Planning Justification Report
221-225 John Street & 70-78 Yonge Street
Corktown Plaza Inc.
City of Hamilton
Official Plan and Zoning By-law Amendment Applications
July 2018
Planning Justification Report
221-225 John Street S & 70-78 Yonge Street
Official Plan and Zoning By-law Amendment Applications
City of Hamilton
July 2018
Prepared for: Corktown Plaza Inc. 121 King St. W. Suite 200 Toronto, ON M5H 3T9
Prepared by: GSP Group Inc. 162 Locke Street South, Suite 200 Hamilton ON L8P 4A9
TABLE OF CONTENTS
1.0 INTRODUCTION ...... 1 1.1 Project Team ...... 1
2.0 SITE DESCRIPTION AND SURROUNDING USES...... 2 2.1 Site Description ...... 2 2.2 Surrounding Land Uses & Community Context ...... 6 2.3 Future Development ...... 9
3.0 PROPOSED DEVELOPMENT ...... 11 3.1 Overview of Proposed Development ...... 11 3.2 Supporting Plans, Drawings, Reports and Studies ...... 25 3.2.1 Cultural Heritage Impact Assessment ...... 25 3.2.2 Record of Site Condition - Phase 1 - 2 Environmental Site Assessment ...... 26 3.2.3 Functioning Servicing & Stormwater Management Report ...... 27 3.2.4 Noise & Vibration Feasibility Assessment ...... 28 3.2.5 Sun/Shadow Study ...... 29 3.2.6 Transportation Impact Study, Parking Justification and TDM Options Report .... 30 3.2.7 Tree Management Plan/Study and Preliminary Landscape Layout Plan ...... 32 3.2.8 Urban Design Brief (including a Visual Impact Assessment) ...... 32 3.2.9 Pedestrian Wind Study ...... 35 3.2.10 Right of Way Impact Assessment ...... 36 3.2.11 Public Consultation Strategy ...... 36
4.0 PLANNING POLICY AND REGULATORY CONTEXT ...... 37 4.1 Ontario Planning Act, R.S.O. 1990, c. P.13 ...... 37 4.2 Halton-Hamilton Source Protection Plan, 2015 ...... 37 4.3 Resource Recovery and Circular Economy Act, 2016 ...... 37 4.4 The Accessibility for Ontarians with Disabilities Act, 2005 ...... 38 4.5 Provincial Policy Statement, 2014 ...... 38 4.6 Places to Grow Growth Plan for the Greater Golden Horseshoe, 2017...... 46 4.7 Urban Hamilton Official Plan ...... 51 4.8 Downtown Hamilton Secondary Plan ...... 56
Planning Justification Report | 221-225 John Street S. & 70-78 Yonge Street i GSP Group Inc. | July 2018
4.9 Hamilton Tall Buildings Study & Guidelines ...... 62 4.10 Corktown Neighbourhood Plan ...... 63 4.11 Hamilton Zoning By-laws No. 6593 and No. 05-200 ...... 67
5.0 PLANNING APPLICATIONS ...... 72 5.1 Official Plan Amendment ...... 72 5.2 Zoning By-law Amendment ...... 72
6.0 PLANNING SUMMARY AND ANALYSIS ...... 73 6.1 Site Suitability and Context ...... 73 6.2 Provincial Plans and Acts ...... 74 6.3 City of Hamilton Official Plan ...... 84 6.4 Hamilton Zoning By-law ...... 90
7.0 RECOMMENDATIONS ...... 101
Figures and Tables Figure 1 Site Location ...... 4 Figure 2 Aerial View of Site...... 5 Figure 3 Neighbourhood Context ...... 10 Figure 4 Conceptual Site Plan ...... 12 Figure 5 Urban Hamilton Official Plan Schedule E—Urban Structure ...... 53 Figure 6 Urban Hamilton Official Plan Schedule E-1—Urban Land Use Designations ...... 54 Figure 7 Urban Hamilton Official Plan Schedule C—Functional Road Classification ...... 55 Figure 8 Corktown Neighbourhood Plan ...... 66 Figure 9 Current Zoning ...... 70 Figure 10 Proposed Commercial and Mixed Use Zones ...... 71
Table 1: Site Assessment Matrix...... 63 Table 2: Provincial Interest ...... 74 Table 3: Requested Modifications to C5 (Mixed Use Commercial) Zone ...... 91
Appendices Appendix A: Formal Consultation Document (March 14, 2018 meeting) Appendix B: Draft Official Plan Amendment Appendix C: Draft Zoning By-law Amendment Appendix D: Public Consultation Strategy
Planning Justification Report | 221-225 John Street S. & 70-78 Yonge Street ii GSP Group Inc. | July 2018
1.0 INTRODUCTION
This Brief has been prepared by GSP Group (Retained Sep. 2017) in support of a City of Hamilton Official Plan Amendment and Zoning By-law Application Amendment application (the “Subject Applications”) on behalf of Corktown Plaza Inc. to permit the redevelopment of lands municipally known as 221-225 John Street South and 70-78 Yonge Street within the City of Hamilton (“the Site”) to facilitate the redevelopment of the Site for two residential towers atop a multi-storey podium.
Specifically, the proposed amendments are as follows: • An Official Plan Amendment application to permit the height of the Proposed Development. A draft Site-specific policy for inclusion in the UHOP has been prepared and appended to this Report (see Appendix B). • A Zoning By-law Amendment is required to rezone the Site from a modified “CR-2/S- 572”, “CR-2/S572a”, “CR-2/S-572b” (Commercial-Residential), and “E-3” (High Density Multiple Dwellings) to a modified “C5” (Mixed Use Medium Density) zone including site specific regulations (see Appendix C).
This Report and the Subject Applications have been prepared by GSP Group Inc. The purpose of this Report is to describe the Proposed Development, the Subject Applications, the applicable planning policies and regulations, and to provide justification to support the Subject Applications to permit the Proposed Development.
A Formal Consultation (FC-18-024) was held with City of Hamilton staff on March 14, 2018 and is attached as Appendix A.
1.1 Project Team Owners: Slate Asset Management L.P. Planning: GSP Group Inc. Architects: Core Architects Inc. Cultural Heritage: ERA Architects Inc. Landscape Architecture: Janet Rosenberg & Studio Civil Engineering: Lithos Group Inc. Noise & Vibration: RWDI Inc. Traffic & Transportation: Paradigm Transportation Solutions Ltd. Wind: Theakston Environmental Inc.
Planning Justification Report | 221-225 John Street S. & 70-78 Yonge Street 1 GSP Group Inc. | July 2018
2.0 SITE DESCRIPTION AND SURROUNDING USES
2.1 Site Description The Site is composed of three (3) parcels of land, together forming a city block bounded by Young Street to the north, Catharine Street S. to the east, Forest Avenue to the south, and John Street S. to the west. The Site is approximately .595 ha in size with a frontage of ±72.5m along Forest Avenue. The Site is pictured in Image A.
The Site is presently dominated by a parking lot that covers approximately 60% of the surface area. The most significant building is a rectangular, one-storey commercial plaza (refer to Image B) that was built between 1984 and 1985 and situated on the eastern side of the Site, with a lot coverage of approximately 35%. The current tenants of the commercial plaza include: a restaurant, drug store, laundry service, cell phone repair shop, and pizza restaurant. The remainder of the Site is occupied by two smaller buildings: a three-storey commercial building occupied by a sandwich shop at the north-west corner of the Site (70 Young Street); and a vacant two (2) storey single-detached dwelling situated in the middle of the north side (78 Young Street) of the Site. To facilitate the Proposed Development, all three buildings are proposed to be demolished over two phases.
The Site does not feature any trees or vegetation, owing largely to the surface parking lot. However, within their respective road allowances, trees run along the entirety of the southern and eastern boundary, as well as partially along the northern boundary.
Geographically, the Site is situated at the edge of the escarpment base where the Hamilton Bar geological formation rises toward York Boulevard and out to Burlington Heights. Consequently, the Site slopes toward the northeast, with an approximate 5m drop in grade from the southwest corner to the northeast corner. The grade change occurs primarily at the corners of the Site while the interior is generally flat.
The overall lot configuration as well as the location of the Site within the City of Hamilton is illustrated in Figure 1, with aerial imagery shown in Figure 2.
Planning Justification Report | 221-225 John Street S. & 70-78 Yonge Street 2 GSP Group Inc. | July 2018
Image A: Corktown Plaza as seen from across John Street South, looking east. The 11- storey Brockton Apartments rise over the Plaza from the east.
Source: GSP Group Site Visit (May 8, 2018)
Image B: Corktown Plaza as seen looking south toward the escarpment. Mid- and high-rise buildings can be seen in the immediate area, including from left-to-right: the Brockton Apartments (11 storeys), the Oakland Square II Apartments (21 storeys), and The Clifton (10 storeys).
Source: GSP Group Site Visit (May 8, 2018)
Planning Justification Report | 221-225 John Street S. & 70-78 Yonge Street 3 GSP Group Inc. | July 2018 Q H U W E Y CITY OF E 6 BURLINGTON N 5 W
WY Y E
H L O I Z R A K B AU E GU B T ST H ± A LV ST D W CITY OF A KING Y HAMILTON S T
S T E MH T OH 5 A W K R W D E
R YMA MUD ST W L R KEY D E
Site
YO UNG 211 & 70 ST
78 S
S T
S T
S E
N N I
H R
A O
J H
T
A 225 C
FOR EST AVE
CH ARL TON AV E E
0 25 50
Meters
Figure Site Location Source: Queen’s Printer for Ontario (2018), City of Hamilton GIS (2018) 1 Planning Justification Report | 221-225 John Street S. & 70-78Yonge Street GSP Group | June 2018 AU GUS ± TA S T
Site
YO UNG ST
S
S T
T S
S E
N N I
H R
O A J H
T
A
C
FOR EST AVE
CH ARL TON AV E E
0 25 50
Meters
Figure Aerial View Source: Google Earth (2018), City of Hamilton GIS (2018) 2 Planning Justification Report | 221-225 John Street S. & 70-78Yonge Street GSP Group | June 2018
2.2 Surrounding Land Uses & Community Context
The Site occupies a city block surrounded by the following land uses:
North: Young Street—fronted by low-rise commercial buildings and a residential townhouse development.
East: Catharine Street South—fronted by an 11-storey residential building (Brockton Apartments), and a parking lot, which is subject to an application further detailed in Section 2.3, Future Development.
South: Forest Avenue—fronted by a single-detached residential dwelling flanked on both sides by low-rise commercial offices.
West: John Street South—fronted by a 12-storey residential building known as the Villa Marie Apartments (refer to Image C) as well as a low-rise commercial plaza trading in daily needs.
Image C: A cluster of high-rise apartment buildings can be seen immediately west of the Site. The rear of the plaza is shown here, looking northwest from the intersection of Forest Avenue and Catharine Street South. The blank wall and lack of pedestrian interface characterizes the south, east, and north façade of the existing Corktown Plaza.
Source: GSP Group Site Visit (May 8, 2018)
Planning Justification Report | 221-225 John Street S. & 70-78 Yonge Street 6 GSP Group Inc. | July 2018
In the wider community context, the Site is situated in the Corktown neighbourhood, one of Hamilton’s oldest neighbourhoods, and defined as the area between Main Street East and the Niagara Escarpment Brow, stretching from James Street S. in the west to Wellington Street S. in the east.
The Corktown neighbourhood was originally settled by migrant Irish workers beginning in the 1830s and growing dramatically in the next decades as famine led to an exodus from Ireland. From the mid-19th century, wealthy industrialists and businessmen began to build lavish estates at the base of the escarpment, and by the dawn of the 20th century, middle- class residents began to move into the area to escape downtown while staying close to amenities.
The arrival of the Toronto Hamilton & Buffalo (TH&B) Railway in 1895 led to the development of various rail-related light industries in central Corktown. The Hamilton TH&B station (and head-office) opened in 1933; and still serves the community today in its current capacity as the Hamilton GO Centre, the only station in the GO system with integrated bus and train service.
The current architectural character of Corktown reflects its history as an Irish working-class neighbourhood. Typical housing in the area includes one-storey row houses as well as ornate 2 to 2.5-storey Victorian single-detached and semi-detached homes. Following the Second World War, much of Corktown’s original housing stock was destroyed by urban renewal and infill efforts, and the construction of mid- to high-rise apartments in the 70s and 80s characterize much of Corktown today and indeed form its dominant features. Consequently, numerous high-rise buildings are found within the vicinity of the Site, including the Oakland Square Towers I and II (each 21 storeys) located immediately south-east of the Site, and the third tallest building in Hamilton: the Olympia Apartments at 33 storeys, located ±135m to the southeast as shown in Image D.
Planning Justification Report | 221-225 John Street S. & 70-78 Yonge Street 7 GSP Group Inc. | July 2018
Image D: The existing low-rise Corktown Plaza is seen at the bottom-left of the photo, dwarfed by the surrounding high-rise buildings, including the Brockton Apartments located directly behind the plaza, and to the right, across Forest Avenue, we see the Oakland Square Towers I and II, followed by the soaring Olympia Apartments.
Source: GSP Group Site Visit (May 8, 2018)
Due to its long history of settlement and proximity to downtown, Corktown is well served by existing public amenities, the most notable of which is St. Joseph’s Hospital. In terms of education, Queen Victoria Elementary School is located ±200m east of the Site, and St. Charles Adult & Continuing Education is located just ±60m to the west along Young Street.
Corktown contains lively commercial spaces, including restaurants and commercial services found along James Street S. and John Street S. between Charlton Avenue E. and the Hamilton Go Centre, in addition to a bourgeoning pub district along Augusta Street.
The Site is adjacent to the Church of the Ascension, a Gothic Revival church constructed in 1875 and designated under the Ontario Heritage Act. In addition, St. Charles Garnier Church is located ±125m northwest of the Site.
Corktown also features numerous parks, the largest of which, Corktown Park, is located ±300m east of the Site and is the terminus of the Escarpment Rail Trail, with access up and along the escarpment to Albion Falls and beyond, to the outskirts of Caledonia. St. Joseph’s Park is found 250m south of the Site, which is a small parcel of grassed land that functions more like a parkette. Shamrock Park, which includes a playground, is located ±240 northeast of the Site, and Woolverton Park located only 95m south of the Site, also includes a
Planning Justification Report | 221-225 John Street S. & 70-78 Yonge Street 8 GSP Group Inc. | July 2018
playground and a gazebo. Lastly, a trail up the escarpment can be found at the end of John Street S. providing pedestrian access to Southam Park and the Mountain at large.
The community context is illustrated in Figure 3.
2.3 Future Development In addition to the numerous mid- and high-rise buildings in the Corktown area that already form much of Hamilton’s skyline, several planning applications have been submitted near the Site that if approved and ultimately constructed, would represent an overall intensification of Corktown as well as indicate the general direction the neighbourhood is moving in.
First, immediately east of the Site and south of the existing Brockton Apartments are lands known municipally as 117 Forest Avenue and 175 Catharine Street South, where a Zoning By-law Amendment application was submitted in December, 2016 to permit the construction of a ten (10) storey multiple-dwelling in addition to (7) seven street townhouses linked by an underground garage, for a total of 78 dwellings units.
Second, located just 100m immediately south of the Site on the lands municipally known as 299-307 John Street South and 97 St. Joseph’s Drive, an application has been filed to permit the development of a mixed-use complex, including three residential towers at a proposed height of 26, 30, and 36 storeys, for a total of 923 units atop a common podium containing commercial uses.
All considered, the immediate area surrounding the Site, and Corktown as a whole, is likely to become denser and taller in the near future.
Planning Justification Report | 221-225 John Street S. & 70-78 Yonge Street 9 GSP Group Inc. | July 2018 JAC KSO N S T W Downtown Hamilton T
S M N AIN ± E ST E W HU O N B TE Hamilton R S T W J GO Centre ACK SON S S T E Landmark T
S Place B Residential A N B C ECK A L BOL EY M D ST ST HU NTE R S H T E AYM CP Railway ARK ET S Pub T St. Charles District S S
DU T Garnier Church S E K S V E T S S A T S S T E Residential N T S A E M U S O GU N T A S I S TA E U J S R I S U T N A L T G Commercial L L H I S R A T S A E N A W B F T O C S S
H N G Commercial H Residential U O H J Shamrock T S
Y Park T St. Charles Adult Y R OUN E G B & Continuing ST I L Education Centre Escarpment Rail Trail
FO RES T A Residential VE Church of the High-Rise Residential Ascension CH Site ARL TON AV E E
Corktown T S P ATR Park A I R CK ST O FO ST JO S R SEPH T U E S DR E Woolverton R A St. Joseph’s V S A T Park Residential Healthcare D O
O W St. Joseph’s T High-Rise Queen Victoria N Residential U Park Elementary High-Rise O M Residential R School LO D UISA KINGSWAY A A E R F V KLE REE DU MAN PL N Residential AVE
CESS ONT AC CLAREM 0 25 50 100 150
Meters
Figure Neighbourhood Context Source: Google Earth (2018) 3 Planning Justification Report | 221-225 John Street S. & 70-78Yonge Street GSP Group | June 2018
3.0 PROPOSED DEVELOPMENT
3.1 Overview of Proposed Development The Proposed Development contemplates the redevelopment of the Site into a mixed-use development consisting of two (2) towers atop a 5-storey podium. Tower A will have a height of 34 storeys plus a mechanical penthouse and Tower B will have a height of 31 storeys plus a mechanical penthouse. The proposal includes a total of 792 rental units and 2,157.34m2 of retail space. A total of 436 parking spaces are proposed within the ground floor of the podium and three (3) levels of underground parking. Outdoor amenity spaces will be atop the podiums.
The proposed development’s residential component includes studio, one- bedroom, two- bedroom, and three-bedroom units in apartment and townhouse forms, with floor sizes ranging from 37m2 (400ft2) to 120m2 (1,300 ft2). All units are intended to be rental accommodation, complementing the existing older rental stock in the vicinity.`
The redevelopment is proposed to occur in two phases. Generally stated, the two phases are divided between the north and south of the Site. Phase I will include the development of the 34 storey tower and Phase II will include the development of the 31 storey tower. The phasing strategy will allow existing commercial establishments to continue operations while the first phase is under construction.
Pedestrian entrances for the residential towers will be on Young Street and Forest Avenue. Street-level retail will have their own entrances on John Street South. Access to the underground parking will be from Catharine Street.
The Conceptual Site Plan of the Proposed Development is illustrated in Figure 4. Overall, the Proposed Development will:
• Redevelop a barren parking lot in the heart of the historic Corktown neighbourhood and replace it with a landmark pair of towers that will enhance the community’s sense of place. • Introduce a new mixed-use development and modern design aesthetic into a neighbourhood dominated by aging mid- and high-rise concrete buildings. • Increase and diversify the housing stock within the Corktown neighbourhood, bringing more residents and vitality into the wider downtown area. • Make effective use of a significantly underutilized Site in a prime location that will take advantage of existing servicing and community amenities.
Planning Justification Report | 221-225 John Street S. & 70-78 Yonge Street 11 GSP Group Inc. | July 2018 KEY PLAN
RETAIL RESIDENTIAL RETAIL SITE RESIDENTIAL CATHARINE STREET SOUTH
YOUNG STREET 67.6m
Daylight Triangle Daylight Triangle 4.57m x 4.57m 4.57m x 4.57m SITE PLAN All of Lots 172, 173, 178, 179, 189, 190, 195 and 196
6.2m RESIDENTIAL 2.1m 6.5m George Hamilton Survey ACCESS 76.7 0.5m (Registered Plan 1431) City of Hamilton 4.4m 4.2m 211 John Street South BALCONY 37.1 CORKTOWN 3.3 28.9 5 KEY PLAN SITE DATA LEGEND RETAIL SITE STATISTICS Lot Area (existing) 5,950m2 PRIVATE COMMON RESIDENTIAL1.9m 2 COMMERCIAL TOWER A Net Lot Area 5,907m AMENITY SPACE RETAIL No. of UnitsSITE 792 ACCESS 34 STOREYS • Tower A (Phase 1) 416 RESIDENTIAL • Tower B (Phase 2) 376 ACCESS POINT Total 792 units Commercial 2,157 m2 RETAIL 16.8 PHASING Parking • Residential 351 • Commercial 85 DAYLIGHT TRIANGLE
COMMERCIAL CATHARINE STREET SOUTH 1.8 Total 436 ACCESS 28.4 YOUNG STREET 67.6m Comply C5 (Mixed Use Medium Density) Required Proposed REGULATIONS / 7 Daylight Triangle ✓ ✗ Daylight Triangle Section 10.5.1 PERMITTED USES 4.57m x 4.57m 4.57m x 4.57m SITEMultiple DwellingPLANPermitted Permitted All of Lots 172, 173, 178, 179, 189,Commercial 190, 195 and Uses 196 Permitted Permitted
1 6.2m RESIDENTIAL 5 2.1m PEDESTRIAN6.5m GeorgeSection Hamilton 10.5.1.1 Survey RESTRICTED USES ACCESS 76.7 0.5m (Registered Plan 1431) RestrictedCity of Hamilton Uses The finished floor elevation of any dwelling 6.9 COMMERCIAL 4.4m ACCESS Townhouses .67m below avg. grade 4.2m 211within John a Street Building South unit shall be a minimum of 0.9m above grade 19.5 Section 10.5.3 REGULATIONS ACCESS BALCONY 37.1 PHASE 1 CORKTOWN
3.3 North: 0m 28.9 5 i) Minimum 3m for a building with SITE DATA LEGEND East: 0m residential units on the ground floor South: 0m PHASE 2 SITE STATISTICS 2 facing a street; Lot Area (existing) 5,950ma) Building PRIVATE COMMON West: 0m TOWER A 1.9m 2 RESIDENTIALCOMMERCIAL RESIDENTIAL Net Lot Area 5,907m Setback from a AMENITY SPACE No. of Units 792 North: 4.32m ACCESS 34 STOREYS • Tower A (Phase 1) 416 Street Line ii) Maximum 4.5 metres, except where a ACCESS 376 ACCESS POINT East: 4.32m BALCONY • Tower B (Phase 2) visibility triangle is required for a Total 792 units South: 5.7m 2 80.5 Commercial 2,157 m RETAIL 16.8 PHASINGdriveway access; OPEN Parking West: 6.18m • Residential 351 5.9m 1 COMMERCIAL • Commercial 85b) Min. Rear Yard DAYLIGHT7.5m TRIANGLE 0m (at daylight triangle) COURTYARD1.8 Total 436 ACCESS 28.4 North: 9.25m BALCONY Comply REGULATIONS C5 (Mixed Use Medium Density) Required Proposed 71.4m i) Minimum 7.5m façade height for any East: 9.25m 7 ✓/✗ Section 10.5.1 PERMITTED USES portion of a building along a street line South: 9.25m Multiple Dwelling Permitted Permitted 20.3 West: 5.8m PEDESTRIAN 1 5 Commercial Uses Permitted Permitted 71.3m 80.4 PEDESTRIAN Section 10.5.1.1 RESTRICTED USES Restricted Uses The finished floor elevation of any dwelling ii) Maximum 22m; COMMERCIAL 6.9 Townhouses .67m below avg. grade ACCESS ACCESS within a Building unit shall be a minimum of 0.9m above grade ACCESS 19.5 Section 10.5.3 REGULATIONS iii) In addition to Section 10.5.3 d) i) and 18.8m PHASE 1 North: 0m i) Minimum 3m for a building with notwithstanding Section 10.5.3 d) ii), RESIDENTIAL c) Building HeightEast: 0m residential units on the ground floor South: 0m PHASE 2 facing a street; any building height above 11m may be Tower A: 113.5m RESIDENTIAL RESIDENTIAL a) Building West: 0m ACCESS Setback from a North: 4.32m equivalently increased as the yard VEHICULAR Street Line 2 BALCONY ACCESS ii) Maximum 4.5 metres, except where a East: 4.32m increases beyond the minimum yard 1.8m 17.7m visibility triangle is required for a South: 5.7m Tower B: 104.5m 80.5 driveway access; OPEN 6.9m ACCESS West: 6.18m requirement established in Section
5.9m 1 COURTYARD b) Min. Rear Yard 7.5m 0m (at daylight triangle)10.5.3 b) and c) when abutting a
9.4 North: 9.25m
PHASE 1 5 BALCONY Residential or Institutional Zone to a 71.4m i) Minimum 7.5m façade height for any East: 9.25m portion of a building along a street line South: 9.25m maximum of 22m. PEDESTRIAN 20.3 West: 5.8m 71.3m BALCONY 80.4 ACCESS ii) Maximum 22m; i) Rooftop mechanical equipment shall be PHASE 2 iii) In addition to Section 10.5.3 d) i) and 18.8m 4.4m located and/or screened from view of Screened from view 0.1m RESIDENTIAL c) Building Height notwithstanding Section 10.5.3 d) ii), any building height above 11m may be Tower A: 113.5m any abutting street. 2 ACCESS VEHICULAR equivalently increased as the yard BALCONY 1.8m 17.7m increases beyondg) the Builtminimum Form yard for Tower B: 104.5miii) Corner lots: min. combined width of TOWER B 6.9m ACCESS requirement established in Section 10.5.3 b) and c) when abuttingNew aDevelopment ground floor façade facing the front lot PHASE 1 9.4 5 Residential or Institutional Zone to a line and flankage lot line shall be ≥ 50% 60% maximum of 22m. BALCONY of the measurement of all lot lines RESIDENTIAL PHASE 2 31 STOREYS i) Rooftop mechanical equipment shall be 0.1m 4.4m located and/or screened from view of Screened from view abutting a street. any abutting street. BALCONY TOWER B g) Built Form for iii) Corner lots: min. combined width of 2 New Development ground floor façade facing the front lot i) 4.0 m / dwelling unit less than 50 line and flankage lot line shall be ≥ 50% 60% square metres; RESIDENTIAL 31 STOREYS of the measurement of all lot lines 2 2 19.5 abutting a street. = 22 Units x 4m = 88m 2 h) Min. Amenity i) 4.0 m / dwelling unit less than 50 2 2 2 square metres; ii) 6.0 m / dwelling unit more than 50 14,678.24m (18.5m /unit) 2 Area2 for Multiple 19.5 = 22 Units x 4m = 88m square metres.
17.5 1.8 h) Min. Amenity m2 Dwellings 2 2 22.9 Area for Multiple ii) 6.0 / dwelling unit more than 50 14,678.24m (18.5m /unit) 2 2 square metres. = 770 Units x 6m = 4,620m 17.5 1.8 Dwellings 22.9 = 770 Units x 6m2 = 4,620m2 Total Required Minimum Amenity Area: Total Required Minimum Amenity Area:
19.3 2 19.3 4,708m2 4,708m Section 5 PARKING 5.2 b) ii) Parking Section 5 PARKING 2.8m x 5.8m 2.8m x 5.8m Staff Size 5.2 b) ii) Parking Width = 2.8 + .3m where parking stall 2.8m x 5.8m 2.8m x 5.8m 8 5.2 b) iii) obstructed by a wall,Staff column Size or other 6 obstruction. 2 Width = 2.8 + .3m where parking stall i) Multiple Dwelling Units less than 50m 8 35.3 (0.3 / unit) 5.2 b) iii) obstructed by a wall, column or other 6 4.0m =89 Units x 0.3 = 26.7 spaces obstruction. 2 1.8 BALCONY ii) Dwelling Units greater than 50m2: 2 351i) spacesMultiple Dwelling Units less than 50m 5.6 c) i) Residential Units Min Max Req’d (Average 0.44/unit) 35.3 3.9 1 – 14 0.7/unit 1.24 9.8 (0.3 / unit) 0.1m RESIDENTIAL 15- 50 0.85/unit 1.25 29.75 4.0m 51+ 1.0/unit 1.25 653 =89 Units x 0.3 = 26.7 spaces 71.3 ACCESS TOTAL 692.5 2 1.8 6.7m BALCONY 6.5m Total Parking Required for 792 units = Daylight Triangle 693 + 89 = 720 (Average 1.1/unit) 2 0.1m ii) Dwelling Units greater than 50m : COMMERCIAL Commercial (Retail) 4.57m x 4.57m iii) 1/17 m2 where GFA is between 450m2 Units Min Max Req’d 351 spaces ACCESS 5.6 c) iv) and 4,000 m2 5.6 c) i) Residential 2 85 spaces (Average 0.44/unit) 3.9 Commercial (Retail) Total Commercial GFA = 2,157m 1 – 14 0.7/unit 1.24 9.8 Daylight Triangle 2 = 2157 - 450 (1707.34m ) = 1707.34 ÷ 17 = 15- 50 0.85/unit 1.25 29.75 0.1m RESIDENTIAL62.2m 4.57m x 4.57m 100 spaces FOREST AVENUE NOTES: 51+ 1.0/unit 1.25 653 ACCESS 1. Base drawing prepared by CORE Architects Inc. (Site Plan A103: June 15, 2018). TOTAL 692.5 6.7m 71.3 6.5m Total Parking Required for 792 units = Daylight Triangle REVISIONS693 + 89 = 720 (Average 1.1/unit) 0.1m COMMERCIAL GSP Commercial (Retail) 4.57m x 4.57m iii) 1/17 m2 where GFA is between 450m2 ACCESS RESIDENTIAL/COMMERCIAL group5.6 c) iv) and 4,000 m2 RESIDENTIAL 2 85 spaces PLANNING I URBAN DESIGN I LANDSCAPECommercial ARCHITECTURE (Retail) Total Commercial GFA = 2,157m INSTITUTIONAL Daylight Triangle 2 gspgroup.ca = 2157 - 450 (1707.34m ) = 1707.34 ÷ 17 = 62.2mSOUTH STREET JOHN 100 spaces 4.57m x 4.57m Date: June 28, 2018 Drawn By: RT Dwg. File Name: sp17228a.dwg FOREST AVENUE Scale: 1: 250 Project No.:NOTES: 17228 1. Base drawing prepared by CORE Architects Inc. (Site Plan A103: June 15, 2018).Figure
Site PlanREVISIONS Source: GSP Group (June 27, 2018) &GSP CORE Architects Inc. (June 15, 2018) 4 RESIDENTIAL/COMMERCIAL group Planning Justification Report | 221-225 John Street S. & 70-78Yonge Street RESIDENTIAL INSTITUTIONAL GSP Group | June 2018 PLANNING I URBAN DESIGN I LANDSCAPE ARCHITECTURE
gspgroup.ca JOHN STREET SOUTH STREET JOHN Date: June 28, 2018 Drawn By: RT Dwg. File Name: sp17228a.dwg Scale: 1: 250 Project No.: 17228
• Support existing and planned transit infrastructure, including the Hamilton GO Centre, SoBi bicycle sharing service, HSR Bus routes (22 and 27), and future LRT stations planned along King Street at James Street, and Mary Street.
The Proposed Development will be facilitated by a future Site Plan application.
The Development of the proposed Site has evolved over the past year including input from City Planning Staff, the local Councilor and the surrounding community. In December 2017 a public open house was held to solicit comments and input from the community on what elements to include in the redevelopment of the Site. No concepts were presented at this meeting. Round table brainstorming sessions were held to discuss the preferred form of development and uses. The key takeaways from the first Community Open House related to:
1. Design – contextual design, materials, response to surrounding buildings, placement of tall buildings, shadows and preserving views;
2. Greenspace – open space, tree canopy, green roofs, preserve existing trees;
3. Sense of Community – enhanced pedestrian focus, widened sidewalks, patios, mid- block connections, strong public realm, variety of housing;
4. Retail – food/grocery store, mix of retail, support local businesses, preserve existing parking; and
5. Culture – strengthen urban fabric, local art.
Following these meetings, a development concept was prepared and presented to the community at a second community open house held on May 24, 2018. The information to follow was provided to the community as a part of the overall presentation to illustrate how the key takeaways were incorporated into the proposed development concept.
Planning Justification Report | 221-225 John Street S. & 70-78 Yonge Street 13 GSP Group Inc. | July 2018
IMMEDIATE AND URBAN CONTEXT
North: Fine grain retail along John Street, 3 storey townhomes at the northeast corner.
East and West: Multi-unit residential towers ranging from 11 to 21 storeys
South: Single family houses and 10 storey multi-unit residential tower.
Urban Context: Niagara escarpment, Olympia tower, proximity to downtown and transit.
