[Halifax] Parkland at the Common (6009 Quinpool) | 78 m | 25 fl | U/C

[JHikka]

Originally Posted by Keith P.

This FB post from everyone's favorite, John Wesley Chisholm, sums up the delusional thinking that the antis have embraced:

https://www.facebook.com/johnwesley....55661465598500

The comments that follow are equally entertaining/depressing.

Originally Posted by John Chisholm

This neighbourhood, which I would define as the Provincial riding of Halifax Chebucto is, at 3800 people/sq. km, as dense as any neighbourhood in any large city anywhere in the world.

Has this man ever left Halifax?

[Drybrain]

Originally Posted by JHikka

Has this man ever left Halifax?

He's partial to the invented fact. Last year he was on some radio show talking about how Halifax's homicide rate was comparable to Baltimore if you gerrymandered the statistics the right way. (He was wrong; even using his extremely dubious figures, our rate was about ten times lower).

[Halifax]

Apparently, the city has voted to allow 25 stories on this one with the developer having certain conditions. Anywho - got this inform. from Facebook group Daily Duffett

[Dmajackson]

^This is what was passed last night.

9.3 Case 18966 – Amendments to the Halifax Municipal Planning Strategy and Halifax Peninsula Land Use By-law for 6009 and 6017 Quinpool Road

The staff recommendation was defeated.

Motion approved that Halifax Regional Council direct staff to prepare amendments to the Halifax Municipal Planning Strategy and Peninsula Land Use Bylaw to incorporate within the draft amendments included within the January 20, 2017 staff report for Case 18966 regarding 6009 and 6017 Quinpool Road, Halifax, for a development no greater than 78 metres in height and to:

a) amend the two-bedroom unit mix referred to in 2.10.1(k) of the proposed policy be amended to a minimum of 69.68 square metres;

b) increase pedestrian space at the ground level by requiring an additional 2 metres of setback along Quinpool Road and Robie Street, equating to approximate sidewalk widths of 4.9 metres (16 feet) on Robie Street and 5.8 metres (19 feet) on Quinpool Road when measured between the inside edge of the existing sidewalk and curb;

c) require overhead electric/utility wires be buried along the Quinpool Road and Robie Street boundaries of the development; and

d) require incentive or bonus zoning for all development exceeding 62 metres in height based on the provision of affordable housing as the required bonusing public benefit contribution at a proportion of 100% of $900,000, equal to 10 units based on an anticipated average monthly rent of $1,250 with a 40% reduction (equivalent to $500/mth) for a duration of 15 years.

[mleblanc]

So this is going forward at 25 floors?

[terrynorthend]

Originally Posted by mleblanc

So this is going forward at 25 floors?

Not exactly. Council voted down the 20 story proposal put forth by the developer, so that they could reconsider a 25 story proposal with wider sidewalks, underground utilities, affordable housing units. The developer will now firm up this 25 story plan, staff will look at it, have a new public hearing, and council will then vote on the new plan.

Very convoluted. Expect staff to recommend against AGAIN, and the public hearing to be full of negative nellies AGAIN. But then its back in Council's chambers, and given the response yesterday (only 2 dissenters) we should expect Council to approve it then.

After all this Council could reject it again, but that would reflect terribly on them, and paint them as extremely disfunctional.

[OldDartmouthMark]

Sounds kind of repetitive.

Seems odd that staff wouldn't be able come up with some sort of plan to make it work if council has voted for it.

The whole situation seems extremely dysfunctional! I think that this needs a revamp, with council and staff being on the same page, and less weight given to residents' comments at a meeting.

If you really want to give residents a chance to have input, let everybody in Halifax vote on it, as it is a landmark location and more people should get to decide than just those who attend a meeting (who apparently don't necessarily even have to live in the neighborhood). Let everybody have an equal vote, with no preference being given to 'friends of...' or whatever.

Just a thought.

