Municipal Planning Commission. AGENDA November 28, :00 PM COUNCIL CHAMBERS Main Floor, City Hall Avenue South

Transcription

1 Municipal Planning Commission AGENDA November 28, :00 PM COUNCIL CHAMBERS Main Floor, City Hall Avenue South

2 Municipal Planning Commission DATE OF MEETING November 28, 2017 TIME OF MEETING PLACE OF MEETING COMMITTEE MEMBERS MEETING AGENDA 3:00 pm Council Chambers, City Hall Councillor Jeff Coffman (Alternate) Councillor Blaine Hyggen Councillor Rob Miyashiro Councillor Belinda Crowson 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 1. Welcome Chair 2. Approval of Agenda 3. Adoption of Minutes 3.1. Additions 3.2. Deletions 4. Old Business 5. New Business 5.1 DEV09617 Pam Colling, Development Officer 6. Adjourn meeting

3 Municipal Planning Commission ADOPTION OF MINUTES

4 MINUTES of a Regular Meeting of the MUNICIPAL PLANNING COMMISSION (MPC) held on Tuesday, September 19, 2017 at 3:00 p.m. with the following in attendance: CHAIRMAN: R. Miyashiro (Acting) Councillor MEMBERS: J. Coffman Councillor L. Armstrong Member at Large K. Hachkowski Member at Large M. Hlady Member at Large B. Thurber Member at Large OTHERS: M. Gaehring Community Planning Manager J. Price Senior Subdivision Planner W. Smith Recording Secretary ABSENT: B. Hyggen Councillor M. Kawchuk Member at Large K. HACHKOWSKI: THAT Rob Miyashiro be appointed Acting Chairman of the Municipal Planning Commission (MPC) held on September 19, 2017 meeting CARRIED J. COFFMAN: THAT the agenda of the meeting of the Municipal Planning Commission (MPC) held on September 19, 2017 be approved as presented/amended CARRIED K. HACHKOWSKI: THAT the minutes of the meeting of the Municipal Planning Commission (MPC) held on September 5, 2017 be approved CARRIED WATERMARK OUTLINE PLAN : File No: OLP00001, Associated Engineering Alberta Ltd., on behalf of The City of Lethbridge Real Estate and Land Development Department, has applied for outline plan approval for approximately hectares (348 acres) of undeveloped land (excepting the new public middle school and park) lying west of the existing communities of SunRidge, Mountain Heights and Varsity Village and southeast of Copperwood. Senior Subdivision Planner s Presentation: Jason Price, Senior Subdivision Planner, presented the Watermark Outline Plan for approximately hectares (348 acres) of undeveloped land (excepting the new public middle school and park) lying west of the existing communities of SunRidge, Mountain Heights and Varsity Village and southeast of Copperwood. 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.

5 The Watermark Outline Plan has been prepared in accordance with the policies and objectives outlined in the City of Lethbridge Integrated Community Sustainability Plan/Municipal Development Plan (ICSP/MDP), the Waterbridge Area Structure Plan and the South Saskatchewan Regional Plan. Included in the outline plan application 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). This Outline Plan envisions predominantly low density residential development. Residential cells and a window street featuring medium density and commercial uses. A public middle school site (currently under construction) is located in the southeast area of the plan which will include sports fields, play and fitness equipment and skateboard and BMX facilities. A Fire Station site is located in the northeast area of the plan to provide additional fire/ems services to west Lethbridge. Natural and manicured open space and wet and dry storm retention ponds make up the remainder of the proposed land uses. Full build out could see 1759 dwelling units with a density to units per hectare, which translates to a total population of 4787 people. Notice of MPC meeting was advertised September 9, Adjacent property owners were notified and invited to attend the MPC meeting. No responses received. Additional notification to the public is required with future rezoning and subdivision processes. In conclusion, Mr. Price recommended that application OLP00001, The Watermark Outline Plan, be approved with the following condition: 1. That future land use bylaw amendment applications and subdivision applications conform with this approval with respect to land use and street pattern to the satisfaction of the Approving Authority. There was no response to the Chairman s three calls for anyone else wishing to speak. Questions: Mr. Price and Ms Slovack from Real Estate and Land Development responded to questions regarding: Planned off leash dog park Population numbers consistent with other Outline Plans This outline plan population numbers seem low Planned amenities in the park and school fields will fit in the allowed space Street names change after an intersection instead of keeping one consecutive name Existing addresses off Macleod Drive W Macleod Drive W should maybe run through the new neighbourhood instead of changing street names after an intersection The following motion was presented: K. HACHKOWSKI: THAT Application Number OPL00001 The Watermark Outline Plan is approved with the following condition: 1. That future land use bylaw amendment applications and subdivision applications conform with this approval with respect to land use and street pattern to the satisfaction of the Approving Authority CARRIED

