2013-104 - City of Kingston

2013-104
By-law
number
was issued
however
not on the
agenda for
any
reading s at
MIg
#12
Apr.
23/13
A By-Law To Amend By-Law No. 8499, "Restricted Area
(Zoning) 8y-Law Of The Corporation Of The City Of
Kingston" (Zone Change From 'A.42' To '83.42',1 , 11 &
15 Mack Street And 318 & 320 Alfred Street) (OMB
Authority)
(NOTE: By-law No. 2013-104 was given the bylaw
number however not listed on the agenda to have readings
given)
Appeal to OMB filed by "1 Mack SI. Ltd."
Moran.Janice
To:
Subject:
Jackson ,Diane
RE: OMB Decision on By-Law
Thank yo u Dia ne
2013-104
#12
Apr.
23113
A By-Law To Amend By-Law No. 8499, "Restricted Area
(Zoning) By-Law Of The Corporation Of The City Of Kingston "
(Zone Change From 'A.42' To 'B3.42', 1, 11 & 15 Mack Street
And 318 & 320 Alfred Street) (OMB Authority)
From: Jackson,Diane
Sent: T uesday, May 21, 2013 11:48 AM
To: Moran/Janice
Subject: FW: OMB Decision on By-Law
For you Jan ie Poo h
From: Gregory,Katharine
Sent: Thursday, April 18, 20 13 11:50 AM
To: Jackson/Diane
Cc: Fraser,Karen; Venditti,Marnie
Subject: OMB Decision on By-Law
Hi Diane,
Can you please issue me a By-Law number for 1 Mack Street and a Declaration . The applicant had
filed a OMB Appeal based of the length of time it was taking to process the Application.
I have attached a copy of the By-Law and the OMB order.
If you have any questions please give me a call.
Kathy
Kathy Gregory
Clerk/ Secretary
Planning and Deve lopment Department
The Corporation of the City of Kingston
613-546-4291 ext. 3184
kgregorv@cityofkingston. ca
1
ISSUE DATE:
November 26, 2012
~
Pl120467
~
O ntari o
Ontario Municipal Board
Commission des affaires municipales de I'Ontario
1 Mack Sf. Ltd. has appealed to the Ontario Municipal Board under subsection 34 (11)
of the Planning Act, R.S.O. 1990, c. P. 13, as amended , from Council's neglect to enact
a proposed amendment to Zoning By-law No. 8499 of the City of Kingston to rezone
lands known municipally as 1, 11, & 15 Mack St. and 318 & 320 Alfred St. from
Residential to Multiple Family Dwelling to permit the redevelopment of the subject
property with a 3 Yz storey 15 unit apartment building
IN THE MADER OF subsection 41(12) of the Planning Acl, R.S.O. 1990, c. P. 13, as
amended
Referred by:
Subject:
Property Address/Description:
Municipality:
OMS Case No. :
OMS File No.:
1 Mack st. ltd
Site Plan
1,11,& 15 Mack St & 318 & 320 Alfred St
City of Kingston
Pl120467
Pl120413
APPEARANCES:
Parties
Counsel
1 Mack st. ltd.
I. Andres
City of Kingston
W. Fairbrother
DECISION DELIVERED BY C. CONTI AND ORDER OF THE BOARD
INTRODUCTION
[1]
1 Mack St. ltd. (Appellant) has appealed the failure of the City of Kingston to
make a decision regarding applications for a zoning by-law amendment and site plan
approval to penmit the development of a fifteen unit multiple family dwelling at 1-15
Mack Street and 318-320 Alfred Street, Kingston.
(2)
The subject property is located at the northwest corner of Mack Street and Alfred
Street. It is w ithin a residential area close to the downtown area of Kingston, and it is
-2-
PL120467
adjacent to Princess Street, a main arterial road and commercial area. The property has
an area of 0.223 hectares and it contains five buildings of differing types including an
apartment building and four converted houses. The existing buildings contain 27
apartment units with a total of 37 bedrooms.
