Fireside residents packed the Town of Cochrane’s council chambers to oppose the potential six-storey seniors’ complex planned for that community.
“Fireside, home to Cochrane’s tallest buildings,” Sharlene McMorland, Fireside resident said sarcastically in her presentation during Monday night’s Subdivision & Development Appeal Board hearing.
“It would be an alarming standard to set.”
After more than a two-and-a-half-hour discussion between eight Fireside residents and representatives of Point West Living, the project’s developer, and its lawyer, Jerritt Pawlyk – the hearing was adjourned until June 22 at 4 p.m., giving residents a chance to submit their outstanding comments to the Cochrane Planning Commission.
The decision was made after the meeting extended the 9:45 p.m. deadline, rushing comments from residents toward the end of the meeting.
“It is not your fault we feel this way but it is now your responsibility to represent us,” said Rob Petkau, Fireside resident.
“This is a monstrosity … and we don’t want it.”
The eight residents that spoke at the meeting cited concerns including traffic volume, safety issues, privacy, property value, and compatibility because conflicting shade studies showed the shade of the building would affect the residents adjacent to the potential building.
But the biggest concern remained the six-storey height.
Presenters McMorland and Christina MacLean shared a powerpoint presentation in which they brought up the original statement for the Westridge Area Structure Plan, adopted in 2009. That plan indicated, “The placement of a mixed-use area at the entrance to a community provides a central, accessible and recognizable community or neighbourhood node which promotes a sense of place and identity within the community.”
McMorland and MacLean stated they did not feel a six-storey building at one of the entrances to Cochrane – off of Highway 22 – fit the design guidelines originally set out.
One presenter said that he would not have moved to Fireside, or even to Cochrane, if he knew this was possible.
The developer’s lawyer representative stated the bylaw was “vague” and emphasized the fact that the building permit had already been approved and the only issue the board should take into consideration is the height.
“I urge you to simply focus on the decision and the appeal,” Pawlyk said.
The lawyer argued during his presentation, with the developer’s own sun/shade study, that shade from any building during winter months is “practically unavoidable” and the difference between a four-storey building and six-storey building from March to September would only have “minor effects” during a couple of the months.
“We understand this might be different from residents expectations but looking at the bylaw there could be a maximum of an eight-storey building,” Pawlyk said.
As previously reported by the Eagle, Laurie Drukier, communications advisor with the town, explained that while the zoning permit has the potential to allow a building up to eight-storeys, it would have to be approved by the Development Authority, which has the power to limit the size or capacity of any proposed building.
The developer’s representatives highlighted the fact that this was a seniors’ living facility and “not a nightclub.”
“The client provides the service to the community based on the demand … and research shows the density is required,” Pawlyk said.
Fireside presenters reiterated the fact that they were not opposed to the type of facility proposed, but the potential height of the building, with one presenter calling it a “dumb location” because it will be “too far away from everything.”
The meeting went past 10 p.m., at which point the commission made the decision not to close the hearing but rather to adjourn with a decision to be made at a later date.
