472 Byron Place | 23m | 6 fl | Approved

[waterloowarrior]

The City of Ottawa received Zoning By-law Amendment and Site Plan Control applications to permit a new six-storey mixed-use building at 433-435 Churchill Avenue and 468-472 Byron Place, with approximately 75 residential units, and two at-grade commercial units facing Churchill Avenue. Roadway Modifications may be required.


zoning

https://app01.ottawa.ca/postingplans...appId=__AGCTPD

site plan

https://app01.ottawa.ca/postingplans...appId=__AGCS9R

[rocketphish]

Site:






Renderings:

[TransitZilla]

Why don't they just close the Byron Place stub west of Highcroft as part of this development? It seems to no longer serve any purpose.

Move the parkette to where the road is now and create a big huge patio at the corner.

[Gat-Train]

While I'm happy to see intensification on a rapid transit corridor, could they not have made it less of an eyesore?

[McKellarDweller]

I think the renderings look good, and it seems like a solid infill proposal.
The windows and cladding will make all the difference in how this one turns out.

[J.OT13]

Looks pretty decent. And the house that it will replace aren't too big of a loss.

I agree Byron Place in front of this development should be removed completely. That could be part of the requirement for (I assume) the extra height.

[Arcologist]

I'm assuming Byron Place is serving as the road to the front door of the building? Looks that way to me...

This is a decent proposal, imo. Will certainly bring some "new" to an area that has mostly older buildings.

[CityTech]

I wonder what the story is behind Byron Place and Lower Bryon Avenue. Presumably the linear corridor would have been continuous in the streetcar era. It appears that at some point after their removal, they moved the road into the tramway corridor between Eden and Roosevelt and then repurposed the old road as Byron Place and Lower Byron Avenue to provide local access to houses that already existed on the south side of Byron. Did they do this just to remove driveways on that section of Byron? Perhaps that was a first phase of a since-abandoned project to do this sort of thing on the entirety of Byron?

[rocketphish]

I see a lot of resemblance to Minto Beechwood (TACT Architecture), particularly the Byron facade in that first rendering, above.
https://www.google.ca/maps/@45.43917...2!8i6656?hl=en

[Kitchissippi]

Originally Posted by CityTech

I wonder what the story is behind Byron Place and Lower Bryon Avenue. Presumably the linear corridor would have been continuous in the streetcar era. It appears that at some point after their removal, they moved the road into the tramway corridor between Eden and Roosevelt and then repurposed the old road as Byron Place and Lower Byron Avenue to provide local access to houses that already existed on the south side of Byron. Did they do this just to remove driveways on that section of Byron? Perhaps that was a first phase of a since-abandoned project to do this sort of thing on the entirety of Byron?

The section between Churchill and Golden was already built up well before the streetcar was put in. They had lots of room in the green fields on either side to carve up a dedicated ROW and Byron was built beside it. This old map before the streetcar era explains it and why the linear corridor ends at Holland where the area is also built up/subdivided.



Interesting side note when we talk about a congestion charge and user-pay roads, is that Richmond Road was a tolled road until 1920. The map shows a toll booth at Parkdale (also on Carling)

[CityTech]

So the streetcar section around Churchill where the linear park stops was on-street?

[Kitchissippi]

I don't think that old hand drawn map was entirely correct as I doubt Edison or Melbourne Avenue ever extended all the way to Richmond Road. I believe the section of Byron from Churchill to Roosevelt was developed as a streetcar ramp up the escarpment (just rails no road), the upper road part ended at what is now Byron Place as a T-intersection with Churchill (formerly Main Street), on the other side the road stopped at what is now Lower Byron. It wasn't until they ripped up the streetcar tracks and built a roadway on it that the two sides were connected.

[rocketphish]

The Planning Rationale in support of Zoning By-law Amendment and Site Plan applications for the properties municipally known as 433, 435 Churchill Avenue North and 468, 472 Byron Place has been revised in response to comments received following the initial circulation of the application.


After discussions with the City, the proposed development on 433-435 Churchill Avenue has undergone a number of changes. A list of the major changes is as follows:

• The total number of parking spaces provided have reduced from 63 to 45. The number of bicycle parking spaces has increased from 45 to 46.
• The massing of the building has been significantly reduced. The massing has generally reduced from 6 storeys across the site, to 4-storeys facing Highcroft Avenue.

