HomeDiagramsDatabaseMapsForum About
     

Go Back   SkyscraperPage Forum > Regional Sections > Canada > Ontario > Ottawa-Gatineau > Downtown & City of Ottawa


Reply

 
Thread Tools Display Modes
     
     
  #21  
Old Posted Nov 29, 2012, 4:02 AM
Nepean Nepean is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Oct 2011
Posts: 141
Quote:
Originally Posted by kevinbottawa View Post
Do developers need to be forced to add the businesses you've listed? I'm sure they're capable of identifying what the demand is in the neighbourhood.

Looking at the renders of what the area will look like in the future, it's still very early in the process. The building boom in that area hasn't even started yet. All we've seen are proposals, either recently approved or yet to be approved. I'm sure the services you've listed will be added in some of the developments that are coming.
I am not as confident as you that essential services will organically appear in future condo developments on Preston without some political pressure. Perhaps the word "forced" is too strong, but I do believe that the City has a role to play in providing a vision that guides developers.

The City would be well within its means to say something like this to a developer: "If you want to construct a building with 150 to 200 condo units then you must provide a service to the community. This could mean leasing to a supermarket at ground level, building daycare space, providing a community centre, or something similar."

Unless they are building rental units, a developer does not have to worry about the long-term. Once they sell all of the units in a building they can move on to the next project. As such, there is no market pressure that encourages the installation of long-term commercial retailers. That is why the City has to be intelligent in regards to zoning and encouraging retail.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #22  
Old Posted Nov 29, 2012, 4:11 AM
waterloowarrior's Avatar
waterloowarrior waterloowarrior is online now
National Capital Region
 
Join Date: Nov 2005
Location: Eastern Ontario
Posts: 9,243
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #23  
Old Posted Nov 29, 2012, 2:48 PM
McC's Avatar
McC McC is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Apr 2010
Posts: 3,057
Quote:
Originally Posted by Nepean View Post
The City would be well within its means to say something like this to a developer: "If you want to construct a building with 150 to 200 condo units then you must provide a service to the community. This could mean leasing to a supermarket at ground level, building daycare space, providing a community centre, or something similar."
I agree, but unfortunately the city doesn't do this very well at all (and if you ask a City Planner why they don't look at things like #'s of day care spaces, wait lists, and forecast demand in a catchment area -- like they do at least superficially for transit and road capacity, they'll turn their nose up and say "those are social services, we do land use planning," as if an essential social service isn't an important use of land).

Another issue is that the individual parcels of develop-able land are often each owned by different companies that go through the planning, design, approvals and construction processes separately and on different schedules; and each individual development lot might not be the right size/configuration for something like a grocery store, or to offer a day care with sufficient safe exterior play space, etc. It *could* be the role of the City to say that "these two neighbouring lots will be approved for development in configuration X if they cooperate on the construction to provide Y space for a grocery store and Z space for a day care in their podium." I think that this is essentially what was done with Claridge at Tribeca, but it was easy there because it was one *really* big plot of land owned by one big developer, so no coordination problem. In my neck of the woods, I think that it would make a lot of sense for 99 Parkdale and 111 Parkdale to dig out and build their parkades and podium together at once: with one big hole and one big structure, (and one set of contractors) you could presumably find a number of efficiencies, and then you'd have a much more flexible space in that one large podium for different uses than you do in two podia of half the size. (though this not my ideal location for a grocery store) But 99 Parkdale is already approved, and 111 is slowly working it's way through the colon of the planning department, so the opportunity to impose this cooperation was missed -- not to say that Urbandale and Tega couldn't do exactly this on their own when it comes time for construction and jointly hire a contractor and builder, etc... but I wouldn't trust a partnership with Tega! ;-)

That said, this would be a very "dirigiste" approach for city government, and this kind of activism can have its own consequences and can spread dangerously to other areas of decisionmaking. Decisions that look good at the time could in a generation come to be viewed in much the same way we look back on post-war "urban renewal." Careful what you wish for, etc.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #24  
Old Posted Nov 29, 2012, 4:46 PM
umbria27's Avatar
umbria27 umbria27 is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Jun 2009
Location: Ottawa
Posts: 287
Quote:
Originally Posted by spotlight View Post
I wish these people would just move away to a small village if all they want is low rises... you live in a metropolitan area that has 1.4 million people !!!!!!! yeah there's going to be high rises and lots more of them get used to it..

