City of Kingston Planning Committee Meeting Number 12

City of Kingston
Planning Committee Meeting Number 12-2014
Addendum
Thursday, June 19, 2014
6:30 p.m., Council Chamber, City Hall
Business
The consent of the Planning Committee is requested for the withdrawal of Information
Report Number (PC-14-042).
a)
2011 Census and National Household Survey
The Report of the Commissioner of Community Services (PC-14-042) is attached to
the Planning Agenda as Schedule Pages 337-375.
Recommendation:
This report is for information purposes only.
Correspondence
a)
Correspondence received regarding Application for Zoning By-Law Amendment, for
180 Bagot Street and 111 William Street (PC-14-065):
i.
b)
Peter G. Davy, dated June 18, 2014
Schedule Pages 1-3
Correspondence received regarding Application for a Zoning By-Law Amendment
for 1233 Midland Avenue (File Number: D14-074-2014):
i.
Laura Ruttan, dated June 5, 2014
ii.
Dave and Denise Missere, dated June 16, 2014
iii.
Devinder Singh, dated June 17, 2014
iv.
Dr.’s Michael Van Buren & Adrina Patterson,
dated June 16, 2014
v.
Lori Hanson, dated June 18, 2014
vi.
Maurice Michaud, dated June 18, 2014
vii.
Cathy Sheldrick, dated June 18, 2014
Schedule Pages 4
Schedule Pages 5-7
Schedule Pages 8
Schedule Pages 9-12
Schedule Pages 13-14
Schedule Pages 15
Schedule Pages 16-17
viii. Joel Badour, dated June 19, 2014
Schedule Pages 18
ix.
Schedule Pages 19
Edward Moore, dated June 19, 2014
Planning Committee Meeting Number 12-2014 Addendum
Thursday, June 19, 2014
x.
c)
Megi Behl, dated June 19, 2014
Page 2
Schedule Pages 20
Correspondence received regarding Application for an Official Plan , Zoning By-Law
Amendment and Draft Plan Subdivision for 752 King Street West (File NumbersD09-075-2012, D14-272-2012 and D12-075-2012):
i.
d)
Paul Tardiff, dated June 19, 2014
Schedule Pages 21-22
Correspondence received regarding Application for an Official Plan Amendment
and Zoning By-Law Amendment for 735, 745 and Highway 15 (File Numbers- D09001-2013 and D14-002-2013):
i.
Audrey and Reg Shadbolt, dated June 13, 2014
ii.
Frontenac Condominium Corp. 43, dated June 17, 2014 Schedule Pages 24-25
iii.
Robert and Linda Hunt-Nelson, dated June 18, 2014
i.
e)
Doug and Lori Williams, dated June 17, 2014
Schedule Pages 23
Schedule Pages 26
Schedule Pages 27-28
Correspondence received regarding Application for an Official Plan Amendment for
Casino Gaming Facilities (File Number: D09-009-2013):
i.
Nancy Salvador, dated June 19, 2014
Schedule Pages 29-30
ii.
John and Mary Alice Downie, dated June 19, 2014
Schedule Pages 30-32
1
2
3
From:
To:
Subject:
Date:
laura ruttan tapp
Chan,Calvin
file number D14-074-2014
Thursday, June 05, 2014 7:28:40 AM
I have concerns regarding the commercial development of 1233 Midland Avenue, city file
number D14-074-2014. I am concerned about the increase of traffic that will happen along
Cataraqui Woods Drive. Since the section of Cataraqui Woods Drive west of Bayridge Drive
opened, traffic has increased significantly. Vehicles on Cataraqui Woods Drive travel well
above posted speed limits, making it difficult for homeowners along that road to access their
driveways.
My main concern is the effect this may have on the children walking to school at Cataraqui
Woods Elementary School. Cataraqui Woods is already extremely dangerous for children
who need to cross Cataraqui Woods to get to school. There is a path that allows people to
walk to the rear of the school which opens onto Cataraqui Woods Drive. People are
suppose to only drop children off on the north side of the road, however this does not
always happen. Therefore children are crossing, are difficult to see walking between cars,
and have on several occasions been nearly hit by vehicles. Add to that, people will be hurrying to drop children at school, then race to pick up gas or
purchase items at this new complex. I fear this may become a deadly combination.
Birchwood Dr. which access's the entrance to the front of the school is also out of control;
and in my opinion will increase in danger with any changes that will happen on Cataraqui
Woods Dr unless this too is looked at.
In winter months, this will become an even more dangerous situation with ice and
snowbanks to contend with.
If this complex is to be built, I recommend that speed bumps be put all along Cataraqui
Woods Drive BEFORE the stores are permitted to open. I also recommend that the city
address the parking/drop off of students for the school along Cataraqui Woods Dr. and
Birchwood Dr. Please consider my concerns,
Laura Ruttan
Brackenwood Dr.
