PLANNING REPORT

1300 Gordon Street City of Guelph

Prepared on behalf of Carousel Estates Homes Inc.

July 10, 2017

Project No. 1225

423 Woolwich Street, Suite 201, Guelph, Ontario, N1H 3X3 Phone (519) 836-7526 Fax (519) 836-9568 Email astrid.clos@ajcplanning.ca

Table of Contents Page

1. Introduction 1

2. Description of the Proposal 1 3. Existing Conditions and Surrounding Land Uses 3

4. Planning Framework 5

4.1 Provincial Policy Statement (2014) 5 4.2 Places to Grow (2017) 6 4.3 City of Guelph Official Plan (September 2014 Consolidation) 7 4.4 Envision Guelph Draft Official Plan (OPA No. 48) 14 4.5 Zoning By-law 15

5. Summary of Supporting Reports 18

5.1 Functional Servicing and Stormwater Management Report 18 5.2 Traffic Impact Study 19 5.3 Scoped Environmental Impact Study and Tree Preservation Plan 19 5.4 Geotechnical Report 20 5.5 Environmental Site Assessment 20 5.6 Archaeological Assessment 21 5.7 Hydrogeological Study 21 5.8 Urban Design Brief 23 6. Conclusion 23

Figures

Figure 1 Proposed Concept Plan (June 13, 2017) 2

Figure 2 Zoning Compliance 3

Figure 3 Surrounding Land Use 4 Figure 4 Excerpt from the City Environmental Planner’s Report to EAC 8

Figure 5 Guelph Official Plan – Natural Heritage System (2014 Consolidation) 10

Figure 6 Guelph Official Plan (2014 Consolidation) 11

Figure 7 Official Plan Criteria to Evaluate an Apartment Proposal 12

Figure 8 Guelph Official Plan – Growth Plan Elements (2014 Consolidation) 13

Figure 9 OPA No. 48 Land Use Schedule 14

Figure 10 Existing Zoning 16

Figure 11 Approved Reductions in the Minimum Front Yard 17

1. Introduction This report has been prepared on behalf of Carousel Estates Homes Inc. in support of an official plan and zoning amendment application for the property municipally addressed as 1300 Gordon Street and legally described as Part of Lot 6, Concession 8 (Geographic Township of Puslinch) City of Guelph. The total area of the property subject to these applications is 0.242 hectares.

The proposed development for the subject property is a 6 storey apartment building comprised of 32 units. One level of at grade enclosed parking is proposed with 5 residential storeys located above. A total of 46 parking spaces are proposed including two designated visitor parking spaces and one accessible parking space. An automated parking system is proposed which would provide 43 of the parking spaces for building residents. The property is currently zoned as R.1B and is being proposed to be rezoned to a Specialized R.4 -__ General Apartment Zone. A pre-consultation meeting was held with the City on November 2, 2016. This Planning Report was requested by the City as a requirement for a complete application.

2. Description of the Proposal The property is designated Significant Natural Area and Natural Areas in the Land Use Schedule of the Guelph Official Plan. (Figures – 4 and 5) This designation exists on the basis of an Ecological Linkage which has been accepted by the City as 10 m wide on the subject property subject to the preparation of an acceptable EIS. The proposal for this property has been designed to respect this Ecological Linkage. The Official Plan policies state that “Minor refinements to the boundaries may be made on the basis of the criteria for designation, without an amendment to this Plan.” Through the pre-consultation process the City advised that an Official Plan Amendment would be required. On this basis, an Official Plan Amendment has been submitted to continue to recognize the ecological linkage on the subject property while changing the designation on the remainder of the property from Significant Natural Area and Natural Areas to the Medium Density Residential designation. An Official Plan Amendment is also required to change the maximum net density from 100 units per hectare to 132 units per hectare. The current zoning of the property is the R.1B Zone which does not permit the proposed apartment building. A zone change application is therefore being submitted to change the zoning to a Specialized R.4A- __ Zone. As shown by the Concept Plan included as Figure 1, a 6 storey apartment building comprised of 32 units is proposed. One level of at grade enclosed parking is proposed with 5 residential storeys located above. A total of 46 parking spaces are proposed including two designated visitor parking spaces and one accessible parking space. An automated parking system is proposed which would provide 43 of the 46 parking spaces. The zoning by-law requires 45 parking spaces for 32 units. 46 parking spaces are being provided which exceeds this zoning requirement. However, where the by-law requires 9 visitor parking spaces 2 visitor parking spaces are provided. An indoor Common Amenity Area of 51.7 m2 and an outdoor Common Amenity Area of 792.6m2

are proposed which together meet the zoning requirement of a minimum of 840 m2 of Common Amenity Area.

2 Figure 1 – Proposed Concept Plan (July 10, 2017)

Specialized Zoning Regulations being requested:

A Maximum Density of 132 units per hectare where the Zoning By-law requires a Maximum Density of 100 units per hectare.

A Minimum Front Yard of 4.6 m where the Zoning By-law requires a Minimum Front Yard of 6 m.

A Minimum Side Yard of 3 m where the Zoning By-law requires a Minimum Side Yard of 8.5 m (half the building height).

A Minimum Rear Yard of 10 m where the Zoning By-law requires a Minimum Rear Yard of 11.06 m (20% of the lot depth).

2 visitor parking spaces provided above grade enclosed within a building where the Zoning By-law requires that 9 visitor parking spaces be located above grade.

A Maximum Floor Space Index of 2.22 where the Zoning By-law requires a Maximum Floor Space Index of 1.5.

