Chapman Letter

7/30/2019 Chapman Letter

1/5

Duane Elaine Chapman471 Royal Bay Drive Colwood Phone: 250-474-2107

E-Mail: [email protected]

Date: January 6, 2013

Dear Mayor, Colwood Council Members and Planning and Land Use Committee Members

I am writing you concerning the proposed rezoning of 467 Royal Bay Drive from a 38 unit townhouse development to a high density,

128 unit assisted living/apartment/townhouse complex. Our home is located on Lot 9 in Appendix 1 on the corner of Royal Bay Drive

and Promenade Crescent adjacent to the proposal.

My wife and I are supportive of further development of Royal Bay. We purchased our house on the understanding that 467 Royal Bay

behind us was to be developed as set out in the Colwood Official Community Plan (OCP) Part V section 26. The 467 Royal Bay land

was to be a high quality much lower density townhouse development with regulations that ensured it would blend in and transition well

with the existing Royal Bay development.

It appears that this rezoning application for higher density and change in building structures is complex in that it would entail council

opening up the OCP, changing and amending land use bylaw number 151 section 10, and writing unique new regulatory rules for such

a small part of Royal Bay that will negatively impact the existing Royal Bay development. I would like to know what the full list of

variances needed are from the perspective of the planning and zoning committee. I would also like to know if staff is supportive of the

zoning application.

We are not supportive of this developers proposal to significantly increase density. Colwoods OCP has already identified many better-

suited areas for such a high density development such as Colwood Corners and Royal Bay Village Centre to name a few. These

alternative locations provide ample amenities and required services for large six story high-density buildings. This proposal has

inadequate parking and illustrates why it is imperative that such a development at a minimum be along a transit corridor. This zoning

proposal almost quadruples density into a very small space with no planned amenities and required services. In addition, there are

violations of the OCP in this rezoning application impacting the surrounding neighbourhood. Below are some specific issues we see

this the proposed re-zoning.

Issue 1). Building A (see appendix 1) is unacceptable to the current townhouse zoning. Building A is significantly taller than the

existing regulation zoning height of 9 meters for townhouses. The living units in Building A have living rooms, bedrooms andbalconies all facing directly into the backyards of the adjoining residential homes significantly impacting privacy. The current

townhouse-zoning plan had their living rooms and balconies facing away from the adjoining residential homes minimizing impact on

privacy. Building As structure is significantly longer with no breaks in viewscapes, no breaks in roof heights, and is a longer

unattractive contiguous building. Building A violates the following sections of the Official Community Plan:

3.10.6 Ensure buildings are sited to complement the type, use and character of adjacent buildings and ensure private outdoorspaces for adjacent properties are respected.

5.4.1 Ensure street-orientation of buildings is along all roads and corridors.

Continued >


2/5

2

19.4.3 Orient elongated buildings on a north-south axis to minimize shadows. 19.4.4 Residential floor plates larger than 600m2 (8000 ft2) and commercial floor plates exceeding 1860m2 (20,000 ft2) of

gross floor construction area may be permitted if they are articulated architecturally to minimize shadows, loss of sky view and

wind conditions in adjacent open space.

19.5.2 Site and design new development to minimize disruption of the privacy and outdoor activities of residents in adjacentbuildings and private open spaces.

19.5.7 Ensure that new development minimizes the blocking views from existing or anticipated development, and thatshadowing impacts on adjacent buildings and useable open spaces are minimized.

23.4.7 Site and design buildings to minimize disruption of the privacy and outdoor activities of residents in adjacent buildingsand private open spaces.

26.1.18 A compatible relationship should be developed among all medium and high-density residential apartments and theirsurrounding environments. It is the intent to encourage development proposals that provide an appropriate transition between

higher and lower density residential areas.

Issue 2). Traffic convergence near 467 Royal Bay drive could be dangerous. The proposal would mean more owned dwellings are in

close proximity of 467 Royal Bay drive (183ish) entering/exiting Royal Bay Drive, than the 150ish currently entering and exiting Wishart

Rd with a controlled stop sign intersection (see appendix 2). I am requesting that a traffic impact study be completed if rezoning of 467

Royal Bay Drive continues to move forward. This will ensure the safety of the family friendly environment Royal Bay currently offers.

Issue 3). Inadequate off Street Parking is proposed due to too high density. The proposal shows 160 parking spaces in total for 128

dwelling units (1.25 parking spots per dwelling). If building A is not congregate housing, planned parking is inadequate according to

Section 2.2.01 of Colwoods land use Bylaw No. On page 43 of the document it states that residential, multi-family (attached housing,

apartments) require 1.5 parking spots per dwelling unit plus 1 for each 100m2 of building floor area exceeding 60m2 times the number

of dwelling units. This development has 13,989 m2 of floor area. Normal required parking would be(128 units * 1.5) + ((13,989m2-(60m2*128units))*1) = 255 required parking units.

Issue 4). Development would be out of scale and out of place (see appendix 2). The Proposed development does not meet fair and

reasonable rezoning guidelines as described in 4.2 of Colwoods planning and development guide. Section 4.2 states The success of

a rezoning application depends on several factors. It should as far as possible be in accordance with the objectives and policies of the

OCP. In addition, the proposal should be compatible with the use of surrounding properties, be well sited and be in scale with

neighbouring uses. There are almost as many living units proposed for 467 Royal Bay as the number of homes and townhomes

combined in existence today for Phase 1a The Woods of Royal Bay.

In closing, Id like take reiterate that this zoning application is not compatible with the use of surrounding properties, is not well sited is

not in accordance to the OCP, and not in scale with neighbouring uses. We invite you to give us a call or send us an email, to possibly

have a site visit at your convenience to further discuss the concerns outlined above. Thank you for taking time to listen to our concerns

and we look forward to hearing from you.

Sincerely,

Duane and Elaine Chapman

Residents of Colwood


3/5

3

Policy and Legislation Sources

Source 1: Colwood planning and developing guidehttps://colwood.civicweb.net/Documents/DocumentDisplay.aspx?Id=202

Source 2: Colwood OCPhttps://colwood.civicweb.net/Documents/DocumentDisplay.aspx?ID=2557

Source 3: Colwood land use bylaw 151https://colwood.civicweb.net/Documents/DocumentDisplay.aspx?ID=1999
https://colwood.civicweb.net/Documents/DocumentDisplay.aspx?Id=202https://colwood.civicweb.net/Documents/DocumentDisplay.aspx?Id=202https://colwood.civicweb.net/Documents/DocumentDisplay.aspx?Id=202https://colwood.civicweb.net/Documents/DocumentDisplay.aspx?ID=2557https://colwood.civicweb.net/Documents/DocumentDisplay.aspx?ID=2557https://colwood.civicweb.net/Documents/DocumentDisplay.aspx?ID=1999https://colwood.civicweb.net/Documents/DocumentDisplay.aspx?ID=1999https://colwood.civicweb.net/Documents/DocumentDisplay.aspx?ID=1999https://colwood.civicweb.net/Documents/DocumentDisplay.aspx?ID=1999https://colwood.civicweb.net/Documents/DocumentDisplay.aspx?ID=2557https://colwood.civicweb.net/Documents/DocumentDisplay.aspx?Id=202


4/5

4


5/5

5

Chapman Letter

Documents

Transcript of Chapman Letter