subdivision and development appeal...

Calgary Subdivision and Development Appeal BoardP.O. Box 2100, Station M, # 8110, Calgary, AB T2P 2M5Email: [email protected]

CALGARY SUBDIVISION AND DEVELOPMENT APPEAL BOARD

Citation: 2014 CGYSDAB 85

Case Name: SDAB2014-0085 (Re)

File No: DP2013-3087

Appeal by: Conor Payne

Appeal against: Development Authority of The City of Calgary

Hearing date: July 17, 2014 and August 07, 2014

Decision date: September 09, 2014

Members present: Rick Grol, ChairmanKerry ArmstrongJo Anne AtkinsBrian CorkumTeresa Goldstein Dale HodgesRobert Sipka

DECISION

FILE NO. DP2013-3087 APPEAL NO. SDAB2014-0085

Basis of appeal:

This is an appeal from an approval by the Development Authority for a development permit made on the application of Eric Rudy for a new: multi-residential development (1 building, 4 units) at 61 30 Avenue SW .

Description of Application:

The appeal before the Subdivision and Development Appeal Board (Board) deals with an approval by the Development Authority for a development permit application for a new multi-residential development (1 building, 4 units) at 61 30 Avenue SW. The property is located in the community of Erlton and has a land use designation of Multi-Residential – Contextual Grade-Oriented (M-CG d72) District.

Adjournment:

On July 17, 2014 the hearing commenced with consideration of procedural issues. The Board adjourned the hearing to August 07, 2014 with the consent of all parties involved.

Hearing:

The Board heard verbal submissions from:

Kenneth Melanson, representing the Development Authority;Conor Payne, the appellant, in favour of the appeal;Natalie Kwadrans, an affected neighbour, in favour of the appeal; Kirt van der Woude, an affected neighbour, in favour of the appeal; andMarian Liptak, the architect, opposed to the appeal.

Summary of Evidence:

The Board report forms part of the evidence presented to the Board. It contains the Development Authority’s decision respecting the development permit application and the materials submitted by the Development Authority that pertain to the application. The Board report further contains the notice of appeal and the documents, materials or written submissions of the appellant, applicant and any other party to the appeal.

Appendix A attached to this decision contains the summary of evidence from the parties submitted at the hearing and forms part of the Board’s decision.

of 24ISC: Unrestricted


Decision:

In determining this appeal, the Board:

Complied with the provincial legislation and land use policies, applicable statutory plans and, subject to variation by the Board, The City of Calgary Land Use Bylaw 1P2007, as amended, and all other relevant City of Calgary Bylaws;

Had regard to the subdivision and development regulations; Considered all the relevant planning evidence presented at the hearing and the

arguments made; and Considered the circumstances and merits of the application.

1. The appeal is allowed in part and the decision of the Development Authority is varied.

2. The development permit shall be issued as approved by the Development Authority subject to the following amendments/additions to the conditions of approval.

Conditions of approval

Prior to release conditions

Prior to release condition number 1 is deleted in its entirety and replaced with the following conditions:

1. The applicant shall, to the satisfaction of the Development Authority, submit a total of six (6) complete sets of amended plans (file folded and collated) to the File Manager.

In accordance with the decision of the Subdivision and Development Appeal Board (SDAB2014-0085), the amended plans shall, to the satisfaction of the Development Authority, indicate the following:

(a) Eliminate the third storey balconies from the rear of units C and D in their entirety;

(b) The third storey lofts of units C and D must be further set back (reduced) from the rear facade of the lofts by a minimum of 1.2 metres; and

(c) Privacy screens (permanently installed) on the rear patios and rear balconies with a height of 2.0 metres in order to provide adequate screening towards the side property lines with the adjacent properties.



In order to expedite the review of the amended plans, please include the following in your submission:

(1) Three (3) of the plan set(s) shall highlight all of the amendments;

(2) Three (3) detailed written response(s) to the conditions of approval document that provides a point by point explanation as to how each of the prior to release conditions were addressed and/or resolved; and

(3) Two (2) of the plan set(s) shall highlight all of the amendments with annotations accordingly.

In addition to the full sized plans requested above, please submit one (1) 11 x 17 complete set of plans for the purpose of the development completion permit (DCP) process.

Please ensure that all plans affected by the revisions are amended accordingly.

Prior to release conditions numbers 2, 3 and 9 are deleted in its entirety.

Reasons:

1 The Board considered the written, verbal, and photographic evidence submitted, and notes that that the appeal pertains to an approval by the Development Authority of a development permit for a new multi-residential development (1 building, 4 units) at 61 30 Avenue SW. The property has a land use designation of Multi-Residential – Contextual Grade-Oriented (M-CG d72) District pursuant to Land Use Bylaw 1P2007.

2 The appellant, who resides the immediate east of the proposed development, expressed concerns about the development regarding, among other things, massing, overlooking/privacy and shadowing. At the hearing the appellant in detail elaborated on his concerns. Affected neighbours also expressed concerns respecting overlooking, in particular from the third storey balconies.

