Heritage Guelph

1:42Good morning everybody, Sarah. I just wanted to let you know we have.

1:45Warm, but not everyone that we're expecting.

1:49Today, yet did you want to wait 2 minutes or did you want us to get started?

1:57That's your prerogative. Let's wait 2 more minutes and just give folks time to attend. I know it's a full meeting as per usual, but I think there's lots discussed. So we'll wait 2 more minutes have that.

2:10Sounds good. Well, it's been 2 minutes. So I think we can get started for today.

3:57So welcome everyone to our October 10th heritage meeting.

4:02I will start with a revised territorial acknowledgement. The city has released and adopted.

4:08So, as we gather, let us take time to reflect on our privilege to work to live and work in wealth.

4:14A city built over rich indigenous histories. We are guests here and we should reflect upon the responsibility to care for this land, the people who live here today and the generations to come.

4:26If our actions today can move us towards reconciliation, we should take pause and make those decisions with intention and gratitude.

4:33This place we call Guelph has served as traditional lands and a place of refuge for many peoples over time, but more specifically the Adawan Dran and the Haudenosaunee.

4:43This land is held as the treaty lands and territory with the Mississauga of the credit First Nation.

4:50Guelph lives directly adjacent to the Haldeman tract and is part of a long established traditional hunting ground for the 6 nations of the Grand River.

4:58Many First Nations, Inuit and Métis people have come from across Turtle Island called Guelph home today.

5:05So, thank you for the revised territorial acknowledgement.

5:10Moving through the agenda, the first item is disclosure of the culinary interest and the general nature thereof.

5:23And I may just suggest that David and Kim will likely need to disclose for item number 2.1 as it relates to 2187 Gordon Street.

5:38So, both David, David, you're muted. Sorry, David, wait for me. You're muted.

5:42Yes, we have peculiar interest in 2187.

5:48Gordon Street, I know it'll be the same interest as last time, which is related to work, I believe.

5:57Perfect. So, when we get to 2.1, then we'll just have you as you did last time. Just mute and turn your camera off and then we'll move forward with that motion. And then you're welcome to come back and join us.

6:09Is there any other disclosure? Say no, no, raise your hands. Okay, we'll continue. So the next item, and I know there'll be some changes to this is the approval of minutes from both the September 11th and 18th 2023 meetings.

6:28And I know there was some discussion of some items from the September 18th meeting. And so maybe a quick question to Jack. Do we want to have a separate motion for September 11th and then a motion for September 18th as a revised motion or revised minutes?

6:41What's the best situation? Yes, a separate motion for September 11th. And then we can make revisions to September 18th and then approve the revised September 18th minutes.

6:54Perfect. So, in assumption that there's no revisions then to the September 11th meeting, could I have someone move that we pass the pass and then a seconder for the minutes from September 11th?

7:06So, if I have a mover, thank you, Cameron. And a seconder, thank you.

7:12So that, and then we all, all in favor, I always forget the vote. Perfect, thank you.

7:18And then for September 18th, I think Jack, you're going to share a screen of some

7:23items that may have been missed and then an opportunity for committee members for the

7:29discussion. If there's any other items you'd like added to the screen that Jack's going to share, we can have those updated and added to the minutes and then approve as a revised.

7:37Can everybody see my screen?

7:43Yep.

7:45Yes.

7:50If anybody has any additional comments, I can enter those. If not, I will read each of these out just for clarity.

8:04Hearing none.

8:05These are items that I typed up to Jack earlier. So anyone who had maybe more specific comments about them, please feel free to revise them by just

8:14spitting these out at the top of my head. So.

8:16I'll just go through them one by one here. So,

8:221st comment, suggesting to extend the boundary around Yarmouth Baker Norfolk Streets to the northwest of the currently identified area.

8:302nd comment, legal history of Douglas Street is important.

8:353rd comment, how to incorporate bridges crossing over the HCD boundary.

8:404th comment, boundary towards the east, McDonnell-Woolwich intersection.

8:475th comment, significance of Albion and Petrie buildings.

8:516th comment, Catholic Hill views and 7th comment, storefront shops with residential above McDowntown feel like a connected whole.

9:08I believe that we also discussed including the farmers market.

9:14Thank you.

9:30And so for clarity, Jack, these will be added under the workshop section of the September 18th meeting as bulleted items.

9:39Yes.

9:41Perfect. So, if there are no other additions or comments, I'll ask if there's someone who can move approving the revised minutes from the September 18th meeting.

9:54Thanks again, Cameron and a seconder.

9:56Thank you, David C.

9:58And all in favor.

10:02Great. Thank you.

10:10All right. So for item 2.1, I will ask Kim and David Waverman to

10:18mute their, their, thank you, they're already on it. I don't have to explain. Awesome. Thanks, folks.

10:23And so this is, as a reminder, there was an email that was sent about having someone represent Heritage Guelph at the upcoming Council meeting.

10:30And thank you so much to David for volunteering to be that representative. And so what we need is someone to move a motion that Heritage Guelph appoints David

10:39to be a delegate on behalf of the committee at the October 17th Council meeting regarding item 4.2, 2187.

10:46And so I'm going to ask Kim and Gordon, notice of intention to designate.

10:51And if there's no discussion around that, like, shout out, is it comments or you're moving it?

10:57Moving it. Okay. Perfect. So shout out is moving it. And if there is a seconder.

11:02Cameron, thank you. And all in favor.

11:07David, I'll take that smile as you're also in favor. Perfect. Thanks, everyone.

11:13And thank you, David, for your willingness to take that role.

11:15And so with that, we will welcome Kim and David W. back and we will continue with our meeting.

11:27Perfect. So Victoria, I believe we're going to turn to you regarding appointment of a member to the downtown Guelph Heritage Focus Group.

11:34Yes. Thank you, Sarah. So we are putting together a focus group for the downtown Guelph HCD and we're looking to have a member of Heritage Guelph on that focus group.

