►
Description
Planning Committee meeting from November 21, 2019. For the full meeting agenda visit http://bit.ly/39VU8jV
A
I'll
give
Simon
an
opportunity
to
grab
his
chair,
didn't
mean
to
embarrass
you,
so
we
will
begin
this
meeting.
We
have
no
public
meetings
tonight.
We
have
two
issues
on
our
regular
agenda:
I'll
call
this
meeting
to
order
mover
and
a
seconder
for
the
agenda.
Thank
You
councillor,
Hill
Thank
You,
councillor
osanic,
although
yeah
with
the
adits,
I
always
forget
to
say
that
with
the
Abbott's,
all
those
in
favor
carried.
A
Confirmation
of
minutes
from
our
November
7th,
we've
all
been
they've
all
been
circulated
to
us.
So
if
there's
any
questions
or
comments,
if
not
a
mover
and
a
seconder,
thank
you
councillor,
Chappell
Thank,
You
councillor
Kiley,
all
those
in
favor
carried
disclosure
pecuniary
interest,
seeing
none
conformation
of
minutes,
I'm.
Sorry,
delegations,
seeing
none
briefing
seeing
none
I'll
read
the
brief
business
portion,
since
both
of
our
files
tonight
will
be
an
opportunity
for
community
input.
A
This
portion
of
the
meeting
is
open
to
the
public.
The
city
is
an
issue
initiated
a
new
process
in
which
members
of
the
public
will
have
an
opportunity
to
speak
for
up
to
five
minutes
on
comprehensive
reports
presented
before
the
Planning
Committee.
Those
wishing
to
provide
oral
comments
at
this
meeting
will
be
invited
to
do
so
if
a
person
or
public
body
would
otherwise
have
an
ability
to
appeal
the
decision
of
the
Council
of
the
corporation
of
the
city
of
Kingston
to
the
local
planning.
A
Try,
you
know
Appeal
Tribunal,
but
the
person
or
public
body
does
not
make
oral
submissions
at
a
public
meeting
or
make
written
submissions
to
the
City
of
Kingston.
Before
the
bylaws
passed
that
person
or
public
body
is
not
entitled
to
appeal
a
decision.
There
is
an
opportunity
to
sign
up
on
a
sheet
at
the
back
of
the
room,
which
also
gives
you
standing
so
we'll
move
right
into
our
first
issue
tonight,
which
is
485
First
Avenue.
B
So
the
purpose
and
effect
of
the
meeting
tonight
is
to
amend
the
one
family
dwelling
in
two
family
dwelling
zone
a5,
which
is
a
residential
zone
to
permit
the
development
of
24
residential
lots
and
that
will
ultimately
result
in
the
development
of
70
residential
units.
So
the
the
what's
being
sought
in
terms
of
zoning
relief,
I've
broken
out
here
into
relief
for
the
principal
dwelling
which
has
to
do
with
projections
into
yards
and
the
minimum
front
yard
setback.
Minimum
lottery
required,
the
minimum
width
and
the
minimum
driveway
width.
B
B
So
this
is
a
site
plan
of
the
proposed
development.
You
can
see
that
the
the
proposal
has
a
number
of
single
detached
dwellings,
fairly
close
to
the
street
and
staggered
in
terms
of
their
setbacks
and
along
the
rear
of
the
properties
are
attached
garages,
each
of
which
each
of
those
attached
garages
would
be
is
proposed
to
accommodate
a
two-car
garage
on
the
bottom
and
accessory
unit
on
the
upper
floor.
B
So
in
terms
of
the
zoning
for
the
principal
dwelling,
the
intent
is
well.
The
three
dwellings
on
the
23
Lots
has
to
do
with
there's
one
lot
that
is
not
being
considered
for
having
three
residential
units,
but
the
other
23
Lots
are
all
proposed
to
have
three
residential
units,
one
in
the
principal
dwelling,
one
in
the
basement
of
the
principal
dwelling
and
then
one
in
the
upper
floor
of
the
accessory
building
and
so
in
terms
of
what's
being
sought.
B
Currently,
there's
a
requirement
for
370
square
meters
of
minimum
lot
area
per
unit
and
the
reduction
being
sought
is
to
100
square
120
square
meters
per
unit
for
the
three
units.
So
that's
360
square
meters
total
there's
a
reduction
being
sought
for
the
minimum
front
yards
are
3
meters,
which
is
keeping
with
the
character
of
the
the
streetscape.
In
addition,
there
is
a
commission
being
sought
to
reduce
the
front
yard
setback
specifically
for
the
front
steps
to
1.5
meters
to
allow
that
to
project
into
the
front
yard
there.
B
B
So
we
received
a
number
of
comments
through
correspondence
and
through
the
previous
public
meeting.
I'm
gonna
highlight
the
the
feedback
that
we
received
in
the
response.
So
there
was
concern
regarding,
in
general
terms
of
population,
the
unit
types
and
the
affordability
questions
about
it,
and
so
the
the
proposal.
As
we
see
it
today,
it
meets
the
criteria
from
the
official
plan
for
medium
density,
residential
development
and
the
the
built
form.
B
That's
being
proposed
is
in
keeping
with
the
neighborhood
context
in
terms
of
the
single
detached
dwellings
and
the
accessory
buildings
and
in
terms
of
concern
about
potential
disruption.
This,
as
all
areas
of
the
city,
is
subject
to
the
the
noise
bylaws.
There's
a
comment
about
the
number
of
bedrooms
per
type
and
as
for
the
developer,
our
understanding
is
that
the
proposals
for
there
to
be
a
three-bedroom
unit
in
the
principal
dwelling,
with
a
one-bedroom
unit
and
below
the
principal
darling
and
a
one-bedroom
unit
in
the
accessory
building.
B
Regarding
the
affordability
of
units,
the
Lots
are
to
be
sold
to
individual
homeowners,
who
will
subsequently
determine
what
they
want
to
do
with
those
units.
So
it's
possible
that
the
units
will
be
used
by
family
members
as
possible.
They'll
be
rented
to
the
members
of
the
community.
Ultimately,
it
will
be
the
decision
of
the
homeowner
in
the
future
in
terms
of
the
building's
design.
There
were
comments
regarding
concerned
about
having
adequate
living
space
and
the
orientation
of
entrances.
B
In
this
instance,
the
there's
there's
private
amenity
and
both
outdoor
and
indoor
amenity,
space
being
provided
for
all
the
units
that
was
considered
sufficient
and
the
the
the
primary
the
principal
residence
is
facing
the
street.
As
you
would
generally
expect
the
the
second
unit
phases
to
the
drive
where
there
is
a
walkway
to
ensure
that
there
is
safe
pedestrian
access
to
the
rear
of
the
property
and
the
third
unit
in
the
in
the
accessory
building
would
have
an
entranceway
facing
forward
as
well
towards
the
street.
B
There
was
concerned
about
the
building
designs
in
terms
of
variety
and
variability
in
the
design.
The
the
developers
said
that
the
homebuyers
are
going
to
have
a
choice
in
the
interior
and
exterior
of
the
buildings,
but
that,
generally
speaking,
they
have
a
commitment
tomorrow,
making
sure
that
there
aren't
identical
buildings
side
by
side,
and
so
they
would
also
like
to
see
that
variety
there's
concern
about
construction
disturbance
through
jackhammering
and
blasting,
which
again
the
developers
indicated
they
would
like
to
keep
to
a
minimum.
B
There
was
comment
regarding
public
spaces
and
amenities
in
the
vicinity
of
this
site,
so
the
the
minimum
requirements
in
terms
of
open
space,
landscape,
open
space
and
an
amenity
or
matter
exceeded
by
what's
being
proposed
in
the
development,
and
there
are
several
parks
in
proximity
to
this
site,
including
3rd
Avenue,
Park,
the
Ron
lab,
Valley,
Park,
and
also
the
Memorial
Center
in
terms
of
amenities.
There
was
concerned
about
there
not
being
very
many
amenities,
such
as
shopping
or
laundry
nearby.
B
B
There
was
concern
about
on
street
parking
and
the
potential
for
increased
traffic
due
to
the
number
of
units
being
proposed.
It
was
a
deemed
that
a
traffic
impact
study
would
not
be
required
for
this
potential
proposal
and
the
in
terms
of
again
on
street
parking,
as
I
mentioned
earlier
by
co-locating,
the
driveways
is
a
shared
driveway.
It
does
actually
create
more
potential
for
on
street
parking
than
it
would
if
every
individual
unit
had
its
own
driveway
and
in
terms
of
parking
space
provision,
we
have
a
requirement
for
the
zoning.
B
Bylaw
requires
one
parking
space
per
unit
being
proposed
and
that
is
being
met
by
the
applicant.
The
allocation
is,
however,
done
by
at
the
discretion
of
the
owner.
In
future,
we
don't
have
a
mechanism
to
mandate.
The
parking
is
particularly
distributed
on
the
site
in
terms
of
servicing.
There
was
a
comment
about
risk
of
the
unit's
flooding
and
the
engineering
department,
and
the
building
services
department
as
well
have
will
be
ensuring
that
storm
water
management
is
provided
for
all
the
for
all
units
and
regarding
the
provision
of
servicing
to
the
site.
B
So
in
summary,
the
provincial
policy
statement
supports
residential
intensification
of
the
type
that
we
were
seeing
demonstrated
at
this
site.
Now,
the
area
as
I
mentioned
is
designated
residential,
which
permits
a
wide
range
of
residential
uses,
such
as
what
we're
seeing
and
the
our
official
plan
policies
promote
appropriate
intensification,
residential
intensification
which
again,
we
are
saying
being
carried
out
here.
B
The
proposed
zoning
is
gonna,
be
a
site-specific
zone
for
these
particular
Lots
to
specifically
actually
to
account
for
the
the
slight
idiosyncrasies
of
the
one
separate
lot
and
the
relief
that
is
being
proposed
in
terms
of
both
the
principal
dwelling
unit.
Well,
the
for
the
principal
dwelling
unit.
B
The
servicing
and
other
technical
elements
have
been
confirmed
by
our
partner
organisations,
so
in
summary,
this
is
to
permit
that
development
of
the
24
residential
Lots,
resulting
in
a
total
of
70
residential
units
for
the
zoning
relief
that
I've
laid
out.
The
proposed
zoning
amendment
complies
with
a
part
of
the
PPS
and
our
official
plan,
and
we
believe
it
constitutes
good
land-use
planning,
and
so
we
recommend
approval
the
application.
C
B
Specifically,
refining
the
development
yeah
one
of
the
three
mr.
chair,
one
of
the
refinements
that
has
been
made,
has
to
do
with
increasing
the
amount
of
amenity
area
and
decreasing
the
amount
of
asphalt
impermeable
surface
from
the
initial
concept.
That
was.
One
of
the
things
that
we
were
trying
to
do
is
ensure
that
the
that
the
character
of
the
development
would
be
in
keeping
with
the
surrounding
area,
but
also
trying
to
minimize
impacts
from
a
stormwater
perspective
and
increase
the
livability
of
the
units
for
future
residents
as
well.
Right
I.
A
Appreciate
that,
thank
you
I'll
turn
to
the
committee
now
and
the
process
is
that
the
committee
have
an
opportunity
to
ask
questions,
but
before
the
recommendation
goes
on,
the
floor
is
moved
and
seconded
the
public
will
have
an
opportunity
to
seek
clarification
or
make
comments.
Okay,
so
I'm
trying
now
turning
to
the
committee,
if.
C
D
B
You,
mr.
chair,
so
the
required
setback
is
7
and
a
half
meters
and
the
reduction
to
3
meters
has
to
do
with
the
placement
of
the
front
wall
of
the
dwelling
and
then
so.
What
they're
proposing
is
to
have
the
front
of
all
the
dwelling
at
a
minimum
of
3
meters.
Some
will
be
greater
than
that
in
terms
of
setback
like
4
or
not,
but
the
one
and
a
half
meter
setback
has
to
do
with
the
protrusion
of
the
front
steps.
B
B
You,
mr.
chair,
the
the
intent
of
the
front
yard
setback
was
specifically
to
line
up
the
building's
perfect
in
that
neighborhood.
The
required
setback
actually
of
seven
half
meters,
and
there
are
other
areas
and
in
the
king's
court
neighborhood,
where
kind
of
a
minimum
of
six
meters
is
required.
It
actually
creates
a
situation
where,
in
order
to
be
more
in
keeping
with
the
context
of
the
neighborhood,
someone
might
require
a
zoning
relief,
so
this
is
I
think
going
further
to
creating
a
better
neighborhood
context.
Thank.
D
A
A
couple
of
things
I
appreciate
that
there's
additional
green
space
from
the
original
design,
I
believe
that's
what
you
said.
I
know
that
you
mentioned
parks
in
the
neighborhood
and
often
I
scold
planners
and
developers
who
try
to
point
out
parts,
because
those
are
neighborhood
amenities
and
there
is
a
an
amenity
obligation
to
developers.
Do
you
I
presume
you
aren't
asking
for
relief
on
outdoor
amenity,
space
or
green
space
for
the
units?
Is
that
accurate,
I
guess.
B
It'll
be
through
you,
mr.
chair,
that's
correct
relief
is
not
being
sought
for
amenity
space.
No
just
one
I
guess
a
minor
detail
there.
So
the
maximum
lot
coverage
is
being
increased
for
the
accessory
building,
but
that
doesn't
translate
into
the
amount
of
required
green
space
being
diminished.
In
this
instance,
it's
still
exceeding
the
requirements
and
zoning
bylaw
in
terms
of
private
outdoor
amenity
space,
so
they
do
have
more
than
the
required
landscape
open
space.
You.
A
B
Three
day
mr.
chair,
that
was
raised
at
the
public
meeting
and
I
think
that
well,
I
can't
speak
for
the
developer,
but
I
can
say
that
at
the
previous
meeting,
they'd
indicated
that
permeable
surfaces
were
contemplated,
we're
not
considered
feasible
by
them.
It
would
be
a
preference
from
our
perspective
to
have
increased
permeable
surface
in
general
on
a
site
from
a
stormwater
consideration
perspective.
However,
that
isn't
the
material
isn't
something
that
we
would
mandate
specifically.
A
A
B
Through
you,
mr.
chair,
that's
I
think
a
consideration
that
I
would
imagine
that
the
developer
would
consider
on
a
lot
bylaw
basis
at
the
at
the
desire
of
the
future
homeowner
I.
Think
again,
that's
something
that
we
would
see
is
favorable,
but
it's
not
something
that
we
would
normally
require
at
this
point,
because.
A
A
E
B
Mr.
chair,
it's
kind
of
a
two-part
answer.
One
is
just
to
clarify
in
the
in
the
further
design
refinements
the
concept
we
reduced,
the
amount
of
asphalt
that
was
initially
being
proposed
by
moving
the
parking
space
to
a
different
location
and
and
and
relocating
the
garage
slightly,
but
in
terms
of
the
required
relief
from
a
zoning
perspective.
The
the
what's
being
sought
is
a
reduction
effectively
in
terms
of
the
driveway
width
because
they
are
proposing
to
share
a
driveway.
B
Currently,
every
individual
law
would
require
to
have
a
require
a
three
meter
driveway,
but
because
they're
sharing
the
driveway
to
seeking
the
zoning
relief
to
effectively
permit
the
sharing
of
that
driveway.
So
they're
sharing
the
driveway
also
reduces
the
impermeable
surface
by
losing
a
driveway
prolong.
Thank.
B
E
B
Through
you
must
there
is
a
amount
of
amenity
space
being
provided,
which
I
would
anticipate
would
be
used
as
part
of
that
snow
removal
in
future.
There's
room
in
the
front
which
is
in
keeping
with
the
neighborhood
in
terms
of
the
amount
of
snow
storage,
space
in
front
of
the
home
and
to
the
rear
of
the
home.
Again,
as
you
can
see,
there's
a
an
area
both
to
the
side
of
the
garage
and
in
front
between
the
between
the
principal
dwelling
in
the
accessory
building,
where
there's
a
potential
for
a
snow
storage
as
well.
E
Okay,
the
in
the
comments
submitted
there
was
I
think
when
you
you
address
the
concerns
about
parking
and
the
fact
that
the
three
spots
will
be
on
site
is
is
helpful.
But
at
the
previous
meeting
there
were
comments
and
questions
to
two
parts
of
this
one
being
visitors
coming
in
parking
and
the
second
being
the
the
the
narrowness
of
the
of
King
Square.
To
have
the
fact
that
it's
a
bus
route
and
the
fact
that
there
is
often
while
there's
parking
on
one
side
most
of
the
time
there
are
often
cars
parked
illegally.
B
That's
your
chair.
The
parking
requirements
as
for
the
zoning
are
being
met
in
terms
of
one
space
per
unit
and
again,
as
I
mentioned,
we
don't
have
control
over
how
those
parking
spaces
specifically
are
allocated
from
a
zoning
perspective
regarding
visitor
parking
I
would
expect
that
there
would
be
some
visitor
parking
taking
place
on
the
street.
However,
the
on
street
parking
is
effectively
a
common
element.
It's
a
shared
community
resource
and
the
way
that
this
site
has
been
designed
to
minimize
the
number
of
driveways.
B
Again,
it's
preserving
the
amount
of
on
street
parking,
given
the
the
lot
fabric
has
proposed
were
the
developer
to
decide
to
do
so.
They
could
proceed
with
24
individuals,
single
detached
dwellings
with
24
individual
driveway,
with
a
requirement
for
zoning
bylaw
amendment
just
proceeding
to
a
building
permit,
and
if
they
did
that,
then
there
would
be
a
greater
loss
of
on-street
parking
potential.
G
A
A
A
H
I
Thank
You,
chair
planning
committee
and
members
of
the
public
I'm
Paige
I,
am
the
director
of
planning,
building
and
licensing
for
the
City
of
Kingston
and
I'm
joined
this
evening
by
Brent
tottering
who's
been
working
with
us
on
this
project
for
the
last
ten
months,
12
months.
Actually
we're
gonna
be
talking
to
you
tonight
about
density
by
design.
This
is
our
issues
and
options
report.
We
release
this
report
publicly
last
Friday
and
over
the
course
of
this
week,
we've
had
a
lot
of
conversations
already.
Some
small
group
settings
larger
group
settings.
I
We
did
have
an
open
house
that
took
place
right
before
the
meeting
tonight,
and
the
most
important
thing
I
can
stress
to
you
is
that
we
will
continue
to
have
the
conversations
about
this
report
over
the
next
six
weeks.
This
is
really
important
work
for
the
City
of
Kingston.
We
acknowledge
the
complexity.
We
acknowledge
the
amount
of
information
there
is
to
digest
and
look
forward
to
continuing
to
talk
to
you
about
this
work
as
it
unfolds
so
just
reintroducing
this
project
to
the
community.
I
The
purpose
of
this
work
is
to
rethink
the
location
and
design
of
tall
and
mid-rise
buildings
in
order
to
best
address
the
climate
change
emergency
and
some
of
our
other
important
city
priorities.
So
just
as
a
reminder,
this
work
specifically
only
relates
to
buildings
that
are
four
storeys
and
greater.
It
was
work
that
was
authorized
by
council
in
March
of
2019.
It
did
involve
some
consultation
with
the
community
back
in
April
and
since
that
time
we've
been
taking
the
feedback
and
looking
at
what
to
do
with
that
feedback.
I
How
to
allow
it
to
inform
the
work
that
went
into
the
issues
and
options
report
and
certainly
we'll
continue
to
do
that
with
the
feedback
we
received
tonight
and
ongoing
over
the
next
six
weeks.
The
key
output
of
this
work
eventually
will
be
new
policies
for
the
official
plan
and
the
zoning
bylaw.
So
what's
before,
you
tonight
is
high-level
preliminary
options,
but
we
will
be
advancing
to
policy
writing
within
2020.
I
Again,
just
stressing
for
the
group
we're
not
at
a
decision
point
we're
at
a
project
milestone
where
we're
checking
in
about
some
of
the
critical
thinking
where
we,
what
that
we've
been
doing,
sharing
the
detailed
analysis
that
we've
been
undertaking
and
looking
at
preliminary
options
and
recommendations
for
further
discussion.
We
really
need
input
on
this
project.
It's
a
citywide,
very
important
document,
so
we're
trying
to
encourage
as
many
people
to
come
to
the
conversation
as
possible
and
to
really
challenge
the
work.
I
So,
at
the
end
of
the
day,
we
have
a
plan
for
Kingston
that
Kingston
can
really
embrace
why
this
work
is
critical.
Number
one
were
in
a
climate
change
emergency.
Our
council
declared
a
very
important
leadership
position
with
respect
to
climate
change
earlier
this
year
and
from
my
perspective,
this
work
is
really
a
call
to
strategic
action
related
to
land
use
and
climate
change.
The
actions
that
we
have
taken
enable
us
to
focus
on
getting
work
done
from
a
development
perspective
right
and
fast.
I
We
do
have
some
direction
currently
in
our
official
plan
and
zoning
bylaws,
but
it's
not
sufficient
for
the
whole
city
and
it's
not
sufficient
in
particularly
with
respect
to
tall
buildings
and
mid-rise
buildings.
We've
widened
the
scope
of
this
work
over
the
last
six
months
to
include
locations
for
height
and
density.
I
So
just
talking
about
the
pipeline.
This
is
the
word
that
we
used
to
talk
about
our
housing
supply
numbers.
This
will
give
you
a
sense
of
where
we
were
in
2017
with
respect
to
pending
so
pending.
When
we
talk
about
that,
it
refers
to
the
number
of
housing
units
that
are
currently
going
through
development
applications,
but
have
not
yet
come
to
council
for
decision.
I
Our
committed
numbers
are
reflective
of
development
applications
that
have
resulted
in
new
housing
units
for
the
community
that
have
been
approved
by
council,
so
we're
not
very
much
different
from
where
we
were
in
2017
and
we
do
continue
to
have
a
housing
supply
shortage
issue.
So,
although
we
do
have
quite
a
bit
in
the
pipeline,
we
do
need
to
continue
to
add
housing
to
our
supply
in
a
strategic
way
to
help
us
advance
in
terms
of
housing
availability
for
the
community
and
affordability.
I
So
our
work
has
very
much
strategically
evolved.
Over
the
last
12
months,
we
started
as
a
as
a
project
specifically
looking
at
tall
buildings.
Only
then
we
evolved
that
to
look
at
mid
rise
buildings
as
well,
because
we
felt
the
need
to
address
both,
and
then
it's
also
been
evolving
over
the
last
four
or
five
months
as
well.
To
really
critically
start
to
ask
the
questions
about
the
wear
of
tall
and
mid-rise
buildings.
Originally,
the
work
was
really
only
looking
at
the
how
of
buildings
how
they
need
to
be
designed.
I
There
have
been
four
key
lenses
that
have
informed
our
work
throughout
the
course
of
the
study
to
date
and
really
again
reinforcing
the
critical
link
between
land-use
planning
transportation
building
design
in
the
climate.
Emergency
we've
certainly
been
looking
at
this
work
through
the
lenses
of
affordability
and
market
choice
with
respect
to
housing.
I
As
a
city
from
a
growth
management
perspective,
we
have
added
a
new
section
into
our
work,
specifically
with
respect
to
the
location
of
height
and
density.
Again,
this
was
work
that
we
intended
to
look
at
originally
as
a
Phase
two
after
we
finished
the
tall
and
mid-rise
design
work,
we've
added
a
portion
in
that
now
in
terms
of
the
most
urgent
area
being
the
downtown
and
the
North
Block
specifically,
and
we
wanted
to
again
explore
that
from
the
standpoint
of
looking
at.
Where
do
we
want
to
see
some
of
this
density
and
strategically?
I
Where
does
it
make
sense
to
see
density
with
respect
to
the
overall
city
goals
and
in
particularly
around
climate
change?
So
again,
a
part
of
the
study
is
really
about
making
development
in
the
right
place
is
easier
in
places
where
it's
unstruck
for
the
city,
making
it
more
difficult
to
have
density
go
there.
We
have
developed
a
draft
map
for
consultation,
called
the
greenlight
strategy
and
we're
gonna
talk
to
you
a
little
bit
about
that.
Further
on
in
the
presentation.
I
There's
three
critical
actions
related
to
the
location
of
density
that
we've
addressed
in
this
report.
It
doesn't
address
the
total
issue
of
where,
but
there
are
three
key
areas,
and
this
is
what
we're
thinking
number
one:
rethinking
the
40
percent
infill
target
in
the
Official
Plan.
This
is
a
target
that
was
said
in
2009
with
respect
to
the
first
city's
official
plan,
and
it
represents
a
minimum
standard
for
infill
relative
to
Ontario
municipalities.
I
We
haven't
really
looked
at
that
number
since
then,
and
as
part
of
this
work,
we're
critically
questioning
is
that
the
appropriate
amount
of
infill,
given
our
goals
with
respect
to
Smart,
Growth
and
climate
change,
we're
looking
at
tightening
the
policy
and
criteria
currently
allowing
high
density
and
tall
buildings
in
car-dependent
areas?
Our
official
plan
is
quite
permissive
in
a
lot
of
ways
restrictive
in
other
ways,
but
there
are
abilities
through
the
Official
Plan
right
now
that
are
allowing
density
to
go
in
very
car
dependent
places.
I
So
we're
asking
ourselves
critical
questions
about
that
and
the
need
to
rethink
some
of
that
policy
and
again
on
the
green
light,
faster
realisation
of
allowing
Denzil
density
and
height
in
smart
strategic
areas
and
again
through
this
by
the
green
light
strategy.
It's
really
about
exploring
the
barriers
that
exist,
a
good
development
now
in
strategic
places,
and
also
looking
at
what
types
of
incentives
can
the
municipality
explore
through
this
process
to
look
at
making
density
in
the
right
places
easier
and
faster
to
accomplish.
I
We
want
to
be
really
clear
about
what
the
greenlight
strategy
isn't:
it's,
not
a
new
policy
that
increases
height
or
density
on
its
own.
So
there
has
been
a
lot
of
confusion
this
week
with
some
of
the
draft
mapping
that
we
put
out
that
that
was
an
intent
intended
visual
to
say
this
is
where
new
height
and
density
are
going
to
go.
I
That's
not
what
the
intention
of
it
is,
but
what
it
is
is
a
strategy
that
identifies
and
implements
ways
to
facilitate
and
scent
and
remove
barriers
to
well-designed
development
that
is
permitted
by
the
existing
Official
Plan
and
I
want
to
reinforce
that
that's
permitted
by
the
existing
Official
Plan.
So
some
of
the
incentives
that
we've
been
talking
about
there
can
be
taxation
programs.
There
can
be
things
related
to
development
fees
and
charges.
I
I
There's
a
lot
of
really
big
ideas
that
are
presented
in
this
report.
I'm
gonna
highlight
a
couple
for
you
now
and
Brent
will
talk
to
you
about
the
rest
and
a
few
slides
from
now,
but
really
for
the
first
time.
This
report
is
about
trying
to
get
to
a
place
where
we
have
citywide
design
expectations
that
are
clear
for
tall
and
mid-rise
buildings.
We
don't
have
that
now
on
a
citywide
basis
and
we
very
much
need
it.
I
We're
also
looking
at
through
this,
the
idea
of
replacing
slab
buildings
or
very
wide
buildings,
with
thinner,
better
design,
tall,
mid-rise
buildings,
where
they're
currently
permitted
in
the
plan
and
specifically
also
investigating
ways
to
remove
barriers
to
mid-rise
and
wood
frame
construction.
Again,
linking
this
to
our
goals
with
respect
to
scale
and
affordability
in
the
city
and
then
also
looking
at
the
link
with
climate
change.
As
part
of
this
work,
we
are
doing
Economic
Analysis.
I
There
are
specific
things
that
we're
investigating
related
to
built
form
ideas
and
before
we
go
ahead
and
start
writing
policy,
we
think
it's
really
important
to
understand
the
land
economic
considerations
that
go
along
with
it.
The
last
thing
we
want
to
do
is
go
through
a
consultative
process
with
the
community
do
a
lot
of
important
work
and
then
come
out
with
policies
that
just
aren't
buildable
or
viable
for
the
community.
I
J
Good
evening
mr.
chair
members
of
committee,
citizens
of
Kingston
you'll
recall
when
we
had
our
last
phase
of
public
engagement,
we
actually
went
through
some
effort
to
educate
through
a
series
of
slides
and
a
presentation,
all
the
different
elements
of
a
building
design
that
actually
contribute
to
whether
one
might
consider
that
building
good
or
not
for
lack
of
a
better
term.
J
We
went,
and
particularly
to
emphasize
that
there
is
more
to
the
conversation
about
whether
a
building
is
well
designed
than
just
how
tall
it
is
because
one
of
the
observations
was
that
tended
to
be
the
focus
of
the
conversation
heids
important.
But
there
are
many
elements
and
in
fact
we
showed
you
at
the
time,
I
think
about
14,
13
or
14
elements
of
a
building
design
and
facilitated
a
conversation
about
how
they
all
work
together
to
determine
whether
or
not
a
building
is
perceived,
admittedly,
potentially
subject.
