Municipal Planning Commission. AGENDA June 14, :00 PM COUNCIL CHAMBERS Main Floor, City Hall Avenue South

Transcription

1 Municipal Planning Commission AGENDA June 14, :00 PM COUNCIL CHAMBERS Main Floor, City Hall Avenue South

2 Municipal Planning Commission DATE OF MEETING June 14, 2011 TIME OF MEETING PLACE OF MEETING COMMITTEE MEMBERS MEETING AGENDA 3:00 pm Council Chambers, City Hall Alderman Jeff Carlson Alderman Liz Iwaskiw Alderman Jeff Coffman Alderman Bridget Mearns Member at Large - Wayne McGinn Member at Large - Ron Peta Member at Large - Gail Sarka Member at Large - Mark Murphy Member at Large - Bob Higgins 1. Welcome Chair 2. Approval of Agenda 3. Adoption of Minutes 3.1. Additions 3.2. Deletions 4. Old Business 4.1 N/A 5. New Business 5.1. DEV02783, Development Officer: Angela Olsen 6. Adjourn meeting

3 Municipal Planning Commission ADOPTION OF MINUTES

4 MINUTES of a Regular Meeting of the MUNICIPAL PLANNING COMMISSION held on Tuesday, May 10, 2011 at 3:00 p.m. with the following in attendance: CHAIRMAN: J. Carlson Alderman MEMBERS: J. Coffman Alderman B. Mearns Alderman (alternate) B. Higgins Member at Large M. Murphy Member at Large G. Sarka Member at Large OTHERS: M. Gaehring Secretary to the Commission A. Olson Development Officer W. Smith Recording Secretary ABSENT: L. Iwaskiw Alderman W. McGinn Member at Large R. Peta Member at Large G SARKA: THAT the minutes of the meeting of the Municipal Planning Commission (MPC) held on April 12, 2011 be approved CARRIED DEVELOPMENT APPLICATIONS: DEV02783, Ronald Miller, 11 Temple Boulevard West, proposes to bring an existing enclosed patio (shown as wooden shed on site plan) and uncovered deck into compliance and a request for a 3.0m (10 0 ) west front setback waiver and a request for a 0.43m (1 5 ) fence height waiver and a 1.43m (4 8 ) fence height waiver for the section of fence in the short front yard along Temple Boulevard, adjacent to the hot tub. Also to bring an existing greenhouse and gazebo into compliance and a request for a 0.07m (3 ) side setback waiver for the greenhouse and a 0.02m (1 ) side setback waiver for the gazebo. Land Use District is R-L Low Density Residential District. Development Officer s Presentation: Angela Olsen, Development Officer outlined the following information: Twenty four letters were sent to landowners within a 60m radius of the subject property on two separate occasions. Seven letters were received in opposition of the proposal. Due to neighbourhood responses received, the application is before the Commission. Issues centre on: o Appearance of the enclosed patio and fence height

5 o Safety o Affect on property values Permit Technician received a complaint about construction of an addition taking place Homeowner had constructed and installed enclosed patio, decks, swimming pool, hot tub and gazebo as well as an addition to his fence height without any permit or approvals Homeowner came in to make application for work that had taken place. Upon reviewing registered and Utility Right of Way plans, it was noticed that the enclosed patio and uncovered deck were constructed over a Utility Right of Way Homeowner worked with City of Lethbridge, Infrastructure Department and had the Utility Right of Way discharged as there are not any utilities located in it After numerous months, all necessary documentation to proceed with the development and building applications have been received o Request for the front setback waiver will not pose any safety hazards o Side setback waivers for the accessory building are minimal and will not pose any safety hazard o Fence height waiver was applied for security and safety measures as there is a hot tub and swimming pool on this parcel Development Officer is not comfortable making the decision on this application o Granting of the east side setback waivers for the gazebo and greenhouse would not be an issue as they are moveable and they pose no undue impacts on neighbouring properties o Fence height waiver causes concern as the height addition to the existing fence appears to have been an afterthought and is not in keeping the visual appearance of a typical fence o Area of greatest concern is the enclosed patio and uncovered deck. The long front setback is not in keeping with the character of the existing neighbourhood giving the appearance of a fortress like, cluttered and overbuilt property In conclusion, Ms. Olsen has included three options for the Commission s consideration: Approved Refused Tabled Applicant s Presentation: Ronald Miller, 11 Temple Boulevard West, advised as follows: After purchasing swimming pool and hot tub it was recommended that he put a two-sided fence around the property