6 M. HLADY: THAT this meeting of the Municipal Planning Commission be adjourned CARRIED CHAIRMAN SECRETARY

7 Municipal Planning Commission NEW BUSINESS Item 5.1

8 Municipal Planning Commission Date New Business 5.1 Page 1 of 8 APPLICATION NO. LAND USE DISTRICT LOCATION DEV09617 R-L Low Density 145 Southgate Boulevard South Residential District APPLICANT Reinhard & Judi Mark LANDOWNER Reinhard & Judi Mark PROPOSED DEVELOPMENT Appendix A: Drawings To construct a secondary suite over the existing attached rear garage and a request for a 0.57m (1 11 ) rear setback waiver. CURRENT DEVELOPMENT Single Detached Dwelling ADJACENT DEVELOPMENT North Single Detached Dwelling South Single Detached Dwelling East Single Detached Dwelling West Two-Unit Dwelling CONTEXT MAP

9 Municipal Planning Commission Date New Business 5.1 Page 2 of 8 NOTIFICATION SUMMARY Appendix B: Notification Letter, Map & Responses Neighbourhood Assoc. N/A Neighbourhood 33 neighbourhood notification letters were sent to residents within a 60m radius of the subject parcel on October 18, responses were received from neighbours in objection to this proposal. EVALUATION Background An application to construct a secondary suite over the existing detached garage with a request for a 0.57m (1 11 ) rear setback waiver was received on October 17, Neighbourhood notification letters were sent out on October 18, Due to the number of responses received from the neighbours, a decision was made to bring this application to the Municipal Planning Commission for consideration.

10 Municipal Planning Commission Date New Business 5.1 Page 3 of 8 LAND USE BYLAW SUMMARY Use: Secondary Suite Discretionary Requirement Provided Waiver Requested Height 10m Maximum 7.47m N/A Setbacks Front 5.64m (Granted on DP ) 5.64m N/A Side #1 1.20m Minimum 1.22m N/A Side #2 1.20m Minimum 1.62m N/A Rear 7.60m Minimum 7.03m 0.57m Eave Projection 0.60m Maximum 0.46m N/A Parking 3 off-street stalls 3 off-street stalls N/A Context This application is before the Commission due: To the number of objections received from neighbours.

11 Municipal Planning Commission Date New Business 5.1 Page 4 of 8 Considerations Compliance One additional off-street parking stall must be provided for the secondary suite. o 2 off-street parking stalls are provided within the attached rear garage, and o 1 additional off-street parking stall will be provided on parking pad beside the attached garage One secondary suite is allowed per parcel: o A secondary Suite, New means a second self-contained dwelling unit on a parcel in which the principal use is a single detached dwelling. Secondary Suite, New may include development within the single detached dwelling or within or above a detached garage. The secondary suite must have a separate access either through entryway from the exterior of the dwelling or through a separate entrance within a common landing. o This secondary suite has a separate side access from the exterior. Zoning Parcel is zoned R-L Low Density Residential District o Purpose: Primarily for the development of single detached dwellings and compatible uses. Secondary suites are considered to be a compatible use. o Secondary Suites, New are discretionary uses in the R-L Low Density Residential District. Secondary Suites are a low density use. Safe Living Accommodations Alberta Safety Code Requirements all construction (including the secondary suite) must meet Alberta Safety Code requirements which include Building, Electrical, Fire, Gas, Heating and Plumbing. He will be making this a safe, legal suite. Owner Occupied The City of Lethbridge cannot require an owner to live at any property. In this case though, the applicant and his wife will be living in the single detached dwelling.

