![]() |
|
The Walter | 24m | 5 fl | Complete - Printable Version +- Waterloo Region Connected (https://www.waterlooregionconnected.com) +-- Forum: Land Development and Real Estate (https://www.waterlooregionconnected.com/forumdisplay.php?fid=4) +--- Forum: Urban Areas (https://www.waterlooregionconnected.com/forumdisplay.php?fid=5) +--- Thread: The Walter | 24m | 5 fl | Complete (/showthread.php?tid=101) |
RE: 100, 104, 108 Walter Street | 24m | 6 fl | Proposed - MidTowner - 10-30-2014 Yes, balance is tricky, and it’s hard to be objective about it. I don’t think I suggested that respecting the existing means that only a two-storey building can be located near existing two-storey buildings. Walter is by and large a two storey street, but I don’t see a six-storey building as being inappropriate given the proximity to King. I don’t agree that existing residents should have no input (which I know is not what you are saying), but I also think they cannot reasonably expect their neighbourhood to be static. I’m very interested in this one because my neighbourhood is equidistant from King, on the other side of King, and looks and feels (the same vintage, similar scale) much like Walter. There are possibilities for reuse (that have been identified) on my street that will bring increased density and all that comes with it. I would expect that, if buildings very much taller than those existing be approved, that shading and privacy be considered, but I would welcome the increased density. RE: 100, 104, 108 Walter Street | 24m | 6 fl | Proposed - BuildingScout - 10-30-2014 I agree. The proper word is "expect" not "respect". If I buy a bungalow on King St, I shouldn't be surprised if ten years from now there is a high rise next to me. If on the other hand I buy a split level in a cul-de-sac in suburbia, I have every right to be shocked by a highrise proposal. Even then, sometimes things change and zoning has to be revamped. In this case the best idea is to push for a swift change that maximizes the return for those who choose to sell. For example houses on Columbia doubled in price when mid-rises were approved about 6 years ago. RE: 100, 104, 108 Walter Street | 24m | 6 fl | Proposed - realtyforward - 10-30-2014 (10-30-2014, 10:17 AM)BuildingScout Wrote: I agree. The proper word is "expect" not "respect". If I buy a bungalow on King St, I shouldn't be surprised if ten years from now there is a high rise next to me. If on the other hand I buy a split level in a cul-de-sac in suburbia, I have every right to be shocked by a highrise proposal. This is why it is very important to look at a City's Official Plan and Land Use Maps to understand the long term vision. While there are always deviations and amendments made to the Official Plan, those land use designations and their associated policies set the tone for zoning (i.e. general form, heights and permitted uses). Especially after a new Official Plan is released, the existing zoning may not conform to the land use designation for the property. So it is not enough to simply look at the zoning to determine what could be built around you. Over time, a municipality will update their zoning to conform to the Official Plan - Kitchener has recently initiated this. Often, developers are ahead of the municipality in this respect and seek zoning amendments themselves to advance their developments. With that said, the local municipalities generally attempt to preserve the majority of existing suburban neighbourhoods (post 1960's) because their associated road networks, lot sizing and congruent housing form are less conducive to new higher density development. That's not to say that certain parcels within suburban developments aren't designated for higher density development though. The lesson here, always consult the Official Plan for an understanding of what could be. RE: 100, 104, 108 Walter Street | 24m | 6 fl | Proposed - Spokes - 11-15-2014 This one's been reduced to 5 storeys, recommended for approval by council. Again. RE: 100, 104, 108 Walter Street | 24m | 5 fl | Proposed - Spokes - 11-15-2014 Kitchener council to vote Monday on two big apartment plans along LRT route November 15, 2014 | Waterloo Region Record | Link Quote:KITCHENER — Two controversial apartment project plans along the planned LRT route have been modified and return to Kitchener council on Monday with staff recommendations for approval. RE: 100, 104, 108 Walter Street | 24m | 5 fl | Proposed - panamaniac - 11-15-2014 More, smaller units vs. an extra storey. I doubt the neighbours will be mollified, but we'll see on Monday. RE: 100, 104, 108 Walter Street | 24m | 5 fl | Proposed - clasher - 11-15-2014 Kind of a shame to see a reduction of commercial space on Victoria though. RE: 100, 104, 108 Walter Street | 24m | 5 fl | Proposed - MacBerry - 11-16-2014 My understanding of the process is that if Council fails to pass these two projects that the developers would go to the OMB which would give the City of Kitchener less say in the outcomes. RE: 100, 104, 108 Walter Street | 24m | 5 fl | Proposed - Spokes - 11-17-2014 The owner of the Arthur Pl properties has already said if they ARE passed he'll take the city to the OMB RE: 100, 104, 108 Walter Street | 24m | 5 fl | Proposed - Spokes - 11-18-2014 Did this get approved last night? RE: 100, 104, 108 Walter Street | 24m | 5 fl | Proposed - YKF - 11-21-2014 Echoing Spokes' question, does anyone know what happened to this project? I wouldn't be surprised if Council deferred this matter again. RE: 100, 104, 108 Walter Street | 24m | 5 fl | Proposed - YKF - 12-01-2014 As per the Council Minutes from November 17th, City Council approved the revised 5-storey multiple dwelling with 34 units, rather than the original 6-storey multiple dwelling with 31 units. Unfortunately, the 3-bedroom units that were slated for the original development proposal were not included in the revised proposal. RE: 100, 104, 108 Walter Street | 24m | 5 fl | Proposed - MidTowner - 12-01-2014 Do we know how many parking spots are planned? I'm glad this has passed, but it's not so nice that no larger units were included as a result of neighbours' comments. Still, if there is not an over-abundance of parking, I would say this is a good development. RE: 100, 104, 108 Walter Street | 24m | 5 fl | Proposed - YKF - 12-01-2014 I'm pretty sure that there were 34 parking spots planned as part of the original development proposal and that the number of parking spots has stayed the same for the revised proposal. RE: 100, 104, 108 Walter Street | 24m | 5 fl | Proposed - MidTowner - 12-01-2014 Thanks. More than one spot per unit? Yuck. |