Attachment 2: Applicant Letter from VDA Architecture Limited

Background

Rezoning of the property was approved by Mayor and Council, on May 19th, 2020, from A-3 Rural Residential to RM-3 Mixed Residential, to permit the proposed multi-family development. On May 4th, 2021, a Development Permit was granted which included several variances, for the most part concerning height and setbacks. The variances were necessary due to the nature of the site, especially concerning the significant slope from Erskine Lane to the back of the property. The DP will expire on May 4th of this year unless construction is substantially started.

One of the complexities of developing this property is the previous use was marine industrial and the soils were contaminated. All of the soil remediation has now been completed, with the Province releasing the Certificate of Compliance last Friday, January 20th, 2023.

Reasons for New DP Application

The process to remediate contaminated soils is very lengthy due to a number of reasons outside of the control of the property owner. For this property, the process started in early 2018 as part of the rezoning application. In total it took almost 5 years to get the necessary approvals, arrange for the remediation to be done, then get the final certificates from the Province confirming compliance.

While waiting for the soils remediation to complete, there has been two significant changes affecting the financial viability of the development. Construction costs have risen steeply, especially within the past 6 to 12 months, and, due to rising interest rates to battle inflation, the housing market has softened. To partially offset the above, some of the cladding has been revised from Ceraclad to Hardie Panel, a cementitious board common in similar developments. A significant portion of Ceraclad is retained at the living room bays and building entrances. The colour of the new Hardie Panel cladding is similar, but not intended to try to match the Ceraclad. Although in general we prefer the texture and detailing of Ceraclad over Hardi Panel, in this case the change to the cladding material strengthens the design as it differentiates between the massing of the living room bays and the background walls of the other areas. Through the change in material the design and the massing are made clearer, and therefore we consider this an improvement on the design that also happens to be a more cost-effective solution. Refer to the material tag #2 on the elevation drawings along with the colour board for areas the Ceraclad has been replaced with Hardi Panel.

In addition to the above, the fascia above the new Hardie Panel walls has been revised from metal to Ceraclad. In reviewing the cladding we realised the depth of those fascia would be difficult to provide without the risk of oil canning (deflections due to thermal expansion and contraction of the metal), if constructed using standard flashing metal. Metal cladding panels would be an option that would prevent the oil canning, but are much more expensive than Ceraclad. The appearance of the Ceraclad fascia will very similar to metal cladding panels without the potential problems of standard flashing metal. Refer to the material tag #19 on the elevation drawings and the colour board for areas the metal fascia has been replaced with Ceraclad.

The changes proposed have been carefully considered to have minimal impact or improve the overall design while bringing costs more inline with current market conditions.

As neither the Zoning Bylaw or the OCP have been revised since the previous DP application, we haven’t included a full design rationale or description of the requested variances. The previous submitted letters, outlining in more detail these concerns, are appended to this letter should you wish to review.

Sincerely, VDA Architecture Limited Kevin Klippenstein, Architect AIBC

---

January 25, 2021

Town of View Royal Attention: Mayor Screech and Council Members 45 View Royal Avenue Victoria, BC V9B 1A6

RE: 7 Erskine Lane – Development Permit Application

Dear Mayor Screech and Council Members,

We are pleased to submit this Development Permit Application for the above property and this letter summarizes the design intent and how the proposed development fits with the objectives of the View Royal OCP and will be a positive development for the neighbourhood community and the Town of View Royal in general.

The property has recently been rezoned to permit the proposed development and the rezoning was based on the conceptual design further developed and presented in this DP application. The overall scheme remains very similar to the conceptual design with some modifications to proposed setbacks, surface parking and building height as well as an additional one-bedroom unit to increase the unit count from 70 to 71 units. The proposed development is in accordance with the general objectives of the OCP and furthermore, the owner and consultant team met several times with View Royal’s Planning Department during the rezoning process in order to ensure the proposed development aligned with the vision of View Royal for this area.

The site is located close to the hospital, second from the end of a dead-end residential street, and in the immediate vicinity of the Galloping Goose Trail. The OCP designates the property within the Hospital Neighbourhood Centre and supports higher density: Intensive Mixed Use. The property to the immediate west and adjoining the site is a large, mostly forested tract that is in the process of being rezoned for development.

