Subdivision and
Development Appeal Board
Office of the City Clerk
3rd Floor, City Hall
1 Sir Winston Churchill Square
Edmonton AB T5J 2R7
Telephone: (780) 496-6079
Fax: (780) 496-8175
DATE: May 7, 2010
APPLICATION NO: 94483322-002
FILE NO.: SDAB-D-10-103
NOTICE OF DECISION OF THE SUBDIVISION AND DEVELOPMENT APPEAL BOARD
This appeal dated March 30, 2010, from the decision of the Development Authority for
permission to:
Construct an addition to a Single Detached House (3.00 metres by 4.37 metres rear covered
area/deck) existing without permits
on Lot 21, Block 3, Plan 5397MC, located at 11107 – 49 Avenue NW, was heard by the
Subdivision and Development Appeal Board at its hearing held on April 22, 2010. The decision
of the Board was as follows:
SUMMARY OF HEARING:
“At the outset of the appeal hearing, the Presiding Officer confirmed with
the parties in attendance that there was no opposition to the composition of
the panel.
The appeal was filed on time, in accordance with Section 686 of the
Municipal Government Act, R.S.A 2000, c. M-26.
The Board heard an appeal of the decision of the Development Officer to
refuse an application to construct an addition to a Single Detached House
(3.00 metres by 4.37 metres rear covered area/deck) existing without
permits located at 11107 – 49 Avenue NW. The subject site is zoned RF1
Single Detached Residential Zone and is located within the Mature
Neighbourhood Overlay. The proposed development was refused due to
deficiencies in the total Side Yard requirement, that being at least 20
percent of the Site Width and the minimum Side Yard requirement of 1.2
metres.
SDAB-D-10-103
2
May 7, 2010
SUMMARY OF HEARING: (CONTINUED)
The Board notes a letter of support from the adjacent property owner to
the east was received. There were no letters of opposition received.
The Board heard from Ms. P. Pemberton, the previous property owner of
the subject site. Ms. Pemberton provided the following information in
support of her appeal:
1.
2.
3.
4.
5.
6.
She requested clarification regarding the two side yard variances
referred to in the agenda which were explained by the Presiding
Officer.
The patio structure attached to the house is a roofed area with
shingles. There are attached rafters which extend into the east side
yard.
She referenced a letter found in the Appellant’s written
submission, a copy of which is on file, from the property owner
immediately east of the subject site and most affected by the
existing development.
This letter supported the structure
remaining as is so long as it is property maintained.
The property owner to the east has resided on his property for five
years without any complaint regarding the existing development.
She indicated, in response to a question from the Board, that she
could reduce the open portion of the rafters which extends into the
side yard.
She stated that the new property owner would support any decision
so long as that decision will ensure that the existing structure has
the proper permits and meets all City requirements to alleviate any
of the same type of compliance issues if she determines to sell the
property.
DECISION:
that the appeal be ALLOWED and the DEVELOPMENT GRANTED and
the deficiency of 1.06 metres in the minimum required east Side Yard and
the deficiency of 1.49 metres in the total Side Yard requirement, that being
20 percent of the Site Width, be permitted
SDAB-D-10-103
3
May 7, 2010
REASONS FOR DECISION:
The Board finds the following:
1.
2.
3.
4.
5.
6.
7.
The proposed development is an addition to a Permitted Use in the
RF1 Zone.
The only property owner that is impacted, the property adjoining
on the east side, has provided a letter in support of the patio
structure remaining as is so long as it is maintained in a proper
manner.
Given the open construction of the patio beams, there is no
interruption of sunlight penetration and it is less intrusive to the
neighbouring property owner than if it was an entirely enclosed
structure.
The patio structure has been in existence for a substantial number
of years without complaint from neighbouring property owners.
There were no letters of objection received and no one appeared in
opposition to the patio structure.
The total Site Coverage for the Principal Dwelling including the
rear covered deck is less than the 28 percent allowed under the
Edmonton Zoning Bylaw.
Based on the above, the proposed development would not unduly
interfere with the amenities of the neighbourhood or materially
interfere with or affect the use, enjoyment or value of neighbouring
parcels of land.”
IMPORTANT INFORMATION FOR APPLICANT/APPELLANT
The following information may not pertain to your specific situation.
Should you have any questions, please do not hesitate to contact our
office at (780) 496-6079
1.
THIS IS NOT A BUILDING PERMIT. A Building Permit must be obtained
separately from the Planning and Development Department, located on the 5th Floor,
10250 – 101 Street, Edmonton.
2.