J
Subject
subjectively
as
a
good
design
or
a
bad
design.
In
fact,
since
then,
based
on
the
input
we
actually
got
from
the
public
in
that
last
round,
we've
added
a
few
elements
at
your
suggestion
and
we're
up
to
16
different
elements
of
how
a
building
can
be
designed
mercifully,
mr.
chair
I'm
not
going
to
take
you
through
all
16
of
them,
but
I
am
gonna.
Take
you
through
some
of
the
more
important
and
frankly
challenging
and
controversial
ones,
to
make
sure
that
committee
understands
some
of
our
thinking.
Is
it
this
one?
Thank
you.
J
Although
I
said
a
minute
ago,
that
height
isn't
the
only
important
thing
we
did
start
with
height
and
the
main
discussion
we
had
is
whether
or
not
it
made
sense
to
provide
maximum
height
limits
for
buildings,
both
mid
rise
and
tall
buildings
throughout
the
city.
Do
we
think
about
it
throughout
the
city?
That
was
one
of
the
options
we
we
looked
at
and
by
the
way
you'll
note,
council
or
committee
in
the
document
for
each
of
these
items
we
showed
our
work.
J
We
showed
a
great
deal
of
discussion
about
what
the
options
are
relative
to
the
element.
What
our
considerations
were
what
we
heard
from
the
public
in
the
first
round
of
consultation
and,
ultimately,
what
we
were
recommending
in
a
preliminary
way
and
why
so,
frankly,
everyone
could
see
what
issues
we
struggled
with,
what
issues
we
were
seeking
to
balance
and,
ultimately
why
we
were
recommending
what
we
were
recommending
as
I've
said
too
a
few
times.
Mr.
chair,
my
fourth
grade,
math
teacher,
always
said
to
me:
you
don't
get
the
marks.
J
If
you
just
give
the
answer,
you
have
to
show
your
work
and
we
tried
to
do
that
to
this
document
so
that
everyone
could
read
it
and
frankly
follow
our
thinking
and
tell
us
whether
or
not
they
agreed
with
our
thinking
or
not.
So
in
each
of
these
slides
you'll
see
the
options
we
considered.
The
option
that
is
highlighted
and
bolded
is
our
current
preliminary
recommendation,
and
it
is
just
that
preliminary,
it's
not
written
in
stone
and
we
are
asking
the
public
whether
or
not
you
agree
that
these
are
the
options.
J
Did
we
miss
any
options
and
do
you
agree
with
our
preliminary
recommendation,
or
would
you
change
it
or
tweak
it
so
for
height?
For
example,
our
ultimate
preliminary
recommendation
for
height
is
not
to
set
a
height
limit
across
the
entire
city.
Frankly,
for
practical
reasons,
that's
a
massive
undertaking
that
will
probably
require
your
next
official
plan
amendment
with
extensive
consultation
on
a
community
by
community
basis.
J
It
wouldn't
be
a
one-size-fits-all
approach
to
the
height
in
the
CBD.
We
would
identify
sub
areas
of
the
CBD
that
would
have
possibly
different
height
maximum,
but
we
would
do
it
with
an
established
height
maximum.
Someone
actually
suggested
through
our
engagement
today
that
we
should
probably
also
set
height
minimums,
because
in
some
contexts
we
want
to
make
sure
we
don't
get
just
one
story:
buildings
in
the
CBD,
which
is
a
new
thought.
J
We
hadn't
thought
of
the
second
issue
we
reconsidered,
and-
and
normally
we
would
probably
start
with
this,
because
it
was
actually
the
first
question
we
got
asked
in
almost
every
conversation
we
had.
What
do
you
consider
a
tall
building?
What
is
a
mid-rise
building?
What
is
a
tall
building?
We
thought
about
options
looking
at
the
third
option
for
kind
of
flexible
approach,
that
a
contextual
approach,
something
that
is
tall
in
one
context-
might
not
seem
tall
in
another.
J
The
question
is:
do
we
set
rules
and
expectations
for
the
entire
city
as
a
whole,
a
one-size-fits-all
approach,
or
do
we
recognize
that
there
are
different
parts
of
the
CBD
different
parts
of
the
city
that
have
different
natures,
and
thus
we
probably
would
be
at
least
tweaking
our
design
approach
to
tall
and
mid-rise
buildings
in
those
different
contexts.
We,
so
we
considered
options,
do
you
do
it?
One
size
fits
all
across
the
city.
Do
you
just
do
the
CBD
and
everything
outside
the
CBD?
J
Ultimately,
what
we
recommended
was
six
at
this
stage,
we're
thinking
about
six
areas
that
would
be
defined.
This
is
the
map
on
the
back
of
the
report
committee
that
would
essentially
allow
us
to
adjust
and
tweak
our
approaches
to
tower
width,
set
back,
etc
slightly.
These
are
not
radical
differences,
but
slightly
relative
to
differences
in
context.
J
I
do
want
to
say,
counsel
that
there
has
probably
been
nothing
more
confusing
to
members
of
the
public
and
stakeholders
this
past
week
for
the
chief
planner
and
I
than
this
map,
because
I
think
because
we
used
it
a
base
of
the
land
use
plan
as
a
base
for
defining
these
areas.
Most
people
have
looked
at
this
think
it's
a
land
use
plan
that
will
tell
them
how
tall
their
building
can
be
or
how
dense
it
can
be.
That's
not
the
intent
of
this
map.
J
The
intent
of
this
map
was
simply
to
define
sub
areas
for
how
we
might
tweak
our
approach
to
design
like
step,
backs,
etc.
I
think
once
we've
explained
that
it
has
actually
made
the
conversation
a
much
easier
and
less
frustrating,
but
before
that
there
was
confusion,
and
we
apologize
for
that
in
hindsight,
we
should
have
done
this
map
very
differently,
and
these
are.
These
are
the
various
areas
that
were
in
the
we're
in
the
drawing
here.
J
Next
to
height,
probably
building
width
has
been
the
most
complex
and
potentially
controversial
element
to
building
design.
We've
talked
a
lot
over
the
course
of
the
last
year,
plus
about
the
nature
of
buildings
being
very
large,
not
just
because
of
their
height,
but
because
of
their
thickness
there
with
when
they
get
very
large.
The
term
that
is
often
applied
is
a
slab
building
a
building,
that's
very
long
and
thick
and
has
a
very
large
visual
profile
with
implications
for
urban
design.
J
J
The
big
question
is:
how
do
we
feel
about
much
larger
floor
plates
in
the
suburbs,
because
one
school
of
thought
is
that
the
whole
city
should
have
a
slimmer
profile
approach
to
tall
buildings.
Another
school
of
thought
is
for
reasons
of
affordability,
simplicity,
energy
performance.
Should
we
continue
to
allow
very
large
floorplate
buildings
in
the
suburbs,
because
the
urban
design
sets
in
civets,
and
these
are
different?
We
haven't
taken
an
official
position
on
that.
We
have
heard
pros
and
cons
to
that
approach
all
week.
J
One
of
the
the
cons
to
it
is
actually
that
it
might
make
density.
It
will
make
density
easier
in
the
suburbs
than
it
is
in
the
inner
city
portions,
which
is
contrary
to
what
we're
trying
to
achieve
through
the
green
light
strategy.
So
it
would
continue
the
kind
of
idea
that
it's
actually
easier
to
put
density
in
the
car
dependent
places
than
in
the
last
card
of
any
places
and
we're
wrestling
with
that.
But
we
haven't
taken
a
firm
position.
J
We
don't
have
a
recommendation
yet
we're
hearing
from
all
parties
on
that,
but
that's
probably
from
a
tower
width
perspective.
The
biggest
question
we're
discussing
counsel.
As
the
chief
planner
noted,
we've
integrated
the
question
of
the
Williamsville
Main
Street
study
or
Main
Street
area
into
this
work
program.
And
the
question
is:
what
do
we
do
about
the
the
challenges
that
led
to
the
interim
control
bylaw?
J
And
these
are
both
what
the
height
question
or
what
the
height
situation
is,
and
also
the
issue
of
what's
called
angular,
plane
or
angle
of
daylight,
as
council
I
think
understands
that
that's
the
problem
statement
has
been
that
the
definition
of
landmark
building
has
allowed
many
10-story
up
to
ten
storey.
Buildings
become
the
predominant
scale
along
the
corridor
and,
as
we've
heard
from
many
many
people,
including
staff
and
council
in
the
community,
that
was
never
the
intent.
The
landmark
buildings
were
supposed
to
be
rare
buildings.
J
If
you
will,
the
prevailing
scale
was
supposed
to
be
four
to
six
storeys,
but
because
of
the
ability
to
do
a
landmark
building.
If
you
assembled
enough,
land
developers
were
assembling
land
and
coming
in
with
landmark
buildings.
I
would
characterize
it
as
a
loophole
in
terms
of
what
was
originally
anticipated
and
intended
in
the
policy,
and
thus
you've
had
challenging
situations
about
whether
or
not
you
apply
angle
of
daylight
and
other
things.
It's
led
to
a
lot
of
problems.
J
Our
recommendation
at
this
stage
is
that
essentially,
we
would
be
saying
no
more
landmark
buildings
using
that
definition.
We
would
replace
the
locational
that
land
area
criteria
with
basically
a
new
schedule
that
says
here
are
the
remaining
landmark
sites.
They
are
in
these
locations.
They
can't
be
as
block-long
and
large
as
the
previous
applications
have
been.
J
They
have
to
be
a
more
tower
profile
to
mark
key
intersections,
still
only
ten
stories,
not
taller
than
that
an
angle
of
daylight
wouldn't
apply
or
angular
plane
because
it
doesn't
have
to
in
tall
slimmer
buildings
the
shadow
moves
quickly,
unlike
the
long
block
long
buildings
where
you
have
to
address
shadow
through
an
epic
day
and
the
angle
of
daylight
provision.
So
we
don't
need
angle
of
daylight
anymore,
because
it
would
be
a
fundamentally
different
building
form
where
angle
of
daylight
frankly
doesn't
work.
J
So
that
is
our
proposed
recommendation
to
address
the
issue
that
hopefully
would
lead
to
an
ability
to
move
away
from
the
interim
Control
bylaw
upper
floor
building
step
backs.
These
are
the
stepping
back
of
the
taller
portions
of
the
building
at
certain
Heights.
It
applies
to
mid
rise
buildings,
usually
in
the
context
of
conversations
about
the
fifth
and
sixth
floor
of
a
six-story
building
being
stepped
back
in
the
case
of
taller
perimeter
block
buildings.
It's
can
be
the
seventh
eighth
or
ninth
storey.
J
Stepping
back
as
you
have
currently
in
your
rules
in
portions
of
the
CBD,
for
example.
Are
these
a
good
idea
from
an
urban
design
perspective
from
an
affordability
perspective
from
an
energy
efficiency
perspective
from
a
development
viability,
perspective
we've
run
through
it
from
a
number
of
different
scenarios?
And
forgive
me
mr.
chair,
but
this
this
recommendation
is
a
bit
complex
for
the
mid
rise
buildings.
What
we're
saying
as
a
sort
of
a
soft
recommendation
at
this
point
is
that
we're
thinking
for
four
to
six
storey
wood
frame
buildings
we
would
not
require
step
backs.
J
We
want
wood
frame
buildings
to
happen.
Frankly,
wood
frame
buildings
have
more
challenges
associated
with
this
kind
of
angle,
step
backs
than
concrete
buildings
do
and
frankly,
we'd
like
to
see
more
wood
frame
for
various
reasons
of
sustainability,
affordability,
etc.
So
we're
thinking
we
don't
want
to
establish
design
criteria
that
limits
the
the
likelihood
and
viability
of
this
building
form
actually
happening
because
of
its
sustainable
advantage
for
the
city.
We
want
to
test
that,
though,
through
the
economic
analysis
that
miss
Agnew
talked
about.
J
So
that's
why
I'm
calling
it
a
soft
recommendation
at
this
point,
we
want
to
analyze
the
situation
a
little
more
and
understand
the
implication
of
those
step
backs
from
a
viability,
perspective
of
projects
for
seven
to
nine
story,
buildings
which
relate
to
some
other
portions
of
the
city,
but
particularly
in
the
north
block,
for
example,
in
the
CVD.
The
question
is:
is
a
seven
to
nine
story.
Building
has
been
called
for
for
many
years
in
in
that
portion
of
the
downtown.
Is
it
viable?
Is
it
still
viable?
J
If
you
have
step
backs
and
there's
various
ways,
you
can
do
step
backs
from
the
seventh
and
ninth
floor,
and
is
it
still
viable?
If
you
do
both
of
those
things-
and
it's
also
a
rental
project,
that's
something
we
need
to
look
at,
because
we
want
to
understand
why
market
projects
have
not
happened
with
that
when
those
rules
are
put
in
place
non
market
project,
that
a
nonprofit
project
has
happened,
but
not
market
projects.
The
economic
analysis
that
miss
Agnew
talked
about
will
educate
us
on
that.
J
But
at
this
point
we
have
soft
recommendations,
but
we
are
not
prepared
enough
to
say
what
we
that
we
know
what
we
would
recommend
at
this
point,
because
the
economic
analysis
is
incomplete
down
at
grade
council.
It's
the
set
back
from
the
street
from
the
right-of-way.
They
essentially
gives
you
your
public
realm.
The
quality
of
that
sidewalk
experience,
the
width
of
it
for
pedestrian
movement
for
patios
for
street
furniture,
all
the
things
that
make
street
life
interesting.
If
you
go
too
far
back,
you
separate
your
relationship
from
the
street.
J
If
you
go
too
close,
as
we've
seen
some
examples
of
in
the
city,
everything
gets
pinched,
there's
no
room
for
patios
and
even
pedestrians
feel
tight.
So
what
is
the
should?
We
have
a
minimum
and
a
maximum
setback
to
establish
that
ideal
relationship.
Our
recommendation
is
that
we
do
that.
We
haven't
decided
what
exactly
that
would
be
or
how
it
would
vary
by
those
different
context
areas,
but
we
think
frankly,
it
needs
to
be
set
and
followed
Ridge
rigorously,
because
it's
not
something
we
want
to
negotiate
on
a
case-by-case
basis
with
applications.
J
If
you
have
two
towers
relatively
close
together,
how
far
away
should
they
be
tower?
Separation
has
become
maybe
one
of
the
easier
elements
of
design
thinking
to
answer,
because
almost
every
city
we've
looked
at
has
established
the
same
requirement.
25
meters
or
80
feet
is,
what's
generally
considered
reasonable
for
towers
like
that.
