OLDS — The Town of Olds' council has denied an application by a developer to create extra-wide driveways for an eight-plex in an East Olds lot at 4638 51st St. to provide parking for potential residents.
During council’s Aug. 25 meeting, development officer Nathan Hill said under a town bylaw, the proposed building at 4638 51st St. would require 16 parking spaces.
Under current rules, the maximum width for a driveway is 10 metres. The applicant asked for a variance to create driveways which would total 22 metres in width.
A drawing showed two driveways; one on either side of the proposed eight-plex.
Because that requested width is wider than 15 per cent of the prescribe standards, council had to give the thumbs-up or thumbs-down.
Debate on the application lasted about 25 minutes.
A motion to approve the the request was defeated.
Near the end of the meeting, council passed a motion to deny the application for a development permit because "in the opinion of the development authority (town council in this case), the proposed variance would unduly affect the amenities of the neighbourhood."
Several councillors said they were torn by the request. They noted that the area in question is zoned R3 (medium density housing) and the eightplex fits that slot.
However, they also sympathized with some area residents’ concerns that the development would result in higher traffic volumes which would run counter to the character of the Area Structure Plan (ASP) for East Olds.
Coun. Dan Daley was one such conflicted councillor.
He described the 16-stall parking lots as “a parking lot” which would not fit the character of the neighbourhood.
“I feel that having those eight vehicles coming in and off of the street there on a residential street may be a bit overwhelming for regular residential traffic there as well,” Daley said. “It's going to make it a lot busier on the corner of that of that intersection, I believe.”
“I don't think I can approve this going through, I cannot support it, sorry,” he added.
Coun. Darren Wilson wondered if other developments such as tiny homes, garden suites, laneway suites, or a fourplex with a secondary suite might hit the goal of creating greater density without compromising the character of the neighbourhood.
On the other hand, Coun. James Cummings questioned the debate.
“If this was an eight-unit apartment building, nobody would bat an eyelash at there being a parking rule, because that's what apartment buildings have,” he said.
Cummings said there are small apartment buildings, not in this particular block, but in the neighbourhood already.
“So I'm just trying to rationalize the differentiation here between a large driveway to park cars, a parking lot and an R3 development, and why we're nitpicking about one or the other one,” he said.
“The adjustment that we've asked for is something to allow for parking off the street, which everybody wants. They don't want street parking. This seems to be a very good solution for that.”
Cummings noted that he asked for a review of the East Olds ARP to be included in the Town’s 2026 budget.
“Until we get a new plan, I don't see how we can justify turning down a development that actually fits the ARP,” he said.
Coun. Wanda Blatz said the developer is free to build an eightplex on the lot because the area is zoned R3, so really, all council was being asked to do is approve or reject the proposed driveway space.
Blatz said a precedent for a driveway taking up a large portion of a lot in East Olds has already been set by a residence near the Bean Brokers coffee shop.
“The only public parking lot we have (in East Olds) is really basically across from Tracks, in that area,” Mayor Judy Dahl said.
Chief administrative officer Brent Williams noted that because the lot is zoned R3, “a multi-family dwelling is going to get built there eventually.” He said the only question is how the parking would be configured.
Coun. Heather Ryan suggested a compromise: dividing the parking into four lots of four instead of the applicant’s design of two lots with eight stalls each.
She said that could provide the parking for the residents and thus alleviate concerns of more vehicles parked on streets in the area.
However, Hill said Town rules say if there are multiple driveways on a parcel of land they must be at least some six metres apart.
Ryan wondered if there’d even be a need for a variance under her plan.
Hill said there likely still would be, but it would be for 11 metres instead of 22.
“It would need a variance anyway. It's just a matter of how much it is,” he said.
He also said that plan might impact Town rules for landscaping.
