2 December 2011 The City of Calgary Land Use Amendment Services Land Use Planning & Policy (email delivery:
[email protected], and noted cc) Attn: Mr. Martin Beck, Planner Re: Land Use Redesignation Application LOC2011‐0046 8324‐840Memorial Drive NW, Calgary Hillhurst‐Sunnyside Community Planning Committee Summary Review Dear Mr. Beck, On behalf of the Hillhurst‐Sunnyside Community Planning Committee (CPC), I would like to offer you the following summary of the CPC review of the above‐mentioned application. The CPC held a public meeting to review the application on 8 August 2011, and sent a review letter of that meeting on 17 August 2011. Subsequently, The City provided us with a response letter on 17 October 2011. In our previous correspondence (date 17 August 2011 and enclosed here‐in), we stated: CPC's perspective is that a discussion over the merit of the land use redesignation proposal cannot fundamentally be considered, if there is not also a concurrent application for amendment to ARP policies and/or TOD area boundaries to include the site or block. As proposed, the CPC considers this application spot rezoning that ignores established local redevelopment policy, and could therefore create a problematic development precedent if approved. Also, a proposal for amendment to the ARP policies or TOD boundaries is challenging, where a precedent of TOD boundary creep could be perceived as a threat to the lower‐density lower‐rise areas of the established community. However, as this application is now under formal consideration by The City, the CPC strongly encourages a concurrent application for ARP amendment be crafted for Council's consideration. The City should establish a clear process that considers the context of the application, and how a comprehensive amendment to ARP policy can be considered to guide the future redevelopment of this site, and other local sites which exhibit a definable set of similar characters. Such a process is sound development‐community planning in our opinion. This process should include a genuine consultation effort with the community.
1320 – 5 Ave NW, Calgary, Alberta T2N 0S2 Ph: 403‐ 283‐0554 Fax: 403‐ 270‐3130, www.hillhurstsunnyside.org
1
In short, our letter asked that if The City were to consider this application two Outcomes should be strongly considered: 1) A concurrent amendment to the ARP that thoughtfully rationalized the land use redesignation application and avoided a ‘spot‐rezoning’ scenario; and, 2) The creation and implementation of a genuine public consultation process through which this type of proposed ‘major’ amendment, and others like it in the future, could be property considered by the public and where opportunity for public input could be provided. The City letter, dated 17 October 2011 (enclosed), has offered consideration of Outcome 1, where it acknowledges that the land use redesignation application is not in keeping with the existing polices of the ARP (Part I). The City proposes amendments to the ARP (Part I) through text policies of Section 2.3.3, which would enable the land use redesignation for this site to be considered by Council. Regarding these proposed amendments, we offer the following comments: a) We agree with removing Land Use Bylaw District‐oriented references that are no longer statutory Bylaw; b) Without further description, we disagree with the use of jargon like ‘ intensification’ and ‘built‐form’, where they are not plain language, subjective, and not defined within the ARP; c) We think a defined set of design guidelines, like the detailed and thoughtful guidelines contained in the ARP (Part II – TOD), should be employed to actually describe intent, where leaving it to a contextual interpretation is problematic and, in our experience, leads to subjective interpretation by both landowner‐developers and The City Development Authority; and, d) We are concerned that no rationale is offered for why proposed amendments would extend this new re‐development policy area beyond this immediate block and include all blocks between 9th Street and 5A Street NW. The last point from the above list speaks to our concerns with The City’s consideration of Outcome 2. We do not consider the implications of this application and the proposed amendments as ‘minor’, but rather ‘major’, where it impacts multiple blocks and changes guiding land use polices in a significant way. The lack of a clear planning rationale informing the scope of this amendment area is of significant concern to the CPC. Without a genuine public consultation process, support for and/or scope of any amendment area cannot be established. Immediately impacted landowners, and the wider community, should be consulted if The City is to contemplate changes to the ARP policies that have multi‐block land use policy impacts. The CPC strongly encourages the use of such a process as a standard for good community planning, because of the negative precedent it sets otherwise. This proposed piecemeal amendment process,
1320 – 5 Ave NW, Calgary, Alberta T2N 0S2 Ph: 403‐ 283‐0554 Fax: 403‐ 270‐3130, www.hillhurstsunnyside.org
2
as a negative precedent, in itself makes these amendments ‘major’ rather than ‘minor’ in nature. The CPC is deeply concerned that such an amendment and the process to guide its formulation should not be a reactionary response by The City contemplated in isolation (regardless of the merit of any single application). The CPC is not concerned with the merit of this single application, but the implications the lack of a consultation process will have on the integrity of the ARP through piecemeal amendments, especially as development pressure (particularly in the ARP Part I area) continues. The residents of Hillhurst‐Sunnyside recently experienced a long and arduous process to amend the ARP and introduce the TOD Part II policies. Beyond the area boundaries defined for Part II, The City had no interest in reviewing the area policies for Part I, where those established areas were to redevelop under existing Part I policies. The CPC finds it highly problematic that the community may now encounter a wave of piecemeal application‐driven amendments to the ARP Part I area, and with no consultation mechanisms in place. Thank you for time and consideration. Please contact the undersigned should you wish to discuss this letter review and/or additional consultation steps. Sincerely,
David White, Chairperson Community Planning Committee Hillhurst‐Sunnyside Community Association Cc: Alderman Druh Farrell, Ward 7 Office
Ms. Carol Armes, Executive Assistant, Ward7 Office Mr. Steve Jones, Established Community Planning, The City of Calgary Executive Director, Hillhurst‐Sunnyside Community Association Members, Hillhurst‐Sunnyside Community Planning Committee Mr. Morley Winnick, Landowner‐Applicant Mr. Barrie Stephens, Agent‐Architect for Landowner‐Applicant
Enclosure.
