The affected land covers 1.76 hectares and is located on the south side of Arkell Road, south-east of the intersection of Arkell Road and Gordon Street. The property at 39-47 Arkell Road contains a single detached house, a small church and some vacant lots on the western and southern sides of the property. The land use surrounding the subject site consists of a single detached dwelling at 33 Arkell Road to the north, single family dwellings to the east on Malvern Crescent, an existing daycare center to the south on Gordon Street, an existing commercial community square to the west on Gordon Street and a garage and car park to the south-east of the intersection of Gordon Street and Arkell Road (see location map in Scheme 1).
The designation map shows a portion of the property in the Neighborhood Center designation, but that designation is intended for the properties west along Gordon Street. Evaluation of the proposal's compliance with the Official Plan, including General Residential and Medium Density Residential, and South Gordon. Evaluation of the proposal against the Provincial Policy Statement and the Places to Grow legislation.
Notwithstanding the density provisions of Policy 7.2.32, the net building density on lands municipally known as 40 Northumberland Street must not exceed 152.5 units per hectare (62 units per acre). To assess compatibility, the City will take into account the existing predominant zoning of the specific area, as well as the general design parameters set forth in section 3.6 of this plan. Based on the provisions of this plan, residential care facilities and accommodation may be permitted. a) Within the Medium Density Residential designation on the northeast side of the intersection of York Road and Wyndham Street South, detached and semi-detached dwellings are permitted with frontage to York Road, Wyndham Street South and Richardson Street, provided that the overall density of The development within the Medium Density Residential zoning at this location complies with Article 7.2.38.
The preparation of this plan conforms to the provisions of the South Guelph Secondary Plan, Urban Form and Design Considerations (see policy 3.6.31).
Proposed Zoning
R.3A Cluster Townhouse Zone
R.4D Infill Apartment Zone
- Intensification should be done in a manner that is compatible with existing built form (3.3.a)
- Maintain the stability and character of the built form in existing established neighbourhoods.(7.d)
- Recognize the unique style and character of the rural cultural heritage lanscape areas which were formerly part of the Township of
- Ensure that the desgin of the built environment strengthens and enhances the character of existing distintive landmarks, areas and neighbourhoods
- Regarding multiple unit buildings on lands designated Residential, the building form, massing, appearance and siting are compatible in design,
After reviewing the information provided, it is apparent that the proposed new development is inconsistent with the existing and established neighborhood nearby (namely the Malvern / Ridgeway / Arkell neighborhood), which I understand is contrary to the City of Guelph Official Plan. The proposed development is, in my view, inconsistent with several parts of the Official Plan relating to infill, including guidance to guide development in areas formerly part of the Borough of Puslinch to recognize the unique style and character of these neighbourhoods. I suggest that this is also contrary to the Official Plan, as the Official Plan recommends a "gradual" increase in the average residential density of the community.
Furthermore, even if you were to ignore the contradictions with the aforementioned official plan and allow the rezoning of the subject lands as proposed, the draft plan, as presented, is also inconsistent with several guidelines and requirements for the proposed amended plans. zoning plans. In light of the concerns raised above, I would like to request a copy of the staff report on the proposed development when it becomes available. I am confident that your report will be useful to the Council, but also to the developer and the developer's planning consultant, in describing the numerous shortcomings of this proposal and, more importantly, in creating awareness of the possibilities to work together and in mutual trust. respectfully with the Malvern/Ridgeway district to jointly develop a sound plan that we can all support, encourage and be proud of.
Recognize the unique style and character of the rural cultural-historical landscape areas that were previously part of the Township of landscape areas that were previously part of the Township of. Ensure that the design of the built environment enhances and enhances the character of existing distinctive landmarks, areas and neighborhoods. The character of the city's existing distinctive landmarks, areas and neighborhoods.
Advise Council that this proposal is simply too inappropriate for
Advise the developer, and the current landowner, that the
Encourage Council to strongly reject this proposal and instead encourage appropriate proposals that reflect an understanding of the Official Plan, the requirements of even the proposed rezoning and sound planning principles, particularly as they relate to developments in the vicinity of existing residence 1- 2-story family neighborhood. I was horrified to be sent the proposed zoning changes for the Arkell Road Bible Chapel land. According to the official city plan (7.2.d) new development must maintain the stability and character of the built form in the existing established neighborhoods.
To be compatible, we would expect new development to be planned in a similar way. I know that the Official Plan also encourages a gradual increase in the average population density of the community (3.3.1.b). With the current institutional/R.1B zoning, I could also envision another church, a small private school, retirement home or nursing home.
