About 30 people crammed into council chambers last week with a half dozen more spilling into the hallways to voice their concern over the proposed rezoning of half an acre of land located in the Upland Aspen subdivision.
The Upland Aspen Outline Plan, adopted by council in 2003, includes a one-acre residential multi-family lot (R-3) on the west side of the entrance into the subdivision off Lakewood Drive.
During a presentation to council as part of the public hearing May 14, Craig Teal, director of planning and development explained that a recommendation to increase the lot size from one to one and a half acres was being requested to accommodate a subdivision application for a condo development.
The additional land is currently zoned public district and was originally planned to be a public parking lot.
“… To cram 36 (condos) onto one acre of land jammed against the highway doesn't make sense,” said resident Ron Jarvis of the proposed development. He cited concerns over the “dangerous intersection” leading into the subdivision that he said will become more congested with the increased traffic. He asked council why they wouldn't consider developing somewhere else in town.
“You have acres and acres elsewhere to do this. I don't agree with it.” Building elsewhere and taking steps to make the entranceway safer were concerns echoed by different residents throughout the hour and a half public hearing.
Another popular point was the fact that many people chose to buy a home in Upland Aspen because it was quiet. They said they were never told about the plans for a residential multi-family unit in the area and if they had known they never would have moved there.
“You can doll it up all you want,” said Caroline Jarvis of the plans to create an upper-end condo complex that Teal estimates would have costs between $350,000 and $420,000 per unit. “But it will spoil the feel of the whole area. It would just ruin where we live,” she said, receiving claps from the audience.
Resident Devon Kirkness said his concern was how much, if any, control the public will have once the rezoning is approved.
“Once this has been rezoned, the town may say three years from now, let's come down with our expectations.” He said council could change in the future and new councillors wouldn't be aware of the residents' current concerns. Resident Jason Johnson asked council if there's a strategy to provide a “win-win” situation for everyone concerned.
“If it's R-3, why 36 units? Why not something more reasonable like a townhouse or low density or something with age restrictions?”
As part of the recommendations to council, Teal suggested added requirements to the prospective purchaser to control some of the public's concerns. This includes on-site parking of two stalls per unit, limiting the number of units to 36, limiting the building height to three storeys, requiring all units to be at least 1,200 square feet, requiring a condominium corporation to be created, putting in place strong architectural requirements for an appealing exterior appearance and keeping as many trees as possible on site.
Coun. Jason Heistad suggested postponing second and third reading to the amended bylaw to allow council time to go over the public's concerns and look for a possible “win-win” solution. Coun. Tracey Walker said the road and intersection issue needs to be addressed and asked for more than a couple of weeks to look into it. Council agreed they would return to vote on second and third reading at the June 25 council meeting at 7 p.m.
