[hackunion]

I've been walking by a City of Ottawa Zoning By-law Amendment Proposal notice sign on my way to work for the past week. I took some pics with my cellphone today I can post later. Right now the lot features a decrepit 3-storey apartment building with an adjacent parking lot.


An application has been submitted to rezone the property to allow for an increase in building height and density. The proposed construction is a 16-storey, 136 unit condominium building.

Inquiries in English (613) 580-2424 ext. 13856
Douglas_James@ottawa.ca

[hackunion]

*The location is on the north side of Lisgar between Bank and O'Connor, across from the Dominion Chalmers Church.

[kwoldtimer]

Can wails of the alderthingy be far behind? Surely the proposal would be VASTLY too tall for the site?:hell:

[fireicedog]

This is probably another claridge project since the claridge shack has been moved here a couple months ago. I agree it's gonna be pretty hard to get the 16 floors by diane holmes. Would rather see something of this scale go up on the huge parking lot at Somerset and Oconnor.

[hackunion]

Some low quality pics

http://i19.photobucket.com/albums/b169/seulemente/0818081110.jpg

http://i19.photobucket.com/albums/b169/seulemente/0818081119.jpg

[harls]

That building sure is a gem.

[harls]

Found this on the City's site:

Source: http://webcast.ottawa.ca/plan/All_Image%20Referencing_Site%20Plan%20Application_Image%20Reference_Site_Plan_D07-12-08-0075.PDF (page 10 of document)

http://farm4.static.flickr.com/3018/2784322511_97ea703764_o.jpg


The document here shows 18 floors. Likely that will get shot down by you-know-who.

No colours.... I'm picturing aqua blue windows for some reason...

[AylmerOptimist]

Not bad, but it needs originality.

And street more interaction.

:)

[O-Town Hockey]

No colours.... I'm picturing aqua blue windows for some reason...

I like to call that particular design feature "Claridge deco" for some reason. With two towers x 25 floors of it on Rideau plus Somerset Gardens I think we've had our fill of aqua in this city!

I would much rather see something like this building on Bloor Street in Toronto. I much prefer the darker glass and I think it would do a better job of integrating with the gremlins who live in Centretown.

http://www.downtownrealty.ca/Building-image/85-bloor-st-e.jpg http://www.downtowntorontocondos.info/images/condos/36-0.jpg

[m0nkyman]

I'd prefer to see some townhouses in the podium.... more like a Vancouver residential thingie..
http://www.djc.com/stories/images/20041007/Multifamilies_VancouverTownhouses.jpg

[c_speed3108]

I like to call that particular design feature "Claridge deco" for some reason.

:lmao:

[citizen j]

I'd prefer to see some townhouses in the podium.... more like a Vancouver residential thingie..
http://www.djc.com/stories/images/20041007/Multifamilies_VancouverTownhouses.jpg

I agree!

[cityguy]

Glad to see that area of the city getting developed,most of the housing in that area is crap.

[O-Town Hockey]

This is probably another claridge project since the claridge shack has been moved here a couple months ago. I agree it's gonna be pretty hard to get the 16 floors by diane holmes. Would rather see something of this scale go up on the huge parking lot at Somerset and Oconnor.

That's another lot vastly in need of development. I can understand surface lots on Lisgar or Gloucester Streets, but to have an empty lot in that area of Somerset is really surprising. It is such a nice street with plenty of restaurants and services and a stones throw away from Bank. They couldn't do anything tall there since the whole street is Victorian homes and a 3-storey mixed-use building, but I'm sure someone could come up with a good idea for an infill development. This is wishfull thinking, but I would love to see something like this (called Montreux) in Vancouver:

http://www.condominiums.com/vancouver/images/vancou2.jpg

It's a bit taller than surrounding buildings on Somerset, but the three-storey brick facade on the lower part keep a consistent streetwall; kind of like how 90 George's podium keeps things consistent despite the tower being 3x taller than anything around.

[waterloowarrior]

Claridge files site plans for 18-storey Lisgar condo tower
By Peter Kovessy, Ottawa Business Journal Staff
Fri, Mar 13, 2009 10:00 AM EST

Claridge has revised its plans for a condominium building at 287 Lisgar St., between Bank and O'Connor streets, that adds two additional storeys, but decreases the number of residential units.

