Municipal Planning Commission

Meeting Agenda

3:00 P.M.

COUNCIL CHAMBERS May 25, 2010

Please let Kathy VanderMeer know by 4:30pm Monday if you’re unable to attend the meeting. Kathy’s direct line – 320-3029 or kathy.vandermeer@lethbridge.ca

Development Services office line - 320-3920.

MUNICIPAL PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING DATE OF MEETING: May 25, 2010 TIME OF MEETING: 3:00 p.m. PLACE OF MEETING: Council Chambers

Alderman – Shaun Ward Alderman – Jeff Carlson Alderman – Ken Tratch Alderman – Tom Wickersham (Alternate) Member at Large – Gail Sarka Member at Large – Wayne McGinn Member at Large – Ron Peta Member at Large – Mark Murphy Member at Large – Bob Higgins

SECTION A

Minutes of the Municipal Planning Commission Meeting held on April 13, 2010 SECTION B Item 1 – Angela Olsen

119 – Tartan Circle West, to construct a new single detached dwelling with a secondary suite. (DEV02240). Low Density Residential District.

Item 2 – Jason Price

716 – 13 Street North, to establish 297m2 (3200 sq ft) for the purpose of an entertainment establishment (lounge) and a request for an 11 space parking waiver. (DEV02297). General Commercial District

Item 3 – Angela Olsen

204 – 19 Street North, to construct a second dwelling on a corner parcel. (DEV02331). R-L(W) Low Density Residential Westminster District.

SECTION C Other Business – Jason Price

SECTION A

Minutes of the Municipal Planning Commission meeting held on April 13, 2010

MINUTES of a Regular Meeting of the MUNICIPAL PLANNING COMMISSION held on Tuesday, April 13, 2010 at 3:00 p.m. with the following in attendance: MEMBERS: K. Tratch Alderman (Acting Chairman) S. Ward Alderman T. Wickersham Alderman (Alternate) W. McGinn Member at Large M. Murphy Member at Large

R. Peta Member at Large G. Sarka Member at Large OTHERS: M. Gaehring Secretary to the Commission J. Price Development Officer ABSENT: J. Carlson Alderman (Chairman)

B. Higgins Member at Large

S. WARD: THAT Alderman Ken Tratch is appointed Acting Chairman of the Municipal Planning Commission (MPC) for the April 13, 2010 meeting.

-------------------------CARRIED

W. McGINN: THAT the minutes of the meeting of the Municipal Planning Commission (MPC) held on March 16, 2010 be approved.

-------------------------CARRIED

DEVELOPMENT APPLICATIONS:

DEV01921, The Drywall Connection Ltd., 113 – 13 Street North, proposes to construct a 386m2 (4160 sq. ft.) building for the purpose of an Entertainment Establishment (Lounge with live music). Land Use District C-G General Commercial. Development Officer’s Presentation: Jason Price, Development Officer outlined the following information:

• Land Use Bylaw was amended in 2001 to make Entertainment Establishments discretionary uses in all commercial districts

• City Council has previously requested that all such applications for Entertainment Establishments come before the Commission for a decision to allow an opportunity to discover the nature of any proposed entertainment

• Proposed Entertainment Establishment will be located in the storage yard area of “The Drywall Connection” and will operate as the “Tongue and Groove”, an establishment that was previously located in the downtown

• Neighbourhood letters were sent to property owners within a 60m radius on March 30, 2010. To date we have received nine letters in objection

• Initial plans submitted as part of this application had the proposed building located in the south west corner of the parcel. Upon internal circulation, the Transportation Department identified an issue with the layout for the existing access off 13 Street North.

• Meeting with the Transportation Department, applicant and architect; the current site plan was arrived at

• Existing access off of 1 Avenue North will be removed to ensure that the parking lot functions properly and contains enough parking stalls

• Only northbound traffic on 13 Street North will be able to access the establishment because of the presence of a concrete median. This is the same for all of the businesses located on this block

• Parking requirements for Entertainment Establishments are:

o One parking space for every five square meters of dining and beverage space

o Five parking spaces required for employees

• Dining/Beverage space is 181m2; the parking requirement is 36 spaces plus employee parking equaling 41 spaces. Remainder of the building is approved as “building trades and contractors” and requires five spaces. Total number of parking spaces required for this property would be 46 spaces

• Storm and sanitary services should be located in the lane east of the parcel if possible. Storm water needs to be retained on site, no overland drainage of storm water is allowed. A sanitary test manhole is required just inside the property line. Contact Infrastructure Services for storm water requirements and possible service connection locations

No recommendation was provided by the Development Officer for the Entertainment Establishment. Applicant’s Presentation: Corrie Brough, The Drywall Connection Ltd. informed the Commission as follows:

• Planned Entertainment Establishment would be an upscale lounge/restaurant with entertainment ranging from solo acts to country, similar to “Tongue and Groove” when it was located downtown

• Live entertainment will be intended for the 30 – 65 year old clientele • Concerned with the security of the neighbourhood, plans include installation of

outdoor lights, concrete fence with gate in rear of property and keeping area clean of garbage and snow

• Existing lane entrance into property will be closed if necessary • Understands the concerns of the neighbourhood and would like to have a good

relationship with them and even have them as customers

Applicant’s Presentations:

Joseph Eufemice, Partner, Tongue and Groove, stated:

• No intentions of creating a “Roadhouse” atmosphere with young clientele and loud music

• Plans for fine dining and lounge business • Entertainment will most times be three piece acoustic type music

Jeffery De Jong, Partner, Tongue and Groove, stated:

