Tag: Development

September 11 – Community Meeting for 153 Carleton Avenue Development Proposal

(153 Carleton Avenue is across from the park)

Date: Wed. Sept. 11
Time: 8 PM
Place: Champlain Park Fieldhouse

153 Carleton Image for Meeting Notice.jpeg
153-carleton-image-for-meeting-notice.pdf

Description from the architect (Jacques Hamel):

We are proposing a semi-detached building on a 47′ (14.30 m) wide lot.  One of the units will have a garage,  whereas the other one will have at grade parking in the front yard.  Both are quite different from each other and will each have their own identity.  They are two stories at the front with rooftop decks facing the park.  Behind the deck is a third floor (comprising approximately one third of the 2nd floor area.)

Unit 1 lot area is 231 sm.  and Unit 2 is 204 sm.  Unit 1 is 2535 gsf (235.5 gsm),  and Unit 2 is 2345 gsf (218 gsm). The proposal is to subdivide into unequal parcels (one is narrower than the other).

Agenda:

  • Architect Jacques Hamel will present the proposal.
  • Champlain Park Community Association executive members will then facilitate a discussion with the neighbours (after the architect leaves).

Our membership list now has voluntary e-mail addresses. We are sending this to the surrounding neighbours in a blind cc.

Your participation is important. Please reserve this date.

Community Association Development Committee Contacts:
CoChair1 champlainpark@gmail.com
Duncan Bury: la.db@sympatico.ca

Infill I – Presentation

This presentation summarizes the revised Infill Phase I zoning proposal. The original zoning for Infill in Mature Neighbourhoods was appealed to the OMB by representatives of the builders/developers community. Subsequent to the OMB Decision, a revised by-law has been drafted. A series of follow-up meetings is being held with representatives of the community associations and the builders/developers, to discuss the revised zoning proposal.

Co-Chairs, CoChair1 and Heather Pearl, are attending these meetings on behalf of CPCA.

Infill Title Slide
Infill I 2013-08-20 v.02.pdf

Community Meeting for 153 Carleton Avenue Development Proposal – September 11th

(Semi-detached building on a 47′ (14.30 m) wide lot across from the park)
Date: Wed. Sept. 11
Time: 8 PM
Place: Champlain Park Fieldhouse

Agenda:

Architect Jacques Hamel will present the proposal.

Champlain Park Community Association executive members will then facilitate a discussion with the neighbours (after the architect leaves).

First Notice. Reserve this date. We do not have permission to distribute the plans at this time. The Development Committee will be meeting with the architect this week.

Community Association Development Committee Contacts.
CoChair1 champlainpark@gmail.com
Duncan Bury: la.db@sympatico.ca

Notes from 132 Cowley Ave meeting – May 15, 2013

132 cowley avenue drawing

At the Monday evening meeting about the re-development proposal for 132 Cowley we were shown a slightly revised set of drawings – link provided below.

These new drawings move the northern most unit and the middle unit further back from the front property line to accommodate the tree and also revise the driveways to correct an earlier drafting error.  Everything else remains the same.

Slightly revised drawings

Report on 192 Carleton COA hearing

Here’s a report on the Committee of Adjustment hearing on 192 Carleton which Heather Pearl and Duncan Bury attended. The report has been reviewed by Heather and is ready to go. It’s a follow-up to 192 Carleton Avenue Development Proposal.

192 Carleton Nov 21, 2012 COA hearing report final.doc
192 Carleton Nov 21, 2012 COA hearing report final.pdf

Report on
192 (194) Carleton Avenue Development Proposal
City of Ottawa, November 21, 2012
Committee of Adjustment

The owner of 192 Carleton Avenue applied to the City’s Committee of Adjustment for minor variance (lot width and lot area) and consent to subdivide the property into two separate parcels of land to allow the building of a 2-storey semi-detached dwelling. Approval of the consent and minor variance applications would allow a reduced lot width and a reduced lot area for each of the two new parcels.

Heather Pearl and Duncan Bury attended the November 21st Committee of Adjustment hearing on behalf of the CPCA and to register the Association’s support for the applications.

