Good evening, it's 6 p. m. so we'll begin. The meetings being held tonight are public meetings held under the Planning Act. Please note that this meeting will be live streamed on the city website, audio video are being collected by the city of Kingston and the meeting recording and a meeting recording will be archived on a city website for public consumption. I will take this opportunity to remind everyone in the room, so please ensure that the sound on your cellular devices are turned off. Notice of collection, personal information collected as a result of the public meetings are collected under the authority of the Planning Act and will be used to assist in making a decision on this matter. Person speaking at the meeting are requested to give their name for recording in the minutes all names, opinions, and comments may be collected and may form part of the minutes, which will be available to The Public. To be notified of decision, you must either fill out the sign - in sheet at the door, or you must email the file planner or Committee clerk requesting notice of the decision. Tonight's meeting is to present planning applications in a public forum as detailed in the Community Meeting Report. This report does not contain a staff recommendation and therefore no decisions will be made this evening. Each application in the Community Meeting Report will be presented individually and following each presentation by the applicant. The meeting will be opened to the public for comments and questions. I will call the Community Meeting to Order, and the purpose of the Community Meeting is to provide the applicant with an opportunity to present a potential development proposal in the early stages of the development process, and the Seek Feedback from the public and members of Planning Committee. Anyone who attends a Community meeting may present an oral submission and or provide a written submission on the proposals being presented. The first application is 492 Napier Street, and I invite the applicant to present the proposal. Thank you very much through you, Mr. Chair. My name is Alicia Aykroyd. I'm a registered professional planner with Foten Planning and Design. And I'm here this evening on behalf of The Applicant for the official Plan Amendment and zoning bylaw amendment for 92 Napier Street. And through you, Mr. Chair, if I could just ask if we could have these. Oh, okay, yeah, no, that's okay. We have some tech issues, so we're just going to wait to see if we can have the slideshow pop up here, and I'll present in just a moment. Excellent, thank you. So I guess we'll go Next slide, please. So 92 Napier Street is located on Napier Street as the address suggests. It has about 40 metres of frontage on Napier Street and comprises about 1, 849 square metres of area. And this parcel was previously the South Lawn of the Kingston Lawn Bowling Club. And so the Lawn Bowling Club itself still retains the clubhouse and the Northlon, and this comprises that former South lawn. Next slide, please. 92 Napier Street is located in the sunny side neighbourhood of Kingston, and is surrounded predominantly by other residential development, namely one and two story, sort of low - rised development in the form of houses. And it's within walking distance, or 600 metres of a number of different supportive community uses, so elementary schools, some small - scale commercial uses, open space uses. And the site is within walking distance to a number of different transit stops or bus routes, so express and local roots are nearby, as is cycling Infrastructure. So by claims along Johnson and Brock Street. Next slide, please. Currently, the site is designated open space in the city's official plan. And the open space designation is really intended to reflect a variety of different recreational opportunities, both active and passive, and also reflects open space uses that are for public or private ownership and use. And the site is currently, like I said, it's designated to open space. It's not currently being used for such purpose, and there are policies within the official plan that do contemplate the conversion of publicly owned private spaces subject to different criteria. Next slide, please. The site is also zoned to reflect that form or open space use. So it is zoned open space two zone, which both permits public open spaces and the private open spaces that I mentioned previously, as well as some institutional uses. Next slide, please. The intent of the applications being discussed this evening, which again are official plan amendment and zoning bylaw amendment are really just to facilitate residential use. So there is a concept plan up on the screen here. It's preliminary in nature, and you'll note that it's demonstrating a few different houses on potentially three different lots for residential use. I will note that there is no land division applications being considered today. It's just for the land use for residential purposes. But there is potential consideration for future consent applications. So one or two new lots, so up to three lots on the site. And the residential use that's being proposed currently is in the form of houses. So you can see on this concept, LAN sort of typical two - story houses with a garage, driveway, and some rear yard amenity space. Thank you. Next slide. So the proposed official plan amendment is to redesignate the site from that open space use to the residential use, and that would permit the residential use as being proposed. And next slide, please. The zoning by law amendment would effectively do the same. So rezoning the site from that open space to zone to the urban residential five zone, which is the predominant zone that applies to most of the sunny side neighbourhood and permits houses, which is being proposed ultimately. Next slide, please. So in summary, the official plan amendment and zoning by law amendment are just to, again, support and facilitate the change in use from open space to residential. And the applications are reflective of residential infill and intensification on a site that's currently being underutilized and is now privately owned and has been privately owned public space for many years. Uh, and it's supportive of residential use near community facilities, uh, schools, commercial uses, and other open spaces that are publicly accessible. The applications are consistent with the provincial planning statement, and they conform to the city of Kingston official plan. And again, in my professional opinion represents good land use planning, and I'm more than happy to take any questions or comments, feedback from any members of the public today or members of committee. Thank you very much. Thank you very much. Um, so now we'll turn to the members of the public. Are there any members of the public in attendance wishing to speak to this file? Please just raise your hand and then... Okay, so, and then also if other people have anything to say, if you could come to these chairs over here where he is, and then I'll look out to you after. So yeah, state your name, and then you have five minutes. Uh, good evening. My name's Robert McInnes. Um, when this project glass came, uh, to this forum, um, you were requested to liaise with the local people. So I'd like to know to what extent you did that, and whether it resulted in modifications to your plan. I'd also like to know what the density is of this development. How many units, what size the units are. And what portion of them are below the grade level. Thank you. Okay, anyone else in the room wish to speak to this application. Yeah. Okay, so you just come over here, one of these chairs, and then. Yeah, it doesn't matter which one. And then just. Press the button and then state your name, and then you'll have five minutes. There. We go. My name is Saffas Francescos. I'm alive at 315, Willington Avenue, uh, kind of backing on to this property. Just wanted to kind of provide some historical context on the situation. Look back to my emails. I've been involved with this since 2022, and we've made every effort possible to preserve this as green space, but there was no feasible option consulting with a city, even a neighbour was willing to buy it as an extended backyard. What happened is we managed to have city council object to the rezoning last year, but the applicant applied to our lands tribunal. And that would have been overturned. There would have been the development with the four 10 - bedroom units