Now the status is Refused - looks to be fully dead.
West Nineteenth | 24m | 6s | EC Living | Casola Koppe
- Thread starter Surrealplaces
- Start date
Aardappel
New Member
So a new development on a small but burgeoning retail corridor within the inner city, with an already approved DP, in an area where mid-rises, including the relatively tall and bulky frontier development by Truman gets completely shitcanned due to NIMBY nonsense? Beyond shooting down rezoning, this council/municipal government might be veering towards a general stance against all kinds of development, even when it makes sense.
This fucking sucks.
It was approved by CPC, and it fits the developments of the area. I wonder why it was refused? It doesn't make sense.
manshakesfistatcloud
New Member
This development made complete sense. I liked the design and it further improved 19 st. Sad.
Albertasaurus
Senior Member
I am guessing it was appealed at SDAB, and the appeal was upheld? Not sure what grounds the appeal was on although "traffic/parking" is an angle that has seen some success ar SDAB. If CPC approves a DP, then its basically an approved project and the only way for that approval to be overturned is through the appeal process.
Disappointing, regardless.
Tarsus
Active Member
The only reason I can think of is this proposal being six stories compared to the five story one next-door. Also a bigger footprint than the one next-door.
The problem with SDAB is they have guidelines to follow and can reject something on a technicality without looking at the whole picture, whereas council or CPC can at least look at the whole picture and make a judgement. Too bad there isn’t a way where council can overturn the SDAB
The problem with SDAB is they have guidelines to follow and can reject something on a technicality without looking at the whole picture, whereas council or CPC can at least look at the whole picture and make a judgement. Too bad there isn’t a way where council can overturn the SDAB
I'm not an expert at the SDAB function, maybe someone here can shed more light but my understanding is if something is outside of a regulation they'll deny it.
Robo
New Member
That’s unfortunate. Maybe the developer can go back to the original design and put in 3 smaller buildings instead of one big one.
trtcttc
Senior Member
It was approved by the city and both the city and the developer argued for the development at SDAB. The issue for this one wasn't the parking or traffic but mostly related to the setback and transition from the front to the rear of he parcel. The two Truman developments both transition to match the adjacent property. A development isn't automatically refused just because it has relaxations from bylaws, but in this case, there were more relaxations found in the appeal process than in the original approval. Essentially, the additional relaxations were never reviewed because both the City and the developer didn't consider them.
I think the SDAB serves an important function, similar to courts. We wouldn't want to bring criminal cases to the legislature and expect elected leaders to vote on the outcome, or have the ability to overrule the outcome. SDAB reviews cases against the bylaws, and they're not automatically rejected because it violates a single bylaw. It's not a perfect system but we shouldn't be removing it either.
I think the SDAB serves an important function, similar to courts. We wouldn't want to bring criminal cases to the legislature and expect elected leaders to vote on the outcome, or have the ability to overrule the outcome. SDAB reviews cases against the bylaws, and they're not automatically rejected because it violates a single bylaw. It's not a perfect system but we shouldn't be removing it either.
Calgcouver
Senior Member
Literally fits the LAP height, maybe we just need a functioning Land Use Bylaw so this can be approveable.
So dumb
Last edited: