King & Louisa | 24 m | 8 fl

[UrbanWaterloo]

King & Louisa
City of Kitchener

8 storey multi-residential building and a 3 unit multiple dwelling unit

672 king street west, kitchener, ontario

[UrbanWaterloo]

Committee of Adjustment Meeting - February 21, 2012
February 03, 2012 | City of Kitchener | Link (http://www.kitchener.ca/en/newslist/index.aspx?newsId=ojtKR4I88ZpyLd0wGDB7rQeQuAleQuAl )


COMMITTEE OF ADJUSTMENT - CITY OF KITCHENER

(Pursuant to the Planning Act, R.S.O. 1990, c.P. 13, as amended,

and Ontario Regulations 197/96 and 200/96, as amended)

TAKE NOTICE THAT the Committee of Adjustment for the City of Kitchener will meet on TUESDAY, February 21, 2012 commencing at 10:00 a.m., in the Conestoga Room, Main Floor, Kitchener City Hall, 200 King Street West, Kitchener for the purpose of hearing the following applications for Minor Variance or Permission and/or Consent. Applicants must attend this meeting in person or by agent or solicitor.

APPLICATIONS FOR MINOR VARIANCE AND/ OR CONSENT PURSUANT TO THE PLANNING ACT

A 2012-010 - 672-692 King Street West & 8-12 Louisa Street

A 2012-011 - 18 Louisa Street

Permission to construct an 8 storey multi-residential building and a 3 unit multiple dwelling unit on an irregular shaped lot. For the purpose of this development currently under Site Plan review, the development will require variances for an easterly rear yard setback of 2m (6.56’) rather than the required 7.5m (24.6’). This setback is currently operating as a side yard for 18 Louisa Street. This development will also require permission for a northerly setback of 2.9m (9.5’) abutting a residential zone rather than the required 7.5m (24.6’); and, permission to provide off-street parking to be located on a property that is zoned residential, whereas the By-law requires off-street parking to be located on the same lot as the use requiring parking or a lot within the same zone, a Commercial, commercial-residential, industrial or downtown zone. For more information on Site Plan Application SP/11/103/K/HH please call: 519-741-2324.


http://wonderfulwaterloo.com/wdrive/Developments/Kitchener/King%20&%20Louisa/King%20&%20Louisa,%20Kitchener%20-%20February%203,%202012%20Highlight.jpg

[garthdanlor]

So this is just going to be residential? Currently along the King St fronting there is a pizza shop and a handful of other commercial units. I thought all new buildings in Midtown had to be mixed use? It would really suck if the new buildings were strictly residential.

[KevinL]

It's encouraging to see these properties revitalized, but as garthdanlor says, some commercial space fronting King would be appreciated.

[mpd618]

So this is just going to be residential? Currently along the King St fronting there is a pizza shop and a handful of other commercial units. I thought all new buildings in Midtown had to be mixed use? It would really suck if the new buildings were strictly residential.

The MU-2 zone (http://www.kitchener.ca/en/businessinkitchener/resources/MU-2.pdf) doesn't require mixed-use, it only allows it. (The triangular portion of this parcel fronting King Street is MU-2 and the other part is MU-2 6H, whatever that means.)

I agree, it would really suck, and I'm not sure what they're thinking if that's the plan.

Edit: 6H is a holding provision (http://app.kitchener.ca/Zonebylaw/Docs/PublishedCurrentText/Appendix F - Holding Provisions for Specific Lands//6H.pdf) for the Louisa Street parcel that is intended to be removed upon consolidation with the King Street lot.

[planningthatplannyplan]

I think mixed-use would be an added bonus to this development, but based on what is there currently, I don't think itwould be fair of me to say this project sucks. There is an actually body rub parlour here...how could a new development (rendering of which it sounds like no one has seen) that is consolidating lots along King Street (the depth of this consolidation is very important to creating a project that has some presence, so good for the developer) and likely bringing a needed facelift to an area that generally need it, be stuck with a 'it sucks!' label so early?

In my mind, provided neighbourhing sites accomodate other uses, this area will still function well with a standalone residential building. It is unrealistic to expect every building to be mixed-use. Even highly mixed-use areas of Toronto have standalone sites and still do well.

