Present: Pearson; Mitchell (out 2x for 7 min); Bratina (out 4x for 38 min); Kelly (out 3x for 23 min); Whitehead (out 5x for 32 min); McHattie (out 3x for 14 min); Braden (out 3 x for 10 min).

Also present: McCarthy (left at 9:57 ); Bruckler (arrived 10:38 ; out 3x for 23 min).

Media : Nicole McIntyre (Spectator), Kevin Werner ( Brabant ), Maggie Hues (CFMU)

CATCH: Don

Changes to the agenda : Two motions by Bratina; additional requests to speak to the sign bylaw (8.2)

DELEGATION REQUESTS

4.1 Emma Molnar respecting increases in rates and fees for taxi cabs Approved to speak at a future meeting.

CONSENT ITEMS

All consent items approved without discussion.

5.1 Greenbelt Plan-Implementation Issues (PED06225)

5.2 Application for a Variance to Dundas Sign By-law, 30

5.3 Demolition Permit - 216 Dundurn Street South (PED06331) (Ward 1)

5.4 DemolitionPermit - 419 Rennie Street (PED06332) (Ward 4)

5.5 HessVillage Entertainment By-law amending the City of Hamilton
Licensing Code By-LawNo. 06-213 (PED06339) (Ward 2)

5.6 HamiltonDowntown Residential Loan Program - 91 Wellington Street North
Loan Repayment -RL-13 (PED06220/FCS06077) (Wards 2 and 3)

Advisory Committee Minutes - For Information Only

5.7 Hamilton LACAC (Municipal Heritage Committee) May 18, 2006)

5.8 Hamilton LACAC (Municipal Heritage Committee) June 22, 2006

PUBLIC HEARINGS AND DELEGATIONS

6.1 Applicationsfor an Official Plan Amendment and for a Change in Zoning
for Lands Located at855 Centre Road, Flamborough (PED06228) (Ward 15) To allow for a garden centre. No public delegations. No councillor discussion. Approved.

6.2 Applicationfor a Change in Zoning for Lands Located at 146 Dundas
Street East (Flamborough)(PED06222) (Ward 15)  Severance to add a house lot at corner of Dennis Avenue . McCarthy supports but asked for requirement for a fence as requested by Bernie Hanna. Discussion with staff on how this could be done. Can require height, but not materials. Whitehead asked about grading. Approved. 10 minutes for this item.

6.2.1 Added submission from Bernie Hanna,148 Dundas Street

6.3 Applicationsfor an Official Plan Amendment and Change in Zoning for the
Properties Locatedat 145 to 151 Green Road (Stoney Creek) (PED06334) (Ward10) Clemente Valeri is proponent. Adds a house lot to previously approved townhouse development to increase number of townhouses to 36. No discussion. Approved. 5 minutes for this item.

6.4 Applications for Approval of a Draft Plan of Subdivision "Chappel North" and
Change in Zoning for Lands Located at the Rear of 500, 514 and 522 Rymal
Road East (Hamilton) (PED06333) (Ward 7) " Subdivision Application 25T200514, Casablanca Properties Inc., owner , to establish a draft plan of subdivision comprising twenty lots for single detached dwellings, and two street extensions, on lands located at the rear of 500, 514, and 522 Rymal Road East" Area of the development is 1.13 hectares.

