Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutDTS-05-078 - Mixed Use Corridor Design Brief ) c,> KITCHENER Development & Technical Services .... Report To: Date of Meeting: Submitted By: Prepared By: Ward(s) Involved: Date of Report: Report No.: Subject: Development & Technical Services Committee June 27, 2005 Jeff Willmer, Director of Planning (741-2325) Ryan Mounsey, Senior Planner (741-2324) All June 21, 2005 DTS-05-078 RECOMMENDATION: Mixed Use Corridor Design Brief 1. That the Mixed Use Corridor Design Brief dated June 21, 2005 attached as Appendix "G" to DTS Report 05-078 be adopted and incorporated into the City's Urban Design Manual; and further, 2. That staff (Planning and Clerks) be directed to investigate the feasibility of creating a Business Improvement Area (BIA) for the Victoria Street North Corridor area and report back to Council for further discussion and direction; 3. That staff (Planning and Clerks) be directed to investigate the feasibility of creating a Business Improvement Area (BIA) for the Lancaster Corridor area and report back to Council for further discussion and direction; 4. That Planning staff be directed to investigate the feasibility of a Community Improvement Plan for the Lancaster Mixed Use Corridor and report back to Council for further discussion and direction; 5. That Planning staff and Park Planning, Development and Operations staff, be directed to investigate a park land policy for the Mixed Use Corridors to be integrated into the Parks and Trails Master Plan process and report back to Council for further discussion and direction; 6. That every effort be made to integrate the Mixed Use Corridor Design Brief Corridor Design Strategies into future City and Regional road reconstruction projects; 7. That Planning staff be directed to present a performance monitoring report to Council on the Mixed Use Corridor on a five year cycle initiating on the date this report is approved; 8. That the preliminary Mixed Use Corridor Zoning provisions attached in Appendix "0" be received for information purposes only, and Planning staff be directed to present the final implementation zoning before the end of 2005. EXECUTIVE SUMMARY: Over the past two decades, the City's planning approach has been to encourage stability in the interior of downtown area neighbourhoods, and to direct new development to the arterial roads leading to and from the downtown. More recently, the City undertook a major review of its existing commercial policy structure. As a result of this review, a new commercial policy was approved based on a nodes and corridors land use model. The commercial policies incorporate a high level of urban design for the major commercial land use designations and include a policy for the City to complete a Design Brief for specific land use designations. In June 2003, Council approved a preliminary Design Brief for the Mixed Use Corridors (DTS- 03-118). Following this meeting, Planning staff has revised the Design Brief to clarify design expectations in the public and private realm for the mixed use corridors based on a detailed analysis of existing corridor conditions, new corridor vision statements, agency circulation comments and public comments received from two neighbourhood information meetings. The Design Brief will be implemented through the development approvals process, road reconstruction projects, the City's Urban Design Budget and special capital projects. The Mixed Use Corridor Design Brief will be incorporated into the City's Urban Design Manual, and will complement other municipal initiatives such as the Culture Plan II, the Downtown Strategic Plan and road reconstruction projects. REPORT: Background The Commercial Policy Structure identifies seven Mixed Use Corridors located on or near major transit routes in the inner city. The Mixed Use corridors are identified in Appendix A, and include Belmont Avenue, King Street East, King Street West, Lancaster, Queen Street, Victoria Street North and Victoria Street South. Over time, it is anticipated that these corridors will intensify with a broad range of land uses and have attractive streetscapes that encourage walking, cycling and transit use. In June 2003, Council approved a preliminary Design Brief for the Mixed Use Corridors. This Brief was conceptual in nature and included a series of general design strategies for each corridor illustrated by a conceptual design diagram. After a lengthy consultation process and a recent neighbourhood information meeting held on June 14th of this year, Planning staff revised the Design Brief to clarify the City's design and development expectations with emphasis on public realm quality, corridor improvement strategies, detailed building design guidelines and redevelo ment 0 ortunities shown on a detailed Design Plan com ared below. Original Design Diagram for Victoria Street South Corridor showing conceptual design strategies Current Design Plan for the Victoria Street South Corridor showing a specific design strategies Existing Conditions Following the June 2003 Council meeting, Planning staff initiated a comprehensive review of existing corridor conditions to investigate alternative design guideline opportunities. In particular, Planning staff evaluated a range of conditions such as park space amenities, building setbacks, transit facilities and street lights. The results of the survey are summarised in Appendix B, and provide the following conclusions: · Building Setbacks: Buildings are generally located close to the street. Over 60% of all existing buildings located in the mixed use corridors are located within 7.5 of the front property line contributing to an urban street enclosure. This urban setback pattern should be maintained and reinforced. Similar, or reduced setbacks, will be encouraged to create an urban street condition with opportunity for increased setbacks only for higher density projects or to accommodate unique property constraints. · Building Height: Building heights range between 1-17 storeys in the mixed use corridors however, the average building height is predominantly low rise in form (1-3 storeys). Recognizing that the corridors are a significant redevelopment/intensification opportunity, an urban built form incorporating somewhat taller building heights with appropriate transitional measures is encouraged in all corridors, with opportunity for increased height and density at appropriate locations determined through corridor design guidelines. · Open Space: Most corridors have good access to major park and trail spaces; however, each corridor has a limited supply of public open space. Open space contributes to urban quality and liveability. At present, open space constitutes only 0%-2.6% of land area in the Mixed Use Corridors. Given this limited existing supply and anticipated redevelopment potential, opportunities should be explored either to improve the quality of existing public spaces in each corridor or add new public open space. · Transit: All of the Mixed Use Corridors are well served by transit, and with the exception of Victoria Street North, all are currently transit corridors. The majority of transit stops are located within 250 metre space intervals. Opportunities should be explored to provide more transit shelters along major transit routes with consistent shelter designs and improve integration into the public realm though innovative shelter designs or improved street furniture. · Lighting: The standard street light is the LPE fixture defined in On Lighting Downtown. This standard is