JOHN STREET BUFFER
• Provide large setback along John Street • Provide buffer to traffic • Allow public gathering space adjacent to an activated street frontage; • Encourage pedestrian friendly public realm
Planning Justification Report | 221-225 John Street S. & 70-78 Yonge Street 14 GSP Group Inc. | July 2018
JOHN STREET RETAIL “COMMUNITY AMENITY”
Continue the use and nature of John Street by extending the retail to the south:
• Fine grain retail at the northwest corner • materiality to relate to the traditional retail • High ceilings • Large glazing
Continue the retail to anchor the corner of John and Forest:
• Large format retail opportunity – e.g., food • More modern façade treatment • High ceilings • Large glazing
No overall loss of retail or parking
Planning Justification Report | 221-225 John Street S. & 70-78 Yonge Street 15 GSP Group Inc. | July 2018
TOWNHOUSES
• Provide an adjacent street relationship to the townhouses built form to the north • Materiality • Scale • Landscape treatment • Street related access
View from Catharine Street looking southwest
Planning Justification Report | 221-225 John Street S. & 70-78 Yonge Street 16 GSP Group Inc. | July 2018
MID BLOCK CONNECTION • Provide a landscaped mid- block connection with access to residential lobbies • New accessible access • Sculptural stair node provides connection through the mid-block to John Street • Node connects the at- grade parking and P1 to John Street • Outdoor light penetration through to P1 at the node • Public art opportunity to celebrate local art and culture
TOWER PODIUMS – John Street and Forest Avenue
Determine podium heights based on: • Scale of built form relates to street right-of- way (Forest and John) • Terrace and step-back to allow light penetration • Provides opportunity for outdoor amenity spaces • Green roofs/landscape will be visually appealing to surrounding content
Massing responds to heritage context: Podium façade angles towards the Church of Ascension
Planning Justification Report | 221-225 John Street S. & 70-78 Yonge Street 17 GSP Group Inc. | July 2018
View from John Street look east along Forest Avenue
View from John Street South looking southeast
Planning Justification Report | 221-225 John Street S. & 70-78 Yonge Street 18 GSP Group Inc. | July 2018
TOWER PODIUMS – Catharine Street South Determining podium heights based on:
• Scale of built form relates to street right-of-way (Catharine Street) • Terrace and step back to allow light penetration • Provides opportunity for outdoor amenity space • Green roofs/landscape will be visually appealing looking down onto the roofs
Massing responds to heritage context: Podium façade angles towards the Church of Ascension
TOWER PODIUMS – John and Young Streets Determining podium heights based on: • Scale of built form relates to street right-of-way (Young and John) • Terrace and step back to allow light penetration • Provides opportunity for outdoor amenity space • Green roofs/landscape will be visually appealing looking down onto the roofs
Massing responds to heritage context: Podium façade angles towards the Church of Ascension
Planning Justification Report | 221-225 John Street S. & 70-78 Yonge Street 19 GSP Group Inc. | July 2018
TOWER PODIUMS – Heritage Context
Determining podium heights based on: • Scale of built form relates to street right-of-way (Young and John) • Terrace and step back to allow light penetration • Provides opportunity for outdoor amenity space • Green roofs/landscape will be visually appealing looking down onto the roofs
Massing responds to heritage context: Podium façade angles towards the Church of Ascension
Planning Justification Report | 221-225 John Street S. & 70-78 Yonge Street 20 GSP Group Inc. | July 2018
TOWER PODIUMS – Green Roofs/ Outdoor amenity space Determining podium heights based on: • Scale of built form relates to street right-of-way (Catharine Street) • Terrace and step back to allow light penetration • Provides opportunity for outdoor amenity space • Green roofs/landscape will be visually appealing looking down onto the roofs Massing responds to heritage context: • Podium façade angles away from the Church of Ascension
Preliminary Landscape Concept for Rooftop Amenity Spaces (Janet Rosenberg & Studio, 2018)
Planning Justification Report | 221-225 John Street S. & 70-78 Yonge Street 21 GSP Group Inc. | July 2018
TOWER PLACEMENT AND HEIGHTS • Adequate tower separation within neighbouring context • Heights are in context with Olympia Tower, which is taller than the escarpment • Heights transition downwards from the downtown core towards the escarpment • No direct facing condition between buildings • Promoting views and light • Towers proposed to be 34 and 31 storeys • Heights are modulated to provide interest and step-up toward downtown • Tower forms/elevations vary to provide visual interest and create a feeling of multiple smaller buildings
Planning Justification Report | 221-225 John Street S. & 70-78 Yonge Street 22 GSP Group Inc. | July 2018
The rendering below illustrates the proposed building in context with other tall buildings in the vicinity.
Janet Rosenberg and Studio, Landscape Architects have developed a unique approach to this project drawing directly from the relations of the escarpment to the Site, as well as connecting two of Hamilton’s defining characteristics: its topography and industrial heritage
Taking inspiration from Hamilton’s unique geology, the concept to follow references the geological conditions that shaped Hamilton. Hard dolomitic limestone resists weathering forces while weaker stone erodes, creating the escarpment over millions of years. Natural rock elements are placed in the landscape as if deposited by glacial forces eons ago. These ‘erratics’ define the pathways and planting areas.
Planning Justification Report | 221-225 John Street S. & 70-78 Yonge Street 23 GSP Group Inc. | July 2018
The “Faceted” concept to follow prepared by Janet Rosenberg and Studio are directed at Hamilton’s unique topography and industrial heritage. Topographic features are abstracted into digital elevation models, often as a triangulated irregular network (TIN). A TIN surface is made of connected triangles, or facets. Here, faceted surfaces reinterpret the area’s industrial heritage via new materials and fabrication methods that create defined planting and plaza areas.
Planning Justification Report | 221-225 John Street S. & 70-78 Yonge Street 24 GSP Group Inc. | July 2018
While detailed design is required prior to final approval of the proposed development, it is clear that significant thought and detail has already gone into the proposed development design.
3.2 Supporting Plans, Drawings, Reports and Studies In addition to the Conceptual Site Plan described in Section 3.1, several other plans, drawings and documents were required as part of the complete applications pursuant to the Formal Consultation meeting held on March 14, 2018 (Appendix A) including the following: • Cultural Heritage Impact Assessment • Record of Site Condition (RSC) – Phase 1 and 2 EIS • Functioning Servicing & Stormwater Management Report • Noise Impact Study • Sun/Shadow Study • Transportation Impact Study • Tree Management Plan/Study and Preliminary Landscape Layout Plan • Parking Analysis/Study • Transportation Demand Management Options Report • Urban Design Report • Visual Impact Assessment • Wind Study • Public Consultation Strategy • Right of way Impact Assessment
In response to these requirements, the following provides a summary of the key findings and conclusions of the primary supporting studies. However, the individual reports should be reviewed in their entirety. It is noted that some of the studies noted above were combined into single reports.
3.2.1 Cultural Heritage Impact Assessment ERA Architects Inc., May 31, 2018
A Cultural Heritage Impact Assessment has been prepared by ERA Architects Inc. to assess the impact of the Proposed Development on the potential heritage resources at and adjacent to the Site.
Particularly, the report considered the cultural heritage value of the existing properties on 78 Young Street and 211 John Street South, which are included in the City of Hamilton’s Built
Planning Justification Report | 221-225 John Street S. & 70-78 Yonge Street 25 GSP Group Inc. | July 2018
Heritage Inventory, but not listed on the City of Hamilton’s Register of Properties of Cultural Heritage Value or intertest, nor designated under Part IV of the Ontario Heritage Act. The two late-Victorian buildings were recognized as being isolated in their location on a highly evolved block that had long lost its integrity as a fine-grain Victorian-era residential neighbourhood.
The report also considered the adjacent Church of the Ascension at 64 Forest Avenue, which is designated under Part IV of the Ontario Heritage Act, as well as various other adjacent properties that are included on the City’s Built Heritage Inventory.
The impact of the Proposed Development on heritage resources was identified as the removal of all existing buildings on the site, including the remaining fabric of early twentieth century brick residences, which are identified on the Hamilton Built Heritage Inventory. The report also identified that the Proposed Development would have an impact on existing views to the adjacent Church of the Ascension as well as to the Niagara Escarpment. (The actual extent of the impact on these views is analyzed in detail in the Visual Impact Assessment provided as part of the Urban Design Brief).
In terms of mitigation, the conservation strategy for the block was identified as rehabilitation, with the overarching principles of: (1) animating the John Street South and Young Street streetscape and pedestrian realms with new retail and amenity services; (2) providing a mix of residential, commercial and office uses; and (3) the building’s massing and siting that minimize view impacts of the Church of Ascension and the Escarpment.
The assessment concludes that the Proposed Development fits in with the evolved context of the Corktown neighbourhood and re-animates a currently underutilized site in downtown Hamilton. Lastly, the continuation of small-scale, neighbourhood-focused retail was recommended to be explored as a commemoration strategy—and is being implemented.
3.2.2 Record of Site Condition - Phase 1 - 2 Environmental Site Assessment Terraprobe Inc., Phase 1 (January 2018), Phase 2 Summary Letter (May 2018)
An O. Reg. 153/04 Phase 1 Environmental Site Assessment (ESA) was completed by Terraprobe Inc. in January 2018. The Phase 1 ESA reviewed records and reports regarding historical and current use and activities of the Site; interviewed available individuals with knowledge of the current use and activities on the Site and Study Area; inspected the Site and observed the Study Area; and evaluated the information obtained and documented the results. The Phase 1 ESA identified potentially contaminating activities and ten (10) areas of potential environmental concern. The report concluded that a Phase 2 ESA was required before filing a Record of Site Condition (RSC).
Planning Justification Report | 221-225 John Street S. & 70-78 Yonge Street 26 GSP Group Inc. | July 2018
Accordingly, a Phase 2 ESA is being prepared by Terraprobe Inc. in accordance with O. Reg. 153/04 for the purposes of filing an RSC. As part of the Phase Two ESA, Terraprobe Inc. prepared a letter of summary of the soil and ground water conditions on the Site.
The objective of the Phase Two ESA is to determine the environmental liabilities on the property through an assessment of soil and ground water quality at the Site. The work consisted of drilling nine (9) boreholes to a depth ranging from approximately 3.0 – 17m. Four such boreholes were equipped with monitoring well installations to a depth of ±9m. Soil samples were submitted to a CALA-accredited laboratory for analysis. Soil quality was compared to the Soil, Groundwater, and Sediment Standards for Use Under Part XV.1 of the Environmental Protection Act of Ontario (April 15, 2011) (O. Reg. 153/04). Ground water sampling was completed in March 2018.
The results of the soil analysis indicated exceedances of metals and inorganics and Polycyclic Aromatic Hydrocarbons (PAHs) at the north end of the Site. PAHS were also found at the southwest portion of the Site. Terraprobe Inc. concluded that additional investigation will be required to delineate the vertical and lateral exceedances of the metal and inorganics, and PAH exceedances on the Site. Based on the impact of the depths of impact, the summary letter indicates that most of the impact is located within the fill of the Site. In addition, the report noted that electrical conductivity and sodium absorption ratio have extended into the upper materials.
Due to the proximity of the impact boreholes to the existing buildings, delineation of the impacted materials could not be fully determined. Delineation in all lateral directions can be determined after the existing buildings are demolished and during the excavation of the underground parking structure.
Terraprobe recommended that a second round of ground water samples should be collected across the Site prior to the completion of the Phase Two ESA and filing of the RSC. This round of ground water will coincide with the two confirmatory ground water sampling events that will be required following the remediation of impacted soil, which will occur at the time of construction.
3.2.3 Functioning Servicing & Stormwater Management Report Lithos Group Inc., June 2018
A Functional Servicing and Stormwater Management Report has been prepared by Lithos Group Inc. in support of the Subject Applications and found that the existing sanitary sewers and water supply can support the Proposed Development. Greater details for the Stormwater
Planning Justification Report | 221-225 John Street S. & 70-78 Yonge Street 27 GSP Group Inc. | July 2018
Management section of the report will be prepared at the Site Plan Application stage. The conclusions are summarized as follows:
Storm Drainage The Site stormwater discharge will be controlled to the 2-year pre-development flow and will be connected to the existing 525mm diameter existing storm sewer on Young Street. To achieve the target flows and meet the City’s Guidelines, quantity controls will be utilized and up to 106.6m3 of storage will be required. The stormwater management (SWM) system will be designed to provide enhanced level (Level 1) protection as specified by the City’s Comprehensive Development Guideline. Quality control will be provided by the building’s rooftop/terraces. Additional quality control measures will also be required for the driveway areas, for a minimum suspended solids (TSS) removal of 80%. Quality control design details will be provided at the Site Plan Application stage.
Sanitary Sewers The Proposed Development will connect to an existing manhole and discharge to the existing 300mm diameter combined sewer on Young Street. The additional net discharge flow from the Proposed Development is anticipated to be approximately 39.76 L/s. A review of the external combined network indicates that the existing infrastructure can support the Proposed Development.
Water Supply As the Proposed Development will exceed 80.0m in height, two (2) water sources will be required as per the Ontario Building Code to support the proposed development’s sprinkler system. Water will be supplied to the Site from the existing 150mm diameter watermain west of Catharine Street. It is anticipated that a total design flow of 136.87 L/s will be required to support the Proposed Development. According to the fire hydrant test results provided by the City of Hamilton, the existing water infrastructure can support the Proposed Development.
Site Grading The proposed grades will improve the existing drainage conditions to meet the City’s requirements. Grades will be maintained along the property line wherever feasible and emergency overland flow will be directed to the adjacent right-of-ways.
3.2.4 Noise & Vibration Feasibility Assessment RWDI Inc., June 8, 2018
A Noise and Feasibility Assessment was prepared by RWDI to consider the impact of rail traffic noise and vibration from the CP rail line located approximately 270m north of the Site, as well as road traffic noise from the surrounding roads. No other existing sources of
Planning Justification Report | 221-225 John Street S. & 70-78 Yonge Street 28 GSP Group Inc. | July 2018
environmental noise or vibration were anticipated to significantly impact the Proposed Development.
The sounds levels from road-traffic sources are predicted to comply with MOECC NPC-300 sound level limits and as such, specialized noise mitigation design for the façade and glazing for outdoor amenity areas are not required. Sound levels due to road-traffic are sufficiently elevated that a warning clause “Type D” is recommended to be included in agreements of Offers or Purchase of Sale, lease/rental agreements and condominium declarations.
Vibration measurements conducted at the Site of the Proposed Development indicated that vibration levels meet the levels set out in the applicable CP and GO criterion included in the Railway Association of Canada guidelines.
The report indicated that due to the development’s proximity to the CP and GO rail line, CP and GO/Metrolinx warning clauses are required and should be inserted into all rental agreements, and/or offers of purchase and sale or lease for each unit.
Stationary sources of sound associated with rooftop HVAC equipment on surrounding lands is expected to comply with applicable MOECC sound level limits.
The assessment concludes that a detailed design review is recommended at the Site Plan stage to ensure that appropriate noise and vibration control measures have been incorporated into the detailed design.
3.2.5 Sun/Shadow Study Core Architects Inc., June 2018
The Sun/Shadow study was prepared by CORE Architects Inc. The shadow studies indicated that Forest Avenue, John Street South and Catharine Street all comply with the required minimum of 3 hours of sun coverage between 10:00am and 4:00pm as measured from March 21st to September 21st on public sidewalks.
However, Young Street, bordering the north property line, does not allow for a minimum of 3 hours of sun coverage between 10:00am and 4:00pm as measured from March 21st to September 21st on public sidewalks. Core Architects explain that “by virtue of being located along the north property line, mitigating this requirement either through reduced height, alternative massing, building orientation or through stepbacks would be difficult to achieve.”
The Study notes that the Hamilton Tall Buildings Guidelines 4.2.2 Building Base Height and Scale prescribe the “maximum building base height at the street line should be equal to the
Planning Justification Report | 221-225 John Street S. & 70-78 Yonge Street 29 GSP Group Inc. | July 2018
width of the ROW to ensure sunlight access to the sidewalk across the street”. The Young Street right of way is 20.0m. The podium proposed along Yonge Street is setback from the north property line by 2.52m and the height of the podium is 18.55m from average grade to level 6 and above that, there is an additional 3.25m stepback for level 6 and 7. Core Architects opine that the intent of the Tall Buildings Guidelines with respect to podium heights is achieved.
The shadow studies for the proposed development indicate that the private roof-top amenities of both towers comply with the required minimum of 3 hours of sun coverage between 10:00am and 4:00pm as measured from March 21st to September 21st.
Shadows from the proposed development allow for a minimum of 50% sun coverage at all times of the day as measured from March 21st to September 21st on Shamrock Park located to the east of the proposed development site. There is no shadow impact on the park on March 21st between the hours of 7:21am (1.5 hours after sunrise) and 3:51pm. However, shadows do encroach the park between 4:51pm and 6:03 (1.5 hours before sunset).
Shadows from the proposed development do not encroach on any public plazas, open spaces, school yards or playgrounds in the vicinity of the proposed development. Shadows from the proposed development do not encroach on any “primary gathering spaces” as identified in the Terms of Reference: Shadow Impact Study for Downtown Hamilton Report PED 18074.
3.2.6 Transportation Impact Study, Parking Justification and TDM Options Report Paradigm Transportation Solutions Limited, June 2018
Paradigm Transportation Solutions Limited prepared a comprehensive report to address traffic, parking and TDM measures. The report concludes the following:
Transportation: • Under existing conditions all intersections in the study area are operating at acceptable levels of service during the weekday peak hours, although 95th percental queues exceed available lane storage in the AM peak hour for the northbound left turn movement on John Street at Charlton Avenue, which can be addre3ssed through pavement marking modifications on John Street South; • The existing traffic volumes accessing the subject site are similar to total new proposed site traffic volumes in the AM peak hour and are higher than the total new proposed site traffic volumes in the PM peak hour;
Planning Justification Report | 221-225 John Street S. & 70-78 Yonge Street 30 GSP Group Inc. | July 2018
• Under 2028 and 2030 background traffic conditions, the study area intersections are forecast to operate with similar levels of service as under existing conditions. The northbound left turn movement on John Street at Charlton Avenue is forecast to experience 95th percentile queue lengths that will exceed available lane storage in the AM and PM peak hours; • Under 2028 and 2030 total traffic conditions, the study area intersection is forecast to operate similar to the background traffic operations. The proposed site access onto Catharine Street South is expected to operate with acceptable level of service and below capacity IN BOTH PEAK HOURS. Overall, the development of the subject site is anticipated to have a minimal impact on traffic operations within the study area; and • ‘The AutoTURN analysis indicates the subject site can adeq1uately accommodate the proposed design vehicles with no impacts o onsite parking and vehicle circulation.
Parking Overview: The results of the methodologies utilized in the parking analysis provide a general understand of parking behaviour. The parking analysis conducted indicates that the proposed overall supply of 351 residential parking spaces (0.44 spaces per unit) will meet and exceed the parking demand for the following reasons: • The current by-law requirement of 721 residential parking spaces (0.91 spaces per unit) are excessive compared to actual needs. This has been confirmed based on market conditions collected within the study area; • Parking survey data related to parking demands at a proxy site in downtown Hamilton, in addition to vehicle ownership rates, demonstrate a parking demand of 0.37 to 0.42 parking spaces per unit is appropriate within the study area; • The 85 proposed retail parking spaces exceed the peak parking demand of 59 parking spaces identified using the ITE Parking Generation manual method; • There is an established sidewalk network through the neighbourhood which provides good connectivity to surrounding streets and is within walking distance of downtown Hamilton and employment opportunities that substantially minimize the demand for private car ownership; • The development will promote the use of active transportation through a reduced parking standard that will meet the needs of the development while minimizing potential oversupply; • The proposed parking standard and supply is considered appropriate and will meet the base parking needs of the future residents who need to own a car for the purposes of day-today travel; and,
Planning Justification Report | 221-225 John Street S. & 70-78 Yonge Street 31 GSP Group Inc. | July 2018
• The development is considered an innovative, adaptive redevelopment, which successfully balances intensification and promotion of non-automotive use which are both compatible and respectful of the existing character of the area.
Overall Recommendations: • The City of Hamilton consider the provision of additional lane storage for the northbound left-turn movement on John Street at Charlton Avenue. Queues exceeding available lane capacity are currently occurring and forecast to worsen at the 2028 and 2030 back ground and total traffic horizons. This improvement can be accommodated through pavement marking modifications on John Street; • The applicant and City of Hamilton consider implementing the proposed TDM measures, including increasing the provision of short-term bicycle parking spaces to 40 spaces; and • The City of Hamilton support the proposed parking supply of 436 parking spaces, including 85 retail spaces, recognizing the market towards which the development will serve and the potential for reduced car ownership and increased levels of transit usage, walking and cycling.
3.2.7 Tree Management Plan/Study and Preliminary Landscape Layout Plan Central Tree Care Ltd., April 2018 / Janet Rosenburg & Studio, May 2018
Central Tree Care Ltd. has prepared an inventory of all trees located on, or near, the Site. In total, 31 trees were identified, photographed, and assessed. The report includes an overlaid survey showing the tree locations.
Based on this inventory, Janet Rosenburg & Studio has prepared a Tree Protection and Removals Plan identifying which trees will be removed and which will be retained, and how they will be protected.
In addition, Janet Rosenburg & Studio has prepared a preliminary Landscape Layout Plan that identifies how existing trees, as well as new trees will be incorporated into the Site.
3.2.8 Urban Design Brief (including a Visual Impact Assessment) GSP Group Inc., June 2018
An Urban Design Brief, including a Visual Impact Assessment, was prepared by GSP Group in support of the Proposed Development and Subject Applications. The Urban Design Brief includes a demonstration on how the Proposed Development’s design is informed by and responds to the applicable design policies and guidelines identified in the brief. The
Planning Justification Report | 221-225 John Street S. & 70-78 Yonge Street 32 GSP Group Inc. | July 2018
responses are broken down into nineteen (19) general design themes that capture the corresponding policy and guidelines.
The Urban Design Brief demonstrates how the following 19 general design themes are achieved: • A pedestrian-focused environment • Enhanced streetscape environment • Efficient access and circulation • A multi-modal environment focused on active transportation • Vehicular parking located underground, in structures, or on-street • Reduced vehicular parking demand • Accommodation of convenient bicycle parking • A compatible integration of surrounding form, scale and character • A diverse range of dwelling types and tenures • A form and design that respects surrounding heritage resources • A design that effectively addresses shadows, wind, heritage and visual impacts • A design that effectively integrates site utilities, garbage and loading requirements • A design that will incorporates barrier-free design measures • A design that will be designed to provide sufficient, night-friendly lighting • A design that will integrate signage with the building form and style • A design that incorporates private amenity areas • A design that incorporates sustainable design measures • A design that will incorporate public art elements • A design that creates a focal point for the Corktown community
The Visual Impact Assessment is based on (5) five observation locations identified by City of Hamilton staff, and includes a summary of the observed impacts on the scenic resources of the Niagara Escarpment and Hamilton Harbour. The Proposed Development was modelled by Core Architects Inc. using architectural rendering software and the resulting images were inserted into photographs of each of the observation points for analysis. The following provides a brief summary of the observed impacts as noted in the Urban Design Brief:
Observation Points 1 and 2 (Sam Lawrence Parking looking north/northwest and Arkledun Avenue looking north/northwest) are both taken from above the escarpment and illustrate the existing urban fabric of the downtown. The Assessment states that under existing conditions, large portions of the views to Burlington Bay and Hamilton Harbour are obscured
Planning Justification Report | 221-225 John Street S. & 70-78 Yonge Street 33 GSP Group Inc. | July 2018
by the existing built fabric of mid-rise and high-rise building in the core of Hamilton. At these locations the proposed development does create additional obstructions of these views. However, the obstructions are minimized by the proposed off-set tower placement depending on the viewing angle changes as one moves along the Escarpment. The Assessment opines that this is a reasonable expectation as part of a dynamic and changing urban environment and notes that there are several buildings that project higher than the ridge of the Niagara Escapement on the west/north side of Burlington Bay, particularly those building close in the foreground such as those surrounding Catharine and Charleton, as well as several building throughout the core that project not the base and middle portion of the Escarpment views as illustrated below.
Existing Proposed
The Visual Impact Assessment concludes that Observation Point 3 at John Street at Augusta Street looking south, the “proposed development’s placement and massing would establish a more defined, urbanized view corridor limited generally to the width of the right-way and obstructs the existing views over the building street wall on the west side of the street. However, these existing views would be obstructed under a 6-storey development as permitted under the existing in-place Official Plan policies for the Site. Thus the proposed additional height is not expected t impact views to the Niagara Escarpment over this conditions.”
Observation Point 4 and 5 (John Street at Jackson Street looking south and Catharine Street at Augusta Street looking south) have minimal impact on views to the Niagara Escarpment. The Visual Assessment notes that at John and Jackson Streets there are no views to the Niagara Escarpment as the slight angled alignment of John Street past the rail line overpass results in a building mass situated at the terminal view. Further, views from Catharine at Augusta Street looking south demonstrate that the podium massing of the proposed building overlaps the existing building mass on the east side of Catharine Street. Accordingly, there are no additional obstruction of views to the Niagara Escarpment over those of the existing conditions.
Overall, the proposed development has minimal impact on the views of the Niagara Escarpment. Views from all five observation points are significantly obscured under existing
Planning Justification Report | 221-225 John Street S. & 70-78 Yonge Street 34 GSP Group Inc. | July 2018
conditions, and the additional obstruction caused by the proposed development’s height and massing is reasonable give the urban context and dynamic skyline.
3.2.9 Pedestrian Wind Study Theakston Environmental Inc., June 18, 2018
Theakston Environmental Inc. assessed the Proposed Development for Environmental standards regarding Pedestrian Level Wind Velocities relative to comfort and safety. The report found that the pedestrian level wind and gust velocities measured for the fifty-four (54) locations tested are within the safety criteria and most are within the comfort criteria.
The proposed 34 and 31 storey towers are square and rectangular and punctuated with balconies. The study found that as a result, upon contact with the towers, winds will display a propensity to flow around the towers with limited downwash towards the pedestrian level. The downwash that does occur will be limited to the extent of the pattern of the floor plates, understanding the stepped conditions in the massing will intercept said flow, deflecting winds from specific directions to continue around the tower.
The report found that the subject buildings and the surrounds have a sympathetic relationship with the pending wind climate. Further, the orientation and conformation of the Proposed Development relative to the surroundings, and prevailing winds, effectively mitigates winds from significant directions which were in turn mitigated upon approach by the existing and proposed urban development of the surrounding terrain, and as such are of reduced velocity at the site for several dominant wind directions. Therefore, the report found that for most wind conditions, pedestrian comfort conditions will be comfortable and suitable for sitting or standing in the summer, or walking during the winter, suitable to the area’s intended purpose throughout the year.
The study indicated that during the winter there may be occasions when strong or gusty southerly winds will flow along the streets resulting in somewhat windy conditions at corners and in gaps between buildings. Entrances that are close to said areas and are flush with the respective building’s façade might be subject to winds acting on the door leaf mechanisms. Recessing such entrances is recommended where practical to reduce this potential. Wind speeds over portions of the podium roof were also higher than preferred for activities associated with amenity spaces. The report recommends mitigation measures to improve pedestrian comfort conditions at these locations.
The study found that the Proposed Development’s massing incorporates wind friendly design elements such as angular facades and overhangs, among others, that when considered in concert with the stepped podium, allow much of the impending wind climate opportunity to
Planning Justification Report | 221-225 John Street S. & 70-78 Yonge Street 35 GSP Group Inc. | July 2018
flow over and around, as opposed to down the building. These elements effectively reduce the incidence of downwash, and related pedestrian level wind effects attributable to the Proposed Development. The report concludes that comfort conditions expected at the Site are considered appropriate for the urban context.
In summary, the Proposed Development stepped facades, podium, and other design features will contribute to anticipated pedestrian comfort conditions that are suitable to the context. The Proposed Development will realize wind conditions acceptable to a typical urban context.
3.2.10 Right of Way Impact Assessment GSP Group Inc., June 2018
GSP Group Inc. prepared a Right of Way Impact Assessment in order to assess the impact of reducing the size of requested road widening along John and Young Streets, as well as the size of requested daylighting triangles at the intersection of John Street with Young and Forest Avenue.
The report concludes that the requested widening along John Street and Young Street would have a negative impact on the existing streetscape and built form, and similarly, the requested excessive daylighting triangles at the intersections of John at Young and John at Forest would create an inconsistent and undesirable streetscape that would not be pedestrian friendly.
3.2.11 Public Consultation Strategy GSP Group Inc., June 2018
GSP Group Inc. prepared a Public Consultation Strategy which has largely been implemented by way of two public open houses; one held prior to the design of the site and one held after in response to input received from the community. Appendix D contains the Public Consultation Strategy.
Planning Justification Report | 221-225 John Street S. & 70-78 Yonge Street 36 GSP Group Inc. | July 2018
4.0 PLANNING POLICY AND REGULATORY CONTEXT
The following laws, plans, and policies contain key considerations in determining the appropriateness of the Proposed Development and enabling Subject Applications in the context of provincial regulations and local planning policies.
4.1 Ontario Planning Act, R.S.O. 1990, c. P.13 The Planning Act R.S.O. 1990, c. P.13 provides for a land use planning system led by provincial policy, integrates matters of provincial interest in provincial and municipal planning decisions and provides for statutory planning processes in Ontario. Section 2 of the Planning Act, sets out matters of Provincial Interest when considering an application under the Act.
Relevance to the Site: An analysis of the Proposed Development in response to the prescribed Provincial interest is found in Section 6.2.
4.2 Halton-Hamilton Source Protection Plan, 2015 The Ontario government passed the Clean Water Act in 2006 to protect drinking water supplies by preparing watershed-based source protection plans. The Act established source water protection areas across the Province, which are mandated to prepare source water protection plans based on local characteristics. The Site forms part of the Halton-Hamilton watershed area, and the local Source Protection Plan (July 2015) came into effect on August 5th, 2015.
The Halton-Hamilton Source Protection Plan identifies vulnerable areas and the risks posed to municipal water systems. Within the Source Protection Plan are Assessment Reports, which contain detailed information on vulnerable areas associated with drinking water systems, including level of vulnerability, and activities that pose threats to the system.
Relevance to the Site: An analysis of the Proposed Development in response to the prescribed Provincial interest is found in Section 6.2.
4.3 Resource Recovery and Circular Economy Act, 2016 The Government of Ontario released the Resource Recovery and Circular Economy Act, S.O. 2016, Chapter 12, Schedule 1, in 2016, to establish a framework for recovering resources and reducing waste in the Province. The Act requires producers to be environmentally accountable and financially responsible for recovering resources and reducing waste associated with their products and packaging.
Planning Justification Report | 221-225 John Street S. & 70-78 Yonge Street 37 GSP Group Inc. | July 2018
To implement the Act, the Ministry of the Environment and Climate Change released the final draft of the Strategy for a Waste-free Ontario, Building a Circular Economy in December 2016. A circular economy means an economy in which participants strive:
a) to minimize the use of raw materials; b) to maximize the useful life of materials and other resources through resource recovery; and c) to minimize waste generated at the end of life of products and packaging.
The Strategy establishes the goal of 50% waste diversion by 2030 and 80% waste diversion by 2050.
Within the land use planning system, the Strategy applies to the management of excess soil (Excess Soil Management Policy Framework, 2016) on a development site. The goal is to reduce the inappropriate relocation of excess soil and enhance opportunities for reuse. The Strategy requires the generator of excess soil to plan for its appropriate reuse early in the process of planning for development and infrastructure.
Relevance to the Site: An analysis of the Proposed Development in response to the prescribed Provincial interest is found in Section 6.2.
4.4 The Accessibility for Ontarians with Disabilities Act, 2005 The Accessibility for Ontarians with Disabilities Act, 2005, S.O. 2005, c. 11 (“AODA”), provides a framework to develop, implement and enforce accessibility standards in Ontario for goods, services, facilities, accommodation, employment, buildings, structures and premises.
Relevance to the Site: An analysis of the Proposed Development in response to the prescribed Provincial interest is found in Section 6.2.
4.5 Provincial Policy Statement, 2014 The Provincial Policy Statement (“PPS”) provides policy direction on matters of provincial interest related to land use planning and development. The PPS is issued under the authority of Section 3(1) of the Planning Act and came into effect on April 30, 2014. Section 3(5) of the Planning Act requires that decisions affecting planning matters be consistent with the PPS. The Official Plan Amendment and Zoning By-law Amendment applications must be considered in the context of the PPS and consistent with the following relevant policies.
Building Strong and Healthy Communities The PPS supports intensification, redevelopment and the efficient use of land and existing planning infrastructure within urban areas. The policies attempt to focus growth within
Planning Justification Report | 221-225 John Street S. & 70-78 Yonge Street 38 GSP Group Inc. | July 2018
settlement areas and remove development from significant or sensitive areas which may pose a risk to public health and safety.
In addition, the PPS recognizes that wise management of development involves directing, promoting or sustaining growth; and directs that land use is to be carefully managed to accommodate appropriate development to meet the full range of current and future needs, while achieving efficient land use and development patterns.
1.1.1 Healthy, livable and safe communities are sustained by: a. Promoting efficient development and land use patterns which sustain the financial well-being of the Province and municipalities over the long term; b. Accommodating an appropriate range and mix of residential (including second units, affordable housing and housing for older persons), employment (including industrial, and commercial), institutional (including places of worship, cemeteries and long-term care homes), recreation, park and open space, and other uses to meet long-term needs; c. Avoiding development and land use patterns which may cause environmental or public health and safety concerns; d. Avoiding development and land use patterns that would prevent the efficient expansion of settlement areas in those areas which are adjacent or close to settlement areas; e. Promoting cost-effective development standards to minimize land consumption and servicing costs; f. Improving accessibility for persons with disabilities and older persons by identifying, preventing and removing land use barriers which restrict their full participation in society; g. Ensuring that necessary infrastructure, electricity generation facilities and transmission and distribution systems, and public service facilities are or will be available to meet current and projected needs; and h. promoting development and land use patterns that conserve biodiversity and consider the impacts of a changing climate.
