A I’l’l ,I( ‘A’IION IOlkNl : l”I)evcIopiiiciit I’criitit
11
[OWN OF BEAUMONT
IlIIil(litt$ I’t’tiiit
D (all D Mail
51,0(1-49 Street lleuiiniont, Alberta [4X I ,t. I l’li,,ne: (780) 929-8782 Fax: (780) 929—3301)
D l’iClIII)
A. (;INFRAL Lot
B loc[
4
F tijail developijicitta l)C,CU niont.ib.ca
/
‘lan
I
—
Mun ici pal Address
CoLon ,414p
Construction Value S Receipt))
PC.
T.2M
P..i
Phone h
Fees:
I-ax))
—
Imail
‘.
Cl .r
NOTIj: If applicant is not the owner. proofofauthorizati n to act as ti:icnt is requited from the ownei
/
C
Mailine Address
ARIA?.
11t,eLnaw’
-Cotrucucsn Lot
iC,LJCL
Q
Sat’Code Coincil Fee
Street Cleanin Fee ‘
(coxtc %
Postal Code p.0.
,‘l. ‘.Q4 2
Development Pcrmit
NO I 2 5 Datnage/PerforInance
Rein stered owner (if not applicant)
li-S
‘
iik:licd’Garai
,
-
Cti
c 9 .
Building Permit
to
Name
C/Cr
Application))
Grading
tlater Inspection
Meter Installation
rr-,r
M4
OFt
GS.T.
Phone #
lIminess License
tdentiHcation D Driver’s License
Other
F P & Gas
Nouticatton Fee Abscncc of Aliandoned Wells on Parcel declaration iteeded
B. DEVELOPMENT PERMIT O Permitted Use
Upper Floor Areas
0 Permitted Use with Variance I” l)iscretionary Use
-e,Je’ic,,’
.
j-4
TOT,)L FEES:
9 f9
M/
I louse Type
Main Floor Area
(
Land Use District
Basement I’loor Area
Tax Roll
7 t
Total Dcv, Area
hi/A
21 Subdiviston
j/
APPLICANT AUThORIZATION ND Al’I’E AL PROCESS 1. 1 am the owner agent with the con,,etit and authority of the on ner that is the wbject mitten (if this penlut application. Fuhier I we hereby nyc toy our coSsent to itow any authorized person pin u,a1) to the ,tJi,nicipal (;ov,’rnrn’m -ti ecti,,,, 54 2. ihe right to enter the land and, or baildinn( ) with repect to this application only’. 3. 1 we understand diii in order, dcctoon or permit wide or issued by an Astani 1)evelopnient Olhicer nay be appealed by any persolt attected, within fourteen (14) ilays after lint, ilcition hiany wink or ,ctioit is taken (n wilier tinder an atiproved permit or not), wiiliin the appeal period, I we wui e any claim ,h’ltt. ho conipan sotiini front the Municipal iy or its agents sitorild the appeal result iii tIns pennit being niodi tied or revoked. Signature l)ate .-
—-—
-
DECISION:
OApproved
DApproved subject to conditasns helowor attached
-1Ie&
4’
Notice of Decision:
i
C. BUILDING PERMI’I’
D
J ?O6
Date h’uhhsltcd’
DReh’used
Appeal l.xpirx’ Date:
Note: Building Permit is valid
for one (1) year from date of issuance
APPLICANT AUTh IORIZATION I am the ow ncr/uncut with the coutseiti ittd authority of the ow icr tltit is the subject mutter of this build, Stgnature
DECISION:
I
Date:
j’La
-
o
rYAt
)p
sisttimt/Development Officer:
/
ic
permit ,ipplicat on.
Date: DApproved
ENGIXEEREI) FILl.
—
SIBMIT
C Approved INGS
subject to conditions below or attached
0 YFS
Saielv Codes Ofticcr
ORet’used
ONO
Desionation No.