being built there. We rallied the troops and had three very generous couples in the neighbourhood that donated, invested substantial amount of money to buy it back from the previous developers with six other couples invested as investors. Forum the corporation. And it was the only way to stop that other development. And now the hope is to sell two or three lots. And with covenants, uh, reviewed by a lawyer, so that'll be family - style dwellings sat there. And everybody did this out of the goodness of their heart. There's good chance that people will lose money. It's not going to be a profit - driven venture. And it was the only option. So I just wanted to say that. Hey, thank you. Anyone else wishes to speak. To this? Yes, is there anyone online? Please raise your virtual hand in Zoom if you wish to speak to this file. Which is 92 Napier Street. Seeing as none, alright. So I'll go to the planner. Do they applicant to respond. Thank you through you, Mr. Chair. Thank you very much for some of those questions. So yes to clarify, the application that I think you might have been referring to previously was a different application, and it was for a different applicant as well. So this is a new proposal. And for this proposal, we're specifically looking at just the change in land use from open space to residential. There is no current density that's been calculated because there is no land division being proposed currently, and density is not one of the zoning criteria, uh, to be looked at through the zoning by law amendment. We're just applying that urban residential five zone. So density hasn't been calculated yet on that basis of not quite knowing yet if it's going to be two lots or three lots, uh, but I can say that the dwellings that are being proposed are houses that are likely to be one unit with potentially a flexible option for a unit in the basement. So I think that answers your question related to, uh, the number of units that might be below grade. That would be just one. Should there be a an additional residential unit being proposed. And the size of the dwelling units has also not yet been determined. So it would just be aligned with what is permitted in the urban residential five zone, which is namely going to be governed by side yard setbacks where our front yard setbacks. And anything that would kind of comply with that related to landscape open space at this time. Hey, thanks. I think that was a question about, not sure. It was kind of leading to affordability, or it was. Thank you, Mr. Chair, through you. Uh, again, there's no sort of affordable unit being contemplated currently. The assumption is that it would be just a dwelling house, uh, potential for an additional residential unit in the basement. Uh, so affordability hasn't been contemplated in the official plan amendment and zoning bylaw amendment at this time. Okay. Thank you. So now, um, as the committee have any questions. Councillor Glenn. Thank you. And through you, Mr. Chair. I actually don't have a question. Just a quick comment. Um, I wanted to thank everyone from the sunnyside neighbourhood. And everyone who lives close by here. Uh, Savvus spoke to the generosity in the community. And that's what we saw with trying to preserve a space in Sydney District for families. So my heart felt thanks. Chokes me up every time I think about it. That so many of you were willing to step forward, um, to fight to ensure that, uh, there was opportunities for more families to move in and to continue to have a really wonderful neighbourhood. So thank you to all of you. And it's been a pleasure to represent you in this issue. Thank you. Um, anyone else wish to speak. No? Okay. Um. Do you want to take the chair Councillor Glenn? I know you're a little. I'll suck it up. Yes. I'll take the chair and I recognise you. All right. Yeah. So yeah, I guess like ultimately the wish would have been. If this could have stayed open space, that would have been the ultimate. If it could have been like some type of recreational or park space would have been the, you know, the goal or the things that we would have probably wanted the most. But I think that. Seeing like the process and having, you know, been involved in it. And to try to get like something better. Um, it's nice to see that something is coming forward and it's going to be, you know, for something that people have been asking for is like, you know, family, like family style housing. And instead of like, or student sprawl. So I think it's going to be a very nice addition. And, um, yeah, if I, I guess one thing I would say is, you know, secondary suite would be, you know, good. You can have a family and then maybe like a student that, you know, lives part - time of the year there. That would be a good mix. You know, it would be a good best of both worlds. Um, so moving forward, maybe that's like something to think about. And I know you've been thinking about it too. So yeah, well, thank you. And back to you. Okay. So one last chance anyone else want to say anything. All right. So that's it for that one. So we'll move on to the next application, which is, uh, application for 115 - 17 King Street West. And I invite the applicant to present the proposal. Thank you. Thank you, Mr. Chair and Members of the Committee of the Public. My name is Mark Tao. I'm a registered professional planner with the Boulevard Group. You're here tonight representing the owners of the subject lands city flots. So I'll just provide a brief presentation on the proposal and the applications. Uh, and then welcome any questions or comments. So next slide, please. So civic property is noted that 115 and 117 King Street west, uh, the applications are for official plan and zoning by Law Amendment. And they're to enable a six - story apartment building up to 80 units. Uh, implementing residential land use permissions under the official plan as well as zoning by law permissions, including site - specific performance provisions. Next slide, please. Locational context for those yarn - to - wearer down on King Street. So just southwest of the downtown and on the boundary of Queens University Mean Campus. And next to Kingston Jarrett Hospital or Kingston Health Sciences Centre. Next slide, please. So the property is actually made up of what we're to residential properties at the intersection of King Street, West and lower university Avenue. To the immediate east is Kingston Arrow Hospital or Kingston Health Sciences Centre, bounding to the north is kind of southern boundary of Queens University Main Campus. And to the west, we have some residential fronting along King Street West. And then the South is a breakwater park, as well as Lake Ontario. Next slide, please. So this is a view of the subject lands looking towards them as you're coming down King Street West as you come towards the downtown. So, uh, on the left - hand side, uh, dwelling, that's abutting the property. And then the existing dwelling, one of what we're originally two dwellings on the property, uh, in the middle of the picture and then the background, uh, is the hospital. Next slide, please. So this is concept renderings of the proposed building. So it's essentially like a four story podium, if you will, and then a six story, uh, two stories on top. So total of six stories in the upper floor. The picture on the left is the view from King Street West. So just on your, uh, as you're looking from the park across the street, so ground floor, uh, residential lobby space at the corner of the intersection. And then, uh, three floors above for the podium. And then the fifth and sixth floor, our step back from the edge. And then a picture on the right view from lower university Avenue, uh, so looking kind of west, southwest down towards in a long Lake Ontario era, brakewater park in King Street West. And just to the right in that picture, there's rear yard parking, which I'll show you in the next slides as you look at the site plan. Next slide, please. So site plan just shows essentially what we're, again, the two residential lots combined. And so the building footprint is fairly compact, set back from King Street, west, the city Oz asked for a road widening to King Street. And then the building itself is set back, uh, from King Street West, the new, what would be the new boundary of King Street West and lower university. And then there's a partial overhang of the building over top of one row of parking. And then there's a surface parking lot in the rear. And then around the sites on the west side, there's at grades landscaped open space with two private terraces for the ground floor units in that side. And then around on the street side, particularly in lower university, there's the sidewalk and kind of main access to the building. So a prominent lobby space at the intersection. Total number of units, as I said, was 80. Uh, the nine studios, 39 two bedroom. One bedrooms and 32 two bedrooms. Parking ratio, uh, is about 0. 