designed for automobile traffic with poles located on one side of the street. Opportunities should be explored to improve streetscape quality and pedestrian lighting through new lighting standards in a cost-effective manner. The individual corridor design guidelines should establish a lighting strategy to improve lighting and/or streetscape appearance. · Redevelopment Potential: The mixed use corridors have a limited number of vacant lots in each corridor; however, each corridor has a variety of underutilized properties which could be redeveloped. Opportunities should be explored to maximize redevelopment opportunities within the corridors and to provide new linkages to surrounding redevelopment proposals. Transit supportive redevelopment opportunities should be encouraged through corridor zoning and design guidelines. Given the existing corridor analysis, new guidelines and strategies have been incorporated into the Design Brief to improve each corridor. Mixed Use Corridor Design Brief The recommended Mixed Use Corridor Design Brief is attached in Appendix G. The revised Design Brief is organized into three sections including Introduction, General Corridor Guidelines and Corridor Design Strategy briefly described below. DB-3-A Introduction: This section describes the intent of the Design Brief, and identifies the primary design principles which implement the Municipal Plan policies and are considered critical for mixed use corridor development: · Maintain human scale form and compatibility; · Encourage compact urban form and promote intensification; · Achieve high quality building and landscape design that contributes to a sense of place and corridor identity; · Create walkable, transit supportive environments, and; · Promote civic design and the creation of a high quality public realm that inspires innovation, creativity and corridor identity. DB-3-B General Corridor Guidelines: This section contains a set of general design guidelines that apply to all mixed use corridors. The guidelines indicate the City's design expectations in the public and private realm with emphasis on public realm improvements, streetscape quality, built form compatibility and building design quality. The design guidelines introduce several concepts for the mixed use corridors, such as human scale development, the 1:1 height to street width ratio for maximum building height, transit oriented development and pedestrian scale street lighting for civic streets (i.e. Queen Street and Belmont Avenue). The guidelines also provide a framework or basis for the Corridor Design Strategy section and development review. DB-3-C Corridor Desian Strateav: This section provides a detailed design strategy for each individual corridor based on a general vision statement, specific design strategies and a detailed design plan. The Design Plan identifies key redevelopment opportunities, streetscape improvement opportunities, new linkage opportunities and public realm improvements. Implementation The Design Brief and corresponding Design Strategies will be implemented through various methods including, but not limited to, the development approvals process, road reconstruction projects, the City's Urban Design Budget and special capital projects described in greater detail below. 1. Mixed Use Corridor Design Plan: The Design Plan for each corridor identifies redevelopment opportunities and provides guidelines for height and density. The guidelines encourage compatible built form, particularly for large redevelopment sites and sites abutting low rise neighbourhoods. Recommended building heights are identified in the Design Plan to achieve a compatible built form, and are intended to be incorporated in the zoning by-law. The existing official plan policies on density (floor space ratio) are not intended to be altered. 2. Site Plan Applications: The Mixed Use Corridor Design Brief will be applied to site plan applications proposing new development. Building elevation drawings will be required as part of site plan approval in order to assess massing and conceptual design, with emphasis on compatible built form, building design features and articulation, and meeting the general intent of the corridor design strategies. 3. Minor Variance Applications: The Design Brief encourages compact development and increased density subject to appropriate transitional measures, location and compatibility criteria. Planning staff will support minor variance applications if the general intent of the design guidelines is maintained. Increased height exceeding existing or future zoning regulations will be considered on a site-specific basis and may be recommended subject to meeting the general intent of the general corridor guidelines. 4. Urban Design Budget: City Council has approved Urban Design Budget for the Planning Division identified through DTS Report 04-178. This budget is intended to implement a range of urban design initiatives across the city, including design improvement strategies recommended in the Mixed Use Corridors. These projects are intended to improve the quality of the public realm and focus on additional design details and creativity, which may not be implemented through traditional approaches or capital projects. Each corridor has a variety of public realm improvements which could be implemented through the Urban Design Budget. A list of recommended/eligible projects is identified in Appendix C and will be implemented through a detailed work program and co-ordinated with road reconstruction projects where possible. 5. Road Reconstruction Projects: The Mixed Use Corridor Design Brief includes numerous guidelines to improve the public realm and streetscape quality. Specific corridor design strategies, such as cross walk improvements, curb extensions and street tree planting will be implemented through road reconstruction projects. Many of these strategies have been prepared in consultation with public comments, and should be integrated with and incorporated into all road reconstruction projects including city and regional road improvements. Future road reconstruction projects, and regional rapid transit proposals, should consider the recommended design strategies and incorporate where possible. 6. Lighting: The standard street light in each corridor is designed for automobile traffic. An alternative light fixture standard is required to improve lighting in the public realm, such as double loaded street lighting, mid pole luminaires or pedestrian scale lighting. Recommended lighting improvements are identified in the corridor design strategies, and relate to a new street hierarchy for the Mixed Use Corridors based on street type and character. All proposed lighting improvements will be presented to Council regarding cost implications and approval and should be incorporated into road reconstruction projects or the Region's rapid transit initiative. 7. Special Capital Projects: Several design strategies, such as the King Street gateway feature, could each be implemented as separate capital projects. These projects will require a justification report to Council indicating financial implications and would be subject to a public consultation process. 8. Incentives: The Design Brief encourages a high quality public realm and increased densities with high quality design expectations. Planning staff recommend incentives be considered to stimulate economic development and improve streetscape quality such as the creation of new Business Improvement Areas for select corridors, fa<;ade improvement program for the Lancaster Corridor, and possible bon using/development incentives to be established through the zoning process. 