Neighbours Oppose Proposed Five-Plex Development
By Robert Thomas
A proposed five unit development at the corner of 5th Avenue NE and Stadacona Street East - 476 Stadacona Street East - had residents out asking Council not to approve a zoning bylaw amendment to allow the development.
It was a partial victory for the residents as Council decided to table the final vote on the zoning bylaw amendment until their September 11th meeting to allow further consultation between the residents and the developer.
It was a move which generated a 5 - 2 split on Council whether to table the bylaw amendment or proceed with voting on the amendment to change the zoning from R1 single dwelling to R2 medium density multi-dwelling.
Councillors Kim Robinson and Dawn Luhning opposed tabling the matter.
A aproposed five residence structure at 476 Stadacona Street East - presently a vacant lot with a For Sale sign in it - has more than a few area residents not happy with the developer’s plans - MJ Independent photo
Residents’ Appeal
Home owner Anna Kwasnica spoke on behalf of the approximate half a dozen residents.
Kwasnica said residents were opposed to the development on various grounds.
Grounds which included its location - just across the street from St Margaret School - the present lack of parking presently in the area and how the new development would exasperate that, design, not attuned to the nature of the homes in the area, potential to become low income housing, depreciating property values amongst other concerns.
She said area residents were already struggling to find parking in the area with the problem becoming worse during the school year.
“We have to deal with buses, parents parked illegally and people not stopping at the crosswalks that are there,”
Kwasnica said a single designated off street parking spot was not enough given the realities of the situation.
“The proposed development will only provide one parking spot per unit while we all know many families have multiple vehicles,” she said.
Under existing zoning bylaw for R2 zoning only one off street parking spot is required by developers.
Kwasnica questioned how was it possible to create five on-site parking spots, one of which must be handicap accessible, on a lot that originally held a single-family home.
“How do you see parking getting any better for us the residents?”
Another area of concern for the residents was if their zoning were to be changed what would stop the developer from selling the property to somebody else who could then legally build something not intended for the site, she said.
“Does this open the door to others to turn this into low income housing if the buyer falls through,” she asked, adding “this will significantly reduce all of our my eye, just gonna property values in the area.”
Anna Kwasnica spoke on the behalf of the residents opposed to the development on the corner of their street - MJ Independent photo
Kwasnica said although the developers were proposing one thing “could they not change their minds?”
She said the proposed development would potentially destroy the character of the street by not matching the aesthetics and blending into the age of the homes on the block.
Kwasnica said her home was built in 1904 like many of the others on the block. She also said there are many long-term residences like herself, whose family had lived there since 1979.
She said she had personally seen a similar development by the same developer in Regina and how it does not match the look of her home and other ones on the block.
Kwasnica also questioned if the infrastructure in the area was sufficient to support the development.
Has anyone in Engineering Department checked to see if the infrastructure could support the water flows demanded by a five unit development on a single-family home light, she questioned.
Kwasnica also questioned the communications provided to residents by the City.
Initially, a letter had gone out to affected residents to appear at counsel at 5:30 PM to have their concerns heard although Council starts at 4 PM and has changed to a format where people speaking at Council appear near the beginning of the meeting.
Area resident Bonnie Bell briefly addressed Council stating why she opposed the proposed development - MJ Independent photo
Kwasnica categorized the response from City Hall is similar to the one she believes they receive from the Moose Jaw Police Service
“We even have to fight for a police patrol,” she said.
Kwasnica said the City should encourage another type of developer - not a multi unit developer.
“Let someone come in and build a single family unit.”
Council Discussion
Parking was front and center for the councillors who did not fully support the proposed development.
Councillor Doug Blanc said he had concerns with the parking situation in the area and how the development could negatively impact the situation.
“I have some concerns and I understand the developer is going to have to have one parking stall per unit,” Councillor Blanc said going on to add how most families have one car and how it is likely the residents of the proposed five-plex could have more than one car exasperating they already restricted parking conditions.
