“OUTRAGE 93” 9812 93 AVENUE
This property is located in the RF2 Zone - After many complaints from neighbours and much
Low Density Infill Residential, within the effort from the SCCL Planning Committee, Planning
Mature Neighbourhood Overlay (MNO). and Development finally inspected the property;
In violation of the Zoning Bylaw, the On September 13,2007, P&D issued a Stop Work
Development Officer did not require a Order, which revoked the Development Permit.
topographical survey, with which to define
The terms of the Stop Work Order, as quoted by the
grade elevation for this steeply sloping site;
landowner at a community meeting, are that
A Class ‘A’, combined Development/Building conforming drawings were to have been resubmitted
Permit for a Single Detached House was by September 25 or the partially-built structure was to
issued; there were no variances noted; have been demolished;
During the survey layout, the corner pins In December, 2007, P&D issued a new permit for
were set too far south; revised drawings that will move the house back 1.8m
and down 1.0m. The foundation will be altered, the
The basement floor was rough-graded, then
floor will be excavated deeper and the lower level
an additional metre of clay fill was placed
before the floor slab was poured; walls will be replaced.
In violation of MNO, windows on
both sides intrude on the privacy of
adjacent houses and yards
Two main entrances (up and down)
are tucked into recess
Lower level is developed as a
Max. height 8.6m
above grade –
Front of house is 2.4m too close
Max. 1.2m –
to property line
As featured in the Edmonton Journal, Oct. 29 Historic houses across 93 Avenue
Max. 1.2m -
A sloping site requires determination of The view that’s enjoyed by the new house but
grade prior to permit approval wrongfully taken from the neighbours B1
Typical of homes on the north
side of 93 Ave., neighbouring
houses are dwarfed by the
Without strenuous and persistant protest from the community, P&D would have
allowed this massively over-scaled and misplaced building to be completed
without change. That’s unfair and it’s illegal.
99 STREET AND 83 AVENUE
The Back Draught Pub, formerly Nations Pub, has been a constant Elements Lofts
source of complaints since opening in 2004. The Planning and Development condominiums by TIME
department now refuses to take further complaints about it. Developments
1.8m high fence, as
Handicapped parking, as required required by DC2.479.4.j.,
by ZB 54.1.3, has never been collapsed shortly after
Landscaping, as required construction.
by DC2.479.4.f., has accessible.
never been provided ”Compatible” screening for HVAC Current fence was built by
unit was required by developer of adjacent
DC2.479.4.m.ii. property B2
Next door, Brownstone Lofts
(stacked Row Housing in RA8 zone)
was developed by Fred Pheasey.
It made innovative use of a small site,
without significant variances or
reported as-built violations.
ELEMENTS LOFTS by TIME Developments
RA8 zone within Medium Density Residential Overlay;
3.0m high ceilings cause the building to be an estimated 17.0m high, well beyond the maximum
14.0m allowed in RA8/MDRO;
2.0m setbacks at the fourth Storey, as required by MDRO, are not provided;
4.5m side yard abutting an arterial public roadway – 99 Street - is not provided;
During construction, multiple community complaints were made to P&D; developer applied for a
Leave As-Built Permit, which was allowed by SDAB, despite numerous Zoning Bylaw violations.
2.0 m wide setback at Fourth
As-built approx. 17.0m
Storey was not provided
adjacent to streets, as
required by MDRO
yard is not
No fourth Storey setback was
provided adjacent to RF4 zone,
as is required by MDRO
This summer, Vue Magazine judged Element
Lofts to be the city’s “Ugliest New Building”.
STRATHCONA DESERVES BETTER
NEW ASIAN VILLAGE at Waters Edge Condos
Restaurant Former Lounge
Located at Saskatchewan Drive and 102 Street, The Planning and Development department (P&D) has no
Waters Edge was built in the early 1980s. In addition record of a development permit or an Alberta Building Code
to the condominium apartments in the tower, the analysis for the restaurant’s expansion into the third bay.
ground floor level accommodates two commercial
15 parking stalls on the north side of building are allocated for
units, divided into five bays. These units are also
customers of the four commercial units. Five stalls are
provided for guests of the tower’s residents.