McHattie : "I understand that the secondary plan or the neighbourhood plan would have been in the works for a number of years, but I'm just trying to reflect on the GRIDS program, and the nodes and corridors approach that we've chosen to take. My understanding is that Rymal Road will indeed be one of those corridors and that we'll be looking to service that area with transit. And in order to do that we need a certain density to support transit and to ensure that we make the best use of land. I wonder if I could ask staff whether they considered the GRIDS directions with this particular development, because to me it seems like a lost opportunity to have such a low density development so close to a major corridor. It seems the antithesis of the GRIDS style of planning that we hope to undertake.. Give me a sense of the timing on these things and what influence if any the GRIDS style of planning has had on this development." [No immediate response from staff.] Pearson asks for a response. McCabe: "This is just a continuation of the existing street pattern . and we haven't really looked at anything innovative other than what's there now." Pearson suggests Kelly as the ward councillor "may be of help". Kelly: "Yes, just before councillor McHattie continues, I wanted to shed some light on the broader picture here. And I understand the councillor's concerns. Matter of fact, increased transit on Rymal is something we've been pushing for a long time. And the urbanizations of that area too - the sidewalks and others. But what we have here before us, as Mr McCabe's already alluded to, is an extension of single family residential pattern already which is in the middle of a survey, as opposed to on the side. What we've asked and tried to do with mixed use is to have the multi-residential components, of course, on the major corridors. If you look at this exclusively, you'll say okay where's the multi-residential. Well it's about two blocks to the east and to the west. There's a series of multi-residential units there, quite a few units. And about a quarter-mile down the road on the other side of Rymal Road is a townhouse complex and two proposed high rise complexes that are in the planning stages at this stage. I guess the applications haven't come forward yet. I know Angelo knows all about the timing on those too. So there is multi-residential that's been built here. There's multi-residential that's being planned there, so we are in keeping with the concepts of GRIDS here, and the nodes and corridors, and trying to keep the multi-residential aspect toward the main corridors. So it is in the process of developing right now. This is just an extension of something that was previously approved - a single family residential area in the inner part of the survey which is basically what we've been doing all along anyway." [26:25]

McHattie: "I appreciate that, councillor Kelly. It really helps. I'm just trying to get a general sense though, now that we've passed GRIDS, are we able to go back and look at some of the planning that we have been doing in the recent past and make any changes to neighbourhood plans, or secondary plans, or at least have that discussion. Or are we looking at - I'll call it the old style of planning and the new style of planning if that's an appropriate phrase - but the planning that's done before GRIDS and the planning that's done after GRIDS. Are we looking at planning committee over the next couple of years still dealing with old developments that don't have this new vision of nodes and corridors, at least, a little bit higher density. We've heard there is density planned for this area. There's just a little bit of frustration that we're going to see this stuff over - we have seen over the last three years that I've been here, no real change. Are we able to revisit some of these things that have already been put in place? That's the question I asked for staff ." Ron Marini (filling in for Paul Mason): "I would venture to say that my understanding as a planner, the first thing you have to do is your fundamental background studies before you do any meaningful public policy document changes. And GRIDS being that fundamental direction by council has to be implemented by Paul Mason's crew with the new Official Plan with relevant policies. But I'll take the question back to Paul, obviously, in terms of your frustration. But the other thing to keep in mind is that as Tim's [McCabe] people do community and neighbourhood plans, they'll be using the principles of the GRIDS systems in those designs. So as you roll out the newer things where we have immediate control on doing the fundamental infrastructure planning and community planning, for sure GRIDS will be rolled out. We'll have to wait though for the balance of the Official Plan to roll out, and then the subsequent program of secondary plans to revisit the area."

Pearson: "Thank you. And I'm going to go now to the applicant" asks if his agent is satisfied with staff recommendations. Angelo Cameracci: "Just on councillor McHattie's comments, the neighbourhood plan initially called for very large lots in this area. We scaled it down. I think staff has already looked at that point - trying to intensify what had already been envisioned. Secondly, we've reviewed the conditions; we're satified with the conditions. And just a short thank you to staff and especially Tony Sergi who's worked with us over the past couple of years on this project and he's come up with innovative servicing schemes to address this and future developments to the east. So just wanted to say thank you for that." Pearson invites public to make presentations. No one comes forward.

Kelly : "Just a brief statement and I wanted to echo Mr Cameracci's comments to staff that this is actually something that should have happened about eight years ago but there was some servicing problems, and staff has been very innovative in working with these. So I want to thank them for their work on this too. And I appreciate Brian's comments because it's something we've been concerned about. I lived up in that area back in the mid-sixtieswhen it was basically a rural area. And it has become urbanized basically because of the infill that has gone on there - the expansion actually, and some of the infill that's happened in the meantime. And we are looking at this too. As I said if you look at the broader picture of multi residential - along Upper Wentworth and Arrowhead we have a survey - there's a number of them around there. And the single-family residential is still going to be a component, with the GRIDS process. The process that we passed and the plan that we passed through GRIDS of course doesn't call for us to build multi-residential everywhere. It's still for mixed use and we can still accommodate that. And this is really just an extension of an ongoing process. So I want to thank staff again for this, and the proponents for their flexibility, and I'll be happy to move the recommendation." Pearson: "Thank you councillor. Councillor McHattie?"

