►
From YouTube: Kingston Ontario - Planning Meeting - October 6, 2016
Description
Planning meeting from October 6, 2016. For the full meeting agenda visit https://goo.gl/KQdQ5X
A
A
A
uh,.
I
will
now
read
the
uh,
public
meeting.
Introduction,
notice
of
collection:
personal
information
collected
as
a
result
of
this
public
hearing
and
on
the
forms
provided
at
the
back
of
the
room,
is
collected
under
the
authority
of
the
planning
act
and
will
be
used
to
assist
in
making
a
decision
on
this
matter..
A
A
A
A
A
A
City's
perspective.
following
council
decision
notice
will
be
circulated
in
accordance
with
the
planning
act,
and
anyone
with
an
interest
in
the
matter
may
file.
An
appeal.
interested
persons
are
advised
that
if
a
person
or
public
body
does
not
make
oral
submissions
at
a
public
meeting
or
make
written
submissions
before
the
by-law
is
passed,,
the
person
or
public
body
is
not
entitled
to.
A
C
C
C
C
We
believe
the
requested
relief
is
appropriate
in
that
it
maintains
the
heritage
attributes
of
the
building
and
the
area.
As
per
the
heritage
impact
statement.,
it
enables
separate
servicing
of
the
carriage
house
as
desired
by
the
applicant.
uh,.
The
existing
density
of
the
site
will
be
unchanged
and
is
consistent
with
the
pps
and
conforms
to
the
op.
C
D
Mr.
dixon:
uh,
thank
you,,
madam
chair.
um,.
I've
been
following
the
file
as
it's
moved
through
this
committee
and
through
heritage.,
and
I'm
impressed
with
the
thoroughness
of
the
work.
That's
been
done
and
I'm
glad
that
it
came
to
heritage
‘cause.
That
sets
a
strong
precedent
for
uh,
any
future
projects
of
this
type.
D
A
E
E
E
E
E
E
E
E
E
E
and
here
we're
showing
you
actual
setbacks.
so
because
we
have
to
deal
with
the
property
line
and
the
zone
line,.
That's
why
we're
requesting
relief
down
to
3
metres.,
actual
separation
distances
would
be
the
full
width
of
waterside
way,,
which
is
30
metres,,
plus
the
rear-yard
setback
of
the
adjacent
residential
zone,,
which
is
6.75
metres.,
so
actual
separation--and.
I
think
I
neglected
to
say
in
that
3-metre
planting
strip.,
so
your
actual
separation
is
39.75
metres.
E
E
E
E
E
F
F
F
E
E
I
can
tell
you,
based
on
my
experience
from
doing
many
applications
over
the
years,
um,.
There's
two
things
that
are
helpful
here.
one
is:
there
is
a
noise
fence,
on,
uh,
the
south
side
of
waterside
way,
uh,
because
of
already--because
of
highway
15,
there's
a
requirement
for
a
noise
fence
for
those
residential
uses..
E
E
E
F
F
E
E
G
E
G
E
E
E
G
G
H
G
H
G
A
I
I
Uh,,
I
guess
what
first
attracted
my
attention
to
this
application.
Is.
It
came
from
the
committee
of
adjustment.
and
generally
when
the
committee
of
adjustment
makes
a
decision--and
in
this
case,.
The
committee
of
adjustment
said
"no"
to
this
particular
zoning
application,.
It
naturally
should
go
to
the
omb
for
appeal.,
so
it
surprised
me
that
it
was
coming
to
planning
committee.
I
I
I
guess
my
first
question
to
the
applicant
would
be:
if
the
distance
is
30
metres
for
the
road
and
3
metres
on
one
side
and
6
on
the
other,.
Why
are
they
asking--which
makes
40
metres--why?
Are
they
asking
for
only
3,
metres?,
like,,
they're
kind
of
annihilating
the
official
plan
policy
on
drive-throughs
in
this
location,,
which
was
established
for
very
good
reason,
and
I
know,
was
not
changed
when
the
official
planned
review
went
through--you
know,,
it's
going
to
council
next
week..
So
no
one
has
raised
the
issue
of
this
50
metres
as
being
inappropriate..
I
"drive-through
facilities,
have
particular
operational
characteristics.?
The
city
has
an
interest
in
the
form
and
location
of
such
uses
to
ensure
that
such
uses
will
be
appropriate
for
any
particular
site..
Land
use
compatibility
as
per
section
2.7
of
this
plan,
parking,
signage,,
landscaping,
and
impacts
on
the
streetscape
and
the
pedestrian
and
vehicle
environments
will
be
key
considerations
in
the
review
of
new
or
expanding
drive-through
facilities.
I
I
I
So
the
other
reference
is
10.a.6
that
says:
"new
drive-through
facilities
will
not
be
permitted
in
the
downtown
area."
and
it
goes
on
to
say,
um:
"a
drive-through
may
be
permitted--uh,.
