city council agenda - city of guelph · item city presentation delegations to be extracted...

CITY COUNCIL AGENDA Consolidated as of August 22, 2014

Council Chambers, Guelph City Hall, 1 Carden Street

DATE August 25, 2014 – 7:00 p.m. Please turn off or place on non-audible all cell phones, PDAs, Blackberrys and pagers during the meeting.

O Canada Silent Prayer Disclosure of Pecuniary Interest and General Nature Thereof

CONFIRMATION OF MINUTES (Councillor Van Hellemond) “THAT the minutes of the Council Meetings held June 18, July 28, 2014 and August 5, and the minutes of the Closed Meeting of Council held July 28, 2014 and August 5, 2014 be confirmed as recorded and without being read.” CONSENT REPORTS/AGENDA – ITEMS TO BE EXTRACTED The following resolutions have been prepared to facilitate Council’s consideration of the various matters and are suggested for consideration. If Council wishes to address a specific report in isolation of the Consent Reports/Agenda, please identify the item. The item will be extracted and dealt with separately. The balance of the Consent Reports/Agenda will be approved in one resolution. Consent Reports/Agenda from: Audit Committee Item City Presentation Delegations To be

Extracted

AUD-2014.20 Policy for the Implementation of PS 3260 – Liability for Contaminated Sites

Adoption of balance of Audit Committee Consent Report - Councillor Guthrie, Chair Corporate Administration, Finance & Enterprise Committee Item City Presentation Delegations To be

Extracted

CAFE-2014.34 Enterprise Services – Annual Activity Report (presentation to be distributed prior

• Rob Kerr, Corporate Manager, Community Energy

• Peter Cartwright, General Manager of

• Lloyd Longfield, President & CAO, and Rob McLean, Past Chair, Guelph Chamber of Commerce

√

of 6 CITY OF GUELPH CITY COUNCIL AGENDA

to the meeting) Economic Development

• Ian Panabaker, Corporate Manager, Downtown Renewal

CAFE-2014.35 200 Beverly Street – IMICO Redevelopment Update

Correspondence • John Farley

CAFE-2014.36 Municipal Development Corporation Business Case Study Update

• Laura Murr √

Adoption of balance of Corporate Administration, Finance & Enterprise Committee Consent Report - Councillor Hofland, Chair Planning & Building, Engineering and Environment Committee Item City Presentation Delegations To be

Extracted

PBEE-2014.25 Enbridge Line 9B Application Item removed from the agenda.

PBEE-2014.26 Rental Housing Licensing Recommended Approach

Correspondence: - John Gruzleski, Old

University Neighbourhood Residents’ Association

- Morris & Donna Haley

PBEE-2014.27 Downtown Streetscape Manual, Built Form Standards and St. George’s Square Concept (presentation)

David DeGroot, Urban Designer

• Steve Baldamus • Marty Williams Correspondence • Steve Baldamus • Electronic Petition

from residents of 85 Neeve Street

• Mary Chubey • Virginia Everson

√

PBEE-2014.29 Sign By-law Variances – 679 Southgate Drive

Adoption of balance of Planning & Building, Engineering and Environment Committee Consent Report - Councillor Bell, Chair


Council Internal Audit Item City Presentation Delegations To be

Extracted

IA-2014.6 Learning and Development Audit Report

Loretta Alonzo, Internal Auditor

√

IA-2014.7 Learning and Development Audit Management’s Response

David Godwaldt, General Manager, Human Resources

√

Adoption of balance of Internal Auditor’s Third Consent Report - Council Consent Agenda

Item City Presentation Delegations To be Extracted

CON-2014.39 Disposition of Permanent Easements to Hydro One Networks Inc.

CON-2014.40 Culture and Tourism Department – Advisory Committees

CON-2014.41 2015 Council and Committee Meeting Schedule

CON-2014.42 2014 Municipal Election – Amendment to Special Voting Provisions

CON-2014.43 By-laws for The Elliott Long-Term Care Residence

CON-2014.44 Proposed Demolition of 85 University Avenue West - Ward 5

CON-2014.45 5 Arthur Street South – Proposed Zoning By-law Amendment (File: ZC1305) - Ward 1

Katie Nasswetter, Senior Development Planner

• Pamela Kraft on behalf of Fusion Homes

• Hugh Whiteley • Maria Pezzano, The

Ward Residents’ Association

• William Sleeth • Laura Murr

√


Correspondence: - Hugh Whiteley - Luke Weiler - Karen Duffield - Lorraine Pagnan

and Fred Thoonen - Bhaju Tamot - Richard and Norah

Chaloner - Mario Pezzano &

William Sleeth, Co-Chairs The Ward Residents’ Association

- Don Macaulay CON-2014.46 Elsegood Court Proposed Street Name Change, Ward 6

CON-2014.47 Proposed Demolition of 103 Grange Street West – Ward 1

CON-2014.48 Issuer of Lottery Licences

Adoption of balance of the Council Consent Agenda – Councillor

ITEMS EXTRACTED FROM COMMITTEES OF COUNCIL REPORTS AND COUNCIL CONSENT AGENDA (Chairs to present the extracted items) Once extracted items are identified, they will be dealt with in the following order:

1) delegations (may include presentations) 2) staff presentations only 3) all others.