6 Two sided fence created a gap between fence boards and became a safety hazard due to children walking on the fence and possibly falling into swimming pool Insurance company stated a seven foot fence is mandatory where there are swimming pools in residential properties. Property owner opted to extend the existing fence to seven feet Hired contractor to construct decks o Deck #1 around hot tub Four feet above ground Extended property fence 1 6 to serve as railing on deck (42 railing) o Deck #2 around pool Four feet above ground 42 fence attached to deck to serve as railing o Deck #3 Westside of home 36 X 10 built to property line Legal permitted size is 36 X fence around deck Constructed shingled roof with air vents over the deck Wall was constructed to create a BBQ room with door and windows Applicant unaware that the contactor had not applied for any required permits on construction of decks and roof Easement was granted for four feet of deck Three engineer reports completed for enclosed deck area but were not submitted All necessary documentation to proceed with the development and building applications have been submitted, however, development is existing Gazebo and greenhouse built on skids and can be moved easily Other Presentations: There was no response to the Chairman s three calls for anyone else wishing to speak. Questions: Ms. Olsen, Mr. Miller and Mr. Kerry Crump, Manager, Inspection Services responded to questions regarding: Fencing around outdoor pools in Land Use Bylaw (LUB) Conflicts between LUB and Regulated Building Codes for above ground pool Concerns with outdoor pool fence height requirements Recent reason for granting a fence height waiver Repercussions to neighbourhood if pool malfunctions Licensed contractors Recommendation from whom to construct two sided fence around pool

7 Electrical permit submitted and inspected Future plans for yard Reason for discharging Utility Right of Way Concerns with fire hazard for BBQ room Solution for rectifying fire hazard in BBQ room and meet with regulated building codes and bring room back into compliance Gazebo and greenhouse can easily be moved Original deck in compliance Repercussions of application refusal for property owner The following motion was presented: B. HIGGINS: THAT the Development Application DEV02783 be TABLED until June 14, 2011 in order for the applicant and the City of Lethbridge, Development Services staff work together to: 1. Relocate the gazebo and greenhouse to comply with the Land Use Bylaw 2. Revise the enclosed patio design to meet building codes and meet the Land Use Bylaw requirements 3. Revise fence height to be compliance with the Land Use Bylaw a. From the northerly limit of the house to the southerly boundary of the fence on the long frontage b. As well as the fence on the short front yard CARRIED M. MURPHY: THAT the Municipal Planning Commission be tabled until June 14, CARRIED CHAIRMAN SECRETARY

8 Municipal Planning Commission NEW BUSINESS Item 5.1

9 Municipal Planning Commission June 14, 2011 New Business 5.1 Page 1 of 6 APPLICATION NO LAND USE DISTRICT LOCATION R-L Low Density 11 Temple Boulevard West Residential District DEV02783 APPLICANT Mr. Ronald Miller LANDOWNER Mr. Ronald Miller PROPOSED DEVELOPMENT Appendix A: Drawings This application was tabled by the Municipal Planning Commission on May 10, 2011to allow the applicant an opportunity to make changes to the application. This has been done and the changes that will be taking place is that the enclosed patio along the west elevation will be removed and the fence will be cut back to meet the 2.0m height restriction along the entire length of the dwelling on the west elevation, as well the window that has been cut into the fence will be removed and replaced with fence boards. The uncovered deck will be reduced in height to meet the 0.30m (1 0 ) height restriction. The hot tub will be relocated as well as the gazebo and greenhouse. The relocation of these structures will meet the requirement of the Land Use Bylaw, no waivers will be required. The applicant has requested fence height waivers for the following: to construct a fence and a request for a 0.13m (5 ) fence height waiver for the portion that runs from the easterly corner of the dwelling to the east side parcel line. To bring an existing fence into compliance and a request for a 0.13m (5 ) fence height waiver for the portion that runs down the northerly parcel line running east and west and the 7m section of fence that runs north and south along the north westerly property line and the 10.1m section that runs west and east on the north side of the driveway and the 4.2m section that runs north and south to the north easterly corner of the dwelling. And a request for a 0.40m (1 3 ) fence height waiver from the south easterly corner down to 0.16m (6 ) fence height waiver for the section of fence that runs down the easterly side property line running north and south. CURRENT DEVELOPMENT Single Detached Dwelling ADJACENT DEVELOPMENT North Low Density Residential South Low Density Residential East - Low Density Residential West Low Density Residential