When an application for a Development Permit has been approved by the Subdivision
and Development Appeal Board, it shall not be valid unless and until any conditions of
approval, save those of a continuing nature, have been fulfilled.
SDAB-D-10-103
4
May 7, 2010
3.
A Development Permit shall expire and shall no longer be valid after one year from the
date of approval of the Permit, if no construction has been initiated. However, if the
permit holder is unable to proceed pending a court decision involving the proposed
development, time shall not run until such proceedings are finally completed. For further
information, refer to Section 22 of the Edmonton Zoning Bylaw, 12800.
4.
Notwithstanding clause (3) above, if a Building Permit is issued for the development
within the twelve month period, the Development Permit issued therefore shall not lapse
unless and until the Building Permit so issued is cancelled or allowed to lapse by virtue of
work not having commenced within the statutory minimum period.
5.
If the Subdivision and Development Appeal Board is served with notice of an application
for leave to appeal its decision under Section 688 of the Municipal Government Act,
R.S.A. 2000, c. M-26, such notice shall operate to suspend the Development Permit.
6.
When a decision on a Development Permit application has been rendered by the
Subdivision and Development Appeal Board, the enforcement of that decision is carried
out by the Planning and Development Department, located on the 5th Floor, 10250 – 101
Street, Edmonton.
NOTE: Citizens can call 311, 24-hours a day, every day of the year for access to City of
Edmonton information, programs and services.
Ms. M. McCallum, Presiding Officer
SUBDIVISION AND DEVELOPMENT
APPEAL BOARD
cc:
Subdivision and
Development Appeal Board
Office of the City Clerk
3rd Floor, City Hall
1 Sir Winston Churchill Square
Edmonton AB T5J 2R7
Telephone: (780) 496-6079
Fax: (780) 496-8175
DATE: May 7, 2010
APPLICATION NO: 94548802-002
FILE NO.: SDAB-D-10-104
NOTICE OF DECISION OF THE SUBDIVISION AND DEVELOPMENT APPEAL BOARD
This appeal dated March 24, 2010, from the decision of the Development Authority for
permission to:
Construct an addition to a Single Detached House (front one-storey 3.66 metres by 7.42 metres)
and to demolish 2.25 metres by 4.72 metres front portion of house
on Lot 10, Block 126, Plan 5519AP, located at 9019 – 98 Street NW, was heard by the
Subdivision and Development Appeal Board at its hearing held on April 22, 2010. The decision
of the Board was as follows:
SUMMARY OF HEARING:
“At the outset of the appeal hearing, the Presiding Officer confirmed with
the parties in attendance that there was no opposition to the composition of
the panel.
The appeal was filed on time, in accordance with Section 686 of the
Municipal Government Act, R.S.A 2000, c. M-26.
The Board heard an appeal of the decision of the Development Authority
to refuse an application to construct an addition to a Single Detached
House (front one-storey 3.66 metres by 7.42 metres) and to demolish 2.25
metres by 4.72 metres front portion of house located at 9019 – 98 Street
NW. The subject site is zoned RF2 Low Density Infill Zone and is located
within the Mature Neighbourhood Overlay.
SDAB-D-10-104
2
May 7, 2010
SUMMARY OF HEARING: (CONTINUED)
The proposed development was refused due to the building being nonconforming and a deficiency in the minimum Front Yard requirement, that
being consistent with the setback of development on adjacent sites and
with the context of the blockface average front yard setback, an excess in
the allowable projection of an unenclosed Front Porch or Veranda into a
required Front Yard, a deficiency in the minimum required north Side
Yard, and a deficiency in the minimum required Site Width.
The Board heard from the Appellant and property owner, Ms. H. Blair,
who provided the following information in support of the appeal:
1.
2.
3.
4.
5.
6.
7.
She has lived in the area for some time and enjoys the amenities
offered by the area.
She submitted a letter of support from the President of the
Strathcona Centre Community League.
The home is an older character home and she requires more space
in her home as she works from her home on a part time basis.
The idea of a two-storey addition was considered but dismissed
and instead she wanted to build a modest addition on the front of
her home that is in keeping with the character of her home and
several of the surrounding homes.
A plan was provided, showing the setback of adjacent houses on
the block which were measured from the near edge of the sidewalk
to the house foundations, which the Planning Department adjusted
by a factor of 1.8 metres to determine the setback from the
property line.
A set of photographs attached to the Appellant’s submission, a
copy of which is on file, were reviewed. The photographs showed
that new developments on adjacent properties and properties across
the street from the subject site were, on average, built closer to
their front property lines than older houses in the neighbourhood.
