Canmore council had the opportunity to review public feedback so far on the proposed Municipal Development Plan this week and as a result requested the entire document be revised to have a different “tone.”
Mayor John Borrowman made the motion on Tuesday (Dec.15) to direct the planning department to revisit the MDP in its entirety and adjust the language to better reflect the vision for the future of the community.
Borrowman said the MDP could benefit from editing that focused on better reflecting the intent of the document and its priorities.
“Everybody recognizes the intent was clearly to be specific in speaking to the vision for the MDP and the vision for the community in terms of what our priorities are, but the tone and context of how it was presented would benefit from some reconsideration and rewriting, because I think the tone did put some people off,” he said.
The MDP is the overarching planning document that sets out how development should occur in the community, as well as priorities for when and where development happens.
The vision of the document states: “Canmore is a resilient and vibrant community socially, economically, and environmentally. Its strength is in its resourceful and engaged citizens, who thrive together on the strength of the community’s heritage, long-term commitment to the diversity of its people, and health of the mountain landscape.”
However, further to that vision statement, the MDP set out that the community “acknowledges that some change is inevitable, and is willing to work towards adapting to the changes that accompany growth.”
That statement in particular was a cause for concern for mayor and council, along with section 1.5 Principles of Change, which set out that the MDP’s implementation requires a change in “the way we think and act.”
That section was removed and Borrowman said council recognizes that statements regarding change occurring in neighbourhoods in a direct way without context and understanding has led to concerns in the community.
“Change will not happen overnight and without involvement or a full blown process like an area redevelopment plan; we just need to make the document read differently,” he said.
The MDP vision statement comes out of the Mining the Future visioning process completed in 2006, which also informed the Community Sustainability Plan before it was rescinded by council in 2010. Another visioning process in the ’90s led to Canmore’s growth management plan and growth management is a section in the proposed MDP that saw input from concerned citizens.
Municipal planner Tracy Woitenko went through the feedback on the MDP received since it was released in September and in specific those things that are within the planning document’s scope.
Woitenko said administration recommends managing growth through the urban growth boundary and not through a hard cap on population or unit numbers. When it comes to growth phasing and existing neighbourhoods, she said public feedback was against doing so at the expense of green space.
“But what is green space?” she asked. “It can be a vacant lot privately owned … it can also be public land, municipal reserve or a park. It is a perceived type of land, not an actual type of land.
“We do not direct growth of green space, we talk about designation of parks and how we use parks and how private property should be developed.”
Manager of planning Alaric Fish said it is important to keep in mind the MDP is a high level document and the Land Use Bylaw is the place that actually deals with specific land uses. Fish also reminded council that changes to the MDP that would bind future councils is not only discouraged, it is contrary to the Municipal Government Act.
“The MDP is a high level guiding document, it does not do anything forever,” said Fish. “There can be high level direction, however, almost anything can be undone in the future.”
Woitenko told council when it comes to the section on affordable housing in the draft MDP, a concern expressed by the community is that no such section existed in the previous plan, which dates back to 1998. The question posed by some in the community was whether there is too much emphasis on the issue.
Woitenko said council has clearly directed administration that affordability and the issue of affordable housing is critical to the future of the community and as such she recommended no changes to the MDP.
However, she said language that makes it clear that council is the decision making body that will decide these issues into the future could be added to make it clearer.
The mayor put forward a motion to change the affordable housing section to make it clear that ongoing data is needed to assess demand in the community when it comes to this particular issue. Woitenko also recommended a stronger emphasis in the MDP on the need to develop an employee housing strategy.
