City of Kingston Report to Planning Committee Report Number PC

Transcription

1 To: From: Resource Staff: Date of Meeting: September 1, 2016 Subject: File Number: Address: Application Type: Owner: Applicant: City of Kingston Report to Planning Committee Report Number PC Chair and Members of Planning Committee Lanie Hurdle, Commissioner, Community Services Paige Agnew, Director, Planning, Building & Licensing Services Comprehensive Report D and D Princess Street Zoning By-Law Amendment & Proposed Amendment to the Brownfields Community Improvement Plan IN8 (The Capitol) Developments Incorporated FOTENN Consultants Incorporated Executive Summary: The following is a comprehensive report recommending approval to the Planning Committee regarding an application for a zoning by-law amendment and amendment to the Brownfields Community Improvement Plan submitted by FOTENN Consultants Incorporated, on behalf of IN8 (The Capitol) Developments Incorporated, with respect to the subject site located at 223 Princess Street. The report also includes a recommendation for the municipality to provide a special noise classification to the site in accordance with provincial guidelines and to approve a suite of community benefits to be provided by the property owner in accordance with Section of the Official Plan and Section 37 of the Planning Act. Public Meetings have been held with respect to the applications on July 2, 2015 and June 16, Additional public consultation was undertaken in the months of July and August, 2016, related to the proposed community benefits for this development. This was facilitated via an , social media and web site strategy with the public being asked to direct their feedback to a project-specific address. The proposal as originally submitted requested a building height of 61.4 metres which included 20-storeys of residential plus rooftop mechanical. The building was considered to be and is referred to as 21-storeys in total due to the mechanical covering more than 10% of the rooftop 876

2 Report to Planning Committee Report Number PC September 1, 2016 Page 2 of 56 area. The current submission being recommended is proposing a total building height of 52.4 metres, which includes 15-storeys plus rooftop mechanical equipment and amenity space. The building is required to be considered 16-storeys due to the mechanical and amenity area covering more than 10% of the rooftop area. The Urban Design Study and Heritage Impact Assessment were peer reviewed by ERA Architects Inc. The recommendation of the peer review following the review of the second submission was that the 18-storey height (17-storeys plus rooftop mechanical covering more than 10% of the rooftop area), massing and the podiums overall relationship to Queen Street requires a solution that balances the City s intensification and heritage conservation objectives. City staff have worked closely with the applicant over the past several months requesting additional modifications to the overall development and proposed built form of the project, which were reflected in the applicant s final submission of July 27, The zoning by-law amendment application is consistent with the policies in the Provincial Policy Statement and with the general intent of the City of Kingston Official Plan. Specific technical requirements raised by internal departments with respect to noise mitigation and the requirement for a Record of Site Condition have been addressed in the recommendation. The subject property is within the boundaries of Kingston s Brownfields Community Improvement Plan (CIP) but is not in a designated Project Area. A recommendation regarding the request for the addition of this new Project Area is also included. This will allow the property owner to apply to the City for financial assistance through the Brownfields CIP Program. A decision regarding financial assistance for the subject property through the Brownfields CIP Program will be entirely at the discretion of Council, and will be the subject of a separate report to the Planning Committee. Recommendation: That the application for an amendment to create a new Community Improvement Project Area in the City of Kingston Community Improvement Plan for Brownfields Project Areas 1A, 1B and 1C (File Number D ), submitted by FOTENN Consultants Incorporated, on behalf of IN8 (The Capitol) Developments Incorporated, for the property municipally known as 223 Princess Street, be approved; and That it be recommended to Council that By-Law Number A By-Law to Designate Brownfields Project Areas 1A, 1B and 1C as Community Improvement Project Areas, as amended, be further amended as per Exhibit A (Draft By-Law and Schedule A to add a new Community Improvement Project Area) to Report Number PC ; and That it be recommended to Council that By-Law Number A By-Law to Adopt the Community Improvement Plan for Brownfields Project Areas 1A, 1B and 1C, as amended, be further amended as per Exhibit B (Draft By-Law and Schedules A, B, C, D, E, F and G to add site specific policies to and replace mapping of the Brownfields CIP) to Report Number PC ; and That the amending by-laws be presented to Council for all three readings; and 877

3 Report to Planning Committee Report Number PC September 1, 2016 Page 3 of 56 That the application for a zoning by-law amendment (File Number D and D ) submitted by FOTENN Consultants Incorporated, on behalf of IN8 (The Capitol) Developments Incorporated, for the property municipally known as 223 Princess Street, be approved; and That Council designates the subject site at 223 Princess Street to be a Class 4 area as per the Environmental Noise Guideline of NPC-300 of the Ministry of Environment and Climate Change, subject to a related holding symbol being applied in the amending zoning by-law; and That By-Law Number of The Corporation of the City of Kingston, entitled Downtown and Harbour Zoning By-Law of the Corporation of the City of Kingston, as amended, be further amended, as per Exhibit C (Draft By-Law and Schedules A and B to amend Zoning By-Law Number ) to Report Number PC ; and That Council determines that in accordance with Section 34(17) of the Planning Act, no further notice is required prior to the passage of the by-law; and That the amending by-law be presented to Council for all three readings; and That Council approves the community benefits being sought under Section 37 of the Planning Act and authorizes the Mayor and Clerk, following the review and recommendation by staff, including the City Solicitor, to execute a Community Benefits Agreement with the applicant. 878

4 Report to Planning Committee Report Number PC September 1, 2016 Page 4 of 56 Authorizing Signatures: Lanie Hurdle, Commissioner, Community Services Gerard Hunt, Chief Administrative Officer Consultation with the following Members of the Corporate Management Team: Denis Leger, Commissioner, Corporate & Emergency Services Jim Keech, President and CEO, Utilities Kingston Desiree Kennedy, Chief Financial Officer & City Treasurer Not required Not required Not required 879

5 Report to Planning Committee Report Number PC September 1, 2016 Page 5 of 56 Options/Discussion: Background and Decision Date In accordance with By-Law Number , the proposed development was subject to a preapplication meeting held on January 31, 2015, with the Planning Division and various other departments and agencies. Following this, a formal submission was made by the applicant on May 26, 2015 and on June 5, 2015 the applications were deemed complete in accordance with the Planning Act. A Site Plan Control application was submitted concurrently (File Number D ). In accordance with Section 34(11) of the Planning Act, the application for zoning by-law amendment was subject to a decision by Council on or before September 23, 2015 which is 120 days after it was deemed complete. In the absence of a decision by Council in this timeframe, the applicant may exercise their right to appeal to the Ontario Municipal Board (OMB). In accordance with Section 28 of the Planning Act, the application for amendment to the Brownfields Community Improvement Plan was subject to a decision by Council on or before November 22, 2015 which is 180 days after it was deemed complete. In the absence of a decision by Council in this timeframe, the applicant may exercise their right to appeal to the Ontario Municipal Board (OMB). The owner has been working to address technical comments from staff and comments received from the public, which has resulted in the application processing beyond the prescribed timelines. Staff have reviewed the revised submission and have no further technical concerns that would preclude advancing a recommendation for consideration by the Planning Committee and City Council. Application and Submission IN8 (The Capitol) Developments Incorporated is proposing to create a new Project Area within the City of Kingston Community Improvement Plan (CIP) in accordance with Section 5.4(h) of the CIP and Section 28(5) of the Planning Act. The subject lands are located within the Community Improvement Area as shown on Schedule 10 to the City of Kingston Official Plan, but are not currently located within the three defined Project Areas in the CIP. If the subject property is included as a new Project Area, it will allow the applicant to apply for financial assistance under the City s Brownfields Program. As stated in Section of the CIP: the financial incentives are intended to mitigate the costs associated with rehabilitating and developing these properties and buildings as viable alternatives to greenfield development. The first submission for the requested zoning by-law amendment proposed a 21-storey mixed use building with 223 residential units, commercial floor area and 136 off-street parking spaces. In support of the application, the applicant submitted the following: Site Plan, Floor Plans and Architectural Elevations and Renderings (FOTENN Consultants Incorporated and IBI Group Incorporated, April 17, 2015) Stage 1 Archaeological Assessment (Abacus Archaeological Services, March 9, 2015) 880

6 Report to Planning Committee Report Number PC September 1, 2016 Page 6 of 56 Heritage Impact Statement (Metropolitan Design/Commonwealth Resource Management, April 2015) Noise Feasibility Study (Conestoga-Rovers and Associates, April 23, 2015) Planning Rationale Report (FOTENN Consultants Incorporated, May 22, 2015) Functional Grading, Servicing and Stormwater Management Report (IBI Group Incorporated, April 17, 2015) Phase I and Environmental Assessment (Pinchin Environmental Limited, February 2014) Phase II Environmental Assessment (Pinchin Environmental Limited, February 2014) Transportation Impact Study and Parking Study (IBI Group Incorporated, April 2015) Urban Design and Shadow Study (FOTENN Consultants Incorporated, May 20, 2015) A Site Plan Control application was submitted concurrently with the applications for zoning bylaw amendment and amendment to the Brownfields Community Improvement Plan. In support of the Site Plan Control application the applicant has submitted the following: Landscape Plans Existing and Removal Plan (IBI Group Incorporated, April 17, 2015) Roof Snow Load Study (RWDI Consulting Engineers and Scientists, May 26, 2015) Cladding Wind Load Study (RWDI Consulting Engineers and Scientists, May 22, 2015) Pedestrian Wind Consultation Wind Tunnel Tests (RWDI Consulting Engineers and Scientists, May 20, 2015) Photometric Plan A second submission was received on September 4, This submission was consistent with the original proposal in terms of the proposed 21-storey building, height, scale, massing and density and included the following documents: Revised Heritage Impact Statement, including Heritage Consultant Qualifications Electrical Load Calculation Existing Conditions and Removals Plan Foundation Letter Gas Load Summary Grading and Servicing Plan Landscape Details Correspondence from the Ministry of Tourism Culture and Sport Plumbing Plans 881

7 Report to Planning Committee Report Number PC Vault Opening Elevation September 1, 2016 Page 7 of 56 Noise Feasibility Study (GHD Limited, November 9, 2015) A third submission was received in May, This submission was based upon a revised development proposal for an approximately 18-storey building, including the rooftop mechanical and sky lounge, mixed use building with 213 residential units, commercial floor area and 146 offstreet parking spaces and included the following documents: Site Plan, Floor Plans and Architectural Elevations and Renderings Revised Urban Design Report Addendum to Heritage Impact Statement Addendum to Planning Rationale Report Walkthrough Renderings and Route Map A fourth submission was received on July 27, The proposed changes to the development to address comments from staff and received at the Public Meetings include a reduction in the height of the building from 18-storeys to a finished height of 16 storeys, including mechanical, 212 residential units (64 1-bedroom units, bedroom units and 28 3-bedroom units), approximately 750 square metres of commercial floor area, 106 on-site parking spaces and 40 off-site parking spaces. This is the submission upon which the analysis and recommendations of this report are based on and included the following supporting documents: Planning Justification Letters Site Plan, Floor Plans and Architectural Elevations Proposed Height Map 3D Massing Renderings (Northeast and Southwest) Sun Shadow Analysis Modeling Updated Servicing Study HIS Addendum The first proposal consisted of a 21-storey building of 61.4 metres plus the mechanical massing on the roof of the building. This was presented at the July 2, 2015 Public Meeting. Following the applicant s review of staff comments and comments provided by a peer review of the Urban Design and Heritage Impact reports, the applicant revised the proposal to a 18-storey building with a height of 55.4 metres. The current proposal being recommended is for a 16-storey building, where the 16 th storey is represented by the mechanical area/elevator shaft and sky lounge. The overall proposed height has been reduced to 52.4 metres. All submission materials are available online through the Development and Services Hub (DASH) at the following link, DASH, using Look-up a Specific Address. If there are multiple addresses, search one address at a time, or submission materials may also be found by searching the file number. 882

8 Report to Planning Committee Report Number PC September 1, 2016 Page 8 of 56 Peer Review Considerations In November of 2015, the Planning Division retained ERA Architects Incorporated to complete a peer review of the Heritage Impact and Urban Design reports submitted by the applicant. In accordance with the City s Peer Review protocol, all costs associated with the peer review work were borne by the applicant. Both peer review reports are included as Exhibits to this report. Section of the Official Plan states that at any stage in the application process, the City may require submitted Urban Design Guidelines and Heritage Impact Statements to undergo a peer review at the proponent s expense. This approach is also consistent with Section f. of the Official Plan. The first review of the proposed height and massing of the 21-storey building, dated January 26, 2016 from ERA Architects Incorporated, included the following comment: with adjustment of the angular plane to possibly 45 degrees rather than 39, it would be possible to consider a residential building with a height in the low teens, set back from both streets. The report also recommended revisions to the Urban Design Study and Heritage Impact Assessment. It was recommended that the floor plate be reduced to 750 square metres to be consistent with Toronto Tall Building guidelines. The applicant s response to the technical comments and peer review report led to a subsequent submission for an 18-storey building. ERA Architects were requested to provide a second report to assess the revised proposal. The second peer review report includes renderings that compare height and massing options based on the as-of-right permissions, additional height to 13-storeys with some intrusion into the 39 degree angular plane and a 45 degree angular plane. The 13-storeys is the conceptual application of low teens referenced in the first peer review report. The recommendation on the 17-storey proposal was that staff should consider alternative height and massing options to create a more appropriate development form that is compatible with the immediate heritage and built form context and that the 17-storey height requires a solution that balances the City s intensification and heritage conservation objectives. Upon review of the second peer review report, staff concluded that sufficient urban design and heritage impact input and expertise had been received to inform the remainder of the technical review and recommendations to the applicant. The 15 floors plus a centralized mechanical area is a relatively close approximation of the low teens recommended through the peer review report. The key divergence between the recommendations of the peer review and the enclosed recommendation is the size of the floor plate and the extent of massing that extends into a 45 degree angular plane. The improvements that have been included in the current 16-storey proposal were the result of detailed discussions with the applicant and include additional setbacks at critical locations, changes to the program of materiality of the components of the building, building articulation, use of glazing and the relationship of fenestration to wall cladding. Staff have concluded that these measures have achieved sufficient mitigation to achieve the intent of the angular plane policies and address the height and massing. Staff concur with the applicant that the significant stepbacks that would be required to achieve a 45 degree angular plane would create impractical floor plates on upper floors that would not be consistent with the intensification policies for this area of the City. With respect to recommending a maximum floor plate size, staff did not feel it was appropriate to impose guidelines from the City of Toronto to represent best practices for the local context. The applicant also provided information to assert 883

9 Report to Planning Committee Report Number PC September 1, 2016 Page 9 of 56 that the proposed floor plate at 223 Princess Street is less than the floor plate of the Anna Lane development, located two and a half blocks from the subject site, at the northwest corner of Queen and Bagot Streets. The setbacks of the building to other buildings or potential for other tall buildings in proximity to this site will be regulated through building code separations. Site Characteristics The subject property is approximately 2,539 square metres in area and is a through lot with approximately 9.1 metres of frontage on Princess Street and 41 metres of frontage on Queen Street. The site is located in the Inner Harbour Neighbourhood (Neighbourhood Profiles, 2011). Princess Street and Queen Street are both classified as arterial roads. The site is designated Central Business District and is located in the Downtown and Harbour Special Policy Area in the City of Kingston Official Plan. The site is zoned Heritage Commercial C1-3 zone and Central Business System C1 zone in the Downtown and Harbour Zoning By- Law Number , as amended. The applicant is proposing to amend the C1 and C1-3 zoning for the property. On March 22, 2016 the main theatre portion of the site was protected under Section 27 of the Ontario Heritage Act, as a listed property. Through the applicant s third submission, the zoning by-law amendment application was modified to include a 141 parcel of land located behind 185 Sydenham Street in the proposed development site. This parcel of land was also recently added by City Council to the City of Kingston Heritage Properties Register as a listed property ( Sydenham Street). As per Schedule 9 of the Official Plan, the proposed development site is located within two heritage character areas, the Lower Princess Street Heritage Character Area and the St. Lawrence Ward Heritage Character Area. An assessment of the development with respect to the Official Plan policies of each of the two heritage character areas is included in this report and has been addressed by the applicant in the submitted Heritage Impact Assessment reports. Provincial Policy Statement The Provincial Policy Statement (PPS), 2014 provides policy direction on matters of provincial interest related to land use planning and development, which are intended to be complemented by local policies addressing local interests. The proposed 16-storey building is consistent with the PPS in that it proposes residential growth located within the urban boundary as identified in the City s Official Plan. The property subject to this application is located in the downtown centre which is an area identified in the Official Plan for residential intensification. The proposed development represents the functional repurposing of a listed heritage structure on a site that is a brownfield in the downtown core area. The development can be serviced by existing municipal infrastructure. With respect to the application for amendment to the Brownfields Community Improvement Plan, the Provincial Policy Statement (PPS) requires that planning authorities identify appropriate locations and promote opportunities for intensification and redevelopment, including brownfields sites (Section ). The PPS also states that long-term economic prosperity should be supported by promoting the redevelopment of brownfield sites (Section e). 884

10 Report to Planning Committee Report Number PC September 1, 2016 Page 10 of 56 The policies of the PPS strive to achieve healthy, livable and safe communities through the following land use planning policies: 1.1.1a) Promoting efficient development and land use patterns which sustain the financial well-being of the Province and municipalities over the long term: The proposed development represents an efficient use of an underutilized brownfield site in the downtown core. Redevelopment of the site with a mixed use building is an appropriate land use permitted in the Official Plan b) Accommodating an appropriate range and mix of residential, employment, institutional, recreation, parks and open space, and other uses to meet long term needs: The proposed development would result in a mixed use development which will assist in achieving the long term vision of the Official Plan for the City s prime commercial centre where intensification is encouraged. The project includes 212 residential units and approximately 750 square metres of commercial floor area e) Promoting cost-effective development patterns and standards to minimize land consumption and servicing costs: The proposed development would redevelop an underutilized site with residential intensification within the urban boundary and within the apex of the City s commercial hierarchy. This is a cost effective pattern of development and would make efficient use of the available water and sanitary servicing Settlement areas shall be the focus of growth and development, and their vitality and regeneration shall be promoted: The proposed development seeks to add 212 residential units in a defined settlement area, within the urban boundary of the City and in the City s primary centre, an area that the City s Official Plan targets with the highest priority for residential intensification. Under Section , the PPS indicates that the following criteria are to be the basis of land use patterns within settlement areas: a) Densities and a mix of land uses which: 1. Efficiently use land and resources: The application proposes the redevelopment and intensification of an underutilized site in the City s downtown core. The site has access to sufficient water and sanitary services for the density proposed. The heritage attributes of the existing theatre façade are being conserved through the proposed mixed use development, which is a sustainable approach to development. 2. Are appropriate for and efficiently use the infrastructure and public service facilities which are planned or available, and avoid the need for their unjustified and/or uneconomical expansion: 885

11 Report to Planning Committee Report Number PC September 1, 2016 Page 11 of 56 The proposed density and mix of land uses for the site would make efficient use of the available water and sanitary servicing capacity in this area of the City. The site has access to a range of public service facilities and amenities within the downtown core area, such as public open space, Grand Theatre, Artillery Park Aquatic Centre, two hospitals, fire protection, library branch, etc. 4. Support active transportation: The proposed density and location of the site will support active transportation, with many commercial, social, cultural and recreational amenities within immediate walking distance of the site, as well as employment sites. Bicycle parking will also be provided on site for the residents of the building in an amount that is in accordance with applicable zoning standards. 5. Are transit-supportive, where transit is planned, exists or may be developed: The proposed density will be transit supportive. The site is serviced by transit, including express service, and residents of the proposed 212 units will have access to a key transit hub/transfer station within two blocks of the site Intensification and redevelopment shall be directed in accordance with the policies of Section 2: Wise Use and Management of Resources and Section 3: Promoting Public Health and Safety: With respect to the conservation and protection of cultural heritage resources, the application for zoning by-law amendment is supported by a built heritage impact analysis and a Stage 1 Archaeology report completed on behalf of the applicant. The design of the building has incorporated various approaches to mitigate adverse impacts to the surrounding built heritage context of the site. The proposed development will conserve and restore the heritage façade of the former theatre, identified in the listing description for the property as the feature of the building that possesses cultural heritage value. The site is not subject to any natural hazards, as defined by the PPS. The site has been identified through a Phase 1 and 2 Environmental Assessments as having contaminants and it has been determined that a Record of Site Condition will be required for the proposed residential use. The property is considered a brownfield and an application for consideration of designating the site as a Project Area in the City s Brownfields Plan has been submitted and forms a component of the recommendation for this development. The recommendation included in this report includes a holding symbol that will require the completion of a Record of Site Condition by a qualified person in accordance with applicable legislation and to the satisfaction of the City and the Ministry of Environment and Climate Change prior to the implementation of the proposed development Planning for sewage and water services shall: a) Direct and accommodate expected growth or development in a manner that promotes the efficient use and optimization of existing services: 886

12 Report to Planning Committee Report Number PC Municipal sewage and water services: September 1, 2016 Page 12 of 56 The proposal to intensify the site with 212 residential units and approximately 750 square metres of commercial floor area will make efficient use of and will contribute to the optimization of the existing municipal sanitary and water services available to the site. d) Integrate servicing and land use considerations in all stages of the planning process: The application and supporting reports for the proposed mixed use building have been reviewed by a number of technical departments and agencies. Through this review the resulting comments have indicated that the proposed development can be serviced by existing municipal services, that the transportation network in the immediate and surrounding area has the capacity to accommodate the intensity of the proposed use and that the development is compatible and can function in a way that adds to the activity and vibrancy of the downtown core area. This is consistent with the goals and objectives of both the PPS and the Official Plan Efficient use shall be made of existing and planned infrastructure (transportation systems): The applicant has submitted a Traffic Impact Study (TIS), which has been reviewed to the satisfaction of the City s Traffic Division. The study concludes that the existing road network can adequately service the proposed development A land use pattern, density and mix of uses should be promoted that minimize the length and number of vehicle trips and support current and future use of transit and active transportation: The proposed mixed use building will include commercial amenities and other private residential amenities within the site (gym, lounge, rooftop amenity). Sited within the City s Central Business District, the site is within walking distance of many recreational, employment, commercial, social and cultural amenities, which are all expected to contribute to a reduction in the number of vehicle trips. The walkability score of the neighbourhood in which the site is located and the recommended relief from the minimum off-street parking space requirement (146 spaces are proposed for 212 residential units), are expected to be supportive of transit, which is readily available to the site Transportation and land use considerations shall be integrated at all stages of the planning process: The applicant submitted a Traffic Impact Study (TIS) in support of the application for zoning by-law amendment. The TIS has been reviewed to the satisfaction of the City s Traffic Division and Transportation Services. Through this review, the resulting comments have indicated that the proposed development can be serviced by existing municipal services, that the transportation network in the immediate and surrounding area has the capacity to accommodate the intensity of the proposed use and that the development is compatible and can function in a way that adds to the activity and vibrancy of the downtown core area. This is consistent with the goals and objectives of both the PPS and the Official Plan Planning authorities shall support development that maintains and enhances the vitality and viability of downtowns and mainstreets: 887

13 Report to Planning Committee Report Number PC September 1, 2016 Page 13 of 56 The proposed development is a mixed use intensification project in the City s downtown core and the site has direct frontage on the City s mainstreet, which is Princess Street. This type of infill project that will add residents to the downtown core is consistent with this policy by bringing people, commercial (services and retail) and employment uses to the area, which will in turn help to enhance the viability and vitality of the area. To assist in implementing this provincial policy, the City s Official Plan policies support and place a priority for growth in the identified centres and corridors. The subject site is located within the primary centre of the Official Plan, which has been assigned the highest order of priority for residential growth Planning authorities shall support energy conservation and efficiency, improved air quality, reduced greenhouse gas emissions, and climate change adaptation through land use and development patterns which: b) Promote the use of active transportation and transit in and between residential, employment (including commercial and industrial) and institutional uses and other areas, and; e) Improve the mix of employment and housing uses to shorten commute journeys and decrease transportation congestion. The introduction of 212 residential units in the Central Business District on an underutilized site is expected to contribute to the use of active transportation and transit in the downtown core. The residents of the building will have access to transit for commuting and daily travel as well as improved opportunities for active transportation due to the central location of the proposed mixed use development Significant built heritage resources and significant cultural heritage landscapes shall be conserved Planning authorities shall not permit development and site alteration on adjacent lands to protected heritage property except where the proposed development and site alteration has been evaluated and it has been demonstrated that the heritage attributes of the protected heritage property will be conserved. The consolidated development site is the subject of two heritage listings which is a lower tier of protection under Section 27 of the Ontario Heritage Act. The former theatre site is a listed property as well as the 141 square metre parcel of land located at Sydenham Street that the applicant purchased and consolidated with the development site. Staff have reviewed a Heritage Impact Statement and addendum to the Heritage Impact Statement submitted by the applicant to address the proposed demolition of a portion of the listed properties. The portions proposed to be demolished were not identified in the listing descriptions approved by Council. The listing report for 223 Princess Street identifies physical/design values of the former theatre façade, which the applicant is proposing to restore and adaptively reuse as part of the proposed development. With respect to Cultural Heritage Landscapes (CHLs), there are no protected CHLs on or adjacent to the site. Based on the PPS definitions of adjacent lands and protected heritage property, the subject lands are not adjacent to any protected heritage properties. 888

14 Report to Planning Committee Report Number PC September 1, 2016 Page 14 of Development and site alteration shall not be permitted on lands containing archaeological resources or areas of archaeological potential unless significant archaeological resources have been conserved. A Stage 1 Archaeological Assessment was provided by the applicant as a supporting study to the applications. Staff are in receipt of the required correspondence from the Ministry of Tourism, Culture and Sport. The City s standard clauses regarding accidental discovery of archaeological resources and/or human remains will be included in the future Site Plan Control agreement to be secured and registered against the title of the property Sites with contaminants in land or water shall be assessed and remediated as necessary prior to any activity on the site associated with the proposed use such that there will be no adverse effects. The site has been identified through the submitted Phase 1 and 2 Environmental Assessment as requiring additional environmental review. It has been determined that a Record of Site Condition will be required for the proposed residential use. The recommendation in this report includes a holding symbol to require the completion of a Record of Site Condition by a qualified person in accordance with applicable legislation and to the satisfaction of the City and the Ministry of Environment and Climate Change prior to the any construction. Official Plan Considerations The property subject to this application for zoning by-law amendment is shown as a centre on Schedule 2, City Structure of the Official Plan. The policies for the City Structure are established in Section 2 of the Official Plan. Section 2 establishes the strategic policy direction for the City of Kingston and includes such matters as the City s approach to growth and intensification, the Urban Boundary, and the fundamental urban structure as illustrated on Schedule 2. It is a statement of how the citizens want to see their City developed. Matters found in this section are considered of prime significance to the future development of the City and apply to all sections of the Official Plan. Section 2.1 of the Official Plan establishes policies for Sustainable Development. The policies of this section indicate that most growth will occur within the Urban Boundary where development will achieve greater sustainability through: a) Appropriate densities: The vertical intensification of the subject site through the addition of 212 residential units contributes to the sustainability of the City through the injection of growth within an existing built up area in a manner that is compatible with its surroundings and is expected to meet the functional needs of the residents. b) Land use patterns that foster transit and pedestrian activity: The proposed mixed use development is expected to be highly supportive of transit and pedestrian activity in the downtown and surrounding neighbourhoods. c) Enhanced accessibility for all residents, visitors and workers: 889

15 Report to Planning Committee Report Number PC September 1, 2016 Page 15 of 56 The proposed mixed use building will be required to meet the accessibility requirements of the Building Code and provide accessible units. Accessible parking will be provided on site and any commercial development will be required to be accessible. d) Opportunities for sharing resources such as parking, utilities and recreational or cultural assets: Opportunities for the sharing of resources such as parking and cultural facilities are being considered through the ongoing negotiations with the proponent for community benefits related to this development. There has been consultation with the public and community groups, as required through the Official Plan policies, with respect to potential community benefits including the following: 1. Restore the original heritage façade of 223 Princess Street including a commemorative plaque. This would include a Heritage Easement Agreement. 2. Partner with the City's Affordable Home Ownership Program to be applied to up to 5 per cent of the units (CityofKingston.ca/HomeOwnership). 3. Partner with the City to create a cultural amenity/presentation space within the former film theatre at 223 Princess Street. 4. Partner with the City to provide public parking which could include electric charging stations and bicycle parking close to 223 Princess Street. e) Direct new development and land uses to areas where they can best result in sustainable practices: The form of development has resulted in the applicant being able to incorporate a proposal for some of the roof space to be green, adding to the sustainability of the project from a stormwater management perspective. Through the submitted stormwater management report, the applicant is proposing at 20% reduction between the post and predevelopment runoff, which meets the municipally established target for this area of the City. g) Maximize use of investments in infrastructure and public amenities: The proposed mixed use intensification of the site is expected to contribute to the maximized use of recent municipal investments in the Artillery Park Aquatic Centre and the Grand Theatre, the above and below ground physical infrastructure of Princess Street and express transit will benefit the development. h) Strategies that will revitalize both neighborhoods and employment areas and rehabilitate brownfield sites for re-use: The proposed development is located in the primary centre of the City where the greatest mix of commercial and residential land uses are intended to be located. The centre is identified by the Official Plan as an area for intensification and mixed use developments. There are a number of vacant store fronts and underutilized properties located in the downtown core area. The redevelopment of this vacant property for a new mixed use building will assist in achieving the intent of the Official Plan. 890

16 Report to Planning Committee Report Number PC September 1, 2016 Page 16 of 56 Parks that are planned to be accessible by urban residents within a ten minute walk. In accordance with the Planning Act and the City s Parkland Dedication By-Law Number , the proposed development will include a significant cash-in-lieu of parkland dedication to the City, which may in turn facilitate the development of additional park space in surrounding neighbourhoods. Section states that the City promotes the development of mixed use buildings that contain commercial and office uses on at least the ground floor and residential units on upper floors as part of its sustainability and intensification program along the Princess Street corridor. The strategic policy direction of the Official Plan, Section states that the Princess Street Corridor will evolve as a mixed use development area, with mixed use buildings containing residential, employment and retail uses. It is a priority transit route and will be the focus of intensification involving higher building heights and densities. Section 2.3 of the Official Plan contains strategic policies regarding Principles of Growth. This section states that the City intends to increase the density in the urban boundary through compatible and complementary infill, the appropriate redevelopment of under-utilized and brownfield sites and the targeting of a density increase for large-scale vacant land development in the Princess Street Corridor. Further, Section states that major development and an increase in net urban residential density will be directed to the compact, mixed land use development areas and to mixed use buildings proposed for properties fronting on the Princess Street Corridor providing support for transit, infrastructure and increased levels of economic activity in a pedestrian-oriented setting. The proposed development at 223 Princess Street is consistent with the strategic policy direction of the Official Plan. The Official Plan also contains residential density targets, section 2.4.3(c) states that for mixed used building developments in the Princess Street Corridor a minimum density of 75 units per net hectare is established as the target for new residential development to be pedestrian and transit supportive. There is no upper density limit established in the Official Plan. High density proposals will be reviewed based on their fit within the area, how the site functions within the local context and through evaluation of impacts. The current proposal for 212 residential units in a mixed use building located in the downtown centre of the City will assist in achieving the density targets of the Official Plan and is consistent with the intent of the Official Plan. Section states that the City s sustainability program encourages large-scale developments to establish mixed land use development areas that provide for employment, personal service and convenience retail land uses to be located in close proximity to residential land uses, subject to compatibility. The proposed development is a mixed building that will include 212 residential units and approximately 750 square metres of commercial floor area. The parent zone of the recommended C1-42 zone includes permission for uses within the categories of employment, personal service and convenience retail. Section of the Official Plan encourages such buildings to contain commercial and office uses on at least the ground floor and residential units on upper floors as part of its sustainability and intensification program along the Princess Street Corridor and its centres. The subject property is a through lot, and in accordance with the Official Plan, the proposed ground floor plan maintains the required ground floor commercial frontage on Princess Street, converting the former theatre lobby to a linear commercial arcade space. All of the residential units are proposed on the upper floors. There 891

17 Report to Planning Committee Report Number PC September 1, 2016 Page 17 of 56 will be a residential component to the ground on the Queen Street frontage that includes parking and a residential lobby and some commercial space on floors other than the ground floor, the recommended zoning by-law amendment incorporates a site specific definition of mixed commercial/ residential development to address this. Primary Centre Section states that The Primary Centre, east of Division Street, is intended to remain as the primary Centre during the life of this Official Plan, having the most diverse uses and public facilities, and in a setting that fosters and respects both its heritage resources and commercial role. Increased public access to the water, pedestrian activity and tourism will be promoted within this Centre. The importance of maintaining and conserving the heritage buildings and character of the Lower Princess Street Heritage Character Area, as established in Sections 7.3 and 10A of the Official Plan is affirmed in this Section. The proposed development contributes to the diversity of uses within the Primary Centre. The proposed building incorporates an adequate level of mitigation in terms of scale, massing articulation, strategic use of materials and the conservation of the theatre façade to support the setting of an area that fosters and respects its heritage resources. Sections and speak to the strategic policies of the City with respect to the type and location of intensification within the Princess Street Corridor and Centres. These policies affirm that it is the intent of the City to increase the overall net residential density within the urban boundary. The appropriate redevelopment of under-utilized and brownfield sites within Centres is included within this intent. Section states that major development and an increase in net urban residential density will be directed to the compact, mixed land use development areas and mixed use buildings of the Centres and to the mixed use buildings proposed for properties fronting on the Princess Street Corridor, thereby providing support for transit, infrastructure and increased levels of economic activity in a pedestrian-oriented setting. Sections 2.4.3, and address residential density targets, criteria for the permission of higher densities and policies for residential intensification. The combined intent of Sections and for the Centre in which the site is located is to promote a higher density than the minimum overall net urban residential density of 75 residential units per net hectare, subject to the Land Use Compatibility Principles of Section 2.7 of this Plan and the Stable Areas and Areas in Transition policies of Section 2.6 of this Plan. The proposed residential density for the site is 836 residential units per net hectare. Section of the Official Plan states; that it is the intent of the City to increase the urban residential density by a minimum of nine percent (9%) from the current overall density of 21.6 units per hectare within the urban boundary to an overall minimum density of 23.5 residential units per net hectare by the horizon year of In 2013, residential density within the City s urban boundary was 25.7 units per net hectare. As part of the work associated with the update to the Official Plan, which is being presented to the Planning Committee and Council in September, more aggressive density targets are being proposed, such that 40% of all new residential development be achieved through intensification. This approach is consistent with the 2014 PPS. The proposed development will assist in achieving this objective. Section 2.4.6, of the Official Plan establishes an order of development, specifying that lands located in the Urban Boundary that have existing servicing capacity including infill opportunities, brownfield sites and other vacant or under-utilized properties have the first priority for 892

18 Report to Planning Committee Report Number PC September 1, 2016 Page 18 of 56 development. The proposed re-development of 223 Princess Street meets all of the criteria described in There is adequate servicing capacity in place for the proposed infill. There are a number of policies in the City s Official Plan to address compatibility. These policies are important to determine what constitutes good land use planning. Section 2.7.1, the Official Plan defines compatibility as the ability of various land uses, buildings, sites, or urban design treatments to co-exist with one another from both a functional and visual perspective through their arrangement, location (including in some instances their separation), methods of buffering, massing, or other means of providing transition that are able to successfully address undue adverse effects. The Official Plan further states in Section that: only proposed land use changes that are compatible, or can be made compatible, with surrounding sites and land use designations will be approved and that all proposed land use changes will be required to be implemented in a manner that either eliminates or minimizes to an acceptable level any adverse effects on adjacent sites and surrounding land use designations (2.7.4). Section states that adverse effects created by one land use on another, or one building on others may include, but are not limited to: a. Shadowing: The applicant has submitted sun shadow analysis for each submission for this proposal. Included as Exhibit O to this report is a sun shadow analysis prepared by the applicant, which compares the shadowing anticipated by the as-of-right zoning permissions on the property with those estimated to be generated by the current 16-storey proposal. The most recent analysis demonstrates that the shadowing that is expected to be generated by the proposed development is greater than, but is generally in line with, that of the as-of-right zoning. The analysis shows the shifting of the shadow from west to east through the hours of the day, such that no property or right-of-way area is impacted for a significant length of time. Compared to the anticipated shadowing of the original 21-storey proposal, the current proposal does not impact key landmark sites and/or sensitive locations within the area in terms of shadowing, such as the elementary school located at 217 Sydenham Street, the Artillery Park Aquatic Centre at 382 Bagot Street, and the Prince of Wales Own Regiment at 100 Montreal Street. b. Loss of privacy due to intrusive overlook: The subject site is located within an existing urban mixed use context and therefore the proposed development fits within this context from a perspective of the expectation of privacy. The existing zoning framework would allow for a mixed use building to be located on this site. With respect to intrusive overlook the proposed development site is located in an urban core area and not adjacent to any low density residential uses or private outdoor areas. c. Increased levels of noise, odour, dust or vibration: The applicant has submitted a Noise Feasibility Study that advises that the noise generated by the stationary noise sources adjacent to the site exceed the applicable provincial guidelines, necessitating the local land use planning authority (City Council) to designate the subject site as a Class 4 designation. The Class 4 designation is a noise 893

19 Report to Planning Committee Report Number PC September 1, 2016 Page 19 of 56 category that was specifically introduced into the most recent NPC-300 Environmental Noise Guideline published by the province. "Class 4 area" means an area or specific site that is an area intended for development with new noise sensitive land use(s) that are not yet built; is in proximity to existing, lawfully established stationary source(s); and has formal confirmation from the land use planning authority with the Class 4 area classification which is determined during the land use planning process. A holding symbol has been included in the recommended zone for the site to ensure that noise mitigation is appropriately addressed through Site Plan Control and all applicable legislated requirements are met. d. Increased and uncomfortable wind speed: A pedestrian wind study and a cladding wind study were submitted by the applicant in support of the application. The findings of the pedestrian wind study indicate that all locations passed the wind criterion used to assess pedestrian wind safety for both at grade and above grade, with the exception of a few locations on the terraces. The report indicates that these areas are expected to be brought to an acceptable condition for wind through landscaping and some mitigation, which would be implemented through Site Plan Control. The cladding wind study was based on the initial design proposal for a 20-storey building with the exterior cladding consisting of mostly glazing. As the cladding has changed from what was initially used as the basis for the cladding wind study, staff will require an update to this study as part of the Site Plan Control application. e. Increased level of traffic that can disrupt the intended function or amenity of a use or area: A Traffic Impact Study was submitted by the applicant in support of the application for zoning by-law amendment. Vehicular access for the development is limited to Queen Street which is classified as an arterial road in the Official Plan. The study supports a parking ratio of 0.58 parking spaces per residential unit. The study does not identify any future traffic congestion issues as a result of the proposed development and recommends some mitigation measures to improve the sightlines for vehicles existing the proposed parking accessed along Queen Street and the possibility that due to sightlines, one of the exits may need to be a right in/right out only access. This study has been reviewed by the Transportation Division as well as Transportation Services and no concerns have been identified. f. Environmental damage or degradation: The proposed development will redevelop what is currently considered a brownfield site in the downtown core area of the City. In order to allow residential use on the property a Record of Site Condition is required which will ensure that the environmental condition of the property satisfies provincial requirements for residential use. In addition, the Stormwater Management report asserts that the project can achieve the municipal target for this area of the City and achieve a 20% reduction of the post-development runoff when compared to the pre-development runoff. g. Diminished service levels because of social or physical infrastructure necessary to support a use or area are overloaded: 894

20 Report to Planning Committee Report Number PC September 1, 2016 Page 20 of 56 The servicing infrastructure in Princess Street has recently been upgraded through a significant investment by the municipality. The Official Plan identifies the Princess Street corridor as an area for intensification and the new servicing that has been constructed contemplated these policies in its design. In addition, the City has made recent investments in improving the parkland, waterfront and community facilities in the downtown core area such as the Grand Theatre and the Artillery Park Aquatic Centre. The recommendation for the project includes provisions to enable continued negotiation with the developer regarding community benefits based on the increased height and density being requested through this zoning amendment. h. 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; i. Visual intrusion that disrupts the streetscape, building, or cultural heritage resource; and j. Architectural incompatibility in terms of scale, style, massing and colour: The proposed building has been reduced from a height of 18-storeys to a height of 16- storeys (the 16 th floor is mechanical and the sky deck amenity area). The residential uses in the building do not go beyond the fifteenth floor. The revised design of the building continues to include the significant setback of the tower portion from Princess Street. Revisions to the proposal include an increased setback of 3 metres for the tower from the top of the proposed Queen Street podium. In addition, a three metre stepback has been included on the east and west sides of the tower that are adjacent to the Queen Street frontage starting at the 10 th floor to provide further articulation of the upper floors of the building. The revised design has also relocated the mechanical penthouse and elevator returns away from the edges of the building and moved them toward the centre of the roof to reduce visual impact of their location. The revised elevations also include additional articulation through building materials to reduce the visual scale of the upper floors of the building more glazing and lighter materials will be used. On the Princess Street side of the building what was previously a large blank masonry wall has been revised to include additional window glazing to provide more detail and break up the masonry mass of the feature. The details of the façade materials will be finalized through the Site Plan Control process. The proposed setback of the tower from Princess Street, the conservation, restoration and adaptive reuse of the theatre façade of 223 Princess Street and the relative narrowness of the Princess Street right-of-way help to protect the Princess Street streetscape and the adjacent listed property at 219 Princess Street. Revisions to the podium of the Queen Street façade have incorporated architectural articulation of six bays to compliment the rhythm of the Queen streetscape. Through discussions with staff, an entrance feature has been added to this façade to achieve more visual interest and provide a more clearly defined pedestrian entrance to the building. This change also has the effect of further animating the Queen Street façade to provide a greater street presence for access to the building. k. The loss or impairment of significant views of cultural heritage resources and natural features and areas to residents: There are no significant views of cultural heritage resources in the area of the subject site that are identified in the Official Plan. 895

21 Report to Planning Committee Report Number PC September 1, 2016 Page 21 of 56 Section states 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 applicant is requesting 1 metre of relief on the Queen Street frontage to establish a 0 metre setback for the proposed building. There are no side or rear yard requirements in the C1 zone, however there are some yards being provided to allow for required exiting and outdoor courtyard areas. The existing zoning by-law allows for minimal yard setbacks based on the existing pattern and form of development in the downtown and harbour area. b. Establishing appropriate transition in building heights, coverage and massing: The revised building design incorporates transitions in height, setbacks and massing. The existing 3-storey streetwall on Princess Street is being maintained and improvements have been made to the Queen Street podium, including greater building articulation and the creation of a multi-bay approach to better align with the overall streetscape and result in improved human scale of the design for pedestrians, thereby improving the experience of the built form context of the streetscape. An increased stepback of 3 metres is proposed to transition to the brick clad portion of the tower above which an additional 3 metre stepback has been included on both of the corners of the tower starting at the 10 th storey. This has the effect of narrowing the upper floors of the tower on the Queen Street façade. Lot coverage is proposed at 91%, which is within the existing zoning requirement of % and is consistent with the character of other buildings within the downtown core. c. Designing the building in a way that minimizes adverse effects: Several elements of re-design have been proposed by the applicant through discussions with staff to minimize adverse effects. By removing one level of parking within the proposed podium, the overall height of the building has been reduced to 15-storeys plus the rooftop amenity and mechanical area. The massing associated with the mechanical areas has been centralized as much as possible to further reduce the perceived height of the building. The stepback of the top of the podium from Queen Street has been increased to 3 metres, which wraps around to the western elevation as well. This measure gives greater emphasis and definition to the 3-storey streetwall and also helps to mitigate the perceived scale of the building. Other positive elements of design and articulation have been incorporated, such as the base of the tower being clad in brick to match the cladding and colour of the podium, while the remainder of the tower is to be clad in light coloured materials with glazing that augments as you move upwards in viewing the building elevations. At the point of the tower where the materials change, a strong cornice has been added to break up the massing and to define and place emphasis on the lower portion of the building to be perceived at street level. The upper tower portion also incorporates three metre stepbacks at the corners of the Queen Street façade, which reduce the massing within the angular plane and reduce the shadowing. Where previously the Princess Street tower elevation included a wide blank vertical band, this has now been replaced with articulation and glazing. 896

22 Report to Planning Committee Report Number PC September 1, 2016 Page 22 of 56 Additional elements of mitigation have been incorporated into the Queen Street podium, such as details to enhance the various openings of the podium façade, including an enhancement in the design of the pedestrian entrance to foster more pedestrian activity and animation of the street. Likewise, the proposed three metre setback on the top of the podium facilitates the addition of corner terraces, which will introduce outdoor amenity space to this area of the building, further animating the street and fostering opportunities for an enhanced relationship to the street. d. Maintaining mature vegetation and/or additional new landscaping requirements: The footprint of the existing building and the surrounding urban context provide limited opportunities for mature vegetation. The building is proposed to include landscaping at key locations, the details of which will be addressed through Site Plan Control. Through discussion with the applicant, staff have indicated that courtyard, terrace and rooftop opportunities for landscaping should be maximized to soften the edges of the building in the urban landscape. In addition, opportunities for landscaping along the pedestrian realm will be reviewed through the Site Plan Control process. e. Controlling access locations, driveways, service areas and activity areas: The design of the building establishes Princess Street frontage as the primary pedestrian access for the site. The Queen Street frontage will function as the only vehicular and loading access for the building. The Traffic Impact Study provided in support of the application has not identified any concerns with this approach and any further control or mitigation of the vehicular accesses will be addressed through Site Plan Control. f. Regulating location, treatment and size of accessory uses and structures, lighting, parking areas, garbage storage facilities and signage: Aspects such as lighting, garbage and the detailed design of the off-street parking facilities will be addressed through Site Plan Control. Parking for this development is proposed to be located in three levels of the parking podium to be constructed on the site. In addition a component of parking will be provided off site and regulated through Site Plan Control. There will be no accessory uses located in this development as it is a mixed use proposal and all uses will be within the proposed building. Details regarding lighting and signage will be reviewed through the Site Plan Control process. With respect to waste management, the submitted floor plans allocate space for storage on the ground floor. The applicant has confirmed that collection will be administered privately and will occur inside the building. Section states that only development proposals that meet the long-term needs of the intended users or occupants will be supported. This policy requires proponents to demonstrate to the satisfaction of the City that the functional needs of the occupants or users will be met by providing: a. Suitable scale, massing and density in relation to existing built fabric: The submitted application acknowledges that the proposed building is taller than the surrounding built fabric; however, the design of the building has been accomplished in a way that pedestrians on the Princess and Queen Street frontages will experience the existing Princess Street theatre façade and the newly created 3-storey parking podium. 897

23 Report to Planning Committee Report Number PC September 1, 2016 Page 23 of 56 These façades contribute to maintaining and enhancing a continuous streetwall on both Princess and Queen Streets. The primary building massing is being held back from Princess Street, allowing the theatre façade to maintain its significant presence within the Princess Street streetscape. On the Queen Street side, there is a distinction in the colour of material cladding between the podium and tower base and upper tower portion as well as the incorporation of a defining horizontal cornice band. These elements provide greater visual cues of the distinctiveness of each building component to minimize how the height and mass is experienced at street level. Exhibit I includes the renderings from Figures 4 and 5 of the Planning Justification Letter (FOTENN Consultants Inc., July 27, 2016). b. Appropriate landscaping that meets or improves the characteristic green space amenity of the site and surroundings and enhances the City s tree planting program: Opportunities for landscaping are limited given the footprint of the existing and proposed buildings. The City has recently completed a comprehensive road and servicing reconstruction of Princess Street which incorporated landscaping within the right-of-way adjacent to the theatre façade. Discussion with the applicant regarding planters and landscaping on the Queen Street right-of-way to compliment and soften the streetscape will be included through the Site Plan Control process. In addition the proponent has indicated that landscaping will be included on the terraces and courtyard area of the building. c. Adequate land area and appropriate site configuration or provision for land assembly, as required: The property subject to this application is an irregular shaped parcel with frontage on both Princess and Queen Streets. The largest land area is located on the Queen Street side of the site. The application was amended to include the addition of an approximately 141 square metre parcel of land to consolidate as part of the proposed development site. This has produced a more regular shape to the through lot and has allowed for an increase in the proposed off-street parking ratio. d. Efficient use of municipal services, including transit: The proposed intensification of this site will make use of the municipal servicing upgrades that have been recently completed on Princess Street and through the transit supportive density that is proposed to bring residents into the downtown core area which is well serviced by public transit. e. Appropriate infill of vacant or under-utilized land: The property subject to this application was previously a movie theatre and has been vacant for a number of years. The proposed development seeks to make use of an underutilized site with a commitment to addressing the brownfield contamination, which is of great benefit to the downtown core. The appropriateness of the vertical infill of this project has been addressed through Heritage Impact and Urban Design assessments submitted by the applicant and reviewed and supported by staff. Based on this review and modifications made to the proposal to address concerns identified by staff and the public the final design of the project demonstrates that the building design is respectful of its surroundings and adequately mitigates potential adverse impacts. 898

24 Report to Planning Committee Report Number PC September 1, 2016 Page 24 of 56 f. Clearly defined and safe: Site access and building entry: The arrangement of site access between the two frontages of the property has been demonstrated to be appropriate for the site. Any required mitigation suggested in the submitted Traffic Impact Study will be addressed through Site Plan Control. The proposal includes a well-defined access for residents and separation of residential and commercial access on Princess Street. The current submission has been modified on the Queen Street frontage to include a defined pedestrian entrance to the building. Pedestrian access to the building and parking spaces: Pedestrians will have a primary access to the building and interior parking spaces from Princess Street and will also be able to access the building and parking spaces from Queen Street. To ensure maximum safety, pedestrians will need to use the nearest signalized crossing at Queen and Montreal Streets to access the building from the offsite parking spaces and vice versa. Amenity areas and play space: The recommended zoning by-law amendment incorporates relief from the play space requirement. Through a combination of indoor shared amenity space, outdoor amenity space and private amenity space, the proposed amenity area for the development meets the existing zoning requirements and those contained in the Council received Amenity Area Review Study Final Report. One of the recommendations of the amenity space study completed by the City is that play space does not need to be included as a separate requirement from amenity space and that the amenity space being provided should be designed to be suitable for all residents of the building. Parking and bicycle facilities: The conceptual floor plans include clearly defined and functional areas of the building to be dedicated to vehicular and bicycle parking. A total of 40 off-site parking spaces are proposed to be provided within 60 metres of the subject site, which is in accordance with the existing applicable zoning provisions. The subject property is designated Central Business District on Schedule 3-A, Land Use Plan, of the City of Kingston Official Plan (Exhibit F). A broad range of commercial uses are permitted and encouraged in the Central Business District. The designation also permits a number of complementary uses, such as cultural, recreational, entertainment, institutional, community or municipal services, medium and high density residential, open space facilities, and parking lots and structures. As per Schedule 13 of the Official Plan, the property is located in the Downtown and Harbour Special Policy Area. As per Schedule DH-1 of the Official Plan, the property is located in the Lower Princess Street Retail Area of the Downtown and Harbour Special Policy Area. The permitted uses within the Downtown and Harbour Special Policy Area consist of a wide range of commercial uses, including all levels of retailing, offices, professional and service uses, hospitality uses and tourist accommodation. Medium and high density residential uses are encouraged as well, above commercial ground floor space as mixed use buildings in the Central Business District. 899

25 Report to Planning Committee Report Number PC September 1, 2016 Page 25 of 56 Section 3.4.A.1 identifies the Central Business District as the Primary Centre of the City, as illustrated on Schedule 2. The broadest range of commercial uses are permitted and encouraged in the designation, with priority commercial functions such as office uses being protected. The recommended zoning for the site would permit a broad range of commercial uses within the proposed 750 square metres of commercial floor area. Section 3.4.A.2 of the Plan indicates that complementary uses such as cultural, recreational, entertainment, institutional, community or municipal services, medium and high density residential, open space facilities, and parking lots and structures may be permitted in the Central Business District. The proposed mixed use development for 223 Princess Street is consistent with the permitted uses in the Official Plan. The Downtown and Harbour Special Policy Area in Section 10A provides guidelines for development and redevelopment in the core and as set out in Section 10A.2.6, requires ground floor commercial land use in specific locations. Section of the Official Plan implements Section of the PPS, directing that the City may permit development and site alteration on adjacent lands to a protected heritage property where the proposed development has been evaluated, and it has been demonstrated through the preparation of a Heritage Impact Statement that the heritage attributes of the protected heritage property will be conserved. Based on the Official Plan definition of protected heritage property and adjacent lands for the purposes of built heritage, the subject site is not adjacent to a protected heritage property. The subject lands are located in the Lower Princess Street and St. Lawrence Ward Heritage Areas, as identified on Schedule 9 of the Official Plan. The subject lands were recently approved by City Council to be added to the City s Heritage Properties Register under Section 27 of the Ontario Heritage Act as listed properties (223 Princess Street and Sydenham Street). The subject site is located within two Areas of Heritage Character, the Lower Princess Street Heritage Character Area and the St. Lawrence Ward Heritage Character Area, as shown on Schedule 9 of the Official Plan. Section indicates that where an area of special heritage character is not designated, but is recognized for a specific heritage character, a Heritage Impact Statement may be required where construction, alteration, demolition, or addition to a property located within a cultural heritage character area is proposed. In accordance with this policy, the applicant has submitted a Heritage Impact Statement and three report addendums, prepared by Metropolitan Design in association with Commonwealth Resource Management. Section 7.3.D.2 states; that the Lower Princess Street Heritage Character Area recognizes the traditional downtown as a significant cultural heritage resource. It includes the streetscape, courtyards and laneways, heritage buildings, landscape elements, as well as the pedestrian activity, civic and commercial functions that maintain the historic function of the area. The arrangement of buildings, street orientation, pedestrian activity and continuity of height all contribute to the historic sense of place. It is the intent of the Plan to maintain the heritage integrity of the area with the application of the following heritage policies: a. Buildings within the area will be encouraged to be maintained as functional heritage buildings: The proposed development includes the partial demolition of two listed properties, 223 Princess Street and Sydenham Street, which will require Council approval under Section 27 of the Ontario Heritage Act. The submitted plans for 223 Princess Street 900

26 Report to Planning Committee Report Number PC September 1, 2016 Page 26 of 56 indicate the retention and restoration of the Princess Street façade of the former theatre, which is identified in the Council approved listing description and possesses the physical/design value of the site. The submitted plans indicate that portions of the walls perpendicular from the Princess Street façade are also being retained. For Sydenham Street, the proposed demolition pertains to a rear addition. In both cases, staff are in receipt of heritage analysis from the proponent that supports that the building portions to be demolished have not been identified as having any potential value and that their removal will not impact the Heritage Character Area. The proposed Queen Street streetwall and articulated façade that is to replace the blank brick wall of the former modern-age multiplex is assessed as providing a positive and complimentary urban design contribution to animate and create a better relationship with the streetscape and pedestrians. b. New buildings will reinforce and be compatible with the existing heritage buildings, and any upper storeys beyond the height of existing roof lines will be required to stepback in accordance with the build-to plane provisions of Section 10.A.4.6 of this Plan: c. Building heights in the Lower Princess Street Heritage Character Area must comply with the provisions of Section 10A.4.6 of this Plan: Section 10A.4.6 of the Plan states that While striving to maintain character-defining buildings, the City may support new buildings that are of a scale and massing complementary to buildings in the surrounding area. The proposed development will conform to all three of the height policies in Section 10A.4.6 that apply to the Lower Princess Street Heritage Area and the Downtown portions of the St. Lawrence Ward Heritage Area as shown on Schedule 9 of the Official Plan. The proposed building will have a streetwall of up to 17 metres on both the Princess Street and Queen Street frontages, will meet the minimum height required of 2-storeys (8.5 metres) and will have a height between ground floor and second floor of 4.25 metres or alignment with second floor of adjacent buildings if these are considered to reflect the character of the area as established in the Downtown and Harbour Area Architectural Guidelines. d. Building heights in the Lower Princess Street Heritage Character Area must comply with the provisions of Section 10A.4.6: With respect to the overall height of the building, policy 10A.4.7 of the Official Plan states if a site-specific Urban Design study, presented to the public, clearly indicates to the satisfaction of the City, that a taller building is compatible with the massing of surrounding buildings, does not create unacceptable amounts of shadowing, and meets the land use compatibility policies of Section 2.7 of this Plan, a greater height within a specified building envelope may be approved. The applicant has provided this information for review and staff have also had the Urban Design report peer reviewed. The supporting studies based on the revisions to the project support the height of the building being requested through this amendment. e. Restoration of heritage façades and the application of sympathetic materials and historic styles is encouraged: 901

27 Report to Planning Committee Report Number PC September 1, 2016 Page 27 of 56 The proposed development includes the conservation, restoration and adaptive reuse of the former theatre façade of 223 Princess Street. Building materials will be chosen to compliment the historic area and a number of building materials will be used including, brick and other masonry materials as well as glass. The theatre façade will be subject to a Heritage Easement Agreement between the proponent and the City. f. New development must protect the height of City Hall as the dominant feature of the area, and employ building materials that are compatible and sympathetic to the heritage character of the area: The proposed development has included refinements in the selection of proposed materials of the Queen Street podium and tower to achieve compatibility with the streetscapes. The location of the subject property has no impact on City Hall. g. Parking garages and structures must conform to the general design principles of this Plan and maintain the heritage character of the adjacent streetscape: A significant amount of refinement has been incorporated into the parking podium to contribute to the maintenance of the heritage character of the adjacent streetscape, in terms of arrangement of bays, glazing, materiality, building articulation and adding a pedestrian entrance feature on the Queen Street façade. The Heritage Impact Assessment addendum states that the proposed massing of the Queen Street podium reflects the form and massing of the buildings along that street and that this general consistency is achieved through the transition in materials defined at the cornice. The vertical division of the podium into bays that reference building/lot divisions. The differentiation in fenestration openings is also cited as successfully establishing a scale that fits within its surroundings. Building to the streetline and the use of red brick is consistent with the heritage character of the street. The Heritage Impact Statement (HIS) notes that there is a stylistic diversity of buildings within a consistent massing framework, and that the proposed Queen Street podium elevation references a diversity of buildings in its composition. The HIS states that the proposed Queen Street podium provides a façade that is articulated in a manner that is complementary to the heritage character of the street, which is a significant improvement over the large blank walls of the former modern Cineplex building. The three vehicular entrances have been recessed and are coloured in a manner to reduce their perceived scale and visibility. Section 7.3.D.6 states; that the St. Lawrence Ward, as shown on Schedule 9, is one of the oldest areas of the City with an urban style that has survived since the 1800 s. The Section affirms that it is the intent of the Plan to recognize the heritage style of the area as created through the combination of buildings, street pattern, varying street widths and public spaces, and to undertake further investigations that will define appropriate boundaries and policy. In contrast to Section 7.3.D.2 above, the Plan does not include a statement to include the St. Lawrence Ward Heritage Character Area as a significant cultural heritage resource. The policies of 7.3.D.6 are very brief and indicate that the municipality should further investigate the cultural heritage value of the area and define an appropriate boundary, leading to possible future protection under Part V of the Ontario Heritage Act. In the absence of policies that are informed by an adopted evaluation of the heritage character of the area in accordance with the applicable legislation for determining cultural heritage value, the applicant has produced their own general assessment of its heritage character. 902

28 Report to Planning Committee Report Number PC September 1, 2016 Page 28 of 56 The applicant has submitted a Stage 1 Archaeological Assessment completed by a licensed archaeologist. Staff are in receipt of the required correspondence regarding this report from the Ministry of Tourism Culture and Sport. There are no outstanding concerns regarding archaeology for this site. Section 8 of the Official Plan contains policies regarding Urban Design. The goal of this section is To provide a framework for 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. The policies of Section 8.3 seek to have the City maintain or enhances the character of valued streetscapes, community areas and landscapes through the following measures: a. Preserving human scale in locations that are pedestrian-oriented by controlling building heights, requiring building step-backs, having entrances at street level, and other means as appropriate: The current proposal has been reduced in height from the original 21-storeys proposal; the building incorporates strategic and effective setbacks at key locations to maintain the character of the two streetscapes. The building incorporates primary entrances on both façades to support the pedestrian-oriented nature of the area and has used a range of building materials, building articulation and design to compliment the character of Queen Street. The Princess Street theatre façade will be conserved and adaptively reused. b. Protecting views to the water, City Hall and other significant buildings or landscapes: The proposed development does not impact the views to City Hall. Views to the water from the area of the subject site are not protected in the Official Plan. c. Siting new buildings and structures in a manner that repeats and complements the siting and spacing of existing buildings, structures or landscaped areas in order to continue a pattern that is characteristic of surrounding neighbourhoods and heritage areas: The proposed 0 metre setback on Queen Street will have a positive impact on maintaining the overall character of the Queen streetscape. The diversification of the Queen Street façade is complementary of the character of the street. Compared to the existing blank masonry façade of the back of the theatre, the proposed Queen Street façade will achieve a much improved relationship with the streetscape and is expected to create a more pleasant experience for pedestrians along that corridor. The central pedestrian access now includes awnings to the improve the pedestrian experiences along the Queen Street façade while also helping to visually anchor this as a central entrance feature to the building. The entrance has also been recessed through the 4 th iteration of the building design to provide functional enhancement by way of protective cover for the pedestrian user. d. Designing public spaces or requiring the design of common spaces in private projects that have a clear sense of definition, and provide sufficient amenity and security to encourage public use and linkage to other public areas: 903

29 Report to Planning Committee Report Number PC September 1, 2016 Page 29 of 56 e. Preserving and enhancing the context of special buildings, streetscapes, landscapes and sites that have been identified as having particular architectural, historic or cultural value: The site has been designed with the tower setback from Princess Street to provide protection to the Princess streetscape and identified potential physical/design and contextual value concerns regarding the two listed properties, the former theatre façade of the subject property and the building located next door at Princess Street. The Queen Street podium enhances the streetscape of Queen Street. f. Encouraging innovative methods to minimize the visual impact of utility features, either by containing utility features within streetscape elements or by screening them from view: Utility rooms will be included in the building. There are no external utilities shown on the plans. Section 8.4 provides the policy direction for the urban design elements of new development, stating that the City requires the design of new development to be visually compatible with surrounding neighbourhoods and areas of historic or cultural significance through its Site Plan Control review, and preparation of zoning standards 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: In accordance with the definition of the Official Plan, the significant cultural heritage resources considered to be located on or adjacent to the site are the two listed properties, the subject property (former theatre façade) and Princess Street. As discussed, the significant setback of the proposed tower from the Princess Street right of way offers sufficient protection that is commensurate with the heritage status of the resources. The design of the building has been informed by the Heritage Impact Analysis submitted in support of the application to complement and enhance the heritage character areas. The massing has been broken down into components, defined through transitions provided by changes in materials, setbacks and cornicing. The retention of the Princess Street façade is complimentary to the streetscape and avoids the need to introduce a new infill building at street level within the Lower Princess Street Heritage Character Area. The use of brick on the Queen Street podium with enhanced bay and fenestration articulation, along with a 3 metre setback above are all elements that compliment and reinforce the heritage character of the street, place visual emphasis on the streetwall and to minimize shadowing. The setback of the tower from Princess Street and the transition of materials and use of building edge definitions and setbacks assist in allowing the building to be perceived as massing components as opposed to one overall mass. b. Protecting natural features and areas and cultural heritage landscapes through the siting, design and review of new development: In accordance with the Official Plan definition of cultural heritage landscapes (CHLs), there are no CHLs on or adjacent to the site. 904

30 Report to Planning Committee Report Number PC September 1, 2016 Page 30 of 56 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 significance of the identified area: The conservation of the Princess Street façade and the multi-bay design of the Queen Street podium offer the most immediate relationship with the streetscape. These aspects of the design are expected to be harmonious with the streetscape. The mitigation in scale, massing, articulation and setbacks of the proposed tower has been thoughtfully assembled to give deference to the human scale first 3-storeys of the building on both street frontages. Section outlines the City s affordable housing policies, stating that City initiatives are designed to provide for a full range of housing, in terms of tenure and affordability, with a specific focus to provide housing for low income residents of the City. With respect to the proposed development, the relevant initiatives are: a. Private housing initiatives that provide for a wide range of housing types and affordability, with a target of 25% of all new housing units to be in the form of row housing, triplexes and multi-unit residential buildings, that are to be affordable in the City: With respect to housing that is owned, the 2014 Provincial Policy Statement (PPS) defines affordable as: i. Housing for which the purchase price results in annual accommodation costs which do not exceed 30% of the gross annual income for low and moderate income households; or ii. Housing for which the purchase price is at least 10% below the average purchase price of a resale unit in the regional market area. The applicant included the PPS Housing Table for 2015 as part of their submission, which indicates that a price of $264,000 represents 10% below the average resale price in Kingston. The application submission confirms that 25% of the proposed residential units will cost below $264,000, and will therefore be considered affordable. b. In accordance with Section of this Plan, where an increase in height, density or both, is requested, a high priority community benefit will be the provision of additional residential units requested as affordable housing. This affordable housing contribution may take the form of affordable housing construction on-site, the conveyance of land near the proposed development site, or cash-in-lieu for the purpose of constructing affordable housing, with each site negotiated on an individual basis: As discussed and recommended in this report, a component of the community benefits being secured through this development is the implementation of the City s affordable home ownership program within the development for up to 5% of the units. This approach meets the intent of the above noted policy section. c. The use of upper storey space within the Central Business District (CBD) and Main Street Commercial areas for housing, particularly within buildings that have heritage value, through such mechanisms as reduced parking or amenity area requirements, financial incentives, or other programs: 905

