New subdivision developments

[Ottawan]

In other words, both developers and courts are tired of the City fighting legal battles against projects where there is no legal ground for a challenge.

If only something like awarding costs against the City would help it learn...

[Acajack]

Originally Posted by waterloowarrior

Corvinelli Homes has a map of their next few phases of Solidex Place/Station in Russell, which is ready to boom as City of Ottawa water is coming in February and they are building more wastewater infrastructure

Solidex Place/Station^ Anyone know where they got that name? I guess "station" comes from the fact that it is near the nature trail that used to be the New York Central Railway. But Solidex?

[waterloowarrior]

Originally Posted by Acajack

Solidex Place/Station^ Anyone know where they got that name? I guess "station" comes from the fact that it is near the nature trail that used to be the New York Central Railway. But Solidex?

It's originally called Solidex Place but that map says Solidex Station, so maybe they are changing it... a lot of the street names are train related. Solidex is from "Solidex Holdings" which I think is the construction company started by the developer's father http://www.canada.com/ottawacitizen/...e-e9d0d8ec1cda

[Acajack]

Originally Posted by waterloowarrior

It's originally called Solidex Place but that map says Solidex Station, so maybe they are changing it... a lot of the street names are train related. Solidex is from "Solidex Holdings" which I think is the construction company started by the developer's father http://www.canada.com/ottawacitizen/...e-e9d0d8ec1cda

Good sleuthing there!

[Dado]

Originally Posted by Ottawan

In other words, both developers and courts are tired of the City fighting legal battles against projects where there is no legal ground for a challenge.

If only something like awarding costs against the City would help it learn...

The outcome of this case is not exactly good for municipalities anywhere in the province. This case, if you recall, while it started off as a pissing match between the City and Minto, was actually about whether the OMB is required to "have regard to" decisions of Council in arriving at its decisions, something that the Provincial cabinet had changed a few regulations a few years' back to ensure. What this case has shown is that that was all for naught, if it was indeed for real at all.

What I had expected, given the clear lack of regard the OMB had for Council's decision and due to the provincial regulation change, was that the Court would punt the case back to the OMB with instructions to the OMB to rehear the case in accordance with the provincial regulations. There I expected the OMB to come to the same decision in the end, but only after it sorted out a bunch of conflicting Council decisions. The City would have won on the principle that the OMB has to pay attention to Council while Minto would have won on the grounds that Council was nuts. Instead what we've got is that every single growth-limiting decision by any municipal council anywhere in the province is pretty much worthless as far as the OMB is concerned.


And we still see Minto pushing its luck after all this - it is crystal-clear that costs at an OMB hearing cannot be awarded except under the most unusual of circumstances, and simply defending a provincially-approved secondary plan is not one of those circumstances.

[waterloowarrior]

Originally Posted by Dado

The outcome of this case is not exactly good for municipalities anywhere in the province. This case, if you recall, while it started off as a pissing match between the City and Minto, was actually about whether the OMB is required to "have regard to" decisions of Council in arriving at its decisions, something that the Provincial cabinet had changed a few regulations a few years' back to ensure. What this case has shown is that that was all for naught, if it was indeed for real at all.

What I had expected, given the clear lack of regard the OMB had for Council's decision and due to the provincial regulation change, was that the Court would punt the case back to the OMB with instructions to the OMB to rehear the case in accordance with the provincial regulations. There I expected the OMB to come to the same decision in the end, but only after it sorted out a bunch of conflicting Council decisions. The City would have won on the principle that the OMB has to pay attention to Council while Minto would have won on the grounds that Council was nuts. Instead what we've got is that every single growth-limiting decision by any municipal council anywhere in the province is pretty much worthless as far as the OMB is concerned.

And we still see Minto pushing its luck after all this - it is crystal-clear that costs at an OMB hearing cannot be awarded except under the most unusual of circumstances, and simply defending a provincially-approved secondary plan is not one of those circumstances.

