[0:36] Good evening everyone. Welcome. It is 602 p. m. So
[0:41] we're going to begin. I'll just ask if everyone could
[0:45] settle, please. Thank you. All right, the meeting being held
[0:49] tonight is a public meeting under the Planning Act. Please
[0:52] note that this meeting will be live streamed on the
[0:55] city of Kingston website, audio and video are being collected
[0:58] by the city and the meeting recording will be archived
[1:01] on the city website for public consumption. I will take
[1:03] this opportunity to remind everyone, including myself to please ensure
[1:07] the sound on your cellular device is turned off. Notice
[1:12] of collection. Personal information collected as a result of the
[1:15] public meetings are collected under the authority of the Planning
[1:18] Act and will be used to assist in making a
[1:20] decision on this matter. Person speaking at the meeting are
[1:24] requested to give their name for recording in the minutes.
[1:27] All names, opinions, and comments may be collected and may
[1:30] form part of the minutes, which will be available to
[1:32] the public. To be notified of the decision, you must
[1:36] either fill out the sign - in sheet at the
[1:37] door, or you must email the file planner or committee
[1:40] clerk requesting notice of the decision. Tonight's meeting is to
[1:44] present a planning application in a public forum as detailed
[1:48] in the Community Meeting Report. This report does not contain
[1:52] a staff recommendation and therefore no decisions will be made
[1:55] this evening. Following the presentation by the applicant, the meeting
[2:00] will be opened to the public for comments and questions.
[2:03] I will be alternating between recognising five speakers attending in
[2:07] person and five speakers attending virtually. Do not expect a
[2:12] response immediately after you have asked your questions. Staff and
[2:15] the applicant will be taking notes and will respond after
[2:18] five speakers have had an opportunity to present. For those
[2:21] attending in person, the seats at the Speaker Microphones have
[2:25] been reserved. Over here? Yes, okay. Those five seats right
[2:29] back there. I lost my spot.
[2:40] Okay. Please be sure to speak directly into the microphone
[2:44] so that those attending both in - person and online
[2:46] can hear clearly. There's just a little button and the
[2:48] light will turn red when you've got the microphone turned
[2:50] on. If you are attending the meeting online and wish
[2:54] to speak to this application, please use the raised hand
[2:56] function at the bottom of your zoom screen. If your
[2:59] question or comment has already been provided, please do not
[3:01] feel compelled to repeat it. I will now call the
[3:04] Community Meeting to Order. The purpose of the Community meeting
[3:07] is to provide the applicant with an opportunity to present
[3:10] a potential development proposal in the early stages of development
[3:13] process and to seek feedback from the public and members
[3:16] of Planning Committee. Anyone who attends a Community meeting may
[3:20] present an oral submission and or provide a written submission
[3:24] on the proposals being presented. Tonight's Community Meeting Application is
[3:28] for 105 Queen Street. I'd like to invite The Applicant
[3:31] to present the proposal.
[3:41] And just while the applicant is getting set up, a
[3:43] reminder that we will go to Community MembersNACS. So if
[3:46] you are in the room and wish to speak, I
[3:48] will be inviting you after this presentation. If you'd like
[3:50] to sit in one of those chairs, then we'll go
[3:52] through the questions and comments. Thank you.
[4:02] All right, well, good evening, Madam Chair, members of the
[4:05] committee and members of the community. Thank you for coming
[4:08] out this evening. My name is Mike Keane, and I'm
[4:11] a land use planner with Foten Consultants. And I'm here
[4:15] tonight to present to you an application for a zoning
[4:18] bylaw amendment for 105 Queen Street and 90 to 96
[4:24] barrack street. And with me, the other presenter is Ray
[4:31] Zaybak, and Ray is one of the founding partners of
[4:35] Schultz and Zacka architects. And is the designer of the
[4:39] project. And can I click. Or do I need to
[4:48] ask you. It's that one. Okay. Thank you.
[4:58] So. The property right now, if you're familiar with downtown
[5:04] is the staple store. And it's a tall one -
[5:08] story building, and it has its associated parking lot on
[5:13] Baggett and Bearik Street's kind of behind the store. And
[5:18] then along Beark Street, there's a small row of townhouses,
[5:23] an additional parking behind the townhouses. And two of the
[5:27] three units are also part of this project. You know,
[5:36] and looking at the history on this property, there's quite
[5:40] a bit of history. And in one of the earlier
[5:44] zoning bylaws dating back to 1993, the staple site was
[5:50] envisioned as a 22 - story or a 16 -
[5:53] story mixed use building. And then in 1993, an application
[6:01] came forward that proposed more of a bar - style
[6:04] building across the length of the property that was 10
[6:08] stories in height. And that building went to the Ontario
[6:12] Municipal Board where that approval was granted. That building was
[6:17] never built. And in 1999, the staple store was constructed.
[6:24] And since 1996, the site has been zoned a site
[6:29] - specific C1 - 4, which comes out of the
[6:34] old 1996 - 259 by - law. And that property,
[6:39] the staple side of the property has never been brought
[6:42] into the new zoning by law. Just taking a few
[6:49] quick existing condition photos. This is the view looking down
[6:55] Bagot Street between Annalene and the Staples Store. This is
[7:01] looking down Queen Street toward the water. This is looking
[7:06] at, this is broken in two images, but looking at
[7:10] the barrack Street frontage of the staple store and the
[7:14] townhouse. And this is a site showing it in the
[7:22] context of the downtown and some of the surrounding institutional
[7:26] recreational and park features that exist. The ring, the light
[7:32] ring on the image represents a 600 metre distance. So
[7:38] about a eight to 10 minute walk and giving you
[7:42] a sense of, you know, what some of those immediate
[7:46] Institutional and recreational features are. The site itself is located
[7:50] approximately 200 metres from the main bus downtown transfer point.
[8:01] You know, this is an area that has been transitioning
[8:05] over the last roughly 10 years, maybe slightly longer than
[8:10] that. And this slide is showing some of those existing
[8:15] and some of the ongoing newer construction apartments and condos
[8:21] in the area. On the west, the farthest, or sorry,
[8:28] I should say, it is the west. The nine -
[8:31] story apartment, uh, immediately to the west is Anne Lane,
[8:35] the nine story further to the west would be the
[8:37] crown condo building. Following down along Queen, the 23 story
[8:43] apartment is homestead's building that's constructed. The 19 story building
[8:50] is under construction right now. And just at the corner
[8:54] of Barrick and Wellington, there is a 25 story approved
[9:00] building, not yet built. Just giving you a sense of
[9:03] some of the transition that is occurring in the core
[9:06] of the downtown right now. All applications have to be
[9:14] consistent with the provincial planning statement. And the planning statement
[9:18] focuses on complete communities and housing supply and encourages municipalities
[9:25] to be very efficient with their land use. And particularly
[9:30] lands that are serviced. And it encourages a range of
[9:34] housing. And it would certainly identify places like Kingston's downtown
[9:40] as areas of higher density where residential growth should occur.
[9:46] So when we move into the official plan, we see
[9:48] those same themes of provincial policy carried forward. We see
[9:54] this designated as a central business district area. It permits
[9:59] the widest range of uses in the city. It permits
[10:03] the high density residential uses. And it's identified as an
[10:08] area where the city will intensify in a mixed use
[10:12] fashion. And on this site in particular, there is a
[10:16] requirement for ground floor commercial use. And the requirement for
[10:20] that transit - oriented and pedestrian - friendly urban design,
[10:26] those podium level, uh, important functions. You know, as we
[10:33] move deeper into official plan policy, we can see how
[10:37] the site is designated in the downtown in Harbour specific
[10:42] policy area, which highlights additional details on that downtown and
[10:46] business district. And again, you're seeing the echoing of that
[10:51] intensification and mixed use higher order development that is to
[10:56] occur in the downtown. When we look at this next
[11:00] slide, you can see that this area of the downtown
[11:04] is not impacting heritage and view planes that the city
[11:09] has established. Looking at the zoning bylaw, as I mentioned
[11:16] in an earlier slide, half of the site, the staples
[11:20] property remains under the old 1996 bylaw. And the couple
[11:28] of townhouses that are long Beark Street are in the
[11:33] new bylaw. And under that, old bylaw, the maximum permission
[11:38] is four stories with an angular plane that would allow
[11:41] a building up to 25 and a half stories on
[11:43] that staples site. So when we move forward with the
[11:51] project itself, this is a project that we believe is
[11:55] an underutilized site in a strategic location. And so the
[11:59] project that we're presenting to you tonight, we believe reinforces
[12:03] that walkable and transit supportive downtown community. And it follows
[12:10] design principles that the city has established. With the articulated
[12:15] podium. And Ray will be speaking more to that about
[12:18] the design elements, uh, in a moment. But it does
[12:22] follow those complete community principles that are established in the
[12:27] official plan. And so, Ray, I'm going to turn it
[12:30] over to you to speak about some of the building
[12:33] statistics and design elements. And you just, this is the
[12:39] clicker in the centre there. Good evening. My name's Raymond
[12:44] Zaybak. I'm an architect working out of Kingston. Here we've
[12:49] been in business in Kingston for about 37 years. Worked
[12:53] on many projects around the area. And, uh, specifically projects
[12:58] in the downtown area. So we, um, we sort of
[13:01] know the terrain. I'm just going to explain the project
[13:04] quickly. Mike's touched on a bit of this. So, uh,
[13:07] that's slides a good one. Sort of captures the, um,
[13:11] the whole project from above. It's comprised of a six
[13:15] - story podium with a single - story street -
[13:18] level commercial floor. Separated at the through block with a
[13:24] through block laneway for shipping and receiving. With two 19
[13:29] - story residential towers, placed at 90 degrees to one
[13:33] another. On opposite ends of an L - shaped site,
[13:36] the towers are separated by approximately 25 metres or about
[13:39] 82 feet at the corners. The fifth and sixth story
[13:45] of the podium are further recessed to reduce the scale
[13:49] of the podium to a street wall of four stories.
[13:53] So in total, the building's 24 stories, including the podium.
[14:00] Not including penthouse, mechanical penthouse, which at this point we've
[14:04] positioned on top of each building. So the residential towers
[14:09] are set back 15. 8 metres. From the adjacent property
[14:13] in Queen Street in 22 and a half metres from
[14:16] the adjacent property on barrack Street, the two edges of
[14:19] the property. There's a large retail commercial space that occupies
[14:24] the entire ground floor, except that laneway I talked about.
[14:28] It provides space for 25, 000 square foot retail store,
[14:33] approximately the size of the small, I think, slightly larger
[14:36] than the existing staple store. Um, and a 15, 000
[14:40] square foot easterly, um, commercial space on that ground floor.
[14:47] The intention here is that the staples star will remain
[14:50] on the property. The commercial space are designed that they
[14:55] can be subdivided into smaller spaces. We want the typical
[15:00] problems when we have large commercial spaces downtown. Is there
[15:03] not easily divisible into smaller units if the large tenant
[15:06] leaves? Uh, so design specifically to accommodate that purpose. Pedestrian
[15:13] access when the apartments is gained through lobbies and elevator
[15:18] cores located at the extreme corners of the property. It'd
[15:21] be one elevator core entrance for public on Queen Street.
[15:27] At the corner of Queen and Baggett. Our Queen and
[15:29] Baggett, yes. And the other at the northeast corner of
[15:33] the site. On Beark Street. And the reason that's done
[15:39] is, um, we are trying to provide unencumbered space within
[15:45] those big retail plates on the ground floor. So keeping
[15:48] the podiums at the extreme corners of the site. The
[15:53] second through sixth story of the podium of apartments facing
[15:56] barrick street Queens Baggett Street and Queen Street. So their
[16:01] apartments facing all the streets. You won't see parking garage.
[16:05] You know, cars visible from the street. This is all
[16:07] parking, sorry, all residential units in those locations with eyes
[16:12] on the street. There are outdoor amenity spaces planned for
[16:17] the roofs of the building. You can see on the
[16:19] top of the fourth floor, uh, the dark green indication
[16:24] there. This is our intention to be that would be
[16:26] rooftop amenity space on that level. There would be rooftop
[16:29] amenity space on the sixth level. And in behind the
[16:33] tower on the left there, you're looking, that's an image
[16:36] looking from barrack Street side of the building. In behind
[16:39] that building is another rooftop, which is, um, intended to
[16:43] be, uh. I'm an outdoor amenity space. Are those amenity
[16:48] spaces are adjacent to indoor amenity spaces within the buildings.
[16:53] Uh, on the site, the underground parking for 536 vehicles
[16:58] in underground, uh, I think somebody indicated they were to
[17:02] forced or is actually three stories of underground parking. So
[17:04] the three and a half stories. We have sloping parking
[17:07] decks, but it, um, about three stories of, um, real
[17:11] estate being taken out of the ground to provide the
[17:13] parking. Uh, 165 spaces for residential. That's a 0. 3
[17:18] to one parking ratio. Access to parking. You can see
[17:23] here Rito Street is the middle street at the lower
[17:27] left. There is a parking ramp which accesses the parking.
[17:31] It's directly opposite the end of Reedle Street. Bicycle parking.
[17:37] There's 549 bicycle parking spaces. Uh, planned for the site.
[17:43] 62 of those would be short term bicycle spaces. Shipping
[17:48] receiving an apartment moving will be done on the interior
[17:51] of the site midway through the block there. You'll see
[17:55] the entrance on the left is the parking ramp entrance.
[17:59] The entrance further to the west is the entrance to
[18:04] a through block Laneway. And this will accommodate loading and
[18:09] services for the commercial spaces. It all provides areas where
[18:15] apartment dwelled can move into their units can park off
[18:19] the street, move into their units offload there. So all
[18:25] of the, all of those services are internal in the
[18:28] site. And negotiation of large vehicles. On the surrounding streets.
[18:34] So currently occurs there, I think with staples, that will
[18:36] be eliminated through this proposal. The four story podium might
[18:44] touch on that. And I'll see some slides from street
[18:47] level in a moment. The four story podium is articulated
[18:50] vertically and horizontally to create a streetscape scale trip gestion.
[18:55] I mentioned the four story street wall on this building.
[19:00] Everything is recessed back from that, um, that forest story
[19:04] podium. And this podium actually drops down in spots. So
[19:07] the, um, we don't just have a big pancake of,
[19:11] of building on the ground with two towers protruding out
[19:14] of the top of it. We have, um, unarticulated facade
[19:19] along the street. She gives a more interesting and lively
[19:22] streetscape. I mentioned the amenity spaces at the fourth floor
[19:27] level. Um. There are some design components that we hope
[19:33] sort of respect some of the historic elements that are
[19:36] unique to the city of Kingston. One, of course, the
[19:40] surface materials. We're intending to use masonry. On the podium
[19:45] level of the building. Uh, that would be the brick
[19:48] or stone. In various different mass and components. Um, also
[19:55] the curved corners. Your interesting Kingston has some as renowned
[19:59] for a few buildings with some, um, beautiful curved corners.
[20:02] The S and R building, um, the old Victorian grey
[20:05] building on the corner of Wellington and Brock Street, for
[20:09] example, as well as Yoda LaSalle Hotel, which unfortunately was
[20:13] torn down years ago. But another curved building, what was
[20:16] the Bank of Nova Scotia that took its place? And
[20:18] I think it's now the bulk barn that occupies that,
[20:21] uh, that building. So this is those curved corners. They're
[20:26] practical, but they're in reference to some of the sort
[20:28] of unique architectural heritage features in the city. With regard
[20:33] to the immediate context, and we'll see some slides that
[20:36] illustrate this in a moment. The podium reduces the height
[20:39] at its edges along baric and Queen Street. To match
[20:42] the lower scale and fenestration of the adjacent historic structures
[20:47] there. So I'm going to just pan through some pan
[20:53] through some other slides. This is the view from the
[20:57] other side. You can see the lower level, the second
[21:00] story amenity space tucked in to the, um, to the
[21:06] 90 degree. Podium there. Uh, there are department certainly to
[21:11] balconies as well. And on that slide, one of the
[21:15] interesting things is the through block connection. You can see
[21:17] coming out onto Queen Street from the through block Laneway.
[21:22] So this is a plan of the building. Um, you
[21:25] can see the two large commercial spaces on the left.
[21:29] That's about 25, 000 square feet. You can see how
[21:31] the trucks would come into the, um, the service lane
[21:36] load into that building, also loading provisions for the smaller
[21:39] retail space to 15, 000 retail spacer commercial space. On
[21:43] the top right there. You can see the building cores,
[21:47] the entrances to the apartments at the bottom of that
[21:50] plan and at the top right corner. You can also
[21:53] see the parking ramp opposite Rito Street there, which takes
[21:56] you down to the lower parking levels. This is a
[22:02] view looking northwest along Queen Street. I think this slide
[22:09] tries to illustrate the scaling down of the building as
[22:13] you round the corner from, uh, Bagot Street onto Queen
[22:16] Street in this location. Bringing the building down to the
[22:20] scale of the existing historic rojas along that street. This
[22:29] is Barrick Street in Baggett Street. Another curved corner there.
[22:32] This might be the location. I mean, entrance to the
[22:36] larger retail store. And you can see this, I think
[22:39] this illustrates well, our intention to a sort of articulate
[22:42] that base in the building. Um, with shape and material.
[22:51] This is looking west on Bear Street. We are, um,
[22:57] we will have to modify the two existing houses there
[23:00] at the end of that, um, where it touches our
[23:03] new building. That's the location of the parking ramp, which
[23:07] takes you down into the parking level. And again, you
[23:10] can see the articulation of the, uh, of the building
[23:13] facade and the step back. To the higher towers. This
[23:23] is the same view sort of turned, uh, looking more
[23:28] southerly. That what it looks like garage door, a glass
[23:31] garage door, that is the actual entrance to the parking
[23:33] garage. There would be an apartment residential apartment above that
[23:38] space. Uh, that would be a walk up from the
[23:41] street level. That would not be connected by the corridor
[23:44] of the apartment building.