Date:
ltauttmrayni’neel,en
ink,u,,.,I,,ne,d i,tt,,,,,5 i’r,,,.F(ii’)”,J ii-I,’’,]’, ,bouteottecimnoruseois,,ur pe,senai ,Ii,,r,nJlI,,fl, i,,ssn,,1IJ,,,u,,,,,,I I Oii’( J’’,-, ‘‘‘ii’—’ ‘ . l,.’[’II,It .AB,T4X ,
M 55311
-
kveiopwu, Lund Ure i ,r,,,,i)I,,e,e Pecan Fern, 1 Chegktj,ti\Hon,r Permit FormOPDev eiopnreni Bldg Prrm,i
iti,,k
2)11 5-Oi -iii doe
—
iipdotd 2015-112-113
iAi
ori7Si’’’’’
Permit #: 2016-220
DEVELOPMENT PERMIT DECISION Based on the plans issued for development approval dated April 8, 2016, and related documentation, this is to advise that this permit has been refused. You may appeal the decision to the Subdivision and Development Appeal Board (SDAB) within 14 days. Development may not continue at this time. If an appeal is filed, you will receive written notification and a notice will be placed in The Beaumont News of any appeal hearing date. The SDAB is an independent body established by Town Council. Its decisions can only be overturned by the Courts if the Board makes an error of law or jurisdiction. Notification Appeal Period: May 13, 2016 to May 27, 2016
This permit application has been refused for the following reasons: 1. The site is designed with only one option for fuel truck access; through Beaumont’s downtown core. This requires the transport of dangerous goods through the centre of Beaumont. Other route options from the south would require travel through residential neighbourhoods. This is out of scale for the pedestrian environment. The site design does not provide other options for fuel truck access from the north.
2. It does not meet Municipal Development Plan Policy 8.3.5(b). The vehicle oriented nature of the gas bar is more acceptable to be adjacent to medium density housing due to increased setbacks; separated from adjacent development by common areas (parking lots, green space); and is buffered from adjacent development because it has greater landscaping requirements. Existing development on the east side of 50th Street is primarily low density residential and institutional. There is no buffer to the existing single family residential dweffings abutting this property.
3. It does not meet Municipal Development Plan Policy 8.3.5(c). It does not meet the intent of the French Vifiage Design Guidelines: • Picture from Old Quebec provided which shows how a similar development was incorporated into its existing built environment to minimize the visual impact on surrounding properties. This consideration has not been given to this site design. • Pedestrian circulation through the site is not adequately designed to separate pedestrian and vehicles. • Parking area does not include landscaped islands. • Landscaping on the north side of the development should be enhanced but the TIA recommends landscaping be removed in this area for sight line purposes. • The Crime Prevention Through Environment Design (CPTED) report conflicts with FVG (i.e. removal of Coloniale entrance feature). The entrance feature is to remain and be maintained by the Developer as per Development Agreement until Coloniale development area has been fully built out. It is acknowledged that the plans submitted show the retention of this sign. The FVG would support the permanent retention of this sign.
2
•
• • • • •
• • • • •
CPTED suggests use of paving stones or stamped concrete to identify vehicle/pedestrian crossings. The developer has decided to install speed bumps at these locations to assuage resident concerns. The paving stones or stamped concrete would better meet the FVG. Site lighting locations have not been provided. Lighting designs have not yet been submitted. Parking along the west side of the property may interfere with proposed vehicle movement through the site. Adequate snow storage not shown. Stacked stone should remain on the building, rather than brick. Locations of the solid waste storage and loading zone are too close to residential properties. Applicant has indicated continued use of corporate colours, signage and lighting despite recommendations to modify. For example, signage was recommended to be channel lettering or front lit. No accent colour provided on building. Muntin bars in windows not added due to site line concerns; however, muntin bars could be placed wide enough to maintain visibility. Large blank walls. CPTED recommends use of spandrel glass on these walls but it has not been provided. The building and site are similar to commercial developments on the west side of 50th Street but do not take into consideration existing abutting developments. Site signage not acceptable as shown.
4. The development is proposed to be open 24 hours per day. Immediately abuttin g single family dwellings will be negatively impacted as this materially interferes with the amenities and enjoyment of the neighbourhood due to light, noise and vehicular traffic generated from the site. 5. The queuing diagram for each of the pump islands assumes customers travel into the site from the south. Given the all directional on Coloniale Way, there are more ways to enter the site and many combinations of queuing which should be considered. Those that block the parking maneuvering or other queuing areas are an issue. With the information provid ed by the applicant, it appears the site is overdeveloped and/or too small for the proposed development.