31 Report to Planning Committee Report Number PC September 1, 2016 Page 31 of 56 The proposed development will include residential units that meet the PPS definition of affordable within upper storey space located in the CBD and within a property which has been protected under Section 27 of the Ontario Heritage Act. Section 9 of the Official Plan contains policies that govern administration and implementation. Section provides criteria which Planning Committee and Council are to have regard for when considering an application to amend the zoning by-law. a. Conformity of the proposal with the intent of the Official Plan policies and schedules: The conclusion of the assessment of the current development proposal with respect to the policies of the Official Plan is that the proposed redevelopment of the site strikes an appropriate balance between the various objectives of the Plan, such as targeting an increase in residential density to an area with available physical and social services, within the apex of the City s commercial hierarchy, land use compatibility and respect for applicable heritage resources. b. Compatibility of the proposal with existing uses and zones, sensitive uses, the natural heritage system, cultural heritage resources, and compatibility with future planned uses in accordance with this Plan: The mixed use intensification of the site is intended by the Plan and the scale of the proposal has been carefully reviewed and refined through a multi-faceted approach to mitigation measures to achieve compatibility with its surroundings. The proposed design is slightly taller than the low teens suggested through the first peer review report. All of the proposed mitigation measures that have been incorporated into the design work together to minimize adverse impacts that may be generated as a result of the relief sought in the angular plane provisions. It is important to note that while the peer review report is suggestive of a smaller floor plate for the building especially on upper floors that is consistent with the 750 square metre floor plate maximum of guidelines from the City of Toronto, the City of Kingston does not have such guidelines. The second peer review report concludes that the City has a number of considerations to weigh in its decision on this application to achieve a result that balances the City s intensification and heritage conservation objectives. c. Compatibility of proposed buildings or structures with existing buildings and structures, with zoning standards of adjacent sites, with any future planned standards as provided in this Plan, and with any Urban Design guidelines adopted by the City for the area: The retention of the former theatre façade contributes to the compatibility of the proposal with the Princess Street streetscape. d. The extent to which the proposal is warranted in this location and the extent to which areas zoned for the proposed use are available for development: The subject site being a through lot presents a fairly unique opportunity for the development as proposed. The building is being proposed in a high priority area for mixeduse intensification and the proposed development would make efficient use of municipal investments in below and above grade infrastructure. If the development were to be proposed elsewhere, it would also require a site-specific zoning by-law amendment. Larger 906

32 Report to Planning Committee Report Number PC September 1, 2016 Page 32 of 56 scale developments such as the one proposed are anticipated in the Official Plan through the height exemption policy of Section 10A.4.7. e. The suitability of the site for the proposal, including its ability to meet all required standards of loading, parking, open space or amenity areas: Of major benefit to the development and its surroundings is its ability to incorporate important site functionality considerations such as loading, parking and amenity areas on the property. The recommended parking ratio of 0.68 is viewed as adequate for the use and supportive of active transportation and transit. The proposed development meets the amenity space requirements of Zoning By-Law Number and also meets the standards of the Amenity Area Review Study Final Report. f. The impact on municipal infrastructure, services and traffic: The technical review of the Traffic Impact Study and Servicing Study with respect to the water, sanitary and road capacity has determined no concerns. The development has an opportunity to make efficient use of the existing services. g. Comments and submissions of staff, agencies and the public: There has been a significant amount of oral and written input with respect to the application for zoning by-law amendment, which is included as an exhibit to this report and is addressed within this report. h. The degree to which the proposal creates a precedent: Each application is reviewed on the basis of its merits. The developer has provided a number of studies including urban design, heritage impact and noise for the proposed 16- storey mixed use development on this site. The proposed development is an intensification project in an area that is targeted for mixed use intensification in the Official Plan. The Official Plan sets out policy tests under Section 10A.4.7 to allow a taller building. It is the overall conclusion of this report that the applicant has met these policy tests, which has resulted in a recommendation for approval. In addition to being designated Central Business District in the Official Plan, as per Schedule 13, the subject site is located within the Downtown and Harbour Special Policy Area of the Official Plan. The policies related to this Special Policy Area are found under Section 10A. The proposed uses are consistent with Section 10A.1.1, which affirms that a broad mix of uses are to be encouraged in the Downtown Area and in much of the Harbour Area (shown on Schedule DH-1), including the widest range of commercial use, as well as civic, institutional, open space, recreation and higher density residential use provided that such uses are supportive of the vitality, human scale, pedestrian activity, historic fabric and function of this Centre. The treatment and design of both proposed façades with heights, massing and articulation and visual interest are supportive of the characteristics noted above for the Centre. Through the use of setbacks, articulation, and materials, the mitigation measures employed for the tower portion are successful in protecting the vitality, human scale, pedestrian activity, historic fabric and function of the Centre. 907

33 Report to Planning Committee Report Number PC September 1, 2016 Page 33 of 56 Section 10A.4.5 speaks to the protected views of the water as shown on Schedule 9, and the view planes to the cupola of City Hall as identified on Schedule DH-4. Protected views and viewplanes are not impacted by the proposed development. Sections 10A.2.1, 10A.2.6, 10A.2.9 and 10A.2.12 deal with uses, and the requirement for ground floor commercial along street frontages as per Schedule DH-3. The proposed mixed commercial/high density residential building is consistent with these policies. Ground floor commercial frontage is required along Princess Street and the retention of the former theatre façade that will lead to an interior commercial arcade is consistent with the policy. Pedestrian activity is stated under Section 10A.3.5 as a priority means of active transportation in the Downtown and Harbour Area, providing animation to the streets and support for the historic function of the downtown and mixture of uses that are desired. Means of enhancing pedestrian activity, convenience, safety and amenity are encouraged. The proposed mixed commercial high density residential land uses are supportive of this. Specific mitigation to enhance the safety of the proposed accesses along Queen Street will be addressed through Site Plan Control. Section 10A.3.6 states that on streets identified as prime pedestrian streets in Schedule DH-3, vehicle crossings of the sidewalk may be limited or restricted, in order to enhance the safety and convenience of pedestrian movement. The proposed development includes vehicular crossings of Queen Street, which is not identified as a prime pedestrian street. Section 10A.3.10 speaks to vehicle parking within the Downtown and Harbour Area, citing it to be a consideration that is vital to the health of the downtown, but its provision requires more flexibility, and greater sensitivity, than in other parts of the City to maintain the area s cultural heritage and pedestrian character. The following vehicle parking policies are assessed below with respect to the proposed development: a. New commercial developments are encouraged to provide parking for their own use, and where feasible, to incorporate underground parking or parking structures as part of the proposal: While the above policy encourages the provision of parking for new commercial uses, the applicable zoning by-law provides for an exemption. All of the off-street parking proposed is intended for the residential use. Loading for the commercial and residential uses will be facilitated by a loading bay interior to the building accessed from Queen Street. b. Residential development, including the conversion of upper storey commercial space to residential use, is required to provide necessary parking in accordance with the zoning bylaw, but may be permitted to provide such space within 60 metres of the lot, through long term parking agreements if it is not possible to provide on-site parking: In review of the submitted Traffic Impact Study and the proposed number of parking spaces, staff are satisfied with the recommend parking ratio for this site of 0.68, which includes a portion of off-site parking in accordance with the above policy and applicable zoning provisions. c. New medium and high density residential developments are encouraged to provide parking on site in either underground space or parking structures: 908

34 Report to Planning Committee Report Number PC September 1, 2016 Page 34 of 56 The parking for the proposed development is intended to be enclosed in a parking podium on the site in a structure. Section 10A.4.10 provides detailed policy direction on the design and integration of above grade parking structure design. Such structures in this location are encouraged to be complementary to the massing and treatment of related buildings along the streetscape through use of one or more of the following means: a. Design of office or retail space that will wrap the parking structure along the street, particularly along Prime Pedestrian Streets or appropriate areas of the Waterfront Pathway as shown on Schedule DH-3: While the proposed development does not include a wrapping approach, it does exclude the structure from the Princess Street frontage, identified on Schedule DH-3 to be a Prime Pedestrian Street. b. Façade design which is compatible with elements and spacing of elements of adjacent buildings in order to provide a continued rhythm along the street: The proposed façade of the Queen Street podium has been refined to incorporate compatible elements such as a rhythm of bays and glazing to fit appropriately within its surroundings as well as a defined pedestrian entrance to the building. The current proposal uses red brick for the podium cladding, which has been shown to be a better fit within the overall streetscape. c. Restricted or prohibited vehicular access from Prime Pedestrian Streets: Vehicular access for the proposed development is restricted to Queen Street which is not classified as a prime pedestrian street. d. Pedestrian access to be encouraged from Prime Pedestrian Streets rather than a side street: Pedestrian access for the proposed commercial and residential uses will be provided along Princess Street, a Prime Pedestrian Street. e. Any exterior face that abuts a pedestrian walkway or courtyard will have design elements that bring the structure into the pedestrian realm, to assist in the way in which it blends with the design elements and massing of surrounding buildings: Staff will work with the applicant through the site plan process to ensure that the exterior faces are consistent with the policy intent above. Sections 10A.4.1 and 10A.1.6 are similar policies affirming the following: The historic architecture of the Downtown and Harbour Area is part of the defining and valued character of the City that must be fostered and preserved as an endowment from the past. These rich resources contribute to the economy, as well as to the quality of life of its citizens. 909

35 Report to Planning Committee Report Number PC September 1, 2016 Page 35 of 56 Cultural heritage resources are a valued legacy of the City and constitute characterdefining elements of the Downtown and Harbour Area that are intended to be conserved. New development must protect, enhance, support or adaptively re-use these resources. The proposed development incorporates the above noted aspects of heritage conservation. The mitigation of the height and massing of the proposed tower and the adaptive reuse of the former theatre façade contribute to the protection of the areas cultural heritage resources, including that of the site itself. The design mitigation of the Queen Street podium has been assessed as enhancing the Queen Street streetscape. Section 10A.4.2 prescribes protection for the architectural character of the historic downtown, being best maintained by preserving, rehabilitating and restoring existing building stock that reflects the character of its sub-areas as described in the Downtown and Harbour Area Architectural Guidelines. The City will endeavor to ensure that any changes to existing buildings in the Downtown and Harbour Area will not detract from the character of the district. Section 10A.4.5 encourages current gaps along the streetscape, created by demolished buildings to be redeveloped with infill buildings which are consistent with the massing, widths and heights of existing buildings and with the prescribed planes of the zoning by-law, having regard to the more detailed provisions of Section 8 of this Plan and the Downtown and Harbour Area Architectural Guidelines. The proposed development achieves consistency in massing, widths and heights with both proposed streetwalls along each of the two respective frontages. Angular plane is an urban design performance standard that can be implemented via guidelines or in the case of 223 Princess Street through the applicable zoning by-law. The intention of using an angular plane through a site zoning is to help ensure a transition of the height and massing of building away from the street to help mitigate the ways buildings are visually and physically experienced by pedestrians. In application, this performance standard can be challenging to apply and still achieve a functional and efficient building floor plate. The stepping nature of buildings designed to fit within restrictive angular planes can resemble a more pyramid-like appearance. While the proposed development requires zoning relief from the prescribed angular planes of the zoning by-law, staff have assessed and concluded that the proposed development has met the policy tests of the Official Plan exemption of Section 10A.4.7, as detailed below. The intent of the angular plane policies to incorporate stepbacks in a building design is to reduce the impacts of massing and shadowing and provide for a more human scale building. The current proposal achieves this by orienting the greatest massing toward the Queen Street frontage away from the primary pedestrian experience on Princess Street. This orientation also contributes to reducing any potential impacts on the heritage character of Princess Street. The Queen Street frontage is currently occupied by a blank masonry wall from the existing theatre. The proposed 3-storey building podium on Queen Street will provide a consistent streetwall on Queen Street. The changes that have been made to the building podium design on Queen Street have incorporated architectural elements to mirror building bays to break up the massing. In addition further articulation and a pedestrian entrance have been added to the Queen Street façade to improve the pedestrian experience and improve the human scale of the building from Queen Street. 910

36 Report to Planning Committee Report Number PC September 1, 2016 Page 36 of 56 In the absence of an angular plane, the proponent has designed stepbacks into the building to achieve the intent of the angular plane. On the Queen Street façade a 3 metre stepback is included after the third storey. This terrace area will provide amenity and landscaping space for the project. Above the tenth floor the building design has been modified to include a three metre stepback on the east and west corners of the building. The effect of this is to narrow the tower along the Queen Street frontage and reduce the visual massing of the building. In addition a mix of building materials will be used including lighter materials and glazing on the upper floors to reduce the perceived massing of the structure. Offering a potential exemption from the height policies and provisions, Section 10A.4.7 states that notwithstanding the provisions related to height, if a site-specific Urban Design study, presented to the public, clearly indicates to the satisfaction of the City, that a taller building is compatible with the massing of surrounding buildings, does not create unacceptable amounts of shadowing, and meets the land use compatibility policies of Section 2.7 of this Plan, a greater height within a specified building envelope may be approved. An Urban Design Study and Addendum Report have been prepared in support of the applications. The current 16-storey proposal has been supplemented by an updated sun shadow analysis. The proposed development has been assessed as being consistent with Section 2.7 of the Official Plan. As demonstrated in the most recent Sun Shadow Analysis submitted by the applicant, the shadowing that is anticipated to be generated by this development is comparable to that of a structure built to the current as-of-right zoning provisions. The shadows depicted in the analysis do not create unacceptable amounts of shadowing and ensure the protection of key sites such as a nearby elementary school, from experiencing any adverse shadowing impacts. Section 10A.4.11 states; that the component sub-areas of the Downtown and Harbour Area shown on Schedule DH-1 each have distinctive characteristics as described in the Downtown and Harbour Architectural Guidelines. In determining future public works and in assessing the type of development that is compatible in the sub-areas of Lower Princess Street Retail Area, Historic Market Square Conservation District, the Historic Area Adjoining Market Square, North Block and Environs, and the Harbour Area, the City will refer to these Architectural Guidelines as well as to the Downtown Action Plan. Section 10A.6.2 states that the intent of the zoning within the Downtown and Harbour Area will continue to reflect built form provisions as found in the Downtown and Harbour Zoning By-Law, to ensure that the form of new development is compatible with the built heritage fabric and street-oriented pedestrian function of the Downtown and Harbour Area. The proposed development adheres to many of the performance standards of the two existing zones with respect to the portion of the development that would be most readily experienced by pedestrians. The Plan also provides for the possible development of a taller building, subject to a policy tests regarding compatibility and shadowing. As assessed and concluded within this report, the applicant has satisfactorily addressed these policy tests, which substantiates staff s recommendation for the height/massing related relief included in the proposed amending zoning by-law for the site. Section 10A.6.4 states; that any application for new development will be reviewed during the Site Plan Control review process in terms of its compatibility with the architectural character of the sub-area in which it is located, having regard to the Downtown and Harbour Area Architectural Guidelines Study. 911

37 Report to Planning Committee Report Number PC September 1, 2016 Page 37 of 56 The Downtown and Harbour Area Architectural Guidelines were approved in The guidelines are broken into four sub areas, with the subject development site being located in the Lower Princess Street Sub Area. For the purposes of this report, focus has been placed on the guidelines for new development within this sub area under Section 3.4 and those for new infill buildings that apply to all of the sub areas. For the Lower Princess Street Sub Area, new development is encouraged to enhance the existing by complementary development and the inclusion of the following considerations: Continuity of streetwall massing, height of street façades and setbacks. Rebuild block perimeter where gaps in its continuity exist: The proposal is consistent with this guideline in the proposed design and treatment of each of the street frontages. Enforce current zoning requirement for minimum 2-storey, 8.5 metre high new development: The proposed development is consistent with this guideline which is a regulation in the zoning by-law. Encourage prominent buildings at street corners to enhance block: The proposed development is a unique opportunity for a through lot development on the interior of a block. General alignment of façade treatment between grade and four metres above grade: The design placement of the horizontal lines and overall treatment of the existing Princess Street façade and proposed Queen Street façade provide for general alignment with adjacent mixed use and commercial buildings. Increased pedestrian amenity on adjacent streets to Princess Street: Recent municipal investments in the above grade infrastructure have increased the pedestrian amenity of the side streets, which will benefit the proposed development. Active retail at ground level street façades and at Priority Pedestrian Walks: The retention of the theatre façade has been given priority from a heritage conservation perspective over the revamping of this façade to facilitate a retail space. The commercial character of the façade will remain and the façade will serve as the primary pedestrian entrance to the commercial space of the proposed building. Big Box scale retail should be avoided in this sub area: The proposal includes a total of approximately 750 square metres of commercial floor area, which is broken into units. Big box retail is not proposed, nor is it included as a permitted use in the recommended zoning. 912

38 Report to Planning Committee Report Number PC September 1, 2016 Page 38 of 56 Recommend that new automobile based uses be discouraged: Such uses are not proposed and have not been included as a permitted use in the recommended zoning for the site. The following guidelines are included in the document as being applicable to new infill buildings within all of the sub areas: New infill buildings should conform to the existing zoning by-law requirements including, but not limited to: maximum building height; height of street façade; setback; stepbacks; angular plane; build to plane; and site location with respect to protected views: The proposed development is consistent with some of the zoning requirements. Relief of 1 metre from the build to plane has been recommended as proposed in order to provide more definition and volume to the streetwall of Queen Street. With respect to stepbacks and angular plane, staff are supportive of some encroachment within the required angular plane of the zoning by-law. It is also noted in the peer review of the proposal that some encroachment into the angular plane may be acceptable to achieve a balance of competing policy objectives. To address the comments from the peer review and staff, the stepback of the tower on Queen Street has been increased to three metres, cornices and building corner stepbacks have been included on the Queen Street frontage and the updated sun shadow analysis has demonstrated that the prosed building does not create unacceptable levels of shadowing. Within the Williamsville land use policy context, the guidelines specifically require a minimum amount of hours of sunlight within the right of way. There are no such guidelines or policies that are applicable to the subject site. The updated shadowing study submitted by the applicant indicates that the revised submission meets the five hours of sunlight requirement, using the Williamsville Main Street Study as a comparison. New infill should generally have the same street façade height as its neighbours provided the neighbouring buildings already comply with the requirements of the zoning by-law and architectural character of the area they reside: The existing condition of Queen Street is variable and includes some modern infill. The proposed street façade height of the new Queen Street façade and the existing Princess Street façade are consistent with this guideline. New infill development should be a minimum of 2-storeys as per zoning bylaw, and have the upper storey occupied with residential, institutional, or personal business services: The proposed development is consistent with this guideline. New infill development should not use the following cladding materials: vinyl siding, mirrored glass, residential style aluminum siding, non-architectural concrete masonry units and corrugated metal siding: Staff will work with the applicant through Site Plan Control on the consistency of the building materials with the above guidance. 913

39 Report to Planning Committee Report Number PC September 1, 2016 Page 39 of 56 The Downtown Action Plan (2003) sets out design recommendations for public open space and municipal right-of-way space in the City s downtown core. The Plan strives to provide recommendations to improve the physical character of the downtown and to encourage reinvesting, supporting businesses and encouraging redevelopment and infill by creating a more attractive visual environment within the public realm. Princess Street is described as a retail spine, with Queen Street functioning as an urban arterial. The retention of the theatre façade of Princess Street will support the intended commercial and pedestrian oriented character of the street. Despite the intended service and functional oriented nature of Queen Street, the applicant has made refinements to the proposed Queen Street podium façade to compliment and add animation and activity to the street. More recently, City Council endorsed the Design Guidelines for Residential Lots (2015), which are guidelines that illustrate urban design best practices at the scale of a single lot with a residential component. The document includes seven guiding principles, including the following: Foster attractive developments which add to the existing sense of place: The proposed development includes architectural design at the street and tower level which augment the existing landmark status of the theatre façade. Ensure compact, walkable mixed use development: The intensification of the site with a mix of proposed uses in this area of downtown is supportive of active transportation. Encourage environmentally sustainable development: The proposed development would include the cleanup of the site from a brownfields perspective and the stormwater management of the site includes a 20% reduction in flows from existing. Overall the proposed intensification of the site within the urban boundary, in an area with existing Water and sanitary servicing capacity is an environmentally sustainable approach to development. Integrate and highlight cultural heritage resources: The retention and restoration of the former theatre façade and the proposed setback of the tower from Princess Street, achieves this guideline. Schedule 10 of the Official Plan identifies the urban area of the City as a Community Improvement Area (CIP). Through the policies of the Official Plan, the City may designate all or parts of the land shown on Schedule 10 as a Community Improvement Project Area for which a detailed community improvement plan can be prepared. Section 9.8 contains the objectives and enabling policies regarding community improvement and criteria for establishing Project Areas, which include the rehabilitation of environmentally compromised land and buildings through appropriate remediation. The Community Improvement Plan for the City was approved in 2005 and now includes four Project Areas. The subject property does not fall within one of the four approved Project Areas; therefore, the applicant has filed a CIP application to add a new Project Area. The effect of the amendment would enable the applicant to apply for tax assistance and grants under the City s 914

40 Report to Planning Committee Report Number PC September 1, 2016 Page 40 of 56 Brownfields Program. A Planning Rationale has been included in the applicant s submission as a required study for the application to include the subject site as a new Project Area within the Community Improvement Plan. In summary, the subject applications are consistent with the general intent of the Official Plan; therefore an Official Plan amendment is not required. Community Improvement Plan The purpose of the City of Kingston s Community Improvement Plan (CIP) is to facilitate the implementation of the City s Brownfields Program and its key financial components. The Brownfields Program provides tax assistance and grants to eligible properties for the rehabilitation of environmentally compromised land and/or buildings through an appropriate Remedial Work Plan. The Brownfields Program is intended to form an integral part of the development process of a site and as such is intimately linked to the land use planning and development process. Each application for Brownfields Program financial assistance for a property located within a defined Project Area is reviewed on a site-specific basis. The maximum amount of the financial assistance cannot exceed the cost to rehabilitate the property. As a result, the eligible rehabilitation costs are a central component of the Brownfields Program. The program is designed to encourage private sector investment, development and construction activity on contaminated properties. The financial incentives are intended to mitigate the costs associated with rehabilitating and developing these properties in order to level the playing field between greenfield and brownfield development by compensating proponents for the added complexity, cost, and time required on brownfield development projects. The CIP is the vehicle used to implement the City s Brownfields Program. The CIP details the eligible rehabilitation costs and the various financial components of the program. It also outlines the criteria that must be met for a property owner to qualify for any of the grant or tax assistance components. As noted above, the maximum amount of the financial assistance (grants and tax assistance) cannot exceed the cost to rehabilitate the property. Therefore, a property may not qualify for 100 percent of the Brownfields Program benefits. It is noted that City Council adopted new Program Administration Guidelines that recognize that providing 100 percent of the Brownfields CIP benefits in all situations is not consistent with one of the original premises of the Brownfields CIP in terms of leveling the playing field between brownfield sites and greenfield development. In accordance with the revised Program Administration Guidelines, a sliding scale approach will be used in the review of each eligible application so that benefits are proportional to the degree of environmental encumbrance relative to the value of the proposed redevelopment project and to the area of land that requires remediation as a percentage of the total site area. The effect of adding a new Project Area to the Community Improvement Plan with respect to the property at 223 Princess Street is that it would enable the applicant to apply for tax assistance and grants under the City of Kingston s Brownfields Program. However, the approval of a new Project Area and the provision of financial assistance to an eligible property in an approved Project Area will be entirely at the discretion of Council (Section in the Official Plan). 915

41 Report to Planning Committee Report Number PC September 1, 2016 Page 41 of 56 Section 1.3 of the City of Kingston s Community Improvement Plan (CIP) references a number of undesirable outcomes of not supporting brownfield revitalization as a rationale for the CIP. Brownfield sites are often strategically located in the core areas of cities, with access to existing infrastructure and services, and often in proximity to water and other transportation networks. Left abandoned or vacant, brownfield sites represent lost property tax revenue, lost residential accommodation, and lost employment opportunities. This can trigger a downward spiral in the neighbourhoods in which these properties are located, causing an out-migration of both businesses and residents, thereby further reducing tax revenues. If these businesses and residents move away from the core area out toward undeveloped greenfield lands, there is additional pressure placed on the municipality to extend infrastructure and services. Vacant and neglected brownfield sites can also present serious health and safety issues related to deteriorating buildings and/or surface debris present on the site. Any proposed new Project Area within the City of Kingston s Brownfield CIP should also support achievement of the goals set out in Section 1.4 of the CIP: A cleaner, healthier, safer and more livable environment; An increase in employment, economic activity and investment; The implementation of previous studies; The implementation of the City s Urban Growth Strategy; The rehabilitation of land for a new use; Better use of existing infrastructure, services and facilities; The revitalization of the City s waterfront and the downtown; The revitalization of the Williamsville Main Street area; Intensification and the creation of new housing; The redevelopment of currently underutilized or vacant lands; and The encouragement of the design and construction of environmentally high performance buildings (LEED designation). There are currently three separate Project Areas identified in the Community Improvement Plan, all located in Kingston Central. As the subject property is not located within one of the three approved Project Areas, the applicant has filed the CIP application to add a new Project Area. Zoning By-Law Considerations The subject property is zoned Heritage Commercial C1-3 for the portion of the site located along the Princess Street frontage and the balance of the site located along the Queen Street frontage is zoned Central Business System C1 Zone in the Downtown and Harbour Zoning By- Law Number , as amended (Exhibit G). The uses permitted in the Heritage Commercial C1-3 and C1 zones include a wide range of commercial uses, including mixed commercial/residential development. The zone also permits non-commercial uses such as a community home and residential care facility. 916

42 Report to Planning Committee Report Number PC September 1, 2016 Page 42 of 56 To permit the proposed development, the zoning by-law amendment application proposes a site-specific C1 zone for the entire site. The following table summarizes the key applicable performance standards of Zoning By-Law Number and the requested zoning relief. Provision Requirement Proposed Compliance Front Yard (minimum) Princess Street: 0 metres Queen Street: approximately 1 metre 0 metres 0 metres Yes Relief required Building Height (maximum) Princess Street Height at Build to Plane: 4-storeys, not to exceed 17 metres 3-storeys, 12.8 metres (existing) Yes Maximum Building Height: 4-storeys, not to exceed 17 metres 4-storeys, 16.8 metres Yes Queen Street Height at Build to Plane: 4-storeys, not to exceed 17 metres 3-storeys, 9.2 metres Yes Height along Angular Plane: 6-storeys, not to exceed 25.5 metres 16-storeys, 52.4 metres Relief required Angular Plane Queen Street: 39 degrees, measured from 17 metres Height map proposed Relief required Build to Plane Princess Street: 0 metres 0 metres Yes Queen Street: approximately 1 m 0 metres Relief required Density (max) 123 dwelling units per net hectare 836 Relief required Off-Street Parking Residential: 212 spaces 146 spaces (including 40 spaces off-site within 60 metres) Relief required In addition to the above, the development requires a site specific definition for a Mixed Commercial/Residential Development, relief in the dimensions of a standard parking stall size and the length of the barrier free parking stalls, bicycle parking stall dimensions/configuration, and equipped children s play space. 917

43 Report to Planning Committee Report Number PC September 1, 2016 Page 43 of 56 The applicant has submitted a height map, which staff have included in the recommendation as a schedule to the zoning amendment. The height map addresses the complexity of the massing and building articulation to ensure that the proposed articulation shown on the conceptual drawings is what is constructed and provides a level of detail that will assist in future interpretations and compliance reviews. The recommended permitted uses exclude some permitted uses from the parent C1 zone that staff deem to be inappropriate for the site based on the Official Plan framework for the Central Business District. Excluded uses include automobile-related uses, department store, adult entertainment uses, arena, home improvement centre, motel, parking lot and transportation terminal. With respect to the requested relief of 1 metre from the minimum front yard and build to plane requirement, these requirements are based on matching the setbacks of adjacent buildings, in this case the Corus Entertainment Building located at 170 Queen Street, which is an infill building from the modern era whose design is relatively unsympathetic to the surrounding character. Staff support the requested relief, as it will promote a strongly defined building edge for the Queen Street podium, which would make a positive contribution to the streetscape from an urban design perspective and matches the intent of the applicable policies and guidelines. The zoning by-law amendment includes requested relief from building height, building height along angular plane, angular plane and density, the zoning by-law permits a maximum height of 4-storeys, not to exceed 17 metres for the portion of the site zoned C1-3. The approximately 141 square metre lot interior to the site that was added during the application process would require relief from this provision. Within the C1 zoned portion of the site, the proposed building requires relief from the maximum angular plane of 39 degrees and the maximum building height along the angular plane of 25.5 metres. The angular plane is established at 39 degrees. Based on a review of the application and discussions with the applicant and consultants associated with this project it is clear that the angular plane provisions pose a challenge to the design and efficient construction of a building. The number of stepbacks that would be required to comply with the angular plane requirement would result in a challenging and inefficient building design. Staff have worked with the applicant and their team to achieve revisions to the building to further meet the intent of the angular plane and reduce impacts on the surrounding area in order to achieve a building design that is more compatible with the context of the area and achieves the intent of the policy framework that applies. The current zoning permits a maximum density of 123 units per net hectare, which translates into a maximum total of 29 residential units permitted for the site. Based on staff s review of the Official Plan and PPS, this level of intensification does not match the intent of these policy documents. The applicant has successfully addressed the policy tests within the Official Plan to justify the proposed density, height and encroachments within the required angular plane including land use compatibility, the mitigation of adverse impacts on cultural heritage resources and has confirmed that there is available servicing capacity to permit the proposed density of 212 residential units for the site. The proposed density is ideally located in a pedestrian oriented environment and will support the existing and planned growth of the transit corridor and network. The proposed density also contributes to the City s objectives for residential intensification in an area within the urban boundary that possesses the highest order of priority for development. 918

44 Report to Planning Committee Report Number PC September 1, 2016 Page 44 of 56 Staff have included a site-specific definition for a mixed commercial/residential development to address the proposal that some of the ground floor be occupied by elements associated with the proposed residential use. The current definition requires commercial on the entire ground floor, however the Official Plan only requires ground floor commercial frontage along Princess Street. With respect to off-street parking, the submitted Traffic Impact Study recommends a ratio of 0.58 parking spaces per residential unit, which roughly aligns with the original proposal of 132 parking spaces for 223 residential units. Since then, the applicant has added lands to the proposed development site and is now proposing 146 parking spaces and 212 residential units. 40 of the 146 parking spaces are proposed to be provided off-site within 60 metres of the development lands, which is consistent with the Official Plan and zoning by-law and allows for a reduction in the proposed building height from the originally proposed 61.4 metres in the first submission to the 52.4 metres in the current recommended submission. The recommended ratio for the site specific zoning is 0.68 parking spaces per residential unit, which staff have assessed as striking an appropriate balance between meeting the functional needs of the proposed residential land use and being supportive of active transportation and transit. The requested relief in the minimum length of a barrier free parking space and minimum bicycle parking dimensions is in recognition of the physical constraints structured parking environment in which the proposed parking is to be implemented. The barrier free parking stalls will be required to meet all other requirements of the zoning by-law. The application does not require any relief from the minimum amenity space requirements and also meets the amenity space requirements of the Amenity Area Review Study Final Report. From a functional needs perspective, the future residents and the area as a whole will benefit from the development s ability to provide sufficient amenity space as part of the proposed building. In summary, the recommended zoning relief is deemed to be appropriate for the site from an overall land use planning perspective, which will result in a building with elements that align with a range of City land use objectives for the Central Business District. Community Benefits Considerations The Planning Act and the Official Plan provide the parameters for how communities may negotiate community benefits. Community benefits are finalized through a Council-approved, site-specific amending zoning by-law that implements a proposed development. Section states that 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 benefitting the public. The section provides a listing of potential types of community benefits. Section of the Official Plan states that each proposal for an increase in height and density must be assess on a case by case basis, and be supported by such additional information and studies as deemed appropriate by the City, in order that Council ensures that: a. The development resulting from the application of increased height and density does not impose adverse effects on neighbouring uses, and meets the general intent and purpose 919

45 Report to Planning Committee Report Number PC September 1, 2016 Page 45 of 56 of the land use compatibility principles in Section 2.7 and the urban design principles as outlined in Section 8 of this Plan; b. The proposed increased height and density provision supports the strategic planning approach to guide and respond to development applications for change in areas of the City, as outlined in the policies of Section 2.6 of this Plan regarding stable areas and areas in transition; c. There are adequate municipal services including water, sanitary sewers, stormwater management facilities and community services; d. The transportation system can accommodate the increase in density; e. The site is suitable in terms of size and shape, to accommodate the necessary on site functions such as parking, landscaping and recreational facilities; f. There is a reasonable planning relationship between the community benefits and the proposed development; g. The value of the increased height and density is appraised by the developer and the value of the benefit to be provided is assessed compared to the increased value to the developer, so that there is an equitable relationship between the established value of the increased height and density and its value to the community; and h. The development must constitute good planning and be consistent with the policies of this Plan. These criteria have been reviewed in detail through the staff report. Through this assessment, it is the opinion of the Planning Division that the current iteration of the proposal for a 16-storey building with the sixteenth floor being mechanical and amenity space is consistent with the policies of the Plan and represents good planning. With respect to the requirement for an appraisal for the value of the increased height and density, the City is in receipt of an appraisal that indicates the uplift value of the property based on the current proposal is $1,075,000. Given this value and based on the City s draft community benefits guidelines, a percentage of 30% has been applied to the uplift value to determine the contribution that will be requested from the developer. Based on the uplift value and percentage contribution of 30%, the City will be seeking Community Benefits to a value of $322,500. The details of the Community Benefits will be secured through an agreement entered into between the applicant and the City. Through discussions with the applicant, four areas of community benefits were identified and are recommended for approval in principle in this report: Restore the original heritage façade of 223 Princess St. including a commemorative plaque: With the direction provided to staff through the enclosed recommendation, a Heritage Easement Agreement will be drafted and Heritage Kingston will be consulted prior to the Easement being given final approval. Partner with the City s Affordable Home Ownership Program to be applied to up to 5% of the units: 920

46 Report to Planning Committee Report Number PC September 1, 2016 Page 46 of 56 This City program provides financial assistance to first time home buyers with the required down payment, thus assisting residents and facilitating home ownership by easing the financial burden of the down payment. Partner with the City to create a cultural amenity/presentation space within the former film theatre at 223 Princess Street: The Kingston Culture Plan, approved in 2010, identified the potential for a new exhibition space for the arts in the downtown core (Recommendation #27) and it also identified a gap in terms of having access to a mid-sized performance space ( seats). The need for cultural amenities in the downtown core has also been identified by the City s Arts Advisory Committee in response to the loss or relocation of previously existing venues. Some of the pressures in the arts/cultural scene include, but are not limited to, the closure of the Wilson Room at the main branch of the Kingston Frontenac Public Library, the closure of the former Capitol Theatre, as well as the relocation of the Modern Fuel Artist Run Centre to the J.K. Tett Centre. It has also been identified that having access to a multi-use cultural amenity/presentation space across from the Grand Theatre creates synergies and would establish a cultural hub within the downtown. The potential space available for a cultural amenity/presentation space purpose would include a separate entrance from Princess Street with a large lobby area that could accommodate various visual art displays. The main space that could be utilized for a variety of cultural presentations such as film screenings, concerts, dance and live theatre is estimated to be about 7,300 square feet. Partner with the City to provide public parking which could include electric charging stations parking close to 223 Princess Street: The provision of parking supply in the downtown has been identified as a priority as there has been a loss of public parking spaces in the North Block area due to pending development. A portion of the Drury parking lot was closed early in 2016 to enable the property owner to conduct pre-development work. This resulted in a reduction of approximately 70 parking spaces. Additional spaces will be lost as development proceeds and as Council continues to support more intensification in the downtown. The proposed public parking structure would be built on the City owned Byron parking lot which currently has a total of 74 surface parking spaces. The parking structure would be City owned and operated. Based on the most recent public parking design guidelines and it has been estimated that the total parking spaces would most likely be around 350. Dedicated electrical charging stations have also been proposed as an option for this parking structure. It is intended that the applicant would make a parking cash contribution and enter into a long term license agreement with the City for access to 40 parking spaces. It is important to note that the applicant has committed to restoring the original heritage façade of 223 Princess Street including a commemorative plaque and entering into a partnership with the City for the provision of affordable home ownership in addition to the financial community benefit contribution that the City is requesting through this project. These are benefits to the community that are not being financially quantified through this process but that meet various Council strategic priorities. 921

47 Report to Planning Committee Report Number PC September 1, 2016 Page 47 of 56 The value of the community benefit contribution will be applied to the cultural/performing space and the public parking structure. The cost of both of these amenities will exceed the value of the community benefit contribution and will require separate negotiations with the applicant and Council approvals as property acquisition matters are under Council s purview, not the Planning Committee. Other Applications The proposed development is the subject of an active Site Plan Control application, File Number D Technical Analysis The application for zoning by-law amendment has been circulated to external agencies and internal departments for review and comment. All comments on the proposal have been addressed and no outstanding technical issues with this application remain at this time. Much of the technical analysis has been incorporated within earlier sections of this report. Additional information has been included below to affirm that the technical feasibility of the proposed development has been reviewed to be satisfactory. The recommendation contained in this report includes the designation of the subject site as a Class 4 under a Provincial noise guideline, NPC-300 of the Ministry of Environment and Climate Change. The ability to apply a Class 4 designation is a tool for land use planning authorities that was implemented in 2013 and since that time various municipalities such as Hamilton, Toronto and Caledon have approved Class 4 designations. The applicant s submitted Noise Feasibility Study included an acknowledgement that a Class 4 designation would be required for the proposed development. The classification is intended to allow municipalities to designate lands as a Class 4 Area and approve a new noise sensitive land use with relaxed noise limit levels in an area of existing stationary noise sources to promote intensification. Staff are recommending approval of the Class 4 Area for the site, which would be the first for the City of Kingston, subject to a holding symbol applied to the site-specific land use zone that would require a number of items through Site Plan Control prior to removing the holding. These items consist of a Detailed Noise Study, which is typically required at the site plan stage, which may be required to be peer reviewed at the property owner s expense, as well as any resulting necessary agreements secured and registered on title to address any required mitigation measures on or off site. The feasibility of the site in terms of water, sanitary and electric servicing have been addressed at this stage in the process to the satisfaction of Utilities Kingston and Kingston Hydro. The required cash-in-lieu of parkland will be addressed through the site plan process, as will any required financial compensation that the proponent is required to provide as a result of the loss of any impacted on-street parking spaces. An addendum to the Traffic Impact Study will be required through the site plan process as well to address any required physical mitigation of the proposed vehicular and loading access along Queen Street. The recommended holding symbol also includes a Record of Site Condition to be registered with the Ministry of Environment and Climate Change. The application to amend the Brownfields Community Improvement Plan application has been circulated to external agencies and internal departments for review and comment. All comments 922

48 Report to Planning Committee Report Number PC September 1, 2016 Page 48 of 56 on the proposal have been addressed and no outstanding technical issues with this application remain at this time. Real Estate & Environment Initiatives staff have reviewed the information provided by the applicant in support of their request for a new Project Area within the City of Kingston s Brownfield Community Improvement Plan (CIP). Based on their analysis, the following conclusions have been made with respect the subject site: a. Notwithstanding the closure of the former theatre use in 2012, the subject property has not been substantially underutilized during the last ten years. b. The subject property has suffered contamination of groundwater from the type of chemicals associated with dry cleaning or industrial operations. The subject property is likely not the source of this contamination. It is likely that the contamination originates from historic dry cleaning operations elsewhere in the downtown area. While the concentrations of contaminants present beneath the subject property is not large, they are nevertheless in excess of those required for residential redevelopment as per current Provincial standards (Ontario Regulation 153) and must be managed through a provincially acceptable remediation approach that produces a Record of Site Condition (RSC) before redevelopment can be permitted through building permits. c. The presence of dry cleaning chemicals in the groundwater is likely indicative of a groundwater contamination problem on a larger (perhaps neighbourhood) scale that could impact the redevelopment feasibility of other adjacent properties and may precipitate other requests for brownfields financial assistance. An assessment of the potential source(s) and extents of this groundwater contamination has not been undertaken. d. The property was purchased by the developer in 2015 at what is estimated to be fair market value with no abatement of price for environmental conditions. Therefore, any environmental liability does not appear to have been discounted through recent purchase. e. A review of cost estimates for environmental remediation provided by the applicant indicates that environmental remediation of the property to support an RSC that will support the proposed redevelopment as high density residential could cost up to $950,000 of which most would be classified as Eligible Remediation costs for the purpose of Tax Cancellations (BFTIP) and Tax Rebates (TIRGP) under the existing Brownfields Community Improvement Plan programs. The degree of environmental encumbrance relative to land value and the value of the proposed redevelopment is on the low side relative to many other approved brownfield projects in Kingston indicating that the need for financial assistance, while present, may be less than many other approved projects. f. Based upon the redevelopment plans put forth so far there appears to be the potential for a significant property tax uplift that would be sufficient to fund the rebate of Eligible Rehabilitation Costs with an estimated time to recoup all eligible costs of between 1 and 2 years if existing rules for tax rebating were applied. g. Redevelopment of the property appears to satisfy the definition of urban infill that makes good use of existing municipal infrastructure and is supportive of active transportation 923

49 Report to Planning Committee Report Number PC September 1, 2016 Page 49 of 56 choices. The development is upon a relatively small footprint however and cannot likely be considered neighbourhood scale. h. In addition to, and in anticipation of, the application for a new CIP Project Area the applicant has also applied for brownfields funding for their proposed remediation and redevelopment. The application phase is not yet complete and staff continue to work with the developer. Should the application for a new Project Area be approved staff anticipate bringing forward a further report to Council for consideration of approval of brownfields financing for a new project. The City s Environment Division notes that the creation of a new site-specific Project Area for the site would be an appropriate method for incenting remediation and infill development while realizing additional property tax revenues. They recommend that any new Project Area created for the property be subject to the rules in place within the existing CIP and Project Areas with the following exceptions: a. That eligible rehabilitation costs for a new site-specific Project Area be capped at $950,000 or the amount estimated and that may be approved through a complete Brownfield Financial Benefit application, whichever is less. b. That the annual rebate of Eligible Rehabilitation costs be based upon a maximum of 25% of the pre to post property tax differential rather than the current 80% which for the proposed project is estimated to extend the annual rebate period from 1.5 to 5 years and increase the annual net property tax revenue to the City during the rebate period. c. That financing costs and insurance costs not be included as an Eligible Rehabilitation Cost. d. That exemptions from development charges and impost fees not be permitted. e. That the date at which rebatable Eligible Rehabilitation Costs can be incurred should remain as the date at which City Council approves an application for brownfields funding made by the property owner within an approved CIP Project Area. Public Comments Public Meetings were held on July 2, 2015 and June 16, 2016 with respect to these applications. Additional public consultation was undertaken in the months of July and August, 2016, related to the proposed community benefits for this development. This was facilitated via , social media and web site strategy with the public being asked to direct their feedback to a projectspecific address. The following is a summary of the concerns and questions received through public input to date, including input received with respect to community benefits. To date, no comments have been received with respect to the proposed amendment to the Community Improvement Plan. Concerns have been grouped by general theme. While the section below addressed the concerns that have been received, a number of positive oral and written submissions have been received to date as well. Written correspondence received is included in Exhibit M. A petition of objection to the development containing 33 signatures was submitted at the June 16, 2016 Planning Committee meeting, and was presented to Council at their June 21, 2016 meeting. The petition is attached as Exhibit N. 924

50 Report to Planning Committee Report Number PC Concern: Height/Massing September 1, 2016 Page 50 of 56 Response: Many of the concerns received to date assert that the current height regulations should be adhered to or that there should only be modest relief granted from the height provisions. The current proposal is a 16-storey building including rooftop mechanical and elevator shaft. The proposal now includes many additional elements of design mitigation to address potential adverse impacts. These mitigation measures include additional stepbacks and building articulation at various points of the Queen Street façade, including centralizing the mechanical penthouse as much as possible on the rooftop. The strategic use and mix of proposed building materials also assists to break up the mass of the proposed building in an effective manner. The Official Plan includes an exception policy that contemplates a taller building within the area in which the site is located, provided that an Urban Design study is presented to the satisfaction of the City that meets the land use compatibility policies of Section 2.7. Staff are satisfied that the current proposal incorporates a level of design mitigation to address the relevant considerations of Section 2.7, including shadowing. The staff recommendation has been informed by a peer review of the Urban Design Studies and Heritage Impact Assessments and staff are supportive of the project as currently proposed. Concern: Economic Considerations (i.e. impacts on downtown businesses, property taxes) Response: Many concerns have been received with respect to potential negative impacts of the proposed development on downtown businesses, property taxes and tourism. The nature of these economic concerns is largely outside of land use planning considerations and therefore staff are not able to address them, other than to indicate that the proposed development is expected to make efficient use of recent municipal investments in downtown above and below grade infrastructure, including recreational amenities. The development is expected to augment the vitality of the area, through a positive influence on and synergy with downtown resources, commercial amenities and employment uses. Bringing more residents into the downtown area will provide a greater resident threshold to support the local businesses. Concern: Affordability Response: As discussed within the report, the applicant s submission indicates that 25% of the units will be at or below the Provincial policy Statement definition of affordability based on the 2015 figure from the PPS, which states that 10% below the average resale price is $264,000 in Kingston. This meets the minimum target set out in Section of the Official Plan. The recommended community benefits include the applicant s partnership with the City to apply the City s affordable home ownership program to a maximum of 5% of the units. Concern: Housing Type High Rises Response: Through the Official Plan, the City encourages a broad range of housing types to be implemented. Staff do not feel it is appropriate to exclude a housing type, as the Official Plan policies for this site allow for a tall building, subject to meeting policy tests with respect to compatibility. The strategic direction of the Official Plan places priority for the area in which the development is located to accommodate a significant amount of the residential intensification within the urban boundary. 925

51 Report to Planning Committee Report Number PC September 1, 2016 Page 51 of 56 Concern: Pedestrian and Traffic Impacts on Queen Street Response: A Traffic Impact Study was submitted by the applicant in support of the application. The study concludes that the existing road network can adequately service the proposed development. The applicant will be required to update the study at the site plan stage to include an assessment and recommendations on any required mitigation with respect to the access points and the adjacent pedestrian network. The application now includes fewer on-site parking spaces, which will lessen the vehicular traffic entering and exiting the site. Concern: Noise Impacts Response: The applicant has submitted the required Noise Feasibility Study, which has been reviewed in principle, to the City s satisfaction. The Noise Study identifies that a designation by the municipality for the site as a Class 4 site under Provincial noise guidelines, NPC-300, will be required for this development. A staff recommendation for the approval of this designation has been included in this report, subject to a holding symbol on the zone that will require a detailed noise study to be peer reviewed and approved in a manner that implements any necessary noise mitigation through agreement(s) registered on title. Concern: Wind Impacts Response: A pedestrian wind study and a cladding wind study were submitted by the applicant in support of the application. The findings of the pedestrian wind study indicate that all locations passed the wind criterion used to assess pedestrian wind safety for both at grade and above grade, with the exception of a few locations on the terraces. The report indicates that these areas are expected to be brought to an acceptable condition for wind through landscaping and some mitigation, which would be implemented through Site Plan Control. The cladding wind study was based on the initial design proposal for a 21-storey building with the exterior cladding consisting of mostly glazing. As the cladding has changed from what was initially used as the basis for the cladding wind study, staff will require an update to this study as part of the Site Plan Control application. Concern: Shadowing Impacts Response: The applicant has submitted sun shadow analysis for each submission for this proposal. A sun shadow analysis prepared by the applicant, compares the shadowing anticipated by the as-of-right zoning permissions on the property with those estimated to be generated by the current 16-storeys proposal. The most recent analysis demonstrates that the shadowing is expected to occur from the proposed development exceeds, but is generally in line with that of the as-of-right zoning. The analysis shows the shifting of the shadow from west to east through the hours of the day, such that no property or right of way area is impacted for a significant length of time. Compared to the anticipated shadowing of the original 21-storey proposal, the current proposal does not impact key landmark sites and/or sensitive locations within the area in terms of shadowing, such as the elementary school located at 217 Sydenham Street, Artillery Park Aquatic Centre at 382 Bagot Street, and the Prince of Wales Own Regiment at 100 Montreal Street. The updated sun shadow analysis has demonstrated that the prosed building does not create unacceptable levels of shadowing. Within the Williamsville land use policy context, the guidelines specifically require a minimum of five hours of sunlight within the right-of-way. There 926

52 Report to Planning Committee Report Number PC September 1, 2016 Page 52 of 56 are no such guidelines or policies that are applicable to the subject site. The updated shadowing study submitted by the applicant indicates that the revised submission meets the five hours of sunlight requirement, using the Williamsville Main Street Study as a comparison. Concern: Servicing Response: The applicant has submitted a servicing feasibility study that has been reviewed to the satisfaction of Utilities Kingston. The study confirms that there is existing capacity in the servicing network to accommodate the water and sanitary needs of the development. The efficient use of existing servicing through intensification is a key policy within the Provincial Policy Statement and the Official Plan. Concern: Waste Storage and Collection Response: The application submission allocated space within the ground floor for the storage of refuse. The applicant has confirmed that waste will be collected privately from within the building. Concern: Need for an Official Plan Amendment Response: The review of the proposed development with respect to the policies of the Official Plan has concluded that an Official Plan amendment application is not required. The proposal maintains ground floor commercial frontage on Princess Street and the proposed building does not impact any protected views as set out in the Plan. Staff have concluded that the application has met the policy tests of Section 10A.4.7 to substantiate a taller building in this location in the manner proposed. Concern: Accessibility Response: The application submission advises that the proposed development will meet the target of 15% accessible units from the Ontario Building Code. Concern: Heritage Considerations and Impacts Response: The applicant has submitted heritage impact analysis in support of the application, which has been peer reviewed. The proposed development includes the retention and restoration of the Princess Street theatre façade, which has been identified as having physical/design and contextual cultural heritage value in the Council approved listing of the property under Section 27 of the Ontario Heritage Act (OHA). The removal of the modern theatre portion of the building at 223 Princess Street and a building addition located on the parcel recently added to the proposed development site will require Council notification as per the OHA. The proposed development is consistent with the policies of the Lower Princess Street Heritage Character Area with respect to maintaining a heritage building as a functional structure, using scale, massing, setbacks and materials to site the new development within the heritage context and achieve compatibility with the predominant style and street pattern. The policies of the St. Lawrence Ward Heritage Character area in section 7 of the Official Plan do not offer specific criteria from which to evaluate development proposals. Through the peer review recommendations, the applicant developed an overview of its heritage character and assessed the development s consistency with the proposed heritage character. This 927

53 Report to Planning Committee Report Number PC September 1, 2016 Page 53 of 56 assessment found that the various development mitigation features work together to achieve a built form that is consistent and complementary at the streetwall level and lessens the visual impact of the tower portion of the site. A public comment indicated that the possibility of an interior heritage designation should be pursued. Commentary within the peer review report advised that the design should look at possibilities of retaining more interior features of the former theatre lobby. In response to the peer review recommendation, the addendum to the Heritage Impact Study (HIS) indicates that the interior has undergone a series of alterations as the movie industry evolved and as the ownership changed. At the time when the property was converted to a seven-theatre multiplex, through an extensive 1990 renovation, the HIS addendum indicates that all original finishes and materials were removed, replaced or covered over. Staff are satisfied with the approach to conserve and restore the theatre façade and the implementation of a Heritage Easement Agreement for the property to ensure that exterior heritage attributes and satisfactorily maintained in perpetuity. Concern: Construction/Environmental Clean-Up Impacts on Adjacent Buildings/Properties Response: The applicant has reached out to a neighbouring property owner who had submitted these concerns with a written response. The applicant has advised that they endeavor to work with the neighbouring property owners before and during the construction process to ensure that everyone has an understanding of the various measures being implemented to address potential off-site construction impacts. Input on Proposed Community Benefits Members of the public were invited to submit comments from July 26, 2016 to August 9, 2016, through a dedicated City account on four types of community benefits that the City was exploring with the applicant to secure under Section 37 of the Planning Act. Both positive and negative comments were received and are attached in Exhibit M. Concerns have been grouped by general theme. Concern: City Should not be Negotiating for Community Benefits for this Development Response: Staff and the Peer Reviewer have concluded through the technical review of the supporting studies and plans that the applicant has demonstrated that a taller building with increased density is appropriate for the site. It is therefore prudent for the City to consider the opportunities for community benefits under Section 37 of the Planning Act and Section of the Official Plan. Concern: Proposed benefits are minimal and concern with the public not having access to the financial information at this stage. Concern with a lack of Council endorsed guidelines to guide the consideration of community benefits. Response: Staff and the applicant have engaged in several discussions to put forward a diverse range of community benefits in an effort to obtain benefits in several key areas (heritage conservation, cultural space, affordable housing and public parking supply in the downtown that may include sustainable features for vehicles). The recommendation gives direction to staff to work through the detailed valuations that are required to ensure that the value of the benefits being obtained are in line financially with the value of the additional height and density being 928

54 Report to Planning Committee Report Number PC September 1, 2016 Page 54 of 56 approved for the site. The Planning Division is also currently working on advancing guidelines for community benefits. Concern: Possible Oversaturation of Cultural Venues Response: Comments have been submitted to indicate that there is a current void in the City for a mid-sized cultural venue that can be programmed to accommodate a range of needs within the artistic/cultural community. Effect of Public Input on Draft By-Law Based on the initial submission for a proposed 21-storey building plus mechanical amenity area on the roof, staff had a number of concerns with the project that were also expressed by the public in written and oral comments received during the initial processing. A peer review of the key supporting studies was initiated at that time. Staff have taken the public input into consideration and through detailed discussions and recommendations with the applicant, a number of positive mitigation measures have been incorporated into the development. The draft by-law includes a height map that will govern the maximum height to match the renderings and will ensure that the height and massing mitigation is successfully implemented in a detailed approach. Staff will work with the applicant through the site plan process to ensure that the materials contemplated at this stage in the design will be carried forward to the construction phase to ensure that this design mitigation is successfully implemented as well. Conclusion Statutory Public Meetings were held with respect to the subject applications on July 2, 2015 and June 16, Correspondence received throughout the processing of the applications has been attached to this report. Comments received in writing and orally at the Public Meetings have been addressed within this report. As a result of a review of the application within the context of the supporting studies, overall technical review, municipal and provincial planning documents and legislation and input from members of the public, it is recommended that the proposed zoning by-law amendment and amendment to the Brownfields Community Improvement Plan for 223 Princess Street be approved as recommended in this report. Existing Policy/By-Law: The proposed amendment was reviewed against the policies and guidelines of the Province of Ontario and City of Kingston to ensure that the changes would be consistent with the Province s and the City s vision of development. The following documents were assessed: Provincial Planning Act Provincial Policy Statement, 2014 Municipal City of Kingston Official Plan Zoning By-Law Number City of Kingston Community Improvement Plan for Brownfields Project Areas 1A, 1B and 1C Parkland Dedication By-Law Number

55 Report to Planning Committee Report Number PC September 1, 2016 Page 55 of 56 Downtown and Harbour Architectural Guidelines Downtown Action Plan Design Guidelines for Residential Lots Notice Provisions: An initial Public Meeting was held respecting these applications on July 2, Pursuant to the requirements of the Planning Act, a notice of the statutory Public Meeting was provided by advertisement in the form of signs posted on the subject site 20 days in advance of the Public Meeting. In addition, notices were sent by mail to property owners (according to the latest Assessment Rolls) within 120 metres of the subject property and a courtesy notice was placed in the Kingston Whig-Standard. A second Public Meeting was held respecting these applications on June 16, Pursuant to the requirements of the Planning Act, a notice of the statutory Public Meeting was provided by advertisement in the form of signs posted on the subject site 20 days in advance of the Public Meeting. In addition, notices were sent by mail to property owners (according to the latest Assessment Rolls) within 120 metres of the subject property and a courtesy notice was placed in the Kingston Whig-Standard. The notice of the June 16, 2016 Public Meeting was also mailed to those who had previously requested to be notified of future municipal meetings regarding the applications. A Notice of Regular Meeting was mailed on August 22, 2016, and a courtesy notice was published in the Kingston Whig-Standard on August 23, If the zoning by-law amendment application is approved, a Notice of Passing will be circulated in accordance with the provisions of the Planning Act. If the amendment to the Brownfields Community Improvement Plan application is approved, a Notice of Adoption will be circulated in accordance with the provisions of the Planning Act. At the time of the writing of this report, many pieces of correspondence have been received and have been included as Exhibit M to this report. Any correspondence received after the publishing of this report will be included as an addendum to the Planning Committee agenda. Accessibility Considerations: Not applicable Financial Considerations: Not applicable Contacts: Paige Agnew, Director, Planning, Building & Licensing Services extension 3252 Marnie Venditti, Senior Manager, Client Relations & Development Services extension 3256 Lindsay Lambert, Senior Planner extension

56 Report to Planning Committee Report Number PC Other City of Kingston Staff Consulted: September 1, 2016 Page 56 of 56 The applications were circulated to the relevant internal departments and external agencies for review and comment. The responses to the technical circulation have been addressed in the technical review and included within this comprehensive report. Paul MacLatchy, Environment Director, Real Estate & Environmental Initiatives Department Nathan Richard, Project Manager, Brownfields, Real Estate & Environmental Initiatives Department Exhibits Attached: Exhibit A Draft By-Law and Schedule A to Amend By-Law Number Exhibit B Draft By-Law and Schedules A, B, C, D, E, F and G to Amend By-Law Number Exhibit C Draft By-Law and Schedules A and B to Amend Zoning By-Law Number Exhibit D Key Map Exhibit E Neighbourhood Context (2015) Exhibit F Official Plan, Land Use Exhibit G Zoning By-Law Number , Map 1 Exhibit H Exhibit I Exhibit J Proposed Conceptual Site Plan and Architectural Elevations 3D Massing Renderings Peer Review Reports Exhibit K Public Notification Map (120 metres) July 2, 2015 Exhibit L Public Notification Map (120 metres) June 16, 2016 Exhibit M Exhibit N Exhibit O Public Comments Petition Shadow Study Excerpts 931

57 Page 1 of 2 Exhibit A Clause (x) to Report Number xx PC File Number D By-Law Number 2016-XX A By-Law to Amend By-Law Number A By-Law To Designate Brownfields Project Areas 1A, 1B, 1C and 2 as Community Improvement Areas (223 Princess Street) Passed: Meeting date, 2016 Whereas public meetings were held regarding this amendment on July 2, 2015 and June 16, 2016; and Whereas the Council of The Corporation of the City of Kingston now deems it advisable to further amend By-Law Number ; Now Therefore Be It Resolved that the Council of The Corporation of the City of Kingston, in accordance with the provisions of Section 28 of the Planning Act, R.S.O. 1990, c.p13, hereby enacts as follows: 1. Schedule A to By-Law Number of The Corporation of the City of Kingston, as amended, being a By-Law to Designate Brownfields Project Areas 1A,1B,1C and 2 as Community Improvement Project Areas, be further amended by adding the new Project Area 1D as shown on Schedule A attached hereto; 2. That By-Law Number of The Corporation of the City of Kingston, as amended be further amended by being re-named as A By-Law to Designate Brownfields Project Areas 1A, 1B, 1C,1D and 2 as Community Improvement Project Areas. 3. This by-law shall come into force and take effect on the day that is the day after the last day for filing an appeal pursuant to the Planning Act, provided that no Notice of Appeal is filed to this by-law in accordance with the provisions of Section 17, Subsection 5 of the Planning Act, as amended; and where one or more appeals have been filed within the time period specified, at the conclusion of which, the by-law shall be deemed to have come into full force and take effect on the day the appeals are withdrawn or dismissed, as the case may be. 932

58 Exhibit A City of Kingston By-Law Number 2016-XX Schedule A Page 2 of 2 Given all Three Readings and Passed: [Meeting date], 2016 John Bolognone City Clerk Bryan Paterson Mayor 933

59 Exhibit A QUEEN ST SYDENHAM ST MONTREAL ST PRINCESS ST Planning, Building & Licensing Services a department of Community Services PREPARED BY: J.Partridge DATE: 8/11/2016 SCHEDULE 'A' TO BY-LAW NO. Applicant: FOTENN Consultants Incorporated Owner: IN8 (The Capitol) Developments Incorporated File Numbers: D Address: 223 Princess Street Metres 1:1, E Legend: The City of Kingston, Community Improvement Plan: Subject Lands added as Commmunity Improvement Project Area 1D Certificate of Authentication This is Schedule 'A' to By-Law No., passed this day of Mayor Clerk

60 BLVD Exhibit B JOHN COUNTER BLVD SIR JOHN A. MACDONALD LEROY GRANT DR ELLIOTT AVE Project Area 1A KIRKPATRICK ST OAK ST KINGSCOURT AVE SEVENTH AVE DIVISION ST RAILWAY ST ST LEROY GRANT DR VICTORIA ST MONTREAL Great Cataraqui River BATH RD CONCESSION ST Subject Lands 223 Princess Street Add as 'Project Area 1D' CONCESSION ST PINE ST STEPHEN ST PALACE RD YORK ST Project Area 1C VICTORIA ST PRINCESS ST JOHNSON ST BROCK ALFRED ST ST ORDNANCE ST QUEEN ST WELLINGTON ST LA SALLE CAUSEWAY HWY 2 UNION ST Community Improvement Project Area Urban Boundary Railway Lines KING ST W BARRIE ST WEST ST KING ST E ONTARIO ST Project Area 1B Lake Ontario Planning, Building & Licensing Services a department of Community Services SCHEDULE 'B' TO BY-LAW NUMBER Applicant: FOTENN Consultants Incorporated Owner: IN8 (The Capitol) Developments Incorporated File Numbers: D & D Address: 223 Princess Street Legend: Map1, Community Improvement Plan, Project Areas: Subject Lands added as Project Area 1D Certificate of Authentication This is Schedule 'B' to By-Law Number passed this day of PREPARED BY: J.Partridge DATE: 7/19/ :22,835 Metres 935 Mayor Clerk

61 Page 1 of 2 Exhibit B Clause (x) to Report PC-16-XXX File Number D By-Law Number 2016-XX A By-Law To Amend By-Law Number A By-Law To Adopt The Community Improvement Plan For Brownfields Project Areas 1A, 1B, 1C and 2 (223 Princess Street) Passed: Meeting date, 2016 Whereas public meetings were held regarding the proposed amendments on July 2, 2015 and June 16, 2016; Now Therefore the Council of the Corporation of the City of Kingston, in accordance with provisions of Section 28 of the Planning Act, R.S.O. 1990, c.p13, hereby enacts as follows: 1. Schedule A to By-Law Number of The Corporation of the City of Kingston, being a By-Law to Adopt the Community Improvement Plan for Brownfields Project Areas 1A, 1B, 1C and 2 be amended by adding the new Sections as shown on Schedule A attached hereto; 2. By-Law Number of The Corporation of the City of Kingston be re-named as A By-Law to Adopt the Community Improvement Plan for Brownfields Project Areas 1A, 1B,1C, 1D and 2 ; 3. Replace Map Number 1 of Schedule A (Community Improvement Project Areas Key Map) with Map1 attached hereto as Schedule B ; 4. Replace Map Number 2 of Schedule A (Official Plan Designations in the Project Areas) with Map 2 attached hereto as Schedule C ; 5. Replace Map Number 3 of Schedule A (Zoning Categories in the Project Areas) with Map 3 attached hereto as Schedule D ; 6. Replace Map Number 4 of Schedule A (Existing Land Uses in the Project Area, 2004) with Map 4 attached hereto as Schedule E ; 7. Replace Map Number 5 of Schedule A (Buildings, Vacant Lands and Tax Sale Properties, 2004) with Map 5 attached hereto as Schedule F ; 8. Replace Map Number 6 of Schedule A (Development Potential of Vacant Land and Davis Tannery Site in Project Areas 1A, 1B, and 1C) with Map 6 attached hereto as Schedule G ; 936

62 Exhibit B City of Kingston By-Law Number XX Schedule A Page 2 of 2 9. This By-Law shall come into force and take effect on the day that is the day after the last day for filing an appeal pursuant to the Planning Act, provided that no Notice of Appeal is filed to this by-law in accordance with the provisions of the Planning Act, as amended; and where one or more appeals have been filed within the time period specified, at the conclusion of which, the by-law shall be deemed to have come into force and take effect on the day the appeals are withdrawn or dismissed, as the case may be. Given all Three Readings and Passed: [Meeting date], 2016 John Bolognone City Clerk Bryan Paterson Mayor 937

63 Exhibit B Proposed Draft Text Changes to the Brownfields Community Improvement Plan 3.0.B Community Improvement Project Area 1D (223 Princess Street) 3.0.B.1 Project Area Description The property known municipally as 223 Princess Street is an irregularly shaped lot with an area of 2,538.5 m 2. The irregular shape of the lot is a result of the property s large screening areas owing to its former use as the Capitol Theatre; the first large scale movie theatre to be constructed in Kingston. In addition, the lot features frontages on both Queen Street (41 m frontage) and Princess Street (9 m frontage) as it is a through lot. Princess Street is a traditional main street mostly characterized by historic commercial style buildings composed largely of ground floor retail with some residential generally 2-3 storeys above and featuring brick and iconic Kingston stone masonry with modern additions throughout. The area of Princess Street in which the property is located is within the main retail area of downtown Kingston and subsequently experiences significant pedestrian traffic and activity. The area adjacent to the Queen Street frontage features a greater diversity of neighboring uses including residential, commercial and a few community buildings such as churches and a museum. In addition, Queen Street acts as the service end for many businesses along Princess Street, thus features several service lanes and loading areas. Most of the nearby residential building stock consists of single detached dwellings and walk up apartment buildings with a few larger apartment buildings in the surrounding area. 3.0.B.2 General Characteristics Area and Population Community Improvement Project Area 3 is located on Princess Street which acts as the dividing line of Kingston s Inner Harbour and Sydenham neighborhoods. According to neighbourhood data from the 2011 Census and National Household Survey, the Inner Harbour neighbourhood has a total population of 7,270 persons (refer to Table 6). The Inner Harbour neighborhood has a high proportion of residents in the 20 to 34 age cohort but also comprises a significant number of baby boomers. There are on average 1.8 persons per household in the neighborhood; 44% of which reside in apartment buildings with fewer than 5 storeys and 19% of residents live in single detached houses with the remaining residents occupying various other housing types. 938

64 Exhibit B Table 6. Demographics of the Inner Harbour neighborhood. According to 2011 Census data, Kingston s Sydenham neighborhood had a total population of 3,450 and has a demographic profile similar to that of the Inner Harbour neighborhood with a significant proportion of residents in the 20 to 34 age demographic. However, the neighborhood is comprised of significantly less baby boomers and low numbers of residents under the age of 19 (refer to Table 7). Most residents in the neighborhood live in apartment buildings with 47% occupying apartment buildings with 5 or more storeys and 38% inhabiting apartment buildings fewer than 5 storeys. 939

