Staff will lay the groundwork to get a 50-unit apartment building up at 0 Grandridge Dr., but three other proposals pitched by city staff to utilize city-owned land for affordable housing either won't go ahead at all, or have been drastically reduced in size.
Council voted Tuesday to trash a proposal to allow a 24-unit apartment to be built around the Preston Scout House on Queenston Road.
It also scaled back a plan to get affordable housing built at the former St. Ambrose School site near John Dolson Centre.
They were among four concepts pitched by staff in the spring to get housing on city-owned properties and meet targets set out in the federal Housing Accelerator Fund (HAF).
The city is eligible to receive about $13 million through the Canada and Mortgage Housing Corporation if it follows through with several ideas to generate more housing.
Under the HAF, Cambridge needs to lay the groundwork to get just under 3,000 units built within the next three years before CMHC releases the final portion of its funding.
Targets are based on the types of units the city approves and can range from low-to-medium density, also known as "missing middle housing," to high-density apartments with units in close proximity to transit.
Any unit built within city limits can count toward the overall target and the city only needs to ensure 5.34 per cent of its 3,000-unit target is "affordable."
That translates into 159 units, a number deputy city manager Hardy Bromberg said he's "very confident" the city will achieve.
Single-detached homes also qualify for HAF funding, but many consider that idea a wasted opportunity on city-owned land when the priority is affordable housing.
On Tuesday, staff was seeking council direction on which properties it should initiate applications for and to what degree of density.
The idea to use city-owned land for affordable housing has been batted around council for four years, starting with a proposal in August 2020 to use the former campground in Churchill Park for an alternative housing project.
When that proposal went nowhere, further discussion took place in 2021 looking at creating affordable rental units on city land. That led to the creation of a short list of properties that might be able to accommodate apartments to meet the Canada Mortgage and Housing Corporation's "rapid housing program."
The city hired a consultant to come up with concepts and released those details in a council agenda in April.
As manager of development planning Matthew Blevins explained, since the city owns the sites and controls any changes to its official plan and zoning bylaws, it can lay out what happens on each property, from building heights to parking accommodations to maintaining existing amenities, and would require developers to closely match the concepts as proposed.
But instead of moving ahead back in the spring, council kicked the discussion to a staff led workshop in July that detailed the four sites and a variety of different housing proposals.
Concepts and visualizations put on the table ranged from low to high density and each led to discussion that provided clues to council's appetite to move forward through a formal recommendation.
That came Tuesday when Blevins sought council's approval to move ahead in one motion.
Council, however, opted to split the motion up into seven motions and vote separately on each.
Using city-owned land on Dando Avenue near GCI and a property near a forested wetland on Bishop Street were two ideas voted down immediately since staff don't believe either site is feasible for housing.
At 10 Ethel Street, staff recommended 14 stacked townhomes and touted it as a less expensive, modest density project that would satisfy demand for missing middle housing.
The low density option for that site would leave existing zoning that allows for three single-family-detached homes intact.
But a delegation of Hespeler neighbours opposed the staff recommendation, saying that while they recognize the need for more affordable housing, four-storey townhouses would "dramatically alter the character" of their neighbourhood and represents a "stark change in density."
Council agreed, voting 8-1 in favour of a motion to not advance the recommendation and instead report back on a potential sale of the land for three single-detached homes.
Coun. Sheri Roberts asked if council could choose where to direct that revenue, including any HAF funding it receives, and was told it could be put into the city's affordable housing fund.
The Preston Scout House concept at 1580 Queenston Rd. has been the most contentious of the four proposals since it was floated back in April.
Staff recommended building a three storey, 24-unit apartment around the heritage building, believing it would blend in with the surrounding neighbourhood while optimizing use of nearby resources like public transit.
Mayor Jan Liggett told staff in July she hated the concept and wanted to see a visualization of the proposal that used the surrounding parking lot for the apartment instead of "crushing" the Scout House.
But Blevins told council Tuesday that couldn't happen in time given the city's contract with its consultant and the deadline the city needs to meet to access HAF money from the feds.
With no discussion Tuesday, council nixed the idea entirely, voting 8-1 on a motion to end any further planning work for the site.
For the former St. Ambrose School at 25 Chalmers St., staff recommended two options, one a nine-storey, 276-unit apartment building, or a nine and seven storey project with 360 units.
Both ideas would capitalize on proximity to the John Dolson Centre, either by keeping the pool as is, or building a new community centre on site. The concepts also consider mixed-use options to create opportunities for commercial space at grade level to serve the community.
Blevins presented an additional slide during Tuesday's meeting to show the context of the neighbourhood, which features similarly sized apartment buildings just down Elgin Street.
"There are a variety of different forms of housing in this neighbourhood currently," he said. The introduction of a nine storey apartment building on the property, while it may seem like a large addition, is in line with what's already there, he added.
Instead, Coun. Adam Cooper read a motion to move forward with zoning and official plan amendments that will still increase maximum density on the site and allow for mixed uses. It also seems amendments to establish a maximum height of four storeys and set a minimum parking rate of 1.25 spaces per unit. The motion includes future phase planning for development of a municipal facility on site.
Council voted 8-1 in favour of the recommendation.
"We're in the business of building communities, not destroying them with irresponsible development," Cooper said before the vote, adding that he's trying to avoid the outrage from single-family homeowners on all sides of the property.
Seven and nine storey towers with minimal parking is just not appropriate development, he said. A four-storey compromise will still allow for a significant number of affordable units.
Coun. Scott Hamilton was the lone dissenting vote on three of the recommendations and said he was in favour of what staff was proposing because it addressed the crisis of affordable housing.
Sounding disappointed with council's direction, he noted each of the proposals presented by staff "are very much in line with" what private developers have been approved to build on infill properties throughout the city.
With city-owned land, council has the opportunity to control what is built there, he said.
"The fact is that we do represent the residents of this city and I do tend to prioritize those over the ones that aren't here yet," Cooper remarked.
He cited a recent media scrum with Premier Doug Ford in which he stated that despite the province's push to build more homes, he didn't want municipalities to approve towers in the backyards of residential neighbourhoods because "people will go ballistic."
"We need to have that balance and I believe this does that," Cooper said.
Before anything can happen, staff will need to move forward with the required zoning amendments and official plan designations for each site.
In each case it will trigger a statutory public meeting seeking feedback from neighbours. It will be followed by staff reports and recommendations back to council.
Once the sites are "upzoned" to council's approval, staff will ask council for direction to sell the land with the condition that whoever buys it builds housing as directed, including any requested amenities.
