COUNCIL REPORT: ENVIRONMENTAL DEVELOPMENT PERMIT NO. 2013/06 – 283 KERWOOD STREET

Council Report

TO: Mayor & Council DATE: March 28, 2013 FROM: Jeff Chow, Senior Planner MEETING: April 2, 2013 FILE NO: 3060-20-2013/06

ENVIRONMENTAL DEVELOPMENT PERMIT NO. 2013/06

283 KERWOOD STREET

RECOMMENDATION:

THAT Development Permit 2013/06 to be approved;

AND THAT Development Permit 2013/06 incorporate the following variances:

1. Variance to permit a 3.0 m railing / retaining wall height (maximum 2.0 m permitted)
2. Variance to site a raised patio 1.0 m from the side lot line (2.14 m required)
3. Variance to site a raised patio 9.6 m from the natural boundary (15.0 m required)
4. Variance for the location of the existing waterfront deck and staircase 0 m from the rear lot line (15.0 m required);

AND THAT Development Permit 2013/06 include a condition to require that a minimum of 0.6 m be removed from the top of the existing retaining wall for the part that is 9.0 m from the natural boundary.

CHIEF ADMINISTRATIVE OFFICER'S COMMENTS: I concur with the recommendation.

DIRECTOR OF DEVELOPMENT SERVICES' COMMENTS: I concur with the recommendation.

SUMMARY

The application is to amend Development Permit 2011/15 to modify approved plans for a retaining wall, raised patio and a pathway within the Natural Watercourse and Shoreline Areas Development Permit Area. Variances for the height of the retaining wall, the siting of a raised patio and the location of the existing waterfront deck and access staircase are also requested.

Following the March 12, 2013 Committee of the Whole meeting, the plans have been revised as follows:

1. The guardrail would be located inward to the perimeter of the raised patio, instead of at the edge of the highest retaining wall.
2. An additional terraced retaining wall facing 281 Kerwood Street in order to provide a stepped transition and to provide soil
3. Arborist supervision would be required for installation of the proposed boulders to retain at the base of the existing retaining wall

BACKGROUND

The 1179 m² single family residential parcel is located on Esquimalt Harbour. The applicant has constructed a new dwelling outside the Natural Watercourse and Shoreline Areas Development Permit Area 15 m setback from the natural boundary. Development Permit 2011/15 (see Attachment 2) was approved February 21, 2012 to permit the following within the development permit area:

• A loose stack boulder retention wall (app. 1.5 m max.) 9.0 metres from the natural boundary. The wall would stabilize the slope and to support a raised patio adjacent to the dwelling.
• Replacement of stairs with 1.2 m wide stepped pathway partially supported by the boulders.
• Variance to legalize the siting of existing waterfront deck and stairs to the natural boundary located 0 m from the sea (minimum 15.0 m required) and for the siting of the raised patio 9.0 m from the natural boundary (minimum 15.0 m required) and 1.0 m from the side lot line (2.14 m required).

The slope could not be fully determined when Development Permit 2011/15 was considered because of the prevalence of blackberry bushes and other vegetation. Since blackberry bushes grow continuously over top of older growth, determination of the full details natural grade was impossible until excavation. As the applicant explains in Attachment 4), it was found part way through the installation of the loose stack boulders that the grade was steeper than what was expected in the plans and that the grade would be unsuitable for the stairs and the stacked boulders. The approved plans were unworkable because a hazard would have been created.

The applicant constructed a masonry rock wall on bedrock because machine access to rear yard was only available for a limited time. The retaining wall is 4.0 m high at the highest point measured from the excavated bedrock which is approximately 0.6 m below natural grade. It is sited 7.4 m from the natural boundary; whereas Development Permit 2011/145 showed the approved stacked boulders to sited 9.0 m form the natural boundary (zoning setbacks do not apply to retaining walls).

The applicant submitted a development permit application for the revised retaining wall as constructed, along with engineering reports (Attachments 5 & 6) and a landscape plan to provide vegetated screening of the wall. The application was rejected in October 2012.

The current application to amend the development was introduced to Committee of the Whole on March 12, 2013 and the applicant was encouraged to make further revisions. The applicant met with several residents on March 23, 2013. A number of options were explored, including: a. lowering the existing retaining wall by 1.2 m along the entire length of the wall b. moving the top level of the retaining wall to the edge of the raised patio to create a level landscape area between the patio and the edge of the retaining wall c. not placing boulders at the base of the existing retaining wall in order to avoid further incursion into the development permit area

The applicant advised staff that his intent is to find agreement with the wishes of Council and neighbours in a manner the that is safe, technically feasible, and reasonable in cost. The applicant consulted with his building professionals and concerns about the other options are as follows: a. Lowering the existing retaining wall by 1.2 m around the entire length of the wall may not feasible because keystones are located 0.6m below the existing top. The rocks within the wall are not simply stacked; they are interlocked. Removing more than 0.6 of the existing retaining wall beside the house would also remove the support for the flight of steps between the patio and the ground. b. Boulders at the base of the existing retaining wall would be located in an area with no sensitive vegetation as presented the original biologists report (see Attachment 8). The boulders are necessary to retain soil volume for the proposed landscaping that would screen the existing retaining wall. Staff recommends placing the boulders as proposed because the proposed plantings would soften the visual impact of the wall.

