TECHNICAL MEMO: Canadian Tire Expansion in View Royal – Parking Assessment

DISCUSSION: 2. Variance Review

1519 Admirals Road

Variance 4: Sign Height Reduction

To reduce the minimum vertical distance from grade a sign may be located from 2.4 m to 1.34 m

The variance can be supported:

1. The signage is intended for pedestrian use/wayfinding
2. Informs pedestrians/shoppers of the services available

---

DISCUSSION: 2. Variance Review

1519 Admirals Road

Variance 5: Logo Sign Area Increase

To increase the maximum area of a logo sign on a single wall face from 2 m² to 7.4 m²

The variance can be supported:

1. The proposed signage is similar to the existing logo sign used
2. The proposed sign does not cause any hardship or negatively impacts surrounding land uses

Variance 6: Increase to the Maximum Letter Size of Sign

To increase the maximum character size from 45 cm to 137 cm

The variance can be supported:

1. The proposed signage is similar to the existing signage used
2. The proposed sign does not cause any hardship or negatively impacts surrounding land uses

---

DISCUSSION: 2. Variance Review

1519 Admirals Road

Existing Building Facade

Proposed Building Facade

---

RECOMMENDATION

THAT Development Permit 2022-05 be approved as per the report dated November 4, 2022 from the Community Planner titled “Development Permit with Variances DP 2022-05 – 1519 Admirals Road”

---

RECOMMENDATION

AND THAT Development Permit 2022-05 include the following variances:

• variance to Section 4.6.2(c) of Zoning Bylaw No. 900, 2014 to locate an accessory structure in the front yard
• variance to Section 5.10 of Zoning Bylaw No. 900, 2014 to reduce the total number of loading spaces from 5 to 2
• variance to Section 5.10 of Zoning Bylaw No. 900, 2014 to reduce the total number of parking spaces from 283 spaces to 247 spaces
• variance to Section 6.7 of Sign Bylaw No. 950, 2018 to reduce the minimum vertical distance from grade a sign may be located from 2.4 m to 1.34 m
• variance to Section 6.7 of Sign Bylaw No. 950, 2018 to increase the maximum area of logo signs on a single wall face from 2 m² to 7.4 m²
• variance to Section 7.2(b) of Sign Bylaw No. 950, 2018 to increase the maximum character size from 45 cm to 137 cm.

---

RECOMMENDATION

AND FURHTER THAT Development Permit 2022-05 include the following conditions:

• a security deposit of $86,328.00 at 120% of the quoted landscape works ($71,940.00) be provided prior to issuance of a Building Permit
• a cash-in-lieu payment of $504,000.00 for a total of 42 parking spaces be provided prior to issuance of a building permit
• that a s. 219 covenant must be registered prior to issuance of Development Permit 2022-05, that specifies the landowner’s responsibility to develop an on-site underground sewer attenuation system that will be designed to the satisfaction of the Director of Engineering.

---

ALTERNATIVE:

THAT Development Permit 2022-05 be rejected as per the report dated November 4, 2022 from the Community Planner titled “Development Permit with Variances DP 2022-05 – 1519 Admirals Road”.

---

November 13, 2022
FILE: DP 2022-05

Mayor and Council
Town of View Royal

RE- PROPOSED DEVELOPMENT PERMIT DP 2022-05 – Canadian Tire Site at 1519 Admirals Road

I am writing after becoming aware of this application through the Notice of Processing An Application For A Development Permit With Variances.

I have lived here in my View Royal home since 1980. As an adjoining neighbour to the subject property, I actively participated throughout the original Canadian Tire rezoning and subsequent development.

The size and scope of the original development, as some on Council will recall, was quite contentious, especially given the proximity and scope of the development next to a residential housing neighbourhood and because the rezoning was a departure from the zoning of residential land use.

In an effort to gain project approvals, Canadian Tire Real Estate offered reassurances and design reconfigurations that limited the size and scope of the buildings on the site. For many, the effort remained inadequate but, notably, it was viewed with favor by then Mayor Bill Camden who ultimately cast his deciding vote.

As I recall, to assure residents and members of Council who shared reluctance to situating a large box store at the entrance to View Royal, the Canadian Tire Real Estate representatives, and particularly Trent Holfeld, distinguished their proposal as being a smaller building type than most new Canadian Tire builds, and he may have referred to the building design as their ‘Class C’ footprint.

I also recall suggesting a Restrictive Covenant be registered on title to ensure the development was limited not to exceed the size and scope being approved, but assurance was given that it wouldn’t be necessary, yet; this juncture might now suggest otherwise.

There’s been a lot of pro-development and variances in this outlying corner neighbourhood of View Royal, including the original rezoning and development of the subject property from residential use, the variances afforded the recent 5 storey 50-unit residential condo development on Glentana Road and the rezoning and buildout of the Craigflower Manor park property. These are all changes that impact neighbouring properties more so than those passing along transportation corridors or stopping momentarily for shopping. These have ongoing visual and spatial impacts to the comfort and enjoyment of our homes and neighbourhood.

