Ken Gray: NIMBY watch

[waterloowarrior]

Originally Posted by Proof Sheet

thanks for update Waterloo Warrior....don't confuse the locals with facts..their minds are made up regarding the density.

So basically this application is coming in at about 40% of the permitted density and the existing nearby residents are freaking out....of course they cage their comments in a pc way so that they don't appear to be viewed as being against low income housing.

Yep... in the article it says that

“We’re not against (the project), but it’s not well integrated into the community. It’s the architecture and the size of (the townhouses),” he said, noting that the rezoning was necessary because so many units are to be built on the lot.

Rezoning is necessary because it's zoned Development Reserve...... which is just a placeholder zoning for future urban development that only permits a limited amount of uses.

Purpose of the Zone
The purpose of the DR - Development Reserve Zone is to:

(1) recognize lands intended for future urban development in areas designated as General Urban Area and Developing Communities in the Official Plan, and future village development in areas designated as Village in the Official Plan;

(2) limit the range of permitted uses to those which will not preclude future development options; and

(3) impose regulations which ensure a low scale and intensity of development to reflect the characteristics of existing land uses.

[waterloowarrior]

Orleans Habitat project to be redesigned
Hobin is the architect btw...
http://www.ottawacitizen.com/news/ot...768/story.html

Habitat for Humanity to work with neighbourhood group

Project must reflect local architecture

THE OTTAWA CITIZEN OCTOBER 6, 2011 12:01 AM

Homeowners in the Notting Hill area of Orléans are optimistic that Habitat for Humanity’s proposed housing project in their area will be redesigned to fit better with the architectural style of the neighbourhood.

“We very positive,” Roger Roy said Wednesday evening following a meeting with Habitat for Humanity representatives. “They really want to integrate well into the neighbourhood.”

Habitat for Humanity, an international housing charity, had proposed to build an 11 three-storey townhouses on Nantes Street. The four housing blocks were to include three buildings with three units each, and a fourth building with two units. The city has to rezone the property at 2129 Nantes St. to make the project possible.

Residents, however, were concerned the project wasn’t in keeping with the housing style of the neighbourhood. They noted that Nantes Street, like most other streets in the area, is composed of large, single-family detached dwellings with property values in the $500,000 range.

According to Roy, Habitat for Humanity officials, including chief executive officer Donna Hicks, agreed during Wednesday’s meeting to work with a neighbourhood group to come up with a better design for the project. “They agreed to go back to the drawing board,” he said, adding that it is possible the project will be reduced to six or eight units.

About 100 area residents turned out for the meeting, Roy said.

“It was a very positive meeting and we are very pleased with the outcome.”

Roy said the neighbourhood group, to be set up through the local community association, will probably work through Cumberland Councillor Stephen Blais, who attended the meeting.

© Copyright (c) The Ottawa Citizen

Streetview of the homes across the street
http://maps.google.ca/maps?q=2129+na...199.23,,0,2.05

sample listing
http://www.realtor.ca/propertyDetail...rtyId=11057671

[eemy]

Someone should actually forward this information to the Ottawa Citizen and see whether they actually publish the truth. It doesn't bother me so much when a developer has to deal with this stuff, but when an organization like Habitat for Humanity has to deal with it, it makes me pretty angry. The fact that the Citizen doesn't even bother to do any fact checking on this issue is pretty frustrating and emblematic of a trend toward lazy journalism. Did they actually interview anyone other than this Roger Roy fellow?

[S-Man]

Every community activist (NIMBY) group has a leader who rallies the troops and sends e-mails to local media. That person does the talking, everyone else hides behind him/her, content in their anonymity.
I could drive down 50 streets in Barrhaven and see a row of houses exactly like that streetview image. THIS STREET IS NOTHING SPECIAL!
I don't know why the Citizen continues to devote so much page space to whining complainers upset with the look of their neighbour. Must be a clause left over from the Ken Grey editor days.