The Proposed Development supports these objectives by: • Locating development within an existing urban settlement area; • Utilizing existing municipal infrastructure and public service facilities, thereby optimizing their efficiency and providing for efficient development and land use patterns; and
Planning Justification Report | 221-225 John Street S. & 70-78 Yonge Street 39 GSP Group Inc. | July 2018
• Redeveloping an underutilized site with a mixed-use development that will contribute to the range and types of residential and commercial uses in the Corktown neighbourhood.
Section 1.1.3.1 of the PPS states that settlement areas shall be the focus of growth and development, and their vitality and regeneration shall be promoted. The Proposed Development is situated within the existing urban area of the City of Hamilton and will contribute to the vitality of Corktown by adding variety both to the local housing stock and commercial opportunities.
Section 1.1.3.2 states that land use patterns within settlement areas shall be based on: a. densities and a mix of land uses which: 1. efficiently use land and resources; 2. are appropriate for, and efficiently use, the infrastructure and public service facilities which are planned or available, and avoid the need for their unjustified and/or uneconomical expansion; 3. minimize negative impacts to air quality and climate change, and promote energy efficiency; 4. support active transportation; 5. transit-supportive, where transit is planned, exists or may be developed; and 6. are freight-supportive;
The Proposed Development will provide for an efficient use of land and resources by intensifying an existing built-up area within the City of Hamilton. The Site is vastly underutilized in its current form. The redevelopment of this prime location will make effective use of existing servicing and public facilities, such as St. Joseph’s Healthcare and Queen Victoria Elementary School.
The Proposed Development will also support transit and active transportation in tandem. The Hamilton GO Centre is within easy walking distance of the Site, and a planned high-level pedestrian corridor along Hughson Street will connect to the planned LRT station at James Street. Two existing HSR bus routes (22 and 27), with a stop on John Street, will also benefit from increased ridership. Lastly, a SoBi bicycle hub located directly across Catharine Street S. will also see increased support. For all the proceeding reasons, the Proposed Development is consistent with the forgoing polices of the PPS.
Section 1.1.3.3 requires planning authorities to identify appropriate locations and promote opportunities for intensification and redevelopment where this can be accommodated
Planning Justification Report | 221-225 John Street S. & 70-78 Yonge Street 40 GSP Group Inc. | July 2018
considering the availability of existing and planned infrastructure and public service facilities required to accommodate projected needs.
The Proposed Development represents a mixed-use development which provides opportunity for ground floor commercial spaces, in addition to residential intensification on a site within an established settlement area. The Site also offers existing infrastructure and public service facilities in the form of water, sanitary, stormwater, transit, road, schools, and a hospital.
All considered, the Proposed Development is consistent with the Building Strong and Healthy Communities policies of the PPS.
Housing In terms of housing, the PPS provides the following policy direction:
Section 1.4.1 of the PPS states that to provide for an appropriate range and mix of housing types and densities required to meet projected requirements of current and future residents of the regional market area (Hamilton), planning authorities shall maintain at all times the ability to accommodate residential growth for a minimum of 10 years through residential intensification and redevelopment and, if necessary, lands which are designated and available for residential development.
The Proposed Development includes 792 residential units within a mixed-use building. The proposed 34 and 31 storey residential towers are designed to provide additional housing options within the Hamilton market, thereby utilizing the Site to assist the City in maintaining a minimum provision of a 10-year supply of housing stock.
Section 1.4.3 of the PPS requires planning authorities to provide for an appropriate range and mix of housing types and densities to meet projected requirements of current and future residents of the regional market area (Hamilton) by:
b. permitting and facilitating: 1. all forms of housing required to meet the social, health and well-being requirements of current and future residents, including special needs requirements; and 2. all forms of residential intensification, including second units, and redevelopment in accordance with policy 1.1.3.3; c. directing the development of new housing towards locations where appropriate levels of infrastructure and public service facilities are or will be available to support current and projected needs;
Planning Justification Report | 221-225 John Street S. & 70-78 Yonge Street 41 GSP Group Inc. | July 2018
d. promoting densities for new housing which efficiently use land, resources, infrastructure and public service facilities, and support the use of active transportation and transit in areas where it exists or is to be developed; and
Consistent with the housing policies of the PPS, the Proposed Development is a compact, efficient form of development situated in a prime Corktown location where appropriate levels of infrastructure and public service facilities are already available. The Proposed Development includes approximately 792 units on .595 hectares, which represents a density of 1,331 units per hectare, making efficient use of the land, resources, infrastructure, public service facilities, and will support the use of active transportation and transit as outlined in the above section. For these reasons, the Proposed Development is consistent with the housing policies of the PPS.
Public Spaces, Recreation, Parks, Trails and Open Space Section 1.5.1 of the PPS provides policy direction regarding public spaces, recreation, parks, trails and open space as follows:
1.5.1 Healthy, active communities should be promoted by:
a. planning public streets, spaces and facilities to be safe, meet the needs of pedestrians, foster social interaction and facilitate active transportation and community connectivity; b. planning and providing for a full range and equitable distribution of publicly- accessible built and natural settings for recreation, including facilities, parklands, public spaces, open space areas, trails and linkages, and, where practical, water-based resources; c. providing opportunities for public access to shorelines; and d. recognizing provincial parks, conservation reserves, and other protected areas, and minimizing negative impacts on these areas.
Consistent with these policies, the Proposed Development will facilitate active transportation due to its proximity to the Hamilton GO Station and planned LRT stations along King Street; in addition to the SoBi bicycle share hub located across from the Site on Catharine Street South. While the existing Corktown Plaza presents a blank monolithic wall to residential uses to the north, east, and south of the Site (refer to Image C), the Proposed Development will facilitate community connectivity by interfacing with pedestrians on all four streetscapes. Townhouses located in the northeast corner of the Site will soften the mass of the redevelopment and foster social interaction in the neighbourhood.
Planning Justification Report | 221-225 John Street S. & 70-78 Yonge Street 42 GSP Group Inc. | July 2018
A full range of recreational opportunities, parklands, public space areas and trails are available within the Corktown neighbourhood as outlined in Section 2.2 and illustrated in Figure 3. To summarize again: Corktown Park is located ±300m to the east of the Site and is the terminus of the Escarpment Rail Trail, which provides access up and along the escarpment to Albion Falls and beyond to the outskirts of Caledonia. St. Joseph’s Park is located 250m south of the Site, which is a small parcel of grassed land that functions more like a parkette. Shamrock Park, which includes a playground, is located ±240m northeast of the Site. Woolverton Park is located only 95m south of the Site and includes a playground and gazebo. Finally, a trail up the escarpment can be found at the end of John Street South, providing pedestrian access to Southam Park and the Mountain at large.
For all the reasoned outlined above, the Proposed Development is consistent with the Public Spaces, Recreation, Parks, Trails and Open Space policies of the PPS.
Infrastructure and Public Service Facilities Section 1.6.3 of the PPS states that before consideration is given to developing new infrastructure and public service facilities: the use of existing infrastructure and public service facilities should be optimized.
By utilizing existing infrastructure and public service facilities, the Proposed Development will take full advantage of existing public service facilities as well as support the use and optimization of existing infrastructure. A Functional Servicing and Stormwater Management Report was prepared by Lithos Group Inc. (June 2018) in support of the Subject Applications and found that the existing sanitary sewers and water supply can support the Proposed Development. Greater details for the Stormwater Management section` of the report will be prepared at the Site Plan Application stage.
Sewage, Water and Stormwater Section 1.6.6.1 of the PPS states that planning for sewage and water services shall direct and accommodate growth or development in a manner that promotes the efficient use and optimization of existing municipal sewage and water services.
The Proposed Development intends to connect to existing municipal sewage and water services and will therefore not require the financing and construction of new infrastructure.
Furthermore, the PPS provides the following policy direction in terms of municipal servicing:
1.6.6.2 Municipal sewage services and municipal water services are the preferred form of servicing for settlement areas. Intensification and redevelopment within settlement
Planning Justification Report | 221-225 John Street S. & 70-78 Yonge Street 43 GSP Group Inc. | July 2018
areas on existing municipal sewage services and municipal water services should be promoted, wherever feasible.
The Proposed Development represents an intensification and redevelopment within a settlement area on existing services and is therefore consistent with the sewer, water and stormwater policies of the PPS, and should be promoted.
Transportation Systems Section 1.6.7.2 of the PPS states that efficient use shall be made of existing and planned infrastructure, including using transportation demand management strategies where feasible.
The Site is in an area well-served by existing and planned transit infrastructure. First and foremost, the Hamilton GO Centre can be reached within 5 minutes walking distance from the Site, which serves as an integrated regional bus depot in addition to forming the western terminus of the GO Lakeshore West line. A planned high-order pedestrian connection from the station along Hughson Street to Gore Park will link the Site with the planned LRT station on James Street. Furthermore, an existing HSR bus stop is located directly on Site at the intersection of Young Street and John Street South, which is served by the HSR Routes 22 and 27. The “22 – Upper Ottawa” runs between the downtown Macnab Terminal and then southeast across the Mountain to Rymal Road. The “27 – Upper James”, runs between the MacNab Terminal in downtown Hamilton, and the Mountain Transit Centre on Upper James. Together these routes provide the Site access to several other routes as well as the key transit centres located on the Mountain and in downtown Hamilton. Based on this analysis, the Proposed Development will be intensifying the Site with a mixture of uses to support existing and planned transportation in the area of the Site, and as such, is consistent with policy 1.6.7.2.
Section 1.6.7.4 of the PPS states that “a land use pattern, density and mix of uses should be promoted that minimize the length and number of vehicle trips and support current and future use of transit and active transportation.”
The Proposed Development is in an area well-served by transit as noted above. The proposed density of the Proposed Development (1,331 units per hectare) is supportive of existing local and regional modes of public transit near the Site, as well as the planned LRT along King Street. The mixed-use nature of the development will offer some employment opportunities onsite and will thus contribute to shortening commute times for residents within Corktown. In terms of active transportation, the Proposed Development will support the SoBi bicycle sharing hub located on Catharine Street South in addition to generating pedestrian trips to the Hamilton GO Centre and eventually along the Hughson high-order pedestrian connection to the planned LRT. All considered, the Proposed Development features a
Planning Justification Report | 221-225 John Street S. & 70-78 Yonge Street 44 GSP Group Inc. | July 2018
density and mix of uses that will minimize the length and number of vehicle trips and support current and future use of transit and active transportation, thus satisfying policy 1.6.7.4.
Long-Term Economic Prosperity Section 1.7.1 of the PPS provides policy direction that the long-term economic prosperity should be supported by optimizing the long-term use of land, resources, infrastructure, public service facilities, while enhancing the vitality of mainstreets.
The Proposed Development is consistent with policy 1.7.1 by optimizing the existing infrastructure in the area with a supportive density of 1,331 units per hectare. The redevelopment of the Site from a low-rise commercial plaza to a multi-use set of residential towers optimizes the use of land and existing public service facilities in the area. The Proposed Development will also contribute to enhancing the vitality of John Street South by replacing an expansive surface parking lot and moving the commercial uses from the back of the Site to the streetline, creating a greater sense of place.
Energy Conservation, Air Quality and Climate Change The PPS provides the following policy direction regarding environmental and conservation considerations:
1.8.1 Planning authorities shall support energy conservation and efficiency, improved air quality, reduced greenhouse gas emissions, and climate change adaptation through land use and development patterns which: a. promote compact form and a structure of nodes and corridors; b. promote the use of active transportation and transit in and between residential, employment (including commercial and industrial) and institutional uses and other areas; e. improve the mix of employment and housing uses to shorten commute journeys and decrease transportation congestion;
Consistent with the above policies, the Proposed Development represents an efficient, compact form of development at a density that will encourage the use of nearby active transportation and transit facilities as outlined in the above sections. Furthermore, the inclusion of commercial at the ground floor enables the possibility of some residents to live and work in the same building, thereby reducing commute journeys.
Wise Use of Management of Resources Section 2.0 of the PPS provides policy direction on protecting the health of the Great Lakes, as well as protecting natural heritage, water, agricultural, mineral and cultural heritage and archaeological resources for their economic, environmental and social benefits.
Planning Justification Report | 221-225 John Street S. & 70-78 Yonge Street 45 GSP Group Inc. | July 2018
The Proposed Development will have no impacts on Natural Heritage, Water, Minerals and Petroleum, Mineral Aggregate Resources, as none of these resources are located on or adjacent to the Site. Other resources are addressed as follows:
Agriculture Policy 2.3.1 of the PPS states that “prime agricultural areas shall be protected for long-term use for agriculture.” Consistent with the agriculture policy of the PPS, the Site is not located in the Agricultural Land Base for the Greater Golden Horseshoe as per online mapping (Agricultural Systems Portal).
Heritage The PPS provides the following policy direction in terms of heritage:
2.6.3 Planning authorities shall not permit development and site alteration on adjacent lands to protected heritage property except where the proposed development and site alteration has been evaluated and it has been demonstrated that the heritage attributes of the protected heritage property will be conserved.
Consistent with the forgoing policy, a Cultural Heritage Impact Assessment has been prepared by ERA Architects Inc. (May 2018) to assess the impact of the Proposed Development on the potential heritage resources at and adjacent to the Site. A summary of the assessment is outlined in Section 3.2.1 and a description of how the heritage attributes of the protected heritage property will be conserved is provided in Planning Analysis, Section 6.3 (Heritage).
Relevance to the Site: For all the above reasons, the Subject Applications are consistent with the Provincial Policy Statement. A summary of the analysis of the Proposed Development regarding the PPS can be found in Section 6.3.
4.6 Places to Grow Growth Plan for the Greater Golden Horseshoe, 2017 The Growth Plan for the Greater Golden Horseshoe (“Growth Plan”) came in effect July 1, 2017 and is applicable to the Site. The following is a summary of the policies applicable to the Proposed Development and how they have been addressed.
Section 1.2.1 of the Growth Plan sets out a vision for growth in the Greater Golden Horseshoe. This vision is guided by several principles that provide the basis for guiding decisions on how land is to be developed, including:
Planning Justification Report | 221-225 John Street S. & 70-78 Yonge Street 46 GSP Group Inc. | July 2018
• Support the achievement of complete communities that are designed to support healthy and active living and meet people's needs for daily living throughout an entire lifetime. • Prioritize intensification and higher densities to make efficient use of land and infrastructure and support transit viability. • Provide flexibility to capitalize on new economic and employment opportunities as they emerge, while providing certainty for traditional industries, including resource-based sectors. • Support a range and mix of housing options, including second units and affordable housing, to serve all sizes, incomes, and ages of households.
The Proposed Development conforms to this vision for growth in the Greater Golden Horseshoe by contributing to a compact, lively, and complete community. In addition, the Proposed Development optimizes the use of existing water, wastewater and stormwater infrastructure to support growth in a compact and efficient form. The Proposed Development will also provide for a mix of housing options in an area near the existing Hamilton GO Centre and planned future LRT stations along King Street.
Section 2.2.1 of the Growth Plan, Managing Growth, provides policy direction for planning and managing growth in the Greater Golden Horseshoe, as follows:
1. Population and employment forecasts contained in Schedule 3 will be used for planning and managing growth in the GGH to the horizon of this Plan in accordance with the policies in subsection 5.2.4.
Within said Schedule 3, the City of Hamilton is forecasted to grow as follows: • 680,000 by 2031 • 730,000 by 2036 • 780,000 by 2041
The Proposed Development would assist the municipality in achieving the growth target established by the Growth Plan as the clear majority of new growth is to be directed to settlement areas that fulfill the following requirements:
2. Forecasted growth to the horizon of this Plan will be allocated based on the following: a) the vast majority of growth will be directed to settlement areas that: i. have a delineated built boundary;
Planning Justification Report | 221-225 John Street S. & 70-78 Yonge Street 47 GSP Group Inc. | July 2018
ii. have existing or planned municipal water and wastewater systems; and iii. can support the achievement of complete communities;
The Proposed Development conforms to all three of these requirements. First, the Site is located within the built boundary as defined by the maps issued by the Ministry of Public Infrastructure Renewal1. Secondly, the Site benefits from existing municipal water and wastewater systems that can support the Proposed Development. Lastly, the Site is in the heart of the established Corktown neighbourhood yet in its current form as a surface parking lot and one-story commercial plaza does not represents its full potential. The redevelopment of the Site into a landmark mixed-use development which fully utilizes the centrality of the Site within the Corktown community will support the achievement of a complete community by bringing in new residents and commercial uses.
The Growth Plan provides further direction on where growth will be focused within settlement areas:
b) within settlement areas, growth will be focused in: i. delineated built-up areas; ii. strategic growth areas; iii. locations with existing or planned transit, with a priority on higher order transit where it exists or is planned; and iv. areas with existing or planned public service facilities;
The Site fulfills several of these criteria. As indicated above, the Site is in a delineated built-up area. In addition, the Site is close to both existing transit (Hamilton GO Centre, HSR Bus Route 22 & 27) as well as planned higher order transit (planned LRT stations at James Street and Mary Street). Lastly, the Corktown area contains key public service facilities, such as St. Joseph’s Hospital, Queen Victoria Elementary School, among other public amenities and services identified in Section 2.2 and Figure 3 of this report.
Furthermore, Section 2.2.1.4 of the Growth Plan states that applying the policies of this Plan will support the achievement of complete communities that:
1 Built Boundary for the Growth Plan for the Greater Golden Horseshoe, Section 3, Built Boundary Maps: http://placestogrow.ca/index.php?option=com_content&task=view&id=373&Itemid=15#3 (Accessed May 10, 2018)
Planning Justification Report | 221-225 John Street S. & 70-78 Yonge Street 48 GSP Group Inc. | July 2018
a) feature a diverse mix of land uses, including residential and employment uses, and convenient access to local stores, services, and public service facilities; b) improve social equity and overall quality of life, including human health, for people of all ages, abilities, and incomes; c) provide a diverse range and mix of housing options, including second units and affordable housing, to accommodate people at all stages of life, and to accommodate the needs of all household sizes and incomes; d) expand convenient access to: i. a range of transportation options, including options for the safe, comfortable and convenient use of active transportation; ii. public service facilities, co-located and integrated in community hubs; iii. an appropriate supply of safe, publicly-accessible open spaces, parks, trails, and other recreational facilities; and iv. healthy, local, and affordable food options, including through urban agriculture; e) ensure the development of high quality compact built form, an attractive and vibrant public realm, including public open spaces, through site design and urban design standards; f) mitigate and adapt to climate change impacts, build resilience, reduce greenhouse gas emissions, and contribute towards the achievement of low- carbon communities; and g) integrate green infrastructure and low impact development.
The Proposed Development supports the foregoing Growth Plan policies by: • focusing new growth and intensification in a built-up area of Hamilton within proximity to a range of transit options, including the Hamilton GO Centre, two HSR bus routes, a SoBi bicycle share hub, and the planned James Street LRT station, all of which is within walking distance of the Site and thus helping to improve human health; • contributes to a diverse mix of residential and commercial uses in a compact and efficient form, to support a vibrant Corktown neighbourhood; and • focuses new growth in close proximity to existing public service facilities, such as St. Joseph’s hospital, as well as parks and trails, such as the Shamrock park, Woolverton Park, St. Joseph’s Park, and Corktown Park—where the Escarpment Rail Trail begins.
Furthermore, Section 2.2.2.1 requires that by the year 2031, and for each year thereafter, a minimum of 60% of all residential development occurring annually within the City of Hamilton is to be located within the delineated built-up area. As identified in the Urban Hamilton Official Plan, Appendix G, Boundaries Map, the Site is located within the built-up area, specifically,
Planning Justification Report | 221-225 John Street S. & 70-78 Yonge Street 49 GSP Group Inc. | July 2018
Central Hamilton. Therefore, the Proposed Development supports the intent of this policy by contributing to the City of Hamilton’s residential stock within the built-up area.
In addition, the Growth Plan defines Major Transit Station Area as:
The area including and around any existing or planned higher order transit station or stop within a settlement area; or the area including and around a major bus depot in an urban core. Major transit station areas generally are defined as the area within an approximate 500 metre radius of a transit station, representing about a 10-minute walk.
The Site is located well within the 500m radius of the Hamilton GO Centre, in fact, only 200m north along John Street South. As such, Section 2.2.4.2 and 2.2.4.3 of the Growth Plan outlines that Major Transit Station Areas and Intensification Corridors will be designated in official plans and planned for a minimum density of:
c) 150 residents and jobs combined per hectare for those that are served by the GO Transit rail network.
The Proposed Development represents a density of 1,331 units per hectare, which meets the density target of 150 residents per hectare for the Major Transit Station Areas and therefore fulfills this policy.
Lastly, Section 2.2.4.9 states that within Major Transit Stations Areas, development will be supported, where appropriate, by:
i) planning for a diverse mix of uses, including second units and affordable housing, to support existing and planned transit service levels; ii) fostering collaboration between public and private sectors, such as joint development projects; iii) providing alternative development standards, such as reduced parking standards; and iv) prohibiting land uses and built form that would adversely affect the achievement of transit-supportive densities.
The Proposed Development satisfies Section 2.2.4.9 of the Growth Plan for the following reasons: • supports a diverse mix of uses including residential and commercial uses at a transit- supportive density; and
Planning Justification Report | 221-225 John Street S. & 70-78 Yonge Street 50 GSP Group Inc. | July 2018
• encourages, as opposed to prohibits, land uses and a built form that supports the achievement of transit-supportive densities.
For all the forgoing reasons, it is concluded that the Proposed Development is in conformity with the policies of the Growth Plan.
Relevance to the Site: For all the above reasons, it is concluded that the proposal is inconformity with the policies of the Growth Plan. A further analysis of the Proposed Development regarding the Growth Plan is explored can be found in Section 6.3.
4.7 Urban Hamilton Official Plan The Urban Hamilton Official Plan (UHOP) was adopted by Council and received final approval from the Ontario Municipal Board on August 16th, 2013.
The Site is identified as part of the “Neighbourhoods” urban structure element on Schedule E—Urban Structure, as shown in Figure 5. Section E.2.6 of the UHOP describes “Neighbourhoods” as an all-encompassing structural element representing the concept of a complete community. Neighbourhoods include a mix of low-, medium-, and high-rise residential areas in addition to a variety of commercial areas and other uses. Although Hamilton’s Neighbourhoods are generally stable, the UHOP recognizes that Neighbourhoods are not static, and will evolve over time for a number of reasons, including the redevelopment of underutilized commercial areas. Residential intensification is considered part of the same evolution provided that the intensification is compatible with and respects the built form and character of the surrounding neighbourhood.
The Neighbourhoods element of the urban structure plan is implemented through the land use designations shown on Schedule E-1—Urban Land Use Designations, which identifies the Site as “Mixed Use – Medium Density”, as illustrated in Figure 6.
Section E.4.6 of the UHOP states that the intent of the Mixed Use – Medium Density designation is to “permit a full range of retail, service commercial, entertainment, and residential accommodation at a moderate scale.” The designation supports neighbourhood- oriented commercial uses as well as residential development, which “enhances the function of these areas as transit supportive nodes and corridors.” Permitted uses include a variety of retail and service commercial uses, as well as institutional, arts, cultural, entertainment, and recreations uses, in addition to multiple-dwellings.
The maximum permitted height within the Mixed Use – Medium Density designation is six storeys, which can be increased up to eight storeys with appropriate justification. The predominant built form is intended to be mid-rise and low-rise buildings. The intent of the
Planning Justification Report | 221-225 John Street S. & 70-78 Yonge Street 51 GSP Group Inc. | July 2018
designation is to increase the proportion of multiple storey, mixed use buildings that have retail and service commercial stores at grade. The amount of retails and service commercial space will generally range from 25,000m2 – 100,000m2.
Relevance to the Site: An Official Plan Amendment will be required to permit the proposed buildings heights of 34 and 31 stories within a Mixed-Use Medium Density Designation.
Roads Network The Site occupies a city block bounded by Young Street to the north, Catharine Street S. to the west, Forest Avenue to the south, and John Street S. to the west.
As illustrated in Figure 7, John Street S. is classified as a Minor Arterial Road in Schedule C—Functional Road Classification. The primary function of a minor arterial road is to carry moderate volumes of intra-municipal and inter-regional traffic through the City in association with other types of roads. The basic maximum right-of-way widths for minor arterial roads is 36.576m. The current width of John Street South is approximately 20.2m. A road widening of approximately 8.19m will therefore be required.
Young Street is classified as a local road with a width of approximately 18.7m. The minimum width for a local street is 20.2m and therefore a road widening will be required on Young street. Similarly, Catharine Street South and Forest Avenue are both classified as local roads with minimum width requirements of 20.2m. Neither Forest Avenue, nor Catharine Street S. were identified on the Formal Consultation Document as requiring road widenings. However, the Formal Consultation Document did identity the following required road widenings and daylight triangles: • Approximately 8.19m widening along John St. S. • Approximately 1.75m widening along portions of Young St. • 12.19m x 12.19m daylight triangle at the intersection of John St. S. and Young St. • 12.19m x 12.19m daylight triangle at the intersection of John St. S. and Forest Ave. • 4.57 x 4.57m daylight triangle at the intersection of Young St. and Catharine St. S. • 4.57 x 4.57m daylight triangle at the intersection of Forest Ave. and Catharine St. S.
To optimize and fully develop the Site as proposed, relief from the required road widenings and daylight triangles will be sought.
Planning Justification Report | 221-225 John Street S. & 70-78 Yonge Street 52 GSP Group Inc. | July 2018 PARKSIDE DR APPEALS
EVANS RD KERNS RD The southern urban boundary that generally extends from Upper Centennial Parkway and Mud Street East in the east, following the hydro corridor and encompassing the Red Hill Business Park to Upper James Street remains under CONCESSION 7 E ROBSON RD appeal.
CONCESSION 6 E CENTRE RD BOULDING KING AVE GARDEN LN RD
CONCESSION 5 E FIRST AIN BROW RD ST Lake Ontario MILL ST MOUNT MAIN ST N HAMIL TON ST
TERDOWN DR A BRAEHEID AVE 5 ARKSIDE DR P BEACH BL
NORTH W HOLL YBUSH DR Hamilton Harbour VD QEW 6
DUNDAS ST Lands Subject to Non-Decision 117 (a)
CONCESSION 5 W (353 James Street North)
WOODW FRUITLAND RD MILLGROVE SIDE RD
P
ARKDALE A QEW ARD A ARVIN AVE BARTON ST
YORK BL JONES RD INDUSTRIAL DR NASH RD N OLD GUELPH RD KENIL ROCK CHAPEL RD VE DEWITT RD TTERSON RD
A MILLEN RD CONCESSION 4 W P OTT BARTON ST E GAGE A VE N GREEN RD VD V SHERMAN A ALLEY RD BURLINGTON ST WORTH A A WENTWORTH ST N VICTORIA A GRA W WELLINGTON ST N
A ST N JOHN ST N JAMES ST N
CENTENNIAL PKWY YS RD BA VE N YORK RD BARTON ST E SYDENHAM RD Y ST N BIRCH A
VE N VE N VE OFIELD RD ANNIA A VE N BRIT RHVP 8 VE
5 CANNON ST E
BARTONQUEEN STST N W QUEENSTON RD LAKE A YORK BL NASH RD S MAIN ST E KING ST E VD CANNON ST W WILSON ST OTT LONGWOOD RD KING ST E MOXLEY RD VE P GAGE A MACKLIN ST
ARADISE RD RIDGE RD A
YORK RD MAIN ST E PARKSIDE DR APPEALS W
EV The southern urban boundary that generally extends from Upper Centennial Parkway and Mud Street East in the east, SYDENHAM RD ANS RD KERNS RD following the hydro corridor and encompassing the Red Hill Business Park to Upper James Street remains under T CONCESSION 7 E ROBSON RD appeal.
