updated planning report updated planning report - City of Guelph

Updated Planning Report September 2008 

Proposed Lafarge/Silvercreek Development 

TABLE OF CONTENTS 

EXECUTIVE SUMMARY ................................................................................................... i 

1.0 INTRODUCTION and BACKGROUND ................................................................. 1 

2.0 SITE and REVISED PROPOSAL .......................................................................... 3 

2.1 The Subject Property ......................................................................................... 3 

2.2 Revised Redevelopment Concept ..................................................................... 3 

2.2.1 Original (2005) Scheme ............................................................................. 3 

2.2.2 Revised Scheme (November 2007) .......................................................... 4 

2.2.3 Refined Concept (2008) ............................................................................ 5 

3.0 UPDATED POLICY and REGULATORY CONTEXT ............................................ 7 

3.1 Provincial Policy Statement (2005) ................................................................... 7 

3.2 Growth Plan for Greater Golden Horseshoe (2006).......................................... 8 

3.3 City of Guelph Official Plan ............................................................................... 9 

3.3.1 Land Use Designations ............................................................................. 9 

3.3.2 Major Goals ............................................................................................... 9 

3.3.3 Community Form, Urban Form and Urban Design .................................... 9 

3.3.4 Development Staging .............................................................................. 11 

3.3.5 Community Improvement ........................................................................ 11 

3.3.6 Contaminated Properties ......................................................................... 12 

3.3.7 Natural Heritage and Environmental Impact ............................................ 12 

3.3.8 Central Business District ......................................................................... 12 

3.3.9 Commercial and Mixed Use .................................................................... 13 

3.3.10 Existing Site Designations ...................................................................... 18 

3.3.11 Official Plan Amendments ...................................................................... 18 

3.4 City of Guelph Zoning By-law .......................................................................... 19 

4.0 CITY STAFF RECOMMENDATIONS and CONCERNS ..................................... 21 

5.0 SYNOPSIS of UPDATED TECHNICAL STUDIES .............................................. 24 

5.1 Market Demand and Impact Analysis .............................................................. 24 

5.2 Traffic Impact Study ........................................................................................ 27 

5.3 Supplementary Stormwater Management Study ............................................. 29 

5.4 Environmental Impact Studies ......................................................................... 29 

5.4.1 EIS, October 2005 ................................................................................... 29 

5.4.2 Addendum I, May 2006 ........................................................................... 30 

5.4.3 Addendum II, Impacts of Revised Design and Tree Conservation Plan, 

November 2007 ....................................................................................... 31 

5.4.4 Addendum III, Response to Guelph EAC Comments April 9, 2008 ........ 32 

5.4.5 Addendum IV, Revised Impact Assessment Associated with Revised 

Storm Water Management Plan, August 2008 ........................................ 32 

5.5 Urban Design Guidelines ................................................................................ 33 

6.0 DISCUSSION and CONCLUSIONS .................................................................... 34 

6.1 Site Suitability .................................................................................................. 34 

6.2 Policy and Related Considerations ................................................................. 35 

6.2.1 Provincial Policy Statement (2005).......................................................... 35 

6.2.2 City Official Plan ...................................................................................... 37 

6.3 Remaining City Staff and Agency Concerns .................................................. 44 

6.4 Summary and Recommendations ................................................................... 46



List of Figures 

following page 

Figure 1 - Site Location 1 

Figure 2a - Revised Redevelopment Concept (2007) 4 

Figure 2b - Revised Redevelopment concept (2008) 5 

Figure 3 - Guelph Official Plan 9 

Schedule 1 – Land Use Plan 

Figure 4 - Existing Zoning 19



EXECUTIVE SUMMARY 

This planning report has been prepared by Macaulay Shiomi Howson Ltd., on behalf of 

Silvercreek Guelph Developments Limited (“Silvercreek”.) Silvercreek is the prospective 

purchaser and prime proponent of a proposed mixed commercial redevelopment 

scheme on the 22 ha (54.4 ac.) vacant former Lafarge lands, located on the east side of 

Hanlon Expressway, straddling Silvercreek Parkway south of Paisley Road, and known 

municipally as # 35 and 40 Silvercreek Parkway South. 

This report is intended to provide an updated review and analysis of the land use 

planning considerations relevant to a revised version of the originally-proposed mixed 

commercial redevelopment scheme on the subject lands. It has been prepared in the 

context of appeals to the Ontario Municipal Board of companion applications to the City 

of Guelph for amendments to the Official Plan and Zoning By-law. 

By way of summary, the revised redevelopment concept is illustrated on Figure 2A – 

Revised Redevelopment Concept (2007) in the body of this report, and provides a 

range of commercial land uses reflective of the requested re-designation to “Mixed Use 

Node”, as part of the City’s revised planned commercial structure. 

Key components include a revised retail and service commercial node of 37,160 sq. m 

(400,00 sq. ft.) which includes two primary large-format retail outlets (home improvement 

centre/furniture store and warehouse membership club.) The prospective warehouse 

membership club (WMC) would serve as an anchor use for this commercial 

development, and would represent the first WMC facility in the Guelph context. 

Also proposed in the development would be a variety of other medium and smaller retail 

uses, arrayed around a central “village marketplace” straddling Silvercreek Parkway. 

The former proposal for a new public park east of Howitt Creek has been revised to a 

passive private open space accommodating substantially revised stormwater 

management facilities. 

This report addresses relevant policy considerations arising from the Provincial Policy 

Statement (PPS), 2005. The PPS “…supports a comprehensive, integrated and longterm 

approach to planning…[which]…recognizes linkages among policy areas.” In 

particular, it focuses on building strong communities, protecting the environment and 

resources, and supporting a strong economy. It contains policies which, among others, 

provide for the protection of employment areas and the long term health and 

competitiveness of the economic base. 

As set out in Section 3.1 of this report, the PPS speaks to promotion of efficient 

development and land use patterns, provision for an appropriate range and mix of 

employment opportunities, encouragement of intensification and redevelopment to assist 

municipalities in meeting long-term needs, promotion of economic development and 

competitiveness, and supporting long-term economic prosperity. This planning report 

concludes, as detailed in Section 6.2.1, that the revised Silvercreek proposal is 

consistent with all of these policy directions. 

In particular, the subject proposal will facilitate the viable redevelopment of derelict, 

serviceable industrial lands, which will constitute a productive re-use of this vacant, 

centrally-located parcel within Guelph’s existing urban context. It will also help to 

i



strengthen and diversify Guelph’s economic base, most notably through the introduction 

of a new regional retail operation (warehouse membership club) not currently in the 

Guelph market. Based on the findings of the updated market study, the proposal can be 

accommodated without detriment to the overall function or economic vitality of Guelph’s 

downtown. In addition, the subject property is a vacant brownfield site, now remediated 

and proposed for productive redevelopment and re-use. 

The PPS also addresses the issue of employment land conversion. For a number of 

reasons which are also discussed in detail in Section 6.2.1 of this report, it is our view 

that the subject proposal does not represent “conversion” of employment lands to nonemployment 

uses, and thus does not require a comprehensive review as a prerequisite 

to its development. 

The City’s Official Plan contains a number of goals, principles, objectives and policies 

which are relevant to the subject site and proposal. These are canvassed at length in 

Sections 3.2 and 6.2.2 of this report. It is our overall conclusion that the revised 

Silvercreek proposal, together with the updated technical studies which support the 

requested re-designation and rezoning for the mixed commercial development concept 

described in this report, is consistent with the general principles and specific policy 

requirements of the City of Guelph Official Plan. 

In particular, it meets the Plan’s notable major goals of protecting and enhancing the 

natural environment, directing development where municipal infrastructure is most 

readily available, and maintains the downtown’s primary role within the City’s urban 

structure. Furthermore, it represents compatible intensification and redevelopment of a 

large, existing, under-utilized industrial parcel, and will facilitate the remediation of an 

existing contaminated brownfield parcel which is among those particularly targeted by 

the City for community improvement. Natural heritage and environmental impact 

considerations have been exhaustively documented and addressed. The geography 

and setting of the site will minimize potential land use conflicts, and serve to facilitate a 

distinct identity. 

Commercial policy requirements applicable to the requested “Mixed Use Node” 

designation have been addressed, both in this planning report and in the associated 

updated technical studies on market impact, urban design, traffic impact, stormwater 

management and environmental impact. In particular, the range of impact studies 

required to support the designation of a new (or expanded) Mixed Use Node has been 

appropriately addressed, in our view, and any related conditions or requirements have 

been identified in those studies or will be supplemented by the completion of ongoing 

technical agency review, as well as subsequent site plan approval requirements. 

In addition, substantial discussion is contained in Section 6.2.2 of this report on the 

Plan’s general criteria to be addressed for Official Plan amendments, and it is our overall 

conclusion that they are appropriately addressed. These criteria cover a range of 

planning considerations, including: conformity to the Plan’s goals and objectives; site 

suitability and use compatibility; market feasibility of and need for the proposed use; 

availability of other designated areas; impacts on infrastructure and the natural 

environment; and, financial implications. 

Sections 4 of this report contains a summary of the remaining concerns held by City staff 

and interested agencies, and our detailed responses to those are found in Section 6.3, in 

ii



the context of the updated supporting technical studies, as well as the ongoing technical 

agency review. 

In summary, based on the analysis and conclusions of this updated planning report, and 

supported by the related technical studies, including the updated ones summarized 

herein, it is our professional opinion that the revised development proposal and related 

applications for Official Plan amendment and rezoning warrant approval on appropriate 

and relevant land use planning grounds, subject to a number of appropriate 

implementation recommendations which are detailed in section 6.4 of this planning 

report. 

iii



1.0 INTRODUCTION and BACKGROUND 

This planning report has been prepared by Macaulay Shiomi Howson Ltd., on behalf of 

Silvercreek Guelph Developments Limited (“Silvercreek”.) Silvercreek is the prospective 

purchaser and prime proponent of a proposed mixed commercial redevelopment 

scheme on the 22 ha (54.4 ac.) vacant former Lafarge lands, located on the east side of 

Hanlon Expressway, straddling Silvercreek Parkway south of Paisley Road, and known 

municipally as # 35 and 40 Silvercreek Parkway South. 

The location of the subject site is depicted on the accompanying map Figure 1 – Site 

Location. 

This report is intended to provide an updated review and analysis of the land use 

planning considerations relevant to a revised version of the originally-proposed mixed 

commercial redevelopment scheme on the subject lands. It has been prepared in the 

context of appeals to the Ontario Municipal Board of companion applications to the City 

of Guelph for amendments to the Official Plan and Zoning By-law. 

This planning report is an updated successor to the original Planning Study (dated 

September 2005) on the subject applications prepared by Black, Shoemaker, Robinson 

& Donaldson Limited. That earlier report was part of a package of supporting materials 

which accompanied the original submission of the subject applications in November 

2005. Since that initial submission, these applications have been in process and under 

consideration by the City of Guelph. 

The applicant/proponent Silvercreek appealed to the OMB in July 2007, on the basis of a 

lack of decision by Guelph Council on the subject applications within the specified timeframes 

in the Planning Act. Nonetheless, processing by the City has continued, 

including agency review and comments, and further refinements to the development 

concept, in response to comments and concerns from interested agencies and the 

public. 

A formal re-submission, together with numerous supporting technical reports, took place 

in November 2007, and further discussions with agencies have ensued, leading to 

additional refinements of that November 2007 development concept. 

In the ensuing months since that formal re-submission, City staff’s processing of the 

applications has continued, primarily to facilitate a Council position in the context of the 

aforementioned OMB appeal proceedings. That staff process has included 

circulation/comments from technical agencies and additional public input opportunities. 

It culminated in a June 3, 2008 staff report in which staff recommended that Council not 

support the requested amendments as proposed, for reasons which are detailed later in 

this report. 

This planning report is focused upon the latest version of the late 2007 concept, as 

further refined based upon the additional technical work done in 2008 and summarized 

in a later section of this report. As noted above, it is intended to provide an updated 

planning evaluation which reflects not only the revised development scheme, but also 

the changed Official Plan policy context since the original applications were submitted in 

2005. 

1



The key policy differences arise from the subsequent completion of the City’s 

Commercial Policy Review, and implementation of the resultant Official Plan changes 

through the adoption and approval of OPA # 29. Those changes are now incorporated 

in the latest consolidation of the Guelph Official Plan and are addressed in detail in this 

report. 

By way of summary, the revised redevelopment concept is illustrated on Figure 2A – 

Revised Redevelopment Concept (2007) in the body of this report, and provides a 

range of commercial land uses reflective of the requested re-designation to “Mixed Use 

Node”, as part of the City’s revised planned commercial structure. 

Key components include a revised retail and service commercial node of 37,160 sq. m 

(400,00 sq. ft.) which includes two primary large-format retail outlets (home improvement 

centre/furniture store and warehouse membership club.) The prospective warehouse 

membership club (WMC) would serve as an anchor use for this commercial 

development, and would represent the first WMC facility in the Guelph context. 

Also proposed in the development would be a variety of other medium and smaller retail 

uses, arrayed around a central “village marketplace” straddling Silvercreek Parkway. 

The former proposal for a new public park east of Howitt Creek has been revised to a 

passive private open space accommodating substantially revised stormwater 

management facilities. The revised concept also re-confirms the proponent’s deletion of 

the original direct connection proposed to Hanlon Expressway, as the City had been 

advised in 2006. The alternative access scheme focuses on a grade-separated 

Silvercreek Parkway crossing of the main CNR rail line to the north of the site. 

The key matters addressed by this planning analysis include a description of the site and 

its physical context, the details of the revised proposal, and the updated policy and 

regulatory framework which apply. In addition, this report synthesizes the results of 

supplementary or updated supporting technical studies (including retail market impact, 

traffic impact, stormwater management and environmental impact considerations), and 

analyses the land use planning implications and merits of the proposal. 

The balance of this planning report comprises the following sections: 

‣ Section 2: SITE and REVISED PROPOSAL 

‣ Section 3: UPDATED POLICY and REGULATORY CONTEXT 

‣ Section 4: CITY STAFF RECOMMENDATIONS/CONCERNS 

‣ Section 5: SYNOPSIS of UPDATED TECHNICAL STUDIES 

‣ Section 6: DISCUSSION and CONCLUSIONS 

2



2.0 SITE and REVISED PROPOSAL 

2.1 The Subject Property 

The site which is the subject of the applications under appeal remains the same as 

constituted at the time of the original 2005 application. It has a gross area of about 22 

ha (55.4 ac.), and is triangular in configuration. 

