Calgary city councillors approved another Local Area Plan (LAP) Thursday and while it wasn’t without objection, some community members praised the city’s engagement.

The Chinook Communities LAP was approved 4-3 at the Feb. 27 Infrastructure and Planning Committee meeting, the fifth plan thus far in Calgary. Heritage, Westbrook, North Hill and East Calgary have all completed the LAP process.

This latest plan encompassing nine communities had many of the same hallmarks of the prior documents – light density along main corridors, heavier density around activity centres and LRT, and mixed-use applications.

One thing that made this area unique is that nearly half of the Chinook plan encompasses an industrial area. It could see a different transformation in the sense of adding some density to a rapidly changing area.

“The Manchester industrial community offers a unique locational advantage of being close to downtown, and has many commercial and industrial businesses,” said Manish Singh, senior planner with the City of Calgary and project lead for the Chinook Communities LAP.

“Over the past two years, we have explored the past, present and the future of the Chinook communities as the area changes over time. The proposed plan provides direction to guide future development proposals, investment and community improvements.”

City admin said they’d heard considerable feedback from area residents that they’d like to see further evolution of the Manchester area, particularly around transit stations and along Macleod Trail to include uses other than industrial. They said this plan identifies opportunities for “triple mix uses” bringing commercial, residential and light industrial to the area.

“All of the key moves for the plan aligned with the feedback received and the diverse needs of residents and businesses in the Chinook communities,” Singh said.

The Chinook area also covers the CF Chinook Centre area and the Britannia Plaza, adding additional complexity to the mix.

Feedback received and incorporated

City officials said that they worked with residents over two years, conductiing more than 1,200 direct engagements during four phases of public participation. They held 51 engagement events to encourage dialogue on the plan.

Ruth Melchoir, who represented the Park Hill Community Association, said residents in their area aren’t opposed to further densification. She noted that they were already zoned RC2. The evolution of their primarily bungalow-driven community started happening a quarter century ago.

She said one major drawback of the plan is the lack of clear, enforceable language; there are too many ‘shoulds’ and not enough ‘musts.’ Melchoir also pinpointed specific areas where there should be a more reasonable cap on height to fit with the areas context, and three streets that should be labelled as Neighbourhood Local (light density) instead of connector (with higher density).

“While the LAP contains some positive elements, the Park Hill Community Association cannot support the plan in its current form,” Melchoir said.  

“We urge the IPC to not recommend it for approval until our specific concerns, especially those regarding enforceable language, tree preservation, appropriate building scale and firm commitments to public space improvements, are addressed.”

Mike Reed, director of planning and development for the community of Britannia, said that they’ve actively participated in the planning for the past two years. They, too, appreciated the engagement with city planning officials.

Reed said, however, that they wanted more predictability in the lower-density Neighbourhood Local areas. He noted that newer communities have a very predictable buildout, so people know where certain developments will go.

“We need a plan, not a range in characterization. This ambiguity will result in haphazard, random, unplanned, uncoordinated infill projects. There will be no certainty or predictability,” he said.  

“Residents will never know when or what type of multi-residential building could be built on the lot next door or on an amalgamation of lots.”

Ward 3 Coun. Jasmine Mian quizzed Reed on this, noting that citywide rezoning created the base zoning rules (RCG), and that the difference between established and new communities was the latter is master planned. This allows for planning specificity, she said.

Process is improving, says Coun. Sharp

Amendments are expected on the plan, which will come back to a public hearing meeting of Calgary city council in April.

Ward 1 Coun. Sonya Sharp, chair of the IPC, voted against the plan, but said that with amendments it could be something she supports. She’ll talk with the area councillor (who wasn’t able to attend Thursday’s meeting) and with Coun. Andre Chabot about tweaks that could be made to garner enough support at a full meeting of council.

Still, Coun. Sharp said improvements in the process and how engagement is being done have improved.

“It was nice to hear that the community appreciated some of the feedback that administration had for them, and that administration appreciated the feedback they had,” Sharp said.

“Are we going to be perfect on these? No, because nothing’s ever perfect. But it was nice to hear that there were some positives to this one.”

It’s evolved from the local area planning process where citizens and community associations were getting used to the planning vernacular included in the guide for local area planning. Sharp said that how they’re delivering the information to communities in these planning documents is also much different. That’s helped the communication.

“In those first 20 pages, you will see a big difference when people come in to speak to these items,” Sharp said.

“When you leave that important stuff to the end, you’ve lost them. So, that was feedback that was given to us from the community. We brought it forward to administration, and I’m happy to see that they listened to that.”