• Reaffirmed intentions of establishing a responsible business with the neighbourhood in mind

• Expect approximately 60 customers Monday – Thursday, with weekends being busier

• Offering full menu with a Red Seal Chef • Floorplan would allow larger room to be made smaller for week day crowd

Other Presentations: Diana Dennis, 2118 13 Avenue North, stated the following:

• Concerned with late night disturbances due to residing next to parking lot • Many students live in neighbourhood • Overflow parking will park in front of residence • Concerned with old infrastructure being disturbed during construction • Wanderers in alley way

Leroy Schalk, 1319 1 Avenue North, stated the following:

• Increased traffic due to one way entrance into business • 14 Street is very narrow • Increased noise and police calls • Neighbourhood too close in proximity • Other locations in City better suited for business • Current businesses on block close at 5:00 p.m. • Late night disturbances

Elma Guinto, 120 14 Street North, stated the following:

• Narrow street cannot handle increase of traffic • Town House residences park in rear of property • Increased noise and traffic when Columbus Hall has function • Construction of fence will not solve problem • Neighbourhood has enough issues already • Currently emergency vehicles have difficulty in area due to parked vehicles and

narrow street Edgar Grajeda, 116 14 Street North, stated the following:

• Agree with increase of traffic and noise in neighbourhood • Safety issues for children playing outside, no park in neighbourhood • Rear alley issues presently • Trespassers on property • Town House bedroom windows are at rear of property • Fully aware of businesses and hours when town house was purchased • Lifestyle will have to change

Derwin Sutton, 1317 1 Avenue North, stated the following:

• Surprised that application was accepted at all • Immediately Neighbourhood was in opposition when letter arrived • Representing many residents that could not be present • Extra noise pollution • Anticipate more police interaction in area • Additional back lane traffic • Affect sleeping habits • Currently City is not shy of entertainment establishments and has better locations • Long time resident in neighbourhood • Land values may decrease

John Savill, Savill Group Architecture, representing Tongue and Groove, stated the following:

• Development Services warned there would be resistance to new business and the neighbourhood

• Presented three different floor plans with application • Followed best interest from City’s point of view with the most preferred floor plan

being, closing 1 Avenue North access • Good, solid, acoustically sound building • Rear wall is very solid and feels that music will not be heard outside • No windows or doors planned for rear wall • Joint venture of two businesses on property • Current Drywall business keeps area very clean • Existing Monument business creates lots of dust

There was no response to the Chairman’s three calls for anyone else wishing to speak. Questions: Mr. Price, Mr. Brough, Mr. Eufemice, Mr. De Jong responded to questions regarding:

• Considered Hosting an Open House with neighbourhood regarding application • Length of concrete fence • Gate will always be locked • 13 Street North access being used to enter Drywall business

• Problems with two vehicles meeting at entrance • Back up traffic on 13 Street North when entering business • Off sales planned at establishment • Hours of operation • Maximum occupancy of building • Building air conditioned • Provision made for patio • Steps to minimize outside noise • Assurance that adjacent landowners will not be impacted by noise • Purpose of gate in alley • Verification of neighbourhood zoning • Calculation of parking requirements • Propose six foot concrete fence be included in draft resolution • Effectiveness of six foot concrete fence as sound barrier • Throat length requirement for access to 13 Street North

The following motion was presented:

W. McGINN: THAT the Development Application DEV01921 be refused for the following reasons:

1. Due to the limited access to this parcel, customer traffic would be forced onto

neighbouring residential streets which would materially interfere with or affect the use, enjoyment or value of neighbouring properties

2. Due to the close proximity of residential properties, this type of use would materially interfere with or affect the use, enjoyment or value of neighbouring properties

OPPOSED: R. PETA

-------------------------CARRIED

Liquor Store Resolution Development Officer’s Presentation: Jason Price, Development Officer outlined the following information: In 1993, City Council created a new land use designation for “liquor sales” in response to Provincial de-regulation of the industry. They were deemed a permitted use in the C-D (Downtown Commercial) and C-S (Shopping Mall Commercial) districts as well as a couple of D–C (Direct Control) districts where the Development Officer was granted approving authority. They were deemed a discretionary use in the C-G (General Commercial), C-H (Highway Commercial), C-N (Neighbourhood Commercial), I-B (Business Industrial) and I-G (General Industrial) districts where the Municipal Planning Commission had the discretion to approve applications.

Over the past 17 years staff and the Municipal Planning Commission have typically processed two to five applications per year for liquor sales with virtually all applications being approved. Therefore, in the interest of decreasing the processing time for applications and thus allowing the Municipal Planning Commission to better utilize its time, the following resolution is presented for consideration. Other Presentations: There was no response to the Chairman’s three calls for anyone else wishing to speak. The following motion was presented:

S. WARD: WHEREAS the Provincial Government de-regulated liquor stores in 1993 and, WHEREAS City Council subsequently created the land use designation of “liquor sales” in the Land Use Bylaw and made the Municipal Planning Commission the discretionary approving authority for said use and, WHEREAS the Municipal Planning Commission has handled such applications for the past 17 years and has found that this use no longer has significant planning concerns and, THEREFORE the Municipal Planning Commission delegate the Development Officer the discretion to approve “liquor sales” in the C-G (General Commercial), I-B (Business Industrial) and I-G (General Industrial) districts.

-------------------------CARRIED

______________________________________________________________________ M. MURPHY:

THAT the Municipal Planning Commission of April 13, 2010 be adjourned.

-------------------------CARRIED

CHAIRMAN SECRETARY

SECTION B

ITEM 1

Item 1 – Angela Olsen

119 – Tartan Circle West, to construct a new single detached dwelling with a secondary suite. (DEV02240). Low Density Residential District.