65 Exhibit B Table 7 Demographics of the Sydenham Neighborhood. The transportation network around the site features different road types and levels of use. Princess Street is characterized by two lanes of one way traffic with on street parking along both sides of the road. The on street parking and widened sidewalks contribute to traffic calming, thus preserving the pedestrian nature of the area. Queen Street is composed of 4 lanes going both east and west with some on street parking as well as access to surface parking lots. In addition, the site is well serviced by the transit network along Princess Street, Brock Street, and Montreal Street. Though there are some dedicated bike lanes in the surrounding area, such as on Montreal Street and Brock Street, the subject property is not directly adjacent to any bike lanes and cyclists are required to share the lanes with motorists. There are many community facilities and amenities present in the area along both Princess Street and in the areas surrounding the site. Princess Street features a large variety of commercial and retail sites. Additionally, several schools are located in the neighbourhood and nearby area including Central Public School, King s Town School, Cathedral Catholic School, and Sydenham Public School. Several retirement and longterm care facilities are located in the area including The Retirement Home, Elizabeth Cottage, and Retire-At-Home Services which offers assisted living services to the elderly in their own homes. Child care services are offered nearby through the Old Macdonald s Day Care. Within 1000 m of 223 Princess Street there are 5 large parks and several smaller parks as well as Kingston s downtown waterfront and some recreational amenities for instance the Artillery Park Aquatic Centre and Confederation Basin Marina. 940

66 Exhibit B 3.0.B.3 History and Context Though the original date of construction on the site is unknown, it is likely the site was first developed sometime in the late 1800 s as there is evidence a barbershop operated out of a one and a half storey building fronting onto Princess Street from at least 1894 until The rear portion of the lot which fronted onto Queen Street was undeveloped and formed part of the lot for the residence and workshop next door which remained as such until 1920 when the residence was demolished to make way for the auditorium of the new Allen Theatre, completed in the same year. It was not until 1923 that the theatre was renamed the Capitol Theatre and over the coming decades several additions and renovations were completed to form the modern structure and footprint of the property we see today up until the theatre s closure in Due to the historical nature of the area in which the site is located as well as the commercial environment where it stands, there is a litany of potential historical contamination issues; some of which may be untraceable and unidentifiable. Several properties in the area and adjacent to the site have been identified as having potential impacts on soil and groundwater due to the nature of their uses as well as the groundwater flow direction. A number of dry cleaners have historically been located in the vicinity of 223 Princess Street along with automotive uses, printing and dying, and underground storage tanks. In addition, there are a number of documented spills and hazardous material releases in the area that could have impacted soil and groundwater on the site given their proximity. A Phase 2 Environmental Site Assessment completed in 2014 identified soil samples taken from the site that had levels of zinc and lead above the Ministry of Environment and Climate Change s standards along with some of the groundwater samples that contained levels of volatile organic compounds, mercury, and petroleum hydrocarbons exceeding the acceptable limit. Remediation and proper disposal of contaminated soil and groundwater is necessary. 3.0.B.4 Existing Land Use 223 Princess Street is located within Kingston s designated Central Business District as well as the Downtown & Harbour Special Policy Area s Lower Princess Street Retail Area. Kingston s downtown core is intended to be the city s centre of activity supporting a broad range of uses in a compact and pedestrian friendly environment that embraces its history and sense of place. The former use of the property as a movie theatre provided the downtown with entertainment for over 90 years and the now vacant site is in a prime location to once again add to the vibrancy of the City. The City of Kingston s Official Plan policies emphasize commercial uses that would support the historical nature and pedestrian orientation of the downtown such as retail, offices, professional and services uses, tourism and hospitality, arts, culture, entertainment and recreation. The property is located in an area of mandatory ground floor commercial frontage along 941

67 Exhibit B Princess Street, however, medium and high density residential uses are encourage above commercial ground floor space. The site is zoned Central Business District (C1) and Site Specific Central Business District (C1-3) as per Zoning By-law This zone is defined by a maximum building height of 4 storeys, not to exceed 17 metres and allows the following permitted uses: commercial establishment, specialty retail store, offices, community or recreation centres, club, bank, restaurant, commercial entertainment establishment, commercial recreation facility, dry cleaning outlet, bake shop, amusement arcade, apartment dwelling and senior citizen apartment dwelling. 3.0.B.5 Development Potential An application is currently underway for a proposal to redevelop the site as a 17 storey mixed use in-fill style development with a combination of commercial and residential floors complimented by a parking structure, green roofs and communal rooftop terraces. The proposed development would be comprised of 212 residential units, ranging from 1 to 3 bedrooms, in addition to a 750 square meter commercial space and 146 parking spaces located in the lower level and first three floors along the Queen Street frontage. The old theatre s entry and façade along Princess Street are proposed to be conserved as part of the development and the residential tower portion of the development is to be stepped back from the Princess Street frontage and located above the parking structure along Queen Street. The proposed redevelopment will require a Zoning By-law amendment that would rezone the current Central Business System C1 and a portion of the site zoned Heritage Commercial C1-3 to a site specific C1 zone. The amendment is asking for relief from front yard requirements; building height along the angular plane; build-to-plane height; angular plane; density; off street parking and barrier free parking requirements; and bicycle parking stall dimensions. Additionally, the property is designated Central Business District according to the Official Plan, which permits a broad range of commercial uses in addition to medium and high density residential. The property is also located within an identified centre that, according to Section of the Official Plan, is identified as a mixed use development area where intensification and increases in height and density are permitted under the condition that infrastructure requirements are met. Redevelopment of infill and vacant properties such as 223 Princess Street offers the opportunity to lessen the impact on greenfield sites and promotes efficient re-use of land and existing infrastructure (e.g. transit and road network, sewage and water treatment, etc.) without negatively impacting the character of the surrounding area. The development is expected to add approximately 400 new residents to the Downtown 942

68 Exhibit B area and will hopefully bolster its commercial, cultural, and recreational activity while supporting local business and adding to the vibrant main street character that Princess Street has to offer. 943

69 Exhibit B 3.0.B.6 Brownfields Program Components and Eligibility Criteria for Community Improvement Project Area 1D (223 Princess Street) The policies of Section 5.0 of this CIP apply to Community Improvement Project Area 1D (223 Princess Street) with the following exceptions: a. That Eligible Rehabilitation costs for a new site-specific project area be capped at $950,000 or the amount estimated and that may be approved through a complete Brownfield Financial Benefit application, whichever is less; b. That the annual rebate of Eligible Rehabilitation costs be based upon a maximum of 25% of the pre to post property tax differential rather than the current 80% which for the proposed project is estimated to extend the annual rebate period from 1.5 to 5 years and increase the annual net property tax revenue to the City during the rebate period; c. That financing costs and insurance costs not be included as an Eligible Rehabilitation Cost, d. That exemptions from development charges and impost fees not be permitted; and e. That the date at which rebatable Eligible Rehabilitation Costs can be incurred should remain as the date at which City Council approves an application for brownfield funding made by the property owner within an approved CIP Project Area. 944

70 BLVD Exhibit B JOHN COUNTER BLVD SIR JOHN A. MACDONALD LEROY GRANT DR ELLIOTT AVE Project Area 1A KIRKPATRICK ST OAK ST KINGSCOURT AVE SEVENTH AVE DIVISION ST RAILWAY ST ST LEROY GRANT DR VICTORIA ST MONTREAL Great Cataraqui River BATH RD CONCESSION ST Subject Lands 223 Princess Street Add as 'Project Area 1D' CONCESSION ST PINE ST STEPHEN ST PALACE RD YORK ST Project Area 1C VICTORIA ST PRINCESS ST JOHNSON ST BROCK ALFRED ST ST ORDNANCE ST QUEEN ST WELLINGTON ST LA SALLE CAUSEWAY HWY 2 UNION ST Community Improvement Project Area Urban Boundary Railway Lines KING ST W BARRIE ST WEST ST KING ST E ONTARIO ST Project Area 1B Lake Ontario Planning, Building & Licensing Services a department of Community Services SCHEDULE 'B' TO BY-LAW NUMBER Applicant: FOTENN Consultants Incorporated Owner: IN8 (The Capitol) Developments Incorporated File Numbers: D & D Address: 223 Princess Street Legend: Map1, Community Improvement Plan, Project Areas: Subject Lands added as Project Area 1D Certificate of Authentication This is Schedule 'B' to By-Law Number passed this day of PREPARED BY: J.Partridge DATE: 7/19/ :22,835 Metres 945 Mayor Clerk

71 DALTON AVE CONACHER DR Exhibit B LEROY GRANT DR JOHN COUNTER BLVD ELLIOTT AVE SIR JOHN A. MACDONALD BLVD KIRKPATRICK ST OAK ST KINGSCOURT AVE SEVENTH AVE DIVISION ST RAILWAY ST ST VICTORIA ST MONTREAL Great Cataraqui River BATH RD LEROY GRANT DR CONCESSION ST CONCESSION ST STEPHEN ST PALACE RD PRINCESS ST PINE ST Subject Lands 223 Princess Street ALFRED ST YORK ST VICTORIA ST JOHNSON ST BROCK ST ORDNANCE ST QUEEN ST WELLINGTON ST LA SALLE CAUSEWAY HWY 2 Community Improvement Project Area Official Plan Designation Arterial Commercial Central Business District District Commercial EPA Submerged Vegetation Environmental Protection Area Planning, Building & Licensing Services a department of Community Services PREPARED BY: J.Partridge DATE: 8/11/2016 UNION ST SCHEDULE 'C' TO BY-LAW NUMBER Applicant: FOTENN Consultants Incorporated Owner: IN8 (The Capitol) Developments Incorporated File Numbers: D Address: 223 Princess Street Metres 1:22,868 General Industrial Harbour Area Institution Main Street Commercial Open Space Residential 946 E BARRIE ST WEST ST Legend: KING ST E ONTARIO ST Lake Ontario Map 2, Community Improvement Plan, Official Plan Designations: Designated Central Business District Certificate of Authentication This is Schedule 'C' to By-Law Number, passed this day of Mayor Clerk

72 DALTON AVE CONACHER DR Exhibit B LEROY GRANT DR JOHN COUNTER BLVD ELLIOTT AVE SIR JOHN A. MACDONALD BLVD KIRKPATRICK ST OAK ST KINGSCOURT AVE SEVENTH AVE DIVISION ST RAILWAY ST ST VICTORIA ST MONTREAL Great Cataraqui River BATH RD LEROY GRANT DR CONCESSION ST CONCESSION ST STEPHEN ST PRINCESS ST Subject Lands 223 Princess Street PINE ST YORK ST PALACE RD Community Improvement Project Area Project Areas - Zoning Categories Commercial- 'C', 'C1', 'CMS' zones 'EPA' zones Harbour- 'HR' zones Industrial- 'M' zones Parks & Open Space- 'P', OS' zones Residential- 'A', 'B' zones Special Education and Medical- 'E' zones Subject Lands Planning, Building & Licensing Services a department of Community Services PREPARED BY: A. Dowker DATE: 7/18/2016 VICTORIA ST UNION ST JOHNSON ST BROCK SCHEDULE 'D' TO BY-LAW NUMBER Applicant: FOTENN Consultants Incorporated Owner: IN8 (The Capitol) Developments Incorporated File Numbers: D Address: 223 Princess Street Metres 1:22,899 ALFRED ST ST 947 E BARRIE ST ORDNANCE ST QUEEN ST WEST ST Legend: KING ST E WELLINGTON ST ONTARIO ST LA SALLE CAUSEWAY Lake Ontario Map 3, Community Improvement Plan, Zoning Categories: Subject Lands zoned as 'Commercial' Certificate of Authentication This is Schedule 'D' to By-Law Number, passed this day of Mayor HWY 2 Clerk

73 SIR JOHN A. MACDONALD BLVD Exhibit B LEROY GRANT DR JOHN COUNTER BLVD ELLIOTT AVE KIRKPATRICK ST KINGSCOURT AVE OAK ST SEVENTH AVE DIVISION ST RAILWAY ST ST VICTORIA ST MONTREAL Great Cataraqui River BATH RD LEROY GRANT DR CONCESSION ST CONCESSION ST STEPHEN ST PINE ST PALACE RD PRINCESS ST ALFRED ST YORK ST Subject Lands 223 Princess Street HWY 2 VICTORIA ST JOHNSON ST BROCK ST ORDNANCE ST QUEEN ST WELLINGTON ST LA SALLE CAUSEWAY Community Improvement Project Area Subject Lands Existing Land Use (2012) Commercial Industrial Institutional Planning, Building & Licensing Services a department of Community Services PREPARED BY: A. Dowker DATE: 7/19/2016 UNION ST SCHEDULE 'E' TO BY-LAW NUMBER KING ST W Applicant: FOTENN Consultants Incorporated Owner: IN8 (The Capitol) Developments Incorporated File Numbers: D Address: 223 Princess Street Metres 1:22,923 Marine Transportation Open Space/Recreational Municipal/Commercial Parking Lot Residential Road Vacant 948 BARRIE ST E WEST ST KING ST E Legend: ONTARIO ST Lake Ontario Map 4, Community Improvement Plan, Existing Land Use (2012): Subject Lands added as 'Commercial' Existing Land Use Certificate of Authentication This is Schedule 'E' to By-Law Number, passed this day of Mayor Clerk

74 ER BLVD SIR JOHN A. MACDONALD BLVD LEROY GRANT DR Exhibit B Inset Map A JOHN COUNTER BLVD MONTREAL ST MONTREAL ST DALTON AVE ELLIOTT AVE DIVISION ST DIVISION ST ELLIOTT AVE CONACHER DR JOHN COUNTER BLVD MONTREAL ST MONTREAL ST Refer to Inset Map A DIVISION ST PRINCESS ST BATH RD Legend RAILWAY ST PRINCESS ST BATH RD JOHNSON ST Subject Lands PALACE RD UNION ST Inset Map B PRINCESS ST PALACE RD BATH RD BROCK ST RAILWAY ST CONCESSION ST JOHNSON ST MONTREAL ST UNION ST LEROY GRANT DR PRINCESS ST BROCK ST JOHNSON ST Community Improvement Project Area Railway Lines Failed Tax Sale Properties Municipal / Commercial Parking Lot Vacant Buildings Planning, Building & Licensing Services a department of Community Services OAK ST VICTORIA ST VICTORIA ST KIRKPATRICK ST VICTORIA ST KINGSCOURT AVE KING ST W ALFRED ST UNION ST SCHEDULE 'F' TO BY-LAW NUMBER VICTORIA ST ALFRED ST BROCK ST DIVISION ST JOHNSON ST ALFRED ST DIVISION ST DIVISION ST YORK ST UNION ST RAILWAY ST STEPHEN ST YORK ST KING ST W Applicant: FOTENN Consultants Incorporated Owner: IN8 (The Capitol) Developments Incorporated File Numbers: D & D Address: 223 Princess Street QUEEN ST BROCK ST BARRIE ST RAILWAY ST MONTREAL ST ORDNANCE ST QUEEN ST BROCK ST KING ST E WEST ST MONTREAL ST Text JOHNSON ST MONTREAL ST WELLINGTON ST QUEEN ST KING ST E Legend: KING ST E ONTARIO ST ONTARIO ST PRINCESS ST Subject Lands Refer to Inset Map B G r e a t C a t a r a LA SALLE CAUSEWAY Map 5, Buildings, Vacant Lands & Failed Tax Sale Properties, 2012 i v e r q u i R 223 PRINCESS STREET HWY 2 Certificate of Authentication This is Schedule 'F' to By-Law Number passed this day of HWY 2 PREPARED BY: J.Partridge DATE: 8/25/ :24,163 Metres 949 Mayor Clerk

75 BLVD Exhibit B LEROY GRANT DR JOHN COUNTER BLVD ELLIOTT AVE KIRKPATRICK ST SIR JOHN A. MACDONALD LEROY GRANT DR OAK ST VICTORIA ST KINGSCOURT AVE SEVENTH AVE DIVISION ST RAILWAY ST ST MONTREAL Great Cataraqui River BATH RD CONCESSION ST CONCESSION ST PINE ST STEPHEN ST Subject Lands 223 Princess Street PALACE RD PRINCESS ST ALFRED ST YORK ST HWY 2 Davis Tannery Special Site Community Improvement Project Area Official Plan Land Use Arterial Commercial Central Business District District Commercial Planning, Building & Licensing Services a department of Community Services PREPARED BY: A. Dowker DATE: 8/11/2016 VICTORIA ST BROCK JOHNSON ST UNION ST SCHEDULE 'G' TO BY-LAW NUMBER Applicant: FOTENN Consultants Incorporated Owner: IN8 (The Capitol) Developments Incorporated File Numbers: D Address: 223 Princess Street Metres 1:21,041 ST EPA and Open Space General Industrial Harbour Area Institutional Main Street Commercial Residential Railway Lines 950 BARRIE ST E QUEEN ST Legend: ORDNANCE ST KING ST E WELLINGTON ST PLACE ONTARIO ST D'ARMES LA SALLE CAUSEWAY Map 6, Community Improvement Plan, Development Potential of Vacant Land Subject Lands added as Community Improvement Project Area Certificate of Authentication This is Schedule 'G' to By-Law Number, passed this day of Mayor Clerk

76 Page 1 of 6 Exhibit C Clause (x) to Report PC File Number D By-Law Number 2016-XX A By-Law to Amend By-Law Number , Downtown and Harbour Zoning By- Law for The Corporation of The City of Kingston (Zone Change from Central Business System C1 Zone and Heritage Commercial C1-3 Zone to Site-Specific Central Business System C1.42-H Zone, 223 Princess Street) Passed: [Meeting Date] 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 Number , as amended, of the as amended, of the former City of Kingston; Therefore be it resolved that the Council of the Corporation of the City of Kingston hereby enacts as follows: 1. By-Law Number of The Corporation of the City of Kingston, entitled Downtown and Harbour Zoning By-Law for The Corporation of the City of Kingston, as amended, is hereby further amended as follows: 1.1. Map 1 of Schedule A, as amended, is hereby further amended by changing the zone symbol of the subject site from Central Business System C1 Zone and Heritage Commercial C1-3 Zone to Site-Specific Central Business System C1.42-H Zone, as shown on Schedule A attached to and forming part of By- Law Number By Adding a new subsection thereto as follows: Princess Street Notwithstanding the provisions of this By-law to the contrary, for the lands designated C1-42 on Schedule A hereto, the following regulations shall apply to the C1-42 zone: Definitions 951

77 Exhibit C City of Kingston By-Law Number 2016-XXX Page 2 of 6 Mixed Commercial/Residential Development shall mean a building or structure which is used for a mixture of commercial and residential uses where the ground floor frontage of Princess Street shall be used for commercial purposes, excluding a parking structure. 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: (i) (ii) (iii) Common areas open to all occupants of the unit; Areas used for sanitary (such as a washroom) or cooking purposes (such as a kitchen); and, Areas occupied by mechanical equipment, such as furnaces, hot water heaters, and laundry equipment Permitted Uses The only permitted uses shall be the following: Auditorium or Public Hall Art Gallery Bakery Bake Shop Bank or Financial Establishment Church or Religious Institution Commercial Entertainment Establishment Commercial Establishment Commercial Recreational Facility Commercial School Computer Programming Establishment Community Home Community or Recreation Centre Community Support House Convenience Store Crisis Care Shelter Data Processing Establishment 952

78 Exhibit C City of Kingston By-Law Number 2016-XXX Page 3 of 6 Day Care Centre Drugstore/Pharmacy Dry Cleaning Outlet Florist Food Store Funeral Home Government Office Home Occupation Laundry, Coin Operated Liquor or Beer Store Medical Clinic Medical Office Mixed Commercial/Residential Development, with residential uses permitted on the ground floor Nursing Home Office Office Supply and Equipment Sales, Rental and Service Parking Structure Personal Service Establishment Pet-Grooming Establishment Photo or Artist Studio Photocopying or Blueprinting Shop Photofinishing Establishment Postal or Courier Service Private Social and Cultural Facility Public Use Radio or Television Studio Recovery Home Rental Outlet Repair Service Residential Care Facility 953

79 Restaurant Regulations Restaurant, Outdoor Patio Restaurant, Take-Out Service Establishment Specialty Retail Store Telecommunications Services (a) Building Height Exhibit C City of Kingston By-Law Number 2016-XXX Page 4 of 6 (i) No part of the building shall exceed the height limits in metres as shown on Schedule B, attached hereto and forming part of this By-Law (ii) Height shall be measured from the finished floor grade of metres geodetic. (b) The maximum angular plane shall not apply. (c) Front Yard (minimum) (d) Build To Plane (minimum) 0 metres 0 metres (e) Density (maximum) The maximum number of residential units shall be 212 (f) The maximum number of bedrooms per residential unit shall be 3 (g) Residential dwellings are not permitted on the 16 th floor. (h) Off-Street Parking (minimum) 0.68 parking spaces per residential unit (i) Parking Space Dimensions (minimum) (i) Parking spaces shall have minimum dimensions of 2.6 metres wide by 5.2 metres long. (ii) Barrier free parking spaces shall have a minimum length of 5.2 metres. (iii)bicycle Parking (a) Horizontal parking stalls shall have minimum dimensions of 1.5 metres by 0.3 metres. 954

80 Exhibit C City of Kingston By-Law Number 2016-XXX Page 5 of 6 (b) Vertical parking stalls shall have minimum dimensions of 1.2 metres by 0.4 metres. (j) A minimum of 1 loading space shall be required. (k) An equipped children s play area shall not be required. (l) Holding Zone Provisions The use and removal of the Holding (H) Symbol shall be in accordance with the provisions of Section 6.3 of this By-Law. (i) Removal of Holding Symbol The Holding Symbol shall not be removed until such time as the following requirements have been met to the satisfaction of the municipality: (a) Record of Site Condition prepared and registered by a qualified person as defined by the municipality and is completed to the satisfaction of the municipality with demonstrated adherence to all municipal and provincial requirements; (b) Completion and Peer Review of a Detailed Noise Study by a qualified person as defined by the municipality in accordance with demonstrated adherence and provincial requirements. The peer review cost shall be borne by the applicant. The Detailed Noise Study shall include any necessary mitigation measures resulting from Council s approval of the site as a Class 4 area under NPC-300. The mitigation measures shall be secured in any required agreements, including the Site Plan Control agreement registered on title prior to the removal of the Holding Symbol; and (c) Securement and registration of any required agreements with respect to community benefits of the development under Section 37 of the Planning Act. 955

81 Exhibit C City of Kingston By-Law Number 2016-XXX Page 6 of 6 2. This by-law shall come into force and take effect on the day it is passed subject to and in accordance with the provisions of the Planning Act, R.S.O. 1990, c. P. 13 as amended from time to time. Given all Three Readings and Passed: [Meeting Date] John Bolognone City Clerk Bryan Paterson Mayor 956

82 CLERGY ST E COLBORNE ST SYDENHAM ST QUEEN ST Exhibit C Zoning By-Law Downtown & Harbour Planning, Building & Licensing Services a department of Community Services PREPARED BY: J.Partridge DATE: 8/12/ SYDENHAM ST BROCK ST SCHEDULE 'A' TO BY-LAW NUMBER PRINCESS ST OPERA LANE Applicant: FOTENN Consultants Incorporated Owner: IN8 (The Capitol) Developments Incorporated File Number: D Address: 223 Princess Street Metres 1:2, E MONTREAL ST LEGEND Reference By-Law Rezoned from C1 to C1-42-H 278 Rezoned from C1-3 to C1-42-H BAGOT ST Certificate of Authentication This is Schedule 'A' to By-Law Number, passed this day of Mayor 136 Clerk

83 Exhibit C Height Map H=Height (Metric Unit) Planning, Building & Licensing Services a department of Community Services PREPARED BY: J.Partridge DATE: 8/11/2016 SCHEDULE 'B' TO BY-LAW NUMBER Applicant: FOTENN Consultants Incorporated Owner: IN8 (The Capitol) Developments Incorporated File Number: D Address: 223 Princess Street 958 E LEGEND Reference By-Law Applies to Lands Zoned C1-42 Certificate of Authentication This is Schedule 'B' to By-Law Number, passed this day of Mayor Clerk

84 CLERGY ST E Planning, Building & Licensing Services a department of Community Services BROCK ST COLBORNE ST SYDENHAM ST PLANNING COMMITTEE KEY MAP PRINCESS ST 116 BATH RD QUEEN ST OPERA LANE KING ST W Applicant: FOTENN Consultants Incorporated Owner: IN8 (The Capitol) Developments Incorporated File Numbers: D & D Address: 223 Princess Street CONTEXT MAP PALACE RD CONCESSION ST UNION ST PRINCESS ST JOHNSON ST ORDNANCE ST ALFRED ST DIVISION ST YORK ST 104 BROCK ST BARRIE ST MONTREAL ST MONTREAL ST KING ST E WELLINGTON ST LEGEND Exhibit D LA SALLE CAUSEWAY Subject Property HWY Property Boundaries HWY 15 BAGOT ST E PREPARED BY: J.Partridge DATE: 5/26/ Metres 1:2, Disclaim er: This document is subject to copyright and m ay only be used for your personal, noncom m ercial use provided you keepintact the copyright notice. The City of Kingston assumes no responsibility for any errors, and is not liable for any dam ages of any kind resulting from the use of, or reliance on, the inform ation contained in this docum ent. The City of Kingston does not make any representation or warranty, express or implied, concerning the accuracy, quality, or reliability of the use of the information contained in this document The Corporation of the City of Kingston.

85 CO LB O RN E ST S Y D E N H A M S T QU EE N ST Exhibit E BR OC K ST PR I NC ES S ST OPERA LANE MONTREAL ST B A G O T S T PLANNING COMMITTEE NEIGHBOURHOOD CONTEXT (2015) LEGEND E Planning, Building & Licensing Services a department of Community Services Applicant: FOTENN Consultants Incorporated Owner: IN8 (The Capitol) Developments Incorporated File Numbers: D & D Address: 223 Princess Street Subject Property Property Boundaries Metres 1:2,000 PREPARED BY: J.Partridge DATE: 5/26/ Disclaim er: This document is subject to copyright and m ay only be used for your personal, noncom m ercial use provided you keepintact the copyright notice. The City of Kingston assumes no responsibility for any errors, and is not liable for any dam ages of any kind resulting from the use of, or reliance on, the inform ation contained in this docum ent. The City of Kingston does not make any representation or warranty, express or implied, concerning the accuracy, quality, or reliability of the use of the information contained in this document The Corporation of the City of Kingston.

86 CLERGY ST E COLBORNE ST SYDENHAM ST QUEEN ST Exhibit F BROCK ST PRINCESS ST MONTREAL ST BAGOT ST PLANNING COMMITTEE OFFICIAL PLAN, Land Use LEGEND E Planning, Building & Licensing Services a department of Community Services Applicant: FOTENN Consultants Incorporated Owner: IN8 (The Capitol) Developments Incorporated File Numbers: D & D Address: 223 Princess Street Subject Property Central Business District Institution Open Space Residential Metres 1:2,000 PREPARED BY: J.Partridge DATE: 5/26/ Disclaim er: This document is subject to copyright and m ay only be used for your personal, noncom m ercial use provided you keepintact the copyright notice. The City of Kingston assumes no responsibility for any errors, and is not liable for any dam ages of any kind resulting from the use of, or reliance on, the inform ation contained in this docum ent. The City of Kingston does not make any representation or warranty, express or implied, concerning the accuracy, quality, or reliability of the use of the information contained in this document The Corporation of the City of Kingston.

87 A A C A C1-1 C1-32 C1-39 C1-1 C C C1-31 C C1-3 B C1-1 Planning, Building & Licensing Services a department of Community Services C COLBORNE ST C1-1 C C BROCK ST SYDENHAM ST C PLANNING COMMITTEE C C PRINCESS ST QUEEN ST OPERA LANE ZONING BY-LAW , Map 1 C1-5 Applicant: FOTENN Consultants Incorporated Owner: IN8 (The Capitol) Developments Incorporated File Numbers: D & D Address: 223 Princess Street Legal Description: PLAN OS PT LOTS ; AND 318 LOT 316 AND RP;13R1797 PART 1 & PLAN OS PT LOTS AND;318 RP 13R5239 PARTS 2 3 AND;5 RP 13R14039 PART 1 A C MONTREAL ST LEGEND C1-14 C1 Exhibit G P BAGOT ST 382 C Consolidated Zoning Subject Property Property Boundaries C1-4 E PREPARED BY: J.Partridge DATE: 5/26/ Metres 1:2, Disclaim er: This document is subject to copyright and m ay only be used for your personal, noncom m ercial use provided you keepintact the copyright notice. The City of Kingston assumes no responsibility for any errors, and is not liable for any dam ages of any kind resulting from the use of, or reliance on, the inform ation contained in this docum ent. The City of Kingston does not make any representation or warranty, express or implied, concerning the accuracy, quality, or reliability of the use of the information contained in this document The Corporation of the City of Kingston.

88 N77 40'30"W N77 58'20"W N77 43'30"W N76 42'30"W N76 18'30"W N76 39'30"W 1 MAY 22, 2015 LY SSUED FOR ZBA Rev 1 DESIGNED BY: DRAWN BY: CHECHED BY: DATE: LY SCALE HORIZ: LY SCALE VERT: JS FILE NUMBER: SHEET NUMBER: As indicated As indicated A1.1 PROVISION REQUIREMENT PROPOSED THE CONTRACTOR SHALL CHECK AND VERIFY ALL DIMENSIONS AND REPORT ANY ERRORS OR OMISSIONS TO THE CONSULTANT BEFORE COMMENCING OR PROCEEDING WITH ANY WORK DO NOT SCALE THIS DRAWING ZONING C1 & C1-3 LOT AREA (min) Nil m² FRONTAGE (min) Nil 9.176m FRONT YARD (min) Princess St. - 0m 0m Queen St. - ap prox. 1.0m 0m SIDE YARD (min) Nil 0m EXT. SIDE YARD (min) Nil N/A REAR YARD (min) Nil N/A BLDG. HEIGHT (max) PRINCESS STREET KEY MAP N.T.S LEGAL DESCRIPTION LOT 316, PART OF LOTS 309, 310, 317 & 318 ORIGINAL SURVEY CITY OF KINGSTON LEGAL DESCRIPTION PROVIDED BY HOPKINS CHITTY LAND SURVEYORS INC. DATED ON JAN. 30, 2015 MAY 22, 2015 LY N 4 JUL. 22, 2016 LY ISSUED FOR ZBA Rev. 3 3 MAY 02, 2016 LY ISSUED FOR ZBA Rev. 2 2 CONSTRUCTION NORTH PARKING ENTRANCE TO UPPER FLOORS PARKING ENTRANCE TO LOWER FLOORS EXIST. BLDG. 239 EXIST. BLDG. EXIST. BLDG. EXIST. BLDG. EXIST. BLDG. EXIST. BLDG. EXIST. BLDG. EXIST. BLDG. 237 ISSUED FOR ZBA Rev. 1 1 APR LY ISSUED FOR ZBA APPROVALS IBI GROUP ARCHITECTS (CANADA) Inc Albert Street Waterloo ON N2L 3V3 Canada tel fax ibigroup.com BUILDING ENTRANCE N12 19'30"E N12 19'30"E EXIST. BLDG N12 19'30"E EXIT ASPHALT 235 EXIST. BLDG N13 09'40"E N12 40'50"E N77 00'00"W N12 47'50"E COURTYARD N10 45'10"E PROPOSED 16 STOREY APARTMENT BUILDING EXIST. BLDG. 227 FINISHED FLOOR ELEVATION EXIST. BLDG. 225 N12 41'20"E EXIST. BLDG. 219 EXIST. BLDG. 170 RIGHT OF WAY EXIT 166 EXIST. RETAINING WALL EXIST. BLDG N12 53'50"E EXIT FIRE DEPARTMENT CONNECTION EXISTING CONC. SITE WALK 1 Storey,12.8m (exist.) max. height: 4 Storey, not to exceed 17m 4 Storey, 16.8m QUEEN STREET Build-to-Plane: 4 Storey, not to exceed 17m 2 storey, 11m angular plane: 6 Storey, not ot exceed 25.5m 16 storey, 52.4m angular plane: BUILD-to-PLANE Princess St. - 0m 0m Queen St. - ap prox. 1.0m 0m BLDG. HEIGHT (min) 2 storeys, not less than 8.5m 2 storey, 11m DENSITY (max) 123 unit/ha 836 unit/ha NUM. OF UNIT (max) BLDG COVERAGE 50~100% 2,307m², 91% GROSS FLOOR AREA RESIDENTIAL 23,182m² COMMERCIAL 750m² TOTAL 23,932m² LANDSCAPE AREA IMPERMEABLE AREA PARKING B.F. PARKING 963 BICYCLE PARKING LOADING 1 BEDROOM 2 BEDROOM 3 BEDROOM TOTAL: AT GRADE: 62m², 2.4% 6 AT ROOF: 46m², 25.4% TOTAL: 708m², 27.8% 100m², 4% COMMERCIAL RESIDENTIAL TOTAL SPACES 106 SIZE: 2.75m x 5.8m w/ 6.0m aisle 2.6x5.2m, 6.0m aisle 10 SPACES 6 SIZE: 3.7m x 6.0m 3.7m x 5.2m CLEARANCE: 2.9m 2.75m RESTAURANT: 0 0 COMMERCIAL: 0 0 RESIDENTIAL: 1/unit = TOTAL: 212 SPACES 212 Nil 1 NUM. OF UNIT NUM. OF BEDROOM REQUIRED AMENITY AREA PROVIDED 1 BEDROOM 64 x (10m²/unit) = 640m² 2 BEDROOM 130 x (35m²/unit) = 4200m² 6655m² 3 BEDROOM 28 x (60m²/unit) = 1680m² TOTAL: 6520m² INDOOR SHARED AMENITY PROVIDED 1st FLOOR ARCADE 150 m² LOBBY 65 m² 2nd FLOOR GYM 140 m² 4th FLOOR MEETING ROOM 40 m² THEATER 30 m² LOUNGE 80 m² PENTHOUSE SKY LOUNGE 80 m² TOTAL: 585 m² OUTDOOR AMENITY PR OVIDED 3rd FLOOR TERRACE 332m² 4th FLOOR TERRACE 0m² 5th FLOOR TERRACE 187m² PENTHOUSE TERRACE 436m² 3-16th FLOOR BALCONY 709m² TOTAL: 1911m² PRIVATE AMENITY AREA PROVIDE LIVING AREA 4159m² N10 14'05"E EX. ASPHALT DRIVEWAY EXISTING CONC. SITE WALK +/ EXIST. +/ EXIST. PATIO PAVER, SEE LA DWGS EXIST. 30A BLDG. EXIST. CHAIN LINK FENCE EXIST. UP EXIST. BLDG. GENERAL NOTES: 1. GARBAGE ROOM PROVIDED INSIDE BUILDING. LOADING SPACE PROVIDED ON SITE. 2. ALL SNOW STORAGE TO BE PROVIDED OFFSITE. 3. BIKE STORAGE PROVIDED INSIDE BUILDING. EACH PARKING SPACE INCLUDING ONE CEILING MOUNTED BIKE RACK. SITE PLAN - ROOF SCALE: 1 : 200 CITY OF KINGSTON IN8 (The Capitol) DEVELOPMENTS Inc. 223 PRINCESS STREET SITE PLAN - ROOF LEVEL Exhibit H

89 N77 40'30"W N77 58'20"W N77 43'30"W N76 42'30"W N76 39'30"W N76 18'30"W THE CONTRACTOR SHALL CHECK AND VERIFY ALL DIMENSIONS AND REPORT ANY ERRORS OR OMISSIONS TO THE CONSULTANT BEFORE COMMENCING OR PROCEEDING WITH ANY WORK DO NOT SCALE THIS DRAWING PARKING ENTRANCE TO UPPER FLOORS 23m TO EX. FH 1 A5.1 PARKING ENTRANCE TO LOWER FLOORS EXIT FIRE DEPARTMENT CONNECTION 3000 TYP. EXISTING CONC. SITE WALK 964 SYDENHAM STREET N10 14'05"E N12 19'30"E N12 19'30"E RIGHT OF WAY EX. ASPHALT DRIVEWAY CACF EXIST. TRANSFORMER 195 BLDG. VEST. 189 EXIST. BLDG. EXIST. 187 BLDG. EXIST. BLDG EXIST. BLDG. RAMP UP 3% SLOPE UP 1 A5.2 LOADING BIKE ROOM EXIST. AREA BLDG. 34 BIKES ELECT. ROOM ASPHALT EXIT N12 19'30"E BIKE STORAGE LOADING RM 1 GARBAGE RAMP UP RAMP DN VEST. EXIST. BLDG VEST. 8 EXIST. 9 EXIST. 181 BLDG. RESIDENTIAL LOBBY 30A BLDG KEY MAP N.T.S N12 53'50"E N12 41'20"E EXIST. CHAIN LINK FENCE 4 JUL. 22, 2016 LY ISSUED FOR ZBA Rev. 3 EXIST. UP 3 MAY 02, 2016 LY ISSUED FOR ZBA Rev. 2 2 MAY 22, 2015 LY ISSUED FOR ZBA Rev. 1 1 APR LY ISSUED FOR ZBA N CONSTRUCT RUCTION NORTH N10 45'10"E BIKE ROOM MAIL 37 BIKES PATIO COMMERCIAL PAVER, SEE LA DWGS A5.2 VEST. COURTYARD N13 09'40"E N12 40'50"E N12 47'50"E EXIT EXIST. RETAINING WALL ARCADE APPROVALS RIGHT OF WAY EXIST. EXIST. EXIST. BLDG. BLDG. BLDG. EXIST. EXIST. BLDG. BLDG. EXIST. EXIST. EXIST. BLDG. BLDG. BLDG IBI GROUP ARCHITECTS (CANADA) Inc Albert Street Waterloo ON N2L 3V3 Canada N77 00'00"W tel fax EXISTING CONC. SITE WALK ibigroup.com BUILDING ENTRANCE LINE OF CANOPY ABOVE CITY OF KINGSTON 1 A5.1 IN8 (The Capitol) DEVELOPMENTS Inc. GROUND FLOOR PLAN 223 PRINCESS STREET SCALE: 1 : 200 GROUND FLOOR PLAN DESIGNED BY: LY SCALE HORIZ: 1 : 200 DRAWN BY: LY SCALE VERT: 1 : 200 CHECHED BY: JS FILE NUMBER: DATE: 04/17/2015 SHEET NUMBER: A2.1 Exhibit H

90 THE CONTRACTOR SHALL CHECK AND VERIFY ALL DIMENSIONS AND REPORT ANY ERRORS OR OMISSIONS TO THE CONSULTANT BEFORE COMMENCING OR PROCEEDING WITH ANY WORK DO NOT SCALE THIS DRAWING 1 A5.1 1 A A SLOPE UP 5% MAX FUTURE CHARGING UTILITY ROOM STATION RAMP UP VEST. 20 VEST A5.2 RAMP UP VEST BIKE STORAGE LOCKER VEST RAMP 30 UP 27 RAMP DN 26 VEST. COMMERCIAL VEST. LOCKER VEST. VEST LOBBY COMMERCIAL BIKE STORAGE KEY MAP N.T.S BIKE ROOM 87 BIKES 2 A5.2 LOCKER VESTIBULE OPEN TO BELOW TERRACE N CONSTRUCTION NORTH 4 JUL. 22, 2016 LY ISSUED FOR ZBA Rev. 3 3 MAY 02, 2016 LY ISSUED FOR ZBA Rev. 2 2 MAY 22, 2015 LY ISSUED FOR ZBA Rev. 1 1 APR LY ISSUED FOR ZBA GYM APPROVALS OPEN TO BELOW 1 A5.1 IBI GROUP ARCHITECTS (CANADA) Inc Albert Street Waterloo ON N2L 3V3 Canada tel fax ibigroup.com BASEMENT FLOOR PLAN 2nd FLOOR PLAN 1 CITY OF KINGSTON SCALE: 1 : 200 SCALE: 1 : 200 A5.1 IN8 (The Capitol) DEVELOPMENTS Inc. 223 PRINCESS STREET BASEMENT & 2nd FLOOR PLAN DESIGNED BY: LY SCALE HORIZ: 1 : 200 DRAWN BY: LY SCALE VERT: 1 : 200 CHECHED BY: JS FILE NUMBER: DATE: 04/17/15 SHEET NUMBER: A2.2 Exhibit H

91 THE CONTRACTOR SHALL CHECK AND VERIFY ALL DIMENSIONS AND REPORT ANY ERRORS OR OMISSIONS TO THE CONSULTANT BEFORE 1 1 COMMENCING OR PROCEEDING WITH ANY A5.1 A5.1 WORK DO NOT SCALE THIS DRAWING PLANTER, SEE LA DWGS. TYP. TERRACE UNIT UNIT UNIT UNIT 1 1 A5.2 A5.2 UNIT UNIT UNIT UNIT UNIT UNIT UNIT UNIT PLANTER, SEE LA DWGS. TYP. KEY MAP N.T.S UNIT UNIT UNIT UNIT PLANTER, SEE LA DWGS. TERRACE UNIT UNIT UNIT UNIT TERRACE OPEN TO BELOW PLANTER, SEE LA DWGS. UNIT UNIT UNIT UNIT UNIT UNIT UNIT UNIT SERVICE UNIT LOCKER RM 2 A5.2 UNIT UNIT LOUNGE THEARTER TERRACE TERRACE UNIT 2 A5.2 MEETING RM UNIT UNIT TERRACE PLANTER UNIT UNIT JUL. 22, 2016 LY ISSUED FOR ZBA Rev. 3 3 MAY 02, 2016 LY ISSUED FOR ZBA Rev. 2 2 MAY 22, 2015 LY ISSUED FOR ZBA Rev. 1 1 APR LY ISSUED FOR ZBA APPROVALS N CONSTRUCTION NORTH 1 A5.1 1 A5.1 3rd FLOOR PLAN 4th FLOOR PLAN IBI GROUP ARCHITECTS SCALE: 1 : 200 SCALE: 1 : 200 (CANADA) Inc Albert Street Waterloo ON N2L 3V3 Canada tel fax ibigroup.com CITY OF KINGSTON IN8 (The Capitol) DEVELOPMENTS Inc. 223 PRINCESS STREET FLOOR PLANS DESIGNED BY: LY SCALE HORIZ: 1 : 200 DRAWN BY: LY SCALE VERT: 1 : 200 CHECHED BY: JS FILE NUMBER: DATE: 04/17/15 SHEET NUMBER: A2.3 Exhibit H

92 THE CONTRACTOR SHALL CHECK AND VERIFY ALL DIMENSIONS AND REPORT ANY ERRORS OR OMISSIONS TO THE CONSULTANT BEFORE COMMENCING OR PROCEEDING WITH ANY WORK 1 DO NOT SCALE THIS DRAWING A5.1 1 A5.1 UNIT UNIT UNIT UNIT UNIT 1 1 A5.2 A5.2 UNIT UNIT UNIT UNIT UNIT UNIT UNIT KEY MAP N.T.S UNIT UNIT UNIT UNIT UNIT UNIT UNIT UNIT UNIT UNIT UNIT UNIT UNIT UNIT UNIT UNIT UNIT UNIT 967 UNIT 2 A5.2 TERRACE SEE LA DWG VEST UNIT GREEN ROOF SEE LA DWGS. N CONSTRUCTION NORTH 4 JUL. 22, 2016 LY ISSUED FOR ZBA Rev. 3 3 MAY 02, 2016 LY ISSUED FOR ZBA Rev. 2 2 MAY 22, 2015 LY ISSUED FOR ZBA Rev. 1 1 APR LY ISSUED FOR ZBA APPROVALS 1 A5.1 1 A5.1 TYPICAL FLOOR PLAN 5th FLOOR PLAN (6-10th FLOOR) SCALE: 1 : 200 SCALE: 1 : 200 IBI GROUP ARCHITECTS (CANADA) Inc Albert Street Waterloo ON N2L 3V3 Canada tel fax ibigroup.com CITY OF KINGSTON IN8 (The Capitol) DEVELOPMENTS Inc. 223 PRINCESS STREET FLOOR PLANS DESIGNED BY: LY SCALE HORIZ: 1 : 200 DRAWN BY: LY SCALE VERT: 1 : 200 CHECHED BY: JS FILE NUMBER: DATE: 04/17/15 SHEET NUMBER: A2.4 Exhibit H

93 .. THE CONTRACTOR SHALL CHECK AND VERIFY DESIGNED BY: DRAWN BY: CHECHED BY: DATE: LY SCALE HORIZ: LY SCALE VERT: JS FILE NUMBER: 04/16/15 SHEET NUMBER: 1 : : A2.5 ALL DIMENSIONS AND REPORT ANY ERRORS OR OMISSIONS TO THE CONSULTANT BEFORE COMMENCING OR PROCEEDING WITH ANY WORK DO NOT SCALE THIS DRAWING UNIT UNIT UNIT UNIT KEY MAP N.T.S UNIT UNIT GREEN ROOF SEE LA DWGS. UNIT UNIT UNIT UNIT PLANTER, TYP. UNIT UNIT LINE OF TRELLIS ABOVE UNIT UNIT TERRACE SEE LA DWG MECH. 968 UNIT UNIT SKY LOUNGE N CONSTRUCTION NORTH 4 JUL. 22, 2016 LY ISSUED FOR ZBA Rev. 3 3 MAY 02, 2016 LY ISSUED FOR ZBA Rev. 2 2 MAY 22, 2015 LY ISSUED FOR ZBA Rev. 1 1 APR LY ISSUED FOR ZBA APPROVALS TYPICAL FLOOR PLAN (11-15th FLOOR) SCALE: 1 : th FLOOR PLAN (ROOF TERRACE) SCALE: 1 : 200 IBI GROUP ARCHITECTS (CANADA) Inc Albert Street Waterloo ON N2L 3V3 Canada tel fax ibigroup.com CITY OF KINGSTON IN8 (The Capitol) DEVELOPMENTS Inc. 223 PRINCESS STREET FLOOR PLANS Exhibit H

94 THE CONTRACTOR SHALL CHECK AND VERIFY DESIGNED BY: DRAWN BY: CHECHED BY: DATE: LY SCALE HORIZ: LY SCALE VERT: JS FILE NUMBER: 04/17/15 SHEET NUMBER: 1 : : A4.1 ALL DIMENSIONS AND REPORT ANY ERRORS OR OMISSIONS TO THE CONSULTANT BEFORE COMMENCING OR PROCEEDING WITH ANY WORK DO NOT SCALE THIS DRAWING KEY MAP N.T.S ROOF T/O FLOOR LEVEL 16 T/O FLOOR LEVEL 15 T/O FLOOR LEVEL 14 T/O FLOOR LEVEL 13 T/O FLOOR LEVEL 12 T/O FLOOR LEVEL 11 T/O FLOOR LEVEL 10 T/O FLOOR LEVEL 9 T/O FLOOR LEVEL 8 T/O FLOOR LEVEL 7 T/O FLOOR LEVEL 6 T/O FLOOR JUL. 22, 2016 LY ISSUED FOR ZBA Rev. 3 LEVEL 5 T/O FLOOR MAY 02, 2016 LY ISSUED FOR ZBA Rev. 2 2 MAY 22, 2015 LY ISSUED FOR ZBA Rev APR LY ISSUED FOR ZBA LEVEL 4 T/O FLOOR APPROVALS LEVEL 3 T/O FLOOR LEVEL 2 T/O FLOOR LEVEL 1 T/O FLOOR PRINCESS STREET RIGHT OF WAY EXIST. BUILDING EXIST. BUILDING CONC. SIDEWALK QUEEN STREET IBI GROUP ARCHITECTS (CANADA) Inc Albert Street Waterloo ON N2L 3V3 Canada tel fax ibigroup.com CITY OF KINGSTON EAST ELEVATION SCALE: 1 : 150 IN8 (The Capitol) DEVELOPMENTS Inc. 223 PRINCESS STREET EAST ELEVATION Exhibit H

95 THE CONTRACTOR SHALL CHECK AND VERIFY DESIGNED BY: DRAWN BY: CHECHED BY: DATE: LY SCALE HORIZ: LY SCALE VERT: JS FILE NUMBER: 04/17/15 SHEET NUMBER: 1 : : A4.2 ALL DIMENSIONS AND REPORT ANY ERRORS OR OMISSIONS TO THE CONSULTANT BEFORE COMMENCING OR PROCEEDING WITH ANY WORK DO NOT SCALE THIS DRAWING KEY MAP N.T.S LEVEL 16 T/O FLOOR LEVEL 15 T/O FLOOR LEVEL 14 T/O FLOOR LEVEL 13 T/O FLOOR LEVEL 12 T/O FLOOR LEVEL 11 T/O FLOOR LEVEL 10 T/O FLOOR LEVEL 9 T/O FLOOR LEVEL 8 T/O FLOOR LEVEL 7 T/O FLOOR LEVEL 6 T/O FLOOR LEVEL 5 T/O FLOOR JUL. 22, 2016 LY ISSUED FOR ZBA Rev. 3 3 MAY 02, 2016 LY ISSUED FOR ZBA Rev. 2 2 MAY 22, 2015 LY ISSUED FOR ZBA Rev. 1 1 APR LY ISSUED FOR ZBA LEVEL 4 T/O FLOOR 3000 APPROVALS LEVEL 3 T/O FLOOR LEVEL 2 T/O FLOOR LEVEL 1 T/O FLOOR AVERAGE GRADING (91.123) IBI GROUP ARCHITECTS (CANADA) Inc Albert Street Waterloo ON N2L 3V3 Canada tel fax ibigroup.com CITY OF KINGSTON IN8 (The Capitol) DEVELOPMENTS Inc. NORTH ELEVATION (QUEEN STREET) SCALE: 1 : PRINCESS STREET NORTH ELEVATION Exhibit H

96 THE CONTRACTOR SHALL CHECK AND VERIFY DESIGNED BY: DRAWN BY: CHECHED BY: DATE: LY SCALE HORIZ: LY SCALE VERT: JS FILE NUMBER: 04/17/15 SHEET NUMBER: 1 : : A4.3 ALL DIMENSIONS AND REPORT ANY ERRORS OR OMISSIONS TO THE CONSULTANT BEFORE COMMENCING OR PROCEEDING WITH ANY WORK DO NOT SCALE THIS DRAWING KEY MAP N.T.S ROOF T/O FLOOR LEVEL 16 T/O FLOOR LEVEL 15 T/O FLOOR LEVEL 14 T/O FLOOR LEVEL 13 T/O FLOOR LEVEL 12 T/O FLOOR LEVEL 11 T/O FLOOR LEVEL 10 T/O FLOOR LEVEL 9 T/O FLOOR LEVEL 8 T/O FLOOR LEVEL 7 T/O FLOOR LEVEL 6 T/O FLOOR LEVEL 5 T/O FLOOR LEVEL 4 T/O FLOOR LEVEL 3 T/O FLOOR LEVEL 2 T/O FLOOR UPPER ENTRANCE T/O FLOOR QUEEN STREET CONC. SIDEWALK EXIST. BUILDING PRINCESS STREET 4 JUL. 22, 2016 LY ISSUED FOR ZBA Rev. 3 3 MAY 02, 2016 LY ISSUED FOR ZBA Rev. 2 2 MAY 22, 2015 LY ISSUED FOR ZBA Rev. 1 1 APR LY ISSUED FOR ZBA APPROVALS IBI GROUP ARCHITECTS (CANADA) Inc Albert Street Waterloo ON N2L 3V3 Canada tel fax ibigroup.com CITY OF KINGSTON IN8 (The Capitol) DEVELOPMENTS Inc. 223 PRINCESS STREET WEST ELEVATION SCALE: 1 : 150 WEST ELEVATION Exhibit H

97 THE CONTRACTOR SHALL CHECK AND VERIFY DESIGNED BY: DRAWN BY: CHECHED BY: DATE: LY SCALE HORIZ: LY SCALE VERT: Checker FILE NUMBER: 04/22/16 SHEET NUMBER: 1 : : A4.4 ALL DIMENSIONS AND REPORT ANY ERRORS OR OMISSIONS TO THE CONSULTANT BEFORE COMMENCING OR PROCEEDING WITH ANY WORK DO NOT SCALE THIS DRAWING KEY MAP N.T.S ROOF T/O FLOOR LEVEL 16 T/O FLOOR LEVEL 15 T/O FLOOR LEVEL 14 T/O FLOOR LEVEL 13 T/O FLOOR LEVEL 12 T/O FLOOR LEVEL 11 T/O FLOOR LEVEL 10 T/O FLOOR LEVEL 9 T/O FLOOR LEVEL 8 T/O FLOOR LEVEL 7 T/O FLOOR LEVEL 6 T/O FLOOR JUL. 22, 2016 LY ISSUED FOR ZBA Rev. 3 3 MAY 02, 2016 LY ISSUED FOR ZBA Rev. 2 2 MAY 22, 2015 LY ISSUED FOR ZBA Rev. 1 LEVEL 5 T/O FLOOR APR LY ISSUED FOR ZBA LEVEL 4 T/O FLOOR 3000 APPROVALS LEVEL 3 T/O FLOOR / EXISTING BUILDING HEIGHT EXIST. BUILDING LEVEL 2 T/O FLOOR LEVEL 1 T/O FLOOR 4050 EXIST. BUILDING AVERAGE GRADING (90.65) IBI GROUP ARCHITECTS (CANADA) Inc Albert Street Waterloo ON N2L 3V3 Canada tel fax ibigroup.com CITY OF KINGSTON SOUTH ELEVATION (PRINCESS STREET) SCALE: 1 : 150 ACCESS TO THE RESTAURANT PATIO IN8 (The Capitol) DEVELOPMENTS Inc. 223 PRINCESS STREET SOUTH ELEVATION Exhibit H

98 THE CONTRACTOR SHALL CHECK AND VERIFY DESIGNED BY: DRAWN BY: CHECHED BY: DATE: LY SCALE HORIZ: LY SCALE VERT: Checker FILE NUMBER: 04/29/16 SHEET NUMBER: 1 : : A4.4. ALL DIMENSIONS AND REPORT ANY ERRORS OR OMISSIONS TO THE CONSULTANT BEFORE COMMENCING OR PROCEEDING WITH ANY WORK DO NOT SCALE THIS DRAWING KEY MAP N.T.S ROOF T/O FLOOR LEVEL 16 T/O FLOOR LEVEL 15 T/O FLOOR LEVEL 14 T/O FLOOR LEVEL 13 T/O FLOOR LEVEL 12 T/O FLOOR LEVEL 11 T/O FLOOR LEVEL 10 T/O FLOOR LEVEL 9 T/O FLOOR LEVEL 8 T/O FLOOR LEVEL 7 T/O FLOOR LEVEL 6 T/O FLOOR LEVEL 5 T/O FLOOR LEVEL 4 T/O FLOOR LEVEL 3 T/O FLOOR / EXISTING BUILDING HEIGHT 4 JUL. 22, 2016 LY ISSUED FOR ZBA Rev. 3 3 MAY 02, 2016 LY ISSUED FOR ZBA Rev. 2 2 MAY 22, 2015 LY ISSUED FOR ZBA Rev. 1 1 APR LY ISSUED FOR ZBA APPROVALS 5100 LEVEL 2 T/O FLOOR EXIST. BUILDING EXIST. BUILDING 4050 LEVEL 1 T/O FLOOR SOUTH ELEVATION (PRINCESS STREET) SCALE: 1 : 150 AVERAGE GRADING (90.65) ACCESS TO THE RESTAURANT PATIO IBI GROUP ARCHITECTS (CANADA) Inc Albert Street Waterloo ON N2L 3V3 Canada tel fax ibigroup.com CITY OF KINGSTON IN8 (The Capitol) DEVELOPMENTS Inc. 223 PRINCESS STREET SOUTH ELEVATION Exhibit H

99 FRE E DOW N LO A RE VI T CAR S. C O M tel THE CONTRACTOR SHALL CHECK AND VERIFY ALL DIMENSIONS AND REPORT ANY ERRORS OR OMISSIONS TO THE CONSULTANT BEFORE COMMENCING OR PROCEEDING WITH ANY WORK DO NOT SCALE THIS DRAWING KEY MAP N.T.S ROOF T/O FLOOR LEVEL 16 T/O FLOOR LEVEL 15 T/O FLOOR LEVEL 14 T/O FLOOR LEVEL 13 T/O FLOOR LEVEL 12 T/O FLOOR LEVEL 11 T/O FLOOR LEVEL 10 T/O FLOOR LEVEL 9 T/O FLOOR LEVEL 8 T/O FLOOR LEVEL 7 T/O FLOOR LEVEL 6 T/O FLOOR BUILDING HEIGHT SKY LOUNGE UNIT OUTDOOR AMENITY MECH. UNIT UNIT UNIT UNIT UNIT UNIT UNIT UNIT UNIT UNIT UNIT UNIT UNIT UNIT UNIT UNIT UNIT UNIT UNIT MAX. BLDG. HEIGHT 25.5m QUEEN STREET JUL. 22, 2016 LY ISSUED FOR ZBA Rev MAY 02, 2016 LY ISSUED FOR ZBA Rev. 2 MAX. BLDG. HEIGHT 17m HEIGHT AT 1 MAY 22, 2015 LY ISSUED FOR ZBA Rev. 1 UNIT UNIT BUILD-TO-PLANE LEVEL 5 OUTDOOR AMENITY 17m 1 APR LY ISSUED FOR ZBA T/O FLOOR LEVEL 4 T/O FLOOR LEVEL 3 T/O FLOOR LEVEL 2 T/O FLOOR LEVEL 1 T/O FLOOR UPPER BASEMENT T/O FLOOR BASEMENT T/O FLOOR PRINCESS STREET +/ EXIST. AVERAGE GRADING (90.65) BUILDING HEIGHT BUILD TO PLANE BUILDING SECTION SCALE: 1 : 150 GYM UNIT UNIT AMENITY AMENITY UNIT LOCKER RM COMMERCIAL PARKING IBI GROUP ARCHITECTS (CANADA) Inc Albert Street PARKING ARCADE AVERAGE GRADING RESIDENTIAL LOBBY (91.123) Waterloo ON N2L 3V3 Canada fax ibigroup.com APPROVALS PARKING CITY OF KINGSTON IN8 (The Capitol) DEVELOPMENTS Inc. 223 PRINCESS STREET BUILDING SECTION DESIGNED BY: LY SCALE HORIZ: 1 : 150 DRAWN BY: LY SCALE VERT: 1 : 150 CHECHED BY: JS FILE NUMBER: DATE: 04/17/15 SHEET NUMBER: A5.1 Exhibit H

100 THE CONTRACTOR SHALL CHECK AND VERIFY ALL DIMENSIONS AND REPORT ANY ERRORS OR OMISSIONS TO THE CONSULTANT BEFORE COMMENCING OR PROCEEDING WITH ANY WORK DO NOT SCALE THIS DRAWING KEY MAP N.T.S 975 ROOF T/O FLOOR LEVEL 16 T/O FLOOR UNIT LEVEL 15 T/O FLOOR UNIT LEVEL 14 T/O FLOOR UNIT LEVEL 13 T/O FLOOR UNIT LEVEL 12 T/O FLOOR UNIT LEVEL 11 T/O FLOOR UNIT LEVEL 10 T/O FLOOR UNIT LEVEL 9 T/O FLOOR UNIT LEVEL 8 T/O FLOOR UNIT LEVEL 7 T/O FLOOR UNIT LEVEL 6 T/O FLOOR JUL. 22, 2016 LY ISSUED FOR ZBA Rev. 3 UNIT 3 MAY 02, 2016 LY ISSUED FOR ZBA Rev. 2 LEVEL 5 T/O FLOOR 2 MAY 22, 2015 LY ISSUED FOR ZBA Rev MAX. BLDG. HEIGHT 17m 1 APR LY ISSUED FOR ZBA BUILDING HEIGHT PROPERTY LINE UNIT LEVEL 5 LEVEL 4 T/O FLOOR T/O FLOOR APPROVALS UNIT AMENITY LEVEL 4 LEVEL 3 T/O FLOOR T/O FLOOR UNIT LEVEL 3 LOCKER RM PARKING T/O FLOOR PARKING LEVEL 2 T/O FLOOR BIKE COMMERCIAL LEVEL 2 LOADING ELECT. T/O FLOOR PARKING IBI GROUP ARCHITECTS LEVEL 1 (CANADA) Inc. T/O FLOOR EXIST. BLDG Albert Street Waterloo ON N2L 3V3 Canada PARKING tel fax PARKING LEVEL 1 ARCADE PATIO ibigroup.com BASEMENT T/O FLOOR T/O FLOOR CITY OF KINGSTON 1 BUILDING SECTION 2 BUILDING SECTION A5.2 SCALE: 1 : 150 A5.2 SCALE: 1 : 150 IN8 (The Capitol) DEVELOPMENTS Inc. 223 PRINCESS STREET BUILDING SECTIONS DESIGNED BY: LY SCALE HORIZ: 1 : 150 DRAWN BY: LY SCALE VERT: 1 : 150 CHECHED BY: JS FILE NUMBER: DATE: 04/17/15 SHEET NUMBER: A5.2 Exhibit H

101 Exhibit I Figure 4: Summary of improvements (looking southwest) PLANNING LETTER 223 PRINCESS STREET IN8 DEVELOPMENTS 6 976

102 Exhibit I Figure 5: Summary of improvements (looking northeast) PLANNING LETTER 223 PRINCESS STREET IN8 DEVELOPMENTS 7 977

103 Exhibit J January 26, 2016 Lindsay Lambert MCIP, RPP, Senior Planner Planning Division, Community Services City of Kingston llambert@cityofkingston.ca RE: 223 PRINCESS STREET, KINGSTON PEER REVIEW REPORT Dear Ms Lambert, The purpose of this Peer Review Report is to provide the City of Kingston with an objective review of the redevelopment proposal for 223 Princess Street with specific regard to Kingston s heritage, planning, and urban design policies. The following documents were reviewed as part of this process: Applicant materials Cultural Heritage Impact Assessment prepared by Metropolitan Design/Commonwealth Resource Management, dated May 2015 (revised August 2015) Urban Design Report prepared by FOTENN Consultants Inc., dated April 17, 2015 (revised May 20, 2015) Planning Rationale Report prepared by FOTENN Consultants Inc., revised May 22, 2015 Architectural drawings prepared by IBI Group, dated May 22, 2015 City of Kingston materials Heritage Impact Statement Requirements, dated March 25, 2013 Report Number PC to Planning Committee, dated July 2, 2015 Official Plan, consolidated May 15, 2015 Downtown and Harbour Zoning By-law No Downtown Action Plan, 2003 Downtown and Harbour Area Architectural Guidelines Study, dated December 6, 2007 Additional reference materials City of Toronto Tall Building Design Guidelines City of Toronto Avenues and Mid-Rise Buildings Study City of Vancouver Downtown Policies & Guidelines Standards and Guidelines for the Conservation of Historic Places in Canada Ontario Heritage Tool Kit 978 Page 1 of 20

104 Exhibit J Development Proposal The Zoning By-law Amendment Site Plan Control applications submitted on behalf of IN8 The Capitol Developments Inc. proposes the redevelopment of 223 Princess Street with a 20 storey mixed-use building with frontage on both Princess and Queen Streets. The application requests relief from the Zoning By-law related to the setback on Queen Street, the overall building height, angular plane and build-to-plane requirements, density, off street parking (number of spaces and size) and barrier free parking (number of spaces and size). Review of Cultural Heritage Impact Assessment (CHIA) by Metropolitan Design / Commonwealth Resource Management (Revised August 2015) The August 2015 CHIA, which responds to preliminary staff comments, provides most of the basic information required by the City of Kingston and is a revision to the original May 2015 CHIA. The site at 223 Princess Street is not officially recognized as a heritage resource by the City of Kingston. The CHIA proposes the restoration of the Princess Street façade and the marquee. No interior architectural features were identified in the report for conservation. The general cultural heritage strategy for the site as proposed in the CHIA is reasonable and appropriate, but is subject to the City s review of the interior. A site visit to review the interior of the theatre was not undertaken as part of this peer review. The site is surrounded by buildings that contribute to the heritage character of the area, including the Grand Theatre on the opposite side of Princess Street. In keeping with the City of Kingston s HIS requirements and heritage best practices in general, the CHIA should be updated to include additional information in order to provide a fuller understanding of the on-site and adjacent heritage resources and impacts of the proposed development on the immediate and surrounding heritage context. The question of compatibility as it relates to scale, building massing and height remains a key concern. The CHIA does not adequately assess the compatibility of the proposed 20-storey development with the recognized heritage resources and the defined character of the Lower Princess Street and St. Lawrence Ward Heritage Character Areas. In addition, the CHIA refers to a mid-rise residential project, which is not consistent with the proposed development. In the Official Plan, compatible is defined in part as development co-existing in harmony and being evaluated by measurable, objective standards based on criteria such as aesthetics. For the purpose of this exercise we explored whether the height and massing of the proposed building had been evaluated by any objective standards in order to ensure its compatibility with its immediate context the Lower Princess Street and St. Lawrence Ward Heritage Character Areas. Through our review, it was noted that the discussion of impacts in the CHIA relied upon the assumption that the area is in transition and has experienced a range of new development that has occurred and continues to occur. It is our view that the area has a consistent low- to midrise scale and has not experienced redevelopment at the scale currently proposed. 223 Princess Street, Kingston Page 2 of

105 Exhibit J The CHIA also includes a brief analysis of the shadow study provided in the Urban Design Report submitted in support of the rezoning and Site Plan applications, and identifies a significant shadow effect on the blocks north, east, and west of the site. Official Plan Policy Primary Centre emphasizes that the Primary Centre of Kingston is to remain east of Division Street, and it recognizes the importance of maintaining and conserving both the heritage buildings and the character of the Lower Princess Street Heritage Character Area. The Downtown and Harbour Area Architectural Guideline Study provides a more detailed description of the Lower Princess Street area and the heritage and cultural attributes of that area. For new development, the study recommends that new work enhance existing character defining elements within the provisions of the zoning by-law and enhance the area through complementary development. It is noteworthy that the study identifies the only tall building within the area the Princess Towers a 16 storey building at Princess and Division Street as anomalous, citing the building s height, massing, and setback. The study also identifies existing above ground parking garages as anomalous. There is nothing in the study that would suggest a 20 storey building within this sub-area of the downtown core. Official Plan Policy further describes the meaning of compatible, a very significant word within the Official Plan policy. Here compatibility considers the ability of buildings or urban design treatments to co-exist from a visual compatibility perspective and suggests methods of buffering, massing or other means to provide transitions to avoid adverse effects. While adverse effects have a quite limited definition in the definitions section of the Official Plan, they are more fully described in Policy Here adverse effects include visual intrusion that disrupts a streetscape or cultural heritage resource, or architectural incompatibility in terms of scale, style or massing. Mitigation measures are described in Policy and include ensuring adequate setbacks and transitions in building heights and coverage. The resources that would be affected by the proposed development are the Lower Princess Street Heritage Character Area and the St. Lawrence Ward Heritage Area. Policy 7.3.D.2 describes the Lower Princess Street Heritage Character Area as a significant cultural heritage resource, and amongst its attributes which define the heritage integrity of the area and its historic sense of place, is the arrangement of buildings, street orientation, pedestrian activity and continuity of height. Specifically, policy 7.3.D.2.c states that new building heights must comply with the provisions of Section 10A.4.6, which will be described later in this letter. The St. Lawrence Ward Heritage Area is described in Policy 7.3.D.6 as one of the oldest areas of the City with an urban style that has survived since the 1800s, and the intent of the Plan is to recognize the heritage of the area and undertake further investigation to define appropriate boundaries and policy. The buildings within the St. Lawrence Ward Heritage Area are consistently one to two storeys in height. It should be noted that the tower portion of proposal will be located on the Queen Street portion of the site, and that portion is within the St. Lawrence Ward Heritage Area. 223 Princess Street, Kingston Page 3 of

