[Halifax] Capitol Suites (1460 Seymour) | 19 m | 5 fl | Competed
 

http://halifax.infomonkey.net/sm_ima...coburg475o.jpg
Source

Case: 18322
Location: 6124 Coburg Road
Lot Area: 8'504 sq ft.
Height: 19 M
Floors: 5 total
Former Use: Commercial / Residential
Proposed Use: Commercial / Residential
LUB: Halifax Peninsula
Architect: Geoff Keddy Architects Ltd
Developer:

2013.12.10 - MPS/LUB Amendments Initiated
2014.02.19 - Public Information Meeting to be held

---

The long anticipated redevelopment of the Need's Convenience store on Coburg Road finally has definitive plans!

Initiation Report - Case 18322

After reading the intitiation report I think the building will be a great addition to the neighbourhood and the the modern facade will mix well with the Mona Campbell Building next door! :) The only two concerns I have are 1) The two commercial units are tiny and front onto Seymore and not Coburg, 2) There is at-grade parking inside with access from Coburg Road.

I like this very deep on-going discussion. :P

But seriously the DA application process is allowed to proceed to the public consultation stage. Fellow forumer Waye Mason was opposed to the motion citing nearby single-family households and development restrictions around the university as reasons not to consider the project. Linda Mosher countered his points with the urban growth targets, and the preferance for development agreements over blanket zoning.

Source : "City Hall Desk" (December 11th, 2013) by Amy Pugsley Fraser - AllNovaScotia.com

I would have also countered councilor Mason's point with the fact the Need's building is a dump and drags down the area as a whole.

Time to build this now.

Yeah this building would be a huge improvement to the area IMO, its scale is just fine for the neighbourhood and the current structure is one of the worst in that area currently.

With all the talk of adding more population density on the peninsula, I wonder if taking a mid-sized convenience store out of the area is moving in the wrong direction. I haven't been in it since it became a Needs, but if memory serves this was once a small Capitol store (a grocery store for those of you who are too young to remember the pre-Superstore days), which would seem to be the way to go as density increases and more people shop on foot rather than by car.

This project doesn't look as though it allows enough commercial space to satisfy the needs (pardon the pun) of a growing neighborhood.

I remember when it was a grocery store; although I can't recall if it was a Capitol - that seems correct. I don't necessarily agree with Waye on this one - I don't think you can eliminate opportunity sites on prominent street corners when the surrounding context is well over 4 stories around it (including the university building and the adjacent apartment building). I don't believe that you can just paint all of the neigbourhoods outside of the identified corridors as a no go area, when you may have some development opportunities on these corners.

Obviously, if the surrounding context was more along the lines of 2 stories and there was no development around it - then that might be a different storey. But 5 stories isn't a huge step up when the university building next door is 4 stories? Maybe 5?

According to ANS, some of the people who spoke against this development live in a ~10 storey building across the street.

I think this is one of those "infill is great, just not in my backyard" cases. It's easy to agree in the abstract that X% of development should be in the urban core, but in order to hit those targets the city has to actually permit new buildings somewhere, and some people will not be happy. There is empty land on the peninsula but it's not all immediately available or owned by developers (a large portion of it is owned by the government). It seem pretty likely to me that if developers can't even put up a lowrise apartment along a mixed, semi-major street like Coburg Road, there isn't much hope for hitting that 25% target.

I also find it pretty evil that people who live near Dalhousie complain about the fact that new housing might be available to students. In the case of the apartments on South Street years ago there were people complaining that nurses might move into the 1-bedroom units. Seriously.

Well the ultimate comment I made in a moment of frustration to a few community residents at an open house was if they don't like the fact this lot could be developed - buy it and turn it into a park. But don't expect the city to pay for it or fund the maintenance.

Shortly after I said it, I realized I had a total foot in mouth moment but then they huffed away and I never heard from them again. So I think sometimes a dose of reality is helpful.

Was this a public hearing or was it an initiation discussion? I ask that because Councillors normally only speak to it - was the public engaged during the discussion? I was a little surprised there were public letters already...

^This was just an initiation. The comments were just letters/emails the planning department has amassed since rumours of the development have surfaced (we've had renderings for a long time on here).

