advisory planning commission meeting community … document... · 1/7/2020 · advisory planning...

DISTRICT OF SECHELT ADVISORY PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING

Community Meeting Room, 5797 Cowrie St, Sechelt, BC Tuesday, January 7, 2020

6:00pm AGENDA

1. CALL TO ORDER

2. ADOPTION OF AGENDA

3. ADOPTION OF MINUTES

3.1 Minutes of the December 5, 2019 Advisory Planning Commission Meeting

Pg 2 - 4

4. DELEGATIONS

5. NEW BUSINESS

6. INFORMATION & UPDATES

7. ADJOURNMENT

4.1 Revised Development Proposal for 5686 Wharf Avenue – Application No. 3360-2016-15 (Winston Wade, Mike Mamone)

Respecting above Development Proposal:Report from the Planner dated January 7, 2020

Pg 5 - 35

DISTRICT OF SECHELT MINUTES OF THE ADVISORY PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING

Held at 5797 Cowrie Street, Sechelt, BC Thursday, December 5, 2019

PRESENT

REGRETS

COUNCIL

STAFF

Paul Mears (Chair), Michael Hoole, Ken Crozier, Randy Knill and Ahren Bichler

Jonathan Baker, Barry Gibson, Tullia Upton and Lennea Perpet

Councillor Kuester

Director of Planning and Development A. Allen; Development Planning Manager I. Holl; Recording Secretary, F. Bol

1. CALL TO ORDER

The Chair called the Advisory Planning Commission Meeting to order at 6:00 pm.

2. ADOPTION OF AGENDA

Recommendation No. 1 – Agenda

Moved/Seconded

That the Agenda be adopted. CARRIED

3. ADOPTION OF MINUTES

3.1 Minutes of the November 7th, 2019 Advisory Planning Commission Meeting

Recommendation No. 2 – APC Minutes

Moved/Seconded

That the minutes of November 7th, 2019 Advisory Planning Commission meeting be adopted as circulated.

CARRIED

fbol

Item 3.1

District of Sechelt Minutes – Advisory Planning Commission Meeting Page 2 of 3 December 5, 2019

4. APPOINTMENTS AND DELEGATIONS

No delegations had registered to speak in advance.

5. BUSINESS ITEMS AND REPORTS

5.1 Nygard/Brash (5207 Sunshine Coast Highway) –Development Variance Permit Application 3090-20 2019-05

Report from the Planning Technician dated December 5, 2019

Public Hearing on December 18th

Comments: The Chair enquired if the property was granted a prior variance. Councillor Kuester noted that a variance was granted for the property’s 3rd floor balcony and fireplace, however a need for a variance was not requested at the time.

The Chair enquired about the Board of Variance process. It was explained that in 2018 the Board of Variance terms had expired for the 3 serving members and that the Local Government Act states there must be continuing members. Andrew A. to submit a Report to Council to request an extension and/or notification for new application in January 2020.

Recommendation No. 3 – Nygard/Brash (5207 Sunshine Coast Highway)

Moved/Seconded

That the APC supports the application of Nygard/Brash (5207 Sunshine Coast Highway) Development Variance Permit Application 3090-20 2019-05 as proposed.

CARRIED

6. INFORMATION & UPDATES6.1 For Member Information: Stakeholder Consultation Report –Development Approvals Process Review (September 2019)

7. APC MEETINGS

7.1 That the Advisor Planning Commission receive the APC meeting minutes within oneweek following the meeting.

Recommendation No. 4 – APC Minutes Draft

District of Sechelt Minutes – Advisory Planning Commission Meeting Page 3 of 3 December 5, 2019

Moved/Seconded

That the Advisory Planning Commission receive circulated drafts of the APC meeting minutes within one week following the meeting.

CARRIED

7.2 APC Membership, attendance and quorum

Comments: APC to consider amending Bylaw Terms of Reference regarding quorum, to consider increasing membership numbers and recommends there be an interview process to review duties and expectations of the position.

Meetings for 2020 – Held on the first Tuesday of the month between 6-8pm

Next APC meeting to be held on January 7th

Future zoning bylaws to be sent to APC at least 2 weeks in advance for review

New APC membership applications – scheduled for early 2020

6. ADJOURNMENT

The Advisory Planning Commission meeting of December 5, 2019 adjourned at 6:30 pm.

______________________________ _______________________________ Paul Mears, Chair Jo-Anne Frank, Corporate Officer

MEMO

TO: Advisory Planning Commission MEETING DATE: January 7, 2020

FROM: Planner

SUBJECT: Revised Development Proposal for 5686 Wharf Avenue

FILE NO: 3360-2016-15

BACKGROUND

An application, known as the ‘Wade Building’, to rezone three lots located and Wharf Avenue and East Porpoise Bay Road was initially received in December 2016. Since that time a number of revisions have been presented to Council and the Advisory Planning Commission (APC). Some revisions have occurred in response to feedback and some were initiated by the applicant. A new design submission has recently been received and staff are pleased to share with the APC at this time for preliminary feedback.

The most recent proposal seeks to build on the work done to date. In particular, the proposal responds to comments from the APC at the meeting on April 11, 2019, and from Council at the meeting on May 22, 2019.

The proposal at this time is preliminary and intended to focus on this massing (height, setbacks, units, etc.) rather than specific form and character guidelines. These are best addressed at the development permit stage of the approval process, should the development proceed.

The applicant and project architect will attend the APC meeting and provide an overview of the proposal along with the design rationale.

Staff reports and minutes from the previous APC and Council meeting are attached for information.