Also: How many adult residents live within site of this small lot? And yet 100-plus people attended the meeting? How many of them would vote or attend a community celebration/fundraiser?

[Uhuniau]

Originally Posted by S-Man

Oh, and I might add:

IT'S ORLEANS!!! WHAT ARCHITECTURE???????!!!!!

The heritage drive-through bank?

[S-Man]

More outrage from the community from the five-storey 'skyscraper' planned for Greenbank Road. I guess that even though they had the footprint and height reduced, they want thee number of units reduced even further to a more psychologically pleasing number. From an unsustainable, evil 61 units to a more community friendly 55 units.
Read the comments, they're very revealing.

http://www.ottawacitizen.com/news/Co...story#Comments

[reidjr]

Originally Posted by S-Man

More outrage from the community from the five-storey 'skyscraper' planned for Greenbank Road. I guess that even though they had the footprint and height reduced, they want thee number of units reduced even further to a more psychologically pleasing number. From an unsustainable, evil 61 units to a more community friendly 55 units.
Read the comments, they're very revealing.

http://www.ottawacitizen.com/news/Co...story#Comments

Its really sad it seem some people in the core don't care about urban sprawl they just don't get it if you say no to this no to that limit this its going to increase devlopement big time out side the core.

[Uhuniau]

Originally Posted by S-Man

More outrage from the community from the five-storey 'skyscraper' planned for Greenbank Road. I guess that even though they had the footprint and height reduced, they want thee number of units reduced even further to a more psychologically pleasing number. From an unsustainable, evil 61 units to a more community friendly 55 units.
Read the comments, they're very revealing.

http://www.ottawacitizen.com/news/Co...story#Comments

I got a great idea.

Negative storeys. Build down. Same density, without the children-killing shadows.

We've been promised this since at least the 1950s, with those sci-fi mags, and whatnot. They basically predicted cellphones, and dammit, it's time for another one of their predictions to come true.

Inverted underground skyscrapers. The time is now!

[Uhuniau]

Originally Posted by reidjr

Its really sad it seem some people in the core don't care about urban sprawl they just don't get it if you say no to this no to that limit this its going to increase devlopement big time out side the core.

I would hardly call Greenbank and Craig Henry "core".

[S-Man]

It will be if they build a building here! People will see it from almost a block away! This isn't New York City!

Also, underground skyscrapers will destroy people's views by taking them away altogether. There will also be complaints when deeper structures are proposed, because these new depth-scrapers will be out of character of the existing underground structures.

Basically it would devolve into the Morlocks and the Eloi from H.G.Well's The Time Machine

[Cre47]

Latest entry from Gray.

http://blogs.ottawacitizen.com/2011/...speeches-ever/

[S-Man]

the Craig Henry five-storey skyscraper (outer space rammer?) goes to committee tomorrow.

Likely it will be a long meeting, judging from the associated report's community comments section:

CONSULTATION DETAILS DOCUMENT 4

NOTIFICATION AND CONSULTATION PROCESS

Notification and public consultation was undertaken in accordance with the Public Notification and Public Consultation Policy approved by City Council for Zoning By-law amendments. There were three public meetings were also held in the community.

PUBLIC COMMENTS

Public Information Meeting

Below is a summarized comments received as a result of from initial the public consultation carried out by the City and from a public information meeting hosted by the Trend-Arlington Community Association on January 31, 2011held in the Trend-Arlington Community Building at 50 Bellman Drive.

Comment: The six-storey, 72-unit development proposal is too intense/large for this site and is incompatible and out of character with surrounding area. It was suggested that the development proposal represents the first step in the redevelopment of Greenbank Road into a canyon like corridor.

Response: The developer has since now reconfigured the development proposal providing a street presence on both Greenbank Road and Craig Henry Drive. The building has been reduced to a five-storey structure with the three-storey easterly wing of the building being scaled back from the side property line. The dwelling unit count has been reduced from 72 to 61 dwelling units. The building treatment has also been modified to introduce the use differing building materials at varying building levels, to mitigate the impact of the perceived building mass at the street level.

