35
Municipal Planning Commission AGENDA August 8, 2017 3:00 PM COUNCIL CHAMBERS Main Floor, City Hall 910 – 4 Avenue South
Municipal Planning Commission
AGENDA
August 8, 2017
3:00 PM
COUNCIL CHAMBERS Main Floor, City Hall
910 – 4 Avenue South
Municipal Planning Commission
DATE OF MEETING August 8, 2017 TIME OF MEETING 3:00 pm PLACE OF MEETING Council Chambers, City Hall COMMITTEE MEMBERS
Councillor – Jeff Coffman Councillor – Blaine Hyggen Councillor – Rob Miyashiro Councillor – Bridget Mearns (Alternate) Member at Large – Bruce Thurber Member at Large – Kendal Hachkowski Member at Large – Lorne Armstrong Member at Large – Michael Kawchuk
Member at Large – Miranda Hlady
MEETING AGENDA 1. Welcome – Chair 2. Approval of Agenda 3. Adoption of Minutes 3.1. Additions 3.2. Deletions 4. Old Business 4.1 5. New Business
5.1. DEV09369 - Pam Colling, Development Officer
6. Adjourn meeting
Municipal Planning Commission
ADOPTION OF MINUTES
2017 - 013
MINUTES of a Regular Meeting of the MUNICIPAL PLANNING COMMISSION (MPC) held on Tuesday, July 25, 2017 at 3:00 p.m. with the following in attendance: CHAIRMAN: B. Hyggen Councillor MEMBERS: J. Coffman Councillor
R. Miyashiro Councillor (left meeting at 5:00 pm) L. Armstrong Member at Large
K. Hachkowski Member at Large M. Hlady Member at Large
M. Kawchuk Member at Large B. Thurber Member at Large
OTHERS: G. Stevenson Senior Development Officer J. Price Subdivision Officer/Planner
W. Smith Recording Secretary ____________________________________________________________________________________
L. ARMSTRONG: THAT the agenda of the meeting of the Municipal Planning Commission (MPC) held on July 25, 2017 be approved as presented/amended.
-------------------------CARRIED ____________________________________________________________________________________
K. HACHKOWSKI:
THAT the minutes of the meeting of the Municipal Planning Commission (MPC) held on July 11, 2017 be approved.
-------------------------CARRIED ____________________________________________________________________________________
“DISCOVERY OUTLINE PLAN”: File No: OLP00004, Associated Engineering Alberta Ltd., on behalf of 1707588 Alberta Ltd., Domenic Land Development Corp., Donald & Eric Anderson, Kathryn Crane, Maureen Prepchuk, Allan & Linda Brovold and Richard & Carol Gwatkin, has applied for outline plan approval for approximately 151.10 hectares (373 acres) of undeveloped land lying south of 24 Avenue S and east of 43 Street S. Senior Subdivision Officer’s Presentation: Jason Price, Senior Subdivision Planner, presented the “Discovery Outline Plan” for approximately 151.10 hectares (373 acres) of undeveloped land lying south of 24 Avenue S and east of 43 Street S. Outline Plans are brought to MPC. Purpose of outline plans is to expand on policies established in an Area Structure Plan (ASP) to provide a more detailed planning and engineering framework to guide the phased subdivision and development of a new neighbourhood. The Discovery Outline Plan was prepared in accordance with policies and objectives outlined in the Southeast Area Structure Plan (SEASP). This plan is consistent with the policies of the South Saskatchewan Regional Plan and the City of Lethbridge Integrated Community Sustainability Plan/Municipal Development Plan. Included in the outline plan is an outline plan brief. This report provides detailed information with respect to goals and objectives of the plan, form of housing, residential density, open space allotment and master underground servicing plans and has been reviewed by administration staff (Planning Review Team).
