Good evening. It is 6 p. m. So we will begin. The meeting being held tonight as a public meeting held under the Planning Act. Please note that this meeting will be live streamed on the city website. Audio and video are being collected by the city of Kingston and the meeting recording will be archived on the city website for public consumption. I will take this opportunity to remind everyone in the room to please ensure the sound on your cellular device is 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 the 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 this decision. Tonight's meeting is to consider public meeting reports. These reports do contain staff recommendation and the recommendation is typically to approve or deny an application. After the Planner's presentation, committee members will be able to ask questions of staff followed by members of the public. Following the question and answer period, this committee then makes a recommendation on the applications to Kingston City Council, who has the final say on the applications. Following Council's decision, notice will be circulated in accordance with the Planning Act. Members of the public cannot appeal a decision. Only the registered owner of land to which the amendment applies, or a prescribed person under the Planning Act has the ability to appeal a decision of Council. For more information on appeal rights or how to be added as a party to an appeal, please contact the assigned file planner. I will now call the meeting to order at 601 p. m. Do we have a mover in Secondar to approve the agenda with the addenda. Move by Councillor Sanic, seconded by Councillor Shaves, all those in favor. And that's carried. Do I have a mover in Seconder for the confirmation of the minutes of Planning Committee meeting 2026 - 14, moved by Councillor Chanani, seconded by Councillor Glenn? Any edits. Seeing none, all in favor. And that carries. Are there any disclosures of pecuniary interest. Seeing none. There are no delegations, there are no briefings. And moving to our business for this evening. We have the recommendation report for 800 Princess Street. I will invite staff to present. A good evening. And through the chair, my name is Ian Clin Denning, a senior planner with the city of Kingston. And tonight I'm here to present a recommendation report regarding an application for official plan and zoning bylaw amendments for the property located at 800 princess Street. The effect of the application is to facilitate the creation of 38 new homes within a mixed use building. An unofficial plan amendment is proposed to allow a 21. 6 metre tall building, whereas 20 metres is otherwise the maximum. And to allow the floor to floor height on the ground floor as it currently exists. A zoning bylaw amendment is proposed to permit both the height and 111 total dwelling units on the lot. Special recognition of the existing building is also provided to allow reduced step backs at the fifth floor and to reduced setback for an elevator overrun and certain psych characteristics as they currently exist on the property. The site is located on the south side of Princess Street, between Regent Street to the west and MacDonald Street to the east. Which for clarity is within District 9 Williamsville. So I'm happy to recognise a mistake in the reports heading in that regard and apologise for any confusion that may have caused. The subject lands are designated Main Street, commercial, and within the Princess Street Corridor Specific area, which establishes requirements for ground floor commercial. And for a 20 - metre and six - story maximum height. Implementing the official plans policies, the Kingston Zoning bylaw zones the property, Williamsville, Main Street 1. Provided here are photographs of the site. The Upper Photo is looking generally towards the site with the abutting heritage building west of the site in the foreground. The bottom image is looking directly east, directly west toward the building where the main entrance is located. The proposed development consists of a new fifth and sixth story. Which is stepped back variously 1. 5 and two metres based on the location of structural columns. Exceptions to the step back from the fourth floor is required due to the presence of two elevator shafts situated along the front wall of the building. One of the elevators is being decommissioned above which would be an area for bike storage. While the other elevator would continue to service the building and extend above the roof of the building with a small elevator overrun feature at the wall of the building. Additionally, the development includes a rear addition which affords space for a new amenity area within the basement, as well as for five new two bedroom units located on the second through sixth floors. The proposed development includes two commercial units with a total of 359 square metres of space facing towards Princess Street. The landscaping plan shown here illustrates improvements to the site's layout and functionality which form an Integral part of the proposed development. This includes the removal of the third entrance onto Princess Street, helping pedestrianize the area. The introduction of loading and short - term delivery spaces to properly service the residential units, additional bike spaces at the front and rear of the building. And the removal of an informal gravel parking area at the southwest corner of the site, which would be landscaped with a variety of trees. The zoning amendment would recognise the existing 6 - metre dry vial, slightly smaller parking spaces, and the lack of a vegetative barrier, which separates the mixed - use site from the abutting parking lot to the rear, which is associated with the apartment building. All of which have been features of the site since its initial development. During the community meeting, the city heard support from members of the public and the committee regarding the increase in height and densification of the property. We also