That whole riverside should have very tall buildings. Only problem is the floodplain with deep parkades
 
Sounds like an adjacent property owner thought this development was too close to their potential, not now but at some point, development. Fair enough, relaxing setbacks below the minimum directly affected this adjacent owner and their land's development potential.
 
A few little NIMBY gems:
1774545576500.png

Ms. Dueck's condo building:
1774545681765.png


But the actual reason is tall tower setbacks. The appellant must be the slumlord who owns the 4-storey rental building on 25th Ave to the north of the site; a four storey building is not a tall tower, and it has a massive rear parking lot between it and the proposed building here. Which suggests that they are planning to build their own tall tower someday and don't want this one too close to interfere with it. (And duped in the neighbours for support.)
 
  • Haha
Reactions: Urb
A brief skim indicates that it was rejected because the tower is located only 4 metres from an adjacent property. The Board found that this, and the size of the balconies, infringed a policy in the MDP Implementation Guidebook requiring building designs to consider impacts on privacy to adjacent properties. The Board also found that the small setback could also impact future tower proposals in the future, because it affects the potential tower separation between this building and new towers which may be built.

Setbacks and tower separation function not only to mitigate immediate impacts but also to avoid precluding appropriate future urban form on neighbouring parcels.
Click to expand...
 
ByeByeBaby said:
But the actual reason is tall tower setbacks. The appellant must be the slumlord who owns the 4-storey rental building on 25th Ave to the north of the site; a four storey building is not a tall tower, and it has a massive rear parking lot between it and the proposed building here. Which suggests that they are planning to build their own tall tower someday and don't want this one too close to interfere with it. (And duped in the neighbours for support.)
Click to expand...
Hey! I lived in that building and it wasn't that bad. I'm not sure I'd go so far as to call them a slumlord.

Also yes, it is the owner of that building. I recognize my former landlord's name.
 
badc0ffee said:
I found the gritty details: https://www.canlii.org/en/ab/absdab/doc/2025/2025cgysdab144/2025cgysdab144.html

Makes it sound like a bunch of things like proximity to the lot line were relaxed below the minimum, and the city wasted everyone's time by approving this in the first place. But I'm not a lawyer, nor am I versed in the permit process.
Click to expand...
This is similar to the West Nineteenth development that was also appealed. Looking at the letter of the bylaws and policies, this development should probably be rejected, same with many other appeals. But we need to fundamentally change the way we plan and why I believe firmly the LAP process is a waste of time. This LAP was approved May 14, 2025! and the appellants are successfully using it to argue that it does not fit the forms in the LAP, which was written less than a year ago. Which begs the question why is the city approving these that go against their own plan, and what's the purpose of these plans if development is evaluated completely separately from the maps in the plan.

I've seen this first hand in the Riley LAP. Most of the plan is just the same form that is there today, marked up one level of density. They put 19th street from Kensington to 2nd Ave to be higher density (probably because 19+2 already exists) than from 2nd to 6th ave (currently old bungalows but prime for development). I guarantee in the life of this plan, there will be an 5+1 apartment proposed on the 2nd and 6th ave portion which will then be appealed using the lazily produced LAP. The principles have to be much more broad, and we need to stop creating all these plans and documents that can then be used to reject development.
 
The thing that gets me is the appellant introduced a 'tall tower separation' 'best practice' of 18 to 24 metres from guides in Toronto and Ottawa, apparently we don't have a guideline. However, every nearby pair of tall towers in Mission that doesn't involve a street? 12 metre separation.
1774546526196.png
 
This has the whole sales centre ready to go, I wonder if they come back with some tweaks.

I don't mind that the City is pro development and is relaxing a lot of things. Sometimes you'll get things refused on appeal. I could be wrong, but I think it is all part of a good process that is working. While our council is occupied for the next little while with blanket rezoning it is a good reminder that although the City is not perfect, it isn't all bad.
 
You must log in or register to post here.

Back
Top