PREVIOUS COMMITMENTS BY CANADIAN TIRE REAL ESTATE

I am trusting that Town Staff have sought out and referred to letters of commitment and other similar communications received directly and indirectly from Canadian Tire Real Estate regarding the site, scope and building size that supported the rezoning and 2000/2001 Development Permit. I also trust that Mayor and Council have been, or will be, made aware of all previous commitments.

Included in those artifacts will be a commitment by Canadian Tire Real Estate, supported by Town and Council members, to protect the views of the adjoining neighbours, particularly those that historically enjoyed a view of the Gorge waterways. I have a strong and accurate recollection of this commitment mostly due to the direct impact on the views from my home of which I dedicated much effort to protect during the process.

REPORTS AND DISCUSSION

I refer to the two pdf files available on the Town’s website that relate to this application.

Of general note; the discussion in the presentation offers a list of considerations, however; there is no consideration noted for adjacent residential neighbours, nor are neighbours listed in the section of the report titled ‘Summary of details to be confirmed’. As an adjoining resident, this omission doesn’t instill any sense of comfort that Town staff will afford much concern, if any consideration, for impacts directly to me or my neighbours, although I did receive a printed informational notice of the November 15th meeting. I trust that Mayor and Council will ensure that such consideration becomes a higher profile on this application and from Town staff.

PARKING – PROPOSED VARIANCES

I ask that Mayor and Council consider the following relationship between parking requirements and impacts resulting from proposed parking variances;

In addition to attracting customers, ground-level parking stalls and roadways, intentionally or otherwise, do, in fact, reasonably serve to control and help better-manage the over-building of structures on properties by designating space that cannot be occupied by structures. Similarly, this also holds true for road frontage and flanking setback requirements which intend to preclude areas of permanent structure development.

Inadequate parking resulting from variances from strict compliance is commonly viewed as only harming the retailer whose customers may choose to avoid the location. Although I recognize that consent to variances might be viewed as an attractive financial incentive for the Town through the cash-in-lieu offering of this application, ultimately it also permits an aggressive oversize of building structure that would have otherwise been precluded and which, in turn, imposes on neighbours like me who would then be stuck with an larger unsightly mass of structure rooftop and accessories impeding their spatial comforts and view enjoyments.

Despite an expansion of nearly 30% of the existing Canadian Tire retail building structure, the report identifies that the proposal sees a net loss of 8 additional spaces on the site.

Does the loss of 8 spaces already include the several parking stalls that have been repurposed for shopping cart corrals and for the stockpiling and storing of bagged soil and aggregate pallets? This does not seem to be readily apparent in the sum tallies and needs to be factored into calculations when considering further variances, especially given the extent of the variance request.

Additionally, and of note; Canadian Tire, in community spirit, has allowed and hosted onsite community activities such as frequent bottle drives, annual Christmas tree chipping and similar community-serving events. These events regularly rely on available open parking areas. Reducing and eliminating the parking areas where these activities traditionally occur will reduce the likelihood that these types of community activities can operate or will continue.

EXISTING CRU1 (onsite parking)

I am unclear from the information available; does the tallied total number of proposed on-site parking stalls also include those intended for use by the commercial tenants of CRU1, including Dairy Queen, and, what is the relationship of that commercial building with the proposed parking variance? Is Mayor and Council being made aware of the relationship?

UNBUILT APPROVED CRU2 structure

The report notes that ‘the study did not consider future development of lot (CRU2 site)’. Even the report drawings fail to depict the approved CRU2 site.

Where the approved CRU2 (unbuilt) is actually situated, the application depicts 29 proposed additional parking spaces. However; there is no indication in the report that the proposed parking commitment relinquishes or precludes the future buildout of CRU2 as part of this site, nor is it disclosed if the tallied total number of proposed on-site parking stalls required to service the commercial tenants of CRU2 will be achievable if this Development Permit application proceeds.

In order to protect the proposed 29 additional parking stalls in this area, will Mayor and Council ensure that approval of the unbuilt CRU2 unit be rescinded if this proposal proceeds and require the applicant to register a covenant restricting any further building?

LOADING BAYS

The proposal purports that the two existing loading bays are adequate. However; even currently, this is not the case.

Frequent deliveries directly to the Canadian Tire Garden Centre throughout planting and growing season utilizes the internal roadway and parking areas in order to deliver garden plants to the current Garden Center. This often hinders internal traffic movement and parking by obstructing those areas being used for delivery. It is not uncommon during this period to see more than one delivery occurring at the same time. How will this situation be resolved without offering a dedicated loading bay at the Garden Center?

Additionally, there is no dedicated loading bay for the existing CRU2 tenants, therefore; delivery to those existing businesses is difficult and relies on obstructing internal roadways and parking, or, relies on curb parking in proximity along a non-designated area of Glentana Road to deliver to the rear of the restaurants and businesses. Such parking along Glentana Road obstructs the through lane of traffic and creates vehicular conflict in the remaining narrow passageway.

BUILDING HEIGHT and ROOFTOP ACCESSORIES

I note that Discussion 2 of the report lists variance considerations, including maximum height of principal and accessory structures. The expansion’s height given appears to be at 8.1m, although the report notes that more information is required.

