Welcome Guest!
WIn 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.
or Create an Account




Thread Rating:
  • 0 Vote(s) - 0 Average
  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
The Breithaupt Block Phase III | 12 fl | Proposed
(04-24-2018, 12:18 AM)MacBerry Wrote:
(04-23-2018, 12:47 PM)nms Wrote: Just a couple quick thoughts:
1. Is zoning typically tied to stories or to a height regardless of how many stories are planned?
2. Was the deferral to allow Council time to complete the adoption of the various PARTS recommendations?
3. Does this project still qualify for an OMB appeal, or would it be subject to the OMB replacement, the Local Planning Appeal Tribunal (LPAT)?

I could imagine (optimistically) that Council would want to have PARTS completely enacted before there is a decision on this project.  If not, either side could appeal to OMB/LPAT.  If the project is subject to LPAT, then having PARTS in place makes it easier for the City to win its case at LPAT provided the project checks off all of the boxes.
 Part 1
"then having PARTS in place makes it easier for the City to win its case at LPAT"

Are you saying the City does not want the project and would argue this at LPAT?

I believe that projects like this in the making for 3-5 years are still subject to OMB legislation and hearings. Just because they straddle the date for old out and new in doesn't allow the City to just say no and go to LPAT.  The City can't defer the project until July just to move from OMB to LPAT ... developers will sue for all costs and damages. 

If cities like Kitchener use the LPAT developers will stop developing ... hopefully when the city works with a developer for 3-5-8 years they don't change direction as they are doing here because it is an election year. 

Part 2
LPAT when implemented will also not be just a way for complainants (either city/developers/individuals) to force issues out of the development phases.  Change by either side and by individuals must be rationale and not just putting up a figurative fence on any project to delay or cause withdrawal by developers. The new system will potentially grind to a halt if every complaint/complainant is seen as requiring a hearing and a lawyer to go to the LPAT and thus the lawyers will win and everyone else will lose. 

Lastly the legal costs for complainants now must be paid by the taxpayers? At what ever level and by whom? Also there is the potential for increased legal costs by the City or any local level if all complaints are guaranteed a hearing. 

Thoughts?

On topic of PARTS, has anyone seen the updating "map" of the city in regards to PARTS (it has all the new buildings, ones already in the books, but also ones they are hoping for)...overall, it looks excellent, though there did seem to be some mistakes, on one obvious one was Breithaupt Block, and looking at that PARTS map, there was nothing there. They had hindsight. What's the worse that could happen? A major Google expansion maybe?

Some interesting stuff between Mt. Hope and Union on King...Would be wonderful if we lost that huge parking lot in DTK (it does include parking lots, plus office, retail and residential).
Reply
(04-24-2018, 12:18 AM)MacBerry Wrote: Thoughts?

My understanding would be that having PARTS in place (rather than the yet-to-be-fully implemented phase that it is in now) would make any kind of appeal pretty straightforward.  The project either complies with the City's planning rules, or it doesn't.  I don't think that I implied that the City would necessarily be the ones to send this project to LPAT.  Deferring the decision allows PARTS to come into effect and, provided the project fits within PARTS, it would be a fairly open and shut case at LPAT (if it even got there).

I can't comment on who should pay the costs for anything.  We entrust our City to pay the costs of whatever is needed to carry out the business of the City just the same way that the developers pays the costs of whatever is needed to carry out their business.  The City represents its citizens (whether or not they pay taxes) and has a duty to look out for their needs.
Reply
(05-01-2018, 04:48 PM)nms Wrote:
(04-24-2018, 12:18 AM)MacBerry Wrote: Thoughts?

The project either complies with the City's planning rules, or it doesn't.  I don't think that I implied that the City would necessarily be the ones to send this project to LPAT.  Deferring the decision allows PARTS to come into effect and, provided the project fits within PARTS, it would be a fairly open and shut case at LPAT (if it even got there).

