Please see LOC2014-0036 (Land use amendment – 93 – 34th Ave SW / Mission Road) for more info about recent developments.[originally sent by ECA Planning to neighbours on April 3, 2014]
Attached is the Subdivision and Development Appeal Board’s 49-page decision rejecting the Mission Road development permit.
While reading the decision, it will be clear the success of this appeal was primarily due to the huge effort by Rick Moses and his Parkhill neighbours in crafting shadow studies and extremely detailed presentations of the critical issues. They mounted this appeal without the assistance or involvement of their community association. The Erlton Community Association participated in the appeal and raised traffic and pedestrian safety issues on behalf of its residents.
The City invested half a million dollars, expended considerable political capital, and consumed hundreds of professional, city staff, and community volunteer hours in designing some very attractive and innovative development concepts for Mission Road – concepts that the majority of participants supported. See:
Eventually a developer applied for a permit. The design, however, bore no resemblance to the work product of the planning workshop, and failed to consider its egregious impact on nearby neighbours and communities. The City’s Development Authority nevertheless approved it, and Councilor Carra supported it – despite neighbour and community objections. You can read his letter submitted at the SDAB hearing:
Some Erlton neighbours wrote a petition opposing this design
We agree with our Alderman, Gian-Carlo Carra’s comments on January 31, 2011 at the Mission Road World Cafe, ” Mission Road is a very important street…where two historic neighbourhoods, Parkhill and Erlton, come together…it’s an historic corridor.” He went on to emphasize that the charette was a means by which city planning incorporates the idea that “citizens must have an intimate role in shaping the future of the communities they live in.”
We also agree with Mayor Nenshi’s welcoming remarks to the Charette in June of 2011,”This is a really important process not just for the future of this community but the entire city….this charette process…you’ve got a serious responsibility.. think hard about what a community can mean, what kind of a community you want to live in, and work in, and build because that’s what a community is…it’s about the people who live there and the common dream that they have.”
While these important objectives were achieved in the Charrette design, they weren’t followed by affirmative action to implement them.
You can learn more about the neighbour and community review process for this development by following this link and reading the material from the bottom up [in this post].
We hope Plan B is more closely aligned with the concepts derived from the Mission Road workshop, and the well-founded expectations of the nearby neighbours and communities.
———[originally sent by ECA Planning to neighbours on February 20, 2014]
The Subdivision and Development Appeal Board announced their decision at 1:30PM today.
The appeal is allowed, and this Development Permit is null and void.
We’ll circulate one final email when we receive the board’s written decision – in which they detail the evidence and reasons for their decision.
———[originally sent by Nicole de Peuter to neighbours on February 14, 2014]
The Calgary SDAB has asked me to advise the parties on appeal 2013-0151, that the Board will be announcing the decision for this appeal at its February 20 meeting at 1:30 p.m.
Nicole de Peuter
Coordinator, Calgary Appeal Boards
The second day of this hearing has been rescheduled to January 14th at 1:30 PM.
So far, the most surprising item is the attached letter from Mr. Carra, which was handed out at the first day’s hearing on December 19th.
Carra letter – December 19, 2013
This is the second appeal wherein he has contacted the SDAB. In a previous appeal, he sent a copy of his letter to the Chairman on the Board. That letter is attached as well.
Carra letter – May 22, 2013
———[originally sent by ECA Planning to neighbours on November 29, 2013]
Appeal hearing rescheduled to Dec 19th, 9:00 AM: SDAB2013-0151 – 90, 94 & 98 Mission Road SW
We’re also attempting to get the City to cough up their complete file for this DP, in the interest of full disclosure, for review by all parties concerned, including the SDAB. If we’re successful I’ll send another update. Meanwhile if you sent a comment to the City regarding this development, do not see it in the posted material, and want the appeal board to consider it in their deliberations, send it again to firstname.lastname@example.org
———[originally sent by ECA Planning to neighbours on November 27, 2013]
Hearing to be rescheduled: SDAB2013-0151 – 90, 94 & 98 Mission Road SW
The other issue that may be raised is that the Development Authority’s file, the Sub Division and Appeal Board’s report, is missing a large amount of correspondence submitted by neighbours, our community association, etc. In your review of the reports, if you find that your personal correspondence to the file manger is missing, and you want the SDAB to be able to consider it in their deliberations, you should send a copy to email@example.com and reference file number SDAB2013-0151.