2017 - 014
This Outline Plan envisions low density residential development, with medium density residential cells, several swing sites depending on residential market absorption rates and a mixed use residential/commercial site in the southeast corner of the plan area. A public elementary school site is planned in the northwest area of the plan with natural and manicured open space and wet and dry storm retention ponds making up the remainder of the proposed land uses. Full build out could see 2360 dwelling units with a density of 30.0 units per hectare, which translates to a total population of 5865 people. Discovery Outline Plan has followed a much more condensed timeline than is typical due to a Provincial funding announcement for an elementary school. This condensed timeframe has created a situation where approval and land development processes are actually running in parallel rather than consecutively in order to meet the Province’s requirements for the school site in terms of being serviced, having the appropriate zoning and separate title. This parallel process scenario has occurred previously with the announcement of the new middle school in the Watermark neighbourhood in West Lethbridge. Discovery Outline Plan encompasses both the R1A and R1B areas on Map 15 in the SEASP and has generated considerable interest with the current residents of Fairmont and Coulee Creek neighbourhoods. An Open House held, May 24, 2017 was well attended and generated concerns from residents of the Gateway Mews area and some within Coulee Creek. The engineering consultants in conjunction with the developer, 1707588 Alberta Ltd., made changes to land use layouts adjacent to Gateway Mews which were well received based on comments received from a June 8, 2017 meeting. Notice of MPC meeting was advertised July 15, 2017. Adjacent property owners were notified and invited to attend the MPC meeting. Several residents responded seeking further clarification or to express concerns with the proposed plan. Additional notification to the public will occur after first reading of the rezoning bylaw on July 31, provided the Outline Plan is approved and with the subdivision process. In conclusion, Ms. Gaehring, Manager of Community Planning, provided information on three alternative recommendations for approval of application OLP00004, Discovery Outline Plan:
1. A recommendation that cited two standard conditions of approval plus three proposed amendments that inserted text in Section 5.3 Sanitary Collection, Section 5.4 Stormwater Management, and in Plan Implementation on page 50.
2. A recommendation that contained all the information in the first recommendation but also provided
for the exclusion of the lands belonging to the Anderson family.
3. A recommendation that contained no information in order to allow the Commission to craft its own conditions of approval.
Applicant’s Presentation: Bill Delaney, Associated Engineering Alberta Ltd., advised as follows:
• Engineering firm is working on behalf of the ownership group • Designed Outline Plan • Met with owners and with City of Lethbridge Planners • Refined concept • Design was first presented to December, 2016 with a staggered planning process • Split R1A and R1B • Hosted many scheduled and impromptu meetings with ownership group to confirm design basis • Two concepts were brought forward to City Planners at which time the best from both concepts
were chosen and made into one and created equity • Project was consolidated into a single plan – May, 2017 • Focus was then shifted to City of Lethbridge Administration and held public meetings
2017 - 015
• Public meetings brought good attendance and good comments • Gateway Mews residents brought changes • Established School Site • Outline plan will have a historic theme recognizing First Nations presence and early settlers with a
pocket park that pays tribute to “Perry Family” at the Perry homestead. • South East corner will include community components “Village Central” of a mixed use area
overlooking Six Mile Coulee • Continuous walking/bike pathway • Ongoing Storm Management • Highly blended with existing neighbourhoods with parts of 43 Street S needing to be closed
Other Presentations: Daniel Heaton, on behalf of Don Lussier, Lethbridge School District #51, advised as follows:
• Planning for an Elementary School in South Lethbridge • Alberta Government approved in 2016 • March, 2017 – announcement to go ahead with school • First school in 55 years for South Lethbridge • To begin process and receive funds ($17,000,000.) school district needs a fully serviced titled
property • Worked with Associated Engineering to come up with plan
Doug Davidson, 43466 Thistlewood Ct, Ashburn, VA, USA, on behalf of Perry family, advised as follows:
• Early students of Lakeview Elementary School • In favor of proposal for “Tribute to Perry Family” area • Parents owned and retained Perry Homestead since 1968 and conveyed ownership to Davidson
children and selling to Dominic Land Development in 2006 • Home still exists with their mother still living in it • Would like the pump house incorporated into plan/park also