APPLICATION NO DATE OF DECISION LAND USE DISTRICT

LOCATION

DEV02240 May 25, 2010 R-L Low Density Residential

119 Tartan Circle West

APPLICANT R & L Renovations Ltd PROPOSED DEVELOPMENT To construct a new single detached dwelling with a secondary suite. The following are the recommendations of the Development Officer.

Angela Olsen,

Development Officer RESOLUTION

Moved by That this application be APPROVED subject to the following conditions:

1. The single detached dwelling with secondary suite shall be developed in accordance with the plans submitted April 20, 2010. Any changes to these plans require the approval of the Development Officer.

2. A minimum of two off-street parking spaces (1 per unit) shall be provided and maintained at all times.

3. The exterior appearance of the dwelling shall be in accordance with the plans submitted April 20, 2010, to the satisfaction of the Development Officer.

Chairman INFORMATIVE

A. Neighbourhood Notification letters were sent April 21, 2010 & May 10, 2010. There have been 11 letters in opposition received.

B. This house with a secondary suite would be situated on a corner parcel in the R-L District. The setback requirements for a corner parcel are: 6.0m and 3.0m front setbacks and 1.2m side setbacks. A corner parcel consists of two front yards and two side yards. The height requirement is 10m and 2.5 storey maximum. This house will be 6.18m (20’3”). A single detached dwelling requires one off street parking stall and a secondary suite requires one off street parking stall. This house will have 4 off street parking stalls. No waivers are required for this development.

C. Secondary suites are a discretionary use in the R-L District.

D. Secondary Suite Requirements:

One parking stall per secondary suite must be provided onsite.

One secondary suite allowed per parcel.

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.

The secondary suite shall not be subject to separation from the principal dwelling through a condominium conversion.

D E V E L O P M E N T S E R V I C E S D E P A R T M E N T C i t y H a l l , 9 1 0 – 4 t h A v e n u e S o u t h , L e t h b r i d g e , A l b e r t a , C a n a d a T 1 J 0 P 6

P h o n e : ( 4 0 3 ) 3 2 0 - 3 9 2 0 F a x : ( 4 0 3 ) 3 2 7 - 6 5 7 1 E m a i l : d e v e l o p m e n t s e r v i c e s @ l e t h b r i d g e . c a

April 21, 2010

NOTICE TO NEIGHBOURS This letter is being sent to property owners

within a 60m radius of:

119 – TARTAN CIRCLE WEST An application has been made to construct a single detached dwelling with a secondary suite in the basement at the above noted address. If you require any further information about this development application please contact Development Services at 320-3920, by April 30, 2010. If you feel that you will be impacted by this development, please explain how and why in writing or by email on or before the above date. Please note that all information you provide can be made public.

Angela Olsen Development Officer cc: Applicant AO

D E V E L O P M E N T S E R V I C E S D E P A R T M E N T C i t y H a l l , 9 1 0 – 4 t h A v e n u e S o u t h , L e t h b r i d g e , A l b e r t a , C a n a d a T 1 J 0 P 6

P h o n e : ( 4 0 3 ) 3 2 0 - 3 9 2 0 F a x : ( 4 0 3 ) 3 2 7 - 6 5 7 1 E m a i l : d e v e l o p m e n t s e r v i c e s @ l e t h b r i d g e . c a

May 10, 2010

NOTICE TO NEIGHBOURS This letter is being sent to property owners

within a 60m radius of:

119 TARTAN CIRCLE WEST You were previously informed that an application has been made to construct a single detached dwelling with a secondary suite in the basement at the above noted address. No decision on this application has been made. This application will be considered by the Municipal Planning Commission on May 25, 2010 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 May 21, 2010. 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.

Angela Olsen Development Officer cc: Applicant AO

From: Peter GingrasTo: 830 MailboxSubject: 119 Tartan Circle WestDate: Sunday, April 25, 2010 9:28:55 PM

Angela Olsen, Development Officer Further to your correspondence dated April 21, 2010 regarding the proposeddevelopment of a single detached dwelling with a secondary suite in the basement atthe above noted location, I can advise that my wife and I are very much opposed tothe City granting this application for the following reasons: 1. Parking - due to the narrowness of Tartan Circle, off street parking is alreadycongested on this street. There are a few houses with single driveways that causesome families to already have their vehicles parked on the street. In thewinter months it is especially a problem with all the snow that comes into the areasdue to the park. Further, I believe it is a challenge for the garbage collectorspicking up the bins due to lack of space between vehicles on the street. Wehave already had, on several occasions, our garbage not picked up because our binwas too close to a vehicle parked on street. 2. Depreciation: It is a well known fact that having rental property depreciatesthe value of the neighbouring homes. My home is valued at just under $500,000.00,as most of the other homes on this street are. I pay high taxes to live in thisneighbourhood, and I would be extremely disappointed if the City saw fit to allow arental home to be built on this street. 3. Safety: If more than one family is allowed to live in the same residence, thismakes for more individuals coming and going - meaning more motorists coming andgoing. There are a lot of small children running and biking in this neighbourhoodthat do not need to be exposed to more drivers on their street. 4. Transient: When rental properties are in an area generally this no doubt meansmore strangers. This is a neighbouring community where we want to know who weare living beside. Generally, homeowners rent to University/College students thatcome and go and generally don't have much care about their neighbours andneighbouring community. Our City is well equipped with rental property, and withthe current market, finding accommodations in our City is not difficult. 5. Care and respect: Does this applicant intend to live in the home? If not, thismeans that the home owner is absent and will most likely rent the main level andthe basement out to multiple renters We have spent thousands of dollars makingour yard attractive to our community. Rental properties are often left unkept anduntidy, again depreciating those homes around them. We UNFORTUNATELY alreadylive across the backlane from such an example. For the above reasons, we hope that the City takes our concerns seriously, and doesnot accept the application as applied for. Sandy and Pete Gingras 104 Tartan Circle West

