TOWN OF SIDNEY ADVISORY PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING THE ARBUTUS ROOM 3:00 P.M. September 1, 2015 AGENDA

Transcription

1 TOWN OF SIDNEY ADVISORY PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING THE ARBUTUS ROOM 3:00 P.M. September 1, 2015 AGENDA 1. ADOPTION OF AGENDA: 2. ADOPTION OF MINUTES: June 2, OFFICIAL COMMUNITY PLAN AMENDMENT APPLICATION NO. OP100025, ZONING AMENDMENT APPLICATION NO. RZ100083, DEVELOPMENT PERMIT APPLICATION NO. DP & DEVELOPMENT VARIANCE PERMIT APPLICATION NO. DV100171: 9700 & 9708 Fourth Street PROPOSAL: The proposal is for a 4-storey mixed-use development consisting of ground floor commercial, 16 multi-family dwelling units and surface parking. The building would include a range of residential dwelling unit sizes, from micro suite/studio to two bedroom. As proposed, the development requires an amendment to the Downtown / Downtown Waterfront Local Area Plan (part of the OCP) to include the properties within the Local Area Plan s boundaries in order to allow for 9 additional residential units over the currently permitted 7 units. The applicant is requesting variances for parking (number of spaces and setbacks) for the proposed development. Revisions to the commercial space have reduced the required parking for the development (as well as the variance request) by one parking space. 4. ITEMS DISPOSITION BY COUNCIL: MEETING ADJOURNED:

2 TOWN OF SIDNEY ADVISORY PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING MINUTES June 2, 2015 PRESENT: Chairperson: Members: Council Liaison: Staff: Absent: Kelly Bull-Tomer Art Finlayson, Debbie Gray, Dennis Carlsen, Greg Flanagan, Jane Hall, Jason Rodd, Tara Cumming, Terry Johnston and Thomas Teuwen Councillor Erin Bremner Marlaina Elliott, Director of Development Services Alison Verhagen, Manager of Planning Melanie Bogusz, Administrative Assistant Talinna Kuchma 1. ADOPTION OF AGENDA: Moved by Dennis Carlsen, seconded by Terry Johnston, that the Agenda be adopted as circulated. MOTION CARRIED: 2. ADOPTION OF MINUTES: Moved by Jane Hall, seconded by Greg Flanagan, that the Minutes of March 3, 2015 be adopted as circulated. MOTION CARRIED: T. Cumming excused herself from the meeting due to a conflict of interest. 3. DEVELOPMENT PERMIT APPLICATION NO. DP & DEVELOPMENT VARIANCE PERMIT APPLICATION NO. DV100169: 2207 James White Boulevard PROPOSAL: The proposed development involves the construction of three single family dwellings once the subject property has been subdivided to accommodate the new dwellings. Variances are requested to relax the front setback to allow front porches to project into required setbacks; to relax maximum lot coverage for each property; and to reduce the required number of parking spaces per dwelling. Presenter: Tara Cumming, Cumming Design (Designer) In attendance: Roger Garside, Roger Garside Construction (Developer)

3 Advisory Planning Commission Meeting June 2, 2015 Page 2 Alison Verhagen gave a brief overview on the proposed development. The presenter used a PowerPoint presentation to give an overview of some of the key features of the proposed development. There was a query on sidewalks but as there are currently no sidewalks in the area the frontage improvements for this development will include curb, gutter, and boulevard trees. Staff did note a comment that came from the Town's internal Development Review Committee which was to reduce the driveway flares to include on-street parking where feasible. A member inquired as to the status of the subdivision and whether any variances would be required for the existing dwelling. Staff advised that the Preliminary Letter of Approval for the boundary adjustment subdivision to obtain sufficient lot area for this development had not yet been issued and that a variance will be required for lot coverage for a shed to remain on the neighbouring property from which a small amount of lot area will be obtained. With respect to parking for the development, it was noted that each dwelling will have a single car garage and that a variance is being requested for one parking space. As the Town's boulevard in that area is wide it was noted that there is enough space to accommodate an additional vehicle parking space on the driveway in front of the garage. However, Town owned property cannot be used in the calculation of off-street parking; therefore this parking space could not be used in the parking space calculation for the proposed development. There was a question on fence heights and screening options for the rear yards of the proposed dwellings. A member suggested that the depth of the front porches be extended further forward to 8 feet from the proposed depth of 6 feet and 4 feet. It was felt that increasing the size of the porches would add visual interest to the streetscape and make for a more useable space. Another member suggested that increasing the size of the rear yard be considered. It was felt that would allow for increased livability and marketability for the dwellings. The presenter concurred with the concepts of the suggestions but noted that both would result in an increase to the requested variances. She noted that when considering the design of the project it was felt that there is a balance to requesting variances. Discussion ensued between the members on both suggestions. The consensus of the members was to shift the dwellings 0.6m (2ft) to the north to allow for more rear yard space and to increase the depth of the front porches for all proposed dwellings to 2.44m (8ft) to allow for more usable space. It was felt that the impact of this adjustment would be minimal as the boulevard in that area is very wide. It was agreed upon to incorporate both suggestions into the recommendation to Council. Overall the members had positive comments on the proposed development. Moved by Art Finlayson, seconded by Jason Rodd, that the Advisory Planning Commission recommends to Council that Development Permit Application No. DP (to permit the construction of three single-family small lot dwellings) and Development Variance Permit Application No. DV (to relax front setback, lot coverage, and number of vehicle parking spaces) be approved, subject to the following conditions: 1. That Subdivision Application No. SA be approved; 2. That the applicant submit revised drawings that reflect: a) An increase in the depth of the porches for Lots A, B, and C to 2.44m (8ft); and b) The dwellings on Lots A, B, and C be shifted north by 0.6m (2ft) which would reduce the front setback line of the dwellings to 3.9m (12.7ft); And the variances for front setback and lot coverage be altered accordingly;