The subject property is located approximately two kms from Guelph’s downtown core, 

straddling Silvercreek Parkway, which is a two-lane north/south city street interrupted by 

the CNR line at the north edge of the site. The property directly abuts the east side of 

Hanlon Expressway, a four-lane, limited-access divided highway which is also 

designated as Provincial Highway 6. The subject property is defined on its northeast 

and southeast sides by rail lines, the former being a main CNR line, and the latter being 

a secondary CNR line which is leased by the Goderich-Exeter Railway (GEXR.) 

The site was formerly owned and used by Lafarge Canada as a gravel quarry (until the 

mid-1970’s), and more recently, for a concrete block manufacturing operation, which 

ceased in 1994. Today the lands remain vacant, bisected by Howitt Creek, which flows 

from north to south in a relatively narrow and well-vegetated valley intended to be 

protected from development with an appropriate buffer zone; the creek itself is 

approximately 6 m (20 ft.) below the surrounding site elevation. Howitt Creek carries 

substantial stormwater flow from the Alma Drain storm sewer system north of the site, 

through the property and under the GEXR bridge culvert at the south edge of the site. 

Apart from the creek valley, the overall topography of the site is generally flat, and it sits 

lower than the adjacent rail lines and the neighbourhoods beyond, both to the north and 

the south. There are embankments at both railways which vary in height between 3 m 

(10 ft.) and 6 m (20 ft.), with trees along both embankments. Otherwise, site vegetation 

is generally non-native, pioneering, shrubby and successional in nature, with some 

specimen trees in evidence, including a large oak located immediately adjacent to 

Silvercreek Parkway . 

Adjacent uses to the north of the CNR main line are low density residential in nature, 

and include: single and semi-detached dwellings either side of the existing stub-end of 

Silvercreek Parkway at the northwest corner of the site; and, Goldie Park, a small 

passive neighbourhood park which adjoins Paisley Road Public School to the northeast 

of the site. Existing uses to the south of the GEXR rail line comprise a mix of low density 

residential, Howitt Park (an active park with parking), the Guelph Bible Chapel and 

Conference Centre, a mid-rise (5-storey) apartment building and the Manor Hotel. 

2.2 Revised Redevelopment Concept 

2.2.1 Original (2005) Scheme 

As previously noted, the proposed redevelopment concept for the subject lands has 

evolved from its original 2005 form. 

That original scheme, as applied for in November 2005, revolved around a mixed 

community commercial “campus”, with a total retail and service commercial floor space 

3



of 41,800 sq. m (450,000 sq. ft.), including the potential for some office space. A 

“village” concept was proposed, mixing both neighbourhood-type facilities with larger 

format users not suited to a downtown setting. From an access perspective, this original 

concept was premised on a direct connection to/from the northbound side of Hanlon 

Expressway, with additional access to/from the south via a widened Silvercreek 

Parkway. 

The original concept also proposed the preservation of Howitt Creek and its associated 

valley, and included provision for a new public park on the portion of the site east of the 

creek, which totals about 4.4 ha (10.8 ac.) in area. 

Consistent with the then-prevailing Official Plan context, the initial application sought 

approval for an Official Plan amendment which would re-designate the site “Community 

Commercial” (with “Non-Core Greenlands Overlay” for the Howitt Creek) and “Open 

Space” (park land) to the east of the creek, with site-specific permission for a mixed 

commercial node of up to 41,800 sq. m (450,000 sq. ft.) in size. 

A parallel application for rezoning sought a “Community Commercial (CC)” Zone on the 

developable portion of the site, west of the creek, a “Floodplain Lands (FL)” Zone on 

Howitt Creek and its associated valleyland, and “Community Park (P.3)” Zone on the 

portion east of the creek. That rezoning would be on a special (site-specific) basis, to 

the maximum aggregate floor space proposed. 

The above-noted Official Plan land use designation originally requested at the time of 

the 2005 application was modified by Silvercreek in conjunction with their appeals to the 

OMB, in July 2007. That modified designation request was driven by the changes in the 

underlying Official Plan policy framework which had resulted from the City’s completion 

of the Commercial Policy Review (CPR) and the adoption of OPA 29, subsequent to the 

original Silvercreek application. 

OPA 29 introduced comprehensive commercial structure changes into the Guelph 

Official Plan, flowing from the results of the CPR process -- with respect to both 

governing policies and commercial land use designations. Since the originallyrequested 

“Community Commercial” land use designation had ceased to exist due to the 

approval of OPA 29, Silvercreek revised their request in July 2007 (in the context of their 

appeals) to the logical land use category under the new commercial policy regime -- 

“Mixed Use Node.” 

2.2.2 Revised Scheme (November 2007) 

As noted, in November of 2007, a revised development concept was submitted to the 

City, supported by updated or additional supporting technical reports, in response to 

technical issues and public comments/concerns which had emerged through the 

application review process. This revised submission was also intended to foster 

continued dialogue between Silvercreek and the City, in the context of the OMB appeals 

which by then had been submitted, in the hope of narrowing or even eliminating the 

issues of concern. 

The November 2007 concept is illustrated on the accompanying Figure 2A – Revised 

Redevelopment Concept (2007), and differed from the original 2005 scheme in the 

following key ways: 

4



• based on a refined marketing concept which, in part, responded to the findings of 

the City’s market peer reviewer, the overall scale of the retail/service commercial 

component was reduced to 37,160 sq. m (400,00 sq. ft.); 

• two principal large-format retail operators were now specifically proposed -- a 

warehouse membership club and a home improvement/furniture operation -- 

adjacent to the respective abutting rail lines, together with a range of medium 

and small retail/service commercial uses; 

• in light of MTO’s prohibition on any access directly to/from Hanlon Expressway, 

site access was formally revised to focus on a widened and improved Silvercreek 

Parkway, most notably including a connection north and south of the CNR 

mainline via a grade separation; and, 

• the urban design concept was revised to reflect the following key characteristics: 

o focus the commercial development around an urban “village marketplace” 

straddling Silvercreek Parkway, based on smaller retail buildings with twostorey 

massing and associated outdoor amenity spaces defining a primary 

“gateway” intersection providing access to the development from Silvercreek 

Parkway; 

o locate the large-format retail structures on the least-visible parts of the site, 

and buffered with vegetation; 

o provision of an internal private roadway (grid/block) pattern intended to 

facilitate intensification over time; 

o primary pedestrian routes which converge on the village marketplace, 

including provision of an east/west greenway between Howitt Creek and the 

village marketplace; and, 

o connection of Silvercreek Parkway to the north (via a grade separation at the 

CNR) and enhancement with double rows of trees, transit, on-street parking, 

broad sidewalks and bike lanes. 

The November 2007 revised concept continued to protect the existing Howitt Creek and 

its associated valleylands, and carried forward the specific proposal for a new public 

park (“Junction Park”) on the lands east of the creek valley. A revised stormwater 

management concept was also put forward to manage off-site, upstream storm flows in 

Howitt Creek during major storm events; this involved flood storage (temporary 

stormwater detention) within a portion of the proposed public park east of the Creek. 

2.2.3 Refined Concept (2008) 

The November 2007 scheme has been further refined as additional processing has 

occurred, and further technical work has been completed to address City and other 

agency concerns. A copy of that further refinement is shown overleaf, as Figure 2B -- 

Revised Redevelopment Concept (2008). 

5



Of particular note in that regard is the additional stormwater management analysis which 

was necessitated by the technical questions and concerns of both the City and the 

GRCA, particularly with regard to upstream and downstream impacts. That additional 

stormwater analysis has led to the conclusion that most of the area of the proposed 

“Junction Park” east of Howitt Creek is required for storm detention during major (100- 

year) storm events, largely owing to a clearer understanding of the existing upstream 

(off-site) flow entering the site from the existing storm drainage system serving the 

neighbourhoods to the north. 

Hence, given these revised stormwater conclusions, coupled with the City’s and CNR’s 

design concerns regarding public access and public safety for park users (given the 

park’s proximity to the rail lines), on balance, it would now appear that the proposed 

open space lands east of the creek, during major storm events, would not be acceptable 

to the City as a public park dedication. Although it is not their preference, Silvercreek 

will instead meet parkland requirements on a cash-in-lieu basis, in order to 

accommodate this preferred solution to the upstream stormwater management issue. 

Since this stormwater facility is essentially remedial in nature – that is, it is geared to 

resolving the existing storm drainage flow which arises wholly off-site from the area to 

the north and is not intended to handle any of the storm flows generated by the 

proposed commercial development west of the creek -- it would be logical for this open 

space/stormwater management area east of the creek to be taken into the City’s 

ownership through conveyance. Under that scenario, the logical zoning category for the 

open space/stormwater management lands east of the creek would then be 

“Conservation Land (P.1) Zone” 

Also of note are the additional (updated) traffic impact and retail market analyses 

intended to address continued agency concerns. In particular, the updated market study 

now provides analyses and impact conclusions which are expressly directed to the 

policy “tests” contained in the City’s Official Plan as now consolidated to incorporate the 

results of the completed “Commercial Policy Review” (OPA 29.) 

A summary of all of the key findings from the foregoing updated technical studies is 

contained in a later section of this planning report. 

6



3.0 UPDATED POLICY and REGULATORY CONTEXT 

The subject site is affected by a number of existing land use policies and zoning 

provisions which are germane to a consideration of the revised subject applications. In 

order to provide an appropriate context in which to weigh the merits of the revised 

development applications, these pertinent provisions are set out in some detail in the 

following subsections. Their implications for the proposal are then analyzed and 

discussed in Section 6 of this updated planning report. 

3.1 Provincial Policy Statement (2005) 

The Provincial Policy Statement (PPS) provides policy direction on matters of provincial 

interest related to land use planning and development. All land use planning decisions 

must be consistent with the PPS, as dictated by the provisions in Section 3 of the 

Planning Act. 

The current version of the PPS came into force on March 1, 2005 and “…supports a 

comprehensive, integrated and long-term approach to planning…[which]…recognizes 

linkages among policy areas.” In particular, it focuses on building strong communities, 

protecting the environment and resources, and supporting a strong economy. It contains 

policies which, among others, provide for the protection of employment areas and the 

long term health and competitiveness of the economic base. 

The following specific policies are of some relevance to the subject proposal: 

1.1.1 Healthy, liveable and safe communities are sustained by: 

a) promoting efficient development and land use patterns which sustain the 

financial well-being of the Province and municipalities over the long term; 

b) accommodating an appropriate range and mix of residential, employment 

(including industrial, commercial and institutional uses), recreational and 

open space uses to meet long-term needs; 

c) avoiding development and land use patterns which may cause environmental 

or public health and safety concerns; 

1.1.2 Sufficient land shall be made available through intensification and redevelopment 

and, if necessary, designated growth areas, to accommodate an appropriate 

range and mix of employment opportunities, housing and other land uses to meet 

projected needs for a time horizon of up to 20 years…. 

1.1.3.3 Planning authorities shall identify and promote opportunities for intensification 

and redevelopment where this can be accommodated taking into account 

existing building stock or areas, including brownfield sites, and the availability 

of suitable existing or planned infrastructure and public service facilities 

required to accommodate projected needs. 

1.3.1 Planning authorities shall promote economic development and 

competitiveness by: 

7



a) providing for an appropriate mix and range of employment (including 

industrial, commercial, and institutional uses) to meet long term needs; 

b) providing opportunities for a diversified economic base, including maintaining 

a range and choice of suitable sites for employment uses which support a 

wide range of economic activities and ancillary uses, and take into account 

the needs of existing and future businesses; 

c) planning for, protecting and preserving employment areas for current and 

future uses; and, 

d) ensuring the necessary infrastructure is provided to support current and 

projected needs. 

1.3.2 Planning authorities may permit conversions of lands within employment areas to 

non-employment uses through a comprehensive review, only where it has been 

demonstrated that the land is not required for employment purposes over the 

long term and that there is a need for the conversion. 

1.7.1 Long-term economic prosperity should be supported by: 

a) optimizing the long-term availability and use of land, resources, infrastructure 

and public service facilities; 

b) maintaining, and where possible, enhancing the vitality and viability of 

downtowns and mainstreets; 

c) promoting the redevelopment of brownfield sites; 

The implementation provisions of the PPS (in section 4.0) acknowledge that Official 

Plans are ”…the most important vehicle for implementation of this Provincial Policy 

Statement.” As such, Official Plans “…shall identify provincial interests and set out 

appropriate land use designations and policies…[and]…provide clear, reasonable and 

attainable policies to protect provincial interests and direct development to suitable 

areas.” 

It is noted that the term “Employment Area” is used above in Policy 1.3.2, and is defined 

by the PPS as follows: “…means those areas designated in an official plan for clusters of 

business and economic activities including, but not limited to, manufacturing, 

warehousing, offices and associated retail and ancillary facilities.” (emphasis added.) 

The applicability of 1.3.2 to major retail proposals on employment lands under the 2005 

PPS will be discussed in further detail in Section 6.2.1 of this report. 

3.2 Growth Plan for Greater Golden Horseshoe (2006) 

The Growth Plan for the Greater Golden Horseshoe (“Growth Plan”) is a major policy 

document approved by the Province in June 2006 under the Places to Grow Act. The 

Growth Plan represents another senior level policy that is of some significance for 

employment lands, for those development applications which fall under its purview. 

8



However, the Silvercreek application is not subject to the provisions of the Growth Plan, 

by virtue of the original application date in 2005 which pre-dated the in-force date of the 

Growth Plan, and the related transitional regulations which clearly indicate that prior 

applications are exempt from the Growth Plan’s provisions. 

3.3 City of Guelph Official Plan 

This discussion of the City’s Official Plan is based upon the latest consolidation 

available, dated November 2006, and incorporating the provisions of OPA 29, which 

reflected the outcome of the City’s Commercial Policy Review. 

3.3.1 Land Use Designations 

At a site-specific level, as shown on the accompanying Figure 3 -- Schedule 1 – Land 

Use Plan, the Plan’s land use designation on the site is “Industrial” on Schedule 1 – 

Land Use Plan, and it is superimposed with a “Non-Core Greenlands Overlay”, 

applicable to Howitt Creek and its related valley/floodplain which bisects the site in a 

north/south direction. The particulars of these designations are discussed later in this 

section of the report. 

