Welcome Guest! In order to take advantage of all the great features that Waterloo Region Connected has to offer, including participating in the lively discussions below, you're going to have to register. The good news is that it'll take less than a minute and you can get started enjoying Waterloo Region's best online community right away. Click here to get started.
One Hundred | 21 & 17 fl | Proposed
11-15-2014, 11:56 AM
Interesting note from the article. Lakeshore Group who owns the Arthur Street properties wants to build something with a tower there too.
11-15-2014, 11:57 AM
Kitchener council to vote Monday on two big apartment plans along LRT route
November 15, 2014 | Waterloo Region Record | Link
Quote:KITCHENER — Two controversial apartment project plans along the planned LRT route have been modified and return to Kitchener council on Monday with staff recommendations for approval.
11-15-2014, 12:12 PM
Taking a look at this image from the council document, it looks like the main setback comes from the tower, that the podium stays fairly similar. Which makes me wonder how the commercial space is affected that much.
Looking at this image makes me think that this change is a good thing, given that a tower would be built next door. I have a feeling that this proposal is going to force the Arthur PL owners into action sooner rather than later.
11-15-2014, 12:47 PM
I wonder if the owners of Arthur Place are happy with the outcome. They just lost 6m of property since setback cuts both ways. Had they agreed to the 1.1m from Momentum and added another three meters on their side, it is likely their tower would have been approved, with a net loss of 3m for their property. With the new guidelines they lost twice as much.
11-16-2014, 01:13 AM
If approved would One Hundred Condominiums be the tallest building in Kitchener?
11-16-2014, 10:45 AM
Welcome to WRConnected Owen. I really appreciate you clearing up some of the issues/confusion because there are some issues I definitely misunderstood. Thanks.
Looking forward to having you, as a supporter of downtown, contribute not only in this thread, but all of them.
11-16-2014, 11:28 AM
Thanks for your comments Owen. One can only hope to see increased growth and commercial usage along Victoria.
11-16-2014, 12:34 PM
Welcome to the forum Owen and thanks for offering the clarification.
It's surprising that Kitchener does not have any tower separation guidelines or policies. This would have been a very useful exercise to undertake when the City completed the mixed-use Zoning By-law Amendments several years ago for mixed-use areas across the City. Have City staff responded as to why there are no such policies in place or in the works?
Good to see you've hired professional Planners to assist you in your involvement with this development application. It will definitely go a long way should this be appealed to the OMB.
When Arthur Place is intensified as the City's adopted Official Plan intends, it is likely that the Arthur Place right-of-way will have to be discharged to whichever private developer undertakes the project.
11-16-2014, 12:35 PM
Decades of "defending the character" and "respecting the street" while the city went down the drain. Then finally Kitchener embraced change and decided to join the XXI century and it hasn't looked back. Waterloo is trying to catch up with the Northdale development. Thinks are finally looking up, and kudos to all the people who got it right, from the major down to the city planners who led the charge.
11-16-2014, 12:50 PM
Thank you Owen for providing clarification and information in regards to this situation.
Do you have any idea what type of project you would like to create with your properties on Arthur Pl?
11-17-2014, 05:48 PM
Hi Owen. I appreciate you adding your perspective to this conversation. Apparently relying on the Record's article was not the enlightenment we required.
Couple points to consider. First, is it possible for the planned buildings to mirror (or reverse) their layout, EG the building closer to Victoria St would be towards the Western edge as opposed to the Eastern edge? Additionally, the rear building would move to the Eastern edge. This seems to be the easy solution to the cities planned requirements.
Second, I am looking at the volume of traffic that will move in and out of these buildings and wonder if this will require yet another light on Victoria St S. This street is already a bottleneck after Park St when travelling West at rush minute. Perhaps it would have been better for Momentum to include Arthur PL and build three towers. Or perhaps the city should have insisted the driveway be configured to service the inevitable intensified properties on Arthur Pl.
