335 Roosevelt Ave | 2x40m | 2x12f | Proposed

[rakerman]

Originally Posted by McC

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.

Actually it doesn't. The community money you want should come from high development charges. S37 should only apply, on TOP of high development charges, in the very rare cases where the developer makes a strong case for e.g. additional height.

Instead we have low (or zero) dev charges and developers build as high as they want, and so the city begs around for some scraps of S37 money (which it's clear will only ever be 100s of thousands, not some multi-million dollar bonanza).

[McC]

Originally Posted by rakerman

Actually it doesn't. The community money you want should come from high development charges. S37 should only apply, on TOP of high development charges, in the very rare cases where the developer makes a strong case for e.g. additional height.

Instead we have low (or zero) dev charges and developers build as high as they want, and so the city begs around for some scraps of S37 money (which it's clear will only ever be 100s of thousands, not some multi-million dollar bonanza).

Ok, that would work too. I was talking about s37 because they're frequently highlighted by the Councillor, her staff, planners and others here on the forum as how we'll solve any challenges growing out of intensifying old neighborhoods like those in Kitchissippi. Cheers.

[Cre47]

Rational? Reasonable? Oh please!
http://blogs.ottawacitizen.com/2011/...-angry-ottawa/

[waterloowarrior]

Appealed to the OMB

[S-Man]

Hopefully they'll get their 7-storey rectangle so that they can live in peace and get on with their own lives......

[waterloowarrior]

OMB hearing starts 8 May 2012
http://www.omb.gov.on.ca/ecs/CaseDetail.aspx?n=PL120109

[Skipper]

Originally Posted by waterloowarrior

OMB hearing starts 8 May 2012
http://www.omb.gov.on.ca/ecs/CaseDetail.aspx?n=PL120109

OMB appeal adjourned to August 15th

[kevinbottawa]

Not happy with this ruling at all.

OMB shoots down rezoning for Westboro condo towers

By David Reevely, The Ottawa Citizen June 12, 2012 10:02 PM

OTTAWA — Opponents of two condo towers overlooking the Transitway trench in Westboro have won a victory from the Ontario Municipal Board, which found that the city’s planning documents are supposed to mean what they say.

The two buildings at 335 Roosevelt Ave. were designed to be 14 and 16 storeys tall. Their would-be builder, Uniform Urban Developments, made the case that they’d hold the same number of units, but be more attractive — taller but slimmer — than the four-to-six storey apartments allowed under the existing zoning. In December, over many nearby residents’ objections, city council signed off on the zoning change permitting the taller structures.

But in a ruling Tuesday, the OMB (which can overrule cities’ planning decisions) said the change is much bigger than just a zoning amendment. The city’s official plan says that 335 Roosevelt is a place for four-to-six-storey buildings, wrote OMB member Marc Denhez in his decision, and that’s supposed to mean something. The city argued the plan’s rules can be adjusted for certain projects when they suit larger planning objectives.

No, wrote Denhez. “Ontarians for all stripes — developers, municipal officials, and the citizenry at large — rely on Official Plans to bring a modicum of predictability to an otherwise uncertain urban world,” he wrote. “Measures — and decisions — that introduce uncertainty and unpredictability to planning documents can potentially compromise the very purpose of ‘planning,’ and affect the ‘clarity’ and credibility of the system as a whole.”

In other words, Uniform’s buildings would require an amendment to the official plan, not just a zoning change.

Gay Stinson, a resident who opposes the project, called the ruling “wonderful” Tuesday afternoon. The builder may want to go ahead, she said, but an official plan amendment isn’t as easy to get.

“The process for that ought to be, and as far as I know would have to be, more consultative and broadly based than these one-off spot rezonings,” she said. Changes to suit Uniform would have to be considered in the context of the whole neighbourhood, which would mean input from developers, residents and the city’s planners on how Westboro in general should develop.

Uniform’s general manager, George Georgaras, said he and his staff were just reading the ruling and had nothing to say about it yet.

The area’s councillor, Katherine Hobbs, wrote in a statement the city already has a review of Westboro’s “community design plan” on its agenda (it was announced in April) and she’s looking forward to the results.