106 Exhibit J Review of Urban Design Report (UDR) prepared by FOTENN Consultants Inc. and IBI Group (20 May 2015 Revision) The revised UDR provides a comprehensive introduction to the site and the immediate context, a summary of relevant planning policy, and a description and design rationale for the proposed development. A number of elevations and perspective massing models are included for illustration and reference purposes. Upon review of this document, the key concerns relate to the justification of the height and massing of the proposed tower. The current proposal has an impact on the Lower Princess Street and St. Lawrence Ward Heritage Character Areas. Any requests to increase heights beyond the as-of-right permissions in the Zoning By-law in these areas should be carefully considered and managed to conserve the heritage character. At present, the height and angular plane amendments requested are in our opinion excessive and have a considerable impact on the character of the area. The key factors that could ensure the proposal s compatibility with the character of the area are maximum height and angular plane, neither of which are key considerations in the proposed design. As such, the proposal displays a height and building mass that may become a precedent for the City of Kingston. The UDR describes the buildings located on the blocks north of Queen Street and east of Sydenham Street as those with larger building footprints and massing, and that the proposed development is located on a threshold where a transition in scale from low-rise to mid- and high-rise buildings occurs. It is our opinion that this apparent transition relates to footprint size and massing as there are no high-rise buildings identified as part of this transition. While there are many noteworthy and supportable aspects to the project, such as proposed mixed use, restoration of a heritage façade on Princess Street and residential intensification, there remains a significant need in the proposal to provide justification for the appropriateness of the height of 20 storeys. The project, if constructed, would be the highest tower in Kingston, significantly taller than any recent approvals and isolated from any other tower buildings. Within Kingston there are a number of taller buildings which have been built along the harbour s edge, but even there, where there is a cluster of taller buildings, the heights range from 8 to 16 storeys. Those taller harbour buildings are carefully sited, with the tallest buildings grouped on the south side of Ontario Street and all of the buildings sited at a distance from the view plane of the historic City Hall. The most comparable project recently approved and constructed within the St. Lawrence Ward Heritage Area would be the 9-storey Anna Lane Options for Homes project at 326 Bagot Street. It should be noted however that that site was identified in Schedule DH-2 of the Official Plan as a major development site and the planning application for the site included a Heritage Impact Statement that contained a detailed analysis of impacts and mitigation strategies for the heritage context of the site. The site at 223 Princess Street is not identified in Schedule DH-2 as a major development site. Official Plan Policy 8.4 regarding Urban Design and New Development states that the City requires new development to be visually compatible with surrounding neighbourhoods and areas of cultural significance. Addressing new buildings and height provisions within heritage character areas, Policy 223 Princess Street, Kingston Page 4 of

107 Exhibit J 10A.4.6 states that the City may support new buildings that are of a scale and massing complementary to buildings in the surrounding area. There are specific provisions for the Lower Princess Street Heritage Character Area and the Downtown portions St. Lawrence Ward Heritage Area in the Official Plan which are implemented in the C1-3 zone of the Zoning By-law as a build-to plane of 4 storeys and a maximum height of 4 storeys (Appendix B Zoning By-law section 7.3.3), and in the C1 zone as a build-to plane of 4 storeys and height along the angular plane of 6 storeys (Appendix B Zoning By-law section ). There is a potential exemption noted within the height provisions within heritage areas, Policy 10A.4.7, which states that a greater height might be approved subject to a site-specific urban design study that clearly indicates to the satisfaction of the City that the taller building is compatible. The Official Plan policies place a strong emphasis on visual compatibility with the context of immediate neighbourhoods and identify the consistent height of the Lower Princess Street Heritage Character Area as a key attribute of the area. The plan describes mitigation measures that could be taken including transitioning in height. Unlike the towers on the water s edge, where the siting is quite appropriate, this proposed tower would be isolated as the sole tower in an area understood to be low scale in character and would be without transition. It is not an auspicious argument to make that this tower is simply the first of many that might appear within the Lower Princess Street Heritage Character Area based on potential exemptions. In our opinion, the exemption policy in relation to height in the Official Plan, is intended to recognize the possibility that some relief to the quite strict height requirements might be required, on the basis of individual sites within the area. It is not a clear permission to seek approval for 20 storey buildings. Recommendations Revisions to CHIA The Capitol Theatre building at 223 Princess Street currently has no heritage status. It is our understanding that staff will be recommending the addition of this property to the Kingston Heritage Properties Register for design / physical value and contextual value. The CHIA contains a heritage resource description and a draft Statement of Cultural Heritage Value prepared by the City of Kingston. However, the report should be further revised to refer to evaluation criteria found in Ontario Regulation 9/06 of the Ontario Heritage Act. Should it be found that the site (interior and/or exterior) has cultural heritage value using these criteria, a draft statement of significance in keeping with the structure and content outlined in the Ontario Heritage Tool Kit and the Parks Canada Guide for Writing Statements of Significance should be prepared and included in the CHIA for the purposes of assessing impacts of the proposed redevelopment on the heritage resource. The City of Kingston s HIS requirements and heritage best practices suggest that a condition assessment of the existing building at 223 Princess Street should be prepared in order to inform the conservation and repair work being considered as part of the proposed redevelopment. The St. Lawrence Ward Heritage Character Area is not well-defined in the Official Plan beyond the statement that it is one of the oldest areas of the City. In the interest of having a better understanding of the heritage context, the CHIA should examine the heritage of the St. Lawrence Ward Heritage Character Area and evaluate the impact and compatibility of the 223 Princess Street, Kingston Page 5 of

108 Exhibit J proposed development on that character. In addition, the CHIA should explore alternative design options that retain a portion of the interior lobby. Revisions to UDR It is recommended that a context map to show existing and approved building heights for mid-rise and tall buildings be provided to support the height rationale presented in the UDR. For the purposes of this exercise we would suggest a definition of mid-rise as below 17 metres, which is the as-of-right build-to-plane height within the Zoning By-law. Views of tall or mid-rise buildings should be taken both from within the Lower Princess Street Heritage Character Area and from a distance whereby the overall skyline the Lower Princess Street Heritage Character Area and its surroundings could be seen. It is our opinion that currently, the scale is predominantly low, with only the interruption of the spire of St Mary s Cathedral and the Princess Towers and the Skyline apartment building on Brock Street, with both of those residential buildings being built prior to the establishment of the character area. A key consideration in the design of a new buiding s height, angular planes and setbacks is usually the mitigation of shadow impact. Many Ontario municipalities include guidance and policy regarding the provision of 5 hours of continuous sunlight on opposite streets and open spaces. Evidence that the development of angular planes and setbacks in the proposal have been influenced by shadow impact and a discussion of how many hours of sunlight the proposal provides for on adjacent streets and open spaces (Central Public School, PWOR Military Musesum and Artillery Park) should be included in the UDR. Additionally, a shadow impact for the proposal and an as-of-right building for March 21/September 21 would provide a more reasonable comparision than the December 21 example provided in the UDR. Revisions to Proposal It is our opinion that the proponent has not provided a sufficient rationale for a tall tower in this location. It is recommended that alternatives to the current height and building mass of the proposal (through, but not limited to the application of angular planes, increased tower stepbacks from Queen Street, and reduced tower floorplate size) be explored as part of a mitigation strategy to ensure compatibility and improve the transitional relationship between proposed/new and existing buildings, and minimize other adverse effects, including shadow impacts, on the surrounding heritage character area. While the general cultural heritage strategy of the CHIA was found to be reasonable, it is recommended that the retention of the Capitol Theatre be extended to a depth that will include the interior lobby space. The following specific suggestions are presented below to promote further discussions between the applicant and the City of Kingston. These suggestions are intended to encourage a revised proposal that has a reduced impact on the heritage character of the area. Height: Instead of the current proposal, request minor variances to the build-to-plane height, angular plane, or permitted heights. These guides are a mechanism for ensuring compatibility within a neighbourhood. They could reasonably be adjusted to accommodate different sites 223 Princess Street, Kingston Page 6 of

109 Exhibit J but should not be removed entirely. For example, within the 25.5 metres height limit it would be possible to consider an 8 storey residential structure with floor-to-floor heights consistent with current residential standards. With adjustment of the angular plane to possibly 45 degrees rather than 39, it would be possible to consider a residential building with a height in the low teens, set back from both streets. A rationale for the change of the angular plane would need to be justified by an analysis of the impact on sunlight on streets and open spaces. Floorplate: Reduce the floorplate size to a maximum of 750 square metres above the 6 th floor to be consistent with guidelines established in other municipalities including Toronto and Vancouver. Other municipalities have limited floor plate sizes in order to minimize impact of towers on their neighbourhoods. The proposed floor plate areas of 1175 square meters on floors 6 through 14 and 1016 square meters on floors 15 through 19 are greater than the maximums set out in municipalities with tall buildings guidelines. The Ottawa Mid Centretown Community Design Plan recommends a maximum floor plate of approximately 750 square meters. The Toronto Tall Building Design Guidelines limit the tower floor plate to 750 square meters or less (excluding balconies). In the City of Vancouver, the Downtown South Guidelines limit floor plates to 600 square meters (excluding balconies). As a local reference, the North Block District Block 4 Design Guidelines 7.2 FSI Requirements, Encourage tall buildings to have smaller floor plates to promote slender towers. Summary Comments As described above, it is our opinion that the proposed development does not comply with the City of Kingston s planning policies for this site area. The tower s height and massing, which are the focus of this review, remain unresolved and not compatible with the intent of the City s area specific policies within the Official Plan. It is recommended that further exploration of alternative height and massing options be undertaken to create a more appropriate development form that is compatible with the immediate heritage context. It is recognized that intensification and growth are important for the City of Kingston, but that all the more reason to consider this application carefully as a precedent for future growth. Sincerely, Michael McClelland OAA RAIC CAHP Principal E.R.A. Architects Inc. Co-reviewed by Lindsay Reid OAA CAHP LEED Associate E.R.A. Architects Inc. And Julie Tyndorf MCIP RPP Project Manager E.R.A. Architects Inc. Attachments: Appendices 1, 2, and 3 Curricula Vitae 223 Princess Street, Kingston Page 7 of

110 Exhibit J Appendix 1: Excerpts from City of Kingston Official Plan Section 1 Overview 1.4 Definitions Compatible: Development that is capable of co-existing in harmony with, and that will not have an undue physical or functional adverse impact on, existing or proposed development in the area, or pose an unacceptable risk to environmental or human health. Compatibility should be evaluated in accordance with measurable, objective standards based on criteria such as aesthetics, noise, vibration, dust, odours, traffic, safety and sun-shadowing, and the potential for serious adverse health impacts on humans or animals. Section 2 Strategic Policy Direction Mixed Use Buildings The City promotes the development of mixed use buildings that contain commercial and office uses on at least the ground floor and residential units on upper floors as part of its sustainability and intensification program along the Princess Street Corridor and its Centres. Primary Centre The primary Centre, east of Division Street, is intended to remain as the primary Centre during the life of this Plan, having the most diverse uses and public facilities, and in a setting that fosters and respects both its heritage resources and commercial role. Increased public access to the water, pedestrian activity and tourism will be promoted within this Centre. The Centre policies within the Central Business District apply to infill lots and the North Block Area. It recognizes the importance of maintaining and conserving the heritage buildings and character of the Lower Princess Street Heritage Character Area, as established in Sections 7.3 and 10A of this Plan. In order to maintain the significance and vitality of the Central Business District, the City may limit the size or extent of uses necessary to support the CBD, such as offices and entertainment uses, in other locations in the City. Higher and Lower Densities The implementation of the City-wide minimum density targets in the existing built-up areas within the Urban Boundary are subject to the following additional policies: a. a higher density than the minimum overall net urban residential density per hectare for residential units is promoted subject to the Land Use Compatibility Principles of Section 2.7 of this Plan and the Stable Areas and Areas in Transition policies of Section 2.6 of this Plan; and, b. a lower density than the established minimum overall net urban residential density is permitted on an individual property where maintaining the minimum density target. 223 Princess Street, Kingston Page 8 of

111 Exhibit J Meaning of Compatible For the purposes of this Plan, the term compatible means the ability of various land uses, buildings, sites, or urban design treatments to co-exist with one another from both a functional and visual perspective through their arrangement, location (including in some instances their separation), methods of buffering, massing, or other means of providing transition that are able to successfully address undue adverse effects. Adverse Effects Adverse effects created by one land use on another, or one building on others may include, but are not limited to: a. shadowing; b. loss of privacy due to intrusive overlook; c. increased levels of noise, odour, dust or vibration; d. increased and uncomfortable wind speed; e. increased level of traffic that can disrupt the intended function or amenity of a use or area; f. environmental damage or degradation; g. diminished service levels because social or physical infrastructure necessary to support a use or area are overloaded; h. 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; i. visual intrusion that disrupts the streetscape, building, or cultural heritage resource; j. architectural incompatibility in terms of scale, style, massing and colour; or, k. the loss or impairment of significant views of cultural heritage resources and natural features and areas to residents. Mitigation Measures 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; b. establishing appropriate transition in building heights, coverage, and massing; c. requiring fencing, walls, or berming to create a visual screen; d. designing the building in a way that minimizes adverse effects; e. maintaining mature vegetation and/or additional new landscaping requirements; f. controlling access locations, driveways, service areas and activity areas; and, g. regulating location, treatment and size of accessory uses and structures, lighting, parking areas, garbage storage facilities and signage. Cultural Heritage Resources Cultural heritage resources, which include protected heritage buildings, built heritage resources, cultural heritage landscapes and archaeological resources will be conserved, managed and marketed for their contribution to the City s unique identity, history and sense of place in such a way as to balance heritage with environmental and accessibility concerns. Care will be taken not to put the UNESCO World Heritage Designation at risk. 223 Princess Street, Kingston Page 9 of

112 Exhibit J Section 3 Land Use Designations & Policy Strategic Intent - Centres & Corridors Within the Princess Street Corridor and Centres shown on Schedule 2, the Commercial land use designation is intended to foster residential intensification, a pedestrian-focused mix of land uses, and support for transit, in order to encourage more sustainable development. 3.4.A The Central Business District Special Policies & Urban Design Guidelines 3.4.A.6 The Downtown Action Plan, the Urban Design Guidelines for the North Block Central Business District, (as may be amended), the Downtown and Harbour Area Architectural Guidelines Study and the Downtown and Harbour Zoning By-law provide detailed direction for development in the Central Business District. The Downtown and Harbour Special Policy Area in Section 10A provides guidelines for development and redevelopment in the core and as set out in Section 10A.2.6, requires ground floor commercial land use in specific locations. Section 7 Cultural Heritage Resources Cultural Heritage Character Areas The City will investigate areas and landscapes of special heritage character that are described as cultural heritage character areas in this Plan. After detailed study, these areas may not be determined as appropriate for designation under the Ontario Heritage Act, but may nonetheless be recognized for their specific heritage character Where an area or landscape of special heritage character is not designated, but is recognized for a specific heritage character, the following may be required: a. a heritage impact statement where construction, alteration, demolition, or addition to a property located within a cultural heritage character area is proposed; b. the protection of viewplanes, such as those related to City Hall, Kingston fortifications, and the harbor; and, c. notification to relevant public agencies and appropriate First Nations groups of the existing and potential cultural heritage resources at an early planning stage to ensure that the objectives of heritage conservation are given due consideration in any public work project or assessment that may be undertaken. Areas of Heritage Character 7.3.D The City has a number of areas and corridors shown on Schedule 9 that may not, as yet, be determined as appropriate for designation under the Ontario Heritage Act, but which nonetheless are recognized as having a specific heritage character. A heritage impact statement, as outlined in Section 7.1.7, may be required where construction, alteration, demolition, or addition to a property located within an area of heritage character is proposed. 223 Princess Street, Kingston Page 10 of

113 Exhibit J Lower Princess Street Heritage Character Area 7.3.D.2. The Lower Princess Street Heritage Character Area recognizes the traditional downtown as a significant cultural heritage resource. It includes the streetscape, courtyards and laneways, heritage buildings, landscape elements, as well as the pedestrian activity, civic and commercial functions that maintain the historic function of the area. The arrangement of buildings, street orientation, pedestrian activity and continuity of height all contribute to the historic sense of place. It is the intent of this Plan to maintain the heritage integrity of the area with the application of the following heritage policies: a. buildings within the area will be encouraged to be maintained as functional heritage buildings; b. new buildings will reinforce and be compatible with the existing heritage buildings, and any upper storeys beyond the height of existing rooflines will be required to step back in accordance with the build-to plane provisions of Section 10.A.4.6 of this Plan; c. building heights in the Lower Princess Street Heritage Character Area must comply with the provisions of Section 10A.4.6 of this Plan; d. restoration of heritage façades and the application of sympathetic materials and historic styles is encouraged; e. new development must protect the height of City Hall as the dominant feature of the area, and employ building materials that are compatible and sympathetic to the heritage character of the area; and, f. parking garages and structures must conform to the general design principles of this Plan and maintain the heritage character of the adjacent streetscape. St. Lawrence Ward Area 7.3.D.6 The St. Lawrence Ward, as shown on Schedule 9, is one of the oldest areas of the City with an urban style that has survived since the 1800 s. It is the intent of this Plan: a. to recognize the heritage style of the area as created through the combination of buildings, street pattern, varying street widths and public spaces; and, b. to undertake further investigations that will define appropriate boundaries and policy. Section 8 Urban Design New Development 8.4.The City requires the design of new development to be visually compatible with surrounding neighbourhoods and areas of historic or cultural significance through its 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; b. protecting natural features and areas and cultural heritage landscapes through the siting, design and review of new development; and, 223 Princess Street, Kingston Page 11 of

114 Exhibit J 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 significance of the identified area. Section 2.7 provides additional policy in this regard. Section 10 Special Policies and Secondary Plans 10A Downtown & Harbour Special Policy Area Architectural Heritage Character 10A.4.2. The historic architecture of the downtown is best maintained by preserving, rehabilitating and restoring existing building stock that reflects the character of its sub-areas as described in the Downtown and Harbour Area Architectural Guidelines. The City will endeavour to ensure that any changes to existing buildings in the Downtown and Harbour Area will not detract from the character of the district. New Buildings & Height Provisions 10A.4.6. While striving to maintain character-defining buildings, the City may support new buildings that are of a scale and massing complementary to buildings in the surrounding area. The following provisions will generally be required: a. for the Market Square Heritage District as shown on Schedule 9: existing building height will not be increased; the maximum height of any new building must not be greater than the highest building on the same block in the District; a minimum building height of approximately 8.5 metres with two storey height or the appearance of two storeys; and, a height between ground floor and second floor of 4.25 metres or alignment with second floor of adjacent buildings if these are considered to reflect the character of the area as established in the Downtown and Harbour Area Architectural Guidelines; b. for the Lower Princess Street Heritage Area and the Downtown portions of the St. Lawrence Ward Heritage Area and Old Sydenham Heritage Area which are shown on Schedule 9: street wall buildings with a build-to-plane up to 17 metres, to be specified in the zoning by-law; a minimum building height of approximately 8.5 metres with two storey height or the appearance of two storeys; and, a height between ground floor and second floor of 4.25 metres or alignment with second floor of adjacent buildings if these are considered to reflect the character of the area as established in the Downtown and Harbour Area Architectural Guidelines; and, c. for the North Block and environs sub-area and the Harbour Area as shown on Schedule DH-1, in addition to the policies outlined in subsection b. above, a maximum height (after employing angular plane setbacks) of 25.5 metres. 223 Princess Street, Kingston Page 12 of

115 Exhibit J Potential Exemption 10A.4.7 Notwithstanding the above provision related to height, if a site-specific urban design study, presented to the public, clearly indicates to the satisfaction of the City, that a taller building is compatible with the massing of surrounding buildings, does not create unacceptable amounts of shadowing, and meets the land use compatibility policies of Section 2.7 of this Plan, a greater height within a specified building envelope may be approved. Above Grade Parking Structure Design 10A.4.10 Above grade parking structures in the Downtown will be encouraged to be complementary to the massing and treatment of related buildings along the streetscape through use of one or more of the following means: a. design of office or retail space that will wrap the parking structure along the street, particularly along Prime Pedestrian Streets or appropriate areas of the Waterfront Pathway as shown on Schedule DH-3; b. façade design which is compatible with elements and spacing of elements of adjacent buildings in order to provide a continued rhythm along the street; c. restricted or prohibited vehicular access from Prime Pedestrian Streets rather than a side street; and, d. any exterior face that abuts a pedestrian walkway or courtyard will have design elements that bring the structure into the pedestrian realm, to assist in the way in which it blends with the design elements and massing of surrounding buildings. Component Sub-Areas 10A.4.11 The component sub-areas of the Downtown and Harbour Area shown on Schedule DH-1 each have distinctive characteristics as described in the Downtown and Harbour Architectural Guidelines. In determining future public works and in assessing the type of development that is compatible in the sub-areas of Lower Princess Street Retail Area, Historic Market Square Conservation District, the Historic Area Adjoining Market Square, North Block and Environs, and the Harbour Area, the City will refer to these Architectural Guidelines as well as to the Downtown Action Plan. 223 Princess Street, Kingston Page 13 of

116 Exhibit J Appendix 2: City of Kingston Downtown and Harbour Zoning by-law No Section 5 General Provisions 5.6 Angular Planes In addition to Maximum Building Height, in certain zones the calculation of Angular Planes shall also be required in determining maximum building height. Where the calculations of angular planes is required, the following regulations shall apply: (a) no part of the main building or structure shall project above the angular plane (b) notwithstanding Section 5.19 no part of any structure identified by Section 5.19(i) shall be permitted to project above the angular plane; (c) the maximum building height provision for the specific zone shall apply; (d) the height at which the angular plane commences is a distance measured vertically starting at the average existing grade elevation found along the build-to plane for a width equal to that of the main building or structure. 5.8 Build-to Plane Where the calculation of build-to-planes is required the following regulations shall apply: (a) the height of the build-to-plane is equal to the maximum permitted building height specified on a zone to zone basis, not exceeding the height specified for commencement of an angular plane; (b) the length of the build-to-plane shall equal the length of a property line which coincides with a street right-of-way; (c) not less than eighty (80) per cent of the main wall of any building or structure constructed along the street line shall be erected at the build-to-plane. The balance of the main wall of the building or structure shall not encroach within the specified setback distance for the build-to-plane. 223 Princess Street, Kingston Page 14 of

117 Exhibit J Section 7 Central Business System (C1) Zone Build-to-Plane In addition to the regulations in Section 5.8, the build-to-plane shall match the existing setback line of immediately adjacent buildings within the block face. Where immediately adjacent buildings have different setback lines, the setback line shall be the same as the immediately adjacent building sited closest to the street right-of-way. Where no adjacent buildings exist within the block face, the build-to-plane shall be at the street right-of-way Maximum Building Height C1 Zone In addition to the provisions of Section 5.6 and Section 5.8, the following shall also 223 Princess Street, Kingston Page 15 of

118 Exhibit J apply: Maximum Building Height This regulation affects those lands, buildings, and structures contained within the C1 Zone that are not otherwise regulated for maximum building height: Height at Build-to-Plane: 4 storeys, not to exceed 17 metres (55 feet) Height Along Angular Plane: 6 storeys, not to exceed 25.5 metres (83 feet) Angular Plane Height C1 Zone The commencement height of the angular plane shall be 17 metres (55 feet) Heritage Commercial (C1-3) Notwithstanding Section , the maximum building height for buildings, or structures shall be as follows: Height at Build-to-Plane: 4 storeys, not to exceed 17 metres (55 feet) Maximum Building Height: 4 storeys, not to exceed 17 metres (55 feet) 223 Princess Street, Kingston Page 16 of

119 Exhibit J 223 Princess Street, Kingston Page 17 of

120 Exhibit J Appendix 3: Downtown and Harbour Area Architectural Guideline Study 2. Architectural Character Statement Lower Princess Street Architecture Predominant styles are Classical Revival (in stone) and Victorian eclectic (in brick) with some more modern insertions and many alterations to older facades Notable exceptions include Gothic Revival (Elizabeth Cottage) and Modernist (Princess Towers at Princess and Division) Vernacular Design House form buildings that formerly predominated are in minority now, largely replaced by retail/office buildings House-form 21/2 storey gable roofed buildings were standard in commercial core Massing now is mostly 3-4 storeys in newer construction and in prominent streetcorner buildings Integrity Some architectural detailing lost or obscured Upper floors of downtown commercial buildings under used Public buildings well-preserved/restored; private buildings vary, many needing repairs to facades Architectural Details Prominent buildings located at end of blocks, on street corners (tend to be higher, with more architectural detailing and modelling, such as towers, curved facades, arcades) Mid-block buildings function as background buildings Skyline elements prominent, with decorative parapets, towers, cornices alongside the raised firewalls, projecting dormers and chimneys Roofs on early-mid-19th C. buildings gabled; later buildings had flat or mono- pitched roofs often hidden behind parapets Signage projecting from building face or running along it; early signage often relied on combination of symbols and words Landmark Status / Group Value (Contemporary landmarks) Restaurant tower (Division/Princess SW corner) Residential tower (Division/Princess NE corner) Residential towers (various, along Ontario Street, southeast side) (Heritage landmarks) St. Andrew s Church and manse (Clergy and Princess, NW corner) St. Mary s Cathedral and associated buildings (Clergy and Brock, SW corner) (note: just outside study area) St. Paul s Church (Queen and Montreal) Landscapes and Public Open Spaces St. Andrew s Church forecourt (Clergy and Princess, NW corner) Internal courtyard system (mostly reserved for tenant parking and not publicly accessible) Street trees throughout, but only in a consistent pattern in the eastern section of Princess Street 223 Princess Street, Kingston Page 18 of

121 Exhibit J Overall Spatial Pattern Street grid, with predominantly square block pattern below Montreal Street and more rectangular above Grid skewed by changing angle of shoreline, creating a gore between Brock and Clarence Streets and also skewing alignments of Montreal, Bagot and Rideau Streets north of Queen Buildings constructed to the street edge, creating a solid perimeter on each block penetrated by carriageways, alleyways and internal passages giving access to internal courtyards Demolitions have removed substantial portions of this street edge, exposing the block interiors Gradient increases west of Bagot, buildings step up the slope Side streets running north and south from Princess follow the contours and provide oases from the main street (especially true of Sydenham between Princess and Queen) Land Use Commercial uses concentrated on Princess street and flanking streets Flanking streets also have institutional uses (fire station, hospital, seniors residence, churches) Former residential uses in downtown diminished or lost, although some apartments remain over ground floor commercial throughout study area Circulation Network and Pattern Montreal Street was the early north-south route prior to the bridging of the Lower Cataraqui River, as a result, certain historic structures still exist along this route. Princess Street (Provincial Highway #2) was the original east-west route from inland to the waterfront, the heritage significance of this remains to the present day Historic Views Key views along streets angled by the gore still exist (e.g. Wellington SW to St. George s dome; Wellington NE to the Golden Lion block; King NE to the Anchor building) Queen Street to the harbour and across to RMC Views down streets of harbour Historical Associations The Gore (church and state) Whig Standard building (local newspaper, Davies family) St. Paul s Churchyard (early burial ground, Molly Brant, early families) Early-mid-1800s architectural styles suited to a diverse, mixed class, colonial society; mid 1800s onwards more reflective of a mercantile North American society (though one with strong cultural ties to Britain) 3.4 Lower Princess Street Sub-Area Architectural Character In addition to characteristics described in Section 2: Architectural Character Statement, buildings within the Lower Princess Street sub-area that demonstrate the Architectural Character defining elements of the sub-area do not include the following legally noncomplying buildings: 223 Princess Street, Kingston Page 19 of

122 Exhibit J The Princess Towers apartments at the north east corner of Princess and Division streets: This building s height, massing, and setback are anomalous in respect to the character of the subarea. Any single storey building that is not heritage designated. Existing above grade parking garages: These buildings façade treatments are anomalous in respect to the character of the sub-area. The Staples store at the north east corner of Queen and Bagot Streets: This building s fenestration and façade treatment, colour scheme, and number of storeys are anomalous in respect to the character of the sub-area. Approaches to Enhancement Existing: Enhance existing Character defining elements through preservation, rehabilitation, and restoration within provisions of the zoning by- law and these guidelines. Encourage residential, institutional, and personal business services uses above ground floor retail Encourage existing exterior courtyard rehabilitation Preserve, rehabilitate, restore facades and details of existing buildings Restore upper floors where they are missing Encourage active retail at ground floor street facades Encourage rehabilitation of existing courtyards, carriageways, and mid-block pedestrian walkways Avoid creating new surface parking lots New development: Enhance existing Character defining elements within provisions of the zoning by-law and these guidelines. Enhancement by complementary development. Continuity of street-wall massing, height of street facades, and setbacks: Re-build block perimeter where gaps in its continuity exist Enforce current zoning requirement for minimum 2 storey, 8.5 metre high new development Encourage prominent buildings at street corners to enhance block General alignment of façade treatment between grade and four metres above grade Increased pedestrian amenity on adjacent streets to Princess Street Active retail at ground level street facades and at Priority Pedestrian Walks Big Box scale retail should be avoided in this sub-area Recommend that new automobile based uses be discouraged 223 Princess Street, Kingston Page 20 of

123 Exhibit J Michael Mcclelland oaa fraic cahp A registered architect and founding partner of ERA Architects, Michael McClelland has specialized in heritage conservation, heritage planning, and urban design for over 25 years. Having begun his career in municipal government, most notably for the Toronto Historical Board, Michael continues to work with a wide range of public and private stakeholders to build culture through thoughtful, values-based heritage planning and design. Well known for his contribution to the discourse surrounding heritage architecture and landscape architecture in Canada, Michael speaks regularly in the media and at public and professional events, has published numerous articles and edited several books, and has received numerous awards and honours. P r o f e s s io n a l e x p e r i e n c e 1994 to present Principal, E.R.A. Architects Inc. Projects of note: heritage architectural work for the Evergreen Brick Works; the Royal Ontario Museum ROM Renaissance; the Art Gallery of Ontario s Transformation AGO; the Distillery Historic District; heritage advisor for Cadillac Fairview s TD Centre, and urban and heritage planning consultation for the Toronto Waterfront Culture Plan; South Rosedale and North Rosedale Heritage District Studies, Toronto; the Downtown Hamilton Heritage Plan, and the Tower Renewal Project, Toronto. p r o f e s s io n a l a f f i l i at io n s Ontario Association of Architects (OAA); Toronto Society of Architects (TSA); Royal Architectural Institute of Canada (RAIC); Society for the Study of Architecture in Canada; Canadian Association of Heritage Professionals (CAHP); Association of Preservation Technology (APT); Docomomo Ontario; International Council on Monuments and Sites (ICOMOS); Ontario Museums Association (OMA); Lambda Alpha International (LAI); Friends of Allan Gardens (FOAG); and The Cultural Landscape Foundation (TCLF) p e e r r e v i e w s 2015 Town of Meaford 2014 Bank of Canada 2011 City of Niagara Falls, City of Ottawa, City of St. Catharines 2010 City of Ottawa 2005 City of St. Catharines 2004 City of Oakville City of Toronto Union Station MaRS masonry peer review 2003 Federal Heritage Building Review Office (FHBRO) c o n s e r vat io n r e v i e w B oa r d (crb) h e a r i n g s 2009 David Dunlap Observatory Lands (Richmond Hill) 2007 Walbridge House (483 King Avenue East, Newcastle) Kingsway Crescent (Etobicoke) o n ta r io M u n ic i pa l B oa r d (omb) h e a r i n g s Finch Avenue (mediation), Old Prospect Road (Rockcliffe, Ottawa), 412 Church Street Avenue Road, City of Toronto OP Heritage Policies (mediation), 262 Bessborough (mediation), 484 Spadina Thornwood, 17 Euclid (Unionville), 101 King Street East & Colborne Street, and 1884 Queen Street East 2012 David Dunlap Observatory (Richmond Hill), Bramalea City Centre (Mississauga), 27 Chestnut Park, 11 Superior, 154 Front St. East 2011 David Dunlap Observatory (mediation), Mississauga Square One (mediation) 998

124 Exhibit J M ic h a e l M cclelland r e s u M e ( c o n t.) King Street East, 21 Avenue Road, 10 Prince Arthur mediation Robert Street, David Dunlap Observatory (CRB) 2008 Distillery District and Port Dalhousie Revitalization (St. Catharines) 2007 Bronte Quadrangle (Oakville), 269 Riverside Drive, Admiral Collingwood (Collingwood) (mediation) Russell Hill Road, 6 and 8 St. Thomas, Bronte Quadrangle (Oakville), 3371 Trafalgar Road (Oakville), Bridgepoint Health 2005 North Rosedale HCD, Niagara River Parkway (Niagara-on-the-Lake), and Blythwood HCD Prince Arthur, 233 McRae, 56 Blythwood, Glenerin Inn (Mississauga), 100 Yorkville 2003 South Rosedale Heritage District Market Street Front Street (Oakville) 1998 Dundas Square and 14 Prince Arthur 1995 East Annex Heritage District 1994 Lowertown West Heritage District (Ottawa) p r e s e n tat io n s, e x h i B i t io n s, e tc Session Chair, Facades, Conservation and Cultural Heritage Value Part 2, National Trust for Canada (Calgary) Session Chair, ICOMOS Canada Evolving Perspectives on Cultural Landscapes, National Trust for Canada (Calgary) Presenter, Symposium Renewing Modernism: Emerging Principles for Practice, APT (Kansas City) Presenter, Designing Parks Workshop, TSA and OALA Presenter, Heritage Preservation and Development, Lambda Alpha International Presenter, Second Wave of Modernism III: Leading with Landscape, The Cultural Landscape Foundation, Toronto Panelist, The Ward: Slums to Skyscrapers, Pages UnBound Festival, Toronto Panelist, The Role of the Heritage Professional in Heritage Conservation Practice, Ontario Heritage Conference, Niagara-on-the-lake Presenter, Conserving the Modern, National Capital Comission, Ottawa 2014 Lecture, Architecture and Value, Carlton Forum Lecture Series, Ottawa Jury Member, Hamilton Burlington Society of Architects Design Awards, Hamilton Presenter, La Revalorisation des tours d habitation, Colloque annuel du Conseil du patrimonie:nouvelles approches, autres outils et expériences d ailleurs, Montréal Presenter, Heritage and the Authentic City: Conservation and Craftsmanship in Sustainable City Building, Hamilton Burlington Society of Architects, Hamilton Panelist, Exploring the Benefits of Engaging in Public Interest Design, Design Exchange, Toronto 2013 Presenter, Society of American City and Regional Planning Historians, Toronto Panelist, Remaking Cities Conference, Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania Panelist, Vernacular Architecture Forum Annual Conference, Gaspé, Quebec Panelist, Cultural Heritage Landscapes Workshop, Université de Montréal, Montréal Presenter, Conserving Modern Heritage, Getty Colloquium, Los Angeles 2012 Presenter, Heritage Impact Assessment Workshop, Cambridge Presenter, Changes to the Ontario Heritage Act, Land and Economic Development Ontario Planning Forum, Toronto Presenter, Conserving the History of Heritage, Ontario Heritage Conference, Kingston Panelist, Neighbourhood Intensification: the Future of Toronto, Urban Land Institute 2011 Presenter, Port Hope ACO Annual General Meeting Presenter, Intersecting the Contemporary with the Traditional, Willowbank National Historic Site 2010 Sessional Lecturer, Heritage and the Urban Design of Place, Urban Design Studio, Daniels U of T Contributor, North York s Modernist Architecture Revisited Preserving Modern Architecture in Québec, Canada and Elsewhere, Montréal Presenter, 2010 NHASO Conference, Willowbank, Queenston Presenter, Cultural Mapping Big, Medium, Small, Heritage Canada Conference St. John s Nfld. Panelist, Preservation through Transformation, ACO/CHO Conference, Chatham Kent 999

125 Exhibit J M ic h a e l M cclelland r e s u M e ( c o n t.) Panelist on Heritage, Planning and Development Forum, Langdon Hall, Cambridge Keynote, Toronto-Frankfurt Colloquium on Urbanism and Housing, Ryerson University Exhibit, People per Hectare, Harbourfront Architecture Gallery 2009 Panelist, Heritage Conservation Planning, Hong Kong University, Hong Kong Panelist, Modern Heritage, Priorities, Progress and Prognosis, APTi, Los Angeles Panelist, Downtown Renewal and Heritage Planning, Manitoba Planning Conference Contributor, North York s Modernist Architecture Moderator, Heritage Canada Conference Presenter, Tower Renewal, TEDxToronto, Toronto Presenter, APSA, Cities, Climate Change, and Multilevel Governance: Ryerson University Participant, Sheppard Neighbourhood Charrette, Parc Downsview Park Presenter, The Concept of Place, Placing Creativity Conference, Martin Institute for Prosperity Presenter, Concrete Toronto: an experiment in cultural production, SSAC Conference Exhibit, Found Toronto, Harbourfront Architecture Gallery Presenter, Mayor s Tower Renewal, Association of Ontario Land Economists 2008 Moderator, Tower Renewal, Canadian Apartment Investment Conference Panelist, Urban Attractiveness in the Toronto Region, OECD Metropolitan Review of Toronto Presenter, Tower Renewal in China, Chongqing and Beijing Facilitator, Metrolinx Design Charrette, Office for Urbanism Presenter, Concrete Toronto, International Readings at Harbourfront Centre Presenter, Toronto Futures Colloquia, University of Waterloo Presenter, Conserving the Modern, Parks Canada 2007 Panelist, How to Effectively Advocate on Behalf of Your Clients, Construct Canada Keynote speaker, Greater Toronto Apartment Association Forum Presenter, The Tower Renewal Project, New Ideas for Old Buildings, CUI Roundtable Breakfast Panelist, Toronto s Changing Landscapes, Ontario Museum Association Moderator, Ourtopias Ideal Cities and the Role of Design in Remaking Urban Space DX National Design Conference Panelist, Heritage Conservation and Urban Design, CIP Conference, Québec City Panelist, Heritage Conservation and Development, APA Conference, Philadelphia Presenter, Heritage Preservation, University of Manitoba, Winnipeg Presenter, The Fluid and the Fixed in Urban Form, University of Waterloo Course Director, University of Victoria, Conserving Historic Structures 2006 Presenter and Panelist, IIDEX 2006, Toronto Panelist, Smart Growth and Heritage, CAPHC Annual Conference Instructor, Past Perfect Guidelines and Standards for Historic Places, RAIC and Parks Canada Halifax, Ottawa and Toronto Presenter, the Work of ERA Architects, Hamilton and Burlington Society of Architects Presenter, The AGO/ROM Renovations, William Morris Society Toronto Instructor, University of Victoria, Cultural Resource Management Program Presenter, Respectful Rehabilitation, City Program Simon Fraser University, Vancouver Presenter, Urbanizing the Avenues, Mid-Rise Symposium, City of Toronto 2005 Presenter, Cultural Landscapes in the City, ICOMOS Canada Conference Panelist and Advisor, Incubating Innovation: City Building the Art of Creating Beautiful Places, Creative Places + Spaces: Risk Revolution Conference Advisor, Ryerson University Architecture Program Committee Moderator, the Legacy of Ron Thom, Trent Conference on Preserving the Modern 2004 Presenter, Art Deco Society of Vancouver, Vancouver Museum Juror, Design Exchange National Post Awards 2003 Presenter, Sharon Temple, Alliance of National Historic Sites Conference 2002 Advisor, Academic Committee, U. of T. Building Science Certificate Program Member, Union Station Selection Committee for the City of Toronto 2001 Moderator, Intervention and the Historic House, Art Gallery of Ontario Course Director, Architectural Preservation and Conservation Workshop, Ryerson University 2000 Presenter, Commemorative Integrity, National Historic Sites Alliance for Ontario 1000

126 Exhibit J M ic h a e l M cclelland r e s u M e ( c o n t.) Member, Council of the Ontario Association of Architects, Toronto Centre Member, Communications/Competition Task Force, OAA Member, Architectural Advisory Committee, New City Hall Chair, Toronto Society of Architects 1998 Presenter, Conservation in Context, Eric Arthur Colloquium Presenter, the new Toronto towards profitability and sustainability, Design Exchange Conference 1997 Advisor, Heritage Advisory Committee for the City of Toronto Transition Team Presenter, Institute for Contemporary Canadian Craft Conference, Montréal /CCA Chair, Grange Council, Art Gallery of Ontario Director, Association for Preservation Technology (International) p u B l ic at io n s 2015 Co-editor, The Ward: The Life and Loss of Toronto s First Immigrant Neighbourhood, Coach House Books, May Contributor, Ontario Place, Toronto, docomomo United States Newsletter Contributor, La sauvegarde de l architecture modern, Université de Quebec 2013 Author, Sites of Value: Designating Modern Cultural Landscapes in Ontario, Ground Magazine n. 23 Co-author, The slabs vs. the points: Toronto s two tower booms, Satellite Magazine n Contributor, Reassessing the Recent Past, APT Bulletin 2010 Contributor, North York s Modernist Architecture Revisited Mentor, A Guidebook to Contemporary Architecture in Toronto, Douglas & McIntyre 2009 Contributor, North York s Modernist Architecture reprint 2008 Contributor, Mayor s Tower Renewal Opportunities Book, City of Toronto Contributor, Innovative Strategies Ideas for Sustainable Communities, Centre for Civic Governance 2007 Co-editor, Concrete Toronto, a guidebook to concrete architecture from the 50s to the 70s, Coach House Books 2006 Contributor, Toronto, Geoffrey James, Douglas & McIntyre 2005 Writer, Distilling the Distillery, Canadian Architect, Feb Contributor, Preserving Modern Landscape Architecture, Making Postwar Landscapes Visible, National Parks Service Historic Landscape Initiative 2003 Writer, The Distillery District: Spirits Are Soaring at the Gooderham and Worts Site, Heritage Canada Magazine, Fall Contributor, Introduction, Toronto Modern, 2nd ed. Signatory, Wave Hill Charter for Modern Cultural Landscapes, Wave Hill/Columbia University Writer, The Value of Tax Incentives for Heritage Buildings, Perspectives, Spring Contributor, Eric Ross Arthur: Conservation in Context, TRAC Co-author: Canada s Urban Waterfront: a Cultural and Heritage Infrastructure Plan 2000 Writer, Excursions in the Cultural Landscape, Canadian Architect, Sept 2000 Co-editor: East/West: a Guide to Where People Live in Downtown Toronto, Coach House Books 1999 Presenter, Essay in Common Ground, Contemporary Craft, Architecture, and the Decorative Arts, a Canadian Museum of Civilization publication with the Institute for Contemporary Craft 1990 Writer, ICOMOS Canada, Vernacular Architecture Newsletter, vol. 2, n Member, Curatorial Committee, Viewpoints 100 Years of Architecture in Ontario, OAA 1001

127 LINDSAY REID Exhibit J Lindsay Reid, OAA, CAHP, LEED AP is a licensed architect with extensive experience in the field of heritage conservation. An Associate at ERA, Lindsay has a special interest in the conservation of our cultural institutions as well as the protection and appreciation of our modern heritage. In this area she has worked on many award-winning projects including Ruthven Park NHS, the Distillery District NHS, 51 Division Police Headquarters, and as a volunteer, the TSA Guide Map to post war architecture in Toronto. Lindsay has extensive experience in all stages of building analysis, planning, municipal approvals, design, contract documents, field review and project administration for conservation and renovation projects. During Lindsay s recent employment as a heritage planner for the City of Toronto she expanded her project management, negotiation and public consultation skills, and gained a more comprehensive understanding of heritage and planning policy. PROFESSIONAL EXPERIENCE 2010 E.R.A. Architects Inc., Associate Selected Projects: Peterborough HCD Study, Peterborough; Wellington Museum, Wellington; Picton Court House, Picton; Crescent Street Neighbourhood Cultural Heritage Assessment, Peterborough; Hamilton GO Centre HIA, Hamilton; Brantwood School HIA, Oakville; Macaulay House, Picton; Downtown Picton HCD, Picton; Market Square Heritage Conservation District Plan Update, Kingston; Cataraqui Cemetery Designation, Kingston; 154 Front Street East HIA, Toronto; Royal Ontario Museum, Toronto; RCMI Redevelopment, Toronto; Deloro Mine, Marmora; Renwood House, Cobourg; Brodie House, Richmond Hill; Pickering Heritage Policy Review, City of Pickering; North and South Rosedale HCD Reviews, Toronto; Gormley GO Station HIA, West Donlands HIA and Hamilton Centre GO Station HIA; Picton Main Street HCD Plan (OMB, 2014) City of Toronto, Heritage Planner Responsible for planning applications to heritage properties, stewarded multiple Heritage Conservation Districts (HCDs) and contributed to new municipal heritage policies and planning guidelines E.R.A. Architects Inc., Associate / Project Architect Selected Projects: Art Gallery of Ontario; Royal Ontario Museum; Ruthven Park National Historic Site; Don Valley Brick Works Evergreen Redevelopment; Bridgepoint Don Jail Site Redevelopment; TTC Green Art Barns; The Distillery District; 51 Division Headquarters for Police Services; St. Martin-in-the-Fields Church Addition; Massey Mausoleum; Spruce Court Cooperative; Regal Road School Portico Restoration; University of Toronto - Jackman Humanities Building, School of Economics, Soldiers Tower and Convocation Hall; Dundas Street United Church, London; Eglinton St. George s United Church; South Kingswood HCD; Haileybury Court House, Haileybury Taylor Hazell Architects Ltd., Intern Architect Selected Projects: Osgoode Hall; Robert A. Gordon Learning Centre, Humber College Lakeshore Campus; Law Society of Upper Canada; Union Station Trainshed; Jesse Ashbridge House OHT. ACADEMIC & PROFESSIONAL QUALIFICATIONS 2009 Registered architect with the Ontario Association of Architects (OAA) 2009 OPPI Negotiation Course 2006 Professional member of the Canadian Association of Heritage Professionals (CAHP) 2004 LEED Accredited Professional 2001 Architectural Preservation and Conservation Certificate Course, Ryerson University 1999 Bachelor of Architecture, School of Architecture, Carleton University VOLUNTEER ACTIVITIES & MEMBERSHIPS Present The Awesome Foundation, Volunteer 2011 CAHP, Board Member, Education & Research 2008 University of Toronto Faculty of Architecture, Landscape and Design, guest critic Toronto Society of Architects, Executive Member at Large, Vice Chair (2006) and Treasurer (2005) Carleton University School of Architecture, guest critic LECTURES, PUBLICATIONS & AWARDS 2014 Prince Edward County First Houses in the Rural Landscape - Acorn, Fall City of Toronto Learning Summit lecture on green roof construction 2007 Toronto Construction Association, Best of the Best Award for project management 1002

128 j u l i e t y n d o r f Exhibit J Julie Tyndorf, MCIP RPP is planner and project manager at ERA Architects Inc. Drawing on valuable insight and experience gained during her previous role as a development planner for a well-respected Toronto-based development firm, Julie specializes in navigating the municipal approvals process and in the interpretation and preparation of complex policy and assessment documents. While working as a development planner, Julie managed large-scale rezoning and site plan application files, with duties including coordination of consultant reports, liaising with City staff, managing project budgets and invoicing, preparation of required documents for submissions, and preparation for and attendance at City committee meetings and community consultations. e r a a r c h i t e c t s i n c. P r o j e c t m a n ag e r ac a d e m i c q ua l i f i c at i o n s Bachelor of Urban and Regional Planning, Ryerson University(2009) Bachelor of Arts (Arts & Contemporary Studies), Ryerson University (2007) P r o f e s s i o n a l q ua l i f i c at i o n s Ontario Professional Planners Institute (OPPI), Registered Professional Planner (2012-Present) y e a r s e x P e r i e n c e 7 At ERA, duties include historical research and preparation of documents for heritage approvals required as part of the municipal planning approvals process, liaising with City staff and clients, managing project timelines, preparation for Ontario Municipal Board hearings, and providing in-house planning-related support on architectural projects. Julie s major project focus is on large-scale, multi-storey developments that incorporate heritage fabric. P r o f e s s i o n a l e x P e r i e n c e 2015-present E.R.A. Architects Inc., Project Manager 93 Berkeley Street, Heritage Impact Assessment, Conservation Plan, Heritage Easement Agreement, SPA & Permit Approvals 1006 Bloor Street West, Heritage Impact Assessment, Conservation Plan, SPA & Permit Approvals, Heritage Easement Agreement Yonge Street, 1-9 Yorkville Avenue, Heritage Impact Assessment, Conservation Plan, Heritage Easement Agreement, heritage permit approvals 1884 Queen Street East, Heritage Impact Assessment, Ontario Municipal Board preparation & principal support 484 Spadina Avenue, Ontario Municipal Board preparation & principal support Charles Street East, Heritage Impact Assessment, Conservation Plan, Heritage Permit approvals, Heritage Easement Agreement E.R.A. Architects Inc., Planner 30 Bond Street, St. Michael s Hospital, Heritage Impact Assessment 1 Spadina Crescent, Daniels Faculty of Architecture, Landscape & Design, University of Toronto, Heritage Impact Assessment Bay-Adelaide Centre East & North, Heritage Impact Assessment 592 Sherbourne Street, Selby Hotel, Heritage Impact Assessment & Conservation Plan 111 St. Clair Avenue West, Imperial Plaza, Conservation Plan, heritage permit approvals 129 St. Clair Avenue West, Deer Park United Church, Conservation Plan 12 1/2 Water Street South, former Galt Post Office, Cambridge Ontario, Conservation Master Plan 1003

129 j u l i e t y n d o r f Exhibit J Diamond Corp., Development Planner 210 Simcoe Street, Zoning By-law amendment and Site Plan Approval 129 St. Clair Avenue West, Official Plan and Zoning By-law amendments 159 Wellesley Street East, Zoning By-law amendment 592 Sherbourne Street & 15 Selby Street, Zoning By-law amendment 5 St. Joseph Street, Zoning By-law amendment, Site Plan and Committee of Adjustment approvals 30 Ordnance Street, Planning Rationale Report, Zoning By-law amendment & Official Plan Amendment c u r r e n t m e m b e r s h i P s 2012-present Member, Canadian Institute of Planners 2012-present Ryerson Planning Alumni Association, Executive Committee member (Co-Chair/Sponsorship Coordinator) 2015 Associate Member, Urban Land Institute 1004

130 Exhibit J August 17, 2016 Lindsay Lambert MCIP, RPP, Senior Planner Planning Division, Community Services City of Kingston llambert@cityofkingston.ca RE: 223 PRINCESS STREET, KINGSTON PEER REVIEW UPDATE Dear Ms Lambert, This additional commentary to the Janauary 26, 2016 Peer Review Report reviews the revised materials submitted by the applicant for 223 Princess Street, with specific regard to Kingston s heritage, planning, and urban design policies. The following documents were reviewed as part of this process: Applicant materials Addendum to Planning Rationale Report prepared by FOTENN Consultants Inc., dated May 4, Addendum to the Cultural Heritage Impact Assessment prepared by Metropolitan Design/Commonwealth Resource Management, dated May Revised Urban Design Report prepared by FOTENN Consultants Inc. and IBI Group, dated May 4, Revised architectural plans prepared by IBI Group, dated May 2, Revised Development Proposal The revised Zoning By-law amendment and Site Plan Control applications submitted on behalf of IN8 The Capitol Developments Inc. proposes the redevelopment of 223 Princess Street with a 17-storey mixed-use building with frontage on both Princess Street and Queen Street. The proposal seeks relief from the Downtown and Harbour Zoning By-law related to the setback on Queen Street, overall building height, angular plane and build-to-plane requirements, density, and parking (minimum dimensions, barrier free spaces, and bike parking) Page 1 of 4

131 Exhibit J ERA Comments ERA has reviewed the applicant s materials listed above and offers the following comments: 1. Page 17 of the Revised Urban Design Report states that ERA s suggested angular plane and height limit in the low teens would result in shallow and impractical floorplates on upper floors. The City of Kingston is concerned about the proposal s compatibility with and visual impact on the existing built form context. For that reason, the site, through City of Kingston Downtown and Harbour Zoning By-law No (the Zoning By-law ), has specific height and angular plane requirements. The appropriateness of the project s massing as it relates to the angular plane and height requirements in the Zoning By-law is important as the project needs to demonstrate how new development may occur in areas not specifically identified as major development sites in the Official Plan. For that reason, we are recommending three options that the City may consider in making a balanced decision on the form and massing appropriate for the site. See attached sketch for possible massing options. Option 1: As-of-Right Building Envelope A no change approach established as a baseline provides a clear demonstration of the type of massing envisioned by the Zoning By-law. Option 2: 39 Degree Angular Plane The second option proposes a 13-storey height limit with a 750 square metre floorplate maximum at upper levels. A significant portion of the massing proposed in this option penetrates the as-of-right 39 degree angular plane. Option 3: 45 Degree Angular Plane A third option considers a more generous angular plane of 45 degrees with a 13-storey height limit, resulting in less penetration into the angular plane. This option was explored to understand how slight variations in as-of-right requirements would affect the massing of a proposed building on the site. Options 2 and 3 exceed the as-of-right zoning for the site and should be considered by municipal planning staff as part of a larger discussion involving intensification objectives, community benefits and mitigative measures such as the careful selection of building materials and introduction of stepbacks to articulate the proposed massing. 223 Princess Street, Kingston Page 2 of

132 Exhibit J 2. It has been demonstrated in the attached sketch prepared by ERA that a 750 square metre floorplate may be achieved on upper floors to generally meet the intent of the angular plane requirements of the Zoning By-law with varying degrees of encroachment. A tower floorplate size of 750 square metres or less is established as a performance measure by the City of Toronto s Tall Buildings Guidelines, and has consistently been applied to tall building development proposals in the city since the Guidelines were adopted by Toronto City Council. While the City of Toronto s Tall Building Guidelines are meant to provide guidance on tall, multi-storey towers above the height of the corresponding Right-of-Way width, the floorplate performance measure demonstrates the feasibility of floorplates that are neither shallow nor impractical. The City of Kingston does not have tall building guidelines. In recognition of an absence of policy framework to guide taller built form, references to the City of Toronto s guidelines have been provided for information purposes and for the City of Kingston s consideration in relation to this specific proposal. 3. The current proposal has made improvements to the Queen Street elevation; however, the proposed tower (and the bulk of the proposed density) has been located away from Princess Street to reduce impacts on the pedestrian realm/environment of that street to the detriment of the Queen Street pedestrian realm. Some encroachment into the angular plane is acceptable in order to achieve a balance of sometimes competing policy objectives; to mitigate the impact of such an encroachment, stepbacks should be incorporated into the proposed design to address issues of compatibility with and visual intrusion upon the surrounding context. 4. If the City decides to support an approach that exceeds what is currently permitted, we recommend seeking significant community benefits from the developer. As an example, it is appropriate to consider opportunities for an east-west mid-block pedestrian connection through the proposed development as indentified in current City guidelines as developed in consultation with the community. 5. The Addendum to the Cultural Heritage Impact Assessment provides a good assessment of the St. Lawrence Ward. The information provided confirms that the scale of built form in the area is predominantly low-rise, which in our opinion stresses the importance of an angular plane on Queen Street as a method to mitigate visual intrusion of a taller building on the surrounding neighbourhood, and further confirms that the proposed development creates a massing that is not consistent with its context. 6. For clarity, we understand from the City of Kingston that the metre building height referenced as a planned function in the Revised Urban Design Report is incorrect and should be read as a geodetic datum. The OMB-approved building height on that site (and in the C1-4 zone) is approximately 30 metres. 223 Princess Street, Kingston Page 3 of

133 Exhibit J As currently proposed, it is our opinion that the tower s 17 storey height and massing and the podium s overall relationship to Queen Street requires a solution that balances the City s intensification and heritage conservation objectives as can be found within the suggested options described herein. It is recommended that the City consider alternative height and massing options to create a more appropriate development form that is compatible with the immediate heritage and built form context. Sincerely, Michael McClelland OAA RAIC CAHP Principal E.R.A. Architects Inc. Co-reviewed by Lindsay Reid OAA CAHP LEED Associate E.R.A. Architects Inc. And Julie Tyndorf MCIP RPP Associate E.R.A. Architects Inc. Attachment: Sketch prepared by ERA 223 Princess Street, Kingston Page 4 of

134 Exhibit J / ""' D POOPOSED O VELOPM ENT / ' / / ' / ' D / ' ' ' ANGULAR PLANE / / / ' / ' ' ' ' / / / / ' ' ' ANGULAR PLANE / / / ' ' ' ' BUilDING ENVELOPE WITHIN.. AS.Of.RIGHT ALLOWABLE MASSNG I ~ ~~ QUEEN ST. OPTION 1:AS-OF-RIGHT / ' I ' IS 14 / ni)..._,rlii!ulft / " / / / / 11 / /./' 10 / ", 9 ~"-, $:_./ P " 1 -l lf"t ~ t~_) ~ ) i ~ "' I 4 I - h ~~~ - ~ I 1 H ~ ~.#"'~ ~ I l 'lts ~ ~t? ~ 1 _t[.1 PRINCESSST. QUEEN ST. OPTION 2:39 AngularPlane.~, - _t 1 - I 1-16 " IS / / 14 ' /,., 13 / / / 12 / I I / / 1', 10 T' 9 l 8 ~! ~ /~!II f>. "" "7 6 g,... X,_.. r s... I j 4 I ~ )Q ~ 11 I J ~~ ~ I 2 PRINCBSST. OPTION3:45 Angular Plane ~ -~' 223 PRINCESS STREET KINGSTON, ONTARIO PROPOSED DEVELOPMENT ANALYSIS 1009 E.RAAn:h-lnc., 108t MiryBlraol, BuiiB 11Cl1, TCIUnlo, all JUNE 28, 2016 c-oo. M4Y 1P9 T: (418) 98).4497 W: _...

135 CLERGY ST E Planning, Building & Licensing Services a department of Community Services COLBORNE ST SYDENHAM ST BROCK ST SYDENHAM ST PLANNING COMMITTEE PRINCESS ST QUEEN ST OPERA LANE PUBLIC NOTICE NOTIFICATION MAP Applicant: FOTENN Consultants Incorporated Owner: IN8 (The Capitol) Developments Incorporated File Numbers: D & D Address: 223 Princess Street MONTREAL ST LEGEND Subject Property Exhibit K BAGOT ST 120m Public Notice Boundary Property Boundaries Properties in Receipt of Notice E PREPARED BY: K. Cruz DATE: 8/11/ Metres 1:2, Disclaim er: This document is subject to copyright and m ay only be used for your personal, noncom m ercial use provided you keepintact the copyright notice. The City of Kingston assumes no responsibility for any errors, and is not liable for any dam ages of any kind resulting from the use of, or reliance on, the inform ation contained in this docum ent. The City of Kingston does not make any representation or warranty, express or implied, concerning the accuracy, quality, or reliability of the use of the information contained in this document The Corporation of the City of Kingston.

136 CLERGY ST E Planning, Building & Licensing Services a department of Community Services COLBORNE ST SYDENHAM ST BROCK ST PLANNING COMMITTEE SYDENHAM ST PRINCESS ST QUEEN ST OPERA LANE PUBLIC NOTICE NOTIFICATION MAP Applicant: FOTENN Consultants Incorporated Owner: IN8 (The Capitol) Developments Incorporated File Numbers: D & D Address: 223 Princess Street MONTREAL ST LEGEND Subject Property Exhibit L BAGOT ST 120m Public Notice Boundary Property Boundaries Properties in Receipt of Notice E PREPARED BY: K. Cruz DATE: 8/12/ Metres 1:2, Disclaimer: This document is subject to copyright and may only be used for your personal, noncommercial use provided you keepintact 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, or reliability of the use of the information contained in this document The Corporation of the City of Kingston.