3 Figure 2 – Zoning Compliance

Requested Specialized General Apartment R.4A-__ Zone

Permitted Uses: Apartment Building Requested Uses: Apartment Building

Zoning Regulation R.4B Zone Required Provided Compliance

Minimum Lot Area 650 m2 2,426 m2 Yes

Minimum Lot Frontage 15m 43.9 m Yes

Maximum Density (units per ha) 100 units per ha 132 units per ha No

Minimum Front Yard 6 m 4.6 m No

Minimum Side Yard (Section 5.3.2.2) half the Building Height, and in no case less than 3 metres.

8.5 m (half the building height of 17m)

3 m No

Minimum Rear Yard - 20% of the lot depth or half the building height whichever is greater, not less than 7.5m

11.06 m

10 m No

Maximum Building Height 8 storeys 6 storeys Yes

Minimum Common Amenity Area 30 m2 per dwelling unit for each unit up to 20. For each additional dwelling unit, 20 m2 of Common Amenity Area shall be provided and aggregated into areas of not less than 50 m2. Section 5.4.2.4

840 m2

32 units

840 m2

Indoor 51.7 m2

Outdoor 792.6m2

Yes

Minimum Landscaped Open Space 40% for Buildings 5-10 storeys

40 % 971.2 m2

48 % 1,176 m2

Yes

Off-Street Parking (Section 4.13) first 20 units: 1.5 per unit, and for each unit in excess of 20: 1.25 per unit

45 parking spaces 32 units

46 parking spaces

Yes

4.13.6 Visitor Parking minimum of 20% visitor parking spaces shall be located above grade and be clearly identified as being reserved for the exclusive use of visitors.

9 visitor parking spaces

2 visitor parking spaces provided above grade enclosed within a building

No

Buffer Strip Required where abutting a Residential and Institutional Zone

Yes

Floor Space Index 1.5 2.22 5,373 m2 GFA

No

3. Existing Conditions and Surrounding Land Uses

The MTE Functional Servicing Report dated May 23, 2017 states that;

“The Site encompasses an area of 0.24 ha and is currently a single family residence. The property consists of one side-split brick house, a driveway, a brick patio, a small retaining wall along the rear of the driveway, a framed shed and several mature trees with minor vegetation. In the existing condition, surface runoff from the Site generally flows from the north to the south. There is approximately 5.5 metres of elevation difference between the north and south property corners.”

4 The existing surrounding land uses include: North - A 5 storey apartment zoned R.4A-44 which is under construction. 10m or half of

the width of the ecological linkage is located on this property.

East - The existing Salvation Army Citadel parking lot which is zoned I.1-12. 10m or half of the width of the ecological linkage is located on this property.

South - The existing Salvation Army Citadel access which is zoned I.1-12. 10m or half of the width of the ecological linkage is located on this property.

West - Gordon Street and to the southwest the 7 storey Solstice apartment building.

Figure 3 - Surrounding Land Use

5 4. Planning Framework 4.1 Provincial Policy Statement 2014 The Provincial Policy Statement 2014 (PPS) is issued under the authority of Section 3 of the Planning Act and was in effect as of April 30, 2014. In respect of the exercise of any authority that affects a planning matter, section 3 of the Planning Act requires that decisions affecting planning matters “shall be consistent with” policy statements issued under the Act. The Provincial Policy Statement is more than a set of individual policies. It is to be read in its entirety and the relevant policies are to be applied to each situation. When more than one policy is relevant, a decision-maker should consider all of the relevant policies to understand how they work together. The language of each policy, including the Implementation and Interpretation policies, will assist decision-makers in understanding how the policies are to be implemented. Provincial plans are to be read in conjunction with the Provincial Policy Statement. They take precedence over the policies of the Provincial Policy Statement to the extent of any conflict, except where the relevant legislation provides otherwise. The Provincial Policy Statement provides policy direction on matters of provincial interest related to land use planning and development. (bolding added for emphasis)

“1.1.3 Settlement Areas 1.1.3.1 Settlement areas shall be the focus of growth and their vitality and

regeneration shall be promoted. 1.1.3.2 Land use patterns within settlement areas shall be based on:

a. densities and a mix of land uses which:

1. efficiently use land and resources; 2. are appropriate for, and efficiently use, the infrastructure and

public service facilities which are planned or available, and avoid the need for their unjustified and/or uneconomical expansion; and

3. minimize negative impacts to air quality and climate change, and promote energy efficiency in accordance with policy 1.8; and

b. a range of uses and opportunities for intensification and redevelopment in

accordance with the criteria in policy 1.1.3.3,where this can be accommodated.

1.4.1 To provide for an appropriate range and mix of housing types and densities required to meet projected requirements of current and future residents of the regional market area,

1.6.3 a) The use of existing infrastructure and public service facilities should be

optimized;

6 1.6.6.2 Municipal sewage services and municipal water services are the preferred form

of servicing for settlement areas. Intensification and redevelopment within settlement areas on existing municipal sewage services and municipal water services should be promoted, wherever feasible.

2.1.2 The diversity and connectivity of natural features in an area, and the long-term

ecological function and biodiversity of natural heritage systems, should be maintained, restored or, where possible, improved, recognizing linkages between and among natural heritage features and areas, surface water features and ground water features.”

