Alex_YYC
Senior Member
Why the hell would it be refused? It’s totally appropriate for the location.
- Thread starter Surrealplaces
- Start date
UrbanRED
Active Member
NIMBYs are the worst
UrbanWarrior
Senior Member
It literally couldn’t have been more perfect for the context of the site. That is absurd. Why does the city bow to nimby’s?
haltcatchfire
Senior Member
Bizarre. Wonder why? That’s perfect for that spot.
zagox
Active Member
“The Board finds that the proposed development is overbuilt in relation to the parcel size. This is demonstrated by the parking relaxation, the building being over height, the developer maximizing FAR so that amenity space is concentrated to a common area on the rooftop, the window intensity for the east-facing units concentrated solely across the east façade of the building, and the lack of loading stalls. The proposal to use the adjacent development’s parking stalls only demonstrates further that the building is too much to allow the proposed development to function on its own. The proposed development requires an agreement with the adjacent building to provide a loading area, a connector walkway and vehicle access to the loading area that it cannot provide within its own design. It requires a garbage staging area to be located in the rear setback area that compromises landscaping requirements.”
Full decision Here
Sambo
New Member
Apparently not.
MichaelS
Senior Member
Yeah, project exceeds / breaks numerous requirements that are in place, still manages to get approval from administration, but then loses at SDAB. Perhaps a scaled back design that can actually fit on the parcel. Or, next step would be a DC zoning bylaw having council directly say those rules do not need to apply, however with the current Councilor for that ward, I don't see it happening.....
Mountain Man
Senior Member
They were trying to get too many relaxations from the sound of it. Play by the rules or don't play.
MissingMiddle
Active Member
It isn't about if it breaks the rules, it's about if the rules are right.
The administration probably felt it was bending the rules, but was still a good fit, but the SDAB tends to be more oriented to the rules.
Keep in mind he's only one councilor. If I recall, Druh Farrell was against the Sola development, but the other councilors voted in favor.
Mountain Man
Senior Member
Given the pushback on the guidebook to great communities, that conversation would be very difficult these days!
MichaelS
Senior Member
I would have much preferred residential, but office with retail at the base it won't be too bad.
MichaelS
Senior Member
DP Drawings are already up:
With commercial uses no longer having parking minimums in the land use bylaw, I imagine this will be harder to appeal.
With commercial uses no longer having parking minimums in the land use bylaw, I imagine this will be harder to appeal.