Poor lane-way conditions challenges project

Miriam Ostermann
Times Associate Editor

 

Despite a desire for greater density in the downtown area, town council decided to shelve the approval for a development permit of a proposed 12-unit apartment building, as a result of a lack of information and issues surrounding the project.
The three-lot property, located at 604 and 606 Lakeside Blvd., raised concerns with several neighbouring landowners regarding parking, poor conditions of the back lane, and the height of the building, which stands 13.25 meters tall. While the maximum allowable height in the R3 District is 14 meters, residents felt the structure would, nonetheless, disrupt the tenor of the neigh-bourhood.
Although council had previously been adamant about fostering a greater downtown density, concerns around the aesthetics of the project proved inevitable.
“We’re going to run into this situation sooner or later, if we, in fact, want to promote higher density in the downtown,” said Werner Fischer, director of planning and development for the Town of Strathmore.
“I would go as far as to say this may be viewed by some people as an eyesore in the interim, but somewhere along the line in the downtown, we have to establish some perimeter, some border, some boundary, and some limits. I think this would be instrumental in doing that. There will be an abrupt transition, but I fail to understand how we can ever get around that. If not here, then where?”
Administration initially brought the issue to council as the new Land Use Bylaw requires the development officer to state any variances that exceed 25 per cent, as is the case for some areas of the proposed development.
Although the apartment building is situated in the suitable R3 high density residential district, meets the necessary height requirements, will be located on a collector road, complies with the Land Use Bylaw on parking requirements, and is approved by the Downtown Design Review Committee, council showed concern with the requested relaxations, proper notification to neigh-bouring residences, and the deteriorating condition of the back lane.
“That is a huge concern for me, from a town perspective, because that lane is a mess,” said Councillor Denise Peterson. “It’s a lane-way that is used a great deal because of the way busing happens in front of Sacred Heart and Holy Cross Collegiate. So it’s a very busy lane and not in good shape. I think it’s hugely problematic to go ahead with this without knowing what’s going to happen to that lane.”
Councillor Peterson’s concerns were echoed by Councillor Bob Sobol, who remarked the lane-way was his only concern in going forward with the project.
A letter from a concerned resident whose property is located near the three lots, also outlines the issues concerning the back lane. Referring to the lane as in poor shape from heavy traffic, he ex-pects a proper upgrade would be required, repair to the leak causing the sink hole, as well as paving.
As the letter continues to argue that road parking for all residents in the area could be affected, Pat Rempel stated that realistically the area would see an increase of 16 to 18 vehicles. Yet ad-ministration assured council that the applicant exceeded the required parking stalls with a proposed 13 stalls, when only 12 are required under the Land Use Bylaw.
Administration approached council with a number of issues, yet supported the approval of the development permit application with conditions, if council approved relaxations and variances of the Land Use Bylaw. The relaxations required include issues with lot width and area, maximum allowable density, minimum front setback, and minimum building setback from a side property line.
“This is by far the best project that we’ve had, or that I’ve seen, in the past few years,” said Fischer. “I understand people not liking the building that close. There’s some discomfort there. In our opinion as staff, granting the relaxations will not unduly interfere with the amenities of the neighbourhood or materially interfere with or affect the use, enjoyment, or value of neighbouring parcels of land.”
As only two resident responses – in the form of letters – were presented to the town, Mayor Michael Ell questioned whether enough time had been provided for residents to respond to the mat-ter.
As a result, council unanimously agreed on May 20, to postpone the issue allowing for council to consider the situation in more detail and provide administration with time to propose possible solutions to the lane-way.