Norfolk/Woolwich corridor (from Oxford to Edwin) remain 2-4 storeys, until such time as an HCD study is completed.

35:35of the Planning Act.

35:37Everything in front of us now for the next little while

35:39will have some delegations.

35:41And just a reminder,

35:44this portion would allow up to 10 minutes

35:47with the first item being the downtown

35:49Heights Study Official Plan Amendment.

35:53Am I right on that?

35:55Is it up to 10 minutes?

35:57Yes, I think I'm right.

35:59Yes, good.

36:01We are going to have a presentation

36:03from our own staff and maybe consultants as well.

36:05And then we have, I think five or six delegations

36:07that have signed up.

36:09I will just say right now

36:12that Council will probably be taking a break

36:16after the delegations.

36:18So just getting everyone a heads up

36:20just for a quick dinner.

36:22And that will be about

36:24a half an hour tops.

36:2620 minutes to a half an hour

36:28and then we will continue with the rest of the evening.

36:30Okay, so just so everyone kind of knows that.

36:32Stacy is here.

36:34Yep, Stacy, go ahead.

36:36And I will turn the microphone over to you

36:38and the consultant

36:40to walk us through

36:42the downtown Heights.

36:44Thank you, Mr. Mayor.

36:46Good afternoon, members of Council,

36:48members of the public.

36:50So tonight is a statutory public meeting

36:52and a decision meeting for the

36:54Downtown Heights Study Official Plan Amendment.

36:56My name is Stacy Lachlan

36:58and joining me today

37:00is Jonathan Tinney from SVN Architects

37:02and Planners.

37:04Also in attendance are Krista Wauke

37:06and James Goodrum.

37:08I'm going to give you a project to you

37:10in December 2024

37:12to formally introduce

37:14the Official Plan Amendment process

37:16for the Downtown Heights Study

37:18which is being undertaken

37:20at the request of Council.

37:22In January of this year

37:24we released a draft Official Plan Amendment

37:26and sought feedback

37:28from the community and Council

37:30on that draft.

37:32That round of community engagement

37:34included the first statutory public meeting

37:37and the second draft Official Plan Amendment

37:42and the second draft Official Plan Amendment.

37:44So we have a lot of feedback

37:46from the community and Council on

37:48that meeting.

37:50So since receiving Council's direction

37:52to undertake this study

37:54we have been working on

37:56fitting it in with like

37:58ongoing housing work,

38:00ongoing downtown renewal work

38:02and the heritage conservation district work

38:04that's happening downtown as well.

38:06The study aligns

38:09with the first draft Official Plan Amendment

38:11and we're here with a recommended Official Plan Amendment

38:13that's quite a bit different

38:15than what you saw in February.

38:17And it's still guided by the same

38:19principles and approach that we outlined

38:21at that first public meeting in February.

38:23So the reason that tonight

38:25is also a staff public meeting

38:27and a decision is because of those changes

38:29to the Official Plan Amendment.

38:31What hasn't changed?

38:33The recommended Official Plan Amendment

38:35is not intended to increase

38:37flexibility to achieve that

38:39density target of 200 people

38:41in jobs per actor.

38:43It still strategically

38:45locates taller buildings throughout downtown

38:47to limit direct impacts

38:49on existing neighborhoods and public spaces.

38:51And it aims to permit

38:53context sensitive, higher density development

38:55while still protecting

38:57significant cultural heritage resources.

38:59So we are seeking Council approval

39:01of the revised OPA tonight

39:03after you've heard from the delegations.

39:05We do ask that interested members of the public

39:07request to receive further notices

39:09related to the amendment by contacting

39:11our clerk's department via email

39:13at clerks at Guelph.ca

39:15or by calling 519-837-5603.

39:17So for now

39:19I'm going to hand it over to Jonathan

39:21to sort of explain our journey and how we got here.

39:23Thanks, Daisy.

39:37Big green button with an arrow on it. Thank you.

39:39Baron Council, thank you for having me tonight.

39:41When we look back

39:43to the process that we've been through

39:45in order to get where we are today

39:47we went through a bit of this

39:49when we met with Council a couple of months ago

39:51but I'll go through it quickly

39:53for those in the public who may not have heard it.

39:55We started this process

39:57by analyzing the existing downtown

39:59within Guelph

40:01reviewing the existing policy, whether it's the official plan

40:03the downtown secondary plan

40:05as well as other relevant plans and guidelines

40:07to understand the vision that Guelph has

40:09for the growth of the downtown core.

40:11We also did a jurisdictional review

40:13of other similar municipalities

40:15places like London, Waterloo, Kitchener, Kingston

40:17as well as looking outside of Ontario

40:19to places like Kelowna and elsewhere in BC

40:21to understand

40:23how sort of height frameworks

40:25are applied and approached

40:27in various locations

40:29throughout the country

40:31and what the potential outcomes are

40:33in terms of availability, place making

40:35and other key planning outcomes.

40:37We also undertook a land assessment

40:39so this is a technical exercise

40:41that looks at the existing

40:43policy framework

40:45within the downtown core

40:47and assesses its ability to meet

40:49that density target that Stacey was talking about.

40:51We also use this model

40:53to help us understand what the impacts were

40:55of the changes that were being proposed

40:57and how able they were

40:59in order to support the city

41:01in meeting its 200 people in jobs per hectare

41:03goals within

41:05by 2051.

41:07My firm does a lot of this work

41:09we're currently doing

41:11work similar to this in London

41:13as well as in Waterloo.

41:15The approach here in Guelph though is very different.

41:17Some of the work we're doing in those other cities

41:19is really about how do we incentivize growth

41:21in some key nodes specifically around transit.

41:23Guelph is seeing demand for this kind of growth

41:25but given

41:27the state of the heritage within the downtown core

41:29given the structure

41:31and form of your downtown

41:33this was really a much more design focused exercise

41:35to help Guelph understand

41:37how you can meet some of these

41:39height goals, meet those density targets

41:41that you're looking to meet while doing so

41:43in a way that maintains the existing

41:45sort of character of the downtown core

41:47and maintains some of those

41:49really important place making

41:51outcomes that the city has

41:53for the downtown as it grows.

41:55And so in order to do that we started

41:57with a set of guiding principles

41:59that ultimately are pulled from your OP

42:01and from the downtown secondary plan previously.

42:03This includes ensuring that we're respecting

42:05the scale of existing retail streets

42:07and cultural landmarks

42:09which was a very key piece of the design exercise.

42:11We also want to make sure that we're creating

42:13a visually appealing skyline with a strong street level presence

42:15so an understanding of how the

42:17downtown looked both from afar

42:19as well as when you're in it.

42:21We want to ensure there's an appropriate

42:23transition to taller buildings.

42:25Guelph's downtown very

42:27quickly transitions into a number of established

42:29and lovely neighborhoods

42:31and so what that transition looks like

42:33is that the downtown sort of shifts

42:35in scale into those neighborhoods

42:37was important to the work that we were doing.

42:39We also wanted to ensure that there was a transition

42:41inside the downtown between different

42:43taller buildings from one zone

42:45to another.

42:47And then think about shadow impacts

42:49and other areas.

42:55So I said this is a design related exercise

42:57and so in doing

42:59in bringing forward some of that

43:01design thinking into the work that we did

43:03we started by looking at

43:05the downtown core into a number of constituent

43:07parts to understand them better.

43:09Unlike some of the places

43:11that I do some work

43:13London being the main one

43:15Guelph has topography in its downtown.

43:17The escarpment, the slope

43:19of the land towards the river

43:21all of those things have a significant impact

43:23on the way we perceive taller buildings

43:25the way we move through the

43:27downtown core, how we create

43:29certain elements and where we

43:31highlight certain buildings. Certainly we see

43:33that with the Basilica

43:35with its location.

43:37And so understanding what that topography is

43:39and what impact that has on the heights that we're proposing

43:41was a key piece of the work that we looked at.

43:43We also want to understand views.

43:45The official plan identified

43:47the downtown secondary plan identified key views

43:49to the Basilica. We wanted to understand

43:51the current state of some of those

43:53views, how they could be enhanced

43:55and where there may be some flexibility

43:57around what they were trying to achieve.

43:59We also looked

44:01at the existing parcel and land assembly

44:03within the downtown.

44:05The downtown is filled with

44:07a wide range of parcel

44:09forms, shapes, scales

44:11and assemblies of different

44:13buildings, especially within

44:15some of those, some of the existing heritage

44:17fabric. So we wanted to understand

44:19that and see what the impact that had

44:21on where tall buildings could

44:23go and where they would be most likely to be

44:25sort of where land would be easily assembled

44:27and they'd be successful.

44:29This tended to shift

44:31sort of, you'll see in

44:33the framework, shifted some

44:35of the tracks where we have

44:37larger parcels as well.

44:39We wanted to ensure that some of those

44:41very intact

44:43agglomerations of heritage buildings

44:45were enhanced as we went through.

44:47We also want to look at buffers.

44:49The downtown core has a range of

44:51different sort of boundary and edge

44:53conditions, whether it's

44:55the river, the tracks,

44:57various roadways and the escarpment.

44:59All of those things create

45:01the opportunity to create a boundary

45:03between different districts

45:05and help people

45:07entering the downtown and moving through the downtown

45:09understand that they're moving from one district to another.

45:11What emerged from that analysis

45:16is something that we're calling sort of an urban

45:18amphitheater concept. So the idea

45:20that, you know, the central

45:22sort of defining characteristic of the downtown

45:24is the Basilica. It's

45:26the postcard view for

45:28downtown Guelph.

45:30By nature it sits on a stage

45:32and so it sits upon the escarpment

45:34within a stage. Below it

45:36is a very sort of intact

45:38small scale

45:40heritage precinct that

45:42represents the history of the city.

45:46And so what we looked at is

45:48maintaining that structure within

45:50the plan as we moved forward.

45:52Creating that, supporting

45:54and creating that civic core.

45:56And then moving denser buildings

45:58and taller buildings to the

46:00areas around that.

46:02So that we would create a series

46:04of increasing heights

46:06and then decreasing heights as you move away

46:08from that core towards the river

46:10with a

46:12emphasis on some of those taller buildings south of the tracks.

46:14This creates

46:16a gradual transition

46:18to the height peaks as well

46:20as provides a buffer again

46:22supporting that focus on

46:24the civic core area.

46:26We've also maintained

46:28the existing policy approach that

46:30the downtown secondary plan has

46:32that emphasizes those sort of corridors

46:34and gateways into the downtown

46:36highlighting them with taller buildings and denser developments.

46:38This is a two

46:43dimensional view of what I'm

46:45talking about. So here you can see

46:47that sort of focus of taller buildings

46:49what we're calling number one or the red

46:51color here. We see that sort

46:53of arc of taller buildings in and around

46:55the outside of the perimeter

46:57of the downtown core

47:01sitting low around

47:03Macdonnell in the core area increasing

47:05to the red portion and then

47:07decreasing slightly in heights as we get

47:09close to the river. And so you see that sort of

47:11profile of the amphitheater

47:13the idea of these seats that then

47:15look onto the core of the

47:17downtown as well as onto the Basilica.

47:21I've just lost my

47:27space.

47:29So that's informed the official plan

47:31amendment that you see before you

47:33that amendment we've

47:35modeled that to identify

47:37and ensure that the growth that's

47:39permitted or that's being contemplated

47:41here within the amendment is sufficient to meet

47:43the density targets of 200 people

47:45in jobs per hectare by 2050.

47:47It does and

47:49provides a significant amount of flexibility in how

47:51the city goes about doing that.

47:53These

47:55changes and the direction that we move forward

47:57here has been informed

47:59by a couple of community meetings

48:01community open houses

48:03several meetings with the down with various

48:05downtown landowners

48:07as well as the previous public meeting and the

48:09direction of council that we received here

48:11last time we met. So just to

48:16provide a bit of a comparison this is

48:18the existing height

48:20map within the

48:22within the sort of the downtown secondary

48:24plan. It provides for

48:26most of the downtown core at a sort of

48:28two to four story

48:30sort of height range.

48:32The max height within this

48:34plan is 18 stories with that

48:36primarily focused on those two gateway

48:38locations leading into the downtown

48:40core. We also identify

48:42a number of view corridors

48:44within that frame.

48:46This is the plan that we presented

48:50to you last time. So the changes

48:52here we see the increase

48:54the height peak increase from

48:5618 stories to 20 stories.

48:58There's an expansion of

49:00where that sort of height peak is applied

49:02within the downtown although it is still largely

49:04applied to those sort of gateway

49:06locations and I would say

49:08this previous version tended to apply

49:10heights rather surgically to

49:12specific key locations within the downtown.

49:16The view corridors were

49:18changed from the existing

49:20policy framework. So we've removed

49:22the corridor

49:24to Aramosa

49:26no sorry pardon me to Grange

49:28and shifted it to

49:30run down Macdonald Street which maintains

49:32that sort of postcard

49:34view. Shifting it from

49:36the Grange location where

49:38the view was relatively

49:40difficult to actually see from that

49:42location. The updated

49:46version that you are is before you today

49:48maintains those view corridors

49:50but expands upon the height

49:52framework based on that urban amphitheater

49:54approach. So we've expanded

49:56those areas that

49:58meet the height peak which has now been increased

50:00to 24 stories providing

50:02a bit more of a market

50:04alignment to where these heights are able

50:06to apply. The approach

50:08to where heights can occur

50:10we've increased the number of areas at that

50:12maximum height south of the tracks again

50:14giving more opportunity for

50:16for density and development to

50:18be positioned in the downtown, support

50:20downtown merchants etc.

50:22We've also provided a more flexible approach

50:24so where some of these larger

50:26sites whether it's the wood sites

50:28or the

50:30pardon

50:32me the mall site

50:34where those are

50:36considered they would be

50:38defined through an urban design master plan

50:40process so while the height peak

50:42in those locations would be up to

50:44what is established here the

50:46tearing down from that height peak and the transitions

50:48to the sites around them would be defined through

50:50a process with staff

50:52and as part of that urban design

50:54master plan process so giving

50:56more of a more

50:58flexibility to how the heights would be applied

51:00to those larger sites.

51:05Just to note the flood plain

51:07areas within the this one as

51:09the last time we showed you here have been maintained

51:11at the existing existing

51:13heights within the official plan

51:15I'll hand it back to Stacy.

51:30So sorry so just overall

51:32we do want to highlight for you that

51:34the the recommended

51:36official plan amendment that's before you

51:38it aims to allow taller buildings in locations

51:40where it will limit their direct

51:42impacts on

51:44existing neighborhoods and public spaces

51:46and I think that's particularly important as we're about

51:48to invest in our public spaces

51:50downtown.

51:52Mid-rise and taller buildings are

51:54proposed to be permitted sort of strategically

51:56throughout downtown rather than just

51:58those gateway locations as previously

52:00proposed so that the

52:02new and context sensitive higher

52:04density development will be permitted

52:06while ensuring that we're still protecting

52:08that existing cultural heritage

52:10significance of our downtown core.

52:12The other thing that's

52:14important about the draft or the

52:16recommended official plan amendment is that we think

52:18it balances opportunities for short medium

52:20and long term intensification

52:22and that will help us make efficient

52:24use of the planned infrastructure investment

52:26that we are making in our downtown.

52:28The OPA also

52:31recognizes that the Basilica of our

52:33Lady Immaculate is a landmark

52:35and a signature building within the city

52:37and the recommended OPA

52:39ensures that it will continue to maintain that

52:41visual prominence and it's protected

52:43public view corridors.

52:45However, we will be permitting buildings

52:47to exceed its height.

52:49And then of course the official

52:51plan amendment conforms to the

52:53provincial planning or the provincial planning statement

52:55and assists the city in achieving

52:57its housing pledge.

53:03So Jonathan got into this a little bit about

53:05the refinements to the view corridors.

53:07So again, we do

53:09want to retain the visual prominence

53:11of the Basilica as a landmark

53:13within our downtown and within our city.

53:15So we did shift

53:17the view corridor that

53:19today exists from

53:21sort of the intersection of Stewart Street

53:23and Grange Street to

53:25McDonnell because that is kind of the iconic

53:27view of the Basilica

53:29that you see the pictures of and

53:31that everybody wants. We did the

53:33selfie Guelphie Island

53:35a few years ago. So that's

53:37the one that everybody wants.

53:39So the OPA

53:41proposes to protect that view corridor.

