This site is in beta — data may be incomplete and features are still being added.
Council Meeting/Documents/Council Report: DEVELOPMENT PERMIT 2015/12 – 102 ATKINS ROAD
Staff Report

Council Report: DEVELOPMENT PERMIT 2015/12 – 102 ATKINS ROAD

February 2, 2016Pages 17–212 sections

Staff report recommending approval of a development permit for a nine-unit multifamily residential project at 102 Atkins Road.

8.1.a Development Permit No. 2015/12 - 102 Atkins Road
Address: 102 Atkins RoadJanuary 27, 2016Proposed variance to reduce rear yard setback for a hydro kiosk from 7.0m to 0.0mRecommendation: Approval with conditions

Council Report

TO: Mayor & Council DATE: January 27, 2016 FROM: J. Chow, Senior Planner MEETING DATE: February 2, 2016 FILE NO.: 3060-20-2015/12

DEVELOPMENT PERMIT 2015/12 – 102 ATKINS ROAD

RECOMMENDATION:

THAT Development Permit 2015/12 be approved as per the plans and reports attached to the January 27, 2016 report from the Senior Planner titled “Development Permit Application 2015/12 – 102 Atkins Road”;

AND THAT Development Permit 2015/12 include the following conditions:

  • Tree protection measures as recommended by the project arborist to be in place prior to issuance of building permits
  • Landscape cost estimate to be provided prior to development permit issuance

AND FURTHER THAT Development Permit 2015/12 include the following variance:

  • Variance to the minimum rear yard setback for a hydro kiosk from 7.0 m to 0.0 m

CHIEF ADMINISTRATIVE OFFICER’S COMMENTS:

I concur with the recommendation.

DIRECTOR OF DEVELOPMENT SERVICES’ COMMENTS:

I concur with the recommendation.

PURPOSE OF REPORT:

To consider a Form & Character development permit application for a nine unit multifamily development. A variance is requested for the location of three surplus parking spaces.

BACKGROUND:

The 6400m² subject property is located in the Atkins neighbourhood between the E & N Rail Corridor and Galloping Goose Trail. A demolition permit has been issued for a single family dwelling located at the east end of the parcel. The site is long and triangular, coming to a point at the west end, where second growth trees have been established on and around the parcel. There is a large rock outcrop and small grove of Garry oaks at the east end. Adjacent land uses are single family residential but none adjoin the site because it is separated by three different transportation rights-of-way. The property was rezoned to the site-specific CD-21: Detached Multiple-Unit Residential zone in June 2015 to facilitate the proposed development. September 8, 2015

PROPOSAL:

The applicant proposes to construct a multifamily residential development comprised of nine detached strata units as shown in Attachments 3-15. The units would be two storey single family dwellings each with an attached single car garage and a surface parking space in front. Seven additional parking spaces are proposed in order minimize the potential for visitor parking in the neighbourhood.

A driveway from the newly renamed Fagan Place (formerly a disconnected stub of Chilco Road) provides access through the site along the south property line. A large area at west end of the site is to be preserved as natural green space and storm water retention. A rock bluff at the site entrance will be blasted to provide appropriate and create a suitable building site. Environmental, geotechnical and traffic issues were addressed at the time of rezoning.

A variance is requested for the siting of three surplus parking space from a lot line from 1.2m to 0m.

ANALYSIS:

There are three principle considerations for this development permit application: a) How does the proposal address the applicable development permit guidelines? b) How does the proposal meet Zoning Bylaw requirements? c) Is the requested variance supportable?

A. Development Permit Area Guidelines

The parcel is within the Mixed Residential Development Permit Area for the regulation of form and character of development. Overall, the proposal is in accordance with the relevant guidelines of the Mixed Residential Development Permit Area (see Attachment 17).

The site design was driven by a number of factors, primarily the challenging lot shape. The building configuration was design with the assistance of a certified arborist to minimize tree impacts on the property (27 trees retained, 21-23 to be removed) and offsite. A rocky outcrop with Arbutus and Douglas fir trees would be retained to provide a natural buffer that would split the groupings of buildings. The result is a unique housing form that is distinct from the standard townhouse configuration by providing residences in the form and privacy of single family residence, suitable for people that are unable or do not wish to manage a large yard.

B. Zoning Compliance

The site is subject to the requirements of the CD-21: Detached Multiple-Unit Residential zone. Table 1 summarizes Zoning Bylaw compliance. A variance for the location of off-street parking is requested.