137 676 Truman Drive, Kingston, Ontario K7M5B9 June 16,2015 Planning Department, RIECE~VED City ofkingston, J:.: :~ i City Hall, 216. Ontario Street, Kingston, Ontario K7L2Z3 Dear Sirs: Re. Application by InS Development for Zonin1: Chan1:e on Empire Theatre PLANNING DIVISION CITY OF KINGSTON The application for permission for a fourteen-storey condominium tower on the Empire Theatre site in my opinion is excessive. While the City should seek ways to increase the density downtown and encourage more urban units, this project as presently described is not acceptable, for. the follo,wing r.easons. 1. Eyesore. The height so far exceeds all surrounding structures that it will be an eyesore. The promise that the building will "not be on Princess Street" and that it will be "set back on Queen Street" is a joke, as visually the tower will still be on the main corridor. From the waterfront, it will look as ifthe city is putting_ up a fin~er. 2. Precedent. Making an exception in height for this developer will be an inducement for other developers to ask for the same zoning. Ofcourse developers will want to maximize profit on their properties. Who would not? The result in a few years will be the conversion oflower Princess Street to an high rise corridor. 3. Loss of Small Retailers. Increased profit potential for Princess Street properties will quickly increase property values. Rents soon follow. In other cities, high rise corridors have produced a substantial loss of small independent retailers. Because ofthe ground rents, the streets fill with banks, insurance offices and chains which serve corporate employees such as coffee shops and- hmeh bars. Hardware stores, groeery stores, clothing stores and craft outlets vanish. Occupants oftowers will not be able to fill their everyday needs on foot, and in fact will use cars to drive to malls on the periphery. Condominium residents will NOT be able to fill all daily needs from the Kingston Farmers Market!. Tourists will find the streets uninviting. See Lyon Street, Bay Street in Ottawa and King Street in Toronto. 1012

138 4. Pressure on Infrastructure. All information published over the last two years suggests that the City is ill-prepared to cope with the increased water, sewer and traffic demands from having such a large unit concentrated at one spot. Inevitable "big dig projects" street changes will follow, making the downtown less friendly for pedestrians, not a pedestrian centre. 5. Climate Change at Street Level. Towers generate wind at their base, which makes winter pedestrian use ofthe sidewalk at the base very unpleasant. 165 Ontario Street in Kingston is an excellent example ofthis disagreeable condition. 6. Loss oftourism Advantage. Modern towers detract from downtown Kingston's major tourism advantage. With Upper Canadian roots, being a former Capital of Canada and its association with several Fathers ofconfederation, Kingston offers a promise which it will not be able to fill iflower Princess Street becomes a high-rise corridor. Hot in summer and cold and windy in winter, with little retail variety, dense traffic and few architectural survivors, the city would only be a disappointment to visitors. Note also that preservation offacades at street level is a cheap trick. Facades alone cannot overcome the community change that condominium towers bring to a neighbourhood. 7. Actual Height Not Revealed. The tower will be visually taller than proposed as there is always an addition two storeys ofphysical plant on top which is assumed and is not included in the drawings. While I support encouragement of densification downtown, I am wholly against the In8 Development as it is proposed. Please make them reduce the height. 1013

139 To: Chair and Members of Planning Committee From: Doug Ritchie, Managing Director, Downtown Kingston! BIA Date: June 24, 2015 Re: Proposed Development 223 Princess Street At their regular Board Meeting (June 10, 2015) the Board of Management of Downtown Kingston! BIA unanimously endorsed the proposed IN8 development at 223 Princess Street (Empire Theatre). This project will house a built in market for downtown businesses, and grow downtown residential constituency more eyes and ears on the street. People who have made an investment in downtown, care about downtowns well being. This project preserves the art deco theatre building, and the Princess St. streetscape and scale. And it has commercial on the main floor. It is of attractive design, that plays on the contrast of old and new very important in a vibrant and eclectic downtown. This intensification project allows city residents to use their cars less, walk or bicycle more, and use transit. The City of Kingston has made substantial investments in infrastructure Downtown Action Plan (Big Digs), Grand Theatre, Rogers K-Rock Centre, Springer Market Square etc. This has helped create the market for this project. It is time for the City to reap the benefits of preserving jobs, and collecting taxes. 1014

140 223 Princess St, 1!\18 Developments: Proposed Zoning By-law & CIP Amendments City File# and # ,2015 As a downtqwn business owner, and a member of the Board of Directors of the Downtown Kingston BIA, I wholeheartedly support the proposed development of 223 Princess Street. Residential intensification can only benefit our downtown retail, service and hospitality sectors through an increased population that will frequent these establishments. The proposed building is very attractive, maintains the beautiful Art Deco facade of the existing structure thus blending the old and the new, and the tower itself is set back from Princess Street, preserving the integrity of the historic feel to the street. I urge the Planning Committee and City Council to support this application. Sincerely, Jennifer Allan Urban Paws Downtown, Owner RECE~VED JUN! 6 2D15 PLANNING DIVISION CITY OF KINGSTON 1015

141 Report Number PC Princess Street Following my comments at the public meeting on this application on Thursday, July 2, 2015, I submit the following comments and questions. Heritage character of downtown Kingston 1. How does this application respect the significant cultural heritage resource of the Lower Princess Street Heritage Character Area? OP 7.3.D.2? 2. How does this application respect the heritage style that has survived since the 1800 s of the St. Lawrence Ward area? OP 7.3.D.6? I support Ms. Findlay s suggestion to have a peer review providing independent advice to the city about the cultural heritage fit of this 20-storey building in the context of its heritage location and Kingston s Official Plan policies. Benefit to downtown A first reaction is to think that more residential units downtown will be good for downtown businesses. However, some cities, e.g. Victoria, are finding that this is not the case. Downtown residents travel, or spend the winter in warmer, drier places, and are not contributing to the wealth of the community fully over the course of the year. Students are usually away for more than four months of the year, and do not necessarily have disposable income. If this becomes a condominium, some cities are finding that units remain empty as purchasers have bought the units to speculate on their increase in value with no intention of living there or renting them in the short term, e.g. Vancouver. This does not translate into an increase for downtown businesses as there is not the expected increase in residents. As well, allowing a series of high rise apartments on Princess Street may deter people from other parts of the city from coming downtown and may make the city less desirable to tourists. The city risks losing its to scale feel and becoming just another town with tall buildings, no character, and a bereft downtown. Kingston is known for its low vacancy rate. However, in the last few years several new apartment buildings have been developed or are underway. Oversupply can result in vacancies (e.g. Montreal) and declining property values in some parts of the city which will have an overall negative effect on the city s property tax revenues. 3. How does Kingston compare to other cities that are experiencing the serious burden of renters/owners not actually spending that much time in the city? 4. Is the city sure that this development will not contribute to an over-supply of units which will remain empty? 5. Is the city sure that this development will not drain residents away from other areas corroding the city s tax base? 1016

142 6. Is the city sure this development will bring economic benefits to the city that outweigh the risks? View scape At the Planning Committee public meeting, the applicant had visuals of the building in context on Princess Street and Queen Street and spoke about the building being almost invisible when walking on Princess Street. How the building looks from all vantage points is relevant to its suitability and its adherence to Official Plan policies. 7. Could the applicant provide some to-scale visuals of the building seen from Fort Henry? offshore in front of City Hall? Division and Concession? Mid-town? McBurney Park? Garbage / Recycling A building of this size on downtown streets should not be putting garbage outside no matter the time of day or night, or the receptacle used. The application says that the garbage receptacle will be wheeled to the loading area for weekly collection. The application does not mention recycling which is necessary, too. There is nothing more damaging to the downtown ambience than poor garbage management. 8. Will garbage and recycling receptacles be left outside? 9. Is weekly collection sufficient for a building with this many units? Noise The only thing the applicant s Planning Rationale Report, May 22, 2015, says regarding noise from the building is that more detailed noise analysis of the mechanical components of the building will be provided as the site plan application progresses. (page 36). The impact of mechanical noise from the building s elevator and heating and cooling systems on the roof must be considered as part of the planning application. These noises, which go on day and night, can be very loud and be heard at a distance, and could have a negative effect on the enjoyment of downtown Kingston s outdoor patio life in summer and on people on the streets and neighbours year round. 10. What are the calculations for the sound from the building s mechanicals and how will this noise be managed so that it is not heard at ground level, by residential neighbours, or in other parts of downtown Kingston? Parking The applicant is asking for a reduction in parking spaces from 210 to 132 and a reduction in the size of each parking stall. With respect to accessible parking, the applicant is asking to reduce the number of accessible parking stalls from 10 to 8 and to reduce the size of these parking stalls, while planning to provide 34 accessible residential units. 11. Has this approach to accessible parking been positively reviewed by the Municipal Accessibility Advisory Committee? 1017

143 The applicant notes the need to remove on street parking to permit the parking garage to function. It may be reasonable to assume that a portion of residents will not have cars. However, most of them will have visitors and contractors/cleaners/service people from time to time. 12. Where are visitors to people living in this building to park? Are there any visitor parking spots within the building? If not, why not? Bicycle Parking A bicycle is a valuable asset. For someone who uses a bicycle as a primary means of transportation it is a tragedy when the bicycle is damaged or stolen. If the city accepts the applicant s submission that less than one of three people living in the building will have a car and that residents will be using bicycles for transportation, then appropriate facilities have to be provided for cyclists. This is not only secure parking, it is also a small area in which to grease a chain or change a flat tire. When apartment dwellers don t have a secure bicycle parking facility in a parking garage or locker, they will bring their bicycles to their apartments, crowding elevators and sometimes putting their bike on the balcony which is not the balcony look that fits with downtown Kingston s heritage character. Bicycle parking needs to be: Easily accessible, convenient bicycle parking (e.g. ground floor, or first level parking garage) A place (individual locker is best) where no one can see the bicycle or touch any of its components A place where other bicycles don t lean on the bicycle (e.g. one bike falling on another bike causing a wheel to bend or a pedal to bend a spoke) A place where the bike is easy to retrieve (e.g. same spot without having to move other people s bicycles out of the way) A place to do minor repairs such as flat-tire repairs, chain greasing, and spoke tightening. At the public meeting, the applicant said that if someone s bicycle is stolen then it would be a building neighbour who stole it as access to the bicycle storage area would be for residents only. Unfortunately, one cannot be sure all one s neighbours are trustworthy. Not only is a bicycle very vulnerable so are add-ons, such as racks, saddle bags, and baskets, and those required by law such as bells and lights. It is not practical to remove these items every day. 13. Will the building have a concierge on duty 24/7? 14. Will the bicycle storage area have CCTVs that cannot be easily covered or damaged, and are monitored regularly and whose recordings are kept for at least 3 months? 15. Will the building have a place where people with bicycles can do minors repairs? 16. Will someone have to move a car to take a bicycle down from the proposed hook bicycle parking system in the parking garage? 1018

144 17. How do the proposed storage facilities accommodate electric bicycles, which are bigger and heavier? 18. What spaces are there to park a scooter or a small motorcycle? 19. What facilities are proposed to plug-in an e-bike or car that needs to be recharged? 20. Has the applicant provided information about how the proposed bicycle parking compares to best practice bicycle storage facilities in other cities? 21. Has the applicant provided an example of the effective functioning of the bicycle storage facilities proposed for this building in an existing building? Height, Angular plane, Front yard setback, Density In addition to a change in the height of the building from the permitted 6 storeys to 20 storeys, the applicant is proposing to: decrease the front yard setback to 0 m increase the maximum permitted angular plane from 39 degrees to 86 degrees decrease the minimum required build-to-plain to 0 m increase the permitted density from 123 units per hectare to 930 du (?) per hectare. These are significant changes to the city s Official Plan and zoning by-law policies, which, in my view, the applicant has not justified. The changes also suggest that Official Plan amendments are required, although they have not been sought in this application. Conclusion The point of having an Official Plan and zoning by-laws is to establish a blueprint for development that, after thorough consultation, brings predictability to the city and levels the playing field for all developers and property owners. This application is completely out of step with Kingston planning documents and requires major changes to them. It should not be approved as presented at the public meeting on July 2, It is not good planning, Respectfully submitted by: Vicki Schmolka 625 Fernmoor Drive Kingston, ON K7M 8K5 1019

145 July 13, 2015 Paige Agnew, MCIP, RPP Director of Planning, Building snd Licensing Services City of Kingston RECE~VED j:._~ 1 ~ 2ot5 PLANNING DIVISION CITY OF KINGSTON Dear Ms. Agnew, Re: Tower Proposal at Empire/Capital Theatre Site, Queen Street I reside within five-minutes walk north east ofthe proposed tower, in a condominium building which was built respecting the surrounding neighbourhood from the perspective of both design and scale. There are two other apartment buildings close by, the Seniors Housing on Bagot Street and the Anna Lane. Both are taller than my building but still are of a scale which does not dwarf the existing buildings. Many of the buildings in my neighbourhood are of heritage value, particularly those on Queen and Montreal Streets. I see intensification in the downtown as a beneficial development but to be successful and to allow the neighbourhood to remain stable and to flourish, it needs to be in the right place. This twently storey building is simply too high for the site. Had it been proposed for a site around Division and Queen, in proximity to the Princess Towers and the Williamsville Corridor development, I probably would view it positively. Claudine Lallemand Bay Street, Kingston ON K?K 6T7 Tel cc. District Councillor Rob Hutchison, City of Kingston Councillor Liz Schell - Chair of Planning Committee City of Kingston 1020

146 Kingston July 13, 2015 Submission to Planning Department Regarding proposed development o n 223 Princ-ess Street/Queen Street RECE~VED '.., 1l " L:.. 1 z015 PLANNING DIVISION CITY OF KINGSTON Dear city planning staff, Thank you again for the opportunity to express my concerns about the proposed project. In response to attending the planning meeting on July 2, 2015, and upon further reflection, I would like to submit the following comments and questions for your review and ask that you respond to them within your future report to council/planning committee. During the presentation by the developer, a number of slides showed dr(\lwings of the different views of the building complex (including street view sketches with pedestrians). It was not clear which if any of these drawings and sketches were to scale. Can the city request the applicant to provide all drawing and sketches to scale? At the very least, it should be clearly marked which are not to scale. This proposal clearly falls outside the guidelines given by zoning by-laws and the official plan (e.g., 16 and 25m are the current height restriction, proposed building is 61m). In my opinion, the developer did not clearly articulate the reasons why this proposal should be considered as presented. In other words, what are the arguments for such a development and why are these intentions not possible to realize within the current by-laws and official plan. Some of the supporters of the project claim that this is the kind of intensification that is needed to 'revitalize the downtown area' and in particular help store owners along Princess St. It was argued that by bringing more residents to this part of the downtown we will achieve this goal of 'revitalization'. Are there studies that show the impact of such development on a downtown business district similar to Kingston? Is there evidence to suggest that this is indeed the case? It would seem to me that the problems facing retailers downtown is the changing face of retail, starting with the increase of large box stores and outlet malls but also including the shift to online shopping in recent years. It is not the lack of people living downtown. So why would it be the solution to the problem? If one of the desired outcomes for the city is to revitalize downtown, we want to be reasonable sure that the proposed development will indeed produce this kind of outcome. In fact, our own evidence in Kingston seems to suggest otherwise. The developments on block D have shown that high rise developments do not (necessarily) increase the viability of retail stores in the downtown core, or in their buildings themselves. Wind/shadow impact studies: the applicant mentioned that some initial review had been done in regards to wind impact and it was found negiigible, if I recall correctly. It was unclear if these were extensive studies, nor ifthey were done only in regards to Princess St, or also for the entire neighbourhood (incl. Queen St.). Shadow impact study: given the size of the building and its potential impact for the wider neighbourhood, this needs to be presented to the public in a way that the shadow effect can be assessed by the neighbours. Can the applicant please be asked to present the wind and 1021

147 shadow impact studies in more detail so that the publiccan assess the impact ofsuch a development on the neighbourhood? --ouring the presentation the applicant claimed that the development will get more people downtown and 'make public transit work'. Can the applicant please submit evidence showing that a development such as this (that brings about 400 people into the core of the city) will indeed increase public transit ridership? Is this su bstantiated by previous experiences in Kingston or elsewhere? Has, for example, the block D development demonstrably had an impact on public transit ridership going from downtown? The applicant mentioned thatthe differences (impact) between a 14-storey building and a 22-storey building are minimal or negligible and that is the reason they are proposing 22 storeys. While that may be the case, it is not the question. The by-law suggests a maximum height of 25m. So can the applicant be requested to outline clearly what the differences are betweenthe proposed building and a project that would adhere to the current by-laws and official plan? The four/five storey parking garage will probably create 'dead space' along Queen Street. All emphasis is put on 'disguising' (i.e. step backs) the building from Princess Street. Not much emphasis has been placed on the impactto Queen St. Are we to accept the fact that Queen Street will not at all benefit from this development and be 'revitalized'. Do we know what impact a 4/5 storey parking garage will have on the street scape and how it will effect pedestrian traffic? For example, will people not feel attracted to such a space, feel unsafe orjust generally unwelcome since there are no store, no other pedestrian traffic? Can the applicant please respond to these concerns? In regards to intensification, it was also argued that this kind of development is needed to achieve intensification and thereby curb urban sprawl. While that might be the case, are there no oth.erways to achieve the same outcome and adhere to our c;urrent guidelines? How many 4-5 storey buildings would need to be built to accommodate the proposed 400 residents? How many of those could be built within the proposed site? The corner ofclergy and Queen St. is currently vacant in regards to residential units. How many units could be built w ithin the current rules on that site? In other words, if the proposed development will bring 400 people downtown, what could alternative development s look like t hat bring a similar numberof people intothe area within our current zooming by-laws and official plan? These are important questions that need to be answered so that planning committee and council can make the best decision for residents and for the city of Kingston. Regards, Susanne Cliff-Jungling 28 AliT]a St. Kingston ON K7K 1J6 1022

148 Blumenberg,Catalina Subject: FW: Development of Capitol (Empire) Theatre Property at 223 Princess Street -----Original Message----- From: Lubomyr Luciuk [ Sent: Monday, August 03, :11 AM To: Blumenberg,Catalina Subject: Development of Capitol (Empire) Theatre Property at 223 Princess Street 3 July 2015 Dear Members of the Planning Committee: I am writing to express my opposition to the proposed construction of a 20 storey building on the location of the former Capitol (Empire) Theatre at 223 Princess Street. I have reviewed the plan submitted (2 July 2015) and am concerned about how this precedent-setting development will set the stage for the gradual undermining of the unique character of lower Princess Street, which still retains much of its Victorian architecture, and charm. As a Kingstonian, born and raised, I would much prefer to see our waterfront area and main streets kept free of more glass towers that are aesthetically unappealing and destructive of the historic character of our city. While I concede that our downtown needs revitalization, I would strongly urge you to work toward preserving the truly fine character of what remains of our City rather than populating its core with the kinds of overstuffed, unattractive, and indeed quite pedestrian skyscrapers of the very sort that have already utterly spoiled so many other Canadian cities. Thank you for considering my comments. Yours truly, Lubomyr Luciuk, PhD 849 Wartman Avenue Kingston, Ontario K7M 2Y

149 ~ From: To: Subject: Date: Mayor of Kingston; McLaren,Jeff; Neill,Jim; George,Kevin; Turner,Lacricia; Osanic,Lisa; Schell,Elizabeth; Stroud,Peter; Hutchison,Rob; Didrikson,Amy; Blumenberg,Catalina; Lets Connect; Hunt,Gerard; Bolognone,John; Hurdle,Lanie; Lambert,Lindsay; opzb update; Quittkat,Rachel; Leary,Ryan Vision for Downtown Kingston petition Tuesday, December 01, :58:14 PM Hello City of Kingston councillors and staff. As per our arrangement after the November 5 public meeting regarding the Official Plan Update, I have provided your project manager, Rachel Quittkat, with the final results of the petition entitled "What's Your Vision for Downtown Kingston?". Although 100 signatures were collected and presented at the public meeting, I kept the petition open for the month of November, and Ms. Quittkat has kindly offered to ensure that the final total of 222 signatures and 69 comments will be presented at Thursday's (December 3) Planning Committee meeting. It is my sincere hope that this can be a collaborative effort such that the new OP's improved guidelines in Section 8.6 include specific height restrictions for new developments downtown. Although the petition's central statement is that "New developments in Kingston's downtown core ought to fit into its architectural character and human scale", I hope that you take special note of the proposed maximum heights of 6 to 8 storeys (and of 8 to 10 storeys with presentation of a convincing 3D model). In addition, I hope that you will read each of the 69 comments that the supporters have taken the time to compose. I believe that each of these merits consideration as it would as a separate letter to the City. Let's ensure that Kingston grows in a way in which we are all in agreement, such that its downtown core remains attractive and vibrant for all. Respectfully, Gisele Pharand 1024

150 From: To: Subject: Date: Lambert,Lindsay FW: The Capitol proposal Sunday, December 20, :36:32 PM Ms. Lambert: I am forwarding this for your information, as I meant to send it to you as well. Gisele Pharand From: To: opzb_update@cityofkingston.ca CC: rquittkat@cityofkingston.ca; mayor@cityofkingston.ca; pstroud@cityofkingston.ca; rhutchison@cityofkingston.ca Subject: The Capitol proposal Date: Sat, 19 Dec :52: Good afternoon, Ms. Agnew. I understand that The Capital proposal's peer review will soon be considered. It is my hope that you will not lose sight of the fact that the existing proposal contravenes current height restrictions, and that 222 of Kingston's citizens are willing to see this restriction lifted, but only in a modest manner, if necessary. While the "What's Your Vision for Downtown Kingston?" 27-day petition was read into the record at the last Council meeting, there are also the 69 petition Comments worthy of attention. Councillor Hutchison could provide you with these if you don't still have a copy from the December 3 Planning Committee meeting. While many downtown businesses near 223 Princess are also in favour of current or only slightly modified height restrictions (preferring continued tourism in our attractive downtown to the possibility of a few more local shoppers in an unattractive downtown), they have not yet voiced their opinion, for numerous reasons. Others have changed their minds over the last few months, as Princess Street was already in the midst of promising revitalization with all of the new businesses taking shape long before IN8 showed up. I applaud the City's wish for an open and democratic process, and therefore look forward to further communications. Having called Kingston "home" for the last 35 years, and having initiated a petition and promised to stand behind it as best I can, it is my sincere hope that we can negotiate in a manner that will make us all proud to live in this fair city. Respectfully, Gisele Pharand 1025

151 From: To: Cc: Subject: Date: Attachments: Lambert,Lindsay Hurdle,Lanie IN8 application Sunday, January 10, :46:47 PM Moshe Safdie high rise article.pdf I would like to submit this article by architect Moshe Sadfie from last week s Wall Street Journal as part of my submission on the 223 Princess Street application file. Thank you. Vicki Schmolka 1026

152 \ ~U-~~~0~~ -:s-~\.::> (:;, J -zo-...0 New York is now home to seven of the 100 tallest buildings in the world. The current building campaign will produce five more. Building a Better City BY MOSHE SAnFIE ' gardens and solariums-tower T he flurry of high-rise designs would be dramatically tower construction now transformed. The work space under way in New York must also be rethought. Natural will bring about a quantum ventilation, diversity of workleap in density, one that will spaces and a connection to the forever change our urban envi- exterior are all qualities that ronment. The city is now home would help overcome the opto seven of the 100 tallest pression of scale and crowding. buildings in the world. The But addressing individual current building campaign will tower design is not enough. As produce five more. They are a towers become densely clusreminder that towers have be- tered, they affect each other come the dominant building and the public realm. Towers type in most major cities have a sphere of influence; they around the world, increasing cast shadows, they block views congestion as they accumulate. certain orientations are fa~ These developments raise vored over others. Yet the New fundamental questions: How York Zoning Ordinances and crowded should or can cities those of most other cities don't get? What should be driving even attempt to place towers in tower design, be it residential commercial or mixed use? Ar~?Ptimal arrangements respond- mg to these considerations. our current planning and zon- There are some notable exing regulations adequate in ceptio!ls. Qinhuangdao, a Chiguiding this growth, in mitigat- nese City of three million peoing the impqct of density? Or 1 ple, has a local ordinance that do we need new tools for a new requires that three.hours of era of mega-scale construe- sunlight, as measured in the tion? Finally, towers create winter solstice, must reach fundamental questions about each apartment We, Safdie Arthe nature and character of the chitects, just completed a public realm. 2,400-dwelling-unit, 32-story Neither the prevailing tower beachfront development where ' designs nor current planning we labored for several months practice world-wide are able to to come up with a massing arcope with the new reality. The rangement that satisfies this quali~y of life ~thin towers is req~irement. The resulting wanting. We still treat them, at project certainly does not rebest, as sculpture, and at -.. worst as utilitarian vert!'cal ex- semble the traditional housing ' complex of ulf 1 1 trusions of space. Many towers a m IP e, c o~ely are designed from the outside f eked, extruded towers. Simiin- elegant forms with decora- ar.ly, the recent European re --~- tive skins, hermetically sealed ~~~ement that. all workspaces rom the outside world If ifi- e natural hght has transstead they were desig~ed as formed office-tower design, reliving, organic environments- duced fo?tprints and informed with considerations of orienta- the s.haping of towers. The emtion, views, light and the capa- bracmg. of. s~ch. standards bility to connect to the ":'orld-wide ls mevitable, paroutdoors, creating terraces, tlcularly as we seek greener and more environmentally responsive buildings. Nor, I think, has the public realm fared well as towers have come to dominate the city. Of late, the typical patterns of de- ' velopment in many megacities are large projects with clusters o~ mixed-use towers atop a podmm housing a retail mall. ~hese structures are siphoning hfe from surrounding streets and rarely connect to each oth~r. They are privatized, exclus~vely commercial spaces lacking the diversity of uses and variety of activities of people we associate with cities. Clearly, new planning tools ' are needed to make these privatesector developments more public, better connected to their surroundings and to each other.. To reverse the trend, inven ~Ive planning and urban-design mterventions are needed. we How crowded should or can cities get? What should be driving tower design? ne~~ to reestablish the respectability of urban design and planning after decades of little or no oversight. Singapore leads the way in guiding private-sector developments through their Urban Redevelopment Authority. We need to do something similar here in the U.S.. Con~ider, for example, the H1gh Lme: It is a popular success and also a catalyst for new development along its path. But as each developer seeks to P!ace its tower as close as pos Sible to the High Line, it is now threatened with canyonization overwhelmed by mass and sh~~ow. Imagine zoning requmng that building profiles be s~t back from the High Line, placmg the tallest portions to the east and west, creating a vll;lley-like space, would opti ~ze openness and visibility Wit~out compromising density while maximizing real-estat~ va:~es. Cities can manage or mitigate density with good planning. Fifty years ago, as part of Expo '67 in Montreal I designed Habitat '67. It w~ an attempt to rethink apartment buildings into village-like hill- sides, each dwelling with its own garden on the roof of the unit below and served by "streets" in the sky. The motto was "For Everyone a Garden." M~re recently, in Singapore, we built the Marina Bay Sands resort, where three 59-story towers are topped by a continuous 1,115-foot platform with a 3~ acre SkyPark. It demonstrates how towers can be integrated to form major open space. Further evolution of cities will determine how dense they are allowed to get and how large. In the meantime, the task ah~ad of us-municipalities, architects and developers-is to embrace the tools, whether mandated by zoning or. not that will make the dense mega~ city more livable and workable. Mr. Safdie is an architect, urban planner, educator theorist and author, and the ~ecipient ofthe 2015 AlA Gold Medal. 'Global Citizen,' a comprehensive exhibition of his work is on view at the National Ac~demy Museum in New York through Jan

153 From: To: Cc: S u bject: Dat e: Lambert Undsay Hurdle Lanie OMB rejects hig h- rise project Tuesday, January 12, :27:43 AM Please add this newspaper article to my submission with respect to the 223 Princess Street application. http //www m dajlyxtra com/node/ Thank you. -Vicki Schmolka 1028

154 Church Street student residence near Toronto's Village is axed IDX Mobile I llm)xtra I Mon, Jan 11, :36pm Toronto >News & Ideas Church Street student residence near Toronto's Village is axed Ontario Municipal Board rejects proposal, protecting heritage site by Arshy Mann In a rare anti-developer decision, the Ontario Municipal Board (OMB) has rejected a proposed 32-storeyprivate student residence for Church Street. The proposal from CHC MPARChurch Holdings Inc would have a seen a tower built at 412 Church St, housing 532 students. The property is currently a parking lot that sits next to tile Stephen Murphy Houses and Stores, a designated heritage site and the former location of tile Barn and Stables, a historically significantgay bar. The OMB, which hears appeals about development issues from across Ontario, is often criticized for working as a de facto approval process for developers, even when a project is opposed by tile city government. But in this case, the OMB rejected the proposal because tl1e design ofthebuilding would have clashed with the heritage value oftile Stephen MurphyHouses. 2:23:54 PM] 1029

155 The tall building diminishes the heritage qualities to the detriment of the heritage buildings continued functioning as a visible and distinguished built form remnant of the City s cultural heritage, read the decision, issued on Dec 23, The development was opposed by the City of Toronto and the McGill-Granby Village Residents Association. I was shocked, and other people on the board were surprised, says Rick Kubowicz, president of the McGill-Granby Village Residents Association. He says that while the proposal was not a good fit for the neighbourhood, he still didn t expect the OMB to reject it. If you don t deny this, what do you deny? he says. It was such a big building on such a small parcel and not fitting in with the neighbourhood. And while density issues were one of the main concerns voiced by residents and the City, the OMB ultimately put much more weight on the heritage property next door. Other similar projects, like a 25-storey private student residence at Spadina Avenue and Huron Street, were approved by the OMB despite similar opposition. But no heritage sites were next to the property in that case. There is value in preserving views of these heritage buildings to the extent possible while developing on a site that abuts such a structure, read the OMB s recent decision. The Stephen Murphy Houses and Store were designated a heritage site in 2006 partially because of their connection to the gay community in the 1990s. Kubowicz says that while he s happy with the decision, he still feels that the OMB shouldn t be able to override the wishes of a city government. You would want the city to have its own power to enforce their own laws, he says. 1030

156 From: To: Cc: Subject: Date: Lambert,Lindsay Hurdle,Lanie article for IN8 file Sunday, February 07, :06:57 PM Lindsay: Please add this article to my comments on the 223 Princess Street application. Thank you, Vicki Schmolka 1031

157 Exhibit M The Yonge and Bloor of today could be anywhere: Hume The death of art dealer Avrom Isaacs is a reminder of when the celebrated corner was Canada s main cultural hub hile Avrom Isaacs held sway in the 1960s to the 1980s, Yonge and Bloor was one of Toronto s major cultural hubs. (HAROLD BARKLEY / TORONTO STAR FILE PHOTO) By CHRISTOPHER HUME Urban Issues and Architecture Thu., Feb. 4, 2016 The richer Toronto grows, the poorer it feels. The most recent reminder came with the death of Avrom Isaacs, long one of the two or three most important art dealers in Canada. For several decades his gallery on Yonge St. just north of Bloor was Ground Zero for anyone interested in contemporary Canadian art. Just doors away was Carmen Lamanna, the other legendary Toronto gallerist, not so much Isaacs rival as a fellow traveller. A few blocks west in Yorkville, Walter Moos opened his gallery in 1962, a year after Isaacs moved to Yonge Eventually, the Village, as it was then called, was enshrined as Toronto s designated art district. At its height, there must have been more than a dozen art galleries in Yorkville, not all of them worthy, but part of the scene nevertheless. Today, little remains. A few dealers have hung on, but even before Lamanna and Isaacs died, both had been forced to relocate, victims of rising rents and land values that they did as much as anyone to increase. Indeed, while the two held sway from the 60s to the 80s Yonge and Bloor was one of Toronto s major cultural hubs. In those days, art lovers could wander Yonge between Cumberland and Yorkville and see for themselves the most significant Canadian art of the times. Article Continued Below By the turn of the century, however, this stretch of the city s main street had become a series of restaurants and after the demise of the Fiesta, none of them particularly noteworthy. Lamanna s old place even did time as a massage parlour. Pretty soon the three-storey mid-19th century buildings that comprise the streetscape will be part of a 58-floor condo tower that has also displaced the venerable Cookbook Store that stood at the corner of Yonge and Cumberland for 31 years. We should be thrilled, of course; rising property values make many of us richer and richer. On the other hand, this section of Yonge has never been as dull, dreary and desolate as it is today. Though the inevitable condo tower will make some developer a lot of money and give the few hundred people who can afford it a nice place to live, the city as a whole is diminished by these changes. There is less here to engage us now, less to draw us in and remind why we chose to live in a city. Yonge has become sad and generic, ordinary and dumbed down. The cheap eateries that have moved in cater to the kids using the Toronto Reference Library across the road. The franchises have taken over and anything more sophisticated than a Starbucks is shunned. The only thing that will change when the condo appears is the names of the chains allowed into its shiny ground-floor spaces. But for now, anyone hoping for more than a cup of overpriced coffee or chicken on a pita needn t bother with Yonge and Bloor. It might well be one of the city s signature intersections, but unless you re from Toronto you wouldn t know it. How ironic that the new mixed-use condo towers under construction should all be aimed at the luxury market; first you destroy the neighbourhood then you sell it back to the wealthy, kitsch for the rich. Look no farther than the behemoth under construction on the southeast corner of Bloor and Yonge. When developers bought the old Frank Stollery building on the southwest corner last year, they destroyed it even before the hoardings went up. By the time the dust settles, Yonge and Bloor might as well be anywhere. Christopher Hume can be reached at chume@thestar.ca The Morning Headlines Newsletter Delivered daily to your inbox. Sign up

158 From: To: Cc: Subject: Date: Mayor of Kingston; Stroud,Peter; Schell,Elizabeth; Neill,Jim; Hunt,Gerard; Hurdle,Lanie; Adams,Alex; opzb update; Leary,Ryan; Didrikson,Amy; Lambert,Lindsay; Venditti,Marnie; Forfar,Stacey; Leger,Denis Hutchison,Rob; McLaren,Jeff; Newman,Greg; Blumenberg,Catalina; Bolognone,John; Lets Connect The Capitol & other applications Monday, February 15, :54:16 PM Dear City council and staff members: I do not support the two proposed 20-storey Homestead applications for lower Queen Street, for the same reasons that I do not support the IN8 application as it still stands for Princess Street. These proposed buildings are too high for Kingston's downtown core, and will ruin what remains of its heritage-rich and charming character and people-friendly human scale. Furthermore, it contradicts the city's Official Plan and by-laws and supposed vision. It is still my hope that a more detailed long-range vision will be developed and upheld by all. Based on the modest research that I have done, I truly believe that the costs and risks of high-rises will soon make them passé. Architects now win awards for more sustainable and equitable/accessible low-rises. If we really want to be an innovative city, we ought to pay attention to what the new planners and geographers and other experts are trying to tell us. While Kingston would benefit from some densification in its commercial district, this benefit will only occur if it is smart growth that fits in with a smart vision. I urge you to do the right thing and be forward-minded rather than at the mercy of every new development application that seems appealing at first glance. Respectfully, Gisele Pharand P.S. - Please include my comments in the February 17 planning agenda, so that they are presented to the Planning Committee. 1033

159 Eastern Ontario Limited July 8, 2015 Ms. Lindsay Lambert Senior Planner City of Kingston 216 Ontario Street Kingston, ON K7L 2Z3 Dear Ms. Lambert, RE: PROPOSED ZONING BYLAW AMENDMENT 223 PRINCESS STREET IN8 CAPITOL DEVELOPMENTS INCORPORATED D AND D We are the property managers for Ardeen Properties, owners of 225 Princess Street. Our Client s property is immediately adjacent to the proposed development site, on the west side of the property. While our client is in support of intensification in the downtown core, they have a few concerns regarding the proposed development as follows: 1) Our client would like to understand what precautions will be taken during construction to ensure that any vibrations from the process do not damage the structure of their building. 2) What would the requirements be for shoring and/or underpinning? 3) Our client would like to understand the set back more clearly. Specifically, our client s property currently has a rear courtyard. They want to understand how this will be affected by the development. 4) We understand that there is environmental contamination on the subject property. If this is disturbed during construction, our client wants to understand how any potential migration of contamination would be mitigated. 5) If the developer is demolishing the existing structure of the adjacent building and excavating, this will undoubtable lead to water retention in the excavated site and expose the subgrade foundation of our client s building. Our client would like to understand what precautions will be taken to avoid any frost heaving and damage that may result. 1034

160 I trust that these concerns will be forwarded to the developer and look forward to their response. If necessary, we can make ourselves available for a meeting to discuss this further. If you have any questions, please don t hesitate to contact me. Sincerely, RIO LIMITED Peter Kostogiannis Broker of Record/President 1035

161 From: To: Cc: Subject: Date: Attachments: Hoegi,LeighAnn Blumenberg,Catalina; Adams,Alex; Lambert,Lindsay FW: Highrise Proposals in Kingston Wednesday, February 17, :10:09 AM How High is too High.pdf Good morning, Thank you for your input. In Ms. Agnew's absence, I have included the Clerks Department and the planner assigned to the file, to ensure your comments are included as official correspondence regarding this application. Best regards, LeighAnn Hoegi Administrative Assistant to the Director Planning, Building and Licensing Services Community Services City of Kingston (613) extension 3291 lhoegi@cityofkingston.ca From: Peter Barnett [mailto:barnettp@sympatico.ca] Sent: February :21 PM To: Agnew,Paige Subject: RE: Highrise Proposals in Kingston Hello Paige, Here is my response to Paul Schliesmann s excellent article on proposed highrises in Kingston from January 2 nd 2016; this appeared in the Whig on January 8 th 2016, the letter has elicited a number of very positive responses. It is apparent that, once again, some very strong opposition is on the rise. Furthermore, the city needs to become more pedestrian-friendly, and traffic pollution needs to be reduced by using multi-passenger electric vehicles we could even produce them in Kingston. Regards, Peter Barnett. 1036

162 How High is too High It s a recurring theme in Kingston going back to the 1990 s when a proposal to build the current Four Points Sheraton Hotel was first mooted. Much controversy raged as to its height until a compromise was reached at the current nine storeys. Unfortunately there is a fundamental lack of vision for what this historic city should look like in future years added to which regulations are not being adhered to with regard to current buildings of historic value. Its charm is, therefore, being emasculated. I agree with Gisele Pharand when she says highrises don t belong in the downtown core, the ideal areas for these are in enclaves such currently exist on Highway 15 or LeRoy Grant Drive. Moreover, bringing more cars downtown to these buildings will contribute to further pollution and not add one whit to the city s environmental sustainability project. A more visionary approach to further expansion would be to move towards a pedestrian friendly downtown core which is car-free, as has Copenhagen. They aim to keep The scale dense and low with low-rise, densely spaced buildings allowing breezes to pass over them, making the city centre milder and less windy than the rest of Copenhagen. Honour the human scale, as the city s modest scale and street grid make walking a pleasant experience; its historic buildings, with their stoops, awnings, and doorways, provide people with impromptu places to stand and sit. Populate the core, more than 6,800 residents now live in the city centre. They ve eliminated their dependence on cars, and at night their lit windows give visiting pedestrians a feeling of safety. Kingston is already halfway there being so compact, and I am certain that both the public and business community would embrace this approach. The final factor that needs to be considered are parking areas, these should be sited at a maximum of eight minutes from the centre on Montreal Street, Division and Sir John A with a continuous shuttle service to the centre using perhaps electric vehicles. Regards, Peter Barnett, Kingston 1037

163 Lambert,Lindsay Subject: FW: 223 Princess Street Development -----Original Message----- From: Myriam Beaulne [ Sent: Saturday, June 27, :18 AM To: opzb_update Subject: 223 Princess Street Development Ms. Agnew, It was with dismay and sadness that I saw the sign today indicating that a 20-storey condo tower is slated to be built on the site of the old movie theatre at 223 Princess St. On my return home, I searched for information on this proposal and was shocked at how difficult it is to find any information on these projects on the city's web site and how limited the information is. In order to find your address I had to dig around for quite a while. I'm not even sure you are the right person but hope that you will let me know and forward my concerns to the appropriate person if you are not. Searching online I found some rather limited but still worrying media reports on the plan for that site. It is inconceivable to me that such a plan would even be considered. It is completely out of character for the downtown core - too big, too high, too modern, too shiny... It is simply TOO MUCH. How many more condo and apartment complex development can Kingston's downtown sustain? There has been so many large projects being approved and I'm very concerned. Some developers are making efforts to maintain the look and character of the neighborhoods they are building in, for example, the new buildings near Victoria Park and even the Anna Lane building isn't so bad. However, the now-infamous tinder box building at the corner of Victoria and Princess is hideous and I am concerned about the other towers going in at Princess and University. Don't get me wrong, I support some development, some intensification BUT it has to be done properly with some consideration for the historic nature of our downtown. It should maintain its appeal and attract a variety of people with mixed use (residential and commercial, rental and owned) and accessible for people of various income levels. I feel strongly that this project does not fit these criteria. What recourse do we have? What can be done to open a broader discussion around these issues? The downtown business association isn't the only organization that should have input in what goes on in our city's core. Thank your for your consideration, Myriam Beaulne Resident at 30 Connaught Street, Kingston ON

164 From: Gregory,Katharine on behalf of Planning Outside To: Lambert,Lindsay Subject: FW: Capitol Development LM REF Date: Friday, October 16, :47:02 AM Hi Lindsay, We received an forward to us from Contactus regarding the 223 Princess Street (Capitol Development). Kathy Kathy Gregory Clerk/Secretary Planning, Building and Licensing Services Community Services The Corporation of the City of Kingston Located at 1211 John Counter Blvd ext From: Contactus Sent: Friday, October 16, :39 AM To: Planning Outside Subject: FW: Capitol Development LM REF Hello. Please respond directly to the below. Thank you, Linda Customer Service City of Kingston/Utilities Kingston From: Boehme, Ryan N. Sent: Tuesday, October 13, :57 PM To: Susan Brodt Cc: Contactus Subject: Re: Capitol Development LM REF Hello Susan, 1039

165 Thanks for your . It is not uncommon for developers to send out flyers for projects such as this to researc public interest. I have cc'd contactus@cityofkingston.ca so that someone in the planning department can update you on the current status of their application. As for where I stand, I do believe we need to increase density in the downtown for the city to prosper, however it would be premature of me to make a full decision on this project without being able to have all the information around it. Cheers, Ryan Ryan Boehme City of Kingston Councillor Pittsburgh District (12) From: Susan Brodt Sent: Friday, October 9, :14 PM To: Boehme, Ryan N. Subject: Capitol Development Hello, I have never contacted a representative but after seeing the glossy advertisement in today's Globe and Mail for the investment opportunity in Kingston, I felt compelled to contact you. I live on Faircrest Blvd, east to town and I understand you are my representative. First, I am appalled by the courting of Toronto investors -- absentee landlords -- to Kingston's previously quaint Princess Street. Second, I am appalled by the possible construction of what looks like an atrocious and absurdly gigantic development dwarfing anything around it, in order to provide the expansive views portrayed in the sales material. Is the property zoned for such a gigantic structure? I would be interested in knowing the status of the project. Perhaps someone in your office could provide me with information about the status of the development. I look forward to learning more about the status of this investment opportunity and where you stand on the issue. Thank you. Susan -- ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ Susan Brodt, Ph.D. Queen's University 1040

166 From: To: Subject: Date: Whig letters Open Government? Thursday, October 22, :14:53 AM Kingston City Hall is developing a poor reputation. It may be undeserved, but the circumstantial evidence is strong. In just a few weeks:- The sudden, massive sales campaign for the old Capitol theatre site, with the developers giving a strong impression that the full 22-storey building is a done deal. Next, an important EITP meeting announced in such a way that many will have missed it. Now, a parking arcade where each space supposedly will cost the City $65, whatever will we have to pay to use it? Next, top-secret plans for two Homestead apartment buildings downtown, to be presented some time in November. One beside the parking arcade, one next to the old S&R City Hall, and I do mean everyone there, this is a challenge to be open with your citizens. Paraphrasing Sir Winston Churchill What kind of people do you think we are? Sincerely, Mike Cole-Hamilton 61-1 Place d Armes, Kingston, Ontario K7K 6S3 1041

167 From: To: Subject: Date: Lambert,Lindsay IN8 Developments Inc re: 223 Princess St (The Capitol) Thursday, June 25, :47:03 AM Dear Lindsay Lambert, My name is Maria Cronk. I co-own and operate two stores (Fancy That & The Roundstone) in the downtown core since 1985 and another in downtown Brockville (Limestone and Ivy). They are family operated businesses and I work with my mother and brother. I was very excited about the new project when it was first presented at our SGM a month ago. I was pleased that a new development was coming to Kingston and that the IN8 Development sees the beauty and potential of our downtown Kingston which so many of us feel and experience. I do realize that this project is scary for some and they are probably afraid we will lose the unique flare of our downtown but I feel we need to move forward and start building so that others can see we are not afraid of changes. Thank you Maria Cronk -- Maria Cronk Fancy That Group 48/50 Princess Street Kingston, ON Canada Head Office Fancy That The Roundstone

168 July 24,2015 Dear Kingston's City Planning Committee, My name is David and I am a to be property owner that situates beside the proposed subject property (223 Princess St). After reading the latest full planning report (PC ) for the upcoming development, i have a few concerns that I hope the developer can c larify them or make the supporting reports available for thorough public review." Concerns: I. New building's shadow impact on surrounding properties (Report p36) I would like to receive more detail from the stated Urban Design Rep01t, dated April 17, 2015 in regards to the building's shadow affecting neighbouring properties. 2. Removing ofneighbourhood plants (Report p36) Would like more information if indeed the removal ofgreen vegetation on the Queen st corner is required by the developer. 3. Noise level (Report p36) Considering the above ground parking facility and the close proximity, I am concerned that the south facing residential balconies from properties on the Sydenham street will be impacted with heightened noise level from frequent vehicle movement. 4. Building footprints and mass are generally larger on blocks north ofqueen Street. and east ofsydenham Street. Similar to the above point, it will affect quiet and enjoy"ment use by the existing residents due to pollution and noise level from parking facility unless a mitigation plan is put in place. Plus the concern on loss ofprivacy (Report p47). 5. Would like more clarity on how the proposed 20 floor tower will affect neighbouring buildings' structure from soil movement during foundation digging considering that a few buildings are directly sharing a common Wall with the existing building. 1043

169 6. Clarification of"glazed areas in order to enhance safety andprovide a high quality building design." Sample picture ofhow the glazed windows will look like considering the initial plan. doesn't p_rovide much information. Reqi1est: Urban Design and Shadow Study I would love to be informed of the.upcoming council meeting and future reports,.etc in regards to the development plan. Kindest regards, David C Arvida Circ., Mississauga, Ontario LSN 1R7 1044

170 From: To: Subject: Date: Lambert,Lindsay copy of letter to Clerk re: old Capitol Theatre property proposal Sunday, October 25, :02:26 PM Dear Ms Lambert: I have written to Mr. Bolognone as follows below. Please accept my apologies if this is not the proper procedure for communicating with the Planning Committee and the other Councillors. I would appreciate it if you would attach this to the next Planning Committee agenda. Thanks very much. Jean Gower, Kingston, ON Dear Mr. Bolognone: Please convey my letter below to all members of Kingston City Council and all members of the City Planning Committee: It has come to my attention that the images at the July public meeting for the building being proposed for the old Capitol Theater were not all to scale. This might not have given an accurate impression of what the applicant could ultimately build there. The phrase sticks out like a sore thumb comes to mind. Apparently the actual current proposal could leave Kingston with an ugly sight visible for many kilometers in all directions. What happened to the principle that nothing new in the core area should be higher than City Hall? I wish to register my objections to altering Kingston s Official Plan to accommodate this proposal in its current form. Densification for Kingston yes. Altering our Official Plan to allow a monstrosity No. Jean Gower 16 Kingsgate Place, Kingston ON K7M 7K8 1045

171 From: To: Subject: Date: Agnew,Paige Lambert,Lindsay FW: IN8 Developments" Proposed 20 Storey Condo Wednesday, July 29, :48:12 AM For your file Linsday. Paige Agnew, MCIP, RPP Director of Planning, Building and Licensing Services City of Kingston (613) ext From: diana kwiatkowski Sent: Tuesday, July 28, :20 PM To: Agnew,Paige; Mayor of Kingston; Boehme, Ryan N. Subject: IN8 Developments' Proposed 20 Storey Condo Good Evening I do NOT support a 20 storey condo tower in downtown Kingston as proposed by IN8 Developments. However, I do support development in downtown Kingston, including condo buildings. It's the height and look of this company's proposal that negates my support. To repeat Myriam Beaulne's comments as reported in the Kingston Heritage: "It is completely out of character for the downtown core - too big, too high, too modern, too shiny." I would support a developer's condo proposal that came close to respecting our Official Plan in terms of height, setbacks, density, parking requirements, etc. Sincerely Diana Kwiatkowski Grousewood Lane 1046

172 From: To: Subject: Date: Lambert,Lindsay; Bolognone,John The Capitol Building proposal Thursday, November 05, :47:48 AM Dear Lindsay Lambert and John Bolognone, This letter regards the proposed new Capitol theatre development. I am asking that my views be shared with the Planning Committee and with City Council. I am writing to object, strenuously, to the proposed building. I have reviewed the documents provided by IN8 developments, and I have the following serious concerns. The building is completely out of scale with downtown Kingston. It would dwarf all surrounding buildings, and stand out on Kingston's skyline. It would, at the proposed scale and height, interfere with numerous sight lines of surrounding buildings. In winter, the shadow from it would put the Central school playground, nearly two city blocks away, in permanent shade. Moreover, to approve this building, well beyond current height restrictions, would mean to lose all possible bases to disapprove of all similarly sized proposals. Within a very few years, a decade perhaps, Kingston's downtown would be utterly transformed. What is distinctive about Kingston, in part, is its appeal as a "heritage" city. Visitors enjoy our downtown and celebrate it. Much like visits to old Quebec or old Montreal, the older areas of Kingston, including its downtown area, create a sense of history in the present. The looming presence of a 22 story apartment building on Queen St. would surely change this character irrevocably. I believe that the downtown of Kingston could be "intensified". I think the way to do this is to stay with Kingston's current height restrictions on buildings. Thank you for your attention to my views. Sincerely, Eleanor MacDonald Eleanor MacDonald Associate Professor Department of Political Studies Queen's University Kingston, Ontario K7L 3N6 1047

173 From: To: Subject: Date: Hoegi,LeighAnn on behalf of Agnew,Paige Adams,Alex; Lambert,Lindsay FW: capital condos Thursday, February 18, :26:17 AM For your files. This has already been forwarded to Catalina. LeighAnn Hoegi Administrative Assistant to the Director Planning, Building and Licensing Services Community Services City of Kingston (613) extension 3291 From: Bolognone,John Sent: February :08 PM To: Sargeant,Lorie; Blumenberg,Catalina Cc: Doucet,Michelle; Hurdle,Lanie; Agnew,Paige Subject: FW: capital condos For tabling and distribution. Thanks. John Bolognone City Clerk City of Kingston Phone: , ext From: mmallen1 mmallen1 Sent: Wednesday, February 17, :05 PM To: Mayor & Council; Neill,Jim; jbolognone Subject: Fwd: capital condos Original Message From: mmallen1 mmallen1 < To: kgeorge Date: February 16, 2016 at 10:02 PM Subject: capital condos Kevin With interest I read the story in the Whig on Sat. about the coalition of concerned citizens opposed to the proposed Capital Condos in particular the height aspect. The part I found interesting was the 1048

174 lack of names associated with this group even though I know who they are & I am sure you have an idea, they would be the same group opposed to the Wellington St. extension, third crossing, & the open discussion on putting the new high school at the M Centre etc. This group of individuals seem to only want development of their own vision & when they do not get their own way cry foul & seem to get published in the Whig to say the planning process is broken which it is not as far as I can see. How can the Whig publish a story with a lack of names of this said group & their official title. One can say they are private individuals, but they seem to effect the public in general (OMB costs to over rule the legitimate open planning process) so therefore they are no longer private individuals. I as a taxpayer do not want my taxes to go towards OMB costs brought about by this small group with some kind of wacked agenda that seems to be so anti development. Also how could a councillor ( not you ) that sits on the planning committee be objective & also belong to this group & be involved in a rate payers group in his district, has what are to be open meetings but at a private persons home with no notification to the rest of the constituents, just before this present fiasco over the Capital condos & not declare a conflict of interest. Michael J. Mallen Maybe the developers & concerned citizens that want a progressive sustainable Kingston should form a committee to counteract the rhetoric of this far left leaning group that has some kind of unknown view of our city's future 1049

175 From: To: Subject: Date: Lambert,Lindsay RE: RE: Where Kingston is going down Friday, July 17, :46:18 PM Thank you very much and have a great weekend Original Message---- From: llambert@cityofkingston.ca Sent: Fri, 17 Jul :22: To: Subject: RE: RE: Where Kingston is going down Good afternoon, This is to acknowledge receipt of your correspondence in response to the Planning Act Application. The correspondence will be circulated to the Planning Committee, any affected departments and the applicant for review and consideration. Please note the letter received satisfies the requirements under the Planning Act to secure your right to appeal at the Ontario Municipal Board. Lindsay Lambert MCIP, RPP Senior Planner Planning Division Community Services City of Kingston llambert@cityofkingston.ca ext From: Mel PEI [mailto: Sent: Thursday, July 16, :55 PM To: Lambert,Lindsay Subject: FW: RE: Where Kingston is going down 1050

176 Importance: High I am forwarding thus to you per following Original Message---- From: mayor@cityofkingston.ca Sent: Thu, 16 Jul :21: To: Subject: RE: Where Kingston is going down Good Morning, Thank you for your and for taking the time to share your comments with Mayor Paterson. The Mayor is always appreciative of feedback and looking for ways to improve our great city. With regard to your missing the public meeting on the proposed Empire Theatre development, I can confirm that Lindsay Lambert is the Planner looking after this file. Her address is llambert@cityofkingston.ca she would be able to answer questions about the proposal in more detail. Thank you again for taking an interest in what s happening within our community. Regards, Sarita Machado Administrative Assistant to the Mayor City of Kingston 216 Ontario Street, Kingston, ON K7L 2Z3 smachado@cityofkingston.ca (613) ext Connect with Mayor Paterson From: Mel PEI [ Sent: Thursday, July 02, :16 PM 1051

177 To: Mayor of Kingston Subject: Where Kingston is going down Importance: High Dear Mayor of Kingston: When I moved here and made Kingston my home in 1964, I was in a much different city as far as the downtown is concerned. I have seen the recent mayors of Kingston "ruin" this great historical city. I voted for you because I had faith that you would not follow in their footprints; however, now I am still concerned for this great historical city. Springer was allowed to "buy off" the mayor and council at the time he "donated" a million dollars to rename the historical market square, and I am sure he managed to write that donation off. He also had "his way" with the place of the K-Rock on yet historical lands. Then that historical part of Barrack St was renamed The Tragically Hip Way- tragic for sure. Now Springer wants his way with another part of historical city property on Princess St for the bank. He also seems to have alot of say in what happens in highway 15 development. The development proposed for the former Capital movie house is irresponsible. It is a hideous design soaring over the area. The impact on Queen St is disastrous as that street is already like a roller coaster.to drive on. Have you even considered the impact such a building will have on the sewer system and the amount of water used by all those tenants? The other unfinished condo is a disaster too. Then they want to develop that church???? The other development proposed for Frontenac St is another Patry disaster. The design shows a BBQ deck on the top- I am sorry but this is another fire waiting to happen to destroy another neighbourhood. You have been affiliated with Queen's and your preference for this building could be swayed. The city also allowed the former TD bank to be re-developed in a bar- How much more of this city is going to be ruined. I used to go downtown- not now- it is a dirty place with "beggars" all around-no main stores-just bars and restaurants and closed up dirty places. It is just so sad to see this once great city go this way- oh, sure there still are some nice places-but all this new development that the city has allowed has ruined it. What is also being proposed for other downtown development around Ontario St is bad- it will only add to the congestion and drain the sewer and water systems. 1052

178 I wanted to go to the meeting tonight but I thought the paper earlier said it would be July 6th. Stop the ruin! Is it always about the greed of money? A concerned citizen. 1053

179 RECEIVED I'., 't 7 -- I 2015 PLANNING D.JVISJON CITY OF KINGSTON Rudi Magi Tara Natural Food Limited 81 Princess Street Kingston, ON K7L 1A6 RE: 223 Princess Street Proposal Dear Ms Lambert: We are all concerned about the viability of downtown Kingston, and while increasing the number of residential units in the core can contribute to this viability, it is essential that we be aware of t he negative impact of going about this in the wrong way. Building a 22 story unit is undoubtedly t he w rong way. A 22 story building would become another eyesore like the Princess Towers, but even closer to the historic centre of downtown and surrounding neighborhoods. Kingston's development plan has height restr-ictions for very good, well thought out reasons, one of which is to retain Kingston's unique and very "human scale" size. It offers heritage architecture with buildings that don't dwarf the streetscape making it a walkable centre with a "small town feel". All of this draws people t o downtown Kingston. A twenty story unit will drive people away by destroying the cohesive feel of t he downtown. Kingston has worked hard to preserve it' s heritage cityscape, and ranks with Victoria B.C., Halifax N.S. and even Charleston S.C. in terms of offering people a place to explore history, great shopping and dining, while feeling "at home". Our present plan protects this. Approving this requested change would only be the "thin edge of the wedge". We do need to increase the de nsity of residential units downtown, but without destroying the other aspects that draw people to live, shop and play downtown. Twenty-two stories is simply way too big. Yours truly Rudi Magi 1054

180 From: To: Subject: Date: Quittkat,Rachel; Lambert,Lindsay; Adams,Alex FW: Downtown densification concerns Tuesday, January 12, :09:11 PM I apologize for not including you in this earlier, FYI: From: To: lhurdle@cityofkingston.ca; opzb_update@cityofkingston.ca; cblumenberg@cityofkingston.ca; jbolognone@cityofkingston.ca Subject: FW: Downtown densification concerns Date: Tue, 12 Jan :54: Dear City staff members: I am forwarding this for your information, as I hope that we will all keep working together toward a satisfying vision for our downtown. Sincerely, Gisele Pharand From: To: mayor@cityofkingston.ca; pstroud@cityofkingston.ca; lschell@cityofkingston.ca; jneill@cityofkingston.ca Subject: Downtown densification concerns Date: Tue, 12 Jan :00: Dear City councillors: I would like to share some recent thoughts about downtown densification, in light of last week's correspondence between Derryl Firsten of IN8 Development and Don Campbell. RE: Kingston waking up (instead of growing up) There are no surprises in Derryl Firsten's response to Don Campbell's letter to the City. If anything it confirms the recurring issues when he states: "This height is the only way to make this site work for the much needed intensification that downtown Kingston is begging for." (Who's begging?) Here is how I feel about the 2 issues that this touches on: 1055

181 (1) Height and intensification: Although the attractiveness and human scale of an area seems to be more important to some of us than others, why can't we agree on some reasonable vertical expansion, where low-rise and mid-rise buildings are located according to a proper plan based on a shared vision? What happened to all of that rhetoric (in the new OP) about making new developments fit in (re: both scale and materials)? Isn't all of that research by planners and geographers, who say that 5 or 6 storeys make it viable for developers as well as healthy for communities, worth something? Also, couldn't we have low-rise parkades rather than having parking floors beneath these buildings? Besides, with everyone lining up to build high-rises, we'll easily have more supply than demand. (2) Economic viability: While some arguments put forth by Don Campbell seem valid, I believe it's time to find a market-savvy economist to provide the evidence that high-rises in the heart of downtown will help its businesses survive. In fact, it's possible that this extreme intensification could be counter-productive. At what point does this sort of gentrification drive the rents up, making the situation even worse for small local shops to survive? So much for charm. So much for tourism. Having a few chain-stores downtown makes sense, but do we really want them to fill what remains of the heritage structures? Also, if having new downtown residents supposedly translates into more downtown shoppers of goods and services, why do they all need parking spaces? This doesn't fit with the supposed vision of sustainability. Let's find a way to develop Kingston in a way that's worthy of the 2017 sesquicentennial. Respectfully, Gisele Pharand 1056

182 From: To: Subject: Date: Lambert,Lindsay Empire theater developement Friday, July 03, :25:50 AM Hi, My name is Rodney Sothmann, I am the owner of Kingston Shoe Repair at 51 Montreal St. I am writing to give my support for the proposed housing at the empire theater site. This would be a very important boost to the downtown economy. Thanks, Rodney 1057

183 Lambert,Lindsay From: Sent: To: Subject: Categories: Monday, May 30, :28 PM Lambert,Lindsay Capital Condo development Red Category Good evening Ms. Lambert I am writing to give my perspective on this development and appreciate your involvement. I will be brief as I know you are busy with this and other projects. My wife Liesa and I both went to Frontenac SS and then received degrees from Queens. Both of our children went to Lancaster, then Bayridge and graduated from Queens as well. We left Kingston briefly with work but our love for this city brought us back and I retired after 31 years with the OPP in My wife is an RN at Providence Care I personally was thrilled when this opportunity arose because I saw the changes downtown over the years and most recently with Council approving the KROCK centre, along with upgrades to Princess Street and the big dig. I see the vibrant growth incorporating the limestone and culture which we love. Business downtown continues to fight through urban sprawl, and intensification is the answer as almost all are in agreement of. Loyal business owners are struggling and hopeful for projects like this. New business see the future and are investing, counting on projects like this. Having followed the issues by a small neighbourhood group. I believe IN8 have been very accommodating. 1. Height. Going from 20 to 16 is significant. Sixteen is not too high for mid town. Its higher than the neighbouring buildings but growth requires innovators with vision. 2. Appearance. Much like the new architecture at Queens, Krock Centre, City Libraries, the refurbished S & R, the Whig building, Capital Condos will only enhance the beauty of Kingston. Its a beautifully designed building. I plan to live in this building and have taken a 3 bedroom design so our children wherever their careers take them always have a place to come back. I plan on walking to coffee shops, restaurants, shopping and entertainment. I thank you for your time and involvement in this project. Brian Cross

184 Comments re: July 2, 2015 Public meeting of Planning Committee re: 223 Princess St, IN8 Developments: Proposed Zoning By-law & CIP Amendments City File # D and #D Unfortunately I was not available to attend the above meeting otherwise I would have done so to further indicate the importance of this project moving forward. As a commercial neighbour of the property in question and an active member of the Downtown Business association for the past two decades, currently chair of Downtown Kingston BIA I have a broad perspective to the importance that intensification will play in keeping downtown healthy for the next generations of Kingstonians. With rising strength of internet shopping, the rise in box store retail outside the downtown core, the massive increase in retail commercial square footage beyond the core and the loss of anchors like departments stores (S&R), mini-departments (Zellers), first run movie theatres (Empire/Landmark), large format book stores (Indigo), downtown Kingston is under threat to remaining viable and vibrant in the long-term. Intensification, such as the project being discussed here is important to helping to keep downtown Kingston economically relevant in the future. It s obvious to state that intensification will provide a very necessary new customer base for downtown Kingston retail, service and hospitality sectors. Proximity to shopping is a leading indicator of where people frequent to shop. On the project itself, I m pleased that the tower will be located on Queen Street and not on Princess Street; that the Princess St. art deco façade will be maintained and the building height at Princess Street will not be altered. I believe apartment and condominium towers of 18 stories will appropriately be the new normal in 10 years in and around the downtown core; that we are likely to see five or six of these type building built during in that span. On the mayor s survey I voted for the I m okay with 18 storey buildings as long as they aren't located right on Princess Street. It's important to me that we preserve the human scale of the streetscape along Princess and push develop to either the north or south, option. This project meets that important condition. 1059

185 I like the fact that there is parking on site in a well camouflaged garage, I think it s important that it is camouflaged. And finally I think the tower is well designed, interesting in detail and design and I very much like the use of an abundance of glazing. Overall it appears to be a modern and superior design. I think it will show off well in Downtown Kingston, a contrast for sure to our historic building of superior design with its own modern design merits; giving downtown a pleasing mix of historic and quality modern architecture. Not to be forgotten is the significant property taxes that will be generated by this project. Commercial and residential property taxpayers are under extreme strain and projects like this will help ease the pressures to raise taxes. I urge Planning Committee and City Council to support this application. Ed Smith Ed Smith, Windmills Café Ltd. 184 Princess St. (at Montreal St.) Kingston, ON. 1060

186 1061 Exhibit M

187 Blumenberg,Catalina Subject: FW: 223 Princess St Original Message----- From: Shirley Harmer [ Sent: Tuesday, June 30, :45 PM To: Blumenberg,Catalina Cc: Planning Committee Subject: 223 Princess St. The IN-8 Capitol Development Inc. proposal for 223 Princess St. and adjoining property abutting Queen St. has some merit in that it respects the City's directives for appearance and height restrictions for the Princess St. streetscape. Restoration of interior architectural features would improve the present building. What is alarming is the height of the tower proposed for the Queen St. side of the property. It does not respect the historic fabric and scale of the surrounding area. The effect would be overpowering and completely out of context to the environment. Elrond Tower was a mistake which reflected poor planning and procedures. Let us not make a similar error with the visual intrusion represented by the proposed tower. Respectfully submitted, Shirley Anne Harmer Sent from my ipad

188 Cruz,Kevin From: Sent: To: Subject: James Malcolm Tuesday, June 30, :37 PM Lambert,Lindsay the new Capital building Lindsey I wanted to write a quick note throwing my support behind the proposed apartment building and commercial space in the old Empire theatre property. Wow..what a way to protect the look and feel of the Princess street while providing more livable space downtown. The IN8 Development group has been creative with the existing lot and preserving the façade of the old theatre and allowing the residents to walk out on to Princess but using Queens as the main vehicle access. The hidden garage is also preserving the look of Queen street. Kingston has a very livable downtown core and this building allows more residents to make the core their home. Thanks for your time James Malcolm Trailhead Kingston 262 Princess St Kingston On K7L 1B5 Like us on Facebook! Follow us on Twitter

189 Report Number PC Princess Street Following my comments at the public meeting on this application on Thursday, July 2, 2015, I submit the following comments and questions. Heritage character of downtown Kingston 1. How does this application respect the significant cultural heritage resource of the Lower Princess Street Heritage Character Area? OP 7.3.D.2? 2. How does this application respect the heritage style that has survived since the 1800 s of the St. Lawrence Ward area? OP 7.3.D.6? I support Ms. Findlay s suggestion to have a peer review providing independent advice to the city about the cultural heritage fit of this 20-storey building in the context of its heritage location and Kingston s Official Plan policies. Benefit to downtown A first reaction is to think that more residential units downtown will be good for downtown businesses. However, some cities, e.g. Victoria, are finding that this is not the case. Downtown residents travel, or spend the winter in warmer, drier places, and are not contributing to the wealth of the community fully over the course of the year. Students are usually away for more than four months of the year, and do not necessarily have disposable income. If this becomes a condominium, some cities are finding that units remain empty as purchasers have bought the units to speculate on their increase in value with no intention of living there or renting them in the short term, e.g. Vancouver. This does not translate into an increase for downtown businesses as there is not the expected increase in residents. As well, allowing a series of high rise apartments on Princess Street may deter people from other parts of the city from coming downtown and may make the city less desirable to tourists. The city risks losing its to scale feel and becoming just another town with tall buildings, no character, and a bereft downtown. Kingston is known for its low vacancy rate. However, in the last few years several new apartment buildings have been developed or are underway. Oversupply can result in vacancies (e.g. Montreal) and declining property values in some parts of the city which will have an overall negative effect on the city s property tax revenues. 3. How does Kingston compare to other cities that are experiencing the serious burden of renters/owners not actually spending that much time in the city? 4. Is the city sure that this development will not contribute to an over-supply of units which will remain empty? 5. Is the city sure that this development will not drain residents away from other areas corroding the city s tax base? 1064

190 6. Is the city sure this development will bring economic benefits to the city that outweigh the risks? View scape At the Planning Committee public meeting, the applicant had visuals of the building in context on Princess Street and Queen Street and spoke about the building being almost invisible when walking on Princess Street. How the building looks from all vantage points is relevant to its suitability and its adherence to Official Plan policies. 7. Could the applicant provide some to-scale visuals of the building seen from Fort Henry? offshore in front of City Hall? Division and Concession? Mid-town? McBurney Park? Garbage / Recycling A building of this size on downtown streets should not be putting garbage outside no matter the time of day or night, or the receptacle used. The application says that the garbage receptacle will be wheeled to the loading area for weekly collection. The application does not mention recycling which is necessary, too. There is nothing more damaging to the downtown ambience than poor garbage management. 8. Will garbage and recycling receptacles be left outside? 9. Is weekly collection sufficient for a building with this many units? Noise The only thing the applicant s Planning Rationale Report, May 22, 2015, says regarding noise from the building is that more detailed noise analysis of the mechanical components of the building will be provided as the site plan application progresses. (page 36). The impact of mechanical noise from the building s elevator and heating and cooling systems on the roof must be considered as part of the planning application. These noises, which go on day and night, can be very loud and be heard at a distance, and could have a negative effect on the enjoyment of downtown Kingston s outdoor patio life in summer and on people on the streets and neighbours year round. 10. What are the calculations for the sound from the building s mechanicals and how will this noise be managed so that it is not heard at ground level, by residential neighbours, or in other parts of downtown Kingston? Parking The applicant is asking for a reduction in parking spaces from 210 to 132 and a reduction in the size of each parking stall. With respect to accessible parking, the applicant is asking to reduce the number of accessible parking stalls from 10 to 8 and to reduce the size of these parking stalls, while planning to provide 34 accessible residential units. 11. Has this approach to accessible parking been positively reviewed by the Municipal Accessibility Advisory Committee? 1065

191 The applicant notes the need to remove on street parking to permit the parking garage to function. It may be reasonable to assume that a portion of residents will not have cars. However, most of them will have visitors and contractors/cleaners/service people from time to time. 12. Where are visitors to people living in this building to park? Are there any visitor parking spots within the building? If not, why not? Bicycle Parking A bicycle is a valuable asset. For someone who uses a bicycle as a primary means of transportation it is a tragedy when the bicycle is damaged or stolen. If the city accepts the applicant s submission that less than one of three people living in the building will have a car and that residents will be using bicycles for transportation, then appropriate facilities have to be provided for cyclists. This is not only secure parking, it is also a small area in which to grease a chain or change a flat tire. When apartment dwellers don t have a secure bicycle parking facility in a parking garage or locker, they will bring their bicycles to their apartments, crowding elevators and sometimes putting their bike on the balcony which is not the balcony look that fits with downtown Kingston s heritage character. Bicycle parking needs to be: Easily accessible, convenient bicycle parking (e.g. ground floor, or first level parking garage) A place (individual locker is best) where no one can see the bicycle or touch any of its components A place where other bicycles don t lean on the bicycle (e.g. one bike falling on another bike causing a wheel to bend or a pedal to bend a spoke) A place where the bike is easy to retrieve (e.g. same spot without having to move other people s bicycles out of the way) A place to do minor repairs such as flat-tire repairs, chain greasing, and spoke tightening. At the public meeting, the applicant said that if someone s bicycle is stolen then it would be a building neighbour who stole it as access to the bicycle storage area would be for residents only. Unfortunately, one cannot be sure all one s neighbours are trustworthy. Not only is a bicycle very vulnerable so are add-ons, such as racks, saddle bags, and baskets, and those required by law such as bells and lights. It is not practical to remove these items every day. 13. Will the building have a concierge on duty 24/7? 14. Will the bicycle storage area have CCTVs that cannot be easily covered or damaged, and are monitored regularly and whose recordings are kept for at least 3 months? 15. Will the building have a place where people with bicycles can do minors repairs? 16. Will someone have to move a car to take a bicycle down from the proposed hook bicycle parking system in the parking garage? 1066

