to providing the PART'S total of 341 vehicle parking spaces My point here being that we've heard the arguments for parking needs being off -set by bicycles, LRT and GRT, and even walking, but I don't think there will be much if any off -set, which should be considered when negotiating parking to be provided by the developers. After all, all they are concerned about is their bottom-line whilst we, the residents, the councillors and the planners should be concerned about 'quality of life. b) POPULATION DENSITY PARTS documentation talks about increasing the population density along the LRT corridor. It states that the minimum 'people -jobs combination per Hectare' requirement for new multi -dwelling buildings is 160 people -jobs combined/hectare. 864-876 will provide 3670 people -job combined/hectare. Over 20 times the minimum required in the KW -ION agreement. Page 148 of 316 [890-900 King provides 2085 people -job combined/hectare itself over 13 times the minimum requirement.] I understand that any multi -dwelling building under 10 storeys might well fall under this requirement, but surely the deficit doesn't have to be made up in only two buildings! Now three.924-944! A 28 storey building with 341 dwelling units provides approximately 2900 people -job combined/hectare over 14 times the minimum requirement. c) HEIGHT: Staff Report: Urban Design ... 'Tall Building Guidelines' as supplied to me September 2021 should ... "create ...environment that RESPECTS, ... ENHANCES ... the City's OPEN SPACE system" "create human -scaled pedestrian friendly streets and attractive public spaces" Hence, it should be taken in to account that: A tall building is defined in the Official Plan as a building 9 storeys or more. The height transition pictures are particularly telling — page 15 of the guidelines. A stepped transition is outlined i.e. not a one-step transition from 2 storey buildings on King and Mary, and one 5 storey Medical building on Pine to 25 or 44 storeys. In addition, building height and yard provisions are interconnected i.e. there should be 7.5 metres, plus 0.33 metres for every metre above 24 metres up to a maximum of 14 metres. The average height of a 44 storey building is over 105 metres, which without the 'maximum' in place would be 27 metres yard space. Developers should be bound to 14 metres minimum. Will this minimum requirement be applied at 924-944? d) GREEN SPACE: e) BY-LAWS: Soft-soaped and hardscape areas are often very limited in urban developments. Where will residents be able to relax outside and children play? The nearest area identified as an 'open space' is Mount Hope Cemetery. MHC is quite and relaxing for a walk or even time to sit in the fresh air, but not for play! There is a sports field for KWC&V school, but it is not laid out for multi -generational uses — no slides, no climbing frames, no benches etc. and neither should it be. It is a sports field to encourage healthy activities in our future adults. The nearest park is 2 kilometres away - George Lippert Park. Do these sort of environmental factors not come up in planning and committee meetings? Or is it that those on such committees who worry about these things are out voted? The discussion of green space is even more pertinent considering the location 924-944 from a public and private point of view. I have addressed the 'public' POV above. However, the private POV might mean no sunlight in the backyard ... there at least 3 houses in this section of Mary Street that have trees that shield properties from the sun most of the time, not very good. Yet another 'high rise' i.e. 924-944 will mean the same thing for other properties in the Union -Pine section of Mary Street. In 2019-2022 the by-laws governing such things as provision of parking spaces and heights of buildings were under review. Neither of these two by-laws were adhered to in the discussions around 890-900 King anyway. Hence the more than 10 storeys in height and only a 48% parking provision. City of Kitchener documents, including the official plan and guidelines were said to be out of date even though they were provided as supporting documents for the 890-900 King development discussions. It was also explained that "zoning regulations are set low to allow for discussion". If this is an unwritten/read between the lines understanding between councillors and planners then why are these regulations written at all? Every effort should be made to negotiate fewer storey's and more parking provision. The proposed development at Belmont and Glasgow is an excellent example of both. Which by-laws are currently in place that govern this 924-944 development? f) TRAFFIC: I am assuming that residents of 924-944 will not be able to exit to Dodds Lane, correct? g) WATER TABLE: has a study been done on the impact of another 341 dwellings on the water supply and pressure in addition to 890-900, 864-876 and the surrounding neighbourhood. I say this in light of Collingwood banning any more development of Blue Mountain until a similar issue is resolved 3) Is it the intention of the City of Kitchener to do further development of this area of King St. W.? I appreciate that you might be particularly busy so close to a 'Neighbourhood meeting', however I would appreciate it if you could reply to this email before tomorrow's meeting. Regards. Rita (Thomas) Page 149 of 316 Evan Wittmann From: Sent: To: Subject: Follow Up Flag: Flag Status: You don't often get email from Hello Evan, Heather Root < Thursday, February 27, 2025 9:17 PM Evan Wittmann Feedback on zoning change proposal for 924-944 King Street West Follow up Flagged L..m irin,_v�r lV , .: ;I ri.4.`•.....ii_.... ii, irrr C .�.p::.":. a irn V; wanted to send in my feedback on the proposed development at 924-944 King Street West. Unfortunately, I was unable to attend the Zoom meeting where the development was presented to ask questions, but I did view the recording. Live in a single-family home on Mary Street with a backyard that touches Dodd's Lane, just a little farther west of this proposed development. The presentation was very helpful. When I look at the proposed SGA -2 zoning for most of this block, it seems like city staff were trying to be very thoughtful and balance the needs for growth and densification with the impact on the existing low and mid -rise neighbourhood. All of the lots that were adjacent to lower -storey dwellings on Mary were to become SGA -2 zones on the image that was shown at the meeting, which I have included below. They were not set to be SGA -3 because it would not be possible to meet the transition policies that help taller buildings interface with low-rise buildings. The only exception on this block was the King and Pine building because it was a very unique site which backed onto a mid -rise medical building. When watching the video of the meeting, I could not find a rationale provided for changing this to an SGA -3 zone at this time. I am not sure if I am understanding correctly, but I think that this area is onlyjust supposed to be becoming an SGA -2 zone in the next few weeks. It is already being changed to allow more development, and jumping ahead to another level of densification at this point seems unnecessary. Not only is the request to change this to an SGA -3, but the plan seems to be to then build to the maximum allowance under this new designation. The only reason to do this that comes to mind is to maximize profit potential for the builder. The area is already supporting the higher resident and job density called for by the Growing Together plan, and can continue to exceed this with a building that is consistent with the proposed new SGA -2 zone and what planners and council appear to have envisioned. If the SGA -2 zoning amendment was to allow taller 8 -storey buildings to provide a step down from the dense SGA -3 and SGA -4 zones to the east, this simply cannot be accomplished by covering building surfaces in different colours as shown in the plan. Slightly shifting the towers towards Pine Street and King Street also does not accomplish this. The idea that a simple Janeway in the back of the building that can only fit one car somehow accomplishes this transition does not make any sense to me. The idea that because Dodd's Lane is municipally owned, this