SDAB-D Application No

Transcription

1 SDAB-D Application No An appeal by Michelle Burrill c/o Field LLP to add the Use of a Small Animal Breeding and Boarding Establishment within an existing General Retail Store and Personal Service Shop (Devine K9 Dog Care Service Ltd.), on Lot 205, Block 14, Plan B4, located at Street NW, was TABLED TO NOVEMBER 20 or 21, 2013

2 Subdivision and Development Appeal Board Office of the City Clerk Main Floor, Churchill Building Avenue NW Edmonton, AB T5J 0G9 Telephone: (780) Fax: (780) DATE: November 8, 2013 APPLICATION NO: FILE NO.: SDAB-D NOTICE OF DECISION OF THE SUBDIVISION AND DEVELOPMENT APPEAL BOARD This appeal dated September 25, 2013, from the decision of the Development Authority for permission to: Construct one (1) Freestanding On-Premises Minor Digital Sign and demolish the Existing Freestanding On-Premises Sign ( Roadrunner Hotel / Sam Wok Restaurant ) on Lot 5A Block 31, Plan and Lot 7, Block 31, Plan , located at Street NW and Avenue NW, was heard by the Subdivision and Development Appeal Board at its hearing held on October 24, The decision of the Board was as follows: SUMMARY OF HEARING: At the outset of the appeal hearing, the Presiding Officer confirmed with the parties in attendance that there was no opposition to the composition of the panel. The appeal was filed on time, in accordance with Section 686 of the Municipal Government Act, R.S.A 2000, c. M-26. The Board heard an appeal of the decision of the Development Authority to refuse an application to construct one (1) Freestanding On-Premises Minor Digital Sign and demolish the Existing Freestanding On-Premises Sign ( Roadrunner Hotel / Sam Wok Restaurant ), located at Street NW and Avenue NW. The subject site is zoned DC1 Direct Development Control Provision. The development permit application was refused because a Minor Digital On-premises Sign is not a listed Use in this Zone.

3 SDAB-D November 8, 2013 SUMMARY OF HEARING CONTINUED: The Board notes that no letters were received in support or opposition to the proposed development. Prior to the hearing, Legal Counsel for the Appellant submitted documentation that contained photographs of the neighbourhood, the development permit application, the Real Property Report, several letters and a photograph of the proposed Sign. The Board heard from Mr. Venkatraman, Legal Counsel for the Appellant, Roadrunner Motel, who was accompanied by the property owners, Mr. and Mrs. Bhanji, who together made the following points: 1. Mr. Venkatraman stated that the Edmonton Zoning Bylaw changed with regard to Freestanding On-premises Signs. 2. They stated that there are approximately 40 to 50 similar Signs in this area and not sure why the proposed Sign was not approved. 3. They referred to the photographs provided by the Subdivision and Development Appeal Board staff and indicated that their Sign should also be approved. The Presiding Officer stated that the Subdivision and Development Appeal Board has limited authority to vary the DC1 Direct Development Control Provision pursuant to Section 641(4)(b) of the Municipal Government Act and that the DC1 Strathcona Junction (Area 1) does not allow for a Digital Sign as a designated Use. The Board then heard from Mr. Ahuja, representing the Sustainable Development Department, who made the following points: 1. He stated that the proposed Sign is not a listed Use in the DC1 Direct Development Control Provision; therefore, he refused the development permit. 2. With regard to Bylaw Enforcement, he stated that he was not aware of what action they were taking with regard to the existing Sign. In rebuttal, Mr. Venkatraman and Mr. and Mrs. Bhanji made the following points: 1. Mr. and Mrs. Bhanji stated that the Sign was in place 23 years ago when they purchased the property and they have purchased the Sign itself from the Sign company.

4 SDAB-D November 8, 2013 DECISION: that the appeal be DENIED and the decision of refusal by the Development Authority CONFIRMED. REASONS FOR DECISION: The Board finds the following: 1. Section 641(4) of the Municipal Government Act, Chapter M-26 states despite section 685, if a decision with respect to a development permit application in respect of a direct control district (a) is made by a council, there is no appeal to the subdivision and development appeal board, or (b) is made by a development authority, the appeal is limited to whether the development authority following the directions of council, and if the subdivision and development appeal board finds that the development authority did not follow the directions it may, in accordance with the directions, substitute its decision for the development authority s decision. 2. A Minor Digital On-premises Sign is not a listed Use of the DC1 Strathcona Junction (Area 1) Direct Development Control Provision, Sections 3 and 4, respectively; therefore the Board finds that the Development Officer followed the directions of City Council. 3. The Board notes that the Appellant s ability to advertise their business may be momentarily impacted by the decision of the Development Authority and the confirmation of that decision by SDAB; however, the DC1 Strathcona Junction (Area 1) Direct Development Control Provision provides plenty of opportunities for businesses to advertise with other Sign types which are listed in that Direct Control Provision. IMPORTANT INFORMATION FOR APPLICANT/APPELLANT 1. This decision may be appealed to the Alberta Court of Appeal on a question of law or jurisdiction under Section 688 of the Municipal Government Act, R.S.A. 2000, c. M-26. If the Subdivision and Development Appeal Board is served with notice of an application for leave to appeal its decision, such notice shall operate to suspend the Development Permit.