The area is being revitalized and, generally speaking, she had
received good support from neighbouring property owners who
like seeing improvements being made in the area.
SDAB-D-10-104
3
May 7, 2010
SUMMARY OF HEARING: (CONTINUED)
8.
9.
10.
11.
12.
13.
14.
When asked about the neighbours who had remained neutral in her
community consultation, she indicated that some residents are
accustomed to infill housing and may have preferred to see her
existing home demolished and replaced with a new structure but
that was not an option for her. It was her hope that the Board
would approve the proposed addition which would enable her to
meet her needs.
A revised set of plans (Exhibit “C”) was also submitted that
differed from the plans originally reviewed and refused by the
Development Officer. The new plans show a wider proposed front
veranda addition measuring 4.27 metres by 1.52 metres, an
increase of 3.72 square metres over the size of the previously
proposed addition. This brings the total proposed front addition to
33.67 square metres. The new proposed veranda also increases the
north side yard from 0.73 meters to 0.91 metres.
One major change was that the width of the front addition had been
reduced to bring it in from the north and south edges of the
existing house. The veranda in the front was expanded to fourteen
feet in width but does not project any further into the front yard
than shown on the original plan
As to the requirements of Section 814.3(1) of the Edmonton
Zoning Bylaw, Ms. Blair’s interpretation of that clause related
more to blockface averaging than the averaging of setback on the
adjacent properties. She had developed her plans on that
understanding which had been provided by the Planning
Department.
With respect to Section 814.3(2), the plans submitted, in her
opinion, complied completely and provided a four metre separation
from the existing house to the front property line.
She clarified that the current addition on the front of the house to
be removed was, in fact, flush with the north face of the house and
photographic evidence was provided indicated significant cracking
on the wall finish due to settlement differentials.
She conceded that the proposed front veranda was larger than on
the original plans but felt that what was proposed was more in
keeping with the character of her home and the area as a whole.
SDAB-D-10-104
4
May 7, 2010
DECISION:
that the appeal be ALLOWED and the DEVELOPMENT GRANTED and
the deficiency of 0.46 metres in the minimum required Front Yard, that
being consistent with the context of the block face average, the excess of
0.98 metres in the maximum allowable projection of a single storey
veranda into the required Front Yard, the deficiency of 0.29 metres in the
minimum required north Side Yard and the deficiency of 1.33 metres in
the minimum required Site Width be permitted, subject to the following
condition:
1.
The approval is based on the revised plans submitted as Exhibit
“C” and reviewed by the Board on this date, April 22, 2010.
REASONS FOR DECISION:
The Board finds the following:
1.
2.
3.
4.
5.
6.
7.
The proposed development is an addition to a Permitted Use in the
RF2 Zone.
The Board accepts the evidence of the Appellant that it is not
appropriate to use only the average of the two adjacent properties
in establishing the Front Yard setback but rather to use the block
face average. Therefore the Board accepts that the average
blockface is 6.92 metres and not 8.20 metres as stated on the
Development Permit application.
The revised plans submitted reduce the amount of the variance
required in the north side yard.
The proposed development has the support of nine property
owners residing within the 60-metre notification radius and the
Strathcona Centre Community League.
There were no letters of objection received and no one appeared in
opposition.
The proposed addition and particularly, the proximity of the
addition to the Front Yard, is characteristic of redevelopment in the
area
The proposed development is well within the maximum allowable
Site Coverage of 28 percent for the Principal Dwelling.
SDAB-D-10-104
5
May 7, 2010
REASONS FOR DECISION: (CONTINUED)
8.
9.
10.
The proposed development is well designed to maintain the
traditional character of the area as is set out in the General Purpose
of the Mature Neighbourhood Overlay.
The proposed development does not add to the existing nonconforming Side Yard.
Based on the above, the proposed development would not unduly
interfere with the amenities of the neighbourhood or materially
interfere with or affect the use, enjoyment or value of neighbouring
parcels of land.”
IMPORTANT INFORMATION FOR APPLICANT/APPELLANT
The following information may not pertain to your specific situation.
Should you have any questions, please do not hesitate to contact our
office at (780) 496-6079
1.
THIS IS NOT A BUILDING PERMIT. A Building Permit must be obtained
separately from the Planning and Development Department, located on the 5th Floor,
10250 – 101 Street, Edmonton.
2.
When an application for a Development Permit has been approved by the Subdivision
and Development Appeal Board, it shall not be valid unless and until any conditions of
approval, save those of a continuing nature, have been fulfilled.