3 The Board has particular regard to Land Use Bylaw 1P2007, including but not limited to the following sections:

Section 35 states:

Discretionary Use Development Permit Application



35 When making a decision on a development permit for a discretionary use the Development Authority must take into account:

(a) any plans and policies affecting the parcel;

(b) the purpose statements in the applicable land use district;

(c) the appropriateness of the location and parcel for the proposed development;

(d) the compatibility and impact of the proposed development with respect to adjacent development and the neighbourhood;

(e) the merits of the proposed development;

(f) the servicing requirements;

(g) access and transportation requirements;

(h) vehicle and pedestrian circulation within the parcel;

(i) the impact on the public transit system; and

(j) sound planning principles.

Section 587(1)(i) lists “Multi-Residential Development” as discretionary use in the M-CG District.

4 The Board also has regard to the Municipal Development Plan (MDP) and the Elton Area Redevelopment Plan (ARP).

5 The Board acknowledges the written and oral submissions of all parties, including but not limited to the appellant, applicant and interested/ affected parties, as well as letters and correspondence received regarding the application and appeal. The Board considered all relevant arguments either in favour of or against the proposed development.

6 The application is for a multi-residential development on the subject property in the form of two more or less attached buildings. One building is located at the front of the property and contains two units (unit A and B). The other building is located behind the front building at the rear of the property; this building contains also two units (unit C and D) a courtyard/internal corridor gives access to the dwelling units in the rear building.

7 The application requires several relaxations of Land Use Bylaw 1P2007, which are outlined in the matrix provided by the Development Authority at the hearing and contained in Appendix A to the Board’s decision. The relaxations pertain to: (a)



Building setbacks; (b) Projections into setback areas; (c) At grade orientation of units; and (d) Landscaping.

8 The Development Authority felt that the application was respectful of the Land Use Bylaw, MDP and ARP. In the Development Authority’s opinion, the proposed development is appropriate from a planning perspective.

9 The Board reviewed the context of the proposed development and the required relaxations having regard to sound planning considerations, the merits of the application, the circumstances of the case and the evidence presented.

10 The proposed development is a discretionary use. Therefore, pursuant to Land Use Bylaw 1P2007, the development permit application can either be granted or refused on the basis of sound planning considerations.

11 Pursuant to section 35 of Land Use Bylaw 1P2007, when making a decision on a development permit application for a discretionary use the Development Authority must take into account the things listed in subsections (a) through (j). Subsection (a) of this section lists the plans and policies affecting the parcel. Therefore, the MDP and the ARP guidelines must be taken into account by the Development Authority. In addition, the compatibility and impact of the proposed development with respect to adjacent development and the neighbourhood as well as the merits of the proposed development and sound planning principles, among other things, must be taken into account.

12 Pursuant to section 687(3)(a.1) of the Municipal Government Act, RSA 2000, c. M-26, as amended the Board in determining an appeal must comply with statutory plans. The ARP is a statutory plan.

13 The Board takes into account that one of the objectives of the MDP is densification and adding more dwelling units to inner city communities. The proposed multi-residential development of four dwelling units advances family accommodation which contributes to inner city living. From a planning perspective this is a relevant factor.

14 The Board notes that both the Land Use Bylaw and the ARP have designated the South Erlton area, in which the subject parcel is located, for low density residential development, including low density multi-residential development. A four dwelling unit development is considered by the Board as low density multi-residential development.

15 The ARP has not the same status as a land use bylaw and the Development Authority has discretion to implement the policies of the ARP, in particular where the ARP does not use mandatory but directive language. The words “should” in the relevant ARP sections referenced by the appellant indicate that the ARP policies outlined in these sections are directive. Therefore the Development Authority has discretion how to implements these policies.



16 The appellant, applicant and Development Authority referenced other previously approved developments in the community and/or appeals related to those development permit applications. The Board notes that these applications and developments are irrelevant. Each application is determined on the basis its own merits, the circumstances of the case, the evidence submitted and sound planning considerations.

17 The land use designation M-CG District is in accordance with the policies and directives of ARP for development on the subject land, which is a factor to be considered. 18 The Board agrees with the Development Authority that the community is in transition. Older homes are being replaced by newer developments. In addition, the Board notes that there are three storey developments in the immediate area of the subject property.

19 The buildings of the development are well below the maximum height allowed under the Land Use Bylaw and well under the building envelope of the Bylaw. The height is similar to the height of the two adjacent single detached homes to the east. From the front façade, the development has the appearance of two separate residential dwelling units that in the Board’s opinion are befitting the streetscape and similar to adjacent properties. The garage is in compliance with the provisions of the Land Use Bylaw. No parking relaxation is sought or required.

20 The Board finds that the required relaxations are for the most part, the result of the site constraints imposed from the utility right-of-way. The landscaping relaxations are not substantial and are, in the Board’s view, appropriate from a planning perspective. In addition, the other sought relaxations are in the Board’s opinion acceptable. There is no negative impact established from these relaxations, as they do not directly affect the use and enjoyment of the adjacent properties or the amenities of the neighbourhood.

