| Rob McKay, File Manager City of Calgary P.O. Box 2100, Stn M Calgary, AB T2P 2M5 By Email to: robert.mckay@calgary.ca |
|
| February 16, 2005 | |
| Dear Mr. McKay: RE: Development Proposal - Belvedere Ranches at Patterson; File #LOC2004-0113 |
|
| Outline Plan and Land Use Redesignation | |
| This response will formally document the OPPOSITION or OBJECTION of the Paskapoo Slopes Preservation Society ("PSPS") to the above proposal ("the Belvedere Plan"). | |
| Establishment of a Joint Advisory Committee | |
| When City Council approved the East Paskapoo Slopes Area Structure Plan (“the ASP”), it was with the clear understanding by Council, the City Planners and all the stakeholders involved in the ASP that all further levels of planning for the ASP area, would be undertaken with the continued involvement and consultation with the stakeholders through a joint advisory committee. | |
| The General Policies S.2.4 of the ASP in fact references the formation and mandate of a joint advisory committee “to address the concerns of the Coach Hill/Patterson Heights community and other groups involved in the preparation of this Plan”. It further states that "The main function of the committee is to establish a platform for informed discussions involving representatives from appropriate business units in Administration, community groups and the landowners." Also, "The committee will have access to the professional expertise and resources available within the Administration." | |
| It is therefore of great concern to us that the Belvedere Plan has been brought forward and circulated with no advisory committee being established and no consultation undertaken. In fact, if it had not been through notification of our group by a Patterson resident, we would not be aware of the Belvedere Plan since neither the applicant nor their consultant nor the City administration had provided us with any notification. Despite the 12 years of our Society's involvement on planning issues related to the Paskapoo Slopes, it appears that we still cannot rely on either the wording of the ASP or on the City administration to ensure an adequate consultation opportunity. | |
| ASP Exception #1 – There has been no Joint Advisory Committee (“the Committee”) formed to address the subdivision and land use for the lands included in the Belvedere Plan. We request that terms of reference be submitted to Council for the Committee so that the stakeholders involved in the ASP can adequately review and be informed on the Belvedere Plan and a report then prepared for Council based on that consultation process. | |
| Required Plans, Controls, Studies and Documentation | |
| The ASP requires additional detailed studies to support the outline plan and land use redesignation and some of these studies have been listed as having been submitted in the Belvedere Plan. However, as these have not been made available to us, we cannot determine whether they adequately address the issues and concerns that were intended to be addressed by the requirements in the ASP. | |
| Some key examples of specifics that appear not to have been addressed in these studies based on the wording in S.7.0 of the Belvedere Plan are as follows: | |
| Slope Stability and Geotechnical Evaluation – There was a requirement in S. 2.4(d) of the ASP that "The cumulative impact of development on soil stability shall be taken into consideration. A peer review by an independent consultant shall also be undertaken." There is no indication that the study submitted met either of these two requirements. There have been a number of examples of structural failures due to ground water and unstable soil conditions in this area and the City should be very cautious in approving further development in this area because of the potential risk to residents and liability to taxpayers | |
| Environmental Site Assessment – There was a former dump site that was upslope and in nearby proximity to the Belvedere Plan area that was recently excavated for clean-up. The report and information pertaining to the dump site may be relevant to the suitability of this area for a housing development. | |
| Biophysical Impact Assessment – There is no indication of the natural vegetation or habitat types that will be lost through the proposed development or mitigation measures that should be undertaken during construction or subsequent rehabilitation of disturbed areas. There is nothing to indicate that this development will be undertaken in a manner that is consistent with the ASP policies and the environmental sensitivity and significance of the area. | |
| Hydrological Study – There is no indication of a hydrological study to consider the existing drainage pattern and ground-water levels and the potential impact of the development on the ecological quality of the natural areas downslope of the development. This is a requirement under Section 2.6(l) of the ASP. | |
| Development Guidelines – There are no provisions in the Belvedere Plan to show compliance with the Development Guidelines in Section 2.7 of the ASP. | |
| Concept Plan and Architectural Controls – The ASP requires a Concept Plan and Architectural Controls (Sections 2.8 and 2.9). This includes “A plan indicating the physical layout of the proposed development in terms of building mass and envelope relative to the topography of the site and its surroundings. This plan must include sufficient area (beyond the site boundaries) to ensure compatibility with planning for the surrounding lands.” No such plan has been included with the Belvedere Plan and in particular to show compatibility with undeveloped lands to the west and north of the site. | |
| The Concept Plan is also includes the following requirement | |
