Heritage Advisory Committee

0:02refuge for many peoples over time but more specifically the Adelwanderank and

0:07the Haudenosaunee. This land is held as a treaty lands and territory with the

0:12Mississaugas of the Credit First Nation. Guelph lies directly adjacent to the

0:16Haldeman tract and is part of a long-established traditional hunting

0:19ground for the six nations of the Grand River. Many First Nations, Inuit and

0:23Métis peoples who have come from across Turtle Island call Guelph home today.

0:30Thank you everyone for that. And is there any disclosure of the curinary

0:34interests and the nature thereof from any members? Seeing no one raise their

0:42hand around Inuit online and everyone shook their head no in the room.

0:48We'll move on. So the first item then with a motion is the approval of the

0:51minutes for Merjulite, third 2025 meeting. Is there someone who will

0:56move that the minutes be approved?

1:00Thank you Kelly and a seconder. Or is it Gabriel?

1:07Yeah. Yes, perfect. And then all those in favor?

1:14Fantastic. Thanks everyone. So we'll move into our consent agenda and there are

1:20two items. 88 Ontario Street and 124 Liverpool Street.

1:25Are there any questions or comments for either of these properties?

1:34I think Don is it, I can't see your face. I'm going to guess that's Don on the end

1:38there. It is me. No, I just wanted to comment.

1:41I looked at both online and I just can't remember which is the

1:46double house, double white house looks 1850s.

1:52It was a picture of the interior. That's the next item on the...

1:59Oh is it? Okay main agenda. Oh yeah the intention is demolished.

2:04Sorry. No worries. Go ahead. There are no other questions or

2:14comments. Is there someone that will move the suggested agenda motions for the

2:19consent agenda? Thanks Liam. A seconder.

2:26Thank you Kelly. Sorry Don, I just saw your hand after. We'll go with Kelly.

2:29I know you can't see me. I saw the hand waving at one point.

2:35All those in favour? Perfect. All right thanks everyone.

2:41So moving along then we'll get into committee items and this is a 37-39

2:47London Road intention to demolish a property listed on the municipal

2:50register. Stephen your name wasn't listed on the

2:53agenda but I suspect you'll likely want to speak to this file.

2:58Stephen just stepped out. So I'm going to go find...

3:03We're just too efficient this morning I think or this afternoon it's officially

3:0612-03 so this afternoon. I'm struggling today.

3:11I'm struggling. Sorry Steve when we put you right on the spot as soon as

3:20you left the room. I was actually just making sure if

3:26the property owner for this item was was actually arriving in person.

3:31I'm hoping that Steve Double is the owner's name.

3:36I think they're online. The property owner's online.

3:42Yes okay good. So thank you Madam Chair. I think

3:54I guess I'm on now. I just want to share my screen to make sure that the

3:59document is available for everyone. Now

4:26Chair if you you should be able to see the report on the screen.

4:33Yes we can. So today I'll be presenting my staff report regarding an

4:41intention to demolish property that's listed on the municipal

4:45register. A property that's listed as non-designated

4:49it's addressed as 37 and 39 London Road West.

4:56The purpose of this report is to make the committee aware of the cultural

5:01heritage value of the subject property. I've described it what I feel is

5:07its historical significance and I've proposed heritage attributes

5:14that could be used in a designation of that word the direction that this

5:19word to go in. So I'd like to just call attention

5:23to the recommendations that are made that the advisory committee

5:29advises City Council that the building at 37 and 39 London Road West

5:34merits designation or part four of the Ontario Heritage Act

5:39and that the Heritage Advisory Committee advises Council that the

5:43committee supports the heritage attributes recommended in the staff

5:46report.

5:49I wanted just to point out that this this these recommendations

5:53deal only really with the cultural heritage value for the property and

5:58the suggestion of heritage attributes. So I wanted to move

6:04now to sort of through the document and I'm

6:10hoping that the committee members have had a chance to go through

6:14the content but I just want to hit some of the high levels.

6:19First of all just to confirm the property it's located on the north side of

6:24of it's actually not located on the north side of

6:31Dufferin Street. It's located on the north side of London

6:36Road West. My apologies between Woolwich and Dublin

6:41Street north as you see and you've seen in the

6:45figures in the report. So the property description is important.

6:53It's a story and a half wood frame instruction building

7:00with a side gable design and with a six bay front and as you've read in the

7:08report if you've had a chance the building was designed

7:11originally as two semi-detached units so that's its original design in my

7:17opinion. The building was built as I said in wood

7:21frame and it was clad in rough known as roughcast or the

7:26traditional cementitious stucco. That's been covered over later and

7:32that's something that I described in the report.

7:37So I think what's really important about this property

7:41is its location and the time and the building's age

7:47and as I pointed out in the reports. Do you think you're here for a heritage meeting?

7:52Thank you. As the Figure 3 in the report shows

8:02the building's footprint is indicated on on lot 7

8:08on the north side of London Road West and this is from Cooper's map of 1862

8:14so this is generally accepted then that properties that are illustrated in Cooper's

8:21map which is known to be very accurate. There was the building was on the ground

8:26before Confederation so before 1867 and even before this

8:32map of 1862 so this is a very old building.

8:38The building appears in plans or fire insurance plans subsequent to that

8:44I want to go on just to clarify some of the building description

8:54and just move to the just so that the illustrator the photos are seen here.

9:00As I mentioned the building is is a story and a half and really it's in

9:07mostly its original condition. It's on site visit with the owner.

9:14I was able to have a look at a close look at the outside but also on the inside of the building.

9:19It's my opinion that the transom lights over the both front doors are original

9:27to the building and the stairways which are it's a mirror design with the

9:34entrance doors being in the middle bays. The stairways are original.

9:41The Shandroof Dormer that one sees on the front of the building

9:48would not be an original feature. I was going to say obvious but it's not always obvious to everyone but

9:55it's it actually was an alteration to House Gathrons and it's indoor plumbing

10:03which didn't happen on London Road until 1914 so just before the first world war.

10:10I thought it was I thought it was important to point out the exterior plating of this building

10:17that it's it's been covered over with with a more modern type of stucco

10:25veneer and what I've what I found are references to a technique that was quite popular in the 1960s

10:341970s called quick brick plaster. So in order to cover up for just to to give it a new look

10:42to make the building look as if it was built out of bricks the the owner at the time would have

10:50had a contractor apply a metal metal screening that this quick brick plaster was applied over

10:58top of and and stamped to appear like brick. So it was popular in the 1970s but it's not

11:11I have not included the existing exterior as a heritage attribute.

11:17I want to just finish off then with my description of the cultural heritage value

11:23in in our in my evaluation of the building and the property I've found that it it meets two of the

11:32nine criteria under the regulation of 906. The first way that it first criteria it meets would be

11:39the design and physical value as the building is an early and representative example of

11:46pre-confederation era building type and Guelph with a Georgian style constructed in wood frame

11:53and it's retained its original story and a half and the semi-detached as a semi-detached residential

12:01building formed with a six bay facade. The second criteria that is met it would be the contextual

12:12value so and this is important the building is important in defining maintaining or supporting

12:19the character of the area as it appears in 1862 as one of the two buildings only two buildings built

12:27on the north side of London Road between Woolwich and Exhibition Park. The building is an important

12:35early element of the historical London Road Street scheme. So for that reason

12:42as the committee members are likely already aware or I mean this may be review but review I think is

12:48always good according to the legislation for a property to be considered to have merit

12:56to merit designation it must meet at least two of the nine criteria so it's my my professional

13:04opinion that this this building does mean two of the nine but only two. I wanted to

13:12just clarify or just confirm the heritage attributes that I have suggested about the property

13:19and I think those attributes would be the story and a half form side gable form of the

13:26building and what I mean in particular I mean the front portion of the building and not not

13:33including the the tail kitchen tail summer kitchen whatever you'd like to call it that

13:40extends over the back of the building. I think a really important attribute is the six bay facade

13:46design the four pane transom windows over the front door or the attributes and I think it's

13:56very important to identify the orientation of the building fronting onto London Road West

14:04it's not so much its position so close to the property line right up almost right to the

14:12city street right of way but it's it's the fact that it was built to face the street.

14:19So that pretty much sums up my presentation about the report and I wanted just to finish off

14:29by pointing out something that's on the first page of the report that would be under the

14:39executive summary and the purpose of the report. The third paragraph states that heritage planning

14:45staff have encouraged the proponent the owner to consider development options that may retain

14:51the suggested ex-dom heritage attributes in the property or a development concept that reconstructs

14:58and commemorates the heritage attributes and cultural heritage value of the property.

15:05So as I've stated in my report I'm I'm still in discussion with the property owner and

15:11it's it's at this stage that it's important to for for heritage planning staff to have conducted

15:17research to establish a baseline for the cultural heritage value of the of the property to suggest

15:27heritage attributes and to consult with the Heritage Advisory Committee. So I'm happy to

15:32answer any questions that that the committee members may have but also I would encourage

15:40the chair to make it possible for Mr. Double, Steve Double to to speak to the my report if he would

15:49like. Thanks so much for that Stephen. I was going to ask you to stop sharing so I can see everyone

15:59again. Thank you. Are there questions or comments regarding this report or Stephen?

16:07I wanted to make a comment just about this is kind of like an ideal property for a community that had

16:15either grants or tax incentives because it wouldn't take very much to make this property look like

16:23it originally did just original windows again and then something done with the wall treatment

16:30and that porch thing taken off. I didn't see the kind of wilderness Georgian transombs so that

16:38you know is a really good feature for the building too. So that's just a comment and there are

16:43communities that still do have those even though the provincial grants stopped quite a long time

16:49ago but that might that sort of thing might make it more palatable for property owners especially a

16:56property owner like this where it wouldn't take that much to make it look like a really nice heritage

17:02property again. And the other question I had is the interior is pretty interesting but would it be

17:09part of the designation because I'm going to guess the owner would probably want to rip that out.

17:14Yeah but what does he have in mind or does he have anything in mind?

17:21So I know, oh there's something.

17:30Okay you should be good Sarah. Perfect so I know the the property owners here

17:35but didn't register in advance as a delegate but Steve Double if you'd like to become a delegate

17:41and speak to the property you are welcome to unmute and and respond to Don's question or to

17:48share any other information you'd like. And then Justin I'd see your hand as I'll go to you after.

17:58Excellent so Steve did you want to respond or provide any information? Perfect the floor is yours.

18:05So I can speak to a few points Steve made. So he mentioned that he thought there was a

18:12the old cladding under the newer plaster. I don't believe that's true. I believe the

18:19the newer plaster is attached to the framing so it would it would take the facade coming right back

18:24to the framing to try and fit the structures pretty rotten in the bottom. I am a builder so

18:34I'm a certified net serial builder and I do have a plan in to planning on this for a six unit building

18:45the that would be a net serial building on there. As far as the age goes I do recognize that.

