A I’l’l ,I( ‘A’IION IOlkNl : l”I)evcIopiiiciit I’criitit

11 IlIIil(litt$ I’t’tiiit

D (all D Mail D l’iClIII)

A. (;INFRAL

PC. T.2M P..iPhone h

___________________________________

I-ax)) —‘.

Cl

Imail to .r

NOTIj: If applicant is not the owner. proofofauthorizati n to NOact as ti:icnt is requited from the ownei

Rein stered owner (if not applicant)

Name Cti li-S (coxtc % ARIA?. 11t,eLnaw’Mailine Address

_________________________________________

Postal Code p.0.

Phone #

_______

tdentiHcation D Driver’s License Other

Abscncc of Aliandoned Wells on Parcel declaration iteeded

[OWN OF BEAUMONT51,0(1-49 Streetlleuiiniont, Alberta [4X I ,t. Il’li,,ne: (780) 929-8782Fax: (780) 929—3301)

F tijail developijicitta l)C,CU niont.ib.caLot B loc[ ‘lan / Mun ici pal Address

4 CoLon

— I

Construction Value S ,414pReceipt))

Application)) C/Cr .9c‘

Fees: Development Pcrmit ,‘l. ‘.Q4 2 / CBuilding Permit

______________________________________

, iik:licd’Garai

- Sat’Code Coincil Fee

______________________________

I 2 5 Datnage/PerforInance

_______________________________

Street Cleanin Fee

__________________________________

‘ -Cotrucucsn tlaterLot Grading Inspection

________________________________

Meter Installation

______________________________________________

GS.T.

lIminess License

_______________________________________

F P & Gas

_____________________________________

Nouticatton Fee. -e,Je’ic,,’

TOT,)L FEES: j-4 9 f9

iC,LJCL

Q rr-,r OFt M4

B. DEVELOPMENT PERMITO Permitted Use0 Permitted Use with VarianceI” l)iscretionary Use

Upper Floor Areas M/ I louse Type

Main Floor Area Land Use District (Basement I’loor Area Tax Roll hi/ATotal Dcv, Area t7 21 Subdiviston j/

APPLICANT AUThORIZATION ND Al’I’E AL PROCESS1. 1 am the owner agent with the con,,etit and authority of the on ner that is the wbject mitten (if this penlut application.2. 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 ihe right to enter theland 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

- / o I

DECISION: OApproved DApproved subject to conditasns helowor attached DReh’used

--

-1Ie& )p rYAt

Notice of Decision: 4’ i D Date h’uhhsltcd’ J ?O6 Appeal l.xpirx’ Date:

sisttimt/Development Officer: j’La Date:

C. BUILDING PERMI’I’ - Note: Building Permit is valid for one (1) year from date of issuance

APPLICANT AUTh IORIZATIONI am the ow ncr/uncut with the coutseiti ittd authority of the ow icr tltit is the subject mutter of this build, ic permit ,ipplicat on.

Stgnature Date:

DECISION: DApproved C Approved subject to conditions below or attached ORet’used

ENGIXEEREI) FILl. — SIBMIT INGS 0 YFS ONO

Saielv Codes Ofticcr 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 iAi ori7Si’’’’’

M 55311 - kveiopwu, Lund Ure i ,r,,,,i)I,,e,e Pecan Fern, 1 Chegktj,ti\Hon,r Permit FormOPDeveiopnreni Bldg Prrm,i iti,,k 2)11 5-Oi -iii doe — iipdotd 2015-112-113

Permit #: 2016-220

DEVELOPMENT PERMIT DECISION

Based on the plans issued for development approval dated April 8, 2016, and relateddocumentation, this is to advise that this permit has been refused. You may appeal the decisionto the Subdivision and Development Appeal Board (SDAB) within 14 days. Developmentmay not continue at this time. If an appeal is filed, you will receive written notification and anotice will be placed in The Beaumont News of any appeal hearing date. The SDAB is anindependent body established by Town Council. Its decisions can only be overturned by theCourts 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’sdowntown core. This requires the transport of dangerous goods through the centre ofBeaumont. Other route options from the south would require travel through residentialneighbourhoods. This is out of scale for the pedestrian environment. The site design doesnot 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 ofthe gas bar is more acceptable to be adjacent to medium density housing due to increasedsetbacks; separated from adjacent development by common areas (parking lots, greenspace); and is buffered from adjacent development because it has greater landscapingrequirements. Existing development on the east side of 50th Street is primarily low densityresidential and institutional. There is no buffer to the existing single family residentialdweffings abutting this property.