New
drive-through
facilities
are
subject
to
site
plan
control.",
so
the
official
plan
tries
to
say
that
drive-throughs
pose
challenges
in
the
cityscape.
I
Because,
basically,
it's
very
unpleasant
to
live
next
to
a
place
where
car
doors
slam,
as
councillor
mclaren,
pointed
out,,
where
cars
are
stacked
up
in
a
line
and
that
people
don't
turn
off
their
engines..
They
let
their
engines
run.
So
there's
health
concerns
around
that..
There's
noise
from
the
speakers.
I
and
these
operations
can
often
be
24/7.,
and
you
know,
I'd
just
like
to
remind
planning
committee
that,
although
we
see
this
beautiful
starbucks
and
we
all
think
"high-end
luxury",,
there's
no
guarantee--all
you're
doing
is
changing
the
zoning.
you're
allowing
a
drive-through
there..
It
can
be
any
drive-through..
I
I
So
I
just
wanted
to
bring
to
your
attention.
that's--um,.
Ms.
watson
has
already
showed
you
this
slide--but
I'd
like
to
bring
it
to
your
attention--what.
The
committee
of
adjustment
said
about
this
application.
it
says,
um:,
"variance
1"--which
is
this
particular
piece--"does
not
conform
to
the
intent
of
the
official
plan.".
This
is
in
the
record
of
decision..
I
tried--um,
it's
"d130262016".
If
you
wanna,
look.
I
However,
the
propos--in
number
2--"however,
the
proposed
drive-through
facility-
was
not
considered
minor
in
nature
and
did
not
meet
the
intent
of
the
zoning
by-law."
and
then
it
said,
um:,
"the
variance
for
the--
"the
requested
drive-through
fac--".
This
is
number
4:
"the
requested.
Drive-Through
facility
variance
is
not
appropriate
for
development
of
the
land
as
it
can
be
accommodated
elsewhere.
On
the
property.,
the
requested
variances
for
reduction
in
the
parking
space
sizes
is
appropriate."
‘cause.
That's
the
other
thing
that
um,
the
applicant
has
asked
for..
I
I
I
I
I
They--There
was
a
lot
of
consideration
for
them
in
uh,,
the
20--2006
to
2010
reconstitution
of
the
official
plan..
We
had
a
lawyer
from
ottawa
come
and
talk
to
city
plan--the
planning
committee
more
than
once
about
drive-throughs
and
uh,.
In
the
end,
the
city
landed
on
this
policy
and
it
was
not
appealed
to
the
omb
and
it
held..
I
I
D
D
D
D
um,.
I
also
wanna
reference,
something
that
came
to
the
planning
committee
at
its
last
meeting,,
where
there
was
a
similar
issue
with
the
setbacks
for
a
drive-through
on
a
different
proposal
on
a
corner
of
sir
john
a.
and
princess
as
part
of
the
kingston
centre--which
also
asked
for
a
similar
reduction
in
the
setbacks..
D
D
D
Reference
to
uh,
the
map
for
kingston
transit.,
it
seems
to
me
that
when
you're
planning,,
basically,
what
is
a
new
shopping
centre
for
the
neighbourhood--and?
I
support
that
plan
because
there's
not
enough
shopping
up.
There--If,
we
build
more
commercial.
There,
that'll,
hopefully
reduce
the
amount
of
trips
that
are
needed
to
go
to
and
from
downtown
for
residents
to
pick
up
basic
items
and
also
to
go
to
dinner
and
all.
D
D
D
D
D
D
D
D
D
E
E
and
it's
very
specific.
What
they're
allowed
to
approve.
and
they--to
grant
a
minor
variance.
They
have
to
feel
that
four
tests
have
been
met.
and
then,
if
they
have
been
met,,
the
application
is
considered
minor.
in
this
case,
we
did
apply
for
a
minor
variance.
uh,
in
the
opinion
of
myself
and
our
firm,.
We
believe
this
is
minor..
E
E
E
E
E
E
E
E
Going
on
to
transit,,
this
has
been
reviewed
by
the
transit
department
of
the
city.
um,.
There
is
actually
an
access
being
proposed
from
the
future
residential
to
this
site
and
there
will
be,
um--and.
I
don't
have
it
right
here
in
front
of
me
exactly
where-but.
There
will
be
a
transit
stop
on
highway
15.,
so
the
integration
of
transit
to
the
site
and
walkways
and
pedestrian
flow
across
the
site
has
been
considered.
G
E
Ms.
watson:
I'll
show
you
on
this
and
I'll
look
at
the
other
plan
and
show--see.
If
it
shows
it
better.
I'll
tell
you
that
there
have
been
some
comments,
um,
from
parks
staff
and
we
will
be
updating
this
to
respond
to
parks.
uh,.
But
this
is
a
walkway..
So
there's
a
sidewalk
along
waterside,
way,,
ok?,
councillor,
neill:,
ok,
ms.
watson:
that
comes
from
highway
15.
and
this
walkway
uh,
will
come.
