As a long time resident of Guelph and almost seven (7) year resident of the south end, I am disturbed with the infill development proposal for the property at 146 Downey Road.
Our issues and others are as follows:
-All three versions of the proposed development are inconsistent with our existing Kortright Hills neighbourhood in density, height and visual design.
-The property is considerably higher than most of the adjacent neighbourhood, so that the excessively-high townhouses, for which the developer is asking special zoning, will appear to dominate the neighbourhood even more than expected.
-The developer’s request for flexible zoning creates uncertainty for me as a resident and our neighbourhood in general. It appears that once approved, the residents of Kortright Hills neighbourhood will have no say in the final design of the development.
-The scale and scope of the specific changes to the zoning standards requested by the developer suggest that the proposed plans are inconsistent with the site and with the framework of the City of Guelph’s existing zoning bylaws.
-The excessive height of the proposed apartment building, combined with the geographic prominence of the site will result in a visual desecration of the beautiful neighbourhood that we residents and the City of Guelph have created and enjoyed over the last 25 years.
-The property includes a wedge of land identified by the City of Guelph as “lands with one of the following: locally significant wetlands, significant woodlots, natural corridor or linkage”, and is adjacent to a Provincially Significant Wetland, a wildlife corridor, and a major green space that connects to other green spaces in the City of Guelph. I am concerned that the documentation submitted by the developer does not address the critical issues involved in construction in such a sensitive and important environment.
-City Planning staff are apparently proceeding with a process that differs significantly from the existing City of Guelph planning process. At the request of city Planning staff, the developer has not provided a specific development plan, but has provided a range of plans and is requesting zoning approval for the most-dense option. Council should reject this proposal as submitted and direct city Planning staff to follow existing planning procedures.
-I am very concerned that city Planning staff, despite the vehement opposition of residents present at the meeting held on January 20, 2009, subsequently directed the developer to include an apartment building in their proposal. This is a flagrant disregard for the clearly-expressed views of residents.
-The traffic study submitted by the developer does not take into account the speed of cars travelling in that area. Cars entering Downey Road from the driveway of the property will have to merge with traffic that has been proven to travel well in excess of posted speed limits. This is a very dangerous situation and poses a serious safety risk for neighborhood residents and in fact all cars travelling on Downey Road.
-Also, the traffic study submitted by the developer is based on out-of-date information, as the traffic levels used in the study do not take into account the increase in traffic that will result from the development of the Hanlon Business Park directly to the south.
-The height of the townhouses proposed will likely create significant shadowing across existing properties on Teal Drive, greatly reducing the current residents’ enjoyment of their properties.
-The proposed setback reductions will create a fishbowl effect where the new townhomes will overlook adjacent properties, even further reducing the current residents’ enjoyment of their properties.
-The developer is proposing eliminating 241 of the 256 trees on the development site, and requesting special exemption so that the development can be even denser than standard zoning allows with less landscaping that required. What is now a beautiful property full of mature trees will become a barren wasteland of paved road, parking lots and concrete sidewalks.
-Groundwater from portions of the property will drain directly onto the meadow and wetlands that are adjacent to the property. Since most of the property will be covered with impenetrable buildings, roads, parking spots, driveways and sidewalks, a great deal of runoff will be generated and this may have a deleterious effect on the adjacent meadow and wetlands.
-The developer is asking for special zoning for the eastern portion of the property because of the right-of-way required by the high-pressure natural gas pipeline that runs across the property. The basement walls of the proposed apartment building will directly abut the easement, and construction so close to the gas pipeline poses a significant risk to the entire neighbourhood as a single accident could result in a cataclysmic explosion.
-The developer’s plans appear incomplete as they show a setback of 6 metres for the townhouses, but he then requests permission to build the front of the townhouse within 3 metres of the sidewalk.
-The developer is requesting permission to allow “an attached or detached garage to be located within the rear yard” of the houses on Downey Road, but the plans do not reflect this. This form is completely inconsistent with the neighbourhood as there are no homes in this area with rear garages.
-The developer is requesting minimum setback far less that permitted in current zoning standards. This will contribute to shadowing and magnify the dominance of these buildings over the existing neighbourhood.
-The developer is requesting smaller lot sizes and less landscaped area than current zoning requires. The density of this development is completely inconsistent with the existing neighbourhood.
-While the developer is claiming that the existing house will be retained, the proposal is requesting zoning changes to allow splitting the house into four separate apartments. This is inconsistent with the existing neighbourhood.
-The property has a difference in elevation of 5.5 metres, and the developer mentions adding fill to the east side of the property. Where will this fill come from and what efforts will the developer make to contain dust and runoff during construction.
-Adding fill to the east side of the property will increase the prominence of the apartment building even more. To what the developer calls a “four storey apartment”, there is added lower level parking, a roof, and the height of the fill. The “four storey apartment” quickly approached the height and dominance of a six storey apartment building -noise concerns -schooling – present schools are over capacity so any children from this development may have to be bussed to schoolThese other issues impact me directly. When we purchased this property, we were assured by the city of Guelph that NOTHING would go beside our house. They said there was a gas line and water table lands, and nothing could be built there. According to these “plans” they want a 1.5 m wide sidwalk beside my house, from 146 Downey to Teal Drive! When did this law change or who lied to me? Is this another example of how this city treats our tax payers??
We built our retirement bungalow in this location in order to have one-floor living for the rest of our lives. Our living room/kitchen/dining will be right behind the 6 parking spots according to the “plans” which means we will have headlights glaring into our windows, motors running spewing exhaust and horns blasting 24/7. Such a nice way to spend our retirement!!! With the building of these 29 to 60 units and six visitor parking, where do you think visitors will park? You bet, along Downey, Teal and other surrounding streets. There are children that live in these areas that have to cross streets. It will be a lot more dangerous for those crossing between parked cars!
Teal Drive seems to be in a sandwich situation. With the Hanlon Creek Business Developement on one side and this infill “flexible zoning” site on the other we are being squeezed out.
In the mornings we have deer outside our rear windows in the rear gardens of 146 Downey, then crossing from that property , through the fence and beside our house. One morning taking our dog out for her “morning constitution” there was a doe sleeping in the tall grasses beside our house, not 10 feet away. What will happen to those deer?
The trees they say they are “saving”, a lot of those trees are on our properties or sharing properties according to our land surveys.
In my opinion, there is a lot being “not said” involving this development. As a business owner and resident, the properties in the south end pay premium taxes for the privilege of living there. Where are our rights to keep the community a pleasant place to live? An apartment building???? Give me a break. Since when has there been anything close to an apartment building in this area. That will be a huge ugly scar in that neighbourhood.
This proposal is TOO HIGH & TOO DENSE/CROWDED.
Thank you and I hope to see all of you at 7:00 pm, October 5, 2009at the Planning Meeting BS