The site will be serviced with municipal sewage and water services consistent with the Provincial Policy Statement. The proposal will assist the City in providing an appropriate range and mix of housing types and densities. The proposal will complete the ecological linkage identified between natural heritage features. The proposed development will efficiently use infrastructure and public service facilities such as municipal services and public transit. The proposal for the subject property is consistent with the Provincial Policy Statement 2014. 4.2 Places to Grow (2017) The Growth Plan for the Greater Golden Horseshoe (2017) takes effect on July 1, 2017. “This Plan applies to the area designated by Ontario Regulation 416/05 as the Greater Golden Horseshoe growth plan area. All decisions made on or after July 1, 2017 in respect of the exercise of any authority that affects a planning matter will conform with this Plan, subject to any legislative or regulatory provisions providing otherwise.”(1.2.2)

Excerpts from the Growth Plan are included in this report. Bolding has been added for emphasis. The Growth Plan prioritizes intensification and higher densities within the built-up area to make efficient use of land and infrastructure and support transit viability. The subject property is located within the Delineated Built-up Area where higher density residential development is directed to occur. The proposed completion of the ecological linkage by this proposal will enhance the natural heritage system and function. “1.2.1 Guiding Principles

Prioritize intensification and higher densities to make efficient use of land and infrastructure and support transit viability.

Protect and enhance natural heritage, hydrologic, and landform systems, features, and

functions. 2.2.2 Delineated Built-up Areas 3. Until the next municipal comprehensive review is approved and in effect, the annual

minimum intensification target contained in the applicable upper- or single-tier official plan that is approved and in effect as of July 1, 2017 will continue to apply.

7 Outer Ring The geographic area consisting of the cities of Barrie, Brantford, Guelph, Kawartha Lakes, Orillia, and Peterborough; the Counties of Brant, Dufferin, Haldimand, Northumberland, Peterborough, Simcoe, and Wellington; and the Regions of Niagara and Waterloo. 4.2.2 Natural Heritage System 1. The Province will map a Natural Heritage System for the GGH to support a

comprehensive, integrated, and long-term approach to planning for the protection of the region’s natural heritage and biodiversity. The Natural Heritage System mapping will exclude lands within settlement area boundaries that were approved and in effect as of July 1, 2017.”

The proposal for the subject property will assist the City to meet the Places to Grow 2017 guiding principles by prioritizing intensification and higher densities to make efficient use of land and infrastructure and support transit viability, as well as protecting and enhancing the natural heritage functions of the area. The proposal will assist the City in meeting the in effect minimum intensification target for in the Delineated Built-up Area within the Guelph Official Plan that is approved and in effect as of July 1, 2017.

4.3 City of Guelph Official Plan (September 2014 Consolidation) Schedule 10 of the Guelph Official Plan (see Figures 4 and 5) shows the subject property within an Ecological Linkage related to a deer crossing. In accordance with section 6A.2.9, an existing narrower ecological linkage of 10m in width has been approved for the Salvation Army property, the apartment site to the north, the townhouse site to the east and the subject property. (ie. total width of 20 m) There is an existing driveway and shed associated with the dwelling on the property which are both currently located within this identified 10m wide ecological linkage. The proposed development of the subject property will enhance the ecological linkage by removing the asphalt driveway and the existing shed. Passive recreational activities and stormwater management facilities are permitted to be located within ecological linkages provided that it is demonstrated through an Environmental Impact Study to the satisfaction of the City that the functionality and connectivity of the Ecological Linkage will be maintained or enhanced. The Official Plan recognizes existing stormwater management areas and permits new stormwater management areas which meet the criteria within the “Significant Natural Area” designation. The Scoped Environmental Impact Study prepared by Natural Resource Solutions Inc. dated June 2017 concluded that; “The proposed development has been designed to allow for a 10m expansion of the existing adjacent wildlife corridor, which would double its total width to 20m. This is in line with approaches that have been taken on adjacent properties that share the wildlife corridor, and have been approved by City staff as part of planning applications. The 10m wide corridor extension on the subject property will comprise an open common amenity space that will be landscaped with native woody vegetation plantings to augment the existing cover habitat on the adjacent property side. Because deer use of the corridor is primarily during overnight hours, human use of the property is not expected to negatively impact deer movement behaviours.”

8

The October 14th, 2015 report to the Environmental Advisory Committee prepared by the City’s Environmental Planner includes Figure 4. Figure 4 indicates that 1288 Gordon Street is included within this Ecological Linkage where a residential apartment building is now under construction. It is noted that existing stormwater management areas are designated as Restoration Areas and are included as part of the “Significant Natural Area” designation within the Land Use Schedule.

Figure 4 - Excerpt from the City Environmental Planner’s Report to EAC

The October 14th, 2015 report to the Environmental Advisory Committee prepared by the City’s Environmental Planner states that; “The Ecological Linkage at this location is to recognize, protect and enhance the east-west corridor connectivity between Significant Natural Areas of Torrance Creek Provincially Significant Wetland and associated Natural Heritage System to the east and the Natural Heritage Features of Hanlon Creek Subwatershed west of Gordon Street. The OP policies recognize that the location of Ecological Linkages may be modified and/or width refined subject to an EIS or EA provided that the proposed changes to the location or width of Ecological Linkage will maintain or enhance functionality and connectivity between the intended Natural Heritage System features.

9 Further where the proposed refinement to the width of an Ecological Linkage would result in a width less than 50m, the OP policies require the development design to incorporate such elements as to maximize the effectiveness and functionality of the ecological linkage.

Through the adjacent development applications and associated EIS a corridor width of 20 m has been committed and is anticipated to be achieved as part of construction. There were extensive wildlife surveys conducted as part of these relevant development applications which are as such proposed to be incorporated in the EIS for this site.”