9. Performance Monitoring: Planning staff recommend the corridor conditions be reviewed on a 5 year cycle starting in 2005 to evaluate the effectiveness of specific design guidelines and corridor strategies. Zoning By-law A new zone category will be initiated later this year to implement the Mixed Use Corridor land use designation (Municipal Plan Amendment No. 36) and will be used to address specific design guideline recommendations if approved in the Urban Design Brief. Given the existing corridor condition information and corridor design strategies, Planning staff have incorporated the following principles into a preliminary zone category for the Mixed Use Corridors attached in Appendix D: 1. By-law Structure: Maintain a consistent zone category which incorporates similar provisions already contained in the Zoning By-law. For example: specific regulations should be considered to regulate particular building forms and density; building design may be regulated by provisions similar to those contained in the Downtown Zones; and, bon using provisions may be considered to encourage desirable development or public realm improvements. 2. Land Use: Permit a wide range of commercial and intensive residential land uses that support transit use, promote compact development/intensification, and complement surrounding neighbourhoods. Special use provisions may also be considered to promote a balanced distribution of land use. 3. Building Form: Specific zoning regulations may be considered to maintain an urban built form. Maximum yard setbacks are encouraged subject to a comprehensive review of existing considerations. Minimum and maximum density requirements should also be considered to encourage compact, transit supportive development. Specific regulations may be required to address human scale development. 4. Site Specific Zoning: Consider a broad range of site specific zoning regulations to appropriately regulate (i.e increase or decrease) height and density based on thorough review of existing corridor conditions and compatibility criteria. Existing special regulations will be reviewed on a site-specific basis and evaluated during the Mixed Use Corridor zoning implementation process. 5. Incentives: Consider a limited range of incentives to encourage compact development, compatible intensification and public realm improvements. A copy of the preliminary zone category is included with this report for information and comment purposes only. The Mixed Use Corridor Zoning process will be initiated later this year, and include a formal public consultation process. FINANCIAL IMPLICATIONS: None at this time. Additional financial resources will be required to implement specific corridor design strategies through the Urban Design Budget, road reconstruction projects or special capital projects subject to Council's future consideration and approval. Municipalities approve and regulate Business Improvement Areas (BIAs). Municipalities also provide financial and technical resource assistance to BIAs, including approving BIA budgets. The budget is prepared by a Council approved BIA Board of Management. Additional sources of funding, for matters such as streetscape improvements, are financed by BIA levies that are collected by the municipality. The City of Kitchener is not responsible to provide any source of funding to an approved BIA. A fa<;ade loan improvement program is proposed for the Lancaster Corridor. This type of program can only be implemented through a Community Improvement Plan which has financial implications to the City. Planning staff recommend a report be prepared to investigate the opportunities to implement a Community Improvement Plan for the Lancaster corridor given its existing condition, development constraints (slope hazards and Grand Rive / Laurel Creek flood lines) and public demand for improvement. The Mixed Use Corridor Design Brief includes several guidelines to improve the public realm by providing new public spaces, improving existing public spaces and completing trail linkages. At present, the City does not have a clear policy direction for park land dedication in the Mixed Use Corridors. Planning and Community Services staff recommend various strategies be reviewed/explored to improve the quality of the public realm, and be presented back to Council for information purposes and further direction. Specific design guidelines may result in increased development costs to achieve a desirable built form or design standard. These costs will improve the quality of the public realm and are expected to stimulate economic development opportunities. Reasonable and cost effective solutions will be considered by staff to meet the intent of the design guidelines. COMMUNICATIONS: A public open house was conducted on November 27, 2002 at the Victoria Park Pavilion to obtain community input with respect to urban design elements. The notification letter was mailed to all property owners in the Mixed Use Corridors. The notification letter, and general meeting comments are attached in Appendix E. A variety of comments have been incorporated into the revised Design Brief. On June 23, 2003 Council adopted in principle the Mixed Use Corridor Design Brief and directed staff to undertake a final public consultation process. A second public open house was held on June 14, 2005 at the Victoria School Community Centre to review the revised guidelines. The notification letter was advertised in the Record on June 3rd, 2005, posted on the City's Internet website and distributed through a special media release. In addition, any resident who requested notification from the previous open house was notified through direct mail. A copy of the notification letters and general meeting comments are attached in Appendix F. Following the open house meeting, numerous comments were incorporated into the revised Design Brief. Later this year, all property owners located within the mixed use corridor boundaries will be circulated regarding the new zoning process. CONCLUSION: The Mixed Use Corridors are located on or near major transit routes, and are planned to accommodate major intensification supported by the Provincial Places To Grow Growth Plan, the Regional Growth Management Strategy, and the City's Official Plan and Commercial Policy Structure. Design guidelines are required to ensure new development is not only compatible to surrounding properties, but also supports transit use, contributes to the public realm and to achieving the corridor vision/identity. Flexibility is incorporated so as to avoid an overly prescriptive approach to regulating architectural design, and to encourage creativity and diversity. The Mixed Use Corridor Design Brief implements the Municipal Plan policies and clearly indicates the City's design and development expectations in the public and private realm with emphasis on public realm quality, compact transit supportive development, corridor improvement strategies and building design. The City's design expectations have been reinforced through a comprehensive review of existing conditions and a thorough public consultation process. The Mixed Use Corridor Design Brief is intended to be flexible, and provide options to create a high quality built environment. The Design Brief will be implemented through the site plan approval process, road reconstruction projects and special capital projects subject to Council approval. The Design Brief also establishes a framework