After having reviewed the three concept plans submitted by the Developer for the proposed infill development at 146 Downey Road, I have the following concerns and respectfully request that these concerns be taken into account when discussion on this development takes place:
All three versions of the proposed development are definitely inconsistent with our existing Kortright Hills neighbourhood in density, height and visual design.
The property itself is considerably higher than most of the adjacent neighbourhood, so that the excessively-high townhouses, which the developer is proposing and had to ask for special zoning to build, will appear to dominate the neighbourhood even more than expected.
In addition, the height of the townhouses proposed will likely create a significant shadowing across existing properties.
Under Concept Plan “C”, by adding fill to the east side of the property, which has a difference in elevation of 5.5 meters, this will increase the prominence of the apartment building even more. Where will this fill come from and what efforts will the developer make to contain dust and runoff during construction.
What the developer calls a “four storey apartment”, from the rear view, will quickly turn into a 6 storey building with the addition of lower level parking, a roof, and the height of the fill.
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 the existing residents and the City of Guelph have created and enjoyed over the last 25 years.
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 with construction so close to the gas pipeline, could pose a significant risk to the entire neighbourhood as a single accident could result in a cataclysmic explosion.
The developer is also requesting a minimum setback far less than that which is permitted according to the current zoning standards. This will contribute to the shadowing and magnify the dominance of these buildings over the existing neighbourhood.
These 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’s plans appear inconsistent 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 planned for Downey Road, but once again, 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 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 of the house into four separate apartments. I understood from Councillor Piper that this home had been indexed as a Heritage Home, which to me this proposal is a violation of such a property, especially as it would be surrounded by high density housing.
As a current resident in the area of 146 Downey, the developer’s request for flexible zoning is of great concern for me personally and for 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, which basically means, if approved for the requested R4 zoning on Area 4 of his proposal, could allow the developer to build an 8 storey apartment building. This is like giving the developer a “blank cheque.”
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, so it doesn’t make sense to me why this Council would even give consideration to such a request.
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 very concerned that the documentation submitted by the developer does not address the critical issues involved in construction in such a sensitive and important environment.
The fact that the developer is requesting special exemption to eliminate 241 of the 256 trees, so that the development site can be even denser than standard zoning allows, with less landscaping that is required, to me is appalling. 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.
I also understand that City Planning staff are apparently proceeding with a process that differs significantly from the existing City of Guelph planning process, which gives me great concern. Apparently, 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 disturbed that City Planning staff, despite the vehement opposition of residents present at the meeting held on January 20, 2009, subsequently appeared to direct the developer to include an apartment building in the proposal. This is a flagrant disregard for the clearly-expressed views of residents who have to live with this proposed plan.
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.
This traffic study also 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.
Having already spoken to the School Board Trustee, the present schools in the area are already over capacity and therefore any children that live in this proposed development will have to be bussed to other locations. The school buses themselves will add to the traffic concerns.I strongly urge City Council to give consideration to allow the residents to work together with the Developer and City Planning to create a new proposal that would better meet all needs. SG & KG