There is no indication of how the addition of accessory rooftop machinery and structures, if any, will be included for compliance with the height limit, an outcome issue experienced by me and my neighbours with the original building’s construction. Additionally, it is not clear if the height maximum allows base fill in addition to the structure height.

Does the maximum building height include the height of rooftop machinery, accessories and structures?

How many additional rooftop machines would be required to support the expansion and where would they be located on the rooftop?

Will there be a commitment from Town to keep the number of additional units to a minimum and require all new machines or accessories, if any, conform to the same noise reduction and screening structure previously designed by Wakefield (Acoustics) and installed by Canadian Tire as shown below?

May I also ask that, as part of any approval, there be a requirement that disallows the screening structures to fall into unattended disrepair? For example, although for 3 years I have notified and reminded Canadian Tire of the broken access gate which makes up part of the noise reduction screening, there has been no effort of repair. The consequence of this particular disrepair, for example, allows rooftop machinery noise to de reflected within the structure and directed out the open gate frame toward my home.

STRUCTURE SIZE, SPATIAL APPEARANCE and IMPROVING INTERACTION

I note that the design comments offers that; ‘additional glazing could reduce the appearance of a single wall face and improve the pedestrian’s interaction with space’.

I submit that not only a passing pedestrian’s comfort be an influencing consideration but, rather; importance, attention and care must be also given, even to a greater degree, to residences on adjoining properties that are impacted by the structure’s appearance.

Additionally, it should be considered that; reducing the roofline height of the expansion will better benefit the effort to reduce the appearance of a single wall face typical of a big-box-store structure. As well, a height reduction of the expansion would calm the spatial appearance of rooftop simply by breaking the elevation of the immoderate continuum.

Reducing the expansion’s roofline height would also, in effect, and to a more tollerable degree, mitigate further blocking the views of neighbouring residents who have historically enjoyed unobstructed views of the Gorge waterways and Craigflower farmhouse property. Protecting these views was an original agreement of the existing rezoning and development permit processes, and committed to by Canadian Tire Real Estate through the original application approval process.

In keeping with the original rezoning and development commitments, or even on its own; will Mayor and Council please ensure that any approval for this site includes requirement that views of the Gorge waterways, which surrounds both sides of the Craigflower Bridge and the Craigflower farmhouse be protected and sustained for adjoining residences?

EXISTING ROOFTOP EXPANSE

Being directly adjacent to a residential neighbourhood, the existing and imposing rooftop mass distracts from the spatial comforts one might expect to enjoy from the living areas of their home and yard. There is a formidable prominence of the existing rooftop that adjoining residences already bear. This proposal, as is, would add a generous amount to the existing rooftop.

As previously described, reducing the rooftop height of the expansion would aid in calming the spatial appearance of rooftop simply by breaking the elevation of the continuum.

This already holds true with respect to the existing retail frost house rooftop. Its height is lower than the existing structure roofline and, because of that feature, is not visible to the neighbours and does not further impede or obstruct their views.

Simply reducing the rooftop elevation of the expansion would serve to lessen the impact to Gorge waterways and Craigflower Manor views.

LIGHTING

There has been occasion when onsite Canadian Tire lighting was directed upward toward the face wall storefront resulting in excessive light pollution being cast toward and onto neighbouring homes.

Although there is no current proposal to change or alter the onsite lighting, as part of this application may I ask that; Mayor and Council ensure that all site and building lighting is required to be controlled, shielded and not directed onto, or cast onto, adjacent residences?

LANDSCAPING

As part of the original rezoning and development process, both Town staff and Canadian Tire Real Estate recognized and respected the desire of neighbouring residents, including me, to protect their views of the Gorge waterways.

Despite commitment and reassurances from both Canadian Tire Real Estate and their environmental designers to protect these views by reducing the height of the structures and by maintaining trees onsite and along the perimeter by pruning, trees have been allowed to grow to heights and size to cover a significant portion of the views from my home. These are the same views Canadian Tire Real Estate committed to protect. Now, and only in winter months after leaves fall, do I regain a degree of views through the thickening wooded branches of tree canopies.

I share this, in part, because the new application includes additional tree plantings along Island Highway and Admirals Road. The images offered show two tree types that, in the images, have been topped, pruned and shaped as part of their maintenance. On this site, internal and perimeter trees have been allowed to grow tall with no control of height or size, as exampled in the photo comparisons that follow.

EXAMPLE 1a - View prior to tree growth

EXAMPLE 1b – View with current tree growth (2022)

EXAMPLE 2a – View prior to tree growth (early 2000s)

EXAMPLE 2b – View with recent tree growth (2022)

EXAMPLE 2c – View after leaves fall (2021)

SPATIAL ROOFTOP EXPANSION

I have relied on my survey and engineering experience to help demonstrate the rooftop perspective of the proposed expansion, using an 8.0 metre height for the graphic measurements. There are two photos, one from each floor of my home. My home is situated directly above Canadian Tire’s roof.