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.


Thread Rating:
  • 0 Vote(s) - 0 Average
  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
Sunlife Towers | 22 + 21 fl | Proposed
#1
Two towers are proposed adjacent to Sunlife HQ at the intersection of John St W and King St N in Waterloo.

A zoning application has been submitted requesting an increase in density, the measurement of density in bedrooms per hectare, reduced setbacks for portions of the building, a reduced parking requirement and permission to include amenity area on top of a parking structure as contributing towards the minimum required landscape open space.

A public meeting has been scheduled for October 2, with further details available on the City's website.

       
Reply
#2
(09-20-2017, 10:13 AM)UrbanCanoe Wrote: Two towers are proposed adjacent to Sunlife HQ at the intersection of John St W and King St N in Waterloo.

A zoning application has been submitted requesting an increase in density, the measurement of density in bedrooms per hectare, reduced setbacks for portions of the building, a reduced parking requirement and permission to include amenity area on top of a parking structure as contributing towards the minimum required landscape open space.

A public meeting has been scheduled for October 2, with further details available on the City's website.

Wow. This is a huge project!!! someone please start a thread for it please
Reply
#3
Very big, and very exciting!!
Reply
#4
The zoning requires 1 parking space per unit. And this is 2 blocks from an LRT station.
They're asking for 0.9 parking spaces per unit.

And wow the zoning also requires "Minimum surface parking" of 10% of parking spaces. Which is madness that there's even such a requirement. They're asking for 3.6% (11 spaces)
Reply
#5
I'm wracking my brain for some sort of rationale for minimum surface parking and can't come up with one. Maybe they're afraid people won't realize there's parking if there isn't enough surface parking?
Reply
#6
The City shouldn't approve the variances unless there's commercial on the ground floor.
Reply
#7
(09-20-2017, 11:24 AM)jamincan Wrote: I'm wracking my brain for some sort of rationale for minimum surface parking and can't come up with one. Maybe they're afraid people won't realize there's parking if there isn't enough surface parking?

Typical planner micro-managing. I don’t think it’s any business of the City whether the parking is surface or buried.

That being said, is a possible rationale that some of the parking should accept small trucks or vans? Or maybe that it be “more convenient” (in the uncreative busybody mind of the planner) to access? Of course, neither of these is anywhere close to a legitimate reason for such a rule (although they make sense as reasons for the property owner to decide to provide surface parking).
Reply
#8
(09-20-2017, 12:12 PM)MidTowner Wrote: The City shouldn't approve the variances unless there's commercial on the ground floor.

Yeah, no commercial currently proposed. Just a small lobby and management office on the street level, which is mostly dedicated to the interior parking garage.
Reply
#9
(09-20-2017, 01:06 PM)Markster Wrote:
(09-20-2017, 12:12 PM)MidTowner Wrote: The City shouldn't approve the variances unless there's commercial on the ground floor.

Yeah, no commercial currently proposed.  Just a small lobby and management office on the street level, which is mostly dedicated to the interior parking garage.

Leasing office, according to the plans, so these are rental buildings.

Looking at the plans, they would really need to move parking from the ground floor in order to provide retail space.  That would mean either less parking (and a greater variance) or a taller parking podium.
Reply
#10
Looks like the house might become a restaurant, or other amenity? Will be surrounded by a patio...
My Twitter: @KevinLMaps
Reply
#11
The proposed parking bylaw calls for half of the current limit in station areas. In that context, it's not like they're offering bare bones parking anyway- there would be room to cut it further. Admittedly, who knows if that proposed bylaw will be passed, but if it is, they would be providing far more parking than needed.

I feel strongly that King should be a mixed-use corridor. As zoned, there's not a lot the City can do to require ground-floor retail, but they can promote it by not allowing variances unless it's present.
Reply
#12
(09-20-2017, 01:38 PM)KevinL Wrote: Looks like the house might become a restaurant, or other amenity? Will be surrounded by a patio...

Looks like an amenity room/facility for the residents.
Reply
#13
(09-20-2017, 01:41 PM)MidTowner Wrote: The proposed parking bylaw calls for half of the current limit in station areas. In that context, it's not like they're offering bare bones parking anyway- there would be room to cut it further. Admittedly, who knows if that proposed bylaw will be passed, but if it is, they would be providing far more parking than needed.

I feel strongly that King should be a mixed-use corridor. As zoned, there's not a lot the City can do to require ground-floor retail, but they can promote it by not allowing variances unless it's present.

More parking than the new bylaw will require.  It's hard to tell what the current market demand is -- although probably some of the developers might have data.  (I think Barrel Yards rents parking spaces separately from the apartments, for example.)
Reply
#14
I'm thinking the surface parking would be for service and delivery vehicles, perhaps?
Reply
#15
Here are the detail plans for the two levels that have ground access

Level with John St:
   

Level with King St at the edge of the development:
   

No commercial space. King St frontage is largely a half-submerged enclosed parking garage. No chance to activate King St through renovations in the future.

Bike parking isn't half bad. Much more convenient access than I've seen in several other proposals. Though it's sad that there's more car parking than bike parking.
Reply


Forum Jump:


Users browsing this thread: 1 Guest(s)