[3]
The proposal involves the demolition of the buildings at 1 and 15 Mack Street
and 318 Alfred Street which contain nineteen apartment units combined. The three
buildings will be replaced by a new fifteen unit three and a half storey apartment
building. The proposed building w ill contain five three bedroom units on the ground
floor, and ten three-storey four bedroom units on the upper floors. The ground floor units
will be lowered from street grade by a half storey.
[4]
At the commencement of the hearing the parties informed the Board that there
had been a settlement in this matter and filed Minutes of Settlement (Exhibit 1). The
parties indicated that they would be requesting approval of the revised zoning by-law
amendment and adjournment of the site plan application sine die, potentially to be
returned , if required, on thirty days' notice to the City.
EVIDENCE
[5]
The Board heard evidence in support of the settlement from Mr. C. Huggett, an
Associate with Sweeney Sterling Finlayson & Co Architects Inc. Mr. Huggett is a
Registered Professional Planner and urban designer who has approximately ten years
of experience. He was qualified by the Board as an expert in land use planning and
urban design.
[6]
The Board heard evidence in opposition to the proposal from Ms. J. Bowie, a
resident of the area who lives in close proximity to the site. Ms. Bowie sought and was
granted participant status in the appeal.
ISSUES, ANALYSIS AND FINDINGS
(7]
The Board heard that the proposed by-law amendment has been revised to
address concerns raised by the City. The proposal is in an area w hich is commonly
used for student housing for individuals attending Queen 's University. Rooms in
apartments which are not intended to be bedrooms are often rented and used as such
-3-
PL120467
by students which leads to occupancy of dwelling units beyond the intended levels. This
matter has been addressed in the revised by-law amendment by specifying the number
of permitted bedrooms for each unit and for the building as a whole , and by including a
definition of bedrooms.
[8]
The Board heard that the revisions to the by-law amendment satisfy the City's
concerns and that City Council supports the settlement.
[9]
Ms. Bowie raised a number of concerns including the reduced setbacks, the
height of the proposed building , potential conflicts between cars using the site and
pedestrians, particularly children using a playground on the opposite side of Mack
Street. She maintains that the proposed building will be used by students. She also
expressed concern about the compatibility of the proposed built form with the
neighbourhood which she characterised as a heritage area. She contends that the
proposal more closely fits the standards of an area with a B3 zoning and that it is not
acceptable in terms of massing and density. Ms. Bow ie also raised the authority, Glasco
v. City of Kingston, [2003J O.M.B.D 1185, where the Board had refused a proposal
located close to the subject property. Ms. Bowie maintained that the proposal was
refused because of excessive massing.
[10J
The Board has carefully reviewed the Minutes of Settlement, the revised by-law
amendment and all of the submissions and evidence raised by the parties and
participant.
[11]
Mr. Huggett noted that the site is designated as Residential , but it is located
adjacent to an area designated as Main Street Commercial in the Kingston Official Plan.
He stated that the property is zoned A. 42 in Kingston Zoning By-law No. 8499. The A
zoning category is a residential zoning which typically does not permit multiple family
dwellings. However, Mr. Huggett indicated that the A.42 zoning is site specific which
allows two six unit apartment buildings, one of which has already been constructed. The
lot immediately to the north of the subject property has a site specific B 3 zoning which
permits a multiple family dwelling. Mr. Hugget noted that a three and a half storey
apartment building which is similar to the proposal has been constructed on that
property. The intent of the by-law amendment is to apply a site specific B3.42 zoning to
the property.
-4 [12]
PL120467
Mr. Huggett's evidence is that the total number of units on the site will be
reduced from 27 to 23 as a result of the proposal. However, the total number of
bedrooms will be increased from 37 to 55.