DISCUSSION

Revised Proposal

The proposal is a 5-storey mixed-use building with 40 residential units, and insert 322 m2 (3469 ft2) of commercial space and 97 m2 (1050 ft2) of amenity space. The residential units range from 1 bedroom to 3 bedrooms.

The massing of the building has been altered significantly from the previous proposal. Terracing has been incorporated to mitigate some concerns regarding height. This change has resulted in an increase in lot coverage to 44%. For comparison the maximum lot coverage in the C-2 Commercial zone is 75%.

mroberts

New Stamp

2

Official Community Plan

The proposed density is 100 residential units per hectare. This is the maximum density permitted with density bonusing in the Multi-family/Mixed Residential policy # (p. 48, OCP). Planning staff are continuing negotiations with the applicant to determine an appropriate amenity package that adheres to the policies 5.17 through 5.27 concerning amenity contributions and affordable housing (p. 44, OCP). The package will be presented to Council for consideration as part of a density bonusing scheme.

Policy 6.14 (p. 52, OCP) describes circumstances where building heights up to 6-storeys may be considered. Although further analysis is required, in general, the 5-storey proposal appears to meet the circumstances described in the policy. A shadow analysis will be required to determine if the proposed height will significantly overshadow adjacent uses.

Next Steps

The applicant will consider comments from the APC to further refine the proposal and schedule information meetings for the public to attend and provide further feedback on the proposal.

Staff will continue to work with the applicant to determine appropriate amenity contributions in preparation for consideration of first reading of the bylaw amendment by Council. Further referrals would be undertaken after first reading which could include further consideration by the APC.

Respectfully submitted,

Sven Koberwitz Planner

Attachments:

1 - December 19, 2019, Wade Development Proposal 2 - Staff Report and APC Minutes from April 11, 2019 APC Meeting 3 - Staff Report and Minutes from May 22, 2019 Committee of the Whole Meeting

Andrew Allen ([email protected])

Reviewed

P R O J E C T D A T ED R A W I N G T I T L EC L I E N T

Sechelt Mixed Use Rezoning Application A-0Dec. 19th, 2019CoverW2 Group Developments

SECHELT MIXED USE REZONING APPLICATION

5686 Wharf AvePID 006-395-205 Lot 21 Block 9 DL 303 & 304 Plan 74835694 Wharf AvePID 008-102-473 Lot 20 Except part in Plan 22398 Block 9 DL 303 & 304 Plan 74835694 Porpoise Bay RdPID 010-591-672 Lot 19 Block 9 DL 303 & 304 Plan 7483

Sechelt Inlet

Strait of Georgia

Wharf Ave

E Porpoise Bay Rd

Sven Koberwitz ([email protected])

Attachment 1


Sechelt Mixed Use Rezoning Application A-1Dec. 19th, 2019SurveyW2 Group Developments

20' -

8"

PROPERTY LINE

16'-5"

16'-5"

0800 02 03 04 05 06 07

G

B

C

D

E

F

01

A

16'-5"

PARKING ENTRANCE

WHARF AVE.

E PORPOISE BAY RD.

PROPERTY LINE

5M ROAD DEDICATION

5M R

OAD

DED

ICAT

ION

BIOSWALEBIOSWALE

COMMUNITY GARDEN

PARKING

PLAY AREA

PUBLIC PLAZA

PUBLIC PLAZA

LOT SIZEPROPOSED SITE COVERAGEPROOSED GROSS FLOOR AREA

43,295 SQ.FT (4,022 SQM)19,150 SQ. FT (1780 SQM) : 44%48,360 SQ.FT (4492 SQM)

FRONT SETBACKSREAR SETBACKSIDE SETBACK

HEIGHTDENSITYFLOOR SPACE RATIOPARKING

16'-5" (5M)20'-8" (6.3M) 16'-5" (5M)

54"-2" (16.5 M)97 UNITS/HA1.2062 STALLS

BUILDING DATA


Sechelt Mixed Use Rezoning Application A-2Dec. 19th, 2019Site PlanW2 Group Developments

UNIT COUNTNAME Area COUNT

LEVEL 11BD 2378 SF 31BD AFFR 754 SF 12BD 2143 SF 23BD 1309 SF 1

6583 SF 7LEVEL 21BD 4355 SF 51BD AFFR 2123 SF 32BD 889 SF 12BD AFFR 835 SF 13BD 1247 SF 1

9448 SF 11LEVEL 31BD 1429 SF 21BD AFFR 636 SF 12BD 5674 SF 62BD AFFR 755 SF 1

8495 SF 10LEVEL 41BD 774 SF 11BD AFFR 673 SF 12BD 4038 SF 43BD 2220 SF 2

7705 SF 8LEVEL 52BD 1392 SF 13BD 3972 SF 3

5364 SF 4Grand total 37594 SF 40

UNIT COUNT TOTALNAME COUNT

1BD 111BD AFFR 62BD 142BD AFFR 23BD 7

40

TOTAL GROSS AREALevel AREA

LEVEL 1 14,120 SFLEVEL 2 11,230 SFLEVEL 3 11,050 SFLEVEL 4 9,380 SFLEVEL 5 6,240 SFTOTAL 52,030 SF

AREASNAME AREA

AMENITY 798 SFCOMMERCIAL 3721 SFCOMMON 7366 SFUNITS 37594 SFGrand total 49480 SF

DN

19210 SF

BUILDINGFOOTPRINT

1151 SFDRIVEWAY

2528 SFDRIVEWAY

11092 SF

PUBLICSPACE

3675 SF

OPENLANDSCAPE

5383 SF

OPENLANDSCAPE

BUILDING FOOTPRINT

DRIVEWAY

OPEN LANDSCAPE

PUBLIC SPACE233 SF

OPENLANDSCAPE


Sechelt Mixed Use Rezoning Application A-3Dec. 19th, 2019Site Coverage PlanW2 Group Developments

