Summary#

Council passed Bylaw 17P2026 at third reading on June 30, amending the Millican-Ogden Area Redevelopment Plan for 2108–66 Avenue SE in Ogden, Ward 9. The goal is to allow rowhouses and townhouses alongside housing types already allowed by the plan. The bylaw was adopted; the separate development permit for a proposed townhouse remains under review.

• The plan now allows rowhouse and townhouse forms at the site.
• Council also suspended a procedure rule so it could hold third reading on June 30 rather than July 21, after the earlier vote to advance the bylaw was not unanimous.
• The amendment does not itself approve a building or set its final design, number of homes, height, or parking.

What it means for you#

• People living nearby: The plan change allows more housing forms at the site, but does not require a development to proceed.
• The landowner and applicant: A development permit application for a four-unit townhouse with four secondary suites was submitted and is still under review. This Council decision does not grant that permit.
• Residents concerned about the proposal: Nine letters opposed the plan amendment. City staff say details such as height, unit count, parking, and access are considered through the separate permit review.

Money#

City staff reported no anticipated financial impact from the plan amendment.

• The materials give no estimate of costs for the proposed development or its permit review.

What is unclear#

• The supplied materials do not include the full wording of the adopted bylaw.
• The final building design, number of units, height, parking, and access depend on the development permit review.
• The materials do not say when that review will be completed or whether the permit will be approved.

Case for#

• City staff say allowing rowhouses and townhouses would add housing choices and make more efficient use of existing infrastructure and nearby services.
• The Millican-Ogden Community Association supported the application.
• City staff say the proposal is compatible with the neighbourhood and fits the Municipal Development Plan.

Case against#

• People who submitted opposition letters raised concerns about parking, traffic, pedestrian safety, privacy, and neighbourhood character. One submission also cited nearby school parking, sewer-line concerns, and the possible loss of established trees and a historically significant house.
• Councillor Chabot voted against third reading. The supplied materials do not state the reason for the vote.