CONCESSION 6 E PARKSIDE DR APPEALS CENTRE RD BOULDING KING ST W A ST S APLEYTOWN RD KING AVE GARDEN LN RD EV The southern urban boundary that generally extends from Upper Centennial Parkway and Mud Street East in the east, ANS RD KERNS RD JAMES ST S CONCESSION 5 E FIRST AIN BROW RD following the hydro corridor and encompassing the Red Hill Business Park to Upper James Street remains under CONCESSION 7 E ROBSON RD ST appeal. MILL ST Lake Ontario MOUNT JOHN ST S
CONCESSION 6 E MAIN ST N CENTRE RD HAMIL BOULDING TON ST KING AVE RD GARDEN LN KING ST E
CONCESSION 5 E TERDOWN DR FIRST AIN BROW RD VE S A BRAEHEID ST VE AVE 5 ARKSIDE DR P MILL ST Lake Ontario MOUNT BEACH BL
NORTH W MAIN ST N HOLL YBUSHHAMIL DR Hamilton Harbour TON ST VD MAIN ST W QEWDUNDURN ST S 6 CUMBER LAND A TERDOWN DR QUEEN ST S A BRAEHEID AVE 5 ARKSIDE DR QEW P DUNDAS ST Lands Subject to Non-Decision 117 (a) BEACH BL MOUNT ALBION LEWIS RD NORTH W WINONA RD CONCESSION 5 W HOLL (353 James Street North) MCNEIL YBUSH DR GLOVER RD Hamilton Harbour VD WRENCE RD RD
Y RD QEW WOODW FRUITLAND RD LA Legend MILLGROVE6 SIDE RD FIFTY RD P BA ARKDALE A QEW ARD A ARVIN AVE BARTON ST
YORK BL JONES RD INDUSTRIAL DR NASH RD N QEW Urban Structure Elements DUNDAS ST LandsOLD GUELPH Subject RD to Non-Decision 117 (a) KENIL ROCK CHAPEL RD VE DEWITT RD TTERSON RD OFIELD RD LEWIS RD A MILLEN RD WINONA RD OTT CONCESSION 5 W CONCESSION 4 W P BARTON ST E MCNEIL GAGE A VE N GREEN RD (353 James StreetVD North) V SHERMAN A GLOVER RD ALLEY RD BURLINGTON ST WORTH A Neighbourhoods A WENTWORTH ST N VICTORIA A GRA W WELLINGTON ST N 8
A ST N Site JOHN ST N JAMES ST N Y RD WOODW CENTENNIAL PKWY YS RD YORK RD BA VE N FRUITLAND RD Legend BARTON ST E FIFTY RD BIRCH A SYDENHAM RD MILLGROVE SIDE RD Y ST N
P VE N Employment Areas VE N VE ARKDALE A QEW OFIELD RD ELEVENTH RD ANNIA A ARD A VE N BRIT ARVIN AVE BARTON ST RIDGE RD
YORK BL RHVP 8 JONES RD VE NASH RD N INDUSTRIAL DR TENTH RD Urban Structure Elements 5 OLD GUELPH RD Y ST S KENIL ROCK CHAPEL RD CANNON ST E VE DEWITT RD TTERSON RD EIGHTH RD E QUEEN ST N LAKE A Major Activity Centres A BARTON ST W QUEENSTON RD MILLEN RD OTT CONCESSION 4 W P NASH RD S BARTON ST E GAGE A VE N GREEN RD VD YORK BL V BURLINGTON SHERMAN ST A MAIN ST E ALLEY RD KING ST E WORTH A Neighbourhoods A VD CANNON ST W WILSONWENTWORTH ST N ST VICTORIA A GRA W OTT WELLINGTON ST N LONGWOOD RD KING ST E 8 MOXLEY RD VE P GAGE A A ST N MACKLIN ST JOHN ST N JAMES ST N ARADISE RD RIDGE RD CENTENNIAL PKWY YS RD A BA VE N YORK RD YORK RD MAIN ST E Major Open Space SYDENHAM RD W BARTON ST E T SYDENHAM RD Y ST N BIRCH A KING ST W A ST S APLEYTOWN RD
JAMES ST S JOHN ST S VE N Employment Areas VE N KING ST E VE VE S VE OFIELD RD MAIN ST W ELEVENTH RD DUNDURN ST S ANNIA A VE N CUMBER LAND A QUEEN ST S BRIT RIDGE RD MOUNT ALBION LAWRENCE RD RD RHVP BA 8 OFIELD RD VE TENTH RD Nodes 5 Y ST S CANNON ST E
EIGHTH RD E QUEEN ST N LAKE A Major Activity Centres BARTON ST W MOUNT QUEENSTON RD COOTES DR YORK BL CONCESSION ST NASH RD S KING ST W MAIN ST E KING ST E Downtown Urban Growth Centre
FALLSVIEW RD E STERLINGST VD CANNON ST W WILSON ST YMPIC DR DR YMPIC OTTUPPER OTT LONGWOOD RD SHERMAN AC KING ST E AIN BROW BL
MOXLEY RD UPPER GAGE A VE AIN RD E
P GAGE A OL MACKLIN ST YORK RD ARADISE RD RIDGE RD ABERDEEN A GREEN MOUNT MOUNT YORK RD MAINVE ST E Major Open Space SYDENHAM RD UPPER WENTWORTH ST W MAIN ST W AVE QUEENSDALE A T UPPER WELLINGTON ST KING ST W A ST S APLEYTOWN RD
EMERSON ST JAMES ST S Sub Regional Service UPPER JAMES ST HARVEST RD JOHN ST S KING ST E VEVE VE S AIN RD MAIN ST W SECOND RD E THIRD RD ELEVENTH RD E DUNDURN ST S FENNELL A CUMBER LAND A A QUEEN ST S GREEN MOUNT MOUNT ALBION KING ST E W LAWRENCE RD RD KING ST W EAST TOWN LINE RD BA UPPER KENIL MUD ST OFIELD RD VD TENTH RD E GRANTVD BECKETT DR A ST Nodes VE WY ST S
VE EIGHTH RD E HATT ST DUNDAS ST BL FENNELL A WEST 5TH ST OSLER DR SEVENTH RD E Community UPPER SHERMAN A MOUNT COOTES DR CONCESSION ST KING ST W SIXTH RD E UPPER P UPPER CENTENNIAL PKWY Downtown Urban Growth Centre GARTH ST
FALLSVIEW RD E STERLINGST WK RD E RHVP FIFTH RD E 8 DR YMPIC MOHA COOTES DR UPPER OTT MUD ST E VE SHERMAN AC AIN BROW BL
WHITNEY UPPER GAGE A AIN RD E OL A SCENIC DR YORK RD Corridors 403 ABERDEEN VE WORTH ST GREEN MOUNT UPPER WENTWORTH ST MAIN ST W AVE QUEENSDALE A FIRST RD E HIGHLAND RD ARADISE RD S UPPER WELLINGTON ST NINTH RD E
MAIN ST W CONCESSION ST EMERSON ST Sub Regional Service UPPER JAMES ST MUD ST KING ST WHARVEST RD FIRST RD W VE AIN RD Primary FENNELL A SECOND RD E THIRD RD ELEVENTH RD E A GREEN MOUNT KING ST E SCENIC DR W KING ST W EAST TOWN LINE RD UPPER KENIL MUD ST VE VD TENTH RD E WEIRS LN A ST GRANTVD BECKETT DR VE W HIGHLAND RD E EIGHTH RD E GOVERNOR'S RD VE UPPER MOUNT ALBION RD HATT ST DUNDAS ST BL FENNELL A WEST 5TH ST OSLER DR SEVENTH RD E Community UPPER SHERMAN A Secondary
WK RD W LIMERIDGE RD LINC SIXTH RD E UPPER P UPPER CENTENNIAL PKWY GARTH ST ALLSVIEW RD E RHVP FIFTH RD E 8 MOHA MOHAWK RD E SOUTH TOWN LINE RD STERLING TURNBULL RD ARAMOUNT DR HIGHLAND RD W MUD ST E WHITNEYVE UPPER HORNING RD P A SCENIC DR PRITCHARD RD Corridors WORTH ST 403 DARTNALL RD 20 Potential Expansion of FIRST RD E
F RED UPPER HIGHLAND RD WILSON ST E ARADISE RD S NINTH RD E MAIN ST W LINC MUD ST Secondary Corridor OLD DUNDAS RD FIRST RD W Primary BINKLEY RD STONE CHURCH RD E
SULPHUR SPRINGS RD SCENIC DR
ST VE RYMAL RD WEIRS LN STONE CHURCH RD HIGHLAND RD E YMPIC DR DR YMPIC GOVERNOR'S RD STONE CHURCH RD W UPPER MOUNT ALBION RD HILL V Other FeSecondaryatures GOLF LINKS RD WK RD W LIMERIDGE RD LINC UPPER OTT MEADOWLANDS MOHA SOUTH TOWN LINE RD TURNBULL RD ALLEY PKWY ARAMOUNT DR MCNIVEN RD BL UPPER HORNING RD RYMAL RD E P HIGHLAND RD W PRITCHARD RD Rural Area
NEBO RD GLOVER RD DARTNALL RD Potential Expansion of LIONS CLUB RD 20 UPPER JAMES ST WILSON ST E VD LINC RYMAL RD W RED UPPER Secondary Corridor OLD DUNDAS RD MILES RD
FLETCHER RD BINKLEY RD STONE CHURCH RD E WESTBROOK RD John C. Munro AIN BROW BL SULPHUR SPRINGS RD SPRINGBROOK SHERMAN AC 56 UPPER GAGE A ASTONE CHURCH RD GARTH ST RYMAL RD Hamilton International Airport STONE CHURCH RD W GOLF CLUB RD
KITTY MURRA HILL V Other Features MINERAL SPRINGS RD VE
STONEHENGE DR TRINITY CHURCH RD GOLF LINKS RD GARNER ROAD E TWENTY RD E HENDERSHOT RD OL MEADOWLANDS LN ALLEY PKWY SLOTE RD RYMAL RD E Niagara Escarpment MCNIVEN RD BL Rural Area Y NEBO RD GLOVER RD LIONS CLUB RD TWENTY RD W YORK RD VD RYMAL RD W UPPER JAMES ST MILES RD FIDDLER'S GREEN RD FLETCHER RD WESTBROOK RD UrbanJohn C. Boundary Munro Figure SPRINGBROOK 56 A GARTH ST Hamilton International Airport GOLF CLUB RD Urban Structure KITTY MURRA MINERAL SPRINGS RD VE DICKENSON RD E ABERDEEN TRINITY CHURCH RD GREEN MOUNT STONEHENGE DR 403 GARNER ROAD E TWENTY RD E HENDERSHOT RD Municipal Boundary SOUTHCOTE RD GLANCASTER RD Source: Urban Hamilton Official Plan, Schedule E (October 2016) LN GUYATT RD SLOTE RD DICKENSON RD W WOODBURN RD Niagara Escarpment VE 6 Y BOOK RD E Lands Subject to Non Decision WILSON ST W TWENTY RD W SMITH RD
NEBO RD 113 West Harbour Setting Sail 5 FIDDLER'S GREEN RD Urban Boundary UPPER WENTWORTH ST ENGLISH CHURCH RD E Planning Justification Report | 221-225 John Street S. & 70-78Yonge Street MAIN ST W GARNER ROAD W DICKENSON RD E 52 VE Municipal Boundary JERSEYVILLE RD W 403 Council Adoption: July 9, 2009 SOUTHCOTE RD GLANCASTER RD A GSP Group | June 2018 QUEENSDALE A GUYATT RD WOODBURN RD
6 DICKENSON RD W HOMESTEAD DR Ministerial Approval: March 16, 2011 UPPER WELLINGTON ST BOOK RD E Lands Subject to Non Decision WILSON ST W Effective Date: August 16, 2013 FIDDLER'S GREEN RD SMITH RD
NEBO RD 113 West Harbour Setting Sail AIRPORT RD E BINBROOK RD ENGLISH CHURCH RD E 56 BOOK RD W Urban Hamilton Official Plan EMERSON ST SHAGARNER ROAD W 52 VER RD UPPER JAMES ST JERSEYVILLE RD W Council Adoption:Schedule July 9,E 2009
HOMESTEAD DR Ministerial Approval: March 16, 2011 6 TYNESIDE RD Urban Structure WOODBURN RD Effective Date: August 16, 2013 HARVEST RD FIDDLER'S GREEN RD KIRK RD WHITE CHURCH RD E MILES RD AIRPORT RD E
BINBROOK RD TRIMBLE RD BUTTER RD FERRIS RD WHITE CHURCH RD W 56 WILSON ST W TRINITY RD BOOK RD W HARRISON RD Urban Hamilton Official Plan SHA BELL RD GLANCASTER RD VER RD BERRY RD Not To Scale A RD E Schedule E 6 CHIPPEW VE AIN RD Date: October 2016 SECOND RD E THIRD RD 6 TYNESIDE RD Urban Structure KIRK RD WOODBURN RD PLANNING & ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT DEPARTMENT A RD W WHITE CHURCH RD E CHIPPEW MILES RD CARLUKE RD C Teranet Land Information Services Inc. and its licensors. [2009]
TRIMBLE RD
FERRIS RD May Not be Reproduced without Permission. THIS IS NOT A PLAN BUTTER RD FENNELL A WHITE CHURCH RD W OF SURVEY WILSON ST W TRINITY RD HARRISON RD A BELL RD GLANCASTER RD BERRY RD Not To Scale GREEN MOUNT 6 CHIPPEWA RD E Date: October 2016 PLANNING & ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT DEPARTMENT A RD W CHIPPEW W KING ST E CARLUKE RD C Teranet Land Information Services Inc. and its licensors. [2009] May Not be Reproduced without Permission. THIS IS NOT A PLAN KING ST W OF SURVEY UPPER KENIL VD GRANTVD BECKETT DR VE W A ST
VE HATT ST DUNDAS ST BL FENNELL A WEST 5TH ST OSLER DR UPPER SHERMAN A
UPPER P UPPER CENTENNIAL PKWY GARTH ST RHVP FIFTH RD E 8 MOHAWK RD E VE MUD ST E WHITNEYA SCENIC DR 403 WORTH ST FIRST RD E
ARADISE RD S
MAIN ST W MUD ST FIRST RD W
SCENIC DR WEIRS LN VE HIGHLAND RD E GOVERNOR'S RD UPPER MOUNT ALBION RD
WK RD W LIMERIDGE RD LINC MOHA TURNBULL RD UPPER HORNING RD PARAMOUNT DR HIGHLAND RD W PRITCHARD RD
DARTNALL RD 20 WILSON ST E LINC RED UPPER OLD DUNDAS RD
BINKLEY RD STONE CHURCH RD E SULPHUR SPRINGS RD STONE CHURCH RD RYMAL RD STONE CHURCH RD W HILL V GOLF LINKS RD MEADOWLANDS RYMAL RD E ALLEY PKWY MCNIVEN RD BL LIONS CLUB RD NEBO RD GLOVER RD VD RYMAL RD W UPPER JAMES ST
MILES RD
FLETCHER RD
SPRINGBROOK 56 A GARTH ST KITTY MURRA GOLF CLUB RD MINERAL SPRINGS RD VE STONEHENGE DR TRINITY CHURCH RD GARNER ROAD E TWENTY RD E HENDERSHOT RD LN SLOTE RD Y TWENTY RD W
FIDDLER'S GREEN RD
DICKENSON RD E 403 SOUTHCOTE RD GLANCASTER RD GUYATT RD WOOD 6 DICKENSON RD W BOOK RD E WILSON ST W SMITH RD
NEBO RD
ENGLISH CHURCH RD E GARNER ROAD W 52 JERSEYVILLE RD W
HOMESTEAD DR
FIDDLER'S GREEN RD
AIRPORT RD E BINBROOK RD 56 BOOK RD W SHA VER RD 6 TYNESIDE RD KIRK RD WHITE CHURCH RD E MILES RD
TRIMBLE RD BUTTER RD FERRIS RD WHITE CHURCH RD W WILSON ST W TRINITY RD HARRISON RD
GLANCASTER RD
6 CHIPPEWA RD E
A RD W CHIPPEW CARLUKE RD MILBUROUGH TOWN LINE APPEALS
The southern urban boundary that generally extends from Upper Centennial Parkway and Mud Street East in the east,
WY Detail Inset ATT RD following the hydro corridor and encompassing the Red Hill Business Park to Upper James Street remains under appeal.
PARKSIDE DR
EVANS RD KERNS RD CONCESSION 7 E
ROBSON RD
BOULDING AVE KING GARDEN LN RD CENTRE RD
Detail Inset FIRST AIN BROW RD ST MILL ST MOUNT MAIN ST N HAMIL Lake Ontario TON ST
CONCESSION 6 E
BRAEHEID CONCESSION 5 E TERDOWN DR A AVE ARKSIDE DR P 5 BEACH BL HOLL NORTH W YBUSH DR Hamilton Harbour VD Lands Subject to Non-Decision 117(a) QEW 6 (353 James Street North) CONCESSION 5 W
DUNDAS ST
FRUITLAND RD
WOODW
MILLGROVE SIDE RD GRA P QEW ARKDALE ARD
YS RD AVE ARVIN YORK BL BARTON ST JONES RD DR A NASH RD N INDUSTRIAL VE
DEWITT RD ROCK CHAPEL A TTERSON RD OLD GUELPH RD VE N A MILLEN RD OTT KENIL CONCESSION 4 W P GAGE BARTON ST E VD GREEN RD BURLINGTON STSHERMAN RD A
WENTWORTH ST N VICTORIA W WORTH YORK RD WELLINGTON ST N A
A ST N
JOHN ST N JAMES ST N VE N
BA
Y ST N A
BIRCH VE N A
VE N A VE N BARTON ST E AVE ANNIA SYDENHAM RD BRIT A
VE RHVP 8
5 BARTON ST W CANNON ST E
QUEEN ST N LAKE QUEENSTON NASHRD RD S YORK BL CANNON ST W MAIN ST E CENTENNIAL WILSON ST KING ST E VD A
KING ST E OTT VE
GAGE LONGWOOD RD
SYDENHAM RD A RIDGE RD P MACKLIN ST W YORK RD ARADISE RD MAIN ST E
MILBUROUGH TOWN LINE APPEALS Key Map A The southern urban boundary that generally extends from Upper Centennial Parkway and Mud Street East in the east, N.T.S. T WY Detail Inset ATT RD following the hydro corridor and encompassing the Red Hill Business Park to Upper James Street remains under appeal. ST S PKWY PARKSIDE DR KING ST W APLEYTOWN RD A
EVANS RD KERNS RD CONCESSION 7 E Rural JOHN ST S
ROBSON RD Urban VE S
BOULDING JAMES ST S AVE KING QUEEN ST S OFIELD RD GARDEN LN RD CENTRE RD KING ST E GREENHILL Detail Inset FIRST AIN BROW RD ST BA AVE MILL ST MOUNT MAIN ST N Note: For Rural Land Use Designations, refer HAMIL Lake Ontario TON ST MAIN ST W to Schedule D of the Rural Hamilton
CONCESSION 6 E DUNDURN ST S Official Plan. CUMBER LAND
BRAEHEID CONCESSION 5 E TERDOWN DR A AVE ARKSIDE DR Y ST S P 5 MOUNT MILBUROUGH TOWN LINE BEACH BL APPEALS HOLL NORTH W Key Map YBUSH DR WRENCE RD Hamilton Harbour VD The southern urban boundary that generally extends from Upper Centennial Parkway and Mud Street East in the east, LA Lands Subject to Non-Decision 117(a) QEW N.T.S. Detail InsetWY following the hydro corridor and encompassing the Red Hill Business Park to Upper James Street remains under appeal. ATT RD 6 (353 James Street North) Neighbourhoods QUIGLEY RD CONCESSION 5 W PARKSIDE DR QEW
DUNDAS ST LEWIS RD Open Space
MCNEIL
WINONA MILBUROUGH TOWN LINE APPEALSGLOVER RD MILBUROUGH TOWN LINE EVANS RD KERNS RD APPEALS FRUITLAND RD Y RD Key Map CONCESSION 7 E WOODW RD Key MapRural AC Institutional
The southern urban boundary that generally extends from Upper Centennial Parkway and MudFIFTY RD Street East in the east, MILLGROVE SIDE RD ROBSON RD The southern urbanGRA boundary that generally extends from Upper Centennial Parkway and Mud Street East in the east, P QEW Urban N.T.S. MILBUROUGH TOWN LINE ARKDALE WY ARD APPEALS N.T.S. Detail Inset ATT RD following the hydroYS RD corridor and encompassingAVE the Red Hill Business Park to Upper James Street remains under appeal. Detail InsetWYA following the hydro corridor and encompassingARVIN the Red Hill Business Park to Upper James Street remains under appeal. Key Map Site TT RD Utilitiy YORK BL JONES RD AC BARTON ST DR A NASH RD N INDUSTRIAL VE BOULDING The southern urban boundary that generallyDEWITT RD extends from Upper Centennial Parkway and Mud Street East in the east, ROCK CHAPEL A SHERMAN P TTERSON RD ARKSIDE DR OLD GUELPH RD VE N A MILLEN RD N.T.S. P A OTT KENIL CONCESSION 4 W ARKSIDEP DR VE KING GAGE BARTON ST E VD GREEN RD WY BURLINGTON STSHERMAN DetailGARDEN Inset LN ATT RD RD RD following the hydro corridor and encompassing the Red Hill Business Park to Upper James Street remains under appeal. A
WENTWORTH ST N VICTORIA W CENTRE RD WORTH YORK RD Commercial and Mixed Use Designations WELLINGTON ST N A 8
A ST N
JOHN ST N JAMES ST N VE N Detail Inset P FIRST EVANS RD KERNS RD BA ARKSIDE DR EV KERNSAIN BROW RD RD ANS RD Y ST N A CONCESSION 7 E ST BIRCH VE N A Rural
CONCESSION 7 E VE N A RuralDowntown Mixed Use Area MILL VE N BARTON ST E AVE ELEVENTH RD MOUNT ANNIA SYDENHAM RD ROBSON RD ST BRIT RIDGE RD A Urban ROBSON RDMAIN ST N VE RHVP 8 Urban EVANS RD KERNS RD TENTH RD Note: For Rural Land Use Designations, refer HAMIL Lake Ontario CONCESSION 7 E 5 TON ST BARTON ST W CANNON ST E Rural EIGHTH RD E QUEEN ST N LAKE to ScheduleMixed Use D - ofHigh the Density Rural Hamilton QUEENSTON NASHRD RD S BOULDING YORK BL CANNON ST W MAIN ST E CENTENNIAL ROBSON RD BOULDING WILSON ST KING ST E Urban CONCESSION 6 E AVE KING VD A Official Plan. A KING ST E OTT VE VE KING RD GAGE GARDEN LN RD LONGWOOD RD SYDENHAM RD A RIDGE RD P SHERMAN
GARDEN LN CENTRE RD MACKLIN ST Mixed Use - Medium Density W CENTRE RD BRAEHEID YORK RD ARADISE RD MAIN ST E RIDGE RD A CONCESSION 5 E T ST S PKWY KING ST W APLEYTOWN RD ALBION RD TERDOWN DR BOULDING A JOHN ST S A A A Detail Inset VE FIRST VE S AIN BROW RD JAMES ST S OFIELD RD ARKSIDE DR QUEEN ST S KING ST E GREENHILL Detail Inset FIRSTAVE KING BA AVE P ST AIN BROW RD MAIN ST W 5 DUNDURN ST S CUMBER LAND Y ST S GARDEN LN ST RD LAWRENCE RD MOUNT MILL BEACH BL QUIGLEY RD District Commercial CENTRE RD MOUNT AC NORTH W HOLL MILL ST AC SHERMAN YBUSH DRMAIN ST ST N MOUNT SHERMAN VD : For Rural Land Use Designations, refer MAIN ST N RIDGE RD Note Detail Inset FIRST ALBION RD A AIN BROW RD HAMIL KING ST W VE Note: For Rural Land Use Designations, refer VE HamiltonCONCESSION ST Harbour MOUNT Lake Ontario KING ST W HAMILTON ST DR YMPIC ST COOTES DR STERLING TON ST ST QEW Lake Ontario to ScheduleArterial Commercial D of the Rural Hamilton OL Lands Subject to Non-Decision 117(a) MILL to Schedule D of the Rural Hamilton MOUNT UPPER OTT ST AIN BROW BL AIN RD E ALLSVIEW RD E YORK RD CONCESSION 6 E VE F 6 MAIN ST N (353 James Street North) A GREEN MOUNT OfficialNeighbourhoods Plan. CONCESSION 6 E ABERDEEN Note : ForOfficial Rural Plan. Land Use Designations, refer MOUNT CONCESSION 5 W MAIN ST W UPPER WENTWORTH ST
HAMIL UPPER WELLINGTON ST COOTES DR Lake Ontario HARVEST RD TON ST BRAEHEID UPPER JAMES ST Employment Area Designations EMERSON ST QEW to Schedule D of the Rural Hamilton CONCESSION ST CONCESSION 5 E VE A AIN RD SECOND RD E BRAEHEID ELEVENTH RD E TERDOWN DR FENNELL A CONCESSION 5 E VD THIRD RD A A DUNDAS ST W GREEN MOUNT TERDOWN DR VE KING ST W LEWIS RD Open Space CONCESSION 6 E A ARKSIDEKING DR STAVE E A EAST TOWN LINE RD MCNEIL MUD ST
P ST TENTH RD E Official Plan. ARKSIDE DR UPPER KENIL WINONA YMPIC DR DR YMPIC 5 VD GRANT GLOVER RD P DUNDAS ST BECKETT DR AVE W HATT ST 5 BL FENNELL EIGHTH RD E Industrial Land OSLER DR BEACH BL SEVENTH RD E 8 UPPER GAGE NORTH W HOLL BEACH BL BRAEHEID UPPER SHERMAN YBUSH DR FRUITLAND RD Y RD CONCESSION 5 E NORTH W HOLL WOODW TERDOWN DR YBUSH DR UPPER P WK RD E SIXTH RD E RD MOHA VD UPPER CENTENNIAL Institutional COOTES DR STERLING A A RHVP FIFTH RD E VE ARKSIDE DR VD MUD ST E FIFTY RD MILLGROVE SIDE RD P Hamilton Harbour 5 WHITNEYVE Hamilton Harbour QEWWORTH ST GRA Business Park A SCENIC DR P QEW Lands Subject to Non-Decision 117(a) QEW ARKDALE GOVERNOR'S RD 403 BEACH BL ARD Lands Subject to Non-DecisionARADISE RD S 117(a) YS RD VE FIRST RD E A HOLL A HIGHLAND RD NORTH W ARVIN 6 YBUSH DR VE NINTH RD E NeighbourhoodsUtilitiy (353 James StreetYORK BL North) MUD ST BARTON ST JONES RD A NASH RD N 6 MAIN ST W DR Neighbourhoods (353 James Street North) VD VE CONCESSION 5 W WEST 5TH ST INDUSTRIAL
ST A CONCESSION 5 W FIRST RD W Hamilton Harbour DEWITT RD ROCK CHAPEL A Airport Employment Growth District VE TTERSON RD OLD GUELPHSCENIC RD DR QEW VE N A MILLEN RD QEW KENIL CONCESSION 4 W Lands Subject to Non-Decision 117(a) GARTH ST OTT PKWY P GAGE BARTON ST E WEIRS LN GREEN RD VD QEW DUNDAS ST BURLINGTON STSHERMAN HIGHLAND RD E
RD MUD ST W LEWIS RD
A UPPER MOUNT Open Space DUNDAS ST OL 6 WENTWORTH ST N W MCNEIL VICTORIA LEWIS RD Neighbourhoods (353 James Street North) WORTH Open Space YORK RD Commercial and Mixed Use Designations WELLINGTON ST N WINONA A 8 MCNEIL LIMERIDGE RD GLOVER RD A CONCESSION 5 W LINC ST N WINONA JOHN ST N GLOVER RD WK RD W JAMES ST N VE N Shipping & Navigation MOHA BA ARAMOUNT DR SOUTH TOWN LINE RD P FRUITLAND RD Y RD QEW TURNBULLRD Y ST N A HIGHLAND RD W WOODW FRUITLAND RD Y RD BIRCH VE N RD UPPER HORNING RD A Institutional VE N DUNDAS ST A WOODW RD PRITCHARD RD Downtown Mixed Use Area LEWIS RD Institutional VE N Open Space DARTNALL
BARTON ST E AVE RED UPPER MCNEIL FIFTY RD 20 ELEVENTH RD MILLGROVE SIDE RD ANNIA WINONA GRA BRIT FIFTY RD SYDENHAM RD GLOVER RD RIDGE RD P MILLGROVE SIDE RD WILSON ST E A GRA LINC ALBION RD QEW ARKDALE VE RHVP P ARD 8 Other Features OLD DUNDAS RD QEW ARKDALE YS RD TENTH RD ARD AVE STONE CHURCH RD E YS RD ARVIN AVE FRUITLAND RD Y RD Utilitiy 5 YORK BL CANNON ST E JONES RD WOODW BARTON ST A NASH RD N ARVIN RD BARTON ST W DR RD EIGHTH RD E QUEEN ST N LAKE Institutional VE Utilitiy YORK BL Mixed Use - High Density RD BARTON ST JONES RD INDUSTRIAL DR A NASH RD N RYMAL NASH RD S INDUSTRIAL HILL VE QUEENSTON RD CENTENNIAL FIFTY RD MAIN ST E DEWITT RD MILLGROVE SIDE RD ROCK CHAPEL YORK BL CANNON ST W A GRA KING ST E TTERSON RD VE N Rural Area OLD GUELPH RD STONE CHURCH RD W DEWITT RD ROCK CHAPEL A P A WILSON ST MILLEN RD VD KENIL A OTT V TTERSON RD VE N QEW CONCESSION 4 W P OLD GUELPH RD STONE CHURCH RD ARKDALE GAGE OTT ARD VE BARTON ST E MILLEN RD UPPER OTT KING ST E GREEN RD A VD KENIL OTT ALLEY PKWY CONCESSION 4 W SHERMAN P BURLINGTON ST YS RD GAGE BARTON ST E VE GREEN RD RD VD GAGE A WK RD LONGWOOD RD BURLINGTON STSHERMAN A ARVIN SYDENHAM RD WENTWORTH ST N A RIDGE RD RD P VICTORIA W MEADOWLANDS MACKLIN ST A WORTH Utilitiy YORK BL Mixed Use - Medium Density BARTON ST JONES RD YORK RD W A NASH RD N Commercial and Mixed Use Designations YORK RD ARADISE RD WELLINGTON ST N MAIN ST E WENTWORTH ST N DR VICTORIA WA NEBO RD 8 BL WORTH MOHA RD E VE SULPHUR SPRINGS RD YORK RD INDUSTRIALA A Commercial and Mixed Use Designations WELLINGTON ST N RYMAL ST N T MCNIVEN RD A 8 GOLF LINKS RD JOHN ST N JAMES ST N VE N PKWY John C. Munro ST S KING ST W APLEYTOWN RD A A ST N JOHN ST N JOHN ST S DEWITT RD AIN BROW BL ROCK CHAPEL BA JAMES ST N VE N A VE S
TTERSON RD JAMES ST S VE N OLDVD GUELPH RD QUEEN ST S OFIELD RD BA GLOVER RD KING ST E GREENHILL MILLEN RD A Y ST N A BA AVE OTT KENIL CONCESSION 4 W Hamilton International Airport P MAIN ST W BIRCH VE N GAGE A BARTON ST E GREEN RD VD DUNDURN ST S Y ST N CUMBERA LAND SHERMAN Y ST S RD W BURLINGTON ST VE N BINKLEY RD A BIRCH MOUNT VE N YORK RD RD RYMAL A WRENCE RD Downtown Mixed Use Area LA VE N A VE N QUIGLEY RD District Commercial A WENTWORTH ST N Downtown Mixed Use Area BARTON ST EW VICTORIA VE MILES RD A ELEVENTH RD LIONS CLUB RD WORTH VE N AC YORK RD Commercial and Mixed Use Designations WELLINGTON ST N BARTON ST E ANNIA AC A BRIT AVE 8 SYDENHAM RD SHERMAN RIDGE RD ELEVENTH RD WESTBROOK RD A A ST N BRITANNIA SYDENHAM RD JOHN ST N VE VE N RHVP JAMES ST N RIDGE RD ALLSVIEW RD E A 8 SPRINGBROOK GOLF CLUB RD TENTH RD SHERMAN VE BA RHVP RIDGE RD ALBION RD A 8 Niagara Escarpment KING ST W VE TENTH RD SPRINGS RD A MOUNT
5 Y ST N CONCESSION ST YMPIC DR DR YMPIC CANNON ST E BIRCH VE N COOTES DR STERLING BARTON ST W A EIGHTH RD E MINERAL 5 QUEEN ST N LAKE Mixed Use - High Density VEVE N Arterial Commercial ST CANNON ST E
A BARTON ST W A OL EIGHTH RD E Downtown Mixed Use Area KITTY MURRA QUEEN ST N NASH RD S LAKE VE VE N Mixed Use - High Density A QUEENSTON RD WOODBURN RD BARTON ST E CENTENNIAL F VE NASH RD S MAIN A ST E YORK BL ELEVENTH RD CANNON ST W UPPER OTT ANNIA QUEENSTON RD AIN BROW BL CENTENNIAL KING ST E YORK RD STONEHENGE DR AIN RD E ALLSVIEW RD E SYDENHAM RD YORK BL CANNON ST W BRIT MAIN ST E HENDERSHOT RD RIDGE RD WILSON ST A AVE VD A F SOUTHCOTE RD GARNER ROAD E TWENTY RD E KING ST E VE RHVP VE ABERDEEN WILSON ST KING ST E OTT 8 GREEN MOUNT VD A Urban Boundary TENTH RD MAIN ST W KING ST E OTT VE UPPER WENTWORTH ST GAGE Figure LONGWOOD RD
UPPER WELLINGTON ST SYDENHAM RD A RIDGE RD P GAGE 5 LONGWOOD RD MACKLIN ST Mixed Use - Medium Density COOTES DR UPPER JAMES ST CANNON ST E Y LN W YORK RD ARADISE RD MAIN ST E SYDENHAM RD BARTON ST W A RIDGE RD HARVEST RD P LAKE EIGHTH RD E MACKLIN ST QUEEN ST N UPPER JAMES ST EmploymentMixed Area Use - DesignationsHighMedium Density Density WA YORK RD EMERSON ST ARADISE RD MAIN ST E T VE NASH RD S A AIN RD SECOND RD E ST S QUEENSTON RD PKWY ELEVENTH RD E KING ST W A APLEYTOWN RD FENNELL A A CENTENNIAL TWENTY RD W THIRD RD T JOHN ST S MAINVD ST E W YORK BL PKWY ST S GREEN MOUNT CANNON ST W GREEN MOUNT KING ST W VE S APLEYTOWN RD A KING ST E JAMES ST S OFIELD RD KING ST W QUEEN ST S JOHN ST S KING ST E A EAST TOWN LINE RD GREENHILL Urban Land Use Designations WILSON ST VE S KING ST E Municipal Boundary VD A BA AVE MUD ST JAMES ST S ST TENTH RD E OFIELD RD QUEEN ST S FIDDLER'S GREEN RD MAIN ST W OTT VE KING ST E UPPER KENIL KING ST E GREENHILL DUNDURN ST S CUMBER LAND GRANTABERDEENVD BECKETT DR BA AVE Y ST S MAIN ST W AVE W MOUNT DUNDAS ST GAGE DUNDURN ST S CUMBER LAND WRENCE RD BL EIGHTH RD E TT ST SMITH RD LONGWOOD RD LA Industrial Land FENNELL QUIGLEY RD District Commercial HA Y ST S MOUNT OSLER DR SEVENTH RD E SYDENHAM RD A RIDGE RD UPPER GAGE WRENCE RD P LA MACKLIN ST Mixed Use - Medium Density Source: Urban Hamilton Official Plan, Schedule E-1 (February 27, 2018) AC QUIGLEY RD 56 District Commercial W 8 YORK RD ARADISE RD AC MAIN ST E SHERMANUPPER SHERMAN AC A AC T Lands Subject to Non Decision 113 West SHERMAN PKWY UPPER P ST S SIXTH RD E KING ST W WK RD E APLEYTOWN RD A UPPER CENTENNIAL JOHN ST S SHERMAN MOHA RIDGE RD FIFTH RD E VE S RHVP ALBION RD A
JAMES ST S QUEEN ST S SHERMAN VE OFIELD RD KING ST W RIDGE RD DICKENSON RD E MOUNT ALBION RD KING ST E GREENHILL A BA CONCESSION ST AVE MUD ST E Harbour Setting Sail
VE YMPIC DR DR YMPIC KING ST W STERLING MAIN ST W MOUNT NEBO RD COOTES DR WORTH ST WHITNEYVE SCENIC DR DUNDURN ST S CONCESSIONCUMBER ST LAND ArterialBusiness Commercial Park
YMPIC DR DR YMPIC ST Y ST S 403 A COOTES DR STERLING MOUNT OL LAWRENCE RD ST QUIGLEY RD DistrictArterial Commercial
GOVERNOR'S RD GLANCASTER RD OL 403 ARADISE RD S AC UPPER OTT ATT RD FIRST RD E 6 A AIN BROW BL GUY AIN RD E HIGHLAND RD ALLSVIEW RD E YORK RD AC SHERMAN UPPER OTT F AVE VE AIN BROW BL AIN RD E NINTH RD E ALLSVIEW RD E YORK RD DICKENSON RD W MUD ST GREEN MOUNT TRINITY CHURCH RD F MAIN ST W 6 ABERDEEN AVE SHERMAN RIDGE RD GREEN MOUNT MAIN ST W WEST 5TH ST ALBION RD A MAIN ST W BOOK RD E UPPER WENTWORTH ST ABERDEEN UPPER WENTWORTH ST