development does not abut existing low-rise lots may be technically correct, but this is not how it will feel if you look at your backyard and see a 5 -storey parking garage with a 28 -storey tower. Dodd's Lane appears to be being used as a technicality to bypass the spirit of what was intended by the Growing Together plan and the city planners who worked hard to figure this out. Page 150 of 316 am not sure if we are to comment on the building design, or just the zoning. I will add that I don't see how having residential units facing King Street on the podium level will help to limit overlook on residential yards if the podium rooftop will be common amenity space to all residents on top of the podium. The impact of traffic, and having an above -ground parking podium on neighbours, was not really addressed. I don't understand the podium — are those windows in the parking garage? There seems to be a net loss of commercial tenants, going from six to two in the new building, and a lot of stress being placed on the health care providers and lower-income residential tenants in the existing buildings by this proposal. am not against development, and this section of Mary Street is a nice mix of owned and rented single homes, an apartment building, and an office building. I have always lived in dense areas and I have seen many zoning and bylaw changes. However, changing from an 8 -storey building to a 28 -storey building on a 5 -storey parking base does not feel appropriate to me. If I have misunderstood anything from the meeting, I am happy to have a conversation about it. Have a nice evening, Heather Root ********************************************************** Heather Root, PhD (she/her) in �I The information in this message, inclul ing any attachments, is privileged and may contain confidential information intended only for the person(s)named above. Any other distribution, copying or disclosure is strictly prohibited. If you are not the Page 151 of 316 intended recipient or have received this message in error, please notify us immediately by reply email and permanently delete the original transmission from us, including any attachments, without making a copy. Thankyou. Page 152 of 316 Evan Wittmann From: Sent: Wednesday, February 12, 2025 2:38 PM To: Evan Wittmann; Transportation Planning (SM) Cc: Stephanie Stretch Subject: 924-944 King St West - Impact on Dodds Lane Some people who received this message don't often get email from j . Learn why this is important In addition to my previous comments regarding the excessive height, I have concerns about the impact on Dodds Lane. I see in the detailed drawings that there is a proposal for a new lefthand turn signal at King & Mount Hope allowing traffic to pass through the building to Dodds Lane. When travelling on King St from Waterloo there is limited opportunity to turn left into the neighbourhoods behind King. Currently there are no left hand turns onto through streets in the stretch from Allen St to Wellington St — about 2km. As our neighbourhood gets more hemmed in, drivers are becoming more creative. I am sure some will see Dodds Lane as an option. Several Mary St houses have their driveway on Dodds Lane and existing King St businesses have their parking on Dodds Lane. Also there are two other towers in progress on either side of Pine St: The 25 storey building will have their podium parking entrance on Dodds Lane The 44 storey building will have their parking entrance on Pine St, at the foot of Dodds Lane But Dodds Lane is not designed for traffic. It is only the width of one car and it is not a through street — yet it allows two way traffic. I have seen some creative u -turns in the lane as well as vehicles reversing all the way back to Pine St. The submitted Transportation Impact Study makes no reference to traffic on Dodds Lane. Before additional buildings are considered, serious thought should be given to the impact on Dodds Lane & the overall access to the neighbourhood. Jane Desbarats Page 153 of 316 Evan Wittmann From: Rita K. Thomas < > Sent: Friday, February 28, 2025 3:26 PM To: Evan Wittmann; Stephanie Stretch Cc: Subject: 924-944 King Street To Whom It May Concern With regard to the proposed 924-944 King Street building, I have written in great detail to Evan Wittmann and Stephanie Stretcher, attended the neighbourhood 'zoom' meeting, read Elizabeth's letter and the reply by Stephanie, checked out a pertinent link sent by another Mary Street resident and now I'm embarking on my own feedback. From all of the above it seems to me that three things have become recurring themes: the need for housing (or in this case dwelling units), population density and parking to which, with many thanks to Elizabeth, has been added 'mental health'. The Need for Housing: I don't think you can be a resident of K -W and not appreciate the need for housing. As residents in the same neighbourhood as the proposed 924-944 King St. building, we may sometimes sound as if we don't appreciate this, but we do. For instance, with reference to 924-944, 1 don't remember any mention being made of 'affordable' housing. Will this building include any provision for affordable housing? Do we know what 'rental rates' will be or are these units going to be for purchase (condos)? We already know how hard it is for singles or families to raise a deposit to buy their own home, hence my question about 'affordability'. However, I also feel it is only natural for Mary Street residents to also be concerned about their own 'mental health' — sunlight hours, green space and the aesthetics of the neighbourhood, and 'safety' — traffic issues, as well as those of new residents on King. I know from my own experience of sunlight being blocked by mature trees and surrounding single storey garage buildings, how limited the amount of time enjoying the mental and physical health benefits of sitting in the sun can be for my family. We have had and will have shadow studies that will no doubt tell us how much sunlight Mary Street residents will have. I wonder if it will also tell us how much sunlight hours we have lost, maybe as a percentage of how many would be available? This is my involvement in the third development of this type — high rise, all less than 300 metres apart and in the last 3 years! Green space is always an issue, hardly surprising when you introduce a very conservatively estimated population increase of 2260 people for the current 3 towers! For 924-944 it is admitted that the lots for proposed development are not only too narrow for the addition of 'green space', but even for the building itself as indicated by councils decisions not to make changes to the by-law in 2023 and 2024. However, here we are allowing specific cases to be put forward. Whilst I hope that the developers 'parkland dedication' cash or land contribution in lieu of green space will be very significant if this proposal goes forward at all, it certainly won't help the residents of Mary Street or 924-944 King, there Page 154 of 316 being no 'green space' land available for use within 2 km — neither the Mount Hope Cemetery nor the Kitchener - Waterloo Collegiate and Vocational School (KWCVS) sports field should count in this regard. Traffic in the neighbourhood and in particular down Mary Street and Dodds Lane is of increasing concern. The exit from 864-876 will be exactly opposite Mary Street, so although King Street is a few yards in one direction and Herbert is in the other, the residents of Mary Street cannot help but be worried about the increase in traffic. Mary Street has already experienced an increase due to traffic flow to the Pine/King tower already under construction, even though this traffic could be shared between Herbert and Mary. Mary is a quiet, family and elderly orientated street, but it seems destined to become busier and busier. There is a 30 km/hr speed limit in place, but the city admit it will be up to the residents to draw the by-laws officer's attention to it, even now a speed bump would be a better answer. We already have tail backs up Mary Street as vehicles try to turn left on to Union, together with proposed lane reduction at the end of Mary it will be almost impossible to exit to Union in a timely manner. Mary Street residents have already seen