From: Caylee CarpenterTo: 830 MailboxSubject: 119 Tartan Circle WestDate: Thursday, April 29, 2010 11:11:37 PM

Hello, We are the owners of 216 Tartan Circle, and 107 Tartan Circle and are writing to you with seriousconcerns about a recent application put in to construct a house with a basement suite at 119 TartanCircle. We are extremely upset to learn about this application About 2 years ago we built a home at216 Tartan Circle, and will soon be moving to the new home, which we are just finishing building at 107Tartan Circle. We have previously lived in neighbourhoods that have houses with basement suites, and rentalproperties, and while at those residences we faced many problems. These problems include: tenantswho do not keep up the property making for an eye sore in the neighbourhood; noisy parties in afamily oriented neighbourhood, resulting in the police having to be called; a large number of tenantswho take up all the street parking; young tenants who speed and drive recklessly while children areplaying; and the list goes on. We love that Tartan Circle is not that type of neighbourhood, and that is why we were so happy toacquire a lot on the other side of the circle and build our dream home. We could perhaps see a rentalproperty being more likely on the north side of the park, because it is composed of more starterhomes, however the south side of Tartan Circle has no starter homes on it. Thus we stronglydisapprove of a house with a basement suite being constructed on that side of the park. We are awareof a house that put in an application to build a basement suite on the north side of Tartan Circle abouta year or so ago, and because of the complaints of neighbours, that application was turned down. Ifthat application was turned down, then why would an application for the same thing even beconsidered in this circle? The dwelling in question with the basement suite will only be located 2 houses down from our newhouse, and if we knew that there was a possibility of a house with a basement suite being built 2houses down, we most certainly would not have chosen to build at 107 Tartan Circle. The houses onthe south side of the circle are all fairly large, upscale homes. A dwelling with a basement suite, suchas the one proposed, would not fit in with this area of the neighbourhood. We have talked to our new neighbours (buy the 107 address) and they also all strongly disapprove ofthe proposed residence. We are all very concerned that allowing the dwelling with the basement suiteto be built in an area such as ours will result in a decrease to our property values. We also hate theidea of living next to a house that will most certainly always be a rental property. This is a family oriented neighbourhood, not a rental neighbourhood. We built our new home with theintentions of starting our family there, and staying for many years to come. If this dwelling is allowed tobe built with a basement suite, then we will surely have to deal with issues of careless tenants whodon't keep up the property, issues with parking on a street that already has very limited spaceavailable, the possibility of noisy tenants in a now very quiet area of the circle, etc. We want this area to remain a family oriented neighbourhood, and also to make sure that the homesthat are built on the few remaining lots are not rental properties. If this application was approved,it would surely lessen the appeal of the neighbourhood, decrease our property values, and take awaythe quiet, peaceful feeling that makes this circle so special to its current residents. There should be certain specifications that a home built among other upscale homes need to meet. We know that this area is not far from the university, and therefore it is likely that rental propertieswould be rented to students. We are frustrated and upset to know that a dwelling is being built in our

neighbourhood specifically for the purpose of renting. Please consider all of the above mentioned, and do not approve the application put forth for 119Tartan Circle. We can be reached for further comment at (403) 894-2080. Thank you for considering our concerns. Sincerely, Caylee CarpenterHuman Resources SpecialistCounty of Lethbridgeccarpenter@lethcounty.ca

From: caliber3@telus.netTo: 830 MailboxSubject: Single detached construction at 119 Tartan CircleDate: Thursday, April 29, 2010 5:21:51 PM

Dear Angela,

I had a chance to come down to city hall today and take a look at the proposedblueprints for the house to be built at 119 Tartan Circle West. I was prettydisappointed to see the size of the house, along with the fact that there isno garage attached to the structure. There are no houses around it withinprobably 4 or 5 houses in any direction that are that small, and all haveattached garages. I realize that by building in a subdivision with noarchitectural controls a person runs the risk of having property around themthat is maybe not the same value as other houses, but all of the houses in ourarea are nicely kept, of adequate size and have nice curb appeal. This alongwith the fact that 119 Tartan is proposed to have a secondary suite makes mewonder about resale value for other surrounding property. Parking is alreadyat a premium here, even with the 2 vacant lots (one of which is 119)...so I amconcerned about parking with an additional suite in the basement of a house.

I know the price and size of lot 119 Tartan Circle, and cannot for the life ofme understand why someone would pay that much money for a lot like that, andthen put a 1014 sq.ft. house on it with no garage. I am sure there is nothingthat can be done about it, especially given the fact that there are noarchitectural controls on the Circle, but I just wanted to voice my concerns. Thank you very much for your time Angela.

Tyler Brown.

P.S. I realize that this information can be made public, but I hope thatnames are not made public....the last thing I want to do is create tensionbetween neighbors. Thank You.