The following are excerpts from the Guelph Official Plan; “6A.2.9 Significant Wildlife Habitat (including Ecological Linkages) Ecological Linkages are designated on Schedule 1 and are identified on Schedule 10 separately from other components of Significant Wildlife Habitat. Ecological Linkages are 100 m in width except where existing narrower linkages have been approved or identified on Schedule 10. 6A.1.2 General Permitted Uses 1. Development and site alteration shall not be permitted within the Natural Heritage

System, … except for the following uses:

i) legally existing uses, buildings or structures; ii) passive recreational activities;

Passive Recreational Activities means a range of outdoor activities and passive uses compatible with protecting the Natural Heritage features and areas including, but not limited to, wildlife habitat, wetlands and woodlands. Activities and uses include bird watching, hiking, photography, snowshoeing, and may require the construction of a trail, benches or boardwalks in accordance with the Guelph Trail Master Plan or are integral to the scientific, educational or passive recreational use of a property. Ecological Linkages 10. In addition to the General Permitted Uses of Section 6A.1.2 and the policies in 6A.2.9.5,

the following uses may be permitted within Ecological Linkages, subject to the requirements under 6A.1.2.8, where it has been demonstrated through an EIS or EA to the satisfaction of the City, and in consultation with the GRCA where appropriate, with consideration for the MNR’s technical guidance that the functionality and connectivity of the Ecological Linkage will be maintained or enhanced:

i) essential linear infrastructure and their normal maintenance; ii) essential transportation infrastructure and their normal maintenance; and iii) stormwater management facilities and structures and their normal

maintenance.

10 6A.1.1 General Policies Interpretation 14. The boundaries of the natural heritage features and areas that make up the Natural

Heritage System are based on criteria for designation and the best information available at the time of completion of this Plan.

15. In the event that there is a discrepancy between the Schedules and the policies, the

policies shall prevail. 17. Boundaries of natural heritage features and areas that make up the Natural Heritage

System shown on Schedules 1, 2, 10, and 10A-E and shall be delineated using the criteria for designation and the most current information, and are required to be field verified and staked as part of an EIS or EA, to the satisfaction of the City, in consultation with the Ontario Ministry of Natural Resources (MNR) and/or the Grand River Conservation Authority (GRCA), as applicable. Once confirmed in the field, and approved by the City, boundaries of natural heritage features and areas and established buffers shall be required to be accurately surveyed and illustrated on all plans submitted in support of development and site alteration applications. Such boundary interpretations will not require an amendment to this Plan. Minor refinements to the boundaries may be made on the basis of the criteria for designation, without an amendment to this Plan.”

Figure 5 – Guelph Official Plan – Natural Heritage System (2014 Consolidation)

11

The property is designated Significant Natural Area and Natural Areas in the Land Use Schedule of the Official Plan. (Figures – 4 and 5) This designation exists on the basis of an Ecological Linkage which has been accepted by the City as 10m wide on the subject property subject to being supported by an acceptable EIS. The subject proposal has been designed to respect the existing Ecological Linkage. The Official Plan policies permit “Minor refinements to the boundaries may be made on the basis of the criteria for designation, without an amendment to this Plan.” Through the pre-consultation process the City advised that an Official Plan Amendment would be required. On this basis an Official Plan Amendment has been submitted to continue to recognize the ecological linkage on the subject property while changing the designation on the remainder of the property from Significant Natural Area and Natural Areas to the Medium Density Residential designation. An Official Plan Amendment is also required to change the maximum net density from 100 units per hectare to 132 units per hectare.

”'Medium Density Residential' Land Use Designation

7.2.36 The predominant use of land within areas designated as 'Medium Density Residential' on Schedule 1 shall be for multiple unit residential buildings, such as townhouses, row dwellings and walk-up apartments. It is not intended that housing forms such as single detached or semi-detached units shall be permitted. Residential care facilities and lodging houses may be permitted by the provisions of this Plan.

7.2.38 The net density of development shall be a minimum of 20 units per hectare (8 units/acre) and a maximum of 100 units per hectare (40 units/acre), except as provided for in policy 7.2.10.

7.2.39 Medium density residential development proposals shall generally comply with criteria established for multiple unit residential buildings in policy 7.2.7 of this Plan, and shall be regulated by the Zoning By-law.”

Figure 6 – Guelph Official Plan - Land Use Plan (2014 Consolidation)

12

Multiple unit residential buildings such as apartments are permitted in the Medium Density Residential designation. Medium Density Residential shall comply with the specific development criteria as noted by the provisions of policy 7.2.7. Apartment proposals within the Medium Density Residential designation must be evaluated using the criteria in section 7.2.7 of the Official Plan. The evaluation of the proposal using these criteria is found in Figure 7. The proposed apartment meets the evaluation criteria of section 7.2.7.

Figure 7 - Official Plan Criteria to Evaluate an Apartment Proposal

7.2.7 Multiple unit residential buildings, such as townhouses, row dwellings and apartments, may be permitted within designated areas permitting residential uses. The following development criteria will be used to evaluate a development proposal for multiple unit housing:

Official Plan Policy Analysis

a) That the building form,

massing, appearance and siting are

compatible in design, character and

orientation with buildings in the

immediate vicinity;

The proposed 6 storey building has a form, massing, appearance and siting compatible in design, character and orientation with buildings in the immediate vicinity of the site. The abutting property located to the north has been rezoned to permit an apartment development which is now under construction. There is an existing 6 storey apartment building located on the west side of Gordon Street in proximity to the subject property. The subject site is designed to provide the 10m ecological corridor also provided on the Salvation Army, Coletara and the Gallery Town properties located to the north and east.