18:55I feel like we could find some solutions like a plaque maybe on the building. I don't see the

19:03value in the building myself. I am biased being a builder. I think more of the occupant health

19:12in this building the the radon leaching out of the the foundation in the basement is a huge

19:19concern for me particularly being a pterodont certified builder. It's very close to the street

19:27it's impossible for somebody to back out of this driveway without encroaching the sidewalk and

19:34endangering passers-by on the sidewalk to even see cars going left or right. Our new proposal

19:43had this building stepped back in line with the other buildings on the street so we could get that

19:51that sidelined triangle on the property. We could incorporate some things like the four panels over

20:06the doors. The six panel design I had looked at doing a building facade on that it just wasn't really

20:16you know most people want one window where two windows will do type thing nowadays with natural

20:21light so we didn't put a lot of effort into trying to incorporate something like that in it

20:29but that's not to say we couldn't try and redesign something like that in it. I think the

20:35value is in recognizing the age and maybe the six panel design incorporated into a new building.

20:45I just don't recognize the value of this building in its the way it is

20:53that's pretty much what I have to say. Thanks Steve. Don did you want to respond or did you have a

21:01follow-up question before I turn it over to Justin? Well the only other thing I'd say is if you're

21:08building a six or thinking of a six unit building I'm just wondering what impact that would have on

21:15the streetscape because one of the things that wasn't fully mentioned is that the the form or the

21:22profile of the building has helped define that street since the 1850s so whatever is done to the

21:32property I think also needs to be sensitive to the streetscape itself. There is a property right

21:40beside it that is probably more representative of what we were hoping to achieve on it. We were

21:49proposing a drive through up the middle of the property which would make it easier to get the

21:57sightlines and fan parking in the back and a better flow of property. But this property can also be

22:09approved under Bill 23. It doesn't need a planning application for it although we do need to meet

22:20planning's approval basically. Is there a way to build behind it without interrupting the building

22:30itself because if you've got two units in the front that would leave four in the back. I don't

22:37know how big the backyard is. It was only only deep enough for us to get about six car parking in

22:45the back which would be like a minimum requirement for one for each unit although it would be quite

22:56a bit deeper of a building than what is there now. But it's really the drive through up the middle that

23:06sort of causes the issue with retaining any of the building. Stephen, Robinson, I noticed that

23:18you put your hand up. Was there something in this that you wanted to comment on before I move to Justin

23:23and then Kelly? Sarah, just two things really quickly. Just Dawn to respond to your one question

23:30about interior attributes. Staff decided against suggesting interior heritage attributes from

23:38the get-go. But also I think maybe most importantly is that the intention of this meeting and this

23:44discussion really is about the cultural heritage value of the property and the discussion of

23:52what the heritage attributes should be of the property. So that's more the point of this meeting.

24:02That's all I would just want to friendly reminder as a committee. Thanks, Kevin. Justin.

24:13Thank you, Madam Chair. Also I'm sensitive to the scope even though I appreciate the points

24:19being made about setback and perhaps the condition of the home as well. I am prepared to make a motion

24:24regarding this file though I don't want to get ahead of anyone. I'm happy to reserve it until

24:29there's been more discussion on the file. Having reviewed the report and the view that it doesn't

24:36meet the first criteria that the home does not have the design or physical value due to

24:42significant alteration of the property that means it's not characteristic of the Georgian style

24:48reference within the report. So I think the committee's recommendation should be that

24:53to counsel that it does not merit designation. However, like I said, I'm happy to hold back

24:59on that motion for more discussion or if it does have a seconder speak to it further. But

25:05that is what I would put forward, Madam Chair. Thanks for that, Justin. Kelly. Hi there.

25:17Just was going to see if I could ask the builder a question through the chair.

25:27The staff, it seems like, have sort of been encouraging with regards to looking at options

25:33for retaining or commemorating the heritage attributes. And I'm just wondering if you can share

25:39whether you have explored adaptive reuse or partial retention strategies and scenarios and

25:47if you could speak to that. The only thing I can do is give my professional opinion that the

25:56building has no salvageable ability in it. I can produce a building that will last longer and is

26:05more healthy for the occupants inside, possibly recreating some of the things that Stephen has

26:14suggested in the new building without trying to save an old building just because it's,

26:21I'm sorry if that sounds insensitive, but that's essentially what it is. We're trying to save a

26:28building because it's old. And if there's some aspects of it that we can try to incorporate,

26:34Stephen knows that, you know, I'm a qualified too. I will be open to anything that we could do

26:42together. I'm just a developer first, so I'm sort of against any designations on title.

26:55Kelly, did you want to add anything further? Excuse me.

27:00No, I just, just maybe a point of clarification. I mean, has this building,

27:04is it inhabitable then? Like who's been living in the building? I guess it's,

27:08I didn't realize that it was, sounds like it's in a state of disrepair.

27:15It is inhabitable. There are people living in it now. It's just in a poor state. The building is

27:24sinking. The structure is sinking in the middle. Doors keep getting sort of cut from one side of

27:31the other to keep opening. The doors to the basement are probably an inch and a half caught on an

27:38angle from one side to the other. So the building does continue to deteriorate and would have to be

27:44rebuilt from the foundation up basically to try and restore it. All right, Justin, and then Piper.

28:01Madam Chair, I'm happy to put Piper in front of me. I was just going to reiterate my view on the

28:05file and perhaps affect emotion, but I appreciate as well there may be some more discussion on it.

28:10So again, I don't want to get ahead of anyone. Please Piper, go ahead. Thanks for that.

28:14Thank you. I just wanted to speak to your point about that criteria for designation.

28:22I know that the property owner brought up the property next door as an example of something

28:29they might want to look towards going forward. And I just wanted to see that on Cooper's map,

28:33that property didn't exist yet, whereas directly after in the next fire insurance plan in the

28:39file, it is visible. So to speak to it being representative and significant, it's clearly

28:44had an influence on the streetscape. So maybe the significance of respecting that and the fact

28:50that properties have developed around it and been inspired by it and clearly still is influencing

28:56the goal for the street when you are trying to develop a property that is subdivided as it was

29:02intended to be. Thanks Piper. Justin, you're welcome to respond or comment or if we open it up.

29:14I see Davis joined us as well. Open it up to other comments or discussion from committee members.

29:23Yeah, thank you for that Madam Chair. I would reiterate a couple points about this. One is that

29:29the report by staff explains the originality of the interior, which is not a subject heritage

29:34attribute. That's not what is intending to be designated, as was explained. But there are

29:40elements of the exterior of the property that are not original. In fact, many of them, like the

29:45roof dormer and the awning. And I think sufficient alteration has been done to the property to make

29:51it no longer characteristic of the pre-confederation style reference within the report. So I think

29:56on that basis, my motion would be that the committee does not, excuse me, that the motion would be

30:03that the committee recommends Council does not designate this property, that it does not

30:09merit designation. As I'm not sure about the second criteria, I'm referring now Madam Chair

30:14to the first criteria. I'm not totally sure about the contextual value piece, though the

30:19proponent notes an adjacent property that has been remodeled in the neighborhood that may relate

30:28to the contextual value. But my motion, just to make sure I'm raising it well, is that the

30:36Heritage Advisory Committee advises City Council that the building at 37 and 39 London Road West

30:43does not merit designation under Part 4 of the Ontario Heritage Act.

30:48So we have a motion moved by Justin. Is there someone to second that motion? Thank you, Gabriel.

31:03And then we'll call a vote. So all those in favour of Justin's the not designate motion.

31:10Would you like us to put it up on screen? Sure, we could do that. Yep. I think the only thing

31:15that changed was just from does to does not. Maybe unnecessary then, apologies. It's okay.

31:25Not a problem. Sorry. So we'll call the vote one more time. So all those in favour of Justin's

31:29motion. What do we need for we need 520? Is that right? Yes. Okay. So as of right now, there's four

31:40in favour, which we didn't so though so those opposed will do that vote as well. Don, I don't

31:53know if you raised your hand unfortunately. Thank you. If you count two, I can put two up.

32:01No, we can't do that. Okay, so essentially, we're we're in a tie right now, which if we go back to

32:08the original motion of does support designation. Is there someone I mean, we're going to be sort of

32:16tied for this is what I suspect to be at four in favour and four opposed.

32:20When you looking to you for some advice on that?

32:29Sorry. Because I'm on an awful little bit. Can you say again, Sarah? I'm sorry.

32:35We're essentially split. We're split committee with four essentially in favour of the motion to not

32:43support designation. And so I know if I ask the original motion of does support will have likely

32:48the same vote. So if we're currently in a tie position, what is our what are our options?

32:55So according to the procedural bylaws, we can do the vote again, the second vote, so that to

33:03make sure that we can we afford a tie vote. Yeah.

33:07So sorry, but for the original motion, I think I see Don putting his hand up.

33:12I just wondered if we can make any more comments about this.

33:18I just want to say that I don't agree with your assessment. I think that there is enough

33:24both in the profile of the building, its original base and transoms. And the fact that the

33:30the dormer and the in particular of the the entrance cover can just disappear,

33:36or the dormer can be incorporated and compared to a lot of other buildings,

33:42there's not an awful lot that needs to be done to give it its original character.

33:48And the other thing just as a comment is,

33:52I would assume that the developer knew before he bought the building that it might be controversial

33:59given the area that it's in. So if if every time somebody buys a property in that area

34:08with an intention to tear it down, if if basically the committee gives in or the city gives in,

34:16it just is a green light. And those are just my comments. So.

34:23Yes, go ahead, April.

34:24I just have a question about that. Are you implying what I'm taking away from what you just said,

34:29Don, is that you're concerned that if we do not designate this building as having heritage

34:35significance that that sort of gets a snowball rolling downhill? Is that kind of what you're

34:40trying to say?

34:41A little bit. It says that we're not that serious about the downtown. And you know,

34:49every time somebody wants to tear down a building, they they produce a kind of picture of it saying,

34:56oh, it's hopeless. This is missing out of the law. It needs to go. And really, there are.

35:03This is not a big fancy building. It's not like restoring the city hall. You know, it is

35:11a frame building. And it's important because it isn't just a frame building. It's a scarce

35:19frame building. It's an example of what happened in the 1850s. And even under the stucco itself,

35:25there's probably information about how houses were built at the time and that sort of thing.

35:31So I myself, I don't think we should just give up on it.

35:37I'm going to make a comment really quickly, Justin, and then I'll turn over to you because I

35:41can't I guess I could raise my hand as well. Just a few thoughts that are coming to my mind. One

35:46is when we're talking planning. We don't look at precedent in planning. When we do our work,

35:50it's supposed to be every properties looked at separately. And I think the risk of worrying

35:55in my opinion, I'll stress that of worrying about the snowball effect is we have to look at every

36:00property in its value, independent of decisions we've made in the past. I would welcome any of the

36:06staff members to correct me if I'm off on that. But I don't think we can. I think it gets dangerous

36:12if we consider that we don't do this. It's going to set the next 10 that we're also going to demolish.

