Heritage Guelph

0:01I did. What is that at all? So I like it.

0:05Conram, I'm just like, I'm gonna do it.

0:09I'm like, oh, come on.

0:13So, wow.

0:16All right.

0:20All right. Hello everyone and welcome. I'd like to call it an order in the February 6, 2025 meeting compared to 12. Welcome to committee members.

0:31staff and invited guests who are attending the meeting today.

0:35I'll begin with our land acknowledgement.

0:38So as we gather, let us take time to reflect on our privilege to live and work

0:41in wealth, and to be built over rich, indigenous histories.

0:45We are guests here, and we should reflect upon the responsibility to care for this

0:48land, the people who live here today, and the generations to come.

0:53If our actions today can move us towards reconciliation, we should take

0:56pause and make those decisions with intention and gratitude.

1:00This place we call Kuala Pest serve as traditional land and a place of

1:03refuge for many peoples over time, but more specifically, the Atom

1:07Wampanoag and the Haudenosaunee.

1:09This land is held as a treaty lands and a territory with the Mississaugas of

1:13the Credit First Nation.

1:14Kuala flies directly adjacent to the Haldwin Tract and is part of a long

1:18established traditional hunting ground for the six nations of the Grand River.

1:22Many First Nations, Inuits, and Métis peoples who have come from

1:25across Turtle Island called Kuala Pem today.

1:30So we'll move into disclosure of the culinary interests and the general

1:33nature thereof.

1:34I can begin.

1:35Item 4.6 is dealing with University of Guelph, which is my employer, so I will

1:39leave the room during the next discussion item.

1:42Any other disclosures from anyone online or in the room?

1:52We'll get into then the approval of the minutes.

1:54So our reminded motion is that the minutes of January 13, 2025, and January 27,

1:592025 meetings of the Heritage Guelph Committee be approved.

2:04Do I have a mover for that?

2:05Thank you.

2:06Alice, is that a seconder?

2:10Thank you.

2:11There's not many of us presidents.

2:12You have Miranda right now.

2:15Go crack your Miranda.

2:16And then all those in favor.

2:19Perfect.

2:20All right.

2:21And so our first item then is delegations to item 3.1, 19 Woody Crest Drive,

2:27draft council designation report.

2:29And I won't go through the whole thing.

2:32Um, was there a discussion that was going with this item?

2:38Stephen or Jack, nothing.

2:39Is it just being noted or?

2:42Just the motion was noted in the vote.

2:43Oh, just numbers of the public for an interest.

2:47Is that the?

2:49This motion.

2:50Oh, I see.

2:51It's out of order.

2:53Okay.

2:53So let me go down to 3.1.

2:57So it's just, please let the change that have been made to the list of proposed

3:00heritage attributes.

3:01Are we going to 3.1 now or are we going back to that later?

3:05That's when you.

3:07All the power would be.

3:08Yeah, I think we can just, just say this 1st, go through 3.1.

3:13Okay.

3:14Yeah.

3:14Perfect.

3:16So we have the recommended motion there.

3:19Uh, that.

3:21Sorry, was there?

3:23That's it.

3:23Okay.

3:23Perfect.

3:23Sorry, things have changed and getting back on track.

3:26Okay.

3:26That's all good.

3:27Then heritage qualifies the city council that 19 Woody Crest Drive merits designation

3:31under part 4, section 29 of the Ontario Heritage Act and that heritage qualifies

3:36the city council that the committee supports the heritage attributes for 19

3:40Woody Crest Drive as described in heritage planning staff report and revised agenda

3:44for the meeting of heritage 12 on February 6, 2025.

3:51Move for the motions.

3:53We're into think through secondary.

3:55Thank you.

3:55Alex, all those in favour?

3:58All right.

3:59So that was moved and now we'll go back.

4:10So we're moving into the actual consent agenda now and Wendy is going to take us through

4:14this.

4:15So just provide your answer for time ever doing this.

4:17So we'll be patient and learn and when he will begin for us.

4:21Thank you, Chair.

4:21I would like to introduce what exactly is consent agenda because this is for a

4:26standard we have consent agenda.

4:28So actually content agenda means a lease of consent items being presented to the

4:33advisory committees for its consideration.

4:36The content agenda may consist of the items that do not have presentations or

4:40delegations, for instance, like the information or some updates.

4:44Just like introducing new stuff, something like that.

4:46And also some reports of correspondence from staff and also some items of a timely

4:52reference. So actually the committee's members can identify item on the

4:57consent agenda, which they wish to speak or to have further discussion.

5:01And this item shall be extracted from the consent agenda and move it to the

5:06committee item for discussion.

5:08So this is the mechanism of consent agenda just happening in council meetings

5:13and also some of the advisory committees means we think like ADC actually.

5:19Yeah.

5:21And then just noting for item 3.6, the 3.8 Victoria Road South, there is a

5:27delegation for that one.

5:28So we're going to move that down to committee items.

5:31So it won't be part of the consent agenda just for everyone's reference.

5:38So maybe I'll ask, is there anything from the consent agenda that anyone wants to

5:43have sort of a more wholesome discussion on and have it pulled?

5:47There's we're allowed to ask clarifying questions of clarification for the files.

5:52But if there's anything that requires more of a discussion that should be pulled

5:54from the consent agenda, not seeing anyone suggest that.

6:02Okay.

6:03And so then people begin with yeah, 33 Dorming Lane.

6:10So I'll read the motion.

6:11What I'll do is for each of these, I'll take out some motions and if you before

6:15we have the motion to ask, if there's any questions for clarification, I'll read the

6:18motions and then we'll vote.

6:19If that works for everyone.

6:21So for 33 Dorming Lane, are there any questions regarding this file?

6:30So interesting just to look at three people really fast.

6:33All right.

6:34So our recommended motions are that Heritage 12 advises city council that 33

6:38Dorming Lane, their designation under part four, section 29 of the Ontario Heritage

6:42Act and that Heritage 12 advises city council that the committee supports the

6:46heritage attributes for 33 Dorming Lane as outlined in the heritage planning staff

6:50report dated every 6, 20, 25.

6:53Do I have anyone to move that motion?

6:55Motions.

6:56Thank you.

6:56David, I'll just give you a second.

6:57That's okay.

6:58All in favor.

7:00Excellent.

7:02All right.

7:02Is there any questions for 59?

7:05Green Street.

7:11All right.

7:12So our recommended motion is that Heritage 12 advises city council that 59 Green Street

7:16merits designation under part four, section 29 of the Ontario Heritage Act and that

7:21Heritage 12 advises city council that the committee supports the heritage attributes

7:25for 59 Green Street as outlined in the heritage planning staff report dated every 6, 20, 25.

7:30Is there someone to move that one?

7:33Thank you.

7:34Alex, a second there.

7:35All in favor.

7:38Perfect.

7:39Moving on.

7:42All right.

7:42So 30 Eramassa Road.

7:45Any questions about this file?

7:50Nope.

7:51All right.

7:51So our recommended motion is that Heritage 12 advises city council that 30 Eramassa Road

7:55merits designation under part four of the Ontario Heritage Act and that Heritage 12 advises

8:00city council that the committee supports the heritage attributes recommended in the staff

8:04report titled 30 Eramassa Road draft council designation report and dated every 6, 20, 25.

8:09All right.

8:10Move her.

8:11Alex, I can do her.

8:12I'll take Dave on this one and all in favor.

8:14Perfect.

8:17And then our last one from the consent agenda then is 32 Eramassa Road.

8:21Are there any questions regarding this file?

8:24All right.

8:25So our recommended motion is that Heritage 12 advises city council that 32 Eramassa Road

8:31merits designation under part four of the Ontario Heritage Act and that Heritage 12

8:36advises city council that the committee supports the heritage attributes recommended in the

8:39staff report titled 32 Eramassa Road draft council designation report and dated every 6, 20, 25.

8:46Move her.

8:48Alex, the second or Miranda and all in favor.

8:51Excellent.

8:52Thank you everyone.

8:54And then Dave asked online.

8:58Perfect.

8:59Okay.

8:59So we'll move on then to three, two, one.

9:02Yes, Stephen.

9:03Thank you.

9:04Thank you, chair.

9:05Was the actual recommendation read for 19?

9:09Was that no, that was an previous item.

9:13Motion was right before the consent agenda, but I just wasn't sure if it needed to be read again.

9:20We moved to seconded it.

9:23So we have to go through that again.

9:25Sure.

9:27So we'll go back through 19 what he crossed the motion.

9:321. 1 more time. So the recommended motions was item 3.1 that heritage 12 advise the city council that 19 would he press drive merits designation under part 4 section 29 of the Ontario Heritage Act.

9:46And that heritage 12 by the city council that the committee supports the heritage attributes for 19 would he press drive as described in the heritage planning staffs report from the revised agenda for the meeting of heritage 12 on February 6, 2025.

9:581. That was a lot.

10:01Very to 2nd or please move or Alex then an all in favour.

10:04Fantastic motion some of them who.

10:09All right, so we'll go to item 3.6, which will be a committee item now, which is 328 Victoria road south.

10:17And we have a delegation from Dave Aston.

10:22Yeah, absolutely. I don't have anyone on the staff on this. I'm going to guess it's you, Steven.

10:35I'm just saying your name on here.

10:39Good afternoon, chair. Am I waiting for Steven or do you want me to go ahead? I'm just not sure of the.

