Upload
others
View
1
Download
0
Embed Size (px)
Citation preview
CITY OF LANGFORD
PLANNING, ZONING AND AFFORDABLE HOUSING COMMITTEE
Monday, November 28 t h , 2011 @ 7:00 pm
Council Chambers
AGENDA
Page
1. CALL TO ORDER
2. APPROVAL OF THE AGENDA
3. ADOPTION OF THE MINUTES
a) Planning, Zoning & Affordable Housing Committee Meeting - October 11 t h , 2011 001
4. REPORTS
a) Application to vary the requirement for connection to municipal sewer as part of the
replacement of an existing two-family dwelling at 2830 and 2832 Sybronden Road
- Staff Report (DVP11-0028) 004
b) Application to Vary the Maximum Permitted Height, Parcel Coverage, and Building Footprint
to Allow the Construction of Two-Storey One-Family Dwellings in Phase 5 of Kettle Creek
Station
- Staff Report (DVP11-0029) 011
c) Application to Rezone 2726 Peatt Road from R l (One- and Two-Family Residential) to MUIA
(Mixed Use Residential Commercial) to Allow for the Development of Approximately 7
Townhouse Units
- Staff Report (Zll-0011) 016
d) Application to Rezone 656, 660 and 664 Strandlund Avenue from R2 (One- and Two-Family
Residential) to RM7A (Medium-Density Apartment A) to Allow for Seven (7) Townhouse Units
- Staff Report (Zll-0024) 030
e) Application for Temporary Commercial Use Permit to Allow for a Skateboarding School at
#109 - 937 Dunford Avenue, zoned M l (Light Industrial)
- Staff Report (Zll-0011) 050
f) Planning Department Statistical Information for October, 2011
- Staff Report 056
5. ADJOURNMENT
CITY OF LANGFORD
MINUTES OF THE PLANNING, ZONING AND AFFORDABLE HOUSING COMMITTEE
Tuesday October 11* 2011 @ 7:00 pm
Council Chambers
PRESENT
Councillor D. Blackwell (Chair), Councillor R. Wade (Vice-Chair): Members: A. Creuzot and M. Hall.
ATTENDING
City Planner, Matthew Baldwin and Deputy Manager of Engineering, Michelle Mahovlich.
ABSENT
Members: S. Harvey, N. Stewart, J. Butler-Smythe, and D. Horner.
1. CALL TO ORDER
The Chair called the meeting to order at 7:00 p.m.
2. APPROVAL OF THE AGENDA
MOVED BY: COUNCILLOR WADE
SECONDED: A. CREUZOT
That the Planning, Zoning and Affordable Housing Committee approve the Agenda as presented.
CARRIED.
3. ADOPTION OF THE MINUTES
a) Planning, Zoning & Affordable Housing Committee -September 12 t h , 2011
MOVED BY: COUNCILLOR WADE SECONDED: A. CREUZOT
That the Minutes of the Planning, Zoning and Affordable Housing Committee of September 12 t h ,
2011 meeting be adopted as circulated.
CARRIED.
Minutes of the P2&A Committee October 11*, 2011
Page 2 of 3
4. REPORTS
a) Application for a Development Variance Permit for the 4 lot subdivision at 960 Isabell Avenue.
The applicant is applying to vary the Subdivision and Development Servicing Bylaw No. 1000
requirement for a cul-de-sac to nil, and a 23m (75ft) section of sidewalk to nil and the
applicant is proposing to provide a two point turnaround for vehicle turning movements
- Staff Report (DVP-11-0011)
MOVED BY: COUNCILLOR WADE
SECONDED: M. HALL
That the Planning, Zoning and Affordable Housing Committee recommend to Council:
That Council:
1. Proceed with consideration of a Development Variance Permit No. DVP-11-0011 for 960
Isabell Avenue, with the following variances:
i. That Section 4 in Subdivision and Development Servicing Bylaw No. 1000 be varied
to eliminate the required cul-de-sac and sidewalk to nil for 960 Isabell Avenue,
subject to the following condition:
a. That the applicant provide a sign and thermoplastic line painting stating "No
Parking - Fire Lane" in the fire truck turnaround area to the satisfaction of
the Fire Chief; and
b. That the turnaround area be to the satisfaction of the City Engineer and Fire
Chief and be determined prior to subdivision approval.
CARRIED.
b) Application to Vary Section 9.6 of the Subdivision and Development Servicing Bylaw No. 1000 by Allowing Single Phase Transmission Systems to Remain Aboveground at 2381 Fleetwood Crt; 2389 Fleetwood Crt - Staff Report (DVP11-0024)
MOVED BY: COUNCILLOR WADE
SECONDED: A. CREUZOT
That the Planning, Zoning and Affordable Housing Committee recommend to Council:
That Council direct staff to proceed with consideration of the following variance for 2381 and
2389 Fleetwood Court: a) That Section 9.6 of the Subdivision and Development Servicing Bylaw No. 1000 is varied
by allowing single phase transmission systems in the Fleetwood Court frontage of the subdivision to remain aboveground.
CARRIED.
Minutes of the PZ&A Committee October 11* 2011
Page 3 of 3
c) Application to vary the distance that a building or structure may be located from the interior
side lot line from 1.5 m (5 ft) to 0.3 m (1 ft) to allow for an addition comprising an attached
workshop with habitable floor space above at 2719 Scafe Road
- Staff Report (DVPll-0025)
MOVED BY: COUNCILLOR WADE
SECONDED: M. HALL
That the Planning, Zoning and Affordable Housing Committee recommend to Council:
That Council
1. Proceed with consideration of Development Variance Permit No. DVPll-0025 for the
property at 2719 Scafe Road, with the following variance:
a. That Section 6.21.06(l)(b) of Zoning Bylaw No. 300 is varied by reducing the distance
that a building or structure may be located f rom the interior lot line f rom 1.5 m (5 ft) to
0.3 m (1 ft) for the proposed addition at 2719 Scafe Road.
CARRIED.
d) Planning Department Statistical Information for August 2011
- Staff Report (0640-30)
MOVED BY: COUNCILLOR WADE
SECONDED: A. CREUZOT
That the Planning, Zoning and Affordable Housing Committee receive the Planning Department
Monthly Report for August, 2011.
CARRIED.
5. ADJOURNMENT
The Chair adjourned the meeting 7:11 p.m.
CHAIR CERTIFIED CORRECT
(Administrator)
City of Langford www. cityofla ngford. ca
Staff Report to
Planning, Zoning and Affordable Housing Committee
Date:
Department:
Application No.:
Subject:
November 28, 2011
Planning
DVP11-0028
Application to vary the requirement for connection to municipal sewer as part
of the replacement of an existing two-family dwelling at 2830 and 2832
Sybronden Road
Purpose Andre Cottyn has applied to vary Section 6.1.1 of Subdivision and Development Servicing Bylaw No. 1000 in order to replace an existing attached two-family dwelling wi th a new detached two-family dwelling at 2830 and 2832 Sybronden Road, without connecting to the municipal sewer system.
Application Data
Table 1: Site Data
Applicant Andre Cottyn
Owner Andre Cottyn
Civic Address 2830 & 2832 Sybronden Rd
Legal Description Lot 1, Section 5, Esquimalt District, Plan 25404
Size of Property 971 m 2 (10 452 f t 2 )
DP Areas None
Zoning R2 (One- and Two-Family Residential)
OCP Designation Neighbourhood
Site and Surrounding Area
The site currently contains an attached two-family dwelling and a large, flat rear yard. There are three
Gary Oak trees along the front property line that will likely need to be removed to accommodate the
new driveway. However, as noted above, the subject property is not located within any development
permit areas.
