Town of View Royal Council Report - Form and Character Development Permit with Variances No. 2016/02 – 301 Nursery Hill Drive – ‘Lillian Gate’

TOWN OF VIEW ROYAL COUNCIL REPORT

TO: Council DATE: June 29, 2016 FROM: J. Davison, MCIP RPP, Planner MEETING DATE: July 5, 2016 FILE NO.: 3060-20-2016-02

FORM AND CHARACTER DEVELOPMENT PERMIT WITH VARIANCES 301 NURSERY HILL DR – ‘LILLIAN GATE’

RECOMMENDATION

THAT Council approve Development Permit 2016/02 as per the report attached to the report from the Planner dated June 29, 2016;

AND THAT Development Permit 2016/02 include the following variances:

• A variance to the rear yard setback from 7m to 2.5m (as per the regulation within Section 12.10.2.b).
• A variance to the minimum floor area for a dwelling unit from 75m² to 60m² (as per the regulation within Section 12.9.3.e).
• A variance to the maximum height of a retaining wall from 1.2m to 3.1m (as per the regulation within Section 4.8.9).

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 Form and Character Development Permit for 301 Nursery Hill Dr, to be known as ‘Lillian Gate’. The proposal is for a mix of 7 townhouse and 65 apartment residential units, totalling 72 units.

Two variances are requested – a variance to the rear yard setback from 7m to 2.5m to permit the balconies on the eastern side of the building, and a variance to the minimum unit size from 75m2 (~800 sq. ft.) to 60m2 (~650 sq. ft.).

BACKGROUND

The property is 5840m² in size, and zoned CD-9B: Comprehensive Development Lakeside Village – Medium Density Residential. The site sits between the Aspen building to the west (same CD-9B zoning) and the detached residential CD-9C and CD-9CS to the north. Nursery Hill Park is to the east/northeast.

PROJECT INFORMATION

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

1. Applicant’s statement – Margaret Newell – March 29, 2016
2. Complete set of design drawings – Joe Newell Architect Inc – March 2016
3. Grading and Servicing Plan – Associated Engineering - March 2016
4. Landscape Drawings – 4 Site Landscape Architecture and Site Planning – March 2016
5. Landscape Estimate – 4 Site Landscape Architecture and Site Planning – March 2016
6. Existing Site Plan showing trees – Island Land Surveying – October 2011
7. Arborists’ Report – Talbot Mackenzie & Associates – September 5, 2015
8. Associated Engineering Design Memo – March 9, 2016
9. Project Sustainability Checklist - Joe Newell Architect Inc – March 2016
10. DP Guidelines statement - Joe Newell Architect Inc – March 2016

The proposal is for a 72 unit development in a CD-9B zoning broken down unit-wise follows:

• 21 x 1-br units at 60.4m² (650 sq. ft.)
• 1 x 1-br unit at 77.6m² (835 sq. ft.)
• 43 x 2-br unit at 83.15m² (895 sq. ft.)

Staff have identified three variances required:

• A variance to the rear yard setback from 7m to 2.5m (as per the regulation within Section 12.10.2.b).
• A variance to the minimum floor area for a dwelling unit from 75m² to 60m² (as per the regulation within Section 12.9.3.e).
• A variance to the maximum height of a retaining wall from 1.2m to 3.1m (as per the regulation within Section 4.8.9).

A third variance is likely required for retaining wall height; more information will be sought on retaining walls.

ISSUES AND ANALYSIS

Design Character

The development provides a visual and functional buffer between the detached houses to the north and the apartment residential development to the west at the Aspen buildings. The materials compliment the styles and materials of both developments, and yet provide contrast with the tan/grey/green colour scheme and contemporary design. The unit mix provides a buffer from the exclusively detached residences to the north and the apartment residential to the west, with a mix of apartment residential and ground-oriented townhouses.

Patios and windows address all open spaces and accesses on the property and provide ‘eyes on the street’ for residents and visitors, and the main entrances are visible from Nursery Hill Dr. The townhouse units access the common property roadway directly at grade.

Garbage and recycling is located near the main entrance and is screened.

Staff will be requesting a materials board to more clearly illustrate the materials used during construction in advance of the application heading to Council.

Siting, Height and Massing

The apartment building’s (Building 1) finished grade is significantly lower than the adjacent detached residence at 319 Nursery Hill Dr and screened by trees and other landscaping, providing a sensitive transition in uses. Building 1 is also partially set back from the street on the north side, providing significant green landscaped area adjacent to the house at 319 Nursery Hill as well as pathways accessing both the building and the park behind.

While the size of the site limits terracing options on Building 1, the courtyard and the separation and contrast to the lower townhouses breaks up the site.

Landscaping

Mature trees are to be retained on the north side of the development as a buffer to the detached residences. The applicant has provided a species mix that is a mix of native and non-native species which is consistent with the other sites within Nursery Hill.

The landscape plan incorporates a pathway which connects Nursery Hill Dr with Nursery Hill Park behind it. Staff will be seeking a registered Statutory Right of Way over the area marked ‘Park Access Easement’ on Drawing A.1 to allow public access over the property along that pathway.

Significant retaining walls will be required on the western and eastern portions of the site. The plans show ‘allan block or equivalent’ on the grading and servicing plan. Staff will seek more detail on height and material of retaining walls in advance of the application coming to Council.

Trees

The applicant has provided an arborists’ report, identifying the trees to be retained and removed, and the trees within the park which may be impacted. The site plan within the arborists’ report is an outdated site plan, but the trees impacted are very similar – an additional 1 tree (from 30 trees to 31) are indicated as being impacted by the applicant from the updated plan.

Lighting

The applicant has identified lighting locations on the site plan and has indicated on plans that the lighting fixtures for lamp post and bollard will be ‘dark skies friendly’.

Parking, Access, Circulation

The development provides the required 98 parking spaces; 71 underground, 7 spaces in the townhouse garages, and 20 spaces provided on the surface. In response to Committee’s concerns, the applicant has indicated that 12 surface parking spaces will be dedicated to visitor parking and have indicated the locations on the site plan.

Building 1 provides 80 bike spaces and one storage space per unit, in addition to a 6-space bike parking spot outside the building.

The private road width and the turnaround is sufficient for the Fire Department.

Retaining Walls

The retaining wall material for retaining walls over 1.2m (which will require variances) will be concrete. The south east corner of the site near the townhouses will have retaining walls up to 2.3m to retain the adjacent park grades. The north west corner of the site will extend up to 3.1m high.

Variances

The balcony variance on the eastern portion of the property from 7m to 2.5m was originally identified as 4m to 2.5m in the Committee report. Staff had since identified the error in the drawings, whereby the appropriate variance is from 7m to 2.5m. The drawings, dimensions and requested distance to the lot line has not changed since Committee.

The unit size variance from 75m² to 60m² provides a larger range of 1br sizing and will contribute to the supply of affordable housing in View Royal.