Kingston, On K7P2W1
4
From:
To:
Subject:
Date:
Dave And Denise
Chan,Calvin
RE: Changing 1233 Midland Avenue from a Development D Zone to a commercial plaza, two drive thrus and a
gas station - including 212 parking spaces
Monday, June 16, 2014 10:49:10 PM
From: Dave And Denise [mailto:d
]
Sent: June-16-14 9:01 PM
To: 'cchan@cityofkington.ca'
Cc: 'dgreen@cityofkingston.ca'; 'kevingeorge@cityofkingston.ca'
Subject: Changing 1233 Midland Avenue from a Development D Zone to a commercial plaza, two drive
thrus and a gas station - including 212 parking spaces
This change in zoning would have a very negative impact on the quality of life
of the residents of this subdivision. 1. The vehicle traffic on Cataraqaui Woods is currently 11,000 per day,
bottlenecks exist now, at times backing up to between Bittersweet and
Midland.
This proposal would only increase the traffic.
2. The noise from the vehicles, stereos would increase.
3. A plaza would create an environment for loitering and hangouts.
4. Littering and garbage would increase – residents of Cataraqui Woods
already have to deal with the garbage thrown out of vehicles and from
foot traffic shopping carts from Wal-Mart, and beer bottles.
5. Extended hours of operation from gas station, restaurant and Mac’s
Convenience store would increase traffic and noise later into the
evenings.
6. This will reduce the property values of homes in the area. The residents
bought these homes understanding this was a residential D zone.
7. Proposal is not a good fit for a neighbourhood, a daycare, a retirement
or nursing home. Medical lab/clinic, 9-5 operating hours, low traffic
volumes would be much more suitable and make a welcome addition to
the neighbourhood.
8. No need for another gas bar, one already exists on Midland right across
from Wal-Mart, and Wal-Mart provides us with a more than adequate
5
convenience store. And there are plenty of restaurants within walking or
driving distance.
9. There will be an increased need for policing due to transient nature of
traffic.
10.More late night foot traffic – more potential for vandalism.
This proposal would only worsen an existing traffic problem created by the
connection of Cataraqui Woods and Woodhaven subdivision which was
made without adequate traffic impact studies and without notification or
consultation of the residents of the existing Cataraqui Woods subdivision. Traffic on Cataraqui Woods has increased to the point where the residents
of “subdivision” street no longer feel safe exiting or entering our driveways,
walking our children to school, shovelling our driveways or cutting grass on
the boulevards. Traffic is now backed up from the 4 way stop to before the
turn off to Bittersweet at peak hours. This street was never designed as a
proper arterial road and has some 79 driveways existing from the street. Compare this to Bayridge with zero driveways, although speed limits are
currently the same 50 km and a school is only 100 feet from the corner of
Cataraqui Woods and Birchwood/Cedarwood. Residents on Cataraqui
Woods Drive have to keep their windows shut to reduce noise levels. The traffic problem has led residents to request speed bumps and to lower
the speed limit just to deal with the existing situation. Add to this the
impact of the proposed development and the subdivision no longer
provides residents the security, sanctuary and serenity that we are entitled
to from our homes in this subdivision as guaranteed by the existing “D”
zoning.
Sincerely
David Missere
Denise Missere
6
7
8
June 16, 2014
Calvin Chan
Senior Planner
City of Kingston
cchan@cityofkingston.ca
Dear Mr. Chan,
As property and business owners with businesses across the street and immediately
impacted by the proposed zoning amendment changes to 1233 Midland Avenue we felt it
prudent to correspond with you on the matter. Please ensure that the planning committee
members receive a copy of this correspondence.
Our two principal concerns are
a) retail/medical office space use
b) traffic implications.
Some other concerns are
c) available and newly developed retail space in close proximity to this plaza
d) parking space deficiency
e) 24- hour business uses and their compatibility
a) The commercial businesses and properties, which are located across the street from the
proposed plaza, are all owner occupied businesses. This includes the dental clinic, the
chiropractic clinic and the veterinary clinic. Our livelihood depends on our practices. We
have all put our entire life savings as small business owners into the development of our
properties, buildings and practices.
If a developer is considering offering retail and medical office space across the road
from our existing practices, it only seems reasonable that there is a clause on the
proposed future uses to exclude leasing the space to other dentists, veterinarians and
chiropractors. This clause could be lifted in the event that there is no longer a competing
use for that particular profession.
b) We have a lot of concern about the Cataraqui Woods Drive entrance being so close to
the intersection, given the proposed scope of the project. Regardless if the area is deemed
arterial commercial or not, there is no right turn lane from Cataraqui Woods Drive onto
Midland Avenue. The traffic is already heavy at times of day, and it can be very difficult
9
to turn in and out of our small medical office complex and we are set back further from
the light, with a much smaller scale operation.
Several of the uses proposed within this plaza would generate a high volume of traffic,
especially the gas station, which is located to the south of the current site plan, and could
result in a lot of patrons of a future gas bar entering and exiting off of Cataraqui Woods
Drive.
This intersection will already continue to get much busier when one looks at the city’s
master plan and the future growth and development of the Woodhaven subdivision, in
addition to the recent opening of the Cataraqui Woods Drive extension.
Projects of similar size and scope throughout the city either have 4 lanes of traffic for
east/west and north/south flow, or 4 lanes of traffic in at least one direction and/or centre
turning lanes. Most of them will also have an entrance/exit right at an existing traffic
light, or a newly constructed traffic light to accommodate the development.