I was having dinner on preston Last night and it was rather quiet for a Sunday night and I told myself how amazing and vibrant Preston is going to be soon with all these new condo projects bringing people and life to the area.. soon more shops and other amenities will be planned and built.

I mean come on... it's not like you live in Greely and they're planning to surround you with condo towers .. You live in Freakin little italy in the urban core of the city ...
Essentially, what you are saying is that there can be no reasonable objection to any high rise in the urban core of Ottawa. All should be rubber stamped. Your absolutism is the same as NIMBY absolutism. A NIMBY objects to every high rise. You support every one. Who knew urban planning was so simple!

There are basically two ways to achieve Ottawa's density targets, either Paris style ubiquitous mid-rises or a mix of low, mid and high rise. Councillor Hume is quoted elsewhere on this site, explaining that the very reason you have high-rises in one area is so that you have the leeway to preserve low-rises in another.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #25  
Old Posted Nov 29, 2012, 4:59 PM
McC's Avatar
McC McC is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Apr 2010
Posts: 3,057
Quote:
Originally Posted by umbria27 View Post
...explaining that the very reason you have high-rises in one area is so that you have the leeway to preserve low-rises in another.
+1
at the very least 'for the time being'. There are so many vacant and under-developed properties in the area which community, city and developers already *all* agree should be developed with high-rises... Fill them all first, and if there's still demand, let's talk again then, m'kay?
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #26  
Old Posted Nov 30, 2012, 8:56 PM
Nepean Nepean is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Oct 2011
Posts: 141
Interesting blog post from David Reevely.

Quote:
Why the Norman Street condo proposal is different

This condominium proposal for Little Italy is only one of many in the area — I’ve written a lot lately about the condo boom around the Carling O-Train station, so many projects I don’t think I could name them all — but it is the one that got dozens and dozens of people out to an evening meeting to talk about what’s going on.

An established conflict in that area, at the south end of Preston Street, is whether tall buildings should be confined to Carling Avenue (which everyone is pretty much OK with) or should be allowed to head north up Preston some distance (which is controversial, because Preston Street merchants in particular are worried that the towers will just stomp their way north through Little Italy’s low-rises).

The Soho Italia building, which city council has approved, is north on Preston and suggests that the city is cool with at least some movement in that direction. If you believe Darwin, that’s pretty much the plan. And Norman Street is significantly north of the Soho Italia.

The argument for tall buildings on Carling is that it’s a busy artery and they won’t interfere with anybody’s enjoyment of the street. They may even help the streetscape, by bringing more people to what Clive Doucet memorably called a “traffic sewer.” Whether that justification should apply to Preston, or whether Preston is just fine as it is, is a matter of judgment on which I think reasonable people can disagree: Preston isn’t as big a road as Carling, but it’s still big, and if you design the buildings and the street right, more people should probably be an asset. Your judgment probably depends on just how attached you are to the current “feel” of Preston.

The Norman Street proposal is a step beyond that. Norman is a minor road that runs east-west off Preston; the proposed 18-storey condo building is close to Preston but not on it. As it stands, the northwest corner of Preston has the Black Cat Bistro on it, in a little two-storey building, and west of it on Norman there are a couple of houses and then a couple of light industrial buildings. Past them, more houses, and then a dead end and the O-Train tracks. It’s not a lovely block (with apologies to the people who live there) but as a general rule, it’s not the sort of place where Ottawa drops in 18-storey towers.

Ordinarily the city’s official plan is in favour of quite tall buildings on major roads like Carling, medium-height buildings on walkable commercial streets like Preston, and leaving blocks like Norman pretty much alone. Maybe you’d get two houses knocked together to make a triplex, or a four-storey apartment or something.

Additionally, the proposed tower would only cover half the block, replacing the industrial buildings and some houses along Norman but not the houses they back onto, which face the next street to the north. The quarters are pretty tight. Existing property owners on Beech Street, which is that next street, would have a condo build right beyond their back fences.