3. It does not meet Municipal Development Plan Policy 8.3.5(c). It does not meet the intent ofthe 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 onsurrounding properties. This consideration has not been given to this site design.

• Pedestrian circulation through the site is not adequately designed to separate pedestrianand 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 bemaintained by the Developer as per Development Agreement until Colonialedevelopment area has been fully built out. It is acknowledged that the plans submittedshow the retention of this sign. The FVG would support the permanent retention of thissign.

2

CPTED suggests use of paving stones or stamped concrete to identifyvehicle/pedestrian crossings. The developer has decided to install speed bumps at theselocations to assuage resident concerns. The paving stones or stamped concrete wouldbetter meet the FVG.

• Site lighting locations have not been provided. Lighting designs have not yet beensubmitted.

• Parking along the west side of the property may interfere with proposed vehiclemovement 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 channellettering 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 abutting singlefamily dwellings will be negatively impacted as this materially interferes with the amenitiesand enjoyment of the neighbourhood due to light, noise and vehicular traffic generatedfrom the site.

5. The queuing diagram for each of the pump islands assumes customers travel into the sitefrom the south. Given the all directional on Coloniale Way, there are more ways to enter thesite and many combinations of queuing which should be considered. Those that block theparking maneuvering or other queuing areas are an issue. With the information providedby the applicant, it appears the site is overdeveloped and/or too small for the proposeddevelopment.

6. The Traffic Impact Assessment (TIA) focused mainly on traffic volumes, speed and theentrance 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 TIAindicates AM peak volumes in this area are between 7:15 AM and 8:30 AM (pg 6). Given theschool approximately 200m from the site, little data is provided on the effect this entrancewould have on pedestrians. The TIA recommends pedestrian volumes are monitoredduring the spring and fall, once the development is operational. Pedestrian volumes andoperation should be considered prior to development.

7. Distribution Table 4-4 in the TIA indicates the highest volume of primary trips to come fromRue 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 tohave the highest volume of pass-by trips. This also appears inaccurate given the site cannotbe accessed directly from 50th Street southbound as southbound vehicles will need to accessColoniale Way for both entering and existing the site. It is felt the distribution tables do notaccurately 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 conflictswith the use and enjoyment of the public open space to the north of the site. To confirm, theparking ban on the north side of Coloniale Way as indicated in Exhibit 6-1 is reasonablegiven the proximity to turning lanes. Coloniale Park does not have a dedicated parking areaand on-street parking serves that need. Further, a future transit stop is tentatively plannedfor 50th Street north of Coloniale Way. An on-street parking ban on the south side ofColoniale Way may conflict for park users and potential transit users.

9. For sightline purposes, the TIA recommends landscaping be banned on Coloniale Waywithin 40m west of the access and 25m east of the access; however, no sightline analysis hasbeen provided. The landscape plans dated April 8, 2016 provide for existing trees in thisarea to remain. The FVG (pg. 29) state that parking areas shall include appropriatelandscaping to reduce the visual impact from public roadways, amenity areas andpedestrians, and would require landscaping to be enhanced in this area.

Pedestrian access throrrgh the site has been accommodated with a concrete sidewalk from50th street and a painted walkway on the east side. The painted walkway runs at 90 degreeangles and is not pedestrian focused for two reasons: it does not consider the natural desireline of pedestrians which is more meandering; and it does not provide a safe walking areafor pedestrians with a clear separation from vehicles. Further, the site may attract non-customer pedestrians to cut through the site and walk through vehicle travel spaces on theparking lot.

11. The pedestrian desire line along the south side of the store will encourage loitering at therear of the store. A fence has not been proposed to protect/block this area as recommendedin the CPTED (pg 7).

12. The south side yard setback adjacent to the residential developments is provided at theminimum amount necessary.

13. The solid waste/garbage area is too close to abutting residential properties and willgenerate noise and smells. It is anticipated that the wood trellis will impede truck access tothe bins. Section 4.21.1(a) of the LUB states solid waste storage areas shall be located on ahard 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 of1/185m2of parking lot area. The site is deficient by 9 trees (based on calculated parking lotarea).

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 theexisting development. If the existing zoning remains as Cl — Neighbourhood CommercialConvenience District, subdivision would not meet the minimum lot size requirements of theLand Use Bylaw. It is recommended that the site be developed comprehensively so thatbetter use of the entire site is realized.

To confirm, given the vehicle oriented nature of the development this development is not in anacceptable location. The Town supports commercial development in this area that conforms tothe use prescribed for this site.