10:45Yeah, Steven, so to speak first. Thank you. Thank you.

10:49Thanks, Steve, and thank you for attending today.

10:53I just wanted to do a really a high level summary, sort of a read really quick read through of my staff report.

11:01As I'm sure the committee members have had an opportunity to read through themselves.

11:06This report for 328 Victoria roads south.

11:10Is in regard in particular to what's known now as the frost building.

11:14And the recommendations coming from heritage playing staff or heritage wealth.

11:20Advises council that frost building here is designation.

11:24And also that heritage wealth advises council to support the heritage attributes that have been identified in the staff.

11:34And again, I'm not going to read through as much as just touch on things. It's important to realize with all of the designations that we're dealing with these days is that.

11:45The government of Ontario has passed bill 23, which is necessary for municipalities to make decisions as to which properties they want to continue to protect.

11:55After non designated properties are removed from the heritage register as of January 1st on 27.

12:02So, on that note, the frost building has been identified as 1 of those buildings that requires your view and.

12:14So, the building formerly known as the turf grass Institute building or the GM frost center.

12:21It's currently listed as a non designated.

12:24Built resource on the municipal register culture, heritage properties.

12:29And planning staff, which includes heritage planning are currently working with fusion homes as the proponent in the development of a block plan for.

12:40Block 1 of the wealth innovation district or the secondary plan area.

12:45So, the secondary plan objectives for cultural heritage.

12:50The retention and integration of the turf grass Institute building or frost building into the community is encouraged.

13:02I want to mention that has been obtained by fusion homes to undertake cultural heritage valuation report for the entire block.

13:11Plant areas 1, 2, and 3, and that's currently in production.

13:16So, heritage planning has evaluated the frost building.

13:21And using obviously the regulation under the entire heritage act. And we find and recommend that the building meets 5 of the 9.

13:31Prescribe criteria for defining cultural heritage value or interest and I'm going to go through those really quickly.

13:42So, the bill, the frost building.

13:45Has designed physical value and as historical associated value and contextual value.

13:52It has physical or design value because it and it meets criteria 1 because it is a good representative example of late 20th century post modernist building.

14:04Designed by Gual for architect Carl Burstansky.

14:07The building has historical or associate of value as it has direct associations with the theme of wealth's historically close connection with a progressive and advanced form of agriculture.

14:19And the building has the historical and associate of value because it demonstrates the work of an architect who's significant to the wealth community and cities later 20th century architectural history.

14:31Finally, the contextual value is met in 2 ways and under criteria 8.

14:39Building is visually linked to its surroundings.

14:42It's location on a noal overlooking the city or looking to downtown in particular at some distance from Victoria road was intentionally oriented.

14:51So, the building central hall looks toward the city's major landmark.

14:55The the silica of our lady.

14:58The building has contextual value because it's become a landmark that is seen from the career roads and from the interior of reform, entire property to the east.

15:07Finally, the touch on the heritage attributes that staff are recommending that would be protected in a heritage designation by law for this property.

15:17That would be the original form and passing of the cross building, including the large steep slope.

15:23The main cable roof with similar smaller traverse cables.

15:27Sorry, transverse cables.

15:29The walls of glass facing the downtown of the city.

15:33Gable roof lantern at the center of the main roof and the tubular steel exterior structural supports.

15:40So, I've already mentioned the 2 recommendations that the planning staff is making.

15:49I'm happy to answer questions at any point during this item, but also I'm happy to welcome Dave Astin as representative of the property.

16:01You will turn it over to Dave and then we'll open to questions after that.

16:08Great. Thank you, chair and good afternoon to members of committee and staff and Stephen. Thanks for the overview and

16:17I appreciate that we've had an opportunity to continue dialogue as it relates to

16:23this building because I just at this point want to convey to this committee a couple of things.

16:34One, there's no immediate threat here with regard to the demolition of the building.

16:41There's no intent to move forward with any action associated with that.

16:47And I just want to flag that in consideration of some of the comments on why there's a need to move forward at this time

16:57with a recommendation. What we're actually hoping to do or to have this committee

17:05is to allow a little bit more time for some discussion to occur

17:10with staff. As Stephen had mentioned that there's work underway by our team.

17:16There's been some discussions with Stephen as far as the various considerations and the criteria for designations.

17:25And we think that additional discussion is needed on those.

17:31I mean we respect that staff can provide an opinion. But I think that part of our discussions have been

17:40looking at understanding that criteria. The other thing that we'd like to do is have some

17:48discussion on the list of attributes and the elements that are intended to be protected through the list of attributes.

17:59Again we think that there could be some clarity there on what it is that

18:07are within the list of attributes as far as the building and the I guess orientation of the building and such.

18:15So there's still some questions on our end and there's still some work to be done on our end.

18:23And we think further discussion would be worthwhile to see if there's

18:34some additional information that may assist this committee prior to making a recommendation

18:42for council consideration. So I think that's our request today is can we maybe look to defer

18:50this to allow some further discussion to occur. And happy to answer any questions.

19:02Hi Dave, how much time are you looking at and what steps are in process? You need to put in process to come back.

19:12Yeah thanks and through you chair. I mean there's a process we're going to be we're working through the

19:19block plan process now there'll be future planning applications where there's a plan of subdivision

19:27official plan and zoning. And I think that's where we need a little bit more time to understand how

19:37those process could unfold and how this discussion can be undertaken as part of that process

19:45rather than maybe at this point in advance of that process is we think there may be some

19:53points for discussion as we start to work through the planning processes.

19:57And so that those process will take some time. Number of months I would suggest but we're just

20:06looking to see if there's opportunity to you know deal with the matter through the review of the planning

20:14applications process rather than at this point in time. Through the chair to the delegate.

20:33Part of getting prepared for this meeting I was doing some background research and there's a

20:39planning justification report that was published back in April of last year and in that report

20:49MHVC doesn't identify that resource as a candidate for designation so

20:56is that the position that is still held as far as as it relates to this

21:03the ongoing planning application or are you guys considering reviewing that? I just I don't know if

21:10if if allowing for more discussion is going to is is that are you saying that it's opening the door

21:15to having a you know a conversation about designation or is is the position going to be the same at the

21:22end of that extension? Through you chair good question. At the time of that report and the

21:31analysis of our team or the criteria it was not landing the building itself landing and meeting to

21:41the criteria for designation and so we've had some discussions with city staff and we've been

21:51doing some further background ourselves. At the end of the day will this additional discussion

22:00result in a report that finds its way to a designation? I think we're still kind of working

22:08through our analysis as part of the heritage review and impact assessment to to come to a conclusion

22:17on that so I couldn't say for certain that a conclusion is going to be different than our

22:25original conclusion but that's where we've been having discussion with staff and in gathering

22:34additional information to better understand the criteria and if from our perspective

22:46are the criteria met in the same way that as is discussed in the staff report? Thank you.

22:57Through you chair to Stephen. In looking at the heritage attributes that are listed in the staff

23:04report I wanted to just clarify you know the contextual value talks a lot about the site lines

23:13as they relate to Basilica and also with the landmark on the hill and invisible

23:21that doesn't seem to be represented currently in the attributes is that something that

23:25was you know choosing to leave off or I just want to understand if you know there's a consideration

23:33for that sort of linking the significant parts of what makes this building

23:41heritage act versus you know the attributes as they imply. Through the chair I'm not sure if that was

23:49to me maybe I'll comment but it's probably maybe Stephen's question to answer on the staff

23:55recommendation what I know in discussions we've had with Stephen as far as site lines and landmark

24:03and and and I perhaps Stephen can comment but my my thought would be is we we also know that

24:14there's been a lot of planning and work done associated with the Guelph Innovation District

24:19and and what is being planned for that area and what is being planned for that area

24:29likely will result in changes to the streetscape or the form around the existing building so

24:39the lands are planned for future residential with higher density along Stone Road and Victoria

24:46Street so that you know will likely and well will have impact associated with site lines from

24:55any of the existing public roads with regard to site lines and views from the building it's

25:06not really clear I will I do acknowledge that the secondary plan identifies views a view of

25:14within the GID area toward the downtown it's not necessarily I don't think linked to the building

25:25itself but there is an identification of views but again that the views are going to change

25:33given the intended change of land uses around the building so that would be my perspective I

25:41I would leave it to Stephen to maybe suggest why it's not in the attributes

25:46with seeing that it's his report but those would be my comments

25:53thanks it's it's it's true that the heritage attributes don't refer to the view from the

26:02cross-pilipines that that's a decision that was made by the planning staff I think the main

26:12main goal was to retain the building itself and also what's what staff what here's planning staff

26:24is is trying to procure here would be the advice or the comments

26:29the heritage well as I can inform the planning process of the discussions so it's really up

26:38to the committee to decide what recommendations you'd like to make but as far as the heritage

26:43attributes about the building itself I'm confident with the list that the four bullets that I've

26:51suggested so that's that's that's what's being recommended at this time I think that it as I've

27:00said it's important for the block plan process to be aware of what the position of heritage

27:05planning staff is but also the heritage advisory committee so in regard to Dave's request for

27:13for deferral or for more time it's it's possible to give maybe one or two months more but no more

27:25because it's important for the the input the input is needed from heritage planning staff for at least

27:32the and we've that's that is coming in the form of this report essentially to be consistent but

