STAFF REPORT: DEVELOPMENT VARIANCE PERMIT – 281 PALLISIER AVE

DEVELOPMENT VARIANCE PERMIT – 281 PALLISIER AVE

RECOMMENDATION

THAT Council approve a variance to fence height from 2m to 2.8m for the area described as ‘Area A’ in Schedule 1 as attached to the report from the Planner dated March 13, 2014;

AND THAT Council refuse a variance to the distance of the driveway crossing to the adjacent lot from 1.5m to 0m;

AND THAT Council refuse a variance to fence height from 2m to 3m for the area described as ‘Area B’ in Schedule 1 as attached to the report from the Planner dated March 13, 2014;

AND THAT Council refuse a variance to fence height from 2m to 2.8m for the area described as ‘Area D’ in Schedule 1 as attached to the report from the Planner dated March 13, 2014;

AND THAT Council refuse the issuance of an encroachment agreement permitting the encroachment of objects into the boulevard within ‘Area C’ in Schedule 1 as attached to the report from the Planner dated March 13, 2014.

CHIEF ADMINISTRATIVE OFFICER'S COMMENTS

I concur with the recommendation.

DIRECTOR OF ENGINEERING AND PARKS' COMMENTS

[Regarding the encroachment]: Concerns arise with public safety, future expansion of municipal infrastructure, damage to existing infrastructure, extra costs during replacement or upgrading of existing infrastructure, and expectations of property owner. In all cases applicants are required to comply with requirements as to not create harm to the general public. In addition they must recognize that any damage that occurs to the applicants encroachment infrastructure through municipal operations will not be corrected. All applicants understand that at "anytime" the encroachment may be revoked to allow the municipality to perform their day to day obligations. 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 for 281 Pallisier Ave to legalize a constructed parking space which incorporates fenced retaining walls, and a fenced retaining wall along the rear property line. The works encroach on the boulevard and require variances to fence height (retaining walls are considered fences for the purpose of height) and driveway crossing location.

BACKGROUND

The subject property is zoned R-1: One Family Residential (Large Lot). The lot is situated at the corner of Beaumont Ave and Pallisier Ave. The existing house is a recent build, completed in 2013. As part of the landscaping of the site, the applicant constructed a parking space along the western edge of the property supported by concrete retaining walls. There is a fence atop the retaining walls. The work was conducted without permits, and a portion of the fencing and parking surface remains unfinished as per a stop work order.

PROJECT INFORMATION

Proposal

The subject 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 proposed variances impacting the use and enjoyment of the adjacent properties.

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

• Applicant's Statement – Marianna Mazza
• Site Plan – Island Land Surveying
• Site Plan with Fence Heights – Island Land Surveying

The proposed Development Variance Permit addresses the following aspects:

• A variance to fence height in the rear yard from 2m to 3m.
• A variance to the 1.5m distance of a driveway crossing from an adjacent lot line to 0m.

Additionally, the works encroach 1.2m into the Town's boulevard.

ISSUES

As presented, the purpose of the application is to permit the constructed/proposed works, which require variances. The works consist of the rear yard fence and the constructed retaining walls forming the parking space in the northwestern corner of the property. The entirety of the fences/structures is in the restricted setback area, other than the portion which is in the boulevard.

A retaining wall is considered a fence for the purposes of calculation of fence height; fence height is calculated from the top of the wooden fence to the bottom of the concrete retaining wall where the retaining wall touches grade. A survey illustrating this is attached.

Fence Height

At the highest point, the fence is 1m over-height at 3m from finished grade to the top of the fence. This point is at the interior corner of the retaining wall for the parking space. The highest point of the fence along the rear property line is 2.8m.

Driveway Crossing Location

The driveway location is required to be 1.5m from any property line; the driveway is at the property line as indicated by the variance from 1.5m to 0m.

Encroachment

The retaining wall/fences encroach on the Town's boulevard both along the rear property line and at the interior portion of the parking space's retaining wall. An illustration of this is attached to the report.

ANALYSIS AND DISCUSSION OF RECOMMENDATIONS

Staff believes there are significant problems with the application. Staff believes it would be in the best interest of the applicant and the Town for the applicant to re-submit a plan which pushed the parking space further into the property and eliminated encroachment on the boulevard. Such a configuration would have impacts on the construction of the fence and retaining wall along the rear property line (it would have to be higher) as well as the impact on the retaining wall/fence height at the rear of the parking space (it would also likely have to be higher). None of the existing height variance requests surrounding the parking space would work should the parking space be moved back; as such, the fence variances surrounding the parking space should be refused if that is Council's preferred approach.