examples of 'road rage' because of this! As for Dodds Lane have any of the City of Kitchener staff or OLT seen this for themselves? It is already only passable by one car at a time. However, if like the tower at 890-900 King St. the developers are allowed to consider the lane in their rear set back calculations then the lane becomes even narrower as pull in points (two allow vehicles to pass in both directions) behind 924-944 and 890-900 will be lost. I dread to think what it will mean for delivery trucks and local vehicles meeting in the lane. In addition, the lane is not asphalted which can make for dire conditions in the wet, ice or snow. If this proposal goes ahead, perhaps the city should 'adopt' this lane and surface and maintain it. Surely, if this proposal is eventually approved we should be negotiating a reduction in height and an increase in parking spaces, something achieved by those involved in the development of the corner of Belmont Ave and Glasgow. The height was reduced from 19 to 13 storeys (almost 33%) with a vehicle parking space to be provided for each unit (100%). May be the fact that the developer was local had something to do with that but that shouldn't stop us at least trying to improve the proposal, wherever the developers are from. Population Density: I for one am fed up with hearing about the Kitchener —Waterloo -ION agreement to increase population density along the LRT corridor especially at Centre Stations of LRT. Waterloo have chosen to do this with 6/7 storey buildings which still provides an increase in population density higher than the minimum agreed to by the 3 parties in the K -W -ION agreement. This begs the question voiced by another Mary Street resident, why is Kitchener entertaining this proposal at this size? A conservative increase in population of 2260 for the three towers at Pine/King exceeds the K -W -ION agreement 13-20 times over! Apparently, the City of Kitchener controls 'over development' through its Strategic Growth Areas - SGA by-laws. However, if these can be revisited in the light of developers' requests and changed, how does this constitute 'control'. Parking: 890-900 King Street will only provide 1 vehicle parking space each for 48% of its units, and 864-876's current plan is to provide 1 parking space for 66% of its units. 924-944 will only provide 1 vehicle parking space each for 53% of its units. Where will the other 47% of units park their cars? I truly don't buy into the arguments that renters will be more than aware of the limited parking spaces, that they will walk everywhere, that they will take the LRT or GRT— even if it takes 2 or 3 routes to reach their destination, and lastly there will be ample provision for bicycles. Will an estimated 750 residents really need 350 bicycle parking spaces? I have lived in this neighbourhood for 30 years and I don't think I've seen 350 cyclists in total for Waterloo and Kitchener let alone in this neighbourhood. If this proposal was to go forward most of this bicycle parking space might be put to better use as vehicle parking space? Page 155 of 316 In conclusion, on the subject of parking, we live in a society that pretty much requires you to have a car ... inconvenient transport routes, medical facilities moving out of 'local' locations — planned mega hospitals, shopping centres/big box stores that are not at the ends of the LRT line. We live in a country that makes bicycle use impossible at times and dangerous at other — snow and ice, besides which I can't see parents taking children to school or sports programs (with all of their equipment) on a bicycle, or doing their weekly shopping, going to the theatre or out to dinner on a bicycle —they will also have a car. So, how on earth can there be no requirement for developers to provide any parking spaces, let alone insufficient parking spaces!? Mental Health: Some of what I have already discussed impacts the mental health of both current and future Mary/Pine/King neighbourhood residents — green space, sunlight hours, traffic and perhaps finally, aesthetics of their surroundings. How many of Kitchener representatives or OLT have visited the neighbourhoods impacted by such proposals? Compare a mature well established neighbourhood such as Mary Street with the Barrel Yards or the development of King Street in Waterloo from University to Columbia. The latter two locations are not aesthetically pleasing. Not a pleasant environment to live in. Is this really what Kitchener envisages for their residents? Unfortunately, I can see this happening, especially when the land vacated by GRH is developed unless we pay attention to everyone's mental health needs now. We have the chance now to control the over development of Kitchener's farthest edges bordering on Waterloo without consideration of another millionaires bottom line to provide an area conducive to good mental health and yet providing housing that's needed. Thank you for reading. I hope you can forgive what appears to be a lot of repetition, but I think it bears it for it to sink in with us all. As for the new comments, I felt there were a few things that had not been said or countered that are important. Regards. Rita And finally food for thought: https://www.youtube.com/shorts/ZQxDbrpvd6o Page 156 of 316 Evan Wittmann From: Sarah Van Heyst < > Sent: Thursday, February 27, 2025 11:02 AM To: Stephanie Stretch; Evan Wittmann Subject: Concerns regarding Zoning By -Law Amendment 924-944 King St. West Some people who received this message don't often get email from . Learn why this is important Dear Stephanie and Evan, I am emailing you regarding the GSP Group Application for a Zoning By -Law Amendment to the properties along the King St. corridor including 924-944 King St. West, Kitchener. Recently, the Dez Capital Corporation has proposed a development along this section of King St. corridor that would consist of a 28 storey mixed use building that includes both retail and residential units. Currently, these lands are soon to be designated SGA2, allowing for Medium Intensity Mixed Corridor use (MU2) which allows for building heights of 24m (approximately 8 storeys) and a Floor Space Ratio of 1.0 - 4.0. In December of 2024, the GSP group put forth an application to rezone this area to an SGA3 designation; thereby allowing for building heights of up to 28 storeys (their site specific building equalling 99.2 m in height) with a redesignated Floor Space Ratio equalling 11.66. I am sending you this email to state my opposition for the rezoning of these lands and am imploring you to maintain the current Strategic Growth Plan with this area as SGA2. As a resident of 42 Mary St I have concerns about how this development would impact the community in which I live, for the following reasons: 1)Traffic The GPS group has proposed Dodd's Lane as a secondary access point for this building, however Dodd's Lane is not wide enough to accommodate two-way traffic. Compounded with the anticipated traffic from the newly constructed building at the corner of King and Pine St., and the fact that these residents will only be able to make a right-hand turn from Pine St onto King St., there will be significant traffic increases along Mary, Herbert, and Pine St. Even assuming that a portion of these new residents will rely on public transportation, and not have a vehicle, these changes will be significant for this residential area that is not designed to accommodate these levels. 2)Housing While constructing this 28 storey building will create housing, I do not think it will be addressing the actual need of the neighbourhood which is housing that is affordable and accessible. One percent of the proposed development is to be considered affordable. If development in Kitchener Waterloo continues to focus on high revenue housing, the existing housing struggles in our community will continue. Personally, I know a multitude of working people who are leaving Kitchener -Waterloo as it becomes a more and more unaffordable place to live. Additionally, I am opposed to evicting the current residents at Eddison Flats 3)Green Space Given this potential new development and increase in residents of the area, are there plans to build additional green space to support the community? This would not only be important for the wellness of the neighbourhood, but also would play an important role in combating the effects of urbanization (decreased air quality, urban heat island effect, etc.). 