“Without certainty, the process is unfair for residents in interpreting the guiding document for development in our community. Residents should not have to go to the OMB to have this certainty, and I am confident that we can strengthen our CDP right through this process and avoid another protracted situation like this again,” she wrote.

Denhez’s ruling stopped with the finding that the change of plans for 335 Roosevelt was big enough to demand an official-plan amendment and explicitly says nothing about whether taller buildings are generally right for the area.

dreevely@ottawacitizen.com

ottawacitizen.com/greaterottawa

© Copyright (c) The Ottawa Citizen

Read more: http://www.ottawacitizen.com/news/sh...#ixzz1xdTeGid1

[waterloowarrior]

decision: "This case is about Official Plans meaning what they say."
http://hintonburg.com/FendorOMB.pdf

[J.OT13]

Lets hear for another lot line to lot line box!!!

[McC]

Originally Posted by kevinbottawa

Not happy with this ruling at all.

but on what grounds would you have ruled differently? the thing to be unhappy about is the case, as the ruling is pretty unassailable, IMHO. The OMB usually over-rules council when there is inconsistency in the plans; here, both plans are consistent and council was not. The buildings seemed like pretty good buildings, but that doesn't change the fact that both the Official and Secondary (i.e. Westboro CDP) Plans were consistent about what type of development was planned for this location. So what the OMB rules is that if Council wants something different than planned, then Council has to amend the plan, as required by the governing legislation. This is very different than say 99 Parkdale where the Official Plan says build waaay up, the zoning says build "partway up" and there is no CDP, or Somerset and Breezehill where the Official Plan might be somewhat ambiguous (IIUC), and the Secondary plan doesn't cover the part of the property where the tower would go, etc. in cases like these, the OMB would have to sort out a number of questions in ruling on a hypothetical case. Here the case before the Board couldn't be much simpler to rule on, from the ruling:

The Board has now carefully considered the submissions of both sides. The Board finds that (i) the “maximum” of “4-6 storeys” was part of the OP; and (ii) heights of 14-16 storeys did not “conform therewith” as required by the Planning Act (“Act”). An OP is a list of “goals, objectives and policies”, to “manage and direct physical change”. Although municipalities often conclude that there might be better ways to achieve public objectives than what they had previously listed in their OP’s, the Act does not provide them with discretion to ignore what they had previously stated. If the City found the current proposal so attractive that it wanted to digress from its OP, the correct statutory process would include an OPA [Official Plan Amendment, McC]. That is what OPA’s are for. On the motion, the Board finds that the OP does prohibit the height applied for; an OPA would be required. The appeal is allowed on that point.

(emphasis mine)

[Luker]

Oh I am just absolutely delighted with this result; I am ecstatic this lot can now be filled to the edge with a communist era six story box made of stucco press-form

[Dado]

Originally Posted by Luker

Oh I am just absolutely delighted with this result; I am ecstatic this lot can now be filled to the edge with a communist era six story box made of stucco press-form

So, what you're trying to say is that Ottawa's developers are absolutely incapable of producing anything decent-looking under ten storeys?

The only reason - the ONLY reason - what you suggest would happen is if the developer chooses to do so. Good design is independent of height.

As it happens, there's nothing wrong with the adjacent Taiga building (at least that's how the OMB report refers to it). Sure, it's not a wall of glass (which is not exactly environmentally friendly anyway), but it's not ugly like the pair of buildings north of Golden or those at Island Park Towers - all of which, I might point out, are a lot taller. I found the developer's use of that building as somehow something to fear rather insulting.

[Dado]

Originally Posted by waterloowarrior

decision: "This case is about Official Plans meaning what they say."
http://hintonburg.com/FendorOMB.pdf

That's a bit of a new approach for the OMB.

It's amusing, in its own way.

Council, faced with a planning report supporting the changes and with plenty of experience of being overruled by the OMB in cases where it had upheld its own plans against the advice of planning staff, opted this time to go along with the planning department and presumably avoid another instance of being overruled by the OMB, ends up instead being overruled anyway by the OMB for not upholding its own plans.