When we see the existing gas bar with Mac’s and other retail space located on the
northeast corner of Bayridge Drive and Princess Street, we can see the congestion and
difficulty that those turning left out of the plaza onto Bayridge Drive have on an ongoing
basis.
We believe that this will be a problem that will be experienced at this intersection as well.
We can attest to this first hand, as it is already a problem, and it is normal for us to wait
for 12 to 15 vehicles to pass between 7:00 and 7:15 in the evening so that we can turn
left out of our building and this is during off peak hours. In the morning, we have to wait
for the traffic to leave a gap to allow us to turn into our building
We have no doubt that the future growth of Kingston will see the subject property be
developed, but uses that are harmonious with the residential properties in terms of noise,
hours of use, and traffic volumes need to be considered.
The current proposal with a 24 hour Mac’s, a 5 bay gas bar, restaurant with a drive-thru,
two buildings containing retail space, one with medical office space and a financial
institution with a drive thru that close to the intersection appears to be an accident waiting
to happen. It would be better to consider a right in and out only onto Cataraqui Woods
Drive, or some other option to minimize the congestion which will be created at the
intersection.
The city’s engineering department has already had to design a plan for speed bumps
along Cataraqui Woods Drive with installation happening later this year, due to the speed
and traffic volume through the neighbourhood.
We already have patients who live along Cataraqui Woods complaining about the traffic
volume along the road, although some see additional services as a benefit, many of the
10
neighbours are concerned with traffic volume and noise already, and will find the
additional traffic to be a disservice.
There is also concern that there is a school just up the street from the proposed plaza.
Many of the children walk to school as well as home. The sidewalk resides on the south
side of Cataraqui Woods Drive. A Mac’s and a drive-thru restaurant are locations that
children may wish to visit, on their lunch hour or after school. The children will either be
crossing a busy road illegally or trying to walk along the north side of the street in traffic
or across properties to get to plaza the shortest way possible, as children always do.
c) A few other matters of consideration are that there is also a lot of newly constructed
retail/ office space for lease just north of Cataraqui Woods Drive on Gardiners Road,
which has just been constructed. Is more retail space needed at this time with a lot of
newly constructed space presently available?
d) We also need to address the deficiency in the required number of parking spaces for
the proposed development. Our businesses were required to have the minimum number
of parking spaces as set out by the City of Kingston. We in fact, opted to put in
additional parking spaces, not just the minimum required. If a plaza is to be constructed
of such a scale that it requires a minimum amount of green space, parking spaces etc.
then this should be adhered to. If this need can’t be met, then the plan is too for the land
size and the plan needs to change to ensure it can suit the available lot.
e) The neighbours have also raised the concern of businesses operating 24 hours a day,
adjacent to the residential homes. You have to consider noise, light and that the parking
will likely become a hang out for neighbourhood kids, in terms of skateboarding, graffiti,
litter, etc., and the impact that can have on not only the residential properties, but the
other commercial establishments in the area.
None of the other commercial businesses adjacent to the residential homes, with light
commercial use have overnight hours or are ever open beyond 9 pm. For the most part,
the businesses are closed by 7 pm to minimize the impact on the residential properties.
Taller pylon signs cannot be directed down to minimize the light impact on the
neighbours. Our small sign tower is turned off by 10 pm, to ensure that it is not disruptive
to the neighbourhood. The signage on the animal hospital and Urban Paws faces onto
Midland Avenue. How will the proposed pylon sign on Cataraqui Woods Drive be
designed to minimize the impact on the neighbours?
11
Thank you for your time and consideration.
Our concerns are valid and we trust that they will be discussed and addressed before
making any final decisions on the neighbouring property.
Regards,
Dr.’s Michael Van Buren and Adrina Patterson
Property Owners
Cataraqui Woods Drive.
12
From:
To:
Subject:
Date:
Lori Hanson
Chan,Calvin; Gerretsen,Mark
Cataraqui Woods Drive
Wednesday, June 18, 2014 12:41:15 PM
Hi my name is Lori Hanson, I have lived at 769 Cataraqui Woods Drive with my
husband and son for the past 9 years. I have 2 grandchildren, who I do not allow to
play in the front of my home due to traffic. I am contacting you regarding our street
and the proposed commercial centre you are looking to develop. When we first moved in to Cataraqui Woods we were told it was a residential area,
and yet the city seems determined to make it commercial. To me this is a bad
choice for the residents on the street. As an example, let me tell you about my week. Monday 7: 30 am. It took me
approximately 15 minutes to get out of my driveway, while I waited I noticed a
beige sedan run the four way at the corner of Cedarwood and Cataraqui Woods
Drive, there were two buses picking up children for the catholic school, they had
there stop signs out. He blew by them, almost hit a little girl and ran the red light at
the end of the street. Apparently the only ones who cared were me, the bus drivers
and the little girl. Apparently the students on Bittersweet will have to walk further
as that is opposite the opening for the new Macs store and gas bar.
Monday night I left work (by the way it used to take me 10 minutes to get to work,
now approximately 30 minutes. On my way home I stopped at the light at the
corner of Midland and Cataraqui Woods Drive, I sat through two green lights as
there was so much traffic coming through, it took me the third time just to make it
onto my street. These are typical examples of my days since your last great
development idea.
