What's the consensus?

  • Great

    Votes: 9 16.7%

  • Good

    Votes: 21 38.9%

  • Okay

    Votes: 14 25.9%

  • Not Great

    Votes: 3 5.6%

  • Terrible

    Votes: 7 13.0%
  • Total voters
    54
MichaelS said:
That is perfect!

On a Courtyard 33 related note (and a good one), I heard from one of the guys at RNDSQR today that the DC zoning for this project lists multi-family has a permitted use, meaning the community / neighbours will not be able to appeal the DP.
Click to expand...

Actually, the DC bylaw has a simplified copy of the DP plans attached as a schedule and provides that a building that complies with that schedule:
(1) qualifies for a 22m height limit (instead of 16m) and an FAR of 4.0 (instead of 2.5); and
(2) is a permitted use.
This approach was sold to Council on the basis that it provided the community with certainty as to what would be built, but I suspect that the primary objective was to make it virtually impossible for the DP approval to be appealed. This DC/permitted use approach was also used recently for a couple of rowhouse developments in Bridgeland. I expect it will soon become the “go to” approach to protect controversial developments from appeals.
 
DougR said:
Actually, the DC bylaw has a simplified copy of the DP plans attached as a schedule and provides that a building that complies with that schedule:
(1) qualifies for a 22m height limit (instead of 16m) and an FAR of 4.0 (instead of 2.5); and
(2) is a permitted use.
This approach was sold to Council on the basis that it provided the community with certainty as to what would be built, but I suspect that the primary objective was to make it virtually impossible for the DP approval to be appealed. This DC/permitted use approach was also used recently for a couple of rowhouse developments in Bridgeland. I expect it will soon become the “go to” approach to protect controversial developments from appeals.
Click to expand...
You're probably right. The question is does the city just need to increase the density in certain areas, and then not bend to requests for increases? The reason I ask, is the 22m height and FAR of 4 seems reasonable to me, and probably why the city is allowing the increase, but if the city is going to do this a lot it seems to defeat the purpose of having zoning.
 
DougR said:
Actually, the DC bylaw has a simplified copy of the DP plans attached as a schedule and provides that a building that complies with that schedule:
(1) qualifies for a 22m height limit (instead of 16m) and an FAR of 4.0 (instead of 2.5); and
(2) is a permitted use.
This approach was sold to Council on the basis that it provided the community with certainty as to what would be built, but I suspect that the primary objective was to make it virtually impossible for the DP approval to be appealed. This DC/permitted use approach was also used recently for a couple of rowhouse developments in Bridgeland. I expect it will soon become the “go to” approach to protect controversial developments from appeals.
Click to expand...

Thanks for the clarification Doug, I didn't realize that there were DP plans included in the DC, that is definitely unique. I think the approach can satisfy both of the items you mentioned. It does provide the community certainty around what will be built but it also provides the developer with certainty that their good project won't be further delayed with an appeal (it already takes too long to get a land use and DP approved). It isn't just going to be the go to for controversial projects (typically city administration won't let you go that route) but it will also be the norm for non-controversial projects. The problem is that some neighbours who are simply scared of change will appeal a well designed project that goes through robust engagement and that has a direct impact on the viability of projects and businesses. If we use the Altadore 48 parcel for example, Brookfield's original project was very well designed but had some unique aspects (lane interface) that neighbours didn't like. The approved DP was appealed, the appeal was upheld and Brookfield then redesigned the project with the neighbours as part of the design team (going this far beyond engagement isn't helpful as most lay people aren't designers so it just comes down to personal preferences). The time that this run around added to the project ended up killing it which resulted in the land being sold to RNDSQR who redesigned the project which again got appealed. While the eventual appeal on Peaks and Plains was rejected, the time added to the approval process can clearly kill projects even for good/large developers. As I mentioned, if projects are well designed and go through appropriate community engagement/consultation, developers will use DC designations with specific permitted uses more and more. This provides the developer with the assurance that after all the time, effort and money is sunk into a site, it won't be held up by a frivolous appeal.
 
Many other municipalities use this approach. It provides certainty to Council that the proposal is developed as proposed during the rezoning process. It prevents the developer from watering down the design once density rights are achieved. This is a very time consuming and resource intensive process. I really hope Calgary doesn't continue in this direction or we'll turn into Toronto or Vancouver, where it takes years to get anything approved.
 