3.3.2 Major Goals 

From a more general perspective, the Plan’s “Major Goals” are found under “Basis” in 

Section 2.3, among which the following are seen to be particularly germane in this 

instance: 

“2. Promote a compact and staged development pattern to maintain the distinct 

urban/rural physical separation and to avoid sprawl and premature development.” 

“4. Direct development to those areas where municipal services and related physical 

infrastructure are most readily or can be made available, considering existing 

land uses, natural heritage features, development constraints, development costs 

and related factors.” 

“11. Respect and encourage the protection and enhancement of the natural 

environment, other distinctive features of the landscape and the associated 

ecological functions to support a healthy and diverse ecosystem both within and 

beyond City limits.” 

“14. Develop an appropriate framework to facilitate the full range of commercial uses 

consistent with the needs of the City’s population and employment base and 

supportive of the City’s transportation objectives.” 

“15. Maintain and strengthen the role of the Central Business District (Downtown) as 

a major focal area for investment, employment and residential uses…” 

3.3.3 Community Form, Urban Form and Urban Design 

Section 3 of the Plan addresses “General Policies”, and in 3.2, includes a discussion of 

“Community Form”, which includes the following relevant “General Development 

Objective”: 

9



“a) 

To guide the direction, location, scale and timing of growth in order to ensure 

compact, orderly and sustainable development and to minimize the cost of 

municipal services and related infrastructure.” 

Section 3.3.1 on “Urban Form” policies includes the following of relevance intended to 

“…promote a compact urban form and gradual expansion of existing urban 

development…”: 

“a) 

“d) 

“e) 

“i) 

Encouraging intensification and redevelopment of existing urban areas in a 

manner that is compatible with existing built form;” 

Encouraging intensification of residential, commercial, industrial and institutional 

areas to maximize efficient use of municipal services;” 

Promoting mixed uses in appropriate locations throughout the City to provide 

residents opportunities to live, learn, work, shop, recreate, gather and worship in 

close proximity.” 

Promoting reuse, revitalization and redevelopment of commercial or industrial 

sites that are under-utilized or no longer in use;” 

The Plan’s discussion of “Urban Design” is found in Section 3.6, with the following 

“Objectives” of particular note: 

“c) 

“h) 

To practice environmentally sustainable urban development by adhering to urban 

design principles that respect the natural features, reinforce natural processes 

and conserve natural resources.” 

To encourage compatibility and quality in the built environment while allowing for 

a diverse expression of site design by establishing design principles and 

guidelines to encourage excellence in design.” 

The Plan’s “General Policies” on urban design acknowledge the helpful role that urban 

design guidelines can play in interpreting the Plan’s urban design directions, and set the 

stage for precinct-specific guidelines, as follows: “Detailed urban design guidelines may 

be prepared for the City as a whole or for specific areas.” 

Specific urban design policies focused on development in non-residential areas include, 

in Section 3.6.20, a number of specific design directives, including the following of 

relevance to the proposed development concept : 

“2. Buildings should be oriented toward the street and provide direct user entrances 

from adjacent streets and walkways…” 

“3. Walkways should be provided directly from the public sidewalk and from parking 

areas to the main entrance(s) of the building(s). These walkways should be wellarticulated, 

safe and accessible and integrated with the overall network of 

pedestrian linkages in the area.” 

Taking its cue from the urban design directions in the Official Plan, a revised design brief 

was prepared and submitted in support of the November 2007 revised concept. That 

10



document is titled “City of Guelph – Lafarge Site, Urban Design Guidelines & Concept 

Plan for Future Commercial and Mixed-Use Brownfield Development”, and was jointly 

prepared by Brook McIlroy and Michael Spaziani Architect. A synopsis is provided in 

Section 5.5 of this planning report. 

3.3.4 Development Staging 

The Plan’s provisions on “Staging of Development” are found in Section 4.2 and on 

Schedule 4, and categorize the subject site as “Stage 2 “. More specifically, the Plan 

states that “Priority for the extension of municipal trunk services shall be given to those 

lands designated as Stage 2 servicing areas”, where development proposals are to be 

considered as services become available. 

3.3.5 Community Improvement 

The Plan addresses “Community Improvement and Renewal” in Section 4.7. Among the 

stated objectives is the following intention: 

“b) 

To encourage the renewal, rehabilitation or redevelopment of private and public 

properties in order to maintain a safe and pleasant built environment within the 

community.” 

The accompanying policies indicate the City’s intent to designate “Community 

Improvement Areas”, based on a series of specific planning criteria, and as a precursor 

to the preparation of community improvement plans. Section 4.7.3 further expresses the 

specific intent to consider designating older established areas as shown on Schedule 5 

of the Plan. One of those identified is “The Junction Lands Area – Area 4”, which 

includes the subject site. 

Further, in the same Section 4.7.3, the Official Plan specifically acknowledges the City’s 

adoption of a “Brownfield Redevelopment Community Improvement Plan” (CIP) in March 

2004, which includes all Community Improvement Areas shown on Schedule 5 of the 

Official Plan. Again, the subject property is among the brownfields sites (shown on 

Figure 3 of the CIP) identified within the Community Improvement Project Area which is 

the subject of this CIP. 

The stated purpose of the CIP and related financing programs “…is to establish where 

the City envisions clean-up and redevelopment should take place, and to provide 

incentives that will support and encourage these kinds of community improvement 

activities.” The CIP also notes the key public benefits which flow from the 

redevelopment or reuse of brownfields, including the following; 

• “More effective use of existing municipal infrastructure;” 

• “Reduction in pressure for suburban expansion;” 

• “Clean-up of environmentally contaminated sites;” 

• “Increased tax revenue and job creation.” 

11



3.3.6 Contaminated Properties 

In a similar vein, Section 5.6 of the Official Plan addresses “Potentially Contaminated 

Properties”, with a policy focus which requires the clean-up of contaminated properties 

to a standard appropriate to the intended (re)use of a site proposed for (re)development. 

Among the policy requirements is the need for a development proponent to provide 

documentary proof of appropriate clean-up of a known or suspected contaminated site, 

prior to any development approval being given by the City. 

In this instance, that evidence has been provided by the completion of Records of Site 

Condition (RSC’s) for both the east and west portions of the property. The easterly RSC 

has been received and acknowledged by the Ministry of the Environment (MOE), while 

the westerly one is in the final stages of MOE’s review process. The RSC’s were 

preceded by Phase I and II Environmental Site Assessments, which set the stage for 

appropriate remediation of identified contaminants, consistent with MOE requirements 

and standards. 

3.3.7 Natural Heritage and Environmental Impact 

In Section 6, the Plan addresses “Natural Heritage Features”, including a series of 

objectives intended to identify and protect natural features and ecological functions. 

With specific reference to the subject site, both Schedule 1 – Land Use Plan and 

Schedule 2 – Natural Heritage Features and Development Constraints reflect the 

existence of Howitt Creek and its associated valley/floodplain, through the middle of the 

property. 

In Section 6.3, the Plan sets out requirements for “Environmental Impact Studies” (EIS) 

to be prepared, which are intended to “…examine the potential negative impacts that 

development proposals may have on natural heritage features”, and to set out 

monitoring and mitigation strategies. 

As will be discussed in detail later in this report, an EIS and several subsequent 

addenda (addressing agency comments/concerns and the revisions to the proposed 

development concept) have been submitted in support of the subject proposal. 

3.3.8 Central Business District 

The land use policies in Section 7 of the Plan include a discrete section separately 

devoted to the “Central Business District (Downtown)”, reflecting its historic and 

continuing primacy in Guelph’s urban structure, as the most significant “central place” in 

the City. In particular, the Plan’s objectives for the C.B.D. include the following succinct 

statement of its higher-order planned function, in Section 7.3 b): 

“To promote the development of the C.B.D. as a vibrant multiple use, multiple 

function district providing institutional, civic and public service uses, residential 

uses, recreational and cultural uses and a variety of commercial functions 

including office and other services, retail and entertainment uses serving both the 

wider city as well as the downtown area residential neighbourhoods.” 

12



In our view, it is important to acknowledge the relative importance and function of the 

C.B.D., in order to provide an appropriate context for any planning assessment of a 

major mixed commercial development such as is proposed here. 

3.3.9 Commercial and Mixed Use 

The land use policies of the Plan which are most germane to this development proposal 

are those governing commercial uses, as set out in Section 7.4, “Commercial and Mixed 

Use”. Several relevant objectives are articulated there, as follows: 

“a) 

“b) 

“c) 

“h) 

To ensure an adequate supply of commercial and mixed use land is provided to 

meet the variety of needs of residents and businesses and to disperse and 

distribute commercial uses throughout the City at appropriate locations.” 

To promote nodes forming major concentrations of commercial activity as mixed 

use areas providing commercial and complementary uses serving both nearby 

residential neighbourhoods and the wider community which are connected to 

each other via the City’s major transportation and transit networks.” 

To promote the continued economic viability, intensification and revitalization of 

the Central Business District (Downtown) and other existing designated 

commercial and mixed use areas.” 

To promote a distinctive and high standard of building and landscape design for 

commercial and mixed use lands and to ensure that the development of these 

lands occurs in a cohesive, complementary and coordinated manner.” 

Section 7.4.1 refers to “…the location of the various designated commercial and mixed 

use areas expected to be required to meet the needs of the City during the planning 

period in keeping with the City’s approved Commercial Policy Review Study.” Those 

locations are identified on Schedule 1 (Land Use Plan.) 

Section 7.4.2 is a pivotal policy especially pertinent to the subject proposal, because it 

addresses proposals for new or expanded commercial and mixed-use areas. That 

policy reads as follows: 

“Subject to the policies of Section 9.2, proposals to establish new commercial 

and mixed use areas or to expand the areas identified on Schedule 1 shall 

require an amendment to this Plan. Proposals to convert Industrial and 

Corporate Business Park designated land for commercial purposes shall only be 

considered in conjunction with applicable Provincial policies, plans and 

legislation.” 

The companion policy 7.4.3 regarding impact studies is also especially noteworthy in this 

instance, and reads as follows: 

“Impact studies meeting the requirements outlined in policy 7.4.49 to 7.4.52 shall 

be required to assess the impact on the City’s commercial policy structure when 

proposals are made to: 

13



• to establish or expand a ‘Mixed Use Node or ‘Intensification Node’’ 

beyond the designation limit boundaries as shown on Schedule 1; 

• to exceed the retail floor area limitations within a ‘Mixed Use Node’ 

established in policy 7.4.12 or the number of large retail uses in policy 

7.4.13;” 

3.3.9.1 Mixed Use Node 

Resulting from the commercial policy changes introduced through OPA 29 (CPR), the 

Plan now utilizes four separate land use designations to facilitate commercial and mixed 

use development. Of primary interest in this instance is the category “Mixed Use Node”, 

as that is the current designation sought by Silvercreek through its appeal of the subject 

applications. 

Key policy directions for the “Mixed Use Nodes” (as designated on Schedule 1 of the 

Plan) are as follows: 

• intended to serve both the wider City and residents’ needs in nearby 

neighbourhoods (7.4.5); 

• intended to create “…a well-defined focal point and to efficiently use the land 

base by grouping complementary uses in close proximity to one another 

providing the opportunity to satisfy several shopping and service needs in one 

location” (7.4.6); 

• delineated by boundaries intended to “…clearly distinguish the node as a distinct 

entity from adjacent land use designations”; 

• any expansion proposals beyond those boundaries, or to establish a new node, 

require an Official Plan amendment and supporting impact studies as per the 

requirements of policies 7.48 to 7.52 (7.4.8); 

• intended to provide a wide range of retail, service, entertainment and 

recreational commercial uses, and complementary uses (open space, 

institutional, cultural and educational, hotels, live-work studios), as well as 

medium and high density residential development (subject to applicable 

residential policies), and small-scale professional and medical offices (7.4.9); 

• building forms may include vertical or horizontal mixing of permitted uses within 

the same building or mall, or free-standing individual buildings; developments 

with a single-use building greater than 5,575 sq. m (60,000 sq. ft.) GLFA are 

required to provide the opportunity for “…smaller buildings amenable to the 

provision of local goods and services to be located near intersections and 

immediately adjacent to the street line near transit facilities”; at least 10% of the 

total GLFA in the overall development is to be comprised of such smaller 

buildings (7.4.10); 

• intended to require the “…aesthetic character of site and building design…be 

consistent with the City’s urban design objectives and guidelines…” (7.4.11) 

14



In addition, the Plan imposes scale restrictions on the designated Mixed Use Nodes 

through several related policies, as follows: 

“7.4.12 The Mixed Use Nodes incorporate land containing existing uses as well as 

vacant land required to meet the identified needs of the City. In order to 

promote a mixture of land uses within each ‘Mixed Use Node’ designation it 

is the intent of this Plan that new retail development will be limited to the 

following floor area cumulatively of all buildings within the node: 

• Woodlawn/Woolwich Street Node: 42,000 sq. m 

• Paisley/Imperial Node: 42,000 sq. m 

• Watson Parkway/Starwood Node: 28,000 sq. m 

• Gordon/Clair Node: 48,500 sq. m 

7.4.13 No individual ‘Mixed Use Node’ shall have more than four (4) freestanding 

individual retail uses exceeding 5,575 square metres (60,000 sq. ft.) of gross 

leasable floor area. 

7.4.14 in accordance with Section 9.2, any proposal to exceed the retail floor area 

limitations within a Mixed Use Node established in policy 7.4.12 or the 

number of large retail uses in policy 7.4.13 shall require impact studies as 

outlined in policies 7.4.48 to 7.4.52.” 

3.3.9.2 Urban Design – Commercial and Mixed Use Areas 

Sections 7.4.39 to 7.4.47 (inclusive) of the Plan articulate a series of urban design 

policies specifically focused on commercial and mixed use developments, and intended 

“…to create distinctive, functional and high quality commercial and mixed use areas.” 

The specific matters addressed include the following: 

• intersections – including building massing, orientation and placement, “gateway” 

and “signature” design treatment and landscaping, location of parking and 

loading 

• street edges – including landscape strips, building location to define streets, 

location and screening of service areas 

• pedestrian movement and comfort – including decorative pavement and 

landscaping treatment, interconnection with existing trail systems and transit 

stops, barrier-free design, weather protection at main building entrances, 

provision of “rest areas” in large developments, transit transfer terminal facilities 

in large developments in specified nodes 

• large buildings – articulation of long facades, screening of roof-top equipment, 

reinforcement of heritage character, integration of outdoor display areas 

• adjacent development – design strategies for development in proximity to 

residential and institutional uses, to address compatibility issues(massing, noise, 

screening, perimeter landscape buffering, etc.) 