Reports from:

• Audit Committee – Councillor Guthrie • Corporate Administration, Finance & Enterprise Committee– Councillor

Hofland • Planning & Building, Engineering and Environment Committee– Councillor

Bell • Council Internal Audit • Council Consent – Mayor Farbridge

SPECIAL RESOLUTIONS


BY-LAWS Resolution – Adoption of By-laws (Councillor Wettstein) “THAT By-law Numbers (2014)-19789 to (2014)-19802, inclusive, are hereby passed.” By-law Number (2014)-19794 A by-law to remove Part of Block 85, Plan 61M166 designated as Parts 1 to 28 inclusive, Reference Plan 61R20116 in the City of Guelph from Part Lot Control. (43, 45, 47, 49, 51, 53, 55, 57, 59, 61, 63, 65, 67, 69, 71 and 73 Severn Drive)

To remove land from Part Lot Control to create separate parcels for multiple townhouse units to be known municipally as 43, 45, 47, 49, 51, 53, 55, 57, 59, 61, 63, 65, 67, 69, 71 and 73 Severn Drive.

By-law Number (2014)-19795 A by-law to establish and maintain The Elliott Long-Term Care Residence as the City of Guelph’s Long-Term Care Home.

To establish The Elliott Long-Term Care Residence as a Long-Term Care Home as per Consent Report CON-2014.43.

By-law Number (2014)-19796 A by-law to delegate authority to The Elliott to operate The Elliott Long-Term Care Residence as the City of Guelph’s Long-Term Care Home.

To delegate authority to The Elliott to operate The Elliott Long-Term Care Residence as per Consent Report CON-2014.43.

By-law Number (2104)-19797 A by-law to authorize the execution of an Engineering Services Agreement between Victoria Wood Dallan GP Inc. and The Corporation of the City of Guelph. (Dallan Subdivision)

To execute an Engineering Services Agreement for the Dallan Subdivision.

By-law Number (2014)-19798 A by-law to authorize the execution of a Professional Consulting Services Memorandum of Agreement between The Corporation of the City of Guelph and K.J. Behm & Associates Inc.. (Dallan Subdivision)

To execute a Professional Consulting Services Memorandum of Agreement fro the Dallan Subdivision.

By-law Number (2014)-19799

To remove land from part lot control to


A by-law to remove Block 14, Plan 61M193 designated as Parts 1 to 10 inclusive, Reference Plan 61R20441 in the City of Guelph from Part Lot Control. (29, 31, 33, 35, 37 and 39 Amos Drive)

create separate parcels for multiple townhouse units to be known municipally as 29, 31, 33, 35, 37 and 39 Amos Drive.

By-law Number (2014)-19800 Lot 31, Plan 61M181, designated as Parts 1 and 2, Reference Plan 61R20071; Lot 32, Plan 61M181, designated as Parts 3 and 4, Reference Plan 61R20071; Lot 42, Plan 61M181, designated as Parts 24 and 25, Reference Plan 61R20071 in the City of Guelph from Part Lot Control. (51, 53, 73, 75, 77 and 79 Oakes Cres.)

To remove land from part lot control to create separate parcels for semi-detached units to be known municipally as 51, 53, 73, 75, 77 and 79 Oakes Cres.

By-law Number (2014)-19801 A by-law to remove: Lot 7, Plan 61M193 designated as Parts 1 and 2, Reference Plan 61R20440; Lot 8, Plan 61M193 designated as Parts 3 and 4, Reference Plan 61R20440; Lot 9, Plan 61M193 designated as Parts 5 and 6, Reference Plan 61R20440 in the City of Guelph from Part Lot Control. (112 and 114, 116, 118, 120 and 122 Dawes Ave.)

To remove land from part lot control to create separate parcels for semi-detached units to be known municipally as 112 and 114, 116, 118, 120 and 122 Dawes Ave.

By-law Number (2014)-19802 A by-law to confirm the proceedings of meetings of Guelph City Council held August 5 and 25, 2014.

To confirm the proceedings of Council meetings held August 5 and 25, 2014.

MAYOR’S ANNOUNCEMENTS Please provide any announcements, to the Mayor in writing, by 12 noon on the day of the Council meeting.

NOTICE OF MOTION

ADJOURNMENT


Guelph Chamber of Commerce

A year of collaboration with theA year of collaboration with the

Guelph Enterprise Services

Presentation to Guelph City Council 25 August 2014

Guelph “Enterprise” Services…

…is an evolution of our ongoing Economic …is an evolution of our ongoing Economic Development work with the addition of Downtown Renewal and Community Energy.

