General Update/Rumour thread [Urban Ottawa]

[Kitchissippi]

I bet if I were to randomly guess that they are building another Shoppers Drug Mart, there would be a 50% chance I'd be right

[waterloowarrior]

Did some googling and the property comes up under Bona Building and Management (the guys doing the Hampton)

Some interesting history involving Mulroney-era corruption about the office building next door (at the corner of Mcarthur/Vanier) and this site and/or McArthur bowling lanes site

http://books.google.ca/books?id=821-9a6F...na%20building%20and%20management&f=false

[Davis137]

The little project on the South end of Churchill near Carling is now a big crater, and there looks like there's lots on the go there now.

The development on Scott Street near Churchill is now above ground, with at least 1/3 of the ground floor erected (though it's made of wood and not concrete...very strange).

[Kitchissippi]

Originally Posted by Davis137

The development on Scott Street near Churchill is now above ground, with at least 1/3 of the ground floor erected (though it's made of wood and not concrete...very strange).

Most of the non-mixed use condos that are six storeys and under are bound to be wood frame construction (Stoneworks Lofts and 360). It's sort of the magic number. This is why I think allowing 8 storeys is a good thing as it ups the construction quality.

[waterloowarrior]

Originally Posted by Kitchissippi

Most of the non-mixed use condos that are six storeys and under are bound to be wood frame construction (Stoneworks Lofts and 360). It's sort of the magic number. This is why I think allowing 8 storeys is a good thing as it ups the construction quality.

I think the limit for wood construction is 4 storeys in Ontario, but word is they are going to change it to 6 like BC did (it's one of the action plans from the recent proposed Northern Growth Plan)
http://communities.canada.com/ottawaciti...-defence-of-wood-frame-construction.aspx

[waterloowarrior]

Planning committee shrinks zoning on 'intensification dream site' in Sandy Hill



http://www.ottawacitizen.com/news/Planni...dream+site+Sandy+Hill/2261169/story.html
By Patrick Dare, The Ottawa CitizenNovember 24, 2009 3:03 PMComments (4)

OTTAWA — The potential for a highrise development on Range Road has Sandy Hill residents upset.

Property at 85 Range Road., currently a parking lot beside an existing highrise apartment building, was this summer purchased by a large national landlord, Homestead Land Holdings.

The company's lawyer Janet Bradley told councillors the company investigated the zoning and found it allowed a 10-storey building. When the architect hired for the project suggested a 14-storey building might be better, city officials were approached.

Those city officials found out there had been an oversight in the comprehensive zoning bylaw that merged all the zoning bylaws from the area's pre-amalgamation municipalities. While the current zoning allowed a 10-storey building, another official planning document for Sandy Hill called for low-rise development — and on this site, only four storeys.

Paul Webber, lawyer for the community association in Sandy Hill, said residents were prepared to accept building on the site, but “it’s a scale issue.”

City planning staff brought the issue before city council's planning and environment committee Tuesday to have the zoning changed as a “minor correction.”

A motion from Councillor Georges Bédard, who represents the area, limits the size of building to five storeys. The motion passed committee and goes to council Wednesday.

Bradley said the reduced height would be an unjustified downzoning for land that is “an intensification dream site.”

City planner John Smit said that with such a zoning, the developer could put in two buildings with a total of between 60 and 80 apartments.

If council approves the change in zoning, the matter could be appealed to the Ontario Municipal Board.

© Copyright (c) The Ottawa Citizen



On E-MAPS it looks like the apartment building/parking lot is one lot... the 30 metre zoning applies over the whole site.

[Deez]

As much as I am a keener for intensification, I have to agree with council and ASH on this one. This site is hardly dreamy in its potential for sustainable living. Specifically, it's too far from Rideau retail to be very walkable and it's poorly serviced by transit. Furthermore, it's in the middle of an established urban community; I'd hate to see this part of Sandy Hill become more like "upper" Sandy Hill (or some Toronto neighbourhoods) where godawful apartment blocks are thrown down beside beautiful Victorian houses at seemingly random midblock locations.

This is clearly a case of a developer trying to cash in on a riverside property.

[Proof Sheet]

Originally Posted by waterloowarrior

Planning committee shrinks zoning on 'intensification dream site' in Sandy Hill


Those city officials found out there had been an oversight in the comprehensive zoning bylaw that merged all the zoning bylaws from the area's pre-amalgamation municipalities. While the current zoning allowed a 10-storey building, another official planning document for Sandy Hill called for low-rise development — and on this site, only four storeys.


On E-MAPS it looks like the apartment building/parking lot is one lot... the 30 metre zoning applies over the whole site.

Am I correct in understanding that prior to this PEC matter that the whole site had a 30 m height limit (existing building is 10 storeys...close to 30 m) and they wanted to build a 14 storey (say 42 m) building on the surface parking lot which was all part of the same site.

