General Urban Kitchener Updates and Rumours

[GtwoK]

Does anyone know where to find site plans that have been submitted to the city? Are these not included in the open data records?

There's many developments whose site plans can be found in council meeting records etc. For the ones that aren't, records of the site plans being approved can be found in the open data, with notes like "(See plan drawings)", but the drawings arent anywhere to be found.

For example, I can see in building permits the following (Station Park):

Code:

OBJECTID    ‎55102
Parcelid    ‎50006688
Permitno    20105900
Folderrsn    ‎579035
Permit Type    Residential Building (Multi)
Permit Type Code    RM
Roll No    301205000106103
Foldername    641 KING ST W
Legal Description    PLAN 377 LOTS 67 TO 73 AND 109 PT LOTS 22 TO 30 AND 489 STREETS AND LANES LOT 112 PT LOT 32 RP 58R-3202 PT PART 1 RP 58R-3390 PT PART 5 RP 58R-3594 PT PART 1 RP 58R-19198 PARTS 1 TO 3
Permit Status    Issued
Status Code    20
Application Date    February 10, 2020
Issue Date    December 29, 2020
Final Date    
Expiry Date    
Issue Year    ‎2020
Issued By    MATTRU
Sub Work Type    Apartment
Work Type    New Construction
Work Code    ‎1
Permit Description    Permit is for Balance of Construction for a residential apartment building - Tower A (20 storeys) and Tower B (29 storeys), including a shared podium and three level underground parking garage - Inclu
Construction Value    ‎128000000
Total Units    0
Units Created    583
Units Lost    
Units Net Change    ‎583
Rear Yard Rqrd    
Left Side Yard Rqrd    
Right Side Yard Rqrd    
Special Conditions    See notes on drawings. Plumbing work to be carried out by a Plumbing Contractor Licensed by The City of Kitchener. All work shall comply with the 2012 Building Code Work permit required when working within a municipal road allowance/right of way, roadway, boulevard, or sidewalk area. Contact Transportation Planning at 519-741-2200 x 7373 for more information. Applicant's responsibility to provide set of approved permit drawings on site at all times Fire Safety Plan to be submitted to Fire Prevention Staff prior to occupancy.
Owners    
Applicant    MAURICIO MIRANDA :VANMAR DEVELOPMENTS
Contractor    VANMAR CONSTRUCTORS
Contractor Contact    145 GODDARD CRES CAMBRIDGE ON N3E 0B1 phone 519-- phone2 519--
Extraction Date    October 12, 2021
Permit Fee    ‎679220.25
Statcangrossarea M2    
Existing Gfa M2    
Proposed Gfa    
Total Gfa M2    
Occupancy Permitted Dt    
Rowhouse Units Created    
Storeys Proposed    Tower A = 20 Storey; Tower B = 29 Storey
Gfa Groupc Constr Sqft    
New Floor Area Sqft    638504
GlobalID    3efa9488-0e37-4d75-86b1-46c433480343

However, no drawings, as it mentions under "Special Conditions".

There's also a listing of the status of all site plan applications, wherein there is the following:

Code:

SP21/082/K/BB    BRIANBA    Proposing Phase 2 of the Station Park development which includes the development of two towers (Buildings C and D) which will share one podium and contain commercial uses at ground level. The proposed building(s) are above 3 levels of underground parking  and the area of Phase 2 includes the development of a portion of the future urban square.    MHBC PLANNING LTD ANDREA SINCLAIR    641    KING ST W      Sep 01 2021    Under Review    9

for the next 2 towers of Station Park (currently under review, submitted on Sept 1st). Though these plans are found anywhere either. Should these not be hosted somewhere? Am I missing them?

[taylortbb]

I emailed about this for Charlie West, the answer was that site plan approval isn't a public process. I think the documents we see publicly are from the zone change process, not site plan.

[GtwoK]

I emailed about this for Charlie West, the answer was that site plan approval isn't a public process. I think the documents we see publicly are from the zone change process, not site plan.

Well that's mildly annoying. Did they provide the documents when you inquired, or does "not a public process" mean they can't even do that? Why would the publicly-viewable information tell you to "see drawings" if there are none?