You can find the SDAB reports / City’s file and plans with respect to this development at this link in the 1:30 time slot:
It you want a permanent record of this material, you should save it, since the links expire after a short period.[from Subdivision Development Appeal Board to ECA Planning and others on November 27]
It has come to our attention and it’s been confirmed by the Development Authority that there was an oversight in the description of DP2012-5065 when the approval notification and the October 17 advertisement in the Calgary Herald were released.
The description of the permit as of October 17 was “New: Multi-Residential Development and Consumer Service (2 buildings, 47 units)” with the discovery of the oversight by the Development Authority the permit description was revised to “New: Multi-Residential Development and Consumer Service (2 buildings, 47 units). Temporary Residential Sales Centre”. As a result, the Development Authority readvertised the DP with the revised description in the November 14 Calgary Herald.
In light of this discovery, there are two complications with appeal 2013-0151 which is scheduled for November 28:
- The appeal period in accordance with the Herald advertisement for the revised description is November 14 to November 28.
- The SDAB based its advertising and notification for appeal 2013-0151 on the original permit description. The Board will have to readvertise and notify those parties it deems affected for notification purposes with the revised permit description in order to ensure we have properly notified the public and are in compliance in the MGA.
As a result of this oversight, the Board will have to adjourn the appeal scheduled for November 28. SDAB will need a minimum of two weeks to complete the readvertising and notification processes in the prescribed legislated time frame.
Your attendance is still encouraged for the hearing on November 28 in order to schedule an appropriate date to hear the appeal and there may be other issues raised at the hearing that may be addressed at that time.
We apologize for any inconvenience this oversight has caused.
Nicole de Peuter
Coordinator, City Appeal Boards
City Clerk’s Office | The City of Calgary |
Mail code: #8110
T (403) 268-5952 | F (403) 268-5982 | www.calgary.ca
P.O. Box 2100, Station M, #8110
Calgary, AB T2P 2M5
———[originally sent by ECA Planning to neighbours on November 25, 2013]
In response to a neighbour’s appeal, the SDAB has posted a copy of the City’s file and plans with respect to this development. It is available for downloading from the Sub Division and Appeal Board’s website at this link in the 1:30 time slot:
It you want a permanent record of this material, you should save it, since the links expire after a short period.
———[originally forwarded by ECA Planning to neighbours on November 15, 2013] [originally sent by Rick Moses to multiple contacts, attachments at end of submission]
Subdivision and Development Appeal Board hearing for this Development Permit is scheduled for 1:30 PM, November 28th, 2013.
I will be presenting a case requesting amendments to the approval at the hearing. Other affected residents will also have an opportunity to contribute their perspective on the development.
Submissions regarding this development may be made in oral or written statements to the committee.
I would encourage anyone who has an opinion on this, to make the effort to communicate their position to the Board.
This Permit will set the tone for re-development of the entire Mission Road area, it is very important to get it right. We are going to have to live with the consequences for a very long time.
Please contact the undersigned if you have any questions. If you can’t attend the hearing and would like to submit your comments to the Board, I’d also happily include them in my presentation to the committee.
Erlton Community Association also has a set of the approved plans. The list of Relaxations is attached to this email, as is a copy of the Notice of Appeal.
CUE had earlier suggested that they would set up another community information session, I have seen no indication that they intend to actually do so.[originally sent by Rick Moses to multiple contacts]
Oops. Forget a couple of items.
A digital copy of the City’s file on the Development Permit Application will be available for download on November 21st, from the SDAB website. This is one week before the hearing. There will be a public notification of the date and time of the hearing in the Calgary Herald, also one week before the hearing.
FYI. I have also attached a copy of the SDAB brochure, which outlines the appeal process, who may contribute and how to submit your views.
———[originally sent November 2, 2013 by ECA Planning to neighbours]
A neighbour adjacent to this development has filed an appeal. The notice of appeal is attached.
We’ll post this on our website, and send a further update when the City’s file on this development is available for downloading from the Sub Division and Appeal Board’s website.
Other neighbours adjacent to this site may wish to review the City’s file when it’s available and craft their own presentation for the SDAB hearing.
I have no information on the position of the Parkhill Stanley Park Community Association.
———[originally sent October 23, 2013 by ECA Planning to neighbours]
I received the list of relaxations from the City this afternoon. It is attached.
The plans are available anytime, with no borrowing or circulating restrictions. Please call.
———[originally sent October 22, 2013 by ECA Planning to neighbours]
I received a set of plans and the attached notice this afternoon.