2, 5 on the site. And that includes short term, uh, sorry, includes short term delivery space, fizzer space, uh, loading space as well. Uh, and then resident spaces and accessible parking. There's also full one - to - one bike parking ratio. Predominantly within the building, uh, Insecure Bike Rooms. Next slide, please. So just quickly looking at the ground floor plan, uh, sorry, at the lower level plan. So there are four units in the basement or on the lower level. It's not really a full basement. There's a essentially a lower level with a walkout depressed terrorist for those four units. So we've views looking out towards the lake. And then the blue area is, as you're indicating, the bike parking inside. Next slide, please. And the main floor, uh, the, uh, units on the gram floor on the left - hand side, which is the west boundary. There's private terraces access from the ground floor units. And then there's a lobby space as you're coming off of the street for main access to the building, leading to elevators and unit access. Next slide, please. So jump up to the second through fourth floor. Just mix residential units. Uh, and then you get to the fifth floor and the sixth floor, uh, which is step back from the edge of the fourth floor. So again, that kind of bit of a four story podium with a stepped back fifth and sixth floor. Um, and so on the upper floor, there's a private terraces for that fifth floor level for, um, most of the units. And then in the sixth floor, which is the next slide. Same thing, no terraces. Then you get to the rooftop where there is proposed to be amenity space. Um, the metre space is set back from the edge of both the upper six floor roof, also set back from the lower four story portion. Um, so it's kind of pulled in many areas, pulled back from the edge. So in terms of views, overlook, uh, safety, et cetera, the pulling back from the edge accomplishes a number of things. Next slide, please. So numbers supporting reports are completed. It's required by the city. Um, and those are the under review right now with, with staff. So we're receiving comments from them, uh, shortly, and, uh, addressing those as they come. Next slide, please. So in terms of policy review, we assess the applications against the provincial policy statements. Um, and going through just to be brief, it does satisfy in our professional opinion of the policies of the PPS in terms of appropriate locations for residential, um, compatible with the adjacent context, uh, heritage study was done that looked at the cultural heritage value of the King Street corridor. And so overall professional opinion is that satisfies the policies of the PPS. Next slide, please. So under the official plan, the property is designated as institutional on schedule three and in the city structure schedule two. The property has frontage on a TUR road, which is King Street West, which we're looking at the OP policies in terms of the locational criteria for higher mid rise and high rise buildings. It's one of the criteria, just to note that. So the application for official Plan Amendment would move it out of the institutional designation in the current OP into a residential designation to permit the use. So you'll note that there's, uh, number of residentially designated properties in the area, or sorry, residential, the properties to the west recognising existing dwellings along King Street. Uh, this particular property in the two to the west are still in an institutional designation. Um, not sure the kind of the background of that, but there is kind of a bit of a, uh, mixed approach, I guess, to designating residential versus institutional for those residential existing residential uses along those, uh, properties. Next slide, please. So we assessed the applications against the official plan looking at things that compatibility, principles of growth, uh, transportation environment, cultural heritage, urban design and in our opinion, the application satisfies the various policy tests. It provides, uh, for example, step backs and setbacks from the adjacent residential to minimize shadowing impacts and overlook. Um, so carefully designing the site aloud for, uh, for those policy tests to be met. Next slide, please. Because the city is going through, uh, the process of creating a brand new official plan, uh, we also want to ensure that there's awareness in the public, uh, as to what, uh, the new official plan is proposed for this property just so that the understanding that this is, uh, kind of moving in the same direction, uh, Council has, uh, been seeing with the draft official plan, which, uh, under the land use designations, the property is proposed to be in a mixed use designation. So institutional plus residential plus commercial. Um, so that would allow for the apartment use as well as a number of other uses on the property. In the form map, map six, it's identified as mid - rise form, which per draft two of the official plan would allow up to nine stories. Next slide, please. So we also looked at the, again, the second draft of the new OP policies as it relates to this use, this location, this form, and found that it would satisfy the policies of the draft official plan. Um, and so just to note on that front, given the schedule for the new official plan, it's likely that counts as decision, uh, on the applications would come in probably post adoption by council of the new official plan. So just to highlight kind of the relevance of understanding, uh, where the city's policy regime is moving. Next slide, please. Sith respect is owning bylaw. As you might expect, it is zone for institutional, as with the official plan. Um, and if the zoning bylaw is the institutional zone, uh, would allow for, uh, multi - residential provided, it's essentially associated with the post - secondary institution. So if it's a, uh, on campus housing, for example, also allows for other residential uses of, of lower density forms. So the proposed zone is an urban multi - residential zone, which would have permit an apartment building. And the site specific zone would also recognise the building envelope, uh, so height, set back, step backs, also addressing, uh, The parking ratios and the mix as well as, uh, slight reduction, the amended area. Next slide, please. So these are the areas of relief, uh, or site specific provisions proposed for the lot and to enable a development. So reducing the amenity area from 10 square metres to eight and allowing essentially kind of different shape, longer, longer terraces on the upper floors. Also reducing the site triangle at the corner of King Street and lower university. Um, which was assessed or will be assessed through by the traffic department of the city looking at appropriate sight lines. Also slight increase to the maximum height from 20 to 21. 5 metres for the form. Again, kind of tied into that step back, um, kind of shaped building envelope. So not that the whole building is 21 and a half, um, the four story form that's lower. And then the fifth and sixth floor that are step back would reach that 21. 5 metre height. And then, uh, rear step back and landscaping. So just because of the way the definitions is only by law are written. The rear yard is technically the west yard rather than maybe the north yard. As you might otherwise expect. So we need to seek relief for that provision. To allow for, uh, that kind of pinch point at the northwest corner of the building on the west side. And then a number of parking standards proposed to be adjusted. So reducing the parking ratio overall adjusting the car share ratio. Um, and then having a shared delivery and loading space, uh, and then a few other performance standards related to, uh, parking as it relates to loading and visitor spaces. And then also reducing the accessible parking space from four spaces to two, which is kind of just a reflective of the overall ratio, uh, moving from point six down to, uh, 0. 