3.
A Development Permit shall expire and shall no longer be valid after one year from the
date of approval of the Permit, if no construction has been initiated. However, if the
permit holder is unable to proceed pending a court decision involving the proposed
development, time shall not run until such proceedings are finally completed. For further
information, refer to Section 22 of the Edmonton Zoning Bylaw, 12800.
4.
Notwithstanding clause (3) above, if a Building Permit is issued for the development
within the twelve month period, the Development Permit issued therefore shall not lapse
unless and until the Building Permit so issued is cancelled or allowed to lapse by virtue of
work not having commenced within the statutory minimum period.
5.
If the Subdivision and Development Appeal Board is served with notice of an application
for leave to appeal its decision under Section 688 of the Municipal Government Act,
R.S.A. 2000, c. M-26, such notice shall operate to suspend the Development Permit.
SDAB-D-10-104
6.
6
May 7, 2010
When a decision on a Development Permit application has been rendered by the
Subdivision and Development Appeal Board, the enforcement of that decision is carried
out by the Planning and Development Department, located on the 5th Floor, 10250 – 101
Street, Edmonton.
NOTE: Citizens can call 311, 24-hours a day, every day of the year for access to City of
Edmonton information, programs and services.
Ms. M. McCallum, Presiding Officer
SUBDIVISION AND DEVELOPMENT
APPEAL BOARD
cc:
Subdivision and
Development Appeal Board
Office of the City Clerk
3rd Floor, City Hall
1 Sir Winston Churchill Square
Edmonton AB T5J 2R7
Telephone: (780) 496-6079
Fax: (780) 496-8175
DATE: May 7, 2010
APPLICATION NO: 96399431-001
FILE NO.: SDAB-D-10-105
NOTICE OF DECISION OF THE SUBDIVISION AND DEVELOPMENT APPEAL BOARD
This appeal dated March 24, 2010, from the decision of the Development Authority for
permission to:
Construct an addition (balcony on second floor, covered deck) to a Single Detached House
on Lot 4, Block 18, Plan 5179HW, located at 7916 Rowland Road NW, was heard by the
Subdivision and Development Appeal Board at its hearing held on April 22, 2010. The decision
of the Board was as follows:
SUMMARY OF HEARING:
“At the outset of the appeal hearing, the Presiding Officer confirmed with
the parties in attendance that there was no opposition to the composition of
the panel.
The appeal was filed on time, in accordance with Section 686 of the
Municipal Government Act, R.S.A 2000, c. M-26.
The Board heard an appeal of the decision of the Development Authority
to refuse an application to construct an addition (balcony on second floor,
covered deck) to a Single Detached House located at 7916 Rowland Road
NW. The subject site is zoned RF1 Single Detached Residential Zone and
is located within the Mature Neighbourhood Overlay. The proposed
development was refused due to an excess in the maximum allowable total
Site Coverage and a previous condition set out in SDAB-D-07-259.
The Board notes that a written submission was presented by the Appellant
including letters of support as well as photographs and diagrams, a copy of
which is on file.
SDAB-D-10-105
2
May 7, 2010
SUMMARY OF HEARING: (CONTINUED)
The Board heard from the Appellants, Mr. & Mrs. R. Hook, who provided
the following information in support of their appeal:
1.
2.
3.
4.
5.
6.
7.
8.
9.
10.
11.
The Appellant submitted a letter of support from the Forest Terrace
Heights Community League.
The original house was built in 1993 and subsequently destroyed
by fire.
The house was rebuilt according to the original plan after the fire.
This plan called for a covered deck and patio with a 2.13 metre
fence on the east side of the subject site.
They took exception with the percentage of site coverage
determined by the Development Officer being 43 percent as the
submitted plot plan indicating site coverage of 229.6 square metres
or 39.5 percent included the covered deck and patio so the covered
deck and patio should not be added in twice.
At their 2007 appearance before the Board there had been several
people opposing the patio and second floor covered deck as few
homes in the area at that time were built in a similar manner.
Conditions in the area have changed significantly since their
previous appeal and they provided photographic evidence to show
many area homes now have patios and second floor balconies.
Their new home, in his opinion, had added value to neighbouring
properties including the property immediately east of the subject
site which has been redeveloped.
The existing lower deck on the house was less than one metre in
height above grade so was not required to be included in Site
Coverage calculations.
The second storey balcony being proposed will be 5.79 metres by
3.96 metres in size and will cover the eastern portion of the lower
deck. The east side will also retain the planter shown in the
original plans.