[23:59] All right. Thanks, Ray. Just a couple more slides to
[24:03] get into the questions here. And so this is, this
[24:07] is our opinion about, about the plan and how it
[24:11] meets some of the core urban design principles. In terms
[24:15] of looking at that skyline. And if you know the
[24:18] city's policies, you know the bunch of historic points where,
[24:22] where you look back at the city. And so that
[24:25] also, uh, is part of orienting the towers, uh, to
[24:30] frame in that, that view from city hall. It's behind
[24:33] City Hall not blocking city hall. So the, the whole
[24:41] reason that we're here this evening is because we need
[24:45] a site specific zoning bylaw amendment, uh, to bring this
[24:49] plan into conformity with the official plan. And so we
[24:54] want to bring the new, we want to bring the
[24:57] property into the new bylaw. So removing it from that
[25:01] 1996 bylaw and bring the entire site in. And at
[25:05] the same time, we would be dealing with our site
[25:08] specific provisions to deal with the height that we're asking
[25:11] for to deal with the parking requirements to deal with
[25:17] certain modifications to amenity areas, not reducing the amenity area,
[25:23] but the shapes. And just a few more technical natures,
[25:28] which is the nature of a zoning bylaw amendment. And
[25:34] if you've been to the city's website, uh, their dash
[25:38] hub has all of our materials on it, uh, which
[25:41] are publicly available. I've just listed off, uh, the studies
[25:46] that are included with our application. And as public
[25:56] comments have been coming in, uh, the city has been
[25:59] sharing those with us. And so I, I have grouped
[26:04] some of these comments into themes, which you see on
[26:08] the screen of noise and unit mix, traffic loading, heritage
[26:14] and shadows. And I want to talk noise first because
[26:19] I think with the comments that I was seeing, there
[26:22] is a slight misunderstanding in that, that we're asking for
[26:26] a class four designation, uh, on this property. And what
[26:31] that means is that's because the neighbourhood is noisy. It's
[26:36] not because our building is noisy. And so the ministry
[26:41] of environment and recognising that we do want to see
[26:45] infelling occur in locations like downtowns, which are noisier places.
[26:51] They allow, uh, they allow for noise exceedances. Um, and
[26:58] what that means is that the building will have to
[27:00] have, uh, air conditioning for every unit, you know, windows
[27:05] could potentially be triple pain rather than double, double pain
[27:09] as an example, but it is, it is a way
[27:11] of, um, making sure the building for the residents that
[27:16] live there, uh, is dealt with. Appropriately. We are currently
[27:22] working on the reverse. There was a comment saying, well,
[27:26] like how noisy is this building going to be. Typically,
[27:30] we don't know that answer until we get into detailed
[27:33] design. And we select the types of air handler units
[27:37] and things that go on a building like this. Um,
[27:40] but, but recognising the questions in that regard. We are
[27:45] having our noise consultant test, uh, test some materials, you
[27:52] know, for air handling and that that would be common
[27:55] to a building of this scale so that we can
[27:58] generate some of that information. Now unit mix right now
[28:04] is most certainly weighted toward one bedroom units. And we
[28:09] have two, we have 62 bedroom units. And really we
[28:12] only have two, three bedroom units, uh, in the proposal
[28:15] right now. But there's two things I want to point
[28:17] out. The reason that those are the unit mixes that
[28:21] we're proposing our, because that's what the market says we
[28:24] need in Kingston right now based on the other units
[28:27] that have been built. But the final unit mix will
[28:32] be subject to change. Like it will, we won't really
[28:35] know the final unit mix until the site plan control.
[28:39] So by designating with a lower, like a higher number
[28:44] of the smaller units ensures that we're assessing appropriately for
[28:49] things like amenity space and parking. Now there were some
[28:55] comments. There's, there's fear of traffic, like how much worse
[28:58] it's going to be, but what our traffic consultant has
[29:02] noted, you know, the whole site is offsite. There's no
[29:07] surface parking anymore. All the loading is entirely off -
[29:11] site. There will be no more backing up on city
[29:13] streets. There will be full service from within the site
[29:18] itself. So there were no concerns of parking and traffic
[29:23] congestion in that way. And I think it's also important
[29:26] to note that we are proposing a substantial amount of
[29:32] underground parking on this site. You know, with the hope
[29:36] that some of that space will become publicly available, uh,
[29:41] to help the downtown and it's, you know, it's broader
[29:45] parking needs, uh, that are required. You know, there are,
[29:51] there are comments about heritage. And I think race boat
[29:55] quite well to some of the design features. We worked
[29:58] closely with heritage consultants and coming up with this design
[30:04] and reviewing, uh, how the building is laid out. And
[30:08] those materials are available on dash to review. You know,
[30:14] I mentioned, uh, shadows, you know, shadows are always a
[30:19] concern when we're introducing tall buildings in a downtown. And
[30:24] I'm, I'm by no means going to tell you there's
[30:27] zero impact because that's not the case. There will be
[30:30] a change. And there are parameters that are set up,
[30:34] uh, that we follow when we're citing the buildings and
[30:37] reviewing. And these buildings pass those, those criteria that are
[30:42] set up in that regard. So to conclude, it's my
[30:51] opinion as a planner that this is good land use
[30:53] planning and that the zoning bylaw amendment is representative of
[30:58] the changes that are needing. It's consistent with the provincial
[31:01] planning statement. It's in conformity with the official plan. And
[31:06] it's going to introduce another opportunity for mixed use high
[31:11] density, uh, downtown. So that concludes our presentation. And I
[31:19] will sit beside Ray as we take the rounds of
[31:21] comments. Thank you. Okay. Thank you very much. Uh, we'll
[31:30] now turn to members of the public. We are going
[31:32] to start with people who are in this room. And
[31:36] then after we have five speakers, we're going to go
[31:37] online for five more speakers. If you are in the
[31:40] room and would like to speak, could you just raise
[31:43] a hand so I have a sense of how many
[31:44] people we might have, give or take. Okay. Thank you.
[31:47] We have three people in the chairs already. I need
[31:49] two more people to come into these chairs, please. I'm
[31:52] going to start at the end and we'll work our
[31:54] way down. When it's your turn, you can turn on
[31:56] your microphone. Like I said at the start, the light
[31:59] will turn red. You'll have five minutes to speak and
[32:02] I'll give you a heads up when you only have
[32:03] 30 seconds left. So I'm not interrupting you, but I'm
[32:05] just letting you know your time's coming too close. Okay.
[32:08] Thank you. Oh, just up there. There's three. Yep. And
[32:13] the one more chair open as well if someone else
[32:15] would like to come and sit to speak. I know
[32:17] it's nervous wracking being one of the first, but you
[32:20] can do it. Okay. We're going to start here. Please
[32:22] state your name for the record and then I'll start
[32:24] your five minutes. Thank you. Good evening. My name is
[32:26] Avon Lee Martin and I'm here tonight because I believe
[32:29] we need to have a serious conversation about responsible development
[32:33] looks in downtown Kingston. I want to be clear this
[32:36] is not about being opposed to development or housing. Kingston
[32:40] needs housing. But we need the right housing and the
[32:42] right places supported by the infrastructure required to sustain it.
[32:46] The disproposal would add 536 rental units and two 24
[32:51] story towers and an already dense and historic part of
[32:53] downtown. The surrounding streets are narrow aging and already heavily
[32:58] used. And there are serious concerns about whether existing storm
[33:01] and COR infrastructure can support development of this magnitude. Density
[33:05] without adequate infrastructure is not responsible planning. And density without
[33:09] the housing Kingston actually needs as not solving our housing
[33:12] problem. The 536 proposed units only 60 are two bedroom
[33:17] units and just two are three bedroom units. There's also
[33:20] no proportion at allocation of affordable units identified. So we
[33:24] need to ask, who are we building the city for?
[33:26] Where are the homes for families? Where are the genuinely
[33:29] affordable units? Where are the housing options that allow people
[33:32] to put down roots and remain in Kingston? And why
[33:35] aren't we seriously exploring other desirable forms of housing. There
[33:38] is more than one way to create density. We can
[33:41] add much needed housing while still respecting the scale and
[33:44] character of existing neighbourhoods and providing the kinds of homes
[33:47] Kingston residents actually need. We also need to talk about
[33:50] the people who already live here. This is an established
[33:53] residential neighbourhood. We live here. We pay property taxes here.
[33:57] We have invested in our homes and our community. And
[34:00] one of the most significant impacts of these towers will
[34:02] be the loss of sunlight and natural light for existing
[34:05] residents and business owners. Many surrounding residences and businesses receive
[34:09] natural light from only one side. Existing buildings already cast
[34:13] significant morning shadow and adding two 24 story towers with
[34:17] dramatically intensify that impact. Potentially leaving neighbouring properties without any
[34:21] direct sunlight. I find it telling that none of the
[34:24] pictures in your presentation show the massive impact on the
[34:27] Andylene condo building. And this is more about losing a
[34:31] pleasant view or a little morning sun. Permanent shadow changes
[34:34] the environment of an entire neighbourhood. Trees, gardens and other
[34:37] vegetation that currently depend on sunlight could struggle or die.
[34:41] Well, residents and businesses would be left with darker spaces
[34:43] and a fundamentally altered quality of life. Once these towers
[34:46] are built to that sunlight is gone permanently. We cannot
[34:49] replace a mature trees and vegetation that die because their
[34:52] environment has changed and we cannot restore natural light to
[34:55] homes that have been placed in shadow. We have to
[34:57] ask whether sacrificing the light greenery and quality of life
[35:00] of an existing neighbourhood is a really inacceptable price for
[35:03] maximizing the height and density of one development. And we
[35:06] cannot keep saying that because other high rises have already
[35:09] been approved. Another one is acceptable. That should make us
[35:13] more concerned about the cumulative impact of concentrating mega high
[35:16] rises within the small area, not less concerned. At what
[35:20] point do we say enough. Kingston should grow, but growth
[35:23] does not mean that every available downtown property needs to
[35:25] become another 20 plus story tower. We need thoughtful intensification
[35:30] across our city. Mid - rise development townhomes, family -
[35:33] size departments, affordable housing, and a greater diversity of housing
[35:36] options. So I'm asking Council and City staff not simply
[35:39] to ask, can we fit this development here? Askin said,
[35:42] is this the right development for this location for the
[35:45] people who already live here and for Kingston that we
[35:49] want to build? Kingston needs housing, but we deserve development
[35:52] that provides the housing or community actually needs. Respects the
[35:55] infrastructure we actually have and recognises that existing residents matter
[36:00] too. We should not have to lose our quality of
[36:03] life so that a developer can gain more stories. Thank
[36:06] you. Okay, thank you. I fully understand the desire to
[36:16] clap. However, because this is a business meeting, we can't
[36:19] do it. So if you could just praise quietly in
[36:22] your head, it would be much appreciated. Thank you for
[36:24] being respectful. We'll go to our next speaker. Please state
[36:27] your name and you have five minutes. I'll let you
[36:28] know when you have 30 seconds left. Thank you. I'm
[36:31] Donna Johnson. I live at my husband and I. Oh,
[36:34] sorry. Is that okay? Hello, my name is Donna Johnson
[36:39] and my husband Shane Dark. Just a bit closer. How's
[36:44] that? All right. Is that good? There we go. There
[36:47] we go. Okay. One more time. Uh, my name is
[36:51] Donna Johnson and my husband and I live in the
[36:54] Annalaine development on Baggett Street. I have many concerns, much
[37:02] like Avenle regarding this proposed by La Amendment, uh, by
[37:08] the way. I also know I only have five minutes.
[37:11] So basically I'm going to concentrate on key issues. That
[37:15] have a cumulative effect. Of this massive development. And also
[37:20] firstly, I would like to request a peer review of
[37:23] the Heritage Study. Uh, because I saw a lot of
[37:27] discrepancies between the reports. Secondly regarding mass massing and density.
[37:36] The development roses net density of approximately 841 units. Per
[37:42] hectare. The city plan allows for 123 units per hectare.
[37:49] That is seven times greater. Than what the city plan
[37:53] allows for. That's a huge increase. Also noise impact, um,
[37:59] the gentleman mentioned that they'll do all kinds of triple
[38:02] painting, et cetera. To make it livable for the tenants
[38:06] who are going to live there in a C for,
[38:09] um, a class four noise environment. Well, with both the
[38:15] people who live around this building, we have, uh, the
[38:19] ability to change all our windows to triple pain. We
[38:23] have balconies that we enjoy. And what kind of enjoyment
[38:27] are we going to have once we're in that kind
[38:30] of noise volume. Um, class four is a maximum noise
[38:37] allowed province wide. And a downtown, this is downtown heritage
[38:42] Kingston. And not downtown Toronto. Another thing I do have
[38:49] a slide presentation. If you can, um, it's under my
[38:53] name. So it's around shadowing. And light deprivation. So next
[39:03] slide, please. So that particular slide there is giving you
[39:09] an illustration of March 21st at 8 a. m. So
[39:13] as you can see, it reaches right over to Belle
[39:17] Lava Street, which is right next to MacBony Park. And
[39:21] it covers Balaclava Bay Street, Sydden Street, Montreal Street, ordinate
[39:27] Street Baggett Street and Beark Street, as well as St.
[39:31] Paul's Church and adjacent properties northwest of the development. And
[39:35] when you look at that slide, look at the orange
[39:39] outline there. That tells you, it illustrates the shadowing from
[39:44] the approved towers already along Queen at Bark. This creates
[39:48] a huge area of light deprivation to a significant number
[39:53] of residents in the neighbourhood. An example I put there
[39:57] is the limestone terraces heritage. On the corner of Montreal
[40:02] and ordinance. They only have two sides to their windows.
[40:06] The front and the back. So their front facing windows
[40:10] will basically have no morning light for three quarters of
[40:13] the year. That is extreme light deprefation. Next slide, please.
[40:20] This one, um, is on June 21st. So the longest
[40:24] day of the year. And even on the longest day
[40:26] of the year, Annalene and St. Paul's is in shadow.
[40:33] Next slide. This one is, um, September 21st, or around
[40:38] this time of year, massive shadowing. And you can see
[40:43] it, um, it, the greatest extent of the morning period
[40:47] affects portions of Montreal Street Bagat Street St Paul's Church
[40:51] and west of the development beyond Sidnam Street. It doesn't
[40:54] even illustrate it how far it goes. And then next
[40:59] slide. So again, this is another slide on December 21st.
[41:05] The shortest day of the year at 9 a. m.
[41:08] the shadows reach their greatest extent of the morning period
[41:11] affecting portions of, again, ballot clav street by Bernie Park.
[41:16] Bay Street Sydden of Street. Montreal Street or Street Bagger
[41:20] Street and Park Street as well as church. And adjacent
[41:25] properties northwest of the development at 11 a. m. shadows
[41:30] impact remain evident on the portions of ordinance street, Baggett
[41:34] Street and Bear Street. The Heritage Impact Study concluded that
[41:40] although the redevelopment will result in a noticeable change to
[41:43] the area, it will not adversely impact a Jace inheritage
[41:48] resources or properties with known or potential cultural heritage. Five
[41:54] minutes, I'm sorry. Is it? Oh, I did. I missed
[41:56] it. Okay. Sorry. All right. Thank you. Thank you. I
[41:59] will go to our next speaker. Please state your name
[42:01] and you have five minutes. Yeah. And we'll just make
[42:04] sure. Yes. Thank you for turning that off. No problem.
[42:07] Um, I'm Peter McCantie. I identify myself as Aiden. Um,
[42:10] so I'll repeat what I told the mayor about a
[42:13] couple of years ago, which is, um, unless you can
[42:16] afford a budget a subway through solid granite in the
[42:20] downtown core were basically out of road space to build
[42:25] a upgrade or transit network. Like right now we have
[42:28] so many buses already going downtown and traffic's already getting
[42:32] pretty tight. Um, but the other thing I also want
[42:34] to discuss, which is something which I think is also
[42:36] badly missed in these, um, report like in this proposal
[42:40] is safety. Um, with the more you identify the downtown,
[42:45] the more you have issues with police response, fire response
[42:49] and all that stuff. Um, for example, um, not sure
[42:53] if many of you know this, but a lot of
[42:55] the major incident stuff gets sent from downtown station four,
[42:59] which includes like the technical rescue, the, uh, one of
[43:03] the latter trucks. We have two in the city, one
[43:06] of them which is 20 years old. And these replacements
[43:07] soon. We also have two aerials. Now this brings me
[43:10] another point, which is we don't have the, uh, equipment
[43:15] to, to, you know, respond to high rise fires in
[43:17] Kingston, even if we bought it, we need a place
[43:19] to put it. The more far trucks you need, the
[43:22] more parking space you need for it. Um, the war
[43:25] traffic you bring down, Tom, because of densification, the more,
[43:28] you know, the harder it is to respond. Um, and
[43:30] the other thing too is because of worse located downtown
[43:34] station four also responds to fires on highway two. For
[43:37] example, just yesterday there was a major fire within like
[43:40] five minutes of the Kingston boundary with, um, Lee's Grenville.
[43:44] And, uh, that required bringing the, um, like the, uh,
[43:50] platoon leader from station four plus one of their engines
[43:54] plus the volunteers from station one and all that stuff.
[43:57] Um, it's all sorts of stuff you guys can look
[43:59] up online. And honestly, I believe the last community risk
[44:02] assessment was in 2021. Since then, we've had at least
[44:06] 10 high rises built downtown, I believe, if I'm not
[44:08] mistaken. And, um, the impacts of these impacts on transit
[44:13] traffic and all that stuff has not really been analysed
[44:16] since that report was released. And I believe that further
[44:20] densifying downtown without putting the brakes on it is really
[44:23] important. Could you pull up a map of a Google
[44:26] Maps of Dantown Please if you can. But the big
[44:31] thing is if you look at a map of Kingston's
[44:34] downtown, it's like it's built for horse carriages. It's really
[44:39] like really hard to drive around unless you're in a
[44:42] horse carriage or, you know, you drive really slow. And
[44:45] the more traffic you stick down there, the more chances
[44:49] of pedestrians getting struck, uh, more chances of, you know,
[44:53] pollution. There's also the fact that you take away the
[44:55] character of the community. Like a lot of tourists come,
[44:58] The Kingston, because they love the old style of the
[45:01] city. It's not just a great lakes, which is wonderful,
[45:03] but it's also just the heritage. And we're losing that.
[45:07] Like I've been here since the nineties. It's what we've
[45:09] been dealing with. And if we look at Toronto, their
[45:12] traffic situation is critical. They, even though they're adding subways,
[45:15] they just don't have places to put cars. And it's
[45:19] causing a major issue. And I believe like, if you
[45:21] look like at Western Kingston, Northern Kingston, even the east
[45:25] side of Kingston with the Lab and Crossing, we have
[45:28] like four lane roads to handle that extra traffic. We
[45:30] have the space to densify. We have like more places
[45:34] to put businesses. Hell, we've got a brand new open
[45:38] space at the Kingston Centre once they got rid of
[45:40] the, uh, the, the, uh, Canadian tire. And I believe,
[45:45] I would love this project. I just don't want to
[45:47] downtown. I don't think we can support that sort of
[45:50] densification downtown. I think we're at the limit. We have
[45:54] to stop. And even though, even if we have to
[45:57] fight the province of this, because I know the land
[45:59] tribunal is going to fight tooth and nail on this,
[46:01] because I know that's what they're going to do if
[46:03] Kingston says no. We have to stop somewhere because eventually
[46:07] you're going to reach a point where we're going to
[46:08] have all these buildings, all these extra people coming to
[46:11] town, which are probably going to be middle upper class
[46:14] and probably will be commuting with their cars to Midtown
[46:17] Wedstown instead of downtown. You know, it's just going to
[46:20] cause a Cascade effect. And I honestly think we really
[46:24] need to do a rethink. And, um, even though I
[46:28] do agree with the fact like it's, it's, it's staples.