To
have
sunlight
access,
name
is
between
towers
views,
etc,
and
even
disrupting
any
wind
tunnel
effects
and
such
so
our
recommendation
and
would
be
that
down
at
the
ground
floor.
J
I
I'm
saying
this
late
in
the
list,
but
this
is
one
of
the
most
important
elements
of
building
design.
How
do
you
make
sure
that
to
start
you
don't
have
boring
blank
walls
that
make
pedestrian
activity
not
particularly
interesting
or
attractive?
How
do
you
make
sure
if
it's
commercial
operations
that
you
have
high
levels
of
transparency
and
the
ability
for
permeability
between
the
inside
and
the
outside
of
the
building
to
make
the
sidewalk
work
really
in
a
lively
way
if
it's
residential
uses
that
grade?
J
How
do
you
make
sure
those
are
successful,
successful
by
changing
grade
slightly
so
that
people
aren't
looking
right
into
people's
windows
and
they
close
their
blinds
and
you
get
an
essential
blank
wall
there
are.
There
are
good
principles
and
learnings
from
many
many
places
that
have
told
us
what
to
do
and
not
to
do.
We
just
don't
want
to
negotiate
them
on
a
case-by-case
basis,
so
the
policy
would
establish
the
expectation.
J
This
is
one
of
the
issues
that
I'm
almost
embarrassed
to
say
we
hadn't
put
in
the
original
list,
and
it
was
members
of
the
public
who
said
well
what
about
parking,
and
indeed
that
is
one
of
the
biggest
design
challenges,
because
if
the
parking
isn't
surface
parking
and
if
it
isn't
underground,
it's
ending
up
inside
the
building
itself
that
we
call
that
above
grade
parking
and
it
takes
up
a
lot
of
the
built
form.
Plus
you
can
see
it,
and
so
it
has
a
lot
of
visual
implications
to
the
quality
of
the
building.
J
J
It
should
now
to
be
clear:
there's
lots
of
places
where
it
can't
go
viably
underground
in
Kingston,
but
where
it
can
as
much
of
it.
That
is
reasonable
and
feasible
should
go
underground,
but
for
the
parking
that
would
go
above
grade.
We've
got
two
recommendations
in
the
CBD
where
essentially
such
and
the
urban
areas
we're
suggesting
that
you
should
put
the
parking
inside
the
building,
separate
it
physically
from
the
edge
of
the
building
that
people
can
see
by
intervening
uses
like
office,
space
or
residential
units
or
what-have-you.
J
So
it's
functionally
invisible,
that's
a
high
standard,
and
that
would
be
the
standard
we
would
apply
to
the
most
urban
places
that
we
care
about
the
most
the
downtown
the
urban
places
in
the
less
urban
places.
We're
saying
it
doesn't
need
to
be
inboard
into
the
middle
of
the
building,
but
it
does
need
to
be
screened,
so
it's
maybe
still
apparent,
but
it's
not
as
obvious,
and
you
can
often
combine
that
with
public
art
or
other
creative
ways
to
screen
that
experience.
J
It's
a
lower
standard
for
for
places
that
aren't
quite
as
visually
sensitive,
just
very
quickly
Council.
We
did
consider
again
because
of
a
recommendation
from
members
of
the
public
about
looking
at
opportunities
to
facilitate
more
active
transport,
supports
like
bike
parking
and
other
other
things
like
that.
Ultimately,
all
we
decided
to
do
in
this
work
program
is
create
supportive
policy
for
other
work
programs,
because,
frankly,
that
is
being
addressed
through
active
transport
policy
work
through
the
Transportation
Department.
J
As
we
speak,
and
at
this
point
we
don't
want
to
duplicate
that
effort,
just
support
it
through
supporting
policies.
Council,
as
I
said
this
was
merciful,
I
think
we
had
about
eight
or
nine
more
and
we
spared
you
those.
But
there
are
sixteen
in
the
report
and
we're
actually
asking
the
public
for
input
through
a
very
detailed
form
to
give
us
their
comments
on
if
they
think
we're
on
the
right
track
of
each
one,
plus
the
big
issues
like
the
where
and
we're
not
of
density,
the
green
light
strategy,
etc.
J
J
First
of
all,
in
most
city
halls,
the
last
thing
a
City
Hall
work
team
wants
to
do
is
change.
The
word
scope,
the
scope
of
work.
We
actually
have
a
pejorative
term
for
it.
It's
called
scope
creep.
We
want
to
avoid
scope
creep
because
we
want
to
get
the
project
done.
We've
done
the
opposite
in
this
case,
as
new
observations
like
the
the
urgent
need
to
address
the
where
and
we're
not
of
density
have
come
up
the
obvious
opportunity
that
we
were
having
a
very
hard
time
addressing
tall
buildings
without
addressing
mid
rise.
J
At
the
same
time,
obviously,
the
interim
control,
byline
Williamsville
and
the
challenges
in
the
north
block
we've
invited
that
work
into
this.
It's
added
a
little
bit
of
time
to
our
exercise,
but,
frankly,
it's
making
the
the
results
and
the
interconnectedness
of
the
work
just
much
better
and
I
give
staff
and,
and
the
city
manager
credit
for
that,
because
most
cities
avoid
doing
that
like
the
plague,
and
it
is
totally
the
smart
thing
to
have
done
in
this
case,
and
it's
led
to
much
better
outcomes.
J
I'm
sorry,
you
council
asked
us
to
be
as
transparent
as
we
could
be.
You'll
note
that
the
document
it
still
isn't
necessarily
easy
reading,
because
this
is
complex
stuff,
but
we've
tried
to
make
it
as
transparent
as
possible
by,
as
I
said,
showing
all
our
work
so
we're
hoping
that
this
helps
educate
the
conversation
and
that's
been
really
one
of
our
emphasis.
The
downside
is
it's
42
pages
committee,
but
I
think
hopefully
it's
it
does
a
good
job
of
facilitating
and
educating
the
conversation.
J
It's
the
first
exercise
of
this
type,
building
design
for
tall
and
mid-rise
buildings
that
I've
seen
that
has
made
the
direct
connection
to
the
climate
emergency.
So
it
is
including
considerations
that
I
have
never
seen
tall
and
mid-rise
building
design
guidelines
or
policies
address,
and
so
you're
you're
breaking
new
ground
in
that
and
deliberately
connecting
the
work
to
the
economic
realities
through
the
economic
analysis.
J
That
is
a
first
for
Kingston
and
I'm,
sad
to
say
it's
very
rare
for
any
City
Hall,
so
you're
you're
doing
something
that
should
be
done
all
the
time,
but
unfortunately
isn't
done
enough
and
at
the
same
time,
connecting
it
to
the
the
energy
efficiency
issues,
which
again
is
a
new
lens
to
look
at
this
work
that
I
haven't
seen
previous
work
in
other
cities.
Do
so
all
of
that
is
is
to
complement
the
city
on
embracing
the
complexity
of
this
exercise.
J
We're
also
looking
at
forward-looking
approaches
like
the
green
light
strategy
that
the
chief
planner
explained,
but
also
looking
forward
to
the
next
technology
of
wood
construction,
not
wood
frame
but
mass
timber,
CLT
and
making
sure,
because
we
know
that
that
it's
already
allowed
in
British
Columbia.
It's
probably
going
to
be
allowed
up
to
12
stories
in
the
National
Building
Code
next
year,
and
why
would
we
want
to
write
an
approach
that
basically
is
obsolete
for
the
next
technology?
J
That's
coming
in
a
few
years
and
hopefully
will
be
common
place
relatively
soon,
although
it
always
takes
time
for
the
industry
to
move
into
new
areas.
So
we
have
looked
at
all
this
through
the
lens
of
what
we
know
about
mass
timber
or
CLT
and
what
works
in
that
technology
and
what
doesn't
work
in
that
technology?
And
that's
really
educated
our
thinking
around
things
like
a
building
step
backs,
for
example,
which
are
problematic
with
that
technology.
J
Lastly,
counsel
I'll
say
I'll
say
that,
notwithstanding
what
I've
said
about
us
breaking
new
ground,
most
of
the
design
approaches
we're
talking
here
are
not
best
practice.
They
are
not
cutting
edge
or
bleeding
edge
and
that's
actually
a
deliberate
decision,
because
we
didn't
want
to
push
the
industry
to
a
place
where,
frankly,
is
further
than
you
need
to
go
just
because
we
wanted
to
say
we
were
best
practice.
Most
of
the
things
I've
showed
you
in
terms
of
the
actual
details
of
building
design,
our
normal
practice
they've
become
normal
practice
across
the
province.
J
So
we
know
from
similar
cities
in
your
backyard
of
the
province
that
they
they
can
work,
but
we
want
to
educate
ourselves
further
through
the
economic
analysis.
Lastly,
I'll
say,
as
as
the
chief
planner
said,
and
I
tend
to
be
a
blunt
player,
a
person
who
always
says
to
my
political
clients.
This
will
be
hard.
Many
of
these
things
we're
talking
about
are
different.
They
are
change
there.
J
They
would
substantially
affect
business
as
usual,
but
if
you're
serious
about
things
like
connecting
the
dots
between
land-use
decisions
and
design
decisions
and
your
climate
emergency
and
your
other
challenges
like
Public,
Health
and
infrastructure
costs,
etc.
This
is
what
it
takes.
Something
like
this
is
what
it
takes
to
really
address
those
urgent
goals.
Thank
you.
I
So
in
terms
of
next
steps,
I
mentioned
at
the
beginning
of
the
presentation,
this
period
is
open.
For
about
six
weeks
we
have
looked
at
having
December
31st
or
the
end
of
December
early
January
being
the
end
of
our
commenting
period
related
to
the
issues
and
options
report,
so
again
lots
of
opportunity
for
further
conversation.
We
do
have
events
going
into
next
week
and
we'll
continue
to
take
meetings
with
individual
groups
if
they're
interested
take
written
correspondence.
I
We're
also
thinking
about
some
additional
public
activities
that
we
can
undertake
related
to
this
work
between
now
and
the
end
of
2019.
The
intention
of
of
the
feedback
is
to
again
evaluate
that
against
the
recommendations
that
we're
making
tonight
and
then
again
be
very
instrumental
in
forming
the
policy
work
that
we're
gonna
start
writing
in
2020
the
timeframe
associated
with
presenting
recommendations
to
Council
associated
with
this
work
as
the
end
of
May
2020.
I
We
do
have
a
glutton
for
get
involved
platform.
A
lot
of
people
have
been
activating
and
using
that
andrea
Gummo
was
here.
She
is
our
project
manager,
she's
connected
with
a
number
of
you
and
will
continue
to
be
available.
We're
happy
to
take
questions
on
any
of
the
information
that
we
presented
tonight
and
look
forward
to
hearing
public
comments.
A
Thank
you.
I
will
now
give
the
committee
an
opportunity
to
ask
questions
or
to
make
comments.
This
is
an
information
report
only
we
don't
always
allow
questions
from
the
public
for
information
reports,
but
in
this
case
we
will
be
doing
so
so
after
the
committee
has
that
an
opportunity
to
to
pose
questions
or
make
comments
we'll
give
the
public
an
opportunity
to
do
likewise.
So
it's
now
open
to
the
committee.
K
Notice,
a
lot
of
the
president
on
councils,
climate
emergency
declaration
I
just
happen
to
be
reading
some
interesting
posts
about
communities
in
California
that
are
actually
encouraging
development
to
no
longer
permit
natural
gas
expansion.
So
all
sites
would
be
electrified.
Is
that
something
you've
looked
at
as
well?
Any
new
bills
would
be
electrified
instead
of
natural
gas
use.
I
Thank
you
through
you.
We
haven't
advanced
our
thinking
to
that
level
of
detail
at
this
time.
Certainly
we're
looking
at
Green
Building
Technologies
as
part
of
the
design
considerations,
but
we
haven't
advanced
that
stage
of
really
looking
at
how
buildings
are
going
to
be
powered,
but
that's
something
we
can
take
into
consideration.
D
You,
mr.
chair,
through
your
presentation,
you
mentioned
that
there
would
be
a
number
of
sub
areas
within
the
city.
I
think
you
said
up
to
six,
but
then
within
those
areas
you
also
mentioned
that
there
could
be
sub
sub
areas.
Could
you
talk
about
some
of
the
considerations
to
define
those
features
and
the
reason
for
my
question
is
I
think
it's
important
to
recognize
the
difference
in
neighborhoods
in
different
contexts
within
the
city,
my
caution
or
red
flag
and
hearing.
D
I
A
great
question
so
what
we
have
suggested-
and
it's
reflected
in
this
looking
at
the
sub
context
again,
this
is
high
level,
and
this
is
for
preliminary
discussion.
We've
looked
at
six.
Definitely
we
don't
want
to
get
to
a
point
where
we're
going
on
a
neighborhood
by
neighborhood
basis,
because
that
would
give
us
50
to
sub
contexts
in
the
urban
area,
which
probably
would
be
pretty
unmanageable.
I
Some
of
the
things
that
we're
looking
at
specifically
we've
looked
at
some
of
the
heritage
overlays
that
are
in
the
Official
Plan,
certainly
as
part
of
some
of
the
discussions
that
came
up
this
week
and
and
hasn't
been
factored
into
the
level
of
mapping
we've
done
at
this
plate
at
this
point
in
time
or
if
there's
neighborhoods,
for
example,
that
have
a
heritage
conservation
district
that
applies
to
it.
So
those
types
of
things
we'd
be
looking
at
as
well.
I
There
are
differences
with
an
even
elements
of
princess
Street
if
you
think
about
that,
so
the
character
of
Williamsville
versus
what
it
looks
like,
maybe
as
the
hub
portion
of
princess
and
lower
princess.
So
we
are
trying
to
look
at
what
some
of
the
physical
differences
are
without
getting
to
a
point
where
we're
you
know
over
regulating
or
reducing
it
to
to
so
many
sub
contexts
that
becomes
unmanageable.
H
I
H
I
A
great
question
and
I
think
that's
something
that
is
going
to
be
added
based
on
collaboration
with
the
community,
not
something
that
we'd
be
deciding
in
isolation.
There's
a
variety
of
things
to
look
at
specifically
their
context,
related
I
think
so
it
also
is
going
to
be,
depending
on
some
of
the
economic
analysis
that
we're
doing
again
making
sure
that
the
policy
we're
writing.
We
want
to
make
sure
that
what
we're
what
we're
writing
actually
gets
built.
The
city
needs
housing.
I
We
have
underutilized
parcels,
we
have
underutilized
infrastructure
in
terms
of
investments
in
in-ground,
piping,
transit
infrastructure.
