REQUEST FOR DECISION
DATE: October 16, 2015 Report No. DEV-15-051
TO: Laurie Hurst, Chief Administrative Officer
FROM: Trevor Parkes, Senior Planner
SUBJECT:
Title
Rezoning Application, 865 Kindersley Road, [PID 004-671-961] Lot A, Section 10, Esquimalt District, Plan 12881
End
RECOMMENDATION:
Recommendation
That Council, upon considering the comments made at the Public Hearing, resolves that Amendment Bylaw No. 2858, attached as Schedule ‘A’ to Staff Report DEV-15-051, which would amend Zoning Bylaw, 1992, No. 2050 by changing the zoning designation of PID 004-671-961 Lot A, Section 10, Esquimalt District, Plan 12881 [865/867 Kindersley Road] shown cross hatched on Schedule ‘A’ of Bylaw No. 2858, from RD-1 [Two Family Residential] to CD No. 94 [Comprehensive Development District No. 94], be read a third time and adopted.
Body
RELEVANT POLICY:
Official Community Plan Bylaw, 2006, No. 2646
Zoning Bylaw, 1992, No 2050
Parking Bylaw, 1992, No. 2011
Development Approval Procedures Bylaw, 2003, No. 2562
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:
Purpose of the Application:
The applicant is requesting a change in zoning from the current RD-1 [Two Family Residential] zone to a Comprehensive Development zone [CD] to allow one additional Single Family Residence, including a Secondary Suite, to be constructed on the rear portion of the subject property. The existing residence including the existing secondary suite would be retained on a separate fee simple lot.
Should the rezoning be approved, the form and character of the buildings and landscaping would be controlled by a development permit that would be considered by Council at a future date.
Context
Applicants: Shaun Wedick and Zebra Design [Rus Collins]
Owner: Philip Delesalle
Property Size: Metric: 962.1 m2 Imperial: 10,356 ft2
Existing Land Use:
Two Family Residence [Single Family Residence with a legal Secondary Suite]
Surrounding Land Uses:
North: Federal DND Lands
South: Single Family and Two Family Residential
West: Single Family Residential
East: Single Family Residential
Existing Zoning: RD-1 [Two Family Residential]
Proposed Zoning: CD-94 [Comprehensive Development District No. 94]
Existing OCP Designation: Single and Two Unit Residential [No change required]
Schedules:
“A” Zoning Bylaw, 1992, No. 2050, Amendment Bylaw No. 2858;
“B” Site Context Maps, OCP Guidelines, and RS-1 Zone;
“C” Applicant’s Green Initiatives List;
“D” Site Plan, Architectural Drawings, Concept Landscape Plan and BCLS Site Plan
“E” Public Hearing Mail Notice and Correction Mail Notice
Comments From Other Departments
The plans for this proposal were circulated to other departments and the following comments were received:
Building Inspection: Plans will be reviewed for compliance with BC Building Code upon submission of a Building Permit. Staff have no concerns at this time.
Engineering Services: Engineering staff have completed a preliminary evaluation of Works and Services that would be required for the new single family house proposed to be located at 865/867 Kindersley Road. Staff confirms that the design appears achievable on the site and that appropriate works and services are available in the immediate area. If approved the development must be serviced in accordance with the requirements of Bylaw No. 2175 including, but not limited to, new sewer and drain connections and underground hydro, telephone and cable services to both the existing and proposed dwellings. Should the application be approved, additional comments will be provided when detailed civil engineering drawings are submitted as part of a subdivision application.
Fire Services: No concerns regarding this development proposal.
Parks Services: Landscape Plan does not provide sufficient information for staff to provide detailed comments. Assuming the significant Oak tree is to be retained, installation of tree protection is required prior to any work beginning on site. Location of the proposed driveway on Coles Street may result in removal of municipal boulevard tree. Provision of a detailed landscape plan shall be required so that comments can be provided prior to the issuance of a Development Permit.
Director of Development Services: Should this rezoning be approved, a Subdivision Development Permit as well as a Development Permit for form and character would be required.
Comments from the Advisory Planning Commission [APC]
This application was considered at the regular meeting of APC held on September 15, 2015. Members commented that they liked the proposed enhancement of the existing home and the design of the new home. Concerns were raised regarding the limited detail provided on the Landscape Plan and members commented that the installation of an asphalt driveway serving the proposed new home was not desirable. Members stated that overall this is an excellent proposal that achieves the goals of the OCP and would enhance the streetscape on Coles Street.