SITE COVERAGE

Name Area %

BUILDINGFOOTPRINT

19,210 SF 44%

DRIVEWAY 3,680 SF 9%OPENLANDSCAPE

9,290 SF 21%

PUBLICSPACE

11,090 SF 26%

Grand total 43,270 SF 100%


Sechelt Mixed Use Rezoning Application A-4Dec. 19th, 2019ConceptW2 Group Developments

UP

0800 02 03 04 05 06 07

G

B

C

D

E

F

01

A

GATE

24

54

25

53

26

52

27

51

28

50

29

49

30

48

31

47

32

46

33

45

34

44H/C

35

43H/C 42 41

36 37 38 39H/C

40H/C

9 8 7 6 5 4 3 2 1

232221

5655H/C

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

322 SFMECHANICAL

20306 SFPARKADE

586 SFELECTRICAL 534 SF

LOBBY

680 SF

REFUSE/RECYCLING

VERT.CIRC.

VERT.CIRC.

767 SFSTORAGE

156 SFSTAIR

GUEST PARKING


Sechelt Mixed Use Rezoning Application A-5Dec. 19th, 2019Parkade PlanW2 Group Developments

PARKING SCHEDULELevel Count

PARKADE 56COMMERCIAL

6

TOTAL 62

DNDN

DN

DN761 SF

1BD

1309 SF3BD

357 SFCOMMON

1070 SF2BD

1073 SF2BD

839 SF1BD

754 SF

1BDAFFR

167 SFLOBBY 637 SF

LOBBY

798 SF

COMMUNITYAMENITY

CORRIDOR

CORRIDOR

ELEV.

STAIRSTAIR

926 SFCOMMERCIAL

1050 SFCOMMERCIAL

1745 SFCOMMERCIAL

216 SFOFFICE

778 SF1BD

0800 02 03 04 05 06 07

G

B

C

D

E

F

01

A

PUBLIC SPACE

269 SFCORRIDOR


Sechelt Mixed Use Rezoning Application A-6Dec. 19th, 20191st Floor PlanW2 Group Developments

1ST FLOOR AREASNAME AREA

AMENITYCOMMUNITY

AMENITY798 SF

798 SFCOMMERCIAL

COMMERCIAL 3,721 SF3,721 SF

COMMONCOMMON 357 SF

CORRIDOR 644 SFELEV. 94 SFLOBBY 804 SFOFFICE 216 SFSTAIR 686 SF

2,802 SFUNITS

1BD 2,378 SF1BD AFFR 754 SF

2BD 2,143 SF3BD 1,309 SF

6,583 SFGRAND TOTAL 13,905 SF

710 SF

1BDAFFR

706 SF

1BDAFFR

889 SF2BD

758 SF1BD

1247 SF3BD

774 SF1BD

1211 SF1BD

CORRIDOR

756 SF1BD

835 SF

2BDAFFR

STAIRELEV.

STAIR

706 SF

1BDAFFR

857 SF1BD

0800 02 03 04 05 06 07

G

B

C

D

E

F

01

A


Sechelt Mixed Use Rezoning Application A-7Dec. 19th, 20192nd Floor PlanW2 Group Developments

2ND FLOOR AREASNAME AREA

COMMONCORRIDOR 1,046 SF

ELEV. 92 SFSTAIR 370 SF

1,508 SFUNITS

1BD 4,355 SF1BD AFFR 2,123 SF

2BD 889 SF2BD AFFR 835 SF

3BD 1,247 SF9,448 SF

GRAND TOTAL 10,956 SF

717 SF1BD

636 SF

1BDAFFR

1061 SF2BD

712 SF1BD

831 SF2BD

830 SF2BD

CORRIDOR

843 SF2BD

STAIRELEV.

STAIR

1196 SF2BD

0800 02 03 04 05 06 07

G

B

C

D

E

F

01

A

631 SFCOMMON

ROOFTOP PATIO & GARDEN

914 SF2BD

755 SF

2BDAFFR


Sechelt Mixed Use Rezoning Application A-8Dec. 19th, 20193rd Floor PlanW2 Group Developments

3RD FLOOR AREASNAME AREA

COMMON 631 SF631 SF

COMMONCORRIDOR 1,108 SF


1,584 SFUNITS




1058 SF2BD 979 SF

2BD

892 SF2BD

1119 SF3BD

1108 SF2BD

1101 SF3BD

774 SF1BD

CORRIDOR

STAIRELEV.

STAIR

673 SF

1BDAFFR

0800 02 03 04 05 06 07

G

N

Q

B

C

D

E

F

01

A


Sechelt Mixed Use Rezoning Application A-9Dec. 19th, 20194th Floor PlanW2 Group Developments

4TH FLOOR AREASNAME AREA

COMMONCORRIDOR 995 SF


1,471 SFUNITS


2BD 4,038 SF3BD 2,220 SF


1331 SF3BD

1356 SF3BD

1392 SF2BD

CORRIDOR

STAIR

ELEV.