4) Violation of Existing Land Use Metrics Page 157 of 316 From my understanding, within the Kitchener Planning By -Laws there are transition zone requirements that allow for adequate buffer areas between low-rise residential zones and surrounding high-rise areas. The properties of 924-944 King St are currently zoned for SGA2, however the proposed development would require a designation greater than SGA3 (as the height of 28 stories exceeds the SGA3 zone limit of 25 stories). My concern in this is why do we have these city pans and zoning bylaws in place if they are consistently violated? When our neighbourhood raised similar concerns about the development at the corner Pine and Mary and its potential to cause cascading high rise development along the King St corridor, we were told that the exception made in this case was "one-time". We were assured that following transition zoning, further development in this corridor would be in accordance with the city plan (SGA2). If the amendment for 924-944 King St is granted, will this not cause a cascade of similar proposed amendments along the King St. corridor that ignore the original city plan? 4)Optimal Alternative Locations The Sunlife Parking Lot, on the opposite side of 924-944 King St, would be logical for development. Since the pandemic, many Sunlife employees work remotely and current use of the parking lot is minimal. This land is also already zoned for SGA3 and by being on the other side of the street would provide a more adequate transition zone between high rise and low rise dwellings. The Sunlife Parking Lot is prime land located at the center of our city that is currently being wasted. While I understand that this alternative would depend on many factors, I think the City should propose and encourage the idea to the developers. I am not opposed to development and I am not a proponent of "not in my backyard". I also believe we need to densify our city in order to prevent urban sprawl. I am however against rapid urban growth with minimal reflection on the long-term impacts on the surrounding community. I believe a SGA2 level development would allow for reasonable, sustainable, and successful growth in our neighbourhood. Thank you for your time in reading and considering my concerns. Best, Sarah Van Heyst Page 158 of 316 Evan Wittmann From: Sent: Friday, January 31, 2025 1:07 PM To: Evan Wittmann; Stephanie Stretch Subject: 924-944 King St West - Comments I live on the impacted block of Mary St with my backyard facing Dodds Lane. I was totally dismayed to see the proposal for a 28 storey high rise that would tower over our houses. I can appreciate large towers on the corners but mid block is completely different. Under "Growing Together" the zoning for this King St location is SGA2 — maximum 8 storeys. I see in a Kitchener Staff Report dated March 18, 2024, a zoning change for the block was not approved with the following comments: "Shallow lots in this area make it difficult for a tall building to meet transition regulation. Said regulation has also been revised based on community feedback to add a second 'tier' limiting height to 30m within 30m of low-rise zoned areas." The developer is now making a site specific application but nothing has changed in the meantime. The Mary street houses are still as close. And Dodds Lane is still as narrow. Comparing the Grand River Hospital & Allen St LRT Station areas, Waterloo has done a much better job balancing development & existing neighbourhoods. At Allen St, the high rises are all on the south (Sun Life) side of King St. where there is not an immediate adjacent residential neighbourhood. On the opposite side, abutting Mary St, all the new development is mid rise. Why can't Kitchener follow Waterloo's sensible lead? The scale of the height really hit home when I saw the models in the Wind Study Report. Imagine owning a home right behind this with only the narrow width of Dodd's Lane separating the two.: Page 159 of 316 I shall most definitely be attending the neighbourhood meeting February 19tH Jane Desbarats Page 160 of 316 Evan Wittmann From: Sent: Wednesday, February 26, 2025 10:50 AM To: Evan Wittmann Cc: Stephanie Stretch Subject: 924-944 King St West - Dodds Lane - Snow / Hydro Poles I have some additional questions regarding the impact on Dodds Lane. As you can see in the attached photo, the lane is just the width of one car. In places the lane is bounded by a hydro pole on one side & a fence on the other. So there is no possibility for one car to pull over. The low grey building on the left & adjacent houses would be the proposed building eliminating the surface parking in the photo. Currently snow is piled at the dead end of Dodds Lane (behind their property) and on part of the existing surface lot. Two questions • Where would snow be piled? • Would the hydro poles remain? Thanks Jane Desbarats Page 161 of 316 Ec N % /}r//7\2 aR)G\=G/ § 0 / } / ƒ .. ± / CO < LU (3 LU orf2 a £zLu0LLm�o m=cooLL=e ) � � §, 0 (§ q a, (1)=N;E U V d U N O Q n Q N Ln N o N g g U b Z W Y 1) 7�, a of O L N E QC E E E 00 - E' co 0 00 N O V (0 N N M Lfl O r,.: L N M r Lo V co C F LL Q Q LL V Q LL W r Q' c Of W HC Q 2 = F Z W O LL U) W 000Li211 '0=n N U U � ? U N Q Q a Q y N ti N 00 M co � n N o N Q g U b Z Z LU W Y 0 c� lz co G a -Lu O r N E E E �N O CN N O � . coE N N N N ACV MED m0 Z N Cl) r Ln CO M Q H ry W Q Of 0- Q W J Q of W O �W FU Q 2 �ZWOLLUWZ 000LL2� 5 �i • dh �NI� -V6-N' NIA uzrvaoa ci inroad ��� 1d3JNOJ N`JIS3a 004 l (N �p m Nbld lllS lVl?JlV Illllllf �; 0 Lbrn m a 3 Z~i C Q `JNI)I V176--VZ6 I eio-rwz oN iOaroad 1d30N00 NOIS3O oovosg I co I�"��� NVId ALIS lblNg Illll �; 0--- --------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- rn m a E C �: ��� y� : �Q. p 1Y PA k WXW MW W� Nl M IWI. JlJ1 W%1 mm f � iuuuuuismi �II�II�II�II�II�II m� o w i� IIQ QNN' ,rr wm nr,� ru uw ,r11✓,�,., i7 Kim IN HIIp �III p�� Affmwff�-, 9 E r,o ro Ln car N r, 6) Ln rn c7) U LO Lf) Lr) Lr) Lf) LO ro :3 > C u ra >) M c < (3) D_ 4ru V c u m C)- rG (2) M w Q) V) M c U) 1: 0 (3) rO 4� V) 0 , U Z 0 0 Lf) :3 U) U) LU z z rl-, oQ w TL ry 0 w LO Lo Lo < (D to U 0. a CL (D LL < q (9 (D N r- 0 uj tn lulro (n ro Lu ID Z 4- V) Cll -E IA U 0 0 fU (D z < IU. w a) U u o (3) CL 0 w r- o z iE o U m U 0 lul 00 o 0 c z D ra 4- 4- 0- 0- z i = ro U) u T 0 C) L- :3 z I.J u 0 1- n a_ D U) < 0 Lli -i 4� Ul) -0 < < < — Cv — rn — X UJ D tn -: rf) Cy rn w F— P4 Affmwff�-, 9 E cr) 4- 0 CD (.0 ca 0- cv 0 car car N rn c7) U LO Lf) Lr) Lr) Lf) LO cr) 4- 0 CD (.0 ca 0- C: C: >10 0 m i' -F, (n u u W X u > -- a) C:cn O 4� 0 0 C: C: u c- 0 0 u U 4-j > 0 (n 0 4-j 4- c u a - z 0 4) C u 0 c: 0 00) ro o .0 (D c (D u N 0 4- U) u -0 C: -0 r Ln rn C: 0 (n c ro U u c 0 U) W a a) u Ij (nu U 0 U) C L-4� M W w CL m -75 u .- (o U (U u 0 a) 4� 0 c 0 4) (U Q) D E U M -0 c m -C c: Cl C- 0 -Q -C -0 a) a) c- :5 - m 0 Q) a no :3 1) U C: .r > Lo E Q) w CL m -C 0 0 co 4- 0 .0 no1 0 0 u cn m > C -I- W . 2) - It U w -, 0 > Q) — — 0 ucn CL o .2 u 0 0) - - 0-0 E u Z 0 C)- '4- V) 0 M C) 4� i 0 (n -0 u) i7) :3 0 0 u Q) CL r6 m 03 U no u -0 (3) -u 0 (n L) E vi 2) a) c D -0 Cq (n &-. y:3 C: < < < 8- < < (1) D o Q) (3) o 0 a) U U � 4— Qy 0 0 0 > 4� >1 Ul) 03 4� CD M (1) -Y a) 0 :3 1- 0 0 no 0 ru 0 0 4� -0 ro a Q- 4� a) 4- (3) (1) QL 0 4-J V) U 4� 4� C)) (1) 0 0 E a) oo 0 c N 0 o E /'-� E 4-j m u 0 w a E 4-j m U) V) C: --o 0 C) -a Q) 4- (n Q) - 0 (3) 0 C 0-0 v) D- > 0 a) 0) V) > -C > C 2 4 V) a) C: o 0 V) 4� (1) o 4-1 u C: V) U a no U C o 0 4- 0-) > Q_ In 4' U 0 (n a) < an U®® N c 0)) E L!=a o V) V) 4-j 0 -0 00 4 12 0 V) > > M0 0 u 0 m Ln E N > C: — a) .2 <O > 0 U) 6 4� M M u 0) .0 0 " 4-j u o > 4� r6 r6 O)o 0 x m u m D -- u u m _j V) U) 0 C)of Ln 0 u C- 0 03 a) E U) CL :3 C 0 a) CL 0 a m 0 0 — -1� >1 0 - o 0 (D 0 0) 0 .7 co m E t &- U -6 Q 0) u 0) a._ u > U) m B 0 > -a a a a) x E 0 o 0 a) 0 ,-. a 0 if :L� -C 0O --o It.- 0 c 00 m > _r_ 0 — Q U < < 0 u V) 4� >1 < u -0 4� > U u u < V) < < > > > er - u OC: (A 40- u �: 402 u .0— 4- (3) -L� 0 (2) ru 0 -g-- 73 > 0 U 0:3 -C 2 (9; LL LIJ < (A 9� .2) LL ui V) (3) 4� Cll 0 0 Q) 4- 0 U f6 S2 O C64 -j 4� 00 u !