McHattie : "I continue to have some concern. I recognize that the planning's been done but I wonder if we really provide the planning department with the direction to try and revisit some of these neighbourhood plans that have been developed over the last little while. And I recognize that there are commitments that have been made and perhaps neighbourhood meetings that have occurred previously that have set in place a particular development style and density. But given where opportunities may be provided to go back and speak to a developer, speak to the community, and say, look we have the opportunity to get transit, in this case, along Rymal Road . But we need a certain density based on our understanding of what is transit supportive. So we revisit some of these neighbourhood plans that are perhaps in a whole block along Rymal Road . This is an example, I'm not picking on Rymal Road . There may be other areas where there's development that's been in the works for the last couple of years, hasn't come to this committee yet. I just want to see, before we go with the single-family homes on the densities that we have here - and I recognize that it's denser than it was originally, which is nice to hear. Can we try to get back to that so we don't have any lost opportunities? So I'm wondering if maybe I can ask a broader question - just a quick comment from staff - whether it's possible to group some of these and revisit them where the opportunity exists, where a developer might be interested in working with us?"

McCabe : "We don't need a resolution on this because we're committed and required to do this anyways as part of Places to Grow. So as Ron said, you need the Official Plan first. A companion document to that is an intensification study. So the department will be re-looking at all these vacant lands and opportunities within existing neighbourhoods, and identifying intensification sites and what the appropriate change in land use would be. So that is part of the work program. We need the Official Plan first, the intensification study and the implmentation of that, and the whole density in terms of the build-to-line coming out of Places to Grow is all part of this package. And we will be doing that. And the province is requiring us to do that."

McHattie: "Well I'd just ask that that be reflected in the staff report then. I don't see anything in this staff report that says, here's where we were before GRIDS, before Places to Grow, here's where we are afterwards and here's the gains. And this is how it relates to our nodes and corridors approach and we're able to get transit because we've got this kind of density. Or here's our target along a particular stretch of Rymal Road . Just so I can see that kind of thing, because I don't see it in this report." Pearson: "Would it be more appropriate, councillor, if we direct staff to bring an information update on the process and what is being intended, as opposed to changing this report, for all of the areas in Hamilton ? Would that be more appropriate?" [34:27]

McHattie: ".not the staff report we're dealing with today. No, no. There's no issue about this one here. It's already clearly happening, but as we come forward, I just - I'm hearing what Tim's saying and I know staff can be looking at that, but I don't see it as an example in this report. Maybe it hasn't been started yet. Anyways, I" Pearson : "How about we leave it as direction for staff and let them come back with how they wish to address reporting . with every application or a blanket update information to us? Would that be appropriate? Councillor? [McHattie responds off-mic.] Okay. Councillor Whitehead?"

Whitehead: "I look forward to more high rises being built in Westdale as well. The reality is that in areas we represent there's a lot more opportunity in expansion and development, certainly, and than the lower end of the city. But there's certainly different perspectives and I always appreciate and welcome comments from councillors who represent the lower city where there's very limited opportunity for further development. But having said that, we have to be careful in the sense, in regards to the secondary plans and consultations that have taken place to date, and what's the expectation within these development communities, within these neighbourhoods. I appreciate, can certainly appreciate when we're talking about nodes and corridors and trying to expand and create more density to make it more viable for transit systems, but I just want to caution that there's a way to do it. Our staff, I think, are doing a very admirable job in getting there, and my concern is that when you already have areas where our neighbourhoods developed, it just doesn't make sense in regards to the character of those particular neighbourhoods. And I know if you tried to do that anywhere else in the lower city, you'd have the same challenge - to be intensifing any further than the character of that particular community. When you start building out from those communities, that's where the opportunity presents itself. I certainly hope and wish and expect staff to take those things under consideration in the context of GRIDS. I just wanted to put some perspective to it." Pearson: "Thank you councillor. Councillor McHattie, then councillor Braden."