0800 02 03 04 05 06 07

G

N

Q

B

C

D

E

F

01

A

1285 SF3BD


Sechelt Mixed Use Rezoning Application A-10Dec. 19th, 20195th Floor PlanW2 Group Developments

4TH FLOOR AREAS...NAME AREA

COMMONCORRIDOR 995 SF


1,471 SFUNITS


2BD 4,038 SF3BD 2,220 SF


+11.510LEVEL 1

+14.431LEVEL 2

+17.352LEVEL 3

+20.273LEVEL 4

+23.194LEVEL 5

+26.115ROOF

+8.005PARKADE

+10.900COMMERCIAL

GB C D E FA

+28.858SERVICE

+11.510LEVEL 1

+14.431LEVEL 2

+17.352LEVEL 3

+20.273LEVEL 4

+23.194LEVEL 5

+26.115ROOF

+8.005PARKADE

+10.900COMMERCIAL

08 00020304050607 01

+28.858SERVICE


Sechelt Mixed Use Rezoning Application A-11Dec. 19th, 2019ElevationsW2 Group Developments

+11.510LEVEL 1

+14.431LEVEL 2

+17.352LEVEL 3

+20.273LEVEL 4

+23.194LEVEL 5

+26.115ROOF

+8.005PARKADE

+10.900COMMERCIAL

0800 02 03 04 05 06 0701

+28.858SERVICE

+11.510LEVEL 1

+14.431LEVEL 2

+17.352LEVEL 3

+20.273LEVEL 4

+23.194LEVEL 5

+26.115ROOF

+8.005PARKADE

+10.900COMMERCIAL

G BCDEF A

49'-1

1"

+28.858SERVICE


Sechelt Mixed Use Rezoning Application A-12Dec. 19th, 2019ElevationsW2 Group Developments

REPORT FOR DISCUSSION TO: Advisory Planning Commission REPORT DATE: April 4, 2019 TARGET MEETING DATE: April 11, 2019 FROM: Ian Holl, Development Planning Manager RE: Official Community Plan Amendment Bylaw No. 492-22, 2018

(Wade) & Zoning Bylaw No. 25, 1987, Amendment Bylaw No. 25-286, 2018 (Wade) - Revised Proposal

FILE NO: 3360-20-2016-15 The staff report that went to the Committee of the Whole (COW) meeting on March 27, 2019 is included below. The COW directed that the revised application be referred to the APC for their review. The Wade rezoning application has been through several iterations, and the current revision is presented for the APC to comment on. As with Council, staff are seeking input from the APC on the current revision, particularly with respect to the following issues:

1. Goods movement/transportation constraints – conflict with creation of urban and pedestrian node

2. Height & neighbourhood impact – outstanding concerns from public hearing 3. Justification for the increase in height and density – requirements and community amenities 4. Impacts – future development patterns, roads, neighbours and neighbourhood, capacities and

constraints The presentation to the APC on the application will also outline comments from the COW meeting regarding the revised proposal. Respectfully submitted, Ian Holl Development Planning Manager


Reviewed


Attachment 2

DISTRICT OF SECHELT

MINUTES OF THE ADVISORY PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING Held at 5797 Cowrie Street, Sechelt, BC

Thursday, April 11, 2019

PRESENT Paul Mears (Chair), Michael Hoole, Ken Crozier, Ahren Bichler, Jonathan

Baker (to 5:38 pm), Lennea Perpet, Randy Knill, Tullia Upton REGRETS Barry Gilson STAFF Director of Planning and Development T. Corbett, Development Planning

Manager I. Holl, Recording Secretary M. Roberts 1. CALL TO ORDER The Chair called the Advisory Planning Commission Meeting to order at 5:00pm. 2. ADOPTION OF AGENDA Recommendation No. 1 – Agenda Moved/Seconded That the Agenda be adopted.

CARRIED

3. APPOINTMENTS AND DELEGATIONS 4. ADOPTION OF PREVIOUS MINUTES

4.1 Minutes of the March 14, 2019 Advisory Planning Commission Meeting That the minutes be amended to update the chair signature block to Paul Mears.

Recommendation No. 2 – APC Minutes Moved/Seconded

That the minutes of the March 14, 2019 Advisory Planning Commission meeting be received as amended.

District of Sechelt Minutes – Advisory Planning Commission Meeting Page 2 of 5 April 11th, 2019

CARRIED

5. CORRESPONDENCE None. 6. BUSINESS ITEMS AND REPORTS

6.1 Trail Bay Properties - Development Permit Application

The Director of Planning and Development gave a presentation on the Development Permit application for façade changes to part of the Trail Bay Mall (5755 Cowrie Street). The architect, James Schouw, commented on the proposal:

• The improvements to the building are to accommodate a restaurant; • In designing the façade the architect considered Trail Bay in its current state, what it

may become and Sechelt as a whole; • The renderings do not show the patio features; • The canopy, windows and doors will all be new; • Pilasters are already existing; • The existing structure will not be demolished; the architect is trying to work with what is

already there; • The window and door frames will be constructed with wood to emphasize the features; • The main canopy entry will be wood; • The structure has been reviewed by an engineer as there is a seismic element with the

addition of the roll-up garage doors; • The tenant wants the restaurant to be painted white; and • There will be a ten foot wide patio extending from the north side of the building that

will be fenced off. In discussion by the APC members it was noted:

• Painting the exterior of the building white does not meet the OCP guidelines; and • The neo-postmodern design is site specific to this restaurant and does not match the

rest of Trail Bay Mall. The architect responded that the proposal is meant to reinvigorate the area and has a demalling aspect to it. In discussion by the APC members it was noted that:

• The rendering does not show existing landscaping; • The white colour could be a maintenance problem; • The District should encourage variety; • The proposal lacks character;


• The geometry is very rigid; • It might be difficult to integrate signage; • The windows are an attractive design element; • The design is too industrial and stark; • It would be good in Yaletown, but is not in keeping with the Mall and the neighbouring

sports store across the street, and is incompatible with the guidelines; • The applicant should not be required to try to blend in a new restaurant with the

existing unsightly mall; but could use something more conducive with the mall and the guidelines;