If you continue with this development with no modifications,(eg no entrance on
Cataraqui Woods Drive, exit and entrance on Midland, and offices at this end, or put
it in somewhere else), not only will I be taking my life into my own hands to get
out of my driveway, but my house will be worthless. Am I going to end up like the
ones on Midland with my windows boarded up? Does the city think that we do not
deserve a peaceful home life?
There is another Macs gas bar at the corner of Bayridge and Princess, literally 3
minutes from my home. Bayridge is constantly covered in wrappers and cans. However, there are no homes right next to the Macs store. We already have
McDonalds garbage, cans and beer bottles, I shudder to think what we will be
looking at if your proposal goes through. Not to mention the additional noise. As it
stands our front windows are almost always closed, driving up our utilities.
I pulled up a google map, you should try it. Not only is there a Macs with gas bar
on Bayridge, near the end of our street, there is also Canadian Tire, the gas station
on Midland, Esso, the gas station on Gardiners at the A & W. These are all within a
very short drive of my home. Convenience stores with take out, Walmart, Loblaws,
the gas station on Midland, the The A & W on Gardiners, the Mall, Esso, the other
Macs. Fast food: Walmart, MacDonalds, Tim Hortons, Harveys, Lowe's,
Subway, Canadian Tire, A & W, how many more do you want. Restaurants, Go
Italian, Mary Browns, Carmelindas, Greek town, Eggquis, Siem Reip, Fardalas, the
MALL and more. Do we really need more, is there no where else in Kingston left to
13
develop? What about over by Costco, across from Dental office, there is a feed to
the 401 and no convenience store for the people in that area. No homes face that
road ....... think about it.
I want to enjoy my home, I want to have company park in front of my home and
not worry about being hit (this has happened 2X) What you are planning is going to
make things very congested, with fast traffic. I have very real concerns as to what
is going to happen to the families on our street with this new development and the
value of our homes. It seems the decision makers are all about the money and have become desensitised
as to the needs of the people who put them in power. There is a lesson in there for
the voters.
Lori Hanson
14
From:
To:
Subject:
Date:
Joanne
Chan,Calvin
opposition to plaza devellopment on Cat Wood Drive
Wednesday, June 18, 2014 8:42:42 PM
Good Day!
As per instruction in your public meeting advisory and since I can not attend the meeting I
would like to send you this email to express my opposition to the project. I am not against
the development of this new plaza but would like to see the Max Milk gaz bar develloped on
the north side instead of having an entrance/exit on Cat Wood Drive. The traffic is already
crazy as it is since Cat Wood Drive has been extended to the Wood Haven devellopment
and the cars are contantly racing to cath the green light at Midland. It's an accident waiting
to hapen, thus the reason why I oppose an entrance from the plaza to Cat Wood Drive.
Sincerely Maurice Michaud!
Regards,
Maurice Michaud
Bittersweer Place
work
15
From:
To:
Subject:
Date:
Cathy Sheldrick
Chan,Calvin
Objection to the Amendment to 1233 Midland Avenue
Wednesday, June 18, 2014 10:15:26 PM
Hi Calvin,
I am writing to voice my opposition to the zoning amendment to 1233 Midland Avenue (City file #
D14-074-2014). I feel that this proposed new plaza will negatively impact my life, the enjoyment of
my property, and the safety and security of my family.
I live on Bittersweet Place, which is almost across from where the new plaza is proposed to go in. I
am very concerned about the traffic a new plaza would create. Currently, it is often very difficult to
turn out of, and onto Bittersweet Place. I have sat (in my car) at the end of my street for 4 and 5
minutes waiting for a break in the traffic so I can make a left turn from my street. At rush hour,
traffic is backed up on Cataraqui Woods Drive from the stop sign at Birchwood to past Bittersweet
Place. With the opening of the extension of Cataraqui Woods Drive, we have already seen an
increase in traffic. Adding a plaza to 1233 Midland Avenue will increase the traffic even further, and
at all hours of the day and night.
An increase in traffic is not only frustrating and inconvenient for residents in the area, but it’s also a
safety concern for our children. With Cataraqui Woods Elementary School just around the corner,
the majority of the kids in the area walk to school. While I appreciate that there is a crossing guard
at the 4-way stop at Birchwood and Cataraqui Woods Drive during key school hours, kids go to and
from the school to play on the playground all the time – evenings, weekends and all summer long
when there is no crossing guard. As it is, I don’t let my children walk along Cataraqui Woods Drive
without me because there is just SO MUCH traffic.
Additionally, a plaza would be an attraction for kids at lunchtime and after school. Along Cataraqui
Woods Drive there is only a sidewalk on one side. The proposed plaza is on the opposite side of the
street from the sidewalk – I can see a lot of kids (and adults) crossing in the middle of traffic to get
to the plaza, and putting themselves and drivers in danger. On another traffic note, it is already difficult for 2-way traffic to move along Cataraqui Woods Drive
if there are residents parked on the street, and in the winter when snowbanks creep out onto the
road. It’s not unusual to have to pause and wait for oncoming traffic to pass so that you can turn or
continue driving. This winter, I could barely see past the snowbanks at the end of my street to tell if
there was traffic coming on Cataraqui Woods Drive. It won’t be long before someone will be
seriously hurt or killed here.