We've
had
a
lot
of
good
wins
with
respect
to
our
transit
ridership,
but
if
we
want,
if
we
want
to
go
to
the
next
level,
we
have
to
look
at
how
we
densify
and
move
people
differently.
So
there's
all
different
types
of
considerations.
Context,
of
course,
is
important
as
well
too,
in
terms
of
what's
the
prevailing
scale
and
built
form
in
the
area.
Is
there
environmental
contamination
present
does
that
need
to
be
factored
into
our
decision-making?
H
I
You
through
you
as
I'd,
and
it
have
been
discussions
with
respect
to
the
National
Building
Code,
replacing
provincial
building
code-
that's
been
going
on
for
a
period
of
time.
Certainly
this
provincial
government
is
looking
at
it
and
they're
looking
at
different
ways
to
deregulate
the
building
industry
based
on
some
of
the
recommendations
that
have
come
forward.
I,
don't
know
specifically,
what's
gonna
happen
with
respect
to
that,
but
there
have
been
suggestions
even
by
as
early
as
2020
I,
don't
know
if
it
will
happen
with
the
National
Building
Code,
potentially
replacing
individual
provincial
building
codes.
I
There
are
greater
permissions
in
the
National
Building
Code
right
now,
with
respect
to
wood
frame.
Construction
BC
is
leading
the
way
with
respect
to
that
they
do
how
12
story,
wood
frame
buildings
that
are
basically
being
tested
in
that
province
and
whether
or
not
that
ends
up
rolling
out
across
the
country
is
uncertain
at
this
time,
but
we
are
expecting
within
the
next
couple
of
years.
Some
changes
to
come
down
the
pipeline,
based
on
the
information
we've
been
provided
to
date,
which.
I
I
J
That's
accurate,
but
I
would
also
add
that
tradition
or
experience
has
suggested
that
usually
one
province
shows
innovation.
It
goes
to
the
national
code
as
soon
as
it
goes
to
the
national
code
that,
with
the
other
provincial
codes,
follow
along,
so
it
can
sometimes
have
some
lag,
but
it
everything
I
can
think
of.
It's
happened
that
way.
L
Thank
you,
so
my
understanding
work
is
completed.
This
would
would
be
implemented
sort
of
in
advance
of
any
comprehensive
zoning
bylaw
that
we
ultimately
come
up
with,
or
the
Orient
advance
of
the
of
the
review
of
the
Official
Plan
and
the
sort
of
changes
to
it
that
would
be
maybe
becoming
within
the
next
five
years
or
so.
Is
that
correct?
Yes,.
I
That
is
correct.
The
intention
is
to
bring
Official
Plan
amendments
through
this
work
that
would
be
in
May
of
2020.
Our
next
comprehensive
review
of
the
official
plan
isn't
due
until
2023
so
work.
Pre
work
will
begin
on
that
in
2020
to
the
city's
comprehensive
zoning
bylaw
we're
just
finalizing
the
second
draft
of
that,
and
that
will
be
out
for
consultation
in
in
2020
as
well.
So
there
will
be
pieces
that
are
moving
along
simultaneously.
A
I'm
happy
to
hear
that
official
plan
and
the
comprehensive
zoning
plan
we've
gone
through
several
official
plan
amendments,
but
we
continue
to
have
zone
zoning
bylaws
that
are
20
and
30
years
old
and
with
all
due
respect
for
developers
and
planners
in
the
room
that
usually
means
that
a
certain
amount
of
cherry-picking
takes
place.
We're
told
this
fits
the
zoning,
so
we'd
like
to
do
this,
but
this
fits
the
Official
Plan.
So
we
would
like
you
to
allow
us
to
do
this,
so
we
desperately
need
a
comprehensive
zoning
bylaw.
A
The
four
people
who
wonder
interim
control
bylaws
are
very
very
seldom
done
and
in
my
15
years
as
a
councillor,
there's
only
been
one
other
occasion
and
the
nineties
that
I
remember
house
ever
doing
an
interim
Control
bylaw.
The
main
problem
that
people
were
concerned
about
in
Williamsville
was
across
the
street
a
fairly
narrow
street
print
Upper
Princess
Street.
There
was
the
distinct
possibility
that
you
would
have
two
ten
storey
buildings
facing
one
another
and
yet
and
suddenly
we'd
be
creating,
what's
called
a
canyoning
effect
or
a
wind
tunnel
kind
of
thing.
I
You
through
you,
so
we
did
do
the
review
of
the
work
specifically
with
that
being
one
of
the
concerns
that
was
identified
through
the
interim
Control
bylaw
discussion,
the
intention
of
having
a
locational
schedule
that
would
identify
locations
where
the
additional
tall
buildings
can
go
or
ten
story
building
maximum
within
the
Williamsville
corridor
is
to
specifically
address
that.
So
we
can
ensure
that
there's
proper
separation
of
taller
elements
of
buildings
and
that
there
there
is
space
to
prevent
that
canyoning
effect.
I
So
that
is
the
intention
of
the
schedule
and
also
identifying
what
we
mean
by
landmark.
The
document
right
now
refers
to
landmark,
there's
no
definition
associated
with
it
and
I
think
it
was
quite
unintentional
when
the
implementing
zoning
was
written
for
the
Williamsville
Main
Street
study,
it
didn't
anticipate
any
land
assembly.
So
it
thought
that
the
the
that
the
area
would
build
out
more
on
a
lot
by
lot
basis
and
what
happened
in
terms
of
the
market
and
interpreting
the
policy.
I
It
identified
that
if
you
bought
several
parcels
of
land
and
consolidated
them
into
one
you'd
be
able
to
get
the
lot
depth.
That's
needed
to
be
able
to
consider
a
taller
landmark
building
and
what
we're
trying
to
do
is
make
sure
that
we're
being
really
specific
about
undoing
those
pieces
that
are
there
and
replacing
them
with
tools
that
are
much
better
at
regulating
the
form.
A
I
That's
correct
the
the
c4
H
zone
is
what
applies
to
the
Williams
who
are
corridor.
What
it
does
allow,
as
of
right
currently,
is
four
to
six
storeys
in
certain
locations.
There
isn't
as
of
right,
10-story
zoning
anywhere.
So
that's
why
you've
seen
individual
site
specific
applications
for
the
ten
storey
buildings
that
have
come
through
so
as
part
of
moving
forward
when
these
amendments
are
made
individual
applications.
A
I
Correct
this
policy
won't
retro
actively
remove
any
entitlements
that
have
been
established
through
independent
application,
so
those
projects
that
have
been
approved
by
council
will
be
able
to
proceed
to
construction
there's
one
application
that
was
filed
prior
to
the
passing
of
the
interim
Control
bylaw
that
will
be
processed
under
the
existing
policies
that
were
in
effect
at
the
time
the
interim
Control
bylaw
was
filed
with
respect
to
the
official
plan
and
in
particular,
but
anything
that
knew
after
the
interim
Control
bylaw
is
lifted.
Subject
to
these
policy.
I
A
You
the
other
comment:
I
just
want
to
make
really
quickly
is
the
previous
ten
stories
have
all
come
in
at
full,
lock
coverage
and
the
main
complaint
I've
heard
from
the
community
is
how
the
lack
of
setback
has
pinched
the
pedestrian
way,
and
virtually
everybody
has
done
payment
in
lieu
of
park
lands.
So
part
of
the
plan
was
to
allow
for
some
green
space
along
the
corridor.
A
I
You
three
so
certainly
we
are
talking
about
appropriate
setbacks
from
property
again
looking
at
making
sure
that
there's
an
appropriate
public
realm
to
achieve
all
the
things
that
we
want
to
achieve
within
the
public
realm,
whether
it's
green
space,
whether
it's
street
furniture,
whether
it's
street
trees,
in
particular
as
the
development
of
the
locational
schedule.
We
will
also
be
going
back
to
look
at
the
the
high-level
strategy
that
was
put
in
place,
although
it
was
never
implemented
as
a
schedule
with
respect
to
urban
park.
I
L
You
just
so
I
might
have
this
wrong,
but
mine,
the
the
Official
Plan,
has
to
be
approved
by
the
province,
but
this
work
that
you're
doing
which
I
really
can
congratulate
you
on,
because
I
think,
I
and
I'm
sure
everybody
in
this
room
is
looking
forward
to
the
kind
of
clarity
that
it's
gonna
bring
to
this
process
right.
But
would
this
also
be
approved
by
the
province,
this
particular
component?
And
if
and
if
and
I
guess,
ultimately,
what
will
it
standing
be
in
front
of
a
tribunal?
Ultimately,
like?
L
I
The
intention
of
this
work
is
to
dalton
amendments
that
will
be
implemented
into
our
official
plan.
Council
is
the
decision-making
body.
These
are
smaller
amendments
compared
to
a
comprehensive
review,
which
is
what
we
just
went
through
with
respect
to
OPA
50
and
that's
really
when
the
province
starts
to
get
involved,
because
it's
a
comprehensive
plan
review.
There
are
appeal
rights,
of
course,
associated
with
any
type
of
amendment
for
official
plan
under
the
Planning
Act,
the
same
thing
with
zoning
bylaws
so
subject
to
council
feeling
confident
that
they
can
approve
them.
M
You
mister
you
just
looking
at
this
map.
I
just
wondered:
I
just
went
to
ask
some
questions
about
the
pink
large
site,
urbanizing
places,
so
you
have
like
the
cap
mall
area
on
there
right
now
so
and
also
Kingston
Center
area
as
as
pink.
So
is
that
assuming,
if
it's
no
longer
a
Plaza
like
a
shopping
mall
one
day,
that's
where
we
could
do
big
development
where
cuz
I
see
you
have
like
the
tannery
lands
on
there,
too,
as
pink
and
also
the
elk
and
property.
M
I
Again,
just
to
to
me,
this
map
isn't
about
allocating
density
or
height.
It's
talking
about
sub
context.
When
so,
when
it
looks
at
those
parcels,
it's
really
determining
what
type
of
policy
is
going
to
apply
to
it
in
terms
of
the
different
options
that
we've
considered
how
the
buildings
have
to
be
oriented.
That
said,
definitely
again
when
we
look
at
the
greenlight
strategy,
these
are
urban
areas
that
are
fully
serviced
but
have
underutilized
parcels
of
land
associated
with
them.
I
So
we
have
started
to
look
at
them
as
possibilities
to
to
take
some
additional
height
and
density
only
at
a
very
high
level.
Certainly
any
type
of
advancement
of
those
concepts
really
needs
to
involve
the
property
owners
themselves
be
given
where
they
are,
with
respect
to
transit,
walkability
other
amenities
that
are
there.
They
are
from
a
locational
perspective,
places
that
could
look
could
be
looked
at
in
terms
of
additional
density
beyond.
What's
there
now
thank.
M
J
J
That
kind
of
exercise
would
probably
be
in
the
context
of
a
similar
kind
of
exercise
to
the
tannery
site,
which
you're
very
familiar
with,
or
it
could
be
the
context
of
a
special
policy
area
or
something
like
that,
but
it
won't
be
designed
in
terms
of
its
height
etc
through
this
exercise,
because
it's
in
this
color,
so
the
best
way
I
can
explain
it
or
try
to
explain
it
again.
Counsel
is
the
purpose
of
these
areas
is
to
determine,
if
there's
different
approaches
to
building
design
in
different
areas.
J
The
only
reason
those
kinds
of
sites
are
shown
in
a
different
color
than
what
we've
called
street
oriented
urbanizing
places
is
because
they
are
large
enough
that
they
will
have.
We
anticipate
their
own
streets
like
the
tannery
site,
for
example,
and
the
question
is:
would
we
expect
that
the
buildings
would
orient
or
have
relationships
with
those
newly
created
streets
or
drive
aisles
that
kind
of
feel
like
a
street
different
than
what
we
would
expect
of
a
project
that
fronts
on
to
an
existing
street
right
now?
J
I'm,
actually
not
sure
if
we
would
have
a
different
approach,
but
given
there's
the
possibility,
we
might
we
put
them
into
a
preliminary
into
a
separate
category
at
the
end
of
the
day,
when
we
actually
look
at
how
we
would
apply
the
rules
if
they're,
basically
the
same
thing,
those
two
would
get
merged
into
one
category.
But
right
now
we
wanted
to
remind
ourselves
moving
forward
that
we
might
treat
things
differently
when
the
site
is
large
enough
to
have
its
own
road
network
or
street
network
rather
than
frontage
on
to
an
existing
street.
A
K
Huge
by
creating
this
map
have
we
not
inadvertently
created
a
situation
where
land
acquisition
can
occur
and
because
the
property
value
would
really
be
in
the
permitted
density
of
zones,
so
we're
basically
are
creating
a
market
here
of
property,
that's
more
valuable
than
others.
Is
that
not
a
risk
at
play
here
to.
J
You,
mr.
chair,
only
if
potential
purchasers
and
developers
misinterpret
what
this
map
is,
which
is
why
we're
trying
to
clarify
it
so
quickly
and
ironically,
if
they
made
businesses
ins
based
on
that
they
probably
would
have
moved
too
fast.
That's
why
we're
trying
to
make
sure
everybody
understands
what
this
does?
It
does
not
grant
in
any
way
different
land
use
approvals
than
in
your
existing
Official
Plan.
J
What
it
actually
does
is
established
the
design
expectations
that
would
be
required
so
assuming
it
would,
and
nowhere
in
this
document
just
to
be
clear,
I
regret
the
way
the
base
that
was
used
for
this
map,
but
there's
nothing
in
the
text
of
this
document.
That
suggests
in
any
way
that
this
document
does
what
some
have
interpreted.
The
problem
has
just
been
that
they've
just
looked
at
it
without
going
to
the
page
that
it
specifically
references
and
reading
what
it
actually
means.
A
Right,
thank
you.
Seeing
no
further
questions
from
the
committee
I'll
now
open
it
up
to
the
public.
There's
a
speaker
and
I
will
read
the
names
out,
there's
a
microphone
here
and
you
can
grab
any
microphone
available
on
this
side.
Everybody
has
five
minutes.
I
would
strongly
suggest
that
you
give
they.
You
need
to
give
your
name
and
your
address,
and
so
we
will
begin
with
make
it
not.
N
Thank
you.
So
my
name
is
Megan
and
I'm.
Executive
director
of
tourism
Kingston,
as
well
as
Kingston
accommodation,
partners
and
I,
know
I've
been
here
a
few
times
to
talk
to
you
about
specific
items
today,
no
different,
so
I
did
I
just
wanted
to
speak
to
the
fact
that,
when
dealing
with
our
current
board
and
our
current
committees
and
reading
the
density
by
design
report,
we
did
identify
many
parallels
as
it
relates
to
the
integrated
destination
strategy.