[46:32] It's not like a Heritage property like some of these
[46:34] other places which of unfortunately destroyed some of it. But
[46:37] it doesn't stop the fact that, you know, 30 seconds.
[46:41] Yeah. Thirst. It just doesn't stop the fact that we
[46:43] just need to stop, look at the public safety, look
[46:46] at the, you know, like sewer riff is structure. Like
[46:50] look structure on Princess. I think that had to happen
[46:52] because they're like, Oh crap, we don't have enough water
[46:54] for those new condos. So it's just we need to
[46:57] stop and reanalyze everything before we add anything else. Thank
[47:00] you. Thank you. If you can just turn off your
[47:04] microphone, Mary Sleep. Um, so we'll go to our next
[47:06] speaker state your name. You'll have five minutes. Thank you.
[47:08] Good evening. Thank you. My name is Scott Jackson. And
[47:11] I'm resident of downtown Kingston. I am here tonight to
[47:14] ask this committee to deny the zoning bylaw amendment of
[47:17] the proposed 24 story, twin towers at 105 Queen and
[47:21] Bear. While we all agree that downtown Kingston needs purpose
[47:25] built housing. Intensification cannot come at the cost of permanent
[47:29] architectural and cultural destruction of our historic core. This application
[47:34] represents a direct irreconcilable conflict with the city of Kingston
[47:38] official plan. First, this proposal permanently destroys the human scale
[47:43] protected under section two of the official plan. Our downtown
[47:47] streets like Barrick and Queen were laid out in pre
[47:50] - automobile erate corridors erecting a continuous six - story
[47:55] solid street wall podium topped by a 24 - story
[47:58] towers will trap these streets in dark windswept permanent shadow.
[48:03] It forces an aggressive urban canyonization into an intimately scaled
[48:09] historic neighbourhood stripping away the pedestrian first comfort that defines
[48:13] our downtown. Second, this proposal inflicts permanent damage on our
[48:19] historic skyline violating section 10A's strict mandates against a visual
[48:23] intrusion. Kingston's low to Mid - Rise profile punctuated by
[48:27] historic limestone masonry and church spires is a shared cultural
[48:31] accet. A 24 - story vertical mass will stand as
[48:35] an incongruous visual monolith visible from the waterfront to the
[48:39] market square. It will visually engulf and dwarf the surrounding
[48:42] heritage properties, including the heritage easement at 90 to 92
[48:46] barrack and my own home. Finally, we must look to
[48:51] establish planning jurisprudence right here on Queen Street in its
[48:55] landmark August 2019 decision, the local planning appeal tribunal explicitly
[48:59] rejected high - rise towers on this streetscape. There's tribunal
[49:04] rule that dropping towering vertical masses into Kingston load amid
[49:07] rise low to mid - rise fabric constitutes an unacceptable
[49:11] quote visual intrusion and architectural incompatibility. At 24 stories, this
[49:18] proposal is even taller and denser than the footprints, the
[49:21] tribunal previously warned would fracture the cultural fabric of the
[49:24] city. If this committee approves a site - specific exception
[49:29] overlay of this magnitude, it will set a dangerous, irrevocable
[49:32] planning precedent. It signals to the development industry that our
[49:36] historic guidelines are completely negotiable. Paving the way for future
[49:40] high - rises to systematically dismantle our historic core. I
[49:44] urge this committee to uphold the Integrity of our official
[49:47] plan, honour past tribunal precedence and deny this amendment. Thank
[49:51] you. Okay, thank you. Uh, we'll go to our next
[49:55] speaker. Please state your name. You have five minutes. My
[49:59] name is Gene Ryan. Before the clock starts, I would
[50:02] request that my PowerPoint be put up.
[50:15] My name is Gene Ryan. I'm here to ask the
[50:19] planning committee and planning staff to uphold the official plan
[50:24] and uphold zoning by laws. Um, I'm starting with the
[50:28] focus on the proposal site - specific exception overlay because
[50:33] it's really the crux of what this building is requiring
[50:36] to get built. Next slide, please. Downtown 1 allows
[50:46] 4 - 6 stories maximum. What's being asked for with
[50:51] this reposal when multiply that by a factor of 424
[50:55] stories. Downtown 1 allows 4 maximum density of 123 dwelling
[51:01] units. What this proposal would require would almost times that
[51:07] by 7 to 141 units. The idea that this proposal
[51:14] in any way is actually representative of downtown 1 is
[51:18] clearly not the case. And what we're seeing here is
[51:23] a site - specific exception for the proposal that creates
[51:28] a holy new MiniZone that does not conform with the
[51:31] official plan and does not follow the zoning by a
[51:34] laws of the area. Next slide please. We've been seeing
[51:39] this with increasing regularity. It's creating terrible destructive precedent for
[51:45] the city. And with each new approved site - specific
[51:51] overlay, aka new non - conforming MiniZone, it creates the
[51:58] precedent that the next proposal relies on. Should this be
[52:02] approved. We can be sure that we'll see it. And
[52:06] yet an upcoming application. Next slide please. Another site
[52:16] citation from the justification report itself. This proposal would greatly,
[52:23] diversely impact a hugely important heritage area of the city.
[52:29] And beyond that cause immeasurable adverse impacts for residents in
[52:34] the area. But more than simply residents in the area,
[52:38] it's the city of the Kingston as a whole. Next
[52:40] slide, please. The OLT is very clear about The fact
[52:47] that municipalities absolutely have the right. To enforce their official
[52:54] plan and zoning by laws. And we saw that just
[52:57] this past May related to an Intensification proposal in Orangeville.
[53:02] The alts, he was very clear about the fact that
[53:04] Intensification is only one policy set. That the city and
[53:11] its councillors are expected to uphold. And that Intensivication cannot
[53:16] be prioritized over a competing policies, including those to preserve
[53:22] neighbourhood character. Next slide, please. With increasing frequency, we see
[53:30] these applications come forward for the most desirable real estate
[53:35] in Kingston. More developers can charge the highest rents. And
[53:39] I don't blame developers for doing that. That's their job.
[53:43] They're here to maximize their development. I am calling on
[53:47] the city both staff and council to make sure though
[53:51] that our choices for housing uphold the official plan follow
[53:57] zoning bylaws for all of us, not just developers. We
[54:01] all know, for example, residents who are unable to read
[54:04] you their deck, for example. Because they don't, they aren't
[54:08] granted the variants that's requested. This is far more than
[54:14] that. Again, it would create a new MiniZone that's completely
[54:19] non - conforming with the official plan and with the
[54:21] zoning by laws. And it does not meet our needs.
[54:26] This is from August just this past summer. Kingston out
[54:31] of 243 cities ranks 150 eighths in affordability. We've been
[54:38] playing, we've been building plenty of units though. And for
[54:42] that reason, we're really high up in terms of availability.
[54:46] Coming in number four. Thank you. Coming in at number
[54:50] fourth out of 243 cities in terms of apartments being
[54:54] available. I know that we can do better and it
[54:58] will ask, please, all of our city officials and all
[55:01] of our public servants to serve the whole city. All
[55:05] of us residents. It's not that we trust you. It's
[55:08] that we depends on you. Thank you. Thank you very
[55:12] much. Okay, so we've had five speakers in the room.
[55:17] We're going, I'm so sorry. We are going to go
[55:19] to the applicant for response, after which we'll come back
[55:25] into the room. So if you are in the room
[55:26] and would like to speak, you're welcome to go sit
[55:28] there and be comfortable. If you're happy where you are,
[55:29] that's fine. Um, and I'll turn it over to the
[55:31] applicant. Thank you. Thank you, Madam Chair. I did document
[55:37] all the comments that were received in my approach is
[55:40] typically to document comments and to start questions, uh, of
[55:45] the application. Most of what I heard were statements. I
[55:48] haven't starred any questions. Um, so I've noted the comments
[55:53] and would be prepared to move to the next five
[55:55] if there is a question that you thought was in
[55:57] there that you would like me to address. I'd be
[56:00] happy to do so, but I didn't hear any questions
[56:01] of us. Thank you.
[56:26] Yeah, I would agree that they were, um, they were
[56:29] statements that were made. I did not record any questions
[56:31] either. Aside from a request for peer review. Would that
[56:34] go to staff or the applicant. Staff, Mr. Bar. Thanks.
[56:39] And through you chair, that is a request that, you
[56:41] know, staff will undertake and bring back to our partners
[56:45] inheritage services. Thank you. Okay. In that case, we will
[56:50] go online. If you are on Zoom and you would
[56:53] like to speak, please raise your virtual hand. Through your
[57:01] Madam Chair. I'll recognise Jennifer Hosek. Thank you. Hi, Jennifer.
[57:07] Please state your name and you will have five minutes
[57:09] to speak. Thank you. I'm Jennifer Hosek. Thank you. I'm,
[57:14] I'm on not finding my camera. And yes, and I'm
[57:19] not in Kingston currently because I'm a way at work.
[57:22] Otherwise I would certainly be here. I must absolutely applaud
[57:28] the speakers up till now who did such a good
[57:32] job making actual arguments. And rather than, um, I would
[57:39] say from the point of view of the, uh, you
[57:42] know, hearing the developer speak to simply list the concerns
[57:46] that we have and that we have sent in various
[57:49] letters, um, and not really give an actual response to
[57:55] them, but rather to simply diminish them. And I again,
[57:59] I think that following the lead of the, of the
[58:02] people who have been speaking would really be the way
[58:05] to go because they're, they're, um, they're offering actual factual,
[58:11] um, factual facts, basically facts, uh, to show how it's
[58:18] going to be so detrimental to have these towers. Now
[58:22] I know that I am a person who, uh, has
[58:25] money and chose to live downtown. And I want to
[58:28] live in a livable downtown city. And I also live
[58:32] in Analene. So I'll also be a person who won't
[58:35] have any direct son for the rest of my life
[58:38] if I continue to live in that building. And so
[58:42] one question that I have for the developer is, uh,
[58:46] and, you know, I'm not a professional city planner. I'm
[58:50] just an educated person. So, uh, I hope that we
[58:53] can ask the question in a way that, you know,
[58:56] speaks to actual bylaws and so forth. Is it like
[58:59] in what way is it actually legal to, you know,
[59:03] cast that kind of shadow that the previous speaker also
[59:06] shown influences so many people, how is it possible for
[59:11] that to happen? The second question is related to the
[59:15] towers. Why is it the case that or is it
[59:18] not the case that there's a difference between a nine
[59:21] story building and a 24 story building? I think that
[59:24] one of the speakers spoke factually to the case, to
[59:29] the argument that 24 stories is simply not legal. My
[59:34] proposal would be to not have the towers. Just don't
[59:37] have the towers. If you're going to have the towers,
[59:40] then nine story level should be the maximum. In addition,
[59:46] if we really need to have the nine story towers
[59:50] move one of the towers, make it smaller and move
[59:52] it to have it go along Queen so that the
[59:55] people in Annalaine, and here maybe I'm being selfish, um,
[1:00:00] get to have the light that they signed up for.
[1:00:03] I actually happened to, um, have that, um, sad, um,
[1:00:08] condition. So like that disability condition where I have to
[1:00:11] have light and, you know, we all know that we
[1:00:14] have that kind of winter blues. And then my final
[1:00:18] question is, what about the flooding my compatriots have spoken
[1:00:25] to many of the issues like noise and traffic and
[1:00:29] heritage. And I think and the shadows, that's all completely
[1:00:33] accurate. And I'd like there to be discussion of flooding
[1:00:36] because almost every year there are issues around Annalene and
[1:00:40] sometimes annine actually gets flooded because the sewers are simply
[1:00:46] the storm sewers are not big enough. And I, I
[1:00:49] want that problem. Um, I mean, that problem is going
[1:00:52] to be exacerbated, may not be a city planner, uh,
[1:00:57] but I'm sure that it'll be exacerbated by that building.
[1:01:00] So, uh, the question is how is that going to
[1:01:02] get mitigated? And I completely, um, I apologise again that
[1:01:07] I don't, um, get to show you my, um, my
[1:01:10] very serious face at this moment. And I see the
[1:01:14] remaining minutes to this subsequent, uh, speaker. Thank you. Okay.
[1:01:20] Thank you very much. We'll have a look online and
[1:01:22] go to our next speaker. Is there anyone else online
[1:01:31] who would like to speak. Please raise your hand. Thank
[1:01:34] you. Through Madam Chair, I'm recognised Barbara Bater. Hi Barbara,
[1:01:42] you have five minutes. Thank you very much. I just
[1:01:49] came to this issue very recently yesterday. I saw it
[1:01:57] something about it on, on Facebook. So I apologise. I
[1:02:01] also came to the meeting late, but I thought I
[1:02:03] had signed up. So I would show up. Um, I'm
[1:02:07] speaking a bit off the top of my head, but
[1:02:10] I lower my hand here. Um, hope you can hear
[1:02:15] me. And I really applaud the two speakers, I think,
[1:02:22] was it Mike Johnson? I'm not quite sure. And the
[1:02:24] woman after him spoke very, very well about the heritage
[1:02:30] nature of the neighbourhood. Also staples is a terrific store.
[1:02:39] Um, I was actually in there today. And this may
[1:02:45] seem like a secondary topic, but, but all of the,
[1:02:51] one of the staff said that. Most of the downtown
[1:02:55] businesses rely on their printing services. Uh, anyway, I won't
[1:03:00] belabor that point, but it's a terrific store. I use
[1:03:04] it a lot myself and love it. Um. Since there
[1:03:09] aren't, sorry. I just have a real support for the
[1:03:19] two speakers and preserving the heritage nature, the avoiding some
[1:03:25] of the traffic issues. We just have to slow down
[1:03:29] and think about what we're doing. Before we go ahead.
[1:03:36] And I. Apologise for if I'm a bit rough here.
[1:03:40] I, I have never gone to a meeting like this
[1:03:43] before. So I'm putting my, uh, thank you. Okay. Thank
[1:03:51] you very much. And no worries if you've never been
[1:03:53] before. That's what this is for. This is the process.
[1:03:55] So if you've never done it and you're nervous, that's
[1:03:57] normal. Uh, we're glad you're here. We're glad you're participating.
[1:04:00] Um, is there anyone else online? Okay. Through you, Madam
[1:04:03] Chair, I'll recognise Colleen Murphy. Thank you. If you could
[1:04:06] just state your name, uh, for the record and then
[1:04:08] you have five minutes. Thank you.
[1:04:31] Colleen, we're unable to hear you in the room. It
[1:04:37] does appear that you've been unmuted. But we'll try again.
[1:04:55] Okay. Colleen, we are still unable to hear you. So
[1:04:58] we'll move on to the next speaker, but you can
[1:05:00] try logging on again. Um, and we can try again
[1:05:02] later. Or you can submit your statements, uh, through email.
[1:05:06] So we'll move on to Melissa Reed. Thank you. Please
[1:05:11] state your name and you have five minutes. My. Name
[1:05:20] is Melissa Reed. Um, I will skip the. Comments I
[1:05:25] have and just go right to the questions. Since this,
[1:05:28] um, building, uh, it will be built on a landslope.
[1:05:33] And the geography of the address has not been addressed.
[1:05:38] What specific independent third party hydrological and geotechnical studies have
[1:05:41] been reviewed guarantee that three level underground digging for these
[1:05:45] two 24 story towers will not act as a subsurface
[1:05:50] dam all drained groundwater flow and causing chronic flooding or
[1:05:53] foundational fraction neighbouring properties down the road. My second question
[1:05:56] is without a legal binding agreement ensuring actual deep level
[1:06:01] affordable housing units. How can a committee justify approving a
[1:06:05] massive twin tower development that actually bypasses our cities official
[1:06:09] plan and our community's urgent need for housing? Thank you.
[1:06:16] Okay. Thank you very much. Just looking online again.
[1:06:26] Okay. Not seeing anyone line. Um, we finally had three
[1:06:29] speakers. If anyone in the room would like to speak
[1:06:31] if you don't mind coming and sitting these chairs, please.
[1:06:33] Thank you. We'll just give a moment to check online
[1:06:35] again while you're getting settled.
[1:06:47] Okay. We'll recognise Carrie Hill. Hi, please state your name
[1:06:52] and you have five minutes.
[1:07:13] Carrie, we're not able to hear you in chambers. For
[1:07:19] those online, sometimes it can be a case of headphones
[1:07:21] or whatever other technology you're using to listen and speak.
[1:07:36] Can you hear. Me now. There we go. We can
[1:07:38] hear you now, Carrie. Thank you. Okay. I don't know
[1:07:41] what I did. But any. My name is Carriell. And,
[1:07:45] um. I. Really just have one question. I'm just wondering
[1:07:52] whether either the owner of the property. Or any of
[1:07:56] the developers or planners involved. Were at the. Meoral candidate.
[1:08:02] Meeting on Monday evening. The reason why I'm asking this
[1:08:07] is that all four candidates said no to any further
[1:08:12] high rises in downtown Kingston. That's, that's my question. Thank
[1:08:18] you. We're not seeing anyone else online. Just double checking
[1:08:24] one more time. I'll recognise Colleen Murphy. We'll try Colleen
[1:08:32] again. Can you. Hear me now. We can. Oh my
[1:08:40] goodness. Gracious. Thank you so much. So my name is
[1:08:44] Colleen Murphy. My husband and I live in the Annaline
[1:08:47] building facing the St Paul's side. My dad also lives
[1:08:51] in Annalene facing the staple side. I'm here this evening
[1:08:55] to highlight some of my family's main concerns about the
[1:08:58] proposed high rise development. So we've heard this, but I'm
[1:09:03] going to just repeat. Um, one concern is traffic congestion.
[1:09:07] So the area is already and you probably know this
[1:09:09] already, but the area is already prone to heavy traffic
[1:09:13] congestion. Especially during rush hour and event times. Narrow roads
[1:09:18] are prominent in this area. It is often difficult for
[1:09:21] us to enter or exit by car to our building.
[1:09:25] The two parking garages face staples. People in our building
[1:09:29] need to get to where they are going properly. Having
[1:09:32] to wait to enter or exit the building is anticipated
[1:09:36] to be longer due to the added population density. And
[1:09:40] during construction time. So the narrative needs to be a
[1:09:44] thoughtful traffic flow plan on how to deal with more
[1:09:48] traffic congestion due to the added population density that this
[1:09:52] area will experience. Condition of our roads is another concern.
[1:09:57] The roads in our area are already needing repair, especially
[1:10:01] along Cleen Street. Heavy trucks for construction will damage our
[1:10:06] streets further. So there needs to be a plan to
[1:10:09] mitigate damage to our roads and a plan for immediate
[1:10:12] repair post construction. Another issue has been mentioned, but I'll
[1:10:18] repeat proposed height of the twin buildings will affect a
[1:10:21] few things, including the beauty of our downtown, which is
[1:10:25] already at risk with the number of tall high raises
[1:10:28] being built. These towers will certainly disrupt the beauty of
[1:10:31] the downtown. Kingston is well known for its downtown heritage
[1:10:35] buildings, including around the proposed development. People come from far
[1:10:40] away to experience Kingston downtown. Let's try to preserve the
[1:10:44] beautiful character of our downtown. There will be diminished natural
[1:10:48] sunlight as people have mentioned for our building and surrounding
[1:10:51] areas. Some of us actually use our balconies and outside
[1:10:55] spaces as extensions of our own homes. We grow gardens
[1:10:59] and enjoy the sunlight, which is important to our health.