Final comment/question. How is it there are residences on Arthur place if it is zoned warehouse? It seems to me that it was residential at one point, was rezoned warehouse and now is in the process of going back to residential, yet you are getting a letter essentially letting you know they are doing you a favour recognizing the grandfathering of your properties? It seems a little odd to me. Maybe there was a guerrilla developer named Arthur back in the day.
I used to be the mayor of sim city. I know what I am talking about.
11-17-2014, 09:26 PM
(11-17-2014, 05:48 PM)Drake Wrote: Hi Owen. I appreciate you adding your perspective to this conversation. Apparently relying on the Record's article was not the enlightenment we required."Second, I am looking at the volume of traffic that will move in and out of these buildings and wonder if this will require yet another light on Victoria St S. This street is already a bottleneck after Park St when travelling West at rush minute. Perhaps it would have been better for Momentum to include Arthur PL and build three towers. Or perhaps the city should have insisted the driveway be configured to service the inevitable intensified properties on Arthur Pl."
Sarcastically written: Let's build a roundabout ... the solution to all traffic issues in Waterloo region cities.
11-17-2014, 09:41 PM
Sounds like this just passed at council. Guess it was a political issue in rejecting it last time
11-17-2014, 11:35 PM
A motion (Gazzola) to defer a decision until May and develop guidelines on the separation of towers was defeated 7-3 and the council then approved the "original proposal" (Record reporting strikes again, I'm left a bit confused about exactly what they approved).
11-18-2014, 05:31 AM (This post was last modified: 11-18-2014, 05:45 AM by MacBerry. Edit Reason: date added )
(11-17-2014, 11:35 PM)panamaniac Wrote: A motion (Gazzola) to defer a decision until May and develop guidelines on the separation of towers was defeated 7-3 and the council then approved the "original proposal" (Record reporting strikes again, I'm left a bit confused about exactly what they approved).
Waterloo Record reporting (November 17 2014) on Council meeting actions regarding "One Hundred" project ...
Council approves large condo development
Waterloo Region Record
By Catherine Thompson
"KITCHENER — Kitchener council approved a major downtown condominium development Monday, despite the threat of an appeal of its decision to the Ontario Municipal Board.
The Momentum development would replace four commercial developments at 100 Victoria St. S. with two residential towers, one 14 storeys and one 18, atop a three-storey podium of offices and shops.
City planning staff recommended approving the developments, which they say is precisely the kind of development the city wants to attract along the planned LRT route: a high-quality development that brings more residents in areas close to the future transit line, within walking distance of shops, offices and other amenities.
But Owen Allerton, who owns five properties on Arthur Place, the street next to the Momentum development, said the nearest Momentum tower, which is proposed to be 7.6 metres from the property line, is too close and will wipe out any possibility of putting up a tower on his properties at some future date.
He argued that the city needs to draw up guidelines on how far apart towers must be before council approves the Momentum development. He urged council to hold off approving the Momentum development until city planners draw up tower separation guidelines, likely in about six months. He warned that if council approves the development, he would appeal the decision to the board.
But imposing such a rule this late in the game threatens the entire development, Momentum warned.
"If we start introducing any regulations of this magnitude, that puts the entire project in jeopardy," said Chris Pidgeon, speaking on behalf of Momentum. Pidgeon said Momentum also plans to appeal to the board if the city deferred approval, 18 months after the developer began working with the city on the project.
Coun. John Gazzola moved a deferral until May, in the hopes that the parties could work out a solution or the city could come up with new guidelines, but that motion was defeated 7-3. Council then approved the original proposal, with the tower some six metres from the property line.
"We need to make a decision based on the planning principles that we have," said Coun. Berry Vrbanovic.
The developer argued that it has made many changes to its design in response to concerns raised by Allerton, and that it's not reasonable to ask Momentum to wait for some future rules to be in place."
Users browsing this thread: 1 Guest(s)