This site is in beta — data may be incomplete and features are still being added.
Committee of the Whole/Documents/Development Permit - 17 Eaton Avenue Staff Report
Staff Report

Development Permit - 17 Eaton Avenue Staff Report

April 10, 2012Pages 93–941 section

Staff report recommending approval for an infill subdivision to create one additional single family residential lot.

2. APPROVAL OF AGENDA
April 3, 2012DP 2012/02Jeff Chow, Senior PlannerRecommendation: Approval1,061 m2 parcel size

TOWN OF VIEW ROYAL Planning & Development Report

TO: Mayor & Council DATE: April 3, 2012 FROM: Jeff Chow, Senior Planner MEETING DATE: April 10, 2012 FILE NO: 3060-20-2012/02

DEVELOPMENT PERMIT-17 EATON AVENUE

RECOMMENDATION:

THAT Committee of the Whole recommend to Council that Development Permit 2012/02 be approved as per the plans attached to the April 3, 2012 report from the Senior Planner.

CHIEF ADMINISTRATIVE OFFICER'S COMMENTS:

I concur with the recommendations.

DIRECTOR OF DEVELOPMENT SERVICES' COMMENTS:

I concur with the recommendations.

PURPOSE OF REPORT

To introduce a development permit application for the property at 17 Eaton Road to allow for an infill subdivision to create one additional single family residential lot.

BACKGROUND

The subject property is located on the west side of Eaton Avenue in a single family residential neighbourhood. The parcel is 1,061 m² (11,420 sq. ft.) with the existing house and detached garage sited on the northerly portion of the existing lot. The subject property was rezoned in December 2011 from R-1A (One Family Residential) to CD-5A (Comprehensive Development Mixed Residential – Small Lot). The parcel is designated as Mixed Residential (M-R) in the Official Community Plan and is subject to the guidelines of the Mixed Residential Development Permit Area for small lot intensive residential development to ensure that the proposed infill development will be appropriate for the neighbourhood.

PROJECT INFORMATION

The proposal is to keep the existing house at 17 Eaton Road and subdivide off an additional lot (see attachment 2). The shed and patio on the south side of the existing house would be removed. The new two-storey home would be built on proposed lot B, which will require the removal of 3 Garry oaks and the blasting of a rock outcropping. Three mature Garry oaks in the rear of the lot would be retained. Two on-street parking spaces would be constructed to help with overall neighbourhood parking needs. No variances are requested. Once subdivided, the parcels will be too small to allow secondary suites.

POLICY IMPLICATIONS

The proposal is consistent with the objectives of the Mixed Residential Development Permit Area and addresses the relevant guidelines as follows:

a. Massing and siting would respect established neighbourhood patterns. The proposed front yard setback of 7.5 m would be consistent other dwellings on the street (where 4.5 m is permitted in the CD-5A zone). This commitment was secured in a covenant at the time of rezoning b. The dwelling would be oriented towards the street and provide natural surveillance of the public realm through the provision of entrances, windows, and balconies, porches and decks facing the street. c. Building siting and placement of balconies, decks and windows would limit overlook and shadowing impacts on neighbours. d. The garage would not dominate the front building elevation. e. The building footprint would minimize potential impacts on three mature Garry oaks in the rear yard f. A swale is proposed to minimize runoff and to promote the natural infiltration and cleaning of stormwater from the driveway.

ATTACHMENTS

  1. Location Map
  2. Plan of Proposed Subdivision – McNeil Designs (May 16, 2011)

RECOMMENDATION

THAT Committee of the Whole recommend to Council that Development Permit 2012/02 be approved as per the plans attached to the April 3, 2012 report from the Senior Planner.

SUBMITTED BY: Jeff Chow, Senior Planner

REVIEWED BY: L. Chase, MCIP, Director of Development Services

Page 93–94

Document Images

(2)
Document image
Document image
Extracted from: 2012 04 10 Committee of the Whole Agenda