agenda - City of Airdrie

Transcription

MUNICIPAL PLANNING COMMISSION
REGULAR MEETING – CITY HALL COUNCIL
CHAMBERS
JANUARY 7, 2016
AGENDA
1. CALL TO ORDER ------------------------------------------------------------------------ 7:00 P.M.
2. ADOPTION OF MINUTES
a) December 3, 2015
3. PUBLIC INPUT SESSION
4. NEW BUSINESS
a) Sign Permit 188-15, Two digital signs
Applicant:
Owner:
Location:
Staff Contact:
Five Star Permits
1066096 Alberta Ltd.
229 1 Street SW
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 & 40th AV, West of CPR
Staff Contact: Mark Spence
c) Development Permit 57-15, Change of Use (Retail Sales to Automotive Sales)
Applicant:
Owner:
Location:
Staff Contact:
Cam Clark Real Estate Corporation
Cam Clark Real Estate Corporation
613 Edmonton Trail
Stephen Utz
d) Variance Permit 64-15, Side yard setback
Applicant:
Nikolaus Demiantschuk, DLBH Law
Owner:
Aman and Pureet Chowdry, Gurpreet Bai
Location:
272194 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, 2015
6. NEXT MEETING ----------------------------------------------------------------- January 21, 2016
ADJOURNMENT
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.
2015-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-13-15
Applicant: Boundary Technical Group
Owner: 408269 Alberta Ltd. (Hugh Hamilton)
Regular Meeting of Airdrie Municipal Planning Commission
December 3, 2015
Page 2
Location: Plan 7610596, Block 15
Staff Contact: Phyllis Radke
P. Radke presented Tentative Plan of Subdivision SU-13-15 to create one 4.05
hectare (10.0 acre) parcel out of Plan 7610596, Block 15. P. Radke advised
that the current owner will temporarily remain 408269 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.
2015-P-053
Approve Tentative Plan of
Subdivision SU-13-15
D. Oneil moved “that the Airdrie Municipal Planning Commission approve
Tentative Plan of Subdivision SU-13-15 to create one 4.05 hectare (10.0 acre)
parcel out of Plan 7610596, Block 15, subject to the following conditions and
notations:
Prior to entering into a Deferred
Servicing Agreement
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-26.
Prior to plan registration
2. Municipal Reserves in the amount of 0.405 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
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
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
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.
2015-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, 2015.
Adjournment
ADJOURNMENT
The Chair declared the meeting adjourned at 8:15 p.m.
_________________________________
Chairman
_________________________________
Recording Secretary
MUNICIPAL PLANNING COMMISSION
STAFF REPORT
Meeting Date (M/D/Y):
January 7, 2016
Subject:
Sign Development Permit #188-15 (SP)
Proposal:
2 Digital Fascia Signs
229 1st Street SW, Airdrie, Alberta
Lot 4, Block 01, Plan 8110225
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
2.
3.
4.
5.
6.
7.
There shall be no video or moving images.
The minimum display time for a static image shall be no less than 7 seconds.
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.
All electronic message display areas must include a dimming feature that will
automatically reduce the brightness level to adapt to the ambient light level.
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.
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 www.airdrie.ca ).
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.
______________________________
Diana Fletcher
Planning Technician
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
2
Schedule A: Background Information:
OVERALL SITE PLAN
SIGN LOCATION PLAN
SIGN SPECIFICATIONS - WEST ELEVATION (FIGURE 2)
SIGN SPECIFICATIONS - SOUTH ELEVATION (FIGURE 1)
SIGN LOCATION - SOUTH ELEVATION
SIGN LOCATION - WEST ELEVATION
EXISTING SIGNS
Schedule B Application Summary
DP #188-15 (SP)
Applicant:
Five Star Permits
240 Parsons Road
Okanagan Falls BC V0H 1R3
Owner:
1066096 Alberta Ltd.
Box 3267
Airdrie AB T4B 2B5
Legal Description:
Plan 8110225 Block 1 Lot 4
Civic Address:
229 1 Street SW - Airdrie, AB
Proposed Uses:
Two Digital Fascia Signs
LUB District:
Central Business District - CB
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.
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
40th 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.
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 40th 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:
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 40th 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.
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.
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 64.
4. 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
40th 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.
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
40th Avenue extension and connection to Main Street.
Planning‘s Recommendation: That MPC recommends that Council adopts Bylaw No. B59/2015 as presented.
Mark Spence
Senior Planner
Presenter: Mark Spence
Attachments: Bylaw No. B-29/2015; South Point Residential NSP
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 0411653, west portion of NE ¼ 25-26-1-W5M
East of Hillcrest, South of Morningside & 40th 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
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. B59/2015, 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 ____________________, 2016.
READ a second time this _________ day of ____________________, 2016.
READ a third time this ___________ day of ____________________, 2016.
EXECUTED this _________ day of _______________, 2016
MAYOR
________________________________________
CITY CLERK
BYLAW NO. B-59/2015
SCHEDULE ‘A’
SOUTH POINT RESIDENTIAL NSP DOCUMENT
Subject:
01/07/2016
Development Permit 57-15
Change of Use (Retail Sales to Automotive Sales)
613 Edmonton Trail
Block 2, Plan 933LK, excepting Road Plan 081 4697
Description and Background:
The subject property had been used for Retail Sales (Farm and Ranch Supply Store) since
1989. 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:
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.
5.30.
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.
5.31.
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.
“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
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).
2
Parking requirements for “Automotive Sales” are specified as one stall per 40m of gross
2
floor area (GFA). The total GFA for the three buildings on site is 1844.51m , 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.
The final aspect of the Land Use Bylaw review involves Section 5-1(5)(c) and Section 51(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 30-50
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
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.
The Municipal Planning Commission (MPC) has three alternatives for the proposed bylaws:
Alternative One: That Municipal Planning Commission approves Development Permit 5715, in accordance with the conditions found in Appendix 2.
Approval of Development Permit 57-15 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 57-15 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 57-15.
Refusing Development Permit 57-15 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 57-15 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)
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. B09/2005 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.
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.