to evaluate other development applications such as minor variances. Preliminary zoning regulations are included with this report for information purposes only. The Mixed Use Corridor Zoning process will be initiated later this year, and include a formal public consultation process. The author of this report would like to thank Jennifer Voss for her contributions to the original Design Brief submission, each individual who attended the public open houses and provided valuable comments, acknowledge the individual effort of Nancy Steinfield, the University of Waterloo Planing students who contributed to this report, and the University of Waterloo Planning Class for proposing several concepts related to the King Street West Corridor. Ryan Mounsey, BES, MUDS, MCIP, RPP Senior Planner (Urban Design) Jeff Willmer, MCIP, RPP Director of Planning Attachments Appendix A Appendix B Appendix C Appendix 0 Appendix E Appendix F Appendix G Mixed Use Corridor Location Plan Exiting Corridor Conditions Public Realm Implementation Strategy Proposed Mixed Use Corridor Zone Category (information purposes only) November 27,2003 Public Information Meeting June 14, 2005 Public Information Meeting Mixed Use Corridor Design Brief DTS Report 05-078 APPENDIX A: Mixed Use Corridor Location Map DTS Report 05-078 APPENDIX B: EXISTING CORRIDOR CONDITONS Condition Belmont King East King Lancaster Queen Victoria Victoria West North South Corridor Area 45ac/ 76.4ac/ 74.8ac/ 37.5ac/ 17.5ac/ 33ac/ 14.2ac/ (ac/ha) 18.2ha 30.9ha 30.3ha 15.2ha 7.1 ha 13.3ha 5.7ha Length of 1187 2265 1285 873 669 975 330 Corridor (m) Total Parcels 49 192 83 56 43 89 48 1];lIcols 43 110 55 49 39 56 31 corridor I]; lIcols off 6 82 28 7 4 33 17 corridor Total 41 106 52 45 34 52 29 Buildings on Corridor Avg. front yard 7 7.4 7 9.4 9.2 6.3 4.8 setback (m) Avoragl 7 7.4 7 95 8.7 6.5 4.8 1]lollJollios Avoragl 11 6.6 4.9 9 13.3 6 4.7 I]ropollios Sol.bacl~ I, 55.3 70.0 71.2 48.1 40.0 77.1 84.7 I.han 7.5m (%) Corridor Building Coverage 40603.4 54252 66806.4 16233.7 14587.1 20153.5 11092.8 (m2) / (%) (17.5%) (22.3%) (22.1%) (10.7%) (20.6%) (15.1%) (19.3%) Building 1-11 1-12 1-13 1-2.5 1-17 1-3 1-9 Height Range (storeys) Public Spaces 1 1 0 2 0 1 0 (parks) Approximate Park Area 2273.3 8198.1 0 449.8 0 168.4 0 (m2) / (%) (1.2%) (2.6%) (0 %) (0.2%) (0 %) (0.1%) (0 %) Vacant 2 4 0 2 2 1 2 Properties Vacant 7029.7 13854 0 3007.6 6134.2 3117.6 887.47 Property Area (m2) Utility Poles 103 197 137 62 44 88 27 Transit stops 9 17 12 8 6 0 0 On Corridor Transit stops 2 2 3 2 0 2 0 Off Corridor 10 co en c::: ~z 0 · 00 ~ !::: i:2 t: 0 c::: o Z 0 c..0 U ~uw en c::: => I-OZ cow ~~ 01- UZ C)O Z::2: _ ...J I-W en aJ >< W iri >< C Z W a. a. <( ::: m o ~ ~C\j ]:~~ ~~~~ ~~~~ ~\3~t;\ IlJUJUJUJ Q)0l0l0l ~~~~ > :::::l :::::l :::::l <(1lJ1lJ1lJ ~ ~~ ~=~ .~gs O~-<:t i~~:~H~H ~~~ ~~~~[~~ ~~~~~~~~~~ 88(5.~~~~~g~ roenl- I'-:zCl) ~g~ tCW o:z W ~8~ cnC:::C) I-O~ DC:::':::: i:2 c::: o u C) :z i= en >< w iri >< C :z w a. a. <( S:l 00 ~ M~ ~~~~ ~~B~ (/).DQ)U) ~~ ~ E ~~~~ ~~~~ i~~~ <(1lJ1lJ1lJ l!) m ~ ~~~ ~ 15 .g,~ ;:~H~H ~ ~~~~[~~ ~ ~~~~~~~~ 8 8j~~~~g~ .j ~ () co en I- ...... Z en 90w ~!:::3: ~ ~ tu c..o w ~u~ en c::: en I-OC) cgz ~S2 o u C) z i= en >< w iri >< C z w a. a. <( m o ~~~~ ~~B~ (/)B~U) ~~EE '5E~~ =(")1'-1'- ~~~~ Q)0l0l0l ~~~~ > :::::l :::::l :::::l <(1lJ1lJ1lJ N -<:t ~q N~;g indn~h ~~~~ ~~~lc%~ ~~~-g~~~~~~ 00 O(1j:::::l(1j:::::l(1jCl..(1j OOO...JIlJI-IlJa..O> OJ en c::: ~:z 0 '00 ~ !::: i:2 t C c::: ~~8 a: U c::: (/) c::: W 1-01- DC en -<( C:::u C::::z 0<( U...J C) :z i= en >< w iri >< C :z w a. a. <( C\J "<j" cri <D~ ~~i~ ~2~~ _~~ ~ E :gE~~ -:J (") I'- I'- flJvv^ ~.~.~-~ (j):g:g;g > ":J ":J :::::l <(flJflJflJ "- <D !i~n;~h ~~~ ~~~lc%~ ~~-g~~~~~~ 88j~~~~g~ ;:!; co en c::: ~ z 0 'OC ~ !::: i:2 t C c::: ~~8 O:UI- (/) c::: W I- 0 W o c c::: - I- C:::en C:::z Ow Uw C)=> zo i= en >< w iri >< C z w a. a. <( N ~ ~~ ~~~~ ~~B~ (/)B~U) ~~EE '5E~~ ~~~~ Q)0l0l0l ~~~~ ~~~~ I'- o -<:tl'-~ ~n~nth 8~~~~~8~~~ ~~~~iii~~i 888j~~~~g~ ~ co en ::I: ...... Z I- 9 0 c::: ~2i ~ OZI- c..o W ~u~ en c::: I- 1-0 en cg<( ~i:2 o~ Uu C)> Z i= en >< W iri >< C Z W a. a. <( ~ COen::I: I'-ZI- 90=> 1.01-0 a-en t ~ I- oow g-u W o:c:::~ (fJoen I-c<( o~i:2 O~ Uu C)> Z i= en >< w iri >< C Z w a. a. <( co I'- ..,f ml'- ~~~~ ~~B~ (/)B~UJ ~~EE ~~~~ :::::l v V ^ flJUJUJUJ Q)0l0l0l OlCCC i~~~ <(flJflJflJ m I'- ~(") mm~ II!ilfIlll 888j~~~~o~ ~ DTS Report 05-078 APPENDIX C: PUBLIC REALM IMPLEMENTATION STRATEGY PROPOSED IMPLEMENTATION CORRIDOR ELIGIBLE PROJECT PLANNED ROAD FUNDING TIMING' PROJECT RECONSTRCUTION SOURCE Belmont Avenue 1 Special crosswalk 3 Bike parkin & public art 4 Secondary fagade 5 Pavina patterns 6 Screenina wall 13 Pedestrian crossing 17 Street trees LiQhtin~r Pedestrian scale King East 1 Streetsca e improvement 3 Special crosswalk 4 Traillinka e 9 Special crosswalk 12 Pedestrian crossina 14 Streetscape enhancement 15 Pedestrian crossina 16 Gateway entrance 17 Pedestrian linkaQe 18 Streetscape improvement Lighting: improvement King West 1 Special crosswalk 4 Pedestrian crossing 6 Streetsca e desian 7 Gatewav feature 10 Transit improvement 14 Pedestrian linka e 15 Transit improvement 16 Transit improvement 17 Pedestrian linkaQe 19 Streetscape improvement 20 Public art LiQhtinQ: improvement Lancaster 1 Potential bridae widenina 2 Public s ace 4 Streetsca e improvement 13 Gateway landscaping Liahtina: Streetsca e BIA/Joint Queen Street South 1 Streetsca e improvement 2 Lane improvement 4 Special crosswalk 5 Pedestrian linka e 7 Pedestrian linka e Lighting: pedestrian scale Victoria Street North 7 Pedestrian linka e 9 Special crosswalk Liahtina: streetscape BIA/Joint Victoria Street South 1 Pedestrian linkage 4 Special crosswalk 4 Entrance iers *Timing: (SH) Short Term; (MT) Mid Term; (LT) Long Term 18 DTS Report 05-078 APPENDIX D: PRELIMINARY ZONE CATEGORY (for comment purposes only, will be reviewed during City initiated zone change process) PERMITTED USES (PROPOSED) . Artisan's Establishment . Biotechnological Establishment . Convenience Retail . Craftsman Shop . Day Care Facilities . Duplex Dwelling . Dwelling Unit . Educational Establishment . Financial Establishment . Funeral Home . Health Clinic . Health Office . Home Business . Hotel . Institutional Establishment . Lodging House* . Multiple Dwelling . Office . Personal Services . Religious Institution . Repair Service . Residential Care Facility . Restaurant . Retail . Social Service Establishment . Street Townhouse Dwelling . Studio REGULA TIONS (PROPOSED) .1 For all Uses Excluding Street Towns Maximum Front Yard 7.5 metres Maximum Side Yard Abutting a Street 5.0 metres Minimum Side Yard 1.2 metres except in the case of a driveway leading to a required parking space situated between the building and the lot line, in which case the minimum side yard on that side shall be 3.0 metres; Minimum Rear Yard 7.5 metres, or one half the building height, which ever is greater shall be applied. Minimum Yard Abutting a Rear Lane 1 metres 19 Minimum Facade Height Maximum Building Height Minimum Floor Space Ratio Maximum Floor Space Ratio Minimum Width of Ground Floor Fa<,;ade Facing the Front Lot Line Fa<,;ade Openings Dwelling unit Multiple Dwelling, Pri vate Patio Area Multiple Dwelling, Minimum Landscape Area Steps and Access Ramps Visual Barriers Outdoor Storage Retail Uses Existing Before September 17, 2001 Retail Uses Existing After September 17, 2001 Off-street parking: 6.0 metres 24 metres 0.6 3.0 60 percent of the front yard streetline Not less than 40 per cent of the area of a ground floor fa<,;ade abutting a street shall be devoted to display windows or entrances to the building for a non- residential use Dwelling units may be permitted on a lot containing another Mixed Use Corridor Zone permitted use above ground floor. For each dwelling unit located at ground floor level, and exclusive use patio area adjacent to the unit with direct access to such unit shall be provided. 