PROPOSAL

Since October, the applicant has worked with staff to seek an alternative design that would be more appropriate to the site. The proposal to amend the development permit is shown in Attachment 13 (site plan) and 14 (east elevation). The key elements are summarized as follows:

1. Removing 0.6 m of part of the existing retaining wall to step it back
2. Adding a row of boulders 5.4 m from the natural boundary to hold soil for trees and shrubs at the base of the existing retaining wall
3. Draping cotoneaster over the top edge of the main retaining wall to green and soften the edge
4. Installing a glass handrail around the perimeter of the raised patio (previously at the top of the retaining wall)
5. Reducing the size of the raised patio slightly and locating it 9.6m from the natural boundary (9.0 m approved in the original development permit and 15.0 m required). This difference is due to the house being located 0.6 m further away from the shoreline than originally proposed, allowing the patio to be shifter 0.6 m as well. The plans in Attachment
6. (new) The guardrail would be located inward to the perimeter of the raised patio, instead of at the edge of the highest retaining wall (see Attachment 13)
7. (new) An additional terraced retaining wall facing 281 Kerwood in order to provide a stepped transition and to provide soil (see Attachment 14)
8. (new) Arborist supervision for installation of the proposed planter at the base of the existing retaining wall

Variances are requested as follows:

1. To permit a 3.0 m railing / retaining wall height (maximum 2.0 m metres permitted)
2. To site a raised patio 1.0 m from the side lot line (2.14 m required) and 9.0 m from the natural boundary (15.0 m required)
3. For clarity, to carry forward the previously approved variance for the location of the existing waterfront deck and staircase (15.0 m required).

The applicant's rationale is explained in a letter dated March 28, 2013 (Attachment 12).

ANALYSIS

The key issues include the following:

1. Does the proposal address the Natural Watercourse and Shoreline Areas Development Permit Area?
2. Are the requested variances supportable?

1. Development Permit Area Guidelines There would be no significant environmental impacts on the marine shoreline. The biologists report (see Attachment 8) submitted for Development Permit 2011/15 indicate there were no sensitive native ecosystems were located in the areas occupied by the constructed retaining wall and the proposed planter areas at the base of the constructed wall.

The relocation of stairs to beside the house has created a more harmonious transition in grades to the adjacent parcel at 281 Kerwood Street because a retaining wall was no longer necessary between the two parcels. There would be no change to the rest of the walkway down to the shore.

2. Requested Variances Variances are requested for the height of the railing / retaining wall, the siting of the raised patio, and the location of the existing waterfront deck and access stairs.

a. Height of railing and retaining wall A variance of 3.0 m is requested to allow a railing for safety around the raised patio. The railing would be topless clear glass so it would not add any visual bulk to the massing of the wall. The proposed location of the railing has shifted from the edge of the retaining wall to the perimeter of the patio rather to discourage any expansion of the patio.

Otherwise, the modified retaining wall would be 2.5 m from the natural grade at its highest point, where 2.0 m is the maximum permitted height. The requested variance would be a difference of 0.5 m. The existing wall would be modified so that the tallest face of the wall would be 2.0 m high from finished grade as directed by staff (see Attachment 9 & 10). This would be achieved by removing 0.6 m from the highest point of the wall.

There is still a risk to engineering certification if a key stone 0.6 m below the current top edge is disturbed. Work will have to be done very carefully because there is no longer machine access to move large rocks should the stability of the wall be deemed unsafe.

Visual impact would be mitigated through the use of natural rock material, and visual softening by draping cotoneaster over the top and vegetated screening in front of the main wall using a strawberry tree, vine maple trees, and native plants. The plant species were selected by the project landscape designer to ensure viability for the specific location.