21 Accordingly, pursuant to section 687(3)(d) of the Municipal Government Act, the Board determines that the required relaxations would not unduly interfere with the amenities of the neighbourhood, or materially interfere with or affect the use or enjoyment of neighbouring parcels of land.

22 The Board notes that to some extent any redevelopment on the subject parcel, in terms of massing and overshadowing, will impact the appellant’s home and surrounding properties. The Board, having regard to all the evidence, finds that while there is some overshadowing of the appellant’s property resulting from the proposed development, but that the shadowing is not substantial in nature.

23 The Board takes into account that the appellant’s existing home development has a relatively deep building depth.

24 However, the Board agrees with the appellant and affected neighbours to the south of the property that the third storey balconies presented at the rear of dwelling units C



and D will result in overlooking into their rear yard amenity space and will affect the privacy of these residents. These units are located at the rear of the property and are situated relatively close to the properties across the lane. In addition, the balconies are oriented close to the side yards as well. The Board finds that due to the building height and location these balconies provide significant overlooking into the properties to the south, west and east. In the Board’s opinion the balconies will have an adverse impact on the properties of the affected neighours across the lane and neighbouring properties due to its location and distance to the surrounding properties. In the Board’s view, privacy screens on these balconies will be insufficient to mitigate the privacy and overlooking issues resulting from the development. It is also a factor that the appellant and affected neighbours pointed out that the applicant showed them originally the development proposal with no balconies at the rear. The Board does not accept the statement of the applicant that the third storey balconies are not balconies but rather would be fire accesses only. To this effect, the plans clearly indicate these as balconies; the Board finds that under the rules of the Land Use Bylaw this area is a “balcony”. The configuration of this area would allow for additional amenity space that in the Board’s view creates undue overlooking and privacy issues for the surrounding properties. The Board, in weighing the evidence, further finds that the third storey balconies add to the massing of the rear building.

25 The Board, on the balance of the evidence and aforementioned factors, thus finds that, from a planning perspective, these balconies are not appropriate.

26 Furthermore, the Board finds that the massing effect of the third storey lofts could be lessened by reducing the depth of the lofts. Although the lofts are situated completely within the roof of the building, in the Board’s opinion the configuration of the lofts brings the massing of the development and rear dwelling units too far into the rear yard of the site, which is not sensitive to the surrounding properties. In the Board’s opinion the rear façade portions of the third storey lofts could be further set back from its rear façade by a minimum of 1.2 metres (i.e. reduce the loft depth in size by at least 1.2 metres). This in the Board’s opinion would reduce the massing impact of the rear portion of the development onto the surrounding properties.

27 The Board, based on the evidence and aforementioned factors, finds that the proposed development with the aforementioned required modifications would meet the policies of the ARP and MDP. In the Board’s opinion, the development with the required modifications is respectful of the streetscape and the adjacent properties.

28 Having regard to the merits of the application and to sound planning considerations, the Board, based on the evidence and aforementioned factors, in keeping with section 35 of Land Use Bylaw 1P2007, finds that the proposed development with the required modifications as stipulated by the Board is compatible with the adjacent developments and the immediate neighbourhood. The Board, based on planning rationale, finds that the development is appropriate for the site.



29 Having regard to sound planning consideration the Board finds it necessary to impose the following additional conditions of approval: (a) Elimination of the third storey balconies from the rear of units C and D in their entirety; (b) The third storey lofts of units C and D must be set back from the rear facade of the rear building by a minimum of 1.2 metres; and (c) Permanent privacy screens on the rear patios and rear balconies with a height of 2.0 metres in order to provide adequate screening towards the side property lines with the adjacent properties. In addition, prior to release conditions numbers 2, 3 and 9 can be eliminated.

30 In reviewing and weighing all of the evidence, the Board therefore finds that the application warrants approval subject to some additional conditions.

31 For the above reasons the Board allows the appeal in part and varies the decision of the Development Authority.

32 The development permit will be issued as approved by the Development Authority subject to the aforementioned amendments/additions to the conditions of approval.

___________________________________Rick Grol, ChairmanSubdivision and Development Appeal Board

Issued on this 9th day of September, 2014

APPENDIX A

Summary of Evidence:

Evidence presented at the hearing and considered by the Subdivision and Development Appeal Board.

The Development Authority:

Mr. Kenneth Melanson of the Development Authority presented exhibits including the report, viewgraphs, and photographs. In addition to the Land Use Bylaw the relevant



planning document for the site is the Erlton Area Redevelopment Plan. He submitted the following:

This is an appeal of the Development Authority’s decision to approve a new multi-residential development consisting of one building with four dwelling units at 61 30 Avenue SW in the community of Erlton which consists of an existing single detached dwelling. To the north of the site is an existing cemetery and related building; to the south are a number of single detached and multi-residential developments across a lane. To the west is a multi-residential development that was converted from a duplex welling and was subject to an appeal before the Board approximately a year ago. To the east are two infill single detached dwellings which were approved in the 1990s.

The site is currently M-CGd72, which is Multi-residential Contextual Grade oriented District with a maximum density of 72 units per hectare. Multi-residential development is a discretionary use in this district.