E
Ms.
watson:--the
patios
there.
councillor
neill:
ok.,
ms.
watson:,
so
it's
intended
and--you
can't
see
this
here,
but
there's
a
bit
of
a
grade
difference--so
the
drive-through
is
actually
up
a
bit
higher
than
the
roadway..
So
what
th--and?
That's
why
this
is
shown
on
an
angle
because
that's
showing
it's
going
up
grade.,
so
this
will
actually
direct
people
to
take
the
walkway.
E
G
E
H
H
H
H
So
there
will
be
kind
of
two
pedestrian
connections
coming
in
from
that
transit..
The
other
one
will
be
on,,
obviously
the
other
side
of
highway
15,
but
actually
on
rose
abbey
drive.,
so
there'll
be
that
uh,
access
across
that
um,
signalized
intersection
and
you'll
be
able
to--the
pedestrians
can
get
into
the
site
from
there..
Thank
you.
K
K
E
H
H
A
F
councillor
mclaren:
thank
you.
and
just
thinking
about
what
you
said
earlier
about
the
efficiency
of
this
design--it
strikes
me
that
your--the
efficiency
is
sacrificing
the
noise
concerns
of
the
neighbours.,
but
it
seems
a
very
simple
solution
would
be
just
to
take
block
d,,
take
a
mirror
image
of
that
and
plop
it
back
in
there.,
and
then
you
would
have
those
buildings
and
block
e
big--that,
big
blue
building
as
a
gateway
enter
there.
F
F
um,,
there--I'm
sure,
there's
hundreds
of
other
different
creative
ways
of
thinking
about
this
and
uh,,
I'm
sure
a
professional
engineer
or
a
professional,
planner
or
professional
architect
could
come
with
uh,
at
least
1,000
more.
That
would
make
a
lot
better
sense..
So
I
would
just
encourage
that
another
option
be
considered.
E
Ms.
watson:
I
can--I
guess
I
can
just
say
that
several
options,,
including
that
one
were
tried
on
the
site.
and
when
we're
designing
the
site,
there's
so
many
different
balls
in
the
air
just--so
to
speak--to
fit
in..
We
have
to
do
parking,,
we
have
to
think
of
flow,.
We
have
to
think--number
of
parking
spaces--how
the
cars
move
around
the
site,
and--as
well
as
meeting
the
official
plan
policies
and
the
guidelines
around
design
and
where
the
buildings
should
be
located.,
and
this
was
found
to
have
the
most
efficient
use
of
the
site.
E
A
A
A
G
J
A
G
G
H
Mr.
adams:,
through
you,,
madam
chair.
um,,
the
application
is
in
for
site
plan..
The
site
plan
has
not
been
finalized..
The
site
plan
did
come
to
planning
committee,
I
think
about
a
month.
Ago--
woman:
august
4th.,
mr.
adams:
august
4th.
sorry.
and
it
was
um--the
design,
was
um,
approved
in
principle.
H
L
Ms.
venditti:
through
you,,
madam
chair.,
I
just--reiterate
though,
as
ms.
watson
stated,.
They
have
looked
at
different
options
for
the
site
and
the
location
of
the
building
at
that
corner
is
consistent
with
the
official
plan
policies
in
terms
of
bringing
the
presence
of
buildings
towards
the
highway
15
corridor,
as
well
as
the
waterside
way
extension
in
terms
of
framing
the
site..
L
So
in
terms
of
the
design
of
the
site,,
they
have
looked
at
different
options,,
different
iterations.
and,
as
ms.
watson,
mentioned,
there's
a
number
of
objectives
to
balance
in
doing
that,
and
looking
at
the
design
and
layout
of
the
site,,
including
the
traffic
function,.
The
proximity
to
the
intersection,
other
access
points.,
where
you're
suggesting,
I
believe
towards
the
middle
entrance
point,
could
present
some
traffic
options
in
terms
of
circulation
too
close
to
the
intersection--or
too
close
to.
L
The
entrance,,
as
well
as
in
proximity
to
the
other
drive-through
that's
proposed
for
the
site..
I
would
note
that
the
other
drive-through
doesn't
require
a
minor
variance.
just--you
had
mentioned.
The
presence
of
it--it
meets
the
50-metre
separation
distance,
as
established
in
the
existing
zoning.,
so
um,.
While
there
might
be
some.
L
K
K
K
K
K
K
H
Adams.
mr.
adams:
yeah,
through
you,,
madam
chair.,
just
a
point
of
clarity.
There.
the
houses
are
not
built
at
the
moment,
but
the
closest
portion
of
the
um,
subdivision
has
been
approved.
So
it's
under
development.-
I
just
wanna
put
a
point
of
clarification..
There
may
be
a
house
there
before
the
commercial.,
but
um,.
The
zoning
will
obviously
state
that
the
drive-through
can
go
there.,
but
the
subdivision,,
the
residential
portion
of
the
subdivision,
is
currently
under.