N
So
I
just
wanted
to
speak
in
support
of
that,
as
well
as
the
fact
that,
as
we
know,
tourism
is
a
key
economic
driver
within
the
city
in
2018,
specifically,
550
million
dollars
was
accrued
as
tourism
spent
in
our
city
year-to-date
today,
with
our
research
strategy,
all
encompassing
we're
at
four
hundred
and
seventy
nine
million.
So
tourism
is
a
very
important
I,
think
entity
and
fabric
of
our
community,
and
how
that
relates
to
what
the
topic
of
tonight
is.
N
Is
that
vibrant,
prosperous
downtown's
in
Kingston
a
really
vital
vital
for
our
tourism
economy
and
more
and
more
our
tourists,
as
we
know,
through
research,
look
to
seek
authentic
experiences
and
that's
that
they
come
into
our
community
and
they
don't
have
a
specific
plan.
They
really
just
want
to
walk
and
enjoy
what
Kingstonian
is
enjoy,
that
they
don't
come
for
a
specific
plan.
They
just
want
to
experience
our
coffee
shops.
N
They
want
experience
our
retail,
they
want
experience
our
restaurants,
but
they
want
to
do
that
in
a
very
dense
and
safe
environment,
so
that
they're
not
I'm,
spread
about
in
terms
of
the
travel
distance
in
time
that
it
takes
them
to
do
these
experiences
that
they
interact
and
live
like
locals,
live,
and
so
you
know
at
in
our
research.
We
know
the
economic
development
dovetails
nicely
and
with
tourism
in
the
fact
that
a
good
place
to
visit
is
a
good
place
to
live,
and
so
we're
always
looking
to
make
sure
that
tourists
live.
N
That
sort
of
authentic,
true
experience
in
Kingston,
so
that
potentially
in
future,
they
would
come
and
be
a
resident
of
Kingston
and
work
in
our
economy
and
enjoy
the
things
that
we
do
as
Kingstonian
they're
our
research.
We
also
know
specifically
the
surveys
that
we're
deploying
across
the
city
that
retail
restaurants,
galleries,
sightseeing
attractions
and
others
are
kind
of
the
real
points
of
consideration
when
tourists
come
into
Kingston
and
so
that
these
types
of
experiences
have
to
be
close
together
and
intensification
really
does
that.
N
It
does
provide
support
that
we
need
not
only
for
offering
these
types
of
services,
but
also
that
in
times
where
tourism
isn't
peak
within
our
city,
that
residents
can
support
these
types
of
experiences
so
that
people
that
offer
these
types
of
restaurants
or
retail.
They
see
customers
coming
through
the
door
in
non
peak
times
such
as
you
know,
February
March.
We
know
I
identify
that
we
need
more
winter
product.
But
in
lieu
of
that
that
there
is
people
that
support
these
types
of
economic
generating
points
that
we
need
to
then
offer
to
tourism.
N
People
tourists
all
year
round
ecotourism.
As
we
know,
climate
emergency
here
in
the
city
tours
are
savvy
and
they
know
that
the
less
economic,
the
less
eco
footprint,
that
they
have,
the
green
traveler
as
you
will
it's
important
to
them,
and
so
they
want
to
come
into
the
city.
They
want
to
come
in
as
eco-friendly
as
possible,
and
then
they
want
to
experience
our
city
as
eco-friendly
as
possible
and
so
being
able
to
do
that
in
a
safe
pedestrian
friendly
kind
of
different
than
what
am
I
trying
to
say.
N
I'm
safe
spot
is
essentially,
you
know,
part
of
our
unique
selling
proposition
so
that
you
know
tourists
don't
want
to
displace
and
travel
once
they've
traveled
here
they
want
to
travel
by
foot
well
30
seconds
and
that
our
our
brand
really
is,
as
we've
presented
many
times,
that
council
old
versus
new
and
so
that
we
do
have
an
architecture
within
the
city.
That's
unique!
That's
why
people
come
and
visit!
That's
why
they
take
pictures,
that's
why
they
enjoy
it,
and
so
our
brand
is
old
versus
new
and
there
really
is
a
tourist.
Add
mermaid.
N
G
G
Reading
reading
the
document,
a
very
important
paragraph
struck
me
in
the
section
on
density
in
the
right
locations
offering
two
possible
scenarios
where
densification
anywhere
is
won
and
densification
in
the
right
places
is,
is
the
second
the
paragraph
says
when
tall
buildings
and
associated
high
density
are
placed
in
well-connected,
mixed-use
locations
well,
serviced
by
attractive,
frequent
and
well-connected
public
transit
service
and
walking
and
biking
infrastructure.
In
addition
to
the
general
benefits
of
density
discussed
in
the
previous
scenario,
which
was
the
density
anywhere,
other
significant
public
benefits
are
achieved
and
problems
are
avoided.
G
Market
interest
is
not
eroded
by
too
much
housing
supply
in
problematic
locations
without
a
planned
function,
and
it
goes
on
and
and
in
summary,
with
what
it
means
to
me
that
to
maximize
the
benefits
to
this
community,
both
environmental,
social,
health
and
wellness
and
economic
you've
got
to
put
density
in
full
service
commercial
zones.
There's
got
to
be
groceries,
there's
got
to
be
retail,
there's
got
to
be
personal
services.
You
need
to
be
able
to
walk
to
a
supermarket
a
specialty
food
store.
G
Your
doctor,
your
dentist,
all
the
professional
services,
all
the
personal
services,
your
third
place,
your
home,
your
work
and
your
special
place,
whether
it's
a
coffee
shop,
your
physio,
your
yoga
salon
or
your
pub-
have
to
be
in
walking
distance
from
proximity
to
one
another.
If
you
can't
enjoy
a
really
Pleasant
enjoyable,
walk
of
seven
to
nine
minutes
to
buy
your
groceries,
you
get
in
your
car
and
in
this
town.
That
means
in
15
minutes.
You
can
be
anywhere
you
want.
G
It
also
has
to
be
in
the
primary
employment
district
and
in
this
city
that
is
along
the
waterfront
CFP
Kingston
Fort
Henry,
our
MC
downtown
and
the
600
businesses
there,
kgh
Queens,
st.
Lawrence,
ecology,
in
fact,
a
2.5
kilometre
radius
around
the
intersection,
which
is
the
center
of
downtown
baguette
and
Princess
results
in
over
35,000
jobs,
so
way
more
than
50%
in
the
entire
region.
G
If
you're
not
located
there
you're
just
creating
commutes
from
a
larger
taller
building
you're,
not
cutting
greenhouse
gas
emissions,
it
has
to
be
in
the
major
transportation
hub.
Public
transit
central
is
downtown,
Kingston
and
biking
and
walking
and
the
walking
is
not
just
a
distance.
It's
the
nature
of
the
walk.
A
twelve
minute
walk
along
gardener's
road
is
just
transporting
yourself.
It
is
not
enjoyable,
it
is
not
something
you
can
do.
Pedestrian
counts
in
different
parts
of
the
city,
and
you
won't.
G
You
won't
find
any
that
approach,
the
princess,
Street,
baguette
and
princess
so
high
walkability
scores.
It's
got
to
be
fun.
It's
got
to
be
surprising,
Pleasant
interesting,
a
place
that
already
has
high
pedestrian
counts,
really
slow-moving
vehicle
traffic
princess
street
is
just
dropping
under
30k
on
average
on
a
daily
basis,
narrow
streets,
wide
sauk
sidewalks,
a
huge
number
of
intersections
per
acre
and
cafe
cafes,
boutiques,
pubs
and
patios,
so
to
maximize
the
benefits:
full
service,
commercial
zones,
primary
employment,
district
transportation,
hub
and
walkability.
Thank
you.
O
My
name
is
Ken
dancer.
The
development
manager
for
Caraco
Development
Corporation
Caraco
is
a
family-owned
local
Kingston
company
that
builds
almost
exclusively
inside
the
urban
growth
boundary.
We
build
low,
medium
and
high
rise
buildings,
so
we're
directly
affected
by
many
issues
within
the
the
report.
As
you
see
it
or
the
policy.
As
you
see
it,.
O
There
are
many
factors,
including
demographics
types
of
occupancy,
all
kinds
of
things
that
I
think
requires
study,
and
in
order
for
you
to
rely
upon
fixing
something
you
have
to
have
proper
information.
Further
research
is
required.
It
defaults
to
600
in
some
units
to
get
to
3%
vacancy.
There
is
pent
up
need,
which
is
actually
in
the
document
and
I.
Think
that
requires
further
study.
O
Public
demand
actually
includes
a
desire
for
our
car,
which
is
required
by
zoning.
So
that's
an
issue
that
is
compared
in
the
document
to
being
car
centered
and
not
environmental,
but
it's
actually
part
of
market
demands
so
for
variety.
The
public
is
going
to
ask
for
both
suburban
developments
could
not
be
transplanted
and
parked
downtown
and
have
the
same
yield.
It's
not
possible
tighter
sites,
different
restrictions
and,
of
course,
this
guiding
document.
O
So
if
one
were
to
preclude
suburban
high-rises,
you
would
not
see
the
same
number
of
Suites
created
in
a
downtown
scenario:
the
average
age
and
the
demographics
of
these
types
of
developments.
If
you
were
to
pull
the
different
developers,
you'd
find
that
they're
significantly
higher
than
the
average
age.
If
the
community
has
a
greater
whole.
O
There's
two
quotes
in
here
about
financial
feasibility
and
there
is
a
report
that
is
in
process,
but
the
assumptions
that
are
made
in
this
policy
actually
rely
on.
These
two
quotes
that
a
mid-rise
can
be
a
change,
challenging
feasibility,
which
is
a
correct
statement,
design
policies
shouldn't
add
significantly
or
unreasonably
concern
reasonably
construction
costs
and
housing
cost
levels
without
demonstrably
and
justifiably
public
interest
advantages.
So
there's
guidance
in
the
document
that
has
advantages.
There
is
cost
implications
to
almost
all
of
them.
O
O
O
Don't
move
too
quickly,
basically,
as
the
ending
statement
there,
you
do
have
time
within
2020
to
make
sure
you're
making
smart
choices
and
not
inadvertently
causing
development
to
not
occur.
You
do
want
development
to
occur
in
the
smart
way,
building
height,
so
two
quotes
they're
taller
buildings
can
be
more
financially
efficient
or
affordable.
True
statement
and
depending
on
height
some
costs
are
fixed
land,
elevators,
etc.
That's
a
very
true
statement
and
is
a
basic
factor
of
any
development
feasibility
study.
O
It's
important
to
recommend
that
an
economic
analysis
will
be
conducted
in
order
to
determine
the
permitted
nine-story
building
approach
is
viable
with
or
with
their
variables
as
step
backward
prior
requirements
above
the
fixed
floor
or
angular
plane
requirements.
So
if,
in
the
previous
statement
a
couple
pages
ago,
some
buildings
are
unfeasible,
you
don't
want
to
develop
a
report
that
limits
at
that
level,
because
if
a
project
is
not
feasible
at,
for
example,
9
storeys,
then
you
then
you
will
not
see
development,
which
is
not
the
impact
that
you
want.
O
If
I
can
skip
to
the
a
and
the
B
there,
affordability
and
the
need
to
create
supply.
From
my
perspective
of
what
I've
heard
from
counsel,
there
is
a
need
to
promote
affordability,
which
I
would
call
a
variety
of
units
there's
going
to
be
creation
of
luxury
units.
There
needs
to
be
a
creation
of
affordable
units
as
well.
So
you
need
variety
and
you
need
Suites,
you
need
you
need
suite
count
as
well
as
okay.
Thank
you.
O
P
Good
evening,
thanks
for
giving
me
the
opportunity
to
speak
to
you
today
about
this,
we're
happy
at
homestead
to
see
that
the
city
of
kingston
is
looking
at
bringing
forward
policies
to
support
multifamily
development
and
bring
some
clarity
to
that.
However,
I
want
to
talk
to
you
today
and
address
some
potential
concerns
that
we
have
with
the
options
and
issues
discussion
and
some
of
the
conclusions
that
are
drawn
for
it
from
it.
P
First
and
foremost,
we
were
dismayed
to
read
in
the
report
that
the
city
feels
that
this
is
a
short-term
housing
crisis
that
we're
in
I
think
you
hear
this
number
six
hundred
and
forty
five
units
thrown
around
quite
a
bit
to
bring
the
city
to
a
three
percent
vacancy
rate
I'd
like
to
make
that
clear.
If
you
go
into
the
Watson
&
Associates
population
in
projection
report
that
was
presented
in
March,
2000
or
May
2019,
that
assumes
that
demand
stays
constant.
That
is
a
one-time
percentage
calculation
and
the
issue
is,
is,
as
mr.
P
dancer
talked
to
go
from.
Caraco
demand
has
not
remained
constant.
We
know
that
if
you
look
at
the
population
of
Kingston,
it
is
aging
within
that,
obviously
we're
getting
more
seniors
seniors
have
a
propensity
for
for
multifamily
housing.
So
that's
increasing.
We've
got
student
enrollment
increasing
at
st.
Lawrence
College
at
Queen's
at
very
high
rates.
That
was
in
that
report.
That's
obviously
driving
demand,
as
those
groups
look
for
multi-family
housing
and
also
Kingston
is
obviously
a
very
real
part
for
the
retirement
destination.
P
P
So
there
has
to
be
an
understanding
that,
as
you
drive
up
construction
costs
or
make
construction
more
affordable,
obviously,
subsequently
it's
going
to
become
more
affordable
for
the
end
user
as
a
yield
needs
to
be
obtained,
as
I
mentioned
earlier,
I
was
happy
to
hear
that
economic
modeling
is
going
to
be
done
because
I
think
it's
very
important
that
economic
modeling
drive
the
policies
and
procedures
that
are
going
to
come
out
of
this
very,
very
important
study.
It's
gonna
have
far-reaching
implications.
P
One
of
the
things
that
I
am
concerned
about,
though,
is
is
obviously
members
of
the
public,
being
development,
community
stakeholders
and,
and
just
members
of
the
general
public,
we're
only
allowed
until
the
end
of
December
to
provide
comments.
But
if
you
look
in
the
report,
there's
many
things
in
here
that
that
rely
and
are
influenced
by
the
economic
modeling.
So
in
the
sake
of
transparency
and
in
the
sake
of
being
able
to
make
informed
comments,
I
think
it
is
irresponsible
to
be
asking
for
us
to
provide
comments
by
the
end
of
December.
P
The
other
thing
that
that
I
would
like
to
see
is
obviously
comparisons
to
other
cities.