15



• environmental design – design to support energy efficiency and water 

conservation (storm water infiltration, “green” building designs, alternative 

energy, etc.) 

• implementation – incorporate measures in the Zoning By-law and site plan 

approval process to meet the City’s urban design objectives 

3.3.9.3 Impact Studies 

Section 7.4.48 re-iterates the circumstances under which impact studies (on market, 

planning and infrastructure impact) are required to be submitted and approved by 

Council; the subject proposal is subject to these impact study requirements by virtue of 

its intent to establish a new Mixed Use Node. 

The specific policy ”tests” to be met by an appropriate market impact study are 

addressed in Section 7.4.49. The required market impact study must demonstrate that: 

• “the proposal can be justified without detriment to the overall function or 

economic vitality of the ‘Central Business District’ or the key component functions 

that contribute to the C.B.D.’s overall vitality; 

• the achievement of the City’s major Goals, the Urban Form policies or the 

Commercial and Mixed Use policy objectives of the Official Plan will not be 

compromised; and, 

• the ability of existing designated commercial or mixed use lands to achieve their 

planned function will not be compromised.” 

The Plan further sets out, in Section 7.4.50, the required scope of a market impact study, 

including the following: 

• an assessment of the current market situation and future potential for retail 

expansion (based on growth projections); 

• an evaluation of the proposal’s economic feasibility (based on current market 

demand); 

• the scale of any adverse effects on the economic viability of the C.B.D. and on 

existing or planned (designated) commercial or mixed use lands; and, 

• an assessment of the proposal’s implications relative to the approved CPR Study 

and the Plan’s objectives and implementing policies. 

The above market study tests and components have been addressed in a 

comprehensive updated (June 2008) market demand and impact analysis, the key 

findings of which are discussed in Section 5.1 of this planning report. 

Section 7.4.51 addresses the scope of an appropriate planning study, which is to include 

“…site and building design concepts at sufficient detail to demonstrate, among other 

matters:” 

16



• compatibility of the proposal with adjacent planned land uses; 

• mitigation of potential development impacts (noise, activity, lighting, visual) on 

existing and future land uses in the area; 

• potential development impacts on the physical environment and natural features 

of the property and area, and related mitigation; and, 

• development of the proposal in a functional and aesthetically acceptable manner, 

consistent with urban design policies and any urban design guidelines. 

These planning considerations have been addressed either in this updated planning 

report or in the November 2007 urban design brief previously submitted to the City in 

support of the November 2007 revised concept. 

Lastly, Section 7.4.52 calls for an appropriate infrastructure study to address the 

following: 

• the adequacy of road and intersection capacity to accommodate the proposal’s 

anticipated traffic 

• the adequacy of hard servicing capacity and stormwater management systems to 

accommodate the proposal; and, 

• the availability of adequate on-site parking, loading, pedestrian and vehicular 

circulation systems. 

These key infrastructure matters have been addressed in the original (2005) planning 

report (based upon analysis provided by the servicing consultant), the updated urban 

design analysis (2007) and development concept, the updated (2008) traffic impact 

study, and the updated (2008) stormwater management report. The key findings from 

the latter two technical reports are canvassed in Section 5.0 of this updated planning 

report. Additional, more detailed design on parking, loading and circulation (vehicular 

and pedestrian) matters will be addressed at the site plan approval stage. 

3.3.9.4 Intensification Areas 

Given the nature of the subject proposal, the other key commercial land use category 

among the Plan’s four commercial land use designations is “Intensification Area”. 

Although different than Silvercreek’s requested “Mixed Use Node” designation, 

“Intensification Areas” (IA’s) form part of City’s planned commercial structure, and are to 

be addressed by any required market impact study. Thus, some understanding of the 

planned function and key governing policies in IA’s (from Sections 7.4.15 to 7.4.21 of the 

Plan) is also appropriate, in the context of both this planning report and the updated 

market impact study discussed later in this report. 

IA’s are “…comprised of one or several individual developments on one or more 

properties within a “node”…. Similar to Mixed Use Nodes, IA’s are to serve both the 

wider City and nearby residents, and the Plan intends the IA designation “…to promote 

the intensification and revitalization of existing well defined commercial nodes… Also 

17



similar is the wide scope of permitted uses intended for IA’s by the Plan, including 

commercial (retail, service, office, entertainment, recreational), complementary open 

space, institutional, cultural and educational uses, and medium and high density 

residential. 

3.3.10 Existing Site Designations 

As previously summarized, the subject lands are designated “Industrial” on Schedule 1, 

and subject to the policies of Section 7.7, which state several objectives that include the 

following of note: 

“a) 

“b) 

To ensure sufficient serviced industrial land to attract a diversified range of 

industrial activities.” 

To ensure efficient utilization of existing industrial land and promote 

redevelopment of under-utilized or obsolete sites.” 

The permitted uses in the “Industrial” designation include a wide variety of industrial and 

related uses (such as warehousing, processing, repair and servicing, transportation 

terminals, contractors’ yards), plus various complementary uses which do not detract 

from the primary industrial activity. Commercial uses are not generally permitted, except 

for factory sales outlets related to manufacturing activities on the same site. 

As a general principle, the Plan expresses (in Section 7.7.6) the City’s intent to 

“…ensure an adequate supply and variety of serviced industrial land to meet the 

requirements of industrial development.” 

There is also an “overlay” designation on Schedule 1 applicable to the central portion of 

the site occupied by Howitt Creek and its associated valley/floodplain. That designation 

is “Non-Core Greenlands overlay”. The related policies in Section 7.13.5 of the Plan 

indicate that this overlay is typically applied to lands which “…may contain natural 

heritage features, natural feature adjacent lands and natural hazard lands that should be 

afforded protection from development.” 

Any development of such lands is subject to the policies of the underlying land use 

designation and those of Section 6 where a natural heritage feature is involved, as is the 

case here. In addition, an environmental impact study is required, and has been 

undertaken (with several addenda), as previously noted. The Plan further expresses the 

intent, in Section 7.13.7, “…that the natural heritage features associated with the Non- 

Core Greenlands overlay are to be protected for their ecological value and function.” 

In addition, it should be noted that Section 8.2.33 b) of the Plan, related to “Railways”, 

lists the Silvercreek Parkway and CNR crossing (as part of the Silvercreek connection to 

paisley Road), as one of the City’s desired grade separations “…to minimize road/rail 

conflict.” 

3.3.11 Official Plan Amendments 

Section 9.3 of the Plan details a series of matters to be considered in relation to a 

proposed amendment to the Official Plan. In brief, those matters are as follows: 

18



• conformity of proposal to Plan’s goals and objectives; 

• site suitability for proposed use, especially in relation to other sites; 

• compatibility of proposed use with adjacent designations; 

• need for proposed use (given population and employment projections); 

• market feasibility; 

• extent of development/availability of other areas designated for proposed use; 

• impact of proposal on infrastructure (sewage, water, waste management, 

system, transportation), community facilities, and natural environment; and, 

• financial implications of proposed development. 

These planning considerations are addressed in Section 6.2.2 of this report. 

3.4 City of Guelph Zoning By-law 

As shown on the accompanying Figure 4 -- Existing Zoning, the City’s comprehensive 

Zoning By-law No.(1995) -14864 zones the subject site as “Industrial B.4 Zone”. 

There is also an “overlay” shading applicable to the portion of the site occupied by Howitt 

Creek and its associated floodplain/valleylands, which overlay identifies that part of the 

site as “Lands with one of the following: locally significant wetlands, significant wood lots, 

natural corridor, or linkage (see Section 13.4)” 

The provisions of the referenced Section 13.4 in the text simply reinforce the Official 

Plan requirement for an environmental impact study whenever such lands are the 

subject of applications for an Official Plan amendment, zoning amendment, a draft plan 

of subdivision or a consent. 

The underlying “B.4” zone provisions permit a range of uses which includes catering 

service, cleaning establishment, contractor’s yard, manufacturing, repair service, towing 

establishment, tradesperson’s shop, trucking operation, veterinary service, warehouse, 

accessory uses (such as office, factory sales outlet.) 

Also permitted in the B.4 Zone are industrial malls containing any of the above uses, as 

well as one or more of the following: 

• commercial recreation 

• computer establishment 

• display and retail sales of appliances, furniture and other household furnishings, 

hardware, and home improvement materials 

• financial establishment 

• industrial or construction equipment rental or sales firm 

• office 

• office supply 

• personal service establishment 

19



• photofinishing place 

• print shop 

• research establishment 

• restaurant 

• vehicle specialty repair 

Given the range of permitted uses set out above, several of the uses requested through 

the Silvercreek zoning application/appeal are already permitted by the existing B.4 Zone 

which applies to the site – including financial establishment, office, personal service 

establishment, restaurant, commercial school and veterinary service. Nonetheless, the 

supporting studies have analyzed the entire 400,000 sq. ft. proposed as a “new 

development.” 

Most components of the subject development proposal, aside from those uses 

specifically noted above, do require a rezoning to permit them, as was originally applied 

for and has been appealed to the Ontario Municipal Board. The zoning category being 

sought is site-specific, being a Specialized Community Shopping Centre (CC) Zone, with 

provisions tailored to suit the subject proposal. 

20



4.0 CITY STAFF RECOMMENDATIONS and CONCERNS 

In the context of the OMB appeals filed by Silvercreek, as already noted, the City has 

continued processing of the applications to facilitate a Council position for those Board 

proceedings. The resulting June 3, 2008 Planning staff report contained 

recommendations for a Council position going forward through the rest of the prehearing 

process, and a detailed technical discussion of the policy issues and remaining 

technical concerns related to the revised development concept. 

In summary, staff’s key recommendation was that Council pass a five-fold resolution, 

covering the following matters: 

• that Council not support the requested OP amendment and rezoning as 

proposed, because: 

‣ the general OP amendment tests and the specific amendment tests for 

establishment of a new mixed use node, as set out in the Official Plan, 

haven’t been adequately addressed; and, 

‣ the outstanding environmental, engineering and other technical issues must 

be adequately addressed prior to consideration of the proposed amendments 

for approval; 

• that Council authorize staff and advisors to participate in and report back on 

further discussions and/or mediations (if any) among the OMB parties, to 

consider any modifications to the proposed development and planning 

documents, including additional technical information, which must address 

outstanding concerns (as per this staff report); 

• if the OMB finds the amendments (in current or modified form) should be 

approved, that a holding provision should be imposed on the zoning to ensure 

the development is appropriately serviced and developed; 

• that the City will not be able to make specific recommendations regarding 

appropriate holding provisions until remaining environmental, engineering and 

other technical issues (as per this staff report) have been adequately addressed; 

and, 

• that Council authorizes and directs legal counsel and staff to attend the OMB 

proceedings in support of its position as set out in this resolution. 

The balance of this lengthy and comprehensive staff report then provides an overview of 

the project history and the requested amendments, and the key staff and agency issues 

and concerns are then canvassed at length. 

The following is an overview of those issues and concerns: 

• the appropriateness of the change in planned use from industrial to retail 

commercial, and the related implications; 

21



• the proposed amendment does not satisfy the policy tests in the Official Plan for 

an amendment to establish a new mixed use node, or the general tests for an 

amendment, particularly in the following respects: 

‣ the need to demonstrate that the proposed new node won’t compromise the 

capacity of the existing and designated commercial or mixed use lands to 

achieve their planned function; 

‣ the submitted market study didn’t properly address any adverse effects on 

the economic viability of existing or planned designated commercial or mixed 

use lands, or look at the implications of the proposal relative to the CPR or 

the Plan’s commercial objectives and policies; and, 

‣ the Clayton peer review (related to the initial 2005 TER market study 

submitted with the Silvercreek application) raised concerns about likely 

undesirable consequences for the future retailing function of the West Hills 

mixed use node and the Willow West Mall (and area) intensification area 

(NOTE: these have been addressed in the 2008 TER updated market report 

discussed in section 5.1 of this planning report); 

• there are outstanding technical issues, including the following: 

‣ the acceptability of BA Group’s proposed modifications to the existing road 

system recommended in their traffic impact study; 

‣ the unresolved issues related to the proposed Silvercreek underpass of the 

CNR (including road grades, access for some properties, need for sidewalks 

and bike lanes) -- staff view this underpass connection as an absolute 

requirement for the proposed development; 

‣ updated comments from MTO (still to be received at the June 3 rd date of the 

staff report), regarding their position on the proposal, the underpass, 

intersection improvements and any relevant conditions; and, 

‣ outstanding issues with the environmental impact study and stormwater 

management study, with EIS addendum SWM modifications expected, 

including further evaluation of downstream impacts, impacts of constructing 

inlet and outlet facilities to storm ponds, and details of construction limit 

adjacent to creek; 

• the City has concerns about accepting the proposed parkland dedication, 

including the following: 

‣ public access and liability; 

‣ the role of that easterly area of the site, as part of the stormwater 

management solution for the development, which has led staff to conclude it 

should remain in private ownership and be appropriately fenced adjacent to 

the railway tracks; and, 

22



‣ given the strong neighbourhood desire for a public park east of the creek 

continue access discussions, including consideration of a new public street 

providing appropriate park frontage and exclusive parking. 

City staff also set out a number of recommended conditions, in the event of development 

approval by Council or the OMB, based on then-existing information, and subject to 

additional requirements once additional technical information is provided and reviewed. 

Those items and conditions are summarized as follows: 

• cost of all road improvements (including underpass) to be developer’s responsibility; 

• Schedule B Environmental Assessment required for proposed underpass; 

• GRCA confirmation that permits required for inlet and outlet construction, and that 

they must approve SWM solution for development; 

• zoning modifications to reflect development limits and any revised floodlines; 

• SWM pond east of creek to be in place prior to development (to address current 

overland flows to west during larger storm events); 

• all servicing costs to be developer’s responsibility, and several conditions (eg. noise 

and lighting) appropriate for site plan approval; 

• if Council supports proposed park dedication, appropriate conditions re site 

preparation work (grading, landscaping, fencing) at developer’s expense. 

