Downtown Kincardine resident questions site plan for development next door

To the Editor:
RE: “Kincardine okays site plan for mixed-use building; downtown parking under review”

The following is an open letter to members of Kincardine council and administration:

I wanted to take this opportunity to comment on the ill-fated site plan application for 841-851 Queen Street and also to thank councillors Dave Cuyler, Doug Kennedy, Bill Stewart and Randy Roppel for their stand in withdrawing and withholding support for the absurd development in the middle of our downtown core, at the Aug. 10 meeting.

My understanding of the facts and issues of concern are as follows:

1) For reasons unknown to me, relief was granted for open space (parkland) requirements in the July 11 re-zoning.

2) The project is described as “10 proposed residential units on the second and third floors.” The correct description should have been 10 residential units on each of the second and third floors – for a total of 20 two-bedroom units. This was later clarified for Cuyler and I suspect many others who misunderstood the description of 10 units with 20 parking spaces.

3) I don’t understand why the parking requirement for residential units in a commercial zone is only one space per apartment when other multi-residential zones require 1.25 spaces per unit or one visitor spot for every four units.

Visitors will have to compete with commercial traffic for parking spaces on municipal roads that were already full prior to the existence of this development. With an additional 5,000 square feet of new commercial space and winter restrictions on overnight parking, this will create an impossible situation.

4) Assuming a family will not live in the downtown core with no green space (open spaces), each apartment will probably be occupied by two working adults (i.e. Bruce Power contractors). If only one can park on-site, the same problems outlined in No. 3 above, will plague the surrounding area.

I do not accept the suggestion that this is the developer’s marketing problem.

The developer's marketing problem will become the local residents’ parking problems when they have no parking options in the downtown area.

5) There is 491 square metres of commercial space according to the site plan drawings. One parking spot requirement for every 20 square metre of commercial area would require 24.55 spaces.

6) Staff has advocated “payment in lieu of parking” for a deficit of only 16 spaces.

7) Relief has been granted to reduce parking space size to 2.6 metres or 8.53 feet in addition to the multitude of parking concessions previously discussed.

I think it is important to note that a Honda Civic is approximately 5.9 feet wide (not including the mirrors). That would leave 1.25 feet (15 inches) of space on each side of the parked Civic.

If the car doors are six inches wide, only people who are nine inches wide or less could enter/exit the vehicle without damaging the car parked in the adjacent space.

I do realize that this is not council’s concern if the developer is able to market apartments to only nine-inch-wide people, but this should not be supported by municipal planning policy.

Why are we trying so hard to avoid the spirit of the zoning requirements to provide adequate on-site parking at the developer’s expense?

8) Again, relief for maneuvering aisles has been granted to reduce access and egress requirements by 1.3 metres or 4.26 feet. I can’t imagine how a six-metre (19.7-foot)-wide driveway will allow two vehicles, including commercial delivery trucks, to safely pass each other.

9) I acknowledge that No. 7 and 8 are self-imposed problems that the developer will have to address when marketing and maintaining the property. But, why should the municipality endorse bad planning ideas that will negatively impact the surrounding areas as tenants and employees occupy on-street parking as on-site navigation, snow removal and parking will be impossible; especially during winter snow events.

10) I disagree with almost all of the potential solutions proposed by council:

a) “The Municipality of Kincardine can purchase available buildings and tear them down to provide parking” – as seen beside the former Aztec Theatre. Knocking down a $200,000-plus commercial building with an apartment above is a perfect example of “one step forward (gain parking) and two steps backward (lose a commercial space and residential unit).”