The proposed balcony will be built out from the master bedroom
and access will be required from this bedroom.
The proposed balcony is smaller is size than the balcony proposed
in the original 1993 plans.
SDAB-D-10-105
3
May 7, 2010
SUMMARY OF HEARING: (CONTINUED)
12.
13.
14.
15.
A neighbour had indicated to the Appellant that if the balcony
extended more that 10 feet, privacy glass was required. The
Appellant was unsure of this regulation but had proposed that
privacy glass be installed along the 3.96 metres east portion wall of
the balcony measured out from the residence. However, their
immediate neighbour has now requested clear glass or spindles so
that the light will not be compromised on their property by the
opaque glass. The Appellants would like to have opaque privacy
glass extended out only 0.60 metres to provide privacy so the
neighbour to the east cannot look into their bedrooms.
Photographs were provided showing:
a) the neighbour’s house immediately east with a glassed in,
totally enclosed balcony on the second floor;
b) the second storey view both east and west from the upper
window of the subject property; and
c) the original piles, which at that time were built to code, will be
used as supports for the proposed second floor balcony. They
noted that the subject piles are not outside the line of the homes
located on either side of their home.
Mr. Hook had negotiated with the property owner to the east to
erect a 2.13 metre fence similar to the fence that separates his
neighbour to the east from the other adjoining neighbour. [Note:
The Presiding Office indicated that the matter before the Board did
not include an approval for a 2.13 metre fence and advised that he
would have to apply for a separate development permit for the
fence.]
In response to questions from the Board, the following information
was provided:
a) With regard to objections about privacy glass, the subject letter
did not say why the neighbours were objecting to the glass but
it might be for lack of light penetration. This is why Mr. Hook
was requesting the privacy glass extend only 0.60 metres out
and between 1.52 metres to 1.83 metres in height.
b) On page 21 of the Appellant’s submission, the plot plan shows
that the original measurements of the principal dwelling and
garage were 229.6 square metres or 39.5 percent which
included the balcony. The balcony had been built 6.54 metres
smaller than shown on the original plot plan. Therefore, by his
calculations he has 38 percent site coverage which is under the
40 percent maximum total site coverage allowed.
SDAB-D-10-105
4
May 7, 2010
SUMMARY OF HEARING: (CONTINUED)
The Board then heard from Ms. A. Meyers, speaking on her behalf, and on
behalf of Ms. H. Borutski, both of whom are in opposition to the proposed
development. Ms. Borutski resides immediately west of the subject site
and Ms. Meyers is a co-owner of the property west of Ms. Borutski. Ms.
Meyers provided the following information:
1.
2.
3.
4.
5.
6.
7.
8.
9.
In her opinion, the Appellant’s home was out of character for the
area because it is constructed much closer to the front property line
than other homes in the area.
She indicated that other new homes were more suited to the area.
The Board was requested to not permit the proposed development
due to the invasion of privacy as the proposed balcony projected
out too far and felt the original 2007 decision of the Subdivision
and Development Appeal Board SDAB-D-07-259 should stand,
specifically Condition 2 of that decision which states “there shall
be no second floor balcony at the rear of the house.”.
She acknowledged that the homes to the west of the subject site are
set farther back on the lots than the Appellant’s home such that the
side wall of the adjacent home to the west projects farther back on
the property than the proposed second floor balcony. However,
she felt that the proposed balcony would still invade her privacy
and the privacy of her neighbour.
She acknowledged that various trees and other vegetation have
been planted between the Appellant’s property and the neighbour
to the west. However, in the winter climate that exits in
Edmonton, such vegetation would be ineffective as a privacy
measure for the majority of the year.
The proposed balcony will block sunlight, be an invasion of the
privacy, and she did not like the idea of a 2.13 metre fence as she
did not want to be fenced in when she is living in the river valley.
The proposed balcony will overshadow the neighbour’s garden and
have a negative impact on the privacy of the property owner
immediately west of the subject site.
The property owners across the street had provided support for the
proposed development but were not impacted in the same manner
by the development.
The residents of the subject property would be able to look down
on neighbours on either side of the subject site.
SDAB-D-10-105
5
May 7, 2010
SUMMARY OF HEARING: (CONTINUED)
In rebuttal, Mr. & Mrs. Hook provided the following information:
1.
2.
3.
4.
5.
The proposed balcony does not come out to the west edge of the
house.
They do not see into the immediately adjacent property to the west
of the subject site from their present deck.
The submitted photograph showed the heavily treed landscape
between the subject site and the property to the west.
