Demolition 322 King Street North | 45 m | 15 fl

[UrbanWaterloo]

Demolition Control Application DC2011-21
1817983 Ontario Ltd.
312, 318, 322 King Street North
Report: DS2011-067
Report Date: October 31, 2011
Council Meeting: November 7, 2011


Recommendation

That Waterloo City Council receive Development Services report DS2011-067 and approve Demolition Control Application DC2011-21, 1817983 Ontario Ltd., for the lands known municipally 312, 318, 322 King Street North in accordance with Section 8 of DS2011-067.

Executive Summary

1817983 Ontario Ltd. has submitted an application to demolition two (2) of the three (3) existing building on the property known municipally as 312, 318, 322 King Street North. The subject lands have been legally consolidated to form one single parcel of land. The applicant wishes to demolish two (2) single detached dwellings in order to facilitate the construction of a new 15-storey, 40-unit apartment building containing 200 bedrooms. An existing 10-storey, 25 unit apartment building on the site will be retained.

The subject property is located within the Area of Demolition Control as outlined in By-law No. 86-122 and therefore the dwellings may only be demolished with Council's approval.

Staff supports the issuance of a demolition permit based on the following:

• the proposed redevelopment is in keeping with the Official Plan;
• the proposed redevelopment is in keeping with the Demoliton Control By-law 18-122;
• the proposed redevelopment provides an intensification opportunity in an area planned for high density redevelopment; and
• the proposed building may provide an opportunity for affordable and/or rental housing in close proximity to existing transit services.

SECTION 1 – SUBJECT LANDS

LOCATION MAP

322 King Street N
-existing single detached dwelling to be demolished
-proposed location of 15-story, 10-unit apartment building
318 King Street N
-existing 10-story, 25- unit apartment building to be retained
312 King Street N
-existing single detached dwelling to be demolished
-proposed location of open air parking and ground floor patio

Owner: 1817983 Ontario Ltd.

Location: 312, 318, 322 King Street North (see Location Map).

Request: To demolish two (2) existing singledetached dwellings (see Pictures 1-2).

Purpose: It is the applicant’s intent to demolish two (2) existing single-detached dwellings and construct a 15 story, 40 unit apartment with 200 bedrooms on the north of the site, and an open air parking area with a ground floor patio on the south of the site. This site will ultimately contain 2 apartment buildings.

Site Plan: The applicant has submitted a Site Plan application for the proposed apartment building (Site Plan File SP-11-46). The Site Plan Committee is in a position to “recommend approval to the General Manager of Development Services”. The proposed elevation and perspective drawings in Figures 1-2 are for information purposes only.

Historical / Architectural Significance: There is no historical/ architectural significance to the two existing singledetached dwellings to be demolished. The Heritage Committee would like to be present during the demolition of the dwelling at 312 King Street North, due to a suspected log structure that may be located underneath the property. The owner has agreed to provide access. (Refer to Picture 1).

Ontario Regulation 278/05 (Asbestos): Prior to submitting a demolition permit, the owner will be required to acknowledge their obligations and responsibilities under Section 10 of Ontario Regulation 278/05 of the Occupational Health and Safety Act. This will be documented on the demolition tracking sheet.

Official Plan: Conforms to the “High Density Residential” designation and related policies of the Official Plan. Policy 3.1.5.1 of the Official Plan limits the density in this designation to a maximum of 250 units per hectare and a maximum of 25 storeys. The proposed development conforms as it has a density of 247 units per hectare and is 15 storeys in height.

Zoning: The subject property is zoned Multiple Residence – 25 “MR-25”, which permits apartment dwellings up to 25 storeys in height. The proposed building has a height of 15 storeys, which is in compliance with the zoning of the property. All setback requirements are met.

Servicing: Development of the site will be subject to available servicing capacity for items such as storm and sanitary sewer, watermain, hydro, etcetera. The applicant will be required to ensure that their proposed design can be accommodated within available municipal servicing capacity. Site plan engineering requires such analysis, and is subject to the approval of the City.