From: Nicole WilsonTo: 830 MailboxSubject: Angela Olsen - 119 Tartan Circle West applicationDate: Friday, April 30, 2010 11:15:23 AM

April 30, 2010

Dear Angela Olsen

This is in response to the letter we received dated April 21, 2010 regarding the application for a secondary suite at 119 Tartan Circle West. We live at 132 Tartan Circle West, and although are very pleased that there are plans to build a home on this lot, we do have a few concerns with this application.Seeing as this is a corner lot, our concern is that any tenants renting out the secondary suite will be forced to park their vehicles on the side of the house, therefore hindering the view of traffic turning the corner from either direction. Having lived here two and a half years, we have already witnessed this happening when people choose to park here. We have three small children, and we would like our street to remain as safe as possible for them, and any other children residing in our area. We also have to cross the street to reach our mailbox, on a daily basis, and feel that an increase in the amount of vehicles parked along side this future home would make this more dangerous as well.We are also concerned that not only would the secondary suite be rented out, but also the upper level, which would dramatically increase the number of vehicles being parked outside of a garage, depending on the number of people renting out the home. There are already many vehicles parked along the street in this block, which causes us concern regarding the safety of those travelling around the corner and the potential for serious accident. With a secondary suite in this new home, our fear is that the likelihood of serious accidents would increase due to the obstructed view of drivers from the cars that would be parked here.Thank-you for listening to our concerns regarding this application. We do want to work with the applicants to ensure that we can all reside happily as neighbours, but also to ensure the safety of everyone living in our community.

Sincerely,Nicole and Daryl Wilson

From: taras9@shaw.caTo: 830 MailboxSubject: notice to neighbours 119 tartan circle westDate: Friday, April 30, 2010 2:23:24 PM

Attention Angela Olsen, Hello, I am writing you to express my concerns to the recent application for a basement developmentat 119 Tartan Circle west.I am very concerned about traffic congestion on the street if this application goes through. Thisproperty will not have ally access and the off street parking will not be enough for them toaccommodate the extra parking . Thank YouValerie McQuaidOwner 112 Tartan Circle West

From: Hayley - Zero GravityTo: 830 MailboxSubject: Application for Rental Unit @ 119 Tartan Circle WestDate: Friday, April 30, 2010 7:26:39 AM

To Whom It May Concern: We are the owners of 103 Tartan Circle West. We just received your letter about the proposed rentalhouse at 119 Tartan Circle West. We are definitely opposed to this development. We built our dreamhome on Tartan circle with the intention of raising our children in a quiet family orientatedneighborhood. This side of Tartan Circle so far has been able to maintain that quiet atmosphere. Wefeel that if a rental dwelling was built at 119 this could possibly no longer be the case. We have discussed this at length with our neighbors and we all feel that if a rental unit was put in wewould have to then deal with a lack of parking, unkempt and often very messy yards, dangerous/fastdrivers, noisy parties and more exposure to possible vandalism and/or theft. We have put a lot ofmoney into landscaping and the general appearance of our house and feel it is unfair that someonecan come in and purchase a lot in this controlled area and wreck the general feeling of theneighborhood. Had we known that the circle would turn into a development with a bunch of rental units we would nothave built here. When we decided to purchase this lot we thought that this section of the circle wouldremain higher level housing. We feel that a rental unit would not only cause the above problems, butalso greatly hurt the resale value of our own home. We are asking you kindly to decline the application and maintain the values of our homes and thefeeling of the neighborhood. It would be very frustrating to us to have to deal with the problems thiscould cause and we feel that this is unfair. If you build your home in a higher priced area you wouldthink that you could expect the rest of the home in the area to be built by like minded people. If you would like to discuss this further, please call me at 403-634-3341. Cam Feyter & Hayley Czibere The information in this communication, including any attachments, is intended only for theperson or entity to which it is addressed and may contain confidential, proprietary, and/orprivileged material. Any review, retransmission, dissemination or other use of, or taking ofany action in reliance upon, this information by persons or entities other than the intendedrecipient is prohibited. If you received this in error, please contact the sender and delete thematerial from all computers.

__________ Information from ESET NOD32 Antivirus, version of virus signaturedatabase 5074 (20100430) __________

The message was checked by ESET NOD32 Antivirus.

http://www.eset.com

From: Clinton BishopTo: 830 MailboxSubject: ATTN: Angela OlsenDate: Sunday, May 02, 2010 10:17:33 PM

Development Services Office

RE: 119 Tartan Circle Development

Angela Olsen,

I am writing in response to the notice regarding a tabled development at 119 TartanCircle. Parking is the biggest concern I have, with a project such as this. UnfortunatelyTartan Circle was designed very narrow; this has resulted in traffic and parking issues.When there are cars on both sides of the street, the road is only able to accommodateone lane of traffic, this results in awkward encounters when vehicles are to meet eachother. As a resident, across the street from the proposed development, I am concernedabout the potential for numerous cars always congesting the road way. To make mattersworse, there are mailboxes, as well as a park path and fire hydrant that need to remainaccessible. These items reduce the street parking capacity along the side of the property.My fear is that vehicles will begin parking, for the long-term, in front of my house, whichbarely accommodates the average vehicle and makes accessing my driveway often difficultas we drive SUVs and trucks. Your considerations of my concerns are greatly appreciated.Please feel free to contact me through email at clinton.bishop@shaw.ca or by phone at403.328.1989.

Sincerely,

Clinton Bishop

From: Sue & Lee WeighillTo: 830 MailboxSubject: 119-Tartan Circle WestDate: Tuesday, May 04, 2010 12:35:07 PM

Hi Angela,

I am writing in response to a letter my neighbour across the street received about an application for asecondary suite at the above address and am just wondering why I did not receive the same letter asmy home is closer to this property.

If there was some mistake and as a result I was not sent the letter I will state my opinion here anyway,if not I would like to know why I was excluded from the process.