[13J
Mr. Huggett noted that vehicular traffic is expected to remain approximately at
the same level as a result of the proposal. He indicated that the proposal provides 23
parking spaces where there currently are 21 spaces. He also stated that two accessible
spaces will be provided whereas currently none is provided. In addition, the Board
heard that the site lines for traffic in the vicinity of the building have not been identified
as an issue by the appropriate authorities.
[14]
With regard to heritage issues, Mr. Huggett testified that an archaeological
assessment and architectural history had been prepared for the site. He indicated that
no building on the site is designated or listed. He provided copies of correspondence
indicating that the assessments had been accepted and there was no objection to the
proposal from a heritage perspective (Exhibit 1, Tabs 9, 10,11).
[15J
After reviewing the submissions, the Board finds that the evidence provided by
Mr. Huggett addresses aU concerns raised by Ms. Bowie. In view of the location of the
subject property on the edge of a commercial area, the existing use of the site, the
permissions granted for the property in the past, and the characteristics of the
surrounding area, an apartment proposal is suitable for the site. The City has identified
the relevant issues, and measures have been incorporated through the settlement
agreement and the revised by-law amendment to address potential impacts.
[16]
With regard to the authority raised by Ms. Bowie, the Board agrees with Mr. I.
Andres that the case dealt with a minor variance application while the subject appeal
deals with a by-law amendment. The tests are different for each. The permissions
granted for the subject property have established an apartment use on the site and a
building w ith similar massing is located immediately to the north. Furthermore, the
number of units will be decreased as a result of the proposal. Based upon these factors ,
the Board finds that the current application is distinguished from the authority raised by
Ms. Bowie. In addition, the Board sees no concern for the massing and density of the
proposal.
- 5(17]
PL120467
The expert planning opinion evidence provided in support of the settlement and
revised by-law amendment is uncontradicted. In view of the above, the Board accepts
the evidence provided in support of the proposal.
[18]
The Board agrees with Mr. Huggett's evidence that the proposal conforms to the
relevant provisions of the City's Official Plan. As noted in s. 2.6 of the Plan, residential
areas are intended to remain stable, but some change is expected (Exhibit 2, Tab 13,
p. 41). Mr. Huggett's opinion is that the subject site also has characteristics of a
transition area. The permissions granted for the site have allowed a different type of
built form. The proposal is consistent with the past approvals and with the surrounding
area, particularly since the property is on the edge of the commercial area associated
with Princess Street.
[19]
The proposal is also considered to be a housing district in the Official Plan. Policy
2.2.5 of the Plan notes that housing districts are intended to remain stable, but that reinvestment and upgrading will be encouraged through infilling and compatible
development (Exhibit 2, Tab 13, p. 25). Based upon 1he evidence, the Board finds that
the proposal represents re-investment in the property in a way that is compatible with
the area and it complies with this policy.
[20]
Mr. Huggett testified that the proposal meets the urban design policies in s. 8 of
the Official Plan (Exh ibit 2, Tab 13, p. 219), the Crime Preven1ion Through Urban
Design Policies (Exhibit 2, Tab 16) and the City's residential intensification polices
(Exhibit 2, Tab 15).
[21]
Based upon the above considerations, the Board finds that the proposal and the
By-law included with the Minutes of Settlement conform to the City of Kingston Official
Plan.
[22)
Mr. Huggetl acknowledged tha1 a B3 zoning would requ ire 7.5 metre se1backs on
both street frontages and that the proposed setbacks will be significantly less. However,
he noted that the property is a corner lot and that Official Plan policies indicate that
corner lots should be treated as landmarks. He also stated that the existing setbacks
are significantly less than the 7.5 metre requirement and that the frontage of the
proposed building will be consistent with the building at 326 Alfred Street. Mr. Huggetl
-6-
PL 120467
indicated that the west side yard setback will be increased significantly and the northern
setback will remain the same.