Staff note that final comments from the key agencies (based on further technical 

analysis/information) are expected to generate additional approval conditions, thus 

staff’s current list cannot yet be considered comprehensive, in the context of a potential 

Council or OMB approval. 

Staff further recommended that necessary conditions on any development approval be 

secured through the use of an “H” (holding) provision on the implementing zoning, with 

several potential triggers, including: the approval of the Schedule B Environmental 

Assessment; awarding a contract for the construction commencement of the underpass; 

and, execution/registration of a site plan agreement with relevant approval conditions. 

Staff also recommended that Council be open to the consideration of modifications to 

the proposal and the related planning documents by the applicant (and/or other parties) 

to address the various concerns in the staff report. 

The foregoing outstanding concerns and technical issues warrant re-visiting in the more 

current context of the updated technical studies summarized in Section 5 below. These 

matters will be further addressed in the planning discussion found in Section 6 of this 

planning report. 

23



5.0 SYNOPSIS of UPDATED TECHNICAL STUDIES 

In response to various technical issues and public concerns which have arisen during 

the processing of the subject applications, and related changes in the proposed 

development concept, several of the key supporting studies have been updated or 

supplemented. These studies are quite germane to the suitability and planning 

appropriateness of the subject proposal. They are discussed in summary fashion in the 

following subsection, and have been submitted to the City under separate cover. 

5.1 Market Demand and Impact Analysis 

Silvercreek’s retail market consultant, Tate Economic Research (“TER”), produced an 

updated analysis of retail market demand and impact, dated June 2008. This updated 

report replaced the earlier one from 2005, relating to the initial development proposal as 

originally submitted. 

Three key factors prompting this update include the changes to the proposed 

development concept, the comments and concerns of the City’s market peer reviewer 

(Clayton Research) related to the original (2005) TER report, and the changed market 

“tests” and related new commercial policy regime introduced into the Official Plan by 

OPA 29, following the City’s Commercial Policy Review. 

Within the context of a reduced total development scale of 37,160 sq. m (400,000 sq. 

ft.), TER’s market analysis in this updated report was based upon two alternative 

development scenarios. The first would be anchored by both a warehouse membership 

club (WMC) and a home improvement centre, while the second would be anchored only 

by a WMC, with the balance of the proposed floor space accounted for by a larger 

complement of ancillary retail uses. 

TER’s study approach included the expected scope appropriate to this sort of market 

study, including primary research, consumer surveys, field inspections and a detailed 

demand and impact analysis. The report set the stage for that analysis by providing an 

overview of the City’s Commercial Policy Review (CPR), including the background, 

market approach and findings, staff recommendations and Council actions culminating in 

the adoption of OPA 29. 

Among TER’s comments and observations about the CPR are the following of note: 

• The associated market analysis by Robin Dee & Associates was conducted on a 

pure “residual” basis, “…which studies only future demand for retail space, over 

the existing levels of retail/commercial space in the City of Guelph.” Thus, “…it 

does not take into account demand due to transfers of sales from existing 

retailers”, but rather, relies purely on projected population growth. Dee’s pure 

residual analysis is thus deemed to be “…a conservative approach to planning 

for commercial space and does not reflect the actual operations of the 

competitive marketplace.” Accordingly, TER further notes that “…there is 

potential for additional retail over and above the 2.2 million square feet warranted 

in the CPR.” 

24



• Dee’s residual analysis to the year 2021 indicated significant demand for retail 

and service space in Guelph, ranging between 1,926,000 sq. ft. in the “Reference 

Growth” scenario and 2,225,000 sq. ft. in the “High Growth” scenario. 

• The implementing OPA 29 allocated the majority of the projected space to the 

four designated commercial nodes, but omitted the specific component of floor 

space that had been recommended through the CPR process for intensification. 

• TER quoted Clayton’s peer review of TER’s 2005 market study as stating that 

“…a dynamic viable retail market will likely result in sales transfers from existing 

stores at various times, with up to 7.5-10 percent of existing sales being an 

acceptable range of impact.” TER equated that to an additional 470,000 to 

630,000 sq, ft of retail/service space, based on Guelph’s existing space 

inventory. 

• TER notes the following germane observation made by the City’s CPR consultant 

(Meridian) in the context of their recommended CPR approach: 

“The Lafarge site is currently the subject of a separate planning process and the 

final recommendation will result, in part, from the conclusion of that process. It 

may offer an opportunity for a second location for large format retail uses, closer 

to the existing population base and closer to the Downtown, potentially 

minimizing impacts.” 

• TER also quotes the following comment specific to the subject site, from the late 

June 2005 City staff report # 05-83: 

“While the lands are currently designated for industrial use, it is highly likely that 

they will transition to some other form of land use given the location. In recent 

years a number of alternative ideas have been proposed including commercial 

use of the land. It is premature to establish an alternative principle of land use 

for these lands -- including commercial use, given the important technical 

considerations to be addressed…The current development proponents are 

investigating these matters and are initiating neighbourhood consultation. If and 

when applications are made for these lands, they will need to be considered on 

their own merits…” 

The following is a summary of the key findings and conclusions which resulted from 

TER’s updated market demand and impact analysis: 

• The subject site is seen to be “…an excellent ‘brownfield’ redevelopment 

opportunity…” for the City, because it has sat vacant since the 1994 closure of 

the former Lafarge operation, and because the subject proposal reflects a 

redevelopment opportunity which is consistent with Guelph’s planning objectives. 

• The site is well-located to serve both Guelph residents and those beyond, given 

the following factors: 

o 

its central location in the City (about 2 kms west of C.B.D.); 

25



o its proximity to Hanlon Expressway/Highway 6 and Wellington 

Street/Highway 7, thus affording access to entire City and surrounding 

communities; and, 

o it would be the preferred central Guelph location for a WMC, from a 

market demand perspective. 

• The C.B.D. represents the largest node of retail and service space (25.8% of the 

City’s total of 6.3 million sq. ft.). The City-wide commercial space vacancy rate is 

4.8%, while the C.B.D. has a vacancy rate of 4.5%. Vacancy rates below 5% 

“…are often indicative of a market that is underserved.” 

• The site is seen to be complementary to the Mixed Use Nodes, which are 

dispersed through the City, given its central location, its superior overall 

accessibility due to proximity to a highway interchange (unique among Guelph’s 

commercial nodes), and its closer proximity to the C.B.D. than the designated 

mixed use nodes, which offers cross-shopping opportunities. 

• Although not included in the CPR, the site potential for redevelopment as a retail 

commercial centre was recognized. 

• The CPR’s indicated demand for 2.2 million sq. ft. of additional retail and service 

space by the year 2021 may be understated, based on several considerations: 

o because the underlying CPR population growth assumption was 157,000 by 

2027, while City staff’s subsequent recommendation was 165,000 by the year 

2031, and Guelph’s population target under Places to Grow is actually 

183,000 by the year 2031; 

[NOTE: the City’s Growth Management Strategy targets a population of 169,000 

by 2031, although it is not known whether the Province has approved that 

alternative to the above-noted Places to grow target.] 

o the basis of the space demand calculated in the CPR was the residual 

approach (assuming no impact on existing retailers), which does not reflect 

the actual operation of the competitive marketplace; and, 

o the Clayton peer review of TER’s 2005 market study acknowledged sales 

transfers of up to 7.5 to 10 percent as being “…an acceptable range of 

impact”, which TER equates to a further 470,000 to 630,000 sq. ft. of 

warranted retail and service space. 

• The subject commercial development, at 400,000 sq. ft., is warranted on the 

basis of market demand, given Guelph’s continued growth, and TER’s related 

future population estimates. 

• The subject proposal will not produce significant impacts on existing or proposed 

designated commercial centres or mixed use nodes, on the following basis: 

26



o TER’s analysis accounted for the full retail build-out of the four designated 

mixed use nodes, and any active retail applications, including the proposed 

redevelopment of Willow West Mall (calculated by TER to represent a net 

floor space increase of 46,600 sq. ft. of non food-oriented retail space); 

Willow West Mall represents an important component of the designated 

“Intensification Area” in the northwest part of the City (closest to the site) at 

Silvercreek Parkway and Willow Road; 

o in the opinion of TER, the components of the proposal “…can be justified 

without detriment to the overall function or economic vitality of the C.B.D.”; 

and, 

o in TER’s view, the proposal will not compromise the Official Plan’s policy 

objectives for Commercial and Mixed Use development, nor will it 

“…compromise the ability of existing designated commercial or mixed use 

lands, including Intensification Areas, to achieve their planned function.” 

5.2 Traffic Impact Study 

The proponent’s traffic consultant, BA Consulting Group, produced an updated traffic 

impact assessment, with a revision date of May 2008. This update relates to the 

evolution of the proposed redevelopment since its 2005 origins, and also reflects 

continuing dialogue with the public agencies regarding technical traffic issues arising 

from the redevelopment scheme. 

This updated report specifically addresses the revised concept, on the basis of a scale of 

38,000 sq. m (409,030 sq. ft.) of retail and service commercial space. 

The key study parameters were as follows: 

• traffic forecasts related to planning horizons of five and ten years, starting from the 

original base year of 2005; 

• peak hours of weekday afternoons (street) and Saturday afternoon (site); 

• a study area which included the following intersections: 

- Silvercreek Parkway intersections between Paisley Road on the north and 

Wellington Street on the south; 

- Wellington Street intersections between Imperial Road on the west and 

Edinburgh Road on the east; 

- Waterloo Avenue intersections between Silvercreek Parkway on the west and 

Edinburgh Road on the east; and, 

- Paisley Road intersection between Hanlon Expressway and Silvercreek 

Parkway. 

27



• vehicular access to the subject site from Silvercreek Parkway, and the extension of 

Silvercreek Parkway north to Paisley Road, via a new underpass at the CNR main 

line which runs immediately north of the site. 

The key findings of the study are summarized below: 

• The proposed commercial floor space will generate about 1,215 (weekday PM peak) 

and 1,675 (Saturday PM peak) net new two-way trips to the road network; the former 

is approximately 19% higher than an assumed “as-of-right” industrial development on 

the site at 1,200,000 sq. ft. 

• Existing intersections in the study area (except Paisley Road/Hanlon Expressway) 

currently function at good to acceptable levels (LOS ‘C’ or better) during peak hours, 

with sufficient additional capacity in individual movements to support future area 

growth. The Paisley/Hanlon intersection operates at LOS ‘D’ or better. 

• Future background traffic volumes will have modest impacts on overall 

volume/capacity ratios under 2015 background traffic conditions. Intersections in the 

study area will continue to function at LOS ‘C’ and LOS ‘D’ or better, in 2010 and 

2015, respectively. Certain specific road improvements are recommended to 

accommodate future background traffic at the Paisley Road/Hanlon Expressway 

intersection. 

• Traffic volumes forecast for the proposed site development can be accommodated at 

all key study area intersections, with the northerly extension of Silvercreek Parkway 

and the related grade separation at the CNR main line. 

• Under future total traffic conditions in 2015 (background + background growth + site 

development), all City intersections will continue to operate with LOS ‘C’ or better, 

except Paisley/Hanlon, which will continue at LOS ‘D’ or better. 

The BA report findings culminate with a list of specific, recommended road 

improvements for the subject development, including the following of particular note: 

• connecting Silvercreek Parkway north to Paisley Road, by way of an underpass at 

the CNR main line; 

• re-align/extend Silvercreek Parkway to Wellington Street, and terminate Waterloo 

Avenue at Silvercreek, controlled by a new signal; 

• widen Silvercreek Parkway between Waterloo Avenue and Wellington Street, to 

provide an additional southbound right turn lane; and, 

• certain lane widenings at key intersections, including Wellington/Silvercreek 

Parkway, Waterloo/Edinburgh, Paisley/Silvercreek, and Paisley/Hanlon. 

The report finishes with the overall conclusion that “…the proposed development traffic 

can be supported on the existing/improved road network without undue impact. 

Implementation of the foregoing improvements should ensure maintenance of 

appropriate levels of accessibility to the proposed commercial development.” 

28



5.3 Supplementary Stormwater Management Study 

As previously noted, a supplementary analysis of stormwater management (SWM) 

requirements was necessitated by the technical questions and concerns of both the City 

and the GRCA regarding the initial stormwater work and proposed facility, particularly in 

relation to upstream and downstream flows and impacts on Howitt Creek, and the 

related adequacy of the proposed pond. 

As a result, Silvercreek retained TSH to independently determine design flows for Howitt 

Creek from the upstream lands (via the Alma Street Relief Sewer), and to provide a 

preliminary design of a stormwater management facility to control those flows to the 

capacity of the downstream system. 

The result of this additional analysis show that substantially higher flows enter Howitt 

Creek from the Alma Street Relief Sewer than has been calculated under previous 

analyses. Accordingly, TSH concludes that a larger stormwater detention facility is 

required (compared to previous studies) in the area east of the creek, in order to “…limit 

the Howitt Creek flows to suit the capacity of the Waterloo Avenue culvert…” which is on 

Howitt Creek downstream of the site. Under major (100-year) storm conditions, the 

proposed SWM pond would occupy the majority of the subject site east of the creek. 

A separate stormwater management report (dated August 2008) has been prepared by 

TSH to document the above supplementary analysis and resultant recommended SWM 

facility. That report was submitted to the City and the GRCA under separate cover, as 

this planning report was being written. 

5.4 Environmental Impact Studies 

The original application submission in 2005 was supported, among other reports, by an 

Environmental Impact Study (EIS) prepared by North-South Environmental (NSE). It 

has subsequently been augmented by a series of addenda reports, intended to address 

both the revised development concept and various technical issues and agency 

comments arising during the application review process. Because the addenda, 

including the latest (# IV, very recently submitted to the City and agencies) mostly 

supplement rather than replace the original 2005 EIS, this synopsis provides a brief 

overview of all of these EIS reports. 

5.4.1 EIS, October 2005 

This initial “base” EIS document provided the original comprehensive environmental 

assessment of the site and original development proposal, in response to terms of 

reference which were jointly developed with the concerned agencies, most notably the 

City and GRCA. 

The objectives of this study were stated as follows: 

• collect background information on environmental features; 

• map and classify vegetation community boundaries; 

• map the location of significant species and other features; 

• identify impacts and mitigation; and, 

29



• recommend future monitoring. 

The key conclusions from this initial EIS were as follows: 

• There are no “…regionally or provincially significant vegetation communities on the 

site”, and similarly, “…no provincially significant plant or animal species on the site.” 

