Chief Lake Road Neighbourhood Pub Plan Scrapped

Monday, July 23, 2007 08:47 PM

This is the site of the proposed Neighbourhood Pub at Chief Lake Road and Foothills Boulevard ( photo opinion250 staff)

The application for a neighbourhood pub at the corner of Chief Lake Road and Foothills Boulevard has been denied.

Neighbours showed up in Council Chambers to ensure Council not only got their petition against the proposal, but also heard their voices in opposition.

The petition carried signatures from 69 neighbouring residents, in addition, there were several letters of opposition presented to Council. There was only one letter of support for the project.

The rezone called for a pub that would hold 95 people inside, a further 20 on a patio.

Neighbours complain there are other facilities in the area, namely the Alpine pub which is about 3.3 kilometres away. They also argue that while a neighbourhood pub is designed to attract walking traffic, there aren’t enough people in the area to serve the pub so there will be increased vehicular traffic and a higher risk of drinking drivers. They worry about the possibilty of an increase in crime, concern over potential for decrease lot value because a pub is (according to an appraiser) "generally considered an undesireable feature in a residential neighbourhood and they could expect to lose about $10 thousand dollars on the value of their homes." Leslie McKinley spoke on behalf of those opposed to the rezoning and said the project does not support the Official Community plan because it has the potential to disrupt the "neighbourhood." McKinley says while those opposed would like to see the property stay residential, if it is to be made "commercial" there are other options that would better serve the neighbourhood.

While the RCMP said they had no issues, one opponent says that response was based solely on a background check of the applicants. The residents also noted the RCMP told them there is only one officer "designated for the area north of the Nechako River." Opponents are concerned about their children as the school bus stop is directly across the road from the proposed site, there are no sidewalks, cross walks, or safe shoulders.

Speaking for the developers, Randy Carole told Council the developers want a nice quiet relaxed pub that will be frequented by neighbours, a place where people can come and play darts, or pool. "We talked to people in a one square kilometre area of the pub. That survey had a landslide of 219 in favour, 22 opposed, 38 neutral." She says it would be an overall benefit to the neighbourhood "We feel the town is moving out that way. We have owned the property for 20 years and we aways had that ( a pub) in mind." She says there won't be any juke boxes, or any music as they don't want it to be a noisy place. She says the developers hope to have a license for a liquor store. There are no licenses available for new cold beer or liquor stores, but that doesn't mean there can't be an effort to obtain an existing license and have it move to this site.

Councillor Glenn Scott said he could not support this rezone application as the neighbourhood does not want it.

Councillor Brian Skakun, It was a no for him as he is concerned about the impact on the neighbourhood children.

Councillor Murray Krause, "I will not support this, as I think it will change the nature of the neighbourhood."

Councillor Debora Munoz voted against it , saying it would have a negative impact on the neighbourhood.

Councillor Don Zurowski says he could have argued this either way, "If it was a Mr. G, how would it go? I see where Council is going with this and I am comfortable with that decision, not every neighbourhood needs to have a neighbourhood pub."

Mayor Colin Kinsley, "Something will happen on this corner, but I too respect Council's decision on this. It would appear those who are in closest proximity feel the impact would be negative to them."

All of Council in attendance, voted against the rezoning application.

Councillors Don Bassermann and Sherry Sethen were not in attendance.

Previous Story - Next Story

Email |

Print |

Facebook |

Twitter |

Digg |

Del.icio.us

Posted on Monday, July 23, 2007 08:47 PM in News by 250 News

Return to Home

Comments

Posted by: YamaDooPolCat on July 23 2007 9:34 PM

Wrong decision. Typical lack of thought.

A pub is no different that a Boston Pizza or Keg or Jakes Steakhouse nowadays. The difference between a liquor primary and liquor secondary is so minor these days as to be nothing. Lots of the liquor secondary places sell more booze than the "pubs". Pubs are mom and pop operations where as the big liquor secondary outfits are chain operators. So what's the matter with a mom and pop operation? It will be a struggle and most of the money will come from food sales. Your kids will be safe down at the liquor secondary places drinking their faces off, because they have to be at least nineteen to get into a pub. Been there - seen it.

Council is putting politics first, vote for me! I have no mind!

Posted by: diplomat on July 23 2007 10:07 PM

A few years ago land at the intersection of Highway 97 North and Austin Road (behind the Tim Hortons) was rezoned for an applicant who wanted to build a pub there and he was given the go-ahead for a pub with outdoor seating etc.

What happened to that project? Have City staff and the Mayor forgotten about it? How close together can pubs be to each other - the newly proposed pub at Foothills and Chief Lake would have been probably far too close to that one anyways.