11:46Just a few kind of logistics. It will be about four meetings over the course of the entire project.

11:57So that's two meetings for the study phase, two meetings for the plan phase.

12:02They'll be virtual and we're looking to have the first meeting the first week of November.

12:08The, in terms of participation, it'll be kind of similar to our recent workshop. So the presentation for our first meeting with the focus group will be talking about what is an HCD and then gaining

12:26initial feedback from the community. The focus group is made of residents, property owners, business owners, and other stakeholders in downtown.

12:35If you have any questions, other questions about the committee, please feel free to ask them. But hopefully I'm looking for one volunteer.

12:45I'm volunteering, I guess. Someone to hopefully be a part of the focus group. That would be great.

12:52Victoria, do you have a sense of time at A that the meeting will likely be scheduled?

12:58So we're going to see what the committee, or sorry, for the focus group, prefers. So right now we have like an afternoon time slot and an evening time slot, like place held in our calendars.

13:09So we'll see what the membership would prefer. But we're looking probably either at afternoon meeting or an evening meeting, depending on schedules.

13:19Other questions from the committee?

13:21Any volunteers to join that focus group?

13:25Alright, so Joudad has volunteered. So then our recommended motion is that Heritage Guelph appoint Joudad to represent the committee on the downtown Guelph Heritage Focus Group in support of the downtown Guelph Heritage Conservation District Study.

13:48Do I have a mover? Thank you to Kim and a seconder.

13:52To David Weberman and all in favor.

13:57Great. Thanks everyone. And our next agenda item is with Jack. So it's looking at 318 Gordon Street Heritage Permit Application.

14:07Thank you, Sarah. I'm just going to share with you what we're looking for.

14:11So we're going to be looking at the next agenda item.

14:17So we're looking at the next agenda item is the Heritage Permit Application.

14:23Thank you, Sarah. I'm just going to share the architectural drawings for this permit.

14:32So we received an application to add an addition to a house classed as non heritage in the Brooklyn and College Hill Heritage Conservation District.

14:49The property, the structure was built in about 1960.

14:53I included some current images in the staff report, but it's round brick on the first floor and then horizontal wood siding.

15:01On the second floor and this, these permit drawings here show the rear elevation of the house where the addition is planned.

15:11And you can see, so this is the current structure and below is the structure with the proposed addition.

15:20So those two windows on the first floor, this area kind of bumps out and there's a deck on top.

15:29And so they're just proposing like a small gable roofed addition that'll protrude out onto the deck.

15:38It meets all of the plans and guidelines and it's going to be clad in a vertical

15:46lack cladding so it'll be distinct from the original 1960s structure.

15:55I'm going to stop sharing my screen in case anyone has any questions.

16:04Yes Cameron.

16:06Thanks. How big is the addition? How much does it come out from the back?

16:12It's, it doesn't extend all the way to the end of the existing, I don't know what you'd call it, first story addition.

16:24I don't actually have the blueprint in front of me but it, it stepped back from the edge of the original first story addition.

16:33Right.

16:34That makes sense.

16:34I mean like how many feet back from the building does it extend?

16:39Yeah, I don't have the blueprint in front of me so I don't know but it's not, so it's contained within the original footprint of the building if that's.

16:47Oh, okay.

16:48Yeah.

16:49Yeah.

16:50Yeah, thanks.

16:56Other questions?

17:02Silence or hearing silence.

17:05So our recommended motion then is that Heritage Guelph provides the following comments to the general manager planning and building services with respect to the Heritage Perman application for 318 Gordon Street.

17:14The proposed addition to 318 Gordon Street abides by the guidelines for the Brooklyn and College Hill Heritage Conservation District.

17:21Do I have a mover?

17:26Thanks Cameron.

17:26A seconder.

17:30Thank you David Waverman.

17:31All in favor.

17:34Great.

17:34Thank you.

17:38And welcome Kathy.

17:42So moving right along then we are on 2.4 which is 331 Clear Road East Cultural Heritage Impact Assessment and it is back to Jack and there is a delegation as well from MHBC.

17:57Yeah, thank you Sarah.

17:59So I'm going to let Vanessa from MHBC give the bulk of the presentation on her cultural heritage impact assessment.

18:08But I'll just provide some staff comments first to clarify our assessment.

18:14So a zoning bylaw application was submitted for 331 Clear Road East to rezone the property from agricultural to specialized residential townhouse.

18:24The current development proposal includes the construction of 8 stacked townhouse blocks with a total of 136 units with parking spaces located at the center of the site around a central amenity area.

18:37Included in this proposal is the relocation of the house to the northeast of the property which will be adaptively reused as an amenity space.

18:46It is proposed that the summer kitchen and the original foundation will be removed from the main house.

18:53The city of Guelph received a cultural heritage impact assessment prepared by Vanessa Hicks at MHBC that considers the impacts of the proposed developments

19:02and identifies alternative approaches and mitigation strategies.

19:05Staff agree with the findings of the impact assessment and agree that while demolition of the summer kitchen is certainly a negative impact to heritage, the designation of the property and its adaptive reuse as an amenity space

19:19will ensure the conservation of the main house well into the future.

19:25When I was reviewing this application, I was reminded of Harold Cullman's definition of heritage planning which is

19:31seeking solutions to the loss of a historic place.

19:34So while I think that relocating a historic structure can be a negative impact,

19:40staffer of the opinion that relocation of the main house elsewhere on the historic Hanlon property in a prominent location within the new development with a similar orientation to Quare Road strikes an appropriate balance between conservation and development.

19:55I'm happy to take any questions on my staff report assessing the HIA, but if not, I'll pass it over to Vanessa.

20:07Shout out.

20:08You're just muted.

20:12Concerning moving the ZS.

20:27There is a nickel.

20:32There is a nickel.

20:35Why?

