CITY OF KINGSTON
REPORT TO PLANNING COMMITTEE
Report No.: PC-13-095
TO:
Chair and Members of Planning Committee
FROM:
Cynthia Beach
Commissioner, Sustainability and Growth
RESOURCE STAFF:
Grant C. Bain
Director, Planning and Development Department
DATE OF MEETING:
July 4, 2013
SUBJECT:
COMPREHENSIVE REPORT
ZONING BY-LAW AMENDMENT
363, 365 & 367 Johnson Street
Applicant: Highpoint Developments Inc.
Agent: FoTenn Consultants Inc.
File No. D14-238-2012
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY:
The following is a comprehensive report to Planning Committee for a Zoning By-Law
Amendment application for the properties municipally known as 363, 365 and 367 Johnson
Street. The report describes the purpose and effect of the requested Zoning By-Law
Amendment and includes an analysis of the relevant policies and regulations that apply to the
subject property. The Planning and Development Department recommends APPROVAL of the
Zoning By-Law Amendment.
This application was originally presented to Planning Committee on April 19, 2012 and April 18,
2013.
The first submission proposal was to develop the subject properties from a semi-detached
dwelling and a single detached dwelling to two multiple family dwellings consisting of a three
storey, six unit dwelling consisting of 15 bedrooms at 363-365 Johnson Street and the
construction of a three storey, four unit dwelling consisting of 17 bedrooms at 367 Johnson
Street. Planning Staff expressed concerns regarding safe access and functional use of the
proposed development, including useable amenity space.
Subsequently, the applicant has redesigned the proposed development with the intent to create
a more practical amenity space, safer pedestrian access to the building and safer vehicle
157
REPORT TO PLANNING COMMITTEE
Report No.: PC-13-095
July 4, 2013
- Page 2 -
access. The revised plan submitted for review is a single structure consisting of 10 dwelling
units with mix of 2 and 4 bedroom units and a barrier free one bedroom unit.
The applicant is requesting permission to reduce required yard setbacks, the total number of
required parking spaces, reduce the required amenity space and eliminate the required play
space in the General Provisions of the Zoning By-Law No. 8499. The proposed development will
be accessed from Johnson Street, an arterial road.
RECOMMENDATION:
THAT it be recommended to Council that the Application for Zoning By-Law Amendment (Our
File No. D14-238-2012) submitted by FoTenn Consultants Inc., on behalf of Highpoint
Developments Inc., for the property municipally known as 363, 365 and 367 Johnson Street, BE
APPROVED; and
THAT it be recommended to Council that the former City of Kingston Zoning By-Law No. 8499,
as amended, be further amended as follows:
1.
By-Law No. 8499 of The Corporation of the City of Kingston, entitled “Restricted Area
(Zoning) By-Law of The Corporation of the City of Kingston”, as amended, is hereby further
amended as follows:
1.1.
Map 19 of Schedule “A”, as amended, is hereby further amended by changing the zone
symbol of the subject site from ‘B’ to ‘B.432-H’, as shown on Schedule “A” attached to
and forming part of By-Law No. 2013-___.
1.2.
By Adding a new subsection 432 thereto as follows:
“(432) 363, 365 & 367 Johnson Street
Notwithstanding the provisions of Section 5 and 13 hereof to the contrary, the lands
designated ‘B.432’ on Schedule ‘A’ hereto, the following regulations shall apply:
i)
ii)
iii)
iv)
v)
vi)
Additional Permitted Uses: a building with 10 residential dwelling units
Minimum Front Yard Setback: 3.80 metres
Minimum Side Yard: 1.5 metres
Minimum Aggregate Side Yard: 5.1 metres
Maximum Lot Coverage: 36%
Maximum Density: 69 units per net hectare
A density bonus may be applied to permit a density increase to 122 units per
net hectare. The bonus is subject to the property owner entering into a
158
REPORT TO PLANNING COMMITTEE
Report No.: PC-13-095
July 4, 2013
- Page 3 -
vii)
viii)
ix)
x)
xi)
xii)
xiii)
xiv)
2.
development agreement with the City, which will establish a high quality of
architectural design and human scale development consistent with the City’s
long term vision for the area.
Minimum Play Space: 0.0 square metres
Minimum Amenity Area: 408 square metres
Required Parking Spaces: 6
Projection of Porch and Stairs into Front Yard: 2.7 metres
The for the purpose of zone interpretation the subject properties be considered
as a single parcel.
That the maximum number of bedrooms for a dwelling unit shall be 4;
BEDROOM: shall mean any room within a residential unit that is suitable to be
used as a sleeping room under the Ontario Building Code, and which for
greater certainty does not include:
a. Common areas open to all occupants of the unit;
b. Areas used for sanitary (such as a washroom) or cooking purposes (such
as a kitchen); and
c. Areas occupied by mechanical equipment, such as furnaces, hot water
heaters and laundry equipment; and
That a –Holding Symbol be applied to the subject lands shall only be removed
once the following condition has been satisfied:
That an offsite parking agreement be registered on title of the subject
properties and the lands to accommodate the offsite parking in perpetuity.
THAT the Zoning By-Law Amendment be presented to City Council for all three readings.
AUTHORIZING SIGNATURES:
ORIGINAL SIGNED BY COMMISSIONER
________________________________________
Cynthia Beach, Commissioner, Sustainability and Growth
ORIGINAL SIGNED BY CHIEF ADMINISTRATIVE OFFICER
_______________________________________
Gerard Hunt, Chief Administrative Officer
CONSULTATION WITH THE FOLLOWING COMMISSIONERS:
Lanie Hurdle, Community Services
N/R
Denis Leger, Transportation, Properties &
Emergency Services
N/R
Jim Keech, President and CEO, Utilities Kingston
N/R
(N/R indicates consultation not required)
K:\D14_Zoning Applications\2012 Applications\238-2012_363,365 & 367 Johnson Street\PC -PC-095_363, 365 & 367 Johnson
Street_COMP.doc
159
REPORT TO PLANNING COMMITTEE
Report No.: PC-13-095
July 4, 2013
- Page 4 -
OPTIONS/DISCUSSION:
Background:
This report provides information on a proposed amendment to the former City of Kingston
Zoning By-Law No. 8499.
On February 16, 2012, FoTenn Consultants, on behalf of Highpoint Developments Inc.
submitted a Zoning By-Law Amendment application for the purpose of permitting the
construction of a three storey, six unit dwelling consisting of 15 bedrooms at 363-365 Johnson
Street and the construction of a three storey, four unit dwelling consisting of 17 bedrooms at 367
Johnson Street. The applicant is also requesting permission to reduce the total number of
required parking spaces from 10 parking spaces to 6 parking spaces, reduce the required
amenity space and eliminate the required play space in the General Provisions of the Zoning
By-Law No. 8499. The subject properties are designated ‘Residential’ in the Official Plan and
are zoned Three to Six Dwelling ‘B’ Zone in Zoning By-Law No. 8499.
A public meeting was held April 19, 2012 and April 18, 2013. Following the public meeting and
responses received from the technical circulation the Planning and Development Department
identified the following concerns:
• Lack of safe access to dwelling units;
• Lack of safe ingress and egress for pedestrians and vehicles;
• A lack of useable and well-designed indoor/outdoor amenity spaces; and
• Possible over intensification of land use.
On January 24, 2013, the applicant submitted revised plans to address the concerns raised by
the Planning and Development Department, as well as the relevant departments and agencies
that comment on development applications.
Revised Plan:
The revised plan proposes to demolish the existing two buildings (single detached dwelling and
semi-detached dwelling) and replace them with a single building consisting of 10 dwelling units
with a mix of 2 and 4 bedroom units. The average number of bedrooms per unit is 3.4. One unit
is designed to meet the accessibility criteria of the Ontario Building Code.
The revised development proposal includes a 30% increase in amenity area. The increase
includes more green space, balconies and an interior amenity space.
The architectural design of the building maintains important features, such as the gabled
roofline, that are typical of many of the surrounding structures.
Site Description:
The subject site is approximately 0.8 hectare in size and is known municipally as 363, 365 and
367 Johnson Street (Refer to attached Key Map). The subject properties are presently occupied
160
REPORT TO PLANNING COMMITTEE
Report No.: PC-13-095
July 4, 2013
- Page 5 -
by a semi-detached dwelling and a converted single detached dwelling that are used for
residential purposes. The property has frontage on Johnson Street, an arterial road.
The properties are surrounded by residential uses ranging from single detached dwellings to
apartment buildings. There are some commercial uses located at the Johnson Street and
Division Street intersection. The south east corner was recently vacated, the north east corner is
a Starbucks Coffee shop, Stooley’s Restaurant is located on the northwest corner and a
Georgian style converted semi-detached dwelling is located on the south west corner.
Provincial Policy Statement:
The Provincial Policy Statement (PPS) provides policy direction on matters of provincial interest
related to land use planning and development which are complemented by local policies
addressing local interests. The application being considered is site specific to accommodate a
specific proposal. Policies pertinent to this application are discussed in detail through this report.