Urb said:
Many other municipalities use this approach. It provides certainty to Council that the proposal is developed as proposed during the rezoning process. It prevents the developer from watering down the design once density rights are achieved. This is a very time consuming and resource intensive process. I really hope Calgary doesn't continue in this direction or we'll turn into Toronto or Vancouver, where it takes years to get anything approved.
Click to expand...
Land Use planners everywhere suck at making zoning that works with OCPs/NCPs. Personally I am a fan of form-based codes and think City's would be prudent to considering a shift to it. https://formbasedcodes.org/definition/

An example of why zoning is barely even a guideline;
Virtually everything low to high rise that I develop in the lower mainland is CD (DC for Calgary). Honestly, I think municipalities absolutely suck at making Zoning and Land Use Bylaw that is flexible enough to comply to. For example simple, straight forward 4-6 storey buildings in Surrey that are built everywhere were intended to be built under RM-45 or RM-70 zones. That is what they created the zones for. Except for the fact that the setbacks required are impossible to comply with when considering OCP/NCP goals. So literally every development comes in as a CD (based on RM-70), etc. with provisions to change setbacks to comply with other policy. Not even one development has been built as a straight up RM-45 or RM-70 development.

This is typical in every municipality i've worked in. I don't get what the point of conventional zoning is anymore. It doesn't create optimal results and often doesn't even have predictable outcomes. A Calgary example is the RC-G zone. They have basically made it so shitty to comply with that it pretty much only works on corner lots, and is damn challenging to do mid block (mostly because of maintaining setbacks similar to those in RC-2 with the 15% rule in setbacks compared to existing homes) completely kills the form they are intended for (rowhomes). Also RC-2 was a blight on the inner-city with it's zoning setbacks. It barely intensified neighbourhoods and maintained suburban setbacks and form which imo was largely because contextual setbacks were ill-informed and created poor outcomes, but as long as you complied you could build whatever.
 
MichaelS said:
Why do you think municipalities are so bad at writing land use bylaws / zoning codes? What would you suggest?
Click to expand...
I think Planners at the City aren't given enough agency and don't have enough resources to enact good land use Bylaw. I am a Planner by trade, but am in development, I get why it isn't easy to get good land use policy done as a Planner, I think it is largely due to bureacratic systems that are hard to change and don't care to change. Zoning bylaw often becomes to prescriptive after you receive all departments input (too many cooks, trying to have a say). It just gets too prescriptive over what can be built, and often loses site of the form it was trying to create in the first place. Most land-use districts could do away with half of the criteria in them. I think MU-1 & MU-2 zones are striking a better balance and allowing more flexibility in design while not losing site of the intended building form, than many previous zones. But codes like RC-G? Totally lost sight of what they wanted to see built.

For example, this is the form it seems they wanted:
2017_11_27_11_25_06_chestnut-rendering_2.jpg


After all the setback requirements and horseshit that they crammed into the zone, I don't even know how you could put together a decent land assembly and build mid-block. All you can build is this on a corner lot;
https://www.google.ca/maps/@51.0705...4!1sNYov7Tu7k7Qgt56zdrCTAw!2e0!7i13312!8i6656

Form-based code focuses on min-max building height, build-to lines (setbacks), and building interface with the street/public realm. It also focuses on architectural elements in a more meaningful way, and doesn't inhibit form by being too prescriptive. It keeps in mind what the intended form and interaction with the street is, while allowing flexibility in what is allowed to be built on a single block.
FBC-effect-animation.gif


TLDR; Planners should have more agency over good planning, bureaucracy undermines it. FBC would be good to consider for more flexibility and focus on a better built form. Realistically, nothing will change due to bureaucracy being bureaucracy.
 
Last edited:
Interesting discussion! It sounds like setbacks are a big factor in dramatically restricting or changing the intent of a land use designation v. reality of what can actually be produced. To play devil's advocate, if setbacks and other restrictions are so obviously preventing the land-use objectives from being achieved, why are they there? What is the argument for why the city bothers enforcing these practices if they result in such poor outcomes?

Is it really just a matter of "bureaucracy"; perhaps a few decision-makers in planning department/city leadership that don't "get it" so won't change it? Or do they "get it", but are really trying to balance some other goal that isn't as obvious from the outside regarding setbacks? If there are conflicting goals driving this work, are these goals valid? Is it simply about maintaining the "look" of a street, is it about lot coverage goals for stormwater etc.

I am curious what the counter-point would be to the statement, "setbacks are dumb and often force outcomes you didn't want".
 
CBBarnett said:
Interesting discussion! It sounds like setbacks are a big factor in dramatically restricting or changing the intent of a land use designation v. reality of what can actually be produced. To play devil's advocate, if setbacks and other restrictions are so obviously preventing the land-use objectives from being achieved, why are they there? What is the argument for why the city bothers enforcing these practices if they result in such poor outcomes?

