Report to SGC May 17
Report to Committee DATE:
May 17, 2016
TO:
Smart Growth Committee (SGC)
FROM:
Laura Lee Richard, Director of Development Services
SUBJECT:
3608 AND 3620 CEDAR DRIVE – Further Information Rezoning Application RZ000121
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY: This report responds to questions raised by SGC in its review of the application to rezone 3608 and 3620 Cedar Drive for a 5-lot subdivision. It includes further information regarding the proposed subdivision layout, design of the houses and compatibility of this design with the established neighbourhood character, traffic impacts and parking. A number of conditions are recommended to help ensure the development would be compatible with the established streetscape. RECOMMENDATIONS 1. That Council be requested to bring forward a Zoning Bylaw amendment to rezone 3608 and 3620 Cedar Drive from RS1 (Residential Single Dwelling 1) to RS2 (Residential Single Dwelling 2). 2. That the following conditions be met prior to adoption of the amending bylaw: a) Submission of a subdivision plan including provision for 3m x 3m corner cut-offs to the satisfaction of the Approving Officer; b) Demolition of the existing structures; c) Completion of design and submission of fees and securities for off-site works and services including street trees in an amount acceptable to the Director of Development Services; d) Submission of a security to ensure that two trees are planted on each lot, and, e) Registration of a s.219 Restrictive Covenant to the satisfaction of the Director of Development Services to: i) require the garage doors to be setback at least 10.5m from the front lot line; ii) ensure that a minimum of one parking space will be provided for any secondary suite; iii) ensure that the building designs are articulated, have prominent front entries, and not identical; and,
May 17, 2016 Further Information 3608 & 3620 Cedar Dr. – Rezoning Application RZ000121 Page 2
iv) limit areas built below the flood construction level to a garage, entry foyer, utility and powder rooms with a total combined floor area no more than 64m2, and crawl space with a maximum headroom height of 1.5m. 1. BACKGROUND 1.1. History: At the February 11th, 2016 SGC meeting, Committee deferred making a decision on the rezoning application as described in the attached report pending receipt and consideration of additional information on the impacts of the proposed development including the potential inclusion of secondary suites and their impact on on-street parking, the feasibility of providing vehicle access from the rear of the proposed lots, availability of on-site parking, and the potential for rezoning and subdivision of adjacent parcels. 2. COMMENTS AND ANALYSIS 2.1. House Sizes, Elevations and Secondary Suites: The applicant has confirmed his intention that the proposed five new dwelling units would be built in accordance with the development regulations of the RS2 zone and include secondary suites. These suites would need to be located on the main level of the house because the property is in the floodplain and habitable rooms are not permited below the required flood construction level. Based on the lot area shown by the subdivision plan, four of the lots could accommodate homes with a habitable floor area of approximately 235 m2 (2,529 ft2) and the larger lot adjacent to the lane of 287 m2 (3,089 ft2). A secondary suite could occupy up to 90 m2 (968 ft2) of the floor area. In addition to the habitable area, each of the dwellings could include additional space used for a garage, an entry foyer, powder room, utility room and storage and this space may be located below the flood construction level.. The main floor level of the new homes will be some 1 to 2 metres above existing grade to meet the flood construction level. The image below illustrates a house recently built in the subject area with its main floor approximately 1.2 m above grade and garage at existing grade (note: it shows a wider lot than that proposed).
May 17, 2016 Further Information 3608 & 3620 Cedar Dr. – Rezoning Application RZ000121 Page 3
There is an ongoing concern with respect to the construction of homes in the floodplain that include large, non-habitable floor areas located below the flood plain elevation, particularly if such areas are constructed with 8’ floor to ceiling spaces. Over time, these unfinished areas will often be finished, contrary to the intent of the flood plain regulation. It also can result in large and bulky homes as the area is exempt from the floor area ratio calculation. The image below illustrates a house under construction that will have a full height, but non-habitable basement.
To avoid these potential impacts and promote homes that would be in keeping with the established character of the neighbourhood, it is recommended that the height of any space built below the flood construction level be restricted to space in a garage, entry foyer, powder room and utility room with a combined area that is no greater than 64 m2 (688 ft2) and crawl space with a maximum headroom of 5 feet. 2.2. Character of Development: The design policies of the OCP encourage building designs and streetscapes that help retain the established neighbourhood character. It is recommended that the lots be subject to a restriction that is similar to the City’s requirements for dwellings in the RS4 zone as follows: : The design of the houses should be substantially different in appearance from the adjacent buildings as defined by building massing, location of windows, balconies and decks and façade materials and finishing. The primary entrance to the building entry should face the street. Porches, verandas and decks are encouraged in association with this entry and enclosed areas below decks should be screened with permanent materials. Second storeys shall be stepped back, recessed or articulated to reduce visual impact. Houses located on corner lots shall be designed to provide a street presence on both streets by the location of entries, windows and appropriate landscaping.
