Town of White City Public Hearing - 25 Jun 2018 Agenda Monday, June 25, 2018 at 7:00 PM Council Chambers
Page
1. CALL TO ORDER
2. BYLAWS
2.1. Bylaw No. 623-18 2 - 4 Bylaw No. 623-18 Draft
2.2. Verbal Submissions
2.3. Written Submissions 5 - 41 05-24-2018 - Kelly Morrow 05-30-2018 - Claudette Perras 05-30-2018 - Kathleen Lloyd 05-30-2018 - Valerie Volk 05-31-2018 - Erik Nickel 05-31-2018 - R. M. of Edenwold No. 158 06-01-2018 - BettyLou Herperger 06-01-2018 - Kavita Ram 06-01-2018 - Rose and Dennis Gould 06-02-2018 - Brenda Geres 06-02-2018 - Brian Fergusson 06-04-2018 - Don Schettler 06-04-2018 - Jean Sinclair 06-04-2018 - Roberta Ekberg
3. ADJOURN
Introduced and read a first time on [Month Day, Year]. Read a second time on [Month Day, Year]. Read a third time on [Month Day, Year].
Page 2 of 41 Under the authority granted by subsection 199(2) of The Planning and Development Act, 2007, SS 2010, c P-13.2, the Town of White City in the Province of Saskatchewan, by and with the advice and consent of the Town of White City Council, enacts as follows: 1 Subject to section 199 of The Planning and Development Act, 2007, the Mayor and Town Manager are hereby authorized to execute such documents as may be necessary by the Minister of Municipal Government for the sale and exchange of the following dedicated lands:
Municipal Reserve MR1, Registered Plan No. 87R11246 Ext 1 in the Town of White City, Province of Saskatchewan
More specifically as shown in bold outline, identified as Schedule A, attached hereto and forming part of this bylaw.
2 This Bylaw shall come into force on the day of adoption by the Town of White City Council.
Mayor SEAL
Town Manager
Page 3 of 41 Page 4 of 41 th May 24 , 2018
Public Information Session - Regarding relocation of ball diamonds (sale of parks lands).
Question and comments from concerned residents of White City:
1. What is the size difference of the current set of parcels (acres) vs. the size of the "additional" lands that are being allocated (this should not include the required parks lands of the development application itself, nor the High School site that will be required)? 2. Has the town had numerous appraisals done on the municipal land currently owned by the town which is adjacent to the Highway? a. If so, what are those values and which companies are involved? 3. Has the Town realized that the cost of a the traffic light on Highway 48 will be the cost of the Town's and although it may not warrant a traffic light today, it will if these lands are commercially developed. Whose costs are these, the taxpayers or the developer? 4. Does anyone on Town Council have any direct or indirect involvement or investments related to anyone involved with the development company which is currently seeking to purchase the subject parks/ municipal lands? If so, can the Town disclose this information to the public? 5. With the projected growth of White City, why are we assuming that a single location for sports and recreation by a high school that is planned more than 10 years out, will be enough? Most communities the size of what's being forecasted have multiple areas for recreation/ parks. Even if the current parks lands aren't ball diamonds for every, I feel very strongly they should stay as parks lands for the current residents in that area. 3 mile access to parks lands near railway tracks and across a very busy Betteridge road is not safe for the community nor practical. 6. Has anyone in planning and development assessed what a fair distance is for pedestrians and cyclists to access parks lands from existing established residential areas? The land being swapped is too far of distance from current residents. Those who live around the ball diamonds have always expected those lands to remain designated as "Parks", they should not end up with a truck stop or fast food restaurant in their back yards, along with the traffic and passing through traffic it will bring down the entire Ramm Ave. Corridor. 7. Has the Town realized that with the improved access from the Trans Canada (via the Regina Bypass) that increased traffic accessing all businesses along the service roads has increased substantially? a. Turning low traffic volume municipal and parks land into High-traffic commercial will obviously change the community to be very busy along Ramm Ave. The residents along Ramm Ave. did not ask to have substantial traffic added to their residential accesses. Children walk on the shoulder of the road to school, how can this be "good for the community"? 8. Council has always stated White City is a "Bedroom Community" and is not interested in developing business/ commercial areas within White City. I understand things do change, but all the infrastructure in White City is not setup for high-traffic volumes. The current mayor and council have approved developments that do not have sidewalks, curbing, proper Right-of-way widths, road surface top widths, and designated major corridors for possible future transit system (Forecast 15,000 residents would require these services). Also need to identify the unsafe and disconnected pathway system, which has been constructed without any respect to
Page 5 of 41 the TAC design guidelines (sight distances, sharp 90deg. turns/ blind turns, lack of pedestrian signage at pathway exits to roadways, etc. 9. The past decisions do affect our current decisions and turning our back on what we've supported thus far is NOT good for the current community. Will the future development include the necessary infrastructure that will accommodate a growing CITY? a. Why is Betteridge road Right-of-way (ROW) not include a ditch between the road and the community to the south Garden of Eden Estates? b. Why is there RM development taking place without the proper ROW requirments for that major corridor? c. Why are development plans include a single path that ties into an major (eventually busy road), and almost adjacent to a High School? d. Why is the High School access direct from Betteridge road, is that not a safety concern? 10. Why are some people saying that if the town sells this land, it will accommodate a multi-use facility (pool, gymnasium, etc.)? If this is the case there needs to be a better assessment to the cost of the facility itself, and what percentage of that facility would be covered in relationship to selling the high-value land where the current ball diamonds are.
