JANUARY 7, 2016 AGENDA. b) Bylaw No. B-59/2015, South Point Residential Neighbourhood Structure Plan

Transcription

1 MUNICIPAL PLANNING COMMISSION REGULAR MEETING CITY HALL COUNCIL CHAMBERS JANUARY 7, 2016 AGENDA 1. CALL TO ORDER :00 P.M. 2. ADOPTION OF MINUTES a) December 3, PUBLIC INPUT SESSION 4. NEW BUSINESS a) Sign Permit , Two digital signs Applicant: Five Star Permits Owner: Alberta Ltd. Location: Street SW Staff Contact: Diana Fletcher b) Bylaw No. B-59/2015, South Point Residential Neighbourhood Structure Plan Applicant: Brown and Associates Planning Group Owner: Vesta Properties Location: East of Hillcrest, South of Morningside & 40 th AV, West of CPR Staff Contact: Mark Spence c) Development Permit 57-15, Change of Use (Retail Sales to Automotive Sales) Applicant: Cam Clark Real Estate Corporation Owner: Cam Clark Real Estate Corporation Location: 613 Edmonton Trail Staff Contact: Stephen Utz

2 d) Variance Permit 64-15, Side yard setback Applicant: Nikolaus Demiantschuk, DLBH Law Owner: Aman and Pureet Chowdry, Gurpreet Bai Location: Range Road 293 Staff Contact: Stephen Utz e) Development Permit 43-15, Shopping Centre Applicant: Zeidler BKDI Architects Owner: Westmark Holdings Ltd. Location: 401 Cooper s BV SW Staff Contact: Stephen Utz 5. COUNCIL SYNOPSIS a) December 15, 2015 b) December 21, NEXT MEETING January 21, 2016 ADJOURNMENT

3 AIRDRIE MUNICIPAL PLANNING COMMISSION DECEMBER 3, 2015 Minutes of the Regular Meeting of the Airdrie Municipal Planning Commission, held in Council Chambers with the following: PRESENT Alderman Fred Burley (Chair) Aaron Holmes Allan MacEachen Dan Oneil Peter Schonekess Mark Steffler Karl Terry Manager of Planning & Sustainable Development Tracy Corbett Planner William Czaban Planner Sean Lapenna Planning Intern Karl Mielke Senior Subdivision Planner Phyllis Radke Team Leader, Planning Wilf Richter Senior Planner Stephen Utz Recording Secretary Kathryn Rushford ABSENT WITH REGRETS Alderman Allan Hunter Donelda Johnson CALL TO ORDER The Chair called the meeting to order at 7:00 p.m. with a quorum present. ADOPTION OF MINUTES A question was asked about the outstanding landscaping issue that was included under New Business. It was confirmed that the issue related to a complaint regarding weeds and was addressed at the previous meeting P-052 Approval of Minutes November 19, 2015 M. Steffler moved that the Airdrie Municipal Planning Commission adopt the minutes of the regular meeting of November 19, 2015 as presented. CARRIED PUBLIC INPUT SESSION There were no questions from the public. NEW BUSINESS Tentative Plan of Subdivision Hamilton Subdivision SU Applicant: Boundary Technical Group Owner: Alberta Ltd. (Hugh Hamilton)

4 Regular Meeting of Airdrie Municipal Planning Commission December 3, 2015 Page 2 Location: Plan , Block 15 Staff Contact: Phyllis Radke P. Radke presented Tentative Plan of Subdivision SU to create one 4.05 hectare (10.0 acre) parcel out of Plan , Block 15. P. Radke advised that the current owner will temporarily remain Alberta Ltd. (Hugh Hamilton) after the land has been subdivided. P. Radke confirmed that the purpose of the subdivision is to create a title to donate the land to the Airdrie Health Foundation. It was asked whether a feasibility study has been done for a possible health care facility on the site. P. Radke advised that a study has not been done and that a major impediment is that no services are being provided to the site. M. Steffler raised concerns about stormwater, further fragmenting the parcel, and speculators purchasing land and then a health care facility not being built on the site. Alderman Burley noted that this subdivision does not guarantee that a health care facility will be built in that location. The Airdrie Health Foundation could sell the land and use the money to purchase land elsewhere. P. Radke advised that if the land was transferred to another party, a land use bylaw amendment would be required unless the use is Government Services, and that even permitted uses must go through the development permit process. Concern was raised that development of the parcel may affect other parcels because of stormwater. P. Radke advised that a stormwater plan would be required that would ensure there is no stormwater impact on adjacent lands. D. Oneil advised that comments have been made by government officials questioning the owner s intentions for this subdivision. D. Oneil noted that he had no problems with the owner s intentions, particularly because a parcel to the south had been subdivided out to be donated to a church. D. Oneil was also supportive of keeping the pressure on Alberta Health Services for a 24 hour health care centre P-053 Approve Tentative Plan of Subdivision SU Prior to entering into a Deferred Servicing Agreement Prior to plan registration D. Oneil moved that the Airdrie Municipal Planning Commission approve Tentative Plan of Subdivision SU to create one 4.05 hectare (10.0 acre) parcel out of Plan , Block 15, subject to the following conditions and notations: 1. All outstanding taxes current from the date of application as to be paid to the City pursuant to the Municipal Government Act, Revised Statutes of Alberta, 2000, Chapter M Municipal Reserves in the amount of ha (1.00 ac) will be required with this Phase of subdivision. A deferred reserve caveat may either be placed on this parcel or on the remainder parcel to ensure the dedication has been met. 3. The Owner is to relocate the existing access on Range Road 292 in order to provide joint access to Lot 12 and the remainder parcel. Any existing accesses to the two sites will need to be removed and the area reclaimed. The new access must be built to a standard approved by Engineering Services. 4. The Owner is to enter into a Deferred Servicing Agreement. This

5 Regular Meeting of Airdrie Municipal Planning Commission December 3, 2015 Page 3 Agreement will indicate that development of the site will require the payment of levies associated with bylaws for transportation, wastewater, water supply and Stormwater. These amounts will be determined at development and will be dependent on the method of servicing for the site. Other 5. The Owner will be required to apply for a Development Permit for any future development on the site. Any development beyond current zoning on rural services will be subject to the requirement for a detailed servicing and Stormwater plan for the site. Approval of this subdivision plan does not constitute approval of any future development of the site, or commitment from the City to provide any infrastructure to accommodate this development. The site cannot accommodate urban development at this time. 6. Upon application for a Development Permit, the Owner will be required to provide information that identifies the extent of ecologically significant area that may be impacted by development as identified in the O2 Planning and Design study. This may determine the suitability of this area for development. 7. Compliance to be maintained with existing policy documents including but not limited to the Land Use Bylaw, to the satisfaction of the City of Airdrie. 8. Subdivision to be effected by Plan of Survey or other such means satisfactory to the Registrar. Notations 1. This permit is subject to all relevant environmental legislation and the Environmental Protection and Enhancement Act (Alberta). 2. It is the developer s responsibility to ensure that boundary grades tie in with adjacent property. 3. It is the developer s responsibility to determine whether the use approved by this tentative plan of subdivision is achievable or whether such use may be constrained or precluded by site conditions, including constraints on use resulting from environmental conditions or legislation or both. CARRIED by a vote of 6 in favour, 1 opposed Opposed: M. Steffler DISCUSSION ON DRAFT VERSION OF NEW LAND USE BYLAW Staff Contact: William Czaban T. Corbett introduced the team (William Czaban Project Lead, Stephen Utz - Project Advisor, Sean Lapenna, Karl Mielke and Wilf Richter) and outlined the main objectives for re-writing the Land Use Bylaw. W. Czaban gave a brief overview and highlights of the new Land Use Bylaw (LUB) and outlined the timeline. A question arose with respect to double garages on 38ft frontages in cul-desacs. W. Czaban advised that there will be a standard in the LUB for