2nd Floor • 877 Goldstream Avenue • Langford, BC Canada • V9B 2X8 T - 250-478-7882 F • 250-391-3437
Subject: DVP11-28 - 2830 & 2832 Sybronden Rd Page 2 of 7
Table 2: Surrounding Land Uses
Zoning Use
North R2 (One- and Two-Family Residential) Residential
East R2 (One- and Two-Family Residential) Residential
South R2 (One- and Two-Family Residential) Residential
West P2 (Community Institutional) Park
Figure 1: Surrounding area Figure 2: Subject property
Background
Section 6.1.1 of Bylaw No.1000, the Subdivision and Development Servicing Bylaw, was amended on
October 3, 2011 to state:
"No new subdivision that creates new parcels less than 1 hectare in area or development will be
permitted in the City of Langford unless serviced by a municipal sanitary sewer system.
6.1.1a) Notwithstanding Sec. 6.1.1, development of a two-family dwelling (whether
attached or two buildings constructed as a building strata) situated within the area shown
Subject: DVP11-28 - 2830 8c 2832 Sybronden Rd Page 3 of 7
shaded in Figure 6.1 may be permitted on the condition that the owner has provided the
following to the satisfaction of the City Engineer prior to issuance of a building permit:
a) A Sec. 219 covenant, registered on title in priority over all other charges stating that
each dwelling will connect to municipal sanitary sewers within six (6) months of that
service being available to the property;
b) Payment of the Sewer Capital Recovery Fee (SCRF) to the Westshore Environmental
Services or the City of Langford;
c) Installation of any on-site plumbing necessary to allow municipal sanitary sewer to be
connected to each dwelling unit in accordance with the BC Building Code;"
The definition of development was amended on September 19, 2011 to state:
"Development" means any improvement to residential, commercial, industrial, institutional or
municipal lands, highways and rights-of-way, with the exception of:
either:
i. the alteration or repair of a residential building; or
ii. the alteration or repair of a building that is accessory to a residential building;
provided that:
a. the construction, alteration or repair is pursuant to a building permit or is exempt from
the requirement of a building permit; and
b. the construction or alteration is not for the purpose of creating an additional dwelling
unit or units, either in the form of a separate real estate entity, duplex unit or accessory
secondary suite; and
c. the construction does not create a cumulative total of more than 70m2 (750ft2)of
new gross floor area from the date of September 15, 2011."
COMMENTS
The applicant wishes to demolish the existing attached two-family dwelling and construct a detached
two-family dwelling on the subject property. A development permit for the Form and Character of the
proposed detached two-family dwelling will be required prior to the issuance of a Building Permit.
While the applicant has not yet applied for this development permit, it is anticipated that the design will
fully comply with the R2 (One and Two-family Residential) Zone and the Two-Family Multi-family
Residential Design Guidelines. This request for variance is not related to the siting or design of the
proposed two-family dwelling.
Instead, the variance was triggered through the above-noted site servicing requirements of Bylaw No.
1000. The new two-family dwelling is required to connect to the municipal sewer system, which does
not currently serve this area. West Shore Environmental Services (WSES) has indicated that they have
Subject: DVP11-28 - 2830 & 2832 Sybronden Rd Page 4 of 7
no immediate plans to extend sewer service to this area; however, service may become available within
the next five years.
The above-noted Sections of Bylaw No. 1000 were amended recently to respond to the growing number
of requests to develop without connection to municipal sewer. Proposals that comply with all of the
conditions can proceed without applying for a formal variance, and proposals that do not comply with
all of the conditions must obtain a Development Variance Permit.
In this case, the subject property falls outside of the area shown on Figure 6.1, the proposal involves
new construction, not simply a repair or alteration, and more than 70m 2 (750 f t 2 ) of new gross floor
area will be created. Therefore, the applicant may not proceed with this project unless Council issues a
Development Variance Permit.
Council may wish to note that the replacement of an attached two-family dwelling with a detached two-
family dwelling does not constitute an increase in density.
If Council wishes to proceed with this application, they may wish to consider applying terms that must
be met as a condition of approval. To be consistent Section 6.1.1 of Bylaw No. 1000, Council may wish
to direct the applicant to:
a) Register a Section 219 Covenant requiring the dwelling units to be connected to the municipal sewer system within 6 months of them being made available to the property;
b) Pay the Sewer Capital Recovery Fee (SCRF) to the Westshore Environmental Services or the City of Langford; and
c) Install of any on-site plumbing necessary to allow municipal sanitary sewer to be connected to each dwelling unit in accordance with the BC Building Code.
In addition, WSES recommends that dry sewer pipes be installed as a condition of this variance. This
will allow the two-family dwelling to be easily connected to the sewer system, without excavation of
newly established driveway and yard areas, once it does become available to the subject property. If
supportive of this, Council may wish to direct staff to insert this condition in Section 6.1.1 of Bylaw No.
1000 during the next omnibus, such that any development proceeding without connection to municipal
sewer must install dry sewer pipes.
OPTIONS
That the Planning, Zoning and Affordable Housing Committee recommend that Council:
1. Proceed with consideration of Development Variance Permit No. DVP11-0028 for the property at
2830 and 2832 Sybronden Road fo r the construction of a two-family dwelling, with the following
variance:
Subject: DVP11-28 - 2830 & 2832 Sybronden Rd
Page 5 of 7
a) That Section 6.1.1 of the Subdivision and Development Servicing Bylaw No. 1000 is
varied to allow development without connecting to the municipal sanitary sewer
system, under the following conditions:
i. That a covenant be registered on the title of the subject property, prior to the
issuance of a Building Permit, to the satisfaction of the City Engineer, which
requires the proposed two-family dwelling to be connected to the municipal
sanitary sewer system and the on-site sewer disposal system to be
decommissioned within six (6) months of the municipal sewer service being
extended along the property's Sybronden Road frontage;
ii. Payment of the Sewer Capital Recovery Fee (SCRF) to the Westshore
Environmental Services or the City of Langford, prior to the issuance of a
Building Permit;
iii. Installation of any on-site plumbing necessary to allow municipal sanitary
sewer to be connected to each dwelling unit in accordance with the BC
Building Code, as part of the works and services installed on the subject
property;
iv. That dry sewer pipes are installed to connect each unit of the detached duplex
to the municipal sanitary sewer system, as part of the works and services
installed on the subject property;
2. Direct staff to insert a requirement to install dry sewer pipes as a condition of developing without
a connection to municipal sewer into Section 6.1.1 of Bylaw No. 1000 during the next omnibus
bylaw;
3. Reject this application for a Development Variance Permit DVP11-0028;
AND
OR
i l
Leah Stohmann, K/ICIP Senior Planner
\Mj|<e Leskiw, MA Parks Manager
/ Matthew Baldwin, MCIP City Planner
P8
Subject: DVP11-28 - 2830 8; 2832 Sybronden Rd Page 6 of 7
Michelle Mahovlich, P. Geo Steve Ternent Jim Bowden Bob Beckett
Deputy Manager, Engineering Treasurer Administrator Fire Chief
:ls
Subject: DVPl l -28 - 2830 & 2832 Sybronden Rd Page 7 of 7
APPENDIX A - SITE PLAN
P 1 0
City of Langford www. cityo fla ngford. ca
Staff Report
to
Planning, Zoning and Affordable Housing Committee
Date: November 28,2011
Department: Planning
Application No.: DVP11-0029
Subject: Application to Vary the Maximum Permitted Height, Parcel Coverage, and
Building Footprint to Allow the Construction of Two-Storey One-Family
Dwellings in Phase 5 of Kettle Creek Station
PURPOSE Rachael Sansom has applied on behalf of Emerald Lake Homes to vary the following Zoning Bylaw No.