Posted by: Buzz on July 24 2007 3:11 PM

69 Residents said "No", along with other written opposition letters. Only one person send in a letter of support. So council listened to the people and did what they want. Isn't that the CORRECT decision then? Or, would you prefer that they ignore the people and vote against what the residents wanted? Seems that the city councillors are damned if they do, damned if they don't.

Posted by: Chadermando on July 24 2007 5:04 PM

This is a great decision IMO.

#1) A cold beer store was recently approved for Nordic Road jut down the street.

#2) Now it opens up again the possibility of a lakes pub out at Ness Lake somewhere, and maybe even a cold beers store and small campground for the guy with the right piece of property on the lake. A small tourist draw for the area.

Posted by: owl on July 24 2007 5:37 PM

"A pub is no different that a Boston Pizza or Keg"

Sure it is. A Boston Pizza or Keg or any reasonable franchise would never locate in a location like that until Foothills is pulled through to HWY 97 north and Chief Lake Road has a higher traffic count. Even then it may not be the right location.

Jack and Jill's diner at that location, with liquor as a secondary license would go broke faster than a pub ever would.

A pub has the only chance of survival there and is marginal at that.

Council probably did them a favour.

Posted by: thereasonableman on July 24 2007 9:54 PM

I have to agree with the points made by buzz, and Owl.

My thoughts exactly, on both points.

Posted by: YamaDooPolCat on July 24 2007 10:48 PM

"..Council probably did them a favour.."

Something is not right when city council is smarter at business than the private sector. Since when does council make decisions based on whether or not the council thinks the business will succeed.

I happen to agree with Owl, that the location is shaky, but that shouldn't have any weight on whether or not to let the place get built.

Council still made the wrong decision.

Posted by: Buzz on July 25 2007 11:10 AM

YamaDooPolCat: so what you are saying is that City Councillors should ignore the public and just do what they want to do. Based on your previous postings you don't strike me as the kind of guy who really believes that, so what's a City councillor to do in this case that would make you happier?

Posted by: SilverHilton on July 25 2007 12:12 PM

YamaDooPolCat,

You are missing the big picture entirely! This issue was not that a 'neighbourhood pub' is different than a BPs or Keg, nor was the issue the difference between a liquor primary and liquor secondary; rather, the issue was to re-zone the land from residential for the 'perceived' need / desire of the neighbourhood to have a local pub / restaurant. I think if you looked at the real issue and response it garnered spatially, you would agree that - 1) since there is no commercial development in the area, 2) since there are several places to get alcohol and meals within a 3 minute drive of the proposed location, 3) since 85% of residents within a 200 metre radius did not want a pub in the area, 4) since the area is on the city - rural interface, and 5) since there is no turning lanes, lights, or sidewalks rendering the proposed location virtually inaccessible to safe vehicle traffic - the idea to re-zone that lot for commercial purposes was destined for failure.

The overwhelming majority of the community was against re-zoning the land for commercial purposes. We did our research and addressed the concerns of the community, specifically: safety, crime, property value, noise, traffic, aesthetics, community integrity, and best use of the land. We logically constructed our arguments against the proposal, prepared our presentations, and delivered them to city council. If you were at the public meeting, you would have seen that the proponent speaking for Anik Developments thought this proposal was a slam-dunk; however, their proposal lacked clarity, coherence, facts, and community input. She kept saying 'we want' not 'we surveyed the community and they would like to see'. It was obvious that the proposal lacked vision and any regard for the people in the local community. This was evidenced by the 'survey' Randy Carolle, presenter for Anik Developments, conducted in the "local community". The actual survey, which, it should be noted, did not have a mention of a Pub and Cold Beer and Wine store on it, was conducted over the July long weekend when many people were away, and did not record the address of each signature. Further, the 'Positive Information' sheet left behind in the instances where a person was not available was unprofessional in appearance, poorly written, contained spelling and grammatical errors, and did not foreshadow any significant benefit to the local community other than a local business. It would be interesting to spatially reference her 'survey' and our petition; I'm certain there would be very little overlap. If you live in the area you can't help to wonder where she would have acquired 279 signatures!

So, YamaDooPolCat, I think you are arriving at the wrong conclusion because your logic is arguing about the minutiae and semantics of a larger issue. City Council arrived at the correct decision because they understood the issue was not about liquor licensing; the issue was whether our local community was willing to forego safety, crime, property value, noise, traffic, aesthetics, community integrity, and best use of the land to have a pub in the are. We spoke with a majority voice and were able to convince City Council that, through a logical presentation of data resulting from a deep dive into the issue, the only decision was to deny the application. City Council, being as pro-small business as they are, respected our understanding of the issue and came back with the correct decision. Perhaps, YamaDooPolCat, if you pulled back a bit, examined the big picture, and used a logical decision making tree you, too, would come to the same decision as City Council and the residents of the local community.

Kind regards.