A new proposal which reduces the number of residential units and the height of buildings planned for the marina site, was narrowly supported by members of Sylvan Lake’s Municipal Planning Commission Monday night in a 3-2 vote.
Graham Parsons, Robert Ornella and Jacqueline Ruhe supported the project while Megan Chernoff and Matt Prete voted against. Frank Peck and Colleen Jensen were absent from the meeting.
The development application will be presented at next Monday’s council meeting for approval since council is the approving authority for projects in the Lakeshore Direct Control District.
Sylvan Lake Harbour Ltd. is now planning to build 25 three-storey townhouse units on the east end of the site. The existing two storey commercial building will remain.
The current application, if it’s approved, would nullify the previous application, approved in May 2012, for the first phase of development on the site which included a 40 unit residential building with 94 underground and 42 surface parking stalls.
Al Laplante, speaking for the company, said the previous permit allowed a building height of 62 feet while the proposed buildings would be 36 feet tall. Additionally rather than one solid building, the townhouses would be contained in four buildings. “There are considerably more view corridors and they’re 26 feet shorter,” he said.
Kim Devlin, a town planner, said, “the development will have no detrimental effect on adjoining properties in terms of privacy or shadowing and is a scale fitting with existing developments in the area É The proposal is consistent with potential developments that may occur in the area and for all of these reasons staff has considered the height of the development to be fitting for the site and the area.”
Her report to the commission also indicated that a portion of the development fronts onto Lakeshore Drive “very close to the property line which will add to the pedestrian friendly, walkable environment”.
Devlin indicated four sets of comments have been received from adjacent landowners stating issues with increased traffic and parking in residential areas as well as the view of the lake being blocked.
“The way the development has been designed allows for opportunities for views to the lake and marina area from Lakeshore Drive by providing smaller clusters of buildings with spaces between,” said her report. “The large parking area between the residential development and commercial area also provides an area with views of the lake.”
Each row house provides three parking stalls, two within a garage and one in the driveway. The new proposal includes a total of 76 surface parking stalls. The commercial component requires 14 stalls which leaves 62 stalls for marina users.
Prete voiced a concern “about ending up with a residential development in what, over the next 30 years, would be a significant commercial area around it.”
Devlin indicated the current commercial building is larger in size than what was planned in the previous approval and the proposal meets the intent of the Waterfront Area Redevelopment Plan.
While admitting the land is owned privately, Prete was also concerned about reaction to the proposal. “There was huge public reaction to the last one approved indicating it shouldn’t have been. My concern is the perception of the public that we’ve made another mistake É is there a happy medium or do we just push it through, the public’s concerns aren’t concerns?”
“What’s the public perception going to be? It was negative from the last time around, that should teach us a lesson, how we manage it this time,” he said.
Chernoff also said she understood it was private land but indicated “I think there should be something that can be done without such a huge variance,” indicating concerns about parking in the area.
The parking calculation presented to commission members, indicated the developer would be paying ‘cash in lieu’ for 11 parking stalls rather than 39 parking stalls that was required in the previous approval.
Parsons replied to Chernoff that he didn’t think the variance was huge. “I was in favour of the last one,” he said.
Ornella also rebutted the suggestion the last approval was a mistake. “I feel at that time we looked at all the different issues. I believe we did do our due diligence. We knew what the concerns were at that time. All of the questions were answered. To say it was a mistake I think that’s wrong.”