SECTION 2 – DEMOLITION CONTROL BY-LAW NO. 86-122

In 1986, Council exercised its authority to establish Demolition Control By-law No. 86-122. The said By-law establishes an “Area of Demolition Control” which comprises the Central and Columbia Residential Districts. Council approved six policy objectives related to the review of a demolition application in the “Area of Demolition Control”, as outlined below:

Demolition Policy Objectives	Conformity	Comments
1. Prevention of the premature loss of housing stock and the creation of vacant parcels of land.	Conforms	The applicant intends to immediately replace the existing structures with the proposed multi-storey building.
2. Prevention of the premature loss of assessment.	Conforms	Municipal assessment should increase once the proposed development is constructed.
3. Retention of existing residential units until new uses have been considered and Zoning and/or Site Plans approved.	Conforms	The Site Plan Committee is prepared to “recommend approval to the General Manager of Development Services” subject to engineering approval and demolition control approval. The proposed development complies with applicable zoning requirements.
4. Prevention of block busting within residential neighbourhoods.	Conforms	In staff’s opinion, the application does not constitute block busting.
5. Elimination of the use of demolition as a means to reduce maintenance costs.	Conforms	The intent to demolish the existing structures is unrelated to reducing maintenance costs.
6. Elimination of the use of demolition as a tactic to obtain rezoning or other City approvals.	Conforms	The intent to demolish the structures is unrelated to obtaining a rezoning or other municipal approval.

SECTION 3 – CONCLUSIONS

Staff support the issuance of a demolition permit based on the following:

• the proposed redevelopment is in keeping with the Official Plan;
• the proposed redevelopment is in keeping with the Demolition Control By-law 86-122;
• the proposed redevelopment provides an intensification opportunity in an area planned for High Density redevelopment; and
• the proposed building may provide an opportunity for affordable and/or rental housing in close proximity to existing transit services.

If Council grants the requested demolition, the owner could construct any new dwelling permitted under the Zoning By-law. As previously noted, it is the owner’s intent to construct one (1) new 15-storey, 40-unit apartment building on the property, and the proposed demolition is being considered under this premise. As such, demolition approval should be conditional upon the owner obtaining Site
Plan approval and constructing a residential development that is consistent with the submitted plans endorsed by the Site Plan Review Committee (File SP-11-46).


SECTION 4 – LEGAL

Should Council support the application, the Chief Building Official may issue a demolition permit subject to compliance with the Ontario Building Code. Should Council deny the application, the applicant may appeal Council’s decision to the Ontario Municipal Board.


SECTION 5 – FINANCIAL

Staff is not aware of any municipal financial implications with respect to the requested application. Should the application be appealed, potential costs related to an Ontario Municipal Board hearing may be incurred.


SECTION 6 – POLICY IMPACT

This application meets all of the objectives of the demolition control policy.

A draft of the new Official Plan policies has been tabled with Council. On Schedule ‘A’ of the draft Official Plan, the subject property is designated ‘Mixed Use High Density Residential’. Draft Policy 10.1.6 states that properties are to be redeveloped primarily for residential purposes, which the proposed development complies. Policy 10.1.6.3A establishes the maximum net residential density as 750 bedrooms per hectare. At 1234 bedrooms per hectare, the proposed development exceeds the maximum density contemplated in the draft Official Plan. The proposed height of 45 meters is consistent with draft policy 10.1.6.3B which limits height to 81 meters.


SECTION 7 – STRATEGIC PLAN

The request for demolition control can ultimately support the City’s Strategic Plan as follows:

• Sustainability and Our Living Environment – Supporting intensification, growing up not out
• Getting Around- Transit supportive development through intensification

SECTION 8 - RECOMMENDATIONS

1. 1. Staff recommends that Council authorize the Chief Building Official to issue a Demolition Permit for the two (2) residential structures at 312, 318, 322 King Street North subject to the following terms:
   
   
   
   (a) Upon issuance of a demolition permit, the owner agrees to notify the Heritage Committee of the date of demolition and agrees to grant committee members access to the site for documentation purposes.
   