Initiation Report - Public Comments are towards then end of the document

Here are some of my favourites;

"3. Garbage .... The container would be a magnet for mice, racoons, seagulls, an other vermins. This would bring them into the neighbourhood and create a nuisance and health dangers for nearby residents"

Okay this is just pure NIMBYism. For one mice and seagulls already live on every block in Halifax. Secondly presuming this person is correct about the building taking up 100% of the lot that makes the only place for the dumpster to be INSIDE the building therefore making seagull problems impossible! Also I don't know if racoons are in the neighbourhood right now but I am positive there are less than in the suburban and exurban areas.

"The proposal includes commercial space on the ground floor. This would be yet another violation of existing zoning regulations. ... it also generates crime as the existing Need's store has done."

I don't think this person realises the site is currently zoned RC-1 "Neighbourhood Commercial". This specifically allows grocery stores which Need's is. The new building will have very small commercial footprints. They will be less traffic generating and likely be more "neighbourhood" like (ie barber shop, salon, ect).

The Carlyle Residents Association is just laughable. They claim density and height as their main concerns. This is coming from a high-rise whose zoning can be claimed as out-of-place in such a neighbourhood.

It's all not just NIMBY, but entirely and completely idiotic.

And clueless, because they're complaining and they don't even know the relatively recent history of their own neighborhood.

The nearby Coburg Coffee House was originally a (commercial) local pharmacy, called Fader's. And Needs itself was a small grocery store called Capital, where people in the community literally bought everything they needed.

Where did this NIMBY attitude come from? Clearly it wasn't there in the post-war period. Is it a Baby Boomer thing? I don't know.

LOL! Based on this statement, a good method of reducing crime is to eliminate all stores.

They could further reduce crime by getting rid of anything of value, so the thieves/robbers would have nothing to take.

Genius!

I wish I could say that I am shocked by some of the comments, but unfortunately they are par for the course.

This is in my general neighbourhood, and I am 100% supportive and plan to write in to voice my support. This is a spot that already has apartments above the store, and hence is already multi-unit, so it is not like it is replacing a single family home. In my view the Coburg corridor is ripe for low to mid-rise development that I hope would someday justify a streetcar type transit that went from downtown, up SGR and then up Coburg to Oxford (then on to HSC or something). Given the sheer number of students in the area I actually think that this would be a profitable enterprise (much like the #1 bus is).

I am particularly pissed when people in my area complain about how students will end up living in these apartments. The fact is that we live in an area near the university, and students are going to live there one way or the other. The best way to reduce the pressure on single family homes getting snapped up and converted to student slums is to provide more dense housing options for students… the comments for example that were made when the Lemarchant residence at Dal baffled me, when instead that is exactly what is needed to provide students a place to live while reducing pressure on family homes.

The current building looks pretty rough from what I remember.

Those complaining are likely a bunch of old people that aren't even from this part of town originally.

Why are infactual remarks even recorded. If somebody can't prove this isn't zoned for commercial, why is this false view even being taken into account??? This could fix alot of problems, its undemocratic to print all of these lies, not the opposite as these people tend to claim. Stop making shit up!

Its definitely a baby boomer thing. They feel now their liberal streak is to be anti-development and protect their castles... well, too bad you guys fucked up the environment, etc... and now you're taking a stand against "traffic" and "development" when that generation created this mess back when they were in their 20s. Move aside, Halifax will develop for the better and it cannot be stopped.

OldDartmouthMark for Chief of Police!

Just seeing this now, but it is a winner. Am I able to nominate this post for "sticky" status on the main page? :tup:

;)

I'm not "anti-babyboomer" either, I just think their view that they are entitled is really wrong and that youth feel "entitled". As far as I can figure out, they benefited significantly from various activities that wouldn't fly today (e.g. 30 year jobs, etc) and then created the mechanisms so that young people can't enter the labour market.

The young generation is the most educated ever, and not "entitled", but at least let them participate in the labour market by hiring them over these folks who can't even use MS Office properly, 'nuff said.

The Public Information Meeting will be held February 19th, 2014 at 7pm at Dalhousie's Rowe Management Building (6100 University Avenue).

Just bumping this. I'm not home yet but for those who are this should be quite the show!

