Tale of two condos
Firmer planning language could mean rezonings that are valid exceptions
By Joanne Chianello, OTTAWA CITIZEN December 17, 2013
When Sam Mizrahi ended a public meeting last Tuesday to address his proposed 12-storey condo project for the northeast corner of Island Park Drive and Wellington Street West, an odd thing happened: the audience broke into applause. And not for the first time that evening.
It’s hardly unusual for a developer to want to erect a taller-than-allowed condo building.
But there’s nothing routine about the way Mizrahi has gone about trying to win approval for three extra storeys. There’s the extensive pre-consultation with the immediate neighbours, as well as community and business associations. Then there’s the more astonishing fact that Mizrahi actually acted on their concerns, such as making sure all the garbage receptacles were inside the building and that the sidewalk be wider.
It’s a beautifully designed building — even those against the rezoning readily admit it’s attractive — and Mizrahi has pledged not only to expand an existing parkette adjacent to the building, but to pay for its ongoing maintenance. To prove these aren’t just empty promises, the developer has taken the unusual step of writing these commitments into the site plan application filed with the city.
There isn’t unanimous support for the Mizrahi, but the majority of folks at last week’s meeting were enthusiastic.
Two telling details: while the community association in the area didn’t actually support the application, it agreed not to oppose the project (which some developers would consider a win); and the five homeowners right behind the building — the ones who would be most directly affected by the new building — are the most ardent supporters of the redevelopment.
So with all this goodwill abounding, and the fact the city approves extra height fairly regularly, you might think the rezoning would be a slam-dunk, right?
Not so fast, says Coun. Peter Hume, chair of the planning committee.
“It undermines everything we’ve been talking about,” Hume fumed to the Citizen’s David Reevely, “about certainty, about predictability, about the speed of development, so that all you need is a permit and a site plan — you’ve heard me say that many times.”
And yet, just last week Hume voted in favour of doubling the height for a less impressive project a half-a-dozen blocks west of the Mizrahi proposal.
The developers for 236 Richmond Rd., Main and Main, didn’t do much in the way of community consultation, nor are they giving the community any special sort of benefit for the extra height the way Mizrahi is doing with the parkette. Hume himself opined that he was “not particularly impressed with the design of the building.”
It’s true that the designs for 236 Richmond plans were reworked a number of times. The city’s planners insisted the building include more windows, a 2.5-metre step back on the top two floors and a wider variety of materials (including brick), according to Michael Mizzi, the city’s chief of development reviews.
And even if you think nine storeys is too tall for that part of Westboro, a building with shops that open onto the sidewalk is certainly preferable to what’s on the site now — an unused piece of asphalt.
But the plans for 236 Richmond aren’t particularly special, and the community isn’t in favour of the extra height. So why would Hume be in favour of this project that many residents are fuming about, but against one that many seem to want?
Planning policy and politics. (Caution: wonkiness ahead.)
Hume has been promising certainty in planning for years. The theory is that we can avoid many contentious community battles if we pre-determine heights through community design plans (known as CDPs). Sure, not everyone will be happy with what gets built, but no one will surprised.
The Mizrahi project site was pre-zoned for nine storeys in the Wellington West CDP, a document often held up the model for community plans. It’s got very firm language about what’s allowed where.
But because the site is heavily contaminated, many developers have walked away from the property, declaring it not commercially viable at just nine storeys. Mizrahi says that the city’s “brownfield program”, which offers a 50-per-cent rebate on the cost of the cleaning up the contamination, isn’t enough to make up for the large seven-figure price tag of the effort. (Why this entire contamination issue wasn’t sorted out during the CDP is another complex question.)
You can see why Hume isn’t thrilled by Mizrahi’s application: The first time there’s a significant challenge to what’s supposed to be an airtight CDP, he’s being asked to make an exception — and go back on his political word.
So why did Hume approve 236 Richmond? After all, that stretch of Richmond is identified in Westboro’s CDP as a “traditional mainstreet,” which generally means heights of four to six storeys. The problem is the subjective language in that particular — and older — CDP that more easily allows upzonings. For example, according to the planning policy covering Westboro, being located on any old corner is reason enough to allow a building additional height.
Even though the policy governing the height is somewhat convoluted, the reason that 236 Richmond is being rezoned is simple: the rules allow it. And that might be a problem. Community associations want to reopen Westboro’s CDP to make the language firmer in hopes of preventing unanticipated rezonings.
But is super-firm wording too rigid? Look what’s happening just a few blocks to the east, where a seemingly conscientious developer has worked hard to win the support of the community. Is that type of situation to be discounted?
Perhaps planning shouldn’t be an all-or-nothing proposition, either complete subjectivity or rigid inflexibility. Hume is right: certainty in CDPs is desirable because it means everyone know what kinds of development to expect. At the same time, by eliminating the loopholes that have allowed a stream of (sometimes dubious) zoning exemptions, it should actually be easier for decision-makers to judge when a project constitutes a truly deserving exception.
Complicated? Of course. Planning usually is.
Still, revisiting and revising the way we make these decisions is worth it if it means building a better city. And besides, there’s something inherently misguided about allowing a rezoning the community doesn’t want while at the same time denying a project that people actually like.
jchianello@ottawacitizen.com">jchian...awacitizen.com
twitter.com/jchianello
© Copyright (c) The Ottawa Citizen
http://www.ottawacitizen.com/busines...800/story.html
Prev
Linear Mode