• The building remains at 6-storeys facing Churchill Avenue North, and steps down to 5-storeys towards the middle of the building, and 4-storeys facing Highcroft Avenue, Byron Place, and the residential properties to the south.
• The “bump-out” abutting the residential property to the south on Highcroft Avenue is setback 2.4 m from the side lot line. The bump-out is 4-storeys, which conceals the fifth storey on this portion of the site. The fifth storey is setback about 9.3 m from the side lot line, a significant increase from the setback of 6 m for the six storeys proposed in the initial site plan application.

• The total number of units has decreased from 76 to 73 as a result of reducing the massing.
• The rooftop terrace has been relocated to the roof of the fifth storey.

The proposed development is a mixed-use mid-rise building. The revised proposal ranges from 6-storeys at the west of the property (along Churchill Avenue), 5-storeys in the middle, and 4-storeys at the east of the property (facing Byron Place, Highcroft Avenue, and residential properties to the south). The proposed development will contain 73 residential units, which comprise of a mix of studio, one-bedroom, one-bedroom + den, two-bedroom, and two-bedroom + den units.

Two commercial uses are proposed on the ground floor. The commercial units are located in close proximity to other commercial units along Churchill Avenue, as well as the Traditional Mainstreet Richmond Road. The two proposed commercial units are small (174 m2, and 168 m2), and would help contribute to a dynamic streetscape along Churchill Avenue. The potential uses would be complementary to the neighbourhood, and would meet the wants and needs of the neighbourhood.

A communal amenity area is proposed in the form of a roof top-terrace (441m2) located on the easterly portion of the building. An indoor gym/amenity area is proposed on the ground floor. The Site Plan also illustrates a landscaped area on the south east portion of the lot. This landscaped area will not function as an amenity area but as a natural buffer between the proposed development and the residential property south of the site.

An underground parking garage is proposed with access off Highcroft Avenue. The underground parking garage will contain 43 resident parking spaces, 2 barrier-free parking spaces, and 56 residential bicycle parking spaces. The resident parking spaces are located on two underground parking levels. Resident bicycle parking spaces are located in the underground parking garage (43 spaces), and on the ground floor (13 spaces). Five commercial bicycle parking spaces are located outside along the Churchill side of the Subject Site, near the commercial spaces. Tenant storage space is also provided in the garage.



Siteplan:




Drawings:

[passwordisnt123]

Originally Posted by rocketphish

The Planning Rationale in support of Zoning By-law Amendment and Site Plan applications for the properties municipally known as 433, 435 Churchill Avenue North and 468, 472 Byron Place has been revised in response to comments received following the initial circulation of the application.


After discussions with the City, the proposed development on 433-435 Churchill Avenue has undergone a number of changes. A list of the major changes is as follows:

• The total number of parking spaces provided have reduced from 63 to 45. The number of bicycle parking spaces has increased from 45 to 46.
• The massing of the building has been significantly reduced. The massing has generally reduced from 6 storeys across the site, to 4-storeys facing Highcroft Avenue.

• The building remains at 6-storeys facing Churchill Avenue North, and steps down to 5-storeys towards the middle of the building, and 4-storeys facing Highcroft Avenue, Byron Place, and the residential properties to the south.
• The “bump-out” abutting the residential property to the south on Highcroft Avenue is setback 2.4 m from the side lot line. The bump-out is 4-storeys, which conceals the fifth storey on this portion of the site. The fifth storey is setback about 9.3 m from the side lot line, a significant increase from the setback of 6 m for the six storeys proposed in the initial site plan application.

• The total number of units has decreased from 76 to 73 as a result of reducing the massing.
• The rooftop terrace has been relocated to the roof of the fifth storey.

The proposed development is a mixed-use mid-rise building. The revised proposal ranges from 6-storeys at the west of the property (along Churchill Avenue), 5-storeys in the middle, and 4-storeys at the east of the property (facing Byron Place, Highcroft Avenue, and residential properties to the south). The proposed development will contain 73 residential units, which comprise of a mix of studio, one-bedroom, one-bedroom + den, two-bedroom, and two-bedroom + den units.

Two commercial uses are proposed on the ground floor. The commercial units are located in close proximity to other commercial units along Churchill Avenue, as well as the Traditional Mainstreet Richmond Road. The two proposed commercial units are small (174 m2, and 168 m2), and would help contribute to a dynamic streetscape along Churchill Avenue. The potential uses would be complementary to the neighbourhood, and would meet the wants and needs of the neighbourhood.

A communal amenity area is proposed in the form of a roof top-terrace (441m2) located on the easterly portion of the building. An indoor gym/amenity area is proposed on the ground floor. The Site Plan also illustrates a landscaped area on the south east portion of the lot. This landscaped area will not function as an amenity area but as a natural buffer between the proposed development and the residential property south of the site.