What had originally been seen as a simple and straightforward application changed immediately upon introduction of the proposal by the chair of the COA, with the revelation that additional new variances were also being requested – variances that the CPCA had not been made aware of and which were not part of the original applications.

Concern about these new variances, which appeared to address the front yard set-back, was heightened by a confusing presentation by the staff planner. The chair of the Committee, John Lindsay, initially appeared to be equally confused by the new variances and to his credit expressed particular concern about the lack of public notice.

Upon further discussion and an examination of the plans it became apparent that the siting of the new proposed semi-detached dwelling had not changed and that the variances were being proposed by the City “in the abundance of caution” to address the front yard averaging with reference to the adjoining property to the north, 188 Carleton. It became clear that the front yard averaging was being measured based on the siting of the buildings that currently occupy the adjacent properties, and would not be using the set back in the approved re-development proposal for 188 Carleton. The existing house on 188 Carleton is set back 12.53 m. Averaging would have required 192 Carleton to have a 9.37 m set-back. The new last minute variances were requested to address this and allow the new 192 Carleton development the 6.21 m set-back that the proposal has shown from the beginning.

After this clarification and expressions of concern about the last minute filing of new variance applications, the CPCA representatives indicated support for the new variances and stated support for the other variances and consent.

The owner of the proposed semi-detached dwellings at 192 Carleton, and his agent, had been requested by the City to apply for the new variances but, unfortunately, had not thought to contact the CPCA because they saw the applications as a minor technical detail. That turned out to be true in this case. It is important to note, however, that last minute introductions of minor variance applications could result in considerable change to a proposal. The sudden appearance of these new variance requests served to emphasize the continued importance of vigilance and engagement with all COA applications.

If you would like any further information please contact Duncan Bury at 193 Cowley Avenue (613) 729-0499; la.db@sympatico.ca) or Heather Pearl at 251 Keyworth Avenue (613) 725-1422; pearhea@aol.com.

Duncan Bury
November 25, 2012

192 Carleton Avenue Development Proposal

Re: 192 (194) Carleton Avenue Development Proposal
Applications for Consent and Minor Variances,
 City of Ottawa, Committee of Adjustment,
November 21, 2012

The owner of 192 Carleton Avenue, Henric Alfredsson, has applied to the City’s Committee of Adjustment for minor variance (lot width and lot area) and consent to subdivide the property into two separate parcels of land to allow the building of a 2-storey semi-detached dwelling.

Approval of the consent and minor variance applications would allow a reduced lot width and a reduced lot area for each of the two new parcels.  No other variances from the provisions of the Zoning By-law are requested.

The Committee of Adjustment, Committee Panel 1, will hear the application at its meeting of Wednesday November 21st starting at 1:00pm and will likely render its decision at that time.

The Champlain Park Community Association (CPCA) will be sending a letter to the Committee of Adjustment in support of the applications.

The CPCA met with the owner and his project designer, Michael Segretto of Miroca Design, on September 26th, before the submission of these applications, to discuss the CPCA’s goals and objectives for this community and had the opportunity to review the proposal and plans for the proposed semi-detached units. Based on the meeting and a review of the plans, the CPCA believes that this proposal represents development compatible with the goals and objectives of the Association and is in accordance with the City’s Official Plan and Infill Zoning By-law. In particular we noted that the front yard set-back was consistent with other set-backs along Carleton, that there is room for soft landscaping and for parking a car without infringing on the sidewalk, that the building is 2-storeys with a pitched roof, that the bulk/massing is mitigated by glazing and that small rear decks and stairs will help preserve the rear yard privacy of neighours.

