REZONING – 1449 Burnside Rd W (Eagle Nest)

REZONING – 1449 Burnside Rd W (Eagle Nest)

RECOMMENDATION

THAT Committee receive the report from the Planner entitled “REZONING – 1449 Burnside Rd (Eagle’s Nest)” dated September 10, 2019 for information.

CHIEF ADMINISTRATIVE OFFICER’S COMMENTS

I concur with the recommendation.

DIRECTOR OF DEVELOPMENT SERVICES’ COMMENTS

I concur with the recommendation.

DIRECTOR OF ENGINEERING’S COMMENTS

I concur with the recommendation.

PURPOSE OF REPORT

The purpose of this report is to introduce an amendment to the application to rezone the Burnside Helmcken properties at 3, 5 and 9 Helmcken and 1449 Burnside Rd, henceforward known as the ‘Eagles Nest’ property.

BACKGROUND

A previous proposal was brought forward in 2018 proposing a four-building design with a central circular driveway at 1.6 FSR. The buildings were proposed at between 4 storeys (12.75m) and 6 storeys (19.7m). The applicant had proposed a unit mix of 81 one-bedroom units, 163 two-bedroom units, and 16 three-bedroom units for a total of 260 units in an unspecified mix of rental and strata units.

The proposal (illustrated below as viewed from the Burnside/Helmcken intersection) was not supported by Committee.

The previous report to COW is attached to this report, which includes information about the current use and context of the site, in addition to the previous proposal.

PROJECT INFORMATION

A revised proposal has been put forward as an amendment to the application. This proposal is also a four-building design (illustrated below) with a 1.57 FSR but the massing has been shifted from the Burnside/Helmcken street corner to the Saanich border to the north with an 8-storey building in that location. The revised unit mix is 84 one-bedroom units, 167 two-bedroom units and 11 three-bedroom units for a total of 262 units (two more than initially proposed). The revised proposal retains the interior oval driveway with central play structure and pavilion. The revised proposal represents 190 units per hectare (77 units per acre).

The new proposal also splits the site into two lots, Site Area 01 and Site Area 02 within the drawings. This has the implication of creating a significantly denser site in Site Area 01 at an FSR of 2.89. This requires an OCP amendment should Council wish to support the application in its current form moving forward.

The amendment to the rezoning application proposes a development consisting of 262 apartment units at an average site density of 1.57 FSR in four buildings. The applicant has expressed a desire to have a mix of market rental and strata (owned) units but has not provided further information relating to a percentage mix in that regard. The applicant has also indicated a desire to subdivide the parcel after rezoning, resulting in a lot that has density far in excess of anything considered in the Official Community Plan. For this application to proceed, an Official Community Plan amendment to add a new Land Use Designation that would facilitate the proposed density of the lot is required. The end result is likely a property that has a split zone with a very high density, and the remainder of the parcel with a lower density.

In support of the application the following has been submitted:

• Architectural Drawings – de Hoog & Kierulf architects – Jun 28, 2019
• Civil Engineering Drawings – McElhanney Consulting Services Ltd. – July 25, 2019
• Landscape Drawings – Murdoch DeGreeff – June 25, 2019
• Survey Plan – McElhanney Consulting Services Ltd. - February 23, 2018
• Phase 1 ESA Report - McElhanney Consulting Services Ltd. – March 8, 2018
• Traffic Impact Assessment – Watt Consulting Group – September 13, 2018
• Parking Study - Watt Consulting Group – September 14, 2018
• Helmcken Road Report – Watt Consulting Group – March 27, 2019
• Traffic Memo – Watt Consulting Group - November 9, 2018
• Geotechnical Assessment – Ryzuk Geotechnical – March 9, 2018
• Limited Hazardous Materials Investigation – March 20, 2018
• Arborist Report (Demolition Impact Assessment and Tree Preservation Plan) – Talbot Mackenzie & Associates – September 14, 2018
• Storm Water Management Plan – McElhanney Consulting Services Ltd. – September 13, 2018
• Letter to Mayor and Council – Applicant - July 3, 2019
• Tenant Compensation Matrix – Applicant - July 3, 2019

SUMMARY OF UPDATES

The above table does not reflect the applicants desire to subdivide the parcel after rezoning. Site 1 would have an FSR of 2.89 and Site 2 would have an FSR of 1.09. This would necessitate different zoning designations being applied to the parcel as well as different Land Use Designations.