May 17, 2016 Further Information 3608 & 3620 Cedar Dr. – Rezoning Application RZ000121 Page 4
Where vehicle access must be from the street, the visual impact of driveways in the front yard should be minimized by a paved surface limited to 6 m (20 ft.) in width. Where vehicle access is from the lane, onsite vehicle parking should be located in detached garages to minimize impervious surfaces and create usable, landscaped yards. Privacy between properties should be provided by the use of architectural treatment, hedges, fences or planting beds along interior side yard lines to create appropriate screening. Open parking spaces should be screened with landscaping or fencing. Pervious surfaces are encouraged to minimize hard surfaces in the yards. A minimum of two trees, in addition to any required street trees, should be located in a front yard.
2.3. Rear Lane Access: Committee requested that the applicant explore providing access to the lots via the rear yard as shown on the sketch below.
Subdivision design showing a rear lane
The site area would be sufficient to enable dedication of a 6m wide lane, require vehicle access from that lane and still subdivide to create five lots. Introducing a new lane at this location is not recommended in large part due to the addition of an uncontrolled intersection with a collector road (Cedar Drive). The applicant has indicated that this design is not a preferred configuration as it reduces the total amount of developable land and substantially impacts the private rear yard space. A
May 17, 2016 Further Information 3608 & 3620 Cedar Dr. – Rezoning Application RZ000121 Page 5
lane would impact adjoining properties and the applicant also advises that the owner of 3632 Cedar Drive is opposed to a lane. Parking: The City requires two on-site parking spaces for each of the proposed new houses and the proposed lots would have sufficient width to allow for a double car garage. To ensure that additional parking spaces would be available on each driveway apron, it is recommended that the garages be setback 10.5 m from the front lot line. In addition, it is recommended that one parking space be required for a secondary suite.
Potential front yard parking layout (not showing secondary suite spaces)
2.4. Subdivision Potential of Adjacent Property: None of the adjacent parcels have immediate potential for subdivision. The lots to the north from 3632 to 3676 Cedar Drive lots have a substantial depth that creates the potential to be assembled, rezoned and subdivided into RS2 lots fronting Cedar Drive with vehicular access restricted to the lane.
May 17, 2016 Further Information 3608 & 3620 Cedar Dr. – Rezoning Application RZ000121 Page 6
50 m
60 m
3. OPTIONS The Smart Growth Committee may: 1. Determine it has sufficient information to proceed to Council for consideration of the rezoning with the revised recommended conditions to be met (recommended); 2. Request further additional information, amendments to the application or changes to the recommended rezoning conditions; or, 3. Recommend rejection of the rezoning application. The applicant may then request the application be forwarded to Council for consideration.
_____________________ Laura Lee Richard, MCIP Director of Development Services Attachments: 1. Report to SGC dated January 25, 2016
May 17, 2016
TO:
Smart Growth Committee (SGC)
FROM:
Laura Lee Richard, Director of Development Services
SUBJECT:
3608 AND 3620 CEDAR DRIVE – Further Information Rezoning Application RZ000121
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY: This report responds to questions raised by SGC in its review of the application to rezone 3608 and 3620 Cedar Drive for a 5-lot subdivision. It includes further information regarding the proposed subdivision layout, design of the houses and compatibility of this design with the established neighbourhood character, traffic impacts and parking. A number of conditions are recommended to help ensure the development would be compatible with the established streetscape. RECOMMENDATIONS 1. That Council be requested to bring forward a Zoning Bylaw amendment to rezone 3608 and 3620 Cedar Drive from RS1 (Residential Single Dwelling 1) to RS2 (Residential Single Dwelling 2). 2. That the following conditions be met prior to adoption of the amending bylaw: a) Submission of a subdivision plan including provision for 3m x 3m corner cut-offs to the satisfaction of the Approving Officer; b) Demolition of the existing structures; c) Completion of design and submission of fees and securities for off-site works and services including street trees in an amount acceptable to the Director of Development Services; d) Submission of a security to ensure that two trees are planted on each lot, and, e) Registration of a s.219 Restrictive Covenant to the satisfaction of the Director of Development Services to: i) require the garage doors to be setback at least 10.5m from the front lot line; ii) ensure that a minimum of one parking space will be provided for any secondary suite; iii) ensure that the building designs are articulated, have prominent front entries, and not identical; and,
May 17, 2016 Further Information 3608 & 3620 Cedar Dr. – Rezoning Application RZ000121 Page 2
iv) limit areas built below the flood construction level to a garage, entry foyer, utility and powder rooms with a total combined floor area no more than 64m2, and crawl space with a maximum headroom height of 1.5m. 1. BACKGROUND 1.1. History: At the February 11th, 2016 SGC meeting, Committee deferred making a decision on the rezoning application as described in the attached report pending receipt and consideration of additional information on the impacts of the proposed development including the potential inclusion of secondary suites and their impact on on-street parking, the feasibility of providing vehicle access from the rear of the proposed lots, availability of on-site parking, and the potential for rezoning and subdivision of adjacent parcels. 2. COMMENTS AND ANALYSIS 2.1. House Sizes, Elevations and Secondary Suites: The applicant has confirmed his intention that the proposed five new dwelling units would be built in accordance with the development regulations of the RS2 zone and include secondary suites. These suites would need to be located on the main level of the house because the property is in the floodplain and habitable rooms are not permited below the required flood construction level. Based on the lot area shown by the subdivision plan, four of the lots could accommodate homes with a habitable floor area of approximately 235 m2 (2,529 ft2) and the larger lot adjacent to the lane of 287 m2 (3,089 ft2). A secondary suite could occupy up to 90 m2 (968 ft2) of the floor area. In addition to the habitable area, each of the dwellings could include additional space used for a garage, an entry foyer, powder room, utility room and storage and this space may be located below the flood construction level.. The main floor level of the new homes will be some 1 to 2 metres above existing grade to meet the flood construction level. The image below illustrates a house recently built in the subject area with its main floor approximately 1.2 m above grade and garage at existing grade (note: it shows a wider lot than that proposed).
