Jan 24/06: City Council met to vote on a motion proposed a week earlier by Councillor Keith Coombs to rewrite the text of the St. Johns Municipal Plan development regulations. This would have allowed the developer to circumvent those regulations. However, before the Jan 24th vote, Councillor Frank Galgay tabled a petition containing 1400 signatures protesting the intent of Coombs' motion. The petition contained 900 signatures from the paper petitions circulated around town plus 500 signatories to the online petition (considering that the petition didn't start until 6 days earlier, this is impressive). Also on Council's order paper were 114 formal letters written to the City Clerk protesting Councillors' having exempted this development from the regulations. Councillor Galgay suggested that this was an unprecedented number of letters of objection.
Coombs then rose and, instead of pushing a vote on his original motion, made a new motion to defer any further exemption until the developer supplies City Planning Department staff with details of the proposed structure.
Thanks to all who of you who made your voices heard on this issue, City Councillors have deferred their vote. Pat yourselves on the back. The electorate won this round. But what we have won is a deferral of Council's vote, not a reversal of the exemption they've already given the developer.
What this means:
There are 2 sets of city regulations governing any development in the Battery/Signal Hill area:
#1: Under the City Municipal Plan, the commercial zoning regulations permit redeveloping the Battery Hotel site to a maximum of 10 storeys, a floor area ratio of 2, and a footprint taking up no more than 50% of the site. For the moment, the development is still subject to these regulations
Council on Jan 23rd decided to defer their vote to rewrite the text of the Municipal Plan for the developer, i.e. they backed off from their intention to exempt him from those rules. Coombs'original mtoion would have rewritten the text of the Plan to allow "THE ROCK" to go up and out, outside city regulations. City Council has only deferred their decision on this for the present.
#2: Under the City's Battery/Signal Hill Area Development Guidelines , the redevelopment would have been required have a maximum height of 6 storeys, and to fit in with the hillside, skyline, and look of the area. The City's Director of Planning stated in a recent memo to Council that "If the Battery Hotel site is removed from the Battery Develeopment Guidelines, development of the site would then be subject only to the provisions of the St. John's Municipal Plan. The effect of this action could potentially be the construction of a 10--storey building on Signal Hill skyline which would compete with Signal Hill and Cabot Tower which are the most prominent landmarks in the province." (click to read full memo) The director recommended that Councillors not exempt the development from the Battery/Signal Hill Development Guidelines. However on Jan 3/06 the majority of elected councillors did exactly that, ignoring their staff's advice. Read the motion Councillors passed on Jan 3/06. As a result of that vote, the development is still exempt from the Battery/Signall Area Guidelines.
In the Jan 23 Council meeting Councillor Shannie Duff asked the Director of City Planning if that Jan 3rd exemption has now "tied the City's hands" in requiring the developer to adhere to any considerations of design, compatibility with Signal Hill, etc. City Planning Director Cliff Johnston replied that under the Battery Development Guidelines the city could have required the developer to consider these things, but since Councillors had exempted it from those Guidelines on Jan 3/06, all the city can now do is require the developer to comply with a vague requirement in the city's commercial zoning rules that suggests developments fit with the character of the city. Mr Johnston said that this was a very general regulation that couldn't be enforced in any meaningful way. The most the city can do now is enforce the height (max 10 storeys) and footprint (50% of the site) required under the Municipal Plan. Unless they reverse their Jan 3rd exemption.
WHAT HAPPENS NOW:
Not much until the developer submits details of the proposed development to city planning staff. Presumably it will be at least a month, possibly longer, before the Battery development comes before your councillors again. Then at City Council meetings the whole issue will open up once more. It will be important for the public to keep an eye on the agenda for upcoming council meetings.
Meanwhile councillors can, if they wish, rescind their Jan 3/06 decision to let the developer circumvent the Battery/Signal Hill Development Guidelines. You may wish to phone or email your Ward councillor and give him/her your advice. Click here for councillors' contact numbers.
Battery Resident Paul Steffler had a meeting with Deputy Mayor O'Keefe, and writes:
Hi Everyone:
I met with Dennis O'Keefe this morning from 11:30 to 12:15. We got out the
Butler original concept drawings and we went over them in detail.
I pointed out that the proposed building is in fact 3.5 to 4 storeys higher
than what is there now, with the main mass of the building at the back or
Signal Hill Road end being over 9 storeys high. I showed how the low-angle
Butler drawing makes the back of the hotel appear to be minute, and that
this was a deliberate "deception" to minimise the appearance of the project.