You must realize that the proposed development will look into our backyards, our private spaces. The proposed zoning change would allow cluster and stacked townhouses and an apartment building, meaning the new homes would have a direct view to the rear of our properties. Such compacted housing would only be attractive for perhaps short-term student housing that would not be compatible with the established stable.
Nor has the security issue at the entrance to this development, which fronts onto the blind hill on Arkell Road. We would like to thank the councilors for the thoughtfulness that goes into planning for a beautiful Guelph.
Infilling Development & Collaboration
Planning Guidelines
2We would expect that these policies of the Guelph Official Plan be respected in any
The Proposal and By-Laws
Storey Apartment building is too tall and too close to property lines to achieve the rear and side yard distance requirements, it is too close to other buildings (10.5m, not
- Site Compatibility
3- Intensification areas will be planned and designed to achieve an appropriate transition
Opportunities for Infilling
Recommendation
This area, as we understand it, was originally part of the Township of Puslinch and was expropriated by the City of Guelph sometime after our house was built in the 1960s. However, we are not opposed to development as long as it complies with existing guidelines. of the Official Plan of the City of Guelph. After reviewing the notification we received from the city for the public meeting for this proposal, as well as the Planner's report no. 10-98 prepared for council and meeting, we do not lend our support to either type of rezoning amendment. or the proposed plan for.
In fact, many of our neighbors on Malvern had actually built their homes there before this area became part of the City of Guelph and have invested a lot of money in their properties, some of which will be greatly affected by a development of this nature, right in their backyard . Development does not comply with more than 10 bylaw provisions according to the City of Guelph Official Plan (see Planner's Report #10-98, Schedule 4 for a complete list of what does and does not comply), resulting in a densely packed development of units that are too close together, with side yards and distances between buildings falling short of the city's requirements in almost all cases. There is not enough space for parking in this lot..again less than the minimum required in the city's official plan and the question is where will people park with the busy Arkell Road hill right at the access point and the traffic already heavy enough on Gordon and Arkell Road?.
The access point on Arkell sits directly west of the Arkell Chapel ramp, and is on a blind hill with no visibility from westbound traffic, creating a dangerous scenario to exit onto Arkell Road. Although these represent only a few of the compliance issues, we can already see that the developer seems to be disinterested in what the official plan for the city of Guelph already has. Contrary to this proposal, we need to look at some of the guidelines provided in the City of Guelph's Official Plan, which give a reasonable approach to development in this area, taking into account the background of the area.
There are suggestions that we wholeheartedly agree with, and we hope that developers making proposals to the City of Guelph will also respect the best interest of all. When we ask "why a high-density proposal of this kind?", it's because the city has already spent enough time and money to create a good plan that is flexible, but not. 34; Recognize the unique style and character of the rural heritage landscape areas that were formerly part of the City of Puslinch". (South Guelph Secondary Plan, Urban Form Objective r).
34;Ensure that the design of the built environment reinforces and reinforces the character of the existing distinctive landmarks and neighborhoods of the city.' (3.6e). Considering our own neighborhood, which is low density, with mostly low-rise homes (bungalows and semi-detached), this proposal makes no attempt whatsoever to consider any of the above guidelines. This, along with the rest of the concerns we have addressed above, provide good evidence for why we are asking Guelph Council to reject this proposal.
1416 GORDON ST
GUELPH, ONTARIO N1L 1C8
The following resolutions have been prepared to facilitate the consideration of the Council on the various matters and are proposed for their consideration. If the Council wishes to address a specific report separately from the Consent Agenda, please indicate the subject. AND THAT the proposed demolition of seven detached homes on the grounds of the University of Guelph, municipally known as amp;
THAT the request of the Rotary Club of Guelph to provide a fireworks display at Riverside Park on December 31, 2010, is approved subject to the Rotary Club of Guelph meeting the terms and conditions of the Guelph Fire Department;. AND THAT the Rotary Club of Guelph obtain liability coverage in the amount with the City of Guelph named as an additional insured party and submit a certificate indicating such coverage to the City of Guelph prior to the event. AND THAT the City assumes no responsibility for any liability arising from granting this permission for the use of City property and facilities.
COUNCIL REPORT
RECOMMENDATION
BACKGROUND
REPORT
CORPORATE STRATEGIC PLAN
An attractive, well-functioning and sustainable city
FINANCIAL IMPLICATIONS N/A
DEPARTMENTAL CONSULTATION None
COMMUNICATIONS
ATTACHMENTS
Location Map Schedule 2 - Site Photographs
Excerpt of University of Guelph Campus Master Plan