• It is important to keep the geometry interesting as the project will likely become an architectural marker given that it is located on a corner and on one of the entrances to the mall;

• The applicant should provide new renderings to show the actual intent of the whole exterior; its hard to determine impact of the colour and materials if we are not seeing the complete picture;

• The design should reflect what was done for Trail Bay Sports; as the building was updated more recently and it fits in with the downtown corridor;

• As Cowrie street becomes more modernized in the future, the colour of the paint could be changed; and

• Wood planters could be incorporated. • There needs to be a sense of thematic integrity along Cowrie Street and this proposal

would not fit the incremental elements established so far. • Signage needs to be integrate with the physical character, architectural elemnts, and

landscaping. The tenant, Heidi, commented on the design:

• The proposal is meant to complement the surrounding properties instead of matching it;

• The design is meant to make it stand out and be a strong entry point to the mall; • There will be an outdoor fireplace on the patio; and • A mural will be painted on the side of the building.

Recommendation No. 3 – Trail Bay Properties - Development Permit Application Moved/Seconded That the Advisory Planning Commission recommends that the applicant resubmit a more complete vision and plan of the proposal and incorporate the APCs comments pertaining to colour, signage, landscaping and building materials before it is presented to council for consideration.

CARRIED


6.2 Wade (Revised) – Rezoning Application

The Development Planning Manager gave a presentation on the rezoning application. In discussion around the impacts of traffic and the intersection it was noted that:

• A traffic circle could be discussed with engineering; • There may not be enough space to accommodate the geometry of a traffic circle; • The previous design proposal had a large channelized right turn lane; • Roundabouts can make it difficult for pedestrian traffic to cross the street; • The traffic impact assessment done for the site did not meet the threshold for

signalization; • A pedestrian controlled crossing would be helpful; • There is not a perceived demand for an increase in commercial space given the empty

storefronts in the downtown core; • New retail spaces are attractive for businesses in comparison to some of the older

infrastructure that may be expensive to bring up to code in the downtown core; • Some downtown property owners are not maintaining their buildings to a suitable

standard to attract and retain new tenants. • Parking would be an issue if a restaurant is established on the site, and the Bunt parking

study does not support a restaurant use. • The site could act as a transition corner, but it is isolated from downtown so it would

only draw residents from the immediate area. Recommendation No. 4 - Wade (Revised) – Rezoning Application Moved/Seconded That the Advisory Planning Commission recommends to Council that pedestrianization be given priority for the south east corner of the intersection of Wharf Avenue and East Porpoise Bay road.

CARRIED In discussion focused on affordable housing it was noted:

• 20% of the total number of units (8) units will be designated as below market value affordable housing; and

• The units will not be subsidized rental housing or social housing. In discussion on the height of the proposed it was noted that:

• The parking area does not need to be two storeys above ground; • Commercial space does not need to be two storeys high; • The overhang on the roof negatively accentuates the height of the building and makes it

District of Sechelt

Minutes — Advisory Planning Commission Meeting Page 5 of 5

April11th

2019

more imposing;

• The proposal is for a regular building on an irregular lot, and the building andarchitecture should be fitted to the irregular shape of the lot, which would result in

different visuals on different corners and faces of the structure.

• That the top floor be stepped back so there are only four floors at Wharf Avenue side

(still stepped back from the street) and five on the southeast side of the building;

• A rooftop patio could be incorporated if the fifth floor only takes up a portion of the

space;• Dislike for the massing of the building was voiced;

• Attractive building, nice architecture but wrong location for this height;

• The advantage to increasing height is decreasing site coverage.

• This is a transitional area with low-rise residential; it should be 3-4 storeys;

• The building is rather flat all around and should have more articulation and less glass.

• The building has a very urban design that does not fit with the style of the village.

Recommendation No. 5 - Wade (Revised) — Rezoning Application

Moved/Seconded

That prior to consideration by council, the applicant explore options for reducing the height and

massing of the building by improving the building articulation, change the roofline to reduce

the size of the overhang and step the top floor of the building back.

CARRIED

ADJOURNMENT

Recommendation No. 6 — Adjournment

Moved/Seconded

That the Advisory Planning Commission meeting of April 11, 2019 be adjourned at 7:20 pm.

CARRIED

____

I

Paul Mears, Chair Jc-Anne Frank, Corporate Officer

REQUEST FOR DECISION

TO:

REPORT DATE:

TARGET DECISION DATE:

FROM:

RE:

FILE NO:

Committee of the Whole

May 13, 2019

May 22, 2019

Ian Holl, Development Planning Manager

Official Community Plan Amendment Bylaw No. 492-22, 2018 (Wade) & Zoning Bylaw No. 25, 1987, Amendment Bylaw No. 25-286, 2018 (Wade)

3360-20-2016-15

RECOMMENDATIONS

1. That the report from the Development Planning Manager dated May 13, 2019 regarding the WadeComprehensive Development Rezoning application be received.

2. That Council direct the applicant to revise the proposal based on the APC comments as follows:a) reduce the height and massing of the building by improving the building articulation.b) change the roofline to reduce the size of the overhang.c) step the top floor of the building back.

3. That Council direct staff to prepare a revised Official Community Plan Bylaw No. 492, 2010,Amendment Bylaw No. 492-22, 2018 and a revised Zoning Bylaw No. 25, 1987, Amendment BylawNo. 25-286, 2018 to give effect to the revised design proposal (following recommendation 2) andbring the bylaws back for reconsideration of 1st reading.