| “b) Computer-generated perspectives, based upon accurate information regarding site topography and its natural features, physical layout of the proposed development and likely architectural massing of buildings will be needed to demonstrate what the development would (look – sic) like from important travel corridors and vantage points.” | |
| This has not been provided and would be particularly important to residents of the surrounding lands and to potential residents in the adjacent undeveloped downslope area if it is developed. | |
| “Site Grading” was very carefully considered and addressed in the Architectural Controls section of the ASP for a variety of important reasons. These requirements have not been satisfied by the Belvedere Plan. An important specific example is “Site slopes should be absorbed within the building massing, as is the case with slope-adaptive housing, …”. | |
| There are numerous other requirements under the Concept Plan and Architectural Controls sections that have not been satisfied by the Belvedere Plan (too numerous to list but a simple reading of the ASP makes them self-evident). | |
| ASP Exception #2 – The Belvedere Plan is grossly deficient in satisfying the requirements of the ASP in respect to Plans, Controls, Studies and Documentation. | |
| Density | |
| We have noted that the proposed development indicates a density of 15 units whereas the ASP had indicated a base potential of 7-10 units depending on the amount of ER. The “Land Use” section of the ASP provided an incentive “to encourage high quality design and sensitivity to the natural setting. In the fringe areas (which includes the Belvedere area), density can be increased an additional 1.25 units per hectare in accordance with the criteria established in the policies, development guidelines and architectural controls stated in this Plan.” This bonus density of .5 units per acre a development proposal that demonstrates "exceptional sensitivity to the environment" must satisfy the criteria set in the ASP – most of which the applicant has not even addressed in the Belvedere Plan. “Exceptional Sensitivity” must be judged by the criteria set out in the ASP and be exceptional in relation to a 1 unit per acre density not by the criteria of a standard density development in a less sensitive location. | |
| Despite grades of 25% on some of the lands, the applicant maintains that there is no ER on any of the subject lands (other than what is described as "voluntary ER" which does not affect the density calculation). If there is any true ER, it would not be included in any density calculations, whether for the standard density or any potential bonus density and therefore would reduce the actual allowable number of units for the area. This lack of any true ER on the subject lands is inconsistent with the determination of ER on other equivalent areas of the Paskapoo Slopes and warrants further detailed study and examination. | |
| ASP Exception #3 – The density of 1.5 units per acre and 15 units on 10 acres is not supported by the ASP and the information submitted with the proposed Belvedere Plan. | |
| Pathway Proposal & Emergency Access | |
| The Belvedere Plan acknowledges that the cul-de-sac length exceeds the maximum allowable by the City without an emergency access. The developer suggests that a proposed paved local pathway should be wider than the standard 2.5 meters and that it be used as an emergency access. The alignment of the pathway does not appear to provide a reasonable emergency access since it still comes off the main access road close to the exit of the cul-de-sac and at a point where the grade is still shown as 10%. The local pathway grade is not provided and the proposal to use the bike path for emergency access does not take into account that the path won't be cleared of snow and ice in the winter. It is quite likely that winter road conditions will make it difficult for emergency vehicles to access the area. The main access road will be at a 10% grade and would also likely pose and access problem for emergency vehicles. | |
| In addition the proposal for a wider paved pathway is not consistent with the ASP which states in Section 2.6 (t): | |
| “The pathway and trail system for East Paskapoo Slopes is shown conceptually in Map 2. This system will provide access to the natural amenities of the site. The ecological sensitivity of the surrounding lands shall be a major factor in determining the design standard and choice of construction materials and methods, providing access to the appropriate user groups.” | |
| We submit that the pathway is not appropriately situated, should not be paved and if constructed should be for pedestrian use and not designed for an emergency access. | |
| The Belvedere Plan could instead be designed in a manner that is compliant with the City requirements by shortening the cul-de-sac. | |
| ASP Exception #4 – The proposed design and use of the pathway is inconsistent with the ASP. | |
| Conclusion | |
| The Belvedere Plan has major deficiencies in respect to the statutory requirements of the ASP. | |
| We expect that the applicant will be advised that these deficiencies must be addressed before it can be supported by City Administration and that City Administration will work with the applicant and the stakeholders towards addressing the ASP exceptions which we have outlined above. We look forward to being actively involved and consulted in the future in respect to this planning process. I can be reached during the day at 298-6501 if you have any questions concerning the points raised. | |
Sincerely, CC: Evelyn Serbout, Subdivision Secretary, Development and Building Approvals #8106 Alderman Craig Burrows Alderman Dale Hodges Heather Galbraith, Federation of Calgary Communities Brenton Toderian, Chief Subdivision Planner Emile Takla, Planning Doug Marter, Parks Peter Ziriada, Parks |
|
