Though you do not represent our area of the City of Guelph, we would like to share with you our concerns regarding a proposed zoning by-law amendment and development for our area. We hope that you will consider our comments for the meeting on Oct 4th, and that in the long run, you will vote against this proposal, helping us maintain the existing zoning as set out in Guelph’s Official Plan.
We have been residents of Guelph since 1995 when we purchased our home at 41 Ridgeway Avenue, and have enjoyed the quiet neighborhood and the more rural character of this area of Guelph. We are two doors from the corner of Malvern Ave. and within the 120 metre circulation area for notice of the above proposal. The massive Pine Ridge and Westminister Woods sub-divisions began shortly after we moved here, and they have contributed a lot of traffic to the area, especially on Arkell Road making it difficult to enter it safely from our neighborhood at times.
This area, as we understand it, was originally part of the Township of Puslinch, and expropriated by the City of Guelph, some time after our home was built in the 1960’s. While we have always realized that the lands around us would eventually be developed, we would never have dreamed the pace that such development would occur. However, we do not object to development as long as it complies with the existing guidelines of the City of Guelph’s Official Plan.
After reviewing the notice we received from the city about the public meeting for this proposal, as well as the Planner’s report #10-98 prepared for council and for the meeting, we do not give our support to either the type of zoning amendment change, or the proposed plan for development. While there are definitely too many reasons to go into here, we will focus on some of our main concerns with the hope that you as a council will see fit to consider our input as residents of this community. This is our home, where we live and spend most of our time. In fact many of our neighbors on Malvern had actually built their homes there before this area became a part of the City of Guelph and have invested a lot of money into their properties, some of whom will be heavily affected by a development of this nature, right in their back yards. This will also affect our property values, not to mention the privacy they will lose, should buildings with the elevations proposed, be built within such bare minimum back yard clearances to their property lines.
Compliance Concerns
1. Development does not comply with more than 10 by-law regulations according to the City of Guelph’s Official Plan (See planner’s report #10-98, Schedule 4 for a complete list of what does and does not comply), resulting in a tightly packed development of units which are too close together, with side yards and distances between buildings missing the city’s requirements in almost every instance.
2. Height for the Apartment unit is too high, and side and rear yard clearances are not to minimum requirements, plus its too close to existing buildings. There is not enough room for parking on this site….again, less than minimum requirement of the city’s official plan, and the question is, where will people be parking with busy Arkell Road’s hill right at the access point, and the traffic which is already heavy enough on Gordon and Arkell Road??
3. The overall density maximum is 40 units per hectare, but for this proposal it has 47.1 units per hectare, again, not in compliance with the Official Plan.
4.The traffic and safety concerns surrounding this proposal are great. With 83 total units proposed, the potential for more than 100 cars travelling in and out of this development on a continual basis right onto two extremely busy roads and close to the Arkell / Gordon intersection is an accident waiting to happen. The access point on Arkell sits directly west of the Arkell chapel driveway, and is on a blind hill with no visibility from the westbound traffic creating a dangerous scenario for coming out onto Arkell Road. The access point onto Gordon street is directly adjacent to a new Day Care centre and a new commercial plaza, both of which see patrons coming in and out onto Gordon at a very busy location, which will create even more congestion on Gordon, possibly requiring another expensive light to be installed in order for traffic calming and safety of pedestrians. This traffic impact seems to fly in the face of what the Guelph Official Plan recommends in 7.2.7c.(see below)
While these only represent a few of the compliance issues, we can already see that the developer doesn’t seem to be interested in what the official plan for the city of Guelph has already determined, which is supposed to be for the good of our community in this neighborhood and for what is best for the City of Guelph in general, but rather to pack as many units into this small, oddly configured parcel of land, with no regard for the existing types of residential structures it is adjacent to, nor for the traffic it will generate, adding to the safety and noise concerns of the residents of this area.
In contrast to this proposal, we have 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, considering the background of the area. Suggestions are there which we heartily agree with, and would hope that developers who make proposals to the City of Guelph, would also respect for the good of everyone. When we ask” why a high density proposal of this type?,” its because the City has already spent enough time and money on creating a good plan which is flexible, but not dispensible.
Some examples of good planning from the Official Plan include :
“Maintain the stability and character of the built form in existing established neighbourhoods” (7.2d)
“Recognise the unique style and character of the rural cultural heritage landscape areas which were formerly part of the Township of Puslinch”..(South Guelph Secondary Plan, Urban Form Objective r)
encourage a “gradual increase in the average residential density of the community” (3.3.1b)
“Ensure the design of the built environment strengthens and enhances the character of the existing distinctive landmarks, and neigbourhoods of the city.’ (3.6e)
“the physical character of existing established low density residential neighborhoods will be respected wherever possible.” (7.2.33)
For multiple unit developments, vehiciular traffic generated by the proposal can be accommodated with minimal impact on local residential streets and intersections’, and interior facilites for traffic and parking are adequate. (7.2.7.c)Considering our own neighbourhood, which is low density, with mostly low rise style homes (bungalows and side splits), 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 give good evidence as to why we are asking Guelph Council to reject this proposal. We thank you for your time and consideration. We would also request that any and all updates, notices and correspondence regarding this proposal be forwarded to us at the address below or via email. DM