The site was notice posted and circulated to the Community Association and effected parties. Objections were received from the Community Association and neighbours to the proposal due to massing, privacy and potential shadowing issues, to name a few.

The site plan in drawing DP-03 shows the location of the proposed building on the site. Located along the west property line is a registered utility right of way; along with a jog in the site creating a slightly odd shaped parcel. The front buildings are separated by a pathway providing access to the rear units and creating the appearance of two separate dwellings at the front. Another covered pathway in the mid area of the site provides access to units C and D and to side pathways from the parking. An interlocking brick pathway runs from the parking garage along the east of the site due in part to the utility right of way which cannot have any structures or pathways on top. The right of way has been landscaped. Garbage and bicycle parking are located in front of the garage.

The front elevation (drawing DP-11) provides a perspective of the proposed dwelling with the adjacent infill single detached dwellings to the east. The peak of roof for the proposed dwelling is approximately a metre taller than the adjacent dwellings; however as the drawing shows the proposal is well inside the building envelope available in the M-CG district. The separation mentioned previously can be seen in the middle, which provides visitors access to the rear units, which are ‘tucked away from the front’, this provides the appearance at first glance of two separate buildings.

The drawing also notes the roof peak of the portion of the development containing units C and D which is actually less than the single detached dwelling directly to the east. Front patio amenity spaces are provided for each of units A and B.



The rear elevation provides a perspective of the building although does not show the detached garage parking area. As previously mentioned the rear portion of the building containing units C and D is much lower than the portion containing units A and B. Both portions of the building respect the adjacent low density residential and are well below the maximum height allowed in the district. Private amenity spaces are provided for units C and D at grade; while additional second level spaces are also provided. As the buildings were well below the maximum allowed heights of the M-CG district; a sun shadow study was not requested as the impact of the proposed building would be no different than another infill low density building. Also, because the sun rises east to west, the impact to a property would be mainly is late in the day when the sun was setting would cast a shadow from the building to neighbouring properties. Also, none of the policies of the City entitle any properties to the right to light.

A prior to release condition has been added to the conditions of approval requiring additional privacy screening for the upper level balconies on units C and D must be provided to reduce privacy concerns.

Looking at the West elevation we can see a bit better the internal pathway which I have highlighted in yellow for access to the front doors of units C and D. Note the breaking of the massing through the stepped down design and change in material texture. Units A and C have small side facing Juliet balconies to allow additional light into the units.

Note also the change in grade of the site and that the front is slightly higher than the rear of the parcel.

Looking at the east elevation, much the same breaking up of the massing although unit D does not have a Juliet balcony on the side. The design on both elevations would be considered slope adaptive; which helps reduce the impacts to the adjacent parcels.

Not shown on the side elevations are privacy screens for the rear balconies; which the Development Authority had wanted as part of the approval to further reduce overlooking issues. Although not a critical oversight, the Development Authority was prepared to support the proposal and placed a prior to release condition on the permit to require 2 metre high privacy screens on all the rear level balconies of units C/D, this would apply to the second and upper levels.

Quickly looking at the floor plans; we see better illustrated the internal corridor between the front of the building to the interior units, which is covered by upper levels of the building. Each unit provides two bedrooms which satisfies the Municipal Development Plan (MDP) policies to encourage family oriented units in inner city communities. On the loft place, units A and B have terraces on the flat roof which are concealed by a wall of the building on the side elevations.



Currently being circulated to the Board is the table of relaxations granted for this project. The site is quite constrained on the west side due in part to the Enmax right of way and Enmax taking a portion of what had been the property manner years ago. As a result; the site is not the typical rectangular lot. This poses some setback challenges to achieving setbacks and landscaping requirements.

Regulation Standard Provided

583 Building Setbacks (min.)

(5) The min. building setback from a property line shared with another parcel is 1.2 m.

Plans indicate that the setback from the North property line is 4.57m (-0.01m).

Relaxation created due Enmax ‘piece’ taken – not easily observed visually and would have a low impact. Relaxation granted.

549 Projections Into Setback Areas (max.) (Applies to all Setbacks)

(5) Eaves and window wells may project a max. of 0.6 m into any setback area.

Plans indicate that the West eaves project 1.03m (0.43m).

Due to parcel jog due to Enmax ‘piece’ – relaxation granted.

581 At Grade Orientation of Units

(2) A unit in a Multi-Residential Development that is located on the floor closest to grade must have: (b) an entrance that is visible from the street that the unit faces.

Plans indicate that the front entrances to units C and D are not visible from the street.

Typical for 50’ lot developments or less. Application evolved to make partially visible and pathways define access to units C/D. Relaxation granted.

550 General Landscaped Area Rules

(6) Unless otherwise referenced in subsections (7) and (8), all areas of a parcel, except for those portions specifically required for motor vehicle access, motor vehicle parking stalls, loading stalls, garbage facilities, or any purpose allowed by the Development Authority, must be a landscaped area.

Plans indicate that the building is located in the setback area that is required to be landscaped.

Due in part to Enmax ‘piece’ and ROW. Relaxation granted.