Extensive landscaping was being done to increase the privacy for
both the Appellants and adjacent property owners.
They were making every effort to work with the neighbours but
felt there was a lot of pressure in the neighbourhood to keep the
neighbourhood as it is.
DECISION:
that the appeal be ALLOWED and the DEVELOPMENT GRANTED
subject to the following condition:
1.
The Appellant shall provide an accurate, drawn to scale, Plot Plan
showing the proposed balcony and the proposed total Site
Coverage being no greater than 222.16 square metres, to the
satisfaction of the Board, on or before May 13, 2010.
REASONS FOR DECISION:
The Board finds the following:
1.
2.
3.
4.
The proposed development, a covered rear deck and second-storey
balcony, is an addition to a Permitted Use in the RF1 Zone.
The Board accepts the evidence of the Appellant that the
calculations relating to total site coverage are less than stated in the
Development Permit application.
The requirement to provide a revised plan, showing the exact
measurements of the proposed development, will confirm the
proposed total Site Coverage.
The concerns of the property owner immediately west of the
subject site in regard to lack of privacy are mitigated by the fact
the subject residence is located further south on the subject site
which minimizes the projection of the balcony relative to adjacent
residential properties.
SDAB-D-10-105
6
May 7, 2010
REASONS FOR DECISION: (CONTINUED)
5.
6.
7.
8.
9.
The balcony will not create significant shadowing beyond that
created by the existing residence and the residence to the east of
the subject site.
The house is located adjacent to a ravine so the proposed
development will not impact any residential developments to the
rear of the subject site.
The provision of extensive landscaping on the subject site provides
screening to the immediately adjacent properties which further
mitigates the impact on the property immediately west.
Photographic evidence demonstrated other homes in the
neighbourhood that have second storey balconies.
Based on the above, the proposed development would not unduly
interfere with the amenities of the neighbourhood or materially
interfere with or affect the use, enjoyment or value of neighbouring
parcels of land.”
IMPORTANT INFORMATION FOR APPLICANT/APPELLANT
The following information may not pertain to your specific situation.
Should you have any questions, please do not hesitate to contact our
office at (780) 496-6079
1.
THIS IS NOT A BUILDING PERMIT. A Building Permit must be obtained
separately from the Planning and Development Department, located on the 5th Floor,
10250 – 101 Street, Edmonton.
2.
When an application for a Development Permit has been approved by the Subdivision
and Development Appeal Board, it shall not be valid unless and until any conditions of
approval, save those of a continuing nature, have been fulfilled.
3.
A Development Permit shall expire and shall no longer be valid after one year from the
date of approval of the Permit, if no construction has been initiated. However, if the
permit holder is unable to proceed pending a court decision involving the proposed
development, time shall not run until such proceedings are finally completed. For further
information, refer to Section 22 of the Edmonton Zoning Bylaw, 12800.
4.
Notwithstanding clause (3) above, if a Building Permit is issued for the development
within the twelve month period, the Development Permit issued therefore shall not lapse
unless and until the Building Permit so issued is cancelled or allowed to lapse by virtue of
work not having commenced within the statutory minimum period.
SDAB-D-10-105
7
May 7, 2010
5.
If the Subdivision and Development Appeal Board is served with notice of an application
for leave to appeal its decision under Section 688 of the Municipal Government Act,
R.S.A. 2000, c. M-26, such notice shall operate to suspend the Development Permit.
6.
When a decision on a Development Permit application has been rendered by the
Subdivision and Development Appeal Board, the enforcement of that decision is carried
out by the Planning and Development Department, located on the 5th Floor, 10250 – 101
Street, Edmonton.
NOTE: Citizens can call 311, 24-hours a day, every day of the year for access to City of
Edmonton information, programs and services.
Ms. M. McCallum, Presiding Officer
SUBDIVISION AND DEVELOPMENT
APPEAL BOARD
cc:
Subdivision and
Development Appeal Board
Office of the City Clerk
3rd Floor, City Hall
1 Sir Winston Churchill Square
Edmonton AB T5J 2R7
Telephone: (780) 496-6079
Fax: (780) 496-8175
DATE: May 7, 2010
APPLICATION NO: 93708489-001
FILE NO.: SDAB-D-10-106
NOTICE OF DECISION OF THE SUBDIVISION AND DEVELOPMENT APPEAL BOARD
This appeal dated March 26, 2010, from the decision of the Development Authority for
permission to:
Develop a Non-accessory Parking Lot (Impark) (46 spaces)
on Lots 1 – 2, Block 2, Plan RN52, located at 11803 – 103 Street NW, was heard by the
Subdivision and Development Appeal Board at its hearing held on April 22, 2010. The decision
of the Board was as follows:
SUMMARY OF HEARING:
“At the outset of the appeal hearing, the Presiding Officer confirmed with
the parties in attendance that there was no opposition to the composition of
the panel.