Building Investment…�Delegations from Brazil, USA, China,

Mexico, and Netherlands met with

Guelph businesses

The Chamber attended meetings in �The Chamber attended meetings in

Germany. Since then 3 businesses

have visited Guelph, with one

already locating here

Building Infrastructure…� The Guelph Chamber has formed an

Energy Transition Committee of

businesses to inform and implement the

Galt District Energy SystemGalt District Energy System

� Tricar has joined the Guelph Chamber,

becoming active in Guelph’s business

community

� Reid’s Heritage Homes won Large

Business of the Year

Building Downtown…� The Guelph Chamber sits on the

Downtown Advisory Committee, giving

business input to development plans in

the corethe core

� The Guelph Chamber location at the

transit terminal and VIA/GO station with

18 business offices for lease and 4

boardrooms, suits the changing needs of

businesses

Building Relationships…� The Guelph Chamber is pleased to

participate in the Grow Guelph Business

Retention and Expansion interviews and

follow-upsfollow-ups

� The GCC is working with the City of

Guelph and University of Guelph to build

our knowledge and support of the 3433

businesses in Guelph

Capacity Building…�The Guelph Chamber provides input

to Enterprise Services through our

extensive volunteer network

As a Not for Profit, the GCC accesses �As a Not for Profit, the GCC accesses

funding and support to leverage

costs of projects with private and

public investment

Building Prosperity…�The business community, through

the Guelph Chamber of Commerce

has been city building since 1827

As a partner in developing �As a partner in developing

Prosperity 2020, we work alongside

the City of Guelph to reach its 10

year economic development goals

16 Lynwood Avenue

Guelph, ON, N1G 1P9

August 15, 2014

City Council

City Hall

1 Carden Street

Guelph, Ontario

sent by email to [email protected]

Re: Agenda item PBEE-2014.26 Rental Housing Licencing Report

Madame Mayor and Members of Council,

I am writing to you on behalf of the executive committee of the Old University Neighbourhood

Residents’ Association. As you are aware, our Association has long been concerned with the

development of a proper licencing procedure for the business of rental housing. We still believe this to

be the best method to protect the health and safety of tenants. The revised report on “Rental Housing

Licencing Recommended Approach” proposes an enhanced proactive enforcement of existing by-laws.

The report presents some impressive statistics on the results of the enhanced enforcement that has

taken place since 2012. Based on these results, we wish to inform you that we are supportive of the

present report, and are willing to “give it a try.” It will be important to monitor the effectiveness of the

approach going forward and we view annual reporting by staff to both PBEE and to Council as an

important part of the process. We do note that the report does not close the door to eventual licencing.

If the proposed alternative approach is not successful, it will be necessary to put licencing back on the

table. I urge that Council approve the recommended alternative approach with annual staff reporting.

The Old University Neighbourhood Residents’ Association will do all that it can to support City staff as

they move forward with this initiative.

Yours truly,

John E. Gruzleski

President, Old University Neighbourhood Residents’ Association

mailto:[email protected]

City of Guelph

Downtown Streetscape Manual Built Form Standards &Built Form Standards &St. George’s Square Concept PlanCouncilAugust 25, 2014

Brook McIlroyin association withUnterman McPhail AssociatesMcCormick Rankin Inc.

More people +More investment coming +Aging infrastructure +

=City Building Opportunity

� This context is driving the recommended transformational vision

Collaborative Engagement Process

Studied the Downtown

Created Cross-departmental

Team

Worked with the Public to Evaluate

Opportunity

Identified the Vision and Program

2012

On-going Public/Stakeholder engagement

2013Engineering

Operations

Transit

Culture and Tourism

Planning

Reviewed With Business and

Other Stakeholders

Reviewed Precedents

Surveyed Business

Drafted Manuals

2014



City Building Opportunity +Collaborative Engagement ProcessProcess

= Recommended Transformational Vision

Transformational Vision� Downtown is a destination and place for all City residents and visitors

OB

JEC

TIV

ES

UB

JEC

TIV

E

Cycling Transit Parking Loading Sidewalks Street Trees

Destination Experience Aesthetics Place Character

The Urban Challenge:

2.0 Streetscape ManualO

BJE

CT

IVE

Cycling Transit Parking Loading Sidewalks Trees

R.O.W.

� How do we balance competing interests?

Applying the Flexible Street Approach

• Re-balance right-of-way space allocations and modal priorities;

• Optimize street design to place equal priority on pedestrians, cyclists, transit users, and personal vehicles;

• Reduce vehicle speeds; and• Adopt a ‘complete streets’ approach

to street design.

