Yesterday’s Smart Growth Meeting saw the return of the future Shaughnessy speed bump – the 26 story condo on the former Shell Station site just before the underpass.
You remember all about this ridiculous plan I am sure.
So, Onni was looking for a one year extension on their development permit, taking them to the end of July 2011.
Ironically, the Onni rep was 15 or 20 minutes late for the meeting. I wanted to ask if it was because of the existing traffic on Shaughnessy but, well, come on, we know the answer.
I pointed out that 95% of the public input on this plan was negative; three of the four people who voted in favour of the project are no longer on council (the motion passed by one vote); the Onni traffic study was debunked; and that Onni has been less than a good neighbour in that they only cleaned up the site of garbage, over growth, etc. in the past weeks because they were looking for this extension.
The rep from Onni was not happy with my comments but committee chair Councillor Mike Forrest echoed most of what I said and gave an interesting history of Onni’s “less than stellar reputation in Port Coquitlam”.
At the end, Councillors Forrest and Pollock granted the extension due to the economic climate and the fact that other developers may come to the table for something similar so consistency needs to be in place.
I would have voted NO since the public (myself included) was not in favour of this development in the first place. While such a no vote would not rezone the property it would have sent a message to the community that this new Council is willing to correct the error of the previous group.
Rumour has it Onni will be coming to Council looking to adding some height to the building. This will be interesting.
Yay you’re back : )
However I have to disagree with you on this one. It doesn’t matter who voted for it and how many votes it passed by – all that matters is that it got lawfully approved, end of story. It wouldn’t be fair to seize on the recession to end this project, and I especially applaud Mike for resisting the urge to do that since he’s against the project.
I agree with what they said about a similar proposal popping up if this one goes away, I can’t see any alternitives for this site. Only a highrise can produce the economies of scale needed to make this site work. However I might add that the Villagio lowrise development on the other side of the underpass has more units than this highrise will have, yet I didn’t hear anywhere near as much NIMBY whining for that development as with the highrise…
Also if you care, checkout my council vote tracker and score keeper! Updated after every council meeting! The only one of its kind in Poco! Exciting stuff I know.
Do you have a link for your vote tracker? I do find that sort of thing interesting!
The difference between the two sites it the specific location. The high rise location will create chaos with turning, etc. and a major choke point. The funny part of all this was the ridiculous traffic study that Onni produce and later debunked with, well, facts. Notice that Onni does not even try to use that traffic study when arguments come up on this project because they were embarrassed with their own study.
Yes, the site was lawfully approved. Using that premise, I believe any such extension should go back before the public for input and then a Council vote. I would bet all that I have that the Council as a whole would have voted it down.
Let’s see what further concessions Onni requests and if they actually keep this empty lot clean and tidy while they wait for the “economy to turn around”. Stay tuned for their request to add at least five more floors to this project.
Forgot something.
The Villagio has 149 living units vs 166 units in the Onni speed bump (therefore the high rise is “bigger” than the low rise property). As well, because the Villagio was approved well before the Onni proposal the 149 units just a little bit south of the Shell station DID play a part in folks not wanting another project in such close proximity.
Remember, the 149 units did not need an OCP change but the Onni high rise required the change.
Not NIMBY-ISM – rather, citizens being real about the traffic concerns as opposed to turning a blind eye to the obvious problems.
Oh sorry, I wasn’t clear. Just click on my name to get to the vote tracker.
I’m just going to do my own little traffic assesment here (I’m not a transportation engineer, but my dad is, so I guess it’s in my blood.) We’ll assume the extension passes (which it probably won’t) so that’s 31 floors, 4.5 units per floors, 1 car per unit. That’s 140 cars. And while I don’t have the overall traffic figures for that intersection, I’m guessing 140 is just a tiny fraction of the overall cars that use it per hour, and unless all 140 are coming and going every hour, we won’t feel a thing. And besides, it’s all signal regulated anyway, so it’s just going to be a little bit longer of a wait for the lions way signal. A much easier way to smooth out traffic in that area would be if people stopped insisting on making left-turns onto Elgin when the sign clearly says not to! That drives me nuts!
And let’s not forget the CMO coming soon, which will provide a two-thirds increase in north-south capacity. Again, that will probably absorb a_lot more than 140 cars per hour.
Ok, enough armchair transportation planning. Let’s hope that the rest of this project will be drama free, but I’ve seen Onni operates on some other projects (check out the V6A controversy to name one) so I’m a bit aprehensive.
Oh, we were writing at the same time…