An underground parking garage is proposed with access off Highcroft Avenue. The underground parking garage will contain 43 resident parking spaces, 2 barrier-free parking spaces, and 56 residential bicycle parking spaces. The resident parking spaces are located on two underground parking levels. Resident bicycle parking spaces are located in the underground parking garage (43 spaces), and on the ground floor (13 spaces). Five commercial bicycle parking spaces are located outside along the Churchill side of the Subject Site, near the commercial spaces. Tenant storage space is also provided in the garage.



Siteplan:




Drawings:

Sad that the community association seems to have used most of its bargaining power to reduce the height and massing of the building rather than advocating for more bicycle parking spaces or an even greater reduction of the number of parking spaces. Negotiation means prioritization and the community never seems to miss an opportunity to leave far better improvements on the table if it means pursuing less height.

[passwordisnt123]

It's so sad to see Leiper come out full guns blazing against a very reasonable intensification development in the heart of Westboro. I guess the obnoxious Wesboro NIMBYers are having another kanipshin over something higher than 3 storeys going up. Wouldn't want any non-millionaires getting access to housing in one of the most desirable neighbourhoods in the city.

https://kitchissippiward.ca/content/...highcroft-case

There are grounds in the Official Plan upon which this building can be legitimately rejected by Council. I will be doing everything in my power to convince my colleagues of that. Residents right across the City who know intensification is coming to their ward next will be watching.

Leiper's been really good on some issues but he's pandered one too many times to the worst NIMBY impulses for me to be able to support him as my first choice to replace Watson. It's the hypocrisy that really gets me. During the urban boundary expansion he was saying all the right things about the need for intensification. Now when the cards are on the table, he goes and lets slip that he doesn't actually see intensification as a good thing when it's in his own back yard.

The only councillor who has beeen totally consistent on seeing intensification as a genuinely good urban amenity is McKenney. All the others are either quite openly regressive and pro-suburban sprawl or they talk a big game and then turnout to be full of shit at the first sign of intensification in their ward.

[J.OT13]

I read his piece on this, and I agree with his comments. It sounds like the locals wanted an overall reduction in height, but Leiper understands that the Churchill side can't be negotiated, so he's looking for a slight reduction along the back that faces a neighborhood of single family homes.

Supporting intensification doesn't mean approving any little thing that's proposed. It's knowing what's appropriate for what part of the city. He needs and usual is able to find a good balance between encouraging density while supporting his constituents. It's about finding balance and compromise between developers and residents.

[gjhall]

I tend to agree that the proposal for a modest reduction in bulk to appear as 3 storeys on Highcroft is a reasonable compromise that the developer should have jumped at. I'm not convinced it was the right one, and I can see other priorities to improve the proposal ... but if that's what works then it should have moved forward.

BUT, in my experience that's not necessarily what happens next. Because while it seems reasonable, and a desirable compromise perhaps, it might not seem that way to everyone. Perhaps there are still those hell-bent on a dramatically different approach, who have not come along on this journey of compromise. It's easy to leave someone behind when you have a winning idea - and of course, no solution will make everyone happy.

The developer then is in unenviable position that they think they can make this compromise and have an assurance of no LPAT action - but that agreement doesn't dissolve all rights to appeal from all people - and someone else can come along and file an appeal anyway.

So imagine you're the developer, and you're nervous about the project that you want to get moving - and you have a proposal you are confident has the support of the City's planning staff. You also have a councillor with a ready to go compromise with community buy in, but still the risk of a surprise appeal. If you choose to go forward sans compromise, what are your possible trajectories?
1. Staff report in support, quick approval over local councillor objection at Planning Committee and at Council, no appeal. (Highly unlikely)
2. Staff report in support, quick approval over local councillor objection at Planning Committee and at Council, once an 11th hour agreement with this compromise as part of it. (Likely - but still a risk of surprise appeal)
3. Staff report in support, quick approval over local councillor objection at Planning Committee and at Council, appeal from the organizers. You settle on the original compromise and you are now safe from additional appeals. (Likely)

If you had made the compromise in the first place, your likely trajectories are:
1. Staff report in support, approval with local councillor support at Planning Committee and at Council, no appeal. (Somewhat likely)
2. Staff report in support, approval with local councillor support at Planning Committee and at Council, surprise appeal from aggrieved neighbour unhappy with compromise. (Somewhat likely)

Given the overall options all have an appeal risk - it might be in the best interest of the developer to not compromise if they think they're going to the board no matter what. At least if they get appealed right away, all parties are at the same table and they get a binding decision to move forward.

