Last week there was an invite from the developer, Keystone, to attend a meeting about this project. Likely this was done as a means of “ticking the box” of community and public engagement. I can tell you from attending, it was anything but. Look at the photo to see how wonderful the turn out was… our community cares!
Now, have a read of the minutes taken from the meeting. You will quickly see the “smoke and mirrors” and understand why we have to keep speaking up, spreading the word, and fighting for RESPECTFUL densification.
This could be YOUR neighborhood next!
please continue to share and discuss!
——————
Public Information Meeting for Land Use Redesignation of 956 Radnor Ave NE
Location: The Wild Rose United Church at 1317 1st Street NW Calgary AB
Date: April 5, 2023
Invitation read:
“You and your neighbors are invited to attend an Information Discussion and presentation regarding the future development of 956 Radnor Ave NE. To be helf Wednesday April 5th from 7pm – 8:30pm at the Wild Rose United Church at 1317 1st Street, NW (lower level). The proposed development involves a Land Use Redesignation to Multi-Residential – (M-H1) to accommodate a 6-storey residential building. Coffee will be served, and we look forward to seeing and discussing the proposal with you in person. A summary document will be shared with the community within a few days following the meeting.
Sincerely, Keystone Architecture & Planning Ltd”
Speakers:
Chris – From United Church
Joel – From United Church
Martin – From Keystone
Bob – “Facilitator”
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Meeting Minutes
· Bob started by explaining the process of the evening, whereby the three speakers would give a presentation and get sent home while attendees met in small groups to discuss amongst themselves and then Bob would listen and take notes for the summary document to give to them and the United Church.
· Attendees voiced that their level of trust us low and specific recorded questions and answers included:
Q: “Why are we driving to a meeting that wasn’t in our community – is this true community engagement?”
A: [Bob] “that is a good question, thank you all for coming here”.
Q: “We have given up 1.5 hours, which is a lot to give up, for you to tell us your pitch and leave so we can talk? We have already talked, we have engaged, what are people like yourselves doing with it?”
A: [Bob] “we will be giving it to the United Church”
Q: “Why are you giving the report to the united church only when we want to give it to the City since the City owns the property”
A: [Bob] “these people own the property
· Presentation began
Bob asked Chris M what “this proposal can offer to young kids”. Chris M responded, explaining he is “I am here with the United Church” and wants to continue to offer things like “campus ministry, small group ministry, mental health first aide” in Renfrew and so he hopes to see a “dynamic multipurpose space that includes housing so we can host programming for youth plus have housing”. He voiced “when I think about Renfrew, it’s brunch”.
Q: “Can you do this without the big six story structure”?
A: [Chris] “We would need about 1000 square feet of space”
Bob then turned to Martin, “Martin, as design guy how does the proposed development support his vision” to which Martin offered “what came from our zoom meeting was a question about how the church will still be represented, and this is the response we have”.
Q: “How does it address the the other things that were raised on the zoom meeting?”
A: NOT ANSWERED
Q: “Why not town homes?”
A: [Martin] “that decision was not made by us, it was made by the city”.
Q: “Your designs here are quite misleading as they are not using the current map with the North Hill Plan”.
A: [Martin] “well the city changes and updates things all the time, it’s hard to stay up to date”.
· Joel spoke “the land is set up under City Regulation to only be a church, and that is not sustainable. So that is why the church is doing this, it wants to stay engaged. We want to build something sustainable for our community in an economical way. Being frank, when grandma went to the retirement home and stopped donating to the offering plate and isn’t doing ham dinners, we have to think in a different way”.
Joel continued: “We know that there is housing that is suitable for the next generation in Renfrew, but it is not “affordable housing” and we want to build a way for housing and community engagement work.”
Joel stated “Listen, this is a Church owned property and we don’t have deep pockets, so what are my choices? I’ll be honest if we sell it, it will be worse for all of you, they will want more money, we have seen it before”
Q: “RC2 isn’t only for a church, that’s wrong”
A: [Joel] “We are told from the city what is allowed on the site, and part of this proposal is to remove the modifier on the site that says the ‘place of worship’”.
Q: “Can we not then remove that modifier without changing the RC2 designation to something else”
A: [Joel] “Good question, and I don’t know. Its more complicated that than. There are three levels of church size, place of worship small, place of worship medium and place of worship large, and then they overlap on certain areas like property tax”.
Q: “If we were to fight this on zoning, are you saying only a church can go here?”
A: [Joel] “yes, unless the zoning changes”.
· Bob then asked, “are there situations in Canada that this idea has worked?” and Joel responded by pointing to the map, not directly responding to the question, but alluded to examples in Canada such as in Port Moody, but not Alberta. He then voiced again that “ministries are funded on the backs of donations in the offering plate”
Q: “If there are other examples, can we learn from them? For instance, are you aware of the news piece out of BC which is where you are citing, that has looked at the impact of high density like you are proposing and they are saying there that “it is fine to say you want a lot more dwelling units, but do you have the sewers, pipes, water supply, everything it takes”, so I would ask the same of you. I can tell you from living nearby the infrastructure cannot handle what you are proposing, the alley way around the school is a mess, safety is concern with the congestion around the two schools as is, there old pips and flooding is the norm, not the exception. So what can we learn? Are there plans to look at flooding, drainage, road width, water table, shadowing, etc.?”
A: Joel and Martin looked at one another and shrugged and then
[Joel] “it is something we can look in to”
[Bob] “are you saying no more developments in your neighborhood at all then?”