May 17, 2016 Further Information 3608 & 3620 Cedar Dr. – Rezoning Application RZ000121 Page 3
There is an ongoing concern with respect to the construction of homes in the floodplain that include large, non-habitable floor areas located below the flood plain elevation, particularly if such areas are constructed with 8’ floor to ceiling spaces. Over time, these unfinished areas will often be finished, contrary to the intent of the flood plain regulation. It also can result in large and bulky homes as the area is exempt from the floor area ratio calculation. The image below illustrates a house under construction that will have a full height, but non-habitable basement.
To avoid these potential impacts and promote homes that would be in keeping with the established character of the neighbourhood, it is recommended that the height of any space built below the flood construction level be restricted to space in a garage, entry foyer, powder room and utility room with a combined area that is no greater than 64 m2 (688 ft2) and crawl space with a maximum headroom of 5 feet. 2.2. Character of Development: The design policies of the OCP encourage building designs and streetscapes that help retain the established neighbourhood character. It is recommended that the lots be subject to a restriction that is similar to the City’s requirements for dwellings in the RS4 zone as follows: : The design of the houses should be substantially different in appearance from the adjacent buildings as defined by building massing, location of windows, balconies and decks and façade materials and finishing. The primary entrance to the building entry should face the street. Porches, verandas and decks are encouraged in association with this entry and enclosed areas below decks should be screened with permanent materials. Second storeys shall be stepped back, recessed or articulated to reduce visual impact. Houses located on corner lots shall be designed to provide a street presence on both streets by the location of entries, windows and appropriate landscaping.
May 17, 2016 Further Information 3608 & 3620 Cedar Dr. – Rezoning Application RZ000121 Page 4
Where vehicle access must be from the street, the visual impact of driveways in the front yard should be minimized by a paved surface limited to 6 m (20 ft.) in width. Where vehicle access is from the lane, onsite vehicle parking should be located in detached garages to minimize impervious surfaces and create usable, landscaped yards. Privacy between properties should be provided by the use of architectural treatment, hedges, fences or planting beds along interior side yard lines to create appropriate screening. Open parking spaces should be screened with landscaping or fencing. Pervious surfaces are encouraged to minimize hard surfaces in the yards. A minimum of two trees, in addition to any required street trees, should be located in a front yard.
2.3. Rear Lane Access: Committee requested that the applicant explore providing access to the lots via the rear yard as shown on the sketch below.
Subdivision design showing a rear lane
The site area would be sufficient to enable dedication of a 6m wide lane, require vehicle access from that lane and still subdivide to create five lots. Introducing a new lane at this location is not recommended in large part due to the addition of an uncontrolled intersection with a collector road (Cedar Drive). The applicant has indicated that this design is not a preferred configuration as it reduces the total amount of developable land and substantially impacts the private rear yard space. A
May 17, 2016 Further Information 3608 & 3620 Cedar Dr. – Rezoning Application RZ000121 Page 5
lane would impact adjoining properties and the applicant also advises that the owner of 3632 Cedar Drive is opposed to a lane. Parking: The City requires two on-site parking spaces for each of the proposed new houses and the proposed lots would have sufficient width to allow for a double car garage. To ensure that additional parking spaces would be available on each driveway apron, it is recommended that the garages be setback 10.5 m from the front lot line. In addition, it is recommended that one parking space be required for a secondary suite.
Potential front yard parking layout (not showing secondary suite spaces)
2.4. Subdivision Potential of Adjacent Property: None of the adjacent parcels have immediate potential for subdivision. The lots to the north from 3632 to 3676 Cedar Drive lots have a substantial depth that creates the potential to be assembled, rezoned and subdivided into RS2 lots fronting Cedar Drive with vehicular access restricted to the lane.
May 17, 2016 Further Information 3608 & 3620 Cedar Dr. – Rezoning Application RZ000121 Page 6
50 m
60 m
3. OPTIONS The Smart Growth Committee may: 1. Determine it has sufficient information to proceed to Council for consideration of the rezoning with the revised recommended conditions to be met (recommended); 2. Request further additional information, amendments to the application or changes to the recommended rezoning conditions; or, 3. Recommend rejection of the rezoning application. The applicant may then request the application be forwarded to Council for consideration.
_____________________ Laura Lee Richard, MCIP Director of Development Services Attachments: 1. Report to SGC dated January 25, 2016
