HomeDiagramsDatabaseMapsForum About
     

Go Back   SkyscraperPage Forum > Regional Sections > Canada > Ontario > Ottawa-Gatineau > Suburbs


Reply

 
Thread Tools Display Modes
     
     
  #681  
Old Posted Nov 24, 2023, 1:28 PM
J.OT13's Avatar
J.OT13 J.OT13 is offline
Moderator
 
Join Date: Mar 2012
Location: Ottawa
Posts: 24,024
Then you have this:

https://www.cbc.ca/news/canada/ottaw...tawa-1.7036570

Consultants cited by the city never said it needs to be totally cleared and/or never actually evaluated the forest. So, City just gaslighting people again?
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #682  
Old Posted Nov 24, 2023, 1:59 PM
MountainView MountainView is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Feb 2011
Posts: 1,837
Quote:
Originally Posted by J.OT13 View Post
Then you have this:

https://www.cbc.ca/news/canada/ottaw...tawa-1.7036570

Consultants cited by the city never said it needs to be totally cleared and/or never actually evaluated the forest. So, City just gaslighting people again?
Quote:
It included six recommendations on how to move forward with the red pines — ranging from "do nothing" to significantly thinning out the woodland but still leaving roughly 120 trees.
"Leaving roughly 120 trees" is basically clearing the forest as the Airport put it. Semantics.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #683  
Old Posted Nov 24, 2023, 3:06 PM
Multi-modal Multi-modal is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Jul 2014
Posts: 1,138
Quote:
Originally Posted by J.OT13 View Post
Then you have this:

https://www.cbc.ca/news/canada/ottaw...tawa-1.7036570

Consultants cited by the city never said it needs to be totally cleared and/or never actually evaluated the forest. So, City just gaslighting people again?
It is the Airport Authority that would be "gaslighting" us, not the City.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #684  
Old Posted Nov 24, 2023, 3:23 PM
lrt's friend lrt's friend is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Dec 2006
Posts: 11,872
Quote:
Originally Posted by MountainView View Post
"Leaving roughly 120 trees" is basically clearing the forest as the Airport put it. Semantics.
Leaving 120 essentially sticks will be even more vulnerable to blow over. Unless they are interplanting with other tree species (maples, oaks etc.) with the idea of eventually removing the remaining pines, I don't see the value. They did that when they built my neighbourhood park. They thinned out a thicket of aspen, and planted longer-lived species. Now the latter has taken over and the dereccho storm took out most of the remaining softwood aspen trees.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #685  
Old Posted Dec 10, 2023, 6:37 PM
kjames95 kjames95 is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Dec 2023
Posts: 3
Quote:
Originally Posted by J.OT13 View Post
Apparently, we should be seeing actual TOD proposals for Limebank soon-ish according to Pat on Rail Fans Canada Discord.

Anything new on this?
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #686  
Old Posted Dec 10, 2023, 10:08 PM
J.OT13's Avatar
J.OT13 J.OT13 is offline
Moderator
 
Join Date: Mar 2012
Location: Ottawa
Posts: 24,024
Quote:
Originally Posted by kjames95 View Post
Anything new on this?
Not expecting we hear anything for a few months, if not a year.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #687  
Old Posted Dec 10, 2023, 10:49 PM
DEWLine DEWLine is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Oct 2010
Location: Ottawa-Gatineau
Posts: 337
Clearly, the Airport Authority was fixated on ridding themselves of this Troublesome Forest...
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #688  
Old Posted Dec 11, 2023, 11:29 AM
kjames95 kjames95 is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Dec 2023
Posts: 3
Quote:
Originally Posted by J.OT13 View Post
Not expecting we hear anything for a few months, if not a year.
Ok thanks for letting me know!
Is there any updates for any of the 4 corners of this junction on Limebank? I know directly across from this render there is a retail strip that they have started construction on.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #689  
Old Posted Dec 12, 2023, 3:12 PM
MountainView MountainView is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Feb 2011
Posts: 1,837
Quote:
Originally Posted by kjames95 View Post
Ok thanks for letting me know!
Is there any updates for any of the 4 corners of this junction on Limebank? I know directly across from this render there is a retail strip that they have started construction on.
1 - All the shrubs have been cleared and the land is almost ready for buildings to start going up.

2 - Access road to Limebank station for construction traffic right now. When the station opens, it will be an entrance for car/passenger drop off and a bus loop (current route 74 will continue to Limebank and route 99 will end here instead of continuing to Greenboro).

3 - Access road for construction traffic. No short-term plan for this plot of land although a planned powercentre was proposed here years back but is likely shelved with the urbandale commerical development in corner #1

4 - A sign for a future Food Basics (and other stores) has been here since the dawn of time. Likely nothing will happen in the corner in the short-term.