Regards, Kelly Morrow White City resident
Page 6 of 41 From: Mauricio Jimenez To: K Morrow Cc: Ken Kolb; Jessica Glasser Subject: RE: White City - Public Open House "Relocation of the Ball Diamonds". Date: May 30, 2018 4:07:50 PM Attachments: image001.png image002.png
Mr. Morrow, how are you?
As promised, please find the answers to your questions as follows;
1. Balance of Acres
The Town of White City (Town) currently owns Parcel C, Registered Plan 64533075 EXT.1 (Parcel C) and Parcel MR5, Registered Plan 87R11246 EXT.1 (MR5). Parcel C has an approximate area of 3.373 ha (8.33 ac) and is where Serbu Park and portions of the ball diamonds are situated. Parcel MR5 has an approximate area of 1.927ha (4.79 ac) and is where the Town Office, Community Centre and remaining portions of the ball diamonds are situated.
The Town is contemplating a large parcel of approximately 50 acres in addition to the 10 acre parcel that will be dedicated for the proposed High School.
2. Appraisals of Lands
A land appraisal on the subject parcels was conducted about two years ago, officially rendering that appraisal out of date. Should the project proceed, the Town will require a new land appraisal to be able to determine the right price for Parcels C and MR5.
3. Traffic Lights
Consideration has been given to the potential impact on traffic. However, a more detail review of traffic implications will be required if the project proceeds.
Please note that Highway No. 48 is under the jurisdiction of the Ministry of Highways and they are responsible for the implementation of traffic signs and traffic control devices.
4. Council Involvement with Potential Development Company
As far as I know no one in Council has any direct or indirect involvement with any company or companies that have shown an interest on the lands.
Page 7 of 41 5. Assumption of Needing Only One Area
Council has not assumed that only one recreational area is going to be needed. In fact, Council has adopted numerous policies in the Official Community Plan to ensure that each growth area has equal access to open space and recreational facilities going forward. I encourage you to review our Official Community Plan available in the Town of White City Website for more information.
Furthermore, as indicated during the Open House of May 24th, no decision has been made at this time and the goal of introducing the project was listen to the feedback, comments and questions of the public.
6. Access to Park Lands
As noted above, Council has adopted numerous policies in the Official Community Plan to ensure that each growth area has equal access to open space and recreational facilities going forward. A policy within the Official Community Plan is to work towards promoting meaningful parks within a 5-minute walking distance, recognizing the topography of the area, for the residents of the community.
7. Improved Access to TransCanada Highway
The Town fully realizes the implications of the Regina Bypass project in our area. A main goal of this project was to increased safe access to the residents and business of the area. Since the project started no fatalities have occurred at this intersection and traffic flow has significantly improved. I believe you can appreciate how this project has had a positive impact in our community.
In regard to traffic implications from the proposed project, no decision has been made at this time and the goal of introducing the project was listen to the feedback, comments and questions of the public. A detailed review of traffic implications will be required if the project proceeds.
8. Traffic and Pedestrian Connectivity
At the risk of sounding repetitive, I would recommend you take a minute of your time to review the Town of White City’s Official Community Plan for more information on transportation policies.
The Town recognizes the need to provide for policies and actions that enhance the opportunities for pedestrians and cyclists in the community and the region and therefore has adopted policies to address the issues you pointed out going forward.
Council has also created a Transportation Advisory Committee with the goal of addressing traffic and safety issues affecting the community. The Transportation
Page 8 of 41 Advisory Committee advises and supports Council in the implementation of the Town's current and future transportation and traffic safety issues in the Town of White City and to support, improve connectivity and promote pedestrian and traffic safety. The committee is comprised of representatives from the community, Town Council and Town Administration. If you are interested in participating, I encourage you to present your application for an appointment when this term expires.
9. Additional Transportation Concerns
Council and Administration is committed to ensure that we have sustainable community going forward. The first steps to achieve these goals included a revision of the Towns development policies and the adoption of a new Official Community Plan. This plan was adopted in 2015 and included a Town Centre Neighbourhood Plan that serves as a guideline for the development of that area.
The Town Centre concept plan and the plan for the joint use recreational area are exactly that at this moment, only concept plans to facilitate the conversation.
In terms of Betteridge Road Development and the proposed ROW, you can find the policies in the Town Centre Neighbourhood Plan, policies which the Town has reviewed with Engineering and Transportation firms to ensure that the most appropriate design for this main road is achieve. With that said, those dimensions and ROWs are subject to change when detail plans come forward.
10. Cost of Development of New Facilities vs. Potential Land Sale
The Town will require a new land appraisal to be able to determine the right price for Parcels C and MR5. However, the project would only be viable if the cost of the development the new facilities, or most of them, relates to the sale value of Parcels C and MR5. Otherwise there is no sense on going through with the sale of the lands.
I want to thank you for your time and consideration and your valuable input into this project. Should you have any questions please do not hesitate to contact me at your convenience.
Thank you and have a great day,
Mauricio Jiménez Town Planner
Page 9 of 41 Town of White City p: 306 781 2355 ext 227 w: whitecity.ca e: [email protected] —————————————————————
From: K Morrow
An email response will be fine thank you
Sent from my Bell Samsung device over Canada's largest network.