A previous zoning amendment proposed a 16-storey, 136-unit condominium. Recent city documents call for an 18-storey, 121-unit building.

The land parcel currently contains a surface parking lot with approximately 28 spaces, according to a site plan proposal summary prepared by the city. The subject property also contains a three-storey apartment building at 293 Lisgar St.

The property must also be rezoned to increase the height and density to accommodate the 18 storeys, according to the city.

City planning staff hope to reach a decision on the application by June 30.

Companies involved so far:

# Douglas Hardie Architect Inc.;

# Novatech Engineering Consultants (servicing brief, stormwater management report, transportation impact study);

# Paterson Group Inc. (phase I-II environmental site assessment);

[harls]

*cue Diane*

[waterloowarrior]

http://objdevelopment.blogspot.com/2009/03/claridge-pushing-downtown-skyline.html

Claridge pushing downtown skyline higher
Peter Kovessy (OBJ)


Claridge has added an additional two storeys to its proposal for a condominium at 287 Lisgar St., bringing the height to 18 storeys, or approximately 57 metres. This is the same developer behind the two residential towers that were to be part of Ottawa's bid for the National Portrait Gallery. City council had agreed to allow Claridge to build condominium towers of 20 and 24 floors with the portrait gallery or other public use facility at the base. The developer appealed the height restrictions to the Ontario Municipal Board even before the Conservative government cancelled the Portrait Gallery competition and ultimately won its case to build its towers to a height of 27 storeys around Christmas.

It should be interesting to watch the community reaction - and especially that of the local councillor for the area, Diane Holmes - to the latest Lisgar proposal, especially since some thought Claridge would have trouble convincing the city to allow it to build 16 storeys. Adjacent to the property is an 11-storey government building to the northeast at O'Connor and Nepean streets. Other surrounding buildings include the Dominion-Chalmers United Church and low-rise apartments that range from two to four storeys, according to a site plan proposal summary prepared by the city.

I've heard the suggestion that Claridge is proposing 18 storeys so it can compromise with the city to build 16 storeys, as originally planned, without the expense of going to the OMB. It is an interesting theory, but I haven't come across any evidence to back it up.

However, others have previously observed that the unpredictable outcomes of zoning amendment proposals to increase density has had an effect on land values, especially as developers push for, and receive, one-off permissions from council or the OMB to build taller buildings than the rules allow.

"There is the expectation that you can get greater density than the existing zoning allows, and the (market) for land recognizes that. The price of that land is now approaching a level where you can't do a project that meets the existing zoning requirements," ReDevelopment Group owner Eric Kirsipuu told me last year.

[Ottawade]

*cue Diane*

:lmao:

[highdensitysprawl]

*cue Diane*

Those damn developers...always wanting to build high density housing in the middle of the City......don't they know that Clive and I have an obligation to our residents to protect them from high density housing, which obviously belongs somewhere other than Centretown.

[Mille Sabords]

Those damn developers...always wanting to build high density housing in the middle of the City......don't they know that Clive and I have an obligation to our residents to protect them from high density housing, which obviously belongs somewhere other than Centretown.

Yeah, Diane, well said. Like Manotick, for instance. That's where high rises belong. Sincerely, Clive.

[highdensitysprawl]

Yeah, Diane, well said. Like Manotick, for instance. That's where high rises belong. Sincerely, Clive.

Good one Mille. These Councillors are very predictable. Somehow I can't see Glenn Brooks welcoming high density in his beloved 'Tick'. High density in the 'tick' is when you have a density greater than 1 unit per ha.

[waterloowarrior]

Good one Mille. These Councillors are very predictable. Somehow I can't see Glenn Brooks welcoming high density in his beloved 'Tick'. High density in the 'tick' is when you have a density greater than 1 unit per ha.

'Affordable housing' in Manotick is anything under 4000 square feet ;)

[Mille Sabords]

'Affordable housing' in Manotick is anything under 4000 square feet ;)

You're not too far off the mark... I remember one of the most ferocious fights put on by Manotickers a few years back was over a townhouse project. Never mind that they were going to be pretty upscale, the mere mention of "townhouses" sent whiffs of riff-raff down the Main Street.

[highdensitysprawl]

You're not too far off the mark... I remember one of the most ferocious fights put on by Manotickers a few years back was over a townhouse project. Never mind that they were going to be pretty upscale, the mere mention of "townhouses" sent whiffs of riff-raff down the Main Street.