Julie Fairbanks, 44 Suncastle Crescent SE, Calgary, AB, on behalf of Perry family, advised as follows:
• Parents lived on Perry property 45 years • Aging Mother still resides in home • Parents carried on the legacy of the Perry Family with home and yard being very well cared for
and Victorian themed decoration inside home • Property was and is scenic for many • Only two owners of property both with same commitment
Dino Pasquotti, 380 Couleecreek Court S, advised as follows:
• Homeowner in Couleecreek area • New neighbourhood ideas may be the envy of neighbouring areas • Will create jobs • Concerned with dirt being moved/development proceeding without an approval • Construction of school could be a drawing card for area • Questions why school site was moved from original planned site • Original school site was more central for all neighbourhoods new and existing • New site will be more difficult to get to as no connect directly to school site • Open up some roads to decrease traffic
Layne & Donna Baker, 318 Sixmile Ridge S. advised as follows:
• Exciting plan for future • Retired to area from Calgary • Downsized living but enjoy large yard and view from existing property • Purchased home at a premium price for this luxury
2017 - 016
• Investigated thoroughly what was planned for surrounding area before purchasing property • Rear of property (view) area is zoned Green Environmental Reserve • Reviewed recent plans of Discovery Outline Plan and a cul-de-sacs is now planned for that area • Not only is the historical area important in the Outline Plan but also the Wetlands is important and
a very sensitive area • New objective for plan is housing density in wetlands area • Mature trees are being knocked down for more homes • Environmental impacts due to development • Green areas are disappearing with ten homes encroaching on or on top of Wetlands • Native Elders should be contacted regarding the Wetlands • Currently nesting area for hawks, birds and wildlife • 60% of Wetlands in Alberta have already been destroyed • Respect the work in the plan but do not approve of Wetland area
Randy Waddle, 310 Sixmile Ridge S. advised as follows:
• Purchased home as a retirement home in 2014 • Coming from rural area property was perfect with no homes planned for rear of property –
peaceful like farm • Correspondence assured the rear of property would stay zoned Environmental Reserve • Land taxes reflect area • Heavy traffic – heavy equipment • Recently installed lift pump station near home • Water table must be high as water would raise water level 20 feet • Pump is running now even with dry conditions • Medium density housing will be very near property • Opposed to homes being constructed south of Six Mile Ridge
Bruce Galts, 310 Couleesprings Terrace S., on behalf of land owners for R1A advised as follows:
• Lives in Coulee Springs area • Investment in community • Present to clear up any questions anyone may have • Plan expanded after Area Structure Plan was approved • Sewer will be challenge and solution will be to store • School site keeps moving location due to best possible site • Very costly for Developer to have a school site as land has to be donated • Moving dirt prior to approval is at developers expense • School needs an address for funding to be processed • Sanitary Sewer – no pipe anytime soon – pond is only way in order to proceed
Tom Prepchuk, 28 Calico Drive, Sherwood Park, AB, representing land owners of (Anderson Property) 3605 43 Street S, advised as follows:
• Represent land owners Anderson, Crane and Prepchuk • Meeting last week brought out two points
o Discovery Outline Plan needs to be approved today as being pushed from the highest level
o Disagree with plan - will take land out of plan • Dirt is being moved as we speak without approval • Anderson property is opposed to the Outline Plan for reasons:
o Timing – owners of R1B have not had sufficient time to review final submission o Informed July 11, 2017 of July 25, 2017 MPC Meeting o Associated Engineering Alberta Ltd represents interests of R1A o Associated Engineering Saskatoon represents interests of R1B o Hogeweide Management & Consulting was to facilitate the process and move it along o City of Lethbridge strongly encouraged this Structure as they wanted to have a combined
R1A & R1B Outline Plan rather than individual Outline Plan submissions
2017 - 017
o Independent Consultants – did not have enough time to engage an engineer to deal with technical issues and ramifications
o No information forthcoming from the R1A side other than plan layouts o School – originally proposed for Anderson property and subsequently relocated (in ASP
stage) to the lands north to a location 50% on R1A land and 50% on R1B land. Location has changed three times during the OLP process with no input sought or obtained from the R1B owners
o School – timing, servicing, location, lack of documentation and Government information o Stipulations for Anderson property owners agreeing to go along with Outline plan o Servicing – major concerns for properties directly to the south of R1A o Doyle Property o Hectare servicing allotment for R1B o June 8, 2017 Public Meeting – not all invited to attend