------Original message ------From: Mauricio Jimenez
Mr. Morrow, how are you?
I am working on a reply to your questions as we speak, I am hopeful I have all the answers to your questions for you before the end of today. Would an email be acceptable or would you like a proper letter?
Thank you,
Mauricio Jiménez Town Planner Town of White City p: 306 781 2355 ext 227 w: whitecity.ca e: [email protected] —————————————————————
Page 10 of 41
From: K Morrow
Good Afternoon Ken,
Could you please provide an indication of when I can expect a response to the questions submitted at the "Relocation of Ball Diamond" Open House? I require a response no later than end of Friday this week.
Also, it was brought to my attention there will be discussions at Monday's council meeting regarding this topic. I would like to speak to council regarding those opposed to the rezoning of MR related lands and the applicable Bylaw changes.
Please confirm that I am on the agenda for Monday's council meeting; since I will need to notify multiple residents who are now part of a formalized community group who are all opposed to rezoning this existing parks lands.
Regards, Kelly Morrow
------Original message ------From: Ken Kolb
Hi Kelly
We have received your questions and are working on the response to those questions. We will let you know when the project will be considered by council next.
Ken
Get Outlook for iOS
On Mon, May 28, 2018 at 12:12 PM -0300, "K Morrow"
Page 11 of 41 Good Morning Ken,
I had submitted a series of questions and comments at the last open house and it appears as though those questions and comments are not part of the public record after reviewing the content that the Town posted on their website. Could you please confirm that my correspondence was received and filed as part of the minutes and public records in relation to the latest public open house labelled "Relocation of Ball Diamonds" open house? My preference would be to see those questions and comments made public, since they that was the intention when they were submitted in an open envelope at the public meeting held on May 24th, 2018.
Also, when is the next public correspondence related to the "relocation of the ball diamonds" scheduled for? My preference would be to receive a response from Town Council to my submitted questions prior to the next public meeting, is this be possible?
Regards,
Kelly Morrow
4 Oxford Bay
Page 12 of 41 From: Town Office To: Mauricio Jimenez; Ken Kolb; Voula Siourounis; Jessica Glasser; Carla Ferstl Subject: FW: Sale of Baseball Diamonds and Park Space For Commercial Development Date: May 31, 2018 8:14:10 AM
-----Original Message----- From: CP's Email [mailto ] Sent: May-30-18 11:15 PM To: Town Office
Hello,
I am writing to let you know that I STRONGLY OPPOSE White City Town Council’s proposal of selling our beautiful ball diamonds and park space to an unnamed developer for commercial development. I live very close to this area so I am directly impacted by this. I absolutely do not want commercial businesses right outside my back door, especially if it involves fast food places, gas stations, restaurants and so on. What will this do to the property values for those of us who are directly impacted by living in the area? I have huge concerns regarding the extra traffic this would bring in from off the highway and just how much busier it would make this area. It would most definitely bring on problems like traffic congestion, lack of pedestrian/bicycle safety, the need for traffic lights, residents having to fight traffic to access their homes, etc. Traffic is already busier than is was 10 years ago but this would add to it immensely as it would result in catering to passers-by from the highway rather than putting the needs of the White City residents first. As many people have pointed out, White City is a bedroom community and people generally moved here so that they are not living in the city. They chose White City because of the quieter lifestyle and the non-city surroundings. Regina, with all its conveniences, is a short ten minute drive away and there are plenty of amenities already established in the Emerald Park business area. I do have to point out the irony of the presentation documents displaying the slogan "Your Way of Life - White City" in the upper right hand corner because this proposal, if it goes through, will forever change the "Way of Life" that White City residents know and love and are proud to be a part of. There has been a great deal of discussion about the amount of time, work and energy put into the ball diamonds by volunteers, the fund raising that was done, the pride of the outcome and the accomplishment. I couldn't agree more! The ball diamonds are in a perfectly suitable place right now. I see every day how well utilized they are and how accessible they are for everyone. Kids ride by our house every day on bicycles or skateboards, heading for the skate park and ball diamonds. For people driving by and seeing our ball diamonds lit up and in use, they see the representation of the beautiful community that we live in. It is so very disheartening and unfair that a town counsel and a commercial developer could so easily undermine all that has been worked for and achieved but sadly money talks I guess. One has to wonder what will happen if the annexation with Emerald Park goes through. Would the soccer field be next on the block? I know I am not the only person in the community feeling this way and I know the White City Counsel knows it too. Everyone in this community is aware that we are growing but there are other ways, other areas to develop and expand in. As many people have pointed out, there seems to be so many unknowns with regards to the details for this deal, financial and otherwise. Definitely too many unknowns to proceed.
With regards to the communication around this proposal, it could have been much better. This is not a "Baseball Fields Relocation Project". It is actually The Sale of the Baseball Diamonds and Park Area for Commercial Development and it should have been disclosed as such. The existing title is very misleading and really minimizes the true intent. I was in attendance at the open house and it was a nice gesture however I feel it could have been way more effective had it been done differently. My suggestion would be a town forum of some sort during a more suitable time period (5:00 -7:00 pm was much too early for people commuting home from work, parents having to feed their family, run children to their events and such). A larger formal public presentation with the opportunity for people to ask the council members questions as a group I feel would have been more effective. This way people would have been receiving the same information all at the same time and it could possibly have been a great deal more interactive. Perhaps partnering that with Facebook live stream could have been an option for the benefit of those that couldn't attend.
