feb 4 2010dechr

8/14/2019 Feb 4 2010DecHR

http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/feb-4-2010dechr 1/14

DATE: February 19, 2010APPLICATION NO: 87684461-001FILE NO.: SDAB-D-10-036

NOTICE OF DECISION OF THE SUBDIVISION AND DEVELOPMENT APPEAL BOARD

This appeal dated January 6, 2010, from the decision of the Development Authority forpermission to:

Construct an Apartment House (7 Dwellings) / Boarding and Lodging House (7 Sleeping Units)building

on Lot 34, Block 19, Plan RN23 and Lot 32A, Block 19, Plan 0522473, located at 9338 – 107AAvenue NW, was heard by the Subdivision and Development Appeal Board at its meeting heldon February 4, 2010. The decision of the Board was as follows:

SUMMARY OF HEARING:

“At the outset of the appeal hearing, the Presiding Officer confirmed withthe parties in attendance that there was no opposition to the composition of the panel.

The Board heard an appeal of the decision of the Development Authorityto approve, with variances granted in the minimum required number of on-site parking stalls, the minimum required Separation Space in front of Principal Living Room windows, and the minimum required distance fromthe front entry canopy to the front property line, subject to conditions, an

application to construct an Apartment House (7 Dwellings) / Boarding andLodging House (7 Sleeping Units) building, located at 9338 – 107AAvenue NW. The subject site is zoned RA7 Low Rise Apartment Zone.The approved development permit was subsequently appealed by theMcCauley Community League.

Subdivision and Office of the City Clerk

Development Appeal Board 3rd Floor, City Hall1 Sir Winston Churchill SquareEdmonton AB T5J 2R7

Telephone: (780) 496-6079 Fax: (780) 496-8175

8/14/2019 Feb 4 2010DecHR


SDAB-D-10-036 2 February 19, 2010

SUMMARY OF HEARING CONTINUED:

The Board notes that three letters were received in opposition to the

proposed development. The Board also notes that the proposeddevelopment has the support of the Edmonton Design Committee, a copyof which is on file.

The Board heard from representatives of the McCauley CommunityLeague and residents who reside in the McCauley Neighbourhood.

Ms. Aasen, President of the McCauley Community League, made thefollowing points:

1. She provided the Board with a letter of opposition which is on file.

2.

The following points summarize her letter:a) Social Agencies such as the one proposed have a negative impacton the neighbourhood. Some of the examples include an increasedpresence of drug addiction and crime created by people withimpaired judgement.

b) There are 51 Social Agencies in the neighbourhood already andadditional agencies will increase issues in the neighbourhood.

c) McCauley is a residential neighbourhood surrounded by a largecommercial district.

d) The high demand for parking in the commercial district has anegative impact on parking in the residential district and in thatregard the Board should not grant parking variances. Rather, theBoard should consider the long term use of the site in terms of parking requirements in the future.

e) The proposed parking will not adequately address future parkingrequirements for the site.

Mr. Stack made the following points:

1. He is the Vice President of the McCauley Community League.2. He provided the Board with a written submission which is on file.3. In his opinion, the Development Authority erred in the following

areas:a) Inappropriately granting variances.b) The Development Authority should have classified the proposed

use for the building as an Extended Medical Services Use and notan Apartment Housing/Boarding and Lodging Use.

c) An Extended Medical Use is neither Permitted nor Discretionary inthe RA7 Low Rise Apartment Zone.

4. He provided the Board with the following definitions:

8/14/2019 Feb 4 2010DecHR


SDAB-D-10-036 3 February 19, 2010


a) Boarding and Lodging Houses means a development consisting of

a building containing Sleeping Units, which may be in addition toa Dwelling, where lodging or sleeping accommodation with orwithout meals is provided for remuneration. This Use Class doesnot include Group Homes, or Fraternity and Sorority Housing.Typical uses include student co-operative housing and lodges forsenior citizens.

b) Apartment Housing means development consisting of one or moreDwellings contained within a building in which the Dwellings arearranged in any horizontal or vertical configuration, which doesnot conform to the definition of any other Residential Use Class,Section 7.2(1).

c)

Extended Medical Treatment Services means developmentproviding room, board, and surgical or other medical treatment forthe sick, injured or infirm including out-patient services andAccessory staff residence. Typical Uses include hospitals,sanatoriums, nursing homes, convalescent homes, isolationfacilities, psychiatric hospitals, and detoxification centres.