We’re reinforcing its

role as a destination

Flexible Streets - WyndhamStreetscape Manual

� 4 lanes to 2 lanes � More on-street parking � More bike parking

3.0 Built Form Standards

� Providing clarity and design direction for new development

Standards and Illustrations

� These build on and illustrate the Downtown Secondary Plan policies

Standards for Built Heritage Resources

Building Design and Site Design for all buildings

4.0 St. George’s Square� Transforming Guelph’s most important and historic public space

1981

� If we need to do this, what should it look like above ground?

Learning from the Past

St. George’s Square

Central Central building

1981 Introduced a T-Intersection

� Existing configuration create activity around the intersection and little around

the edges

� Fragmented space

Filling in the corners reduced flexibility

Guiding PrinciplesSt. George’s Square

1. Support local business and daily activities

2. Unify the Square3. Less is more4. Make it beautiful5. Make it comfortable6. Improve connections to

other Downtown Anchors

� A signature place and a welcoming destination� Daily Activation is the first objective of the fina l design

A square – with more potential Market stalls

� Short Term St. George’s Square

Activation Program

Recommended

Financial Implications – 10 year plan

Existing capital budget ($18.5 million)

• Baker Street • Parking Structure(s)

• Wyndham Street• St. George’s Square• Quebec Street

Enterprise Framework • Parking Structure(s)

• GO Upgrades

� This is about allocating and

phasing of the existing budget

based on aging infrastructure

and development opportunities

Framework

• York Trunk SewerUnder Construction

• TriCar, 5 Arthur etc.PrivateInvestment

Implementation

Design Direction Detailed


Design Direction

ApprovedDetailed

Design and

RefinementConstructionConstruction

It’s all about creating a great place.

� Getting the details right is critical for achieving the transformational vision

From: MARILYN DERHAK

Sent: August 8, 2014 6:54 AM To: Tina Agnello

Subject: NO ROUNDABOUT

The plans for the City of Guelph to tear up and flatten St. George's Square to provide for a roundabout is absolutely ludicrous, and will take Guelph back in time not forward as is required. The City's present plan is for 2 years in the future ---- it does not account for matters of the present. It's plan does not and will not bring people to downtown at the present. HOWEVER, cleaning up the streets and making required repairs and replacement to roads and sidewalks will do just that. How can you as the citizens of Guelph (old, young, abled and disabled ) and visitors to come downtown to shop and enjoy the square when the sidewalks they traverse are in such bad condition (many safety problems).For those who do venture forth, they enjoy the weekly markets, the movies and entertainment in the square, or just meeting friends for a coffee. The square is a great meeting place but will cease to be if a roundabout is done. Yes, much more could be done to improve it. But, let's crawl before we run and make the square more amiable to everyone. NOW, not 2 years, or as so many plans go awry, 5 or 10 years from now. Make downtown a more pleasurable place for everyone. Guelph is known as the "ROYAL CITY' ---- stop treating its citizens and visitors as peasan Mary Chubey

From: MARILYN DERHAK

Sent: August 6, 2014 10:01 PM To: Tina Agnello

Subject: ROUNDABOUT

NO ROUNDABOUT the plan for the City of Guelph to tear up and flatten St. George's Square to proide for a roundabout is absolutely ludicrous, and will take Guelph back in time not forward as is required. The City's present is for 2 years in the future ---- it does not account for matters of the present. It's plan does not and will not bring people to downtown at the present time. HOWEVER, cleaning up the streets and making the required repairs and reconstruction to the roads and sidewalks will do just that. How can you ask the citizens of Guelph (young, old, abled and disabled and visitors) to come downtown to shop and enjoy themselves in the square when the sidewalks they traverse are in such bad condition (any safety hazards) For those who do venture forth, they enjoy the weekly market, the movies and entertainment presently in the square, and just meeting friends to have a coffee. The square is a great meeting place, and, yes, much more could e done to improve it. But, let's crawl before we try to run and make the square more amiable to everyone, NOW, not in 2 years or as so many plans go awry I 5 or 20 years from now. Make downtown Guelph a more pleasurable place for everyone, not just a few. Guelph is known as "THE ROYAL CITY' -- stop treating its citizens and visitors as peasants. Virginia Everson

Memo To: Guelph City Council

From: Hugh Whiteley

Date: August 25 2014

RE: 5 Arthur Street - Proposed Zoning By-law Amendment (File ZC1305)

Request: That approval of the proposed zoning by-law for 5 Arthur Street be delayed until two changes are made:

(1) That an Official Plan Amendment be made to authorize a reduction in the setback of development from the river's edge from 30 m to 15 m notwithstanding the provision of Section 7.12.6 (h) of the Official Plan and to change the Designation of the 15 m Riverwalk to Open Space.

(2) That the proposed zoning by-law be amended to require the transfer of ownership of the proposed 15 m riverwalk to the City.

Background

The City of Guelph has adopted a Vision Statement, Goals, and Objectives For the River Systems of Guelph that recognizes that rivers are undeniably public and that physical and visual access to them must be maximized . To achieve the extraordinary potential of the river corridors to knit the city together the City has adopted a Management Master Plan for the River Systems of Guelph.