Part of the OMB's rationale this time for not allowing the extra height was related to a point on traditional mainstreets in that this site is not along a street that is or is trying to be a traditional mainstreet, whereas its previous overrulings for developments in the area covered by the same planning documents were on traditional mainstreets (McRae should get interesting, as might the old CBC site next to Westboro Station...). Sites on traditional mainstreets are apparently more amenable to things that detract from a traditional mainstreet environment like adding extra height than are sites not on traditional mainstreets.

In a sane world, one might expect the opposite: it would be on 'traditional' mainstreets that adding extra height would be difficult and on sites not along traditional mainstreets where extra flexibility to add extra height might exist. But such are the joys of the combined planning framework created by the City and the OMB.

[McC]

Originally Posted by Dado

So, what you're trying to say is that Ottawa's developers are absolutely incapable of producing anything decent-looking under ten storeys?

thankfully, this very common opinion has been proved wrong in recent years by a handful of developers, Charlesfort's Glasgow, Domicile's Exchange, and UC's Central, being among the most obvious examples. The fact of the matter is that until just as recently, Ottawa's developers were equally incapable of producing much of anything decent-looking over ten storeys, too; again -- thankfully -- this is changing.

Originally Posted by Dado

Sites on traditional mainstreets are apparently more amenable to things that detract from a traditional mainstreet environment like adding extra height than are sites not on traditional mainstreets.

ouch!

[Nepean]

Originally Posted by McC

but on what grounds would you have ruled differently? the thing to be unhappy about is the case, as the ruling is pretty unassailable, IMHO. The OMB usually over-rules council when there is inconsistency in the plans; here, both plans are consistent and council was not. The buildings seemed like pretty good buildings, but that doesn't change the fact that both the Official and Secondary (i.e. Westboro CDP) Plans were consistent about what type of development was planned for this location. So what the OMB rules is that if Council wants something different than planned, then Council has to amend the plan, as required by the governing legislation. This is very different than say 99 Parkdale where the Official Plan says build waaay up, the zoning says build "partway up" and there is no CDP, or Somerset and Breezehill where the Official Plan might be somewhat ambiguous (IIUC), and the Secondary plan doesn't cover the part of the property where the tower would go, etc. in cases like these, the OMB would have to sort out a number of questions in ruling on a hypothetical case. Here the case before the Board couldn't be much simpler to rule on, from the ruling:

(emphasis mine)

I agree with your point. As someone who supports urban densification, I am disappointed by this ruling because it will stop a project that I supported. However, as a point of law, my initial reading is that the OMB ruled correctly.

As I understand this ruling, the City has not been prevented from rezoning an area, nor has any judgement been made on whether tall buildings are appropriate for Westboro. Rather, the ruling simply says that the City must follow it's Official Plan when approving projects, and that in this case it failed to do so. That seems a legitimate point to make.

[Luker]

Well actually, economics comes in to play of course: you buy plot of land X for so much based on the current land valuation, but also on the speculation and insight of knowing market trends (socioeconomic data and projections) , builder desires/trends, and of course speculative beliefs.. Evidently, as such, the building quality and height are interdependent; lower building heights results in driving up the prices of inner-city developments dramatically i.e. intensification, it lessens the potential housings stock, reduces the opportunity for architectural creativity/uniqueness.. Additionally the smaller scale of projects increases operating inefficiencies during construction (more $$$ to end consumer) while also reducing the number of creative or sustainable efficiency that can now be achieved in modern, advanced structures (i.e. LEEDS), and other sustainable propositions which are not cost effective or achievable in smaller building. While from a broad perspective we also short change and limit ourselves the opportunity to remake our communities into vibrant , semi-dense (because were not atm), walk-able, mixed-used, communities from the current fascination of large lots & single family homes, or in this community particularly, the extreme: McMansions. WILL SOMEBODY THINK OF THE CHILDREN!