The applicant responded to members’ concerns by agreeing to install permeable paver stones on the driveway to enhance the appearance and allow some water penetration.
The APC recommended forwarding the application to Council with a recommendation of approval.
The applicant addressed the issue of the driveway by submitting an amended set of plans including an updated Landscape Plan stamped “Received September 18, 2015” which detailed paver stones as the driveway surfacing material.
Comments from Council
This application was considered at the regular meeting of Council on October 5, 2015. Council members raised concern regarding the provision of off-street parking associated with the proposed secondary suites.
In response to this concern the applicant has amended the site plan for the proposed home to include an additional parking space located in the northern side yard immediately adjacent to the stairs leading to the basement exterior access as detailed on the revised set of plans provided by Zebra Design, stamped “Received October 15, 2015” [Schedule D].
Zoning
Parcel Size and Frontage, Floor Area Ratio, Lot Coverage, Height, Setbacks, and Parking: The following chart compares the parcel size, frontage, setbacks, height, lot coverage, parking and floor area of this proposal with the requirements of the RS-1 [Single Family Residential Zone]:
|
|
RS-1 |
Proposed CD Zone |
|
|
(Single Family) |
Site A |
Site B |
|
Minimum Parcel Size |
530 m² |
530 m² |
430 m² |
|
Minimum Parcel Frontage |
16 m |
16.4 m |
15.0 m |
|
Floor Area Ratio |
0.35 |
0.47 |
0.39 |
|
Lot Coverage |
30% |
29% |
29% |
|
Setbacks |
|
|
|
|
Front |
7.5 m |
6.1 m |
7.5 m |
|
Rear |
7.5 m |
3.5 m |
8.1 m |
|
Side |
3.0 m/1.5 m |
2.2 m/2.1 m |
3.0 m/1.5 m |
|
Building Height |
7.3 m |
7.3 m |
7.3 m |
|
Off Street Parking |
1 space |
1 space |
2 spaces |
Floor Area Ratio [FAR] measures buildable space in ratio to the size of the lot on which a building sits. The proposed FAR for the new home on the southern parcel is 0.39 which exceeds the 0.35 FAR permitted in the RS-1 zone. This increase represents an additional 17 square metres [186 sqft] of livable space within the home. Staff support this increase from the RS-1 standard as it allows the applicant to construct a three bedroom three bathroom home, plus a basement, which is a desirable configuration for many segments of the marketplace, particularly families, at a scale consistent with surrounding homes. Should the applicant choose not to construct the basement; this home configuration would remain desirable.
The FAR proposed for the existing home is 0.47 which significantly exceeds the 0.35 FAR permitted in the RS-1 zone. The FAR for the existing home exceeds the RS-1 zone standard based solely on the technical approach to calculating FAR. The existing home was constructed with a minimal amount of excavation therefore all three floors are counted as Floor Area. If the basement level of the home had been dug into the ground an additional 0.5 metres, all the floor area associated with the basement would not be counted in the FAR calculation which would result in an FAR of 0.32, less than that permitted in the RS-1 zone.
After the APC meeting, the applicant approached staff with a request that Amendment Bylaw No. 2858 be crafted to allow secondary suites in both the existing home and the proposed dwelling. Characteristics of this development proposal include Site A meeting or exceeding many of the RS-1 zoning regulations and a relatively large Parcel Size and generous Frontage associated with Site B. The existing home including the suite has long been a feature on Kindersley Road generating no issues and staff are of the opinion that a secondary suite could be installed in the new dwelling with little impact on the surrounding neighbourhood. Densification in this area is also supported by the property’s proximity to a major employer, regular transit service and cycling routes.
Official Community Plan
This proposal is consistent with the current Land Use Designation applied to the subject Property, “Single and Two Unit Residential”.
Section 2.2 of the Official Community Plan recognizes that modest residential growth will occur through the infilling of vacant or under-utilized parcels and states that this growth should occur in a manner that maintains and enhances individual neighbourhoods and the community as a whole.
Section 2.2.1(a) states the Township should work toward a more complete community by maintaining a healthy mixture of housing types, accommodating people with a wide range of income levels.
