a peek inside the fishbowl

ETA – Feb 8 
Three of us are scheduled to meet with Councillor Christine Leadman tomorrow. I’ll post and update to let you all know how it went.

I’ve spoken to a number of people who are writing emails to the Planning Committee before the February 13th meeting. Please note, the heritage issue and the zoning issue are two separate entries on the agenda. Free free to write or speak about one, or both issues. You must notify them beforehand if you would like to speak.

The issues I listed in the original post below are fairly general, and some are specific to the heritage issue. But there is a lot of information to crunch in the planning report online here.

Some things that are worth further debate and questionning (think about these while you write your email to PEC:

–  “The applicant has further advised staff that he will request PEC and Council to give approval to having the required 5% parkland dedication fee waived in consideration of having the building designated.”  In no way should the parkland dedication fees be waived as per the applicant’s request. Infill housing brings more demand on parks and recreation services. These services and facilities are increasingly difficult to finance.

– The applicant is “exploring alternatives to provide for the re-use of the existing building as part of the proposed residential development.” This is short-sighted. Why can’t we find a way to preserve a lovely building with a rich history AND create something great for the residents of Westboro? What about a retirement home, a daycare, or a combination of the two? The PEC should consider defer the rezoning item until there has been sufficient opportunity to meet with all the stakeholders. This is a once-in-a lifetime opportunity to create something beautiful/useful/meaningful in our community.

– The report alludes to the fact that the Hobin-designed homes would be a great fit in this neighborhood. Ha. It’s like having a basket full of grapes, sticking an orange in there and saying IT IS JUICY THEREFORE IT IS THE SAME. It’s not.

“The proposal for the site is consistent with and advances many of the relevant design considerations providing for street oriented development that reflects the development pattern of the community” First, no one other than City planners have seen the proposed development. And who decides what this development pattern is? Not the residents! It’s developer driven. My goodness, compare the homes on Edison with the Kenwood Ogilvy estate homes. The Hobin style of design does not fit in. This kind of development will creates nothing but an exclusive executive enclave. 

– “The applicant is also requesting modifications to certain performance standards to facilitate the development.” One of these is an increase in building height. The standard is 8m. The applicant is asking for 10.7. I wonder what the people along Edison and Melbourne think of that?

– “… the traffic impact on the surrounding community is expected to be minimal.” FYI – the City’s Official Plan does not require a traffic impact study for a development of less than 150 units or a traffic overview for a development less than 75 units. As a friend pointed out today, nothing has been said about the number of pedestrians in that area, the school or nearby daycares. There are no sidewalks on that part of Kenwood, Edison or Melbourne.

– “The existing building does not lend itself to adaptive re-use in the context of an R3J zoning.” As far as I know there has been no objective third-party assessment of this building.

– The Planning Committee must require the development to have zero impact on neighbourhood infrastructure.

 – “The Ward Councillor is aware of this application and the staff recommendation.” Yes, but she hasn’t made clear whether she supports a progressive plan for this development or is siding with the developer.

______ My original post begins here ______

I’m aware of a few emails that have already been sent to the members of the PEC committee listed in this post. Thank you! Every word of support is a tremendous help.

You might be wondering what points you should be making. We can’t write your email for you, but here are a few notes to help you along:

First, state whether or not you support heritage designation for the original part of La Maison Jeanne D’Arc at 360 Kenwood Ave.

Why do you value its cultural and heritage value? Why is it important to you? Share your reasons for wanting to keep this building. Make it personal:

– Contextual: it’s an important landmark in Westboro, one that is physically, visually and historically linked to its surroundings.

– Historical: it was designed by Mere Marie Thomas D’Aquin in 1933. It’s a rare example of a building by a female architect.

– Historical: this is one of very few buildings in this area with significant links to the Francophone community

– Environmental: Heritage conservation is an essential part of sustainable development. We need to work harder to reuse of existing buildings and historic places that already have investments in energy and land.

– It should be reused for a purpose that would most benefit the community: residential, non-profit (retirement home/daycare) or non-profit recreational (like a second campus for nearby Dovercourt recreation centre).

– mention any other concerns regarding: the City of Ottawa residential planning/development process, infill housing, loss of green space and mature trees, lack of sidewalks and increase of traffic

These are just a few off the top of my head. If you have your own, feel free to share them with the group in the comments below! 

In your email to the PEC, please add:

– will you be attending the PEC meeting on the 13th? Why or why not.

Also, please do not forget to copy your email to Councillor Christine Leadman. She needs to know how important these issues are to our community.

Thanks again for your support!