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.
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
403-948-8832 and/or the Fire Department at 403-948-8880.
City of Airdrie
Memo
To:
Urban Development Institute (Calgary)
From:
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 Q4 2015 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
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 Q4 2015.
2
Project Name:
Designcore Project No.
Date:
Cam Clark UFA Lighting Airdrie
15201
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 100 - 4723 1st St. S.W.
Calgary, Alberta, Canada T2G 4Y8
T: 403-269-2125 F: 403-269-2155 W: www.designcore.ca
Page 1 of 1
Subject:
01/07/2016
Variance Permit 64-15
272194 Range Road 293
Lot 1, Block 1, Plan 851 0752
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:
Planning Review:
The subject property falls under the “Residential One District (R-2)” of the Rocky View
County Land Use Bylaw. Section 47.5.3(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 47.10 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 225m2 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
2
2
area of 410.07m . This is a variance of 185.07m , 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.
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 47.5.3(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 225m2 building area set out in Section
47.9 of the Rocky View County Land Use Bylaw.
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 64-15 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 64-15.
Refusing Variance Permit 64-15 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 64-15 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)
January 7, 2016
Nikolaus Demiantschuk, DLBH Law
1200, 1015 – 4th Street SW
Calgary, AB | T2R 1J4
Dear Mr. Demiantschuk,
Subject:
Development Permit Application No. 64-15 (VP) (Variance)
Lot 1, Block 1, Plan 851 0752
272194 Range Road 293 – Airdrie, Alberta
Your Development Permit application for a variance was reviewed by the Municipal Planning
Commission on January 7, 2016. At that time your application was approved, subject to the
following conditions of approval:
1. That Section 47.5.3(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, 2015.
2. That Section 47.9 of the Rocky View County Land Use Bylaw be varied by 82.5% to
allow the combined building area of 410.07m2 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, 2016. 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
403-948-8848.
Yours truly
Stephen Utz, RPP, MCIP
Senior Planner, Planning & Development
Subject:
01/07/2016
Development Permit 43-15
Shopping Centre (Retail Sales; Service Station; Restaurants, Major;
Restaurants, Minor with Drive Throughs)
401 Cooper’s Boulevard SW | Lot 1, Block 37, Plan 151 2868
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
2
2
2
2
from 147m to 3,615m , with a total footprint of 11,517m (+/- 124,000ft ). 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:
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
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 2.4.3 and
2.4.4 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.
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.
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 930m2, except for two buildings. This application includes three buildings
(Building F, Building G and Building J) that have footprints which exceed 930m2. 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 930m2 (+/- 10,000ft2) 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.
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 17m2 of gross floor area
2
(GFA). The total GFA for all buildings on site is 11,517m , 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 0.233 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 37m2 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
2
landscaping area provided (+/- 8,286m ) 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.
Municipal Planning Commission has four alternatives for the proposed DP application:
Alternative One: That Municipal Planning Commission approves Development Permit 4315, in accordance with the conditions of approval found in Appendix 2.
Approval of Development Permit 43-15 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 4315, in accordance with the conditions of approval of its own discretion.
Approval of Development Permit 43-15 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 4315, subject to further information being presented.
Tabling Development Permit 43-15 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 43-15.
Refusing Development Permit 43-15 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 43-15 in
accordance with the conditions of approval included in Appendix 2.
Presenter:
Signature:
Stephen Utz, Senior Planner
Approved By:
Signature:
Tracy Corbett, Manager of Planning & Sustainable Dev’t
Appendices:
1. Proposed Development Permit Plans
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
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. B09/2005 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 930m2, 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 930m2.
8. 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.
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.
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.
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.
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
403-948-8832 and/or the Fire Department at 403-948-8880.
City of Airdrie
Memo
To:
Urban Development Institute (Calgary)
From:
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 Q4 2015 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
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 Q4 2015.
2
COUNCIL SYNOPSIS
December 15, 2014
At the Regular Meeting of December 15, 2014, City Council made the following
resolutions to:
-
accept for information the following reports included in the consent agenda:
•
•
August 7, 2014 Hail Storm Damage
Election Signage
-
accept for information the presentation from the Airdrie 2014 Alberta Summer
Games Society.
-
accept for information the 2013 Annual AMA Financial Indicators.
-
adopt Bylaw No. B-41/2014, being a bylaw to amend Bylaw No. B-45/2013
Planning Fees and Charges by decreasing the fees for temporary signage.
-
direct staff to provide additional information with respect to the outcome of a
meeting with auto sales industry representatives regarding home-based auto
sales.
-
direct staff to report back to Council with respect to the 2015 FCSS funding for
Airdrie Food Bank and Airdrie Victims Assistance.
-
approve a budget adjustment to the 2014 Capital budget in the amount of three
hundred thousand ($300,000) dollars for a land purchase with the funding coming
from the General Operating Reserve.
-
appoint Shauna Quinn to the Community Services Advisory Board.
-
provide a Letter in Support to The Hamlets of Cedarwood Station Inc.
If you have any questions about these or any other matters pertaining to Council,
please call Legislative Services at 403.948.8816.
Please note that the minutes are unadopted and subject to change.
Council Meeting Agendas and Minutes are available on the City of Airdrie website: www.airdrie.ca
COUNCIL SYNOPSIS
December 21, 2015
At their regular meeting of December 21, 2015, City Council made the following
resolutions to:

