Here is an updated rendering for this. Looks better than what they had proposed originally IMO (see my first post in this thread).
--
I still don't understand why council voted to refer this back to staff under the notion of "traffic concerns". I did a "ctrl-f" search to the staff report, and there is literally an entire section there dedicated to traffic.
"Concerns were raised about the amount of traffic that would be generated by this development and that access is located off Westmount Crescent. Residents in the area are concerned about negative impacts on the neighbourhood in terms of increased traffic and safety.
As mentioned, Transportation did not have concerns with the proposed increase in traffic from the proposed development. Additionally, Westmount Crescent is a neighbourhood street that serves a small number of dwelling units in the area, thus its traffic volumes are low. Neighbourhood streets are typically intended to accommodate traffic volumes up to approximately 1000 vehicles...
The City has developed a Traffic Calming and Procedures manual to assess when traffic calming measures are required. .... Based on the evaluation tools, the proposed development will not significantly affect the capacity of the local roads. "
What is funny is that I remember very clearly the ward councillor Paul Van Meerbergen had 4 or 5 ads running on CTV London during the recent election campaign, and one of them was about "removing red tape" and "the need to increase the housing stock". Guess that does not apply to projects in his ward, as this was his comment to the LFP “If this goes ahead, it’s going to be a monument to bad decision-making,” he said. “This does not fit. It’s too big; it does not work.”
As I mentioned here before, mid-rise 6s buildings fronting arterial roads, abutting neighbourhoods primarily composed of single-family homes are not rare and can be found everywhere in this city
Prev
Linear Mode