McHattie: "I just wanted to pick up on a point that councillor Whitehead made. He made the point that apartment buildings might be the solution here. I think it's that kind of a comment that's going to scare everyone away from intensification - the kind of absolute comment that intensification means 12-storey, 20-storey apartment buildings. That's why people are worried about intensification. When in fact it means a very creative approach, where perhaps it's townhouses, stacked townhouses, whatever might be that can fit into the character of the neighbourhood. But if actually continue down, reinforcing that view of intensification as apartment buildings - something that's scary to folks - then I agree, quite rightly, that it won't happen. We'll have a significant push back from people throughout the city, and certainly in existing neighbourhoods. We are looking at quite a bit of intensification in ward one, and I invite the councillor to work with us on that." [37:51]

Braden: ".discussion is, in a good way, perhaps more philosphical than it is about the specifics. That's how we change and that's how we get things on the table. Going back to Mr McCabe's comments - if we're waiting for the intensification studies and events, and then the nodes studies, and then there's always a time when the developers say, look I've been working on this for five years, you can't change the rules on me three minutes before our . get approval. When should we expect, shall we say a more enlightened, and I think, change in planning philosophy or paradigm, based on the things that I think we're all committed to? But when will it actually be the common thing in this chamber to be then using that kind of thing of criteria to assess planning applications like this? And I'm not looking for a commitment; I'm looking for a good guess. It it two years, is it five, when is this likely going to happen that we are going to look at this and judge it accordingly?"

McCabe: "I can probably give you better than a good guess. I'd say a pretty excellent guess of two years where we will have an Official Plan in place. It will be an evolving kind of thing where we'll encouraging developers to submit rezoning applications during neighbourhood plans, amendments where we see the potential for intensification. When the Official Plan's done, that will have mandated intensification policies, certain locational criteria, certain land assembly type nature of properties, that when they come in for rezoning, then the Official Plan can direct it, and require it, and we will have a policy basis that we can say no to. So I think it's going to evolve over the next two years, and in two years we will have a policy frameworth that we will have to report on and applications will have to conform with."

Braden : "I appreciate very much that clarification. I do wonder, and I don't mean to speak for councillor McHattie or anybody else. I want to know because the people like me are contentious, and I think we have to . our intentions. I think they want to move where we want to go. I want to know if there's some interim vehicle we can use to jump. If we get an enlightened developer who comes to us and says, look this is still 1967, we want to use the 2010, we want to do 64 units and a combination of stuff that's creative. I want this corporation to be sending out a message to say we're there with you developers, that's the kind of thing we want to do. Rather than perhaps . go through every single regulation and change this, and you might as well quit before you start. What I'm trying to ask you , can staff help us help some of the people who want to be creative? So until that two years that you say that there's not going to be any change in process, when we have another process going along with it, so we can get some decent development?" McCabe : It's a pretty broad topic, but I think the answer is yes. We're developing along with the Official Plan a new comprehensive zoning bylaw. You've heard me talk before about the flexibility and the simpleness that we want to put in the new zoning bylaw. For example, multiple dwellings will be defined across the city as a building containing more than two dwelling units. So we won't have maisonnettes, block townhouses, stacked townhouses. So we want creativity to come with architectural design and intensification. That in itself is going to give some . to developers to get away from the red tape and OMB appeals, once we have the new zoning approach in place. And we're hoping that with the Official Plan we will have the residential zoning in place as well. So we're going to have a lot more variety in terms of dwelling types and densitys in normal residential zones, and it's going to be very few areas where you have single-family detached only. And if we see a major project that's so exciting and focusing on the intensification that we see for the future, we can also fast track those projects as well."

Braden starts another question and Pearson intervenes: "We're really off topic as far as this application." Braden : "Listen. This is important. Is that only going to apply to greenfield development or go right across the city?" McCabe : "Right across the city." Pearson : "Then we'll go councillor Kelly and councillor Whitehead and then we'll have a motion."