[Keith P.]

Originally Posted by terrynorthend

After all this Council could reject it again, but that would reflect terribly on them, and paint them as extremely disfunctional.

Well, they are extremely dysfunctional, so...

I see in the news that the planning cadre is now floating proposals for a massive number of bike lanes in the downtown core, so you can say goodbye to most on-street parking, reduced traffic capacity and damage to businesses.

HRM Council needs to be turfed post-haste.

[someone123]

Originally Posted by Keith P.

HRM Council needs to be turfed post-haste.

Council shouldn't be voting on private development projects on a case-by-case basis. The move away from this process was by far the biggest advantage of HRM by Design. The Centre Plan was I guess meant to do the same for the rest of the urban core but is taking forever to implement.

[OldDartmouthMark]

Originally Posted by someone123

Council shouldn't be voting on private development projects on a case-by-case basis. The move away from this process was by far the biggest advantage of HRM by Design. The Centre Plan was I guess meant to do the same for the rest of the urban core but is taking forever to implement.

Sounds like somebody didn't get the memo...

[worldlyhaligonian]

Originally Posted by terrynorthend

Not exactly. Council voted down the 20 story proposal put forth by the developer, so that they could reconsider a 25 story proposal with wider sidewalks, underground utilities, affordable housing units. The developer will now firm up this 25 story plan, staff will look at it, have a new public hearing, and council will then vote on the new plan.

Very convoluted. Expect staff to recommend against AGAIN, and the public hearing to be full of negative nellies AGAIN. But then its back in Council's chambers, and given the response yesterday (only 2 dissenters) we should expect Council to approve it then.

After all this Council could reject it again, but that would reflect terribly on them, and paint them as extremely disfunctional.

Wait, so they are applying existing practices... but somehow invoked centre plan rules (which aren't in effect) against this in the first place?

Why another public meeting if there was already one to produce these changes. This is an absolute a joke.

[IanWatson]

Originally Posted by OldDartmouthMark

Sounds kind of repetitive.

Seems odd that staff wouldn't be able come up with some sort of plan to make it work if council has voted for it.

The whole situation seems extremely dysfunctional! I think that this needs a revamp, with council and staff being on the same page, and less weight given to residents' comments at a meeting.

If you really want to give residents a chance to have input, let everybody in Halifax vote on it, as it is a landmark location and more people should get to decide than just those who attend a meeting (who apparently don't necessarily even have to live in the neighborhood). Let everybody have an equal vote, with no preference being given to 'friends of...' or whatever.

Just a thought.

It's not staff's job to align their recommendation with Council's wishes; it's staff's job to give a recommendation that aligns with their best professional judgement. Then it's Council's job to hear this recommendation, and either agree with it or tell staff to do something different.

Staff's professional judgement in this case is, "25 storeys does not align with this big huge planning project we've done (Centre Plan), that involved tons of analysis, why would we undercut that process?" Nothing has changed in this regard, so why would staff change their recommendation?

Council is free to disagree, and they have in this case. Now they've given staff direction to carry out a different route than the one they had been recommending, so staff will now go off and do it.

It's like when you go to a lawyer and say you want to sue someone. They might say, "my professional advice is that you have a low chance of winning and I don't think you should sue." And you might say, "Noted. I want to sue anyways." So the lawyer nods their head and gets to work. The lawyer has a professional obligation to advise you of their best judgement, but will then carry out your wishes if you make an informed decision to the contrary (and you're willing to pay...).

[IanWatson]

Originally Posted by worldlyhaligonian

Wait, so they are applying existing practices... but somehow invoked centre plan rules (which aren't in effect) against this in the first place?

Why another public meeting if there was already one to produce these changes. This is an absolute a joke.

This is a Plan amendment. Council can literally write any rules they want, because they're rewriting the Plan as it applies to the site. In other words, nothing is in effect. They're wiping the slate clean (at least as it applies to the site), and starting from scratch. Staff's view is that, if you're going to write new rules for the site, you should probably use the ones that are currently being written (Centre Plan).