PURPOSE The purpose of the report is to follow up on the applications for Official Community Plan Amendment Bylaw No. 492-22, 2018 (Wade) & Zoning Bylaw No. 25, 1987, Amendment Bylaw No. 25-286, 2018 (Wade) following the Advisory Planning Commission (APC) review. It presents recommendations to Council for consideration by the Committee regarding the application including revisions, conditions, and potential community amenities.

OPTIONS/ALTERNATIVES 1. That Council adopt the recommendations as presented above.2. That Council defer the application pending additional information as directed.3. That Council deny the application.

District of Sechelt

Item 5.2

Committee of the Whole Meeting

May 22, 2019

Page 24


Attachment 3

PROPOSAL The applicants are requesting an amendment to the zoning bylaw to change the current zoning on the subject lands from R-2 Residential with a current density of 2.2 units per hectare (uph) to a mixed residential and commercial development with a density approximating 100 uph. There have been a number of revisions to the original proposal due to public input. The initial proposal was for a six-storey, 47 unit development with 1,000 ft2 of commercial space. In response to input received through the public hearing, the applicant then proposed to change to a 4-storey, 42 unit development with 1,000 ft2 of commercial space. The Council received information on the revision and directed staff to prepare a revised bylaw. During that time, the applicant chose to pause the process and redesign the development to the current form of a 5 storey, 40 residential units, with 3,000 ft2 of commercial floor area. The applicant’s revised proposal seeks to find an acceptable response to the concerns raised by the public and council by changing the building to a five storey structure with a height of 16.89 m. This is an increase over the previous proposal that was a four storey and 13.5 m building. The original proposal was a six storey and 19.62 m high building. The current revision is in between the previous and the original proposal in terms of height and number of storeys. BACKGROUND This application was last presented to the March 27, 2019 Committee of the Whole meeting, where it was resolved that:

That the Development Planning Manager’s report dated March 15, 2019 regarding the Wade rezoning application and input received from the Committee of the Whole be referred to the Advisory Planning Commission for its review and recommendations to a future Council meeting.; and That staff provide the original 2018 development site plan(s) for Committee consideration at a future Council meeting.

Site Context:

Table 1: Site Data Owner Winston Wade Civic Address 5694 Wharf Ave; 5686 Wharf Ave; 5700 East Porpoise Bay Rd Legal Addresses PID 010-591-672, Lot 19, Block 9, District Lot 303, Plan 7483)

PID 008-102-473, Lot 20, Block 9, District Lot 303, Plan 7483) PID 006-394-205, Lot 21, Block 9, District Lot 303, Plan 7483)

Size of Properties 1,463.41 m2 + 1,243.14 m2 + 1,350.70 m2

TOTAL: ~4,057.25 m2 DP Areas Form and Character:

• Development Permit Area No. 6 – Downtown Sechelt • Development Permit Area No. 7 – Multiple Family Residential

Zoning Designation R-2 (3x) OCP Designation Downtown Centre (2x) and Multifamily Mixed Residential (1x)

District of Sechelt


May 22, 2019

Page 25

COUNCIL POLICY Strategic Plan: The application responds to Goal 3 Enhancing Community Liveability and several objectives (3.1, 3.2) therein. The proposed application does conflict with Goal 5 Revitalizing the Downtown as the site is outside the downtown core. ANALYSIS Advisory Planning Commission The Advisory Planning Commission (APC) reviewed the application at their April 11, 2019 meeting and made the following comments. Traffic & Intersection In discussion around the impacts of traffic and the intersection it was noted that:

• A traffic circle could be discussed with engineering though there may not be enough space to accommodate the geometry of a traffic circle

• Depending on the design, roundabouts might make it difficult for pedestrian traffic to cross the street

• The previous design proposal had a large channelized right turn lane • The traffic impact assessment done for the site did not meet the threshold for signalization • A pedestrian controlled crossing would be helpful • There is not a perceived demand for an increase in commercial space given the empty storefronts

in the downtown core • New retail spaces are attractive for businesses in comparison to some of the older infrastructure

that may be expensive to bring up to code in the downtown core • Some downtown property owners are not maintaining their buildings to a suitable standard to

attract and retain new tenants • Parking would be an issue if a restaurant is established on the site, and the Bunt parking study

does not support a restaurant use • The site could act as a transition corner, but it is isolated from downtown so it would only draw

residents from the immediate area Affordable Housing In discussion focused on affordable housing it was noted: • 20% of the total number of units (8) units will be designated as below market value affordable

housing • The units will not be subsidized rental housing or social housing

Height & Building Design In discussion on the height of the proposed it was noted that: • The rear parking area does not need to have a second storey of empty space above it • The portion of the building with the commercial space does not need to be two storeys high • The overhang on the roof negatively accentuates the height of the building and makes it more

imposing • The proposal is for a regular building on an irregular lot, and the building and architecture should

be fitted to the irregular shape of the lot, which would result in different visuals on different corners and faces of the structure

District of Sechelt


May 22, 2019

Page 26

• That the top floor be stepped back so there are only four floors at Wharf Avenue side (still stepped back from the street) and five on the southeast side of the building

• A rooftop patio could be incorporated if the fifth floor only takes up a portion of the space • Dislike for the massing of the building was voiced • Attractive building, nice architecture but wrong location for this height • The advantage to increasing height is decreasing site coverage • This is a transitional area with low-rise residential; it should be 3-4 storeys • The building is rather flat all around and should have more articulation and less glass • The building has a very urban design that does not fit with the style of the village

The APC made the following recommendations to Council regarding the Wade rezoning application:

That the Advisory Planning Commission recommends to Council that pedestrianization be given priority for the south east corner of the intersection of Wharf Avenue and East Porpoise Bay road. That prior to consideration by council, the applicant explore options for reducing the height and massing of the building by improving the building articulation, change the roofline to reduce the size of the overhang and step the top floor of the building back.

