Ms. Didrikson conducted a PowerPoint presentation regarding the OP Amendment, Zoning By-Law Amendment and Draft Plan of Subdivision for 92 Napier Street. A copy of this presentation is available upon request through the City Clerk's Department.
Councillor Glenn inquired what the density for this application would be in comparison with the rest of the neighborhood. She inquired if the units would be accessible and whether the units would be rented per bedroom or per unit. She further inquired about the rental costs of the units and whether any units would be affordable. She asked what waste management plans were in place, specifically noting the increased amount of cardboard around university move-in and move-out dates. She further inquired if consideration was given for families living in the units. She noted that up to 80 individuals could reside in the buildings as there could be multiple people living in each bedroom.
Elysia Ackroyd, agent for the applicant, clarified that the applicant had considered the unit count and not the density per hectare. She stated that the units are not designed to be barrier-free as per the Ontario Building Code. She noted that the intention is to rent per unit and that previous discussions around cost pointed to an estimated $4000.00 per unit. She confirmed that there are no current plans to provide affordable units. She explained that waste collection will be stored in the rear-yard and brought to the front for collection by the City. She stated that the units will be marketed to students and added that the developer and landlord would accept applications from individuals of all occupations and families. Mr. Bar confirmed that density in this zone is calculated by unit and not by hectare. He noted that properties in this neighborhood can have up to four units per property as per the Zoning By-Law.
Councillor Chaves inquired if the new waste collection system could be accommodated on this property. He inquired about the snow clearing plans and whether property management staff would be responsible for putting waste out to be collected. He asked if a community garden would be permitted if requested by residents and inquired how close to net zero the buildings would be. He further inquired if the applicant would be taking advantage of the Green Standard Community Improvement Plan. Ms. Didrikson confirmed that staff from the Solid Waste Department had reviewed this application to ensure that it would work with the future waste collection program expansion into this neighborhood. Ms. Ackroyd explained that snow will be cleared by the property management team and placed in the rear yard. She added that staff would be available to dispose of waste that is not adequately disposed of by residents. She stated that there is not adequate space appropriate for a community garden and added that the plans for the building are currently in the preliminary stages and therefore net-zero capacity has not been determined. She noted that the applicant does not have current plans to apply for the Green Standard Community Improvement Plan.
Councillor Oosterhof expressed concern for the density in the proposal. He asked staff how Committee members can be assured that the density being proposed will work. He added that the depth of the site gives the project viability. Ms. Didrikson stated that the functional needs of the Zoning By-Law are being accommodated through this proposal and noted several standards are being exceeded.
Councillor Osanic inquired how the survival of the trees onsite would be ensured. She inquired if there would be enough room on site for a large tree to be planted and survive several decades. She expressed concern for the longevity of the plants and the reality of the plans. Ms. Didrikson explained that a tree planting plan would be required. Mr. Bar added that the planting plan would form part of the site securities that would be taken as part of the development of the lands. Ms. Ackroyd stated that it was always the intent of the applicant to provide great plantings in the front yard beyond what is required.
The Chair provided an opportunity for members of the public to speak.
Daryl Tremain, 162 College Street, expressed hope that the Committee can take into account the strong opposition voiced by residents in the neighborhood to the project. She noted that the proposed housing is student-focused and will change the character of the neighbourhood. She encouraged densification but expressed concern for the quality of the densification proposed in this application. She added that students have voiced opposition to housing located in family-oriented neighbourhoods. She noted the changes to the nature of nearby streets due to the encroachment of student-focused housing. She encouraged the Committee to vote against the development to discourage future similar projects.
Savvas Frantzesko, 315 Willingdon Avenue, expressed concern for purpose-built structures that are not designed for mixed-use. He added that this proposal does not support the housing needs of the community. He noted the impact on the nearby elementary schools. He encouraged the Committee to support mixed-use neighbourhoods that allow families to live within walking distance of elementary schools and workplaces.
John Johnston, 42 Napier Street, expressed concern for the impact of the parking in the rear yard on the adjacent houses on Willingdon Avenue. He stated his support for Queen's University students but added that student-focused housing is not suitable in the neighbourhood.
Rob McCain, 573 Earl Street, read a letter written by his neighbour in opposition to the proposal. He reiterated the strong opposition from the community. He encouraged the Committee to consider the social impacts of the development.
Steven Bonnycastle, 162 College Street, read a letter written by a neighbour of 92 Napier Street in opposition to the proposal.
In response to the comments from the public, Ms. Ackroyd clarified that the proposal includes more parking than is required for this development as per the Kingston Zoning By-Law. She added that there would be a buffer between the rear-yard parking and the property line and noted that this would mitigate light pollution on the houses adjacent to the property on Willingdon Avenue.
The Chair provided an opportunity for additional members of the public to speak.
Robin Moon, 573 Earl Street, read a letter from a neighbour in opposition to the development. She expressed agreement with the thoughts shared in the letter, specifically noting the loss of greenspace due to the development.
Jane Emerick, 12 Helen Street, expressed opposition to the development. She noted the density and lack of accessibility as issues with the proposal. She added that the trees proposed for the frontage are not sufficient to balance the loss of greenspace and the density of the development.