The core governing principles of the Master Plan are:

(1) maximizing public use and enjoyment of the river corridors by enhancing the continuity of public open space along the river banks

(2) ensuring that buildings in the river corridor respect and celebrate their riverside location

(3) enhancing the natural beauty and ecological diversity of the river corridors by naturalization of vegetation on the river banks wherever feasible.

These three governing principles were incorporated into the Official Plan through provisions for:

(a) the City to acquire lands to complete the corridor system (7.12.6 (a)); and requiring, as part of development proposals, lands to be reserved for public open-space linkage (7.12.6 (g))

(b) requiring, for a development proposal within the river corridor of the Speed or Eramosa River, that development be set back 30 m from the river edge or 15 m from the top of a steep slope (6.9.5.1) and 7.12.6 (h)

(c) encouraging the creation of riparian buffers in all appropriate instances where river edge vegetation can be feasibly provided (6.9.5.2).

Remaining Issues

City staff and the developer's consultants, working in consultation with the neighbourhood and the River System Advisory Committee, have done an excellent job in developing a proposal for 5 Arthur Street that is consistent with the requirements of Guelph's Official Plan and the Management Master Plan for the river corridor of the Speed river as set out above. There are two issues that must be addressed before the 5 Arthur Street - Proposed Zoning By-law Amendment (File ZC1305) is approved by City Council.

Issue One: Requirement for an Official Plan Amendment for the reduction in setback to 15 m

The staff report states that OPA 42 replaces the Official Plan requirement for development to be set back 30 m from the river's edge with "new policies that determine appropriate setback" (of development) "from the River". This statement is not correct. Nowhere in OPA 42 is there any mention of an appropriate setback of development from the river's edge. The inclusion in the Natural Heritage System defined in OPA 42 of 30 m vegetated buffers along the river for the sections which are undeveloped portions of the regional floodplain provides no guidance for development proposals for lands which are on developed portions of the river corridors.

The scope of OPA 42 is limited to consideration of planning issues for river corridors that relate to protected natural heritage features and areas or their associated ecological functions. For the downtown section of the Speed River the only natural heritage feature is the water surface of the river and the ecological functions to be protected are limited to fish habitat and waterfowl overwintering habitat.

Given the narrow scope of OPA 42 it would be inappropriate for OPA 42 to contain policies for the appropriate setback of development from the river's edge in river corridors as these setback policies need to have regard to all three of the governing principles of the Management Master Plan - physical access and continuity, visual access and aesthetics of development near the river, and enhancement of natural beauty and biodiversity. The role of OPA 42 is to require that protection of the ecological functions of the river be included as one of the criteria in establishing appropriate setback of development from the river's edge.

OPA 42, appropriately, removed Section 6.9.1.2 from the Natural Heritage Section of the Official Plan because its comprehensive content extended beyond the NHS aspects dealt with in

OPA 42. However the requirement for using a 30 m setback as guidance remains in the Official Plan in 7.6.12 (h) . This section of the Open Space policy emphasizes the aspects of the 30 m setback related to maximizing public access to the river corridor.

In the preparation of OPA 48, after the approval by Council of OPA 42, staff did not satisfy the requirements of the Vision Statement, Goals, and Objectives For the River Systems of Guelph by transferring the content of 6.9.1.2 to the Open Space Policies section of the Official Plan. This omission in OPA 48 is currently under appeal to the Ontario Municipal Board.

In view of the continued validity of 7.6.12 (h) of the Official Plan, which includes use of the 30 m setback as a guideline, and the current Appeal of the removal of the content of Section 6.9.1.2 from Guelph's Official Plan I strongly suggest to City Council that approval of the zoning bylaw for 5 Arthur Street be delayed beyond the meeting of August 25th to allow a suitably worded Official Plan Amendment to be prepared that authorizes the reduction in setback from 30 m to 15 m as satisfying the intent of section 7.6.12 (h).

Issue Two: Acquisition of the 15 m Riverwalk as publically-owned land.

For the last 135+ years (see appendix A) the City of Guelph has been acquiring riverside land to improve continuity in open-space access to the river corridors. As noted above this long-standing policy has been incorporated into the Official Plan. This is not a policy unique to Guelph. For example the City of Cambridge recently added to its Official Plan a provision for the creation of new public open spaces along the Grand and Speed Rivers through the development process (Section 7.1.4 of the 2013 Cambridge OP).

The importance of public ownership to ensure appropriate design and full public access and use of riverside land is emphasized in Amendment 1 to the Province of Ontario Greenbelt Plan. Only publically-owned land in urban river valleys can be added to the Greenbelt under this amendment. Only public ownership can assure the appropriate use and full public access in perpetuity that is required to have the Greenbelt lands in urban river valleys fulfill their purpose for recreational cultural and tourism uses as set out in the Plan.

Guelph City Council recognized the importance of public ownership of riverside land in its request to the Province in 2010 to have the Province add the publicly owned lands along the Eramosa and Speed Rivers to the Ontario Greenbelt. The Downtown Secondary Plan OPA 43 included the acquisition by the City of the Wellington Plaza and adjoining properties to provide publically-owned open space along the west bank of the Speed River between Wyndham and the confluence. To ensure the long-term functionality of the river-corridor open-space system of Guelph it is important that the expansion of publically-owned river-corridor land be continued and not abandoned. Over many decades the City of Guelph has taken ownership of many hundred metres of riverside land with contaminated soil, a considerable portion of which has retaining walls. The management of these long stretches of riverside land over many decades has demonstrated

that the potential for environmental harm from these sites is small. It is appropriate for the City to assume final responsibility for management of this small persisting hazard to provide assurance that rivers are protected. Before taking ownership of the 15 m riverwalk the City should require the developer to conduct the structural assessment of the existing retaining wall along the Speed River (as specified in Condition 1 on p 15 of the staff report) and to remedy any deficiencies found in the assessment to the satisfaction of the City Engineer.

Appendix A

Chronology of River Protection and Riverland Acquisition

by the City of Guelph and Others

Prepared by Hugh Whiteley. Last edited December 12 2013

Year Property Acquired or Policy Altered

1849 Board of Health prohibits dumping of dead animals in Speed River at Allan’s Dam

1879 Waterworks built on north bank of Eramosa, surrounding land used as park

1881 By-law regulates the bathing and washing of persons in a public water

1886 Victoria Park on south bank of Eramosa at Victoria Road opened by Guelph Boat and

Canoe Club June 23, on leased land, later owned by W. Macalister

1897 City Directory lists Sleeman Park between Water St and river west of Gordon.

1902 City collection of refuse begins December 15, for a small area near Carden St.

1903 April 7 approval of sewage farm on land purchased in Guelph Twp; Nov 1 startup

1904 James Lyon, buys 14.5 acres on west bank Speed and 10 y privilege for boating and

bathing on mill pond; sold to street railway in 1905 as Riverside Park.

1908 J.W. Lyon buys 299-301 York Road next to Waterworks Park and develops the property

as a park and donates it to the City – Lyons Park

1909 Prof Hutt suggests to Horticulture Society a park from Gow’s Bridge to Lyon Park

1910 City purchases 30 acres of river flat, mill site and water rights from Gow estate and 3.75

acres of Petrie recreation area much of this now Royal City Park

1910 Island in river removed in Gow’s mill land and 50 elm and 99 maples planted

1910-1914 Refuse placed as fill on both banks of Speed, and river straightened

1911 IODE names Royal City Park, confirmed by Council September 28

1912 River bank in Royal City Park damaged by flood

1914 Gow dam and riverbank repaired, summer waterlevels restored above dam

1919 119 Gordon Street added to Royal City Park

1929-1931 Stone walls constructed on both banks of Speed River from Gow’s bridge to confluence

of Speed/Eramosa

1929-1932 Additional landfill in Royal City Park behind new walls

1930 Presant Dam (Speed River at Wyndham St) removed February

1930-1934 Eramosa Channel upstream of confluence straightened

1937 Parts of lot 33 purchased from R.McLeod and added to Riverside Park.

1950 McLeod lots 33, 35 (17 acres) added to Riverside Park.

1953 More of lots 33 and 35 added to Riverside Park.

1955 Unspecified land added to Riverside Park.

1956 Goldie Mill site purchased by GRCA; cost share unknown

1956 City purchases Speedvale Mill property 17 acres on east side of Speed extending from

Speedvale to above mill dam between Riverside Drive and the river.

1956-1962 Speed River widened from Speedvale upstream to the dam with 5 weirs

1957 230 Arthur St N acquired as Joseph Woolfond Park E

1957-1958 GRCA purchases river corridor lands on both banks of the Speed River from Gow's Bridge

to City limits, replaces Gow's Dam with Wellington Street Dam and widens and

straightens channel

1958-1963 Area in Riverside Park W from Marilyn Drive to bandshell sanitary landfill; also mill race

on east bank filled.

1959 Portion of 105 Water Street conveyed to the City as part of Royal City Park South

1961 Additional land (Hubbard survey lot 4) added to Riverside Park; now 64 acres.

1964 Kiwanis Club paves river bed Riverside Park, dam to first weir, for swimming

1966 Additional 2.7 acres added to bring Riverside Park to 67.5 acres.

1967 Allan’s Mill site, 75 and 151 Wellington Street, established as Heritage Park

1972 301 Water Street added to Water Street Park

1973 101 Wellington St West purchased by City and added to Silvercreek Park

1976 70 Norwich Street acquires as Goldie Mill Park

1976 175 Cardigan Street acquired as Herb Markle Park

1977 GRCA purchases 116 acre Kortright Waterfowl Park at confluence of Hanlon Creek and

Speed River as part of river corridor greenbelt; $320,000 cost shared: GRCA 10 %, City 40

%, Province 50 %.

1980 85 York Road added to York Road Park

1987 259 Victoria Road S purchased and added to Eramosa River Park

1988 142 Edinburgh Road South added to Silvercreek Park

1990’s ? Riverbank portions of 55 and 89 Speedvale Avenue East transferred to City

1992 176 Gordon Street purchased by GRCA and City to be trailhead for Eramosa south bank

trail. Cost shared 10% GRCA, 40% City, 50% Province. Dedicated as Marianne’s Park in

1994 remembering women murdered by men

1995 River Run Property (Speed Skating Rink site) acquired

2000 Portions of 15-147 Woolwich Street purchased; John Galt Park

2000’s ? River corridor at 67 Wyndham Street transferred to City

2000’s ? River corridor at 40 Emma transferred to City

2000’s ? 35 George Street Purchased by City, zoned P1

2000’s ? 29. 32. 33, and 36 John Street purchased by City and zoned P1

2000’s ? 26 Marcon Street purchased by City and zoned as P1

2000’s ? 30 Pipe Street purchased by City and zoned as P1

2004 City acquires 139 Cardigan Street and develops it as Joseph Wolfond Park W

Number of property acquisitions 1879 to 2013 43

Subject: 5 Arthur Riverwalk

Good afternoon, I am writing in regard to a resident's letter that was posted in Councillor Findlay's blog today, August 20, 2014. The writer, HW, raises concerns with the staff proposal to leave the 15-metre "Riverwalk" adjacent to the 5 Arthur development in the hands of the developer. I fully support this writer's position and agree that the city should be taking all necessary steps to acquire this riverside land for use as a public park. I am, frankly, surprised that the idea of leaving the land with the developer would even have been considered, nevermind recommended. The city has long proceeded on the principle that riverside lands should be held and administered as a public amenity. This past conduct has given us the riverside parks that we enjoy today, and has guaranteed public enjoyment of and access to our river system. As this parcel of land is one of the few remaining that have not been yet been added to city inventory, it only makes sense to move on it now that the opportunity has presented itself. I suspect that if the city does not act at this time, the opportunity to acquire this land will not arise again. The principles that led the city to designate the Wellington triangle lands at Wellington and Gordon as a long-range site for parkland apply with equal strength as concerns this parcel. To be honest, I cannot even imagine why the developer might want to own the riverside lands, given the sheer number of non-residents who are expected to use them. I hope you will take these concerns under advisement when reviewing the staff proposal for this property. Thank you for your time. Sincerely, Luke Weiler, BA JD

Subject: Riverwalk Proposal

To Whom it May Concern,

I am 100% in favour of the 15 meter Riverwalk on the east side of the Speed River being public &

not privately owned. I do not believe that it is in the best long term public interest of the city to

leave the Riverwalk in private ownership.

Sincerely,

Karen Duffield

Dear Mayor and Council, We would like to comment on the proposed Zoning By-law Amendment (file: ZC1305) for 5 Arthur Street South. Unfortunately we cannot be in attendance at the August 25th meeting. We would like to reiterate our concerns and comments that we made in March 2014, so we will be brief. 1 Concern with overall density, massing and height of the proposed development and the pressure being put on our neighbourhood for the City to make it’s growth targets. 2 More density means more cars which means more traffic infiltration on local streets such as Ontario. The St. Patrick’s Ward Community Improvement Plan adopted in 2003 identified these concerns and recommended that the City address the issues but nothing was ever done. As well money and timelines were included for the staging in of these recommendations and as of yet very little has happened. 3 The traffic attributed to the density being introduced into this general area means more cut through traffic defeating the ideology of a pedestrian and cycling friendly neighbourhood. This extra traffic will also have a negative impact on those who live on the small narrow streets of this neighborhood. Ontario Street still has regular transport truck and other commercial vehicles cutting through on a daily basis. 4 We also believe that the amount of parking being allocated on site is not sufficient. On street parking in the neighbourhood is already an issue and this will just accentuate the problem. 5 Our final major concern is that of the Heritage Limestone Buildings not being developed until Phase Six. This means that the limestone heritage buildings have the potential of remaining empty for 15 to 20 years. Empty buildings mean a greater risk of “demolition by neglect” and vandalism. The plans by the developer do not even show it as an active use on the site similar to what they have planned for their high rises. It is shown as a ghost of the past already. We believe that the Heritage Buildings must be integrated into the site along the same time lines as the other phases preferably Phase One, otherwise these Heritage Buildings could meet the same fate as the Wilson Farmhouse. Council surely remembers the argument for demolition, “the farmhouse should have been planned and integrated with the residential component of the development”. If Heritage Buildings don’t have a planned use we loose them. Perhaps the Heritage Buildings could be utilized as residential along with Phase One and have the parking on the ground level similar to what was done on the Danby site on Neeve Street. This would provide adequate parking for the Heritage Building with residential on the upper floors. The view from the heritage building would surely be a selling point for them as condos and that would incorporate well into Phase One. Lorraine Pagnan and Fred Thoonen

Dear Sir, I support the addition of Riverwalk land as public parkland. Thanks, Bhaju Tamot Resident of Guelph

Regarding the City Hall proposal for developers to take over the 15 metre Riverwalk space

beside the development at 5 Arthur St:

We strongly support the protection of this piece of land as a public space and amenity. We

oppose turning this piece of space over to any developer and thereby removing it from open

space. The public should have access to this at all times in the future.