Design

The applicant has shifted the massing on the site to the rear, with four storey buildings proposed for the buildings flanking Burnside and Helmcken, and the Hidden Oaks site to the west. The northern interface between the Saanich ALR farmland has been raised to an 8-storey building.

Transportation Impact

The applicant is proposing twinning Helmcken Rd with two separate options as illustrated within the attached Helmcken Rd Report. The applicant is also proposing a dedicated left turn lane southbound onto Helmcken from Burnside Rd.

Staff has received a draft peer review of the Watt Traffic Impact Assessment by Bunt & Associates, also attached. The proposal to increase road capacity on Helmcken Road will require significant review.

Tenant Compensation

Tenant compensation has been proposed as per the attached Tenant Compensation Matrix of July 3, 2019 (below).

Public Consultation

Staff wishes to see a detailed public consultation summary report, as previously requested when the application was before Committee, but has not yet received one. Should the application move forward it will be required before the item returns to Council.

ANALYSIS AND DISCUSSION

The 2018 proposal for the site was rejected by Committee of the Whole largely due to the expression of the density (1.6 FSR) on the site. Committee felt the visual impact was not satisfactory at either the Burnside/Helmcken intersection, nor the interface between the site and the Hidden Oaks townhouse complex to the southwest.

The applicant has responded with a re-arranging of the building heights to shift the massing of the buildings to the north side of the site at the Saanich/View Royal interface. The land beyond, within Saanich, is farmland within the Agricultural Land Reserve (ALR) and rural residential. The basic four-building design with the circular central driveway and the play structure/pavilion has remained unchanged.

The fundamental considerations of use and density within a rezoning application have not changed with the re-design. In theory, the OCP supports the use and density on this site (if the parcel remains intact) and staff could, with a good design, support a rezoning on the site. However, the applicant is now proposing a future subdivision that necessitates an Official Community Plan amendment and a parcel with higher density than contemplated in the OCP. The only way to move the proposal forward is for the applicant to apply for an OCP amendment and for that amendment to run concurrently with the rezoning application.

Staff note that detailed design suitable for a Form and Character Development Permit has been submitted, and staff must respond to the proposal as presented. There are concerns with respect to the design and site planning and the density and massing being proposed. Staff are concerned that a detailed design application showing and approach to density through additional height create and establish expectations for the subsequent DP process.

Design Critique

Staff doesn’t feel that much has been done to address Committee’s prior concerns regarding building height and the management of density on the site. The site layout has not changed significantly, and 8 storeys on the north side is not appropriate as a rural/urban interface– those 8 storeys will be very apparent to Saanich and the Hidden Oaks residents alike, especially as it is a wall with no articulation or relief on the north side. The number of units proposed on site has increased.

There is wasted space with the internal circular drive, pushing the buildings’ massing to the edges. Stepping towards the centre of the site and removing the circular drive would preserve density while reducing the periphery massing. If the current design of four exterior buildings is to be maintained, a reduction in density is ultimately necessary in order to maintain a moderate height to the buildings on the site. All four sides of the property require sensitive treatment.

Underground traffic circulation would be preferable, creating a more pedestrian-friendly at-grade environment which would permit children to access the play structure without crossing traffic and parents to permit their children to do so without constantly watching and/or worrying that they are safe. There is a concern that the tight circular driveway creates an unsafe situation where visibility is limited for both vehicles and pedestrians alike.