-. a)Ln a3u 0 4.1 as 0 0 a) m Z D m 0 -a -C M U u 00 E a) 4-3 V) u U 0 4-1 4� u 4� �-j 0 > 0 (o U V) 0 0 m 0 -15 (U Ln m � 4 0 -- m —0 > U - .- -r 00 E 4-j o V) 0 u .0 0 > (D C: -C V) CY) > X 4� 0 a C: m - 0) -r- - c: -- > 0 0 0 0 (D - 1.. 0 S.- :3 a C: > o- :3 4� o V) r U 4� (3) - 4� "Z 4� L4.- V) 4- (3) 0 U V) 0 (3) 4� o u V) v-) M (D 0 4-j -0 4-J 0 x (D Q) U C: 2 Q) > C6 C6 CL 0 m U 4- > C: -C -0 4- = 3: U) M C: 4- > 4� r 0 > -r- 0 I. - u (1) 0 C4 4� 4� 41 V) a) V) (1) o o (1) > 0) Q) a) 0 a) (D u U7 Uv) o u o a) C a) 0 0 O u 4- a) C/) 0 u 0 > -0 o V) > (D 0 t 0 0 0 0 (D C W In 0 a) C: u V) -w a) -c- C: a) m Fo a) -�2 -c V) C 4, o = Ln 0 c _r M -+-j s- D " D 0 0 -2� o U O (D 0 4-J 4� Z C: V) 0 ') - a) to Ln 0- CL a) to - L, (1) a) -- (1) — n > 0 U 0 u a) - L L'o C: " L- 4- 4w 4� 4�CU - 4� -E Lr) W - (a) U) (1) D- 41 o X 4� 0 0 (3) 4- 4� a) :3 0 a) w u (1) ai -Y C = 4�•-C E 0) L- 4-j '. •C: 14-- U (10 (1) m u 0) > a) -0-0 q- (D -C- C: CD (D a) (3) 0 C M 4w of F- V') (2 . Lf) 2 o = F- '0 8) E F- U') F- :3 c = 0� -2 C) (u Lli (f) > a 4- 41 0 C: a) — -0 T c C: 0 u V) o E 0 to Va E 0) U) u0 4-j L- 0 E V) U T 4- 0 Ln 4-j a) >1 (n Ln U) 0 — -5 m Li - o 0 u 0) E Lo u 4� 0 Lo C -i 0 In c Ln 0 U) U Lo U) u c C: V) 4- 0 4- 0 C 0 0 Fn > ru 0 Q) u -I..; V) Z -- C) Ln 0 E W V) (D U 4-1 u E 0 0 0 Fn Z U 4� Ln Q) 0 4- 0 -Y C: 0 0 4� Ln U 0 4� -U 'n vi LFZ- — ur) U) LE 0 ru 0) u 0 U) 4- 4- 0) Ln (3) Q) Q) U') -T3 0 u :3 o U) 0 u - , 2: v) v) (D V) U) 4� 'ZZ -T 'r) U0 --- a) -IF (3) u U) 0 (o 0 4� 0 (1) (0 U) 4� C: 4� Q) X = .- '- m M x E = Q) u — ru Eu j u m U) X a) V) V) < 0 u V) 0 0 (n 0 U) Ln u) E 0 0) ()f u) 0) myy (n 0 0 E (D 0 UJ:3 -0 (A 0 > 4� u %-- 0) 0 (D - 14-- ro -Q to -J 0 -0 LL 4� V) 0 U) V) V) c 4 0 c (U lu (o �, Mi7) 0 U) ro (1) > 4� 4� 0 E u 0 a to 4� :L 4� 0 (1) Zi U u E 4-1 4-3 V) U0 > E 0 S2 Z7 E u w 0 C: 14 1 U - > 0 u .2 to 0 44� C: 4� V) V) V) V) o . V) 0 U) (3) 4� o V, u 4� 41 (D C: LO 4-j 4� C: 0 U m -,e cn 0) > 0 - -C (D U w :3 E -u u (n U 4 (3) 0 o 2! D c a (D 4-5 m Lnto E (o > 4- 0 0 4� 4� U > (3) V) o o 4� -a 0 0 C) - o 0 0 V) 4- :3 > a) 0 E o 0u 0 E 0 (3) u 0 Ln (3) ro > u m 0- _ :3 _r (1) -- 4- o " 4' 0 > 4- 0 .�2 4� - , 0 >; 0 0Q) trs _C V) -0 > (D 4� (1) (n .- _r r) C) - a) 4-j w Ln L. U .= U O. V) E U) u 'It �E E (D 4- 0 0 Im aa u Q - o Ln U) x to u O to 0 0 CD Zi 0 0 0 4� u 0 U M 0 o 0) 0) U) 4a o 0) > 0 > CL V) m o -z x a) F) F- o U M F- (D m in (D 0 F- m U*) UQ > in ro U) E 0 a)0- -1-j ?: c 0 -C E o .- -7 �> -0 4- E 0 — 3 U C) 0� .- -0 > -C C) o u 0 S.. 0 M " cn Y — 4-j Ln C) O -J E u V) L- :3 0 U ro C) c 0-0 (f) LJO 4" 1, u 0 1 J,. 0 C) 4� > 0 U) 0 4� (L) > 0 U) :3 0 L- Q4*' 0 SZ .- 0 4� U) 0 'Z,- :D 0 4- (n 4� 4� m C) > 4- -0 m 4� U) L.. 0)'— :D 0 Z 4� in :3 0 .- U cn > m U) :3 C) _r m 0- 0> 4 , u c6 �2 4� 4- V) C) > > V) U) 0 0 0 U) a U L.- ) cu o 4� ou 0 42 4� :3 Lw L cn i7i > 0 0 Q� � i 0 -- 4� U I 1• 0 0 0 n Q) V) i N O � C U U O1 U C � Y O C � O � (J) N m � N — a"1 U i 0 cn N 4 0. U) U N y Y i J� N +' c6 O + W i (n C O I Le, _j� 4- 4- 0 'i N i Z cn �i i i/HU) 4- 0) o 4- 4-j 0 U 4-j -0 C: c- C 0 4-j 0) >, C: >� 0 u Y 4� 5. m E o — 0-a 4�ir 0 > 0 M-0 E > --a :3 E 4- 0- 0- U -0 -0 0 c CL 0 C: 4-j Q) X a) U O U) u t a) -a -0 0 w 0 -0 0 CL (n .- c -1-j 0) M -Z 0- -C 0 > 0 0 4� U W U 0 > C: 0 0 4� 4 0 > C 0 _C i-_ CL 4� 41 D- a) 4� o 0- 0 C: 0 > U 'A 4-j u E > M 4� 0 4- E o C3) 0 C�7- 0 CL 4� z LLJ U 4� C: 4� 0 U 0 Lo MEN= V) 0 4�3 Z -c U zn- E E V) Q Q- o CL w -c- ui m E Z >1 0) u 0 0 0 E U :3 V) u o 0) 0 0 cl -0 - 0 r�% 4-j 4-j u C: -�-j u -0 U) V) -Y 0 u r .4.1 0 > a) u 0 To E 'a -a -0 4� c: -�-j m to Q) .4.1 w a) QL 0 0 a) Fj -a uo m -0 -Q (n m (n u '�m -0 m -0 -0 M M W M M U C) - (L) 0 (1) 4� 0O 0 0 Q- a) � -0 0 E !E 0 CBC: to U "5: o r 4- 0 0 0) ro 0 5E o >Q3 E > -r Ln 4� o E c 4, LL a 0 4-J 4� E E > c 0 -0 4 0 U (n 4� E v) 0 T a) a x E 4� E OEM V) Ln 4-® 0 V) V) -2 M :3 q- 4� — -a U Q) (D E E u (n 0 > u 2 E > 0. O T (n r 0 0 4� ro 0 0 o o . U 0 0 -0 U 4� 4m� E a- U u E — U 4� V) 4- ro E1 D a -0 0 U -0 M C: E 0 E n a — m a) a) oo 0 0 U 0 4- U (o OEM 04� U w a) � -C 0 > 0 M > U a) 4 " c 0 w V) 4� -C 0 E 4� 0 u — m C 0 4.1 0 a) -0 a) vi 0 L - LU J-. (u a) x V) 4� C 4- U 0 C Ln 0 m 0 a) t- 4� U — L- Ln a) m u Lo 0 CU > E E FD vi a) Q) a) U 4� 0 ro u 4� -1 4� "= " S- " M 4 o a) Sr 0 4- 0 U) a w u 0 -4S u u -C U, Q- -l-, -0 -Z .21 (D C: 0 Q) a) 0 -0 (1) D- CN U in 0 M V) o �: " -0 -0 :3 (n 4d 0 1-. 4- 0 c- (3) -C G� (n 4J :3 E -C Q 0) Oro Q a) LL F- U) 4-J U) 0 -4- M CL F- Iq M to V) -0 (a F- (D U) _0 0- 0 1.- 0 C- V) uo •4� 0) U) C: -0 M (1) u — 0 CD CIL c .4� -C 4� U C) 4� ru c- c (1) (f) >1 M(U 4� C: u GL (1) 4� G) v•u E ro ro 0 CL -�3 a) (nc 0 m L�-- a In E u E u Q) 0 Ln o c m c c- c U U ro a) -E 0E 0) -Z S.- n -- i — a) M 0 u C- Ln Q) u0 Q) 0 0 (a 0 (1) M Z; Q) 0 Ln ro - 0 u ro 0 > < C- -- _0 >1 Q) u ra 14- c a) m 0 0 c -- ro uo _ -0 m u 0 UO Q) n < -6� .- -0 a E u :3 a) Q) C: U) ro 0 > V) C: A.. E 4-j C: C: (D 0- m :3 0 ru :3 0• V) > -�-j (n Q) C Q) U c: -u •(D 4-j•'n ro U) > C: 4.- • ( (D n 4.j 0) v) E (1) 7= u ru (n o -io ru (D Q) -.2 (D •U :3 Ln 0 C: •ra m r" '4 m c: •U (u - a) _ U) 0• w —• a) M ru U) • 4� c 0 = a) Uo a) ru c) v) a) E 0 0 u •-�j u 4-j C: ro 4� U (D Ln Ln u U W E C: > Q) 0 c Ln w CL u 4-j 4-j u u w 0 4-j C- u u C7 12 9 ru c u mc 0 ro U) U U M C: -- U 0 0 u • Q) > •0 0 (D 0 C: )-0 Z E z 0 0 0 0 Q)• ro ru 0# # o 0) o- 4� 0 D -0 0) M 4� 0 M M 0 0 4- .0 0 Q) Z Q) 0 Q) 4-j .0 0 00 0) Q) 0 E 4S Q) 0 0 > 0 14-- 0 0 1-- u (3) C: 0 4.j •u . 0 w m 0 EQQ) ) 7 -0 4� 0 3 '7 M 0 ># (D C: rU a u LF- Tj -0 > -C u 4-1 -6 a) LO > vi .x o E -o a) 0 — -0 > 0 Q) C- •E cS 4-j J 4-j Cb -0 U 14-- 0 0 oo m E Ln m 0) V) 0 V) CO 1- V) --: 0 C -0 0 n- L,- a) -- o E w i r > -2) a 0 Lo :3 — — —0 m 0 m ' u Ln 0 x -4-1 4- > a) 0 Zi CL wm 4-3 0 Ln# # 4- >a 0 0 -U 4� (D E u 0a) a 0 0) 0 -5 a) 0 D a) u 'E V) 0 Ln E S- — #) L- E w o = --' > > o C-V)oc-m--Ooowo 40- u 2 -0 ziz 0) .C: C: 0 • C: 0 ro E > m > u 0) 0 0 b u m 0 C: 00 0 0 (D M x — 4-j 4.j m tf 0 0 (D Q) 'j " Ln 0 Ln 4-j Ln > Ln U) Zi V)n- Q) o Ln Q) L.- .2 0 Q) o 0 E 4-j 4-j Q) 0• ru (n E•4- 0 U) 0 Ln Q) 'Z C) -0 M m 0 U 0 _�.j .- C a) -0 00 0 C: a) u 00 y 0 L- 0 cc): - rcnu E irl, ---G Do- /(-D' (0-00 41 0 4-1 0 .0 0) 0 U) 0 4-j 0 E E u# # 0 E 0 # m — 0 u 0) u V) V) 0) 4� 0 > 0 0 41 U (3) (3) 4� > ♦ � c-oE:E=,�:oo 4-j x 0 E 0 0 Q) •• 0 0 # #> 0 7- 0 Lo a) 0 0 > V) 0 E q) 0 U) o u 0 I-- (D E -0 Q) .- &- a) M ri a)x a) 0) V) 0 E m w c 0 0 a 1— 0 01:113- dt tV) c- > 4\ 4� . 4� /0 4� 0 4� fu 4� U) " 4f 0 L- > L- = 4� E4 -j M OJQ U D C) -Q 0 .0-0 C) 4.j m u 4� E 0 V) 4 C) =; 0 � C . 0 C) — C) 0 .- o 0 L.. 0 U c-Ea0l\/cE?:uo- u 0 C) C) m n (3 c 0 y0 0 o a Ln Ln 4-j c 0 I-- C) 1- 0- > C C) U > U E U) z;-- 0 c 4'-j- ®© .0 4-j C) u > iC: u c 0 -FD C u 0 41 N (C 4 0 ©« E E > �0 0 4-j L.. 4ru (- 0> 4-1 0 0 0 4� 0 a» §C: c: 0 -C) > M 4- > U) C) > C) L- , U) C) < .0 4� C) > En C) C) C) U) L C) -0 0 -Fu L 0 > ru 4� -W 0 d.? E C) U) 'E U C) 4� :3 z; E f -> :3 " 4� 4� L- > 4 -Q 4- C) D- 0 y C) G ro :3 2 2o F- o u 42 —.- -0 C) 4- 4- --------------- ] - E)C119 0� iNlVq]S�l IDIAd]S .. ..... . ........ 4-1 \� § \ � � 21, L 3:1 F7/ I al Ln 1" U C V) 4- U o . ....... .. ... ... U . ........... 1" H, co �R Cr. 2E 2 cww 0 V ............ Cy. m Z III�ICr. 0 0 O ❑ Li ll ...... 4, co �R Cr. 2E 2 cww 0 V ............ Cy. m Z III�ICr. Ei I ❑ 2 ❑ ............ . Eli ............... 4� ci 0 C) 4� • C) 4- 4� Lf) C) u 0 • 4- U 0C) y (U 0 C) •# EC) u C) U) C) C) 0• 0 -U c- c- &- 0 U) 0 0 0 u 0 > C)C) 0 Z C) C) V) u •ru c 0 u ru > E > U C) ro > D - U C) c C) 0 .— U C) m M 0 U C ru ru • 4� E 0 E u U) 0 0 E 0 m U > > -u o o (Q U) C) M ra • .- S.- 0 17 C) ru C- C) U > 0 C) .4� C) C) C) > 17 V) Z;-0 . ru E 0 C) V) 0 vi > 0 E U 0 0C) E C) C) a 0 > 0 V) 0 0 C) 4� U 4- (1) C) E Ln C) 0 4� C)• u > 0 -u 1-- 0 0 0 U 0 0 (2) 4e40• - 4-- z; E > ro >; 0 ru 0.- > 4� -0 0C) c C) = L.. C) > 42 E c) • ro C) 5 G Ln In U) C) 4-j• cn C) E 0 a U) E u Cc) ) (n - C) o C) E c) 0 0 ro (n V) G C: ro 4-j (n 4- rU C) C) U) # 10 0 c — —E 2! x m 0 u 0 -1 V) (n C) I c ra C) > 4--; - C Y C) C ) EU C) 0 4� M 4CD • 0 � -U L > o C) C) c- 4, ,0 c ., E Ln 0 EE E4 o LO C) (n C) 0 C) # i m C) 0 C M# C) U) -7i• U)'E -U 0CCU C) ) ) Ile Ile -., 4- E C) 0 U) 0• L.. u• u 0 J) u E• 0 > ru 15 r #4- -C c-•0 0 &- w m w Z., 0 F7 C: 0 -U E 2! U) 0 U U >— 41j, o i -n u a) 4- M . (n U 0 ) c E 0 Q) Q) Q) a) m u r- V) M im U 0 c -0 0 - 6 0 E (D 13♦4-j c- C: 0 (n 4ij V 73 Ln 4-j C: :3 0 ) 4-j C- U) 0 M > 0 0 V) • a) 0 4-j 0 a) 0 a) ru C) M ) 4-j V) 4- V) m x 0) > 0 U 0 z� _ 0 0 0 c- 4 -j (D 0 .