584 Landscaping and 551 Specific Rules for Landscaped Areas

(2) Unless otherwise references in section 553, a min. of 40.0% of the area of a parcel must be a landscaped area. (except where Landscaped Area Reductions are provided) (584) All of the required landscaped area must be at grade.

Plans indicate that the landscaped area is 236.40m2 (-10.51m2) or 38.30% (-1.70%).

Due to the unusual shape of the lot; 40% requirement could not be met. Efforts made to provide additional plantings. Relaxation granted.



The site is subject to the Erlton Area Redevelopment Plan. The plan designates the site as Low Density Residential; yet provides not guiding policy or direction for what this designation should be.

Erlton is an established community which is undergoing significant transition given its proximity to the downtown core and the south line of the Light Rail Transit (LRT). A number of recent multi-residential developments have been approved and have come before the Board, most notably was the conversion of the site to the west from a duplex to a 4 unit multi-residential building.

While the bulk of the development that exists today is of low density residential character; Council has approved a multi-residential land use on most of the parcels in Erlton. As a result; Council’s direction for this area is to redevelopment into a primarily multi-residential development character and so the single family housing stock that exists today; most of which will be redeveloped over time.

In conclusion, given the unusual nature of the parcel, the applicant has worked hard to achieve a quality designed building that achieves Council’s goal of densifying our inner city neighbourhoods while meeting the spirit and intent of the Land Use Bylaw. The application was supported and approved with the relaxations noted as the Development Authority believes this will be a positive contribution to the neighbourhood. The development was approved with the conditions provided to the Board.

The Development Authority became aware post approval that transportation has imposed a prior to release condition number 9 to extend the pathway along the east to the front sidewalk. The Development Authority was not aware of this condition and does not support this as it would increase the landscaping relaxation and the design of the building already provides a pathway connection via the interior courtyard; therefore we would ask that should the Board uphold the approval that the decision be varied and this condition be deleted.

Upon questioning from the Board, the Development Authority’s representative clarified the following:

Landscaping on the west side are on curve on the intersection 30 Avenue and Erlton Street.

The garages meet the Land Use Bylaw minimum requirement as they are not in the relaxation chart.

He advised that in the drawing DP-21 that the garages have no internal physical separation and there is only one visitor stall for all four units.

In Favour of the Appeal:



The appellant Conor Payne and affected neighbours Natalie Kwadrans and Kirt van der Woude submitted the following issues in favour of the appeal;

Mr. Payne was the first speaker to address the Board:

My name is Conor Payne; I am here today to speak on behalf of 17 residents of south Erlton who are directly affected by this development.

I have several points to make in reference to the Development Permit as issued, but first I would like to say that the residents of Erlton are not anti development. On the contrary we are very supportive of quality development, which is in context with the existing single family low rise community that is south Erlton.

The building that has been proposed for this site is a four unit, three storey multi-family design and as such is not in context with the surrounding neighbourhood.

Land Use and Zoning:

The zoning for this piece of land states that The City must take into account any plans and policies affecting the parcel.

Both the Municipal Development Plan (MDP) and the Erlton Area Redevelopment Plan (ARP) are statutory documents approved by City Council and are in place to protect the residents of Calgary from inappropriate in their communities. And both of these documents affect the development in question.

The City promotes infilling that is sensitive, compatible and complementary to the existing physical patterns and character of neighbourhoods.

South Erlton has an established, low rise, residential character which should be maintained and revitalized.

At no point in the approval of the development permit does it show that these policies were adhered to or considered and on this point we believe the appeal should be allowed.

Negative Impacts:

Having addressed some of the technical issues around this development and the land use policies in place, I now bring to your attention the unduly negative impacts this building will have on the surrounding neighbours.



The plans show second and third balconies that will over look all adjacent properties and represent an egregious disregard for the privacy of the neighbours.

The massing and shadowing effects of such massive structure further spoil any reasonable enjoyment the adjacent residents should expect from their homes and backyards.

I believe the proposed structure will have a negative effect on the property values of surrounding homes.

Bylaw Related Issues:

Parking, there simply is not sufficient space on this lot to allow for the necessary parking that would be required by four new families and their guests.

There is no space allowed for garbage and recycling bins.

In summary, this proposed development does nothing to compliment or enhance the established character of the area and imposes unreasonable negative impacts on the existing residents and we ask you that our appeal be upheld, the development permit be revoked and the concept for this parcel be re-evaluated.

Neighbours’ Support:

I also present the signatures of 17 of the most directly affected neighbours who have signed in support of the appeal.

Ms. Kwadrans also addressed the Board and submitted the following:

My name is Natalie Kwadrans. My husband and I live at 62 31 Avenue SW. Our single family home is adjacent to the duplex immediately behind the proposed development.

We are disappointed to be here today as the developer and architect had initially taken time to engage and meet with neighbours. Gave them feedback and they came back with several options, one of which most residents were satisfied with. However, the proposed development in front of us today is actually became larger and went in the opposite direction of the feedback given.