36:18I think we have to be careful with that because then we sort of run the risk of

36:21activism versus advocacy. And it's just a sensitivity, I think, on my part, just in the

36:28work that I do professionally and my sort of opinion on the work of the committee.

36:33And so I think for me, it's just I take the precedent piece out of these applications

36:37when I'm reviewing them. And I think it's just an important reflection for myself so that my

36:42opinion of every file doesn't sort of get biased by decisions that were made in the past. And

36:48those are just my two cents. I'll turn it over to Justin and thanks for letting me jump in there.

36:52Can I just comment on that? Because I think it's the opposite it's dangerous not to because Heritage

36:59Conservation looks at communities and areas and maintaining the fabric of an area. So if you ignore,

37:09if you take it building by building by building, then you're building a hodgepodge of, you know,

37:16different different things that may not not work together. And that's one of the things I meant

37:22when we look at the profile of that house. It's been there on that street for I guess almost

37:29175 years. So it helps to define the streetscape. And I think if you're looking at Heritage

37:36Conservation, it's not all about landmarks. It's about communities and about the environment. And

37:43this is why they call it Heritage Conservation because it is a form of environmental conservation.

37:49So that neighborhoods evolve, you know, sympathetically. That's just my comment. I think

37:56it's dangerous to not look at the precedent. Justin, I'm assuming you have some comments and

38:02thoughts on this discussion as well. Just a little bit. I do agree, Madam Chair, with the point

38:09about taking every case as it comes and, you know, focusing on the merit of any one application as

38:14opposed to whatever precedent the committee may feel it's heading by its recommendations to Council.

38:20However, I think what I would just reiterate, obviously, my view is informed by the report

38:27and as well, it originates from a respect for the status of a heritage designation.

38:33And it's, I think an easy way for me to phrase my view on this is that looking at the photos of

38:39this property, I don't recognize it as a property of heritage value. And so that is the source for

38:45my motion, which I'm happy to make again, though I appreciate what we're a bit locked up. So maybe

38:51I won't. I defer to you, Madam Chair, whatever you think is appropriate in terms of the order of

38:56motions. Yeah, go ahead, ma'am. And then, Piper. I was just going to ask if, you know, city staff

39:03had further elaborate on, you know, the main point of contention here seems to be the modifications

39:09of the house and how much they impact the Georgian style of it. If city staff would comment on

39:16that general question, which do the modifications in your opinion negate the Georgian style or

39:24override it? Or because if not, it would not have the two of nine attributes that we need.

39:31Through the chair, to the member, I unders, I've described in my report, I think,

39:39that the building certainly has been altered and there's been changes made, improvements made,

39:46you know, when they're available, like indoor plumbing, I think that in the Victorian age,

39:52or after the Victorian age, that was probably seen as quite an improvement. But I still am of the

39:58opinion that even though physical changes have happened in the part of the building that's seen

40:05from the public realm, there hasn't been so much that the building has lost its physical integrity.

40:12So in my view, as an architectural historian, I can easily see the bones or at least the

40:19original form of this building. It's fenestration, meaning it's, you know, the design or the location

40:27of its windows and doors. Those are all real hallmarks of Greek Confederation. Simple, but

40:35essential building of a semi, the two semi-detached units.

40:45Then Piper and then Kelly. Yeah, from my perspective, not knowing architecture. I wonder if the main

40:54point of contention with that means that it would fit better with, I think it's, instead of that's

41:02designation criteria number one, if it could be for with historical value or associated value with

41:07like an event, if we're talking about the significance of semi-detached dwellings on the street,

41:13shaping the evolution of the streetscape and the value of the six bay facade in that, because we

41:19are seeing it being mirrored down the street, especially with the entrance at three and four.

41:24So if the desire is to protect that facade and the way it looks on the street, then maybe it might

41:29fit better there. Maybe that would help people understand that value there. Stephen, do you want

41:40to respond to that? Yeah, I wasn't sure if that was being posed as a question or a comment, but

41:46Piper, I appreciate your thoughts on it. I think that not only is this a good example of an

41:53extant early building on London Road West, it's also an early example of a building form or

42:04a type of residential design, which is semi-detached dwellings beside each other in a mirror design.

42:12So some may be surprised to know that builders were building that type of building even back in

42:18the mid-19th century. So I think there's value in understanding this building as an early example

42:26of its architectural style, but also of its design and function as two living quarters right beside

42:36each other that share a party. But I wanted to reiterate what I ended my comments with

42:46or the presentation that what I've been encouraging with the property owner is to either

42:55consider the idea of rehabilitation of this, not so much rehabilitation, because it's still

43:01being proposed to be used for residential, but incorporation of the heritage attributes that

43:08are there now, or building something like replacement building that still speaks to or

43:16commemorates this building's form and its position on the street and the contribution that this

43:24building has made from the early 19th century, sorry, from the mid-19th century until now.

43:31So I just wanted to reiterate that. Thanks, Stephen. Kelly and then Justin.

43:39Thank you. Just regarding the, I guess what we're not in agreement on here, the exterior

43:50appearance of the building, my thoughts are there are a lot of homes,

43:56century homes, including some that are on the register that have had

44:01alterations outside. But I don't find that that necessarily diminishes their

44:12importance in the sort of the early streets great escape of Guelph.

44:19And I think the brick cladding, first of all, it is reversible, but it's also well documented.

44:29So we sort of know when that happened. So that kind of figured in from looking through the report.

44:36And I guess my thought on it is that the, the, the heritage value of it is, extends beyond

44:44what changes when a property gets like a facelift, if we want to call it that.

44:49I lived in a house downtown that had siding. And of course, you knew it wasn't a sighted house.

44:56It was built in the 1800s. And eventually the siding came off and more siding went on. But anyway,

45:03it was still a beautiful historic house and it was important in its own way, I guess.

45:07But it seems like the bones of this pre-conferration house are still intact.

45:14And it's visibly representative just from the look of it of that style. So for me, that

45:19the fact that it's got the brick and doesn't register with the average Joe walking down the

45:25streets is just not a, not a reason I would go along with that approach. That's just my take on it.

45:35Thanks, Kelly. Justin?

45:39Yeah, thank you, Madam Chair. It is a question. I am curious to know, just based on staff's comment,

45:45most recent comment, is it a case then that in fact, even if it's designated, the property owner

45:52could demolish this home and rebuild it as long as it retains the attributes that are

45:59included within the report, that it be one and a half stories that have a six-bed facade, etc.?

46:06Through the Chair to the member, I don't, the chronology of what you just mentioned, I think,

46:14I need to correct. If this committee's recommendation is to counsel that the property should be

46:23protected by a heritage designation by using heritage attributes, then it's unlikely that

46:33demolition of the protected property would then be the next step. I think what I'm trying to convey

46:41to the committee is that I've, I've attempted to discuss with the property owner that these two

46:49options that have reiterated, there's the first option, and it could be seen as the preferred

46:55option in my view, is to work on a development plan that retains the existing building, or at least,

47:01at the very least, the heritage attributes of that existing building. And it could be that,

47:07if that were done and was successful, it could be that protection through heritage designation

47:13by law might be one of the end results of that type of project to protect what were conserved as

47:23actual elements of the existing listed heritage, or built heritage resource. But again,

47:30another option that could be considered is new construction that tips its hat to this,

47:36to the building, if the building were to be removed, rather than protected by designation,

47:45but replaced with a building that plays or that presents in a similar fashion

47:53that this building had, and it's in the way that it can help to establish and maintain this historic

48:04streetscape, that I feel in my opinion that that's a second valid option. So not involving designation,

48:15but involving, and not necessarily involving reconstruction, literally, but at least its

48:22commemoration of the important heritage attributes that have ended the importance of the building

48:28that we see today. Does that answer your question? Go ahead, Justin. Thank you. It definitely does.

48:38I just wanted to make sure I understood the difference that in fact the home could be removed

48:43and replaced with a structure that retains the heritage attributes. I hope I understood that

48:47well, Steven, unless I've misunderstood you a second time. And perhaps there's some openness on the

48:52part of the proponent to that. Perhaps then on that basis, could it be the case that designation

48:59comes later? In other words, that you could continue working with the proponent to affect that.

49:06And then when a designation bylaw comes, or a proposed designation comes back to this committee

49:14for advice to council, that it's at a stage where both the proponent and staff are in agreement that,

49:19you know, this is the structure, this new structure retains the heritage attributes,

49:23those shall be designated the hat tip to the previous style, but then it still satisfies

49:28the some of the concerns that have been discussed thus far. I don't know if that's an option. I'd

49:34be happy to move that it be deferred, but then again, I don't know if that's realistic within

49:38the scope of process or anything like that. Steven, did you want to respond? And then I see Don's hand

49:48is up. Okay, go ahead to Don. Okay. Don? The other thing that I was going to say is I think maybe

49:56part of the problem has to do with architectural style. And people are talking about the changes to

50:03the house, but really, if you look at a Georgian house, it's based on simplicity and proportion,

50:10not on eye catching detail like a Victorian house. So in order to return this house to its

50:16original appearance, its doorways are perfectly intact. I don't know what would happen to,

50:23you'd have to do to the stucco, whether you could just even stucco over what's there.

50:27The only other thing that's really missing are the sections to the windows. And otherwise,

50:32this is what this building looked like when it was built. So it was never, it was never cast along

50:38that. It was in plain, you know, kind of post first settler simple building. And, you know,

50:46that's what it was meant to look like. And it really doesn't look an awful lot different

50:50from what it did when it was built. So I'm just saying that to maybe change the way people are

50:59looking at this building. Would you agree, Stephen? Is it's got its form, space, stores?

51:12Drew, the chair, to you, back to you, Don. As I've already stated, I feel that the

51:20form and fenestration and the original building is still quite visible in this case. But I think

51:27what's important here is, is the, for the committee to understand that what heritage buying staff is

51:33is attempting to discuss with the owner are those two options that I mentioned. And really,

51:42I don't, I'm not quick to be supportive of the second option. I'll be completely honest with you.

51:48I think that the preferred option here is to come up with a way to develop the property

51:55in such a way that conserves the actual building as opposed to building something new that might,

52:02that might look like it to commemorate it. But if there are, if there are reasons that make it

52:08impossible to retain the building or the requirements that the property owner has,

52:15I felt it was important to, to offer this second option that would do something to, to,

52:26to, to commemorate the building, the importance of the building that was there,

52:29if it were to be allowed to be replaced.

52:38Myself, I don't see the point of reproducing it because then there's none of the original fabric.

52:44The, the other option that is similar to what you're saying is, you know,

52:48facadeism, where you maintain the facade of the house and then build behind it.

52:53I think that's a better option than tearing the whole thing down,

52:57because I don't think there's much integrity in a reproduction. You know, I mean,

53:03why bother if you're not, you know, preserving the heritage elements of the building. So,

53:10so there might be a compromise in terms of, of maintaining the facade of the appearance.

53:18But still, I don't think that's the best option. I think the best option is restoration

53:24or dissolution.