5. Extended Medical Treatment Services is a use category that accuratelycaptures the level of service intended by this facility. The usespecifically includes the provision of medical treatment and includeslong term housing such as nursing and convalescent homes.

6. The proposed development will provide medical services to theresidents which are not included in the definition of an ApartmentHouse/Boarding and Lodging House.

7. There will be full time medical staff on site seven days per week.Alberta Health Services will provide a Licensed Practical Nurse for thefacility and up to seven staff members may be working on site at onetime. As a condition of funding from the government, significantbuilding improvements are being implemented to accommodatemedical treatment services.

8. The definition of Boarding and Lodging facilities in the EdmontonZoning Bylaw only anticipates the provision of meals for support forits residents and the provision of medical treatment is notcontemplated in the definition.

9. With respect to the Apartment Housing definition, Apartment Housingdoes not require substantial non-accessory services. In his opinion,medical services are not naturally incidental to Apartment Housing. Itis inappropriate to classify the Use as Apartment Housing as residentsin apartments should be living independently.

10. In his opinion, the proposed development cannot have multiple Useson the same site.

8/14/2019 Feb 4 2010DecHR


SDAB-D-10-036 4 February 19, 2010


11. The development is inappropriate for this area because it is surrounded

by single family dwellings.12. The Development Authority did not appropriately calculate thenumber of sleeping units and, in his opinion, there are 14 sleepingunits and 7 dwellings in the proposed development. On that basis theDevelopment Authority miscalculated the parking for the site.

13. Based on his interpretation of sleeping units, the number of occupantsexceeds the definition of a Boarding and Lodging House.

14. The Development Authority relied on Section 11.3 of the EdmontonZoning Bylaw when granting a variance in the number of parkingstalls. In his opinion, this is an inappropriate exercise of discretionbecause the reason the variance was granted was due to economic

factors and he feels that this was not an appropriate reason to exercisediscretion.15. Section 7.2.8 of the Boyle St. McCauley Area Redevelopment Plan

supports the promotion of family residents in the neighbourhood andthe proposed development is inconsistent with the neighbourhood.

16. The concentration of subsidized housing like the proposeddevelopment will be harmful to the neighbourhood.

Ms. Yeung made the following points:

1. The proposed development is surrounded by Single Family dwellingsand exceeds the 10.0 metres allowable Height in the RA7 Low RiseApartment Zone.

2. The parking and proposed garbage location will be located within 3metres of single family homes which is in contravention of theEdmonton Zoning Bylaw.

3. The plans show inadequate separation space between the parking andthe eastern lot line which is in contravention of the Zoning Bylaw.

4. In her opinion the proposed development violates a majority of theRA7 Low Rise Apartment regulations.

5. The building will have 14 sleeping units and 7 apartment dwellings.6. In her opinion, there is a deficiency of 9 parking stalls.7. The majority of parking will be occupied by staff with minimal

parking left for visitors and residents of the building. The assumptionthat the remaining parking will be sufficient for 21 residents is notrealistic.

8. In her opinion, if residents are independent such that they are living inan apartment as opposed to a medical facility, it does not mean theylack the ability to drive.

8/14/2019 Feb 4 2010DecHR


SDAB-D-10-036 5 February 19, 2010


Ms. Devam, Director of Housing and Mental Health Services, made the

following points:

1. She is a resident in the McCauley Neighbourhood.2. She is an experienced operator of a number of facilities in the area like

the one that is proposed.3. The proposed development is not a Boarding and Lodging facility

because the number of staff proposed for Iris Court is higher than shewould expect for an independent living facility.

4. There is a lack of on-street parking in front of the subject site toaccommodate visitors.

Ms. Atienza made the following point:

1. She agreed with the comments made by the other concerned residentsand indicated that if the proposed development was approved it willdegrade the neighbourhood.