Table 1. Zoning Review

CD-21: Detached Multiple-Unit Residential Required Proposed
Lot Size
Lot Size, minimum 6000m² 6400m²
Lot Width, minimum 18.0m 48.0 m
Lot Density
Dwelling Units 9 9
Floor Space Ratio, Base Density 0.6:1 0.3:1
Lot Coverage, maximum 40% 15%
Impermeable Surface Coverage, maximum 40% 30%
Size of Principal Buildings and Other Structures
Building Height, maximum 7.5m 7.2m
Building Width, minimum 6m 9m
Floor Space for each Dwelling Unit, maximum 325 m² 161m²
Storeys, maximum 2.5 2
Siting of Principal Buildings and Other Structures
Front Lot Line Setback, minimum 7.5m 7.5 m
Rear Lot Line Setback, minimum 6.0m >48m
Side Lot Line Setback, minimum 1.5m 2.5m
Flanking Lot Line Setback, minimum 4.5m n/a
Siting of Accessory Buildings and Other Structures
All lot lines, minimum 1.2m n/a
Parking
Spaces @ 2 per unit 18 25

C. Requested Variance

The requested variance to locate parking 0.0 m from a lot line where 1.2 is the standard requirement as shown in Figure 1 can be supported for several reasons:

a. It would provide three off street parking spaces to accommodate visitors, which would exceed Zoning Bylaw requirements. b. It would reduce the potential impact of overflow parking into the adjacent neighbourhood. No on street parking is available on Atkins Road and Fagan Place, which is mostly a turnaround area. c. The location of the parking spaces would for adjacent residents.

Figure 1. Proposed location of parking spaces. Site plan showing building footprints A3, B2, C2, and C3 along a driveway connected to Fagan Place. Three parking spaces are identified and circled near the Galloping Goose trail.
Figure 1. Proposed location of parking spaces. Site plan showing building footprints A3, B2, C2, and C3 along a driveway connected to Fagan Place. Three parking spaces are identified and circled near the Galloping Goose trail.

If the variance is not supported, one parallel parking space could be provided in this location in compliance with Zoning Bylaw requirements for the siting of parking.

RECOMMENDATION:

THAT Development Permit 2015/12 be approved as per the plans and reports attached to the January 27, 2016 report from the Senior Planner titled “Development Permit Application 2015/12 – 102 Atkins Road”;

AND THAT Development Permit 2015/12 include the following conditions:

  • Tree protection measures as recommended by the project arborist to be in place prior to issuance of building permits
  • Landscape cost estimate to be provided prior to development permit issuance

AND FURTHER THAT Development Permit 2015/12 include the following variance:

  • Variance to the minimum rear yard setback for a hydro kiosk from 7.0 m to 0.0 m

SUBMITTED BY: J. Chow, MCIP, RPP, Senior Planner REVIEWED BY: L. Chase, MCIP, RPP, Director of Development Services

Page 17–21

ATTACHMENTS:

  1. Location Map
  2. Letter from Brian Trenchard, En Viro Tec General Contracting Ltd. – July 12, 2015 (4 pages)
  3. Site Plan – Victoria Design – January 25, 2016
  4. Streetscape – Victoria Design – January 25, 2016
  5. Type A Home floor plans – Victoria Design – January 25, 2016
  6. Type B Homes floor plans – Victoria Design – January 25, 2016
  7. Type C Homes floor plans – Victoria Design – January 25, 2016
  8. Building grade calculations – Victoria Design – January 25, 2016
  9. Building height calculations – Victoria Design – January 25, 2016
  10. Type A building elevations – Victoria Design – January 25, 2016
  11. Type B building elevations – Victoria Design – January 25, 2016
  12. Type C building elevations – Victoria Design – January 25, 2016
  13. Landscape Layout – DE Landscape Solutions – January 26, 2016
  14. Site Servicing Plan General notes – Westbrook Consulting Ltd. – July 2, 2015
  15. Site Servicing Plan and Profile – Westbrook Consulting Ltd. – July 2, 2015
  16. Tree Inventory Report – Dunster & Associates – October 31, 2014 (6 pages)
  17. Development Permit Guideline Review, Town of View Royal Development Services (pages)
Page 17–21

Document Images

(14)
Document image
Document image
Document image
Document image
Document image
Document image
Document image
Document image
Document image
Document image
Document image
Document image
Document image
Document image
Extracted from: 2016 02 02 Council Agenda - Pdf