6 Regular Meeting of Airdrie Municipal Planning Commission December 3, 2015 Page 4 measuring garages and driveways. In response to a question, W. Czaban advised that low impact development and alternative landscaping developments are addressed in the Landscaping chapter and align with the best practices of other municipalities. A comment was made that sidewalks should always be provided in this climate. W. Czaban clarified that low impact development refers to native landscaping, not sidewalks. A comment was made that the LUB says that solar panels are allowed anywhere, but page 124 says differently. W. Czaban clarified that anywhere means every district. The team will revisit the wording. It was noted that the LUB needs to hit the right balance to allow for innovative projects for renewal energy and yet maintain some control and predictability. In response to a question, W. Czaban confirmed that Airdrie developments are impacted by both Calgary International and the Airdrie Airport so the LUB will be looking at both. A question arose with respect to roof signs. S. Utz advised that wording can be imbedded in a roof or on a sign on top of the roof. All roof signs will come to MPC for approval. A comment was made that some of the sign tables have asterisks but no explanations. S. Utz advised that the asterisks are only placeholders at this time, but will be replaced by superscripts or something similar which will relate to notes below the table. It was questioned whether materials besides vinyl siding can be mandated for narrow lots. S. Utz advised that the LUB would not address specific materials. The requirements are set out in the Alberta Building Code. A question arose with respect to secondary suites in laned districts. W. Czaban address that the land use standards were deliberately made less stringent in laned districts as a subtle encouragement to build more laned product. A comment was made that the document is very concise, but there was no mention of cluster housing. S. Utz advised that cluster housing is simply attached housing where side or rear yards are traded for party walls or common areas. In response to a question, W. Czaban confirmed that the meaning of the word standard used in sign tables will be clarified. This was meant as typical signs for advertising, with no special purpose or modifiers. It was noted that the City will have to be adjudicators on exceptions and that flexibility will need to be built in for good ideas. Regarding how the LUB would apply to established areas, W. Czaban confirmed that the new land use districts will apply to all areas in Airdrie, and that the City will have to look at transitions when the new LUB comes forward. A comment was made that in the chart of engagement responses provided in staff s presentation, some developers were not satisfied with certain points. In response to a question whether it was the same developers that were not satisfied with each point, S. Utz advised that a variety of developers answered not satisfied to different points. S. Utz also advised that the team wants to do

7 Regular Meeting of Airdrie Municipal Planning Commission December 3, 2015 Page 5 another round of consultation and engagement before the LUB goes to Council. Some developers answered unsure or unclear because they didn t build that type of product. It was questioned whether the LUB can consider a small number of urban chickens rather than 0 or 20. S. Utz advised that the wording in the current draft mirrors Rocky View County s rules. T. Corbett advised that the LUB would not address urban agriculture. The Animal Control Bylaw has a provision for chickens and bees based on house or yard size (not districts). A question was asked about energy efficiency guidelines or LEED for districts. T. Corbett advised that energy efficiency elements are policy directed not bylaw directed and are included in the Building Code. Most municipalities will impose the guidelines on themselves first and will start with re-development projects. D. Oneil requested that the draft LUB be made available to MPC members in electronic format P-054 Accept draft version of Land Use Bylaw for information M. Steffler moved that the draft version of the new Land Use Bylaw be accepted for information. CARRIED INFORMALS MPC members asked whether it would be possible to get a twice yearly summary of the development pace in the City compared to the previous year; a status report of what has been approved and not acted on; and the results of SDAB applications that arise from MPC decisions. T. Corbett confirmed that staff can provide all of the requested information. Next Meeting NEXT MEETING The next regular meeting is scheduled for Thursday, December 17, Adjournment ADJOURNMENT The Chair declared the meeting adjourned at 8:15 p.m. Chairman Recording Secretary

8 Meeting Date (M/D/Y): January 7, 2016 MUNICIPAL PLANNING COMMISSION STAFF REPORT Subject: Proposal: Sign Development Permit # (SP) 2 Digital Fascia Signs st Street SW, Airdrie, Alberta Lot 4, Block 01, Plan CB Central Business District Report Summary: Apple Wellness Center provides a variety of healthcare services including Dental, Medical, Podiatry, Cosmetics, Laser Tattoo Removal, Chiropractor and Ophthalmology. Currently the centre has 5 signs; Three Fascia signs, one canopy signs and two window signs. The centre is proposing to add two additional Digital Fascia Signs. The proposed Digital fascia sign facing south (see Figure 1) is approximately 8 feet 9 inches wide and 4 feet 6 inches tall. The proposed Digital fascia sign facing west (see Figure 2) is approximately 8 feet 3 inches wide and four feet tall. The proposed signs are approximately the same size as the windows on the building. The purpose of the Digital Fascia signs is to advertise specials happening at the Apple Wellness Center. A review of the site plan in conjunction with an on-site inspection and an evaluation of the proposed signs against the City s Land Use Bylaw, does not indicate any site conditions or bylaw regulations that would prohibit these signs. The signs do not directly face any residential districts, and the signs do not detract from the design of the existing building and the surrounding properties. The property is zoned Central Business District (CB). The Land Use Bylaw requires any rotating signs, automatic changeable copy signs, animated, or flashing illuminated signs require approval from the Municipal Planning commission. The Planning Department has no concerns with the proposed signs as submitted and recommends their approval. Alternatives The MPC has four alternatives with respect to this appeal of the refusal of the Sign Development Permits: Alternative 1: To approve the signs as presented with the following conditions and notations: 1. All development shall be completed in accordance with the approved site and construction plans. 1

9 2. There shall be no video or moving images. 3. The minimum display time for a static image shall be no less than 7 seconds. 4. If any component on the sign fails or malfunctions in any way or fails to operate as indicated on the approved development permit plans, the sign owner must ensure that the sign is turned off until all components are fixed and operating as required. 5. All electronic message display areas must include a dimming feature that will automatically reduce the brightness level to adapt to the ambient light level. 6. All electronic message display areas will have a maximum light output of 7500 nits from sunrise to sunset and a maximum of 500 nits from sunset to sunrise. 7. There shall be no third party advertising allowed on these signs. Notations The City shall not be held liable for any injury, loss or damage suffered by any person or corporate body which is caused by any sign located in the City whether or not the sign is in accordance with the requirements of the Land Use Bylaw. Compliance is to be maintained with Land Use Bylaw No. 09/2005 (copy available City Hall and on the website at ). Alternative 2: To approve the application for the signs as presented with any conditions the Commission feels appropriate. Alternative 3: To Table the application for the Freestanding Signs pending additional information and/or changes to the proposed signs that MPC may require. Alternative 4: That MPC refuse the sign application as presented for the following reasons: The proposed signage does not meet the following sections of Land Use Bylaw B-09/2005: 2. Section 3-4(4) General Rules for Signs: (b) The size, location and materials of all signs and outdoor advertising structures and features shall not detract from the design of proposed and existing buildings and structures and the surrounding properties. Recommendation: That the MPC choose Alternative 1 thereby approving the proposed signs as submitted with the standard conditions and notations. Author: Diana Fletcher Departmental Review: Tracy Corbett Date: December 22, 2015 Attachments: Schedule A - Background Context Maps & Photos Schedule B - Application Summary Schedule C Planning Considerations and Land Use Bylaw Review Diana Fletcher Planning Technician 2

10 Schedule A: Background Information: OVERALL SITE PLAN SIGN LOCATION PLAN

11 SIGN SPECIFICATIONS - WEST ELEVATION (FIGURE 2)

12 SIGN SPECIFICATIONS - SOUTH ELEVATION (FIGURE 1)

13 SIGN LOCATION - SOUTH ELEVATION

14 SIGN LOCATION - WEST ELEVATION

15 EXISTING SIGNS

16 Schedule B Application Summary DP # (SP) Applicant: Owner: Five Star Permits 240 Parsons Road Okanagan Falls BC V0H 1R Alberta Ltd. Box 3267 Airdrie AB T4B 2B5 Legal Description: Plan Block 1 Lot 4 Civic Address: Proposed Uses: LUB District: Street SW - Airdrie, AB Two Digital Fascia Signs Central Business District - CB

17 Schedule C: Planning Considerations and Land use Bylaw Review: The following sections of Land Use Bylaw 09/2005 were used in evaluating the application: Section 1-3(a) - Definitions Sign means a lettered board or other public display intended for the advertising or calling attention to any person, business, matter, object or event. Sign, Fascia means a sign that is mounted on and parallel to the face of a building; Sign, Automatic Changeable Copy means a sign on which the copy changes automatically and may include such features as an electric message centre or time and temperature unit; Section 3-4, (1) Permits Required: Except as stated in Section 3-4(2), no sign shall be erected on land or affixed to any exterior surface of a building or structure unless a sign permit for this purpose has been issued by the Approving Authority. Section 3-4(4) General Rules for Signs (a) All signs shall be compatible with the general character of the surrounding streetscape and the architecture of nearby buildings (b) The size, location and materials of all signs and outdoor advertising structures and features shall not detract from the design of proposed and existing buildings and structures and the surrounding properties. (h) Any rotating signs, automatic changeable copy signs, animated, or flashing illuminated signs require approval from the Municipal Planning Commission. Section 3-4(5) Fascia Signs: (a) All fascia signs require a Development Permit, in accordance with Section 3-4(1) of this Bylaw except those fascia signs exempted by Section 3-4(2) of this Bylaw. (b) The total maximum sign area permitted for fascia signs is 20% of the area formed by each building face or bay. (c) A fascia sign shall not be located above any portion of a street, or project over public property, unless the fascia sign maintains a minimum clearance from grade of 3 metres and the maximum projection shall be no greater than 0.4 metres.

18 MUNICIPAL PLANNING COMMISSION AGENDA REPORT Meeting Date (M/D/Y): 01/07/2015 Subject: Bylaw No. B-59/2015: South Point Residential Neighbourhood Structure Plan Executive Summary: Administration recommends that Municipal Planning Commission (MPC) vote in favour of Alternative One in the Alternatives and Implications section of this report, thereby giving a recommendation to Council to adopt Bylaw B-59/2015, being the South Point Residential Neighbourhood Structure Plan (NSP). The applicant (Vesta Properties) originally brought forward the NSP concurrently with the South Point Commercial NSP (Bylaw No. B-5/2015) and an amendment to the South Airdrie Area Structure Plan (Bylaw No. B-4/2015). On August 20, 2015, MPC voted in favour of all three bylaws. However, at the Council meeting held on September 8, 2015, Council adopted Bylaw No. B-4/2015 and Bylaw No. B-5/2015, but defeated the South Point Residential NSP (Bylaw No. B-6/2015). The main issues with Council (as identified by staff) were: Council percieved the size of the multi-family site as being too large and the number of multi-family units being too many; There was an uncertainty with how the multi-family site would appear; There was an uncertainty with how the cluster or innovative housing would appear and a concern over the lack of definition to those terms; and There were some traffic concerns particularlly with the timing of the construction of 40 th Avenue bridging over the CPR tracks and connecting to Main Street and Highway 2. Administration considers the latest version of the South Point residential NSP as an impovement over the original NSP because the applicant has addressed the concerns of Council (listed above) by: Reducing the number medium and high density multi-family homes, and thereby decreasing the overall density of the NSP area; Including preliminary multi-family site plans and perspective illustratives in the NSP; Replacing the former cluster housing areas with more traditional housing forms; and Providing timing agreements for major regional infrastructure improvement projects.

19 Development Overview: Vesta Properties, the owner of the subject parcel, has applied for a modified South Point Residential NSP document, which is included within the recently amended South Airdrie Community Area Structure Plan. The NSP site is situated east of Hillcrest, south of Morningside and 40 th Avenue, and west of the CPR tracks (refer to the Context Map below). There are agricultural lands to the south. The site area is just over 70 acres and the plan proposes 587 residential units, half of a shared school site, two parks and an off-leash dog park. The townhouses and apartments would comprise 57% of the housing mix, with single family and semi-detached comprising the other 43%. The proposed gross density is 8.3 units per acre (upa). The proposed residential lands are currently vacant and devoid of structures. Until a few years ago, the site had a temporary recreational vehicle (RV) storage facility located on the northern half of the parcel and is currently zoned as Direct Control District Eighteen (DC-18). The rest of the parcel in the southern portion is zoned UH. If the NSP is approved by Council, the applicant intends to immediately apply for a land use amendment for the first phase of development (roughly comprising the northern half of the NSP area. Context Map:

20 Planning Review: AirdrieOne Sustainability Plan Review: An analysis was made to establish how the proposed NSP aligns with the sustainability objectives outlined in AirdrieONE: Economic Prosperity: The proximity of the proposed residential NSP area to the commercial NSP area promotes people s access to employment areas. Built Environment: The proposed NSP is a logical extension of the built environment; The proposed NSP street grid minimizes road infrastructure for the City to maintain; The proximity of the proposed residential NSP area to existing (Sierra Springs) and future (South Point Commercial) retail centres promotes people s access to shopping opportunities and other services. Socially Sustainable Communities: The increased MR dedication and pathway connections in the proposed residential NSP contribute to an active, livable community; The proposed residential NSP provides a range of housing opportunities including a potentially high percentage of affordable housing in the multi-family housing areas. Sustainable Transportation: The 40 th Avenue Main Street connection potentially improves goods movements in the City; The proximity of the proposed residential NSP area to the nearby retail centres reduces people s dependency to drive to shopping opportunities and employment areas; The proposed residential NSP locates its higher density housing near major arterial and collector routes which have the most potential to accommodate public transit. Airdrie City Plan Review: The subject area, which formerly had a generalized land use of Light Industrial, acquired the designation of Residential when the Airdrie City Plan was adopted by Council in 2014 (refer to the graphic below). Therefore, the proposed NSP concept would conform to the intensions of the Airdrie City Plan.

21 South Airdrie Area Structure Plan Review: The subject land lies within the South Airdrie Area Structure Plan (ASP). Originally, the ASP designated the subject land as Light Industrial. An ASP amendment was brought to Council on September 8, 2015 which ran concurrent to the original South Point Residential NSP proposal. Although the residential NSP was defeated, the ASP amendment passed. The amendment was necessary to bring the ASP into alignment with the Airdrie City Plan. The amended ASP concept now shows the subject area as a mix residential and multi-family uses, including the school site shared with Hillcrest (see below). Land Use Bylaw Review: Much of the northern portion of the subject area is currently zoned as Direct Control District Eighteen (DC-18), which allows for a temporary recreation vehicle (RV) storage facility. The site has not been used for this purpose for over the past five years. The remainder of the site is zoned Urban Holding (UH) (see graphic below showing current land use). If the South Point Residential NSP is approved, the applicant plans to followup soon after with a land use application for the first phase of residential development.

22 Rationale for Planning Recommendation: Planning had supported the original South Point Residential NSP, along with the South Point Commercial NSP and South Airdrie ASP. Although all three items were endorsed by MPC on August 20, 2015, Council voted to defeat the residential NSP. Council s concerns are listed in the Executive Summary of this report (refer to page 1). Staff feels that the current resubmission has adequately addressed each of those concerns: 1. Size of Multi-Family Site and Number of Units: The applicant has addressed this concern by breaking up the large multi-family parcel (which was more than 12 acres) into four smaller parcels containing distinct housing types. Public roads are used to help define the parcels and to better facilitate traffic movement. A new road is proposed along the public utility lot (PUL) corridor, thereby connecting the multi-family roads to the residential street grid. These changes would result in a reduction of 32 multi-family units in the northern portion of the plan area. 2. Appearance of Multi-Family Area: Council was concerned that the last NSP did not adequately illustrate how the multi-family area may be developed and what the housing would look like. The applicant responded by creating an illustrative plan of the multi-family area, which includes images of intended product types (refer to page 61 in the NSP). The applicant also provides perspective (or bird s eye ) renderings of the multi-family areas (pages 62 and 63). A comprehensive illustrative of the entire NSP area, showing individual building footprints, has also been provided to illustrate how the multi-family housing fits in with the rest of the housing within the plan. 3. Uncertainty with Cluster or Innovative Housing: In the last submitted NSP, the applicant identified two areas on the plan where they intended to pursue a housing option that would be considered unique. However, Council deemed that these areas were too vague and were not willing to give their approval without further details. The applicant decided to abandon the cluster housing idea, in favour of parkfronting two-story townhouses, which would be similar to Vesta s green street concept located in Williamstown. Illustrations of this concept can be found on pages 33 and Traffic Concerns: There were some members of Council who were concerned about traffic generated from the proposed development and if the surrounding road network was adequate. Planning and Engineering have been working closely with Vesta to ensure that the timing of major road improvement projects including the extension of 40 th Avenue over the CPR tracks and connecting to Main Street would commence in conjunction with the first phases of residential development. The Transportation Section (page 38) and the Implementation Section (page 55) both detail the timing of the road work and servicing projects.

23 Alternatives and Implications: The Municipal Planning Commission (MPC) has three alternatives with respect to the proposed bylaw: Alternative One: To recommend that Council adopt Bylaw No. B-59/2015 (South Point Residential NSP), as presented. If Council decides to adopt the proposed bylaw, the applicant would then be allowed to proceed with applying for land use, and then (if land use is approved) subdivision and development permits based on the NSP. Alternative Two: To recommend that Council table Bylaw No. B-59/2015. Choosing this option means MPC feels that more information or modifications should be made to the NSP before Council gives a final decision. Tabling the bylaw would result in delaying a final decision for the proposed NSP. Alternative Three: To recommend that Council defeat Bylaw No. B-59/2015. If Council decides to ultimately defeat the proposed NSP, residential development within the subject area would not proceed and there could be significant implications for completing the 40 th Avenue extension and connection to Main Street. Planning s Recommendation: That MPC recommends that Council adopts Bylaw No. B- 59/2015 as presented. Mark Spence Senior Planner Presenter: Mark Spence Attachments: Bylaw No. B-29/2015; South Point Residential NSP

24 Appendix 1: Application Summary (Bylaw No. B-59/2015 South Point Residential NSP) Application Summary Applicant Owner Legal Description Location Brown and Associates Planning Group Vesta Properties Block 1, Lot 2, Plan , west portion of NE ¼ W5M East of Hillcrest, South of Morningside & 40 th Ave, West of CPR Planning Designation Summary Airdrie City Plan (Municipal Development Plan) South Airdrie Area Structure Plan (ASP) Land Use Bylaw (LUB) Existing Uses The subject area within the City Plan s Land Use Concept is identified as Residential. The subject area within the South Airdrie ASP is a mix of Low Density and Medium Density Residential. Land Use is not being applied for at this time. Vacant

25 BYLAW NO. B-59/2015 OF THE CITY OF AIRDRIE IN THE PROVINCE OF ALBERTA BEING A BYLAW of the City of Airdrie, in the Province of Alberta, to adopt Bylaw No. B- 59/2015, being the South Point Residential Neighbourhood Structure Plan. WHEREAS under the authority and subject to the provisions of the Municipal Government Act, Revised Statutes of Alberta 2000, Chapter M-26, and amendments thereto, the Council of the City of Airdrie may adopt an Area Structure Plan; and WHEREAS Council has adopted the South Point Residential Neighbourhood Structure Plan as Bylaw No. B-59/2015; and, WHEREAS Council deems it desirable to enact the said Bylaw in the manner below; NOW THEREFORE the Municipal Council of the City of Airdrie in Council duly assembled adopts Bylaw No. B-59/2015, being the South Point Residential Neighbourhood Structure Plan, in the manner as written and illustrated in the attached Schedule A. READ a first time this day of, READ a second time this day of, READ a third time this day of, EXECUTED this day of, 2016 MAYOR CITY CLERK

26 BYLAW NO. B-59/2015 SCHEDULE A SOUTH POINT RESIDENTIAL NSP DOCUMENT

27 MUNICIPAL PLANNING COMMISSION AGENDA REPORT Meeting Date (M/D/Y): 01/07/2016 Subject: Development Permit Change of Use (Retail Sales to Automotive Sales) 613 Edmonton Trail Block 2, Plan 933LK, excepting Road Plan Description and Background: The subject property had been used for Retail Sales (Farm and Ranch Supply Store) since Within approximately the last year, United Farmers of Alberta (UFA) has relocated from Edmonton Trail to the Highland Park Industrial area. Cam Clark Ford has made an application to use the vacated parcel for Autmotive Sales (Used Car Sales and New Vehicle Storage). The intended use is Discretionary in the Convenience Commercial (C-C) District and is being brought to Municipal Planning Commission (MPC) for a decision (Appendix 1). Context Map:

28 Planning Review: Municipal Development Plan Review Map 1 of the Municipal Development Plan designates the subject parcel as Commercial Services. Policies regarding the development of Service Commercial and Gateways are found in Sections 5.30 to 5.31, presented as follows: Service Commercial areas provide a range of commercial and retail services to the traveling public and accommodate those commercial uses that rely on highway visibility, such as vehicular sales and service The City will encourage a high level of visual quality at the major gateway areas by: a) Placing City of Airdrie entrance features, signage and landscaping at key locations; b) Ensuring that commercial and industrial buildings visible from major transportation routes incorporate high standards of landscaping, signage, exterior finish and architectural interest; c) Restricting visually impactful uses, such as heavy industry, industrial and vehicular storage, and billboard signs from the gateway locations The City will ensure that corridor and highway-oriented developments exhibit quality design treatments on all sides of the building visible from public roadways and adjacent residential uses. These land use policies identify vehicular sales and service as an anticipated land use in the lands designated for Commercial Services, which helps to guide the application of Discretionary Uses in the Convenience Commercial (C-C) land use district. To meet the policies of Section 5.30(b)(c) and Section 5.31, the applicants are proposing to improve the aesthetics of the existing buildings by painting them blue and white (corporate colours of Ford Canada), adding new doors, new non-illuminated signage and showroom windows. Vehicular storage will be limited to the northern portion of the site, involving new automobiles only, and will be screened with the addition of plastic slats between the existing chain link fence, as well as 8.5m (27 9 ) of landscaping. This meets the intent of Section 5.30(c) to the satisfaction of Administration. Land Use Bylaw Review Automotive Sales represent a Discretionary Use in the Convenience Commercial (C-C) District. Policies of the Municipal Development Plan, noted above, indicate that vehicle sales are an anticipated use for lands designated as Commercial Services, which includes the subject property. Administration supports the change from Retail Sales to Automotive Sales, provided that the potential impacts on use, enjoyment, amenity and value are mitigated successfully. Specific sections of the Land Use Bylaw relevant to this application have also been reviewed. Setbacks for all buildings have been met except that the westernmost building (Building #3) has a rear property setback of 7.41m. This building was approved as an

29 Accessory Building in 1992 when the setback requirement for an Accessory Building was 1.00m. However, this provision of the Land Use Bylaw has been removed and the current requirement of the Land Use Bylaw is an 8.00m rear yard setback. The building enjoys legal non-conforming status, but was not intended to become legal non-conforming. Administration recommends that a variance to allow the building to become conforming be included in the conditions of approval (Appendix 2). Parking requirements for Automotive Sales are specified as one stall per 40m 2 of gross floor area (GFA). The total GFA for the three buildings on site is m 2, which results in a requirement of 47 parking stalls. However, the typical Automotive Sales operation involves vehicle servicing, which dramatically increases the demand for on-site customer parking. The operation of this site will not involve the servicing of vehicles and industry standards estimate between four and six vehicle sales per day. Industry standards also estimate that each vehicle sale will generate approximately six trips per day. This will generate approximately 36 customer vehicle trips per day and accordingly, 13 parking stalls for customers is deemed to be sufficient. Administration recommends a variance of 34 stalls (72.3%) as a condition of Development Permit approval. Changes have been made to the Alberta Building Code (2014) to require additional aisle space between barrier-free stalls. For this application, if a variance to the required parking count is provided, then the number of barrier-free parking stalls required for this development is two, equal to the number provided. The plans will need to be revised if 26 or more stalls are deemed required for customer parking stalls on site by the Municipal Planning Commission in order to meet the new Alberta Building Code. Administration recommends the variance for customer parking stalls be complemented by keeping the requirement for barrier-free parking stalls at two, as provided. The barrier-free parking stalls that have been provided are also complemented with a new barrier-free access walkway into the showroom and office building, meeting the requirements of the Land Use Bylaw. The landscaping proposed for this application represents 14.8% of the site area and therefore exceeds the 10% minimum required under Section 5-1(5)(a) of the Land Use Bylaw. Section 3-3(1)(i) of the Land Use Bylaw requires a minimum 6.0m landscaping buffer for all commercial sites. This is complemented by Section 5-1(5)(b) of the Land Use Bylaw, which requires a 6.0m landscaping buffer along major roads, which would include Edmonton Trail for the purposes of this application. As Automotive Sales represent a Discretionary Use, Administration determined that additional landscaping area should be provided along the western boundary, adjacent to the residential lots that are located north of the Town and Country Centre. Accordingly, the application has been amended to provide an 8.5m landscaping buffer along the western property line and two areas of entry feature landscaping along the access from Edmonton Trail. When combined with the rear yard setback of the properties most affected along Flett Crescent, the total landscaping buffer is approximately 23m (75 5 ). Administration considers this to be a sufficient buffer, especially with the provision of 21 coniferous trees to provide year-round landscaping cover. The 21 coniferous trees represent 55% of the trees to be provided in the enhanced landscaping area and this far exceeds the 25% minimum requirement of Section 3-3(2)(f) of the Land Use Bylaw. The callipers and heights of the proposed trees meet the minimum requirements of the Interpretation Memo developed by Administration in April 2015 (Appendix 3), but would technically require a variance from the Planning Commission.

30 The final aspect of the Land Use Bylaw review involves Section 5-1(5)(c) and Section 5-1(5)(d), which require landscaped parking islands containing at least two trees each for parking lots with 50 or more parking stalls. Administration contends that the proposed variance for customer parking stalls, which would require the development to provide only 13 on-site customer stalls, eliminates these requirements. However, a variance to this requirement has been drafted in the proposed conditions of Appendix 2. The development proposal is compliant with the Land Use Bylaw in all other respects and efforts have been made by the applicants to address other impacts relating to the development of the site, as can be seen below. Other Site Development Issues Notification letters regarding this proposed development were sent to adjacent landowners and four responses were received. Some residents indicated that they did not support the proposal while others noted that they could support the use if the issues of lighting, noise, landscaping and traffic were addressed. With respect to lighting, the applicants have indicated that they will use 7.0m lighting standards with LED display that will be dimmed after hours. The lighting standards closest to the residents on Flett Crescent will be shielded to reduce the light intensity to the west. The photometric plan (Appendix 2) and supporting letter from the lighting engineer (Appendix 4) confirm that the approach is in keeping with best practices. The proposed lighting standard is well below the 9.14m maximum of Section 3-2(7) and is deemed acceptable to Administration. Noise related to the operation of the car dealership will be kept to a minimum by avoidance of loud speakers to page employees, the lack of a vehicle servicing department and unloading of new inventory during regular business hours. Landscaping along the western boundary has been increased to 8.5m, which combined with the rear yard setback of adjacent residents, provides approximately 23m of buffer between the proposed Automotive Sales and the existing residential lots. The proponents have also provided the majority of trees as coniferous species in order to provide yearround screening. Traffic for the proposed development is anticipated to be limited to approximately customer trips per day, plus the associated trips of staff members, channeled exclusively through the main entrance on Edmonton Trail. ISL Engineering has conducted a review of the anticipated trips per day for Automotive Sales versus that of the previous Retail Sales on behalf of the City of Airdrie and determined that the number of trips should be equal to or less than the previous land use. The applicants have worked with Administration to clean up the site by providing new gravel and grading throughout the site. Administration has granted permission for an oil-grit separator to be installed on the site in advance of any land use decision in order to improve the overall storm water quality from the site. Additionally, the applicants are willing to add an

31 emergency fire access on the western portion of the site and will clean up the existing fencing, which has come into disrepair. Despite the nature of some automotive dealerships, the applicants have indicated that they will remove the existing barbed wire on top of the existing fencing and therefore become compliant with Section 5-1(5)(k)(i) of the Land Use Bylaw. These combined efforts do much to reduce the impact of the change of use from Retail Sales to Automotive Sales and has the support of Administration. Alternatives and Implications: The Municipal Planning Commission (MPC) has three alternatives for the proposed bylaws: Alternative One: That Municipal Planning Commission approves Development Permit 57-15, in accordance with the conditions found in Appendix 2. Approval of Development Permit would change the use from Retail Sales to Automotive Sales in accordance with the approved plans and conditions of approval, including the variances included in the conditions of approval. Alternative Two: That Municipal Planning Commission table Development Permit 57-15, subject to further information being presented. Tabling Development Permit would allow Municipal Planning Commission to request any additional information required in order to make a decision on the application. Alternative Three: To refuse Development Permit Refusing Development Permit would not allow the Change of Use to occur and the site would remain vacant until an alternate use could be applied for an approved for the site by Planning Commission. Planning s Recommendation: That MPC approves Development Permit in accordance with the conditions of approval included in Appendix 2. Presenter: Stephen Utz, RPP, MCIP, Senior Planner Signature: Approved By: Wilf Richter, Team Leader Signature: Appendices: 1. Development Permit Plans 2. Recommended Conditions of Approval 3. Landscaping Interpretation Memo 4. Supporting Letter from Lighting Engineer (Design Core)

32

33 Appendix 2: Recommended Conditions of Approval 1. All development, including the location, orientation, capacity and use of buildings and any landscaping and site improvements, shall be completed as per the approved plans and in accordance with the requirements of the City of Airdrie s Land Use Bylaw and Engineering Standards, to the satisfaction of the City of Airdrie, notwithstanding any variances granted by the Development Authority. 2. Prior to Development Permit issuance, a detailed cost estimate for the landscaping, including all site work and irrigation work, will be required and must be provided for review and approval. Following approval of this cost estimate, a Letter of Credit will be required in the amount of 150% of the established/accepted costs of the landscaping and site work. 3. Prior to Development Permit issuance, the developer/owner shall enter into a Development Agreement with the City of Airdrie pursuant to the City of Airdrie Land Use Bylaw No. B- 09/2005 and Section 650 (1) of the Municipal Government Act. 4. Prior to Development Permit issuance, the developer/owner shall submit copies of the following plans to the satisfaction of the City of Airdrie Engineering Services Department: a. Site servicing plan; b. Site grading/drainage plan; c. Erosion sediment control plan. 5. This development is approved with a variance of 0.59m (7.4%) to the required rear yard setback of 8.00 found in Section 5-4(5)(e) of Land Use Bylaw B-09/2005 for Building #2, allowing it to remain with a rear yard setback of 7.41m. 6. This development is approved with a variance of 34 stalls (72.3%) from the requirement of 47 stalls calculated under Section 3-2(2)(b) of Land Use Bylaw B-09/2005, allowing 13 parking stalls to be provided for customer use. 7. This development is approved with a variance of 15mm (17.7%) to the required calliper of 85mm for large deciduous trees found in Section 3-3(2)(e) of Land Use Bylaw B-09/2005, allowing large deciduous trees to be planted with a calliper of 70mm. 8. This development is approved with a variance of 0.50m of height (16.7%) to the required height of 3.0m for large coniferous trees found in Section 3-3(2)(e) of Land Use Bylaw B-09/2005, allowing large coniferous trees to be planted with a height of 2.50m. 9. This development is approved with a variance of 0.5m (25.0%) to the required height of 2.0m for small coniferous trees found in Section 3-3(2)(e) of Land Use Bylaw B-09/2005, allowing small coniferous trees to be planted with a height of 1.50m.

34 10. This development is approved with a variance of 100% of the requirement for landscaped parking islands found in Section 5-1(5)(d) of Land Use Bylaw B-09/2005, allowing the customer parking and vehicle storage areas to be developed without landscaped parking islands. 11. The area around the construction site shall be kept clear of equipment and debris, and construction materials, including garbage, shall be stored so as not to create a nuisance to neighbouring properties. 12. Prior to Development Completion Certificate (DCC) issuance, the developer/owner shall provide the City of Airdrie with a letter from an Engineer registered and certified to practice in the Province of Alberta confirming that the site servicing and grading/drainage has been constructed according to the approved plans. 13. Prior to Development Completion Certificate (DCC) issuance, digital and hard copy as built drawings of the site servicing and grading/drainage shall be submitted to the satisfaction of the City of Airdrie Engineering Services Department. Legal Notifications Any signage in addition to that shown on the approved plans will require a separate sign permit application. Any and all required traffic/vehicle signage shall be the responsibility of the developer, to the satisfaction of the Development Officer. All site accesses and sidewalks are to be designed and constructed to the satisfaction of the City of Airdrie. Prior to the commencement of any work on or within a City street, right-of-way, or other City owned property, application must be made to and approved by the City of Airdrie Engineering Services Department. All other necessary permits and inspections are the responsibility of the applicant including, but not limited to, Building Permits and Fire Approval and shall be submitted to the City as required. This permit is approved with the understanding that there are no offsite effects. Compliance shall be maintained with the Municipal Government Act (Alberta) and the City of Airdrie Land Use Bylaw No. B-09/2005 (copy available at City office), site and elevation plans, and this permit. This permit is subject to all relevant environmental legislation and the Environmental Protection and Enhancement Act (Alberta). The City of Airdrie Engineering Services Department requires the following with respect to service ties to City infrastructure: 1) A Transportation Accommodation Strategy a minimum of 3 days prior to road closures/detours; 2) A minimum of 48 hours notice for service ties to street; and 3) Street rehabilitation to an asphalt standard for service.

35 It is the owner s responsibility to determine whether the use approved by this Development Permit is, in fact, achievable or whether such use may be constrained or precluded by site conditions including constraints on use resulting from environmental conditions or legislation, or both. The developer/owner is responsible for coordinating and making all necessary arrangements with relevant utility providers. All other necessary permits and inspections are the responsibility of the applicant including, but not limited to, Building Permits and Fire Approval and shall be submitted to the City as required. Please note that this approval pertains to site development only. Permits under the Alberta Building Code and Fire Code may be required. Please contact the Building Department at and/or the Fire Department at

36 City of Airdrie Memo To: From: Urban Development Institute (Calgary) Planning & Development Services Date: April 27, 2015 Re: Interpretation of Section 3-3(2)(e) and Section 3-3(2)(f) of Land Use Bylaw B-09/2005 Section 3-3(2)(e) Minimum Required Tree Sizes: The present requirement of Section 3-3(2)(e) of the Land Use Bylaw, in conjunction with Section 3-3(2)(c), is to have at least 50% of the required deciduous trees planted at an 85mm calliper, with the remainder being allowed to be planted at a 50mm calliper. Similarly, a minimum of 50% of the required coniferous trees are to be provided at a minimum height of 3.00m at the time of planting, with the remainder being allowed to be provided at a minimum height of 2.00m at the time of planting. The intent of these requirements is to ensure adequate landscaping is in place at the time of occupancy (or completion of a development) and that there is some built-in life-cycling of the landscaping that is planted at the time of the development. The issue is that deciduous trees that have a calliper of 85mm or greater tend not to survive as frequently as younger, smaller versions of the same species and also tend not to grow as quickly when they do survive. Similarly, if not irrigated adequately at the time of planting, coniferous trees with a height of 3.00m also tend not to survive as frequently or grow as quickly. The end result is that many trees forming part of the development landscaping requirements are being replaced before the warranty period expires. This delays the aesthetic intent of the landscaping and the release of on-site securities relating to landscaping. Planning & Development Services intends to bring forward a new Land Use Bylaw in Q that would provide the following recommendation to Council for this section (changes noted in bold italics): TREE TYPE Deciduous Trees (small) Deciduous Trees (large) Coniferous Trees (small) Coniferous Trees (large) Shrubs CALLIPER / HEIGHT 50mm calliper 70mm calliper 1.50m height 2.50m height 0.60m height or spread Until the new LUB has been adopted by Council, this interpretation of the minimum tree callipers and heights shall govern. The deviation from the LUB requirement shall be captured by the Development Authority as a condition of DP approval. All other requirements of Section 3-3 shall remain in force. 1

37 Section 3-3(2)(f) Required Variety of Trees: The present wording of Section 3-3(2)(f) states: The ratio of deciduous to coniferous trees shall be 3:1 with not more than 1/3 of the deciduous being poplar. Strictly speaking, this means that there must be exactly three deciduous trees provided for every coniferous tree provided and that therefore trees would have to be provided for a development in multiples of four, even where the minimum required ratio would not require four trees, or any multiple thereof. Previously, Planning & Development Services has interpreted this section of the Land Use Bylaw to mean that there must be at least three deciduous trees for every coniferous tree provided. This would mean that there would be no theoretical limit to the number of deciduous trees that could be provided, up to 100% of the minimum tree requirement. The issue is that this does not promote appropriate tree variety year-round and also adequate foliage in winter conditions. Accordingly, Planning & Development Services will now be interpreting this section, in concert with Section 3-3(2)(d) and Section 3-3(2)(e), as follows: Of the minimum number of trees required for any development, there shall be: A minimum of 25% of the required trees provided as coniferous trees; Up to 75% of the required trees provided as deciduous trees; Not more than 1/3 of deciduous trees provided as: o Poplar trees, OR; o Shrubs, provided at ratio of three (3) shrubs for every required deciduous tree All trees and shrubs must continue to meet the minimum height, calliper and spread requirements of Section 3-3(2)(e) as noted earlier in this memo. Developers are still required to provide a summary table of the following as part of their Development Permit applications in order for these applications to be deemed complete: a) Species types; b) Callipers, or heights and/or heights/spreads as applicable to trees and shrubs respectively, and; c) A count of all types of species of trees and shrubs Where there may be doubt or interpretation as to whether or not a species is a coniferous tree or a deciduous tree, the applicant shall specify in the DP submission and the interpretation of the Development Authority shall govern. This section will also be revised as part of the new Land Use Bylaw anticipated to be adopted in Q

38 Project Name: Cam Clark UFA Lighting Airdrie Designcore Project No Date: December 22, 2015 R1.0 To: The City of Airdrie 400 Main Street SE Airdrie, AB, T4B 3C3 To whom it may concern, The owner has suggested matching the pole luminaire of the neighboring property, the CREE BetaLED Light Fixture c/w 60 LEDs, Cat No. ARE-EDG-3M-DA-60-D-UL-WH-700. Where poles are backing on to the property line, rear shielding will be provided to reduce light trespass as well as nuisance glare caused by the pole luminaires. As such we have been requested to model the preferred luminaire and confirm if it is an acceptable alternate to what the original issued drawings had specified. Please refer to the new set of drawings, Issued for Construction rev. 1 - dated December 22, 2015 for revision to new pole luminaire. We believe this luminaire is meets the recommended standards as regulated by the City of Airdrie. Per, Glen Beaudoin, P.Eng. LEED AP, LC Principal Designcore Engineering Ltd. Designcore Engineering Ltd. Unit st St. S.W. Calgary, Alberta, Canada T2G 4Y8 T: F: W: Page 1 of 1

39 MUNICIPAL PLANNING COMMISSION AGENDA REPORT Meeting Date (M/D/Y): 01/07/2016 Subject: Variance Permit Range Road 293 Lot 1, Block 1, Plan Description: A Real Property Report (RPR), signed on June 30, 2015, identified an Accessory Building (shed) as Detail C on the subject property. The RPR established a setback to the side (north) property line for the Accessory Building (shed) as 1.17m. The subject property is part of the lands annexed in 2012 from Rocky View County (RVC). The Variance Permit application (VP64-15) being brought before the Municipal Planning Commission is being made to allow a Compliance Certificate to be issued and the property sold legally. Context Map:

40 Planning Review: Land Use Bylaw Review The subject property falls under the Residential One District (R-2) of the Rocky View County Land Use Bylaw. Section (b) of that Land Use Bylaw requires a 6.00m setback for side yards not adjacent to a county road or highway. This requirement of the Rocky View County Land Use Bylaw does not distinguish between principal buildings and accessory buildings. The Accessory Building identified as Detail C in the Real Property Report submitted to the City of Airdrie has a side yard setback of 1.17m as its smallest dimension, which would represent a 4.83m (80.5%) variance from the minimum standard. Section of the Rocky View County Land Use Bylaw sets a limit of three accessory buildings per property in the R-2 district and Section 47.9 sets a cumulative limit of 225m 2 of building area for all accessory buildings. The subject property has two accessory buildings (see Detail B and Detail C in the Real Property Report), which have a cumulative building area of m 2. This is a variance of m 2, or 82.5% above the maximum area permitted under Section 47.9 of the Rocky View County Land Use Bylaw. The property is compliant with the regulations of the Rocky View County Land Use Bylaw in all other respects. Administrative Review The Accessory Building identified as Detail C in the RPR was constructed sometime between the previous compliance review in 1987 and the current request. This building is being used for storage of equipment related to the household and day care operation. Administration has reviewed the property and the placement of the accessory buildings and has determined that there will be no impact on the use, enjoyment, amenity or value of the adjacent property. It is noted that the adjacent property no longer has a residence on it and that the eastern portion of that property is currently being used for agricultural pursuits. The parcels within this portion of the lands annexed from Rocky View County are likely to receive comprehensive policy plans prior to consolidation and subdivision. This will impact which buildings will remain on site in the long term. Alternatives and Implications: The Municipal Planning Commission (MPC) has three alternatives for the proposal: Alternative One: That Municipal Planning Commission approves Variance Permit 64-15, in accordance with the conditions found in Appendix 2, which would grant an 80.5% variance to Section (b) of the Rocky View Land Use Bylaw for the shed shown as Detail C in the Real Property Report, and an 82.5% variance to the maximum 225m 2 building area set out in Section 47.9 of the Rocky View County Land Use Bylaw.

41 Approval of these variances would allow both existing accessory buildings to remain in place. The building identified in Detail C of the Real Property Report would require a Building Permit. Alternative Two: That Municipal Planning Commission table Variance Permit 64-15, subject to further information being presented. Tabling Variance Permit would allow Municipal Planning Commission to request any additional information required in order to make a decision on the application. Alternative Three: To refuse Variance Permit Refusing Variance Permit would not allow the accessory buildings to remain as sited and would require one or more modifications to their configuration, including potential removal of building(s), in order to become compliant with the Rocky View County Land Use Bylaw. Planning s Recommendation: That MPC approves Variance Permit in accordance with the conditions of approval included in Appendix 2. Presenter: Stephen Utz, RPP, MCIP, Senior Planner Appendices: 1. Real Property Report (June 30, 2015) 2. Recommended Conditions of Approval

42 January 7, 2016 Nikolaus Demiantschuk, DLBH Law 1200, th Street SW Calgary, AB T2R 1J4 Dear Mr. Demiantschuk, Subject: Development Permit Application No (VP) (Variance) Lot 1, Block 1, Plan Range Road 293 Airdrie, Alberta Your Development Permit application for a variance was reviewed by the Municipal Planning Commission on January 7, At that time your application was approved, subject to the following conditions of approval: 1. That Section (b) of the Rocky View County Land Use Bylaw be varied by 80.5% to allow the side yard setback of 1.17m to remain for the Accessory Building identified in Detail C of the Real Property Report signed and dated June 30, That Section 47.9 of the Rocky View County Land Use Bylaw be varied by 82.5% to allow the combined building area of m 2 for the Accessory Buildings located on site to remain. 3. Prior to the issuance of the Development Permit, all Building Code requirements for the Accessory Building identified as Detail C in the Real Property Report signed and dated June 30, 2015, including the issuance of a Building Permit if required, shall be met to the satisfaction of the Development Authority. The mandatory fourteen day appeal period shall commence from the first date of publication, Friday January 15, Provided that an appeal is not registered prior to Friday January 26, 2016 at 4:30 p.m., and that all required conditions are complied with, a copy of the permit shall be sent to you. Should you have any questions regarding this matter, please contact the Planning Department at Yours truly Stephen Utz, RPP, MCIP Senior Planner, Planning & Development