Comment: A comment was received suggesting that Section 3.2.2 of the Urban Design Guidelines for Low-Medium Infill Housing. This guideline suggests that the infill development proposal should not project above a 45 degree angular plane taken from the neighbouring property line.

Response: This is a similar standard applied with the Guidelines for high-rise developments as describe this report. It was determined that revised five-storey development proposal did not project beyond that 45 degree plane.

Comment: What is the density of the development proposal and does it exceed what is permitted?

Response: The current GM zoning for this site does factor in density as a means to limit the extent a property can be developed.


Comment: A traffic study should be required that takes in consideration when the neighbouring schools are in session, as well as, the operation of the daycare facilities.

Response: A number of addendums to the traffic study we made to take account for pedestrian movements. Observations were on pedestrian movements as the Greenbank Road/Craig Henry Drive intersection on February 15, 2011 between 2:00 and 6:00 p.m., and on May13, 2011during the morning peak hour (7:00 a.m.-9:00 a.m.) and the afternoon peak hour (3:00 p.m. - 6:00 p.m.). These additional observations did not result in any recommendations for any modifications being made to intersection.

Comment: Vehicular access to the development proposal should be limited to a right-in and right-out on Greenbank Road.

Response: The site plan has been revised that locates the surface parking area to the northeast area of the site, which will have a right-in and right-out access onto Greenbank Road. The Craig Henry Drive access to the underground parking will remain.

Comment: The proposed right-in and right-out vehicle access on Craig Henry Drive will only contribute to the number of unwanted u-turns being made further east along Craig Henry Drive and add to congestion being experienced on that street.

Response: A Craig Henry Drive road modification is being proposed in the latest site plan proposal to permit an east bound left hand turn into the parking garage and will accommodate a vehicular queue for three vehicles waiting to make this traffic movement. This should eliminate unwanted u-turns east-bound along Craig-Henry Drive.

Comment: A suggestion was made to move the existing east bound Craig Henry bus stop further east. This would allow for a longer queuing of cars behind buses which at times can positioned in such a way as impeding traffic from manoeuvring around it. When such a scenario occurs, vehicles can become so backed up as to interfere with the traffic movements at the intersection of Craig Henry Drive and Greenbank Road.

Response: Staff has taken this comment under consideration will be requiring through the site plan approval, that the bus stop be located 11 metres further to the east at the developer’s cost.

Comment: Safety concerns were expressed at the congested intersection of Greenbank Road and Craig Henry Drive because of several schools within the area and the wide age range of students. The development of 72 unit apartment will only further contribute to the current unacceptable traffic congestion at Greenbank Road and Craig Henry Drive.


Response: The traffic study reviewed and accepted by the City Transportation staff indicates that overall movements for Greenbank Road and Craig Henry intersection concurrently function at an acceptable level of service. With the proposed Craig Henry Drive road modification mentioned above, it is anticipate that this development will not have significant impact on the functionality or safety of this intersection.

Comment: The proposed reductions in the resident and visitor parking space requirements will result in the spill over of on-street parking demand onto on neighbouring streets already at limited capacity.

Response: The latest development proposal complies with the current zoning provisions for parking and previous requests to reduce the required visitor and resident parking requirements have been withdrawn.

Comment: Where will the loading and unloading for the building’s residents occur for this building, as well, where will the garbage be picked up?

Response: This activity will occur in the relocated visitor and resident parking area located within the northeast quadrant.

Comment: The six-storey apartment building will result in the loss of light and privacy in the backyards of those residents on Wade Court backing onto to the proposed development. The development proposal should be redesigned in such a way as to minimize these impacts.

Response: In the latest revised five-storey development proposal, during the March and September 21st afternoon time periods, the shadowing extends a similar amount on to the Wade Court rear yards as the two-storey medical building afternoon time periods. During the June 21st afternoon time period, there is only a marginal shadow being casted at the rear corners of the lot for the two most southerly pie shaped lots. The five-storey revised proposal orientates the buildings balconies of the three-storey easterly building extension in either a north or south direction and does not present an overlook issue onto the rear yards of the Wade Court residents. Regarding the overlook concern expressed by representatives of the medical building to the north, the north facing wall of the development proposal closest to the medical building will be windowless.

