One Hundred | 21 & 17 fl | U/C

[Owen]

Fill me in Owen - what is the hearing for? If I'm remembering correctly, you own the properties on Arthur Pl, yeah? Are you contesting the building, or noise permits, or..?

The concern is the setbacks of the towers in the proposed development - every city in Canada that has guidelines regarding tall building setbacks from property lines (there are about 15 of them), would require between 10.0m and 12.5m setback for a building of that size.  The counter argument was that many cities don't have guidelines - but this is normal: Only large cities that start to see development vertically bother to spend the time developing guidelines - all the big cities are the ones that have guidelines - most recently, Waterloo even implemented setback guidelines for the Northdale community (you guessed it, requiring +10.0m setback.)   City of Kitchener planning originally approved Momentum's development at 3.0m setback, but then after our objection in fall of 2014 it was moved to 6.0m, which city council ultimately approved, based - at least in part - on incorrect information presented to council by the planning dept which indicated that 6.0m setback was acceptable in some municipalities (Victoria, BC.)  It was revealed during the hearing that this was an error. The 6.0m allowed in Victoria only applies to buildings with a much smaller floor plate, and their guideline for buildings of Momentum's size is in line with the 10.0m to 12.5m range.

All we've ever wanted is for them to move the tower to a setback that is more in line with best practices, but they really don't want to - they even claimed it was impossible to move, so I hired Peter Turner of Turner Fleisher architects (http://www.turnerfleischer.com/) as an expert witness for the hearing.  He assessed the development and said the tower was easily movable without great expense - so I'm really not sure why they were so stubborn about it.    My understanding of the OMB is that it is essentially a court based on good planning principles - and everything I've seen and heard during the course of all this (now going on 2 years!) is that proper tower setbacks are good planning - so I'm optimistic, but it really could go either way - I've also been told that with the OMB, your odds are never better than 50:50 - so we'll soon see!

On the bright side, our objection to the development led city council to ask city planning to develop tall building guidelines in the fall of 2014 - an initiative that finally seems to be underway this spring.

[panamaniac]

Demolition fencing went up around the site this week.

[Spokes]

Soooo good to go with the OMB? Or just clearing the site?

[panamaniac]

I think it's just demolition. Unless I've missed something the OMB seems to siting on this decision for an exceptionally long time.

[kevinchoi519]

Fill me in Owen - what is the hearing for? If I'm remembering correctly, you own the properties on Arthur Pl, yeah? Are you contesting the building, or noise permits, or..?

The concern is the setbacks of the towers in the proposed development - every city in Canada that has guidelines regarding tall building setbacks from property lines (there are about 15 of them), would require between 10.0m and 12.5m setback for a building of that size.  The counter argument was that many cities don't have guidelines - but this is normal: Only large cities that start to see development vertically bother to spend the time developing guidelines - all the big cities are the ones that have guidelines - most recently, Waterloo even implemented setback guidelines for the Northdale community (you guessed it, requiring +10.0m setback.)   City of Kitchener planning originally approved Momentum's development at 3.0m setback, but then after our objection in fall of 2014 it was moved to 6.0m, which city council ultimately approved, based - at least in part - on incorrect information presented to council by the planning dept which indicated that 6.0m setback was acceptable in some municipalities (Victoria, BC.)  It was revealed during the hearing that this was an error.  The 6.0m allowed in Victoria only applies to buildings with a much smaller floor plate, and their guideline for buildings of Momentum's size is in line with the 10.0m to 12.5m range.

All we've ever wanted is for them to move the tower to a setback that is more in line with best practices, but they really don't want to - they even claimed it was impossible to move, so I hired Peter Turner of Turner Fleisher architects (http://www.turnerfleischer.com/) as an expert witness for the hearing.  He assessed the development and said the tower was easily movable without great expense - so I'm really not sure why they were so stubborn about it.    My understanding of the OMB is that it is essentially a court based on good planning principles - and everything I've seen and heard during the course of all this (now going on 2 years!) is that proper tower setbacks are good planning - so I'm optimistic, but it really could go either way - I've also been told that with the OMB, your odds are never better than 50:50 - so we'll soon see!

