Presentations to the Planning and Economic Development Committee
re downtown zoning bylaw.
May 19, 2005

1. Presentation by Patrick Brown:

I am Patrick Brown and I own and live at 123 Jackson St. West and also own 127 Jackson St. West. I am speaking regarding the Maximum Building Height Amendment on 120, 128 and 130 Hunter St. West. My properties abut to 120 and 128 Hunter St. West. The block bounded by Jackson St (south side), Caroline and Hunter and Bay (other than 100 Bay St. South ) is residential in nature with buildings being no more than 3 storeys in height. The part of the block under discussion is zoned D3 the remainder D5 I am supporting the Hunter St. Maximum Building Height Amendment with the following limitations, concerns and issues:

1. As I am directly affected should this Amendment be approved I wish to be informed of developments in the site plan process;
2. There be suitable set backs from rear property lines due to light noise and privacy issues;
3. There be erected a rear sound proof noise, privacy barrier of at least 15 feet in height to minimize noise and dust during construction.
4. No driveway of loading access to the Hunter Street 9 storey building be permitted from Jackson Street while either the present buildings at 123, 125 and 127 are being used as residences.
   
   Please note that 125 and 127 are semi-detached and any demolition of 125 would cause structural damage to 127. As well possible demolition of 125 would severly affect the use, enjoyment and value of 123 and 127 Jackson St.
   
5. The properties of Jackson St. have the same 9 storey height amendment as the Hunter Street properties.

Thank you to Al Fletcher, Senior Project Manager of the Planning and Development Dept for his help and explanations.

I would like to continue to dialogue with my neighbours and the Planning Dept. regarding the development.

Thank you,

Patrick Brown

2. Presentation by John Norris

Dear members of the Planning Committee:

Thank you for the opportunity to speak with you regarding the proposed adoption of a zoning plan for the downtown area and I would also want to comment on the additional recommendation proposed by staff that was handed out this evening.

My name is John Norris. In 1988, I and a group of other parkland advocates successfully stopped a municipal recreational facility from being built on open space parkland. The City failed to hold public meetings or offer any zoning change for the project, despite dramatic land use change. After my neighbours and myself won at the OMB, the City of Hamilton then sued us for the $6.6 million dollar costs in Divisional Court in Toronto. When the City lost that case as well, we used the costs awarded us to set up a non-profit parks enhancement and public parkland involvement company and since then have fundraised almost $400,000 that we have donated to environmental and parkland projects. The non-profit company was called MRRHI, or Mountainview Residents for Recreation of Hamilton Inc.

To be fair, our involvement in the downtown area is minimal. We have donated small amounts to help with the design and public involvement in parkland at Beasley and Central parks. When the City advised us that their budgets would no longer allow for employees to pick up litter at Gore Park, the city's core park area, we hired summer students and donated their efforts to a litter pick-up program at the Gore. Complaints and grievances filed by the City's union, or the basis that even though they were not doing the work nor was it budgeted or planned, unionized workers COULD have perhaps one day done the work and using student volunteers was improper. Not wanting to create any problems with the City, we withdrew our volunteer workers.

I am here to speak, not to the entire package tonight, but the section 4.4 Public Uses permitted on Appendix C on page 24 of 80. Particularly as it affects parkland.

Ladies and gentlemen of the Committee. Mr. Mayor. We applaud staff for the report today. After 55 years, a new zoning use plan was needed for the downtown. However, zoning and landau use plans success in letting residents know what is planned or permitted in their neighborhoods. In all fairness, this report does not. As long as the City has the right, included in Section 4.4 to built any facility its wishes, any communications or bus facility, any transportation facility, whether they own it or not in any zone, without a public meting, without notification to residents, without appeal provision- then the zoning by-law is seriously flawed.

Not since 1988, have we seen the inclusion of this phrase being incorporated in a municipal document and this concerns us. Surely, good public planning policy obligates the City to follow it's own policy. Surely, we expect the City to do as any private developer or entrepreneur would be obligated to do. If a developer wanted to build a significant facility in a park, that would be a major land use change, and we obligate, by law, that person to apply to committee and council with zoning change and public meeting. Yet we allow the City to simply violate that rule at will, without comment or notification under the guise of "Trust us. We know what we are doing." This is not just or correct.

Tonight, staff has presented an amendment to the plan before you to recommend that with the exception of servicing, infrastructure and utilities, a new process will exist and additionally, that any public use will not affect neighborhood parks use activity. The new amendment mandates that for activities that were scheduled under Section 4.4, the Department proposing such use shall be required to contact the Ward Councilor to review the proposed use.

The Ward Councilor will make the decision as to whether the proposed use requires public consultation to solicit public input

Should the Ward Councilor require public consultation, the Department proposing such use will be required to co-ordinate and lead the process with the Ward Councilors office to engage the public for input.

Upon completion of the Public Consultation, a report will be brought forward to the Department's respective standing Committee for discussion and to permit the hearing of public input. Council shall make the final decision.

If this was fifteen years ago, I would have been very suspicious of Councilors making decisions in this fashion, but I do believe that the current Ward Councilor's would want to engage public opinion of such activities that normally would be a not allowed use.

In the downtown area, there is little risk as facility development as community or citywide parkland is not available.