You're right about that. I was asked by a group of university students to sign a petition against building this... Their main reasons were

1) It doesn't fit with the neighbourhood (how I don't know, as the Mona Campbell and a large apartment building are beside it)

2) It will close the Need's (Get your convenience store stuff from university convenience 1 block up!!)

The fact that young people are fighting this is quite a scary thing really..

Haha I didn't realize it was this thread. I go to Dal and spoke to the people to!
The developer should really just offer the wall, with the mural, which most of those silly people were worried about.:cheers:

So according to an AllNovaScotia article tonight the public information meeting for this was quite entertaining. Apparently ~60 people showed up and most of those who spoke were against it. Danny Chedrawe (NOT behind this project) and a couple of planners were in favour but got heckled bad by the other residents.

I do recommend my fellow forumers email the municipal planner (or wait and email the Municipal Clerk before the public hearing) to voice your opinions.

I would have gone, but I actually have work to do.

Sigh. How many stages of approval does this thing need to go through?

A tortured, ugly, pathetic process: HRM development follows the rules.

It was publicly announced in December, it has been four months! An a couple months it goes to a joint HWCC/HRM Council session and public hearing for consideration of the MPS change. This is not tortured, is is expedited - you cannot get an MPS/Comprehensive Plan change in any jurisdiction in weeks and months, these things always require public input. When I spoke about this with the Toronto Developer building Southport he said a fast approval in Toronto is 18-24 months.

It sure does. Halifax development timelines are simply not as onerous as a lot of people think--stuff takes a long time to get from proposal to approval pretty much anywhere. (And in Ontario, a municipality's approval or rejection of a project can then be appealed to the Ontario Municipal Board, resulting in even more haggling and wrangling and delaying.)

I wasn't really lamenting the timeline, I was lamenting what apparently happened at the "public" input meeting. I'm more familiar with HRMxD approvals, not so much DAs where planning by-laws may need to be amended.

As for "tortured"-- you don't think someone coming to the meeting to support the proposal and getting shouted down by NIMBYs isn't an embarrassment? And some people getting to speak TWICE?

As if that meeting is an accurate representation of the community; looking at the list of names speaking, sounds like it was the Heritage Troop and STV brigade taking the place over.

It's the same old story over and over. Local property owners have a vested interest in opposing development. Essentially, opposing newer, nicer, rental opportunities for people who do not have the financial capacity to own homes or property.

SAVE THE VIEW FROM ATOP COBURG! YES. ALL THE HOMEOWNERS CAN AGREE WITH THAT: WE DON'T NEED NICER PLACES FOR STUDENTS, "SINGLES", OR PROFESSIONALS TO LIVE AROUND HERE. GIVE THEM ANOTHER DUMPY RUNDOWN LANDLORD ABSENTEE BUILDING! YESSSS! PROPERTIED CLASS UNITE. WE HAVE NOTHING TO LOSE BUT NEEDS CONVENIENCE STORE.

See my post above. I was lamenting the ludicrous feedback, not the timeline.

It was a genuine question about the process for approval.

Ah, I see. Cool.

Still, there are a LOT of people who make that complaint about Halifax.

This is sad.

The Carleton tower proposal better go through... that will be a game changer for density and the quality of this entire area.

They do know that needs is owned by the big Sobeys Corporation right?

Do non-residents get input? Most of these students will move back to Ontario shortly.

Could you imagine if we got a little more density around the university? There might even be demand for an actual proper grocery store nearby.

I'm LOL'ing at the comments from the meeting, calling that intersection crazy like traffic. As if this tiny development will bring great traffic jams.

Worthy of note: the Councillor for the area, our very own Mr. Mason, is also opposed to this project.

Who was chairing the meeting that allowed Ms. Bev Miller to speak twice, and others to shout down other speakers, I wonder?

Shameful.

Ohhh snap! If this is true, its sad. The proposal is fine... the current situation is far from optimal. Its a frankenstein shop... groundfloor retail and land could be better used. New design is fine.

