City staff are recommending council move ahead with rezoning in Porter Creek that would allow for two new residential properties.

The Calvary Baptist Church is applying for the rezoning as part of its plans to expand its church on Fir Street.

The church has applied to rezone portions of its land at 1207 and 1303 Fir St. – on either side of the church – from Public Service to Residential Single Detached to eventually subdivide and sell off the residential portions to help pay for the new church.

Additionally, it’s also applying to rezone a back portion of its 1302 Elm St. residential property from Residential Single Detached to Public Service to become part of the church property.

At Monday’s council meeting, city planning manager Pat Ross brought forward a public hearing report.

It’s suggested that council move forward the rezoning to second and third readings, with an amendment proposed for second reading on the rezoning of the Elm Street property to fit the current plans for the back part of the property.

The church hosted a public meeting earlier this month on the plans though only two people showed up, both members of the church who expressed no issues with the plans.

The only person to speak up at a public hearing last week was the church’s pastor, Larry Harrison. He told council about the meeting the church hosted and outlined the minor change to the plan for the Elm Street lot.

As Ross reported though, while there was little verbal feedback on the proposal, the city did receive three written submissions on the matter, including one opposed and two with no concerns.

The concerns which arose, Ross said, included:

• the meeting held by the church did not have a specified time nor location;

• the new residential lots would have a negative impact on traffic around Jack Hulland Elementary School, which sits across from the church;

• the increased development of the area would affect underground utilities; and

• detailed information should be required to be provided to neighbours.

Responding to the issues raised, Ross pointed out the church’s meeting happened as advertised from 7 p.m. to 9 p.m. on Sept. 9 at the church, with details sent out to nearby property owners.

On the school traffic issue, Ross said that while a number of families use the church parking lot to drop children off at Jack Hulland Elementary, the church is under no obligation to provide that space for that purpose.

“The properties that these vehicles are utilizing are privately owned, and the owner can either develop them or restrict these vehicles from accessing the properties as it sees fit,” Ross stated in his report to council.

“The school sends out messages to parents to inform them to use the public parking along Fir and Grove Streets during drop-off and pick-up times.”

He went on to state the underground utilities can accommodate new development in the area.

Under questioning by Coun. Mike Gladish later in the discussion, Ross said there would have to be much more development before there would be a major impact on water and sewer services in the area.

If someone had a concern with their flow rates, they could contact the city to look into the matter and determine if there is a problem.

While it was argued proponents should be required to provide details of their plans to neighbours, Ross pointed out in this case, Harrison did just that. He went door to door before the proposal came to council, and hosted the public meeting.

There’s no legal requirement for the applicant to inform nearby residents, but the city sends out information to neighbours and runs ads and signage when a zoning amendment comes up.

It was also suggested by one writer, who expressed no other major concerns with the project, that the city place conditions in the development agreement to prevent duplexes or living suites on the new properties.

While the size of the new Fir Street properties – at 30 metres by 15 metres each – would not allow for duplexes, living suites would be allowed.

The Elm Street property, which already has a house on it, would be large enough for a duplex.

As Ross stated though, the development agreement is not the place for such restrictions, which should be dealt with through spot zoning if council wants to see those restrictions.

“Administration is not supportive of restricting suites in the RS zone, as these are seen as providing an important component of rental housing,” he said.

Council will vote on whether to move forward with the rezoning next week.