Council considered Official Plan Amendment OPA21/011/V/ES - Zoning By-law Amendment ZBA/21/017/V/ES - 146-162 Victoria Street South and 92-110 Park Street - Innovation Developments Kitchener Limited, DSD-2022-263, listed as item 7.5.d. on the agenda this date. Council was also in receipt of written submissions from Margaret Wilton-Roberts, Penny Ainlay, Kristen Barisdale, MHBC Planning and Mike and Maureen McMahon. Eric Schnider, Senior Planner, Garett Stevenson, Manager, Development Planning and Barry Cronkite, Director, Transportation Services were in attendance to respond to questions from Council.
Various Delegations - Official Plan Amendment and Zoning By-law Amendment ZBA/21/017/V/ES - 146-162 Victoria Street South and 92-110 Park Street
Kristen Barisdale, GSP Group, addressed Council regarding questions and concerns that were raised on June 13, 2022 from Planning and Strategic Initiatives Committee meeting, including: Public Realm and Streetscape, Transportation concerns and access to the site as well as Community Benefits matters which have been revised since the initial consideration of this matter. Shmuel Zimmerman and Steven Ruse, DOV Capital were also in attendance. S. Zimmerman further addressed Council to summarize the Community Benefits that will be provided to the Community as a result of the development. In response to questions from Council, K. Barisdale advised the Region of Waterloo's required road widening, while it has not been transferred to the Region, has already been factored into the proposed development proposal.
Jacqueline Brook addressed Council in opposition to the proposed development for 146-162 Victoria Street South and 92-110 Park Street, expressing concerns with traffic and insufficient greenspace to support a development of this size. J. Brook requested Council refuse the subject applications and responded to questions from Council.
Gail Pool was in attendance in opposition to the proposed development applications. G. Pool expressed concerns with the proposed development and its compliance with the regulations in the Official Plan, stating the property does not form an adequate a transition between the property and adjacent low-rise residential area. G. Pool expressed further concerns with the property's compatibility with the surrounding neighbourhood and requested the applications be refused. In response to questions, G. Pool stated opinions that any development proposed for this property should not exceed 8-stories which is permitted in the City's Zoning By-law.
John MacDonald addressed Council in opposition to subject applications, stating opinions that buildings of this nature do not support the overall health of the City. J. MacDonald expressed concerns with the proposed height and density of the development.
Scott McQuarrie was in attendance in opposition to the subject applications, and expressed concerns with the impacts of the development on the adjacent neighbourhood. S. McQuarrie noted further concerns with traffic safety and the lack of a comprehensive Transportation Study to support the proposed development.
Mario Chilanski attended in opposition to the proposed development, expressing concerns with the proposed development and the shadow impacts on the adjacent neighbourhood.
Margaret Walton-Roberts addressed Council in opposition to the subject application, expressing concerns with the proposed streetscape, landscaping as well as the proposed community benefits related to affordable housing,. M, Walton-Roberts indicated opinions that the community benefit is proposed to support a Waterloo development, not affordable housing in Kitchener. M. Walton-Roberts requested the applications be refused.
In response to questions, E. Schnider advised Council that if the application was refused, the application could be appealed to the Ontario Land Tribunal (OLT). Questions were raised regarding the Transportation Impact Study (TIS) and B. Cronkite advised the TIS was completed as per the requirements of the Region of Waterloo and the City of Kitchener and was accepted. Questions were raised regarding the Community Benefits and what could result of those benefits if the application is refused and subsequently appealed. E. Schnider advised the OLT would consider the applications through a hearing de novo, which would likely result in the community benefits being reconsidered. In response to further questions, E. Schnider provided a comparison of the application from its initial inception and its proposed composition this date and the number of changes that the applicant has made since the application was initially submitted.
Councillor D. Chapman questioned whether it was possible to request the applicant complete a more comprehensive traffic study, with a larger study area. B. Cronkite advised the proposed boundary as suggested is similar to a master plan and beyond the development requirements. B. Cronkite further advised the applicant has completed the necessary traffic study requirements and height does not equal traffic construction. J. Readman, General Manager, Development Services further addressed the downtown core and proposed traffic volumes surrounding the rapid transit station. Questions were raised regarding the regional road-widening and whether it would become portion of the roadway. B. Cronkite advised the section in the Region’s Active Transportation Plan has identified this part of the roadway for cycling lanes, noting the roadway is proposed to be reconstructed in 2029. Further questions were raised regarding Urban Growth Centre (UGC) and G. Stevenson advised that UGC area has been defined by the Province, noting the boundary of the growth area has not changed and will not change with this application.
Councillor C. Michaud requested a recorded vote.