300 provisions for Phase 5 of the "Kettle Creek Station" subdivision within Area 3 of the CDl
(Goldstream Meadows) Zone:
• Sections 6.90.04(l)(c) and 6.90.08(2)(c) - to allow 7.5m (24.6ft) high, 2-storey one-family
dwellings instead of 6m (19.7ft) high, 1-1 Vi storey one-family dwellings;
• Section 6.90.06(3)(b) - to increase the maximum permitted parcel coverage to 65% from 50%;
and
• Section 6.90.08(2)(a) - to increase the maximum permitted building footprint to 135m 2 (1453
f t 2 ) f rom 110m 2 (1184ft 2).
BACKGROUND
PREVIOUS APPLICATIONS
• Z-97-05 - created the CDl (Goldstream Meadows) zone;
• Z-03-14 - text amendment / map adjustments to the CDl (Goldstream Meadows) zone;
• Z-07-07 - text amendment / map adjustments to the CDl (Goldstream Meadows) zone;
• Z-08-31 - text amendment to the CDl(Goldstream Meadows) zone;
• DP-04-39 - land clearing within environmentally sensitive and hazardous development permit
areas in the CDl (Goldstream Meadows) zone;
• DP-08-36 - DP-08-36B, DP-10-44 - Intensive Residential development permits for Kettle Creek
Station;
SCANNED 2nd Floor • 877 Goldstream Avenue • Langford, BC Canada • V9B 2X8
T • 250-478-7882 F • 250-478-7864 P l l
Subject: DVP11-0029 - Kettle Creek
Page 2 of 5
• DP-11-07 - development permit to allow the foundation only for 2 6-storey apartment
buildings;
• DVP-08-11 - development variance permit to allow increased parcel coverage;
• DVP-09-13 - development variance permit to allow reduced cul-de-sac radius and paved surface
dimensions, and to allow required off-street parking spaces to be partially located within the
road right-of-way (within driveways); and
• DVP-09-19 - development variance permit to allow reduced setbacks for accessory buildings;
Table 1: Site Data
Applicant Rachael Sansom
Owner Emerald Lake Homes
Civic Address Burlington Crescent, various
Legal Description Lots 1, 5-14,16-22, 24-27, Section 1, Goldstream District, EPP11698
Size of Property 4 751.8 m 2 (1.17 ac) combined
DP Areas Potential Habitat and Biodiversity Values, Riparian, Drainage Concern
(Environmental and Hazardous DP Areas addressed by DP-04-39)
Zoning CDl (Goldstream Meadows)
OCP Designation Neighbourhood
SITE AND SURROUNDING AREA
Figure 1 -Subject Property Location Map
P12
Subject: DVP11-0029 - Kettle Creek
Page 3 of 5
The subject properties consist of most of Phase 5 of the "Kettle Creek Station" subdivision within Area 3
of the CDl (Goldstream Meadows) Zone. The applicant has excluded 5 lots that are already built upon
f rom the scope of this application.
The subject properties are cleared, graded, and ready to be built upon.
Table 2: Surrounding Land Uses
Zoning Use
North CDl (Goldstream Meadows) Future single- and multi-family
development sites
East CDl (Goldstream Meadows) Existing business park uses
South CDl (Goldstream Meadows) Existing single-family lots
West CDl (Goldstream Meadows) Future single-family
development site
COMMENTS
Rezoning application Z-08-31, among other amendments to the CDl (Goldstream Meadows) Zone,
. established a "micro cottage" concept for Area 3 of the CDl (Goldstream Meadows) zone. The idea was
to create smaller, more affordable homes that essentially provided an alternative to condominiums.
The size and price of these homes would be comparative to condos, but with a detached housing form.
In order to reflect this concept, height and size restrictions were built into the CDl zone, as follows:
6.90.04 (l)(c) Within Area 3, the height of one-family dwellings shall not exceed 6 m (19.7 ft).
6.90.06(3) Lot coverage in Area 3 may not exceed:
(a) 75 percent for apartment, non-residential and mixed uses;
(b) 50 percent for residential uses on lots 60 m2 (646 f f ) or greater in area; or
(c) 85 percent for residential uses on lots less than 60 m2 (646 ft2) in area.
6.90.08 (4) Conditions of use for the one-family dwelling permitted in accordance with Section
6.90.01(3)(i):
(a) Building footprint, excluding carports and porches, may not exceed 110 m2 (1184
ft2); (b) Secondary suites are prohibited; (c) One-family dwellings may consist of either a main level only, a main level and a
loft, or a main level and a basement;
(d) Where the one-family dwelling includes a basement, 25 percent of the basement
must be designated as storage space.
After building homes to these specifications for a few years, the applicant wishes to start incorporating a
slightly larger, 2-storey option for those homebuyers looking for a bit more interior space than is
Subject: DVP11-0O29 - Kettle Creek
Page 4 of 5
currently available. In order to accomplish this, four variances to the CDl (Goldstream Meadows) zone
wi l l be necessary: the maximum permitted height, the maximum permitted parcel coverage, the
maximum permitted building footprint, and the permitted one-family building form (bolded above).
The requested variances are summarized in the following table:
Table 3: Requested Variances
CDl Zone requirement Requested Variance
Height 6m (19.7ft) 7.5m (24.6ft)
Parcel Coverage 50% 65%
Building Footprint 110m 2 (1184 f t 2 ) 135m 2 (1453ft 2)
Building Form One storey or one-storey plus
basement OR loft
Two storeys
All homes are required by Section 219 Covenant to be geotechnically certified as part of the Building
Permit process, so the increased size is not a concern in terms of increased weight loading on a filled
site.
The primary implication of this variance would be a change to the form and character of the Kettle Creek
Station neighbourhood. Currently, most homes are a single storey, with a few loft or basement models
intermingled. This variance could result in a greater proportion of larger homes being constructed,
thereby causing a deviation away from the micro-cottage concept. However, this will give the applicant
more flexibility to meet market demand, and, with a proposed height increase of 1.5m (5ft) and a
building footprint increase of 25m 2 (269ft 2) over what is currently permitted, the requested variances
are fairly minor.
If Council is supportive of the requested variances, the applicant may pursue this further by including
these changes in a future text amendment rezoning application.
OPTIONS
Option 1
That the Planning, Zoning and Affordable Housing Committee recommend that Council:
1. Direct staff to proceed with consideration of Development Variance Permit No. DVP11-0029 for the
properties noted in Table 1 of this report with the following variances:
a. That Section 6.90.04(l)(c) of Zoning Bylaw No. 300 be varied to from the required 6m to
7.5m;
b. That Section 6.90.06(3)(b) of Zoning Bylaw No. 300 be varied from the required 50% to 65%;
c. That Section 6.90.08(2)(a) of Zoning Bylaw No. 300 be varied by increasing the maximum
permitted building footprint from the required 110 m 2 (1184ft 2) to 135m 2 (1453ft 2);
d. That Section 6.90.08(2)(c) of Zoning Bylaw No. 300 be varied from "One-family dwellings
may consist of either a main level only, a main level and a loft, or a main level and a
Subject: DVP11-0029 - Kettle Creek
Page 5 of 5
basement" to "one-family dwellings may consist of a main level and a second storey"
OR Option 2
2. Reject this application for development variance permit.
^Satthew Baldwin, MCIP
City Planner
V Leah Stohmann, MCIP
Senior Planner
Mike Leskiw, MA
Parks Manager
"... Ui ^L'-OLK
Michelle Mahovlich, P. Geo
Deputy Manager, Engineering
Steve Ternent Treasurer
Bob Beckett
Fire Chief
:ls
CITY OF LANGFORD Planning and Zoning 2nd Floor, 877 Goldstream Avenue Langford, BC V9B 2X8
e-mail: planning@cityoflangford. ca website: littp://citvoflaneford ca
phone: 250.474.6919 fax: 250.391.3436
Staff Report
to
Planning, Zoning and Affordable Housing Committee
Date: November28,2011
File: Zll-0011
Subject: Application to Rezone 2726 Peatt Road from Rl (One- and Two-Family Residential) to
MUIA (Mixed Use Residential Commercial) to Allow for the Development of
Approximately 7 Townhouse Units
PURPOSE Wil Peereboom of Victoria Design Group has applied, on behalf of Elizabeth Holdings Ltd., to rezone the property at 2726 Peatt Road f rom R l (One- and Two-Family Residential) to MUIA (Mixed Use Residential Commercial) to allow for the development of approximately 7 townhouse units.