[1:11:02] These towers threatened to completely block our sunlight and impact
[1:11:05] our health. There is already a significant wind tunnel, which
[1:11:09] I don't think has been mentioned along Queen Street, especially
[1:11:12] along the corner and in front of our building. I've
[1:11:15] experienced such wind tunnels or excessive winds outside tall buildings.
[1:11:20] The high buildings being proposed most likely will exasperate the
[1:11:23] wind in the area. My dad will certainly have a
[1:11:26] tough time walking with anticipation of a moment to conditions.
[1:11:31] 24 floors is unacceptable. We need to consider lowering the
[1:11:35] number of floors significantly. Our building was only allowed for
[1:11:39] nine floors just to put this all into perspective. There
[1:11:42] were valid reasons at the time for limiting the height
[1:11:45] of buildings. Another issue that I anticipate is garbage and
[1:11:50] recycling. There's already a lot of recycling and garbage in
[1:11:53] the area. Often the weekly garbage and recycling is disturbed
[1:11:56] and access garbage blows everywhere. And our flower beds on
[1:12:00] our sidewalks and on our streets. There will be excessive
[1:12:03] garbage and recycling in this area impacting downtown. The plan
[1:12:07] needs to think thoughtfully about how to contain the mess
[1:12:11] in the downtown area. There's a strain on our storm
[1:12:14] sewers as people have mentioned. And when it rains, and
[1:12:17] I believe the previous speaker spoke to this, the large
[1:12:19] puddles that form along Vegot Street. And this can especially
[1:12:23] be slippery when the puddles freeze. So we need to
[1:12:26] ensure walkability at no flooding along Baggett Street. We're concerned
[1:12:30] about the infrastructure strain on an already strained system. There
[1:12:34] will be greater overflowing flooding due to having this increase
[1:12:38] of 536 units. We need to have the plan or
[1:12:42] update our storm sewers in the area before any construction.
[1:12:46] The bright lights at night will increase from being in
[1:12:49] close proximity proximity, which will certainly impact us, including during
[1:12:54] construction time. We will all have to have heavy curtains
[1:12:58] to block out the light at night. And just a
[1:13:01] couple more things. Added pollution, including noise pollution, especially during
[1:13:05] construction times. We have all suffered enough from the noise
[1:13:09] and added pollution from the many buildings going up along
[1:13:12] Queen Street. Many people in our buildings are shift workers.
[1:13:16] The constant noise greatly impacts our sleep and quality of
[1:13:19] life. And finally, parking. Well, this proposed twin towers decrease
[1:13:23] parking for those visiting the downtown. We already have limited
[1:13:26] parking downtown. We want to attract people to come 30
[1:13:30] seconds. And people who work downtown need a place to
[1:13:34] park. Thank you. That's it for me. Okay. Thanks very
[1:13:38] much. Uh, so we're going to pause the speakers there.
[1:13:41] We'll turn to the applicant for responses to questions and
[1:13:43] then we'll come back in the room. Thank you, Madam
[1:13:47] Chair. And through you, one of the first questions related
[1:13:51] to, like, is it legal to cast a shadow on
[1:13:56] a property? And I have to admit, I've actually never
[1:14:00] been asked that question before. So I will have to
[1:14:02] do a bit of investigation. Uh, into that and provide
[1:14:06] a response to the planning committee, uh, rather, uh, planning
[1:14:11] staff to bring back to this committee. What, what I
[1:14:15] would say in terms of views and shadow impact is
[1:14:19] that the official plan does lay out policies. It does
[1:14:23] have protected views. Uh, and this isn't one of those
[1:14:27] protected views. And when we conduct shadow studies, there are
[1:14:32] terms of reference in terms of, of what is an
[1:14:36] acceptable shadow. And there is no doubt these buildings will
[1:14:40] cast shadows. They will change what people know today. But
[1:14:45] they are within the limits of those parameters, uh, that
[1:14:48] are set. There was a comment, a few comments about,
[1:14:56] uh, about flooding. Uh, and about storm sewers that, uh,
[1:15:03] in poor condition, they're at their maximum. And that is
[1:15:06] something that, that we acknowledge. There are improvements. That will
[1:15:12] be necessary. Yeah. There's, there's still a combined sewer on
[1:15:16] Beark Street. They would have to be, uh, separated stormwater
[1:15:20] from, from sewer. So these are known, uh, issues that
[1:15:23] will have to be addressed through the development process. There
[1:15:29] was a comment about, uh, staples and how important it
[1:15:33] is to the downtown. And it is certainly the intent
[1:15:35] to keep, uh, staples on the site.
[1:15:46] Uh, there was a question about garbage and how that
[1:15:51] might impact the area and all the garbage would be
[1:15:54] handling would be handled internal to the site. There's not,
[1:15:57] there would not be garbage brought to the curb. Uh,
[1:16:00] at this project. There was a question about what hydrogeological
[1:16:08] studies have been conducted. There have only been preliminary look
[1:16:13] at the site right now. So as, as the project
[1:16:16] moves forward into a site plan level, that's when those
[1:16:20] hydrogeological studies would be conducted, uh, they'll be conducted for
[1:16:24] a number of reasons. One is defined water levels. The
[1:16:28] site will also be subject to what's called a record
[1:16:29] of sight condition. Uh, which is a site proving it
[1:16:34] is safe from contamination for residential use. So those are
[1:16:38] studies that have only been started in a preliminary way.
[1:16:43] And we'll come later in the process. In similar vein,
[1:16:48] it was recommended to put a legally binding agreement, uh,
[1:16:52] to have deeply affordable housing on the site. Those are
[1:16:56] all, all negotiations that come, uh, much later in the
[1:17:01] process. There was a question about if this would be
[1:17:05] decreasing parking in the downtown. And our project is actually
[1:17:10] proposing parking that would be publicly available. Should it be
[1:17:15] built? So we are actually proposing a surplus of parking
[1:17:18] to the residential use and the commercial, uh, users of
[1:17:22] the site, like specifically having spaces reserved for staples and
[1:17:26] another user. And on top of that, there would be
[1:17:29] a surplus of parking that, that we'd like to figure
[1:17:31] out how those spaces could become publicly available.
[1:17:41] And I believe that's it, Madam Chair, but if I've
[1:17:44] missed any, by all means, I'm happy to. Thanks. Um,
[1:17:47] I do have just to, so the, there was a
[1:17:50] question around the difference between a nine story and a
[1:17:52] 24 story tower. I think at the core of that
[1:17:54] question was, um, I'm paraphrasing here, but could the towers
[1:17:58] be nine stories tall. Well, through you, Madam Chair, like
[1:18:05] we're, we're, we're proposing 24 stories and we believe that
[1:18:08] our studies demonstrate that they're appropriate for the site. And,
[1:18:13] uh. You know, Will await staff comments. We don't have
[1:18:16] any comments from staff yet on this project. Maybe that's
[1:18:19] something important for the public to know. Uh, so, so
[1:18:22] that, that's our proposal for now. And we believe our
[1:18:25] studies demonstrate the heights are appropriate. Thank you. Thank you.
[1:18:29] And just one more, I'd like to touch on, you
[1:18:31] did mention a bit The flooding. There were concerns expressed
[1:18:33] on question around Annalene, um, storm sewers and how will
[1:18:36] flooding be mitigated. So again, I believe you indicated that
[1:18:39] those studies are yet to come. Is that correct? Yes.
[1:18:42] Through you, Madam Chair partially, like we, we do have
[1:18:44] a servicing study that's been completed for the property. So
[1:18:49] we're aware of upgrades that are necessary, particularly along Beark
[1:18:53] Street. So there are upgrades that are going to be
[1:18:56] unnecessary in the neighbourhood. Thank you. Um, did planning staff
[1:19:01] wish to comment, Mr. Bar. Thanks and through you chair
[1:19:05] just to build off, uh, the comments from Mr. Keene.
[1:19:09] Staff are still reviewing this application. We have not released
[1:19:11] any comments. So the public dialogue that we're listening to
[1:19:14] tonight will form part of our, uh, comments back to
[1:19:18] the applicant on their complete submission. So, um, building off
[1:19:22] of that, I just want to clear up two other
[1:19:24] points. The first, um, about the mayoral debate question, um,
[1:19:29] I'm not aware and I cannot speak for all staff,
[1:19:31] but staff and attendance tonight, we're not at the debate,
[1:19:33] but at least myself and a couple other staff members
[1:19:35] are tracking the election and things that are commented on,
[1:19:39] you know, and reported on through the paper as well.
[1:19:42] Additionally, there was a question about, is it illegal to
[1:19:45] cast a shadow? Not that I am aware of, especially
[1:19:48] in the planning practice, property shadow other properties, whether they
[1:19:52] are one story high, three stories high or 20 stories
[1:19:55] high, just depending on how close the building or structure
[1:19:58] is located to another property. Someone's rear yard shed, that
[1:20:02] is three metres high could be construed as casting a
[1:20:04] shadow on someone's property if the fencing or other buffering
[1:20:07] around it just depends on how close it is to
[1:20:08] the lot line. What staff evaluate when we're looking at
[1:20:12] shadowing is not whether or not a shadow is cast
[1:20:16] on a property, but what we evaluate is undue adverse
[1:20:19] impact. So we're looking at how long a shadow was
[1:20:22] on a property and when throughout the year that happened.
[1:20:24] So we do have parameters by which we evaluate this
[1:20:27] under the official plan to conclude whether or not a
[1:20:30] shadow actually constitutes undue adverse impacts or not. So that
[1:20:35] does form part of our review. And we are reviewing
[1:20:37] the shadow study as part of this application. Thank you.
[1:20:42] And just as part of that, um, one of the
[1:20:45] questions were the applicants that the mayoral candidate debate on
[1:20:48] Monday were the applicants there. Through you, Madam Chair, I
[1:20:55] don't know. I was not there. Um, and I know,
[1:20:59] uh, Ray said he was not either. So I'm, I'm
[1:21:01] not sure. But, um, we are also following the campaign
[1:21:04] quite closely. Thank you. Thank you very much. Okay. So
[1:21:08] we're going to our third round of questions. We're going
[1:21:10] in the room. I see we have four of five
[1:21:12] chairs filled. Is there anyone else in room who would
[1:21:14] like to speak if you would please, I wish I
[1:21:18] could let you speak again, but it can't. Sorry. Sorry,
[1:21:22] we can't have a chat right now, but we can
[1:21:23] chat after. That'd be fine. Um, anyone else in room
[1:21:26] who wishes to speak. Seeing none. Okay. We'll do the
[1:21:30] four folks we have in here. So we'll start at
[1:21:32] this end and work our way down. Turn on your
[1:21:34] microphone. Please state your name and then you'll have five
[1:21:37] minutes to speak. Thank you. Uh, my name's Ken Schmidt.
[1:21:41] I'm a resident of the Annaline condominium building. And, um,
[1:21:46] I, uh, want to ask a question if the submitted
[1:21:50] comments, the written submitted comments that I made, uh, a
[1:21:54] couple of weeks ago to city, would they be included
[1:21:56] in all the information that goes to the planning department.
[1:22:00] So all the comments I made about shadows, et cetera,
[1:22:02] et cetera would be in there as well as the
[1:22:04] diagrams. Perfect. So just a few questions. Um, the shadow
[1:22:11] criteria that's set up, the developers referred to and the
[1:22:16] city. Is it city, um, or developer run. And is
[1:22:21] it city standards or developer standards. The second question I
[1:22:25] had was regarding the articulated podium, uh, was referred to
[1:22:30] by the gentleman, the designer, uh, Ray, I'm sorry, Zaybak.
[1:22:40] And explain very well about it being articulated. However, I
[1:22:43] believe, and I'm asking the question, is it articulated on
[1:22:48] the baguet street side of the structure? I believe it
[1:22:52] is not that the residential tower that fronts on baguet
[1:22:57] Street rises vertically like a 24 story, actually 25 story
[1:23:02] wall because there's a, uh, elevator compartment at the top,
[1:23:06] which is three times higher than the antelane building. And
[1:23:09] it would be directly across the street rising virtually from
[1:23:13] street level directly, vertically and no articulation. Um, and, um.
[1:23:20] That's actually, that's the two questions I had because I,
[1:23:24] you answered the question about the submission. Thank you. Thank
[1:23:28] you. Um, we'll head to the next speaker over. Hi.
[1:23:37] Please you'll turn on your microphone state your name and
[1:23:39] I'll give you five minutes. Oh, okay. Um, my name
[1:23:42] is Diane Scott. I also live in the Annalena Apartments
[1:23:48] and we are going to be the most of really
[1:23:51] affected people in this cityscape. I live in the sixth
[1:23:56] floor in about the middle of the building. Not only
[1:24:01] will I not have any sunlight. I will not have
[1:24:04] any sky view because of the fact that we have,
[1:24:08] um, uh, balconies that overhang our windows so that even
[1:24:13] if the sun is directly ahead for a short period
[1:24:16] of time, I will not be able to see it
[1:24:19] because there is the bottom floor of a balcony right
[1:24:22] over top of my balcony. So. In Connect also in
[1:24:27] connection with the view. Now this is not, I can't
[1:24:33] give you a nice little slide that I have prepared
[1:24:41] to show, because I'm not exactly sure where the building
[1:24:46] starts and where the building ends. But having done a
[1:24:50] little preliminary standing in my living room, like, um, you
[1:24:54] know, one foot from the window, well, it's actually a
[1:24:58] patio d'or, um, and then stepping back two feet and
[1:25:03] stepping back three feet. If I press my nose against
[1:25:07] the window, I might, might possibly see the sky, but
[1:25:13] I don't think so. I will see nothing to the
[1:25:16] left, nothing to the right except a building in front
[1:25:20] of me. And I will be in The Dark all
[1:25:24] the time. Now this affects also not just my, this
[1:25:28] affects the building in many ways. The electricity costs for
[1:25:35] the people that live on that side of the building
[1:25:37] are going to go up. Um, there's going to be
[1:25:42] data. Because at the moment, um, I already find that
[1:25:47] because on one side, on the, um, okay, it's the
[1:25:51] east side of Annalene, um, which is the affected side
[1:25:56] basically. Because it is a condo building, except for the
[1:26:02] end units, we all have one window. We are not
[1:26:08] a house. We do not have back windows where the
[1:26:11] sun can come in. We have windows along the front.
[1:26:15] And that is it. No side windows, no sun coming
[1:26:17] in any other direction. Um, and no views coming in
[1:26:20] any other direction. So this is a serious impact. Um,
[1:26:25] and enough that for me, it is.
[1:26:35] Well, I have, I have been diagnosed with having sad.
[1:26:39] Okay. So I'm not going to get any sun unless
[1:26:41] I maybe go out in the balcony in the middle
[1:26:43] of January in noon. Um, but. It's a very serious
[1:26:51] side effect as well as having, the issue also in
[1:26:55] that we have a cooler system on the roof. And.
[1:27:02] At the moment. The coolest system does not kick in
[1:27:07] until a certain temperature. And at the moment, because of
[1:27:16] buildings and the sun doesn't, you know, just pop up
[1:27:19] right in front of us. It takes a while for
[1:27:23] the air conditioning to come in in the summer. So
[1:27:25] sometimes in the, um. It takes, it's like first thing
[1:27:30] in the morning. The chiller system is not on. So
[1:27:34] it's pretty hot in the building. Now with the 24
[1:27:38] story building, completely blocking that chiller. I'm not really sure
[1:27:42] when we are going to have, um, the chiller system
[1:27:46] working. So our air conditioning will be off a lot
[1:27:49] of the time. Um, which makes a significant difference. I
[1:27:54] will have no light. I will have no view. And
[1:27:58] I will have no air conditioning, which impacts me severely.
[1:28:02] Um, and, um, it's interesting that, um, in the comments
[1:28:06] that I guess it was the original application of 30
[1:28:13] seconds for the building. 30 seconds left over. You have
[1:28:18] 30 seconds left. 30 seconds. 30 seconds. Okay. Um, I
[1:28:23] don't know. Oh trees. The trees are going to die
[1:28:27] on Baggett Street. Okay. They won't die on the other
[1:28:31] side of the street because it's only nine stories barking
[1:28:33] their son. But for 24 hours. So the trees are
[1:28:37] going to die in our plants and our garden. Thank
[1:28:40] you very much. Thank you. Okay. Um, we will move
[1:28:44] on to our next speaker. Please state your name. And
[1:28:46] you have five minutes. Hi, everybody. My name is
[1:28:55] Mary Jorie. I live and work in the downtown core,
[1:29:00] live in block D and work right downtown at King
[1:29:03] and Princess. I, um, also I work for downtown Kingston
[1:29:09] business improvement area, but I'm here as a citizen as
[1:29:12] opposed to my position as an executive director overseeing the
[1:29:16] businesses in the downtown core. Although some of my comments
[1:29:19] will also be reflected because of things that I know,
[1:29:23] uh, because of my position. So I've been to a
[1:29:26] few of these now. And I've also, um, dealt with
[1:29:28] a lot of development in the downtown core for the
[1:29:30] five years that I've been here. It's always challenging when
[1:29:33] there's a new development proposed, um, so it's not surprising
[1:29:38] that the people that are most affected are here. And
[1:29:41] speaking their minds and what a wonderful world we live
[1:29:43] in or wonderful country that we live in that we
[1:29:46] have that ability. I think there's lots of thought provoking
[1:29:49] topics on, especially the shadow topic to me is very
[1:29:53] interesting. Um, certainly I actually almost lived in Annalene when
[1:29:58] I moved here. We looked at the property and we
[1:30:00] decided against it. And, uh, moved over to the other
[1:30:03] side of town just a little bit outside of downtown.
[1:30:06] Cause I felt that Anna Lane and myself and my
[1:30:09] husband was too close to the noise of the city.
[1:30:12] Um, so it's already a noisy area. Um, so I,
[1:30:19] and I'm not sure that air conditioning and all of
[1:30:22] the things that come with these large buildings that we
[1:30:24] also have in block D are going to make it
[1:30:28] any noisier. You're downtown. It's noisy day and night. And
[1:30:33] when I have a balcony that oversees battery park and
[1:30:38] I have a building right in front of me, we
[1:30:40] have sun partially. And I don't see the sun again
[1:30:46] till the next morning. But that is just part of
[1:30:49] my lifestyle where I can go out and, and choose
[1:30:52] other sunny areas to enjoy. So, um, and also it's
[1:30:58] interesting because it sort of made me think about residential
[1:31:01] areas. Residential neighbourhoods, especially just on the other side of
[1:31:05] Queen Street there. I often go walking there to because
[1:31:08] of the shade. So it's funny how we look at
[1:31:10] shade from trees as opposed to shade from a building.