b) That the proposal can be

adequately served by local

convenience and neighbourhood

shopping facilities, schools, parks

and recreation facilities and public

transit;

Shopping facilities are available along Gordon Street. Public and separate schools are located in proximity to the site. Guelph Transit provides bus service along Gordon Street. (Transit Routes 1, 5 and 16)

c) That the vehicular traffic generated from the proposal can be accommodated with minimal impact on local residential streets and intersections and, in addition, vehicular circulation, access and parking facilities can be adequately provided; and

The Traffic Impact Study prepared by Paradigm Transportation Solutions Limited dated July 2017 evaluates potential impacts of the traffic to be generated and concludes that, the study intersections are forecast to operate at satisfactory levels of service and the queuing length from these intersections do not impact the site driveway. Schedule 9A: EXISTING ROAD NETWORK in the Official Plan shows Gordon Street as an arterial road. Adequate on-site parking is proposed which exceeds the total parking required by the City’s Zoning By-law.

d) That adequate municipal

infrastructure, services and amenity

areas for the residents can be

provided.

The report prepared by MTE evaluates the municipal infrastructure available to service the proposal. A gym is proposed to provide indoor common amenity area space as well as an outdoor Common Amenity Area which area provided in compliance with the provisions of the zoning by-law.

13

Figure 8 - Guelph Official Plan – Growth Plan Elements (2014 Consolidation)

Schedule 1B – Growth Plan Elements of the Official Plan, includes the subject property within the Built-up Area and within an identified Intensification Corridor. The Official Plan anticipates higher residential densities within the built-up area and within Intensification Corridors to ensure the viability of existing and planned transit service levels. Guelph Transit operates transit routes 1, 5 and 16 along Gordon Street.

“2.4.4 Settlement Area Boundary The City’s future development to the year 2031 will be accommodated with the City’s settlement area boundary identified on Schedule 1B of this Plan.

2.4.4.1 The City will meet the forecasted growth within the settlement area through: b) intensifying generally within the built-up area, with higher densities within

Downtown Guelph, the community mixed use nodes and within the identified intensification corridors;”

The proposal is in conformity with the general intent of the Official Plan policies. The proposed density of 132 units per hectare is greater than the maximum permitted density of 100 units per hectare, however, the Official Plan anticipates higher density intensification within the built-up area and within Intensification Corridors. The proposed apartment meets the evaluation criteria of section 7.2.7.

14 4.4 Envision Guelph Draft Official Plan (OPA No. 48)

Official Plan Amendment No. 48 is the 5 year review of the Guelph Official Plan. OPA No. 48 has been appealed to the Ontario Municipal Board and is not in effect. OPA No. 48 proposes to designate the subject property as “Significant Natural Area” due to the presence of the ecological linkage identified on the subject property and the abutting properties. It is noted that OPA No. 48 also includes stormwater management areas within the “Significant Natural Area” designation. OPA No. 48 proposes to designate the properties to the north and south of the subject property as High Density Residential with the Ecological Linkage identified between these designations. The abutting properties are designated as High Density Residential which permits an apartment use with a maximum building height of 10 storeys and a maximum density of 150 units per hectare. The proposal with 6 storeys and a density of 132 units per hectare is in conformity with the height and density permitted in the High Density Residential designation.

Figure 9 - OPA No. 48 Land Use Schedule

9.3.5 High Density Residential The predominant use of land within the High Density Residential Designation shall be high density multiple unit residential building forms.

15 Permitted Uses 1. The following uses may be permitted subject to the applicable provisions of this Plan:

i) multiple unit residential buildings generally in the form of apartments.

Height and Density 2. The minimum height is three (3) storeys and the maximum height is ten (10) storeys 3. The maximum net density is 150 units per hectare and not less than a minimum net

density of 100 units per hectare.” The proposed 6 storey building height is less than the maximum 10 storey permitted building height permitted within the High Density Residential designation. The proposed density of 132 units per hectare is less than the maximum 150 units per hectare density permitted within the High Density Residential designation. However, OPA No. 48 while adopted by Council is not yet in effect and therefore an Official Plan Amendment is required to increase the permitted density of the site of 132 units per hectare.

4.5 Zoning By-law

The current zoning of the property is the R.1B Zone and Lands with a Linkage. The R.1B Zone does not permit the proposed apartment use. A zone change application has therefore been submitted to change the zoning to a Specialized General Apartment R.4A-__ Zone. “13.1 INTERPRETATION In addition to the terms defined in this By-law, the following terms shall have the corresponding meanings for the purposes of this Section: (d) “Linkages” means natural areas that connect Natural Heritage Features. These linkages

are important to maintain or establish an interconnected natural heritage system whereby passage of otherwise isolated plants and animals of the same species can occur to maintain genetic viability, health, and diversity;

13.4 LOCALLY SIGNIFICANT WETLANDS, SIGNIFICANT WOODLOTS, NATURAL CORRIDORS, AND LINKAGES Locally Significant Wetlands, significant woodlots, Natural Corridors and Linkages have a shading pattern placed on them in the Defined Area Maps. Properties with Locally Significant Wetlands, significant woodlots, Natural Corridors and Linkages shall be required to complete an Environmental Impact Study when a Development or Redevelopment proposal, requiring an Official Plan amendment, a Zoning By-law amendment, a plan of subdivision (excluding a plan of condominium), or a consent is submitted for lands within the shaded areas of the property.” An Environmental Impact Study has been prepared by Natural Resource Solutions Inc. address the identified linkage and is included with this submission in support of the Official Plan Amendment and Zone Change applications.