27:39also as as I mentioned it's important to have heritage qualms commentary in that discussion

27:47Dave a really good question as well and then Brenda I see your hand is up when you were

27:51commenting about the timeline that you require was that the full planning process you're referring

27:56to or the cultural heritage evaluation report and are those both sort of the same thing you're

28:01referring to or is the cultural heritage evaluation report something that would be available sooner

28:07through the chair the hia that that I was referring to probably would be available

28:17and in the coming months I you know the next few months and maybe I should should clarify because

28:28I appreciate what what Steven was saying is my understanding is the recommendation here is for

28:40heritage wealth to provide a recommendation to council to move forward with the notice of

28:47intention to designate and that's all that I'm suggesting that if that could be deferred maybe

28:57until after we're through the process of the applications with regard to the intent to designate

29:06or any or the designation I think the staff report provides information as it relates to

29:15the staff position on the kind of intent to deal with the building but I'm more speaking to

29:27is there opportunity to hold on the notice of intent to designate and and moving forward with

29:36the designation until perhaps we have a better understanding of where we're heading with the

29:42planning applications thank you Brandon um I guess uh more a comment but just confirming

29:52that you know this building is is obviously uh really interesting from a heritage perspective

29:58but we were not in a position to designate this building before now just based on the

30:02fact that it was owned by the province of Ontario is that right Steven before it was sold to fusion

30:09homes it's uh through the chair it it's true it's not uh it is possible to discuss heritage

30:19designation bylaws with the province for a property that's owned by the province but

30:25any any bylaw that may be passed by council it cannot come into full force and effect until

30:30it's not owned by the province and a good example of that is is the reformatory property owned by

30:36the province has 75 year improvement yes okay that's exactly what I thought um and just looking

30:43at the heritage attributes you've listed Steven they're um pretty simple just four bullet points and

30:51looks like nothing there would necessarily impact the what happens on the inside of the building

30:59would I'm sorry through the chair was that a question or comment uh it was a comment

31:04that there's lots that could still be done with this building uh if it's left standing as long as

31:09the exterior remains largely the same for alternative reuse yeah uh through the chair to the delegate

31:22um you mentioned having some wanting to clarify uh parts of the attributes list that's been provided

31:33by staff do you do you have questions or clarifications you want to explore in this meeting

31:38or I you know I'm just as a committee member I'm curious to know what is the sticking point for

31:50this particular file that would you know so that deferral to an item

31:59through the chair thanks and I guess as as an example would be just maybe some clarification on

32:06where uh you know the original building form and and massing uh because it goes on to say

32:14including the large steep slope main cable cable roof are we talking I mean there are clearly

32:20some design elements say the front entrance of the building itself and then there are you know

32:27other components associated with the building that and and parts to the rear of the building that uh

32:38don't have that same kind of design focus and that's what I'm trying to understand is it

32:48it is it actually everything with the building or is it you know say the front facade or

32:56or something to that effect that is uh what is the key part because even in the

33:03in the picture in the staff report it's really everything's kind of taken looking at that front

33:08facade so is it is it a facade or is it the whole the whole original building that's an example of what

33:20I'm trying to understand share I'm just in order to maybe help answer Dave's question

33:30I'm attempting to share one of the images that I have in the report spare with me for a second

33:41so I'm sorry I don't have my mouse with me to take some a little bit

33:52we will crush you don't worry now thankfully the images are within the report and not in the

34:01task so I for the image I wanted to show actually two images would be these two

34:10and my intention with recommending the the four bullet points of heritage attributes

34:16it really what I really would like to see retained and and conserved would be the

34:22the original building form that you see in the top photo so that large gable roof which is really

34:29in my opinion one of the the main part of the vocabulary this building was inspired by

34:36rural architecture and Bristensky wanted to show those large red roofs from a distance

34:44see I believe that's that's still successful the all the glazing on the walls that face the

34:51downtown that was intentional so that you could see it toward the downtown and also you know the

35:00smaller gable roofs and especially that what's called a lantern on the on the top of the main

35:05roof that's that's a typical architectural form from the rural building design rural architecture

35:13and yes there is such a thing as rural architecture so and it was something that

35:18Bristensky and other postmodernist architects were were pulling from in their designs by the late

35:251990s the second photograph shows Dave I think you might have referred to the front door and

35:32to the visitor you've actually come to the the main entrance at the rear of the building so it's

35:39not technically a front door but it's the main entrance and although the main entrance is quite

35:45impressive I found I on purpose I didn't name it specifically in the attributes because I'd like

35:51for this building to be as adaptable as possible without losing the most important heritage attributes

35:59that have been designed or that have been identified or for a potential by a lot so suffice to say what

36:06you see on from the rear that there's much more flexibility as far as change if change is required

36:14at the rear of the building or an addition or an alteration and to the left of that entrance

36:22porch so to speak there is part of the building that I believe was in addition anyways it seems

36:27like a secondary part of the building and I'm not I don't I on purpose did not include that part of

36:32the building in the attributes does Dave does that help clarify yeah I did somewhat that does help

36:43clarify and and I'm not sure if that was an addition or original or not and maybe that's something

36:53that that we can figure out together and if but if that was the intent of kind of using the language

37:01original building form and and massing maybe that's that was what I was trying to understand is

37:08there's you know this I read that to say what what we see here is everything including those other

37:17things so I mean I may read it maybe a little bit differently than then you explained it

37:30there are other questions or comments Stephen go ahead sorry I so this building it shares

37:43it shares the same designer as the one downtown right right and the center of the square

37:50no not the kitchener sorry in George Square in George Square yeah okay

37:57you mean the in in my report the the figure six shows five buildings that were also designed

38:04right for Stancki yeah and the fourth one it's on St. George's Square it's called historically

38:11it's been called the National Trust Building right okay thank you I just as a comment I

38:23I think it's it's important and I in the appreciate the decision that staff has made with regards to the

38:31attributes but I do find that it's an important activity for you know for strong heritage

38:41designation reports to link as best as possible the statements of significance to attributes and so

38:49I would really like to see mention of the site line since the orientation and location of the

38:57has been identified in the interviews with the design of the architect

39:03has been important to why they placed it in the location that they did

39:08so as a comment I would like to see that included and then as far as in response to

39:16comments around the timing of all this I mean whether or not the building is

39:22at risk of demolition or not by the current owners

39:28I think is not necessarily the issue here the key issue is that the province has fundamentally

39:33changed how we can look to protect our heritage object or heritage buildings in the city so you

39:43know the timing of it is is really down to what the province is imposed in my mind

39:51I don't know if maybe through share to delegate if it would be appropriate for MHBC to provide

40:01comments on things that they would not like to see as part of the heritage attribute list

40:06that you know maybe we could have a discussion at a later date but I don't also see a real need to

40:13push this out any further than it just to be so I mean I guess through the chair to the delegate

40:23which deferral you know would you be looking to come back with your own list of heritage

40:30attributes that you see to be more fitting this property is that something that you would

40:36commit to if we were to push this out by a month I think you're just muted there

40:50I was my apologies I think we we could work to do that

41:00again I want to respect everybody's time as well and if whether it's with

41:06through this committee or I'm not sure how the system works or if it's something that we work with

41:14with staff between now and when a report goes to council certainly something we could probably do

41:23we we probably could provide some kind of a refined list relatively relatively quickly if that would assist

41:35um I'm just not certain of how how the process works from here

41:44from the heritage committee perspective and ultimately the recommendation in a report that

41:52would go to council and if there's time for dialogue in between

41:59reasonable like in your realm it is two months more reasonable for discussion with yourself

42:05and also generically and HBC on those attributes I mean I don't want this to be a situation where

42:10this gets recommended to council and then all of a sudden at council there's a whole dialogue

42:14of removing attributes would be my goal so is is March reasonable is April more reasonable

42:23I know you're ready with this now but this dialogue component

42:27through the chairman I'm sorry to interrupt may I just ask a question and

42:37to that point so and maybe it's more of a process my understanding is whatever the recommendation

42:45would be today that deferral would kind of park it

42:49uh support for the recommendation would kind of move it forward to council

42:54um it might understand quickly then council is simply suggesting yes or no move forward

43:06with the noise of the intent to designate and then it's going to come back to this committee

43:13for a final report and then and then back to council is that I was trying to understand that

43:22through this report Stephen did you want to answer the process piece do you mind

43:29I'm not going to share so the process here is that Heritage Guelph is being asked to provide

43:38its its commentary so the Heritage Planning's report would go to council and currently we're

43:44scheduling a March 18th council date for staff's recommendation of the notice of intention to

43:51designate and that report needs to include Heritage Guelph's commentary and and advice as the Heritage

43:58Advisory Committee that that recommendation to council would be to uh to recommend to council

44:08that they publish their notice of intention to designate and if council were to agree with that

44:13and direct staff to publish that notice then there once the notice is published and there is a 30-day

44:22period for objections and if if there are objections to the noise um sorry the the notice of intention

44:34to designate uh it according to to the Heritage Act the process requires it to return to council

44:44or council to consider whether they would proceed with protection or would they would

44:51or if they want to withdraw their intention to designate so that 30-day period actually gives

44:58more time for discussion between city and the propeller but I think what's important is that

45:06and this texture is that Heritage Guelph's being given an opportunity to provide to provide their

45:12commentary whether they're supportive of staff's recommendations or if there's other things that