   (b) That prior to the issuance of a Demolition Permit, the owner receive final Site Plan Approval (including site plan, landscape plan, elevations, engineering drawings, and other technical drawings) for the proposed development consistent with the submitted plans endorsed by the Site Plan Review Committee (File SP-11-46);
   
   (c) That the owner shall construct or substantially complete the new building in compliance with the approved Site Plan not later than two years from the date that the demolition permit is issued, pursuant to Section 33 (7) of the Planning Act; and
   
   (d) That if the owner fails to construct or substantially complete the new building by the time specified on the Demolition Permit, the Clerk of the City of Waterloo shall collect in such a manner as municipal taxes the sum of money specified on the Demolition Permit, being a sum of $20,000 for each dwelling unit contained on the subject site as permitted by the Ontario Planning Act. Until payment thereof, the sum of money specified on the Demolition Permit shall constitute a lien or charge upon the subject lands. The lien or charge may be registered on the title of the property at the sole discretion of the City of Waterloo.

Submitted by:

__________________________________
Natalie Stopar
Student Planner

Picture 1 Existing Conditions 312 King Street North


Picture 2 Existing Conditions 322 King Street North


Picture 3 Existing Conditions 318 King Street North


Figure 1 - West Elevation


Figure 2 - North Perspective

[Trogdor]

At least this one looks better than most (assuming the red is brick)?

[van Hemessen]

Not another!

[mikeyp]

At least this one doesn't seem as ugly as all the others.

[mpd618]

Not another!

I was going to suggest that they're trying to get as many in as possible before the new Official Plan kicks in.... but I realized that Waterloo's new Official Plan is barely different in its approach to single-use planning.

[RangersFan]

At least this one looks better than most (assuming the red is brick)?

My thoughts exactly, at first I thought this was 315 King St just with new pictures. If this is red brick it will look pretty decent, compared to it's neighbour (I have never been a fan of 318 King).

How many of these student structures are in the planning stage/construction stage? It's almost unbelievable.

[UrbanWaterloo]

Carried unanimously.

[panamaniac]

What was it that Rosa Moline (Bette Davis) said in "Beyond the Forest"? Oh yeah - "What a dump!"

[metropolis]

I was going to suggest that they're trying to get as many in as possible before the new Official Plan kicks in.... but I realized that Waterloo's new Official Plan is barely different in its approach to single-use planning.

In the new plan this stretch of King is zoned Mixed-Use High Density Residential. Does that not mean at lest we would end up with ground floor retail?

[van Hemessen]

In the new plan this stretch of King is zoned Mixed-Use High Density Residential. Does that not mean at lest we would end up with ground floor retail?

Not sure. Does that zoning imply that it must be mixed use or only that it can be mixed use. If it's not an obligation then I wouldn't expect to see mixed use there anytime soon.

[bcwessel]

In the new plan this stretch of King is zoned Mixed-Use High Density Residential. Does that not mean at lest we would end up with ground floor retail?

It probably just means students are free to put desks in their bedrooms, and consider them live/work units or something.

[markster]

Last I looked, "mixed-use" will allow ground floor retail, but not require it. At least it opens the possibility.

We would still need a developer who is both interested in managing retail, and able to find a decently located parcel of land that hasn't already been developed into a student-stack. There aren't many of either of those around here.

[mpd618]

In the new plan this stretch of King is zoned Mixed-Use High Density Residential. Does that not mean at lest we would end up with ground floor retail?

No, it does not. Here's what their "vision" for this zoning is (p. 178, June 2011 Official Plan draft, available here):

The Mixed-Use High Density Residential designation is a category in which multiple residential buildings are the predominant use of land. This designation is intended to provide opportunities for substantial levels of intensification. Properties are to be developed primarily for residential purposes. Ancillary non-residential uses are also permitted, but not required. The aim of this designation is to encourage high density, mixed-use, primarily residential development in Major Nodes and Major Corridors.

