im 3 (3) 60aont.,c,rj It o

P.4 5 v\-kr NediADDITIONAL INFORMATION

- 532 Memorial Ave. ("The Azures")

Council adopted the following motion December 7, 2009:THAT Council proposes to consider issuance of a Development Permitand Development Variance Permit for 532 Memorial Avenue at theJanuary 11, 2010 Council meeting; AND FURTHER THAT Council directsstaff to proceed with the statutory notification to the surroundingneighbours in regard to this matter; AND FURTHER THAT Councildirects staff to prepare a replacement to the existing covenant on 532Memorial Avenue that will address the points listed in the December 7,2009 Planning memo to Council.

Staff Recommendation:THAT Council refers consideration of issuance of a Development Permitand Development Variance Permit for 532 Memorial Avenue to the 7:00p.m., February 8, 2010, Council meeting in the Council Chamber, at whichtime Council will also consider the new Restrictive Covenant requestedDecember 7, 2009.

THAT Council directs staff to prepare a memorandum on 532 MemorialAve. (Qualicum Beach Resort Hotel) Remedial Action pursuant to s. 73 & 74,

Community Charter and the Property Maintenance Bylaw.

R-ece i2Q9\kic,rJan S, 2009 CO s.\_v\eA 1\k ee-FTo: Qualicum Beach Town Council & Planning DepartmentRe: Development Variance Permit Application for 532 Memorial Avenue „loon ikary z0/0

First, we welcome the possibility of an appropriate residential development to replace the currentbuildings and land uses on this site. Council and residents of Qualicum Beach have been hoping forimprovements to this property for a long time. However, we encourage you to think very carefullyabout this application and not rush to approve a proposal simply because it seems to end a legacy ofconcerns.

Height variance is a concern — we do not think it is necessary to exceed the current maximums.

Traffic safety is a more major concern for us, particularly with the density proposed. The plannedmain entrance is on a stretch of Memorial that would create dangerous traffic conditions and wouldhave a major impact on nearby properties. This stretch of road is downhill and out of sight of trafficcoming down Memorial. In late December a vehicle coming down Memorial lost control on thecurve at Hoy Lake Road, doing extensive damage to one property. This was the third such accidentfor those residents. Traffic is almost always speeding down Memorial until it slows a bit nearing theCrescent Ave. intersection. A left turn from the proposed new driveway onto Memorial would beparticularly hazardous, as would a left turn coming up Memorial into the new development.

Recommendations:

I. That the proposed driveway onto Memorial Avenue not be permitted, and that the Townwork with the Developer to explore alternatives such as:

O Design the realignment of Memorial and Crescent to a right angle intersection, whichhas been under discussion for some years. Moving this intersection slightly north mightopen some space to permit safer traffic movement with respect to the proposeddevelopment.

O Recognize that if access to Memorial is restricted, that the proposed connection ofBerwick over the railroad would have a positive impact for traffic to this development.

Consider access from the southeast corner of the property, off Hoy Lake Road ratherthan Memorial.

2. That the long-term plans for Memorial Avenue be considered in discussions of this proposal.For example, reduced speed limits, left turn lanes, traffic lights, bike lanes and bettersidewalks may help to reduce the hazards on this road. Walking, cycling, or driving ascooter up or down Memorial is not currently a safe experience. Long-term planningsuggests that more and more people will choose those modes of travel between the town andthe waterfront. Some of these issues were raised by previous councillors and by a candidatein the last civic election campaign.

3. That traffic studies be done prior to issuing a development permit. When these studies areundertaken, speeds of vehicles should be tracked over a period time, rather than justrecording the volumes of traffic. The particular conditions of Memorial between Crescentand Village Way seem to invite excessive speeds — in both directions. Also, it would besimplistic to attribute speeding and other unsafe driving on thin stretch only to the trafficcurrently accessing the hotel and Beer and Wine Store.

Thank you for this opportunity.

Do endy Reimer, 122 Crescent Rd. W. Nestor & Tela Gayoski, 134 Crescent Rd. W.

Leif &orlaStok 7d, 12 Cr scent Rd. W. ji,)&w:d gierav,v10 e‘d a 3 r6- Move5;0.1

Jan 8, 2009To: Qualicum Beach Town Council & Planning DepartmentRe: Development Variance Permit Application for 532 Memorial Avenue

First, we welcome the possibility of an appropriate residential development to replace the currentbuildings and land uses on this site. Council and residents of Qualicum Beach have been hoping forimprovements to this property for a long time. However, we encourage you to think very carefullyabout this application and not rush to approve a proposal simply because it seems to end a legacy ofconcerns.

Height variance is a concern — we do not think it is necessary to exceed the current maximums.

Traffic safety is a more major concern for us, particularly with the density proposed. The plannedmain entrance is on a stretch of Memorial that would create dangerous traffic conditions and wouldhave a major impact on nearby properties. This stretch of road is downhill and out of sight of trafficcoming down Memorial. In late December a vehicle coming down Memorial lost control on thecurve at Hoy Lake Road, doing extensive damage to one property. This was the third such accidentfor those residents. Traffic is almost always speeding down Memorial until it slows a bit nearing theCrescent Ave. intersection. A left turn from the proposed new driveway onto Memorial would beparticularly hazardous, as would a left turn coming up Memorial into the new development,

Recommendations:

1. That the proposed driveway onto Memorial Avenue not be permitted, and that the Townwork with the Developer to explore alternatives such as:

Design the realignment of Memorial and Crescent to a right angle intersection, whichhas been under discussion for some years. Moving this intersection slightly north mightopen some space to permit safer traffic movement with respect to the proposeddevelopment.

Recognize that if access to Memorial is restricted, that the proposed connection ofBerwick over the railroad would have a positive impact for traffic to this development.

Consider access from the southeast corner of the property, off Hoy Lake Road ratherthan Memorial.

2. That the long-term plans for Memorial Avenue be considered in discussions of this proposal.For example, reduced speed limits, left turn lanes, traffic lights, bike lanes and bettersidewalks may help to reduce the hazards on this road_ Walking, cycling, or driving ascooter up or down Memorial is not currently a safe experience. Long-term planningsuggests that more and more people will choose those modes of travel between the town andthe waterfront. Some of these issues were raised by previous councillors and by a candidatein the last civic election campaign.

3. That traffic studies be done prior to issuing a development permit. When these studies areundertaken, speeds of vehicles should be tracked over a period time, rather than justrecording the volumes of traffic. The particular conditions of Memorial between Crescentand Village Way seem to invite excessive speeds — in both directions. Also, it would besimplistic to attribute speeding and other unsafe driving on this stretch only to the trafficcurrently accessing the hotel and Beer and Wine Store.

Thank you for this opportunity.

Don & Wendy Reimer, 122 Crescent Rd. W.

Leif & Lorna Stokkland, 112 Crescent Rd. W.

trONestor & Tela Gayssk . 134 Crescent Rd. W.

VetatiroftiMtal Vahoolgomocipppiojixdsultierixocingetuittloo'QAMMIIII - ZT '14.4.1,4 CO Oh

FW: Development Permit Variance for 532 Memorial Avenue.

From: Jo Goison (logolson@hotmaitcom)

Sent: January 9, 2010 10:43:13 AM

To: Qualicum Beach Council (council@qualicumbeach.com )

Cc; Scott Tanner (setanner@shaw.ca ); jack mcneil (jr.mcneil@shaw.ca )

Attachments;101_2084.JPG (381.6 KB), 101_1873.J PG (174.2 KB), 101_0901JPG (221.2 KB), 101_2082.JPG (319.7 KB),101_2087,JPG (265.3 KB)

From: jogolson@hotmail.comTo: council@qualicumbeach.comCC: setanner@shaw.ca; jr.mcneil@shaw.caSubject: Development Permit Variance for 532 Memorial Avenue.Date: Sat, 9 Jan 2010 03:17:46 -0800

Dear Town Council Members,Please note a correction to my previous letter.In pare 2 it should read that the old B&B is opposite Building 3 and not 1 as previously written and this posesthe greatest obliteration of views with a geodetic height proposal at 36.9 m.My apologies for the error.

We are writing in respect to the request for a height variance permit for the proposed development at 532Memorial Avenue. We are for the development in principle,but my wife and I are totally opposed to the verylarge height variances to buildings 1,2 and 3 in particular.We live at 578 Memorial Avenue and our property looks west and north, over the garden of the old Bed andBreakfast property on Hoylake Rd, which is directly opposite to proposed Building "3", which will be imposingthe most restrictive views.We intentionally built a deck on the back of our property to obtain glimpses of the ocean to the north, and westrictly adhered to the permitted height restictions when building the house in 2007. Some photo's taken fromthe deck adjacent to our 2nd storey bedroom at various times throughout the year are attached.The increase in height of almost 3 metres or a 40% increase in allowance will totally remove any view we hadof the ocean and more distant island backdrop. We are assuming the height variance includes theusual determination for averaging the base reference elevation assumption for a sloped grade, otherwise thevariance would be even greater. We note that Buildings has almost 2m grade change from south to north.One one photo there is an existing lampstandard on Hoylake Rd that is approx 7.5 m high. Increasing theheight to 10.2 m will give you an impression of how much additional blockage will occur. The lampstandard issuported by a wooden pole, that is probably 3 m higher at it's tip. This then gives a perspective of how muchview imposition is proposed.We also noted on the proposals that all of the poplar trees on Hoylake Rd East and Memorial are to beremoved. We believe some of these trees may be located on public land as they only stand 2m from the roadedge.These trees provide a beautiful backdrop at most times of the year, with colourful foliage in summer and fall,and sway gently in the breezes adding an additional dimension to the area. Even with the property retainingexisting height restrictions these trees would offer a veil to the sight of one large rooftop mass for thedevelopment. The foliage on poplars is not dense and should not impose too much by way of natural light