20% of lot area. Section 5.6.1 of the By-law does not apply to multiple dwellings less than 12 metres in height. Where a lot line forms part of a boundary between a C-9 Zone and a Residential Zone, a visual barrier shall be provided and maintained along such abutting lot line in accordance with the requirements of Section 5.11 of this By-law. No outdoor of goods, materials or equipment shall be permitted in any front yard or side yard abutting a street. This shall not however, prevent the display of goods or materials for retail purposes. Retail uses existing prior to September 17, 2001 are permitted to expand on the existing lot by a maximum of 25 percent of the total existing gross floor area dedicated to retail use. Retail uses shall be restricted to a maximum gross floor area of 1,000 square metres and shall only be located within existing buildings or mixed development. Off-Street ParkingIn accordance with Section 6.1 of this By-law. Notwithstanding Section 6.1.2 of the Zoning By-law, the minimum parking space requirement for multiple dwellings totalling 6 units or more shall be 1.25 space for each dwelling unit. Additional parking regulations to he considered. 20 .2 For Street Townhouse Dwellinl! Street townhouse dwellings shall be permitted in accordance with the requirements of Section 43.2.2. APPENDIX "C", SPECIAL USE PROVISIONS: Existing special use provisions will be reviewed, and integrated into new zone category to address Municipal Plan policies and development constraints. XXXa U - Notwithstanding Section l3.B lof this by-law, within the lands zoned Mixed Use Corridor Zone (C-9) on Schedules? of Appendix "A" as affected by this subsection, new residential development along Victoria Street North shall not be permitted to abut the main CN Railway Line. APPENDIX "D", SPECIAL REGULATION PROVISIONS: Existing special regulation provisions will be reviewed, and integrated into new zone category. Special regulations will be applied to spec(fic properties to regulate appropriate density, height, setbacks and high rise multiple dwellings. XXXa - Notwithstanding the Mixed Use Corridor Regulations of this By-law, a Multiple Dwelling Unit over 24 metres is permitted in height subject to the following regulations: Minimum Lot Width 15.0 metres Minimum Side Yard 3.0 metres Abutting a Street Minimum side yard 6.0 metres Minimum Rear Yard 7.5 metres, or one half the building height, whichever is greater shall be required Maximum Building Height 30 metres Amenity Area Bonus Value Consideration for additional height. Bonus Values? Minimum Landscaped Area 20 percent of the lot area. Private Patio Area For each dwelling unit located at ground floor level, an exclusive use patio area adjacent to the unit with direct access to such unit shall be provided. XXXb R - Notwithstanding Section l3.B.3 of this by-law, within the lands zoned C-9, as shown affected by this subsection on Schedules? of Appendix "A", the minimum Floor Space Ratio shall be 1.0. XXXc R - Notwithstanding Section l3.B.3 of this by-law, within the lands zoned C-9, as shown affected by this subsection on Schedules? of Appendix "A", the maximum Floor Space Ratio shall be 1.5. XXXd R - Notwithstanding Section l3.B.3 of this by-law, within the lands zoned C-9, as shown affected by this subsection on Schedules? of Appendix "A", the maximum Floor Space Ratio shall be 2.0. XXXe R - Notwithstanding Section l3.B.3 of this by-law, within the lands zoned C-9, as shown affected by this subsection on Schedules? of Appendix "A", the maximum Floor Space Ratio shall be 3.0. XXXf R - Notwithstanding Section l3.B.3 of this by-law, within the lands zoned C-9, as shown affected by this subsection on Schedules? of Appendix "A", the maximum Floor Space Ratio shall be 4.0. 21 DTS Report 05-078 APPENDIX E: PUBLIC INFORMATION MEETING Summarised Comments, November 27,2002 Belmont A venue Comment Summarv In Belmont Village a concern of nearly all property owners is parking and traffic. Many feel that there is not enough parking for business employees, patrons and local residents, despite the supply of on-street parking and the various parking lots located behind and between buildings. Residents cite many possible reasons for a lack of parking including Clarica employees parking on the street all day while at work. Many residents feel that more on-street parking is not the solution to this problem. In fact, they feel that on-street parking should be prohibited on streets running perpendicular to Belmont between Union and Park. They also feel that on-street parking makes local streets narrow and hazardous. Many residents feel that traffic must be slowed down throughout the corridor to maintain pedestrian safety. Conversely, several residents feel that Belmont should be extended to Homer Watson to improve traffic flow into the corridor. To improve pedestrian safety, the crosswalk should be replaced with traffic lights. Many feel that emphasis should be placed on public transit and alternative transit such as biking and walking. The streets should not be widened. Another contentious issue is the existence of the interior boulevard running through Belmont Village. Some feel that the boulevard is a hazard to vehicular traffic and recommend that it be removed, while others feel that it helps give the corridor character and that it works to slow traffic and protect pedestrians. Residents also have strong opinions on land use throughout the corridor. They feel that the City should build upon Belmont Village's unique appeal, and that this should be extended down the length of the corridor. Residents also feel that there should be opportunity made for new businesses to locate in the village area and that there should be a mix of housing and stores. Residents are concerned about increased noise and nighttime activity if outdoor cafes are introduced, and feel that large commercial chains such as PharmaPlus and fast-food franchises with drive-thru's should be not be permitted. The City also received mixed reaction to the future use of the Iron Horse Trail. Residents agree that there should be more connections and better access to the trail, but while some feel that there should be no development permitted fronting the trail, others feel that facing fa<,;ades to the trail may be successful. In regard to density, most residents feel that a densely populated area would be good, but that it would be best to avoid high-rise development. People did not care for the 4-storey height in Upper Belmont and suggest that 3 stories would be more acceptable. In Lower Belmont many feel that higher densities should be achieved with medium rise development, with a maximum height of 5 to 6 stories. There are also concerns about a rise in traffic due to increased density. Finally, residents feel that the City needs to carefully control the mass and scale of development, bury hydro lines, and establish more parks, green space, courtyards and spaces for public events. Residents would also like to know how much the City is going to invest and suggest incentives be offered to local businesses to make improvements. Kin!! Street East Comment Summarv Property owners along this corridor would like to see the elimination of bars, such as the Dragon and Drawbridge, tattoo parlors, memorial stone stores, fast food restaurants, and auto related uses adjacent to residential areas. They would also like to see more shops and local grocery stores. Residents would like to see improvements made to the vacant gas station property located at Ottawa St and King E, as well as stronger ties made to the new Market and Rockway Gardens. 