Meeting summary, Building Height and Density sub-Committee,
August 2, 2006
Attending: 8 community members, 2 community
league members, 2 representatives from Sturgess Architecture, Guy St. Germain
of Nearctic Group.
·
Protracted discussion on building height conveyed the message that
the community is strongly opposed to 20, 23 and 25 story towers in the centre of
a single family dwelling neighbourhood. Those structures are simply not
compatible with the community. The committee cited issues with privacy, light
pollution, wind effects, shadowing, aesthetics and the visibility of the towers
from every corner of the community and well beyond.
·
Density was discussed at length as well and an equally strong
message was conveyed to the consultant: the proposed 1750 unit density is simply
too high. The committee cited concerns with increased traffic on 95 Ave,
increased on-street parking, attraction of crime and a swamping of the character
of Strathearn community.
·
Committee members reiterated that there is no opposition to the
site being redeveloped, but considerable opposition to some of the design
parameters being used in the current proposal.
·
Shadow impacts were briefly discussed and this issue will be held
over for a separate committee dedicated to the subject. Senior city planners
will be in attendance to address the shortcomings of city bylaws on shadow
studies.
·
Issues deferred to other sub-committees were: greenspace/Silver
Heights Park (the model is still showing that site occupied by high-rise
buildings); commercial shop space along 95 Ave; traffic loading and site access.
Committee members tried several times to extract a commitment that the
feedback received during the sub-committee meetings would be incorporated in the
design. Specifically, if the group felt that the height and density was too
high, would the public be seeing a revised plan with lower buildings and lower
density? No commitment was offered but the consultant stated that the message
would be conveyed to the developer.
Minutes of the meeting are to be circulated to the committee prior to
being incorporated in the DC2 application documentation. A follow-up meeting is
scheduled for September 5 where it is hoped that a revised plan will be
presented.
Comments: the atmosphere during the meeting was mildly
adversarial. Committee members stated strong opposition to design aspects and,
while the consultant did listen and record the comments, they also attempted to
justify the design as they have done at the previous public meetings. Since
there appears to be no sincere commitment to change the design the members who
were heavily involved in the school closure are feeling a strong sense of deja
vu. In spite of thousands of hours of community involvement, it remains to be
seen whether anything will change. If they do not, the community will have to
pursue other avenues to effect change.