On lands outside of the City center, although this recent staff proposal is certainly a move in the right direction, it still fails the basic test. If an arena, community centre, sports complex is planned in a Community and City-wide park, there is still no requirement for a public meeting, no requirement for the Department to contact the Ward Councilor, no requirement to engage public opinion and no opportunity for appeal.

The City is moving in the right direction with the current staff new recommendation, and the new official plan parkland review is also a strong step in the right direction. The hold on the City's plans to allow private/public partnership on all lands by the Ontario Municipal Board will have the effect of forcing better planning, however there is still that one step to go.

The assurance that the City will be obligated to follow the same rules as everyone else is needed still. Until, that step is assured then there is still non-level playing field in land use and zoning in Hamilton.

Thank you.

3. Presentation by Joanne McCallum , OAA, FRAIC.
Partner
McCallum Sather Architects Inc.

Member, Past Chair 99'2001
Hamilton-Burlington Society of Architects

It has been very encouraging that the City is moving forward with the first stage of the new comprehensive zoning by-law that is based on Putting People First: The new Land-Use Plan for Downtown Hamilton. This latter document is remarkable for it's fresh and creative approach to enhancing the downtown core of Hamilton , in fact, clearly stated in the first paragraph of the document id the following statement:

"The plan takes an innovative approach, focusing on the overall roles and physical form of the development, rather than dwelling on regulatory details".

Building on this stated objective, the plan goes on to further state, under Land Use Policies, that:

"All public initiatives and private development approvals in the downtown secondary planning area will be subject to architectural and design peer review, in accordance with this plan, to assist the City in ensuring that the design objectives and policies of this plan are reflected in all projects."

Embedded in the plan is the concept of density development through complete site coverage and, integral to density are related issues of building height. In keeping with the intent to facilitate an innovate approach, increased density is considered acceptable and even encouraged, by allowing building heights to exceed the established height limitations, provided a set of criteria are met. This criteria includes the following conditions:

• Site coverage;
• Sun shadow impacts on public sidewalks or public places;
• Wind impacts on public sidewalks;
• Impacts on streetscapes and views;
• The above criteria may require the submission of relevant studies.
• Additionally, and of equal importance, the secondary plan states:

"Proposed increases in height must also demonstrate design consideration for the surrounding built form".

Finally, the plan makes reference to the following:

"New building construction shall include sustainable building design and construction practices to address energy efficiency, water conservation, waste reduction and air quality technology".

After reviewing the proposed by-law and associated amendments, I find there is much to be supportive of. However there are some areas of concern that I believe do not reflect the intent of the secondary plan.

First and foremost, there is no reference to design peer review. This is a critically important concept embedded in the secondary plan. Rather, the process seems to be replaced by the notion of built form regulations in certain key zoning designations, notably D3. Representatives from the architectural Hamilton-Burlington Society of Architects have expressed concern over this shift and we have been advised that the shift is only temporary - that design guidelines (if not peer review) will evolve in the future and that built form regulations may only be a temporary measure to respond to the notion of implementing suitable design concepts in the absence of these design guidelines and the peer review process. Prescribing building materials and the extent of glazing does not necessarily promote good design. Good design should evolve out of a clear understanding of the site context, the relationships between the public and private realms and the relationships between built form, structure, and materials.

Secondly, we can now add, hopefully, to our understanding of what constitutes good design, by integrating sustainable design concepts into the overall design approach. Prescribing materials and fenestration can limit the design options for developing buildings based on sustainable concepts where issues of site, form, natural light, daylighting, materials, indoor air quality, water conservation and recycling all impact the final design solution and if one is pursuing a LEED Certification (that indicates the level of sustainable design concepts incorporated into the site and building design) such a prescriptive approach may make the certification process that much more difficult.

Thirdly, amendments in the by-law include revisions to height limitations relative to specific parcels of land. The reason for change is stated as having no increase in sun shadow impacts on adjacent public sidewalks or public spaces. Understand that the impact of a 12 storey building on sun/shadow of public spaces is typically the same as a 4 or 5 storey building - as permitted height of the structure already casts a shadow on the public realm so there is no increase per se. I am not opposed to building height, in fact I support it as I believe that it is critically important to the vitality of the downtown core and allows for maximizing the use of the existing urban infrastructure, however the downtown plan outlines a set of criteria for permitting additional building height of which sun/shadow analysis is but one component. The plan also states, significantly, that the proposed increases in height must also demonstrate design consideration for the surrounding built form. So integral to approving additional building height is the notion of context and good urban design principles.

In passing this by-law, I think it is very important to acknowledge that the process of peer design review and/or, design guidelines (that are performance based not prescriptive based) should be developed in the very near future and timelines established for developing such. Passing a by-law with a built form mandate and building material specifications does not promote good design and could potentially conflict with sustainable design principles. I also submit to council that approving amendments to building height based solely on sun/shadow studies is a very narrow context upon which to make such an important decision and should be reconsidered, taking into consideration the very relevant and important criteria of sensitivity to site context

Ultimately what we all what to achieve with this by-law is to facilitate the process of transforming a good city into a great city, one that respects the past, engages the present and embraces the future.

Joanne McCallum , OAA, FRAIC.
Partner
McCallum Sather Architects Inc.

Member, Past Chair 99'2001
Hamilton-Burlington Society of Architects