Chestermere Lakefront Rezoning for Commercial Development
We are adding our voices to the many who are appalled by the passing of first reading and now, unbelievably, second reading. Bravo to the three councillors who voted against it. Although we were out of town and could not attend to hear the details, we cannot imagine an argument that would convince us this is a good idea, though there may have been other arguments raised against rezoning that we would support. Mike Ranger’s letter is absolutely on target.
We would also say to Council:
*The Anniversary Park work-in-progress appears to be a great enhancement to Chestermere; to stick any commercial property on the end degrades the park and changes its whole context.
*The developer indicated to us that the residential redevelopment would be a “nice family restaurant, ice cream or sandwich shop, not a convenience store” we so were surprised to see that convenience stores, take out food services, offices are potential uses under the rezoning. We can see no benefit to Chestermere in providing these businesses at the park to replace residences, as they are merely duplicating others already in existence close by. If Council feels fast food sales are a benefit in parks there are other seasonal options which have no permanent impact.
*The developer’s letter says this rezoning does not open any doors for other lakefront lots to be considered for rezoning. Why is that? What are the special circumstances that allow only his to be considered? Why can’t we and other lakefront/parkside owners rezone as DC and open stores or offices?
*The developer’s claim that “the addition of amenities [storefront/parking] for people to use while at the park will reduce the need for them to leave the area, or cross a major hi-way, and this will create a safer environment” is pure fantasy. It will bring in further traffic by non-park users entering and exiting the restaurant, an already overcrowded roadway far too close to the highway, thus adding to the congestion and lack of safety. If the development takes away business from the existing town businesses, as suggested in this scenario, that is far from a benefit to Chestermere.
*The proposed restaurant/ice cream/sandwich shop may fail. If it stood empty, Direct Control by a future tax-loving Council could well mean approval of a 7-11 or KFC; after all, Council approved the Tim Hortons adjoining a park 50 meters away.
The proposal is deeply flawed: Chestermere’s vision, touted during the last election, of being “an oasis” (by definition a desirable spot with water and trees) can only be damaged by demolishing lakeside/parkside residences and replacing them with commercial buildings and parking lots. Councillors, please re-read Mr Ranger’s wise suggestions. You have in your hands the lake, by far Chestermere’s most significant attraction for all residents and visitors. Its existence as a community treasure needs your full protection for generations to come; commercial interests of this type should have no place in it. Please reconsider.
Sincerely,
Hayden and Rosie Paddock
