Lot 1. Lot 2. Lot 2. Lot 3. Lot 3 Lot 17. Lot 4. Lot 4 DEWDNEY CRES DEWDNEY CRES Lot 5. Lot 5. Lot 6

Transcription

1 PUBLIC NOTICE March 6, 2014 Subject Property: 144 Williamson Place Lot 18, District Lot 2710, Similkameen Division Yale District, Plan KAP48093 Lot Lot 1 Lot 2 Lot Lot 3 Lot 17 Lot 18 Application: Development Variance Permit Application PL Lot 8 Lot Lot 21 The applicants are requesting ot 6 development variance permit Lot 6 Lot 14 Lot 22 approval to vary Section t 7 Lot L t 1 of Zoning Bylaw , increasing the permitted height of a retaining wall in a setback area from 1.2m to 4.0m DEWDNEY CRES DEWDNEY CRES Lot 4 Lot 5 Lot 16 Lot WILLIAMSON PL WILLIAMSON PL Lot 19 Lot 20 Lot 2 K A P Lot Lot Lot Lot Information: The staff report to Council will be available for public inspection from Friday, March 7, 2014 to Monday, March 17, 2014 at the following locations during hours of operation: Penticton City Hall, 171 Main Street Penticton Library, 785 Main Street Penticton Community Centre, 325 Power Street You can also find this information on the City s website at Please contact the Planning Department at (250) with any questions. Council Consideration: Council will consider this application at its Regular Council Meeting scheduled for 6:00 p.m. Monday, March 17, 2014 in Council Chambers at Penticton City Hall, 171 Main Street. continued on Page 2 ADDRESS\Williamson Pl\144\2013-MP-1169\2013-DVP-PL-053\NOTICES\ Public Notice Page 1 of 2

2 Public Comments: You may appear in person, or by agent, the evening of the Council meeting, or submit a petition or written comments by mail or no later than 9:30 a.m., Monday, March 17, 2014 to: Attention: Corporate Officer, City of Penticton, 171 Main Street, Penticton, B.C. V2A 5A9 publichearings@penticton.ca. No letter, report or representation from the public will be received by Council after the conclusion of the March 17, 2014 Council Meeting. Please note that all correspondence submitted to the City of Penticton in response to this Notice will form part of the public record and will be published in a meeting agenda when this matter is before the Council or a Committee of Council. The City considers the author s address relevant to Council s consideration of this matter and will disclose this personal information. The author s phone number and address is not relevant and should not be included in the correspondence if the author does not wish this personal information disclosed. Those persons with special hearing, language or access needs should contact City Hall at (250) prior to the meeting. Anthony Haddad, MCIP Director of Development Services ADDRESS\Williamson Pl\144\2013-MP-1169\2013-DVP-PL-053\NOTICES\ Public Notice Page 2 of 2

3 Council Report Date: March 17, 2014 File No: DVP PL To: Annette Antoniak, City Manager From: Blake Laven, Planner Address: 144 Williamson Place Legal: Lot 18, district Lot 2710, Similkameen Divisions Yale District, Plan KAP48093 Re: Development Variance Permit approval to increase the permitted height of a retaining wall from 1.2m to 4.0m. Staff Recommendation THAT Council deny Development Variance Permit PL for Lot 18, District Lot 2710, Similkameen Division Yale District, Plan KAP48093, located at 144 Williamson Place, a permit to increase the permitted maximum height of a retaining wall in a required yard, from 1.2m to 4.0m. Background The subject property (Attachment A ) is located in a hillside area and features a gently sloped side and rear yard. The current property owners began extensive landscape works on the property to create a more useable and aesthetically pleasing property. Part of the works consisted of importing fill and large boulders to create a low angle wall and flat area on the property. In undertaking these works, however, the applicants inadvertently placed the boulders, meant to be a decorative wall, on a City Statutory Right-of-Way (SRW) that contains a sewer main and storm water management infrastructure. When the City was made aware of the works, the property owners were contacted and notified of the SRW and were asked to cease works on the wall. The applicants have since contacted a geotechnical engineer to design a wall that would be located off of the right-of-way. Because the SRW extends 5.0m from the property line, the gradual slope that was previously able to be achieved is no longer possible. The design for the wall now features a wall that is 4.0m at its highest point in the rear yard setback area. The proposed wall is to consist of concrete lock blocks. The wall as currently designed does not meet the City s zoning regulations for retaining walls. The maximum height of a retaining wall in a required setback area is 1.2m. While most of the wall is outside of the required setbacks, a portion of the wall is located in the rear setback area. The applicants are requesting that this maximum height be varied to allow for the proposed wall as designed. Proposal The applicants are requesting development variance permit approval to vary Section of Zoning Bylaw , increasing the permitted height of a retaining wall in a setback area from 1.2m to 4.0m.