No list of relaxtions was included, although we routinely ask for this information. I have a call in to the the file manager, and if successful, I’ll circulate it.
The plans are available anytime. Please call.
———[Letter from Christopher Davis to neighbours, CC to ECA Planning, sent October 17, 2013]
Please be advised that the development permit was approved by the City and was advertised in today’s Calgary Herald. For a link to the City’s webpage advertising the approval, go to:
Again, we have a set of the approved plans at my office.
The Developer, CUE, has suggested that they will hold more community consultation, but I am not clear as to what end if the development permit is approved and not appealed.
If the approval is appealed, I can understand why they may want further consultation.
I have no instructions from our Parkhill Stanley Park Community Association Board to appeal this approval. Our understanding is that the approved application is in compliance with the Parkhill ARP and the Calgary Land Use Bylaw.
——[Letter from (name withheld) to City Planning, ECA Planning and others. Sent August 7, 2013]
Thanks for making the plans available. I managed to get down on Friday to look at them and compared them to the last set of publicly available plans provided (the ”May Plans”) in order to identify changes to the latest plans. I have spoken with Rick Moses and echo his concerns regarding the landscaped area shortfall as well as the overlooking/privacy issue on the East boundary and the concerns with shadowing and limited setback on the North boundary. I think Rick makes an excellent point regarding the probable impassability of the alley in winter if sunlight can’t melt the ice that accumulates here every year.
In addition to Rick’s points, I would like to add some additional points:
1. Height of the Secondary Building on the North boundary – while the move to reduce the height from three stories off the alley grade to two stories to comply with that aspect of the minimum ARP requirement is certainly welcome (as it was required), I would like to raise another issue. The ARP also requires that “The Secondary Building height shall not exceed that of the Principal Building”. The maximum height of the Principal Building in the May Plans was 75.18m from my reading of the plans. My reading of the revised plans is that the maximum height of the Secondary Building is 76.16m, in excess of the height of the Principal Building. I noticed that one unit, Unit B, now has had its height extended appreciably. I found it odd that one unit would have its roof raised for no apparent reason until I noticed that this change could be argued to raise the height of the Principal Building to 77.18m, in excess of the height of the Secondary Building even though the rest of the Principal Building (I’m guessing about 95% of it) is between 75.08m and 75.18m in height. Perhaps I am overly skeptical, but I believe this change to the plans of the Principal Building was made for no other reason than to attempt to circumvent the requirement of the ARP. I say this as I can find no other reason that it would have been changed. The requirement under the ARP seems loosely worded to me, but I would hope that the developer and the City would respect the spirit of the minimum requirements of the ARP and deem the height of the Secondary Building as a deficiency.
2. Required Parking Stalls – I noticed in the “Parking Details” section of the revised plans, that under “Parking Stalls Required”, the 6 stalls required for retail have been removed and that the total “Parking Stalls Required” has fallen from 61 in the May Plans to 54 in the revised plans. Parking is a huge concern already in this neighborhood and I would hope that whatever spaces are required under the bylaws for retail space are respected. I can’t comment on whether or not this is a deficiency, but I do hope it is addressed.
3. Parkade Access on 34th Avenue – I have voiced this concern at a Community Association gathering, but have never seen the issue of the location of the parkade exit onto 34th Avenue raised. I am astounded that anyone who has ever been in this neighborhood and actually looked at the slope of the road and the blind corner thinks that this is a smart place to put an approach. There have been numerous accidents at this location while I have lived in the area including a 10 car pileup in the winter of 2010/2011 (photos following post below). This sections of road is extremely susceptible to black ice and people coming around a blind corner into a downhill slope cannot stop often times for the stop sign at the intersection with 34th Avenue, let alone halfway down with no notice as cars emerge from the parkade. This will be the site of numerous accidents. While there has been a lot of work done on the slope of the ramp to minimize the nuisance of headlights to residents across the street, I can’t believe no one has thought about the location of it in relation to a short, but steep hill after a blind corner. The only parkade exit should flow onto Mission Road where there is good visibility and a relatively even grade. I would strongly urge the City to have a study done on this before approving the permit application in its current form. I think it is negligent to approve the plans in this form and would expect that someone (most likely a resident exiting the parkade) will be seriously hurt or killed if the parkade access is not relocated.