43 MUNICIPAL PLANNING COMMISSION AGENDA REPORT Meeting Date (M/D/Y): 01/07/2016 Subject: Development Permit Shopping Centre (Retail Sales; Service Station; Restaurants, Major; Restaurants, Minor with Drive Throughs) 401 Cooper s Boulevard SW Lot 1, Block 37, Plan Description of Application: The Development Permit application before Municipal Planning Commission (MPC) is for a Shopping Centre, which is a Discretionary Use in the Direct Control 40 (DC-40) District. The Development Permit application incorporates a total of 10 buildings which range in size from 147m 2 to 3,615m 2, with a total footprint of 11,517m 2 (+/- 124,000ft 2 ). The development includes uses (Retail Sales, Service Station, Restaurant, Major and Restaurant, Minor with Drive Through) that form part of the proposed Shopping Centre and which are also Discretionary in the DC-40 District. The discretionary nature of the overall land use as well as the supporting land uses are rationale to bring this application to MPC for decision. Context Map:

44 Planning Review: Airdrie City Plan (MDP) Review Map 1 of the Municipal Development Plan identifies the subject parcel as Community Commercial, which is intended to serve a population trade area of 8,000-12,000 residents. Policies regarding the development of Community Commercial areas are found in Sections 5.32 to 5.35 of the Airdrie City Plan and the Shopping Centre proposed in this DP application (Appendix 1) meets the overall objectives of these policies by: Providing retail formats capable of serving the neighbourhoods of Cooper s Crossing, Windsong and Hillcrest; Incorporating gathering places and plazas in the southwest, central and northeast portions of the development site, and; Arranging pedestrian corridors throughout the site so as to provide direct connection opportunities between buildings, bus stops and the surrounding residential communities. Administration is generally very satisfied with the public realm elements and pedestrian connections presented as part of the Development Permit application plans. As can be seen in Drawing DP02 of Appendix 1, prominent sidewalks and pathways facilitate pedestrian movements between all buildings on the site and to the external bus stop (east of Building G) and pathways leading out into the adjacent residential areas. The site design includes two prominent plaza areas in the southwest and northeast corners and a central tower as a focal point just north of Building F. Multiple buildings, most notably Building C, Building D and Building F include main floor or second floor outdoor patios. Drive-throughs, garbage enclosures and loading bays have been generally kept to the exterior of the site, which allows the area between Buildings C, D and F in particular, to provide an inviting opportunity for pedestrians to move, shop, and mingle with ease. Considerable thought has been placed on the overall orientation and scale of the buildings and there are a number of design elements added to each building (i.e. awnings, balconies, bay windows, etc.) to improve the aesthetic appeal. In particular, an effort has been made to reduce parking areas between Buildings C, D and F and to move loading movements to the exterior of the site. These combined efforts place considerably more emphasis on the pedestrian movements than the vehicular movements and are supported by Administration. The emphasis on the pedestrian movements throughout the site also allow for a consumer to park once and shop at multiple locations, which provides a better shopping experience. Community Area Structure Plan Review The subject parcel falls under the Cooper s Town Community Area Structure Plan (CASP). Relevant commercial policies are found in Section 3.6 of the CASP and include requirements to locate commercial uses along collector and arterial roads, incorporate strict

45 architectural guidelines for those commercial developments and to reduce lighting, signage and odour problems from the commercial uses, especially restaurants. Administration has determined that the building designs proposed in this application are aesthetically pleasing, use high-quality materials and provide visual interest along all elevations for all buildings (see Drawings DP05 to DP25 in Appendix 1). The lighting (photometric) plan included as Drawing E-01.1A in Appendix 1 confirms that the light intensity from this development is well-contained and will not exceed 1.0 lux (equivalent of light at dusk) at any property boundary. Garbage enclosures are well-screened, as shown in Drawing DP29 of Appendix 1 and the restaurant uses are generally placed a good distance from the residential properties located closest to this commercial site. Neighbourhood Structure Plan Review The Guiding Principles for the commercial development site can be found in Section 2.4 of the Cooper s Crossing Stage 4 Neighbourhood Structure Plan (NSP). Sections and of the NSP reinforce the importance of excellent building design and pedestrian connectivity, which is largely achieved to the satisfaction of Administration in this application. However, the placement of Building E, which intercepts a primary pedestrian link identified in Exhibit 4 and Exhibit 5 (shown below) of the NSP does not meet the intent of the NSP to the satisfaction of Administration. Administration recommends that Building E be moved from its current location on the site plan shown in Appendix 1 to a location further to the east or southeast in order to provide the pedestrian corridor and line of sight into the commercial development area intended in the NSP. Recommended site plan modifications, included in Appendix 3, address this. Land Use Bylaw Review The subject property has a land use district governed by Direct Control 40 (DC-40). The purpose and intent of DC-40 is to provide for the comprehensive development of a community scale shopping centre that may include office, institutional or recreational uses.

46 A compatible interface with the adjacent residential areas is also a requirement. Administration has determined that the purpose and intent of this district has been met with this application, as the site has been comprehensively-designed, has been connected with internal pathways, and includes building designs that are as attractive on the rear facades which face adjacent residential developments, as they are at their respective main entries. Administration has reviewed this application against all other aspects of DC-40 and noted compliance with the Bylaw, except in the size of the floor area for three buildings and the provision of access points and circulation routes within the development site. Section 8-41(4)(e)(ii) limits the size of the ground floor area (i.e. footprint) of the buildings on the site to be 930m 2, except for two buildings. This application includes three buildings (Building F, Building G and Building J) that have footprints which exceed 930m 2. However, there is a breezeway included as part of Building F and its central location also helps to reduce the visual impact of a larger building footprint. Administration contends that the inclusion of a third building with a footprint of 930m 2 (+/- 10,000ft 2 ) will not have a measurable impact on the adjacent residential developments and accordingly has included a variance in the recommended conditions of approval found in Appendix 2. Section 8-41(5)(d)(iii) of the Land Use Bylaw notes that vehicular access and circulation routes, including loading facilities, waste/recycling collection, and snow storage or removal must be addressed to the satisfaction of the Development Authority. At present, the site plan included in the Development Permit application includes the following accesses from the site onto the local road network: Two all-turn accesses onto Cooper s Boulevard; One right-in and right-out access onto Cooper s Boulevard (for the gas bar); One right-in and right-out access onto 8 Street, and; One right-in and right-out access onto 40 Avenue Whereas Exhibits 3 and 4 of the NSP did not consider a right-in and right-out (RIRO) access onto Cooper s Boulevard, Administration has conducted a review of this access with support from our consultants at ISL Engineering and determined it to be acceptable. While there is some concern about eastbound traffic weaving into the RIRO access after coming southbound from 8 Street, the distance of the RIRO access on Cooper s Boulevard meets standard minimum spacing requirements. Additionally, this access provides convenient fuel delivery for the gas bar, by creating a route completed exclusively with right-hand turns around Building A. This avoids the prime pedestrian areas in the north-central portion of the site and provides convenience for the fuel truck driver. However, there are no exhibits in the NSP which identify the provision of a RIRO access along 40 Avenue. The applicants have indicated that this access is necessary for the viability of the commercial site and for ease of delivery to the grocery store in the southeast of the site. Administration does not support this access for a number of reasons, including the existing language/exhibits of the NSP, the impacts on the capacity of the westbound lanes of 40 Avenue which direct traffic to 8 Street, the interruption to the sidewalk on 40 Avenue, the lack of deceleration space and the potential for weaving to/from the access.

