342 Roosevelt Ave | 24m | 6f | Proposed

[rocketphish]

Concorde Properties has submitted an application to permit the construction of a 3-storey residential building, with a mezzanine acting as a 4th storey at 342 Roosevelt Avenue.

The subject property is on an irregular shaped lot that has a site area of 646.7 m², with approximately 27.3m of frontage along Roosevelt Avenue. The property is currently occupied by a two (2) storey detached dwelling.

The proposed building will be 15.3m tall with a building footprint of 387.5m2. It will include 25 residential units composed of: seven (7) one-bedroom units, six (6) two-bedroom units, and twelve (12) studio units. The basement will contain five (5) dwelling units, as well as a bicycle storage area. The building will primarily utilize glass, brick and concrete as construction materials. The proposed development plans to have zero (0) resident parking, one (1) visitor parking space, and 27 bicycle parking spaces.

Development application:
https://app01.ottawa.ca/postingplans/appDetails.jsf?lang=en&appId=__AVIRLV

Streetview:
https://www.google.ca/maps/@45.3929051,-...63aEfMKp4tpn7o1vZCyQA!2e0!7i13312!8i6656


Site:




Elevations:

East:


North:


West:


South:

[roberts123]

Take a look at several articles written about this developer - Concorde Properties - Jordan Tannis:

http://www.cbc.ca/news/canada/ottawa/stealth-bunkhouse-sneak-old-ottawa-south-1.4373265

https://www.oldottawasouth.ca/news/item/5879-177-hopewell-avenue

http://www.cbc.ca/news/canada/ottawa/developer-lawsuit-trees-1.4459264

I suggest those living in the surrounding to be wary.

[roger1818]

Great location. Short walk from Dominion Station. Too bad they couldn't combine it with the empty lots at 346 Rosavelt Ave and 341 Berkley Ave to give them a bit more space to work with.

[rocketphish]

Updated Proposal (November 2024)

342 Roosevelt Limited is proposing to construct a 6 storey building with basement level and rooftop amenity at 342 Roosevelt Ave. The unit count is as follows:

• 7 x 1 bedroom
• 7 x 1 bedroom + den
• 12 x 2 bedroom

Architect: Project1 Studio


Development application:
https://devapps.ottawa.ca/en/applications/D07-12-17-0179/details


Siteplan:




Elevations:

[Alex613]

Bleh!

The owner will need to offer discounted rents to attract the type of tenants he wants. The building is being constructed right next next door to a much better designed building that offers parking and whose units have balconies. It also offers significantly better amenity spaces.

Not a fan at all of the minuscule requested rear yard setback. Add height instead, and let the building breathe on the site. Also there is no way that any fresh air will flow into those units given the size of the window openings.

The owner of the adjacent property at 346 Roosevelt is going to the Committee of adjustment in December. According to an earlier post, the property is a gravel lot that was owned by Tubmans Funeral homes and used as overflow parking. The current owner has a building permit for a 4-storey 3 unit building, but he now wants to add units: no plans on file, but there will be parking.

The TIR for this project is very detailed; strange that none was filed for 342 Roosevelt.

Great to see more density in this area so close to an LRT station. Too bad the location is less than ideal given that Roosevelt is a dead end street. Hopefully (?) the City will redesign the end of Roosevelt so that delivery trucks and cars can turn around easily, especially in winter when snow banks will narrow what is already a narrow street. Or else be prepared for the cacophony of beeping trucks as they drive up the street in reverse.

[rocketphish]

A slightly updated design (Nov 2024), and now with renderings!

It's very, um, brown.

[J.OT13]

I feel like this building has already been built in several places in the east end.

[Williamoforange]

This was approved by planning committee, but man Leiper is such a spineless windbag.

As stated at roughly the 2 hr & 14 min mark, he pushed staff to try and find a reason to refuse this development. Sure he voted for it in the end, but not because he agreed with it, but because he at least had the forthought to understand how bad outright denying it was.

I don't know how anyone expects that he will keep his word on any of promises & that doesn't even account for the fact that his mayoral platform runs away from his 12 useless years on council

https://pub-ottawa.escribemeetings.com/P...?Id=a2a6d56d-ffb8-4b1c-90a1-555352106242

Edit: Curry & Troster voted this down, neither of which is a surprise.

[AuxTown]

Originally Posted by Williamoforange

This was approved by planning committee, but man Leiper is such a spineless windbag.

As stated at roughly the 2 hr & 14 min mark, he pushed staff to try and find a reason to refuse this development. Sure he voted for it in the end, but not because he agreed with it, but because he at least had the forthought to understand how bad outright denying it was.

I don't know how anyone expects that he will keep his word on any of promises & that doesn't even account for the fact that his mayoral platform runs away from his 12 useless years on council

https://pub-ottawa.escribemeetings.com/P...?Id=a2a6d56d-ffb8-4b1c-90a1-555352106242

Edit: Curry & Troster voted this down, neither of which is a surprise.

@jleiper thoughts?

[SkeggsEggs]

Originally Posted by Williamoforange

As stated at roughly the 2 hr & 14 min mark, he pushed staff to try and find a reason to refuse this development. Sure he voted for it in the end, but not because he agreed with it, but because he at least had the forthought to understand how bad outright denying it was.

What he actually said ...

"my advocacy with the department was to try to find a way to refuse this, the leverage and planning grounds we had to refuse this, to get a design to save the tree"

staff responds

"the site seems, because of the pipe, the tree, you have accepted the assertion the site is largely undevelopable without changes to the set backs - in a way that would save the tree. And so, I just wanna make sure I understand the big the picture ... if we approve these zonings the tree will come down, but it will be worse if we didn't approve the rezoning as we wouldn't be achieving the other policies of our official plan with respect to intensification."

staff responds

"to wrap that up, I cannot fathom that if city council were to refuse the zoning changes necessary to accomplish a missing middle development steps from the LRT, that the OLT would sustain that refusal."

I struggle to see what your opposition is? He looked for an alternative (to save the 100 year old tree), found there wasn't one, and voted for it. You're probably boiling with rage anytime you see the guy you selective listen to what was actually said. This term his position has consistently been if it aligns with the Province's overall direction he votes for it. Any other council (other than prob Tierney) would have voted against a similar project in their ward.

[Williamoforange]

Originally Posted by SkeggsEggs

What he actually said ...

"my advocacy with the department was to try to find a way to refuse this, the leverage and planning grounds we had to refuse this, to get a design to save the tree"

staff responds

"the site seems, because of the pipe, the tree, you have accepted the assertion the site is largely undevelopable without changes to the set backs - in a way that would save the tree. And so, I just wanna make sure I understand the big the picture ... if we approve these zonings the tree will come down, but it will be worse if we didn't approve the rezoning as we wouldn't be achieving the other policies of our official plan with respect to intensification."

staff responds

"to wrap that up, I cannot fathom that if city council were to refuse the zoning changes necessary to accomplish a missing middle development steps from the LRT, that the OLT would sustain that refusal."

I struggle to see what your opposition is? He looked for an alternative (to save the 100 year old tree), found there wasn't one, and voted for it. You're probably boiling with rage anytime you see the guy you selective listen to what was actually said. This term his position has consistently been if it aligns with the Province's overall direction he votes for it. Any other council (other than prob Tierney) would have voted against a similar project in their ward.

The problem is this is exactly the type of housing he has campaigned for, for over 12 years, and instead of championing. He looked for a reason to deny it, only supporting it because he thinks the OLT would over rule council... That's not leadership.

Secondly, he had not been consistent, as 403 Richmond meets the official plan, yet be again is vocally tech rejecting it.