Councillor Doug Blanc was concerned with the parking situation for residents and how a five unit development would impact residents - MJ Independent photo
“I don’t think there is quite enough room on that property for five vehicles. There are businesses around the corner that I see park on the side of the street and I have some problems there,” Councillor Blanc stated.
Councillor Blanc asked if it was possible to speak to the developer about the property.
Planning director Michelle Sanson sad she had developer on the line to appear remotely to address counsel, but five minutes before the meeting there was a major technical glitch, not allowing him to appear as he had intended.
It needs to be noted that Council started their meeting late due to technical difficulties.
Sanson said the developer had drafted an email, which addressed many other concerns the residents had expressed.
In fairness to the developer, she read the letter and it’s entirety to Council.
The Developer’s Side Of The Issue
Evco Developments wrote any changes or restrictions moving away from the requirements of R2 zoning may well scuddle the project.
“A requirement from the city to either increase the on site parking per unit, or a reduction in the maximum allowable units on the property in preference to more parking spaces would negatively impact the feasibility of a development on the property,” the developer’s letter stated.
Evco wrote they were prepared to abide by the parking requirements set out under R2 zoning.
“In our reading of the R2 zoning bylaw we understand there is a 1:1 parking space to unit allowance. The development we intend to build conforms to this requirement and we would not be looking to add housing units that do not have a parking space provided,” the letter stated.
The developer felt the proposed five-plex what is ideal for the location.
“We also believe R2 to be a suitable zoning for a site that is so close to a commercial zone, a school, a park and to downtown.”
About the concerns raised about developing low income housing Evco’s letter stated they were not looking at developing low income housing but we’re looking at building market rate rental units.
“Our proposed development is a five three-unit row home style building with a target of market rental rates. At the intended price point, these units would not (and shouldn’t) be classified as low income,” the letter stated.
Regarding the footprint of the proposed five-plex Evco Developments said they had a similar project in Regina and it fit within the requirements of the proposed R2 zoning.
“The footprint of all five units combined is 80’ x 30’ which conforms to the R2 site coverage requirements and there is ample room from the alley for surface parking for each unit.”
As far as the building, being aesthetic and fitting the character of the 120 year old neighbourhood Evco Developments wrote it was natural for neighbourhoods to change as modern infill housing is built.
The developer pointed out that new higher density infill housing, helps the city get more tax dollars to benefit the neighbourhood,
“We hope current residents can appreciate that projects with increased density provide increased property tax revenue, which in turn provides larger budgets to offer and maintain city amenities and services in a neighbourhood,”
Councillor Doug Blanc said his concerns about the proposed development centered around parking.
“I don’t have any problem with the height of the building. I mean, there are some two and three stories homes in the city. So height is not the issue Councillor Blanc said.
PLEASE NOTE - Although the technical issues preventing Evco Developments from appearing are not this publication’s fault in order to address the issue of fairness we will publish the entire letter at the end of this story.
Councillor Jamey Logan, who is also a local property developer, said he did not oppose development but was concerned about the parking issue - MJ Independent photo
Councillor Crystal Froese addressed the concerns of residents about how the proposed development would effect “ the feel of the neighbourhood.”
Councillor Froese asked if there were any guidelines to help protect the character and aesthetics of the neighborhood, and was told by Director Sansone none existed.
She asked if the development being adjacent to the school would leave nothing more in the wall to look at.
“The neighbours are the ones who are going to have to live around this property,” she said, adding she would like to have a look at the drawings of the proposed development, although it is not required.
Councillor Froese said she was not willing to support the project and wanted to see more information before voting on amending the zoning bylaw.
Councillor Dawn Luhning felt Council’s role was not selecting or denying the development of it fit the present zoning and other requirements - MJ Independent photo
Councillor Dawn Luhning said Council should not be stopping the development if it qualified and met the City’s present zoning and other requirements
“I understand the concerns of the residents. I get that. I understand that, Councillor Luhning said, adding “ the conversation with the neighbourhood wasn’t as good as the residents would have appreciated it to be.”