direct staff to report back to Council on details required to establish a commission
to host events such as mixed martial arts in Airdrie.

give First and Second Reading to Bylaw No. B-58/2015, being a bylaw to
establish new off-site levies effective January 1, 2016.

amend Bylaw No. B-62/2015 Section 14 - "Connection Fees" by replacing the
words "final inspection" with "development agreement".

adopt Bylaw No. B-62/2015, being a bylaw to amend Waterworks Bylaw No. B11/2012, effective January 1, 2016.

amend Bylaw No. B-63/2015 Section 5.10 by replacing the words "final
inspection" with "development agreement".

adopt Bylaw No. B-63/2015, being a bylaw to amend Sewer Bylaw No. B11/2015, effective January 1, 2016.

give First Reading to Debenture Bylaw No. B-60/2015, being a bylaw to fund the
purchase of land for future City of Airdrie use.

Main Street Lift Station Upgrade.

2016 Roadworks capital projects.

direct staff to proceed with operating the Community Halls at the Town and
Country Centre as a civic facility as outlined, and return in six to nine months with
an update on operations.
Please note that minutes are unadopted and subject to change.
Council Synopsis
December 21, 2015
Page 2

endorse a 2016 operating budget adjustment in the amount of fifty-four thousand
two hundred fifty ($54,250) dollars to allow for the operating of the Community
Halls at the Town and Country Centre, the source of funding to be referred to the
Council Budget Committee.

excuse Councillor Hegg from the meeting.
If you have any questions about these or any other matters pertaining to Council,
please call Legislative Services at 403.948.8816.
Please note that minutes are unadopted and subject to change.

agenda - City of Airdrie

Transcription

Similar documents

community events

HOW TO LOOK BUSY - Here`s the Scoop

2014 Annual Meeting

MAR 16 2015 REGULAR COUNCIL PACKAGE

Temperate Deciduous Forest

The Penn Township Campus Landscaping Beautification Project

Dendrology - My E-town -

Burglar Alarm Permit Form - Palm Beach County Sheriff`s Office

inver house distillers

Here`s No News is “Good” News