Edmonton Construction 11 (November 2011) - Page 417

240glt · #**8321** Posted **Jul 18, 2013, 10:06 PM**

On a lighter note.. just got a glimpse of the ground level redevelopment of a prominent older office tower. Much nicer than Sun Life's recent upgades

Daveography · #**8322** Posted **Jul 19, 2013, 12:37 AM**

On a somewhat related topic, I'm looking for some advice about infill...

The owners of the property next door to us are looking to tear down the old single-story ~600 sqft 1940s house on their property and build a new two-story 1500 sqft house in its place. It's mediocre cookie-cutter design, but the part that bothers me and my wife is that they want to build a prominent front-facing two-car attached garage. This is in Holyrood, which is in the mature neighborhood overlay.

The existing house has a small front driveway/parking pad, and also a driveway and small garage connected to the alley. As I understand the new rules, front driveways and garages are no longer allowed without a variance, and they would actually have to lose the front driveway altogether without the same.

It's not my intention to be a jerk and hold up their building a new home (the 40s house is a tear-down, we understand that and have no issues there), but this is already a monster of a house on a tiny 49' x 135' lot, which is already going to have a big impact on the neighborhood of mostly bungalows, but the front garage is the biggest sticking point about how this will affect the look and feel of our block.

Now, in their email correspondence with us, they said that if they can't get the ok to build the front garage, they will "have no choice" but to build a triple detached garage in the rear. Having their garage in the alley would actually be my preference, though I'm not sure why they would need to go from a double in the front to a triple in the rear, but I would also be concerned about how high they might be allowed to build that (we have a garden in the back that it would shadow if it is over a certain height).

They have filed an appeal with the SDAB and there is a hearing on Aug. 1. Again, we don't want to be jerks about it, but what are our options? For that matter, what are our rights? We're new to dealing with stuff like this.

240glt · #**8323** Posted **Jul 19, 2013, 1:13 AM**

Sounds like they're trying to strong-arm you a bit. IMO.. if they want a 3 car detached garage in the back so be it. even if they go, say, 36x24 it still leaves you over 6' on either side of it. As long as the setbacks are within the guidelines it shouldn't affect you at all.

If you are within the MNO, and the vast majority of the houses on your street follow a particular style (IE all bungalows or 1.5 stories, with rear garages) The new MNO guidelines read that a new development must follow the "character" of the street. Obviously a front attached 2 car garage is totally out of character so I'd think you'd have little problem having that disallowed. Plus if there is a boulevard in front and an alley in the back the NMO doesn't allow it.

If they had a front facing rear detached garage, say, beside the house with a front facing ingress, they could theoretically raze the house and keep the garage, and maintain the front access. However if they want to build a new parking structure, they'll need to follow the MNO. So in theory I think it's pretty cut & dry.

The not-so-cut & dry part is where you have to present your case to the SDAB. I'd get very familiar with the new MNO guidelines, take photos of the other houses on your street and try to get some support from your surrounding neighbors and the CL if you can. We've gone through this a few times on behalf of neighbors abutting proposed developments like that.

It sounds like the DO issued the permit already. Can you say what the variances were ? That'll help a lot in determining what your course of action should be

Daveography · #**8324** Posted **Jul 19, 2013, 2:34 AM**

^ No permit issued, we actually just received a notice of the appeal hearing today. It was rejected due to insufficient rear setback and "the proposed development does not meet the General Purpose of the Mature Neighborhood Overlay nor maintain the traditional character of the streetscape."

Thanks for the advice, we'll take some photos and put together our case, and talk to our neighbors and the CL.

kcantor · #**8325** Posted **Jul 19, 2013, 2:50 AM**

Quote:

Originally Posted by RTA

^ No permit issued, we actually just received a notice of the appeal hearing today. It was rejected due to insufficient rear setback and "the proposed development does not meet the General Purpose of the Mature Neighborhood Overlay nor maintain the traditional character of the streetscape."

Thanks for the advice, we'll take some photos and put together our case, and talk to our neighbors and the CL.

you might also want to talk to the development officer (who should be prepared to meet with you in person to discuss the application and plans) and if you still have objections make sure that he or she has those in writing as that will likely form part of their sdab presentation/report. if your neighbors agree with you, they should do so in writing on their own as your saying "on behalf of my neighbors" without that will not carry any additional weight (unless they are prepared to add their signatures and addresses to your letter but even so, it's "safer" to have 10 letters than one letter with 10 signatures).

you might also want to talk to your councilor who should at a minimum be prepared to assist you with the process.

240glt · #**8326** Posted **Jul 19, 2013, 3:05 AM**

Well there you go. Your argument is echoed by the DO.. I think you'll have little trouble arguing against this development. A letter from your CL goes a long way.

It sounds like they want to push the house back to accommodate the garage in front. If you are in favour of them building a larger garage in the back I'd let them know... maybe that's the conciliatory element. Also look at shadowing issues as reason to have the rear setback rejected.

It 🞵🞵🞵🞵🞵 getting involved in these types of things with people you have to live next to.. I hope you are able to reach an amicable solution

EDIT: and I concur with what Ken noted as well

sdimedru · #**8327** Posted **Jul 19, 2013, 3:18 AM**

I know this isn't really the point, but what's "tiny" about a 49x139 lot?
Thats huge as far as I'm concerned.

Xelebes · #**8328** Posted **Jul 19, 2013, 3:51 AM**

Quote:

Originally Posted by sdimedru

I know this isn't really the point, but what's "tiny" about a 49x139 lot?
Thats huge as far as I'm concerned.