I must object to the application for a secondary suite at 119-Tartan circle West. I feel this would onlyadd more congestion to an already busy area and will lead to further parking problems. As a result ourproperty values will be affected in a negative way.

Sincerely,

Lee Weighill149-Tartan Circle West

1

Pam Colling

From: Hayley - Zero Gravity [hayley@zerogravitycrane.com]Sent: Wednesday, May 19, 2010 11:50 AMTo: 830 MailboxSubject: 119 Tartan Circle West

To Whom It May Concern: We are the owners of 103 Tartan Circle West. We just received your letter about the proposed rental house at 119 Tartan Circle West. We are opposed to this development. We built our dream home on Tartan circle with the intention of raising our children in a quiet family orientated neighborhood. This side of Tartan Circle so far has been able to maintain that quiet atmosphere. We feel that if a rental dwelling was built at 119 this could possibly no longer be the case. We have discussed this at length with our neighbors and we all feel that if a rental unit was put in we would have to then deal with a lack of parking, unkempt and often very messy yards, dangerous/fast drivers, noisy parties and more exposure to possible vandalism and/or theft. We have put a lot of money into landscaping and the general appearance of our house and feel it is unfair that someone can come in and purchase a lot in this controlled area and wreck the general feeling of the neighborhood. We have already run into a few instances where we have had problems with parties in the rental units in the other areas of this circle. On one occasion a drunken student tried opening the door to our house around 2:30 on the morning one night. When my fiancé opened the door he was greeted by a belligerent guy trying to get into our house. This was not the first house that he came to so the cops had already been called and showed up to arrest him shortly after. It is situations like this that make me more and more uncomfortable with living in an area with a bunch of rental units. There was a similar incident with one of our neighbors where he came home from a walking to find anther drunk gentleman trying to get into his house because he thought it was his. Had we known that the circle would turn into a development with a bunch of rental units we would not have built here. When we decided to purchase this lot we thought that this section of the circle would remain higher level housing. We feel that a rental unit would not only cause the above problems, but also greatly hurt the resale value of our own home. We are asking you kindly to decline the application and maintain the values of our homes and the feeling of the neighborhood. It would be very frustrating to us to have to deal with the problems this could cause and we feel that this is unfair. If you build your home in a higher priced area you would think that you could expect the rest of the home in the area to be built by like minded people. If you would like to discuss this further, please call me at 403-634-3341. Cam Feyter & Hayley Czibere The information in this communication, including any attachments, is intended only for the person or entity to which it is addressed and may contain confidential, proprietary, and/or privileged material. Any review, retransmission, dissemination or other use of, or taking of any action in reliance upon, this information by persons or entities other than the intended recipient is prohibited. If you received this in error, please contact the sender and delete the material from all computers. __________ Information from ESET NOD32 Antivirus, version of virus signature database 5129 (20100519) __________ The message was checked by ESET NOD32 Antivirus. http://www.eset.com

1

Pam Colling

From: Peter Gingras [srkgingras@shaw.ca]Sent: Wednesday, May 19, 2010 8:35 PMTo: 830 MailboxSubject: 119 Tartan Circle West - Municipal Planning Commission - May 25, 2010 - 3:00 p.m.

Dear Municipal Planning Commission: Due to the employment of both my spouse and I, we are unable to attend the meeting scheduled for May 25, 2010, but thank you for allowing us to submit our concerns regarding the request for development of a single detached dwelling with a secondary suite in the basement at 119 Tartan Circle West. Please be advised, that my wife and I are very much opposed to the City granting this application for the following reasons: 1. Parking - Due to the narrowness of Tartan Circle, off street parking is already very congested on this street. If you take a drive around Tartan Circle (which is facing a Park), you will see that there are several houses with single driveways that cause some families to already have their vehicles parked on the street. In the winter months, it is especially a problem with all the snow that comes into the areas due to the park. Backing out of a driveway and not worrying about a vehicle behind you is already very challenging for most of us living on Tartan Circle. 2. Gargage Collection: We believe it is a challenge for the garbage collectors picking up the bins due to lack of space between vehicles on the street. We have experienced, on several occasions, our garbage not being picked up because our bin was too close to a vehicle parked on street. 2. Depreciation: It is a well known fact that having rental property depreciates the value of the neighbouring homes. My home is valued at just under $500,000.00, as most of the other homes on this street are. I pay high taxes to live in this neighbourhood, and I would be extremely disappointed if the City saw fit to allow a rental home to be built on this street. 3. Safety: When a household consists of several renters, this makes for more individuals coming and going - meaning more motorists coming and going. There are a lot of small children running and biking in this neighbourhood, and it is my understanding playground equipment will soon be installed in the park, I question the safety of all the children using the park, with more motorist being brought into the Circle. 4. Transient: When rental properties are in an area generally this no doubt means more strangers. This is a neighbouring community where we want to know who we are living beside. Generally, homeowners rent to University/College students that come and go and generally don't have much care about their neighbours and neighbouring community. Our City is well equipped with rental property, and with the current market, finding accommodations in our City is not difficult.

5. Care and respect: Does this Applicant intend to live in the home? If not, this means that the home owner is absent and will most likely rent the main level and the basement out to multiple renters We have spent thousands of dollars making our yard attractive to our community. Rental properties are often left unkept and untidy, again depreciating those homes around them. We UNFORTUNATELY already live across the 'backlane' from such an example. A house rented out to several students, who take no care of the property, and have vehicles parked in and around the house. Lawns uncut, weeds growing, snow not shoveled, etc. I would be referring to a home on Tartan Blvd.