In addition to the traffic, I am concerned about the noise and undesirable environment a 24-hour
plaza would create. It would encourage loitering, increase littering and add the potential for latenight vandalism. This is a residential zone, and I moved to this suburban neighbourhood expecting a
quiet, safe, and secure place to raise my children. When it gets dark at night, our neighbourhood is
quiet and that’s the way I like it. We already have Walmart and another gas station (with a
convenience store) very close by on Midland Ave. Having a six building plaza with two drive-thrus
and 212 parking spots pretty literally at the end of my street would have such a drastic impact on my
quiet little street. This is a residential zone – please leave it residential.
I also have some concerns form an environmental perspective. It’s a real pity that Cataraqui Woods
no longer has much in the way of “woods” left. With every tree that comes down and every new
house or commercial property that goes up, the charm and appeal of this neighbourhood decreases.
I’m worried about my property value going down too if this plaza is allowed. As it is, we have rabbits
and raccoons in our yards, eating our gardens and going through our garbage. Cutting down more
16
of their habitat will only increase this problem. When it rains hard, and when snow melts, Cataraqui Woods Drive at Midland already tends to flood.
Paving the entire area beside it will only increase this problem. If it stays residential, at least lawns
will help soak up water.
I want a clean neighbourhood for myself and my kids - adding drive-thru lanes (where cars idle) and
a gas station (which has high traffic) as well as a number of stores with parking will increase the air
pollution in our area.
While I would like to see this area stay vacant, I know that is unlikely. Perhaps something such as
houses, or a retirement home or daycare would be more suited to this area; or if it is commercial,
something with 9-5 hours and low traffic volume such as the dentist office or medical building. But
this proposed six-building plaza is not the right fit for this neighbourhood.
Thank you for taking my objections into consideration. Please feel free to contact me if you have any
questions.
Cathy Sheldrick
Bittersweet Place
Kingston, ON K7P 2G9
17
From:
To:
Cc:
Subject:
Date:
Joel Badour
Chan,Calvin
Green,Deanna; kevingeorge@cityofkingston.ca
1233 Midland Ave.
Thursday, June 19, 2014 6:47:06 AM
I writing you this email to state my strong opposition to the proposed rezoning of
1233 Midland Ave. I am a resident of Cataraqui Woods Dr. and I already believe
there needs to be a reduction in traffic in the neighborhood. I walk or cycle to work
on a daily basis, and I can assure you that it can be nerve racking doing either on
any given day in this area. Adding a plaza to the area would increase that danger to
myself, the other pedestrians/cyclists not to mention the children that walk the
street to get to school daily.
Peace
Joel Badour
18
19
20
June 19, 2014
St. Lawrence
College
The Corporation of the City of Kingston
Marnie Vendetta, MCIP, RPP,
Senior Manager, Client Relations & Development Services,
Re: Development of Secondary Plan for 752 King Street West
File Number(s): D09 - 075-2012, D14-272-2012 and D12-075-2012
2288 Parkdale Avenue
Brockville, ON K6V5X3
T 613-345-0660 F 613-345-2231
2 St. Lawrence Drive
Cornwall, ON K6H 4Z1
Dear Ms. Vendetta,
T 613-933-6080 F 613-937-1523
It is our understanding that FoTenn Consultants, on behalf of Infrastructure
Ontario, will be making a presentation to the Planning Committee this
evening in regard to the applications for the development of a Secondary
Plan for the lands located at 752 King Street West (Kingston Provincial
Campus). This property is adjacent to the Kingston campus of St. Lawrence
College, located at 100 Portsmouth Avenue.
We have had an opportunity to review the Demonstration Report for the
Kingston Provincial Campus, dated October 2012. The Demonstration
Report does not show a proposed road network for the subject lands nor
does it show in adequate detail the proposed access points along King Street
and how increased traffic flow is going to be effectively managed. Continued
safe ingress and egress to and from our campus for our employees and
students alike is of primary concern.
The College currently has shared sanitary servicing with subject lands. The
applicant's proposed servicing strategy does not satisfactorily address the
manner in which the infrastructure capacity issues are to be resolved or the
potential impact to the existing shared infrastructure. The College needs to
gain an understanding how the re-development of Infrastructure Ontario
lands may impact our future development potential from a site servicing point
of view.
The scale, impact and massing of the proposed built form along the King
Street frontage is also a potential concern from the College's point of view.
The College's Master Space Plan identifies the lands at the north-west and
south-east portion of the campus for future expansion and intensification of
our facilities. We would like to ensure the compatibility of the proposed scale,
density and aesthetic of the Infrastructure Ontario lands with our long-term
campus development plans.
21
100 Portsmouth Avenue
Kingston, ON K7L 5A6
T 613-544-5400 F 613-545-3920
www.stla wrencecollege.ca
We were not consulted in the development of the proposed Secondary Plan
by the applicant. While the College supports the re-development of the
subject lands for the Providence Care facility, there are a number of
concerns with respect the re-development of the remaining lands that we
would appreciate the opportunity to discuss in detail with Infrastructure
Ontario and the City of Kingston.
