Skip to content

Two contentious Red Deer land rezonings are moved ahead by city council

Gunn Street and 51 Street land rezonings discussed
16520212_web1_IMG_8708
22 Gunn St. lot (contributed photo).

Two contentious land rezonings for Glendale and Michener Hill have been moved along by Red Deer city council.

The latest development proposed for an empty lot at 22 Gunn St. finally passed first reading after several higher-density plans for the land were jettisoned by council.

This time, the developer wants to create seven narrow lots for detached housing with mandatory front double attached garages. This would maximize land use “in small and comprehensively planned residential developments.”

Council gave initial approval to rezone the land as small lot, or R1G. The proposal must go to a public hearing on May 13 before final approval is considered.

This is at least the fourth time the developer has sought to rezone this formerly treed lot. Several higher-density proposals were not approved, including plans to build an apartment and then a 21-townhouse development in Glendale.

The townhouse proposal was denied in October after neighbourhood complaints of noise, traffic and the potential downgrading of the Red Deer north street.

While residents of the single-family homes on the opposite side of the street have gotten used to the open lot, council was told this land was always pegged for development.

Neighbours in the Michener Hill area had been divided about whether a multi-suite complex at 4028 51st St. should officially get higher density zoning. Three letters were received by the city about derelict vehicles on the lot, noise and insufficient street parking.

One letter was in favour of the rezoning.

Council heard that two duplexes were joined and expanded in 1965, creating a two-storey eight-plex. Legally, the structure is non-conforming, as it sits on land zoned R1 for low-density housing.

The owner of the building wants to bring it into compliance by having the land rezoned R2 for medium-density developments. But some councillors questioned the owner’s ultimate intent for the land.

As no one spoke against the proposal at an April 15 public hearing, it received final approval from the majority of councillors.

H



lmichelin@reddeeradvocate.com

Like us on Facebook and follow us on Twitter

ere is general signature for all briefs: