Documents
Resources
Learning Center
Upload
Plans & pricing Sign in
Sign Out

Subdivision and

VIEWS: 5 PAGES: 24

									                     Subdivision and                       Office of the City Clerk
                     Development Appeal Board              3rd Floor, City Hall
                                                           1 Sir Winston Churchill Square
                                                           Edmonton AB T5J 2R7
                                                           Telephone: (780) 496-6079
                                                           Fax: (780) 496-8175



                                                   DATE: July 20, 2007
13115 Sherbrooke Avenue                            APPLICATION NO: 67642304-001
EDMONTON, AB T5L 4G1                               FILE NO.: SDAB-D-07-149

               NOTICE OF DECISION OF THE SUBDIVISION AND DEVELOPMENT APPEAL BOARD

This appeal dated June 8, 2007, from the decision of the Development Officer for permission
to:

Construct an Accessory Building (Detached Garage 8.5 metres by 7.92 metres) and to demolish
existing detached garage 4.37 metres by 7.32 metres

on Lot 40, Block 15, Plan 5068HW, located at 13115 Sherbrooke Avenue, was heard by the
Subdivision and Development Appeal Board at its meeting held on July 5, 2007. The decision
of the Board was as follows:

SUMMARY OF HEARING:

                     “The Board heard an appeal of the decision of the Development Officer
                     to refuse an application to construct an Accessory Building (Detached
                     Garage 8.5 metres by 7.92 metres) and to demolish the existing 4.37
                     metres by 7.32 metres detached garage located at 13115 Sherbrooke
                     Avenue. The subject site is zoned RF1 Single Detached Residential Zone
                     and is located within the Mature Neighbourhood Overlay. The refusal is
                     based on an excess in the maximum allowable Site Coverage for
                     Accessory Buildings or Structures and that the rear Detached Garage is
                     not contained within the rear 12.8 metres of the site.

                     The Board heard from Mr. Jesse Miller, the Appellant and property
                     owner who was accompanied by Ms. Elizabeth Owen.

                     At the outset of the hearing, Mr. Miller provided the Board with two
                     letters of support from his immediately adjacent neighbours to the east
                     and west. As well, he provided a petition containing ten signatures of
                     support from neighbours residing within the 60 metre radius.



SDAB-D-07-149                               2                                       July 20, 2007
SUMMARY OF HEARING: (CONTINUED)

                Mr. Miller stated that he wanted to build the proposed garage so as to
                have a secure building in which to store his dirt bikes and vehicles given
                a number of recent vehicle break-ins in the immediate area.

                Mr. Miller advised the Board that with the proposed development, he
                would still be within the total allowable site coverage of 40 percent given
                his house only occupies 15 percent of the total allowable site coverage.

                In response to questions from the Board regarding the existing concrete
                pad, Mr. Miller stated that he wished to use the existing concrete pad
                and driveway which was wide enough to accommodate two vehicles. He
                said that the existing garage was a single car garage and that the garage
                was approximately 24 feet to 25 feet from his rear property line. With
                respect to the existing wooden shed located at the rear of the property,
                he explained that the shed is on skids so can be moved but that he
                proposed retaining the shed at its present location. He said that there
                was a door located on the north side of shed which faces the house.
                There are no windows on the shed. He expects to remove this shed
                within the next five years. The shed belongs to his roommate who is a
                carpenter by trade and the shed was used to store his tools and supplies.
                His roommate will be assisting him in building the proposed garage and
                future renovations he plans to do on the existing house.

                The proposed garage will be two feet longer than the existing garage.
                The wooden shed was approved by the Planning and Development
                Department with two variances, one being in regards to height and the
                other in regards to eaves. He stated that during construction of the
                proposed garage, he would be moving the wood shed and levelling the
                ground where the shed is located and moving the shed back to its
                current location. He stated that he believed the existing garage to be
                non-conforming given its location and the requirements under the
                Mature Neighbourhood Overlay.

                Mr. Miller said that the roof of the existing garage is a cottage style roof
                and the proposed garage will have a gable roof comparable to the roof
                on the wooden shed. The roof pitch will be 4/12. He stated that he was
                building a standard garage package and would be installing gas and
                electricity but no water or sanitary sewer.




SDAB-D-07-149                         3                                     July 20, 2007


SUMMARY OF HEARING: (CONTINUED)

                In response to questions regarding the variance for the location of the
                garage from the rear property line, Mr. Miller preferred to use the
                 existing garage pad which would allow him to park an 8 foot by 24 foot
                 long flat deck trailer.