23 on the site. And next slide, please. So in conclusion, uh, professional opinion on the applications are that they are appropriate. It provides context sensitive developments. Uh, appropriate built form that provides for transition from, uh, the adjoining properties to the west. The lower rise residential to the west kind of stepping up and transitioning up to the taller hospital building and institutional buildings to the east. The redevelopment of the site is in a location that, uh, supported by the official plan and encouraged for residential intensification. And info well supported by transit, active transportation facilities, open space, uh, amenities, commercial uses within walking distance. And it provides additional housing options in close proximity to employment uses like the hospital, Queens University, downtown locations as well. So in conclusion, leave the applications are appropriate. Uh, and constitute good land use planning. Thank you. This presentation. Happy to answer any questions. All right. Thank you very much. So now we'll turn to the members of the public. Are there any members of the public in attendance witching to speak to this file, which is 115 - 17 King Street. Please raise your hand. Okay. Yeah. So if you could come to one of the. You can also come here and then I'll get to you after. So you just state your name and then you have five minutes. Good evening. My name is Lee Magrath. I'm a registered professional planner and I've been retained by Queens University to speak this evening to provide some comments on this application that you have before you at 115 117 King Street. I'm a land use planner at Urban Strategies, Planning and Urban Design Consulting Firm. And we've been providing land use in urban design services to the university for a number of years. On a number of matters, including their campus master plan and ongoing planning initiatives with the universally currently. I have also submitted a letter that you will have on file. And this evening I wanted to draw your attention to some of the core concerns that Queens has with this proposed development. And at a high level, we heard a lot about details of a building, but really the fundamental question that this application poses is related to land use change and compatibility. The proposed development is seeking to convert lands currently designated institutional in the city's official plan into residential designation, as you heard tonight, to permit residential, um, this application fundamentally undermines the stability of institutional end uses. Does not support the planned function of the area and will restrict future academic growth at Queens and jeopardized current research initiatives that contribute directly to the Community's success. There are a few key points I wanted to elaborate here. Um, we heard a little bit about the PPS. Um, institutional lands are part of a complete community. We speak a lot about housing. When we talk about complete communities, but directly in the PPS. Planning authorities must also accommodate in appropriate range and mix of institutional uses. And I want to remind us that not all land use change to support housing goals represents good planning. We're in the practice of balancing interests when we're looking at good planning. And there are many other areas in the city intended for growth and desirable locations for intensification. Strategic growth areas protected major transistation areas, nodes, corridors. These are priority areas for intensification. This proposed development is in none of those areas. And I want to note, and it was mentioned, the new official plan, The Draft, new official plan was described this evening. It is not in force. It is in draft. And Queens has provided commentary through that process with similar concerns that you'll hear me speak to tonight. As I said, we're thinking about balancing interests. And I think it's really imperative to consider the value and importance of institutional lands in that bigger picture. So this conversion out of institutional land designation would harm the university's ability to expand in the future in this location. The university, as you know, is a major economic driver here. The university's success is the city's success. They're closely tied. And taking these lands out of institutional designation would impact Queen's ability to expand its main campus in this location, which is the centre of its academic presence. And having the flexibility to respond to new academic needs and over time as those opportunities arise is really important to allow Queens to maintain their competitiveness. The application would also result in tangible adverse effects on the abutting institutional land uses. So appended to the letter that was submitted, you'll see a detailed account from the Director of the Solar Calometry Lab, which is located in Maulin Hall, which is directly north of the subject site. The lab is focused on developing national and international standards for solar energy equipment. And the rooftop of the lab would be shadowed by the proposed development for significant amount of the day in the winter. And this isn't just about typical, uh, winter shadow that you might hear about that may be acceptable in other parts of the city. The research of the SCL relies on the existing uninterrupted view of the horizon in this location as part of their data collection. So this is a particularly specific impact. And the proposed development in the words of Dr. Harrison and the letter appended to mine would be devastating to the lab's activities. So these are very real compatibility concerns and a direct example of a consequences of converting institutional lands to other uses without appropriate regard for compatibility. Primarily the adverse impacts again to the planned function of the lands, which is language from the official plan. So on that notion of compatibility, the applicant does address various OP tests related to compatibility in terms of bill form, but not the first principle test, in my opinion, which is the consideration for the potential of those adverse effects for the planned function of the area. And that planned function here is that of institutional land uses end of Queens itself. And as noted in my commentary, the application raises those adverse effects. I've just described the immediate intangible impacts to the lab. And more broadly that destabilizing effect to institutional land uses. As I said, good planning is about balancing interests in a way that meet a range of goals and objectives. And we just want to make sure that we're not making decisions that come at the cost of the success of other land uses. So to think more, um, holistically about the impacts of this. Thank you for the opportunity to provide these comments. Thank you. And then you're next. So state your name and then you have five minutes. Sure. My name's Mike Fitzpatrick. I live at 127 King Street West. So I two houses west of this proposed development. And I'm, I want to just mention a couple of things concern. The first is that concerning about the incongruity of the size of this building in the heritage corridor that currently exists where all the homes are either two or three stories only. Uh, this would be quite an outlier and a concern. The second issue is one of parking. The proposed parking allowance is approximately one third of the norm for such a development. And in the application, I saw that there was, um, some assumption that this would be for students who wouldn't have cars. But my, in fact, my wife is the dean of student affairs for the medical school at Queens. And many, many of those students have cars because they have to, to do various different electives at different locations. So that's a real challenge, especially in an area that's so traffic congested currently. There isn't enough parking already. This would absolutely, uh, cause an intensification of the parking shortage in the area. And those of us who live in that area are constantly besieged with cars parking across our driveway because there is no other place to park. And, and the concern because patients have to rush sometimes to get to hospital, uh, women in delivery and so on. This is, this is going to really intensify that shortage of parking. And it will be, we'll create a real challenge. Uh, and so I think if there's any question of a development, uh, in this location, it should be at a much lower height, a smaller number of units with appropriate