47 Watt Consulting Group (WCG) provided Traffic Impact Assessments (TIA) during circulation of the DP application at the request of Administration, and these have been included in Appendix 4. ISL Engineering reviewed the TIA documentation provided and the conclusion made by WCG regarding the RIRO access on 40 Avenue is not supported (Appendix 5). Additionally, ISL Engineering has conducted a review of the time taken to reach parking stalls within the southeastern portion of the site and has determined that a RIRO access will only save the average consumer between 11 and 16 seconds to reach a parking stall (Appendix 6). In the opinion of Administration, this means publicizing the risks/costs (i.e. vehicle weaving, increased queue lengths and acceleration of arterial road capital projects) for private benefit (reduced time for consumers to reach parking stalls). A recommended change to the site plan to remove the RIRO access onto 40 Avenue is shown as part of Appendix 3 and captured in the conditions found in Appendix 2. Review of this application under the Land Use Bylaw has also involved a check of the general regulations, including those regarding parking and landscaping. The parking requirements for a Shopping Centre are specified as one stall per 17m 2 of gross floor area (GFA). The total GFA for all buildings on site is 11,517m 2, which would result in a requirement of 678 parking stalls if the ratio for Shopping Centre were used exclusively for this application. However, providing stalls exclusively under this ratio would make the minimum Floor Area Ratio (FAR) of 0.20 for this site difficult to achieve (the current proposed FAR is with 482 parking stalls provided). The applicants have provided a table indicating the parking ratios employed for the various land uses included in the application as Appendix 7. This table proves, to the satisfaction of Administration, that the appropriate ratio of parking stalls (i.e. one stall per 37m 2 for Retail Sales and one stall per four seats in a Restaurant) is being used in accordance with the Land Use Bylaw and typical industry standards. Administration supports the provision of 482 parking stalls for this development and recommends that MPC define the parking ratios by the land use table provided in Appendix 7. Defining the parking ratios in this fashion would negate the requirement for a variance as part of the conditions of approval found in Appendix 2. The landscaping proposed for this application represents 16.76% of the site area and therefore exceeds the 10% minimum required under Section 5-1(5)(a) of the Land Use Bylaw. Section 3-3(1)(i) of the Land Use Bylaw requires a minimum 6.0m landscaping buffer for all commercial sites and this has been achieved for this application. The total landscaping area provided (+/- 8,286m 2 ) requires the applicants to provide 332 trees. For this application, a total of 443 trees have been provided. The applicants have provided 25% of the required 332 trees as coniferous trees, for a total of 83 coniferous trees. Additionally, a total of 2476 shrubs have been provided. All of the callipers and heights of the proposed trees meet the minimum requirements of the Interpretation Memo developed by Administration in April 2015 (Appendix 8), but would require a variance from MPC. All of this soft landscaping complements the hard landscaping that has been included as pathways, plazas and gathering areas. Administration supports the landscaping plans provided as part of this Development Permit application. Overall, Administration recommends support of this application in conjunction with the site plan changes recommended as part of Appendix 3 and in keeping with the recommended conditions of approval found in Appendix 2 of this report.

48 Alternatives and Implications: Municipal Planning Commission has four alternatives for the proposed DP application: Alternative One: That Municipal Planning Commission approves Development Permit 43-15, in accordance with the conditions of approval found in Appendix 2. Approval of Development Permit in accordance with the conditions of approval found in Appendix 2 would approve the development subject to the removal of the right-in and right-out access along 40 Avenue, the relocation of Building E and the required variances to floor area and tree callipers and heights. Parking calculations would be made according to the table found in Appendix 7. Alternative Two: That Municipal Planning Commission approves Development Permit 43-15, in accordance with the conditions of approval of its own discretion. Approval of Development Permit in accordance with the conditions of its own discretion would allow Municipal Planning Commission to approve the development with alternate conditions, which may include an alternate approach to parking standards, landscaping interpretations and access points. Alternative Three: That Municipal Planning Commission table Development Permit 43-15, subject to further information being presented. Tabling Development Permit would allow Municipal Planning Commission to request any additional information required in order to make a decision on the application. Alternative Four: To refuse Development Permit Refusing Development Permit would not allow the proposed Shopping Centre to be developed and the site would remain vacant until an alternate use, or uses, could be applied for and approved by Planning Commission. Planning s Recommendation: That MPC approves Development Permit in accordance with the conditions of approval included in Appendix 2. Presenter: Signature: Approved By: Signature: Stephen Utz, Senior Planner Tracy Corbett, Manager of Planning & Sustainable Dev t Appendices: 1. Proposed Development Permit Plans 2. Recommended Conditions of Approval 3. Recommended Site Plan Modifications 4. Traffic Impact Assessment Memos (Watt Consulting Group) 5. Traffic Impact Assessment Reviews (ISL Engineering) 6. Parking Stall Driving Time Analysis (ISL Engineering) 7. Proposed Parking Stall Ratio Table 8. Landscaping Interpretation Memo

49 Appendix 2: Recommended Conditions of Approval 1. All development, including the location, orientation, capacity and use of buildings and any landscaping and site improvements, shall be completed as per the approved plans and in accordance with the requirements of the City of Airdrie s Land Use Bylaw and Engineering Standards, to the satisfaction of the City of Airdrie, notwithstanding any variances granted by the Development Authority. 2. Prior to Development Permit issuance, a detailed cost estimate for the landscaping, including all site work and irrigation work, will be required and must be provided for review and approval. Following approval of this cost estimate, a Letter of Credit will be required in the amount of 150% of the established/accepted costs of the landscaping and site work. 3. Prior to Development Permit issuance, the developer/owner shall enter into a Development Agreement with the City of Airdrie pursuant to the City of Airdrie Land Use Bylaw No. B- 09/2005 and Section 650 (1) of the Municipal Government Act. 4. Prior to Development Permit issuance, the developer/owner shall submit copies of the following plans to the satisfaction of the City of Airdrie Engineering Services Department: a. Site servicing plan; b. Site grading/drainage plan; c. Erosion sediment control plan. 5. Prior to Development Permit issuance, the developer/owner shall submit an updated site plan that removes the right-in and right-out (RIRO) access from the subject property onto 40 Avenue and relocates Building E so as to avoid the pedestrian pathway corridor, as shown conceptually in Appendix 3 of the report to the Municipal Planning Commission dated January 7, 2016, to the satisfaction of the Development Authority. 6. Any use of a building or bay within a building not specifically defined by this approval shall require a Change of Use (Tenancy) Development Permit approval from the Development Authority. 7. This development is approved with a variance of 33.3% to the maximum number of buildings that may have a floor area greater than 930m 2, as outlined in Section 8-41(4)(e) of Land Use Bylaw B-09/2005, allowing three buildings to have a floor area greater than 930m Parking requirements for this development shall be defined according to the ratios found in Appendix 7 of the report to the Municipal Planning Commission dated January 7, 2016 and a minimum of 430 parking stalls shall be provided for the uses identified in this approval. Changes of use, or of intensity of use, may change the minimum parking stall requirements. 9. This development is approved with a variance of 15mm (17.7%) to the required calliper of 85mm for large deciduous trees found in Section 3-3(2)(e) of Land Use Bylaw B-09/2005, allowing large deciduous trees to be planted with a calliper of 70mm.

50 10. This development is approved with a variance of 0.50m of height (16.7%) to the required height of 3.0m for large coniferous trees found in Section 3-3(2)(e) of Land Use Bylaw B-09/2005, allowing large coniferous trees to be planted with a height of 2.50m. 11. This development is approved with a variance of 0.5m (25.0%) to the required height of 2.0m for small coniferous trees found in Section 3-3(2)(e) of Land Use Bylaw B-09/2005, allowing small coniferous trees to be planted with a height of 1.50m. 12. The area around the construction site shall be kept clear of equipment and debris, and construction materials, including garbage, shall be stored so as not to create a nuisance to neighbouring properties. 13. Prior to Development Completion Certificate (DCC) issuance, the developer/owner shall provide the City of Airdrie with a letter from an Engineer registered and certified to practice in the Province of Alberta confirming that the site servicing and grading/drainage has been constructed according to the approved plans. 14. Prior to Development Completion Certificate (DCC) issuance, digital and hard copy as built drawings of the site servicing and grading/drainage shall be submitted to the satisfaction of the City of Airdrie Engineering Services Department. Legal Notifications Any signage in addition to that shown on the approved plans will require a separate sign permit application. Any and all required traffic/vehicle signage shall be the responsibility of the developer, to the satisfaction of the Development Officer. All site accesses and sidewalks are to be designed and constructed to the satisfaction of the City of Airdrie. Prior to the commencement of any work on or within a City street, right-of-way, or other City owned property, application must be made to and approved by the City of Airdrie Engineering Services Department. All other necessary permits and inspections are the responsibility of the applicant including, but not limited to, Building Permits and Fire Approval and shall be submitted to the City as required. This permit is approved with the understanding that there are no offsite effects. Compliance shall be maintained with the Municipal Government Act (Alberta) and the City of Airdrie Land Use Bylaw No. B-09/2005 (copy available at City office), site and elevation plans, and this permit. This permit is subject to all relevant environmental legislation and the Environmental Protection and Enhancement Act (Alberta).

51 The City of Airdrie Engineering Services Department requires the following with respect to service ties to City infrastructure: 1) A Transportation Accommodation Strategy a minimum of 3 days prior to road closures/detours; 2) A minimum of 48 hours notice for service ties to street; and 3) Street rehabilitation to an asphalt standard for service. It is the owner s responsibility to determine whether the use approved by this Development Permit is, in fact, achievable or whether such use may be constrained or precluded by site conditions including constraints on use resulting from environmental conditions or legislation, or both. The developer/owner is responsible for coordinating and making all necessary arrangements with relevant utility providers. All other necessary permits and inspections are the responsibility of the applicant including, but not limited to, Building Permits and Fire Approval and shall be submitted to the City as required. Please note that this approval pertains to site development only. Permits under the Alberta Building Code and Fire Code may be required. Please contact the Building Department at and/or the Fire Department at

52