Page 13 of 41 Overall, I do not have enough words to express my firm opposition to this proposal. I respect why this option is being considered and I do understand why a commercial developer would be interested in this area. But that doesn't mean that proceeding with this proposal is in the best interests of the community and is following the wishes of the residents.
Thank you for taking the time to consider my feedback.
C P
Page 14 of 41 From: Kathleen Lloyd To: Jessica Glasser Subject: [Junk] Kathleen Lloyd sent a message via the Town Of White City contact form. Date: May 30, 2018 9:00:32 PM
First Name Kathleen Lloyd Email [email protected] address Phone 306.781.0038 number Link From http://whitecity.ca/our-team/jessica-glasser Short Please be advised that I am opposed to the sale of parkland and trxoning it for
Message commercial purposes.
Page 15 of 41 From: Ken Kolb To: [email protected] Cc: Jessica Glasser Subject: Re: [Junk] Kathleen Lloyd sent a message via the Town Of White City contact form. Date: May 30, 2018 9:06:40 PM
Thank you for your email Kathleen. We will look for your letter to come in the next day or two.
Ken
Get Outlook for iOS
On Wed, May 30, 2018 at 11:55 PM -0300, "Kathleen Lloyd"
First Kathleen Lloyd Name Email [email protected] address Phone 306.781.0038 number Link http://whitecity.ca/our-team/ken-kolb From Please be advised that I am opposed to the rezoning and sale of parkland for Short commercial purposes. I will send a letter to the council prior to the next council Message meeting. Thank you.
Page 16 of 41 From: Kathy Lloyd To: Jessica Glasser Subject: URGENT Letter to Town Council and Mayor Date: May 31, 2018 5:29:05 PM Attachments: baseball diamond relocation.pdf ATT00001.htm
Hello Jessica, Please provide copies of this letter to the Mayor and each member of Council. I will drop off a signed copy to the town office later this evening. Thanks kindly.
Page 17 of 41 Page 18 of 41 Page 19 of 41 Page 20 of 41 From: Town Office To: Mauricio Jimenez; Ken Kolb; Voula Siourounis; Jessica Glasser; Carla Ferstl Subject: FW: Relocation of Ball Fields Date: May 31, 2018 8:14:34 AM
From: Valerie Volk [mailto:[email protected]] Sent: May-30-18 6:40 PM To: "[email protected]"@mail145c7.megamailservers.com Subject: Relocation of Ball Fields
I would like to express my strong disapproval of selling the ball diamonds for commercial purposes. As a resident of Federal Drive, we would be subject to who knows what in the way of increased traffic or noise. Valerie Volk
Page 21 of 41 From: Town Office To: Mauricio Jimenez; Ken Kolb; Jessica Glasser; Voula Siourounis; Carla Ferstl Subject: FW: Erik sent a message via the Town Of White City contact form. Date: May 31, 2018 4:30:08 PM
From: Erik Nickel [mailto:[email protected]] Sent: May-31-18 2:37 PM To: Town Office
First Erik Name Nickel Email [email protected] address Phone 306 209-6031 number Link http://whitecity.ca/contact From Hello White City Councilors,
As a resident of the town of White City, I hereby lodge my objection to the re-zoning of the ball diamond lands to commercial.
The idea to sell the ball diamonds, plough them under, and rebuild them outside of town is truly misguided. Kids do not want, nor have the ability to get to the new site on their own. It takes away one of the few places that is designated for White City youth. A skate park down 3 miles of gravel (or even eventually paved road) is just not smart planning, nor is it considerate to our youth. The current location of the ball diamonds and skate park, their quality, and the effort, time and money raised to maintain and improve them over the years would all be lost. Not to mention the skate park would sit alone out on the prairie for years while we wait for the town (city?) to make its way there.
Commercial businesses in the location of the current ball diamonds is in no way required Short or desired by the citizens of White City. People who live near there did not sign up to live
Message behind a KFC or a truck stop. They signed up to live next to a greenspace, with cheering children, not idling semis or grease containers. More roadside commercial would do nothing for us, your constituents, and probably only kill off what businesses remain on Ramm further west.
The argument that this will somehow net us a new highschool is equally spurious. Decisions on school locations made by the province do not take into account whether or not we destroyed our parks to make ball diamonds out in the country. Natural growth of
Page 22 of 41 our town will come, and I trust you, our council, to be ready for it when it does, but this is not natural growth. This is selling off valuable town assets, for a one-time cash-grab, and once they are gone, they are gone for good, and what are we left with? A parking lot with some short-lived businesses surrounding it. Don’t let that be your legacy.
Thank you for your consideration in this matter. Erik Nickel Please read at Monday's council meeting.
Page 23 of 41
BOX 10, BALGONIE, SASKATCHEWAN, S0G 0E0 ● PH: 306-771-2522 ● FAX: 306-771-2631
May 31st, 2018
Council of the town of White City 14 Ramm Avenue East White City, SK S4L 5B1
To the Council of the town of White City,
Re: Baseball Diamond Relocation Project ______
The RM of Edenwold has been informed that the town is proposing to relocate its baseball diamonds and recreational facilities. The RM of Edenwold does not have any opinion on the matter of closing your current recreational site. However, the RM’s Council has concerns with how the information regarding this proposal has been presented to the public.