The PPS used to say "have regard to" but it was changed to "shall be consistent with" because it didn't really mean too much.

http://www.localgovernment.ca/show_bulletin.cfm?id=168

First, Bill 51 requires that the OMB shall “have regard to the decision of the municipal council.” OMB hearings are almost always a question of whether the municipal decision will stand or not, so the current practice has been for the OMB to have regard to the municipal decision even if it decides to set it aside. This particular amendment therefore changes nothing. But the irony of the words “have regard to” should not be missed. It used to be that the OMB was required to “have regard for” provincial policy statements but that was considered so weak that the government has since required that decisions “be consistent with” provincial policy standards. Bill 51 doesn’t give the local decision the status of provincial policy, just a “have regard to” status. The government touts this as a major recognition of local councils, but it is nothing of the sort.

[Ottawan]

Exactly. The court was determining how much deference was required by the standard of "have regard to". I don't think the court made a very serious mistake. As to the outcome, I actually feel that OMB decisions are almost always more fair to all parties involved than those of Council, and from that pragmatic viewpoint, would rather that their having regard to the decisions of Council does not mean that they must do more than consider them. If most people disagree with me, the province can always change the legislation.

[harls]

There's new development signs up in Aylmer at Robert Stewart/Lucerne for Faubourg du Rivage Condos, townhomes etc. They've already bulldozed a bit on the north side of Lucerne.

there was a website on the billboard .. www.faubourgdurivage.com

[TransitZilla]

Minto TrailsEdge
http://www.minto.com/buy-a-home-in-o...Edge/main.html

Offering in its initial phase a limited collection of only 117 executive townhomes, TrailsEdge presents to you an attractive setting close to both urban amenities and natural attractions.

Located on the southwestern edge of Orleans, just east of Minto's Chapel Trail (where Page Road and Renaud Road intersect), TrailsEdge offers you four different models of Minto's sought-after executive townhomes.

Owning an exceptionally well-designed Minto townhome in TrailsEdge will give you an inspiring place to enjoy life.

Trails Edge is an “all ENERGY STAR” community built in Ottawa by Minto Communities. It is adjacent to a future community of residential, schools, parks and retail. With good access to a future rapid-bus transit system (and future light rail), nature trails of Mud Creek and close to Mer Bleue and the NCC lands, as well as access to some commercial areas – it will be part a future diverse community of people and businesses.

Natural resource conservation is a priority for Minto – including energy, water and reduction in construction materials and waste. With the increasing cost of energy and awareness of the impacts of energy production on our natural environment and climate – the demand for energy efficient solutions in all industries has never been stronger.

TrailsEdge is an open community with public access to sidewalks and parks. With a compact footprint of 19 DU/Acre, this helps make efficient use land inside the urban boundary and supports efficient use of transit.

Some other features:

- landscape design to eliminate traditional sod (using lower-water use and non-invasive sod) – called RTF, ‘rhizome turf fescue grass’

- for reduced water use: low-flow shower heads, toilets, and lavatory faucets. Reduced water use will also be achieved through lower water use landscaping design.

- low VOC paint and Green label Plus Carpets as standard – this will enhance indoor air quality.

- Design the community for pedestrians

o Build bike / pedestrian connections to the future bus transitway, along the creek system and connecting to the future school and park sites.

o Strong pedestrian connections east-west to future to future development areas

o Public active and passive parks and open spaces are focused centrally to the communities and passive park areas are provided along the creeks. Storm water management ponds will be adjacent to open spaces to provide more public open space – these parks will be a feature of the community.

o Walkable access to schools, parks and future retail

- Construction waste will be separated on site for recycling and a diversion rate exceeding 75% of construction waste from landfill will be established

- Materials with a recycled content and/or which are extracted and manufactured locally are preferred.

Unfortunately no site plan available (and nothing on the city's maps)... environmental features seem quite good though. If my calculations are right, 19DU/Acre=47units/hectare, which is well above the OP target of 30 units/hectare for suburban development.

[Requin]

There has been some bulldozing happening during the past couple of weeks on the west side of 10th Line at Harvest Valley, just south of Tamarack's Chaperal development, near some kind of brick utility-type building. Anybody know what's going on there?

[eternallyme]

19/acre would be your average mixed condo/low-rise apartment complex. There aren't any in Orleans that I can find like that, but some in east Ottawa for sure.