Don't get me wrong, I lived nearby at Robie and Coburg (or where Coburg becomes SGR) and went to this Needs daily. That being said, if I was in Dalhousie, I'd view this as a time to having a student run retail space on campus fulfill this role? The other store up the street is decent too... but who's kidding, if you want to go to real corner store you'd have to hit Jubilee Junction or the Big G.

Interesting - here in Calgary we require you undertake your land use amendment (rezoning - which can include a policy amendment) and then your Development Permit. The Development Permit (particularly multi-residential development) tends to be what we call a discretionary use meaning the public has an opportunity to comment and a right of appeal, but the rezoning and policy amendment cannot be appealed (although public consultation and a public hearing is required).

Under the new planning system we are moving towards (aka Transforming Planning) the idea has been to setup a lot of the tough conversations ahead of time and that these conversations include both the land use (rezoning) discussions and then the discussions on the building. What this will move too is allowing a developer submit a joint application for rezoning and development permit at the same time BUT the permit would not be approved until the rezoning is done. So we could progress it to a certain point but then would have to wait for the rezoning public hearing to occur and be passed by Council (all three readings and the bylaw signed). Once that occurs, then we would be good to go with an approval or scheduling the item to Calgary Planning Commission.

We are still in early days of progressing with the new system (first steps start in week 1 of March); but I've always believed this was the way forward. It didn't waste people's time with multiple meetings and discussions on certain types of applications and then the comments didn't make sense (ie: bringing up issues that were more Development Permit related, versus whether the rezoning was appropriate or not - this happens all the time).

But we are averaging somewhere between 6 to 12 months for typical to complex rezoning applications (depending on how complex it becomes). When I did the development permit for the "Lido" in Kensington, I think from the time it came in the door (March) it ended up at Planning Commission in November (and a month of that is mainly deadlines for drafting and finalizing the report, so it was about 8 months. As I recall; we had some last minute issues come up that caused a delay plus everything went off the rails once the flood happened.

Well, once council makes a decision on this one it can be appealed to the NSUARB, which is similar to the OMB. This entire process has taken years for some proposals, which means that every developer has to worry about that possibility. The 6-12 month approval timeline outside of HbD is a best-case scenario.

Based on the comments you'd think the developer is proposing Fenwick II. There's a serious lack of perspective -- the same old South Enders like to make as much noise as they can about as many developments as they can. If they got their way the city would effectively be stuck in 1980.

Halifax needs a bridge over the North West Arm, a harbor crossing to Woodside and an improved road to connect the two.
Maybe then those in the south end who want to save the city just for themselves will get a better idea about the future of Halifax.

Agreed. Those voices need a serious reality check.

Sadly, many of our elected municipal officials are pandering to special interests and ignorant voters in general by stating their opposition to such projects. Note that the mayor and both peninsular councillors oppose new bridges and the councillor for the area opposes this modest proposal as well. Simple vote-pandering, nothing more.

Well of course Keith's thesis would be damning if it were true. As often is the case with Keith, it is not.

I didn't chair the meeting, the chair of the PAC did. Danny Chedrawe also spoke twice, as did about half dozen supporters (planners, developers, locals). The practice at PIMS (which are not public hearings) has been that people can speak as often as they want, it is more of a conversation format. I am not sure this is a good idea, personally, but it is not exactly shocking or news. It's been that way for decades.

This, x20000.

Also, you can only appeal a decision of the OMB, if the board made an error of law. That's typically not what's at stake in a planning decision. It's usually a question of fact-- based on expert opinions, etc.

By contrast, according to the UARB FAQ, you can appeal the UARB to either the Supreme Court or the Court of Appeal, depending on how you'd like to challenge. Each of those court decisions, could lead to further appeals, cross appeals, further motions, etc, etc. The Supreme Court can be appealed to the Court of Appeal and the Court of Appeal to the SCC. That can take years to settle.

So: the whole problem with the traditional DA process, was the risk, from the get go, that you could be tied up in litigation for years and years, fighting a well funded / wealthy / faux outrage machine, like these wealthy Sound End property owners and their various advocacy vehicles, whether its the Heritage Committee, Heritage Foundation, STV, Friends of whatever they are friends with this week.

That is the chill on developments. And we're seeing them here, out in full force, making a mockery of the proposal process, making clowns of themselves.

