Posts: 77
Threads: 2
Joined: Jan 2015
Reputation:
12
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.
Posts: 616
Threads: 4
Joined: Jul 2016
Reputation:
22
(09-20-2017, 11:13 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
Posts: 4,913
Threads: 155
Joined: Aug 2014
Reputation:
119
Very big, and very exciting!!
Posts: 2,163
Threads: 17
Joined: Sep 2014
Reputation:
76
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)
Posts: 2,003
Threads: 7
Joined: Sep 2014
Reputation:
124
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?
Posts: 2,402
Threads: 7
Joined: Aug 2014
Reputation:
48
The City shouldn't approve the variances unless there's commercial on the ground floor.
Posts: 4,340
Threads: 1
Joined: May 2015
Reputation:
180
(09-20-2017, 12:24 PM)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).
Posts: 2,163
Threads: 17
Joined: Sep 2014
Reputation:
76
(09-20-2017, 01:12 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.
Posts: 10,286
Threads: 65
Joined: Sep 2014
Reputation:
298
(09-20-2017, 02:06 PM)Markster Wrote: (09-20-2017, 01:12 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.
Posts: 4,407
Threads: 15
Joined: Aug 2014
Reputation:
124
Looks like the house might become a restaurant, or other amenity? Will be surrounded by a patio...
Posts: 2,402
Threads: 7
Joined: Aug 2014
Reputation:
48
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.
Posts: 10,286
Threads: 65
Joined: Sep 2014
Reputation:
298
(09-20-2017, 02:38 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.
Posts: 10,286
Threads: 65
Joined: Sep 2014
Reputation:
298
(09-20-2017, 02:41 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.)
Posts: 6,490
Threads: 38
Joined: Aug 2014
Reputation:
88
I'm thinking the surface parking would be for service and delivery vehicles, perhaps?
Posts: 2,163
Threads: 17
Joined: Sep 2014
Reputation:
76
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.
|