[mpd618]

There is an actually body rub parlour here...how could a new development (rendering of which it sounds like no one has seen) that is consolidating lots along King Street (the depth of this consolidation is very important to creating a project that has some presence, so good for the developer) and likely bringing a needed facelift to an area that generally need it, be stuck with a 'it sucks!' label so early?

Because replacing 6 retail storefronts with a residential wall on a goddamn main street is a crappy thing to do to a city and its main street. And I would say that this is, frankly, an oversight in Kitchener's mixed-use corridor zoning.

(That said, welcome to the forums!)

[metropolis]

In my mind, provided neighbourhing sites accomodate other uses, this area will still function well with a standalone residential building. It is unrealistic to expect every building to be mixed-use. Even highly mixed-use areas of Toronto have standalone sites and still do well.

Highly "alive" mixed use streets in places like Toronto do have gaps in the retail frontage but it is usually for parks, churches, museums, old historic buildings and the like, not because of new builds. Think of Queen West or Bloor West. These highly vibrant, multi mile stretches in Toronto do not see new development without retail incorporated into the groud floor. King St. in K-W, more so than any other in the Region has the potentail to become one of these great vibrant stretches and we should do all we can to minimze development that detracts from this.

[planningthatplannyplan]

I did say mixed-use would be an added bonus didn't I, because I feel like mpd got a little riled up there. All Im saying is that people haven't seen this proposal and are already crapping on it, and I think that is premature. Did I mention that one of these retail storefronts is a bodyrub parlour??!!

I maintain that I dont believe that every building along this stretch has to have mixed-use for King street to function well, although as I said, it would be a bonus. So lets minimize standalone uses sure, but I would rather see a high quality, dense, 8 storey residential development here than what is currently on these properties.

[garthdanlor]

Not crapping on the project, just surprised that after all of the city's talk (and plans) of vibrant mixed-use zones, the first notable development in the Midtown zone seems to be removing a handful of commercial units.

And, really, who cares if there is currently a "bodyrub parlour" here. There is also a long standing pizza joint, a nice chocolate shop, and not so long ago a mobile phone shop. Build some higher quality retail units on the King St ground floor and they will likely attract decent tenants. With the coming of LRT, the new train station, the Breithaupt and city yard developments, etc., there is going to be huge changes in this area and it will require more, not less, space for restaurants, cafes and shops. Seems incredibly shortsighted not too plan for this.

I do hope we are misinterpreting this development and that more detailed plans will prove this speculation wrong.

[WaterlooNative]

Not crapping on the project, just surprised that after all of the city's talk (and plans) of vibrant mixed-use zones, the first notable development in the Midtown zone seems to be removing a handful of commercial units.

With the coming of LRT, the new train station, the Breithaupt and city yard developments, etc., there is going to be huge changes in this area and it will require more, not less, space for restaurants, cafes and shops. Seems incredibly shortsighted not too plan for this.

I do hope we are misinterpreting this development and that more detailed plans will prove this speculation wrong.

Given what is on that lot now, the residential is likely preferred. That being said, I think it would be neat if the building were designed with later commercial development in mind. For instance, we see multiple residential units that have been converted into commercial at a later date. We also see a variety of live-work units popping up around the region. Build the residential units, but keep the zoning open to allow a variety of uses.

On a side note, I'm sure someone out there has done a study about where commercial (retail or office) wants to be. Is this stretch, right now, where it wants to be? If they build it, will they come?

[Trogdor]

On a side note, I'm sure someone out there has done a study about where commercial (retail or office) wants to be. Is this stretch, right now, where it wants to be? If they build it, will they come?

KCI and the pharmacy school are decently close by (and soon Breithaupt will have tenants too) - so I would expect quick-serve restaurants would do well in this location, but that's only a guess. There is also a decent amount of housing around the area that should provide a built-in customer base for other types of retail. Again, just observations though...it would definitely be nice to see a study.

[mpd618]

Build the residential units, but keep the zoning open to allow a variety of uses.

Well, the (mixed-use) zoning is already open to those uses and that's not likely to change. The question is whether the building is open to them, as you point out.