The variance can be supported because a series of terraced retaining walls is appropriate on sloping land. Staff support adding a condition to require a minimum of 0.6 m to be removed from the top of the wall in the area 9.0 m from the natural boundary. This would require some of the smaller rocks more than 0.6 m below the existing edge to be removed while allowing the crown of keystones and larger rock to remain. While the top of the wall would be uneven, it would be a more natural look and would be mitigated with vegetation that would drape over the edge.

b. Siting of raised patio The Land Use Bylaw defines a raised patio more than 0.3 m above the natural grade as a structure. The raised patio is approximately 1.5 m above natural grade at its highest point and is therefore subject to siting requirements. It would be located 1.0 m from the side lot line (2.14 m required). There would be no privacy impacts because the adjacent residence is located over 30 m away and towards the street. This variance was granted in Development Permit 2011/15

The part of the raised patio area within the development permit area would be 23.95 m² (257.8 ft²), which is slightly reduced from the 24.13 m² (259.7 ft²) patio approved in Development Permit 2011/15. The proposed variance can be supported because it would be slightly smaller than the previously approved raised patio and located 10.4 m from the natural boundary where 9.0m was granted in Development Permit 2011/15. The reason for the change is that the building was located 0.4 m further away from the natural boundary and the raised patio would also be shifted. The shape of the patio would also be flattened out and

The applicant proposes a 1.0 m wide strip landscaped with boxwood hedging between the patio and the edge of the retaining wall. It would be visible through the clear glass railing to provide privacy and additional greenery above the retaining wall (see Attachment 11). The patio cannot expand into this landscape area without a variance.

c. Location of waterfront deck and stairway The variance to formally acknowledge the location of the existing deck (15.0 m required) near the rear lot line and the staircase accessing it was approved in Development Permit 2011/15 because the shoreline is steep in this location. The variance should be carried forward in the new permit for clarity.

CONCLUSION

Requiring the applicant to build a loose stack boulder wall in accordance with Development Permit 2011/15 is not possible because the slope is too steep and would create a hazardous condition. A terraced retaining wall arrangement would be the most appropriate for this site because it would respect the topography and minimize massing. An engineering report has been submitted verifying that the retaining wall is the most appropriate design for the site and is in a safe location because it is set on bedrock.

Planting small trees at the base and draping cotoneaster over the top will provide good screening and provide greenery to soften the appearance of the wall. The latest modifications to relocate the railing from the edge of the retaining wall to the perimeter of the raised patio would make it difficult for the patio to be expanded. Adding another level to the base of the existing retaining wall facing 281 Kerwood Street would provide a better, terraced transition and would allow for additional landscaping to reduce the visual impact of massing for the adjacent residents. The modifications and resulting variances for the revised design are therefore supportable.

ALTERNATIVE RECOMMENDATION

That Development Permit No. 2013/06 be rejected.

Should any of the variances not be supported, the application would be rejected. The existing structures would be in contravention of zoning and development permit area requirements and bylaw enforcement action could then be initiated. It may be necessary to pursue remediation through the courts.

If the specific variances for the retaining wall are not supported, removal would be required. Another retaining wall would then be necessary higher up the slope beside the house but outside the development permit area in compliance with siting requirements, but a variance may be necessary to permit a railing over 2.0 m from natural grade.

It should be noted that the wall would be hazardous to disassemble and the machinery required to move the large keystones around cannot access the rear yard any more. Barging in equipment would likely destroy what little natural vegetation remains along the shore.

RECOMMENDATION

THAT Development Permit 2013/06 to be approved;

AND THAT Development Permit 2013/06 incorporate the following variances:

1. Variance to permit a 3.0 m railing / retaining wall height (maximum 2.0 m permitted)
2. Variance to site a raised patio 1.0 m from the side lot line (2.14 m required)
3. Variance to site a raised patio 9.6 m from the natural boundary (15.0 m required)
4. Variance for the location of the existing waterfront deck and staircase 0 m from the rear lot line (15.0 m required);

AND THAT Development Permit 2013/06 include a condition to require that a minimum of 0.6 m be removed from the top of the existing retaining wall for the part that is 9.0 m from the natural boundary.

SUBMITTED BY: Jeff Chow, Senior Planner

REVIEWED BY: Lindsay Chase, Director of Development Services

ATTACHMENTS

1. Location plan
2. Site Plan from Development Permit 2011/15
3. Survey
4. Letter to Mayor and Council from Greg Burke, September 30, 2012 (2 pages)
5. "Mortared Stone Retaining Wall, 283 Kerwood St. View Royal — Geotech considerations" - Brimmell Engineering Ltd., July 16, 2012
6. Field Review Report- Brimmell Engineering Ltd., June 7, 2012
7. Site Plan – Koi Dragon Enterprises Ltd. (February 16, 2013)
8. Environmental Overview Letter, - Brian Wilkes and Associates Ltd., Dec. 2, 2011 (5 pages) Photos- October 4, 2012
9. West cross section – Koi Dragon Enterprises Ltd. (February 16, 2013)
10. West Elevation rendering – Koi Dragon Enterprises Ltd. (February 16, 2013)
11. Rendering– Koi Dragon Enterprises Ltd. (February 13, 2013)
12. Letter to Mayor and Council from Greg Burke (March 23, 2013)
13. Site Plan – Koi Dragon Enterprises Ltd. (March 19, 2013)
14. East Elevation (rendering) – Koi Dragon Enterprises Ltd. (March 19, 2013)