And another public meeting is required because HRM is legally required (by the Province) to hold a Public Hearing on any new rules they consider. But if Council changes the proposed rules before they adopt them, then it's a different set of rules and people are legally entitled to have a chance to comment on the new proposal. So when Council considers 29 storeys, they hold a Public Hearing. After that meeting they say, "hmmmm, maybe 29 is too much, let's consider 25." But now 25 is a completely different proposal, and a Public Hearing is legally required. There is nothing joke about it.

[Keith P.]

The process is ridiculous, Council is ridiculous, and the planning staff is ridiculous for recommending a 20-storey limit in the first place. Don't tell me they didn't bow to Mason and the other anti-tall building council members on that.

[IanWatson]

Originally Posted by Keith P.

The process is ridiculous,

The process is the legally required process and it's the same in HRM as everywhere else in NS, and pretty much everywhere in the country.

The way to get around the process is to not do site-specific changes to the rules. Instead, just update all the rules in one go. That way you only need to do the process once and do one Public Hearing instead of doing it for every site. That is what Centre Plan will achieve, and it's a huge deal. Just look at how many property transactions are happening right now on places like Quinpool. Developers see that soon they're not going to have to go through their own individual Council/Public Hearing process, so it's going to get a lot easier, so they're getting their land lined up and ready to go.

[Keith P.]

The problem with having a blanket set of rules is that one size does not fit all. Especially when that default size is "stubby and sawed-off".

[someone123]

But in the Centre Plan there are different height limits specified for different areas.

I agree the height limits are conservative but there is far less construction overall under the costly ad hoc plan amendment process. It's also strange and adversarial, with developers arguing they can't build anything less than highrises and NIMBYs trying to prevent all development from happening. I think this is all hugely dysfunctional and it is better to efficiently approve a larger number of average buildings under something like the Centre Plan. The main goals are to have affordable housing prices and services as well as a functional urban economy. This means getting lots of new space built in the urban core with as little red tape as possible. Skylines and more interesting architecture are great but far less important.

[Keith P.]

Originally Posted by someone123

I agree the height limits are conservative but there is far less construction overall under the costly ad hoc plan amendment process. It's also strange and adversarial, with developers arguing they can't build anything less than highrises and NIMBYs trying to prevent all development from happening. I think this is all hugely dysfunctional and it is better to efficiently approve a larger number of average buildings under something like the Centre Plan. The main goals are to have affordable housing prices and services as well as a functional urban economy. This means getting lots of new space built in the urban core with as little red tape as possible. Skylines and more interesting architecture are great but far less important.

Sounds almost like the old Soviet Union.

Speaking of which, Mason got back from visiting with his fellow travelers in Cuba over the last two weeks, hence why he missed the Council meeting where this got sent back to staff, and he is already bloviating about how he will obstruct this latest move.

[eastcoastal]

Originally Posted by worldlyhaligonian

Wait, so they are applying existing practices... but somehow invoked centre plan rules (which aren't in effect) against this in the first place?...

The way I understand the current situation is that it's a Development Agreement, or Plan Amendment, process, which means that there aren't "existing practices." Staff recommended that the method proposed to evaluate "public benefit" for density bonusing in the centre plan be used to evaluate appropriate public benefit for this specific project.

[Keith P.]

Originally Posted by eastcoastal

The way I understand the current situation is that it's a Development Agreement, or Plan Amendment, process, which means that there aren't "existing practices." Staff recommended that the method proposed to evaluate "public benefit" for density bonusing in the centre plan be used to evaluate appropriate public benefit for this specific project.

And someone - probably Mason Council - decided that the Centre Plan's ridiculously low height limit of 20 floors should be applied as well, which led to the current mess, and which finally got bounced when Mason was on vacation last week.