[1:31:15] Um, it's essentially during the same thing except, of course,
[1:31:18] trees create, uh. Yeah, oxygen and also just beauty. So,
[1:31:25] but it just made me think about, well, I'm sure
[1:31:27] there's some houses over there that don't get a heck
[1:31:28] of a lot of sunlight because of the maturity of
[1:31:30] the trees. My understanding, and again, this just comes from
[1:31:34] the position that I hold is that stormwater and sewer
[1:31:37] separation is a citywide challenge. It's not, uh, unique to
[1:31:40] that area. It's something that is being addressed with the
[1:31:44] city and utilities Kingston on a very long - term
[1:31:47] expensive adventure. So, uh, it has to be done. Uh,
[1:31:53] whether it gets done, you know, to support this building
[1:31:57] or not, it has to be done. So that's going
[1:31:59] to happen anyway. I wanted to say that downtown, oh,
[1:32:04] downtown has garbage management challenges everywhere, uh, as we see
[1:32:08] more residents come into town. And as we see more
[1:32:11] buildings come into town, but condominiums and rental apartments are
[1:32:15] the best at managing their garbage because they do have
[1:32:19] internal garbage, um, abilities as the gentleman was saying. So
[1:32:23] I'm not worried about garbage. I would also say I
[1:32:26] have a car. It's in the basement of my, my
[1:32:30] apartment building. And if it got stolen, I wouldn't know
[1:32:33] it because I never use it. When you live downtown,
[1:32:37] you don't use a car. Um, so I don't think
[1:32:39] you're going to see traffic increase with these types of
[1:32:43] buildings. If you, um, are dependent on a car, I
[1:32:47] would suggest that you live in the suburbs because downtown,
[1:32:51] you just, you simply just don't need one. Talked about
[1:32:57] that. Community of people. I just want to talk about
[1:33:01] our block D. We have two rental buildings, which are
[1:33:04] homestead and we also have condominiums at Royal George. And
[1:33:08] we have a hotel. There is a great community of
[1:33:11] people in those, um, in those buildings. And they are
[1:33:15] people who live in adult lifestyle. They don't need three
[1:33:18] bedrooms. Some of them have them, but it's really one
[1:33:21] and a half to two bedrooms that you need. And
[1:33:24] those are, those are in need in our downtown core.
[1:33:28] 30 seconds. Additional parking. I think you had said that
[1:33:33] there is the possibility for having some municipal parking when
[1:33:37] everything's done, which is a need in the downtown core,
[1:33:39] even though we want to reduce vehicles. We want to
[1:33:41] become more of a walking community. And I do trust
[1:33:45] that the developers, the planning department along with the oversight
[1:33:47] of council will continue the conversation and we'll have some
[1:33:50] great buildings in short order. Thank you. Okay. We've got
[1:33:59] two speakers here. I think we'll come down here. Are
[1:34:02] you ready to speak as well. Thank you. Uh, I'm
[1:34:11] Anthony Jenkins. Let her maraude right now. I'll tell you
[1:34:15] a little more about my background. I came to Kingston
[1:34:18] in 1971 to attend the faculty of education. It was
[1:34:22] a brave new adventure for me and Irish immigrant boy.
[1:34:26] Grew up in Hamilton. And decided to see the world.
[1:34:30] After university where I also attended in Hamilton. Came to
[1:34:35] gangster. Found myself dramatically attracted to the place.
[1:34:45] And while my business and curiosity has taken me all
[1:34:51] over North America, through much of Western Europe and the
[1:34:55] British Isles, they like to be distinct. I am always
[1:35:01] delighted to come home. Unfortunately, that delight has been tempered.
[1:35:06] By some of the projects that we have seen over
[1:35:10] the last 10 years, 20 years. And now with an
[1:35:13] increasing ferocity, we see, I see, I understand a concerted
[1:35:19] attack on our city. I don't want to blame the
[1:35:24] developers. As someone else mentioned, developers do what developers do.
[1:35:31] That's their role. Push the boundaries. The city's role, the
[1:35:38] administration of the city is to limit that. Aggression. To
[1:35:47] slow it down. Take a hard look. Figure out what's
[1:35:50] best. Not in the immediate. But in the long term.
[1:35:56] We don't have a supply problem with housing in Kingston.
[1:36:01] We have an affordability problem. How does this project address
[1:36:08] that legitimate problem. I don't see that it does. The
[1:36:14] notion that the more you build, the cheaper will become
[1:36:16] for the renters. Doesn't stand up the scrutiny. The Global
[1:36:22] Mail article was referenced earlier. Doesn't. Support. This kind of
[1:36:27] development for those reasons. So
[1:36:37] I have, in summary, two words for this proposal. Bizarre
[1:36:44] and absurd. My question for the proponents of this proposal
[1:36:51] is, what are you thinking? Who are you trying to
[1:36:54] benefit. Where is your data. My question to staff, planning
[1:37:03] in particular. Is do you know, do you realise that
[1:37:07] you're losing credibility with every such absurd and bizarre project
[1:37:11] that you champion. You are not working for us. Who
[1:37:14] is it to pull your chain. It's not the people.
[1:37:21] My comment to the citizens who have put themselves out.
[1:37:26] And it is an inconvenience. To oppose this prosecutic as
[1:37:29] good on you, every one of you. If I can
[1:37:36] just take one nostalgic look back to that first year
[1:37:40] in kinks in 1971. It was over a cafeteria lunch
[1:37:44] with a man named Lars Thompson, who was an instructor
[1:37:47] on faculty. And are renowned pragmatic philosopher among us, a
[1:37:52] renowned among us students there. And in that lunch towards
[1:37:56] the end of that year, he said to me, uh,
[1:37:58] Tony, as I then called myself and still sometimes do.
[1:38:04] If the one thing you can take away from your
[1:38:07] experience here, it is that you should always. Challenge the
[1:38:10] assumptions. And I see a lot of stuff being done
[1:38:14] on assumptions that have not been challenged, that have not
[1:38:17] been vetted, that have not been examined thoroughly. Thank you.
[1:38:23] Thank you. Okay, we'll go to our last speaker in
[1:38:26] the room. Please state your name and you have five
[1:38:28] minutes. Thank you very much. Vicky Schmolka. Oh, I have
[1:38:32] to start by saying I feel very sad. And I
[1:38:35] feel very sad in part because of what I think
[1:38:38] Mr. Jenkins just said. We are destroying something very precious
[1:38:44] to all the residents of Kingston who take their visitors
[1:38:47] downtown, who come downtown for events who enjoy the ambience
[1:38:52] of a human - scale city. And this is not
[1:38:57] about the developer. It's not about the architect. They do
[1:39:01] fine work in other places. It's about this site and
[1:39:05] whether or not this site is good planning. And I
[1:39:09] think we've heard ample evidence that it is not. I
[1:39:13] have these questions. When do the official plan change? Because
[1:39:18] my understanding is that the North Bloc allowed Intensification, higher
[1:39:25] buildings. And that's what we're seeing with The Madeline and
[1:39:29] the Good Life Plan and the other building that's going
[1:39:32] up at Queen Street. My understanding was that outside that
[1:39:37] area of intensification, the idea was to limit height to
[1:39:41] protect the heritage character of our city. And in particular,
[1:39:47] um, the zoning bylaw that Mirror is what's in the
[1:39:50] official plan. Says that it's a 17 metre height within
[1:39:56] of 39 angular degree angular plane that allows a building
[1:40:00] to be 25. 5 metres. And we saw that briefly
[1:40:04] at Mr. Keene's presentation. But I would like to ask
[1:40:08] staff, is that indeed the zoning bylaw that now applies
[1:40:11] to this site. 17 metres, 39 degree angular plane, 25.
[1:40:16] 5 metre height. Because this is a request to completely
[1:40:21] blow up that official plan and that zoning for this
[1:40:26] particular site, for this particular development. And yeah, it's not
[1:40:34] okay with the public, because I think Carrie Hill tried
[1:40:36] to indicate when she talked about the mayor of candidates
[1:40:39] meeting earlier this week. And I want to ask about
[1:40:44] precedent because people said that these buildings will create a
[1:40:48] precedent. I would like to ask staff, if in their
[1:40:52] opinion, the buildings that are allowed more height in the
[1:40:55] North Block create a precedent for the rest of downtown.
[1:41:00] Or if the Planning Policies did limit the height to
[1:41:03] that particular area and not further. I was very disappointed
[1:41:09] that the planning professionals here did not present a map
[1:41:14] showing the Heritage Buildings that are directly in the same
[1:41:17] block as this proposed building. And the Heritage Buildings that
[1:41:21] are within a reasonable. Area surrounding it. We know tourists
[1:41:28] come to our city because it has character. And as
[1:41:32] beautiful as these buildings might be somewhere else, and I
[1:41:36] appreciate the attempt to make them have rounded corners. They're
[1:41:40] not beautiful here. They're an intrusion here. They're incompatible here.
[1:41:45] Frankly, they're a very disappointing approach to planning this part
[1:41:51] of the city. Um, an eight - story building, as
[1:41:55] I understand as allowed by the zoning, would be okay.
[1:42:00] My other question is, we've heard clearly from the people
[1:42:03] at Annalaine that their enjoyment of their property, their ability,
[1:42:09] maybe even to live in their property, those with seasonal
[1:42:12] effective disorder or other special needs. Um, might cause them
[1:42:17] to leave. And I want to know what is the
[1:42:19] obligation of the city. This is directed at staff too.
[1:42:23] What is the obligation of the city when a new
[1:42:25] building undermines enjoyment of people living in an existing building
[1:42:30] and also probably affects their property values? Because there's no
[1:42:34] doubt that if you are looking at an apartment that
[1:42:37] has no sun in September to March, in the morning,
[1:42:43] uh, which is what I understood from the shadow studies,
[1:42:47] then your building is your condo unit is not going
[1:42:50] to first sell for so much. So what is our
[1:42:53] responsibility as a city to protect someone else's investment that
[1:42:57] they've already made. 30 seconds. Perfect. Um, thank you. I
[1:43:02] just want to point out that the community meeting, the
[1:43:06] Merrill meeting, I don't want to call it debate because
[1:43:09] it was hardly a debate is available on YouTube. So
[1:43:12] if anybody wants to watch it and see it, it
[1:43:15] is on the coalition of Kingston Communities who hosted that
[1:43:19] meeting on their website. And you can get a link
[1:43:21] to watch that meeting and hear, um, how the crowd
[1:43:25] responded to the idea of downtown development that is high
[1:43:28] rise. Thank you. Thank you. Okay. So we've had five
[1:43:35] speakers. So we're going to turn to the applicant for
[1:43:37] responses. If I could talk
[1:43:47] about the question about articulation on the, on the, I
[1:43:50] think it was the baguet and Queen Street near the
[1:43:55] bag in Queens Street. There is a section of the
[1:43:57] building. Where the tower comes down to the second floor
[1:44:01] directly disciplined. It's a limited portion of the building that
[1:44:04] comes down there. And that's simply an attempt to integrate
[1:44:07] the tower more with the base of the building. It
[1:44:12] doesn't occur right at the corner. It occurs somewhat down.
[1:44:17] The. Virtual. Sorry, sir. I know you're trying to contribute.
[1:44:22] I have to maintain an order. Thank you. That's correct.
[1:44:24] It's across the street from Annalene. Yes. Okay. Three you
[1:44:32] madam chair. Just a few more. Points to address. Um,
[1:44:38] one point I want to clarify, um, I had mentioned.
[1:44:44] Public parking is what we're shooting for. Uh, one comment
[1:44:47] was that it was municipal parking. I don't want to,
[1:44:53] there was a comment about, uh, they're happy we're providing
[1:44:56] municipal parking. And I just want to be clear that,
[1:45:00] uh, what we're providing is public parking. There's, there's not
[1:45:04] been any discussion with the city about whether that would
[1:45:06] be municipal. So that's just a distinction I want to
[1:45:09] be clear on that we are proposing parking publicly available.
[1:45:15] Because of a surplus of parking that we're providing. Not
[1:45:18] that there's been any discussion with the city that that
[1:45:21] would be something the city takes on. There were, you
[1:45:30] know, there were some questions and comments about like, you
[1:45:32] know, where does your data come from to get this?
[1:45:35] And I can assure you, we don't propose these things
[1:45:39] willy - nilly. They are, uh, expensive and complicated processes.
[1:45:45] And our clients do use market data, uh, before bringing
[1:45:48] forward an application, uh, of this nature.
[1:45:58] You know, I do appreciate the, you know, the concerns
[1:46:02] with view and with shadowing. And I know the it's
[1:46:09] acceptable. Uh, I just ask you to look at the
[1:46:12] studies that are on the website. You know, you can't
[1:46:16] look at one hour of time. Certainly there will be
[1:46:20] change. And as, as Mr. Bar said, uh, he articulated
[1:46:25] how the city will be reviewing those studies, uh, when
[1:46:29] they provide us back comments. I would also like to
[1:46:34] point out there were comments, you know, with respect to
[1:46:37] like when, when did the official plan change, uh, because
[1:46:41] the speaker felt this is not in complying with the
[1:46:44] official plan. And I just, just remind everyone that we're
[1:46:48] only here for his owning bylaw amendment. We're not here
[1:46:51] for an official plan amendment. So by default, the application
[1:46:56] is in conformity with the official plan. The zoning in
[1:47:02] this area is from 1996. Uh, it was not changed
[1:47:07] with the newest zoning bylaw. And the speaker was correct
[1:47:11] that that zoning allows for 17 metre height, angular plane
[1:47:17] stepping up to 25 and a half metres. Uh, that
[1:47:20] would be for the staples portion, uh, of the property.
[1:47:29] And there were a few other comments that were, I
[1:47:33] guess, more specifically directed to staff. I don't know if
[1:47:37] staff want to take any of those. And if I've,
[1:47:39] if I've missed any of my notes, I'm happy to
[1:47:41] address those, Madam Chair. Thank you. I have one more
[1:47:43] that I believe was Directed for you. There were several
[1:47:46] rhetorical questions. However, there was one question. How does this
[1:47:50] project help with affordability. Yes. Through you, Madam Chair. I
[1:47:56] don't know at this moment is the honest answer. Like
[1:48:00] at this point we are proposing rental. We're not proposing
[1:48:04] condo. Uh, but we really have not had any discussions
[1:48:07] on affordability, nor really have we finished the final suite
[1:48:12] mix. Um, but, but it's certainly an interest that I
[1:48:15] know will be addressing with staff. Thank you. Thank you.
[1:48:19] Mr. Bar. Thanks. And through you chair. I just want
[1:48:24] to provide some clarification about the zoning that's applicable to
[1:48:27] the site. This site does have old zoning from an
[1:48:30] old Ontario land tribunal that actually programs over 75 percent
[1:48:36] of the site currently proposed by the applicants to have
[1:48:40] a 10 story building on it. With a seven Storie
[1:48:44] Street wall. So that is up to about 117 metres
[1:48:47] geodetic on the site. And it does not require any
[1:48:51] angular plane requirements. So what you would typically see in
[1:48:54] a downtown zone, especially the DT1 zone, which does have
[1:48:58] provisions that speak to a maximum height of 25, five,
[1:49:02] and, uh, you know, 17 metre street wall that you
[1:49:04] would typically see within the North Block area is not
[1:49:07] applicable to the vast majority of this site, the frontalong
[1:49:10] baguet Street because of that old Ontario land tribunal hearing
[1:49:13] where it programmed in the zoning for a 10 story
[1:49:16] mixed use building. Looking at the other questions that I
[1:49:22] got, uh, I'll work my way through these. So what
[1:49:26] is the obligation of the city when a new building,
[1:49:30] uh, potentially, uh, in the terms of the person who
[1:49:33] asked the question undermines the enjoyment of a citizen in
[1:49:37] their building, um, we look at the tests of the
[1:49:40] official plan, which looks at undue adverse impact. So when
[1:49:44] we're evaluating these types of buildings, we're looking at the
[1:49:48] policies of the official plan and what is considered reasonable
[1:49:52] development for the area in which it's proposed. So that
[1:49:55] includes all of the tests under section 27, which talk
[1:49:59] about normal enjoyment of one's property, adverse impacts related to
[1:50:03] shadowing traffic noise architectural incompatibility and those other, uh, key
[1:50:08] pieces of the cities official plan, which seeks to evaluate
[1:50:12] whether or proposal is compatible with the adjacent uses that
[1:50:16] are around it. Staff are still undertaking a review of
[1:50:19] this application. And we have not formed our opinion yet.
[1:50:22] And we will be providing comments to the applicants. Post
[1:50:25] this meeting. There was a question about impact of property
[1:50:28] value and property value is not a planning consideration. This
[1:50:32] has also been ruled on by the Ontario Land Tribunal.
[1:50:36] There was a question about precedent in the downtown area
[1:50:39] and whether or not one tower has created the precedent
[1:50:42] for more towers everywhere downtown, uh, you know, we have
[1:50:45] communicated this through other applications that have come forward to
[1:50:49] committee about how downtown is being considered for the development
[1:50:54] that we're seeing in both a mid - rise and
[1:50:57] high rise format. Um, there are overlapping policy layers within
[1:51:01] downtown where specific key areas like the St. Lawrence Board,
[1:51:06] which is kind of the southern end of the Kingstown
[1:51:08] district. Downtown princess Street in Sydney Ward all have different
[1:51:14] varying heritage policies that apply to it in the form
[1:51:17] of individually designated properties. Uh, heritage conservation districts that also
[1:51:22] take into account market square. But then the official plan
[1:51:25] as an additional policy layover top of all of that
[1:51:28] for Heritage Character areas, those areas are very specific on
[1:51:31] where they apply. They are mapped in the official plan
[1:51:35] and there are policies that apply to those mapped areas.
[1:51:38] The North block is not one of those heritage character
[1:51:41] areas. The site where the Metro is, is also not
[1:51:47] one of those Heritage Character areas. And the staple site
[1:51:49] does not fall within one of those heritage character areas
[1:51:52] as well. So the policies of those heritage character areas
[1:51:56] do not apply to these sites. Um, sorry, this site,
[1:52:00] I should say in the singular. The buildings that you
[1:52:05] saw for, uh, homestead, which are going up on Queen
[1:52:09] Street for the Staples site, uh, and for the Metro
[1:52:13] site, uh, do not have those policies that apply to
[1:52:16] it, not even an adjacency format. So there are tests
[1:52:19] and evaluation are different under the plan. So that's where
[1:52:22] the majority of the high rise development to date has
[1:52:26] been discussed and directed to and approved by council through
[1:52:31] either, uh, actual decisions of council around the horseshoe or
[1:52:35] through settlement or through the Ontario Land tribunal. That those
[1:52:40] have been the appropriate locations for heights. And they're being
[1:52:42] concentrated in two specific areas in downtown, one being the
[1:52:46] North Block. The second being The Hub. With other conversations
[1:52:49] centring around, uh, different scaled buildings when we're looking at
[1:52:53] any type of development that would be within the Williamsville
[1:52:56] area within the St. Lawrence Board Heritage character area or
[1:52:59] within the downtown lower princess Street Heritage Character area. So
[1:53:03] the nuance consideration to how downtown has been talked about
[1:53:08] for development and what's being considered in specific areas. So
[1:53:12] staff in their evaluation of this will be applying all
[1:53:14] of the appropriate tests of the official plan that apply
[1:53:17] to this site in our evaluation of whether or not
[1:53:19] this will be a supportable development. Thank you very much.
