Meeting summary, Parks and Greenspace sub-Committee,
August 15, 2006
Attending:
12 community members, developers
consultants, 1 communications specialist from Dagny Partnership, David
Kent of Nearctic Group, 2 representatives from City of
Edmonton.
The meeting was chaired by the developer's team, which
included representatives from Carlyle & Associates, Sturgess, and others.
Lesley Beale from Sturgess took the minutes. Eileen Miller, Parks Planner with
Community Services
was there as well.
It should be made clear to the community that these meetings are part of the
formal consultation process required by the City for any developer's planning to
make an application for a DC2 (Site Specific Development Control Provision)
agreement application. And the meetings are not done out of the goodness
of the developers' hearts, however we would hope there is an element of caring
for the community in their actions. It should be also noted that a report
will be written by the developer's team as an outcome of these sub-committee
meetings, which the community league should insist on signing off on before it
goes to the City for approval.
At the outset of the meeting it was stated that the
positioning of
Silver
Heights
Park
on its site many years ago was based on historical information and its use was
well planned. The decision has stood the test of time and the park should
not be relocated, which is the consensus view of the Strathearn community as a
whole.
A question was asked about the types of shops that would be located on 95
avenue if the Silver
Heights
Park
is to be relocated and the space would be used for retail shops. The
developer's team was unable to answer the question sighting the fact that they
have not completed a market study to determine the viability of the shopping
component for the urban village concept, as it would be applied to Strathearn
apartment redevelopment proposal.
The developer's team was asked to explain the relationship between site
unit density and available green space as it pertains to quality of life, and
what is the formula being used by the developer to determine this relationship?
A further aspect to this formula that was suggested by Strathearn resident was
with a lower unit density more available green space should be available.
The developer's team indicated the unit density figures came from the suggested
number of cars that could be carried on the adjacent roadways at peak traffic
times as the basis for their unit density and green space planning calculations.
The developer reiterated the fact that they have not completed their study to
determine the market demographic for the proposed urban village concept that
would be needed to perform such calculations, as it would be applied to
Strathearn redevelopment proposal.
There was discussion regarding the daycare shown on the developer's
renderings of the new relocated park. It was noted by the developer that the
proposal calls for the daycare to be housed in the new community league building
and would be managed by the community league. However, the City
representative at the meeting indicated the City does not approve of community
leagues running daycares out of their community league buildings.
There was discussion regarding the types of joint-use in the community
league building that the developer would be willing to afford as part of their
re-development proposal. The community league made it very clear there is
no interest by the community in a large facility that would have any potential
to function as a rental facility. David Kent agreed that facilities of
that type have no place in residential neighbourhoods.
The community is in favour of a joint use facility that would be
compatible to current community league offered programs to be enjoyed by all
members of the Strathearn neighbourhood. However it was recognized that
the population density increase proposed by the developer for the Strathearn
neighbourhood should be supported in some way by the developer in the form of a
new community league building, as the current building structure may not be
appropriate for such an increase in population. David Kent suggested a
phased approach to the community league structures recognizing the population
density being proposed would take place over several years as the site
re-development takes place. The Strathearn community's position is a
willingness to work with the developer to come up with a win-win solution.
There was discussion regarding the inevitable condo dog owners that will
walk their dogs on grassed areas directly outside their buildings for obvious
reasons and for those reasons the park play activity areas should be keep
separate to the dog walk areas. This supports more that one park area on
or directly adjacent to the developer's site and furthermore leaving
Silver
Heights
Park
in its current location assists in providing that delineation between park
activity use areas.
The following items were discussed to some degree at the meeting but not
answered by the developer's team. Therefore the developer's team has been
asked to provide a written response to the items for review by the Strathearn
P&G sub-committee members and ultimately the community as a whole.
Items for discussion where/are:
1. Should review options that would use the
Silver
Heights
Park
as a focal point in it current location versus suggesting it be moved, as
moving the
Silver
Heights
Park
would reduce the available green space for the residents on the southwest end
of the Strathearn neighbourhood. This would also provide an opportunity
for a more visible green space pedestrian entrance to the Strathearn Height
apartment
site.