The Provincial policies relevant to this application state, “Settlement Areas shall be the focus of
growth and their vitality and regeneration shall be promoted”. (Provincial Policy Statement,
Section 1.1.3.1) The Provincial Policy Statement establishes specific policies regarding the
promotion of intensification and redevelopment within built up areas. The Planning Act requires
development to be “consistent” with the policies of the Provincial Policy Statement. Section
1.1.3.3 of the Provincial Policy Statement states, “Planning Authorities shall identify and
promote opportunities for the intensification and redevelopment where this can be
accommodated taking into account existing building stock areas, including brownfield sites, and
the availability of suitable existing or planned infrastructure and public service facilities required
to accommodate projected needs.”
The proposal is consistent with the Provincial Policy Statement with respect to the following:
•
•
Healthy, liveable and safe communities are sustained by promoting cost-effective
development standards to minimize land consumption and servicing costs (Section
1.1.1.e, PPS); and
The use of existing infrastructure and public service facilities should be optimized,
wherever feasible, before consideration is given to developing new infrastructure and
public service facilities (Section 1.6.2, PPS).
The City of Kingston Official Plan has specific policies for infill and intensification. These policies
are discussed in greater detail later in this report. The proposed development is a residential
use in a residential land use designation situated within the City’s urban growth boundary and
connecting to existing municipal services. The proximity of this development to transit, potential
employment, commercial uses and urban amenities (entertainment, public services etc.)
contribute to the viability of the development. Intensification at this location will help maintain
demand for the existing services and commercial uses in the area, which is required to promote
161
REPORT TO PLANNING COMMITTEE
Report No.: PC-13-095
July 4, 2013
- Page 6 -
healthy, livable and safe communities. The application is consistent with the applicable policies
in the Provincial Policy Statement.
Official Plan Designation:
The subject property is designated as “Residential” in the City of Kingston Official Plan. Lands
so designated are to be used for the development of primarily residential uses in the following
forms of housing: single detached, semi-detached or duplex, townhouses and apartments. In
addition to the various forms of housing, community facilities, such as elementary schools,
secondary schools, centres for care for children or seniors, places of worship, libraries,
community centres, museums, other social cultural centres, government offices, municipal
works, municipal yards, water treatment and sewage facilities, and urban agriculture are also
permitted. The lands are in a residential neighbourhood near Queen’s University, where the
tenancy is a mix of students, professionals, and families.
High Density Policies:
The proposed density of the subject property is 122 units per hectare. The high density
residential policies apply to all developments in excess of 75 units per hectare. The locational
criteria have been established to ensure the viability and liveability of the proposed
development. The locational criteria are augmented with additional criteria establish through
policy in the Official Plan to address compatibility, potential adverse impacts and urban design.
Locational Criteria:
Analysis:
(S.3.3.C.2, Official Plan)
a. on the periphery of
• The proposed development is located adjacent to an
a low or medium
existing multiple storey residential apartment building.
density residential
• This section of Johnson Street can be characterized as a
neighbourhood
mixed residential area consisting of converted century
homes to multiple family dwellings and low rise multiple
family residential properties. The proposed development is
similar to and consistent with the existing built form in the
area.
b. adjacent to, or in
• The nearest commercial uses are less than 40 metres from
close proximity to
the subject property on the corners of Johnson Street and
commercial areas;
Division Street. The uses at this location are service
oriented and include a restaurant (Stooley’s), a coffee shop
(Starbucks) and a frozen yogurt restaurant (Mio Yogurt).
• The subject properties are located approximately 250
metres from a grocery store (Metro) and the Princess Street
commercial corridor.
• The subject properties are within close proximity to the
commercial uses necessary to sustain a high density
residential development.
c. in close proximity to
• The subject properties are located approximately 380
parkland or open
metres from Victoria Park and 260 metres from the Queens
162
REPORT TO PLANNING COMMITTEE
Report No.: PC-13-095
July 4, 2013
- Page 7 -
space; and,
d. on an arterial or
collector road
designed for public
transit.
•
Centre. It is generally accepted that a neighbourhood is
defined by an approximate 400 metre radius around a
subject properties. Both of these recreational uses are
located within 400 metres of the subject properties and can
be easily accessed by walking, cycling or driving.
The subject properties are located on Johnson Street, an
arterial road. This road is serviced by the number 12 transit
route. This route includes stops in the downtown and the
Kingston Centre.
The High Density Residential policies include four ‘zone requirement’ criteria for establishing a
high density residential use. The following chart provides details demonstrating how the
proposed development satisfies the zone criteria for high density residential developments.
Zone Requirements:
Analysis:
(S.3.3.C.4, Official Plan)
a. the provision of
• As part of the review process the application is circulated to
adequate municipal
Utilities Kingston for their review and comment. Utilities
servicing;
Kingston does not object to the proposed development. The
utility identified the requirement for only a single service to
the proposed development.
• The Utility forwarded comments regarding a Serviceability
Assessment, prepared by Aecom and dated November
2012, submitted in support of the requested Zoning By-Law
Amendment. The comments regarding the brief are
technical in nature and will be addressed through the Site
Plan Control process.
b. the provision of
• The initial submission proposed an approximate 70%
outdoor amenity
reduction in amenity area. This reduction was considered
areas, which will
unsatisfactory by the Planning and Development
include a children’s
Department. The applicant was requested to revisit the
play area, common
proposed development and increase the amenity space to
areas and private
be provided for the future tenants. Consequently, the
areas to the
redesigned concept plan increased the amount of amenity
satisfaction of the City;
space by 30%. Presently the requested reduction is 40%
(approx. 270.4 m2) of the required approximately 678.5 m2.
In the initial submission the applicant was requesting a 70%
reduction in amenity space. These calculations do not take
into account the private amenity space provided in each unit
for the use of the resident.
• The Planning and Development Department supports the
reduction of the children’s play space requirement to 0.0
square metres. The 20.7 square metres that would be
allocated for children’s play space is better utilized if
163
REPORT TO PLANNING COMMITTEE
Report No.: PC-13-095
July 4, 2013
- Page 8 -
c. the provision of
adequate on-site
parking for each
residential unit and for
visitors, primarily
using above or below
grade parking
structures as the City
deems appropriate;
and,
•
•
•
d. a design that
encourages
pedestrian activity,
streetscape interest,
and does not impact
negatively on
neighbouring uses.
•
•
incorporated into the overall amenity space design.
The applicant submitted a Parking Study prepared by
Aecom and dated November 22, 2012, in support of the
Zoning By-Law Amendment application. The Parking Study
included a survey of 32 properties on Johnson Street
between University Street and Division Street. That is the
majority of the approximately 37 parcels along this stretch of
Johnson Street. The study does not suggest the population
surveyed was randomized, but it does exceed the minimum
number of 30 for statistical relevance. The survey was not
conducted over multiple days and times. The survey is not
dated and the times when conducted in the AM and PM are
not identified.
In addition to the survey, Aecom also referenced the ITE
Trip Generation Manual (2012). The study included the
following summary/conclusion: “The proposed six parking
spaces (3 onsite, 3 offsite) at 363-367 Johnson Street are
sufficient for the number of expected vehicles per dwelling
unit in this neighbourhood. Based on the number of trips
generated, there is little expected conflict between vehicles
entering and exiting the parking area. One access lane is
appropriate to service the three proposed parking spaces at
363-367 John Street.”
The Planning and Development Department generally
accepts the recommendations of the consultant and further
recommends that a –H Holding Symbol be applied to the
subject properties with the condition that an offsite parking
agreement be registered on title of the subject properties
and the lands to accommodate the offsite parking.
The applicant has taken into consideration the style of the
existing buildings immediately surrounding the subject
properties and created a structure that emulates the most
dominant and appealing design elements of Georgian style
houses such as peaks, roof pitch, brick façade and general
height.
The Planning and Development Department recommends
the following provision be included in the zone:
“Maximum Density: 69 units per net hectare
A density bonus may be applied to permit a density increase
to 122 units per net hectare. The bonus is subject to the
property owner entering into a development agreement with
164
REPORT TO PLANNING COMMITTEE
Report No.: PC-13-095
July 4, 2013
- Page 9 -
•
Adverse Effects:
Adverse Effects Criteria
(S.2.7.3, Official Plan)
1. Shadowing
the City, which will establish a high quality of architectural
design and human scale development consistent with the
City’s long term vision for the area.”
The proposed density provision provides an option for the
developer to voluntarily agree to the bonus provisions and
work with the City of Kingston to help ensure a higher order
of development and architectural compatibility with the
surrounding built form.
Compliance
•
2. loss of privacy due
to intrusive overlook
•
3. increased levels of
noise, odour, dust
or vibration
•
4. increased and
uncomfortable wind
speed
5. increased level of
traffic that can
disrupt the intended
function or amenity
of a use or area
•
6. environmental
damage or
degradation
7. diminished service
levels because
social or physical
infrastructure
necessary to
•
•
•
The proposed development is similar in height to the
adjacent buildings and lower in height than the residential
apartment building abutting the north property line of the
subject properties. The proposed development will not have
any shadowing impacts on surrounding properties.
The proposed development has been designed with the
balconies located at the front and rear of the building in
order to minimize any intrusive overlook into adjacent
properties.
The proposed development is a residential use within a
residential neighbourhood and not anticipated to generate
any more noise, odour or vibration than the existing
surrounding land uses.
The height, orientation and scale of this development are
not going to result in wind funneling and increased wind
speeds.