192 17. How do the proposed storage facilities accommodate electric bicycles, which are bigger and heavier? 18. What spaces are there to park a scooter or a small motorcycle? 19. What facilities are proposed to plug-in an e-bike or car that needs to be recharged? 20. Has the applicant provided information about how the proposed bicycle parking compares to best practice bicycle storage facilities in other cities? 21. Has the applicant provided an example of the effective functioning of the bicycle storage facilities proposed for this building in an existing building? Height, Angular plane, Front yard setback, Density In addition to a change in the height of the building from the permitted 6 storeys to 20 storeys, the applicant is proposing to: decrease the front yard setback to 0 m increase the maximum permitted angular plane from 39 degrees to 86 degrees decrease the minimum required build-to-plain to 0 m increase the permitted density from 123 units per hectare to 930 du (?) per hectare. These are significant changes to the city s Official Plan and zoning by-law policies, which, in my view, the applicant has not justified. The changes also suggest that Official Plan amendments are required, although they have not been sought in this application. Conclusion The point of having an Official Plan and zoning by-laws is to establish a blueprint for development that, after thorough consultation, brings predictability to the city and levels the playing field for all developers and property owners. This application is completely out of step with Kingston planning documents and requires major changes to them. It should not be approved as presented at the public meeting on July 2, It is not good planning, Respectfully submitted by: Vicki Schmolka 625 Fernmoor Drive Kingston, ON K7M 8K5 1067

193 Blumenberg,Catalina Subject: FW: Development of Capitol (Empire) Theatre Property at 223 Princess Street -----Original Message----- From: Lubomyr Luciuk [ Sent: Monday, August 03, :11 AM To: Blumenberg,Catalina Subject: Development of Capitol (Empire) Theatre Property at 223 Princess Street 3 July 2015 Dear Members of the Planning Committee: I am writing to express my opposition to the proposed construction of a 20 storey building on the location of the former Capitol (Empire) Theatre at 223 Princess Street. I have reviewed the plan submitted (2 July 2015) and am concerned about how this precedent-setting development will set the stage for the gradual undermining of the unique character of lower Princess Street, which still retains much of its Victorian architecture, and charm. As a Kingstonian, born and raised, I would much prefer to see our waterfront area and main streets kept free of more glass towers that are aesthetically unappealing and destructive of the historic character of our city. While I concede that our downtown needs revitalization, I would strongly urge you to work toward preserving the truly fine character of what remains of our City rather than populating its core with the kinds of overstuffed, unattractive, and indeed quite pedestrian skyscrapers of the very sort that have already utterly spoiled so many other Canadian cities. Thank you for considering my comments. Yours truly, Lubomyr Luciuk, PhD 849 Wartman Avenue Kingston, Ontario K7M 2Y

194 -----Original Message----- From: Sent: Wednesday, October 14, :47 PM To: Contactus Subject: New Building Concern - PE REF # Category: Customer Service Comment: I wanted to pass on my concern for the proposed new building at the Capital Theatre site. Hopefully it won't happen. Building that enormous structure will definitely be an eye sore to our skyline and downtown area. Reply: No Name: Joanne Ward Phone: 1069

195 Lambert,Lindsay From: Sent: To: Subject: Audrey Helmstaedt Thursday, October 29, :02 PM Lambert,Lindsay IN8 Capitol project I am writing about my concerns in regard to the proposed IN8 Capitol project. The height of the building is totally out of sync with the downtown area. It seems to contravene the second draft of the Official Plan, in particular Section 3 Land Use, page 87: (b) in accordance with Section , Where an increase in height, density or both is requested, the City will place high priority on the provision of affordable housing. I do not think this project fits into the affordable housing bracket and I doubt the developer is targeting that market. Also: Section 9 of the Official Plan, page 349, regarding the Criteria for an Official Plan Amendment : Every application for amendment will be evaluated on the basis of: c) the compatibility of the proposal or the adequacy of proposed mechanisms for achieving compatibility, with adjacent and planned uses, including cultural and heritage resources and natural heritage areas. and g) the degree to which approval of the amendment would establish an UNDESIRABLE PRECEDENT. The new Official Plan is not even accepted and plans are already underway for amendments that would definitely set an undesirable precedent! Furthermore the promotional drawings of the project are out of scale and do not represent a true picture from Princess St. or Queen St. This gives prospective buyers and city residents a false impression of the overall skyline. There is growing concern among Kingston residents that this project in its present scale is totally unacceptable. Please do not accept this development plan. Sincerely, Audrey Helmstaedt 1 Place d Armes Kingston, ON

196 From: To: Subject: Date: Mayor of Kingston; McLaren,Jeff; Neill,Jim; George,Kevin; Turner,Lacricia; Osanic,Lisa; Schell,Elizabeth; Stroud,Peter; Hutchison,Rob; Didrikson,Amy; Blumenberg,Catalina; Lets Connect; Hunt,Gerard; Bolognone,John; Hurdle,Lanie; Lambert,Lindsay; opzb_update; Quittkat,Rachel; Leary,Ryan Vision for Downtown Kingston petition Tuesday, December 01, :58:14 PM Hello City of Kingston councillors and staff. As per our arrangement after the November 5 public meeting regarding the Official Plan Update, I have provided your project manager, Rachel Quittkat, with the final results of the petition entitled "What's Your Vision for Downtown Kingston?". Although 100 signatures were collected and presented at the public meeting, I kept the petition open for the month of November, and Ms. Quittkat has kindly offered to ensure that the final total of 222 signatures and 69 comments will be presented at Thursday's (December 3) Planning Committee meeting. It is my sincere hope that this can be a collaborative effort such that the new OP's improved guidelines in Section 8.6 include specific height restrictions for new developments downtown. Although the petition's central statement is that "New developments in Kingston's downtown core ought to fit into its architectural character and human scale", I hope that you take special note of the proposed maximum heights of 6 to 8 storeys (and of 8 to 10 storeys with presentation of a convincing 3D model). In addition, I hope that you will read each of the 69 comments that the supporters have taken the time to compose. I believe that each of these merits consideration as it would as a separate letter to the City. Let's ensure that Kingston grows in a way in which we are all in agreement, such that its downtown core remains attractive and vibrant for all. Respectfully, Gisele Pharand 1071

197 Cruz,Kevin From: Sent: To: Subject: Natalie Holland Saturday, December 05, :47 PM Lambert,Lindsay Condo Hello, Thank-you for helping in the restructuring of downtown and the new Princess street Condo building in the old Empire theatre, The building will help the downtown core with new residence living in the hub of our great city. Thank-you Natalie Holland

198 From: To: Subject: Date: Gisele & Tom Lambert,Lindsay FW: The Capitol proposal Sunday, December 20, :36:32 PM Ms. Lambert: I am forwarding this for your information, as I meant to send it to you as well. Gisele Pharand From: To: opzb_update@cityofkingston.ca CC: rquittkat@cityofkingston.ca; mayor@cityofkingston.ca; pstroud@cityofkingston.ca; rhutchison@cityofkingston.ca Subject: The Capitol proposal Date: Sat, 19 Dec :52: Good afternoon, Ms. Agnew. I understand that The Capital proposal's peer review will soon be considered. It is my hope that you will not lose sight of the fact that the existing proposal contravenes current height restrictions, and that 222 of Kingston's citizens are willing to see this restriction lifted, but only in a modest manner, if necessary. While the "What's Your Vision for Downtown Kingston?" 27-day petition was read into the record at the last Council meeting, there are also the 69 petition Comments worthy of attention. Councillor Hutchison could provide you with these if you don't still have a copy from the December 3 Planning Committee meeting. While many downtown businesses near 223 Princess are also in favour of current or only slightly modified height restrictions (preferring continued tourism in our attractive downtown to the possibility of a few more local shoppers in an unattractive downtown), they have not yet voiced their opinion, for numerous reasons. Others have changed their minds over the last few months, as Princess Street was already in the midst of promising revitalization with all of the new businesses taking shape long before IN8 showed up. I applaud the City's wish for an open and democratic process, and therefore look forward to further communications. Having called Kingston "home" for the last 35 years, and having initiated a petition and promised to stand behind it as best I can, it is my sincere hope that we can negotiate in a manner that will make us all proud to live in this fair city. Respectfully, Gisele Pharand 1073

199 Exhibit M From: To: Cc: Subject: Date: Attachments: Lambert,Lindsay Hurdle,Lanie IN8 application Sunday, January 10, :46:47 PM Moshe Safdie high rise article.pdf I would like to submit this article by architect Moshe Sadfie from last week s Wall Street Journal as part of my submission on the 223 Princess Street application file. Thank you. Vicki Schmolka 1074

200 1075 Exhibit M

201 From: To: Cc: Subject: Date: Lambert,Lindsay Hurdle,Lanie OMB rejects high-rise project Tuesday, January 12, :27:43 AM Please add this newspaper article to my submission with respect to the 223 Princess Street application. Thank you. Vicki Schmolka 1076

202 Mon, Jan 11, :36 pm Toronto News & Ideas Church Street student residence near Toronto's Village is axed Ontario Municipal Board rejects proposal, protecting heritage site by Arshy Mann In a rare anti-developer decision, the Ontario Municipal Board (OMB) has rejected a proposed 32-storey private student residence for Church Street. The proposal from CHC MPAR Church Holdings Inc would have a seen a tower built at 412 Church St, housing 532 students. The property is currently a parking lot that sits next to the Stephen Murphy Houses and Stores, a designated heritage site and the former location of the Barn and Stables, a historically significant gay bar. The OMB, which hears appeals about development issues from across Ontario, is often criticized for working as a de facto approval process for developers, even when a project is opposed by the city government. But in this case, the OMB rejected the proposal because the design of the building would have clashed with the heritage value of the Stephen Murphy Houses. 1077

203 The tall building diminishes the heritage qualities to the detriment of the heritage buildings continued functioning as a visible and distinguished built form remnant of the City s cultural heritage, read the decision, issued on Dec 23, The development was opposed by the City of Toronto and the McGill-Granby Village Residents Association. I was shocked, and other people on the board were surprised, says Rick Kubowicz, president of the McGill-Granby Village Residents Association. He says that while the proposal was not a good fit for the neighbourhood, he still didn t expect the OMB to reject it. If you don t deny this, what do you deny? he says. It was such a big building on such a small parcel and not fitting in with the neighbourhood. And while density issues were one of the main concerns voiced by residents and the City, the OMB ultimately put much more weight on the heritage property next door. Other similar projects, like a 25-storey private student residence at Spadina Avenue and Huron Street, were approved by the OMB despite similar opposition. But no heritage sites were next to the property in that case. There is value in preserving views of these heritage buildings to the extent possible while developing on a site that abuts such a structure, read the OMB s recent decision. The Stephen Murphy Houses and Store were designated a heritage site in 2006 partially because of their connection to the gay community in the 1990s. Kubowicz says that while he s happy with the decision, he still feels that the OMB shouldn t be able to override the wishes of a city government. You would want the city to have its own power to enforce their own laws, he says. 1078

204 From: To: Cc: Subject: Date: Lambert,Lindsay Hurdle,Lanie article for IN8 file Sunday, February 07, :06:57 PM Lindsay: Please add this article to my comments on the 223 Princess Street application. Thank you, Vicki Schmolka 1079

205 Exhibit M The Yonge and Bloor of today could be anywhere: Hume The death of art dealer Avrom Isaacs is a reminder of when the celebrated corner was Canada s main cultural hub hile Avrom Isaacs held sway in the 1960s to the 1980s, Yonge and Bloor was one of Toronto s major cultural hubs. (HAROLD BARKLEY / TORONTO STAR FILE PHOTO) By CHRISTOPHER HUME Urban Issues and Architecture Thu., Feb. 4, 2016 The richer Toronto grows, the poorer it feels. The most recent reminder came with the death of Avrom Isaacs, long one of the two or three most important art dealers in Canada. For several decades his gallery on Yonge St. just north of Bloor was Ground Zero for anyone interested in contemporary Canadian art. Just doors away was Carmen Lamanna, the other legendary Toronto gallerist, not so much Isaacs rival as a fellow traveller. A few blocks west in Yorkville, Walter Moos opened his gallery in 1962, a year after Isaacs moved to Yonge Eventually, the Village, as it was then called, was enshrined as Toronto s designated art district. At its height, there must have been more than a dozen art galleries in Yorkville, not all of them worthy, but part of the scene nevertheless. Today, little remains. A few dealers have hung on, but even before Lamanna and Isaacs died, both had been forced to relocate, victims of rising rents and land values that they did as much as anyone to increase. Indeed, while the two held sway from the 60s to the 80s Yonge and Bloor was one of Toronto s major cultural hubs. In those days, art lovers could wander Yonge between Cumberland and Yorkville and see for themselves the most significant Canadian art of the times. Article Continued Below By the turn of the century, however, this stretch of the city s main street had become a series of restaurants and after the demise of the Fiesta, none of them particularly noteworthy. Lamanna s old place even did time as a massage parlour. Pretty soon the three-storey mid-19th century buildings that comprise the streetscape will be part of a 58-floor condo tower that has also displaced the venerable Cookbook Store that stood at the corner of Yonge and Cumberland for 31 years. We should be thrilled, of course; rising property values make many of us richer and richer. On the other hand, this section of Yonge has never been as dull, dreary and desolate as it is today. Though the inevitable condo tower will make some developer a lot of money and give the few hundred people who can afford it a nice place to live, the city as a whole is diminished by these changes. There is less here to engage us now, less to draw us in and remind why we chose to live in a city. Yonge has become sad and generic, ordinary and dumbed down. The cheap eateries that have moved in cater to the kids using the Toronto Reference Library across the road. The franchises have taken over and anything more sophisticated than a Starbucks is shunned. The only thing that will change when the condo appears is the names of the chains allowed into its shiny ground-floor spaces. But for now, anyone hoping for more than a cup of overpriced coffee or chicken on a pita needn t bother with Yonge and Bloor. It might well be one of the city s signature intersections, but unless you re from Toronto you wouldn t know it. How ironic that the new mixed-use condo towers under construction should all be aimed at the luxury market; first you destroy the neighbourhood then you sell it back to the wealthy, kitsch for the rich. Look no farther than the behemoth under construction on the southeast corner of Bloor and Yonge. When developers bought the old Frank Stollery building on the southwest corner last year, they destroyed it even before the hoardings went up. By the time the dust settles, Yonge and Bloor might as well be anywhere. Christopher Hume can be reached at chume@thestar.ca The Morning Headlines Newsletter Delivered daily to your inbox. Sign up

206 From: To: Cc: Subject: Date: Mayor of Kingston; Stroud,Peter; Schell,Elizabeth; Neill,Jim; Hunt,Gerard; Hurdle,Lanie; Adams,Alex; opzb_update; Leary,Ryan; Didrikson,Amy; Lambert,Lindsay; Venditti,Marnie; Forfar,Stacey; Leger,Denis Hutchison,Rob; McLaren,Jeff; Newman,Greg; Blumenberg,Catalina; Bolognone,John; Lets Connect The Capitol & other applications Monday, February 15, :54:16 PM Dear City council and staff members: I do not support the two proposed 20-storey Homestead applications for lower Queen Street, for the same reasons that I do not support the IN8 application as it still stands for Princess Street. These proposed buildings are too high for Kingston's downtown core, and will ruin what remains of its heritage-rich and charming character and people-friendly human scale. Furthermore, it contradicts the city's Official Plan and by-laws and supposed vision. It is still my hope that a more detailed long-range vision will be developed and upheld by all. Based on the modest research that I have done, I truly believe that the costs and risks of high-rises will soon make them passé. Architects now win awards for more sustainable and equitable/accessible low-rises. If we really want to be an innovative city, we ought to pay attention to what the new planners and geographers and other experts are trying to tell us. While Kingston would benefit from some densification in its commercial district, this benefit will only occur if it is smart growth that fits in with a smart vision. I urge you to do the right thing and be forward-minded rather than at the mercy of every new development application that seems appealing at first glance. Respectfully, Gisele Pharand P.S. - Please include my comments in the February 17 planning agenda, so that they are presented to the Planning Committee. 1081

207 Lambert,Lindsay From: Sent: To: Cc: Subject: Categories: Newman,Greg Tuesday, May 31, :57 AM Margo Rivera Lambert,Lindsay Re: Capitol Condo Project Proposal Red Category Mrs. Rivera, Thank you for your . I have copied Lindsay Lambert in my reply as she is the Planner managing the Capitol theatre project. Your comments will be considered as that application is advanced through the approvals process. Regards, Greg Sent from my Samsung Galaxy smartphone Original message From: Margo Rivera Date: :57 PM (GMT-05:00) To: "Newman,Greg" <gnewman@cityofkingston.ca> Subject: Capitol Condo Project Proposal Dear Greg Newman, I am writing in support of the Capitol Condo project proposed for 233 Princess Street. I believe there is a need for residential intensification if downtown Kingston is to be a viable city centre. This building appears to me to be well-designed and attractive, and I think it would complement the classical character of the limestone architecture of the city of Kingston. Thanks, Margo Rivera 350 Wellington Street, Kingston. K7K 7J7 Sent from my iphone

208 Lambert,Lindsay From: Sent: To: Subject: Categories: Margo Rivera Monday, May 30, :46 PM Lambert,Lindsay Capitol Condo Project Propisal Red Category Dear Lindsay Lambert, I am writing in support of the Capitol Condo building proposed for 233 Princess Street. I believe downtown Kingston needs significant intensification in order to make it a viable city centre, and this building appears to be well-designed and attractive. Most people who choose to live downtown will be likely either to have no automobile or leave their cars in the building and only use them for trips out of the downtown area, which will create more downtown strollers and shoppers without the need for more parking spaces. Thank you, Margo Rivera 350 Wellington Street, Kingston K7K 7 J7 Sent from my iphone

209 Lambert,Lindsay From: Sent: To: Subject: Mike Cole-Hamilton Tuesday, June 07, :21 PM Lambert,Lindsay Re. Planning meeting, June 16th, the Capitol proposal Dear Ms Lambert, The Capitol proposal seeks approval of a 55.4 metre building, or 17 storeys high. The City of Kingston's Official Plan clearly recommends a height limit of 25.5 metres - or approx. 6 storeys high - on future buildings in the downtown area. Kingston has spent considerable time and money on expert opinion for the Official Plan and updates. The citizens of Kingston have given considerable input to both the plan and update. Regardless of the many other questionable factors in the Capitol Project - scale, shade, wind effects etc., it seems pointless for Kingston to fly in the face of its own Official Plan. This would open the way for exceptions to every detail and a total disregard of expensive, expert opinion. Please register my opposition to this proposal. Sincerely, Mike Cole-Hamilton -1 Place d Armes Kingston K7K6S

210 Right-click here to download pictures. To help protect your privacy, Outlook prevented auto matic downlo ad o f this picture from the Internet. Avast logo Exhibit M Lambert,Lindsay From: Sent: To: Subject: Follow Up Flag: Flag Status: David Slack Tuesday, June 07, :42 PM Lambert,Lindsay The Capital Project Follow up Completed Just wanted to voice my support for the Capital Project. Kingston is my home for all of my 57 years, and I remember when the downtown was the place we gathered. I believe an increase in the density of people living in the downtown core is going to be what saves our downtown. Count me as a solid YES to the Capital project. And any other plan to bring life to our Downtown. David This has been checked for viruses by Avast antivirus software

211 Lambert,Lindsay From: Sent: To: Subject: Cheryl Boone Wednesday, June 08, :39 AM Lambert,Lindsay Building Kingston's Future Everyone hates to see empty store fronts in our downtown. How to remedy that is simple growth. The growth that we need to accommodate the future could be lost should we not take the opportunity now. In my view, high-rise is the right product type when building in the most desirable locations where there is insufficient land available and there is a reason to be right there. Here is the chance to create residential density where it makes the most urban planning sense, alongside transit, jobs, shopping and entertainment. The naysayers want the type of building that predominate in suburban areas. New construction must take into account the structure of the entire city and integrate with the old buildings to offer a pleasant and charming appearance. This can be realized in a highrise as easily as a five or six story building. Kingston has been recognized as one of the best places to work for young professionals. It is also one of the most desirable retirement locations. Downtown living can accommodate both and it is time to make it available to everyone. Cheryl Boone

212 Lambert,Lindsay From: Sent: To: Subject: carol wallace Wednesday, June 08, :54 AM Lambert,Lindsay We support the condo Hello: Jim and I are currently in B.C. So cannot attend the meeting on June 16. We would like to express our support of the development of the Capitol condos. We have purchased one of the units. We believe an increase of residential living downtown has a positive impact for downtown living. We will shop, dine and attend the gymns and entertainment facilities more often because they are at our door step. Perhaps even do more volunteer work downtown as well. Sincerely, Carol and Jim Sent from my iphone

213 Lambert,Lindsay From: Sent: To: Subject: James Malcolm Thursday, June 09, :27 AM Lambert,Lindsay Capital Project HI Lindsay Just throwing my support behind the newly proposed Capital Project on Princess ( or should I say bordering ) Allowing designs like this is exactly what downtown needs. A developer who is willing to work with existing structures will be a better option to the next proposal that would likely tear down the old theatre façade. Intensifying the core will further mature our vibrant downtown. While development of farmland on the perimeter of the city continues, developments such as this will begin to provide great alternatives for those choosing a downtown lifestyle where walking to shop, entertainment, work and exercise can all be attained. Personally I look forward to retiring to the core when that time arrives and hope that there will be inventory of condo s or apartments to choose from. Thanks for reading. James Malcolm Trailhead Kingston 262 Princess St Kingston On K7L 1B5 Like us on Facebook! Follow us on Twitter

214 Lambert,Lindsay From: Sent: To: Subject: Kelly McEwen Friday, June 10, :17 PM Lambert,Lindsay; Newman,Greg Capitol condos Hello, I am an investor in the the capitol condos. I am a young professional that would like to live in the downtown area. I will be living in my condo and look forward to being able to walk to all the amenities that the downtown area has to offer. Bringing new to the downtown area is only going to enhance it and help keep it going for many years to come. Having this condo built will be great for the stores and restaurants. I feel that this is an excellent way to bring people to the downtown area to spend money in the shops and restaurants! I grew up in the downtown area and love the environment. I would love to have the opportunity to live downtown once again. Thanks, Kelly McEwen Capitol Condos #909 Sent from my iphone

215 Lambert,Lindsay From: Filip Gilic < Sent: Sunday, June 12, :30 PM To: Lambert,Lindsay; Newman,Greg Subject: Letter of support re: intensification of the downtown core Madam, Sir I write in support of the intensification of the downtown core that will be discussed at the Public Meeting on June 16.Kingston must grow to remain a viable and vibrant city and in the last decade that I have lived here, most of the growth has been in the form of suburban sprawl across the Causeway and in the West end. With the sprawl come all the inefficiencies, waste and environmental degradation that come with low density growth. Intensification upwards has been and remain the most logical way of adding population to an area with minimal environmental impact and maximal use of the existing City infrastructure, especially now that the Big Dig has added spare capacity to the Princess St facilities. Adding several hundred residents to the downtown core would have an immediate and lasting positive effect on the downtown commercial spaces, many of which are currently struggling and which historically see a high turnover rate. Given that the proposed condo project places its residents (which myself and my family intend to become) within walking distance of all the necessary amenities, I believe we would lead healthier, happier, less environmentally destructive lives as compared to the car-heavy suburban living. While the proposed project is disproportionately tall to the surrounding structures, it is significantly offset and thus I do not believe it would be an eye sore on the Princess St streetscape. Furthermore, the lack of condo-sized plots would limit the number of high rises that could be erected in the downtown, preventing Torotnto-like mushrooming of such buildings and the attendant trouble such super-high density living produces. Kingston already has a reputation as a somewhat business- unfriendly city. Let us not add to it, especially as I do not believe we would see a large scale investment into the ex Capitol theater space, should this proposal fail. Sincerely. Dr Filip Gilic, MD

216 Lambert,Lindsay From: Sent: To: Subject: Michael Capon Monday, June 13, :59 PM Lambert,Lindsay; Mayor & Council IN8 development proposal Ms. Lambert, please record my opposition to the revised IN8 development proposal for the Capitol Theatre site. It is still far to high. Please don't wreck our beautiful city. Send the developers back to the drawing board until they come up with a six -- not seven, six -- storey proposal. Yes, they can. Thanks, Michael Capon -32 Ontario St. Kingston ON K7L 2Y

217 Lambert,Lindsay From: Sent: To: Subject: Jane Cole-Hamilton Monday, June 13, :03 AM Lambert,Lindsay Re. Planning meeting, June 16th, the Capitol proposal Dear Ms. Lambert, Given Kingston s gold standard 3% vacancy rate and the fact that Kingston has a 15 year supply of committed and pending housing, our priority should be safeguarding Kingston s unique downtown heritage and livability. This is what draws people to live here, both retirees and young professionals. MoneySense rates Kingston as 46th for quality of life in Canada with a downward trend. When we moved here 20 years ago, Kingston was rated #2 in Canada for retirement. What has changed: certainly more high rises like Block D? Downtown has suffered. Our priority should be to make downtown a place people want to live by listening to those already here. They are asking for a livable, walkable, human scale city. Not one whose historic buildings huddle in the shade of monster high rises. There s chronic condo overbuilding in Toronto and Vancouver. Why follow them? Jane Cole Hamilton From: Sent: Tuesday, June 07, :20 PM To: llambert@cityofkingston.ca Subject: Re. Planning meeting, June 16th, the Capitol proposal Dear Ms Lambert, The Capitol proposal seeks approval of a 55.4 metre building, or 17 storeys high. The City of Kingston's Official Plan clearly recommends a height limit of 25.5 metres - or approx. 6 storeys high - on future buildings in the downtown area. Kingston has spent considerable time and money on expert opinion for the Official Plan and updates. The citizens of Kingston have given considerable input to both the plan and update. Regardless of the many other questionable factors in the Capitol Project - scale, shade, wind effects etc., it seems pointless for Kingston to fly in the face of its own Official Plan. This would open the way for exceptions to every detail and a total disregard of expensive, expert opinion. Please register my opposition to this proposal

218 Sincerely, Mike Cole-Hamilton -1 Place d Armes Kingston K7K6S

219 Lambert,Lindsay From: Sent: To: Cc: Subject: Smith & Hineman Monday, June 13, :00 AM Lambert,Lindsay; Newman,Greg Mayor of Kingston; Allen,Richard; George,Kevin; Osanic,Lisa; Turner,Laura; Schell,Elizabeth; Candon,Adam; Holland,Mary Rita; McLaren,Jeff; Neill,Jim; Stroud,Peter; Hutchison,Rob; Boehme, Ryan N.; Smith & Hineman The Capitol Condo Project / 223 Princess St Lindsey Lambert Senior Planer City of Kingston Greg Newman Manager, Policy Planning City of Kingston Dear Ms. Lambert and Mr. Greg Newman, I am writing to you today to express my views regarding intensification in downtown Kingston and specifically the proposal by IN8 Developments at the Capitol site 223 Princess St. I am a full time Kingston and area realtor, since I have had the opportunity to work with this developer since this project was first proposed. The developer made an excellent effort to ensure Kingstonians had the first opportunity to buy into this development. They initially reached out to the local real estate community followed up by an impressive local marketing campaign. Upon my own due diligence and being a supporter of a successful downtown I became involved. I reached out to my local client base and the reception was overwhelmingly positive. What was surprising was the variety of the demographics: retirees, soon to be retirees, lots of young professionals and some small and medium size local investors. Along with many colleagues I was able to meet first hand Kingstonians wanting to purchase at the Capitol site. And they did purchase subject to approvals, with little hesitation. Over 140 people have shown their support by putting significant deposits down on units. The desire and need for this type of development seems obvious; many of the good people of Kingston want to live downtown. This is what will ensure a successful and growing city for the future; people living, working and playing in our downtown. The city is different th a n it was 20, 50 or 100 years ago. Growth has led us to this point and downtown has done an excellent job at making us stand out from the crowd of similar sized cities. Continuing to mix historic architecture with new is the right step to ensuring our future success. Looking back over recent hot button items like the K rock center, the Grand Theater renovation, Springer Market Square, Invista 4-pad Arena, Kingston Centre redevelopment, Queens expansions, it seems everything

220 is controversial. I think the vast majority of Kingstonians will agree these private and public projects have proven to enhance the quality of life and make our city even more desirable for us and our visitors. Interestingly Exhibit M, the most common complaints I have been approached with in the last few weeks is, "Why are they reducing the ask on the number of stories and what happened to the red stripe, it was a progressive look". I guess you can't please everyone. Thank you in advance of your consideration of my perspective. I truly hope we get this right and approve this project as resubmitted so more of the good people of Kingston can enjoy living, working and playing in downtown Kingston. Gary Smith Sutton Group Masters Realty Inc. Smith & Hineman 1650 Bath Rd Kingston, Ont K7M 4X

221 Lambert,Lindsay From: Sent: To: Cc: Subject: Mary Davis Little Tuesday, June 14, :47 AM Agnew,Paige Lambert,Lindsay Re: high-rise buildings Good morning back, Thanks for your and for passing the letter on to Lindsay. Mary On Jun 14, 2016, at 8:43 AM, Agnew,Paige wrote: Good morning, Thank you for your submission. I am sharing with the file Planner for 223 Princess and it will be added to the official correspondence. Best regards, Paige Paige Agnew, MCIP, RPP Director of Planning, Building and Licensing Services City of Kingston 1211 John Counter Boulevard (613) ext Follow my and development/officialplan/blog <image001.png> From: Mary Davis Little [ Sent: Monday, June 13, :00 PM To: Agnew,Paige Subject: high-rise buildings To the Planning Committee Staff Paige Agnew, Director Planning, building and licensing Dear Ms. Agnew, I am writing to express my strong objection to the building of a high-rise apartment building on the site of the former Capitol Theatre, and to the other proposed high-rise buildings on lower Queen street. Kingston is known and loved for its historic down town where buildings quarried from local limestone define our historic city, giving it its unique character. The proposed buildings are out of scale with the surrounding structures and to the Kingston s cityscape. They are also out of proportion to Kingstonians and visitors, the people who live, walk, shop, eat, and work down town. Tall buildings more than five-seven stories - make

222 Right-click here t pictures. To help privacy, Outlook auto matic downlo picture from the Avast logo people feel small and insignificant. These imposing commercial structures would highjack our neighbourhoods, our distinctiveness, our appeal to the thousands of tourists who visit every year, our Kingston-ness. Buildings which draw attention on a skyline should be of civic or cultural importance like our City Hall not like the Elrond building which is visible from miles. I was pleased to read that the architectural peer review commissioned by the city's planning department agrees that the proposed building on the Capitol site is incompatible with the surroundings. Presumably much of the same reasoning could be applied to the current Homestead proposals for the lots on lower Queen street. The suggestion of the developers of the Capitol site to lop four stories off the building does nothing to address the foregoing points. I also note (Whig Standard May 26, 2016) that the developer has bought 185 Sydenham Street. This purchase means that it can not only widen the footprint, but also that the building will therefore adversely impact the Sydenham north streetscape of two and three-story, lovely old buildings in a commercially viable section of Princess/Sydenham Streets. Many of us opposed to these buildings agree that residential intensification in the downtown area is needed. However, there are many vacant lots and other areas near transit and walkable to down town which would benefit from well-designed mixed-use buildings appropriately scaled to appeal to the human users. Upper units would attract young first-home buyers and older folk down-scaling, while businesses and shops would bring needed amenities to the neighbourhoods. There is no shortage of research on the effects of high-rise buildings on cities. Across the continent, and as close as Toronto, city planners are seeking ways to encourage and pave the way for mid-size human-scale commercially-viable development. I fervently hope that Kingston s City Council will have the vision and the political will to limit building height, nurture our diverse downtown community, and retain the historic character of our beautiful city core. I would be grateful if you would pass this on to your staff. Thank you for your concern. Mary Davis Little 27 Colborne Street. PS You may have seen this fine video from The School of Life ( I recommend it. How to Make an Attractive City: Exhibit M This has been checked for viruses by Avast antivirus software. This 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

223 Lambert,Lindsay From: Sent: To: Cc: Subject: Stevenson Fergus Tuesday, June 14, :04 PM Lambert,Lindsay Bolognone,John; Mayor of Kingston; Hutchison,Rob Proposed development of Empire (Capitol) Theatre Dear Ms. Lambert, I am an owner/resident in the Anna Lane condominiums at 121 Queen Street in Kingston, and I write to strongly object to the IN8 Developments proposal to redevelop the Empire (Capitol) Theatre at 223 Princess Street into a 17-storey condo tower. Please do not make an exception to the current planning requirements and do not allow this high-rise building to be built. I have reviewed the Cultural Heritage Impact Assessment and the Urban Design Report, and I agree wholeheartedly with the peer review by E.R.A. Architects that "At present, the height and angular plane amendments requested are in our opinion excessive and have a considerable impact on the character of the area (page 4). I bought in Anna Lane and moved downtown so that I may enjoy what downtown Kingston is known for: Human scale (low rise) development and a strong heritage character. The proposed development threatens that human scale and heritage nature of our downtown, as it would likely serve as a precedent for future downtown development. As a proponent of downtown living, I am not opposed to development and residential intensification. In fact, it has taken me quite a bit of reflection and research to finally arrive at the decision to oppose this development as my initial stance was to support it. Quite simply, I have come to believe that we should not allow our wish to develop downtown and to encourage people to live here to cause us to rush to approve any proposal that is put forward. Instead, smartly designed low-rise development that conforms to the current planning regulations should be the standard by which Kingston continues to develop its downtown. Sincerely, Stevenson Fergus

224 Lambert,Lindsay From: Sent: To: Cc: Subject: Tuesday, June 14, :28 PM Lambert,Lindsay Schell,Elizabeth Intensivication We need to stand up to the vocal minority that continually come out against everything and make that downtown Kingston has the population density it needs to keep it the most exciting wonderful downtown that it has always been.... Tim Sent from my LG Mobile

225 Lambert,Lindsay From: Sent: To: Subject: Bronek Korczynski Tuesday, June 14, :21 PM Lambert,Lindsay Downtown Kingston Development Dear Lindsay, As a Kingston resident for over 35 years, I must express my concern about the recent request by a Waterloo developer for permission to construct a 17 storey building on the site of the closed Empire theatre. Not only does this fly in the face of the area's historic character, but shows flagrant disregard for the city's own development policies and master plan. To allow this to proceed not only is an affront to our own history, but sets a dangerous precedent for future downtown development. I would ask you to convey to our City Council and Mayor, in the strongest terms, to follow the city's own policies and resoundingly reject this application. Thank you, Bronek Korczynski

226 Lambert,Lindsay From: Sent: To: Subject: Kimberley Meathrel Tuesday, June 14, :41 PM Lambert,Lindsay Capitol Project Dear Ms Lambert I am writing to express my support for the Capital project. A vibrant downtown core is essential to the economy of Kingston and to maintaining the tourism industry. Currently Princess Street is struggling with many empty store fronts. The viability of the core is being threatened by urban sprawl and the construction of generic big box stores in strip malls. We need to have people living, working and shopping downtown otherwise downtown Kingston will turn into the dead ghost towns I see in London, North Bay etc. I want to see family run boutiques and shops, and unique restaurants and bars all along Princess Street and maintaining a high density residential population in the region is essential for these businesses to thrive. I highly support the develop of the Capitol project and continue to support the downtown core. Respectfully, Kim Meathrel K.E. Meathrel, MD, FRCSC Plastic Surgeon Division of Plastic Surgery Hotel Dieu/Kingston General Hospitals Assistant Professor of Surgery Queen's University M.Sc. Candidate Alden March Institute of Bioethics J.D. Candidate Queen's University, Faculty of Law

227 Rudi Mogl Tara Natural Food Limited 81 Princess Street Kingston, ON K7L 1A6 RE: 223 Princess Street Proposal Dear Ms Lambert: We are all concerned about the viability of downtown Kingston, and while increasing the number of residential units in the core can contribute to this viability, it is essential that we be aware of the negative impact of going about this in the wrong way. Building a 22 story unit is undoubtedly the wrong way. A 22 story building would become another eyesore like the Princess Towers, but even closer to the historic centre of downtown and surrounding neighborhoods. Kingston s development plan has height restrictions for very good, well thought out reasons, one of which is to retain Kingston s unique and very human scale size. It offers heritage architecture with buildings that don t dwarf the streetscape making it a walkable centre with a small town feel. All of this draws people to downtown Kingston. A twenty story unit will drive people away by destroying the cohesive feel of the downtown. Kingston has worked hard to preserve it s heritage cityscape, and ranks with Victoria B.C., Halifax N.S. and even Charleston S.C. in terms of offering people a place to explore history, great shopping and dining, while feeling at home. Our present plan protects this. Approving this requested change would only be the thin edge of the wedge. We do need to increase the density of residential units downtown, but without destroying the other aspects that draw people to live, shop and play downtown. Twenty-two stories is simply way too big. Yours truly Rudi Mogl 1102

228 Lambert,Lindsay From: Sent: To: Subject: Categories: Tuesday, June 14, :13 PM Lambert,Lindsay Future of Kingston Red Category I will not be able to attend the public meeting coming up but I wanted to express my support to the project. Marc Pare

229 Lambert,Lindsay From: Sent: To: Subject: Kip Pegley Tuesday, June 14, :05 PM Hutchison,Rob; Lambert,Lindsay; Mayor of Kingston; Bolognone,John Opposition to Proposed Development in former Capitol Theatre Dear Ms Lambert, Mayor Paterson, Mr. Hutchison, and Mr. Bolognone, I reside in Kingston s downtown core, and I am strongly opposed to the proposed condominium to be developed in the former Capitol Theatre on Princess Street. There are many reasons to reject this proposal, but I would like to point out just a few reasons. First, world class cities that want to maintain their historical character allow for mid size buildings that increase density but do not detract from the beauty of the city. Similarly, I believe that increasing density on a human friendly scale is only possible in historical Kingston if we limit new construction to the specifications set out in the city s Official Plan. Only then will we ensure that the character of neighborhoods essential to the quality of life amongst Kingstonians will be protected. Second, I m not sure if you have seen the sign on the Anna Lane entranceway at 121 Queen Street, but residents entering the building are warned about opening the door because of wind tunnels that can make the door swing back on them. I have on more than one occasion been unable to enter the building because of the force of the wind. Kingston is a very windy city, and we are already struggling in midsized buildings to enter into our homes. The wind tunnel effect resulting from the proposed high rises as well as the shade, to say nothing of increased traffic on Queen Street will make the downtown core a less desirable place to live. Finally, if this building is constructed as proposed, other high rise proposals will follow and I do not believe that the city will be in a legal or even ethical position to deny their applications. This building is a test case for the city, and I urge you for these reasons, among many others, to limit IN8 s development to the size specified in the Official Plan. This is a perfect opportunity to implement its directives and join other city planners worldwide striving to build meaningful, vibrant, beautiful, and healthy urban environments. I ask that this letter be filed as official correspondence. Sincerely,

230 Dr. Kip Pegley Queen s University

231 Lambert,Lindsay From: Sent: To: Subject: Categories: Front Queens Inn Tuesday, June 14, :18 PM Lambert,Lindsay Capitol Development Red Category Hi Lindsay, My apologies. I am referring to The Capitol Development on Princess St. In my opinion more people living downtown is the key to a vibrant,sustainable downtown. Richard The Queen s Inn 125 Brock St. Kingston, Ontario K7L-1S

232 Lambert,Lindsay From: Sent: To: Subject: Hana Rossiter Tuesday, June 14, :21 PM Lambert,Lindsay; Newman,Greg Capitol Condos Hello, We are longtime residents of Kingston and enjoy living here because of the city's great downtown, with its historical buildings, unique stores, parks, waterfront, restaurants and lively cultural scene. We have looked at the revised plans for the Capitol Condos at 223 Princess Street and believe that this development will be an asset to Kingston downtown. The design is progressive with its green features, the revised building façade materials and colours complement the downtown historical style, and the view of the lake and RMC from Queen and Princess streets will be preserved. As we see it, the sustainability of the downtown depends on people actually living there. The Capitol development will boost the intensification of the downtown in an environmentally sustainable way, contributing to the further growth of a vibrant and beautiful core, benefiting all of Kingston's residents and visitors. Hana & John Rossiter

233 Lambert,Lindsay From: Sent: To: Cc: Subject: Chris Tuesday, June 14, :17 AM Lambert,Lindsay Hutchison,Rob; Bolognone,John Planning Committee Meeting Thursday 16 June- Submission of a Formal Complaint (Against IN8 Proposed Development)- Christopher Semhuk 164 Raglan Rd June 13, 2016 Christopher Semchuk 164 Ragaln Road Kingston ON, K7K 1L4 Lindsay Lambert Senior Planner City Of Kingston Dear Lindsay Lambert: I am a new resident to Kingston and am writing to formally lodge a complaint against the IN8 development on 223 Princess Street. I was first a resident of Kingston in 1997 while here on training at the base. I have since worked and travelled the world prior to ending up in Kingston, for my retirement from Military life. My last position prior to coming back to Canada was near Aachen Germany. It was this last position that made me finally realise the true splendor of Kingston! There is still an old world charm about Kingston; it feels like a little piece of Europe. It is this Charm that will be lost if a DANGEROUS PRESIDENT is set allowing IN8 to go against the official plan and current zoning By laws, literally Towering above the rest! Have you not learned from Princess Towers? If the City allows the Downtown Core to be built up, Kingston will become just another city, where instead of the Motto Where History Meets Innovation, the Motto will have to become Where Towers Meet Innovation? Sometimes you have to stay small to be big, look at old Montreal, look at Old Quebec City, they have kept there charm yet advanced and become world class cites. The developers claim that Intensification for the downtown will create lower commercial vacancy rates. I pose this question, would lower lease rates in the downtown core not aid this? Will completing the third causeway, so there is ease of access from the east end not help. How about more bike lanes and express busses to downtown? These will all aid to intensify Downtown without huge towers? Please keep the towers in other areas of Kingston and keep Kingston low profile and keep the towers away. Thank you

234 Sincerely, Christopher Semchuk, CD

235 June 16, 2016 Dear Planning Committee members, Mayor and Councillors, Residential intensification in the Commercial Business District re: The Capital Project 223 Princess St. D & D I fully appreciate the appropriateness and necessity for public participation and official opportunities for public input and of course healthy public debate regarding city council decisions that affect our community. Certainly the proposed residential intensification projects, namely IN8 s 19 story residential tower at the former Capital Theatre site and Homestead s two 21 story residential towers and associated commercial and parking facilities on lower Queen Street have generated significant public interest and opinion. HISTORY In that regard I want to remind you of past projects that generated considerable public outcry and consternation and urge you to reflect on what was negatively predicted as a result of those projects being passed and the reality in the years since. The controversial Block D apartments and hotel left the site lines to the water intact down Gore and Earl streets intact, a beautiful public waterfront park was created, future marina facility expansion was planned for and a 1,000 new citizens now live, play and shop downtown supporting the vitality of the central business district, increasing the municipal tax base significantly while using existing municipal infrastructure. There has been hardly a word of negativity in the years since it was completed. And despite what some have said, it is a fact, that many who live in these towers are very regular customers of the shops, restaurants and entertainment facilities in our downtown. The K-Rock Centre created massive controversy especially regarding the location. Today the facility is regarded as one of the best in North America of its size, annually winning prestigious awards in every year since it opened. Top entertainers now stop in Kingston, most recently Santana, James Taylor, Jason Aldean and Meat Loaf and soon Supertramp s Roger Hodgson, The Tragically Hip, Twentieth Century Fox s Ice Age on Ice, comedian Gerry Dee are to make appearances. National skating and curling competition organizers and fans rave about the downtown location siting it as one of the primary draws and benefits. Predicted parking and traffic disasters; noise complaints from neighbours; none of which have materialized. Many Kingstonians who said they would never set foot in the place are now fans of the facility. And we hardly hear a word from the people who so strongly opposed the facility, I would suggest because it has been so well appreciated by so many. Market Square revitalization was opposed by many because in their estimation the lost parking would be a significant detriment and few would use an artificial public skating rink. And of course the naming generated lots of controversy. I believe we d be hard pressed to find a single Kingstonian who would suggest that we should go back and make Springer Market Square a parking lot again or that the skating 1110

236 rink hasn t become somewhat of an iconic downtown attraction. And as for the naming, whether you agreed with it or not, ask yourself has it really impacted Kingston negatively, I would suggest not at all. Public debate and controversy to varying degrees swirled around project such as the Invista Centre, the Grand Theatre Renovation, the Nottinghill apartment building, the redevelopment of the former Herbie s plaza to residential and commercial on upper Princess St., the residential buildings built on the former K-Mart parking lot, the residential/commercial building on Clergy at Queen, the residential building behind Jim Thompson Chrysler. Today none of the many problems and issues such as parking, noise, traffic, etc. that were a cause of concern for so many have materialized. It would be difficult to suggest that citizen s lives have not improved because of these projects or at the very least been unaffected one way or the other. In all cases they provided much needed new property tax revenue (public projects excepted) while using existing paid for municipal infrastructure. REQUEST So my request is that as you move through the planning process for the IN8 and Homestead residential/commercial applications that you keep in mind much of what will be predicated to be negative will never become the reality as the above projects attest too. In fact it is most likely that the predicted benefits will become the reality. MARKET REALITIES Consider also with internet shopping increasing its market share yearly, the demise of downtown anchors such as S&R Department Store, Indigo Books, Zellers, the downtown Landmark Multiplex Theatre, the rise of power centers, superstores, factory warehouse centers and box retail formats, a second Walmart to be built at Division and the 401, a new super sized Costco on the horizon, the central businesses district economy is more and more dependent on those living in close proximity. Intensification provides those new customers who will be living and therefore shopping on a more regular basis in the CBD. These three proposed projects will overnight supply approximately 600 new units and over 1,000 new residents living downtown. SUSTAINABILITY Beyond the economics, downtown residential towers speak to sustainability issues that are so important in Kingston and beyond. The carbon footprint of such housing accommodations is less on a per person basis as a result of living in such a building and as a result of being located within walking distance of so many services. Mass transit is facilitated when these building are located near transit routes. THE PROJECT WORKS AND APPPROPRIATELY FITS INTO THE LANDSCAPE Most importantly all three of these proposed residential towers are to be built on the peripheral of the historic downtown commercial district of Princess and Brock streets and market square areas, (using podium design features, architectural façade details, tower step backs) preserving the historic character of the central business district while at the same time adding life and people to it; in my mind a great example of where history and innovation thrive. Please take a look at the photo gallery on the Future 1111

237 Kingston website where many examples of new and old architecture mix in dynamic examples in vibrant cities, including in Kingston. CONCLUSION Intensification of the scale and locations proposed by IN8 and Homestead Landholdings in downtown Kingston are sympathetic to their surroundings and at the same time support a healthy central business district and healthy Kingston for future generations. A successful Kingston changes and adopts for the future while respecting our past, these projects continue that legacy. Thank you for your consideration, Ed Smith, 139 Churchill Cres. Kingston, ON., K7L 4N3 1112

238 Lambert,Lindsay From: Sent: To: Subject: Donna Lee Wednesday, June 15, :09 PM Lambert,Lindsay; Newman,Greg Capitol Condo Kingston Dear Lindsay and Greg, My Name is Donna Lee and I was born and raised in Kingston. I'm currently a Toronto Realtor with many Family members living in Kingston some who are local Businesses owners in the Downtown core. Having said that my Family and Friends were the ones that prompted me to look into "The Capitol" since they were very intrigued. So I'm sending you this message to have their voices heard to support the Capitol Condo vision at tomorrow's meeting, on behalf of my Family and Friends that have purchased units for various reasons. Here are a few: -Like my Mom most of her friends are empty nesters but love their current lifestyle of living in their large homes however they feel the Capitol vision is a great opportunity to help secure their future needs. -If they are ready to downsize when the project is completed, they will move in and enjoy a fully furnished unit with low maintenance cost and being centrally located within walking of all amenities as they have enjoyed. If they are not ready they will have the option to lease with a 100% rental rate guarantee and managed for them and move in when they are ready. As a Toronto Realtor I'm frequently introduced to new Condo launches which I will attend mostly to understand future City development however I will only represent projects that I truly believe in which are a select few. I believe that In8 Developments is reputable and are very good at what they do by working on a model plan that has worked in other towns time and again. I Love and respect Kingston and want what is best for the City and it's Residents. I do understand why there maybe some resistance and the importance of time to consider all factors. However I would like to believe that it's possible for all to agree and see how "The Capitol" vision could benefit all and ultimately improve our downtown to support the residents and local businesses. Best Regards, Donna Lee Sales Representative Shops at Don Mills RoyaL LePage Signature Realty 8 Sampson Mews, Suite #201 Toronto, Ontario M3C 0H

239 Lambert,Lindsay From: Sent: To: Cc: Subject: Joan McKibbin Wednesday, June 15, :27 PM Lambert,Lindsay Bolognone,John; Allen,Richard Opposition to the proposed Capitol Condo project Kingston City Council has received advice from professional architects in the form of a Peer Review Report paid for by Kingston taxpayers. This report acknowledges "adverse effects" of the proposed Capitol Condos and states that there is "not sufficient rationale for a tall tower" in this location. The report also advises that the proposal does not comply with planning policies and that there should be a limit of 8 storey structures in the area with the possibility of some increase with angular plane adjustments. I urge members of the Planning Committee and Council to accept the recommendations made by E.R.A. Architects in the Peer Review Report and to vote against the project. Please include my comments as official correspondence for the June 16 meeting of the Planning Committee. Joan McKibbin 1709 Middle Road

240 Lambert,Lindsay From: Sent: To: Cc: Subject: Wednesday, June 15, :36 PM Lambert,Lindsay McLaren,Jeff; Mayor of Kingston; Downtown Highrises Lindsay Lambert, These tall highrises should not be built in the downtown core for several reasons. Kingston promotes itself as a unique, historic city with beautiful heritage buildings. Tall highrises will diminish this and instead dominate the overall view of the downtown. The proponents of the highrises argue that this will bring more people to live downtown, walk downtown, shop downtown. This sounds nice, but likely only a small percentage will fit in with this view. Most will use their cars to drive to work and also to do their shopping elsewere. What about the increase in traffic and demand for parking spaces in the downtown area. To rent or buy will still be quite expensive. Perhaps the end-result is not lots of people moving to the downtown, but instead the buyers will mostly be downtown residents moving out of their current (old) homes. What is the likelyhood of abandoned buildings downtown, perhaps some areas will be more affected. There is nothing wrong with new buildings downtown, but keep the height within the current bylaws. Several buildings have been, and some in progress, upgraded with upper floors turned into residential units, some added a few levels, but they still fit in with the surrounding style. How can the City encourage more of this, to help in keeping a vibrant downtown. A large number already lives and/or work downtown, and if most did their shopping downtown, this would be a boost to its economy. We like the convenience of our cars, but how can we change this. Perhaps have free or low cost bus rides, especially during rush hours; this may encourage more to walk and shop on their way to their bus stops. Also, several stores have closed or moved away from downtown, and one reason mentioned a lot is the higher taxes. Why have this extra tax on downtown stores; perhaps it should instead be just the opposite, ie. a downtown store pays lower taxes. You can find in the Official Plan references to that Kingston is a unique City with valued natural and built resources and a historical legacy, and development that respects cultural heritage. I hope this will hold true. Thanks so much, Karin McVean

241 Lambert,Lindsay From: Sent: To: Cc: Subject: Lorna Cane Thursday, June 16, :35 AM Lambert,Lindsay Bolognone,John; Allen,Richard Capitol Theatre Condo Site "The major amendment for which the development needs approval is for the 16 storeys on Queen Street, where the height restriction is currently six storeys (25.5 metres)." Absolutely NO to this amendment. Lorna Cane Pittsburgh District Kingston,Ontario

242 Lambert,Lindsay From: Sent: To: Subject: Elizabeth Hanson Thursday, June 16, :12 PM Lambert,Lindsay Capitol project Dear Ms. Lambert, I wish to express my considerable concern about the proposed (now 17 story building for the site of the old Capitol theatre). The proposed building remains too tall for the site. I am strongly in favour of real densification, that is, multiple projects that use as much available space in the central city as possible for reasonably scaled housing projects that connect properly to the street scape and distribute people throughout the downtown. Responses from urban planners and architects with some vision have condemned this project for the lazy, money grab that is. As a long time resident of downtown Kingston, I want to see real densification that will truly add to the life of the central city. This is not it. Elizabeth Hanson

243 Lambert,Lindsay From: Sent: To: Subject: Blumenberg,Catalina Thursday, June 16, :51 PM Lambert,Lindsay RE: IN8 proposal comment - Planning Committee tonight Received this and the addendum is already up on the website. Thanks! Catalina From: Bolognone,John Sent: Thursday, June 16, :49 PM To: Hurdle,Lanie Cc: Agnew,Paige; Blumenberg,Catalina Subject: FW: IN8 proposal comment - Planning Committee tonight Please see below. John Bolognone City Clerk City of Kingston jbolognone@cityofkingston.ca Phone: , ext From: hannah kaufman [ Sent: Thursday, June 16, :52 AM To: lambert@cityofkingston.ca; Rob Hutchison Cc: Samantha King; Bolognone,John; Gerretsen, Mark Subject: IN8 proposal comment - Planning Committee tonight Good morning, I am writing regarding my concerns about the height of the proposed Capital Condo on Princess St. I would like it be filed as official correspondence. While I am supportive of increased densification in the downtown area, I don't think this should be at any cost. The cost of a very tall building looming over the downtown core seems, to me, very steep. While some people who decide to relocate to the downtown area from outlying residential areas may work downtown, there is no evidence that they do or will. The city went through an exhaustive process when height limits were put in place for the area, and I think we should stick with that until a new process is completed, heeding truly independent reviews and experts in the field of urban geography. This proposal, and others like it pose several problems. Here are few: 1. Unsightliness (height compared to other buildings) 2. Shadows 3. Wind tunnels

244 4. Too dense for the needs of the city (Current growth won't support it, especially along with the other 2 proposed highrises) 5. May negatively impact other, lower rise, residential buildings 6. As far as I can tell, ground-level retail space isn't included in the plan 7. As far as I can tell, there are no or few green features, such as a green roof, solar energy or ground-source energy 8. Potential negative impact on tourism due to detraction from historic nature of downtown. 9. Units won't be affordable for many, a growing concern in Kingston. Yes, empty lots and vacant building are ugly and problematic. But, to quote Tim Soper, let's be proud of what gets built in our beautiful city. Sincerely, Hannah Kaufman 106 Charles St. Kingston, ON K7K 1V7 Exhibit M

245 Lambert,Lindsay From: Sent: To: Subject: Thursday, June 16, :39 PM Lambert,Lindsay; Hutchison,Rob; Bolognone,John Noting opposition to the Capitol Building proposal Dear Planning Committee, I am writing to express my strong opposition to the revised proposal for 223 Princess Street. Seventeen storeys is still too high if we are to maintain the human scale and heritage feel of our beautiful downtown. Let's stick to the 25.5 metre limit laid out in the Official Plan and take heed of the Peer Review which found that the proposed height for this building was "excessive." Although I can't speak for them here, I am confident that the vast majority of the 339 members of the Vision for Kingston Facebook page, which I currently manage, would view a low- to mid-rise residential development in that space as a wonderful addition to our city. Sincerely, Samantha King 19 Pine Street

246 Cruz,Kevin From: Sent: To: Cc: Subject: Marney McDiarmid Thursday, June 16, :58 PM Lambert,Lindsay Bolognone,John Regarding plan for high rises To whom it may concern, A few years ago Kingston residents were polled regarding what the enjoyed about the city's downtown. Over and over again people commented on the historic nature of our downtown, stating that the distinctiveness of downtown Kingston is a draw for tourists and local residents. I believe in densification but not at the cost of ruining one of the city's greatest assets. I urge council to adhere to the official plan and reject the building of massive high rises in the city's core. Please put my letter on the official record as I am, unfortunately, unable to attend the meeting this evening. Best regards, Marney McDiarmid

247 Lambert,Lindsay From: Sent: To: Subject: Molly McKibbin Thursday, June 16, :06 AM Lambert,Lindsay; Bolognone,John; Allen,Richard tonight's meeting Dear Municipal Representatives I write regarding the building proposed for the former Capitol Theatre site on Princess Street. As you all know, the city commissioned a peer review by respected professionals in the field and this peer review demonstrated that the proposed building is out of character with the architecture of downtown Kingston. As you also know, the proposed building would violate the municipality's bylaws regarding height. Since we obviously sought and paid for the opinions of experts, it is only reasonable that we then follow their advice. I urge you all to vote against this proposal. It goes without saying that if we allow this building to go against the advice we commissioned and violate the zoning bylaws of the municipality, we will set a precedent for doing so. Acceptance of this proposal will begin what will presumably become a series of similar violations and the very character of downtown Kingston which previous generations have worked to preserve and created laws to protect will be lost irretrievably. I hope you'll agree that it is nonsensical to have created zoning laws and commissioned thoughtful studies by experts only to ignore them and abandon long-standing efforts to preserve the architectural character of Kingston. Many thanks for your time and attention, Molly McKibbin Middle Road, Kingston

248 Cruz,Kevin From: Sent: To: Subject: Boyd Millar Thursday, June 16, :05 AM Lambert,Lindsay; Bolognone,John; Allen,Richard Princess Street Building Dear Municipal Representatives I am writing to urge you to vote against the building proposed for the former Capitol Theatre site on Princess Street. The proposed development would be an attention-grabbing blight on the architectural character of downtown, which is one of the city's principal resources. Thank you for your time. Regards, Boyd Millar Middle Road, Kingston

249 Lambert,Lindsay From: Sent: To: Subject: Jean Pfleiderer Thursday, June 16, :53 PM Lambert,Lindsay Capital Condo Dear Lindsay Lambert, I am not sure I will be able to come to the meeting tonight about the Capital Condo building, but wanted to share my opinion that this is an appropriate building for downtown Kingston. Occupancy rates in the City are very high, suggesting that there is a market for more places to live. At the same time, there are enough empty storefronts in the core to be alarming, and parking is a problem; there is clearly a need to have more people living downtown where they can walk to shops to patronize them. A high-rise provides space for many people in a small footprint, and parking for their cars, as well! Jean Pfleiderer Wellington St Kingston, ON K7K 7J

250 Lambert,Lindsay From: Sent: To: Cc: Subject: willy vestering Thursday, June 16, :11 PM Lambert,Lindsay Hutchison,Rob; Bolognone,John Noting opposition to the Capitol Building proposal Dear Planning Committee, I am writing to express my strong opposition to the proposed high-rise at 223 Princess Street. Fifteen storeys is still way to high.our downtown is so small why don't you leave it for things like small unique shops, art,museums, things that will bring people downtown and bring tourists. Block off streets, bring more art, improve the water front!!! Do we really think people will flock downtown so they can sit on a shaded cold windy patio with views of other buildings and more traffic. For getaways we always go to places like Old Quebec City or Old Montreal City and they are always packed. We in Kingston have an opportunity with are downtown historic water front to make it as great as any of those place. why would you not do that? Be cause some developer's want to make some quick cash. I live downtown and work at St. Lawrence. My retirement plan was to stay in Kingston but if this what happens to our downtown those plans will change. I am not against high rises, I am not even against developers making money but just move them a little further out. Please don't ruin our city! Sincerely, Willy Vestering 19 Pine Street

251 Comments on the Capitol Movie Theatre site proposal Princess. St. Mary Farrar, June 16, 2016 Planning Meeting, Council Chambers, City Hall Building high rises in Kingston's downtown is a hugely divisive issue - probably even more divisive than either the Wellington St. Extension or the Casino issues. Each side feels they are backed by the silent majority. The Casino debate was put to rest by a referendum. The Extension debate is being dealt with through the creation of a Secondary Plan for King's Town North. I am proposing that the City also create a new Secondary Plan for the Downtown and Harbour area and, until they have done so, the 2007 Architectural Guidelines that act as a Secondary Plan in the current Official Plan be respected. This clash between two strongly opposing visions for the future of KIngston's downtown requires more debate, more input from both developers and citizens from all over the city than one Planning Meeting can offer. This is not a NIMBY issue. It is a city-wide issue on how we envision Kingston 50 years hence. Several major problems with the Capitol proposal specifically need to be addressed: 1) Precedent: Allowing a by-law exemption for one high rise opens the door for many more. So although this debate is officially about the Capitol building, it is actually about setting precedents for the future of the city. Is this what we want? Or not? We really need to have an open forum on this very important issue. 2) The problem of how to increase population density in the downtown has not been explored or defined adequately: Staff says that they have to deal with large developers because nobody else applies. These large scale developers are not interested in the 67 vacant lots in the downtown. We also have many wonderful thirty-something contractors who would give their eye-teeth for a leg up as design/builders. Why not give incentives to these thirty-somethings? Why not create another multimillion dollar fund like the 5 million dollar Affordable Housing fund but for the purpose of population densification on smaller lots in the downtown? The mayor and Council are doing a great job with Youth incentives. Why not do the same for young developers? Wins all around! There are other ways than high rises to create needed population density in the downtown. We don't have to go the knee-jerk high rise solution route. Think small apartment buildings/condos, mid rises where appropriate, semidetached houses/condos that include underground parking. We all agree on the need for densification. It's time to think outside the box. By concentrating development in two or three blocks we are tacitly recommending that the 67 vacant lots remain vacant as eyesores. Let's actually look at the bigger picture here. 3) High rises on Queen St. will create incredible congestion in an area of the city that is already congested. Better to spread the cars around the many current vacant lots. 4) Sewage problems. Frontenac Village Condo has suffered basement flooding ever since the KROCK Centre was built. An adequate solution has not been found as yet. Do Queen St. and Place d'armes actually have sufficient sewer systems to handle these massive population increases? 5) Investment problems: Look at the problems in Vancouver and Toronto and then look at the Capitol. They pride themselves on encouraging people to invest. In8 will look after furnishings and property managers while their buyers just wait it out. Would we actually be inviting future problems? 6) Where will all of these new residents come from? Personally I have heard sceptical comments from both Kingston developers and designers. Kingston's population is slated to decrease in the mid 2030s. We need to have a serious discussion about the potential of overbuilding. 1126

252 7) Viability of Official Plan: We need to create an Official Plan that contains good planning principles backed by strong rationales in order to prevent challenges at the OMB. We need an OP with strong, non-contradictory by-laws that have strength. We are in the process of creating a new OP. Agreements to contravene existing by-laws should not happen now. We should wait until the new OP is created before agreeing to any changes. 8) Destruction of Heritage Ambiance: Let's not forget that the current city hall would not be left standing if developers had had their way in years past in the name of progress. Look at Williamsville. Old stone buildings were demolished there in order to be modern. Now it looks like a piece of junk. In Kingston's downtown, old stone buildings were demolished to create parking lots. Look at them now. Was that "progress" good? We actually need to save the goose that lays the golden egg in terms of tourism dollars. People come to Kingston for its heritage ambiance, its peacefulness and its lack of high rises. High rises would help destroy Kingston's uniqueness, making it more like just any other city. 9) Queen St.: Queen St. has the best sight line to the water, by far. It also has a number of wonderful old buildings including two carriageways. The downtown BIA unfairly thinks of Queen St. as "peripheral". In doing so, they are not working in the interests of any of the businesses on the side streets between Princess and Queen. Queen could be a charming street with a bit of fixing up like Princess St. It should not be considered peripheral to the downtown just because it is north of Princess. For how many more years will this discrimination continue? 10) Panacea for the downtown: Everyone thought that Block D would be the answer, that it would create shoppers for the downtown. It didn't. So why would the Capitol or the Homestead buildings work? I don't believe that any official city research has been conducted on this. However, David Dossett, owner of Martello Alley on Wellington between Princess and Queen and whose business has ranked as Kingston's #1 Tourist Attraction according to Trip Advisor of late, says he always asks his customers where they come from. In all the time he has been there, he has only had 2-3 people say they came from Block D. More research needs to be done on where downtown shoppers come from before building more downtown buildings. Perhaps filling in the 67 vacant lots would actually increase the number of downtown shoppers more as people living there would more likely be actually committed to the city and the downtown. Sincerely, Mary Farrar, 1 Place d'armes, Kingston, ON, K7K 6S6 1127

253 Cruz,Kevin From: Sent: To: Subject: David Hodgson Friday, June 17, :04 AM Lambert,Lindsay Planning file #D & D , 233 Princess Lisa, With respect to the subject planning file please accept the following correspondence in support of the Capitol development, which follows my attendance at last night's public meeting. The proposed development represents a key opportunity for the City to enhance the economic vitality of downtown area while helping the City meet it's sustainability objectives. In my opinion: The development will add much needed residential units to a downtown area where units are in high demand and low supply. Additional units are needed to keep our downtown affordable. Increased density will bring additional customers to our downtown shops, and help reduce commercial vacancy rates along Princess. Residents are ideally situated for active commutes to a number of Kingston's largest employers (hospitals, Queen's, RMC, downtown, CFB, K-Rock) The development is two blocks from Kingston's downtown transit hub. The development is ideally situated along the north side of Princess and will not overshadow the street or significant heritage buildings. The podium style development maintains a human scale along Princess Street with a walkable street front. It respects the old theatre facade. The parking structure is ideally located along the rear at Queen Street. I would encourage the City to keep parking space requirements to a minimum to encourage residents to use alternative tranport. Significant additional property tax revenue will be generated directly from the development (not to mention indirect benefits). The location is ideally situated for residents to participate and contribute to downtown Kingston's social and cultural wealth (Market Square, Grand Theatre, waterfront, parks, nightlife). The development suits the growing demographic (young professionals, retirees) demanding to live in downtown areas, Kingston included. The developer has made concessions regarding height. The concessions are reasonable and support by the DBIA. The buildings height will have minimal impact to the City skyline as seen from the water and along the waterfront. It is not expected to significantly impact sightlines to the water. It will infill a large vacant space. The site is not located in the Market Square Heritage Conservation District or Harbour sub-areas. This development will help contribute to a vibrant downtown and "creative culture" will attract investment in the City. Lower density does not support sustainable development and will result in additional sprawl