Two key concerns not discussed or included in the submission:

While Mr. Payne explained the privacy issues from an east/west perspective, there are also significant concerns from the south with



respect to third floor balconies at the back of the building. They are higher than the eaves trough of my home and because the rear building is set back so far, anyone using those balconies will have a clear line of sight into our rear second floor bedroom window.

Will also be able to see over garage and into our backyard and potentially even into our main floor family room. The privacy concern is therefore from all sides of this development.

The development being discussed today is not a typical four-plex. The proposal is to spread it over two buildings. On July 10 of this year, the Board heard the appeal of a similar development SDAB2014-0060 regarding DP2013-2892 for a multi-residential, four story units in two buildings at 69 31 Avenue SW. This development is adjacent to the neighbour directly in front of my home. The Board allowed the appeal to this particular development permit in which the Board in its verbal decision expressed the incompatibility of the proposed development with its surroundings.

There are several reasons I believe the Board should consider this particular appeal today. The concerns we have with the proposed are very similar to those for which the appeal was allowed: massing, shadowing, patios, windows, setbacks among others.

Development is in the immediate vicinity. The one being discussed today is to the adjacent in the back of my home whereas the one for which the development was rejected was adjacent in the front of it.

Most importantly, the scale of today’s development approximately twice as large as the one for which the appeal was allowed. That one is on a corner lot, with a cemetery across the street, only homes to the east of it was affected.

In addition to having a cemetery across the street, it also backed onto a cemetery, therefore there were no homes to the back of that development impacted.

In total, only four homes were adjacent or kitty corner to that development. In the one discussed today, there also almost twice as many homes impacted and significantly more residents concerned about its development.

Such a large, two building development, wedged between low-rise single family homes has a much larger impact to its neighbours and the community than the DP2013-2892 for a similar two-unit, four-plex building.

With that, we respectfully ask that the Board allow the appeal and deny the development permit.

Mr. van der Woude addressed the Board next and submitted the following:

We wish to express our opposition to this development as approved by development permit 2013-3087 and voice our support for the appeal before you. Our home is directly across the laneway from the subject



development and our objections to this development are summarized as follows:

The proposed development is completely out of scale with the surrounding neighbourhood and streetscape, and will unduly impact the privacy of every neighboring property. Simply put, it is far too much building for the lot.

With three storeys above grade and a large proportion of the property covered by a structure extending deep into the backyard, it will tower over the surrounding neighbourhood of detached and semi-detached two-storey and bungalow houses. Completely out of scale with these homes, its massing will overwhelm the streetscape, and it will cause unreasonable shadowing, particularly for the neighbours immediately to the east and west. An updated shadowing study demonstrates the impact of this change was not supplied.

The inclusion of this floor balconies, particularly those on the units facing the laneway which were added subsequent to development permit circulation, and in spite of the developer’s express promise to the neigbours not to do so are an especially egregious invasion of the privacy of neighbouring properties. These are out of context with the streetscape and will directly overlook ours and neighbouring backyards, destroying the privacy of neighbouring homeowner’s private amenity spaces and unduly impacting our ability to enjoy the backyards of our properties.

In summary, this development as approved is unacceptable in terms of massing, shadowing and privacy, and we ask that the appeal and development permit revoked. While we are eager to see a quality redevelopment take place on the lot in question, it must be respectfully of and compatible with the context of the surrounding neighbourhood.

Upon questioning from the Board, the appellant and affected neighbours clarified the following:

They advised that in the application there were proposed third storey balconies and the appellant and affected neighbours expressed to the applicant to remove these balconies; however the approved application still indicates these balconies are present. The setbacks are also not respected by the proposed.

In their opinion even with the proposed privacy wall along the balconies, it will have no effect to mitigate the privacy concerns by the appellant and affected neighbours.

The appellant also has a two-car garage. Their biggest concern is the massing of the proposed development and it does not

fit in with the context of the neighbouring properties. In their understanding the garages were shown incorrectly and also had dividing

separation walls which further makes the garages smaller.



The Kwadrans live across the lane and when people are on the third storey balcony, people can see through their windows.

Mr. van der Woude advised that an existing property with a third storey balcony does not have any impact on his property as it is exclusively facing the north and the house is facing the cemetery.

Opposed to the Appeal:

Mr. Marian Liptak, the architect of the proposed development submitted the following points in response to the appeal and in opposition of the appeal:

Back to the year 2013, February 02, 2013, I have sent the preliminary design of repented DP2013-3087 to Erlton Community Association. They confirmed hearing us at public hearing in February 01, 2013.

In invitation to members of the Community Mr. Bill Fischer, Chairman of the Erlton Community Association, stated: I view this as a testing the waters information session.

Mr. Fischer further stated the developer and his architect presented their proposed plans for review and discussion at this evening’s community meeting. The plans have not been submitted to The City, and no development permit has been applied for. Please discuss this project with your neighbours.

I received numerous comment, advisories; which would say almost all f them in negative fashion.

I have made a comment to the Community: as I have expected any new development in your area/community of Erlton will raise objectives and creates natural resentment. It is process of the changing character ad landscaping of the old fashionable district, neighbourhood. It is natural way of resentment with changing the lifestyle, mentality and neighbour’s surroundings.