Although some habitat will be removed for two regionally significant wildlife species, 

the report notes that habitat (for those species) is available on other parts of the site. 

• All functions associated with Howitt Creek will be preserved, including aquatic 

habitat, surface water balance and the associated riparian corridor. Potential 

construction impacts can be mitigated by a suitable construction erosion and 

sediment control plan. 

• Only minor impacts will result from the loss of successional vegetation, as that 

vegetation is primarily non-native, and only the western portion of the site is 

proposed for development. The report recommends enhancement of the easterly 

(undeveloped) portion of the site, “…to preserve the greatest function possible for the 

site.” 

• A series of mitigation measures for potential impacts is recommended, focused on 

careful control of construction activities, and enhancement of the eastern open space 

area on the site. 

The report further concludes that with the recommended mitigation measures, “…net 

impacts of the development on Howitt Creek and on regionally significant species are 

expected to be low.” The report also notes (somewhat prophetically) that further 

environmental studies should be required if the ultimate development varies substantially 

from the development concept addressed in this EIS, “…particularly with respect to the 

stormwater management strategy.” 

Monitoring recommendations are also provided, including short-term monitoring 

throughout the construction period to ensure silt controls are effective and appropriate 

vegetation buffers are being retained. Future long-term monitoring is recommended 

after major rain events (greater than 100-year storm) allowing flows from the 

development to enter Howitt Creek. 

5.4.2 Addendum I, May 2006 

This initial addendum was prompted by March 2006 circulation comments from the 

GRCA, and primarily addressed the restoration of vegetation (trees, shrubs and 

herbaceous species) to the creek corridor, to enhance aquatic and terrestrial habitat. A 

number of related technical matters and recommendations were covered, including the 

following: 

• slope stability, including the delineation of steep slope hazard or floodplain, 

secondary and tertiary top of bank, and seepage areas; 

• the floodplain, including identification of storm flow routes, culvert 

improvements/modeling, and upstream overland flow; 

30



• fisheries, including the thermal regime of Howitt Creek, maintaining ecological 

function, and improvements to enhance the stream corridor, including riparian 

(vegetation) buffer zones; 

• stormwater management, including enhanced quality control, and pre-development 

infiltration levels; and, 

• provision of a detailed landscape (riparian restoration) plan. 

5.4.3 Addendum II, Impacts of Revised Design and Tree Conservation Plan, 

November 2007 

This further addendum, arose from the City’s request for an updated EIS to address the 

November 2007 revised development concept, to provide a tree conservation plan, and 

to address the floodline of the creek raised by GRCA. 

Key findings and recommendations include the following: 

• Since the prior reports (EIS and Addendum I) were submitted, one provincially 

significant plant species was noted during tree surveys, prompting a corresponding 

recommendation to relocate it to the then-proposed park east of Howitt Creek. 

• The revised commercial development concept was seen to have similar impacts to 

the original 2005 scheme, with one exception – the necessity for removal of trees 

along the railway embankments west of the creek, for which the recommended 

mitigation is the re-planting of trees along those embankments. 

• The revised stormwater management design is documented, in terms of its 

environmental implications, including the elimination of existing flooding west of the 

creek, and the creation of a post-development flood storage area east of the creek. 

• The impacts and mitigation related to the proposed “Junction Park” east of Howitt 

Creek are described. 

• The details of the tree survey and tree conservation plan are set out, focused on the 

west (commercial development) portion of the site. Key conclusions are as follows: 

‣ tree-saving opportunities on the site are rare, and NSE thus concludes that “…for 

the most part, it would be more effective to replace the trees lost with higherquality 

native species”; 

‣ the proposed commercial development will require removal of 423 native trees; 

however, proposed compensation is the planting of 2,600 trees along the creek 

and on the east side of the site, plus some new tree and shrub restoration along 

the northern edge of the development, plus additional trees in the landscaping 

around the commercial buildings in the parking lots, along the drainage channel, 

and along Hanlon Expressway. 

31



5.4.4 Addendum III, Response to Guelph EAC Comments April 9, 2008 

This further addendum focuses on technical responses to the various issues raised by 

Guelph EAC on April 9, 2008. Among the matters addressed are the following: 

• the overlaying of certain features on the grading plan, including the creek, setbacks 

from the creek banks, location of the stable top of bank, the setback from steep 

slopes, development limits, revised pre- and post-development floodplains, setback 

from the watercourse, and location and setbacks to the drainage swale; 

• reiteration of the 2005 locally significant bird species on the revised development 

plan overlay, with similar impacts; 

• discussion of some of the design details of the proposed community park; 

• the previous hazard lands boundary for both sides of Howitt Creek is 

superimposed on the revised development concept, and the rationale for 

recommended stream setbacks (development limits) is discussed, based on 

“…bankfull channel width...”, resulting in average stream buffer widths of 18.9m on 

the west side of the creek, and more than 30m on the east side; 

• tree conservation and preservation measures; 

• the location and design of the stormwater management facility in proximity to the 

creek, in relation to the revised development concept; 

• a list of impacts to be addressed in greater detail in a subsequent “Environmental 

Implementation Report”, as development design is refined; and, 

• a summary of details related to mitigation and compensation. 

5.4.5 Addendum IV, Revised Impact Assessment Associated with Revised Storm 

Water Management Plan, August 2008 

This is the most recent addendum, specifically arising from the altered SWM approach 

and details summarized in Section 5.3 of this planning report. 

The report concludes that the revised stormwater detention facility is intended to reduce 

existing flows in Howitt Creek, and thus “…is not expected to affect channel morphology, 

and will likely reduce erosion rates downstream of the subject property.” Companion 

technical recommendations are provided to address existing erosion and avoid 

exacerbating it. 

From a fisheries perspective, the report concludes that the new SWM plan “…will 

improve fish habitat in Howitt Creek by buffering flash flows and removing a barrier to 

fish passage.” It also notes that standard mitigation methods can be used to avoid fish 

habitat impacts in most cases, with compensation options available on this site to 

enhance fish habitat where impacts can’t be avoided. 

32



The report addresses the terrestrial and aquatic impacts from riparian vegetation 

removal required for construction of the proposed SWM facilities, with recommended 

mitigation measures focusing on effective restoration of the vegetation in affected areas. 

The report also makes detailed recommendations for types of plantings within the 

proposed stormwater detention facility itself. 

5.5 Urban Design Guidelines 

The revised redevelopment concept (2007) was also supported by revised, detailed, 

site-specific urban design principles and guidelines, prepared jointly on behalf of 

Silvercreek by Brook McIlroy and Michael Spaziani Architect. 

The related report establishes design directions for the proposed development generally 

consistent with the range of design matters covered in Official Plan policy directions – 

including “general design principles” addressing matters which include pedestrian 

access, urban street edge treatments, the distinct “sense of place”, dual frontages and 

multiple entrances, and the block fabric intended to facilitate future “infill and 

intensification. Also covered in the report is an extensive range of “structuring elements” 

for the revised development concept, and a detailed set of urban design principles, 

addressing parking areas, built form and setbacks, open space and landscaping, site 

access, and amenity areas, all of which are supplemented by annotated illustrations. 

The last section of the report concludes with the actual recommended urban design 

guidelines proposed, including a wide-ranging series of site design criteria and built form 

guidelines. 

33



6.0 DISCUSSION and CONCLUSIONS 

This final section of the report addresses the merits of the proposed mixed commercial 

development from a land use planning perspective, with due regard for the evolution of 

the development concept and the various related agency technical issues and concerns. 

The various relevant planning factors are canvassed under three broad headings – site 

suitability, policy considerations, and remaining City staff concerns. 

6.1 Site Suitability 

In our opinion, a review of the site characteristics and the surrounding context supports 

the conclusion that the subject lands are well-suited to the type, nature and scale of the 

development proposed. 

The substantial size and workable configuration of the site will facilitate a feasible 

development concept layout which can accommodate the requirements of the proposed 

uses, including the mix of two large-format retail outlets with a variety of medium and 

smaller retail and service commercial units, and a distinctive “market square” focal point 

straddling Silvercreek Parkway in the centre of the site. 

Suitable site access can be provided, subject to the recommended road improvements 

and the key connection of Silvercreek Parkway north of the CNR main line (to Paisley 

Road), by way of an underpass which the City’s Official Plan seeks to put in place. 

Internal circulation can be provided in a safe and efficient manner, including provision for 

a grid of private roadways which have future intensification potential. 

The site enjoys good locational attributes, in terms of regional accessibility and exposure 

-- including its proximity to Hanlon Expressway (Highway 6) and to the Wellington Street 

(Highway 7)/Hanlon interchange -- which are well-suited to the mix of commercial uses 

proposed, and the regional “destination” nature of the two large-format facilities. One of 

those is intended to accommodate a warehouse membership club, a singular type of 

regional retail facility which will be a new retail offering not presently in the Guelph 

market. 

There are no physical, environmental or servicing constraints on the site which would 

meaningfully impinge on the feasibility of the subject redevelopment, subject to 

appropriate environmental mitigation (as required) and site plan design considerations. 

In essence, this is a derelict brownfield parcel which was substantially disturbed and 

altered by its past history of extractive and related industrial activities, and which is 

centrally-located yet has remained undeveloped since the prior industrial activities 

ceased in the mid-1990’s. 

The supporting technical studies and review, and in particular, the updated studies 

summarized in Section 5 of this report, have demonstrated the following: 

• The existing municipal servicing infrastructure is adequate to service the proposed 

development concept. 

• Stormwater management requirements can be feasibly and appropriately met 

34



through on-site detention within the undeveloped area east of Howitt Creek to 

attenuate off-site storm drainage flows related to the creek, and on-site detention 

within the commercial development site west of the creek, without compromising the 

feasibility of the uses and the layout proposed. 

• Environmental impacts have been exhaustively analyzed, and documented, and 

where required, appropriate mitigation measures have been advanced. The key 

natural heritage feature on the subject lands, namely Howitt Creek and its associated 

valleyland/floodplain, will be substantially protected and enhanced, and as required, 

construction impacts related to the proposed SWM detention facilities suitably 

mitigated. 

• The updated traffic impact study indicates that the proposed development can be 

accommodated without undue impact to the surrounding pubic road network, subject 

to appropriate road improvements, including the recommended vital extension of 

Silvercreek Parkway to Paisley Road through a new underpass at the CNR. 

The layout of the proposed development concept can readily accommodate appropriate 

redevelopment phasing, as end-user commitments are secured over time, in relation to 

the usual market, economic and infrastructure considerations. 

The surrounding land use context does not give rise to any meaningful or legitimate 

concerns about land use compatibility. The site is effectively isolated on all sides by 

major transportation infrastructure, including main and secondary rail lines to the north 

and south respectively, and Hanlon Expressway to the west. In addition, the topography 

of the site is such that it sits lower than neighbouring lands to the north and south, with 

the resultant embankments of the abutting railways providing substantial screening of 

the uses proposed. All of the above factors effectively mitigate any meaningful potential 

for land use conflict, subject to appropriate site plan design and implementation 

requirements. Accordingly, in our opinion, the proposed concept can readily co-exist 

with the existing uses to the north and south, without any undue adverse impacts. 

In summary, all of the above site suitability factors support a planning conclusion 

that the subject lands are well-suited to the prospective mix and layout of 

proposed uses on the subject lands. 

6.2 Policy and Related Considerations 

Section 4 of this planning report set out in some detail the various land use policy 

considerations of relevance to the proposed development, including the Provincial Policy 

Statement, and in particular, the City of Guelph Official Plan. This subsection will 

address the suitability of the subject proposal in the context of those key policy 

considerations. 

6.2.1 Provincial Policy Statement (2005) 

As set out in Section 3.1 of this report, the PPS provides a number of relevant policy 

considerations, and it is our conclusion that this mixed development proposal is 

consistent with those PPS matters. 

35



The objective to promote efficient development and land use patterns (thus sustaining 

the long-term financial well-being of the Province and the local municipality) is served by 

this proposal, given that it seeks approval for the productive re-use of derelict, 

serviceable industrial lands, by way of a compatible and substantial mixed commercial 

redevelopment. 

Accommodation of an appropriate range and mix of employment opportunities, through 

the provision of sufficient land, is also furthered by this proposal. Not only will it provide a 

substantial new addition of employment opportunities, but at the same time, it will 

enhance the availability of employment-oriented commercial services in the wider 

precinct and will also broaden the choice of large-format shopping opportunities in 

Guelph, with the noteworthy addition of a warehouse membership club. 

The PPS supports intensification and redevelopment to assist municipalities in meeting 

land requirements for a range and mix of employment opportunities, housing and other 

land uses. This objective will also be served by the subject proposal, given this vacant, 

disused property which enjoys a relatively central and convenient location within 

Guelph’s existing urban context. Further, the promotion in the PPS of opportunities for 

intensification and redevelopment makes particular mention of brownfield sites among 

candidate locations for such to be accommodated. 

The promotion of economic development and competitiveness, through a mix and range 

of employment uses to meet long-term needs, will be advanced by the introduction of a 

contemporary new regional retail operation (WMC) into the Guelph market, along with 

the mix of other retail and service commercial facilities proposed, in a variety of sizes. 

This will also serve to further diversify the City’s economic base, and contribute toward a 

wider range of economic activities. 

Regarding the PPS policies on the issue of employment land conversion, as discussed 

below, in our view and on balance, the subject proposal does not represent “conversion” 

of employment land to non-employment uses, and thus, would not require a 

comprehensive review of employment lands as a prerequisite to its development. This 

view is shared with City staff, and is based on a number of considerations: 

• There is some ambiguity in the wording of the applicable PPS language, relative to 

what actually constitutes “employment uses”. More specifically, as discussed in 

Section 3.1 of this report, the definition of “employment area” speaks rather broadly 

and generically to “…clusters of business and economic activities…” which should 

arguably include retail and service commercial uses. Furthermore, this same 

definition goes on to list a series of specific use types; although that list does not 

include stand-alone or major retail activities, the list is preceded by a qualifier in the 

definition, namely the words “…but not limited to…”, which clearly indicates that list is 

not intended to be exclusive and leaves room for interpretation as to what other uses 

might also fit under that umbrella. 

• In addition, under Policy 1.3.1 of the PPS dealing with “Employment Areas”, the 

promotion of an appropriate mix and range of employment “…(including industrial, 

commercial and institutional uses)…” (emphasis added) further supports the notion 

that retail activities would arguably fit under that generic “commercial” use category. 