Waterloo city planners incorporated the "mixed-use" buzzword but do not believe in mixed-use planning -- preferring Euclidean zoning. They allow for a tiny bit of mixing, but with everything still partitioned up into residential, commercial, employment, and institutional areas. Quoting from page 164 of that draft:

This Plan contemplates a greater mixing of uses on individual sites than has been planned historically within Waterloo. This is particularly the case for lands within Residential and Commercial designations within Nodes and Corridors. Specifically, categories within Residential and Commercial designation speak to maintaining a primarily residential or commercial function while defining a mix of supporting uses that provide opportunities for people to live, work, learn and play in close proximity. Supporting uses may be permitted to be developed as a freestanding use on a site, or as ancillary uses which are intended to be secondary uses on a site and often required to be located within a mixed-use building. Opportunities for a mixing of uses on sites designated Employment are more limited. In order to support the objective of ensuring a long term supply of employment lands, Employment designations contemplate a range of employment uses and limit other supporting uses to varying degrees, as defined within the individual land use designations.

[BigCityBoy]

I like these developments. I like them a lot. They are exactly what it means to increase density.
Sure, not with curtain walls and great open glass walls but they'll do - and isoform efficient, i suppose. That should keep the running costs down (i.e. carbon dioxide). Once they come, there will be increased density for commercial in good time. Give it a chance, perhaps? Besides, nothing is forever. Once these look outdated in 40 years we can rebuild them even bigger! The point is, i guess, that these things are economically viable, wanting to be undertaken by developers, and increasing density. Where's the big deal here?

[insider]

I like these developments. I like them a lot. They are exactly what it means to increase density.
Sure, not with curtain walls and great open glass walls but they'll do - and isoform efficient, i suppose. That should keep the running costs down (i.e. carbon dioxide). Once they come, there will be increased density for commercial in good time. Give it a chance, perhaps? Besides, nothing is forever. Once these look outdated in 40 years we can rebuild them even bigger! The point is, i guess, that these things are economically viable, wanting to be undertaken by developers, and increasing density. Where's the big deal here?

The big deal is that in the meantime, almost all of these developments don't do anything to improve the overall quality of the city. Even though they're a form of intensification, the single uses, segregation of social groups, low design quality, etc, are more similar to 70s intensification practices than current planning and urban design concepts (as it has been mentioned countless times in these threads). However, as a sign of hope, I know that some of these developers are surprisingly already applying for commercial uses on the ground floor, even on buildings already under construction... more on this later.

[BuildingScout]

The big deal is that in the meantime, almost all of these developments don't do anything to improve the overall quality of the city.

I think there is a bit of hyperbole there. These student residences, while far from ideal, are improvements over monster housing. Also by virtue of being located near the universities they reduce traffic demands on city roads.

[markster]

However, as a sign of hope, I know that some of these developers are surprisingly already applying for commercial uses on the ground floor, even on buildings already under construction... more on this later.

Living up to your name, I see.

[mpd618]

Once they come, there will be increased density for commercial in good time. Give it a chance, perhaps? Besides, nothing is forever. Once these look outdated in 40 years we can rebuild them even bigger! The point is, i guess, that these things are economically viable, wanting to be undertaken by developers, and increasing density. Where's the big deal here?

The big deal is that they're being developed along exactly the stretches that need to have commercial. Increased density for commercial -- as if it isn't already there -- is only good if everything hasn't been built up in a way that precludes successful retail and mixture of uses. At the current speed of construction, there's not going to be much street left. There's no more south side of Columbia, for instance, so that is now a failed street for probably decades.

Once these look outdated in 40 years we can rebuild them even bigger!

Everything looks outdated in 40 years. What is more important is whether they remain functional for more than 10 or 20. When a city cares not one whit about building for the future, and only about the immediate, the result is a city that does not work.

Sure, not with curtain walls and great open glass walls but they'll do - and isoform efficient, i suppose. That should keep the running costs down (i.e. carbon dioxide).

The most efficient building is one that lasts longer than few decades. There's a lot of energy embodied in the built form.

[mpd618]

I think there is a bit of hyperbole there. These student residences, while far from ideal, are improvements over monster housing. Also by virtue of being located near the universities they reduce traffic demands on city roads.

I don't think I buy that these buildings are reducing traffic demand. They're being built as the universities increase enrollment, so the best you can say is that they help to not increase traffic demand, which is rather different.

Compared to building university-adjacent dorms, they're worse in that sense, because people are taking the bus to campus instead of walking.