The Official PEI Project Thread - Page 116

Siriusb · #**2301** Posted **Jan 10, 2020, 10:31 PM**

Quote:

Originally Posted by TGK

I can’t sign it, sorry. The city has no right to tell someone what to build on their property, as long as it fits into the zoning plan for the city. The city could make high density more attractive with different incentives, and less BS at the planning office.

This lot in question is 0.48 acres, and is 400 meters away from downtown. If the developer wants to waste prime land by constructing a 24 unit apartment, then so be it. It’s disappointing, for sure, but it would be inappropriate for the city to intervene.

I'm sorry but the city does tells developers what they can or cannot build. Ask Paul Marsden, ask Tim Banks, etc. A lot of it is pressure from the public forcing the city to ask developers to change their proposals. Look at the present fight for the development on Brackley Point Rd. I think the city likes this as it gives them a reason, a reason to alter or squelch a proposal the council dislikes.
Let the people do it!!
Even though our acceptance of expanding the developnent on University Ave to a be more core friendly, it is really wishful thinking. I know what should be there but the public would be out in full force to force the city, to force the developer, to change his proposal.
The "not in my backyard" syndrome is the biggest deterrent to development in our city; and it is in a lot of cities. That is probably the hardest issue to overcome! Pity!

jonny golden · #**2302** Posted **Jan 10, 2020, 11:33 PM**

Quote:

Originally Posted by Siriusb

I'm sorry but the city does tells developers what they can or cannot build. Ask Paul Marsden, ask Tim Banks, etc. A lot of it is pressure from the public forcing the city to ask developers to change their proposals. Look at the present fight for the development on Brackley Point Rd. I think the city likes this as it gives them a reason, a reason to alter or squelch a proposal the council dislikes.
Let the people do it!!
Even though our acceptance of expanding the developnent on University Ave to a be more core friendly, it is really wishful thinking. I know what should be there but the public would be out in full force to force the city, to force the developer, to change his proposal.
The "not in my backyard" syndrome is the biggest deterrent to development in our city; and it is in a lot of cities. That is probably the hardest issue to overcome! Pity!

It wouldn't do any harm for the city to meet with this developer. Their goal is for higher density and therefore higher tax base. With the low vacancy rates, the market is there for something more substantial than just a 24 unit apartment building here. Anything bigger in this prime location would be an upgrade. Ultimately it all comes down to the money, and unfortunately it's likely this project will proceed just as it is.

Siriusb · #**2303** Posted **Jan 11, 2020, 12:27 AM**

Quote:

Originally Posted by jonny golden

It wouldn't do any harm for the city to meet with this developer. Their goal is for higher density and therefore higher tax base. With the low vacancy rates, the market is there for something more substantial than just a 24 unit apartment building here. Anything bigger in this prime location would be an upgrade. Ultimately it all comes down to the money, and unfortunately it's likely this project will proceed just as it is.

I agree with all you said. Maybe we need developers that are outside the province/Maritimes. Someone from central Canada. Someone with tons of cash that the city will see as a viable investor
in the city. The new 9 floor residence at UPEI will set a new outlook I'm looking forward to that one. Along the main drag at UPEI it will set the.possibility of developers and the city to go up!

TGK · #**2304** Posted **Jan 11, 2020, 10:59 AM**

Quote:

Originally Posted by Siriusb

I'm sorry but the city does tells developers what they can or cannot build. Ask Paul Marsden, ask Tim Banks, etc. A lot of it is pressure from the public forcing the city to ask developers to change their proposals. Look at the present fight for the development on Brackley Point Rd. I think the city likes this as it gives them a reason, a reason to alter or squelch a proposal the council dislikes.
Let the people do it!!
Even though our acceptance of expanding the developnent on University Ave to a be more core friendly, it is really wishful thinking. I know what should be there but the public would be out in full force to force the city, to force the developer, to change his proposal.
The "not in my backyard" syndrome is the biggest deterrent to development in our city; and it is in a lot of cities. That is probably the hardest issue to overcome! Pity!

The developers you listed run into issues when seeking a variance from Council. If a project falls within the zoning bylaw, the application starts and stops with the planning department. Council, and those pesky neighbours, are not involved.

This parcel is zoned Mixed Use Corridor. I’m not 100% sure (I should be because my home is also on MUC), but I believe five floors is permitted without variance. But the way the project is proposed today, D. L. McQuaid probably had a permit within a week.

Maybe Council should set minimum density in the bylaw on new construction for certain area?

Siriusb · #**2305** Posted **Jan 13, 2020, 12:19 AM**

Quote:

Originally Posted by TGK

The developers you listed run into issues when seeking a variance from Council. If a project falls within the zoning bylaw, the application starts and stops with the planning department. Council, and those pesky neighbours, are not involved.