Just trying to think through the decision making process that may have got them here in an imperfect situation and system.

[J.OT13]

Makes a lot of sense. So based on your assessment, we'll likely end up with the compromise regardless?

[jleiper]

Originally Posted by gjhall

I tend to agree that the proposal for a modest reduction in bulk to appear as 3 storeys on Highcroft is a reasonable compromise that the developer should have jumped at. I'm not convinced it was the right one, and I can see other priorities to improve the proposal ... but if that's what works then it should have moved forward.

Just trying to think through the decision making process that may have got them here in an imperfect situation and system.

Geoff, I'll keep my cards a little close to my chest on this one, but my interest is piqued in terms of how you might also see the development improved?

[rocketphish]

For reference, here's the full piece:

All-or-nothing intensification: the Highcroft case

by Jeff Leiper
Posted June 25, 2020

At the end of May, City Council approved a big new expansion of the area in which the construction of new subdivisions can be built. It was a contentious debate. At the heart of it was the question of intensification: how much is too much? Are residents prepared to make compromises? Can even the new requirement that intensification account for half of growth between now and 2046 be achieved?

In his comments to the media, the Mayor said Council has “heard from the vast majority of residents that they support intensification, but they want it to be done thoughtfully through design, while respecting the characteristic of established communities.” He’s right. Intensification can’t be all or nothing.

Residents on Highcroft Avenue are today, though, reeling from their experience of trying to work pragmatically with a developer on intensification that achieves the City’s goals. They’re frustrated that “thoughtful” intensification is just words, and that all-or-nothing intensification is actually the rule of the day. I share their frustration and am angry today at the way those residents have been treated.

As residents know, a developer has made a proposal for the corner of Highcroft/Byron Place and Churchill. It’s a proposed mixed-use development, six storeys at the front facing Churchill, and five storeys (with the fifth storey modestly stepped back after the fourth storey) at the back along Highcroft. It would have 73 units and 43 resident parking spaces.

While the six-storey portion is realistically challenging to oppose given the City’s and Province’s planning thrusts, a key point of contention has been the effect of the five-storey design on Highcroft. It represents a very big change to the existing streetscape.

To respond, residents of Highcroft have hired a planning lawyer who has been able to provide them with pragmatic advice on what Council is likely to approve. They have worked for weeks to try to reduce the impact of a five-storey face on their low-rise street.

A few weeks ago, they thought they had a small win.

A deal in the works would have seen the developer reduce the height by one storey on the Highcroft side, which would have resulted in a full three storeys, with a fourth storey set back at the points closest to the adjacent two-storey home. The fourth storey wouldn’t extend all the way across the face of Highcroft, and so create a gentler transition. It would “read” as a reduction in height from four storeys to three to the neighbour’s two. A moderate number of units might be lost, but it would be an important improvement in the design.

In return for the concession, the residents were prepared to commit to not appealing any Council approval of the development. That would allow the developer to get a shovel in the ground sooner and avoid the expense of a long Local Planning Appeal Tribunal process. It’s not really a win-win, but on the basis of pragmatic, clear-eyed planning advice the neighbours were willing to accept a compromise that sees a significant improvement in how their street will look and feel compared to the original proposal while accepting a very significant new intensification project that is highly controversial. The compromise was being negotiated, but was never finalized.

Last week we learned, however, that the developer has chosen to forge ahead with their original proposal. Likely comfortable that they would win any community LPAT appeal (a possibility) the developer has chosen to roll the dice at taxpayer and community expense. There was a deal on the table, and the developer has walked away.

When the Mayor was defending not holding the line on urban sprawl, he cited the resistance put up by neighbours and councillors as a challenge to achieving intensification goals.

This is why. Neighbours on Highcroft getting pragmatic, sympathetic, sophisticated planning advice in the Highcroft proposal were ready to take the barest concession using the only leverage they had to slightly mitigate the impact of this building – and to let it move forward. I don’t know the developer’s motivations for walking away from the table. I’m sure they feel comfortable that eventually they will get what they want once the community has been bled dry of time and money.

There are grounds in the Official Plan upon which this building can be legitimately rejected by Council. I will be doing everything in my power to convince my colleagues of that. Residents right across the City who know intensification is coming to their ward next will be watching.

My office is hosting a Zoom webinar on Monday to look at the latest plans. See the details of that here.


https://kitchissippiward.ca/content/...highcroft-case