6. The Traffic Impact Assessment (TIA) focused mainly on traffic volumes, speed and the entrance along 50thl Street. However, based on all the scenarios, and Exhibit 4-2 of the TIA, there is the potential for more traffic using the entrance along Coloniale Way. The TIA indicates AM peak volumes in this area are between 7:15 AM and 8:30 AM (pg 6). Given the school approximately 200m from the site, little data is provided on the effect this entranc e would have on pedestrians. The TIA recommends pedestrian volumes are monito red during the spring and fall, once the development is operational. Pedestrian volumes and operation should be considered prior to development. 7.
Distribution Table 4-4 in the TIA indicates the highest volume of primary trips to come from Rue Montalet west of 50th Street. This seems unreasonable given the existing gas station on
3 the south side of Rue Montalet. Distribution Table 4-5 indicates 50tl Street southbound to have the highest volume of pass-by trips. This also appears inaccurate given the site cannot be accessed directly from 50th Street southbound as southbound vehicles will need to access Coloniale Way for both entering and existing the site. It is felt the distribution tables do not accurately reflect the traffic volume generated by the site for both primary and pass-by trips. 8. The parking bans as recommended in the Traffic Impact Assessment (TIA) produce conflicts with the use and enjoyment of the public open space to the north of the site. To confirm, the parking ban on the north side of Coloniale Way as indicated in Exhibit 6-1 is reasonable given the proximity to turning lanes. Coloniale Park does not have a dedicated parking area and on-street parking serves that need. Further, a future transit stop is tentatively planned for 50th Street north of Coloniale Way. An on-street parking ban on the south side of Coloniale Way may conflict for park users and potential transit users. 9. For sightline purposes, the TIA recommends landscaping be banned on Coloniale Way within 40m west of the access and 25m east of the access; however, no sightline analysis has been provided. The landscape plans dated April 8, 2016 provide for existing trees in this area to remain. The FVG (pg. 29) state that parking areas shall include appropriate landscaping to reduce the visual impact from public roadways, amenity areas and pedestrians, and would require landscaping to be enhanced in this area. Pedestrian access throrrgh the site has been accommodated with a concrete sidewalk from
50th street and a painted walkway on the east side. The painted walkway runs at 90 degree
angles and is not pedestrian focused for two reasons: it does not consider the natural desire line of pedestrians which is more meandering; and it does not provide a safe walking area for pedestrians with a clear separation from vehicles. Further, the site may attract noncustomer pedestrians to cut through the site and walk through vehicle travel spaces on the parking lot. 11. The pedestrian desire line along the south side of the store will encourage loitering at the rear of the store. A fence has not been proposed to protect/block this area as recommended in the CPTED (pg 7). 12. The south side yard setback adjacent to the residential developments is provided at the minimum amount necessary. 13. The solid waste/garbage area is too close to abutting residential properties and will generate noise and smells. It is anticipated that the wood trellis will impede truck access to the bins. Section 4.21.1(a) of the LUB states solid waste storage areas shall be located on a hard surfaced area not adjacent to residential lots. 14. Section 6.1.3 of the LUB requires the planting of trees within the parking area at a rate of 2 of parking lot area. The site is deficient by 9 trees (based on calculated parking lot 1/185m area). 15. The loading zone is placed in the designated pedestrian walkway.
4 16. Bike parking does not meet the minimum distance requirements of the Land Use Bylaw. 17. The developer has indicated an intention to subdivide the development area from the existing development. If the existing zoning remains as Cl Neighbourhood Commercial Convenience District, subdivision would not meet the minimum lot size requirements of the Land Use Bylaw. It is recommended that the site be developed comprehensively so that better use of the entire site is realized. —
To confirm, given the vehicle oriented nature of the development this development is not in an acceptable location. The Town supports commercial development in this area that conforms to the use prescribed for this site.