15 m by 42 m? That is a big, deep lot.

Daveography · #**8329** Posted **Jul 19, 2013, 4:08 AM**

Thanks guys, this is extremely helpful. I've printed off the MNO and highlighted the concerns and deficiencies (turns out the house is also over 0.4m too high); we're talking to our neighbors and will try to reach the CL prez. and our Councillor (Ben). It sounds like this shouldn't be too difficult.

Quote:

Originally Posted by sdimedru

I know this isn't really the point, but what's "tiny" about a 49x139 lot?
Thats huge as far as I'm concerned.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Xelebes

15 m by 42 m? That is a big, deep lot.

No, I guess in retrospect it's not that tiny, it just feels like it because the house that's there now is so small.

SHOFEAR · #**8330** Posted **Jul 19, 2013, 1:47 PM**

Quote:

Originally Posted by Xelebes

15 m by 42 m? That is a big, deep lot.

jesus... my big lots in the neighbourhood i'm working on are 11.1x35. were, squezing front attacheds on 9.2x35.

240glt · #**8331** Posted **Jul 19, 2013, 2:17 PM**

Job No 141323001-001: To construct a three storey Commercial Use Class Building (General Retail on main floor, Professional, Financial, and Office Support Services Use on second and third floor), and to demolish the existing Commercial Building and attached storage structure.
10336 - 82 AVENUE NW
Plan I Blk 68 Lot 8
HODGSON SCHILF ARCHITECTS (NICK BENNETT)
STRATHCONA

Job No 137870946-002: To construct exterior alterations to a Professional, Financial, and Office Support Service building (install horizontal LED lighting at the top of the building).
10025 - JASPER AVENUE NW
Plan 882RS Lot 10A
10025 - JASPER AVENUE NW
Plan F Blk OT
10025 - JASPER AVENUE NW
Plan F Lots 7-9
BLANCHETT NEON
DOWNTOWN

Coldrsx · #**8332** Posted **Jul 19, 2013, 2:52 PM**

Quote:

Originally Posted by 240glt

^ The individuals they are going to have to try to get onside are not in the "industry" and certainly not part of the inner circle. If they truly are going to be looking out for everyones' best interests, there are ways it will need to be done.

Not every group is as progressive towards this type of thing as ours.. and Tegans' langauge wasn't overly concilliatory. Get the stakeholders together and THEN go public with a common message

Just to be clear, this group was formed about 6 months ago and have been meeting regularly since.

ScottieA · #**8333** Posted **Jul 19, 2013, 2:58 PM**

Quote:

Originally Posted by 240glt

Job No 137870946-002: To construct exterior alterations to a Professional, Financial, and Office Support Service building (install horizontal LED lighting at the top of the building).
10025 - JASPER AVENUE NW
Plan 882RS Lot 10A
10025 - JASPER AVENUE NW
Plan F Blk OT
10025 - JASPER AVENUE NW
Plan F Lots 7-9
BLANCHETT NEON
DOWNTOWN

I remember being underwhelmed by the plans that ATB had for Telus Plaza when I used to work for them.

Hallsy's Toupee · #**8334** Posted **Jul 19, 2013, 3:13 PM**

Quote:

Job No 141323001-001: To construct a three storey Commercial Use Class Building (General Retail on main floor, Professional, Financial, and Office Support Services Use on second and third floor), and to demolish the existing Commercial Building and attached storage structure.
10336 - 82 AVENUE NW
Plan I Blk 68 Lot 8
HODGSON SCHILF ARCHITECTS (NICK BENNETT)
STRATHCONA

Which building on Whyte Ave are they planning to demolish? The Vivid Paint place? Plaid Giraffe?

240glt · #**8335** Posted **Jul 19, 2013, 4:19 PM**

Quote:

Originally Posted by Coldrsx

Just to be clear, this group was formed about 6 months ago and have been meeting regularly since.

So who's in the group ?

brenGT2 · #**8336** Posted **Jul 19, 2013, 7:45 PM**

Encore Tower is featured in the latest edition of New Condo Guide. It looks spectacular!

ScottieA · #**8337** Posted **Jul 19, 2013, 8:11 PM**

Quote:

Originally Posted by brenGT2

Encore Tower is featured in the latest edition of New Condo Guide. It looks spectacular!

The render can also be found on Encore's website. But in the meantime:

https://fbcdn-sphotos-h-a.akamaihd.net/hphotos-ak-prn2/1069301_549184995139321_2004983716_n.jpg

hilman · #**8338** Posted **Jul 19, 2013, 8:14 PM**

Looks awesome!

Driving by the Edgewater site today I noticed a large sign at both ends of the property with a website and new render. Here is the website:

http://edgewateronjasper.ca/

Coldrsx · #**8339** Posted **Jul 19, 2013, 8:23 PM**

Quote:

Originally Posted by brenGT2

Encore Tower is featured in the latest edition of New Condo Guide. It looks spectacular!

Holy F-ing 🞵🞵🞵🞵 time! This is a game changer for downtown condo design.

RicoLance21 · #**8340** Posted **Jul 19, 2013, 8:25 PM**

^Wow! That's awesome. I am sure a lot of Calgary forumers would approve this too. Ok, so it is no Telus Sky, but this is definitely something to slobber over.

Overall, I would give it a 4/5. One point is taken off just because of the two storey podium. A four-five-storey podium would have been perfect.