45:18they want to add that's completely up to the committee members. We I think we we could staff

45:24would would be comfortable with uh a deferral until the April meeting if that's necessary because

45:34actually the March meeting is March the 6th which isn't very far away because we do to be fair to

45:39all of all there's there's a there's a period of time required for staff to review the submission

45:46from the proponent and the the report that that A. Nasten is referring to a Heritage

45:54Impact Assessment for the for blocks one two and three is actually quite a large report it's not

46:00specifically about the frost building so it's about all cultural heritage resources within that

46:06those three blocks of the GID so I I know what he's saying when he says that it's you know it's

46:12not something that can be turned around fairly quickly but it is something that if it is submitted

46:20by the proponent it's something that the Heritage Advisory Committee is is meant to review

46:27and for all aspects of those blocks

46:33and um uh chair I know no one asked me a question but I just want to make it count because I want

46:41um uh kind of the comment as far as timing is we have been working with staff on kind of the

46:52broader process trying to get a sense of you know where where things occur on the broader planning

47:01this component associated with kind of the final outcome of the building itself is part of the

47:10discussion um I I'm I'm a a bit torn in the sense that uh I don't necessarily want to see

47:24a delay to allow for that further discussion to occur as far as their broader planning

47:32again I think it was just that um if there was uh an an opportunity to defer or delay the actual

47:45designation uh until we're in the planning process or after the planning process and have a better

47:52idea of of where things are going uh that was that was the request um and I always say that

48:00because I I don't uh think that we want to just um create delay if ultimately we're going to come

48:10back in in two months and we we refine the attributes a little bit whereas maybe that's

48:19something we could have done as the process continues to unfold. Stephen? I'm sorry Chair I

48:27think I have missed vote when I was mentioning April what I meant was actually not not taking this

48:34the recommendations from staff and the Heritage Advisory Committee until the April meeting of

48:39council. Oh okay. So what it means is uh I mean with the current schedule it means the Heritage

48:46Well unless unless another meeting like an additional meeting is is is sought the March 6th

48:55Heritage Well meeting would be the the ideal uh the time for the committee to to discuss this issue

49:01again. So in one month I think I'm comfortable with a one month deferral sort of a goodwill

49:11gesture as well I mean it gives time for a bit more discussion um so maybe a motion could be

49:18that this item be deferred to the March meeting of Heritage Well and then some of the right to

49:22move to the next item. Stephen? You'll move it. I'm seconder. Alex has a question beforehand.

49:35So just to be clear the the motion beforehand is is to defer this um period of comments from

49:48Heritage Well until next month's meeting um at which time the delegate and staff will provide

49:57Heritage Well with an updated Heritage Attribute List? Potentially update. Potentially. It could be

50:02identical right we we won't know that until their discussion but it could be updated. Okay. Which we'd

50:07still have opportunity to comment on it but it could be updated that it'd be a I think a bit of a

50:13goodwill gesture so a goodwill gesture of um a little bit more time for dialogue but it may not

50:18change anything in the report. So he's going to move the motion to defer to our March meeting

50:30uh from seconder. Thank you Alex and all in favor. And a post? Brenda a post? Passes.

50:45Thank you Dave you are welcome to the easers.

50:48All right we'll move on then to 33-35 JNC West Heritage Attributions

50:59and we have presentation from Jack as well as delegate Mike

51:02Mike Atkinson who's the poverty on.

51:06What? Good day.

51:08We will start with Jack. I'm going to be very brief because we have a

51:17hard cutoff at two based on quorum today and we we must get through the next

51:25four items otherwise the committee waives their ability to comment on those so

51:29I'm going to be be laying the last year. So this this is a Heritage Permit application for a new

51:35construction in the Brooklyn Ecology Hill Heritage Conservation District.

51:39New construction is ultimately approved by council so this will be the council at the March 18th

51:45council meeting. Staff have been working with the property owner since demolition was approved

51:51in the late 2023 for the existing building and so I just got the rendering up on the screen here

52:00to show what is proposed. Inspiration has been drawn from both the existing building as well as

52:07neighboring properties. Staff are of the opinion that this aligns with the intent of the district

52:12guidelines for Brooklyn and College Hill. Specifically it meets the guidelines for height

52:18set by proportioning massing rooms, materials, windows and entrances. It doesn't exactly align

52:26in two ways but first is garages which are encouraged to be at the side or rear of a building

52:33but James Street West is unique within the district because it has a series of housing

52:38built in the 1930s that have garages on the facade so I do think that this proposal aligns

52:44with the character of the streetscape and the owner agreed to make them single entry garage doors so

52:51they're not going to take up too much of the facade. They're also set back slightly from

52:58the portion of the facade where they're located. Additionally it doesn't align with

53:06the instruction for widths in the district which says that buildings should generally run

53:14lengthwise down the property not widthwise. However again many of the properties built on

53:21James Street West in the 1930s don't have significant side yards like elsewhere in the district

53:28and I think that going from what is a single family home to a semi-detached residence

53:36will allow us to align with strategic plan 6.1 which is to meet our housing pledge.

53:41So overall I believe that this application satisfies the intent of both the district guidelines

53:50and our city strategic plan. Happy to take the question but that perhaps it made more sense

53:57for Mike to go first. My name is Mike Atkinson. I am one of the owners of the property. I just

54:05wanted to come today to note my special attachment to the property as my main house is directly on

54:12the backyard of the block where I'm on the street. I knew the previous owner and have watched the

54:21decay of this building along with another neighbor. We have personal interest to do the right thing

54:29and compliment the neighborhood as well as support and thought given to our neighbors.

54:37I see them day in day out at the park or the road to the store so we're not trying to do something

54:43that sticks out from the norm and our goal is to compliment the neighborhood. In the interest of

54:53time and the agenda that you have I just basically wanted to come to introduce myself and note the

55:00connection I have to the property. Thank you. Questions or comments?

55:13None. I'll read out the recommended motion that Heritage 12 supports the staff recommendation

55:19that council approve the Heritage permit application for new construction at 33-35 James Street West.

55:25I just wanted to move that recommendation. Thank you. Seconder Miranda, all in favor.

55:32Thank you. Enjoy your day. Thank you. Continue to speak.

55:39All right. Our next item is the MacDonell and Allen structures municipal class environmental

55:44assessment Allen's bridge preferred solution with Andrew Miller.

55:51Do you look at the screen? All right. Hi everyone. I'm Andrew Miller, Project Engineer in the City's

56:28Design and Construction Division. I'm the Project Engineer in charge of our downtown infrastructure

56:34renewal projects. So anything happening in downtown requires construction within the municipal right

56:41of way. This is within my realm of expertise. I've also got Stacy Loeffman here with me with our

56:47downtown revitalization advisor who does some more of the coordinating between everything that's

56:55not just infrastructure in downtown. So both involved in this project and I wanted to run you

57:01guys through everything that's been discussed publicly at this point as we move towards bringing

57:08our recommendation for what we do with the MacDonell and Allen structures environmental

57:13assessment to council later this year. So just so you know, this slideshow is

57:20posted from what we've presented at the public information center back in December.

57:25We haven't progressed in developing any further alternatives. So we'll discuss what was presented

57:30then and we're looking to gain your comments on what our recommended solutions are at this point.

57:39So just a super quick overview of the municipal class environmental assessment process. In case

57:45anyone doesn't know, we basically determined that there are problems here that need to be sorted out,

57:52develop the problem and opportunity statement, develop the listed solutions to those problems.

57:59And now we've presented it to the public for comment, then we'll be going to council for

58:04their endorsement of the solutions proposed, ultimately preparing a project file report,

58:09and putting that out for public review once more at the very end before we proceed towards

58:16implementation of the solutions. So just a super quick overview of our downtown renewal program as

58:24well. This is a whole bunch of different programs taking place or a whole bunch of different projects

58:30in the downtown, including a downtown infrastructure renewal program. We've been

58:35moving along for a few years and we're with the downtown infrastructure renewal. We're just getting

58:40to the point of starting implementation of some of our projects and this is the last one to finish

58:48the pre-design work, planning work. We are just showing sort of what's involved in here.