[23]
Mr. Huggett stated that the B zoning requires one parking space per unit which
will be provided through the proposal. He indicated that amenity space has been
calculated according to the By-law's provisions which include consideration of the
number of bedrooms (Exhibit 2 , Tab 14, p. 40 of 246). The maximum amenity space
has been reduced in relation to the number of bedrooms that will be provided by the
proposal.
[24]
Mr. Huggett also indicated that the proposal complies with City policies that
housing which may be used for students is designed to appeal to a wider rental market.
[25]
Based upon the evidence and Mr. Huggett's expert opinion the Board finds that
the proposal comp lies with all relevant provincial policies and the policies of the Official
Plan, it respects the provisions of the By-law No. 8499, it represents good planning and
it should be approved. Furthermore the by-law amendment attached to the Minutes of
Settlement complies with the provisions of the Official Plan , it maintains the intent of the
By-law No. 8499 and represents good planning.
[26]
In consideration of the above and the provisions of the Minutes of Settlement, the
Board will allow the appeal in part and amend Zoning By-law No. 8499 through the Bylaw w hich is attached.
ORDER
[27]
The Board orders Ihat the appeal is allowed in part and City of Kingston Zoning
By-law No. 8499 is amended as set out in Attachment 1;
[28]
And furthermore the appeal of the site plan applicalion is adjourned sine die, but
may be brought forward with a minimum of 30 days' notice to the City.
"C. Conti"
C. CONTI
MEMBER
-7-
PL120467
PL 120467
ATTACHMENT 1
SCHEDULE "8"
ZONING
BY~LAW
AMENDMENT
BY-LAW NO. 2012-_
A BY-LAW TO AMEND BY-LAW NO. 8499, "RESTRICTED AREA (ZONING) BYLAW OF THE CORPORATION OF THE CITY OF KINGSTON" (Zone Change from
'A.42' to '83.42', 1, 11 & 15 Mack Street and 318 & 320 Alfred Street)
WHEREAS by Order of the Minister of Municipal Affairs and Housing, The
Corporation of the Townsliip of Kingston, The Corporation of the Township of
Pittsburgh and The Corporation of the City of Kingston were amalgamate!=! Or:!
January 1, 1998 to form the Corporation afthe City of Kingston as the successor
municipal Corporation and pursuant to the Minister's Order, any by-laws afthe
former municipality passed under the Planning Act continue as the by-laws covering
the area of the former municipality now form ing part of the new City:
AND W HEREAS the Council of The Corporation of the City of Kingston deems it
advisable to amend By-law No. 8499, as amended, of the former City of Kingston;
NOW THEREFORE the Council of The Corporation of the City of Kingston hereby
ENACTS as follows.
1.
By-law No. 8499 of The Corporation of the City of Kingston, entitled
"Restricted Area (Zoning) By-law of The Corporation af the City of
Kingstan~, as amended, is he reby further amended as follows:
1.1
That Schedules · E-1 ~, ~ E_2oi, a nd "E-3" be deleted in their entirety.
1.2
That Zoning Schedule "A", Map 19 of By-law No. 8499, as amended, is
hereby further amended by changing the zone symbol to ··B3.42" of the
lands shown as "Subject lands Rezoned from A.42 to 83.42" on Sche~ule
"A" attached hereto and forming part of amending By-law No 2012-_,
1.3
That the By-law be amended by the addition of the following section to
Part VIIl- EXCEPTIONS TO VARIOUS ZONE CLASSIFICATIONS: ·
"42. 1, 11 & 15 Mack Street and 318 and 320 Alfred Street
Notwithstanding any provision of Section 16 hereof to the contrary, on the
lands zoned 'B3.42' on Schedule "A" attached herelo, the following
provisions shall apply:
-8-
PL 120467
..