Comment: The development proposal should not affect the existing sun-shade patterns of the medical building to the north.

Response: The medical property is only marginally impacted by the five-storey building proposal in varying degrees between the 11:30 a.m. and 4:00 p.m. time periods on December 21. The building is most impact at the 2:00 p.m. time period. This is viewed as being acceptable because commercial office or medical uses are not considered to be highly sensitive to shadowing effects.

Comment: The majority of the parking should be located below grade.

Response: In the latest development plan, 71 parking spaces of the total 85 parking spaces on-site will be located below grade.

Comment: The building should be located a minimum of 15.25 metres away from the medical building.

Response: The estimated separation between buildings will be 17.5 metres.

Comment: The dirt and noise for the building construction activity will disturb adjoining residents.

Response: The disruptive construction activity will be temporary. Construction activity is limited to 7:00 a.m. to 9:00 p.m. during the week, 9:00 a.m. to 8:00 p.m. on Saturday and 12:00 p.m. to 8:00 p.m. on Sunday.

Comment: Neighbouring property values will be negatively impacted if this development proposal. In particular, for those Wade Court properties backing onto this development.

Response: No evidence has yet to be presented that infill development, such as what is being proposed, has a negative impact on neighbouring property values.

Comment: There is a risk of damage to neighbouring foundations due to construction excavation.

Response: The soil analysis submitted with the zoning and site plan applications reveals at the on-site consist of a mix of layers of silty sand and then clay from the boreholes which were drilled. The method of excavation will be open cut. Blasting, which can potential cause foundation damage to neighbour property, will not form as part of the excavation process.

Greenbank Middle School Parent Council

Comment: The Greenbank Middle School Parent Council, which is a non-registered association, expressed safety concerns for its student population, 300 of which was to school due to their ineligibility for school bus transportation and must walk, bike or take public transit to school. Their path to school frequently takes them across the intersection of Greenbank Road and Craig Henry Drive. It is their belief that the construction of a 72-unit apartment building will only add to the danger to the students of what is already a perilous intersection.

Response: Issue of congestion and safety regarding this intersection has been responded in the concerns expressed by the community.


Second Public Information Meeting

Comment: A second public information meeting to discuss a modified 67-unit development proposal was held on May 16, 2011at the Trend-Arlington Community Building. Comments similar to the original 72-unit development proposal were reiterated accompanied by a common thread of frustration with the development review process and taking issues with the City’s policies on intensification. Some additional comments received included that the erection of a six-storey building would result in the loss of the view of the sky and disappointment that the former Nepean zoning provisions were no longer respected. Another indicated that the revised development proposal was an improved but the building height should be limited to 15 metres. Finally, any short fall in parking should be subject to “cash-in-lieu of parking” and make arrangements have access to the underutilize school parking lot during off-peak hours.

Response: To mitigate the impact of intensification, the same design guidelines for high-rise and low to medium density infill development were applied. These guidelines recommend that an angular plane of 45 degrees be established at the neighbouring property line where the height of the infill development should not project beyond. With respect to current and past zoning by-laws, the Planning Act legislates that municipalities consider all requests for zoning amendments which are to be evaluate on their own individual merit.

When the apocalypse hits, I'm heading to the Craig Henry neighbourhood. Their calm, non-overbearing, the-sky-isn't-falling approach to this minor issue gives me confidence they'd be the last people to go to pieces when the world starts falling apart around them.

[S-Man]

I should also add: any community/special interest group who preaches the entitled ramblings of SuperNIMBY Ken Greymattergone as their gospel is as narcissistic as their regressive messiah is. Blind leading the blind?