The Board then heard from Ms. Finlay, Mr. Wispinski, Mr. Latham, andDr. Czarnecki, all speaking on behalf of the Schizophrenic Society of Alberta (“SSA”) and the proposed development, (“Iris Court”), and Mr.Stafford and Ms. Kelland speaking on behalf of Iris Court.

Ms. Finlay made the following points:

1. She provided a written summary on behalf of the SSA which is on file.

Mr. Wispinski made the following points:

1. Iris Court is a three storey apartment building designed to house 21individuals recovering from schizophrenia and related mentaldisorders.

2. He referred to the sample lease agreement included in his writtensubmission and indicated that tenants are responsible for applying forand terminating lease applications. The SSA does not placeindividuals in the facility.

3. The Development Authority approved 7 self contained apartment styleunits and 7 Boarding and Lodging units.

4. Iris Court will provide meal services, laundry services and socialgatherings on the main floor for the residents. However, there is noobligation for a resident to participate in the activities.

8/14/2019 Feb 4 2010DecHR


SDAB-D-10-036 6 February 19, 2010


Mr. Stafford, the Project Manager for Iris Court, made the following

points:1. He confirmed that there are 7 self contained apartment style units onthe third floor each containing a kitchen, bathroom, and livingquarters. Each apartment is approximately 575 to 600 square feet.

2. The second floor contains 6 boarding and lodging units eachcontaining two bedrooms, with one tenant per bedroom.

3. The boarding and lodging units on the second floor are approximately180 to 205 square feet per room.

4. Although there are 6 boarding and lodging units on the second floor,there are a total of 12 separate sleeping units that have separate doorsand individual bathrooms.

5.

A vestibule or alcove was originally enclosed by a door which allowedthe Development Authority to deem two separate sleeping units tocomprise one Boarding and Lodging unit. The plans before the Boarddo not show the wall enclosing the vestibule.

6. The main floor has one boarding and lodging unit which isapproximately 480 square feet per room.

7. In total, there are 7 Boarding and Lodging Units in Iris Court, eachaccommodating two tenants with each tenant having a separate room.

8. There are a total of 21 units in the whole building, being 14 sleepingunits and 7 dwellings.

Mr. Latham made the following points:

1. Iris Court has not finalized the staffing budget; however, one personwill provide security for the residents.

2. The SSA does not provide medical treatment but will providecommunity support workers to assist with support for the residents.

3. A copy of the job description for a Consumer Support Worker wasprovided in the written submission and is on file. A ConsumerSupport Worker is to assist residents with their day to day living.

4. Residents have the ability to store medication in a safe located on sitewhich the Consumer Support Worker has access to; however, theresidents are fully responsible for taking their medication.

5. There will be a maximum of three workers on site at any one time.6. In his opinion, parking will not be an issue as shift changes only occur

with one staff member at a time.7. There is not a high demand for visitor parking as many of the residents

have lost touch with friends and family.8. In his opinion, there can be two Uses allowed in one building.

8/14/2019 Feb 4 2010DecHR


SDAB-D-10-036 7 February 19, 2010


9. The only way they can provide additional on-site parking is to

development parking underground which is cost prohibitive for thisproject.

Dr. Czarneck who is a psychiatrist and works with the mentally ill at theAlberta Hospital, made the following points:

1. He provided the Board with a letter of support which is on file.2. Iris Court is not an Extended Medical Treatment facility because it

does not provide active treatment to the residents.3. Iris Court helps residents reintegrate into the community.4. The support provided by the workers at Iris Court is not extensive.

Their primary roll is to assist residents with services they need and notto provide medical treatment. In his opinion, this is a housing project.5. In his opinion, an extreme minority of such individuals will require

parking because they require a doctor’s approval before they canobtain a drivers licence. Many individuals have lost touch with familyand friends which will reduce visitor parking demand.

6. In his opinion, a maximum of 25 to 50 percent of residents in thebuilding will require parking.

7. He notes that he works at Alberta Hospital which has minimal use of visitor parking.

Ms. Kelland, representing Alberta Health Services, made the followingpoints:

1. Iris Court is a supportive housing environment. If this was to be aHealth Services facility, it would be operated by Alberta Health.