— C: V) ra 0C: m 0) 4- — 0 m ro Q- Ln u o 0 E 0 u I-- c- - M M %- %-- X r) E o 0 u 0 0 L 87 E u) -- .04- (n 0 0 (4 0 A a (n E•0 w (D u N 0 4-j ra 4-j 0 mc- ro E 0 0 Ln CL OL E 8) E E U Ln 4-j c c- (n Qo -C• a) Q) Q) Q) 0 o 4-a 0 C- r16 0 Ln o.♦u) -,, P E rca 405# 405 ou cm —0 =C: —0 • 65 E E 4 -73 6) -1 I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I 1, I I W 3 uj N E E O .. h H H Z W W W w N UR LLVw.. w z W0W N U a .9 -6 a1 i > 00 E V)14-- V) r,() -j 4� 4-j Ln U) a) ro U E .2 o o (a) 4-j U) a) 4� C (N -E V) V) 'F D- C7 0 4� U) 0 Q - u) > +(n 0 u U) Q) o W U) cu W -w 0 0) U w 00 (D 0- E Ln C� 4� > -2 U) Ln :3 -M 0) z; 4-j 4-j > W 0 ±j -61 (n Ln U) .�2 0 IZT — 0) -. U 4-j V) Ln U) uo > > o 00 0) E 4- 4t- 0 4- �; N C 0 0 0 4- 4� o —0 0) 0 a) m 4- 0a) Qo m a) u a 41- a) _0 0) 0 tn� E I a) 0 > a) (D (n a) 4- -0 > a) tea) 4� En - a) M a) (D 0 7"7 1- .- Qo a) (1) .- (U 0 :D -0 (1) a) > E a) :3 4� — -j 4� crr-W Ln a) 07 T, U a) > -1 1 \ 0- � -4-1 ro a) a) u (D > E 0 LO Ln U) 4-j CU > Ln 0 > a) (3) 0 U 4 - c 0 L- 3: (n C C M 0 a) 0 > Q) -1 3: 4- '0- au)) 0) 0) 0 -:D E .2 00- 0 > '- a o > N _j a) a) 0 4� U 4� 0 U C: E cn Ma IM -8 v) CL 0 (1) (3) E (a) 4-j > 0- -C a) Q) C: c Q) -0 t u o (a) M 4� > CL (a) 0 U, 0 -C 0 m M o 14- &.- c — Q) w -r- (D t S2 .!2 F- OU E -E m F- D- (a) -0 0- Q) Zi 0 E 2:� CL m > 0- � -U V) F- U) LL -0 (3) cn 7D u E F- ---------- 4-1 C) m u0 0 o 4-j C) C) 4- 4- C) C) o 4-1 u 4- E(n -r- :3 M -0 — 4 C) 14-- u (D Y U C) L.- -0 0 a) U M 4- C) E -4-1 u C) 4-j C) C) u C: C) :3 -0 0 E 0 c C) U C) V) E — ci C) 4-j C) 0 > — U T: 0 C ro C) c -4� 0 m 0 Co c o 0 CL L- 0 D u U) C) C: -61 V) a) 0 V) M -0 4� -0 0) -C E C) 'Z7i c ru V) 4� 0 V) CL 0') u c: Lm 0 La ru 0 L– 0) E N E 22 C) -1 j , 0 C) C) 0) U 4-j c) E iiiin > C) (n o (n C) C) -�E- > C) 0 c > C QL rQ 4� 4� V) 0 —, :3 -z- 4- L.. :3 E -Y v) E 0 —C) 0 0 E z --i o D- C) C) 0 . 4� 4� -a L.. — JQ — T �: = 0 cic c C) --j c>) > 0 -C C) C) C) 0 C) — — C) 4� C) U+ j E 'Uo 4� E c E > 0 L) C) N 0 0 :3 cv ro > L' 4- V) o 2) X C: ro c) v� 4� u . - E 0 0 -.0 :3 u > rl� rl) LO - -0 -0 0 - 'Z7i - 0-. E C) (n C) CL _,, C) C: C) -C ru 0 C -r- C) < -6 a1 i > 00 E V)14-- V) r,() -j 4� 4-j Ln U) a) ro U E .2 o o (a) 4-j U) a) 4� C (N -E V) V) 'F D- C7 0 4� U) 0 Q - u) > +(n 0 u U) Q) o W U) cu W -w 0 0) U w 00 (D 0- E Ln C� 4� > -2 U) Ln :3 -M 0) z; 4-j 4-j > W 0 ±j -61 (n Ln U) .�2 0 IZT — 0) -. U 4-j V) Ln U) uo > > o 00 0) E 4- 4t- 0 4- �; N C 0 0 0 4- 4� o —0 0) 0 a) m 4- 0a) Qo m a) u a 41- a) _0 0) 0 tn� E I a) 0 > a) (D (n a) 4- -0 > a) tea) 4� En - a) M a) (D 0 7"7 1- .- Qo a) (1) .- (U 0 :D -0 (1) a) > E a) :3 4� — -j 4� crr-W Ln a) 07 T, U a) > -1 1 \ 0- � -4-1 ro a) a) u (D > E 0 LO Ln U) 4-j CU > Ln 0 > a) (3) 0 U 4 - c 0 L- 3: (n C C M 0 a) 0 > Q) -1 3: 4- '0- au)) 0) 0) 0 -:D E .2 00- 0 > '- a o > N _j a) a) 0 4� U 4� 0 U C: E cn Ma IM -8 v) CL 0 (1) (3) E (a) 4-j > 0- -C a) Q) C: c Q) -0 t u o (a) M 4� > CL (a) 0 U, 0 -C 0 m M o 14- &.- c — Q) w -r- (D t S2 .!2 F- OU E -E m F- D- (a) -0 0- Q) Zi 0 E 2:� CL m > 0- � -U V) F- U) LL -0 (3) cn 7D F- ---------- -6 a1 i > 00 E V)14-- V) r,() -j 4� 4-j Ln U) a) ro U E .2 o o (a) 4-j U) a) 4� C (N -E V) V) 'F D- C7 0 4� U) 0 Q - u) > +(n 0 u U) Q) o W U) cu W -w 0 0) U w 00 (D 0- E Ln C� 4� > -2 U) Ln :3 -M 0) z; 4-j 4-j > W 0 ±j -61 (n Ln U) .�2 0 IZT — 0) -. U 4-j V) Ln U) uo > > o 00 0) E 4- 4t- 0 4- �; N C 0 0 0 4- 4� o —0 0) 0 a) m 4- 0a) Qo m a) u a 41- a) _0 0) 0 tn� E I a) 0 > a) (D (n a) 4- -0 > a) tea) 4� En - a) M a) (D 0 7"7 1- .- Qo a) (1) .- (U 0 :D -0 (1) a) > E a) :3 4� — -j 4� crr-W Ln a) 07 T, U a) > -1 1 \ 0- � -4-1 ro a) a) u (D > E 0 LO Ln U) 4-j CU > Ln 0 > a) (3) 0 U 4 - c 0 L- 3: (n C C M 0 a) 0 > Q) -1 3: 4- '0- au)) 0) 0) 0 -:D E .2 00- 0 > '- a o > N _j a) a) 0 4� U 4� 0 U C: E cn Ma IM -8 v) CL 0 (1) (3) E (a) 4-j > 0- -C a) Q) C: c Q) -0 t u o (a) M 4� > CL (a) 0 U, 0 -C 0 m M o 14- &.- c — Q) w -r- (D t S2 .!2 F- OU E -E m F- D- (a) -0 0- Q) Zi 0 E 2:� CL m > 0- � -U V) F- U) LL -0 (3) cn 7D ..... ..... ..... Pound 4x 1 -w I .. . . .. . .. ..... AU In 0W W J a ui W Q ►_'. SNpVi1 ®M, ■ J, W 10M, IJI' N, A w2 2R,.2 w63 R A� N W h ,Nn v Z Y Z 0 d W W 0 W Q W W N W w f i. IN �I ■ � I � 1 kA / ��,1 IIr ■ �■I A ■ U Y1 ■Y r o ii- Wf� 4Yp 11 OM fl 9tlR ( MMM I lNl ■■ III111111 IIII yy1� �11y yyy y1y ■■ omlll'BII Ilrlllll 1111111 II III VII IIIII�III VIII III III IIII�W �1yy (( MI I 111117 IIw . N1 1111111 llllyl yy� NII 5: 111111 1IS IIIIIIrCI / r„f J. ( Ifs M I..f�l �rr�� Ir1�, R 1 II /� I IIY I� IIIIM IIIII� Iuu � Iuu I � 1 j � wMA I lull) NM NM I01 MUY N!Im ImluXl W1IifJJ � o1 Nur ' vsi, o"', 1 w u. Imi� Iuum°i ImI Imr Vmi ma mmlo i� �i ' 1� � � �• � � ud N, A w2 2R,.2 w63 R A� N W h ,Nn v Z Y Z 0 d W W 0 W Q W W N W w in z � � k ui « � /\ AM, \ 161we / z a 0 v 0 0 z 0 ujk > uj Q9 0 z z 0 LLJk > ui ui U) E 0 \ I ± _M k E d� Ab 'L Ah k k k k c SNl I Al�H i >I >, >11 (n u :-L' (1) 0 E U 0 0 0 U) c u a) C w m a) 2, Ln Cc: -r 0 :3 m >; Lf) U) vi C6 4-j :3 c T, -C z c o u C: Ln a) (n ,-2 U c U M E .- C c 0 m> C 0I - wt 0 E .2 o a Q) u' a) Q- C: u -61 4.j u u m 0 0 (n U 4-j ru C: u c c Q) 0) 4-j 0 -1-5 C w w o - ID 0) C: o 0 u V) U) 73 0 4-j Q) V) ra -C a) 4-j L- C: (n (n c- 4 -j > C: m -0 4- - -0 " m 0 o w - %-- — 4-j -0 -0 M M U a) ® a) ® 0 m c U 0 0r6 C: -r 0- (n 4-J U (D (D C: 0 0 0) (D U U) U 0- > C) 4- (D -0 0 o c o U) .— _. a) CL — cn -- 0 = w 0 u U -0 0 M E -0 > U a) -c: m (D 0 Ln — U E (D :3 0 4� (n Lo -0 u U) -0 0) U 4- 4- r6 +Jc 0 (A (1) :3 " (1) -0 0 C L- U, o u u 4� m -T3 c U) m .— -C c 0 U 4� U U) 4� 0 ro c u E 4� (1) U f6 U ro 0 c (1) 4� 0- Ln 0 0 M > > ro u lu U, E m _j Lu u — :3 C: -0 07 U) -0 E ® L- _Q a) a) -0 4-j 4-j C: c a) U) CL -6s > > -c 4� 0 -0 U U C: 41 > 0 0 c c 0 u U 0 " 0 0) o m u -!:� U w > IIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIII IIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIII �IIIIIIIII IINM IJNINIVLI?J `..)NIABHd `JIf1JOJNIIX3 I �I�III . III T If}�1 Sl�l9 IS4L YI'I'1 ill a y'�VIVII m 0009 11 l V f -V-V -V >� I, Y i BVI SIA19 CID'W If III d UI. m or,ISIII9a A?VL1 _ ')OSAI. OOSL,-off LU !''iI l'IdV Doul � f9�) 53018 o��wis � oova � I oosl i �II �I\ � r II = I i V LI m a I uj §c _ f Ift z IIIIIIIIIIII IIIIIIIII `�� I11V3CJI SJ8) J 11, IIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIII I � � � ���IIII VIII IIII IIIIIIIIIIIII�IIIIIIIIIII IIIII,I�IIIIII I� =1mq LIIIIIIIIIIIIII - -----IIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIII c Ll 1111111 U t f FRI I mmm, „ mmnrm , mim. ® II® M91 LOSME S ' r c U •(3) 4- 0 0 — 0 ru a.�� '• 0 0 U ro I - (D c: -u- E 0 4-j a) c: (D - M M C M 0 U (D U mEE m E 0 u)o w• S-. .- (D E c u c: -c o 0 ( m 0 -•4-j c u 0 U D CL 4-j 70 E u) (n 0 Ln u 4-• > Lo o r >1 E (1) x > a ♦ ) (f) CL (D o C r U w > LO w 0 Q) Q) ) 7E 0) c- M a) - -6� -0 m y -6� r- — .- cE> - w — ra 0 N c Y (D 0 U 0 (D 0 Q) • 4-j (p •E :3 M 0 0 4� (2) 0 '- 0 (D 4-� (U (J) (o (♦ (- u ' (D (3)' (o 75 U Cl 0 4- 0 4� Qi 4- 0 4� L I u (10 :3 4� 0 C 0 ru 0 c C Tj .2 'Yc: U) E , o q- 0 4- 0 a 4- w o 0 Zi 73 -�-j W 0 o 0U c: ru 0 ppryry a) a) 0 pp0) 0) Q) m U M m tf > c 4-j I-.- — I- :7- -r m u 0 -Q 0 0- CL -0 U) co U) 0 In -cN U 0 U o [-- (n14F a U -0 > ro V) m 0 (1) 0 M -0 C 0 41 4-j E > u -�e 1- U ro a) -0 c: 00 > -(- " ro 4- c o c: (u 0) M 0 14-- 0 a) C 0 U) Ln U) 4� 0 12 0 U a) -0 Q) a 0 b 0 - Fn 0 0 ui < um 3: 0- - S (In) 'UO) a) (n (D V) Q) Q) Q) 4-j 0 vi c- M > 0 4-j • u 0- c: 0 0 U•0 0) ro -c V) U U u) -o -6� -0 = M ' 0 (D%4-- 0 C C 0 m a) ro 0 -5rwu >I u (D ro 0 0 M U 4� N (D .- Emo- 0 4� U M 0 -c N 0) a) 4� 4� M v -c 0 7& u -Q (D 0 (D o 0 0 ca)o -0 oow(Dcc -8 o -z - (a) 0`5 (M-) 4-j# -0 4- 0- 0 4-j u 0--o c c: E Q) 0 0 0 (D •0 0 0 0 N07 u o 0 Cm L E .2 0 Q) (D (D 0 ro 0) (D (D 0 U Q) -u a) - 0 0 E•Ln > u a) •E -0-c " 0 0 U) > ?: 0 C U 0• ra a) 0 • a) u -0 Ln CL 0♦ > 0 < a) > m (n u 0 T, m T, 0 u Ln c 4-j c 4-j C Q) >1 LO# ro♦C c: c: (D 0 0 > N (D I-- -6� E E '- 0 In Q) 0) Q) u 4-j I-- 0) u 4.1 0CcM : E 4--- Cc) ) 0 4-j Q) c: 0 V) m U U (a U ro Q) CD ru >) 0 u u ru > C U 0 0= 1- (u Ln • a) Lo M (D U V) 0 u u U a) U), :t� c m ra >'c: c 0 > u 1- 0 a) .0 (D (D cn In z > 7 o r (n (1) r -0 V) (3) > > m # 0 •V)• ra t # U (n -c U) c: E u 0 (3) 2 0 C - > u u U) C 0 E r D -0 W m M OL -Q L- •N 4i� ro (U C --• CD 0) u r'o > ru E Ln 1) c 0 (> 4� 0 r Ln P C) ofu P u E 0 E ((Dn .