254 In my opinion the proposed development as a whole meets the intents of the Official Plan and Downtown Action Plan despite the requirement for some specific exemptions such as height. Downtown Kingston is at a critical point. It's growing suburban residents (and many downtown residents) seek retail opportunities that avail free parking, big boxes and deep discounts. They now dread visiting downtown because it is inconvenient and expensive. Nothing will change that. Downtown Kingston cannot sustain itself on its low-density tenements alone, as it is no longer the draw that it once was. It needs density to fuel and maintain its commercial focus. I believe in human scale. But its place is not solely in low- and mid-rise developments. It's place is also in careful architectural design that includes terraced developments, streetscaping, trees and facades. It's place is in a walkable community with multi-modal transportation. All of these things can include and be complimented by high-rise development, especially within our urban core. Although the proposed development could improve on some of these apects, it has considered and made concessions toward the human scale. Density in downtown Kingston can and should include include infill, midrises, alleyway microbuilds, etc. But high-rise apartments and condominiums are also an important component of the housing mix and will always be in demand. They offer a style of living that many people prefer. In my opinion, the place for these structures are within well-serviced, walkable communities with easy access to amenities and public transportation. Not the suburbs, where intensified population can only result in a directly proportional increase in traffic (see Deerfield on Hwy 15 for example, among others). So where better for densification and accommodation of a growing demographic than in our downtown, where they can walk, dine, shop and enjoy the cultural vibrancy of our beautiful City? Please consider this proposal based on its full merit for the downtown area and the vibrancy that it can add. By limiting downtown to a low-density format, the City will continue to face increased pressure for growth at its extremities, further stretching the capacity of services and reduce its affordability. The Capitol represents sustainable growth, and while it may not be in the style that everyone prefers, it is a good choice for a successful downtown centre. Thank you for your time. Regards, David Hodgson 62 Colborne Street Exhibit M

255 Cruz,Kevin From: Sent: To: Cc: Subject: Marc S Friday, June 17, :25 PM Lambert,Lindsay Stroud,Peter; Hutchison,Rob Capital Theatre Project (223 Princess Street) Ms. Lindsay Lambert Senior Planner City of Kingston Dear Ms. Lambert, At last evening's Planning Committee meeting, speaker after speaker invoked the names of Paris, Prague and Copenhagen, and indeed a veritable Cook's tour of world capitals, to illustrate how Kingston might thrive, if only we could emulate the successes of our European cousins in city planning. Oddly, many of the speakers (and often the same ones) noted that they had moved to Kingston for its peaceful ways, low traffic volumes and safe neighbourhoods, while charging that the 223 Princess St. project would almost single-handedly ruin downtown Kingston forever. I've travelled a fair bit in my time, and know first-hand many of the cities mentioned, and while they're thoroughly delightful places to visit, they're certainly not Nirvana. Ever tried to beat back the crowds on the Charles Bridge in Prague? Or been exposed to the uglier side of politics in Budapest? Or tried to cross a traffic-clogged Parisian street? We can't have it both ways. We can delude ourselves that we live in what could be Paris-on-the-Cataraqui, but I think that this represents a fundamental flaw in the thinking of many of the Capital Project detractors. This is Kingston. Charming we may be, with all our limestone and restaurants and museums, but the fact is that we have much more in common with Moncton and Cornwall than Jersusalem and Rome. We are more Peterborough than Paris; more Brantford than Berlin.We are characterized by empty storefronts, struggling businesses, competition from malls and Riocans, and valuable farmland swallowed to service massively expensive building lots for subdivisions far from the city core.we are competing with Moncton and Sherbrooke and Brandon for every single job. Our record in attracting businesses, that will employ our citizens and encourage others to settle here, is decidedly mixed. Our reliance on the public sector for most of our sustainable employment is unsettling. If we truly want our downtown to thrive and our heritage aspects to be retained, we need people, lots of them, living downtown, with all the vitality and ambition and spending and tax dollars that they will bring with them. I love living in Kingston. It has been my home for more than twenty years and I have lived, worked, invested, volunteered, shopped and played in the downtown core for all of that time. I have purchased a condominium in the Capitol Project and eagerly anticipate its approval, construction and eventual completion.i feel we are at a critical juncture in the city's evolution and look to the Planning Committee and Council for support in approving this vital project. To return for a moment to the world capitals mentioned earlier, it's good to ponder a certain 324 metre (81 storey) project that in its time was reviled by its critics, as noted in a petition published in Le Temps on 14 February 1887: "We, writers, painters, sculptors, architects and passionate devotees of the hitherto untouched beauty of Paris, protest with all our strength, with all our indignation in the name of slighted French taste, against the erection...of this useless and monstrous Eiffel Tower...To bring our arguments home, imagine for a moment a giddy, ridiculous tower dominating Paris like a gigantic black smokestack, crushing under its barbaric bulk

256 Notre Dame, the Tour Saint-Jacques, the Louvre, the Dome of les Invalides, the Arc de Triomphe, all of our humiliated monuments will disappear in this ghastly dream. And for twenty years...we shall see stretching like a blot of ink the hateful shadow of the hateful column of bolted sheet metal." Thank you for your consideration. Yours truly, Marc Shaw -47 Sydenham Street Kingston K7L 3H2 Exhibit M

257 Cruz,Kevin From: Sent: To: Cc: Subject: Categories: Blumenberg,Catalina Wednesday, June 22, :46 AM 'Barb Carr' Boehme, Ryan N.; Lambert,Lindsay RE: Planning committee comments Red Category Dear Barb and David: Thank you for your . This will acknowledge receipt of your correspondence and its distribution to the Planning Committee for inclusion on the next Planning agenda. I have also included the Planner who is working on the file Ms. Lambert so she is aware of your . If you have any questions, please let me know. Kind Regards, Catalina Blumenberg Committee Clerk, City Clerk s Department City of Kingston 216 Ontario Street Kingston, ON K7L 2Z ext cblumenberg@cityofkingston.ca From: Barb Carr Sent: Tuesday, June 21, :36 PM To: Blumenberg,Catalina Cc: Boehme, Ryan N. Subject: Planning committee comments Dear Catalina: Please circulate these comments to the members of the Planning Committee. Comments re the IN8 project proposed for the Capitol Theatre and Queen St. 1. We urge the members of the Planning Committee to abide by the City's Official Plan with respect to building height in considering this application. We, along with many other citizens, have spent considerable time participating in the process of updating the Official Plan, and it is very disheartening to think that it would be tossed aside to please a developer. We are not so desperate for development in the very sensitive downtown core that we should ignore the vision that has been articulated by so many Kingstonians. There are other locations, near the downtown, that could accommodate high rises, although preferably not of the 20-something storey variety. If a project like this is approved, the door will be open for high rises throughout the downtown core, and our valued

258 heritage character will be lost. Please consider the long term consequences of your decision, and stick to the height limits in the official plan. 2. Increased residential density can be achieved without high rises. Examples are the townhouse developments on Johnson, Nelson, and Mack Street, as well as the Anna Lane building. 3. We agree with the many other excellent points made by the people who made presentations critical of this proposal at the recent public meeting. Barb Carr and David Craig 262 Main St., Barriefield Village Exhibit M

259 Cruz,Kevin From: Sent: To: Subject: Zakos Enterprise Tuesday, June 21, :04 PM Lambert,Lindsay IN8 Capitol Developments Incorporated Good Afternoon Ms. Lambert I am writing in regard to the application for the residential development. I am against the development as proposed. The City developed design guidelines for a reason and the developer is asking for these to be substantively altered to achieve their financial plan. When they purchased the property they knew of the City Plan and zoning guidelines. They had ample opportunity to review prior to their purchase. Residential development is not an issue. The issue is the downtown and the Cityscape. We have spent considerable money in the redevelopment of Princess Street. Developing 17 Stories adjacent to Princess Street will change the downtown forever in a negative manner. The visitors to Kingston would see this tower as the emblem of downtown. I much prefer City Hall and other heritage buildings. Each time visitors look up the building will stick up in the sky like a bad spire or a beacon. Given the elevation at that end of Princess Street the building will appear visible and much higher all the way from the waterfront. Visitors will be greeted by multi coloured mismatched window coverings, balcony decorations etc (over which the City has no jurisdiction.) I would have thought the error of Elrond College would not be repeated. This is not the type or the level of development that we need or want. Once up it cannot be camouflaged or torn down. It will become an emblem of our bad judgement. I consider this a bad design decision. If money(income) is THE ISSUE then the City should have accepted the Casino. The money being made here is by the developer. Margaret Zakos P.O. Box 30, 16A Market Street Kingston, On K7L4V6 IMPORTANT NOTICE: This message is intended only for the use of the individual or entitiy to which it is addressed. The message may contain information that is privileged, confidential and exempt from disclosure under applicable law. If the reader of this message it is not the intended recipient, or the employee or agent responsible for delivering the message to the intended recipient, you are notified that any dissemination, distribution or copying of this communication is strictly prohibited If you have received this communication in error, please notify Margaret Zakos immediately by at margaret@zakosenterprise.com. Thank you

260 52 Earl Street Kingston, ON K7L 2G6 June 29, 2016 TO: Lindsay Lambert D & D Princess Street Zoning By-Law Amendment and Community Improvement Plan Amendment IN8 (The Capitol) Developments Incorporated I should, first of all, explain my perspective, in case you think my interests and concerns are limited to old buildings. I am passionate about architecture, both old and new. all the way from single storey buildings to those that reach for the sky. A building can be a simple worker s cottage, an elegant high-rise structure or a landmark monument. I believe that modern and heritage architecture can live together when the new respects the old. That is what good planning in a heritage rich city is all about. Within these broad parameters however, the structures which I admire and like to live with are those that are well designed and well built, those that have a sense of place, and contribute to the quality of life of those who live, work and play in and around them. That is why I and my husband, Gerald, have chosen to live, work and invest in the downtown part of Kingston over the last 52 years. We have, from the beginning, been, and continue to be strong supporters of the Central Business District and want it to thrive. You could say, we follow the Richard Florida line of thinking. We also want Kingston to be one of the country s 1135

261 premier heritage destinations. We see our built heritage as one of the City s most important economic assets. Providing accommodation for more people to enjoy this quality of life should be one of the City s economic and planning goals. The trick is - to do it without destroying the elements that are essential to a safe and sustainable, vibrant and welcoming neighbourhood. The livability of a neighbourhood can be destroyed through demolition, poor maintenance or bully-buildings. So, we consider that new buildings coming into an established area should be, as Lily Inglis used to say mannerly. Some of our most architecturally stunning heritage buildings have spires and domes. They are landmarks deserving of respect. Actually these spires and domes are concentrated in a fairly small geographical area of the City, the one which will be affected by this proposal, should it go ahead. I believe these iconic architectural features should be used as reference points for height in the downtown area. New buildings should allow these domes and spires, to still rise above the intruding modern structures. They should not dwarf them into oblivion. Our historic downtown has a rich built heritage fabric and great potential, as a location for residential intensification. About 30 years ago a visiting architect from the Royal Institute of British Architects who toured our downtown was asked to describe his overall impression of the area. He said It s full of gaps. The same comment could be made today. Some have, of course been filled, particularly on our waterfront. It has been my view all along that building highrises on prime waterfront land, particularly in a historic area 1136

262 is wrong-headed. I was told by a knowledgeable urban architect that the same density could have been achieved on Block D with a continuation of the grid pattern of the neighbourhood and 4 to 5 storeys. This was borne out by the demonstration that Tim Soper gave using his model at the Planning meeting on June 16, My view was also confirmed when I had the pleasure of being the tour guide to Jan Gehl, the well-known Danish architect, urban designer and advocate for livable cities and public spaces. Mr. Gehl has worked all over the world as a consultant and, at one point when Citizens for Responsible Development was advocating for a non-high-rise use of Block D, he was willing to come to Kingston to express his views and meet with the City s planning staff. He was appalled that such a significant site had been and was being considered for high-rise structures. When we first arrived in Kingston in the 1960s we were told time and again that we should not consider any property north of Princess Street, like it was the other side of the proverbial tracks. During the 1970s, one of the City s aldermen commented during a council meeting on a planning issue, as follows: That s Queen Street, we don t have to worry about that. Well, they were all wrong. This part of town is full of architectural gems and Queen Street has many of them. It deserves appropriately scaled intensification. In 2004 George Baird of Baird Sampson & Neuert, an internationally recognized architect, produced Urban Design Guidelines for the North Block a plan for 4 ½ blocks of the harbor area near Fort Frontenac and the City Hall, one of our oldest historic areas. Mr. Baird, as Kim Donovan, a former developer in the downtown, had a true appreciation of 1137

263 the existing fabric of this area. The Baird proposals were very well received by the community, and promptly shelved. Then it was decided if the City were to be attractive to developers, potential developers needed to be enticed with high-rise potential, and bonuses as a reward for incorporating a few heritage properties into their proposal. Another consultant came and recommended 18 storeys. Now, of course, a precedent has been set against which future development proposals are measured, in the minds of both developers and planners. No matter the Official Plan. Usually the request is for an ever-increasing number of storeys. WHERE DOES IT ALL END? It was interesting to note that at the 2 meetings involving downtown towers, those for the proposal(s), with one exception, had a financial interest, either in real estate or commercial spin offs. (The one person thought she would feel more secure in a tower building than in her heritage building and cited this as her reason for supporting tower development in the downtown.) They were only looking at the injection of more people in the downtown to increase their customer base. This led me to conclude that, as long as the new residents came, those speaking in favour didn t care how they were housed. I also noted a suggestion that young professionals like the cool life style which they believe a tower would offer. That is already available and our historic downtown does not need to be compromised in order for that style of accommodation to be available. All the mitigation steps or tricks in the world are not going to prevent the ruination of the visual richness and ambience of the heritage structures, by the construction of high-rise towers in the downtown historic area. Reducing the original 1138

264 height proposed by this developer, does not ameliorate the proposal. This tower proposal is simply out of scale and out of place in our downtown and in my view wrong-headed from a planning perspective. We stand to lose the human scale in yet another neighbourhood. The scale of the old City is fundamental to its character and its economic value as a historic destination. Ruin that and we could be looking at a decline in tourism. I read recently in the New Yorker that Manhattan had no where to go but up. We, fortunately, do have other choices. Please exercise them. Do not recommend approval of this proposal. Sincerely, Helen Finley Helen Finley Earl Street Cottages 52 Earl Street Kingston, Ontario K7L-2G6 Canada 1139

265 Cruz,Kevin From: Sent: To: Subject: Categories: Agnew,Paige Monday, July 18, :23 PM Lambert,Lindsay FW: Proposed tower building on Capitol Theatre site Red Category Paige Agnew, MCIP, RPP Director of Planning, Building and Licensing Services City of Kingston 1211 John Counter Boulevard (613) ext Follow my and development/official plan/blog From: Margaret Hughes Sent: Tuesday, July 12, :41 AM To: Agnew,Paige Subject: Fwd: Proposed tower building on Capitol Theatre site Dear Paige, I sent the following to the Mayor and Councillors a few weeks ago. I hope it is not too late to forward it to you as well. Thank you, Margaret Forwarded message From: Margaret Hughes Date: Tue, Jun 21, 2016 at 8:58 PM Subject: Re: Proposed tower building on Capitol Theatre site To: mayor@cityofkingston.ca, "Neill,Jim" <jneill@cityofkingston.ca>, jmclaren@cityofkingston.ca, "Hutchison,Rob" <rhutchison@cityofkingston.ca>, losanic@cityofkingston.ca, RNBoehme@cityofkingston.ca, acandon@cityofkingston.ca, kgeorge@cityofkingston.ca, lkturner@cityofkingston.ca, lschell@cityofkingston.ca, mrholland@cityofkingston.ca, pstroud@cityofkingston.ca, rallen@cityofkingston.ca Dear Mayor Paterson and City Councilors, Kingston's beautiful skyline can be seen from many places in Kingston such as the existing apartment buildings, the upper floors of Queen's buildings and the hospitals. It is dominated by the magnificent St Mary's Cathedral spire, Sydenham Street United, St Andrews, St Paul's, the dome of the chapel at Hotel Dieu, Chalmers United,

266 Queen Street United and St George's Cathedral. Visitors to Kingston come here to see, to photograph and appreciate the graceful and elegant 18th and 19th century architecture. They are what make Kingston unique. But now the City has been presented with a proposal for the Capitol Building which, whether at 20 or 15 stories would be completely out of scale with its downtown surroundings. Not only does it exceed Kingston's Official Plan's allowable height but it is situated at the top of a hill. Kingston already has a very dominant building on Princess Street ( Princess Towers ) which should never have been permitted either, but at least it is not as close to the aforementioned significant architectural gems. I am not against densification, we have already increased densification downtown that has served us well and we could and should do more. The building under renovation at Brock and Wellington for example looks promising, and the condominiums at Bagot and Queen have fitted in quite well. Why should City Council give in to the demand of IN8 developments when not only does it exceed allowable height but from what I read about the recent public meeting, two thirds or more of those present spoke against the proposal? The request for 16 stories is almost three times the acceptable height in our current official plan. In my opinion downtown Kingston should grow more organically and incrementally as far as height is concerned and not by allowing towers that would dwarf St. Mary's Cathedral to spring up here and there in its midst. Sincerely, Margaret Hughes Exhibit M Wellington Street, Kingston ON K7K 7J

267 Cruz,Kevin From: Sent: To: Subject: Categories: Newman,Greg Tuesday, August 02, :45 AM Lambert,Lindsay FW: CITY PLAN Red Category For your files. Greg Newman, MCIP, RPP Manager, Policy Planning City of Kingston 1211 John Counter Blvd. Kingston, ON K7K 6C7 Tel: x gnewman@cityofkingston.ca From: Joy Obadia Sent: Saturday, July 30, :07 AM To: Newman,Greg Subject: CITY PLAN DEAR SIR, I WILL BE ABSENT ON AUGUST 10 BUT SIMPLY WISH TO REITERATE MY DESIR THAT THE CAPITAL CONDOMINIUM PLANNED FOR PRINCESS STREET BE REDUCED IN HEIGHT. ALL THE RESIDENTS OF HERITAGE COURT HERE WOULD SUFFER FROM A VERY HIGH BUILDING LIGHT BLOCAGE, INCREASED TRAFFIC WITH INCREASED DANGER, ETC. A MAXIMUM CORRESPONDING TO THE NUMBER OF STORIES IN THE ANNALANE CONDOMINIUM WOULD BE ACCEPTABLE. THANKYOU FOR YOUR ATTENTION. JOY OBADIA

268 Cruz,Kevin From: Sent: To: Cc: Subject: Blumenberg,Catalina Tuesday, August 02, :19 PM 'janice kirk' Lambert,Lindsay RE: Letter of Support for the Capitol Condo Hello Ms. Kirk: This will acknowledge receipt of your correspondence and its distribution to the Planning Committee for inclusion on the August 4, 2016 Planning addendum. If you have any questions, please let me know. Kind Regards, Catalina Blumenberg Committee Clerk, City Clerk s Department City of Kingston 216 Ontario Street Kingston, ON K7L 2Z ext cblumenberg@cityofkingston.ca From: janice kirk Sent: Tuesday, August 02, :17 PM To: Turner,Lacricia; lschnell@cityofkingston.ca; Osanic,Lisa; rallen@cityofkinston.ca; McLaren,Jeff; Neill,Jim; Blumenberg,Catalina Cc: info@downtownkingston.ca; Hutchison,Rob Subject: Letter of Support for the Capitol Condo To City of Kingston Planning Committee: Please accept this letter as support for the Capitol Condo. I also expressed my support in an dated May 21, 2015 to Councillor Rob Hutchinson for the original design. I live on Sydenham St. two blocks north of the Capitol condo in a 200-year-old stone row house. As a native to this city, I do not believe my appreciation for the downtown and the city s beauty can be questioned. I also know that density is important to maintaining a downtown, and unless we want to cover every square inch of green space with low rises, height is an absolute necessity. I do not believe this is another monstrosity as Judith Hazlett, spokesperson for Vision for Kingston, said in the Kingston Heritage on June 23, The preservation of the Art Deco façade is especially exciting, while Queen St. will be much improved aesthetically. Overall, it is an attractive building that I will see every time I step out my

269 front door. And I will be happy to see it, knowing that it is bringing new people, new revenue, and new life to the downtown. Sincerely, <!-- p {margin-top:0; margin-bottom:0} --> Janice Kirk 270 Sydenham St. Kingston, ON K7K 3M6 a

270 Cruz,Kevin From: Sent: To: Subject: Categories: Gregory,Katharine on behalf of Planning Outside Friday, August 05, :46 PM Lambert,Lindsay FW: Citizen input re high rise buildings and Community Benefits Red Category Hi Lindsay, This inquiry came to the Planning outside . Kathy From: Mike Cole-Hamilton [ Sent: August :40 PM To: Planning Outside Subject: Citizen input re high rise buildings and Community Benefits On a recent Kingston TV news a reporter said those with comments on the Capitol building project should get in touch with the City of Kingston to express their views. Despite Open meetings already held, many Kingston residents are only now becoming aware of this and similar projects. There seems to be no obvious place on the City site to leave messages about the Capitol or Homestead projects. I was sent here by the Mayor s office. I ask that a clearly designated place be provided forthwith, that notice be given prominently in local media and a realistic date for input set. August 9th is far too short notice at this time of year. I suggest September 30th. Meanwhile, I wish my own objection to these proposed projects to be noted, on the following grounds:- The proposed heights are flagrantly in contravention of the Official Plan The proposed heights are grossly out of proportion with the surrounding downtown buildings The buildings would, inevitably, clash with the overall downtown architectural style The buildings would cast significant shadows to the west, north and east, especially in midwinter when sunshine is most needed The buildings would cause undesirable wind effects, especially the Homestead pair near the foot of Queen Street The alleged Community Benefits to compensate for the additional storeys requested are trivial. Intensification of downtown, of which I am totally in favour, can be carried out with the low to mid-rise proposals the City presented a few years back. Regrettably, those proposals seem to have vanished from the City s website

271 Mike Cole-Hamilton, -1 Place d Armes, K7K 6S3,

272 Cruz,Kevin From: Sent: To: Subject: Categories: Sharon Deline Monday, August 08, :57 PM CBenefit223Princess; Agnew,Paige; Newman,Greg; Lambert,Lindsay Community Benefits Red Category TO WHOM IT MAY BE OF CONCERN: I find the proposition of allowing a high rise in exchange for potential community benefits unseemly with regard to the Capitol proposal. Community benefits should be an essential part of a plan proposal for any location in the city. Do I support the notion of a building higher than the current height stipulated in the Official Plan on the site of the old theatre, backing onto Queen Street? No. Why? To do otherwise would be to mar the ambiance of the core of Kingston s historic downtown. It would be a reflection of our own weakness. As Paul Bedford, former chief planner for the city of Toronto, said: To me, heritage preservation is an essential part of any city that values itself. We have a long way to go compared to so many other cities around the world: our heritage legislation is pretty weak and the range of tools available to help achieve meaningful heritage preservation is pretty thin. (NOW MAGAZINE, March 29, 2012) Would a high rise contradict and undermine the importance of the heritage of the buildings already in existence in the area concerned? Yes. Why? Don Loucks, chair of the heritage Toronto education and conservation committee noted: We need to define what constitutes a threat to heritage. When I think of threats, I think not just of bricks and mortar, but the impact of development on the visual environment. What are we saying when we put a huge tower over a building of historic significance? Are we saying it s more important? Is that the message we want to be sending? I m wondering if we are missing the point. (NOW MAGAZINE, March 29, 2012) What would the result of the erasure of these buildings, works of art in their own right, from our sight and mind be? According to Eldon Garnet, artist, professor of contemporary photography, public art and sculpture at the OCAD : The first act of many revolutions is to destroy the artwork of the past as a symbol of a new order. To

273 maintain existing public works is to maintain a respectful sense of history and cultural continuity both symbolically and physically. When we allow public works to decay because of neglect, we are engaging in an act of disrespect both to artists and to our own culture. (NOW MAGAZINE, March 29, 2012) New Kingston needs to preserve its Old Downtown...in height, environment, and for the sake of the cultural continuity of this First Capitol of Canada. If we don t, then we have to assume that the preoccupation is with capital, rather than with capitol. With Regard, Sharon E. Deline 14 Durham Street Kingston, ON K7L1H9 Exhibit M

274 Cruz,Kevin From: Sent: To: Subject: McLaren,Jeff Monday, August 08, :40 PM Ochej,Derek; Lambert,Lindsay Fw: Proposed "community benefits" related to the proposed The Capitol condos building at 223 Princess Street Official correspondence... Jeff McLaren (613) P.S. I also make myself available Sundays at the Chit Chat Café in the Frontenac Mall from 4:00 5:00 pm to hear your concerns. Please join me sometime. From: Rosemary Thoms Sent: Monday, August 8, :37 PM To: CBenefit223Princess; Allen,Richard; Hutchison,Rob; George,Kevin; Osanic,Lisa; Turner,Laura Cc: lschell@cityofkington.ca; Candon,Adam; Holland,Mary Rita; McLaren,Jeff; Neill,Jim; Stroud,Peter; Boehme, Ryan N.; Mayor of Kingston Subject: Proposed "community benefits" related to the proposed The Capitol condos building at 223 Princess Street Re: Proposed "community benefits" related to the proposed The Capitol condos building at 223 Princess Street I am strongly opposed to exchanging so-called "community benefits" for height re: the proposed The Capitol building at 223 Princess Street. Please protect what makes Kingston's downtown so special: our historic heritage buildings and skyscape, the human scale of our downtown and our city's unique beauty and charm. If you say yes to this exchange, you will be ignoring the thoughtful input of architects, urban planners and many local citizens who believe the proposed The Capitol at 223 Princess Street is still far too high and will be offering to trade away to developers what makes our city so special all for a handful of minimal "community benefits". And you will be setting a ruinous precedent and opening the door to other developers who want to disregard our city's official plan and build buildings which are too high and out -of-scale for the location and which will destroy the unique heart and spirit of our downtown core. Sincerely, Rosemary Thoms

275 Cruz,Kevin From: Sent: To: Cc: Subject: Categories: Gisele & Tom Monday, August 08, :48 PM CBenefit223Princess; Agnew,Paige; Newman,Greg Hutchison,Rob; Lambert,Lindsay What benefits? Red Category Dear City councillors and staff members: While I appreciate the opportunity to provide feedback on the proposed Capitol condos, I'm afraid I do not see how ANY "community benefits" could possibly justify ruining the heart of Kingston by building a high-rise in its midst! Furthermore, reiterating the preservation of the old cinema façade as a bargaining chip seems deceitful at this point. This was surely the only redeeming feature that caught people's interest in the first place, and obtaining a heritage designation for the façade can be done without the developer and without cost. While preserving the look of the old Empire remains a wonderful idea, it would only work if the 4- and 6-storey limit for building around and behind it is respected, especially now with the new outdoor patio at Megalos across the street. Also, raising the idea of a few affordable units is equally disingenuous, as this is already a requirement of all new developments. Our approval cannot be won with a few new flimsy so-called benefits (some electric car charging stations?, which ought to be de rigueur anyway; and some public space for art?, which, again, was part of the deal to begin with), all the while ignoring the fact that 17 storeys still doesn't fit in. We must insist that IN8 conform to the well-considered height restrictions in the current by-laws, which help preserve the smaller-town feel that attracts people to downtown Kingston. Besides, the educated and informed trend is clear: lower-rise dwellings are not only more attractive to most people and healthier to be in and around, they are also more affordable and more sustainable. Today's buzz-words are low-rise, walk-ups, human-scale, natural-scale, mixed-use, and pedestrian-friendly, not high-rise. While certain members of the Downtown Business Improvement Association only see the benefits of having more people living downtown no matter the type of dwelling, many other members have changed their minds, especially with the recent success of the newly re-opened Princess Street and its many new merchants and outside patios. Some DBIA members have even spoken publicly against the Capitol proposal, at the Vision for Kingston meeting last May, though others are still reluctant to voice their displeasure except in private. - Besides, in the end it is an empirical question: even if all of the merchants thought that a high-rise would help their businesses, they could all be wrong, and in fact they could see their businesses dwindle. I've yet to see proof that the Block D towers helped keep businesses afloat, and I've yet to see any market prediction based on all of the variables at play. I applaud Councillor Hutchison for refusing to discuss community benefits before the standards of good planning are met. This proposed building is located in his/our ward, and he has spent countless hours talking to residents and attending relevant meetings and gatherings. If he says that almost all of the residents to who he has talked are unwilling to trade potential "benefits" for height, then why aren't we listening? - Please let's be wise about the development and intensification of our downtown. Let's be creative with the use of vacant lots, as per Tim Soper's 3D model, and with the preservation of everyone's view of City Hall, church spires, and the waterfront. We must not agree to build on the basis of conjecture and speculation alone, and we must not be fooled into making a deal just because it sounds good. How much opposition do we need? Why are we

276 continuing to trust that IN8 shares our interests and concerns? Why are negotiations even still ongoing, after such a feeble response to the thorough architectural peer review? Let's keep our eyes and ears open and deal with the facts. Kingston is not desperate. No need for hasty and regretful decisions. If this developer doesn't want to play fair, others will come along. Gisele Pharand, concerned advocate for a healthy & vibrant downtown Exhibit M

277 1152 Exhibit M

278 1153 Exhibit M

279 Since 1972, committed to the awareness and promotion of heritage buildings and structures of architectural merit in Kingston and area. June 15, 2016 Ms. Liz Schell, Chair, Planning Committee City of Kingston 216 Ontario Street Kingston, ON K7L 2Z3 Re: D and D IN8 Development Proposal 223 Princess Street, Staff Report PC The Frontenac Heritage Foundation (FHF) is a not-for-profit group of volunteers dedicated to the preservation of structures and sites of cultural and historical interest. The Foundation currently has over seventy members. The group was founded in 1972, and so for nearly fifty years, the organization has provided input on various proposals and development applications being considered by the City of Kingston. Staff Report PC provides information for the purpose of the public meeting, following a public meeting held in July 2015, and following which revisions were made to the development application, and resubmitted for consideration. The Foundation Board members have reviewed the supporting information, specifically the 223 Princess Street Urban Design Report (Fotenn, May 2016) and the

280 223 Princess Street Capitol Development, Addendum to the Planning Rationale (Fotenn, May 2016.) These documents note that the proposed development application has been revised as follows: the ultimate height has been reduced by 5.6 metres, from 61.4 m to 55.8 metres, a total of 5.6 m. The proposed building has been reduced from 20 storeys to 17 storeys, with a corresponding reduction in the number of units, from 223 units to 213 units. An area of 750 sq. m. is to be used for commercial use. The red fascinator trim on the top floor has been eliminated, and the massing of the building has been moved towards Queen Street. The development application continues to incorporate the façade of the theatre on Princess Street, and the developer is to be commended for this. After reviewing the material submitted by the proponent, the FHF board wishes to comment on three broad topics: 1) the location of the proposed development in two potential heritage districts; 2) the effects on the heritage streetscapes in the downtown core, and 3) the proposed height of the building. 1. Location in two potential heritage districts: The proposed development site is partly in the proposed Lower Princess heritage district and partly in the proposed St. Lawrence Ward heritage conservation district. The City s Official Plan sets out both of these proposed heritage conservation districts on Schedule 9 of the Official Plan. The Addendum to the Planning Rationale provides a summary of the physical attributes of the proposed St. Lawrence Ward Heritage Conservation District. There is no dispute that the area has merit for a heritage conservation district it is only that the City has not undertaken the review at this point. The Urban Design Report states that In conclusion, the impact of the exterior treatment of this proposed infill condominium project on the character of the adjacent St. Lawrence Ward and Lower Princess Street Area has been mitigated by the configuration of the massing, the scale of podium and tower and the choice of materials. (p. 35) The FHF is of the opinion that the degree of mitigation has been minimal. The massing has been moved somewhat towards Queen Street, but the scale of the tower is such that it is a very large floorplate, and the excessive number of storeys will have an imposing perspective on both the proposed St. Lawrence Ward and the Lower Princess Street Heritage Areas. The podium is a full four floors on a street which currently has three or four storeys predominantly set back from the street, and the proposed new articulation and blend of materials will not detract from its massive presence on Queen Street. 2. Heritage Streetscapes in the City s Core: The supporting information notes in detail how the façade of the former theater on Princess Street is being retained, and on the Queen Street side of the development, how a new façade is being presented in a four storey format, but articulated in such a way that it appears as six different units, designed to be similar to those existing on Queen Street. The FHF supports the retention of the façade on Princess Street, and would support the designation of the building under the Ontario Heritage Act in order to protect this historic venue. It is the Foundation s recommendation that heritage staff of the

281 city should make a determination as to whether an interior designation is warranted. The argument is made in the supporting documentation that the average pedestrian does not look above the 30-degree angle across the street and thus, that the tower is not going to adversely impact the Princess and Queen streetscapes. The human scale of the heritage streetscape is what is valuable in our core the flavour of the heritage buildings along Princess Street, and those heritage buildings in the proposed St. Lawrence Ward on the Queen Street side of the proposed development will be overshadowed (perhaps not technically, in terms of the shadowing studies) but similar to the way that Princess Towers overlooks the immediate vicinity towering over the neighbourhood. The streetscape may not be required in the Official Plan to be a pedestrian priority, but it should be emphasized that all streets in our core are important for pedestrian traffic. The proposed four storey streetwall along Queen Street for the full frontage of the property along the edge of the municipal right of way does not present a friendly location not with an entrance and exit to the building s parking garage, and the loading facility. This is an uninviting and incompatible addition to the streetscape. 3. Height of the Proposed Development: It has been acknowledged that the proponent has reduced the proposed height of the building by 5.6 metres. Page 18 of the Urban Design Report (May 2016) portrays a view which compares the proposed IN8 development compared to the proposed Homestead development applications in the foreground. It is surely premature to assume that the Homestead proposals are going ahead as submitted. Secondly, it is misleading to show the IN8 development in the distance and from a bird s eye point of view, when the subject site is in an elevated location on Queen Street relative to the downtown core. It is worth mentioning the Princess Towers (just east of Division on Princess) at what appears to be sixteen storeys is very visible from the foot of Queen Street, and the IN8 development would be very imposing in its proposed massing and height. Page 17 of the Urban Design Report includes a graphic which shows the allowable height of 25.5 metres for the Queen Street frontage. The new proposed height of 55.8 metres would need to be more than twice the allowable height, and so the graphic would appear to be inaccurate in terms of the height of the proposed building. Finally, in terms of height, the argument seems to be presented that the field of vision (pages 20 and 21 of the Urban Design Report) where typically 30 degrees above and below the horizon is a comfortable field of vision. The theory seems to be that pedestrians will not be aware of anything above 30 degrees. As noted above, a proposed height of 55.8 metres is more than double the 25.5 metre allowable height, and allowing a building with a height of 55.6 m is excessive in our view

282 Madam Chair, thank you for the opportunity to provide input into this review, which we feel will set a truly unfortunate precedent in our downtown. Yours sincerely, (original signed by Edward Grenda) Edward Grenda, Past President Frontenac Heritage Foundation P.O. Box 27 Kingston, ON K7L 4V6 cc. All members of Council Paige Agnew, Director, Planning, Building and Licensing Services

283 Cruz,Kevin From: Sent: To: Subject: Agnew,Paige Monday, February 08, :21 AM Lambert,Lindsay FW: Capitol condominium For the file. I've responded on this already. Paige Agnew, MCIP, RPP Director of Planning, Building and Licensing Services City of Kingston 1211 John Counter Boulevard (613) ext Follow my Original Message----- From: Margo Rivera Sent: Monday, February 08, :08 AM To: Agnew,Paige Cc: Hutchison,Rob Subject: Capitol condominium To Ms. Agnew and the Planning Committee of the City of Kingston: I support the Capitol Condominium's request for approval of a 20-floor height for the building it is proposing to be constructed on 233 Princess Street, and I would appreciate my perspective on this topic being presented to the planning meeting on this issue. The design of this building combines the historical and interesting Princess Street facade and commercial arcade with the residential structure rising above Queen Street. The designers' and builders' plan seems to be both aesthetically pleasing and practical. I believe that the viability of downtown Kingston depends on more density so that significantly more people can have the opportunity to live in the city core, rather than only see the east and west suburbs as prospective places to live in Kingston. The Capitol will bring in hundreds of new residents who will use the downtown resources on a daily basis. They are likely to need fewer automobiles and will enhance the character of Kingston as a walkable city, making car-centred projects like the Wellington Xpressway completely unnecessary. I think the Capitol has created a design that will not interfere with Kingston's historical character, and in fact will enhance it, while also contributing to the ongoing creation of a lively, sustainable, and unique city centre. 20 floors of new eager downtown residents are, in my opinion, something to celebrate. Dr. Margo Rivera 350 Wellington Street, Kingston

284 Cruz,Kevin From: Sent: To: Cc: Subject: Attachments: Follow Up Flag: Flag Status: McLaren,Jeff Thursday, June 16, :25 AM Lambert,Lindsay Blumenberg,Catalina Fw: There are places in Kingston for highrise developments... intensification without highrises.docx Follow up Flagged This should be part of official correspondence. Jeff McLaren (613) P.S. I also make myself available Sundays at the Chit Chat Café in the Frontenac Mall from 4:00 5:00 pm to hear your concerns. Please join me sometime. From: ken ohtake Sent: Thursday, June 16, :19 AM To: Hutchison,Rob; George,Kevin; Osanic,Lisa; Schell,Elizabeth; Mayor of Kingston; Allen,Richard; Turner,Laura; Candon,Adam; Holland,Mary Rita; McLaren,Jeff; Boehme, Ryan N.; pstroud Cc: Molly Higginson; Christine Sypnowich; ncn John Grenville Subject: There are places in Kingston for highrise developments... Mayor Paterson & Kingston Councillors There are places in Kingston for highrise developments. Heritage downtown Kingston is not one of them. Intensification is possible without highrises. See attachment. Thanks for your work on behalf of all of Kingston. Ken Ohtake

285 Intensification Without Highrises 17 Storeys? Not in heritage downtown Kingston Exhibit M Sherwood Park Modern Towns Mount Pleasant & Keewatin 4 storeys 80 units Davis House Yonge Street at Davisville Mattamy Homes 8 storeys 189 units 1160

286 The Upper House theupperhousecondos.com 25 Malcolm Road at Millwood & Laird Leaside 7 storeys 66 units 439 sq ft to 1509 sq ft Knightstone Capital Management Inc builder Corktown District King East 7 storeys 182 units + 10 lofthouses Streetcar Developments

287 Fashion District Lofts Adelaide West 10 storeys 103 suites Freed Developments Park Lane Community 1 Mack Street 15 units Podium Developments

288 Anna Lane Condominiums Queen St. 9 storeys 115 units Options for Homes

289 From: To: Subject: Date: Hoegi,LeighAnn on behalf of Agnew,Paige Adams,Alex; Lambert,Lindsay FW: capital condos Thursday, February 18, :26:17 AM For your files. This has already been forwarded to Catalina. LeighAnn Hoegi Administrative Assistant to the Director Planning, Building and Licensing Services Community Services City of Kingston (613) extension 3291 From: Bolognone,John Sent: February :08 PM To: Sargeant,Lorie; Blumenberg,Catalina Cc: Doucet,Michelle; Hurdle,Lanie; Agnew,Paige Subject: FW: capital condos For tabling and distribution. Thanks. John Bolognone City Clerk City of Kingston Phone: , ext From: mmallen1 mmallen1 Sent: Wednesday, February 17, :05 PM To: Mayor & Council; Neill,Jim; jbolognone Subject: Fwd: capital condos Original Message From: mmallen1 mmallen1 To: kgeorge Date: February 16, 2016 at 10:02 PM Subject: capital condos Kevin With interest I read the story in the Whig on Sat. about the coalition of concerned citizens opposed to the proposed Capital Condos in particular the height aspect. The part I found interesting was the 1164

290 lack of names associated with this group even though I know who they are & I am sure you have an idea, they would be the same group opposed to the Wellington St. extension, third crossing, & the open discussion on putting the new high school at the M Centre etc. This group of individuals seem to only want development of their own vision & when they do not get their own way cry foul & seem to get published in the Whig to say the planning process is broken which it is not as far as I can see. How can the Whig publish a story with a lack of names of this said group & their official title. One can say they are private individuals, but they seem to effect the public in general (OMB costs to over rule the legitimate open planning process) so therefore they are no longer private individuals. I as a taxpayer do not want my taxes to go towards OMB costs brought about by this small group with some kind of wacked agenda that seems to be so anti development. Also how could a councillor ( not you ) that sits on the planning committee be objective & also belong to this group & be involved in a rate payers group in his district, has what are to be open meetings but at a private persons home with no notification to the rest of the constituents, just before this present fiasco over the Capital condos & not declare a conflict of interest. Michael J. Mallen Maybe the developers & concerned citizens that want a progressive sustainable Kingston should form a committee to counteract the rhetoric of this far left leaning group that has some kind of unknown view of our city's future 1165

291 1166 Exhibit M

292 Cruz,Kevin From: Sent: To: Cc: Subject: Attachments: Lambert,Lindsay Thursday, July 07, :39 PM 'John Grenville' Venditti,Marnie; Newman,Greg RE: Capitol Theatre Project - Density Bonus Exhibit F Princess St.pdf Hello Mr. Grenville, Staff are currently working through the technical review of the applications, including the consideration of community benefits and the valuation of the community benefits proposed to date by the applicant. Any future comprehensive report regarding the applications would contain detailed information and analysis on community benefits including a cost appraisal for additional height and density. With respect to the Princess Street façade of the former theatre, in March of this year, City Council approved the addition of the property to the City s heritage register under Section 27 of the Ontario Heritage Act. I have attached an excerpt from Report MHC to the former Municipal Heritage Committee (now Heritage Kingston), which contains the listing summary for the property. For follow up questions regarding proposed guidelines for community benefits, please contact Greg Newman, Manager, Policy Planning ( ext or gnewman@cityofkingston.ca). Lindsay Lindsay Lambert MCIP, RPP Senior Planner Planning Division Community Services City of Kingston llambert@cityofkingston.ca ext From: John Grenville Sent: Sunday, July 03, :52 PM To: Lambert,Lindsay Subject: Capitol Theatre Project - Density Bonus Hello Ms. Lambert I was present at the public meeting for the Capitol Theatre project in June. The representative for the developer indicated that a density bonus for the project will be sought in return for allowing the City to designate the façade as a heritage property and providing public access to the entrance area for use as a gallery. I have some questions as to how the City will proceed with this application for a density bonus: How will the value of the increased height and density be calculated? How will the value of the community benefit (heritage easement and public access) be calculated?

293 How and when will community groups be consulted on the development application and the proposed benefit? Can the City of Kingston designate the façade of the Capitol Theatre without the owner s consent? In April the Planning Department indicated that density bonus guidelines were being prepared by City staff but there has been no indication as to how this will be done nor the schedule for moving this initiative forward. Could you provide me with contact information so that I can get in touch with the responsible planner? In the case of the Capitol Theatre project did the developer initiate the discussion about the density bonus or did you as the planner suggest the density bonus approach in anticipation of new guidelines? Unfortunately the reason for my concern over the density bonus relates to past experience. The City of Kingston has provided a density bonus in three previous instances. In each case the Planning Department s procedure has extremely irregular and failed to adhere to the provisions in the 2010 Official Plan. Developers were provided with a height and density bonus without regard for the value of the increased height and density (at 663 Princess Street there was not even an indication of the extent of the increased height and density), without regard for the value of the community benefit and without any community consultation. In the absence of guidelines I am extremely concerned that the Planning Department will follow the same approach with this project. I look forward to your response. John Grenville 24 Jenkins Street Kingston, ON K7K 1N

294 1169 Exhibit M

295 1170 Exhibit M

296 1171 Exhibit M

297 1172 Exhibit M

298 1173 Exhibit M

299 1174 Exhibit M

300 1175 Exhibit M

301 1176 Exhibit M

302 1177 Exhibit M

303 Cruz,Kevin From: Sent: To: Subject: Tricia Baldwin Tuesday, July 26, :27 PM CBenefit223Princess 223 Princess, new Cultural Space To whom it may concern, If 223 Princess is to be converted into a new cultural space, the following would need to be explored. I have very little information on the proposed project for 223 Princess, so I will send questions for you to consider. 1. Is this new cultural space are different enough that it is adding new value to Kingston and not replicating current amenities/services (e.g. Grand Theatre, Tett Centre (Malting Tower space), Isabel Bader Centre for the Performing Arts (with concert hall, rehearsal hall + chamber music space, black box theatre, film screening room, art & media lab)/agnes Etherington Arts Centre, Sydenham Street United Church (currently undertaking performance space modifications), H Art Centre, Modern Fuel Gallery, and Octave Theatre)? A community needs assessment of arts space would be helpful to assess where the gaps are. 2. Who would be operating and financing the new space? Whoever is covering the net operating costs and management requirements of the new cultural facilities would need the means to do so on an ongoing basis. A detailed income statement and operating budget would need to be examined, as this is the ongoing reality (and ongoing operating fund commitment) after a new centre is built. If the idea, for example, is to build more affordable rental space for arts presentations would the financial model of the new facilities actually allow the City (or other operator) to offer the venue at subsidized rates? 3. If a new concert space is to be created should the new concert space be of a size (i.e. number of seats) that which other performing arts facilities do not offer so there isn t investment in a replication of an existing and similarly-sized facility? 4. If Cultural Services was to receive a funding cut in the future, would it be in the position of having to disproportionally cut operating grants to community groups due to increased facilities operating fixed costs? (This point is moot if the ongoing operating costs of the new arts facility are not a city responsibility, or if the net operating costs of the new facility are minimal.)

304 If the answers to the three points above are positive, then it could be a tremendously exciting project to undertake and would be very beneficial to the community. We are at an exciting time in the arts in Kingston, and the vibrancy of the arts adds so much to our quality of life here. If it is not unique enough vision in created a new cultural space (i.e. there are existing spaces currently addressing the needs), it could create duplication of operating investment and a glut of ticket inventory/performance/gallery space on the market. Speaking directly and bluntly as a member of the Kingston performing arts community who runs a venue, over-saturation from a market demand perspective is a legitimate concern given existing programming at the Grand Theatre, Isabel Bader Centre, Tett Centre and other facilities. Saying that, if the cultural space proposal addresses a unique need, vision, size and programming, serves underserved artistic groups and audiences, then, it is an opportunity to strongly consider. I realize the excitement of the possibility of a new space whose building costs would be potentially covered by the developer. I am a member of the City s Arts Advisory Committee (AAC), and I fully supported the motion to encourage cultural investment in new developments. (One of the best examples of this is the Vancouver Symphony Orchestra School of Music with the construction of this arts education space underwritten by the developer, and the operations managed and financed by the Vancouver Symphony.) Furthermore, as the Wilson Room no longer houses community visual artist exhibits, local visual artists have addressed the AAC stating the need for a new community visual arts space. Your decision depends on the content of the proposal of I which I do not know, so I leave this with you. I m sure Cultural Services will put forth a well-considered proposal. Sincerely, Tricia Baldwin Director Exhibit M Tricia Baldwin Director Isabel Bader Centre for the Performing Arts Queen s University Room 123 B, 390 King Street West Kingston ON K7L 3N , ext tricia.baldwin@queensu.ca

305 Cruz,Kevin From: Sent: To: Subject: Les Morley Thursday, July 28, :14 AM CBenefit223Princess 223 Princess St. Hi there Generally I like the project. It is a creative use of space whereby, if I understand the proposal correctly, there will be some commercial space and yet residential intensification through the addition of a structure on top. I think mixed use developments are healthier and more environmentally efficient than those devoted to only residential or commercial. I am not concerned about the height: we are a city, not a farmer s field. The issues with such a project that are immediately apparent to me are parking, the impact of exiting vehicles on traffic on Queen Street and the design of the building. Presumably, parking is taken care of, and there are a number of spaces to be created consistent with the needs of the building. I would prefer parking to be underground, even if that meant the building had to be taller to compensate for the cost, and that there be public spaces, but I suspect this is constrained by the property s footprint. Underground parking would allow for maximization of the commercial space. I wonder if cars pouring out of the parking lot at peak times will create gridlock on Queen, so perhaps strong promotion of a shared vehicle presence should be encouraged. The promotion of bicycle or ebike usage would be god too. This could reduce the need for parking too. The building design is not bad: it is distinct from the usual Homestead fare. However, I think taller buildings, far from necessarily being a blight, have the potential to be landmarks, such as the St. Mary s Cathedral bell tower is. I estimate it is about 14 stories high but no one talks about the shadow effects that it produces. I just wonder if there might be an even more creative, aesthetically pleasing design possible for 223 Princess, perhaps including some lighting effects. As for your suggestions for community benefits, I am in favour of them all. Les

306 Leslie H. Morley Canadian Deportation, Immigration & Citizenship Law Follow me on Twitter; Connect to me on LinkedIn; Like me on Facebook; Learn About me PRESIDENT, Kingston Employment & Youth Services (KEYS) ACCREDITED FAMILY MEDIATOR, Ontario Association for Family Mediation PAST PRESIDENT, Canadian Prison Law Association & Frontenac Law Association MORLEY LAW OFFICE 211 Division Street, Kingston, ON CANADA K7K 3Z2 This may be privileged or confidential. Any use of this by an unintended recipient is prohibited. If you receive this in error, please contact me immediately. Please consider the environment before printing this

307 Cruz,Kevin From: Sent: To: Subject: Lorna Cane Tuesday, August 02, :43 AM CBenefit223Princess 16-storey Capitol condominiums Please do not allow the height or density of that building to exceed the property's zoning permission. Kingston is slowly but steadily losing its uniqueness,its beauty. This is just one more step along that path. Lorna Cane Kingston,Ontario

308 Cruz,Kevin From: Sent: To: Subject: Hannah Kaufman Tuesday, August 02, :29 PM Hutchison,Rob; CBenefit223Princess 223 Princess St. Comments Dear Rob and Ms. Hurdle, I am writing regarding 223 Princess St. Rob, I completely agree with your recent comments in The Whig. The best "community benefit" would be for the development to align with the Official Plan -- six storeys, maximum. Following sound urban design principles provides the best long-term community benefits, socially and economically. Including retail space sounds nice, but keep in mind the many empty store fronts in the downtown area. And having an interesting, restored facade should be a given, not an added benefit. Respectfully, Hannah Kaufman 106 Charles St. Sent from my ipad

309 Cruz,Kevin From: Sent: To: Subject: The Bowens Friday, July 29, :29 AM CBenefit223Princess 223 Princess St. Development Proposal Hi: Can you kindly explain why these additional requirements are now being invoked. Does the paragraph below refer to the IN8 plan to build additional levels,12 through 18? If IN8 gives up this requirement does the building plan then fall within the property's zoning requirements and therefore there would not be a mandate to provide a 5% affordable-ownership? Why is the City of Kingston imposing these retirements now and not at the beginning of the planning process when it was clear IN8 wished to built an 18 storey structure. We did not enter into a purchase agreement with knowledge of these restrictions. Larry Bowen

310 Cruz,Kevin From: Sent: To: Subject: Sunday, July 31, :48 AM CBenefit223Princess 223 Princess Street benefits Thank you for taking the time to solicit input into this very worthwhile project. For the most part I believe the community improvements, however expensive to the developer will benefit both the community as well as the developer despite the additional cost. 1. A drastic overall of the facade is required and will showcase the past theatres history as well as provide a nostalgic look to a beautiful new project. Beautifully revitalized, from the ground floor to the top. It would be in keeping with the streetscape on Princess Street, 2. I am not familiar with the Citys Affordable Home Ownership program, so am reluctant to give opinion on it. 3. I think the cultural presentation space is again a great thing. You could walk through the new facade into a hallway showcasing current promotions in Kingston or art and artifacts leading up to a cafe where people can meet. Tremendous idea. 4. Partnering with the city to provide parking and electric charging stations and bicycle parking. Again if feasible given the space I believe this is a win win. Where the city is concerned about height of the structure I find it interesting where this parking may be found, but if it is adjacent and seperate from resident parking I think it is a great idea. Concerns of security for integrated parking come to mind however I trust as in the Homestead project these ideas are considered. As a resident of this building I hope that charging stations are an option for residents. I presently own a hybrid, but as I see charging stations appearing more readily with sustainable energy development I will be an electric car owner hopefully in the not too disatant future. I believe this Capital project is a continuation of the beautiful upgrade of Kingstons downtown area. The developer has worked with the community to maximize input and further his partnership with the City of Kingston and us. The citizens of Kingston. Brian Cross

311 Cruz,Kevin From: Sent: To: Subject: Tim Pater Monday, August 08, :03 PM CBenefit223Princess 223 Princess Street Hello, Please find my comments on the possible community benefits of this project below: 1. Restore the original heritage facade of 223 Princess St. including a commemorative plaque. This would include a Heritage Easement Agreement. This would greatly benefit the community as it would serve to preserve one of the only 'Art Deco' facades in the City while keeping with the look and feel of Princess street. 2. Partner with the City s Affordable Home Ownership Program to be applied to up to 5 per cent of the units ( While this may prove to be an unlikely scenario more affordable housing is definitely needed and if were to be included in the proposal it would go a long way in terms of public opinion with regards to the project. 3. Partner with the City to create a cultural amenity/presentation space within the former film theatre at 223 Princess St. This would be terrific as it could service so many community groups and would further strengthen our position as a Cultural & Arts hub for the region. 4. Partner with the City to provide public parking which could include electric charging stations and bicycle parking close to 223 Princess St. Yet another great possibility which ties into the Smart Livable City theme. As an aside the whole project fits into the Smart Livable City Pillar. By increasing intensification downtown there will be an opportunity for residents to live work and play all within walking distance. This would create less dependency on automobiles and would increase active transportation. High density residential is also far more environmentally sustainable than single family homes. Finally, having more people living downtown will help to ensure the success of our downtown. Best Regards, Tim Pater 27 Pembroke Street Kingston, OM K7L 4N

312 Cruz,Kevin From: Sent: To: Subject: Peter Burpee Tuesday, August 02, :59 AM CBenefit223Princess Against trading "benefits" I strongly support Councillor Rob Hutchison's position for 223 Princess Street, and fail to understand why the City does not insist that developers follow the Official Plan and Architectural Guidelines from the outset for Princess Street and area. Peter Burpee Barrett Court, Apt. 705 Kingston, ON K7L 5H6 Tel:

313 Cruz,Kevin From: Sent: To: Subject: Jean Gower Friday, July 29, :32 PM CBenefit223Princess bargaining away Kingston's heritage I am adamantly opposed to allowing any development downtown higher than the OP allows. I have sat at meetings listening to the dozens of people who agree with me. Kingston s Official Plan should NOT be for sale. Jean gower

314 Cruz,Kevin From: Genevieve Payn < Sent: Tuesday, August 02, :15 AM To: CBenefit223Princess Subject: benefits?? good morning - thank you for the opportunity to express our opinion on the "proposed" benefits from a "too high" building at 223 Princess St. It is our opinion that Princess St especially lower Princess St needs intensification and attention. The Big Dig has resulted in a renewed and beautiful area where we citizens can walk, shop and dine. We love the downtown and all it's energy and decry the fact that there are many empty storefronts along Princess St. We sold our home in the west end to move down town - it is a lovely, lively place to live - with most everything at our fingertips. We love the architecture; the old buildings with history and the dilemma is how to keep that and still "intensify" the area and bring more people to the downtown. The proposed (and we suspect already tacitly approved) Capitol Condo building remains way too high for that area- for any downtown area actually. It is on the top of a hill- so it will be even higher to the human eye. The fact that council is trying to entice citizens with benefits that "benefit" practically no one says a lot. You obviously know- Mr Mayor and Councillors- that this amounts to a "bribe"; an enticement. Take a look at the new still under construction condo/apartment building at Brock and Wellington - that will fit in perfectly with the surrounding area and buildings. Something to think about for 223 Princess St- but it will take courage to enforce the rules won't it? We have regulations and rules in this city- regarding the height of a building and yet a "carrot" can be enough to entice our leaders to make changes! As you are well aware - once an exception is made the next request cannot be refused. Citizens in Kingston are not stupid and we see and understand what is truly happening. It is disappointing and frustrating. Thank you for providing an opportunity to express our opinion Genny Payn Don payn

315 Cruz,Kevin From: Sent: To: Cc: Subject: Rubens Tuesday, August 02, :07 PM CBenefit223Princess 'Rubens' Benefits? Comments: It is important to provide some kind of community benefit, but the benefit must be for all citizens and not those that suit just residents in the area! It is apparent that local residents and their councillor are driving what constitutes a benefit as those which by and large satisfies local residents and not ALL Kingstonians. While I applaud the benefits as stated on the city s website, (charging stations; parking spaces; commemorative plaque,(somewhat questionable!); an amenity space, (building security?) I believe there are much broader issues that need to be addressed. 1. I question this need to be constantly providing affordable housing at a developer s expense. In fact, providing affordable housing reduces the property tax that the city could expect from a similar development where such restrictions are not forced on a developer. A property which has condos/apartments of similar value means that it is fair to assume the property s value is greater. By forcing affordable housing on a development can artificially lower a property s value by potentially making it a less desirable location for prospective owners/renters. It also has a social implication by labeling a building or an area as a mixed development. All properties should be seen in light of their true value and not artificially reduced to fit an agenda. It means that all Kingstonians throughout the city are forced to pay higher property taxes in order to subsidize housing in areas that would command maximum property taxes otherwise. 2. I support the reconstruction of the street façade in order to maintain a seamless one or two story appearance at street level. However, again I believe that all Kingstonians everywhere, (but for those local residents) would support greater building height in order to maximize the Province s stance on intensification. We should be holding to this concept and not artificially reducing it to fit an outdated city plan which attempts to restrict building height. Besides, how can we justify one district that is permitted to discriminate based on building height while allowing much higher structures throughout the rest of the city? I could not think of a worse example of this than our downtown waterfront. A jewel in some cities, now ruined by 18 story condos. The new owner of the Marine Museum property will no doubt ask for similar restrictions to be lifted. How will Staff/Council address this issue before OMB? How will they justify another 18 story building on the waterfront but not a similar structure 5 blocks away to all citizens of this city? 3. Good Planning seems to be fine for some districts but this concept diminishes exponentially as you move away from those more vocal residents/councillor s. Either this good planning concept is universally applicable, measureable and considered in light of present buildings in the downtown (and other districts for that matter!) or it is an outdated model. As it is currently applied,.it isn t! And I do not support a sudden change of attitude toward building height and restrictive building practices as currently expressed. I support a height that makes economic sense to both the developer and citizen taxpayer! It should be constructed to a height of similar downtown structures. It should be required to provide a minor list of amenities. But it should be constructed such that it can offer all citizens of Kingston benefits and not just a minority

316 P. Rubens

317 Cruz,Kevin From: Sent: To: Subject: Wendy Kelen and Tim Soper Tuesday, August 02, :29 PM CBenefit223Princess "Benefits" To whom it may concern, The proposed Capitol Condo is too high, and too boring. There is NO benefit I would consider to accept this proposal. Please ensure that my totally "negative" consideration is counted equally with all the others. Complete rejection is also valid. Best Wishes, Tim Soper

318 Cruz,Kevin From: Sent: To: Cc: Subject: Attachments: Elizabeth Durno Thursday, August 04, :31 PM CBenefit223Princess Agnew,Paige; Newman,Greg Benefits of 223 Princess Benefits of Capital Theatre.docx Please accept the attached

319 190 Ordnance Street Kingston, ON K7K 1H1 August 4, 2016 RE: Benefits of Capital Theatre Project Thank you for encouraging the public to comment on the benefits of the Capital Theatre Project. It is extraordinary to be asked to comment on the benefits of a development which architects and planners have said is out of scale (way too high) and inappropriate. Are our politicians looking for reasons to back an automatic approval of this development? And if so, why? Who would vote for people with so little vision? This project will be mainly beneficial to the well-heeled occupants of the 213 residential units. They will be conveniently located on downtown Princess Street in a brand new building with commanding views of the City. The development team putting this project together will also enjoy the profit from the sales of the units. There is the short term expectation of construction employment which will benefit the construction workers and their families. Perhaps the Princess retail businesses on Princess Street will see an increase in business, hopefully more of an increase in business than that currently given to downtown Kingston by the residents of the wall of high rises on the waterfront along Ontario Street. Please note that the Princess St. retail businesses continue to struggle in spite of the increase in the number of residents and additional towers already built on the waterfront. The property tax paid by the purchasers of the Capital Theatre Project will enhance the City coffers. In any case, we can all expect that the City will receive more revenue, but probably not more than would be 1194

320 expected if this type of development were to be located outside of the downtown core. As there are only 146 parking spots for the 213 residential units the City can expect an increase in revenue from parking fines. The downtown is already very short of parking spaces and this added congestion will surely lead to more fines for illegal parking. The increase in the number of vehicles will also make the surrounding area noisier. Please consider that the benefits of this particular development fall far short of enhancing the downtown long term. In order for the downtown to remain an attractive place to live and shop, the streetscape should remain a pleasant experience for pedestrians. New buildings should fit in and enhance Kingston s existing heritage buildings. In this discussion of the benefits of this new development, consideration of the future of Queen Street has not been aired. Queen Street should be more than just a service street for Princess Street. If Queen Street could be enhanced for pedestrians and shops in the future, Kingston would be better for it. Please consider planning for the long term and deny this 223 Princess Street project. The benefits just do not outweigh the drawbacks long term. Elizabeth Durno 1195

321 Cruz,Kevin From: Sent: To: Subject: Brett Christopher Tuesday, August 09, :30 PM CBenefit223Princess benefits of a flexible seat theatre venue Good afternoon, Thank you for this opportunity to express my thoughts on the community benefit proposals for the 223 Princess St. development. The 6,000 sqft space would provide an incredible opportunity to create a seat flexible performance venue that could easily be home to many of Kingston's leading artistic production companies. Theatre Kingston would like to propose a partnership with the City of Kingston in the development and management of this venue. The space would be fitted-out to be fully flexible (with regards to seating configuration, etc) in order to house a wide variety of events: literary readings, musical events, dance, film, theatre - in order to provide a producing home for a large number of local arts organizations. In this scenario, Theatre Kingston would manage the facility on behalf of the City of Kingston and lease the space to other organizations for their presentation needs. Our organization feels that an arts space like this one that includes an impressive lobby/bar would be a valuable asset to both the community and the developer as it would become an interesting and vibrant locale for both residents and visitors to downtown. The creation of a venue of this capacity would have the following benefits: 1. Downtown - If there is one substantial thing that the recent success of the Storefront Festival taught me it is that there is an incredibly symbiotic relationship between the needs of local downtown business with exciting cultural product. The development of a mid-size flexible arts space in the downtown core would be an integral driver for local business and provide people with another reason to head downtown or live there. 2. Arts groups - Many local arts organizations are seeking a mid-sized venue in which to perform (Kingston Canadian Film Festival, Centre Culturel, Kingston Writersfest, Live Wire Music Series, Theatre Kingston, etc.) as it is the ideal size for a community like Kingston and could very easily be full for a significant number of dates each year. 3. Current venue options - there are no other entertainment venues in Kingston of this size: Isabel (650 concert hall, 80 seat theatre), Grand (750 seat theatre, 60 seat theatre). 4. Synergy with the Grand Theatre - the geography of being directly across the street and the size of the venue means that a vital 'stepping stone' could be created for organizations to perform in the Grand's Rosen. Right now, there are very few local orgs/artists performing on the Rosen stage at the Grand because it is impossible for an organization to grow an audience from a seat facility (Baby Grand) to a 750 seat space (Rosen) and not suffer a significant drop in experience. A 200-seat facility would create a new step between these two spaces that would allow orgs to grow organically into the bigger space and create a significant opportunity for many of them to become sustainable. I would be happy to continue this discussion with staff as the consideration moves forward. There are many successful examples of flexible performance spaces of this size and style and I think that Kingston deserves this sort of cultural amenity. With thanks,

322 Brett Christopher Artistic Producer, Theatre Kingston -- Brett Christopher Artistic Producer, Theatre Kingston

323 Cruz,Kevin From: Sent: To: Subject: Andre Lemieux Friday, July 29, :15 PM CBenefit223Princess Building Proposal Downtown Kingston I say No to this project. Let's preserve our Heritage the way it is. André Lemieux

324 Cruz,Kevin From: Sent: To: Subject: Importance: peterjl Wednesday, August 03, :06 AM CBenefit223Princess [BULKCK] Low re the 17 story building vote no no no John E A Smythe Kingston This has been checked for viruses by Avast antivirus software

325 Cruz,Kevin From: Sent: To: Subject: John Armstrong Tuesday, August 02, :57 AM CBenefit223Princess CAPITAL Towers Hello, A lot of money, a great deal of work, and consultation was put into our official plan. How is it that this council seems programmed to throw it out to accommodate developers? The future costs of allowing this to happen, even with a few concessions are enormous. You all know as a council, as a planning department and as citizens of this City what they are. My vote is not to grant concessions on this project. Stick to the official plan. John Armstrong Kingston Sent from J Armstrong's ipad

326 Cruz,Kevin From: Sent: To: Cc: Subject: Justin A. Connidis Wednesday, August 03, :16 AM CBenefit223Princess Agnew,Paige Capitol Building Dear City of Kingston Planning Department, I am a resident of Kingston and also own four other properties in Kingston, three of which are located downtown (Queen Street, Johnson Street, and Sydenham Street). I am opposed to Kingston allowing buildings which are too tall to relate to the neighbourhood in which they are located. Intensification which encourages three to four storey (possibly up to six to eight stories if stories step back so from street only four floors obscure light and view and wind problems are proven not to result) residential buildings, with commercial storefronts on the ground floor if on commercial streets such as Princess and Queen would be a form of development which could benefit the community if sufficient green space, day care facilities, and similar amenities were required. There is no where in downtown Kingston east of the Kingston Shopping Centre that should have more high rises. What the City has allowed to happen to its waterfront is a disgrace and should not be allowed to be made worse on the remaining waterfront or allowed in its historic downtown. Yours truly, Justin Justin A. Connidis Lawyer Dickinson Wright LLP 199 Bay Street Suite 2200 Commerce Court West Toronto ON M5L 1G4 Confidentiality Warning: This message and any attachments are intended only for the use of the intended recipient(s), are confidential and may be privileged. If you are not the intended recipient you are hereby notified that any review, retransmission, conversion to hard copy, copying, circulation or other use of this message and any attachments is strictly prohibited. If you are not the intended

327 recipient please notify the sender immediately by return and delete this message and any attachments from your system. Information confidentielle : Le présent message, ainsi que tout fichier qui y est joint, est envoyé à l'intention exclusive de son ou de ses destinataires; il est de nature confidentielle et peut constituer une information privilégiée. Nous avertissons toute personne autre que le destinataire prévu que l'examen, la retransmission, l'impression, la copie, la distribution ou toute autre utilisation de ce message et de tout fichier qui y est joint est strictement interdit. Si vous n'êtes pas le destinataire prévu, veuillez en aviser immédiatement l'expéditeur par retour de courriel et supprimer ce message et tout document joint de votre système