Next thing you know, these six community associations will be analyzing Katherine Hobbs' lunch menu and blogging about what a loser she is for eating a tuna sandwich (tuna! what a loser!) when she's supposed to be doing her job.

[reidjr]

While i don't agree with it i can respect people upset about devlopment in there area but when people start calling a 5 floor building massive that is what i have a issue with.

[Uhuniau]

Originally Posted by reidjr

While i don't agree with it i can respect people upset about devlopment in there area but when people start calling a 5 floor building massive that is what i have a issue with.

Why do you hate the children?

[S-Man]

Project approved, apparently. Community VERY upset.

But it's hard to go head to head with this kind of logic. To sum up, "we support intensification, and have never opposed this project, but not changing things is a better way to keep everything the same":

James O'Grady
2:00 PM on 10/10/2011

"To be clear to everyone reading this article, the community group working on this file has never opposed this development or intensification. We just don't think Extremification (Ken Gray) is the right approach to maintain the suburban nature and character of our communities."
Read more: http://www.ottawacitizen.com/Builder...#ixzz1aUsK5xYt

[gjhall]

As Chair Hume said today, even looking at the stringest of guidelines for height on an arterial - Traditional Mainstreet, would expect 4-6 storeys. We're right there with 5.

Originally Posted by S-Man

Project approved, apparently. Community VERY upset.

But it's hard to go head to head with this kind of logic. To sum up, "we support intensification, and have never opposed this project, but not changing things is a better way to keep everything the same":

James O'Grady
2:00 PM on 10/10/2011

"To be clear to everyone reading this article, the community group working on this file has never opposed this development or intensification. We just don't think Extremification (Ken Gray) is the right approach to maintain the suburban nature and character of our communities."
Read more: http://www.ottawacitizen.com/Builder...#ixzz1aUsK5xYt

[p_xavier]

The most ridiculous thing is that the Citizen actually publishes these stories. They should impose themselves a limit of five-storey too.

I mean, what if London or Paris would publish such articles in their newspapers? The angryphone stereotype lives on.

[waterloowarrior]

Some Rules For Intensification
http://blogs.ottawacitizen.com/2011/...tensification/

I spent some time on the weekend discussing with a friend some rules for intensification. The Bulldog would welcome some suggestions to add to these regulations or a bit of discussion of what’s there. You can do this by using the comment box below.

What these criteria do is raise the bar on intensification. At present, condo developments mostly consist of beige brown boxes with balconies that add little to neighbourhoods except more people and more traffic. We certainly want people to live downtown and within the Greenbelt for cost and environmental reasons, but not at the expense of destroying existing and successful neighbourhoods. Anyway, here a few suggestions:

1. Developments must enhance neighbourhoods and be something that communities embrace rather than dread;

2. Developments must have intriguing design;

3. Developers must contribute something to the community, be it on site art or other means. Development is more than building a condo, selling the units and just walking away;

4. Heritage cannot be destroyed;

5. Services must be provided by the city for the intensified communities. We are creating two sets of citizenry in this community: people with full services in the suburbs and people with basic services in the core;

6. Existing, successful residential neighbourhoods cannot be bulldozed for large developments;

7. New developments should be directed at current areas that are poorly utilized such as used-car lots or empty areas rather than placing them next to residential neighbourhoods;

8. Existing zoning is an agreement between current property owners, potential developers and the city outlining the nature of a neighbourhood. Zoning is not a suggestion, but an agreement on the composition of a community so that individuals, business people and developers know what they are buying into when purchasing property;

9. Constructing rapid transit is more than simply transporting people, but also a planning device;

10. Intensification should be encouraged around rapid transit stations, but not at the expense of destroying neighbourhoods;

11. Adequate greenspace and community facilities must be retained or added as communities intensify.

This will make intensification more difficult, yet not impossible. Successful neighbourhoods should be cherished, not paved over.

[Cre47]

Yep, we know that, Ken wants more Barrhaven's or Kanata's.

And he is silent for those large approval of lands for developpement in Half Moon Bay and near the Trim/174 area.