On a side note, I'm sure someone out there has done a study about where commercial (retail or office) wants to be. Is this stretch, right now, where it wants to be? If they build it, will they come?

I'm not sure I understand the question. Retail is already there...? But in any case, I don't believe there are any particularly scientific ways to pinpoint where retail or commercial wants to be. Planners may claim they know where it should go, but the real test is where it pops up if the zoning allows for it. In this building, there are six retail storefronts, none of which are vacant, I believe.

[KevinL]

KCI and the pharmacy school are decently close by (and soon Breithaupt will have tenants too) - so I would expect quick-serve restaurants would do well in this location, but that's only a guess. There is also a decent amount of housing around the area that should provide a built-in customer base for other types of retail. Again, just observations though...it would definitely be nice to see a study.

KCI definitely forms the pizza place's core customer base (and has done since I was a student there - wow, longevity). Of course, a place that provides cheap pizza to teenagers likely isn't willing to pay the rents that a brand-new commercial space might charge - but once the Breithaupt Block is occupied, and if we get further commercial developments in the area, that may not matter.

[luckee]

A comment was made earlier about King St.and developing it similar to Queen or Dundas, Yonge St. in Toronto.
Great idea, however, the dynamics and variables impact each street differently for example as a developer one has to consider the impact the proposed LRT will have on King St. So you ask yourself, is not the intent of the LRT to encourage less vehicular traffic and more pedestrian? That being the case what can be built to accommodate the intent of the LRT...shoppes along the way, restaurants, flower shops, pizza parlours, apartments and condos? There will doubtfully be no room for parallel parking or should there be. One has to assume all these variables will be considered before creating a development plan for King St. and wanting "this or that"

[MidTowner]

As someone who lives less than five hundred meters from this location, I can say without any hesitation that, if this project does not include some commercial use, it sucks.

This is not a case of "build it (residences) and they (commercial uses) will come." A few hundred meters north along King, there is an apartment building far larger than this building would be, that undoubtedly make use of the businesses now occupying (and that have in the past occupied) these spaces. Some commercial use is already there. Why would a development be constructed that locates more people in this area, and removes some of the nearby amenities that serve those people?

[WaterlooNative]

As someone who lives less than five hundred meters from this location, I can say without any hesitation that, if this project does not include some commercial use, it sucks.

This is not a case of "build it (residences) and they (commercial uses) will come." A few hundred meters north along King, there is an apartment building far larger than this building would be, that undoubtedly make use of the businesses now occupying (and that have in the past occupied) these spaces. Some commercial use is already there. Why would a development be constructed that locates more people in this area, and removes some of the nearby amenities that serve those people?


My question about who wanted to locate there referred to our existing mix of commercial spaces. For instance, UpTown Waterloo (and for that matter downtown Kitchener, and the cores in Cambridge) has been trying to attract commercial tenants for years. My guess is that the vacancy rate in the downtown cores sits at about 15 to 20 % depending on how big an area you consider. Why do those properties stay vacant for long periods of time (ie high rents, low foot/car traffic?). The more the downtown cores try to become attractive, the periphery expands (ie Conestoga Mall, Boardwalk etc).

In general, do we have (or can we create) a pedestrian culture that can support these businesses (if and when) they arrive? Or will the spots remain vacant for several more years before the area density becomes larger? For instance, this project would likely finish just in time for the LRT construction to begin. What business is going to want to take a risk while construction is underway? My guess: not many. They will simply wait until construction is finished ~2017.

Looking at what is already there, will they be willing to pay higher rents? Probably not (with the exception, perhaps, of the pizza place), so top to bottom residential fits for now.

[BuildingScout]

In general, do we have (or can we create) a pedestrian culture that can support these businesses (if and when) they arrive? Or will the spots remain vacant for several more years before the area density becomes larger? For instance, this project would likely finish just in time for the LRT construction to begin. What business is going to want to take a risk while construction is underway? My guess: not many. They will simply wait until construction is finished ~2017.

Good point. I claim that what made the Uptown revitalization possible were the Seagram lofts, 55 William Place and the Bauer lofts. Without them there would just not have been enough foot traffic to sustain all those stores.