parking. Thank you. Thank you very much. Anyone else wish to speak. Yep. Go ahead. State your name and you have five minutes. Good evening. My name is Robert McInnis. And I'm concerned about this development. I would like to know first of all, um, perhaps from the Queens Planner, what height would be acceptable to for the solar studies. Um, I'd also like to know if this would be viable as a development with a lower profile. And I'd like to say that, um. The choice of a black building is not appropriate. Because it is too outstanding. I know that the architect would probably love the black buildings. The black buildings cause a problem from a visual point of view for every other building that's around them. And I don't think we should. I think the planning committee should seriously consider whether you should discuss with developers. The concept of building black buildings. I'd like to know what the size of the units are, especially the smaller units. And I'd like to know whether any of them will be considered affordable. Thank you. Thank you very much. Anyone else wish to speak. And send a room. Pardon. Oh yeah, I'm going online after everybody in the room I've spoken. Anyone else? Okay. So now we'll go online. If you wish to speak, please raise your ritual hand in zoom. Okay. So I'll recognise Dr. Spadetic. Yeah. So if you could just state your name and then you'll have five minutes. Hi. Can you hear me okay. Yes. Thank you. My name is Wendy Spedigue. Uh, thank you for letting me speak. And I have to admit it will sound very much like Dr. Fitzpatrick's concerns, uh, as I share those concerns. Uh, my husband and I live in a house right beside the proposed apartment building. So of course we're concerned about privacy as the BSI story wallet windows looking at us and our family and our backyard. But our main concern is the parking. And as doctor Fitzpatrick mentioned, do you have to live there to understand how congested the parking is every day the long row of cars parked along King Street, including cars Park Bily in front of the bus stop and the house its currently at 117 King West. As he said sometime as the cars block our driveway and we can't get out. And we often see hospital visitors or hospital staff wearing scrubs and ID badges rushing anxiously to move their cars before they get a parking ticket. The proposed apartment is expected to hold 111 people for which they'll be 22 parking spots. Although the developers argue that the apartments are for medical students who they claim don't drive cars. Many of the one bedroom and two bedroom apartments will be for professional couples with cars, not to mention their visitors. This will add greatly to the tropic and parking congestion in the area. The ambulances which raised by many times each day, two and from the hospital also add to the traffic congestion in that area. I just don't think that our part of King Street can support the number of apartments that are being proposed. Even a three story apartment building would be stretching the allowed number of parking spaces per apartment. Next again, like Dr. Pittspatrick, we worry that this modern high rise apartment building will not fit in at all with the designated heritage corridor along this area of King Street. The city of Kingston guidelines for new developments in this corridor require that they've been keeping with the heritage character of the area. Historically our section of King Street was comprised of single family homes between two and three stories in height. City Flats has proposed a building that's more than three times the height of some of these houses and more than double their width. They've suggested that their building is a transitional structure between the height of KGH and the neighbouring houses like mine to the west. However, the neighbouring Armstrong wing of KGH is a five - story structure and our house is a two - story building. So then Six - story apartment building. As well, the proposed apartment will negatively affect the visual appeal of Breakwater Park across the street. An area that the city has carefully planned and executed to beautify the city and heighten the enjoyment of the waterfront. Similarly, visitors to Queens University can currently enjoy looking from university avenue down to the waterfront without the interference of an unsightly sick story apartment building. Well, we recognise the city's wish to increase housing in the area. We would ask that you consider an apartment that is three stories high, or at least less than six rather than the proposed six - story building, which does not fit in at all with the historical appeal of the area, and which will contribute greatly to traffic and parking congestion in the area. So we would like to express our opposition to this proposal and to the associated zoning bylawment. Thank you. Oh, thank you very much. Is there anyone else online who wishes to speak? Please raise your hand. Alright, seeing as none, so we'll go to the applicant to answer the questions and comments. Thank you. And just to note joining me tonight also is representative from city flats. Um, so Duncan work here. So he also helped to answer some of these questions. Um, so thank you, first of all, to those who provided comments, both in writing. And tonight. So I'll go through and try to address specific comments as much as I can or themes, um, also note that we will be providing response submission to staff comments. So there may be opportunity provided additional information there as part of any resubmission. So just speaking with respect to the comments from Queens University. So with respect to change and designation from institutional to residential, we recognise that Queens, I would say, as an interest, particularly around its main campus to look for opportunities to, um, acquire, uh, maintain lands that might enable them to expand in the future. I think the other, I guess the flip side of that is this is also in an area, it's close to the downtown close to campus, close to KGH. And it's also an area where the municipality is identified that they do want to see you in support intensification. Um, and residential uses. So I think there is a bit of attention there between, you know, allowing the university opportunities, uh, to expand, uh, we're reasonable, but also recognising that there are many uses that are appropriate in the area and close to downtown and close to employment, both Queens and otherwise. Um, so we have gone through the tests and the official plan looking at what's required for an official plan amendment, what's an appropriate location for residential uses. Um, and we do believe we have met them with respect to this site and this development. With respect to the concerns about the solar lab, um, so we did receive comments from, uh, from Queens specific to that with some additional information. So we are looking at, um, kind of the heights elevation, shadowing provides, uh, looking at some updated shadowing information, uh, and also looking at geographic ground elevations. So we think the actual difference in height is certainly less than what may have been suggested between the buildings and kind of that upper floor use on the adjoining Queens building. Um, so we're open to city flots. It's open to speaking with Queens to see kind of what options there might be to help mitigate or address the concerns that they may have about that site. We'll also just note, you know, it is, they're privately owned property. And so it's difficult, I guess, to preserve and perpetuity views and other things that, um, might otherwise be relied on. So same thing with a view that the public might want to have, um, or other, uh, other kind of similar expectations. This has been private property for decades. Um, and so it's perhaps difficult to always preserve the built form that's been there as changes happen to the city and neighbourhoods over time. Um, but nonetheless, I think, as I said, city flots certainly willing to continue discussions with Queens, uh, to address those concerns. Similar notes, the two neighbouring property owners to the west. We, in looking at the site and looking at kind of what type of building would fit best on the site, we'd certainly take into account surrounding uses. So in terms of, you know, four or six story form here on this particular kind of corner lot, we do see it as a appropriate location to have some higher built form that does kind of transition from a very large