12 Municipal Planning Commission Date New Business 5.1 Page 5 of 8 Windows and Privacy Windows placed on the east side of the suite have opaque glass and have been placed at a height to aide with privacy. Windows placed on the west side in the living room and kitchen have clear glass and have a view of the neighbouring rear yard. Parking Access to the existing attached rear garage is from the lane currently. One additional vehicle would have minimal impact. Lane is well used as dwellings along Southgate Boulevard South are required to have off-street parking access off of the rear lane. No front access was permitted as Southgate Boulevard is a Collector Road. Neighbourhood Bus stop is located within 100m of the subject parcel should residence not choose to drive. (Routes 22 & 24) There are a number of amenities within walking distance. Groceries, doctor s office, pharmacy, shopping, restaurants, financial institution, hair salon. Legislation & Policy Land Use Bylaw 5700 Section 1.4.3, Definitions o Secondary Suite, New Section 9.22, Parking and Loading Requirements Section 14.5, R-L Low Density Residential District Integrated Community Sustainability Plan/Municipal Development Plan: 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.

13 Municipal Planning Commission Date New Business 5.1 Page 6 of 8 2) Integrate a range of housing types throughout the City. 3) Encourage and facilitate the adequate supply of housing for all income groups. 4) Develop accessible housing units in areas where ancillary neighborhood facilities are currently available (e.g. schools, parks, transit routes, groceries) or will be developed in the future 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 Lethbridge is a Compact City The intent of these policies is to minimize the urban footprint of Lethbridge by using land more effectively. South Saskatchewan Regional Plan Efficient Use of Land Objective: The amount of land that is required for development of the built environment is minimized over time. Strategies: 5.1 All land-use planners and decision-makers responsible for land-use decisions are encouraged to consider the efficient use of land principles in land-use planning and decision-making. Principles: 2. Utilize the minimum amount of land necessary for new development and build at a higher density than current practice. 3. Increase the proportion of new development that takes place within already developed or disturbed lands either through infill, redevelopment and/or shared use, relative to new development that takes place on previously undeveloped lands. 4. Plan, design and locate new development in a manner that best utilizes existing infrastructure and minimizes the need for new or expanded infrastructure.

14

15

16

17

18

19 Municipal Planning Commission Date New Business 5.1 Page 7 of 8 CONCLUSION The application for a Secondary Suite, New: One additional vehicle using the lane would have minimal impact. Other than the request for a rear setback waiver, proposal meets the requirements of Land Use Bylaw 5700 Meets the goals and policies of the Integrated Community Sustainability Plan / Municipal Development Plan. Meets the objectives, strategies and principles of the South Saskatchewan Regional Plan However, there may be a material or undue impact on the use, enjoyment, or value on neighbouring properties or neighbourhood amenities in that: West facing windows have clear glass and have a direct view of the neighbouring rear yard. RECOMMENDATION Based on this conclusion, I am unable to provide a recommendation.

20 Municipal Planning Commission Date New Business 5.1 Page 8 of 8 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.

21 PLANNING AND DEVELOPMENT SERVICES Avenue South Phone No Lethbridge, AB T1J 0P6 Fax No developmentservices@lethbridge.ca October 18, 2017 NOTICE TO NEIGHBOURS This letter is being sent to property owners within a 60m radius of: 145 SOUTHGATE BOULEVARD SOUTH An application has been received to construct a secondary suite over the existing attached garage and a request for a 0.57m (1'11") rear setback waiver, thereby requesting a 7.03m (23'1") rear setback for the single detached dwelling with secondary suite. If you require any further information about this development application please contact Development Services at , by 4:30 p.m. on October 27, If you feel that you will be impacted by this development, please explain how and why in writing or by on or before the above date. Please note that all information you provide can be made public. Pam Colling Development Officer cc: Applicant 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 Ave S, Lethbridge, AB T1J 0P6 or phone

22 Parcel Locator Map Print Page Southgate Boulevard S... Page 1 of 1 10/18/ Southgate Boulevard South DISCLAIMER: 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 Canada Printed by Pam Colling using Parcel Locator GIS Map Server.