[MidTowner]

Presumably, municipalities provide usage guidelines (and restrictions) for a reason. We have decided that we don't want the peripheries to expand ad infinitum, so we are trying to move away from neighbourhoods that consist of only residential use, whose occupants get into cars to drive to other neighbourhoods whose uses are only industrial or commercial.

This space along a major artery is being used commercially in an area that is generally not highly commercial. As others have pointed out, these storefronts are currently rented. The municipality has zoned this area mixed-use, so for it to approve a development that will a) remove commercial use that is serving nearby residents, and b) replace it with even more residents who will have to get into cars to seek out services in other areas, seems at best regressive.

BuildingScout, you may be right about those three buildings providing the critical mass of consumers necessary to spur commercial growth. Did any of those buildings actually replace active commercial space, though? And aren't the Bauer Lofts mixed-use, with restaurants and shops at street level?

[BuildingScout]

Oh, I didn't have the Kitchener development in mind. I was just pointing out that increased density is also needed. I would be all in favour of six story buildings on that block with commercial usage on the ground floor.

[UrbanWaterloo]

I stopped into Kitchener's planning office today to get more details on this project.

The maximum allowed commercial is being included, 1000 m² (10764 ft²). This takes up the majority of the building's main floor. There's two entrances off King, one off Louisa. Speaking with the property owner, it's their intention to offer space back to existing tenants. He read the comments on here, and agrees it should be an urban building (like Toronto's Queen/Bloor).

The building goes right up to the corner of King & Louisa and is shaped as a long 'L'.

The floor space ratio is 4, the maximum permitted on this site.

There's 2 underground levels of parking. Underground was preferred, since that space isn't included in the FSR calculation (an intentional part of Kitchener's Mixed Use plans).

The architect is ABA Architects (http://www.abarchitect.ca/) (Edited).

No renderings are available yet to the public, but are expected to be included in the site plan documents. I'll post those when they're available.

[zanate]

Wow. I think I like it.

Nice to offer back to the existing tenants. But... I suspect that the new commercial units' rent will probably be a fair bit higher, especially since (given 3 entrances) the resulting units could be pretty big. (I suppose they could internally subdivide.)

None the less, it could help breathe some life into this block.

[MidTowner]

UrbanWaterloo, thanks a lot for getting those details. Fantastic to hear all of that. Including that much commercial space is a great idea- I can't wait to hear more about the project, but good luck to them if this is the kind of development they are interested in.

[Lugnut]

That's fantastic news. This property was one I always thought should be done first in Mid Town as it could really spur development in both directions.

So maybe fair to say, two commercial entrances on Kimg and the residential entrance off Louisa. I like.

[ruud]

Wow, seems like a step in the right direction, that is for sure. I hope the rent remains reasonable for the previous tenants. It's defintiley better to have business signs on your building then "For Lease" signs on it.

[UrbanWaterloo]

Approved at today's committee meeting...

A 2012-010 & A 2012-011 - 672-692 King St W and 8 & 12 and 18 Louisa St.pdf (http://icalendar.esolutionsgroup.ca/Public/GetDocument.ashx?DocumentId=ee72cde5-d51d-4874-807b-0f067b66c897&IsShare=True)
82322479

[MidTowner]

Thanks a lot, UrbanWaterloo.

This is fantastic news. If this projects includes at least as much retail as is currently on the property, it will be a great addition to this part of the neighbourhood. It will be good to see some extra density here.

[zanate]

It is good news, definitely. I don't think it will be without its downsides, though: I highly doubt that the businesses located here will be able to afford a home in the new commercial space. They will have to relocate, and we will probably see chain businesses in this location.

My opinion is that this is particular fate is unavoidable. None of the existing buildings are worth keeping, and housed these businesses probably because their rent is very cheap. I'd go so far as to call this block an eyesore. Still, I look forward to developments where we see not just commercial space replaced, but commercial space added where none existed before.

And a good way to encourage that is more people living in the core, so a nice 8-story residential on top of this commercial is a great addition. (Also, not absurdly out of scale like some of the 25-story projects being considered in Waterloo.)

[insider]

(Also, not absurdly out of scale like some of the 25-story projects being considered in Waterloo.)

Not 'considered'... it's more like 'shortsightedly and ridiculously easily approved'.