The concerns are the following:
(1) According to the information material posted to the town’s website, a portion of the site proposed for the new recreational facilities is located within the jurisdiction of the RM of Edenwold. The jurisdictional boundaries are not well defined on the material included in the public information package. All four of the proposed new baseball diamonds and one soccer field are shown within the jurisdiction of the RM of Edenwold.
It is understood that the town has expressed an interest in pursuing a boundary alteration to remove these lands from the RM of Edenwold and add them to the town’s jurisdiction. However, at this time, the land in the NW ¼ 10-17-18-W2M is in the RM of Edenwold. The town has not informed or consulted the RM of Edenwold regarding this proposal. It is inappropriate for the town to promote this new location for recreational amenities when it is not within the town’s jurisdiction and the town does not control development of the area. Further, and most importantly, the citizens who will be affected by this proposed closure and re-development have not been properly informed about this matter.
(2) The bylaw relating to this proposal that was given first reading by the Council of the town of White City on April 9, 2018 indicates that it is a bylaw “to authorize the sale, exchange and legal land designation change from municipal reserve to generic parcel for the parcel known as Municipal Reserve MR5, Registered Plan No. 87R11246 Ext 1.” Municipal Reserve exchange can only occur when the land proposed to become a new Municipal Reserve parcel is of similar or greater size and value. Section 199 subsection 3 of The Planning and Development Act, 2017 speaks to this matter. Further, the new recreational land must be dedicated as a Municipal Reserve parcel at the time of the
Page 24 of 41 exchange. Given that a significant portion of the land shown on the town’s information material as the future municipal reserve site is located in the RM of Edenwold and the RM of Edenwold is not a party to this proposal, it does not appear that this requirement is being met. The bylaw may need to be amended to clarify that the proposal is for the closure and sale of Municipal Reserve rather than exchange.
This letter is intended to be a formal submission to Council for the June 4th, 2018 Council Meeting.
Sincerely,
Jana Jedlic, M.U.P., B.A., MCIP, RPP Senior Municipal Planner Phone: 306-771-2033 RM of Edenwold No.158
Page 25 of 41 June 1, 2018 To: Town of White City Bruce Evans, Mayor Howard Slack, Deputy Mayor Andrew Boschman, Councillor Scott Moskal, Councillor Rebecca Otitoju, Councillor Cecil Snyder, Councillor Hal Zorn, Councillor Re: Baseball Field Relocation Project Dear Mayor and Town Councillors, Please be advised that as long-time residents of White City, we are writing to express our sincere and serious concern with, and complete objection to, the rezoning of current parkland that the Baseball Field Relocation Project would entail. We ask ourselves these questions: Who created this plan? Why has consultation with town residents come only after this plan seems to be in full swing? Why was the plan or proposal developed? Why is it being developed now? Is the stated intent of the plan accurate? Is there an “unstated” agenda? If so, what is it? Does the proposed redevelopment relate to any other relevant priorities? Proceeding with a large, commercial development, in place of developed parkland green space and within a residential neighbourhood places priority of the business developer and business owner rather than our residents and quality of life currently enjoyed. If this happens, there is no going back. It is unfortunate that more of the town residents are not fully aware of the plan to not only relocate the baseball fields but to invite big business commercial development into that residential area and beautiful green space. We respectfully suggest that each of you ask yourselves these questions: • “Would I be in favor of this development if it was going into my residential area? Perhaps across the street from or beside my home? How would I view it if I had young children? • What would happen to my property value if my long established home and yard was across from or beside the McDonald’s, truck stop, or whatever other big business move in?” • What would quality of life be like living so close to big business and high traffic? The attraction of White City is that it is not overly commercially developed. It is a quiet reprieve from larger city life. The existing green spaces are beautiful and well thought out. No one, we’d venture to say not even you, moved to our beautiful town to be closer to a McDonald’s, truck stop, hotel, or other large business venture. No one wants the view of
Page 26 of 41 these businesses, their parking lots and traffic near their homes. Do tax payers want to tear down buildings that are well used and in good repair, only to rebuild them elsewhere? Is it critical to have the town office and town hall in the proposed center of town? The many impacts of proceeding with a commercial development of this nature appear to have not been well assessed and to our knowledge, neither the related costs, nor the identity of the developer have been disclosed. In plain language, destruction and redevelopment isn’t beneficial for the town residents, however, it will be very lucrative to the developer. The loss of well-developed town assets, assets that were paid for by town residents, are an unlikely priority for tax payers. The current ball diamonds, town office and community center are in fact, the envy of many towns. Emerald Park has existed for decades without either. Should amalgamation occur, it is not a valid reason to rebuild this site. Commercial development that invites big business into a residential area will significantly increase traffic. In turn, motor vehicle traffic and the people they carry, will bring a significant increase in noise, air and light pollution, as well as concerning traffic safety challenges. Then there are the infrastructure issues; no sidewalks, no traffic lights at highway 48 and Gregory avenue, and external traffic coming off the highway will place undue stress on the town roads which was not designed to withhold heavy traffic, or heavy vehicles. The current trend in urban development is to work to avoid development that introduces these things, rather than pursues them.