Furthermore, since only publicly owned space can be added to any future Greenbelt protection,

it should be protected as part of our city park system. The Heritage Grand River system that

runs through Guelph is a key distinguishing feature of our city. It must remain possible for this

land to be included in a greenbelt protected area along the sides of our Grand River tributary,

the Speed, when that opportunity exists.

Sincerely,

Richard and Norah Chaloner.

August 21, 2014 Mayor Karen Farbridge Guelph City Hall 1 Carden St. Guelph, ON N1H 3A1 Dear Madam Mayor, The purpose of this letter is to provide feedback in regards to the report dated August 25, 2014, file number ZC1305, prepared by City Staff in regards to development of 5 Arthur St. S. We have had an opportunity to review the report in detail are eager to share our perspective. For the last 4 1/2 years The Ward Residents Association has been a part of a collaborative dialogue with Kilmer, with City Staff and with Fusion Homes concerning the future of 5 Arthur St. S., the Former W.C. Woods site. Over all we have to say that the plans for this development are quite exciting. For the most part, we are in favour of what is being proposed by Fusion and appreciate the following:

• Public access to the Riverwalk. • The incorporation of the idea that the area is an animated space. • Townhouses along the River, making the back of the development just as

desirable as the front. • Tree canopy along the Riverwalk as it contributes to a more natural

experience. • Additional townhouses and along a tree lined Arthur St. S., • The attention to sight lines, keeping Church or Our Lady top of mind • Pedestrian access to the river • Pedestrian bridge along the railbridge as a part of the trail. • Building design having the upper floors stepping back from the original floor

plate. • The various commercial possibilities, and we are great fans of the live work

scenario. We see that this plan incorporates some of the ideas brought forward by the community during public meetings. Throughout this process, we reluctantly came to accept Fusion’s decision to incorporate 14 story buildings, on both ends of the development. TWRA had assurances in early 2014 during the last public meeting held by Fusion Homes with their new Architect KIRKOR that the 3 central buildings would be 10 stories.

TWRA has been an integral part of the process and felt our voice was being heard and that the process of collaboration was working, validating our contributions as stakeholders. In fact, the Community Group model was publicly referenced by yourself, emphasizing the success of this model on more than one occasion. TWRA forged a new way of community interaction with the City Staff and were a proud neighbourhood unit, at the table, participating in discussions, collaborating, feeling heard; up until 5 months ago when communication stopped. Looking back, we understand now that changes to the design were in the works; however we did not hear of any new plans until recently, haphazardly. In fact communication regarding the City issued report was sent out to only 29 residents. This is perplexing and we recommend that the criteria used for selection of addresses to communicate regarding this property be reviewed. When asking for an explanation from City Planners, I could not receive a straight answer as to why only 29 individuals in the community received notification from the City of the impending report and decision to be made by Council. The letter was distributed the week of August 7. The report was available the week of the 13th. It was through the issuance of this letter that TWRA noticed the heights did not align with expectations. Specifically, the heights for the 3 central buildings changed from 10 stories to 10, 11 and12 stories without warning or communication to TWRA. We are very concerned that a significant change to the urban design master plan, specifically with regard to the height of the three center buildings. We are surprised that this final version of the urban design master plan does not have the strength of collaboration and agreement with TWRA. The proposal for 10, 11 and 12 story buildings is a complete surprise to TWRA and was never reviewed or supported. We are proud of the contributions and years of hard work. We made a difference in our neighbourhood. We acknowledged that we had to compromise and we did. We take comfort knowing that each of the 6 phases has it's own public process and look forward to further discussions. Sincerely, Maria Pezzano, William Sleeth CoChairs TWRA

!2

To Guelph City Council

I support the addition of the proposed 5 Arthur Street Riverwalk Lands as public parkland, and

trust that the subject land will be rezoned as Open Space.

In the interests of longer term thinking, such heritage lands should remain in the public domain.

Keeping this area in public ownership would avoid more costly acquisition at some point in the

future. I wonder if councilors had a similar decision to make at the time of the development of

the land along the south side of Wellington Street east of Gordon.

Sincerely,

Don Macaulay

city council agenda - city of guelph · item city presentation delegations to be extracted...

Documents