It is still abundantly clear many residents in the neighbourhood surrounding the old daycare site want zero development on the land, but council moved forward this week with three scenarios.
While the proposed options range from 20 per cent coverage of the 5.3-acre site to 35 per cent, considering anything more was found to be too much for council.
In a close defeat, Councillor Joanna McCallum proposed to have administration come back with a fourth option of 65 per cent coverage of the site with affordable housing.
“I felt I was only given a certain range of scenarios and I think this particular piece of land has opportunities for our entire community,” McCallum said. “I think that for us to be able to make an educated, well-advised decision we need to understand what the range of scenarios look like truly, and not just on a map, but also financially.”
While Councillors Ed Russell and Esmé Comfort supported the move, the rest of council questioned including a development scenario that would be unpalatable at the end of the process, especially given sentiments in the neighbourhood.
Council unanimously voted to support the range of development percentages for the lands and gave administration direction to proceed with more community engagement through an online survey and open house on Thursday (Dec. 11) at 6 p.m. at the Civic Centre.
“Moving forward, I would expect to see some design concepts that address what administration hears today and what they hear from the public and flesh out the possibilities there may be in terms of whether or not 100 per cent of housing on that land should be perpetually affordable housing, or some other affordable housing model, or if there is room for market sales to generate revenues for the flood reserve,” Borrowman said.
The need for affordable housing was key for Coun. Sean Krausert, who said the need is so high council must explore every option available.
“The only reason I am interested in doing any development on this site is the real community need for affordable housing,” Krausert said. “In my mind, the ramification of us not addressing that need goes to the sustainability of the character of our community.”
Development planner Kate van Fraassen provided council with an overview of the design options and the next steps in the process.
“We believe these scenarios somewhat balance the immediate needs of neighbours who continue to seek no development and the larger community, which has expressed support for some kind of development on the site in order to support affordable housing,” van Fraassen said. “The overarching intent to all this work to date has been to acquire information on potential redevelopment and support informed decision making so we know what we are making decisions about.”
All three options included a skating rink and playground component. Option one has 35 per cent site development with seven single-family homes, eight duplexes and 16 row townhomes. Option two has 30 per cent site development with 28 row townhomes. Option three has 20 per cent development and 12 row townhomes and 16 stacked townhomes.
There are outstanding questions about the proposed development that cannot be answered until further into the design process, including effects on wildlife, financial feasibility and use of the municipal reserve zoned land for housing.
The municipal government act regulates the process for disposing of municipal reserve land requiring a bylaw and a public hearing and how any revenues from the disposal can be used.
The mayor questioned how the MGA would apply to using the land for affordable housing, as the only way to make it affordable in Canmore is to remove the market value of land from the equation.
Van Fraassen said the first question to answer is how much of the municipal reserve is to be used and administration will come back to council with more information on the issue.
It was clear, though, that using revenues from selling municipal reserve is in question, especially if it is for flood mitigation, as well as how to reconcile that with the MGA.
They mayor also questioned how the daycare operated on the site as it is not a permitted or discretionary use for municipal reserve.
“There is precious little in the subdivision file that talks about that building,” said manager of planning Alaric Fish. “We don’t know the decisions or considerations to allow it to continue despite being separate of MR uses.”
While an environmental impact statement is not required or recommended until a site design is chosen, Fish told council the site is not appropriate to be considered as a wildlife corridor or habitat patch as it is surrounded by residential development.
“Ungulates use the area, but it is not big enough to be a habitat patch and does not connect to other habitat patches, so it is not technically a corridor,” he said.