20:36Why?

20:38Headphones, you should plug them in.

20:40There is no headphone.

20:45Anyway, moving the building is a bit difficult and according to the study, it wasn't clear that the building will be safe moving there.

20:58According to the construction engineer, the statement at the end wasn't very encouraging.

21:06So there need to be more studies before taking the decision of moving the building.

21:12I have the foundation issue, the structure of the walls which is kind of weak and the joints haven't been done.

21:22So according to them, they said that these things haven't been done.

21:27So how do they take this decision of moving it without a structural engineer doing a study, well study on the building itself?

21:39This is my concern.

21:41Jack, sorry you're muted.

21:48Thank you, Sarah.

21:50I think Vanessa will be more appropriate to answer that question, Joe Dech.

21:54She does recommend some further studies and I understand it's planned that the building will be stabilized prior to the construction.

22:00But I'll defer to Vanessa for that question.

22:04Are there any other questions for Jack regarding his report?

22:13And if not, we can turn it over to Vanessa and have Vanessa give her presentation if there's one as well as a response to Joe Dech's question.

22:21All right, Vanessa, it's over to you then.

22:23Everyone, can you hear me okay?

22:25Excellent. It's always risky.

22:30Thanks for having me.

22:33Nice to meet you, everyone.

22:35And I'll just give a little warning up front. I've been very snazy this morning, so I'll try not to cause any deafness by sneezing into the microphone.

22:43And I might have to mute quickly. Sorry about that.

22:47So my name is Vanessa Hicks and I'm a heritage planner with MHBC.

22:51I was retained by the property owners and I completed the heritage impact assessment as an update to an earlier heritage impact assessment that was completed in 2012.

23:01Thank you for your question. I will answer that at the end. That way, if you have any other additional questions for me, I can answer that as well.

23:09But I do have an answer for you and happy to answer that as well.

23:13I have a short presentation prepared. Is there a way, is it okay if I share my screen for a couple of minutes? Yes. Okay. Thank you very much.

23:21Share.

23:23Screen. Okay.

23:25Perfect. Okay.

23:27Thanks, everyone. So just to give you a very brief update on through through on clear road, Guelph.

23:45I'm very happy about this project. I think it's a very happy heritage story.

23:49Again, I agree with Jack that this is a very good marriage between development and in heritage conservation.

23:57The properties located on the east side of clear road in case you're if you're unfamiliar with the where the properties located. And I have the the dwellings.

24:07Circled in red there for you. You can see the majority of the subject property as it is right now.

24:13So the heritage impact assessment. Our assessment included determined that the property meets at least two criteria under the Ontario.

24:24And with the new amendments to the heritage act that qualifies for potential designation under a rig 906.

24:33So we determined that the properties representative of an 1864 Gothic stone revival cottage and is associated with James Hanlon.

24:42We also determined that even though the building remains in situ, it doesn't have an important contextual relationship. So where some heritage attributes have a very important contextual relationship.

24:54Where they are in situ, meaning, for example, if you have a mill mill infrastructure, if you take one of those mill buildings and move it five feet to the east, as opposed to exactly where it is, there's a, there's a consequence to moving a building, but this particular building doesn't have a significant

25:12relationship to its existing location in such a year.

25:15Therefore, relocating the building on site is not considered an adverse impact provided of course that it could be relocated safely.

25:24We are in support of the heritage attributes that are listed for designation and these have been listed in the reports before you today and agreed upon with staff.

25:35And these are all proposed to be retained and conserved.

25:39Here is a an image of the proposed development where the building which is currently located somewhere where the first one to 10 units are located and is proposed to be relocated within an amenity area and to conserve it within the development proposal and have it adaptively reused and conserved and also

26:03commemoration on site as well.

26:09So our high level conclusions are that the relocation of the dwelling on site is a neutral impact given that its exact location in situ isn't significant but it can be relocated on site provided that is done safely.

26:23Excuse me.

26:24Also that the removal of the re-ordition results in moderate adverse impacts, which we can mitigate through of course commemoration documentation and salvage.

26:35The alterations and acts of relocation as always.

26:40And there are always potential for adverse impacts when you're relocating the structure. And I think maybe this is a good segue into asking the questions about how to relocate that building.

26:50And the danger is always relocating a building as is.

26:55So what we're proposing is to stabilize the building so that it can be safely relocated and that can be accomplished. The danger lies where you look at a building and you cannot stabilize it enough to the extent that it cannot be safely relocated.

27:12So that's my answer to that question and we will have more work completed by way of a conservation plan, which will provide more details on how the relocation of conservation will be completed safely.

27:26Of course, the conservation of the building is considered a beneficial impact because it will be conserved over the long term.

27:34So the recommendations are to complete a documentation and salvage report to complete an interpretation or commemoration plan.

27:43Also to salvage materials that they can either be used on site or donated so that they're not just deposited as landfill.

27:53Also the requirement for a conservation plan again making sure the building is altered and relocated safely.

28:00And also for long term conservation, which in this case is being completed through a designation by law.

28:10Here's a bit of a condition update we met on site with staff not too long ago. There are some condition issues here, but these are all proposed to be addressed.

28:23Any instability of the building can be addressed prior to relocation and again after relocation so there are different stages of completing these works.

28:32We also completed a review of the interior of the building to determine if anything else, anything was worthy of being salvaged.

28:40And in this particular case as always it's usually public buildings where interior attributes are proposed to be identified.

28:51And here there was just quite a lot of damage to the building over time so we're not proposing to identify any interior attributes as interior parts of the building to be identified as heritage attributes but to make sure that the building can be retained and conserved for adaptive reuse.

29:14And the next steps in this process will be to make recommendation to counsel regarding the intention to designate and then the no aid or notice of intention to designate will be published.

29:26There will be a zoning by law amendment and any after the designation then any any work would be require a heritage permit application.

29:35A site planner application is also required for the proposed development afterwards we will sorry throughout that process at the appropriate times we will have completion completion of those documents I mentioned including interpretation conservation salvage conservation plans, and then the construction

29:54of the work that will actually happen physically and then after the building is relocated on top of a new foundation, the bylaw would need to be amended to reflect its new location.

30:05So, a long journey there but a very happy heritage story. And I'm happy to answer any questions that you may have.

30:18Thanks Vanessa.

30:20So, I, David, I see you put your hand up quickly David see so you're welcome to vote.

30:28I'm sure you're muted as well sorry.

30:35Good morning.

30:37In looking at the report, the advisory committee report on page 13 of 109 it said the staff have had some comments.

30:48And specifically that they are that the heritage assessment should include images of the windows to confirm the observation.

30:59And how the while heritage staff are supportive of the relocation, there should be further detail on how the relocation is a neutral impact.

31:08And they agree with the heritage attributes.

31:11You see that.

31:13Are they have you dealt with, have you considered those and provided a any response to that or any reaction to how the city staff has sent you report.

31:28I mean, I've had multiple conservations with with Jack and city, and I don't, I believe all of those have been addressed so far and we're jack and I are both on the same page.

31:38And we identified that. I think I mentioned this in my presentation that we do believe that the impact of this particular building on site is a neutral impact, simply because, you know, you can think about a building being moved on site, whether it's 300 meters or five feet.

31:55And it's a neutral impact of moving that building. And in this particular instance, there's no reason for the building that it can't be moved such that it would impact its cultural heritage value or interest.

32:07It's being moved on site and it's proposed and provided that it's moved safely. We don't see that there being an adverse impact.

32:14And we're both in agreement regarding the list of heritage attributes.

32:18Are there any areas where you and the heritage staff from the city are still at.

32:27I don't think Jack, you can you're happy to answer that. I don't think that we have any right now. We certainly have more things to work through as we move along this process.

32:36But I think what we've gotten to the point now where we're happy with how we are moving forward. And if there's anything that comes up through this process and I'm absolutely more than happy to work with staff on that.

32:44But as of right now, no, I don't believe there's anything of consequence.

32:49Yeah, I'll just echo that we had some questions for Vanessa prior to our site visit, but we.

32:57For example, David, the impact assessment said that the windows had been destroyed, but didn't include any pictures, but through the site visit staff were able to determine that that is certainly true.

33:10All of the windows have been destroyed in the house by vandals, we assume.

33:16And I included pictures in my staff report.

33:22Okay, you're both getting along then.

33:27Thank you.

33:29Yep, go ahead.

33:32See, during the study there is a lack of topographic analysis.

33:38And, you know, the location of the building is it located on a like hill kind of location whereas when you're moving it will have an impact.

33:53I think there's a couple points to that question. And I think the first part of the question is, is the house located on a rise of land.

34:02And the answer to that is just about every single house that is built including houses that are built today are all built on a slight rise of land or at least not in a dip of the land we built we built houses similar to the way we did 100 200 years

34:17ago.

34:18So, yes, I would imagine that it is not built on the low part of the land obviously because water needs to run down.

34:25Now does that have an impact on how the building could be moved. My answer would be, no, that is absolutely something that a building mover would consider when the building is being relocated, and that may or may not require some grading

34:42on the relocation. And if that is required to make sure that the building is moved appropriately and safely then I'm sure that would be done.

34:50But this will give an impact, visual impact, you know the building itself located on a kind of, you know, elevated sites will be different than being located on a, you know, lower source.

35:09So, our heritage impact assessment did address impacts of views, and I don't believe that there are any outstanding issues between staff and I relating to the change of view.

35:20Of course the view will change but it will not take away from the reasons for which the building has heritage cultural value or interest. There are some situations where buildings that are purposefully located on a rise of land, which creates a

35:36really good view is important. In fact, I think that the there's a very famous church which name escapes me in downtown in downtown Guelph.

35:46That is a very good example of a church being specifically visible from the street being located on a grand rise of land. But in this particular case, it is just a, it's a concept it's

36:01always excuse me with the word I'm looking for. It's circumstantial, and it's a practice that they had just to avoid the low, the low parts of the land, just because water runs down.

36:13And because that doesn't add to the cultural heritage of value or interest of the building or not identifying any impacts related to views.

36:21I have reservation to use that. Anyway, another question.

36:27Why didn't you show us another scenario whereby, you know, the building states where it is and you have a development around it.

36:38Those options were considered through the planning process, and they were also considered in our heritage impact assessment. That is not the proposal that's going forward. And we believe that this particular proposal is a very good marriage between development and heritage conservation and to

36:59give in that we are satisfied with the range of impacts from beneficial neutral and moderate adverse. We're happy with the proposal as it is.

37:11I hope there is a risk assessment of moving the building in case you weren't able to move it and something happened. What will be done.

37:25Sorry, was that a statement or was that a question? What would we do?

37:29It's a statement because you know, I'm worried that if the building is moved and something happened and it's damaged. So what will happen in this case?

37:37I have seen many buildings move over my career. I have yet to see one fall down. I'm very happy to say that. And I have to give my faith in the professionals that take a lot of consideration when they're moving these buildings.

37:55And I will continue to work with staff through our conservation plan and any additional physical work that needs to be done by the experts to make sure that the building is relocated safely.

38:05Okay, thank you.

38:08Cameron.

38:12Thanks just to jump back to the proposals to leave the building in situ. What was the reasoning to not proceed with those proposals and instead to go to.

38:21Moving the building, like, was it just cost quickly for the developer or were there other reasons?

38:28I think that there's a combination of reasons for having a development proposal where the building is relocated and not staying in situ.

38:36Given that.

38:38And that relocating the building to any portion or part of the site is considered a neutral impact.

38:47That gives a little bit more freedom into having a plan for development for increased residential units in a time right now where I think that everyone's trying to incorporate as many units as we can.