2. The intensity of support provided to these residents is no different thanproviding home care to residents.

In rebuttal, Mr. Stack made the following points:

1. Additional variances exist for Iris Court that were not addressed by theDevelopment Authority, such as building height which exceeds what ispermitted in the RA7 Low Rise Apartment regulations.

2. He reiterated that Iris Court is a medical treatment facility and does notfit in with Apartment Housing / Boarding and Lodging Housing.

3. A Group Home would also be a more appropriate use definition forIris Court.

8/14/2019 Feb 4 2010DecHR


SDAB-D-10-036 8 February 19, 2010


4. The concentration of social housing has a negative impact on the

neighbourhood and there is strong evidence to support this claim,particularly from the United States.5. In his opinion, the concentration of social housing in one

neighbourhood prevents individuals who are using these facilities tomove into healthy neighbourhoods.

6. The proposed development contains 14 sleeping units and 7 dwellingsand in his opinion it was inappropriate for the Development Authorityto deem 2 separate sleeping units to be one Boarding and Lodging Uniton the basis that they were connected by a vestibule.

7. He is concerned with regard to parking in the long term, specificallythat there is no reason to believe that the one bedroom units will only

have one person in the unit.8. He is concerned that if there is a new owner of Iris Court they mayallow a greater number of tenants in the building further exacerbatingthe need for additional parking.

9. Without knowing the total number of staff required for Iris Court, it isdifficult to determine if there will be sufficient parking.

10. If tenants of Iris Court are successfully reintegrated into society, it is apossibility that friends and family may become part of their life again,which would increase the need for visitor parking.

DECISION:

“that the appeal be DENIED and the decision of the DevelopmentAuthority CONFIRMED and the following variances be permitted:

1. the deficiency of six vehicular parking spaces in the minimum requirednumber of parking spaces;

2. the deficiency in the minimum required Separation Space in front of Principal Living Room windows; and

3. the excess in allowable projection into the required Front Yardabutting a flanking public roadway – (the Front Entry Canopy projectsto the Front property line).

The Development Authority’s decision contains the following conditions:

1. The proposed support services, administration services and amenityareas shall be strictly Accessory to the proposed Apartment Housing / Boarding and Lodging House Use on this Site. Accessory means thatthese areas/functions are naturally or normally incidental, subordinate,

8/14/2019 Feb 4 2010DecHR


SDAB-D-10-036 9 February 19, 2010

DECISION CONTINUED:

and exclusively devoted to the Apartment Housing Use on this Site.

Reference Section 6.1(2).2. All development, including signs, shall be serviced by undergroundpower, telephone and C.A.T.V. services.

3. All access locations and curb crossings shall have the approval of theCity Transportation Department prior to the start of construction.Reference Section 53(1).

Transportation Conditions:

1. There is an existing power pole in the alley that may interfere withaccess to a proposed parking stall. Should relocation of the pole/guy-

wire be required, all costs associated with relocation must be borne bythe owner/applicant. The applicant should contact Wendy Nixon (780-412-3128) of EPCOR Distribution & Technologies for moreinformation.

2. There may be utilities within road right-of-way not specified that mustbe considered during construction. The owner/applicant is responsiblefor the location of all underground and above ground utilities andmaintaining required clearances as specified by the utility companies.Any costs associated with relocations and/or removals shall be at theexpense of the owner/applicant.

3. The parking area and the area between the parking area and the alleydriving surface must be paved, to the satisfaction of the TransportationDepartment.

4. The Vehicular parking spaces must meet the requirements of section54.2 of the Zoning Bylaw.

5. Any sidewalk or boulevard damage occurring, as a result of construction traffic must be restored to the satisfaction of theTransportation and Streets Department, as per Section 15.5(f) of theZoning Bylaw. The sidewalks and boulevard will be inspected by aRoadway Maintenance Inspector prior to construction, and again onceconstruction is complete. All expenses incurred for repair are to beborne by the owner.

6. Any hoarding or construction taking place on road right-of-wayrequires an OSCAM permit. It should be noted that the hoarding mustnot damage boulevard trees. The owner must call TransportationOperations at 780-442-6458 to arrange for the permit.