“Good urban design”
Furthermore, there is a discrepancy between what is seen as good design amongst city planners, architects and bureaucrats, and what is considered useful, inspiring design in the public opinion. “Often, what the users want is not what looks snappy or fancy. Typically they just want a place in the sun to sit or a level running track without holes in the ground. Often the users are not fond of the landmark and money shot projects. It is more about tapping into everyday life”, explains Bianca Maria Hermansen, urban planner and PhD”
A misleading conversation appears to be around an inference that the development in some way relates to achieving a high school in White City. In reality, there is no relationship between those. Notably, Balgonie’s high school is no longer exploding at the seams. Both the school division and province will review student populations, and not commercial development, when determining if White City will have a high school. Residents should not be lead to believe that the proposed development will impact that decision. Lastly, we feel that the council has not been above board regarding the project. “Baseball Field Relocation Project” is actually a plan to promote the profit of a developer and select future business owners, through destruction and relocation of an existing beautiful, well- developed community green space and town building assets, and we must add, which has already been paid for. Should these developments be seen as necessary, please plan them away from existing, developed town building assets, residential areas and green spaces.
Page 27 of 41 Thank you for reviewing our concerns at your next Council Meeting, June 4th, 2018.
Sincerely,
B.Herperger
BettyLou Herperger
Page 28 of 41 From: [email protected] To: Jessica Glasser Subject: urgent letter to Town Council and Mayor Date: June 1, 2018 9:20:28 AM Attachments: baseball field relocation project.docx
Good Morning Jessica Can you please ensure that the Mayor and every Town Councilor recieves a copy of this letter. I have not been able to attach this document to the message options located on the White City town website. I will bring a signed copy with me to Monday's meeting. Can you please confirm when this is completed. Many thanks Kavita Ram
Page 29 of 41 May 29, 2018
To: Town of White City
Bruce Evans, Mayor
Howard Slack, Deputy Mayor
Andrew Boschman, Councillor
Scott Moskal, Councillor
Rebecca Otitoju, Councillor
Cecil Snyder, Councillor
Hal Zorn, Councillor
Re: Baseball Field Relocation Project
“White City is a quiet community located just 10 minutes East of the City of Regina. Although we continue to grow, our community works hard to maintain a friendly, safe and affordable environment for all” (White City Town Website, 2018).
Please be advised that I strongly object to the Baseball Field Relocation Project for the following reasons:
1. The manner in which information has been disseminated about this project is MISLEADING. “Baseball Field Relocation Project” in no way represents the true intention, which is to re-zone White City’s largest municipal parkland reserve into commercial, to allow for the sale of this land. It has come to my attention that the second reading of the by-law change will occur on June 4, 2018. This was in no way clearly identified at the open house. In fact my understanding of an open house is that it is “an informal event and great tool for information exchange (and) an opportunity to gauge the opinion of residents.” (Notice of Public Open House, Town of White City, 2018). But my experience was that some councillors and staff had already made their decision in favor of this project and were there to “convince” attendees, not “listen.” What is the rush here??? Public hearings must occur prior to any consideration of a proposed by-law change. How is it that we have already reached a second reading in 6 business days after an open house named “Baseball Field Relocation Project?” This open house should have been more accurately entitled the “Re-zoning of White City’s largest municipal reserve to commercial and subsequent sale.” Again I ask you… what is the rush? Especially as the town wishes to pursue annexation with Emerald Park! And why has this project not been named accurately and information disseminated openly?? What do you have to hide? 2. Where are the facts and figures to support this project? How do we know that the proceeds of the sale of this land will allow for the development of a town centre? What about the long term costs of infrastructure upgrades to meet the increased traffic demands involved in these commercial areas and the roads leading to them such as, White City Drive; Ramm Ave; Gregory Ave? How much do traffic lights; sidewalks; street lights; road paving, roundabouts and the long term maintenance of these items cost? Also, having two commercial hubs in White City makes no sense especially when there are already vacant commercial properties in White City and
Page 30 of 41 Emerald Park. Again, I ask you… how is it that we have arrived at the second reading of a by-law change with NO FACTUAL INFORMATION OF ANY SUBSTANCE TO JUSTIFY THIS BYLAW CHANGE? WHY THE RUSH IF WE PLAN TO AMALGAMATE WITH EMERALD PARK? 3. The destruction of well developed green space to allow for commercial development will significantly increase the noise and traffic into White City. There has been no information provided regarding the impact on safety and traffic flow. This development potentially increases the risk to residents, particularly young children as it would expose them to external commercial traffic and people who are not residents of the area. The increased traffic will place pedestrians at greater risk as there are no sidewalks and traffic could access the commercial area from a number of roads. Placing a large, commercial development in a residential neighbourhood is inconsistent with maintaining a safe and friendly environment for our residents. Where are the traffic flow and safety studies? Again how is it that we have reached the second reading of this proposed rezoning without this information? 4. The expansion of recreation facilities should not come at the expense of existing assets and amenities which have already been paid for by the taxpayers of this community. 5. White City is a unique bedroom community as it has sustained significant growth while maintaining a small-town feel. People live here because it is quiet and there are beautiful green spaces for families to enjoy. The quality of life in this community is directly related to the absence of large commercial developments drawing in franchises and businesses that are better placed outside of a residential area. “COUNTRY LIVING” is the town motto. This project undermines the very essence of the community and will undermine the quality of life for present and future residents. Turning White City’s largest and most well-developed community green space and sports area, which residents enjoy every day, into a loud, polluted, and unwanted commercial development is NOT COUNTRY LIVING. Growth of the community DOES NOT have to come at the expense of our precious green space and our quality of life.
