Last November we asked you to write letters suggesting changes to the North King’s Town Visioning Report and Preliminary Market Analysis. Boy, did you ever come through! WellingtonX was copied on more than 65 letters, and planners received about 120 submissions altogether.
Because of the extensive public input, the revised draft report is now a solid foundation for the next phase of planning. We would like to thank all of you. If there are further changes that you would like to see, you can send comments until Monday, April 24th to firstname.lastname@example.org. Just remember, the real work will have to be done in the next phase of the Secondary Plan, and we probably don’t want to slow this down any more at this point.
We would like to thank City Staff in the planning department and the DIALOG team for the work that went into making substantial improvements in the revised report, and for responding to community feedback.
Significant improvements were made with regard to the proposed Wellington Street Extension, the Waterfront, Transit and Active Transportation, Natural Heritage, Wildlife Habitat, Cultural Heritage and Social Equity.
For example, compare the descriptions of the transportation study that will be completed during the next phase of the Secondary Plan:
Before revision (p. 81):
“The transportation study should revaluate the need for the Wellington Street Extension, in consultation with the public, using a study framework that balances transportation, place-making, and urban design objectives. The study framework must also prioritize the Vision’s objective to create a pedestrian-oriented environment and multi-modal street network.”
After revision (p. 100):
“The transportation study will re-evaluate the need for all portions of the proposed Wellington Street Extension, in consultation with the public, using a study framework that balances a variety of objectives that are important to the community and that will be given emphasis over accommodating the transportation demands of personal vehicles. These objectives include, but are not limited to:
- protection of the waterfront, parks and open spaces;
- protection of natural heritage resources;
- protection of cultural heritage resources, including the UNESCO World Heritage Site designation for the Rideau Canal;
- promoting environmental sustainability;
- promoting active transportation and transit;
- improving access and multi-modal connectivity within NKT and to adjacent neighbourhoods; and,
- prioritizing the Vision for NKT to create a pedestrian-oriented environment and a multi-modal transportation network.
The City should also consult the public health unit about health impacts as part of the review and analysis of the proposed road extension. The study will ultimately consider alternatives to the WSE, including maintaining the right-of-way as a multi-use path as suggested by members of the community.”
YES! We will have to keep watching and providing input in the next phase, so that the ultimate product, which will guide the future of this part of Kingston, fulfils this promise.
Speaking of input, community feedback is incorporated extensively within this version of the report, and the full summaries of the public consultations are included in Appendix A, providing a permanent record. But we would have liked to know what some of the other “stakeholders [who] contributed their perspective” said. Maybe in the next phase we will get something like Appendix B: Consultations with Land Owners, Developers and Real Estate Professionals. Full transparency is very important.
— Mary McCollam
A Sampling of Other Changes:
The report now acknowledges that the decision to undertake a secondary planning process for North King’s Town was due not only to the age of planning studies, but due to community concern over the proposed Wellington Street Extension. As well, it states accurately that a majority of the public who provided comments were overwhelmingly opposed to the WSE, whereas the first draft only stated that opinions varied, with some opposed and some in favour.
The new Executive Summary includes the following: “With respect to DRF Park, many people would like the park to remain as it is. They want to protect the urban wilderness that exists along the shoreline, and they do not want the proposed WSE running through it or next to it … The K&P trail was generally noted as a positive addition to NKT’s open space network, but some people expressed concern that it would be negatively impacted by the proposed WSE.”
Before revision (p. 51)
“…home to walkable neighbourhoods, with strong connections to jobs, and amenities, so families can grow, thrive and age in place.”
After revision (p. 61)
“…home to walkable neighbourhoods, with strong connections to jobs, amenities, open spaces, the waterfront and neighbouring communities, so residents from a variety of backgrounds and income levels can grow, thrive and age in place.”
Before revision (pp. 54, 75, 77), the maps showed a dotted line with question marks and the legend “Potential Wellington Street Extension: subject to further study during next phase…”
After revision (pp. 64, 91, 95), the legend reads “Former rail right-of-way: proposed WSE or multi-use trail (subject to further study during next phase…)”
Before revision (p. 66)
“Develop a conservation strategy for natural heritage resources … that sets out mitigation measures where natural areas may be redeveloped.”
After revision (pp. 76-77)
“Develop a conservation strategy for natural heritage resources … that sets out mitigation measures where natural areas may be redeveloped, such that natural heritage features and areas are protected.”
Before revision (p. 73)
“There is some potential for higher density development along the waterfront.”
After revision (p. 88)
“There is some potential for higher density development within a short walking distance of the waterfront, with the waterfront protected for ecological functions, wildlife and public access. Land use compatibility and protection of the waterfront, including the area’s ecological function, will be necessary and will be reflected in the policy framework established by the secondary plan.”
Before revision (p. 84)
The report stated that a developer had proposed relocating the stone structure of the Outer Station, a designated heritage property, to Doug Fluhrer Park and stated that the City should continue to work with the developer.
After revision (pp. 103, 104)
The report gives far more information, including that now the application to the federal government is to relocate the property instead to 2 Cataraqui St, north of Doug Fluhrer Park, and that the majority of people in the community wish to see the Outer Station redeveloped and re-purposed in its existing location.