The redesigned development results in improved, safer
ingress and egress to Johnson Street and an increase in
amenity area for the residents. The application was
forwarded to the Engineering Department as part of the
technical review process. The Engineering Department did
not identify any traffic concerns as a result of their review.
Multiple family developments are more energy efficient and
have less of an environmental impact than low density
residential land uses, such as a single detached dwelling.
The technical review process for this development identified
no servicing concerns with respect to water and sewer
services. The development’s proximity to the downtown will
assist in the continued relevance and use of the commercial
and social services in the city’s core.
165
REPORT TO PLANNING COMMITTEE
Report No.: PC-13-095
July 4, 2013
- Page 10 -
support a use or
area are
overloaded
8. reduction in the
ability to enjoy a
property, or the
normal amenity
associated with it,
including safety and
access, outdoor
areas, historic
quality or setting
9. visual intrusion that
disrupts the
streetscape,
building, or cultural
heritage resource
10. architectural
incompatibility in
terms of scale,
style, massing and
colour
11. the loss or
impairment of
significant views of
cultural heritage
resources and
natural features and
areas to residents
Functional Needs:
Functional Needs
Criteria (S.2.7.7, Official
Plan)
suitable scale, massing
and density in relation to
existing built fabric;
appropriate landscaping
that meets or improves the
characteristic green space
•
The proposed new residential development will increase the
quality of habitable space in the area and will not adversely
impact on the historic character of the City of Kingston since
it is not a designated heritage property and is not abutting a
heritage property. The nearest designated heritage property
is 329 Johnson Street (Starbucks) on the north east corner
of Johnson Street and Division Street.
•
see above
•
The architectural design of the proposed development is
compatible with the surrounding built form.
•
The proposed development does not impede the views of
any of the City’s historic land marks, cultural landscapes,
designated heritage buildings or areas with a UNESCO
World Heritage Designation.
Analysis
•
•
As stated previously in this report: “The applicant has taken
into consideration the style of the existing buildings
immediately surrounding the subject properties and created
a structure that emulates the most dominant and appealing
design elements of Georgian style houses such as peaks,
roof pitch, brick façade and general height.”
That applicant will be required to apply for Site Plan Control
prior to obtaining a building permit for the proposed
development. As part of the Site Plan Control review
166
REPORT TO PLANNING COMMITTEE
Report No.: PC-13-095
July 4, 2013
- Page 11 -
amenity of the site and
surroundings and
enhances the City’s tree
planting program;
adequate land area and
appropriate site
configuration or provision
for land assembly, as
required;
efficient use of municipal
services, including transit;
appropriate infill of vacant
or under-utilized land; and,
clearly defined and safe:
• site access;
• pedestrian access
to the building and
parking spaces;
• amenity areas and
play space;
• building entry; and
• parking and bicycle
facilities.
process the applicant will be required to submit a landscape
plan, to be reviewed by City Staff, for the proposed
development.
•
The applicant has assembled two parcels of land to facilitate
the proposed 10 dwelling unit development. The applicant
submitted a planning justification that provided a
professional planning opinion regarding the adequacy of the
subject lands for the proposed development. In support of
the application the applicant also submitted a Parking Study
to justify the proposed reduction in required parking, which
is part of the rationalization for the proposed development
on the subject property. The Planning and Development
Department generally agrees with the conclusions and
recommendation of the Planning Justification and Parking
Study.
• The reduction in required parking will result in the necessity
for some tenants to utilize other modes of transportation
such as cycling and public transit.
• The proposed development is on two existing lots of record
that historically accommodated a single detached dwelling
and a semi-detached dwelling. The proposed 10 dwelling
unit development will maximize the utility of the subject
property.
• The revised concept plan improved the access to the
subject property and increased the amenity space to be
provided. The proposed entrances to the building are more
visible and bicycle parking is going to be provided in
conformity with existing zone regulations. The parking, safe
access, building entry and and pedestrian access will be
addressed in detail through the Site Plan Control process.
Number of Bedrooms
In April 2002, the Queen’s University School of Business presented their findings of a survey
conducted to determine the preferences of Queen’s Students with respect to residences. The
“Queen’s Residences Accommodation Preferences Survey” findings indicated that the largest
group of respondents preferred, “to live with 2-3 others in houses or low-rise apartments that are
167
REPORT TO PLANNING COMMITTEE
Report No.: PC-13-095
July 4, 2013
- Page 12 -
located close to campus (Queen’s Residences Accommodation Preferences Survey
Presentation, April 30, 2002).”
Queen’s University offers a wide variety of housing options to its student population including
dorms apartments and house rentals. The dwelling units that are located in houses surrounding
the Queen’s Campus and owned by the university are called the ‘core rentals’. The core rentals
consist of 113 dwelling units ranging from 7 bedroom units to bachelor units. Approximately 35%
of the ‘core rental’ housing stock is dwelling units with 4 or more bedrooms per unit.
The proposed 1 to 4 bedroom dwelling units are consistent with the housing stock being
provided by Queen’s University in their ‘core area’ housing stock.
The City of Kingston conducted its own review through the Downtown Residential Review
Working Committee (DRR) and presented its recommendations to Council in a report dated
November 18, 2004. The report included a series of recommendations for policy and zoning
changes to address the issues and concerns surrounding residential intensification in the urban
core. The DRR consisted of representatives from Queen’s University, St. Lawrence College, the
community and City Staff.
“The mandate of the Committee was to provide input into the discussion of relevant planning
and development issues surrounding residential intensification in the City of Kingston’s
downtown neighbourhoods and to assist in the formulation of future recommendations to
Planning Committee and Council (Downtown Residential Review Working Committee,
November 18, 2004, pg. 2).”
The DRR identified 2 and 3 bedroom dwelling units as the “preferred dwelling type” (Downtown
Residential Review Working Committee, November 18, 2004, pg. 25) within existing ‘B’ Zones
and proposed multiple family conversions. This preference is taken into consideration when
reviewing development applications. However, the maximum number of bedrooms was not
adopted into the Zoning By-law as a result of the DRR process. In order to accommodate a
broad range of dwelling types, it is appropriate to include units with more than 3 bedrooms in the
available housing stock.
The Official Plan recognizes that there is a need for post-secondary student housing that is
sanitary, safe and appropriate for the area in which it is located.
The Official Plan includes the following policy, which addresses the function and compatibility of
purpose built student rental accommodation:
Section 3.3.D.12, “Any new or redeveloped residential uses intended for student
accommodation must be designed and built to be viable for a wider rental market. The City may
therefore restrict the number of bedrooms or habitable rooms per residential unit through the
168
REPORT TO PLANNING COMMITTEE
Report No.: PC-13-095
July 4, 2013
- Page 13 -
zoning by-law. Sections 2.6, 2.7 and 8 of this Plan must be addressed in the review of student
accommodation proposals.”
The range of number of bedrooms proposed in this development is appropriate for addressing
the needs of a growing student population as well as a wider rental market.
The Planning and Development Department recommends the following provisions be included
in the site specific zone:
1. That the maximum number of bedrooms for a dwelling unit shall be 4;
2. BEDROOM: shall mean any room within a residential unit that is suitable to be used as a
sleeping room under the Ontario Building Code, and which for greater certainty does not
include:
a. Common areas open to all occupants of the unit;
b. Areas used for sanitary (such as a washroom) or cooking
purposes (such as a kitchen); and
c. Areas occupied by mechanical equipment, such as furnaces, hot
water heaters and laundry equipment; and
Density Bonus
The density proposed on the subject property is consistent with the intensification and infill
policies of the Official Plan (Sections 2.3.2, 2.4.3 and 2.4.5, Official Plan);
The City’s Official Plan includes specific policies outlining when and how Density Bonus can be
applied to developments. The Official Plan states, “The City may approve a by-law authorizing
an increase in height or density beyond that allowed in the zoning by-law pursuant to the
Planning Act, in return for facilities, services or matters benefiting the public (Section 9.5.25,
Official Plan).” Following this statement the Official Plan identifies a list of benefits that may be
received by the City of Kingston through the voluntary provision of density bonusing.
The Density Bonus benefit applied to this proposed development is:
l. providing streetscape improvements in accordance with Council-endorsed documents such as
the Downtown Action Plan (Section 9.5.25(l), Official Plan).
Proposed provision states, “The bonus is subject to the property owner entering into a
development agreement with the City, which will establish a high quality of architectural design
and human scale development consistent with the City’s long term vision for the area.” This
proposed provision provides an opportunity to the municipality to participate in specific design
aspects of the proposed development normally retained entirely within the purview of the
developer. The tangible and long term benefit of this density bonus provision to the surrounding
community and City is a higher order of architectural design that will result in enhancement of
the streetscape though the improved visual aesthetics of the site. In addition, the City’s
participation in the design process improves the functionality of the site due to efficient use of
169
REPORT TO PLANNING COMMITTEE
Report No.: PC-13-095
July 4, 2013
- Page 14 -
existing infrastructure, decreasing the number of accesses to an arterial road and safe ingress
and egress to the property and proposed development. The purpose of this provision is to
provide a positive impact to the community by promoting greater investment into the design of
the proposed building and site design for smaller high density developments.
The specific Official Plan policies that support the application of this proposed density bonus
provision include Section 2.6.9, Section 3.3.C.4(d), Section 8.1, Section 8.3 and Section 8.10(e).