b) “They can park in the municipal parking lot or the Quinn Plaza.” Quinn Plaza is privately-owned and does not offer overflow parking to my knowledge. Illegally parking 292 metres/919 feet away and making a 0.6-kilometre round trip to the subject development is not an option for many elderly shoppers.
The municipal parking lot is also about the same distance, 203 metres/929 feet away and a 0.5-kilometre round trip to 851 Queen Street and is not possible for anyone with mobility challenges.
Rachel Mackay commented in her address to council on the same day (Aug. 10) that with the closure of Queen Street on weekends, the loss of street parking was causing parking lots to be filled and pushing street parking north to the very area of the subject development.
The Kincardine Business Improvement Area (BIA) letter of support for this development, dated Sept. 2, 2020, was sent with approval of the directors and DOES NOT reflect my opinion or the opinion of other members who are located north of Lambton Street.
Anyone doubting this comment only needs to see my photographs of the full municipal parking lots and witness the illegal parking which often fills the developer’s vacant property on a daily basis.
You can see the four-foot cement blocks that were placed on the north portion of the developer’s subject property to stop trespassers from parking on the former restaurant lands at 851 Queen Street.

c) ”Underground Parking”. There is a reason that underground parking does not exist in mid-western Ontario, to my knowledge. The reason is that land is still too cheap to warrant the massive undertaking to create underground parking.
Underground parking would cost in excess of $1.2-million or $50,000/space (2015 cost). In addition to being a logistical nightmare to construct, the maintenance on a subterranean structure would be unimaginable.

d) “Determine the developer's specific intended use to determine actual parking requirements.”
The developer’s specific use will be any allowable use in the C-1 zoning bylaw – one space for each 20 square metres of space is the lowest requirement for parking in a C-1 zone.
Restaurants are allowed in a C-1 zone and require one space for each five square metres of public space – so, probably three times the minimum example of one space per 20 square metres.
I don’t understand why determining the intended use was used as a reason for deferring a decision until September.
There are no options that require less parking.

11) By now, you are hopefully aware of the additional objection we have to this development. This is the developer’s insistence on building to a zero setback from the lot line on the south boundary. Anyone with construction experience is well aware that a builder cannot dig straight down at the lot line and pour a foundation. Excavations need to have sloped sides for safety and to allow room to work.

As such, these actions will cause the loss of the huge pine trees on the lot line, being killed during construction, falling on the new development, falling on 835 Queen Street or falling on the public road and sidewalk.

Clause 18 in Schedule C of the site plan agreement saying that, “The owner shall safeguard all building infrastructure and landscaping on adjacent properties …” was discreetly removed after we voiced objection to the site plan as presented.

The councillors' comments that legal advice states the municipality should not be involved in “off-site” matters, is rather short-sighted and misinformed.

Council must be aware that it will be held liable if it knowingly approves a site plan that will cause damage, property loss and harm to the public.

The naive suggestion by staff that it “hopes we would work things out with the developer” is not realistic. Simply reversing the plan (using the mirror image) would put the driveway on the south side and solve all the construction logistical problems and landscaping concerns. But instead, for some unknown reason, the developer will not consider a simple remedy of a key stroke on a CAD program to facilitate the change. The developer has, instead, threatened to sue the owners of 835 Queen St.

In closing, I hope council will see that ongoing parking issues like this will be the demise of our downtown core.

With the unrestricted use of the provision allowing (phantom) offices to occupy prime retail/hospitality space and uncontrolled, irresponsible development in the C-1 zone, the original vision of a quaint lakeside shopping experience will disappear.

I regret the jubilation that we saw when a restaurant with a 50- to 60-year history was converted to office space for 15 employees.

Those 15 employees have only 2 choices: Park on the main street to the detriment of retailers and their customers or fill up the municipal parking lots.

To remedy this tragic oversight, we can modify the zoning and official plans, if the official plan review and update are ever brought back to the table.

We can follow the examples demonstrated in Port Elgin where the office uses have been located in fringe areas.

In Port Elgin, contractors lease, construct and maintain their own parking areas at their own expense and allow downtown areas to flourish.

In Kincardine, offices use public spaces that are created and maintained by Kincardine taxpayers.

Why should small businesses subsidize multi-million-dollar contracts while losing business because their customers have no place to park?

Twenty two-bedroom apartments and 5,000 square feet of commercial space are simply not possible on this site.

Yes, it would be wonderful to get this eyesore cleaned up.

Curiously, the developer waited two years to start clean-up and boarded up the abandoned house on the very day (Aug. 10) that the site plan went to council for approval.

The only thing holding back this development is greed.

Thank you for your consideration.

Russ Coultrup
Kincardine