[1:53:24] And there was one more question near the beginning. It
[1:53:26] was in relation to shadows, but the question was around,
[1:53:28] um, are the standards, the city standards or the standard
[1:53:31] set by developers. Could you address that, please? Thanks, Interview
[1:53:35] Chair. The standards are not set by the developers. The
[1:53:38] standards are set by the city. Thank you. I think
[1:53:42] that covers all the questions I had recorded. Um, so
[1:53:46] just looking at the time right now, I have 756.
[1:53:49] We've been going almost two hours. I think it's appropriate
[1:53:50] to take a short break. Um, so we'll do, we'll
[1:53:53] do nine minutes. So we'll be back here at 805.
[1:53:58] Okay. So see back here at 805. Thanks everyone.
[2:03:22] All right, team, it is 8. 05, so we will
[2:03:25] jump back in. We are going to check online first,
[2:03:29] and then we'll come back in the room. And I
[2:03:39] will call on Justin Conidis. Hi there, please state your
[2:03:45] name.
[2:04:01] Micro. On. Now. We can hear you now. Just please
[2:04:06] state your name and your five minutes will start. My
[2:04:10] name is Justin Kenidis. I guess I'm a long time
[2:04:17] Kingston resident. I lived in Kingston from 1956 until 19.
[2:04:22] From 79 to 2003. I lived in Toronto, then came
[2:04:25] back to Kingston, so I think back in Kingston since
[2:04:28] then. It's the first 15 years of my professional life
[2:04:35] in Toronto. I spent a lot of time representing developers.
[2:04:38] So I can certainly confirm a point based by somebody
[2:04:41] else that Schultz and Z - back are just messengers
[2:04:45] here, and they were just doing their bidding of their
[2:04:48] clients, so any criticisms of the design really would not
[2:04:53] be a reflection on Schultz and Zbek. Anyway, I'm not
[2:05:02] going to repeat things that have already been said. I
[2:05:05] other than say I agree, but a lot of what
[2:05:07] I've heard today. I'd just like to raise, I guess,
[2:05:11] five points. First, I wish our city staff and our
[2:05:15] mayor would stand up for our official plan and our
[2:05:17] bylaws. Of public input went into establishing our official plan.
[2:05:25] There was lots of public consultation and compromises made and
[2:05:30] so forth to arrive at things like the existing height
[2:05:33] limits and setback in Angular Plain Requirements and the official
[2:05:37] plan. And the bylaw, and all that seems to have
[2:05:42] happened is there's two sections of Point of Water. Staff.
[2:05:46] Look at. Pause for just a moment, please. Pause, thank
[2:05:49] you. I'll pause your time. Yes, Councillor Shaves. He's reflecting
[2:05:53] on gen and not part of this agenda. So he's
[2:05:57] talking about the mayor, who's not part of this, or
[2:06:00] electoral debate. So could the topic remain on what's on
[2:06:03] the agenda for tonight, please? I think that's a fair
[2:06:05] request. So, Justin, I'm going to restart your time. And
[2:06:10] if we could just keep it focused on tonight's application,
[2:06:12] that would be appreciated. Thank you. You're welcome to
[2:06:22] continue. And.
[2:06:32] By unmuted now. Yes, you are. I'll restart your time
[2:06:36] now. Sorry, I didn't notice that pop up. On the
[2:06:40] screen. Sorry, I thought I was fall on topic, but
[2:06:45] I can see how people may not agree. Anyway. I
[2:06:48] guess my experience my years working with developers is that
[2:06:52] if they know they're working with the municipality that stands
[2:06:54] up and stands up for their official plan and bylaws,
[2:06:58] they'll follow them. If they know they can drive a
[2:07:01] truck to them, they're going to, they'll go to, they'll
[2:07:03] drive a truck through them. And so that's the context
[2:07:06] in which I was saying, I wish this municipality would
[2:07:09] stand up for its official plan and bylaws. So in
[2:07:17] that context, for example, I think if the developer come
[2:07:21] in with a bosal based on the existing 7, 10
[2:07:24] story zoning for 75 percent of the property and complied
[2:07:27] with the official plan and the bylaw for the rest
[2:07:29] of the property, we wouldn't have a PAC meeting tonight.
[2:07:33] And you'd probably see a development going ahead very quickly.
[2:07:36] But because developers are learning that they can push in
[2:07:40] the city always seems to bend. The maximum requirements and
[2:07:44] our official plan on biolog become minimum requirements. Second point,
[2:07:50] I guess just on the shadowing, I mean, obviously I
[2:07:53] think the general rule is if bylaw and official plan
[2:07:56] allows something, then the shadowing is legal. I think it's
[2:08:01] certainly incumbent upon staff and the city to consider when
[2:08:04] someone's applying for an amendment to the bylaw that's going
[2:08:07] to result in dramatic changes to shadowing to give very
[2:08:11] high consideration of that. I think if this is a
[2:08:13] high rise being proposed on the old Canadian tire site
[2:08:17] at the Old Traffic Circle, shadowing would be a much
[2:08:20] different concern than it is putting a tall building up
[2:08:23] in the middle of Heritage Buildings. So point is a
[2:08:29] more specific requirement as the staff goes through it. It's,
[2:08:33] I mean, I own a fair amount of real estate
[2:08:34] in town. And also familiar with some buildings, including Bak
[2:08:39] Yib Homestead Buildings in Block D and the Annaline building.
[2:08:44] It always amazes me that the city does not require
[2:08:48] tall buildings such as all the homestead buildings to have
[2:08:52] green pin program. If I invite you to go down
[2:08:56] to the garbage room, say, I guess I take KD5
[2:09:00] Ontario Street, that's probably homestead's best building in the city.
[2:09:03] And it's garbage room smells like most taller private building
[2:09:06] garbage rooms. You go to, cause they don't have a
[2:09:08] green bin program. So garbage means rotting stuff as an
[2:09:12] olive ins. You go into the analytine building, which is
[2:09:17] one of the few mid tie rise buildings in the
[2:09:20] city that has a green pin program and their garbage
[2:09:22] room does not spell because the rotting materials are in
[2:09:25] the green bins. So it just seems beyond belief that
[2:09:29] the city does not require green vinse and high rise.
[2:09:33] You have 30 seconds left. Okay. The, uh, I'll just
[2:09:39] make one final point then, which is on the public
[2:09:41] parking, which is, and this is really a question. Is
[2:09:45] the public park going to be rented out on the
[2:09:47] monthly basis or just on an hourly basis. And if
[2:09:51] it's being rendered out of monthly basis, our tenants from
[2:09:54] the building going to be eligible for those monthly passes,
[2:09:57] or is that parking? It's really going to be kept
[2:09:59] for members of the public and not people who are
[2:10:01] living in the building. And that's your time. Well timed.
[2:10:05] Thank you. Just checking online to see if the other
[2:10:08] speaker. If you are online, I would wish to speak,
[2:10:14] please raise your hand in Zoom. Okay. Seeing none. So
[2:10:23] we'll go back in the room. I see we have
[2:10:24] two people who wish to speak. Is there anyone else
[2:10:25] in the room who wants to speak. This is kind
[2:10:28] of your last chance. If you do, you can sit
[2:10:31] in one of these chairs. Um, so go to our
[2:10:33] first speaker. Please state your name and you have five
[2:10:35] minutes. Good evening. My name is Susanna Cliff Youngling. I
[2:10:40] live on 28 almo streets. So I'm not. Susanne Cliff
[2:10:46] Jüngling. I live on unmac burney park. So I want
[2:10:50] to kind of point out that I'm not living in
[2:10:52] the anode building. Like I'm just a concerned resident altogether.
[2:10:57] And I certainly do live downtown. And I spent a
[2:11:00] lot of my time downtown, whether that's shopping or for
[2:11:04] leisure time. Um, so I always find that important to
[2:11:08] note that it isn't just the immediate residence that are
[2:11:12] impacted on development such as this. But it is the
[2:11:16] wider community. And we do have a right to also
[2:11:18] kind of say that we will be impacted because every
[2:11:21] time I come downtown, I will be impacted. But actually
[2:11:25] I'm already impacted by these high rises. I live on
[2:11:29] MacBony Park and my bedroom window. I can see the
[2:11:34] tower that is at the end of Queen Street, the
[2:11:37] homestead or high rise building. It is in plain sight
[2:11:42] all the time. So we are all impacted and it
[2:11:46] has an effect on what our city looks like, feels
[2:11:51] like how we act in it. How we can enjoy
[2:11:54] it. And I know that this isn't just for the
[2:11:57] developer question or for city staff. And I don't know
[2:12:00] how otherwise to articulate it. But I do really think
[2:12:03] that a couple of or a few speakers have already
[2:12:07] spoken well about this. That it really is on city
[2:12:11] staff and our elected councillors to really uphold what is
[2:12:17] right for the city. Um, I think questions have been
[2:12:21] mentioned about, you know, if this development could be different
[2:12:26] anyway, I just want to make the point. I understand
[2:12:29] that this development is economically feasible or you wouldn't be
[2:12:32] proposing it. But that's really irrelevant to me because I
[2:12:36] don't care if it's profitable or not, right? Um, so
[2:12:40] it obviously it's the developer who needs to have it
[2:12:42] profitable. But for the city to consider it is it
[2:12:46] right for us. And there are other profitable proposals that
[2:12:52] would fall within the guidelines and would not require this
[2:12:57] kind of meeting and these exceptions to be made. So,
[2:13:01] um, I'd like to ask the developer had been asked
[2:13:05] about, you know, what data they're using to justify this
[2:13:10] kind of development. And as I said, like I agree
[2:13:13] that you probably have your data. I'd ask staff to
[2:13:16] also collect independent data. Is this really necessary? Is this
[2:13:23] development necessary for the city? Like I think we've already
[2:13:27] seen some, uh, data that shows that, um, we haven't
[2:13:32] kneel over supply of units. And it's not that we
[2:13:37] need more units. So we don't need all this development.
[2:13:41] Um, what is it that would be right for us?
[2:13:42] And I think you've heard tonight from people who've spoken
[2:13:45] much better than I can articulate this. That we do
[2:13:49] not really want this. We want something else. We want
[2:13:52] better. I really don't need to see another high rise
[2:13:56] building. Most likely just glass and steel. There is no
[2:14:01] environmental kind of, um, discussion here of how environmentally friendly
[2:14:06] and supportive of climate change of countering your climate impact
[2:14:12] this development is. There are no green walls. There is
[2:14:14] nothing. There is nothing there. So why would we want
[2:14:18] to, why would we want to agree to something like
[2:14:20] that? Anyway, so those are some of my comments. And
[2:14:23] again, I'd like to, for city staff to clearly kind
[2:14:27] of figure out data driven, is this necessary? Do we
[2:14:33] need these units? Do we need them there? Do we
[2:14:35] want them there? Is this the best traveller city? And
[2:14:37] affordability is what we need, not more units. Thank you.
[2:14:42] Thank you. We'll go to our next speaker. Just another
[2:14:45] reminder. If you're in the room and would like to
[2:14:46] speak, please come and take one of the chairs or
[2:14:48] if you're online on Zoom, please raise your virtual hand.
[2:14:52] Thank you. Um, please state your name and your five
[2:14:53] minutes. Thank you. My name is Jill. Jill Bryant. And
[2:14:59] I'm about six minutes on foot from this proposed development.
[2:15:08] I wasn't really planning to speak tonight, but I feel
[2:15:11] that I just want to say that I agree with
[2:15:13] everyone who feels that the twin towers are incompatible. I
[2:15:18] did write a letter. I'm very concerned about the impact
[2:15:23] on what I thought was the limestone city. Do we
[2:15:30] still use that when we talk about Kingston? I've lived
[2:15:34] here almost 18 years. And that was certainly something that
[2:15:39] really got me. Like I felt that in my heart
[2:15:44] because I grew up in Elora, Ontario. My father still
[2:15:50] lived there. And he does tours in Allura. It's a
[2:15:54] very historic limestone city as well. It's not, it's not
[2:15:58] city. It's a small village. But, um, I hope this
[2:16:01] isn't too off topic just to mention that the allura
[2:16:04] mill has had massive developments. And it's really ruined. The
[2:16:10] heart of the village in the opinion of many people.
[2:16:14] I fear that the same thing will happen in Kingston
[2:16:17] and is happening now. And these things honestly keep me
[2:16:22] up at night. Councillor Ridge knows from another development proposal
[2:16:27] very close to my house. These things affect people. And
[2:16:33] I am, I feel so much for the people in
[2:16:37] Annalene and they have a very hard year ahead. I
[2:16:42] know what it's like. And it is not fun. And
[2:16:46] I don't know why these proposals even get to this
[2:16:50] early stage here where we all have to get stressed
[2:16:53] out and worried. And lose sleep over things that are
[2:16:58] so fundamentally against the official plan. Like what? What is
[2:17:04] with that. Um, you look around at the streets now.
[2:17:10] And I see that massive tower from way, way far
[2:17:13] away. And it all makes me very sad. Um, so
[2:17:20] the haste in which the city is considering these high
[2:17:23] rise proposals and pushing them through is a dizzying kind
[2:17:28] of pace. We need to slow down. It's, it's ugly
[2:17:33] and we're losing the history of the city and what
[2:17:36] makes it unique. What I would actually like to see,
[2:17:40] and I kindly request is that you have the chief
[2:17:43] electoral officer at a referendum question to the ballot at
[2:17:47] October's Municipal Election. My water. Are you in favor of
[2:17:53] allowing buildings over eight stories in downtown Kingston. I think
[2:17:58] it's important that all Kingstonians can weigh in on this
[2:18:01] question about what, and we decide what is right for
[2:18:05] our city. And this kind of twin tower 25, 24
[2:18:10] story development. Is not. I do not agree. And I
[2:18:14] hope that Council, the planning committee and city planning will
[2:18:20] say no. Thank you. Thank you. Um, I'll just address
[2:18:26] that one question around a referendum and any questions that
[2:18:29] are going to be referendum questions. There is a procedure
[2:18:31] that goes that the city can go through. But we
[2:18:34] are too late at the election season for that to
[2:18:37] happen. So if people wanted one for next season, they
[2:18:40] would need to have a conversation with the city clerks.
[2:18:42] So I'll leave it there. Um, turning to online, I
[2:18:45] don't think we have any other hands. We have one
[2:18:48] more hand. Okay. And I'm not seeing anyone else in
[2:18:50] person. Through you, Madam Chair, I'll recognise Kevin Caverly. Hi
[2:18:57] there. Please state your name and you have five minutes.
[2:19:00] My name is Kevin Caverly. I live in an 1841
[2:19:05] Stonehouse nearly directly across from the proposed location. Um, and
[2:19:14] I would like to acknowledge all of the concerns I
[2:19:17] have heard tonight, uh, from other members around of the
[2:19:23] community. Uh, however, I also believe it's very important, uh,
[2:19:29] to progress, to grow. We need. Densification downtown. We need
[2:19:38] more housing. There are certainly things I would love to
[2:19:44] tweak about this, add some more green spaces. Maybe a
[2:19:49] community space in this site while we're redeveloping it. Uh,
[2:19:54] but I just want to go on record that not
[2:19:59] everyone around here is against, uh, developing this site or
[2:20:04] putting in dense housing. That's all I have to say.
[2:20:09] Thanks. Okay. Thank you very much. Um, so we will
[2:20:13] now turn to the applicant. Thank you. And through you,
[2:20:20] Madam Chair, the first question related to, uh, parking and
[2:20:26] what might be available. We haven't worked those details at
[2:20:31] all, uh, at this point. Uh, I think it's very
[2:20:35] interesting that there might be interest in some long -
[2:20:39] term parking spaces available to the public in the area.
[2:20:43] So that's something that certainly I can take back to
[2:20:45] the owners, uh, for consideration, uh, that detail is something
[2:20:50] that is quite a ways down the road from, from
[2:20:54] sorting out, uh, in detail. That's something that would come
[2:20:57] at the site plan, uh, stage, which is prior to
[2:21:01] a building permit stage. There were, uh, there were comments
[2:21:10] related to, um, like there's been many comments saying, you
[2:21:16] know, this is against, uh, the official plan. And, you
[2:21:22] know, it, it needs to be stated again that the
[2:21:24] downtown in the official plan is where the city wants
[2:21:29] to see the most mixed use and the most intensive
[2:21:33] use. And then with that basic principle, there are, there
[2:21:39] are guidelines to, to measure adverse impacts. And the studies
[2:21:45] that are provided as part of this application attempt to
[2:21:49] address those comments. That in turn would be reviewed by,
[2:21:55] by city staff. And I can't think of an application
[2:21:59] that has not had some comments from city staff that
[2:22:03] require addressing. So that's kind of the next stage of
[2:22:06] this process is, is staff will be evaluating our application
[2:22:12] against the official plan and against other guidelines. And against
[2:22:16] the comments that have been said tonight. And then that's
[2:22:20] the next phase is we'll receive a consolidated package from
[2:22:24] staff that we have to address before. And sometimes that
[2:22:30] goes back and forth a few times, two, three times.
[2:22:33] Sometimes even five or six times until it reaches a
[2:22:37] point where staff were able to make some kind of
[2:22:40] a recommendation to the planning committee. And that recommendation might
[2:22:45] be at that point that they're satisfied. It might be
[2:22:49] to change it. Uh, and then in turn, this planning
[2:22:52] committee will make a recommendation to council. So I say
[2:22:56] that just from the standpoint that, that we are here
[2:23:01] to hear the comments. And we are taking them down.
[2:23:05] And I know staff are here to do the same.
[2:23:07] You know, I remain of the opinion that this application
[2:23:10] is in compliance with the official plan. And we'll continue
[2:23:15] to work with staff as technical comments come forward. Uh,
[2:23:20] in that regard. There was comments about, uh,
[2:23:30] like no sustainability, like being part of the project right
[2:23:33] now. And, and that is another aspect that comes later
[2:23:39] as the building goes into detailed design. Um, there are
[2:23:44] sustainability elements that are just built directly into the building
[2:23:48] code these days. And there are elements that are built
[2:23:51] into the city's policy that will be part of every
[2:23:55] building, whether tall or not, uh, in the city of
[2:23:58] Kingston. There was a question of, do we need these,
[2:24:03] do we need these here. And that goes back to
[2:24:05] that fundamental principle that, that downtown is where the city
[2:24:10] wants to see the most intensification. So downtown is the
[2:24:15] location where we do need and want and it's set
[2:24:18] in policy where we want to see that growth. I
[2:24:27] believe I've addressed the questions, Madam Chair. Thank you. I
[2:24:30] have one more. It was kind of a comment kind
[2:24:32] of a question, but it was regarding green BIM programs.
