133 Park St and 36, 38 and 40 Allen St W | 13 m | 3.5 fl | Proposed

[Elmira Guy]

Originally Posted by scarfinv

Did it ever occur to anyone that it may be the lack of 3-bedroom units in the core that has been driving people and families to the suburbs where a 3-bedroom single family home is the norm.

Even for two-person families, 3 bedrooms are often a necessity - one bedroom, one guest room, and an office. That's hardly a university dorm.

I agree. Because something doesn't exist, doesn't mean it's not in demand. Otherwise there'd be no such thing as entrepreneurial success.

[mpd618]

May I also point out that 3 bedroom units don't seem to be any landlord's favorite choice for renting to students in Waterloo these days? All of those new student apartment buildings have 5-6 bedroom units.

[kwoldtimer]

I had been assuming that this would be a condominium rather than a rental project. Can anyone clarify?

[jcollins]

Anyone know when the 2nd public meeting is?

[waterloowarrior]

Staff Report: Page 61
. Recommended for approval.


FORMAL PUBLIC MEETING
Concerning a Zoning By-law Amendment

TAKE NOTICE that the Council of The Corporation of the City of Waterloo will hold a Formal Public Meeting on Monday, September 14, 2009, no earlier than 6:30pm, in the Council Chambers, 3rd Floor, Waterloo City Centre, 100 Regina Street South, Waterloo, to consider the following application to amend the Zoning By-law pursuant to Section 34 of the Planning Act.

Zoning By-law Amendment Z-09-06
Rom Dam Developments
36, 38 and 40 Allen St W and 133 Park St – Uptown Ward

THE Applicant is proposing to amend the City’s Zoning By-law No. 1108 by rezoning the subject lands from Industrial-6 ‘I-6’ to Commercial Two-6 ‘C2-6’ with site specific provisions, including:
1. the addition of terrace dwelling as a permitted use;
2. a reduction in the front yard (Allen St) setback from 5.0 metres to 3.3 metres for
the main building, 1.9 metres for the stairs and 1.7 metres for the architectural
entrance feature;
3. a reduction in the flankage yard (Park St) setback from 5.0 metres to 3.5 metres
for the main building and 1.6 metres for the architectural entrance feature;
4. a reduction in the rear yard (northwesterly lot line) setback from 7.5 metres to
3.0 metres for the main building and 2.6 metres for the architectural entrance
feature;
5. a reduction in the landscape buffer area from 3.0 metres to 1.7 metres; and
6. the identification of the building line for the purposes of determining within which
yards parking spaces shall be permitted on the subject lands.

Rom Dam Developments is seeking this zoning amendment to permit the development of 18 terrace dwelling units in a three and one half storey residential building.

THIS meeting shall constitute the formal public meeting required under Section 34 of The Planning Act, R.S.O., 1990, as amended. It is expected that Council will decide whether the application should be approved, denied or amended. A copy of the staff report will be available on August 28, 2009.

IF Council approves the application, a by-law to amend the Zoning By-law will be passed.

FOR further information regarding the above matter, please contact the City of Waterloo Development Services, 2nd Floor, Waterloo City Centre, Waterloo, Ontario, by calling (519) 747-8583 or by email at trevor.hawkins@waterloo.ca
Trevor Hawkins, Development Services
(519) 747-8583
trevor.hawkins@waterloo.ca

[KW4Life]

Approved

September 15, 2009
By Liz Monteiro, Record staff

WATERLOO – Waterloo councillors last night gave the go-ahead for another residential development at Park and Allen streets.

A 3 ½ storey building with 18 units of stacked townhouses will be built at Park and Allen. It will include 23 parking spaces.

Construction could begin by December and the development could be completed by fall of 2010, said Scott Patterson of Labreche Patterson and Associates who represented the builder, Rom Dam Developments of Waterloo.

Councillors approved a zone change which allows for residential development and approved demolition of three existing buildings that are now on the property.

All councillors except Coun. Karen Scian supported the move. Scian was against the project because the building will not have an elevator.

“It’s absolutely absurd a development excludes complete sectors of society – seniors and the disabled,’’ she said.

Coun. Diane Freeman said she, too, was concerned with the lack of accessibility to those who are not able-bodied but supported the development.

Freeman said concerns raised by a resident in the area about traffic concerns were valid.

Jim Hosepian, who lives on Allen Street at the Chippendale Common townhouses, said he’s worried with the increased traffic in the area. He’s also concerned with the plan to have vehicles move in and out of the property off Allen and not Park Street.

