REQUEST FOR DECISION
DATE: June 3, 2019 Report No. DEV-19-050
TO: Laurie Hurst, Chief Administrative Officer
FROM: Alex Tang, Planner and Bill Brown, Director of Development Services
SUBJECT:
Title
Development Variance Permit - 835 Dunsmuir Road
End
RECOMMENDATION:
Recommendation
That Council resolves that Development Variance Permit No. DVP00091, as attached as Appendix A to Staff Report DEV-019-050, to authorize the following variance to Zoning Bylaw, 1992, No. 2050, as shown on the architectural plan of the parking level, provided by Praxis Architects Inc., stamped “Received May 15, 2019”, for the proposed 5 storey, 32 unit apartment building, be approved, and staff be directed to issue the permit and register the notice on the title of the property located at 835 Dunsmuir Road [PID 030-709-156, Parcel A (Being a consolidation of Lots 2 and 3, see CA7353737), Section 11, Esquimalt District, Plan 9757].
Zoning Bylaw, 1992, No. 2050, Section 67.95. (9)(a)(v) - Siting Exceptions - Principal Building - A 0.7 metre decrease to the requirement that no principal building shall be located within 2.0 metres of the northern Exterior Side Lot Line to accommodate the parking structure situated below the First Storey [i.e. from 2.0 metres to 1.3 metres].
Body
RELEVANT POLICY:
Official Community Plan Bylaw, 2018, No. 2922
Zoning Bylaw, 1992, No. 2050
Declaration of Climate Emergency
Parking Bylaw, 1992, No. 2011
Development Application Procedures and Fees Bylaw, 2012, No. 2791
Advisory Planning Commission Bylaw, 2012, No. 2792
Subdivision and Development Control Bylaw, 1997, No. 2175
Green Building Checklist
STRATEGIC RELEVANCE:
This Request for Decision does not directly relate to a specific strategic objective.
BACKGROUND:
Appendix A: DVP00091
Appendix B: Subject Property Map, Aerial Map
Appendix C: Mail Notice
Appendix D: Letter from Applicant
Appendix E: Architectural Plan
Purpose of the Application:
The applicant is requesting a variance to Zoning Bylaw, 1992, No. 2050, for a decrease in the setback to the Exterior Side Lot Line for the parking structure. The structural engineer has determined that additional structures were required in the parking level which resulted in the encroachment into the setback to the Exterior Side Lot Line. The setbacks at the First Storey and above will not change as a result of this requested variance.
Context
Applicant: Praxis Architects Inc. [Heather Spinney]
Owner: D.E. Mann Properties Ltd., Inc.No. BC1125695
Property Size: Metric: 1526 m2 Imperial: 16427 ft2
Existing Land Use: Vacant Residential
Surrounding Land Uses:
North: Single Family Residential
South: Multiple Family Residential [4 storeys]
West: Multiple Family Residential [3 storeys]
East: Multiple Family Residential [4 storeys]
Existing Zoning: Comprehensive Development District No. 108 [CD No. 108]
Zoning
Comprehensive Development District No. 108 as part of Zoning Bylaw, 1992, No. 2050, Amendment Bylaw No. 2924, was adopted by Council on February 25th, 2019, to govern this development. Within this zone, the setback to the Exterior Side Lot Line is 7.5 metres; additionally, a siting exception allows for a setback of 2.0 metres for the parking structure below the First Storey.
The applicant has written a letter describing the need of a reduced setback to the Exterior Side Lot Line for the parking structure. This need is based on the requirement of additional structures at the parking level as determined by the structural engineer. The applicant is requesting a reduction of the setback to the Exterior Side Lot Line from 2.0 metres to 1.3 metres.
Comments from the Advisory Planning Commission [APC]
This application was considered at the regular meeting of the APC held on May 21, 2019. Members questioned whether this variance would affect the size of the parking spaces. The applicant affirmed that it does not and that the size of the parking spaces will be consistent with the Parking Bylaw. The APC resolved that the application be forwarded to Council with a recommendation of approval as the proposal is a minor variation and increases the stability of the building.
ISSUES:
1. Rationale for Selected Option
The requested variance will have a minimal visual and physical impact to the streetscape. Moreover, the Advisory Planning Commission recommended approval.
2. Organizational Implications
This Request for Decision has no significant organizational implications.
3. Financial Implications
This Request for Decision has no significant financial implications.
4. Sustainability & Environmental Implications
This Request for Decision has no significant sustainability or environmental implications.
5. Communication & Engagement
As this proposal includes a Development Variance Permit application, notices were mailed to owners and occupiers of parcels within 50 metres [164 ft.] of the subject property. Notices were mailed on May 28, 2019 [Appendix C] indicating that Council would be considering the requested Development Variance Permit application on June 10, 2019. To date, the Development Services Department has received no comments as a result of the notification.
ALTERNATIVES:
1. That Council resolves that Development Variance Permit No. DVP00091 [Appendix A] be approved, and staff be directed to issue the permits and register the notice on the title.
2. That Council deny Development Variance Permit No. DVP00091 [Appendix A].