I believe originally it was to be a roundabout connecting 1 & 2 on Earl Armstrong Road but that will end up being a controlled traffic light now.

Reply With Quote
     
     
  #690  
Old Posted Jan 9, 2024, 9:34 PM
kjames95 kjames95 is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Dec 2023
Posts: 3
Quote:
Originally Posted by MountainView View Post
1 - All the shrubs have been cleared and the land is almost ready for buildings to start going up.

2 - Access road to Limebank station for construction traffic right now. When the station opens, it will be an entrance for car/passenger drop off and a bus loop (current route 74 will continue to Limebank and route 99 will end here instead of continuing to Greenboro).

3 - Access road for construction traffic. No short-term plan for this plot of land although a planned powercentre was proposed here years back but is likely shelved with the urbandale commerical development in corner #1

4 - A sign for a future Food Basics (and other stores) has been here since the dawn of time. Likely nothing will happen in the corner in the short-term.

I believe originally it was to be a roundabout connecting 1 & 2 on Earl Armstrong Road but that will end up being a controlled traffic light now.


Thanks for update. Interesting!
Seems like this happens a lot around this part of Ottawa (signs popping up for developments and nothing coming to fruition) - same on the corner of mitch owen and dozois - across from St Marks. must be a sign there for 10 years saying new retail development.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #691  
Old Posted Jan 18, 2024, 1:58 AM
Ottawacurious Ottawacurious is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Mar 2022
Location: Ottawa
Posts: 365
Montreal firm’s two-building proposal for Stittsville includes 25-storey residential highrise
David Sali
January 17, 2024
https://obj.ca/montreal-firms-propos...orey-highrise/

Montreal-based Devmont wants to build a two-storey development featuring more than 400 rental apartments at 6310 Hazeldean Rd. in Stittsville.
Organizations: Devmont, Fotenn Consultants
A Montreal-based developer wants to build a new multi-residential project in Stittsville that would include more than 400 apartments but fewer parking spaces than current zoning rules mandate.

Devmont’s proposal for 6310 Hazeldean Rd. would be anchored by a building on the east end of the site with components of various heights culminating in a 25-storey highrise on the northeast portion of the property. The other sections would be three and seven storeys.

An L-shaped building on the west side of the property would transition from three storeys in the southwest corner to six storeys in the northwest, with a nine-storey section in the middle.

The proposed development would include a total of 431 rental apartment units ranging from one- to three-bedroom suites. A total of 389 parking spaces would be provided for residents along with 86 spots for visitors, split between underground and surface lots.

Current zoning bylaws limit buildings to a maximum of 15 metres, or five storeys, on the site. The developer is asking for an amendment to allow for greater heights as well as fewer residential parking spots than the 517 that are required under current zoning rules.

In a document prepared by planning consultant Fotenn, Devmont argues that since some tenants are likely to be remote workers as well as recent post-secondary graduates, “modest-income residents” and seniors who might not own cars, the amount of parking provided in the current proposal should suffice.

“Regardless of personal vehicle ownership status, all residents in the development will benefit from the ability to meet daily needs within walking distance of the subject property, particularly groceries, fitness facilities, and other services,” the application says.

“Additionally, rates of private vehicle ownership are generally anticipated to fall over time for many demographic profiles, due to affordability considerations, personal preferences, and improved transit services.”

The plan is a revised version of an earlier development application Devmont submitted in April 2022.

That proposal called for three nine-storey buildings with a total of 317 residential units. One building was slated only for residential use, while the other two would have been mixed-use buildings with nearly 23,000 square feet of ground-floor commercial space, with residential units above.

However, the city’s urban design review panel recommended a series of changes to the proposal, including that two of the buildings be merged and that amenity space for residents be improved. The panel also questioned the viability of the retail component.

Under the new design, the buildings have been re-aligned so that the highest densities are concentrated on the northeast portion of the property facing Hazeldean Road. The developer says the revamped plan offers more “visual interest” and allows for “greater sunlight penetration for the amenity space and neighbouring properties.”

The plan also provides more “communal gathering and leisure space,” the application says, including a “vital gathering space and outdoor area for residents, which the (urban design panel) identified as a missing element of the original design.”

The proposal notes that the panel expressed “significant concerns about viability of commercial spaces on the property.” The developer added that the additional parking spots required for retailers and their customers would have created “additional pressure” to use space that can now be devoted to “landscaping and building functions.”