                 In response to questions about community consultation, Mr. Miller had
                 obtained two letters of support, one from 13111 Sherbrooke Avenue
                 which is immediately to the east of the subject site and from 13203
                 Sherbrooke Avenue which is immediately to the west of the subject site.
                 The petition, prepared by Mr. Miller, listed the variances that he was
                 seeking for the construction of the garage. He stated that he had not
                 obtained a letter of support from the neighbour located directly to the
                 rear of his property, that being 13112 – 123 Avenue, due to the fact that
                 his employment takes him out of the City and his attempts to contact this
                 neighbour on weekends was unsuccessful.

                 Mr. Miller said that he had two vehicles, two dirt bikes and two utility
                 trailers used for recreational purposes. The larger of the two trailers was
                 currently being stored at his father’s property but given his father’s
                 property is being sold, the trailer will have to be stored at the subject site.

                 In closing, Mr. Miller stated that his neighbour to the west of his
                 property has recently obtained approval to construct an oversize garage.



DECISION:

                 that the appeal be ALLOWED and the DEVELOPMENT GRANTED and
                 the excess of 10.27 square metres in maximum allowable site coverage
                 of an Accessory Building and the deficiency of 1.92 metres in the
                 requirement that the detached garage shall be fully contained within the
                 rear 12.8 metres of the site be permitted, subject to the following
                 conditions:

                 1.     the existing wooden shed located at the rear of the property be
                        removed on or before July 31, 2012.
                 2.     eaves, including eavestroughing may project a maximum of 0.46
                        metres (1.5 feet) into required yards or separation spaces of less
                        than 1.2 metres (four feet).

SDAB-D-07-149                           4                                       July 20, 2007


DECISION: (CONTINUED)

                 3.     eavestroughing be installed and drainage to take place entirely on
                        subject property.
                 4.     height of the garage not to exceed 3.7 metres nor one storey.
                 5.     exterior finish of the garage to be made compatible with that of
                 the    existing principal dwelling.
                 6.     the Applicant install a remote control garage door opener.
                 7.     The access to the garage shall be hardsurfaced. Hardsurfacing
                        shall mean the provision of a durable, dust-free material
                        constructed of concrete, asphalt or similar pavement capable of
                        withstanding expected vehicle loads.

REASONS FOR DECISION:

                 The Board finds the following:

                 1.     That the proposed development is accessory to a Permitted Use in
                        the RF1 Zone.
                 2.     The Appellant provided the Board with letters of support for the
                        proposed development from the two adjacent neighbours and 10
                        signatures of support from neighbours located within the 60
                        metre notification radius. No letters of opposition were received
                        and no one appeared before the Board in opposition to the
                        proposed development.
                 3.     The rear yard variance is required given the Appellant’s wish to
                        use and expand the existing concrete garage pad.
                 4.     The site coverage requirements for Accessory Buildings is
                        exceeded but the total allowable site coverage is less that the 40
                        percent allowed.
                 5.     The Board is satisfied that by imposing a condition that the
                        existing wooden shed be removed from the site, there will no
                        longer be an excess in site coverage for Accessory Buildings after
                        the shed is removed.
                 6.     Given the above, the Board is of the opinion that 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.”
SDAB-D-07-149                            5                                    July 20, 2007

                   IMPORTANT INFORMATION FOR APPLICANT/APPELLANT

1.   THIS IS NOT A BUILDING PERMIT. Such permit must be obtained separately from the
     Development and Inspection Services, Planning and Development Department, 5th
     Floor, AT&T Canada Tower, 10250 – 101 Street, Edmonton.

2.   The appellant is advised there may be issues relating to the building code involved with
     this application and the appellant should review the proposal with the Development
     and Inspection Services of the Planning and Development Department.

3.   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:

     a)     any conditions of approval, save those of a continuing nature, have been
            fulfilled.

4.   Except as provided in the DC2 District, IF DEVELOPMENT AUTHORIZED BY A
     DEVELOPMENT PERMIT IS NOT COMMENCED WITHIN TWELVE MONTHS FROM THE
     DATE OF ITS ISSUE, SUCH PERMIT CEASES TO BE VALID, provided that, 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.

5.   Notwithstanding Clause (1) above, if a Building Permit is issued for the development
     within the twelve month period, the Development Permit issued therefore shall not
     lapse by virtue of work not having commenced within the statutory minimum
     development permit.