8/14/2019 Feb 4 2010DecHR


SDAB-D-10-036 10 February 19, 2010

DECISION CONTINUED:

Transportation Department Advisement:

1. The Transportation Department does not object to the parkingdeficiency of 3 stalls (9 stalls provided; 12 stalls required).

2. Landscaping shall be in accordance to the approved landscape plan,Section 55 and to the satisfaction of the Development Officer.

3. The Applicant shall provide details of the proposed seating, bicyclerack and coloured concrete paving (colours, patterns) to thesatisfaction of the Development Officer.

4. PRIOR TO THE RELEASE OF DRAWINGS FOR BUILDINGPERMIT REVIEW, the applicant or property owner shall provide aguaranteed security to ensure that landscaping is provided and

maintained for two growing seasons. The Landscape Security may beheld for two full years after the landscaping has been completed. Thissecurity may take the following forms:a) cash to a value equal to 100 percent of the established landscaping

costs;orb) an irrevocable letter of credit having a value equivalent to 100

percent of the established landscaping costs.5. Any letter of credit shall allow for partial draws. If the landscaping is

not completed in accordance with the approved Landscape Plan(s)within one growing season after completion of the development or if the landscaping is not well maintained and in a healthy condition twogrowing seasons after completion of the landscaping, the City maydraw on the security for its use absolutely. Reference Section 55(6).

6. PRIOR TO THE RELEASE OF DRAWINGS FOR BUILDINGPERMIT REVIEW, the applicant or property owner shall pay aSanitary Sewer Trunk Fund fee of $9,204.00. All assessments arebased upon information currently available to the City. The SSTFcharges are quoted for the calendar year in which the developmentpermit is granted. The final applicable rate is subject to change basedon the year in which the payment is collected by the City of Edmonton.

7. PRIOR TO THE RELEASE OF DRAWINGS FOR BUILDINGPERMIT REVIEW, the applicant or property owner shall pay a LotGrading Fee of $250.00.

8. Bicycle parking shall be provided in accordance to Section 54.3 and tothe satisfaction of the Development Officer.

9. Exterior lighting shall be developed to provide a safe lit environmentin accordance with Sections 51 and 58 and to the satisfaction of theDevelopment Officer.

8/14/2019 Feb 4 2010DecHR


SDAB-D-10-036 11 February 19, 2010

DECISION CONTINUED:

10. The developer shall provide 1 visitor parking stall readily available to

an entrance of the building to be served, and clearly identified asvisitor parking to the satisfaction of the Development Officer.Reference Section 54.2(1)(a), Schedule 1(1).

11. All outdoor trash collection areas shall be located and screened to thesatisfaction of the Development Officer in accordance with Sections55(4) & (5).

12. The off-street parking, loading and unloading (including aisles ordriveways) shall be hardsurfaced, curbed, drained and maintained inaccordance to Section 54(6).

NOTES:

1.

Signs require separate Development Applications.2. A Building Permit is required for any construction or change in use of a building. For a building permit, and prior to the Plans Examinationreview, you require construction drawings and the payment of fees.Please contact the 311 Call Centre for further information.

3. The City of Edmonton does not conduct independent environmentalchecks of land within the City. If you are concerned about thesuitability of this property for any purpose, you should conduct yourown tests and reviews. The City of Edmonton, in issuing thisDevelopment Permit, makes no representations and offers nowarranties as to the suitability of the property for any purpose or as tothe presence or absence of any environmental contaminants on theproperty.

4. This approval does not remove obligations to conform with otherlegislation, bylaws or land title instruments such as the MunicipalGovernment Act, the Edmonton Building Permit Bylaw or anycaveats, covenants or easements that might be attached to the Site.

REASONS FOR DECISION:

The Board finds the following:

1. The proposed development, an Apartment House /Boarding andLodging House are Permitted Uses in the RA7 Low Rise ApartmentZone.