It is the opinion of the Planning and Development Department that the proposed Density Bonus
for site design and architectural finishes conforms to good land use planning principles and is
consistent with the development objectives approved by Council through the Official Plan.
This is a voluntary contribution by the developer to the City in order to address some of the
public concerns regarding the impact of increased residential density along the Johnson Street
corridor.
The proposed density bonus will address the scale and form of development on Johnson Street.
The Density Bonus will respect the best architectural features in the area and emulate them in
the proposed development.
In addition to the requested relief, the Planning and Development Department recommend the
following provisions be applied to the zone:
a. Maximum Density: 69 units per net hectare
A density bonus may be applied to permit a density increase to 122 units per net hectare.
The bonus is subject to the property owner entering into a development agreement with
the City, which will establish a high quality of architectural design and human scale
development consistent with the City’s long term vision for the area.
Zoning:
The subject property is zoned Three to Six Family ‘B’ in Zoning By-Law No. 8499. The ‘B’ Zone
permits uses permissible in Zone ‘A’ subject to the provisions for Zone ‘A’, three to six family
dwellings, boarding houses and rooming houses, lay, religious fraternity, or boarding houses
uses exclusively for purposes of habitation, residential nursing care for the elderly, or for
congregational meetings and supervised by a religious body, a fraternal organization or a public
authority and operated on a non-profit basis, existing buildings used for residential purposes
only and owned, rented or managed by members of the Science '44 Co-operative Incorporated
or the Alma Mater Society, Community Homes, subject to the provisions of Section 5.32 of this
by-law, Senior Citizen apartments, accessory buildings to any use permitted in ‘B’ zones,
Residential Care Facilities, subject to the provisions of Section 5.34 of this by-law, Community
Support Home, subject to the provisions of Section 5.37 of this by-law.
170
REPORT TO PLANNING COMMITTEE
Report No.: PC-13-095
July 4, 2013
- Page 15 -
The proposed development cannot satisfy the applicable regulations of the Zoning By-Law,
therefore a Zone Change is required.
The applicant has requested a Special Three to Six Family ‘B.*’ Zone, Zoning By-Law No. 8499
to permit the following:
i)
Increase in number of maximum number of dwelling units from 6 to 10;
ii) Decrease in required front yard setback (2.13 metres relief requested);
iii) Decrease in required interior side yard setback (2.13 metres relief requested);
iv) Decrease in aggregate side yard setback (0.49 metres relief required);
v) Increase in maximum lot coverage from 331/3% to 36% (2.67% relief requested);
vi) Increase in maximum density from 69 units per net hectare to 122 units per net hectare;
vii) Reduction in required play space from 20.7 square metres to 0.0 square metres;
viii) Decrease in minimum amenity area (270.4 square metres relief requested)
ix) Reduction in required parking from 10 spaces to 6 spaces with 3 of the proposed
spaces being located offsite and within 60 metres of the subject property; and
x) Projection of porch and stairs into front yard (3.11 metres relief requested).
In addition to the requested relief, the Planning and Development Department recommend the
following provisions be applied to the zone:
b. The for the purpose of zone interpretation the subject properties be considered as a
single parcel.
c. Maximum Density: 69 units per net hectare
A density bonus may be applied to permit a density increase to 122 units per net hectare.
The bonus is subject to the property owner entering into a development agreement with
the City, which will establish a high quality of architectural design and human scale
development consistent with the City’s long term vision for the area.
d. BEDROOM: shall mean any room within a residential unit that is suitable to be used as a
sleeping room under the Ontario Building Code, and which for greater certainty does not
include:
a. Common areas open to all occupants of the unit;
b. Areas used for sanitary (such as a washroom) or cooking purposes (such as a
kitchen); and
c. Areas occupied by mechanical equipment, such as furnaces, hot water heaters and
laundry equipment
e. That a –Holding Symbol be applied to the subject lands shall only be removed once the
following condition has been satisfied:
i) That an offsite parking agreement be registered on title of the subject properties and
the lands to accommodate the offsite parking in perpetuity.
171
REPORT TO PLANNING COMMITTEE
Report No.: PC-13-095
July 4, 2013
- Page 16 -
Site Plan Control:
The properties are being redeveloped as a single project and will be subject to Site Plan Control
Approval.
The proposed development will be subject to Site Plan Control under the City’s Site Plan Control
By-Law and the Planning Act. Site Plan Control is a form of development control provided to
municipalities by Ontario's Planning Act. No one can undertake any development which is
subject to site plan control unless the City has reviewed and approved certain plans. As part of
the Site Plan Control process details respecting the following matters would be reviewed and
approved by the City: building location; site access; site servicing; landscaping; buffering and
screening provisions; noise mitigation; storm water management; location of garbage storage
and, fire routes. Once the plans are approved, a site plan control agreement is generally
executed. This agreement contractually binds the owner to develop and maintain a site in
accordance with the approved plans and the terms of the agreement and the owner provides
security to the City to ensure completion of the required works.
Conclusion:
The proposed amendment to the Zoning By-Law is appropriate, desirable and constitutes good
planning. The zone change conforms to the applicable ‘Residential’ land use designation
policies and High Density Residential policies in the Official Plan.
Statutory Public hearings were held on April 19, 2012 and April 18, 2013 regarding the proposed
zone change. The responses received from the public and the Planning Committee have been
incorporated into the body of the comprehensive report.
The proposed development is consistent with the intensification and infill policies of the
Provincial Policy Statement. The proposed development provides live/work opportunities, is
within close proximity to transit services, community services, park land and commercial uses.
The Planning and Development Department recommends APPROVAL of the proposed Holding
Special 3 to 6 Family Dwelling ‘B.432-H’ Zone, Zoning By-Law No. 8499. The requested
modifications to the proposed zone consist of changes to existing regulations to accommodate
the proposed density, parking and amenity space, height and setbacks.
EXISTING POLICY/BY LAW:
The proposed amendment was reviewed against the policies of the Province of Ontario, the
Official Plan, By-Laws and studies of the City of Kingston to ensure that the changes would be
consistent with the Province’s and City’s vision of urban development. The following documents
were assessed:
172
REPORT TO PLANNING COMMITTEE
Report No.: PC-13-095
July 4, 2013
- Page 17 -
Provincial
Planning Act
Provincial Policy Statement, 2005
Municipal
City of Kingston Official Plan
The former City of Kingston Zoning By-Law No. 8499
NOTICE PROVISIONS:
A public meeting was held respecting this application on April 19, 2012 and April 18, 2013.
Pursuant to the requirements of the Planning Act, a notice of the statutory Public Meeting was
provided by advertisement in the form of a sign posted on the subject site 20 days in advance of
the Public Meeting. In addition, prepaid first class mail was sent to all property owners
(according to the latest Assessment Rolls) within 120 metres (400 ft.) of the subject property
and a courtesy notice was placed in The Kingston Whig-Standard.
ACCESSIBILITY CONSIDERATIONS:
No accessibility considerations are required for this report. This report is available in different
formats upon request.
FINANCIAL CONSIDERATIONS:
N/A
CONTACTS:
Jason Budd, Senior Planner, Development Approvals 613-546-4291, extension 3178
Marnie Venditti, Manager, Development Approvals 613-546-4291, extension 3256
Grant C. Bain, Director, Planning and Development Department 613-546-4291, extension 3252
OTHER CITY OF KINGSTON STAFF CONSULTED:
The application was circulated to the relevant internal departments and external agencies for
review and comment. The responses to the technical circulation have been addressed and are
included in the comprehensive report. The application was circulated to the following
departments and technical agencies:
Del Stowe, Building & Licensing
Kim Brown, Engineering
Chantal Chiddle, Utilities Kingston
Kingston Fire and Rescue
173
REPORT TO PLANNING COMMITTEE
Report No.: PC-13-095
July 4, 2013
- Page 18 -
Chanda Theng, Recreation & Leisure – Parks Development
Cynthia Beach, Sustainability and Growth
Cherie Mills, Planning and Development
Marnie Venditti, Planning and Development
Ryan Leary, Planning and Development
Brodie Richmond, Environment
Damon Wells, Public Works
Sheila Kidd, Transit
John Giles, Solid Waste
EXHIBITS ATTACHED:
Exhibit A – Key Map;
Exhibit B – Draft Zoning By-Law;
Exhibit C – Response to Technical Comments, FoTenn Consultants Inc, Dated January 24,
2013;
Exhibit D – Proposed Plans; and,
Exhibit E – Aerial Photograph.
