Developer Ashcroft Homes has applied for a zoning by-law amendment and an official plan amendment to build a 22 storey building and a 25 storey building right next to Ev Tremblay Park on the former Humane Society site (101 Champagne Avenue). It is proposing approximately 252 condominium units, with 175 or 275 parking spaces (information contains both figures).
The property is currently zoned as Residential Fourth Density R4M[924], which allows a wide range of residential uses but does not allow high-rise apartment buildings. Only apartment buildings up to four storeys are permitted. The exception [924] also permits an animal hospital on the property.
You can get more information at : http://app01.ottawa.ca/postingplans/appDetails.jsf?lang=en&appId=__8ODN8V
The City of Ottawa is currently collecting comments on Ashcroft’s application.
Deadline for comments: February 8th.
Send comments to: Douglas James, City of Ottawa, Planning and Growth Management Department:
1) by mail at 110 Laurier Avenue West, 4th Floor, Ottawa, ON, K1P 1J1
2) by phone at 613-580-2424, ext 13856
3) by fax at 613-560-6006
4) by email at douglas.james@ottawa.ca
1) by mail at 110 Laurier Avenue West, 4th Floor, Ottawa, ON, K1P 1J1
2) by phone at 613-580-2424, ext 13856
3) by fax at 613-560-6006
4) by email at douglas.james@ottawa.ca
You may wish to copy your comments to our City Councillor Katherine Hobbs:
1) by mail at 110 Laurier Avenue West
Ottawa, Ontario K1P 1J1
2) by phone at 613-580-2485
3) by fax at 613-580-2525
4) by email at Katherine.Hobbs@ottawa.ca
1) by mail at 110 Laurier Avenue West
Ottawa, Ontario K1P 1J1
2) by phone at 613-580-2485
3) by fax at 613-580-2525
4) by email at Katherine.Hobbs@ottawa.ca
Excellent news! Press for excellent street-level design.
ReplyDeleteThis comment has been removed by the author.
ReplyDeleteWe'd have to disagree with WJM. The proposal for 101 Champagne has serious problems. Our comments to the City follow
ReplyDeleteDear Mr. James
Re: Zoning By-law Amendment Proposal, Official Plan Amendment Application for 101 Champagne Avenue (File No: D02-02-11-0083)
We live a block and a half away from the proposed development at 101 Champagne.
As you know, there are already plans and proposals to introduce quite a few new developments, hundreds of additional people as well as over 1000 parking spaces and vehicles along Champagne near Carling. We understand the City wants to increase density along the Light Rail Train (LRT) corridor near Carling Avenue and we have no problem with this objective. However, we do have a problem with the fact that developments such as 101 Champagne are proceeding before the Carling Bayview Light Rail Transit Corridor Community Design Plan is completed. It is difficult to imagine what the planning process for our area will be like if most of the major decisions regarding land use have been made. Development appears to be usurping planning at this point.
We have a number of concerns as well as questions that have not yet been answered.
Parking: Why does 101 Champagne need 275 parking spaces for 252 condominium units? How does this fit with the City’s plan to “encourage a pattern and density of development that supports transit, cycling and walking as viable alternatives to the automobile?” Shouldn’t the City restrict the number of parking spots to support its strategic direction?
Traffic: At the moment, neighbourhoods near the LRT are expected to absorb the intensification that is required by the City so that the City is able to reach its official plan goal of sustainability (because intensification won't be accepted in other areas). The City defines sustainable development as "development that meets the needs of the present generation without compromising the ability of future generations to meet their own needs." Unfortunately, the needs of current residents are not being met. These residents are expected to accept large increases in traffic and noise while receiving no benefits. The neighbourhood has no grocery store, post office, etc. which means that everyone moving into the area has to drive to get basic products and services. And the City has recently cut bus service to the area. That is, the City is not currently striking the right balance between supporting intensification and sustaining our neighbourhood by ensuring that there are services and by taking measures to deal with the spike in traffic that goes with intensification.
Does the City have a plan to provide basic services to people in this neighbourhood? As indicated earlier, there is no grocery store in the area. The closest one is Metro at 754 Bank Street or Hartman’s at 296 Bank Street.
Also, has the city considered ways of ensuring that Hickory, Beech, Loretta, Breezehill, Bayswater and other residential roads in the area do not effectively become collector roads for people trying to get from new developments such as 101 Champagne to the Queensway and downtown?
The traffic study that was done in connection with the 101 Champagne proposal indicates that there will be minimal impact on our roads. We disagree. Vehicles from 101 Champagne and other developments are not likely to simply exit from Champagne onto Carling. There is a traffic light at this intersection. There is also a light at Carling and Sherwood. People don't like sitting at lights and will do almost anything to avoid them. This means that many vehicles are likely to scoot up Hickory, go south on Bayswater and then take Sherwood OR go north on Bayswater to downtown so that they can bypass Preston. The trucks that have been working at the various developments in the area have already been doing this.
(continued in next comment)
(continued from previous comment)
ReplyDeleteTransitional Zone: The Carling Bayview Light Rail Transit Corridor Community Design Plan (CDP) has a community vision. This vision states that “ A clear boundary should be created between the “established neighbourhood” and the “development area”, including a transitional zone located within the “developmental area”. The 101 Champagne site is the transition zone between the developed area to the south and the established neighbourhood to the north, east and west.
In order to deal with some of the above concerns, we suggest that the City:
1) Reduce the number of parking spaces.
2) Put barriers at Champagne and Beech and Champagne and Hickory. This will force vehicles from 101 Champagne and other developments to use the nearby arterial Carling rather than using neighbourhood roads like collectors.
3) Consider greening part of Champagne from the corner of Champagne and Beech to Ashcroft's site at 101 Champagne, with a turning circle for vehicles near the Ashcoft site. This would effectively enlarge the park and prevent vehicles from exiting by way of Beech. Taking this
measure would address many of the traffic concerns of people living near 101 Champagne and other developments, but only if it is done in conjunction with a barrier at Champagne and Hickory to ensures that vehicles leave by way of Carling. It would also provide residents in the neighbourhood with a gain from intensification. Please note that the greening of Champagne would add much needed space to Ev Tremblay Park, which is a small park that will become even smaller once the LRT is built. Ev Tremblay is slated to lose 6 feet along the LRT corridor.
4) Ensure that the 101 Champagne site is the transition point between the mixed-use developments to the south and the residential neighbourhood to the north. The tower closest to Ev Tremblay Park and pool should not exceed four storeys. The other tower should be lower than the 16 storey tower at 125 Hickory so that the Ashcroft development transitions downwards as it approaches the park and neighbourhood.
Given past history, we expect to be told why these suggestions "can't be done" for all sorts of technical and administrative reasons. We would ask then, why developers are routinely given latitude to go beyond the existing zoning, by-laws and official plans, while the average citizen is told that they must always adhere to the letter of whatever by-law governs them and their wishes? It is high time that those of us who live in neighbourhoods undergoing "intense" intensification be given the chance to shape the future of our urban landscape.
Thank you for considering these views.
Yours truly,
Kathie Steinhoff Peter Eady
Note: These comments are the views of the residents of 169 Hickory Street only.