BACKGROUND The subject property was rezoned in 1997 (Z-97-26) as part of an amendment to the zoning designation of properties along Peatt Road, north of Goldstream Avenue, to avoid the single-family residences on either side of Peatt Road being redeveloped into duplexes and halting further increases in density in the City Centre area.
APPLICATION DATA
Table 1: Site Data
Applicant Wil Peereboom of Victoria Design Group
Owner Elizabeth Holdings Ltd.
Location 2726 Peatt Road
Legal Lot 3, Section 5, Esquimalt District, Plan 8120
Size of Property 770 m 2 (8,288 f t 2 )
DP Areas None
Zoning Existing:
Rl
(One- and Two-Family Residential)
Proposed:
MUIA
(Mixed Use Residential Commercial)
OCP Designation City Centre
http://sharepoint/sites/ZoningOCP/Z-11-11/Shared Documents/PZ rpt - 28 November 1 f .doc SCANNED
P16
Z11-0011 -2726 Peatt Road 28 November 2011 Page 2 of 12
Table 2: Proposal Data
Permitted by R l Permitted by MUIA Proposed
Height 9 m four storeys four storeys
Site Coverage 35% 90% 5 1 %
Floor Area Ratio n/a 2.5 1.34
Front Yard Setback 6 m 2 m 0.43 m*
Interior Side Yard Setback 1.5 m Om l . 2 m
Rear Yard Setback 6 m 7.5 m 2.75 m*
Parking Requirement 2 per dwelling unit 1.4 per dwelling unit 1.57 per dwelling unit
variance required
SITE AND SURROUNDING AREA
The site is flat and consists of lawn, a few trees and shrubs. Currently the site is occupied by a single-family dwelling. To the north, south and west are single-family dwellings and to the east are multi-family townhouse units.
Table 3: Surrounding Land Uses
Zoning Use
North Rl (One- and Two-Family Residential) Single-Family Residential
East RM7A (Medium-Density Apartment A) Multi-Family Residential
South Rl (One- and Two-Family Residential) Single-Family Residential
West R2 (One- and Two-Family Residential) Single-Family Residential
COUNCIL POLICY
OFFICIAL COMMUNITY PLAN
The Official Community Plan designates the property as 'City Centre', meaning:
• A major regional growth centre that supports a wide range of high density housing, including affordable and rental housing
• A major employment area for institutional, office, commercial, light industrial uses
Policy 5.1.1 Support the focus of centres by locating high intensity development in and around centres
and generally decreasing intensity away from them where topographical conditions permit.
Policy 5.1.2 Ensure zoning for centres emphasizes appropriate building massing, density and form, and
does not unduly restrict land use, in such a way that reinforces the nodal development pattern of centres.
Policy 5.2.2 Promote the development of purpose-built live/work units that can support retail foot
traffic' should the owner wish to operate a business on premises.
Policy 5.4.1 Encourage street-orientation of buildings along all roads and corridors where topographical conditions allow.
Policy 5.5.2 Ensure residential densities and the location of dense development increases viability and
frequency of transit service.
Z11-0011 -2726 Peatt Road 28 November 2011 Page 3 of 12
COMMENTS The applicant is proposing to develop the subject property wi th seven (7) townhouse units in two
buildings. Block A, as shown on the site plan attached, will consist of three 2-bedroom live/work units
that have a studio on the ground floor, facing Peatt Road. Each unit has one parking space within a
garage and consists of three storeys plus a roof deck. Block B consists of four 2-bedroom townhouse
units. Each unit is three storeys high, plus a roof deck, and has two parking spaces, one in a garage and
one in a carport.
The units will have a balcony on the second floor and the top (fourth) floor will consist of a staircase
providing access to a 26 m 2 (275 f t 2 ) roof deck.
COMPLIANCE WITH OFFICIAL COMMUNITY PLAN
The proposed development will comply wi th the guidelines of the Official Community Plan in that it will
increase the residential density in the City Centre area while also providing residents on Peatt Road with
an opportunity to operate a small business from their home, increasing available office space. The
proposed live/work units will be street-oriented and may lead to an increase in foot traffic and vehicle
traffic in the area.
The Peatt Road area is increasing in density wi th mixed use residential/ commercial and higher density
multi-family residential developments. This proposal is similar to other projects along this corridor.
TRANSPORTATION
There are two bus stops located northbound and two bus stops located southbound along the 2700 block of Peatt Road. Bus #52, which provides local transit service in Langford, runs frequently along Peatt Road. Residents may walk to Veteran's Memorial Park/ Millstream Road or to Goldstream Avenue to access buses, which provide frequent service to Victoria and neighbouring Westshore communities. There are three trolley stops located on Goldstream Avenue and these are within walking distance of the subject property. Bike lanes also exist along Peat Road and Goldstream Avenue.
Considering that the site is in close proximity to transit and bicycle lanes, Council may wish to secure in a Section 219 Covenant that each townhouse unit provides two bicycle hooks in a storage space to the satisfaction of the City Planner. Offering bicycle storage onsite may reduce automobile-dependency and encourage residents to consider alternative modes of transportation.
SMART GROWTH PRINCIPLES OF DEVELOPMENT
The proposed development is an example of infill development. The property lies within the Pedestrian
Downtown area and is currently developed with a single-family dwelling. The proposal will increase the
density to seven units while using many of the existing services. This increase in density may lead to an
increase in demand for public transit as well as increase in usage of existing amenities such as roads,
sidewalks and bike lanes.
DEVELOPMENT PERMIT AREAS
The property does not lie within any environmental development permit areas and, therefore, an environmental development permit will not be required for this development.
Z11-0011 -2726 Peatt Road 28 November 2011 Page 4 of 12
The property does not lie within any hazardous development permit areas and the Interface Fire Hazard
rating is 'Low', therefore, a hazardous development-permit will not be required for this development.
A development permit for form & character is required as the proposal includes multi-family residential
development. Considering that the neighbouring properties are occupied by residential uses at this t ime,
the applicant wi l l be required to provide extensive screening and landscaping around the perimeter of
the site, as a condition of the development permit, in order to reduce the impact of this development on
adjacent properties.
PUBLIC SAFETY
The Fire Department generally requests clear addressing by way of a small freestanding sign and a
Construction Fire Safety Plan prior to issuance of a Building Permit. These two items may be secured
through the development permit, to the satisfaction of the City Planner.
BUILDING AND SITE DESIGN
Apartments and live-work studios are permitted uses in the MUIA zone. The applicant has proposed to
construct seven attached building strata townhouses on the site. In order to allow development of this
site as proposed, the M U I A zone would need to be revised to include townhouses as a permitted use.
Townhouses may relate better to the residential character of the single family dwellings located behind
and beside the proposed development. If Council chooses to allow townhouses as a permitted use in the
MUIA zone on this site solely, it would not preclude a higher density use of the subject property, such
as an apartment building. Council may wish to note that the development of 2710 Peatt Road was
permitted in a similar way.
The Multi-Family Development Permit guidelines suggest: "The orientation, scale, form, height, setbacks
and materials proposed for a MFR development should reflect characteristics consistent with the
surrounding context. Sites in older neighbourhoods should be developed in a manner that improves the
neighbourhood." The proposed development is applying this vision as well as proposing a design that fits
well wi th and compliments the new higher density, mixed-use developments along Peatt Road.