On the bright side, our objection to the development led city council to ask city planning to develop tall building guidelines in the fall of 2014 - an initiative that finally seems to be underway this spring.

 
so do you own all the properties next door and a have a preliminary plan to build a tower or what is the issue owen ? if the city creates tower separation guidelines...they would be "guidelines " not a by-law  or zoning regulation fyi ...but would your case to the omb not be more valid if you actually had a plan to develop your property ? will it not be impossible for that given the properties on arthur place are land locked and not on a public street rather a private lane ?

[Owen]

The concern is the setbacks of the towers in the proposed development - every city in Canada that has guidelines regarding tall building setbacks from property lines (there are about 15 of them), would require between 10.0m and 12.5m setback for a building of that size.  The counter argument was that many cities don't have guidelines - but this is normal: Only large cities that start to see development vertically bother to spend the time developing guidelines - all the big cities are the ones that have guidelines - most recently, Waterloo even implemented setback guidelines for the Northdale community (you guessed it, requiring +10.0m setback.)   City of Kitchener planning originally approved Momentum's development at 3.0m setback, but then after our objection in fall of 2014 it was moved to 6.0m, which city council ultimately approved, based - at least in part - on incorrect information presented to council by the planning dept which indicated that 6.0m setback was acceptable in some municipalities (Victoria, BC.)  It was revealed during the hearing that this was an error.  The 6.0m allowed in Victoria only applies to buildings with a much smaller floor plate, and their guideline for buildings of Momentum's size is in line with the 10.0m to 12.5m range.

All we've ever wanted is for them to move the tower to a setback that is more in line with best practices, but they really don't want to - they even claimed it was impossible to move, so I hired Peter Turner of Turner Fleisher architects (http://www.turnerfleischer.com/) as an expert witness for the hearing.  He assessed the development and said the tower was easily movable without great expense - so I'm really not sure why they were so stubborn about it.    My understanding of the OMB is that it is essentially a court based on good planning principles - and everything I've seen and heard during the course of all this (now going on 2 years!) is that proper tower setbacks are good planning - so I'm optimistic, but it really could go either way - I've also been told that with the OMB, your odds are never better than 50:50 - so we'll soon see!

On the bright side, our objection to the development led city council to ask city planning to develop tall building guidelines in the fall of 2014 - an initiative that finally seems to be underway this spring.

 
so do you own all the properties next door and a have a preliminary plan to build a tower or what is the issue owen ? if the city creates tower separation guidelines...they would be "guidelines " not a by-law  or zoning regulation fyi ...but would your case to the omb not be more valid if you actually had a plan to develop your property ? will it not be impossible for that given the properties on arthur place are land locked and not on a public street rather a private lane ?

My comment about the development of tall building guidelines does not relate to our case or the 100 Vic development - any future guidelines won't impact either of those.   The point was that hopefully things will be done properly in the future with other developments in Kitchener.   In terms of the Arthur Place properties, I own 7 of them as well as the Arthur Place lane itself (it is not a city street), and Amarjit Singh (Councilor Singh's father) owns the two properties fronting Victoria street (86 Vic, and 92/94 Vic.)   Mr Singh also appealed at the OMB (he had his own separate planner and lawyer), and the owners of the other properties on Arthur Place not owned by Mr Singh or myself registered as participants in the OMB hearing.  The point is, together, the owners of the entire block of Arthur Place lands (houses up both sides, the lane, and the houses fronting Victoria) were represented in the OMB appeal.   In terms of having a preliminary plan - no, we don't have any kind of plan - I am not a developer - I'm just a property owner looking out for my interests - and the thing is, planning does not work on a "first come, first serve" basis - the whole point of planning is to plan ahead (which is essentially the opposite of just letting things happen on a first come first serve basis.)   For a whole host of reasons (you would had to have attended the hearing to hear them all) having tall buildings set back from property lines in the 10m to 12.5m  range constitute good planning - and the OMB is a court based on good planning, so like I said before: While nothing is certain, I'm optimistic that the ruling will require them to move the tower to a proper setback.