Here’s a clip from would-be builder Tamarack’s documentation in support of the project. It’s a graphic designed to show the pedestrian routes around the joint, but it’s the best thing I could find for showing how the building would land on the block:

As I say, this is not the sort of development that the official plan, for all its foibles and flaws, usually promotes. Indeed, under the rules in force today, the site’s designated for “residential low-profile” uses, which means a lot fewer than 18 storeys. But then, it’s also part of a “mixed-use” district, which allows a big range of building heights in addition to encouraging combinations of, e.g., stores and residences.

You can read Tamarack’s rationale for yourself here. Among other things, you’ll see how all the different overlays of rules make it hard to be definitive about what’s allowed and what’s not.

Maybe the Norman proposal really does make sense on its merits, and maybe the complex set of different rules that apply to the property allow it. But when you hear about it, keep in mind that this one isn’t just any old downtown condo proposal. It would set several precedents by doing things that downtown condo proposals do not usually do. Both specifically, for Preston Street in particular, and generally, for how we fit new towers onto existing residential blocks.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #27  
Old Posted Dec 1, 2012, 9:30 PM
JackBauer24 JackBauer24 is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Nov 2010
Posts: 748
Quote:
Originally Posted by phil235 View Post
When you boil your argument down, you seem to be saying that things change, so what is the point in having a CDP at all? Or that older neighbourhoods don't need plans? I'm very pro-development on most issues, and think a wall of highrises facing Dow's Lake is actually a great idea, but in my opinion your comments go well beyond anything appoaching a balanced viewpoint.

No one is opposing life an buzz in a neighbourhood. In fact, the CDP provides plenty of opportunity for that. What people are saying is that an overall vision for the area is required. And the CDP process allows for various viewpoints to be incorporated, rather than letting things happen in a haphazard way, dependent only on which developer buys which lot. To discount the interests of all of the various groups that play a role in the CDP is a little bit arrogant, no?

Right now, an overall vision is sorely lacking in Little Italy. For instance, you would surely agree that parks and urban squares are critical elements of a high density neighbourhood. There is almost no provision for either, and the existing passive parks along Dow's Lake do not serve the same purpose. And how about the various governement labs built in the early part of the century? Should we be leaving that to the whims of developers, or taking some steps to preserve some of the history of the area?

Without some planning and foresight, you could end up with a neighbourhood of bland condos, a Subway and Tim Hortons on every second corner, and no services or public spaces to speak of. I'm not sure how that makes for a more vibrant community or a better city.

And for the record, most of the residents that I have heard quoted are quite receptive to condos - they just want to ensure that development is done in a sensible way.
You've raised some very interesting points and questions. While I'm very much pro-high rise development, it is important that the developments plans make sense for the existing residents, the future residents and the builders themselves.

With the city desifying its core, there are going to be many little pockets of neighbourhoods that are going to be completely re-vamped - Little Italy is first, but Hintonburg/Mechanicsville, New Edinborough and Chinatown will be next, and they will all encounter the same issues that the builders and the community of Little Italy are facing today.

From the builders side, the market is demanding more high-rises near the centre of the city, but until recently the City had been hesitant to approve any buildings over 20-25 stories. Even with the City's more relaxed approval process, it's still very expensive for Vendor's to go through that process if they want any of the zoning restrictions changed (which is almost always the case). But since the market is demanding high-rises, the Vendor's are still willing to go through it. But then it becomes a cost issue - the more unique designs you create as a builder (eg. the lower townhouses for the Norman St. project), the less total units you can build. The less total units you build, the higher their prices have to be to recoop the total costs of the project. So in order for the builders to guarantee the project will be worth their while, because the initial approval process costs for a high-rise are higher than other project options, the average price of a condo increases, or the builder crams in as many studio or 1 bdrm condos as possible. It also leaves the builder with less money to design a very aesthetically pleasing base or to include spaces for commercial. In short, if the City had a more refined and streamlined process to handle these zoning restriction changes, the Vendor's would be able to design more "crowd pleasing" designs, plans and features, .