The OCP recommends mixed-use with both residential and commercial; however, commercial in this location would not be viable. Being at the end of a residential street with no other commercial development, the property is too far away from other commercial development and too inconvenient of a location to draw enough people to support commercial use. Furthermore, the existing neighbourhood is concerned about traffic and commercial use would likely further increase traffic loads to the end of Erskine Lane. Although commercial would not be appropriate to this site, higher density as proposed in the OCP is appropriate. The property is very close to the hospital, within walking distance to any future commercial development in the Hospital Neighbourhood Centre, close to transit hubs and literally across the street from the Galloping Goose Trail which has experienced a boom in commuter and recreational use as people look for more transportation options and as more cycling paths are developed across the region.

The development further aligns with the OCP in the following ways:

• By providing a mix of unit types ranging from 1 to 3 bedrooms a broad range of family types would occupy the development. The 2 and 3 bedroom units provide options for families while the one bedroom units are “affordable by design” by providing less expensive units for singles or couples to enter the housing market.
• The location is ideal for promoting walking and cycling rather than vehicle use. The hospital is within walking distance and it’s anticipated those working at the hospital and looking to live closer to their place of work will be some of the future residents. The development will also be of interest to those who wish to commute to other areas of Greater Victoria due to it’s immediate proximity to the Galloping Goose and walking distance to a transit hub.
• The provision of a communal outdoor amenity garden will encourage outdoor use and help develop a sense of community within the development.
• Energy efficient design will be to Step 2 of the BC Building Code Step Code.
• Reduction of greenhouse gas emissions is addressed through the following items:
  • 4 shared EV charging stations will be provided immediately that will service 12 parking stalls,
  • provisions for an additional 6 EV charging stations to be added in the future, servicing a further 16 stalls, will be provided for a total of 28 stalls having access to charging,
  • the main roof will be designed to accommodate future solar panels with conduit in place for the future EV charging stations to be energized by solar power, and
  • a green roof over a significant portion of the parking structure.

The development meets the requirements of the proposed zoning, RM-3, regarding setbacks, density, etc. except a variance for building height is requested along with minor variances to some projections into setbacks, as discussed below.

A review of the public infrastructure has been undertaken and it is anticipated an upgrade of the water service will be required to provide adequate flow for the sprinkler system. Other infrastructure is adequate for the development and includes a stormwater retention area under the surface parking.

The site has soils that will need to be remediated and this was resolved, with permits in hand, during the rezoning process.

The proposed development fits within the neighbourhood both as currently exists and as foreseen in the future according to the OCP objectives. The other side of Erskine Lane, the south side of the street, is a combination of single family residential and a townhome subdivision with a wide green boulevard and rear yards facing Erskine. The proposed development will have no visual or shadow impact on these neighbours and is quite separated from these neighbours. To the west is a largely undeveloped property zoned A-1 with an older single-family residence which is currently in the process of being rezoned for more intensive use. To the east is a lot of approximately the same size currently with a single-family residence which would also most likely be rezoned in the future to a density similar to the proposed.

Design Rationale

The existing grading of the site and the shape of the lot were challenging aspects and influenced the proposed design significantly. Several schemes were explored, including 2 to 3 level townhomes, but none achieved the objectives of the OCP for intensive development as well as the final scheme, and all other schemes explored had significantly greater site coverage and less open green space even with fewer units. It was also a challenge to develop a scheme that addressed the street without being significantly set back or raised too high from Erskine Lane. By stepping the building and offsetting the main structure towards the west side of the lot, it was possible to provide street presence and avoid disassociating the building from Erskine and also provide a significant amount of open and green space for the use of the residents by utilizing the roof over the parking as an amenity garden. It also allowed significant trees and most of the rock outcropping to remain which is a significant feature of the site. The proposed design also steps at the corners facing Erskine to further the intention of providing a street presence without being overpowering.

Detailed massing has been developed that breaks up the façade into distinct portions with roof popups to provide variation, visual interest and avoid flat, monotonous building faces. Materials further emphasise the breakup of the massing with a combination of white Hardi-Panel, dark textured Ceraclad and Hardi-Plank painted to imitate cedar siding but without the ongoing maintenance of cedar.