The City of Calgary and Authorities issued Land Use Bylaw and updating it as The City of Calgary grows up. It is respected document. The need for accommodation with typical migration of Canadian citizen to our oil respect administration capital is obvious in rapidly expanding city as Calgary is.

To create accommodation in close proximity to the administrative core of the city is any desire of the planners around the whole world not only in Calgary and it is necessary to reduce traffic and pollution in metropolis.

We met with Alderman Mr. Gian-Carlo Carra on March 14, 2013. He made positive comments about development objecting only access to underground



garage from 30 Avenue SW. We have change that and presented a new design eliminating underground garages. As per Community verbal advice, we have introduced new garage building accessible from lane similarly as any parcel in the block.

We have attended two to three additional meetings with the Community of Erlton. We have been challenged on density which the Community expressed that they would be happy with two units maximum and the applicant’s comment was: the Development Authority approved density of four units on site.

Height: the community asked that the proposed be lowered and the applicant commented that the proposed is at the same height as the neighbours.

Shadowing: the neighbour on lot 17 expressed that their rear yard will be in shade. The applicant responded that the proposed indicated in the shadow study only minimal impact on the adjacent property and indicates that the neighbour’s house on lot 17, block I, shading very much the rear yard on lot 16.

The Community continued to comment: Obstructive views to City of Calgary and eventually architecture appearance and not in line with existing neighbourhood.

I asked how can you match 50 to 80 years houses with style, character ad appearance in this century and house on lot 17 looks pretty modern to my architectural experience. Honestly, as an architect I was confused.

At present time the existing house on developing property is one of the community shame. Existing is a blue old house right at the entry of the community.

The Urban Planning, City Land Use Bylaw, issued documents what the Community eventually approved long time ago. The goal is to improve the past and give new generations more accommodation close to administrative Calgary’s downtown.

Urban Development plan of The City of Calgary as it is in place at present time, is developed and approved by many wise knowledgeable people of engineers, planners, inspectors, architects, administrators, politician, and community people and general public.

We have submitted the project to The City of Calgary on July 2013 as the application of development permit. Five months after initial introduction to community of Erlton. Five months massaging it, respecting many community comments, adjusting it as much as possible from point of developer and



make final submission. Unfortunate health issue of the responsible agent prolonged the approval process.

Before official submission, I had meetings with the Development Authority to make sure I am on right track with the Land Use Bylaw, planning and their vision. I wanted to submit valuable project four units the subject site. We wanted to make sure this development is in good shape. The process of revising/amendment plans finished recently.

Project:

Massing/Shadowing/Privacy:

The new buildings is located on two parcels in lots 18 and 19, each in identical size as neighbour’s, the appellant, Mr. Payne. Lot #16 = 320.46 square metres, development lo #18 = 320.26 square metres. Development lot #19 = 297.26 square metres and missing north/west corner 24.54 square metres. Appendix A of Mr. Liptak’s submission.

The new building is split in half to reduce massing with 1200 millimetres gap. The width of one unit is 4877 millimetres (16 inches) compared with adjacent building of the appellant’s house of 5230 millimetres (17’-2”) (appendix B, DP-11, DP-14, DP-22 drawings).

The new building’s front roof parapet height is 1891 millimetres (6’-2”) lower as adjacent roof line of the appellants’ house (appendix C, D-11).

The new building’s roof at north property line is pushed back to 4877 millimetres to reduce more massing from the street and also from the south property line is pushed back 1219 millimetres to reduce massing from lane. (appendix B of the applicant’s submission).

Further, the buildings units C and D are lower in height of 1321 millimetres to reduce building height (appendix D, DP-14 drawing).

Adjusting location of the building on parcel has minimum impact to shadowing on the appellant’s property (appendix F, new extended shadow in blue color of the applicant’s submission).

Privacy screenings have been added to all critical areas (DP-12, D-16, DP-17 drawings).

Development is Completely out of Context with Existing Streetscape of 30 and 31 Avenue:

See appendix E, DP-22 drawing.



Shadowing study is updated (appendix F of the applicant’s submission).

Third floor balconies are having 2.54 metres high privacy screening shown on amended elevations all around the building.

Sliding glass closest to the appellant’s property is in distance 1803 millimetres. The minimum distance is 1200 millimetres to property lien and closest windows are in distance 1219 millimetres.East Wall of Garages Extends Right to Property Line, with no setback:

It is allowance per Land Use Bylaw if exterior wall of garages are maintenance free.

We are showing stucco (amended plans DP-6b).

DP-14 drawing shown incorrectly the location of the garages. This drawing refers to garage top of the roof and not the shape or roof shape. Refer to DP-06b showing incorrectly garage roof configuration.

Garages too Small:

Garage stalls are actually in total 11763 millimetres. Requirement as per Land Use Bylaw is minimum of 11000 millimetres (page 115, and refer to DP-06b of the applicant’s submission).

Garbage and Recycling:

Garbage, recycling bins and bicycle storage are at special design. (DP-006b drawing).

