Office of Councillor Jeff Leiper, Kitchissippi Ward, Ottawa | (613) 580-2485  | jeff@kitchissippiward.ca
Responsive image

Planning

You are here

398-406 Roosevelt developments

Likely the most contentious development under consideration in our ward right now is the proposal for 398-406 Roosevelt Avenue - a six-storey mixed use building that would significantly change the face of that residential street. I've made no secret of my opposition to it with planners, the developer and residents. If approved, I believe it would set a new bar for what this Council is willing to accept by way of intensification in our ward, fundamentally changing the function of the residential streets in a broad geography from Island Park to Golden, and from Byron to the Transitway. As a spot re-zoning, it's completely inappropriate to effect that kind of change without a broader plan for the community.

It is probably inevitable that the edge of our neighbourhoods will change significantly - as along Scott Street - to become higher and denser near transit. And, infill will continue in our ward, changing the face of our streets and with its own challenges. But the spectre of approving a six-storey mixed use building facing a street that is primarily low-rise residential and not designated for mid-rise without a broader plan has shaken residents.

Posted April 6, 2018

Another 190 Richmond Road technical amendment

On April 24, Planning Committee will be asked to approve an omnibus motion of various technical amendments to different zonings around the City. Earlier this year, I noted that one of those would be to amend the zoning at 190 Richmond Rd. to account for the conflict in the zoning raised by the inclusion of a mezzanine level in the townhomes. After putting that in the newsletter for a couple of weeks, I'm not going to push back on that when it comes before us: it's not a change to the overall density or building envelope from what Council approved. If forced to a separate re-zoning vote, it would virtually certainly pass.

Now, there is a second one. It turns out that because the townhome terraces sit on top of the parking garage, which projects to almost a metre above ground in places, the plan doesn't meet with the zoning requirements for set-backs. The conflict is again proposed to be resolved through the omnibus motion, and I'm again comfortable with that. The building has not been changed. Staff would add language along the lines of "an underground garage is permitted within the corner side yard and rear yard setback to a maximum height of 1.0 metre."

Posted April 6, 2018

1946 Scott Street approved: my vote

This week, the 9-storey development for Scott Street was approved. The vote was unanimous, including with my support. This was a highly contentious proposal, and some residents are very upset that I voted in favour of it with my colleagues.

I want to take this opportunity to explain why I voted for this development, and how I considered the multiple comments on the proposal that I’ve heard for months. This post won’t change any minds, but I do strive to communicate how I approach the various votes I take, and to be transparent in my work here at City Hall.

Parking

The development was opposed by many (and supported by many) since it has relatively little parking. There will be 13 spots, including 4 for visitors. The visitor parking for the 49 units meets the number required by the zoning by-law. The required parking for residential units was reduced, from 19 required spots to 9.

Posted March 2, 2018

Byron/Churchill development meeting

Please note that the meeting advertised below has been cancelled. After discussions with the developer's planner, they have determined not to proceed with this meeting at this time. If the proposal advances to a point at which they are ready to consult, we will work with them on an appropriate process, and advertise using that our usual channels.

***

Last night, I was made aware of a meeting being held by the potential developer of the southeast corner of Byron and Churchill. The development is proposed to be a six-storey mixed use building facing Churchill, built through to Highcroft where it would be four storeys. I had a preliminary conversation with this developer, who I do not know, in early December, and this community meeting was organized by them without my office's involvement. While a flyer advertising the meeting (pdf posted below) was circulated just to immediate neighbours, it has spread quickly. I corresponded last night with their planning consultant and wlll replace the .pdf below with a clean copy once that's provided to me.

Posted February 18, 2018

Updated: Future of Rochester Field

I want to thank the 60 or so residents who took the time to attend the open house last Wednesday to explore the proposed re-zoning to allow some development in Rochester Field (pictured), a part of the "100-day solution" that allows the City to put LRT under the Sir John A. Macdonald Parkway. I found it extremely useful in helping shape my own thinking on the subject, and there were some excellent perspectives and ideas shared.

There is a lot of context to this discussion. In short, as part of the deal struck to use the NCC's land for LRT, the City and NCC have agreed to settle an outstanding Ontario Municipal Board dispute by allowing the feds to develop 1/3 of the parcel. That agreement was part of the overall 100-day solution package that was approved by Council (including with my support) in 2015 after significant consultation and debate.

Posted November 19, 2017

404 Eden next steps

On Friday, residents read an article in the media about the developer of a property on Hopewell Avenue who, it was asserted, has put many more units into the building than he had led stakeholders to believe was his intent. The same developer has zoning permission at 404 Eden to build a multi-unit apartment building, and residents are concerned that they might see the same thing here.

Yesterday afternoon, I "lifted" delegated authority for the 404 Eden site plan from staff so that it will be required to go to a vote of Planning Committee and Council rather than be approved simply at the staff level. I believe this will give us more time to understand what protections our community can expect against an unexpected increase in units, as well as give the developer a chance to make commitments to the community in a public forum and in front of elected officials.

Posted October 28, 2017

Pages