Claridge Loop [70 Gloucester St]| 83m | 27fl | U/C

[harls]

Hudson Park

[Jamaican-Phoenix]

Originally Posted by McC

I think you mean the Opus proposal for Gilmour between O'Connor and Metcalf, there's a beautiful old school building on the corner of O'Connor (with gorgeous meeting rooms inside that are currently being used by community groups, NGOs, etc), with less-than-beautiful additions down the block: http://maps.google.com/maps?f=q&source=s_q&hl=en&geocode=&q=gilmour+and+o'connor+st,+ottawa&sll=37.0625,-95.677068&sspn=30.682067,55.634766&ie=UTF8&hq=&hnear=O'Connor+St+%26+Gilmour+St,+Ottawa,+Ottawa+Division,+Ontario+K2P+1V3,+Canada&ll=45.415021,-75.692912&spn=0,0.001698&z=19&layer=c&cbll=45.414991,-75.692987&panoid=fBsPhCzNK52XLYxcgserJg&cbp=12,102.96,,0,-1.61

I do believe that is the one. They were going to preserve the heritage part but get rid of the ugly addition.

[Davis137]

This looks quite promising! I hope this one gets approved!

[cityguy]

I really like the look of this building ,sleek modern design,but this being Ottawa most likely a few floors will be lopped off.

[Davis137]

Yeah...8 of them...that's my guess...lol

[Ottawan]

You know, Dianne Holmes was actually surprisingly constructive with Tribeca in the end, understanding that a grocer would be a boon to the community and working to make sure that the delivery truck access would be minimally detrimental to the surrounding area.

I think Council (hopefully including Holmes) realizes that a site like this, right on the boundary of the CBD and in a field of parking lots is the perfect area for a 27 story tower. I think the immediate neighbours in this northern part of Centretown will not be opposed either. I actually expect (maybe I'm just too optimistic) that this will in fact be approved by the city, no OMB challenge.

[K-133]

Originally Posted by Ottawan

You know, Dianne Holmes was actually surprisingly constructive with Tribeca in the end, understanding that a grocer would be a boon to the community and working to make sure that the delivery truck access would be minimally detrimental to the surrounding area.

I think Council (hopefully including Holmes) realizes that a site like this, right on the boundary of the CBD and in a field of parking lots is the perfect area for a 27 story tower. I think the immediate neighbours in this northern part of Centretown will not be opposed either. I actually expect (maybe I'm just too optimistic) that this will in fact be approved by the city, no OMB challenge.

I cringe to say it, but you are right regarding the betterment of the delivery bay.

[bikegypsy]

I love this project. Combined with Tribeca, it will dramatically change that part of downtown.
I wonder which other lots are owned by Claridge in the core.

[harls]

I found this old picture I took in April 2009, just so happens Tribeca and Nepean tower sites were directly in the shot. It is as if I planned it (not really).

Quick and lousy labels:

[m0nkyman]

Any surprises here?

Councillor's Comments:

Re: Zoning By-law Amendment Proposal 89-91 Nepean Street File D02-02-10-0088

- Application for Increase in height from the generally established 36 metres to 82.5 metres
- Application for Increase in density from 3.0 fsi to 11.0 fsi (as per developer's calculations)
- Application for Reduction in required communal area from 50% to 20%
- Application for Decreased visitor parking from 44 spaces to 0 spaces
- Application for Reduced front yard setback from 3.0 metres to 0 metres

1. The height and density of the proposed developed are grotesquely out of scale with the intent of the Official Plan high-profile residential designation for this area, where height is generally limited to 12 storeys and density to 3.0 fsi. The sizes requested are a gross overdevelopment of this small lot.

2. I am strongly opposed to the reduction of the front yard setback to 0 metres. With this massive development, the City of Ottawa should not be eliminating the small amount of open green space that is required under the zoning by-law. A building height of 27 storeys rising directly from the lot-line would be oppressive and overbearing.

3. The elimination of all visitor parking is unworkable. There is already a severe shortage of available on-street parking in this area.