The applicant wishes to rezone the subject property f rom Rl (One- and Two-Family Residential) to
MUIA (Mixed Use Residential Commercial) in order to construct approximately seven (7) townhouse
units. The proposed development is well under the permitted density allowed in the MUIA zone,
however, the availability of space to provide parking is often the development limiter, as opposed to site
coverage or FAR (Floor Area Ratio). Given that the proposal is providing 100% of the required parking
underbuilding, although no parking spaces are allocated for visitors, the allowable density may be
increased f rom 2.0 to 2.5 FAR. The applicant is proposing a f loor area ratio of 1.34, which is 46% less
than the maximum allowable, but the maximum that can be accommodated on site with all parking
constructed as surface parking.
The applicant is requesting variances for the front and rear yard setback. Council may wish to note that
Council has delegated authority to approve variances for reductions to front and rear lot lines as part of
a Development Permit to the City Planner. The requested variances are to vary the front yard setback
f rom 2 m (6.6 ft) to 0.43 m (1.4 ft) and the rear yard setback f rom 7.5 m (25 ft) to 2.75 m (9 f t) . The
applicant has demonstrated that no part of the building will encroach into the right-of-way with the
proposed front yard setback variance of 0.43 metres.
Z11-0011 -2726 Peatt Road 28 November 2011 Page 5 of 12
Parking regulations in Zoning Bylaw No. 300 require 1.4 spaces per dwelling unit in the MUIA zone,
although this zone currently does not allow for townhouses. Council may wish to note that the general
parking requirement for townhouses is 2 spaces per dwelling unit. The proposal meets the overall
parking requirement of the MUIA zone for the property, 9.8 spaces are required (7 dwellings times 1.4
per dwelling unit) and 11 spaces are proposed. No visitor parking for commercial or residential is
provided wi th this proposal.
The applicant is proposing a tandem parking scenario for the four townhouse units to the rear of the
property (shown on the plan at the end of this report). Tandem parking for each unit comprises of one
parking stall in a single car garage and the second stall directly in front of the garage, in a carport. The
parking standard for these units complies wi th both the requirement for the MUIA zone and for
townhouse units in general. This parking layout would mean that none of these tandem parking spaces
would be available for overall visitor parking or units other than to which the garage belongs, as cars
parked in the carports would block the garages. As a result of this parking layout, the additional 2.4
parking spaces (4 x 1.4 = 5.6 spaces required and 8 proposed) in this location, based on the requirement
of the MUIA zone, effectively do not provide parking for other than the four units.
The three townhouse units to the front of the site each have one parking space in a garage for a total of
three spaces. According to the MUIA zone, the total number of parking spaces required for these three
units alone is 4.2 spaces (1.4 per unit), which would be rounded down to four spaces in total. As noted
above, no other on-site parking spaces are available for these three units.
Currently parking issues exist in the downtown core and the Peatt Road area is an area of transition,
however, pedestrian- and bike routes and bus- and trolley stops are located nearby, offering clients
sustainable modes of transportation.
Council may require that the applicant redesign the site to provide additional parking spaces or, limit the
businesses permitted in the live/work units to those that can be expected not to increase the demand
for parking.
Often homeowners use their garages as a workshop or for storage and park their vehicles in the carport
or driveway. Council may wish to note that each proposed dwelling unit contains storage space in the
garage and residents are obliged to park in their designated tandem parking spots due to the lack of
visitor parking stalls on site. Council may wish to require that the applicant register a covenant on tit le,
prior to bylaw adoption, with a clause which states that garages are to be kept available for the purpose
of parking a vehicle.
ROAD NETWORK
Council may wish to require that the applicant provide approximately 1.8 metres of road dedication,
prior to issuance of a building permit, for Peatt Road widening purposes, to the satisfaction of the City
Engineer. This dedication should be required as a condition of rezoning and secured in a Section 219
covenant, to be registered prior to bylaw adoption.
The driveway to access the site is proposed to be 6m (20ft) wide as per the requirements of Langford's
Building Bylaw No. 1160. As construction is likely to impact the neighbouring property, Council may wish
to require that the applicant secure a temporary construction easement from the property to the north,
211-0011 -2726 Peatt Road 28 November 2011 Page 6 of 12
prior to issuance of a building permit, and secure this in a covenant, to be registered prior to bylaw
adoption.
Council may also wish to require that the applicant submit an access review from a Transportation
Engineer, which reviews site access requirements relative to Peatt Road. This should be required prior to
public hearing, so that any recommendations can be incorporated prior to bylaw adoption.
STORM WATER MANAGEMENT
The applicant will be required to provide a storm water management plan, at the t ime of building
permit, and will be required to maintain the normal on-site drainage system of the subject property and
regulate both the quality and quantity of storm water run-off f rom the site as a condition of rezoning.
Council may wish to secure this in a covenant, prior to bylaw adoption.
Council may also wish to secure in a Section 219 Covenant that the new access to the proposed
townhouse units is constructed with a permeable material in order to reduce storm water runoff, if the
storm water management plan, prepared to the satisfaction of the City Engineer by a qualified
professional, proves that this is a feasible way to control storm water runoff onsite.
Prior to issuance of a building permit, the applicant must demonstrate that the site can handle on-site
storm water management. If drainage cannot be managed on site, the applicant wil l require a
development variance permit, and works may be required beyond the subject property, as a condition
of the permit.
INFRASTRUCTURE
The property is required to connect to the municipal sanitary sewer system. Sewers are available along
Peatt Road.
The City of Langford will receive full frontage improvements, to Subdivision and Development Servicing
Bylaw No. 1000 standards, at the t ime of building permit, as a condition of rezoning, in accordance with
Section 938(6)(b) of the Local Government Act and Bylaw No.'s 497 and 825.
The proposed development will take advantage of existing infrastructure including sanitary sewer
connections, road and other utility servicing that is already installed in the surrounding residential area.
Therefore, the proposed townhouses would require relatively less new infrastructure to implement than
other developments located in less built-up areas of the community.
FINANCIAL CONTRIBUTIONS AND DENSITY BONUSING
AFFORDABLE HOUSING
According to Council Policy, no affordable housing units will be required as part of this rezoning, as the
site lies within the Pedestrian Downtown area and the proposal consists of less than 10 multi-family
units.
OPEN SPACE CONTRIBUTIONS
According to Council's current Affordable Housing, Parks and Amenity Contribution Policy, no Open
Space dedication is required, as the property lies within the designated Pedestrian Downtown area.
Z11-0011 -2726 Peatt Road 28 November 2011 Page 7 of 12
AMENITY CONTRIBUTIONS
The Affordable Housing, Park and Amenity Contribution Policy designates the subject property as being in the Pedestrian Downtown Area. Accordingly, a contribution toward the General Amenity Reserve Fund, as shown in Table 5, totaling $2,700 per unit, is required. Amenity fees wil l not be charged for one unit, as the existing dwelling is taken into consideration. Council may require this contribution, through a density bonus provision in the zoning bylaw, at the t ime of building permit.
FINANCIAL IMPLICATIONS
Rezoning the subject property to permit higher densities of development may increase the assessed
value of the property, and this will increase municipal revenue. As the applicant will connect the
property to municipal sewers, and as the applicant will contribute to frontage improvements, the direct
capital costs to the municipality, associated with this development, will be negligible. However,
maintenance costs may offset most or all of the additional revenues.
For the purposes of this development application multi-family residential rates have been used to
calculate the development cost charges.
