The Chair called the Community Meeting to order at 6:06 p.m.
Mark Touw, Agent for the Applicant, Jay Abramsky, Applicant, and Andrew Pruss, Heritage Consultant, ERA Architects, conducted a PowerPoint presentation regarding the Official Plan Amendment and Zoning By-Law Amendment for 281-285 Princess Street and 220-226 Queen Street. A copy of the presentation is available upon request through the City Clerk's Department.
Michael Judd stated his support for additional housing options. He expressed concern for the lack of accessible parking spaces requested for the development, noting that this would result in barriers and reduce inclusivity. He added that developers should be seeking to exceed the legislated requirements for accessibility.
Daryn Lehoux expressed his concern for the lack of parking spaces proposed and the impact this would have on the surrounding neighborhood, specifically during move-in and move-out dates for post-secondary students. He added that meal delivery and carshare usage would have a significant impact on traffic in the area.
Tim Soper presented a physical model of the project and surrounding buildings. He expressed his concerns regarding the mass of the building, the lack of setback proposed, and the incompatibility of the building with the surrounding area. He encouraged the developer to beautify the design and architecture of the building.
Monica Stewart was present to speak on behalf of St. Andrew's Presbyterian Church. She inquired how the developer would ensure the compatibility of the character of the building with the surrounding neighborhood. She asked which roads would be used for construction and she expressed her concern regarding access to the church during the construction period. She stated that the church struggles with unauthorized use of their parking lot and encouraged additional bus servicing to this location for students. She urged consideration for the waste service area to be located on Queen Street. She expressed her concern for the height of the building and inadequate greenspace for the residents. She asked if there would be sufficient demand for this number of residential units designed specifically for students.
Frank Dixon expressed his concerns for the height of the building and compatibility with the surrounding neighborhood. He noted his preference for the building to have no more than 12 storeys. He commended the attention to heritage but encouraged more interesting architecture on the Princess Street façade. He acknowledged the significant impact on traffic in the area, specifically noting the condition of Queen Street as a concern.
In response to comments from the public, Deanna Green, Traffic Consultant with BA Group, stated that the number of accessible parking spaces proposed was determined based on parking supply. She noted that there are six visitor parking spaces provided in total and there are accessible on-street parking spaces in the area. She provided details regarding the plan to ensure move-in and move-out dates do not overwhelm traffic in the area. Mr. Touw noted that garbage storage would occur inside the building. He confirmed that construction lay-down areas would be provided in a detailed plan to the City for review. He added that three-metre setbacks are proposed on Clergy Street and Queen Street to allow for landscaping. He spoke to the massing of the building and the pedestrian view of the building from different angles on Princess Street.
Annette Burfoot spoke on behalf of the Williamsville Community Association. She inquired if the developer was familiar with the developments for students between Bath Road and Development Drive. She listed increasing rent, mould, and vermin infestation as problems that occur when student housing is privatized. She inquired if the units would be rented for eight months or 12 months and about the monthly rent estimate. She expressed her concerns for the limited amenities and the scale of the building. She encouraged green streetscapes and parkettes to foster culture of active transportation and improve living quality. She highlighted the importance of heritage districts and questioned the need for more student housing.
Kate Thomas inquired if the existing trees in the area would be protected during construction and if additional trees would be planted. She highlighted the importance of the urban tree canopy and asked what kind of trees would be planted and who would be responsible for maintaining them. She stated that parkettes are not sufficient for tree planting and that the setbacks need to be wide enough to allow trees to mature. She expressed her concerns regarding sufficient natural light for plantings based on the proposal and for the appropriateness of the proposal within the surrounding area.
Terra Sharky spoke on behalf of the Sydenham District Association. She noted the importance of post-secondary students to Kingston and highlighted the ongoing housing crisis. She expressed her concerns for the proposal, specifically noting the height as inappropriate for the area. She added that the plan does not enhance pedestrian streetscapes and provides limited landscaping and inadequate parking. She inquired if the developer would continue without Purpose-Built Student Accommodation designation.