4. I wish to see a calculation of the amount of private benefit being awarded to the applicant through the granting of this increased development potential - the number of additional units above that permitted under the existing zoning bylaw, and the potential profit to be achieved in the additional 15 storeys.

I see no public benefit in approving this development. For these reasons, the application should be rejected. As it is located within the Mid-Centretown Community Design Plan study area, it should be reviewed in that context.

Councillor Diane Holmes
Somerset Ward - City of Ottawa

[Jamaican-Phoenix]

Originally Posted by m0nkyman

Any surprises here?

I just want all of you to know...


I so f**king called it.

[migo]

Councillor's Comments, while looking in the mirror: "...oppressive and overbearing... "

OMB:

[c_speed3108]

Councillor's Comments:

Re: Zoning By-law Amendment Proposal 89-91 Nepean Street File D02-02-10-0088

- Application for Increase in height from the generally established 36 metres to 82.5 metres
- Application for Increase in density from 3.0 fsi to 11.0 fsi (as per developer's calculations)
- Application for Reduction in required communal area from 50% to 20%
- Application for Decreased visitor parking from 44 spaces to 0 spaces
- Application for Reduced front yard setback from 3.0 metres to 0 metres

1. The height and density of the proposed developed are grotesquely out of scale with the intent of the Official Plan high-profile residential designation for this area, where height is generally limited to 12 storeys and density to 3.0 fsi. The sizes requested are a gross overdevelopment of this small lot.

2. I am strongly opposed to the reduction of the front yard setback to 0 metres. With this massive development, the City of Ottawa should not be eliminating the small amount of open green space that is required under the zoning by-law. A building height of 27 storeys rising directly from the lot-line would be oppressive and overbearing.

3. The elimination of all visitor parking is unworkable. There is already a severe shortage of available on-street parking in this area.

4. I wish to see a calculation of the amount of private benefit being awarded to the applicant through the granting of this increased development potential - the number of additional units above that permitted under the existing zoning bylaw, and the potential profit to be achieved in the additional 15 storeys.

I see no public benefit in approving this development. For these reasons, the application should be rejected. As it is located within the Mid-Centretown Community Design Plan study area, it should be reviewed in that context.

Councillor Diane Holmes
Somerset Ward - City of Ottawa

I agree with her on point #3.

Point #1 is a matter of opinion to put it politely.

Point #2...uh how to much this. Greenspace...that is an interesting word for it. Litter and cigarette but space is another. I know someone that lives in a condo with a few meters of grass in front. It is a nightmare for them. They are now trying to construct some sort of fence, brick planter thing to deal with it.

On point #4 I don't have a clue what she is talking about.



Then there is this closing line: "I see no public benefit in approving this development."

Sorry this isn't Lansdowne park. This is private land. It is for private benefit not public benefit.

[McC]

Originally Posted by c_speed3108

I agree with her on point #3.

Then there is this closing line: "I see no public benefit in approving this development."

Sorry this isn't Lansdowne park. This is private land. It is for private benefit not public benefit.

Isn't the idea that if a developer wants to exceed the zoning/planning by 2.5 times that there should be some kind of public benefit in the deal?

[K-133]

Originally Posted by McC

Isn't the idea that if a developer wants to exceed the zoning/planning by 2.5 times that there should be some kind of public benefit in the deal?

Good point.

Though I think this would be a great addition to the city, it doesn't mean we should rollover to make it happen.

This one below sticks out to me. Is it simply due to the increase of floors i.e. decreasing the common to owner ration?

- Application for Reduction in required communal area from 50% to 20%

[c_speed3108]

Originally Posted by McC

Isn't the idea that if a developer wants to exceed the zoning/planning by 2.5 times that there should be some kind of public benefit in the deal?

I would normally agree, but...

