This Bylaw passed at Council. Councillor Andre Chabot was the only one
to vote against it.
If you follow the link, and click on item 7.8, you can see the documents
associated with the bylaw as well as the video. The video for this item
starts at 05:11:00.
———–[from Shirine & Kasper Lund (neighbour) to City Clerk on July 9, 2014]
———–[from Rick Moses (neighbour) to City Clerk on July 8, 2014]
Attached find a copy of an email (see Rick Moses email from April 14 below) I sent the following document to Martin Siddles during period of public consultation for the LOC2014-0036, with my comments and concerns about the Land Use (tied to plans) amendment
Included in its entirety below.
I am extremely disappointed that the administration chose not to present comments, including this one from directly affected residents, to the Calgary Planning Commission.
How are we to believe that the Commission can make an informed, unbiased decision when the information presented to them is selectively edited by the people who should be representing our interests?
———–[from Bill Gagnon (neighbour) to City Council on July 8, 2014]
———–[from ECA Planning to City Planning on July 4, 2014]
The Erlton Community Association’s submission is attached.
(later sent on to neighbours)
———–[from ECA Planning to neighbours on June 26, 2014]
After the Sub-division and Development Appeal Board rejected the development permit for this project earlier this year, the developer applied for a new Bylaw to authorize the rejected plans and removed any possibility of further appeal. The Administration and the Calgary Planning Commission approved this new Bylaw, and the final step is a public hearing at City Council on July 21st. The hearing Notice was published in the June 26th edition of the Calgary Herald on page A27.
The plans imperil pedestrian and traffic safety, and shadow neighbouring properties. You can read the SDAB’s thorough analysis of the development and plans here:
Many of you sent comments to the City during the application and review stage of both the development permit and this new bylaw. Unfortunately the City didn’t include them in their report to the Calgary Planning Commission, so City Council will not be able to read your comments and know your concerns. For those of you who did not comment earlier, this is your final opportunity to have your voice heard – or read, as the case may be.
The deadline for re-sending your earlier comment, or crafting and submitting a new comment, is 10AM on July 10th.
Comments can be submitted via email to email@example.com with the subject Bylaw 65D2014 on July 21st.
When the hearing agenda item and supporting materials is posted on the City’s website, I’ll send one further email and provide that link.
Please do not hesitate to call or email should you have any concerns or require further information.
———–[from Bill Gagnon to City Planning on April 15, 2014]
———–[from ECA Planning to City Planning on April 15, 2014]
The Erlton Community Association’s comment is attached.
———–[from Crystal (neighbour) to City Planning on April 15, 2014]
To whom it may concern,
I have just purchased the home at 53-34 Avenue and have been living there since December 2013. My garage is located in the same back alley of the proposed redevelopment’s alley access. I have major concerns with this development concentrated on the size of the proposed development (47 units).
That back alley is dangerous to access as it is. Pulling out of the alley and onto 34th Avenue I am faced with two blind corners- to the South there is a steep slope and a corner. To the North is a steep slope and a very sharp corner.
When vehicles park along 34th avenue adjacent to the back alley access it is impossible to see any traffic in either direction when pulling out of the back alley.
The proposed redevelopment will add too much vehicle traffic which will increase the dangers in accessing my garage through the back alley.
The increase level of traffic along 34th Avenue along with the increased use of the back alley for the proposed redevelopment will exacerbate this problem.
Parking along 34th Avenue is already scarce, a development of this size will add too many issues with parking.
Traffic on 34th Avenue (up the hill and around a blind corner) and onto Erlton Road is awkward and dangerous. It is icy in winter. There are no traffic controls in place. The additional traffic volume a project of this size will add, will exacerbate these issues too much.
I appreciate the opportunity to voice my concerns.
———–[from Brian Kiers to City Planning on April 15, 2014]
———–[from Lorna Jamison to City Planning on April 15, 2014]
To M. Siddles, Mayor Nenji, Councillor Web:
The Subdivision and Development Appeal Board rejected the plans for this proposed development after two days of hearings and a complete review. The decision is at http://tinyurl.com/p54puel.
The developer has now asked the city to approve the same problematic, unacceptable plans that were already, at considerable expense and through due process, rejected. This current application disregards and disrespects this process and is an abuse. The city is being asked to approve the same plans in such as way that the neighbours and communities cannot appeal. This is truly outrageous.
The developer has not even attempted to comply with the most basic changes necessary. For example, the lane townhouses need to be reduced to one story in order to remove the shadowing that destroys the use and enjoyment of the neighbours’ homes and properties. Also, the multiple sidewalk crossings on 34 Ave pose a dangerous issue for pedestrian safety.
In addition, the lane alone would provide ample access for waste and recycling if the building and lot were properly configured, and the Mission Road driveway could easily provide access to all parking requirements – once again if properly designed.
Such changes would be a small step forward in meeting the minimum expectations of the neighbours and communities.
However, even with these changes, this design effectively puts a ‘cork in the bottle’ and eliminates any possibility of the remainder of Mission Road being designed and built to the ‘Mews’ concept, with its interior roadway, as the Charrette envisioned.
