The development industry in Canmore has challenged the municipality’s project to develop employee housing inside the exit ramp of the Trans-Canada Highway as being poorly planned and an inappropriate change of use.
At a public hearing held Dec. 13 at the Civic Centre on three bylaw changes needed to move the affordable housing project forward, several speakers opposed the idea of rezoning the land being considered from commercial to residential.
Patrick Sorfleet, development and planning supervisor, presented the application to council for changes to the Municipal Development Plan (amending a map); changes to the Palliser Area Structure Plan and creation of a direct control district in the Land Use Bylaw to pave the way forward for the project.
The municipality has engaged three companies to submit a design/ownership proposal for developing purpose-built rental housing geared to be employee housing. The big difference between employee housing and other types of housing is it is meant to be temporary and only for those who have a job in the community.
Sorfleet said a new direct control district that would make council the approving authority for a project would be very similar to the district nearby that houses two housing projects built by the municipality in partnership with a developer – the Blackiston and Hector buildings. While the Hector is rental perpetually affordable housing (PAH) owned by Canmore Community Housing Corporation, the Blackiston is a condo building with units owned by individuals.
Sorfleet said the proposed land use dis trict is based on the current district the Blackiston sits inside, although the new district has setbacks from the highway and alternative parking standards.
Speaking on behalf of the board of directors for the Bow Valley Builders and Developers Association (BOWDA), executive director Ron Remple said its members are not in support of the proposed change.
The biggest reason, said Remple, is the fact that where the property is located is a “gateway entrance” to the community and should be developed as such.
“BOWDA believes this level of change to the visual entrance to Canmore must be properly planned and the land is not appropriate for employee housing,” he said.
Remple said the organization is supportive of employee housing and affordable housing being built in the community, but in appropriate locations for such uses.
“It will be difficult to control how an employee housing development would look in the future and this is a very visible entrance to Canmore,” he said. “Other locations should be fully considered.”
Other locations include a parcel of land just a few hundred metres away from the Moustache land location at 100 Palliser Lane. It is land already identified for affordable housing, owned by CCHC, serviced and appropriately zoned – pointed out the development industry.
That alternate site and the proposed location both sit within the area structure plan for the Palliser area – a plan originally written by Alberta Housing and approved in 2000 with few changes since. Remple argued that plan should be rewritten and done properly to look at how all lands in the Palliser area should be developed into the future instead of one off decisions on direct control districts such as what’s being proposed.
“The area structure plan process is intended to identify development issues in advance and makes sure solutions are in place,” he said. “It is better to plan a development properly from the outset, especially in the gateway to Canmore.”
Even with the objection of the local development industry, it doesn’t change the fact that no local builder or developer was chosen by the municipality (or even submitted a proposal) to develop housing on the property.
Of 15 submissions, the three chosen candidates to partner with the municipality to potentially develop the property are Northview Real Estate Investment Trust, ATCO Structures and Logistics and New Urban Realty Advisors, and Zeidler BKDI Architects. Each has been provided $10,000 to develop a proposal for the land and the deadline for submission of those ideas was Dec. 16.
So while council considered rezoning the land, its administration is also working on what could be built on it for housing.
Mayor John Borrowman noted that one of the biggest barriers to businesses in the community at this time is a shortage of staff – to which adequate and affordable housing has always been part of the solution.
Borrowman asked what the bigger need is in the community – to protect the “gateway” entrance or address an identified need for businesses – employee housing.
Remple and others who spoke at the public hearing supported the need for employee housing, but challenged the process and location council is pursuing.
Devonian Properties vice-president Brian Talbot said a key entry point into Canmore and even into Banff National Park should not be used for employee housing.
In fact, Talbot told council a proposal for possible employee housing may come forward from Devonian in 2017, as it is in the process of acquiring land he said is more appropriate for that kind of land use.
“There are other options in town,” he said.
Talbot, and everyone else who spoke at the hearing, pointed out that residents of the Palliser area are already cutting across four lanes of the highway to get downtown and adding more development in that area without a solution to that issue would be short sighted as well.
“We do agree 100 per cent there is a real need for an employee housing project,” he said. “But this location would require pedestrian access across the highway.”
The last time a pedestrian bridge or tunnel was considered for Palliser – before it was developed – it came with an estimated $6 million price tag.
Second and third reading of the bylaw, along with consideration of the three design proposals, are expected to be in front of council in the new year.