Staff's reasoning behind preferring a new plan is rooted in the belief that granting variances to permit the parking space as it exists will cause problems with parking in the boulevard in the future.

Staff's recommendation is to approve the rear yard fence beyond the parking space, but to refuse the fence height variance around the parking space and the variance to the distance from the driveway crossing to the property line. This will require the applicant to modify the plan and re-submit the application.

Encroachment

Staff's primary concern is the encroachment of the retaining walls and fences 1.2m into the boulevard, and the associated parking ramifications. Permitting encroachment into the boulevard results in liability issues and vehicular/pedestrian safety issues for the Town, and limits the options for future boulevard development along Pallisier Ave.

Should the encroachment be permitted by Council, it will require an encroachment agreement identifying the terms of the encroachment and registered on title. Staff feels very strongly that encroachment into the boulevard should not be permitted.

Parking

Staff is recommending refusal of the variance to the driveway crossing's distance to the property line. Staff does not believe the driveway crossing services a viable parking space, and as such the variance should not be granted.

One must assume that the purpose of the parking space is for parking a vehicle; the siting of this space ensures vehicular encroachment several metres into the boulevard for all but the smallest of cars. Staff is concerned that if a large vehicle is parked in that location, it will encroach into the boulevard significantly. If a 7m long recreational vehicle were to be parked in that location, the rear of the RV would likely be approximately 1m from the edge of pavement.

ALTERNATE RECOMMENDATIONS

Due to the integral nature of the works, Staff has produced two sets of alternative recommendations which work in concert to accomplish respective goals.

Alternative Recommendation #1:

It is designed to approve the rear yard fence height, but reduce the fence height around the parking space on top of the retaining wall to 1.2m and to not permit the encroachment. This is staff's preferred alternate recommendation.

THAT Council approve a variance to fence height from 2m to 2.8m for the area described as 'Areas A and D' in Schedule 1 as attached to the report from the Planner dated March 12, 2014;

AND THAT Council approve a variance to fence height from 2m to 2.6m for the area described as 'Area B' in Schedule 1 as attached to the report from the Planner dated March 12, 2014, to permit a 1.2m wooden fence atop the retaining wall in 'Area B'.

AND THAT Council approve a variance to the distance of the driveway crossing to the adjacent lot from 1.5m to 0m;

AND THAT Council decline the issuance of an encroachment agreement permitting the encroachment of objects into the boulevard within 'Area C' in Schedule 1 as attached to the report from the Planner dated March 12, 2014

Alternative Recommendation #2:

It is designed to approve the rear yard fence height, reduce the fence height around the parking space on top of the retaining wall to 1.2m and to permit the encroachment.

THAT Council approve a variance to fence height from 2m to 2.8m for the area described as 'Areas A and D' in Schedule 1 as attached to the report from the Planner dated March 12, 2014;

AND THAT Council approve a variance to fence height from 2m to 2.6m for the area described as 'Area B' in Schedule 1 as attached to the report from the Planner dated March 12, 2014, to permit a 1.2m wooden fence atop the retaining wall in 'Area B'.

AND THAT Council approve a variance to the distance of the driveway crossing to the adjacent lot from 1.5m to 0m;

AND THAT Council approve the issuance of an encroachment agreement permitting the encroachment of objects into the boulevard within 'Area C' in Schedule 1 as attached to the report from the Planner dated March 12, 2014

RECOMMENDATION

THAT Council approve a variance to fence height from 2m to 2.8m for the area described as ‘Area A’ in Schedule 1 as attached to the report from the Planner dated March 13, 2014;

AND THAT Council refuse a variance to the distance of the driveway crossing to the adjacent lot from 1.5m to 0m;

AND THAT Council refuse a variance to fence height from 2m to 3m for the area described as ‘Area B’ in Schedule 1 as attached to the report from the Planner dated March 13, 2014;

AND THAT Council refuse a variance to fence height from 2m to 2.8m for the area described as ‘Area D’ in Schedule 1 as attached to the report from the Planner dated March 13, 2014;

AND THAT Council refuse the issuance of an encroachment agreement permitting the encroachment of objects into the boulevard within ‘Area C’ in Schedule 1 as attached to the report from the Planner dated March 13, 2014.

ATTACHMENTS:

1. Subject Property Map
2. Subject Property Orthophoto
3. Applicant's Statement – February 12 2014
4. Site Plan – Island Land Surveying Ltd – December 13 2013
5. Site Plan with fence heights – Island Land Surveying Ltd – December 13 2013
6. Fence Height Detail – staff – March 5 2014
7. Staff Photos – March 5 2014
8. Schedule 1 – Fence/Retaining Wall Locations - March 13 2014