heard concerns regarding the future of the informal pathway between the site and the apartment building to its rear. Whether EV charging stations would be provided and regarding the mix of units. Regarding the informal pathway, the applicant indicated they do not have an easement over the abutting property and raised concerns about safety and liability, even if these rights could be secured, either to the benefit of the apartment building's residence or to the public more broadly. Regarding EV charging, the applicant has confirmed that between two and four chargers are planned to be provided. Finally, regarding the mix of units, unfortunately due to constraints imposed by the existing building and the layout of the first four floors, a greater unit mix was not feasible. To help illustrate this point, shown here is the framing of the fourth floor. Here, The fifth floor is showing, which aligns with the dividing walls of the stories below, with the exception of where the building steps back, and we see the introduction of two - one - bedroom units in place of the two - bedroom and studio unit below. The applicant provided a stamped engineer's analysis as to the constraints imposed by the existing unit layout, or more specifically, the demizing load - bearing walls, which prevented the greater unit mix. Of note, through the Intensification, through the introduction of the additional 1 and 2 bedroom units, the share of studio units within the building actually decreases as a result of the proposed development. Given the above, it is my professional planning opinion that the application is consistent with the provincial planning statement conforms with the city's official plan and appropriate zone provisions have been developed. The proposed development represents good land use planning, and accordingly, staffer recommending approval of the official plan and zoning bylaw amendments put forward. In the event of approval, detailed designs would be provided and refined through the site plan control process. With that, I thank you all for your time, and we'd be happy to address any questions the public or this committee may have. Okay, thank you very much. Are there any questions from the committee. Are there any members of the public present who would like to speak. Please come on up to the microphones. And Mr. Dixon, I will see you first. Thank you, Madam Chair. Thank you for the presentation, to the staff. I've been following this one along. So I'm supportive with the pool's all with its required amendments, like the CAREF we thought out changes. And this will be a good fit for the neighbourhood. A greater deslocation is appropriate. And I'll just point out that the Princess Street corridor is well - serviced by Kingston Transit. With roots 501 - 502 and number four. With transfer stops for equals pipe. And I'll just pass this to the clerk. Thank you. Hi. My name is Robert McInnis. And I'd like to ask some questions. The studio units, is it not possible to put two studio units together and make a larger unit. Could we not have a beta mix that way. The appearance of the building is not exactly what I would call desirable. And I wonder if there's a process by which we can help the developer to make this more attractive. I would like to know if what the relationship is between parking and units. I didn't hear that in the presentation. On the step - max. You know, like our very minimal, and I'm wondering, you know, the idea of the step backs is to reduce the impact of a building upon the street and the surrounding buildings. And if it's not substantial, it's just tokenism. So I think those setbacks should be increased. Can you tell me. How many trees you intend or the developer intends to put on the property more than their existing. Thanks. Hey, thank you. Anyone else in the room who wishes to speak. Seeing none, we will check online. If you are on Zoom and would like to speak, please raise your little virtual hand. Okay, seeing none. We'll go to staff for some response. Ms. Glenn Denning. Thank you. And through the chair, I was just taking a few notes. With respect to the first comments about how the site is well - serviced and appropriate for added densities, staff certainly does concur with that observation. With respect to the comments presented by Mr. McInnes can certainly elaborate on some of the details of the proposal. We did reach out to the applicant to COD additional clarification and detail as to why the studio units could not be consolidated into one bedroom or even two bedroom units through removing those partition walls. Perhaps what would be beneficial. Is if we were to turn to slide 11. Where it has the observations from the applicants professional engineer who made certain comments and stamped his professional opinion to those, noting how, um, the level five and six demizing walls, which are the walls that separate each of the studio units. Are structural load - bearing walls and contribute to the buildings lateral resisting system. The location and composition, the engineer continues of these structural walls cannot be modified without extensive redesign of the structure at each floor level. So receiving those comments and running them through our building officials. At the city of Kingston to ensure that the validity of those statements, it was understood that a bona fide effort was made, and that's where we see the introduction of the two bedroom units on the second through sixth floor. Through that rear addition. As well as where the step back is required. That the bachelor units and a two - bedroom units are then through design necessity converted into one bedroom units, thereby helping increase that share of one bedroom units. I also heard concern for the appearance being not exactly desirable. What I will focus on is to highlight that the heritage impact study provided by the applicant. And reviewed by city's heritage services department. Did confirm that the site's building and the design features and elements would be compatible with the heritage building. In regards to the step backs being minimal, I will concede that there is a reduction to a 1. 