5 SDAB-D November 8, When a decision on a Development Permit application has been rendered by the Subdivision and Development Appeal Board, the enforcement of that decision is carried out by the Sustainable Development Department, located on the 5 th Floor, Street, Edmonton. Mr. M. Figueira, Presiding Officer SUBDIVISION AND DEVELOPMENT APPEAL BOARD cc: NOTE: Citizens can call 311, 24-hours a day, every day of the year for access to City of Edmonton information, programs and services.

6 SDAB-D Application No An appeal by Alberta Ltd. to construct Four (4) Dwellings of Row Housing, on Lot 1, Block 2, Plan 4504AJ, located at Avenue NW, was TABLED TO NOVEMBER 21, 2013

7 Subdivision and Development Appeal Board Office of the City Clerk Main Floor, Churchill Building Avenue NW Edmonton, AB T5J 0G9 Telephone: (780) Fax: (780) DATE: November 8, 2013 APPLICATION NO: FILE NO.: SDAB-D NOTICE OF DECISION OF THE SUBDIVISION AND DEVELOPMENT APPEAL BOARD This appeal dated: August 26, 2013, from the decision of the Development Authority for permission to: Install an Off-premises Major Digital Sign Roof Sign Off-premises Message Centre 4.98 metres by 7.32 metres existing without permits on Lot 13, Block 6, Plan 7069KS, located at Yellowhead Trail NW, was heard by the Subdivision and Development Appeal Board at its hearing held on September 5, 2013 and October 24, The decision of the Board was as follows: September 5, 2013 Hearing MOTION: October 24, 2013 Hearing that SDAB-D be TABLED TO OCTOBER 24, 2013 at the written request of Legal Counsel for the Appellant. MOTION: that SDAB-D be raised from the table.

8 SDAB-D November 8, 2013 SUMMARY OF HEARING: At the outset of the appeal hearing, the Presiding Officer confirmed with the parties in attendance that there was no opposition to the composition of the panel. The appeal was filed on time, in accordance with Section 686 of the Municipal Government Act, R.S.A 2000, c. M-26. The Board heard an appeal of the decision of the Development Authority to refuse an application to install an Off-premises Major Digital Sign Roof Sign Off-premises Message Centre 4.98 metres by 7.32 metres existing without permits, located at Yellowhead Trail NW. The subject site is zoned IB Industrial Business Zone. The development permit application was refused due to an excess in the maximum allowable Area for a Roof Off-premises Sign, because a Roof Off-premises Sign is not a Permitted nor Discretionary Use in the IB Zone and it is the opinion of the Development Officer that the proposed Sign will adversely impact the built environment. The Board notes that no letters were received in support or opposition to the proposed development. The Board heard from Mr. Doherty, Legal Counsel for the Appellant, PM Signs Ltd., who made the following points: 1. He stated that two buildings have been built on the subject Site in the last two years. 2. The proposed Sign is on one of the buildings facing west. 3. The property is owned by his clients Platers Investments Ltd, owned by the Petovar family. 4. He provided the Board with a Landscaping Plan, marked Exhibit A. 5. They are requesting to have an On-premises or Off-premises Fascia Sign. In their opinion, the Development Authority incorrectly defined the proposed Sign as a Roof Sign and Fascia Signs are allowed in the IB Industrial Business Zone. 6. The Sign s origins are a result of his clients being approached by a company who proposed to build and manage a Sign, including applying for the necessary permits. 7. His clients agreed and accepted the deal only to later find that this was not a reputable partner for the project and they were abandoned by that partner. Therefore, his clients were left with the Sign existing without a permit.