53:43And then what we did for some of the

53:45corridors that are from the south,

53:47so Gordon and Wellington and then

53:49a little bit west of that is we sort of

53:51refined and sculpted those

53:53so that the view really does focus

53:55on the Basilica itself rather than

53:57the Basilica and surrounding area

53:59which A, helps to

54:01focus the view on what's

54:03important but B also

54:05opens up development opportunities

54:07particularly on the westerly side of

54:09Gordon Street south of the tracks.

54:11So

54:19as Jonathan mentioned

54:21we have done a lot of community

54:23engagement on this project

54:25even before we came to

54:27you in December of 2024

54:29but since then as well we've had lots

54:31of meetings, public open

54:33house, the statutory public meeting

54:35and we've received lots of good feedback.

54:37Tonight, as I mentioned

54:39earlier, is also another

54:41statutory public meeting.

54:43So ahead of this meeting staff did review

54:45all of the written delegations that we received

54:47and again because this is an opportunity

54:49for input as well as a decision

54:51we just wanted to highlight for council

54:53the changes

54:55that are outlined in some of those

54:57that written correspondence that staff

54:59agree with and can support.

55:01So there was a letter received from

55:03the council of S.V. Law

55:05requesting that the property

55:07at 36 carden,

55:09Pardick and Street be added to the triangle

55:11that permits 12 stories and the project

55:13team has no concerns with this request

55:15and are supportive of that change.

55:17A letter was received from

55:19Tim Smith of Urban Strategies

55:21on behalf of Wood Development

55:23requesting two modifications.

55:25The first is to the policy that applies

55:27to rooftop mechanicals

55:29requesting that

55:31the height of mechanicals not be included

55:33in the height that's permitted in schedule D

55:35which is generally consistent with how we

55:37treat height in other areas of the city.

55:39So staff are open

55:41to considering this change.

55:43We are concerned about the visual impact

55:45of rooftop mechanicals

55:47but there are other opportunities that we can

55:49use to guide rooftop mechanicals

55:51through our zoning by-law

55:53and through the built form standards.

55:55So that's something that we are open

55:57to considering.

55:59And then the second

56:01request from that letter

56:03was to include a policy that introduces

56:05some limited flexibility for the application

56:07of height requirements to

56:09sites that require an urban design master plan

56:11and staff have no concern

56:13with this request and can support it.

56:15So at this point we have prepared

56:17a revised OPA that incorporates those changes

56:21for council to consider if they'd like

56:25but if there are additional changes

56:27beyond that we would need to take

56:29direction back from council

56:31make those changes and bring the final

56:33OPA back to be adopted

56:35at the next council meeting on April 23rd

56:37I believe.

56:39So that is in terms of process

56:41and tonight being a combined statutory public

56:43meeting and decision meeting how staff

56:45can sort of deal with what council

56:47wants to see in that official plan amendment.

56:51So the next steps

56:53in this project are

56:55to continue to work towards developing

56:57that final document that provides

56:59the guidance with respect to built form standards

57:01for tall buildings.

57:03So we will be continuing to work with SVN

57:05on that.

57:07And then the community planning permit system

57:09for downtown so I think a little later tonight

57:11you're going to see the community planning permit system

57:13for the Stone and Burrow area and then

57:15downtown is the next pilot

57:17for that project.

57:19So we thank you for your time here today

57:21and we can answer any questions

57:23you have or wait till after the delegations.

57:25Thank you both

57:27for the presentation.

57:29We will go right to delegations

57:31and I'm sure we'll have some extra questions

57:33after that.

57:35So we I will just

57:37jump to the delegations and just so if anyone

57:39is here that wants to delegate

57:41it is no more than 10 minutes

57:43and you'll hear a chime

57:45bell at 9

57:47minutes and 30 seconds

57:49which gives you your 30 second warning

57:51at 10 minutes the microphone

57:53will be turned off.

57:55So don't get there.

57:57Make sure it's under 10 minutes

57:59and because it's an open meeting right now

58:01for considering this

58:03once the delegations that are signed up

58:05in advance are done

58:07don't be surprised if I take a minute to allow

58:09people to call in or if there's someone else that wants

58:11to speak for that as well

58:13I have to follow that.

58:15So the first is Andrea Sinclair

58:17from HBC

58:19planning is okay you are here

58:21welcome

58:23and is Tim Smith

58:25in the room?

58:27Okay you're in the wings okay

58:29welcome Andrea

58:31and so the floor is yours

58:33for no more than 10 minutes

58:35okay go ahead.

58:37Good afternoon Mr. Mayor, council

58:39staff and members of the public that are

58:41here this afternoon

58:43I did submit written comments

58:45in response to the

58:47January draft schedule

58:49I'm here on behalf of the owner

58:51of 159 to 169 Woolwich street

58:53it's the

58:55triangular property

58:57at the intersection of Woolwich

58:59and Cardigan I believe it's the same

59:01triangle that Ms. McLaughlin

59:03confirmed

59:05is going to 12 stories the entirety of the triangle

59:07okay

59:10so our client

59:12in current schedule

59:14is permitted 2-4 stories

59:16in the January schedule

59:18a height of 4-8 was proposed

59:20we had requested

59:22increased height for a number of reasons

59:24the first this is

59:26really a gateway

59:28location at the intersection of two major streets

59:30there's a transit stop

59:32directly beside the property

59:34we're fairly separated

59:36from the low rise area we don't

59:38immediately but any of the low rise residential neighborhoods

59:40we're fully outside

59:42of the protected view

59:44corridors

59:46and we're right across the street

59:48from existing buildings that were

59:50constructed in the 70s that are already at about

59:5211 stories so when we saw

59:54the 8 story height we really felt

59:56more was warranted

59:58we do appreciate that there was

1:00:00a slight increase in height

1:00:02between the January draft and what was

1:00:04presented in March

1:00:06increasing to 12 stories

1:00:08but when I look at this particular property

1:00:10and apologies I don't have the map on the screen

1:00:12but across the street

1:00:14along Yarmouth 16 stories

1:00:16is proposed and then

1:00:18across the opposite side of Woolwich

1:00:20you've also got an area where 24

1:00:22stories are proposed and we're still

1:00:24at 12 stories and I think

1:00:26this sort of tip of the triangle

1:00:28for lack of a better way to describe it

1:00:30really does make sense if 16

1:00:32stories is appropriate across the street

1:00:34where they're immediately against

1:00:362-4 stories and we don't have

1:00:38that direct interface

1:00:40then we're really hopeful

1:00:42that additional height could be considered here

1:00:44of course in a perfect world

1:00:46we'd love the 24 stories but I think

1:00:48even the 16 stories would be appropriate

1:00:50the other consideration

1:00:52being a triangular lot

1:00:54makes it very challenging to lay out

1:00:56efficient parking, efficient unit

1:00:58yield so by the time you get

1:01:00the site parked you're eating up

1:01:02a lot of that height just in

1:01:04making the parking and a practical

1:01:06unit lay out work

1:01:08on the site. Our client has

1:01:10done some very preliminary

1:01:12concepts on the site and always landed

1:01:14sort of in that 15-16

1:01:16story

1:01:18where it can work with functional

1:01:20amount of parking and an appropriate number

1:01:22of units to make the project viable

1:01:24those are my comments

1:01:26happy to answer any questions

1:01:28thank you. Great thank you

1:01:30and nowhere near the 10 minutes

1:01:32so thank you. I'm quick

1:01:34Councillor Caron has a question for you

1:01:36Victoria.

1:01:38Thank you and thank you for your presentation

1:01:40I believe that there was a modeling

1:01:42done of this building as a submission

1:01:44to the

1:01:46environmental

1:01:48submission under OPA 80

1:01:52is that the same

1:01:54rendering that was submitted

1:01:56by the applicant

1:01:58similar to what

1:02:00you're still planning for this site

1:02:02I believe the submission under OPA 80

1:02:04was a 12-story building

1:02:06through Mr. Chair unfortunately

1:02:08I or through you through

1:02:10the mayor unfortunately I'm not

1:02:12sure I wasn't involved

1:02:14back with that submission in the previous

1:02:16OPA I have seen

1:02:18a mock-up of a concept but it was

1:02:20it was higher than 12 stories

1:02:22but it hasn't at this point doesn't have

1:02:24status we haven't gone in for a pre-consultation

1:02:26but all I can say is

1:02:28right now the site is basically surface

1:02:30parking in single-story

1:02:32commercial buildings but

1:02:34there's no set concept that

1:02:36I'm aware of that

1:02:38the developer would be going in with.

1:02:40Okay, thanks.

1:02:42Thank you.

1:02:44Alright that's it. Thank you very much Andrea.

1:02:46Thank you.

1:02:48Tim you're up next

1:02:50Tim Smith from Wood Development Group

1:02:52and it's Susan Watson here.

1:02:56Okay, is Chad McBain here?

1:03:00Oh that would be a video delegation

1:03:02so Chad if you're here listening in

1:03:04could you be ready for video?

1:03:06So Tim welcome

1:03:08and over to you.

1:03:10Good afternoon Mr. Mayor and members of council

1:03:12it's a pleasure to be back here again

1:03:14and just to clarify you did get my name right

1:03:16Mayor it's not Tim Wood

1:03:18as appears I think in the

1:03:20agenda as much as I love working

1:03:22for the Wood Development Group I haven't changed my name

1:03:24to reflect the clients.

1:03:26I do by the way

1:03:28have you in Panabaker with me today the Vice President

1:03:30of Development for the Wood Development Group

1:03:32in case you have any questions

1:03:34we really are here together

1:03:36with one main message to council

1:03:38as well as to the project team

1:03:40behind the Hyde Study and that really is

1:03:42thank you.

1:03:44Thank you for the multiple opportunities to

1:03:46provide input to share our thoughts

1:03:48on the Hyde Study it's a very important study.

1:03:50Thank you for listening

1:03:52and taking careful consideration

1:03:54of our suggestions

1:03:56and finally thank you

1:03:58for being bold. Ultimately

1:04:00the recommendations before council

1:04:02in my opinion are bold.

1:04:04At the same time they've found

1:04:06the right balance for

1:04:08for Guelph. A balance

1:04:10between respecting

1:04:12and protecting your

1:04:14very valued heritage your historic

1:04:16core but also really

1:04:18embracing the opportunity

1:04:20for new development contemporary

1:04:22buildings probably hopefully some

1:04:24contemporary architecture in parts

1:04:26of downtown particularly south of the tracks.

1:04:28That will certainly

1:04:30change the skyline of downtown

1:04:32and change the character of parts of it

1:04:34but not all of it. It will protect

1:04:36that valued sense of place at the heart

1:04:38of downtown and most importantly

1:04:40it's going to bring more

1:04:42population to ensure that historic

1:04:44core remains vibrant and the

1:04:46businesses continue to thrive.

1:04:48There's also a balance really

1:04:50here at the end of the day

1:04:52of certainly many more tall buildings

1:04:54likely to come out of

1:04:56this plan down the road but

1:04:58a balance between tall buildings,

1:05:00mid-rise buildings and even low-rise

1:05:02buildings in my opinion that kind

1:05:04of mix and balance of

1:05:06different building heights and scales

1:05:08and types is really what makes

1:05:10downtowns interesting

1:05:12and great places to live.

1:05:14We have as you might have seen

1:05:16in our written submission just a couple

1:05:18of concerns with the

1:05:20initial recommendations

1:05:22in the revised OPA

1:05:24as I said

1:05:26the team here has been

1:05:28bold and increasing

1:05:30height limits significantly in many parts

1:05:32of the downtown including on

1:05:34the wood plant number 2

1:05:36site. Increasing

1:05:38it to 24 stories

1:05:40and doing that however

1:05:42and kind of adjusting the height

1:05:44zones not just increasing

1:05:46in the heart of the site but at the edges

1:05:48it turns out that the buildings

1:05:50in our current concept and which we hope

1:05:52not to change significantly

1:05:54actually some of those they're not all

1:05:5624 stories straddle the line between

1:05:58the maximum 6 stories and the maximum 24

1:06:00stories. So you can

1:06:02look at this on the next slide it's in our

1:06:04written submission as well

1:06:06what we

1:06:10had sought through that submission

1:06:12is either an adjustment to the boundaries

1:06:14between the two height zones

1:06:16or a policy

1:06:18that recognizes sites like ours

1:06:20and this would apply to the Quebec

1:06:22Street mall site as well

1:06:24where urban design master plans are

1:06:26required that they be allowed

1:06:28to actually be a little bit flexible

1:06:30about where ultimately those lines

1:06:32are drawn and where they're reflected in

1:06:34future zoning amendments for sites

1:06:36like this. The alternative

1:06:38which staff are now supporting

1:06:40and are looking to recommend

1:06:42to you is to add a policy

1:06:44to the OPA that would

1:06:46in fact provide the opportunity for urban design

1:06:48master plans to effectively

1:06:50refine the boundaries of those

1:06:52maximum height zones

1:06:54so although we haven't quite seen all the language

1:06:56of that policy we

1:06:58support in principle staff

1:07:00going in that direction.

1:07:02So again thank you for considering that

1:07:04request. Our other

1:07:06concern if I can just spend a moment with respect

1:07:08to mechanical penthouses

1:07:10this may seem like a minor

1:07:12issue in the grand scheme of things perhaps it is

1:07:14but we just feel that

1:07:16at this changing

1:07:18that one policy this is 111724

1:07:22at this late stage

1:07:24really is just a bit

1:07:26of a heavy handed move. We do understand

1:07:28the concern about the

1:07:30impacts of mechanical

1:07:32equipment or mechanical penthouses

1:07:34and we should understand

1:07:36kind of the distinction between the two

1:07:38mechanical penthouse technically

1:07:40is a story with a floor

1:07:42with a ceiling and you do see them

1:07:44on some buildings but not all buildings

1:07:46and you're likely not going to see them on all

1:07:48future buildings

1:07:50in downtown.

1:07:52So the issue really here is I think

1:07:54recognizing that distinction

1:07:56recognizing that every building

1:07:58will have a different scale and

1:08:00different types of equipment on its rooftop

1:08:02this is just one of those issues not a huge one

1:08:04perhaps but probably needs a little bit more

1:08:06study and we think there will be

1:08:08that opportunity as staff come

1:08:10back and update the built form standards for

1:08:12downtown and perhaps

1:08:14as it tackles the CPPS

1:08:16bylaw which is

1:08:18I think next on their plate.

1:08:20So I think that's really the right time

1:08:22to really look at this issue a little bit more closely

1:08:24perhaps put some clear definitions

1:08:26in the official plan

1:08:28and or zoning bylaw

1:08:30so there's no confusion about what's mechanical

1:08:32equipment versus the penthouse

1:08:34and really thinks through

1:08:36what are the appropriate

1:08:38maybe policies but maybe it's just regulations

1:08:40in the zoning to ensure

1:08:42that mechanical

1:08:44equipment and or penthouses

1:08:46are not having a significant

1:08:48impact through their

1:08:50mass. So we would ask

1:08:52that that change

1:08:54to policy 111724

1:08:56not be

1:08:58adopted today

1:09:00but we would certainly be open to participating

1:09:02in a future process to

1:09:04come up with maybe more appropriate

1:09:06tools, regulations

1:09:08to address the staff's concern.

1:09:10With that

1:09:12again we would thank you and

1:09:14welcome any questions that you have.

1:09:16Thank you. Is there any follow

1:09:20up questions for this site?

1:09:22Okay. Councillor Chew.

1:09:24Thank you

1:09:26through you Mr. Mayor.

1:09:28Yeah, I appreciate your

1:09:30submission and the

1:09:32recommendation. Just

1:09:34speaking more on the mechanical rooftops

1:09:36would you guys be okay

1:09:38if

1:09:40our policy for downtown followed

1:09:42the comprehensive zoning

1:09:44bylaw which talks about

1:09:46the minimum of 5 meters

1:09:48if there's no screening and

1:09:50minimum setback to 1.5 if there was

1:09:52a solid screening.

1:09:54Would that make it

1:09:56would that consistency

1:09:58make it easier for someone

1:10:00like yourself?

1:10:04Through you Mr. Mayor.