But, the Sandy Hill Secondary Plan had a 4 storey limit which would then lead to a OP conformity issue (which the existing building already has)....if that is the case, how did a 5 storey limit go forward.

It looks like a real mess and on to the OMB we go.

[Kitchissippi]

Originally Posted by waterloowarrior

I think the limit for wood construction is 4 storeys in Ontario, but word is they are going to change it to 6 like BC did (it's one of the action plans from the recent proposed Northern Growth Plan)
http://communities.canada.com/ottawaciti...-defence-of-wood-frame-construction.aspx

So technically it's 4+1, and in the case of 360˚ Lofts they are probably doing a concrete ground floor for parking for a 6-storey total height.

I personally would not buy a wood frame mid-rise condo. I think noise will always be an issue, and if there is a fire the entire structure becomes compromised either by the flames or from water damage.

[Cre47]

I know the article is in French but, anyone aware about potentially something at 85 Range Road in Sandy Hill, the article says it could be 15 stories high - three times higher then the limit

Apparently a mistake by the City in the 2008-09 had created a loophole that would permit the construction of a 15-story building.

http://www.cyberpresse.ca/le-droit/actua...e-veulent-pas-dune-tour-de-15-etages.php

[Cre47]

I know the article is in French but, anyone aware about potentially something at 85 Range Road in Sandy Hill, the article says it could be 15 stories high - three times higher then the limit says article but ... see below.

Apparently a mistake by the City in the 2008-09 had created a loophole that would permit the construction of a 15-story building.

http://www.cyberpresse.ca/le-droit/actua...e-veulent-pas-dune-tour-de-15-etages.php

Note: on Street view, you can see an existent 10-story building at 85 Range Road. The building would likely be beside it on 87 or 89 Range (likely not 81-83 Range).

http://maps.google.ca/maps?f=q&source=s_...KkFP36OOo-FQj-kcg&cbp=12,98.66,,0,-27.69

Either the article has a factual error or there was another loophole or it's just plain Nimbyism. I don't see a problem having a 15-story tower beside the existent building (87-89 Range) especially since just a few blocks away you have a 25-story tower beside the Rideau.

[RTWAP]

Originally Posted by Deez

As much as I am a keener for intensification, I have to agree with council and ASH on this one. This site is hardly dreamy in its potential for sustainable living. Specifically, it's too far from Rideau retail to be very walkable and it's poorly serviced by transit. Furthermore, it's in the middle of an established urban community; I'd hate to see this part of Sandy Hill become more like "upper" Sandy Hill (or some Toronto neighbourhoods) where godawful apartment blocks are thrown down beside beautiful Victorian houses at seemingly random midblock locations.

This is clearly a case of a developer trying to cash in on a riverside property.

When all is said and done, I think they'll end up with another 10 story building. To me, your argument above is a good reason to prevent a 15 story building, but the 10 floor building next door sets a bit of a visual precedent.

[Proof Sheet]

Originally Posted by Cre47

Note: on Street view, you can see an existent 10-story building at 85 Range Road. The building would likely be beside it on 87 or 89 Range (likely not 81-83 Range).

http://maps.google.ca/maps?f=q&source=s_...KkFP36OOo-FQj-kcg&cbp=12,98.66,,0,-27.69

I believe the land in question is to the south in the area that is currently a surface parking lot.

[amanfromnowhere]

This is from Ottawa Business Journal:

Top Ottawa construction permits in October
Ottawa Business Journal
Thu, Nov 26, 2009 3:00 PM EST

The city issued 837 construction permits in October with a total value of $159.4 million. The top projects by value are:


Property
Contractor
Description
Value
Sq. ft.

Canadian Security Intelligence Service (1941 Ogilvie Rd.)
EllisDon Corp.
Construct a five-storey addition plus two basement levels to an existing office building
$22,412,000
124,370

University of Ottawa (136 Jean-Jacques Lussier Priv.)
To be let
Interior alterations to accommodate new faculty requirements in an existing institutional building
$10,000,000
13,785

Albion Executive Tower (25 Nicholas St.)
To be let
Fit-up on the ground floor, shipping and receiving and floors 10 to 22 in a 22-storey commercial building
$2,750,000
193,757

C.D. Howe Building, east tower (235 Queen St.)
To be let
Tenant fit-up on the fourth floor of an 11-storey commercial building
$2,500,000
3,668

Tommy and Lefebvre (464 Bank St.)
To be let
Reconstruction of a retail building damaged by fire
$2,250,000
13,886

Institute des services d'urgences (801 Aviation Parkway)
Daoust Construction
Footings and foundations for two basement storeys for a future four-storey institutional building
$1,900,000
45,425