2. The proposed development contains 7 Dwellings and 14 SleepingUnits.

8/14/2019 Feb 4 2010DecHR


SDAB-D-10-036 12 February 19, 2010

REASONS FOR DECISION CONTINUED:

3. The submitted plans indicate that there are 2 Sleeping Units on the

Main Floor, 12 sleeping units on the Second Floor, and 7 self-contained apartment style suites on the third floor of the proposedbuilding.

4. Each Sleeping Unit does not contain a separate cooking facility andtherefore are not Dwellings as defined in the Edmonton Zoning Bylaw.There is a proposed kitchen and common area on the Main Floor.

5. In accordance with Section 54.2 of the Edmonton Zoning Bylaw, thereshall be one parking space per one bedroom Dwelling, one visitorparking space per 7 dwellings and one parking space per 2 SleepingUnits, for a total parking requirement of 15 parking spaces.

6. The proposed on-site parking is consistent with the minimum required

parking under Section 8.4.2.3.2 of the Boyle Street/McCauley AreaRedevelopment Plan.7. The Boyle Street/McCauley Area Redevelopment Plan supports the

promotion of low rise apartment housing that will provide for lowincome singles through allowance for bed-sitting rooms, a slightincrease in density and reduction in parking requirements.

8. The Board accepts the Respondent’s evidence with respect to thereduced parking demand by the tenants living in Iris Court.

9. The Board finds that the proposed development is in close proximityto the transit system, including the Stadium LRT Station, which willhelp mitigate the need for on-site parking.

10. The Appellant did not provide the Board with sufficient evidence toindicate that medical treatment or services will be provided on site.

11. The Board accepts the evidence provided by the Respondent, that thestaff on site are there to assist the residents with security and day today living. Iris Court will not provide medical treatment or services.

12. The Board finds that a variance in building Height is not required. Thedevelopment falls within the Medium Density Overlay which allows abuilding Height of 11.0 metres and three storeys.

13. The proposed development has the support of the Edmonton DesignCommittee.

14. Based on the above, the proposed development will not undulyinterfere with the amenities of the neighbourhood or materiallyinterfere with or affect the use, enjoyment or value of neighbouringparcels of land.”

8/14/2019 Feb 4 2010DecHR


SDAB-D-10-036 13 February 19, 2010

IMPORTANT INFORMATION FOR APPLICANT/APPELLANT

The following information may not pertain to your specific situation.

Should you have any questions, please do not hesitate to contact our

office at (780) 496-6079

1. THIS IS NOT A BUILDING PERMIT. A Building Permit must be obtainedseparately from the Planning and Development Department, located on the 5

thFloor,

10250 – 101 Street, Edmonton.

2. When an application for a Development Permit has been approved by the Subdivision

and Development Appeal Board, it shall not be valid unless and until any conditions of approval, save those of a continuing nature, have been fulfilled.

3. A Development Permit shall expire and shall no longer be valid after one year from thedate of approval of the Permit, if no construction has been initiated. However, if thepermit holder is unable to proceed pending a court decision involving the proposeddevelopment, time shall not run until such proceedings are finally completed. For furtherinformation, refer to Section 22 of the Edmonton Zoning Bylaw, 12800.

4. Notwithstanding clause (3) above, if a Building Permit is issued for the developmentwithin the twelve month period, the Development Permit issued therefore shall not lapseunless and until the Building Permit so issued is cancelled or allowed to lapse by virtue of work not having commenced within the statutory minimum period.

5. If the Subdivision and Development Appeal Board is served with notice of an applicationfor leave to appeal its decision under Section 688 of the Municipal Government Act ,R.S.A. 2000, c. M-26, such notice shall operate to suspend the Development Permit.

6. When a decision on a Development Permit application has been rendered by theSubdivision and Development Appeal Board, the enforcement of that decision is carriedout by the Planning and Development Department, located on the 5 th Floor, 10250 – 101Street, Edmonton.

8/14/2019 Feb 4 2010DecHR


SDAB-D-10-036 14 February 19, 2010

NOTE: Citizens can call 311, 24-hours a day, every day of the year for access to City of

Edmonton information, programs and services.

Mr. L. Loven, Presiding OfficerSUBDIVISION AND DEVELOPMENTAPPEAL BOARD

cc:

feb 4 2010dechr

Documents