We looked at some photos of the current hotel from side and rear angles, and
I sketched in what the proposed hotel would look like, pointing out in
particular the impact on the neighbourhoods on either side, ie Cabot Avenue
and Murphy's Lane.
I asked what "approval-in'principle" means, and he replied that it is the
standard Council opening gambit to allow a developer to proceed with
drawings etc.
I asked why exactly it was deemed necessary to exempt the project from the
Battery guidelines, and he replied that the developer was proposing to build
something "no higher than what is there now" (8 storeys) but the Guidelines
permitted only 6 storeys.
I replied that by exempting the project from the guidelines they were also
discarding the safeguards that protected the viewplanes of the adjacent
buildings, and he replied that the developer had been adamant that "99% of
the neighbouring viewplanes would be unaffected, and in fact some would even
improve. As far as Mr. Butler had determined, only 2 houses would be
negatively affected." Which two we don't know.
He said that Planning had come out with an assessment about 10 days ago that
basically pointed out all the same things I was pointing out: that the
proposed drawing is 3 or 4 storeys too high, we don't know anything about
viewplane impact because we don't have enough drawings, and we can't assess
the building's mass and overall appearance because we don't know the size
and shape of the footprint.
I suggested that a monolithic ten-storey building filling 78% of the lot
would put Cabot Avenue in perpetual dark, and I could imagine the street
turning into a strip of boutiques within ten years, seeing as no would want
to live there anymore. I also said that if the neighbouring viewplanes are
to be assessed and maintained, that Planning would be in fact be applying
the remnants of the the Battery guidelines, even though the project was
exempted from them. According to Dennis, the only reason they wanted the
exemption was to get the 8-storey height they wanted.
I asked him to assess the "mood" of Council concerning the matter in general
and he said "cautious", that no one wants a big ugly building up there, that
Planning will be assessing the plans and drawings and advising with regard
to all aspects of the impact of the project, and that Butler might have to
withdraw this proposal if it can't be made to work.
I asked about a public hearing and he said yes there will definitely be a
public hearing on this one, and everyone will get a say.
So what did I get out of it?
It's definitely "going back to Planning", and Planning will have the key
role in assessing its impact. This is a good thing. I'd like to get a copy
of the document he mentioned, that came out ten days ago. I think it would
be good to monitor the Planning Dept closely. I think it would be good to
push for a complete viewplane study of all the affected properties, and NOT
just done by Mr. Butler himself. This is ironically redundant, since I
believe this work was already done as groundwork for the Battery Guidelines,
but if they want to exempt the new hotel from the Guidelines, then somebody
has to vouch for all those other properties up there. I think property
values/viewplanes can be a key presentation at the public hearing. Anybody
who has a view of the existing hotel, or a future view of the new hotel
should take pictures out their windows or off there decks or yards, and
these photos should be digitised and have the modelled image of the new
hotel added in to scale to show EXACTLY what will be the impact. The
technology is definitely there to do this. The danger is that Mr. Butler
will try to get away with fluff and persuasive hyperbole with regard to the
"immaculate preservation of everyone's views". DISCUSSING viewplanes is not
enough. View = property value.
That would be the neighbourhood-impact thrust. Another thrust would be the
cosmic-impact, the iconic-historic-heritage impact. That's where the
wider-angle QuickTime Virtual Reality animation comes in. Don't laugh, it's
really real! It allows for the building to be viewed in exact context from
any angle or elevation. (I mentioned it to Dennis too.) Robert Mellin told
me about the software: any architect should be familiar with it. Mr. Butler
should be required to produce one of these as part of his submission to
Panning. If Planning doesn't require it and Mr. Butler doesn't want to do
it, the public would be well served to raise the funds and commission one.
Once again DISCUSSING the visuals is not good enough.
I'm sure there are lots of important questions that I forgot to ask, but
anyway, it was a positive meeting. I might ask to meet other Councillors and
just keep asking these questions and pointing out these points so that they
really GET the issue: that they really have to get it right this time and
they should be looking critically at all aspects of the proposal, and I mean
that in the literal sense, as in "critiquing" the proposal, assessing all
the consequences and repercussions. Without some steady input from the
neighbourhood's point-of-view, they will tend to float along and give it far
too little attention, listen only to Mr. Butler, and make regrettable
decisions. The public hearing should not be about "taking sides" but about
"making the right choices with all the information".
Paul