This parcel is zoned Mixed Use Corridor. I’m not 100% sure (I should be because my home is also on MUC), but I believe five floors is permitted without variance. But the way the project is proposed today, D. L. McQuaid probably had a permit within a week.

Maybe Council should set minimum density in the bylaw on new construction for certain area?

I can't believe this was not met with any opposition from the public! It has been sent forward for approval.

TGK · #**2306** Posted **Jan 13, 2020, 3:01 PM**

Quote:

Originally Posted by Siriusb

I can't believe this was not met with any opposition from the public! It has been sent forward for approval.

I just checked the council meeting package and a variance was requested to increase density from max 18 unit apartment to 24 unit, and some setback changes. How pathetic is it that only 18 units were permitted in the first place? Unreal.

As for neighbours, to the north is large apartment and directly to the south is a burnt out building that has been vacant for ~two years.

OliverD · #**2307** Posted **Jan 13, 2020, 3:31 PM**

Quote:

Originally Posted by TGK

Maybe Council should set minimum density in the bylaw on new construction for certain area?

I don't think there's much point in setting a minimum density. Developers want to maximize profit and typically that means maximizing density.

Siriusb · #**2308** Posted **Jan 15, 2020, 12:09 AM**

72 KENSINGTON RD

Another disappointing development. An area where they can play with height a bit but can only come up with 4 floors.

Siriusb · #**2309** Posted **Jan 15, 2020, 1:38 AM**

City Council Rejects Brackley Point Rd Development

https://www.cbc.ca/news/canada/princ...cted-1.5426869

TGK · #**2310** Posted **Jan 16, 2020, 11:05 AM**

Quote:

Originally Posted by Siriusb

City Council Rejects Brackley Point Rd Development

https://www.cbc.ca/news/canada/princ...cted-1.5426869

Amazing. You’d think Brackley Point Road was a quiet street or something by the way this council is treating it. It’s one of the main roads into town, what’s so wrong with a little density on it?

apollo · #**2311** Posted **Jan 16, 2020, 12:47 PM**

They should want more traffic in the City not less.

Siriusb · #**2312** Posted **Jan 16, 2020, 11:18 PM**

City Permits

30-Dec-19 APPROVED 167 Minna Jane Drive

Retail Fit-up for Timber Mart APM Commercial

Siriusb · #**2313** Posted **Jan 16, 2020, 11:24 PM**

City Permits

55-59 Richmond Street
Phase I (site & foundation): New 23
unit apartment building
APM

billy1 · #**2314** Posted **Jan 21, 2020, 4:45 PM**

Construction equipment and an image of a 5 or 6 story apartment/condo are onsite at the old Leon's location on St.Peters Rd. The billboard says that it will be finished in 2021.

Anyone have any info on this?

TGK · #**2315** Posted **Jan 21, 2020, 8:59 PM**

Quote:

Originally Posted by billy1

Construction equipment and an image of a 5 or 6 story apartment/condo are onsite at the old Leon's location on St.Peters Rd. The billboard says that it will be finished in 2021.

Anyone have any info on this?

Haven’t heard anything. I guess they realized we need more housing than a third Wendy’s location?

Siriusb · #**2316** Posted **Jan 21, 2020, 10:29 PM**

Quote:

Originally Posted by billy1

Construction equipment and an image of a 5 or 6 story apartment/condo are onsite at the old Leon's location on St.Peters Rd. The billboard says that it will be finished in 2021.

Anyone have any info on this?

Saw this today!! Sorry for the bad pic!

billy1 · #**2317** Posted **Jan 21, 2020, 10:47 PM**

Quote:

Originally Posted by Siriusb

Saw this today!! Sorry for the bad pic!

It looks like it might be 6 stories, with the top floor set back ????

Siriusb · #**2318** Posted **Jan 21, 2020, 11:53 PM**

Quote:

Originally Posted by billy1

It looks like it might be 6 stories, with the top floor set back ????

The pic is on the side of the construction hut on St Peter's Rd across from Scotiabank. I used my cell from across the street to get it. I had to take it quick. Looks like 6 stories with the sixth as a setback at the top.
Anyone who can get a better pic, it would tell better.

billy1 · #**2319** Posted **Jan 22, 2020, 2:43 PM**

Quote:

Originally Posted by Siriusb

72 KENSINGTON RD

Another disappointing development. An area where they can play with height a bit but can only come up with 4 floors.

Here's the full plan for Kensington Road. 90 units total. Pretty bland looking.......

josh_cat_eyes · #**2320** Posted **Jan 22, 2020, 6:22 PM**

I think the area between Sydney, Water, Queen and Haviland is going to be a key area for infilling as well as the area between Euston, Spring Park Road, Kirkwood/Allen and Walthen. The southern area being already park of downtown, while the northern area is adjacent to downtown, and could help the downtown to grow.

Height restrictions in these areas need to be lifted, and minimum height standards for new builds need to be established. Minimum 5 storeys, maximum 20 storeys.