institutional building that as height is nine to 10 stories. The five story portion of KGH to the immediate west is actually in height. It's actually taller geodec elevation. So like the actual measured height is taller than our building because the institutional floors themselves are much taller than the residential floors that we're proposing. Um, and it's also just smaller building, smaller mass. So it kind of does fit that model of, you know, stepping down from a very large institutional building to a small apartment building down to lower, uh, lower residential buildings. And again, kind of this is that tension of, um, having, and finding locations for mid - rise kind of appropriate infill on major roads in close proximity to the downtown to employers to park space to commercial. You know, we have applications that look at our suburban locations or areas where there's, you know, trees, ecological areas and every site has some challenges. And so we're trying to find a good balance and a good fit on each of these is, um, is the goal. And so that's why city flats through the building design has kind of done a four story base and then step back, uh, on the upper floors to try to provide that kind of transition and respect for privacy overlook minimizing shadows on the properties to the west. So there is a shadow study that's available. And so looking at that, uh, in spring and fall equinoxes, so kind of Midway through where the shadowing is kind of the bookending of the outdoor season typically. There's no shadowing on the properties to the West for the entire afternoon. So by the time you hit noon, the showers are entirely off the neighbouring property immediately neighbouring property to the west. And so that's partly a function of setbacks and also stepping back the building. So trying to address those, those concerns through the building design and building sighting. With respect to the heritage concern. So we did have to do a heritage study that looked at the King Street Heritage Corridor. And so that was part of the requirement for the application. And it did identify that this, again, kind of going back to this, this built form and this location given the context with institutional uses that the building was appropriate in this heritage context given the kind of variation and uses and forms, um, along the, along the corridor. With respect to choice of colour. Yeah. The renderings are very preliminary. So certainly, uh, I think city fought. So it's first to say they're not tied to the cladding, the colour even necessarily the exact design. So it's certainly good to get that feedback. And I know city thoughts will take that into account as the project evolves. I'll pass it maybe over to Duncan at this point just to speak to the questions and concerns about parking ratios and what they think is needed. Thanks, Mark. And thanks everybody for your comments today. I think it's an important, uh, it's important to get all the feedback from the community. We've reached out to neighbours to Queens to, uh, send district association and others in attempt to, uh, liais with the public and hear concerns early and address them as much as possible. Um, specifically with regards to the parking, uh, understand the concerns. Um, we built a 17 unit apartment building with, with many more bedrooms rather, um, and sit in award and Wellington Street. And we were finding that, uh, even though the building is nearly leased, parking spaces, um, so the ratio that we proposed, we think is aligned with the type of tendency that we are going to see here. Um, and, you know, speaking to the thousands of, you know, employees at, at KGH, the Kingston Health Science Centre and Queens that live and work in the area. I think, um, if there are a few extra cars that, you know, as a result of us providing enough parking, um, we don't think it will have a major impact in the, uh, in the community. Um, we're also looking at, um, car share options, uh, one or two car share spaces. We've got transportation that runs along here. You know, we are probably the most, uh, motivated to provide enough parking spots for attendance. Um, because we run out of, uh, parking spots and our building is happily. Then that becomes a challenge for us. So, you know, we're, we're, we've done some work and some, some research on that front, uh, while the ratio is low, we think for this particular building in this place, um, with the prospective tenants, we think that it should adequately accommodate the number of units that we are proposing. Um, I'm going to speak a little bit more to some of the other issues that came up as well. Um, all valid concerns and valid issues that we'd like to address as best we can in this forum, but also continued dialogue with, uh, neighbours, uh, Queens University, of course. We have an open dialogue with and others. Uh, so the first one, uh, Lee, I think you spoke to, you know, the PMT SAs and some of the growth strategic growth areas. And while we recognise that the city has got projected areas where they'd like to see growth, um, it is very difficult to find sites that do align with, uh, what our mandate is, which is primarily six story missing middle, you know, gentle densification type developments. We find that sprawl can often be very taxing on transportation. Uh, servicing, um, those sorts of issues that come up. Um, and towers can be quite controversial in Kingston. Um, so typically we target something that, uh, is a bit more palatable. And, you know, I don't think anybody will deny the need, um, that the city of Kingston has for, for housing. Um, and we think that this is a good size development for this area close to downtown. It's something that is not overly obtrusive. Um, again, mid - rise could be up to nine stories. Uh, we've tried, we are keeping it to six. Uh, we've got a fifth floor step back. And in order to minimize the shadowing and the impact on the street, uh, we are, uh, ensuring that anything to the West that abuts any of the residential properties are private terrorists only. And the units are primarily facing north and south to minimize the impact, obviously from a privacy standpoint. Again, Mark spoke to the shadow study. Um, so we did update that with some geodetic data. And we're only a few metres proposed in terms of our roof level above. McLaughlin Hall to the north. And from what we've seen, there's zero shadowing effects. And I understand there's an argument to be said about the horizon, which, you know, we'd like to address and work with Queens specifically about what that impact is. Obviously we want to minimize the impact on any sort of ongoing research. Um, but based on our shadow study, there is no shadowing that occurs, uh, in terms of direct sunlight on McLaughlin Hall to the north. Um, in terms of viability of the development as a lower profile, um, it's, it's not. You know, something that, uh, I think would work. I think we are, you know, trying to fit a number of units with the building profile that is, you know, sort of palatable. And while, you know, I'm sure a lower profile building would be preferred in this area. I think we are trying to hit, you know, some, some density. And, you know, it can be challenging to build these types of residential developments. Um, and we thought six stories was, uh, was a bit of a compromise, um, between what could be proposed at a, at a nine story and incorporating our, our step backs. Unit sizes, uh, vary from small. So 350 square feet up to 886. So in the Mars small, but we are, as we are, uh, with all of our developments targeting 10 for the CMHD guidelines, which is, uh, we will have some affordable units in this, uh, in this building. We believe that, uh, again, Mark spoke to the Heritage Impact statement. It being lower than, you know, KGH certainly the building that is directly across the street, much lower than a lot of the buildings that are at KGH. I think that addresses all the questions that I heard. Thank you. Yeah, I think that's it too. Um, all right. So now we'll go to, um, the committee. Has anyone want to have any questions or comments that they want to say. Councilloc. Thank you, Mr. Chair, through you. So I do agree with the residents, like before the ads even came this afternoon. Um, just reading the report last night. You know, um, I just feel that six stories is too tall for dislocation. Like in our report, we didn't have a concept diagram showing what it looks like from the water or what