Assessed owners of adjoining properties are entitled to attend and speak to the Committee of Adjustment.  If you would like to see a full set of plans showing the site, the unit floor plans and the building elevations or would like any further information please contact Duncan Bury at 193 Cowley Avenue (613 729-0499; la.db@sympatico.ca) or CoChair1 champlainpark@gmail.com

Also see the results of the hearing at Report on 192 Carleton COA hearing

179 Carleton Final Report

Final Report 20Oct2012 179 Carleton.doc
Final Report 20Oct2012 179 Carleton.pdf

179 Carleton Avenue Development Proposal Final Report

Summary:

The goals of the CPCA and the involved neighbours, related to this proposal to demolish the existing single home to build a new semi-detached dwelling, were:

  • To preserve the four trunked bur oak that straddles the property line between 175 and 179 Carleton (protected as a “distinctive” tree under the Urban Tree Conservation By-law and as a “boundary tree” under the Forestry Act).
  • To achieve a dwelling that, while larger than existing mature single family homes, is as compatible as possible in appearance with the existing Carleton Avenue streetscapes

The CPCA delineated these goals from the outset and negotiated with the Owners during a number of meetings with the Senior Private Planner the Owners had hired to interface with the community.

Through these negotiations the CPCA achieved:

  • an increase in front yard set-back to achieve compatibility with the abutting properties at 175 and 183 Carleton (as per requirements of  the new zoning by-law), and to allow more rooting area for the bur oak
  • an improved architectural design
  • a Committee of Adjustment ruling in favour of an “undertaking” by the owners to enter into a tree preservation agreement with the CPCA
  • a Committee of Adjustment condition that the owners obtain a permit under the Urban tree Conservation By-law specifying protective measures

The tree preservation agreement between the Owner and CPCA was successfully negotiated. This agreement contains a detailed commitment by the Owners to implement most of the protective measures that were specified in the following three documents:

  • professional arborist report commissioned by the Owners
  • professional forester report commissioned by the CPCA
  • letter to the Committee of Adjustment by the City of Ottawa Forestry Department

The CPCA has communicated with the Forestry Department related to the tree permit, has made them aware of the condition in the Committee of Adjustment Decision, and has encouraged them to implement this condition.

Excerpts from the Committee of Adjustment Decision:
 
The Community Association has…no objections to the revised proposal, …provided that any approval of the Committee be conditional upon the Owner of the property obtaining a comprehensive tree permit for the mature Burr Oak, which would ensure compliance with the Urban Tree Conservation By-law.  Ms Pearl also indicated for the committee’s information that a private agreement would be entered into between the proponents and members of the community concerning the preservation of the tree before, during and after the proposed construction.

Mr. Chown indicated that his client was amendable to the imposition of the aforementioned condition.

In deliberating on these applications, the Committee acknowledges the concessions made by both the proponents and the community in order to ultimately arrive at a proposal that is compatible with the existing built form in the area, maintains the forested character of the community through the preservation of the existing Burr Oak tree on the property, and will have no undue adverse impact on abutting property owners.  The Committee is also favourably disposed by the undertaking given by the applicant to the community to enter into a private agreement to deal with tree preservation measures during the construction process.

This application is granted subject to the proposed construction being in accordance with the revised plans filed and Committee of Adjustment date-stamped September 17, 2012, and subject to the following condition:

That the Owners obtain a permit in accordance with the Urban Tree conservation By-law to ensure the protection of the existing Burr Oak tree located on the property, to the satisfaction of the General Manager, Planning and Growth Management Department, or his delegate.

City staff’s Interim Report on the Western LRT

From: CoChair1
Sent: Monday, June 25, 2012 9:35 PM

Light Rail was a big topic of discussion. If anyone wants to track this issue, let me know. My hands are full with development right now.

thanks.

CoChair1

Date: Mon, 25 Jun 2012 06:35:42 -0700
From: dorsay@rogers.com
Subject: Re: Debrief on tonight’s meeting of Kitchissippi community associations

Further to last night’s meeting, attached is City staff’s Interim Report on the WLRT.