58:57This is just an overview of the projects currently open in the downtown for

59:01structure renewal program. You can see that EAA is one of our last planning phases and it's highlighted

59:08there. Not much to talk about on this one. So this is an overview of what the EAA is covering

59:17within the Mac-to-Nel and Allen structures environmental assessment. We're assessing

59:22what changes should be made to the Mac-to-Nel street bridge, the Allen's bridge, the sluice

59:32way and spillway under the two bridges and then the potential for the warded downtown bridge

59:38connection that was proposed in the downtown secondary plan. Basically the whole review there

59:44is that the Mac-to-Nel street bridge is reaching the end of its life. The Allen's bridge obviously

59:50has been blocked off and is not currently allowed to be used for people to cross and the sluice

59:58way and spillway are also reaching the end of their life as they were put into the alongside

1:00:03the Mac-to-Nel bridge. And just a little quick little overview as well of the warded downtown

1:00:11pedestrian bridge in case anyone isn't familiar with it. This was a connection that was proposed

1:00:17during the downtown secondary plan process back in 2012. A design had been prepared and tendered

1:00:24to implement a bridge just to the south side of that Gualtungshan Railway bridge that people

1:00:31have been crossing illegally. Ultimately the price tag on the proposed bridge ballooned due to a

1:00:38couple of unforeseen circumstances not least of all COVID and material price increases so that

1:00:44was ultimately cancelled and brought back into this study to determine whether it was necessary

1:00:50to be implemented or not. I'm going to go through the alternatives and what we're recommending

1:00:57for each of the five different items here. So with the Mac-to-Nel bridge we've got our basic

1:01:05alternative of do nothing. Unfortunately our bridge is reaching end of life so do nothing is

1:01:11not really an option at this point. We can rehabilitate the bridge completely. We can

1:01:17rehabilitate it and widen the bridge to facilitate active transportation connections,

1:01:23replace the bridge for vehicular traffic only, or replace and widen the bridge to accommodate

1:01:31active transportation. Ultimately we are recommending replacing the bridge in its entirety

1:01:38due to the poor condition of it and the cost of rehabilitating versus the lifetime we would get

1:01:43out of it and looking to widen it to accommodate active transportation to provide a safer connection

1:01:50across the river. The Allen's bridge has four alternatives again do nothing provide minor

1:01:59rehabilitativeness for heritage purposes where the bridge would be rehabilitated and given a longer

1:02:09lifetime but it would still be closed to public use so it would just be there as a visual feature,

1:02:15rehabilitate the bridge and allow use for pedestrians and cyclists or remove the bridge entirely.

1:02:27I included the evaluation matrix in this in case anyone wants to talk about this one going forward.

1:02:32I know this one was a hot topic at the at the public information center. I won't go through it now we

1:02:37can come back to it if discussion goes that way but the recommendation was ultimately to remove the

1:02:43bridge and build a commemorative feature. This was an example provided from St. Catharines where

1:02:51a heritage bridge was removed and they provided a commemoration to it. So this was the option

1:03:03recommend that and yeah sure we can talk about that later on. So the Allen's dams looseway and

1:03:10spillway these are in place as features in the river they're currently not recognized by the GRCA

1:03:16so they're city features not part of the conservation authorities structures. We have the four possible

1:03:24options again do nothing rehabilitate remove or remove and build a new dam upstream with the active

1:03:32transportation under us. You may have seen that in the news a bit because it's been a popular topic

1:03:38ultimately based on trying to conserve the river dynamics and avoid extremely costly changes to

1:03:52the river. The recommendation is to rehabilitate the sluiceway and spillway as they are and keep

1:03:57them functioning in the same same method. And finally our warded downtown multi-use trail bridge

1:04:06we had the four options of do nothing construct the bridge that had previously been tendered and

1:04:11cancelled construct a modified structure on the south side of the well junction railway

1:04:19rail bridge so attached to the rail bridge or sorry no separate from the rail bridge on the

1:04:25south side or constructed modified structure on the north side. It's a modified structure being

1:04:29not the one that was tendered in 23 this would be a different bridge style and ultimately the

1:04:36recommendation there was to construct a modified structure on the south side of the GR bridge so

1:04:42it would slide in between the railway and the spring mill distillery and that would be using a

1:04:49simplified structure from what was tendered back in 2023 to try to avoid those cost escalation

1:04:56concerns that came up last time around. So here's an overall map of the recommended solution so you

1:05:04can see with max and l bridge the recommendation is to reconstruct it with a multi-use path on the

1:05:11north side of the bridge connecting the trail network on the west side of the bridge with the

1:05:17Arthur Street neighborhood on the east constructing the warded downtown bridge alongside the gjr

1:05:25rail line to connect connect that metalworks river walk pathway into the downtown and there will be

1:05:34some work done on the intersections on either end to try to make it a more reasonable pathway for

1:05:41active transportation and drivers alike and included is that the island's bridge would not be a

1:05:49recommended a recommended pathway across the river. So in regards to next steps we're continuing

1:05:58to consult with additional stakeholders as we are right now with you guys we'll be confirming our

1:06:03preferred solution based on all the feedback we receive and then preparing the project file report

1:06:09and taking that to council later this year before finally posting the project file report for the

1:06:1730-day public review and that brings us to the end where our motion is to seek feedback from

1:06:26the heritage quality committee. Right over to you chair. Thank you. Questions or comments? Alex go ahead.

1:06:36So just to take a look because it was on that slide second last slide there so the island's bridge is

1:06:42designated it's not just let's say it's listed okay.

1:06:51A separate question I have I'm going to tell you is so to widen back to Nell Bridge

1:06:57for an active transportation route to 4.3 meters that's a code requirement for that?

1:07:03Um that's I'm not exactly sure that's a code requirement I believe

1:07:12that that was a maximum widening to allow for multi-spass on both sides of the bridge.

1:07:19Okay. So I don't believe there's a code saying it has to be that way I believe that's just the

1:07:27recommendation of our consultants. Okay it's a minor one follow-up question I just to be clear too

1:07:36so with regards to what's happening in this area so I'm assuming that the the train the

1:07:46raised train rail is not included in this like that's sort of state. The Metrolinx corridor

1:07:54is not being part of this. So yeah so island's bridge, Sleuthsway,

1:08:04Macdonnell Street is there any impact on the the ruins of the old mill building

1:08:12just as you're coming to Macdonnell or island's bridge there is that?

1:08:16They should not be impacted. Question through the chair to staff.

1:08:26Has there ever been cultural heritage evaluation report for Macdonnell bridge, other island's bridge?

1:08:34Through the chair not for those two structures but there was a cultural heritage impact assessment

1:08:41for the proposed pedestrian bridge like the new pedestrian bridge on the south side of

1:08:47the Gulf of Shemrelman bridge. Okay. And was there within that impact assessment

1:08:53are there any attributes of like the island's bridge or Macdonnell bridge included in that

1:09:00impact assessment? Because anything denied and implied as far as heritage action is concerned.

1:09:08The main reason for room firing the heritage impact assessment was the development's location

1:09:15was adjacent to protected property which looks to the it's still rebuilding.

1:09:21So it's not it doesn't really evaluate the bridge.

1:09:26Memory serves and and forgive me but I'd have to reread the HIA but I'm pretty sure that the

1:09:32authors of the HIA did identify any structures or buildings that had any status in the general area.

1:09:39I'm pretty sure that the island's bridge would have been identified but not with heritage attributes

1:09:45because it's simply a listed structure it's not a designation. Right. I think I may

1:09:55chair I'll just provide my comments at this stage. I think I don't know how much there is for this

1:10:05committee to provide also comments on at this stage. Simply in my opinion I just don't know what

1:10:14exactly is here in regards to bridges in the Sleuthsway. You know what is heritage

1:10:22significance and then from that what are the attributes. You know this this is a pretty

1:10:30integral piece of infrastructure linking the downtown to the other the east side of the city.

1:10:38So it's hard for me to want to provide comment without knowing exactly what is that stake here

1:10:48and I can appreciate that there's a lot of need for redevelopment and a lot of need for

1:10:55improving this area. So I would really like to see you know before Heritage 12 can provide

1:11:02full some comments on proposed you know changes or alternative you know changes to the area

1:11:11what exactly is being impacted and maybe how those could be mitigated. I think just based on

1:11:19what's happened in the last couple months with regards to heritage structures that are you know

1:11:27and again it's not been mentioned here explicitly but if things are going to be removed or demolished

1:11:35in you know the topic of salvage comes up I would like to see

1:11:42a reasonable plan brought to the committee that outlines the impact to identified heritage

1:11:51adjudicates and how those might be conserved into any you know change or like if if things are to be

1:11:59salvaged. Am I making myself clear or is? I think so. Can I just make a procedure?

1:12:09So if demolition of Allen's Bridge is a preferred solution through this EA permit for demolition

1:12:17will still be required if that permit is applied for before the end of 2026 when this bridge is

1:12:22still listed a heritage impact assessment will be a requirement of that permit. Okay so then the

1:12:29only issue is if this process drags on 2026 there's no opportunity for heritage impact assessment to be.

1:12:38That's correct but that's our way of asking for what that's the mechanism with which we can get

1:12:44the heritage impact assessment done. Right okay so I guess if that's the case and again I'm not

1:12:51suggesting that but knowing that things end to take time I guess that you know I would suggest that

1:13:02this these bridges should be evaluated prior to them following the registry

1:13:08is some reports here otherwise no what it is for us to comment on.

1:13:16Right so a couple questions and comments one question some of your suggestions here or your

1:13:26recommended solutions for example replacing the Mastinel Street Bridge rehabilitating the

1:13:32Sleuth Sway and building a new pedestrian bridge I'm guessing but want to confirm that none of those

1:13:38projects would require the removal of the Allen's Bridge is that correct? That's correct that they

1:13:47don't require the removal of the bridge however the bridge is in poor structural condition and if

1:13:53we aren't to do something with it before long it's likely to be demolished by the neglect.

1:13:59Right okay so that was question one and I guess question two would be

1:14:06first to comment I believe this is one of the oldest bridges in town

1:14:12obviously it's a nice bridge to look at and people are used to seeing it downtown I'm one of those

1:14:18people I guess my question would be why are we looking at removing a heritage resource

1:14:24is it is it strictly the cost of doing something with it or is there is there something that I'm

1:14:30missing given its age and its prominence I guess in the downtown landscape?