it looks like from King Street. I did see in the presentation tonight there was a rendering of King Street, but it was, it was basically from KGH looking diagonally across. So you cann't see how like to me, this is a giant at six stories held the giant looks, you know, next door to the home to the immediate west of this site. And I would, I would be more happy with three to four stories. And then when I read The Addis that came this afternoon from Queens University that Miss McGrath then described to us. Like I don't want this property to like this development to affect McLaughlin Hall's solar lab. So I do have that concern reading the, um, the addeds like with the letter from Queens. It looks like four stories max. Like, um, I know we talked about what I just heard was, um, The Fall in the spring seasons, but, um, The letter talks about the shadows in the wintertime. So, you know, I do have a concern because it's in the letter, right that the solar lab is going to be most effective in the wintertime. And I don't want that to happen. Like McLaughlin Hall, mechanical engineering there. They've been at Queens a long, long time. Um, I do know that, you know, this has been a residential use these two plots of land, you know, that one house right at the corner was not down a few years ago, but that was like a Queens hosing house. And, um, my husband actually lived in there during the year of 1994. And I visited him every weekend. So I lived in that house. So I know about the parking concerns. Luckily for that hose, it did have parking at the back. So I wasn't one of the people perking on the street. But I do know that Perking is a problem. And I think if, if this development went down to three to four stories, um, whatever does not affect whatever height does not affect the solar lab that it could, um, less perking would be needed, less perking problems. Um, for, um, Mr. McInnes and he was talking about it not being painted black, you know, um, I would still want like a darker colour, like from a water view. Um, I don't want something really bright or white or, or, you know, cream coloured. I'd rather it sort of blend in. So maybe a brown or a moss green, you know, something that's not going to look too hideous, you know, in terms of colour, something more neutral, something that just blends in, especially because all the trees are going to be cut down, you know, um, and so yeah, for those 23 trees and that this proposal is reducing the land, like no landscape strip, right? Because you're going to be putting a fence. It should be, um, 10 metres, but you're asking for 2. 67 metres. Is there room on this development for any trees to be planted? Cause you are taking down 22 or 23 trees on this site. You can answer your. Thanks for those comments. Um, I think all those were, uh, valid comments. I would say with regards to the trees, we have not put together a landscaping plan yet. Um, so the intent would be to replant some trees and help compensate for, uh, at least some of the trees that get cut down. Um, also not sure about the right away that's going to be given to the city. I know there's at least one tree on there right now. Um, and, you know, perhaps we could contribute to some additional plantings along there as well. Um, so, you know, understanding the, you know, the footprint of the building and the parking area, uh, there is, you know, it is a bit constrained, but we love trees. So yes, when we develop the landscaping plan, um, we'll certainly propose that both on our site. And, uh, with the city's permission, uh, along some of the road lounges as well. Okay. All right. Uh, thank you for you, Mr. Chair. So yeah, my concern is just, um, the winter shadowing effect that's written in the letters tonight in the adids on, um, you know, the solar lab at MacLaun Hall and Mechanical Engineering. Thank you. So, and I can, if I can, you, Mr. Chagan, respond to the shadows. So we did further to the shadow study that was in the applications. We did get an updated shadow study completed based on further geodetic elevation. So like ground elevation and then you're able to compare, you know, height of the building because this, this particular building sits lower than Lauglain Hall. So even though Millon Hall is fewer stories, um, it sits at an increased elevation. And the McLaughlin Hall itself is also, you know, much taller story to story. It's as typical of older buildings. So looking at that shadowing and taking to account the ground elevation, um, we have updated winter shadowing assessment that does not show any shadows falling on the roof of McLaughlin Hall, even in the shortest day of the year. So there wouldn't be shadowing anticipated on the solar equipment. Uh, they raise, et cetera. I think the question maybe then comes back to kind of, concerns about being able to view the horizon. So I think that's where it'll be helpful to meet with Queens and kind of walk through what parameters are affected and is there opportunities to try to address those. So we're hoping to do. Okay. Councillor Shaves. Thank you. Um. A few questions here. Um, are there any EV parking. Scheduled for the building. I can address that. Yes. Uh, we don't have any spots at this point, but for all our buildings, we do provide that EV parking. I'm guessing there will be probably four. Two to four. Uh, EV parking spots. Depending on demand. But yes, there will be some. Thank you. Um, where exactly couldn't quite tell on the map. I think it started figured out the one that slides. Where the accessible parking would be and where the main entrance is located. Through you, Mr. Chair. Um, so the accesso parking is going to be located. Let's pull up the site plan. Um, so if you're looking at the state plan, if you have, uh, that in front of you, uh, the accessful spaces are on the north side of the driving aisle. So the axis side between the two, and so they are kind of directly across the drive aisle and leading any lead you through to the, uh, sidewalk along lower university and then to the main entrance, the accessible main entrance along lower university. And so I think there was a second question. There's two spaces. Sorry. Yeah. And I will present that we've maintained during the winter season to allow accessibility. Yes. Yeah. The access aisles is essentially it's the parking area. And then the mean sidewalks for the site. So it would be a maintained path of access. And is there only one accessible entrance to the building. We haven't developed that level of detail yet at this stage. Um, certainly there would be one in the main entrance to the vestibule. Um, but I think we would also provide one, uh, that's at the north, east corner of the buildings, stair A, where we would have direct access to the elevator as a short path of travel. Okay. Thank you. And that's why we bring these questions up at this point in time. Cause early in the process. Thank you. Um, except for, I think floor five. They're no balconies. Included in this project. Uh, yes. Yeah. That's correct. So on floor five, there are terraces. On the ground floor, so the lower level, which has kind of like a private little lower kind of patios. On the ground floor level, there are little balconies essentially looking, just looking out towards king. But they're essentially just, you know, a couple feet above grade. But beyond that, no other balconies or private, private balconies. Okay. Just want to confirm what I was saying. You may have heard this before, but how close that zero over and above the building code will this apartment be. Again. It's a bit early, but for our buildings, typically we target at least 40 percent better than the national building code. And we would target at least that on, on this building as well. Uh, net zero. Is unlikely achievable at this point, but certainly 40 percent better than the building code is our typical building. And that's what we've delivered sort of across the board and continues to be a part of our mandate. Okay. Thank you. Uh, will you be taking advantage of the green standard community improvement plan. That I'm not sure of at this point, but is a good one to take away and look into in more detail. Thank you Councillor Chiefs. Okay. Thank you. Um, I know maybe on, on the ground, maybe limited space, but maybe on the rooftop, uh, if the residence requested, would it be allowed to have a community garden. Absolutely. If we're, uh, yeah, if the demand for it and something that, you know, we can