I expect that this shameful approach would not pass scrutiny by the Calgary Planning Commission, or City Council at a public hearing, if it got that far. I’m confident that the members of both bodies will see through this rather underhanded attempt to get development approved by going through the back door.
———–[from Rick Moses to City Planning on April 14, 2014]
Dear Mr. Siddles;
As a property owner living adjacent to this proposed development, I have been participating in the Mission Road planning process since 2011. With the Charrette process complete, we thought we had achieved a solution that suited all parties.
We would have no objections to this particular proposal, if in fact, actually approximated the project that the community worked so hard to build consensus on.
The plans that have been submitted for this proposed “Direct Control – Tied to Plans” submission, are identical to those that the Subdivision and Appeal Board recently reviewed, and overturned on a Development Permit for this property (SDAB 2013-0151).
The SDAB found numerous deficiencies in the above mentioned proposal, concluding that “based on the evidence and aforementioned factors, in keeping with Section 35 of Land Use Bylaw 1P2007, the development is not compatible with the adjacent developments and neighbourhood”. And “pursuant to Section 687(3)(d) of the Municipal government Act, the Board finds that the proposed development would unduly interfere with or affect the use and enjoyment of the properties”.
In addition the Board stated in its decision, “the site could be developed in compliance with the DC Bylaw, Land Use Bylaw, ARP and meeting the goals of the MDP while being more sensitive to the context of the location and compatibility with the surrounding homes”. The residents of 34th Avenue SW who are most impacted by this project, couldn’t have stated our position more succinctly.
Overall, the scope of the proposal is a net improvement over the current conditions of the Mission Road corridor.
However, there are some aspects of the plan that create serious concern for immediate neighbours and other community residents. We believe can be that these issues can be effectively addressed and the development could proceed.
- Laneway parking – the current plan has a 10 vehicle “carport” style parking arrangement in the laneway. The ARP Section 3.2.9 states that “Surface or visible parking is discouraged. All parking should be located within buildings…Surface parking areas that can be viewed from the street are not allowed”. The structure is immediately adjacent to neighboring residences, and is visible from 34th Avenue. This is unsightly and clearly fails to meet the intent of the ARP.
- Parkade accesses and Recycling access – the current proposal requires three (3) separate sidewalk crossings, two of which are on a steep hill with a blind corner at the top of the grade. The SDAB comments “…the ARP Section 3.2.9 implies that only one (1) access location should be provided. In the Board’s opinion this does not meet the intent of the ARP to minimize disruptions to the public sidewalk”. Further from the CPC Recommendation Report to Council – Site Access & Traffic “Intensification …is appropriate when accompanied by improvements to accommodate pedestrians and bicycles, including minimizing driveways”. Consolidation of the two separate parkade entrances should be a minimum requirement for approval.
- Mews Townhomes – the laneway townhouses are especially worrisome to 34th Avenue homeowners. These structures are very close to, and significantly taller than the residences opposite them. As a result they create significant shadowing effects on those homes and the associated outdoor spaces around them. The SDAB found “the proposed development does not respect the local context of the surrounding homes to the north. In particular, the massing…and shadowing effect on the residential property across the lane have, in the Board’s opinion, a negative impact”.
- And “the townhouses along the land do not fulfill the ARP’s vision of activating the lane as a secondary street as there is no evidence the lane’s public realm will be improved with the proposed secondary building. In addition, …and does not ensure an appropriate transition between low-residential and multi-residential, as stipulated in Section 2.3.2B of the MDP.”
I always used to believe that the interests of the residents and citizens of the community were adequately represented by the Development Authority. It has become clear that this trust was misplaced, as the quality of assessment and representation in this matter indicates that the DA disregarded the valid concerns of the surrounding neighbours and even failed to consider the guidelines of the ARP in its haste to approve the application.
The only process left available to defend our interests and property was the Subdivision and Appeal Board, which fortunately is an independent body, tasked with the difficult job of evaluating all facets of these decisions.
It required a significant investment of time and energy to successfully present our position to the SDAB, which we believed, could lead to an enhanced and more neighbour-compatible proposal for development.
Should the Land Use Bylaw –Tied to Plans be adopted, it would be clearer still, that even the members of Council are indifferent to the needs of residents, and that “developments-at-all-costs” is the new mantra for the inner-city communities.
Stripping the SDAB of its authority would be only the first casualty, depriving the adjacent 34th Avenue homeowners of their right to use and enjoy their property, would be the next.
———–[from Chris Nyenhuis and Katie Marshall (neighbours) to ECA Planning on April 14, 2014]
My wife (Katie Marshall) and I own and live at the house at [address removed -ed], which is directly across from the subject property (93 34 Ave SW) of Land Use Amendment application LOC2014-0036. I am writing this letter to state that we are supportive of both the proposed Land Use Amendment and the proposed development at this property. We agree with the applicant’s submission regarding the reasons in support of the proposed redesignation. As a direct neighbour of the proposed development we are excited at the positive impact this development would have on the neighbourhood. We have been very pleased with the level of consultation, public engagement, and compromise by the developer to meet the requests of impacted neighbours. We are hopeful that this proposed Land Use Amendment Application will ultimately be approved and the development project will proceed. Please contact us at [number removed] if additional information regarding our opinion on this project is desired.