53:26And I think this gets into the complication that Justin noted about the plans for the site and,

53:31and those conversations that happen ongoing and, and understanding if there is, if it's,

53:37if there would be opportunity or if it's worthwhile to defer or to allow those conversations to

53:43continue to get a better sense of the plan. I understand we're looking at the application

53:47in front of us today based on a request to demolish and not necessarily a plan of what will come.

53:52But if the property owner was in favor of retaining and doing these things, I think the

53:56conversation would probably be a bit different today if that, if that plan was a bit more

54:02concrete, maybe Justin, sorry to interrupt, to jump in ahead of you yet again.

54:09Your Madam Chair, that is the, that is the right. That is, that is no problem.

54:15You can just get to interject when you like.

54:18It's not my style.

54:19No, no, no. Anyway, I was just wanted to touch on what both you and Don explain,

54:25or spoke to, which is, is it the case, Stephen, that they could, even if we,

54:32Council ultimately designated this property with the heritage attributes as listed within the report,

54:36couldn't they reproduce it anyway as a right, or are they prevented from doing so by the designation?

54:45Like I'm just trying to appreciate the difference between a removal and reconstruction that retains

54:51the heritage attributes versus something else. So like, basically my question is,

54:58you know, Don was describing how one might be preferred over the other, building behind it

55:01versus reproducing it as he calls it. Couldn't they reproduce it regardless of whether we

55:06designated it as described in the report or, excuse me, rather if Council does?

55:13Through the Chair, I, it's my opinion that if the intention to designate is to

55:22protect the building that exists, the historic building. So designation under Part 4 of the Heritage

55:29Act and the identification of the heritage attributes to be protected, it's my understanding

55:37and my opinion that I wouldn't be supportive of something that would remove or destroy those

55:45things that have been protected under Part 4 of the Heritage Act. So I think there can be merit

55:53in the reproduction of some buildings or structures that may be beyond repair, but designation of this

56:01building would be the protection of the actual building itself and incorporation into a sensitive

56:07development plan. If it were to be taken down, allowed to be taken down and something else

56:15were built in its place, even though it might commemorate it, I don't believe that would merit

56:21designation, whatever was rebuilt on the site. It would merit a plaque or something to say what

56:29used to be there, but it's my understanding that Part 4 of the Heritage Act is really there to

56:37protect what still exists, not what used to be there. Go ahead, Justin, you're welcome just to jump in.

56:45Thank you, Madam Chair. Okay, on that basis then, I am as well recalling, unless I'm

56:53misremembering that the proponent made representations along the line of the home is in poor condition.

56:59So, you know, it sounds like it could not be repaired in such a way as to retain these

57:05heritage attributes. Perhaps I'm wrong about that. And if that's not the case, then I would

57:11remake my motion about that it does not merit designation and that Council not designate it,

57:17which I'm happy to repeat completely, but that would be what I would put forward.

57:23Madam Chair. Through the Chair, I just wanted to clarify that in my report, I'm not considering

57:33the building's current condition as a detriment to its cultural heritage value.

57:42If I may, Madam Chair, that is a point well taken. The source of my motion as well relates to the

57:47first criteria. I don't believe it has design value, the physical design value as it's identified in

57:52the criteria. I don't think it meets that criteria. So, that's the source of my motion.

57:57And that it would be that the Heritage Committee does not recommend, recommends to Council that

58:01the property, I just need to pull the report back up, excuse me, that the Heritage Committee

58:10advises City Council that the building at 37 and 39 London Road West does not merit designation

58:16under Part 4 of the Ontario Heritage Act. I think, Gabriel, your hand was up for a second there.

58:24So, before we, Justin, you put your motion forward again. I'll just let Gabriel speak.

58:29I just wanted to note that we are, just to speak to your point a little bit, Justin,

58:34I am hesitant to take the word of the, I'm not trying to speak ill of anybody here at all of us.

58:43I'm hesitant to take the word of the homeowner who was also going to be the builder, as the person

58:48who is telling us that the home is in poor condition. It's just an easy, in my mind,

58:56easy possibility that there's a conflicted interest there. I'm not claiming that there is.

59:01I'm just saying there is a conceptual possibility.

59:06Actually, I was going to say the same thing, and that is I've never seen a situation where

59:11a developer wants to tear a building down, that they don't say, oh my god, it's not so

59:15predictable. But that's just the stock and trade. Okay, so we'll put just, also keeping track of time,

59:25we'll put Justin's motion forward once again, that the property does not merit designation

59:31under part four. So, Justin, I'm assuming you'll move that motion. And then looking for a seconder

59:37on the motion. Thank you, Gabriel. And we'll call a vote for all those in favor of the motion as

59:44proposed by Justin. We have four, all those opposed, we have four. So, that's the second

59:55time with this motion. Do you want me to go back to the original motion, which just says, okay,

59:59all right, so back to the original motions then. As they were noted in the agenda, I won't read

1:00:05through them, essentially just that it does merit designation. And the second part of that

1:00:09motion would not be changed. So, is there someone who will move the original recommendation, Kelly,

1:00:14a seconder for the original? Thank you, Piper. And then we'll call a vote. All those in favor of the

1:00:20motion? It's the motion. It's the original motion to designate, Don. Okay. And then we have four in

1:00:28favor, all those opposed. And we have four opposed. Okay. According to the procedure by

1:00:46this is not very common, actually. So, would we consider to postpone these or just delay these

1:00:57items to legs meeting? Or do you want to put in other motions that to say is something like

1:01:05to have further discussion, something like that. So, this is my suggestions, but I would defer to

1:01:09you, Chair. Yeah. I see Jack has his hand up in the room. So, when we receive an intention to

1:01:16demolish a cultural heritage resource, that starts a 60 day timeline, during which we have to get

1:01:23that to council. So, I just want to check with Steven what the legislative timelines are, because

1:01:29postponement may not be possible. Through the chair, Jack raises an excellent point that there are

1:01:38timelines associated with this. I do have to mention, though, and this is something that I'll

1:01:46need to discuss with senior planning staff, whether the application for an intention to

1:01:54demolish is actually been considered completed. Because there has not been a replacement design

1:02:03submitted, which is something that's required by building services when a demolition permit

1:02:10comes in that according to the demolition control by a law, it has to be indicated what would

1:02:17replace the building to be demolished. So, I think on that note, I agree with Jack,

1:02:23is that time is of the essence with this, but also I want to reiterate that this does deserve

1:02:31more discussion between heritage planning staff and the proponent, the owner. So, and I'm happy

1:02:40to try to carry that forward with Mr. Double. That's all, chair. Thank you for that, Steven.

1:02:48Piper? Also, just recognizing that designation doesn't mean one specific thing, that there is

1:02:56leeway and there are conversations to be had, and the function of this committee assessing,

1:03:01like what people in Guelph think of a property, the fact that it is such a split decision that's

1:03:06been reiterated over and over again, that we are torn on this, recognizes that people in the community

1:03:10do feel that there is value to it. So then would it not be worthwhile to vote in favor of designation

1:03:16when there are still conversations to be had about issues people have brought up with the specific

1:03:21details of what would be protected and how that would be done? So, to propose that it be designated

1:03:28that we vote in favor and recognizing that there is still steps that can be taken after that,

1:03:32which alleviates some of the pressure with the impending deadline. A quick comment from myself.

1:03:41Given that it doesn't sound like it is potentially a complete application, that timeline may be

1:03:45a little bit longer, right? Steven, if I was understanding you correctly, it doesn't sound

1:03:48like the application, you're looking for confirmation that the application is complete for demolition.

1:03:53And I think for myself, I would like to have more information before I vote in favor of a

1:03:58designation. And I appreciate Steven's comment of like that there should be more conversation

1:04:02happening or that you would encourage more conversation. I think that would help alleviate

1:04:07some concerns I'm having. So that's my opinion personally is that I personally would like to

1:04:15defer. I think Mr. Double, I see that I was saying that you were going to talk. I don't know if you

1:04:18wanted to add something or not. I do, yes. So there has been a design submitted

1:04:26planning was largely supportive of the design. There was a small issue with we asked for one

1:04:36driveway up the middle and the application would require minor variance for severance,

1:04:43which could require two driveways, one per property. That was the only real

1:04:51objection to the design. I can certainly spend time and based on the conversations,

1:05:00I can start the architect spending more time and money on this design, but it really doesn't

1:05:07change the design itself of the building and the site plan. The only thing it does is make a driveway

1:05:13at the middle while other questions or comments from anyone. Madam Chair, I would just say that

1:05:32all all will need to depending on direction from senior planning staff, I'll need to bring a report

1:05:38to council to to in an attempt to to meet legislation deadlines, according to the heritage.

1:05:48So what I will do is is bring all report back as as I normally as

1:05:55Harris playing staff normally do will report back whatever the comments were or the results were

1:06:00from the heritage. I just I'm not sure this at this time. I'm not sure when that

1:06:08was being would be scheduled. Right. Kelly?

1:06:16But just through the chair question for Steven.

1:06:22How many pre confederation semis? Like how rare is this in Guelph to even like are there

1:06:31scads of them downtown? I like I'm just curious about I know it's I have read the report. I'm

1:06:37I'm sure it's probably in there, but I'm just curious for your opinion on how sort of

1:06:41how many of these remain. I through the chair. I didn't actually find her or

1:06:52make an attempt to to establish how common this particular semi detached design is from that era.

1:07:00There are other examples and also the reference to buildings nearby or even next door. There are

1:07:07other semi detached dwellings on the north side of London road that are older that are

1:07:13were built not that much later than this one.

1:07:20But I guess the simple answer to your question is I'm not really sure at this point how many

1:07:26others exist, but it is the evidence is true is clear that this was was the first in this area

1:07:34to be to be built, especially on on London road for its original Star Wars 3 complex.

1:07:41There's a service, you know, it's it's its original street scheme character. Thank you.

1:07:53It appears the chair is either really good at freezing and not moving before we may have lost

1:07:59the chair's video.

1:08:00So

1:08:24I think the chair will join us very fast. Maybe we could vote again now.

1:10:24Hey Sarah.

1:10:25So are you on our power flickered? So always a joy. I'm not sure where we left off. So I don't

1:10:34know if Stephen is it we just left off where we were right before I abandoned everyone.

1:10:42Chair, I'm just trying to recall what I was talking about when we lost you. So maybe it was

1:10:52not that important.

1:10:54I'm sure it was.

1:10:55I'm sure it was. So I think it's important to understand that the heritage planning will

1:11:06will be required to report to councillor to provide its its the staff recommendation.

1:11:13It would meeting the timelines that are required by the legislation.

1:11:17What I mean by that is the interior heritage act.

1:11:21Whatever whatever report is brought to council, it would it would show whatever result has happened

1:11:30from the heritage advisory committee.

1:11:33Sarah, I don't know if you heard me say that before it froze, but that's what I remember.

1:11:41Thank you.

1:11:42And I'm assuming the image on the screen is the proposed development.

1:11:48Yeah, I just wanted to share what we had submitted.

1:11:52But the neighbors commented.