1:10:06As Councillor Chew

1:10:08it would be better

1:10:10than the policy you have today but I would

1:10:12actually recommend

1:10:14that kind of prescription that's

1:10:16in the zoning

1:10:18not necessarily get put into

1:10:20the official plan. It really works

1:10:22the other way much better

1:10:24to have kind of more general

1:10:26policies that then maybe

1:10:28get interpreted in greater detail

1:10:30and transit in greater detail into

1:10:32a regulation. So

1:10:34my concern with taking

1:10:36those minimum

1:10:38setback requirements of

1:10:401.5 or 5 meters depending on

1:10:42the screening is

1:10:44it may not be appropriate

1:10:46in every single case and rather

1:10:48than an applicant

1:10:50having to go through an official plan amendment

1:10:52to make a tweak to a policy

1:10:54like that they could go through

1:10:56minor variance application a rezoning

1:10:58application to deal with it

1:11:00it wouldn't surprise me if on occasion there might

1:11:02need to be exceptions to that particular

1:11:04regulation. So I

1:11:06guess that's a kind of long

1:11:08witness to say not really

1:11:10we wouldn't really be thrilled about

1:11:12taking that zoning regulation

1:11:14and embedding it in policy. I get

1:11:16a little bit heavy handed

1:11:18a move and again I just

1:11:20want to clarify

1:11:22those regulations today

1:11:24really apply to

1:11:26mechanical equipment

1:11:28on a rooftop not

1:11:30necessarily a penthouse. There really are

1:11:32could be two fundamental

1:11:34differences. The approach you've

1:11:36taken now is about making sure

1:11:38that equipment

1:11:40is screened which is different than

1:11:42actually putting it in a penthouse per se

1:11:44so again I think this is something

1:11:46recognizing that yeah maybe you are going to

1:11:48see more mechanical penthouses with a

1:11:50significant footprint. You should spend a little

1:11:52bit more time thinking this through

1:11:54and looking at the options for how to regulate

1:11:56plain old equipment

1:11:58that might be screened and

1:12:00equipment that might actually be enclosed

1:12:02in an actual story of a building.

1:12:04Okay now I appreciate that

1:12:06I take that I guess that suggestion

1:12:08is a little too prescriptive for

1:12:10this exercise. I did want to

1:12:12just ask you though

1:12:14just within the context of this

1:12:16height study

1:12:18how can you reassure

1:12:20staff and council that

1:12:22if we were to have

1:12:24some broader policy

1:12:26on this

1:12:28we can assure that

1:12:30I guess the visual

1:12:32view corridors won't be

1:12:34I guess obstructed

1:12:36or obscured because

1:12:38you have various buildings

1:12:40say specific buildings that have

1:12:42I guess varying

1:12:44degrees of size and

1:12:46width for their mechanical

1:12:48penthouses or mechanical

1:12:50rooms.

1:12:52How could you

1:12:54reassure folks here today

1:12:56that that wouldn't necessarily be

1:12:58an issue from your experience?