Right now in Orleans, the highest densities I can find are in central Chapel Hill, which looks to be about 12 units/acre. The lowest are in parts of Convent Glen, which appear to be about 3 units/acre.

[waterloowarrior]

Fernbank subdivisions are starting to come in
http://app01.ottawa.ca/postingplans/...appId=__7UMMK1

[TransitZilla]

Mattamy Half Moon Bay Phase 2...
http://app01.ottawa.ca/postingplans/...appId=__7XWO9P

Mattamy seems to be going downhill in terms of subdivision design. Their previous plans have featured rear-lane townhomes, single-loaded streets, lots of walkway blocks, and have generally been very attractive.

This plan is full of rear-lotting along arterials, something the city has been trying to get away from. They even have a long stretch (over 220m) of rear lotting, without even a walkway block, along New Greenbank Rd, which is supposed to be a future transit corridor. How those people will actually to get said transit, I don't know...

I'm hoping this gets significantly changed.

[eternallyme]

Originally Posted by bradnixon

Mattamy Half Moon Bay Phase 2...
http://app01.ottawa.ca/postingplans/...appId=__7XWO9P

Mattamy seems to be going downhill in terms of subdivision design. Their previous plans have featured rear-lane townhomes, single-loaded streets, lots of walkway blocks, and have generally been very attractive.

This plan is full of rear-lotting along arterials, something the city has been trying to get away from. They even have a long stretch (over 220m) of rear lotting, without even a walkway block, along New Greenbank Rd, which is supposed to be a future transit corridor. How those people will actually to get said transit, I don't know...

I'm hoping this gets significantly changed.

I can understand the rationale for not having any houses or driveways directly facing Greenbank (it would also be the edge of the community), but there should be frequent walkway blocks as long as higher-level transit is forced onto Greenbank (until the ultimate transit corridor - see below - is built). Commercial, institutional (i.e. schools, churches) and multi-family establishments should have direct access though.

I would personally move the transit corridor to the existing Greenbank Road corridor, to allow for more TOD along the central part of the communities and better access from Stonebridge as well. The existing Greenbank Road should become a mainstreet arterial with community mixed-use.

If the design is as planned, the ideal design:

Existing Greenbank (new mainstreet minor arterial) - 2 lanes, a transit corridor on-street and parking lanes, 50 km/h speed limit

New Greenbank (new suburban arterial) - 4 lanes and dedicated on-street bicycle lanes, 70 km/h speed limit (may be lowered to 60 km/h depending on development)

[waterloowarrior]

Originally Posted by eternallyme

I can understand the rationale for not having any houses or driveways directly facing Greenbank (it would also be the edge of the community)

It's the edge as currently planned, but Minto owns a bunch of land there (some of which was recommended to be added in the OP review), so it likely won't be like that forever.. I believe the Greenbank/Barrhaven South plans are too advanced to shift that to the transit corridor... The schools/commercial uses are going to be concentrated near the new Greenbank, while the current Greenbank is going to have things like single loaded roads and parks.

[eternallyme]

Some other things I would change:

Transit network

Routes 171 and 177 should have all-day service available this fall - from 5 am to midnight Monday to Friday, from 7 am to midnight Saturday and from 8 am to 10 pm Sunday (which should be always the minimum span of service). However, since the ridership potential is very low, both routes should go on a demand-responsive basis (something I would expand to many developing suburban areas) in the evenings and on weekends. 30 minute service would likely be feasible from about 9 am to 3 pm weekdays and 15 minute service at rush hour.

Ultimately, those routes would be enhanced, with rapid transit along a new Transitway (ultimate LRT) corridor along the existing Greenbank (which should only have 2 traffic lanes as opposed to 4 for a normal arterial to accomodate the transit). The new industrial area I have thought of would have a separate route. A mini-hub would be at Barnsdale Road.

A solid option would exist to incorporate commercial development at HMB Phase 2 and Stonebridge Phases 11 and 12, particularly at the Cambrian and Barnsdale intersections (both would be roundabouts).

South of Barnsdale and west of the new Greenbank

Keeping the fact that a transit corridor should run along the existing Greenbank, if development were to continue southward, such a design should continue with mixed use along the existing Greenbank as far as Bankfield Road. Any residential area should maintain a minimum 400m green area surrounding Manotick though.