For what it’s worth, my thoughts on it:

  • Many claims made without supporting justification/data.
    Hence unable to evaluate merits of assertions.
  • The data behind the route rankings are not provided.
    Data needs to be open to public scrutiny prior to route selection recommendation.
  • Authors claim Carling requires grade-separated crossings.
  • No discussion of why signalized at-grade crossings are not a feasible cost-effective alternative.
  • Authors assert that even if it were not the costliest route, Carling would still be a poor option.
  • This attributed to need for more stops on Carling and thus an additional 3.5 minute end-to-end trip time and crossing safety risk (no risk analysis).
  • No cost/benefit analysis of time difference between at-grade and grade-separated options.
  • No evaluation of prospective building development and related revenues to the City for any of the route options.
  • Not clear why Carling LRT requires grade separation but Carling as a Supplementary rail route would not.
  • Authors assert the primary corridor must provide a competitive travel time compared to the auto mode if it is to achieve ridership targets.
  • No definition of “time-competitive”. No consideration given to “cost-competitive” vs auto mode.
  • No cost/benefit analysis.
  • Authors acknowledge need to assess “effects on vehicular traffic if travel lanes (i.e. on ORP) are converted to transit”
  • The above appears to be the only traffic impact analysis they think needs doing. If so, woefully short of what is needed.
  • Going to single lanes on Parkway = major impact in IPD/Hampton-Iona/WVCA areas if Woodroffe not reconfigured with loop exit/entrance.
  • Comprehensive traffic impact analysis needs to be done for each LRT option. Work should be done by a non-local firm.
  • Hobbs statement indicates preference for ORP route. Her statement that “LRT on Carling is critical to the rejuvenation of the southern portion of the Kitchissippi Ward” is at odds with her support for Carling as a secondary route. Evidently she is not aware that the secondary route would NOT be an LRT route.

Roland

ACS2012-PAI-PGM-0132 Western LRT Corridor EA Interim Report.pdf

168 Carleton Development Proposal Update

An update from our community association co-chair CoChair1:

The final revised design for three units (instead of the originally proposed four units) has now been approved, and a supplementary OMB Decision has been issued.  The original and supplementary decisions are attached.  Drawings and other documentation related to the approvals process are on file at the Committee of Adjustment office, 101 Centrepointe Drive.

The revised design was arrived at as a result of a negotiation process facilitated by the lawyers for both parties.  It  features a single-detached home with  a peaked roof at the corner of Carleton and Clearview and a semi-detached home on the interior Carleton Avenue lot with a flat roof.  All of the dwellings are two storey,  with rooftop decks designed to mitigate privacy and overlook.

The Clearview Avenue facade of the corner unit animates the street across from the park and the report of a Forestry expert confirms that the revised design will allow the distinctive bur oak on this lot to be preserved, when combined with other prescribed preservation measures.  Set-backs on Carleton Avenue have been increased to allow more room for soft landscaping and leaving space for three new street trees to replace the two that will be removed.

The revised design features the following changes to what was originally proposed at the Committee of Adjustment on June 1, 2011:

  • Formerly proposed semi-detached lot/dwellings on north half of existing 100 X 100 foot lot on the corner of Carleton and Clearview avenues, replaced by single lot/dwelling;
  • Setback of dwellings from Carleton increased from range of 3 – 5.4 metres to range of 4.65-6.16 metres to increase greenspace and more closely reflect existing pattern of development in neighbourhood;
  • Setback radius from mature Burr Oak adjacent to Clearview Avenue increased from previous application to 6 metres consistently to reduce potential development impacts upon tree (as per IFS Forestry report)
  • Driveway lengths along Carleton will be 5.62 metres (includes the section of the City Right of Way between the sidewalk and the property line) to lessen the potential for vehicles to  overhang and block sidewalk;
  • Number of street trees proposed along Carleton increased from two to three and species changed from Amur Maple to Service Berry and Hackberry (based on recommendation from  IFS Forestry Consultant);
  • Height of northernmost building increased from 7.3 metres to 8.31 metres to accommodate a pitched roof design on the new single family dwelling;
  • Height of southernmost semi-detached dwellings reduced from 7.3 metres to 6.9 metres.

168 Carleton OMB Decision May 22 2012 case PL110694.pdf

204 Northwestern Avenue Redevelopment Proposal – Follow-Up

From our community association co-chair CoChair1:

June 1, 2012

Re: Follow-Up to May 22, 2012 Meeting Regarding 204 Northwestern Avenue Development Proposal

At the meeting, we discussed everyone’s individual concerns, and then Heather and myself summarized what we could and could not address as a community association based on the planning principles and documents that form the basis of our evaluation framework.

I have just completed a successful negotiation process with the Owners through their architect, Rosaline Hill.  I have copied below the most pertinent information related to our negotiations.

A. E-mail from architect subsequent to our letter stating our remaining concerns

Date: Tue, 29 May 2012 14:14:41 -0400
Subject: Re: 204 Northwestern Follow-Up to May 22 Presentation
From: rosaline@rjhill.ca
To: CoChair1
CC: […]

Hello Everyone,

I have reviewed your comments along with other comments we have received.

Adam and Michael have agreed to the following changes:

  1. We will delete the rear roof patio,
  2. We will include plants between the driveways that will survive, as per your examples,
  3. We will reduce the width of the proposed front walkways from 4′ to 3′-8″, increasing the soft landscaping by 7.5sq.ft. in front of each semi.

Additional changes to our submission, not relating to your requests, will include:

  1. A revision to the draft R plan showing a narrow easement on the north side, in favour of 198 Northwester Ave, for vehicular access.
  2. A correction to the noted rear yard dimensions.  I have not changed the design or the location of the rear wall.  Drawings to date have shown the dimensions to the rear wall not including the chimney.  Because the chimney has living space above it, I will shift the dimension line to include it, as per the bylaw.
  3. I will amend the noted units sizes to be 2550sq.ft. plus basement.
  4. I will note on the drawing that the roof top patio (at the front) is 10’x15′.

B. Motion to Support Proposal Based on the e-mail above

A motion was passed unanimously by the Champlain Park Community Association Executive, dated May 31, 2012.  A more detailed letter will be sent to the Committee of Adjustment.

The Champlain Park Community Association (CPCA) supports the application for minor variances on lot width for the proposal to build a semi-detached home at 204 Northwestern Avenue (D08-01-12/B-00165 and B-00185 & D08-02-12/A-00164 and A-00184).

The CPCA and the proponents, Adam Gard and Michael Ayoub, Timberville Developments, have engaged in a successful negotiation process via their representative, architect Rosaline Hill.  This has resulted in a proposal that has addressed the major concerns and considerations of the association, based on Planning Principles, related to this specific site.

C. Notes Related to Issues Discussed at the Meeting

We discussed the neighbours’ concerns at the meeting and clarified what we could and could not address based on the planning principles.

We clarified the following points:

  • This is a contemporary style of architecture.  They are using more traditional finishing materials to soften the look of the buildings.
  • We advocated to eliminate rear yard privacy and overlook concerns related to rooftop decks,  as this is supported by City of Ottawa Official Plan policies.  In order to address our concerns, they have eliminated the rooftop decks originally overlooking the rear yard, while retaining those at the front.
  • The deeper lot depth on Northwestern (130 to 140 feet) means that only one minor variance (lot width) is required whereas other lots in the community with 100 foot depths require variances on both lot width and area.
  • This proposal is for a building of moderate size compared to some of the proposals that have been problematic on Northwestern.
  • This proposal has a well inset partial 3rd storey, that takes up 35% of the floor space compared to the floor below. This was a site specific variable that was assessed in the context of the overall proposal.  In this instance, adding living space to a partial 3rd storey has allowed them to have a very deep back yard so they are able to preserve some mature trees that will be an asset to the neighbourhood.
  • Note that the front yards of new semi-detached development will never have as extensive a “green presence” as the homes they are replacing, but the City has improved the requirements via the new by-law. The Owners have improved the front yard landscaping to address the new by-law provisions at our request.

Committee of Adjustment Hearing (Consent to Sever into Two Parcels and Minor Variances on Lot Width):

June 6, 3 PM, 101 Centrepointe Drive

Write:
Re: File Numbers: (D08-01-12/B-00165 and B-00185 & D08-02-12/A-00164 and A-00184)
Committee of Adjustment
101 Centrepointe Dr.
Ottawa  ON K2G5K7
Fax:  613-580-2436
E-mail:  cofa@ottawa.ca

CoChair1
Co-Chair, Champlain Park Community Association