1:11:59Chair, I have to reiterate that the mean or the intention of this meeting discussion is

1:12:05above establishing the cultural heritage value and to start these start to discuss the

1:12:12appropriate heritage attributes. I think we may be getting more into development review

1:12:18discussion, which is something I'm keen to continue to discuss with the property owner.

1:12:26But as you can see that what's what is what has been proposed already will make a big change

1:12:35to this streetscape and to the historical streetscape. So let me just stand by saying that

1:12:41that's that's one of the main reasons why this intention to demolish has prompted staff's report

1:12:48and the recommendations that are within it.

1:12:53Yeah, thank you for that Stephen. I agree. I don't think we want to discuss the merits of the proposed

1:12:57development in front of us. I think it's better to stick to the actual agenda item today,

1:13:01which is the merits for designation. So I guess we're we're stuck with, I'm not stuck,

1:13:11we have our three options to support to not support or to defer and Justin, I see your hand is up.

1:13:16Yeah, thank you, Madam Chair. I'm curious to know, so staff explain they'll be required

1:13:23to report to council regardless to meet the 60 day threshold and council ultimately make a decision

1:13:29that decision will be informed by the committee's comments or discussion in respect of this

1:13:35application or rather the absence of a decision I expect as well Stephen would also be a recommendation

1:13:41would also be reflected in that report. So I'm curious to know if we could simply receive this

1:13:45report for information that it neither be deferred nor we make a recommendation as to the

1:13:50merit of its designation, but rather that the report capture the absence of a recommendation

1:13:57and that council make a decision based on that through the chair. I just have a question for

1:14:12clerks. Yeah, I vote. Is that is that not considered an outcome?

1:14:20Um, actually that we can present this. Actually, the whole report have been presented to the

1:14:27head to heritage advisory committees, and they have a tight vote on this. We just

1:14:32illustrate what we have done. Actually, we can do this in the report. So and I would like to add a

1:14:38comment is like, we can just we can pass no motions. Actually, we do not we are not required

1:14:45pass any motions in hat, but we can just pass no motion. So this is what I want to ask

1:14:54through the chairs. One more question that tied vote does not equal a defeat of a motion.

1:15:05It's just just a question. I think it does. So that's why I direct the question to the clerk.

1:15:13Yes, actually, the tight will is like we do not support or not support the motions. So we can just

1:15:21out like this kind of situation if if this is required in the report, Stephen to council. So

1:15:29I would say this is very rare and and we can do this in this way as I recommend. Yeah.

1:15:39Not to complicate things any further, but it would be helpful to have a motion that states the

1:15:43comp like the discussions of the committee and inability to I guess my question is, would there

1:15:49be strength to have a motion to go before in your report, Stephen for counsel that demonstrates the

1:15:58that this split decision, I guess, for lack of a better phrase or is that not necessary

1:16:02because Stephen would already sort of incorporate that into his report.

1:16:07Through you, chair, two things. The results of this item on this committee agenda will be

1:16:15included in the minutes of the meeting and that's that would be provided to council.

1:16:20It's always possible for your planning staff to make a certain amount of commentary just in the

1:16:25paragraph that's normal about consultation with the advisory committee. So I could just

1:16:31reiterate the outcome that it remained at the time both about this particular or about staffs to

1:16:39recommendations. Thank you, Stephen. All right. So I guess then we'll be moving forward with no

1:16:49motion and trusting and appreciating Stephen's commentary that he'll include in the report.

1:16:53And of course, the note that the minutes would be appended anyway. So that discussion and would

1:16:59come up for council regardless. So thanks everyone for a fantastic discussion. I want to stress that

1:17:07it's good to have these discussions and debates and not always have not 100% agreement on every

1:17:13single case. I think it's really important and it just shows the value of the committee and the

1:17:17work that we all do that we have or open, obviously, to these discussions. With that then,

1:17:26we'll move on to our workshop session, I believe. My screen is so messed up now with that power

1:17:32outage. But in 4.1, downtown heritage conservation district plan and guideline workshop two, we have

1:17:37a presentation from Rebecca, I believe. Perfect. Welcome back. Good afternoon. Sorry, I wasn't sure

1:17:56if we were next right up on the agenda or if there were any other residual items. So

1:18:04thank you for having us. I'm Rebecca Shera from ASI. I'm a principal with the firm and lead our

1:18:10cultural heritage practice area. And I'm here today to provide a project update on the downtown

1:18:18heritage conservation district plan. We do have a presentation which we were going to share

1:18:26and my colleague Laura Wicket was going to share that presentation and once that's up,

1:18:33we can just complete our introductions. Just while Laura is getting that going,

1:19:07Imogen, did you want to provide any introductory remarks before we get going or run through our

1:19:14introductions? I thought we could jump right into it. I'd like you to just introduce yourselves.

1:19:20I'll be a lot of new information for, of course, the new members of the Heritage Committee.

1:19:27We presented where the project was in February, February of this year. And of course,

1:19:35there's been some huge leaps in progress since then. But where we sort of seek the most input is

1:19:42sort of where we are with the drafted policies and guidelines as they're being developed.

1:19:50So I will let the team speak for themselves. Great. Thanks, Imogen. So we'll get started before

1:19:58I launch into the deck. I do want to welcome in and introduce Laura Wicket, who's also from ASI.

1:20:05Laura, if you want to just provide a little introduction. Hi, everyone. I'm Laura. I

1:20:12have been involved with the Downtown Guelph Heritage Conservation Study. And now I'm

1:20:19helping Rebecca to finish up the plan. We've been developing policies and guidelines lately,

1:20:25and I've been really involved with that. So looking forward to speak with you today about it.

1:20:33Great. Thanks, Laura. And just before we move right into the content, I just want to

1:20:40provide a brief overview of what we're going to cover. So we're going to provide a recap on

1:20:48what's happened to date, recognizing that some people here have seen me a couple times over the

1:20:52last couple of years since we started the study, while others have not. So we want to try to get

1:20:57everyone up to speed on what's happened and go over some basics of what's in a Heritage Conservation

1:21:04District plan in general, but then also this Conservation District plan specifically.

1:21:10And then we want to spend really the majority of this presentation sharing either new or refined

1:21:17material that has been developing since we last met in February of this year, and then just confirm

1:21:24next steps in terms of timing as we are at the tail end of the work and moving forward to our

1:21:36final steps over the coming weeks and months. So with that, Laura, do you want to move to the

1:21:45next slide? So what we're doing, so the city is completing a Heritage Conservation District

1:21:56plan in the downtown to develop policies and guidelines for a district in the commercial

1:22:02core. So really what this is is a plan that would protect a defined area and within that

1:22:10significant buildings and landscape features with the goal of creating a Heritage Sensitive

1:22:16plan to guide the change that is going to happen in the area. Next. So in terms of where we've been

1:22:27and then where we are, any Conservation District plan begins with a study phase and that was

1:22:33completed between June 2023 and September 2024. And that's really the stage where all of the

1:22:41detailed survey work and background research and analysis of features within the area is completed

1:22:51and involves applying and considering Heritage Evaluation criteria similar to the criteria

1:23:00you were discussing as part of your previous item, but through a very different kind of

1:23:04lens and context as we're looking at an area and not any single individual property in and of itself.

1:23:11We're focusing on relationships between things in a district. So that work concluded that the

1:23:17downtown area does meet the criteria for designation as an HCD and that work recommended a specific

1:23:24boundary for the Conservation District and all of that work is available online at gulf.ca. Next.

1:23:35So the culmination of all of that work was brought forward to Council on September 4th,

1:23:41exactly a year to the day of where we are now. And Council endorsed the study recommendations

1:23:47directing the city to proceed with preparation of the Heritage Conservation District plan. So what

1:23:53you see here is the boundary for the area recommended to move forward for preparation of a Heritage

1:23:59Conservation District plan. Next. So I want to just briefly review sort of the structure

1:24:16or guts, if you will, of an HCD plan. There are specific requirements legislated under the

1:24:23Ontario Heritage Act of what needs to be in a plan within a Heritage Conservation District area.

1:24:28And it's not unlike other area planning tools like a secondary plan or an area specific

1:24:37planning document. But it has a very particular focus obviously on sort of the cultural elements

1:24:46and historic fabric. So what this slide is showing you is that there's sort of four main components

1:24:54of a district plan and the one for downtown has been organized in the following manner which

1:25:02you see on the right side of this slide. So any conservation district plan always contains

1:25:09information that provides an understanding of the cultural fabric of the place. So a description of

1:25:18what is important there from a cultural heritage perspective and why. And this is presented

1:25:27as in the document as a statement of district significance. And then also includes a statement

1:25:35of objectives. So it presents not only what is important and why but then provides a description

1:25:44of what the goals are or objectives are with respect to creating a district plan. Recognizing

1:25:53that not all district plans are intending to achieve the same thing. It's it will always be

1:25:58different depending on the planning context in place and the results of engagement and the

1:26:04particular qualities of what is within the district. So the other piece then that is contained

1:26:14within a district plan relates to classifying or determining how all of the properties within

1:26:23the district contribute or don't contribute to the district. So a plan will articulate of all of the

1:26:31properties within that boundary which would be considered contributing properties or non-contributing

1:26:37properties. So within the downtown plan in Guelph there is a classification of properties

1:26:47into contributing and non-contributing and then statements of contribution

1:26:52for individual properties have been prepared and then also a list of non-contributing properties.

1:26:57So this then provides the framework for then applying policies and guidelines to shape what's

1:27:02next in the downtown. Recognizing that the policies and guidelines that are going to shape

1:27:09contributing properties meaning those properties that that are important to to the district's

1:27:14heritage values are going to be different than the policies and guidelines for non-contributing

1:27:19properties which are you know potentially vacant lots or containing properties that that are not

1:27:26particularly significant or expressive of what's important and then also recognizing that in in

1:27:35any district and particularly downtowns there tend to be a whole range of parks or public realm

1:27:41features that that aren't really about buildings or privately held buildings at all and there are

1:27:46policies and guidelines for those. And then the other piece that a plan sets up is a framework

1:27:54for collaborating with the city when making minor and major changes. So the plan defines

1:27:59a heritage permitting process, what requires one, what doesn't, and then for those things that do

1:28:07require a heritage permitting process separating out requirements for a minor permit versus a major

1:28:13permit and requirements when demolition or new construction occurs. So that's the the structure

1:28:22of plans in general but then also tailored to to how this particular plan is structured for the

1:28:32downtown. Next. So in terms of the engagement that has occurred to date lots has been happening since

1:28:42January of this past year. We've had a public open house, we met with the Heritage Advisory Committee

1:28:48in February as well as the focus group for the district in February and April as well as the

1:28:56downtown Guelph Business Association in April and that sort of culminated in another public

1:29:02open house that was held in May and we are now started into our next round of engagement meeting

1:29:10with you and then following up with the focus group and downtown Guelph Business Association

1:29:16later in September and wrapping up with a statutory public meeting to council on October 15th

1:29:24of this year. Next. So I now want to just do a quick recap of some comments and questions

1:29:33that have been arising as we went through our engagement process through the spring in April

1:29:39and May. So we met with the focus group in in April and some comments and questions that were

1:29:47rising out of the material that was shared with that group at that time. Touched on a couple

1:29:53different topics, some quite general and others more specific. So we focused on sharing what the

1:30:01permitting process would look like with the focus group which which we did as well with

1:30:06the Heritage Advisory Committee back in February and the feedback we got from the focus group was

1:30:11that they liked that the permitting process seemed to be streamlined as much as it could be.