accommodate, uh, we would be more than willing to incorporate something like that into our design. Thank you. Um, you did mention landscaping plan, even though it might be limited, but would it also include biodiversity or pollinator friendly plants and shrubs. Yes. Typically we, you know, on our developments working with our landscape architects, uh, we have native species. And that includes biodiversity. And Paulinated friendly plants as well. Okay. Thank you. Uh, I think last question. What's your plans for snow removal in storage. That's a good question. Uh, at the West End of the property, we do have a planting strip. Um, and I think most of the snow would make its way down to that end of the drive. Uh, on other projects, if needed, we would have to remove the snow from site. But depending on the year, hopefully we can, uh, accommodate that at the west end of the site. You may not be able to comment it that if we get another winner like we did La, but thank you. Thank you. All right. Councillor Glenn. Thank you. And through you. Um, my colleagues in the public, I think, have asked pretty much false slate of very generative questions. Um, what I do want to ask is just why you chose six stories. And then I'd like to reiterate, uh, some of the other comments made, uh, I think, you know, going back and having the continued consultations, uh, in the past, you've done, I think a very good job of consulting with the community. Please continue to do that. On the aesthetics piece, um, I understand, you know, you've done a heritage impact statement. Perhaps consulting with Heritage Committee on what might make it fit in better would be one way to, um, uh, get something that looks a little better here. I don't know about the green Councilloc wants, but I think Heritage could admit he might be able to come up with some suggestions to help out with that. Uh, so I'm just going to urge you to go back and continue to consult. And sorry, actually I did have one other question. Uh, why no three bedrooms? I keep trying to urge everyone who's building to put those in. I'll go back to Toronto again where we've seen, uh, wrath of studios, one bedrooms, uh, and now, uh, builders are regretting it. We do want to make sure that we can accommodate people with families, um, and we're seeing, I know your intent is aiming at this at students and potentially those working in the hospital, but there are more and more people that continue to work from home. So having a bit of extra space allows them to, uh, to do that as well. Thank you. Thank you, Councillor. Uh, I can, uh, address those questions. Uh, I'll start with the Y six stories. Um, you know, looking at the new draft official plan, um, contemplated for MidRise in the area. And directly to the east, the KGH site being high rise. We thought that six stories was a good, um, intermediate height. Again, not compared to the houses to the west, but to KGH to the east and relative, uh, two, you know, what could be proposed by ourselves, uh, as a, as a nine story building. We are trying to take every step that we can in order to minimize the impact of the six story building. So the step backs, you know, while losing, you know, GFA, it is something that we think is going to help with the shadowing, make it less, you know, looming over the street level, but also, um, the residences to the, to the west. So, you know, it becomes a question of, you know, us trying to find creative solutions to provide housing in an area that much, you know, much needs it. Um, and trying to find, you know, the right height that is going to be, you know, viable for us to build a project on this site without it, you know, being too big or too tall. Uh, and with our step backs and some of the other mitigation measures that we've taken, you know, on this, in this design, um, and, uh, feedback from the community and others, uh, we thought that this was, you know, a good, uh, middle ground for, you know, what, what could be on this site. In terms of consulting with Heritage, you know, we were a little bit hesitant to share some of the renderings of, uh, the black building. It is very preliminary. We had to sort of pick a colour and, uh, you know, not a ton of, you know, as much thought has gone into it as we can sort of at this point. So we are not tied to that, uh, by any means, uh, in terms of, you know, materiality colour, all those sorts of things. So we are very much open to feedback in terms of what this building looks like. And that includes liaising with, uh, with Heritage staff. And sorry, what was your final question? Was there one more? Oh, three bedrooms. Yes. Right. Three beds. Again, we're early on. So, uh, we've got, um, actually some units that are big enough to accommodate three beds. Uh, we did get some of that feedback earlier. We didn't sort of have time to shuffle the units around and lay it up properly. Um, and based on some of the demand that we're seeing from some of our other buildings, uh, we think that there is, you know, a market for that. Um, so it is something that we're looking at incorporating into design moving forward. Thank you. Just maybe add a little bit of a supplemental on the, on the six stories versus, and we heard about three stories and four stories tonight. In like not every six story design is going to work here. Now you've maybe not even every four story design is going to work here or five stories. And I think the fifth and sixth floor in this project mean an extra 24 units between those two floors. And the previous public meeting, and I, you know, I was involved with that with that project, but I know, can I evolve over time from, you know, a number of units in a neighbourhood that really kind of didn't feel as appropriate. And we kind of pulled back that number of units to three, I think is what's there. Um, and so it's, you know, we're trying to move units around within the city into appropriate context. So, you know, that, that wasn't maybe appropriate there in terms of having, I forgot, it was like 12 units on that site previously. And so, you know, we got, where else can we provide units that fits that are compatible in the context? And I know for the, you know, the houses to the, to the west, there is that kind of predominant along King Street, two story buildings. Um, but it's also on a arterial road really close to downtown, close to hospital to the university, et cetera. And so as we're trying to balance in city flots, is looking for sites where they can do these four to six to eight story buildings. There are some locations that don't work. There's some that will work with the right design. And I think ultimately we saw this site as being, you know, the right design or the right site with the right design. And I think we heard some comments back about that tonight and can take them away and look forward to receiving staff comments as well. And working towards a final, final design. And just one, one final thought to your comment, Councillor Glenn. We have an open ear, uh, men will continue to do so with both Queens and any members of the community that want to provide feedback directly or through any means. Um, so we encourage that, uh, that feedback. And I hope to mitigate any concerns as best we can. All right. Thank you. Um, yeah, any comment or question I would have had have already been asked or said. So, okay. So that, uh, concludes our public meeting. Um. So now we'll call the, or at what time, what time is it? 718. So it concludes that 718. So now I'll call the regular meeting to order at 718. Uh, do I have a mover in a seconder to approve the agenda with the addendum? Web by Councillor Glenn, seconded by Councillor Osanic. All in favor. And that passes. Okay. So I need to move around in a secondary to approve the minutes of planning committee meetings in the 2026 - 07 in 2026 - 08 moved by Councillor Shaves, seconded by Councillo Sanic, any edits. I think it's none. All right. All in favor. And that passes. Are there any disclosures of pecuniary interest. No, there's no delegations. There are no briefings, no items. There are no items of business. No motions. There are no system. Is there any other business? Seeing as none correspondence was included in the agenda and the addendum. So the next meaning of the planning committee is scheduled for Thursday, May 21st, 2026 at 6 p. m. I need a mover in a second refer to adjourn. Move away Council Glenn, seconded by Councillo Sanic. All in favor. Good night.