1:14:46Basically what we're looking at with the Allen's Bridge is that it's at a point of deterioration

1:14:54where the whole bridge effectively needs to be replaced regardless of whether

1:15:00we intend to use it again or not or significantly altered to provide additional

1:15:07support to it to keep it in place as it is so it's not going to be the same bridge

1:15:13by the time we get through this project regardless of whether we intend to keep it or not it'll have

1:15:21to be fairly sensibly removed and reconstructed like if we were to keep it it would have to be

1:15:30rebuilt to look identical that what it is now but it wouldn't end up being the same bridge in the end

1:15:36so we run into that philosophical debate on if we have to remove the bridge anyway and it becomes a

1:15:45new bridge going back and all of its intended functions being the active transportation connection

1:15:53is already being overtaken by the Maxinelle Bridge and the Ward to downtown bridge then is there

1:16:00value in putting the estimated amount of money into replacing it as it would take

1:16:10knowing that it loses that heritage bit as well being a fully new bridge.

1:16:21Okay so yeah I know I guess you know some rehabilitation with these structures and

1:16:31annual buildings is to be expected you know and probably over time there are lots of buildings

1:16:38that don't have a whole lot of their original parts because new parts have to be created that

1:16:43are consistent with what was there. I just wanted to clarify that I guess keeping the heritage

1:16:51resource doesn't prevent us from being able to move forward with some of those other projects for

1:16:57the Maxinelle Bridge and Sleuthsway etc and maybe the matter of the Allen Street Bridge recommendation

1:17:05just that piece as opposed to the rest of your plan could be deferred until our next meeting so that

1:17:14Heritage Guelph has time to do a little more research on this topic and consider the background

1:17:23of the bridge and what we're able to find about it. Has this one been deferred since November?

1:17:30Hi it was on December and then January.

1:17:35Is that if it was January? It's my apologies it was the last.

1:17:39It's the last.

1:17:40Steven, I know your hand was up as well.

1:17:43Thanks Chair Miranda just to clarify the current

1:17:49Allen's Bridge I believe it was built in the 1930s.

1:17:53When you mentioned the age of the bridge I think what's really important here is the fact that

1:18:02this is one of the city's oldest crossings and the location is of high cultural heritage value

1:18:10just to clarify though that the current bridge is one of the number of bridges that have been

1:18:14built in this location and this one was the most recent one built on the foundations of the

1:18:21piers that support the high level. Okay so the crossing has been there for a very long time but

1:18:28the bridge itself has been replaced more than once is that what you're saying Steven? Correct.

1:18:34Okay I just think like you know for our purposes in terms of background on the bridge itself I

1:18:41you know we we haven't had any background provided to us and so that's why I'm suggesting

1:18:47it may be prudent to defer this this particular recommendation on the removal of the Allen's

1:18:54Bridge. I have no concerns with some of the other suggestions but this one piece to give us the

1:19:01chance to maybe get some background from staff and and do some research. Thank you. Thank you

1:19:08Chief Chair to staff maybe just to piggyback on what Miranda said would it be appropriate for this

1:19:17committee to you know put forward a motion that we would like to see you know I know staff's time

1:19:26is very busy but we'd like to see a cultural heritage evaluation of Allen's Bridge just so that

1:19:33we understand what is significant about the structure and a more informed discussion of

1:19:40you know what our comments to council regarding potential you know solutions to this

1:19:47to changes in this area maybe. You can recommend that and we can take that away.

1:20:00Would that be a part of the comments to consider and not as that maybe one of these questions for

1:20:08would this be part of all the rest of the notes or would that be a separate motion?

1:20:14I think it could be together. Sorry I'm just replaying this conversation in my head already

1:20:22so because I think I'm certainly you know Jack you've said to me earlier in this meeting that

1:20:32you know cultural heritage evaluation report we typically come to us if there is a demolition

1:20:36permit and we trigger it right. At the same time you know the conversation right now

1:20:43in Miranda's even highlights the fact that this committee just isn't equipped to provide

1:20:50thoughtful comment on the fate of Allen's Bridge because we just don't know what's going on

1:20:57and I don't know if it makes sense for us to wait until such a time that a demolition permit comes

1:21:03forward that would trigger the cultural heritage evaluation report or if our ask at this committee

1:21:10level is to jump start that process to get ahead of you know because not that you know I've suggested

1:21:17the city would delay you know in order to get around having to do a cultural heritage evaluation

1:21:23report that because the downtown renewal is such a large project and we have such a

1:21:30clear timeline as far as the province is concerned with what happens with our listed

1:21:35buildings I can't help but think that we're almost forced to at this point ask for

1:21:44the designation of those that's from County Hall in order to get started on this.

1:21:48So I was going to say the purpose of EA is to make for County to make like a high level decision

1:21:54about what is happening here and then like all the other mechanisms will come out through the

1:21:59wash so to speak so if council decides that demolition is the preferred option here there's

1:22:05still a process to follow through that demolition and so I think the committee should consider

1:22:10what advice they want to give to council before council decides on this EA and if that advice

1:22:17is that you recommend that the bridge be evaluated for designation that is advice.

1:22:26Thank you for the clarification I think that would be my comments. I don't know Miranda if that

1:22:33covers some of your concerns as well. Yeah yeah I think if we if we start that process

1:22:41if we put a motion forward to start the process for designation consideration at least we'll get

1:22:46that report and that's I think what we need because you know we all know how sometimes projects with

1:22:52the best of intentions don't end up going forward on time and we could end up well beyond 2026 before

1:23:01any demolition permit is received so I think it makes sense to start the process now for

1:23:06consideration for designation and then we can we can have a look at those heritage attributes.

1:23:13I just like to say that this advice would be to council so we wouldn't initiate that until

1:23:18in less council told staff too. Okay so could our comments then be to council that you know

1:23:27should they decide demolition is the preferred option to move forward with that we advise them to

1:23:38pursue an evaluation of the cultural heritage

1:23:43properties that are to be set for demolition in order to have a more full you know understanding

1:23:51of what's at stake here. Just one point to be typing. Yeah yeah I think when you're going to share

1:23:59your screen so we can see the the comments Miranda is your hand up still. Oh sorry I want you to

1:24:06turn on the corner of you that's all you're in the far right corner of my vision. Okay I think I've

1:24:12put it down successfully. You're going to share with us and we'll get it up there.

1:24:27So this is based on comments that have come up I can read it out if that's helpful so that so this

1:24:33is a recommended motion right now that the following comments by heritage wealth members be

1:24:37provided to staff and council for their consideration. The male ruins not be impacted by the bridge work

1:24:44based on current information it is unclear what the heritage value and attributes in this area are

1:24:48or would be impacted by this work. The bridges should be evaluated for their heritage value

1:24:54before demolition occurs this might be redundant given the point five but if demolition occurs

1:24:59salvageable items should be identified and if council decides to demolish the bridge a cultural

1:25:04heritage evaluation should be conducted before the decision demolition is made and that should be

1:25:10I think the Allens bridge right if council decides to demolish the Allens bridge. Just as

1:25:19clarification um we're talking I know we've been talking about the Allens bridge but

1:25:25like is there I also just don't know if there is any where to submit it's to

1:25:31an act of help I think I think maybe it shouldn't be as key to Allens but just simply

1:25:38so we have if structures you know slated for demolition in that area. So if demolition of any

1:25:44bridges occur or demolition of any Stephen's going to correct me he's like he's got the

1:25:51wording I have a sense. I wanted just to clarify that it's it's only the Allens bridge in this

1:25:59context there are two bridges that are listed on the heritage register currently and that's the Allens

1:26:05bridge which is from the 1930s but also the Guelph Junction railway bridge that is to the south of it

1:26:13beside the what's now the Screamville still read. Right okay and I should have said three because

1:26:20the high level uh the the former Grand Trunk railway the the main line for what's now Metrolinx

1:26:27is that structure is a bridge that's listed on the register okay but none of the three are designee.

1:26:35Right so for the purposes Stephen of these comments should they be limited to the Allens

1:26:40bridge because of the M4.2 being the Allens bridge for resolution? Engineering can confirm this

1:26:47but I believe that the Allens bridge is the only bridge being sort of on the table for potential

1:26:54demolition that it is that's a bridge that has heritage status. So we should keep it to Allens

1:27:03for that in our comments. Okay I guess for me once again is it is it possible to defer this

1:27:12item to the next to next month so that we can work on on emotion I mean

1:27:21I just feel like we may want to take some time to really do some some background

1:27:30research on this structure this bridge before we give our feedback to city council I just

1:27:37don't feel like we have enough background to give any informed advice to city council on this on this

1:27:43bridge. So if you have any questions for you with timing? With timing yeah we have we have a fair bit

1:27:50well not a fair bit we have some time to work with so if we would like to defer this to a future

1:27:57meeting to get time to gather that kind of information and have a more informed

1:28:02discussion and yes we can we can defer to a later date. Okay so that's my motion is that

1:28:10we defer this this discussion on Allens bridge to the next meeting. So maybe just

1:28:18putting clarification for myself then is that so committee can do time for research because I

1:28:23guess Andrew did okay yeah that discussion I think when he's writing as I am too so maybe the

1:28:31motion is that discussion on the Allens bridge preferred solution be deferred to the March

1:28:386th yes March 6th meeting to allow the committee opportunity to maybe like specifically typing

1:28:48so hard here. No you can just. Okay opportunity to conduct the appropriate amount of research or

1:28:56opportunity to conduct additional research would that be okay if you're going to so that the decision

1:29:01on the Allens bridge preferred solution that the discussion on the Allens bridge preferred solution

1:29:08be deferred to the March 6th meeting to allow the committee an opportunity to conduct research.