4 Advisory Planning Commission Meeting June 2, 2015 Page 3 3. That prior to the issuance of Building Permit, the property owner pay to the Town a deposit in the amount of 115% of the estimated cost to complete the hard and soft landscaping for the development; 4. That the property owner undertake all offsite works and services to the satisfaction of the Director of Engineering & Works; 5. That the property owner work with the Parks Department regarding the number, type, size and location of new boulevard trees to be planted; and 6. That all property owners within 75m (246ft) of the subject property be notified regarding the proposed variances, and any written correspondence received be forwarded to Council for consideration. T. Cumming returned to the meeting. MOTION CARRIED: 4. DEVELOPMENT PERMIT APPLICATION NO. DP & DEVELOPMENT VARIANCE PERMIT APPLICATION NO. DV100170: 2342 Orchard Avenue PROPOSAL: The proposal is to develop two small-lot single-family homes once the subject property has been subdivided to accommodate the new dwellings. The applicant is requesting variances to relax the side interior setbacks for the garages and to allow for increased lot coverage at the first storey level. Presenter: Ron McNeil, McNeil Building Designs Limited (Designer) In attendance: Scott Davies, Cube Project Management Ltd (Developer) Alison Verhagen gave a brief overview on the proposed development. The presenter used a PowerPoint presentation and gave the committee an overview on the proposed development. A member asked if a duplex had been considered. It was advised that a duplex is not permitted under the subject property's zoning. It was felt that the detached dwellings allows for more windows and reduced massing. Another member commented that couplet houses are a permitted use in a nearby zone but felt that the detached single family dwellings were appropriate for the area. Multiple members had positive comments on the proposed plan to attach the garages, which requires a setback variance. While it is a large driveway area, it provides for a courtyard feel and easy turnaround. It was felt that it was a good use of space and that there are minimal impacts of having them attached. It was also noted that a reciprocal access easement will need to be registered on the subject properties to allow access over the shared driveway area for each property. There was a question on the type of ground cover between the dwellings to which the presenter advised that it is currently proposed as lawn. A member inquired as to whether a pergola or a front porch had been considered. The presenter noted that it was considered but that they do wish to allow a lot of light into each dwelling and also commented on the balance of requesting variances.

5 Advisory Planning Commission Meeting June 2, 2015 Page 4 A member commented on the importance of having roof lines that could accommodate solar panels. It was noted that a 240v electric outlet will be installed in the garage of each dwelling. A member inquired about locations for garbage and recycling. Overall the members had positive comments regarding the proposed development and felt its form and character would fit into the neighbourhood well. Moved by Jane Hall, seconded by Art Finlayson, that the Advisory Planning Commission recommends to Council that Development Permit Application No. DP (to permit the development of two small-lot single-family residential dwellings) and Development Variance Permit No. DV100170, (to relax the maximum allowable lot coverage and side interior setbacks) be approved, subject to the following conditions: 1. That the applicant submit revised drawings showing fences that comply with the requirements of Zoning Bylaw No. 2015; 2. That prior to the issuance of Building Permit, the property owner pay to the Town a deposit in the amount of 115% of the estimated cost to complete the hard and soft landscaping for the development; 3. That the property owner undertake all offsite works and services to the satisfaction of the Director of Engineering & Works; 4. That the property owner work with the Parks Department regarding the number, type, size and location of new boulevard trees to be planted; and 5. That all property owners within 75m (246ft) of the subject property be notified regarding the proposed variances, and any written correspondence received be forwarded to Council for consideration. 5. CORRESPONDENCE: Receive for information - from B. Oxley regarding 9667 First Street MOTION CARRIED: 6. ITEMS DISPOSITION BY COUNCIL: Councillor Bremner gave an update on Council s decisions with regard to recent Development Permit Applications as well as an update on a presentation Committee of the Whole received regarding a proposal for an affordable housing project in Sidney. ADJOURNMENT: Moved by Tara Cumming, seconded by Art Finlayson, that the meeting be adjourned. MOTION CARRIED: Meeting adjourned at 4:08 p.m. CHAIRPERSON