2

6. Highland Park area is already surrounded by apartments/condos a duplexes. Can we not please leave the inner part of Highlands Park free of rental accommodations. For the above reasons, we hope that the City takes our concerns seriously, and does not accept the Application as applied for. Thank you very much for your time, and considering our thoughts as provided herein. We look forward to hearing from the Planning Committee. Sandy and Pete Gingras 104 Tartan Circle West PS. Please confirm receipt of this email.

1

Pam Colling

From: Sue & Lee Weighill [weighill@shaw.ca]Sent: Wednesday, May 19, 2010 8:44 PMTo: 830 MailboxSubject: 119-Tartan Circle West

Hi Angela,  I am writing in response to the letter sent to me dated May 10th that states 119‐Tartan Circle West has made an application to construct a secondary suite in the basement of their future residence. I feel the neighbourhood will be impacted in a negative way as it will add even more congestion in an area already tightly packed with homes. Parking is always an issue in new subdivisions and by allowing people to have secondary suites this will further add to the problem and drive property values lower as a result.  Thank‐you for allowing our input in this matter.  Lee and Sue Weighill 149‐Tartan Circle West 

SECTION B

ITEM 2

Item 2 – Jason Price

716 – 13 Street North, to establish 297m2 (3200 sq ft) for the purpose of an entertainment establishment (lounge) and a request for an 11 space parking waiver. (DEV02297). General Commercial District

APPLICATION NO DATE OF DECISION LAND USE DISTRICT LOCATION DEV02297 May 25, 2010 C-G General

Commercial 716 – 13 Street North

APPLICANT 520236 Alberta Ltd. PROPOSED DEVELOPMENT To establish 297m2 (3200 sq ft) for the purpose of an entertainment establishment (lounge) and a request for an 11 space parking waiver. The following are the recommendations of the Development Officer.

Jason Price,

Development Officer RESOLUTION

Moved by

That this application be APPROVED subject to the following conditions:

1. Classification: “entertainment establishment”, which is a discretionary use in the C-G (General Commercial) district.

2. Waiver: After taking a previous 3 space parking waiver into account, a further 11 spaces is hereby waived thus requiring 12 spaces to be provided and maintained for this use.

3. Signs: prior to the installation of any exterior signs, a sign permit must be approved by the Development Officer.

Chairman INFORMATIVE

A. The Municipal Planning Commission is the development authority for “entertainment establishments”.

B. The proposed entertainment establishment will be relocating from its current location at 542 – 13 Street North where it has operated since 1994.

C. The proposed business would share the property with Sewing Solutions, Studio Royale Massage Clinic, and the now vacant T.N.E. Sandwich Stop.

D. The parking requirement for entertainment establishments is 1 space per 5m2 of dining and beverage space + 5 spaces for employees. Based on the plans submitted there is 106.7m2 (1149 sq ft) of dining and beverage space which requires 21 spaces + 5 for employees = 26 spaces. The other businesses on this parcel require 8 spaces. Therefore, the total parking requirement for this property would be 34 spaces. 20 spaces are available on the property and a 3 space parking waiver was granted in 1985, thus a further 11 space parking waiver is required for this use.

E. Neighbourhood letters were sent to property owners within a 60m radius on May 11, 2010. As of May 21, 2010 we have received 4 letters of objection.

SECTION B

ITEM 3

Item 3 – Angela Olsen

204 – 19 Street North, to construct a second dwelling on a corner parcel. (DEV02331). R-L(W) Low Density Residential Westminster District.

APPLICATION NO DATE OF DECISION LAND USE DISTRICT LOCATION DEV02231 May 25, 2010 R-L(W) Low Density

Residential Westminster District

204 19 Street North

APPLICANT Edward Noel Doherty Enterprises Ltd PROPOSED DEVELOPMENT To construct a second single detached dwelling on a corner parcel and a request for a 0.21m (8”) south front setback waiver to bring the existing dwelling into compliance. The following are the recommendations of the Development Officer.

Angela Olsen,

Development Officer RESOLUTION

Moved by That this application be APPROVED subject to the following conditions:

1. That an exemption of Section 49.1(1) be granted, allowing a second dwelling at 204 – 19 Street North, Lot 17 &18, Plan 904C (Plan 904C that portion of lot 17 lying north of second avenue north and that portion of lot 18 lying south of the north 5 feet of said lot 18 all west of torrance avenue)

2. The second dwelling is approved as a single detached dwelling only. 3. That 2 (off-street) parking spaces per dwelling be provided and maintained.

4. The developer or the applicant shall contact Infrastructure Services at least 90 days before

electrical services are required in order to make arrangements for underground electrical service. Relocation of existing electric facilities will be at the owners/developers expense.

5. Arrangements satisfactory to the Infrastructure Services Department shall be made for driveways,

services, service connections and surface run off and waste collection.

6. The development shall be in accordance with the plans submitted May 10, 2010. Any change to these plans requires the approval of the Development Officer.

7. A 0.21m (8”) south front setback waiver be granted, allowing a 2.79m (19’2”) south front setback

to bring the existing dwelling into compliance.

Chairman INFORMATIVE

A. Neighbourhood Notification letters were sent within a 60m radius on May 11, 2010. To date there has been one response to this notification.

B. This proposal is on a corner lot in the R-L(W) district. The parcel is 868.293m² in size. A single

detached dwelling requires that parcel areas be 320.0m² if they have direct access to a lane and 360.0m² without access to a lane. The existing house would not have direct access to the lane and the proposed area of that parcel would be approximately 422m² and the new house would have an approximate area of 446m².

