The committee supported approval of a 300-unit apartment development and deferred a decision on the demolition and parking plan so that something “more palatable” could be presented at its next meeting.
article content
The planning committee opposed a developer’s best parking plans, which involved demolishing a six affordable complexes in downtown Ottawa to provide parking for tenants of an office building.
Announcement 2
article content
It’s tied to a much larger planning application that also came before the committee Thursday: a 300-unit apartment project from developers Glenview and Taggart to be built on a parking lot that currently serves an office building owned by Glenview. on the other side of the intersection of Nepean and O’Connor Streets, where the new development would be located.
Mark Shabinsky of Glenview told the committee that the mixed-use tower project would not proceed if his company did not obtain permission to create a smaller replacement parking lot immediately next to the office building on Nepean Street, where a residential building currently stands. of six units.
“It’s not a threat, it’s just a business reality that we’re dealing with,” Shabinsky said, explaining that Glenview would be in breach of leases with current tenants if they took parking away and that it was something they needed to provide to be competitive. and attract future tenants as an office building owner.
Announcement 3
article content
Public delegates and committee members pressed developers to consider including the 30 parking spaces for Glenview office tenants in the underground garage that would be built for the residential occupants of the proposed Glenview-Taggart development across the street. of the street.
It’s not feasible during the next several years of construction for safety reasons, said Derek Howe of Taggart. As for the Count. Jeff Leiper’s suggestion that Glenview lease parking elsewhere and then move into the garage after construction, “the Taggart organization has no interest in interacting with any of the office tenants inside a residential building, causing . … potential security issues, access issues, etc. etc.,” Howe said.
Announcement 4
article content
From Glenview’s perspective, Leiper’s proposal was “doable, but it’s not something we’re prepared to consider,” Shabinsky said.
“We will not be the only owners of the apartment building. Currently and historically we have been exclusive owners of our own parking lot, and that is a condition for us to proceed.”
Leiper was not impressed. “Everyone involved here wants their cake and eats it too,” he commented.
The committee heard pleas to defend the private market affordable housing units that would be lost and the tenants that would be uprooted if the demolition and rezoning permits the developer sought for the parking lot were granted.
The emotional and financial stress the situation has placed on his family of three has been “overwhelming,” building tenant and Ottawa ACORN member Lionel Njeukam told the committee. His rent is $1,200 a month for a two-bedroom unit in a location close to his work and other amenities.
ad 5
article content
Njeukam’s is one of four remaining homes in the six-unit building. City staff, who recommended approving tower development and demolition requests, had struck a deal with developers that would offer current tenants paid move-ins to a nearby Taggart or Glenview building in units with the same number of bedrooms at the same rent as they had been paying for their old unit over a five-year period.
There would also be 25 “affordable” units in the 300-unit new construction, rented at or below median market rent for at least 20 years, and displaced renters would be front of line for those units once built. .
From the possibility of renters being unable to afford their new homes once the five-year rent freeze expires to the continued loss of affordable units on the private market, Area Councilwoman Catherine McKenney was not pleased with the plan. presented to the committee.
ad 6
article content
“If we continue down this path, people will live in their cars. We’re going to need parking lots, people need to park their cars there, because that’s where they’re going to have to live,” said McKenney, who is not a member of the planning committee.
“We are in a climate crisis. We have a housing emergency. Let’s do the right thing. Let’s just say, ‘Not for a parking lot.’ Don’t take away people’s homes for parking.’”
Planning committee member Shawn Menard proposed supporting the necessary approvals for the 300-unit development and postponing a decision on the demolition and parking plan so that something “more acceptable” can be reconsidered by the committee at its next meeting.
One idea floated by committee co-chair Scott Moffatt was to reduce the number of planned parking spaces for the three-lot site on Nepean Street to allow the six existing complexes to remain.
Due to summer vacation, the council will not meet again until August 31. Decisions made at Thursday’s planning committee meeting and the next one on Aug. 25 will not be brought to the council until then.
Leiper encouraged committee colleagues to support Menard’s motion, which passed unanimously, and to come to the next meeting “wanting to see a real effort from the developer to make this work, not only in their interest, but also in their interest.” in the public interest”.
