Ms. Robidoux and Mr. Bar presented a PowerPoint presentation regarding the Zoning By-Law Amendment for 64 Barrack Street & 235-237 Wellington Street. A copy of this presentation is available upon request through the City Clerk’s Department.
Councillor Oosterhof acknowledged the changes that were made to the development plan. He inquired if there would be affordable units and accessible units available in the building. He asked if the Fire Department has the capacity to protect occupants in a building of this size. Ms. Robidoux noted that the development would present the opportunity for approximately $217,000 in community benefits charges that could contributed to affordable housing projects. Mike Keene, Agent for the Applicant, explained that changes had been made to the size of the units within the building to make them more attainable to the general population. He added that he does not know the exact price of the units as that will be driven by the cost of building. Ms. Robidoux listed 15 studio barrier-free units, 30 one-bedroom barrier-free units, and eight two-bedroom barrier-free units noted on the site statistics of the drawing package. Mr. Keene added that the building will meet all building code requirements. Mr. Bar confirmed that the application had been circulated to all relevant internal departments, including building officials who examined the building life safety systems to ensure that the pressures meet the required levels to service the entire building in the event of an emergency.
Councillor Glenn asked how many of the units will be investor-owned and how many would be owner-occupied. Mr. Keene stated that this would be very difficult to assess at this time.
Councillor Chaves inquired about the traffic impact study and the percentage of residents using personal vehicles. Ms. Robidoux explained that the traffic impact study looked at the household travel survey for the downtown area along with consideration that many of the units are bachelor or one-bedroom units, which are less likely to be occupied by residents who own a vehicle. She added that the traffic engineers and transportation staff agree that 23% is an appropriate ratio for parking for this development. Arthur Gordon, consultant with Castleglenn Consultants, noted that the units in this development are catered towards single persons and that there are a host of downtown services within immediate walking distance. He added that additional parking would drastically impact affordability of each unit.
Councillor Chaves asked if the developments already approved in the area had been taken into consideration during the approval of this application. He asked if the roof would be green and how the sale of parking spaces would be undertaken. Ms. Robidoux confirmed that Utilities Kingston’s review of the servicing materials for this application were undertaken with consideration for the capacity allocated to approved developments in the area. She noted that landscaping considerations are not finalized through the zoning stage but added that the applicant is proposing a rooftop terrasse on the fourth storey to provide green amenities space for applicants of the building. Mr. Keene stated that the parking spaces are individually sold and that they will not be associated with a particular unit. He noted that similar projects in the city are offering parking spaces in this market-driven process.
Councillor Chaves asked if there any other items not listed in the report that would make this project more sustainable. He asked if there would be electrical vehicle parking. Marc Villemaire, an Architect with SRM Architects Inc. explained that they are exploring high-performance systems options. He listed L.E.D. lighting, high quality bike parking facilities, rain water retention, and waste reduction management as additional items that will encourage sustainability. He confirmed that there would be electrical vehicle parking on-site but added that they are not certain of how many spots would be available at this time.
Councillor Chaves asked where the barrier-free units would be located in the building and if there is a plan in place for those with limited mobility to get out safely in the case of an emergency. Mr. Villemaire noted that the building code stipulates that barrier-free units should be evenly distributed throughout the building. He explained that the fire department would be aware of which units are occupied by residents with mobility limitations and they would rescue those people who are not able to use the stairs. He added that the units are designed with areas of refuge within each suite.
The Chair provided an opportunity for members of Council in attendance to ask questions.
Councillor Ridge noted the low ratio of parking for this proposal and inquired whether this was the lowest ratio in recent applications. He asked if the visitor parking was a standard ratio. Ms. Robidoux listed a number of recently approved proposals with less than 0.2 parking spaces per unit. She stated that a new rate of 0.03 visitor spaces per unit was approved by City Council but is still subject to the appeal period and thus is not yet in effect. She added that there are several site-specific conditions in this case that warrant further reduction of visitor parking spaces.
Councillor Ridge asked if staff have considered traffic impacts for current proposals in the area. Mr. Gordon noted that the traffic impact assessment process accounted for background traffic. He explained that background traffic is the growth rate that is designed to have individual corridors within the area. He added that the applications that are in the approval process right now were contemplated in addition to growth over the next five years in the area. Mr. Semple echoed Mr. Gordon’s comments, confirming that future growth impacts were anticipated and addressed as a part of this application.
The Chair inquired whether the sale of parking stalls would be done through the Condo Corporation or if it would be private. Mr. Keene stated that the sale process would be internal but regulated by the overall condominium.
The Chair provided an opportunity for members of the public to ask questions.
Robert Oldfield, 268 Wellington Street, expressed concern for this proposal. He listed the height of the building, the lack of parking spaces, and the impact on traffic as issues with the development. He noted that there is land in the Montreal and Division Street area that would have ample space for large high-rises. He expressed concern for the overall diminishing parking spaces in new developments and the impact this would have on street parking in the area. He questioned whether the studio units would provide enough space to live comfortably.
Marijo Cuerrier, 135 Ontario Street, spoke about the need to create densification in the downtown core so that downtown businesses can thrive during all seasons. She stated that she lives downtown and can rely solely on active transportation unless she is going out of town. She reiterated that a community downtown of pedestrians is needed to support the downtown core.
Joel Thompson, 882 Clearfield Crescent, stated that cars are not necessary at this time. He added that downtown business require support 12 months of the year and students do not stay for the entire year. He noted that while the units may not be considered affordable, affluent people need housing too and this is a way to grow the tax base and contribute to funding social housing. He added that residents such as himself should not be living in family homes when families need those properties.
In response to public comments, Ms. Robidoux acknowledged parking considerations and the diversity of parking options with other developments in the area. She noted that this development is bringing a new product to the area with less of a focus on private vehicle ownership for residents.
Mr. Bar stated that the official plan is not prescriptive and evaluations for height in the North Block must meet a specific set of criteria. He added that this criteria was met through the applicants planning justification report that staff have reviewed and that is reflected in the recommendation.
Ms. Reid stated that the applicant worked with staff to create an application for a development that takes into account heritage considerations, guidelines for development in the downtown and harbour area, wind considerations and shadowing and urban design considerations set out in the official plan. She added that the building is designed to activate a corner of underdeveloped city block.
Mr. Park stated that the City is actively working on expanding the car share programs in the City. He noted that work is being done to expand the auto share program for the general public as well as for private buildings.
Councillor Glenn explained the difficulty in making a decision on an application like this, recognizing that the application is thorough and complete but that constituents are not happy with this development. She added that many residents feel their voices do not matter and so they did not participate in the meeting. She stated that 30% of units in developments such as this one are bought by investors which leads to first-time homeowners being priced out of the market.
Councillor Chaves inquired about the animated street wall described in the report. Ms. Robidoux explained that the word animated was used to describe an active and engaging street front that will be achieve through the ground floor commercial spaces along Barrett and Wellington Street.
Councillor Oosterhof expressed some discomfort with the height of the building but added that staff and the developers had listened to the comments of Committee members and constituents.