4. Secondary Building Carports – Adding to the stress on local parking will be the difficulty in using the parking spaces off the alley designated for the residents of the Secondary Building. As one of the two residents on the alley that has a garage, I can tell you unequivocally that parking off this narrow alley is extremely challenging. There is not enough room in the alley to safely and easily manoeuvre a vehicle into parking here, particularly when vehicles are side by side. I have never had two cars in my two car garage as you need space in the garage to manoeuvre a vehicle in (i.e. you are still turning your vehicle when you are entering the space). And my garage is setback somewhat from the alley. With no setback and fences opposite the carports, there seems to me that there will be no way that the second spot in these carports will be useable, exacerbating the already problematic parking situation in the neighborhood.
In short, I think there continue to be serious deficiencies in the revised plans. I think that relocating the parkade access from 34th Avenue and doing away with Secondary Building and using this space for additional parking for retail, residents and visitors would be a good, safe and liveable compromise that would garner the support of concerned residents in this neighborhood.
Thanks again for allowing us to review the plans and provide comments, Lindsey.
November 28, 2009
——[Letter from Christopher Davis, Chair, Parkhill Stanley Park CA development subcommittee to Jonathan Allen, CUE Projects, City Planning, ECA Planning, Alderman Carra and others. Sent July 31, 2013]
Lindsey / Jonathan:
As you may know, I chair the Parkhill Stanley Park Community Association development subcommittee.
It has been some time since I have heard from either the City or the developer / applicant.
In mid June, Lindsey advised the Erlton community (Bill Fisher) that the “applicant is still amending their plans in order to comply with the form-based controls of the ARP. The three storey townhouses adjacent to the lane may also be altered on their next submission”.
This was a similar message that I received from Jonathan Allen.
I would expect that changes to the proposed site plans will be welcomed by some / most members of the affected community.
I want to make sure that there is still an adequate opportunity for the affected residents / community to:
1. Be able to receive and review plans upon which a decision will be rendered
2. Have meaningful input into the decision prior to it being rendered
Please keep us in the loop on the current status of the application.
I also noticed that a sales centre trailer has been placed on the development site. There is no development permit info noted on the City’s “My Property” page for a “temporary residential sales centre” (TRSC) for the 90 Mission Road SW address.
A TRSC is a discretionary use in DC bylaw 6D2012 and in the M-H1 land use district, requiring a DP.
Can you help me out with how this TRSC may have been approved?
As you know, this site is being closely monitored. I wanted to send you an inquiry as soon as possible so that I can be ready with a response should I too receive queries from the community about the TRSC.
Christopher S. Davis
——[Letter from Bill Gagnon to Mayor Nenshi and ECA Planning, sent July 26, 2013]
Feedback from the community based on a presentation and materials given by the developer on Tuesday, May 14, 2013 is available here.
——[originally sent May 31, 2013 as forward from ECA Planning to Erlton Community Members distribution list. Original from Jonathan Allen to ECA Planning]
I thought I would confirm that the city has sent out the next round of DTRs to us this week which will require further revision and resubmission by our team, so there is no imminent decision from the city at this juncture. Over the next couple of weeks we will be working to address the by-law discrepancies which were identified, together with continued work on the townhomes, landscape plan and other areas of concern. Over the course of your engagement and interaction with your communities, any further constructive input would be welcome and we will do our utmost to incorporate same into the revised plans. We are aiming to resubmit within the next couple of weeks and look forward to an approval from the city in due course thereafter. As always, we remain receptive to both direct and indirect feedback from both communities’ constituents.
Jonathan K. Allen, MBA, CIM
President, Calgary Urban Equities
—————-[originally sent May 22, 2013 from ECA Planning to Erlton Community Members distribution list]
Mission Road Development
Please take the time to review the below summary from the May 14 developer presentation and provide us with your thoughts (instructions below).
The May 14th presentation was well attended. The images and designs shown in the presentation were renderings and not building plans. The developer was asked to release their plans and did so. We’ve posted them on our community website (see links below).
Concerns were raised regarding density, general questions around design, concerns that parking would be insufficient, and more.
The most contentious item continued to be the height of the five townhouses fronting the lane (see page 15 of the plans, DP303 shows the elevation view).
Background Regarding Townhouse Height
The Mission Road Charrette developed a collaborative vision that resulted from input from developers, property owners, residents, various City planning departments, and some world class urban designers.