Kelly : "I'll be brief. I understand the importance of this discussion, but I find it a little frustrating. We passed GRIDS a couple of months ago and now they're saying well why isn't it in place. What's going on? We haven't got the future plans? It's working. And and the only point I wanted to make at this point is the application before us which seems to have motivated this dicussion. This discussion is not germane to this application whatsoever. I invite the members of the committee to drive the neighbourhood. And as I already stated, you want to see mixed use? Go look at Rymal Road in this particular area. We have multi-residential on the east side of Upper Wentworth and Rymal. We have multi-residential on the west side of. We have a large commercial district, a strip mall with a major store. We have two multi residential sections on Rymal Road just to the north of this development; another multi-residential that I talked about on Upper Sherman and Rymal. So we do have mixed use, Madame Chair - some people don't like it - is single-family residential. That's what this application is for. We don't have any problem with it and I would ask that we please move on and let staff do their job as far as integrating the GRIDS with our Official Plan." Pearson: "Thank you councillor. Councillor Whitehead."

Whitehead: ".I think and we've heard a number of speakers in the past of the fact that we could do a better job in intensification. The problem is that we really haven't started the education program. In fact, we've had a number of applicants on infills and so forth that the community was up in arms because of too much too soon. And what we heard clearly from some of the very articulate speakers who spoke in these very chambers is that we have to do a better job in educating the positives of intensification. How intensification it makes the case for transit, how we're making better use of our services. I guess the question I have. I know it's a lost cause and I concur with councillor Kelly, but it's important none the less. Where are at with start to educate . a fact sheet or something in regards to the broader community so they understand the positives that - not just the negatives - but looking at the positives that are created by intensification?" McCabe: "Well, we're really nowhere at this point. Until we have the intensification direction, and we have something to talk to people about, we haven't gone out, I mean, in terms of any public awareness program. So we have not started that." Whitehead: ".at the appropriate time - that's probably at the end of the . meeting, maybe we can give some direction to staff to start developing something along that line in context of where we are with our whole GRIDS process and intensification. So I do appreciate and I think it's enlightening to have this discussion here. As you know, it's a little off topic." Pearson: "Thank you councillor, that's why I allowed some . in this because it's not really . to this application in particular. Can I have motion now to approve the staff recommendation. Moved by councillor Kelly, seconded by councillor Whitehead. All in favour? Carried." [45:47] - 25 minutes for this item.

6.5 Application for a Modification in Zoning for the Properties Located at
86 Homewood Avenue and 91 Stanley Avenue (Hamilton) (PED06335) (Ward 1) " to permit commercial uses within the existing building containing a place of worship. The proposed commercial uses include professional offices, counselling services, commercial school, day nursery, and a caterer. An existing 40 space parking lot, on an abutting property at 91 Stanley Avenue is owned by Melrose United Church and will be merged in title with the main church property at 86 Homewood Avenue . This parking lot is available to accommodate parking generated by the proposed uses. However, to ensure that the commercial uses are operated at a minor scale, the uses are required to be located in the same building as a place of worship existing at the time of the passing of the By-law. In addition, no medical uses are permitted and the total gross floor area for commercial uses shall be limited to 1,600 square metres."

Staff report presented by Greg Macdonald. No questions from councillors. Church represented by Ed Fothergill : "We are satisfied with staff recommendations" Notes there are people representing the church in the gallery and identifies one. "But I will be available to answer any questions if anything comes up during the rest of the discussion."

A citizen comes forward to speak to the matter. Doris ??? who lives at 82 Homewood . Raises concerns about parking which she says is already a problem on Homewood . Wants signage directing people to park in the lot behind the church (off Stanley ). Notes particular problem in the winter when streets are not cleared regularly. Also asks about permit parking. Many children in the area whose safety is jeopardized by the vehicles.

McHattie supports the signage proposal and wants to look at permit parking. Notes advantage of 40-car lot off of Stanley . Whitehead asks about other parking for homes such as alleys. Macdonald says a lot of variation. Whitehead advises caution on permit parking because residents have to pay for this. Kelly agrees with Whitehead. Notes that permits don't give you right to a spot in front of your house. "Watch what you wish for because it's not the panacea that some people think it is." Moved by McHattie, seconded by Kelly. Approved. 10 minutes for this item. [56:35]

6.6 Applications for Approval of a Draft Plan of Subdivision and Change in
Zoning for Lands Located at the Southeast Corner of Colin Crescent and
Lorenzo Drive (Hamilton) (PED06226) (Ward 7) Proponent represented by Adi Irani. No public presentations. No discussion. Approved. 3 minutes for this item. [59:46]

6.7 NashNeighbourhood Official Plan Amendment, Secondary Plan
(PED06224) (Ward9) This covers the area of upper Stoney Creek bounded by Felkers Creek, Mud Street, Centennial Parkway and the Escarpment and includes both the former Taro west quarry landfill, and the currently operating Taro east quarry landfill. Brenda Khees presents the staff report and announces there are some minor changes that can be dealt with at council. Pearson assumes that's it and asks the public to come forward. After she does this and two people step forward, Khees notes there is a presentation, so the public portion is delayed. Khees: 370 hectares of land in total. Soccer pitches have been installed on the west quarry landfill site. Two public information centres held. Process began in mid-1990s but was delayed because of Taro issues. This was re-initiated in 2005. Prepared four options and presented these to the public on March 31, 2005 . Preferred option presented on November 24, 2005 . "Following that meeting and the citizen input that we obtained from that meeting, draft and final policy documents were prepared and this particular public meeting [today] is underway. There are a number of planning principles that were established for the Nash Neighbourhood including the provision of a safe and public access throughout the community and with adjacent neighbourhoods, promotion of an integrated system of new parks and open spaces with existing natural spaces, celebration of the city's natural and built heritage, the enhancement of physicial and visual connections to the Niagara Escarpment and environmentally sensitive areas, and a promotion of a mix of built forms at transit-supportive densities. .. low density development. That would be proposed at a density of 20-35 units per hectare, we have medium density . which is essentially located along the collector roads, and this would be street-related medium density development. We also have medium-density residential development at a density of 30-49 units per hectare .[in three blocks] At these densities proposed we are confident that these densities are transit supportive for this neighbourhood. . future neighbourhood parks are to be constructed either within this special policy area [CH transmission towers] or this special policy area [Taro east quarry landfill site] to provide more parkland for the immediate residential area. We have a large environmentally significant area that essentially surrounds the community to the west and north. Part of this incorporates the Niagara Escarpment . Davis Creek [area]. In terms of commercial development we have general commercial development along upper Centennial Parkway and Mud Street as well as some local commercial development on Green Mountain Road ." Considered having a school site and some "medium-high density residential development just at the entrance to the community" Some issues with realignment of " First Road West as well as Green Mountain Road . In order to deal with the best location for these particular realignments, we are unfortunately, we have to deal with the Taro landfill site. The construction of the roadways, the realignment, cannot happen until the landfill operation is completed and this overall area has been rehabilitated. In addition it was determined that with the Red Hill Creek Expressway opening up in the next year or so, that traffic patterns along upper Centennial Parkway as well as Mud Street may change. so as a condition of development a traffic study is required for First Road West as well as Green Mountain Road to determine the capacity of these existing roads to deal with new development. And at the time of the development of the Upper Centennial Parkway road system, with respect to the new servicing that would go up this roadway, an environmental study will be done essentially to deal with this intersection [Green Mountain and Centennial] as well as this intersection. . three special policy areas . antenna lands [CH towers] . and if that use ceases operations then these lands can be developed for low and medium density without an amendment to this plan. The special policy area B . is obviously to do with the Taro site. This area is intended for future public open space purposes, once the landfill site has been rehabilitated. And this particular special policy area . is to deal with the earth station where there are large satellite dishes and that could also be redeveloped for low and medium density development without an amendment to this plan.."

Braden : ".the expression was used, I think, that these are transit-supportive densities. . What are those densities, and .in the whole neighbourhood much of the property is not going to be built, do you therefore have to raise the densities in the parts that do get built on so that you can make a general comment that the neighbourhood is transit-supportive or are we taking a number out of a textbook and simply saying that area that is going to be developed is okay and we're not going to look at the relevance of a lot of open space?..." Khees :
.when we looked at the provincial direction which is 50 units per hectare, we did have to increase the densities in this area . to get our densities up to the 50 units per hectare. But recognizing the uniqueness of this particular overall neighbourhood of which 48% is either the dump, open space or ESAs, the calculation to determine that 50 units per hectare includes essentially the urban area minus that area overall. So the 50 units per hectare does not include the total limits of the neighbourhood. We didn't think that was realistic. We couldn't get the densities up, and part of the issue in this particular neighbourhood in terms of wanting to get a higher density is the proximity to the escarpment and the bedrock that's underneath. In order to have high rise development you're going to have to be able to dig down deep enough for the foundations of the apartments. So essentially we weren't able to get the high high density that we would have liked to . but we got, in our mind, a reasonable balance."

