It will be up to the newly elected Olds municipal council to deal with a contentious 14-lot multi-family development proposed for land in the southwest section of town.
During a council meeting prior to the Oct. 21 election, Coun. Harvey Walsh said he was concerned that a subdivision proposal near Destiny Way and Destiny Place wasn't following proper procedure.
The development proposes 14 lots for three side-by-side duplexes and three lots for a three-unit townhouse that does not fit with the town's Municipal Development Plan, Walsh claimed.
Two strips of municipal reserve land will act as a buffer about four to five metres wide between the new and existing developments.
Coun. Mary Jane Harper said she, too, thought that there was too little space allocated for parks in the proposed development.
“This whole area was made for starter homes. Does it serve the town to have this little of reserve?” she asked.
Coun. Wade Bearchell said he was concerned about several aspects of the existing development, including the narrow streets and off-street parking conflicting with each other. In many instances, he said people park on the opposite side of the street to avoid blocking cars in their parking pads.
“I really think there's a lot of dangerous things in this. There's a lot of parking on the wrong side of the street,” he said.
In an interview after the discussion, Walsh said despite his objections, he voted for the bylaw amendment to move parking spaces in front of mailboxes further east because it made sense, given the plan that was in front of council. But he said he would have liked to have seen a more complete plan all at once.
“I guess my point I was trying to make to administration was usually when a developer comes, we ask them to provide a comprehensive plan for all the land that they're developing, but in this case, they seem to bring a bylaw for each little part of the development. (The development) was put together in an ad hoc way. There was really no choice,” he said.
Walsh said once the development is passed, staff should consider proposals more carefully, taking into account what is proposed and comparing that to the amount of land that is available. He said that 1.2 hectares doesn't lend itself to 17 units of housing plus an adequate road network. Several of the streets are dead ends, but there isn't enough remaining room for the roads to connect to each other.
“My comments were more aimed at administration. We kind of painted ourselves into a corner,” he said.
Part of the issue, Walsh said, is that the developer has come to the town several different times to develop either general residential or medium density residential, and the two designations can't be brought forward under the same plan.
Walsh also wanted to avoid the housing in the area all looking the same.
“Our Municipal Development Plan says they should all be changed up. We try to avoid (similarity). It creates a nicer looking neighbourhood (when) you can change styles,” he said.
The development has yet to be approved and will be coming back to council for further discussion in the future.
