Ruined views a concern on Hillcrest Blvd

Sharon McLeay
Times Contributor

 

Residents along Hillcrest Blvd. were in Strathmore town council June 16 to oppose a development plan in the area.
The area in question is an 11-acre parcel proposed for development in the Lakewood Meadows area, situated between the Hillview community and the WID ditch west of Strathmore. It was not originally designated for development in the area structure plan, but has come forward for approval. The original development plan was rejected in the fall of 2015, due to questions over the proposed R2X building heights.
“There have been many meetings and discussions on how to deal with a reasonable application,” said Pat Maloney, planner representing Alture Properties Ltd.
Maloney outlined the new application as a mix of medium and low density housing and public district land. She gave examples of similar townhouses and duplex concepts that would be built in the area. She said the new building modifications kept the building heights lower than eight to 10 metres. She presented a cross section of the development, which illustrated where housing will be built on the natural slope of the land, preserving sight lines from the Hillcrest Blvd. residences.
The sanitary needs of the development would be handled through the Hillview lift station and further phases will connect via a new pipeline to the sewage treatment plant. A traffic report was done in 2014 and an environmental plan was done. Widening of the boundary road and secondary access roads would be the responsibility of the developer.
“The owner had agreed to reduce the density by half and reduce the height by a metre,” said Maloney. “We have done everything we can to protect the view.”
A 10-metre buffer strip and a walking path will be built along the canal, preserving existing trees and vegetation where possible. The first phase will have 20 lots.
Alture Properties Ltd. held an open house and Maloney delivered letters door-to-door to facilitate better communication with the residents; however there were still 21 home owners who submitted objections to council. One household was in support of the modified plan.
Some people want the land to remain designated as agriculture general; however, keeping it as an agriculture designation after annexation did not fit in the current municipal government terms for proposed development. The property is privately owned and Strathmore’s director of planning, Werner Fishcher, pointed out that the town had no control of an owner’s right to sell or submit property for development.
A spokesman for the Hillcrest Blvd. delegation said homeowners felt duplexes and townhomes would devalue their properties. They also had concerns about the increased traffic, and provision of utility and emergency services being provided to the area. Destruction of trees and vegetation and that impact on wildlife was also mentioned.
Councillor Brad Walls wants to see a new traffic assessment report.
“A lot has changed in two years,” he said. “Driving that road on a daily basis, the traffic has become very busy around the Hillview area.”
Walls also requested an additional secondary emergency access be put in, and that developers keep as many trees as possible along the reserve strip.
Councillor Peterson brought up good data available around urban sprawl and the 80 to 90 per cent loss of wetlands. She outlined what she felt was her responsibility to consider for issues surrounding land development.
“The next municipal development plan, if one is passed by this council, will most certainly be unusual and irregular because it will be different. It will be different as this council has certainly made big changes in sustainability and environmental oversight. It believes it will be a major if not a primary objective in terms of future planning of the town,” said Peterson “Having said that, because we can’t put limitations on designation, it becomes a huge consideration.
“I think how it is built, and under what circumstances it is built, is on the backs of this council. The least I can do as representative in this community is to make sure that it has the best possible solution for future generations and ensure considerations for people that live in this community.” She asked that a biodiversity plan be submitted.
Councillor Steve Graczyk said it is important to note the town could not possibly purchase the land and make it park or reserve property. He estimated land costs at about $300,000 per acre. He added he has heard the residents’ concerns, but if this application didn’t pass, one where the developer was trying to work with residents, there may be a future council and a different developer that may propose taller structures for this site that would pass. He also said there would be difficulties in connecting homes to utility services if properties were broken up by too many reserve areas.
Councillor Pat Fule also said council had heard residents’ concerns and indicated that is why council turned down the first application and asked for modifications in reapplication.
The decision on Bylaw 16-09 was postponed to the July 6 town council meeting. Council directed administration to ensure a high level of landscaping be done on reserve land along the canal, ensure modified building height levels are in the plan, a secondary access from boundary road be developed, a widening of the north boundary road be done on subdivision, one tree of at least five calipers per lot be planted and environmental concerns addressed upon subdivision.