City planner Trevor Hawkins said the city wants to continue with its plans to make Park Street pedestrian friendly. Across the street, the Catalina townhomes have the front of the houses facing Park and not driveways.

Hawkins said the other development at Park and Allen, 144 Park, a 19-storey condo development with 143 units and eight three-storey brick townhouses will have the townhouses facing Park.

To concerns from residents that the development could have students living there, Patterson said the owner plans to turn the building into condos with high-end units.

lmonteiro@therecord.com

[kwoldtimer]

That answers my question about whether this would be a condo or rental development. Freeman's comments about lack of elevators is bizarre. I have never heard of a stacked townhouse with elevators. If this were public housing of some sort she might have a point, but following her logic it would not be possible to build multistory freehold townhouses either. Surely a senior or disabled person who had concerns about stairs would look to buy or rent something on one floor.

Anyway, glad to see it approved.

[jcollins]

Great news!!
Hopefully we end up with some detailed renderings soon so we can see what the stone work will look like.

[WatDot]

Originally Posted by kwoldtimer

That answers my question about whether this would be a condo or rental development. Freeman's comments about lack of elevators is bizarre. I have never heard of a stacked townhouse with elevators. If this were public housing of some sort she might have a point, but following her logic it would not be possible to build multistory freehold townhouses either. Surely a senior or disabled person who had concerns about stairs would look to buy or rent something on one floor.

Anyway, glad to see it approved.

Exactly what I was thinking. This is a private dwelling development.

[jcollins]

Half decent image. Too bad its so small though.

Mods....should this thread be changed to "133 Park" now since thats the name of the building.

Accessibility a growing concern with new condo developers
By Greg MacDonald, Chronicle Staff

Sep 16, 2009



A new low-rise condo development will be built at the intersection of Park and Allen streets, despite concerns expressed by neighbours and councillors over accessibility and traffic.

The project, dubbed 133 Park, will be erected at the northwest corner of the two uptown streets, just metres away from two high-rise condominium buildings currently under construction — 144 Park and the Bauer Lofts.

The new building will be a “terrace dwelling” — essentially three rows of townhouses stacked on top of each other.

“I think this is exactly the kind of building we need in the city,” said Coun. Mark Whaley at Monday night’s council meeting.

“It will fit into the neighbourhood.”

Terrace dwelling is a new style of housing for Waterloo and one that caused some concern for Coun. Karen Scian.

The plans for the building provide for two handicapped parking spots, but no accessibility to the units in the form of ramps or an elevator.

That might be okay under provincial law, but it’s not logical, Scian said.

“I think that in this day in age, it’s absolutely absurd to bring forward a planning proposal that excludes large sectors of our population including seniors and the disabled,” she said.

Jim Hosepian, a member of the condo board at the nearby Chippendale Commons, also had qualms with the building.

While the board was supportive of the overall look and design of the development, they worried about traffic flow.

“Within a block of this development are nine driveways,” Hosepian said. “It’s already difficult if not dangerous to drive out from one’s own driveway.”

He said he’d like to see the development scaled down or have a second driveway added to reduce traffic on Allen Street.

Councillors approved the project 7-1, with Scian opposed.

Some concerns, such as traffic and design, will be dealt with during the site plan approval process, said Trevor Hawkins, a development planner with the city.

And though the project is a go, the debate brought out a bigger issue, said Coun. Diane Freeman.

“I think that sometimes we forget that we are all only temporarily able-bodied and that there will be a time when all of us will need improved access and accessibility,” she said.

[KW4Life]

As a person who uses a wheelchair, I'd say Scian has the best intentions, but is picking the wrong fight.

IMO places like the Bauer Lofts and 144 Park should have accessibility requirements, but smaller places like this shouldn't have the same demands.

If they really want to put these kinds of demands on developers, have a requirement that 1 out of n units be built to the "barrier free" standards in every project, including suburban neighborhood developments. While it would increase cost mildly, the value of having a more accessible community overall would be priceless to many.

[metropolis]

/\/\/\/\/\ Agreed. There seems to be a double standard here. Most townhome complexes I have been in have handicapped parking spaces but all the units are 2 or 3 stories. There definitely seems to be a double standard here. If this were a by-law across the city then Scian would have a leg to stand on but in this case she doesn't. Forgive the pun.

[jcollins]

Any news on this one? Start date?

[Lugnut]

This is under construction now. Here's the most recent drawing of it:

Labreche Patterson & Associates Architects