I read in the news that people speaking in support of the proposal were shouted down. Did the chair take steps to prevent this from happening?

I think this is pretty uncommon though. It would be interesting to see statistics on the full approval pipeline: how much time it takes at each step, how many steps proposals go through, and approval or rejection.

I guess we'll see what happens with this case. It seems hard to argue that this building would actually be out of scale with the neighbourhood, or "inconsistent with the intent of the MPS" in a significant way. Most of the surrounding buildings are low-rise apartments just like this one or institutional buildings of similar scale.

I'm happy at least that we no longer have these debates about buildings downtown.

Clearly, you've not seen the NIMBY MANIFESTO. Watch as it easily morphs to apply to this development:

----------
WHILE I SUPPORT MY COMMUNITY AND DEVELOPMENT ON AND AROUND COBURG ROAD, I CANNOT SUPPORT THIS DEVELOPMENT FOR THE FOLLOWING REASONS:

1. Sometimes when I walk on the the sidewalk near the current building, I enjoy the sun's rays. This extra floor will not only create new shadows and block the sun, it will actually kill the sun, exploding it in an amazing galactic haze of supernova star dust.

2. I live in a home not far from here. This development will block the view of.... nothing. I got nothing. No! Wait! ...of Needs Convenience! Because Needs will be gone! Yes! Save the View of Needs.

3. This area is already too crowded. I am old and tired, and I just feel that this is not right.

4. Like Spirit Place, this development could attract young people and "singles". This is inherently bad. It might also lower my property value. Just saying.

5. The wind on Coburg is like a polar vortex, even in the summer. This will create more wind. We are all born with certain inalienable human rights. They include freedom of speech and freedom from wind.

6. A few more apartments will bring more cars. Let's assume, for the sake of the developer, that it will only be three cars per unit. Why, one floor of this development alone will clog up Coburg for hours!

7. Is this much height really necessary? I know there are several apartment buildings around here. And it is really not inconsistent with anything in the broader area. And it is consistent with the purpose of the zoning. And it won't negatively impact anything. And that density is important if we are going to rehabilitate urban growth. And... uhm... but is height so necessary?

8. This is a heritage neighbourhood and this development is inconsistent with heritage requirements. Well, not a heritage neighbourhood yet. But we are requesting heritage designation as "CounterfactualVille". The community dates back to the 1300's. I bet you cannot find any evidence to rebut this claim. Friends of CounterfactualVille believe that his development neglects that history.

9. The computer says no.

10. The world will end if this goes forward. I'm serious.

That allnovascotia said that one person, Danny, was shouted down. What it didn't say is that the Chair did intervene.

IMO public information meetings work but there is a problem with heckling and cheering/applauding that I have witnessed before mainly for Peninsula proposals. I think people should be allowed to speak ONCE for a maximum of five minutes (depending on crowd levels). No clapping/applauding or heckling should be allowed. Returning to the podium to ask a question should be allowed IF all other speakers are done and it is a quick question with no discussion afterwards.

What's listed in the PDF going to D7&8PAC on Monday is acceptable unfortunately it is not always followed. Granted it should be noted I have not attended a PIM since before the 2012 elections so I can't personally say if things have changed or not.

Public Information Meeting Process

Got to love the half-ass reporting of AllNovaScotia. I'll be glad when I get home and can attend some these meetings myself to get the facts straight.

BTW Waye I'll be the person trying to keep a straight face every time Bev Miller or the Paceys get up and try to convince the crowd the world is going to end. I also stand out because I mention bicycles 90% of the time I speak. :yes:

According to Amy Fraser, Beverly Miler, former MP Loudmouth Mary Clancy, and Owen Carrigan of SMU were a few among several others in opposition who were allowed to speak more than once. Frankly, I trust Ms. Fraser's reporting more than your account.

It would also provide clarity if the councillor would explain his own opposition to the project rather than pretending to be an unbiased observer as certain comments imply. Incompatibilities with a 5-storey building next-door? Really? We are talking 35 residential units, perhaps 80 residents. Dalhousie can add one class to a freshman program and get more than that many people into the area.

I again state my belief that this nothing but a councillor pandering to wealthy, influential voters in an affluent neighborhood than anything related to planning policies or bylaws.

