Just build it
Active Member
Nothing exceptional, but solid, and will be a nice density boost for the area.
- Thread starter Surrealplaces
- Start date
googspecial
Active Member
Thankfully they've updated this 'motif'... Kinda tasteful now.
What the holy heck is that on the side?
zagox
Active Member
No appeal submitted this time, so the DP is good to go. Will be interesting to see if it goes ahead.
MichaelS
Senior Member
Just checked the SDAB website, and under active appeals, this one is listed, so not sure what the status is:
www.calgarysdab.ca
Active Appeals / Public Reports
www.calgarysdab.ca
zagox
Active Member
Just checked the SDAB website, and under active appeals, this one is listed, so not sure what the status is:
View attachment 474736Active Appeals / Public Reports
DMAP still says no appeal submitted. Maybe late appeal? Those always get dismissed quickly.
In any case, the new application deals with the power pole issue, and that seemed to be the only reason it didn't survive SDAB the last time around. Just a waste of everyone's time.
zagox
Active Member
The appeal was submitted on time, so DMAP must just have been incorrect. The reasons are (as the appellants note) the same as the last trip to SDAB. I think the key difference is that this time, the power poles are proposed to stay where they are and narrow the laneway slightly, wheras the last DP didn't specify exactly where the power poles will be. So it seems likely that this one will get through on the second try.
REASONS FOR APPEAL This Development Permit represents a near identical design that was appealed and allowed on March 21, 2022, at the SDAB (SDAB2021-0090).
1) Power Pole Location in North Laneway, Safety and Access concerns:
• A 7.2m north laneway was proposed and presented to Council during the Land Use application for this site. • In the current application the developer is proposing a 4.5m laneway and not moving the power poles from their existing location. The north laneway pinch point narrows to 4.2m.
• Therefore, the power poles are being proposed to remain in the middle of the laneway that was presented to Council.
• The intent of Council was to have adequate access to this building. They were presented with a 7.2m north laneway design at the time they approved the Land Use. If this is not met, then the intent of Council is not being met.
• The power pole concerns were the basis of the previous SDAB decision in 2022 at this site resulting in the Development Permit being overturned. The power pole concerns have not yet been adequately addressed as they are being proposed to stay in the same location.
• This width is too narrow to support access to the 150-unit building given the lack of viable alternatives access points.
• Access and safety were underscored this past summer when a fire truck used the north laneway while attempting to respond to a serious fire on this site.
2) Sound Planning Principles:
• As per Section 35 of the Bylaw there are concerns that sound planning principles were not exercised during the development process.
• These concerns were raised by Commissioners at the Calgary Planning Commission hearing on April 6, 2023 and they still exist.
• These concerns were also mentioned in the SDAB decision on March 21, 2022 (SDAB2021-0090).
• As the revised design is virtually identical to the previous one it continues to suffer from many of the same issues and shortcomings.
3) Other Issues:
• Any such matters that may arise during a review of the development permit application, in particular building heights and setbacks on the west side of the proposed development and concerns regarding relaxations.
REASONS FOR APPEAL This Development Permit represents a near identical design that was appealed and allowed on March 21, 2022, at the SDAB (SDAB2021-0090).
1) Power Pole Location in North Laneway, Safety and Access concerns:
• A 7.2m north laneway was proposed and presented to Council during the Land Use application for this site. • In the current application the developer is proposing a 4.5m laneway and not moving the power poles from their existing location. The north laneway pinch point narrows to 4.2m.
• Therefore, the power poles are being proposed to remain in the middle of the laneway that was presented to Council.
• The intent of Council was to have adequate access to this building. They were presented with a 7.2m north laneway design at the time they approved the Land Use. If this is not met, then the intent of Council is not being met.
• The power pole concerns were the basis of the previous SDAB decision in 2022 at this site resulting in the Development Permit being overturned. The power pole concerns have not yet been adequately addressed as they are being proposed to stay in the same location.
• This width is too narrow to support access to the 150-unit building given the lack of viable alternatives access points.
• Access and safety were underscored this past summer when a fire truck used the north laneway while attempting to respond to a serious fire on this site.
2) Sound Planning Principles:
• As per Section 35 of the Bylaw there are concerns that sound planning principles were not exercised during the development process.
• These concerns were raised by Commissioners at the Calgary Planning Commission hearing on April 6, 2023 and they still exist.
• These concerns were also mentioned in the SDAB decision on March 21, 2022 (SDAB2021-0090).
• As the revised design is virtually identical to the previous one it continues to suffer from many of the same issues and shortcomings.
3) Other Issues:
• Any such matters that may arise during a review of the development permit application, in particular building heights and setbacks on the west side of the proposed development and concerns regarding relaxations.
jdixon
Active Member
I hate to agree with NIMBYs but I do agree with the power pole issues.
artvandelay
Active Member
Why?
There's no change in width from the current alley, which seems to be working fine - and the applicant is paving everything and putting in a sidewalk with rolled curb that will functionally increase the width of the lane for passing traffic. Not sure I buy the concern.
zagox
Active Member
Developer won at SDAB on the second try.
From the Board reasons for decision regarding the power poles and narrow alley:
“The Board prefers the Applicant’s position. Council’s directions are to be found in Direct Control Bylaw 121D2021, and we are unable to conclude from the evidence that Council directed laneway widening in connection with this development. Council has the power to directly control development by doing so itself, or by delegating certain decision-making to the Development Authority with directions. As this appeal makes clear, Council’s directions are crucial because they circumscribe the statutory powers of both the Development Authority and the SDAB. Given this special treatment, we must look primarily to Council’s own acts to interpret what directions it gave for development on this parcel. It is for Council to define its instructions in Direct Control districts, not for this Board to imply or read-in directions that are not apparent from the Direct Control bylaw itself.”
From the Board reasons for decision regarding the power poles and narrow alley:
“The Board prefers the Applicant’s position. Council’s directions are to be found in Direct Control Bylaw 121D2021, and we are unable to conclude from the evidence that Council directed laneway widening in connection with this development. Council has the power to directly control development by doing so itself, or by delegating certain decision-making to the Development Authority with directions. As this appeal makes clear, Council’s directions are crucial because they circumscribe the statutory powers of both the Development Authority and the SDAB. Given this special treatment, we must look primarily to Council’s own acts to interpret what directions it gave for development on this parcel. It is for Council to define its instructions in Direct Control districts, not for this Board to imply or read-in directions that are not apparent from the Direct Control bylaw itself.”
Alex_YYC
Senior Member
They are starting to demo some of the houses maybe construction is imminent?
UrbanWarrior
Senior Member
Golfing guy
Active Member
Fencing and site prep always a good sign.
Good sign indeed.
Habanero
Active Member
Wunderbar!
Alex_YYC
Senior Member
Would be great to see this go ahead, and keep Kensington’s momentum going.