People in the 'tick' have all the doom and gloom impacts of 'density' ready to unleash on anybody who dare propose anything denser than 2 lots/ha...noise, traffic, renters, garbage, smells, late night parties, lower property values, higher property taxes.

Where do people in Manotick think that their children will be able to afford w/o going up to their armpits in debt.

[Mille Sabords]

People in the 'tick' have all the doom and gloom impacts of 'density' ready to unleash on anybody who dare propose anything denser than 2 lots/ha...noise, traffic, renters, garbage, smells, late night parties, lower property values, higher property taxes.

Where do people in Manotick think that their children will be able to afford w/o going up to their armpits in debt.

I wonder, too. I guess once you're in that "bubble", it's self-reinforcing through association. You start thinking the way you think your neighbours think. Nobody wants to upset anybody. Before you know it, it's a collective psychosis, like a NIMBY trance. At the international level, I believe it's called isolationism. The US last tried it up to December 7, 1941.

[highdensitysprawl]

I wonder, too. I guess once you're in that "bubble", it's self-reinforcing through association. You start thinking the way you think your neighbours think. Nobody wants to upset anybody. Before you know it, it's a collective psychosis, like a NIMBY trance. At the international level, I believe it's called isolationism. The US last tried it up to December 7, 1941.

I know we are getting off topic here regarding the Lisgar site but when I think of people in Manotick (a WASP haven), this article encapsulates the type of people I've met who are from there

http://www.weeklystandard.com/Content/Public/Articles/000/000/001/531wlvng.asp

[harls]

I don't know it it was mentioned a while back or not, but the Claridge Plaza sales shack is currently parked on this site.

[waterloowarrior]

recommended for refusal (premature) (http://www.ottawa.ca/calendar/ottawa/citycouncil/pec/2009/06-23/5%20-%20ACS2009-ICS-PGM-0108%20-%20287%20Lisgar.htm)

render
http://www.ottawa.ca/calendar/ottawa/citycouncil/pec/2009/06-23/5%20-%20ACS2009-ICS-PGM-0108%20-%20287%20Lisgar_files/image004.jpg

293 Lisgar is no longer part of the proposal for economic reasons

[Mille Sabords]

A bit of a Charlesforty look to it.

[ajldub]

The garage needs to be tucked around the side. Unfortunately they are also going to cheap out on materials. Overall a nice enough rendering though.

[k2p]

Just read the city's report in the link above. The whinging from the community association and Diane Holmes is absurd. What's the mystic quality of 12 storeys? That was the original height of Hudson Park, barely a block away. But it turned into something higher. Oh, the humanity.

(These, of course, are the same people who moan about eight storeys on the old OBE site. Who tried to stop Opus, and whose rote-like objections to anything big makes Pavlovian dogs look spontaneous.)

And it seems the CCOC, the folks building the barracks behind the Y, also miss the point in its complaint. Yes, Centretown needs a housing mix. Absolutely, affordable housing helps build strong communities. But in saying that it has two buildings in the immediate vicinity (both, naturally 12 storeys), the CCOC undermines its own point.

That it has two buildings for low-middle income people and that there are no buildings for people to own points, surely, to Claridge's building providing the mix, not stopping it. And if, as the CCOC says, there should be affordable housing on the Claridge site, by the same token there should be housing to buy on the CCOC sites. Except there's not.

As for community benefit, how about people living on what's now a vacant lot, helping Bank Street turn itself around, building density to support pedestrian and public transit infrastructure and not buying places in the far-flung suburbs, but instead injecting some urgently-needed bodies downtown?

[rodionx]

:previous:

Well put. The demographic that Centretown needs most right now is owner-occupiers with decent amounts of disposable income. That's the one part of the demographic mix that isn't adequately represented here relative to Ottawa as a whole. They're also the ones who will help fill all those empty retail spaces on Bank Street and (gasp) maybe even create jobs for the low-income people in affordable housing. Unfortunately, all the community groups can think about is 12, 12, 12....

[Mille Sabords]

:previous:

Well put. The demographic that Centretown needs most right now is owner-occupiers with decent amounts of disposable income. That's the one part of the demographic mix that isn't adequately represented here relative to Ottawa as a whole. They're also the ones who will help fill all those empty retail spaces on Bank Street and (gasp) maybe even create jobs for the low-income people in affordable housing. Unfortunately, all the community groups can think about is 12, 12, 12....

