General Urban Kitchener Updates and Rumours

[jeffster]

I assume they'd be buying the orthodontic office next door as well then.

That's a couple blocks away closer to Stirling.

You’re right…not sure what I was thinking….though to be honest, I read ‘fire’ and for some reason I thought of the fire on King and Stirling. Now I recall the fire at King and Borden as well - it’s the dealership that was there.

[Acitta]

Destruction of mature trees angers neighbours in Kitchener neighbourhood

[ijmorlan]

Destruction of mature trees angers neighbours in Kitchener neighbourhood

Interesting story. One questionable suggestion from the article: that “mature” trees should have some protection, even on private property. If it is made too difficult to cut down “mature” trees, the outcome will be that landowners who are uncertain what they want to do with their property will ensure that their property never has “mature” trees by cutting everything down regularly. As a result, temporarily unused properties will always just be grass or at most bushes.

I’m not sure what the proper policy is, but the policy needs to be made with full anticipation of the second-order effects of the policy, not just the immediate effects.

[jamincan]

There are already exists a by-law prohibiting cutting a tree without a permit. I'm not familiar with the details, though.

[danbrotherston]

There are already exists a by-law prohibiting cutting a tree without a permit. I'm not familiar with the details, though.

It only applies to properties of at least one acre.

And frankly, there is a pretty reasonable option, that is already in place...if I'm reading what the developer/realtor have said it's pretty despicable. They plan to redevelop the property, which is fine, the mature trees would have to go in the redevelopment, which is a shame, but I'm not necessarily opposed to it.

Now the developer could remove the trees themselves, but if they did, they'd have to replace them at a 2 for 1 basis...so the realtor/property owner is saving them all of a few hundred bucks in trees, by removing them now long before redevelopment even takes place.

Ultimately, basically I'm thinking that any tree cut must be replace in a 2 for 1 basis would be a reasonable restriction.

[panamaniac]

Here in Ottawa, you’d need a $175 city permit for each mature tree (defined by circumference of the trunk), up to a maximum of $750. If the tree removal were for new infill, the permit would be $500, up to a maximum of $2000.

[LesPio]

I assume they'd be buying the orthodontic office next door as well then.

That's a couple blocks away closer to Stirling.

Kitchener planning staff recommend proposal for 10-storey building be denied

Tue., July 20, 2021
KITCHENER — Kitchener’s planning staff is recommending that a development proposal for a 10-storey, 32-metre high building at the corner of King Street East and Borden Avenue not go ahead as planned.

The developer, Vive Development, is proposing a residential building at 926-936 King St. E. on the parcel of land between Borden Avenue and Dane Street.

[BruceAshe]

That's a couple blocks away closer to Stirling.

Kitchener planning staff recommend proposal for 10-storey building be denied

Tue., July 20, 2021
KITCHENER — Kitchener’s planning staff is recommending that a development proposal for a 10-storey, 32-metre high building at the corner of King Street East and Borden Avenue not go ahead as planned.

The developer, Vive Development, is proposing a residential building at 926-936 King St. E. on the parcel of land between Borden Avenue and Dane Street.

The article mentions that the committee thinks Vive should be applying for a zoning change instead of a minor variance because the existing zoning only allows for a 19.5m building. Under the proposed (but not yet passed) new zoning for the King East neighbourhood this area would be zoned for mixed 3 which allows for a 26m building. I assume that this would be the argument that Vive would make regarding the height of the building and why they are applying for a minor variance. Not sure if going from 26m to 32m would be considered a minor variance or not though. 
https://www.kitchener.ca/en/resourcesGen...Zoning.pdf 
https://www.kitchener.ca/en/resourcesGen..._Plans.pdf

There is also already some precedent for this happening in King East. The church at 206 Duke St E was allowing to be rezoned through the planning committee based on the proposed rezoning in the secondary plan. That rezoning was done as a condition of sale of the property to Vive. 

If the area is planned to be rezoned and this would be considered a minor variance under the proposed rezoning, I don't really understand the reasoning behind this decision.