C. The setback requirements for corner parcels are 6m and 3m fronts and 1.2m sides. Corner parcels have two front yards and two side yards. The setbacks for the existing house are 6.65m and 2.82m fronts, the proposed dwelling has a 4.87m front, the side setbacks are 7.31m and 4.46m. No waivers required. Height requirements are 10m and 2.5 storeys. This proposal is at 6.33m in height and the existing dwelling is 5.69m in height.

D. There are minimal windows on the main floor level, on the north elevation (this would face the neighbour to the north) there will be one in the master bedroom. There will not be any windows that along the east elevation that face the existing house and there will be one window on the west elevation that is in the dining room (faces the lane).

D E V E L O P M E N T S E R V I C E S D E P A R T M E N T

C i t y H a l l , 9 1 0 – 4t h

A v e n u e S o u t h , L e t h b r i d g e , A l b e r t a , C a n a d a T 1 J 0 P 6

P h o n e : ( 4 0 3 ) 3 2 0 - 3 9 2 0 F a x : ( 4 0 3 ) 3 2 7 - 6 5 7 1

E m a i l : d e v e l o p m e n t s e r v i c e s @ l e t h b r i d g e . c a

May 11, 2010

NOTICE TO NEIGHBOURS This letter is being sent to property owners

within a 60m radius of:

204 - 19 STREET NORTH

An application has been made to construct a second dwelling on a corner parcel. No decision on this application has been made. This application will be considered by the Municipal Planning Commission on May 25, 2010 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 May 21, 2010. 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.

Angela Olsen Development Officer cc: Applicant Westminster Neighbourhood Association AO

SECTION C

ITEM 1 Other Business – Jason Price

INFORMATIVE: In 2003, the Subdivision and Development Appeal Board upheld a Municipal Planning Commission Decision (Development Permit 03-0102) to grant approval for a restaurant, lounge and 8 billboards (art boards) on the former water tower located at 103 Mayor Magrath Drive South. There were a number of conditions on the development permit that dealt specifically with the art boards as they were meant to be somewhat different from the common billboard. Three of the conditions were directly related to the appearance of the art boards. They are as follows: 3. The content and appearance of the art boards shall adhere to the guidelines (Appendix A) submitted as part of this application and must not be, in the opinion of the Development Officer, detrimental to the use and amenity of surrounding properties and must not constitute a vehicular traffic hazard. Each art board copy or content must be approved by the Development Officer prior to installation. The Development Officer is authorized to refer any questionable copy or content decisions to the Municipal Planning Commission. 5. The art boards shall be located, built and illuminated in accordance with the plans submitted January 16, 2003. 8. The signs and lighting of the building indicated on the elevation plans and the composite photographs are approved subject to the following:

a. Shall not interfere with traffic safety or obstruct the vision of vehicular traffic on public roadways. b. Shall not utilize revolving or flashing lights or beacons (unless required by air traffic safety), or emit amplified sounds or music. c. Shall not adversely affect the use, enjoyment and privacy of any dwelling and its amenity spaces.

d. Shall avoid undue illumination of the neighbouring parcels. Since the approval in 2003 the developer has generally submitted up to a dozen art board copy changes per year to the Development Officer for approval. The Development Officer evaluates the submitted art board designs against the approved art board guidelines (Appendix A) and in almost all cases has issued an approval for the copy change. Recently there have been 2 electronic display billboards erected east of the water tower on Crowsnest Trail. One is a new two sided display located at 3015 – 1 Avenue South and the other was an existing billboard which converted one side to an electronic display at 3139 – 1 Avenue South. The developer of the water tower believes that this has hurt his ability to sell art board advertisements to other businesses as many now prefer to advertise using the newer electronic technology. The developer has indicated to us his desire to convert some or all of the existing art boards on the water tower to electronic display boards (see attached email). I have chosen to treat this request no differently than one of the typical copy change requests that we receive from the developer every year, however, as per condition 3 on development permit 03-0102, I have chosen to refer this decision to the Municipal Planning Commission as I question whether electronic display boards would still comply with the intent of conditions 3, 5 and 8 of the development permit. There has been no public notification that this request has been made by the developer.

Some things the Municipal Planning Commission may wish to consider when making this decision are: First, would electronic displays still comply with the intent of conditions 3, 5 and 8? If the answer is yes:

• It must be an unconditional yes as we do not have the authority to change or add conditions to the original development permit at this stage.

• The Development Officer or Municipal Planning Commission would still be required to approve the copy or content of each ad displayed. I am unsure how this process would work. Would we have to approve every frame or slide of each ad or would the developer have the ability to submit a video file to us for approval?

If the answer is no:

• The developer would still have the option to make a formal development application to amend the original approval to allow for conversion to electronic displays. If such an application were made the Municipal Planning Commission would be the approving authority and regular neighbourhood notification would occur. The Planning Commission would then have the ability to place any extra conditions it deemed necessary on the development permit.

From: Douglas J. Bergen and AssociatesTo: Jason PriceSubject: Electronic AdvertisingDate: Monday, May 17, 2010 11:35:48 AM

MPC c/o Jason Price Development Officer, I am writing to inform you of my intent to install electronic sign boards on the water tower toreplace the current static Artboards. This is solely a result of the three electronic boards that havebeen installed east of the water tower on the north side of Hwy 3. Many of our customers preferthe electronic presentation for its flexibility and therefore no longer advertise with us. Jason Price of Development Services felt it would be prudent to make MPC aware of my intent. Apermit is not required under the by-law. Thank you for your time in this matter. Please feel free to contact me at 403-345-2116 if you haveany questions. Sincerely,Douglas J. Bergen