1:13:02Well I think

1:13:04with the will of council to

1:13:06direct staff to actually

1:13:08study this further

1:13:10in the future update

1:13:12the bill form standards and or through

1:13:14the work on the CPPS bylaw

1:13:16I think that should

1:13:18provide a level of comfort

1:13:20it's not, well I can say for sure

1:13:22that you're going to start getting a

1:13:24whole bunch of applications for tall buildings

1:13:26beginning next week

1:13:28I think you've got a little bit of time

1:13:30to look at this issue a little more closely

1:13:32it won't take a lot of time

1:13:34I don't think

1:13:36it's just understanding what the

1:13:38options are so

1:13:40that is one direction

1:13:42certainly

1:13:44putting any kind of policy in place

1:13:46that might be misinterpreted

1:13:48or be overly prescriptive would be

1:13:50a bit premature so

1:13:52that would be my recommendation

1:13:54Thank you

1:13:56Okay and Councillor Goller

1:14:00Thank you through your worship

1:14:05to the delegate

1:14:07thank you so much for the presentation

1:14:09for sending those letters in advance

1:14:11just wanted to clarify

1:14:13your other request in your letter

1:14:15about the location

1:14:17the massive of the building

1:14:19I think I heard you

1:14:21answer Councillor Chew but just to be clear

1:14:23if council

1:14:25were to approve what staff is presenting

1:14:27or something now

1:14:29what would you need to do

1:14:31to move forward with your development

1:14:33if we did not

1:14:35make the changes that you requested

1:14:39Through you Mr Mayor

1:14:41you're saying if we did not

1:14:43make the changes that we're proposing

1:14:45how do we move forward with our development

1:14:47so staff is recommending

1:14:49heights that do not align

1:14:51with what you're planning to build

1:14:53so what would you need to do

1:14:55to make that

1:14:57your project a reality

1:14:59Yes that's a good question

1:15:01Councillor and to be quite honest

1:15:03with you the approach we've taken

1:15:05is to make effort I think to

1:15:09seek some reflex

1:15:11ability through either a

1:15:13tweak in schedule D or through this

1:15:15this policy

1:15:17amendment that would

1:15:19allow the urban design master plan

1:15:21to tweak the lines a little bit

1:15:23through that process

1:15:25We're moving forward

1:15:27with the site based on

1:15:30the concept we have today

1:15:32if we felt like we needed

1:15:34to be strictly

1:15:36abide by the limits

1:15:38that are currently

1:15:40outlined in schedule D

1:15:42of the recommended OPA

1:15:44we might

1:15:46initially explore

1:15:48trying to keep our buildings

1:15:50within that

1:15:52zone for tall buildings

1:15:54and by the way I do have to clarify

1:15:56again if we're not proposing

1:15:58324 story buildings

1:16:00the buildings currently

1:16:02within the zone are 24

1:16:0416 and 9 stories

1:16:06but beyond that the height limit

1:16:08is 6 stories

1:16:10so it might be

1:16:12possible to adjust

1:16:14our massing to stay within those limits

1:16:16it won't be easy quite frankly

1:16:18my concern will be that it's going to push

1:16:203 taller buildings

1:16:22of varying heights

1:16:24I don't know what heights they would be

1:16:26a little closer together

1:16:28and the impact of doing that

1:16:30would not be

1:16:32as positive

1:16:34would be why I should say

1:16:36than the spacing we have today

1:16:38between those buildings

1:16:40so I think again the urban design master plan

1:16:42will really demonstrate this

1:16:44and I think make the case for that little bit of flexibility

1:16:46the other alternative of course

1:16:48if we really want to keep the buildings where we are

1:16:50and based on consultation with staff

1:16:52it would feel like we're not

1:16:54complying with schedule D

1:16:56we would have the option of down the road

1:16:58of flying for an official plan amendment

1:17:00it wouldn't be our preference obviously

1:17:02to do that which is why we're taking this change now

1:17:04I hope that answers your question

1:17:06I really appreciate it

1:17:08and if I'm clear with the

1:17:10flexibility that you're looking for

1:17:12then instead of having to do our official plan amendment

1:17:14you would just ask for minor

1:17:16variants to get the

1:17:18changes to fit

1:17:20if we do approve

1:17:22the change that you've requested

1:17:26oh sorry

1:17:28through you Mr. Mayor

1:17:30if I understood correctly

1:17:32what you're saying is if

1:17:34you're not suggesting we get a minor variance to the official plan

1:17:36but that if the zoning

1:17:38we're reflecting the official plan

1:17:40then we would require perhaps a minor variance

1:17:42again

1:17:44we'd have to make the case that it's a minor change

1:17:46so our preference would really

1:17:48be avoiding that process

1:17:50if we can

1:17:52thank you I really appreciate it

1:17:54thank you Worship

1:17:56thank you is there anything more

1:17:58okay then you just got me with one question

1:18:02before the delegations came up

1:18:04our staff said that they

1:18:06are prepared to

1:18:08I don't want to put words in your mouth

1:18:10but they have some language to address

1:18:12some of the feedback that's been

1:18:14heard

1:18:16so if you're not ready to us

1:18:18you can come back at a later time

1:18:20do you mean you could come back tonight

1:18:22or do you mean it comes back at a later

1:18:24time because what I'm hearing from our

1:18:26staff is that there is some

1:18:28language that they have facilitated

1:18:30that they could give to Council to consider

1:18:32to actually vote for what you're looking for right now

1:18:34so I'm just not

1:18:36understanding why you've said it a couple times

1:18:38in your presentation that it could come back

1:18:40at like another time but if they've got

1:18:42the language of what we need and if Council

1:18:44approves that you're just good to go

1:18:46tonight right you're not

1:18:48needing more time are you

1:18:50yes Mr. Mayor no not

1:18:52for that particular change

1:18:54we understand that maybe

1:18:56a policy will be put forward today

1:18:58that I think addresses our concern on that

1:19:00so we'd be very happy

1:19:02if you could make a decision on that

1:19:04today it was really about the

1:19:06rooftop mechanical penthouses

1:19:08where we felt

1:19:10like that any amendment

1:19:12to that policy should come back

1:19:14at a later time following further study

1:19:16okay I'll follow up with staff on that one

1:19:18then I appreciate it because I know you suggested

1:19:20two so you've kind of

1:19:22parceled off the one and then the rooftop

1:19:24thing is the one you're talking about right now

1:19:26correct correct okay

1:19:28sure I'm keeping it straight okay

1:19:30thank you very much appreciate it thank you

1:19:32so Susan Watson you did make it

1:19:34a great come on up you're next and then Chad

1:19:36McBain will be on video

1:19:38delegation after you

1:19:43and thank you you know the drill no more

1:19:45than 10 minutes please okay you're trying

1:19:47at the 9 minutes and 30 second mark thank you go right ahead

1:19:49Mayor Guthrie

1:19:51and members of city council

1:19:53I have to say that I'm struggling

1:19:55to understand why we're even

1:19:57looking at increasing

1:19:59downtown heights and

1:20:01there are a number of issues such as

1:20:03water park land

1:20:05parking and

1:20:07taxes where I think that you are at

1:20:09risk of creating a rat's

1:20:11nest of unintended

1:20:13consequences

1:20:15perhaps and the first thing

1:20:17I want to look at is water

1:20:19in 2023 a majority of

1:20:21this council approved a zoning change

1:20:23for a fusion in the innovation district

1:20:25changing

1:20:27employment land zoning

1:20:29to housing and this is

1:20:31what the Guelph Mercury had to say in coverage

1:20:33of that meeting

1:20:35the addition of more

1:20:37residential lands staff

1:20:39warned could have a ripple effect

1:20:41on long term city

1:20:43plans with Christa

1:20:45Walkie telling council

1:20:47Guelph's water supply master

1:20:49plan approved in mid

1:20:512022 was calculated

1:20:53to have barely

1:20:55squeaked by 2051

1:20:57and that is in

1:20:59jeopardy

1:21:01there's a water issue brewing here

1:21:03Scott Stewart the city's

1:21:05chief administrative officer later said

1:21:07that's problematic

1:21:09because if you ask the minister to do this

1:21:11the zoning change

1:21:13where's the water coming from

1:21:15what other developments

1:21:17are we taking it out of

1:21:19because if you say yes here

1:21:21you got to say no to somebody

1:21:23else that's in for approval

1:21:25so I am

1:21:27posing this same question

1:21:29about the housing that is now being

1:21:31added to the downtown

1:21:33where is the water going to come from

1:21:35you have already

1:21:37exceeded your water

1:21:39budget to 2051

1:21:41and allowing a developer

1:21:43to build a 24 story building

1:21:45where there was once 6 story zoning

1:21:47is like adding an 18

1:21:49story tower just in and that's

1:21:51just in one location

1:21:53and where is the sewage capacity going to come

1:21:55from

1:21:57if you approve these increased heights

1:21:59you're leading us down a path to one

1:22:01of two outcomes

1:22:03one of them could be a pipeline

1:22:05to Lake Erie

1:22:07and I would say that this is like

1:22:09Clark Griswold putting in a pool

1:22:11and expecting a Christmas bonus

1:22:13I'm not going to hold

1:22:15my breath that we're going to get a multi-billion

1:22:17dollar gift

1:22:19from Doug Ford for that pipeline

1:22:21while he's busy tunneling underneath the 401

1:22:25if what you care about is taxes

1:22:27a pipeline to Lake Erie

1:22:29is going to increase citizen tax bills

1:22:31by thousands

1:22:33of dollars annually per household

1:22:35to pay for that infrastructure

1:22:39the other potential outcome is

1:22:41as former CAO Scott Stewart told you

1:22:43is that you have to remove approved

1:22:45developments or remove density elsewhere

1:22:47we recently approved

1:22:49a secondary plan for Clair Malt

1:22:51Maltby for 15,000 to 25,000

1:22:53people

1:22:55so if we over intensify

1:22:57in the downtown and use up our groundwater

1:22:59and sewage capacity

1:23:01where is their water coming from

1:23:03or are we going to end up

1:23:05down zoning and

1:23:07spending millions of dollars of infrastructure

1:23:09on very sensitive land

1:23:11to service estate lots in Clair Maltby

1:23:13which

1:23:15is what I think perhaps the developers there may want

1:23:17so we're looking at

1:23:19setting up a win-win scenario

1:23:21for developers where landowners in the downtown

1:23:23are going to make a multi-million

1:23:25dollar windfall

1:23:27as zoning for their land holdings

1:23:29is increased and developers in Clair Maltby

1:23:31are also going to be making a windfall

1:23:33on their estate lots

1:23:35and sucker citizens are going to be the losers

1:23:37as usual

1:23:39the original award-winning

1:23:41downtown secondary plan has still not been

1:23:43built out

1:23:45there's a whole area of high density

1:23:47along Wellington that hasn't even broken ground

1:23:49yet

1:23:51but a key element

1:23:53of that award-winning plan

1:23:55is that as it added in density

1:23:57it also added in

1:23:59parkland

1:24:01just like we would have in any subdivision

1:24:03people go in, parkland goes in

1:24:05that secondary plan

1:24:07included steps for the plaza

1:24:09where the Angel's Diner is

1:24:11to revert to parkland

1:24:13and we even had an OMB battle

1:24:15that we won

1:24:17to assert the city's right to move forward

1:24:19with that plan

1:24:21and now we're long overdue on that being completed

1:24:23so where is the parkland

1:24:25for all of the density

1:24:27and all of the people that have already been added

1:24:29to the downtown

1:24:31you haven't fulfilled the promises

1:24:33of that original plan

1:24:35and I'm going to guess with the objective

1:24:37of keeping taxes as low as possible

1:24:39and the subsidy citizens are now being forced

1:24:41to give for development charges

1:24:43I'm going to guess that the cupboard is bare

1:24:45when it comes to the money for purchasing

1:24:47that parkland

1:24:49so you haven't delivered on the parkland

1:24:51that was promised and now you're going to add

1:24:53even more people to the downtown

1:24:55and I don't see any plans for additional parkland

1:24:57so what we're headed for

1:24:59is a reduced quality of life

1:25:01as the carrying capacity

1:25:03of existing parkland is exceeded

1:25:05by the population

1:25:07another issue that is going to

1:25:09create very serious problems down the road

1:25:11is parking

1:25:13recent legislative changes means that

1:25:15buildings in proximity to transit hubs

1:25:17no longer are required to provide parking

1:25:19and I'm sure you'll have some

1:25:21single men who ride bicycles chime in

1:25:23this evening and say how great that is

1:25:25and that we don't need parking or cars

1:25:27but the actual reality

1:25:29according to your own city statistics

1:25:31is that 5%

1:25:33of people in this city use bicycles

1:25:35for their daily trips

1:25:37and as Adam Donaldson frequently states

1:25:39although Guelph likes to think of itself

1:25:41as a green city

1:25:43we have not made the required

1:25:45large-scale investments

1:25:47either in transit or in bicycle infrastructure

1:25:49in order to create that

1:25:51modal shift

1:25:53so maybe for the first one or two buildings

1:25:55with increased heights

1:25:57the Wilson Street Parkade will be able to absorb

1:25:59that lack of parking

1:26:01but even people who are riding bicycles

1:26:03walking or taking the GO train into Toronto

1:26:05many of them also own a car

1:26:07which needs to be parked somewhere

1:26:11so what's going to happen in the downtown

1:26:13when everyone who lives in these buildings

1:26:15is trying to park on the street

1:26:17or in downtown neighborhoods

1:26:19and there's no parking for customers

1:26:21for the downtown merchants or for their staff

1:26:23who are coming to work

1:26:25so adding density without being

1:26:27allowed to require developers to add the needed parking

1:26:29is going to really lead to some

1:26:31and the last thing I want to address

1:26:36is what are the costs

1:26:38for this development going to be

1:26:40for citizens and part of that

1:26:42is actually related to the parking

1:26:44that Doug Ford has handed developers

1:26:46because I'm going to guess

1:26:48that an underground parking spot in this city

1:26:50probably now costs in the region

1:26:52of $70,000 to $80,000 to build

1:26:54so if some of these developers

1:26:56are building

1:26:58$350,000

1:27:00or $400,000 micro condos

1:27:02and they don't need to include a parking space

1:27:04then without having compromised

1:27:06any profit

1:27:08they're able to drop the selling price of that condo

1:27:10or the rent

1:27:12below 20% below

1:27:14market rate

1:27:16and that's a magic number

1:27:18because if you do that

1:27:20then you get to have

1:27:22zero development charges

1:27:24you get a development charge holiday

1:27:26and since there is no

1:27:28development charge tooth fairy

1:27:30it's taxpayers who

1:27:32are going to be picking up that bill

1:27:34development charges

1:27:36for one studio

1:27:38or one bedroom

1:27:40are currently just under

1:27:42$34,000

1:27:44as citizens

1:27:46we're already paying $8,500

1:27:48per unit because of the existing shortfall

1:27:50so that'll be around $42,000

1:27:52per unit

1:27:54that citizens will be subsidizing

1:27:56and unpaid development charges

1:27:58so if you're looking at one of these towers

1:28:00with 180 units

1:28:02the development charges that will be

1:28:04waived in a parking

1:28:06free building will be $7.5 million

1:28:08of

1:28:10public money

1:28:12that will need to make up the development charges

1:28:14that aren't being paid

1:28:16so if the goal here

1:28:18is to keep taxes low

1:28:20this is not the way to do it

1:28:22and I have been saying for years

1:28:24I am so done

1:28:26with subsidizing

1:28:28privately held housing

1:28:30and developer profits

1:28:32and I am more than happy

1:28:34for my taxes and this money

1:28:36to go to publicly owned

1:28:38rent gear to income

1:28:40social housing

1:28:42and again I find it completely

1:28:44perverse that we seem to have

1:28:46$7.5 million

1:28:48in subsidy

1:28:50to give to one tower

1:28:52that may come forward under this plan

1:28:54and we have no money

1:28:56like we are not solving the problem

1:28:58developers are not solving the affordability

1:29:00or the housing problem

1:29:02for us

1:29:05I only have a few seconds I guess what I'll close with

1:29:07for me it's meetings like this

1:29:09that really show

1:29:11why the development industry

1:29:13are the biggest donors to

1:29:15political municipal

1:29:17election campaigns because with the stroke

1:29:19of a pen

1:29:21you are going to be handing millions

1:29:23of dollars to these people

1:29:25okay thank you

1:29:31is there any follow up questions to this delegate

1:29:33seeing none thank you very much

1:29:35thank you

1:29:37Chad McBain is joining us from

1:29:39the association of realtors by video

1:29:41I think I saw Wilford here

1:29:49is Wilford here

1:29:51yeah I see Wilford because you are in the wings

1:29:55okay is Chad

1:29:57I am here

1:29:59okay Chad thank you for joining us

1:30:01and are you going to join with us by video

1:30:03or just audio

1:30:05I'll do video just give me one second

1:30:13okay alright

1:30:15we can see and hear you and again

1:30:17you have no more than 10 minutes if you need it

1:30:19so you can go right ahead

1:30:21Mayor Guthrie and members of council

1:30:23my name is Chad McBain and I am here today

1:30:25on behalf of the one point association of realtors

1:30:27representing realtors

1:30:29and real estate professionals across the broader

1:30:31Guelph and regional area

1:30:33thank you for the opportunity

1:30:35to speak in support of the proposed official

1:30:37plan amendment related to the downtown

1:30:39Heights study

1:30:41let me begin by commanding

1:30:43commanding staff for the

1:30:45depth and quality of an engagement

1:30:47of the analysis

1:30:49and vision reflected in this proposal

1:30:51the downtown Heights study presents

1:30:53a thoughtful forward looking framework

1:30:55to help Guelph grow responsibly

1:30:57sustainably

1:30:59and in a way that reflects the needs of both the current

1:31:01and future residents

1:31:03as realtors we are on the front lines

1:31:05of the housing market every day

1:31:07we see first hand the rising

1:31:09demand for more housing options

1:31:11especially in desirable

1:31:13connected areas like downtown Guelph

1:31:15we also see the frustration

1:31:17that comes from limited housing supply

1:31:19rising housing prices

1:31:21and families who are simply unable to find

1:31:23a place to call home

1:31:25this amendment

1:31:27directly responds to those challenges

1:31:29by strategically allowing

1:31:31for taller buildings and increased density

1:31:33within the downtown secondary plan area

1:31:35this plan supports

1:31:37more housing supply

1:31:39in a walkable transit connected part of the city

1:31:41greater housing diversity

1:31:43including mid-term

1:31:45including mid-rise

1:31:47and tall buildings

1:31:49that accommodate singles, seniors and families alike

1:31:53and more efficient use of land and infrastructure

1:31:55aligning with provincial goals

1:31:57and the city's own housing pledge

1:31:59we are particularly encouraged

1:32:01by the urban amphitheater approach

1:32:03outlined in the study

1:32:05a model that balances intensification

1:32:07with heritage preservation

1:32:09and good urban design

1:32:11it ensures that the new development

1:32:13complements rather than overshadows

1:32:15the civic heart of Guelph

1:32:17and iconic landmarks like the Basilica

1:32:21we also appreciate that the proposed heights

1:32:23are not one size fits all

1:32:25they respond to topography

1:32:27parcel size

1:32:29view corridors

1:32:31and existing neighborhood context

1:32:33striking a careful balance

1:32:35between growth and character

1:32:37this kind of approach sends the right signals

1:32:39to the development community

1:32:43its approach that says we want thoughtful growth

1:32:47we want investment

1:32:49and we have a clear and predictable framework

1:32:51to make it happen

1:32:53as realtors we know how important that kind of clarity is

1:32:57when the planning process is predictable

1:32:59and well supported by policy

1:33:01it gives investors confidence

1:33:03attracts quality development

1:33:05and ultimately delivers a better outcomes

1:33:07for residents

1:33:09finally

1:33:11I would like to emphasize that this amendment

1:33:13is not just about buildings

1:33:16it's about people

1:33:18it's about ensuring that our kids can afford to live here

1:33:20that our downtown remains vibrant

1:33:22and accessible

1:33:24and that Guelph continues to grow

1:33:26in a way that reflects its values

1:33:28at a time when we are facing

1:33:30so much disruption from south of the border

1:33:32it is heartening to see our city

1:33:34pull together in support of more housing

1:33:36getting it right on housing

1:33:38means we are stronger and more resilient

1:33:40as a community to tackle the challenges

1:33:42ahead

1:33:44on behalf of the One Point Association of Realtors

1:33:46I urge council to support the recommended

1:33:48Official Plan amendment

1:33:50it is a bold step towards addressing

1:33:52our housing challenges and realizing

1:33:54a dynamic inclusive future for downtown Guelph

1:33:58thank you for your time I'd be happy to answer

1:34:00any questions

1:34:04thank you Chad appreciate you joining us

1:34:06and let me see if there's a follow up for you

1:34:08there is not

1:34:10so again thank you so much for joining us

1:34:12thank you

1:34:14Wilford Ferrada come on down

1:34:16and is David Gilbreth here

1:34:18okay you're in the wings

1:34:20okay David hi Wilford

1:34:29thanks for coming

1:34:31hi and

1:34:33turn over to you whenever you're ready okay

1:34:35yeah

1:34:37Mayor Guthrie

1:34:39and members of council

1:34:41good afternoon

1:34:43I'm Wilford Ferrada

1:34:45and I'm the NADA consultant

1:34:47and

1:34:49that's because I'm a landowner and I

1:34:51live in the downtown

1:34:53and

1:34:55along with

1:34:57several others

1:34:59who live

1:35:01in the same building

1:35:03which is a six-story

1:35:05mid-rise

1:35:07building at the corner of Waterloo and

1:35:09Gordon

1:35:11we're directly impacted

1:35:13by

1:35:15the OPA 106

1:35:17so I thought I'd come here and

1:35:19speak up about it first of all

1:35:22I'd like to mention that I

1:35:24love the downtown

1:35:26Guelph

1:35:28and it was a choice to live here

1:35:30and I agree that increasing density

1:35:32can be a tool

1:35:34to create a more livable

1:35:36downtown experience

1:35:38there's no doubt that the provinces

1:35:40housing targets

1:35:42are given

1:35:44it's a matter of strategic

1:35:46distribution

1:35:48of these housing units

1:35:50and providing

1:35:52as mentioned by another

1:35:54the delegate and providing

1:35:56the infrastructure

1:35:58in water sewage parks and so forth

1:36:00to support

1:36:02these housing units

1:36:04and as I mentioned in

1:36:06previous comments

1:36:08in previous phases of this project

1:36:10it's a matter of scale

1:36:12and sculpting

1:36:14our built environment to create

1:36:16humane spaces

1:36:18for everyone to enjoy

1:36:20I'm thankful for the good work

1:36:22that's gone into this OPA

1:36:24by

1:36:26staff and consultants and

1:36:28councillors and the public

1:36:30and I especially appreciate the refinements

1:36:32that were made after the last round

1:36:34of comments that I participated in

1:36:36many of my concerns are

1:36:38now reflected in the proposed OPA

1:36:40there is one

1:36:42main concern remaining though

1:36:44that

1:36:46actually became worse in the latest

1:36:50revision

1:36:52what I'm referring to is the maximum building

1:36:54heights proposed for the three blocks

1:36:56on the west side of Gordon Street

1:36:58from Waterloo down

1:37:00to the 30th street

1:37:02and if you could refer to schedule D

1:37:04if you have the

1:37:06proposed OPA

1:37:08in front of you now

1:37:10look on schedule D and look just south

1:37:12of the tracks there

1:37:14on Gordon on the west side

1:37:16the maximum building height

1:37:18for the edge

1:37:20of this low scale residential area

1:37:22is 16

1:37:24stories as indicated

1:37:26in the red on schedule D

1:37:30but I request

1:37:32and the neighbors

1:37:34and the mine agree

1:37:36that this should be reduced

1:37:38to six stories

1:37:40some of the reasons are

1:37:42first of all this area

1:37:44is very similar to the west side

1:37:46of Norfolk Street and Woolwood Street

1:37:48north of Paisley

1:37:50which is also a low scale

1:37:52residential neighborhood

1:37:54so the

1:37:56strip south of

1:37:58Gordon south of the tracks

1:38:00on the west side of Gordon

1:38:04hold on a second

1:38:06I just lost my place