[DK519]

Kitchener planning staff recommend proposal for 10-storey building be denied

Tue., July 20, 2021
KITCHENER — Kitchener’s planning staff is recommending that a development proposal for a 10-storey, 32-metre high building at the corner of King Street East and Borden Avenue not go ahead as planned.

The developer, Vive Development, is proposing a residential building at 926-936 King St. E. on the parcel of land between Borden Avenue and Dane Street.

The article mentions that the committee thinks Vive should be applying for a zoning change instead of a minor variance because the existing zoning only allows for a 19.5m building. Under the proposed (but not yet passed) new zoning for the King East neighbourhood this area would be zoned for mixed 3 which allows for a 26m building. I assume that this would be the argument that Vive would make regarding the height of the building and why they are applying for a minor variance. Not sure if going from 26m to 32m would be considered a minor variance or not though. 
https://www.kitchener.ca/en/resourcesGen...Zoning.pdf 
https://www.kitchener.ca/en/resourcesGen..._Plans.pdf

There is also already some precedent for this happening in King East. The church at 206 Duke St E was allowing to be rezoned through the planning committee based on the proposed rezoning in the secondary plan. That rezoning was done as a condition of sale of the property to Vive. 

If the area is planned to be rezoned and this would be considered a minor variance under the proposed rezoning, I don't really understand the reasoning behind this decision.

I personally know several NIMBYs who live within a block of this and I'd suspect there are at least a few more. Unfortunate because in my opinion this seemed to strike a decent balance between density and number of homes affected by shadows etc. 

Guess it will sit and rot a little longer at least until the zoning changes.

[cherrypark]

Really hopeful they can figure something out, particularly since that amount of density seems quite reasonable with how close it is to the LRT station. We really need more of the mid-rise developments around town to infill and Vive seems to be doing a good job driving the better developments in that scale.

[panamaniac]

The article mentions that the committee thinks Vive should be applying for a zoning change instead of a minor variance because the existing zoning only allows for a 19.5m building. Under the proposed (but not yet passed) new zoning for the King East neighbourhood this area would be zoned for mixed 3 which allows for a 26m building. I assume that this would be the argument that Vive would make regarding the height of the building and why they are applying for a minor variance. Not sure if going from 26m to 32m would be considered a minor variance or not though. 
https://www.kitchener.ca/en/resourcesGen...Zoning.pdf 
https://www.kitchener.ca/en/resourcesGen..._Plans.pdf

There is also already some precedent for this happening in King East. The church at 206 Duke St E was allowing to be rezoned through the planning committee based on the proposed rezoning in the secondary plan. That rezoning was done as a condition of sale of the property to Vive. 

If the area is planned to be rezoned and this would be considered a minor variance under the proposed rezoning, I don't really understand the reasoning behind this decision.

I personally know several NIMBYs who live within a block of this and I'd suspect there are at least a few more. Unfortunate because in my opinion this seemed to strike a decent balance between density and number of homes affected by shadows etc. 

Guess it will sit and rot a little longer at least until the zoning changes.

Have NIMBY views influenced the planning committee’s recommendation?

[LesPio]

I personally know several NIMBYs who live within a block of this and I'd suspect there are at least a few more. Unfortunate because in my opinion this seemed to strike a decent balance between density and number of homes affected by shadows etc. 

Guess it will sit and rot a little longer at least until the zoning changes.

Have NIMBY views influenced the planning committee’s recommendation?

Kitchener committee approves 10-storey apartment building
https://www.therecord.com/news/waterloo-...lding.html

[jeffster]

Really hopeful they can figure something out, particularly since that about of density seems quite reasonable with how close it is to the LRT station. We really need more of the mid-rise developments around town to infill and Vive seems to be doing a good job driving the better developments in that scale.

Right? I mean, it's right there. Literally.

[DK519]

Speaking of the church on Duke street, there's fencing up around it and the properties on Madison.

   

[panamaniac]

What’s up with that?