Table 4 - Development Cost Charges
Development Cost Charge Per unit / area contribution Total (6 units)
Roads $2,184 per unit $13,104
Storm Drainage $1.09 per m 2 of site area $839
Park Improvement $ 1 , 890 per unit $11,340
Park Acquisition $1,100 per unit $6,600
Subtotal (DCCs paid to City of Langford) $31,883
CRD Water $1,705.59 per dwelling unit $10,234
School Site Acquisition $558 per dwelling unit $3,348
TOTAL (estimate) DCCs $45,465
Table 5 - Amenity Contributions per Council Policy
Amenity Item Per unit / area contribution Total (6 units)
General Amenity Fund $2,700 per dwelling unit $16,200
TOTAL POLICY CONTRIBUTIONS $16,200
111-0011 -2726 Peatt Road 28 November 2011 Page 8 of 12
OPTIONS
Option 1
That the Planning and Zoning Committee recommend that Council:
1. Give first reading to Bylaw No. 1364, as prepared, to amend the zoning of the property at 2726
Peatt Road from Rl (One- and Two-Family Residential) to MUIA (Mixed Use Residential
Commercial A), and adding townhouses as a permitted use on the subject property only, in
order to accommodate development of the property, subject to the following terms and
conditions:
a) That the owner agrees to provide the following contribution, at the time of Building Permit,
to the General Amenity Reserve Fund:
i) $2,700 per dwelling unit in excess of one;
b) That the applicant provide, prior to Public Hearing, an access review from a Transportation
Engineer, which reviews site access requirements relative to Peatt Road;
c) That the applicant provide, prior to Bylaw Adoption, a Section 219 covenant, registered in
priority over all other charges on tit le, that agrees to the following:
i) That that the applicant secure a temporary construction easement f rom the property to
the north, prior to issuance of a building permit;
ii) That the owner provide two bicycle hooks in a garage or storage area in each dwelling
unit, to the satisfaction of the City Planner, at the t ime of building permit;
iii) That parking spaces provided in the garage portion of the building will be maintained as
spaces that allow for the parking of motor vehicles;
iv) That agrees that businesses in the live/work units shall be limited to those uses that do not require the general public to visit the subject property, or those uses that do not generate demand for parking;
v) That the applicant dedicate approximately 1.8 metres of the property's road frontage
along Peatt Road to the City as road dedication, to the satisfaction of the City
Engineer, prior to issuance of a building permit;
vi) That the new access to the proposed townhouse unit development is constructed with a
permeable material, to the satisfaction of the City Planner; and
vii) That the applicant will maintain the normal drainage system of the subject property and
regulate both the quality and quantity of storm water run-off from the site, as a
condition of rezoning;
Z11-0011 -2726 Peatt Road 28 November 2011 Page 9 of 12
Option 2
That the Planning and Zoning Committee recommend that Council:
1. Require the applicant to redesign the proposal with fewer units.
Option 3
That the Planning and Zoning Committee recommend that Council:
1. Reject this application for rezoning.
:ivdk
211-0011 -2726 Peatt Road 28 November 2011 Page 10 of 12
REZONING BYLAW AMENDMENT
2726 Peatt Rd
(Z11-0011)
Scale: N.T.S. Last Revised: May 11, 2011
211-0011 -2726 Peatt Road 28 November 2011 Page 11 of 12
REZONING BYLAW AMENDMENT
2726 Peatt Rd
(Z11-0011)
Scale: N.T.S. Last Revised: May 11, 2011
211-0011 -2726 Peatt Road 28 November 2011 Page 12 of 12
P27
CITY OF LANGFORD
BYLAW NO. 1364
A BYLAW TO AMEND BYLAW NO. 300, LANGFORD ZONING BYLAW, 1999"
The Council of the City of Langford, in open meeting assembled, hereby enacts as follows:
A. Langford Zoning Bylaw No. 300, 1999 is amended as follows:
1. Deleting f rom the R l (ONE- AND TWO-FAMILY RESIDENTIAL) ZONE and adding to the M U I A
(MIXED USE RESIDENTIAL COMMERCIAL) ZONE the property legally described as Lot 3, Section
5, Esquimalt District, Plan 8120 (2726 Peatt Road); as shown shaded on Plan No. 1 attached to
and forming part of this Bylaw.
2. Deleting Section 6.51A.01(16) and adding as Section 6.51A.01(16) the following: "townhouses,
on land legally described as Lots 3 and 6, Section 5, Esquimalt District, Plan 8120 (2726 and
2710 Peatt Road); and (Bylaw No.'s 1157 and 1364)"
3. Adding the following line to Table 1 of Schedule AD:
Zone Bylaw No. Legal Description Amenity Contributions
MUIA (Mixed
Use Residential
Commercial)
1364 Lot 3, Section 5, Esquimalt
District, Plan 8120 (2726 Peatt
Road)
$2,700 per multi-family dwelling
unit, in excess of one, towards the
General Amenity Reserve Fund;
B. This Bylaw may be cited for all purposes as "Langford Zoning Bylaw, Amendment No. 326 (2726
Peatt Road), 2011" .
READ A FIRST TIME this day of, 2011.
PUBLIC HEARING held this day of, 2012.
READ A SECOND TIME this day of, 2012.
READ A THIRD TIME this day of, 2012.
APPROVED BY THE MINISTRY OF TRANSPORTATION this day of ,2012.
ADOPTED this day o f , 2012.
MAYOR (Certified Correct)
CORPORATE OFFICER
Bylaw No. 1364
Page 2 of 2
A D O P T I O N :
C O R P O R A T E O F F I C E R
Scale: N.T.S. Last Revised: November 7. 2011
City of Langford www.cityoflangford.ca
Staff Report to
Planning, Zoning and Affordable Housing Committee
Date:
Department:
Application No.:
Subject:
November 28,2011
Planning
Zll-0024
Application to Rezone 656, 660 and 664 Strandlund Avenue from R2 (One- and
Two-Family Residential) to RM7A (Medium-Density Apartment A) to Allow for
Seven (7) Townhouse Units
PURPOSE Ronald Leier of Leier Construction has applied, on behalf of Citypoint Projects Ltd., to rezone 656, 660 and 664 Strandlund Avenue f rom R2 (One- and Two-Family Residential) to RM7A (Medium-Density Apartment A) to allow for seven (7) townhouse units, of which five include a flex-unit.
BACKGROUND No previous applications have been received for these properties.
Table 1: Site Data
Applicant Ronald Leier of Leier Construction
Owner Citypoint Projects Ltd.
Civic Address 656, 660 and 664 Strandlund Avenue
Legal Description
Lot 7, Section 109, Esquimalt District, Plan 10426 (656);
Lot 1, Section 109, Esquimalt District, Plan 28414 (660); and
Lot 9, Section 109, Esquimalt District, Plan 10426 (664);
Size of Property 1,527 m 2 (16,436 f t 2 )
DP Areas Riparian
Zoning Existing Proposed
R2 (One- and Two-Family Residential) RM7A (Medium-Density Apartment A)
OCP Designation Neighbourhood
2nd Floor • 877 Goldstream Avenue • Langford, BC Canada • V9B 2X8 T • 250-478-7882 F • 250-391-3437
SCANNED
Z l l -0024 - 656, 660 and 664 Strandlund Avenue Page 2 of 9
SITE AND SURROUNDING AREA
Currently the site is undeveloped and consists of grass, shrubs and small trees. The area along
Strandlund Avenue is relatively flat but slopes up toward the highway on the northeast side of the
property.
Table 2: Surrounding Land Uses
Zoning Use
North R2 (One- and Two-Family Residential) Trans-Canada Highway
East PI (Neighbourhood Institutional) Undeveloped Right-of-Way,
Landscaping and driveway
South R2 (One- and Two-Family Residential) Single-Family Residential
West R2 (One- and Two-Family Residential) Trans-Canada Highway and Single-
Family Residential
OFFICIAL COMMUNITY PLAN
The Official Community Plan (OCP) designates the subject properties as 'Neighbourhood', meaning:
Existing settled areas throughout the community predominantly located on the valley floor.