- 4-; C) V) C) C) U) U C) E C) 4-j u — C) 0 .- (n (n C: > pi C) U) 0 U) > > 0 0 0 75 0 4� C) 41 Ln C) u a C) 0 X o C) C) -C < C) -E -C Ln u) E 0 C) U C) C) 0. -0 zl- :3 4� U U .- c 3: !E C) .5ru Ln5: " (n . (n - C: C) C) U) C) C) U) C) C) 0 .0 _CU j .2 X N 4.j U vy 3: CU 4� 0 M -J m 0 -2 u c) V) V;o 0 C) 0 -t- < z E c) U) -C C) C) o u 0 V) C) C) C) E — c -0 -0 E > M 0 c) E 4� > u E > U) rg C) o E 0 0 C) 0 E > 0 u 4- C) C) V) E 0 o u C) m C) U _0 -C 0 C) Z7i C) C) M -0 0 C a) C) P- cn o o > -C 0 M u m > -0 (n -�.j -ki , 0 E o o 0) cj 0 - C) C) :-L- co 0 -0 u (n > o 0 C Q) 0 -L' — JQ U Ja c 0) 0 >I U c 0) 4-j m a.— V) 0) 0) L.. C: 4- m C: vi Z,rg C) > V) > u 0 0 V) 0 C) I.- 4- 0 4� 4� C) 2) > i7) a C) E U 4- C) C) 'Z7i u C' C: E x C) C) C) C) > OD C) L- C) o E -E 2, o C) C) tII C) L-. �E _r 6 0 < =IJ !E Ln m o -0 F- I-- Z u a Q - Z; U) 4-j 0C r6 M > 4� 4-j -9 E Ln rg 0 4, Q3 > C: OU > U_ 0 o Z5 di -C- 57- M .C: UE C (D 0) M M W O7 (n Ln m U 0 u (D o V) 4j 4-j u U 0 U cu:o o --o > 0 >1 V) u u u (ci M M > 4-j (n E -o tj u 0 (n o -0 E c > - .- m L C: u M 0 0 u 0 m I -CU I (D Ln U) 4-j W 4a 0 o > U u 0 u (n (D 0 0 4- -11- :-L- 1--o , .- m 0 lw 4-j 4-j 'a E ru -60 0 U) 0 0 E 4, 4"-= ru uo 0 E 0) o o Ln In w C: Lo (n Ln (3) Ln 4-j Q) -0 a-0 zn •Ln 0 a) lu Q) (a) (a) (a) r1r) c (1) , " " 4� Q) Q) (C5 --G U C: -C !.- " E Q) (a) ( " 4,J Cu - LJ cn .E 4J CU0 > U E u u u 0 .0 vi Ln C) U V)o :-L- C) C) 0 Cu u O C) C) L u Cu �: :>- 2) E E - E V) 0 0 u u C) -C u C) o m U 7-3 0 LU > p r6 O 0 > L- .�= 0 0 a) u 07 C u C) 4� C) C) -�-j U r6 m U) c) LE C) 4-- U) m D C (n C) C) -0 C) E Ln m o- 0 > -0 G G la U C: U m 0) 07 r6 U m 'i7i Fn >; 0 ? 4� 4� 0 E ® vi CL} C) Ln c M CU 4-j C) C) C) 0) 4-j 0 Ln m Ur - CD 4r C) E (n 0 C 0 0 1 " M CU 22 0) _I-_ m -0 M-0 C) C) to 5; 0 c m C) (nV) -0 (n 4� C) C) C) u m L- . " C) E 4� 0 C) k- C) C) C) 4� 0 U) :3 0) 0 U -0 0 Lr) C) u C) (n > C) U) 0 m M 4� 4� -0 0 D- 0) ru C —c_ -Y C) rr) -a 6 4� > 0 C) x ru -1-1 4� 4- > -0 U) 0 -0 ell C) C) x u C) 0 V) E E C) C) > 0 C) 'n E C) 0 -C 0) a) m C) -0 C) -W U > G ro 0) -C u m 0 > m U u) ECU CU NE ro 0) >1 >> i CU L.. M E t -�2 a 0 E o E 0 C) (n u 0) u c c- 4- (n — - m V) C: 4-j U - C) C) 0 C: 0 Ln > 4� — a -C C: o4 -j (n (a u 41 C) > o c (a G > C) E c) C) u C) C) .- :3 - LD 7E (n 0 M 0 H U-) -0 — > (U u E C) 0 C) — " 4� " C: "Z L-- C) > C) 0 C) 0 C) m 4� 0 > (n 'Z 4� Cl) 0 o -r- -0 M -r- 4.� cn D 4� C)o E C) C) E U) > 0 E ra c) u > U C) C) C) C) (nU 3 C) > 4-j C) : 0 -C a) C) 0 T, LD U C) ro U U U C) 0y in 4--E c c c > .9 C) -:03 C) 0 -0 0) 4� 0 0 4� 4� > 0 0 V) > m 2: E 0 0 C) 0 C) > u C) C o E 0 C) m 0 c C) 4-j 4-j E 0 > C) 4� 0 U 0 C) Ln C) 4-j C) E EtII Z c: u 4-j 0 Cl m C) C) G 4-j r - Ln M 0 E > 0 4- U) IE v) 0 0 4� 07 0 V :3 4� E ) 0 0)> 1� Cil -0 V) 2: E v) -c- > �: .E — r 4 -E E 4� 0- C) 0 a) � 4-1 u V) - a) E -Y U- 0 0 U -Y C) v) E U ru > 0 0 > < u Q) > -C Z- 0 v) C)7 y a) -C u U 4-j V) 07 0) a) 't -r- 0- u > (f) 0 0 ro 4- V) > 4� > V) V) (1) 0 u -0 u 0 4� C 0 D 0 0- v) 4� :D (�6 CU r6 O Ul V) 0 V) ra �: C) 0 U C) 4- E u- 0) 2: 3: 0- o c a) < ra 0 4-j N x 0- C) -a C) 0 Ln -Q — .E M 4� 0 L'- 0 -a 0 4� 77 -0 ro = 0 < c V) C� L-- ru 0 4, -C 0 ro c 0) M C: o 6 0 -s.j 0 V) :3 4-j V) 4_ 41 0 :3 U 0 ro V) 0 0 = 0 0 m �J- E 0 0 0 u I�i a (n -0 4- T E 4� C: -W L.. - > L.. -0 0 > ro m m C) -0 ro 0 — -5 m > o 0 > 10 > V) C) u o vi m 0 o ?: ru 0 4� V) C: 0 4� C) H > (n Q) �5- 0 C) 4� " U 0) 4� C) E 4�• '4- 0 ro 1-1 — — C) fu = o u < 7E > E > = (n U U 0 U 0 3: 4-j 0 0 0 C) C) C) E L.- ro > o -r- C) 4� U) V) (A �N 0)0- D- C) 0 m Z; -0 Ln (D 0 in O 4' 0 i 0 0 0 ru (n C: .- 4- (3) -C CL 'Z C) 4� 4� 4� U) L- U 0 0 0 > cn fu QL 0 C)L 0- U) -C c U Ln a) QL 4-j 4-j -el -C 0 > U) :3 —M LO 0 0 a) > > m c V) (n 0) m x Q) 0 (D m o u 0 0 0 > E C: %-- 0 0 0 Lo Qn) Q) -0 -Q Q) m 0 Q) N CO -0 a) 0 c- > M 0 Q) 0 �5 . rz 0 E Q) %-- Q) C: ,., - �: a) = 0 E vT — m V) 'n 1- C: C7 Q) o a) u Q) 0) Q) 4-j Ln a) Q) 0 a) ru u 4� 0 u E uu -0 :3 C: Ln 0-4- C: m m u 0 U- a) 4- u -0 0 0 :3 - -C: m w m c in — E -'U- V) E E -0u L6- a) (D C: 0 U 0 U M C u :3 C u 4� 0 3: 0 - ro Ln 't cn N (1) C)_ > m Z E 4- > C)- -Fo Q . C: .- - -, 0 _0 (n 0 cn U r 0 E to (n m -0 u 41 .- a) 4-j a) 4� _rZ u :3 — 0 -CZ U < 4� . 4� E 4� > C: Jc: u V) = U a) o E -0 Q- 0 -�-j --j Zj 0 > 0 0 Q 0) ro M C) C: X 4� 0 C: LO N 0 I- a) a) 0 0- a) -o -E -C Ln 0 m Q) m Ln -0 E E w > c u a) >U u a) u m -C " o® -C -C U c 0 C -C (D ±2 _rZ 0 Ln W F- (n -�-j F- E 40- v) u o -Q:' U:3 Cc F- va-0 M cn F- -0 y 4-j 14- C) -0 -a . 4� C) . c 0 N 4-j -0 L: § 4-j C)C) O r6 07.E 4.J E 0) u u c) N u. I -j -C 4-1 ' a) r6 Q i 0 u to 0 E E o ro 0 0 :3 0 76 U) C) 5-. m 4� E m c: U 41 4-j 0 c C) > 0 0 0 0 C)L S-. c ru C: E u D 0 . , c -0 ru > c 0 M -C m W Ln E C) 0 ru 4� C) c L-. D :D0 4� x -C) C) C) t3 C) 0 0) Z, 4- 0 0 a c L- C) o -C :D In E Lr-oE G C) OL 0 C) o 0 0 -1-1 c 0 U c > 5) o .- C) C) u 0 'V) .2 ro tj 0 C) C) V) E 0 U 4� C) (n Q 07 -Q < E V) V) > 0 C) 0 0 C) > U U y U> C C D- c Ir -0 ui E -j v) 'E M �: cc) C>) L:nD CC:) CC:) -loj CC:) FE -2- E 6� tj U) > 0 U) u dy r6 a)0 4- En 4� c: 4� x DL o o U U) 0 > ®r E x L.. 0) C) 0) m do a) > U) -C 4-j U 4-j = 0) c 0 U) OL -C 'Z7i E c) u) a) -5 E 'Z,- Q) 0 E > t i7i �6 M 4-S -T -Q U) > 0 4� 4� -6L -r- 0) L.- ()) (j) C 4� 4� 0 >CU r6 V) cn — 0 0 V) 4� (3) Q® 0 0 , m 0- > ru -a (6 a) u U) W -17 - = -0 L-:' .- C 0 41 7E o -U - U) M 4� 0 0 U 0 0 u (o ru Z -g- 0 V) U)® m to V) > V) 0 V) C) > 4- C: u - Q E C) Co 0- , E0 0 C) L.- L- m C) U) C M -0 4" a C) 0 > 4� -0 Ul) (n M C) 6 4— w (a -0 00) 0) CL 4� U = (U M E o (3) 2 E C) 0 M as 4- 4 ' cn n 4� (J) 0 0 — 4- U 0 < zt c 0) 0 ul C) 4- 0 -0 66 E M u %-. > 0 -�.j 0 M 4- 0 0 -r u 0 CJ C) < m a a < -0 U) (n -0 F _0 u) 0 tn ra c) m o. < u m 5E I no V) y 4� u _0 Q) c 4� I... > -0 :3 4� L.. (a) U(U a) 0 0 > -0 4- N > 43 E CL m c 0 u E c 0 0 >Q) 7 c -0 -0 0 u 0 4-j E > 0 C u 4-3 • v) Z 0 a) • V) ii m U m E QN) (OD u a) c 4� • (o Ln > ul v 10 3: u w E a) U) Ln 0 -1- Q) 4- U -Y u 4-j 75 n Q) L5 0 () - (U (7 1.- :3 ._ 0 Q) 0 4� Q) U) > C- V) (3) (3) X �7 0 4- m V) C -�; E :3 o c SQ u 0 uQU) QW) -00 E Q) -12 -6j m 0 0- 0 Q) o 4-j E 0 In 73 4-j Q) Eo > V) OL 0 > N > u 4� 0 Q) a) Q) 75 0V) 0 'E E 4-j U) U 0 ♦it -0 0 -2-j -Fj 4-j U� U U a o 2! u m ® 0) m as r6 [a% 4� c Z u E u 2: E 4-j > Ln 0 a) (n U) 0 Z; > -0 0 0 m E 4- < (n — 0 — x 0 (n 0 4-j E E > U 0 uQ) u E U Z; U -0 -- _E M X a) _E U C 4-j 4� a) C -E -6� E 0 0 0 Qi = 0) a) :3 a) S2 -c: a) C: 4- U� (n u a) ±:� -C a) -F- m 4� Of C: :3 4- a) V) — — , a) a a) 4� 0 C: a) 4- C: D > w U) u im m a) u E o) 0 .(n 4-j o m C- (n E a) E E -0 o) 'E E Do- ED (ED mu 0 m a) 0) c 0 c -1-1 L6 .— -61 C: 0 U a) ru U 0 m > 0— Ln o > 0 u u 0 a) 2 I C: 4� >I c U) a) C: (1) -0 .- > o c (n :3 a) .2 0 M > a) C G. 4� a) 0) 0) a) u 4� O+ 4� U a) :3 - u u a) _Z3 C 0 0) CL (n 4-- 4� > I M E U > 0 a) u a C 4� 0 0 > :3 u cn 0 E 4 0 0 L u - a) a x u 0 t3 a) - c- m c 0 0 0 0 m 0 c 0 m D 0 -C E 2 m 0 -c- -c- 0 C U 0 u m w u LL a) u 0 o -Q 11 G 0 C) 0 C: ru C) a UO 0) C) U) a 0 (n — DL lu U u c a) C .- 0) C) -c- 4- -Y u E .- C) G u C) C) E 0) a) C) M 0 -Z,- -r- 4� L- ru M cn ro ro m 4-j . C) C) u m S-- 4� C) 7-3 0 c -C C) (n m ro C C) -Q cn U > 0 0 0 -,T- Qy v) r6 E u U) 0 fu tn :-L' = U) 0 .L. a - LO 4� (n 0) fli >, (U U c ro 6 > 4� U 0 (n M 0 L- N 4� E v) u) ra U C) 0 (o c V) .Z; > C) CL U Ln M U >1 V� ra (n V) u u (n 4� U V) o -0 u V) C: ru 4� ra 0- C) C: E 2) m Cc) > U C: M M U rQ C) (n x C: ru 4- P 0) C) C) (n C) U S� 0) D C: r) U U C) E 77 E 4� o -0 C) C) L5 M > ro C) C) F- u C) > 0 c (a D C) (a 0 0 E -0 C) 4� U :3 C) -0 C) C) C) U) 1-- 0 2 x C) 2) C) (a 0 c -0 u ro L.. E ui V) - > (U C) -0 5� -Y (1) C) Lij 0- C) 4- C) U S-. > 4- u U C: -0 E E C) > 4� U) ru 4- V) C) 4� U ro U) rll ay(a 0 > D 4� :3 -r- _y E — 10 - 6) -Y -E 4� C) c- (n > c C) u) a) u) U) u) C) =- -0 ' u E 4� U) Ln C) 0 U o u U -C U C) E U o m 0 0) 4� . 4� 4� 4� 0 - (1) (n C) 1-- V) 0 u u u -0 0 C C) U C) C) 4� :3 U) C) C U) C) 4� 4� > 4� > u E -0 u) u m v) > > C) U C) ro ro > A 0 u 0 u 0 C) C) U) U C) u D 0 ME L -r- Ln a .