From the current residences side, they have lived in Little Italy (or any of the above mentioned neighbourhoods) for quite awhile, most of them well before the O-Train was built. Up until 5-6 years ago, aside from the O-Train, the neighbourhood basically remaining untouched. But after the O-Train was completed, both the Adobe buildings were built and Preston St. was renovated, and then came the condo approvals. Coming from an Ottawan who lived in the same neighbourhood for 25+ years, I can completely understand the feelings of attachment one has to a neighbourhood, but I have less sympathy for them as their property values are going to go through the roof as the demand to live in Little Italy grows and grows. With the projected growth in their home equity, in a few years they can sell their 3-4 bdrm houses and make a very pretty penny doing so. Pretty enough to buy any retirement home outright. So I understand the fear of having something change in your neighbourhood, but it's not as if these changes are only going to have a negative impact - embrace the fact Little Italy is close to downtown and you were lucky not to have very many changes over the last few decades, but growing cities need space to grow. If you live that close to the downtown core and expected your neighbourhood and property to remain completely unchanged during that time, then I would say that's just a little short-sighted.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #28  
Old Posted Dec 5, 2012, 12:53 AM
RTWAP's Avatar
RTWAP RTWAP is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Oct 2009
Posts: 528
Quote:
Originally Posted by Harley613 View Post
ahhh...is the line i drew along the tracks on the left a walkway? i wasn't aware of this, i was thinking of the path with the arrows. That's barely a walk at all if so!
Yes. There is a path beside the O-Train. Apparently it used to be scattered sections, connected by 'informal' paths through brush. The city is turning into a bike/ped corridor all the way to the river. Check out the westsideaction blog for lots of construction details over the last year or so.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #29  
Old Posted Dec 5, 2012, 1:05 AM
RTWAP's Avatar
RTWAP RTWAP is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Oct 2009
Posts: 528
Quote:
Originally Posted by Nepean View Post
Most of the time I support condo developments but this project doesn't make sense to me. Norman is a dead-end street that cannot handle a lot of car traffic. Now a developer wants to shove 159 units into a small space. Good luck with that.
I don't understand that statement. I'm not a traffic engineer so I'm just trying to figure this out from common sense, but here's my take.

We've got about 100m of road, and 200m of sidewalk that sees a grand total of about 50 cars a day. There is no through traffic. At all.

If there's a better location to put an additional traffic load then I don't know where it is.

And adding a light at Preston and Norman not only isn't necessary, it would make the situation worse for those entering the street. Currently if you're trying to turn left onto Norman you can expect the lights at Beech to stop southbound traffic regularly during busy times. And that also stops the flow of traffic that prevents a left turn. If the lights were synced then you'd probably get a red at Norman with the red at Beech which means only the left turner in the intersection gets to clear it.

The only thing I'd be worried about is traffic leaving Norman for Preston. I wonder if the developer would have a better chance if they bought one of the houses on Beech and turned it into a back exit from the complex.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #30  
Old Posted Dec 5, 2012, 3:40 PM
amanfromnowhere's Avatar
amanfromnowhere amanfromnowhere is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Jul 2007
Location: Ottawa/Stockholm
Posts: 367
Quote:
Originally Posted by RTWAP View Post
We've got about 100m of road, and 200m of sidewalk that sees a grand total of about 50 cars a day. There is no through traffic. At all.
Quote:
Originally Posted by RTWAP View Post
I wonder if the developer would have a better chance if they bought one of the houses on Beech and turned it into a back exit from the complex.
and it becomes through traffic road...
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #31  
Old Posted Nov 21, 2013, 12:44 AM
J.OT13's Avatar
J.OT13 J.OT13 is offline
Moderator
 
Join Date: Mar 2012
Location: Ottawa
Posts: 23,844
New proposal;





Quote:
Over on Norman, a little dead end street running between Preston and the new OTrain bike and pedestrian path, Tamarack’s proposal there continues to change. Originally proposed as an slim 18 storey tower, it’s now down to a wider 9, beside a lower-rise wing of 5 stories (or as the developer insists, its 3 with a 2 storey setback on top, with a still-slim tower at the end of a podium):

97 norman, elevation, fall 2013



(above: the mid-rise tower is abutting the OTrain greenspace on the left; Preston is a few houses out of the picture, to the right).

perspective, low, fall 2013

I still see significant problems ahead for this building, including the four storey height limit for the low rise portion just set out in the recent CDP; and George Dark’s professional opinion delivered to Planning Committee that even nine stories cannot work on a dead end street.