1:29:15Yes I think that's okay in terms of the wording I just want to make sure that

1:29:23it's captured in there that we're happy to provide advice to

1:29:28to counsel or feedback to counsel after that meeting so maybe that is captured there I don't know.

1:29:37So point of clarification because I feel like we're just bear with me for a second right

1:29:46because I think we were so the motion that we were drafting for counsel is off the table

1:29:52and we can keep a yes essentially yes so all of those comments I mean I have them in mind

1:29:56notes we can bring those back in at the March meeting and so some of those will probably say

1:30:01I can't imagine they're going to go but it also could be more in-depth notification or identification

1:30:06of attributes and things that should be highlighted in more detail. Sure that's fair I just

1:30:14because I think the correct me if I'm wrong the through the chair to the deliott today you were

1:30:21also just capturing it's not so much comments going to counsel at this with this item it's

1:30:27it's also comments going to staff correct so I understand what we're coming from Miranda I just

1:30:36I think it's important to know that we're still providing some comments at this stage to

1:30:44the deliott with regards to the environmental assessment that they've presented to us right.

1:30:51So would your suggestion be then the original sort of recommended motion because we don't want

1:30:55these comments to be the one things that would account for all right that these

1:30:59comments be provided to staff for their consideration so like I just in addition to

1:31:04comments that from March 6 or like sorry I just want to be like you're

1:31:12you're wanting to give have time to provide to to prepare for comments that are going to counsel

1:31:20correct. What I would like is to defer item 4.2 on our agenda to our meeting of March 6.

1:31:29Okay question through and chair to the deliott would you are you coming back for if that were

1:31:36the case would you come back for that meeting or is this yes yes that would be an answer for that.

1:31:42Or else do you want to be. I don't know what else is going on on Thursday.

1:31:47It's the first Thursday of the month it's exciting. I'm sorry Miranda I just wanted to be clear because

1:31:53in the past with the different delegate we've deferred or providing comments and then didn't

1:31:59have a chance to have a conversation with the delegate because they weren't at the

1:32:04move date so I just wanted to be clear that we weren't missing our window of opportunity

1:32:08with this meeting. Okay so it sounds like the delegate is willing to come back

1:32:15and Andrew you know there's still a bit of time in this process so we won't run out of time by next

1:32:21month. No next month I'll say it. April maybe not but March is okay. Okay so I'm going to move then that

1:32:32we defer item 4.2 to our next heritage gulf meeting.

1:32:38Seconder. David all in favor. Thank you.

1:32:43Oni Pindice. Commons be part of the motion for the.

1:32:48But we won't lose them. Thank you. Thank you.

1:32:56All right we are already at 135 I just want to flag that for everyone with a few items still to go

1:33:03and to Jack's comment about a couple things we think this is our time to comment so

1:33:09moving along meant we dropped special plan amendment for downtown height study

1:33:12presentation from Brenna McKinnon and Stacy Lawson.

1:33:17Well I can name the reason. Okay your present your share.

1:33:23I can't share with the cabinet so we attached the staff reports

1:33:34and then performed schedule to the agenda. This was prior to the open house we had just this Tuesday

1:33:42where we were working with a consultant on a number of boards more specific perhaps to the

1:33:48interests of this committee. So I put together a quick little presentation on my own last

1:33:55date with some of those boards hoping to share that versus what's attached to your

1:34:01staff. Yeah we just thought it would be important for the committee to see what the

1:34:05box on Tuesday night is. Cool there. So a little bit of background about the project itself.

1:34:34And going way back to April 2023 when the minister made a decision on the official plan

1:34:43or to engage or to go off they identified a new height limit to go off downtown being 23 stories

1:34:58not entirely sure being relatively new to see a goal where that number came from and I'm sure

1:35:06those who have been around were equally perplexed. With that the government was looking to roll back

1:35:16some of those decisions in wealth and other cases from April 2023 to March to December 2023

1:35:25and council had the opportunity at the end of December of 23 to list a number of changes that

1:35:31they wished the province to roll back on one being consideration of that. Those that knew

1:35:38downtown heights and the council requested a downtown height study to investigate increasing

1:35:45heights so it's not that blanket overall. Hang on province we're going to look at this we know that

1:35:52there's a desire by the province of course to increase housing supply everywhere they can

1:36:01with focus in one area is that support increased to be entitled to having structure

1:36:08and transit available. So we launched the project

1:36:15on last summer towards the end of last summer we hired SBN consulting out of Toronto.

1:36:23Guidelines for instance they currently in the city of London as well as the city of Waterloo

1:36:30have a lot of experience in the issue and so far really a really good team to be working with.

1:36:37So this map was presented last but just Tuesday at the open house has the timeline where we're

1:36:44finished phase one at the beginning of phase two we released the draft

1:36:53official fine amendment schedule remember the date now but end of December no we released about January

1:37:0116. January 16 and I have two projects kind of going at the same time so my timelines are

1:37:07merging into one another but yeah early January had the open house statutory of the house

1:37:16Tuesday and going to planning committee next week for council planning next week

1:37:22with the statutory public meeting. We had a series of conversations with the community through a

1:37:28number of pop-up events October November December we did have a special meeting of council December

1:37:35where we formally launched the project before council and received some comments from the

1:37:41community at that one as well we're continuing to meet with community and and and developers

1:37:48now that the draft official fine amendment as I always say is united all week really

1:37:55meeting the people and the environment. So here we are today with our first opportunity to be with you

1:38:01formally so in 2020 you know if you want to go over something back um

1:38:11to current existing the downtown secondary plan which is sort of established the current

1:38:17height schedule for downtown was approved by council in 2012 and then through the Ontario

1:38:22Missville board which is now the Ontario Land Tribunal in around 2015 so the schedule DTE is the

1:38:31sort of sets the minimum maximum heights throughout the downtown secondary plan area

1:38:36as you can see it identifies the protected public view boardwalks to the

1:38:41facility of our lady so those today are still protected and yes so it sets sort of that maximum

1:38:49height is about 18 stories and that was the the additional height or higher buildings were sort

1:38:56of permitted around the periphery of the what I would what I generally would put you as the

1:39:00historic or and what is kind of been identified through the downtown heritage conservation district

1:39:07not an exact match but sort of a general idea also envisioned more building height south of the

1:39:13the tracks because just based on opportunity and again recognizing that the historic core

1:39:20which is sort of the commercial area is pretty important for the for downtown and we wanted to

1:39:24protect that so that's kind of the history of sort of 2012 to now and again based on the

1:39:33what the province had done through OP80 and then rolled back and then that desire to provide

1:39:39some more flexibility to meet our targets density targets for downtown by 2051

1:39:46what we wanted to do is not increase that target which is 200 people in jobs per hectare

1:39:51but sort of increase the opportunities to actually reach it so we did take a look at all the view

1:39:59boardwalks so you see the pictures along the bottom there and those are all recent pictures I think

1:40:04November of 2024 is when they were taken just to understand what we can still see we heard a lot of

1:40:10comments when we were doing top of events that the most important view is along MacDennell how

1:40:16common is not protected and so far we haven't had to because MacDennell is a is a public right

1:40:21away and you know not not much not likely that things are going to go over it at this time but

1:40:27that doesn't mean it never will happen so there were a lot of comments about why MacDennell that view

1:40:32is not protected and then there were some comments about some of the views are actually very abstracted

1:40:37by trees or other things so why do we still have those so that was an interesting component for us

1:40:45we also had a lot of comments from the pop-up pop-ups and different events about the Basilica

1:40:51because it sort of sets sets a limit for height the 18 stories that you see on that height map

1:40:57sort of MacDennell and Woolwich Wellington and then Wyndham and Wellington the geodetic data

1:41:04points at the top of those buildings sort of matches where the rose window is in the Basilica

1:41:09so that was that kind of sets that ceiling and we we did receive some comments about

1:41:15we do feel like buildings can go taller than that from some people we felt we had some people say

1:41:21they could go taller but you need to protect those view corridors and then we had some people say

1:41:26that you we shouldn't increase the heights at all so sort of that full breadth of feedback

1:41:31which we frequently get when we go up to the community and ask questions like this

1:41:35we did do a survey and specifically asked about the view corridor so on this slide you can see

1:41:42that generally the public felt the one sort of of the protective view corridors the one from

1:41:48Mara Mosa it's actually from King Street that one was sort of the most important but with Gordon

1:41:56and Wellington that one being a very close second and then the one from Green Street which is number

1:42:04three you'll see up there maybe not as important and we again as staff and the consultant team we

1:42:11went out and we took a look and really as a pedestrian you can't see it because the side

1:42:17of the street you can see it from doesn't have a sidewalk and there's like a style like this so you

1:42:22I did sort of take my life into my hands to get that picture but if you're a passenger in a car

1:42:29I suppose you can see it from there but that's sort of a very limited audience I would suggest

1:42:35for that view corridor so and that came back in the in the survey of the results with respect to

1:42:42the view corridor and again just to reiterate we did hear a lot like that close-card view of the

1:42:47basilica is truly up back to now and maybe we should think about protecting that one great thanks

1:42:56so I went back to this this slide after discussion with view corridors just to