Chris Nyenhuis and Katie Marshall
———–[from Erin Cavallin (neighbour) to ECA Planning on April 14, 2014]
To Whom it May Concern,
I would like to voice my opposition to the Land use amendment posted at 93 – 34th Ave SW / Mission Road. It is my opinion that this development should not move forward in its current state due to the lack of respect the design displays for adjacent neighbours, and for the community in general with regard to pedestrian and traffic safety. Furthermore, the plans bears little resemblance to the vision put forward during the extensive ‘Charrette’ process several years ago.
The scale of the plans for this development are simply too large. It is evident that the large structure will plunge several neighbours into near-perpetual shadows. This is simply not respectful design, and should not set the precedent for the Mission Road area.
A design that includes several driveways is not respectful, nor is it safe for pedestrians in the area. This completely contradicts the spirit of the Mission Road “main street” feel, and the notion that foot traffic be encouraged. In addition, I have grave concerns about the location of the driveway on 34 Avenue, as it is located directly adjacent to a blind corner that is dangerous at the best of times. In winter this situation is exacerbated, as it is often extremely icy. As a resident of 34 Ave, I hold my breath each time I round that bend, anticipating speeding drivers cutting the corner.
I am extremely supportive of the redevelopment of the Mission Road area. We purchased our house in the summer of 2012, and were excited at the possibilities presented on the Mission Road project website. We have a responsibility to set a high standard for initial development, as it will set the tone for many years to come. Sometimes it seems there are individuals who feel any development is good development, and this is simply not the case. If we give inferior projects the green light, we severely limit the potential of this amazing, unique area.
Thank you for your time and consideration.
———–[from Greg Aman (neighbour) to ECA Planning on April 10, 2014]
To Whom it May Concern,
It has come to my attention that the development at 93 – 34th Ave SW / Mission Road is once again being considered for approval. I feel this development should not be approved as it does not reflect the needs of the community, does not consider the impacts on nearby neighbors, and does not connect to any of the longterm development plans which were formulated for this area.
A significant investment made by the city to come up with a comprehensive approach to development in this area and I viewed this as a welcome change. For once it seemed, there would be thoughtful consideration of the long term plan for this area as opposed to a piecemeal approach which would not address the fantastic opportunity presented by this location.
The developer’s plan for this area shows no connection to the plan laid out in the charrette.
Following public consultation on the impact of this development as it stands, involving meetings, petitions and other demonstrations of opposition, I was heartened to see that the plan was not approved to proceed in its current state during the appeal process.
It is greatly frustrating as a resident of this community to see this development permit, once again, being put forth for consideration without addressing the significant issues it presents.
I ask that the developer of this property address the needs of the community that have been expressed repeatedly throughout this process and that this development be rejected once again.
—–[from ECA Planning to neighbours on April 9, 2014]
The developer has applied for a new DC Bylaw to control only the land at 93 – 34th Avenue SW. The land was previously described as 90, 94, & 98 Mission Road. A PDF of the applicant’s justification letter is attached (LOC2014-0036). He is essentially asking the City to approve the plans the SDAB rejected, and eliminate the right of any appeal.
You can read the SDAB’s recent decision here:
While the City file manager tells me that Erlton’s copy of the application is in the mail, it has yet to arrive. He did provide a short explanation of the intent of the application:
“Essentially it is the same DP content that has already been seen but adjusted to reflect the prior to release conditions of the original DP approval (i.e. showing garbage truck sweep paths, change to tree species, adjusted location of trees, etc.). As a land use amendment it is now tied to plans to allow the development as a permitted use given the SDAB decision.”
Chris Davis, the Planning Chair for Parkhill / Stanley Park was kind enough to scan his copy and send it to me. He also analyzed the application. Since his analysis cannot be improved upon, it reads as follows:
“The applicant intends to proceed to City Council … with a new “DC” bylaw – tied to plans. If Council approves the new DC (tied to plans), there will be NO appeal process. In effect, the public hearing to approve the new “DC” will be the only opportunity to speak in favour or against the project. If 8 of the 15 members of Council approve the new “DC”, the matter will be concluded.”
Chris also writes:
“My quick review of the plans suggests to me that, other than amending the date of the plans, they are substantially the same as those approved previously by the City administration and rejected by the SDAB.”
Please submit your individual comments directly via email to all of the following addresses:
firstname.lastname@example.org — Planning File Manager
email@example.com — City’s document circulation controller
firstname.lastname@example.org — Erlton Community Association, Planning
email@example.com — Parkhill / Stanley Park Community Association, Planning
firstname.lastname@example.org — Ward 9 Councillor
The deadline for comment is April 15th.
Please share and discuss this email with your neighbours, some of whom may not be community members, or may not have provided us with their email address.
Please do not hesitate to call or email should you have any concerns or require further information.
Click here to see original post: SDAB2013-0151 – 90, 94 & 98 Mission Road SW