Residential intensification projects in Cambridge, Ward
2 - personal presentation to Cambridge Council
Updates:
[4] Feb. 9/09 Cambridge Council "authorizes the
enactment of a zoning amending by-law to remove the 'H' holding symbol from the
(H)RM3 zoning classification applying to the lands at 633 Margaret Street (Ward
2)." That is the last Council action required and now residential infill
construction can start.
[3] March 31/08 I am willing predict that the next
brownfield residential infill project will be proposed for the former Appleton
Electric factory site on Lawrence Street. A historical fact: the now vanished
river that powered Jacob Hespeler's grist mill located on King Street flowed
through this brownfield site. Power for the grist mill was provided by water
stored in a mill pond at Laurel Street ..... the curve in the road at the former
Eastern Steel site is roughly the location of the former dam.
[2] January 14/08 Cambridge Council passed By-law 7-08. This by-law amended the zoning classification of 633 Margaret Street .. thus the residential intensification project is a done deal, with some important alterations, namely a density increase . 200 units = 82 townhomes + 118 apartments
[1] Jan. 26, 2006 At a public meeting the developer proposed to construct 169 units = 104 townhouses + 65 apartment building
TO: Mayor Craig and
members of Cambridge Council
DATE: May 15, 2007
TOPIC: P-46-07, R 08/07/EB 633 Margaret Street, (Ward 2)
Proposed Official Plan and zone By-Law Amendments
PURPOSE: a personal comment on the impact of the development
application
SUMMARY: 1. the residential intensification project
does not contain elements of a Smart Growth Project
2. this proposal helps Cambridge to reach the annual 40% infill
requirements of the provincial planning rules
3. the construction of this residential high density project will
significantly degrade both immediate and extended
neighbourhoods
This proposal to add 200 housing units and 260 vehicles to a traditional neighbourhood should be viewed like an iceberg --hat you see above water is only one tenth of the entire object. In this cases, the one tenth is the basic site plan consisting of 200 houses, 500 residents and at least 260 vehicles.
It is the direct and indirect products of this intensification project that comprise the other nine tenths of the project's impact on both the immediate and extended neighbourhoods. So, lets quickly look at the 9/10s of the issue, factor by factor and their impacts on existing residents.
TRAFFIC IMPACT:
* The report states that the site "is within 240 metres of King Street East which is a major Regional arterial road. (p.23)" Under what conditions would this justifying claim made by a consultant without also mentioning the congested reality of King Street? Not one single traffic study completed since 1974 has failed to highlight the increasing congestion of the roads in this area. Members of Council are aware that #408,350 has been spent by ROW to design improvements to the corridor because it was indentified "as a high priority location for road improvements in order to improve traffic operations" (p. 2, E-05-004). If the design phase costs a half million dollars, then how much with the actual construction cost? So, how helpful is it to add 260 new vehicles to the route for daily travel?
* Cambridge has only the short term (2011) guidelines of the DTNR report which suggests spot fixes. Since CARSS was rejected by Cambridge Council, a long term traffic analysis and master plan for the city does not exist. So, the truth is that our current traffic conditions in the "King-Eagle corridor" will continue to worsen because there is no city-wide planning for long term traffic planning and construction. What you see is what you get for the next decade or longer ..... but likely worse.
RESONSE TO CLAIMS MADE IN THE DEVELOPER'S REPORT
* Smart Growth principles recommend a 10 minute walk to shopping?
Put the report's claim about shopping to the test. You could ask local residents
where they currently go to purchase the majority of their food and household
items. Or have an agent of the developer walk 10 minutes and do the week's
shopping for a family. Identify the closest supermarket, etc. on a map?
* Smart Growth principles recommend a 10 minute walk to rapid transit.
To be blunt, if you expect the rapid transit corridor to run along King Street,
then you are wrong. It simply will not happen, you know it and I know it.
* The developer's proposal suggests the traffic impact will be "an increase
of 1 vehicle per minute" on Margaret Street.
Is this what residents on Margaret Street expected when they located in the
neighbourhood? What route are these 260 autos going to take? Lets assume that
these young families travel at conventional times to reach work, school or
shopping destinations .... only 1 per minute? And finally, in what current new
Cambridge neighbourhood consisting of young families is the average 1.3 autos
per household?
* My predcition is that the developer's report down plays the vehicle impact.
NEIGHBOURHOOD EXPECTATIONS
* "Higher density proposals should respect the community character, design
and historic features."
Does it? Residents in this neighbourhood deliberately purchased their home
because of the residential lifestyle. What discussions has Cambridge Council
organized in traditional neighbourhoods to explain that they will also be
subject to the 40% infill Goal? What pamphlets or brochures have been sent out
to the older neighbourhoods explaining the issues and consequences related to
residential intensification projects?
* A newspaper report (Feb.20/07, The Record) dealing with density issues in developments along Beaverdale Road, suggested that new provincial rules mean that even "estate" developments must also meet new density rules. That newspaper report quoted the city planning commissioner as saying the 'residents will have "very serious concerns" about that level of density next door ...'
* well, let me also suggest that we also have concerns. Cambridge Council has already approved significant density increases with the construction of 220+ apartment units at the corner of King and Eagle. When will Council have serious concerns about our neighbourhood? There is also the issue of report P-81-06
CONSISTENCY: Will all neighbourhoods receive equal 40% factor treatment from Council?
* In July 2005 a developer submitted a proposal to construct 14 homes along Dunbar Road. The application was rejected in a 4-1 vote. One has to understand local politics to appreciate the decision. But my point is that that this proposal satisfied most if not all principles of Smart Growth! And despite being approved by the GRCA, Council turned the project down. And as Councillor Whetham stated "We'll lose at the OMB and waste a lot of money on the hearing." The arguments included loss of parking, increased traffic and green space loss. But she clearly suggested that the vote rejected homes was based on non-planning criterion. How about 200 homes?
* Will socio-economic factors or demographic differences influence the treatment neighbourhoods received as Council strives to satisfy the 40% figure? People who purchase expensive homes are not the only income group who make deliberate residential and neighbourhood choices! And who expects zoning rules to be relatively permanent? Is it sufficient to only notify residents adjacent to any proposed infill project? Or should the notification rules be modified to inform the entire neighbourhood? And has proximity to to an active railway line ever been used by Council to reject a residential construction proposal?
* Perhaps the city should prepare a brownfield/infill brochure for city-wide
distribution.
Make it multi-coloured just like the Cambridge Farmers' Market and Parking
By-Law enforcement pamphlets.
Certainly neighbourhood zoning and effects effects of
provincial density rules are equally
important to city residents?
respectfully,
Bob McMullen
updated: February 8, 2009