My guess is that the project DOES comply with the city planning rules; which is why the developer has spent the time and money on this. Perhaps the deferment is meant to adjust the PARTS program, or at least provide clarity.
Reply
Parking garage a stone’s throw from LRT is transit-friendly, city says

https://www.therecord.com/news-story/858...city-says/
Reply
I wouldn't want to look at a five storey parking garage out behind my house either, but I'm surprised that their complaint does not seem to extend to the office tower itself. A bit of division within the neighbourhood ranks, or a "one off" who offered good filler for the Record?
Reply
The parking garage should be easier to put partly underground. Three underground and three above ground would provide the same capacity but 40% less height. And I think Breithaupt is high enough that the water table should not be an issue.

I have no idea how much more that would cost, though.
Reply
(05-01-2018, 07:17 PM)panamaniac Wrote: I wouldn't want to look at a five storey parking garage out behind my house either, but I'm surprised that their complaint does not seem to extend to the office tower itself.  A bit of division within the neighbourhood ranks, or a "one off" who offered good filler for the Record?

I think some are closer to the garage than the office building. And I suppose looking at a garage is less appealing than looking at a glass tower.

I really don't think it's going to be as bad as these residents think it will be.

As for the garage itself, I think going down several levels is substantially more expensive than building it upwards. Unsure how the water table reacts, but there are a lot of issues over at the Civic garage (KPL) with flooding, and it's on higher ground. The one elevator (the centre one) is quite often out of order because it's flooded. Lots of mould issues as well. Mould should be a serious concern, but as a government owned facility, they're allowed to get away with it as the region won't shut them down. A private underground garage with mould issues would be shut down by the ROW right away.

City hall doesn't have the same issue. It's on higher ground too, but during the times that you have moisture problems (usually the winter months when slush is stuck onto cars but outside temperature is close to freezing) the city hall garage has a giant heater (on intentional) that keeps the garage warmer and dryer than the other underground garage (the heater is the refrigeration exhaust the keeps the Carl Zehr Square rink nice and icy).
Reply
this project better get approved as is or google will just go somewhere else and it will be so embarassing
Reply
(05-01-2018, 06:45 PM)LesPio Wrote: Parking garage a stone’s throw from LRT is transit-friendly, city says

https://www.therecord.com/news-story/858...city-says/

He claims to be concerned about increased carbon footprint that will result from induced driving from providing more parking, but then says that his preferred solution is to build another parking lot elsewhere AND run a shuttle bus. So the number of total parking spots is not reduced, they just aren't near his property, and you have a shuttle bus spewing fumes all day.
Everyone move to the back of the bus and we all get home faster.
Reply
(05-01-2018, 11:18 PM)Pheidippides Wrote:
(05-01-2018, 06:45 PM)LesPio Wrote: Parking garage a stone’s throw from LRT is transit-friendly, city says

https://www.therecord.com/news-story/858...city-says/

He claims to be concerned about increased carbon footprint that will result from induced driving from providing more parking, but then says that his preferred solution is to build another parking lot elsewhere AND run a shuttle bus. So the number of total parking spots is not reduced, they just aren't near his property, and you have a shuttle bus spewing fumes all day.

Aha..you caught that too.

Not everyone will ever get out of their car. We're a long way away from that.

So the Mayor of Kitchener hasn't said whether or not he'll run again. Perhaps crap like this is getting to him. Makes me jealous of Waterloo with their attitude, yep, get 'er done. You'd never see this issue in that city (though Cambridge I'd imagine you would).
Reply
« Next Oldest | Next Newest »



Forum Jump:


Users browsing this thread: 1 Guest(s)

About Waterloo Region Connected

Launched in August 2014, Waterloo Region Connected is an online community that brings together all the things that make Waterloo Region great. Waterloo Region Connected provides user-driven content fueled by a lively discussion forum covering topics like urban development, transportation projects, heritage issues, businesses and other issues of interest to those in Kitchener, Waterloo, Cambridge and the four Townships - North Dumfries, Wellesley, Wilmot, and Woolwich.

              User Links