He suggested a “mews” running along the OTrain corridor, which appears to be (thankfully) comatose right now. The latest “urban amenity plan” now underway by Toronto-based The Planning Partnership favours the developer(s) building private laneways through mid-block, but Taggart/Tamarack haven’t yet bought the house for sale directly behind their building, which would allow them to put a exit onto Beech.

There is no turning around room on the narrow one way street; vehicles have to avail themselves of finding a unused private driveway for turning. Without some way of handling taxis and para transpo to the front door, this may become Ottawa’s first inaccessible building. Who will sue first?

The City is being very adamant that the proponent not address this access issue at the rezoning stage, leaving it for the “details” stage of site plan. How extraordinary! I have no doubt this is because they know the work-around will enrage the public, putting the rezoning at risk.

I’m putting my bets on the city contributing a chunk of the OTrain greenway for a turning circle at the end of the street. After all, the neighbourhood has such an abundance of parkland that the planners now call the slopes of the Queensway “public green space” in a desperate attempt to show some parkland in the coming high rise jungle.

elevation showing MUP, fall 2013



(above: temping OTrain green corridor shown on the left, that some want to pave to improve road access permitting even larger developments)

In another bit of Extraordinary, the width of the zone along the OTrain corridor that is acceptable for mid-rise development doesn’t seem to be subject to any sort of tape measure, ie the size of the zone is left as a general indication on a map. No actual dimensions provided. It’s not surprising, therefore, that the size of the tower seems to have gotten much much wider as it got shorter from its original proposed 18 stories to the current 9. Indeed, it’s an open invitation for developers to push the boundaries, and Taggart seems to be walking through that door.
http://www.westsideaction.com/new-co...-springing-up/
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #32  
Old Posted Jan 3, 2014, 5:31 PM
rocketphish's Avatar
rocketphish rocketphish is online now
Planet Ottawa and beyond
 
Join Date: Feb 2009
Location: Ottawa
Posts: 12,212
Tamarack cuts plans for Norman Street tower by half

OBJ Staff, Published on January 03, 2014

A developer is asking the city for permission to build a nine-storey tower on Norman Street in Ottawa’s Little Italy.


Tamarack Developments had originally proposed an 18-storey tower at the site. That proposal “was not well-received by the community” and did not get the support of city staff, according to a revised planning rationale filed with the city in late October.

The 24,000-square foot site consists of several municipal addresses between 93 and 105 Norman St. and is boarded by the O-Train corridor on its western side.

The new development plan calls for nine storeys along the O-Train corridor stepping down to three storeys closer to Preston Street, which is east of the site. Approximately 50 per cent of the development would nine-storeys.

The plan also calls for nine two-storey townhouses along Norman Street.

The building would have 117 units, half of which are to be two-bedroom units. Of the remaining units, 32 per cent will have one bedroom and 10 per cent will be studios.

The building would have two storeys of underground parking, providing 94 spaces.

http://www.obj.ca/Real-Estate/Reside...ower-by-half/1
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #33  
Old Posted Jan 3, 2014, 5:50 PM
Boxster's Avatar
Boxster Boxster is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: May 2012
Posts: 996
Great location on side street...however, it may appear as a dwarf when the other planned towers go up from it's location to Carling.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #34  
Old Posted Feb 19, 2014, 2:57 AM
rocketphish's Avatar
rocketphish rocketphish is online now
Planet Ottawa and beyond
 
Join Date: Feb 2009
Location: Ottawa
Posts: 12,212
Tamarack cuts controversial Little Italy condo proposal to nine storeys

By David Reevely, OTTAWA CITIZEN February 18, 2014 6:51 PM




OTTAWA — A builder has pulled back on plans to construct an 18-storey condo building overlooking the O-Train tracks on the edge of Little Italy, though the nine-storey proposal that’s replaced it would still be a huge change for the neighbourhood.

Crucially, Tamarack Homes’ new plan for the west end of Norman Street fits with “strategic directions” city council has approved for south end Preston Street near Carling Avenue, part of a hasty effort to get control over a thicket of condo towers that developers rushed to build in the area starting about two years ago.