• Previous landowners of R1A were turned down of city services • Current lands sanitary sewer will require large sewer holding tank for storage before moving
down pipes when appropriate which may create odor, leakage and error • Interim R1A servicing affect R1B servicing lands • Economic jeopardy for R1B • Owners are in favor and support school but cannot support the Discovery Outline Plan in its
present form • Ask MPC to postpone decision for 30 days to allow time for R1B to assess the negative or
positive impact on the R1B lands • Aware of the PUSH for the school however feel decision should not be rushed and a poor
decision is made • Hasty decision may lead to excessive development costs for R1A and R1B landowners, city’s
maintenance ongoing costs and unknown costs to taxpayer Councillor Miyashiro left meeting at 5:00 pm Bruce Ainscough & Carla Vossler, 306 Sixmile Ridge S. advised as follows:
• Resident of Sixmile Ridge since 2013 • Little choice of view lots in City of Lethbridge • Paid premium price for property – view lot • Researched zoning possibilities before purchase • Top of coulee – zoned Environmental Reserve – no building is allowed • Environmental Reserve is very sensitive area • Designated for Interpretative Center in area • Opposed of rezoning land to residential • Impact property immediately • Neighbours to Brovold’s • Led to believe that Brovold property would never be developed due Wetlands and sensitivity • Agree with Native ideas in SEASP which indicates open spaces • Defer decision of rezoning as there will be loss of reserve, vegetation, wildlife, and view • Wetlands area is unique property • Feel rush for school/development as whole is too much too soon
Ed Martin, Martin Geomatics, on behalf Dominic Land Development advised as follows:
• Dominic Land Development submitted letter to Development Services prior to meeting • Urges full support of plan and for school • Willing to meet with City to plan services to development
Don Lussier, Lethbridge School District #51, advised as follows:
• March, 2017 - Province announced funds for new construction of school • April 12, 2017 – letter announced funding for design • At that time fund for construction would have been approved if school had a developed site • No outline plan approval by Fall, 2017 there will be no funding for school
2017 - 018
• School site must be serviced by November, 2017 Ryan Sailor, 111 Gateway Mews S, advised as follows:
• Support outline plan • Gateway Mews resident • Very transparent conversation with two way communication at public meetings • Thank all involved for hard work
There was no response to the Chairman’s three calls for anyone else wishing to speak. Questions: Mr. Price, Mr. Buzunis, Ms. Gaehring, Mr. Delaney responded to questions regarding:
• Clarification of Terms of Detail concerning the Sewage System • Anderson property affected if decision is delayed • Sewage Storage Tank be at full capacity when neighbourhood at full build • School timeline is the key driver to this application • Timeline for services at this point • Who is responsible for expenses on development that is already complete • Proposed timeline for full development • Timeline to reach the residential in R1A • Exact size of property • Size of Brovold property • Significance of Environmental Reserve with respect to Brovold property • Entire Brovold property zoned Direct Control • Purpose of being zoned Direct Control • Construction take place on Brovold property recently • Intent of access to school from Sixmile Coulee area • Long term allows access to 47 Street S to 40 Avenue S to get to Sixmile Coulee area • Clarification of plan: blend of grid and curvilinear street formation • Reason for moving the school site multiple times • City have capacity to handle sanitary solution until permanent trunk is installed • Tank storage unit is singular or multiple • Purpose for prohibiting storm water drainage to Sixmile Coulee • Servicing strategy • Developers of R1B have potential in working with services • Review of first two alternative recommendations for approval of Outline Plan
The following motion was presented:
J COFFMAN: THAT Application No. OLP00004 “Discovery Outline Plan” be approved with the following conditions: 1. This approval applies only to area R1A 2. That future land use bylaw amendment applications and subdivision applications for area R1A conform
with this approval with respect to land use and street pattern to the satisfaction of the Approving Authority.
3. That the ESA Phase 2 report meet the requirements of the South East Area Structure Plan to the City
of Lethbridge’s satisfaction and be included as an appendix to this Outline Plan.
4. That the following text changes be incorporated into the document:
2017 - 019
a) 5.3 Sanitary Collection – Off-site Infrastructure Requirements pg. 38; install as last paragraph after “with the City of Lethbridge at the time of subdivision”.