At the time of construction, condominium property
According to the Zoning Bylaw, with a dining room of
law in Alberta did not anticipate the complexity of
approximately 300 sq.m, the restaurant should have 82
mixed-use multiple ownership.
parking stalls available exclusively for their customers.
A restaurant at the east end of the building expanded Because of the deficiency, restaurant patrons regularly park
into an adjacent bay. A Development Permit allowing in the building’s fire lanes.
this increase in area, dated 1988, appears to be the
last permit issued by P&D for any changes to the UNEASY NEIGHBOURS
ground floor of Water’s Edge until September, 2007.
Relations between the condo residents’ association and the
commercial owner have been very poor. Various city and
UNDER NEW MANAGEMENT provincial agencies have failed to resolve the association’s
In 1994, both commercial units were purchased by repeated complaints about the restaurant’s operations.
the owner of New Asian Village. The restaurant
The restaurant recently expanded its operations into the
moved into the east-most unit. At that time, its City of
remaining commercial units at the west end of the building.
Edmonton business license specified a maximum
seating capacity of 28.
Within a few years, the adjacent commercial space
was taken over by the restaurant. It initially operated
as a lounge but was soon merged into the restaurant
operation. The dining room now seats approximately
P&D and Alberta Gaming and Liquor Commission no
longer specify the seating capacity of licensed
premises. Instead, they now both refer to the
maximum occupant load specified by the fire
Edmonton’s Fire/Rescue Services currently permits
New Asian Village a maximum of 99 patrons.
Worker housing – behind
The Capital Health
Authority cannot inspect
the workers housing for
suitability for habitation
without first receiving a
complaint from a resident
occupying the space.
The multiple changes of
use in the Waters Edge
ground floor would not
have received the condo
Because the owner of New
Asian Village hasn’t
applied for the required
City permits, no one has
prevented him from
operating without them.
Food prep area
Because of this breakdown, the neighbouring
Without receiving any permits, the space immediately residents’ rightful concerns have gone unheeded.
west of the tower lobby was adapted into a food
preparation area for the restaurant. After repeated
complaints of mice in the building, inspectors from the STEPS IN THE RIGHT DIRECTION
Capital Health Authority (CHA) ordered a clean-up of In September, 2007 New Asian Village applied for and
the expanded space. received a Development Permit to operate an outdoor
DORMITORY CONVERSION In January, 2008 the restaurant applied for a permit to
Temporary expatriate restaurant workers are housed in develop the food prep area west of the building lobby and
two dwelling units in the south west portion of the the permit was refused by P&D. A scheduled appeal to
ground floor, in part of the west commercial unit. No SDAB was withdrawn shortly before the March 6 hearing
development permit has ever been issued for these date. The unpermitted use of the space continues.
units. In February, 2008 a commercial interior contractor
In the opinion of the condo association, an excessive applied for a permit to renovate the restaurant dining
number of people are housed in these units. The room; a Development Permit was granted but it was
Zoning Bylaw allows no more than seven unrelated immediately withdrawn by P&D.
persons to occupy a dwelling. The department’s Manager of Development Permits and
City of Edmonton Fire/Rescue Services recently the City’s single Zoning Bylaw Enforcement Officer have
investigated the residential operation and they have no been instrumental in encouraging the restaurant’s owner
safety concerns. to begin operating within the required permits.
NON-COMPLYING COMMERCIAL SIGNAGE
Located on Whyte Avenue, west of Gateway Boulevard, this sign was erected illegally in 1998.
That was nine years ago. Why is it still hanging there?
Edmonton’s Zoning Bylaw and the
Strathcona Area Redevelopment Plan
have very particular regulations
regarding the type and quality of signs
that can be publicly displayed. Each sign
or group of signs on a building must have
a site-specific Development Permit.
Wooly Bully’s Pub on
Sign erected in 2002
None of the “temporary” signs depicted
here complies with either the Zoning
Bylaw or the Strathcona ARP.