[2:24:35] Um, is that something that the applicant could consider. Through
[2:24:39] you, Madam Chair. Absolutely. You know, I can assure you
[2:24:42] that no owner of a building wants a smelly garbage
[2:24:45] room either. And, uh, with having closed in service, private
[2:24:50] service, it just makes it easier to have recycling green
[2:24:53] bin and all the various programs. Thank you. Thank you.
[2:24:57] And one other question that was asked is around data
[2:25:01] and, um, could the applicant please explain what data is
[2:25:04] being used to justify this development? If you have that
[2:25:07] information available right now. Through you, Madam Chair, I don't
[2:25:11] have like a specific document that I can roll out
[2:25:13] that says here's like all of our, our marketing data
[2:25:17] in terms of how, how the site, uh, works. Um,
[2:25:21] but working with, with groups like The BIA working directly
[2:25:25] with the businesses, uh, being aware of the other projects
[2:25:29] that are, uh, you know, either under construction or already
[2:25:33] built, that data combined is what is what dictates what
[2:25:39] we bring forward in terms of, you know, why we're
[2:25:41] proposing mostly one bedrooms, you know, whereas I've had other
[2:25:45] projects where we're proposing mostly two bedrooms. It just varies.
[2:25:50] And at the time of construction, those evaluations will be
[2:25:54] running again to ensure that the unit mix is appropriate.
[2:25:59] Thank you. Thank you. Um, there was also a question.
[2:26:02] This one's directed towards staff. I believe it was a
[2:26:05] question around, uh, why proposals come to this early stage,
[2:26:09] um, it can be distressing for residents. And so why
[2:26:12] are we having meetings like this before any decisions are
[2:26:14] being made? Thanks. And through you. It's precisely why we're
[2:26:20] having this meeting at this early stage is to allow
[2:26:24] members of the public and planning committee to consider the
[2:26:28] early stages of an application. When an application is submitted
[2:26:32] to the city and it's deemed complete under the Planning
[2:26:35] Act, especially I'll use the zoning bylaw amendment as an
[2:26:38] example here. The initial first 90 days is barred from
[2:26:42] any sort of appeal. So member, sorry, the applicant cannot
[2:26:46] appeal an application within the first 90 days of it
[2:26:49] being considered by the municipality, after which they have the
[2:26:52] ability to appeal for non - decision. So within the
[2:26:55] first 90 days of an application, during these barred windows,
[2:26:58] we always look to hold a community meeting for the
[2:27:02] purpose of eliciting public and committee feedback so we can
[2:27:05] get that early sense from what is being said about
[2:27:10] an application for ourselves, but also for the applicant. We
[2:27:13] also aim to get our public, sorry, our technical review
[2:27:17] comments out during this window as well. That way we
[2:27:20] have a complete understanding about where the city's position lies
[2:27:25] with an application. So that's why when an application is
[2:27:28] submitted, we are statutorily required to review it. If it's
[2:27:32] a team to complete or complete under the planning act.
[2:27:35] So we initiate the process by which we are here
[2:27:37] tonight. So this application was deemed complete for the purposes
[2:27:41] of the planning act, which initiated our timeline. So that's
[2:27:44] when the notice went out. That's when the technical review
[2:27:46] begins. And that's when we begin to plot a course
[2:27:50] to bring this application to planning committee. So there is
[2:27:53] a very prescribed and technical process that we're working with
[2:27:56] in order to process these applications completely and bring forward
[2:28:01] it for public consideration. Thank you very much. And one
[2:28:07] other question that I think is directed at staff as
[2:28:09] well around the data question, um, so is data considered
[2:28:13] and staff's recommendations. I think that's a relevant question related
[2:28:16] to this. And through you chair. I guess that's more
[2:28:20] of a complicated question for staff to answer because we're
[2:28:24] not necessarily driven by the data of economics associated with
[2:28:29] a property, but we do have a reflected need from
[2:28:33] the Mayor's Task Force on housing to support our population
[2:28:36] growth and the number of units that we're looking for
[2:28:38] across the city in various types. We also have a
[2:28:42] provincial requirement to build 800 new dwelling units every year
[2:28:47] as a minimum. And we have our latest population data
[2:28:52] that we're working with that plots out, an average review
[2:28:55] for new development across the city up until 2051, but
[2:28:59] also if we look back, you know, the official plan
[2:29:02] that's been based on a population model that we're working
[2:29:05] towards. So when we're looking at new development applications, we're
[2:29:08] not necessarily saying, well, do we need X number of
[2:29:12] units at this one location? We're taking a broad city
[2:29:15] - wide objective and looking at, okay, well, how are
[2:29:17] we facilitating the housing and the housing options that we
[2:29:19] need across the city in order to fulfill both the
[2:29:23] complete communities aspect, the housing needs continuum. And then the
[2:29:27] general livability of the city. And how are all these
[2:29:29] pieces fitting together? So it's, it's challenging to look at
[2:29:33] one development and say, you know, this is what we're
[2:29:36] pinning our hopes and dreams on for the year for
[2:29:38] new development when really it's a housing continuum in spectrum
[2:29:41] across the city. So that's why, um, you know, it's
[2:29:45] not necessarily the staff consideration for the economics of one
[2:29:48] property, but it's looking at what is appropriate development across
[2:29:51] the city. And that includes form. So when we're looking
[2:29:53] at an application, it's not necessarily pinned upon, do we
[2:29:57] need this application that's here? We're looking at it, you
[2:30:00] know, does it fit the objectives of the city? Is
[2:30:02] it appropriate for the context in which it's being provided?
[2:30:06] And is it compatible in all the other tests of
[2:30:07] the official plan to build the housing inventory that will
[2:30:11] be built out in the longterm that's appropriate for the
[2:30:13] city. Okay, thank you very much. Okay, we are moving
[2:30:18] into the next phase of this meeting, which is to
[2:30:20] look at committee members. So are there any questions from
[2:30:23] committee members. Councillor Osanic. Thank you, Madam Chair. And through
[2:30:30] you, I do have a few questions. Um, we heard
[2:30:34] the resident, or sorry, the resident, we heard, um, a
[2:30:37] member of the public here tonight who talked about fire
[2:30:41] safety. And I don't know what this is for the
[2:30:44] applicant or for staff, but I've heard it even at
[2:30:47] the election door of people of like even fire staff
[2:30:52] saying about the latter truck. We need another ladder truck
[2:30:56] in the city for all the condos that are there
[2:31:00] that we have built. And so if there's a fire
[2:31:04] in these two 24 story buildings, um, like how, what
[2:31:10] happens? What happens? And do we need an aerial truck?
[2:31:16] Like I believe we need an area truck to get
[2:31:18] there. And then they put the fire hose. Like I
[2:31:22] think our aerial truck, as I asked this before, is
[2:31:24] only for 12 stories. And then the rest is they
[2:31:28] just shoot the, the hose up at the top, um,
[2:31:32] yeah, my dad who lives in a high rise didn't
[2:31:34] like that answer very much. So anyway, what happens in
[2:31:38] a fire. This
[2:31:48] building would be fully sprinklered. And it has a standpipe
[2:31:51] system in it. So I think these buildings are intended
[2:31:53] to be fires on the upper floors are intended to
[2:31:55] be fought from within the building. Um, you're not going
[2:32:01] to get a ladder truck that's going to extend to
[2:32:03] the roof of this building. Nor many other buildings had
[2:32:06] already exist in the city. All right. Uh, three, um,
[2:32:10] Madam Chair. So that just means the firefighters run up
[2:32:14] the staircase to whatever floor. Has the fire. Yeah. They
[2:32:18] have a, uh, dedicated firefighters elevator and a thing called
[2:32:22] the CACF room in the lobby that they operate from
[2:32:29] when the fire. They can direct tenants in the building.
[2:32:32] What to do from that room. There are, there are
[2:32:34] provisions. They're building code provisions. That take into account billings
[2:32:38] as size. Assuming that you're not going to be able
[2:32:40] to get a ladder up that high. Okay. Thank you
[2:32:43] for that. Um, since high rises of these numbers, stories
[2:32:47] is new to us. Um, I don't think we've heard
[2:32:50] that answer before, but I'm sure everyone in Toronto would
[2:32:53] know about that. So thank you. Um, the other point
[2:32:57] we had from someone in the public, I think the
[2:32:59] same person tonight raised as transit. So what does staff
[2:33:05] say about transit. It was that our street's are already
[2:33:11] really busy and so many buses. So if this is
[2:33:18] going to be, um, not many parking spots, you know,
[2:33:22] um, how did people can transit take these extra 500
[2:33:28] people that will be living in these two apartments? I
[2:33:30] guess that was the point. Mr. Bar. And I think
[2:33:33] it had to do with the narrowness of the roads
[2:33:35] as well. Mr. Bar. Thanks. And through your chair, we
[2:33:39] do have a traffic impact study that's been submitted and
[2:33:42] supportive this application. And the application is under reviewed by
[2:33:45] transportation services, which does include a review by Kingston Transit.
[2:33:49] We don't have the full totality of those comments yet,
[2:33:52] but it is a consideration councillor that we are looking
[2:33:55] into as part of this application. All right. Thank you.
[2:34:00] Um, my next question is, are there any affordable housing
[2:34:04] units going to be built in these two buildings. Mr.
[2:34:09] Keane. Through you, Madam Chair, we haven't got that far
[2:34:13] down the line in terms of our, our design. But
[2:34:16] I would certainly expect just of a building of this
[2:34:19] nature. There will be some affordable units. All I can
[2:34:22] say at this point is the commitment's rental, uh, right
[2:34:24] now, but we don't really our unit breakdown and our
[2:34:28] unit makeup will be something we work out with staff
[2:34:30] and with council. Thank you. Um, it seems that a
[2:34:35] lot of the apartments that have been built recently and
[2:34:38] it's great. We've had apartments being built, but they seem
[2:34:41] to be serving the luxury housing market. Like the rents
[2:34:47] are like 3, 000 dollars a month for a two
[2:34:49] bedroom. And since you haven't come down to like that
[2:34:53] level yet, I think it would be really appreciated with
[2:34:58] affordability in mind to make these more mid - market,
[2:35:02] you know, maybe not as much jazz and pizzazz, but,
[2:35:06] you know, like more in the 2, 100, 2, 500
[2:35:10] dollar range just because people can't afford 36, 000 dollars
[2:35:17] if your husband and wife a year for your rent.
[2:35:20] Or if your fiancees and about to get married, you
[2:35:23] have to save for a down payment to then graduate
[2:35:26] to the housing market from apartments. So if you could
[2:35:31] keep that in mind, is that possible. Three of you,
[2:35:35] Madam Chair. Yes. Thank you. I've written it down. And
[2:35:39] certainly we'll be take that back to my client. Thank
[2:35:41] you. Great. Thank you. And, um, I think just the
[2:35:45] last thing I want to raise. I don't know how
[2:35:47] to make it into a question, but I think you've
[2:35:49] seen that like 24 stories is too high. And so,
[2:35:55] um, I'm hoping that you could give consideration for lowering
[2:35:59] the number of floors in the buildings. Thank you. Thank
[2:36:04] you. Next up, deputy mayor Usterhoff. Yes. Good evening, Madam
[2:36:11] Chair. Can you hear me well enough. We can. Okay.
[2:36:15] Great. Thanks very much. Um, yeah, I want to say
[2:36:19] have a few comments and, uh, questions as well. And
[2:36:22] I really, really appreciate, let me see my colleague. It's
[2:36:26] the first time there by speaking, but also all of
[2:36:27] the, um, the public, uh, that's amazing. Amazing input and
[2:36:33] exactly why we have these meetings. So, um, I have
[2:36:37] a lot I wrote down as I've been listening to
[2:36:40] and some of it's been answered. So I might, um,
[2:36:42] but, um, but I wanted to ask about the infrastructure.
[2:36:45] We hear a lot about it. And I don't, I
[2:36:47] know a developer is not going to build until they
[2:36:50] know they have enough water. They have enough, uh, electricity
[2:36:55] and energy required for this building, but, um, is that,
[2:36:59] uh, I must just ask it quickly is that a
[2:37:02] concern. Is that going to delay the project? Is there
[2:37:04] enough power for this type of building. Mr. Bar. Thanks.
[2:37:10] And through you chair, that is part of the technical
[2:37:12] review that's ongoing by city staff right now is looking
[2:37:14] at all those key servicing components. I know we've heard
[2:37:16] about stormwater tonight, but we're also reviewing for water, wastewater
[2:37:20] and electricity. So any future staff recommendation that would be
[2:37:23] brought forward would be in full consideration of the city's
[2:37:26] ability to service this development. And in addition to that,
[2:37:30] we do have the municipal servicing allocation policies. So with
[2:37:34] the zoning being approved, it doesn't necessarily guarantee them servicing
[2:37:37] until they move forward with a more detailed application and
[2:37:40] obtain their municipal servicing allocation from the city. Deputy Mayor
[2:37:45] Osterhoff. Yeah, thank you Madam Chair. That's helpful for everyone
[2:37:49] to know. That is that's the procedure. And that's great.
[2:37:54] I, there are things I really liked about this development.
[2:37:56] And it's not surprising. This, this particular, um, the architecture,
[2:38:00] um, and is everything is top notch actually, where, uh,
[2:38:04] where I want to give great credit to that when
[2:38:07] we see things like the framing of the city hall,
[2:38:11] this development is intended to enhance the city and the
[2:38:15] downtown. And I see it. And maybe I think many,
[2:38:19] many others also see that I want to acknowledge that.
[2:38:22] Um, I think it's quite, quite pleasing. And, um, debating
[2:38:26] the height is something that I also will wonder about.
[2:38:31] And, um, I look forward to that discussion. Um, so,
[2:38:34] um, when I wrote, uh. So I'm acknowledged that I
[2:38:40] do think, uh, I'm glad to know it's flexible on
[2:38:43] the layouts of the units. I hope, and I don't
[2:38:47] know of the data on three bedroom units, but I
[2:38:49] do believe that there could be more needed there. I'm
[2:38:53] pleased with the underground parking and the possibility of downtown
[2:38:56] public use, both short term and long - term. I
[2:38:59] hope that, uh, downtown really needs it. Better parking. I
[2:39:03] really appreciated the comments from, um, Mary Jo, uh, thought
[2:39:08] that was, uh, very, very well done. Um, and, um,
[2:39:12] the scope of living downtime, the perspective of living downtown,
[2:39:16] um, but I also appreciate those who are concerned about
[2:39:18] it. Um, and the impact of shadowing. It's a pretty
[2:39:23] big deal. Um, and so, um, I really, um, I
[2:39:27] hope that I wanted to ask, did they already take
[2:39:31] shadowing and consideration? And is there a way to, I
[2:39:37] mean, the Anna Lane, I know exactly where it is,
[2:39:40] uh, it has there any been any shadowing considerations in
[2:39:46] the presentation that is given to us tonight. Mr. Keene.
[2:39:53] Yes, through you, Madam Chair. Uh, as part of our
[2:39:56] application, we've completed a complete shadow study, which is the
[2:40:02] equinox and the solstice. And we've evaluated that study based
[2:40:08] on the criteria that are provided in the official plan
[2:40:12] that are established by the city. Uh, and it passes
[2:40:16] that criteria. And by, by no means, you know, it
[2:40:22] shadows Anne Lane. It has, it has a wave, like
[2:40:25] which is weirder seeing as common with the downtown buildings
[2:40:28] because of the orientation of the cities downtown. The shadows
[2:40:33] move. So it doesn't, you know, at 8 a. m.
[2:40:36] when the sun is first arising in, you know, in
[2:40:40] March and in September, you have a long shadow. And
[2:40:43] then by 9 a. m. it's short and it's moving.
[2:40:46] And then by 10 a. m. it's shorter and it's
[2:40:48] moving again. And that's just, just because of the orientation
[2:40:52] of the streets, uh, in the downtown. So the shadows
[2:40:56] don't stay on one location, uh, for a prolonged period.
[2:41:02] They create like a wave, uh, is the way they
[2:41:04] react in all of the times. And, uh, we'll look
[2:41:08] forward to staff's input on their review of that report.
[2:41:16] Yeah, thanks for that. I get that now after these
[2:41:19] years. And I'll be interesting to see here if they're,
[2:41:23] if there is more that can be done to limit,
[2:41:26] uh, mitigate shadowing, it is, it is an incredibly legitimate
[2:41:30] concern. And I look forward to that. So that's, um,
[2:41:36] the stormwater is this building development. I mean, ultimately it
[2:41:42] creates more displacement of water. So that's, that's the, the
[2:41:48] risk, I guess stormwater management. It's a big deal again.
[2:41:51] Flooding, I don't know about the flooding downtown. I haven't
[2:41:54] seen that so much. So, um, and you write right
[2:41:57] downtown. And is that, I guess, questions for the staff,
[2:42:01] Madam Chair, um, is, is the stormwater is the city's
[2:42:06] issue, right? They have we, we have to solve that
[2:42:09] as well as the infrastructure against. Mr. Bar. Thanks. And
[2:42:13] through you, Chair. Uh, yeah, stormwater is a city infrastructure
[2:42:16] piece. And within the downtown area, uh, applicants are required
[2:42:21] to submit a stormwater report that looks at reducing system
[2:42:24] flows. So the properties have to reduce their outfall at
[2:42:29] peak periods, uh, every new development is actually working as
[2:42:34] a sponge to try and absorb more stormwater during those
[2:42:36] events and eject less to the system. So it is
[2:42:39] part of the consideration for balancing infrastructure development downtown. Deputy
[2:42:44] Mayor. Yeah. Thank you. Thank you, Madam Chair. Just going
[2:42:48] through my questions here. That was helpful. Um. Minister Parking
[2:42:55] about that, I don't, uh, I just wanted to say
[2:42:59] that I think that there's a lot to like about
[2:43:01] this development. I don't see this as a destructive to
[2:43:06] our downtown. Um, and, um, and I'm glad we clarify
[2:43:11] that this is not an official plan amendment. The official
[2:43:14] plan, uh, speaks to this and welcomes this type of
[2:43:18] development in scale. And that'll be a big, um, conversation
[2:43:25] to come. 30 seconds. Thank you. Uh, it's a, it's,
[2:43:30] um, it's an attempt for the heritage part. Um, I
[2:43:33] understand that. And it's, it's, it's, it's a often enough,
[2:43:36] we don't have a lot to say about architecture. In
[2:43:39] this case, we have a developer or an architect of
[2:43:42] the second to none really who are, who are complementing
[2:43:45] the cities. So, um, I look forward to further discussions.