1:38:08should also have the same

1:38:12maximum building height

1:38:14which is six stories

1:38:16as you can see in

1:38:18the

1:38:20yellow

1:38:22color on schedule D

1:38:24now the town might say

1:38:26yes it's residential

1:38:28behind there

1:38:30but it's south of the tracks

1:38:32and it's already a commercial

1:38:34strip

1:38:36granted

1:38:38the houses are not as

1:38:40fancy as north of

1:38:42Paisley

1:38:46but it is still a low scale

1:38:48neighborhood nonetheless

1:38:50and it's affordable

1:38:52as I might add

1:38:54so a six story maximum building

1:38:56height is appropriate

1:38:58for the same reasons as

1:39:00it's appropriate for that section

1:39:02of Norfolk and Woolwich

1:39:04on the west side

1:39:06north of Paisley

1:39:08it would be nice to have the

1:39:10diagram that I could point to right now

1:39:12but I think you can, if you've got the maps

1:39:14in front of you, you can see that

1:39:16so the secondly

1:39:20a reason is to transition

1:39:22to the

1:39:24low scale neighborhood

1:39:26to the west

1:39:28and this is where I could say

1:39:30to the amphitheater

1:39:32it's basically the amphitheater turning its backside

1:39:34to these low scale

1:39:36neighborhoods

1:39:38this transition is gone

1:39:40it's like two story

1:39:42residential area boom

1:39:44we're up potentially 16 stories

1:39:46in one fells

1:39:49swoop

1:39:55I think this might have been an

1:39:57unintended oversight when this was

1:39:59revised

1:40:01I'm not sure

1:40:03but I think we should fix this

1:40:05not only for us as residents

1:40:07but for future

1:40:09developers, you know the OPAs

1:40:11meant to be, I mean the official

1:40:13plans meant to be abroad the documents

1:40:15so when they first look at it, it should

1:40:17reflect the

1:40:19realities of the area

1:40:21and when you look at the guiding

1:40:23principles that were referred to

1:40:25in a previous delegation

1:40:27of scale

1:40:29skyline

1:40:31street level, transition

1:40:33shadow, view corridor

1:40:35I think it's gone a little

1:40:37bit outlandish

1:40:39to think that 16 stories

1:40:41is going to do that

1:40:43and

1:40:45to go on to other

1:40:50some issues that I've already been

1:40:52partially covered, safety and traffic

1:40:54this is one of the most dangerous

1:40:56areas to walk in

1:40:58there's a cycle

1:41:00parking issues for

1:41:02residents in the area which has already

1:41:04been covered by another delegation

1:41:06retaining our heritage

1:41:08for three escapes

1:41:10there are heritage

1:41:12and national heritage site right on

1:41:14the Nottingham right there, two stories

1:41:16casting of

1:41:18shadows on adjacent properties

1:41:20if you look at it potentially a 16 story

1:41:22tower

1:41:24it's going to not only block views

1:41:26but it's going to cast

1:41:28shadow on this whole neighborhood

1:41:30including our 6 story building

1:41:34also I think

1:41:36a good point here is the fact that

1:41:38the west side of

1:41:40Gordon is already built up

1:41:42to 6

1:41:44cities with our building

1:41:46market commons

1:41:48which has active

1:41:50street level

1:41:52with shops, barbershop

1:41:54coffee shop and so forth

1:41:56and this can act as a precedent

1:41:58for the rest of the

1:42:00west side down to City

1:42:02Thurry Street but also as a precedent

1:42:04for what can happen

1:42:06north of Paisley on the west side

1:42:08of Norfolk and Woolwich

1:42:10this is the kind of

1:42:126 story development that that can happen

1:42:14so just the fact that

1:42:16this area is already built out of that

1:42:18doesn't mean now

1:42:20you can tack another 10

1:42:22cities with the arrays on it

1:42:24let's let this prototype

1:42:26and this precedent continue on

1:42:33for the reasons set aided

1:42:35I request that schedule D of the proposed

1:42:37OPA be changed to show a maximum building

1:42:39out of 6 stories for the 3 blocks

1:42:41on the west side of

1:42:43Gordon Street from Wiley Doe Avenue

1:42:45down to City Thurry Street

1:42:47this would change the color of these

1:42:493 foot prints on schedule D

1:42:51and this is the final

1:42:53in conclusion that as I mentioned

1:42:55I love downtown Guelph

1:42:57and look forward to increased density

1:42:59being used as a tool to create

1:43:01more livable

1:43:03downtown experiences

1:43:05we have to meet the promises housing

1:43:07the targets it's a matter of

1:43:09distribution of those housing

1:43:11units it's a matter of scale

1:43:13and of sculpting our building

1:43:15environment to create humane spaces

1:43:17for all to enjoy

1:43:19and to look at the

1:43:216 story streetscape on the west side

1:43:23of Gordon south of the tracks will be

1:43:25an appropriate transition to the low

1:43:27scale residential neighborhood to the west

1:43:29helping to create the

1:43:31amphitheater effect for the future

1:43:33of downtown Guelph

1:43:35I'm happy to take any questions

1:43:37thank you very much

1:43:39for your presentation and let me see

1:43:41if there's a follow up

1:43:43there is not

1:43:45thank you very much over

1:43:47and our last one that had signed up

1:43:49is David

1:43:51I have

1:44:05Mr. Steven

1:44:07let hear from 5 developments as well

1:44:09if I have a bit of time at the end

1:44:11I might add a few words if that's okay

1:44:13okay

1:44:16100% yep

1:44:18and how am I able to advance

1:44:20the slides or do I just direct

1:44:22this thing

1:44:24green button okay that's great

1:44:26thank you so much

1:44:28good evening Mayor and members of council

1:44:30my name is Dave Galbraith and I'm a registered professional

1:44:32planner and the president of up consulting limited

1:44:34I'm here this evening to provide comments

1:44:36and recommendations to council with regards

1:44:38to the ongoing heights study

1:44:40my colleagues Christian and Mitchell

1:44:42provided delegations in February of this year

1:44:44and by and large our recommendations

1:44:46remain largely the same

1:44:48even though there have been a lot of very positive

1:44:50changes in the most recent draft

1:44:54downtown Guelph is a

1:44:56special place that has an eclectic mix

1:44:58of old and new as shown on the screen

1:45:00the downtown has many examples

1:45:02of historic buildings

1:45:06the greatest of which being the Basilica

1:45:08these historic buildings are

1:45:10mainly clustered between the rail line

1:45:12Norfolk Street to the west

1:45:14and Willich Street to the east

1:45:16but this area of downtown is by no means

1:45:18homogenous it's intermixed

1:45:20with a great number of modern buildings

1:45:22surface parking lots

1:45:24even spaces an auditorium and even a

1:45:26downtown mall within this area

1:45:28it's a great opportunity to

1:45:30build off of these heritage attributes

1:45:32in the core and integrate well designed

1:45:34taller but not overbearing buildings

1:45:36to support the city's planning goals

1:45:38south of the tracks by contrast

1:45:40the downtown is

1:45:43drive-thru facilities surface parking lots

1:45:45vacant institutional buildings as well

1:45:47uses that don't support walkability

1:45:49vibrancy social interaction

1:45:51economic development

1:45:53and generally which are discouraged within

1:45:55a downtown area this area

1:45:57virtually no sensitive interfaces

1:45:59except to the west

1:46:01with its southern perimeter being bound by the river

1:46:03and medium-rise residential

1:46:05already existing on the south side

1:46:07before you this evening is a staff

1:46:14report recommending the approval of the

1:46:16Heights review predicated on the height schedule

1:46:18shown on the screen in my opinion

1:46:20there have been several positive changes

1:46:22incorporated into this most recent draft

1:46:24with some additional height proposed to be permitted south

1:46:26of the rail line now up to 24 stories

1:46:28in certain areas including the downtown mall

1:46:30as well as some increased

1:46:32height in the core area of the downtown

1:46:34we note again that no changes

1:46:36to the heights of lands within the special

1:46:38policy area have been proposed

1:46:40which we understand as a result of the city

1:46:42working with the GRCA on this review

1:46:44we maintain that regardless of this ongoing

1:46:46work it is appropriate to consider additional

1:46:48height within these areas recognizing

1:46:50that planning not work in isolation

1:46:52and that potential development within these areas

1:46:54would still need to adhere to additional

1:46:56provincial rules and GRCA requirements

1:46:58in response to the revised height schedule

1:47:00my team submitted additional

1:47:02correspondence on behalf of skyline

1:47:04and five developments last week

1:47:06still maintaining our recommendation

1:47:08to permit buildings up to 16

1:47:10stories of height on the Cardin Street

1:47:12property and 35 stories on the Wellington

1:47:14site which currently contains

1:47:16drive-thru restaurants

1:47:18the SVN background report which was very

1:47:24well done for the height review

1:47:26notes that the current density of the

1:47:28downtown sits just above

1:47:30105 people and jobs per hectare

1:47:32which is significantly below

1:47:34the density target of 150 people

1:47:36and jobs per hectare laid out

1:47:38in the original secondary plan for the downtown

1:47:40short of unprecedented levels of development

1:47:42this goal of 150 people and jobs per

1:47:44hectare will not be met by 2031

1:47:46this slide shows what's

1:47:48referred to as a demonstration plan

1:47:50which is included in the report

1:47:52which is helpful to visualize

1:47:54how these heights might

1:47:56actually be

1:47:58carried out within the downtown

1:48:00in order to achieve a density

1:48:02of approximately 220 people

1:48:04and jobs per hectare

1:48:06exceeding the minimum baseline target

1:48:08of 200

1:48:10as you can see on the slide in order to get to

1:48:12220

1:48:14220 people and jobs per hectare

1:48:16the vast majority of the sites south

1:48:18of the track and a considerable

1:48:20number north of the tracks

1:48:22would need to develop

1:48:24in alignment with the max heights permitted

1:48:26is it possible?

1:48:28maybe, is it likely or probable

1:48:30within this planning framework

1:48:32or horizon? probably not

1:48:34and as the SVN report notes

1:48:36not all lands will develop

1:48:38to the maximum extent identified

1:48:40in this model

1:48:45I would suggest that beyond market conditions

1:48:47real world development also depends on a myriad

1:48:49of other considerations not limited

1:48:51to demand geopolitical

1:48:53uncertainties

1:48:55environmental conditions, soil conditions

1:48:57cost to clean up contaminated lands

1:48:59heritage protection and incorporation

1:49:01and an ability to provide

1:49:03appropriate parking among other matters

1:49:05with that I would suggest

1:49:09that establishing a permissive planning framework

1:49:11is only the starting point

1:49:13of achieving the city's planning, housing

1:49:15and broader sustainability goals

1:49:17to that end I would suggest that

1:49:19providing some additional flexibility

1:49:21in terms of height and density will go a long way

1:49:23in providing a

1:49:25realistic and achievable planning framework

1:49:27for the downtown

1:49:34this slide summarizes our proposed modifications

1:49:36to the contemplated height schedule

1:49:38which was submitted last week to the clerks department

1:49:40firstly any areas

1:49:42shown in purple referenced with A

1:49:44were proposing that the heights

1:49:46be increased to 35 stories in height

1:49:48these areas are primarily located

1:49:50south of the rail corridor

1:49:52and have virtually no sensitive interfaces

1:49:54the lands as I previously mentioned

1:49:56are between the rail tracks

1:49:58and the river

1:50:00and do not have any

1:50:02relationship with low rise residential

1:50:04secondly we

1:50:06recommend increasing permitted heights

1:50:08within the core area of the downtown

1:50:10and this is the area shown in B

1:50:12with red to 16

1:50:14stories as shown in pink or red

1:50:16within this area we suggest

1:50:18that urban design direction

1:50:20will be critical and that taller buildings

1:50:22should be designed to be sympathetic

1:50:24of their context by having well designed

1:50:26podiums and recessed towers to mitigate

1:50:28impacts of taller buildings

1:50:30thirdly and this is pretty

1:50:32consistent with the last delegate

1:50:34we're recommending that the permitted

1:50:36heights in the area shown

1:50:38as C be reduced

1:50:40actually reduced to four stories

1:50:42I've taken a look at the lot fabric here

1:50:44most of the properties are only 25 meters

1:50:46in depth and a six-story building

1:50:48is not really viable in that type

1:50:50of narrow lot

1:50:52given that the average apartment

1:50:54building is probably minimum width is going to be about

1:50:5630 meters

1:50:58factor and set backs it's just not realistic

1:51:03I'm very much a visual person

1:51:05so my team and I have modeled the staff

1:51:07recommended maximum building heights

1:51:09which are shown in white on this diagram

1:51:11versus

1:51:13and including the additional recommendations

1:51:15that we've proposed and these are shown in the gray

1:51:17areas above the white boxes if you can see that

1:51:19in our opinion while the 35

1:51:21stories does represent an increase

1:51:23to permitted building heights it will give

1:51:25that much more flexibility in order to

1:51:27achieve these goals and in our

1:51:29opinion the location of the potential

1:51:31taller buildings is

1:51:33appropriate as it does not have an interface

1:51:35with low rise residential

1:51:40here's another perspective

1:51:44so with that I will again note that I've

1:51:46provided an alternate bylaw for your consideration

1:51:48this evening and at this time

1:51:50I'd be happy to take any questions you might have

1:51:52a little bit more time left

1:51:57did you want to say anything are you just here

1:51:59to answer any questions or

1:52:01questions yep okay

1:52:03perfect thank you for your presentation

1:52:05then Councillor Ciaran had some questions

1:52:07yes thank you in your

1:52:09preamble you talked about the

1:52:11tale of two downtowns

1:52:13and the historic fabric of the central

1:52:15Wyndham street to Quebec

1:52:17area and yet in

1:52:19the proposed

1:52:21heights you had that

1:52:23entire area proposed

1:52:25at 16 stories can you reconcile

1:52:27those two statements

1:52:29and I wonder if you could put that

1:52:31modeling that you did

1:52:33back on the screen I was trying to get quick

1:52:35screenshots of it and I missed the last one

1:52:37because I think visually

1:52:39you've made

1:52:41you've made a significant

1:52:43point by actually

1:52:45modeling the height

1:52:47of what you're proposing especially

1:52:49the south of the railway tracks

1:52:51and then comparing it to your opening statement

1:52:53regarding the historic character of the

1:52:55central area sure thanks

1:52:57so

1:52:59I could get clerks to potentially

1:53:01put the model back up on the screen

1:53:03but

1:53:05with respect to your question about

1:53:07the core area of the downtown

1:53:09so as I mentioned

1:53:11this area is distinct

1:53:13there's a large concentration of historic

1:53:15buildings within this area

1:53:17but again as I noted

1:53:19it's not homogeneous right

1:53:21not every site within this area

1:53:23would develop even if it had the additional

1:53:25height permissions there there's certainly

1:53:27sites where there are designated heritage

1:53:29buildings the city is working on a heritage

1:53:31conservation district right now as well

1:53:33that would certainly impact

1:53:35the development potential of individual

1:53:37lots but then within this area

1:53:39there are you know scattered surface

1:53:41parking lots

1:53:43there's you know buildings that

1:53:45were constructed in the 1950s

1:53:47and 60s that don't have any heritage

1:53:49significance

1:53:51and so in certain types of

1:53:53situations I think it still

1:53:55would be appropriate to have

1:53:57taller buildings provided that those

1:53:59buildings are designed to be sympathetic

1:54:01to the public realm right so

1:54:03maintaining the podium of

1:54:05three to four stories which is pretty consistent

1:54:07in the downtown having recessed towers

1:54:09above them but step back from

1:54:11the front of the building right so you're

1:54:13integrating additional density

1:54:15but at the same time

1:54:17the placement of that density is

1:54:19more inset to the lots if that makes

1:54:21sense and away from the actual

1:54:23heritage and is there anything further

1:54:29for this delegate

1:54:31nothing further thank you both

1:54:33very much appreciate it

1:54:35now is there anyone else

1:54:37that wishes to speak to this item

1:54:39right now in the room nobody

1:54:43okay and then I am going to just put

1:54:45a phone number up on the screen

1:54:47and it's 519-837-5603

1:54:495603

1:54:51so again that's 519-837-5603

1:54:53well

1:54:55it's a little bit more than

1:54:575603

1:54:59well let's wait 3 to 5 minute

1:55:01range to see if there's someone that

1:55:03wishes to call in on this item

1:55:05and then we'll

1:55:07wrap that up with delegations

1:55:11as I announced earlier

1:55:13if there is somebody

1:55:15or if there's not somebody whatever

1:55:17comes and wants to delegate here by phone

1:55:19we will that will be

1:55:21the last of it and then we are going to take a break

1:55:23okay so we're going to take

1:55:25a 20 minute

1:55:27half of it and everyone understands that

1:55:31before we come back and then we can

1:55:33make some decisions moving forward okay

1:55:35so again just to give us

1:55:372-3 more minutes

1:58:06alright so I've heard from the clerk that there's no one that's called in

1:58:08so

1:58:10then I'll make it official right on the 530

1:58:12right at 530 mark

1:58:14we are going to come back here

1:58:16at 5 minute I'm going to meet in the middle

1:58:18between 20 minutes and 30 minutes

1:58:20at 5 to 6

1:58:22okay 5 to 6 we're going to

1:58:24jump back in

1:58:26and then we can

1:58:28conclude sort of this portion

1:58:30of what's in front of us

1:58:32okay so see everybody back here we'll take a break

1:58:34see you back here in 25 minutes

1:58:36thank you

2:29:20okay I'm going to call the meeting back to order please

2:29:22thank you and with no

2:29:24delegations further

2:29:26can I at least get this the motions

2:29:28on the floor we can

2:29:30determine where we go from there but can I get them on the floor

2:29:32okay

2:29:34Councillor Gibson is there anybody

2:29:36that was willing to second them

2:29:38okay Chu

2:29:44just going to ask everyone

2:29:46the last couple months I've found it

2:29:48to be very difficult

2:29:50for people putting up

2:29:52their hands

2:29:54so if we could make it a bit quicker

2:29:56I'd appreciate it thank you

2:29:58um

2:30:00okay so

2:30:02okay let's just move forward

2:30:06who's got questions

2:30:08Alt

2:30:10thank you Mayor Guthrie

2:30:12I have a number of questions

2:30:14and I hope that you can be patient with me

2:30:16I'm sure you are

2:30:18just through you two staff

2:30:20I am wondering

2:30:22what the net increase in housing

2:30:24units that will potentially be

2:30:26accomplished by this and therefore

2:30:28what the impact on population

2:30:30both in the core and in the city

2:30:32could be

2:30:36through the Marietta Councillor Allt

2:30:38um

2:30:40so the land assessment

2:30:42work that has been done

2:30:44shows that the very max

2:30:46population that this

2:30:48plan could achieve is 220

2:30:50people and jobs per hectare

2:30:52um so but that

2:30:54just provides the flexibility

2:30:56for us to still meet that 200

2:30:58people and jobs per hectare so

2:31:00um I don't know that we have it

2:31:02in specific number of units but you can see

2:31:04that delta there that provides

2:31:06the flexibility because we don't anticipate

2:31:08that every property would

2:31:10um develop at the maximum

2:31:12so how many hectares

2:31:14are we talking about

2:31:18through you Mr. Ray I don't know how many

2:31:20hectares downtown is honestly

2:31:22220 per hectare

2:31:24is a good number but if I knew the

2:31:26number of hectares that would help

2:31:28um but I'll

2:31:30my next concern is that

2:31:32what I understand is the gross population

2:31:34is around 150,000

2:31:36the university adds probably

2:31:38about 25 to 30,000

2:31:40conestoga is adding somewhere between

2:31:425 and 10 that gets us to about

2:31:44190,000 and our peak population

2:31:46is about 208,000

2:31:48is that correct

2:31:50through you Mr. Mayor I don't

2:31:55know the specific populations of

2:31:57uh university or conestoga

2:31:59so I can't help you with that

2:32:01um but your math

2:32:03seems correct and that's

2:32:05that's what concerns me because

2:32:07the difference between 190 and 208

2:32:09is 18,000

2:32:11uh population and we're looking at

2:32:13such things as claire maltby

2:32:15and perhaps other areas that are going to be

2:32:17increasing I know that we are now

2:32:19policing for 175

2:32:21so um with that

2:32:23I am wondering what the impact of this

2:32:25would be especially on top of the 5600

2:32:27units that we currently have

2:32:29in the pipe that have yet to be built

2:32:31we're narrowing down the potential

2:32:33for claire maltby to actually be

2:32:35a populated development

2:32:37are we not?

2:32:44I think through you Mr. Mayor

2:32:46we do our annual housing

2:32:48monitoring and that is where we

2:32:50get that answer on an ongoing basis

2:32:52so um yeah when

2:32:54we look at putting population in

2:32:56different parts of the city we do have to balance that out

2:32:58um but

2:33:00again going claire maltby is a couple years

2:33:02ago for me but going back the population

2:33:04um of it wasn't

2:33:06like substantially high so

2:33:08there would still be I think opportunity for development

2:33:10in that area

2:33:14next question is interestingly enough

2:33:16uh somewhat uh

2:33:18telegraphed by Ms. Susan

2:33:20I thought about these earlier today

2:33:22about two years ago

2:33:24our CAO Scott Stewart said that we need to

2:33:26be cautious about water

2:33:28and it was very clear about that so

2:33:30uh I need to ask

2:33:32are we at risk

2:33:34of our capacity being breached

2:33:36as a consequence of increasing density

2:33:38here and what will the impact

2:33:40be on such things as claire maltby

2:33:42or perhaps even areas of

2:33:44of the city that uh might

2:33:46be annexed say from uh

2:33:48Guelph-Aremassa at some point in the future

2:33:52through you Mr. Mayor to Councillor

2:33:54I'll I think the key piece for that one

2:33:56is that even though this increases

2:33:58the potential density

2:34:00we are not increasing our density

2:34:02target so through ongoing

2:34:04annual monitoring we wouldn't

2:34:06be looking to increase the target so

2:34:08the 200 people in jobs per hectare

2:34:10for downtown remains the same

2:34:12to 2051 but yes

2:34:14uh monitoring our water

2:34:16use is very important to the city as

2:34:18always and it's also happening on

2:34:20an ongoing basis um we are

2:34:22also through bill 185 looking at

2:34:24sort of like use it or lose it

2:34:26type approvals um and that's

2:34:28another way in which we can continue to

2:34:30monitor and make sure that we're taking

2:34:32steps to accommodate development

2:34:34and make sure we have enough water

2:34:36thank you and I think that

2:34:38this is the last one I don't think I need to deal with

2:34:40the the next one but Ms. Watson did

2:34:42make reference to taxes versus

2:34:44development charges something that I was concerned about

2:34:46I don't know whether her numbers are correct

2:34:48but I am very much concerned

2:34:50that uh this is

2:34:52a um an impact

2:34:54on uh on taxation for the

2:34:56future and I was wondering if some staff

2:34:58could respond to whether there is the risk

2:35:00of tax cuts or not

2:35:02but I think this actually does

2:35:04lead to a uh the potential

2:35:06of a greater tax levy for

2:35:08people living in Guam

2:35:13in the next 10 15 years

2:35:15but Councillor I can start

2:35:18and then perhaps um

2:35:20so from a tax

2:35:22perspective we do know that

2:35:24downtown is one of our highest performing

2:35:26areas sort of per acre per hectare so

2:35:28we anticipate that this will

2:35:30assist with that increasing the

2:35:32impact of tax cuts and

2:35:34we are about to make a very large

2:35:36investment in our infrastructure

2:35:38downtown so by um

2:35:40making efficient and uh

2:35:42use of that infrastructure that we're

2:35:44investing in um I think

2:35:46is a responsible choice from a tax

2:35:48perspective and and I think

2:35:50my concern really is for

2:35:52current uh the current tax

2:35:54base and while this is in construction

2:35:56before there these are occupied that that this does have a

2:36:00a very large impact on the

2:36:02infrastructure and I think

2:36:07the uh answers I don't have any further

2:36:09questions at this point.