You
know
in
in
in
the
report.
They
talk
about
best
practices.
You
know
what
other
cities
are
doing.
I
think
it's
important
to
see
that,
because
at
Homestead
we
do
have
experienced
in
those
cities
we
build
in
Toronto
we
build
in
Ottawa
and
I
do
know.
You
know
in
the
report.
It
talks
about
a
best
practice
being
seven
hundred
square
meter
floor
plates,
both
the
city
of
Toronto,
both
the
City
of
Ottawa
I
use,
750
square
meter
floor
plates.
P
Those
are
cities
with
a
lot
of
experience
in
high-rise
development,
so
I
think
we
need
to
be
careful
to
ensure
that
we
can
see
right
across
the
the
broad
array
of
what
other
cities
are
doing.
In
conclusion,
I
think
an
I
think.
Studies
like
this
are
very
important.
I'm
excited
to
see
that
economic
modeling
is
being
done
to
see
what
the
feasibility
of
development
is.
P
I
think
we
just
need
to
make
sure
that
we're
putting
policies
in
place
that
are
supporting
multifamily
housing
because
to
go
back
to
what
I
started
with
we
are
in
a
housing
crisis
in
the
foreseeable
future.
We
are
going
to
continue
to
be
in
this
housing
crisis,
as
is
obviously
demand
for
this
type
of
housing
increases.
Thank
you.
Q
Q
One
of
the
things
we
do
kind
of
think
about
is
the
you
know,
where's
the
perspective
line
on
buildings
is
it:
is
it
focused
on
the
passerby,
the
people
that
are
walking
on
the
street,
that
see
a
building
for
a
few
minutes
or
is
it
the
people
actually
live
in
the
building's?
For
you
know,
8
10,
12
hours
per
day
and
kind
of
the
square
footage
that
they
need
to
live
in.
Q
We
do
applaud
the
members
of
Council
for
promoting
or
I
guess,
encouraging
wood
construction.
We
do
recognize
that
as
a
positive
for
green
house
gas
emissions,
it's
a
durable,
affordable,
renewable
resource,
one
of
the
projects
that
we
looked
at
that
we're
looking
at
right.
Now,
it's
it's
a
it's
a
large
project
and
and
the
numbers
that
we
got
from
The
Canadian
wood
Council,
is
that
you
grow
the
grow,
those
trees
back
in
60
seconds
in
Canada.
So
that
gives
you
a
perspective
on
kind
of
what
you're
working
with
on
renewable
resource
side
of
things.
Q
The
other
things
that
and
some
of
the
work
I
think
Brandt
had
had
meant
touched
on
that
it's
kind
of
bleeding
edge
or
new
new
work,
and
it's
it's
above
the
standard.
I
guess
you
always
have
to
be
conscious
of
unintended
consequences
that
can
happen
if
you're
doing
work,
that's
maybe
not
been
tested
before
some
of
the
things
there's
this,
like
smaller
foot,
plates
or
floor
plates
on
buildings.
Q
Q
The
other
thing
is
bike
parking
and
above
great
parking
above
great
parking
in
suburban
areas.
We
typically
would
like
to
continue
that
and
bike
parking
we're
seeing
ratios
of
1
to
1
I
was
not
a
big
topic
in
this,
but
we're
seeing
that
that's
not
an
actual
usage
in
in
buildings
right
now,
a
one-to-one
bike
parking,
so
there
could
be
options
for
working
on
that
and
the
other
thing
is
the
actual
speed
for
zoning
approvals
and
permitting,
though
there's
a
crucial
element
to
most
developers,
and
the
other
last
thing
I
want
to
note.
Q
Excuse
me,
the
premise
of
the
report
is
on
climate
change
and
taking
steps
to
you
know
to
be
better
with
that
and
and
that
I
applaud
Council
for
for
doing
that,
and
that's
it's
a
really
tough
one.
It's
a
super
tough
one.
It
does
rely
on
transport
and
buildings,
but
we
didn't
really
see
much
of
that
in
the
report.
It
did
comment
on
a
little
bit,
but
it
didn't
didn't
kind
of
dig
into
the
details
of
like
the
house
is
really
gonna.
How
are
these
policies
going
to
impact
greenhouse
gas
emissions?
Q
It
doesn't
kind
of
get
into
the
x1
thing.
You
can
say
that
you're
gonna
have
less
cars,
but
all
cars
are
probably
gonna
be
electric
in
10-15
years,
so
you
can't
I
mean
again.
An
unintended
consequence
is
all
out
of
every
automotive
company
in
the
world
is
going
to
produce
electric
cars
and
and
not
internal
combustion
cars
in
the
future.
So
so
thank
you
is
a
good
report
and
we
appreciate
a
lot
in
the
comments.
Q
R
Hello,
yes,
Meredith,
McDonald
and
I'm.
The
current
chair
of
the
sinem
district
association
I
appreciate
you
planners
for
coming
forward
and
doing
this
policy,
and
we
have
some
comments
regarding
this
inform
residents
and
some
district
association
members
and
the
leadership
have
been
involved
and
supportive
of
the
city's
direction
in
the
last
five
to
six
years
to
update
planning
and
zoning
bylaws.
That
are
desperately
needing
to
be
done.
We
absolutely
support
the
intent
of
the
materials
in
this
policy
report
and
the
direction
of
mid-rise
and
tall
building
issues
in
this.
R
We
also
really
appreciate
the
opportunity
to
both
have
had
the
meetings
and
the
stakeholder
meetings
have
this
opportunity
to
talk
to
you
about
some
of
our
concerns
that
are
still
there
and
have
continued
feedback
in
the
next
months.
Regarding
this,
so
our
question
basically
was:
why
do
we
need
this
policy?
And
it
really
is
truly
because
we're
trying
to
preserve
the
livability
and
some
of
the
character
of
the
city
and
what
brings
us
all
to
come
to
downtown
much
like
they
were
saying
for
tourism,
mid-rise
and
large
scale.
R
Buildings
must
be
in
well
placed
and
well
designed
with
human
environment.
In
mind
to
be
successful,
it's
important
that
we
we
need
more
housing.
We
understand
that,
but
we
need
more
housing
for
all,
so
accessible
housing,
affordable,
housing,
central
housing
to
where
most
of
us
work
and
also
housing
for
the
part,
turn
apparently
part-time
residents
that
are
attending
Queens
and
Saint.
R
It's
really
important
that
we
do
this
policy
correctly.
The
character
and
the
heritage
aspect
of
our
city
is
what
makes
our
city
great
and
with
careful
planning,
to
make
sure
that
this
heritage
and
the
character
of
the
new
versus
old
is
not
law
lost
with
new
large
scale,
growth
and
development
that
doesn't
promote
pedestrians,
walking
to
work
biking
to
work
or
actually
being
able
to
spend
time
outdoors
when
it
is
nice
is
going
to
have
a
negative
impact
on
the
feel
of
our
city.
R
Well,
designed
appropriately
scaled
and
thought
police
cited.
Buildings
will
make
our
city
more
beautiful,
while
poorly
planned
and
poorly
designed
large-scale
buildings
that
loom
large
and
the
skyline
flatten
the
pedestrian
experience
and
make
a
shaker
heads
in
the
future,
and
why
something
like
this
was
built
is
why
this
policy
is
coming.
I
think
it
is
important
that
we
look
at
the
financial
impact
on
the
developers
and
also
in
the
neighborhoods
as
well.
R
We
are
conscious
that
there
are
certain
areas,
this
map
that
seem
like
they
don't
fit
and
are
not
suitable
for
made
to
high-rise
and
I
think
we
need
to
delve
more
into
that
as
well.
We've
got
concerns
that
the
recently
proposed
green
lit
areas-
some
are,
we
think,
better
than
others
for
actually
doing
high-rise
in
mid
rise,
so
I
just
want
to
make
sure
you
don't
miss
anything
in
all
my
slides,
these
slides
will
come
out
to
you
guys
as
well.
We
really
want
to
increase
the
egg
to
active
transportation
and
walkability
of
our
city.
R
One
of
the
reasons
most
of
us
choose
to
live
in
Sydenham
is
not
to
have
smaller.
You
know,
houses
and
smaller
properties,
but
is
to
be
able
to
have
the
walkability
and
livability,
and
so
we
just
need
to
make
sure
that
we
can
actually
preserve
that
and
promote
that.
We
think
that
old
meets
new
and
mixed-use
infill
will
improve
our
city,
and
thus
this
policy
can
really
help
guide
the
proper
infill
and
development
for
the
future.
R
We
do
not,
however,
agree
that
the
policy
should
not
affect
the
design
of
four
to
six
story.
Buildings
that
possibly
are
wood,
constructed,
I,
think
the
policy
should
actually
be
expanded
so
that
it
can
actually
have
a
design
impact
for
those
those
smaller
mid-rise
buildings
that
will
increase
density.
We
are
looking
forward
to
continuing
to
work
with
our
Planning
Department
and
the
city
in
this
initiative
to
make
Kingston
a
better
place.
R
Lastly,
we
don't
want
the
conversation
of
where
to
and
where
not
to
to
overshadow
the
important
of
how
to
actually
design
these
buildings
is
I.
Think
we
are
looking
for
in
this
policy.
We
want
to
have
people,
have
a
better
living
experience
and
be
more
central
and
have
a
shorter
commute
time
and
again
have
more
active
transportation.
R
S
So,
thank
you,
members
of
council
and
staff
for
presentation
and
questions
as
as
stated
I'm
here
on
behalf
of
the
Kingston
Home
Builders
Association
I'm,
the
homebuilders,
for
those
of
you
don't
know,
is
a
group
of
approximately
200
Builders
trades
people,
consultants
who
have
been
building
homes
and
involvement
home
building
in
the
Kingston
community
for
over
50
years.
They
represent
all
forms
of
of
home
building
from
single-family
homes
up
to
apartments.
S
So
we
had
the
opportunity
to
meet
with
staff
who
presented
the
report
to
us
findings
of
the
report
to
us
on
Tuesday
and
we've
also
the
chance
to
review
and
provide
some
initial
feedback,
and
so
the
the
comments
prepared
tonight
are
collaboration
of
feedback
from
the
members
based
on
the
review
to
date.
So
we
initial
impressions
in
terms
of
positive
takeaways.
S
We
believe
these
policies
are
important
to
the
city
to
provide
certainty
for
both
the
public,
as
well
as
to
development,
community
and
home
builders.
It's
important
piece
in
the
updating
and
modernization
of
the
zoning
bylaw,
and
it's
also,
as
has
been
said
already,
it
considers
the
economic
feasibility
of
the
recommendations
which
is
important
to
document
such
as
this.
Some
of
our
key
concerns,
as
was
spoken
to
already,
the
economic
analysis,
needs
to
be
fully
vetted
before
drafting
the
policies.
S
Money
of
the
items
that
were
considered
will
increase
the
cost
of
housing
and
houses,
respond
to
housing
shortages
and
housing,
affordability
in
the
community
that
should
be
considered
as
well.
It's
a
very
substantive
document
that,
although
there
have
been
in
conversations
with
developers
with
the
community
over
a
number
of
years
on
this
topic,
there
is
concern
about
certain
directions
being
predetermined
at
this
point,
given
the
detail
of
some
of
the
analysis
and
some
of
the
recommendations
are
coming
out
of
it.
S
We
also
noted
that
the
report
uses
some
phrases
like
strong
public
feedback
in
development,
some
of
these
policies,
but
it's
not
clear
how
unassociated
general
public
input
was
obtained
to
date,
I'm
looking
around
the
room
and
being
involved
in
these
types
of
things.
A
lot
of
the
people
who
come
out
to
these
people
who
provide
input
are
we
call
them
the
usual
parties.
Special
interest
groups,
including
groups
like
the
homebuilders,
and
a
policy
like
this,
will
have
far-reaching
impact
on
the
public
in
terms
of
availability
of
housing
for
them
and
the
affordability
of
housing.
S
So
the
city
should
make
an
extra
effort,
I
guess
in
this
case,
to
look
at
how
to
reach
out
to
these
non
special
interest.
Members
of
the
public
as
well.
There
is
some
concern
about
the
phrase
that
referred
to
potential
use
of
an
interim
control
by
law.
Again
to
forestall
developments
should
there
be
appeals
of
any
policies
are
implemented.
We're
concerned.
This
would
have
a
detrimental
impact
on
housing
supply
in
the
city
and
also
that
it
might
be
an
inappropriate
use
of
an
interim
control
by
law.
S
There
are
also
unknown
impacts
about
prioritization
of
wood
frame
construction.
There
are
limitations
on
what
that
form
of
construction
can
do.
There's
also
limitation
in
the
density
that
can
be
provided
and,
as
many
of
you
are
aware,
there's
a
great
strain
on
trades
in
the
community,
including
wood
frame
or
framing
trades.
So
there's
a
push
towards
wood
frame
construction.
What
impact
would
that
have
on
other
types
of
construction
in
the
community
I'm,
including
ground,
oriented
housing
that
relies
on
those
types
of
trades?
S
So
some
of
our
early
suggestions,
based
on
our
view
over
the
past
old
days,
one
is
to
revisit
the
decision
to
first
study
of
parking
requirements
and
building
design
is
an
integral
parts
or
parking
in
the
building.
Design
is
an
integral
part
of
what
makes
a
building
work,
including
the
cost
and
how
it
will
function.
We're
also
encouraging
the
city
to
seek
meaningful
input
on
a
broad
spectrum
in
the
community.
A
T
Thank
You
mr.
chair
for
honey,
v,
Alfred
apartment
to
location
and
K
44,
so
I'm,
not
here
on
behalf
of
any
organization,
just
a
regular
resident
of
the
city,
so
I'm
going
to
start
by
praising
the
report
and
the
presentation
tonight
and
the
questions
from
the
committee,
as
well
as
the
president
presentations
from
speakers
so
far,
I
think
the
work
is
timely,
sophisticated
innovative
and
vitally
important.
So
it's
impressive
that
Kingston
is
taking
a
pioneering
approach,
since
we
take
pride
in
being
an
innovative
city
with
a
model
of
where
history
and
an
innovation
thrive.
T
T
This
is
some
very
tall
buildings
that
have
been
proposed
on
that
site,
which
is
a
heritage
zone
and,
as
we
have
seen
in
a
tourist
attraction.
So
this
is
groundbreaking
futurism
at
work
in
our
city
and
we
have
usually
seen
piecemeal,
Sol,
wise,
fragmented
and
multiple
neighborhood
related
considerations
so
far,
so
the
integration
of
all
these
aspects
together,
careful
for
considered
usually
separately,
that's
a
major
step
forward.