Lutag3)Lkeditra..44.2a01 10.44%.1i liu.eaaanyknaitanhmaifr-iithlenAtivOgaleleAlarAYMMOyeltaISINVO.4. 141442413Z

01010 ".4 4 f z44,:,VOtor"WLiim il3PIORXdOTPTCOCITTITUVU100 'DATTratil . II:Us 'AVAPWAnti

restrictions to the proposed properties, particularly building 1.Their removal also imposes an environmental challenge at at time when we are suppose to be providingbeneficial proposals, not negative ones.Lastly we are concerned with both the traffic accessibility to the development, and in particular the limitedammount of surplus parking for both visitors and service vehicles, there being only 4 to be made available.There is little local roadside parking, and what might be left or deemed to be usable by viditors, creates apotential danger. By this we mean potential parking on the west side of Memorial Avenue, where there is awider fraction to the road width at present that some drivers may think usable, or on either side of Hoylake Rdadjacent to the intersection with Memorial Avenue, creating even more danger to merging traffic on thismajor arterial road.We trust all council members will re-consider all of these factors and only permit the developMent to procedewith public safety, the environment, community well being and aesthetics factors properly balanced.Yours Truly.David and Joanna Golson.

Windows Live Messenger makes it easier to stay in touch - learn how!

Windows Live Messenger makes it easier to stay in touch - learn how!

1..el-AfilMvzsfitrUr .-.+1 thre, Prm, hys -II /Pri I nil-sr91-trnp..mec crPkrrsirle=r17KIMAMI OAT ItiAMITINA

(Akiwv)1.641:6,n.,.„

(1) Reykfr- ajgr,(Ja. em;of 0

January 3, 2010Nte Received JAN 0 6 20M

Beverly Barter132 Hoy Lake Rd EastQualicurn Beach, BC. V9L1L7

File NO_

k4ame

1.1.," •

Planning Department Cop6?..ai to

Town of Qualicum BeachAttn: Paul Butler

Dear Mr. Butler, Action Required 3y

I received some correspondence from the Town of Qualicum Beach just prior toChristmas regarding some proposed changes to the variance by-laws for a property onMemorial Avenue. I live just behind the property in question and am very concernedabout the "relaxing" of the height variance for the development of multi-residentialbuildings.

I purchased my property in June 2008 and was made aware at that time of thepossibility of a condominium development being built across Hoy Lake Rd from myresidence. I am not opposed to development, and embrace positive changes for ourcommunity, and was fairly content with what bad been suggested for development of theMemorial Ave site.

I am NOT content with the proposed changes to our existing by-laws, and feel theadditional building height would detract from the beauty of the surroundingneighbourhood and area. Are we to have a Beach Towers in Qualicum Beach ?

I will be at the meeting on January 11 and hopefully, the town will hear theconcerns of the citizens. We should be able to continue to develop Qualicum withoutsacrificing the natural beauty of our place or the needs and wishes of the community atlarge.

Sincerely,

Beverly BarterBramble Cottage

60\0-1 1)161

1:0-e/yA

549 Memorial AvenueQualicum Beach, BCV9K 1K3

January 11, 2010

6z.oto11.e5t c"--- kit eej\

Date Received JAN 1 1 2010

Fic..3.4 No, . •

To: the Town of Qualicum Beach

Action Required by P/Z-•

1. -1+91('

As the new proposal for the development of the property at 532 Memorial Avenue, QualicumBeach, BC, is under review, the volume and speed of the traffic on Memorial Avenue must be amatter of concern, not to mention the general ambience and 'character' (golf course, single-story houses) of the neighborhood.It is proposed that the main entrance to the new development will be on Memorial Avenue. Thisroad has a long history of traffic accidents due to the steep incline and the number of curves in itwith inadequate signage, which fails to indicate an intersection in the middle of the curve at theHoylake Rd. intersection. Our property is at the corner of Hoylake and Memorial Avenue andhas been damaged on several occasions during the past few years by out-of control vehiclescoming down the hill. The latest accident happened on December 15, 2009. As shown in theenclosed pictures, a large truck coming down the hill went out of control and ploughed into ourYard after breaking into two pieces a large protective concrete barrier placed by the side of ourgate by the Town (exhibit 1). Parts of our gate and fence were demolished, a 20-year old appletree was uprooted and totally destroyed (exhibit 2), gravel and debris scattered all over our frontlawn(exhibit 3) and the lawn itself was extensively damaged (exhibit 3). As mentioned earlier,it is not an isolated case, but mentioned here to indicate the serious traffic problem that alreadyexists on this stretch of Memorial Avenue, which is bound to get worse if the plan under reviewis implemented.The height of a part of the proposed structure is also a concern as it will block the view andrequires a critical review.

Catherine Mr-ithan,Dr. Mushtaq A. Khan