CANMORE – A development proposal for lands in South Canmore will continue to see Town staff and the applicant work together after a series of potential amendments were suggested by council.
The seven-hour public hearing had council have staff and the applicant look at limiting the height and size of the proposed houses, analyze the legal options to have a conservation easement placed on the non-developed portions of the potential project and have the palliative care society study housing options for staff.
The two sides will have roughly six weeks prior to second and possibly third reading returning to council July 5 to finetune the plan.
“It shows an openness to exploring ways to address concerns that have been identified with the application and will give us as council well-informed options to consider if we would like to move them at second reading or not,” said Mayor Sean Krausert.
The asks of council came following the lengthy public hearing that had 35 people speak on the proposed project. Twenty of those were in favour of proceeding, with two being neutral and the remainder against the development.
Among the concerns raised by residents were moving the growth boundary, impact on wildlife and the proposal not fitting the needs of the community. Throughout the hearing, there was no pushback on the need for a palliative care facility as many residents stressed its need for the valley.
“We can have some of what we want or none of what we want,” said Coun. Joanna McCallum, who expressed concern about potentially amending the growth boundary. “I think this menu of possibilities, points of discussion with administration and the applicant will help us move this thought process forward.”
Both Jan and Bernie McCaffery – the owners of the land – indicated they were open to having restrictions for future growth on their land – which could potentially stop future proposals coming forward from any future landowners on the 800 3rd Avenue Canmore lands – and limiting the height and size of the homes.
They also noted the importance of maintaining a priority on the environment and conservation moving forward.
Krausert highlighted how several public members had expressed concerns of “death by a thousand cuts” to wildlife and that a conservation easement in perpetuity may be a solution to protecting the functionality of the habitat patch.
Frank Kernick, the owner of Spring Creek Mountain Village (SCMV), suggested to council a similar path taken when he was developing the Eagle Terrace area of Canmore and donated half of the 65 hectares (160 acres) of land to the Rocky Mountain Elk Foundation.
A conservation easement was also placed on the property, Kernick said, adding SCMV was willing to discuss the possibility of servicing water to the palliative centre from Spring Creek lands.
Coun. Tanya Foubert said the Municipal Development Plan also recommends the Town and landowners work together in aiding conservation easements.
“My feeling is with that combined with putting up some signage [along] a buffer in the land between the development we are in fact going to help facilitate a greater functioning of the habitat patch,” Krausert said.
Canmore-based wildlife biologist Karsten Heuer, who was a co-author of the Wildlife Corridor and Habitat Patch Guidelines, warned the largest concern isn’t so much the footprint but the zones of influence.
He presented data on radio collared grizzly bears, elk and wolves from Alberta Environment and Parks that highlighted the use of the land. With grizzly bears zone of influence being 200-300 metres and wolves 300-400 metres, it can push wildlife further out.
“The effect of this development is not the footprint. The effect is the zone of influence, so it can easily be a third of the habitat wildlife patch it’s influencing,” he said.
Heuer added the habitat patch provides a resting point for wildlife entering town and gives them an area to be pushed back out to safe areas outside of Canmore.
“We need areas where we’re hazing wildlife out of town. We need areas for them to go,” he said. “If we take this out of the equation, all of a sudden we’re having to haze them through a development as well.”
Richard Simpson of Associated Environmental Consultants noted the cumulative effects are real, but so too are the regional impacts.
Simpson, who’s worked on the South Saskatchewan Regional Plan and studies the cumulative effects on wildlife, said there is already extensive development in the surrounding site for existing disturbances. He added development is having wildlife go around Canmore, so it’s difficult to look at a specific development impacting the zone of influence.
“The argument is not all development is equal and where that development is is really critical on the cumulative effects of a particular development.”
The privately-owned land at 800 3rd Avenue is 8.27 hectares (20.4 acres) and is at the end of 3rd Avenue. Jan and Bernie McCaffery bought the land in 2018 and are proposing six homes and a palliative care facility. The 0.8 hectares of land for the palliative hospice would be donated by the owners.
The proposal includes four sub-districts, with one having a six-bed palliative care facility. The other three sub-districts would be for six residential lots. The six homes would also have accessory dwellings for the rental market.
Public engagement was held by the landowner in the first part of 2022 along with four virtual open houses and a website. The virtual open houses had about 230 participants.
The representative for the McCaffrey’s, Lori Van Rooijen, highlighted roughly 90 per cent of the lands will continue to be in their natural state and the proposal is a break from the 39- to 100-unit residential applications that have been rejected by past councils.
“The land is surrounded by development,” she said. “The proposed concept will not open the proverbial flood gates to development in the area because there are areas already developed or policies approved allowing for its development.”
Separate motions to have the scale of housing brought down to one unit and another to have the palliative care society look at staff accommodation were defeated with only Couns. Wade Graham and Jeff Mah in support of both.
The Town’s manager of planning and development, Lauren Miller, cautioned reducing the project to one house would rework the application, meaning they’d renotify residents and issues over procedure may arise.
“We can enter into the conversation with the applicant, but if we are to not come to an agreement that meets council’s needs, the application as it’s proposed would be what’s before council,” she said.
Graham noted addressing staff accommodation would help address many concerns on the project by community members.
“I want to make sure we’ve got the door open that if they do want to put some employee housing in that section they are welcome to do so,” he said.
Couns. Jeff Hilstad and McCallum said there’s no requirement for them to do so, with McCallum successfully adding the recommendation to have the palliative care society return with information on staffing the facility.
“The market is going to decide whether the palliative care folk can actually staff their facility,” she said. “It will be the market, so allow them the opportunity to display how they’re going address that challenge in our community.”
With a list of options coming from the hearing, council members expressed hope in returning with a better plan at second reading.
“Instead of us changing it, I’m really looking forward to the applicant coming forward at second reading after hearing everything with changes they’re willing to make for our consideration,” Foubert said.