6 COPIED FOR APC DATE: September 1, 2015 TOWN OF SIDNEY Report to Advisory Planning Commission TO: Advisory Planning Commission FROM: Corey Newcomb, Municipal Planner DATE: August 26, 2015 File No Fourth Street (Land) SUBJECT: Official Community Plan Amendment Application No. OP Zoning Amendment Application No. RZ Development Variance Permit Application No. DV Development Permit Application No. DP Lots 7 and 8, Block 4, Section 10, Range 4 East, North Saanich District, Plan 381 PURPOSE: 9700 and 9708 Fourth Street The purpose of this report is to address the Official Community Plan (OCP) and Zoning Amendment Applications, Development Permit Application, and Development Variance Permit Application for the properties located at 9700 and 9708 Fourth Street (Aerial photo attached as Appendix A). REPORT SUMMARY: The proposal is for a 4-storey mixed-use development consisting of ground floor commercial, 16 multi-family dwelling units and surface parking. The building includes a range of residential dwelling unit sizes, from micro suite/studio to two bedroom. As proposed, the development requires an amendment to the Downtown / Downtown Waterfront Local Area Plan (part of the OCP) to include the properties within the Local Area Plan s boundaries in order to allow for 9 additional residential units over the currently permitted 7 units. The applicant has offered a Community Amenity Contribution towards streetscape improvements in the area of the proposed development as per the Local Government Act. The applicant is requesting variances for parking (number of spaces and setbacks) for the proposed development. Revisions to the commercial space have reduced the required parking for the development (as well as the variance request) by one parking space. The proposal is consistent with the majority of the key objectives and policies contained within the Official Community Plan and Downtown / Downtown Waterfront Local Area Plan that support pedestrian-oriented commercial/residential development in Sidney s downtown. Following an initial presentation of the proposed development to Council, the main floor plan was revised and an initial proposal for potential flex residential uses (live/work) in the commercial spaces has been removed. The building plans have also been revised to provide greater privacy on the north façade, including 5 foot high privacy screens on balconies, higher window sills and obscure glass on bathroom windows. In response to concerns raised regarding the proposed residential density on the site and the requested amendment to the Official Community Plan, staff are recommending that the applicant reduce the total number of dwelling units in the proposed development to 11, which would address concerns regarding parking and density. F:\_Town\DEVELOPMENT SERVICES\Planning\Development Applications\2015\RZ83 & OP25 & DV174 & DP & 9708 Fourth Street\ REPORT TO APC & 9708 FOURTH STREET.doc

7 Official Community Plan Amendment No. OP and Zoning Amendment Application No. RZ Development Variance Permit Application No. DV and Development Permit Application No. DP and 9708 Fourth Street August 26, 2015 Page 2 of 10 DESCRIPTION OF PROPOSED DEVELOPMENT: The applicant is proposing to construct a 4-storey mixed-use development project consisting of approximately square metres (1,573 square feet) of ground floor commercial and 16 strata residential units (see Appendix B for drawings). The ground floor commercial component would be separated into two units both fronting on to Fourth Street. These units were previously proposed as four individual units which could accommodate a potential live/work residential arrangement; however this aspect was removed following community and Council feedback. The proposed 16 residential dwelling units would be located on the upper three floors of the building, with the second, third and fourth floors having 6, 6 and 4 dwelling units respectively. Of the 16 dwelling units, two are studio or micro units, five are 1-bedroom, and nine are 2-bedroom. The fourth storey level of the building would be stepped back an additional 1.1 metres (3.5 feet) on the south side (Oakville Avenue) in addition to the required 1 metre (3.3 foot) setback. On-site vehicle parking for the proposed development would be provided in a surface parking lot accessed from Oakville Avenue. The parking area would comprise 412 square metres (4,437 square feet) or 45.5% of the ground level of the site. Roughly one-third of the parking area at the rear of the property would be surface parking open to the sky, enclosed by a fence. The remainder of the parking area would be covered by the upper floors of the building. LOCATION: The subject site is located at the north-west corner of Fourth Street and Oakville Avenue. The site is currently occupied by two single-family dwellings, and the surrounding area is a mix of single-family, multi-family and mixed use buildings, as well as a church at the south-east corner of Fourth Street and Oakville Avenue. The following table outlines the Official Community Plan and Zoning designations of the surrounding properties. Table 1: Surrounding Land Use, Zoning and OCP Designations North East South West OCP Designation Zoning Designation Current Land Use(s) COM-1 (Downtown Commercial) COM-1 (Downtown Commercial) RES-2 (Intensive Single- Family Residential) INS (Institutional) COM-1 (Downtown Commercial) C1 Downtown Commercial C1 Downtown Commercial OFFICIAL COMMUNITY PLAN BYLAW 1920: R1.3 Single-Family High Density Residential Orchard Area I2 Private Facilities C1 Downtown Commercial Three storey mixed use (commercial/residential) building Three storey mixed use (commercial/residential) building Single-family dwellings Church Three storey mixed use (commercial/residential) building The subject properties are designated as Downtown Commercial (COM-1) in the Town of Sidney Official Community Plan (OCP). The proposal is consistent with the intent of the OCP, which supports development and increased residential uses in the downtown core. The following is an overview of the key strategies and policies contained within these sections of the OCP: Regional Context Statement The regional context statement describes how the Town of Sidney s goals and objectives conform to the strategies contained with the Regional Growth Strategy of the Capital Regional District. From staff s F:\_Town\DEVELOPMENT SERVICES\Planning\Development Applications\2015\RZ83 & OP25 & DV174 & DP & 9708 Fourth Street\ REPORT TO APC & 9708 FOURTH STREET.doc