a)
PERMITTED USE: multiple family dwelling
b)
MINIMUM YARDS:
i) from north property line - 7.1 metres
ii) from east property line - 1.4 metres
iii) from south property line - 3.5 metres
iv) from west property line - 10.6meires
c)
MAXIMUM LOT OCCUPANCY: 128%
d) '
MAX IMUM NUMBER OF RESIDENTIAL UNITS:
e)
MINIMUM NUMBER OF ON-SITE PARKING SPACES: 1
parking space per unit
f)
MNIMUM AM ENITY SPACE AREA:
g)
MAXIMUM NUMBER OF BEDROOMS PER UNIT: 4
h)
MAXIMUM NUMB ER OF BEDROOMS: 70
i)
BEDROOM: shall mean any room within a residential unit that is
suitable to be used as a sleeping room under the Ontario
Building Code, and which for greater certainty does not include:
23
1,045.0 square metres
i) Common areas open to all occupants of the unit;
ii) Areas used for sanitary (such as a washroom) or cooking
purposes (such as a kitchen); and
iii) Areas occupied by m echanical equipment, such as
furnaces , hot water heaters and laundry equipment.
Notwithstanding the forego ing, for the purposes of this definition,
a bachelor, bachelorette or studio unit shalt be calculated to
contain one bedroom.
j)
Any side yard abutting any part of a lot occupied by a one-family
dwelling or a two-family dwelling shall be fe nced with a 1.83
metre high wood board fence.
k)
PROJECTION INTO YARDS: Notwithstanding any provision of
Section 5.8 hereof to the contrary, the following provisions shall
apply:
Q
A covered or uncovered unenclosed porch, deck, balcony
or veranda may project out from the main building waif
2
- 9-
PL120467
providing it is no closer than 0.3 metres to the east lot line
and 2.0 metres to the south lot line.
Ii) Uncovered steps may project out from the main building
wall up to the front Jot line.
I)
RESIDENTIAL UNITS FRONTING ON A STREET:
Notwithstanding any provision of Section 5.22 hereof 10 the
contrary, t he building known as 11 Mack Street exi sting on the
site as of the dale o f the passing of this By~Law, shall be
deemed to comply with the "regulations of this Zoning By-l aw for
residential units fronting on a street. In the e vent that the
existing building known as 11 Mack Street is removed, any new
development shall be subject to the regu lations of this 8y.-Law. w
2.
This By-Law shalf come into force and take effect on its pa-ssing, provided
no Notice of Appeal is filed to this By-Law, all in accordance with the
provIsions of Section 34, Subsections 19 and 30 of the Planning Act,
R,S.O. 1990, C,P.13, and where one or more appealS have been filed with
the time period specified, at the conclusion of which, the provisions of
Section 34, Subsections 19 and 30 oftha Planning Act , R.S.O. 1990, C.P.
13 apply and the By-Law shall be deemed to have come into force and
taka effect on the day it was passed.
GIVEN ALL THREE READINGS AND PASSED _ _ , _ _ 2012
CITY CLERK
MAYOR
3
PL120467
- 10-
-Schedule·"A"\ to
By-law No> iQt.2- ~ m-x -
SiJEi)e~t hinat'RI!idria(l"
from: .'!A~2« \a;..BJ;."41...·
•
Clause (J, Report No. -' 2013
014-211-2011
BY-LAW NO_ 2013-_
A BY-LAW TO AMEND BY-LAW NO. 8499, "RESTRICTED AREA (ZONING) BY-LAW OF THE
CORPORATION OF THE CITY OF KINGSTON" (Zone Change from 'A.42' to 'B3.42', 1, 11 & 15 Mack
Street and 318 & 320 Alfred Street)
PASSED: _.2013
WHEREAS by Order of the Minister of Municipal Affairs and Housing , The Corporation of the
Township of Kingston, The Corporation of the Township of Pittsburgh and The Corporation of the City of
Kingston were amalgamated on January 1. 1998 to form The Corporation of the City of Kingston as the
successor municipal Corporation and pursuant to the Minister's Order, any by-laws of the former
municipality passed under the Planning Act continue as the by-laws covering the area of the former
municipality now forming part of the new City;
AND WHEREAS the Council of The Corporation of the City of Kingston deems it advisable to
amend By-Law No. 8499, as amended, of the former City of Kingston;
NOW THEREFORE the Council of The Corporation of the City of Kingston hereby ENACTS as
follows.