As the neighbourhood is concerned about parking along Erskine and development not impacting the parking on the street, parking on the site fully conforms to the zoning bylaw and no variance is requested for parking. In addition, as committed to during the rezoning of the site, Erskine Lane will be improved and street parking is added within the cul-de-sac at the end of the street. As no parking variance is requested, it’s anticipated on-site parking will fully service the development and the additional street parking will be available to the neighbourhood on an as-need basis.

Building Height Variance

Permitted Height: 13.5m Proposed Height: 16.90m

A variance on the building height is requested mostly due to the grading of the property. There is a significant rise from street level to the rear of the site and the building steps with the grade. It would be possible to provide the same number of units, in a slightly altered layout, with less of a height variance by raising the south (street facing portion) by 4m and not stepping the building while also pushing the building further away from the street and by deleting the roof popups on the upper floors. However, that would lift the main level significantly above street level and push it back a further 10m on the property as well as result in a more monotonous massing with no variation to the roof levels. There would be a less desirable relationship to the street and in fact result in a building that from Erskine Lane would appear to be higher and more massive than what is proposed. By keeping the street portion lower and stepping the upper portion of the building at approximately 18m back from Erskine, the overall massing of the building is reduced in appearance and better meets the intent of the zoning height but leads to the building being over the allowable height for the RM-3 zone.

Setback Projection Variance 1: Front Yard (South)

Elements permitted to project into setback:

• Cornice, leader, gutter, window well or eave up to 1m
• Chimneys, bay windows, heating or ventilation equipment, balconies, open porches or ornamental features up to 0.5m with no maximum width

Proposed projection: 1.0m for main entrance, balconies and roof above main entrance

The zoning bylaw has several exemptions for projections into setbacks but no specific exemptions for main entrances. The proposed entry canopy, canopy support structure, and 2 balconies and roof above the entrance project into the required front setback. There are 2 aspects to this variance request. First, that the entrance canopy and supporting structure be allowed to project into the setback. Second, the zoning bylaw permits a maximum projection of 0.5m and the proposed is a 1.0m projection in order to provide a sense of presence to the main street entrance. The entry canopy and balconies could be pulled back to conform to the 0.5m allowable but this would be a less desirable solution as the entrance would not have as much significance to the street.

Setback Projection Variance 2: Side Yard (West)

Elements permitted to project into setback:

• Cornice, leader, gutter, window well or eave up to 1m
• Chimneys, bay windows, heating or ventilation equipment, balconies, open porches or ornamental features up to 0.5m up to maximum total width of 2.0m per building face

Proposed projection: 0.5m for width of 0.4m of vertical wall design element

The Zoning Bylaw, 3.7.2.(b), permits “ornamental features” to project 0.5m into a side yard setback but the bylaw doesn’t define what would be considered an ornamental feature. One of the design elements of the proposal wraps the roof overhang down one side of the bay associated with those roofs and projects into the side yard in a single instance for the west side yard. The projection is less than 500mm wide and projects slightly less than 300mm into the setback in a single location at the southwest corner of the building. There is no habitable space within this wall. It’s possible to omit this ornamental feature without affecting the suites, however, the overall appearance will be more cohesive with the rest of the design if permitted.

Setback Projection Variance 3: Rear Yard (North)

Elements permitted to project into setback:

• Cornice, leader, gutter, window well or eave up to 1m
• Chimneys, bay windows, heating or ventilation equipment, balconies, open porches or ornamental features up to 0.5m up to maximum total width of 2.0m per building face

Proposed projection: 0.5m for total width of 4.5m of building face

At the rear yard, north building face, there’s a single stack of balconies and another ornamental vertical wall, similar to the above situation, on the west building face, that both project the allowable 0.5m into the setback; however, the total width of the projections is 4.5m. Reducing the balcony to conform to the maximum 2.0m width per building face will result in a very small balcony for the residents.

In summary, the proposed development meets the objectives of the OCP and fits well with the existing neighbourhood by stepping down the building massing at the street to a residential scale and limiting use to residential only. Parking confirms to the zoning bylaw and shouldn’t have any impact on street parking in the neighbourhood.

We trust the above meets with your approval.

Regards, VDA Architecture Limited Kevin Klippenstein, Architect AIBC, AAA, MRAIC