Tim Bryant, 574 Earl Street, expressed concern for the misinterpretation of discrimination against students. He noted that the proposal is not designed to integrate the students with the surrounding environment. He added that there are many rentals within the neighbourhood that house students and that this integration has worked well for the community. He expressed opposition to re-zoning the open space.
Gary Wilson, 64 Oak Ridge Avenue, reiterated the concerns raised by other residents. He pointed to the importance of affordability for student housing. He inquired about the plans of the developer to integrate the students with the community. He stated that building a new structure without accessible units is inexcusable.
Fran Cooney, 575 Earl Street, noted the consistent encroachment of student housing over the past 40 years. She reiterated that the current mix of student and family-housing is working in the neighbourhood. She expressed concern for waste disposal, specifically around move-in and move-out weeks. She inquired about the requirements for tree height on the frontage of the property. She further inquired why a decision would be made on the application if the floorplans are still conceptual. She expressed concern for the future of the Lawn Bowling Club if the development proceeds.
In response to the comments from the public, Ms. Ackroyd stated that the technical review considers the land use and Official Plan policies and does not review in detail the internal floor plans.
Mr. Bar clarified that accessibility is not required for the building type being proposed. He further clarified that some elements of the plan are conceptual such as the shape of the bedrooms. He confirmed that the number of units and bedrooms is regulated through zoning.
Mr. Park recognized comments from the public regarding consideration to the social impacts of the proposal. He stated that planning is a very technical field based on performance standards. He added that there are no mandates or tools available to planners to measure the social impacts of an application and therefore they cannot comment on these impacts nor make recommendations regarding social integration of a development and its residents.
The Committee recessed from 9:59 p.m. to 10:08 p.m.
The Chair provided an opportunity for additional members of the public to speak.
Angie James, 315 Willingdon Avenue, encouraged the City to work with post-secondary institutions to formulate a plan for the future based on recent trends. She stated that post-secondary institutions should be using their land to accommodate their students. She expressed concern for the impact of the development on the neighbourhood and on the local elementary school.
Mary-Kaitlyn Willis, 36 Napier Street, expressed concern for the density of the proposed development and the impact of vehicular traffic. She stated that families are already leaving the area due to student encroachment. She expressed support for density but noted a diversity of residents are needed to maintain the character of the neighbourhood. She encouraged the Committee members to consider the social impact of the development in their decision.
Monica Lebarge, 118 Churchill Crescent, noted that the need for student housing is due to an increase in enrollment from the post-secondary institutions. She stated that these educational institutions should be increasing their housing supply to meet the needs of their students. She noted that the project is not exceeding the minimum requirements and questioned why the minimum is being sought by the applicant. She questioned why the profits of one individual are being privileged over the needs of the community.
Lisa Morriss-Andrews expressed concern for the number of students that would live in each unit due to the lack of affordability. She added that the number of parking spaces and the rear yard is not sufficient for the number of residents. She stated that the development is not appropriate for the neighbourhood which is currently family friendly.
Rita Sue Bolton, 17 Traymoor Street, stated that this neighbourhood tries to celebrate students and integrate them with the community. She encouraged the Committee to listen to the needs of the community.
Rob Baker, 423 Earl Street, stated that the neighbourhood has changed a lot over the last 30 years. He commented that if this proposal is approved there will be similar applications in the future and the family homes will disappear from the neighborhood.
In response to the comments from the public, Ms. Ackroyd confirmed that there would be a maximum of 10 bedrooms allowed if the application is approved. She added that changes to the floorplan would not result in additional bedrooms.
Councillor Glenn thanked staff and her constituents for their efforts in working together to sort out the details of the application. She expressed disappointment at the lack of changes made to the application by the applicant based on feedback from the public and Committee members. She commented on the need to build holistically with affordability for students in mind. She added that changes to policy at the federal level will see a decrease in international student enrollment which will impact housing. She stated that this development is not appropriate for the surrounding neighborhood.
Councillor Osanic commented that these were luxury rentals and will be unaffordable for families. She stated that Committee members need to review the applications with the community in mind.
Councillor Oosterhof expressed confliction over the arguments against the application, noting that Council had recently approved the shelter at 724 Sydenham Road despite significant community concerns.
Councillor Stephen stated that Council set out the policy that allows 4 dwelling units and a maximum of 10 bedrooms. She noted that consideration may not have been given to how this would be achieved in each district of the city. She acknowledged the loss of greenspace but added that it was always private property with the right to be sold for other uses. She commented that the development could also attract young professionals with families. She expressed support for the application as a reflection of the policies set by Council.
The Chair was passed to Councillor Oosterhof.
Councillor Cinanni expressed concern for re-zoning of the Open Space, adding that conversion from this zoning should be done for an exceptional development. He expressed additional concern for the impact this development would have on traffic in the neighbourhood. He added that there has been no consideration for affordability.
The Chair was returned to Councillor Cinanni.
Note: Persuant to section 15.10 of By-Law 2021-41 "Council Procedural By-Law", any question on which there is a tie vote shall be deemed to have been decided in the negative, except where otherwise provided by any statute.