174
KEY MAP
EN ST
STEPH
CONCESSION ST
BATH RD
VICTORIA ST
391
375
156
JOHNSON ST
N ST
393
162
SS
T
ALFRED ST
PALACE RD
381
NC
ES
163
DIVISIO
PR
I
395
Exhibit A
168
MONTREAL ST
DETAIL
BROC
154
Subject Lands
SEWAY
LE CAU
LA SAL
QUEE
N
K ST
HW
Y2
ST
373
369
367
365
363 361
359
IO
UN
357
355
152
T
NS
353
KING ST W
349
BARRIE ST
371
KI
N
ON G S
TA T
RI E
O
ST
377
347
147
148
394
384
382
BROC
K
380
ST
146
337
374
376
372
370
368
364
362
360
358
356
354
340 338
336 334
346
395
T
131
ION S
399
393
391
375
389
385
128
129
127
DIVIS
397
335
383
371
373
367
124
365 363
361
121
359 357
120
118
396
J OH N
390
S ON
329
ST
386
45 376
374
ABERDEEN
ST
370
40
368
366364
362
360
358
356
354
352
350
344
340
103
39
334
332
38
36
35
100
99
34
T H E C O R P O R AT I ON O F TH E C I T Y O F K I N G S TO N
PL A N N I N G & D EV E LO P ME N T D E PA RT M E N T
Legend
KEY MAP
Planning &
Development
a department of
Sustainability &
Growth
PREPARED BY: A. Adams
DATE: March 2, 2012
Applicant: Highpoint Developments Inc
File Number: D14-238-2012
Address: 363, 365 & 367 Johnson Street
Legal Description: CON 1 FARM LOT 24 PT BLK R
AND RP 13R-19761 PART 1
ARN: 1011 020 110 00400/00600
175
®
Meters
0 2.5 5
10
15
20
Subject Lands
Disclaimer: This document is subject to copyright and may only be used for your personal, non
-commercial use provided you keep intact the copyright notice. The City of Kingston assumes no
responsibility for any errors, and is not liable for any damages of any kind resulting from the use
of, or reliance on, the information contained in this document. The City of Kingston does not make
any representation or warranty, express or implied , concerning the accuracy, quality, likely results
or reliability of the use of the information contained in this document.
C 2011 The Corporation of the City of Kingston.
EXHIBIT B
Clause (_), Report No. _, 2013
D14-238-2012
BY-LAW NO. 2013-___
A BY-LAW TO AMEND BY-LAW NO. 8499, “RESTRICTED AREA (ZONING) BYLAW OF THE CORPORATION OF THE CITY OF KINGSTON” (Zone Change from 3
to 6 Family Dwelling ‘B’ Zone to Holding Special 3 to 6 Family Dwelling ‘B.432-H’
Zone, 363, 365 and 367 Johnson Street)
PASSED:
WHEREAS by Order of the Minister of Municipal Affairs and Housing, The
Corporation of the Township of Kingston, The Corporation of the Township of Pittsburgh
and The Corporation of the City of Kingston were amalgamated on January 1, 1998 to
form The Corporation of the City of Kingston as the successor municipal Corporation
and pursuant to the Minister’s Order, any by-laws of the former municipality passed
under the Planning Act continue as the by-laws covering the area of the former
municipality now forming part of the new City;
AND WHEREAS the Council of The Corporation of the City of Kingston deems it
advisable to amend By-Law No. 8499, as amended, of the former City of Kingston;
NOW THEREFORE the Council of The Corporation of the City of Kingston
hereby ENACTS as follows.
1.
By-Law No. 8499 of The Corporation of the City of Kingston, entitled “Restricted
Area (Zoning) By-Law of The Corporation of the City of Kingston”, as amended, is
hereby further amended as follows:
1.1.
Map 19 of Schedule “A”, as amended, is hereby further amended by changing
the zone symbol of the subject site from ‘B’ to ‘B.432-H’, as shown on Schedule
“A” attached to and forming part of By-Law No. 2013-___.
1.2.
By Adding a new subsection 432 thereto as follows:
“(432) 363, 365 & 367 Johnson Street
Notwithstanding the provisions of Section 5 and 13 hereof to the contrary, the
lands designated ‘B.432’ on Schedule ‘A’ hereto, the following regulations shall
apply:
1.
2.
3.
4.
5.
6.
Additional Permitted Uses: a building with 10 residential dwelling units
Minimum Front Yard Setback: 3.80 metres
Minimum Side Yard: 1.5 metres
Minimum Aggregate Side Yard: 5.1 metres
Maximum Lot Coverage: 36%
Maximum Density: 69 units per net hectare
176
Zoning Amendment – 363, 365 & 367 Johnson Street
By-Law No. 2013-__
Page 2 of 3
A density bonus may be applied to permit a density increase to 122 units
per net hectare. The bonus is subject to the property owner entering into a
development agreement with the City, which will establish a high quality of
architectural design and human scale development consistent with the
City’s long term vision for the area.
7. Minimum Play Space: 0.0 square metres
8. Minimum Amenity Area: 408 square metres
9. Required Parking Spaces: 6
10. Projection of Porch and Stairs into Front Yard: 2.7 metres
11. The for the purpose of zone interpretation the subject properties be
considered as a single parcel.
12. That the maximum number of bedrooms for a dwelling unit shall be 4;
13. BEDROOM: shall mean any room within a residential unit that is suitable
to be used as a sleeping room under the Ontario Building Code, and
which for greater certainty does not include:
a. Common areas open to all occupants of the unit;
b. Areas used for sanitary (such as a washroom) or cooking purposes
(such as a kitchen); and
c. Areas occupied by mechanical equipment, such as furnaces, hot
water heaters and laundry equipment; and
d. The proposed type of units and range of bedrooms per unit
conforms to the applicable policies of the Official Plan and
constitutes good land use planning.
14. That a –Holding Symbol be applied to the subject lands shall only be
removed once the following condition has been satisfied:
a. That an offsite parking agreement be registered on title of the
subject properties and the lands to accommodate the offsite
parking in perpetuity.
2.
This By-Law shall come into force and take effect on its passing, provided no
Notice of Appeal is filed to this By-Law, all in accordance with the provisions of Section
34, Subsections 19 and 30 of the Planning Act, R.S.O. 1990, c. P. 13; and where one or
more appeals have been filed within the time period specified, at the conclusion of
which, the provisions of Section 34, Subsections 19 and 30 of the Planning Act, R.S.O.
1990, c. P. 13 apply and the By-Law shall be deemed to have come into force and take
effect on the day it was passed.
GIVEN ALL THREE READINGS AND PASSED
JOHN BOLOGNONE
CITY CLERK
MARK GERRETSEN
MAYOR
177
154
377
373
371
369
367
152
365
363 361
359
357
355
353
349
347
147
148
394
384
382
BROC
380
K ST
146
337
374
376
335
372
370
368
364
362
360
358
356
354
340 338
336 334
346
391
375
389
385
128
383
131
129
127
367
371
373
T
395
393
DIVIS
397
399
ION S
Subject Lands
124
365 363
361
121
359 357
120
118
396
JOHN
390
S ON
329
ST
386
45 376
374
370
368
38
362
360
ABERD EEN
ST
40
366364
358
356
354
352
350
344
340
103
39
334
332
36
35
100
99
34
33
32
98
97
33
319
96
30
31
295
299
95
291
T H E C O R P O R AT I O N O F T H E C I T Y O F K I N G ST O N
Legend:
SCHEDULE 'A'
TO BY-LAW NO.
Planning &
Development
a department of
Sustainability &
Growth
PREPARED BY: A. Ad ams
DATE: March 2, 2012
Reference By-Law 8499 Map 19
Subject Lands Rezoned from 'B',
to B.432-H
Applicant: Highpoint Developments Inc
File Number: D14-238-2012
Address: 363, 365 & 367 Johnson Street
Legal Description: CON 1 FARM LOT 24 PT
BLK R AND RP 13R-19761 PART 1
ARN: 1011 020 110 00400/00600
Meters
0
5
10
20
Certificate of Authentication
®
178
30
40
This is Schedule 'A' to By-Law No. ____,
passed this ______day of ____________ 2012.
_________________
Mayor
_____________________
Clerk
EXHIBITC
January 24, 2013
Jason Budd, MCIP, RPP
Senior Planner
Planning & Development Services
City of Kingston
216 Ontario Street
Kingston, Ontario
K7K 2Z3
JP.~ i I, ~;:13
PL·H·!~! ' :·3 & DEVELOPMENT
DC:Pi\!=ffMENT
CITY Of l\J,\:GSTON
Dear Mr. Budd,
Re:
Zoning By-law Amendment- Response to Technical Comments
363-365 & 367 Johnson Street
Your File Nos: D14-238-2012
The following submission provides responses to the technical comments included in a letter from the
Planning and Development Department dated July 19, 2012 and supported by other departmental
comments. In addition, the following submission items are provided:
•
•
•
•
•
3 copies of the revised Servicing Report
3 copies of the revised Parking and Access Study
7 copies of the updated Servicing and Grading Plan
Updated Site Plan
Building elevations and floor plans
Through discussions with staff as well as feedback from the first round of technical comments, it was
brought to our attention that the City is concerned that the original proj ect design represents overintensification of the site. Therefore, a new design is being proposed that would see one building
occupying the subject site as opposed to two buildings as was initially proposed. We feel this new
design will help address staff concerns regarding amenity space, ingress/egress, visibili°ty, and
manoeuvrability.
The proposed redevelopment of the sit~ now involves the demolition of both existing buildings and the
construction of a single building containing a total of ten units. The ground flood will have four units,
the second floor will have four units, and the third flood will have three units. Access is to be provided
via covered entrances at the front and side of the building. Three parking spaces will be provided at the
rear, one of which is accessible. Three additional spaces will also be provided off site but within 60
metres of the subject properties at 37S and 383-385 Johnson Street.
