Summary#

Council rejected Councillor Atkinson’s motion to approve a land-use change for 811 – 28 Street NW in Parkdale, Ward 7. The motion lost 4–10, so the property’s land-use district was not changed: it remains Residential – Grade-Oriented Infill (R-CG). City staff’s stated reason for recommending refusal was that the proposed Direct Control district did not fit the South Shaganappi Communities Local Area Plan.

• The motion would have changed the 0.06-hectare site from R-CG to a Direct Control district, with a minimum residential density and guidelines.
• The proposed district would have removed the ability to build single-detached, semi-detached and duplex homes there.
• Councillors Ward, Pantazopoulos, Jamieson, Clark, Kelly, Chabot, Wyness, Johnston and McLean, and Mayor Farkas, voted against the motion.

What it means for you#

• Nearby residents: The land-use change was rejected. The decision did not decide the separate development-permit appeal or the status of any private restrictive covenant.
• Property owner and developer: The site remains R-CG. City staff reported that a permit for a four-unit rowhouse, four secondary suites and a garage had been approved. A resident submission said an appeal of that permit was pending; this land-use vote did not decide that appeal.
• People concerned about the proposal: City staff received 38 submissions opposing it. Concerns raised included neighbourhood fit, density, parking, traffic, infrastructure, privacy and safety. One member of the public spoke at Council.

Money#

City staff reported no anticipated financial impact from the proposed land-use change; no cost estimate for Council’s decision is provided.

• City staff also reported no anticipated economic impact.

What is unclear#

• No publicly available information in the supplied materials gives the exact minimum density or full rules proposed for the Direct Control district.
• The materials do not give the outcome of the development-permit appeal. A resident submission said the decision was pending.
• The vote did not resolve the private restrictive-covenant dispute raised in submissions.

Case for#

• A possible argument for the motion is that a minimum-density rule could require more housing on the site than lower-density options would provide.
• The site already had an approved permit for a four-unit rowhouse and four suites. The proposed district sought to support a minimum residential density, though the materials do not show that it was needed for that permit.

Case against#

• City staff said the proposal would rule out housing forms supported by the local area plan, while the existing R-CG district already allows the proposed built form.
• The Parkdale Community Association, Parkdale United Church and residents objected to using a custom district for this site. They raised concerns about neighbourhood fit and the effect on private restrictive covenants.
• Public submissions also raised concerns about parking, traffic, infrastructure capacity, privacy and pedestrian and cyclist safety.