16

Figure 10 - Existing Zoning

As noted in section 2 of this report, a Zone Change application is proposed to change the R.1B Zone to a Specialized General Apartment R.4A- __ Zone. The specialized zoning regulations being requested for 1300 Gordon Street includes;

A Maximum Density of 132 units per hectare where the Zoning By-law requires a Maximum Density of 100 units per hectare.

A Minimum Front Yard of 4.6 m where the Zoning By-law requires a Minimum Front Yard of 6 m.

A Minimum Side Yard of 3 m where the Zoning By-law requires a Minimum Side Yard of 8.5 m (half the building height).

A Minimum Rear Yard of 10 m where the Zoning By-law requires a Minimum Rear Yard of 11.06 m (20% of the lot depth).

2 visitor parking spaces provided above grade enclosed within a building where the Zoning By-law requires that 9 visitor parking spaces be located above grade.

A Maximum Floor Space Index of 2.22 where the Zoning By-law requires a Maximum Floor Space Index of 1.5.

A density of 132 units per hectare is appropriate in this location along Gordon Street which is a major transit route, arterial road and designated as an Intensification Corridor by the City’s Official Plan within the Built Up Area. Surrounding the subject property is an apartment development to the north, the Salvation Army parking lot to the east and south and to the southwest is the 6 storey Solstice apartment building.

17

The reduced Minimum Front Yard being requested has been supported by the City for at least 16 applications of this regulation as summarized in Figure 11 below. This reduced front yard setback applies only to the lobby vestibule of the proposed apartment building where there is a sidewalk connection between the building to the existing municipal sidewalk. The remaining front wall of the building is setback further at 6m and provides adequate space for landscaping.

Figure 11 – Approved Reductions in the Minimum Front Yard Regulation

Specialized R3.A Zone Specialized R.3A Zoning Regulation

5.3.3.1.24 R.3A-24 As shown on Defined Area Map Number 24 of Schedule “A” of this Bylaw.

5.3.3.1.24.2.3 Minimum Front or Exterior Side Yard Notwithstanding Table 5.3.2, Row 5, the minimum Front or Exterior Side Yard shall be 4.5 metres.

5.3.3.1.26 R.3A-26 As shown on Defined Area Map Number 42 of Schedule “A” of this Bylaw.

5.3.3.1.26.2.1 Minimum Front Yard 4.5 metres from Clairfields Drive for any Dwelling Unit.

5.3.3.1.30 R.3A-30 13, 15, 17 and 21-23 College Avenue West, 1 and 3 Hales Crescent and 14 Moore Avenue

5.3.3.1.30.2.2 Minimum Front and Exterior Side Yard

Despite Table 5.3.2, Row 5, the Minimum Front Yard on Borden Street shall be 2.9 metres

Despite Table 5.3.2, Row 5, the Minimum Exterior Side Yard on Hales Crescent shall be 3.2 metres

Despite Table 5.3.2, Row 5, the Minimum Exterior Side Yard on College Avenue shall be 3.8 metres

5.3.3.1.33 R.3A-33 As shown on Defined Area Map Number 30 of Schedule “A” of this Bylaw.

5.3.3.1.33.1.1 Minimum Front Yard 4.5 metres from Clairfields Drive

5.3.3.1.36 R.3A-36 Gordon Street South As shown on Defined Area Map Number 32 of Schedule “A” of this Bylaw.

5.3.3.1.36.2.3 Minimum Front Yard In accordance with the provisions of Table 5.3.2, Row 5, except that the Minimum Front Yard along Gordon Street South where no Garage is provided, shall be 4.5 metres.

5.3.1.38 R.3A-38 5.3.1.38.2.2.1 Minimum Front Yard The minimum Front Yard Setback shall be 4.5 metres

5.3.3.1.41 R.3A-41 80 Frederick Drive As shown on Defined Area Map Number 75 of Schedule “A” of this Bylaw.

5.3.3.1.41.2.4 Minimum Front Yard (a) From a public Street – 4.5 metres

5.3.3.1.43 R.3A-43 146 Downey Road As Shown on Defined Area Map Number 12 of Schedule “A” of this By-law.

5.3.3.1.43.2.1 Minimum Front Yard Despite Row 5 of Table 5.3.2 of the By-law, the minimum Front Yard shall be 4.5m.

5.3.3.1.48 R.3A-48 30, 34 and 40 Arkell Road As shown on Defined Area Map Number 41 of Schedule “A” of this Bylaw.

5.3.3.1.48.2.1 Minimum Front Yard 4 metres

5.3.3.1.49 R.3A-49 246 Arkell Road As shown in Defined Area Map Number 74 of Schedule “A” of this Bylaw.

5.3.3.1.49.2.1 Minimum Front Yard Despite Table 5.3.2, Row 5, the minimum Front Yard shall be 4.5 metres.

18

Specialized R3.A Zone Specialized R.3A Zoning Regulation

5.3.3.1.50 R.3A-50 340 Clair Road East As shown on Defined Area Map Number 75 of Schedule “A” of this ByLaw.

5.3.3.1.50.2.3 Minimum Front Yard From a public Street- 4.5 metres

5.3.3.1.51 R.3A-51 340 Clair Road East As shown in Defined Area Map 75 of Schedule “A” of this By-law.

5.3.3.1.51.2.4 Minimum Front Yard From a public Street- 4.5 metres

5.3.3.1.53 R.3A-53 As shown on Defined Area Map Number 62 of Schedule “A” of this Bylaw.

5.3.3.1.53.2.5 Minimum Front Yard 3 metres

5.3.3.1.54 R.3A-54 As shown on Defined Area Map Number 62 of Schedule “A” of this Bylaw.

5.3.3.1.54.2.6 Minimum Front Yard 3 metres

5.3.3.1.56 R.3A-56 1820 Gordon Street As shown on Defined Area Map Number 73 of Schedule “A” of this Bylaw.

5.3.3.1.56.2.1 Minimum Front Yard Despite Table 5.3.2, Row 5, 4.5m to front wall of Dwelling and 6m to Garage face if Garage access is from a public Street.