Typical Keith - I acknowledge that people spoke more than once and they often speak more than once at a PIM and you continue to try and make that a violation, like I am lying or misleading. That part of the reporting is correct, people spoke more than once. Danny and Jared spoke more than once - FOR the proposal.

As for why I was against Council scheduling the public hearing on this matter, watch the video here, it is item 11.1.6 http://archive.isiglobal.ca/vod/hali..._live.mp4.html

I watched the dissembling councillor attempt to justify his opposition to this. Even the motion was crafty, putting forward the motion, but then speaking against it. Likely that was to let him argue either side in the future regardless of what the outcome may be. He says he is in favor of density, but he is not in favor of this. He notes the buildings that surround the site, but still tries to sell the idea it is "out of character". Even some of the dullest councillors noted that his position was inconsistent with what is there and positions on other projects. He just doesn't want density in his backyard, or that of his wealthy constituents.

A 5-storey building should not be controversial. It is not a high-rise. The world would not spin off its axis. This is not a quiet, sleepy residential neighborhood. Residents should not be surprised by the proposal. Attitudes like this condemn Halifax to continue to be in the ditch, to continue to push people out into the suburbs, to try to freeze the status quo into amber. Why are we so afraid of change? No vibrant city can be that way.

How hypocritical.

Increasing density in well serviced areas decreases the HRM tax load by decreasing services required in the under-serviced outlying suburbs. This is a tasteful project that appears to serve that purpose and is not out of scale with most surrounding buildings.

One thing that worries me is the effect that Southend opposition can have on Dalhousie and Saint Mary's universities, which are economic drivers for the entire HRM. I think that all HRM residents have a right to participate in public discussions that affect the HRM as a whole. If in the future more land is required for Dalhousie and Saint Mary's universities to expand then that should be a priority over the objections of a few home owners since such expansion will benefit the entire HRM.

Although this is somewhat off the topic, even a Northwest Arm bridge should be seriously considered. Such a bridge would benefit the entire HRM since it would decrease the requirements for more expensive bridge expansion across the harbour. I think it is time for HRM Councillors to get a bit tougher on Southend home owners who have the financial resources to oppose almost everything and start demanding what is best for the HRM community as a whole.

Paranoid much? Administrative Order 1 of HRM requires the report's recommendation be put on the floor first for debate and the Mayor always calls on the area councillor to put the motion on the floor.

If you want to make sweeping statements you should maybe do some research first, unless the facts are getting in the way of your truthiness.

Forgot HRM, these university are key drivers of aspects of the broader Nova Scotia economy. Big time. Ask anyone in venture capital, the only game in town are universities in Halifax. They're the only ones innovating and investing in R&D in the province.

Meanwhile, when someone wants to a modest 5 storey development nearby, for students, faculty, professionals, etc, the university has to contend with Beverly Miller and the Four Horsemen of the NIMBY apocalypse.

I take no position on the procedural debate here.

And Waye, I've been a big fan of some of your important work at Council, including battling for more funding and investment downtown.

But you're wrong on these modest infill proposals. It's hypocritical to advocate greater urban density and then oppose a modest, low impact, proposal like this, which removes an ugly little building and provides more, nicer, housing for university members and anyone else.

Out of scale and out of character? This building will "change the neighbourhood" ? Give me a break.

The Councillor asking about the "brand new" 5 storey building RIGHT beside this one, completely undercuts your arguments. Your "historical" argument actually makes your position worse, because the history suggests that you had HIGHER buildings in there historically. That was the character of the neighbourhood historically, so you're defending a fiction. A concept of the neighbourhood that does not now, nor ever, existed.

The ONLY basis to oppose this proposal is the typically conservative mindset, where people oppose any kind of change, solely for fear of "different" people moving into the neighbourhood and thus to preserve property values for the wealthy.

You're on the wrong side of this, and I suspect you know it, as your arguments have been weak.

My worry, is when you take these hypocritical positions to keep a couple wealthy loudmouths in our district happy, you're undermining your credibility to advance the broader cause for urban density, which is a critical issue for the broader city. councillor Mosher called you out on this, and you had no answer.

You're defending the classic NIMBY position: I support urban density, but not in my backyard.