39:03Given the planning policies and to ensure heritage conservation at the same time.

39:08I think that there's just a range of reasons and one of them being that this is something that can be done successfully with the proposal as it is.

39:18But there were other options that were considered through the planning process.

39:22Okay.

39:25I guess none of those options went to some more questions for staff. None of these options were presented to the committee at all. So, like, the only thing we've seen is the relocation option.

39:35Which, to me, it just seems like the default was to go to relocation and not really consider the other stuff. But I guess maybe it was.

39:42It didn't go through the committee though.

39:45Or maybe I missed that meeting.

39:48No, so they, the applicant submitted a zoning bylaw application with the relocation of the house.

39:58Like, we.

40:00don't tell them what to submit when they're submitting a zoning bio application, right?

40:06This is their proposal. So this is what we've received. And the Heritage Impact Assessment

40:12did outline other alternatives. But yeah, we don't like, we only comment on the applications

40:23we receive, right? If that makes sense.

40:27Yeah, yeah. So it just sounds to me like there are definitely possibilities to retain

40:31it as is rather than relocated. But based on the application you got, that's the route

40:36it's been going so far.

40:38Yeah.

40:39Okay, thanks.

40:45Other questions or comments?

40:52So there is a motion, a recommended motion for us that the comments provided by Heritage

40:5612 on 331 Clare Road East Cultural Heritage Impact Assessment prepared by MHVC and Data

41:01May 2023, be provided to stop and counsel for their consideration. Do I have a mover?

41:18No movers?

41:21Can I add a comment, please? Can you please insist that there will be another option also

41:30presented whereby the building is not moved? Because I think I see the study is missing.

41:43We need another option, not being cornered with one option and take it or leave it. So

41:50I don't know if we have the authority to do that.

41:57The Impact Assessment did outline that other option leaving the building in situ. But again,

42:09the application that we've received is to relocate the building. And so the Heritage Impact Assessment

42:18was focused on the application that was submitted or proposed. If that makes sense.

42:32I think our comment would just be on that is that we suggest that other alternatives

42:37should be considered in addition to the proposal received. We don't want to just go with relocation

42:45as a default from a heritage perspective as a committee. And one other thing I would

42:50like to add to be in regards to the structural report by STAN Tech, it was a fairly high

42:55level of feasibility study. I think for us to even really consider relocation, we'd

43:00have to see a more detailed structural design for the repairs and relocation plan from the

43:05engineer and from I guess the relocation contractor. It was a fairly high level report.

43:11Yeah, that would happen through the Heritage Permit process.

43:19And so with the motion, Jack, all of these comments would be included to staff and council

43:25for their consideration. Is that correct?

43:27Yep. And if once the minutes are published, the committee has any additional comments they

43:32can always, always add to the minutes.

43:36So I'll put the motion forward once more then because it will include all of the comments

43:40and sort of the reflection that more should be done and review that it's other options

43:46should be properly reviewed and determined. So that the comments provided by Heritage

43:51Guelph on 331 Clair Road East Cultural Heritage Impact Assessment, prepared by MHBC in dated

43:56May 2023 be provided to staff and council for their consideration.

44:02Is there someone to move that motion? Cameron, thank you. And a seconder?

44:07Odette? And all in favor? Thank you.

44:14And we will continue our conversation of 331 Clair and designation updates. So we will pass it

44:21back to Jack and noting again, we have Vanessa here as a delegate on the Heritage Attributes

44:27and Designation Recommendation.

44:30Thank you, Sarah. So I'm going to kind of, since these attributes were negotiated between

44:38the applicant and Heritage staff, I'm going to kind of, I might defer some questions to Vanessa

44:45again because she identified the attributes and staff agreed with them. I'm just going to share

44:51the list of attributes, Julie. So I won't read all of these verbatim, but essentially they cover

45:17all extant exterior attributes of the main house, which is what is ultimately proposed for

45:25conservation. I do want to make note that I think it's not insignificant that the applicant is

45:33supportive of designation in this scenario, which is when we have a supportive property owner,

45:42we do negotiate heritage attributes with them. And I also, I do think that this is a pretty

45:48comprehensive list of exterior attributes for the main house, but I'm keen to hear the committee's

45:57thoughts or comments on what we have proposed. And I'll remove my screen here.

46:10Thanks, Jack. So are there questions or comments for Jack regarding those features?

46:16Yep, Cameron. Not specifically in regards to the features, but Jack, you mentioned the owner,

46:27property owner is supportive of designation. I'm assuming that's conditional on it being relocated?

46:36We can't really give like conditional, we've indicated that like through our review of the

46:42heritage impact assessment that staff see relocation as a neutral impact.

46:52And yeah, like I don't want a heritage to prevent housing in this scenario. So we're trying to work

47:01with a developer to come up with something that works for both development and conservation.

47:09If that suffices to answer your question. Yeah, no, it's okay. I guess

47:14other question would be the motions that we're voting on today are strictly about

47:18designating the building and the features, nothing about the relocation, correct?

47:21That's right. That will come through the heritage permit process at a later date.

47:28Okay, thanks. Jack, I have a quick question. So given all of these features that are to be

47:35protected, if the building is moved and something that's been listed as protected for as part of

47:40the designation, is that they damaged? What's what happens? It has to be repaired. If the

47:45chimney as an example crumbles, what's our options here? Yeah, it's kind of difficult to

47:52comment on those types of hypotheticals, but we'd work with the property owner to come up with.

48:00This is kind of a non-answer with a solution. If repairing it is feasible,

48:07then that's an option. If somehow replicating it is an option or finding some way to

48:15commemorate its existence, there's many different options. If something like that happens, now if

48:21the whole house falls apart during the relocation, which again, I think due diligence will be done

48:28to ensure that that doesn't happen. Yeah, again, that's a bridge we'd cross when we get there.

