February 8, 2010

716 4 Street. Single detached dwelling.
Decision: Not supported. The application says it is for a single family home with accessory residential building. What is an accessory residential building? The wording implies a future secondary suite. It should say only a garage. This application was clarified and the file manager has stressed that the application includes a garage only with the new home, not an additional suite. However, there is significant concern from the residents. If the guidelines change, can the retroactive use of a secondary suite be added after the fact, based on the terminology being used. The LUB does not clarify this definition. Other concerns included: unclear landscape plan; 60/40 rule exceeded; possible overlooking from some windows; internal location of stairs and basement access from side entrance.

1710 7 Avenue. Semi-detached dwelling.
Decision: Supported. No relaxations are required then the home can be supported. The neighbours had no issue with the over-size garage (in area, not height). The applicants want to save one of the trees, especially the heritage green ash on the front boulevard.

407 10A Street. Multi-residential development with 1 additional dwelling unit.
This DP is to add the 7th suite. Feel it fits ARP. Will be a family sized unit. Roof stays within the height restrictions. City indicates that there is some incomplete information. The rear balcony may overlook the condos. This is exacerbated if it’s over sized. Noise, privacy, sightlines. Also to the side yards. The committee supports the extra unit. There is a problem with the rear balcony. The landscaping is completely adequate as is.