The problem with most zoning in Ottawa is that most of it simply reflects current land uses and not what could be. When you dig through zoning of established areas, where no building has occurred in decades, you find the zoning reflects what is there and nothing more. If a particular piece of land has a slightly taller building, then it has a higher height limit, if the one next door is lower, the height limit is lower. There is no reason why two properties side by side have different height limits in zoning.

The number of one-off properties in Ottawa's land zoning is amazing. There is no reason why properties should be zoned on this one by one basis. When on an application like this, the whole block should be zoned. Whether different owners want to develop the additional height is there business.

If we zoned land more on it's potential, rather than what happens to be sitting there currently, we would not be having this debate every time someone wants to build anything. We do far too much rezoning in this city - this to me is a sign we don't have our zoning right in the first place.

[umbria27]

Originally Posted by McC

Isn't the idea that if a developer wants to exceed the zoning/planning by 2.5 times that there should be some kind of public benefit in the deal?

I think that's the point exactly. This is a fine looking building, better looking than 70% of our downtown buildings, but just because it's tall and looks nice, we shouldn't automatically exempt it from current zoning rules. Presumably the plan and zoning that currently exist for the site are part of a bigger picture. If the developer does not want to build to the existing plan, they need to be able to demonstrate the public benefit.

Some of the councilor's points may be nitpicky, but her point that this should be considered in context of the community development plan is correct. Does anybody have a link to this plan? Maybe the plan is wrong. Certainly I'm no fan of unnecessary setbacks in the urban core. Unless you are planning a restaurant patio, bike parking or some other use for that space, it's usually wasted. Maybe greater height and density is appropriate for this area, but I hate this planning by exception. If the plan it wrong, update it and rezone.

[K-133]

Originally Posted by umbria27

I think that's the point exactly. This is a fine looking building, better looking than 70% of our downtown buildings, but just because it's tall and looks nice, we shouldn't automatically exempt it from current zoning rules. Presumably the plan and zoning that currently exist for the site are part of a bigger picture. If the developer does not want to build to the existing plan, they need to be able to demonstrate the public benefit.

Some of the councilor's points may be nitpicky, but her point that this should be considered in context of the community development plan is correct. Does anybody have a link to this plan? Maybe the plan is wrong. Certainly I'm no fan of unnecessary setbacks in the urban core. Unless you are planning a restaurant patio, bike parking or some other use for that space, it's usually wasted. Maybe greater height and density is appropriate for this area, but I hate this planning by exception. If the plan it wrong, update it and rezone.

Exactly .

[Kitchissippi]

The thing is that developers will constantly undermine zoning and community design plans no matter what. It is the game they play. Zoning often sets the value of land, so it is bought and sold with this potential in mind. By pushing past the limits that developers rake in the profits.

In #4, the councillor is simply saying that the site is probably already profitable at the current height limit, so granting approval would likely increase Claridge's profits exponentially without real benefit to the city which would be left dealing with the resulting traffic and parking problems.

If zoning is to be revised, it has to be approached from the big picture, it should not be driven by individual projects. While I am not against any of these projects, I can see that Claridge has driven a strategic wedge with the Tribeca project, setting a precedent from which to stand on. That cancelled Portrait Gallery was a coup for them, a withdrawn carrot that caught the rabbit.

[phil235]

Originally Posted by umbria27

I think that's the point exactly. This is a fine looking building, better looking than 70% of our downtown buildings, but just because it's tall and looks nice, we shouldn't automatically exempt it from current zoning rules. Presumably the plan and zoning that currently exist for the site are part of a bigger picture. If the developer does not want to build to the existing plan, they need to be able to demonstrate the public benefit.

Some of the councilor's points may be nitpicky, but her point that this should be considered in context of the community development plan is correct. Does anybody have a link to this plan? Maybe the plan is wrong. Certainly I'm no fan of unnecessary setbacks in the urban core. Unless you are planning a restaurant patio, bike parking or some other use for that space, it's usually wasted. Maybe greater height and density is appropriate for this area, but I hate this planning by exception. If the plan it wrong, update it and rezone.

Well said. Planning by exception is clearly not the way to implement a coherent vision for the area.