When it comes to the future of Canmore as a community, its quality of life, neighbourhood makeup, park space and affordability, one thing is certain – many residents of the town are afraid of what could be lost.
When it comes to the future of Canmore as a community, its quality of life, neighbourhood makeup, park space and affordability, one thing is certain – many residents of the town are afraid of what could be lost.
That sense of loss, whether in the present or the future, and concern for what the community will become through development, was heard loud and clear by council Tuesday night (Jan. 18) when elected officials held a public hearing on a rezoning bylaw for a public land that council is considering for an affordable housing project.
The old daycare lands, called that because for over 30 years and up until 2012 the property housed a community daycare and preschool – the property sits along 17th Avenue and 11th Street between Lion's Park and the Larch subdivision.
Neighbourhood residents have taken up the name Larch Park, to refer to the 2.2 hectare municipally-owned site. While there are no typical park facilities or infrastructure, like nearby Lion's Park, there is a very popular ice-skating rink that was originally built by residents of the neighbourhood.
But regardless of what it is called, the public hearing to consider rezoning it from Municipal Reserve land to a direct control district in the Land Use Bylaw displayed a variety of points of view. From those who fear losing a cherished park space to those who are concerned that friends and family continue to leave the community because of the high cost of living – there was a lot for council to consider when it takes the bylaw to second reading in the future.
Woodside Lane resident Kim Johnson spoke about the lack of information many residents in the adjacent neighbourhood feel has been provided about the process and the proposed development.
“My main concern is that the process seems to be speeding up at quite a rate and it is lacking neighbourhood input at this point,” Johnson said.
He noted neighbourhood input was sought by the municipality and provided during consultations early in the process – including a workshop where development options for the property were created. But now, said Johnson, surveyors are on site and work is moving toward development, but the neighbourhood has been left out of that process.
“You need to ‘Go Beyond' here,” Johnson said, using the Town's own branding slogan. “You need to help the neighbourhood, otherwise it is not Canmore, it is can less and you can fix that.”
Moya Kelly spoke in favour of the rezoning bylaw, saying that as an owner of a unit of affordable housing that was developed through the municipality trying to address the issue, she has been able to continue living in this community.
“To be able to buy an affordable housing unit in Canmore has been so amazing,” Kelly said. “It has allowed me to stay here and purchase a comfortable, affordable space that is good for me and I can live within my means.
“It has been a real eye opener to the need in this town for affordable housing and I fully support the redevelopment of the old daycare lands.”
While someone who spoke before her referred to Canmore Community Housing Corporation's housing program as Perpetually “Annoying” Housing, Kelly said that may be what some people call it in this town, but for her it is a home in the community she wants to live.
“It allows me to stay here and live here and work here,” she said.
Speaking on behalf of Bow Valley Builders and Developers Association, executive director Ron Remple supported the rezoning bylaw being considered. Remple said BOWDA encouraged its 220 members to get involved in the decision making process on this particular development regardless of their position.
“We believe that for a sustainable community we need housing people can afford now and into the future,” he said. “The provision of affordable housing and Perpetually Affordable Housing is one of the most critical needs in our community over the last decade and will continue to be.”
Canmore resident Al Scurfield expressed concern about the loss of green space and flat parkland in the valley bottom.
He said there are vey few parks that provide space and facilities for activities like baseball and soccer – and with a growing community, park space should be preserved, or created – not developed for housing.
“Let's be creative and find other lands to build these houses and keep our downtown parks green and flat and enhance them instead of doing nothing,” Scurfield said.
Eric McAvity actually spoke to the fact that municipal reserve land is being used for a housing project. He said he is opposed to using municipal reserve lands for anything other than future recreational opportunities.
He said affordable housing is an appropriate endeavour for council to be pursuing, but he does not feel housing should be built on MR (municipal reserve).
“I am against the development of any municipal reserve land in our community for housing,” he said. “I think it is philosophically wrong to take land with a dedicated purpose for wellbeing and recreational needs for the community and convert it to housing in any form.”
The Municipal Government Act sets out that municipal reserve owned by a municipality (or a school, which can also own and be provided MR land at subdivision) may be used for a public park; public recreation areas; school board purposes or to separate areas of land that are used for different purposes. Community services reserve, on the other hand, in the MGA can be used for affordable housing, a library, police or fire station, daycare or senior citizen's facility.
A public hearing on disposal of municipal reserve is required, which was the last public hearing to be held on this issue in 2015. In order for the designation of municipal reserve to be removed, it must be registered at the Southern Alberta Land Titles Office and have met requirements set out in the MGA.
Manager of planning Alaric Fish said that process has not yet been applied for, however, a subdivision hearing was held by the municipality and approved for the subject site. That subdivision results in two parcels, each representing half of the overall property. While the land closest to the roadways are being considered for affordable housing, the remainder of the land is to be preserved as park space and the ice rink replaced in 2017 as part of the Town's capital budget, at a cost of $540,000.
Fish presented the direct control district being considered and the uses and standards to be established. They include unit numbers allowed (30-50), building heights and setbacks.
Those few details, however, were concerning for residents like Randy Nichols, whose home in Woodside Lane backs directly onto where the housing project would be. He questioned whether he would be looking out his window at a 10 metre high wall.
“It seems like this decision has already been made and this is providing more anxiety for people in the neighbourhood,” Nichols said.
Vijay Domingo, vice-president of development for Spring Creek Mountain Village, alluded to the process currently being undertaken by Canmore Community Housing Corporation to choose a developer to partner with to build housing on the site.
CCHC began a request for proposal process last year and had more than a dozen applications. A shortlist of three proponents was selected, including SCMV, and they are working with a selection committee of the proposals.
But given the fact that SCMV is trying to find a creative solution for housing that respects the surrounding neighbourhood, Domingo asked council not to create a land use district they will then have to apply for variances in.
“This is really about trying to find the best solution,” he said. “Because we are putting this into an established community, what we want to look at is the design first and the overall impact.”
CCHC managing director Dougal Forteath told council the organization is going to be coming forward with a proposal to purchase the subdivided parcel once it is rezoned.
Forteath said CCHC feels community and neighbourhood input on the project is incredibly important and that is why two residents of the neighbourhood were chosen to be on the selection committee for the RFP. However, because the proposals from each developer are proprietary information at this point, not a lot of actual details of what the housing project might look like are available to the public at this time.
“CCHC believes the provision of affordable housing is a necessary part of a strong, healthy and balanced community and it complements the neighbourhood we are considering for development and benefits the community as a whole,” Forteath said.
Bow Valley resident of eight years and Canmore resident for three – Kieran Dowling spoke to the fact that he is an immigrant to the community (from Australia) and him, his wife and two children rent a home in the nearby Larch area.
“We are probably the ideal people looking for a place like this,” Dowling said. “Friends of ours have left this valley purely because they could not find a home.
“I understand people are challenged by perpetually affordable housing, but I think it provides the ability for people like myself and my wife to live in the valley.”
