LIVE BLOG: City Council Meeting for December 10, 2018

It’s back to the business of planning in this first, full council meeting of the new term. You can click here for the amended agenda from City Hall, and you can click here for the Politico preview. For the complete blow-by-blow of tonight’s council meeting, you can follow me on Twitter, or follow the tweets below.

Remaining items on the agenda:

Memorandum of Agreement Between the City of Guelph and the International Alliance of Theatrical Stage Employees, Moving Picture Technicians, Artists and Allied Crafts of the United States, its Territories and Canada (IATSE) Local No. 357. New agreement between the City and the workers of the River Run Centre passed unanimously.

IDE-2018-142 Statutory Public Meeting Report 127 Cityview Drive North Proposed Zoning By-law Amendment File: OZS18-006 Ward 1. This was supposed to be the relatively straightforward matter of turning a lot with one single-detached dwelling into a lot for two single detached dwellings. This area is subject to big lots because this side of Cityview was developed before it was serviced by the City. It was still on septic tanks before that. Rob Mannella, who lives next to the site, spoke to a concern about the height and setback of the new houses, the size would effect their views of the street and the sunlight that presently enters their property. Gibson asked staff to bring the developer and the delegate together and try and work something out. The report was received unanimously.

Piper offered a follow-up to the discussion of the 278 College Ave W application. She noted that there was a development at 302 College, and there was an expectation once that 278 College was going to integrate with it. Piper said she thought it was appropriate that a minor change be made to allow for the original setback of 4.65 metres at the side of development instead of the 3 metre exception recommended in the staff report because 3 metres does not allow for trees to be planted.

Astrid Clos, the planning consultant for the site, said the impact would be on the 14 parking spaces, which was another concern of the area residents and why there are 2 spaces for every unit, plus two visitor spaces. Staff agreed with the concern about the impacts on parking.

Given the feedback, Piper didn’t put her motion on the floor. The plan was passed by council 6-5 with Allt, Downer, Goller, Gordon, and Piper voting against.

***UPDATED – Tuesday 9:45 pm.

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out /  Change )

Google photo

You are commenting using your Google account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )

Connecting to %s