Silence&Motion
Senior Member
Great idea to do a vote on the mural. I love Katie Green's work. She has my vote.
- Thread starter Surrealplaces
- Start date
CCF
Active Member
That's a top-notch website. Super engaging! Well done.
1875
Senior Member
apologies if i missed it but do we have a start date?
Alkarimd
New Member
We are hoping to start in march if all goes as planned !!
Zoom
Active Member
That would be awesome.
Just build it
Active Member
Is it just a matter of waiting for the appeal to clear?
cowGaryBerta
New Member
A big thank-you to you and the RNDSQR team for all these awesome infills.
Good news on this project. Looks like the appeal was thrown out, and the project is okay to go ahead. RNDSQR is look at demo soon, and possibly March dig. Sales centre expected to launch Feb 21.
Also pedestrian walkway enclosure is going up at the site.
Also pedestrian walkway enclosure is going up at the site.
Zoom
Active Member
That’s great news! The timeframe is not that far off either.
1875
Senior Member
crazy such a hot development is going ahead ???
integerhomes
New Member
this is an excellent resource to perhaps get some individuals to think beyond their own immediate vested interest and reconsider the tired old nimby arguments, will definitely save this as a document to bring out at opportune moments.
Mountain Man
Senior Member
Awesome news! very excited to see this one go ahead!
Calgcouver
Active Member
Great news. Congrats RNDSQR!
DougR
New Member
Based on my reading of the SDAB decision I would say that RNDSQR should feel very, very fortunate. The decision appears to completely gloss over how a set of simplified plans, containing no dimensions, attached as a schedule to a Direct Control bylaw that provides except as otherwise specified the rules of MU-2 apply, can be taken as specifying that various MU-2 requirements (eg. minimum MF ceiling height, minimum balcony dimensions, etc.) do not need to be complied with, or that Council's intention was to exempt the proposed development from having to comply with various MU-2 requirements. Council would have had no way of knowing that the proposed development did not fully comply with any MU-2 requirements other than those specifically addressed in the text of the Direct Control bylaw. In my opinion the correct result would have been a determination that the proposed development was approved as a permitted use with relaxations and therefore the appeal should have proceeded to a merits hearing to determine whether the proposed development unduly interferes with the amenities of the neighbourhood or materially interferes with or affects the use, enjoyment or value of neighbouring properties as per Section 31 LUB. I would also point out that Council's approval of a Direct Control bylaw in this situation, where the proposed development could have easily been approved under the standard MU-2 land use district with a few relaxations, is in direct contravention of Section 20 LUB.