Please contact me at your earliest convenience to discuss our concerns in
further detail with the applicant and City of Kingston staff.
Best regards,
I« -
_^7T_,_
Paul Tardif, P.Eng. PMP
Director of Facility Management Services
St. Lawrence College
100 Portsmouth Avenue
Kingston, ON K7L 5A6
cc:
Lanie Hurdle, Commissioner of Community Services, City of Kingston
Patricia Kerth, Senior Vice-President, Corporate Services
22
Blumenberg,Catalina
From:
Sent:
To:
Subject:
Reg Shadbolt <
>
Friday, June 13, 2014 11:07 AM
Fraser,Karen
Application for Official Plan Amendment and Zoning B Amendment to permit two 14story apartment buildings, each with 178 dwelling units at 725,735, &745 Highway#15
Dear Ms. Fraser:
Thank you for the opportunity to respond to this request, which is a modification of a previous request to build
three buildings on this site. We are opposed to this amendment for these reasons:
1] It is perceived to be part of a gaming process by the developer to seek a succession of changes in density
from building to building with added density in each request. So far the strategy has worked: the developer
requests more than he expects; The Planning Committee seems to require less for each approval ,but always
approves more than what would be permitted in the Original Plan . Here we are again with a request for
buildings with 14 stories ,when probably the developer would be very happy with fewer stories ,but with far
more density than permitted of the original Plan , We believe strongly that The Planning Committee should
protect the integrity of the original plan ,or modify it as a whole if conditions change, but stop
this perceived piecemeal process from building to building.
2] Secondly. the two buildings requested would dwarf the first two condominium buildings that were built
along Highway #15 and that is not consistent with good planning.
We would be in favour of two buildings that were both consistent with the density requirements of the Original
Plan and would not exceed the heights of the two original condominium buildings along the same frontage. We
would think that neighbours in the area would be less intimidated by the perceived shadows from two new
towers!
Again , thank you for the opportunity to respond. We recommend that in future notices that you include the
implications for the intent of The Original Plan if the amendments requested are approved by The Planning
Committee.
Yours sincerely, Audrey and Reg Shadbolt
1
23
June 17, 2014
Chair and Members of the Planning Committee
Comprehensive Report Recommending Approval of Homestead Land Holding’s
Applications for Official Plan Amendment and Zoning By-law with Respect to
725, 735 and 745 Highway 15
File Numbers D09-001-2013 and D14-002-2013
The subject report fails to resolve the reasons that our residents and neighbours
are opposed to Homestead’s plan to construct two 14 storey, high rise apartment
buildings immediately adjacent to our homes on Highway 15.
Density:
The report mentions, but fails to address the following contradiction:
 According to Kingston’s Official Plan (3.3.C.1) “high density residential land
uses primarily include apartments ------with a density of 75 units per net
hectare or more unless an approved secondary plan establishes other
provisions”
 The approved Rideau Community Secondary Plan does just that in
stating that high density residential development is not intended to
exceed 60 units per net hectare of land.
 The way in which Homestead has consistently exceeded this limit is
apparent in the following comparison:
LOT AREA/UNIT
BLDG.HEIGHT
DWELLING UNIT
DENSITY/Ha
BARRIEFIELD
DEERFIELD
204.5m2
22.8m
BARRETT
I & II
170m2
38m
HIGHLANDER
62.8m2
44m
PROPOSED
57m2
45m
48.9
170
155
185
Page 1 of 2
24
Traffic:
Upgrades to Highway 15 and Highway 2 will not alleviate the already untenable
congestion experienced on these roads during rush hours. Further development
should be limited until construction of the third crossing is undertaken.
Intrusive Overlook:
It is difficult to imagine how any proposed set back from our shared property line
will mitigate the invasion of privacy and loss of view inherent in having an
apartment building twice the height of our complex constructed on the property
next door.
Architectural Incompatibility
Despite the view expressed in the report, the proposed development in terms of
it’s over towering height, massing and architectural features is clearly incompatible
with the Highway 15 streetscape.
Conclusion;
As we have stated on numerous occasions, we are not opposed to development
on this site. We do however object to the scale of this proposal. Rather than
promoting intensification it will only contribute to more congestion in a very small
area of Kingston that has already been overbuilt by repeatedly allowing
Homestead to exceed the sensible zoning limits set out in the City’s Official Plan
and By-laws.
Hugh Carmichael
President
Page 2 of 2
25
From:
To:
Subject:
Date:
Bob and Linda
Osanic,Lisa; Schell,Liz; Paterson,Bryan; Berg,Sandy; Reitzel,Brian; Budd,Jason; Fraser,Karen; Gerretsen,Mark
Letter of Opposition to proposed Homestead Landholdings apartment buildings Hwy 15
Wednesday, June 18, 2014 11:31:44 PM
Dear Mayor and Councillors:
We are writing to register our objections to the proposed Homestead Landholdings apartment buildings
on Highway 15, planned for construction next to the Deerfield condominium.We understand this is to
be discussed in a closed meeting on June 19th, 2014. Kindly ensure that this email is presented at that
meeting.
