Three conditional use hearings were heard at a public meeting in council chambers on the night of Tuesday, January 22. Delegations were there to represent two of them.
The first hearing was for a request to run a home-based massage therapy business at 33 Second Street South. The policy requiring conditional use hearings for home-based businesses came about a number of years ago in order for council to be able to set guidelines for residential businesses so that they don’t negatively impact the neighbourhoods in which they’re located.
Certified therapist Raeanna Hiebert addressed council indicating that her hours of operation have yet to be determined, but the last client would leave her home no later than 7:00 p.m. She plans to see one client at a time, and adequate parking for two vehicles is available on her driveway. She would allow for a half-hour between clients in order to prevent overlap and street parking.
One resident, a neighbour, objected to the proposal for reasons of parking and traffic. Council verified with Hiebert that she would make every effort to mitigate these concerns.
Council voted unanimously in favor of the proposal under the conditions she stated as well as an additional condition that the application be revisited by council in two years’ time.
Fifth Avenue Estates West
The next item on the agenda was to address a subdivision plan for the first phase of the Fifth Avenue Estates West development, to be located in the area surrounding the new high school.
This plan would lead to the creation of 103 lots on 111 acres of land. Lots 1 and 2 would be designated for commercial development while lots 3 and 4, immediately west of the high school grounds, are proposed to contain multi-family homes. Lots 5 through 29 and 31 to 102 would be zoned low-density residential while lot 30 is to be allocated as school greenspace.
Further to this, the developer requested the opening of five new public roads within phase one of the development, as well as the extension of Mulberry Avenue to connect with the most northerly public road.
While this hearing did not address eventual road closures, the provincial government has determined that one access along this stretch of Highway 311 will need to be closed in order to mitigate traffic hazards caused by too many highway accesses. Provincial authorities are advising council to consider an access closure before approving the new development.
Current highway accesses include Arena Road, Ritchot Drive, Church Street, and Mulberry Avenue. After much consideration, council made a recommendation to close the Ritchot Drive and Church Street accesses on the east end where they connect with the highway. Should the development plan proceed as proposed, two accesses would still be available to residents of these streets—one off Mulberry Avenue and another off Krahn Road. Closing the east highway accesses, though, would turn them into dead-end streets.
While the purpose of the public meeting was to vote on the subdivision and public roads, council allowed for residents to speak to all the issues in play.
Numerous residents came forward to inquire about plans for adequate sidewalk access for students walking to the new high school, as well as the town’s plan for a pedestrian railway crossing. Council assured residents that both are being planned and negotiations are currently taking place with CP Rail and Transport Canada on a safe railway crossing for pedestrians.
Residents of Church Street and Ritchot Drive shared concerns regarding the implications of having a dead end on their streets, which would make school bus access, snow-clearing, and garbage pickup more difficult. Another resident indicated that drainage in this area has long been a problem. Council reassured him that Mulberry Street would be completely rebuilt with drainage in mind and that the developer is required to install underground drainage to keep the water moving north to a retention pond within the development.
Frustrations were also shared about having to make decisions on only a portion of the proposed development rather than the whole plan, which at this time has not been made available to the public.
After considering all concerns, council voted unanimously in favour of the subdivision as proposed, which would include conditions laid out in the development agreement. The proposed road access closures of Ritchot Drive and Church Street will be addressed in another public hearing down the road.
Fourth Avenue South Development
Council then heard from a final delegation, Luke Wiebe, developer of the multi-family development underway on Fourth Avenue South. This was the second public hearing for Wiebe’s proposal to add another similar development adjoining the existing one to the south.
In December, Wiebe proposed to council 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 and one more townhouse section than his first development, on a similarly sized lot. Council turned down that proposal.
On Tuesday, Wiebe returned with a new proposal. Hearing residents and council’s concerns, Wiebe’s updated plan reduced the number of housing units to 48, which required 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 with the current administrative review and development bylaws.
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.