4 Financial Implications N/A Technical Review Public Works staff have reviewed the proposed wall design and originally had concerns about their ability to service the sewer and storm water management infrastructure in the SRW that the wall is proposed to abut. In discussions with the engineer of the wall, staff have been assured that the City s infrastructure could be adequately accessed without undermining the wall. Analysis Deny When considering a variance to a City bylaw staff encourage Council to consider whether there is a significant site constraint that exists on the property that makes following the bylaw difficult or impossible, whether approval of the variance would cause a negative impact on neighbouring properties, or if the variance request is reasonable. In this case, the property owners are making the case that the topography of the property combined with the large statutory right-of-way located on the property are hardships that require a variance to the bylaw. Originally, no engineered retaining wall was required. If the slope could have been started within the SRW area, as originally planned, the slope would have been more gradual and the engineered wall would not have been required. Staff, however, do not consider this a hardship. Even without the variance, the applicants can create a mostly flat and useable back yard area. It should also be noted that the SRW was put in place as part of the original subdivision and this constraint has existed since the original purchase of this property. The existing grade of the rear portion of the property was also in place when the original subdivision was created and house constructed. As for impact on neighbouring properties, staff have determined that the wall will not be visible from any City roads, but will be visible by two or more properties, specifically 152 Williamson Place and 111 Dewdney Crescent. Staff have been approached by one of these neighbouring property owners citing concerns over privacy and aesthetics. The neighbour is concerned about the height of the wall, stating that it will create a situation where the occupants of the subject property, by changing the grade of their back yard, will be able to look down upon the neighbouring property. The neighbour also had concerns about the aesthetics of the wall, given the large block construction proposed. The applicant has indicated that landscaping will be installed to help mask the wall, with a proposal to plant ivy along the wall, which would reduce some of the aesthetic concerns. The applicant has also indicated that screening will be installed in the form of cedars and fencing. The zoning bylaw sets a maximum height for retaining walls mainly for aesthetic purposes and to also retain as mush of the original hillside grades as possible. There is a provision in the bylaw that allows for retaining walls to be constructed higher than the 1.2m maximum height, but this option requires terracing of the wall. The engineer for the wall has stated that terracing is not an option in this case because the wall is proposed to be a lock block wall. Lock block walls do not terrace well because the blocks are designed to be locked into each other for stability. Nevertheless, the wall could be stepped down towards the rear yard while still Council Report Page 2 of 12

5 keeping the blocks locked in. There are also other means to creating a retaining wall, as opposed to the large blocks through the use of other materials. Staff find this as a more reasonable way to move forward. Because of these reasons, staff do not find that the request is reasonable and recommend that Council not approve the variance permit as presented. If Council were to deny the variance request as recommended by staff, the applicant could still construct the wall. The last 6.0m of the wall however would not be able to be higher than 1.2m in height. This will impact the flat area of the back yard making a 6.0m swath of the back yard not as flat. The maximum height of the wall in this scenario would most likely not be higher than 3.2m at its highest. Support / refer Council may feel that building the proposed retaining wall at the 4.0m height is a reasonable request. The retaining wall will be located 5.0m from the neighbouring property providing an adequate setback. The applicant has also indicated that he plans to plant ivy on the wall which should decrease the massing of the wall and is planning on installing screening at the top of the wall to alleviate any privacy concerns. Given the comments submitted by the neighbouring property owner, however, if Council were to support the variance, staff recommend some conditions on the support that will mitigate some of the concerns of the neighbour. Staff suggest the following conditions: That a landscape plan be submitted dealing with the area between the wall and the neighbouring property and a landscape security be submitted to the City at the time of building permit approval for the wall in the amount of 100% of the estimated cost for the landscaping installation and materials, returnable to the applicant once the landscaping is installed in a manner suitable to City staff. And that the landscaping include screen fencing or landscaping along the top of the wall. Alternatively, Council may approve the variance with no conditions. Alternate Recommendations 1. THAT Council support Development Variance Permit PL for Lot 18, District Lot 2710, Similkameen Division Yale District, Plan KAP48093, located at 144 Williamson Place, a permit to increase the permitted maximum height of a retaining wall from 1.2m to 4.0m., subject to the following conditions: a. That a landscape plan be submitted dealing with the area between the wall and the neighbouring property and a landscape security be submitted to the City at the time of building permit approval for the wall in the amount of 100% of the estimated cost for the landscaping installation and materials, returnable to the applicant once the landscaping is installed in a manner suitable to City staff. b. And that the landscaping include screen fencing or landscaping along the top of the wall. AND THAT staff be directed to issue the permit. Council Report Page 3 of 12

6 2. THAT Development Variance Permit PL be supported. AND THAT staff are directed to issue the permit. Attachments Attachment A: Attachment B: Attachment C: Attachment D: Subject property location map Images of property Letter from applicant Illustration of the wall Respectfully submitted, Blake Laven, RPP, MCIP Planner Approvals Director City Manager Concurrence Concurrence Concurrence Council Report Page 4 of 12

7 Attachment A Subject Property Location Map DEWDNEY CRES WILLIAMSON PL Council Report Page 5 of 12

8 Attachment B Images of Subject Property 5m R/W KAP m R/W KAP Lot 17 Lot Lot 19 Lot Lot WILLIAMSON PL Lot 20 Figure 1: Aerial image of subject property (Spring 2013) Council Report Page 6 of 12

9 Figure 2: Driveway of subject property looking towards rear yard where proposed wall is located Figure 3: Rear yard where wall and fill is proposed Council Report Page 7 of 12

10 Figure 4: Rock wall partially constructed on City ROW looking up towards house from neighbouring yard Figure 5: Image from property corner looking up towards the house. This location is where the wall is proposed to be 4.0m in height Council Report Page 8 of 12

11 Attachment C Letter of rational from applicant Council Report Page 9 of 12

12 Council Report Page 10 of 12

13 Attachment D Site and elevation plan of proposed retaining wall Council Report Page 11 of 12

14 Non-conforming portion of wall 1.2m (Maximum height permitted within required setback) ROAD 6.0m (Required rear yard setback) Council Report Page 12 of 12