48:38Yeah, I know that's not a very firm answer, but I always hesitant to comment on hypotheticals.

48:45We'll say if we get there, not when. It sounds less obvious. Yeah, thank you. Yeah, if, yeah, for sure.

48:52Other questions or comments? And I don't know if Vanessa, if there was anything you wanted to

48:58speak to about this? I think I'll just note that any heritage attribute that is listed in a designation

49:07by-law doesn't mean that it can't be removed or changed in the future. Just that we're identifying

49:13heritage attributes and if anything happened, whether it was something that was requested or

49:18something that happened or damaged, I also won't answer hypotheticals, but also we're identifying

49:24heritage attributes to help conserve the reasons for which that building has its look, its design

49:29physical value, but also that the heritage act also doesn't forbid anything to ever change with

49:35heritage attributes. Just that things would need a heritage permit for those heritage attributes

49:41to change. Thanks. Maybe just a comment for me. I think it's promising and positive that the applicant

49:52is also supportive of designation in this case. Are there any other questions or comments?

50:03Seeing none, I'll read out the proposed or the recommended motion. That Heritage Guelph supports

50:09the heritage attributes identified for 331 Clear Road East as outlined in the staff report dated

50:14October 10th, 2023 and that Heritage Guelph recommends that City Council give notice of its

50:19intention to designate 331 Clear Road East pursuant to part 4, section 29 of the Ontario Heritage Act.

50:26Do I have a mover? Thank you, Joudad. And a seconder? David C. Thank you. All in favour?

50:39Excellent. Thanks, everyone. And that will move us along to stay with Jack for a little while longer

50:46to 49 Metcalfe Street Heritage Attributes and Designation Recommendation.

50:52Thank you again, Sarah. So this will be my last item of the day, I hope. Just going to share my

51:01screen once more. Okay. So I was able to have a very positive meeting with the owners of 49 Metcalfe

51:22Street and they are supportive of designation. I discussed the list of Heritage Attributes

51:30with them and the only one that they requested I remove was the original window sashes. They said

51:37that they're in an advanced state of deterioration and they're hoping to replace them sometime soon.

51:43So I agreed with that and they care about the property immensely.

51:51And so they hope to replace them with something that's compatible with the art deco or excuse

51:59me, art modern style of the property. They also suggested that I add an attribute. They want the

52:07internal roof drainage system added. I've always kind of wondered how flat roofed buildings

52:12are drained, but there's actually the roof is sloped towards the center of a building and there's

52:18a pipe running internally through the house that drains the rainwater and they thought that that

52:23was a significant attribute of the building's design. So we took one attribute away and added

52:32another, but they were supportive of all the existing original doors and the walls and the

52:42metal ballast rod. Everything else they were in agreement with staff's list of Heritage Attributes.

52:51Stop sharing now and if anybody has any questions, happy to answer.

53:00Any questions or comments? Yes, David.

53:08Yeah, hi, just on the page three of the advisory report it said that the Heritage staff reached

53:15out to the owners that didn't hear a response.

53:20Thank you for noting that. I'll revise that and update it or I'll make

53:29note of it in the minutes that that's incorrect. I did reach out to them.

53:33We had a long phone conversation last week.

53:37What you just told us about then is in relation to those owners?

53:43Yes, yeah. I sent them two letters I think in June and September and only made contact with them

53:55very recently. I just forgot to update that section of the report.

53:58Okay, thank you. Yep, Cameron.

54:06Thanks. I just have a question about the roof drainage system. Is it just like interior flat

54:11area drains or is there like stop or drains through the wall of the roof as well? Is it just

54:16the interior drain? My understanding is it's just the interior drain. I haven't actually

54:22been up there but I'm just relying on what they asked me to include as an attribute.

54:30Okay, okay, I'm just curious. Thanks.

54:39There are no other questions or comments. I'll state the recommended motion that Heritage

54:45Claw supports the Heritage Attributes identified for 49 Metcalfe Street as outlined in the staff

54:50report dated October 10th, 2023 and that Heritage Claw recommends that City Council give notice of

54:55its intention to designate 49 Metcalfe Street pursuant to part 4, section 29 of the Heritage Act.

55:01Can I have someone move that motion? Thank you, Cameron and a seconder. Thank you, Kim and all in

55:12favor. Great, thank you. I think we're on to our last official item of the meeting which is

55:22167 Suffolk Street West Cultural Heritage Evaluation Report with Victoria.

55:29Thank you, Sarah. I'm just going to share my slideshow quickly. Okay, great. So today we're

55:54talking about the background research and statement of significance for 167 Suffolk Street West.

56:05I'll be going through the results of the background research and what I've identified as

56:12the criteria that the property meets for individual designation under part 4 of the OHA.

56:19And then obviously there'll be time for feedback and questions at the end.

56:25So I'll get right into it.

56:28167 Suffolk Street West is located on the north side of Suffolk Street West.

56:36It's west of Yorkshire Street North and east of Arnold Street and south of Home Street. It was

56:47on plans 8 and also 29 and actually has a very long legal address that I won't bar you with reading.

56:55The subject property includes multiple connected businesses with a parking lot on the north side

57:01of the property that is part grassed, part paved. The limestone structure is neoclassic

57:09vernacular and has two storey, it's two stories in height story with an additional attic,

57:15a five bay parapet to gable roof. And then there are have been multiple additions to the property

57:22over time, which we can see in subsequent photos. So kind of going into the background

57:32research, the property was originally owned by John Arnold in 1857 and it was sold multiple times

57:40and was owned by multiple titans of industry over its lifetime. Initially it was owned by John Hogg,

57:50a wealthy dry-gourds merchant and he bought it with his wife Helen. And then in 1876

57:59we are able to start the factory or industrial part of its history and you can kind of see that

58:08starting to take shape with the buildings being identified on Cooper's map in 1877.