[2:43:49] Some madam chair and seeing what's best for us. And
[2:43:52] thank you. One second to spare. Well done. Um, we'll
[2:43:57] turn now to Councillor Shafes. Thank you. Um, I want
[2:44:04] to start off by, there were comments about it. This
[2:44:07] is needed. The number of apartment buildings. And one factor
[2:44:12] was kind of used. See if we had enough supply.
[2:44:14] It's called the occupancy rate. And a healthy rate is
[2:44:18] three percent. And getting into some information from earlier. Uh,
[2:44:24] as of October 25, downtown Occupy rate was two percent
[2:44:30] for one bedrooms and 1. 9 percent for three bedrooms.
[2:44:33] And in Kingston under the CMA, the rates were 2.
[2:44:36] 4 for one bedrooms and 1. 2 for three bedrooms.
[2:44:41] And I know the applicant had mentioned provincial standards and
[2:44:46] housing supply. But I'm going to go back to the
[2:44:49] way it's sort of distributed now. I know you mentioned
[2:44:51] that still early. But one bedrooms were at currently at
[2:44:56] 464 and three bedrooms at two. But according to these
[2:45:00] numbers, will you be considering having a lot more three
[2:45:04] bedroom units. Mr. Keene. Yes. Through you, Madam Chair, certainly
[2:45:10] the hardest ones are the three bedrooms in a rental
[2:45:13] scenario because rents are often similar to a house purchase,
[2:45:18] uh, in Kingston. So do I think there'll be more
[2:45:22] three bedrooms? Yes. I suspect there'd be more two better
[2:45:27] than three bedrooms. But, uh, we also, we regularly propose
[2:45:33] this kind of mix because this is the highest test
[2:45:35] for amenity, right? Like you're not going to go with
[2:45:38] more units. You've got to provide numbers of amenity like
[2:45:43] 10 square metres per unit. As I increase bedroom size
[2:45:47] and have less units, my amenity decreases. So you want
[2:45:51] to test these buildings with the smaller units to make
[2:45:55] sure there is enough amenity in that case. So when
[2:45:59] you decrease units later in the process by making larger,
[2:46:03] better units, you're safe, so to speak, on those things
[2:46:06] like parking and amenity, which are regulating factors in a
[2:46:10] project like this. Um, but certainly we'll be looking at
[2:46:14] that the entire makeup. Um, as the project moves forward,
[2:46:20] um. I've had a few projects go the other way
[2:46:24] where we proposed more bedrooms. And it actually went to
[2:46:28] smaller units. I wouldn't foresee that here. Certainly, uh, could
[2:46:32] be more two beds and more three beds. But it
[2:46:36] is three bedrooms for every, not just city of Kingston,
[2:46:40] like every city, a three bedroom unit is tough outside
[2:46:43] of a student scenario. Um, because a family that needs
[2:46:48] that three bedroom unit is starting to look toward a
[2:46:51] house. So it's a challenging one to fulfill, not just
[2:46:55] Kingston. That's like across the province. Hey, thank you. Uh,
[2:47:00] I noticed in your report, your portion, it's stated that
[2:47:04] the number of car sharing parking spaces were two. But
[2:47:07] within the city exhibit A 1. 3E, it states the
[2:47:13] minimum requirement is six. Is that going to change? So
[2:47:18] through you, Madam Chair, with the number of units that
[2:47:20] we're providing, the bylaw would require 12 and we're proposing
[2:47:24] six. So if the spot that said too, then there's
[2:47:28] an error in my report. Okay. Thank you for clarifying
[2:47:32] that. I know, uh, few and Councillor Easterhoff mentioned, uh,
[2:47:37] flooding. And it's been discussed here before, but flooding in
[2:47:41] the downtown area and around the Ohhit building, uh, in
[2:47:44] the past. I just wondering, will there be plans in
[2:47:47] place to address this. Sorry through you, Madam Chair. Can
[2:47:53] you repeat that? I was just writing a note about
[2:47:55] that in regards to flooding. I know Mr. Bar, Director
[2:48:00] Brier was discussing that basically any new residential units are
[2:48:06] supposed to reduce the amount of flooding or water leaving
[2:48:09] their properties. They're lots into other areas. So with, with
[2:48:13] this issue, being partially city related, will your building have
[2:48:20] mitigating factors to reduce the overflow of water leaving the
[2:48:23] building. Uh, through you, Madam Chair, short answer is yes.
[2:48:29] The most common way to control stormwater in a building
[2:48:32] like this is through tanks that retain water and slowly
[2:48:37] leak it out to the city systems. Those could be
[2:48:40] in parking garage areas. They could be on the roof.
[2:48:43] So that's, that's how, uh, the technical aspect of it
[2:48:47] works so that that stormwater is eventually leaked out to
[2:48:50] the system, uh, at the appropriate times when the system
[2:48:53] is less stressed. Just a follow up on that. Would
[2:48:58] you consider recycling the water. Um. Three of you, Madam
[2:49:05] Chair. Ray says, sure. I don't know. I don't know
[2:49:09] what the rules are around that, but yeah, for sure.
[2:49:14] Thank you. Um, how close would NetZero will this be
[2:49:19] this building be over and above the building code. I'd
[2:49:29] have to say we're not quite sure. Not yet. We're
[2:49:31] going to, I mean, we're going to try and make
[2:49:34] it, you know, within the, um, constraints of the project.
[2:49:40] There'll be value engineering done. But certainly in all, I
[2:49:43] mean, it's the way we want to go. Okay. I
[2:49:47] know you really can't give an answer, but, uh, I'm
[2:49:49] throwing this at there now. So then you will be
[2:49:51] considering it. My next question. I know a lot of
[2:49:57] people inquired about the 23 floors. And I do have
[2:50:02] concerns as well. Um, my question is why towers, two
[2:50:08] towers. Why not spread the floors throughout the whole floor
[2:50:12] plate. Footprint of the building and maybe having more units
[2:50:18] in each floor. Which would reduce the height of the
[2:50:21] building. Through you, Madam Chair, um, that, that is another
[2:50:29] option, but they would be a large L - shaped
[2:50:32] building, you know, like the existing zoning on the site.
[2:50:36] Uh, allows that 10 story building, seven story podium. You
[2:50:41] know, three stories above that as a big bar across
[2:50:45] the site. But urban design principles, uh, do steers away
[2:50:51] from that style of building. They do steer us toward
[2:50:55] a podium level building, which is what really people interact
[2:50:59] with and then stepping back to those towers which have
[2:51:03] limited floor plates. They have long skinny shadows rather than
[2:51:07] a large bar shadow that would actually cover, um, the
[2:51:12] entire Annalene all day. Cause it would never move. It
[2:51:15] would just a different part of our building would block
[2:51:19] and a lane. But when you have the taller, skinny,
[2:51:21] uh, towers, they cast narrower shadows. So it moves more
[2:51:25] readily with the site. So it is urban design principles
[2:51:28] that are established by the city of Kingston and many
[2:51:31] other cities that dictate, uh, the form that's before this
[2:51:35] committee. Okay. I wasn't how effect I would have in
[2:51:38] the shadowing aspect. So basically what you're saying is because
[2:51:42] of the narrow aspect of the towers be less shadowing
[2:51:45] effect on the ad lane building, another buildings in the
[2:51:48] area. And if this building was had a larger footprint
[2:51:51] and would say reduced down to 10, 11 floors, it
[2:51:55] would probably be an old day shadowing aspect. Through you,
[2:51:58] Madam Chair, I would certainly have to model it. But
[2:52:01] yes, that, that's the principle behind the tall towers versus
[2:52:04] a bar building. Okay. Thank you. Thank you. Um, Councillor
[2:52:12] Shaeves, would you take the chair for my police? I
[2:52:16] take chair and recognise you. Thank you, sir. Um, so
[2:52:20] through you, Mr. Chair, the applicant described already about, um,
[2:52:26] the amenity space and how using a one bedroom, lots
[2:52:29] of one bedrooms to model, um, helps with that in
[2:52:31] the future. So I just want to offer that, I
[2:52:34] think, you know, if we're talking about affordability and we're
[2:52:37] talking about, um, a conversation I've been having a lot
[2:52:40] lately is around right size housing. And so if we
[2:52:43] have, you know, seniors or whoever, uh, empty nesters living
[2:52:47] in large family homes who are looking to downsize and
[2:52:49] maybe have a different next chapter of life, perhaps in
[2:52:52] the downtown core. Often two bedroom at least, um, is
[2:52:57] what people would be looking for. So I just want
[2:52:59] to offer up a request, you know, for couples downsizing
[2:53:04] for someone who needs to share an apartment with a
[2:53:06] roommate for affordability reasons. Um, I just think fewer one
[2:53:11] bedrooms and more two bedrooms would be great. I take
[2:53:13] a point, um, I take the point that was made
[2:53:15] about, you know, once you get into three bedrooms, people
[2:53:17] start looking at homes or houses rather, um, and I
[2:53:20] think that's a fair assessment. Um, so that's all I
[2:53:23] wanted to offer in addition to the rest of the
[2:53:25] conversation. And that's it. Since I don't see a question
[2:53:29] there. I return the chair. Thank you very kindly. Um,
[2:53:37] so all the committee members have had a chance to
[2:53:39] speak, but we have a special guest with us this
[2:53:41] evening. So we will turn to Councillor Rich. Thank you,
[2:53:45] Madam Chair and through you. And I will politely ignore
[2:53:49] the comments of cancella shaves over there. Um, the, so
[2:53:53] I just want to begin by thanking everybody that came
[2:53:56] the seed bang and, uh, expressed their concerns, their thoughts,
[2:54:00] uh, even their support in some cases, uh, for this
[2:54:03] project. And that's part of what public consultation is all
[2:54:06] about. Um, I have, I think this is a very
[2:54:10] interesting proposal. I have some questions. You know, a lot
[2:54:15] of, lots of things have been, uh, mentioned about shadows
[2:54:17] and shade. And I will, I will get to that.
[2:54:21] But, um, I just want to ask a bit more
[2:54:23] about the traffic. Traffic study. Because this area is evolving.
[2:54:29] Um, it's incredibly complex. You have a number of developments
[2:54:32] that are kind of coming online simultaneously as well as
[2:54:35] an interaction with the ferry. And sports arena that hosts
[2:54:39] events. So, um, you just mind giving me a bit
[2:54:43] more information about the traffic study and what, what the
[2:54:46] results of that were. Thank you for that question. And
[2:54:53] through you, Madam Chair, one of the aspects that's makes,
[2:54:59] makes a site like this work so well is that
[2:55:01] all the loading is internal to the site. So if
[2:55:04] you think about how the site operates now, uh. Full
[2:55:09] size transport trucks, go down barrick street, throw it in
[2:55:13] reverse and back into a loading space. And that, that
[2:55:17] is not uncommon in downtown. If anything, most places, no
[2:55:23] off, not even a site where you can back off.
[2:55:27] The trucks just park on the street. So when you,
[2:55:31] so from that loading, you know, garbage, all of those
[2:55:34] aspects having a through lane for a development like this
[2:55:38] actually offers an improvement to that side of the traffic.
[2:55:43] And, and I know this may be hard to believe,
[2:55:48] but dumping 500 residential units in downtown might sound like
[2:55:52] a lot of units, but from a traffic perspective, it's
[2:55:55] a blip. And you'll see that when you review our
[2:55:58] traffic impact study, downtown already has traffic lights. It's not
[2:56:03] even recommending changing timing of traffic lights to handle this.
[2:56:08] You know, it's, it's handling all of its parking off
[2:56:11] sites separate from that loading space. And so when you
[2:56:14] take a look at that traffic study, you'll see that.
[2:56:17] Um, but at the same time not to take our
[2:56:20] own traffic consultants word for it. The city staff, you
[2:56:24] know, departments will be reviewing that report and commenting or
[2:56:30] agreeing with it through the process. Thank you. Oh, thank
[2:56:35] you very much. That's, that's very helpful. Yeah. No, I
[2:56:38] agree about the on site loading. Absolutely. We can all
[2:56:42] look to the Metro grocery store on, on Barry Street
[2:56:46] about that one. Um, yeah, no, I think it's just
[2:56:49] an ongoing concern that I've heard from, uh, folks that
[2:56:52] live in the area just because of the number of,
[2:56:55] of moving pieces there. Um, now if we're talking about.
[2:57:01] Shadows, we're going to talk about shadows. Um, under section
[2:57:06] 2. 72, the official plan, this adverse effect. And this
[2:57:11] is a question more for staff. What I don't see
[2:57:14] a definition of an adverse effect in the official plan
[2:57:17] itself explicitly merely what, you know, talking about potentially an
[2:57:23] adverse effect is, um, staff mind telling me a bit
[2:57:26] more about that. Is that okay? Mr. Bar. Thanks. And
[2:57:34] through you chair, uh, right. Let me just refresh my
[2:57:38] brain on where adverse impact come from. So there is
[2:57:41] a definition of compatibility under the plan. Compatibility, specifically outlines
[2:57:46] what it considers to be compatible. And I believe adverse,
[2:57:51] I believe adverse impact is actually defined. So it's called
[2:57:55] adverse effects under the official plan. An adverse, yeah, adverse,
[2:58:01] I had to find it. Sorry. I had to vamp
[2:58:02] there for a minute while I found this. So adverse
[2:58:04] effects means one of the following. An impairment of the
[2:58:07] quality of the natural environment for any use that can
[2:58:10] be made of it. Injury or damage to property plant
[2:58:13] or animal life, harm or material discomfort to any person
[2:58:17] and adverse effect on the health of any person, impairment
[2:58:21] of the safety of any person, rendering any property or
[2:58:25] plant or mammal life unfit for human use, the loss
[2:58:28] of enjoyment of normal use of a property and interference
[2:58:32] with a normal conduct of business. So an adverse effect
[2:58:37] is one of these following things depending on what is
[2:58:40] being reviewed as part of it under the tests for
[2:58:43] compatibility, which range from impacts to the natural environment, the
[2:58:48] human environment, uh, to the normal conduct of properties. Thank
[2:58:52] you very much. And in the following section, 2. 7.
[2:58:56] 3, what's the first one that's listed as a, uh,
[2:59:01] potential item. Under 27, three, the first item listed is
[2:59:08] shadowing. Okay. Thank you. So shadowing, shadowing is a land
[2:59:12] use compatibility consideration. Yeah. I know. Thank you very much.
[2:59:16] Um, okay. And so this isn't, this is more of
[2:59:21] a holistic question is I'm not a member of the
[2:59:24] Planning Committee. And so I'm something of an amateur. What
[2:59:29] takes precedent? Provincial Planning Act or official plan, the city
[2:59:34] official plan. Bar. Thanks. And through you chair, um, they
[2:59:41] both work together in tandem. So the official plan is
[2:59:44] the policy document for the city of Kingston that implements
[2:59:48] the provincial policy. Uh, so both work in tandem with
[2:59:51] each other. There are matters of test for compatibility in
[2:59:55] other like considerations of the city that aren't necessarily directly
[2:59:58] reflected in the provincial planning statement. So there are different
[3:00:02] and unique tests that are hosted both at the provincial
[3:00:05] level and the local level. So both policy documents have
[3:00:08] to be met in our evaluation of planning applications. Okay.
[3:00:13] Thank you. Um, that's very interesting. Um, so, okay. That
[3:00:19] just tells me to put things into perspective a bit.
[3:00:23] Uh, and, you know, I want folks to know that
[3:00:25] I take their concerns a bit that's very seriously. And
[3:00:28] as part of the reason I'm asking these questions is
[3:00:31] trying to understand a bit better. So I appreciate the
[3:00:35] answers from staff. Um, so obviously shadowing is very highly
[3:00:42] considered under the official plan. It's mentioned 16 times. I
[3:00:46] didn't just do a word search at that, Mr. Bar.
[3:00:50] I actually read The Thing. And one of the other
[3:00:53] things on the 2. 7. 3 letter J, as degradation
[3:00:58] of cultural heritage resources. So, um, what is going on
[3:01:04] in terms of there are a number of cultural, a
[3:01:06] number of heritage resources around the building in terms of,
[3:01:09] you know, the construction. And is there anything that the
[3:01:12] proponent of the applicant can speak to with regards to
[3:01:14] that in particular? Mr. Keene. Through you, Madam Chair, there's
[3:01:21] two aspects of that question. One is that as part
[3:01:24] of our application, we do have a cultural heritage expert
[3:01:28] that has commented on the project and has reviewed those
[3:01:33] designated enlisted properties and has given input to the architect
[3:01:39] as the project has been designed. The second aspect, which
[3:01:43] is something that will be considered much later in the
[3:01:46] process is when, when construction starts, you know, protections will
[3:01:52] be part of that process for those resources. Whether they're
[3:01:56] heritage buildings or not, there are processes that protect adjacent
[3:02:00] properties, uh, from, from digging and, you know, potentially falling
[3:02:06] in per se. So, so those are the two aspects
[3:02:09] that the application will consider. Okay. Thank you very much.
[3:02:17] Based on where we are right now and the proposal
[3:02:21] and everything, I'm sure I'll have significantly more annoying questions
[3:02:26] at the next meeting. But, uh, but I just wanted
[3:02:29] it there and take everybody for the time. Thank you.
[3:02:35] Okay. That concludes this community meeting at 904 PM. Um,
[3:02:40] if you wish to stay for the last little bit,
[3:02:43] you're welcome. If you wish to leave, uh, you're welcome
[3:02:45] to do that too. Please do so quietly so we
[3:02:47] can finish up. Thank you kindly. All right. I will
[3:02:49] now call the regular meeting to order at 905 PM.
[3:02:52] Do we have a mover in a seconder to approve
[3:02:54] the agenda with the addendum? Move by Councillor Shaves, seconded
[3:02:58] by Councillor Sanic. All those in favor. And that's carried.
[3:03:04] Do I have a mover in Secondar to confirm the
[3:03:06] minutes of Planning Committee meeting number 2026 - 15 held
[3:03:10] September 3rd, 2026. Move by Councillor Shaves, seconded by Councillor
[3:03:16] Oceanic, all those in favor. And that's carried. Are there
[3:03:23] any disclosures of pecuniary interest? Seeing none, there are no
[3:03:27] delegations. There are no briefings. We have no items of
[3:03:29] business on the agenda. There are no motions. There are
[3:03:32] no notices of motion. Is there any other business? Seeing
[3:03:35] none, correspondence was included in the agenda and the addendum.
[3:03:39] The next meeting of the Planning Committee scheduled for Thursday,
[3:03:42] October 1st, 2026 at 6 p. m. Can I please
[3:03:45] have a mover in Second or to adjourn the meeting,
[3:03:46] move by Councillor Oceanic, seconded by Councillor Shapes, all those
[3:03:49] in favor. And that's Carrie. Good night everyone. Thank you.
[3:03:52] We are adjourned.