23 RESPONSES MAP Appendix B Map

24 From: To: Subject: Date: Marilyn Adam Pam Colling 145 Southgate Saturday, October 28, :36:28 PM I am a condo owner in stone gate unit 5, backing onto this alley. I also strongly object to this suite above the garage as it will also impact my privacy in my backyard. As it is now I face directly into a back alley garage that services vehicles in the alley. I donot want any more congestion in the alley. Sorry for the brief note as I am in Europe now on limited wifi. Marilyn Adam Fairmont Rd. s Sent from Marilyn's ipad Sent from Marilyn's ipad Sent from Marilyn's ipad

25 From: To: Subject: Date: Kari Gugala Pam Colling FW: Regarding development of a suite at 145 Fairmont Blvd. Friday, October 27, :03:17 AM Kari Gugala BUILDING INSPECTIONS & DEVELOPMENT SERVICES CLERK (403) (403) kari.gugala@lethbridge.ca Stay Informed. Follow us on -----Original Message----- From: Jan [mailto:jan.johnsonleth@gmail.com] Sent: Thursday, October 26, :09 PM To: City of Lethbridge Development Services Subject: Regarding development of a suite at 145 Fairmont Blvd. To Whom this may concern: With regard to the proposed application for a suite at 145 Fairmont Blvd. I would like to register our concern for this type of development. We are owners of Fairmont Road and feel that this type of development may impact the values of our properties. This is a single family area and we would like to see it remain that way. I believe that several other owners in our condo development have registered their concern with you as well. Thank you for considering our concerns when making your decision. Jan and Wayne Johnson Sent from my ipad Jan Johnson

26 From: To: Subject: Date: Kari Gugala Pam Colling FW: Secondary Suite 145 Southgate Blvd Monday, October 30, :19:40 AM Kari Gugala BUILDING INSPECTIONS & DEVELOPMENT SERVICES CLERK (403) (403) kari.gugala@lethbridge.ca Stay Informed. Follow us on -----Original Message----- From: Kaptin Kooy [mailto:kaptinkooy@gmail.com] Sent: Friday, October 27, :25 PM To: City of Lethbridge Development Services Subject: Secondary Suite 145 Southgate Blvd In regards to the above application, we are definitely opposed. Not that we object to our neighbour having a secondary suite but we object to the development and because the City if Lethbridge has created such a 'bottleneck' of traffic through our neighbourhood over the past 10 years. Even now that 43 St is partially opened again, many residents residing South of us in the CouleeCreek & SouthGate areas still use our street as their personal 'thoroughfare'. There have been many 'close calls' for us backing out of our driveway and many instances where we almost hit other vehicles driving down the alley, notably at the exact spot where the proposed suite would be constructed. There is absolutely no support for this development application to proceed, especially as we are the ones who will be most affected by it! Sincerely, Kevin & Tanya Kooy 96 - Fairmont Road South Sent from my iphone! Really!

27 From: Kari Gugala To: Pam Colling Subject: FW: Secondary Suite Application at 145 Southgate Boulevard S. Date: Monday, October 30, :18:50 AM Kari Gugala BUILDING INSPECTIONS & DEVELOPMENT SERVICES CLERK (403) (403) Stay Informed. Follow us on -----Original Message----- From: Sent: Sunday, October 29, :58 PM To: City of Lethbridge Development Services Subject: Secondary Suite Application at 145 Southgate Boulevard S. We wish advise of our objection to the application to develope a secondary Suite at 145 Southgate Boulevard S. We would expect much more noise and activity to affect our privacy. We would also expect a drop in the value of our property at unit 6, 140 Fairmont Road South, Lethbridge. Please consider our objection. Sincerily Roy and Jean Jensen

28 From: Kari Gugala To: Pam Colling Subject: FW: Secondary Suite Application, 145 Southgate Blvd. S. Date: Monday, October 30, :19:25 AM Attachments: image007.png image008.png image009.png Kari Gugala BUILDING INSPECTIONS & DEVELOPMENT SERVICES CLERK (403) (403) Stay Informed. Follow us on From: Little, Neil Sent: Saturday, October 28, :08 AM To: City of Lethbridge Development Services Cc: Subject: Fwd: Secondary Suite Application, 145 Southgate Blvd. S. Sent from my ipad Begin forwarded message: From: "Little, Neil" Date: October 28, 2017 at 10:38:42 AM MDT To: Subject: Secondary Suite Application, 145 Southgate Blvd. S. Pam, further to our and letter of objection to the application to construct a Secondary Suite above the garage at 145 Southgate Boulevard, we are sending a photo of our backyard and photoshopped photo with the proposed Suite. A staircase and second floor landing directly against our back fence is, clearly to us, a gross violation of privacy. As we indicated in our previous /letter, if the application were to be approved, serious consideration must be given to flipping the plan such that the staircase, landing, and entrance are on the East side of the Suite. Sincerely, Julie and Neil G. Little.