58:15So originally the factory was built by Levi Kossett and he owned Kossett's agricultural

58:26implement works. He specialized and specifically patent and built the farmer's friend gangplow,

58:35which you can see here. He also manufactured other farming implements such as fanning mills,

58:42horse power feed cutters, hand power feed cutters, turnip seed drills, lawn mowers, etc. etc.

58:50Unfortunately for Levi the farm implements industry proved to be difficult for him. He did

58:57suffer a fire on the property and even though he was backed by multiple financiers, he did end up

59:05selling the business and the factory to Thomas Gowdy. And here we go. So Thomas Gowdy is an

59:19important man in Guelph history. He bought the property with his wife Margaret Gowdy, name more,

59:27and took ownership in 1885. You can see Gowdy's agricultural works in the updated fire insurance

59:36plan on the screen. He established his business in 1865 at a location downtown and then obviously

59:44subsequently acquired this factory. Gowdy's agricultural works specialized in manufacturing

59:51reapers, mowers, sulky rakes, fanning mills, land rollers, root cutters, turnip sowers, straw cutters,

59:58the list goes on. Their goods were shipped throughout Canada and also internationally to

1:00:04Australia as well. And under Gowdy's ownership the Suffolk Street factory encompassed 2.5 acres

1:00:12of ground with six separate buildings and stables. So you can see in this drawing of the facility it

1:00:20was quite extensive. The factory is described as having a main building three and a half stories

1:00:27in height with a one-story foundry polishing shop and blacksmith shop. The works were powered by a

1:00:3350 horsepower endem and over 40 skilled workmen worked at the facility. A little bit more about

1:00:42Thomas Gowdy who was pictured on the left here. He was a successful industrialist and he had

1:00:50financial interests in multiple businesses across the province. He was the president of the Toronto

1:00:57Lime Company. He also was the director of many businesses such as the Wellington Lime Company,

1:01:03the Dominion Life Assurance Company, the Wellington Mutual Fire Assurance Company,

1:01:08and the Waterloo Mutual Fire Insurance Company. He was one of the original directors of the

1:01:14Guelph Junction Railway and was also a director of the Guelph General Hospital. He was the mayor

1:01:21of Guelph from 1889 to 1890 and his house where he lived in a 136 Glasgow Street North is still

1:01:30exist and still is still there. He was also associated with establishing Guelph Bay which was

1:01:39an area and cottage country that high elite Guelphites would go and rest throughout their summers.

1:01:50Now Gowdy did dispose of the property. He sold the factory to William and John Morlock who are also

1:01:58on the screens. John is in the middle and William is on the right and they took over in 1902. So their

1:02:07company was based in manufacturing upholstered furniture, mattresses, bed springs, and parlor

1:02:14goods. In 1908 the Morlock Brothers had an annual output of more than $150,000 and they also added,

1:02:25they expanded the property and added a three-story western addition that included a 100 by 54 feet

1:02:32concrete blocked addition with almost 100 hands employed to maintain daily operations of the factory.

1:02:44So after the Morlock Brothers sold the factory the property exchanged hands multiple times,

1:02:50multiple businesses ran out of the space including Rowan and Og company, the new idea

1:02:57spreader company which was another farming implement. Also, sure Gillett company and then this is a

1:03:06picture of the Holman luggage company. They based their plant operations in the factory.

1:03:12They took over the location in 1946 after their Cardin Street location burnt down.

1:03:20They focused on manufacturing leather luggage and card tables although they later branched out and

1:03:25started manufacturing musical instruments as well. And then by 1978 the Barber family acquired the

1:03:33property for their glass business and it has operated out of the building ever since. A few

1:03:42facts about the Barber factory where you can kind of see the entrance on the middle left

1:03:53photograph. They as I said have owned the property since the late 70s and even though

1:04:00the business reorganized they were able to still maintain the Suffolk Street address.

1:04:08And they specialize in fabricating, supplying and installing glass,

1:04:15mirror and metal products for commercial and residential projects. And they have their work

1:04:22can be seen at One World Trade Center in New York City at the perimeter institute in Waterloo,

1:04:28the Four Seasons Hotel in Toronto and also at the bus shelters in Guelph Central Station.

1:04:34So the Suffolk Street property has been obviously owned by multiple

1:04:40businesses over the years, most of which have contributed to Guelph's economy and to Guelph's

1:04:47history. These are current photos of the property. There are more in Attachment 1 of the report,

1:05:00but you can see the evidence of multiple additions over time. So the main original structure is the

1:05:08two-story plus attic structure you can see in the middle and that it was made of limestone.

1:05:16And then they added the eastern addition which is also of limestone a little bit later.

1:05:21You can also tell that the first story and second story is like two different colors of stone.

1:05:31And that's most, that's probably at least I've inferred that there was mention of Gaudi doing

1:05:39significant works to the property when he took it over from Cossett to kind of bring it up to

1:05:44Snuff and also there had been a fire on the property. So we had to invest some money. So I think that

1:05:50maybe the different color of stone is associated with those works. The western concrete block

1:05:57addition was added by the Moorluck Brothers and you can really see on the bottom right photo that

1:06:04they use the initial like first story limestone to be the base of their addition. You can especially

1:06:15see on the western facing wall the remnants of the triangle or sorry the roof structure of what

1:06:23used to be there and what they added on to. And then in the back there are some more modern

1:06:31additions in terms of having the two-story black painted concrete addition on the back

1:06:44that is used by Barber Glass and there's also some additional one-story brick structures that are kind

1:06:50of on the west side of that black addition that are used mostly for storage and for business purposes.