1:30:17There was also a reaction that they liked how the plan was focusing on growth while keeping the

1:30:23downtown Guelph-y in in one member's words. There were some questions though coming because we

1:30:31shared some very preliminary policy policy directions and there were some questions about

1:30:36you know how prescriptive will this plan be regarding additions to contributing buildings

1:30:42and or new development on non-contributing properties. There were as I think in any engagement

1:30:50such session we've had on this project comments about St. George's Square and any revitalization

1:30:56efforts needing to be thoughtful and then also just recognition that in that it's important that the

1:31:04most major changes in the district be subject to public input as is practicable. So so again

1:31:10recognizing to focus on on the big stuff and to streamline reviews where where you can and

1:31:19striking a balance was what we really heard from from the focus group. Next the downtown

1:31:26Guelph Business Association some some similar comments but then more specific ones came forward

1:31:33around just questions about how a district will affect you know or create or affect barriers to

1:31:40development and just an eagerness to to understand sort of the value proposition to small business

1:31:46owners of a conservation district. We also heard that it would it's important and really useful to

1:31:53to show examples in the plan to document actual developments that have happened you know from

1:31:58other places that would be welcoming in the district so everyone can can continue building

1:32:03an understanding of kind of like what what is the vision for for what's going to be permissible here

1:32:09within this plan. And then there were just some clarifying questions and this comes up a lot

1:32:14about the difference between individual property designations versus district designations.

1:32:20Next so then we came back to the public in May with a public open house format and and presentation

1:32:31of policies and guidelines and some some demonstrations of of how those policies could

1:32:38kind of operate on the ground in kind of scenario contexts and some questions or comments arising

1:32:47that that we heard from the public at that meeting were questions around the permitting process and

1:32:52and sort of how fixed is it can it change over time and and really a message that was coming

1:32:58forward was you know the need for clarity and certainty not necessarily you know specifically

1:33:05that the permit process should be this way but like make it clear and and certain or property

1:33:11owners and don't change requirements or yardsticks over time. There was also a question about the

1:33:19sort of classification of contributing versus non-contributing properties can that change over

1:33:23time so again trying to to to really clarify the the certainty of what's going to be in this

1:33:30in this planning document. Again questions of how strict or prescriptive will the plan be

1:33:36there were questions about will it allow retention of assads or sort of as

1:33:45another end of the spectrum entire buildings would would it be kind of very hard line about

1:33:50either one of those kinds of types of changes and then again questions about differences between

1:33:57individual property designation versus district designation. So we can move forward to the next

1:34:02slide and we want to just provide a quick recap of of those conversations because we'll come back to

1:34:09how we've been been reflecting on those and responding to them in the document that will be

1:34:18made available in in a few weeks. So I now want to just transition to sort of walk through some of

1:34:25the content that is in the plan some of you have seen parts of this before some of this will be new

1:34:32so we've got time for questions arising from any of this at the end of this presentation.

1:34:40So just coming back to the how a plan presents an understanding of the place the plan the way it

1:34:50does that is by presenting a statement of district significance and this really provides the

1:34:56foundation for determining you know what should be safeguarded in the downtown as it continues to

1:35:00grow. So the statement of district significance describes the values that are important to

1:35:07conserve in the downtown and this this has been shared you know and refined since we started back

1:35:14in 2023 different different versions of this being shared through all of the engagement sessions

1:35:20and this statement of significance then presents heritage attributes that express those values

1:35:26and they've been grouped into four major categories so what you'll see in the plan is that there are

1:35:34landscape features and and relationships that are identified within the district things like the

1:35:39speed river and its shoreline as a sort of one example that is featured among many others.

1:35:48We also have a category of public realm features and relationships that that are

1:35:54important features of the district so some examples of those kinds of attributes are things

1:35:58like the layouts of streets that resulted from Galt's 1827 town plan that created triangular blocks

1:36:07or other public realm features that that are listed among others are things like the key

1:36:13radial street alignments and public squares such as such as market square. The statement of

1:36:20significance also then then has a very lengthy section on built form features and streetscape

1:36:25features listing the the types of of buildings and streetscapes that are important within the

1:36:31district so things like buildings that date the 19th century and were built for institutional or

1:36:39industrial purposes for example or buildings of high quality craftsmanship many of which are

1:36:44constructed of locally quarried limestone and then the fourth category of attributes are visual

1:36:54features within the downtown district so for example visual experiences of particular

1:37:05aspects of combinations of attributes within the district so an example of one visual

1:37:12experience that's identified are views of the commercial street walls that converge at St.

1:37:17George's square for example. Next so as I mentioned earlier the statement of significance then

1:37:29then sets the sort of the focus for for defining you know what will the objectives of this plan be

1:37:36and that's a requirement of every district plan that there needs to be a clarity of what is the

1:37:44purpose of this document what what is it aspiring to achieve by being put into place so in the

1:37:51downtown there's been a particular emphasis throughout the process on describing that the

1:37:58objectives overall are to maintain the the downtown's character defining historic buildings,

1:38:04streetscapes, parks and public space in a context of anticipated growth. The plan recognizes that

1:38:11there will be a new layer of cultural and inhuman activity that is introduced into the downtown

1:38:18and that it will be anchored by the historic fabric that has been described in the statement of

1:38:23district significance. This plan is not about preventing change or freezing the downtown

1:38:29as it is but to create a framework for stewarding it into the future. The goal of the plan is to

1:38:35keep the downtown as a unique place an area with an ambience as a historic destination that thrives

1:38:41with business and people. Next so as an example of one specific objective you'll see in the plan

1:38:53that then becomes the the basis for then then developing policies relates to

1:39:03the overall objective that's that's been penned and shared at various engagement sessions

1:39:11and that relates to this this goal of conserving while growing so the plan presents that the

1:39:18downtown HCD aims to protect, conserve and manage its heritage attributes and contributing properties

1:39:24in the context of prescribed and anticipated future growth in the area so that the district's

1:39:32cultural heritage value is protected in the long term. Next so I now want to just walk through

1:39:43quite quickly the the classification of contributing and non-contributing properties we don't

1:39:50you know have time to drill down into specific properties but we wanted to share with you and

1:39:56build upon what we shared in February of you know there are properties that are considered

1:40:01contributing and these will have certain policies for them and then there are properties that are

1:40:05non-contributing and those have different different policies for them naturally. So this is a map

1:40:11showing the results of that process and in green you see contributing properties and the process

1:40:19for defining those relates to properties that have buildings constructed during the period

1:40:25of significance for the district which spans from 1827 to 1935 and which contain sufficient

1:40:34evidence to effectively express the district's cultural heritage values versus a non-contributing

1:40:40property which are the ones that you see in gray on this map were generally developed outside of

1:40:46that period of significance so properties with buildings constructed after 1935 and or which

1:40:54don't retain sufficient evidence to effectively express the district's heritage values so in some

1:41:00instances there might be buildings classified as non-contributing that are pre-1935 but they have

1:41:09been so altered or degraded that they no longer effectively convey something that is important

1:41:17in relation to the district. Next so then the other classification of properties which relates

1:41:26more to parks and public realm features and land holdings is also presented in the plan and this

1:41:36provides a very kind of quick visual illustration of those features which then have their own

1:41:44specific policies related to them so you see here the the streets established by the radial plan,

1:41:51key public squares as well as shoreline features and and other open spaces.

1:42:01Next so in this next section I want to walk through how the plan is structured with respect

1:42:11to policies and guidelines and we want to provide a couple examples of policies and guidelines that

1:42:18that are contained in the plan and that will guide change on both contributing properties

1:42:23and non-contributing properties as well as parks and public realm. Next so just

1:42:31on an organizational level the difference between policies and guidelines so policies

1:42:39set the direction for management of the district in a clear way and use language like shall

1:42:48and are to be interpreted as mandatory. These are the expectations of what is to

1:42:55happen in the district versus guidelines are sort of supplementary information

1:43:03for readers of the plan and property owners so guidelines provide practical guidance

1:43:10and recommendations on how to successfully meet the intent of related policies. They can also

1:43:17provide benchmarks against which applications for interventions can be evaluated. They use

1:43:24language like should rather than shall and these are and guidelines are not considered mandatory

1:43:30as part of

1:43:34heritage permitting applications or other kinds of review that would happen within the district.

1:43:41Next so as I mentioned earlier the policies drop down from from the overall objectives that

1:43:52we that are established for the district and there are some specific ones that that relate

1:43:57to contributing properties so I'm just going to jump to the second bullet that you see here.

1:44:02So one objective that's presented in the plan relates to ensuring that the plan supports the

1:44:06ongoing use adaptive reuse and accessibility of existing buildings so we want to we've pulled

1:44:13just a sample policy and we can go to the next slide that relates to this kind of objective so

1:44:23and we're and you know there's there's many policies in in the plan but we've we've just pulled

1:44:28a couple to to give some sense of the flavor of level of detail and level of how prescriptive

1:44:38the policies are. So for example one policy for contributing properties states that designs for

1:44:46alterations and additions shall be based on an understanding of how the contributing property

1:44:51and its heritage attributes express the cultural heritage values of the district. So this is you

1:44:56understand your property and how it how it how it relates and then some guidelines that would

1:45:03relate to this are practical guidance or or benchmarks so some guidelines that that relate

1:45:11to this kind of policy say things like removal of original building material is just is strongly

1:45:18discouraged where original material must be removed from the exterior ensure that the building's

1:45:24features and heritage attributes are not negatively impacted. Also clarifying that alterations and

1:45:31additions should not attempt to replicate earlier architectural styles so we're not looking to to

1:45:37recreate history and in many cases contemporary design may be most appropriate to clearly distinguish

1:45:45between contributing properties and and their additions. Exterior finishes for example should

1:45:51provide inspiration for detailing on the alteration or or addition. We can go to the next slide.