WILSON ST W KING ST W VE MAIN ST W UPPER WELLINGTON ST A UPPER WENTWORTH ST MOUNT COOTES DR CONCESSION ST FIRST RD W Council Adoption:Airport EmploymentJuly 9, 2009 Growth District VE HARVEST RD DR YMPIC COOTES DR SCENIC STERLING DR UPPER WELLINGTON ST UPPER JAMES ST Employment Area Designations COOTES DR ST SMITH RD Arterial Commercial EMERSON ST GARTH ST PKWY
OL VE HARVEST RD A AIN RD SECOND RD E UPPER JAMES ST Planning Justification Report | 221-225 John Street S. & 70-78Yonge Street ELEVENTH RD E Employment Area Designations WEIRS LN A EMERSON ST FENNELL VE VD THIRD RD A AIN RD SECOND RD E W UPPER OTT GREEN MOUNT ELEVENTH RD E A Ministerial Approval: March 16, 2011 FENNELL AIN BROW BL HIGHLAND RD E MUD ST W THIRD RD AIN RD E YORK RD UPPER MOUNT KING ST W W VD FALLSVIEW RD E KING ST E AVE A GREEN MOUNT MUD ST EAST TOWN LINE RD KING ST W ST FLETCHER RD TENTH RD E KING ST E A GREEN MOUNT EAST TOWN LINE RD VD ABERDEEN UPPER KENIL MUD ST GRANT TENTH RD E BECKETT DR AVE W LIMERIDGE RD ST GSP Group | June 2018 UPPER KENIL DUNDAS ST MAIN ST W UPPER WENTWORTH ST LINC HATT ST GRANTBLVD WK RD W BECKETT DR FENNELL VE W ENGLISH CHURCH RD E EIGHTH RD E Effective Date:IndustrialShipping August &Land Navigation 16, 2013 A UPPER WELLINGTON ST DUNDAS STOSLER DR SEVENTH RD E UPPER GAGE 8 HATT ST COOTES DR BL FENNELL EIGHTH RD E Industrial Land OSLER DR SEVENTH RD E SOUTH TOWN LINE RD HARVEST RD MOHA UPPER GAGE ARAMOUNT DR UPPER JAMES ST UPPER SHERMAN P Employment Area Designations 8 TURNBULLRD EMERSON ST VE A HIGHLAND RD W AIN RD SECOND RD E UPPER SHERMAN SIXTH RD E ELEVENTH RD E UPPER WELLINGTON ST UPPER P FENNELL A WK RD E UPPER HORNING RD MOHA VD UPPER CENTENNIAL THIRD RD W FIFTH RD E GREEN MOUNT SIXTH RD E UPPER P RHVP WK RD E PRITCHARD RD JERSEYVILLE RD W KING ST W MOHA UPPER CENTENNIAL FIFTH RD E KING ST E A DARTNALL RHVP EAST TOWN LINE RD
UPPER RED RED UPPER MUD ST E MUD ST ST 20 TENTH RD E UPPER KENIL WORTH ST MUD ST E WILSON ST E GRANTVD WHITNEYAVE SCENIC DR BECKETT DR AVE W Business Park DUNDAS ST WORTH ST GARNER ROAD W LINC ALBION RD BL VE EIGHTH RD E HATT ST GOVERNOR'S RD WHITNEY A SCENIC DR FENNELL IndustrialBusiness LandPark OSLER DR SEVENTH RD E Other Features OLD DUNDAS RD 403 UPPER GAGE ARADISE RD S HOMESTEAD DR FIRST RD E 8 GOVERNOR'S RD 403 A HIGHLAND RD ARADISE RD S UPPER SHERMAN Urban Hamilton Official Plan VE STONE CHURCH RD E FIRST RD E NINTH RD E A MUD ST HIGHLAND RD UPPER P VE SIXTH RD E MAIN ST W WK RD E RD NINTH RD E MOHA RD UPPER CENTENNIAL BINBROOK RD FIDDLER'S GREEN RD MUD ST FIFTH RD E WEST 5TH ST MAIN ST W RHVP RYMAL COOTES DR HILL WEST 5TH ST A FIRST RD W MUD ST E Airport Employment Growth District VE WHITNEYVE SCENIC DR SCENIC DR STONE CHURCH RD W AIRPORTA RD E WORTH ST FIRST RD W RuralBusinessAirport Area Employment Park Growth District A VE SCENIC DRSTONE CHURCH RD GARTH ST V PKWY WEIRS LN GOVERNOR'S RD 403 GARTH ST ALLEY PKWY PKWY ARADISE RD S Schedule E-1 HIGHLAND RD E WEIRS LN FIRST RD E WK RD A MUD ST W HIGHLAND RD UPPER MOUNT MEADOWLANDS VE MUD ST W HIGHLAND RD E NINTH RD E UPPER MOUNT MUD ST MAIN ST W SULPHUR SPRINGS RD MOHA BL LIMERIDGE RD RD E NEBO RD MCNIVEN RD AIRPORT RDWEST 5TH ST W RYMALLINC BOOK RD W GOLF LINKS RD WK RD W LIMERIDGE RD JohnShipping C. Munro & Navigation HARVEST RD ALINC FIRST RD W Urban Land Use Designations Airport Employment Growth District WK RD W VE Shipping & Navigation VD SCENIC DR MOHA ARAMOUNT DR SOUTH TOWN LINE RD UPPER JAMES ST GLOVER RD P TURNBULLRD MOHA GARTH ST ARAMOUNT DR HIGHLAND RD W PKWY SOUTH TOWN LINE RD Hamilton International Airport WEIRS LN P BINKLEY RD 52 TURNBULLRD UPPER HORNING RD RD W HIGHLAND RD W HIGHLAND RD E UPPER HORNING RD RYMAL PRITCHARD RD MUD ST W UPPER MOUNT
DARTNALL PRITCHARD RD RED UPPER LIONS CLUB RD MILES RD 20 DARTNALL
UPPER RED RED UPPER 20 WILSON ST E LIMERIDGE RD WESTBROOK RD TYNESIDE RD LINC LINC ALBION RD WILSON ST E WK RD W 6 WOODBURN RD Other FeaturesShipping & Navigation EMERSON ST OLD DUNDAS RD SPRINGBROOK LINC ALBION RD GOLF CLUB RDKIRK RD Other Features OLD DUNDAS RD MOHA WHITE CHURCH RD E ARAMOUNT DR SOUTH TOWN LINE RD Niagara Escarpment MILES RD P SPRINGS RD TURNBULLRD STONE CHURCH RD E HIGHLAND RD W MINERAL UPPER HORNING RD STONE CHURCH RD E RD A RD RD KITTY MURRA VE PRITCHARD RD RYMAL TRIMBLE RD HILL RD WOODBURN RD DARTNALL FERRIS RD
BUTTER RD RED UPPER RYMAL HILL 20 VE AIN RD SECOND RD E STONEHENGE DR Rural Area STONE CHURCH RD W HENDERSHOT RD A WILSON ST E WHITE CHURCH RD W TWENTY RD E GARNER ROAD E V STONE CHURCH RD LINC ALBION RD Rural Area SOUTHCOTE RD STONE CHURCH RD W HARRISON RD WILSON ST W TRINITY RD 56 Other Features VALLEY PKWY Urban Boundary OLD DUNDAS RD STONE CHURCH RD
WK RD ALLEY PKWY SHA STONE CHURCH RD E BELL RD WK RD MEADOWLANDS GLANCASTER RD BERRY RD Y LN UPPER JAMES ST A RD MOHA MEADOWLANDSBL RD E NEBO RD RD SULPHUR SPRINGS RD MCNIVEN RDVER RD RYMAL Not To Scale MOHA GOLF LINKS BL RD RD E RDNEBO RD E RYMAL John C. Munro A HILL SULPHUR SPRINGS RD MCNIVEN RD GOLF LINKS RD TWENTY RD W 6 RYMAL CHIPPEW John C. Munro VD STONE CHURCH RD W Rural Area GLOVER RD FENNELL Municipal Boundary VD STONE CHURCH RD V Hamilton International Airport FIDDLER'S GREEN RD GLOVER RD RD W ALLEY PKWY Hamilton International Airport THIRD RD BINKLEY RD WK RD RYMAL BINKLEY RD SMITH RD RYMAL RD W Date: Feb. 27, 2018 LIONS CLUB RD MEADOWLANDS MILES RD 56
NEBO RD VD LIONS CLUB RD BL RD E MILES RD MOHA WESTBROOK RD SULPHUR SPRINGS RD MCNIVEN RD GOLF LINKS RD A RD W RYMAL JohnLands C. Subject Munro to Non Decision 113 West W SPRINGBROOK CARLUKE RD CHIPPEW GOLF CLUB RD WESTBROOK RD VD SPRINGBROOK GOLF CLUB RD Niagara Escarpment GLOVER RD PLANNING & ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT DEPARTMENT SPRINGS RD DICKENSON RD E NiagaraHarbour EscarpmentSetting Sail GREEN MOUNT Hamilton International Airport MINERAL SPRINGS RD NEBO RD BINKLEY RD 403 A RD W MINERAL KITTY MURRA VE RYMAL WOODBURN RD A GLANCASTER RD © Teranet Land Information Services Inc. and its licensors. [2009] May Not LIONS CLUB RD KITTY MURRA VE MILES RD STONEHENGE DR GUYATT RD WOODBURN RD HENDERSHOT RD STONEHENGE DR GARNER ROAD E TWENTY RD E WESTBROOK RD SOUTHCOTE RD DICKENSON RD W HENDERSHOT RD be Reproduced without Permission. THIS IS NOT A PLAN OF SURVEY SOUTHCOTE6 RD SPRINGBROOK GARNER ROAD E TWENTY RD E TRINITY CHURCH RD GOLF CLUB RD Urban Boundary BOOK RD E UrbanNiagara Boundary Escarpment SPRINGS RD WILSON ST W Council Adoption: July 9, 2009 MINERAL Y LN UPPER JAMES ST Y LNA SMITH RD UPPER JAMES ST KITTY MURRA VE KING ST W TWENTY RD W WOODBURN RD STONEHENGE DR TWENTY RD W Ministerial Approval: March 16, 2011 A KING ST E GARNER ROAD E TWENTY RD E HENDERSHOT RD Municipal Boundary FIDDLER'S GREEN RD SOUTHCOTE RD FLETCHER RD UrbanMunicipal Boundary Boundary FIDDLER'S GREEN RD SMITH RD ENGLISH CHURCH RD E Effective Date: August 16, 2013 SMITH RD UPPER JAMES ST 56 Y LN 56 Lands Subject to Non Decision 113 West TWENTY RD W Lands Subject to Non Decision 113 West JERSEYVILLE RD W DICKENSON RD E HarbourMunicipal Setting Boundary Sail ST FIDDLER'S GREEN RD DICKENSON RD E NEBO RD Harbour Setting Sail 403 NEBO RD GARNER ROAD W SMITH RD 403 GLANCASTER RD 56 TT RD HOMESTEAD DR A GLANCASTER RD GUY TT RD Urban Hamilton Official Plan DICKENSON RD W GUYA Lands Subject to Non Decision 113 West 6 TRINITY CHURCH RD FIDDLER'S GREEN RD DICKENSON RD W BINBROOK RD 6 BOOK RD E TRINITY CHURCH RD UPPER KENIL WILSON ST W BOOK RD E DICKENSON RD E Council Adoption:Harbour July Setting 9, 2009Sail WILSON ST W AIRPORT RD E NEBO RD Council Adoption: July 9, 2009 403 SMITH RD SMITH RD GLANCASTER RD TT RD Schedule E-1 A Ministerial Approval: March 16, 2011 VD GUY Ministerial Approval: March 16, 2011 GRANT DICKENSON RD W FLETCHER RD 6 TRINITY CHURCH RD BOOK RD E AIRPORT RD W FLETCHER RD Effective Date: August 16, 2013 WILSON ST W BOOK RD W ENGLISH CHURCH RDBECKETT E DR ENGLISH CHURCH RD E CouncilEffectiveUrban Adoption: Date: Land August July Use 16,9, 2009 2013Designations SMITH RD VE W 52 A Ministerial Approval: March 16, 2011 JERSEYVILLE RD W JERSEYVILLE RD W FLETCHER RD
DUNDAS ST TYNESIDE RD GARNER ROAD W 6 WOODBURN RD Effective Date: August 16, 2013 GARNER ROAD W ENGLISH CHURCH RD E KIRK RD BL HOMESTEAD DR WHITE CHURCH RD E MILES RD Urban Hamilton Official Plan HOMESTEAD DR Urban Hamilton Official Plan FIDDLER'S GREEN RD BINBROOK RD TRIMBLE RD TT ST JERSEYVILLE RD W BINBROOK RD FIDDLER'S GREEN RD FERRIS RD BUTTER RD FENNELL HA WHITE CHURCH RD W AIRPORT RD E GARNER ROAD W AIRPORT RD E WILSON ST W TRINITY RD HARRISON RD 56 Schedule E-1 HOMESTEAD DR RD UrbanSchedule Hamilton Official E-1 Plan SHA BELL OSLER DR GLANCASTER RD BINBROOK RD BERRY RD VER RD FIDDLER'S GREEN RD AIRPORT RD W RD E Not To Scale UPPER GAGE BOOK RD W AIRPORT RD W CHIPPEWA Urban Land Use Designations BOOK RD W 6 AIRPORT RD E Urban Land Use Designations 52 52 Date: Feb. 27, 2018Schedule E-1
AIRPORT RD W RD W TYNESIDE RD 6 A WOODBURN RD BOOK RD W CARLUKE RD CHIPPEW TYNESIDE RD 6 KIRK RD WOODBURN RD Urban Land Use Designations WHITE CHURCH RD E KIRK RD MILES RD PLANNING & ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT DEPARTMENT 8 WHITE CHURCH RD E 52 MILES RD TRIMBLE RD
FERRIS RD BUTTER RD TRIMBLE RD © Teranet Land Information Services Inc. and its licensors. [2009] May Not BUTTER RD FERRIS RD WHITE CHURCH RD W TYNESIDE RD 6 WOODBURN RD HARRISON RD be Reproduced without Permission. THIS IS NOT A PLAN OF SURVEY WILSON ST W TRINITY RD WHITE CHURCH RD W 56 KIRK RD WILSON ST W TRINITY RD WHITE CHURCH RD E HARRISON RD 56 UPPER SHERMAN SHA MILES RD BELL RD GLANCASTER RD SHA BELLBERRY RD RD GLANCASTER RD VER RD BERRY RD Not To Scale VER RD A RD E TRIMBLE RD FERRIS RD Not To Scale BUTTER RD 6 CHIPPEWA RD E WHITE CHURCH RD W 6 CHIPPEW WILSON ST W TRINITY RD HARRISON RD 56 Feb. 27, 2018 SHA BELL RD Date: GLANCASTER RD BERRY RD Date: Feb. 27, 2018 VER RD A RD W A RD E Not To Scale CARLUKE RD CHIPPEWA RD W CHIPPEW CARLUKE RD CHIPPEW 6 PLANNING & ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT DEPARTMENT PLANNING & ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT DEPARTMENT UPPER P Date: Feb. 27, 2018 © Teranet Land Information Services Inc. and its licensors. [2009] May Not A RD W be Reproduced without Permission. THIS IS NOT A PLAN OF SURVEY WK RD E CARLUKE RD CHIPPEW be Reproduced without Permission. THIS IS NOT A PLAN OF SURVEY PLANNING & ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT DEPARTMENT UPPER CENTENNIAL © Teranet Land Information Services Inc. and its licensors. [2009] May Not MOHA FIFTH RD E be Reproduced without Permission. THIS IS NOT A PLAN OF SURVEY RHVP MUD ST E WHITNEYAVE SCENIC DR WORTH ST GOVERNOR'S RD 403 ARADISE RD S
FIRST RD E A VE MUD ST MAIN ST W
WEST 5TH ST
A FIRST RD W SCENIC DR VE
PKWY WEIRS LN GARTH ST MUD ST W HIGHLAND RD E UPPER MOUNT LIMERIDGE RD WK RD W LINC MOHA PARAMOUNT DR TURNBULLRD HIGHLAND RD W UPPER HORNING RD
PRITCHARD RD
DARTNALL
UPPER RED RED UPPER 20 WILSON ST E LINC ALBION RD OLD DUNDAS RD STONE CHURCH RD E RD RYMAL RD HILL STONE CHURCH RD W STONE CHURCH RD V
ALLEY PKWY WK RD MEADOWLANDS
MOHA BL RD E NEBO RD SULPHUR SPRINGS RD MCNIVEN RD GOLF LINKS RD RYMAL VD GLOVER RD BINKLEY RD RYMAL RD W
LIONS CLUB RD MILES RD
SPRINGBROOK GOLF CLUB RD
SPRINGS RD MINERAL A KITTY MURRA VE WOODBURN RD STONEHENGE DR GARNER ROAD E TWENTY RD E HENDERSHOT RD SOUTHCOTE RD
Y LN UPPER JAMES ST TWENTY RD W FIDDLER'S GREEN RD SMITH RD 56 DICKENSON RD E 403 NEBO RD
GLANCASTER RD GUYATT RD DICKENSON RD W 6 TRINITY CHURCH RD BOOK RD E WILSON ST W SMITH RD
FLETCHER RD ENGLISH CHURCH RD E
JERSEYVILLE RD W
GARNER ROAD W
HOMESTEAD DR
FIDDLER'S GREEN RD BINBROOK RD AIRPORT RD E
AIRPORT RD W BOOK RD W 52
TYNESIDE RD 6 WOODBURN RD KIRK RD WHITE CHURCH RD E MILES RD
TRIMBLE RD
BUTTER RD FERRIS RD WHITE CHURCH RD W WILSON ST W TRINITY RD HARRISON RD 56 SHA GLANCASTER RD
VER RD RD E 6 CHIPPEWA
A RD W CARLUKE RD CHIPPEW
PARKSIDE DR
EVANS RD KERNS RD
CONCESSION 7 E ROBSON RD
CONCESSION 6 E CENTRE RD
KING GARDEN LN AIN BROW RD RD
CONCESSION 5 E MOUNT
Lake Ontario MAIN ST N HAMIL TON ST
TERDOWN DR A 5 ARKSIDE DR P BEACH BL
NORTH W VD Hamilton Harbour QEW DUNDAS ST 6
CONCESSION 5 W NORTH SERVICE RD
JONES RD
WOODW
SOUTH SERVICE RD MILLGROVE SIDE RD P QEW ARKDALE A VE ARVIN A
ARD A YORK BL INDUSTRIAL DR FRUITLAND RD
OLD GUELPH RD KENIL BARTON ST E
TTERSON RD OTT DEWITT RD A VE CONCESSION 4 W ROCK CHAPEL RD MILLEN RD P GAGE A
VD BURLINGTON ST GREEN RD V VE N A ALLEY RD WORTH A
VICTORIA A W GRA
WELLINGTON ST N WENTWORTH ST N A ST N GUISSE ST SHERMAN A BEACH
CENTENNIAL PKWY YS RD BA JAMES ST N JOHN ST N NASH RD N LOTTRIDGE ST VE N RD LAKE A YORK RD BIRCH A BARTON ST E SYDENHAM RD Y ST N
VE N
VE N OFIELD RD RHVP VE VE N VE 8 5 CANNON ST E
QUEEN ST N BARTON ST W YORK BL MAIN ST E QUEENSTON RD VD WILSON ST NASH RD S KING ST E CANNON ST W GAGE A
MACKLIN ST OTT
MOXLEY RD LONGWOOD RD MAIN ST E VE SYDENHAM RD KING ST E CENTRAL A RIDGE RD
Key Map A PARKSIDE DR N.T.S. YORK RD KING ST W EV ANS RD KERNS RD W CONCESSION 7 E ROBSON RD MAPLEWOOD T CONCESSION 6 E Rural Urban CENTRE RD KING ARE VE S GARDEN LN AIN BROW RD RD W A ST S APLEYTOWN RD CONCESSION 5 E MOUNT DELA Lake Ontario Note: For Rural Functional Road MAIN ST N JOHN ST S VE HAMIL Classification, refer to Schedule C-1 A TON ST (future amendment). KING ST E APPEAL TERDOWN DR A 5 ARKSIDE DR QUEEN P BEACH BL The southern urban boundary VE GREENHILL A NORTH W A JAMES VDMAIN ST W that generally extends from Hamilton Harbour STINSON QEW Upper Centennial Parkway DUNDAS ST 6 ST S HUNTERand Mud Street ST S East in the ST QEW east, following the hydro Key Map
WINONA RD PARKSIDE DR LEWIS RD CONCESSION 5 W DUNDURN ST S NORTH SERVICE RD MCNEIL corridor and encompassingN.T.S. GLOVER RD
JONES RD
Y RD the Red Hill Business Park to EV VE ANS RD KERNS RD WRENCE RD WOODW
SOUTH SERVICE RD FIFTY RD MILLGROVE SIDE RD Upper James Street remains P LA QEW CONCESSION 7 E ROBSON RD ARKDALE A VE BA ARVIN A COCHRANE RD
ARD A YORK BL under appeal – see illustration ST INDUSTRIAL DR MOUNT ALBION RD FRUITLAND RD
OLD GUELPH RD KENIL BARTON ST E CONCESSION 6 E Rural Urban TTERSON RD OTT DEWITT RD A VE CENTRECONCESSION RD 4 W ROCK CHAPEL RD MILLEN RD on Schedules E and E-1, P GAGE A CUMBER LAND A VD BURLINGTON ST GREEN RD V VE N A ALLEY RD WORTH A ROSEDALE A KING VICTORIA A W GRA WELLINGTON ST N WENTWORTH ST N AIN BROW RD RD A ST N 8 Volume 1 OFIELD RD SHERMAN A BEACH GARDEN LN GUISSE ST
CENTENNIAL PKWY YS RD BA JAMES ST N JOHN ST N NASH RD N LOTTRIDGE ST VE N RD LAKE A YORK RD BIRCH A BARTON ST E Y ST N Site CONCESSION SYDENHAM 5 E RD MOUNT
VE N
VE N OFIELD RD ELEVENTH RD RHVP VE RIDGE RD VE N VE 8 Lake Ontario TENTH RD Note: For Rural Functional Road 5 MAIN ST N CANNON ST E QUIGLEY RD
QUEEN ST N BARTON ST W EIGHTH RD E Y ST S HAMIL YORK BL MAIN ST E QUEENSTON RD Classification, refer to Schedule C-1 TON ST NASH RD S KIMBERL VD WILSON ST KING ST E CANNON ST W GAGE A (future amendment). MACKLIN ST OTT
MOXLEY RD LONGWOOD RD MAIN ST E VE SYDENHAM RD KING ST E CENTRAL A RIDGE RD
A YORK RD KING ST W Legend MAPLEWOOD W T WARE VE S DELA A ST S APLEYTOWN RD APPEAL JOHN ST S AVE TERDOWN DR KING ST E A QUEEN VE A GREENHILL A MAIN ST W JAMES STINSON ST S HUNTER ST S ST Major Arterial 5 DUNDURN ST S VE LAWRENCE RD ARKSIDE DR BA ST COCHRANE RD CUMBER LAND A MOUNT ALBION RD OFIELD RD P BEACH BL ROSEDALE A
QUIGLEY RD The southern urban boundary Y ST S KIMBERL
NORTH W YMPIC VE CHARLTON A MOUNT OL COOTES DR CONCESSION ST VD Minor Arterial STERLING ST VE that generally extends from DR FALLSVIEW RD E CROCKETT ST Y DR HERKIMER ST Hamilton Harbour UPPER OTT KING ST W VE SHERMAN AC VE E QEWAIN BROW BL AIN RD E Upper Centennial Parkway YMPIC YORK RD DUNDAS ST AVE E INVERNESS QUEENSDALE A VE GREENHILL GREEN MOUNT KING ST E VE UPPER WENTWORTH ST BRUCEDALE A VE Collector 6 MAIN ST W ABERDEEN A UPPER WELLINGTON ST HARVEST RD A and Mud Street East in the ARK ST VE VE AIN RD P SECOND RD E ELEVENTH RD E FENNELL A THIRD RD A GREEN MOUNT KING ST W W BROKER UPPER KENIL MUDQEW ST EAST TOWN LINE RD east, fProvincialollowin gHighway the hydro A ST OSLER DR VD TENTH RD E BECKETT DR VE W MACASSA NINTH DR WINONA RD LEWIS RD MOUNT DUNDAS ST WEST 5TH ST UPPER GAGE A FIRST RD W HATT ST FENNELL A TON AEIGHTH RD E MCNEIL (Controlled Access) CONCESSION 5 W FRANKLIN UPPER SHERMAN A AVE AVE NORTH SERVICE RD SEVENTH RD E corridor and encompassing MILL ST GLOVER RD
RD UPPER CENTENNIAL PKWY WK RD E JONES RD SIXTH RD E FIFTH RD E GARTH ST UPPER JAMES ST MOHA RHVP 8 SOUTH ST W Provincial Highway MUD ST E Y RD the Red Hill Business Park to RD CARSON
SCENIC DR WOODW WORTH A
DR CREIGHTON CHARLSOUTH SERVICE RD FIFTY RD MILLGROVE SIDE RD 403 FIRST RD E HIGHLAND RD Upper James Street remains
P NINTH RD E VE MAIN ST W MUD ST QEW UPPER P ARKDALE A VE VE Parkway OL SANITORIUM WK RD W ARVIN A CONCESSION ST COOTES DR ARD A GOVERNOR'S RD YORK BL HESTER under appeal – see illustration ISAAC VE RD MOHA INDUSTRIAL DR FRUITLAND RD VE MUD ST W SCENIC DR ST VE KENIL BARTON ST E WEIRS LN OLD GUELPH RD VE HUNTINGWOOD A TTERSON RD OTT HIGHLAND RD E DEWITT RD A MAGNOLIA DR VE CONCESSION 4 W ROCK CHAPEL RD BROCK DR MILLEN RD on Schedules E and E-1, P GAGE A STERLING ST UPPER MOUNT ALBION RD Proposed Roads ARADISE RD S DR VD BURLINGTON ST GREEN RD V VE N LIMERIDGE RD A ALLEY RD WORTH A GA HIGHBURY PLEASANT A VICTORIA A LINC W GRA TERRACE DR WELLINGTON ST N WENTWORTH ST N A ST N TESTONE 8 SOUTH TOWN LINE RD Volume 1 KIRKWOOD DR GUISSE ST SHERMAN A BEACH ARAMOUNT DR DR P HIGHLANDCENTENNIAL RD PKWY W DR YS RD BA JAMES ST N JOHN ST N PRITCHARD RD NASH RD N LOTTRIDGE ST VE N RD LAKE A Major Arterial YORK RD BIRCH A BARTON ST E
Y ST N DARTNALL RD 20 SYDENHAM RD RED UPPER WILSON ST E VE N HORNING RD LINC VE N OFIELD RD OLD DUNDAS RD ELEVENTH RD ALLSVIEW RD E STONE CHURCH RDUPPER STONE CHURCH RD E VE RIDGE RD Y DR BINKLEY RD RHVP Minor Arterial VE N VE 8 SULPHUR SPRINGS RD TENTH RD 5 CANNON ST E RYMAL RD
QUEEN ST N BARTON ST W EIGHTH RD E F STONE CHURCH RD W MAIN ST E QUEENSTON RD YORK BL HILL V CROCKETT ST VD WILSON ST NASH RD S KING ST E Collector CANNON ST W GAGE A GLOVER RD PINEHILL
GARTH ST MACKLIN ST UPPER OTT MEADOWLANDS OTT DR LONGWOOD RD VE MOXLEY RD RYMALMAIN ST RD E E NEBO RD SYDENHAM RD BL KING ST E CENTRAL A ALLEY PKWY RIDGE RD A YORK RD KING ST W Legend MAPLEWOOD W T WARE VE S LIONS CLUB RD VD DELA A ST S APLEYTOWN RD UPPER JAMES ST JOHN ST S AVE KING ST E Other Features QUEEN VE A GREENHILL A MAIN ST W JAMES STINSON MILES RD RYMAL RD WST S GOLF LINKS RD HUNTER ST S ST Major Arterial DUNDURN ST S HERKIMER ST VE LAWRENCE RD WESTBROOK RD BA ST COCHRANE RD CUMBER LAND A MOUNT ALBION RD OFIELD RD ROSEDALE A Y ST S KIMBERLTWENTY RD E QUIGLEY RD 56 Rural Area VE YMPIC VE KING ST W TON A MOUNT GOLF CLUB RD KITTY MURRA CHARL MINERAL SPRINGS RD OL COOTES DR CONCESSION ST Minor Arterial STERLING ST VE DR ALLSVIEW RD E STONEHENGE LANE DR Y DR F GARNER ROAD E CROCKETT ST HENDERSHOT RD HERKIMER ST UPPER OTT KING ST W VE SHERMAN AC VE E AIN BROW BL AIN RD E John C. Munro YORK RD AIN BROW BL VE E SLOTE RD INVERNESS A GREEN MOUNT SHERMAN AC QUEENSDALE A VE GREENHILL KING ST E UPPER WENTWORTH ST Collector FIDDLER'S GREEN RD Y VE BRUCEDALE A Hamilton International Airport MAIN ST W ABERDEEN A UPPER WELLINGTON ST TWENTY RD W A HARVEST RD VE VE
FLETCHER RD ARK ST AIN RD P SECOND RD E ELEVENTH RD E FENNELL A THIRD RD A GLANCASTER RD GREEN MOUNT KING ST W W BROKER VE E UPPER KENIL MUD ST EAST TOWN LINE RD ProvincialNiagara Escarpment Highway A ST OSLER DR BECKETT DR NINTH DR VD TENTH RD E YORK RD SMITH RD VE W MACASSA DUNDAS ST WEST 5TH ST UPPER GAGE A FIRST RD W HATT ST FENNELL A TRINITY CHURCH RD EIGHTH RD E (Controlled Access) SOUTHCOTE RD FRANKLIN UPPER SHERMAN A AVE AVE SEVENTH RD E MILL ST
DICKENSONRD RD E UPPER CENTENNIAL PKWY SIXTH RD E Urban Boundary NEBO RD VE E MEADOWBROOK WK RD E WILSON ST W FIFTH RD E GARTH ST UPPER JAMES ST MOHA RHVP A 403 Provincial Highway Figure 8 DR SOUTH ST W MUD ST E VD CARSON RD GUYATT RD SCENIC DR WOODBURN RD Y BL WORTH A CREIGHTON DR Municipal Boundary 6 403 BOOK RD E DICKENSON RD W FIRST RD E HIGHLAND RD
NINTH RD E VE MAIN ST W MUD ST Functional Road Classification AMBERL UPPER P
VE Parkway SMITH RDSANITORIUM WK RD W INVERNESS GREEN MOUNT HESTER QUEENSDALE A GOVERNOR'S RD VE ISAAC Lands subject to Non Decision Source: Urban Hamilton Official Plan, Schedule C (January 2017) GREENHILL VE RD MOHA
VE MUD ST W SCENIC DR ST VE WEIRS LN 113 West Harbour Setting Sail HUNTINGWOOD A HIGHLAND RD E MAGNOLIA DR ENGLISH CHURCH RD E BROCK DR UPPER MOUNT ALBION RD Proposed Roads ARADISE RD S UPPER WENTWORTH ST LIMERIDGE RD
GA PLEASANT A LINC HIGHBURY TERRACE DR 7 52 TESTONE SOUTH TOWN LINE RD JERSEYVILLE RD W KIRKWOOD DR Council Adoption: July 9, 2009 ARAMOUNT DR KING ST E DR P HIGHLAND RD W DR PRITCHARD RD VE Major Arterial GARNER ROAD W HOMESTEAD A
DARTNALL RD 20 Ministerial Approval: March 16, 2011 UPPER RED UPPER
WILSON ST E GLANCASTER RD Planning Justification Report | 221-225 John Street S. & 70-78Yonge Street HORNING RD LINC OLD DUNDAS RD BRUCEDALE A Effective Date: August 16, 2013 UPPER BINBROOK RD FIDDLER'SSTONE GREEN RD CHURCH RD STONE CHURCH RD E BINKLEY RD Minor Arterial UPPER WELLINGTON ST GREA GSP Group | June 2018 SULPHUR SPRINGS RD AIRPORT RD E RYMAL RD BINBROOK RD STONE CHURCH RD W TRAIL T OAK 56
HILL V MAIN ST W VE Urban Hamilton Official Plan Collector GLOVER RD PINEHILL TRADEWIND BOOK RD W GARTH ST WILSON ST W MEADOWLANDS ABERDEEN A DR RYMAL RD E NEBO RD BL ALLEY PKWY Schedule C DR LIONS CLUB RD VD 6 UPPER JAMES ST Other Features TYNESIDE RD Functional Road Classification WOODBURN RD GOLF LINKS RD RYMAL RD W MILES RD KIRK RD
WHITE CHURCH RD E WESTBROOK RD MILES RD 56 TWENTY RD E TRIMBLE RD Rural Area SHA FERRIS RD A GOLF CLUB RD KITTY MURRA WHITE CHURCH RD W WILSONMINERAL ST W SPRINGS RD TRINITY RD VER RD HARRISON RD STONEHENGE LANE DR GARNER ROAD E HENDERSHOT RD BUTTER RD BELL RD HARVEST RD BERRY RD Not To Scale John C. Munro SLOTE RD 6 CHIPPEWA RD E Y VE FIDDLER'S GREEN RD Date: January 2017Hamilton International Airport TWENTY RD W VE
FLETCHER RD
GLANCASTER RD PLANNING & ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT DEPARTMENT A RD W CHIPPEW Niagara Escarpment CARLUKE RD C Teranet Land Information Services Inc. and its licensors. [2009] SMITH RD TRINITY CHURCH RD May Not be Reproduced without Permission. THIS IS NOT A PLAN ARK ST SOUTHCOTE RD AIN RD OF SURVEY DICKENSON RD E Urban Boundary P NEBO RD SECOND RD E
MEADOWBROOK WILSON ST W 403 DR VD GUYATT RD WOODBURN RD THIRD RD Y BL Municipal Boundary 6 BOOK RD E DICKENSON RD W FENNELL A A AMBERL SMITH RD Lands subject to Non Decision 113 West Harbour Setting Sail ENGLISH CHURCH RD E GREEN MOUNT W BROKER 52 KING ST W JERSEYVILLE RD W Council Adoption: July 9, 2009
GARNER ROAD W HOMESTEAD A Ministerial Approval: March 16, 2011 GLANCASTER RD Effective Date: August 16, 2013 UPPER KENIL FIDDLER'S GREEN RD BINBROOK RD AIRPORT RD E BINBROOK RD GREA TRAIL T OAK 56 VE Urban Hamilton Official Plan A ST BOOK RD W OSLER DR WILSONTRADEWIND ST W VD Schedule C DR 6 TYNESIDE RD Functional Road Classification WOODBURN RD DR KIRK RD NINTH WHITE CHURCH RD E BECKETTMILES RD DR TRIMBLE RD VE W FERRIS RD MACASSA SHA WHITE CHURCH RD W WILSON ST W TRINITY RD VER RD HARRISON RD
BUTTER RD BELL RD BERRY RD Not To Scale FIRST RD W DUNDAS ST 6 CHIPPEWA RD E WEST 5TH ST UPPER GAGE A HATT ST FENNELL A Date: January 2017 PLANNING & ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT DEPARTMENT A RD W CHIPPEW CARLUKE RD C Teranet Land Information Services Inc. and its licensors. [2009] May Not be Reproduced without Permission. THIS IS NOT A PLAN UPPER SHERMAN A OF SURVEY FRANKLIN AVE AVE MILL ST
RD UPPER CENTENNIAL PKWY WK RD E FIFTH RD E GARTH ST UPPER JAMES ST MOHA RHVP 8 SOUTH ST W MUD ST E RD SCENIC DR CARSON WORTH A CREIGHTON 403 DR FIRST RD E
VE MAIN ST W MUD ST
UPPER P
VE SANITORIUM WK RD W GOVERNOR'S RD HESTER ISAAC VE RD MOHA
SCENIC DR VE MUD ST W WEIRS LN ST VE HUNTINGWOOD A HIGHLAND RD E MAGNOLIA DR BROCK DR UPPER MOUNT ALBION RD ARADISE RD S LIMERIDGE RD
GA HIGHBURY PLEASANTTERRACE A DR LINC TESTONE KIRKWOOD DR ARAMOUNT DR DR P HIGHLAND RD W DR PRITCHARD RD
DARTNALL RD 20 UPPER RED UPPER WILSON ST E HORNING RD LINC OLD DUNDAS RD STONE CHURCH RDUPPER STONE CHURCH RD E BINKLEY RD SULPHUR SPRINGS RD RYMAL RD STONE CHURCH RD W HILL V GLOVER RD PINEHILL
GARTH ST MEADOWLANDS DR RYMAL RD E NEBO RD BL ALLEY PKWY
LIONS CLUB RD VD UPPER JAMES ST
GOLF LINKS RD RYMAL RD W MILES RD
TWENTY RD E 56 GOLF CLUB RD MINERAL SPRINGS RD KITTY MURRA STONEHENGE LANE DR GARNER ROAD E HENDERSHOT RD
SLOTE RD FIDDLER'S GREEN RD Y TWENTY RD W
FLETCHER RD GLANCASTER RD SMITH RD
TRINITY CHURCH RD SOUTHCOTE RD DICKENSON RD E NEBO RD MEADOWBROOK WILSON ST W 403 DR VD GUYATT RD Y BL WOODBURN RD 6 BOOK RD E DICKENSON RD W AMBERL SMITH RD
ENGLISH CHURCH RD E 52 JERSEYVILLE RD W
GARNER ROAD W HOMESTEAD A GLANCASTER RD FIDDLER'S GREEN RD BINBROOK RD AIRPORT RD E BINBROOK RD GREA
TRAIL
T OAK 56 VE BOOK RD W WILSONTRADEWIND ST W DR 6 TYNESIDE RD KIRK RD WHITE CHURCH RD E MILES RD
TRIMBLE RD SHA FERRIS RD WHITE CHURCH RD W WILSON ST W TRINITY RD VER RD HARRISON RD
BUTTER RD
6 CHIPPEWA RD E
A RD W CHIPPEW CARLUKE RD
Natural Heritage The properties are not located within or adjacent to any Core Areas or Linkages shown on Schedule B (Natural Heritage System) of the Urban Hamilton Official Plan. Furthermore, the Site is not in an area regulated by the Conservation Authority.
