2934 King St E | 11 fl | Proposed

[ZEBuilder]

A numbered company is proposing a 11 floor building at 2934 King St E which is the at the corner of King and Morgan. The Development will contain 77 units with 18 3BR, 18 2BR and 41 1BR. The development will also contain 1688 m^2 of commerical space on the ground floor and second floor. There will be a total of 120 parking spaces split between commerical and residental, 85 will be for residental and 35 for commerical and visitor. The development will contain 625m^2 of outdoor amenity and 371.4m^2 of indoor amenity which is located on the second and 11th floor.

Documents for ZBA/OPA: 2934 King St E OPA/ZBA

Architectual Package: 2934 King St E Drawings

Render from King St E: 
   

[SF22]

We're really trying our best to run Pizza Hut out of town, huh?

That said, I'm glad to see this infill! I hope that all these new additions to this stretch of Weber/King will create demand for a nicer streetscape and better transit options in this neighbourhood. I like that they're using the weird-shaped lot to make a little plaza area with a fun circle outbuilding, and that they're closing off King St access (to have one fewer conflict point along the road). And some 2B+D and 3B units!

Seriously though, I don't know why architects aren't putting bike storage on the main floor instead of underground with the cars. Having to haul a bike up an elevator every time you want to use it creates so much friction. I think the only workaround I've seen that made some sense was the proposed building on Ottawa (between Weber and King) where the bike storage is underground but has a dedicated bike ramp that goes directly outside for easier accessibility.

[Archetype]

Lets get a 100 of these up across the region please... as long as good materials are used, which in this region is a tough ask sadly.

[westwardloo]

This is the type of "Midrise" developments I would love to see around the region especially around our downtowns. Based of the initial design it reminds me of what has been built in the little portugal/ Roncesvalles neighbourhood of toronto.

[cherrypark]

Super - this area needs to start somewhere on turning that sea of asphalt back into a liveable place. Hoping this can sail through. Always worried that proposals like this end up facing excess scrutiny that penalizes not min/maxing another 30+ story condo.

[ac3r]

This area is really growing now. Quite a few high rise buildings going up just a couple blocks away. I'd love to see more midrise buildings like this as well. I know there is one planned to go across from Sunnyside School...pretty sure it's 11 floors or something like that.

Hopefully they improve transit though. Only the 8 runs down Weber and it's notoriously late.

[ZEBuilder]

This area is really growing now. Quite a few high rise buildings going up just a couple blocks away. I'd love to see more midrise buildings like this as well. I know there is one planned to go across from Sunnyside School...pretty sure it's 11 floors or something like that.

Hopefully they improve transit though. Only the 8 runs down Weber and it's notoriously late.

Across from Sunnyside is 18 floors at 15 Delroy, there's actually a thread on here for it.

[ac3r]

Lets get a 100 of these up across the region please... as long as good materials are used, which in this region is a tough ask sadly.

100 in the region? Not nearly enough. This single frame of a Parisian suburb probably has the population of Kitchener and Waterloo in it. I'd rather see 10'000, not 100 haha. And look at how much greenspace is there, too?

[ZEBuilder]

Planning staff are also recommending approval for this development at the upcoming planning meeting. There are only 3 public comments and 2 of them are people adamantly against this but just the normal nimby comments so nothing interesting to note.

[ZEBuilder]

This one was approved at the Planning and Strategic Initiatives meeting tonight with no concerns expressed from council (this was also approved at 11pm). There were also no changes asked for by council which is a refreshing change of pace from the rest of tonight's meeting.

[ac3r]

Turns out this one was zoning flip...big surprise, heh. There's a new for sale sign on it explaining how it's approved for high density commercial/residential.

I wonder if there's a way we could try to limit this from happening. I mean I realize it's not necessarily always bad because it means something can be built quickly if it's known the property is zoned correctly, but what's the point in wasting so much money (the developers and our tax dollars) and valuable time of politicians/planners/architects/designers/lawyers/etc to approve things that the people behind it have no actual intent on building?

Talk about annoying. I realize this happens at times but it's particularly bad in this region lately because a number of people/developers are just looking for easy money.

[panamaniac]

Perhaps up-zoning permits should be nullified if the original proponent doesn't develop the property.

[ZEBuilder]

One could always look at incorporating use it or lose it rules into the bylaws, however with current provincial leadership I doubt that would be allowed, however if it was it would effectively force developers to actually build. Obviously it would have to be a reasonable time since we have to at least give developers the ability to play the markets like they're going to but it would theoretically reduce zone and flips.

In the case of half of the approved projects within the Growing Together area they got grandfathered in to the new bylaw but if the developer doesn't get permits in I think 10 years it'll revert to the Growing Together bylaw meaning alot of the OPA/ZBA changes they got wouldn't pass (parking is the exception) so they'd have to go through the process again so in this case it'll force developers hand to actually build.

[tomh009]

10 years is a long time. Depending on how we determine a "start" or a "build", I would think 2-4 years would be a reasonable maximum. If you take three years first and then decide to sell, your property will only have one year left and will be worth much less.

[ZEBuilder]

10 years is a long time. Depending on how we determine a "start" or a "build", I would think 2-4 years would be a reasonable maximum. If you take three years first and then decide to sell, your property will only have one year left and will be worth much less.

In the Growing Together bylaw the OPA/ZBA applications that are approved are automatically null and void after 10 years, meaning they must have building permits by then otherwise they'd have to get new OPA/ZBA and SPA.

Certainly deeming the start as the issuance of building permits would be reasonable similar to what's done in Growing Together. The term is obviously what's going to be the complicated issue, obviously less years is best but that might make developers look elsewhere, but too long and nothing is going to get built.