2:36:11Thank you I'll go uh I'll go uh

2:36:13downer and then Karan okay.

2:36:15Yeah I just have a question about

2:36:17the urban design master plans so

2:36:19are they are they coming to

2:36:21council for approval or are they

2:36:23any kind of public input into those

2:36:25or uh through you.

2:36:27Sorry tell me a little bit more about

2:36:29how that might all be implemented.

2:36:31And there are opportunities for public input.

2:36:33It's very much similar to what has

2:36:35happened with the Baker district. We follow the same

2:36:37process um and once it gained

2:36:39council approval we would use that to

2:36:41guide the zoning bylaw amendment

2:36:43potential official plan amendment but

2:36:45again hopefully with this amendment

2:36:47there aren't further official plan

2:36:49amendment was required so it would be

2:36:51following a public process um

2:36:53and have that council guidance.

2:36:55Thank you and Karan please.

2:37:00Yes thank you a number of questions

2:37:02um I'll start with the

2:37:04whole um urban amphitheater

2:37:06concept and the and the different

2:37:08elevations and topography

2:37:10of the downtown because

2:37:12it was part of the downtown secondary site

2:37:14uh our stock secondary plan

2:37:16it was very much discussed

2:37:18in detail when we

2:37:20discussed 70 fountain street development

2:37:22and I do recall

2:37:24that staff indicated that the topography

2:37:26north of fountain

2:37:28up to the tracks

2:37:30had the effect of adding

2:37:32I believe six

2:37:34stories in terms of

2:37:36visual impact

2:37:38um based on the

2:37:40rise of the the topography

2:37:42from Wellington to fountain

2:37:44I just want to confirm that that

2:37:46six story impact

2:37:48visual impact um

2:37:50is correct because that was what I

2:37:52recall from our 70 fountain street

2:37:54work. Through the mayor

2:37:57I can't confirm specifically whether it

2:37:59is six but there is definitely any

2:38:01impact um on the

2:38:03the elevations in terms of the

2:38:05perceived heights largely

2:38:07as you move

2:38:09as you move east excuse me

2:38:11um that was sort of taken into account

2:38:13as we as we did the work although

2:38:15what we find is you know those

2:38:17sorts of considerations largely

2:38:19impact the way that downtown is

2:38:21perceived uh well outside

2:38:23of it in terms of how you're looking at the

2:38:25skyline from from a greater distance

2:38:27at grade when you're walking around

2:38:29and in the downtown an extra two

2:38:31three four stories uh of perceived

2:38:33height within the the upper part of the

2:38:35building is really not something that you perceive

2:38:37and while we understand that the previous

2:38:39plans you know took some some care

2:38:41to ensure that uh heights that were

2:38:43prescribed would not be

2:38:45taller than the basilica

2:38:47uh our analysis really indicated that again

2:38:49unlike a sort

2:38:51of a medieval city where the height

2:38:53of the basilica is this beacon

2:38:55that you'll always be looking at to determine

2:38:57your way finding um it's

2:38:59more about those specific views from

2:39:01around particular corridors

2:39:03that establish the

2:39:05um establish the sort of place making

2:39:07approach and so rather than

2:39:09looking at in a detailed way at

2:39:11that topography and ensuring that

2:39:13the height of every building is

2:39:15sort of the same uh we rather

2:39:17focus more on maintaining those

2:39:19view corridors and those view locations

2:39:21uh to ensure that that that sort of sense of

2:39:23space was maintained within the downtown.

2:39:25Okay so between January

2:39:27and March one of the highest

2:39:29um impacts

2:39:31in adding additional density

2:39:33was that area that's bounded by

2:39:35Wyndham um the

2:39:37railroad tracks Wellington to the south

2:39:39and Gordon Street the the 24th story

2:39:41intensity um that's

2:39:43clearly illustrated on slide seven

2:39:45with the with the building modeling that's

2:39:47where most of these 24th story buildings

2:39:49will will likely go if this passes

2:39:51um so

2:39:53the change from

2:39:55from 18

2:39:57mostly um

2:39:594 to 16 and 4 to 18

2:40:01to 24

2:40:03what was the rationale

2:40:05do we have any studies that support

2:40:07that significant change

2:40:09between January

2:40:11and March?

2:40:13Through the mayor the the

2:40:15height peak in our previous admission to

2:40:17to council was 20 stories

2:40:19so we've increased it to

2:40:21to 24 and this was based

2:40:23I think again from uh based on some

2:40:25of the feedback we received from

2:40:27from from council at the last meeting

2:40:29that there was an opportunity to

2:40:31look at areas where we could be

2:40:33a little bit bolder uh where there could be

2:40:35some incentive that's uh provided

2:40:37for for additional densification

2:40:39and densification within the downtown

2:40:41um when we look at the that area

2:40:43south of the tracks again we're

2:40:45we're looking at a portion of the

2:40:47downtown where there's a significant amount of

2:40:49uh sort of sort of either

2:40:51vacant sites or or accurate parking lots

2:40:53uh the particles are larger

2:40:55uh this the rectilinear

2:40:57block structure supports uh density

2:40:59in a in a an efficient manner

2:41:01and so from and it's also

2:41:03um uh an area that is

2:41:05quite close to the GO train station

2:41:07um as well as other transit

2:41:09uh linkages within the

2:41:11downtown uh but being south of the tracks

2:41:13it's not impacting that sort of heritage

2:41:15core of the uh of the downtown

2:41:17the same way and so from that

2:41:19perspective it represents a you know sort of

2:41:21a strong uh location for additional

2:41:23density um my my comment

2:41:25is similar in the sense that

2:41:27you know a high peak of 20 to a

2:41:29high peak of 24 it provides some additional

2:41:31density some additional incentive for development

2:41:33isn't necessarily significantly

2:41:35perceived by uh by people

2:41:37within the public realm that difference

2:41:39okay uh third question slide seven again

2:41:42that modeling that kind of 2d modeling

2:41:44in red you've marked

2:41:46the designated part for

2:41:48heritage designations

2:41:50but it does not identify any of the structures

2:41:52that are currently on the heritage register

2:41:54or an overlay

2:41:56of the hcd boundaries

2:41:58not only for the hcd

2:42:00uh uh district that we're currently

2:42:02currently underway

2:42:04but also the ward west

2:42:06uh conservation district that's currently

2:42:08underway and recommended in the cultural

2:42:10heritage action plan we have another

2:42:12conservation district down

2:42:14Woolwich street so if you add

2:42:16those overlays from what I

2:42:18can tell that's that's a probably

2:42:20100% of the boundary

2:42:22of this downtown height study

2:42:24so I'm trying to understand that

2:42:26if the Ontario heritage

2:42:28and I asked this question back in

2:42:30January if the Ontario Heritage

2:42:32Act takes precedence over the OP

2:42:34which it does

2:42:36why would we not wait for the

2:42:38conservation district studies

2:42:40to come out with the

2:42:42outcomes before we move forward

2:42:44on this plan because I see

2:42:46significant 18 to

2:42:4820 story development in areas

2:42:50where we know

2:42:52like there will never be development

2:42:54um and I'm thinking specifically like

2:42:56the Wellington county courthouse

2:42:58the jail yard the uh

2:43:00all of the heritage buildings along

2:43:02Douglas all of the heritage buildings

2:43:04along those are all in areas

2:43:06that are marked for development

2:43:08and we know the overlay is going to say

2:43:10um these are protected

2:43:12so I'm trying to

2:43:14I'm trying to understand

2:43:16the timing of this compared

2:43:18to waiting for the outcome

2:43:20of the conservation district studies

2:43:22through you Mr. Mayor to Councillor

2:43:24Caron um through this study we

2:43:26have been working closely with the downtown heritage

2:43:28conservation district team um

2:43:30and essentially what

2:43:32the team has said is that

2:43:34um the heritage conservation district

2:43:36wouldn't prevent additional height but would

2:43:38explore ways to incorporate

2:43:40our existing heritage assets

2:43:42with new development so the heritage

2:43:44conservation district plan isn't intended

2:43:46to stop development so we

2:43:48don't necessarily know that there will be

2:43:50no development in those areas but that it would

2:43:52have to be done sensitive sensitively

2:43:54and based on the plan

2:43:56that comes in as well as

2:43:58probably cultural heritage resource

2:44:00impact assessments and the appropriate

2:44:02permits so the

2:44:04the the downtown height study

2:44:06and the downtown heritage conservation

2:44:08district would work hand in hand

2:44:10to accommodate development into our future

2:44:12okay

2:44:14I'll I'll leave some of the

2:44:16I do have some amendments as you know but I

2:44:18I will just have one further

2:44:20question and I'll leave the amendments until

2:44:22everyone's had a chance to ask their questions

2:44:24is that okay? Okay so

2:44:26the last question is

2:44:28when I look at slide seven where all of

2:44:30the all of the potential future density

2:44:32is going to go the 24 story density and the

2:44:3418 story density the bulk of

2:44:36the bulk of the density at least 50%

2:44:38of the additional height density is going

2:44:40south of the tracks

2:44:42I see that as an

2:44:44opportunity for new energy systems

2:44:46and I know

2:44:48that there was one statement in the

2:44:50policy about it

2:44:52encouraging or having an opportunity

2:44:54to

2:44:56create an opportunity for renewal of

2:44:58an alternative energy systems

2:45:00to me this isn't just creating an opportunity

2:45:02absolutely necessitates this

2:45:04if we do not have this is this is the

2:45:06critical mass of buildings

2:45:08that is

2:45:10that would drive a

2:45:12district energy system

2:45:14and how can we embed

2:45:16a mandated

2:45:18alternative energy

2:45:20regulation into

2:45:22this OPA

2:45:24or can we and if

2:45:26we cannot how do

2:45:28we move forward on that because I don't

2:45:30think it's enough to just

2:45:32encourage or say it creates opportunities

2:45:34without

2:45:36mandating that this

2:45:38precinct be

2:45:40net zero

2:45:42at the very least

2:45:44through you Mr. Mayor to Councillor Ciarán

2:45:46unfortunately we don't have the legislative

2:45:48authority to mandate it

2:45:50again it would be strongly encouraged

2:45:52we can do our best to connect

2:45:54developers

2:45:56with people like Cascara

2:45:58who are exploring opportunities for district

2:46:00energy we can do our best to make those

2:46:02connections but we at this

2:46:04time do not have the legislative authority

2:46:06to mandate it.

2:46:08Could we put it in our and again maybe this

2:46:10is more of a follow up because it doesn't

2:46:12specifically deal with the downtown heights but it does deal

2:46:14with the language in the official plan

2:46:16we have an example of

2:46:18heritage heights in Brampton where they have

2:46:20really really strong community energy

2:46:22language about district

2:46:24energy systems and alternative energy systems

2:46:26and that secondary

2:46:28it's a secondary plan that was

2:46:30taken to the OLT and was upheld

2:46:32so if we

2:46:34add it the language

2:46:36to our official plan regarding

2:46:38energy systems in these higher

2:46:40density precincts

2:46:42we could do

2:46:44that it's just that the risk again

2:46:46maybe this isn't in camera but if we do that

2:46:48the risk to

2:46:50the city of Guelph is simply that

2:46:52it may be it may be appealed correct?

2:46:54Through you Mr. Mayor

2:46:56yes the risk is that it may be

2:46:58appealed. I think the further risk is that

2:47:00even though we could

2:47:02request things through the development approval

2:47:04process we wouldn't be able to

2:47:06require them should they choose not to

2:47:08implement them so

2:47:10again we can still do our very best

2:47:12through the development approval process

2:47:14but should they not implement them we don't

2:47:16really have any recourse.

2:47:22If there was look like you had something

2:47:24to add and then I'll

2:47:26relinquish the floor and then

2:47:28come back for amendments. Sure will that

2:47:30staff continue to

2:47:32answer Councillor Cronn go ahead if you had

2:47:34anything more to add. Councillor Cronn

2:47:36though just to let you know you're at five minutes and 20 seconds already

2:47:38so

2:47:40you've used up all your time so

2:47:42go ahead.

2:47:44I just

2:47:46thought I'd add to that I have some experience

2:47:48in implementing sort of district energy systems

2:47:50in some of these developments and I'm familiar with

2:47:52the heritage

2:47:54heights plan in Brampton and

2:47:56in there what the policy identified

2:47:58as it relates to district energy is that

2:48:00Brampton would move

2:48:02forward on a district energy system

2:48:04it would be their own

2:48:06and then they would that which creates

2:48:08a significant incentive for developers

2:48:10to then connect to it because it provides

2:48:12for energy at a lower

2:48:14cost so you're not

2:48:16mandating the developers do it you

2:48:18are providing a utility and this is

2:48:20you know if looking for examples of cities

2:48:22that have done this and are quite deeply into it

2:48:24the city of North Vancouver

2:48:26and British Columbia has been doing this for about 25 years but again

2:48:28they created the system

2:48:30and the developers are then connecting to it

2:48:32similar to the deep lake

2:48:34cooling in Toronto

2:48:36a similar sort of setup there so it's

2:48:38a slightly different than mandating policy

2:48:40you can certainly provide enabling policy

2:48:42in the piece

2:48:44but you can't necessarily mandate it in the OP

2:48:46okay great thank you

2:48:49thank you

2:48:51Councillor Locaton and then

2:48:53Guller please

2:48:57to you Mr. Mayor

2:48:59I'm not sure if you answered this directly

2:49:01but kind of a tag on to

2:49:03Councillor Allt's question about

2:49:05water and

2:49:07one of my concerns is that

2:49:09for our water capacity

2:49:11that if we have too many

2:49:13developments popping up in the downtown

2:49:15that this could affect our bigger developments like in the

2:49:17innovation district and

2:49:19the areas over in work one

2:49:21with the new law laws territories and things like that

2:49:23so is that a risk that we would run up against?