[Room loudly voiced] “NOOOOO! That is not what we are saying at all”
Q: “We welcome mode developments but are saying individual projects need to contextually sensitive and respectful in densification, and consider the larger community as a whole and the cumulative densification and the impacts”.
A: [Bob] “I was there when this was happening in Inglewood and I can tell you what we have now is better than the hookers and winos that were there”.
Q: “Is there an example of a building of this size and type in Calgary?”
A: [Joel] “no, this is a first of its kind”.
· At this point, the crowd voiced that they came to get questions answered and have a conversation
Q: “the invitation from Keystone for tonight stated there would be discussion and a summary document and we have responded to that by showing up in a number that you acknowledged you did not expect, so we expect a discussion and that means addressing questions versus presenting and leaving”
A: [Joel] “I respond to all of my emails”
Q: “Well actually Joel, when you are asked questions by email you respond, but don’t respond to the question and tell us to talk to the community association”.
A: NO ANSWER
Q: “You need to remove the overlay to get to the development, but you are trying to do that without the flushed out development which is why you are getting anger from people. The format of questions may help to reduce some of that”.
A: [Joel] “well I am used to addressing angry groups so I will stay and take your questions.”
Q: “Okay then, and Bob, as you stated you would, when are you going to record this?”
A: [Bob] “I will only document this if it is our process. I am not a damn stenographer”.
· Martin then voiced “we want something in writing that is not from my zoom meeting” to which majority of the crowd voiced loudly “We have!!!”
Q: “We have written letters to the city, documented how we have engaged community members going door-to-door and having real meaningful engagement, spoke to Carra, and keep writing letters and asking questions, so why are we here if you are not documenting this? What is the purpose?”
A: [Martin] “Well the city dictated what the project is going to be”.
A: [Joel] “If you have a question you need to give it to the city”.
Despite saying to direct questions to the city, Martin also agreed to stay and answer questions and the following questions and answers came up:
Q: “If you need 1000 square feet for a church then why this 6-story? That is where the opposition is, this huge development.”
A: [Joel] “no we need 3000 square feet”
Q: “You don’t need a six-story building next to two schools – for instance there is something at one of the schools this evening and there is no parking”.
A: [Joel] “You’ll have plenty of time to voice your concerns at the development hearing”.
Q: “No, that is too late! This is the problem, it is this passing the buck, we go in circles. You say the city, and we do, you say we can be heard at the development hearing, but there Carra will say it is too late you had your chance. This isn’t real engagement, is it? We don’t really have a say, do we?”
A: [Joel] “that’s a question for the city then”.
Q: “There is a lot of misinformation and finger pointing. For instance, Carra is telling us that this is to bring in families, but you are telling us this is all one-unit rentals which are not geared for families, Carra is telling us it is for low-income, and you are saying it is not low-income. Is there a website or a place we can reference with correct information then?”
A: [Joel] “Sounds to me like this is the city that’s the problem, and the city can answer. We are saying it is not low income. We are the owners, and I can tell you it is not low income. We are planning what you see, this building type” (points to board).
Q: “We don’t want 6 stories, are you receptive to changing the building design to be complementary to the surrounding community?”
A: [Joel] “Then you have to talk to the city. The city is telling us what the zoning is allowing. I said that before to Global Media, and it is still true”.
Q: “But why six, why not three or four, have you considered other options?”
A: [Joel] “We have to maximize our profit. “
Q: “Do you have a business case to show why it only profitable at 6 stories?
A: [Joel] “We have done scenarios based on four and five stories, but we won’t share that information with you”.
Q: “What is your intent to change the use to small worship?”
A: [Joel] “To retain a space that you see in the drawings, for church purposes within the building”.
Q: “Why can’t you continue church purposes without the rezoning to six-stories?”
A: [Joel] “Because you will have a bare piece of land! It is about max value. We are trying to work in the city regulations. Listen, it will be worse for you if we sell”.
Q: “Could you do a land use and permit change that go together, make a plan that everyone can get onboard with?”
A: [Joel] “it’s possible, but we would have to pay our architect a lot of money that we don’t have”.
Q: “You need a zoning change, and you want a church there. None of us have issues with that. The issue is the six-story, you’ve put the cart before the horse. You paid the architect to make this design, so you want this six-story or are you open?
A: [Joel] “it has to work financially, otherwise we sell to the next highest bidder. We look at numbers and see what it decides”.
Q: “Okay so not what works for the community? It is about profit?”
A: [Joel] “The right way to handle this is to talk to the city”
Q: “But when you go to city, there is a request to permit, so did you go with that when you went to them with this?”
A: [Joel] “we go with what they, the city, recommends. But of course I also have a duty to our charitable doners to maximize the value for them”.
Q: “How many households do you forecast to use this church space?”
A: [Joel] “I would anticipate up to about 50 households”
� Person asking question followed up with “so 50 households out of 6000 in the community, do you have data regarding church locations, because clearly it is okay that the very church you are housing this meeting is in near enough for us to all come to”.
Q: “What are the next steps?”
A: [Joel] “The next steps are in the hands of the city – it is really the city and Councilor Carra, he is the one who asked us to be here”
Q: “When is the city hearing then? We are confused that we are spinning our wheels coming here with no follow up, no change, we want direct line with council to address our concerns and answer questions”.
A: [Joel] “We haven’t set it yet because we are still in this process which the city has required”.