The applicant has expressed concern about the project viability with respect to building costs and ultimately costs being passed on to purchasers or renters. The purpose of the central pavilion is unclear, and the cost associated with building and maintaining such on-site infrastructure may be problematic. Project viability is complex and is not solely a function of the density granted through zoning.

Conclusion

Staff cannot support the current proposal as illustrated. It is staff’s belief that a good design on the site could be supportable at the maximum base 1.6 FSR for the Mixed Residential Land Use Designation within the OCP, but the application has not illustrated this. The 1.6 FSR is a maximum potential base density for the site, and any proposal to that end should not unduly impact the use and enjoyment of adjacent sites.

Proposed future subdivision of the site creates two parcels with an aggregate density of 1.57 FSR. One parcel (the strata portion) is proposed at a density of 2.89 FSR containing the 8-storey building immediately adjacent to Agricultural Land Reserve in Saanich, and rural residential beyond. This is beyond the densest Land Use Designation in the OCP, an FSR of 2.5 within Intensive Mixed Use. To place that level of density immediately adjacent to rural land uses is not good planning practise.

Any supportable proposal will require that the site be considered as a whole. Staff can work with an applicant to achieve their goals of mixed rental and strata, whether through split zoning or a housing agreement covenant, should the application move forward.

OPTIONS FOR COMMITTEE MOVING FORWARD

After discussion at Committee of the Whole, there are three options for consideration and possible recommendations from Committee to Council are included with each.

Option 1

Require that the applicant submit an Official Community Plan amendment application and then move the application as it stands to first and second reading with the understanding that a Form and Character Development Permit is required after rezoning is concluded. Council will still have significant control over the design of the site at that stage. Should this option be taken, the additional resolution beyond receiving the report should be:

AND THAT the applicant submits an Official Community Plan Amendment to address the density of 2.89 FSR at Site 01.

AND THAT Committee recommend to Council that 1st and 2nd reading of an Official Community Plan amendment bylaw be considered.

AND THAT Committee recommend to Council that First and Second Reading of the bylaw to rezone the subject property be given, subject to an Official Community Plan amendment bylaw being prepared.

If the Official Community Plan amendment fails, the zoning bylaw amendment cannot move forward as there is a requirement for consistency between the OCP and zoning.

Option 2

Give direction to the applicant to reduce the density and building height and to ensure that the application does not require an Official Community Plan amendment before moving the application to first and second reading. Should this option be taken, the additional resolution beyond receiving the report should be:

AND THAT staff work with the applicant to reduce the density and building height of the proposal and that the revised proposal be brought back to Committee of the Whole for review.

Option 3

Reject the current application and require a significantly different proposal for the site.

AND THAT Committee recommend to Council that the application be declined.

Staff supports Option 3, the requirement of a new application that addresses the concerns expressed regarding density, massing, and height.

RECOMMENDATION

THAT Committee receive the report from the Planner entitled “REZONING – 1449 Burnside Rd (Eagle Nest)” dated September 10, 2019 for information.

SUBMITTED BY: J. Davison, MCIP, Planning Technician

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

ATTACHMENTS:

1. Subject Property Map
2. Subject Property Orthophoto
3. Letter to Mayor and Council – Applicant - July 3, 2019
4. Architectural Drawings – de Hoog & Kierulf architects – Jun 28, 2019
5. Civil Engineering Drawings – McElhanney Consulting Services Ltd. – July 25, 2019
6. Landscape Drawings – Murdoch DeGreeff – June 25, 2019
7. Survey Plan – McElhanney Consulting Services Ltd. - February 23, 2018
8. Parking Study - Watt Consulting Group – September 14, 2018
9. Helmcken Road Report (TIA) – Watt Consulting Group – March 27, 2019
10. Eagle Nest TIA Peer Review – Bunt & Associates – July 31, 2019
11. Tenant Compensation Matrix – Applicant - July 3, 2019
12. Report to Committee of the Whole, September 2018