1451 Wellington St W | 39m | 12f | U/C

[m0nkyman]

Originally Posted by acottawa

The problem is that all the OMB cares about is precedent. If this developer gets an exemption because the site is contaminated or the design is nice then there will be a lineup of developers claiming their designs are nice and sites are contaminated, and everything turns into a gong show again.

Quoted for truth. I'm really trying to find the angle that makes this exceptional enough that a crappy developer won't wriggle through the opening this puts in the CDP. I really want this to go through, but not at the price of burning all the new CDPs.

[McC]

Word. It's a pickle.

[J.OT13]

How about some sort of community referendum on buildings that go against the CDP. Doesn't have to be complicated, you can just have a hand raising vote during a public consultation. The turnout would probably pretty damn close to real election turnouts.

[gjhall]

Originally Posted by J.OT13

How about some sort of community referendum on buildings that go against the CDP. Doesn't have to be complicated, you can just have a hand raising vote during a public consultation. The turnout would probably pretty damn close to real election turnouts.

No, it really wouldn't reflect an election turnout. People generally don't attend meetings for things they either approve of or don't mind. Especially with development, where the general perception of an application being a 'done deal' means if you like it, you read your notice in the mail, say 'ok' to yourself and carry on with your day.

The meeting with Mizrahi was a total anomaly.

[kevinbottawa]

Councillor, developer complain of silent treatment from city planning staff

By Michael Woods, OTTAWA CITIZEN March 14, 2014 9:32 PM

OTTAWA — An Ottawa city councillor is worried she’s been frozen out of the planning process for a proposed luxury condo building in Wellington West after the powerful chair of city council’s planning committee publicly opposed the proposal.

Coun. Katherine Hobbs said she’s been given the silent treatment from the city’s planning department regarding a proposed 12-storey building by Mizrahi Developments of Toronto in the months since the application was filed.

“I’ve heard nothing on it from the planning department at this point, and ordinarily I would,” Hobbs said. “I’m concerned about that.”

The proposed condo tower at the northeast corner of Wellington Street and Island Park Drive is three storeys higher than what the area’s community design plan, adopted in 2011, calls for on the site.

Because of this, the city’s planning committee chair Peter Hume spoke out against the application when it was filed, saying approving a tower that violates the new CDP undermines the certainty and predictability the city has been trying to establish.

But the building is widely regarded as a beautiful structure and was designed with extensive input from neighbours. The developers spent months working with the community, creating the design based on what the neighbourhood wanted.

Developer Sam Mizrahi said he’s received similar treatment from the planning department and that Hume’s comments early on “drew a line in the sand.”

“I’m always fearful of absolutes,” said Mizrahi. “When you talk in absolutes, I think it’s dangerous.

“We have to grow with the times and we have to listen with what the community and the neighbours want.”

Hobbs said she feels Hume was giving a “premature assessment” of the proposal, and fears he put planners in a tough spot.

“As elected officials, we should not be precluding a professional planner’s impartial assessment,” she said. “I don’t think Chair Hume would ever intend for that to happen, but you worry about that.”

Hume, however, said planners aren’t in a tough spot at all.

“The West Wellington planning policy framework — upon which they review the application — doesn’t support the height increases, and no one has given valid planning reason why the West Wellington policy is wrong,” he said.

“We all agree that the building is a nice design — it just should be nine and six stories — as the CDP calls for and not 12 that the developer wants. To disregard the West Wellington Planning certainty has serious consequences. It signals to the development community we are not serious about certainty and predictability and holding to the height and density in our official plan.”

In an emailed statement, Michael Mizzi, the city’s chief of development review services, said staff hadn’t yet finished evaluating the proposal and would make a recommendation to planning committee in the next month or so.

Mizrahi said the developer addressed neighbours’ concerns regarding shadowing, garbage, traffic and sidewalk widths, garnering “unprecedented” community support. It even took the unusual step of signing agreements with neighbours on particular areas of concern.

“To have so many people in support of this, in writing and vocally, I think, speaks volumes about how important this development is,” he said. “It was designed by the community, for the community. ... We wanted to create an iconic, epic development on the corner, because you get one chance at doing it right.”

Hobbs said she first told the developers there was “no way” she would support their idea unless the community was in favour after extensive consultation. The developers won her over by going above and beyond, she said, including holding a town hall, where the crowd applauded at the end.

“What happened over this year is the model of how you’d want to do community consultation,” she said.

Hobbs and Mizrahi also worry if this proposal is rejected despite the process so far, it will deter other developers from consulting extensively with the community.

“It sends a very bad message that being collaborative and being transparent and working with the community basically is a moot point, because it doesn’t matter,” Mizrahi said. “Do we really want to be sending that message out?”

However, Hume said every developer should be doing good public consultation on applications.

“If Mizrahi has set the standard, then we should applaud them and point to them as an example to follow,” he said. “Good consultation, however, is not a valid reason for disregarding the council-approved planning policies and framework.”

