335 Roosevelt Ave | 2x40m | 2x12f | Proposed

[McC]

Originally Posted by rakerman

If it's within zoning, it should be approved, the only issues should be insuring high-quality design and (where appropriate) ground-level retail and interaction.

The issue is with developers that don't just "minor variance" the zoning, they bust it by factors of 2x or more. There needs to be a real process to enforce zoning and, if there are compelling reasons to exceed, both get piles of immediate Section 37 money as well as REQUIRING the highest quality design and street-level interaction. There should be no spot exceptions - exceptions should only be granted as part of a review of the zoning to make it more appropriate.

Otherwise the entire city is just one continuous area of one-time spot-exception "minor variances" and neither the city nor the citizens nor the zoning mean anything.

The problem, as I understand it, is that there is only section 37 money when the proposed development exceeds the zoned density (and the amount is based on the scale of the surplus density). This creates a very perverse situation where those who would like the rule of law and an amount of certainty in how we can expect zoning and other rules in place to be enforced and yet also want to attract benefits for their community from increased development and density actually have an incentive to see each new development go through as exception to the zoning. It's an irreconcilable dilemma:
- if the zoning of the entire area is amended to fit the plans and current practices, e.g. all of the 6 and 14 storey limits along the Transitway are immediately increased to 28 storeys to restore certainty and the the rule of law the community loses any say over the design, size and form of individual developments and access to Section37 funds; OR
- the zoning stays the same and we have no predictability or certainty of what can and might be built around our neighbourhood, but each new proposal goes through consultations, negotiations and approvals processes that give the community say over design, size and form, and gives the community access to Section37 monies to improve the area.

As I said: perverse!

[gjhall]

Approved unanimously, 7-0, by committee, with a $200,000 holding by Councillor Hobbs for community benefits for improvements for Roosevelt Ave.

[S-Man]

I hope that $200K actually gets spent on the community and not put in a legal war chest for the next development.

[gjhall]

Originally Posted by S-Man

I hope that $200K actually gets spent on the community and not put in a legal war chest for the next development.

It's to be held in a city account, not in the community association.

[rocketphish]

The Ottawa Citizen graphic:

[Proof Sheet]

Originally Posted by S-Man

I hope that $200K actually gets spent on the community and not put in a legal war chest for the next development.

Good one...to me, it would have been better if the developer was required to undertake $200 K of actual improvements and not just provide $200 K.

I hope that this $200 K amount is utilized in a more accountable manner than the cash in lieu of parking or cash in lieu of parkland payments that are required.

[umbria27]

Originally Posted by Proof Sheet

Good one...to me, it would have been better if the developer was required to undertake $200 K of actual improvements and not just provide $200 K.

I hope that this $200 K amount is utilized in a more accountable manner than the cash in lieu of parking or cash in lieu of parkland payments that are required.

Indeed, cash in lieu of parkland ought to go to building new parks.
Cash in lieu of parking ought to go to creating parking elsewhere.

This "in lieu" money should go to a special fund that can only be used for those purposes.

I don't want to see a huge wave of new parking garages, but if the original parking requirement was warranted then a new garage in these intensifying neighbourhoods makes some sense. As opposed to new standalone parking garages, that "in lieu" fund could be used to pay developers of neighboring properties to add public parking to their proposals.

[gjhall]

Originally Posted by Proof Sheet

Good one...to me, it would have been better if the developer was required to undertake $200 K of actual improvements and not just provide $200 K.

I hope that this $200 K amount is utilized in a more accountable manner than the cash in lieu of parking or cash in lieu of parkland payments that are required.

If you look at the motion, it was taken as a security, not as a contribution, which means the city holds the money until the work is done. So what you'd prefer is in fact what's happening. Cheers.

[gjhall]

And the required KGray reaction:

Zoning is a contract with a neighbourhood

By Ken Gray

Fundamental to democracy is the rule of law. Monday that guiding principle was tossed in the trash can by Ottawa’s planning committee on the issue of the condominium development at 335 Roosevelt Ave.

On that Westboro side street where the zoning is seven storeys, Uniform Urban Developments received preliminary approval to demolish a one-storey building and build, not one, but two towers in a primarily residential neighbourhood. One condo is 14 storeys tall, the other 16 — double or more than the current zoning. So civic policy and law continue to be trampled. This represents a threat not just to the immediate community, but to neighbourhoods across the city.

Zoning is a contract between the people who live in a neighbourhood — many of whom have poured their heart and life’s savings into their family home — and their elected representatives, the municipal staff who serve the public, and those who would build in the community. Zoning tells buyers in a neighbourhood what they can reasonably expect when they make, in most cases, the biggest purchase of their lives and choose the environment in which they will live and raise their children. That contract is broken when zoning says seven storeys and planning committee approves 16. Zoning continues to be a mere suggestion in this city and breaking it destroys municipal credibility and the rule of law.

Noted British Justice Tom Bingham in his 2010 book called Rule of Law defined the principle:

“The core of the ... principle is ... that all persons and authorities within the state, whether public or private, should be bound by and entitled to the benefits of laws publicly made ... and publicly administered in the courts.”

And the Canadian Constitution, which ignores municipal government, certainly acknowledges the principle: “Canada is founded upon principles that recognize the supremacy of God and the rule of law.” Instead municipal government is but a creature of the provincial government, subject to the whims of the provincial cabinet and the legislature. And given how the City of Ottawa has routinely thrown out its own zoning legislation, it deserves to be less than an afterthought.