The streets that dead-end at the O-Train tracks are supposed to end up with buildings that max out at nine storeys, and that’s what Tamarack is proposing.

It’s not an end to debate over what should be allowed to be built there but it does signal that Tamarack, at least, doesn’t want to battle the city for a few extra floors.

As a nod to the existing neighbourhood, the Tamarack tower would sit atop a row of townhouse-like units with front doors on Norman. But even the lower, wider part of the building with the townhouses would be four storeys tall, a fair bit higher than the norm in the area.

As with the earlier version of the plan, the condo building would only cover half the block, so houses on the next street north would still have the tower just past their back yards.

Tamarack’s latest documents don’t include a controversial “mews” — either a little pedestrian-friendly laneway that could take a bit of car traffic or a euphemism for a full-blown road, depending how suspicious you are of the city’s planners — that the city has contemplated building alongside the tracks as a solution to the traffic problems expected from a bunch of nine-storey buildings tucked away at the ends of dead-end streets.

The 117-unit building, with no condos having more than two bedrooms, would be most appealing to young couples and singles, and they’ll be less wedded to their cars than traffic models based on U.S. suburban patterns suggest, according to Tamarack’s transportation consultants.

There’s no date yet for Tamarack’s particular project to be considered by city council’s planning committee, but on Feb. 25 there’s a community meeting about the larger plans for the area around Preston Street and Carling Avenue, on how the “strategic directions” are being turned into enforceable rules. It starts at 6 p.m. at St. Anthony’s Banquet Hall, 523 St. Anthony St.

dreevely@ottawacitizen.com

ottawacitizen.com/greaterottawa
© Copyright (c) The Ottawa Citizen

http://www.ottawacitizen.com/news/Ta...569/story.html
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #35  
Old Posted Jun 17, 2014, 9:43 PM
waterloowarrior's Avatar
waterloowarrior waterloowarrior is online now
National Capital Region
 
Join Date: Nov 2005
Location: Eastern Ontario
Posts: 9,243
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #36  
Old Posted Jun 24, 2014, 4:13 PM
Boxster's Avatar
Boxster Boxster is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: May 2012
Posts: 996
Diane Holmes at it again.

http://ottawacitizen.com/news/local-...ning-committee

The future of Little Italy’s skyline could be decided Tuesday.

A cluster of towers near the intersection of Preston and Carling, including a pair set to top out at 48 storeys, is already in the works, and developers are also eager to build up the small side streets that run west off Preston and dead-end at the O-Train tracks.

The planning committee Tuesday will hear a recommendation in favour of a controversial proposal to construct a nine-storey condo building on Norman Street. It will also debate an amendment to the Preston-Carling secondary plan, which seeks to open the door to another nine-storey development two streets north on Aberdeen even though the plan itself is hot off the presses and not yet approved.

Worried the plans could have a “profound impact on the future of Little Italy,” Somerset Coun. Diane Holmes says she’ll introduce three motions that seek to chop heights as recommended by staff in the secondary plan. She wants height limits on the north side of Norman and Adeline streets brought down to four storeys (from nine) and heights on the south side of Young brought down to six storeys (from 15).

“This is a four-storey neighbourhood,” Holmes said, adding the combination of residential, business and light industrial land uses in the neighbourhood make Little Italy a “perfect” example of a mixed-use area.

Tamarack Homes initially proposed an 18-storey building for the Norman site but has since reduced the maximum height to nine and five storeys, with a row of townhouses facing the street.

But even those heights require a zoning amendment from the city because, under the old rules, the site is zoned for low-rise development, up to a maximum of four storeys.

Under the new rules outlined in the secondary plan, nine storeys is OK.

The city received more than 40 public comments expressing concerns about the proposed development, which is also opposed by the Dalhousie Community Association, the Civic Hospital Neighbourhood Association and the Little Italy Business Improvement Area.

“If you allow one, more will come,” said Judy Girard, a member of the group Save Little Italy.

She said the city is “pandering to the developers” by zoning that piece of Norman for nine storeys, even though the proposed 112-unit building Tamarack wants to build would be surrounded by mostly single-detached, two-storey homes on the front and rear.