5 metre step back at the fifth floor. Whereas two metres is required. That only applies to one portion of the building. And again, is reflective of a structural column within the building itself. So the step back in this situation is a reduction of. 5 metres. And this is in part offset, in my opinion, by the much greater setback of the building itself. Where such a nominal differential from what is required to help pedestrianize the street wall of princess is largely mitigated. I also heard concerns about how many trees are intended to be put on the property. And whether that would be more than the existing number. To that effect, I can confirm that through the site plan approval process, we are reviewing one plan that shows 13 trees being planted, which is an increase from what existed prior to the site's first phase of development. So there is in fact an increase as well as that noted landscaping area. At the, would be the southwest corner, which is currently just crushed gravel and does not accommodate any landscaping. In regards to the vehicle parking, they are not looking for any reduction in the number of a parking spaces. They are providing a total of 52 parking spaces. And that is sufficient for the parking area two zoning. What they are looking for modest reductions in is the drive aisle width from 6. 75 metres. Down to six metres. Which is what is existing there today. In similar fashion to modest reduction in the parking stall size is sought. And I'm trying to make sure that I have addressed all of the questions. You have addressed everything I have on my list. Um, if I may just dig a little bit into one of the questions that I think was asked not fully answered is, um, around the beautification of the building, do staff have any kind of planning tools or mechanism to, um, help the applicant to change the aesthetics of the outside of the building. To answer that question, the planning act and site plan control are not tools where we can start enforcing the colour or cladding of a specific building. So in answer to that, it would be, no, we don't have tools to address that under our legislative authority. Okay, thank you for the clarification. Um, I see we have a few new people in the room. I'll just ask again, are there any members of the public here who would like to speak to the application for 800 princess street. Seeing none. Okay. Thank you. Um, so I'll turn to committee now. Do we have a mover and a seconder for the recommendation? Move by Councillor Chanani, seconded by Councillor O'Sanic. Is there any discussion. Council Rosanic. Thank you. Um, Madam Cochair. I just have one question to staff. I know too that it's not really part of the legislation that's allowed anymore. But if the applicant can just hear for the 13 trees that are going to be planted, thank you for planting the 13 trees. Can we please try to ensure their survival by watering bags or an underground sprinkler system that would be great and for that Southwest corner that has going to be the landscaped area that's right now just gravel to plant in there. I don't know what's planned, but can we try to have some native pollinators, um, planted in there, you know, like B - bomb or, you know, the butterfly bush or, um, you know, trumpet vine, like some really good, high quality plants that can attract, you know, bees and butterflies. And I'm sure the thousand island gardeners could give a recommendation of what the plantains should be rather than just, you know, what we kind of see nowadays some ornamental grass and a couple of day lilies and that's it. Thank you. Okay. Thank you, Mr. Clin Dunning. Thank you. And through the chair, I am happy to just elaborate on that is we are waiting on a revised site plan submission, which would incorporate some of the comments raised, including by our city's forester. Who did identify some issue with the tree stock that was initially put forward? So we do look for those types of modifications. And with the applicant being present today, I am relieved that they are hearing those comments regarding ensuring the survivability of the trees. We do keep securities to ensure that trees do survive over the near term. Thank you. I believe it was Councillor Chanani next. To you. Um, yeah, so. I'm just, I guess some people will be disappointed that they can't lose the path. Anymore, but, uh, I think this is a pretty good repurposing of a building to changing it into residential. So, um, yeah, so supporting it, hopefully that goes smoothly and like a Councillo Sanic said, you know, if we can get to show the trees or surviving, uh, and that would be great. So yeah. Thank you. Thank you. Um, it's hard to see. Everybody's online just one sec. Committee, I'm not seeing any other hands raised. Just double checking. Okay. Thank you. Um, all right. Uh, so discussion is completed. So I'll call the vote. All those in favor. And that's carried. Thanks, everyone. Okay. Our second item of business is the recommendation report for 92 Napier Street. And I invite staff to present. Thank you through the chair. My name is Amy Dirksen. I'm a planner with the city of Kingston Planning Services. I'll present an overview of this recommendation report. Before committee regarding the official plan amendment and zoning bylaw amendment at 92 Napier Street submitted by 92 Napier Group Incorporated and Foten Planning Consultants. There was a community meeting regarding this application in May of this year. Um, and as well, of course, there is some history to applications on this site. And I'll try to reference some differences with this application relative to the application that came forward to committee last summer, uh, in the presentation for reference point. So the perfect purpose and effect of the applications is to permit residential development on the subject plans, uh, which are of