We object to this proposal on the following grounds:
-this will add to the traffic congestion which already exists between Highway 401 and Highway 2
-additional traffic lights will no doubt be required to allow residents to get onto Hwy.15, and this will
impede traffic flow.
-The additional traffic generated by such high density housing will negatively impact the traffic flow in
our area
-such additional traffic caused by additional vehicles from the proposed buildings will contribute to the
obstruction of police, fire, ambulance, city bus, schoolbus, and taxis attempting to maintain schedules
-it will also exacerbate greenhouse gas emissions due to idling, and stop and start driving
-this proposed high density housing is at odds with a city that purports to be about "green" initiatives,
and will, in fact, result in a significant reduction of green space and the alteration of the existing
landscape in a negative way.
-the route along Highway 15 is an important gateway to Kingston. The additional influx of people
coming from high-density housing projects will result in further overloading of the LaSalle Causeway,
Fort Henry, and the Wolfe Island ferry exit.
-we are tired of developers with a deep pockets being granted all the concessions, over the wishes of
people who have been resident in the area for years. These proposed new high-density apartment
buildings will reduce our enjoyment, and change the character of the area in which we live, and more
importantly, will devalue real estate in the entire neighbourhood.
-the developer has managed on previous occasions to extend approved height requirements on multiunit buildings via minor variances. It would appear that this has now become the norm, rather than the
exception,and is altering the very nature and profile of the community.
We urge Council to reject this proposal by Homestead Landholdings.
Sincerely ,
Robert Nelson
Linda Hunt–Nelson
Kingston,
Barrett Court
26
Doug and Lori Williams
Barrett Court
Kingston ON K7L 5H6
June 17, 2014
City of Kingston
Planning and Development Department
216 Ontario Street
Kingston ON K7L 2Z3
VIA Email to: kfraser@cityofkingston.ca
Dear Ms. Fraser:
Further to our letter dated March 5, 2013 please accept this letter stating our continued objection to
Homestead’s proposal to build two additional 14-storey apartments on the property know as 725, 735,
and 745 Highway 15.
We want to first address the Traffic Impact section of the Planning Report. As with any study, those who
initiate the study tend to like to selectively paint a picture from the data they want to see. The Planning
Report has provided a summary of the traffic studies, and we are assuming they’re based on the IBI
Group study and the HDR Corporation assessments. Are these studies available to the public for their
review and to draw their own conclusions? If not, why have they not been made public? From what we
can see in the summary reports they don’t align with the reality of residents living and commuting along
Highway 15 in this area.
In reference to the traffic study which took place on January 11, 2013, we checked the weather archives
to see what sort of day was used as the basis for the study. Interestingly, as the attached link shows the
weather was poor (rain & freezing rain) which may have led to reduced traffic volumes as residents
most likely avoided unnecessary travel.
http://www.friendlyforecast.com/canada/archive/archive.php?region=on2&id=69&date=20130111000
000&sort=hour Obviously not a typical day in the crawl from the east end to the downtown core and
back.
As residents of Pittsburgh Township for the past 30 years, we have seen the traffic problems worsen
every year with no end in sight. Since amalgamation, this city has refused to address the traffic issues
and instead drags its feet on the 3rd crossing option while promoting the increase to its tax base at the
expense of the east end residents. Despite what the traffic study tries to portray, the typical daily
commute for residents of the east end involves a literal crawl for residents from each and
every subdivisions along highway 15 across the LaSalle Causeway. This happens each workday morning
with the reverse crawl home at night from work. Under this proposal yet another traffic light will be
added to further slow down the commute and increase congestion even more. We notice the proposal
indicates that highway 15 will be widened to 4 lanes, yet we fail to see how that will address the
bottleneck with the reduction back to two lanes at highway 2 and the LaSalle Causeway. Add in this sort
of highway construction and the commute time grows even greater, as does the frustration.
I would next like to address the View Plane Analysis of the report. If I’m not mistaken, I think this report
is telling us that if I’m at Fort Henry, or another historic site in the east end, I need not worry too much
27
about the proposed buildings. What seems to be lacking in the View Plane Analysis is any consideration
for the residents in the affected neighbourhood (whose property happens to conform to the Official
Plan) who are left staring at these 14 story buildings 24 hours a day 7 days a week. There is an outright
dismissal of the concerns of the neighbourhood and no attempt to address the reality expressed in the
numerous letters already submitted/noted in this report to the planning committee, including ours.
The City of Kingston Official Plan sets residential density targets. Typically a city’s Official Plan is drawn
up with the long term interests of the city in mind, and in isolation of special interest groups looking to
advance their individual agenda at the expense of others. For whatever reason, the city has chosen to
ignore these standards, and we’re not just talking a small variance, but rather a population density
3 times the acceptable set out in the Official Plan. At whose expense and discomfort? None other than
the owners and tax payers in the immediate area who, apparently have no voice at City Hall. If this
project proceeds we will have no one but the city to thank for the decrease in our property value,
increased personal and condominium costs dealing with the noise, disruption and pollution that would
be created by this project.
I hope the numerous attachments to the agenda citing the concerns of east end residents in addition to
any subsequent communications received are not going unnoticed. The only evidence a purchaser has
to assist in informing a property investment in terms of what might the future might hold in the area is
the city’s official plan. Completely ignoring that plan and amending at the will of corporations shows no
regard for the local home owners and tax payers of the area.