That's
really
really
tremendous
to
see
my
highest
praise
to
that
level
of
thinking.
T
A
A
F
Thank
You
mr.
chair
members
of
council
staff
residents
of
our
great
city
of
kingston
that
are
here
tonight.
My
name
is
Paul
Martin
I'm,
a
member
of
the
Kingston
Home
Builders
Association,
and
also
a
housing
provider,
I'm
excited
and
delighted
to
hear
that
we
all
want
to
work
together.
To
put
this
policy
in
place.
F
F
F
F
The
Ontario
accessibility
for
disability
act:
do
you
know
what
that
cost
has
put
in
to
homes
and
affordability
of
homes?
It's
huge
is
it
important
I
believe
it
is,
and
we
will
work
together
through
that
to
accommodate
those
things
our
fire
code
constantly
changing
when
we
were
building
apartments
as
an
example,
we
used
to
never
put
sprinklers
in
well
now
it's
a
necessity,
well
that
added
an
extra
five
hundred
thousand
dollars
into
a
ten
story.
F
A
C
Thank
you
for
thank
you
for
the
report.
Thank
you
for
allowing
me
to
speak.
I
wasn't
intending
to
speak,
but
some
of
the
comments
that
were
made
prompted
me
to
speak.
First
of
all,
the
number
of
people
addressing
the
meeting
who
were
from
the
visit
building
community
and
development
community
and
some
of
them
who
to
meet
I,
felt,
demeaned
or
or
the
the
contribution
of
the
associated
people
worried
me.
C
The
judge
did
speak,
who
preferred
who
preceded
me
just
immediately.
I
appreciated
what
he
said.
I
have
comfortable
with
his
presentation.
I
agree
with
what
with
much
of
what
he
said,
the
needs
of
the
development
of
the
trades
and
the
needs
of
the
people
doing
the
building
need
to
be
taken
to
account.
C
However,
there's
another
vision
or
another
perspective:
the
developers
have
a
very
immediate
kind
of
perspective,
mostly
because
they
have
to
make
a
profit
and
they
have
to
and
what
level
of
profit
becomes
their
more
basic
maker
as
much
as
lots
of
profit
as
possible
and
that's
reasonable
in
our
society.
So
those
of
us
who
are
owners
who
are
associated
often
spend
a
lot
of
time.
C
Looking
at
the
issues,
we
spend
a
lot
of
time,
reading
the
literature
and
reading
the
reports,
and
we
are
in
touch
with
our
communities
polyols
and
we
often
are
bringing
a
longer-term
of
the
city.
So
there's
a
strain
I
want
to
give
you
an
example
of
that
strain
I'll
be
trying
to
make
it
short
the
sense
of
how
important
it
is
to
defend
the
central
bit.
C
So
I
said
that
because
I
recognize
that,
but
I
do
think
that
there
are
many
development
opportunities
outs
that
are
the
border
I'm.
Thank
you,
I'm
almost
done
on
the
border
of
the
district
and
and
don't
have
to
be
right
in
the
center
of
this
because
and
my
work
on
Kings
Court
area,
where
I
made
submissions
I
pointed
out
a
large
number
of
locations
where
there
was
land
that
and
and
places
where
we
could
have
higher
density.
So
we
we
can
address
this
problem.
C
A
I
D
You
mr.
chair,
through
you,
Myrna
I'm
gonna,
put
you
on
the
spot.
If
you
don't
mind,
we've
heard
tonight
from
a
number
of
developers
in
our
community
that
should
certain
proposals
in
this
document
or
some
form
of
them.
When
the
document
is
completed,
be
advanced,
they
will
effectively
pass
down
the
costs
of
making
those
changes
to
tenants,
I'm
wondering
in
your
experience
across
the
world.
If
there
are
any
jurisdictions
which
have
mechanisms
that
prevent
that
downloading
to
tenants
from
developers
when
cities
ask
for
better
buildings
and
again
apologies
for
putting
you
on
the
squad.
J
Through
you,
mr.
chair
I,
want
to
be
careful
not
to
over
overstate
this,
because
circumstances
are
never
the
same
in
two
different
places,
but
generally
what
we
find
in
City
after
City
is
that,
when
expectations
change,
there
is
an
initial,
usually
an
initial
impact,
on
viability
of
projects
depending
on
when
property
was
purchased.
J
When
various
conditions
of
the
economic
situation
are
locked
in
place
and
there's
a
certain
period
where,
where
people
may
be
caught
in
the
middle
of
that
transaction,
and
that's
it's
sort
of
inevitable
and
municipalities
can
can
buffer
it
if
they,
if
they
feel
the
need
to.
But
it's
kind
of
like
how
anytime
the
rules
change.
There
are
certain
people
that
are
going
to
be
affected
by
it
over
the
long
term.
J
If
you
provide
clarity
and
that's
the
most
important
thing
about
what
is
allowed
and
not
allowed
over
the
longer
term,
the
the
the
costs
associated
with
the
new
requirements.
In
my
experience
in
the
experience
of
experts
who
I've
worked
with
over
my
career,
who
are
much
smarter
than
me
at
this-
show
that
it
does
not
get
passed
on
to
the
purchaser
or
the
winter
unless
the
economic
conditions
support
higher
prices.
J
In
other
words,
it
never
passes
on
to
the
renter
or
the
buyer,
unless
the
renter
or
buyer
is
prepared
to
pay
more,
and
actually
that
is
more
determined
by
issues
of
supply
and
demand,
including
how
many
units
are
available
in
your
vacancy
rates.
Then
it
is
determined
by
your
actual
requirements.
What
tends
to
happen
in
those
circumstances
is
land
value
gets
pushed
down
before
prices
go
up,
but
again
it
takes
a
while
for
all
of
those
things
to
equalize.
J
So
there's
often
a
period
where
that
doesn't
happen
on
a
dime
and
with
all
due
respect
to
the
the
parties
that
have
spoken,
I'm,
usually
quick
to
push
out
this
information
quickly,
because
the
narrative
is
usually
anytime.
You
require
something
new
from
City
Hall,
whether
it's
an
affordability
requirement
or
new
design
that
it's
always
going
to
contribute
to
affordability
gets
because
it
gets
pushed
on
to
the
purchaser.
That
can
sometimes
happen
in
the
short
term
if
the
market
is
actually
willing
to
pay
more.
J
If
changes
on
the
private
sector
side
happened
like
concrete,
goes
up
in
price
or
or
the
expectations
of
the
bank
in
terms
of
financing
change,
those
don't
necessarily
automatically
get
passed
on
to
the
purchaser
or
renter
either,
unless
the
purchaser
in
the
renter
are
prepared
to
pay
more
because
of
supply
and
demand.
Does
that
help
it.
I
View
so
it's
certainly
not
the
intention
for
us
to
preclude
any
form
of
development
by
way
of
this
policy,
definitely
we're
looking
at
understanding
the
differences
between
wood
frame
and
concrete
and
make
sure
that
the
understanding
of
that
is
reflected
and
what
the
the
long-term
policy
implications
are
going
to
be.
But
it's
definitely
not
the
intention
in
any
way,
and
if
there's,
if
there
has
been
the
perception
that
this
work
is
about
saying,
we
don't
need
more
housing,
that's
not
what
this
work
is
about.
I
We
actually
know
that
we
need
more
housing,
so
this
is
about.
Where
does
the
housing
go
to
some
extent
and,
more
importantly,
the
focus
of
this
is:
how
does
it
look
from
a
mid-rise
and
tall
perspective?
So
definitely
it's
not
the
intention
for
us
to
create
any
type
of
policy
expectation
that
eliminates
a
building
form
from
the
market.
A
H
His
comments
to
dispose
questions.
Okay.
My
first
question
has
to
do
this.
Following
up
on
councillor
Hill's
question
we
heard
from
a
couple
of
of
the
public
Namie
developers
mostly
are
representatives
that
they
could
benefit
from
an
extension
of
the
deadline
for
comments,
so
I'm
asking.
If
we
can
do
that,
it
seems
to
make
sense
to
me,
especially
since
the
festive
seasons
coming
up
and
people
will
not
hopefully
be
reading
too
much
of
this
for
at
least
a
couple
of
weeks.
So
is
that
possible.
I
Thank
you
and
three
mr.
chair.
Definitely
we
have
heard
that
feedback
as
part
of
the
consultations
that
we've
undertaken
this
week.
So
far
and
again
it's
come
up
tonight.
What
the
team
would
like
to
do
is
have
an
opportunity
to
reflect
upon
that
and
then
come
back
with
a
bit
of
a
plan
that
would
include
include
a
revised
time
later.
An
extended
timeline
for
consultation.
H
Immigrants
in
particularly
I
know
this
from
my
own
experience
in
the
housing
field.
Look
to
rent
first,
it's
just
like
me
that
thinks
that
until
they
suss
out
a
community
and
see
whether
they
can
afford
to
buy
or
whether
they're
going
to
be
able
to
be
established
and
so
on.
So
when
we
don't
supply
the
right
kind
of
housing,
including
affordable
housing,
we
are
hurting
ourselves.
We
know
we're
doing
that.
I've
talked
to
staff
about
their
they've,
talked
to
us
as
a
council
that
we
have
trouble
filling
certain
types
of
jobs.
H
The
private
sector
is
complained
about
not
being
able
to
get
and
retain
planners,
and
the
city
also
complains.
Part
of
that
equation
is
housing
and
housing
that
can
be
afforded
by
the
type
of
people
that
you're
trying
to
hire.
Some
of
them
might
be
well-paid,
but
those
people
always
need
supporting
people
who
are
less
well
paid.
So
I
just
want
to
point
out.
That's
part
of
working
together.
It's
recognizing
that
we
must,
as
community
supply,
that
kind
of
housing
it's
economically
necessary.
H
The
other
thing
I
wanted
to
say
and
I
know:
I
don't
mean
this
as
chiding
whatsoever,
but
I've
talked
to
a
couple
of
developers
and
their
representatives
and
pointed
out
that
for
council
council
people
counselors,
including
staff
I
suspect
in,
is
about
what
I
call
the
inability
of
council
to
really
appreciate
what
the
costs
are
in
motivation
that
cost
motivations
are
of
developers,
because
we
don't
know
what
their
business
economic
analysis
is
to
those
developer
representatives
two
or
three
or
the
men
in
the
room.
Tonight,
it's
a
black
box,
two
counselors
and
staff.
H
So
what
that's
prompted
in
part
is
we
want
an
economic
analysis
to
tell
us
really
what's
going
on
so
to
the
private
development
industry.
I
would
say
the
more
if
you
could
find
your
way
to
share
more
of
the
way
in
which
you
analyze
things
in
a
reasonable
way
to
us.
That
would
facilitate
this
process,
and
that's
because
we
all
know
you
have
to
make
a
profit.
We
all
know
that
question
is
how
much
we're
all
right.
This
is
part
of
the
and
I
realized
that
you
think
of
that
is
proprietary,
proprietary
information
and
I.
H
Understand
that
too
I've
worked
in
the
private
sector,
you
don't
go
around
telling
everybody
what
you're
doing
and
for
competitive
reasons,
but
somehow
we
have
to
get
around
that
because,
even
if
you
have
say
into
the
economic
analysis,
we
have
to
have
some
notion
about
whether
it's
accurate
and
is
permanent.
So
just
saying
that,
and
if
we're
going
to
give
up
values,
other
values
like
heritage
values
or
affordability,
I
think
responsible
councillor
needs
to
know
what
we're
getting
for
that
and
whether
we
are
getting
something
that
outweighs
that
and
the
problem
in
the
community.
H
Is
they
don't
think
they're
getting
that
information?
They
don't
agree
that
giving
up
what
they
consider
a
deep
value
and
say
heritage
is
by
having
imposing
buildings
in
the
way
is,
is
worth
it
so
that
analysis
has
to
be
done.
That
thinking
has
to
be
done
and
without
proper
numbers.
How
can
you
do
it?
So?
A
plod
staff
and
the
consultant
not
I,
have
known
for
months,
but
they
have
recognized.
We
have
to
do
that,
but
I
say
to
the
private
developers.
H
We
respect
what
you
do,
but
these
are
the
balances
that
we
have
to
take
into
account.
It's
really
it's
difficult,
as
was
recognized
and
well
stated,
it's
really
difficult
because
we
are
respond,
you
might
think.
Oh
they're
observe
they
don't
understand.
We
have
to
try
and
balance
all
these
interests
and
it's
not
easy.
It
drives
staff
crazy,
sometimes
and
councilors.
So
I
just
want
to
make
that
clear
and
say
to
everyone
we're
going
to
work
together.
We
can
they
have
to
recognize
what
the
other
person
other
organization
business
government
have
to
take
into
account.
A
Couple
of
things
there
was
mention
of
the
shoal
of
suspects:
I
jumped
six
out
of
the
nine
speakers
tonight,
we're
developers
or
supporters
of
developers,
so
the
usual
suspects
appear
to
be
developers
and
I
with
all
due
respect.
That
isn't
meant
as
an
insult,
but
it's
the
reality.
Yes,
we've
had
public
meetings
and
we've
had
good
our.
A
A
Residences
developed
within
the
community
I
want
to
remind
people.
Yes,
we
have
a
really
disturbing
vacancy
rate.
Nobody
can
argue
with
that,
but
we
have
over
5,000
approved
units,
and
many
of
those
approved
units
are
with
some
of
the
developers
that
are
here
tonight
and
we
also
have
within
in
the
process
right
now
that
amount
again
so
right
now,
there's
eight
years
supply
of
housing
already
approved
needs
to
be
built.
We
have
almost
that
number
again
that
would
put
us
into
15
or
16
years
of
supply.
A
So,
yes,
we
need
more
more
units.
Yes,
rents
are
driven
up
because
of
the
low
vacancy
rate.
The
city
has
approved
a
number
of
a
large
number
of
units
and
there's
all
kinds
of
people
that
could
go
tomorrow
and
get
a
building
permit
for
those,
and
so
so
that's
my
plea
is
before
there's
a
whole
series
of
pushback
against
a
new
policy.
Take
a
look
at
what's
already
been
approved
and
please,
let's
lower
or
vacant
or
Inc
increase
the
number
of
units
available
by
building
what's
already
been
approved.
A
We
have
no
motions,
we
have
no
notices
of
motion
any
other
business,
seeing
none.
The
correspondence
has
already
been
supplied
date
and
time
of
the
next
meeting,
December
5th
at
6:30
in
this
room.
So
and
now
a
motion
to
adjourn,
moved
and
seconded
pick
of
the
litter.
Everybody
rose
that
raised
their
hand.
All
those
in
favor
carried.