Goes to Public Hearing September 13.
Metro 78 | 23m | 6s | Pinto Properties | Frank Hilbich
- Thread starter SRC Admin
- Start date
CplKlinger
Senior Member
northlands
Senior Member
I have never watched one of these before so I have no frame of reference, but from the little I watched, it was sure a prepared and coordinated motion of non-support by a lot of speakers (presenters?).
Canadian 001
Active Member
Wait so it flopped?
It was referred back to administration and will probably show up in a public hearing in December. The original referral motion (proposed by Janz) said the height should be reviewed, but thanks to an amendment from Knack that text was removed.
The proposal was delayed but it should come back almost completely unscathed, just a few minor adjustments.
The NIMBYs got to the mayor this time. Not surprising as this area is very well connected politically. The meeting running until 9:45 probably didn't help either haha.
Last edited:
Canadian 001
Active Member
Worst case scenario:
the developer completely gives up and the site is sold to Niche developments Cancelled after a year
Then sold to the City of edmonton
Greenspace
Senior Member
Sounds like with the height out of the question this should pass next time.
Marcolangzi
Active Member
The outcome of last night public hearing was frustrating to say the least.
It is troubling to hear that area redevelopment plans are covenants between the city and residents and therefore should not be changed, which would then be considered a break of trust.
It is troubling to hear that area redevelopment plans are covenants between the city and residents and therefore should not be changed, which would then be considered a break of trust.
Greenspace
Senior Member
I hear what residents are say and agree plans should mostly be followed, but there are lots of examples where Council votes in favour of a Direct Control in spite of the plans in place. This happens all the time in Downtown and Oliver for example. The property owner has the right to ask for this, whether out of desire or market conditions or influence or whatever. It is in Council's discretion whether or they agree this is best for the city or not.
Greenspace
Senior Member
For those interested, MGA 641(1) The council of a municipality that has adopted a municipal development plan, if it wishes to exercise particular control over the use and development of land or buildings within an area of the municipality, may in its land use bylaw designate that area as a direct control district."
EtoV
Active Member
Also, plans are published at a fixed point in time. Public Interests, Economic Conditions, Best practices etc. change over time, and the City needs to be able to adapt to these instead of making a new plan every year. Plans are also imperfect, any planner will admit that. The plans are a starting point, but need to be flexible if there is sufficient rationale to change it.
In every public hearing multiple bylaws are passed that amend Area Redevelopment Plans. For some reason though, this one should be treated as a covenant, even though the more recent City Plan contradicts it.
This debacle also demonstrates that Janz is completely spineless. He talks a big talk about sustainable development but folds like a wet noodle after any local pressure.
At least the mayor had the decency to make up a reasonable excuse (along the lines of "we have to bring the communities along or we'll lose their support").
My reading is that the mayor does support this development, but has to give the impression that he doesn't. Hence supporting the motion to refer this back to administration, but not fighting the amendment that took the teeth out of the motion to refer.
This debacle also demonstrates that Janz is completely spineless. He talks a big talk about sustainable development but folds like a wet noodle after any local pressure.
At least the mayor had the decency to make up a reasonable excuse (along the lines of "we have to bring the communities along or we'll lose their support").
My reading is that the mayor does support this development, but has to give the impression that he doesn't. Hence supporting the motion to refer this back to administration, but not fighting the amendment that took the teeth out of the motion to refer.
David A
Senior Member
The Councillor seems to like to grandstand and is divisive. The same characteristics I detest that have been adopted by some on the right, I equally dislike when used by the other side.
He seemed better on the school board, but being on council seems to have brought out his inner child. I hope he will grow up and learn to behave better soon.
He seemed better on the school board, but being on council seems to have brought out his inner child. I hope he will grow up and learn to behave better soon.
strata
Active Member
I only caught some of the comments after the public hearing, but Mayor Sohi kept referring to the existing ARP's as a "contract with residents" that needs to be upheld to keep trust. Wonder if that ever comes back the next time a proposal comes forward that aligns with City Plan but not the current version of the ARP for that community.
David A
Senior Member
To some degree I feel the mayor has a point in general - changing things or over riding what an area has agreed to in the past is not a good way to build trust or a relationship.
However, circumstances change over time. What if the ARP is very old or out of date? What if the change is not that significant? NIMBY's sometimes make a mountain out of a mole hill and get themselves all worked up about something more than the situation deserves.
In any event, surely there should be coordination between city and community plans. Planning is often the easy part, its getting people to go along with it that is the harder part and if you can't do that then the plan isn't worth much in the end.
However, circumstances change over time. What if the ARP is very old or out of date? What if the change is not that significant? NIMBY's sometimes make a mountain out of a mole hill and get themselves all worked up about something more than the situation deserves.
In any event, surely there should be coordination between city and community plans. Planning is often the easy part, its getting people to go along with it that is the harder part and if you can't do that then the plan isn't worth much in the end.