I am writing on behalf of the Mayfield Park Community Association to bring you up to date on the developments during the facilitated meetings, to keep you aware of our position in relation to the proposal and inform you of our serious efforts of community involvement in relation to the above referenced matter.
Representatives of the Mayfield Park Community Association attended three facilitated meetings at the request of the City. At the first meeting we canvassed in detail all of the reasons that the proposed development was not acceptable to us. (As originally presented to Mayor and Council at the public meeting held in January of 2011)
At the second meeting the developer provided an alternate “without prejudice proposal”, which would have required almost all of the same amendments to the Official Plan and variations to the bylaws. It did not change the fact that there is no reasonable buffer, inadequate setbacks, inadequate parking facilities for the number of residents, density of residents far in excess of accepted standards for high density zoning, a parking garage that will loom over the backyards of the properties on Evergreen. Issues like pedestrian safety and vehicular access were not addressed at all.
We reiterated our opposition to the proposal and had some productive discussions with the City Planners. The developers promised to re-attend with another without prejudice proposal.
On August 4, 2011 we attended the third facilitated meeting at City hall. As anticipated, the developer provided a second without prejudice proposal, which reduced the occupancy to 75% of the original proposal. Keeping in mind that the original proposal would house over 1600 residents this was not a substantial reduction in any meaningful way, as there would still be over 1200 residents in the complex.
The proposal provided for some limited increase in the set backs and decreased the height of the two buildings to 10 stores. They provided an alternate proposal that was for one building of 10 storeys and the other 12 with more of a gradual step down in storeys. Both proposals would still require an amendment to the Official Plan (General residential to High Density Residential) and additional variances in significant ways from the by-laws relating to even high-density residential zoning. There would also be over 1200 bedrooms.
In the circumstances we advised the developer that these new proposals are not acceptable to our community: we emphasized that our community is united in our opposition to a project of this scale and density. IN RESPONSE, the developer indicated that they could not reduce their proposal further. I should mention that we had a meeting of our larger community who unanimously rejected a development of the scale, location and density proposed by the developer at the third facilitated meeting.
On a more positive note, during the course of the third meeting we had another opportunity to have discussions with the City Planners and the University representatives that we feel were informative and productive.
We also advised everyone at the meeting that we would be retaining an urban planning expert on behalf of our group and this was well received.
We have retained Beate Bowron and Gary Davidson to act as experts on our behalf. Our planners have had the opportunity to meet on two occasions with City Staff since the last facilitated meeting. Valerie Romenello and I attended the second meeting as well on behalf of MPCA. We understand that the City Planners are working on the types of zoning standards that might apply to purpose built student housing.
It has always been our goal to work with the City so that a responsible approach is taken to intensification with respect to the growth of our city. We want to see a vision for and a development on this site that is in keeping with acceptable planning standards and which provides for an adequate transition between the long established neighbourhood of single family residences in our neighborhood.
The Developers have not withdrawn their original proposal which requests changes to the Official plan and variances to the by-laws that far exceed the standards established for our City. We understand that the Developers have been meeting with the planners to urge them to finalize their recommendations.
We have let the City planners know that we and our planning experts together with the City Planning staff are prepared to attend in Waterloo to see the other development built by Abode.
I have attended there on a previous occasion to view the exterior of the building. We have been advised by the developer that it houses less than 500 students and I note that it is a 17 storey building. It is located in a high-density area with other high-rises in the immediate vicinity. The upper level of the parking lot in that development is not at ground level. It is a concrete structure, which appears to be at least 6 feet above ground level with a parking level underneath.
We are hoping to participate in a day long design exercise for the site in the context of the Intensification Corridor on Gordon Street with the City Planners and other interested parties in the very near future. We await confirmation of proposed dates from the City Planners.KM