Staff Report: DEVELOPMENT VARIANCE PERMIT - Thetis Vale Phase 6 – Parking Space Length Variance

RECOMMENDATION

THAT Committee receive the report for information.

CHIEF ADMINISTRATIVE OFFICER'S COMMENTS

I concur with the recommendation.

DIRECTOR OF DEVELOPMENT SERVICES' COMMENTS

I concur with the recommendation.

PURPOSE OF REPORT

The purpose of this report is to present the application for a Development Variance Permit (DVP) for 14 detached fee-simple lots under a CD-19(A) Mixed Residential Single Family zoning within Thetis Vale Phase 6: 2380, 2385, 2387, 2389, 2391, 2392, 2393, 2394, 2397 and 2399 Lund Rd. The applicant proposes substituting the required parking space for a small car parking space to maintain the requirement for two parking spaces per detached dwelling.

BACKGROUND

It has been challenging for the applicant to fit a standard 5.5m long parking space in the driveway without changing the proposed housing layouts. The housing layouts proposed in this phase contain a single garage (although some are wide and appear at first glance to be double garages), and the minimum front yard setback in the zone is 4.5m. In the proposed cases, the house is to meet that minimum setback with no room for meeting the required 5.5m parking space in the driveway.

PROJECT INFORMATION

Proposal

The property is subject to the requirement to obtain a Development Variance Permit (DVP) pursuant to Section 922 of the Local Government Act. This DVP focuses on the consideration of the proposed variance impacting the use and enjoyment of the adjacent properties.

The applicant has submitted the following information in support of their application:

• Applicant's Statement – Applicant – May 18, 2016
• Site Plan – applicant (undated)
• Sample photos from Phase 5
• Sample layouts from Phase 6 (Lot 3, Lot 15)

The proposed Development Variance Permit addresses the following aspects:

• Variance to the required parking spaces for a detached dwelling from two (2) spaces to one (1) space and one (1) small car space.

Issues and Analysis

The issue which will come before Council, and the question to be asked, is whether Council prefers granting the variance for a small car space or whether Council will require the applicant to modify the designs of the future houses to meet the constraints of the lots.

The applicant states in the covering letter that “past practice where parking spaces were permitted to extend to the back of the curb or sidewalk”. This is not correct. The parking requirement for a detached house has not changed, and parking was not permitted by bylaw to extend onto boulevard. More correctly, it was that the lack of parking space was missed at Building Permit review. It was not a ‘practice’ so much as an error in part due to many of the garages appearing to be double garages (but which are not wide enough to support two parking spaces) as well as the reduced front yard setback of 4.5m (which is too short to accommodate a parking space if the driveway is adjacent to this minimum setback).

Staff performed a site visit to these Phase 5 properties in May of 2016 and has included a plan of Phase 5 where staff believes that two parking spaces are not reasonably provided on the property – these are not properties which do not meet the minimum bylaw standard, but rather the properties which do not practically support two cars when considering the entire length of the driveway to edge of curb. There are 20 lots identified by staff as such, out of 65 lots in Phase 5. It is certainly true that these properties have not generated significant bylaw enforcement issues, and as such the reduced setbacks may not pose much of a problem to Phase 5 residents. Staff has not compiled a list of complaints (if any) but could certainly do so in advance of the application coming before Council.

The proposed parking space for Phase 6 is one meter shorter than standard. The concern is that a very long vehicle such as a crew-cab long bed pickup truck can be 6.5m in length, or 2 metres longer than the proposed parking space length. This means that a long pickup would hang out into the roadway in the case where a boulevard was less than 2m in width. In Phase 6 the boulevards are 1.4m in length; as such, any long pickup may protrude onto the roadway in some cases.

The applicant is willing to enter into a covenant in favour of the Town which would prevent such vehicles from being parked in these driveways. Staff is of the opinion that entering into an agreement which places the burden of enforcement on the Town is less desirable than providing a design solution which meets the Town’s bylaw and avoids the requirement for enforcement.

The applicant states in the covering letter that changes to accommodate two spaces on the properties would require changes to the grading plan and subdivision. This is not correct. The changes could also possibly be made by modifying the designs of the houses, which would of course come at significant expense to the applicant. Nevertheless, staff would prefer that the designs of the houses be modified to provide adequate parking which meets our bylaw.

NEXT STEPS

The application is expected to come forward to Council on July 5, 2016.

RECOMMENDATION

THAT Committee receive the report for information.

SUBMITTED BY: J. Davison MCIP RPP, Planner

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

ATTACHMENTS:

1. Subject Property Orthophoto
2. Applicant's Statement with sample plans and photos— Applicant – May 18, 2016
3. Plan of Affected Phase 6 Lots requesting variance - Staff
4. Illustration of Phase 5 lots not providing two parking spaces