The below message was sent to the City of Calgary planning officials overseeing LOC2023-0359 (and related applications) related to the Viscount Bennett Redevelopment applications made by Minto.
It is becoming tiresome to keep saying the same things and asking the same questions and not getting any response from the city planning team
We were in a process of responding to Minto's second land use application which included a meeting with the city planning team on August 27. Only 3 items were discussed at that meeting.
When we left, there were more questions on what was discussed that remain to be properly answered. And a list of other items that we thought we would discuss at future meetings.
A couple of weeks later, we were informed that Minto had submitted a third application.
We're troubled and confused as to why the city would accept yet another application from Minto when there are so many unanswered and outstanding items from the second application.
This project needs to be properly reviewed along with rationale and justification being used by the city to eavaluate it.
Some of the key items that are problematic include:
1. Engagement- lack of proper and meaningful engagement
2. Process- in a word, woeful in terms of timing, dates, distribution and content of information, etc.
3. Density/land use designations- inapproprite land use and densities that are far too high given the location and site attributes- see MDP 30 to 50 UPA is what should be considered
4, Green space- quantity and location Poor rationale for what Minto is proposing and not aligned with MDP requirements
5. City response and requirements to application 2 are not being met by Minto
6. choice to use subdivision process is not a rationale to ignore MDP requirements.
7. Infrastructure- water and roads in particular. Inadequate analysis on behalf of the city- where's the data
8. Population info- needs to be a much better analysis of curent population and projections in the impacted area
As stated earlier, we have many reasonable and legitimate questions that are not being properly answered.
We have included our 2 submissions to application 2 because they are still relevant.
There needs to be proper engagement and discussion before this project proceeds to CPC.
Yours truly,
Kevin Widemaier. President Richmond Knobhill Community Association
Phil Harding Director, Viscount Bennett Richmond Knobhill Community Association
RKHCA Previous Responses
Comentários