Heritage Given that the Site is adjacent to a designated heritage building (Church of the Ascension) the following UHOP heritage policies apply:
B.3.4.1.3 Ensure that all new development, site alterations, building alterations, and additions are contextually appropriate and maintain the integrity of all on-site or adjacent cultural heritage resources.
In conformity with the forgoing policy, a Cultural Heritage Impact Assessment has been prepared by ERA Architects Inc. (May 2018) to assess the impact of the Proposed Development on the potential heritage resources at and adjacent to the Site. A summary of the assessment is outlined in Section 3.2.1 and a description of how the heritage attributes of the protected heritage property will be conserved is provided in Planning Analysis, Section 6.3 (Heritage).
Relevance to the Site: An Official Plan Amendment will be required to permit the proposed height of 34 stories within a Mixed-Use Medium Density Designation.
4.8 Downtown Hamilton Secondary Plan The first formal plan for the downtown core was approved in 2001. Nearly two decades later, the Downtown Hamilton Secondary Plan was revised and adopted by Council in May of 2018 and has since been appealed to the Land Use Planning Appeals Tribunal (LPAT).
While the Site is not located within the Downtown Secondary Plan, the Corktown neighbourhood is generally recognized as one of the six historical neighbourhoods from which the downtown developed. Furthermore, portions of Corktown are incorporated into the plan, including lands north of the railway and properties fronting James Street South. Due to this historical connection between Corktown and the downtown in addition to the proximity of the Site to key commercial, institutional and cultural assets of the Downtown, such as the Hamilton GO Centre and James Street, it is considered appropriate to review the Proposed Development against the intent of the relevant policies of the newly adopted Downtown Hamilton Secondary Plan.
Section 6.1 of the Secondary Plan states that: “Downtown shall be the location for tall buildings and shall be planned for a range of uses appropriate to its role as the City’s pre-
Planning Justification Report | 221-225 John Street S. & 70-78 Yonge Street 56 GSP Group Inc. | July 2018
eminent node.” Given that Corktown is a peripheral downtown neighbourhood with strong links to the core, and already hosts two of Hamilton’s four tallest buildings, Corktown is a well-established location for tall buildings.
Section 6.1.2 of the plan outlines principles that provide guidance for evaluating development proposals in the downtown. While not required to meet these policies, it is worth noting how the Proposed Development meets the intent of the following relevant policies:
b) Strengthen the connection to neighbourhoods, the Waterfront, the Escarpment and other surrounding features or attractions. The Downtown Hamilton Secondary Plan emphasizes the importance of strengthening connections to neighbourhoods and major destinations such as the Waterfront and the Niagara Escarpment. The Downtown shall be reconnected to its neighbourhoods by developing vacant land and parking lots, and by rebalancing Downtown streets as attractive pedestrian places. This Plan supports a number of projects to foster multi-modal linkages and strengthen existing connections.
The forgoing policy stresses the need to connect the downtown to adjacent neighbourhoods by developing parking lots and rebalancing downtown streets as attractive pedestrian places. The Proposed Development would do exactly that by developing an underutilized parking lot and commercial plaza into a more pedestrian friendly public realm, thereby integrating Corktown more fully with the downtown.
The next principle highlights the importance of revitalizing the downtown by increasing the number of residents, particularly along roads supporting transit routes:
c) Promote Downtown living. Creating residential neighbourhoods in the Downtown has long been recognized as key to its revitalization. Downtown residents can contribute to Downtown retailers’ and service providers’ viability. The ability to walk or bicycle to work, school, shopping, services, recreation, and entertainment facilities shall reduce or potentially eliminate vehicle trips and the associated demand for parking. Increased densities along major routes into the Downtown will support public transit. The Downtown Hamilton Secondary Plan identifies opportunities for a range of housing types catering to a variety of income levels and household characteristics. This Plan also commits the City to provide the public services and amenities required by future Downtown residents.
Planning Justification Report | 221-225 John Street S. & 70-78 Yonge Street 57 GSP Group Inc. | July 2018
The Proposed Development conforms to the forgoing policy by increasing the number of residents near to the core and promoting downtown living, identified as the key to the revitalization of the downtown. Furthermore, increased density is specifically encouraged along major routes leading into the Downtown that support public transit. John Street South is just such a street, which serves as a key transit link between the Downtown and the Mountain via Arkledun Avenue and the Jolley Cut. Six (6) HSR bus routes (#22, #23, #24, #25, #26, and #27) currently utilize John Street South, making it by far the most important transit link between the downtown and the mountain. By comparison, four (4) HSR bus routes travel James Street Mountain Road, and (0) zero routes make use of the Claremont Access. For these reasons, the redevelopment of the Site represents an ideal opportunity to fulfill the intent of the secondary plan.
Lastly, the following principle encourages development to contribute toward minimizing the urban heat island effect as part of climate change mitigation:
i) Improve climate change mitigation and adaptation. Hamilton’s downtown will contribute to the emission reduction targets outlined in Hamilton’s Climate Action Plan and address potential impacts of climate change through adaptation. Downtown will be a stronger, more resilient community by transitioning to a low carbon economy and by leveraging alternative forms of energy and green infrastructure opportunities to improve air quality, absorb stormwater, minimize urban heat island and expand biodiversity.
The existing conditions of the Site contribute to the heat island effect as paved surface parking lots are a key contributor to the heat island effect due to their low albedo (reflectivity) and impervious surface. The flat, dark roof of the existing commercial plaza together with the surface parking lot form an entire city block currently contributing to the heat island effect. The Proposed Development would reduce the heat island effect by locating parking underground, in addition to using bright building cladding, thereby fulfilling the forgoing principle.
Building Height Section 6.1.4.18 of the Downtown Hamilton Secondary Plan outlines the policies that apply to High-rise (tall) buildings, as follows:
a) a tall building is any building that is greater than 12 storeys in height; b) new tall buildings shall be no greater than the height of the top of the Escarpment as measured between Queen Street and Victoria Avenue;
Planning Justification Report | 221-225 John Street S. & 70-78 Yonge Street 58 GSP Group Inc. | July 2018
c) a tall building is typically defined as having a building base component (also known as podium), a tower component and tower top, however, Policies B.6.1.4.18 through B.6.1.4.24 shall also apply to other typologies of a tall building; d) a building base is defined as the lower storeys of a tall building which are intended to frame the public realm with good street proportion and pedestrian scale or contains street wall heights that respect the scale and built form character of the existing context through design, articulation, and use of the ground floor; e) a tower is defined as the storeys above the building base; and, f) the tower top is defined as the uppermost floors of the building including rooftop mechanical or telecommunications equipment, signage and amenity space. This portion of the building shall have a distinctive presence in Hamilton’s skyline by employing interesting architectural features and roof treatments.
The Proposed Development is taller than the height of the top of the Escarpment. While the Proposed Development is not located within the Downtown Secondary Plan area and is therefore not required to meet this objective, the justification for the proposed height of the Development provided in Section 6.4 addresses these policies as well.
Section 6.1.4.21 of the plan addresses tall building development:
6.1.4.21 Tall building development shall require transition to adjacent existing and planned low-rise and mid-rise buildings through the application of separation distances, setbacks, and stepbacks in accordance with Policies B.6.1.4.31 through B.6.1.4.39 of this Plan and as informed by the Downtown Hamilton Tall Building Guidelines.
Hamilton’s Tall Buildings Study & Guidelines are addressed in the next section, Section 4.9 of this report.
Built Form Section 6.1.4.25 directs development in the downtown to achieve the following:
a) eliminating expanses of blank walls; b) integrating roof top design and function with the surrounding buildings and public spaces. This shall be achieved through: i. integrating roof design with the building architecture;
Planning Justification Report | 221-225 John Street S. & 70-78 Yonge Street 59 GSP Group Inc. | July 2018
ii. designing the tower top of tall buildings so that they are a recognizable landmark that contributes to an iconic and distinctive skyline; iii. ensuring that roof top mechanical equipment, as well as stair and elevator towers, are sized and located so that they are screened from view from the street; iv. developing rooftop terraces, gardens, and associated landscape areas for private amenity areas, climate enhancement and for storm water management; and, v. incorporating best practices and appropriate technology to reduce energy consumption and improve air quality.
The Proposed Development would eliminate the expanse of blank walls that currently form the north, east, and south sides of the commercial plaza (policy i). Furthermore, the twin nature of the tower tops will create a recognizable and distinctive design contribution to Hamilton’s skyline (policy ii). The mechanical equipment is stored in a penthouse that is not visible from the street (policy iii). The podium rooftops feature outdoor amenity space (policy iv). The inclusion of appropriate technology to reduce energy consumption will be addressed at the Site Plan stage.
In addition, the following policies are relevant to the Proposed Development:
6.1.4.26 All development shall be oriented toward the surrounding streets and shall include direct pedestrian access, including barrier free access from grade level, to the principle entrances.
The Proposed Development is oriented to all four surrounding streetscapes, enhancing the existing pedestrian experience. The mid-block connector through the building provides direct mid-block pedestrian access through the site from John Street to Catharine Street as well as access to the principle entrances to the two towers. In addition, the various uses of the Proposed Development can all be accessed directly from the street.
6.1.4.27 All development shall be built close to the street line. Additional setbacks may be permitted, based on the locational context, to protect significant views, to protect cultural heritage resources, to accommodate pedestrian amenities such as street plantings and enhanced landscaping, wider sidewalks, open space, outdoor cafés, seating areas, transit shelters, bicycle parking, and other public amenities.
Planning Justification Report | 221-225 John Street S. & 70-78 Yonge Street 60 GSP Group Inc. | July 2018
The Proposed Development is close to the streetline, particularly on the southern and western lot lines, where the setback is 0m. The exception is in the southwest corner, where the podium is setback diagonally to appropriate address and preserve views of the Church of the Ascension.
6.1.4.28 All development shall: a) be massed to frame streets in a way that respects and supports the adjacent street proportions; b) be compatible with the context of the surrounding neighbourhood; c) contribute to high quality spaces within the surrounding public realm; and, d) provide high quality spaces within the buildings themselves.
The Proposed Development occupies an entire block where the two (2) towers are sited on opposite corners, resulting in a design that feels open and spacious. The overall massing is intended to create a lighter, airier feel to the building. For instance, the podium is “donut- shaped” and open at the centre to the courtyard below, letting light into the centre of the block. From a pedestrian perspective, the negative space between the towers and the hollow formed by the central courtyard breaks-up the size of the building while maintaining its coherence. The modern stylings of the streetscape façade will contribute to creating a high quality public space and public realm surrounding the building. Details regarding the spaces within the buildings themselves will be provided at the Site Plan stage.
6.1.4.29 Residential development shall provide amenity space within new developments in the form of private or semi-private parkettes, rooftop gardens or internalized open spaces within courtyard areas created by new buildings.
Consistent with the forgoing policy, two (2) rooftop amenity spaces are provided, in addition to the open courtyard space found at the centre of the site and accessible to John Street South by steps.
6.1.4.30 Development shall incorporate high quality durable building materials for aesthetics, fire suppression, and energy efficiency.
Specifics regarding building materials will be provided at the Site Plan Stage.
Planning Justification Report | 221-225 John Street S. & 70-78 Yonge Street 61 GSP Group Inc. | July 2018
Transition in Scale 6.1.4.31 Development shall provide built form transition in scale through a variety of design methods including angular planes, location and orientation of the building, and the use of setbacks and stepbacks of building mass.
6.1.4.32 Transition between development, and adjacent streets, parks or open spaces shall ensure access to sunlight and sky view
6.1.4.33 Development shall be required to provide transition in scale, within the development site, as a result of any of the following: a) the development is of greater intensity and scale than the adjacent existing scale, or where appropriate, the planned built form context; b) the development is adjacent to a cultural heritage resource or a cultural heritage landscape; or, c) the development is adjacent to existing or planned parks, or open spaces.
In regard to transition in scale, the Proposed Development is appropriately stepped-back throughout its design. In addition, the two towers are sited on opposing corners and include an interior open courtyard to break-up the massing and ensure access to sunlight and a sky- views. At the southwest corner, the building is angled to preserve views of the Church of the Ascension. Finally, the townhouses located at the northeast corner of the site provide an adjacent street relationship (and transition) to the townhouse built form to the north on Forest Avenue.
4.9 Hamilton Tall Buildings Study & Guidelines The Downtown Hamilton Tall Building Study and related Downtown Hamilton Tall Buildings Guidelines is a reference document that guides the design of tall buildings within Hamilton’s Downtown. While the Site is not located with Hamilton’s Downtown and therefore not subject to the guidelines, the study area partially overlaps areas of northern and western Corktown, and therefore the document can be looked upon as a guide to policies relating to tall buildings. Furthermore, pursuant to the Downtown Hamilton Secondary Plan:
6.1.4.19 The Downtown Hamilton Tall Building Guidelines shall apply to tall building development and shall be used by City Staff when evaluating tall building development proposals.
Section 1.0 of the Tall Buildings Guidelines includes a matrix which identifies how height and storey limits are determined through an assessment of frontage, lot depth and character area
Planning Justification Report | 221-225 John Street S. & 70-78 Yonge Street 62 GSP Group Inc. | July 2018
implications. The following assessment matrix is provided in Section 3.1 as a guide to where different building types are generally appropriate:
Table 1: Site Assessment Matrix Recommended Recommended Recommended Recommended Recommended Frontage Lot Depth # of Storeys Height Building Type 5 – 30m 20-90m 2-6 22m Low-rise Infill 30m+ 30-45m 7-12 25.5 – 44m Mid-rise 35m+ 45m+ 13+ 50m+ Point Tower 80m+ 80m+ 13+ 50m+ Hybrid
The Site occupies an entire city block with a frontage of 72.5m along Forest Avenue and a depth of 80.5 along Catharine Street. The dimensions of the lot closely correspond to the recommended measurements required for a hybrid building type. The lot depth conforms (80.5m whereas 80m is recommended) while the lot frontage (72.5m) is only +7m deficient short of the 80m recommendation. The hybrid building type is still considered the most appropriate for the size of the Site given that the frontage is 37.5m greater than that recommended for a single point tower, and 42.5 greater than that recommended for a mid- rise. Lastly, a rectangular lot of 80m by 80m results in a de facto recommended lot area of 6,400m2 for a hybrid building type. At 5,950m2, the Site not only represents 93% of the de facto recommended lot area, it also occupies a full city-block that cannot be further expanded.
Furthermore, a hybrid building requires a typical ROW of 20-26m. The proposed access is to Catharine Street South, which is appropriately ±20m wide, and therefore suitable for a hybrid building type.
In terms of the location of tall buildings, Section 3.5 Transit Proximity states that it is strongly encouraged to introduce mixed use and increased density within 400m of transit station areas. Given that the Site is located within 200m of the Hamilton GO Centre, it follows that the introduction of increased density onto the Site should be strongly encouraged.
For further analysis of the building articulation and urban design elements featured in the Proposed Development, refer to the Urban Design Brief (June 2018) prepared by GSP Group in support of this application.
4.10 Corktown Neighbourhood Plan Neighbourhood Plans are endorsed by City Council but not incorporated into the Official Plan. Therefore, it is relevant to consider and conform to the Corktown Neighbourhood Plan, though it is used as a basic guideline.
Planning Justification Report | 221-225 John Street S. & 70-78 Yonge Street 63 GSP Group Inc. | July 2018
The first Corktown Neighbourhood Plan was completed in 1973, and later reviewed and updated in 1997. The updated 1997 Neighbourhood Plan organizes Corktown into four functional areas: Downtown, Transition, Neighbourhood Residential, and Escarpment. The Site is located within the Transition area, described as follows:
The Transition area between the downtown and neighbourhood residential is a buffer area and contains both downtown uses and neighbourhood uses as well as facilities which serve several neighbourhoods and in some cases a wider hinterland e.g. St. Joseph’s Hospital. Mixed use, sensitive to impact of the Neighbourhood Residential area, are also appropriate in this area.
The following policy applies to the Transition Area: b) Transition area development will usually be in mixed use form and with additional residential use. It will have minimal impact on the neighbourhood residential area. […]
In addition, it is worth nothing that the depopulation of Corktown was a serious concern in 1997 as described here:
The continued depopulation of the neighbourhood makes it more difficult to maintain commercial and public services. The downtown also becomes weaker if population is lost. There are vacant and underutilized sites in Corktown suitable for housing and other uses.
The Plan further highlights that “significant additional population can be added to the” Transition area, which is where the Site is located. Furthermore, the stated goal of the Plan is to “Increase the population of Corktown particularly in the downtown area and on the edge of the downtown.”
Given that the Site is located in the Transition Area, on the edge of the downtown, and is also vastly underutilized, the Site is considered suitable and a prime candidate for the kind of intensification envisioned by the 1997 Neighbourhood Plan. The Plan recognizes that increasing the population of Corktown by the development of underutilized sites would not only support vital commercial and public services, but also strengthen the local neighbourhood, and downtown as well.
Planning Justification Report | 221-225 John Street S. & 70-78 Yonge Street 64 GSP Group Inc. | July 2018
The most recent Neighbourhood Plan mapping from 2008, indicates the Site is in a “Commercial and Apartments” area, as shown in Figure 8. Accordingly, the Proposed Development is a mix of commercial and residential apartment uses.
As a last point, the Site is specifically identified in the Neighbourhood Plan as follows: “the plaza on John Street South can be considered the Village Centre.” The central location within the Corktown Neighbourhood was taken into consideration when designing the four streetscapes, specifically regarding how they interface with the larger neighbourhood. The existing commercial plaza turns it back on the neighbourhood with a monotonous blank wall facing north, east, and south without consideration of the pedestrian experience (refer to Image C). Conversely, the Proposed Development embraces its centrality and represents a revitalization of the Corktown neighbourhood, attracting new residents, commercial activity, and life to an underutilized Site, as envisioned by the policies of the Neighbourhood Plan.
For the reasons considered above, the Proposed Development conforms to the intent of the Corktown Neighbourhood Plan.
Planning Justification Report | 221-225 John Street S. & 70-78 Yonge Street 65 GSP Group Inc. | July 2018 6704 6703 6608
6601 6702 6701
Corktown Approved Plan Council Approved: Nov. 27, 1973
Population: 6995 (2001)
6704 6703 6608
6601 6702 6701
Corktown Approved Plan Council Approved: Nov. 27, 1973
Population: 6995 (2001)
Site
Legend
Neighbourhood Boundary
Heritage District Environmentally Sensitive Legend Area
Trails Single and Double Neighbourhood Boundary Attached Housing
Medium Density Apartments Heritage District High Density Apartments
Commercial
Commercial and Apartments Environmentally Sensitive
Civic and Institutional Area
Park and Recreational
Open Space Figure Trails Corktown Neighbourhood Plan Utilities Source: City of Hamilton, Map 6702 (April 2008) 8 Single and Double Planning Justification Report | 221-225 John Street S. & 70-78Yonge Street GSP GroupMAP | June 6702 2018
Date: April 2008 Attached Housing
Scale 1:5000 Medium Density Apartments
PLANNING AND ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT DEPARTMENT Teranet Land Information Services Inc. and its licensors. [2008] May Not be Reproduced without Permission. THIS IS NOT A PLAN OF SURVEY High Density Apartments
Commercial
Commercial and Apartments
Civic and Institutional
Park and Recreational
Open Space
Utilities
MAP 6702
Date: April 2008
Scale 1:5000
PLANNING AND ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT DEPARTMENT Teranet Land Information Services Inc. and its licensors. [2008] May Not be Reproduced without Permission. THIS IS NOT A PLAN OF SURVEY
4.11 Hamilton Zoning By-laws No. 6593 and No. 05-200 In 2001, the Regional Municipality of Hamilton-Wentworth together with its six constituent municipalities were amalgamated into the single-tier City of Hamilton. As a result, the City of Hamilton contains seven Zoning By-laws, one for each of the former constituent municipalities, in addition to a new city-wide Zoning By-law which is being implemented in stages.
The Site’s current zoning is contained within Zoning By-law No. 6593, which applies to the former City of Hamilton. In addition, Council has approved new zoning for the Site within the new city-wide Zoning By-law No. 05-200. However, the new zoning has been appealed to the Local Planning Appeal Tribunal (LPAT) and is therefore not currently in force and effect. Both By-laws are detailed below.
Hamilton Zoning By-law No. 6593 The Site currently contains two zones as illustrated in Figure 9. The majority of the Site is zoned “CR-2” (Commercial – Residential) District modified with three associated special policies (572, 572a, and 572b). Two smaller portions of the Site, with municipal addresses 78 Young Street and 211 John Street South, are both zoned “E-3” (High Density Multiple Dwellings) District.
The CR-2 (Commercial – Residential District) zone, which includes the majority of the Site, permits a wide variety of residential, commercial, institutional, and public uses as follows: • Residential uses: Multiple dwellings; student residences; an apartment hotel; a hotel; a lodging house; a residential care facility; an emergency shelter; and a retirement home. • Commercial uses: a professional office; a finance, insurance or real estate office; a studio; a barbershop/hairstylist; a retail store; a drug store; a boutique; a food store; a variety store; a restaurant; a showroom; a commercial lending library; an art gallery; a laundry/dry-cleaning establishment; a messenger service; a theatre; parking spaces or a storage garage; and a commercial club. • Institutional uses: a long-term care facility; and a day nursery. • Public uses: a public library; art gallery; and a private club.
A maximum height of 57m (or 18 storeys) is allowed in a “CR-2” zone.
In mixed used buildings, the maximum gross floor area is arrived at by multiplying the lot area by a factor of 4.25 as follows: 5,950m2 x 4.25 = 25,287.5m2. The maximum residential portion of the building is determined by multiplying the lot area by a floor area factor of 2.55 (5,950m2 x 2.55), which results in 15,172.5m2.
Planning Justification Report | 221-225 John Street S. & 70-78 Yonge Street 67 GSP Group Inc. | July 2018
The contemplated height (31 and 34 storeys), as well as the gross floor area of the residential component of the Proposed Development (64,916.4m2) exceed the maximum regulations and therefore a Zoning By-law amendment will be required to address height and density.
The “E-3” District, which includes 78 Young Street and 211 John Street South, permits the same uses permitted in an “E” zone, which include a variety of residential uses, as well as a limited number of institutional and commercial uses as outlined below: • Residential uses: a three-family dwelling; a multiple dwelling; a student residence; a residential care facility; an emergency shelter; a retirement home; an apartment; a hotel; and a lodging house. • Institutional uses: a long-term care facility; a hospital; and a day nursery. • Commercial uses: office or consultative uses or personal clinical services by a ‘charitable institution’.
As the Site is within 30m of a “DE” District (located north of the Site), the maximum height permitted in an “E-3” District is 39m, or ±12 storeys. The maximum gross floor area is determined by multiplying the lot area by a floor area factor of 2.55 (5,950m2 x 2.55), which results in 15,172.5m2. The proposed floor area is 64,916.4m2.
Both the height and maximum floor area exceed the “E-3” District requirements and therefore a Zoning By-law Amendment will be required.
Hamilton Zoning By-law No. 05-200 On November 8, 2017, Council passed an amendment to Zoning By-law No. 05-200 to implement new Commercial and Mixed Use (CMU) zones. The amendment rezoned the entirety of the Site C5 (Mixed Use Medium Density), as illustrated in Figure 10. However, the Commercial and Mixed-Use zones have been appealed to the LPAT and are not in force and affect.
The C5 zone permits a range of retail, service, commercial, entertainment, and residential uses, specifically: • Residential uses: dwelling unit(s); multiple dwelling; emergency shelter; and a lodging house. • Commercial uses: artist studio; beverage making establishment; catering service; commercial entertainment; commercial parking facility; commercial recreation; commercial school; communications establishment; conference centre; craftsperson’s shop; day nursery; financial establishment; funeral home; hotel;
Planning Justification Report | 221-225 John Street S. & 70-78 Yonge Street 68 GSP Group Inc. | July 2018
microbrewery; a variety of motor vehicle establishments; office; personal services; repair service; restaurant; retail; retirement home; tradesperson’s shop; urban farmers market; and a veterinary service. • Institutional uses: educational establishment; laboratory; medical clinic; performing arts theatre; place of assembly/worship; residential care facility; social services establishment; and a transportation depot.
The proposed C5 zone establishes a maximum building height of 22m.
Relevance to the Site: In order to permit the Proposed Development as contemplated, a Zoning By-law Amendment will be required to the Council adopted “C5” (Mixed Use Medium Density) zone to permit the proposed height as well as site specific regulations to implement the design vision.
Planning Justification Report | 221-225 John Street S. & 70-78 Yonge Street 69 GSP Group Inc. | July 2018 Site
Figure Current Zoning Source: City of Hamilton Zoning By-law 6593 (Retrieved May 2018) 9 Planning Justification Report | 221-225 John Street S. & 70-78Yonge Street GSP Group | June 2018 MAP 952
1 0 67 3 3 3 1 6 6 7 1 7 2 1 2 4 1 98 4 6 75 0 B 1 2 4 9 17 E 3 2 4 CK 1 3 1 2 LE City of Hamilton 1 Y 1 1 137137137137137137137137137137137 1 3 S 7 3 4 T 1 5 9 7 474747474747474747474747474747474747474747474747474747474747 187 C5 2 136 Zoning By-Law 05-200 434343434343434343434343434343434343434343434343434343434343 0 8 18 8 6 8 9 1 7 393939393939393939393939393939393939393939393939393939393939 BOL 333333333333 D 13 3131313131 ST 5 272727272727272727272727272727272727
21 1919 142 13 1 13 1 1 9 1 12 H 19 4 4 A 0 4 0 1 YM 4 5 155 AR 1 9 2 1 154 14 KE 160 6 1 T 7 49 S 8 1 12 T 20 1 4 0 0 150 8 126 9 1 0 8 4646464646464646464646464646 156 5 1 124124124 1 3 1 DRAFT 7 3 2 2 2 9 122122122122 6 15 2 5 0 12 1 1 19 36 1 2 7 7 53 3 1 1 7 1 DU 2828282828282828282828282828282828 52 1 35 K 1 1 E 19 11 39 ST 15 2121 7 20202020202020202020202020202020202020202020202020202020 4 2323 1 25 9 06 20 14 0 7 15 2 6 6 14 Effective 1 1 5 1 209 1 58 5 08 Map Reference By-Law 2 87 1 4 21 9 60 1 C5 15 Date of 1 55 9 1 4 0 C51 Number Number 21 12 1 10 3 8 2 16 3 1 4 5 3 By-Law 3 1 6 5 1 20 6 1 7 66 1 11 9 6 5 2 1 3 3 4 C5 5 2 1 7 0 5 1 348 5 2 7 1 68 1 1 2 5 8 14 3 1 4 9 1 A 2 1 1 1 3 U 7 8 2 3 20 G 0 3 1 2 9 U 4 1 5 S 1 1 7 1 T 7 1 5 1 6 A 2 1 2 3 5 16 1 1 10 S 1 1 2 0 4 T 67 1 12 6 1 21 6 9 42 7 12 1 2 0 21 6 9 8 21 1 1 1 7 8 3 1 2 5 78 1 8 7 1 2 8 71 9 6 64 1 8 9 0 111111 76 2 21 8 4 1 22 9 174 2 179 5 17 22 0 0 3 4 S 8 70 8 C5 8 1 6 22 1 1 7 T 3 5 1 1 22 1 4 1 7 12 S R 7 8 8 5 O 8 17 8 B 2 8 0 I 1 7 2 NS 1 7 2 Y 2 1 9 8 4 6 2 5 O 2 5 8 2 N 9 8 1 3 A S 2 0 7 1 2 T 86 4 2 B 17 1 1 49 3 1 0 2 1 2 444444444444444 1 1 23 29 219 1 1 4 18 194 1 1 22 3 0 42 S 1 5 9 S 2 4 4 T 2 1 2 9 0 4 3 0 3 T 1 5 0 S 1 5 5 4 S 1 4 2 3 87 5 7 2 1 25 K 3 5 1 1 1 4 S Y 595959 8 O 6 R U 3 0 E 191 1 NG 150 2 9 9 A 50 S 2 1 M T 0 1 5 7 P S S 15 1 A 2 1 5 5 2 J 1 1 1 3 25 T 93 T 7 1 1 4 7 1 S S 50 1 C5 8 1 8 7 5 1 0 7 6 17 5 9 1 2 6 B 1 7 1 5 6 1 5 7 3 4 95 8 8 1 4 8 5 5 A 1 6 6 ON 8 5 6 916 8 153 2 5 N 1 S 1 0 5 2 6 62 8 C 0 2 1 5 20 1 211 5 5 4 7 1 1 5 A 1 4 4 19 2 GH 2 157 2 8 00 4 M 9 U 3 0 2 9 H 0 Site 1 0 8 8 5 1 0 7 8 3 2 S 1 6 6 0 8 20 C5 9 4 3 4 2 3
9 2 1 2 T M 12 4 6 S 3 20 86 7 7 9 1
5 A 0 4
9 2 4 N 2 5 5 C22 2 09 0 2 1 8 2 6 9
2 8 7 H P 9 S 21 14 K 1 1 5 I O ME T R J 2
2 9
P ST 2 5 S 5 50 224 5 9 6 F E
A O 2 4 RE
C S N 5 HA T I 2 1 R AV
M 5 1 7 4 LTO 83 R N 5 2 C5 AV A W 5 9 H 7 0 9 2 1 T 1 2 25 87 4 74 A 223 6 4 Legend C 0 6 5 5 4 1 4 18 4 26 4 1 9 9 2 6 28 2 0 0 4 34 3 # 6 2 3 Special Exception 3 8 3 4 0 28 2 9 8 2 27 2 27 2 9 47 82 1 1 9 24 4 2 9 0 0 4 58 0 1 9 24 6 2 6 2 2 5 55 1 8 2 1 2 1 42 6 92 1 92 27 2 257 H# Holding Provision 287 231 2 44 2 1 59 2 5 3 9 4 2 2 4 1 4 6 0 6 1 81 4 1 10 2 2 0 2 8 9 0 2 9 9 0 63 5 3 5 3 0 Urban Boundary 3 2 9 2 2 7 50 86 81 2 241 2 302 8 2835 0 1 8 243 C5a 23 Zoning Boundary 7 4 8 1 5 7 5 1 1 2 2 9 24 3 1 3 5 7 1
0 264264264264 Appendix 31 2 2 30 5 1 5 9 2 29 C.A. Regulated Area 261 9 272272272272 320 26 9 5 7 26 300 9 6 2 0 3 6 2 3 11 27 9 22 7 1 0 Lake 7 2 1 32 Figure 0 4 5 Proposed Commercial and Mixed Use Zones 1 3 26 Source: City of Hamilton Zoning By-law 05-200, Schedule A, Map 994 (DRAFT) 3 8 "B-1" to Report PED16100(c) 32 5 1 Railway 8 5 ST 3 321 . JO 07 10 5 SEPH 4 L 'S D 3 Planning Justification Report | 221-225 John Street S. & 70-78Yonge Street P R 4 3 GSP Group | June 2018 0 3 1 2 8 N 9 1 3 2 O 7 T 1 9 0 32 L 2 9 1 5 2 I 1 Date: October 3, 2017 0 17 9 123 H 7 2 1 0 0 C 1 4 3 7 2 8 7 2 3 4 4 6 21 V 6 1 4 3 A 1 0 51 7 1 319 D ST. 353 25 340 JOSEP O H' 3 S 301 32 DR O 1 1 1 3 Page 55 of 251 W 36 3 0 2 7 T 5 6 9 S 7 T 84 4 . N 9 JA 9 ME 1 88 Note: Features in the Legend may not appear in each individual U 0 S 909090 P 1 5 L O 5 8 4 map for every batch series of map 5 6 3 4 M 0 6 2 4 444 3 5 2 8 4 3 3 105 3 222 9 4 1 1 73 1 1 MAP 1038
SCALE 1 : 3,332
MAP 994 of Schedule 'A'
© Teranet Land Information Services Inc. and its licensors. [2008] May Not be Reproduced without Permission. THIS IS NOT A PLAN OF SURVEY
5.0 PLANNING APPLICATIONS
5.1 Official Plan Amendment An Official Plan Amendment is required to permit the height of the Proposed Development. A draft Site-specific policy for inclusion in the UHOP has been prepared and appended to this Report (see Appendix B).
5.2 Zoning By-law Amendment A Zoning By-law Amendment is required to rezone the Site from a modified “CR-2/S-572”, “CR-2/S572a”, “CR-2/S-572b” (Commercial-Residential), and “E-3” (High Density Multiple Dwellings) to a modified “C5” (Mixed Use Medium Density) zone including the following site specific regulations (see Appendix C): a) To permit townhouses 0.7m below the average grade; b) To permit a building with residential units on the ground floor facing a streetline a minimum setback of 0m, whereas the by-law requires 3.0m minimum; c) To permit a building with residential units on the ground floor facing a streetline a maximum setback of 6.2m, whereas the by-law permits a 4.5m maximum; d) To permit a minimum rear yard of 0m; whereas the by-law permits a 7.5m minimum; e) To permit a minimum façade height for any portion of a building along a street line of 5.8m, whereas the by-law permits a 7.5m minimum; f) To permit a maximum height of 113.5m, whereas the by-law permits a 22m maximum; g) To permit a minimum of 436 parking spaces, whereas the by-law requires 820.
Planning Justification Report | 221-225 John Street S. & 70-78 Yonge Street 72 GSP Group Inc. | July 2018
6.0 PLANNING SUMMARY AND ANALYSIS
6.1 Site Suitability and Context The Site has been assembled from three parcels of land into an entire city block, located in a prime Corktown location on the outskirts of downtown with full municipal servicing and within walking distance to existing and planned transit as well as numerous public amenities. The centrality of the Site finds its fullest expression in the Corktown Neighbourhood Plan, which refers to the Site as the “Village Centre”. Of the four surrounding streets, John Street South is of significance as it connects downtown Hamilton (including the GO Centre) with the Mountain via Arkledun Avenue and the Jolley Cut.
Despite the strategic location of the Site and favourable geographic circumstances, the Site has been significantly underutilized since the mid-1980s as a low-rise commercial plaza consisting primarily of a surface parking lot together with a commercial building that closes itself off to the community by presenting a blank brick wall to its residential neighbours to the north, east, and south—falling far short of the “Village Centre” moniker.
While recognizing that Corktown was originally founded as an Irish working-class neighbourhood with low-rise Victorian era housing; it must also be recognized that the neighbourhood has undergone significant change in the last century, including the unfortunate destruction of large sections of the original housing stock and the erection of tower-in-the-park style mid- and high-rise apartment buildings in the 1960s and 1970s. For better or worse, modern Corktown is both tall and dense and provides Hamilton with much of its skyline. In fact, two of the four tallest buildings in Hamilton are in Corktown, namely, Landmark Place (tallest) and Olympia Towers (forth tallest).
The Site itself is adjacent to significant clusters of tall buildings. The entire block west of the Site is cloistered by four high-rise residential apartment buildings known as the Villa Marie Apartments. The Brockton Apartments stand across Catharine Street South immediately to the east. High-rise apartment buildings also occupy all the lands between the Site travelling along a line southeast to the escarpment, including: Oakland Square I and II Apartments, the Olympia Tower, and The Arkledun. Furthermore, planning applications indicate that the future of Corktown will most likely continue to intensify, as exemplified by the proposed 10- storey residential building located immediately east of the Site, and the proposed three residential towers just two (2) blocks south of the Site at 26, 30, and 36 storeys.
While the proposed mixed-use form of development is compatible with the current and future Corktown, consideration must also be given to the Corktown of the past, which is embodied by the presence of the Church of the Ascension to the southwest of the Site. Appropriate
Planning Justification Report | 221-225 John Street S. & 70-78 Yonge Street 73 GSP Group Inc. | July 2018
design considerations have been implemented in the design of the building out of respect for the heritage building, including situating the two residential towers on the northwest and southeast corners of the Site, in addition to angling the base of the southern residential tower away from the church to soften the mass of the buildings in deference to the heritage property.
Based on this analysis, the Site is in a suitable location for redevelopment and intensification.
6.2 Provincial Plans and Acts Section 2 of the Planning Act, sets out matters of Provincial Interest when considering an application under the Act. The following table provides an analysis of the Proposed Development in response to the prescribed Provincial interest:
Table 2: Provincial Interest Provincial Interest Response a) The protection of The Site is not located in a Natural Heritage System as per Ministry of ecological systems, Natural Resources and Forestry online NHS mapping. including natural areas, features and functions b) The protection of the The Site is not located in the Agricultural Land Base for the Greater agricultural resources of Golden Horseshoe as per online mapping (Agricultural Systems Portal). the Province c) The conservation and As referenced above, the Site is not located in a Natural Heritage System management of natural as per the Ministry of Natural Resources and Forestry online NHS resources and the mapping. mineral resource base d) The conservation of A Cultural Heritage Impact Assessment has been prepared by ERA features of significant Architects Inc. (May 2018) to assess the impact of the Proposed architectural, cultural, Development on the potential heritage resources at and adjacent to the historical, Site. A summary of the assessment is outlined in Section 3.2.1 and a archaeological or description of how the heritage attributes of the protected heritage scientific interest property will be conserved is provided in Planning Analysis, Section 6.3 (Heritage). As part of the Formal Consultation, an archaeological assessment was not required by the City as the entire Site has been previously developed and disturbed. e) The supply, efficient The Site utilizes existing energy and water infrastructure. A Functional use and conservation of Servicing and Stormwater Management Report was prepared by Lithos energy and water Group Inc. (June 2018) in support of the Subject Applications and found that the existing sanitary sewers and water supply can support the Proposed Development. Greater details for the Stormwater Management section of the report will be prepared at the Site Plan Application stage. f) The adequate provision The Site utilizes existing sewage, water, and wastewater infrastructure. A and efficient use of Functional Servicing and Stormwater Management Report was prepared communication, by Lithos Group Inc. (June 2018) in support of the Subject Applications
Planning Justification Report | 221-225 John Street S. & 70-78 Yonge Street 74 GSP Group Inc. | July 2018
Provincial Interest Response transportation, sewage and found that the existing sanitary sewers and water supply can support and water services and the Proposed Development. Greater details for the Stormwater waste management Management section of the report will be prepared at the Site Plan systems Application stage.
Adequate provisions for efficient transportation are addressed below in regard to policies p) and q). g) The minimization of N/A waste h) The orderly Barrier-free parking spaces have been provided. development of safe and healthy communities; the accessibility for persons with disabilities to all facilities, services and matters to which this Act applies i) The adequate provision Due to its long history of settlement and proximity to downtown, Corktown and distribution of is well served by existing public amenities, the most notable of which is educational, health, St. Joseph’s Hospital. In terms of education, Queen Victoria Elementary social, cultural and School and St. Charles Adult & Continuing Education are in the area. recreational facilities Regarding cultural amenities, Corktown contains lively commercial spaces, including restaurants and commercial services found along James Street S. and John Street S. between Charlton Avenue E. and the Hamilton Go Centre, in addition to a bourgeoning pub district along Augusta Street. The Site is also adjacent to the Church of the Ascension, and nearby to the St. Charles Garnier Church.
In terms of recreational facilities, Corktown features numerous parks, including: Corktown Park with access to the Escarpment Rail Trail, St. Joseph’s Park, Shamrock Park, and Woolverton Park. A trail up the escarpment can also be found at the foot of John Street S. providing pedestrian access to Southam Park and the Mountain at large. j) The adequate provision The Proposed Development will provide 792 residential dwelling units in of a full range of the form of apartments and townhouses. A variety of apartments will be housing, including available to accommodate young professionals and families alike, affordable housing including: studios, 1-bedroom, 1-bedroom + den, 2-bedroom, 2-bedroom + den, and 3 bedroom. k) The adequate provision The Proposed Development will create employment opportunities through of employment the commercial component of the mixed-use podium. opportunities l) The protection of the The Proposed Development is in an established area of Hamilton and the financial and economic density is such that existing roads and infrastructure will be efficiently well-being of the utilized. The Proposed Development will also bring new residents into
Planning Justification Report | 221-225 John Street S. & 70-78 Yonge Street 75 GSP Group Inc. | July 2018
Provincial Interest Response Province and its Corktown that can support existing businesses and make them more municipalities sustainable over the long-term, which in turn supports the municipality tax base. m) The co-ordination of The Subject Applications will be circulated to various departments, planning activities of agencies and public bodies for consideration and input. public bodies n) The resolution of The planning process and public consultation strategy will ensure that planning conflicts potential planning conflicts are considered and appropriately addressed. involving public and private interests o) The protection of public The Proposed Development will be reviewed by City departments and health and safety agencies, which will ensure that public health and safety are appropriately addressed p) The appropriate The Site is located within an established, built-up area of Hamilton, location of growth and adjacent to the downtown, and amongst numerous mid- and high-rise development buildings.
The Hamilton GO Centre is only 200m north of the Site, less than a five (5) minute walk, which is not only the western terminus of the Lakeshore West commuter line to Toronto, but also integrates private intercity coach carriers. The planned LRT station at King Street, together with the planned high-level pedestrian connection on Hughson Street from the Hamilton GO Centre2, will provide the Site with a quick walking connection to the LRT. The planned LRT station on Mary Street within the International village is also within the same walking distance. With these considerations in mind, the Site is vastly underutilized, with approximately 60% of the Site occupied by a parking lot, and the most significant building on the site standing only one-storey tall. All considered, the Site is an appropriate location for growth and development and will take advantage of an under-utilized Site. q) The promotion of As outlined in the preceding response above, the Proposed Development development that is would support public transit through its proximity to the bus and train designed to be services available at the Hamilton GO Centre, and via a planned high- sustainable, to support level pedestrian connection along Hughson to Gore Park, will also public transit and to be support two future LRT stations at both James Street, and Mary Street. oriented to pedestrians Furthermore, the Proposed Development will support the existing SoBi bicycle share hubs in the Corktown neighbourhood, including the hub located across Catharine Street South, and the three additional SoBi hubs located near the Hamilton GO Centre.
2 Hamilton Light Rail Transit (LRT) 2017 Environmental Project Report Addendum, Appendix F: High-Order Pedestrian Connection Streetscape Design Report (February 2017).
Planning Justification Report | 221-225 John Street S. & 70-78 Yonge Street 76 GSP Group Inc. | July 2018
Provincial Interest Response Lastly, the Proposed Development will support the existing bus stop located at the corner of the Site on John Street and Young Street.
The stop is serviced by the two important HSR routes. First, the “27 – Upper James”, with service between the MacNab Terminal in downtown Hamilton, and the Mountain Transit Centre on Upper James. Second, the Site is served by the “22 – Upper Ottawa”, with service between the downtown Macnab Terminal and east across the Mountain and south along Upper Ottawa to Rymal Road.
All considered, the Proposed Development would support the existing GO network of trains and buses, two existing HSR bus routes, the SoBi bicycle share program, and two future LRT stations; all of which would generate numerous pedestrian trips that would be facilitated by the continuous sidewalk around the perimeter of the block. r) The promotion of built The Urban Design Brief prepared by GSP (June 2018) includes a form that, demonstration on how the Proposed Development’s design is informed by (i) is well-designed, and responds to applicable design policies and guidelines. The brief (ii) encourages a sense demonstrates how the following 19 general design themes are achieved: of place, and • A pedestrian-focused environment (iii) provides for public • Enhanced streetscape environment spaces that are of high • Efficient access and circulation quality, safe, • A multi-modal environment focused on active transportation accessible, attractive • Vehicular parking located underground, in structures, or on- and vibrant street • Reduced vehicular parking demand • Accommodation of convenient bicycle parking • A compatible integration of surrounding form, scale and character • A diverse range of dwelling types and tenures • A form and design that respects surrounding heritage resources • A design that effectively addresses shadows, wind, heritage and visual impacts • A design that effectively integrates site utilities, garbage and loading requirements • A design that will incorporates barrier-free design measures • A design that will be designed to provide sufficient, night-friendly lighting • A design that will integrate signage with the building form and style • A design that incorporates private amenity areas • A design that incorporates sustainable design measures • A design that will incorporate public art elements • A design that creates a focal point for the Corktown community
Planning Justification Report | 221-225 John Street S. & 70-78 Yonge Street 77 GSP Group Inc. | July 2018
Provincial Interest Response Further to this assessment, the Proposed Development is well designed (i) in that it is responsive to the local neighbourhood context. In particular, townhouses are located at the northeast corner to reflect the townhouses on the opposite side of the street. At the southwest corner, the podium is angled away from the Church of the Ascension out of respect for the heritage property.
The Proposed Development will create a sense of place (ii) by redeveloping a vastly underutilized commercial plaza into a focal point for the community. The Corktown Neighbourhood Plan identifies the Site as the “Village Centre” and the Proposed Development is intended to fulfil that role by providing a landmark building that has the potential to become the centre-point of the community. The twin towers are unique in Hamilton and their height will make them a significant new feature on the skyline.
Lastly, the Proposed Development will contribute to creating a high- quality public places by replacing the vast expanse of blank walls that are currently facing north, east, and south side of the existing plaza, and replacing them with vibrant street-oriented commercial activity in addition to residential townhouses.
Overall, the proposed buildings are well-designed and will revitalize the Corktown neighbourhood and public realm. s) The mitigation of The concentrated nature of high-rise development will house residents in greenhouse gas an efficient way that fully utilizes existing services and public amenities. emissions and The residents that will occupy the buildings in the future might otherwise adaptation to a locate themselves in areas that would contribute toward sprawl and changing climate greater automobile use. Conversely, the proximity of the Site to multiple transit options, as outlined above, will contribute to taking automobiles off the road and thereby reduce greenhouse gas emissions.
Based on the above analysis, the Proposed Development is consistent with the prescribed provincial interest criteria.
Source Protection Within the Halton-Hamilton Source Protection Plan (2015), Figure 2 through 7 show the areas where threat activities could pose a significant risk to the municipal wells located within the Halton Region Source Protection Area. The Site is not located within the identified vulnerable areas on said Figures and as such, there are no specific activity restrictions which would apply to the land.
Planning Justification Report | 221-225 John Street S. & 70-78 Yonge Street 78 GSP Group Inc. | July 2018
Resource Recovery Pursuant to the Resource Recovery and Circular Economy Act (2016), soil removal will occur on site as per MOECC standards.
OADA The Planning Act makes provisions for accessibility for persons with disabilities as part of the site plan process. Accordingly, the provision of facilities for accessibility to the Proposed Development will be reviewed at the site plan stage consistent with the Accessibility for Ontarians with Disabilities Act (2005). Barrier-free parking spaces will be provided and located close to entrances.
Provincial Policy Statement As outlined in Section 4.5 of this report, the Proposed Development is consistent with the Building Strong and Healthy Communities policies of the PPS by: • Locating development within an existing urban settlement area; • Utilizing existing municipal infrastructure and public service facilities, thereby optimizing their efficiency and providing for efficient development and land use patterns; • Redeveloping an underutilized site with a mixed-use development that will contribute to the range and types of residential and commercial uses in the Corktown neighbourhood; • Provide for an efficient use of land and resources by intensifying an existing built-up area within the City of Hamilton; • Support existing and planned transit and active transportation in tandem; and • Utilize existing infrastructure and public service facilities in the form of water, sanitary, stormwater, transit, road, schools, and a hospital.
All considered, the Proposed Development is consistent with the Building Strong and Healthy Communities policies of the PPS.
Consistent with the housing policies of the PPS (Section 1.4.3), the Proposed Development is a compact, efficient form of development situated in a prime Corktown location where appropriate levels of infrastructure and public service facilities are already available. The Proposed Development includes approximately 792 units on 0.59 hectares, which represents a density of 1,331 units per hectare, making efficient use of the land, resources, infrastructure, public service facilities, and will support the use of active transportation and transit as outlined in the above section. The proposed 34 and 31 storey residential towers are designed to provide additional housing options within the Hamilton market, thereby utilizing the Site to assist the City in maintaining a minimum provision of a 10-year supply of
Planning Justification Report | 221-225 John Street S. & 70-78 Yonge Street 79 GSP Group Inc. | July 2018
housing stock. For these reasons, the Proposed Development is consistent with the housing policies of the PPS.
Consistent with Section 1.5.1 of the PPS regarding public spaces, recreation, parks, trails and open space, the Proposed Development will facilitate active transportation due to its proximity to a full range of recreational opportunities, parklands, public space areas and trails that are available within the Corktown neighbourhood as outlined in Section 2.2 and illustrated in Figure 3. For these reasons, the Proposed Development is consistent with the Public Spaces, Recreation, Parks, Trails and Open Space policies of the PPS.
Section 1.6.3 of the PPS states that before consideration is given to developing new infrastructure and public service facilities: the use of existing infrastructure and public service facilities should be optimized. By utilizing existing infrastructure and public service facilities, the Proposed Development will take full advantage of existing public service facilities as well as support the use and optimization of existing infrastructure. A Functional Servicing and Stormwater Management Report was prepared by Lithos Group Inc. (June 2018) in support of the Subject Applications and found that the existing sanitary sewers and water supply can support the Proposed Development. Greater details for the Stormwater Management section of the report will be prepared at the Site Plan Application stage. For these reasons, the Proposed Development is consistent with policies 1.6.6.1, 1.6.6.2, 1.6.7.2, and 1.7.1 of the PPS, regarding the efficient use and optimization of existing municipal sewage and water services.
The Site is located in an area well-served by existing and planned transit infrastructure. All considered, the Proposed Development features a density and mix of uses that will minimize the length and number of vehicle trips and support current and future use of transit and active transportation, thus satisfying policy 1.6.7.4.
Consistent with policy 1.8.1 regarding energy conservation, air quality and climate change, the Proposed Development represents an efficient, compact form of development at a density that will encourage the use of nearby active transportation and transit facilities as outlined in the above sections. Furthermore, the inclusion of commercial at the ground floor enables the possibility of some residents to live and work in the same building, thereby reducing commute journeys.
Moreover, the Proposed Development will have no impacts on Natural Heritage, Water, Minerals and Petroleum, Mineral Aggregate Resources, (Section 2.0) as none of these resources are located on or adjacent to the Site.
Planning Justification Report | 221-225 John Street S. & 70-78 Yonge Street 80 GSP Group Inc. | July 2018
Consistent with the agriculture policy of the PPS (2.3.1), the Site is not located in the Agricultural Land Base for the Greater Golden Horseshoe as per online mapping (Agricultural Systems Portal).
Lastly, Consistent with the heritage policy 2.6.3, a Cultural Heritage Impact Assessment has been prepared by ERA Architects Inc. (May 2018) to assess the impact of the Proposed Development on the potential heritage resources at and adjacent to the Site. A summary of the assessment is outlined in Section 3.2.1 and a description of how the heritage attributes of the protected heritage property is provided in the next section, under Heritage.
Relevance to the Site: For all the above reasons, the Subject Applications are consistent with the Provincial Policy Statement.
Bill 139 and the Planning Act
In December 2017, Bill 139 amended the Planning Act to eliminate de novo hearings and limit the Local Planning Appeals Tribunal (LPAT) authority to overturn council’s decisions related to official plan and zoning by-laws amendments in situations where the decision does not conform or is inconsistent with provincial policies or regional and municipal plans. In this regard, as part of the proposed OPA/ZBA application, the purpose of this section of the Report is to determine:
a) For the proposed official plan amendment explain how the existing parts of the UHOP that would be affected by the OPA are either: i) inconsistent with the PPS; or, ii) fail to conform with or conflict with the Growth Plan.
b) For the proposed zoning by-law amendment explain how the existing parts of Hamilton Zoning By-law 05-200 that would be affected by the proposed ZBA are either: i) inconsistent with the PPS; or, ii) fail to conform with or conflict with the Growth Plan or the UHOP a) Urban Hamilton Official Plan Amendment
The requested amendment to the UHOP would affect existing Policy E.4.6.7 and E.4.6.8, which permit a maximum height of up to eight stories within a “Mixed Use – Medium Density Designation”. While these policies are not entirely inconsistent with the PPS, they also do not represent the fullest expression of the overall intent and vision of the PPS as laid out in Part
Planning Justification Report | 221-225 John Street S. & 70-78 Yonge Street 81 GSP Group Inc. | July 2018
IV: Vision for Ontario’s Land Use Planning System, which seeks to provide “efficient development patterns [that] optimize [emphasis added] the use of land, resources and public investments in infrastructure and public service facilities”. In line with this vision, a taller building with a resulting higher density would more fully optimize the use of land consistent with PPS Sections 1.1.1 (Healthy, livable, and safe communities) and 1.4.3 (Housing), which support intensification where there are existing services and infrastructure.
Similarly, Section 1.1.3.2 of the Provincial Policy Statement, states that land use patterns within settlement areas shall be based on: a. densities and a mix of land uses which: 1. efficiently use land and resources; 2. are appropriate for, and efficiently use, the infrastructure and public service facilities which are planned or available, […] 4. support active transportation; 5. transit-supportive, where transit is planned, exists or may be developed; […]
And Section 1.1.3.3, which states that: Planning authorities shall identify appropriate locations and promote opportunities for intensification and redevelopment where this can be accommodated taking into account existing building stock or areas, including brownfield sites, and the availability of suitable existing or planned infrastructure and public service facilities required to accommodate projected needs.
By limiting the maximum height of the Site to 8 stories, the resulting density would not represent the full optimization of land and resources as envisioned in the PPS, considering the unique intensification and redevelopment potential of the Site within Corktown and Hamilton overall. The Site is appropriately identified as the “Village Centre” in the Corktown Neighbourhood Plan and is close to downtown as well as existing and planned infrastructure, including the Hamilton GO Centre and planned LRT stations, as well as existing nearby public service facilities and other recreational amenities identified throughout this Report.
Furthermore, while not inconsistent with the Growth Plan, Sections E.4.6.7 and E.4.6.8 of the UHOP do not represent the fullest expression of the primary intent of the Growth Plan, which is to support higher densities in appropriate locations. Specifically, Section 2.2.1.2 c) of the Growth Plan directs growth within settlement areas to be focused in:
a) delineated built-up areas; b) strategic growth areas;
Planning Justification Report | 221-225 John Street S. & 70-78 Yonge Street 82 GSP Group Inc. | July 2018
c) locations with existing or planned transit, with a priority on higher order transit where it exists or is planned; and d) areas with existing or planned public service facilities; The Site fulfills the majority of these criteria for the reasons outlined throughout this Report and is therefore an appropriate location for higher density and increased height in line with the intent of the Growth Plan. b) Zoning By-law Amendment
The Zoning By-law Amendment would affect the Council-adopted, but not yet in force and effect, C5 (Mixed Use Medium Density) zone within Hamilton Zoning By-law 05-200; specifically, Section 10.5.3 d) ii) which limits the height to a maximum of 22m. While this regulation is not entirely inconsistent with the PPS, it also does not represent the fullest expression of the overall intent and vision of the PPS as laid out in Part IV: Vision for Ontario’s Land Use Planning System, which seeks to provide “efficient development patterns [that] optimize [emphasis added] the use of land, resources and public investments in infrastructure and public service facilities”. In line with this vision, a taller building with a resulting higher density would more fully optimize the use of land consistent with PPS Sections 1.1.1 (Healthy, livable, and safe communities) and 1.4.3 (Housing), which support intensification where there are existing services and infrastructure.
Similarly, Section 1.1.3.2 of the Provincial Policy Statement, states that land use patterns within settlement areas shall be based on: b. densities and a mix of land uses which: 3. efficiently use land and resources; 4. are appropriate for, and efficiently use, the infrastructure and public service facilities which are planned or available, […] 6. support active transportation; 7. transit-supportive, where transit is planned, exists or may be developed; […]
And Section 1.1.3.3, which states that: Planning authorities shall identify appropriate locations and promote opportunities for intensification and redevelopment where this can be accommodated taking into account existing building stock or areas, including brownfield sites, and the availability of suitable existing or planned infrastructure and public service facilities required to accommodate projected needs.
By limiting the maximum height of the Site to 22m, the resulting density would not
Planning Justification Report | 221-225 John Street S. & 70-78 Yonge Street 83 GSP Group Inc. | July 2018
represent the full optimization of land and resources as envisioned in the PPS, considering the unique intensification and redevelopment potential of the Site within Corktown and Hamilton overall. The Site is appropriately identified as the “Village Centre” in the Corktown Neighbourhood Plan and is close to downtown as well as existing and planned infrastructure, including the Hamilton GO Centre and planned LRT stations, as well as existing nearby public service facilities and other recreational amenities identified throughout this Report.
Furthermore, while not inconsistent with the Growth Plan, Section 10.5.3 d) ii) of the C5 (Mixed Use Medium Density) zone, which limits the height to a maximum of 22m; does not represent the fullest expression of the primary intent of the Growth Plan, which is to support higher densities in appropriate locations. Specifically, Section 2.2.1.2 c) of the Growth Plan directs growth within settlement areas to be focused in:
e) delineated built-up areas; f) strategic growth areas; g) locations with existing or planned transit, with a priority on higher order transit where it exists or is planned; and h) areas with existing or planned public service facilities; The Site fulfills the majority of these criteria for the reasons outlined throughout this Report and is therefore an appropriate location for higher density and increased height in line with the intent of the Growth Plan.
6.3 City of Hamilton Official Plan Residential Intensification Section B.2.4 of the UHOP recognizes that compatible “Residential intensification is a key component of Hamilton’s growth strategy and is essential to meet our growth and employment targets.” Section B.2.4.1.3 confirms that the Proposed Development contributes to implementing the growth strategy as 40% of all new growth is to occur within the City’s Neighbourhoods structural element as shown on Schedule E—Urban Structure (refer to Figure 5).
Section B.2.4.1.4 outlines the criteria by which residential intensification development shall be evaluated. Each policy is quoted below followed by a planning comment:
a) a balanced evaluation of the criteria in b) through g), as follows;
Planning Justification Report | 221-225 John Street S. & 70-78 Yonge Street 84 GSP Group Inc. | July 2018
b) the relationship of the proposal to existing neighbourhood character so that it maintains, and where possible, enhances and builds upon desirable established patterns and built form;
The immediate neighbourhood cannot be characterized by any one time-period or architectural style. It is not homogenous. For instance, the Church of the Ascension, located southwest of the Site exhibits an old-world character, juxtaposed against the high- rise apartment buildings located across Forest Avenue. Likewise, modern townhouses found just north of the Site sit across Catharine Street South from detached and semi-detached Victorian residences. Tower-in-the-park style high-rise apartment buildings are also found immediately to the east and southeast of the Site. Overall, the immediate Site context could be described as a high-rise residential area intermixed with low-rise commercial and residential uses. The existing commercial plaza itself does little to contribute to the overall Corktown neighbourhood insofar as the majority of the Site’s surface area is used for parking. Furthermore, the sides and rear of the commercial building do not interface with pedestrians.
The Proposed Development enhances the high-rise nature of the immediate neighbourhood by introducing two modern residential towers that will rise from the centre of the neighbourhood and provide a bridge between the high-rises found immediately east and west of the Site. The commercial units are proposed to front John Street South and Forest Avenue, providing continuity with other retail and service commercial uses located along both streets and breathing new life and vitality into the street-life found there. The proposed townhouses in the northeast corner of the Site mirror the modern townhouses found across Young Street. The building itself will introduce a modern building style that is both compatible with the existing high-rise buildings, while also providing relief from the monotonous beige-red concrete style of nearby apartment buildings. In this way, the Proposed Development will build upon the desirable established patterns and built form of Corktown.
c) the development’s contribution to maintaining and achieving a range of dwelling types and tenures;
The Proposed Development will include numerous dwelling types, including: townhouses, as well as studio, 1-bedroom, 1-bedroom + den, 2-bedroom, 2-bedroom + den, and 3-bedroom apartment units. The variety of the units will attract young professionals and families alike into the heart of Corktown.
Planning Justification Report | 221-225 John Street S. & 70-78 Yonge Street 85 GSP Group Inc. | July 2018
d) the compatible integration of the development with the surrounding area in terms of use, scale, form and character. In this regard, the City encourages the use of innovative and creative urban design techniques;
I concur with the Urban Design Brief which opines that the “proposed podium maximizes site usage and matches the rhythm of the surrounding lower-rise building form with the inclusion of townhouse units and fine-grained, smaller-scaled retail.”
With respect to use, the proposed mixed-use form of the development is compatible with both the existing residential high-rises found to the east and west of the Site, in addition to the commercial retail and service commercial uses found along John Street and others.
With respect to scale, the proposed height of the towers, at 34 and 31 storeys is similar to the 33-storey Olympia Towers located only ±125m to the southeast of the Site. The tallest building in Corktown as a whole is Landmark Place, which is also the tallest building in Hamilton, at a height of 44 storeys. Furthermore, the block immediately west of the Site contains a cluster of four (4) residential buildings at heights varying from 12 to 17 storeys.
