Newcastle-Brechin Rubber hits the Road on Monday, April 4 at 4:30
Ron Bolin: April 1, 2011
At Council’s Finance and Policy Committee of the Whole (FPCOW) meeting on Monday, April 4, 2011, the major topic appears to be the Newcastle-Brechin Plan as regards its two contentious issues, building height on the waterfront and the density in Newcastle. This meeting has been moved from its usual location at the City Hall Board room to the Shaw Auditorium at the conference centre. The time of the meeting however remains the same, i.e. 4:30pm, which is not conducive to broad citizen participation.
The Planning Department is bringing in two presenters from Vancouver to give presentations along with the two planners who have been involved in the plan long term:
“5. PRESENTATIONS:
(a) Presentation from Mr. Lance Berelowitz, Urban Forum Associates, Vancouver, Paul Rollo, GP Rollo & Associates, Vancouver, Mr. Bruce Anderson, Manager of Community Planning and Ms. Deborah Jensen, Community Development Planner, Community Planning regarding the Newcastle + Brechin Neighbourhood Plan.”
Later on the agenda Council will be called upon to make a decision on these issues:
“9. STAFF REPORTS: (blue)
COMMUNITY SAFETY AND DEVELOPMENT:
(a) Draft Newcastle + Brechin Neighbourhood Plan
Staff’s Recommendation: That Council:
1. direct Staff to proceed with a selected option for building height along the waterfront within the medium High Density Waterfront designation;
AND:
2. direct Staff to proceed with a selected option for neighbourhood residential densities along the west side of Stewart A venue; and,
AND:
3. direct Staff to revise the draft Newcastle + Brechin Neighbourhood Plan according to the selected options, and proceed with preparation of the necessary Official Community Plan (OCP) amendment bylaw for consideration of the Newcastle + Brechin Neighbourhood Plan at a regular meeting of Council.”
I do not believe that any of these recommendations adheres to the principles for the waterfront which are expressed in the currently operative OCP or zoning bylaws, and would suggest that this option, just as the always available, “none of the above” are open for discussion or adoption.
I have never been able to understand how we got into the position of having three recognized organizations involved in a single neighbourhood plan rather than demanding that those affected by the plan come together to create a single plan with which they all can live. While recognizing that the site and situation components of the area create differing views of the problems, still, who is to mitigate those differences? In this regard, I do not understand how the three groups involved can in any way be viewed as equal. One claims some 325 members and had their most recent meeting within the last few weeks, one claims some 60 members and hasn’t met in the last two years, and the third has to my knowledge never been asked about their membership which is rumoured to be less than a dozen.
At the same time, the question of the Nanaimo waterfront and its significance to the city, as opposed to its significance to the neighbourhood, the area, or indeed to the land owners adjacent has not been seriously broached, except in the OCP and zoning bylaw as they currently stand.
This meeting and Council’s approach to it will be both interesting and important for the upcoming new rewrite of the zoning bylaw via which virtually all of the properties in Nanaimo will be impacted.
Posts and Comments on Nanaimo Governance 
These from further into the staff report are the options that I believe they speak of;
“Building heights greater than 4 storeys may have less impact on the lower levels along Stewart Avenue, opening up views to the water, but may interrupt higher level views. To balance these concerns, there are a number of options to address building height
(heights measured from Stewart Avenue). Additionally, staff suggests guidelines be included in the draft Plan that address building form whereby as building height increases, a smaller
building footprint is encouraged.”
1. Set a specific height range of 4 (or 6) to 12 storeys. Setting a range provides greater certainty respecting building heights within the designated waterfront area, allowing for lower
and mid rise building forms, and alleviating concerns that high rise development (ie. no maximum height) would be permitted within the Plan area. This range represents a scale of development that allows the amenities contemplated in the draft Plan to be provided through redevelopment opportunities. However, using a height range does not allow for as much flexibility through a rezoning process to achieve the aspirations for waterfront development as set out in the draft Plan.
2. Lower base height to 4 or 6 storeys but allow applications for taller buildings. Lowering the base height to 4 or 6 storeys addresses concerns that a base height of 8 storeys was set too high. A “base plus” height of 4 (or 6) storeys would indicate an
acceptable height limit but still allow property owners to apply for additional height (as well as to provide amenities) through the rezoning process. Lowering the base height does place additional emphasis on the rezoning process to determine what the upper height limit should be, and may increase the difficulty of achieving building forms of 12 or more storeys, which would generate the additional neighbourhood amenities.
3. Retain the 8+ base height policy contained within the draft Plan. As with Option 2, the 8+ base height policy allows for provision of additional height (and increased amenities), as
determined through a rezoning process. While this approach places additional emphasis on the rezoning process to determine an upper limit for building height, a base of 8 storeys offers greater opportunity to achieve a building form that would generate the amenities and objectives set out in the draft Plan.
