This article is the first part of a two-part series on proposed plans for developments on Cataraqui Bay Pier, also known as Elevator Bay, off King Street West. Part 2 can be read here.
Last spring, Kingston Waterfront Developments Ltd. submitted to the City a sixth site plan for the proposed development of the former grain elevator wharf at 1110 King Street West.
According to the online ad, “1110 King West is a once in a lifetime project due to its prime location along the Kingston waterfront. RE / MAX RISE worked with the development team for over a year in the planning and execution before launch.
Currently, units are advertised between $ 400,000 and $ 1.8 million with a deposit of $ 10,000.
The proposed development for the site consists of two high-rise condominiums and a commercial building on the pier. In total, the apartment buildings are proposed to accommodate 343 residential units, while the one-story commercial building will provide approximately 1,000 square meters of use for a marina on the northwestern part of the pier. The entire development would be adjacent to the existing townhouses in Commodore’s Cove.
The City is currently reviewing a “site plan control application” for the development, which examines the functionality of the site – ensuring the proposal complies with zoning permissions on the site. This includes planners and other departments who review building observation, site and through-site access, parking, landscaping, stormwater management, etc.
File Planner Michael Szilagyi and Acting Policy Planning Manager Sukriti Agarwal introduced to Councilor Bridget Doherty’s “Spring Councilor Connect” meeting Thursday June 1, 2021 for the Portsmouth District Community Association. They provided an update on the status of the case.
Szilagyi explained that the technical review process is “being evaluated by other departments and external agencies and they will provide comments. I have not yet taken the time to delve into this submission; I tend to wait until all, or at least the majority of comments come back before doing my review.
Szilagyi said of the sixth proposal: “The most important change here has been that the parking structure on the north side, between the existing townhouses, has been removed and is now just surface parking. “
Szilagyi stressed that the technical review process should not be confused with an amendment to the zoning by-law, noting that “there has been no request to change performance standards at the site. Currently I have noted performance standards that are unique to this site: townhouse development is allowed with up to 38 units (obviously these exist today), 343 additional units have land coverage by 210%. There are no height restrictions, there are no setback requirements, and no density requirements, minimum or maximum. These are a bit unique. These are some of the provisions that we have to take into account in this request. We do not have the ability to change any of these permissions through this process. “
Zoning for the site has been in place since 1987, with a modification to this area adopted in 2007. The property is currently designated a “port area”, “residential” and “environmental protection area” in the city’s official plan. from Kingston (OP).
Bruce Bursey, who moderated the Zoom meeting on behalf of the Portsmouth District Community Association, read various development questions and concerns that were written via the chat.
“Imagine a 25-story building under construction in your backyard, that’s what we’re going to experience,” said one owner (whose name has not been shared), “current city noise regulations and construction appear insufficient to protect the residents of the cove. The building permit process is closed to the applicant and city staff. How can we who live here protect our quality of life during this long, noisy, dusty and impactful construction phase?
While pointing out that development for the pier had been underway since the 1980s and that the Cove owners knew this when they purchased, Szilagyi sympathized with having to live near a construction area. “It is not common, he stressed, but the Council has the possibility of imposing additional controls. There are always standard items where you know the dust needs to be controlled. Access needs to be maintained for residents and for emergency vehicles, those kinds of things that are just the norm in all areas. But in terms of noise, they can sometimes limit the hours.
“It’s a balance of needs. Knowing that this build, even if it takes two years or so, it might be temporary, but yes I think there are opportunities through cCuncil to add some extra control with some reasonable sense. Szilagyi said, encouraging residents to bring their concerns to him in writing so they can be included in a report to the planning committee.
Other concerns concerned maintaining “Ribbon of life” access and preserving the coastline. Agarwal, Director of Policy and Planning, responded, “Regarding the Ribbon of Life, these policies are currently in place in our official plan and the bylaws are proposed to be included in the new zoning bylaw, which is expected to be submitted to Council for consideration in 2022. We released the first draft of the new zoning by-law in 2016. And in that draft, we have included transitional provisions regarding applications that would already be underway when this by-law was zoning will be approved. On the basis of these transitional provisions, which, I would like to repeat, are still in draft form, this request could be dealt with depending on the zoning in place. Thus, the Ribbon of Life will have no effect on the current zoning of the property, based on these draft transitional provisions. “
Another concern was the impact on the view from Lake Ontario Park. Szilagyi replied, “This is not a protected view and this site already had planning permission. So like I said there is no height restriction on the site.
Several other questions and concerns were raised, but ultimately Agarwal and Szilagyi encouraged residents to register their concerns to be shared with the planning committee at their public meeting by contacting Michael Szilagyi via email. at the address [email protected] and noting the project number D11-011-2018.
The date for the public meeting has not been set.
Part 2 of this series was posted on Thursday, July 22, 2021 and examines the history of this site, as well as the most recent history of proposed developments for the site, which led to the situation described here.