Is it really just a matter of "bureaucracy"; perhaps a few decision-makers in planning department/city leadership that don't "get it" so won't change it? Or do they "get it", but are really trying to balance some other goal that isn't as obvious from the outside regarding setbacks? If there are conflicting goals driving this work, are these goals valid? Is it simply about maintaining the "look" of a street, is it about lot coverage goals for stormwater etc.

I am curious what the counter-point would be to the statement, "setbacks are dumb and often force outcomes you didn't want".
Click to expand...

Typical counterpoint to maintaining larger setbacks are that it reduces the impact and perceived intensity of new developments on older existing homes that typically had generous front setbacks. Which it does. It is just that I think it does so at the cost of creating a more urbane streetscape.

This being the typical RC-2 Standard in Calgary with 'Suburban' front setbacks:
https://www.google.ca/maps/@51.0180...4!1sYkIZ120r15eR_AkjAfNxCg!2e0!7i13312!8i6656

vs. the semi-detached norm in Toronto that feels more 'Urban':
https://www.google.ca/maps/@43.6541...4!1s9TtEKNaDjQX5DgQuykRyFg!2e0!7i16384!8i8192

I have heard the argument that front setbacks make a place look more stately and less 'poor'. It is a question I ask friends that buy new homes in the burbs in Calgary; "wouldn't you prefer your house to be closer to the curb, and have more than a postage stamp of a backyard?" Most say yes they would prefer it, and others say it would make their house look 'poor'. Again, I personally disagree and think reduced setbacks are nicer (I prefer Hillhurst to Altadore). Rowhomes on the other hand don't really work very well with generous setbacks, it becomes hard to build mid-block if you have to be respectful of the setbacks of infills and existing bungalows. That is why RC-G is a failure IMO.

I think the culture of not wanting to drastically change front setbacks in older and established neighbourhoods is to appease existing homeowners and those that now live in infills. They want more stately front yards and the neighbourhood to keep its 'feel' when the point of infill should be to intensify and create more urban neighbourhoods out of post WW2 suburbs. Besides infills hit shitty price points and don't allow middle-class earners access to ground-oriented homes in the inner-city. Thus the reason they move to the suburbs. Want families back to the inner city? Build rowhomes in the $400-600k range. Not $800-1.3k infills.

Hard to speak to the culture at different municipalities, different complaints from planners but usually the similar problems. I have heard that some of old boys in planning are/were adverse to change in Calgary, but it could have changed by now. Surrey? It is really understaffed, and not enough senior planners who can make decisions. Vancouver? Filled with social planners that all want to play architect.
 
Don't think there is any way to make it impossible for an appeal to be filed. It will be interesting to see whether the SDAB takes the position that Subsections 685(3) and 685(4) of the Municipal Government Act will apply in this case to limit the available grounds to appeal the approval of this DP, as the DP was approved as a "permitted use" under the terms of a Direct Control land use district, although the approval of that Direct Control land use district arguably contravened Section 20 of Land Use Bylaw 1P2007 as there doesn't appear to be any reason why this DP couldn't have been approved as a "discretionary use" under the MU-2 land use district, if necessary with a relaxation of the 300m separation rule for Liquor Store uses to accommodate the proposed Brewers' Apprentice retail outlet.
 
MichaelS said:
Well, turns out it isn't appeal proof:
https://developmentmap.calgary.ca/#property/DP2018-0091

Status is now "Pending Appeal"
Click to expand...
As Doug mentioned, you can't make an application appeal proof (there is always a right to appeal available). What the DC did is basically make it impossible to argue against in the appeal hearing. An appeal needs to be based on contravention of bylaw to have merit, not simply a personal dislike (although you can still file an appeal based on this haha). An appeal in this case is basically just a big waste of everyone's time.
 
The appeals process, wrt NIMBYs' ability to derail projects, does not seem very robust in this city.

More developer-confidence in the development/appeal process = more encouraged development = stronger project economics = increased competition/lower barriers to entry = more affordable housing = better cities
 
Hey All,

Thanks for your continued support and engagement on this project. Our group feels great and positive about how things are proceeding. An SDAB hearing is part of the process of building in the established areas and we welcome it democratically. That being said we have officially launched our landing page and public art campaign !!! I encourage you all to visit. www.cy33.ca and www.cy33.ca/art


Thanks everyone !! !
 
You must log in or register to post here.

Back
Top