I am seeking support from the community in regards to the rear setback of the Osprey Development. I believe the size of the landscape drawn on the rear property line has been squeezed out by parking and the current building setback. The minimum soil requirement for trees planted on municipal land by developers is 15 cubic meters mentioned in your first point. This should also apply to the maple trees stuffed along the back property line. Jonathan’s calculation’s are correct, there is not enough space for soil in the rear garden for a landscape to thrive. At the Saanich design council meeting regarding the Osprey development the board unanimously agreed the rear landscape was too narrow and requested a change in the drawings. The developer did not move the buildings back but eliminated the sidewalk accessing the parking lot space for persons with disabilities to slightly increase the width of the rear landscape. Having a daughter in a wheelchair I find this unacceptable. It is very hard to manage a wheelchair and person without this sidewalk or space beside the parked vehicle. The developer also added more maple trees to the rear garden eliminating any gains in soil per tree. This is unprofessional.
With one of the six recommendations that came out of the Cadboro Bay Sheret being “green it” or provide enough space for landscape in development, as well as the findings of the Saanich Design council in regards to the rear landscape, and the support of the community I hope to increase the setback for the rear of the building envelope. This gives ample space for parking and landscape, and provides backyard privacy for Lyn Wray (north of the development), the Rushforth’s (south of the development), and myself (rear of the development). I request the support of the Cadboro Bay association and give my support to my neighbours and community so an alliance is formed before Saanich council.
I was also told by Chuck Bell that the variance request for the front setback is to align the front of the Osprey building with the Element building “commonly done in architecture”. What is also commonly done in architecture when aligning buildings on a boulevard is the scaling back of the subsequent storeys of the building from the street (like the Element has done). Otherwise the buildings create a canyon effect limiting access to daylight down the street. The Osprey buildings are currently drawn aligned with the Element building straight up three storeys. Should this be questioned and revised?
Please share my thoughts
Todd and Jessi Jared