1:45:59Another example of policies for contributing properties reads additions to contributing

1:46:05properties shall respect and reinforce the district's quality as a pedestrian scaled

1:46:11and historical area within the city of Guelph with visual physical and notional connections

1:46:16to landscape attributes identified in the statement of district significance. So some guidelines that

1:46:22that help further interpret this say things like elements of a building on a contributing property

1:46:28that convey its height form and other relevant characteristics of its massing should be conserved

1:46:35as part of a broader addition or alteration. The scale and massing of additions should be visually

1:46:40and physically compatible with and complementary to the established height of buildings on the

1:46:46contributing property. And we can go to the next slide. So this would be like an example that we

1:46:52we feature in the plan and this is an example from another place in Ottawa as a way to make

1:46:58an addition that meets these policies and guidelines. So these policies are recognizing that

1:47:09we're showing that there's not a great deal of prescription in any of the policies,

1:47:17but rather principles that should guide what happens, recognizing that there's probably a

1:47:24range of different good solutions that could happen on any one property and they should be informed

1:47:29by the general policies that are presented. So another example on the next slide that we feature

1:47:39as a sort of visual aid in the plan is taken from Toronto to demonstrate, okay, this is how

1:47:46you could add an addition to a commercial block in a way that meets whatever the anticipated growth

1:47:54goals are while maintaining a substantial amount of building fabric that is three-dimensional,

1:48:02maintains a pedestrian quality scale and exceeds sort of a sort of facade or many treatment.

1:48:12Next, I'm going to try to move through these pretty quickly because I know we're tight on time.

1:48:21So there's also, as I said, a series of policies and guidelines relating to

1:48:29goals related to intensification and non-contributing properties. So if we go through this to the next

1:48:36slide, a key objective in the plan is the second bullet here and relates to developing

1:48:45guidelines for compatible new development and infill in the district. Next, so there are series again

1:48:53of policies that drop down from that objective. So there's a policy, for example, that states

1:49:00demolition of buildings on non-contributing properties may be permitted through the heritage

1:49:05permitting process where suitable to accommodate new growth and development within the district.

1:49:10The guideline then that pairs with that provides some additional advice about what should be done,

1:49:19meaning that demolition activities should not begin until plans for the replacement buildings

1:49:24have been submitted and approved by council and heritage permit has been issued by the planning

1:49:28department. Next, I now want to jump to some visualizations that appear in the plan to

1:49:40again assist in understanding how some of these policies could be applied. So I'll walk through

1:49:46these in pretty quickly, but the first one we wanted to show is there's some illustrations that

1:49:55appear in the plan to show, you know, for demonstration purposes, recognizing that this isn't a particular

1:50:01application or this isn't necessarily the only way to apply policies for contributing properties.

1:50:11But we wanted to show, you know, how could you make an addition on a contributing property,

1:50:15like the one you see in in front of you and how could you interpret some of the key policies

1:50:21that relate to contributing properties. So if we want to go to the next slide,

1:50:25there's some visualizations of a specific way or approaches to be implemented

1:50:42to achieve the policies for contributing properties. So for example, doing things like

1:50:48maintaining primary features, facades and roof lines of the existing contributing building,

1:50:55in integrating a step back, so you frame the contributing building, building the addition

1:51:01on top of as opposed to removing the contributing building, setting the additions back, so you

1:51:11provide sunlight between buildings, articulation. So there's a clear building top and then

1:51:18recognizing on, you know, the specific site with the maximum building height

1:51:23would be according to the city's latest zoning provisions related to height. So this is

1:51:30intending to assist property owners in kind of understanding, okay, what does it mean to

1:51:35physically and visually be compatible with a contributing property when you're introducing

1:51:40an addition. Next. So then the next one is a similar visualization that we include,

1:51:50but for a non-contributing property for the site you see here.

1:51:56If you go to the next slide. So it's a similar kind of visual aid to explain, okay, this is how

1:52:06you interpret various policies for making additions or new development within the district. So you

1:52:13would want to maintain a consistent setback along the street, incorporate a step back,

1:52:19maintaining a consistent podium base that is compatible with the existing historic street,

1:52:27again integrating setbacks to provide sunlight between buildings, articulation, and then the

1:52:32maximum building height of eight stories. Next. And then another similar kind of visual aid for,

1:52:43again, a non-contributing property. So this is into vacant site, but this is a site with a building

1:52:48but which has been determined to be non-contributing and therefore likely

1:52:52a site that could be redeveloped fully. Next. So you see here a similar set of kind of

1:53:01policies and guidelines that are visualized in a more specific way. So again, maintaining a two

1:53:09to three story podium. So you have maintained the pedestrian quality, a stepback, and then again

1:53:17an upper level stepback modeling for the existing maximum building height

1:53:25and additional setbacks maintaining a focus on contributing buildings.

1:53:31So I will jump to the next slide. There's parks and public realm. So we don't have

1:53:38any visualizations to share with you here, but just again a sort of sampling that there's our

1:53:43series of policies that relate to the public and parks and public realm features. So policies,

1:53:49for example, that relate to the Speed River and the South River Bank needing to be conserved in the

1:53:55process of future change and a relating guideline focusing on explaining that conservation in this

1:54:04context may involve renaturalization strategies along the river's edge, as well as other approaches

1:54:10that are implemented to promote the long term sustainability and health of the river.

1:54:14Or another policy relating to the location of existing crossings over the Speed River shall be

1:54:20retained to effectively express the district's historical circulation networks and evolving

1:54:25relationships to the Speed River. So a guideline then explaining that that may involve retention of

1:54:30physical aspects of existing bridging points and or implementation of commemorative or interpretive

1:54:35features on sites that document the evolution of bridging points along the Speed River.

1:54:44Next. So we wanted to wrap up this very kind of quick overview of all of the

1:54:53the content that is featured in the plan and that has been refined and evolving

1:54:58over the last, you know, roughly four to six months and just provide a quick summary of how the plan

1:55:07has been responding to the feedback that we've been receiving, you know, through city staff review,

1:55:12but then also through the various cycles of engagement that we've had with yourselves previously

1:55:20and the focus group, the public and the Downtown Guelph Business Association. So the plan is really

1:55:26promoting and emphasizing heritage, permitting, clarity, in fact, in the plan. So a lot of clarity

1:55:35about when are they required, the expected timelines, property owners can expect around

1:55:41approvals process and confirmation around just administrative aspects like application fees,

1:55:49that being that there are that there are none and just spending

1:55:56positioning not very prominently in the plan to support implementation. Also clarifying

1:56:02expectations in the plan for insurance providers in instances where there are total loss related to

1:56:07insured perils. We understand that that's always an issue in the industry and an evolving one,

1:56:13particularly as it relates to older buildings and insurance premiums. And then also ensuring

1:56:21that we're clarifying a lot of things around timelines for periodic review of the plan. So

1:56:27we're addressing the need for certainty and clarity that like this is this is it for the next 10 years.

1:56:34And so there's there's certainty that that this isn't going to change in the very near future.

1:56:42And also doing things like embedding a precautionary approach into the plan so that there

1:56:49there is a process though for addressing properties that are classified as non contributing,

1:56:55but may which but may merit completion of a heritage impact assessment recognizing that there

1:57:01that there are some and this is one that that might fall into that category on 23 Cork Street

1:57:07that is currently classified as a non contributing property. But may merit some some

1:57:13for the heritage impact assessment analysis as part of a future application because there's

1:57:18there's probably good reason to believe that that there may be maybe some some things going on with

1:57:25this property that may merit a conservation approach. So I'm going to flip to the last slide.

1:57:31And I know I've rushed through a great deal of content. And I know we are two minutes out from

1:57:38the end of your meeting. So Chair and members, thank you very much for for having us here. And

1:57:46I'll defer to you to let me know how much time we're able to spend on any questions or comments.

1:57:51Yeah, so thank you so much for that presentation. And so I'll open it up to the floor if there are

1:57:55any questions or comments for Rebecca. David, go ahead. In terms of the public

1:58:04meetings that you've had, what type of attendance have you had and has it been

1:58:10people more with the heritage interest or is there been broader public interest?

1:58:16I would say that I mean, the attendance has been good. Our first public meeting in January was

1:58:23really well attended. The one in May could have been better. It was like the first beautiful

1:58:30night in May. So it didn't have as many attendees as we would have liked. But

1:58:38regardless, at both of those public meetings, it was a good spread of property owners that are

1:58:46supportive and like, yeah, this makes a lot of sense, as well as property owners that are concerned

1:58:52either as an individual landowner or a developer about what does this mean?

1:58:59How prescriptive will it be? And then also in addition to those two groups,

1:59:07we had a good attendance from just interested individuals in the downtown either. I go to

1:59:14church in the downtown or I skateboard in the downtown or I shop at such and such a store.

1:59:19So kind of different users of the space from a kind of range of different perspectives and also

1:59:26demographics. So it's made for, in my opinion, a quite rich engagement cycle.

1:59:35Just knowing that it's two o'clock, so you will, don't I see your hand there? Just going to be 30

1:59:39seconds. We will need a vote to extend our meeting. I need to be done today for bed 230 to go to

1:59:44another meeting. So if I put forward a motion, well, I can't say it put forward the motion myself, but

1:59:50is there a motion to and when you see your hand is up? Is it about extending your time?

1:59:55I would like to say it's like we no need to have any vote or motions to extend our meeting.

2:00:01Oh, yeah, we no need to do that. Thank you. We have done that historically, Winnie.

2:00:08Yeah, I know. But actually, according to the procedure by laws, we no need to do this. Yeah.

2:00:14Excellent. I will note then for myself that I do have an intermediate 230. So

2:00:20that's the only thing I'll note then. And just noting if anyone else has to leave to

2:00:25tell you what, Piper, I see your hand is up. Yes, I have a class, so I do have to leave,

2:00:31but you would still have quorum, I think. Yes, absolutely. Thanks, Piper. Thank you.

2:00:37Justin. I actually am in that vote as well, Madam Chair. I also need to hop off quite shortly

2:00:44here if that's okay. I don't know. Not if it causes us to lose quorum, but I am in another

2:00:48meeting right now. Yep, we will be good quorum. Thank you. And Don, we'll turn it to you.

2:00:58I just had a couple of comments. And I thought the 1930 cutoff was a little bit strange because

2:01:05architectural significance doesn't really have to do with time period. And in your first example,

2:01:12with the modern classical bank in Ottawa and the postmodern edition, that bank was built in the 1930s

2:01:22or early 40s. So it wouldn't meet your criteria as a significant or contributing building. And there

2:01:30are buildings in wealth that are outside of that time period that would be significant buildings,

2:01:37you know, international style. I know brutalist buildings are not popular at the moment. They're

2:01:44not my favorite. But they are part of what is wealthy, whether people like it or not. And if you

2:01:52look back to St. George's Square, I mean, not just demolished because people didn't feel they were

2:02:00working, were contributing. And then later on, the city has regretted that ever since. So I think

2:02:09I think a cutoff period for what's wealthy is perhaps not really recognizing all of the good

2:02:15fabric. And just added to that, I didn't think all those blocks look very wealthy. And the example

2:02:22that you showed of the building, so a large building, and it's one of only one or two

2:02:30shadow style buildings in wealth, the big stone one that had a block behind it,

2:02:37that was showing that the facade could be preserved. It was about your third slide.

2:02:43Anyway, the purpose of that building is to show height and to be impressive.

