The Uptowne Area Redevelopment Plan bylaw will be coming back to town council after council gave the document second reading on Aug. 26.
The plan outlines ways in which the historic character of the uptown can be preserved while also making the area more pedestrian-friendly. It sets out policies on how commercial and residential space can coexist in the uptown core.
The decision to only pass second reading was largely the result of Coun. Wade Bearchell objecting to passing third reading, which would have allowed the plan to come into force. Instead, he advocated for more consideration from administrators and more discussion from councillors about the plan at a later date, based on comments offered during a public hearing on the plan.
After Bearchell's motion to send it back to town staff was defeated, an amendment to the motion to give the plan second reading was passed. The amended motion read that residential units could exist in the uptown as long as commercial space was the primary use of any mixed-use buildings. The motion also stipulated that the residential units must also be allowed under zoning for particular properties.
During the public hearing, which also took place on Aug. 26 prior to the council meeting, several people raised concerns about residential dwellings in the core and the green space located north of 51 Avenue's intersection with Highway 27 that is slated for development at some point in the future.
Olds resident Joe Gustafson asked for clarification on the permitted location of residential suites in the core. Under the proposal, residential spaces are only allowed on the second floor of buildings, with commercial space reserved for the ground floor. One of the aims of the redevelopment plan is to expand commercial space in the uptown core as much as possible.
Jeanne Richardson, another member of the public who attended the hearing, said she was opposed to developing the field north of Highway 27.
And Curtis Husted, co-owner of Tracks Pub, said during the public hearing that his plan to build ground floor residential spaces adjacent to the pub is in jeopardy with the uptown plan as it stands.
Following the public hearing, Bearchell said council should give more consideration to some of the points made by members of the public during the hearing and suggested that the bylaw be brought back by town administrators at a later date to allow for further deliberation by council before a final decision is made on the bylaw.
“I think the concerns (from the public) are valid,” he said.
Bearchell also raised the issue that the plan could limit parking space in the uptown area, unintentionally driving away the very people uptown business owners want to attract.
“We may be shooting ourselves in the foot,” he said, noting that most people won't park very far from the business they want to visit when it's -10 C outside.
Mathew Pawlow, the planner from Parkland Community Planning Services who spoke about the redevelopment plan, said only a few parking spaces in the core would be eliminated as part of the plan and that shouldn't cause concern.
Pawlow explained the plan sets out how landscaping and façade treatments could enhance the core by providing plants near intersections and benches for people to sit on. The plan also provides for sidewalk connectivity to trails elsewhere in the community. And he said the plan includes heritage preservation of buildings as a key feature.
Coun. Mary Jane Harper said too much residential space in the uptown area could limit commercial opportunities. She isn't in favour of preserving the field north of Highway 27, but she said she is generally supportive of green space.
“I think the guiding principles of the design (of the uptown plan) are good,” Harper said.
Norm McInnis, the town's chief administrative officer, said town administrators would be consulting with a community-based committee, which has helped gather feedback on the proposed bylaw over the past two years, to incorporate comments from the public hearing that council could consider at a later date.
“We'll take as much time as we need to work through some of the comments from (the public hearing) and make sure that all the questions that both the members of the public and council had are answered. I don't anticipate that will take too long,” he said, estimating that it could be back on the agenda at the Sept. 9 or Sept. 23 council meetings.
