OLDS — The Regional Subdivision and Development Appeal Board (RSDAB) is expected to rule within 15 days on an appeal of a development permit for a 38-unit apartment building at 6108 53rd St. in Olds.
The board, consisting of three people outside the community, held a hearing on the matter Feb. 5 in town council chambers.
Currently two condo buildings sit on that site. The proposed new one would be located in a currently empty space between them. That space has been referred to as “unit 2.”
The appeal was launched on behalf of the condominium board of directors by Sunreal Condominium Management which looks after those facilities.
The two existing buildings were initially built as apartments in 1977 but were converted to condos in 2007.
Parking at issue
The primary issue was the fact that the town had approved a proposal by the developer for a 38-unit condominium in the open space even though, under the bylaw, the design was short four parking spaces.
The town granted a variance for those “missing” parking spaces, as the number fell within the planning department’s ability to grant variances of up to 15 per cent (it came in at eight per cent).
Development officer Kyle Sloan told the appeal board that initially, the developer had proposed a 30-unit building in the space. The number of parking spaces provided in that design fell within the bylaw, so no variance was required.
However, the developer later came back with the current proposal for 38-two-bedroom units, and that design did not allow for the required parking spaces.
However, it was said that not all the parking spaces for the existing units are utilized and it was also suggested that additional parallel parking could be obtained.
Four condo residents attended the hearing to speak against the proposal, as did condominium manager Mandy Dunbar who signed the appeal document. An architect also sat in the gallery and took notes but did not speak.
The appeal document raised several concerns about the proposed development.
It said on April 12, 2024, a proposed design for a 32-unit condo project was sent to the condo board. The board did not approve of the design, citing concerns it did not provide enough parking.
During an on-site meeting with the developer in June 4 last year, a representative of Sunreal and the condo board expressed some concerns about the development and suggested that the developer consult with a lawyer specializing in condos.
“As of today, the board of directors has not provided consent nor approval for the further development of unit 2,” the document said.
“Neither Sunreal Condominium Management nor the board of directors have received any written or verbal communication following the on-site meeting on June 4, 2024.”
Concerns the condo board has which led to the decision to appeal the issuance of the development permit include, but are not limited to:
• inadequate parking allocation;
• the absence of details of the developer’s plan to relocate underground utility lines essential to the existing building 200, currently existing under unit 2;
• the absence of details of plans for construction access to unit 2;
• unauthorized relocation or removal of corporation property, including trees and a storage shed;
• concern that proposed parallel parking would impinge access for emergency vehicles to building 200; and
• that the condominium corporation has not agreed to a proposed reduction in the ratio of landscaped land to the overall property.
The document noted that last year, the Town of Olds passed a bylaw reducing the minimum number of parking stalls required for multi-family housing from 1.75 stalls per unit to one stall per one-bedroom unit and 1.25 stalls per two-bedroom unit.
The document said having looked at the requirements in other Alberta communities, “the Town of Olds requirements are very modest in comparison.”
“While the board of directors is not disputing the new requirements as stated in the land use bylaw, we feel there should not be further relaxation, as was granted by the Town of Olds in the development permit,” the document said.
“While the board of directors is not opposed to the development of this area, they hold a duty to all owners within the condominium corporation to ensure future construction will not negatively impact the day-to-day lives of current residents of the property, nor decrease the property value of existing units.”
Town has its say
In his presentation to the Regional Subdivision and Development Appeal Board, Kyle Sloan, a development officer with the Town of Olds, said, while the appellant listed several concerns, the only matter to be dealt with is the variance.
He said the proposed 38-unit building “complied with all regulations of the town’s land use bylaw, except for one, and that is the minimum parking requirement.”
Sloan said the necessary stalls will be provided by a combination of underground parking and above-ground parking on the lot that would eventually be shared by all three buildings.
He said all other matters raised are outside the town’s land use bylaw.
“In our opinion, that it is not related to our role as a development authority.”
Regarding the concern about access for emergency vehicles, Sloan said, “we do circulate applications internally to our fire inspectors, and there were no concerns on their end.”
Sunreal associate commercial property manager and condominium manager Mandy Dunbar addressed the hearing.
“There are, as Kyle had mentioned, more stalls than what is required for the current residents,” she said.
“But we're concerned with taking those stalls away from people who have purchased into the building or entered lease agreements with the belief that they will have access to parking and have that taken away.
“The developer should be consulting with the board of directors and receiving approval of the board with any developments, and that has not happened,” she said.
Legal action could be next step
Regional Subdivision and Development Appeal Board chair Joe Henderson asked what recourse Sunreal and/or the board would have if the development is approved and goes ahead.
“Legal action,” Dunbar said. “I think it's called a prohibitory injunction. I don't know what's involved in that, but we have consulted with the lawyer about it.”
Ed Furst, one of the condominium residents, addressed the hearing, raising concerns about removal of parking stalls (which, he noted have plug-ins) as well as the how the project would affect visitor parking and a stall for loading and unloading.
Sloan said there is a requirement for one loading zone space, but it can also be counted as a parking space.
Another resident, Ed Wiebe, echoed the concerns raised by other speakers, but also added a philosophical note.
“I just would say that even though something is legal doesn't necessarily make it desirable or wise,” Wiebe said.
“This is quite a radical change of the property and the surrounding neighbourhood, with an increase in density and all of the things that come with that: increase of traffic, people learning to get along with each other.
“I own two units in building 100 and I rent them out. Tenants are asking me how they can get more parking already.
“I know laws change, but decades from now, are people not going to drive by this new development and say, ‘wow, what were they thinking?’ Are they going to say, ‘look what they shoehorned in there,’ and it's going to be so dissimilar to what is currently there.”
Sloan said if the developer provides the necessary parking spaces and all other requirements are met, the town has to approve the project.
“I'm talking oranges and the town’s talking apples, I know -- a voice is a voice,” Wiebe said.
Condo owners have their say
Furst and another resident who gave his name as Payton expressed concerns about the current shed being moved and replaced by a smaller one.
Two garbage collection facilities are proposed. Currently there’s only one, but there’s a concern that one of the two will be located near a road.
“We already have problems with people driving through and dropping off their garbage. If it's right at the street, I think that will become a greater issue as well,” Payton said.
Carien Vandenberg, also a condo owner, drove in from Vermilion to address the hearing.
“They're looking to invest into this community, which is kind of exciting, I think. Tell me if I'm wrong, the town could probably use more housing. Is that a fair statement,” she asked.
“I just want to speak to how there was a community of local people that invested into this building,” Vandenberg said. “I'd like to ensure that it kind of keeps its value or doesn't decline.”
She expressed fear that more residents in the area could lead to “havoc.”
“We already have a little bit of tension that's in that environment,” Vandenberg said.
Vandenberg also expressed concerns about potential privacy and noise issues.
“There are setback requirements for the building from the property line, but in the building code, also from adjacent buildings,” Sloan said.
“Our building inspector has reviewed the site plan and those are met, but the rest of the building code requirements will be discussed at the building permit stage.
“As for your comment or question about privacy, the town bylaws don't regulate that in this area,” Sloan said.
“We built a very good team that works very well with this town. We need it first, and then we can build something, I think together quite lovely at this point. I don't I think we're getting there. I don't think we're there yet,” Vandenberg said.