I ask you again… why the rush to push this rezoning through? And why has accurate information not been provided to the public? As elected representatives of the residents of this community, I respectfully ask that you take these concerns into consideration at your next Council Meeting, June 4th, 2018 and prior to any vote about the rezoning of White City’s largest Municipal Reserve Parkland into Commercial Property, ultimately allowing for the sale of this land.
Yours truly,
Dr. Jai Ram Mrs. Hansa Ram Ms. Kavita Ram
1 Confederation Drive, White City
Page 31 of 41 Esm H.Nomm 8_ .82: 2 <<::mQ2 ml
Ioéma m_mn_oUmnc.2_<_m >:q_,m< Im_ N03. no::n___o« mm“ mmmmcm__Ema _»m_onm:o: v8_.mQ Ummw_<_m 3,58. Emmmmcm .32 mm_o:m-:3m ?mmamzw2 <<::mQ3: < Em mmwoc3m_ _u8nmma5m< :5 3mr< Srumna9“ n3nmma3mEE mno33m3_m_ gm ._.rmn:_._.m_.: :25. E Erma am =mooqErma qmamr: mc_.Em:ro_,m.Emqm Wmn=mQm_mmrn > 3_m_mm&:mnor m.:nm«m_<‘ m§%§ mommmoca Umzammoca Page 34 of 41 From: Town Office To: Mauricio Jimenez; Jessica Glasser; Ken Kolb Subject: FW: Brenda sent a message via the Town Of White City contact form. Date: June 5, 2018 1:37:10 PM Attachments: image001.png image002.png Chantelle Reinkens Office Manager Town of White City p: 306 781 2355 ext 233 w: whitecity.ca e: [email protected] ————————————————————— From: Brenda Geres [mailto:[email protected]] Sent: June-02-18 6:56 PM To: Town Office First Brenda Name Geres Email [email protected] address Phone 3065352899 number Link http://whitecity.ca/contact From If you are still taking feedback in regards to selling the land where the baseball fields are, our family is opposed. We are not in favour of more commercial development. In fact, we wonder if we are fully able to support the businesses we already have. Many people who have chosen to move out here, are coming because they want to escape the hectic city Short lifestyle. We also are not interested in experiencing the smell of fast food restaurants Message wafting through our yards. We enjoy the quiet living here in White City with some of the simple amenities of city style living. Brenda and Andre Page 35 of 41 From: Brian Fergusson To: Bruce Evans; Cec snyder; Howard Slack; Henry Zorn; Rebecca Otitoju; Scott Moskal; Andrew Boschman Cc: Ken Kolb; Mauricio Jimenez; Jessica Glasser Subject: Delegations re: Baseball Diamond Relocation Project Date: June 2, 2018 6:14:48 PM As I'm sure you're aware by now, I'm on the agenda to appear before Council on Monday with regard to the above-captioned item. I was unable to provide my presentation in time for the Town Administration to include it in your information package, but felt it best to get to you in advance. Hopefully you'll have an opportunity to review this before Monday's Council meeting. Below is the verbiage I will present: Thank you for the opportunity to express my thoughts on the Baseball Diamond Relocation Project. To do that I’m going to tell a story. Jack and Jill were a young couple that bought a starter home – nothing fancy, just a basic three bedroom house on a modest lot. Over time they made various improvements to the house and yard. The young couple got along well with their neighbours, and when they put up a garage some of their neighbours helped them out – some helped in putting up the walls, some helped shingle the roof, one donated some old lights and another donated some old cabinets for use in the garage. Life was good. After a few years Jack and Jill’s growing family had three children, and they were just told they were expecting twins. The now 20 year-old house not only needed new shingles, windows and some other work, but was going to be far too small for this growing family. They were wondering how they were going to manage, given their limited resources and unwillingness (or inability) to take on more debt. Out of nowhere they were approached by someone who liked their location and made them an offer for their house in exchange for a new, larger home in a new sub-division – which was likely worth much more than their modest home. The new home was fully landscaped and ready to move in, but the location was a bit less convenient – not WAY out of way, just a few blocks away. Jack and Jill's neighbours were happy for the opportunity they were given, but mused about who their new neighbours might be, and what they were planning to do with the property. Do Jack and Jill take the deal, or stay where they are? That's essentially the proposal the Town has put on the table. Sure, less convenient for some, but better aligned with the Official Community Plan and likely to be located closer to the geographic centre of Town over time, as the Town grows in a southwesterly direction. Communities fund their operations and development through a variety of sources, including tax revenue. It's probably not a surprise that a chief component of that is tax and other revenue from commercial businesses. As such, Town Council and Administration are charged with the responsibility to look at opportunities to have (and grow) commercial businesses within the community in order to drive an increased, ongoing revenue stream. It may be distasteful for some, but that's the harsh reality – but also one we should expect Town Council and Administration to do in order to fund development for the broader community. Within the current boundaries of the Town of White City there are few sites suitable for commercial development. Among those sites, those properties in close proximity to highways #1 and #48 and Ramm Avenue are without a doubt those of greatest commercial value – and Page 36 of 41 therefore not only most attractive to developers, but also likely to provide the greatest revenue. Businesses are far less likely to be interested in properties located away from the above routes. The old adage about business success certainly applies here: "Location, location, location." Yes, this could be disruptive for some – especially those in close proximity to the ball diamonds and the 13 acre parcel in question. That's truly unfortunate, but unavoidable if we take the broader view of what's in the best interests of the community – not just for the next couple of years, but for 5, 10 or 20 years – or perhaps longer. Commercial businesses