Generally speaking, the Rutland Park Community Association is appreciative of respectful redevelopment which falls within the Contextual Guidelines/Low Density Residential Housing Guidelines, that protects our urban canopy, and does not involve rezoning, front drive garages or third storeys. Our more detailed development guidelines are included and have been developed using the direction of some of our inner city neighbours (most specifically Richmond Knobhill, and to some extent Killarney Glengarry). We are at an exciting stage of our lifecycle in the Rutland Park community, and hope that redevelopment also includes renovation as opposed to strictly demolition and rebuilding.
Developers, please be aware that there are a number of different restrictive covenants in our community, and that you would be best served to have your lawyer pull the title on any property you are planning on purchasing for redevelopment, in advance of your offer to purchase. The Rutland Park Community Association does NOT support the removal of these covenants as they maintain the character and scale of our community.
Please be aware that we do NOT support land use re-designation from R-C1 to R-C1s (unless it is of specific benefit to the community) for several reasons. We have restrictive covenants on all of our R-C1 properties.
Our R-C1 lots are restricted to one single family residence– a secondary suite becomes a second residence and thereby contravenes the covenant. We do not support any re-designation which only benefits the owner, as opposed to benefiting the community. In addition, we do not support the removal of these restrictive covenants because they are part of our development guidelines and serve to maintain the character of our community.
Only 12% of the residences in our community are single family homes, and we already exceed the Municipal Development Plan 60 year goal for density in our community– our population remains stable. Twenty eight percent of our properties already permit a suite (R-C2), in case someone is interested in moving within the community to have a suite. The other 60% of residences are all located on higher density properties..
Even if a land use re-designation to R-C1s is successful, the covenant would need to be removed in order to have a legal secondary suite. We do not support the removal of the covenants, and any owner on the covenant is able to take the contravening owner to court to have a suite permanently removed and a permanent injunction placed on the property. Please be respectful of the R-C1 properties in our community and the legally binding restrictive covenant attached to each of them.
If you would like to discuss your proposal, please contact Leanne Ellis at firstname.lastname@example.org.
Thank you for wanting to be part of this amazing community. We look forward to working with you.
Rutland Park Design Initiative
Sarcee Road has been identified as playing a critical role in our community development. As a result, we conducted a charette with community members to identify some strategies to address it. From there, a document was developed and accepted at our 2013 AGM for presentation to the City. Our councillor, Brian Pincott, continues to lobby for capital investment in the project. The proposal is contained in the pdf file below.
These letters were submitted on behalf of our communities as part of the Currie Barracks Proposed Amendment to the CFB West Master Plan. We were actively involved in the engagement process and provided feedback on numerous occasions. The first letter was sent to the Planning Commission before we had access to the amended documents. The second letter was sent to City Council after the amended documents provided evidence that most of our concerns were addressed.
Secondary Suite Proposed Amendments
City Council has put forward an amendment which would permit secondary suites in the low density residential section of Rutland Park. Resident feedback had been solicited in 2013, and follow up feedback had been collected in 2014, which did not support this initiative. The proposed amendments also include the removal of minimum lot widths for secondary suites– this has the potential to triple the current density in the area, and is the issue we have focused on. The supporting documents below have been shared with Council (either by mail, email, or verbal presentation).
Rutland Park Community Concern (PDF)
Secondary Suite Concerns Rutland Park (PDF)
Negative Impact of Removing Minimum Width (PDF)
Secondary Suite Follow Up Concerns for Council (PDF)
Sample Letter to Councillors (PDF)
Petition Letter to Council (PDF)
Further Secondary Suite Proposed Amendments
Proposed LUB changes M-2016-004 could have a huge detrimental impact on our community. Two of these proposed changes were what we as a community association formally opposed during the last round of proposed amendments. A petition with almost 300 signatures from our residents was also shared with Council opposing these changes. These changes have the potential to almost triple the density of our current low density bungalows.
Reducing the minimum lot width for secondary suites to 7.5 meters would allow for 4 dwelling units on our R-C2 lots (which have mainly single family homes on them, but already permit 2 dwelling units).
Increasing the maximum suite size to 100 square meters (over 1000 square feet) opens up all of our R-C1 lots to side by side “duplexes” and 2nd dwellings on the lots in the backyard that could be bigger than the original bungalows (and bigger than a triple garage).
These changes would not only destroy the character of our neighbourhood, they would destroy our urban canopy. Please take the time to get involved and speak out against these changes.
Council Secondary Suite Discussions
City Council is revisiting a secondary suite policy. This is directly related to the inordinate amount of time that Council spends discussing land use re-designation to allow for secondary suites. Changes are necessary. We want to ensure that the changes are well thought out, and respectful of the restrictive covenants that dictated the original spirit and intent of our community– multi-residential properties, duplexes/ semi-detached homes, and single family homes (which make up only 12% of our residences). We have submitted a letter to indicate our concerns (see below).
Secondary Suite Engagement and Feedback Rutland Park
– Spring 2013 started receiving feedback and email with concerns that secondary suites may be imposed on our community
– Sent out an email (via icontact) requesting formal feedback on increasing density and secondary suites; responses collected until end of June 2013 (100 % of feedback concerned/opposed)
– Formal email submission by the CA to City Planning on Sept 12/13 stating concerns and opposition
– Community Needs Survey in May 2014 with section for written comments; residents continued to state concerns with increasing density/adding suites
– July 2/14 email feedback to Councillor Pincott stating community opposition to imposing secondary suites
– Feb 5/15 email follow up feedback to Councillor Pincott maintaining opposition
– Mar 1/15 short notice opportunity for resident input and feedback to Councillor Pincott; same concerns raised
– Topic was discussed at both our 2013 and 2014 AGM’s
– Development Guidelines for our community were approved at our Nov 2014 AGM and posted on our website; they clearly state that we are not in favor of rezoning in general; the proposed amendment to LUB 1P2007 in effect constitutes blanket redesignation/rezoning of our R-C1 properties to R-C1s, and our R-C2 properties to R-2M
– Key development documents that are presented on behalf of the community are also made available on our website (rutlandparkcommunity.com) under the Development tab, and their location is noted in our monthly newsletter
– Rezoning/adding density and secondary suites are regularly addressed in the Development and Traffic Report for our monthly newsletter publication, The Post; residents are encouraged to comment and get involved; feedback on the report is consistently positive. One or more of these issues was addressed in The Post:
– July 2014 | September 2014 | October 2014 | December 2014 | January 2015 | March 2015 | April 2015 | May 2015