These would all be great points to make to the Committee next Tuesday, with a 5-minute speaker slot.

[harls]

recommended for refusal (premature) (http://www.ottawa.ca/calendar/ottawa/citycouncil/pec/2009/06-23/5%20-%20ACS2009-ICS-PGM-0108%20-%20287%20Lisgar.htm)

render
http://www.ottawa.ca/calendar/ottawa/citycouncil/pec/2009/06-23/5%20-%20ACS2009-ICS-PGM-0108%20-%20287%20Lisgar_files/image004.jpg

293 Lisgar is no longer part of the proposal for economic reasons

The bug antennae at the top look a bit like their Pinnacle project.

I'll change the title to read 287 Lisgar only.

[rocketphish]

A bit of a Charlesforty look to it.

Definitely Charlesforty.

http://farm4.static.flickr.com/3582/3642238427_ef8cf4eea9_o_d.jpg

[waterloowarrior]

Planning and Environment Committee
5. ZONING - 287 LISGAR STREET
ZONAGE - 287, RUE LISGAR
ACS2009-ICS-PGM-0108 SOMERSET (14)

(This application is subject to Bill 51)

That the Planning and Environment Committee recommend Council refuse an amendment to the Zoning By law 2008 250 to change the zoning of 287 Lisgar Street to permit modifications to the existing Residential Fifth Density (R5B) zone for a proposed high rise condominium building.

CARRIED

[jeremy_haak]

Does anyone think this would stand up to an appeal to the OMB?

[rocketphish]

Highrise shelved as planning rules baffle committee

Report rejecting Lisgar development says city's policies are contradictory

By Jake Rupert, The Ottawa Citizen, June 24, 2009


So many contradictory and confusing planning rules cover a section of downtown that Ottawa planning officials couldn't decide whether an 18-story residential building proposed for Lisgar Street is a good idea or a bad one.

City council's planning committee rejected the proposal Tuesday.

Claridge Homes submitted the application and company official Neil Malhotra left city hall shaking his head after the decision. He said his company has trouble understanding what the city wants.

"This is frustrating," Malhotra said. "There's no consistency. There's no clarity. Where's the logic here? Really, somebody tell me what's logical about all of this."

Two weeks ago, city council approved an official plan calling for more density all over the city, particularly in the downtown core, and the company thought it had crafted a building that would deliver that on Lisgar Street, just east of Bank Street.

The plan called for 100 units where there is now a parking lot, and smart growth using existing city services, but Malhotra needed city council to grant a few zoning exemptions to allow more density on the site and allow the building to be constructed closer to the property lines.

The zoning change would allow for twice as many units on the site than it is currently approved for, which would also boost the company's profits.

Claridge submitted the application to the city's planning department, and then it ran into a quagmire of planning rules, policies, bylaws, and goals so complicated and entangled, even city staff couldn't figure them out.

The planning staff report on the application cites at least five different planning documents covering the area, dating back to 1976, many of which have been modified or incorporated into later documents. The report says this has resulted in a patchwork of rules that allows one type of building and size on one piece of property and something completely different right next door.

"The conflicting and inconsistent planning policy and regulatory environment in this part of Centretown makes it difficult to come to a definitive conclusion on the appropriateness of this proposal," the report says. "There is no clear framework."

Planning officials said the building could be considered appropriate under some planning guidelines and rules, but would be too dense, too big and not set back enough from the street under others. Residents in the area also said it was too tall.

The solution, staff said, was to wait to make a decision on the building until the planning department comes up with a set of rules for what constitutes a "quality and livable high-density residential neighbourhood." The report said developing the framework is on the planning department's list of things to do in 2009.

The committee agreed. That ruling will go to council for approval in two weeks.

Malhotra said if the application is turned down by council, his company will appeal the decision to the Ontario Municipal Board, which oversees municipal planning decisions, and that he's confident of a win based on recent experience.

Last year, Claridge was looking to build two 27-storey towers on another parking lot on Lisgar as part of a larger complex that would have included space for a portrait gallery. Eventually, the city approved towers of 24 and 20 storeys, but the federal government scrapped the gallery idea.

Claridge appealed and won approval for two 27-storey towers, minus the gallery.

