REQUEST FOR DECISION
DATE: August 17, 2016 Report No. DEV-16-058
TO: Laurie Hurst, Chief Administrative Officer
FROM: Trevor Parkes, Senior Planner
SUBJECT:
Title
Rezoning Application, 910 McNaughton Avenue, PID 005-972-159 Lot 6, Block 1, Section 10, Esquimalt District, Plan 5484End
RECOMMENDATION:
Recommendation
1. That Council resolves that Amendment Bylaw No. 2879, attached as Schedule ‘A’ to Staff Report DEV-16-058, which would amend Zoning Bylaw, 1992, No. 2050 by changing the zoning designation of PID 005-972-159 Lot 6, Block 1, Section 10, Esquimalt District, Plan 5484 [910 McNaughton Avenue] shown cross hatched on Schedule ‘A’ of Bylaw No. 2879, from RS-1 [Single Family Residential] to CD No. 100 [Comprehensive Development District No. 100], be considered for first and second reading; and
2. That Council authorizes the Corporate Officer to schedule a Public Hearing for Zoning Amendment Bylaw No. 2879, mail notices and advertise for same in the local newspaper.
Body
RELEVANT POLICY:
Official Community Plan Bylaw, 2006, No. 2646
Zoning Bylaw, 1992, No 2050
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:
Purpose of the Application
The applicant is requesting a change in zoning from the current RS-1 [Single Family Residential] zone to a Comprehensive Development zone [CD] which would allow two new single family residences, each on a fee simple parcel. The existing house would be demolished and two new homes would be constructed.
This site is located within Development Permit Area No. 5 - Enhanced Design Control Residential. Should the rezoning application be approved, the applicant would need complete a subdivision and then to obtain Development Permits respecting the character of the development, including landscaping, and the siting, form, exterior design and finish of the two proposed single unit infill houses which would be considered by both the Advisory Planning Commission and Council at a future date.
Context
Applicant/ Owner: Odin Developments Ltd. [Justin Kroh]
Property Size: Metric: 653 m2 Imperial: 7029 ft2
Existing Land Use: Single Family Residence
Surrounding Land Uses:
North: Multiple Family Residential
South: Two Family Residential
West: Single Family Residential
East: Single Family Residential
Existing Zoning: RS-1 [Single Family Residential]
Proposed Zoning: Comprehensive Development District No. 100 [CD-100]
Existing OCP Designation: Single and Two Unit Residential [No change required]
Schedules:
“A” Zoning Bylaw, 1992, No. 2050, Amendment Bylaw No. 2879;
“B” OCP, Zoning, Site Context information;
“C” Green Building Checklist;
“D” Letters of Support;
“E” Letters of Opposition; and
“F” Site Plan, Architectural Drawings and BC Land Survey
Comments From Other Departments
The plans for this proposal were circulated to other departments and the following comments were received by the submission deadline:
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 two new single family houses proposed to be located at 910 McNaughton Ave. 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 water, sewer and drain connections and underground hydro, telephone and cable services. 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 proposed development.
Comments from the Advisory Planning Commission [APC]
This application was considered at the regular meeting of APC held on Tuesday, July 19, 2016.
Members commented that they felt the application had merit and that the proposed houses represented good design and would be desirable for families. Members stated that the applicant’s attention to detail and careful consideration of setbacks for this proposal was appreciated and recommended the applicant consider the installation of electric charging stations in the garages. Members commented that they liked the contemporary design and preferred the detached single family homes on individual fee simple lots as opposed to a duplex for this site. In response to the verbal commitment made by the applicant to voluntarily register a covenant prohibiting suites, members commented that this approach is appropriate as the basement space would be valuable to families and suites should be avoided to address neighbourhood concerns regarding over densifying the site and impacts of additional parking demand in the area.
The APC resolved that the application be forwarded to Council with a recommendation of approval with the condition the owner, consistent with statements made to the APC, voluntarily registers a covenant on the property title prohibiting secondary suites in either of the two proposed dwellings to prevent future parking issues and preserve the function of the family homes.