9 SDAB-D November 8, 2013 SUMMARY OF HEARING CONTINUED: 8. PM Signs was hired to apply for a development permit on behalf of his clients. 9. He stated that there is an economic impact from the rumours that the intersection at 149 Street and the Yellowhead Trail will become a major interchange and his clients buildings may be expropriated by the City. 10. This possibility has made it difficult for his client to lease the buildings units to tenants. 11. Although they would like to have an Off-premises Advertising Sign, they are agreeable if the Board is to condition within the permit for the Sign to be an On-premises Sign or a Fascia Sign. 12. He provided the Board with photographs that illustrate the existing Sign, other Signs in the area that include Roof Signs, Fascia Signs, Digital Signs, Freestanding Signs, as well as the view from different perspectives and different directions, marked Exhibit B. 13. He stated that the Digital Sign on the northwest corner of the 149 Street and Yellowhead Trail intersection is approximately 200 metres to 300 metres away from the proposed Sign. 14. There is an Off-premises Digital Sign immediately east of the subject Site approximately 200 metres from the proposed Sign. This was noted as being C within the submission, marked Exhibit C. 15. He stated that the photographs submitted illustrate a variety of Signs and businesses in the area. 16. He stated that there is no nearby residential area closer than 2.5 kilometres away from the subject Site. 17. He stated that Section 400 of the Edmonton Zoning Bylaw, that being the IB Industrial Business Zone, allows Fascia, Freestanding, Projecting and Contemporary Freestanding Signs which can be considered Discretionary Uses. 18. Therefore, he is requesting that the Board approve the proposed Sign as one of those Discretionary Uses. 19. He was not sure if the proposed Sign currently exceeds the maximum allowable 40 centimetres out from a wall. The Presiding Officer clarified that Fascia Signs as outlined in Section 6.2(7) of the Edmonton Zoning Bylaw states that Fascia Signs cannot project more than 40 centimetres out from a wall. The Presiding Officer stated that the Board is unable to change or vary a Use definition.

10 SDAB-D November 8, 2013 SUMMARY OF HEARING CONTINUED: In response to questions by the Board, Mr. Doherty provided the following information: 1. With regard as to why a PM Signs representative was not present at the hearing, he stated that the PM Signs representative was not available. 2. The proposed Sign is characteristic of the area and will not have a negative impact on the neighbourhood. 3. With regard as to whether or not the proposed Sign can be lowered to meet the requirement of a Fascia Sign, he stated that he needed to consult with his client. The Board then recessed for a short time in order to allow Mr. Doherty to discuss alternatives with his client. 4. After consulting with his client, Mr. Doherty stated that due to the heavy structure and massive engineering required to install the existing Sign in its current location, it would be expensive and require some demolition of the second floor of the building to move the Sign. 5. His client has lost $250,000 due to the rumours of the property being expropriated. 6. He stated that his client was unaware that there was no permit for the existing Sign after such a large investment. The Board then heard from Ms. Bykowski, representing the Sustainable Development Department, who made the following points: 1. She stated the by definition the proposed Sign is a Roof Sign as outlined in the regulations of the Edmonton Zoning Bylaw. 2. The proposed Sign does not meet the development standards of a Fascia Sign because the Sign extends 30 centimetres above the roof line as illustrated in the photographs submitted. 3. A Major Digital Sign is when the copy on the Sign changes faster than 6 seconds. 4. A Major Digital Sign requires a full Transportation Study which was not received with the development permit application. 5. The proposed Sign requires a separation distance from all other Digital and Off-premises Signs, which was not submitted with the development permit application.

11 SDAB-D November 8, 2013 SUMMARY OF HEARING CONTINUED: DECISION: In rebuttal, Mr. Doherty made the following point: 1. His client is willing to raise the parapet wall on the roof to meet the criteria for a Fascia Sign. that the appeal be DENIED and the decision of refusal by the Development Authority CONFIRMED. REASONS FOR DECISION: The Board finds the following: 1. Section 687(3) of the Municipal Government Act states in determining an appeal, the subdivision and development appeal board. (d) may make an order or decision or issue or confirm the issue of a development permit even though the proposed development does not comply with the land use bylaw if, in its opinion, (ii) the proposed development would not (A) unduly interfere with the amenities of the neighbourhood, or (B) materially interfere with or affect the use, enjoyment or value of neighbouring parcels of land, and (ii) the proposed development conforms with the use prescribed for that land or building in the land use bylaw. 2. Based on the evidence submitted, the Board finds that the proposed Sign is a Roof Off-premises Sign. 3. The proposed Sign, a Roof Off-premises Sign, is neither a Permitted nor Discretionary Use in the IB Industrial Business Zone. 4. The Board accepts the Appellant s willingness to adjust the Sign to conform with the Uses listed in the (IB) Industrial Business Zone, nonetheless, such an endeavour would require a review of additional information neither included in the original Development Permit Application nor submitted as evidence at the Appeal Hearing.

12 SDAB-D November 8, 2013 IMPORTANT INFORMATION FOR APPLICANT/APPELLANT 1. This decision may be appealed to the Alberta Court of Appeal on a question of law or jurisdiction under Section 688 of the Municipal Government Act, R.S.A. 2000, c. M-26. If the Subdivision and Development Appeal Board is served with notice of an application for leave to appeal its decision, such notice shall operate to suspend the Development Permit. 2. When a decision on a Development Permit application has been rendered by the Subdivision and Development Appeal Board, the enforcement of that decision is carried out by the Sustainable Development Department, located on the 5 th Floor, Street, Edmonton. Mr. M. Figueira, Presiding Officer SUBDIVISION AND DEVELOPMENT APPEAL BOARD cc: NOTE: Citizens can call 311, 24-hours a day, every day of the year for access to City of Edmonton information, programs and services.