Samantha King stated that the proposal threatens the downtown heritage, human scale, and ambiance. She encouraged respect for the Official Plan policies. She referenced the decision made by the Ontario Land Tribunal (OLT) in the 223 Princess Street development and the Ontario Superior Court decision that followed.
Lea Westlake stated that there is an opportunity to beautify this intersection with housing. She added that student housing is needed on campus and this area would benefit from a mid-rise residence built for all types of residents with mixed-use and rent-geared to income units.
In response to comments from the public, Mr. Touw confirmed that the developer is well-researched in terms of existing student housing in the city and market demands. He recognized changes that federal and provincial policies have had on post-secondary institutions and the need for appropriate timing when building student housing. He indicated that the estimated rent cost would be provided at a later date and confirmed that 12-month leases would be used. He stated that the City would require cash-in-lieu of parkland for this project. He added that a tree inventory was completed and it was determined that the existing trees on site would be unlikely to survive construction. He explained that the building can be designed and marketed to students but may not be exclusively occupied by students. He acknowledged the OLT and Supreme Court decisions with respect to the Capitol Theatre project but noted that case law has evolved since those decisions. Ms. Green reiterated that the parking supply is believed to be appropriate.
Dr. Theodorou expressed her objection to the proposal and voiced her concern for the livability of the project for residents and neighbors. She added that the height of the building would obstruct the view and natural light to other buildings in the area. She expressed her concerns regarding the walkability and community-feel of the neighborhood, highlighting problems that could arise around major post-secondary celebrations such as St. Patrick's Day and Homecoming. She sought clarification on the number of units that would share a communal kitchen.
Bill Cooper stated that he had been supportive of high-rises in the downtown area in the past until construction had begun. He added that 16-storeys is too tall for Kingston and he expressed his opposition to the proposal. He recognized the need for housing density but encouraged development projects to be more compatible with the heritage character of Kingston's downtown core.
Kristine Hebert spoke on behalf of the Frontenac Heritage Association. She expressed her concerns for the massing and height of the building and the impact this would have on the heritage character and continuity of the downtown area. She pointed to heights prescribed for this area in the Official Plan. She referenced the decision made by the OLT in the case of 223 Princess Street. She opposed the visual obstruction of the spire at St. Andrew's Presbyterian Church. She requested further details on the four-storey wall frontages and encouraged the architect to add details that would provide continuity to the streetscape.
Shayan Jalayer expressed his opposition to the proposal. He stated his support for densification and recognized the need for more housing. He expressed his concerns that the proposal requires relief from multiple provisions within the Official Plan and Zoning By-Law, pointing specifically to the amendments requested regarding height, amenities and parking. He noted that a building occupied with a mixed demographic would better support the businesses in the downtown core year-round. He stated that the traffic diagrams underestimate the impact the development would have on traffic. He expressed his concerns regarding cycling safety and adequate parking in the area.
Gavin Anderson expressed his concern for the disregard of the Official Plan. He inquired how the developer can be confident the residents would act responsibly with respect to car ownership. He questioned the accuracy of the renditions shown and inquired if there is a professional standard for renderings.
In response to comments from the public, Mr. Touw explained that every floor would have multi-bedroom units with full kitchens and co-living units. He stated that there would be some kitchen appliances in the units without full kitchens. He added that the building would have 24/7 onsite staffing. Mr. Pruss stated that the proposal includes a masonry street wall of three-storeys that would be similar to the Capitol Theatre project. He added that the design team had studied the visibility of the towers from different vantage points on Princess Street, Queen Street, and Clergy Street. He noted that the increased setback on Clergy Street and Princess Street is proposed as a result of those studies. Ms. Green confirmed that some large vehicles such as waste collection vehicles would cross the centre of the roadway and she added that this is normal practice in constrained environments such as the downtown core.
Mr. Bar stated that the Official Plan is an evaluative tool used to review planning applications. He added that this application has been submitted based on the rights of the applicant under the Planning Act and that it will be reviewed by professional planners at the City based on the Official Plan. He noted that a third-party would review the Heritage Impact Assessment provided by the applicant. He acknowledged the complexity of the Official Plan and the sub-areas that exist within the plan in the downtown area.