5.3.3.1.58 R.3A-58 60 Arkell Rd As shown on Defined Area Map Numbers 41 and 42 of Schedule “A” of this By-law.

5.3.3.1.58.2.2 Minimum Front Yard 3.9 metres

5. Summary of Supporting Reports 5.1 Functional Servicing and Stormwater Management Report The Functional Servicing and Stormwater Management Report prepared by MTE dated May 30, 2017 concluded that;

Existing municipal infrastructure for water, sanitary and storm is available along Gordon Street for this site to connect into.

A new 150 mm diameter water service and private fire hydrant will need to be installed to service the proposed building.

The existing 150 diameter sanitary service is capable of servicing the residential units in the building. The existing invert at property line will need to be verified to confirm if it is of a suitable depth to service the proposed building.

The stormwater management criteria for quantity control can be achieved by the installation of flow control roof drains.

The proposed development will result in a net gain of infiltration with the implementation of a bio-retention swale.

Detailed grading, servicing and stormwater management designs will be provided during the Site Plan approval process.

19 5.2 Traffic Impact Study

The Traffic Impact Study prepared by Paradigm Transportation Solutions Limited dated July 2017 concludes that;

“The study area intersections are forecast to operate at satisfactory levels of service during the weekday AM and PM peak hours under 2020 and 2025 future total traffic conditions with optimized signal timings.

The forecast northbound and southbound 95th percentile queue reach from the intersections of Gordon Street at Edinburgh Road South and Gordon Street at Arkell Road do not impact the site driveway.”

The Traffic Impact Study prepared by Paradigm Transportation Solutions Limited dated July 2017 recommends that the development be approved as proposed and that the developer implement the following Travel Demand Management measures;

“Mark site driveway with a ladder cross-walk to further emphasize the presence of this east-west pedestrian crossing;

Provide resident and visitor bicycle parking spaces on-site;

Provide general education of all travel mode options that identify benefits and how residents can best utilize these modes. New residents should be provided with a welcome package that outlines proximity to transit, cycling facilities and the local activity centres.”

5.3 Scoped Environmental Impact Study and Tree Preservation Plan The Scoped Environmental Impact Study prepared by Natural Resource Solutions Inc. dated June 2017 concluded that; “The proposed development has been designed to allow for a 10m expansion of the existing adjacent wildlife corridor, which would double its total width to 20m. This is in line with approaches that have been taken on adjacent properties that share the wildlife corridor, and have been approved by City staff as part of planning applications. The 10m wide corridor extension on the subject property will comprise an open common amenity space that will be landscaped with native woody vegetation plantings to augment the existing cover habitat on the adjacent property side. Because deer use of the corridor is primarily during overnight hours, human use of the property is not expected to negatively impact deer movement behaviours. Various recommendations have been provided to avoid, or otherwise mitigate direct, indirect and induced impacts to the wildlife corridor and the wildlife movement function that it provides. Recommendations have also been provided to ensure that potential impacts to birds, and to existing groundwater infiltration levels, have been appropriately mitigated. The proposed development is not anticipated to cause negative impacts to the Ecological Linkage or other off-site natural features and ecological functions provided that recommended mitigation measures are implemented and monitored.”

20

The Tree Preservation Plan prepared by Natural Resource Solutions Inc. dated June 2017 which is appended to the Scoped EIS as Appendix V in Table 5 on page 10 concluded that; The total number of trees inventoried was 162 trees. This total includes 23 off-site trees (including 2 trees within the municipal road allowance), 39 boundary trees, and 100 on-site trees. Of the 162 trees inventoried, 22 trees will be removed including; 5 trees due to their condition, 1 fruit tree, and 16 trees due to development. 140 trees will be retained. The 16 trees being removed due to development will be replaced through compensation plantings to the satisfaction of the City. 5.4 Geotechnical Report The Preliminary Geotechnical Investigation completed by V.A. Wood (Guelph) Incorporated dated December 2015 summarized that;

“The boreholes generally encountered a surficial deposit of topsoil underlain by a deposit of loose to compact fill on loose to compact silty sand on compact to very dense silty sand till or compact to very dense gravel and sand.

The groundwater table is considered to be located between elevations 331.2 m +- and 334.1 m +-, although a perched water condition can be expected in the looser upper zones underlain by the less permeable till.”

5.5 Environmental Site Assessment

The Phase 1 Environmental Site Assessment completed by V.A. Wood (Guelph) Incorporated dated December 2015 summarized that;

“We recommend a Phase 2 ESA consisting initially of the following be completed prior to the subject property’s redevelopment;

1. Confirm the location of the former heating oil storage tank through more

extensive research and/or use of ground penetrating radar survey.

2. Confirm the location of the former septic tank and inground leaching bed through more extensive research and/or use of ground penetrating radar survey.

Decommission the former septic (including removal of septic and leaching bed).”

The Phase 2 Environmental Site Assessment completed by V.A. Wood (Guelph) Incorporated dated February 10, 2016 summarized that;

“Geophysical EM and ground penetrating radar surveys were completed over the entire subject property, excluding within the existing buildings on February 1, 2016 by Geophysics DPR International Inc.