Based on the APC comments regarding building height, architectural elements, form, and massing, there is an opportunity for the applicant to revise the proposal and mitigate or resolve a number of the concerns raised by Council and the public regarding the height and design of the building. The OCP would still require an amendment due to the policy regarding the limitation on building heights in the Downtown Centre (maximum of three storeys in height (including ground level parking structures of 12 m (30.4 ft) whichever is less). However, APC members noted that there were viable changes that could be made to significantly and positively affect the design of the building while still keeping it at the four to five storey height. According to OCP Policy 6.14, additional height is considered where the building can be sensitively integrated into the neighbourhood and the increased height does not significantly affect views or over-shadow adjacent uses. The OCP also makes provision for increased density where community amenity contributions are made in accordance with the bonusing policy. Staff are seeking direction from Council regarding the options for the applicant to revise the proposal in line with the APC comments, or to reduce the building height to four storeys and keep in mind the APC’s recommendations, or to reduce the building height to three storeys in line with the OCP while keeping in mind the APC recommendations. Staff have required that a focused assessment be conducted on the intersection and turning movements with respect to the current revised proposal. Staff will have Bunt and Associates conduct the assessment at the applicant’s cost based on three possible scenarios. Minimum Conditions & Community Amenities Staff have considered several recommendations regarding minimum conditions for the rezoning application as well as possible community amenity contributions. As part of the 1st reading report for revised OCP/Zoning amendment bylaws, staff would recommend that Council consider the following as minimum conditions of the rezoning applications, to be met prior to adoption:

District of Sechelt


May 22, 2019

Page 27

a) That the proponent provide a minimum of 20% (8) of the total number of units (40) of affordable workforce housing to be secured through a housing agreement and restrictive covenant. These employee housing units would be a mix of 1 and 2 bedroom units.

Furthermore, it is recommended that Council consider the following as community amenity contributions of the rezoning application, to be met prior to adoption:

a) That the proponent provide a cash contribution in an amount to be determined for the downtown revitalization fund as the proposed development is outside the downtown core.

b) That the proponent provide a cash contribution in an amount to be determined for the childcare support fund.

The affordable housing component of 20% of the total number of units would provide for below market housing (based on average market values) protected in perpetuity through a housing agreement and covenant. Community amenity contributions could be provided by the applicant in the form of cash (in amounts to be determined) related to downtown revitalization and childcare needs. The application is proposing residential units and commercial floor area outside the downtown core area where there is a need to supply both to support downtown revitalization and densification. Staff recommend that cash contributions be taken as community amenity contributions for a downtown revitalization fund for all developments proposed outside the downtown core. Furthermore, as childcare is currently critical need, staff also recommend that cash contributions be taken as community amenity contributions for all developments in order to build a childcare support fund. COMMUNICATION STRATEGY When the revised bylaws have been prepared and received 1st reading as amended, staff would require the applicant to host a community meeting to present the revised proposal. This would be in advance of any public hearing in order to gauge the tenor of the public regarding the revisions. The application will be subject to a public hearing process in conformance with the Local Government Act and the Planning & Development Procedures Bylaw No. 566, 2018. SUMMARY The revised application proposal is being presented to Committee of the Whole for further discussion following the Advisory Planning Commission review. Based on the APC comments and additional Council comments, the applicant could revise the proposal. Subsequent to that revision, a revised zoning amendment bylaw could be brought back to council to be considered for 1st reading. Staff are recommending that the applicant host a community meeting to present their revised proposal to seek public comments prior to scheduling of a new public hearing. Respectfully submitted, Ian Holl Development Planning Manager Attachments: Attachment 1 – APC Minutes – April 11, 2019 Attachment 2 – Conceptual Site Plans 2019 Attachment 3 – Conceptual Site Plans 2018

District of Sechelt

By Tracy Corbett ([email protected]) at 1:57 pm, May 14, 2019

By Andrew Yeates ([email protected]) at 10:51 am, May 15, 2019

By Julie Rogers ([email protected]) at 4:07 pm, May 13, 2019


May 22, 2019

Page 28

DISTRICT OF SECHELT

MINUTES OF THE COMMITTEE OF THE WHOLE MEETING Held at 5797 Cowrie Street, Sechelt, BC

Wednesday, May 22, 2019

PRESENT Mayor D. Siegers (partial attendance); Councillors J. Kuester (partial attendance);

T. Lamb; M. McLean; B. Rowe (Chair) and E. Scott. REGRETS Councillor A. Toth STAFF Chief Administrative Officer A. Yeates; Director of Financial and Corporate

Services D. Stewart; Director of Engineering and Operations D. Kutney; Director of Planning and Development T. Corbett; Corporate Officer J. Frank; Development Planning Manager I. Holl and Recording Secretary J. Chamberlain

1. CALL TO ORDER Chair Rowe called the Committee of the Whole Meeting to order at 3:00 p.m. and asked for any declarations of conflict. 2. ADOPTION OF AGENDA Recommendation No. 1 Moved/Seconded That the agenda be adopted as presented.

CARRIED 3. APPOINTMENTS AND DELEGATIONS None. 4. NEW BUSINESS None. 5. BUSINESS ITEMS Councillor Kuester entered the meeting at 3:01pm.