Landscape Space Does not Meet Minimum Bylaw Requirements:

Landscape areas are in detail showing on DP-5a. Calculations of areas are included. It is as per requirement of Land Use Bylaw for the zoning M-CG.

No Provision for Runoff from Rain:

See mechanical site plan 03A.

Rear Unit entrances are not adequately visible:

Erlton Community Association requested on February 18, 2013 for the front doors to be visible from the street. Appendix C of the applicant’s submission.

Existing 150 millimetres Water Service is Inadequate:



Building permit for developed size will specify the requirement of the development.

Development is located on 30 Avenue, close proximity of Erlton Street. It is oriented on two parcels/lots 18 and 19. Individually, each lot is in equivalent size of neighbours lots 17, 16, 15 and etc. Combining two lots in one allows density of the four units for new redevelopment or it would be two units per each lot.

Any new development will be bigger than what is there before regardless of low or medium density. The approved density was discussed with the Development Authority early on and was agreed that four units is appropriate for this particular site.

We split configuration of four units into three massing form to reduce impact of huge building mass as it would be convectional fourplex. We feel it was positive way to provide density and reducing massing visually.

It is the project to improve image of the one of the most valuable urban entrance to Erlton Community from north, or actually one of the most important. It sits right at entry gate, on top of the hill. From first impression, it is like two narrow houses which is well within height of neighbours to east and south side of the side is stepped down and creating more subtle form.

We submitted sun shadow with respect of test times done for March 21 and September 21 in hours as official document precisely described. During the winter months all the buildings sun exposure is limited. This is not general requirement at development permit application. It has shown minimum impact to the neigbours. No neighbour on lot 17, however rear yard is covered with significant shadow and no building presented in height creates additional shadow.

We are asking for one variance only. It does not affect massing, size, height and appearance of the building. It is in context of the setback from utility right of way. The buildings itself conform to the rules of the Land Use Bylaw.

Section 2.1.2.1 of the Erlton Area Redevelopment Plan states in part: “Infill development is encouraged; this should be compatible with the scale of surrounding development and local streetscape”(ARP page 4). The height of the buildings on lot 16 is at 1087.07, on lot 16 is 1086.10 and on lot 18 and 19 is 1087.08 at front and 1085 at back. Across the Erlton Street are three storey and not a very old development.

The proposed development is well under maximum allowable height of 12.0 metres. There was some concern regarding the proposed development overlooking some surrounding properties.



All windows are obscured. Balconies and terraces have privacy screening. All privacy measures were incorporated in proposal.

In conclusion, The City of Calgary zoning proposal allows densification starting right at core. Suitable areas are those that least effect existing newer developments or historic sites. This idea is reflected in Land Use Bylaw and clarifies by The City zoning map. The development combining on two parcels does not have negative effects on surrounding or adjacent properties.

We have dedicated to this project almost two years to please and respect most of the neighbours and Authorities at City of Calgary. We hope our tedious work allows developer to build esthetic and pleasant building.

Upon questioning from the Board, Mr. Liptak clarified the following:

He advised that the shadow study on March 21 indicates that it does not have much impact on the appellant’s property. The study in September also indicates similar impact but maybe about 1 metre more shadowing on the appellant’s house.

The gate is accessed by intercom. There were not security issues raised or a CPTED report. Each of the units has surveillance.

The size of each unit is about 1700 square feet. The rear balcony could be moved to the centre side.

Rebuttal:

During rebuttal, the Development Authority’s representative stated the following:

There was a CPTED circulated and indicated there were no security concerns. Each intercom can only buzz or allow for each unit typical also on high rise apartments.

He also illustrated the changes in context happening in Erlton community and pointed out the different developments for multi-family developments.

Page 80 of the Board’s report indicates the Community Association cannot support the front setback but the plans have since been revised and the setback now complies with the Bylaw. No relaxation was granted.

He advised that the Development Authority considered section 2.1.2.1 of the Erlton ARP by considering the building envelope that is allowed under M-CG District which is a transition from low density to multi-residential. Emphasis was keeping it well within the building envelope of M-CG. Also they tried to conform more to the low density because of the context in the neighbourhood. Also they tried to mimic some of the infill development happening on 50 foot lots that are splits by having internal pathway created and divided that depicts two individual houses unlike a normal townhouses that are in every 25 feet. This development mimics to be seeing two individual houses on the front and two in the back.

During rebuttal appellant Mr. Payne stated the following:



Mr. Payne reiterated South Erlton has few different styles of streets and the proposed is backing onto residential street that does not have any multi-residential developments on it other than the one immediately to the west which is a low-rise development.

He pointed out that their concern is the massing of the homes in the front and also in the back with very minimal amenity space.

He referenced the 17 signatures of opposition to the proposed development.

During rebuttal applicant Mr. Liptak stated the following:

There is a privacy screen all around the balcony on the third floor; therefore in his opinion there is no visibility or over look to the adjacent neighbours. The purpose of these balconies is to be fire exits to protect the residents.


subdivision and development appeal...

Documents