• The opportunity for interim servicing to be considered shall apply equally to all lands within this Outline Plan. Servicing for the SW ¼ Sec. 22 will allow for about 21 ha. To be serviced directly into the existing sanitary sewer in the Southgate and Fairmont areas. Servicing for the SW ¼ Sec. 22 will be allowed based on the approval by the City of Lethbridge of a detailed for an interim storage strategy utilizing local storage.
• The City acknowledges that the sanitary sewer concept for the SW ¼ Sec. 22 will require changes to allow for flow into Fairmont and Southgate; to allow for any interim local storage, and to reflect the developer’s phasing plans.
b) 5.4 Stormwater Management pg. 41; install at the end of final bullet “storm trunk is completed”. Until the completion of the existing stormwater management system through the developed 40th Avenue right of way; storm water on an interim basis may be directed through other available storm pipes in Fairmont and Southgate subject to storm pond sizing and the City of Lethbridge’s approval of detailed design.
c) Plan Implementation [Plan Staging] pg. 50; insert after “is shown in Map 11”,
• This staging plan does not represent the order in which development may occur. It only reflects suggested phase boundaries. As noted above development may occur concurrently along the boundaries of either Fairmont or Southgate and proceed in an easterly direction.
5. The review of the Outline Plan for area R1B be tabled to the August 22, 2017 meeting of the
Municipal Planning Commission in order to allow those landowners to review the Outline Plan in greater detail.
-------------------------CARRIED
____________________________________________________________________________________ M KAWCHUK:
THAT this meeting of the Municipal Planning Commission be adjourned.
-------------------------CARRIED
CHAIRMAN SECRETARY
Municipal Planning Commission
NEW BUSINESS Item 5.1
Municipal Planning Commission
August 8, 2017 New Business
5.1 Page 1 of 6
APPLICATION NO. LAND USE DISTRICT LOCATION DEV09369 Low Density
Residential District 914 – 8 Street South
APPLICANT LANDOWNER Huckvale LLP on behalf of Olaf Heine Former: Olaf Heine, Current: Janice Amann REQUESTED APPROVAL Appendix A: Drawings A request for a further parcel coverage waiver to bring the existing detached garage into compliance. CURRENT DEVELOPMENT Single detached dwelling with uncovered rear decks and a detached garage ADJACENT DEVELOPMENT North Single Detached Dwelling South Single Detached Dwelling East Single Detached Dwelling West Single Detached Dwelling CONTEXT MAP
Municipal Planning Commission
August 8, 2017 New Business
5.1 Page 2 of 6
NOTIFICATION SUMMARY Appendix B: Notification Letter & Map
Neighbourhood Assoc.
N/A
Neighbourhood 33 letters were sent on July 24, 2017 to residents within a 60m radius of the subject parcel, the applicant Huckvale LLP and both the former and current property owners advising that this application is being presented to the Municipal Planning Commission for consideration.
EVALUATION Appendix C: Non-Compliance Letter and Real Property Report
Background • An application to construct a detached garage with a request for a 4.70% parcel coverage waiver was received on December 17, 2009.
• Neighbours within a 60m radius of the subject parcel were advised of this
application on December 17, 2009 and given until December 29, 2009 to respond with concerns.
• There were no responses received as a result of this notification. • Development Permit DEV01842 was approved on January 5, 2010 and
advertised on January 9, 2010, • As there were no appeals filed against the approval, the Development
Permit became valid on January 25, 2010. • A Real Property Report and a request for a compliance letter were received
from Huckvale LLP on June 19, 2017 due to a sale of the property. • While reviewing the Real Property Report provided, I noticed that the
detached garage was constructed larger than what was approved on DEV01842. The detached garage now covers 20.56% of the parcel versus the 18.70% that was approved.
• The detached garage now requires a further waiver of the parcel coverage
to bring it into compliance.