1:06:59The current main entrance to the property you can see which is on the east side, the east facing wall

1:07:09is also part of addition for that was made over the years. A fun

1:07:16remaining feature you can see on the north facing wall that there's still

1:07:23a door for an original boiler for the building and another small little door that again if

1:07:32there's a better picture of it in attachment one of the report. So after conducting this

1:07:40background research I deemed that the property met four of the nine criteria prescribed under

1:07:48Ontario Regulation 906 to meet part four designation under section 29 of the Ontario Heritage Act

1:07:57and to kind of go through those four criteria. First of all the property meets criteria one

1:08:05by having designed a physical value as it's an early example of an industrial factory

1:08:09built in Guelph for the purposes of manufacturing in the mid 19th century. The two-story limestone

1:08:16structure plus the attic makes use of local materials and the iconic facade can be seen

1:08:20in multiple photographs of the businesses on the property over time. In terms of historical and

1:08:26associative value the property meets criteria four because it has direct associations with the

1:08:31past mayor of Guelph Thomas Gowdy as well as the industry in the city and time to the agricultural

1:08:39new D. Guelph has strong ties to the agricultural industry and the fact that two well-known

1:08:48agricultural implement businesses were located here contributes to our legacy. Lastly for contextual

1:08:56value the subject property meets criteria seven because it is important in defining and maintaining

1:09:04and supporting sorry the architectural character of the area. It's an important historic part of

1:09:10the Guelph-Coliseum candidate cultural heritage landscape as identified in the chap. And then

1:09:16lastly I believe that the buildings distinctive form and limestone construction are a landmark of

1:09:24the Suffolk Street West Street gate. So in the end it's my recommendation and staff's recommendation

1:09:32that the property be put forth for individual designation as it meets four out of nine criteria

1:09:41set out in Ontario regulation 906. And now there is time for comments and questions. So I'll just

1:09:52stop sharing my screen and take comments or any of your concerns. Yes go ahead Jada.

1:10:07I want to thank you for this lovely presentation but I want to ask are there any architectural

1:10:14lands, façades available you know from the Guelph? Sorry could you repeat your question Jada

1:10:24architectural I missed that second board. Are there any architectural façades original

1:10:30architectural façades lands it's sections? Right so the façade that you can see from

1:10:39Suffolk Street that limestone the two-story plus gable and then the eastern addition that limestone

1:10:49is original and then you can see some of the original limestone I think as in the Moorlach

1:10:55addition to the west. So the first I'll just I can bring up. Oh sorry are you talking about do you

1:11:08want to see original blueprints like right. So we do have the fire insurance plans of the property

1:11:16unfortunately I couldn't find any blueprints of the property in what we have here at the city

1:11:24in our archives and I to be honest I didn't go to the physical archives at the county to check but

1:11:35all we have are just kind of permits from this you know earliest is like the 70s so I have a

1:11:41survey of the property but I don't have specific blueprints for the building. Thank you thank you.

1:11:58Are there questions or comments for Victoria? Yep Cameron. Thanks have you Victoria have you

1:12:07reached out to the building owners yet? Are they supportive of going down the designation route?

1:12:11So Stephen has spoken with them in the past and they have been supportive I have

1:12:19sent John Barber an email and I'm hoping that he responds. I will I'm planning to follow up

1:12:27with him as well but I know that Stephen has had discussions with them in the past

1:12:33and that's how I have his email so I'm hoping that we can reconnect and talk about as we move forward

1:12:43with identifying heritage attributes and have a discussion with them. Sounds good thanks.

1:12:53Are there questions or comments? No all right I will read out our recommended motion that the

1:13:02comments provided by Heritage Guelph members on the 167 Suffolk Street Cultural Heritage Evaluation

1:13:07Report be provided to staff and council for their consideration. Is there a mover?

1:13:14Jaudat thank you and a seconder. David Weberman thank you. Colin Faber excellent thanks and thank

1:13:25you Victoria. So I believe there are no announcements from myself I'll look at Jack I think has an

1:13:32announcement I saw you on mute real fast. Yeah I just wanted to note at the upcoming October

1:13:3917th council planning meeting at six o'clock I think you're all aware that the recommendation to

1:13:47issue a notice of intention to designate 2187 Gordon will be before council but we also have a

1:13:54recommendation to issue a notice of intention to designate for Titewyr Public School and the

1:14:01demolition of the designated property in the Brooklyn and College Hill Heritage Conservation

1:14:06District at 33 to 35 James Street will also be on council's agenda so I just wanted to make the

1:14:12committee aware of upcoming upcoming council items. I think Victoria has an announcement.

1:14:21And I'll just yeah we have um sorry booked our upcoming public open house for the downtown

1:14:31Guelph HCD study it's October 18th it's running from 430 to 630 there is registration through a

1:14:40Vembrite that I can we can send to the committee after the meeting and it's just a register for

1:14:48there's going to be two tours of downtown as part of the open house one at 445 and one at 545

1:14:57530 anyways so it would be great if you want to go on one of those tours to register through a

1:15:03Vembrite just so we kind of know how big the tours are going to be but otherwise there'll be

1:15:10boards and staff in the Mark McKinnon room at City Hall to for anyone who wants to just drop in

1:15:15and provide feedback so it would be great to see committee members out at the open house if you are

1:15:21available if you can't make it that's also fine um we'll probably we're hoping to film the tour stops

1:15:30and then post as one video so that the public can still have access and then um if also if you'd

1:15:40like to give feedback or have your say page for the project is also live you can find that on our

1:15:45project page and there are um you can identify specific buildings if you would like again if you

1:15:54can't make the open house you can identify specific buildings that you find important in downtown on

1:15:59the have your say page as well as submit any stories you may have of downtown heritage as well

1:16:06so um yeah it'd be great to see committee members out at the open house if you can make it

1:16:14okay thank you so I believe there are no other announcements uh so our last point today is just

1:16:21adjournment so do I have a mover and a seconder for adjournment of our meeting today thank you Kim

1:16:26and a seconder thank you David and all in favor excellent thanks everyone enjoy the rest of your week

1:16:37thank you thank you everyone thank you