© Copyright (c) The Ottawa Citizen

http://www.ottawacitizen.com/news/Highrise+shelved+planning+rules+baffle+committee/1726136/story.html

[kwoldtimer]

I suppose it would be giving the committee too much credit to wonder whether their being baffled couldn't be a bit of payback for the experience with the portrait gallery site?

[k2p]

:previous:
Naughty developer. Bad! And to punish you, we'll cut our nose off to spite our face, and keep that lovely parking lot intact. When is there payback for the twits who can't imagine people actually living in Centretown?

[citizen j]

Can you say "OMB hearing with a bonus of 2 extra storeys added to the building just to rub the city's nose in it"?

[rocketphish]

Can you say "OMB hearing with a bonus of 2 extra storeys added to the building just to rub the city's nose in it"?

Yup... I'll put money on it! Well, an OMB win anyway. :D

[rodionx]

Our precious, precious parking lot is safe.... but FOR HOW LONG?

Seriously, I don't think the rationale, "we rejected it because we can't understand our own planning documents" is going to fly.

[O-Town Hockey]

Our precious, precious parking lot is safe.... but FOR HOW LONG?

Seriously, I don't think the rationale, "we rejected it because we can't understand our own planning documents" is going to fly.

It's honestly really sad that our council comes up with excuses like that. I think we need another election soon!

[rocketphish]

It's honestly really sad that our council comes up with excuses like that. I think we need another election soon!

I agree with you, O-Town, but unfortunately too many of the voters out there are clueless about how their elected representatives participate in running the city (into the ground), and instead vote for them based on popularity alone. Of course this means that we'll get the same bunch of councillors again next time. Sigh.

[waterloowarrior]

appealed to the OMB

[Jamaican-Phoenix]

appealed to the OMB

But of course. :rolleyes:

:gaah:

[k2p]

:previous:
The OMB appeal is probably a good thing. Means there is still a chance of it being built.

[Proof Sheet]

Can you say "OMB hearing with a bonus of 2 extra storeys added to the building just to rub the city's nose in it"?

Were City Staff in favour of this...if so, the City will have to retain outside counsel, planners, transportation experts etc, to represent the City Council position at the OMB. Often times, the planning experts are from out of town and they don't do too well.

[waterloowarrior]

Were City Staff in favour of this...if so, the City will have to retain outside counsel, planners, transportation experts etc, to represent the City Council position at the OMB. Often times, the planning experts are from out of town and they don't do too well.

City staff recommended refusal for this one.
http://www.ottawa.ca/calendar/ottawa/citycouncil/pec/2009/06-23/5%20-%20ACS2009-ICS-PGM-0108%20-%20287%20Lisgar.htm

[BlueJay]

City staff recommended refusal for this one.
http://www.ottawa.ca/calendar/ottawa/citycouncil/pec/2009/06-23/5%20-%20ACS2009-ICS-PGM-0108%20-%20287%20Lisgar.htm

Thanks for the link. What a joke some of the opposition have posted...

My comments are in CAPS.

5. If approved, the proposed building would adversely affect my view.

-GET YOUR ASS OFF YOUR CHAIR INFRONT OF YOUR LIVING ROOM WINDOW

7. The parking proposed does nothing to promote public transit.

-WHAT? OK, SCRAP THE BUILDING AND MAKE THE SITE A PARK N RIDE, OH WAIT IT MIGHT INCREASE TRAFFIC ON YOUR STREET:koko:

9. If this building is approved it will negatively effect my day lighting and sun exposure.

-DAYLIGHT SAVINGS TIME WILL REMAIN THE SAME. FOR SUN EXPOSURE, GET THE HECK OUT OF DOWNTOWN AND GO TO THE BEACH OR YOUR LOCAL TANNING SALON.

When will this city wake up and realize it is not a small town, but a growing metropolis???

Residents who live downtown, have to accept that they live downtown.

[Proof Sheet]

City staff recommended refusal for this one.
http://www.ottawa.ca/calendar/ottawa/citycouncil/pec/2009/06-23/5%20-%20ACS2009-ICS-PGM-0108%20-%20287%20Lisgar.htm

Thanks for the confirmation on that.....often times City Staff are in favour and Council don't heed the Staff recommendation.

[waterloowarrior]

pre-hearing is in November
http://www.omb.gov.on.ca/ecs/CaseDetail.aspx?n=PL090709