Town of View Royal Council Report - Development Variance Permit 2016/01 – Thetis Vale Phase 6 – Parking Space Length Variance

RECOMMENDATION

THAT the request to reduce the minimum length of driveway parking spaces from 5.5m to 4.5m be declined.

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

The applicant requested rezoning to a small lot zone and has completed subdivision of this phase of development. It has been challenging for the applicant to fit a standard 5.5m long parking space in the driveway in conjunction with the house plans selected for this phase of development. 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 proposed 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 5.5m in length to 4.5m in length.

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.

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 in some cases; 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.

ALTERNATIVE RECOMMENDATION 1

THAT Development Variance Permit 2016/01 be approved to reduce parking space lengths from 5.5m to 4.5m.

When a property is being purchased, it is a common expectation that a driveway will accommodate all passenger vehicles. This option is not supported because large vehicles may encroach into the travelled portion of the road, creating a hazard.

ALTERNATIVE RECOMMENDATION 2

THAT Development Variance Permit 2016/01 be approved to reduce parking space lengths from 5.5m to 4.5m.

AND THAT Development Variance Permit 2016/01 include the condition that no building permit be issued on a lot with an approved 4.5 m driveway parking space until a covenant has been registered to require: a. that vehicles parked in those spaces be no longer than 4.5m. b. that the property line be demarcated on a driveway crossing in a material different from the private driveway surface.

This option would provide notice to property owners about vehicle length restrictions in the driveway. Marking the property line would provide a visual marker and would assist the Town if any enforcement action is required.

RECOMMENDATION

THAT the request to reduce the minimum length of driveway parking spaces from 5.5m to 4.5m be declined.

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