8 Official Community Plan Amendment No. OP and Zoning Amendment Application No. RZ Development Variance Permit Application No. DV and Development Permit Application No. DP and 9708 Fourth Street August 26, 2015 Page 3 of 10 perspective there are a number of strategies that are relevant to this development proposal, which are as follows: 4.1 Keep Urban Settlement Compact As the Town is largely built out, growth will mainly be accommodated through higher density redevelopment in and in close proximity to the downtown. 4.2 Protect the Integrity of Rural Communities The Town will permit density to increase where feasible and create a livable community, thus facilitating a rural lifestyle and development pattern in adjacent municipalities. 4.5 Build Complete Communities The Town will continue to ensure that Sidney remains and is enhanced through development as a complete community. Objectives and policies to encourage a balanced population (policy ) and provide a mix of amenities for all residents (policy ) are included in the OCP. 4.6 Improve Housing Affordability By varying permitted densities for residential development throughout Sidney, the Town will endeavor to encourage housing for all income groups. A variety of housing types and forms will also be encouraged, and in doing so, the Town will continue to work with developers and with other resources to promote housing affordability. Section 6 - Downtown Commercial Lands Key Objectives: To maintain and enhance downtown Sidney as the commercial centre for the northern segment of the Saanich Peninsula; To maintain and enhance a continuous streetscape along streets within Sidney s downtown; To maintain the downtown commercial area as the focal point of Sidney; To intensify the residential use of downtown Sidney to make it more vibrant, safe and attractive; To improve the availability of parking and anticipate future demand in the downtown commercial area; To encourage improvements to the design and structure of buildings through the implementation of development guidelines; To create a unique sense of place in the downtown; and To ensure Beacon Avenue and surrounding side streets are maintained with high quality landscaping and street furniture. Key Policies: Sidney s downtown core is intended to function as the focal point of the community. Accordingly, it should contain the widest range of permitted uses within the Town, including a significant residential component, so as to bring vibrancy, quality architecture, urban design and livability to this area; All proposed commercial development for the downtown shall respond to the principles of compact, vibrant and pedestrian-friendly urban form. Developments shall be reviewed to ensure that existing block patterns are respected, small-scale building form is preserved, the pedestrian orientation of commercial retail units along the street frontage is maintained, and where feasible, that all off-street parking is either underground or within the building envelope; With new development proposals, the Town will encourage accessible design in order to facilitate access to and within buildings; The vitality of the downtown shall be maintained and enhanced by the encouragement of residential dwelling units on the upper storeys of commercial buildings; F:\_Town\DEVELOPMENT SERVICES\Planning\Development Applications\2015\RZ83 & OP25 & DV174 & DP & 9708 Fourth Street\ REPORT TO APC & 9708 FOURTH STREET.doc

9 Official Community Plan Amendment No. OP and Zoning Amendment Application No. RZ Development Variance Permit Application No. DV and Development Permit Application No. DP and 9708 Fourth Street August 26, 2015 Page 4 of To achieve the Town s vision of the downtown as a place of intense activity and strong pedestrian orientation, new developments and major redevelopments are encouraged to establish higher residential densities; Residential dwellings located on the upper storeys of buildings shall be tiered (stepped-back); Downtown / Downtown Waterfront Local Area Plan (LAP) The applicant is requesting that the subject properties be included within the LAP study area in order to allow for additional residential units in the proposed development. Although not currently part of the LAP, the proposal is consistent with the LAP s objectives and policies in terms of development in the downtown core. Because the subject properties are outside the LAP study area, the residential density of the development is currently limited to the level of bonus density permitted in the downtown by the OCP (11 units), as shown in Table 2 below: Table 2 Overview of Potential Density based on Subject Properties (1,114 sq. metre site area) Bonus Density C1 Zoning (85 units per hectare) OCP (120 units per hectare) LAP (260 units per hectare) Permitted by Bylaw up to 7 units up to 11 units up to 23 units Proposed Development 16 units As Figure 1 below shows, the subject properties are directly south of the LAP area, and the applicant is requesting that the LAP boundary be amended to include the properties and allow for the additional residential units. Note that the inclusion of the properties within the LAP area would not affect the height or setbacks currently permitted by the existing C1 zoning on the subject properties (see Table 3 below). Figure 1: Subject Properties to be included in LAP area F:\_Town\DEVELOPMENT SERVICES\Planning\Development Applications\2015\RZ83 & OP25 & DV174 & DP & 9708 Fourth Street\ REPORT TO APC & 9708 FOURTH STREET.doc