1.
By-Law No. 8499 of The Corporation of the City of Kingston, entitled "Restncted Area (Zoning) ByLaw of The Corporation of the City of Kingston-, as amended, is hereby further amended as follows:
1.1.
That Schedules "E-l ", "E-2" and "E-3" be deleted in their entirety.
1.2.
That Zoning Schedule "A". Map 19 of Zoning By-Law No. 8499, as amended, is hereby further
amended by changing the zone symbol to ·B3.42· of the lands shown as "Subject Lands Rezoned
from A.42 to B3.42" on Schedule "A" attached hereto and forming part of amending By-Law No.
2013-_ .
1.3.
That the By-Law be amended by the addition of the following section to Part VIII- EXCEPTIONS
TO VARIOUS ZONE CLASSIFICATIONS:
"42. 1, 11 & 15 Mack Street and 318 & 320 Alfred Street
Notwithstanding any provisions of Section 16 hereof to the contrary, on the lands zoned
'B3.42' on Schedule "A" attached hereto. the following provisions shall apply:
a) PERMITTED USE: multiple family dwelling
b) MINIMUM YARDS:
(i)
from north property line - 7.1 metres
(ii) from east property line - 1.4 metres
(iii) from south property line - 3.5 metres
(iv) from west property line - 10.6 metres
Zoning Amendment ~ address
8y~Law
No. 201_~_
Page 20f3
c) MAXIMUM LOT OCCUPANCY: 128%
d) MAXIMUM NUMBER OF RESIDENTIAL UNITS: 23
e) MAXIMUM NUMBER OF BEDROOMS PER UNIT: 3
o
MAXIMUM NUMBER OF BEDROOMS: 54
g) MINIMUM NUMBER OF ON-SITE PARKING SPACES: 1 parking space per unit
h) MINIMUM AMENITY SPACE AREA: 1,045.0 square melres
i)
j)
Any side yard abutling any part of a lot occupied by a one-family dwelling or a twofamily dwelling shall be fenced with a 1.83 melre high wood board fence.
PROJECTION INTO YARDS: Notwilhstanding any provision of Seclion 5.8 hereof
10 the contrary, the following provisions shall apply:
(i) A covered or uncovered unenclosed porch, deck, balcony or veranda may
project out from the main building wall providing it is no closer than 0.3 metres to
the east lot line and 2.0 melres 10 Ihe south 101 line.
(ii) Uncovered sleps may project out from the main building wall up to the front lot
line.
k) RESIDENTIAL UNITS FRONTING ON A STREET: Notwithstanding any provision
of Section 5.22 hereof to Ihe contrary, the building known as 11 Mack Street existing
on the sile as of the date of Ihe passing of this By-Law, shall be deemed to comply
with the regulations of this Zoning By-Law for residential units fronting on a street.
In the event that the existing building known as 11 Mack Street is removed, any new
development shall be subjecl to the regulalions of this By-Law."
Zoning Amendment - address
By-Law No. 201 _-_
Page 3 of 3
2.
This By-Law shall come into force and take effect on its passing, provided no Notice of Appeal is
filed to this By-Law, all in accordance with the provisions of Section 34, Subsections 19 and 30 of the
Planning Act, R.S.O. 1990, c. P. 13; and where one or more appeals have been filed with in the time period
specified , at the conclusion of which , the provisions of Section 34, Subsections 19 and 30 of the Planning
Act, R.S.O. 1990, c. P. 13 apply and the By-Law shall be deemed to have come into force and take effect
on the day it was passed .
GIVEN ALL THREE READINGS AND PASSED
JOHN BOLOGNONE
CITY CLERK
,_
, 2013
MARK GERRETSEN
MAYOR