Early on in the process, everyone recognised that any high density development would have a large impact on the single family homes across the lane on 34th Avenue. To mitigate this, and respect the neighbouring homes, the height of any building abutting the lane was restricted to one storey above the lane – to match the height of the existing garages across the lane. (see the various Charette presentation documents in the link)
The City took the charrette vision and used it to amend the Parkhill/Stanley Park Area Redevelopment Plan (reference below). In it, the one storey above-grade guidance from the charrette morphed into two stories above grade for the for any building abutting the lane (see page 24 of ARP).
The developer’s permit application calls for townhouses that are three stories above lane grade and have balconies overlooking the homes and rear yards on 34 Avenue.
What do you think? What does Erlton think?
Please Provide Your Comments – Instructions
We’d like your feedback in order to ensure resident views are heard. Please share your thoughts and opinions with us.
- Use the subject line Mission Road in your response
- Send your email to firstname.lastname@example.org with a CC: to Alderman Carra (email@example.com) and Lindsey Glover (firstname.lastname@example.org). Lindsey is the City’s planning file manger and will make the final decision on this permit.
- Aerial view of development and surrounding area
- Current version of developer plans
- Developer presentation
- Mission Road Charrette documents and other information
- Parkhill/Stanley Park Area Redevelopment Plan
—————-[originally sent May 2, 2013 by Jonathan Allen of Calgary Urban Equities (developer). Note: contact details have been removed -ed.]
Bill [Fischer -ECA Planning -ed],
Thank you for making time for discussion this afternoon; I attach (link) a current elevation of the revised project plan (facing Mission Road) which we are preparing to present at your upcoming community meeting on May 14th. Based on the feedback from both communities as well as the city, the key aspects of the redesign are:
- The total number of residential units has been reduced to 47 and feature a balance of unit sizes including 1 bdrm, 1bdrm + den, 2 bdrm, 2bdrm +den.
- The main entrance to the primary building remains on 34th Ave. as it is the ‘friendlier’ location than on Mission Road, however 18 of the 47 residential units have alternate individual entries to their homes, since the slope adaptive design, the internal courtyard and the lane homes support better integration with the streetscapes than is typical for a low-rise condominium building.
- We have included a 1750 sf of commercial space on the corner of the main building (as envisioned in the charette), and provided for the balance of the main floor to be converted to commercial in the future should the need arise. In the interim though, the balance of the main floor facing Mission Road will be residential (with a loft area given the higher ceilings) featuring front door access from Mission Road.
- We have provided for angled parking along Mission Road to meet the commercial parking requirements. This is consistent with the ARP and charette plan and supported by the City transportation department. It is expected to dramatically reduce the need for motorists to park temporarily on 34th Ave. to access the commercial.
- We have retained the 5 townhomes along the alley – they are an important part of the development mix to attract families, couples and singles to the community – however we will ask the city to allow us to set them 1.2 metres back from the property line to reduce any perceived imposition on the neighbours to the north across the alley. We have also included additional design and landscaping elements to enhance their curb appeal. The townhomes remain at 2 stories above the garage level, however the top level is a half storey that is oriented away from the alley and overlooking the development’s internal courtyard. The internal courtyard will have a pedestrian access from 34th Ave. and provides front door access to the townhomes, rather than from the alley.
- We have moved the Mission Road parkade access back to the SE corner of the building so that it is not in a terminal vista from Parkhill Street and the driveway access can be shared with future development on the adjacent property to reduce the overall number of drive access points on Mission Road.
- The 2nd parkade entrance on 34th Ave. remains as this is integral to the slope-adaptive design which the site requires as well as the overall feasibility of the project. For the benefit of residents of 34th Ave. though, the parkade apron angles up from the street, not down, meaning that vehicle headlights exiting the parkade will sweep down toward the street rather than up toward the windows of homes across the street. The 2-parkade design balances the traffic very effectively between Mission Road and 34th Ave., and the majority of stalls (including all visitor parking) is contained in the parkade accessed from Mission Road.
- The overall design of the building features a variety of materials and complimentary colours including 2 different Hardie board profiles, stone cladding, wood accents and balconies featuring glass panels rather than spindles. This is not a low-spec building. It features progressive materials and design which respects the diversity of architecture in both Erlton and Parkhill and is expected to be highly attractive to a range of individuals, couples and families who prefer an urban community like this.
We appreciate the initiative your community association has taken to inform the Erlton community of this development and encourage their attendance at our upcoming presentation. Alderman Carra is supportive of the redesign and has confirmed his plans to attend. Please feel free to forward this email directly to your community, post it on your website or include excerpts in any further reminders you may send out between now and the meeting on the 14th. We look forward to seeing you there!
