In response to the proposed rezoning of 502, 522 and 542, aka Fifth & Fifth, from Public Institutional to CD-6, please accept this communication as my opposition to the rezoning as presented.

To be clear, I am not against the potential rezoning of the property or the construction of residential condominiums on the site. In fact, I support it. However, I don’t believe that the zoning regulations in this bylaw as presented definitively reflect and ensure the current character of this part of Maintown and this location specifically.

I have attached the Multi-Family High Density (MF-HD) Zoning Bylaw and draw your attention to the fact that in all the high and medium density zonings, there are setbacks and parcel coverage is 40%. For Fifth & Fifth, there are no setbacks and parcel coverage is 50%, yet it is a large-scale apartment building as described in the Multi-Family High Density zoning.

Density in MFR-HD is 74 units/gross hectare, while CD-6 density is almost three times as much, at 213 units/gross hectare. This is a major disconnect that should be addressed so that it fits appropriately.

I would ask you all to consider the following, for context and for what we should strive for.

The Fifth & Fifth project is to be 43 units and is located on three full lots. By comparison, 901 Fernie has 42 units and is located on a full city block. This is the equivalent of 10 full lots.

Furthermore, 901 Fernie interfaces on three of its four sides with single-family residential homes. In consideration of the neighbourhood, half of the development — 21 units — are in the form of one- and two-storey townhouses.

Fifth & Fifth has residential interface on two sides. Is there consideration of this in the design?

Finally, 901 Fernie has a parking requirement of 1.5 vehicles per unit, as opposed to one vehicle per unit for Fifth & Fifth. I am not suggesting the same layout as 901, but rather a scale and massing proportionate to a residential street.

901 Fernie is an example of what is possible in Downtown infill, historical and architectural integrity mixed with densification. As a result, it is a signature development in Fernie.

In advance of your vote, I would encourage all to take 10 minutes and walk around 901 to notice the scale to the neighbourhood, the landscaping and details. As a result, we already have a relative blueprint of what should be built on 5th Avenue and what should be the standard in Maintown.

I have heard the project at 692 3rd mentioned too. However, this is not directly next to any historical building, nor bordered on any side by residential property. The residential interface is on one side, across the street.

I respectfully submit the following for your review and adoption as amendments to the rezoning as presented:

1. Reduce the height to four storeys. While not in complete keeping with the neighbourhood, this concession would allow for a viable project while not presenting quite as imposing a structure that dwarfs the surrounding buildings.

2. Place prescriptive residential language in the Purpose section of the proposed CD-6 zoning, similar to what exists in the CD-2 zoning. Then have neighbourhood-sensitive building materials such as brick or stone, landscaping, setbacks and heights in the Regulations.

For example, the drawing of Fifth & Fifth has mixed materials that include brick on the first two floors. This would actually be in keeping with the church and courthouse.

In the zoning bylaw as written, can you definitively say that what is being presented will be built? If not, then it needs to be rewritten and amended to ensure that what we want is what we get.

3. Create a CD-Maintown zoning that accounts for the above regulations and requirements. Therefore, when a property is rezoned, it is in continuity with an overall Maintown plan and aesthetic, rather than contentious case-by-case decisions.

It would also give a degree of certainty for developers about what will be required. I am not suggesting that this should be a vehicle to make projects cost prohibitive, but rather to serve as a minimum standard for what we want Maintown to be.

As they say, if you don’t stand for something, you’ll fall for anything!

I am fully aware that the provincial government has taken certain things out of a municipality’s control, such as public input regarding OCP-compliant development and zoning.

This has created opportunities to be exploited in the name of affordable housing. It’s easy to be swayed by this, as housing is a legitimate concern everywhere.

However, within these constraints it is imperative that Mayor, Council and City staff remain meaningfully open to constructive input from its citizens, even if that input is no longer in the public forum.

We are all the current stewards of our community and, just as the Catholic Church and the Courthouse stand as testaments to those before us, we should endeavour to strive for excellence and create legacy properties in the historical part of town.

Development needs to be measured and considered, reflective of what we value while threading the needle of the past, present and future.

We only get one chance to develop properties like these and I would encourage amendments to the rezoning that understand and reflect that.

Thank you for your consideration in this matter.