22 Resident's reactions to high-rise developments are mixed. While it is agreed that housing is preferable over strip mall development, some feel that high-rise development is inappropriate, and feel there should be a 10 storey height limit, and others feel it is appropriate in certain locations. Generally, residents would like to see an increase in densities, but would prefer buildings to be geared toward an up-scale market with careful attention paid to mass and scale. In relation to traffic issues, residents feel that streets should not be further widened and that traffic should be diverted to other major roads such as Weber Street. Others feel that Charles needs to be made more pedestrian friendly. One suggestion was to front more commercial uses onto Charles and to promote more pedestrian related uses. Property owners also felt that transit should be improved along the length of King Street, and that the City should provide more municipal parking lots. Residents also felt that landscaping along the corridor was important and felt that features such as green spaces and parks with benches and flowers were important, as well as the inclusion of a Gateway feature. One particular resident thought Rockway Gardens would be an ideal location for the gateway feature. Residents also feel that tacky neon signage must be addressed. Improved lighting was also raised as an issue, as was the inclusion of more crosswalks across King St, and the need to add colour and vibrancy to the corridor. Finally, property owners showed interest in the possibility of incentive programs, not only for new development, but also to assist existing property owners in making fa<,;ade improvements. Kin!! Street West Comment Summary Property owners in the King West Corridor see the need for a variety of new and different types of uses to serve the hospital and Clarica employees, as well as local residents. These include fruit/food markets, ice cream shops, bistros, cafes, bookstores, public playgrounds for children of hospital/Clarica users, and nearby accommodation for visitors to long-term hospital patients. Residents feel it is important to limit the number of drive-thru's, strip malls, fast-food chains, and bars. In relation to bars and nightclubs, noise and vandalism were cited as the primary problems. In relation to residential uses, property owners like the idea of a pedestrian friendly village setting, but they see a need to control the mass and scale of new development. It was suggested that the City should avoid high-rise development and encourage higher buildings to be stepped back. Suggested heights ranged from a maximum of 5 stories to 10 stories, with entrances located to the street. While high-rise development was generally disliked, most felt that apartments targeted to a more up-scale market were appropriate for this area, and some felt that new development should contain affordable housing. It was also suggested that the Clarica parking lots be redeveloped with medium density human-scale housing. Residents also raised concerns about the speed of traffic moving through the corridor. The intersection where Shanley St meets Andrew was specifically mentioned. It was suggested that this connection be closed to ensure pedestrian safety. Vehicle noise was cited as a problem throughout the corridor. Other comments with respect to traffic include reducing automobile dependency along the corridor by encouraging pedestrian movement and transit use. Residents also feel that streets should not be widened any further. Issues with respect to parking generated mixed reviews. Some feel that additional surface parking lots should be prohibited, while others feel that the city needs to construct more municipal parking lots to support an increase in activity. In terms of landscaping it was suggested that the city include lots of green space and parks in the corridor, incorporating benches, flowers beds, and native tree species. It was suggested that hydro wires be buried, setbacks limited, and design standards enforced to promote better development. Property owners are interested in knowing when the Urban Design Briefs will be finalized. They are also interested in whether Kitchener can support this vision and whether there is a demand for the new development. Finally, residents are interested in the City's potential investment in this project, and whether incentives will be offered to property owners. 23 Lancaster Street Comment Summary Residents of the Lancaster Street Corridor have several major concerns pertaining to land use. They would like to see clubs and bars prohibited, the licensing removed from the existing adult entertainment establishment with the possibility of converting it into a family orientated use, and prohibit auto related uses within the corridor. Residents are also concerned about the sustainability of small businesses in the area, as many small businesses in the past have not survived. To address this concern, property owners suggest financing storefront improvements, creating a mini St. Jacobs type area, allowing cafes and restaurants to face onto the river and perhaps develop a boardwalk along the banks of the Grand. They would also like to see the City reinforce the history of the area to draw tourists, and provide reduced taxes and financial help to new businesses who are willing to meet proposed landscaping requirements. Finally, residents indicated that they would not like to see this neighbourhood become a Business Improvement Area, nor would they like to see buildings over 6 stories in height Residents believe that the City should purchase vacant land that is unsuitable for development, especially at the corner of Shirk Place. For this particular property, residents would like to see the creation of a small park, open green space or a walkway leading to the local school and Bechtel Park. Others would like to see a more child friendly area such as a playground or a teen recreation centre constructed. Residents also suggested that the City should enhance the pond at the Old Mill on Woolwich Street, perhaps creating an information kiosk for the trail system in the area. Residents would like to see traffic slowed. They would also like to see the problem of congestion addressed, through diversion onto other major roads, or by increasing the traffic flow, without either widening Lancaster or speeding up traffic. Landscaping and design were also mentioned frequently as important to the future development of this area. Residents feel that sidewalks need to be greatly improved, hydro lines need to be buried and garbage cans need to be placed at all bus stops. Residents would also like to see stronger connections made to the river, and more trees and green space included. It was also suggested that the brightness of streetlights should be reduced. Queen Street South Comment Summary One of the major concerns with respect to the Queen South corridor is the impact of high-rise residential buildings south of Courtland on the adjacent low-rise residential neighbourhood. Resident's fear that high rises will destroy the existing landscape, that they will not be built to suit