Rocky View County council unanimously rejected a Chestermere-area conceptual scheme with a potential of housing 4,300 people, Dec. 6.
Prairie Mountain Conceptual Scheme, located 0.8 kilometres east of Chestermere and immediately south of the intersection of highways 1 and 791, would have included a variety of residential housing types and about 80 acres of commercial space.
“It isn’t unique enough to warrant approval today,” said Councillor Paul McLean. “It looks like something that should be an extension of the town of Chestermere.”
The development, first brought before council in 2005, was proposed to have an overall density of 3.3 units per acre with a variety of housing styles including single dwelling units, apartments, town houses and a seniors’ living facility.
The plan also called for a community centre and a possible school site.
About 88 acres of the development, to have been constructed in two phases, was to have been set aside for municipal reserves with another 60 acres set aside for stormwater ponds.
The applicants proposed to connect to the Rocky View Waste Water Transmission Line for sewage treatment. Water would have been provided by a well for the first phase, with the intention of receiving piped water from Langdon Waterworks at full build out.
The applicants had a Highway 1 functional study completed to determine future access requirements. The study revealed the intersection at highways 1 and 791 would require an upgrade.
The County received four letters in opposition to the conceptual scheme. Several residents also spoke against the development, citing concerns with stormwater, traffic and the loss of open spaces.
“We will be directly, adversely impacted,” said Silvano DeBortoli, who lives beside the proposed development. “It is blatant commercialization. We like our open spaces and we feel this development is not suited to the area.”
Chestermere Councillor Christopher Steeves also spoke out against the proposed conceptual scheme, saying it would interfere with the Town’s plan to balance commercial with residential development.
“If this is approved, we feel it... may not allow us to do that in the manner we would like to at this time,” said Steeves.
County staff also recommended refusal, stating in its report the plan did not fit with the Growth Management Strategy (GMS) or Municipal Development Plan and that a significant amount of infrastructure would have to be built.
Gary Melenka, a planner who spoke on behalf of the applicants, argued the development was within a GMS-identified business corridor and that technical issues would be addressed at the subdivision stage.
“I am at odds with staff’s recommendation,” said Melenka. “I think it fits very well.”
Council disagreed.
“This strikes me as being out of step with Chestermere,” said Councillor Margaret Bahcheli.
“I wouldn’t like to see something like this built beside our neighbours and in competition with them.”