2. Should provide greater consideration for existing
Strathearn
Heights
apartment river valley accesses via the
Silver
Heights
Park
west on 95 avenue to Connors road, and via
Strathearn Park
through its northeast pathway to 98 avenue as options for the new development's
river valley access.
3. Should review options for the proposed grand boulevard to run on a
southwest to northeast diagonal through the
Strathearn
Heights
apartment site to provide linkage between the
Silver
Heights
Park
and
Strathearn
Park
green spaces.
4. For safety reasons the Strathearn apartment vehicle and pedestrian
throughways should not be oriented to funnel traffic through neighbouring
residential alleyways to Strathearn Park
, rather traffic should be funneled toward the adjacent main roadways and city
sidewalks.
5. Should orient the retail spaces away from 95 avenue vehicle traffic to
make it more pedestrian friendly. Here's
a suggested location for the retail configuration.
Follow the meeting I was a approached by Doug Carlyle and the
communications consultant from Dagny and they asked my opinion as to what it
would take to remove the barrier (the us and them factor) of the community
feeling like Silver Heights Park would be taken away from them if it were to be
moved. My reply was something to the effect that
Silver
Heights
Park
in its current location is positioned well to act as a middle meeting ground
between the current Strathearn residents and new residents. I also told
them they should provide greater consideration to doing something with the park
in its current location that would provide the types of amenities that would
encourage the type of friendly interaction among all community members they are
looking for.
~Allan Tchida
Here are the consultant's Minutes,
which do not capture the very clear message sent by the committee.
September 6, New information
Contrary to what was stated in the
minutes, the Developer must give up at least 10% of the Gross Developable Area (GDA)
that is being subdivided for Municipal Reserves (parks and/or schools). The City
will take 1/2 of 1% of this MR as Greenways - that is long strips of land to be
used as wider type walkways that connect recreational functions or activity
nodes. Any walkways that are in addition to the 1/2 of 1% are taken as
circulation and not MR. This means that the 9.5% remaining MR can be used for
space that can be programmed for a recreational activity (playground, sports
field, community league building, rink etc.).
The City has an opportunity to take
more than 10% MR in situations where the density will be high and this is the
case for the proposed development. The city can take up to 15% and since this
area does not have an abundance of park space now this may well happen.
This clarification of the city's position means a major
change to the greenspace layout which will take some time to resolve and may
result in 1) a major redesign of the property and 2) abandoning of plans to
annex Silver Heights Park. The developer can respond to this by either reducing
density to gain greenspace, or holding fast to their desired 1750 units by
adding more small-footprint towers and fewer structures under 10 stories.
Some images from the meeting:
This is the concept for the main greenspace and
the area where the community park is proposed to be relocated. Note that the
existing skating rink, basket ball court and water park do not appear. This
greenspace will be overseen by 20, 23 and 25 story towers to the north. Access
to this area by community residents would be through new streets in the
development.
The community league traffic safety committee is
working with the developer's transportation consultant to ensure the cross
section at the development site is consistent with the rest of the avenue. Bike
lanes should be shown on this cross section.
The "grand boulevard" is being designed
with the Champs Elysées
in Paris, Sloan
Park in London and other notable sites in mind.
Here's the grand plan on how the development will
tie in with green space through a corridor in the river valley:
This is the developer's preferred plan which
absorbs Silver Heights park and distributes the area inside the site. A new
community league building would be provided, and the new playground equipment would be relocated, but note that the skating rink does not appear anywhere in
the plan. The shops on 87 St will be relocated onto 95 Ave and parking will be
accommodated on-street, mainly within the development. Connection of the
inter-development greenspace with the top of bank greenspace is proposed to be
through the city owned right-of-way (ie, alley) between homes on Strathearn
Drive.
This is plan B, if Silver Heights Park cannot be
acquired. Note that an additional tower is shown in this plan, and a main access
road is planned in the undeveloped right-of-way between the skating rink and
apartment building which is currently a walkway. This will bound the community
greenspace with roads on all 4 sides.