29

30 #7 140 Fairmont Road South Lethbridge, AB T1K 5P8 October 25, 2017 Ms. Pam Colling, Development Officer City of Lethbridge Avenue South Lethbridge, AB T1J 0P6 Re: Secondary Suite Application at 145 Southgate Blvd. S. Dear Ms Colling: We are writing to express our opposition to approval for the Secondary Suite Application at 145 Southgate Blvd. S. We oppose the application for the following reasons: 1. While the area is zoned for the Discretionary approval of a Secondary Suite, we are not aware of any other second floor Secondary Suites and/or Rental Suites in the area and approval of one would not only alter the unit density of the neighbourhood, but also would change the community ambiance in a manner that is detrimental to the scope of the Fairmont/Southgate plan for this area. A plan which many residents used as a guide to their acquisition of property in the area. 2. While the application provides for one additional parking space as required by the City s Land Use Bylaw 5700, it should be noted that the parking space is in the rear of the property as is the access to the proposed Suite. There is no provision for parking space for visitors, delivery vehicles, and service/emergency vehicles except for the alley. While temporary parking in the alley would occur, the potential for congestion is be unacceptable since it will obviously block traffic flow. Although street parking is available on Southgate Boulevard, the access to the proposed Suite is in the alley with only indirect access to the rear from the street front, exacerbating the parking issue and increasing the likelihood of parking in the alley. 3. We find the proposed west facing entrance door and west side stairs, which descend directly next to (against) the Stonegate Condominium fence to be particularly objectionable. We are not aware of a setback requirement for external stairs of the side of a property, but there are for storage sheds and other structures. We expect that stairs would be similar. Not only is the privacy of the rear yards particularly of Stonegate Units 7 and 8 compromised by the Suite entrance and stairs, but also, the noise and activity created by the occupants (guests, visitors, and etc.) of the Suite as they enter and exit will be undoubtedly disconcerting for Stonegate residents who purchased their Units specifically with quiet and rear privacy in mind. Privacy is a major issue for us and we find the Suite entrance on the west side totally unacceptable. 4. There is a concern that potential development of a Secondary Suite will reduce the property value particularly of Stonegate Unit 7 which is directly adjacent to the proposed Suite. While a reduction in property value could result in a reduction in City Taxes for Stonegate Unit 7, the net Tax Revenue for the City may actually increase with an offsetting increase in the property value and taxes associated with 145 Southgate Blvd. S. Were this to occur, it could be assumed that the decision to approve the application is based on improving City Tax Revenue as opposed to maintaining Community/Neighbourhood ambiance. If the application were to be approved, we would recommend very serious consideration be given to requiring that the proposed plan be flipped such that the Suite entrance and stairs are on the east side. While this change would not address any of the concerns that we have regarding the neighbourhood ambience, parking and associated issues, and potential changes in property value, it would substantially reduce our concerns with regard to what we view a violation of privacy. Such a change would not only reduce our privacy concerns, but would alsoput the Suite stairs closer to the Suite srearparking pad, enable front street access directly through the 145 Southgate Blvd. S yard, and re-establish that properties west side setback requirement. Should you require clarification and/or any additional information, we would be pleased to provide it. Sincerely, Julie and Neil G. Little.