2:02:52And in that slide, most of what was significant about that building would disappear,

2:02:58and it would be overshadowed by a block behind it. So I guess I'm just raising concerns about

2:03:05future buildings and about replacement buildings. And it doesn't make sense to me to take down a

2:03:13good international style building and replace it with modernism, like a postmodern building,

2:03:18because then you've got a sort of thing where you've got buildings preserved to 1930,

2:03:25and then they started again in, you know, 2025. And I think there are a lot of things that need to

2:03:34be really thought about, and maybe this will happen in the planning process. But one of the

2:03:40things I have been concerned with myself about wealth is the loss of modern buildings in kind of

2:03:49the concern for only 19th century buildings. Thank you, Don. Through the chair, I think I can maybe

2:04:02respond to a couple of those comments. There were several, and maybe I'll try to go through them.

2:04:08And Laura, maybe you can jump in to tackle some of these. So starting with the period of significance

2:04:17and sort of the resulting exclusion of later buildings, you know, it's something we deal with

2:04:25in nearly every district we work in, you know, defining, you know, for this place, what is the

2:04:35kind of the period where wherein there is something valued, recognizing that many districts,

2:04:44you know, continue to evolve. But there is a period related to the kind of the history or

2:04:53what we're seeing on the ground that becomes the kind of foundation for what we're trying to achieve.

2:04:59And it always becomes a little tricky because inevitably, you know, exclude things that post

2:05:06date that. But that can be handled in a couple of different ways. One is there can be recognition

2:05:12that even if something does post-date 1935, it could still be a contributing property if it relates

2:05:19to all of the values of the district, recognizing that attributes fall out of specific values for the

2:05:27district and that being an area. So there is some, I think, kind of correction that can be done and

2:05:37has been done to bring in buildings where it makes sense to do so. But certainly, there are things

2:05:44that won't be considered a contributing property because they're significant for different reasons

2:05:49and not because of what they contribute to the district. So that very well might be some brutalist

2:05:56buildings in downtown Guelph or other types of buildings in other districts. And the more appropriate

2:06:04way to deal with those would be through a Part 4 designation, like an individual designation,

2:06:11because there needs to be a crystal clear rationale of why the area is important and

2:06:18dropping down from that. These are the attributes that relate to that importance of this network of

2:06:24features. And if we don't have that right, and if we don't have that super strong, then the plan

2:06:30lacks some credibility and is difficult to defend under appeal. So that's my kind of perspective

2:06:41from that end. Laura, do you want to add anything about sort of Y1935 or some of the ways we try

2:06:49to course correct for exclusions? Yeah, I was just going to sort of follow on what you said. And I

2:06:57think it inevitably happens that a lot of people see that because a building that might be a bit

2:07:04later isn't included, it means that it doesn't have any value. And we're not trying to pit

2:07:10a certain building into another building. And as you said, Rebecca, there's nothing precluding the

2:07:16protection of those buildings through other means. But the reason why we pick that cutoff point

2:07:24is to make this super strong case for protecting the district as a whole. So we're really trying

2:07:30to think about how to benefit the kind of the biggest number of buildings in that area to sort

2:07:36of tell the story of that district. So it's not that we don't have an appreciation for modernist

2:07:42architecture, for example, but it's about how to have that super strong kind of story and rationale

2:07:49that then leads us to be able to protect a lot of what's there. And I also just wanted to speak to

2:07:57the mention about St. George's Square. Obviously, it has evolved. And we've thought about that as

2:08:03well, because we recognize that while some of the buildings along the square have been replaced over

2:08:08time, they still sort of with maintain that square shape. So for example, some of those buildings

2:08:18that are there now, they date somewhat later than 1935. But what we have put into the plan is that

2:08:27that delineation of the square, regardless of what may get built there in the future,

2:08:31should be maintained so that that feature of the square is still there regardless of

2:08:35what that specific building is. So it's never an easy line to draw. But if we were to try to include

2:08:45any number of additional buildings past the statement of significance, it then becomes hard to

2:08:51kind of defend the district as a whole. So. Thanks, Laura. And I'll maybe jump to the other

2:09:01comments Don had about the sort of the visualization related. And Laura, maybe if you could share again,

2:09:10if you don't mind that slide. I think 26 is the one. Sure. Yeah, just a sec.

2:09:24And I really appreciate the comment on these because these visualizations are

2:09:31really important because they're so necessary to help property owners better understand what's

2:09:38meant by, you know, for most people, like a pretty nebulous sentence like make

2:09:43insured additions are visually and physically compatible. Like what does that mean? Like,

2:09:48where should I start? And where's my certainty of like what, what are the benchmarks for what

2:09:53that could mean to the city? So these visualizations are intended to be for demonstration purposes

2:10:01only and not indicative of this is what would what needs to be done on this particular site.

2:10:09But I did want to hone in on that this visualization is showing an addition on top of

2:10:16the building and and it's not sort of removing the what's there. It is basically plunking an

2:10:29addition right right behind the roofline features on top of what lies at the rear. So

2:10:37this wouldn't be considered a demolition or or removal. So it's not sort of like

2:10:43sowing off the front of this this building. And and we wanted to intentionally use this kind of

2:10:49visualization to communicate that this would be the ideal starting point for this kind of site

2:10:55that you look at sort of full building conservation in a way that that achieves the

2:11:01maximum building height of what you could do there, you know, addressing the the objective of

2:11:09of growth in the downtown, pairing it and balancing it with the dual objective of conservation.

2:11:17So Laura, was there anything else you wanted to to clarify on on this piece?

2:11:23I think just that I think it is important to to maybe make it even clearer just that the blocks

2:11:29here are again, they're just to show a general form and they're not we're not saying that that's

2:11:36the way that it should look. It's just to put a physical sort of building on top for illustration.

2:11:41So it it wouldn't end up looking exactly like that.

2:11:47I think I've covered the majority, although maybe maybe not in in all the details in Don's

2:11:57comments. Were there any other questions or further response back on on these topics?

2:12:06If there's anyone in the room that has a question, it your teeny tiny on my screen right now,

2:12:10you're welcome just to just to speak. Thank you.

2:12:20I only have one first, sorry, one more quick question. And that is, I come from a town that

2:12:25has conservation area. And it's great except that they don't have enough people or volunteers to

2:12:31really police it. And all sorts of things happen. And they just happened. And so in some ways,

2:12:38it's a good idea. It has been a good idea. And it's a much smaller town. But at the

2:12:44same time, there are challenges to to stay on top of it. Have you thought about that?

2:12:52Yeah, that's through the chair. That's a great question. And maybe I'll I'll invite

2:12:56staff at all, because I think that is in part sort of where where we leave the plan for

2:13:03implementation with staff, that the the importance of not only sort of

2:13:15keeping an eye on what's happening in the district, but ensuring that those who own property

2:13:23understand the requirements on a basic level, that there are requirements, but then also

2:13:30what this planning document means for them on a practical level. So there are some recommendations

2:13:35built into the plan about the importance of staff working with with property owners to support them

2:13:43in their understanding and implementation of the plan. We there has been, you know, we we did have

2:13:49some discussion about the the benefit or merits of exploring whether or not a kind of

2:14:00advisory committee is the language some other jurisdictions use that consist of, you know,

2:14:07its volunteers, it's not an advisory committee to counsel, but an advisory committee that just

2:14:13sort of acts as a resource to property owners, and or provides that kind of like, you know, on the

2:14:20ground stewardship in sort of eyes on on what's happening. I think it works. I've seen it work

2:14:29you know in smaller districts, smaller places and more residential areas rather than sort of

2:14:34the more complex areas of a downtown which has a lot of different, you know, users and communities,

2:14:40but Imogen did you want to provide some some perspective on that kind of strategy or tool?

2:14:52And sorry not to veer too wildly, but I feel like some folk have to depart. So I would say please

2:14:58reach out to me with any further questions. And of course, once this full plan becomes publicly

2:15:04available, I'm sure you'll all have more questions before we meet again. So feel free to depart.

2:15:11I don't know if I can be the one to say that. We may take form, but also please resource going forward.

2:15:19So just Imogen, would you mind just letting everyone know when the plan is going to be available

2:15:24and the next engagement public engagement? Because we didn't quite get there.

2:15:30The ETA is September 17th for a public release of the draft as it stands now. We're looking ahead to

2:15:37the statutory public meeting, which is October 15th, which is the first big moment for everyone to

2:15:45come and have their voices heard and in front of council and sort of the most important because

2:15:53if there is an intention to object down the line, you have to come register your your feedback, register

2:16:01your your perspective then. So September 17th draft will be available. Please please please review.

2:16:10And then looking ahead October 15th, October 15th will be that big sort of big first public day.

2:16:19Now as for another advisory committee, I know it's something that

2:16:25that we've talked about several times.

2:16:30And I'm afraid I don't I don't have a strong answer on that. It would be a complex question of sort of

2:16:36how we differed from the advisory committee we have in place. I think oftentimes having a

2:16:43district specific advisory committee comes from places that either haven't had the appetite or

2:16:49don't have the population to have a heritage advisory committee like we have a city. So there

2:16:55are tools in place to ensure that folks are abiding by the spirit of any prana guidelines we do have

2:17:06the minimum property standards of property standards by law in place. And then of course

2:17:13there is that sort of larger ongoing challenge of ensuring homeowners are educated and aware of

2:17:19their responsibilities but also what's the also what's the positive side of responsibilities.

2:17:31To you know it's the ongoing task of the staff to ensure that homeowners are informed

2:17:38and the general public is informed about both the responsibilities and the benefits the benefits of

2:17:44these these districts these protections these these guidelines. And of course through our

2:17:51permitting process we do have sort of constant conversations with both private property owners

2:17:56and larger developers to sort of align best align what's being proposed with you know this spirit

2:18:06spirit sounds amorphous but so best aligns with the policies that we're putting in place.

2:18:18Sorry that sound we've developed some construction as well. So in the last little bit

2:18:32of time we have are there any other questions or comments regarding the hcd? No I'll say thanks to

2:18:40both for oh Kelly. You know what I just wanted to thank everyone at the city and everybody

2:18:49involved in that project for the hard work because it's it's very obvious how much work's gone into

2:18:54it. I'm just very impressed thank you. Thank you Kelly. Thank you Kelly. All right well thank Rebecca

2:19:04Laura and Imogen as well for the presentation and the response to questions. We'll continue on in the

2:19:11agenda which is very brief at this point so I have no chair announcements but I'll look to

2:19:16the folks at the table to Imogen, Jack or Stephen if you have any announcements. Nothing from us no.

2:19:24No all right last is adjournment do I have someone to move adjournment?

2:19:30Kelly seconder I think David your hand went up so I'm gonna I'm gonna take you a second thank you.

2:19:35I feel like I'm looking over but I can't actually look around the corner of the camera.

2:19:39All those in favor? Fantastic thanks everyone. We'll see you in October. Thank you everybody.

2:19:46Everyone thank you everyone thank you.

2:19:53The construction was a real

2:19:57throw in. It was a real curve fall. Sorry Jack can you help me stop the meeting in the room?

2:20:05What do you think Winnie's trying to do? Oh Winnie?