The design of the building is intended to reflect the characteristic design elements of the adjacent two
and one-half storey redbrick residences and other similar buildings in the area. Design features
including maintaining rooflines and end gables, placement of windows, and cladding materials reflect
the defining architectural characteristics of the area.
I
.; ,. , , ,
. :1-1:a:
";: I •••
!. t •
179
'
It':'}
I 1.'0:: '
·5
, t , ~I:
. I
, .....
I f. ' I t, 7 ,
11 .
,
,(
:•
I
2
The following provides responses to the second round of technical comments based on the new building
design discussed above. For reference, the comments from City staff and external review agencies are
identified in italics.
Building & By-law Enforcement
•
All floor elevations were not submitted for review.
All floor elevations have been included in this submission.
•
Building permits a~ required for the demolition and construction of all buildings.
Noted.
0
The existing water services to the building may need to be upgraded or design calculations provided
that demonstrates that the existing water services have adequate pressure and flow to supply the
required fixtures in the building. The size of the sanitary sewer laterals will also need to be confirmed
as well as condition.
'
See AECOM's attached letter.
•
If the covered bicycle area exceeds 1O m2 a building permit will also be required.
It is recognized that the bicycle structure will require a building permit because it will exceed
10 m 2 (10 spaces).
o
The buildings are to comply with OBC Ref. 9.9.9.1 . and 9.9.8.4. for egress. This should be reviewed.
As per 9.9.9.1. and 9.9.8.4., the units all have an egress door onto a public corridor from which
there are two separate exits, one at either end of the corridor. The units do not exceed 2
storeys, so it is not necessary to travel up or down more t~an one storey to exit into a public
corridor. There is a dead-end corridor on the second floor but it does not exceed the required
6 m and not more than two doors have to be passed to reach the nearest exit per 9.9.7.3.
o
Both buildings are shown to have walls to be less than 1.2 metres and opposing walls with l arger
amounts of glazing. The designer is required to comply with OBC Ref. 9. 10.4.4.
Because the building at 367 Johnson Street is being demolished, we are able to increase the
setbacks from the property lines to a minimum of 1.52 metres. Limiting distance calculations
have been initialized, and will be finalized when the design is further developed. There may be
a necessity to add fire ·shutters to some of the windows on the east side of the building.
•
The building elevations are to comply with OBC Ref. 9.10.4.5. for construction materials.
OBC Ref. 9.10.4.S. does not exist but 9.10.14.S requires that the east wall of the building
(because it is 1.52m from the property line) be non-combustible construction with noncombustible siding but the other walls can be combustible. It is intended that the building be
180
3
sided with a combination of brick and steel siding, which are both non-combustible.
All construction materials have yet to be finalized.
•
The building decks/balconies are required to comply with OBC Ref.9.10.14.5.(5)
The building and projections (including balconies and eaves) is now greater than 1.2m from
. the property lines.
•
It should be confirmed by calculation that bedrooms are permitted at the basement (or cellar) level per
the zoning and property standards by-law.
·
The building is being designed so that height of the basement ceiling above the average grade
will be ~reater than 50% of the height of the basement.
Utilities Kingston
o
The proposed water and sanitary servicing as described in the Serviceability Report and shown on the
Servicing and Grading Plan is not acceptable to Utilities Kingston. One of the two existing 25mm
water 150mm sanitary services to 363-365 Johnson Street will need to be abandoned by cutting and
capping at the main. All costs associated with the required abandonment shall be the responsibility of
the applicant.
See AECOM's attached letter.
•
The Serviceability Report states that a single 25mm gas service crosses Johnson Street and services
both 363-365 Johnson Street. The Servicing and Grading Plan shows an existing single Yz" gas
service to 363-365 Johnson tying into the gas meter near the SW comer of civic #365 and a_line
branching off this existing Yz" service heading towards the SE comer of civic #367. This branch line is
labelled as an "existing gas service to be maintained (approximate location - to be verified).
Our records indicate that the single gas service crossing Johnson Street at this location and servicing
both #363 and 365 is, in fact an NTS Yz PE l.P. line rather than a 25mm service as described in the
Serviceability Report. While the general location of this service as shown on the Servicing and
Grading Plan is correct, we have no record of the branch line heading towards 367 Johnson or of #367
being billed as a natural gas customer.
·
Assuming the existing NTS Yz PE service to civic #363-365 Johnson is of sufficient capacity for the
proposed loads it can be used for the new building at that address. A new gas service of sufficient
size for the proposed loads will be required for the new building at #367 Johnson.
See AECOM's attached lette r.
Planning and Development
o
The proposed development has a density of 122 units/ha, therefore the policy for high density
development must be applied and the development justified and reviewed in the context of those
policies. ·
Section 2.7 includes policies to ensure that redeve lopment and new developme nt locations
are consistent in terms of function and character with existing development and that advers~
impacts area limited. Section 2.7.1 indicates that compatibility is defined as the ability of
181
4
various land uses and designs that can appropriately co-exist from a function and visual
character perspective. In order to assess compatibility, Section 2.7.3 considers potential
adverse impacts as follows:
a) Shadowing: the proposed develop maintains the established roof height of adjacent buildings;
no relief from the Zoning By-law's maximum height requirement is needed.
b) Loss of privacy due to intrusive overlook: 'the design of the buildings and associated balcony
spaces do not impose loss of privacy for adjacent properties.
c) Increased levels of noise, odour, dust or vibration: the proposed residential uses are not
anticipated to impose any impacts with respect to the preceding at a level greater than other
residential uses in the area.
d) Increased and uncomfortable wind speed: no impacts associated with wind speed are
anticipated.
e) Increased level of traffic that can disrupt the intended function or amenity of a use or area: no
undue traffic impacts are anticipated resulting from the proposed development. The new .
design allows for improved ingress and egress as well as higher quality amenity space in the
form of an ·open landscaped area in the rear yard.
f) Environmental damage of degradation: no significant environmental features will be impacted.
g) Diminished service levels because of social or physical infrastructure necessary to support a use
are overloaded: ~umerous community/social . services exist within the downtown ·
neighbourhoods; a Serviceability Report submitted in support of the application provides an
assessment of the servicing requirements and concludes the development can be appropriately
serviced.
h) Reduction in the ability to enjoy a property, or the normal amenity associated with it, including
safety af!d access, outdoor areas, historic quality or setting: the development will not impact
the use or enjoyment of adjacent properties.
i) Visual intrusion that disrupts the streetst:ape, building, or cultural heritage resource: The
proposed development seeks to maintain the established streetscape through mimicking the
scale and style of existing dwellings on Johnson Street.
j) Architectural incompatibility in terms of scale, style, massing and colour: the proposed.
development has been designed to reflect the established characteristic within the vicinity and
represents and architectural improvement of the site; no impacts on built heritage resources
are anticipated as a result of the development; cladding materials i'nclude brick and other
building materials consistent with the area.
k) The loss or impairment of significant views of cultural heritage resources and natural features
and areas to residents: no impacts on views of cultural heritage or natural features are
anticipated as a result of the development.
In addition to limiting adverse impacts, compatibility is to be achieved by ensuring new
development provides a functional design to meet the needs of users. Section 2.7.7
establishes the following Functional Needs criteria:
a) Suitable scale, massing and density in relation to existing built fabric: the building footprint and
scale of the street front fa~ade are similar to existing development in the area.
b) Appropriate landscaping that meets or improves the characteristic green space amenity of the
site and surroundings and enhances that City's tree planting program: through the Site Plan
Control process the landscaping arrangement will be reviewed by City staff.
182
5
c) Adequate land area and appropriate site configuration or provision for land assembly, as
required: the lot is appropriately sized to accommodate the proposed development.
d) Efficient use of municipal services, including transit: the proposed development does not
require the undue expansion of municipal services; the development will connect to the existing
water and sanitary services provided along Johnson Street; existing transit services are located
within walking distance of the site.
e) Appropriate infill or vacant or under-utilized land: the proposed development represents the
intensification of residential uses on the site consistent with the planned function for the area.
f) Clearly defined and safe:
o
o
site access: appropriate pedestrian and vehicular access is provided at-grade;
Pedestrian access to the building and parking space: appropriate pedestrian access is
o
Amenity area and play space: the building design includes a functional amenity space
o
arrangement given the.size of the dwelling units and anticipated numbers of tenants
which would occupy the units; no play space is provided on-site.
Parking and bicycle facilities: the proposed number of vehicle parking. spaces is
consistent with the parking space utilization rates established in the area; covered
bicycle parking is provided on-site.
provided to the building from the sidewalk and on the west wide of the building.
The proposed development is consistent with the compatibility and functional design criteria
of the Official Plan.
Section 8 of the Official Plan includes policies to ensure the provision and maintenance of a
safe, efficient, and harmonious environment, which recognizes, values and supports the
specific aspects of the built and natural environment that contribute to an area's sense of
place and significance to the community. Section 8.4 identifies that the City requires the
design of new development to be visually compatible with surrounding neighbourhoods and
areas of historical or cultural significance through it s site plan control review, preparation of
zoning standards, and preparation of urban design guidelines, as appropriate, that address the
following:
a) Siting, scale and design of new development in relation to the characteristics of the
surrounding neighbourhood or the significant cultural. heritage resources including, scale,
massing, setbacks, access, landscaped treatment, building materials, exterior design elements
or features: The design of the proposed development will bring the property more in line with
the established character of the neighbourhood. The current buildings are relatively undersized compared to adjacent homes.