Suzanna Cliff expressed her opposition to the proposal. She noted that the site has been described as under-utilized and argued that the site had been left under-utilized at the choice of the owner. She inquired if a setback exemption was being sought. She noted the importance of greenspace and outdoor amenity space to the livability of the building. She expressed her concern for the transient nature of the population due to students leaving for four months of the year. She questioned the accuracy of the renderings from the Princess Street vantage point.
David McDonald stated that this would not be an ideal location for student-specific housing. He expressed his frustration regarding applications for private housing projects that are built specifically for students when this has been named as a violation of the Ontario Human Rights Code. He noted the approval of a similar project at the Queen Street and Barrie Street intersection. He expressed his concern for the combined impact of the two buildings on the neighborhood.
Scott Caldwell inquired about the details of the cash-in-lieu of greenspace program. He asked for the formula used to determine how much cash is received and if the cash is required to be spent in the same district as the development it was received from.
Mary Jo Cuerrier, Executive Director of the Downtown Kingston Business Improvement Area, expressed her support for the project. She noted that a lack of pedestrian traffic is the most significant challenge facing downtown businesses and that students are not yet well incorporated into the downtown core. She stated that a lack of traffic at the intersection of Princess Street and Clergy Street has attracted negative activity. She added that through her past work with the applicant's family, she has recognized that they are ambassadors for balancing the history of the city with forward-thinking.
Robert MacInnes expressed his concern for the declining population in Ontario. He noted the approved projects in the area that are being marketed towards post-secondary students. He questioned the viability of the proposal. He expressed his concern for the environment and his appreciation for a proposal that is not car centric. He added that the costs saved on providing minimal parking spaces could allow for reduced rent costs for the units. He inquired if any units would be deeply affordable and if the building would have sustainable features beyond what is required in the Ontario Building Code. He asked if there are plans to reduce driving lanes on Queen Street to introduce cycling lanes and additional street plantings.
In response to comments from the public, Mr. Touw explained that setback requirements along Clergy Street require buildings to match the next adjacent building. He added that this would result in building right to the street on this property. He clarified that setback relief is being sought to provide space for landscaping. He noted that three courtyards are proposed to provide outdoor amenity space. He stated that the applicant has focused on providing indoor amenity space that can be used throughout the year. He confirmed that 12-month leases would be offered and recognized that vacancy during the summer months is a challenge in Kingston. He explained that the developer has determined that despite population changes, the demand for this project exists and this will continue to be evaluated as the project moves forward. He noted that the co-living unit design provides a more affordable option than a studio apartment. He stated that there are opportunities through federal funding programs to build to a higher standard of sustainability than is required by the Ontario Building Code and that this is an option for the proponent to explore at a later stage of development.
Mr. Park stated that the parkland determination for this application is under review. He explained that the value for parkland in cash is determined through an appraisal value, calculated at 5% of the value of the land. He added that these funds would be added to the Cash-in-lieu of Parkland Reserve, which could only be used for the acquisition of parkland. He clarified that the acquisition of parkland is not specific to any district in the city. He pointed to recent examples of parkland acquisition in the Williamsville District. He stated that Watson & Associates Economists Ltd. provided an updated report on the population projections at the most recent Council meeting. He added that the report confirmed that Kingston has exceeded the original projection for 2025 and is trending on track with the original projections. Mr. Bar stated that a plan is not in place for updates to Queen Street. He noted that recent legislation passed by the provincial government prohibits municipalities from removing vehicle travel lanes to replace them with cycle lanes for new projects.
Vicki Schmolka inquired why changes to the Official Plan are necessary for this project. She noted the value of the Official Plan and the collaboration of all stakeholders, including the public, in developing the Official Plan. She expressed her concerns for people zoning and the lack of accessible parking spaces proposed. She encouraged the applicant to seek legal advice on whether sufficient accessible parking spaces are being proposed for this project. She questioned whether the market exists for a student-focused development of this size. She referenced page 32 of the agenda package and expressed her concern for the heritage character landscape of the area.