13 Predominantly residential precinct that supports a range of low and medium density housing choices
including secondary suites
13 This area allows for residential and mixed use commercial intensification of streets that connect
centres and/or are serviced by transit
Objective 5.1 Ensure development in and around centres supports a nodal pattern of development.
Policy 5.1.1 Support the focus of centres by locating high intensity development in and around centres
and generally decreasing intensity away from them where topographical conditions permit.
Policy 5.1.2 Ensure zoning for centres emphasizes appropriate building massing, density and form, and does not unduly restrict land use, in such a way that reinforces the nodal development pattern of centres.
Policy 5.1.3 Relate all neighbourhood development and infill to the nearest centre through direct and/or
improved connections, scale and character.
Objective 7.1 Preserve and increase the stock of safe and affordable housing.
Policy 7.1.7 Continue and mandate development of housing with additional dwelling units as secondary
suites in all parts of the community in all building types, including multi-family buildings.
The subject properties are located just outside of the downtown core and are serviced by public transit, which provides a connection with Millstream Village or the downtown area and onwards. The proposed development is considered medium-density, which is an increase in density compared to the low-density currently permitted on site. Five of the units wil l have flex-units, which may increase the availability of affordable housing in Langford. The proposed development is in line wi th the Official Community Plan. However, Policy 3.9.3 in the OCP presents "40 units per hectare (16 units per acre)" as a guide for overall residential density for infill development in areas designated as 'Neighbourhood'.
P31
Z l l - 0024 - 656, 660 and 664 Strandlund Avenue Page 3 of 9
Council may wish to note that the proposed development represents a slightly higher density of
approximately 46 units per hectare (20 units per acre).
DEVELOPMENT PERMIT AREAS
The entire site lies within the riparian development permit area. A culvert runs within a right-of-way
along the eastern property line. The watercourse runs underground and comes out in Millstream Creek
in Cedar Vale Park. As part of the environmental development permit required for the property, the
applicant wil l be required to retain the services of a registered professional biologist (R.P. Bio.) to
address environmental concerns.
Furthermore, a development permit for form & character is required as the proposal includes mult i -
family residential development.
PEDESTRIAN AND MOTORIST NETWORK
Along the properties' Strandlund Avenue frontage, a pedestrian trail runs between the intersections
with Veterans' Memorial Parkway and Selwyn Road, which provides a connection to Millstream Creek,
through Cedar Vale Park. Further bike- and pedestrian connections exist to the Trans-Canada Highway,
one of which bisects the property at 664 Strandlund Avenue. Council may wish to require that the
applicant relocate this trail, at his expense, in such a way that it no longer runs over private property, as
a condition of rezoning, and to the satisfaction of the Parks Manager, at the time of Building Permit.
Council may also wish to require that the applicant submit an access review from a Transportation
Engineer, which reviews site access requirements relative to Strandlund Avenue. This should be required
prior to public hearing, so that any recommendations can be incorporated prior to bylaw adoption.
A transit stop for bus #53 is located directly in front of the subject properties. This route provides a
connection wi th the Westshore Town Centre and the Juan de Fuca Recreation Centre and other bus
routes. The location of the transit stop may impact the proposed location of the driveways; this will be
reviewed at the t ime of development permit.
INFRASTRUCTURE
The properties are required to connect to the municipal sanitary sewer system. Sewers are available
along Strandlund Avenue.
The applicant wil l be required to provide a storm water management plan, at the t ime of building
permit, and wil l be required to maintain the normal on-site drainage system of the subject properties
and regulate both the quality and quantity of storm water run-off f rom the site as a condition of
rezoning. Council may wish to secure this in a covenant, prior to bylaw adoption.
The City of Langford will receive full frontage improvements, to Subdivision and Development Servicing
Bylaw No. 1000 standards, at the t ime of building permit, in accordance wi th Section 938(6)(b) of the
Local Government Act and Bylaw No.'s 497 and 825.
Two fire hydrants are located within 30 metres of the site and Fire Hall No. 2 on Peatt Road is
approximately 500 metres away.
Z l l -0024 - 656, 660 and 664 Strandlund Avenue
Page 4 of 9
COMMENTS
DEVELOPMENT PROPOSAL
The applicant wishes to consolidate the three properties and build two blocks of townhouse units. One
block would consist of 3 units of which one would be three storeys high and include a multi-family flex-
unit, which is a secondary suite within the multi-family dwelling unit. The other two units, without flex-
units, would be two storeys high. The second block would consist of four 3-storey units, all of which
would have a flex-unit. Council may wish to require that the applicant register a covenant, prior to bylaw
adoption, prohibiting the flex-units to be stratified.
Zoning Bylaw No. 300 requires that each townhouse unit has two on-site parking stalls and one
additional on-site parking stall if the unit includes a flex-unit. The applicant has shown that all required
parking spaces can be accommodated on site.
The Ministry of Transportation and Infrastructure, in response to a referral, has requested that a 4.6
metre (15 ft) setback from the Trans-Canada Highway be implemented for all buildings. The applicant
has indicated that he will comply wi th this setback. Council may wish to establish this setback in the
bylaw to rezone these properties.
Table 3: Proposal Data
Permitted by R2 Permitted by RM7A Proposed
Density (FAR and/or
min. lot size) 550 m 2 (5,920 f t 2 ) 1.0 FAR 0.73 FAR
Height 9 m (30 ft) 9 m (30 ft) 8.75 m (28.7 f t )
Site Coverage 35% 50% 3 1 %
Front Yard Setback 6 m (20 ft) 7.5 m (25 ft) 4.5 m (15 ft)*
Interior Side Yard Setback
1.5 m (5 ft) 3 m (10 ft) 1.5 m (5 ft)*
Rear Yard Setback 6 m (20 ft) 7.5 m (25 ft) 4.6 m (15 ft)*
Parking Requirement 2 spaces per dwelling
plus one for suite
2 spaces per unit plus
one per flex-unit
2 spaces per unit plus
one per flex-unit
'Variance required
The plans indicate that setback variances wil l be required in order to site the building as proposed.
These variances may be granted by the City Planner through the development permit that is required for
this development.
NEIGHBOURHOOD CONSULTATION
The applicant sent out notices to neighbours of the properties to advise them of the proposed development. Plans and a comment sheet were attached to provide neighbours with an opportunity to comment on the plans. Any correspondence from the public, whether in the form of a petit ion, letter or electronic mail, pertaining to this application, is attached to this report in the appendices.
The applicant wil l hold a neighbourhood meeting on November 19 t h , prior to the application being
brought forward to the Planning, Zoning and Affordable Housing Committee. Council may wish to ask
the developer to provide any comments that were received at that meeting.
Z l l -0024 - 656, 660 and 664 Strandlund Avenue
Page 5 of 9
FINANCIAL CONTRIBUTIONS AFFORDABLE HOUSING
According to Council Policy, no affordable housing units will be required as part of this rezoning, as the site lies within the City Centre area.
OPEN SPACE CONTRIBUTION
According to Council's current Affordable Housing, Parks and Amenity Contribution Policy, no Open
Space dedication is required, as the property lies within the designated City Centre area.
AMENITY CONTRIBUTIONS
The Affordable Housing, Park and Amenity Contribution Policy designates the subject property as being
in the City Centre Area. Accordingly, a contribution toward the General Amenity Reserve Fund, as shown
in Table 4, totaling $4,400 per unit, is required. Amenity fees will not be charged for three units, as the
existing number of properties is taken into consideration. Council may require this contribution, through
a density bonus provision in the zoning bylaw, at the t ime of building permit.