10 June 14, 2011 New Business 5.1 Municipal Planning Commission Page 2 of 6 CONTEXT MAP LAND USE BYLAW SUMMARY Use: Single Detached Dwelling and Accessory Buildings Setback Front Front Sides Setback Accessory Building Side Side Fence Corner Parcel In one front yard In remaining yards Permitted Standard Proposed Waiver 6.0m 3.0m 1.2m 10.80m 3.0m 5.73m & 11.52m None None None 0.6m 0.6m 0.6m 0.6m None None 1.0m 2.0m 0.90m 2.13m, 2.16m & 2.40m None 0.13m, 0.16m & 0.40m

11 Municipal Planning Commission June 14, 2011 New Business 5.1 Page 3 of 6 CIRCULATION SUMMARY Transportation Water/Wastewater/ Strormwater Electric Waste & Recycling Building Inspection Landscaping Fire Prevention N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A NOTIFICATION SUMMARY Neighbourhood Assoc Neighbourhood Appendix B: Letters N/A Twenty four letters were sent to landowners within a 60m radius of the subject property on three separate occasions. Seven letters were received in opposition of the proposal, (two of the letters are from the same people) at the time the agenda was prepared. Issues centered on: Appearance of the enclosed patio and fence Affect on property values EVALUATION Background A permit technician received a complaint about construction of an addition taking place at the address and they contacted the homeowner. The homeowner came in to make application for the work that had taken place on his property. Upon reviewing the registered and utility right of way plans, it was noticed that the enclosed patio and uncovered deck were constructed over a Utility Right of Way. The owner worked with Infrastructure and had the Utility Right of Way discharged as there aren t any utilities located in it. He also made his development application and building permit applications. I performed a site inspection and found that there were more buildings and decks that had been constructed without the required permits. The homeowner then applied for the building permits for the rest of the structures on the property. After numerous months we have now received all of the necessary documentation to proceed with the development and building permit applications.

12 Municipal Planning Commission June 14, 2011 New Business 5.1 Page 4 of 6 Context This application is before the Commission because of the number of neighbourhood responses received. Considerations The homeowner did construct and install enclosed patio, decks, swimming pool, hot tub and gazebo as well as an addition to his fence height without any permits or approvals The request for the front setback waiver will not pose any safety hazards The side setback waivers for the accessory building are minimal and will not pose any safety hazard As there is a hot tub and a swimming pool on this parcel the fence height waiver was applied for as a security and safety measure Legislation & Policy Land Use Bylaw 4100, Section 71, R-L District Land Use Bylaw 4100, Section 70 (4) (a e) Integrated Community Sustainability Plan/Municipal Development Plan: states Lethbridge has a range of housing that meets everyone s needs. The intent of these policies is that everyone has safe and accessible housing in our City Lethbridge is a welcoming and diverse City. The intent of these policies is to foster an environment of inclusivity and provide a welcoming community for all residents and visitors. ALTERNATIVES Approval This application may be approved. Appropriate conditions should be cited. If this application is approved the goals and policies of the Integrated Community Sustainability Plan/Municipal Development Plan are supported. Note: The applicant may appeal any of the conditions of approval. Any affected party present at the MPC meeting may appeal the approval.

13 Municipal Planning Commission June 14, 2011 New Business 5.1 Page 5 of 6 The approval is advertised 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 will have to cut the fence back to meet the height restrictions. Note: 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. Tabling The application may be tabled: The cause of or reason for tabling should be cited. Conditions or time frame for lifting from the table should be cited. Instructions for re-advertising should be cited. If this application is tabled 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. CONCLUSION That Development Application DEV02783 be lifted from the TABLE and APPROVED with the following conditions: 1. A 0.13m (5 ) fence height waiver be granted, allowing the fence that runs from the easterly corner of the dwelling to the east side parcel line be a maximum of 2.13m (7 0 ). 2. A 0.13m (5 ) fence height waiver be granted, allowing the existing fence that runs down the northerly parcel line running east and west and the 7m section of the fence that runs north and south along the north westerly property line and the 10.1m section that runs west and east on the north side of the driveway and the

14 Municipal Planning Commission June 14, 2011 New Business 5.1 Page 6 of 6 4.2m section that runs north and south to the north easterly corner of the dwelling be a maximum of 2.13m (7 0 ). 3. A 0.40m (1 3 ) tapering down to 0.16m (6 ) fence height waiver be granted, allowing the existing fence that runs from the south easterly corner down to the north easterly corner be a maximum of 2.40m (7 10 ) tapering down to 2.16m (7 1 ). 4. The development shall be in accordance with the plans submitted May 16, Any change to these plans requires the approval of the Development Officer. 5. The wooden shed, as it appears on the Real Property Report, dated December 6, 2010 is not approved and must be removed by July 14, An inspection will be conducted on July 15, 2011 to ensure compliance. 6. The uncovered deck, as it appears on the Real Property Report, dated December 6, 2010 is not approved and must be removed or reconstructed to meet the requirements of Land Use Bylaw 4100 by July 14, An inspection will be conducted on July 15, 2011 to ensure compliance.

