Staff Report: DEVELOPMENT PERMIT APPLICATION 2021/03 – 221 ATKINS ROAD

Planning & Development Report

TO: Committee of the Whole DATE: May 6, 2021 FROM: J. Chow, Senior Planner MEETING: May 11, 2021 FILE NO.: 3060-20-2021/03

DEVELOPMENT PERMIT APPLICATION 2021/03 – 221 ATKINS ROAD

RECOMMENDATION:

THAT the report dated May 5, 2021 from the Senior Planner titled “Development Permit Application 2021/03 – 221 Atkins Road” be received for information.

CHIEF ADMINISTRATIVE OFFICER’S COMMENTS:

I concur with the recommendation.

DIRECTOR OF DEVELOPMENT SERVICES’ COMMENTS:

I concur with the recommendation.

PURPOSE:

To introduce an environmental development permit application and to seek the Committee’s feedback on requested variances for a proposed subdivision to create two additional detached residential lots.

BACKGROUND:

The 1.286 ha extensively treed property backs onto Millstream Creek and is on two levels separated by a sloping bank as shown in Figure 1. At the street level there is a detached dwelling that is several decades old. The grade then drops 6 to 7 metres at a ~2:1 slope to the Millstream Creek level.

Records indicate that landslides occurred on the property in 1973 and February 2002 and that the slope was remediated in 2003. At that time, Covenant EV105849 was registered in favour of the Town to require geotechnical certification for any new buildings and structures, and alterations to existing building and structures.

Figure 1. Air photo of subject property with 1m contours

PROPOSAL:

The proposal is for a development permit addressing riparian and steep slope guidelines to facilitate subdivision for two additional lots as shown in Figure 2. The existing dwelling would be removed.

Variances are requested for the siting of buildings on Proposed Lots 1 and 2.

In support of the application the following is provided as attachments to this report:

1. Location plan
2. Applicant letter and development permit rationale
3. Petitions of support
4. Subdivision Plan
5. Riparian Areas Report
6. Servicing concept

Extension of the sanitary sewer system would be a subdivision servicing requirement.

Figure 2. Permitted and requested setbacks Source: Attachment 4 (coloured annotations by staff)

DISCUSSION:

Key issues include the following:

1. How does the proposal address the relevant development permit guidelines?
2. How does the proposal comply with zoning requirements?
3. What are the next steps toward Council consideration of the proposal?

1. Development Permit Area Guidelines

The proposal is subject to the guidelines of the Natural Watercourse and Shoreline Areas (within 30m of the natural boundary of Millstream Creek) and the Sensitive Terrestrial Ecosystems development permit areas.

The Riparian Areas Regulations (RAR) report (Attachment 5) addresses the guidelines by establishing a Streamside Protection and Enhancement Area on the property and providing recommendations that would be incorporated as conditions of the development permit for issues such as the following:

1. Trees a. No danger trees noted onsite, but staff note a large dangling broken branch. b. Arborist supervision of clearing, servicing and construction to monitor tree protection (fencing and other measures required) and potential windthrow.
2. Slope stability a. A geotechnical setback has been established. b. Minimize vegetation disturbance near the slope crest. c. Construct landscaping features so that surface runoff is not concentrated discharge at the slope crest. d. Supervision of excavation by a qualified professional e. Excavation cut slopes to be in a stable configuration (e.g., 1:1 slope) over the short to medium term in the event lots are not developed immediately. f. Construction and permanent fencing of the SPEA (a ‘no disturbance’ covenant is recommended by the Qualified Environmental Professional)
3. QEP to be involved in preparing the sediment and erosion control plan.
4. Storm water management a. Convey storm water into municipal storm strain or downslope by pipe. b. Maximize onsite infiltration if safe geotechnically.

While Millstream Creek shows indications of channel mobility within the ravine, the RAR report considers that floodplain issues regarding the proposed development and the creek are highly unlikely given the width of the calculated SPEA, the height of the ravine, and the proposed tree replanting on the ravine slope. The report considers there to be no undue hardship on the site buildability on the basis that setback variances are approved.

The arborists report (within Attachment 5) also notes that many of the roadside trees are in poor condition and should be replaced as part of the subdivision.

2. Zoning

The proposed lot sizes and dimensions comply with requirements of the R-1 Detached Residential (Large Lot) zone, but variances to the minimum front lot line setback are requested as follows:

The variances are requested because the geotechnical, SPEA, and tree protection boundaries restrict the buildable area of the site as illustrated in Figure 2.

The Sensitive Terrestrial Ecosystems development permit area guidelines include the following statement:

Variances The Town may consider variances to siting or size regulations where the variance could result in enhanced protection of an environmentally sensitive area.

However, the extent of the requested variance for Lot 1 leads staff to consider whether the proposal would meet the intent of the development permit area guidelines to enhance protection of the environmentally sensitive area and would result in a suitable layout. Staff concerns include the following:

1. Eleven trees are proposed for removal to accommodate the proposed building envelopes, of which five are on proposed Lot 1. Four of these trees are near the crest of slope and outside of the building envelope as shown in Figure 3. They range from 0.6m - 1.1m diameter at breast height. They are outside of the SPEA but are within both development permit areas. While the arborist report (page 28 of Attachment 5) assesses these trees as in poor to fair condition, it also notes them as worthy of retention and protection (if not for the proximity of the building envelope).
2. A 2.0m front lot line setback for Lot 1 would not be in keeping with other buildings along of Atkins Road where the minimum is 7.5m. There would be no real front yard.
3. The rear yard is within the geotechnical setback (no buildings or structures) and would be less than 5.0m deep as the SPEA boundary would be fenced.
4. The proposed building envelope leaves no room for an onsite driveway in front of the garage or house.
5. There appears to be insufficient area onsite for vehicle egress without backing out into the road.

Lot 2 encounters similar challenges and also has significant constraints. The proposed front lot line setback for Lot 2 would not leave sufficient depth for a driveway space in front of the building. If approved, staff would recommend a no-parking covenant for the front yard, as well as a covenant to prohibit a secondary suite due to the lack of available parking. Further, the Geotechnical setback and the location of the top of bank leave little space for private outdoor areas.

Figure 3. Building envelope and trees to be removed on Lot 1. Base plan: Page of Attachment 5

3. Conclusion and Next Steps

Staff does not support of this application in its current form. A subdivision to create one additional lot rather than two may be more appropriate and would allow a better response to the site constraints. Comments are sought from the Committee of the Whole on the acceptability of this proposal to the Town. Any feedback would give the applicant an opportunity to amend or withdraw the application before it moves forward for consideration by Council.

Additional information should include a storm water management concept to establish whether discharges will be into the municipal storm drain or through the development permit area into Millstream Creek.

RECOMMENDATION:

THAT the report dated May 5, 2021 from the Senior Planner titled “Development Permit Application 2021/03 – 221 Atkins Road” be received for information.

SUBMITTED BY: Jeff Chow, MCIP, RPP, Senior Planner

REVIEWED BY: Lindsay Chase, MCIP, RPP, Director of Development Services