Girard, who doesn’t live on Norman Street, is worried that adding that many new units to the small street would bring all kinds of extra traffic, mean less privacy for residents, create challenges for emergency vehicles and possibly cast shadows over the immediate neighbours.

“To me, it’s ludicrous,” she said.

As for nearby Aberdeen Street, an Ottawa developer called Miramare Developments wants to build and operate a nine-storey retirement home at 75 Aberdeen.

The facility would house about 150 residents and include an entire floor of subsidized suites for people on low incomes.

The secondary plan calls for development on that stretch of Aberdeen to be capped at four storeys, but the committee is expected to debate a motion backed by Coun. Rainer Bloess that asks for an amendment to allow nine storeys as long as any proponents promise to build a retirement home and design it in such a way that it successfully transitions in height from nine storeys down to fit adjacent low-house development.

“We’re just trying not to have the door slammed,” said Brian Casagrande of Fotenn Consultants, speaking for the developer. “We’re just asking them to keep it open so that something like this can actually come through and have a public process and have a dialogue because that’s how the planning process is designed to function.”

Miramare has also secured an agreement to purchase adjacent land on George Street and proposes to create a through-lot so vehicle traffic can enter off Aberdeen and exit off George, thus addressing some of the traffic concerns raised about proposed developments on the short, dead-end streets, Casagrande said.

City planners, however, say a nine-storey building would also create significant shadow and other microclimate effects on the abutting low-rise properties, particularly those along George, and likely “destabilize the neighbourhood and compromise the secondary plan objectives.”

The planning committee meets at 9:30 a.m.
__________________
The Fast One!
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #37  
Old Posted Jun 24, 2014, 11:54 PM
rocketphish's Avatar
rocketphish rocketphish is online now
Planet Ottawa and beyond
 
Join Date: Feb 2009
Location: Ottawa
Posts: 12,212
9-storey condo approved for Little Italy side street

Matthew Pearson, Ottawa Citizen
Published on: June 20, 2014, Last Updated: June 24, 2014 7:28 PM EDT


The city’s planning committee has approved a zoning amendment that would allow a nine-storey condo building on a residential side street in Little Italy, as well as a set of overarching rules to guide future development in the area — but the fight over Norman Street appears far from over.

Tamarack Homes’ plan to build a 112-unit building on the narrow street was approved Tuesday despite the objections of Somerset Coun. Diane Holmes and numerous community members.

It will now be up to council at its July 9 meeting to decide on both the project and a series of amendments to the new Preston-Carling secondary plan.

Some residents and community organizations say approving the nine-storey building on a street that currently consists of mostly single-detached two-storey homes will set a precedent and chip away at what makes Little Italy so unique.

“By putting this development on the street, you will destroy our way of life and the way that we enjoy our community,” said Jamie Liew.

She lives in one of about a dozen homes on the south side of Norman, which runs west off Preston and dead-ends at the O-Train tracks. She said she fears the proposed building will add an unmanageable amount of traffic to her street.

She’s particularly worried about emergency vehicles and speaks from experience. She had to call 911 last December after her 14-month-old son fell into anaphylactic shock and said emergency vehicles had a difficult time reaching her house and even asked for advice on how to get their vehicles out.

Holmes said the committee was essentially asked to fit Tamarack’s request for rezoning into the new development plan instead of establishing the planning policy first.

The Norman site abuts a multi-use pathway the runs parallel to the O-Train tracks.

“What is going to stop more nine-storeys marching down that railway track?” she asked.

If council approves Tamarack’s request, the whole matter could end up at the Ontario Municipal Board.

“If we have to go to the OMB, we’re prepared,” said Lori Mellor, executive director of the Preston Street BIA and also a resident of Norman.

“Everyone is going to waste time and money on something that’s not appropriate for the community,” she said.

The Tamarack building would transition down from nine storeys to five and include a row of townhouses that attempt to replicate what’s across the street, said architect Rod Lahey.

As for firetrucks and other emergency vehicles getting on and off the street, he said they could back down the street and turn around at Preston. “This is a situation that exists and it’s been deemed to be appropriate,” he said.