“Ample commercial tenancies are available within walking distance on the north side of Hazeldean Road, offering shops and services to meet daily needs, including a grocery store, fitness club, dry cleaner, physiotherapy clinic, and fast-food outlets,” the document says.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #692  
Old Posted Jan 18, 2024, 3:28 AM
rocketphish's Avatar
rocketphish rocketphish is offline
Planet Ottawa and beyond
 
Join Date: Feb 2009
Location: Ottawa
Posts: 12,338
Quote:
Originally Posted by Ottawacurious View Post
Montreal firm’s two-building proposal for Stittsville includes 25-storey residential highrise
David Sali
January 17, 2024
https://obj.ca/montreal-firms-propos...orey-highrise/
Thanks for the scoop. I created a new project thread for this over here:
https://skyrisecities.com/forum/thre...roposed.37460/
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #693  
Old Posted Jan 18, 2024, 1:56 PM
RideauRat RideauRat is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Mar 2019
Posts: 162
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #694  
Old Posted Jan 19, 2024, 10:01 PM
J.OT13's Avatar
J.OT13 J.OT13 is offline
Moderator
 
Join Date: Mar 2012
Location: Ottawa
Posts: 24,024
Such a strange location for such density. Parking lots at transit stations, and this at the edge of the middle of nowhere.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #695  
Old Posted Jan 19, 2024, 11:50 PM
Uhuniau Uhuniau is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Jan 2010
Posts: 8,034
Quote:
Originally Posted by J.OT13 View Post
Such a strange location for such density. Parking lots at transit stations, and this at the edge of the middle of nowhere.
Nowhere turns into Somewhere one building project at a time.
__________________
___
Enjoy my taxes, Orleans (and Kanata?).
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #696  
Old Posted Jan 22, 2024, 4:51 PM
J.OT13's Avatar
J.OT13 J.OT13 is offline
Moderator
 
Join Date: Mar 2012
Location: Ottawa
Posts: 24,024
Quote:
Originally Posted by Uhuniau View Post
Nowhere turns into Somewhere one building project at a time.
Transit access will remain sub-par, however.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #697  
Old Posted Mar 12, 2024, 2:25 AM
Ottawacurious Ottawacurious is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Mar 2022
Location: Ottawa
Posts: 365
Quote:
Originally Posted by Cre47 View Post
Sounds like a different condo project proposed along Stittsville Main. I'm posting because we all know about the fiasco surrounding another somewhat similar project not too far from the proposed site.

Public meeting about proposed condominium
Wildpine Court site in Stittsville

A four storey condominium with 64 dwelling units is being proposed for a site on Wildpine Court in Stittsville.

The building will front on Wildpine Court and will include both an underground parking structure as well as on-surface parking at the rear of the building. There will be 68 parking spaces altogether.

The development will also result in creation of a small parkette on the southeast corner of Stittsville Main Street and Wildpine Court.

A public meeting to view the plans for this proposed development is being held on Tuesday, Feb. 15 in the upstairs hall of the Stittsville District Community Centre (arena), starting at 7 p.m.

City of Ottawa planning staff will be in attendance to answer any questions about the project. City of Ottawa Stittsville ward councillor Shad Qadri will also be at the meeting.
https://devapps.ottawa.ca/en/applica...1-0030/details

Status Date : 2024-03-11
Description : Plan of Subdivision would create a new public street linking Wildpine Court and Ravenscroft Court, with 3 blocks of townhouses. A private street would be created at the northerly end of the site, with a block for 5 townhouses and a semi-detached. Total of 27 townhouses and a pair of semi-detached are proposed.

37 wildpine Court, stittsville
https://maps.app.goo.gl/4KrxG1EUdez41hot6

More details from Glen Gower: https://www.glengower.ca/development...ment-proposal/

Last edited by Ottawacurious; Mar 12, 2024 at 2:42 AM.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #698  
Old Posted Apr 6, 2024, 11:37 PM
rocketphish's Avatar
rocketphish rocketphish is offline
Planet Ottawa and beyond
 
Join Date: Feb 2009
Location: Ottawa
Posts: 12,338
Owner of Barrhaven golf course trying to escape forever contract
When a new owner bought Cedarhill Golf and Country Club for $1 in 1981, it came with a catch

Arthur White-Crummey · CBC News
Posted: Apr 06, 2024 4:00 AM EDT | Last Updated: April 6


A landowner is fighting to free itself from a contractual obligation to operate an unprofitable Barrhaven golf course forever.

The legal battle over Cedarhill Golf and Country Club revolves around a subdivision agreement signed in 1980, which requires "the continued operation of a golf course on the property in perpetuity."

Property owner Cedarhill Golf Enterprises asked a court to declare that obligation invalid and unenforceable. In a decision released this week, Justice Brian Abrams declined to do so.