The appeal was filed on time, in accordance with Section 686 of the
Municipal Government Act, R.S.A 2000, c. M-26.
The Board heard an appeal of the decision of the Development Authority
to refuse an application to develop a Non-accessory Parking Lot (Impark)
(46 spaces) located at 11803 – 103 Street NW. The subject site is zoned
CB2 General Business Zone. The proposed development was refused
because where Non-accessory Parking is a Discretionary Use, it shall not
be approved on a Site fronting or flanking onto an arterial roadway.
SDAB-D-10-106
2
May 7, 2010
SUMMARY OF HEARING: (CONTINUED)
The Board heard from Mr. M. Halabi, representing Amcan Enterprises,
who provided the following information in support of the appeal:
1.
2.
3.
4.
5.
6.
7.
8.
9.
He provided a letter of conditional support from the Alberta
Avenue Business Association.
He referred to the parking plan on file and requested the Board
provide the necessary variances to permit the parking lot
development in accordance with that plan.
There is limited parking along 118 Avenue and suggested that the
added parking is better for businesses along the avenue and
provides a safer environment for families.
He had discussions with the Alberta Avenue Business Association
who had agreed that additional parking on or adjacent to 118
Avenue is good for business.
He has completed the parking plan and consultations with the
Planning Department.
He had not conducted any community consultation but had been in
touch with NAIT regarding the parking issue but had not received
any comment from NAIT.
There is additional parking in the area at the shopping centre
located across 103 Street and on the NAIT Campus across 118
Avenue.
In response to questions, he indicated that he would consider
installing some bicycle parking.
The proposed development would require variances but he was
willing to comply with conditions imposed by the Board.
The Board also heard from Mr. J. Keaschuk, representing the City of
Edmonton Planning Department. Mr. Keaschuk provided the following
information:
1.
2.
3.
The Development Permit was refused on the basis that it did not
comply with the regulations set out in Alberta Avenue Pedestrian
Commercial Shopping Street Overlay.
The Board needs to make the decision to allow the proposed
development given that the site is within the Alberta Avenue
Pedestrian Commercial Shopping Street Overlay, and does not
comply with the Overlay.
The Overlay came into effect after the parking lot had been in
existence for many years.
SDAB-D-10-106
3
May 7, 2010
SUMMARY OF HEARING: (CONTINUED)
4.
5.
6.
7.
8.
9.
10.
11.
12.
The proposed development is an appropriate use but the subject
site needs to be cleaned up.
“Section 1” in the Reasons for Refusal on the Development Permit
application will determine the variances required. The variances
required would have been approved if the subject site had not been
in the Overlay.
In his opinion, the required 4.5 metre yard abutting a public
roadway is not critical and a 1.83 metre drive aisle is safe in a
parking lot of this size and use. Larger drive aisles are more
appropriate for larger commercial parking lots, such as shopping
centres, where there is a significant amount of “in and out” traffic.
Should the building directly east of the subject site require parking,
there would still be parking at the location.
Essentially, if the Appellant is not permitted to continue to use the
subject site as a parking lot, the site will result in a vacant lot
remaining in perpetuity.
He viewed the current application as an opportunity to allow a use
that has existed for 20 years or more to continue to operate while
allowing the City to clean up the site by having the Applicant
provide landscaping and fencing.
The proposed development would, in all likelihood reduce illegal
parking on the City boulevard.
The parking lot is already hardsurfaced.
The handicapped parking space on the subject site will comply
with the requirements of the Edmonton Zoning Bylaw.
DECISION:
that the appeal be ALLOWED and the DEVELOPMENT GRANTED and
the regulation under the Alberta Avenue Pedestrian Commercial Shopping
Street Overlay that Non-accessory Parking shall not be approved on a site
fronting or flanking onto an arterial roadway be waived, the deficiency of
1.9 metres in the minimum required Yard where a Site abuts a public
roadway other than a Lane, the deficiency of 6.0 metres in the minimum
landscaped Yard where the Rear or Side Lot Line of the Site abuts the lot
line of a Site zoned residential, and the deficiency of 1.0 metres in the
minimum required width of parking aisles be permitted, subject to the
following conditions:
1.