District of Sechelt Minutes – Committee of the Whole Meeting Page 2 of 5 May 22, 2019

5.1 Climate Action Revenue Incentive Program (CARIP) – For Information In discussion it was noted that staff will review the feasibility of measuring the reduction of greenhouse gases and provide a report to Council at a later time.

Recommendation No. 2 Moved/Seconded That the report from the Director of Planning & Development Services dated May 12, 2019 regarding the 2018 Climate Action Revenue Incentive Program (CARIP) report be received.

CARRIED 5.2 Official Community Plan Amendment Bylaw No. 492-22, 2018 (Wade) and Zoning

Bylaw No. 25, 1987, Amendment Bylaw No. 25-286, 2018 (Wade) Recommendation No. 3 Moved/Seconded That the report from the Development Planning Manager dated May 13, 2019 regarding the Wade Comprehensive Development Rezoning application be received.

CARRIED

Mayor D. Siegers entered the meeting at 3:07pm. In discussion it was noted that:

The community feels strongly about existing OCP conformity.

The existing goods movement route on Wharf Avenue and E. Porpoise Bay Road will remain the only goods movement route in the area for the foreseeable future.

Amendments to the OCP will set a new standard for development in the area.

There is interest in deviating from the OCP in order to offer incentives to developers to revitalize the Sechelt downtown core. Some incentives include:

o Bringing down the cost of development may provide more community amenities.

o An OCP amendment to increase the density may secure more affordable housing units.

The Advisory Planning Commission (APC)’s recommendation for a stepped back top floor is favourable.

There is concern that the number of proposed financial contributions from the developer may increase the price of the units for future home buyers.

o Cash amenity contributions are scaled to the development application proposal.


Recommendation No. 4 Moved/Seconded

That Council direct the applicant to revise the proposal based on the APC’s comments as follows:

a) reduce the height and massing of the building by improving the building articulation; b) change the roofline to reduce the size of the overhang; c) step the top floor of the building back; and

That Council direct staff to prepare a revised Official Community Plan Bylaw No. 492, 2010, Amendment Bylaw No. 492-22, 2018 and a revised Zoning Bylaw No. 25, 1987, Amendment Bylaw No. 25-286, 2018 to give effect to the revised design proposal and bring the bylaws back for reconsideration of first reading.

CARRIED In discussion it was further noted that:

Staff to explore the potential for future water re-use options for this development.

Staff to collaborate with the Sunshine Coast Housing Society to discuss the potential for the affordable housing units to be rental units.

5.3 Proposed Sign Bylaw No. 583, 2019 Recommendation No. 5 Moved/Seconded That the report from the Director of Planning and Development Services, dated May 12, 2019, regarding proposed Sign Bylaw No. 583, 2019 be received.

CARRIED

In discussion it was noted that the proposed bylaw illumination is to be reviewed by the Dark Sky Initiative group. Recommendation No. 6 Moved/Seconded That staff be directed to conduct further consultation with the public and stakeholders prior to bringing proposed Sign Bylaw No. 583, 2019 back to Council for consideration and readings.

CARRIED


5.4 Proposed Good Neighbour Bylaw No. 579, 2019 Recommendation No. 7 Moved/Seconded That the report from the Director of Planning and Development Services, dated May 12, 2019, regarding proposed Good Neighbour Bylaw No. 579, 2019 be received.

CARRIED In discussion it was noted that:

The rationale for the proposed bylaw being brought forward is to assist with bylaw enforcement.

Dealing with unsightly premises, including abandoned vehicles, is an issue for the Sunshine Coast and is challenging and expensive on local governments.

Property management companies should be included for feedback.

The choice of words in section 4.8 should be amended for clarity.

Businesses along some arterial roads and Highway 101 should be responsible for sidewalk snow and ice removal.

Community input is needed on targeting and handling invasive species during the public consultation.

o Scotch broom and knotweed are a common invasive species on the Sunshine Coast.

o There are two different species of knotweed growing locally that are cross-pollinating.

Recommendation No. 8 Moved/Seconded That staff be directed to conduct further consultation with the public and stakeholders prior to bringing proposed Good Neighbour Bylaw No. 579, 2019 back to Council for consideration and readings.

CARRIED 5.5 Proposed Tree Management Bylaw No. 573, 2019 Recommendation No. 9 Moved/Seconded That the report from the Director of Planning and Development Services, dated May 12, 2019, regarding proposed Tree Management Bylaw No. 573, 2019 be received.

CARRIED

District of SecheltMinutes — Committee of the Whole Meeting Page 5 of 5May 22, 2019

In discussion it was noted that:

• In an effort to encourage compliance, the proposed bylaw promotes best practice,balances the need of development with an objective of better environmentalmanagement, and provides protection of trees and sufficient tree cover for estheticsand slope stability.

• Council has received lots of feedback from the community with regards to developmentand clear cutting.

• The proposed bylaw would be applicable to developments and residential properties.a Cost and availability of arborists to be considered.

• Hydrological assessments for tree clearing should be considered for the TreeManagement Permit terms and conditions.

• There is some concern on the restrictiveness and expense of the bylaw for the generalpublic.

Recommendation No. 10

Moved/Seconded

That the Tree Management Bylaw No. 573, 2019 be considered by Council, subject to anychanges or amendments as directed, following a community consultation process.

CARRIED

6. ADJOURNMENT

Recommendation No. 11

Moved/Seconded

That the Committee of the Whole meeting of May 22, 2019 be adjourned at 4:17 pm.

CARRIED

Certified Correct:

Brenda Rowe, Chair Jonne Frank, Corporate Officer

advisory planning commission meeting community … document... · 1/7/2020 · advisory planning...

Documents