None have a valid permit.
The Planning and
has received numerous complaints about
these signs, both at the time that they
were erected and repeatedly since.
These sub-standard, non-permitted signs
are an eyesore and an embarrassment in
Strathcona’s prime shopping district.
Like grafitti, they encourage other
irresponsible business people to ignore
the regulations regarding signage.
Megatunes Sign erected in 2003
The community is not aware of any
charges being laid against the
owners of these businesses for
displaying these illegal signs.
This sign was erected in 2003.
The bar had just reopened in a
new building, which replaced four
historic structures lost in a fire.
Sometimes, it’s the little things that really bug the neighbours
SITE DRAINAGE PROBLEMS
All completed developments are supposed to have an as-built survey plan
certified by the Lot Grading Supervisor of the Drainage Branch.
In the Queen Alexandra neighbourhood,
many large houses
89 Avenue, west of 97 St.; The brick basement and side-by-side
had to be removed duplexes are being
The house on the left
and replaced with built among small war-
consists of major additions
concrete; time homes. To abide
behind and over top of a
very old structure built with Repair costs were by current drainage
a brick foundation; partially paid from the standards, grade level
proceeds of a lawsuit around the new
The house on the right was houses is often much
built in 1990s, without higher than adjacent
proper site drainage. yards. Poor runoff
The new house was
The basement of the soon sold and the
control results in
renovated house next door flooding of
owners moved away. neighbouring yards
immediately began to wash
out, due to runoff from the and basements.
MAIN FLOOR HEIGHTS
MNO limits height to reflect
0.3m difference between
main floor heights
Max. 1.2m -
UN-ENFORCED DEVELOPMENT APPEAL DECISIONS
92 Avenue, west of 98 Street
Non-complying two Storey Accessory
Building (garage and studio) was allowed
by the Subdivision and Development
SDAB ruled that windows at the rear
imposed on the privacy of the yards
behind and must be removed
Five years later, the windows remain
M cMansions, and Drywall Barns
Too tall, too broad, these over-sized Too often, what is built for the newcomers lampoons the
houses grab the sunlight and privacy carefully crafted old houses, which they were trying to
from the old homes around them. Their mimic. Cheap materials are used, proportions are wrong,
builders flout the rules of decency and of and open space is smothered.
law, which is supposed to promote peace However, good taste is subjective and can’t be legislated.
and harmony on our leafy streets.
By overstepping the bounds of fairness,
these houses diminish the property rights
and property values of those who live
As residents who love our mature
neighbourhoods, we would far rather be
welcoming newcomers than calling the
City to complain about their construction
Families move into these older
communities for the almost-downtown
convenience, access to the valley parks,
and for the historic character of the
What can be avoided though, are the broken rules. Edmonton has
a very good Zoning Bylaw. We must insist that our civic
employees now be compelled to enforce it.
The following Strathcona residents were These people, living in other mature
especially helpful in the preparing and Edmonton neighbourhoods, urged the
reviewing this document: preparation of this report and
Mike Boire, P. Eng. encouraged its completion:
Carl Sorenson Anne deVillars, QC (Garneau)
Dr. Janice Williamson Bill Eadie, P. Eng. (Glenora)
Joanne Booth Diane Millar (Queen Alexandra)
Jonathan Rockliff, MRAIC Deborah Peaker (Central McDougall)
Karen Rowswell, for many of the Dolores Nord, (Oliver)
beautiful photographs of Strathcona Sandy Guilbert (Windsor Park)
Brian Kropf, Planning Advisor for the Edmonton Federation of Community Leagues,
provided much valuable technical information and generously explained the workings of
the Zoning Bylaw and its integral Statutory Plans and Overlays.
Despite the critical nature of this report, many Planning and Development Department
employees recognize the value of listening to citizens’ concerns. They provided
information on request and helped us navigate the department’s channels of
Jeff Price, P. Eng.
Many helpful agents of the P&D Customer Information Line
IN MEMORY OF
October 29, 1948 - January 27, 2008