[jgsz]

I'm not sure why they won't move back a bit and build the damn thing.

[tomh009]

At this point they are far enough into the OMB appeal process that they might as well wait.

[panamaniac]

My magic development powers still see a small commercial/office building at 92/94 Victoria and the houses on Arthur Pl transformed into a pedestrianized mini-entertainment district and entranceway into the future Innovation District.

[kitborn]

Do any of the buildings on Victoria and Arthur Place have a heritage designation?

[kevinchoi519]

 
so do you own all the properties next door and a have a preliminary plan to build a tower or what is the issue owen ? if the city creates tower separation guidelines...they would be "guidelines " not a by-law  or zoning regulation fyi ...but would your case to the omb not be more valid if you actually had a plan to develop your property ? will it not be impossible for that given the properties on arthur place are land locked and not on a public street rather a private lane ?

My comment about the development of tall building guidelines does not relate to our case or the 100 Vic development - any future guidelines won't impact either of those.   The point was that hopefully things will be done properly in the future with other developments in Kitchener.   In terms of the Arthur Place properties, I own 7 of them as well as the Arthur Place lane itself (it is not a city street), and Amarjit Singh (Councilor Singh's father) owns the two properties fronting Victoria street (86 Vic, and 92/94 Vic.)   Mr Singh also appealed at the OMB (he had his own separate planner and lawyer), and the owners of the other properties on Arthur Place not owned by Mr Singh or myself registered as participants in the OMB hearing.  The point is, together, the owners of the entire block of Arthur Place lands (houses up both sides, the lane, and the houses fronting Victoria) were represented in the OMB appeal.   In terms of having a preliminary plan - no, we don't have any kind of plan - I am not a developer - I'm just a property owner looking out for my interests - and the thing is, planning does not work on a "first come, first serve" basis - the whole point of planning is to plan ahead (which is essentially the opposite of just letting things happen on a first come first serve basis.)   For a whole host of reasons (you would had to have attended the hearing to hear them all) having tall buildings set back from property lines in the 10m to 12.5m  range constitute good planning - and the OMB is a court based on good planning, so like I said before: While nothing is certain, I'm optimistic that the ruling will require them to move the tower to a proper setback.

 
i did not realize you owned arthur place...and since it is not a city street does that not technically mean you have 0 frontage on a public street ? aka impossible to develop ?

[panamaniac]

???  Surely he has frontage on Victoria St, since that is what Arthur Pl gives out to.  I believe the last house on the north side row also fronts on Victora.

[kevinchoi519]

???  Surely he has frontage on Victoria St, since that is what Arthur Pl gives out to.  I believe the last house on the north side row also fronts on Victora.

i dont think the frontage on arthur place would come close to meeting the min lot width requirements lol the only chance owen has for any development there is if he buys every single parcel dissolves all easements and consolidates all lots again aot of hypothetical situations.

[Owen]

???  Surely he has frontage on Victoria St, since that is what Arthur Pl gives out to.  I believe the last house on the north side row also fronts on Victora.

i dont think the frontage on arthur place would come close to meeting the min lot width requirements lol the only chance owen has for any development there is if he buys every single parcel dissolves all easements and consolidates all lots again aot of hypothetical situations.

I'm not sure why you're so confused - try looking at this map - this is what was referred to as "The Arthur Place lands" throughout the OMB hearing, and as I mentioned previously, the owners of ALL of the lands outlined in red were part of the OMB hearing.



Momentum's development includes 98, 100, and 110 Victoria - as you can see they don't have much more frontage than the Arthur Place lands.

[Owen]

Do any of the buildings on Victoria and Arthur Place have a heritage designation?

No.