10 Official Community Plan Amendment No. OP and Zoning Amendment Application No. RZ Development Variance Permit Application No. DV and Development Permit Application No. DP and 9708 Fourth Street August 26, 2015 Page 5 of 10 ZONING BYLAW 2015: The subject property is currently zoned Downtown Commercial (C1), the intent of which is to provide for a mixture of core commercial uses with a secondary, but significant, multi-family residential component. The following table provides a comparison between the proposed development and the requirements contained in the C1 zone: Table 3: Zoning Comparison Section Permitted in C1 (Downtown Commercial) Zone Proposed Development Conforms Permitted Uses Dwelling Units; Commercial Dwelling Units; Commercial Conforms Conditions of Use n/a n/a Conforms Density 85 uph (7 Dwelling Units) 174 uph (16 Dwelling Units) Bonus Density Required Lot Area 250 sqm. (2,691 sq. feet) 920 sqm. (9,906 sq. feet) Conforms Lot Coverage n/a 69.3% Conforms Height 15 metres (49.2 feet) 13.9 metres (45.6 feet) Conforms Storeys 4 4 Conforms Setbacks: Front (East) 1 metre (3.28 feet) 1 metre (3.28 feet) Conforms Rear (West) n/a 5.23 metres (17.2 feet) Conforms Side Interior (North) n/a 1.57 metres (5.2 feet) Conforms Side Exterior (South) 1 metre (3.28 feet) 1 metre (3.28 feet) Conforms Requirement for 20% adaptable units 3 units 3 units Conforms The proposed development complies with all regulations of the C1 zone with the exception of maximum permitted density. Where the C1 zone permits up to 7 residential units, the applicant is proposing 16 residential units. As the Local Government Act does not permit municipalities to vary density or use, a rezoning is required. At densities greater than 7 units on the subject properties, density bonusing is required to achieve the additional units being proposed, as per Section of the OCP and Section of the LAP. Concept of Density Bonusing Amenity zoning, or density bonus zoning, is legislated under Section 904 of the Local Government Act. This tool allows municipalities to accept voluntary Community Amenity Contributions from property owners or developers. Provincial guidelines state that the amenity (or suite of amenities) being proposed should benefit the area in which the development is located (i.e. the amenities should improve the neighbourhood where the new development is occurring). As previously noted, Section of the Town s LAP states that residential densities may be increased to a maximum of 260 units per hectare when one or more of the following amenities are provided: Land for publicly accessible open space and/or pedestrian routes (i.e. Town Square, plazas, courtyards, greenways, etc.) either through dedication, easement or covenant; Improvements to publicly accessible open space and/or pedestrian routes; Public parking either underground or within a multi-level structure; All-day employee parking; Off-site street or local park improvements; Attainable housing; and Public art. F:\_Town\DEVELOPMENT SERVICES\Planning\Development Applications\2015\RZ83 & OP25 & DV174 & DP & 9708 Fourth Street\ REPORT TO APC & 9708 FOURTH STREET.doc

11 Official Community Plan Amendment No. OP and Zoning Amendment Application No. RZ Development Variance Permit Application No. DV and Development Permit Application No. DP and 9708 Fourth Street August 26, 2015 Page 6 of 10 In a density bonus system, the municipality is conferring new development rights that have value, in exchange for community amenities that are intended to improve the quality of life for residents in the area of the proposed development. OFF-STREET PARKING AND LOADING BYLAW NO The proposed development would accommodate vehicle parking with a partially covered surface parking lot (i.e. the second floor partially covers some of the parking spaces) accessed from Oakville Avenue. A total of 15 parking spaces would be provided on the subject property. The following table outlines the parking requirements for the development based upon the proposed uses: Table 4: Off-Street Parking and Loading Bylaw Requirements Use Parking Requirement Dwelling units 1 per 16 units = 16 Office/Retail 1 per 40 sq. m. at 80% of total gross floor area sq. m. * 80% = sq. m. / 40 = 3 Bicycle parking: secure bicycle parking area provided within the building; reduces parking requirement by 1 Total Parking Required 18 parking spaces The current Off-Street Parking Bylaw requires 18 parking spaces (the reconfiguration of the commercial space noted above reduced this from 19 spaces). 15 spaces are being proposed, requiring a variance for 3 parking spaces. No off-street commercial loading space is required as the commercial space is less than 300m 2. Other parking variances for the proposed development are as follows: The bylaw requires that parking spaces be set back 1 metre (3.2 feet) from any lot line. Parking spaces abutting the west and north lot lines would be set back 0.2 metres (0.65 feet). Developments on properties located downtown have a finite area of land that can be devoted to parking, and given the context of the proposed development, staff believe that it is important to prioritize the urban design of the building itself over providing increased numbers of parking spaces. The Town s Off- Street Parking and Loading Bylaw takes this objective into account by capping the amount of surface parking at 50% of the gross floor area of the first storey of the building (the proposed development would utilize 43%). It is the opinion of staff that any additional space devoted to parking would negatively impact the design and proposed uses in the building. Given the highly walkable location of the subject properties and the proximity to a major inter-regional transit route, staff believe that the parking configuration as proposed is sufficient for the development, and support the required variances. COMMERCIAL DEVELOPMENT PERMIT GUIDELINES: As the property is located within an area designated under the OCP as Downtown Commercial, the site is subject to the Commercial Development Permit Area Guidelines (see pages 74 to 80 in the Official Community Plan). The purpose of these guidelines is to address the form and character (architectural design) of the proposed development, including landscaping and the siting, exterior design and finish of the building. Staff would like to highlight several guidelines that are relevant to this development: F:\_Town\DEVELOPMENT SERVICES\Planning\Development Applications\2015\RZ83 & OP25 & DV174 & DP & 9708 Fourth Street\ REPORT TO APC & 9708 FOURTH STREET.doc

12 Official Community Plan Amendment No. OP and Zoning Amendment Application No. RZ Development Variance Permit Application No. DV and Development Permit Application No. DP and 9708 Fourth Street August 26, 2015 Page 7 of The scale, size, massing, shape, siting, roofline and exterior finish of buildings should be sufficiently varied to avoid monotonous streetscapes and building vistas (i.e. building vistas as viewed from (1) within the development and (2) the abutting streets). The proposed building utilizes variations in roofline, façade materials, and building elements to present an interesting and varied frontage to the surrounding streets The design of buildings should be compatible with adjacent buildings to promote visual harmony, especially in regards to building elevations as viewed from the waterfront and from streetscapes. The proposed building is similar in design to adjacent buildings to the north, west and east in the downtown commercial area, and utilizes a combination of horizontal and shingle siding on the upper storeys and stone (or brick) work at the ground level Street-oriented development is encouraged. Small-scale retail fronts that provide visual diversity, reinforce a human scale and enhance pedestrian interest are preferred. The frontage of the proposed development is oriented towards the street with store-front windows and stone and cedar facades that break up the massing of the building and provide a high quality finishing material at the pedestrian level Garbage containers, garbage compounds and parking, loading, unloading and storage areas will be located, orientated and designed to minimize their effect on the following: on-site residential uses, adjacent properties and views from the street and waterfront. The building s parking area is located at the rear of the building, adjacent to another parking area and screened by a wooden fence. The garbage compound is also located at the rear of the property within an enclosed area and screened by a landscaping treatment All commercial buildings should have the appearance of being two to three storeys in height. Any portions of a commercial or mixed-use commercial/residential building above two storeys should be recessed in order to reduce the volumetric impact of the building on the street. Visually the building appears as four storeys in height, with a setback at the fourth storey level of 1.1 metres (3.5 feet) on the south side (Oakville Avenue). The east (Fourth Street) side of the building also has a similar setback at the fourth storey level, with the exception of the central portion of the building. The fourth storey setback at the north side of the building varies from 1.5 metres (5 feet) to 3.3 metres (10.75 feet) and at the west side of the building it is 5.2 metres (17.2 feet) Buildings located on corner lots or adjacent to walkways, courtyards or surface parking areas should have side elevations reflecting the design and scale of the front face of the building. Blank or monotonous walls, lacking building details, will not be considered acceptable. The building does not have any blank walls; all facades incorporate varied and interesting details and include articulation and windows Roofs should be gabled, mansard, or hipped. However, other interesting roof treatments will be considered. The roof of the proposed building would be mainly flat, punctuated with raised sections on each side. The roof treatment is typical and appropriate for the building design and downtown commercial location Commercial façades should be designed with treatments that are inviting to pedestrians and that avoid the impersonal look typically associated with the use of large expanses of glass, mirrored surfaces, and blank walls. On the ground floor of a building, materials that may impede visual connection between the interior of the building and the street should not be used. F:\_Town\DEVELOPMENT SERVICES\Planning\Development Applications\2015\RZ83 & OP25 & DV174 & DP & 9708 Fourth Street\ REPORT TO APC & 9708 FOURTH STREET.doc

13 Official Community Plan Amendment No. OP and Zoning Amendment Application No. RZ Development Variance Permit Application No. DV and Development Permit Application No. DP and 9708 Fourth Street August 26, 2015 Page 8 of 10 The ground floor of the building is proposed to be surfaced with stone and cedar cladding and have large windows and doors into the commercial area Weather protection, including awnings, structural canopies, covered arcades, colonnades and built overhangs, should be provided at the first storey of buildings. All weather protection should be architecturally integrated into the building. Canopies are proposed over the entrances to the commercial units Large facades should be broken down into smaller elements to create an appearance of a series of smaller buildings. The facade of the building utilizes a number of finishing materials, including horizontal siding, shingles and stone and cedar accents to break up the surface and create the appearance of smaller building elements Developments which abut an area designated in Schedule "B" for residential use or are adjacent to a street containing such residential uses shall meet the following additional guidelines: a. The scale, size, massing, shape, siting, roofline and exterior finish of buildings should be compatible with the areas designated for residential use. b. Vehicle access and egress will, where feasible, be from streets that do not abut an area designated for residential use. c. Garbage containers, garbage compounds and parking, loading, unloading and storage areas will, where feasible, be oriented and located away from the areas designated for residential use. The Orchard neighbourhood directly across from the proposed development is a low-rise single-family neighbourhood designated for high density small lot single-family dwellings. In assessing this guideline, staff looked at the situation to the east and west of the proposal along Oakville Avenue, where three storey mixed use buildings have existed across from single family dwellings for over 10 years. Staff are not aware of any significant issues that have arisen in that situation, with scale and massing similar to the proposed development. Vehicle access for the proposed building would be from Oakville Avenue, which also abuts the Orchard neighbourhood. However, as this section of Oakville Avenue will not be a through street between Fourth and Fifth Streets, staff anticipate that vehicle volumes will be low enough to not significantly affect adjacent properties. The garbage compound and parking areas would be screened from the view of adjacent residential areas. However, staff have some concerns regarding the functionality of how the garbage would be accessed by garbage truck; specifically, in the current configuration, the truck may be required to back out onto a busy street. STAFF COMMENTS: In response to concerns raised regarding the proposed residential density on the site, staff have included a recommendation to reduce the total number of dwelling units in the proposed development to 11, which would address both parking and density concerns and remove the need to amend the Official Community Plan. Staff would like the applicant to give further consideration to setting the fourth storey back further, as well as provide further information on the proposed waste collection for the building. The proposed increase in density would be subject to Council s approval of the amenities for the community, subject to the requirements of Section 904 of the Local Government Act. Council will determine what level of amenity contribution is acceptable for the increase in density. Council considered the proposed amenity contribution for this development when the application was first F:\_Town\DEVELOPMENT SERVICES\Planning\Development Applications\2015\RZ83 & OP25 & DV174 & DP & 9708 Fourth Street\ REPORT TO APC & 9708 FOURTH STREET.doc

14 Official Community Plan Amendment No. OP and Zoning Amendment Application No. RZ Development Variance Permit Application No. DV and Development Permit Application No. DP and 9708 Fourth Street August 26, 2015 Page 9 of 10 reviewed in August. However, if the development is to be redesigned to reduce the number of proposed residential units, it is likely that the applicant will propose a reduced amenity contribution to align with the reduced density. Given the development s highly central location in the downtown near amenities, transit, and long-term off-street parking lots, staff have no concerns with the proposed relaxations to Off- Street Parking and Loading Bylaw No Staff are currently evaluating options for frontage improvements associated with this application, such as widened sidewalk, street trees, and other public amenities. RECOMMENDATIONS: 1. That the applicant reduce the number of dwelling units in the proposed building from 16 units to 11 units and submit revised drawings for the consideration of the Advisory Planning Commission; and 2. That the applicant address Development Permit Design Guideline by increasing the setbacks on the south and east frontages at the fourth storey level and Development Permit Design Guideline by providing details on how the proposed waste collection access for the building would function, to the satisfaction of the Director of Development Services. Respectfully submitted, I concur, Corey Newcomb Municipal Planner Alison Verhagen, MCIP, RPP Manager of Planning CN:mb Attachments: Appendix A: Aerial photo of subject property Appendix B: Architectural drawings Appendix C: Development notification response letters from K & S Groom and B & B Carey Presenter: Stefan Schulson (Project Architect) Tel: F:\_Town\DEVELOPMENT SERVICES\Planning\Development Applications\2015\RZ83 & OP25 & DV174 & DP & 9708 Fourth Street\ REPORT TO APC & 9708 FOURTH STREET.doc

15 Official Community Plan Amendment No. OP and Zoning Amendment Application No. RZ Development Variance Permit Application No. DV and Development Permit Application No. DP and 9708 Fourth Street August 26, 2015 Page 10 of 10 Appendix A: 2013 Aerial Photo of Subject Properties (9700 and 9708 Fourth Street) outlined in blue, showing OCP (black) and Zoning (red) designations. COM-1 COM-1 C1 C1 COM-1 C1 RM5 RES-3 R1.3 RES-2 I2 INS F:\_Town\DEVELOPMENT SERVICES\Planning\Development Applications\2015\RZ83 & OP25 & DV174 & DP & 9708 Fourth Street\ REPORT TO APC & 9708 FOURTH STREET.doc

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25 August l1-,2oi5 Mr. Randy Humble Chief Administrative Officer Town of Sidney MunicipalHall 2440 Sidney Avenue, Sidney, BC V8L 1Y7 D ECIEI]VE AUG I 2015 TOWN OF SIDNEY Dear Mr. Humble. Re: Fourth Street Development Plan I am attach ng a submission regarding the above Development Plan, part of which I made orally to Council at the August 10 meeting. I would be grateful if you would include it in the Fourth Street Development Plan file prior to the package being sent to the Advisory Planning Committee. I would also like it distributed to the Mayor and Councillors. Thank you "ilúr*,fu Ken and Sue Groom #2O3, 9724 Fourth Street Sidney, BC V8L 2Y7 2s knsgroom@gmail. Com Enclosure (1) File No Councillo(s) a CAO - Administration- IT Dev Services=- Parks o?1 Comments: fi\c 4 *

26 Mayor Price and Councillors Subject 97OO-97O8 Fourth Street Development Plan I thank the Mayor and Councillors for allowing me to present my family's opposition to the subject Official Community Plan Amendment Application and the Zoning Amendment Application. We are relatively new full-time residents but appreciate the implementation of additional public consultation for OCP and Zoning Amendment a pplications. This submission is made by Ken and Sue Groom, unit 203 at 9724 Fourth Street. As you know, the Development Plan is not consistent with the permitted dwelling unit density for that Fourth Street property. You also know the property s not situated within the Downtown Local Area Plan boundaries, but outside and well south of it. It is extremely objectionable to us that the Town Planners' are attempting to bring this small Fourth Street property into the Downtown Local Area Plan when it is outside and not even adjacent to the designated LAP boundaries. This attempted spot re-zoning is directly contrary to the orderly development gu del nes contained within the Town of Sidney's Official Community Plan. As newcomers and neighbours to the property, wê had every reason to believe when we purchased our Condo, the existing zoning and applicable density at

27 would be honoured. lt does the Town's reputation no good to run around cherry picking LAP sites outside the boundaries. The property is 80' x t2o'. The development plan proposes L6 residential dwelling units and four live/work units or let us call it 20 units in which people can live, triple the designated C1 permitted density of 7 dwelling units. The building's 4th storey windows on the north side would eliminate our right to privacy as the large 3'd storey terraces on the south side of our condo would become over-shadowed completely and be clearly visible from the 4tn floor windows. The combined site area totals just under 10,000 square feet. The proposed building would have a total gross floor area of almost 22,OOO square feet. Let us compare this to the much maligned construction to the property line building at 5tn and Bevan since they both have the same architect and we presume, the same builder. The Fourth street site area is 20% smaller than the one at 5th and Bevan, but the planned building floor area al 27.,690 SF is just 3% less. How do you cram this nearly same size building on to a 2Oo/o smaller lot? Well, you push out that construction to the limits of the property line and you cut the required parking spaces for the development based on the proposed uses by 25o/o. This section of Fourth Street is clearly not downtown in character but rather more residential. Our building at 9724 steps down into the

28 res dential area to the south. All the surrounding condos are three stories or less. This proposed four storey building would rise abruptly over the residential neighbourhood to an excessive degree. Parking and traffic congestion in and around Fourth and Fourth- Bevan is already challenged. lt is very difficult to make a left turn to the west at Fourth (or Third for that matter) with all the cars parked along Bevan. Patrons to the Medical Clinic and Curves often park on Fourth and add to the congestion. Drivers take short cuts to town along Orchard and Fourth. lt is very difficult to find any available parking along Fourth during the day, The new building at 5tt' and Bevan will add to the current problems. This proposal with its inadequate parking space will make things far worse. One expects development to be orderly and not harmful to existing area residents, to our property values and our enjoyment of home. The plan is unfair to the residents of our building and to the largely residential neighbourhood and should not go further.

29 August 11,2015 Mr. Randy Humble Chief Administrative Officer Town of Sidney MunicipalHall 2440 Sidney Avenue, Sidney, BC V8L 1Y7 EGEt]VE AU6 I i 2015 TOWN OF SIDNEY Dear Mr. Humble. Re:97üÞ9708 Fou4h Sregt DevelopTnen! Plan Please find attached our submission regarding the above-mentioned development plan, which Bob spoke to at the August 10th Council meeting. We would be grateful if you would include it in the Fourth Street Development Plan file prior to the package being sent to the Advisory Planning Committee. We would also like it to be distributed to the Mayor and Councillors. Thank you, á/^ Drs. Bob and Bobbie Carey 2Ot-9724 Fourth Street Sidney, BC V8L2Y rtcarey_ca@yaho.com Enclosure (1) File No. Mâyor Councillor(s) Agenda CAO Administration Finance IT Dev Services Engineerinq Parks PublicWorks Fire Dept RCMP Comments: f.,\. - ç..r\-^*r

30 Mr. Mayor, Counsellors, I want to thank you for the opportunity to present my objection to the proposal before you tonight. I am Bob Carey, my wife, Bobbie, and I live at 20I,9724 Fourth Street directly adjacent to the proposed development Just a few years ago, the properties in question were re-zoned from Residential to Cl as part of passing the Offìcial Community Plan. We purchased our residence in 2008, a residence I might add that steps down from the south facing, third floor deck to flow easily into the residential area around it. We did this without knowing about the changes being considered in the proposed OCP. V/e didn't like the proposed changes, we opposed them, but when the OCP passed, we made our peace with it and planned for 7 units to be built next door to our building. Now, only a few years later, we learn of this proposal to create not 7, but effectively 20 units Live in units with all the attendant parking pressures and disruption of neighbourhood. From the Municipal Plannels report, it appears that this almost 200yo increase in density is justified in order to allow growth "in close proximity to the downtown". Somehow, the zoning changes Council voted in just a few years ago are now considered inadequate and must be changed to accommodate the proposed development. It is not clear why this was not evident before the recent vote on the OCR nor is it clear why this development is so critical to rectify this apparent oversight. It is not clear, either, why density in this development should trump other key strategies, objectives and policies cited in the report, such as: To mainøin and enhance downtown Sidney ß a commercial center. To maintain the downtown commercial area as the focal point of Sidney To improve the availability of parking and anticipate future demand To improve housing affordability Most importantl however, is the notion of Density Bonusing and the necessity to rezone the properties in question to accomplish it. As the Plannels report points out, the The Local Government Act does not allow such bonuses to be offered without re-zoning, and that, if re-zoning is considered, such rezoning should at least benefit the area directly affected by the development. Examples of such benefits a e noted as courtyards, greenways, public parking, all-day employee parking, off-site street or local park improvements. So, which one of these benefits does this development offer, especially when it comes to the critical parking needs of the neighbourhood? None that I can see. In fact, as far as the parking needs are concerned, the development actually has a detrimental effect lvhat is offered, essentially, to compensate for a large, densely populated building plopped down at the very edge of a residential zone? The municipality is to get $45,000 'toward streetscape improvements around the proposed development site". Now I can see how these improvements would appeal to prospective buyers, but not how they benefit the neighbourhood. It is cert inly nowhere near the greenway, public parking or off-site improvements noted in the examples given. Indeed, the proposal requires a variance to reduce the required on-site parking in an area already too congested that is not even in the downtown. As well, if I understand correctl the municipality is itself planning street improvements in the area in a few years. Again, where's the benefit from the development itself? It seems that to accommodate this almost 200% increase in permitted density on the very edge of a

31 congested, residential area, we are asked to scrap the recently adopted Ofücial Community Plan for greatly increased density and $45,000 worth of advantages accruing, it seems to meo mostly to the development. I don't fault the developer. His or her job is to maximize profit. The greater the density, the greater the profit. But, that's just density for density's sake. Where does it stop? Why do we even have a have an Offìcial Community Plan, a plan that was passed with some controversy and discord, only to turn around a few years later and change it for a single, ill-conceived development. Why? How does the neighbourhood benefit from such radical accommodations made to a development that does not even fit it? Thank you for allowing me to speak.