36



• There also appears to be similar interpretive latitude provided by the new Bill 51 

(Planning Act) definition of “area of employment” (similar to the PPS definition of 

“employment area”), by way of reference again to “…clusters of business and 

economic uses…” and by the use of a similar qualification on the listed uses 

“…without limitation…” (analogous to “…but not limited to…” in the PPS.) We 

understand that the foregoing qualifiers in both the PPS and the new Bill 51 definition 

are intended to provide municipalities with some policy discretion to respond to local 

circumstances (presumably through their Official Plans) by permitting additional uses 

within “employment areas” beyond those specifically listed in the respective PPS and 

Bill 51 definitions noted above. 

• Further lending some credence to the notion that stand-alone or major retail uses are 

not considered to be “non-employment uses” are three relatively recent Ontario 

Municipal Board decisions, in Barrie, Peterborough, and Toronto, respectively (see 

OMB files PL050527, PL060427 and PL070485.) The Board concluded, in those 

cases, that the retail uses proposed did not constitute the conversion (within an 

employment area) to non-employment uses, for the purposes of the 2005 PPS. 

The PPS also speaks of supporting long-term economic prosperity, by optimizing use of 

land and infrastructure, safeguarding the vitality and viability of downtowns, and by 

promoting the redevelopment of brownfield sites. 

Our previous comments above addressed the “urban efficiency” objective. The updated 

market study summarized in Section 5.1 of this report included related findings that the 

Guelph C.B.D. has a very modest vacancy rate (which can suggest an under-stored 

market), and that the subject proposal will not be detrimental to the overall function or 

economic vitality of the C.B.D. Further, the subject property is a vacant brownfield site, 

proposed for productive redevelopment and re-use, consistent with this PPS objective. 

From a more generic perspective, the PPS itself acknowledges that Official Plan policies 

are the most important vehicle for the implementation of provincial intentions and 

protection of provincial interests. If a proposal is seen to conform with a municipality’s 

Official Plan policies and principles, then it augers well for consistency with the PPS 

itself. 

6.2.2 City Official Plan 

The Plan’s relevant major goals previously quoted in Section 3.3.2 of this report include 

the following key concepts: 

• compact development to avoid sprawl and premature development; 

• direct development where municipal services/infrastructure are most readily 

available, relative to several factors; 

• protect and enhance the natural environment; 

• facilitate a full range of commercial uses to meet population and employment needs; 

and, 

• maintain/strengthen C.B.D.’s role as a major focal area for investment, employment 

and residential uses. 

37



In our opinion, all of the foregoing goals are served to varying degrees by the subject 

proposal and the subject site. This proposal entails the productive re-use of vacant 

lands which enjoy a relatively central location in the City’s urban area, and have sat in a 

derelict state for well more than a decade. Services are available, and infrastructure can 

be upgraded to meet functional requirements. 

Further, the key natural feature on the site, Howitt Creek and its associated valleylands, 

is being recognized, protected and recommended for enhancement through the 

redevelopment process. The subject development concept includes a mix of retail and 

service commercial uses to meet a variety of needs, including both large-format retail – 

most notably a warehouse membership club, which is a new offering in this market -- 

and a “village square” complex intended to help re-urbanize this area of the City. Lastly, 

the proposal will not, in our opinion, represent any threat to the primacy of the C.B.D., in 

terms of its focal role in the City’s urban structure. 

The Plan’s relevant objectives and policies related to community form and urban design 

are quoted in Section 3.3.3 of this report, and reflect the following key principles: 

• ensure compact, orderly and sustainable development; 

• encourage compatible intensification and redevelopment to optimize efficient use of 

municipal services; 

• promote mixed uses in appropriate locations; 

• promote re-use/revitalization/redevelopment of under-utilized or disused commercial 

and industrial sites; and, 

• adhere to urban design principles which respect natural features/processes, and 

which encourage excellence in design through guidelines. 

Again, the subject proposal is generally a positive gesture toward these urban form 

principles, particularly given the current disused, neglected state of the site, and the 

clear and desirable opportunity to achieve practicable redevelopment which makes 

better use of both municipal servicing infrastructure and urban land. 

As discussed in greater detail later in this section, the proponent commissioned a design 

brief of the revised development concept which takes its cue from the Plan’s urban 

design directions. In addition, the “mixed” aspect of the current concept is limited to a 

range of retail and service commercial uses of various sizes; nevertheless, in our view, 

the market square component and the neighbouring grid pattern of private roadways 

does, subject to economic/market factors, offer the potential for offices as a second floor 

use in the near-term, and longer-term potential for intensification with other uses in the 

blocks adjacent to the market square -- including medium density residential in mid-rise 

buildings with underground parking, if the City’s comprehensive review provides a basis 

to support conversion. 

From a development staging perspective, the site is located within the Plan’s “Stage 2” 

area, which anticipates development as soon as services are available, as is the case 

with the subject site. 

In the Plan’s policy regime on community improvement (as summarized in Section 3.3.5 

of this report), and in the related “Brownfield Redevelopment Community Improvement 

Plan”, there is clear planning recognition that the subject “Junction” precinct (including 

38



the site) is one of the City’s priority areas for community improvement. The related 

Community Improvement Plan is intended to focus attention on environmental clean-up 

and redevelopment of brownfield sites, one of which is the subject property. Beyond the 

City Official Plan, that encouragement of brownfield redevelopment also finds policy 

support in the PPS, based upon a series of economic, environmental and social public 

benefits. 

In a related vein, the Plan directs policy attention to contaminated properties, as 

discussed in Section 3.3.6 of this report. These policies, among other things, require 

documentary proof of site clean-up, prior to any development approvals. In the subject 

case, that clean-up has occurred, and Records of Site Condition have been filed with the 

MOE for both the east and west portions of the property. 

The Plan’s policies on natural heritage and environmental impact and the accompanying 

Schedule 2 (discussed in Section 3.3.7 of this report) identify Howitt Creek as a “Natural 

Heritage Feature”. The related requirement for environmental impact studies for 

development proposals potentially affecting natural heritage features has been 

addressed by a comprehensive EIS, supplemented by a series of addenda addressing 

the revised development concept and particular agency comments and concerns as they 

have arisen in the application review process. 

The primacy of the Central Business District in Guelph’s urban structure is reflected in 

the Plan’s description of the C.B.D.’s higher-order planned function, “…as a vibrant 

multiple use, multiple function district…” accommodating a full range of urban uses, 

including a variety of commercial facilities. Based in part on the conclusion of the 

updated market study that the subject proposal will not be detrimental to the C.B.D.’s 

planned function or economic vitality, it is our opinion that the Plan’s intent to foster the 

continued, multi-functional primacy of the C.B.D. will not be threatened in any way by the 

proposed mixed commercial development. 

The Plan’s policies on commercial and mixed use areas are particularly germane, given 

the requested land use designation of the site as a Mixed Use Node, and are discussed 

in detail in Section 3.3.9 of this report. The key objectives which govern the Plan’s 

commercial policy structure include the following: 

• ensure an adequate commercial/mixed use land supply to meet needs and to 

distribute commercial uses at appropriate locations; 

• promote nodes (as mixed use areas) forming major concentrations of commercial 

activity; 

• promote continued economic viability, intensification and revitalization of the CBD 

and other designated commercial/mixed use areas; and, 

• promote a high standard of design, and cohesive development. 

Guelph’s planned commercial structure resulted from the findings and recommendations 

of the approved Commercial Policy Review, implemented through OPA 29. The key 

components are as identified on Schedule 1 – Land Use Plan, which is replicated on 

Figure 3 included in this report. The companion policies clearly require that any 

proposal for a new (or expanded) commercial or mixed use area requires an Official 

Plan amendment, and related impact studies meeting the stated requirements of the 

Plan. 

39



In the current case, of course, an Official Plan amendment has been applied for and 

requested by the proponent Silvercreek, and the full range of required impact studies to 

support the request for a new Mixed Use Node has been provided, including the key 

updated retail market impact analysis. The implications of these studies will be 

discussed further in a subsequent section below. 

As a subset of the commercial and mixed use policies, the Plan specifically addresses 

Mixed Use Nodes as one of the four commercial land use designations which now 

comprise the City’s commercial policy structure. 

The key policy intentions for Mixed Use Nodes are summarized in point-form below, as 

follows: 

• are to serve both local and wider City needs; 

• are to be a well-defined focal point, with complementary uses in close proximity; 

• are to be delineated as a distinct entity from adjacent designations; 

• are to provide a wide range of commercial (retail, service, entertainment, 

recreational) and complementary uses, and possibly also include medium and high 

density residential uses and small-scale professional/medical offices; 

• permit a variety of mixed and free-standing building forms, subject to certain offsetting 

restrictions to ensure developments with large-format buildings also include a 

minimum proportion of smaller buildings; and, 

• site and building design are to be consistent with urban design objectives and 

guidelines. 

This proposal can be viewed positively in relation to all of the Plan’s above intentions for 

Mixed Use Nodes, in our opinion. In terms of both overall scale and the mix of largeformat 

and “village square” components, it can address both neighbourhood and broader 

retail and service commercial demands. Also, as previously noted, the grid layout of the 

proposed concept provides the potential for future intensification which could introduce 

both a modest local professional office component, as well as some multiple residential 

opportunities. Further, both the geography of the site setting (largely defined by 

significant transportation infrastructure) and its physical characteristics clearly help to 

differentiate it from adjacent and neighbouring uses and would facilitate a distinct 

identity. Lastly, as noted previously and discussed below, a site-specific set of proposed 

urban design guidelines has been produced and submitted in support of the revised 

development concept (2007) which cover the Plan’s key design objectives, in the context 

of that revised scheme. 

Based on the general approach and results of the City’s Commercial Policy Review, in 

Section 7.4.12 the Plan provides scale restrictions for the designated Mixed Use Nodes, 

by way of an allocated total retail commercial floor space in each case. [Note: as City 

staff observed in their June 2008 staff report, OPA 29 left a portion of the CPR’s total 

2021 commercial space forecast unallocated, as a floor space “reserve” for general 

commercial intensification and redevelopment outside the designated Mixed Use 

Nodes.] These nodal allocations were based on the Dee market analysis which was an 

integral component of the CPR exercise. The Plan also imposes a maximum limit within 

each designated Node of four (4) large-scale (free-standing) uses of greater than 5,575 

sq. m (60,000 sq. ft.) 

40



As Tate Economic Research (TER) has stated in their updated market study, Dee’s 

“pure residual” retail space demand approach for the CPR was a conservative method of 

planning for future commercial needs, which is not in tune with the real operation of the 

marketplace, given its competitive effects among retailers, and resultant sales transfers, 

as part of a healthy and dynamic retail market. Accordingly, it is TER’s (and Clayton’s) 

view that there is actually additional retail market potential in Guelph beyond the CPR’s 

projected total of 2.2 million square feet by the year 2021. 

It also warrants repeating that the lack of designation of the Silvercreek site as an 

additional Mixed Use Node in the CPR (and OPA 29) was largely an acknowledgment of 

the separate planning approach considered to be more appropriate for the 

redevelopment of Lafarge (Silvercreek) lands, based on City staff’s acknowledgment of a 

likely transition away from its current industrial land use designation. Any such 

redevelopment proposal was to be considered on its own merits, and properly supported 

by appropriate studies, rather than the principle of an alternative land use (such as 

commercial) being prematurely designated on a “speculative” basis through the CPR 

process, without the rigour of the sort of site-specific consideration and scrutiny which 

has subsequently ensued through the Silvercreek application process. 

We would also observe that the two large-format uses proposed in the revised 

development concept complies with the Plan’s above-noted maximum of four large-scale 

free-standing retail uses in each mixed-use node. 

Under the general commercial policy umbrella, the Plan also expresses a series of 

specific policies on urban design for commercial & mixed use. An overview of these is 

provided in this report at Section 3.3.9.2, and they won’t be detailed again here. Suffice 

it to say that a range of urban design matters is addressed which is, at the same time, 

both expansive and detailed. 

As previously noted, the revised redevelopment concept (2007) has been supported by 

revised, detailed, site-specific urban design principles and guidelines (prepared jointly on 

behalf of Silvercreek by Brook McIlroy and Michael Spaziani Architect.) The related 

report establishes design directions for the proposed development generally consistent 

with the range of design matters covered in those Official Plan policy directions – 

including “General Design Principles”, an extensive range of “structuring elements” for 

the revised development concept, and a detailed set of urban design principles, 

supplemented by annotated illustrations. The last section of the report concludes with 

the actual recommended guidelines proposed, including a wide-ranging series of site 

design criteria and built form guidelines. As evidenced by their comments on page 22 of 

their June 3, 2008 staff report, City staff are satisfied that the Silvercreek urban design 

document “…meets or exceeds the City’s policies for commercial sites and buildings in 

the Official Plan.” 

Silvercreek’s request to establish a new Mixed Use Node brings into play the various 

required impact studies described in Section 3.3.9.3 of this report. These comprise the 

following: 

• market impact, including the required scope of such a study, and clear statements of 

the policy “tests” to be addressed, with a particular focus on avoiding detriment to the 

planned functions of the C.B.D. and existing designated commercial/mixed use 

lands; 

41



• the required scope of an appropriate planning study, including development design 

concepts detailed enough to demonstrate land use compatibility, mitigation of 

potential development impacts on existing/future area land uses and the site’s 

physical environment; and, 

• the required scope of an appropriate infrastructure study, including road capacity to 

handle the projected traffic, the adequacy of hard servicing capacity and proposed 

stormwater management systems, and the adequacy of on-site parking, loading, 

pedestrian and vehicular circulation systems. 

In our view, all of the above impact study requirements have been or will be met with the 

provision of original and updated/supplementary market, traffic, planning, urban design, 

environmental impact and stormwater management studies. The findings of these 

studies are (where applicable) accompanied by appropriate conditions/requirements 

resulting from the studies themselves, and will be supplemented by the completion of 

final technical agency review, which is currently well-advanced. In addition, some of the 

above detailed requirements are matters which can most appropriately be addressed 

through the subsequent site plan approval process. 

As listed in Section 3.3.11 of this report, Section 9.3 of the Plan also contains general 

criteria for Official Plan amendments, which address a range of planning considerations, 

including: conformity to the Plan’s goals and objectives; site suitability and use 

compatibility; market feasibility of and need for the proposed use; availability of other 

designated areas; impacts on infrastructure and the natural environment; and, financial 

implications. 