328 Cruz,Kevin From: Sent: To: Subject: Raymond Liu Tuesday, August 09, :26 AM CBenefit223Princess Capitol Condo feedback Hi, I support the construction of the Capitol Condo. This is a great idea for the prosperity of the City of Kingston s downtown core. The design of the building looks beautiful and fits into the surroundings nicely. The modern building will attract young professionals and families to live downtown and support the businesses of downtown. I hope the planning committee and city council will support this project. Best regards, Raymond Liu, resident of City of Kingston

329 Cruz,Kevin From: Sent: To: Subject: Lutz Forkert Tuesday, August 02, :57 AM CBenefit223Princess Capitol Condominiums Hello, Further to the recent article in the Whig regarding this proposal I am totally against compromising property zoning restriction for community benefits, which will benefit one group over another. I strongly recommend that the developer adhere to current zoning restriction. Lutz Forkert

330 Cruz,Kevin From: Sent: To: Subject: rhea wood Tuesday, August 02, :49 AM CBenefit223Princess Capitol Project I fail to understand why a trade off with a developer regarding the Capitol building will benefit Kingston. The community benefits are minimal. However the height is a major issue. Increasing the height of the building will be detrimental to the entire area.a high-rise in the middle of buildings that conform to the present law/regulations would look ridiculous and would destroy the historic allure of that part of Kingston. The current laws and regulations regarding height should not be manipulated or bartered to satisfy the needs of one developer. The needs and opinions of those of us who live in Kingston should be the driving force behind any building projects that do not conform to the current laws/regulations

331 Cruz,Kevin From: Sent: To: Subject: Anne Gutknecht Wednesday, August 03, :36 AM CBenefit223Princess Centre culturel Frontenac Hello, I had the chance to meet with Colin and understand better what this project was about. I am writing on behalf of the Board of director who confirmed to me that they would be interested if the 223 princess St became a new venue for the artistic organizations. We could have our programming presented in this venue. Our needs are a space that can afford 200 people max (our average is more beetween 80 to 130 people) but we have sometimes comedian from Quebec who can fill up the space. We present music, theatre, dance, humour and kid shows. We are inclusive for the whole community. Let me know what you would need from us. Best, Anne Gutknecht Directrice générale / Executive director Le Centre culturel Frontenac 711 avenue Dalton, Kingston (Ontario) K7M 8N6 Facebook

332 Cruz,Kevin From: Sent: To: Subject: Paul Fortier Monday, August 01, :43 AM CBenefit223Princess Comments from Paul Fortier We were all disappointed when the Capital Theatre closed its doors. There is a beginning and an end to everything and endings can sometimes offer new beginnings. I am thrilled by the proposal of In8 and believe that the building will enliven the downtown economy and bring new residents to the city core. Benefits: Restoring the Princess Street façade of the old theatre would be an asset to the street. A marquis full of lights could add excitement to this mid town location. While a cultural amenity space could be welcome I prefer to find a benefit which will benefit the community as well as the developer. Could there be a passage way from Princess to Queen Street along which crafters and artists could rent kiosks. This could be an all season market with some rent benefit to the property owner. This space could also provide some bicycle parking for the use of local shoppers or visitors to the building. Asking the building owner to provide public parking spaces in the building may be excessive considering the difficulties of ensuring security for building residents when parking is open to public access. Paul Fortier Jessup Food & Heritage, Ltd. visit our photo gallery of Renaissance Wedding Events: photo gallery/ Take of video tour of Renaissance Event Venue: GM Visit Sir John's Public House Great Hall:

333 Cruz,Kevin From: Sent: To: Cc: Subject: Vicki Schmolka Tuesday, August 02, :05 PM CBenefit223Princess Hutchison,Rob; Schell,Elizabeth comments on IN8 proposed community benefits Thank you for inviting comment on possible community benefits for the IN8 planning application for 223 Princess Street. I am glad to see that the city recognizes that the application is not necessarily good planning and asking for public comment on the possible community benefits in no way implies approval of the application. As I have noted in public meetings and in written correspondence to the city, I am opposed to the application for many reasons including its height, impact on the culture and heritage of the area, and the seemingly dangerous three parking garage exit and entrance arrangements on Queen Street. Please do not take my comments on the community benefits question as in any way indicating support for the planning application. In fact, I do not believe community benefits are appropriate with respect to this application because it would not meet the requirements of Official Plan section (a). The proposed 17 storeys will have adverse effects on neighbouring uses as was shown in the E.R.A. peer review and is not compatible with the requirements in OP section 2.7, particularly sections 2.7.3(c), (d), (e), (i), (j), and (k). However, given that the city has decided to ask for input on the community benefits, I offer these comments. 1. The first step in a discussion of a community benefit is identifying the value of the additional height or density to the land. The city has not offered any calculation as to the value of the extra height or extra density. How can citizens and their elected representatives assess if the benefit is reasonable without this information? 2. The idea of a community benefit, as set out in the Planning Act and the city s Official Plan, is to require the applicant to offer the city something in return for the extra height or density, recognizing that allowing a project that is outside the Official Plan/Zoning requirements has a cost to the municipality that crafted the planning rules and to other developers and citizens who have relied on them. The idea is for the developer to pay for the privilege of going beyond the rules, not for the city to pick up the tab. Strangely, three of the four options for community benefits the city is suggesting involve partnering with the city. This implies that taxpayers would be footing some of the costs. This is clearly inappropriate. The fourth proposed community benefit is a heritage designation for the façade of the building. The designation can proceed without the applicant s permission. How, then, is this a community benefit that would compensate for the extra height and density the applicant is requesting? 3. Here are some community benefits that speak to real needs within the city and might be considered to compensate for the extreme changes to the Official Plan and zoning by laws that the applicant is requesting. The applicant could: Meet the Official Plan policy in section (a) by providing 25% affordable housing units within the development Provide parkland space within one kilometre of the building by buying a vacant lot that would be appropriate for an inner city park space. Hire a person to curate the public art space promised within the building and commit to changing the display at least six times a year for a 20 year period

334 Again, I do not intend to suggest that the city should trade height and density in this way. I do not think that any price is appropriate with respect to this application because it is bad planning and bad for the city. But, if the city wishes to enter into negotiations on community benefits then the benefits must be real and tangible benefits that speak to city needs and are paid for by the applicant and not by taxpayers. Finally, it is unfortunate that the city is entering into discussions about community benefits without any guidelines in place. Vicki Schmolka

335 Cruz,Kevin From: Sent: To: Subject: S. Cliff-Jungling Thursday, August 04, :16 PM CBenefit223Princess community benefits For the record, I find it appalling how much the city is doing just to have this monstrous development project appear 'beneficial' to the city. It's own address, all kinds of input sought (as long as it is in support of the development). Why is the city spending all this time (and hence money) on this issue? The OP and by laws are clear! Build to those specifications. In regards, to the proposed 'benefits': Each one is to be questioned on its merit. I would argue most would either have little benefit, or are only benefiting a small group. But the impact of the building (shadow, wind, overcrowding, parking issues, increased use at Artillery Park, etc.) will be borne by many, many more people. Shame on you for pushing this on the community. It really leaves a bad taste. Regards, Susanne Susanne Cliff Jungling (M.A.) 28 Alma St. Kingston ON K7K 1J6 "All that is required for evil to prevail is for good men to do nothing." Edmund Burke

336 Cruz,Kevin From: Sent: To: Subject: Brenda Bielicki Thursday, August 04, :50 AM CBenefit223Princess Community benefits Hello, Now is not the time to be offering trades with developers. The city has already generated enough mistrust among the public with Kedco and the marine museum. I would suggest listening to the residents in the proximity of the proposed high rises who are overwhelmingly in favor of adhering to lower, (Anna Lane scale), height limits. Brenda Bielicki

337 Cruz,Kevin From: Sent: To: Subject: K Clemens Tuesday, August 09, :36 PM CBenefit223Princess Community Benefits 223 Princess Street To whom it may concern, Regarding proposed community benefits related to the development proposal for 223 Princess Street, I am writing to offer my support for 2 of the proposed benefits: 1. Partner with the City's Affordable Home Ownership Program to be applied to up to 5 per cent of the units ( 2. Partner with the City to create a cultural amenity/presentation space within the former film theatre at 223 Princess St. I would further like to suggest that the aims of these benefits (affordable housing and cultural amenities in the downtown Kingston) could be combined by creating affordable live-work space for artists at the location. With best regards, Kristiana Clemens

338 Cruz,Kevin From: Sent: To: Cc: Subject: Attachments: Michaela Rodgers Friday, August 05, :39 PM McLaren,Jeff; Neill,Jim; Turner,Laura; Osanic,Lisa; Schell,Elizabeth; Allen,Richard CBenefit223Princess; Doug Ritchie Community Benefits and Development of 223 Princess St 223 Princess Street - Aug pdf Good Afternoon, Please see attached a letter from Doug Ritchie, Managing Director, Downtown Kingston! BIA re: Community Benefits and Development of 223 Princess St. Thank you, Michaela Rodgers Projects Manager Administration Downtown Kingston! B.I.A. 353 King St. East ~ Suite 200 Kingston, ON K7L 3B

339 1214 Exhibit M

340 1215 Exhibit M

341 Cruz,Kevin From: Sent: To: Subject: dancing kingston Tuesday, August 09, :15 PM CBenefit223Princess Community Benefits for 223 Princess St Hi there I was hoping for a survey to fill out with specific questions, but it seems you are looking for answers only (which is harder to collate, isn't it?). So based on your information on your webpage about 4 possible benefits: and development/community benefits 1. Restore the original heritage façade of 223 Princess St. including a commemorative plaque. This would include a Heritage Easement Agreement. 2. Partner with the City's Affordable Home Ownership Program to be applied to up to 5 per cent of the units ( 3. Partner with the City to create a cultural amenity/presentation space within the former film theatre at 223 Princess St. 4. Partner with the City to provide public parking which could include electric charging stations and bicycle parking close to 223 Princess St. I do not see any of these 4 items as possible community benefits of a storey building downtown. #1 almost seems like a joke. We don't need #3 with the Grand across the street and the new Tett Centre. We don't need a storey building to have additional public parking or charging stations there are other ways to do this. There are other ways to obtain these "benefits" through redevelopment of the downtown core. The detrimental effects of a storey building far outweigh any possible benefits of this proposed development. Stick with the current height limits and do small infills downtown instead maximum 6 storeys. Respectfully K. Parsons

342 Cruz,Kevin From: Sent: To: Subject: Shirley Bailey Monday, August 08, :31 PM CBenefit223Princess Community Benefits for 223 Princess Hello Whether this development proposal is really good planning is highly questionable in my view. There is a rumour that the proponent originally wanted to have fourteen storeys, and he was told to apply for more...it is not clear who may have given them that advice, but that rumour coupled with this survey about community benefits suggests that city staff are promoting "let's make a deal planning". The property should have been designated as a heritage structure when it was first closed. If the facade needs to be cleaned or brought back to its original finish, then that would or should be expected of any developer who takes over the building. It is not clear why the city is using heritage easement agreements, but that should not be tied to community benefits. Those as well as regular heritage protection through the designation process are provided for under the Ontario Heritage Act. The Official Plan provides for affordable housing, so again, that should not be part of the 'benefit' that a community gets from an approval of this application. A cultural presentation space may not be warranted in this location, when the City operates the Grand Theatre across the street, and that facility may be underutilized currently. Why public parking should be suggested is unclear when there is a parking garage virtually across the street to the rear of the Grand Theatre. Is there a need or a demand or public parking? Anyway, the survey assumes that the development will be approved in some form, and by giving the developer density over and above that allowed in municipal planning documents, the City should get something for that approval. The survey, as with the Third Crossing survey, is simply not asking the correct questions. Thanks, Shirley Bailey

343 Cruz,Kevin From: Sent: To: Cc: Subject: Wednesday, August 03, :31 AM CBenefit223Princess community benefits in exchange for easing height limitation Hello, I believe that we need to encourage more people to live downtown. Not only is this good the planet by fighting sprawl and over-use of private cars but it will develop the market for the many businesses who are located in the downtown area. Our downtown needs to thrive economically if it is to remain viable. But we must not sacrifice the very qualities that make downtown Kingston such a wonderful place to live and to be. I believe that exchanging easing height restrictions should be done in a very limited way and with careful thought so as to not produce negative impacts on the downtown. There have been many community benefits suggested that could be sought from the developers. One that I'd like to suggest is requiring developers to build to a very high standard of energy efficiency and environmental sustainablity. Perhaps exchange two stories additional to that permitted by the OP for a LEED building, two more stories for a LEED silver and another 3 more for a LEED Platinum building. Meeting these standards should enhance the appeal of the condos and improve their marketability. David Hahn

344 Cruz,Kevin From: Sent: To: Subject: Peter Burpee Monday, August 08, :40 PM CBenefit223Princess Community benefits in exchange for high-rise buildings? Absolutely not! Who thought this one up? Peter Burpee Barrett Court, Kingston, ON K7L 5H

345 Cruz,Kevin From: on behalf of Barbara Bell Sent: To: Cc: Subject: Tuesday, August 09, :03 PM CBenefit223Princess Aara Macauley community benefits related to the proposal to develop 223 Princess Street To whom it may concern: In regards to the proposed development of 223 Princess Street, I write on behalf of Kingston WritersFest. As an annual festival that presents fifty events in the downtown core, we are always looking for more and better physical spaces where arts and cultural activities can take place. We collaborate with other arts groups, and seek to expand Kingston's reputation as a tourism destination, and we see the value of a flexible, accessible space in a beautifully restored historic building, that also allows some parking for those who visit from outside the city, and those attending from the greater Kingston area. Availability to the community of this kind of space rates as the primary benefit that would be valuable to our organization. Ranking the possible benefits in order of priority: 1. Partner with the City to create a cultural amenity/presentation space within the former film theatre at 223 Princess St. 2. Partner with the City to provide public parking which could include electric charging stations and bicycle parking close to 223 Princess St. 3. Restore the original heritage façade of 223 Princess St. including a commemorative plaque. This would include a Heritage Easement Agreement. 4. Partner with the City's Affordable Home Ownership Program to be applied to up to 5 per cent of the units ( Sincerely, Barbara Bell Barbara Bell, Artistic Director Celebrating the Power of the Written Word September 28 - October 2,

346 Cruz,Kevin From: Sent: To: Subject: Christine Sypnowich Tuesday, August 09, :13 AM CBenefit223Princess Community benefits survey Dear City Staff, I am writing to add my voice to the chorus of unhappiness about the proposed community benefits in exchange for contravening City height policy regarding the Capitol project at 223 Princess Street. First of all, it is highly disrespectful of public opinion, and the democratic process, to pose the question in the first place, as if the proposal has already been approved. There has been a great deal of opposition to a building that would dominate and dwarf heritage buildings, reduce sunlight, and obscure views. The vast majority of views from members of the public have been negative. The project, at its current height, should simply not be approved. In any case, Council has yet to decide on this application, and soliciting opinion on benefits prior to Council s decision is clearly premature. Moreover, all four of the benefits are in fact either simply a matter of following City policy, or they are too meagre to make up for the significant disbenefit of having a high rise tower in our historic downtown. Furthermore, some of them were components of the project from the outset. For example, many owners of heritage properties find themselves in the role of steward of a building designated by the City and in effect required to restore them, so the heritage benefit is not the proponent s to give. Allocating a portion of a new residential development to affordable housing is also a City policy. Providing parking is also a required part of any development. Finally, bicycle racks and an art space are laughably modest in exchange for the significant economic benefits gained by the proponent by having extra several floors and the many extra units on the market. I hope that the City follows its own rules in this project and does not permit a building that exceeds its height requirements or trades this requirement away for benefits that are already required, or part of the original proposal, or ridiculously meagre. Many thanks for considering my views. Yours, Christine Sypnowich 249 Main Street, Barriefield

347 Cruz,Kevin From: Sent: To: Subject: Sharon Deline Monday, August 08, :57 PM CBenefit223Princess; Agnew,Paige; Newman,Greg; Lambert,Lindsay Community Benefits TO WHOM IT MAY BE OF CONCERN: I find the proposition of allowing a high rise in exchange for potential community benefits unseemly with regard to the Capitol proposal. Community benefits should be an essential part of a plan proposal for any location in the city. Do I support the notion of a building higher than the current height stipulated in the Official Plan on the site of the old theatre, backing onto Queen Street? No. Why? To do otherwise would be to mar the ambiance of the core of Kingston s historic downtown. It would be a reflection of our own weakness. As Paul Bedford, former chief planner for the city of Toronto, said: To me, heritage preservation is an essential part of any city that values itself. We have a long way to go compared to so many other cities around the world: our heritage legislation is pretty weak and the range of tools available to help achieve meaningful heritage preservation is pretty thin. (NOW MAGAZINE, March 29, 2012) Would a high rise contradict and undermine the importance of the heritage of the buildings already in existence in the area concerned? Yes. Why? Don Loucks, chair of the heritage Toronto education and conservation committee noted: We need to define what constitutes a threat to heritage. When I think of threats, I think not just of bricks and mortar, but the impact of development on the visual environment. What are we saying when we put a huge tower over a building of historic significance? Are we saying it s more important? Is that the message we want to be sending? I m wondering if we are missing the point. (NOW MAGAZINE, March 29, 2012) What would the result of the erasure of these buildings, works of art in their own right, from our sight and mind be? According to Eldon Garnet, artist, professor of contemporary photography, public art and sculpture at the OCAD : The first act of many revolutions is to destroy the artwork of the past as a symbol of a new order. To maintain existing public works is to maintain a respectful sense of history and cultural continuity both

348 symbolically and physically. When we allow public works to decay because of neglect, we are engaging in an act of disrespect both to artists and to our own culture. (NOW MAGAZINE, March 29, 2012) New Kingston needs to preserve its Old Downtown...in height, environment, and for the sake of the cultural continuity of this First Capitol of Canada. If we don t, then we have to assume that the preoccupation is with capital, rather than with capitol. With Regard, Sharon E. Deline 14 Durham Street Kingston, ON K7L1H9 Exhibit M

349 Cruz,Kevin From: Sent: To: Subject: John Colangeli Tuesday, August 02, :14 AM CBenefit223Princess Community Benifits Benefits, for city Possibly some parking Taller buildings, back to at least 20 stories, more revenue for the city A benefit to city would be not to have affordable suites in this building A benefit to the city would be something that blends with old and new A benefit would be for the city not to cheapen the look and use of ground floor with some form of community space. A benefit to the city is maybe this investor could do another deal with the city to improve a park or possibly their next venture in Kingston could possibly incorporate more affordable housing at another location. A trade off. A benefit for the city would be to encourage good investment in the downtown, not slow down investment as this does nothing for the city. A benefit for the city would be to stop using a sustainable city mentality in everything you pass A benefit for the city would be for some councillors to have a more open mind how the city does achieve a more sustainable city, not by a no compromise mentality. Thank you Sent from my ipad

350 Cruz,Kevin From: Sent: To: Subject: Patti Donnelly-Arnold Monday, August 01, :29 PM CBenefit223Princess Definitely need this development and others Living downtown I see that more people need to live and spend downtown. Less cars on the roads, healthier to walk to shopping and events. Downtown parks and sights are terrific! Much rather be walking distance to splash pads and to visit fountains and see the ducks and turtles. The more residents the more benefits for downtown. No one looks way up when they walk/drive. Just keep the first few floors presentable. Patti Donnelly-Arnold

351 Cruz,Kevin From: Sent: To: Subject: Sandy Campbell Wednesday, August 03, :01 AM CBenefit223Princess Downtown Capitol Theatre development As a Kingston resident, I write to strongly urge council to restrict the height development on this project to protect the heritage nature of the downtown core, so important to our tourism. Sincerely Dr. Sandy Campbell 16 Loradean Crescent Kingston K7K 6 X9 Sent from my ipad

352 Cruz,Kevin From: Sent: To: Subject: C&M Davis Wednesday, August 03, :24 AM CBenefit223Princess Downtown I get a little tired of the political step dancing that goes on with city planning and some councillors. One day the merchant association is complaining about slow business...the next day projects are being revised or cancelled that would bring money spending residents to the downtown. Re the capital theatre project... Who are the residents that are complaining? Queen St.... Give me a break. Nothing wrong with affordable housing but don't put it where you expect the residents to bolster a slow downtown retail. Come on Kingston, let's get growing and stop listening to a frumpy minority that are only interested in the status quo and getting re-elected. Why do people think they own a view beyond there own property and have the right to stop progressive development...block D comes to mind. And by the way, glad to see we are installing turtle barriers where in my many years of driving, never saw a single turtle. Regards...JC Davis Sent from my ipad

353 Cruz,Kevin From: Sent: To: Cc: Subject: Importance: Yisha Chen Thursday, August 04, :34 PM CBenefit223Princess Yisha At Cogeco Feedback: Capitol Condo on 223 Princess Street High I strongly support the Capitol condo construction on 223 Princess Street. This helps intensification in downtown Kingston and also boosts the downtown business. I don t think the modern high rise looks bad among the heritage buildings at all. Actually, it is kind of artistic with distinguishing characteristics. I have seen many cities have this kind of mixture in their downtown core, which looks very attractive. I also strongly support the idea of having additional public parking space built near 223 Princess Street. Thanks, Yisha

354 Cruz,Kevin From: Sent: To: Subject: Kip Pegley Friday, July 29, :28 PM CBenefit223Princess Feedback on Community Benefits Hi, I am writing to give my response to the request for feedback on community benefits. 1) On the first point, that there should be a heritage façade, I feel that this should be in place. All new buildings should fit in with the existing architecture. 2) On the second point, I believe that the Official Plan states that all new building should have at least 25%, not 5%, go to affordable housing. So I do not feel that this point goes nearly far enough. 3) As for points 3 and 4, namely that there be a cultural space and public parking, I do not understand why city tax money might be partnered with the developer to buy this. Should this money all come from the developer? It would be great to have more parking and a cultural space, but do we have to sell our soul to a developer wanting to build a 17 story building to do so? I firmly believe that we should not be giving feedback at all to a proposal that defies the Official Plan. The proposal is 10 stories about the limit set in the plan, and, as such, should not be considered. I am saddened that the proposal is being presented as a done deal, when this is not the case. While I am all for developing the downtown core, buildings should be proportionate and on a healthy human scale, not ruining the landscape as this building would do. What makes Kingston special is the lovely architecture, and if we want to be a world class city, we should be doing what other cities like Paris and Barcelona have done: keep our buildings proportional, and think creatively around smart and attractive infill projects. It is possible! Thank you for your consideration, Dr. Kip Pegley Queen s University

355 Cruz,Kevin From: Miller,Debbi Sent: Tuesday, August 02, :05 AM To: CBenefit223Princess Subject: FW: [News] Input wanted on community benefits related to proposal to develop 223 Princess St. This came in as a response to the news release. Thanks! Deb From: Nancy Day [ Sent: July :04 PM To: City of Kingston - Communications Subject: Re: [News] Input wanted on community benefits related to proposal to develop 223 Princess St. Excellence in architectural design. On 26/07/16, City News <news@lists.cityofkingston.ca> wrote: KINGSTON, ONT./July 26, The City of Kingston is seeking input on proposed community benefits related to the development proposal for 223 Princess St. "Community benefits can form part of the approvals process for a project under the Planning Act. In exchange for height or density that exceeds a property's zoning permission, municipalities may receive community benefits," says Lanie Hurdle, commissioner, community services. The City has discussed with developers the possible community benefits that could be related to the proposal to develop 223 Princess St. This proposed building project has yet to be approved by the City. This is a consultation to ask for feedback from the community on the community benefits proposed. The development must meet the tests of good planning for community benefit agreements to be established. Offer your input on these possible community benefits by to CBenefit223Princess@cityofkingston.ca by Tuesday, Aug. 9. Possible community benefits: 1. Restore the original heritage façade of 223 Princess St. including a commemorative plaque. This would include a Heritage Easement Agreement. 2. Partner with the City's Affordable Home Ownership Program to be applied to up to 5 per cent of the units ( 3. Partner with the City to create a cultural amenity/presentation space within the former film theatre at 223 Princess St. 4. Partner with the City to provide public parking which could include electric charging stations and bicycle parking close to 223 Princess St. The Planning Act, and Sections of the City's Official Plan, provide the parameters for how

356 communities may negotiate community benefits. Community benefits are finalized through a Council-approved, site-specific amending zoning bylaw that implements a proposed development. City planning staff is initiating discussions community benefits as early as pre-application with developers proposing large projects exceeding the current height and density provisions for the property. These early conversations help to ensure that the all applicants are aware of the City's intent to pursue benefits under Section 37 of the Planning Act when the criteria are met. About the City of Kingston The City of Kingston provides municipal services to 125,000 residents living in this visually stunning, historic city, often ranked one of the best places to live in Canada. Kingston is focusing on being smart and livable as it pursues its vision to become Canada's most sustainable city. We focus on environmental responsibility, social equity, economic health and cultural vitality -ensuring that today's decisions don't compromise our future. Please visit and join the conversation on social media. Facebook: Plan your bus trip with Google Transit: BROADCAST MESSAGE The City of Kingston is seeking input on proposed community benefits related to the development proposal for 223 Princess St. This proposed building project has yet to be approved by the City. This is a consultation to ask for feedback from the community on the community benefits proposed. Offer your input on proposed benefits - which include things like requiring the developers to provide public parking, or affordable housing - by August 9th. Find out more at City of Kingston dot ca slash Get Involved Media contact: For more information call the strategic communications department at , ext [ This 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, or if you wish to stop receiving communications from the City of Kingston, please notify us by reply and delete the original message The City of Kingston News mailing list *** Manage Your Subscription To Unsubscribe: <mailto:news-request@lists.cityofkingston.ca?subject=unsubscribe> To Subscribe: <mailto:news-request@lists.cityofkingston.ca?subject=subscribe> [Links above will create s with appropriate subscribe/unsubscribe subject text.]

357 Nancy Day

358 Cruz,Kevin From: Sent: To: Subject: W. Halstead Tuesday, August 02, :11 AM CBenefit223Princess Hi rise I am in favor of constructing the high rise as outlined by the developer. The city has obstructed and limited development to the detriment of the city. If you really want to keep the inner core vibrant, allow this project to proceed. Wayne Halstead Sent from my ipad

359 Cruz,Kevin From: Sent: To: Subject: Helen Coffey Monday, August 01, :43 PM CBenefit223Princess High rises in downtown Dear Sir/Madam, Please, please do not allow these high rises in our beautiful, heritage downtown. What do we have an Official Plan for, if we just disregard it? We had a vibrant downtown when there were no large residential buildings anywhere near it. Do we want to lose our large tourist draw? And we can never expect to have historical movies shot here, if there are high rises in every shot. Stick to our Official Plan. Yours sincerely, Helen Coffey

360 Cruz,Kevin From: Sent: To: Subject: John Grenville Tuesday, August 09, :44 PM CBenefit223Princess Input on proposed community benefits related to proposal to develop 223 Princess St. This is being written in response to the call for input on the proposed community benefits that would be provided in return for increased height and density of the proposed Capitol development. First, I want to express my continued concern over the lack of guidelines on the use of the density bonus as allowed by Section 37 of the Planning Act. I realize that the Official Plan makes it clear that the City of Kingston may enter into an agreement with a developer for increased height or density in return for a benefit to the community (OP, to ) and that guidelines are not necessarily required. However, in the past planning staff negotiated a density bonus in three instances in Williamsville District for Johnson Street, Johnson Street, and Princess Street. There are some slight differences in each of the benefits to the community. However, in general all three cases were done in a way that did not adhere to the Official Plan. There was a lack of transparency in terms of the benefits obtained by the developer and exactly what the community or neighbourhood received in return. There was no way of comparing what the developer received as a benefit and how the community benefited in return. The Official Plan (9.5.28) makes it clear that "community groups will be consulted on the development application and the proposed benefit as part of the statutory public consultation process." However, there was absolutely no consultation for any of the density bonus situations in Williamsville District. The process was, in effect, hidden from the community and the neighbourhoods. About a year ago, I inquired about the application of the density bonus section to the 663 Princess Street development. I was told that "staff recognized the challenges in terms of applying these Official Plan policies in an ad hoc approach and have undertaken to review the best practices and implementation guidelines of other municipalities to be able to implement a fair and consistent approach to density bonusing for all applications." When I inquired about the application of density bonusing for 223 Princess Street, I was informed that generally speaking, staff are initiating discussions regarding community benefits as early as pre application with developers who are proposing large projects exceeding the current height and density provisions for the property" and that "these early conversations help to ensure that all applicants are aware of the City's intent to pursue benefits under Section 37 of the Planning Act when the criteria are met." While I do not have a fundamental objection to the concept of density bonusing, planning staff seem to be focussed on developers and what they need to know in terms of the density bonus. In the interests of open government and community engagement, there needs to be a concerted program focussed on the community and especially the immediate area that would potentially experience the increased height or density provision. Without guidelines, it is difficult for community members and neighbourhoods to understand density bonusing and how the City of Kingston plans to implement the density bonus section of the Official Plan. I expect that very few people who read the media release understand the implications. The highly

361 inappropriate, if not illegal, use of density bonusing by City planning staff for three developments in Williamsville District in the past makes the guidelines even more important. In the interests of ensuring transparency and accountability, guidelines are a necessary part of the process so that residents have some assurance that the dishonest use of the density bonus provisions by the City of Kingston's Planning Department will never happen again. Since the planning staff are initiating discussions with developers about density bonusing, I can only assume that the Planning Department is using draft guidelines to ensure "a fair and consistent approach to density bonusing for all applications." In the interests of transparency and accountability, in fairness to the community and in light of the City's past illegal use of the density and height bonus sections of the OP, these guidelines should have been released in advance of the call for comments on the community benefits related to the Capitol development. However, since planning staff have been directed to proceed with seeking input on community benefits relating to the proposed Capitol development, I can only offer my comments without the benefit of the guidelines. Unfortunately this is in contrast to developers who, no doubt, have had the opportunity to consider what is contained in the density bonus guidelines. My comments on the proposed community benefits should NOT be taken as agreement that the proposed development meets the test of good planning in order to be considered for the density and height bonus. 1. Restore the original heritage façade of 223 Princess St. including a commemorative plaque. This would include a Heritage Easement Agreement. Given that the developer has already indicated that he would preserve the façade and that designation under the Ontario Heritage Act provides the necessary protection, it is difficult to understand what is being received as a community benefit. The only part of the building that is of cultural heritage value and interest is the terra cotta façade and its associated decorative features. A heritage easement is a much more complex tool than a by law under the Ontario Heritage Act. Given the relative simplicity of the heritage asset, a heritage easement is not necessary to ensure protection. As for a commemorative plaque, this is somewhat of a moot point. If the City is interested in something that explains the importance of the theatre façade, an interpretive panel can be placed on the south side of Princess Street where viewers can see and appreciate the importance of the building. Heritage preservation is considered to be a policy requirement of the Official Plan. Unless the owner makes a significant contribution to heritage preservation it should be considered part of living in Kingston where history and innovation thrive and not something for which owners need to be (or should be) compensated as if it s a hardship for which they need compensation. 2. Partner with the City's Affordable Home Ownership Program to be applied to up to 5 per cent of the units ( I have reviewed the City of Kingston's Affordable Home Ownership Program (AHOP) under which eligible buyers can apply for up to 5% of the value of unit to a maximum of $14,529. While I understand the role that the City plays and the opportunity that it provides for eligible buyers, I fail to see what role the developer plays and how this can be construed as a community benefit that is being provided by the developer. AHOP is not mentioned in the Official Plan as one of the community benefits under the OP section on height and density Exhibit M

362 bonus. However, the OP does mention "affordable housing" and indicates that 25% of all new housing units [are] to be in the form of row housing, triplexes and multi unit residential buildings, that are to be affordable in the City (3.3.10a). It also states that in accordance with Section of this Plan, where an increase in height, density or both, is requested, a high priority community benefit will be the provision of additional residential units requested as affordable housing. This affordable housing contribution may take the form of affordable housing construction on site, the conveyance of land near the proposed development site, or cash in lieu for the purpose of constructing affordable housing, with each site negotiated on an individual basis (3.3.10b). The suggestion that the developer will partner with the City for AHOP is not a community benefit. Adhering to clauses a and b in the Official Plan would be a community benefit but it does not appear that affordable housing is actually being provided. 3. Partner with the City to create a cultural amenity/presentation space within the former film theatre at 223 Princess St. By referring to a partnership with the City to create a presentation space, I can only assume, without further information, that the developer provides what would be the space by which condo residents and restaurant clients would access the building and in return the City would be responsible for creating a cultural amenity/presentation space. It does not appear that the primary benefit would be to the community but to the condo residents and restaurant clients. Significantly more details are needed to be able to understand the community benefit and the value to the community. 4. Partner with the City to provide public parking which could include electric charging stations and bicycle parking close to 223 Princess St. The planning justification for this project indicates that the development will provide 146 parking spaces for 213 units for a parking ratio of 0.69 spaces per unit, less than half of the current zoning by law requirements of 1.4 parking spaces per unit. Even if the newly proposed parking ratio for the downtown and harbour area is used, the development is still short by approximately 10%. In terms of bicycle parking, the proposed development provides slightly more than the zoning by law requires (1.16 spaces per unit instead of 1.00 spaces per unit) but in light of the City s increased focus on active transportation especially in the downtown core this is only a marginal and needed increase. Without further information, it appears that the provision of public parking would be at the expense of providing parking for residents both for vehicles and bicycles. However, even if there was public parking for bicycles, unless it was immediately accessible from Princess Street, it would have limited community benefit. In terms of the charging stations, the City should examine this as a requirement under the newly revised zoning by law and also examine what direction the City should take in terms of charging stations as part of the public parking infrastructure. Without further information, it is difficult to see how it can be defined as a community benefit. One of the premises underlying the density and height bonus policies is that the community benefits are in part to compensate the neighbourhood which is bearing the impact of increased density and height, assuming, of course, that the development proposal reflects good planning. Without further information, it is extremely difficult to see which of the proposed community benefits, if any, actually provides any compensation to the neighbourhood in which the development is taking place Exhibit M

363 Please acknowledge receipt of these comments. Thank you. John Grenville 24 Jenkins Street Kingston, ON K7K 1N3 ( Original Message From: news [mailto:news On Behalf Of City News Sent: July :29 AM To: <News@lists.cityofkingston.ca> Subject: [News] Input wanted on community benefits related to proposal to develop 223 Princess St. KINGSTON, ONT./July 26, 2016 The City of Kingston is seeking input on proposed community benefits related to the development proposal for 223 Princess St. "Community benefits can form part of the approvals process for a project under the Planning Act. In exchange for height or density that exceeds a property's zoning permission, municipalities may receive community benefits," says Lanie Hurdle, commissioner, community services. The City has discussed with developers the possible community benefits that could be related to the proposal to develop 223 Princess St. This proposed building project has yet to be approved by the City. This is a consultation to ask for feedback from the community on the community benefits proposed. The development must meet the tests of good planning for community benefit agreements to be established. Offer your input on these possible community benefits by to CBenefit223Princess@cityofkingston.ca by Tuesday, Aug. 9. Possible community benefits: 1. Restore the original heritage façade of 223 Princess St. including a commemorative plaque. This would include a Heritage Easement Agreement. 2. Partner with the City's Affordable Home Ownership Program to be applied to up to 5 per cent of the units ( 3. Partner with the City to create a cultural amenity/presentation space within the former film theatre at 223 Princess St. 4. Partner with the City to provide public parking which could include electric charging stations and bicycle parking close to 223 Princess St

364 The Planning Act, and Sections of the City's Official Plan, provide the parameters for how communities may negotiate community benefits. Community benefits are finalized through a Councilapproved, site specific amending zoning bylaw that implements a proposed development. City planning staff is initiating discussions community benefits as early as pre application with developers proposing large projects exceeding the current height and density provisions for the property. These early conversations help to ensure that the all applicants are aware of the City's intent to pursue benefits under Section 37 of the Planning Act when the criteria are met. About the City of Kingston The City of Kingston provides municipal services to 125,000 residents living in this visually stunning, historic city, often ranked one of the best places to live in Canada. Kingston is focusing on being smart and livable as it pursues its vision to become Canada's most sustainable city. We focus on environmental responsibility, social equity, economic health and cultural vitality ensuring that today's decisions don't compromise our future. Please visit and join the conversation on social media. Facebook: Plan your bus trip with Google Transit: BROADCAST MESSAGE The City of Kingston is seeking input on proposed community benefits related to the development proposal for 223 Princess St. This proposed building project has yet to be approved by the City. This is a consultation to ask for feedback from the community on the community benefits proposed. Offer your input on proposed benefits which include things like requiring the developers to provide public parking, or affordable housing by August 9th. Find out more at City of Kingston dot ca slash Get Involved. 30 Exhibit M Media contact: For more information call the strategic communications department at , ext [ hall/kingston winners/> 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, or if you wish to stop receiving communications from the City of Kingston, please notify us by reply E mail and delete the original message The City of Kingston News mailing list

365 *** Manage Your Subscription To Unsubscribe: <mailto:news To Subscribe: <mailto:news [Links above will create e mails with appropriate subscribe/unsubscribe subject text.]

366 Cruz,Kevin From: Sent: To: Subject: Friday, July 29, :22 AM CBenefit223Princess NO BENEFIT To even consider that these "benefits" might make the loss of the streetscape acceptable is ridiculous. Kingston's unique heritage should not be traded away. Judith Hazlett

367 Cruz,Kevin From: Sent: To: Subject: Bryn Fisher Friday, July 29, :47 PM CBenefit223Princess NO to building proposal in Downtown Kingston at Capital Theatre site So called community benefits are not excuses to build a tower on a hill in our Kingston downtown core. I say No to this proposal

368 Cruz,Kevin From: Sent: To: Subject: Macdonnell Elizabeth Friday, July 29, :15 AM CBenefit223Princess NO The plan should be uphelad and developers required to adhere to it. PLEASE Libby Macdonnell

369 Cruz,Kevin From: Sent: To: Subject: June Bisset Friday, July 29, :53 PM CBenefit223Princess Not a chance Surely you jest when you equate cement structures benefits to the community? Do not exchange quality and heritage for a few paltry dollars. June M. Bisset

370 Cruz,Kevin From: Sent: To: Subject: Gary Smith Thursday, August 04, :17 PM CBenefit223Princess Planning community benefits and proposed development of 223 Princess St Dear, Planning Committee, Thank you in-advance for your consideration. Although I think the project as proposed stands alone to benefit our community in many ways including economically and socially. The proposed benefits are a excellent bonus that will further benefit our City as a whole. I fully support the project and proposed community benefits package as proposed. With thanks, Gary Smith 1650 Bath Rd Kingston, Ont K7M 4X

371 Cruz,Kevin From: Sent: To: Subject: Importance: Irene Wilson Sunday, July 31, :59 PM CBenefit223Princess Please do not deface the new building by adding the proposed face of the former theatre. High

372 Cruz,Kevin From: Sent: To: Cc: Subject: Nancy Jones Friday, July 29, :22 AM CBenefit223Princess Hutchison,Rob please rethink this idea of trade-offs Stick to the official city plan please. Trading away the look of the city for charging stations or bike racks or cultural space!?! The city needs to think more about building a sustainable community that we all want to live in - not bow down to developers. Think of the skyline! Think how much everyone *hates* the Princess Towers! I don t want to live in a place that looks like a mini-mississauga. I want to live in a city that thinks about its citizens first, not developers. Honestly sometimes I despair Nancy Jones 55 Thomas St Kingston, ON K7K 2E

373 Cruz,Kevin From: Sent: To: Subject: Katherine Bennett Friday, July 29, :00 PM CBenefit223Princess Please say NO to building proposal in Downtown Kingston Tacking the front of the old Capitol Theatre Building on to a cement tower right in the heart of our historic town does NOT make it a benefit. Even adding electric charging stations does NOT make it a benefit. Please reconsider we do not need high residential towers in downtown Kingston. Katherine Bennett

374 Cruz,Kevin From: Sent: To: Subject: Jane Webster Monday, August 08, :46 AM CBenefit223Princess possible benefits of the Capitol Condominiums Hello: Thanks for providing the opportunity to comment on the possible benefits of the Capitol Condominiums. As a citizen, I see no benefits to breaking the bylaws -- and by such a wide margin in terms of number of stories. The current city representatives were voted in to uphold the law, not to break it. We are now told that we will receive benefits by doing so -- these possible benefits can be arranged in other ways, and not at the cost of permanently ruining our historical skyline. Respectfully submitted, Jane Webster 38 Clergy St. E

375 Cruz,Kevin From: Sent: To: Cc: Subject: Diane Duttle Wednesday, August 03, :54 AM CBenefit223Princess Newman,Greg; Agnew,Paige; 'Judith Hazlett' Proposed "Community Benefits" in lieu of existing height restrictions Please maintain the height restrictions of the existing by law in this sensitive area. The proposed benefits don t compensate for the intrusion created by the tower. Sincerely Diane Duttle 1960 Hwy 2 East Kingston, ON K7L 4V

376 Cruz,Kevin From: Sent: To: Subject: Attachments: Mike Cole-Hamilton Tuesday, August 02, :17 PM CBenefit223Princess Proposed Community benefits Intensification alternative.jpg The best possible Community Benefit would be to retain what is still left of the character of old downtown Kingston by observing the height limit in the Official Plan, a maximum of 6 storeys. Downtown densification, which I support wholeheartedly, can be achieved with buildings within that limit. Please see the attached, or the excellent very similar illustrations of North Block proposals presented in the Memorial Hall 4 or 5 summers ago. I can no longer find any trace of them in the City s site. Mike Cole Hamilton, Place d Armes,

377 1252 Exhibit M

378 Cruz,Kevin From: Sent: To: Subject: Hana Rossiter Saturday, August 06, :31 PM CBenefit223Princess Re: Community Benefits and Development of 223 Princess Street Hello, Re:Community Benefits and Development of 223 Princess Street Thanks for the opportunity to give feedback on the proposed community benefits of the development at 223 Princess Street. We are happy with several of the proposals as they will contribute to the preservation of the downtown heritage and atmosphere: Preservation /restoration of the original heritage facade with the addition of a commemorative plaque. Having a cultural amenity/presentation space within the new development fits well with the City s cultural growth objectives. Additional gallery/performance space would benefit Kingston artists. Partnering with the City to provide electric charging stations and bicycle parking close to 223 Princess Street is a good idea, but please let s have more green spaces downtown and encourage public transport rather than more parking lots. The Capitol development will contribute to the intensification and economic viability of the downtown and any of the above community benefits will promote this objective in an environmentally sustainable way

379 Sincerely, Hana & John Rossiter

380 Cruz,Kevin From: Sent: To: Cc: Subject: Knott, Melody Monday, August 08, :22 PM CBenefit223Princess Knott, Melody Re: Capital Project To whom it may concern Re: This proposed building project has yet to be approved by the City. This is a consultation to ask for feedback from the community on the community benefits proposed. The development must meet the tests of good planning for community benefit agreements to be established. Offer your input on these possible community benefits by to CBenefit223Princess@cityofkingston.ca by Tuesday, Aug Restore the original heritage façade of 223 Princess St. including a commemorative plaque. This would include a Heritage Easement Agreement. a. The preservation of this property proves the commitment, respect and value to Kingston's history while supporting the plan of residential intensification in the downtown 2. Partner with the City s Affordable Home Ownership Program to be applied to up to 5 per cent of the units ( a. To accomplish a leveled out market or controlled increases in rent & sell prices and to improve the affordability gap this condo project should be approved so we can start to grow up. 3. Partner with the City to create a cultural amenity/presentation space within the former film theatre at 223 Princess St. a. Promoting local artists, musicians, etc. is essential to expanding Kingston as an Entertainment Hub, thus attracting more festivals, events, etc. providing multiple cultural & economic benefits 4. Partner with the City to provide public parking which could include electric charging stations and bicycle parking close to 223 Princess St. a. Proposals to encourage a healthier living options to walk or bike, with alternatives that also positively impact the environment is an attractive feature I appreciate the opportunity to input, it is exciting to see the team at the City of Kingston having a progressive future in mind! Thank you Regards, Melody Member of The Greater Kingston Chamber of Commerce See you at the next event! directory/?query=events agenda Melody Knott Account Manager, Small Business TD Business Banking TD Canada Trust Princess Street, Kingston ON, K7L 1H2 If you wish to unsubscribe from receiving commercial electronic messages from TD Bank Group, please click here or go to the following web address:

381 Si vous souhaitez vous désabonner des messages électroniques de nature commerciale envoyés par Groupe Banque TD veuillez cliquer ici ou vous rendre à l'adresse NOTICE: Confidential message which may be privileged. Unauthorized use/disclosure prohibited. If received in error, please go to for instructions. AVIS : Message confidentiel dont le contenu peut être privilégié. Utilisation/divulgation interdites sans permission. Si reçu par erreur, prière d'aller au pour des instructions

382 Cruz,Kevin From: Sent: To: Subject: Sheldon Parkes Sunday, August 07, :21 PM CBenefit223Princess RE: Community Benefits of Proposed Capitol Condo Hello, I'm writing as a 28 year old who was born and raised in Kingston. I feel the voice of the younger generation, those from ethnically or culturally diverse backgrounds and those who are plain proponents of healthy development in Kingston in general are often left out of these discussions. Being part of each of those groups, I decided to take the opportunity to express my support for the re designed Capitol Condo. I've always had a keen interest in our city and remember being in elementary and high school reading up on development plans for Block D, the proposed water world, social housing complexes in Barriefield etc., and the accompanying NIMBYism that seems to come with each different project from those who feel they have the most to lose. The first thing I'd like to say is that, being that I hold a double major in geography and history, as well as a certificate in urban studies, I have an interest and respect for history. Living in Toronto and coming back with my girlfriend or friends to visit my parents who still live in the Williamsville District, everyone is captivated by the charm and history the city has to offer. I believe in respecting and preserving that charm and heritage, but I also understand that we do need development in our downtown to maintain and even improve it. I can completely understand how some may be put off by the initial design and the location of the condo. I however believe the re submitted design is much more visually appealing for this specific neighborhood, and being set back from Princess street protects the heritage while giving the opportunity for an exciting and necessary development for the vitality of the downtown core. I believe the overall project is a community benefit in of itself, and I find it interesting we seem to be overlooking that fact. Coun. Rob Hutchinson in 2013 himself outlined the issues with urban sprawl and the need for intensification. Infill is part of the Kingstons master plan and helps to address some of the issues Coun. Hutchinson had alluded to. It will help maintain the significance and vitality of the Central Business District, and I believe will be good for our transit system to increase population along our main corridors which will go hand in hand with the redevelopment of the Williamsville neighbourhood. We should want this type of development and interest from developers in our city. There are more than plenty of places where history and modern design can thrive. Kingston will always be a beautiful city with charm. The community benefits outlined by Mayor Patterson (studio space; affordable housing; parking space; original heritage facade restoration), any of the options presented seem like a win to me and others I have spoken with, including my parents. I personally would like to see a studio space however that can promote different community and cultural groups in the city. There will always be reasons to not do something, to not take action. People are concerned that Kingston is going to turn into Toronto; no, it's never going to become that hopefully however what it does become is Kingston of the future

383 Regards, Sheldon Parkes

384 Cruz,Kevin From: Sent: To: Cc: Subject: Stroud,Peter Monday, August 08, :15 PM Rosemary Thoms; CBenefit223Princess; Allen,Richard; Hutchison,Rob; George,Kevin; Osanic,Lisa; Turner,Laura Candon,Adam; Holland,Mary Rita; McLaren,Jeff; Neill,Jim; Stroud,Peter; Boehme, Ryan N.; Mayor of Kingston Re: Proposed "community benefits" related to the proposed The Capitol condos building at 223 Princess Street Dear Rosemary, Thanks for your letter. I agree. Peter Sent from my BlackBerry 10 smartphone on the TELUS network. From: Rosemary Thoms Sent: Monday, August 8, :37 PM To: CBenefit223Princess; Allen,Richard; Hutchison,Rob; George,Kevin; Osanic,Lisa; Turner,Laura Cc: lschell@cityofkington.ca; Candon,Adam; Holland,Mary Rita; McLaren,Jeff; Neill,Jim; Stroud,Peter; Boehme, Ryan N.; Mayor of Kingston Subject: Proposed "community benefits" related to the proposed The Capitol condos building at 223 Princess Street Re: Proposed "community benefits" related to the proposed The Capitol condos building at 223 Princess Street I am strongly opposed to exchanging so-called "community benefits" for height re: the proposed The Capitol building at 223 Princess Street. Please protect what makes Kingston's downtown so special: our historic heritage buildings and skyscape, the human scale of our downtown and our city's unique beauty and charm. If you say yes to this exchange, you will be ignoring the thoughtful input of architects, urban planners and many local citizens who believe the proposed The Capitol at 223 Princess Street is still far too high and will be offering to trade away to developers what makes our city so special all for a handful of minimal "community benefits". And you will be setting a ruinous precedent and opening the door to other developers who want to disregard our city's official plan and build buildings which are too high and out -of-scale for the location and which will destroy the unique heart and spirit of our downtown core. Sincerely, Rosemary Thoms

385 Cruz,Kevin From: Sent: To: Subject: Anne Lougheed Wednesday, August 03, :28 PM CBenefit223Princess Re "Proposed Community Benefits" of Capitol proposal Thank you for soliciting additional input on this proposal. Regarding the purported community benefits: 1) the facade is already part of the design, and any redevelopment proposal should be required to keep it. 2) A proportion of new development designated affordable housing is already a requirement in this city. Re: 3) and 4) the developer appears desperate here. A year ago he was pushing a car-free lifestyle, and espousing the nearby cultural amenities (Grand Theatre, galleries, KROCK, etc.). Now he wants to provide parking and cultural amenity spaces. Please reject a proposed tower that exceeds the height restrictions and isn't even attractive or unique. IN8 wants to exploit the student rental market and the investment potential of the property, rather than promote community development. Please don't cave. Thank you for reviewing my submission. Anne Lougheed

386 Cruz,Kevin From: Sent: To: Cc: Subject: Michael Capon Tuesday, August 02, :30 AM CBenefit223Princess Stroud,Peter Re: Thanks - Capitol Dear Lanie Hurdle, thank you for the opportunity to offer feedback on potential community benefits for the Capitol Theatre (223 Princess St.) development proposal. The best long-term community benefits, socially and economically, will result from following sound urban design principles. Therefore, I propose that the community benefit in this case should be for the development to align with Kingston's Official Plan -- six storeys, maximum. When you compile your list of submitted community benefits, can you confirm that this one will be included? Many thanks, Michael Capon

387 Cruz,Kevin From: Sent: To: Subject: Gary Barratt Wednesday, August 03, :50 PM CBenefit223Princess re development of former theatre I wish to voice my concern over the height of the proposed new condo development on princess st. first I must state how I wished the theatre had remained open has it was, it was great being able to go for diner downtown and then attend a movie. sadly that has passed. secondly the proposed height of the condo is way to high for princess st, the building would stand out like a middle index finger next to the existing buildings, you only have to look at the ugly apartment building at division and princess st to get the idea. I like the idea of condos downtown but not at this location. regards, gary barratt. kingston ontario

388 Cruz,Kevin From: Sent: To: Subject: Julia Laidlaw Thursday, July 28, :01 AM CBenefit223Princess re the movie theatre development I think these are great suggestions. 1. Restore the original heritage façade of 223 Princess St. including a commemorative plaque. This would include a Heritage Easement Agreement. 2. Partner with the City s Affordable Home Ownership Program to be applied to up to 5 per cent of the units ( 3. Partner with the City to create a cultural amenity/presentation space within the former film theatre at 223 Princess St. 4. Partner with the City to provide public parking which could include electric charging stations and bicycle parking close to 223 Princess St. All my best, Julia Laidlaw MSW, PaRama BodyTalk Please note: All sessions have a 48 hour cancellation policy. Sessions cancelled with less than 48 hours notice will be your responsibility to pay for as it is too short notice for me to fill that time. Thank you for your understanding

389 Cruz,Kevin From: Sent: To: Subject: Paul and Marg Spooner Saturday, July 30, :12 PM CBenefit223Princess Tall Building in the downtown core I visit Kingston on a regular intervals and have seen afar the massive concrete structure that sits on Princess Street. I believe it is referred to as the Science 48 building. It was quite a nice effort but too massive a structure for the location. I hope that this is not repeated on Queen. Let the blue sky shine down on the downtown core and not the shadows of tall buildings. Don't destroy your downtown. It is beautiful and welcoming. Paul Spooner Sent from my ipad

390 Cruz,Kevin From: Sent: To: Subject: Norma Graham Tuesday, August 02, :41 PM Agnew,Paige; CBenefit223Princess; Mayor of Kingston The Capital Princess To all Concerned, Please respect the Official Plan which follows sound urban design principles and provides the best long-term community benefits, socially and economically. It is important to keep the original height restrictions. Do not negotiate any community benefits in exchange for Plan and zoning by-law amendments. Sincerely, Norma Graham 18 Alwington Ave

391 Cruz,Kevin From: Sent: To: Subject: Wen Bogues Friday, July 29, :20 AM CBenefit223Princess The Capital Tower I am writing to urge our City of Kingston Municipal leaders to say NO to the building of such a monstrosity as the proposed Capital Tower Condos in our downtown core. What an eye sore it will be towering over all our lovely protected heritage buildings. What is the point of having buildings designated heritage when greedy money hungry developers are allowed to change our landscape to such a degree. Remember when no buildings could be higher than our beautiful City Hall. Please do not allow this to happen. Sincerely, Wen Bogues 115 Barrett Court Kingston O K7L 5H

392 Cruz,Kevin From: Sent: To: Subject: Sue Kilpatrick Tuesday, August 02, :00 PM CBenefit223Princess The Proposed Capital Condo Dear City of Kingston Councillors, Thank you for giving us an opportunity to express our views on potential community benefits( or lack of them) for the Princess St. Capitol development.. I have just returned from visiting friends on the 35th floor of the Manulife Centre, 44 Charles St., Toronto. Their apartment faces south.can they see the lake? It is a tiny sliver between high-rises out one window. All you can see are high-rises, one as high as 90 stories; my friend's building is at least 55 storeys. Someone has made the suggestion that for Toronto to get more density the green spaces should be taken. What's left of them, I guess. It is a cement jungle. It is so depressing and more high-rises are still being constructed. Do we want this in Kingston? Once one out-of-proportion to the rest of Princess St.high rise is allowed that will be the beginning of the end of the charming, old-world atmosphere of beautiful, livable downtown Kingston. It seems to boil down to greed--the almighty dollar of the developers. Let them buy property and build their condos out in the suburbs. Respectfully submitted, Suzanne Kilpatrick

393 Cruz,Kevin From: Sent: To: Douglas Snyder Wednesday, August 03, :20 AM CBenefit223Princess Unfortunately, we have lost much, too much of our interesting and historical downtown. We must stand together in a united front to not only preserve what historical buildings and areas we have, but to prevent the construction of high rise buildings that would destroy the historical character of our city. Douglas Snyder and Carolyn Hetherington

394 Cruz,Kevin From: Sent: To: Cc: Subject: Gisele & Tom Monday, August 08, :48 PM CBenefit223Princess; Agnew,Paige; Newman,Greg Hutchison,Rob; Lambert,Lindsay What benefits? Dear City councillors and staff members: While I appreciate the opportunity to provide feedback on the proposed Capitol condos, I'm afraid I do not see how ANY "community benefits" could possibly justify ruining the heart of Kingston by building a high-rise in its midst! Furthermore, reiterating the preservation of the old cinema façade as a bargaining chip seems deceitful at this point. This was surely the only redeeming feature that caught people's interest in the first place, and obtaining a heritage designation for the façade can be done without the developer and without cost. While preserving the look of the old Empire remains a wonderful idea, it would only work if the 4- and 6-storey limit for building around and behind it is respected, especially now with the new outdoor patio at Megalos across the street. Also, raising the idea of a few affordable units is equally disingenuous, as this is already a requirement of all new developments. Our approval cannot be won with a few new flimsy so-called benefits (some electric car charging stations?, which ought to be de rigueur anyway; and some public space for art?, which, again, was part of the deal to begin with), all the while ignoring the fact that 17 storeys still doesn't fit in. We must insist that IN8 conform to the well-considered height restrictions in the current by-laws, which help preserve the smaller-town feel that attracts people to downtown Kingston. Besides, the educated and informed trend is clear: lower-rise dwellings are not only more attractive to most people and healthier to be in and around, they are also more affordable and more sustainable. Today's buzz-words are low-rise, walk-ups, human-scale, natural-scale, mixed-use, and pedestrian-friendly, not high-rise. While certain members of the Downtown Business Improvement Association only see the benefits of having more people living downtown no matter the type of dwelling, many other members have changed their minds, especially with the recent success of the newly re-opened Princess Street and its many new merchants and outside patios. Some DBIA members have even spoken publicly against the Capitol proposal, at the Vision for Kingston meeting last May, though others are still reluctant to voice their displeasure except in private. - Besides, in the end it is an empirical question: even if all of the merchants thought that a high-rise would help their businesses, they could all be wrong, and in fact they could see their businesses dwindle. I've yet to see proof that the Block D towers helped keep businesses afloat, and I've yet to see any market prediction based on all of the variables at play. I applaud Councillor Hutchison for refusing to discuss community benefits before the standards of good planning are met. This proposed building is located in his/our ward, and he has spent countless hours talking to residents and attending relevant meetings and gatherings. If he says that almost all of the residents to who he has talked are unwilling to trade potential "benefits" for height, then why aren't we listening? - Please let's be wise about the development and intensification of our downtown. Let's be creative with the use of vacant lots, as per Tim Soper's 3D model, and with the preservation of everyone's view of City Hall, church spires, and the waterfront. We must not agree to build on the basis of conjecture and speculation alone, and we must not be fooled into making a deal just because it sounds good. How much opposition do we need? Why are we continuing to trust that IN8 shares our interests and concerns? Why are negotiations even still ongoing, after such a feeble response to the thorough architectural peer review?

395 Let's keep our eyes and ears open and deal with the facts. Kingston is not desperate. No need for hasty and regretful decisions. If this developer doesn't want to play fair, others will come along. Gisele Pharand, concerned advocate for a healthy & vibrant downtown

396 Lambert,Lindsay From: Sent: To: Cc: Subject: M Gventer/M Birmingham Monday, August 22, :30 PM CBenefit223Princess Mayor of Kingston Affordable Home Ownership Benefit 223 Princess Street Note to the Mayor, Please circulate this note to City Councillors. Thank you. I realize this response is very late. If it cannot be included in the tabulation, I understand that. My main preoccupation on this topic is meeting the affordable housing needs and targets of the City. My initial reaction was to be silent on the benefits because there was some content on this dimension in the proposed benefts. I also am favourable to the benefits of an art exposition space for local artists in such a development. However, balancing the concerns over the height of the devlopment are not necessarily satisfied by the provision of benefits. If a person faced death, but one's family would benefit from life insurance on the death, the choice would be, in my opinion, a false dichotomy. If one says I appreciate the beneifts, does that imply one is willing to support an oversized building? Therefore, I chose to eschew participation. Nonetheless, out of interest, I read the conditions for home ownership assistance. My comments at the public meeting at the Planning Board this year included a concern that the condominium model combined with the methods of marketing was inconsistent with the long term objectives of meeting the affordable housing needs of our community. I proposed that the City through Town Homes Kingston or KFHC purchase a few units and rent them as subsidized units. The home ownership assistance program will fail to assure such long term benefit to the affordable housing needs, especially for the people in core housing need. Specifically, the people who will be able to afford this opportunity will be in the higher income level of the affordability critierion. Further, with the appreciation of housing prices, the assisted household will be able to buy their way out of the relationship and the units will be at market cost without assistance. The Location Study on affordable housing included the Princess Street corridor as underrepresented and as being a prime location for affordable housing because of access to services and transportation. The home ownership assistance program will not meet the target of increasing diversity of housing and income levels in this target area. I do appreciate that the developer and the City responded to the issues raised about affordability that were frequently aired at the public meeting. Unfortunately, the City has not held up its end of expectations. Matthew Gventer 93 HIllcrest Avenue Kingston K7K 4L

397 Exhibit N }latj e: \fe, /l fa I ~ ~~ to ~(.L;\- 1e, ~ =- > :p,vo po~ ~~ ~-ct ; ~J_~M~ Dat e ~~ ( 8'0oo.:e ~s K:.~ 'i,.,;r (\, fr(j / ~oj l-1~~ ~=t- ~t~ EL -~cm'-f~,j~~ l\a~ 6_~ C_l~ e:>lh vd S!f {!&v_l_id!j,68p'~ 3 3 tl>cb0 f2-rj e s-r. _ ~1~~ ~@vtt~-----~ ~1'-~_r::t:h'>'{l<W' T ~~ fl~~?-~ ~au~ l5 J t(o(- t_ Lil-;to~lf'o/1/Sd'N<ST' Sa.w.~~-i-fl}t-l7..si:rr~e;9 ~t:;jir~cjt ~7 ;;-t):m~ I /-1/!L---' /w/r-r /.J,/l //.40/,:;; ;'~ -s ~ l2::i3l- i ~ ll\-' ~\A AYl- ~y, --- 0"'-~ 0 b a.. ~ I i-'1 Q "'- tt" S+(1-\-e r i+"'j"'---- c. ilol-yrj JJ, ~~ ts~ sf""rtl ~~Y~bt~W\ 7 1,d~ t-~ Yi H"uo!f~ c((i:..~6-er~ " ~ /l((,v!,c-... M, krtc ;Jl rz~s ~LRW~ f7 P--1v~d~r. ~ ~ S'OUut~- 11 _....-.,, \. ~ -r~ ' / ~ < ),d '/,.,,, t.:.. -- \ ' i. ~ 4Z., c - / ; _, - _ 1 _:.-. ~~'2~~}:- *- i b;~_:t /v ay- _ 7Jl _til~;[)-~ 1272

398 Exhibit N ( ( / \

399 Exhibit O 223 PRINCESS SHADOW ANALYSIS 1274

400 Exhibit O PRINCESS SHADOW ANALYSIS 223 PRINCESS SHADOW ANALYSIS Prepared for IN8 Developments Prepared by FOTENN Consultants Inc. 223 McLeod Street Ottawa, ON K2P 0Z8 August 2016 FOTENN The information contained in this document produced by FOTENN is solely for the use of the has been prepared and FOTENN undertakes no duty to or accepts any responsibility to any third party who may rely upon this document. All rights reserved. No section or element of this document may be removed from this document, reproduced, electronically stored or Transmitted in any form without the written permission of FOTENN Consultants Inc. QUALITY INFORMATION Document 223 PRINCESS SHADOW ANALYSIS Date 11 Aug 2016 Prepared For IN8 Developments Prepared By SL Prepared By FOTENN Consultants Inc. Reviewed By MS, MK Revision History Revision Description Date Reviewed By Signature 0 Original 20-storey Development 19 Oct 2015 MS, MK 1 16-storey Development 10 Aug 2016 MS, MK

401 Exhibit O 223 PRINCESS SHADOW ANALYSIS 3 SUMMARY: PROPOSED 16 STOREY DEVELOPMENT JUNE 21 (SUMMER SOLSTICE) SUMMARY / Overall minimal impact on surrounding buildings. / No impact on buildings to the north across Queen Street throughout the day. / Impact on the adjacent buildings to the west before 11:00, and to the east after 14:00. / No impact on the surrounding buildings during 11:30-14:00. / Minor impact on the sidewalk during 12:00-15:00 / Sidewalk on north side of Queen Street receives daylight for over 7 hours. / Generally the shadow is short and shifts away from the sidewalks quickly : :00 15:00 17:00 MARCH / SEPTEMBER 21 (SPRING / FALL EQUINOX) SUMMARY / No impact on the properties of Central Public School, PWOR Museum, and the Artillery Park. / Impact on the adjacent buildings to the west before 11:00, and to the east after 14:00. / Minor impact on buildings north of Queen Street during 11:00-14:00. The shadow mainly casts on the surface parking lot across Queen Street after 13:00. / Shadow moves from west to east, casting over only a portion of the sidewalk at a time. The majority of the sidewalks has exposure to the sun throughout the day. / Due to the orientation and massing of the development, the shadow is in its shortest and narrowest shape at the peak of the day (during 11:00-14:00) CENTRAL PUBLIC SCHOOL PWOR MUSEUM ARTILLERY PARK 8: :00 14:00 16:00 4 SURFACE PARKING LOT 1276

402 Exhibit O PRINCESS SHADOW ANALYSIS OVERVIEW: PROPOSED 16 STOREY DEVELOPMENT JUNE 21 (SUMMER SOLSTICE) 8:00 9:00 10:00 11:00 12: :00 14:00 15:00 16:00 17: CENTRAL PUBLIC SCHOOL PWOR MUSEUM ARTILLERY PARK 1277

403 Exhibit O 223 PRINCESS SHADOW ANALYSIS 5 MARCH / SEPTEMBER 21 (SPRING / FALL EQUINOX) 8:00 9:00 10:00 11:00 12: :00 14:00 15:00 16:00 17: CENTRAL PUBLIC SCHOOL PWOR MUSEUM ARTILLERY PARK SURFACE PARKING LOT 1278

404 Exhibit O PRINCESS SHADOW ANALYSIS OVERVIEW: AS-OF-RIGHT 6 STOREY DEVELOPMENT JUNE 21 (SUMMER SOLSTICE) 8:00 9:00 10:00 11:00 12: :00 14:00 15:00 16:00 17: CENTRAL PUBLIC SCHOOL PWOR MUSEUM ARTILLERY PARK 1279

405 Exhibit O 223 PRINCESS SHADOW ANALYSIS 7 MARCH / SEPTEMBER 21 (SPRING / FALL EQUINOX) 8:00 9:00 10:00 11:00 12: :00 14:00 15:00 16:00 17: CENTRAL PUBLIC SCHOOL PWOR MUSEUM ARTILLERY PARK 1280

406 Exhibit O PRINCESS SHADOW ANALYSIS COMPARISON: JUNE 21 (SUMMER SOLSTICE) PROPOSED 16 STOREY AS-OF-RIGHT 6 STOREY 8:00 8: Shadow impact on the courtyard of the property 225 is mainly caused by the rear walls of the building at 255 beyond 11:00 (during the peak hours until sunset). Between 8:00-11:00 the shadow is caused by the sidewall of the proposed development. 2 Shadow impact on the courtyard of the property 215 is caused by the side and rear walls of the buildings at throughout the day. No impact caused by the proposed development. 3 The court yard of the properties is mostly exposed to daylight during the peak hours. Minor shadow impact is caused by the rear walls of the buildings at and the sidewall of the proposed development after 15:00. See page 15 for details. 1281