Section 2.2.1(b) states the Township should encourage new residential development with high design standards for building and landscaping and which enhance existing and new neighbourhoods.
Section 3.3.1(a) states that the Township should encourage a range of housing by type, tenure, and price to ensure that people of all ages, household types, abilities and incomes have a diversity of housing choice in Esquimalt.
Section 9.9 of the Official Community Plan contains Guidelines for Single-Unit Infill Housing [Schedule D]. As the Development Permit is not being considered at this time it would be inappropriate to address many of these guidelines with the following exceptions that are relevant to the discussion of zoning issues:
Section 9.9.3.1(a) states that lots currently zoned RD-1 or RD-3, especially those with extra width or lot area are suitable for infill housing applications. The subject property is zoned RD-1 and far exceeds the minimum parcel size requirements of the zone therefore it is consistent with this policy.
Section 9.9.4.2(e) states that new structures should be designed so that the overall massing is in keeping with other single unit residences in the immediate area. As detailed on Sheet SK3 of the Zebra Design drawing package [Schedule D], the proposed homes, when viewed from the street, are consistent with this policy.
Section 9.9.4.2(f) states that new structures, which are two storeys in height, should be designed so that the second storey is partially concealed within the slope of the roof to minimize the height of the building. The use of dormers set into the roof is preferred to a flat roof or a peaked roof set over the second storey. The proposed design is consistent with this policy.
ISSUES:
1. Rationale for Selected Option
This application is consistent with the policy direction contained within the OCP for single unit infill development. The current RD-1 zoning permits the owner to construct a duplex on the subject property. Recent examples of new duplexes within Esquimalt, while sensitively designed, indicate that a new Two Family Residence on this site would likely be substantially larger than many of the existing homes in the area. This proposal to retain the existing single family home including the legal suite, and add a new single unit infill home with a secondary suite would distribute the building mass across the site into two distinct homes which integrate into the existing streetscape rather than dominating it.
With the exception of a modest increase in allowable Floor Area, the proposed new home is consistent with existing single family residential zoning criteria and promises enhanced building performance for long term sustainability. Proposed enhancements to the existing home would also improve efficiency and extend the life of this dwelling.
While the inclusion of secondary suites has not been permitted in Comprehensive Development Zones in the past, the characteristics of this proposal make it a candidate for Council to consider allowing the retention of a long existing suite and the inclusion of a suite in the proposed new home.
2. Organizational Implications
This Request for Decision has no organizational implications.
3. Financial Implications
This Request for Decision has no financial implications.
4. Sustainability & Environmental Implications
The applicant has not completed the Esquimalt Green Building Checklist. A list of ‘Green Initiatives’ stamped “Received August 31, 2015” has been provided for consideration in its place [Schedule C].
5. Communication & Engagement
As this is a rezoning application, notices were mailed to tenants and owners of properties located within 100 metres (328 ft) of the subject property on October 8, 2015 advising them that Council would be considering the requested rezoning on Monday, October 26, 2015 [Schedule E]. A Correction Notice of Public Hearing was mailed to the same tenants and owners on October 9, 2015 to address an error in the original notice incorrectly identifying Kindersley Road as Kindersley Street [Schedule E]. Notice of the Public Hearing was printed in the October 16, 2015 and the October 21, 2015 editions of the Victoria News and two signs indicating that the property is under consideration for a change in zoning, that have been installed on both the Coles Street and Kindersley Road frontages since early September 2015, were updated to show the date, time and location of the Public Hearing.
To date, staff have received no responses resulting from these notices.
ALTERNATIVES:
1. That Council, upon considering the comments heard at the Public Hearing, resolves that Amendment Bylaw No. 2858 be read a third time and adopted.
2. That Council, upon considering the comments heard at the Public Hearing, resolves that Amendment Bylaw No. 2858 be read a third time and directs staff to work with the applicant to address any outstanding issues.
3. That Council, upon considering the comments heard at the Public Hearing, resolves that 2nd reading of Amendment Bylaw No. 2858 be rescinded, Amendment Bylaw No. 2858 be amended to remove the Secondary Suite Use, Amendment Bylaw No. 2858 be read a second time as amended and staff be directed to schedule a new Public Hearing.
4. That Council defeats Amendment Bylaw No. 2858