Jeanne Ryan expressed her opposition to the proposed development. She encouraged development of the site that would not require amendments to the Official Plan or Zoning By-Law. She expressed her concerns regarding the heritage character of the streetscape and shadowing impacts. She inquired if third-party assessments would be conducted for any of the studies required for the application and who would be responsible for conducting the assessments. She asked how Planning Services would evaluate the proposal's conformity with the Provincial Planning Statement. She expressed her concern for discrimination against those in search of housing who are not students. She highlighted the province's requirement for municipalities to support complete communities. She sought clarification regarding the sub-areas within the Official Plan referenced by Planning Services staff.
Akhil Garg expressed his support for the proposal. He highlighted the housing crisis and the need to provide student housing so that other types of housing would be made available for families. He added that the City is focused on encouraging transit use and noted that this is done by making transit more convenient than driving and parking. He concluded by expressing his support for the aesthetics and height of the building but noting that the proposal should include more accessible parking spaces.
In response to comments from the public, Mr. Touw explained the view of the building from different vantage points on Princess Street, using slides from the PowerPoint presentation for reference. He clarified that the proposal is for student-oriented housing and noted that the Zoning By-Law permits reduced amenity area and parking requirements for co-living units.
Ms. Reid stated that the removal of the listed heritage building is not uncommon on a site with multiple heritage considerations. She noted that the Heritage Impact Assessment would evaluate all the heritage resources on the site. She confirmed that a peer review would be conducted for the Heritage Impact Assessment and the wind study. Mr. Bar stated that the City's technical review of the application is ongoing, and noted that staff would not be supportive of the amendment request to permit private off-campus student housing on this site. He highlighted that the Supreme Court of Canada has admonished people-zoning. He explained that Planning Services staff are evaluating whether what is proposed on the site can be supported functionally and operationally. He explained the City's role in approving zoning on a property. He provided details regarding the sub-areas in the downtown core and how these areas are evaluated within the Official Plan.
The Chair provided an opportunity for members of the Committee to ask questions.
Councillor Glenn expressed her support for density but noted that considerations need to be made for the entire community. She stated that this proposal would shift the dynamics of the neighborhood and erode the historic streetscape. She highlighted the importance of architecture for heritage tourism. She added that students need less expensive housing, amenity space, and parking, and that families and long-term residents require housing in the downtown core. She encouraged the applicant to build holistically and embrace heritage.
Councillor Chaves asked if residents who are not students would be allowed to live in the building. He inquired how close to net-zero the building would be and if biodiverse plants would be used for landscaping. Mr. Touw confirmed that professionals do reside in the proponents’ other buildings that are marketed to students and that this could be the case with the new development. He noted that the applicant intends to build to a sustainability standard above the Ontario Building Code and has expressed interest in the Green Standard Community Improvement Plan.
Councillor Osanic asked for clarification on what appliances would be provided in the kitchenettes. She expressed her concerns for the height of the building and its impact on St. Andrew's Church. She urged the applicant to reduce the height to not surpass the steeple of the church. She inquired if the Heritage Impact Assessment considered the impact of the height of the building on the sound of the church bell. She asked how student parties in the building would be addressed and whether there would be a potential for trees in the courtyard. Mr. Touw explained that each kitchenette would have a fridge, microwave, and a hot plate. He added that two-thirds of the units would be co-living units with kitchenettes, while the remaining units would be traditional market two to four-bedroom units. He noted that no studies were conducted related to the sound of the bell at St. Andrew's Church. He stated that there would always be onsite management in the building that would be able to address nuisance behaviour or parties. He added that this would also be addressed in the lease agreements.
Councillor Oosterhof expressed his concerns for the lack of parking proposed, the impact on heritage in the area, and affordability of the units. He noted that young families are also in need of housing in the downtown core.
The Chair was passed to Councillor Stephen.
Councillor Cinanni stated that the building is too massing for the heritage area. He expressed his concern regarding the impact of the development on street parking in the area. He noted that housing has been tailored to students and expressed his concern for the demand. He reiterated concerns regarding a lack of housing suited for families in the midtown and downtown areas. He noted that the high cost of living, including unaffordable rent prices, have led to a large food insecurity issue within the student population in Kingston.
The Chair was returned.
The Chair closed the Community Meeting at 9:54 p.m.