Areas west of the new Greenbank corridor should ultimately - if released for development - be industrial/limited commercial (i.e. restricted to highway-specific uses like hotels) south of Cambrian, as the presence of Highway 416 would keep such traffic out of the community for the most part.

[eternallyme]

Originally Posted by waterloowarrior

It's the edge as currently planned, but Minto owns a bunch of land there (some of which was recommended to be added in the OP review), so it likely won't be like that forever.. I believe the Greenbank plans are too advanced to shift that to the transit corridor... The schools/commercial uses are going to be concentrated near the new Greenbank, while the current Greenbank is going to have things like single loaded roads and parks.

How many lanes is the existing Greenbank planned for? It appears to be marked as an arterial, which usually suggests ROW for at least 4 lanes - they could narrow it to 2 lanes in the ultimate plan. They could move the "community core" into the grid on the existing Greenbank with transit stations at Cambrian, Barnsdale and halfway between them.

Also I'd reduce the number of Public Elementary schools from 3 to 2 (replace the SW one with a private school) since they are seriously declining in attendance.

[waterloowarrior]

Originally Posted by eternallyme

How many lanes is the existing Greenbank planned for? It appears to be marked as an arterial, which usually suggests ROW for at least 4 lanes - they could narrow it to 2 lanes in the ultimate plan.

Not sure about the final decision but here's what the CDP says

The ongoing EA of Greenbank Road has identified a “preferred” alternative location to the west of existing Greenbank Road, including a new location of a bridge over the Jock River. This new Greenbank Road corridor should be protected for a four-lane arterial road cross-section as far south as Cambrian Road. Combined with the rapid transit corridor requirement, the total recommended right-of-way is 41.5m.

In order to accommodate the potential of an urban boundary expansion beyond that currently rationalized in the Barrhaven South CDP, the right-of-way of new Greenbank Road south of Cambrian Road, as a potential future arterial, should be protected to accommodate four arterial lanes and two rapid transit lanes, all in a 41.5m right-of-way.

South of Cambrian Road, existing Greenbank Road should be protected for a four-lane arterial cross-section to Barnsdale Road with a right-of-way of 37.5m.Ultimately, a right-of-way somewhere between 32.0m and 37.5m for a four-lane undivided roadway, is the likely scenario, as the arterial function of this roadway is expected to change in the long-term.

Originally Posted by eternallyme

They could move the "community core" into the grid on the existing Greenbank with transit stations at Cambrian, Barnsdale and halfway between them.

Problem is that in many cases along existing Greenbank the land is already subdivided/zoned and some houses already exist/have been sold/servicing is in place

The east side (Monarch) has already undergone planning approvals





^ brought to you by the former City of Nepean

[waterloowarrior]

Tamarack also recently filed plans for Barrhaven South lands (between phase 1 and 2 of HMB
http://app01.ottawa.ca/postingplans/...appId=__7UNQBA

You can see a map of ownership in Barrhaven South here (p. 3)
http://webcast.ottawa.ca/plan/All_Im...01-09-0007.PDF

[TransitZilla]

Originally Posted by waterloowarrior

It's the edge as currently planned, but Minto owns a bunch of land there (some of which was recommended to be added in the OP review), so it likely won't be like that forever.. I believe the Greenbank/Barrhaven South plans are too advanced to shift that to the transit corridor... The schools/commercial uses are going to be concentrated near the new Greenbank, while the current Greenbank is going to have things like single loaded roads and parks.

As I was complaining about in my earlier post, Mattamy's HMB south submitted subdivision plan proposes mostly rear-lotting along both New AND Existing Greenbank roads, which is pretty much the worst of all worlds.

Ideally Existing Greenbank would be flanked by parks and single loaded roads, and New Greenbank would have things like schools, commercial, or higher density residential (e.g. stacked/rear lane townhomes).

(Unfortunately the location of the new Barrhaven south rec complex is going to be at the SW corner of Cambrian and Existing Greenbank... it's too bad that it won't be directly on the transit corridor.)

Rear-lotting low density residential with no walkway blocks along New Greenbank (as proposed) is pretty much the worst thing they can do.