Furthermore, to attest to the aforementioned statements, just look at our own context, in terms of builders history and qualities, you will certainly find that the 'smaller' projects do not offer nearly as much to the community and city. Getting the builder/owner to put in retail or mixed-use is hard enough as is, let alone hoping for a high end qualities, sustainable goals, LEEDS building, or high end eco glass, etc...: Centropolis, Stonework Lofts (near the fendor site), The two sites developed at Island Park/Richmond at the Loeb, this planned building, http://westsideaction.blogspot.ca/20...eet-condo.html, as community activist Eric Darwin notes in this write up...

Moreover, if we look at the eco-cite on the canal (and its inability to sell the 20 or so units built) across from Landsdowne, we can explicitly see how UNsuccessful, UNaffordable, and difficult it can be to develop quality (and especially unique, beautiful, pragmatic, advanced, sustainable) buildings on a small-scale.

[Luker]

Originally Posted by McC

thankfully, this very common opinion has been proved wrong in recent years by a handful of developers, Charlesfort's Glasgow, Domicile's Exchange, and UC's Central, being among the most obvious examples. The fact of the matter is that until just as recently, Ottawa's developers were equally incapable of producing much of anything decent-looking over ten storeys, too; again -- thankfully -- this is changing.


ouch!

I don't see how those buildings relate all that well to this site now as it is planned/zoned for 4-6 and further the developments arent what shining examples of great infill and condo building, however they all did play a different roll in introducing condos to certain neighbourhoods of the city.

As the Glasgow was a nice development and still is aesthetically pleasing, although it COMPLETELY ignores the streetscape and surrounding environment, it also doesn't offer retail or mixed-use accommodations of any type. The Central development is a HUGE downtown revitalization project with an artsy modernist style with a historical inner-city churchs facade attached; I don't see anything like this happening on the Fendor site in terms of scale, mass, style, livability, and uses. Last the Domicile Exchange is totally mundane and boring to me, has poor scaling, setbacks, and artichetual qualities, and again this isnt what it CALLED for by the City Plan or OMB, it calls for 4-6 now which doesn't make a ton of sense and will result in another average middle to lower end looking tower... Just what this city has always liked to produce from the feds to the city to the NCC...

[McC]

@Luker, yes there are appropriate scales for development where it becomes more efficient to do certain things, but you are arguing that these buildings have to be 14 storeys to acheive these efficiencies. However, how often do we hear (from developers and boosters around these parts) that a building can't be 14 storeys because that's not tall enough to get all the good things we want, therefore, it has to be... The argument makes no sense when divorced from the specific economics of the builder, the site and features envisaged, etc... Otherwise, 14 storeys can't be both perfectly efficient (here on pricey land in Westboro) and self-evidently inefficient, say on a much more marginal piece of land like 99 Parkdale. (I am not saying that 99 Parkdale should be 14 storeys, I like the design of that building at 28, but the argument there, from the same architect as this project, was that 14 storeys would be inefficient).

And guess what? There are efficiencies found in smaller buildings, too: fewer elevators (they spend less time in transit), wood frame construction, less costly digs for parking lots, no Section 37 extortion, speed to market (beating competition to sales, lower financing/carrying costs during a shorter project period, etc.)

By the way, the two buildings by the Metro (on Wellington, not Richmond), the Picadilly and the slightly off target Wellington-atIsland-Park, are both mixed use buildings, so I'm not sure what point you were trying to make in your second paragraph.

As for the EcoCité gong show. Weren't those units sold initially? before the builder went bankrupt? it's their re-sale that isn't happening, and golly, can you blame people? I think the history of the builder is more to blame than the scale of the building for encouraging buyers to keep their distance. Domicile has no problem attracting buyers to smaller buildings, and designing these smaller building to a relatively high spec (not that I share their passion for beige and grey as a "colour" palette).

Lastly, it's pretty laughable to suggest that we're failing to redevelop Westboro "into vibrant , semi-dense (because were not atm), walk-able, mixed-used, communities," Westboro is certainly already those things. Hey, I think these two buildings, as designed would have made a positive contribution to the area, making it even more of those good things, but don't tell me that Westboro is doomed by their absence.

[citizen j]

Perhaps Uniform Urban Developments should put forward something similar to the proposed 3-storey townhouses over at 450 Churchill Ave. The neighbours there seem just fine with that proposal (if you overlook the ongoing OMB hearing).