We hope you respond favourably to our request to deny this amendment request from Homestead.
Sincerely,
Doug and Lori Williams
28
From:
To:
Subject:
Date:
Wicke,Chris
Blumenberg,Catalina
FW: Proposed Official Plan Amendment - Casino Gaming Facility - June 19, 2014 Regular Meeting
Thursday, June 19, 2014 11:57:07 AM
From: Nancy Salvador [mailto:n
t]
Sent: Wednesday, June 18, 2014 12:12 PM
To: Wicke,Chris
Cc: Hector,Dorothy
Subject: Re: Proposed Official Plan Amendment - Casino Gaming Facility - June 19, 2014 Regular
Meeting
Kingston, ON K7M 4N4
June 18, 2014
Chris Wicke, MCIP, RPP, LEED AP
Senior Planner, Policy
City of Kingston
cwicke@cityofkingston.ca
Dear Mr. Wicke,
As I stated in my written submission for the public meeting, March 20, 2014, and as
many citizens agree, I believe that our Kingston City Council should not grant an Official
Plan Amendment to even set out land for a casino in our city. I believe our provincial, federal
and local governments should be working to protect our citizens from evil, to close the door
to evil, rather than making openings for it.
If a plague of influenza was approaching our fair city, surely governments would send
out warnings and do everything in their power to stop it from getting a foothold. Setting up
gambling facilities is detrimental, even toxic to society, including the ones which try to sneak
in like “wolves in sheep’s clothing” calling themselves charity casinos.
I encourage our Councillors to be people of integrity and vote responsibly. Protect
our citizens. Kingston is a beautiful, wonderful city, and may it be a safe, wholesome place
for people to raise families and even spend their retirement days – without the fear that their
life savings will be drained. My Dad, Phil Quattrocchi, worked tirelessly to promote
Kingston. He taught me and many others that it could be a wonderful place to live and visit,
with wholesome activities. Could we keep promoting them instead of vile activites (like
casinos and Gay-Pride parades)? What type of seeds are your sowing into our city? What
type of a crop do you expect to reap?
Instead of encouraging certain people to be greedy for money, may people learnto be
wise stewards of their finances. Thank God you are rejuvenating placeslike Lake Ontario
Park.Instead of City Hall looking to get finances by promoting gambling, if we seek to do
what is right, God will provide sufficient for good budgets. I have been a widow for almost
fifteen years, and thank God He has provided for me, helping me stay out of debt as I sought
to do things His way.
"Blessed are those who hunger and thirst for righteousness, for they shall
be satisfifed."
29
Respectfully submitted by a concerned citizen who has been a home owner for 42 years,
Nancy Salvador
30
From:
To:
Subject:
Date:
Wicke,Chris
Blumenberg,Catalina
FW: Proposed Official Plan Amendment - Casino Gaming Facility - June 19, 2014 Regular Meeting
Thursday, June 19, 2014 11:57:14 AM
From: John Downie [mailto:d
ca]
Sent: Saturday, June 07, 2014 7:25 PM
To: Wicke,Chris
Subject: RE: Proposed Official Plan Amendment - Casino Gaming Facility - June 19, 2014 Regular
Meeting
Dear Chris Wicke,
I am still totally opposed to a Casino anywhere in Kingston.
Yours sincerely,
Mary Alice Downie
From: Wicke,Chris [cwicke@cityofkingston.ca]
Sent: June 6, 2014 10:59 AM
To: Wicke,Chris
Subject: Proposed Official Plan Amendment - Casino Gaming Facility - June 19, 2014 Regular Meeting
Dear Sir or Madam,
Please find attached a Notice of a Regular Meeting regarding the proposed Official Plan
Amendment regarding the potential development of a casino gaming facility in the City of
Kingston.
The meeting will be held Thursday, June 19, 2014 at 6:30 pm in the Council Chambers, City
Hall, 216 Ontario Street.
Please note that this is not a Public Meeting. The application was presented at a Public
Hearing on March 20, 2014. Public presentations during the Regular Meeting will be at
the discretion of the Planning Committee.
The Planning Committee will receive a recommendation report with respect to the
application at the Public Meeting, which will be available to the public on the City of
Kingston’s website at http://www.cityofkingston.ca/city-hall/committees-boards/planningcommittee on Saturday, June 14, 2014. Additional details are provided in the attached Notice.
If you have further questions, feel free to contact me.
31
With regards,
Chris Wicke
Chris Wicke, MCIP, RPP, LEED AP
Senior Planner, Policy
City of Kingston
216 Ontario Street
Kingston, ON K7L 2Z3
Located at: 1211 John Counter Blvd.
Phone: 613-546-4291, ext. 3242
Fax: 613-542-9965
Email: cwicke@cityofkingston.ca
This E-mail contains confidential information intended only for the individual or entity
named in the message. If the reader of this message is not the intended recipient, or the agent
responsible to deliver it to the intended recipient, you are hereby notified that any review,
dissemination, distribution or copying of this communication is prohibited. If this
communication was received in error, please notify us by reply E-mail and delete the original
message.
32