During a council meeting on Jan. 25, Cochrane town council chose again to defer plans to develop the northwest section of The Quarry District, the remaining undeveloped section.
An initial proposal for this section was presented by the developer to council on Dec. 14 and was refused as it did not match the intentions the town had for the site.
In the original Quarry Planning & Design Framework, this section was to be “an attractive new shopping area that integrates with, and contributes to the success of, the wider downtown of Cochrane. The retail-led development will also include some housing and community facilities, for example, a community arts centre.”
After a lengthy debate in council on Dec. 14 over what the section should include and how it should look, the developer worked with town administration to adjust its proposal.
Some of the key attributes of the new plan, presented by Town of Cochrane’s senior manager of development services Drew Hyndman, were: “a pedestrian-friendly street - which will provide the east west connection and have a strong landscaping presence, mixed-use buildings – with retail on the ground-floor and residential or office space above, a proposed public gathering space, and private gathering spots.”
“This (proposal) is a huge improvement over the first one,” Coun. Jeff Toews said.
Coun. Morgan Nagel disagreed by saying he thought the new plan was worse than the first.
“It kind of looks like we took a lot and placed random buildings all over the place,” Nagel said.
Toews was concerned, however, with the minimum size of the retail bays in the revised plan and the architectural design of the buildings.
“One of the conversations we’ve had (at council) is that we want to make sure that what we do (in the Quarry) doesn’t compete directly with our Historic Downtown. That’s why it’s important to me that we’re not going to have a whole strip of 1,500-square-foot bays that would compete directly with our current downtown,” Toews said.
He then inquired if the town could impose the design guidelines set for the Historic Downtown on this new development.
Nagel noted that the result of the development will be “owned” by town council so he wants to ensure the process is done correctly.
“We could certainly work with the developer to utilize those guidelines with the vision for the design of those buildings,” Hyndman said.
Hyndman explained that those guidelines apply only to Historic Downtown but council could make an amendment to the proposal document to include them as a consideration.
“I do not want this to look like the rest of The Quarry. (In the new plan) we’ve got the walkability now, I think the layout looks fine, I like the idea of the gathering spaces, but as soon as we get stucco (buildings) and the stuff they do in all these other sites we’ve lost it – it won’t be what the intention is,” Toews said.
Toews made a motion to accept the new proposal with the amendment that the bays have a minimum size requirement of 3,000 square feet and that the buildings reflect the new Historic Downtown District’s design guideline.
“I’m not supportive of requiring a minimum size of lot, I think it’s a little bit hypocritical. In one sense we said no more big box stores here and we can’t also come back and say no small shops either,” Nagel said. He also expressed concerns about the width of the proposed “pedestrian-friendly” street.
Coun. Tara McFadden noted some major changes in the proposal compared to the original vision and called for a deferral until mitigation measures surrounding appearance could be put into writing. She also was concerned with parking lots on the site and making them visually appealing.
“What I want to do with the parking lot is I don’t want to see it. I want to experience the beauty of the buildings,” McFadden said.
Coun. Gaynor Levisky weighed in on the discussion by siding with Nagel with opposing the size requirements for bays and making sure the proposed street was wide enough for both angle parking and vehicles driving through.
“I do want to preserve our historic downtown as much as we can and I don’t want to create direct competition, but I also think we shouldn’t limit it when we are a growing community,” Levisky said.
“The Historic Downtown and The Quarry District are very separate and distinct items – the things we hope to do in council to promote the Historic Downtown shouldn’t tie the hands of this development,” said Mayor Ivan Brooker, who is on board with the amendment with architectural controls but not the bay size requirements.
Coun. Mary Lou Davis-Eckmeier expressed she felt unsure about not having guidelines regarding architectural design written directly into the proposal.
“As Councillor Toews said, we’re going to own this decision and if this is a concept that can kind of change, it makes me nervous,” said Davis-Eckmeier.
Brooker said this is something the developer is aware of.
“The developer knows that they need to stick relatively true to everything that’s on the drawings (in the proposal) because they know the council is pushing very hard on this.”
After taking a straw poll with the other councillors, Toews removed the section of his amendment regarding bay size from his motion on the floor.
McFadden restated her motion to defer the proposal until it is rewritten to include guidelines about architectural design and screening the parking lot, and public feedback could be given.
Brooker was not in favour of deferring the proposal, stating there was too much at stake.
“It’s important to understand that to have the tools as we move forward to have it clearly articulated in the document the western design, the distinction, we can work with the developer and have the proposal back by the next council meeting for council to be in a much better position to make an informed decision,” Hyndman said.
Toews made a motion to postpone the proposal until the next council meeting to readdress the concerns brought forward. The motion was carried.