31 From: To: Subject: Date: Attachments: Kari Gugala Pam Colling FW: Secondary Suite Application... Monday, October 30, :18:59 AM image005.png image006.png image007.png Kari Gugala BUILDING INSPECTIONS & DEVELOPMENT SERVICES CLERK (403) (403) Stay Informed. Follow us on From: Muriel Kirkman Sent: Sunday, October 29, :54 PM To: City of Lethbridge Development Services Subject: Re: Secondary Suite Application... I would like to object to the building of the proposed suite above the garage at 145 Southgate Boulevard So. It invades our privacy. Sent from my ipad On Oct 29, 2017, at 2:41 PM, Muriel Kirkman <wmkirk@shaw.ca> wrote: I would like to object to the building of the proposed suite above the garage.at145 SouthgateBoulevard So. It invades our privacy. Sent from my ipad On Oct 29, 2017, at 1:39 PM, Little, Neil <little@uleth.ca> wrote: Hi Muriel, The address that we have for Development Services is as follows: developmentservices@lethbridge.ca

32 We have sent some information to Pam Colling at the following address, however sometimes this one doesn t seem to work pam.colling@lethbridge.ca Thanks for your reply, Cheers, Julie and Neil. From: Muriel Kirkman [mailto:wmkirk@shaw.ca] Sent: October 29, :05 PM To: Little, Neil <little@uleth.ca> Subject: Re: Secondary Suite Application... Hi Neil I sent my letter about the suite. To development Lethbridge.ca. They said it was wrong address. Sent from my ipad On Oct 28, 2017, at 9:45 AM, Little, Neil <little@uleth.ca> wrote: Greetings Stonegaters, Thank you to everyone who has responded to the City with regard to Judie and Reinhart Mark s application to construct a Secondary Suite above their garage (next to Lynne s, our s, and Jensen s backyard). The more negative responses that are received, the better the chance for a rejection. We have included a photoshopped view of our current backyard and what it would look like with the Suite. Can you imagine a stairway to a second floor observation deck right against the fence on your backyard? Once again, thank you. Julie and Neil Little. <image001.jpg> <image002.jpg>

33 From: To: Subject: Date: Kari Gugala Pam Colling FW: secondary suite overlooking Stonegate condos Monday, October 30, :19:34 AM Kari Gugala BUILDING INSPECTIONS & DEVELOPMENT SERVICES CLERK (403) (403) Stay Informed. Follow us on -----Original Message----- From: Joseph Hnatiuk Sent: Saturday, October 28, :05 AM To: City of Lethbridge Development Services Subject: secondary suite overlooking Stonegate condos Dear recipient. My husband and I -Joseph and Charlotte Hnatiuk do not approve the proposal of having a secondary suite overlooking our condos. Thank you C&J Hnatiuk # 10!40 Fairmont Rd South.

34 From: To: Subject: Date: Jennifer Watt Pam Colling FW: Secondary suite southgate boulevard south Wednesday, October 25, :24:18 PM From: MEL AND JUDY WIKLUN Sent: Wednesday, October 25, :13 PM To: City of Lethbridge Development Services Subject: Secondary suite southgate boulevard south Myself and my wife as property owners of #9-140 Fairmont rd s. in the stonegate condo units are against any secondardy suite, that has been proposed by the owners of #145 southgate boulevard s. #1 unexceptable noise from the building devlopement. #2 unsitely garbage and building material blowing around. #3 parking congestion in alley and front street,which is already overloaded. #4 noise level may increase due to tenants having parties. #5 damage to the block fence a possibility due to the digging and construction. #6 secondary suite garbage pickup a concern. #7 a concern to placement of entry and exit doors if located in the alley. [parking room] We hope are concerns are considerd. Mel & Judy Wiklun. #9-140 fairmont road s. Lethbridge Alberta.

35 From: Kari Gugala To: Pam Colling Subject: FW: secondary suite 145 Southgate Boulevard S. Date: Thursday, October 26, :02:55 PM Attachments: image005.png image006.png image007.png Kari Gugala BUILDING INSPECTIONS & DEVELOPMENT SERVICES CLERK (403) (403) Stay Informed. Follow us on From: Marlene Sent: Thursday, October 26, :24 PM To: City of Lethbridge Development Services Subject: secondary suite 145 Southgate Boulevard S. Attention: Pam Colling Hi Pam, We are writing this to voice our opposition to the referenced secondary suite. We cannot visualize that this can in any way be an improvement to our community. The height needed for the new structure would be above anything existing and in our minds would be an eyesore. Should this project be approved how may other of these super high structures will pop up in the future, adding to a very unappealing look to the neighbourhood. We re sure that our neighbours on the other side of our cul-de-sac, expected some measure of privacy when they bought their property. How is that possible with a tower just outside their backyards? We believe this would also impact their ability to sell their homes in the future. No one will want to have a super structure in their backyard.