She said the City has a set of parameters that the development met and Council should allow the amendment to the bylaw.
“It fits in those parameters. It has to abide by the parking regulations. It has to fit in that box… and if it fits unfortunately in my opinion it is not our job to (interrupt) the market and say sorry you can’t do that,” she said.
Councillor Luhning said she worried the requested zoning bylaw amendment would be defeated when there was a possibility of more consultation with the neighborhood allaying their fears.
In the end Council voted 5 - 2 to table the vote on the bylaw amendment until their September 11 meeting to allow the residents to have further consultation from the developer.
The full text of the letter sent to the City to explain Evco Developments side of the issue is directly below….
Thank you for forwarding to us comments from neighbours concerning the proposed rezoning of 476 Stadacona East. I’ll look to briefly respond to each of these concerns from our point of view, and I will aim to be available for the council meeting at 4pm today.
1. Parking Comments
In our reading of the R2 zoning bylaw we understand there is a 1:1 parking space to unit allowance. The development we intend to build conforms to this requirement and we would not be looking to add housing units that do not have a parking space provided.
We believe there is precedent for R2 zoning east of Crescent Park - I’ve attached a screenshot of the zoning and land use map where other R2 zones exist in the Crescent View neighbourhood with similar conditions to 476 Stadacona.
We also believe R2 to be a suitable zoning for a site that is so close to a commercial zone, a school, a park and to downtown. Google estimates an 18 minute walk from 476 Stadacona East to the Safeway and the Moose Jaw Events centre. We believe these to be ideal conditions for walkability and increased density.
A requirement from the city to either increase the on site parking per unit, or a reduction in the maximum allowable units on the property in preference to more parking spaces would negatively impact the feasibility of a development on the property.
2. Low Income - Affordable Housing Concerns
We understand that many perceive middle-density multifamily residential projects to be “low income” housing. However we do not believe that the cost or quality of housing, or the financial status of residents, is directly correlated to a building’s form or density.
Our proposed development is a five three-unit row home style building with a target of market rental rates. At the intended price point, these units would not (and shouldn’t) be classified as low income. These units are not intended to be sold as condo units, they are purpose built to be rental units.
It is our opinion that rental housing is needed in Moose Jaw, and that there is market demand for residents who desire to rent their housing - this would especially be the case for three-bedroom rental units which is typically an underserved category. These are the units we are looking to build in Moose Jaw at 476 Stadacona East.
3. Design and Form of the Project
As it has been made aware, the proposed development would be very similar in form to a project built in Regina at 2107 Olser St. The height of the building is roughly 21.25” from grade, which we believe would make the height lower than many 2 /12 storey heritage homes in the neighbourhood.
The footprint of all five units combined is 80’ x 30’ which conforms to the R2 site coverage requirements and there is ample room from the alley for surface parking for each unit.
A link to pictures and information about the project at 2107 Osler can be found here: https://2107osler.ca
The reason there are no drawings for 476 Stadacona, is because R2 zoning has not been approved for the site. We wouldn’t want to speculatively pay for drawings if we haven’t yet confirmed that the site will be rezoned.
4. Historic Style/Character, Property Taxes and Property Value
We understand that not everyone desires modern designs. Respectfully, as neighbourhoods age and become more central, the housing will necessarily change, and the styles and forms will also change. An example would be 405 4th Ave North East. This bungalow is not original to the neighbourhood, but now it is a part of the fabric of the neighbourhood.
We love heritage housing, and believe heritage homes that are well-maintained are worth keeping and preserving. Currently however, 476 Stadacona E is a bare lot. We believe a development in any style is preferable to a bare lot.
We hope current residents can appreciate that projects with increased density provide increased property tax revenue, which in turn provides larger budgets to offer and maintain city amenities and services in a neighbourhood. As neighbourhoods age, we believe increased density is a net benefit for all residents in this regard.
The same goes for property values. In the research we’ve read, infill development typically increases neighbouring property values, instead of lowering them.
Thank you again for your time and attention on this rezoning application.
All the best-
--
Brandon Webber