1320 – 5 Ave NW, Calgary, Alberta T2N 0S2 Ph: 403‐ 283‐0554 Fax: 403‐ 270‐3130, www.hillhurstsunnyside.org
3
The City of Calgary Land Use Amendment Planning & Policy Email Delivery:
[email protected]
August 17, 2011
Attn:
Mr. Martin Beck, Planner
Re:
Land Use Redesignation Application (LOC20110-0046) or Lands Legally Described as: 834-840 Memorial Drive NW Summary of Preliminary Public Review Meeting (August 8, 2011) Hillhurst-Sunnyside Community Planning Committee
Dear Mr. Beck,
On behalf of the Hillhurst-Sunnyside Community Planning Committee (CPC), I would like to thank you and your colleagues for participating in a public meeting held on 8 August 2011 regarding the land use redesignation application above-mentioned address. The CPC always appreciates meeting with both The City and landowner-applicants at the early stages of an application, particularly given that this proposal is representative of a major local redevelopment proposal that has policy implications that could influence the larger community. The most successful and best examples of redevelopment projects within our community are a product of early and earnest consultation with the community. As a committee representing the will of residents, the HSCA Community Planning Committee cannot support the application as it contradicts policy established during the updating of the Hillhurst Sunnyside Area Redevelopment Plan which was completed just 3 years ago. At that time the City deemed that it was not necessary to change some parts of the ARP – those parts relating to areas outside the now established TOD including this particular block along Memorial Drive. The use of spot DC re-zoning has historically been opposed by both community and planning department. It should be noted that significant numbers of long time residents (of Sunnyside in particular) were opposed to the densities now permitted under TOD guidelines. Those densities were grudgingly accepted as the price of protecting the core of low density residential zoning in Sunnyside. Some of those residents were present at the meeting and expressed willingness to oppose this application at all stages including at Council due to the increase in density; some are opposed as it represents ‘TOD creep’ into areas that were deliberately excluded from the mid-density zoning; and finally some are opposed to the application as it represents an inconsistency of process. The CPC sees merit in the developer-applicant's contextual analysis and the planning rationale informing the application. This block, and many of the blocks that front onto Memorial Drive NW in Hillhurst-Sunnyside, has unique characteristics, development context, and interface conditions that make this application rational. But, ultimately the vision is anchored in Part II:
1320 – 5 Ave NW, Calgary, Alberta T2N 0S2 Ph: 403-‐ 283-‐0554 Fax: 403-‐ 270-‐3130, www.hillhurstsunnyside.org 1
Transit-Oriented Development (TOD) of the Hillhurst-Sunnyside Area Redevelopment Plan (ARP), where the higher density and the general built-form reflects TOD allowances and guidelines. The key issue here is that application is outside of the TOD boundaries (specifically, they're immediately adjacent to, but outside of, the Medium-Density TOD Sub-Policy Area). In 2009, The City Council adopted the ARP TOD policy update and the ultimate TOD boundaries were not realized easily or quickly. CPC's perspective is that a discussion over the merit of the land use redesignation proposal cannot fundamentally be considered, if there is not also a concurrent application for amendment to ARP policies and/or TOD area boundaries to include the site or block. As proposed, the CPC considers this application spot rezoning that ignores established local redevelopment policy, and could therefore create a problematic development precedent if approved. Also, a proposal for amendment to the ARP policies or TOD boundaries is challenging, where a precedent of TOD boundary creep could be perceived as a threat to the lower-density lower-rise areas of the established community. However, as this application is now under formal consideration by The City, the CPC strongly encourages a concurrent application for ARP amendment be crafted for Council's consideration. The City should establish a clear process that considers the context of the application, and how a comprehensive amendment to ARP policy can be considered to guide the future redevelopment of this site, and other local sites which exhibit a definable set of similar characters. Such a process is sound development-community planning in our opinion. This process should include a genuine consultation effort with the community. Please contact the undersigned should you wish to discuss this letter review and/or additional consultation steps. Sincerely,
David White, Chairperson Community Planning Committee Hillhurst-Sunnyside Community Association Cc: Alderman Druh Farrell, Ward 7 Mr. Steve Jones, Established Community Planning, The City of Calgary Mr. Morley Winnick, Landowner-Applicant Mr. Barrie Stephens, Landowner-Applicant Agent-Architect
1320 – 5 Ave NW, Calgary, Alberta T2N 0S2 Ph: 403-‐ 283-‐0554 Fax: 403-‐ 270-‐3130, www.hillhurstsunnyside.org 2