6.   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, such notice shall operate to suspend the development permit. Section
     688 of the Municipal Government Act, 1994, provides that:

     (1)    Notwithstanding Section 506, an appeal lies to the Court of Appeal on a
            question of law or jurisdiction with respect to:

            (a)    a decision of the Subdivision and Development Appeal Board, and
            (b)    the Municipal Government Board on a decision on an appeal under
                   Section 619, an intermunicipal dispute under Division 11 or subdivision
                   appeal under this Division.
SDAB-D-07-149                               6                                     July 20, 2007

        (2)   An application for leave to appeal pursuant to subsection (1) must be made to a
              judge of the Court of Appeal within 30 days after the issue of the decision
              sought to be appealed and notice of the application must be given to:

              (a)    the Municipal Government Board or the Subdivision and Development
                     Appeal Board; and
              (b)    any other persons that the judge directs.

        (3)   On hearing the application and the representations of those persons who are, in
              the opinion of the judge, affected by the application, the judge may grant leave
              to appeal if the judge is of the opinion that the appeal involves a question of law
              of sufficient importance to merit a further appeal and has a reasonable chance
              of success.

        (4)   If the judge grants leave to appeal, the judge may

              (a)    direct which persons or other bodies must be named as respondents to
                     the appeal.
              (b)    specify the questions of law or the questions of jurisdiction to be
                     appealed, and
              (c)    make any order as to the costs of the application that the judge considers
                     appropriate.

        (5)   If an appeal is from a decision of a Subdivision and Development Appeal Board,
              the municipality must be given notice of the application for leave to appeal, and
              the board and municipality:

              (a)    are respondents in the application and, if leave is granted in the appeal,
                     and
              (b)    are entitled to be represented by counsel at the application and, if leave is
                     granted, at the appeal.

NOTE:
        (1)   When a decision on a development application has been rendered by the
              Subdivision and Development Appeal Board, the enforcement of that decision is
              carried out by the Development and Inspection Services, Planning and
              Development Department, 5th Floor, AT&T Canada Tower, 10250 – 101 Street,
              Edmonton, AB (Telephone: (780) 496-3100).
SDAB-D-07-149                             7                                   July 20, 2007

      (2)    When an application is approved and an agreement or caveat is required, the
             registration costs are the responsibility of the applicant. These costs must be
             paid to the City of Edmonton before the plans and application will be processed.




                                                 Ms. L. Parish, Presiding Officer
                                                 SUBDIVISION         AND      DEVELOPMENT
                                                 APPEAL BOARD

cc:   Mr. & Mrs. R. Belcourt
      Steve Slusarchuk
                     Subdivision and                       Office of the City Clerk
                     Development Appeal Board              3rd Floor, City Hall
                                                           1 Sir Winston Churchill Square
                                                           Edmonton AB T5J 2R7
                                                           Telephone: (780) 496-6079
                                                           Fax: (780) 496-8175


                                                   DATE: July 20, 2007
4803 – 109A Avenue                                 APPLICATION NO: 67577460-001
EDMONTON, AB T6A 1S5                               FILE NO.: SDAB-D-07-150

               NOTICE OF DECISION OF THE SUBDIVISION AND DEVELOPMENT APPEAL BOARD

This appeal dated June 8, 2007, from the decision of the Development Officer for permission
to:

Construct a Single Detached House with a front covered veranda and fireplace on an existing
foundation and to demolish single detached retaining the foundation

on Lot 10, Block 57, Plan 4448KS, located at 4803 – 109A Avenue, was heard by the
Subdivision and Development Appeal Board at its meeting held on July 5, 2007. The decision
of the Board was as follows:

SUMMARY OF HEARING:

                     “The Board heard an appeal of the decision of the Development Officer
                     to refuse an application to construct a Single Detached House with a
                     front covered veranda and fireplace on an existing foundation and to
                     demolish a single detached house retaining the foundation located at
                     4803 – 109A Avenue. The subject site is zoned RF1 Single Detached
                     Residential Zone and is located within the Mature Neighbourhood
                     Overlay. The refusal is based on a deficiency in the minimum Front Yard
                     requirement, that being an average setback of the block face, a
                     deficiency in the minimum Side Yard requirement and an excess in the
                     maximum allowable projection of the single storey unenclosed front
                     porch or veranda into the required Front Yard.

                     The Board heard from Trevor Nahayowski, the Appellant and property
                     owner.
SDAB-D-07-150                        2                                     July 20, 2007


SUMMARY OF HEARING: (CONTINUED)

                Mr. Nahayowski stated that he has done extensive community
                consultation regarding the proposed development. As a result, he
                provided the Board with documentation containing 27 signatures of
                which 16 were in support and 11 were neutral. He also provided an
                email from the Capilano Community League who expressed they had no
                comment on the proposed development.

                Mr. Nahayowski stated that he has tried to construct a house that is
                similar in features to some of the houses in the immediate
                neighbourhood. He said that there are at least four houses located on
                109A Avenue which are two-storey homes and have a similar front yard
                projection to what he was proposing. He was of the opinion that the
                reason for the front yard deficiency is due to the block face setback
                calculations being based on an average along the block. He noted that
                two houses to the west of the subject site are set back substantially
                further from the front property line thus giving a higher average block
                face setback. He provided photographs of similar buildings in the
                immediate area in order to substantiate his argument.

                Mr. Nahayowski said he did not obtain approval from the neighbour
                directly to the west of his property due to unrelated issues.

                Mr. Nahayowski, in response to questions from the Board, provided the
                following information:

                1.     His proposal is to make use of the existing foundation with a five
                       foot extension in the front yard and an eight foot extension in the
                       rear yard.
                2.     The washroom window on the second floor overlooks the
                       deficient left side yard.
                3.     The deck located in the rear yard will be a maximum of three feet
                       from ground level with an irregular shape that is anywhere from
                       three feet to eleven feet wide.
                4.     The reason for the extension in the front of the house is more for
                       layout and curb appeal of the proposed house. If the front was
                       moved back five feet he would have to break three corners of the
                       foundation instead of the current proposal which would entail
                       breaking just one corner of the existing foundation wall.
SDAB-D-07-150                        3                                    July 20, 2007


SUMMARY OF HEARING: (CONTINUED)

                The Board then heard from Mr. Mark Ehrman, the owner of the
                residence at 4720 – 109 Avenue. He said he does not live on the site
                which previously belonged to his father but is currently renovating the
                home in order to move back to the property. He operates a business as a
                home inspector and spent a number of years as a building contractor
                prior to setting up his own company. He stated that he was glad to see
                new developments happening in the neighbourhood and said he wished
                to reflect some of the opinions of senior residents of the neighbourhood.

                He stated that a number of the adjacent neighbours found the existing
                garage too high which results in views of the river valley being
                obstructed. He said that because the neighbourhood slope is about four
                feet from the south to the north, the overheight garage does block some
                views. Mr. Ehrman said that the problem is not development but rather
                ensuring that new developments remain within the existing guidelines.
                He said that the area was developed in the 1960’s with most of the
                residences being in the range of 1,000 square feet to 1,200 square feet.

                Mr. Ehrman reviewed the plans and indicated to the Board he did not
                object to the side yard variance since he was in favour of making use of
                the existing foundation but he has difficulties with the front and rear
                yard extensions.

                In rebuttal, Mr. Nahayowski stated that there are similar homes in the
                neighbourhood and he would like to make use of the existing foundation
                which would have a cost differential of $30,000 to $40,000. His current
                proposal would save the foundation walls and bring the least disturbance
                to neighbouring properties during construction of the proposed house.
                He stated that he had consulted with most of the senior residents in the
                neighbourhood with the exception of his neighbour to the west. The
                neighbour to the east has provided his approval to the proposed
                development.
SDAB-D-07-150                         4                                     July 20, 2007


DECISION:

                 that the appeal be ALLOWED and the DEVELOPMENT GRANTED and the
                 deficiency of 1.53 metres in the minimum Front Yard requirement that
                 being an average setback of the block face, the deficiency of 0.56 metres
                 in the minimum required east Side Yard, the deficiency of 0.11 metres in
                 the minimum required west Side Yard, and the excess of 0.53 metres in
                 the maximum projection of a Single Storey Unenclosed Front Porch or
                 Veranda into the required Front Yard be permitted, subject to the
                 following condition:

                 1.     the ensuite window on the second floor indicated on the left
                        elevation plan shall be treated in such a fashion as to protect the
                        privacy of the immediately adjacent neighbour by making it
                        opaque in some manner.



REASONS FOR DECISION:

                 The Board finds the following:

                 1.     The proposed development is a Permitted Use in the RF1 Zone.
                 2.     Community consultation resulted in 16 signatures in support, 11
                        neutral signatures, and the Capilano Community League
                        remained neutral in respect of the proposed development.
                 3.     No letters of objection were on file but Mr. Ehrman stated that a
                        number of long term residents were concerned about the
                        proposed development. The Board notes that none of these
                        individuals had stated their objection and none of them appeared
                        in opposition to the proposed development at the hearing.
                 4.     The proposed development is making use of the existing
                        foundation resulting in less disturbance to the neighbourhood
                        during construction.
                 5.     Without granting the front yard variance and the side yard
                        variances, the Appellant would be unable to make use of the
                        existing concrete foundation.
                 6.     By imposing the condition that the ensuite window on the left
                        elevation be opaque will minimize the effect of the deficiency in
                        the side yard upon his immediate neighbour to the east of the
                        subject site.


SDAB-D-07-150                         5                                     July 20, 2007


                 7.     Based on the above reasons, the Board is of the opinion that 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

1.   THIS IS NOT A BUILDING PERMIT. Such permit must be obtained separately from the
     Development and Inspection Services, Planning and Development Department, 5th
     Floor, AT&T Canada Tower, 10250 – 101 Street, Edmonton.

2.   The appellant is advised there may be issues relating to the building code involved with
     this application and the appellant should review the proposal with the Development
     and Inspection Services of the Planning and Development Department.

3.   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:

     a)     any conditions of approval, save those of a continuing nature, have been
            fulfilled.

4.   Except as provided in the DC2 District, IF DEVELOPMENT AUTHORIZED BY A
     DEVELOPMENT PERMIT IS NOT COMMENCED WITHIN TWELVE MONTHS FROM THE
     DATE OF ITS ISSUE, SUCH PERMIT CEASES TO BE VALID, provided that, 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.

5.   Notwithstanding Clause (1) above, if a Building Permit is issued for the development
     within the twelve month period, the Development Permit issued therefore shall not
     lapse by virtue of work not having commenced within the statutory minimum
     development permit.

6.   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, such notice shall operate to suspend the development permit. Section
     688 of the Municipal Government Act, 1994, provides that:
SDAB-D-07-150                            6                                     July 20, 2007

     (1)   Notwithstanding Section 506, an appeal lies to the Court of Appeal on a
           question of law or jurisdiction with respect to:

           (a)    a decision of the Subdivision and Development Appeal Board, and
           (b)    the Municipal Government Board on a decision on an appeal under
                  Section 619, an intermunicipal dispute under Division 11 or subdivision
                  appeal under this Division.

     (2)   An application for leave to appeal pursuant to subsection (1) must be made to a
           judge of the Court of Appeal within 30 days after the issue of the decision
           sought to be appealed and notice of the application must be given to:

           (a)    the Municipal Government Board or the Subdivision and Development
                  Appeal Board; and
           (b)    any other persons that the judge directs.

     (3)   On hearing the application and the representations of those persons who are, in
           the opinion of the judge, affected by the application, the judge may grant leave
           to appeal if the judge is of the opinion that the appeal involves a question of law
           of sufficient importance to merit a further appeal and has a reasonable chance
           of success.

     (4)   If the judge grants leave to appeal, the judge may

           (a)    direct which persons or other bodies must be named as respondents to
                  the appeal.
           (b)    specify the questions of law or the questions of jurisdiction to be
                  appealed, and
           (c)    make any order as to the costs of the application that the judge considers
                  appropriate.

     (5)   If an appeal is from a decision of a Subdivision and Development Appeal Board,
           the municipality must be given notice of the application for leave to appeal, and
           the board and municipality:

           (a)    are respondents in the application and, if leave is granted in the appeal,
                  and
           (b)    are entitled to be represented by counsel at the application and, if leave is
                  granted, at the appeal.
SDAB-D-07-150                              7                                   July 20, 2007

NOTE:
        (1)   When a decision on a development application has been rendered by the
              Subdivision and Development Appeal Board, the enforcement of that decision is
              carried out by the Development and Inspection Services, Planning and
              Development Department, 5th Floor, AT&T Canada Tower, 10250 – 101 Street,
              Edmonton, AB (Telephone: (780) 496-3100).

        (2)   When an application is approved and an agreement or caveat is required, the
              registration costs are the responsibility of the applicant. These costs must be
              paid to the City of Edmonton before the plans and application will be processed.




                                                  Ms. L. Parish, Presiding Officer
                                                  SUBDIVISION         AND      DEVELOPMENT
                                                  APPEAL BOARD

cc:     Mark Ehrman
        Dave J. Tennant
                              SDAB-D-07-151

                       Application No.: 67725224-001


An appeal by Jennifer Jay and Trevor Preston vs Susan Taylor to operate a Major
Home Based Business (operate a poker playing company) on Lot 8A, Block 62,
Plan 4688NY, located at 11447 – 39 Avenue was TABLED TO JULY 26, 2007
                     Subdivision and                       Office of the City Clerk
                     Development Appeal Board              3rd Floor, City Hall
                                                           1 Sir Winston Churchill Square
                                                           Edmonton AB T5J 2R7
                                                           Telephone: (780) 496-6079
                                                           Fax: (780) 496-8175


                                                   DATE: July 20, 2007
                                                   APPLICATION NO: 66286664-001
160 Walsh Crescent                                 FILE NO.: SDAB-D-07-152
EDMONTON, AB T5T 5L6

               NOTICE OF DECISION OF THE SUBDIVISION AND DEVELOPMENT APPEAL BOARD

This appeal dated June 8, 2007, from the decision of the Development Officer for permission
to:

Construct a Professional, Financial, and Office Support Services building (Old Strathcona
Professional Centre)

on Lots 24-26, Block 41, Plan I17 and Lots 27-30, Block 41, Plan I17, located at 10054 to
10070 – 79 Avenue, was heard by the Subdivision and Development Appeal Board at its
meeting held on July 5, 2007. The decision of the Board was as follows:

SUMMARY OF HEARING:

                      “The Board heard an appeal of the decision of the Development Officer
                      to refuse an application to construct a Professional, Financial, and
                      Office Support Services building (Old Strathcona Professional Centre)
                      located at 10054 to 10070 – 79 Avenue. The subject site is zoned IB
                      Industrial Business Zone and is located within the Strathcona Area
                      Redevelopment Plan. The refusal is based on an excess in the maximum
                      allowable Floor Area Ratio, a deficiency in the minimum required
                      number of loading and unloading spaces, a deficiency in the number of
                      bicycle parking spaces, an excess in the projection of the balconies into
                      the required Front Yard, and the Applicant not submitting a grading
                      plan, a Crime Prevention through Environmental Design (CPTED)
                      Assessment and updated Site Plan and Garage floor plans.

                      The Board notes there were no letters of objection received and no one
                      appeared at the hearing in opposition to the proposed development.

                      The Board acknowledged receipt of a submission from the Appellant
                      dated June 26, 2007.
SDAB-D-07-152                          2                                    July 20, 2007


SUMMARY OF HEARING: (CONTINUED)

                 The Board heard from Mr. Dallin who made the following points:

                 1.   The only variance being requested is that of Floor Area Ratio. The
                      proposed Floor Area Ratio is 1.58 versus the required maximum
                      allowed Floor Area Ratio of 1.2.
                 2.   There are two levels of underground parking resulting in 19
                      parking stalls in excess of the requirement under the Edmonton
                      Zoning Bylaw.
                 3.   There are no objections to the proposed development.
                 4.   They are now, with the revised plans dated June 26, 2007,
                      compliant with the size of the balconies, the number of
                      loading/unloading stalls, and the number of bicycle parking stalls.
                 5.   It was communicated that in the IL Light Industrial Zone, a Floor
                      Area Ratio of 1.6 would be allowed with underground parking.
                 6.   There is no side yard encroachment and no excess in the height
                      requirement for the proposed development.
                 7.   The changes made to the plans submitted on June 26, 2007 were
                      outlined in the text of that submission.

                 In response to questions, Mr. Dallin indicated:

                 1.   That balconies in commercial units provide a different aesthetic,
                      outside access, practicality, and, in his opinion, were an effective
                      marketing tool.
                 2.   It had been decided to have all the balconies the same size (6 feet, 6
                      inches) although the only original encroachment was for the front
                      yard.
                 3.   The Floor Area Ratio was more restrictive than density and what
                      was allowed by the minimum side yards. In his opinion, there was
                      a discrepancy in the Edmonton Zoning Bylaw between allowable
                      building size by using the minimum yard requirement versus Floor
                      Area Ratio.
                 4.   In the immediate area there were a number of buildings of a
                      similar size to that of the proposed development.
                 5.   He has developed a number of projects at or higher than that being
                      proposed in the immediate area.
                 6.   There was a need for commercial units in this area as a result of the
                      redevelopment of the residential component.
SDAB-D-07-152                        3                                  July 20, 2007


SUMMARY OF HEARING: (CONTINUED)

                 7.    When the gross area of the proposed development was used there
                       would only be four parking stalls and not 19 parking stalls in
                       excess of the requirement under the Edmonton Zoning Bylaw.
                 8.    He was hesitant to provide a grading plan and Crime Prevention
                       through Environmental Design (CPTED) Assessment at the
                       development stage but indicated he was willing to do so in
                       conjunction with the building permits for the proposed
                       development.
                 9.    There was no intention to convert the commercial units into
                       residential condominiums given a change in zoning would be
                       required since the IB Zone does not permit residential uses.
                 10.   The submitted plans dated June 26, 2007 did not contain a
                       revised landscape plan. Mr. Dallin advised that he was proposing
                       to use the landscape plan which was submitted to the
                       Development Officer with his original Development Permit
                       application.
                 11.   He was of the opinion the proposed development would be a good
                       development for the area.


DECISION:

                 that the appeal be ALLOWED and the DEVELOPMENT GRANTED and
                 the excess of 0.39 in the maximum allowable Floor Area Ratio be
                 permitted, subject to the following conditions:

                 1.    The approval is based on the revised plans (including the
                       building finishes shown on the architectural rendering)
                       submitted to the Board on June 26, 2007 with the landscape plan
                       remaining the same at that provided with the original
                       development permit application.
                 2.    The Appellant is to submit a Crime Prevention through
                       Environmental Design (CPTED) assessment prepared by a
                       qualified security consultant before November 1, 2007 to the
                       satisfaction of the Subdivision and Development Appeal Board.
                 3.    The maximum Height shall not exceed 10.85 metres or three
                       storeys.
SDAB-D-07-152                         4                                    July 20, 2007


DECISION: (CONTINUED)

                  4.    The Appellant is to submit a grading plan that shows the
                        elevation of the Site at each corner of the Site, including the
                        finished main floor elevation and updated elevation plans
                        showing the height from grade to each floor, the midpoint and
                        peak of the roof, on or before November 1, 2007 to the
                        satisfaction of the Subdivision and Development Appeal Board.
                  5.    No parking, loading, storage, trash collection, outdoor service or
                        display areas shall be permitted within the Required Yard.
                  6.    Signs shall comply with the regulations found in Schedule 59F of
                        the Edmonton Zoning Bylaw.
                  7.    The existing accesses on 101 Street and on 79 Avenue must be
                        filled in and the curb & gutter constructed and boulevard
                        restored to grass. The owner/applicant must obtain a filling in
                        permit, available from the Planning and Development
                        Department, 5th Floor, 10250 101 Street (contact Val Gordychuk
                        at 496 6733 to make an appointment).
                  8.    The underground driveway ramp must not exceed a slope of 6
                        percent for a minimum distance of 4.5 metres inside the property
                        line and the ramp must be at grade at the property line.
                  9.    Any underground parking access card devices must be located on
                        site, a minimum of 3 metres inside the property line.
                  10.   Any sidewalk or boulevard damage occurring as a result of
                        construction traffic must be restored to the satisfaction of the
                        Transportation Department, as per Section 15.5(f) of the Zoning
                        Bylaw. The sidewalks and boulevard will be inspected by a
                        Roadway Maintenance Inspector prior to construction, and again
                        once construction is complete. All expenses incurred for repair
                        are to be borne by the owner.
                  11.   Any hoarding or construction taking place on road right-of-way
                        requires an OSCAM permit. The owner must call Traffic
                        Operations at 496-2680 to arrange for the permit.
                  12.   Any proposed retaining walls must not exceed a height of 0.3
                        metres at the property line and no portion of the wall may
                        encroach onto road right-of-way. Should the owner/applicant
                        wish to increase this height, adequate sight line data must be
                        provided to ensure that backing up manoeuvres can be made
                        safely.
                  13.   Garbage enclosures must be located entirely within private
                        property and gates and/or doors of the garbage enclosure must
                        not open or encroach into road right-of-way.


SDAB-D-07-152                         5                                    July 20, 2007


DECISION: (CONTINUED)
                   14. Residential Sales Trailers require a separate development permit.
                       Construction trailers must not be located on road right-of-way.
                   15. PRIOR TO THE ISSUANCE of any development or building
                       permits, the Applicant or property owner shall provide a
                       guaranteed security to ensure that landscaping in 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.     The proposed development is a Permitted Use in the IB Zone.
                 2.     There were no letters of objection received and no one
                        appeared before the Board in opposition.
SDAB-D-07-152                            6                                    July 20, 2007


REASONS FOR DECISION: (CONTINUED)

                   3.      With respect to the increase in Floor Area Ratio, the Board notes
                           this is balanced by the fact the proposed development meets all
                           the requirements in the Edmonton Zoning Bylaw for Side Yards
                           and Front Yard, and is under the maximum allowable height of
                           12 metres.
                   4.      The Board notes that under the Strathcona Area Redevelopment
                           Plan, one of the objectives for the subject site is to encourage
                           development of general office space in locations and amounts
                           which are compatible with the retail and residential functions of
                           Strathcona.
                   5.      The Board accepts the opinion of the Development Officer that
                           the proposed development is characteristic of the area and is
                           visually attractive.
                   6.      For the above reasons, 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

1.   THIS IS NOT A BUILDING PERMIT. Such permit must be obtained separately from the
     Development and Inspection Services, Planning and Development Department, 5th
     Floor, AT&T Canada Tower, 10250 – 101 Street, Edmonton.

2.   The appellant is advised there may be issues relating to the building code involved with
     this application and the appellant should review the proposal with the Development
     and Inspection Services of the Planning and Development Department.

3.   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:

     a)     any conditions of approval, save those of a continuing nature, have been
            fulfilled.

4.   Except as provided in the DC2 District, IF DEVELOPMENT AUTHORIZED BY A
     DEVELOPMENT PERMIT IS NOT COMMENCED WITHIN TWELVE MONTHS FROM THE
     DATE OF ITS ISSUE, SUCH PERMIT CEASES TO BE VALID, provided that, 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.

SDAB-D-07-152                            7                                    July 20, 2007

5.   Notwithstanding Clause (1) above, if a Building Permit is issued for the development
     within the twelve month period, the Development Permit issued therefore shall not
     lapse by virtue of work not having commenced within the statutory minimum
     development permit.

6.   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, such notice shall operate to suspend the development permit. Section
     688 of the Municipal Government Act, 1994, provides that:

     (1)    Notwithstanding Section 506, an appeal lies to the Court of Appeal on a
            question of law or jurisdiction with respect to:

            (a)    a decision of the Subdivision and Development Appeal Board, and
            (b)    the Municipal Government Board on a decision on an appeal under
                   Section 619, an intermunicipal dispute under Division 11 or subdivision
                   appeal under this Division.

     (2)    An application for leave to appeal pursuant to subsection (1) must be made to a
            judge of the Court of Appeal within 30 days after the issue of the decision
            sought to be appealed and notice of the application must be given to:

            (a)    the Municipal Government Board or the Subdivision and Development
                   Appeal Board; and
            (b)    any other persons that the judge directs.

     (3)    On hearing the application and the representations of those persons who are, in
            the opinion of the judge, affected by the application, the judge may grant leave
            to appeal if the judge is of the opinion that the appeal involves a question of law
            of sufficient importance to merit a further appeal and has a reasonable chance
            of success.

     (4)    If the judge grants leave to appeal, the judge may

            (a)    direct which persons or other bodies must be named as respondents to
                   the appeal.
            (b)    specify the questions of law or the questions of jurisdiction to be
                   appealed, and
            (c)    make any order as to the costs of the application that the judge considers
                   appropriate.

     (5)    If an appeal is from a decision of a Subdivision and Development Appeal Board,
            the municipality must be given notice of the application for leave to appeal, and
            the board and municipality:
SDAB-D-07-152                               8                                     July 20, 2007


              (a)    are respondents in the application and, if leave is granted in the appeal,
                     and
              (b)    are entitled to be represented by counsel at the application and, if leave is
                     granted, at the appeal.

NOTE:

        (1)   When a decision on a development application has been rendered by the
              Subdivision and Development Appeal Board, the enforcement of that decision is
              carried out by the Development and Inspection Services, Planning and
              Development Department, 5th Floor, AT&T Canada Tower, 10250 – 101 Street,
              Edmonton, AB (Telephone: (780) 496-3100).

        (2)   When an application is approved and an agreement or caveat is required, the
              registration costs are the responsibility of the applicant. These costs must be
              paid to the City of Edmonton before the plans and application will be processed.




                                                   Ms. L. Parish, Presiding Officer
                                                   SUBDIVISION         AND      DEVELOPMENT
                                                   APPEAL BOARD

cc:
                    SDAB-D-07-135

             Application No.: 67223540-001


An appeal by Chris Goodwin to operate a Major Home Based
Business (automotive detailing) on Lot 19A, Block 5, Plan
9122137 located at 10341 – 145 Street was WITHDRAWN.

								
To top