SUNDRE – Several property owners who live adjacent to a proposed residential development in Sundre's northwest Eagle Ridge subdivision support in principle a plan to proceed with the next phase that would potentially herald a variety of new housing options in town.
However, they also expressed opposition to moving forward with any further development until unresolved issues stemming from an incomplete first phase that has left them frustrated for many years are finally addressed.
The municipality hosted on Monday, July 15 a lengthy public hearing during a special meeting to consider comments and concerns about amendments to the Eagle Ridge area structure plan (ASP) as well as a land use bylaw rezoning to convert a portion of an urban reserve district quarter into a general residential district as well as public service.
All members of council including mayor Richard Warnock were physically present for the proceedings.
The purpose of the bylaw was to amend the ASP to pave the way for the next stage of development in Eagle Ridge, known as Phase 1B, with the proposed change affecting 64.70 hectares, or 160 acres, of land in the quarter section’s southern portion.
The natural, undeveloped and largely flat land with a few tree clusters is located immediately west of Centre Street North across the road from 8th Avenue NE, and its southern boundary butts up along the northern-most Snake Hill multi-use nature path.
Council and the members of the public who were present in the town’s chamber heard from administration that 39 notices about the public hearing had been mailed out to adjacent landowners.
Lee Maher Engineering Associates submitted the application on behalf of client Sundre Estates Ltd., with the proposed development area spanning a footprint of 3.99 hectares, or 9.85 acres.
The bylaw amendment had previously received first reading on June 24 and therefore did not require unanimous consent to be approved during the second and third readings.
“Should the applicant receive approval … the next phase of the development will be subdivision,” said Benazir Thaha Valencia, director of community development.
“The re-designation to general residential will be able to facilitate a community that can accommodate a wide variety of lifestyles, ages and incomes,” said Valencia, adding it would also “promote a mix of housing types and forms.”
The proposal’s vision for Eagle Ridge is to have a mixed residential community with the majority of the land area being for low to medium density housing such as single detached and semi-detached dwellings of varying lot sizes as well as designated areas for attached dwellings such as townhouse developments like multi-plex and apartment dwellings, she said.
“The subject area is proposed to connect to the existing water and sanitary mains along Centre Street North,” she said, adding more detailed servicing studies would be required at the subdivision stage.
“In terms of transportation, the intent is for the Eagle Ridge development to be serviced by an internal loop road intersecting with Centre Street North at 13th Avenue and 8th Avenue.”
Following her presentation, the first question from council was brought up by Coun. Owen Petersen, who asked how the Snake Hill trail system would be impacted by the subdivision’s new access road at 8th Avenue, and whether the municipality or the developer would be responsible for relocating the trail head.
Valencia said more detailed drawings would be brought forward at the subdivision stage.
“It’s not just within the Eagle Ridge ASP – we would look at how the subdivision affects other sites as well,” she said.
Council also heard from Betty Ann Fountain, senior development officer, who read aloud for the record all of the received public communications. External agencies including but not limited to Alberta Transportation and Economic Corridors, TransCanada, ATCO and Fortis Alberta expressed no concerns or objections, she said.
Out of the 39 notifications mailed to adjacent landowners, Fountain said one reply was received by way of regular mail while nine were submitted electronically. While those who submitted feedback were largely unopposed to the land re-designation in principle, other concerns were nevertheless expressed.
Among the issues raised were the Eagle Ridge ASP’s proposed inner road circulation not lining up with proposed roads for the adjacent Mountain Springs development. But there were also multiple concerns expressed about outstanding servicing issues from the first phase that after many years remain unresolved.
“We are strongly opposed to any development on this property that does not include the completion of services in Phase 1 as part of the proposal,” states part of one email signed by Rick and Kristine Sarsons, Les and Michele Hengen, Rick Norndon and Lana Turner that Fountain read into the public record.
“Sundre needs development, and present council needs to resolve past mistakes as they develop for the future,” she read.
The only email correspondence expressing support of the proposal was submitted by Gerald Ingeveld on behalf of the Sundre Hospital Futures Committee, who essentially asserted that additional housing options are a crucial part of the effort to recruit and retain health-care workers.
“Rental properties and entry-level owned properties are our primary concern,” reads part of that email.
“Without more of these options available, those newly graduated to a health-care profession will not be able to live Sundre. This forces commutes from other communities where housing is available, and compromises the chances of that person working for the long-term in Sundre.”
Speaking to council in person on behalf of Lee Maher Engineering and the client, Bill Maher offered assurances about the Snake Hill trailhead at 8th Avenue and said that any effect on the trail system “would be realigned or reconnected up; it wouldn’t just be cut off and left hanging there.”
Bruce Kendall, who was among those to submit email correspondence in opposition, also attended in person and told council he actually favours the proposed development. But he also spoke on behalf of the Phase 1 landowners whose issues have not been addressed.
“These people deserve some attention and some light at the end of the tunnel,” he said, adding several have since passed away.
Other concerns raised by Kendall, who owns four lots in Phase 1, included road connections and whether the municipal water system would have sufficient availability for firefighting services.
“There’s some issues there that need to be addressed and worked out prior to coming forward with the subdivision application,” he said.
“The only way to do that, would be to require some further information on these transportation and water issues and further servicing before third reading,” he said, later adding the lot owners of Phase 1 must also be included in discussions.
“The town has to be a part of the solution,” he said.
Council and the members of the public in the chamber heard from Linda Nelson, chief administrative officer, that the first phase was done by a different developer, with another developer picking up the project.
Following further discussion, Valencia later said during closing statements with regard to the road alignment that administration recommended further discussion between the Eagle Ridge and Mountain Springs developers.
“In terms of the comments on servicing, this is something that we would be looking at at the subdivision. We just don’t have the information right now,” she said.
Coun. Jaime Marr sought assurance from administration that past mistakes would not be repeated.
“In terms of having the confidence that we don’t have any mistakes like what happened back in 2006, I’m fairly confident that it won’t,” said Valencia, citing processes that are in place.
“There’s a system in place to avoid those kinds of mistakes,” she said, later calling the amendment a first step that then would be followed up by the more detailed subdivision application for additional discussion prior to any further approvals.
Upon concluding the public hearing, council resumed regular session. The bylaw amendment’s second reading, moved by Marr, passed with five in favour and two opposed – Coun. Todd Dalke and Petersen, who expressed concerns that the outstanding issues from the initial phase might remain unaddressed.
“I know we desperately need houses,” said Petersen. But the councillor argued in favour of first coming up with a solution to address the outstanding issues.
Marr empathized with her colleague’s perspective but argued finer details could be discussed during the subdivision stage and that failing to approve the amendment in the meantime would further prolong a new development amid a housing shortage.
The mayor also cited Sundre’s housing “stalemate” in expressing his support for the amendment.
“We need to do what’s best for our community,” said Warnock.
The third and final reading ultimately went on to pass with six votes in favour and one opposed – Dalke. After expressing his initial concerns, Petersen told his colleagues he recognized the majority consensus on council and opted to support the decision.