[taylortbb]

I emailed about this for Charlie West, the answer was that site plan approval isn't a public process. I think the documents we see publicly are from the zone change process, not site plan.

Well that's mildly annoying. Did they provide the documents when you inquired, or does "not a public process" mean they can't even do that? Why would the publicly-viewable information tell you to "see drawings" if there are none?

No, they didn't provide any documents, and wondered why I was asking (it was clearly an unusual email for them).

I suspect it's considered commercially sensitive for the developer, but you could get a redacted version with a freedom of information request (at a cost).

[Lebronj23]

In my experience the city doesn’t always upload them and there is some inconsistencies. I have emailed the city after a couple tries they usually send them over.

Question : where did you see station park phase 2 permit info? I can’t see it on the applications map or that other permit map :

https://experience.arcgis.com/experience...d16a3ced0c

https://maps.kitchener.ca/OnPointExterna...fault.aspx

[GtwoK]

Those I grabbed from the Site Plan Application Status Report, here

https://www.arcgis.com/home/item.html?id...9eb177f64e

It's the only place I found anything related to phase 2

[GtwoK]

On a related note, from going through that, I've found some project that havent been mentioned here yet.

Building permits recently issued for 2 buildings at the corner of Wellington / King, on the old Hasty Market property. 4 stories (19 units) and 3 stories (15 units)



Plans submitted for a 5 story (32 Unit) building at 234 Frederick St, "behind 2 existing heritage buildings". Given the size of the lot, I'm assuming this includes the lot to the right, on the corner of Gordon as well? I know that sold sometime last year.



Plans submitted for a 6 story (36 unit) building at 235 Victoria S, as an additional building to the 2 apartment complexes already there behind it. I'm assuming this must include at least one other property given the size.



Plans submitted for a 3 story / 16 Unit building at 40 College St, behind the SCS and next to Laurier (there was a house there previously demolished a few years back)



And the big one.... plans submitted for a 22 story (181 unit) building on the parking lot behind Shoppers / across from City Hall

[ac3r]

It's possible those are really outdated? I'm in a rush so haven't dug into the csv file, but the page itself says "Updated: Apr. 24, 2018".

[ParkerQueen]

I think it's current. I opened up the .csv, and it lists projects in chronological order, up to October 13, 2021. For example, the 40 College St application that GtwoK referenced is dated June June 2021.

[ac3r]

Right, I checked it out as well. Looks like it's by Patterson Planning Consultants Inc. They're the ones behind that 17 floor abomination proposed on Ontario Street that would be an ugly tower sitting on top of a heritage designated building.

[panamaniac]

Right, I checked it out as well. Looks like it's by Patterson Planning Consultants Inc. They're the ones behind that 17 floor abomination proposed on Ontario Street that would be an ugly tower sitting on top of a heritage designated building.

That proposal died, no?

[ac3r]

It's very likely dead. The tower was "approved in principle" but then the property was put up for sale. Kiah Group still lists it on their website, stating it's for sale on an MLS. I've checked Realtor.ca and don't see the property, however, so perhaps someone did buy the property since then as I remember seeing signs hanging on the business that occupies the corner. Not sure if those are gone now as I haven't been past there in a long time.

Given that this was proposed back in 2019 - and went through a lot of changes, with the original proposal being 21 floors and then I guess reduced to 17 (according to this database file?) - it was never going to break ground, especially when you have a no-name developer like Kiah Group with virtually no experience involved attempting to take on a property that has an existing historical/heritage structure.

Interestingly, it would appear they drastically changed the podium design late 2020. I managed to pull this image from their website, which looks a hell of a lot better (but still terrible) from the proposal:

Updated:

Original:

Whatever happens to this site, I hope whatever is proposed is drastically different than what this mess was aspiring to be.

[BruceAshe]

Saw this notice posted on the sign at the empty lot beside Pho Dau Bo. I know there was something proposed for the lot, so maybe this means it's actually going to happen? Seems odd to have the application for the shop before the building even exists. 

   

[taylortbb]

That notice went up while the property was still for sale (and it may still be for sale). I think it's the current owner finding a tenant for whoever they sell to, to increase the property value.

[ac3r]

We need a weed store on every block!