Past developments for the site have fallen through because of challenges such as environmental contamination. Mizrahi said part of the reason for the extra stories is because of the seven-figure cost of the cleanup.

The city has a “brownfield” subsidy programs that helps to fund such cleanups, but it’s not enough, Mizrahi said.

But Hume said that if that’s the problem, it should be dealt with by proposing to amend the brownfields policy instead of throwing out the city’s newly minted planning policy.

mwoods@ottawacitizen.com

twitter.com/michaelrwoods

http://www.ottawacitizen.com/news/Co...119/story.html

[waterloowarrior]

Wow this is going to be one interesting planning committee meeting

[Norman Bates]

Sad, just sad how this city is managed.

Ottawa has always been very parochial and small-town in its thinking. But this is what happens when you give unqualified people a rule book and the power to enforce it. All judgement goes out the window and we get some minor official playing Herbert: http://en.memory-alpha.org/wiki/Herbert_(slang)

http://m.youtube.com/watch?v=PQONBf9xMss

[Skipper]

Originally Posted by Norman Bates

Sad, just sad how this city is managed.

Ottawa has always been very parochial and small-town in its thinking. But this is what happens when you give unqualified people a rule book and the power to enforce it. All judgement goes out the window and we get some minor official playing Herbert: http://en.memory-alpha.org/wiki/Herbert_(slang)

http://m.youtube.com/watch?v=PQONBf9xMss

Inferior builders like claridge and ashcroft which don't care about community input and building aesthetics

[S-Man]

Well, we're not talking about Claridge here, rather, a great-looking building that many would be proud to say they lived in.

Hume often comes a cross as a blowhard whose head is swelling over time. Didn't he once propose no buildings over 10 storeys in Ottawa, outside of an extremely small number of select sites?

[J.OT13]

Originally Posted by S-Man

Well, we're not talking about Claridge here, rather, a great-looking building that many would be proud to say they lived in.

Hume often comes a cross as a blowhard whose head is swelling over time. Didn't he once propose no buildings over 10 storeys in Ottawa, outside of an extremely small number of select sites?

I think Hume has passed his "best before date". Ya sure, we should make an effort to follow official plans, but we never do anyway. So why now when we actually have an awesome building that truly embodies the look and feel of the surrounding area? I'm sure if they came back with a complete asinine design at the right height, it would go through un-opposed.

[waterloowarrior]

Lots of lobbying going on http://ottwatch.ca/lobbying/clients/...20Developments

Reminds me of this @BrentToderian: "In Ontario planning, lawyers always involved. In 6 years as YVR chief planner, can count on 1 hand the times lawyers were in devt meetings."

[TOexpat]

How does this appealing, well proportioned building get denied, when they allow Claridge to build pieces of crap all along Rideau. Disgusting.

[kevinbottawa]

Mizrahi submits new plan for 12-storey condo tower in quest for zoning change

By Matthew Pearson, OTTAWA CITIZEN April 24, 2014 6:20 PM

OTTAWA — A Toronto luxury condominium developer has overhauled plans for a signature building at the corner of Wellington Street and Island Park Drive in hopes of securing support from city planners who rejected it the first time around.

But despite all the changes Mizrahi Developments has made, it isn’t budging on the request to build 12 storeys — in an area where the zoning allows for a maximum of nine — and that appears to remain a sticking point.

“That was the one change we couldn’t do,” said Sam Mizrahi, the company’s president.

The adjoining properties at 1445 and 1451 Wellington St. W. are contaminated by past light-industrial uses on the site, so paying to clean that up is only economically feasible if the company can construct a taller building that will bring in more revenue, Mizrahi said.

But the chair of the planning committee rejected that notion, and said that if cleanup costs make a property economically unviable, that should be addressed either in the selling price of the land or by re-examining the city’s brownfields policy — not through zoning amendments.

“If that’s happening on his site, it’s happening on other sites, and I think that that’s a signal we need to adjust the brownfields policy to ensure that these sites are developed because that’s the goal of the policy,” said Peter Hume.

Mizrahi paid $2.95 million for one portion of the land and has agreed to purchase the second portion once he secures the necessary approvals, bringing the total purchase price to just shy of $6 million.

Brownfields are vacant or underutilized properties where past uses have resulted in actual or perceived environmental contamination, and might feature the presence of derelict or deteriorating buildings.

This includes former industrial or commercial properties, such as gas stations, landfills, abandoned factories and print shops.

The city’s current policy, revised in 2010, offers a reduction in development charges and other tax measures as an incentive for companies to redevelop these sites.

Kitchissippi Coun. Katherine Hobbs warned that failing to revisit the policy could mean some properties will remain undeveloped indefinitely.

“I’m really upset that we continue to have derelict lots in our neighbourhoods. It’s certainly not acceptable to the community or to me, and it really shouldn’t be acceptable to the city,” she said.