�! -V) a c 0) > 0 . V) L- u E o " C) r- ro 0 > C) O o 0 U) C) E - D 0 0 E C) ro ul C) ro ro U -C 0 0 C) ro — 0 0 c 0 U 4� E 0 u C) L- 4� M U 0in u 4� L6- u 4� Ln C) OL v) 1: —N , Q) Q7 ra- C) u Lli m � V) 4-j 4-j CU rp 75 0!E > 4- C) 0 (n C) 0 u 0 C) 4-j V) Z C) C: U u C) C) C) C) 0 c.® -0 C) C) C) C) m -1-j 4-j C) Ln c- > u 0 C) C) -0 -0 — C: 4-j ro -z'- L.. -6m 0 E C) C) 4- 5: L.. m u -. -6� C) 0 U u 0 L.. r .�2 M a C) 0 4- C) 0 .0 0 m L -6� 0 E E 4-j 4-j 4-j 0 u a C) -�-j r�f) -j Ln u G 0 V) C) C) �: .- V) ru 7 U) 0 (n 4� E ro -Q 0 0 M V) —ru C) M C: ru C) 4� c u 0 E 0 C) o C) 0) C) -C C) ro C) 0 a 4� M 0 .5 E 0) 0 C: C 0 N N 0) Q) C) :3 C) C) — .- -I-, Q) 0) E C 0 0 4� -C o U) . C) 0) C) ru (n -W " C) V) 'n 0)4- .- -C = 0 0 c 4� C) 5 -0 4- 0 4� 4� U o c C) u 4-j C) — 0 m :3 C) -r- V) V) U U -�-j 0 0 u C) 0 ru ru U) Cu4, C: U :3 C) 0 C N -l-j 00 4� (n C) C) u o E C: C) 4� V) C) C: M L.. 4� r 0 C) m 0 0 c 0 0 C V) r-) m 0 N rQ C) 4-j ru - 0) L.. 0 ro — u 0 _j 4� C) 'n 0 4-j -0 (n C) < C) -j-D 4� cn C) E C) c E 4-j K.. a L.. C) (n V) u u (D (n 4� IM C) 06 > (n C) E Q) C) C) 0 > ro V) C) 0 C) C) m .0 0 C) C) 0) 4m 4-j (n in o c C) C) C) 0 C) > LO :' L'- " m 4� C) i CU I.- L.. = C: M 3: E iE u C) 4-j 4� 0 0 = 07 C) :3 0 �: 0 > U E E 0 -0 > -0 0 DL C) 0) 07 0 Co> C) 5 C: (n x C) 3- - z,- 'u w ru E 0 E _j V) 4- 0 C, C) . - C: .2 a C) -2 0 4� C) U — L.. 0) C) 0 -r- D 0 cn mm U) m a 0) u) Q a} E 4-j c 0 Cf Q) 4-j - -0 -0 y r6 X 0 C: (n -0 4-j 4-J 4� >Q) Q) Q) 4--J (n u u -0 m -C 73 14.- V) u 0 o ru 0 w 0) cn V) E: — .- C: w q-- (n -0 u 0 Q) 4-j "Z (n .5 Q) Q) > cn 0 C Q) u 4� V) Q) o -r- 'a) 4-j I- M Ln > Q) 0- u m w a) V) m 4, 0- E 0) ra u W -C cn 5r Q) 0) 0 E Q) 2-j 2! +.j V) 4J 4- u 0 ra — Z .NUS MZ; N a) -r u (a 0) :3 CN 4, C: m z (D u 0) C: D u 0 E u cn U m 0 07— UJ (A M a C: CL u u (D 00 m C: = -I-, 4� f2 -0 0 D m u E 4-j th z z m 0) � W W N Wu u c E = ' 0 4� -c- c a) 0 C 0 0 0 < ro (f) (D o 4� " CL't- 0 :3 LU - - 'n '® . 4-j _j 0 4- 0 0 CD a) E E 3: u) D o 0 -0 CL L& 0 4-j 0 > 4� a) (n CL O D- - 0 0 tn o U. m .2 0- c QL C: -C a) -0 uc V) -0 Ln (D (A a) M U- -0 0 W :3 U (n Q) 0 Ln c M c U 0) 0 0 U a) 3: u w 10 a OL 4-j Q) C: > -Cu C: -C u -C: 0 c c •4-, m a) c a) . c- P m a) P E w P -6 a) m. S w � -E u m E > 0 0 0 u U -4-1C) C: C: 0 0 0 -0 > C) 0 0 u G - . L.. -0 4-� 0 > U > C) 0 0 C) 0 C) -0 Uvi C) u r6 QC) C) > 0 -C Z 0 C 0 < C) C) C) 0 0 u cn 0D > o E U > C) 4� V) V) 0 0 < C) UE, C u cn > C6 C6 0 C) C) 0 -r- 0 U) IN - C) C) z V) w 0 4- ro 4� V) -c 0 0 C) C) c m u C) M 0 a Q) 7E > n 0 4� V) U) Q) < E -0 > 4-j U) 0 -- -�.j 4� C) U) IN 4� u u U) 0 ru C) o ro M > r - (n C) En C: C) o 14-- C) 0 = > u V) LU 4-j C) 0 -0 U ?: L.- -4-� w 0 o U to V) V) ro 4-j C) 4� V) > Ln ra U 0 > 4� > -0 w V) :3 0 0 0 0 C) (o 0 -0 z C: 0 z 0) L.. 0 > C) U ra X U) a 0 > < 4� — -Z L- m cn M 4� > 0<. LU Ln 4� 0 Lu C 0 4� L.. --j E -a p C) 0 � — C) > Ln 0 a) L.. -0 C: U) u C) > 0 0 C Zj 0 Ln E C) U (n 0 0) -Z U 0 Cp C) C) U M (n w (n C) 0 LU 0 -0 DL > 4� C) o m C) c) m C) LLI C) C) -0 0 L- 4� Ln _j C) C) 0 < o C) > C) 6) o '. '0 u SC: o C) _I -Z C) C: x — L.. -0 C) 4- 4� 4� F-- C) L.. LO (o U) F-- -0 U) u co D- 'Fn > N N u U) (o m 4� u to C) _0 4� -0 0 L- C) 4� V) (2) 4-j C) C) U) 0 U vi -j -0 4k 41 U) U V) c E E V) C) 4� 0 .0 o o 'w — a C) -0 U E C) E In o C)0 Ln Eo) C) C: En -Q 0 0 3: C) 0 Ln u u 0) 0 4 - vi 4� Q ) U Q Q7 -Q E V) C M C 4�• 0 n < u TO K.- > V) u C) 76 C) o Ln C) (n E LU :3 >0 (n Ui 0 4� ru — 0 cf U) 0 C: 0 U V) (a 4-j D c 0 1-- C) 4-j c C) C) 0 C) < -Q o 0 U 0 0 OL C) Zi > 0 U . 0 > — .T Z 0 0 0 U IN 0 C :3 j E E C) a— C) U) Ln C) C) 4� C:> C) 4� u u U) U) Z 0 C) C) u z U) u > 4� " — C) cn C) C) C) M 0 C) C) o- E :3 ro -Y u u C/) > ?: -2 — &-. (n r > E -5 Z Tj 41- 4- C) 0 C) C) M (a r 0 4-j 0 w 22 C: U) C) :3 C) OL a 0 C C- C: 4' < C) > 0 U) > 0 C) 4- C) C) U 0 (1) V) (a LU :3 C) :3 4� U) C) C) LLI C) 4� C C) > V) IN 0 4- 4� 4 D m 4- 4� -C :3 > OL - 0 > C) > C) D E ro 0 4-j 0 C) C) C) Ln E 0 E o F- m UQ Q) I 0 C) C) ci -0 -- < 0 U _C c u Ln z — _C P E iS 42 - �oj m 'M-- m — U F -76 yr < C) m C) C) V) &.. ?: >; ti C5 :3 4-j u 4-j C) 0 > 0 m 0 m U 0 C) T� 0 u 0 S.- L.. C) C) 4- ® C) 0 u .0 o o o -0 u u C; cn 0 E C) i2 = C) -0 E F-- - M 4v 0 S OL — 0) C) -C u 0 E 4� 0 4- E (n m o o C: 0 -C 0 u n - V) C) (2) C m U) fc, rid Q} -a a) 0 c C) L) C) 4-j ru o M E > - — — -C m 0) 4� -0 x 0 o C: 4- > U) a (n m X 4� C) C) _r U -0 ro C) C) .- u 0 0) :3 D- ) o E C) C) ro u > C ru 0 U) u 0 0 0 > U) U C) 0 -Y E 0 0 Vi 0 u C) 4-j U 0 4-j ............ -Q 0 -Q C) m m 0 .0 U) C) v) ra (a C) -0 E (n o Q c — 111.111 -> C) > M M 4� 0 U) ro 4-j 111.11J E Ln cm) C D I u 4-' (n Ec6 0 V) 0) V; 4� o C) 0 M C) (n X L.. 0 E 4� -6 V) E m C) m u 0 0 C) u 0) u (a u 4-j e- 4� 1-j C) > 0 C) %-. C) u OL U L.. 0) 111.11J w 0 V) C) C) :-L' 0 0 > C) C: C) ' - -1Z 4� o u E 4� 'E U C) u U u C: C) 0 'n 0 0 0 Z: 0 C) C) C) 1-j E (n 0 (n 4' 0 IN 0 C) (n m C) Ln 0 4-j C 4� p c, E c) a o C) 0 0aJ to 0 fu 0 C) C) Z E to 0 fr. C) -E L- c: ch D- t -r- u F- r6 E 0 4� 0 I- m 0 -Z C) C) C5 ro ro -- C vi > U) C) x 0 0 fu C) C) 4� U) Q) . L- M ?: 0 0 u 0 0 0 Q > C) E M > 0 0 .�2 Q V) " r- V) > D C) V) :3 C) -- 4- L) O> 4� > Cf) U) 0) 4J ra :3 > U E C: U C) V) C) 4-j U) C) Lo — V) M 0 m C) m 0 LU 0 vi a w C) o (n V) LD " -Y C) U U V) E U E 0 > C) 0 4-Q? i ru 4� m 4 , 4� (a C) ro E (n C) 41 (a 4t 4_ (a 0 C; 0 U 4- C) OL 3: 0 0 _ u - U) C) u M E u c 0 LU u) V) C) cn OC) E > -r M-0 > ru -6� — - C) 0- C) C) (n 0 ru > U 0 0 Cf) C) 0 C) 0 -a C) E > - U 0 C) C -0 :3 u a 4� _j -�-j cn o. > 0 0 4� 14-- 3: o o C) C) a) C) c L- 0 4� C) o P Fr- 4� C) (n (f) 4� (UU .(n V) (n 4+ V) 4-j 0 C c u L.. C) 0 C) :D C) (f) C: V) 0) C) m -0> V) ru o 0 0 D E C) Ln® U 0 0 U ud3 y DL > C) 4� -0 C) -0 u fu c: 0 (1) c C) C u M > M ru V) U) C) C) L U) C) U ru V) 0 < I- E 0 4-j -0 4� ci U. < LO U 0 m 5 m 0 - 0) 0 4- C) 4� 4� 4� — _C Ue) 4� C: 4� 4- V) C: 4- U) rU U r J RS 0 u U) z < V) C) 4- Iz C) C) .— L- z N :5 D� C) -0 z u u 0 D- 4- 1 C) 0 0 E t3 ® -0 to U) < 0 0 C) 0 0) o 0 LO G C) F/i 4- > 41 V) 0 0 0 0) Ln V) -J -77 C) Ln a 0 C) V) 4� co m a,- C: -W Ln u 4-j Z C) U) 0 0 O C) > C) C) 4� > U —f -0 L C) (n -0 u > -0< -4-1 z E C) v) C) C) c) (D -0 ru 0 U) 0 C) -0 > V) u 0 :D 0 LU CL - > 0 u 0 LU 0 o L.. w 0 0 0 in C) 1® 0 E I.. u -0 0 u LU E > C) C) C) 0 C) a 0- ru S: > o -0 L UJ < x 0 0 — < -c L.. - -0 4-j �= E — - Fn > E E E E o u 2: c) Ln U) u 2: 0 Ln U (n 4-j U Ln 0 c- V) Ln L- U) (3) Z, > 4- -1 (1) U 1 T 4 - 4� O. :-L' 0 �2 < > u -C c -C > . C: u x 4-j 0 0 " < 07 0 o— 0 U v> 0 U V) LU C: D- > E 0 u (n Ln 0 0 u -a 0 E 4� 4-j Ln 0 E (D 0) 0 0 Ln E 0 o) 4� 0 (n o o 4� U Q 4-ro -T) E .�: u > C: _r_ Lf) 0 > 0 — M 4- > C: 0 E o 4� > ro In 4-j -0 Ln o > 0 LU 07 0 Ln 0 0 0 0 x o 4- — V) 0- u 4 - LL u E Ln E x Ln Q) z NF T U u E> E o u1 - C: u 1- ->Y x uVC) ®U U(1)) y < Fn 0 Ln Q) > -C 41 (a) 0 0) W 0 -C (3) c c u 4� a U F- (C) Q V) 0 u cn F- CL _0 Lli (f) o _j F- o cn 4� G C) 4� U) :3 > C) fu V) a) 0 D- U) c Z; 0 u vi yit L4 V) • E -u x C) C C) vi m C) C C) 0- 0 E m a c) U 'n C) 4-j 0 u U > z L.. C) U) C) E c- C) 4� u E2. > C)• 4-j E mu 5 +1 m 0 u m V) (3) -0 0 .— (n > E u 0 0 4-j 0 U (D 0O a) c U Ln -r- 0 4� Q) I -J u 0 >1 u 4-jx 0_0 -0 a) > Ln C7 E a) o , O 'U 0 0 U V) 0 U) OL 0 0 C 0 C 0 E Q) 0- 0 (D u 0- 0 V) —0 E 0- Q) ru C: C: >1 ra 0 C: > m _C: Q) a) 4-j o o 4�— yr1-- 0 m U a) U 00 > C: 0 -l-j u oofora U 4- 4-j 4-j 4- 0) 0)±2 :3 U) U 0 cvi t O m o o c >1 0 u c- iE W L: C: 4-j -0 a)LO > M (n C: m -0rO (n 07 4r u x C� Q) 0 M t5 (u (n W CfTa)u Q) Q) (D 0 0 1:j 4� U momm X C: V) T� V) -0 4- r6 4w 0 a) 0 (3) (n (3) 0 ro -0 E m v) u o m 73 o c) Q) Q) U Q - x C: (1) ® "® 0 > u 0) U _0 ro C: E " v) 0 a) (u (U U -0 0 C: (n C c " 0) 0 ra a) u (n 4:; O Un (n ro u - CL 0 OC) 4- cn E u u 4--- (n ra (n 0 C: Ln E Lo V) U u - E C: E cc) CS '�a-) (UD 0 (D C: (n U u z-0 0 = (1) M 0 u 4, a) W U W .®B m 0 M u >; 0- -0 (n 4-1 C: X U) C: C- C- 0 -0-0 0 C: E a) +,4� 0 GL'E 'Fn - F -C -C — 0 -0 C: u 73 Q- c 0 -r- 0 L- P- 4� C: C: u W _rZ 0 C 4� CF 4� 0- ro (u :.L -0 Ln W > (D -0 4� 0 CL I U) Q) ro c :3 u - 0) %- 0 JQ C: U a) c ru D c OL (n ru -0 (D o U) a) 4� ro L 4� Q) C: 4� 4� u a) M 0 a) 4., - -0 4-j C 1- :3 (D (3) -0 ro M a) (3) 0 1.- 0M !E 4- M > 4 + -Q GL 0- (n 0 T- U m (n P- %-.- GL P- O P. P. co cn U Fl! P. C) ('4 LU P. I 4 R P. CL V) C14 LU R ry ZJ P. C) ('4 LU P. I 4 R P. CL V) C14 LU R ry P. C) ('4 LU P. I 4 R P. CL V) C14 LU R O P. I I 11tJ R R P. I vk ►i R. 0 V) CN ry III co U III r) ►i R ►i