Zoning
Density, Lot Coverage, Height, Setbacks and Parking: The following chart compares the setbacks, height, lot coverage and floor area ratio of this proposal with the requirements of the RS-1 [Single Family Residential Zone]:
|
|
RS-1 |
Proposed CD Zone |
|
|
(Single Family) |
Lot A [South] |
Lot B [North] |
|
Minimum Parcel Size |
530 m² |
322 m² |
325 m² |
|
Floor Area Ratio |
0.35 [FAR] |
0.38 |
0.38 |
|
Maximum Lot Coverage |
30% |
30% |
30% |
|
Minimum Setbacks |
|
|
|
|
Front |
7.5 m |
6.0 m |
4.5 m |
|
Rear |
7.5 m |
1.5 m |
5.5 m |
|
Side |
3.0 m/1.5 m |
4.5 m/5.0 m |
3.4 m/3.0 m |
|
Maximum Building Height |
7.3 m |
7.3 m |
7.3 m |
|
Off Street Parking |
1 space |
1 space |
1 space |
The proposed Floor Area Ratio [FAR] for this project is 0.38 which modestly exceeds the 0.35 FAR permitted in the RS-1 zone. Staff support this increase from the RS-1 standard as it allows the applicant to offer three bedroom 2.5 bathroom homes, plus basement, which are a desirable configuration for many segments of the marketplace, particularly for families, at a scale consistent with the surrounding homes.
At the recommendation of staff, and in an effort to improve the likelihood this application for rezoning will be approved, the property owner has volunteered to register a Section 219 covenant against the title of the existing property limiting the development to only two [2] dwelling units to ensure that neither of the proposed homes can convert space for use as secondary suites.
Official Community Plan
This proposal is consistent with the current Land Use Designation applied to the subject Property, “Single and Two Unit Residential”.
Section 2.0.1(e) states the Township should encourage small scale redevelopment/ infill that improves and enhances the appearance and livability of single-unit and two-unit neighbourhoods and the community as a whole.
Section 2.0.1(g) states the Township should facilitate moderate densification in accordance with the overall objectives and statements of the Regional Growth Strategy and which will meet the municipality’s anticipated housing needs for the life of this plan.
Section 2.0.2(a) states Esquimalt’s Future new development, infill and redevelopment will be in accordance with the land use designations shown on Schedule A, together with the guidelines set out in Development Permit Areas (Section 9).
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 2.2.3(a) states that proposed subdivisions or redevelopments/ infill within established single-unit and two-unit residential areas must be built to high design and landscaping standards and respond sensitively to existing neighbourhood amenities and existing significant views.
Section 9.9 of the Official Community Plan contains Guidelines for Single-Unit Infill Housing [attached]. 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 RS-1 due to the removal of the portion of lands in the southeast corner to facilitate the intersection design when the subdivision was approved. Had this corner remained unaltered, the parcel would have met the minimum frontage and parcel size requirements of the RD-3 zone that was applied to the three neighboring properties to the west. Notwithstanding the smaller lot area, it is the opinion of staff that this parcel is consistent with the direction of this policy.
§ Section 9.9.3.1(b) states that lots with frontage on more than one street are suitable for infill housing applications. The subject property is located on the corner of McNaughton Ave and Uganda Ave.
§ 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 the “Street View and Colour Board for 912 McNaughton Ave and Lot A” of the AJB Home Design drawing package [Schedule F], the proposed homes, when viewed from the street, are consistent with this policy.
ISSUES:
1. Rationale for Selected Option
Notwithstanding the subject property has an area slightly smaller than required for a duplex property, staff are of the opinion that this application is consistent with the policy direction contained within the OCP for single unit infill development. The current RS-1 zoning permits the owner to construct a single family dwelling including a secondary suite on the subject property. Constructing a house to achieve the maximum allowable density and lot coverage on this site would likely result in a building substantially larger than existing homes in the area. This proposal for two single unit infill homes is an attempt to integrate the mass of the individual homes into the existing streetscape rather than dominating it. With the exception of a modest increase in allowable Floor Area and adjustments to setbacks to appropriately site the buildings, the proposed homes are consistent with existing single family residential zoning criteria and promise enhanced building performance for long term sustainability.
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 completed an Esquimalt Green Building Checklist [Schedule C].
5. Communication & Engagement
As this is a rezoning application, should it proceed to a Public Hearing, notice would be mailed to tenants and owners of properties located within 100 metres (328 ft) of the subject property. Notice of the Public Hearing would be placed in two editions of the Victoria News and signs indicating that the property is under consideration for a change in zoning that have been in place on both the McNaughton Avenue and Uganda Avenue frontages since April 2016 would be updated to show the date, time and location of the Public Hearing.
The applicant has provided a series of support letters from the owners and occupiers of 12 addresses on McNaughton Avenue and Uganda Avenue [Schedule D]
Staff have received two letters from local residents opposed to this rezoning proposal [Schedule E].
ALTERNATIVES:
1. Council read Bylaw No. 2879 a first and second time, and direct staff to schedule a Public Hearing.
2. Council postpone consideration of Bylaw No. 2879 pending receipt of additional information.
3. Council deny first and second reading of Bylaw No.2879.