The agreement allows the City of Ottawa to step in and take over the golf course, but Abrams said the city has no plans to do so, "and for good reason." Both sides seem to accept that the course is no longer financially viable.

Abrams told them to sit down for mediation, with an eye to potentially amending or altering the contract.

Trajan Schulzke of the Cedarhill Community Association said he and his neighbours value living so close to a wide open green space.

"We actually were really happy to see that the city made a significant effort, in our opinion, to hold the developers to their contractual commitments, and in the process protect our city's important green spaces," he said.

"Our residents feel strongly about protecting the area's tree canopy, the natural habitats, the open green space for the enjoyment of current and future generations."

Abrams found the issues at stake are different from a seemingly similar case concerning the Kanata Golf and Country Club. In that matter, a court found owner ClubLink shouldn't be "saddled with a perpetual obligation" to run a golf course.

ClubLink is planning to build a development with 1,480 homes on that site.

Cedarhill Golf Enterprises bought the Cedarhill Golf and Country Club on the northwestern edge of Barrhaven in 1981 for just $1.

The company argues that the subdivision agreement is not a contract, but a planning instrument. It claims that there are other "appropriate and reasonable uses of the property" besides an unprofitable golf course, though the decision does not mention exactly what it's hoping to do with the land.

The city argues that Cedarhill wants to redevelop the site and is thus trying to wriggle out of the contract.

Cedarhill Golf Enterprises is represented by lawyer Michael Polowin, who said he's not yet in a position to comment on the case. The golf course itself did not

Barrhaven West Coun. David Hill called the case "complicated, nuanced and sensitive," and said he needed more time to meet with legal staff and study its implications.

"It's super important," he said. "It's so important that I want to take the time to get this right and make sure we don't prejudice the process."

In his decision, Abrams mainly sided with the city, finding that the agreement is a contract that imposes binding obligations on Cedarhill Golf Enterprises. He also rejected any notion that the company is being expropriated.

When the plan of subdivision came to Nepean's planning board in 1977, then property owner Cedpar was "agreeable to keeping the golf course in perpetuity." Nepean's reeve said at the time he was not prepared to consider approving development around the site without a guarantee that the golf course would survive.

The agreement was registered in 1980, and came with a provision requiring the owner to "at all times operate the golf course in a good and businesslike manner."

But it also addresses the possibility that a golf course might, one day, become commercially unviable. In that case, the city could step in and decide to change the land use, but only to another kind of open space.

There is also a separate provision that allows the property owner and the city to amend the terms with their mutual consent.

Abrams called that an obvious solution that could allow Cedarhill to stop running the golf course with the city's agreement. While he rejected essentially all of the company's arguments, he adjourned the application for 120 days to allow both sides to engage in mediation.

"The uncontested evidence of Cedarhill is that the golf course is financially unviable, which I accept," said the judge. "Thus, to force Cedarhill to continue operating the golf course in perpetuity would lead to an impractical result."

Schulzke said there are some in the community who want to save the golf course itself, though many others would accept a compromise that saves the land for recreation.

"That would be something which would accomplish what we're looking for, which is to be able to maintain the beautiful green spaces that we have in this part of the city," he said.

"Our community association is very interested in what's going to happen over the next 120 days, and we'll be actually continuing to seek an active part."

https://www.cbc.ca/news/canada/ottaw...ract-1.7164761
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #699  
Old Posted Apr 7, 2024, 2:47 AM
Williamoforange's Avatar
Williamoforange Williamoforange is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Sep 2020
Location: Ottawa
Posts: 633
"Trajan Schulzke of the Cedarhill Community Association said he and his neighbours value living so close to a wide open green space."

Apparently the Community doesn't value it enough to make sure that the golf course is profitable.

Anyway, If the compromise is that the city must buy the land for "X" from the current owner, then the city should by levying that cost from the local residents/wards parkland fund.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #700  
Old Posted Apr 7, 2024, 11:13 AM
Proof Sheet Proof Sheet is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: May 2009
Posts: 2,860
"Our residents feel strongly about protecting the area's tree canopy, the natural habitats, the open green space for the enjoyment of current and future generations.

I find the lack of self awareness in this statement so typical of people's reactions to housing issues these days. The homes around this course are large on large treed,grassed lots and they want to preserve more lawn that is probably full of 'lawn treatments' just so that they have somewhere to walk their labradoodle.

Unfortunately, the lack of sewers will make any large scale housing development difficult.
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 > Suburbs
Forum Jump



Forum Jump


All times are GMT. The time now is 3:38 AM.

     
SkyscraperPage.com - Archive - Privacy Statement - Top

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