Jonathan K. Allen, MBA, CIM
511 – 30 Avenue S.W.
Calgary, Alberta T2S 0P4
—————-[originally sent Mar 12, 2013 re: secondary building being 3 storeys from ECA Planning to Alderman Carra]
As we discussed at this evening’s community meeting, the 3-storey secondary building height does not comply with the Parkhill ARP. These recent amendments to their ARP were the direct result of the Mission Road Charrette, and are both current and reflective of the extensive neighbour and community input.
For the specific reference, see page 14 here:
—————-[originally sent March 7, 2013]
I just returned from a meeting with Ron Oates and Greg Hay of Parkhill planning, Jonathan Allen, the project developer, and Alderman Carra.
There will be a redesign to now include a commercial element on Mission Road. The 3-storey townhouses, along with the main pedestrian entrance and garage entrance off of 34th Avenue remain as is. Alderman Carra supports their retention. I believe we’ll have an opportunity to review the new plans, but I don’t know if the development will again be notice posted to allow for another formal comment.
Thank you all for your comments on the original design, and particularly to Lorna Jamison, who put a massive amount of work into ensuring her neighbours had the opportunity to understand the issues and provide their comments.
More to follow as things progress.
Chairman, Erlton Community Association,
Planning and Development Committee
65 – 31 Ave SW, Calgary T2S 2Y7
—————-[originally sent February 19, 2013 by Joanne Hruska]
We have written the attached letter to voice strong concerns regarding the plans laid out in the DP2012-5065@ 90, 94, 98 Mission Road SW (2 buildings, 48 units).
Remax Mountain View
Attached is the Erlton Community Association’s comment on this development permit application. Two other attachments reflect comments from nearby residents.
Chairman, Erlton Community Association,
Planning and Development Committee
65 – 31 Ave SW, Calgary T2S 2Y7
——————-[originally sent January 29, 2013]
I received this development permit application for a discretionary multi-residential development yesterday.
The development is in Parkhill, immediately across 34th Avenue, which is the dividing line between Erlton and Parkhill. The development is essentially a 43 unit apartment building wrapping along Mission Road and 34th Avenue, plus a 5 unit townhouse complex backing onto the lane between Mission Road and 34th Avenue. The apartment building is four stories above grade at Mission Road – five if you include the elevator/mechanical shaft. Underground parking entrances are provided on both Mission Road and 34th Avenue. The townhouses are three stories above the lane grade, overlooking the single family homes across the lane in Parkhill, on 34th Avenue, with individual attached garages accessed from the lane.
Attached is a PDF of the Development Authority’s review of the application and plans. You’ll note that no visitor parking or loading stalls are provided.
You can put DP2012-5065 on the subject line of an email and submit your comments directly to all of the following addresses:
email@example.com — Planning File Manager (403-268-2470)
firstname.lastname@example.org — Erlton Community Association
email@example.com — Our Alderman
firstname.lastname@example.org — City circulation management system
The deadline for comment is February 12th, 2013 – although our planning committee has asked for and received an extension to February 19th, due to the delay in receiving the comment package from the City.
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 or other contact information. With that in mind, our community’s distribution list for this portion of 34th Avenue includes email addresses for a few residents on the South side of 34th Avenue in Parkhill – since they are affected by what occurs in our community. Those residents will no doubt receive a similar email from the Parkhill /Stanley Park Community Association.
The complete set of plans is available for your review. Please contact me if you want to see them, and do not hesitate to call or email should you have any concerns or require further information.
THIS IS MY PERSONAL OPINION: I spent dozens of hours participating in the Mission Road Charrette, and developing community comments for the Development Authority and City Council. I saw nothing like this as the outcome of those processes, and see nothing Main Street or innovative about this development. Since the Development Authority has reviewed this application and essentially finds it without fault except for parking, I feel grossly deceived by all the processes I participated in. If this had been used as a typical example of what would be built – at the Charrette – I firmly believe there would have been a public outcry and definitely no support for it. The townhouses overlooking and shadowing the single family homes on 34th Avenue in Parkhill are particularly egregious, and the 34th Avenue parking ramp will result in headlights sweeping across the front of the single family homes on 34th Avenue in Erlton – all this affecting the use and enjoyment of the properties.
Chairman, Erlton Community Association
Planning and Development Committee
65 – 31 Avenue SW, Calgary, Alberta T2S 2Y7