Mizrahi’s proposed building would feature ground-level retail, a four-storey underground parking garage and 114 residential units, as well as a plaza with a little parkland and a playground on the west side.

He’s asking for a zoning amendment and a change to the neighbourhood’s community development plan, which city council only approved in 2011.

The Wellington West Community Design Plan says Wellington Street should have four- to six-storey buildings, typical for a historical main street. Nine storeys can be OK in exceptional circumstances, for special projects in unique locations.

The initial Mizrahi plan called for a smaller, narrower six-storey building on top of a six-storey podium.

The new plan reduces that base podium to four storeys to better align with the neighbouring building to the east. It now proposes to clad the top two storeys in glass, instead of just a single top storey.

Mizrahi said the initial design was the result of “unprecedented” consultation with the immediate neighbours and community associations.

The resubmitted application incorporates the vast majority of feedback he received from city planners, as well as demands from immediate neighbours to create, in his words, “the best of both worlds.”

Hobbs said she remains supportive of the project, but suggested city planners may still reject it.

“I imagine nothing has changed from their perspective because of the height issue,” she said.

http://www.ottawacitizen.com/news/ot...198/story.html

[Skipper]

With this small town mentality, no wonder we get very few new quality buildings in this city. This builder spent significant resources and undertook an unprecedented citizen engagement strategy. Sounds like City Council prefers approving ugly poor quality towers which are built by Claridge (Plaza 1-4 on Rideau Street - otherwise referred to as Ottawa's Hong Kong) to good quality proposals which are supported by neighbourhood associations

[Jim613]

I’m no expert in this stuff, so forgive me if I’m not getting it, but why isn’t he budging from his 12-storey plan when the area is zone for 9 stories? Isn’t he partially to blame for this?

[kwoldtimer]

Originally Posted by Jim613

I’m no expert in this stuff, so forgive me if I’m not getting it, but why isn’t he budging from his 12-storey plan when the area is zone for 9 stories? Isn’t he partially to blame for this?

Some would say entirely to blame for this. What's your point?

[Jim613]

Originally Posted by kwoldtimer

Some would say entirely to blame for this. What's your point?

Well, I guess my point is that some here are taking the default position of blaming the city while it's pretty clear that Mizrahi is purposely going over the height limit by 3 stories and isn't budging.

Again, I'm not blaming anyone here because I have no idea how much 3 stories affects everything (profit and design on Mizrahi's part and whatever the city is looking out for) but when the city says "9 stories max" and the developer says "I don't care, it's 12 or nothing" I don't get why the city is the bad guy here

[waterloowarrior]

The new design is on devapps... as described in the article it's about adjusting the height and proportions of the various "layers" of the building. The renders aren't as pretty as the ones previously shown, but I'm assuming it would look similar given that the materials look to be the same for the elevations... they probably just didn't want to spend the money on the extra flash for a relatively minor change.

I think I like the proportions of the previous design better. A bit thinner and better balance between the different layers. The two story glassy top is a bit much. I can understand why the City requested a shorter podium given the width of the street and height of nearby buildings, but I think a shorter podium would have only worked better if the building was also made shorter.

[J.OT13]

Originally Posted by Jim613

Well, I guess my point is that some here are taking the default position of blaming the city while it's pretty clear that Mizrahi is purposely going over the height limit by 3 stories and isn't budging.

Again, I'm not blaming anyone here because I have no idea how much 3 stories affects everything (profit and design on Mizrahi's part and whatever the city is looking out for) but when the city says "9 stories max" and the developer says "I don't care, it's 12 or nothing" I don't get why the city is the bad guy here

The problem is that the City constantly approves buildings taller than current zoning (although in this case, the zoning is part of a brand new CDP). Furthermore, the City continues to approve bland buildings all over the place, weather or not they follow the zoning.

Here we have a building with much higher standards in design, proposed for a gateway corner on the line between two of our most popular urban neighborhoods, and the City rejects it outright because of three measly stories.

I, along with many others, think the City should focus more on design rather than the fact that a building might be proposed with a few extra floors.

[Urbanarchit]

Originally Posted by J.OT13

The problem is that the City constantly approves buildings taller than current zoning (although in this case, the zoning is part of a brand new CDP). Furthermore, the City continues to approve bland buildings all over the place, weather or not they follow the zoning.

Here we have a building with much higher standards in design, proposed for a gateway corner on the line between two of our most popular urban neighborhoods, and the City rejects it outright because of three measly stories.

I, along with many others, think the City should focus more on design rather than the fact that a building might be proposed with a few extra floors.

I agree, design should be more of a concern than the actual height of a building. To add, don't forget that not only does the city want to reject this building for being "three measly stories" more, but also that the community has out-and-out approved of, despite being taller than what their CDP allows.

However, I will say height should be a concern if you end up with a cluster of buildings of the same height, like Rideau or our CBD. Then asking for taller or shorter to change things up should be a part of design.