21

According to the results of the geophysical survey the only buried structures on the subject property are the septic tank and the septic field on the west side of the dwelling formerly used to dispose of sanitary sewage up to August 2010 when the house was connected to municipal sewer and water. There is no evidence of any other existing or former buried underground storage tanks.

The former septic system identified (including the septic tank and leaching bed) should be removed prior to redevelopment of the subject property.

Based on the information available, it is our opinion that there are no significant potentially contaminating activities or areas of potential concern within the subject property. Therefore the environmental condition of the subject property is considered to be satisfactory and suitable for its proposed redevelopment for residential purposes.”

5.6 Archaeological Assessment The Stage 1-2 Archaeological Assessment prepared by AMICK Consultants Limited is dated November 30, 2015. The entirety of the study area was subject to property inspection and photographic documentation concurrently with the Stage 2 Property Assessment on 1 October 2015, consisting of high-intensity test pit survey at an interval of five metres between individual test pits.

“As a result of the property Assessment of the study area, no archaeological resources were encountered. Consequently, the following recommendations are made:

No further archaeological assessment of the study area is warranted;

The Provincial interest in archaeological resources with respect to the proposed undertaking has been addressed;

The proposed undertaking is clear of any archaeological concern.” The letter from the Ministry of Tourism, Culture and Sport dated December 14, 2015 confirmed that this report has been entered into the Ontario Public Register of Archaeological Reports. 5.7 Hydrogeological Study The Hydrogeological Study prepared by GM Blue Plan dated June 7, 2017 provided the following conclusions; “1. The overburden was found to consist of dense silty sand and silty sand till with some

gravel, clay with occasional wet sand seams deposits. These deposits are underlain by a layer of gravel and sand with some silt at approximately 10.6 m below existing ground surface at some of the investigated locations. No bedrock was encountered in the onsite boreholes. Based on local MOECC well records, the overburden in the site vicinity is reported at approximately 11 to 37 m in thickness.

2. No surface water features were identified onsite. Based on site geology, topography and

drainage patterns, groundwater flow direction is inferred to be to the southwest towards Hanlon Creek. The inferred groundwater flow direction correlates with the occurrence of

22

the wetlands and local low lying vegetated areas, part of the Hanlon Creek Watershed to the south and west of the subject property.

3. Based on the Functional Servicing Report (MTE Consultants Inc., 2017), the proposed

stormwater management plan for the development includes a stormwater collection system with conveyance to an offsite municipal SWM facility to the south of the subject property and a bio-retention swale to promote onsite infiltration of clean roof runoff.

4. Based on the reported water budget estimations, the post-development onsite net

annual infiltration is expected to increase by approximately 12% (MTE Consultants Inc., 2017) with overflow to the storm sewer system and conveyance to an offsite SWM facility inferred to include infiltration and overflow to the wetland feature maintaining the local water balance at the local watershed scale.

5. Based on the vulnerability assessment and review of the potential Drinking Water

Threats associated with the proposed development, no Significant Threats as specified in the CWA were identified. Under the Tables of Drinking Water Threats, the scale of the proposed residential development, the limited snow storage (0.5 hectares) and sewage transmission (of less than 250 m3/day) reduces the level of risk associated with the development.

6. No overburden or drilled bedrock water supply wells were identified in the study area.

Properties in the immediate vicinity are reported to be serviced with municipal water and sewage system.

7. Based on the hydrogeologic conditions in the area, the proposed land use, and

proposed mitigative measures for construction and stormwater design, impacts to the water quality and/or quantity within the bedrock aquifer are not expected. In particular, interference or negative impacts to the Burke Well or private supply wells in the greater site vicinity are not anticipated due to the following:

The proposed development at the site is residential and will be serviced with

municipal water, sanitary and storm services,

The occurrence of approximately 20 m of low-permeability overburden deposits generally consisting of silty sand till overlying the bedrock aquifer, which provides a level of hydraulic separation/attenuation from the ground surface to the bedrock aquifer,

The stormwater quantity and quality will be controlled on-site with remainder of

runoff conveyed through overland flow to municipal right-of-way and to an offsite SWM facility inferred to be designed to provide quantity and quality control.

8. It is recommended that any existing on-site domestic wells and monitoring wells be

abandoned, once no longer in use. It is recommended that the wells be abandoned by a licensed well contractor in accordance with the requirements of Ontario Regulation 903”.

23 5.8 Urban Design Brief James Fryett Architect Inc. prepared the Urban Design Brief for 1300 Gordon Street. This report concludes that;

The main entrance to the building is via a glass vestibule with direct pedestrian access from the municipal sidewalk along Gordon Street.

The window to wall ratio of the building façade is balanced to allow sufficient windows facing the street and to allow natural lighting and views for the units.

The ground level building façade will have a different finish.

Due to the sloping site, half of the ground level will be below grade on the east side of the site.

Community Energy Initiative commitment letter dated June 22, 2017 prepared by Carousel Estate Homes Inc.

6. Conclusion This Planning Report has been prepared in support of Official Plan and Zoning Amendment Applications for the property municipally addressed as 1300 Gordon Street, City Guelph. The proposal is consistent with the Provincial Policy Statement and in conformity with the Growth Plan, is in conformity with the general intent of the Official Plan and in my professional opinion represents good planning. This report has been prepared and respectfully submitted by, Original signed and sealed. July 10, 2017 _____________________ _______________ Astrid Clos, MCIP, RPP Date

(1225.Planning Report.doc)