Firstly, in our view, the redevelopment proposal does represent an appropriate response 

to the goals and objectives of the Plan, particularly as follows: 

• As already noted, the subject site offers a prime opportunity for productive re-use of 

a substantial, derelict brownfield (former industrial) parcel which is well within the 

City’s existing urban envelope and readily accessible to municipal servicing 

infrastructure. All of those considerations accord with the Plan, in terms of fostering 

intensification and redevelopment and the related greater efficiency in the use of 

urban land and infrastructure, and thus, lessening longer-term demand for 

“greenfield” development and potential urban sprawl on the periphery of the existing 

urban area. 

• The proposed development safeguards the natural heritage feature on the site 

(Howitt Creek and associated lands) and its related ecological functions. 

• The mixed commercial development proposal will enhance the range of retail and 

service commercial offerings available locally in Guelph, including the proposed 

introduction of a warehouse membership club – a new large-format, “destination” 

retail facility not currently in the Guelph market – without detracting from the higherorder, 

multi-functional “central place” role of the C.B.D. 

Secondly, the locational attributes of the site for the proposed mix of commercial uses 

were discussed in Section 6.1 of this report, particularly in terms of exposure and 

42



accessibility. We concur with City staff’s view that the proposed connection of 

Silvercreek Parkway north to Paisley Road via a new underpass of the CNR main line is 

essential to the viable redevelopment of the site for the proposed mixed commercial 

concept. Indeed, that same conclusion would be applicable for any viable 

redevelopment of the subject lands, in our opinion, and has very likely acted as a 

substantial deterrent to any such redevelopment -- in terms of both the development 

economics involved, and the requirements and timing of the approval process (including 

the need for an environmental assessment.) 

Thirdly, in our opinion, the compatibility of the proposed use with adjacent uses and 

designations is not a concern, as previously indicated, subject to appropriate site 

planning techniques and approval conditions. This finding stems from the effective 

isolation of the site by major transportation infrastructure and the visual screening for 

existing residential uses to the north and south offered by the lower-lying nature of the 

site, between the adjacent railway embankments. 

Fourthly, the key related criteria of market feasibility and need for the proposed 

commercial uses (from population and employment standpoints), and the extent of 

availability of other designated areas for such uses, have all been at least implicitly 

addressed in TER’s updated market study discussed in Section 5.1 of this planning 

report. In our opinion, from a planning perspective, the following market study findings 

are particular relevance in satisfying the above-noted criteria: 

• The site is well-located to serve Guelph residents and those in areas beyond, given 

its central location in the City, especially in light of its proximity to Hanlon 

Expressway (Highway 6) and Wellington Street (Highway 7.) TER thus concludes 

that this site would be the preferred central Guelph location for a warehouse 

membership club; by implication, both TER and the CPR suggest that only one WMC 

can be anticipated in the Guelph market for the foreseeable future. 

• The site is seen to be complementary to the dispersed pattern of designated Mixed 

Use Nodes, owing to its more central location, superior overall accessibility, and 

closer proximity to the C.B.D., which offers potential opportunities for crossshopping. 

• TER concluded that the subject proposal is warranted from a market demand 

perspective, in light of the City’s continued growth and TER’s future population 

estimates. TER makes the related suggestion that the projected year 2021 demand 

for additional retail space underlying the CPR may be understated given several 

factors, including the conservative “pure residual” market approach of the CPR 

(which assumes no impact on existing retailers), and the City’s own market peer 

reviewer’s acknowledgment that a modest level of sales transfers (up to 7.5 to 10 

percent) would result in acceptable market impacts, and in TER’s calculations, 

equate to a substantial additional increment of warranted retail space. 

• TER also concluded that there be no significant impact on existing or proposed 

commercial centres or mixed use nodes, based in part on accounting for the full retail 

build-out of the four designated Mixed Use Nodes and any active retail applications, 

including the proposed redevelopment of the Willow West Mall, which is the closest 

designated “Intensification Area” to the subject site. In a similar vein, TER further 

43



concluded that the subject proposal will not “…compromise the ability of existing 

designated commercial or mixed use lands, including Intensification Areas, to 

achieve their planned function.” Both of these conclusions reflect TER’s intent, in 

their updated (2008) analysis, to specifically address the previous concerns raised by 

the City’s market peer reviewer in connection with the original (2005) TER market 

study, and to address the new market tests introduced into the Official Plan through 

the CPR process. 

In addition, we would note that the brownfield redevelopment aspect of the subject 

proposal is unique compared to the other designated Mixed Use Nodes in the Plan. In 

our view, that consideration, together with the long time period which has passed since 

the cessation of the former industrial activities on the site -- without the apparent 

emergence of any other viable redevelopment propositions for this large, derelict 

property – both lend further credence to the merits of this mixed commercial 

development scheme and the related request for commercial re-designation to a Mixed 

Use Node. 

Fifthly, the supporting technical studies on piped servicing capacity (water and sewer), 

stormwater management, traffic impact and environmental impact have all endorsed the 

practicability of the revised development concept, subject to recommended appropriate 

improvements or mitigation measures, as are applicable in each case. At the time this 

planning report was being prepared, agency consideration and dialogue was still 

ongoing relative to the detailed findings and recommendations of the updated traffic 

impact, stormwater and environmental impact studies. 

Lastly, on the issue of financial implications, the long-standing and continuing derelict 

state of the site clearly contributes very little to the fiscal health and economic base of 

the City. As implied by City staff in their June 3, 2008 staff report, the site represents a 

challenging redevelopment opportunity, both physically and in terms of development 

economics. The implementation of the subject proposal would clearly produce 

substantial economic and employment benefits compared to the existing situation. 

In summary, it is our opinion that the subject proposal, together with the updated 

technical studies which support the requested re-designation and rezoning for the 

mixed commercial development concept described in this report, is consistent 

with the general principles and specific policy requirements of the City of Guelph 

Official Plan. 

6.3 Remaining City Staff and Agency Concerns 

Section 4 of this updated planning report provided a summary of City staff’s 

recommendations on the revised (November 2007) Silvercreek proposal, as contained in 

their June 3, 2008 staff report. Also in that report is a lengthy discussion of remaining 

City staff and agency concerns. 

Although many of those matters have already been addressed in other sections of this 

updated planning report, the purpose of this section is to provide a summary of our 

responses to those issues. 

The key policy issue of the appropriateness and implications of the change in planned 

land use (from industrial to commercial) has been addressed in the previous planning 

44



commentary in this report on the applicable Official Plan requirements, particularly in 

relation to the findings of the updated market study. 

In brief, we would reiterate that the updated market study clearly concluded that 

additional commercial space is warranted, on several grounds, without significant impact 

on existing and planned (designated) commercial centres and mixed use nodes, and 

without any compromise to the planned functions of the C.B.D or other existing 

designated commercial or mixed use lands. 

Furthermore, although this requested new Mixed Use Node would be additional to the 

designated elements of the City’s planned structure approved through the CPR process 

and OPA 29, in our opinion, that is balanced by the following mitigating considerations: 

• the potential for a major commercial redevelopment of the site was put on the record 

by the landowners during the CPR process, and acknowledged by the CPR 

consultant and the City, but the site was not designated on a “speculative” basis in 

order that any such proposal could be considered on its own merits, properly 

supported by appropriate technical studies; 

• the approved policies resulting from the completion of the CPR and approval of OPA 

29, now comprising the updated commercial policy structure of the Guelph Official 

Plan, clearly contemplate the possibility of commercial development proposals 

arising for either expansion of existing designated Mixed Use Nodes, or the creation 

of a new node, as is the case in this instance; accordingly, those policies establish 

study requirements and policy “tests” to be addressed in support of any such 

proposals. 

In addition, the City very recently completed and released the results of Phase 1 of its 

ongoing “Employment Lands Strategy” (ELS.) The findings from that initial study phase 

suggest that the subject lands are not required as part of a secure long-term 

employment land supply to meet the City’s projected employment needs. In fact, the 

ELS projections suggest that the City may actually end up in a surplus land situation 

relative to long-term employment land needs. As clearly expressed in policies 1.1.1 and 

1.1.2, the focus of the PPS is on ensuring the adequacy of land supplies to meet longterm 

needs. 

We note that the Phase 1 ELS report also found that Guelph’s short-term supply of 

serviced/marketable employment lands is limited. Nonetheless, the isolation of the 

subject precinct from other employment uses and districts, coupled with the apparent 

longer-term lack of marketability of the subject lands for alternative 

industrial/employment purposes, for well more than a decade, and despite its large size 

and relatively central location, suggest that the site holds little prospect of assisting the 

City through whatever short-term serviced and marketable employment land supply 

constraints currently prevail. Additional industrial redevelopment challenges arise from 

the existing accessibility constraints, owing to the discontinuous nature of Silvercreek 

Parkway, and in turn, the substantial cost of constructing the required CNR underpass. 

Staff also expressed a key concern in the June 2008 staff report that the proposed 

amendment doesn’t address all of the requisite policy tests in the Official Plan, specific 

to an amendment request to enable a new mixed use node, and the Plan’s more general 

tests applicable to all amendment requests. Of particular note were staff’s specific 

45



market-related concerns about implications for the planned functions and economic 

viability of existing and designated commercial and mixed use lands, and the Clayton 

peer review concerns about consequences for the West Hills mixed use node and the 

Willow West Mall (and vicinity) intensification area. 

In our opinion, all of those matters and related policy tests have now been appropriately 

addressed and satisfactorily answered, both in the subsequent updated market study by 

TER, and in this updated planning report. As previously noted, the scope of the updated 

market analysis was driven, in part, by an expressed intent to address the original 

Clayton market peer review concerns. 

The outstanding technical concerns listed by staff at the time of their June staff report 

included the following: the acceptability of BA Group’s recommended road 

improvements; unresolved issues related to the proposed Silvercreek/CNR underpass; 

the need for updated comments from MTO, and lingering issues with the EIS and 

stormwater management study. 

All of the foregoing subject matters have been the subject of subsequent technical 

updates/submissions by respective members of the Silvercreek project team, and in all 

cases, that further technical information remains under consideration and/or in 

discussions with the respective agencies with the intent of seeking a mutuallysatisfactory 

resolution of any remaining issues, and the identification of any appropriate 

resulting conditions. 

Staff’s June report also made particular mention of the City’s reluctance to accept the 

proposed public parkland dedication of the lands east of Howitt Creek, for a variety of 

reasons including public access and liability, and the stormwater detention role played 

by a portion of that easterly site area. 

As documented in this updated planning report, Silvercreek’s previous intention to 

dedicate those lands east of the creek for public park purposes has now been essentially 

abandoned, in anticipation that the City will ultimately find that proposed parkland 

dedication unacceptable. That expectation stems from the updated stormwater 

management analysis and related changes to the SWM detention concept, coupled with 

the site constraints in providing functional and safe public access for this prospective 

park from adjacent neighbourhoods to the north and south – and related concerns 

expressed by both City staff and the CNR in these latter regards. 

Accordingly, that previous park dedication proposal is no longer a component of the 

refined (2008) development concept now proposed. 

In summary, it is our opinion that all of the key concerns and outstanding 

technical issues discussed in City staff’s June 3, 2008 staff report have either 

been satisfactorily addressed by subsequent updated reports and technical 

submissions by the Silvercreek project team, or remain under active review and 

discussions with the respective affected agencies. 

6.4 Summary and Recommendations 

In summary, based on the analysis and conclusions of this updated planning report, and 

supported by the related technical studies, including the updated ones summarized 

46



herein, it is our professional opinion that the revised development proposal and related 

applications for Official Plan amendment and rezoning warrant approval on appropriate 

and relevant land use planning grounds, subject to a number of appropriate 

implementation recommendations. 

Those recommendations are as follows: 

• that any implementing amendments to the Official Plan and Zoning By-law 

incorporate the following policy and regulatory provisions: 

‣ limit the number of large-format (“big-box”) retail uses permitted on the subject 

lands to a maximum of two (2); and, 

‣ restrict the maximum aggregate retail and service commercial gross floor area on 

the subject site to 37,200 sq. m (400,000 sq. ft.); 

• that the implementing Official Plan amendment also include the following policy 

provisions: 

‣ Council’s specific endorsement of the central “village square” concept as a key 

component of this commercial development, and related policy direction to 

reinforce that through appropriate implementing zoning provisions to be 

discussed with City staff; 

‣ Council’s strong encouragement that one of the two permitted “big-box” retail 

uses on this site be a warehouse membership club; 

‣ site-specific policy recognition of the importance of the Silvercreek Parkway 

connection to Paisley Road via a new underpass of the CNR main rail line north 

of the site, and the consequent policy direction that the holding provisions under 

the Planning Act be used to ensure that no development can be approved on the 

site until that vital underpass is approved and committed; 

‣ site-specific policy direction that, at the site plan approval stage, the key internal 

roadways, both in the vicinity of the “village square” and the overall on-site 

roadway “grid” be identified and designed to an acceptable minimum width and 

standard which would facilitate their future dedication as public streets, at the 

City’s future discretion; 

• that we concur with City staff’s provisional list of suggested conditions which should 

apply to any approval by Council or the OMB of the subject development; those 

suggested conditions are found on page 9-10 of staff’s June 3, 2008 staff report, and 

are considered “provisional” because they are based on existing information (as of 

the preparation of that early June staff report), and will be supplemented as 

appropriate, upon completion of the remaining agency review of supplementary 

technical reports/information submitted by Silvercreek since early June; 

• that we support City staff’s recommendation that holding (“H”) powers be used in 

concert with the implementing zoning amendment, with an appropriate range of 

potential triggers for lifting the “H”, including the following: 

47



‣ the approval of the Schedule B Environmental Assessment for the Silvercreek 

Parkway underpass on the CNR; 

‣ the awarding of the contract to commence construction of that underpass; 

‣ implementation of the other recommended traffic/road improvements from the 

updated BA traffic impact study; 

‣ execution and registration of the requisite site plan agreement; and, 

‣ any other appropriate conditions and requirements which emerge from the final 

resolution of the outstanding technical issues still under active review/discussion 

at the time of this report. 

48












48












48

updated planning report updated planning report - City of Guelph

You also want an ePaper? Increase the reach of your titles

Delete template?

Save as template?