Ottawa's tallest building one step closer to reality

Despite existing rules that only allow 30-storey buildings at 900 Albert St., the city's planning committee voted sevento twoin favour of a development that includes three towers, one of which would be Ottawa's tallest at 65 storeys.

Only councillorsJeff Leiperand Tobi Nussbaumvoted against the application. Coun. Riley Brockington was absent.

I'm here to ask whether thecommunity was lied to by the city.- Catherine Boucher, resident

Plan for area ignored

Local residents and the ward councillor, Catherine McKenney, had a number of criticisms of the project across the street from Bayview Station, including that the proposed heights ignore apiece of the city's formal planning policy,called a secondary plan.

That plan was developed througha time-consuming process between city staff, landowners and the community to come up with a blueprint for the Bayviewarea, and it called for maximum heights of 30 storeys.

"I'm here to ask whether thecommunity was lied to by the city," residentCatherineBouchertold members of the planning committee on Tuesday morning.

"Was there a wink-wink that I missed someplace?"

'One of the worst applications I've ever seen,' area councillor says

6 years ago

Duration 0:46

Coun. Catherine McKenney says the 65-storey building goes against the city's own rules that set a maximum of 30 storeys for the area, and adds the plan for the ground level won't make for a good neighbourhood.

Boucher had been involved in theprocess that led to the secondary plan, and said that "when you ask people in a community to spend countless hours thinking really deeply about how they want their community to grow" and then ignore the plan at the first application, residents need to"ask the city why you bothered to participate."

She said she wants to hear from Mayor Jim Watson on this issue, as he promised theplans would be followed. And Boucher said the community association for the area hasn't ruled out appealing the decision, which must still be approved by council.

Ground-level issues

The other major criticism of the development revolves around what's planned for the ground floor. In particular, there are four loading bays on the south side of the development, although all the servicing such as truck unloading will take place inside the building.

• Objections to 65-storey tower not all grounded in height

• ANALYSIS:Onward and upward: Here's the lowdown on Ottawa's increasingly high hopes

Still, the loading bays on the south side might segregate the tenants of the development from the rest of the growing community to the south.

"We have maybe 2,000 new neighbours in this development, and that's a good thing," said McKenney. "I want 2,000 new neighbours. But I want to meet them. I want my kids to play with their kids. As we all age, I wantto hangout with them. We are never, ever going to meet them. We're never going to bring our kids to a loading zone."

McKenneycontinued herimpassioned argument to build communities that integrate with each other.

"It's OKto put this amount of density along this corridor," she said. "We have got to consider how we are going to live together, how we are going to take swimming lessons together. Where are we going to hang out, what are we going to do?"

Community benefits too low, some say

Some criticized the amount and character of the benefits the developer is contributing to the community under rules set out in section 37 of Ontario's planning act. These sorts of benefits are triggered when a developer asks for a 25 per cent or more increase in density from the permitted zoning.

For this development, Trinity and the city have landed on a total of $975,000 in cash, which critics believe is too little considering the heights being requested.

About $525,000 would gotoward an affordable housing fund. Another $450,000 wouldgo towarda pedestrian and cycling bridge on the western edge of the developmentthat would take people over the Trillium Line tracks.

But that bridge would cost $10 million to $15 million, according to McKenney. She said she'll be moving a motion at council Wednesday to redirect the$450,000 to community gardens and parks.

McKenneyalso plans to move a number of other motions, including one that compels the developer to earmark 25 per cent of the 1,200 units as affordable housing.