183
6
Existing building in relation to neighbouring dwellings.
b) Protecting natural features and areas and cultural heritage landscapes through the siting,
design and review of new development: no impacts on cultural heritage or natural heritage
features are anticipated as a result of the developmen~.
c) Achieving compatibility with a predominant architectural style, street pattern or site
arrangement where that style or arrangement forms a valuable component of the existing
neighbourhood or the historic or cultural significant of the identified area: The design includes
brick cladding and other residential building materials that are consistent with the defining
character of the neighbourhood.
Section 4.6 of the Official Plan includes policies to promote an integrated and diverse
transportation system for the City through the encouragement of land use patterns, density,
road and site design that supports walking, cycl in~, and transit, as well as commercial traffic,
inter-regional travel, and private vehicles. The transportation infrastructure currently
servicing the subject site is ideal for higher density development. The subject property is
located within walking d.i stance of tra!lsit services along Johnson Street, Brock Street and
Princess Street which provides service to the downtown area and the Kingston Centre transit
interchange. Johnson Street currently has sidewalks on both the north and south side and is
also identified as a cycling route.
Section 2.4.5 establishes density targets to achieve an overall increase in residential density
within the ·City's urban area. The policies of the Official Plan intend these density targets to be
achieved through " ... larger scale developm~nt, the expansion or conversion of existing
buildings, and the redevelopment of vacant, underutilized, or brownfield sites and infill
development". The subject site is currently occupied by buildings that are of lower intensity
in use than the established character of the area. The redevelopment of the site as planned
includes buildings which are similar in character to surrounding development and consistent
with the planned function of the area which includes higher intensity multi-unit residential
development.
Therefore, despite the higher density of 122 du/ha, the proposed d·e velopment is not
expected to have any adverse impacts on the community (i.e. overwhelm adjacent properties,
compromise the integrity of heritage or natural resources, diverge from established
character), nor will it overburden existing servicing. The development will also help achieve.
\
184
7
density targets in an appropriate manner.
0
The Planning and Development Department respectfully disagrees with the statement that the access
points at the rear of 363-365 and 367 Johnson Street have unobstructed visibility. The entrances are
recessed and not visible from the street. This design with recessed entrances has inherent safety
risks. Please revise or identify mitigation measures to be taken.
The new design has shifted the entrances in a manner that will increase visibility from the
street and improve safety.
•
How are the proposed lots adequately sized to accommodate the proposed redevelopment?
Especially when the proposed development requires a 70% reduction in amenity space, a 100%
reduction in play space, a reduction in required parking, and a reduction in required setbacks.
The proposed changes in the new design will help to address the abovementioned concerns.
Reducing the development to one building will allow for the provision of more amenity space.
A larger landscaped area in the rear yard will provide higher quality outdoor space to residents.
Each unit will also have a balcony or ground oriented patio, thus providing additional private
amenity space. The new design will require a 40% reduction in amenity space compared to the
70% reduction required for the previously proposed design. Effectively, the redesign offers
30% more amenity space than the original proposal.
No distinct play space separate from the amenity space area is proposed. The City of Kingston
Zoning By-law No. 8499 defines Play Space as " an· area intended for the protected play of
children of pre-school age living in a Multiple Family Project..." The rear yard, which is
shielded from the street and informally supervised by residents living in the rear of the
building, could serve as a play space. The site is also within walking distance (approximately
425 m) of Victoria Park, a community space that offers both passive and active recreational
facilities. City Park, a large urban park, is a short commute from the subject site and provides
a range of play equipment for children including a jungle gym and sports fields.
The applicant is proposing three on-site parking spaces, one of which will be accessible. The
owner of the property can also provide three off-site spaces within 60 metres of the subject
property bringing the total parking to 6 spaces . The proposed parking space arrangement is
consistent with the parking utilization rates established in the neighbourhood. An updated
parking assessment was prepared by AECOM in November 2012 which found that the
proposed six parking spaces are sufficient to accommodate the parking needs generated by
the development given the expected parking utilization rates . Furthermore, there is little
expected conflict between vehicles entering and exiting the parking area. One access lane is
appropriate to service the three proposed parking s paces at 363-367 Johnson Street.
The new design for the proposed development will require relief in setbacks. The minimum
front yard will require a reduction from 6.0 metres to 3.9 metres; however t his brings the
miriimum front yard provis ion in line with the existing setback for the property as well with the
established development pattern on either side of the subject site. Similarly, the requested
relief in side yard is consistent with th e established neighbourhood character.
o
Please explain how the reduced amenity space is of higher quality than would normally be provided if
the development was to provide the required area for amenity. Presently the outdoor amenity space is
too small to adequately place any outdoor furniture.
The proposed redesign provides more and higher quality amenity space than what was
previously proposed. The design now incorporates a spacious landscaped/grassy rear yard,
an indoor recreation room as well as private amenity space for each unit in the form of
balconies and patios. The requested reduction in amenity space is now 40%, a relief
appropriate for an urban infill project.
·
185
8
•
Please provide dimensions for the bedrooms and a template showing how they can be adequately
furnished with a bed, dresser and desk.
The cu~rent submission includes floor plans that identify dimensions of the bedrooms and
furniture placement.
0
The Planning and Development Department continues to have concerns regarding the function of the
site as it applies to the future residents. The proposed development does not provide adequate
ingress and egress for vehicles and pedestrians.
The proposed new design now offers much more efficient access to parking. As noted earlier,
an updated parking study by AECOM revealed that one access lane is appropriate to service
the three proposed parking spaces at 363-367 Johnson Street.
•
The garbage bins will be required to be screened which will further reduce manoeuvrability in the
parking area.
·
The enclosed garbage area is now locate near the west side entrance, far from the parking area.
No manoeuvrability issues are anticipated with this relocation.
•
The Planning and Development Department continues to have concerns that the proposed
development is an over intensification of land use and cannot adequately address the policies of
Section 2. 7. 6 and 2. 7. 7 of the Official Plan.
It is our opinion thafthe newly proposed design represents an appropriate.redevelopment of
the subject site. Section 2.7.6 of the Official Plan notes that mitigation measures between
sites with different land use designations and between residential uses of different density
will include one or more of the following measures that will be determined through required
studies, established in the zoning by-law, or during consideration of applications under the
Planning Act:
a) Ensuring adequate setbacks and minimum yard requirements: The proposed front yard
setback is consistent with the established pattern of the neighbourhood (this can be seen in
the site plan) .
b) Establishing appropriate transition in building height's coverage, and massing: As seen in the
figure below, the proposed building height and massing will be comparable to neighbouring
homes.
186
9
lmn
I
~I;
I :r ~_ .. .: -.~-,;;;;:
,===;
· ~1~
~~ ~-
tr=·:
1
---~
..
- ...
fLJ .
-·!Ip' n
~
._
]
11
ff~ ,­
IJ_q_
'f
r
"['.D
li_JU_
·--.
-r
'· ·~L
't - .
-:::.- "I -
Requiring fencing, waifs, or berming to create a visual screen: "'[he implementation of
screening will be addressed during site plan control should buffering be required.
d) Designing the building in a way that minimizes adverse effects: The design of the building is
intended to reflect the established character, height, massing and materials of the
neighbourhood. In keeping with this standard, we do not expect the proposed development
to negatively impact people, the environme'n t or businesses.
e) Maintaining mature vegetation and/or additional new landscaping requirements: The
proposed redevelopment design includes a considerable arriount of landscaping in the front,
east side yard and rear yard.
f) Controlling access locations, driveways, service areas and activity areas: Building access will
be limited to two entrances. Vehicular access will occur via a driveway on the west side of the
property.
g) Regulating location, treatment and size of accessory uses and structures, lighting, parking
areas, garbage storage facilities and signage: There are no proposed accessory buildings;
however, a bicycle parking structure (10 m 2) is proposed and would be located in the rear
yard.
c)
o
If possible, please forward examples of similar development completed by the applicant
illustrating how the amenity space is designed to be 'higher quality' and the interior space·
provides for a safe and enjoyable living environment.
The newly designed amenity space at the north end of the prope rty will-re present a typical
residential rear yard. The proposed balconies and sunrooms will provide additional amenity
2
2
space for individual units. A lower level recreation room will provide 37.5 ft (403 m ) of
indoor, shared amenity space.
o
Exterior materials used in the construction of the proposed development will have to be
sympathetic to the materials used on the established built form in the surrounding area, be period
friendly and energy efficient. This matter will be more fully developed at site plan control.
Noted.
187
10
Engineering Department
•
The applicant is proposing underground storage for storm events and infiltration as the method to
dissipate the runoff but it is not complying with MOE requirement that the bottom of the chamber
' be 1.0 metre above original bedrock, the applicant is indicating that a pocket will be broken in the
bedrock to allow 1. 0 metre below chamber;. but this will result in the water not being allowed to
infiltrate into the surrounding soils.
See AECOM's attached letter.
•
Any proposed underground storage facility will have to be located entirely on one property so t/1at the
maintenance of it can be.allocated to a single entity. This may require conditions to be registered on
title to indicate that the·facilitY. is for the benefit of both properties and that another can be done to
hinder the drainage from one property to the other in the vent that one of the properties is sold.
