What do you think of this project?

  • Total voters
    52
Exactly as Ken said - it doesn't matter what developer is behind it, it's the fact we're about to allow surface parking on a prominent downtown lot, despite the zoning bylaws. This is no better, or different, than the Arlington site and should be treated the same. Parking of this nature should not be allowed, or at the VERY least it needs a strict sunset clause of, lets call it, 3yrs (arbitrary, it just needs to be short term) before active development needs to be underway or harsh fines are incurred. Understanding that that would be a bylaw change, of course.
 
mcr said:
Exactly as Ken said - it doesn't matter what developer is behind it, it's the fact we're about to allow surface parking on a prominent downtown lot, despite the zoning bylaws. This is no better, or different, than the Arlington site and should be treated the same. Parking of this nature should not be allowed, or at the VERY least it needs a strict sunset clause of, lets call it, 3yrs (arbitrary, it just needs to be short term) before active development needs to be underway or harsh fines are incurred. Understanding that that would be a bylaw change, of course.
Click to expand...
Yes, while this is dressed up behind a bit of landscaping, a few lights and a shipping container or two, it is still essentially a glorified surface parking lot.
 
I think what the city needs to do - and I’ve said this before - when any demolition permit is issued (noting that they’re not supposed to be issued until after a development permit has been issued although Council waived that in this case :( ), the owner would be required to execute an Development Agreement that says that if a building permit hasn’t been issued and development hasn’t commenced within 12 months that there would be an annual penalty equal to the difference between what the property is taxed at vacant vs what it was taxed at prior to demolition. As this would be charged under a Development Agreement executed by both parties and not as property taxes, it wouldn’t require an amendment to the MGA although it would still be registrable on and enforceable against the title, not the owner (just as zoning applies to the land, not the owner).

This would remove the financial incentive for an owner to demolish and hold for future development or sale. This subsidy in holding costs has been “banked” by Regency for years and would continue to be “banked “ every year by Westrich should they purchase the lot. The City shouldn’t be asked to subsidize their holding costs over and above that by approving/allowing something they shouldn’t approve/allow.

If Westrich can’t afford to “carry” the site and comply with the current zoning, they either shouldn’t purchase it or they should negotiate a lower purchase price. It’s not up to the City to subsidize their business operations generally or on this site in particular.
 
kcantor said:
I think what the city needs to do - and I’ve said this before - when any demolition permit is issued (noting that they’re not supposed to be issued until after a development permit has been issued although Council waived that in this case :( ), the owner would be required to execute an Development Agreement that says that if a building permit hasn’t been issued and development hasn’t commenced within 12 months that there would be an annual penalty equal to the difference between what the property is taxed at vacant vs what it was taxed at prior to demolition. As this would be charged under a Development Agreement executed by both parties and not as property taxes, it wouldn’t require an amendment to the MGA although it would still be registrable on and enforceable against the title, not the owner (just as zoning applies to the land, not the owner).

This would remove the financial incentive for an owner to demolish and hold for future development or sale. This subsidy in holding costs has been “banked” by Regency for years and would continue to be “banked “ every year by Westrich should they purchase the lot. The City shouldn’t be asked to subsidize their holding costs over and above that by approving/allowing something they shouldn’t approve/allow.

If Westrich can’t afford to “carry” the site and comply with the current zoning, they either shouldn’t purchase it or they should negotiate a lower purchase price. It’s not up to the City to subsidize their business operations generally or on this site in particular.
Click to expand...
I hope someone from the city reads this and they actually move forward with this. If an additional selling point is needed, the city is constantly talking about needing to find additional revenue sources, so if there were penalties this could help with that.
 
Taxing improvements on properties needs to be gradually phased out for this reason. A 10 year period would be fine.
 
External ID
643689526-002
Job Type
Major Development Permit
Description
Construction of (a) new building(s), Demolition
Applicant
OLIDA ARCHITECTURE
Status
Intake Review
Class of Permit

Create Date
January 15, 2026
Approval Date

Location
10199 - 101 STREET NW Plan F Lots 43-46
Neighbourhood
DOWNTOWN
 
IanO said:
External ID
643689526-002
Job Type
Major Development Permit
Description
Construction of (a) new building(s), Demolition
Applicant
OLIDA ARCHITECTURE
Status
Intake Review
Class of Permit

Create Date
January 15, 2026
Approval Date

Location
10199 - 101 STREET NW Plan F Lots 43-46
Neighbourhood
DOWNTOWN
Click to expand...
1768927152350.png
1768927131330.png
 
Avenuer said:
Definitely better than the current state of the site. Hopefully it does not remain a parking lot for long, I'm sure the COE will put a sunset clause in the DP approval or something.
Click to expand...

I seriously thought the city wasn't allowing any more new surface parking though (temporary or otherwise) in the downtown?
 
You must log in or register to post here.

Back
Top