Not only is the legitimacy of the municipal government at stake, but the credibility of Mayor Jim Watson and planning committee chairman Peter Hume. Both recently made major speeches in the strongest of words saying the city will uphold its zoning bylaws. That they should even have to make those speeches is incredible, but that so shortly after, planning committee whisks through the Roosevelt development at double the zoned-for height, is beyond words.

In civil society, one would expect the servants of the public to uphold their own zoning bylaws, but this is Ottawa where the municipal staff often looks at the public as a nuisance. The planning department in its report on the project comes out strongly in support of the development and against its own zoning policy and the overwhelming will of the community that rightly wants the seven-storey rule upheld. Were the development within the city zoning and added something intriguing to the community, it would be valuable. New buildings should be so innovative that communities want, not dread them. But for the most part, that seems to be beyond Ottawa’s planners and developers.

Kitchissippi Councillor Katherine Hobbs immediately issued a release that touts her victory over her constituents on the Roosevelt development and tells Kitchissippi residents that Uniform has donated $200,000 for community development from the project. That’s roughly what the developer paid the community at the former Westboro convent. That’s what heritage and principle cost these days. Any cheaper and they’ll be on the clearance shelves at the Richmond Road Superstore.

Intensification, with its benefits for the environment and cutting civic costs, is important to the community. But even more vital is the rule of law without which progress in all public policy cannot proceed in an orderly fashion. And every time Ottawa city council, its standing committees and city staff change zoning for the convenience of people who want huge, rather than reasonable, profits on their new buildings, the legitimacy of municipal government takes a beating.

The rule of law promotes fairness; something that has been absolutely lost in Ottawa’s planning process. If they value their credibility, it’s up to Hume and Watson to put weight behind their words when this issue comes to city council on Dec. 14.

http://www.ottawacitizen.com/opinion...405/story.html

[Cre47]

Much better balanced article from Neco Cockburn

http://www.ottawacitizen.com/news/ot...878/story.html

[Cre47]

Originally Posted by gjhall

And the required KGray reaction:

Ah great! We can comment on this one. Finally! And yep I've used the term skyscraperpage-orginated term "suburplosion"

[S-Man]

Is there a world outside of Westboro that exists for KGrey? I've been hounding him to respond to the Ontario auditor general's report (mainly for fun) but he's not biting.

[Ottawan]

Originally Posted by Cre47

Ah great! We can comment on this one. Finally! And yep I've used the term skyscraperpage-orginated term "suburplosion"

Heh. Great!

[S-Man]

In addition to the post on the developer on KGrey's blog, there is also the usual slam against Hobbs and another against city hall and planning.

Surprise!

[Ottawan]

There is an excellent reasonable and balanced post on this development (and the ensuing havoc) by Eric Darwin on his WestSideAction blog:

http://westsideaction.wordpress.com/

Why can't more community activists be like Darwin & take different positions on different projects informed by facts, rather than taking the same position on everything based upon emotion?

[citizen j]

Originally Posted by Ottawan

There is an excellent reasonable and balanced post on this development (and the ensuing havoc) by Eric Darwin on his WestSideAction blog:

http://westsideaction.wordpress.com/

Why can't more community activists be like Darwin & take different positions on different projects informed by facts, rather than taking the same position on everything based upon emotion?

Good question! The answer seems to be that it's too much work and doesn't make for good infotainment. I mean 'news.'

[Proof Sheet]

Originally Posted by Ottawan

There is an excellent reasonable and balanced post on this development (and the ensuing havoc) by Eric Darwin on his WestSideAction blog:

http://westsideaction.wordpress.com/

Why can't more community activists be like Darwin & take different positions on different projects informed by facts, rather than taking the same position on everything based upon emotion?

The blog by Eric Darwin on this project was not typical of many of his postings which can be quite caustic to City Planners, developers, the consulting/development industry, anyone who drives a car....I find some of his suggestions to be very idealistic in nature...I also recall that on his blog he says something about being banned from City Hall...there must be a story to that...and he often agrees with Diane Holmes...

[waterloowarrior]

Originally Posted by Proof Sheet

The blog by Eric Darwin on this project was not typical of many of his postings which can be quite caustic to City Planners, developers, the consulting/development industry, anyone who drives a car....I find some of his suggestions to be very idealistic in nature...I also recall that on his blog he says something about being banned from City Hall...there must be a story to that...and he often agrees with Diane Holmes...

Maybe it is the Wordpress hosting site that is banned? When he was using "Blogspot" I remember seeing a blog posting of his sitting on one of the printers in the Planning Dept

[Proof Sheet]

Originally Posted by waterloowarrior

Maybe it is the Wordpress hosting site that is banned? When he was using "Blogspot" I remember seeing a blog posting of his sitting on one of the printers in the Planning Dept

Yes...now that I read it again it could be inferred that the blog not he is banned @ 110....

You work in the Planning Department....wow, now that is a surprise

[S-Man]

Not sure the exact reason for the city hall ban, but I'll give Darwin the time of day any day. He has a way of looking at things that I find unique and he's quite witty to boot. While some of his suggestions seem simplistic, they are always rooted in functionality, something which is sorely lacking in this city and many others (like sidewalks that go where people want to walk, rather than blindly following curbs). I rarely hear Diane Holmes' name on his blog.