The Proposed Development is similar in that it occupies an entire block, but its massing differs in that it features only two (2) towers, resulting in a design that feels less clustered and more open. The overall massing is intended to create a lighter, airier feel to the building. For instance, the podium is “donut-shaped” and open at the centre to the courtyard below, letting light into the centre of the Site. The position of the two towers at opposite corners feeds into this sense of space at the centre. From a pedestrian perspective, the negative space between the towers and the hollow formed by the central courtyard breaks-up the size of the building while maintaining its coherence.
As the character and scale of the neighbourhood continues to evolve, it should be noted that planning applications have been filed for a 10-storey residential building immediately east of the Site, in addition to another planning application for three residential towers standing at 26, 30, and 36 storeys two (2) blocks south of the Site.
Setbacks and variation provided in the podium height create interest to the street and relief from the long mass of the building site. As illustrated in the building elevations and renderings, the ground floor area is to be designed with brick and glazing to respond to the adjacent heritage buildings, while the upper floors are to consist of recast concrete, aluminum and glass to provide contrast and distinguish the building from others. Variation in these façade treatments helps to reduce the overall tower massing and contributes to reducing the perception of building height.
Planning Justification Report | 221-225 John Street S. & 70-78 Yonge Street 86 GSP Group Inc. | July 2018
The Proposed Development takes the form of two residential towers atop a common mixed used podium. Residential towers are the dominant and most prominent form in Corktown. The mixed-use podium will create a continuous streetscape around the block that will knit together the surrounding area to a far greater extent than the existing surface parking lot and low-rise commercial plaza. The proposed towers are also positions closer to existing high rise residential development to minimize impacts on surrounding lower-rise properties. The positioning of the towers offset serves to minimize overlook to each other and over the abutting streetscapes.
The character of Corktown has evolved considerably since its inception as an Irish working- class community. Corktown’s modern context is largely characterized by mid- and high-rise apartment buildings constructed as urban renewal projects following the second world war. The eclectic character of Corktown today reflects this historical reality. The Proposed Development is both compatible with the existing high-rise character of the neighbourhood while also introducing a modern design aesthetic and materials against a backdrop of largely monolithic concrete buildings.
e) the development’s contribution to achieving the planned urban structure as described in Section E.2.0 – Urban Structure;
As identified on Schedule E—Urban Structure, the Proposed Development forms part of the “Neighbourhoods” structural element. The Proposed Development exemplifies the concept of achieving a complete community by providing a place where Hamiltonians can live, shop, and socialize. The Proposed Development achieves the function of the structural element as envisioned, for: “Neighbourhoods shall primarily consist of residential uses and complementary facilities and services intended to serve the residents.” (E.2.6.2). The evolution of the Site from a commercial plaza into a mixed-use form is specifically envisioned by policy E.2.6.5 as follows: “These commercial uses may be clustered into plaza forms […] Over time, some of these commercial areas may evolve into a mixed-use form, where appropriate.” All considered, the Proposed Development will help develop a complete community by contributing various housing types and commercial uses in a location close to parks, transit, and public service facilities.
f) infrastructure and transportation capacity; and,
The impacts of the Proposed Development on transportation capacity have been reviewed and assessed. As noted, Paradigm Transportation Solutions Limited prepared a comprehensive report to address traffic, parking and TDM measures and provided the following recommendations:
Planning Justification Report | 221-225 John Street S. & 70-78 Yonge Street 87 GSP Group Inc. | July 2018
• that the City consider the provision of additional lane storage for the northbound left- turn movement on John Street at Charlton Avenue. Queues exceeding available lane capacity are currently occurring and forecast to worsen at the 2028 and 2030 back ground and total traffic horizons. This improvement can be accommodated through pavement marking modifications on John Street; • that the applicant and City consider implementing the proposed TDM measures, including increasing the provision of short-term bicycle parking spaces to 40 spaces; and • that the City support the proposed parking supply of 436 parking spaces, including 85 retail spaces, recognizing the market towards which the development will serve and the potential for reduced car ownership and increased levels of transit usage, walking and cycling.
A Functional Servicing and Stormwater Management Report was prepared by Lithos Group Inc. (June 2018) in support of the Subject Applications and found that the existing sanitary sewers and water supply can support the Proposed Development. Greater details related to Stormwater Management will be prepared at the Site Plan Application stage.
g) the ability of the development to comply with all applicable policies.
By and large the Proposed Development complies with the applicable policies with the notable exception of the maximum height requirement. It is for this reason that an Official Plan Amendment is being sought. On balance, the Proposed Development achieves the primary policies goals set out in the UHOP as outlined above.
Housing Section B.3.2.1 of the UHOP identifies the following goals for urban housing:
B.3.2.1.1 Provide for a range of housing types, forms, and densities to meet the social, health and well-being requirements of all current and future residents.
B.3.2.1.2 Provide housing within complete communities.
B.3.2.1.3 Increase Hamilton’s stock of affordable housing of all types, particularly in areas of the City with low levels of affordable housing.
B.3.2.1.4 Increase Hamilton’s stock of housing for those whose needs are inadequately met by existing housing forms or tenure, affordability or support options.
Planning Justification Report | 221-225 John Street S. & 70-78 Yonge Street 88 GSP Group Inc. | July 2018
B. 3.2.1.5 Maintain a balance of primary rental and ownership housing stock as outlined in the Affordable Housing Strategy.
B.3.2.1.6 Increase the mix and range of housing types, forms, tenures, densities, affordability levels, and housing with supports throughout the urban urea of the City.
The Proposed Development is in keeping with the goals outlined above by providing a range of housing types, forms, and densities; increasing the overall housing stock in Corktown and Hamilton overall in an effort to achieving a complete community.
Heritage The Site is adjacent to the Church of the Ascension, a Gothic Revival church constructed in 1875 and located at 65 Charlton Avenue East. The church is a protected heritage property designated under Part IV of the Ontario Heritage Act, and therefore the following sections of the UHOP apply, as identified in the comments from Cultural Heritage following the Formal Consultation:
B.3.4.1.3 Ensure that all new development, site alterations, building alterations, and additions are contextually appropriate and maintain the integrity of all on-site or adjacent cultural heritage resources.
B.3.4.2.1(g) Ensure the conservation and protection of cultural heritage resources in planning and development matters subject to the Planning Act, R.S.O., 1990 c. P.13 either through appropriate planning and design measures or as conditions of development approvals.
In conformity with the forgoing policy, a Cultural Heritage Impact Assessment has been prepared by ERA Architects Inc. (May 31, 2018) to assess the impact of the Proposed Development on the potential heritage resources at and adjacent to the Site.
The report identified that while there are no heritage resources identified for conservation on the Site, the Proposed Development will impact views to the adjacent Part IV Designated Church of the Ascension at 64 Forest Avenue and the Niagara Escarpment. The impact on these views will be mitigated by the siting of the proposed massing with consideration for the views to the Church of the Ascension and upwards towards the Niagara Escarpment. Additional mitigation measures include the use of building stepbacks to minimize the mass of the Proposed Development as experience by a pedestrian, and the provision of new retail units at ground level to enhance the public realm. In addition, the two (2) residential towers
Planning Justification Report | 221-225 John Street S. & 70-78 Yonge Street 89 GSP Group Inc. | July 2018
have been intentionally situated on the northwest and southeast corners of the Site as to not impede the setting or view of the Church of the Ascension to the southwest.
The existing buildings on the Site that are identified on the Hamilton Built Heritage Inventory, namely, 211 John Street and 78 Young Street, were both determined by ERA Architects Inc. to not meet O. Reg. 9/06, the criteria used to determine potential cultural heritage value; and that their loss would be mitigated by the re-animation of a currently underutilized site.
The report indicated that understanding the value of the Site lies in its long history of active neighbourhood-focused activity, and therefore, a conservation strategy for the block is rehabilitation based on animating the John Street South and Young Street streetscape with new retail and amenity services, in addition to the introduction of a mix of uses including residential, commercial and offices.
The assessment concluded that the Proposed Development fits in with the evolved context of the Corktown neighbourhood and re-animates a currently underutilized site in downtown Hamilton. Lastly, the assessment recognized that in accordance with the best practice in conservation as outlined by the Standards & Guidelines, the Proposed Development will be a wholly contemporary design, distinguishing it from the existing buildings on the Site and from the surrounding historic fabric.
Based on the above analysis, the Proposed Development is in conformity with the Residential Intensification, Housing, and Heritage policies of the Urban Hamilton Official Plan.
6.4 Hamilton Zoning By-law The Site currently contains two zones as illustrated in Figure 9. The majority of the Site is zoned “CR-2” (Commercial – Residential) District modified with three associated special policies (572, 572a, and 572b). Two smaller portions of the Site, with municipal addresses 78 Young Street and 211 John Street South, are both zoned “E-3” (High Density Multiple Dwellings) District.
On November 8, 2017, Council passed an amendment to Zoning By-law No. 05-200 to implement new Commercial and Mixed Use (CMU) zones. The amendment rezoned the entirety of the Site C5 (Mixed Use Medium Density), as illustrated in Figure 10. However, the Commercial and Mixed-Use zones have been appealed to the LPAT and are not in force and affect.
A Zoning By-law Amendment will be required to modify the C5 (Mixed Use Medium Density) zone to permit the proposed height and to permit site specific zoning modifications to
Planning Justification Report | 221-225 John Street S. & 70-78 Yonge Street 90 GSP Group Inc. | July 2018
address the site layout as proposed in Figure 4. The Site-specific modifications address the non-compliance regulations noted in Table 1, including the following: a) To permit townhouses 0.7m below the average grade; b) To permit a building with residential units on the ground floor facing a streetline a minimum setback of 0m, whereas the by-law requires 3.0m minimum; c) To permit a building with residential units on the ground floor facing a streetline a maximum setback of 6.2m, whereas the by-law permits a 4.5m maximum; d) To permit a minimum rear yard of 0m; whereas the by-law permits a 7.5m minimum; e) To permit a minimum façade height for any portion of a building along a street line of 5.8m, whereas the by-law permits a 7.5m minimum; f) To permit a maximum height of 113.5m, whereas the by-law permits a 22m maximum; g) To permit a minimum of 436 parking spaces, whereas the by-law requires 820.
Table 3: Requested Modifications to C5 (Mixed Use Commercial) Zone Comply REGULATIONS C5 (Mixed Use Medium Density) Required Proposed ✓/ Section 10.5.1 PERMITTED USES Multiple Dwelling Permitted Permitted ✓ Commercial Permitted ✓ Permitted Uses Section 10.5.1.1 RESTRICTED USES Townhouses Restricted Uses The finished floor elevation of any dwelling unit shall be a .7m below avg. within a Building minimum of 0.9m above grade grade Section 10.5.3 REGULATIONS i) Minimum 3m for a building with residential units on the North: 0m h) Building ground floor facing a street; East: 0m Setback North: 4.32m ✓ from a Street ii) Maximum 4.5 metres, except where a visibility triangle East: 4.32m ✓ Line is required for a driveway access; South: 5.7m ✓ West: 6.2m i) Min. Rear 0m (at daylight 7.5m Yard triangle) North: 9.25m ✓ i) Minimum 7.5m façade height for any portion of a East: 9.25m ✓ j) Building building along a street line South: 9.25m ✓ Height West: 5.8m ii) Maximum 22m;
Planning Justification Report | 221-225 John Street S. & 70-78 Yonge Street 91 GSP Group Inc. | July 2018
Comply REGULATIONS C5 (Mixed Use Medium Density) Required Proposed ✓/ iii) In addition to Section 10.5.3 d) i) and notwithstanding Tower A: Section 10.5.3 d) ii), any building height above 11m 113.5m may be equivalently increased as the yard increases
beyond the minimum yard requirement established in Tower B: Section 10.5.3 b) and c) when abutting a Residential or 104.5m Institutional Zone to a maximum of 22m. i) Rooftop mechanical equipment shall be located and/or Screened from ✓ screened from view of any abutting street. view g) Built Form for iii) Corner lots: min. combined width of ground floor New façade facing the front lot line and flankage lot line shall Development 60% ✓ be ≥ 50% of the measurement of all lot lines abutting a street. i) 4.0 m2 / dwelling unit less than 50 square metres; h) Min. Amenity = 22 Units x 4m2 = 88m2 Area for 14,678.24m2 ii) 6.0 m2 / dwelling unit more than 50 square metres. ✓ Multiple (18.5m2/unit) = 770 Units x 6m2 = 4,620m2 Dwellings Total Required Minimum Amenity Area: 4,708m2 Section 5 PARKING 5.2 b) ii) Parking 2.8m x 5.8m 2.8m x 5.8m ✓ Staff Size Width = 2.8 + 0.3m where parking stall obstructed by a wall, 5.2 b) iii) ✓ column or other obstruction. i) Multiple Dwelling Units less than 50m2 (0.3 / unit) = = 89 Units x 0.3 = 26.7 spaces ii) Dwelling Units greater than 50m2: Units Min Max Required 351 spaces 5.6 c) i) 1 – 14 0.7/unit 1.24 14 x 0.7 = 9.8 (Average Residential 15- 50 0.85/unit 1.25 35 x 0.85 = 29.75 0.44/unit) 51+ 1.0/unit 1.25 653 x 1 = 653 TOTAL 692.5 Total Parking Required for 792 units = 693 + 89 = 720 (Average 1.1/unit) Commercial (Retail) 5.6 c) iv) iii) 1/17 m2 where GFA is between 450m2 and 4,000 m2 Commercial 85 spaces Total Commercial GFA = 2,157m2 (Retail) = 2157 - 450 (1707.34m2) = 1707.34 ÷ 17 = 100 spaces
Planning Justification Report | 221-225 John Street S. & 70-78 Yonge Street 92 GSP Group Inc. | July 2018
The justification for each modification is as follows:
a) To permit townhouses 0.7m below the average grade;
The purpose of requiring that townhouses be constructed essentially at grade is reasonable, but does not address the significant changes in elevations that occur across this site. The Site slopes to the northeast away from the escarpment and as such contains a change in grade across the Site. The average grade is calculated by the average of the four lot lines. Accordingly, the average grade of the Site does not reflect the actual grade at each lot lines.
Therefore, though the townhouses are located a minimum of .8m above grade where they are situated, relief is required from the clause to reflect the way grade is calculated. For this reason, permitting the townhouses .7m below the average grade is considered appropriate.
b) To permit a building with residential units on the ground floor facing a streetline a minimum setback of 0m, whereas the by-law requires 3.0m;
The purpose of this regulation is to ensure that there is some form of a “front yard” for residential units directly fronting a street. This requirement envisions more traditional townhouses, versus the proposed comprehensive mixed-use design. In this regard, the proposed design generally provides a front yard of approximately 2 metres for the 11 “townhouse units” fronting Young and Catharine Street which is modestly less than the 3m minimum. Due to the required daylight triangle at the northeast corner of the Site, the setback along the east and northern lot line of the Site is reduced to 0m.
The (new) Downtown Secondary Plan most recently completed by the City of Hamilton, states that “All development shall be built close to the street line” (6.1.4.27). While the Site is not located in the downtown, this policy does provide general guidance on how the City views the urban context of development proximate to the downtown. In this regard, the reduction in the street line setback is considered appropriate as contemplated.
c) To permit a building facing a street line a maximum setback of 6.2m, whereas the by-law requires 4.5m;
The purpose of this regulations is ensure the efficient use of an urban site. The Site is irregular in shape; that is, the front lot line is shorter than the rear lot line. This area is located adjacent to the proposed commercial space and will provide public gathering space adjacent to the newly activated street frontage and encourage a pedestrian friendly public realm. In this regard, the overall intent of the by-law is maintained for the majority of the building along John St. and is considered an appropriate modification to the zoning by-law.
Planning Justification Report | 221-225 John Street S. & 70-78 Yonge Street 93 GSP Group Inc. | July 2018
d) To permit a minimum rear yard of 0m; whereas the by-law requires 7.5m;
In this case, Young Street represents the rear lot line of the site. The purpose of requiring a rear yard is to provide outdoor amenity space for development and separation from adjacent development. In this case, the site is bounded on all four sides with public roads. The lot does not “back onto” another lot, rather is fronts only four roads. In this regard, all lot lines practically function as “front lot lines” with development seeking to actively address the street. The Proposed Development considers all four streetscapes equally and thereby creates a seamless pedestrian experience around the entire block, which would be interrupted by the requirement for a setback from the northern (rear) lot line. In this context the rear yard setback is considered redundant and the requested modification appropriate
e) To permit a minimum façade height for any portion of a building along a street line of 5.8m, whereas the by-law requires 7.5m;
The Proposed Development occupies a city block and therefore contains four facades, and three meet the minimum façade height of 7.5m. The exception is the western façade along John St. S., which contains a short 5.9m section representing approximately 8% of the overall length of the façade, and even less if the entirety of all four facades are considered. The reduction in the façade height in this case is particular to the design of the building and allows light to fall into the open central courtyard. The reduced height of the façade is also next to the pedestrian mid-block connection that leads through the site and into the open courtyard, and therefore is a visual clue creating a gateway entrance into the open courtyard.
Considering that the façade height requirements are met on three of the four lengths of the building, and only a short portion of the wall falls short of the requirement, permitting a minimum façade height of 5.8m is considered appropriate.
f) To permit a maximum height of 113.5m, whereas the by-law requires 22m;
The City of Hamilton’s Tall Buildings Guidelines provide the performance measures upon which the siting and design of buildings should be based. These performance standards include preventing adverse shadows on parks and the public realm, minimizing adverse impacts on the microclimate of streets, and ensuring that the Proposed Development is compatible with the context and character of the area’s existing and planned built form. The policies of the Downtown Secondary Plan ensure that tall building development sites are large enough to provide sufficient setback to allow for adequate access to sunlight, sky views
Planning Justification Report | 221-225 John Street S. & 70-78 Yonge Street 94 GSP Group Inc. | July 2018
and privacy. The performance standards are also intended to protect the development potential of other sites within a block and ensure that the cumulative effect of multiple tall buildings within a block contribute to creating a strong and healthy neighbourhood.
One of the purposes of limiting height through the zoning by-law is to ensure buildings do not negatively impact adjacent development and public spaces in terms of shadow, overlook and privacy. The shadow study undertaken by Core Architects met the city’s minimum 3 hour sunlight from March to September on public Sidewalks as illustrated in the plans to follow. With respect to public parkland, Shamrock Park, is located to the east of the proposed development. The shadow study indicates that shadows cast from the proposed development will continue to allow a minimum of 50% sun coverage at all times of the day between March 21st and September 21st. Moreover, there is no shadow impact on the park on March 21st between the hours of 7:21am (1.5 hours after sunrise) and 3:51pm. The only time shadows encroach the park are between 4:51pm and 6:03 (1.5 hours before sunset). This impact is considered acceptable based on the City’s Terms of Reference: Shadow Impact Study for Downtown Hamilton Report PED 18074.
Shadows from the proposed development do not encroach on any public plazas, open spaces, school yards or playgrounds in the vicinity of the proposed development and do not encroach on any “primary gathering spaces” as identified in the Terms of Reference.
Planning Justification Report | 221-225 John Street S. & 70-78 Yonge Street 95 GSP Group Inc. | July 2018
Planning Justification Report | 221-225 John Street S. & 70-78 Yonge Street 96 GSP Group Inc. | July 2018
Planning Justification Report | 221-225 John Street S. & 70-78 Yonge Street 97 GSP Group Inc. | July 2018
This leaves Young Street, which borders the north property line. The shadow study indicates that the proposed built form would not allow for a minimum of 3 hours of sun coverage between 10:00am and 4:00pm as measured from March 21st to September 21st on public sidewalks. By virtue of the building being located along the north property line mitigating this requirement either through reduced height, alternative massing, building orientation or through stepbacks would be difficult to achieve. The Hamilton Tall Buildings Guidelines 4.2.2 Building Base Height and Scale prescribe the “maximum building base height at the street line should be equal to the width of the ROW to ensure sunlight access to the sidewalk across the street”. The Young Street right of way is 20.0m. The podium along Yonge Street is setback from the north property line by 2m and the height of the podium is 18.5m from average grade to level 6 and above that, there is an additional 3.25m stepback for level 6 and 7. In this regard, the intent of the Tall Buildings Guidelines with respect to podium heights is achieved. Although it is not illustrated as part of the as-of-right shadow impact in the drawings to follow prepared by CORE Architects, a podium of this scale would fall within the as-of-right zoning on the site and provide the same shadowing on Young St. In this regard and context, the shadows created by the proposed building are considered reasonable and acceptable.
With respect to visual impact of the development overall, the Visual Impact Assessment included within the Urban Design Brief, was based on (5) five observation locations identified by City of Hamilton staff, and includes a summary of the observed impacts on the scenic resources of the Niagara Escarpment and Hamilton Harbour.
In general, the (2) two observation points located on the Mountain found that under existing conditions, large portions of the views to Hamilton Harbour are obscured by the existing built fabric of mid-rise and high-rise buildings in central Hamilton. From these mountain observation points, several buildings were seen to project higher than the opposing northern- ridge of the Niagara Escarpment. The Proposed Development was found to create additional obstructed views of the Niagara Escarpment but limited obstruction to views of the harbour. However, the net visual impact is minimal given the existing building fabric and opposing alignment of the two towers.
The balance three (3) observation points were in the lower city within the vicinity of the Site. Of these, two (2) observation points were located at different points on John Street South. In general, the Proposed Development’s placing and massing would establish a more defined, urbanized view corridor limited generally to the width of the right-of-way along John Street. In the case of the John Street observation point at Augusta Street, the proposed additional height is not expected to impact views to the Niagara Escarpment beyond the existing UHOP policies permitting a 6-storey development. The view of the Niagara Escarpment from
Planning Justification Report | 221-225 John Street S. & 70-78 Yonge Street 98 GSP Group Inc. | July 2018
further north along John Street was found to be already compromised due to the slight angled alignment of the street past the rail line overpass. From this vantage point, the impact would be limited to a minimal perceptible extension of the Proposed Development above the street wall.
The fifth and final observation point was Catharine Street at Augusta Street where it was found that the proposed buildings podium massing overlaps the existing building mass on the east side of Catharine Street leading to no additional obstruction views.
Therefore, the proposed height of the two towers is considered reasonable and appropriate for the site and will not have unacceptable negative impacts on adjacent development that would not otherwise be affected by as-of-right development on the site.
g) To permit a minimum of 436 parking spaces, whereas the by-law requires 820.
Paradigm Transportation Solutions Limited prepared a comprehensive report including a parking study which concluded that the proposed overall supply of 351 residential parking spaces (0.44 spaces per unit) will meet and exceed the parking demand for the following reasons: • The current by-law requirement of 721 residential parking spaces (0.91 spaces per unit) are excessive compared to actual needs. This has been confirmed based on market conditions collected within the study area; • Parking survey data related to parking demands at a proxy site in downtown Hamilton, in addition to vehicle ownership rates, demonstrate a parking demand of 0.37 to 0.42 parking spaces per unit is appropriate within the study area; • The 85 proposed retail parking spaces exceed the peak parking demand of 59 parking spaces identified using the ITE Parking Generation manual method; • There is an established sidewalk network through the neighbourhood which provides good connectivity to surrounding streets and is within walking distance of downtown Hamilton and employment opportunities that substantially minimize the demand for private car ownership; • The development will promote the use of active transportation through a reduced parking standard that will meet the needs of the development while minimizing potential oversupply; • The proposed parking standard and supply is considered appropriate and will meet the base parking needs of the future residents who need to own a car for the purposes of day-today travel; and,
Planning Justification Report | 221-225 John Street S. & 70-78 Yonge Street 99 GSP Group Inc. | July 2018
• The development is considered an innovative, adaptive redevelopment, which successfully balances intensification and promotion of non-automotive use which are both compatible and respectful of the existing character of the area.
Accordingly, the Parking Study concluded that the proposed parking supply of 436 parking spaces could be supported, including 85 retail spaces, recognizing the market and the potential for reduced car ownership and increased levels of transit usage, walking and cycling.
Planning Justification Report | 221-225 John Street S. & 70-78 Yonge Street 100 GSP Group Inc. | July 2018
7.0 RECOMMENDATIONS
It is our opinion that the Proposed Development and associated Official Plan and Zoning By- law Amendments represent good land use planning and should be approved for the following reasons: a) The Proposed Development is consistent with the policies of the Provincial Policy Statement; b) The Proposed Development is in conformity with the Provincial Places to Grow Growth Plan (2017); c) The Proposed Development maintains the intent of the land use policies of the Urban Hamilton Official Plan; d) The Proposed Development provides an opportunity for land use intensification at an appropriate height and scale within the context of the immediate area, as well as in the Corktown neighbourhood, and Hamilton as a whole; e) The proposed site layout, building form, height, and massing are compatible within the local neighbourhood context; f) The Site is in close proximity to existing and planned transit and active transportation facilities; g) The Proposed Development provides for the efficient use of land and infrastructure; and h) The Proposed Development is supported by technical studies that confirm that there is adequate water and wastewater infrastructure available.
Respectfully,
Brenda Khes, MCIP, RPP Stuart Hastings, BES Associate - Senior Planner Planner
Planning Justification Report | 221-225 John Street S. & 70-78 Yonge Street 101 GSP Group Inc. | July 2018
Planning Justification Report | 221-225 John Street S. & 70-78 Yonge Street 102 GSP Group Inc. | July 2018 Appendix A: Formal Consultation Document Appendix A: Formal Consultation Document Appendix A: Formal Consultation Document Appendix A: Formal Consultation Document Appendix A: Formal Consultation Document Appendix A: Formal Consultation Document Appendix A: Formal Consultation Document Appendix A: Formal Consultation Document Appendix A: Formal Consultation Document Appendix A: Formal Consultation Document Appendix A: Formal Consultation Document Appendix A: Formal Consultation Document Appendix B: Draft Official Plan Amendment
Urban Hamilton Official Plan Amendment No. ___
The following text, together with Appendix “A” – Urban Hamilton Official Plan Schedule E-1 Urban Land Use Designations, attached hereto, constitutes Official Plan Amendment No. ___ to the Urban Hamilton Official Plan.
1.0 Purpose and Effect:
The purpose of this Amendment is to permit a maximum height of 34 storeys on the subject property whereas a maximum height of 8 storeys is permitted.
2.0 Location:
The lands affected by this Amendment are known municipally as 211-225 Johns Street South and 70-78 Yonge Street, within the City of Hamilton.
3.0 Basis:
The basis for permitting this Amendment is as follows:
• The Proposal is consistent with the Provincial Policy Statement;
• The Proposal conforms with the Places to Grow Growth Plan;
• The Amendment proposes a Site-specific amendment to the Mixed Use Medium Density designation of the Urban Hamilton Official Plan to permit one 31 storey and one 34 storey tower;
• The proposed development is suitably located near a Transit Hub with access to public transit and active transportation options and will support the sustainability of these facilities; and
• The proposed development and associated height is compatible with the surrounding development and will provide additional dwelling units within the neighbourhood;
• The proposed development will provide additional commercial development to service the needs of the community.
Appendix B: Draft Official Plan Amendment
4.0 Actual Changes:
4.1 Text Changes
a) That Volume 3, Chapter C – Urban Site Specific Policies be amended by adding the following Site Specific Policy as follows:
“Site Specific Policy ___”
For the lands located at 211-225 Johns Street South and 70-78 Yonge Street, the following shall apply:
Notwithstanding Policies E.4.6.7 and E.4.6.8, a maximum height of 34 storeys shall be permitted.
4.2 Mapping Changes
Volume 3, Map 2 – Site Specific Policies Key Map
a) That Volume 3, Map 2 be amended to by labeling Site Specific Policy ____.
5.0 Implementation:
An implementing Zoning By-law Amendment and Site Plan will give effect to the Amendment to the height.
This is Schedule “__” to By-law No. ______passed on the ___ day of ______, 2019.
______
MAYOR
______R. Caterini CLERK
Appendix C: Draft Zoning By-law Amendment
Authority: Item Planning Committee Report: 19-___ (PED19___) CM: ___
Bill No. ___
CITY OF HAMILTON
BY-LAW NO. ______
To Amend Zoning By-law No. 05-200 (Hamilton), Respecting Lands Located at 211-225 John Street South and 70-78 Young Street (Hamilton)
WHEREAS the City of Hamilton Act, 1999, Statutes of Ontario, 1999 Chap. 14, Sch. C. did incorporate, as of January 1,2001, the municipality "City of Hamilton";
AND WHEREAS the City of Hamilton is the lawful successor to the former Municipalities identified in Section 1.7 of By-law No. 05-200;
AND WHEREAS Zoning By-law No. 05-200 was enacted on the 25th day of May, 2005;
AND WHEREAS the Council of the City of Hamilton, in adopting Item __ of Report 19- ___ of the Planning Committee, at its meeting held on the ___ day of ______, 2019, recommended that Zoning By-law No. 05-200, be amended as hereinafter provided;
AND WHEREAS this By-law is in conformity with the Urban Hamilton Official Plan upon approval of Official Plan Amendment No. __.
NOW THEREFORE the Council of the City of Hamilton enacts as follows:
1. That Map 993 of Schedule “A” – Zoning Maps, of Zoning By-law No. 05-200, be amended by modifying the zoning from the Mixed Use Medium Density (C5) Zone to the Mixed Use Medium Density (C5,___) modified Zone, the extent and boundaries of which are shown on a plan hereto annexed as Schedule “A” to this By-law.
2. That Schedule “C” – Special Exceptions, of By-law No. 05-200, is hereby amended by adding the following sub-section:
“___ Within the lands zoned Mixed Use Medium Density (C5, ___) Zone, identified on Map 993 of Schedule “A” to By-law No. 05-200 and described as 211-225 John Street South and 70-78 Yonge Street, the following special provisions shall apply:
Appendix C: Draft Zoning By-law Amendment
1) Notwithstanding Section 10.5.1.1 i) 1, the finished floor elevation for a dwelling unit shall be permitted .7m below average grade;
2) Notwithstanding the minimum building setback from a street line for a building with residential units on the ground floor facing a street of Section 10.5.3 a) i), a minimum setback of 0m shall be permitted for residential units fronting Young Street and Catharine Street forming part of a mixed-use building;
3) Notwithstanding the maximum setback of building from a street line of Section 10.5.3 a) ii), a maximum setback of 6.2m shall be permitted along John Street South;
4) Notwithstanding the minimum rear yard setback of Section 10.5.3 b) a minimum setback of 0m shall be permitted;
5) Notwithstanding the minimum face height for any portion of a building along a street line of Section 10.5.3 d) i), a minimum façade height of 5.8m shall be permitted fronting John Street South;
6) Notwithstanding the maximum building height of Section 10.5.3 d) ii) and iii) a maximum building height of 34 storeys, 113.5m shall be permitted;
7) Notwithstanding the minimum number of parking spaces for multiple dwellings of Section 5.6 c) i) an average of 0.44 spaces per unit shall be provided; and
8) Notwithstanding the minimum number of parking spaces for commercial uses of Section 5.6 c) iv) an average of 1 space per 26m2 of gross floor area shall be provided.
3. That the Clerk is hereby authorized and directed to proceed with the giving of notice of the passing of this By-law, in accordance with the Planning Act.
4. That this By-law No. 19-___ shall come into force and be deemed to come into force in accordance with Sub-section 34(21) of the Planning Act, either upon the date of passage of this by-law or as otherwise provided by the said Sub-section.
PASSED this ______day of ______, 2019.
______R. Caterini Mayor Clerk ZAC-18-___
Appendix D: Public Consultation Strategy
PUBLIC CONSULTATION STRATEGY
CRITERIA RESPONSE Target audience of the Surrounding residents most directly affected by the consultation development and Neighbourhood Associations. Consultation efforts made • Meetings with Councillor Farr’s office were held early in the before application process (2017) submitted • Meetings with senior Planning Staff in 2017/2018 • Pre-Design Public Open House (December 2017) • Public Open House to obtain input on proposed design (May 2018).
List of stakeholders and • Nearby residents – design and function of building how they are impacted. • Commercial businesses within existing plaza – ability to relocate within new development • Residents Association – overall community impact Tools used to consult / Public Open Houses engage the public • PowerPoint presentations • Break-out groups and round table discussions to determine key design elements • One on one discussions with residents • Display Boards showing proposed development and design • Consultants in attendance to answer questions • Handouts asking for input at pre-design stage and based on preliminary concept. Timing of Consultation Need for further consultation to be discussed with City Staff following agency/departmental review of application.
Potential follow up meeting with Neighbourhood Group. Method to receive and Verbal discussions at the open houses, as well as handouts. document comments Submission of comments through email. Proposed participants in • Slate Assess Management – developer – provide consultation and their role information regarding previous projects and track record; • GSP Group Inc. – Planner – facilitate meetings and provide land use planning information related to Official Plan, zoning and development approval process; • Core Architects – provide information related to design/ function and layout of building • Janet Rosenberg & Studio – Landscape Architects – provide information related to treatment of amenity spaces and overall pedestrian realm.
Appendix D: Public Consultation Strategy
CRITERIA RESPONSE
Future meetings may include experts to address: Noise and Vibration; Pedestrian Wind Impacts; Traffic, Transportation, Parking and TDM measures; Servicing, Pedestrian Wind Impacts, and/or Cultural Heritage Impacts Requested City resources None Expected/Potential Issues Concerns related to height of building.