course, uh, formerly the South Lawn of the Kingston Lawn Bowling Club, which were severed in 2024. And to the north is 108r Street, which is, you can see the clubhouse to the north of The Lands that are hatched there. And the north lawn of the Kingston Lawn Bowling Club that is to the north of the subject property. Essentially the applications redesignate the Lancet 92 Napier Street from an open space for residential land use designation and rezone from a general open space zone to a UR5 zone. So just zooming out on the context just as a bit of a refresher, um, the subject property is in essential neighbourhood of the city. Um, with a mix of uses in proximity, uh, these, this slide highlights the location and the designations that apply in the official plan around the property. So we have predominantly residential designation, but also in proximity, our institutional designations with Queens University Maine Campus and West campus. Uh, we have community facilities like Winston Churchill Public School in proximity and Churchill Park. And Baren's's groceries of neighbourhood commercial just to the south as well. The properties in a location where there's, uh, numerous transit stops on Johnson Street as well as, uh, further to the south on Union Street as well as active transportation connections like bike lanes on Johnson Street and a network of sidewalks. And just to highlight the zoning that applies surrounding the property currently, we have a UR5 zone that applies to the east and west and south of the subject lands, uh, which is the zone that's proposed for the property as part of the subject application. Um, so the proposal is, um, land use permission essentially without, uh, specific development at this, at this time. The land use permission would permit low rise residential build forms in accordance with the UR5 zone. And up to three total residential lots, uh, in the absence of a draft plan of subdivision application. Uh, so last summer, uh, there was a draft plan of subdivision requiring approval from planning committee that proposed for lots. But when there's three or less, um, the consent to sever applications that would apply. Uh, so we don't have a draft plan of subdivision application before committee tonight. Just a rezoning and an official plan, uh, amendment. So, uh, future consent applications would permit up to three lots. Um, another difference is that stormwater is supposed to be managed on site as opposed to, uh, previous application, which proposed an extension to stormwater manage a storm sewer basically up Napier Street. But in this case a combination of swales and bio retention facilities are proposed to manage stormwater, uh, on the subject properties. So there have been, I'll just highlight some key topics of interest that have come up through the subject application in the next few slides. Um, there's correspondence in the staff report and also one piece of correspondence, I believe on the addendum tonight. Um, so comments of expressed a continued interest in maintaining open space and a desire for public park in this location, um, just to highlight some. Response from the staff report. There is a policy framework in effect for conversion of open space. Um, and essentially, um, in this case, the key policy considerations included compatibility of the proposed use with adjacent open space, uh, and surrounding land uses, um, which is well established, um, already in the neighbourhood with the residential uses around the Kingston lawn bowling site, but a number of, uh, considerations such as, um, connectivity with public parks and environmentally protected features and connections with trail systems don't apply in the subject in this instance. Staff had no concerns with the compatibility of the proposed residential use in this location and the conformity with the official, uh, plan policy. And notably as well, the city has been approached about the purchase of this, this property, but, uh, there hasn't been support for the purchase of this property and primarily the preferred locations for, uh, public parks, uh, that are outlined in the official plan, which, which aren't met in this specific instance, uh, which forms part of that. Um, there have been interest in the proposed built form. We're supposed to be established here. And again, there isn't a specific development put forward tonight, simply a land use permission for residential development, um, but three lots could be established through future consent to several applications. And the stormwater management, um, report and grading plans that have been put forward. For detached homes, um, with basements. And it's notable as well that the stormwater management approach will require reduced basement to set back from bioretention facilities. So the ultimate built form will be detailed further through consent applications. And we'll be informed by technical requirements related to managing stormwater on this site. So the instruments before committee are fairly straightforward. There's the bylaw to change the land use designation with no site - specific policy changes and zoning amendment to replace the OS2 zone with an UR5 zone and with no site specific modifications. The proposal will enable additional housing in essentially located neighbourhood with zoning and development standards consistent with surrounding lots. The applications are consistent with the provincial planning statement conformed to the official plan and represent good use land use planning. We're recommending approval tonight. If the OPA and ZBA are approved, um, there will be consent to several applications required to create new lots, which will require a development agreement as a condition of approval to implement stormwater management requirements for those slots. Building permit applications will be required establishing detailed designs and compliant with zoning in the Ontario building code. I'm happy to answer any questions in the agent for the applicant is here as well. Okay. Thank