Former Canadian Tire (1777 Tenth Line Rd.)
Minto Communities Inc.
Tenant fit-up to a one-storey commercial building
$1,700,000
84,995

Lexon Transport Inc. (1132 Old Innes Rd.)
To be let
Interior/exterior alterations to repair and reconstruct a one-storey industrial building damaged by fire
$1,600,000
2,986

Vincent Massey Park washrooms (701 Heron Rd.)
To be let
Construction of a one-storey facility building
$1,492,000
2,228


Shoppers Drug Mart (181 Greenbank Rd.)
To be let
Construct a one-storey apartment building
$1,400,000
198,310

Source: City of Ottawa

Does anybody know anything about Albion Executive Tower (25 Nicholas St.)? Aerial viewing of live maps shows some activities on this site dated 2008 I guess...

[Kitchissippi]

Shoppers Drug Mart is into housing? what the heck is a one storey apartment building and why would it cost 1.4 million?

[rakerman]

Sign up that the Dollar Store is closing at Bank & James. Also one of those damn Cash Stores going in at Bank & Nepean.

[AuxTown]

Originally Posted by Kitchissippi

Shoppers Drug Mart is into housing? what the heck is a one storey apartment building and why would it cost 1.4 million?

I think that means motel??

[waterloowarrior]

Originally Posted by Kitchissippi

Shoppers Drug Mart is into housing? what the heck is a one storey apartment building and why would it cost 1.4 million?

lol! Here's what's happening
http://www.stopshoppers.ca/home.html

[Ottawan]

Carleton University recently released their draft campus plan. There really is alot of good in it (although as a History grad it will be sad to say goodbye to Paterson Hall). It's rather long, but interesting, and I recommend looking at it when you have half an hour to spare:

http://www.carleton.ca/campusplan/documentation/forums/2009-10-20_Forums.pdf

[waterloowarrior]

Some info on a potential project at the Proshine site Wellington@Island Park.

This is another Hobin-designed project, but not the same as The Wellington at Island Park (TWAIP is on the east side of Bella's restaurant, this project is on the west side)

http://blog.westwellington.ca/wp-content/uploads/2009/11/WWCANovMinutes.pdf

3) Presentation by David Spillenaar of Springcress Properties and architect Barry Hobin regarding potential development of the northeast corner of Wellington and Island Park (current location of Pro Shine). The proposed building is just to the west of Bella’s Restaurant. The lot on the east side of Bella’s is already approved for a development which Barry Hoban is also designing. Mr. Hoban presented preliminary drawings for the massing of the proposed project. He made the following points:
a. Two potential general designs are being considered
i. A six-floor version that comes closer to the rear property line
ii. A seven-floor version that leaves more room at rear between back of building and property line.
b. Both designs include “step-backs” at several levels of the building
c. This is a “Boutique” development meaning that there is not a lot of room for many units, a maximum of 40 to maintain 1:1 parking ratio.
d. The location is designated as a “Gateway” in CDP which allows it to go to 20 metres (6-7 stories)
e. The project is very much in the early stages. They are only looking at massing for the moment and seeking feedback from the community. The corner of the building is the only architectural element at this point. It creates a sort of gateway into Wellington Village.
f. The architect and the developer acknowledged that this will be a long process and that there will be opposition particularly from the residents directly to the north of the site.
g. The six-floor option would sit 25 metres from the property line, which is within the by-laws.
h. Both versions of the design have the same density of units. Because of the size of the lot there is very little play in that regard.
i. The development would include one level of underground parking and parking at grade
j. Both designs are smaller than the Piccadilly across the street.
k. Sun shadow is no different between two options
l. A big issue to be resolved will be off of which street access to the building will be established.
m. Maps of the area are available on-line from Bing Maps
n. As with all other recent developments in the area the proposal will include commercial space at ground level and residential units above.
o. When asked about LEED and other green features the developer replied that they haven’t gotten past the massing stage at this point. The architect mentioned that most of their developments are “green”.
p. At this point only the seven-floor option requires any variances and this only for height. The west side might need a variance because it goes right up to what is designated as a street though that street isn’t actually there as it dead-ends before the site.
q. They will not be looking for cash in lieu of parking at this point as the marketplace will demand adequate parking anyway.
r. The architect and the developer don’t believe retail will cause parking problems because there won’t be very much of it.
s. Units will not rentals but condos and won’t be particularly small or inexpensive.
t. Architect repeated that at this point they are just looking for honest feedback. They are trying to create a good process by putting their cards on the table which benefits them in the long run.
u. They can be reached through their website. http://www.hobinarc.com/index2.html
v. Jason also has David Spilenaar’s email address

we talked about this site a little while back when it was for sale
http://forum.skyscraperpage.com/showthread.php?p=4036654