A resident comments on a development application.
We are writing to provide you with copies of the two reports prepared by our Planning experts Beate Bowron and Gary Davidson dated December 28, 2011 in relation to the proposed Development at 716 Gordon Street.
We learned, just prior to Christmas, that the Developer has now filed an appeal to the OMB. We therefore also write to seek your support in opposing both the proposal and the appeal. In addition, we provide an update on recent activities.
After our last update, we attended at a tour of Abode’s Waterloo building that was coordinated by Senior Planner Stacey Laughlin. This was not without incident. The night before the tour, at 8:30 p.m., we were notified by an email from the Developer that we were “uninvited” to the tour, as they did not want us to tour the building at the same time as the City Planners. The City Planning department asked the developers to reconsider this 11th hour refusal, which we very much appreciated. Late that same night, the Developer indicated that their position was not changing. As our planners were attending from two different locations out of town, Peggy Pritchard and I attended to advise our planners of the developments the next morning. After an hour, the Developer finally allowed Peggy and I to tour the building but they persisted in refusing to let our planners on the tour.
The next step was a Design Charette day on December 10, 2011. Overall we felt this was disappointing. We believed we would be looking at the broader picture of what would be appropriate for the site and surrounding area, so that there would be a reasonable transition between the site and surrounding area, in keeping with the Official Plan and the intensification guidelines. It is a very important location with implications all along the intensification corridor. However, Urban Strategies, the consultant retained by the city, seemed to have been given a different mandate.
It appeared we were being asked to redesign the current proposal. Furthermore, It was clear from the draft principles prepared by Urban Strategies (which we were not given in advance) that, the assumption was, in part at least, that this would be a student purpose built development. At the outset, we interrupted the process to explain once again that we were not invited there to re-design the developer’s application and to look only at this site. Jim Riddell agreed that the focus of the day was intended to be broader. We still had to be very assertive in order to keep that principle in the forefront. Another surprise and disappointment was that the Developer sent their legal counsel to participate. Overall, it felt like we were being bullied by the developer and asked by the city to just make this proposal work.
Despite this, some limited progress was made. Urban Strategies came up with some design principles, which we worked through. After modification, we reached some agreement in principle. Our planners’ letter reiterates the most important of these principles.
Our current position is this. We recognize that the area is in the intensification corridor, but we do not accept that a high-density student purpose built residential complex on that property would provide an appropriate transition to the adjacent neighbourhood. This is supported in the attached reports. We remain prepared to oppose the application and the appeal to the OMB. At this point the application by the developer is a complex with 1600 people. Their lowest “without prejudice” suggestion was for 1200 residents. Whether it is 12 storeys or 16, 1600 or 1200 residents, it really it will make no difference in its negative effect.
We believe that our experts’ reports support a reasonable plan for intensification of the site and the corridor in general. We feel that their opinions are in keeping with the City’s own intensification guidelines and good planning principles.
We add to their reports a reminder of the many outstanding issues and problems with the Developer’s proposal. This proposed development is not one that brings jobs or housing to the permanent residents of the city of Guelph. By its own definition, it is a “Student Purpose Built Housing” residence (although we are continually being told by planners that they cannot “plan for people”.) It is not even an increase in housing through density as contemplated through the “Places to Grow” legislation. There has been no Heritage Study submitted with this application as required. The traffic and parking studies are based on out of date statistics and as far as we know have not been updated. We have not been informed of any review for the safety implications to bicyclists or pedestrians and the neighbourhood in general. We do not know if the need for such a development has been examined. We provided detailed summaries of all of our concerns following the initial meeting before council and those concerns have not been addressed at all. If anyone would like copies of the summaries we would be happy to send them again.
We care about our city and we are really proud that the City Planners and Council do not allow the planning of our city to be dictated solely by the financial interests of Developers. We have worked diligently and in good faith over the past year, yet the developer is clearly unprepared to address our concerns and unprepared to consider anything less than an ultra-high density single-use residential proposal.
We need the City Planners and the City Councilors to be behind us on this. We urge the City to continue with its evaluation of the application and ask that the City and our neighbourhood be united in the goal for responsible planning and intensification. KM