you very much. Are there any questions from the committee. Okay seeing none, thank you. Are there any members of the public present wishing to speak to this file. Uh, does anyone over here wish to speak. Just here for fun. Okay. Okay. No problem. Uh, we'll head over here first. Please state your name. Uh, you have five minutes to ask all your questions and state all your comments. Thanks. So Frank Dixon. Thank you for presentation. I've been following this along and used to live nearby. So I don't know the neighbourhood well. Um, so I'll pass this to the Kirk. Just one question. Is it about one third of the original Kingston Lawn Bowling Club property. Which has been severed and is now proposed for redevelopment. Number one. Number two. I would respectfully propose that one third of the severed portion be designated for future public park. This sector would open onto an apier street. And be situated between vacation longballing club and the residential proposal. And third point is if residential usage is approved. The style of the new homes should be compatible with those existing, your wife. Thank you. Thank you. Just checking again. Anyone in the room who wishes to speak. Go ahead. Thank you. My name is Robert McInnes. I'm wondering about the stormwater management cost saving. Is that the reason why they want to not connect to the stormwater. And the other question I have is what will be the future of the lone bowling club that remains. How's it designated and is it up for sale? Thank you. Thank you. We'll just check online and zoom. If you are on Zoom and wish to speak to this file, please raise your zoom hand. Okay. Uh, we will go over to staff then for response, please. Ms. Ditrickson. Thank you through you chair. So the first question I heard was, uh, regarding the, whether this was approximately a third of the Kingston Lawn Bowling Club. And I think the best, um, graphic on the presentation was probably the purpose and effect where it shows just the area and relation to the property to the North. I can say, um, the parcel is, is 1800 square metres. Um, and I'm, I don't have the figure of what the Kingston lawn bowling club parcel is to the north. Um, the subject property is 1800 square metres. Um, and I heard the suggestion about the, um, a portion being designated for a public park. And again, the city, it's my understanding the city has been approached. It's reviewed the site in relation to, uh, criteria for, for Parkland, um, the number of criteria in the official plan at least, um, that detail preferred locations and they're generally, we look at our connectivity to existing trail systems and open spaces as well as, uh, locations and relation to schools to sort of co - locate parks and other community facilities, um, terminus of a street is also an ideal location for a city park. Just none of those criteria were met with the specific location. And I understand city hasn't pursued this for a public park, but understand that there has been interests through the process. And I heard the development should be compatible with the area. And I think, um, the proposal to apply the UR5 zone, which is consistent with what applies to the surrounding properties is really our best tool to make sure that development standards are consistent. But the details will be coming forward through building permit applications. I should say as well that when consent applications come forward, there will be a public notice requirement. So people will have a chance to, uh, find out more if a consent application proposes additional details on that. Heard as well a question about, uh, stormwater management and whether it was a cost saving to address stormwater on site. And I think the applicant can likely confirm, but I believe it's quite costly to extend stormwater infrastructure. That was, that was quite a costly undertaking. So the applicant looked closely at, at how, whether it was feasible to manage stormwater on site, um, as an alternative and found a solution for that, um, that can be addressed through development agreements going forward. Um. And the question about what the future of the Lawn Bowling Club are what it's designated. So, um, I can confirm that the Lawn Bowling Club is in an open space land use designation and an open space zone. I'm not certain of what their future plans are, but, um, best of my knowledge, it's not for sale, but there might be additional knowledge with the applicant team. Thanks. And through the chair, um, I believe staff have answered, uh, the questions well just speak to the stormwater management, uh, question. Cause I can confirm that the storm sewers do not extend, um, Apear Street from Earl Street. Uh, so there would be significant costs, uh, to extending the storm sewer to the site. And therefore the applicants explored alternative options. Um, and the service against stormwater management report was prepared to evaluate the stormwater management on the site and determined that it would be suitable to manage stormwater, um, through on - site controls. Thank you. Thank you. Um, final call, if anyone would like to speak to the file for 92 Napier Street, just looking around the room, seeing no hands up, checking online one more time. Seeing no hands up. Okay. Thank you. Um, do I have a mover and seconder for the recommendation. Move by Councillor Glenn, seconded by Deputy Mayor Oesterhoff. Any discussion from the committee. Seeing none. Okay, we'll call the vote. All those in favor. And that's carried. Thank you everyone. There are no motions. There are no notices of motion. Is there any other business. Seeing none correspondence was included on the agenda and The addendum. The next meeting of The Planning Committee is scheduled for Thursday, September 17th, 2026 at 6 p. m. you are all welcome to come back. Do I have a mover in a second or two adjourn. Move by Councillor Shave, seconded by Councillor Chanani, all those in favor. Opposed. And that's Carried. Thank you everyone. Have a great night.