2011 October 17 David White, Chairperson Community Planning Committee Hillhurst-Sunnyside Community Association RE: Land Use Redesignation Application LOC2011-0046 Dear Mr. White, Thank you for the comprehensive comments regarding the above land use application as well the valuable feedback from the HSCA meeting held on August 8, 2011. This letter is intended to provide a set of responses to a number of concerns raised by the HSCA letter. Notwithstanding the nature of any particular land use proposal, City Administration is obligated to review all applications submitted against applicable policies. Area Redevelopment Plans (ARP) in existence prior to approval of the Municipal Development Plan (MDP) are recognized by the MDP as policies providing specific direction relative to the local context. Future reviews of, and amendments to ARPs may be required to align with the policies of the MDP. As the subject lands are located outside of the TOD boundary established in Part II of the Hillhurst/Sunnyside ARP, the application has been reviewed against policies contained within the Part I of the ARP. Following the review of the relevant section of the ARP it has been determined the proposed application is not in keeping with the existing policies and a minor amendment to the ARP (Part I) would be required to accommodate the proposed land use application. Although the application would allow for a significant increase in density, the proposed land use district would allow for a built form consistent with the surrounding development characteristics and the established context along Memorial Drive rendering the proposed land use application as appropriate. Attached please find a draft amendment to the Part I of the ARP. The intent of this minor amendment is threefold: i) ii) iii)
ISC: PROTECTED
Align the relevant sections of the ARP with the MDP’s inner city area policies; Allow for future redevelopment opportunities compatible with the existing character of a specific area along Memorial Drive. Accommodate the proposed land use application.
Land Use Planning and Policy supports the proposed ARP amendments as they would entertain the proposed application, inform future applications in this particular area as well as address a number of concerns raised by the community. If you wish to discuss any of the above further, please do not hesitate to contact me. Kind regards,
Martin Beck Planner The City of Calgary Land Use Amendment Services, Land Use Planning & Policy T +1-403-268-5724 l F +1-403-268-3542 l E
[email protected]
ISC: PROTECTED
2.3 Policy
attractiveness/suitability for families with children.
2.3.1 Low Density Conservation
2.3.3 Medium Density
The conservation policy of the Inner City Plan is reaffirmed for large portions of the east and west ends of the community utilizing the R-2 designation. The intent of the conservation policy is to improve existing neighbourhood quality and character while permitting low profile infill development that is compatible with surrounding dwellings. Existing structures in good repair should be conserved, while structures in poor repair should be rehabilitated or replaced. New development or redevelopment should be designed in such a way as to be unintrusive and blend with the surrounding housing.
A medium density policy is proposed for parts of the community to encourage redevelopment with multi-unit types of development using the RM-4 and RM-5 designations. The application of this policy is restricted primarily to activity nodes (i.e., commercial areas) and along the N.W. LRT.
2.3.2 Low Density Multi-Unit A low density multi-unit policy utilizing the RM-2 designation is to be used in the large mid-portion of the Hillhurst/ Sunnyside area. Although a maximum of 75 units per ha (29 units per acre) are allowed, developments of a scale designed to resemble smaller projects are encouraged. Appropriate redevelopment would consist of single and two-family dwellings, and small multi-unit developments. The suitability of multi-unit projects would be measured by their physical blending with the surrounding houses and their
shown on Map 2.
2.3.6 Utility Upgrades
For properties fronting on Memorial Drive between 9th Street NW and 5A Street NW (Area 2 of Map 3) land use applications for intensification may be considered on parcel-by-parcel basis provided the proposed land use would allow for development of a built form that is consistent and compatible with the existing character of the area.
2.3.4 Escarpment No development is to be permitted within 400 feet from the top of the escarpment in the Sunnyside portion of the study area as shown in Map 2 unless otherwise approved by the City Engineer. .
2.3.5 Floodway and Floodplain Special Regulations The provisions of the Land Use By-law with respect to Floodway and Floodplain Special Regulations are to be adhered to for any new development in the areas
Utility upgrading and other public improvements may be required as redevelopment occurs and the costs associated with such upgrading shall be the responsibility of the developer in accordance with City policy.
1.
In Section 2.3 Policy, subsection 2.3.3 Medium Density within the first sentence delete the words “using the R-M4 and R-M5 designations” after the words “multiunit types of development.
2.
In Section 2.3 Policy, subsection 2.3.3 Medium Density within the second sentence add the word “primarily” after the words “policy is restricted” and delete the words “and along the N.W. LRT” after the words “(i.e. commercial areas)”.
3.
In Section 2.3 Policy, subsection 2.3.3 Medium Density add a third sentence “For properties fronting on Memorial Drive between 9th Street NW and 5A Street NW (Area 2 of Map 3) land use applications for intensification may be considered on parcel-by-parcel basis provided the proposed land use would allow for development of a built form that is consistent and compatible with the existing character of the area.”