N/A.
•
Proper right of way agreements will have to be in place for both properties for the shared access
between t~e building and in the rear to allow for vehicles to properly egress the parking areas.
N/A.
Please contact me at 613-542-5454 ext. 221 should you require any further information.
Thank you,
Mike Keene, MCIP, RPP
Senior Planner
188
11
Revised Zoning Provisions for the Proposed Special B Zone
.:t,
Maximum Height
Minimum Front
Yard
Minimum Side
Yard
Minimum
Aggregate Side
Yard
Minimum Rear
Yard
Maximum Lot
Coverage
Maximum Density
Minimum Play
Space
Minimum Amenity
Area
Parking
Requirement
Projection of Porch
and Stairs into
Front Yard
• t
,
I
''
./
12.0m
6.0 m
11.2 m
3.87 m
2.13 m relief required
2/5 the height of the
building= 4.5 m (0.4
x 11.2 m)
1.52 m
2.13 m relief required
Half the. height of the
building= 5.6 m
3.59 + 1.52 = 5.11
0.49 m relief required
The greater of the
height of the rear
wall or 25% of the lot
depth; however, the
rear yard need not
exceed 7.5 m
331/3%
14.06 m
69 dwellings per net
hectare= 5.7 units
20.7 m2
122 dwelling units per net
hectare= 10 units
0
678.5 m
2
10 spaces (1 space
per unit)
6m
./
.
-
.
2.67% relief required
36%
408.l m
6
2.69m
189
2
4.3 units relief required
20.7 m 2 relief required
2
270.4 m relief required
4 spaces relief required
3.11 m relief required
EXHIBIT D
HUGHES DOWNEY
ARCHITECTS
I
nurn r
:
.
I . \tlJ
%
\~.._./
..'-.....::.:.' / ...
..-.....~
,.,_..
,._,...
ACCESSllLE '
PARK•XJ
"'°""'"°""'C""'°'"tC'1
~,.,,.,fllOTIO•UKD
1llf:'1'0.lfl'U.,.4fOflC
AI04tlct. --..OSAM...,1
IOMICMUNG...,IO•
lllUDNCOJU.ll<T'Of'MTlllllU
Onell CCWi1A T
~L,.
oocwunL
~--
.... , . , .... • • • ••
' • •• • ••' • •' ••
.tHt•
• ••
~~· - /jjj i::~~:~::~~~
-!~
BAl.COHV
/
J
h:S
f1'1lU DQQACJCRNll! f)4
llAl.COHV
lr\\\~\\~\\\\\\\\~\~\~~~\\-.S.\\\\-.S.~\\~{\1:::: [t;~
i~
~
~
~~~~~~~~~~ ~ ~~~ ~~~~~~~~~~ ~
I
~II
#0~
~~crs~
:::::
I
• .lOftl,;
~~---1
.
················r:::~
BIC\'ClES
••• • •
__·~·
:~-=
·
·
·
~
·
·
,I ~· ~·,rr.~r
00
+
CVWlC4llOl'1IW;'flCC-
r» .................. C.. tml.lM
, .. ,,.~..•aJ ,,.,:q .. rau
~ ~
I
Ul•!f"
~_?.~O
l
~·-a•~
~
~
~
I
~
~
~
-~
LJ w
363-367 JOHNSON ST.
~
IUl&.01H03 110 1qft(n5 1qnt)
~
0
0
~~
~~~-··~ ···~-p
:L1j~.
:.......... :
•·
~M~~:::::H:
--·
•
t ::........... ::
••
~
I
I
tf~
tl'•D'
~////.
0
~
•:JI" lOTCOVEAAG.!
8ALCOHY
~
~
~~:
"fn,,nuuu
••
~+#:#:~;~
M
i"
I
~
~
~
~
~
~
WI/I/Ill/#"'"""~
,putat1a..~
lll(V-:-1°"'1tlotrAU
l'JIQAl;"I
f'ttCJf'CMO flfW,,,Mllil(H'IS
363·367
JOHNSON ST.
-
SITE PLAN
OMWto•v
E AANdE
~I """'
Johnson Street
WH
GA.fl:
1NOV, 2012
sc.IU
1" • 1a4'Y
0~39
--
P2-01
........
1
~
=
~
~
~
t:1
190
[]
- - - - - - -- - - - - - - - - - - --+-
mm
1
II
i
l.j
I
I
rlr1
,, ~
I
1
II
I
1·
1'
I
I
I'
i
~ . 11 ~~,
I
1
1
. !I
;~- --1] I · f"---~J lI 1' D
I'
-
.
-.
I
-~ _):.
I
1 1 .·
I
l!.
1
!._1=-. - - - - ' ·--- _____ _J
~!1 ,-'.
W.1
I Ll::-!:.
I
IL it....; : c --=
~--,
lb!~-=
I
_]
191
.'
z
0
~
w
~
....a:J:
z
0
~
....I
~I~
~
wi,
....
en •
192
193
HUGHES DOWNEY
ARCHITECTS
CllWlellrt OF~Cl~
~ I ~.:".:!i~:=:.~~
~o "SSon
~
"~
O AACHITEClS 2'
~~
-.I EXIT
COMMON AMENITY SPACE
~
l
~
...,.
II
't·r
.L
...... /
1Ill
t.
,~
'-...:.'.../
lfl(_lfOOQNl.MllNlllM
l'flQIUINOIT.a_,.ltc1
"IOMll..lriGflOllVIU
'f'l:ftl'OJ't"1(}U..IOTOM
~t. Dl'ooM'41AAC.•Clr
-·
IOMSCALlJl'11GMltoN
..JH"U
.-...0"~
OW..C°""'Ull"""IT
l
~
BIOAOOM
-~
,.· -
..
"
'.L
~ I~
~
I
-=-!'
~
.....
II
~
t>•~fOl'"'l\CW
Ion'-"
rflClf'OSl0~"""'~'
363·367
-
=.;L_E
~-"""'
,,_,
"f-C
194
I
llCV. ( D4ft
J OHNSON ST.
~-
iu:.::
__,.,
BASEMENT & 1st
FL. PLANS
.
II I
DIM."Ml•Y
1r-1•
11
or-r
I
I..I
M rt
MJH
1 NOV. 2012
_..._ft" -
l'Clolf:
1'-0"
09-39
P2:02 ""t
HUGHES DOWNEY
ARCHITECTS
Con;.t.ttOl......_-uc.t*"
~ I ~~.:".:!i~~:~
.~~~
~
~r.:.
_ _,
D .t.{'
1••
b / H'•£
, -F> ·~~urrm .
•"-'
I
~
~ AROmOS If
.
/'
T:
11 • -
~ I
r1I
\~
-;
'-......:.'.:./
·~..-..t""'OCIQIWljjTIMf.rtC
l'lllOPOlrTOI TICNICH1tCT
N<ONCJoOTtO•llK.D
Wf'ttO.llqflNGl'OTtC
l!i'
""°4Tl.C1. 0IWowt'<Gl...,.M»
IO•K.<UOMGMll IOM
UNIT 10
4 BEBRc50MS
"""°"
COUJJCiDil
On.tACOl<ilJU.tMn•
UNIT9
4 BEDROOMS
· ™.tu.
"""""'"
!!!:!l!!2l!!
-I
~
Iii
,.,,p.:.oo.,
>;::
.!D!!!!!!l!!.
~15(~
~
-~ lli!!22'i
.....
II
~~m]
~-
L
I
~
.IL
M~
~-
=-:1
rl
+--...),~J~J..J:.""v.~L1~
1
~1
1
f- ,...,.
~
1
I~,,
I ~
• t>4'°"~
_,..,
f'flOfOMO~llMIUCHT S
363-367
JOHNSON ST.
2nd & 3rd FL.
PLANS
°"'"'~• IT
o,t.tt
......
09-39
KA.I..(
I
MJH
1 N<N. 2012
~-l'..0-
P2':°03
195
r
....
Exhibit E
K ST
DIVI
SION
ST
BRO
C
ABERDEEN
ST
JOH
N SO
N ST
THE C OR PO RAT I ON OF T HE C IT Y OF K I NGS TON
PLAN NING & D EV ELOPM ENT DEPA RTM ENT
Legend
Aerial Photo (2008)
Planning &
Development
a department of
Sustainability &
Growth
PREPARED BY: A. Ad ams
DATE: Mar 3, 2012
Subject Lands
Applicant: Highpoint Developments Inc
File Number: D14-238-2012
Address: 363, 365 & 367 Johnson Street
Legal Description: CON 1 FARM LOT 24 PT BLK R
AND RP 13R-19761 PART 1
ARN: 1011 020 110 00400/00600
196
Meters
0
5
10
20
30
®
40
Disclaimer: This do cument is subject to copyrig ht and may only be used for your p ersonal, no n
-commercial use p rovided you keep intact the copyrig ht no tice. The C ity of Kingsto n assumes no
respo nsibility fo r any errors, and is not liable fo r any damag es of any kind resulting from the use
of, or relia nce on, the information contained in this document. The City of Kingston d oes not make
any representation or warranty, express or implied , concerning the accuracy, quality, likely results
or reliability of the use of the informa tio n contained in this d ocument.
C 2012 T he Corporation of the City of King ston.