pedestrians and that mass and scale will not be properly addressed. Medium density developments with height limits ranging from 4 to 8 stories were suggested. Several also feel that densities should be increased without resorting to high-rise development and that amalgamation and consolidation of lots should be avoided and prevented. It was suggested that we maintain pedestrian scale development through the introduction of lower-storey, intensive residential/commercial buildings, and that the transition from residential to business should not happen too quickly, or we will risk losing pedestrian activity at the street level. It was also mentioned that the goal should be to include housing for different income levels, including social housing where it is easily accessible by public transportation. Residents suggest that we emphasize the use of the streets by people, bikes and transit and that we avoid widening the streets. Furthermore, it was suggested that we attempt to reduce traffic internal to the neighbourhoods and that an advanced green be installed at the corner of Queen and Courtland for left hand turns. Several property owners also advocated planting large, drought resistant shade trees throughout the corridor. They also suggested that hydro wires be buried and that the Iron Horse Trail be left natural, not commercialized and developed. Residents require assurance that planning staff will be a community resource helping them to understand the impacts and implications of rezoning their neighbourhoods as zoning bylaws and plans are not easy to read or understand. It is also requested that there is ongoing and meaningful citizen participation throughout the process in order to avoid future problems. It was also suggested that incentives be put in place to encourage redevelopment. 24 Victoria Street North Comment Summary The public is interested in creating more parks and green space along the corridor, as well as burying hydro lines, and creating a safe pedestrian environment that is easily accessible by public transit. The public also feels that there should be stricter noise controls in place and that the City should establish more municipal parking lots. It was suggested that buildings should be limited to approximately lO stories in height and that an emphasis should be placed on establishing a more up-scale residential market, while creating maintenance controls for lower income housing. Furthermore, the public feels that there should be an incentive program in place to encourage new development and that the City should undertake a risk assessment. The public also feels that it would be helpful for the City to provide a value of the amount of investment to be made in each corridor. Finally, it was suggested that a pedestrian crossing be established at Victoria North and Ahrens, and that visibility should also be addressed at this intersection. Victoria South Comment Summary Many of the concerns raised for Victoria South centered around the introduction of new high-rise buildings and more offices and shops and their impact on traffic levels and parking. Residents feel that our new plans are inconsistent with the recent construction of the Drewlo buildings and they feel that we should avoid more high-rise developments. They also feel that the mass and scale of all buildings should be controlled. With respect to traffic and parking, residents worry about how extra traffic and higher parking demands related to higher density developments, shops and offices will be accommodated. It was also noted that existing parking regulations affect the resale of properties, as there is often not enough room to accommodate the required parking on-site. Another resident felt that streets should not be widened further. It was also suggested that the Region's Plan to widen Victoria South is in contradiction to the City's plan. Conversely, another commented that 3 lanes was not wide enough to handle the high levels of traffic and felt that Victoria should be widened to 4 lanes. This individual also felt that a pedestrian environment would not work along Victoria South, as it is a busy collector road, and felt that it would be more successfully redeveloped with large commercial and office uses, like the ones found on Fairway Rd. Some residents indicated that the City should install new municipal parking lots which should be hidden from view. Others felt that new bus routes should be established to help alleviate traffic and parking and that bike paths and gravel walking paths should also be incorporated. Residents also commented that the corridor should be expanded to include more of Park Street and those underutilized parts of Victoria Park, which are currently separated from the park by the railway. One individual felt that the traffic volumes are too high to accommodate residential development, while several others felt that not enough residential had been included. Some felt that a greater mix of residential and businesses was needed. It was also commented that the corridor needs people living in the area to create 24 hour synergy and that existing buildings should be preserved. Generally, the public feels that hydro lines should be buried and overall the corridor should be pedestrian focussed. The same individual feels that the city should provide development incentives and should put a price tag on their share of the investment. It was also suggested that more vegetation should be introduced into the area, and that lighting standards need to be appropriate to the area and the era. This individual also commented that the term "historic" is vague and that we may want to reference a specific era such as the Victorian era. 25 DTS Report 05-078 APPENDIX F: PUBLIC INFORMATION MEETING Summarised Comments, June 14,2005 Belmont A venue The residents of Belmont A venue and the surrounding neighbourhoods have a strong desire to build on the existing village environment. They feel that building massing and height should be consistent. Residents also support a minimum 2 storey building height in order to encourage mixed uses. The creation of new retail and restaurant opportunities is viewed by residents as an essential component in their corridor to ensure the vibrancy of the village is maintained by meeting more needs without leaving the area. There is a tremendous market/clientele built into the nearly neighbourhoods. Landscaping and pedestrian linkages between the village and the adjacent residential neighbourhoods were also valued by residents. The corridor should be enhanced through creative lighting and street furniture to further enhance the village feeling. There is a real difference in perception between Upper (the Village) and Lower Belmont; new development at higher densities in Lower Belmont is supported. The following comments reflect the views of Belmont residents: Main Ideas Additional Suggestions More restaurants & retail would add value to land Lighting in Lower Belmont should be different - & create opportunities distinction between Upper and Lower Massing should be consistent with height in Hanging baskets are not desired to be added to Lower village & south Belmont (1 storey is seen as a Belmont; they are only seasonal; ground landscaping is waste of space) better; want to distinguish Upper and Lower sections Add bike parking throu2:hout corridor Add landscaping, lighting & signage to secondary Creative elements -7 articulation; do not rely on fa<,;ades at rear lane way "engineering design standards" for creative Improve parks elements - engage designers to