2:49:28Through you Mr. Mayor to Councillor Caton

2:49:30again we would have to deal with that through

2:49:32ongoing monitoring

2:49:34of water usage

2:49:36so again we do our annual housing monitoring

2:49:38looking at different areas of the city

2:49:40we do ongoing water monitoring and then

2:49:42we would continuously monitor it

2:49:44in addition we do

2:49:46we are looking at sort of the use it or lose it

2:49:48type

2:49:50rules as a result of

2:49:52Bill 185 and that is another tool for us

2:49:54to use to make sure that

2:49:56we're taking a balanced approach

2:49:58Thank you and

2:50:00through the Mayor so do we have

2:50:02the capability

2:50:04if we run up against this to just say no

2:50:06even if something

2:50:08is zoned for development

2:50:10we can just be like now we're freezing permits

2:50:12because we've reached capacity

2:50:14Through you Mr. Mayor

2:50:16yes if we can't service

2:50:18something then we have the ability

2:50:20to say no

2:50:22Thank you very much

2:50:27Thank you Councillor Caton

2:50:29Guller please

2:50:31Thank you and through you Mayor Guthrie

2:50:33just

2:50:35following up on that last question

2:50:37I understand that if we run out

2:50:39of servicing capacity then

2:50:41we will not allow any mobiles

2:50:43what happens when we reach the

2:50:45200

2:50:47people and jobs per

2:50:49hector at that point

2:50:51once we reach that upper limit can we also

2:50:53say no even we may have capacity

2:50:55to get to 220

2:50:57because once we get to 200

2:50:59people and jobs per hector

2:51:01we'll say actually downtown is close for business

2:51:03Through you Mr. Mayor

2:51:07to Councillor Goller I think that's a

2:51:09difficult question to answer because I don't think

2:51:11we're going to reach that point for quite a few

2:51:13years yet and I think

2:51:15it's sort of more important for us to do that

2:51:17ongoing monitoring and sort of

2:51:19address that issue as we get closer and

2:51:21closer to so I don't think we would say

2:51:23200 people and jobs per hector

2:51:25now we're close for business I think we would

2:51:27start addressing that

2:51:29maybe five years or ten years ahead

2:51:31of when we anticipate hitting that target

2:51:33so there'll be lots of discussions leading up to that

2:51:35Okay I appreciate that

2:51:37Along these lines

2:51:39we are

2:51:41the plants allow potential

2:51:43of 220 people and jobs per

2:51:45hector if a full build

2:51:47which we acknowledge that will likely not happen

2:51:49but even

2:51:51200 people and jobs per hector

2:51:53are we on track to have sufficient

2:51:55parkland to accommodate that

2:51:57population

2:52:00Through you Mr. Mayor so the downtown secondary

2:52:02plan area has a different

2:52:04park target

2:52:06for it than other areas of the city

2:52:08so we are still

2:52:10working towards that target

2:52:12and

2:52:14again the target worked

2:52:16we're not changing our density target of

2:52:18200 people and jobs per hector so we're still

2:52:20in that same range

2:52:22as we were before this amendment

2:52:24and again there is ongoing

2:52:26work in the city to look at

2:52:28sort of that down new downtown

2:52:30Riverfront Park to meet the policies

2:52:32of the downtown secondary plan

2:52:34Okay I appreciate that thank you

2:52:36thank you for that

2:52:38Going back to one of the previous questions about

2:52:40the existence of many heritage

2:52:42buildings in particular I'm thinking

2:52:44between

2:52:46Street and Fountain Street

2:52:48there's many

2:52:50some of the oldest homes

2:52:52what

2:52:54can you help me understand

2:52:56you said that they would be incorporated

2:52:58but likely if there's a building

2:53:00the footprint of the building would exceed

2:53:02that heritage property so

2:53:04help me understand how does that work

2:53:06that we would allow for a building to be put in there

2:53:08when there is

2:53:10a home that is one of the oldest homes in Guelph

2:53:12in that block

2:53:14Through you Mr. Rainer

2:53:16Councillor Goller and we would deal with that

2:53:18on a site specific basis because

2:53:20each heritage

2:53:22resource is different

2:53:24so again that's the reason why we have things

2:53:26like cultural heritage resource impact assessments

2:53:28that's why we have heritage permits

2:53:30that's why we have a whole process

2:53:32under the Ontario Heritage Act and it's hard

2:53:34to say exactly what we would do until we

2:53:36had a proposal in front

2:53:38of us and what we would

2:53:40what would be appropriate for that heritage resource

2:53:42until we see that so

2:53:44there is that whole process that

2:53:46is there to protect our heritage resources

2:53:48as development is proposed

2:53:50Okay, thank you very much for that

2:53:52Your Worship I have

2:53:54a motion that I would like to

2:53:56move once we get to that point

2:53:58with regards to the wood development site

2:54:02I did not have anyone else on my list

2:54:04so if you want to start

2:54:06with the amendments go right ahead

2:54:08Yeah, if I could ask staff

2:54:10to please pull them up on the screen

2:54:12and I will be looking

2:54:14for a second there

2:54:16on this motion once

2:54:18I read it out

2:54:28Okay, Councillor Goller is up on the screen now for everyone

2:54:30So it's the

2:54:32that attachment one, the recommended official plan

2:54:34amendment to OPA 106

2:54:36included in the statutory public meeting

2:54:38and decision downtown height study

2:54:40official plan amendment

2:54:42April 8th be amended to include the following

2:54:44further to policy

2:54:4611.1.8

2:54:48.4.1 in addressing

2:54:50the location and the massing of

2:54:52new buildings, urban design master

2:54:54plans and zoning bylaw amendments

2:54:56aligned with urban design master

2:54:58plans may set height limits

2:55:00that reflect minor adjustments to

2:55:02the boundaries between areas

2:55:04with different maximum heights and

2:55:06sharelty provided the proposed

2:55:08massing of buildings results from such

2:55:10adjustments meets the principal

2:55:12objectives and general intent

2:55:14of the downtown secondary plan

2:55:16and maintains the protected

2:55:18public view corridors to the church

2:55:20of our lady. I'll be looking for a second

2:55:22there for that.

2:55:26I see Councillor Billings. Okay, I see Billings.

2:55:28Thank you so much and

2:55:30your worship my intention with this

2:55:32is that when there's minor

2:55:34discrepancies in the

2:55:36boundaries I would hope

2:55:38that that developer doesn't

2:55:40have to go through the

2:55:42onerous process of an official

2:55:44amendment. I would actually love to

2:55:46hear from staff on their

2:55:48take on this and what they

2:55:50believe that this will

2:55:52accomplish. Through you Mr.

2:55:58Mayor, I think

2:56:00as I outlined in our presentation at the

2:56:02beginning that this is a positive addition

2:56:04to the downtown secondary plan and it

2:56:06does allow that flexibility for

2:56:08the details of a design to be worked out

2:56:10through that urban design master plan process

2:56:12when you're looking at it sort of more

2:56:14site specifically or area specifically.

2:56:16So staff are supportive of this

2:56:18amendment. Perfect. Thank you so much.

2:56:20Thank you, your worship.

2:56:22Thanks, Councillor Orlton. Do you have a follow-up

2:56:24on this one? I think

2:56:26I do. I've got three.

2:56:28I thank you very much to

2:56:30Councillor Rodrigo for moving the motion

2:56:32but I would hope that he could please

2:56:34define for me the very ambiguous

2:56:36term minor.

2:56:38Thank you.

2:56:40Thank you, Councillor Orlton.

2:56:42I think this is where we would defer

2:56:44to our professional staff's opinion.

2:56:46If a building is going to be moved

2:56:48by a couple of metres, I would imagine

2:56:50that that is something they would consider minor.

2:56:52If it's going to be moved by two city blocks,

2:56:54I would think that that is not minor

2:56:56but I defer to staff in their professional

2:56:58opinion as to what is minor.

2:57:04Yeah.

2:57:06Essentially with those urban design master

2:57:08plans that come to council for approval,

2:57:10council does ultimately get to decide

2:57:12if it's going to be a minor

2:57:14or a minor.

2:57:16So again, if you're seeing

2:57:18a 24-storey building in an area

2:57:20that was previously six stories,

2:57:22you could say that is not minor

2:57:24but if it's like a section of the building

2:57:26is crossing the line, that's maybe minor.

2:57:28So again, staff would use

2:57:30their professional judgment at the time

2:57:34but council would have the opportunity

2:57:36to weigh in on that as well.

2:57:38All right. I think I can call the vote then

2:57:40on this amendment. That's okay.

2:57:43Thank you.

2:57:45Are you done, Councillor Goller?

2:57:47Yes.

2:57:49I can go to Councillor Perron.

2:57:51For this item, I am done.

2:57:53I did want to check in with staff.

2:57:55There was a request from

2:57:57Esví-Ló and staff said

2:57:59that they had prepared a motion

2:58:01to accommodate it.

2:58:03I just wanted to hear from staff

2:58:05on that if I could

2:58:07what their motion would be

2:58:09and what the change would be

2:58:11to the official plan based on their request

2:58:13from the letter from Esví-Ló.

2:58:15Through you, Mr. Mayor

2:58:20to Councillor Goller.

2:58:22So the letter from Esví-Ló

2:58:24requested that 36

2:58:26Cardigan Street be

2:58:28included in that sort of that triangle

2:58:30that we've talked a lot about tonight,

2:58:32where Woolich and Cardigan meet.

2:58:34So that triangle permits up to 12 stories

2:58:36is what we've proposed in the recommended OPA

2:58:38and 36 Cardigan

2:58:40is sort of right adjacent to that

2:58:42and we've reviewed that with Esví-Ló

2:58:44and we have no concerns with that.

2:58:46So a motion similar

2:58:48to what you just tabled

2:58:50that the attachment

2:58:52with official plan

2:58:54106 be amended

2:58:56to increase the permitted height

2:58:58for 36 Cardigan Street to 12 stories

2:59:00is something that we could look at.

2:59:02Okay. Thank you, Your Worship.

2:59:04I will think about that.

2:59:06I'll let that go to someone else.

2:59:10Okay, thank you.

2:59:12Councillor Caron, I'm sorry.

2:59:14Councillor Klassen, I think she had some questions.

2:59:16Then she had to step away for a moment.

2:59:18So I'll go to Councillor Caron.

2:59:20Okay, go ahead.

2:59:22Sure. I have six amendments

2:59:24and then an amendment at the end as well

2:59:26and since I'm running out of time,

2:59:28I'll just put the six amendments in sequence

2:59:30without any preambler commentary.

2:59:32My first amendment relates

2:59:34to the Norfolk

2:59:36Woolich quarter from Oxford to London.

2:59:38It excludes the library site

2:59:40because I think that does

2:59:42benefit from additional heights.

2:59:44Until such a time as the Heritage Conservation

2:59:46District study is completed,

2:59:48I really want to make an informed decision tonight

2:59:50and I really want all the studies

2:59:52to complement this work.

2:59:54I think there's a lot of really great work here

2:59:56and I want to lose any of it,

2:59:58but I do want to ensure

3:00:00that we're making the right decisions

3:00:02on that stretch

3:00:04and so the amendment is before you.

3:00:06I believe clerks have

3:00:08copies of everything.

3:00:10Seconded by Councillor Roulton.

3:00:12Okay, we'll second that.

3:00:14Is there any questions on this?

3:00:16Okay, I have questions

3:00:18just very quickly.

3:00:20Is this not exactly what you just

3:00:22answered, Councillor Caron, on

3:00:24about the fact that

3:00:27you're working hand in hand with Heritage already,

3:00:29that they're site specific, that there be a Heritage

3:00:31Impact Study

3:00:33or something like that, if something were to come forward,

3:00:35it doesn't automatically mean

3:00:37that all that height would be there

3:00:39because it would have to be site specific

3:00:41to whatever an application of a

3:00:43future development would be.

3:00:45Is this the same thing?

3:00:47It's a similar answer, however,

3:00:49the Heritage Conservation District study for that corridor

3:00:51is not yet underway, so that's a separate one.

3:00:53It was identified

3:00:55as a medium priority

3:00:57study to do, so it is

3:00:59quite a few years out,

3:01:01but the same principles would apply

3:01:03or if there are existing Heritage resources there,

3:01:05it would follow a similar process

3:01:07to what I've outlined.

3:01:09Okay, my next question was going to be when

3:01:11was it going to be done, but you just answered that

3:01:13in there.

3:01:15That's exactly my reasoning, Mr. Mayor,

3:01:17is that... Let me just recognize you.

3:01:19Sorry. Because I stood out the floor for one second.

3:01:21I recognize Councillor Caron.

3:01:23Thanks.

3:01:25There's no HCD study here.

3:01:27What happens

3:01:29often is once we give permissions,

3:01:31it's really hard to take them away,

3:01:33and we're losing our Heritage Register

3:01:35in January of 2027, January 1st,

3:01:37and none of these

3:01:39buildings, so if you drive down that section,

3:01:41you will see that 80% of the buildings there

3:01:43are on the Heritage Register,

3:01:45because I did go and look at all of them,

3:01:47and my worry is that if we don't

3:01:49leave it as is, there will be land assembly.

3:01:51As soon as we pass this, land assembly will begin,

3:01:53and none of those buildings

3:01:55will be protected, so I'll leave

3:01:57this motion on the floor.

3:01:59Oh, yeah, of course. That wasn't suggesting that.

3:02:01Okay, so thank you

3:02:03for your passion on this.

3:02:05I will not be supporting this

3:02:07at all. I feel like these are starting

3:02:09to become potential hurdles to

3:02:11the ability to start to get some

3:02:13things built in the city,

3:02:15and I believe that there

3:02:17would be some

3:02:19proper

3:02:21oversight on any of the Heritage

3:02:23things as those things come forward,

3:02:25if possible, so I won't support

3:02:27this particular amendment.

3:02:29Councillor Allt.

3:02:31Thank you very much, Mayor Guthrie.

3:02:33I do want to thank Councillor

3:02:35Caron for bringing this forward.

3:02:37I have other issues besides Heritage

3:02:39District. This is a highly congested

3:02:41area, and it is already an area

3:02:43where there is a significant amount

3:02:45of density, and more importantly,

3:02:47traffic density as well.

3:02:49I think it behooves us

3:02:51to actually support the traditional

3:02:53character of the area, primarily

3:02:55because it is very much people-focused

3:02:57and for us to increase the density

3:02:59in that area is going to lead to

3:03:01some significant people-based

3:03:03concerns for many of the residents in the area.

3:03:05Okay.

3:03:07With that, I'll call the vote then.

3:03:09So, oh, sorry,

3:03:11Councillor Caitlin, you go right ahead.

3:03:13Go first before I call the vote. Sorry.

3:03:15Thanks, sorry, through you to staff.

3:03:17I just had a question.

3:03:19What would be the timing on the Heritage

3:03:21study for that area if this were to pass?

3:03:23Through you, Mr. Mayor.

3:03:27Again, our best estimate is

3:03:29it's close to probably

3:03:31a decade out.

3:03:33Now, I have just received some clarification

3:03:35from our Heritage planners that they are

3:03:37pursuing individual designations of some

3:03:39of the properties in that corridor.

3:03:41I don't know what a corridor is,

3:03:43but in that corridor,

3:03:45and they are looking at bringing forward

3:03:47some notice

3:03:49of intentions to designate

3:03:51in the coming months. So,

3:03:53there will be some protection on an

3:03:55individual property basis,

3:03:57but the Heritage Conservation District would be

3:03:59a little bit further out. Again,

3:04:01probably more like the 8 to 10 year range.

3:04:03Sorry.

3:04:05Through you, staff.

3:04:07How many properties

3:04:09would that be affected?

3:04:11I don't know exactly how many properties

3:04:17would be in the Heritage Conservation District

3:04:19study area, but what Heritage Planning

3:04:21staff has advised now is that

3:04:23they approximately eight of the properties

3:04:25are what they're looking at for a notice

3:04:27of intention to designate in the coming months.

3:04:29Okay.

3:04:31Thank you.

3:04:38Gibson, please.

3:04:42I applaud the mover for

3:04:44bringing it forward, however.

3:04:46It's a blanket statement

3:04:48and it creates

3:04:50a vacuum of ideas, I think,

3:04:52in the area. I think that there is lots

3:04:54of protection already for Heritage.

3:04:56I think that you've heard from staff

3:04:58that there will be some site-specific decisions

3:05:00that get made, but to blanket

3:05:02the whole area for

3:05:04no ideas

3:05:06beyond two to four stories, I think

3:05:08is for almost a decade.

3:05:10I think that almost serves as a

3:05:14I don't know, a blockade for development.

3:05:16So I'm going to vote against and I

3:05:18trust that the protections for Heritage

3:05:20are in place as staff have said.

3:05:22Yes.

3:05:31Mine is a question.

3:05:35When I look at Norfolk

3:05:37that quarter from Oxford

3:05:39to London, I can only think

3:05:41of mostly Heritage sites.

3:05:438 is a very few number.

3:05:47There are no protections if only

3:05:498

3:05:51are going through a designation process

3:05:53at some point.

3:05:55I mean, there are 8 of those many

3:05:57buildings. My question to

3:05:59and this might be a Heritage

3:06:01staff question,

3:06:03but the

3:06:05way that

3:06:07properties

3:06:09were picked, one of the criteria

3:06:11for picking properties

3:06:13for designation in this

3:06:15tight timeline

3:06:17was

3:06:19due to risk

3:06:21factors.