and development will help fund other community amenities – funding that would be more difficult to otherwise obtain. There are many members of the community, including some of this evening’s delegations, rightfully concerned about the potential for unacceptable commercial usage of this parcel – including gas bars, fast food outlets and other businesses inappropriately located next to residential properties. It’s important for all parties to note there are two issues here: 1) relocating the ball diamonds to make the land available for development; and 2) what happens to the land once it's available. Let's not confuse the two issues – deal with #1, then #2. It is my understanding tonight’s meeting is to deal with #1, but I certainly understand public angst over the lack of detail for #2. It was my observation the majority of people attending the May 24 Open House opposed the proposal. There were many questions about a lack of information on revenues and costs, as well as about abandoning a community and public amenity many see as a key feature of the Town. The greatest concerns, however, seemed to be about the possible future uses of the site – including fears about a gas bar and fast food outlet in that space, the type of clientele and traffic that would draw, and the noise and litter it could create. Further to the above, I note that information on revenues and costs associated with any possible land sale have, to date, been vague or absent. Similarly, any certainty with regard to zoning and use of the site is also absent, notwithstanding the display at the Open House. It has been my experience with organizational change the majority of people will resist change unless they understand the relevance of that change and how it is going to affect them personally and individually. When that is unknown it’s very easy for them to think (and believe) the worst – and that was VERY evident at the Open House. I believe Council has not done itself or the community any favours by bringing forward a proposal with so many unknowns. With many details lacking, public support is far less likely. In my opinion, Council should TABLE this proposal and move forward only after firming up details about: a) net proceeds from the sale of the parcel; b) net cost of acquiring land and building replacement ball diamonds, Town Office, Community Centre, etc.; and c) reasonable controls and community input over the type of businesses subsequently occupying the parcel of land considered for sale. As part of that process Council should also have an open and transparent process that makes such information available to taxpayers and residents. Thank you. -- See you on Monday. Thanks, Page 37 of 41 Brian Fergusson, FCPA, FCMA Res: 306-781-8687 Mob: 306-536-9419 email: [email protected] "The first step of solving any problem is not to hide from it. The first step to any form of action is awareness." -- Mellody Hobson Page 38 of 41 From: Town Office To: Mauricio Jimenez; Jessica Glasser Subject: FW: [Junk] Don sent a message via the Town Of White City contact form. Date: June 4, 2018 1:37:10 PM Attachments: image001.png image002.png Voula Siourounis Tax and Utility Clerk Communications Coordinator Town of White City p: 306 781 2355 ext 231 w: whitecity.ca e: [email protected] ————————————————————— From: Don Schettler First Don Name Schettler Email [email protected] address Phone 306-781-3063 number Link http://whitecity.ca/contact From PROPOSED BALL DIAMOND MOVE Hi. I'd like to add my voice to those who have voted "NO" for the proposed move. I like Short the idea of a recreational centre next to the planned town centre, but not if it means Message turning the current ball diamond site into commercial or even residential use. Let's stick with a plan to encourage businesses to be in the town centre. Don. Page 39 of 41 From: Town Office To: Jessica Glasser; Mauricio Jimenez Subject: FW: [Junk] Jean sent a message via the Town Of White City contact form. Date: June 4, 2018 3:33:17 PM From: Jean Sinclair First Jean Name Sinclair Email [email protected] address Phone 306-781-3063 number Link http://whitecity.ca/contact From No to Ball Diamond Relocation. It concerns me as to what will take the place of the ball diamonds and the skate park. Our side by side communities currently have quite a few new and not so old vacant store fronts and office spaces. Some of these spaces have been vacant for quite awhile. If we Short turn this green area of our town into a commercial area I would expect given that we are Message not filling our vacant spaces now that the obvious development would be highway accessible franchises - fast food, gas station, hotel. Although convenient for people driving by this type of landscape is not appealing to homeowners as is the existing green space. Page 40 of 41 From: Town Office To: Mauricio Jimenez; Jessica Glasser Subject: FW: [Junk] Roberta sent a message via the Town Of White City contact form. Date: June 4, 2018 1:37:44 PM From: Roberta Ekberg First Roberta Name Ekberg Email [email protected] address Phone 306-781-2367 number Link http://whitecity.ca/contact From A Message to Mayor & Councillors Town of White City & administrative staff I am writing to register my opposition to proposal to rezone the ball diamonds/town office/community center area from municipal reserve to commercial. I feel that area is a welcoming & desirable introduction to our town for passersby on the highways. Municipal reserve & parks are the soul of a community. Parks & recreation areas show dedication to families & healthy lifestyles. Please show respect to the volunteers & businesses who Short supported the Serbu park area & add needed diamonds elsewhere. Do not take away this Message important part of our community that serves residents now. Town Center may be a desirable goal but that is a long way off. Don't fall prey to the lure of the $ from developers who want commercial property at the highway intersections. Our residents are proud of our small town lifestyle and you pride yourselves in being parks & recreation friendly in your town publications. Please show it in this instance. Please rescind this proposed bylaw. Thank you for your attention. Roberta Ekberg Page 41 of 41