More inclusive process for Primrose needed
By Letter to the Editor on January 9, 2019.
I attended the pre-Christmas city council meeting regarding the rezoning of 352 Primrose Dr., one of the most well attended meetings in years. We moved to Marlborough almost three years ago and are delighted about the central location, the access to walking trails, and the diversity of the neighbourhood. I learned: — The city’s planning department investigated the feasibility of selling this green space site while simultaneously another department was spending between $250,000-$700,000 putting in sod and sprinklers. — The redevelopment of this site is part of a larger plan to develop and/or sell sites owned by the city that have established infrastructure and access to amenities, and is part of a larger strategy to focus on infill development and use of existing city resources. — This approach is driven by the budget deficit. — This was the second reading of this amendment and the last chance for the community to voice concerns. — The city’s on-site open house and a community petition reflected overwhelmingly that the community does not support redevelopment of this site. — The re-zoning allows for medium density housing, which includes apartments, duplexes, single family homes and basement rentals. I wonder: — Why were two city departments spending tax dollars on the same site simultaneously, with different goals? — As this site is not designated as park space why were sod and sprinklers installed? — Why didn’t the city involve community members prior to introducing this amendment? — What was the rationale behind re-zoning the site to medium density? — While the city considered the amount of automobile traffic, why was there no mention or consideration of the pedestrian traffic? I am concerned about how this site will be developed and its impact on pedestrian and cyclist safety. I worry more automobile traffic will increase the risk of accidents and decrease foot traffic, which adds a wonderful vitality to our area. It makes our neighbourhood feel safe, vibrant and alive. I do not feel the current process was comprehensive or acknowledged the community’s concerns. The city still owns this land. As a condition of the sale of the land, the city could require that plans be presented to the community for further discussion before the land is sold. If redevelopment is the wave of the future, as council members suggested, is it not important that community members’ concerns be acknowledged and a more thorough, mindful, and inclusive process be put in place? Lily Laurent Medicine Hat 18-17