Braden : "I appreciate the clarity of that, but can you go back to the transit-supportable thing, about you want to get the density higher. . What level are you looking at to have it transit supportive - including two criteria - one is much of the area's not going to be developed and two is as far as I can tell there's no decent jobs there. So we got two other parameters in making it transit-supportable - one is no jobs, two is much of it's open space? So then what's the number you would like to see as a professional to compensate for those two figures in terms of density? Am I clear?" Khees : "I think you're looking for a number, and I don't think I can" interrupted by Braden: "No, no, no, I'm not trying to pin you to this." Interrupted by Khees : "Yeah, I understand where you're talking about the jobs. I think this is a very - unfortunately this is a very constrained neighbourhood and in order for us to get the type of jobs to get 50 jobs or persons per hectare from that perspective for transit supportive use, we didn't feel we were able to incorporate those types of uses within the neighbourhood, other than the commercial development that you see along Upper Centennial and Mud Street. The transit-supportive nature that we're talking about is essentially for the residential community. This is essentially a residential community." . Braden : I'm asking these questions for my benefit . half an hour ago we talked about some place down in Stoney Creek and councillor McHattie asked those questions. What number are you as a professional suggesting we should have in an area that is exclusively residential and commercial? So no big open space. What's the magic number there?" Khees : "I would say the magic number is the 50 units per hectare - 50 persons per hectare." Braden : "So if anything, this should be much higher?" Khees : "Possibly, yes. It'sifty persons per hectare." Braden : "So how many are you going for right now?" Khees : "It's 50 persons per hectare."

Bruckler: ".staff have done a remarkable job, and it is a challenging neighbourhood by virtue of the variety of things that you see here. The population, I believe is 9600 by way of density. What was the previous neighbourhood secondary plan that was on there.?" Khees: "The former neighbourhood plan had a projected population of 5650." Bruckler: "So we've almost doubled that by way of density, and I think that sort of addresses the higher density requirements in the Places to Grow, and all that kind of thing. [ 1:16:37 ]

[ 1:25:23 ] Bruckler: "We've got about double the density that we had previously and I can support that for transit and for various reasons. My concern is that there . are only two ingress and egress from that particular development, and certainly the one - Green Mountain and Centennial is problematic." Khees: "Absolutely." Bruckler: "There's not question about it and certainly you would never want to do a left turn at the location unless you signalized it. So for all intents and purposes you almost have one exit

[ 1:31:23 ] Whitehead: "Am I correct to understand that what is being proposed here is under the ratio of neighbourhood parks versus population?" Khees: "That's correct." Whitehead: "So we're designing something that isn't meeting the need of the neighbourhood?" Khees : "Essentially, yes we are." Whitehead: "So can I understand why we're doing that?" Khees : "Why we're providing the parkland for that development?" Whitehead: "No, why are we providing less parkland than is required in our current policy?" Khees: "Because we are going to be having other opportunities to provide the additional parkland. We're short - based on this particular neighbourhood park that we've identified here, we're short maybe a hectare.[ 1:32:14 ]

[transcription to be continued]

6.8 James Webb respecting parkland dedication in ERASE areas
(Delegation approved by Committee, July 10, 2006)

PRESENTATIONS

7.1 Tourism Hamilton 2005 Annual Report (PED06337) (City Wide)

DISCUSSION ITEMS

8.1 SignStudy and By-law - Final Report (PED05172(b)) (CityWide)

8.1.1 Added submission from George Langadinos

8.1.2 Second added submission from George Langadinos

8.1.3 Added submission from Hamilton-Halton Homebuilders Association

8.2 Negotiationof a Joint Venture Agreement for the Development
of a Parking Structure at166-190 Main Street West and
57 George Street (PED05105(a)) (Ward2)

MOTIONS

NOTICES OF MOTIONS

GENERAL INFORMATION

11.1 Keeping of pigeons in urban areas (From Outstanding Business List, due date August 8, 2006 )