Developer Luke Wiebe was given a second go on his application to create a new multi-family housing development on Fourth Avenue South in Niverville. At a public meeting held on Tuesday, January 22, Wiebe addressed council with a new proposal after his first one had been denied in early December. The new development is being planned for the properties immediately south of Wiebe’s existing multi-family development on this street.
The December proposal included a 60-unit development comprised of five townhouse sections. He also requested that street width requirements be reduced from 25 feet to 22 feet and that variances be allowed on front and backyard square footage to accommodate the extra housing units. This request, in essence, meant the development would contain 12 more housing units contained in one more townhouse section than his first development, on a similarly sized lot. Council turned down that proposal.
At Tuesday’s meeting, Wiebe suggested that he’d listened to the concerns of council and residents and had created an updated plan which reduced the number of housing units to 48, requiring only four townhouse sections. Additionally, the previously proposed 12-unit townhouse section at the center of the development would be turned into 22 parking garages. The housing units would be one- and two-bedroom homes without basements. Three-quarters of the streets in the development were to be 25 feet wide, with the remaining portion being 22 feet wide.
Council heard concerns from three residents present at the meeting as well as one resident who submitted a letter of objection prior to the meeting. Public concerns continue to revolve around the creation of high-traffic areas on a densely populated street. Special attention was drawn to the many schoolchildren who walk this busy street on a daily basis.
“There obviously will be more traffic than what people are used to,” Wiebe told council. “In almost any city or community, if you go look right by the schools, that’s where some of the biggest apartment buildings and townhouses are. Kids are looking for the shortest distance to get to school. Infill housing is becoming more and more important because not everyone wants to live a mile or a mile and a half from school.”
Council proceeded to review their own concerns regarding the new proposal. They suggested that, based on experience, the 22 garages will be used as storage units which would reduce available parking spots to 74 instead of the required 96. Without a minimum of two parking spots per unit, resident vehicles would end up on the adjoining street.
“What we’re trying to find here is a balance between the developer and the residents of the community,” Mayor Dyck told Wiebe. “We’re trying for a win-win. We’ve got at least two developments where residents are calling [us and saying], ‘My street is backing up.’ Why? The developers have provided the spots, but because they are not a part of the purchase or rental of that unit then people are saying, ‘I’m not going to pay the extra money. I’ll just go park on the street.’ That’s what we’re trying to balance here.”
Wiebe countered council’s arguments, saying that he felt they were being unrealistic in their expectations. He then indicated that he would be prepared to remove the garages and replace them with parking stalls.
Councillor John Funk made a motion to accept the proposal if the developer agreed to reduce the number of units from 48 to 40, that he replace the garage concept with open parking, and that he allow for a minimum roadway width of 25 feet. These conditions would then meet recommendations made in an administrative review, which follow the town’s development bylaw guidelines and had been sent to Wiebe prior to the meeting.
Wiebe debated further with council, suggesting that their motion for revision was a punitive measure which treated him differently from other developers in the community. He suggested that he’d rather have the proposal declined than changed to 40 units.
“I think you’re coming [to us] unprepared,” Funk told Wiebe. “You got the [administrative review] on December 19 and you’re coming up with something that [does not line up with it]. The review is taking into consideration all of the questions that we had last time and therefore trying to make sure that this is something that we can pass.”
With that, Funk withdrew his motion. Councillor Nathan Dueck made a new motion to decline the proposal as presented. Council voted unanimously in favor of the new motion and the proposal was denied.