Municipal Planning Commission
August 8, 2017 New Business
5.1 Page 3 of 6
LAND USE BYLAW SUMMARY Use: Detached Garage Permitted
Previously Approved Currently Constructed Further Waiver Requested
Height 4.42m (14’6”) 4.50m (14’9”) N/A
Setbacks
Separation Distance
11.55m (37’11”) 11.11m (36’5”) N/A
Side #1 0.81m (2’8”) 0.79m (2’7”) N/A
Side #2 0.61m (2’0”) 0.62m (2’0”) N/A
Rear 1.52m (5’0”) 1.45m (4’9”) N/A
Eave Projection 0.30m (1’0”) 0.30m (1’0”) N/A
Parcel Coverage Maximum
18.70% (equal to 52.02m2
/ 560 ft2)
20.56% (equal to 57.23m2
/ 616 ft2)
1.86% (equal to 5.21m2
/ 56 ft2)
Context This application is before the Commission because:
• The detached garage was constructed larger than approved and now covers more than 20.00% of the parcel. It is practice for applications for parcel coverage waivers over 20.00% to be brought directly to the Municipal Planning Commission for consideration and decision.
Municipal Planning Commission
August 8, 2017 New Business
5.1 Page 4 of 6
Legislation & Policy Land Use Bylaw 5700
• Section 1.4.3 – Definitions “Accessory Building” means a building which is subordinate or incidental to the principal building on, or principal use of, the same parcel or site. This term refers to buildings such as a garage, shed, or freestanding carport.
• Section 14.1.4 – Accessory Buildings o Section 14.1.4.6 – Unless otherwise provided in a residential
district, an accessory building shall not exceed a parcel coverage of 14%.
PLANNING AND DEVELOPMENT SERVICES
910 – 4 Avenue South Phone No. 403-320-3920 Lethbridge, AB T1J 0P6 Fax No. 403-327-6571 E-Mail: [email protected]
FOIPP Any personal information provided in response to this letter is collected under the Alberta Municipal Government Act and in accordance with Section 33(c) of the Freedom of Information and Protection of Privacy Act. Please note that such information may be made public. If you have any questions about the collection or use of the personal information provided, please contact the Director of Planning & Development at 910 – 4 Ave S, Lethbridge, AB T1J 0P6 or phone 403-320-3920.
July 24, 2017
NOTICE TO NEIGHBOURS This letter is being sent to property owners
within a 60m radius of:
914 - 8 STREET SOUTH
An application has been received for a request for a further 1.86% (equal to 52.02m2) parcel coverage waiver to bring the existing detached garage into compliance. The detached garage currently covers 20.56% (equal to 57.23m2) of the parcel. No decision on this application has been made. This application will be considered by the Municipal Planning Commission on August 8, 2017 at 3:00 p.m. in Council Chambers, Main Floor of City Hall. If you feel you will be impacted by this development, please explain how and why in writing and it will be submitted to the Commission. You may mail, email, or deliver it to the Development Services Department for receipt not later than 4:30 p.m., on August 7, 2017. In addition or alternatively, you may speak to the Commission at the meeting. All written material previously submitted to this office will be presented to the Commission. Please note that all information you provide will be made public.
Pam Colling Development Officer cc: Applicant
914 - 8 Street SouthDISCLAIMER: This map is illustrative only. The City of Lethbridge offers this information in good faith, but makes no warranty or representation,expressed or implied, with regard to the correctness, accuracy and/or reliability of this data.
All rights reserved. No part of this map may be reproduced in any form or by any means without written consent from the City of Lethbridge.
© 2017, City of Lethbridge, AB CanadaPrinted by Pam Colling using Parcel Locator GIS Map Server.
Page 1 of 1Parcel Locator Map Print Page
7/24/2017http://fender/parcellocator/PrintPage_TempestMap.aspx?title=914 - 8 Street South&image...
PLANNING AND DEVELOPMENT SERVICES
910 – 4 Avenue South Phone No. 403-320-3920 Lethbridge, AB T1J 0P6 Fax No. 403-327-6571 E-Mail: [email protected]
FOIPP Any personal information provided in response to this letter is collected under the Alberta Municipal Government Act and in accordance with Section 33(c) of the Freedom of Information and Protection of Privacy Act. Please note that such information may be made public. If you have any questions about the collection or use of the personal information provided, please contact the Director of Planning & Development at 910 – 4 Ave S, Lethbridge, AB T1J 0P6 or phone 403-320-3920.