A 1.8 metre fence is to be constructed along the north property line
in accordance with the Site Plan provided in order to screen the lot
from the adjacent property.
SDAB-D-10-106
4
May 7, 2010
DECISION: (CONTINUED)
2.
3.
4.
5.
Parking space No.1 and No.32 are to be deleted in order to provide
the minimum Yard.
Five (5) parking spaces are to be reserved and signed for small cars
to allow for landscaping.
Landscaping containers are to be installed, planted and maintained
in order to provide visual relief.
PRIOR TO THE ISSUANCE of any development or building
permits, the Applicant or property owner shall provide a
guaranteed security to ensure that landscaping is provided and
maintained for two growing seasons. This security may take the
following forms:
a)
cash to value equal to 100 percent of the established
landscaping costs; or
b)
an irrevocable letter of credit having a value equivalent to
100 percent of the established landscaping costs.
Any letter of credit shall allow for partial draws. If the
landscaping is not completed in accordance with the approved
landscape plan(s) within one growing season after completion of
the development or if the landscaping is not well maintained and in
a healthy condition two growing seasons after completion of the
landscaping, the City may draw on the security for its use
absolutely
REASONS FOR DECISION:
The Board finds the following:
1.
2.
3.
4.
The proposed development, a Non-accessory Parking Lot, is a
Discretionary Use in the CB2 Zone.
With regards to the variance granted to the regulations of the
Alberta Avenue Pedestrian Commercial Shopping Street Overlay,
there is no access to the subject site from 118 Avenue, access is off
of 103 Street or the rear lane.
The City of Edmonton Planning Department supports the requested
variances and the revised Site Plan.
The subject site has existed for over 20 years as a parking lot and
the Overlay was implemented after the Use had existed for a
significant amount of time.
SDAB-D-10-106
5
May 7, 2010
REASONS FOR DECISION: (CONTINUED)
5.
6.
7.
8.
9.
10.
The Non-accessory Parking Lot resulted from a change of use in
the building located across the lane from the subject site.
There were no letters of opposition received and no one appeared
in opposition to the proposed development.
The condition to provide fencing and landscaping will improve the
overall appearance of the subject site.
There has been a decrease in the total number of stalls, stalls have
been determined for small cars and barrier free stalls have been put
in place.
The Board accepts evidence that the majority of parking is from
students and overall is longer term parking with fewer “in and out”
trips which allows for the variance in the drive aisles to be
appropriate and safe.
Based on the above, the proposed development would not unduly
interfere with the amenities of the neighbourhood or materially
interfere with or affect the use, enjoyment or value of neighbouring
parcels of land.”
IMPORTANT INFORMATION FOR APPLICANT/APPELLANT
The following information may not pertain to your specific situation.
Should you have any questions, please do not hesitate to contact our
office at (780) 496-6079
1.
THIS IS NOT A BUILDING PERMIT. A Building Permit must be obtained
separately from the Planning and Development Department, located on the 5th Floor,
10250 – 101 Street, Edmonton.
2.
When an application for a Development Permit has been approved by the Subdivision
and Development Appeal Board, it shall not be valid unless and until any conditions of
approval, save those of a continuing nature, have been fulfilled.
3.
A Development Permit shall expire and shall no longer be valid after one year from the
date of approval of the Permit, if no construction has been initiated. However, if the
permit holder is unable to proceed pending a court decision involving the proposed
development, time shall not run until such proceedings are finally completed. For further
information, refer to Section 22 of the Edmonton Zoning Bylaw, 12800.
SDAB-D-10-106
6
May 7, 2010
4.
Notwithstanding clause (3) above, if a Building Permit is issued for the development
within the twelve month period, the Development Permit issued therefore shall not lapse
unless and until the Building Permit so issued is cancelled or allowed to lapse by virtue of
work not having commenced within the statutory minimum period.
5.
If the Subdivision and Development Appeal Board is served with notice of an application
for leave to appeal its decision under Section 688 of the Municipal Government Act,
R.S.A. 2000, c. M-26, such notice shall operate to suspend the Development Permit.
6.
When a decision on a Development Permit application has been rendered by the
Subdivision and Development Appeal Board, the enforcement of that decision is carried
out by the Planning and Development Department, located on the 5th Floor, 10250 – 101
Street, Edmonton.
NOTE: Citizens can call 311, 24-hours a day, every day of the year for access to City of
Edmonton information, programs and services.
Ms. M. McCallum, Presiding Officer
SUBDIVISION AND DEVELOPMENT
APPEAL BOARD
cc: