Quote:KITCHENER — Plans to encourage higher-density development along the planned LRT route are running into snags at Kitchener council.

This week, after earlier postponements, council delayed decisions on two projects that seem tailor-made for the city's new planning policies: high-quality developments that bring more residents in areas close to the future transit line, within walking distance of shops, offices and other amenities.

But nearby landowners say the developments are too much and will have too large an impact on the surrounding neighbourhood. Councillors agreed, and put off decisions until mid-November.

The Momentum development would replace four commercial buildings at 100 Victoria St. S., very close to the planned transit hub at King and Victoria streets, with two residential towers, one 14 storeys and the other 18, atop a three-storey podium of offices and retail shops. The Vanguard development on Walter Street, beside King Edward School, would see a residential building, rising from four storeys on Walter to six storeys on the back of the lot toward King Street.

Planning staff recommended approval for both projects, saying they are compatible with nearby existing buildings.

"They're very different developments — one is much larger in scale than the other — but we feel they are appropriate for both respective contexts, and they both add value to the community that's around them," said Alain Pinard, the city's director of planning.

"They're both high-quality developments, they're well thought out, and they will achieve a lot of things that intensification is supposed to achieve," attracting more residents, who will in turn provide greater demand for nearby businesses and inner city schools.

But residents from adjacent streets came out in droves to city council to object to both projects, which they say are too large and don't respect the existing buildings nearby.

Owen Allerton owns five properties on Arthur Place, the street next to the Momentum project. He and about two dozen supporters wearing red "Stop the Tower" T-shirts showed up at planning and council meetings in the past couple of weeks.

Allerton argues that the Momentum tower nearest Arthur Place is less than three metres from the property line, and will limit the potential for future development of his properties, which now contain rented single-family homes but are zoned for greater density.

Residents in the Walter Street neighbourhood also came out in droves to recent meetings, saying the six-storey Vanguard building would look massive on a street with mainly two-storey homes, and arguing that current zoning allows for only a three-storey building.

"Our neighbourhood is 100 years old," Alan Kocher, who lives on Gruhn Street just behind Walter, told council. "I find the size of the building is not in tune with the character or feel of our neighbourhood. I fear that if this proposal is passed, what precedent will this set for all the other properties along Walter Street?"

Planners and the province promote intensification because it has several benefits.

• It doesn't pave over greenfield land.

• Research shows that when density increases beyond a certain level, car use declines in favour of transit, walking and cycling.

• It makes more efficient use of infrastructure such as water and sewer pipes, as well as "soft" infrastructure such as public schools and social services.

Pinard stressed that his staff aren't supporting just any high-density projects. "We are not saying that all intensification projects are good projects. It has to be well-designed and appropriate."

Like most of the councillors around the horseshoe, Coun. Frank Etherington said he liked the design of the Walter Street building, and believes it's been done with care and attention to detail. But says he's seen several recent instances where developments are proceeding apace in older areas, despite the commitments in the Official Plan to protect established neighbourhoods.

"I'm very concerned about the impact such development is having on mature neighbourhoods," Etherington said. "I'm not against intensification, but it has to dovetail and be compatible with our existing older communities."

Council's hesitation over the projects suggests the city needs to have clearer guidelines for building in established areas, and for how close two adjacent high-rises can be in high-density areas, said Coun. Berry Vrbanovic, who chairs the planning committee.

But Coun. Kelly Galloway-Sealock suggested that politics may be at play, in the lead-up up to the Oct. 27 municipal vote. "This development is coming forward at election time, and no-one want to alienate the electorate."

In both projects, council urged developers to continue talking to all parties and refining their projects, which they'll consider again on Nov. 17.

Spokes Wrote:Well I guess I was wrong, the Arthur Pl owner is the one upset. How does this project affect his properties? There's a road separating them!

nms Wrote:Perhaps the Arthur St owner is objecting to the apparent "First-come, First-serve" attitude that the neighbouring developer seems to have. The objection seems to be, to paraphrase, "Why is my neighbour able to push the boundaries to make more money when there is a possibility that it will later limit my ability to do the same".

The same might be said for any number of variance requests. Presumably, higher density buildings are approved based on staff analysis of the surrounding infrastructure's ability to accomodate. For instance, if one property owner proposed to use up all of the existing infrastructure capacity (water, sewage etc), would the neighbouring property owners be able to complain that their development potential is restricted? Similarly, regardless of density, there are presumably existing building code regulations that must be followed about how close one building can be to another or what provisions must be in place to protect one from the other, like a fire wall. If one property owner expands beyond what they would normally be allowed, their neighbours will be affected with either higher costs or lower ability to expand themselves. Or, for example, if a property owner proposes to go right up against an existing public right-of-way, that will restrict possible future expansion (think of wider sidewalks, bike lanes, transit stops etc).

panamaniac Wrote:

nms Wrote:Perhaps the Arthur St owner is objecting to the apparent "First-come, First-serve" attitude that the neighbouring developer seems to have. The objection seems to be, to paraphrase, "Why is my neighbour able to push the boundaries to make more money when there is a possibility that it will later limit my ability to do the same".

As long as there is ability to accommodate the development and the City staff has exercised due diligence, I'm not sure how anything other than "First come, First served" could apply. This is why I asked a while back whether the objections of the adjoining property owner based on his hypothetical ability to develop his property were even a consideration? I'm not aware of anything official that would have prevented him from developing his property at any time prior to Momentum's applications, so I'm not sure I feel for him.