1:43:00kind of outline what the key principles are but we now with our consultant team

1:43:06um when looking at the downtown so number one um playing off what Andrew and Stacy have been

1:43:13working on uh downtown revitalization project is about $1,000,000 investment in our downtown

1:43:22in any ways to really our running infrastructure oh that's retreated by planes running off the

1:43:30whole gamut so we wanted to make sure of course we were integrated with that process and project

1:43:36as well as working with Energent on the heritage conservation district where it's going on as well

1:43:44so Energent is on our project team and it's not a series of series of events kind of across from

1:43:53each other so giving people an opportunity to find walk back and forth and see what's going on

1:44:00so as nacy said we're looking to protect testing they make abuses, protect the view corridors

1:44:06current the interartificial plan and zoning bylaw provide a balance between sunlight and shadow so

1:44:13obviously you know some areas the taller you get the shot can be longer or wider

1:44:21um the building type quick break preserve the historical character while allowing for increased

1:44:32visibility so number one in particular developer did come to in December that talked about

1:44:42heritage being a bonus and not an investment

1:44:48um and then it's you know Stephen read that there's it's a it can be a very good solid feature

1:44:57and we're not talking about facadeism or anything like that it's a good idea to read

1:45:01then adaptively using those heritage structures as they come up of course concentrating the

1:45:09buildings and development where we can and then on these sites for this

1:45:13parking street parking lot there's a number of uh vacant under humanized sites in the

1:45:20downtown particularly on the for crafts where we can feel much that we see more height versus

1:45:29in person uh ensuring uh gradual transition from the single family detached from the

1:45:36neighborhoods and smaller mid-rise buildings uh that's around the downtown

1:45:43so there's no big following strong

1:45:50I know the committee's just sort of on a yeah it's stopping too so it's just

1:45:57where we want to get to the existing height schedule with the proposed height schedule

1:46:02on the right hand side there so I think um for the committee I mean from my perspective the most

1:46:08important thing is that we do want to create opportunities to increase flexibility as Brenna

1:46:13said but also to protect that heritage character of her historic arc and again responding to what

1:46:21we heard from the community um we're we'd like to shift or proposing to shift one view corner

1:46:27from the Grange and Stewart street location to Mock Dennell and Woolwich so that we are

1:46:32protecting that sort of postcard view of the Basilica um sort of recognizing what the community

1:46:38is finding most important um and then again the next sort of thing that I think this committee

1:46:44would be interested in is that buildings will be able to be a little bit taller than the Basilica

1:46:51right now our max height that we're proposing is 20 stories which is up two stories from the 18

1:46:56that's currently but with topography those would be a little bit taller but again protecting those

1:47:01view corridor so um if there's a view corridor then the height would be limited to whatever that

1:47:07you think elevation is um for that property rather than sort of the maximum that's identified on this

1:47:14height schedule but again you can also see that we've concentrated um a lot of the height

1:47:19south of the tracks so sticking with that original intent of the downtown secondary plan

1:47:23and then again more to the periphery of the downtown um so that's the crux of what we've done

1:47:31but again increasing opportunities um around the entire downtown um or some additional height

1:47:39to meet that 200 persons and jobs per hectare density term that we have thank you um questions

1:47:51sort of comments regarding this presentation and the information online probably like to share back

1:48:04Alex yeah I guess just as a general comment although I'm sure this has been happening already

1:48:09is you know when it comes to the historic character of the downtown I think there's a real desire to

1:48:16see that that streetscape is maintained as a certain tissue with scale as best as possible

1:48:24granted there is development um so strategies that incorporate existing buildings and

1:48:38don't change that relationship between the pedestrian and those those building facades I

1:48:43think it's a key particularly for me and there's even it was just typing for the recommended

1:49:00action. These early chords are now on the have your say project page um but then today I hope the

1:49:09house so you can go in there's a little bit to comment which obviously individually I'll be on

1:49:16through that process as well and we are receiving a wide variety of comments about

1:49:22um the schedule on itself um location or site specific or more more broadly

1:49:40we while we release the um the draft and schedule

1:49:45space area to January 16th and we are looking to bring a recommendation before our ticket

1:49:51council on April 8th but so Brenda's earlier might you've been sort of engaging with the community

1:50:00on this since um September October like attending um we've been at the market attending other open

1:50:07houses and sort of going where people are to hear what people think about heights downtown.

1:50:16Yeah I'm pretty sure to the deli so the um the updated site corridors with the silica

1:50:23um so that now we're going to council in April and then it's adopted and we're sort of watching

1:50:30their onwards until the next week. Correct yes I guess theoretically somebody could apply for an

1:50:43official plan amendment to modify them um that would be an unlikely application from a private

1:50:49developer but they it would be more likely they sort of submit an application to I guess put a

1:50:55building that didn't meet the intent of it but we would change the overall corridor for sort of one

1:51:00building but that would be a public process which I think this committee would have the opportunity

1:51:07to comment on. So as of right now then the draft motion would be that the following comments by

1:51:23heritage wealth members we've provided to staff and council for their consideration this week that

1:51:28the streetscape is maintained as a sort of humans uh actually at human scale as best as possible

1:51:34and maintain a relationship between the pedestrian and the building facades. So that captured what you

1:51:41were yeah I think I think historic streets streets streetscape is more specific.

1:51:49There is an additional part to the project that we

1:51:54think should get passed so there is built more standards for their trust for downtime right now.

1:52:00This project of standards consultant will be giving those a bit of a refresh as well as looking at

1:52:06built more standards for tall buildings citywide. So right now outside of the townhouse and mid-rise

1:52:13sidelines that exists outside of downtown they don't have to tell them once they're looking to

1:52:18incorporate more dump and distance work in those guidelines that's kind of a refresh for the

1:52:26staff. So although that's questionable currently a concern and exists pretty strongly in the

1:52:35downtown today we want to make sure those types of human scale exist in other areas as well.

1:52:41Pre-insured and delegate that I'm assuming that built form standards

1:52:46would that come back to Heritage 12 for comment at a later date?

1:52:51I think we could do that if we can somehow make uh yeah we haven't we haven't seen them yet we're

1:52:57working with that with consultants. Should be noted that the Heritage District Planning

1:53:02Guidelines supersede any other built form again. So that's why we're intending on working very closely.

1:53:11Even though you were doing that.

1:53:14No longer needed this I wanted to make sure you won't emphasize.

1:53:19This is facilities. Okay we got it we got it. So I won't read through it again because we've

1:53:28kept the entire intent we just changed a couple grammatical pieces on there but is there someone

1:53:32to move the motion? Alex, seconded. David, Miranda, all in favor?

1:53:48Miranda are you there still? Yeah probably thank you. So thank you for the presentation.

1:53:58Just noting the time I don't know if I have to leave it to you I don't know if other folks

1:54:02are available to stick around longer but maybe we can get through 4.4 and 4.5 because I think

1:54:07those are really quick items and Alex are you okay? We differ 4.6 to the next okay perfect.

1:54:12So we'll go quickly then as it's the word of the day today quickly quickly Jack let's go so

1:54:17at a 4.4 outreach letter. I assume I don't have anybody for you. You know your letter my answer is

1:54:22whether heritage book but you sign it on it if not staff will just sign it and send it.

1:54:29But I would like the committee. There you go that's fine I'm supposed to work. I'm trying to make

1:54:34you fast. I got it. People like us to be a part of it but if she's not we'll still be sending it out.

1:54:41It's going to go on February 17th to Monday as Heritage Week. Okay and so any discussion on that?

1:54:50Is there any disadvantage to sign your letter? No liability.

1:54:54I mean I mean I you never know for a letter going up to 1700 people some people are going to read it

1:55:05and get angry this is just what happens with public notices at the city but I tried to word it

1:55:12so it would be received with good intention. It's very diplomatic Chris.

1:55:20So our recommended motion is that Heritage Guelph supports being listed as signatory on the

1:55:23voluntary designation letter to be sent to owners of non-designated listed properties during Heritage

1:55:28Week. Is there someone to move that motion? I like to sign your name. David all in favor? Miranda waiting.

1:55:46Thank you. Perfect. All right our last item then before we will adjourn is nomination to

1:55:53commemorative naming committee and Jack it says presentation by Jack but I'm going to assume it's

1:55:58very brief. Yeah so the member of naming committee assists in the naming of arcs and streets and

1:56:05things in town. Member Tilley from last year was Heritage Guelph's member on the committee and so

1:56:13now that member Tilley is resigned we're looking for somebody else to volunteer to represent Heritage

1:56:18Guelph on the naming committee. Can you speak to the committee a bit what that looks like? A few

1:56:23meetings a year. More than four meetings. Two, three actually. Before the new ACOC

1:56:31as an impression actually. All right so then the motion be that um David what's your last name?

1:56:48Thank you. I totally just lost it there. Member Camilletti be nominated to represent Heritage

1:56:53Guelph on the commemorative naming committee. Do I have someone to move that? Alex second and Miranda

1:56:59all in favor? Fantastic and I think can we are there any announcements? Burning announcements? We'll

1:57:05keep using David's words. That's really short. Or any announcements that don't be burning. No? Okay so

1:57:16is there um someone who will move our adjournment today then? Thank you Alex, David second all in

1:57:22favor? Great and then we'll have 4.6 will be brought to the next meeting. Yeah.