Client: Huckvale LLP Client File #: 17 6754T Our file #: CMP10877 Date: Jun 19, 2017 RE: 914 8 ST S, LETHBRIDGE, AB Real Property Report Prepared By: BROWN OKAMURA & ASSOCIATES LTD. Dated: APRIL 24, 2017 Property Description: PLAN 6283S BLOCK 19 LOT 6 This will certify that the information shown on this Real Property Report indicates that the location of the house with uncovered side and rear decks, as described, does not comply with the setback requirements of Land Use Bylaw 5700 due to inadequate front and side setbacks. The house with uncovered side and rear decks may remain as currently situated as it is a non-conforming building and as such is subject to Section 8.3 of Land Use Bylaw 5700. Section 8.3 prohibits, among other things, any enlargements of, additions to, or structural alterations to or in a non-conforming building except those considered by the Development Officer to be necessary for routine maintenance. The location of the detached garage, as described, complies with the setback requirements of Land Use Bylaw 5700. However, the detached garage, as described, does not comply with the requirements of Land Use Bylaw 5700 as it exceeds the maximum parcel coverage approved on Development Permit DEV01842 (attached). A development application requesting a further waiver of this requirement is necessary in order to bring this property into compliance with Land Use Bylaw 5700. This certification does not apply to the location of fences or concrete that may be shown on the report. Nor does it apply to any deck encroachments onto the neighbouring parcel. . . . Page 2
Page 2 of 2 Huckvale LLP June 19, 2017
FOIPP Any personal information provided in response to this letter is collected under the Alberta Municipal Government Act and in accordance with Section 33(c) of the Freedom of Information and Protection of Privacy Act. Please note that such information may be made public. If you have any questions about the collection or use of the personal information provided, please contact the Director of Planning & Development at 910 – 4 Ave S, Lethbridge, AB T1J 0P6 or phone 403-320-3920.
No effort has been made by the City of Lethbridge to verify the accuracy of the information on the Real Property Report. This certification does not confirm compliance with National & Provincial Safety Codes. If you require information regarding compliance with these codes, please contact Building Safety and Inspection Services at 403-320-3830.
Pam Colling Development Officer
Municipal Planning Commission
August 8, 2017 New Business
5.1 Page 5 of 6
CONCLUSION The application for a waiver of the maximum parcel coverage allowable for
an accessory building is supported as:
• There appears to be no material or undue impact on the use, enjoyment, or value on neighbouring properties or neighbourhood amenities.
RECOMMENDATION That the application for the further parcel coverage waiver for the existing detached garage be approved with the following conditions:
1. A further 1.86% (equal to 5.21m2) parcel coverage waiver be granted, allowing the existing detached garage to have a maximum parcel coverage of 20.56% (equal to 57.23m2).
ALTERNATIVES
Approval This application may be approved. Appropriate conditions should be cited. If this application is approved: • The applicant may appeal any of the conditions of approval.
• Any affected party present at the MPC meeting may appeal the approval.
• The approval is advertized in the upcoming Saturday paper and any affected party may appeal the approval.
Refusal
This application may be refused. Specific reasons for refusal must be cited.
If this application is refused: • The applicant may appeal the refusal.
• The applicant may wait 6 months and reapply for the same development at the same location.
• The applicant may correct the aspects of the development that caused it to be refused and reapply before 6 months has elapsed.
• The applicant may make an entirely new application for the same proposal in a different location.
Tabling
The application may be tabled: The cause of or reason for tabling should be cited. Conditions or a time frame for lifting it from the table should be cited. Instructions for re-advertising should be cited.
If this application is tabled, the application will again be brought before the Municipal Planning Commission for consideration at the next scheduled meeting date or when the item(s) that caused the application to be tabled is(are) resolved. Attendees at the current meeting will have to make arrangements to attend again in order to re-address the Commission in person. There could possibly be other implications depending on the reason for tabling.
Municipal Planning Commission
August 8, 2017 New Business
5.1 Page 6 of 6