make the Landscape municipal parking lot and add attractive elements more interesting and unique pedestrian connection from neighbourhood to village Linkages - several additional crosswalks & links Accessibility -for seniors and children in strollers to neighbourhoods to/from Iron Horse Trail or park and Village; stairs should be replaced with ramp Kin!! Street East No comments received. Kin!! Street West Residents of the King Street West corridor viewed connecti vity as a key element in the development in their corridor. They felt that a stronger connection between Kitchener and Waterloo must be made in order to strengthen this corridor. Gateway features in this location were also seen as an important element in creating a sense of place. The following comments reflect the ideas of King Street West residents: Main Ideas Additional Suggestions Connect Downtown Kitchener to Uptown Create a landscaped entrance to city and Grand Ri ver Waterloo Hospital Connect University of Waterloo's Health Building design should be of quality & interest Sciences Campus to Hospital and Main Campus Clarify vision statement Corridor should be seen as a 'Midtown Centre' Gateway entrance into Downtown and Warehouse District 26 Lancaster Street Green space was a priority for residents of Lancaster Street West Corridor. They also felt that auto related uses were no longer compatible with their corridor and needed to be prohibited in future zoning. The following comments reflect the views of the community: Main Ideas Additional Suggestions More trees & green space Would like full cut-off lighting at Acti ve spaces for children Ri verb end & Lancaster Old barnIFire hall should be converted to community centre - more Benedicts own unused land @ easily accessible intersection & would not like it Entrance feature where planned developed Bike road Auto-related businesses prohibited (with regards to future zoning) Queen Street The residents of Queen Street South and the adjacent neighbourhoods voiced concerns over height, density and massing of future buildings. They felt that new buildings should encourage transit usage while respecting adjacent heritage neighbourhoods. Quality street treatments are necessary, and green space treatments will help identify the corridor. Residents identified concern about future road widenings. The following concerns were raised by residents of the Queen Street South Corridor: Main Ideas Additional Suggestions Strong zoning needed to Would like vision to reflect a "respected transition/incremental, recognize a ensure that guidelines are subtle transition in height/density, respectful of Heritage of area" followed through Concerns over 14 storey building - won't see south of Courtland anymore Specifics needed in terms of (violates vision) height/density/mass Will Region impact streetscape; No left turn onto Schneider Avenue Strengthen pedestrian link Diversity needed among buildings - smaller businesses Design should emphasize & Do not make car friendly - force transit/pedestrian environment encourage transit usage Emphasize pedestrian crossing at Iron Horse Trail Built form should be Pedestrian connection at Conestoga Towers sensiti ve in terms of height Transit stop at Queen & Mitchell and massing to existing Limit building footprint buildings (especially Integrate uses - li ve/work Heritage buildings) Give weight to Heritage Plan - help implement vision Need quality trees & Walkability - more street trees (mature=durable), protection during greenspace development; like to see mature & durable shade trees Keep width of Queen Street More light needed on street as is, do not support road Support for diversity and afford ability widening 3D modeling for better representation of what could be Site specific zoning rather David accommodates Park space, do not like Queen Jubilee as through than blanket zoning for all corridors fares - may contribute to increased road width - do not give in to pressure Joseph/Queen corner is of car Maintain residential usage, question about retail on main floor important Need sidewalks between Courtland & Schneider/Parkside Sidewalks are uneven - need to be improved Improve transit shelters Proposed gateway opportunity supported; defines significant intersection Built Form Strategy needs to be expanded; contextual zoning should be considered and incorporated into future zoning process; consider impacts to surrounding neighbourhoods Oldest street in Kitchener should have entrance feature 27 Victoria Street North The residents of Victoria Street North and the surrounding communities are very interested in the creation of more pedestrian linkages across Victoria St. at multiple intersections. They also view gateway features in this corridor as an important element, and entrance into downtown. Heritage character should be encouraged in the corridor and connections with the adjacent neighbourhoods was also seen as a priority by residents. Main Ideas Additional Suggestions Improve Victoria Street North & Water Street Neighbourhood Association to help with Mixed Use North/Ahrens Street West intersection Corridor -7 organizational role Gateway feature needed at Victoria North & Hanging baskets -7 propose 'Sponsorship' -7 buy & Queen North care for (businesses) More pedestrian linkages (St. Leger, Ahrens, District identified on Street Sign, banners Water) Call it 'Mixed Use Street'; not seen as employment Connect Victoria North & Victoria South corridor, but rather as entertainment/recreation/personal Heritage district? - identity -7 historic signs & services/residential lighting, Victorian building design Break down Victoria Street as a barrier; encourage Provide standards for lighting, landscaping etc.; urban feel consistent landscaping needed Use of laneways - pedestrian routes Business Improvement Area (similar to Belmont) Lighting part of gateway & Heritage opportunity -7 City budget? Discourage large fascia/neon signs Bring neighbourhoods to Victoria Street Discourage junk yards, rooming/lodging houses Work with Region/City -building this summer along Victoria, King to Margaret Need certainty in zoning for area - investment purposes Victoria Street South The residents of Victoria Street South would like to see their corridor evolve as a vibrant mixed use centre. They felt that greater connectivity with Victoria Park was required, and the incorporation of green space into the corridor would help enhance the area. The development of the Bramm St. yards for residential uses, and the preservation of older homes on Park St. was identified by the residents as a priority. The following comments were made by the community and reflect the viewpoints of residents: Main Ideas Additional Suggestions Incorporation of greenspace/park areas/walking Building with articulation, centre courtyards trails/bench areas into corridor Design features - sidewalk patterns, light fixtures Li ve work concept - main floor commercial, Heritage? - tie into theme upper floor apartments Eliminate on-street parking - foster pedestrian Distinguish corridor, have own identity environment Develop Bramm Street Yards as Would like to see medium-high rise apartment apartments/student housing developments along with townhouses Gateway feature based on Victoria Park theme Pedestrian link to shops Identified concern with possibility of houses being converted to accommodate more renters -7 additions must maintain integrity of area Corridors need to be accessible to be successful- Region must improve transit 28 APPENDIX G: MIXED USE CORRIDOR DESIGN BRIEF Attached Separately 29