“Staff notes that the options provided include a discussion of 12 storeys because this is the height at which significant public amenities would be provided to the neighbourhood. The 12
storey height recognizes that a mid rise development of 8 to 12 storeys, utilizing higher residential densities, would generate the higher likelihood of amenities provided to the community.”
It will be interesting to see how this plays out.
Gord,
At the January 2010 charrette there appeared to be no neighbourhood enthusiasm for towers on the waterfront.
“On 2011-MAR-14, Council directed staff to prepare alternatives for building heights above 4 storeys on portions of the waterfront within the Medium High Density Waterfront designation, as well as options for the neighbourhood residential densities on the west side of Stewart Avenue.”
Height only is up for consideration this evening, and at that according to the blue areas only on the waterfront: “as well as options for the neighbourhood residential densities on the west side of Stewart Avenue” although those areas do not show on the plan.
Medium/high is not defined: density increase is not defined. Furthermore height, in isolation, without considering other amenities, does not further the interests of a balanced community.
Proceeding along the waterfront, generally three/four stories run north from the yacht club to the shipyard.
Further north usage is generally for marine boat yard and maintenance: a viable economic use, apparently in jeopardy according to this report.
There are four tall building in the Townsite area: two at twelve and another two at seven stories. One would conclude that in the interests of good urban planning clustering of towers of a similar height in that location would make sense rather than towers, with the potential to disrupt many established views, strung out along the waterfront.
The Terminal shopping precinct is an ideal location for a very attractive mixed use with towers: especially if view, from the top of the hill, is the governing criteria. I am sure the Terminal people would agree.
The driving force behind this current flurry of height increase in the Brechin/Newcastle area is unclear. As noted elsewhere Insight has abandoned plans to proceed with its waterfront tower property on Front and that may only lead one to believe, it cannot be the market!
“It will be interesting to see how this plays out.” I dunno. I thinq we already know.
Thanks Ron, for your succinct summary. Gord and Roger too for your additional valuable information.
Seems like after the well attended public meetings in our Brechin Hill/Newcastle area, the many signatures, the majority expression of “thumbs down” on highrise development on Stewart Avenue, senior staff have once again done their “same old.”
Go with the what’s going to benefit the city in receiving more taxes (presumably) from development and forget about what residents want. What a travesty of neighbourhood planning. And the scam seems to go on and on….
By the way, for some reason, I can never negotiate http://www.nanaimo.ca adequately to obtain basic information. Admit I’m flawed but perhaps others in our Brechin Hill/Newcastle neighbourhoods have the same blockage? Doesn’t help that the city’s website appears to some of us to have these hurdles.
At the same time, the question of the Nanaimo waterfront and its significance to the city, as opposed to its significance to the neighbourhood, the area, or indeed to the land owners adjacent has not been seriously broached, except in the OCP and zoning bylaw as they currently stand.
….
ah ha. Once again the OCP will be shown for what it is.
Toilet paper.
“Development does not necessarily mean highrise.” Quoting you from the other conversation on the same subject.
Well, Jacques, in the Nanaimo planning department’s lexicon, as undefined “medium/high”, apparently it does!
As you correctly point out . . . “It means being sensible and not stopping everything.” Absolutely right and, pray tell, who said it does?
. . . and again, “You might note that Stewart Avenue is a Provincial highway, in fact Route #1 which is the Trans Canada highway.”
The point has not missed me, nor many others I conjecture . . . I live in the tower just out side the Millstone periphery, I walk the sea wall regularly and rely on the boat yards to service my sail boat: for me, keeping all that is a necessity. I have a stake in our neighbourhood! Do you?
Thanqxz for pointing out the obvious, though. My response to the charrette is . . .
“ii. The BC ferry terminal exists on Departure Bay from force of habit only: the site is too valuable to languish as parking. It was slated to move to Duke point: another less obtrusive, and better site for destinations north is Nanoose Bay. As larger vessels enter the service the confined entrance to Departure Bay becomes a hazard to navigation.”
. . . and
“iii. It is a massive imposition on the both neighbourhoods I do not have the statistics but it is obvious by observation most drivers leaving off the ferries head for points north and other destinations. Summer ferry traffic backs along Stewart much to the detriment of peace and quiet.”
Please check my thoughts . . .
Click to access Newcastle.Brechin.pdf
Did you attend the Monday evening meeting? I didn’t! I have been to so many I feel no urgent need to ask how it turned out.
Experience tells nice smiles and pretty words and at the first expedient proposal all good intentions go under the bus and a benign public shrugs.
BTW, what is driving this medium/high? Insight just abandoned its project, so it cannot be the market!
What came out of the monday night meeting was that the city planners were betting on a high return of amenity contributions for buildings of 12 storeys or more. By using a formula based on the real estate market in Vancouver, the city had determined that they could expect a return on “lot lifting” of 2 million dollars. This, they say, would have paid for a lot of amenities on the shoreline. To their credit, council didn’t buy it.