36 This area is already quite congested with cars both parked and travelling. We do not feel we need to have more added to what we think should be a single family dwelling. Should this parking encroach into the back alley, we are concerned that this would this hamper any emergency vehicles in case of fire etc. We hope that you will take our concerns into careful consideration and perhaps go so far as to think, would you want it in your backyard? Sincerely, Ed & Marlene Grinnell Unit #12, 140 Fairmont Rd. S.

37 From: Kari Gugala To: Pam Colling Subject: FW: Secondary Suite Application at 145 Southgate Blvd. S. Date: Thursday, October 26, :12:26 PM Attachments: image005.png image006.png image007.png Kari Gugala BUILDING INSPECTIONS & DEVELOPMENT SERVICES CLERK (403) (403) Stay Informed. Follow us on From: Lynne Lengyel Sent: Thursday, October 26, :11 PM To: City of Lethbridge Development Services Subject: Re: Secondary Suite Application at 145 Southgate Blvd. S. Ms. Pam Colling, Development Officer City of Lethbridge, AB. T1J 0P6 Dear Ms. Colling, I m writing to oppose approval of a Secondary Suite Application at 145 Southgate Blvd. S. When I purchased my home at #8, 140 Fairmont Rd. S. in 2007, our neighbourhood was still being established and I had a choice of several units. I chose mine, in part, due to the large lot and the privacy it allowed, both from Southgate Blvd. S. and the neighbouring property at 145 Southgate Blvd. S. A suite above the garage would be an intrusion of my privacy and that of my close neighbours, Mr. & Mrs. Little and Mr. & Mrs. Jensen and others as well, along the alley leading to the property. The front entrance to the suite, including a long stairway, would be directly in site of our outdoor decks as well as our windows on the west side. It is also very close to the concrete fence that surrounds our condo complex and faces directly into the west wind which could be dangerous if someone were to lose their balance on the small landing. If

38 this endeavour is approved anyway, perhaps another plan could be drawn up with entrance and steps facing east. It would be safer I think. Of course I also worry about the resale value of my home with extra traffic and noise in the alley. I don t think that Lethbridge is getting so over populated that we need homes in the alleys. It just doesn't seem right to me. Thank you for your attention, Sincerely, Lynne Lengyel

39 From: To: Subject: Date: dennis cox Pam Colling Secondary Suite Application for 145 Southgate Boulevard South Thursday, October 26, :12:19 PM We are residents at # Fairmont Road South ( part of the Stonegate condo complex ). We wish to take this opportunity to express our opposition to the afore mentioned application for a secondary suite. It is our opinion that approval of this would have long term detrimental effects on the area in terms op parking, privacy, land values and the community in general. Thank you for your consideration. Faye & Dennis Cox

40 140 Fairmont Road South Lethbridge, AB T1K 5P8 October 26, 2017 Ms. Pam Colling, Development Officer City of Lethbridge Avenue South Lethbridge, AB T1J 0P6 Re: Secondary Suite Application at 145 Southgate Blvd. S. Dear Ms Colling: My wife and I are writing to express our opposition to approval for the Secondary Suite Application at 145 Southgate Blvd. S. We oppose the application for the following reasons: 1. As we understand it, access to the proposed suite is in the alley with other access to the rear from the street. This will, in our view worsening the parking situation and increase parking in the alley. 2. We find the proposed west facing entrance door next to the Stonegate Condominium fence and common areas to be an issue. It will affect our enjoyment of the common area which is designated for all in the condominium. Privacy and quiet use is most important to us and we feel the location of the suite entrance to be unacceptable. If the building permit is to be approved, we would suggest some modifications. For example, the proposed plan be altered so the suite s entrance and stairs are on the east side. While this change would not address any of the concerns that we have regarding the neighbourhood ambience, parking and associated issues, it would substantially reduce our concerns with regard to what would be a violation of privacy and a lot usage. Sincerely, Bill and Elaine Halley