15 Municipal Planning Commission Resolution June 14, 2011 New Business 5.1 DEV02783 Moved by: That Development Application DEV02783 be lifted from the TABLE and APPROVED with the following conditions: 1. A 0.13m (5 ) fence height waiver be granted, allowing the fence that runs from the easterly corner of the dwelling to the east side parcel line be a maximum of 2.13m (7 0 ). 2. A 0.13m (5 ) fence height waiver be granted, allowing the existing fence that runs down the northerly parcel line running east and west and the 7m section of the fence that runs north and south along the north westerly property line and the 10.1m section that runs west and east on the north side of the driveway and the 4.2m section that runs north and south to the north easterly corner of the dwelling be a maximum of 2.13m (7 0 ). 3. A 0.40m (1 3 ) tapering down to 0.16m (6 ) fence height waiver be granted, allowing the existing fence that runs from the south easterly corner down to the north easterly corner be a maximum of 2.40m (7 10 ) tapering down to 2.16m (7 1 ). 4. The development shall be in accordance with the plans submitted May 16, Any change to these plans requires the approval of the Development Officer. 5. The wooden shed, as it appears on the Real Property Report, dated December 6, 2010 is not approved and must be removed by July 14, An inspection will be conducted on July 15, 2011 to ensure compliance. 6. The uncovered deck, as it appears on the Real Property Report, dated December 6, 2010 is not approved and must be removed or reconstructed to meet the requirements of Land Use Bylaw 4100 by July 14, An inspection will be conducted on July 15, 2011 to ensure compliance. Chairman

16

17

18

19

20

21

22 November 4, 2010 To Angela Olsen: This is to address the notice dated October 27, 2010 sent to property owners within a 60M radius of 11 Temple Blvd. West This property directly adjoins ours, and we are concerned that the continued development and the appearance of this development directly impacts the value of our home. As well, we have concerns about the safety of these developments. The owner has installed extensive electrical wiring, some of which is between the fences on our property line. There are also many wooden structures throughout the yard with electrical, (fire hazard?) including a deck surrounding the swimming pool. The height of this deck greatly diminishes our privacy. In addition, we believe that the drawing we received does not accurately represent fence heights and the extent of building that has occurred on the property in the last two years. Sincerely, Tim and Mary Smith

23 From: To: Cc: Subject: Date: Eugene Boehr 830 Mailbox "Cheryl Boehr" 11 Temple Blvd West Monday, November 08, :03:12 PM Attention Angela Olsen, Re Notice to Neighbours re 11 Temple Blvd West Dear Angela, Thank you for the opportunity to have input into this development. We believe that we are negatively impacted by this development in a couple of ways: 1. The excessive height of the fence and the window built into the west fence are not esthetically pleasing and do not fit with the current neighbourhood environment. 2. The anomalous development at 11 Temple Blvd will have a downward effect on property values in the neighbourhood. Regards, Eugene & Cheryl Boehr

24

25

26

27 From: To: Subject: Date: Ken Jack 830 Mailbox Response to development application for #11 Temple Blvd West Monday, November 08, :35:20 AM Good morning Ms. Olsen We are responding to your letter of Oct 27/10 with respect to the property at #11 Temple Blvd West To be honest we find the latest developments to this property have resulted in it looking like a veritable "fortress". We feel the additions to the fence and side deck detracts from the neighbourhood s aesthetics and do not provide an attractive entrance to our crescent as other properties do. Our most obvious concern with this development, besides the unsightliness, is one of associated property values, ones that may be adversely affected for nearby homes like our own. Besides that, we have to ask how developments such as this are allowed to continue to the point where they are essentially complete before public or City input is solicited. Will not resolution at this point, whatever the ultimate outcome, end up placing undue hardship on all parties involved? Ken & Lorraine Jack 15 Temple Crescent W. Lethbridge, AB T1K 4T3

28