Members of the public turned out Wednesday to hear whether the Municipal Planning Commission would approve an application to turn a former nightclub into a drug and alcohol treatment centre.

By Sheldon Spackman

split vote

Red Deer Dream Centre denied by Municipal Planning Commission

Oct 16, 2019 | 3:16 PM

Red Deer’s Municipal Planning Commission (MPC) has denied an application to turn a former downtown into a drug and alcohol treatment facility.

The decision regarding the proposed Red Deer Dream Centre came after a split 3-3 vote amongst MPC members on Wednesday.

Mayor Tara Veer and citizen representatives Tony Lindhout and Troy Corsiatto voted in favour of the proposal, while citizen representative Kevin Jackman and councillors Lawrence Lee and Vesna Higham voted against the application. MPC citizen representative Daniel Jerusalimiec was absent.

The Development Permit application was for a Temporary Care Facility to be located at 4614 50 Avenue.

Recommended for approval by city administration, the proposed facility would contain 16 units and have the capacity for no more than 48 individuals to be in treatment. Those spaces would be on the building’s third floor, which would be added to the existing building during redevelopment.

University Magazine

RDP ranked 17th among top culinary schools in Canada

2h ago

JANUARY 21 ONLY

Ponoka starting Christmas tree pick up in January

18h ago

Christmas and new years

Wednesday cart collection rescheduled due to statutory holidays

19h ago

Each unit is proposed to have sleeping accommodations and a bathroom, with two common lounge and kitchen areas provided for individuals at the facility. An outdoor patio area is also proposed to provide individuals access to the outdoors and fresh air in a controlled area.

According to the application, the second floor would consist of meeting rooms and offices to support the Dream Centre operations. The main floor would include conference and meeting space, with a maximum capacity of 600 people.

Reasons given for the denial included the proposed development not being compatible with existing development in the area, and the development being contrary to the intent of the Municipal Development Plan with respect to the principle of ensuring balance and diversity in historic downtown.

Others included the lack of reasonable access to sufficient parking to accommodate potential daytime uses of the proposed “place of assembly,” thereby unduly impacting the use or enjoyment of neighbouring properties, and the form and design of the proposed application being deficient given the lack of onsite food services and adequate recreation spaces in the facility.

“As a citizen and as a councillor, there is nothing I would rather see than a residential treatment centre,” Higham noted. “The proposed plan provides no commercial kitchen and cafeteria facility, TV or games area. It seems to me a square peg function is being squeezed into a round peg form. The proposed location is not adequate for the intended uses.”

Corsiatto said he’s not sold on the anticipated impact to downtown that everyone seems worried about.

“I see this as redevelopment of an old building. I like the location,” he explained. “Nothing changes if nothing changes. I think the applicant is ready to make an investment in downtown when nobody has for a long time.”

Despite feeling that a treatment facility would be better suited in a more rural-type of environment, Veer said MPC must render a decision based on planning purposes.

“I think it’s the right purpose but the wrong location. But from a planning perspective, these are the options available to us. I do not believe it’s fair to hold the applicant to a different set of rules,” she said.

“It meets everything outlined in the Land Use Bylaw. It is a consequence of decades of zoning in the Land Use Bylaw that have only permitted those uses within historic downtown.”

Lee said his main issue was the proposal being contrary to the intent of the City’s Municipal Development Plan (MDP).

“We’ve seen a huge migration of businesses out of our downtown. There’s a huge concentration of this type of development downtown and we’re not seeing a balance,” shared Lee.

Wes Giesbrecht, co-chair of the Red Deer Dream Centre admits the decision is disappointing, but acknowledges the community has at least identified a need for treatment and recovery.

“It’s not an easy decision and to make a decision hastily would be silly,” said Giesbrecht. “It’s not whether we need it, we’re all on that same page, it’s just where.”

Giesbrecht says the Dream Centre proposal is based out of community cries for help and not on personal gain.

“The last thing the Dream Centre wants to do is to create a division within our city,” added Giesbrecht. “Our biggest thing is we want to bring unity and we are unified on the one point, that we need recovery. If this isn’t the right location, we’ll honour that and if it goes to an appeal and gets denied one more time, we’ll honour that.”

Giesbrecht has 21 days to decide whether to appeal the decision to the Subdivision and Development Appeal Board.

“As a board, as a group, we need to decide how we want to move forward on that,” said Giesbrecht. “The longer we deliberate and the longer we procrastinate, if you will, the issues just don’t go away. The opportunities are right in front of us, we just have to decide how it’s going to look and where it’s going to go.”