3:06:23That's

3:06:25okay, we got you.

3:06:27Sorry, Councillor, you just

3:06:29didn't have, you weren't muted

3:06:31and we could hear you drumming. It was good.

3:06:33But Councillor

3:06:35Downer, over to you.

3:06:37One of the reasons we did

3:06:39and there was a reason for doing Heritage

3:06:41districts, the reasons that

3:06:43we did pick the three, there was reasons

3:06:45for

3:06:47risk for certain properties

3:06:49and so to me

3:06:51this is now raising the risk

3:06:53and a lot of these

3:06:55downtown areas, this

3:06:57policy that we're doing now

3:06:59and as Councillor

3:07:01John talked about, while those

3:07:03protections are at their risk

3:07:05of land assemblies and

3:07:07without having designations

3:07:09and not being able to get to

3:07:11that many. So my concern is

3:07:13is this going to change

3:07:15the areas of risk and

3:07:17moving forward with Heritage

3:07:19Guelph on picking properties

3:07:21to try to get designated over the next

3:07:23two years?

3:07:25Through you, Mr. Mayor, Stephen

3:07:27is actually here so I'm going to call him

3:07:29and answer that question

3:07:33when they keep saying risk.

3:07:47Thank you. Through you, Mr.

3:07:49Mayor, to Councillor Downer

3:07:51it is my

3:07:53opinion that this does make

3:07:55change to what areas should

3:07:57be considered to be at risk

3:07:59for the conservation of significant

3:08:01Heritage properties.

3:08:03Although I will say that

3:08:05Heritage Planning staff

3:08:07really has their desk full

3:08:09at the moment with

3:08:11all three of us

3:08:13with the

3:08:15not only with the individual designations

3:08:17schedule or at least the intentions

3:08:19to designate but also

3:08:21the three Heritage

3:08:23Conservation Districts, Studies and

3:08:25subsequent plans that we're working on.

3:08:27But to get

3:08:29back to the question, to the

3:08:31answer to your question, I would agree

3:08:33this does change the

3:08:35risk. Although

3:08:37I think

3:08:39that I'd like to

3:08:41rely also on

3:08:43the fact that the Norfolk

3:08:45and Woolett Street

3:08:47corridor is a well-known

3:08:49Heritage Streetscape

3:08:51and it's well not only well

3:08:53known to the residents but

3:08:55to the public and I'd like to think

3:08:57it well known to the property owners

3:08:59or developers or potential

3:09:01developers. So I'd like to think

3:09:03that development in

3:09:05that area would be more sympathetic

3:09:07or more

3:09:09looking to incorporate

3:09:11the Heritage character than

3:09:13to remove in order to

3:09:15simply to densify.

3:09:17Okay.

3:09:19So that might answer

3:09:21my question. So I'd like

3:09:23I'm going to support it. I think we should

3:09:25be more than we would like

3:09:27to think they might like.

3:09:29Money speaks louder unfortunately.

3:09:31And

3:09:33you know this is now

3:09:35sort of got me you know

3:09:37it's just something I thought about now

3:09:39about the Heritage stuff and the risk

3:09:41issues that

3:09:43we have moving forward in the

3:09:45downtown.

3:09:47So I'll support

3:09:49Councillor Ciaran's motion on this.

3:09:51I have some concerns

3:09:53and you know we don't

3:09:55and as

3:09:57Mr. Robinson has said

3:09:59the capacity is not there to designate

3:10:01everything in the downtown

3:10:03and do districts everywhere

3:10:05right now but

3:10:07you know there are things

3:10:10we've lost in the past without protection

3:10:12and we thought things we thought should

3:10:14have been saved and so I'm

3:10:16concerned about this.

3:10:18Lovely streetscape we have here. Thanks.

3:10:20Thank you.

3:10:22I'm going to have

3:10:24to ask staff to put

3:10:26up on the screen

3:10:28the map

3:10:30so that I can just visually

3:10:32make sure that I'm looking at the right section

3:10:34of what each amendment here is coming forward

3:10:36which is impacting. It just

3:10:38would help me. We've come this far

3:10:40I think in 30 seconds

3:10:42just to determine what's going on.

3:10:44I would appreciate it. I have it up on my

3:10:46iPad here but I just want

3:10:48everyone to be clear about

3:10:50the breadth of the section

3:10:52or the smallness

3:10:54of the section whatever comes up

3:10:56on the screen.

3:10:58Sure this one's fine

3:11:00so

3:11:02my glasses

3:11:04where's my glasses.

3:11:08Can you just

3:11:10explain can you put the motion back up please

3:11:12on the not sorry not

3:11:14put the motion back up leave that up

3:11:16Councillor Caron

3:11:18do you mind just reading out your motion again

3:11:20or just to describe who would you mind

3:11:22describing the area for sure that the Norfolk

3:11:24Woolwich corridor from Oxford to London

3:11:26remain two to four stories until

3:11:28such time as a heritage conservation

3:11:30district study is completed. Only from

3:11:43Oxford because

3:11:45I'm not including the library site. The library

3:11:47site's not included in this motion.

3:11:49Yeah so I'm slower

3:11:51so this is the way I am

3:11:53can I please have

3:11:55is there a laser pointer on there

3:11:57can you please can you please use

3:11:59it on that screen up there for me please

3:12:01you're a good pointer too Kathy

3:12:05yes I do

3:12:07so

3:12:11just here

3:12:13okay so not Woolwich

3:12:15not this triangle

3:12:19oh so it's just on this

3:12:21so where the library is

3:12:23but not the library

3:12:27and where all those

3:12:29okay what about the vacant land

3:12:31on the left before London

3:12:36sorry what about to the mover if you don't mind

3:12:38what about the vacant

3:12:40land that's ready to be built on

3:12:42at the corner of

3:12:44that is in London

3:12:46included in this motion but I would

3:12:48I would welcome an amendment

3:12:50to exclude

3:12:53that site in particular

3:12:55because it is vacant

3:12:57and what's it proposed at right now

3:12:59London

3:13:114 to 8

3:13:13yeah just because it's vacant

3:13:17right let's propose this

3:13:21nope it looks like

3:13:238 to me

3:13:254 to 8 can I have staff

3:13:27please confirm

3:13:29is that

3:13:31across from with the grain or whatever

3:13:33it's 6

3:13:35so if the motion was amended

3:13:37to go from Oxford to Edwin then you

3:13:39would capture it with and leave that out

3:13:41sorry everybody thank you

3:13:58my eyesight isn't helping so I

3:14:03appreciate everyone's patience

3:14:07okay does someone want to

3:14:09does anyone want to

3:14:11recommend

3:14:13an amendment to that because it's a vacant piece of land

3:14:15okay so

3:14:17someone's going to make an amendment

3:14:19okay Councillor Goller

3:14:21you're going to move an amendment on that

3:14:23yes your worship

3:14:25but what's your motion going to be

3:14:27can you send it to the clerk

3:14:29yeah I'll send it to substitute

3:14:31the word London

3:14:33for the word Edwin

3:14:52could staff just confirm on the map

3:14:54it says Edwin

3:14:56and then there's like another street

3:14:58and then there's London

3:15:00is that a phantom street

3:15:35there is a

3:15:37it looks like a mapping error on the way the streets are labeled

3:15:39outside of the downtown secondary plan area

3:15:41but it should say if you refer to Edwin

3:15:43that will get to the street

3:15:45that is just south of London

3:15:47and we'll make sure that mapping is

3:15:49okay

3:15:54hey everybody

3:15:56sorry I'm asking questions I just want to make sure

3:15:58I know I'm voting on so

3:16:00appreciate it

3:16:02okay so Gowler

3:16:04we are moving to

3:16:06not have Councillor Caron's amendment

3:16:08apply to that particular piece of land

3:16:10and to let it stand

3:16:12seconded by who was it

3:16:14Billings okay can I call the vote on that

3:16:16okay

3:16:18is anyone against that amendment

3:16:20to the amendment

3:16:22you're against that one okay

3:16:24so just alt is against that one

3:16:26okay

3:16:28alright now we're back to

3:16:30the amendment as amended

3:16:32of Councillor

3:16:34Cron's

3:16:36and so I will call the vote on that

3:16:38and

3:16:40who is not in favour of that

3:16:42okay so

3:16:46and

3:16:48and

3:16:50and

3:16:52and I think that might be it

3:16:54my eyesight is catching that right

3:16:56yep so it's

3:16:58four against passes

3:17:00so that amendment is passed

3:17:02thank you

3:17:04thank you for the time

3:17:06what's go to number two for you Councillor Caron

3:17:08hopefully this one won't be as controversial

3:17:10the

3:17:12vision statement in section 11.1.2.1

3:17:14says

3:17:16redevelopment will

3:17:18have also created opportunities for renewal

3:17:20and alternative energy systems

3:17:22and I just like it to be much stronger

3:17:24in our statement that this redevelopment

3:17:26will necessitate a new approach to renewable

3:17:28and then I have another amendment at the end

3:17:30that relates to that

3:17:32but I'm substituting

3:17:34the word necessitate

3:17:36to add stronger language

3:17:38on energy systems

3:17:40let's see if we have a

3:17:43seconder for that strong word

3:17:47okay alt

3:17:49and so

3:17:51are there any questions around

3:17:53the flavour of that with the word necessitate

3:17:55okay Gibson

3:17:57yeah thank you through Mr.

3:18:01just clarifying

3:18:03you're speaking specifically to the vision

3:18:05of the

3:18:07of the

3:18:09like the report of the document

3:18:11correct not the

3:18:13not the I know you're not speaking

3:18:15to legislated necessitation

3:18:17like we can't

3:18:19we can't

3:18:21demand necessity

3:18:23we've heard this answer from staff many times

3:18:25you're simply speaking to the vision

3:18:27correct

3:18:29yes section 11 is the vision statement

3:18:31right

3:18:36okay thank you

3:18:38is there any concern from I seen

3:18:40nothing further from my colleagues on questions

3:18:42is there any concern on this

3:18:44different word from staff

3:18:48it doesn't really

3:18:50change anything with our approach

3:18:52yeah or any or the

3:18:54way that we would approach development

3:18:56so okay so it won't hinder

3:18:58anybody coming forward and you're going to be like

3:19:00I'm sorry that word

3:19:02means you got to do the following 10 things no

3:19:04no

3:19:06thank you

3:19:08okay

3:19:10I will call

3:19:12the vote then is anyone against the change

3:19:14change as amended

3:19:16by Councillor Caron

3:19:19nobody that's unanimous go ahead

3:19:21Councillor Caron you have a third one

3:19:23the next one might be a little more controversial

3:19:25all the talk about urban amphitheater

3:19:27and the visual

3:19:29addition of six stories but due to

3:19:31the topography

3:19:33the changes between January and March

3:19:35added significant height

3:19:37to the lands bounded by the railway

3:19:39to the north, Fountain Street to the south,

3:19:41Wyndham Street to the east and Gordon to the west

3:19:43that includes all the buildings, the police station

3:19:45Armory's Farmers Market and Stone Store sites

3:19:47I'd like that to be amended to

3:19:49maximum of 12 stories

3:19:56all to again we'll second

3:19:59so I would prefer

3:20:01that the map come back up on the screen again

3:20:03please

3:20:05and to the mover if you don't mind

3:20:07for my sake can you just describe it

3:20:09one more

3:20:11if it's the March

3:20:13section and the March map

3:20:15it's all the purple

3:20:20yeah so that dark purple color

3:20:24in the January version

3:20:26much of that area was

3:20:2812 stories and in the new March

3:20:30version it's 24 stories so

3:20:32it's that whole area

3:20:34between Fountain

3:20:36Street

3:20:38and the railway tracks

3:20:40the purple

3:20:44okay thank you is there any questions

3:20:46of staff on that one

3:20:48Guller

3:20:51thank you for your worship

3:20:53this one feels like a significant change

3:20:55now staff have

3:20:57proposed flexibility could you let me know

3:20:59if we take all of those

3:21:01what you had proposed as 24 stories

3:21:03and

3:21:05limited to 12 what would that do

3:21:07to the flexibility

3:21:09that you had spoken about

3:21:18through you Mr. Mayor to Councillor Goller

3:21:20I guess it would reduce

3:21:22flexibility the reason that we

3:21:24had introduced more height

3:21:26so to clarify north of

3:21:28Farquhar to the tracks

3:21:30we had proposed a height of 20 stories

3:21:32in the recommended

3:21:34official plan amendment

3:21:36and part of the reason for that was that

3:21:38the

3:21:40armory is located in that area and there is a

3:21:42significant amount of vacant land

3:21:44behind the existing building

3:21:46and if the federal government

3:21:48is interested in

3:21:50using vacant land for housing

3:21:52that is an opportunity for that to happen

3:21:54so that was one of the reasons that we had introduced

3:21:56additional height there

3:21:58and again

3:22:00the direction at the statutory

3:22:02public meeting to be a bit more

3:22:04bold was part of the reason

3:22:06why we used sort of a broader brush

3:22:08to increase the height and to

3:22:10apply it to larger areas

3:22:12so those were the reasons

3:22:14why we made the changes

3:22:16and again

3:22:18looking at opportunities where there is

3:22:20vacant land to

3:22:22increase housing potential

3:22:24Thank you very much for that rationale

3:22:26as that is the reason

3:22:28and this is land owned

3:22:30by the government

3:22:32I cannot support that

3:22:34this motion

3:22:37Thank you anything further

3:22:39just a reminder

3:22:41we as a government also own

3:22:43Fountain Street too

3:22:45so

3:22:47Downer and then I saw a chew please

3:22:49so this is

3:22:51one I am not going to support

3:22:53I think that

3:22:55when I think of additional heights in the downtown

3:22:57I do think of this area and I also

3:22:59will then trust on this

3:23:01the urban design masters plan

3:23:03to deal with any of the heritage issues

3:23:05in this area

3:23:07there is a lot of potential there

3:23:09and

3:23:11I think we can do this

3:23:13with the master plan

3:23:15this whole sort of whole

3:23:17quadrant needs a master plan

3:23:19itself almost because we know

3:23:21that there is a lot of vacant property

3:23:23that could be developed and it would be

3:23:25great to do something like we do with Baker Street

3:23:27like sort of let's create a plan

3:23:29for this area specifically

3:23:31I think would be a good idea

3:23:35Thank you and then Chew

3:23:37wanted to jump in on this one

3:23:39I'm just curious

3:23:41through you Mr. Mayor

3:23:43to staff can you kind of paint a picture

3:23:45of some of the remediation work

3:23:47that needs to take place on some of these lands

3:23:49and how maybe that

3:23:51played into your assessment on

3:23:53some of the height considerations

3:23:55Through you Mr. Mayor

3:23:58again we don't really

3:24:00get into like exact remediation requirements

3:24:02until we're looking at things site specifically

3:24:04because it can be so different for different

3:24:06sites so

3:24:08if remediation is required

3:24:10there is a cost associated

3:24:12with that but in terms of

3:24:14how that impacted our

3:24:16height decisions

3:24:18I would say it doesn't specifically because

3:24:20we do not have detailed information about

3:24:22every site downtown

3:24:24Okay yeah no

3:24:26that's fair I'm just curious

3:24:28if

3:24:30just the fact that

3:24:32maybe we need to remediate

3:24:34some of these sites

3:24:36plays into us

3:24:38needing to provide more flexibility

3:24:40for future proponents to do some

3:24:42working here and I'll just leave that as a

3:24:44comment Okay thank you

3:24:46Boussatil

3:24:48and then Klassen

3:24:50and then I can maybe call a vote on

3:24:52this one okay go ahead Boussatil

3:24:54Thank you I don't have the

3:24:56motion up on the screen but I just

3:24:58clarification it's Fountain Street to the south

3:25:00Windham Street and

3:25:02Gordon to the west

3:25:06Yes and it does not include

3:25:08the city-owned Fountain Street parking lot

3:25:10City-owned Fountain Street parking lot remains at

3:25:1224 stories

3:25:14Okay so can I

3:25:16please ask for the map back up again

3:25:18because I'm a little bit confused by this again

3:25:20Fountain Street to the railroad tracks

3:25:25and

3:25:33that just for reference

3:25:35that's where the slope drastically reduces

3:25:37like when you're driving

3:25:39down Gordon Street is kind of

3:25:42the midway point

3:25:44where you go into the lower bowl area

3:25:46it's the police station

3:25:54to be clear

3:25:56and the armories

3:26:02I take back my parking lot comment