In addition, city planners told the committee that transitions aren’t just about height and can be achieved through setbacks, use of different colours and vegetation.

They also noted that the proposed building would be surrounded on all sides by zoning that would allow for four storeys, even if that’s not what’s presently there.

Planning committee chair Peter Hume agreed with Holmes that maximum building heights as outlined in the secondary plan for nearby Adeline Street should be reduced from nine to four storeys.

Hume also said he wouldn’t support a separate request from a developer for consideration to build a nine-storey retirement home on Aberdeen, another dead-end side-street.

But he backed the Tamarack plan for Norman and said he doubted the community would have a strong case should it decide to file an OMB appeal.

“I will eat crow when they are successful,” Hume said.



WHAT HAPPENS NEXT

Although the committee passed the Preston-Carling secondary plan in principle, nine amendments were proposed.

According to Hume, city staff will take those amendments, as well as public submissions, and include the aspects they agree with in an omnibus motion for council to pass on July 9. Where staff don’t agree with the proposed amendment, the councillor who moved it will be notified, provided an explanation by staff and given the opportunity to bring it forward at council for debate.

The committee debated — but didn’t vote on — the amendments, which include:

• Increasing the height limit at 75 Aberdeen and 30-36 George streets to nine storeys and stipulating that any proposed development on this land beyond four storeys should be limited to a retirement home;

• Reducing height limits along Carling Avenue (between Loretta and Bayswater avenues), at the northeast corner of Loretta Avenue and Hickory Street, and on the south side of Young Street to six storeys;

• Extending “public realm priority projects” — things such as streets, sidewalks, bike lanes, parks and paths — to all sites in the Preston-Carling study area that could be developed in the next 20 years instead of limiting the projects to the immediate area around the Carling O-Train station;

• Launching a traffic study of the entire Preston-Carling secondary plan study area;

• Maintaining the classification of Bayswater and Champagne avenues and Beech Street as local roads; and

• Expanding Ev Tremblay Park through land acquisition and potential land swaps options with adjacent development sites.

mpearson@ottawacitizen.com
Twitter.com/mpearson78

http://ottawacitizen.com/news/local-...ly-side-street
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #38  
Old Posted Sep 23, 2014, 11:21 PM
waterloowarrior's Avatar
waterloowarrior waterloowarrior is online now
National Capital Region
 
Join Date: Nov 2005
Location: Eastern Ontario
Posts: 9,243
Approved by Council in July
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #39  
Old Posted Sep 24, 2014, 12:00 AM
Beedok Beedok is offline
Exiled Hamiltonian Gal
 
Join Date: Jun 2012
Posts: 6,801
Why was this thing limited to being so short when it's like 3 blocks from the future tallest building in the city?
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #40  
Old Posted Sep 24, 2014, 12:43 AM
Urbanarchit Urbanarchit is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Jun 2013
Location: Ottawa
Posts: 1,909
Quote:
Originally Posted by Beedok View Post
Why was this thing limited to being so short when it's like 3 blocks from the future tallest building in the city?
I think because it's on a dead-end street off to the side.

On a side note, it's a shame the elderly home was rejected. It's important that we also build housing for elderly people as well.

Furthermore, if people cared about the "Italian character and Italians in the area", which I can assure you are quite small as most of us left for other parts as soon as we had money (mine left for West Wellington in the early 60s when the they started tearing down houses for the Queensway), the elderly who remained are no longer going to be able to be a part of their community in which they've lived and socialized for decades unless some form of care homes are constructed here. The only Italian nursing home in Ottawa, Villa Marconi, is all the way on Baseline, by Merivale. That is no where near Little Italy, nor is it in a walkable, accessible neighbourhood.
Reply With Quote
     
     
This discussion thread continues

Use the page links to the lower-right to go to the next page for additional posts
 
 
Reply

Go Back   SkyscraperPage Forum > Regional Sections > Canada > Ontario > Ottawa-Gatineau > Downtown & City of Ottawa
Forum Jump


Thread Tools
Display Modes

Forum Jump


All times are GMT. The time now is 1:09 AM.

     
SkyscraperPage.com - Archive - Privacy Statement - Top

Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.7
Copyright ©2000 - 2024, vBulletin Solutions, Inc.