We are writing to comment on Abode Varsity Living’s proposed plan to re-zone 716 Gordon Street and redevelop that property. We feel that there are many problems with this proposal and that it should not be accepted. We briefly enumerate our more serious concerns below:
1. The developer’s characterization of the adjoining neighborhood is inaccurate and disingenuous. Its houses are owner-occupied, well-maintained family homes, not student rentals, and are older than GSP claims: those closest to the site were built in the early 1960’s. These include the Pagani house, which is adjacent to the site and which GSP fails to report is heritage designated (By-law: [2002]-16973), along other notable examples of 1960s’ architecture (e.g. 5 Monticello [1965], 23 Monticello [1961], and 14 Monticello [1961, also designed by Pagani]) — all laid out in a manner that Dr Nathan Perkins, professor of landscape architecture at the University of Guelph, describes as: “unique in Guelph and exemplifying the 1960s California School of planning. This is evident in the openness of the landscape and its flowing lines. Electricity cables are hidden and there are no street lights: as a result there is no light pollution at night, and the tallest elements of the landscape are the trees”.
2. From the Guelph Official Plan (OP pgs 154–155), the form, scale and heights can thus hardly be said to be “compatible in design, [and] character … with the surrounding neighbourhood.” The developer’s plan to ‘transition’ from 8 to 16 storeys over that distance cannot fairly be described as: “a gradation in building height … to achieve a transition from adjacent development.” And it would be difficult to claim, at least with a straight face, that: “Impacts on adjacent properties are minimized,” given the dramatic changes in shadows, wind, light, privacy and landscape aesthetics that would result from this construction.
3. The proposal exceeds the 10 storey maximum height by 60%, and meets few if any of the criteria for an exemption under the bonusing policy (OP pg 161 & 213–214). The proposal contains no buffer strip, as required by the Guelph Zoning By-laws (pg 18), and they wish to add insult to already serious injury by reducing the minimum rear yard by 85%, from the 32m to 5m! How much landscaping mitigation of a 1600 foot building could possibly be achieved in 5m? The same things can be said for the proposed 58% reduction in the required minimum side yard. Their justifications for these variances are utterly without merit. At three times the height of the Delta Hotel, these would be, by far, the tallest buildings in the area, and probably the tallest buildings in Guelph. No reputable planner would site such gigantic buildings 5m from low density residential housesIn short you have a great many excellent reasons to reject this proposal. Failure to do so would not reflect well on your office. Please respond in detail to our concerns.JN