Table 4 - Amenity Contributions per Council Policy
Amenity Item Per unit / area contribution Total (4 units)
General Amenity Reserve Fund $4,400 per dwelling unit $17,600
TOTAL POLICY CONTRIBUTIONS $17,600
DEVELOPMENT COST CHARGES
Table 5 - Development Cost Charges
Development Cost Charge Per unit / area contribution Total (4 units)*
Roads $2,184 per dwelling unit $8,736
Storm Drainage $1.09 per m 2 of site area $1,664
Park Improvement $1,890 per dwelling unit $7,560
Park Acquisition $1,100 per dwelling unit $4,400
Incremental Storage Improvement Fees $331.65 per dwelling unit $1,327
Subtotal (DCCs paid to City of Langford) $23,687
CRD Water $2,653.14 per dwelling unit $10,613
School Site Acquisition $628 per dwelling unit $2,512
TOTAL (estimate) DCCs $36,812
•The total number of units for which DCCs are charged is reduced by three, taking into consideration the three existing lots
Rezoning the subject properties to permit higher densities of development may increase the assessed value of the properties, and this wil l increase municipal revenue. As the applicant wil l connect the properties to municipal sewers, and as the applicant will contribute to frontage improvements, the direct capital costs to the municipality, associated with this development, wil l be negligible. However, maintenance costs may offset most or all of the additional revenues.
Zl l -0024 - 656, 660 and 664 Strandlund Avenue
Page 6 of 9
OPTIONS
Option 1
That the Planning and Zoning Committee recommend that Council:
1. Give first reading to Bylaw No. 1366, as prepared, to amend the zoning of the properties at 656, 660 and 664 Strandlund Avenue f rom R2 (One- and Two-Family Residential) to RM7A (Medium-Density Apartment A), wi th a setback of 4.6 m (15 ft) to the TCH, in order to accommodate development of the properties, subject to the following terms and conditions:
a) That the owner agrees to provide the following contribution, at the time of Building Permit,
to the General Amenity Reserve Fund:
b) That the applicant provide, prior to Public Hearing, an access review from a Transportation
Engineer, which reviews site access requirements relative to Strandlund Avenue;
c) That the applicant provide, prior to Bylaw Adoption, a Section 219 covenant, registered in
priority over all other charges on tit le, that agrees to the following:
i) That the trail bisecting the property at 664 Strandlund Avenue be relocated and paved,
at the owner's expense, as a condition of rezoning, at the t ime of building permit, to
the satisfaction of the Parks Manager and to the standard of the City's bylaws;
ii) That the applicant wil l maintain the normal drainage system of the subject properties
and regulate both the quality and quantity of storm water run-off f rom the site, as a
condition of rezoning; and
iii) That no portion of any building located on the Lands wil l be subdivided under the
provisions of the Strata Property Act or any successor legislation dealing wi th the
creation of separate titles to a portion of a building;
OR Option 2
That the Planning and Zoning Committee recommend that Council:
1. Reject this application for rezoning.
i) $4,400 per dwelling unit in excess of three;
Michelle Mahovlich, P. Geo. Deputy Manager, Engineering
iUtkltJL Steve Ternent
Treasurer
Jiri\ Bowden Administrator
Bob Beckett
Fire Chief
:ivdk
Z l l -0024 - 656, 660 and 664 Strandlund Avenue
Page 7 of 9
REZONING BYLAW AMENDMENT
656, 660, 664 Strandlund Ave
(Z11-0024)
Scale: N .T.S. Last Revised: July 20. 2011
P36
Zl l -0024 - 656, 660 and 664 Strandlund Avenue Page 8 of 9
REZONING BYLAW AMENDMENT
656, 660, 664 Strandlund Ave
(Z11-0024)
Scale: N.T.S. Last Revised: July 20, 2011
Zl l -0024 - 656, 660 and 664 Strandlund Avenue Page 9 of 9
P 3 8
Petition to Deny Insensitive Development at 2518 Toth Place
The plan to re-zone 2518 Toth Place to RS2 would allow subdivision of the property and the
development of three houses on very small lots. The development is not compliant with the City of
Langford, Official Community Plan, Bylaw 1200, Policy 3.9.3 which states that higher density, in-fill
development must "Ensure buildings are sited to complement the type, use and character of adjacent
buildings and ensure private outdoor spaces for adjacent properties are respected."
Signatures and details of those signing this petition
W e tiie unders igned petition the Langford City C o u n c i l to: 1) Uphold the policy of respecting outdoor privacy, and complementing neighbourhood character,
as outlined in the Langford City Plan section 3.9.3 and to deny rezoning of 2518 Toth Place. 2) Uphold these same principals for any approved-in-fill and higher density development in the
area. fvoocted
Name (p lease print) Address Signature
11
I v o v a n d e r K a m p
Sent:
To: Cc: Subject:
From: Grant Liebscher Tuesday, November 15, 2011 9:05 AM
Shannon Hayes; Ivo van der Kamp [email protected]
RE: Development on Strandlund Ave
Shannon,
I have forwarded this to my colleague Ivo van der Kamp, who is managing this file.
Grant
From: Shannon Hayes [mailto:[email protected]] Sent: November-14-11 3:33 PM To: Grant Liebscher Cc: [email protected] Subject: FW: Development on Strandlund Ave
Hi Grant,
I wanted to forward this email to you that I sent to the developer of the proposed site of townhouses on Strandlund. I'm also cc' ing a neighbour who I know is interested in the zoning requests being proposed on Strandlund and on Toth Place. W e are very much concerned about any changes to zoning, as one of the reasons we purchased a house here was due to the privacy of the larger lots, trees and green space and reduced traff ic of residential only cul-de-sacs. W e plan to be on site for the Developers Meeting for Strandlund on November 19 t h , and at the zoning commit tee meeting November 2 8 t h to part icipate in the discussion. Please let us know if any changes to meet ings happen that you can tell us about, or if you have any information that could help us understand the process or issues better.
Thanks, Shannon
From: Shannon Hayes [mailto:[email protected] Sent: November-14-11 10:42 AM To: [email protected] Subject: Development on Strandlund Ave
First I wou ld like to say that I only found out about th is development through a neighbour and conversat ion, even though as a resident of the Toth Place cul-de-sac I am directly impacted by the development being proposed across f rom our street access. If I am late in meet ing the suggested t ime f rame for responding, it was due to not being properly informed. My family and I have quite a few serious concerns with the idea of a high density mixed-use development being proposed. Whi le 7 units might be reasonable if the concerns are addressed, w e are adamant ly opposed to any higher density developments in our area. This development will have a signif icant impact on our neighbourhood and home values and we have started discussing this with other neighbours to ensure they are aware of the development and our concerns. W e have several concerns and do not feel that high density will benefit this residential area unless the issues are addressed and dealt wi th first.
l P4 0
1. Safety Concerns: This project would add even more traffic to an already extremely busy route as one of the few roads to get f rom Mill Hill and Atk ins Road, Selwyn Road and other routes into Langford without go ing through Colwood, or to access the highway. There are already many problems with the high level of traff ic growing in this area.
2. Bus stop and school bus stop: Wil l a proper bus stop be built to allow for safe stopping and wait ing for the bus that travels this road? This is the only bus to catch to get into Langford and to the exchanges f rom the area, plus it is a major route for the school district buses. Currently it is a muddy unsafe wait ing spot that is not wel l lit.
3. A crosswalk wou ld need to be built to al low for safe crossing of people to and f rom the development, especial ly as the road has people travell ing quite fast and there are several blind corners. A n d as it is a school district bus stop.
4 . Currently my husband rides a bicycle to and f rom work, plus we take our kids for bike rides into Langford. Wi thout a bike lane the traff ic coming in and out of the development could increase the risk for injury to cyclists. Especially when turning left coming into or out of the development.
5. Sidewalks. Right now the path along Strandlund f loods at the merest amount of rain and becomes impassible due to the standing water and m u d pits that development. As someone who walks with chi ldren and a dog it d iscourages walk ing in and around Langford, plus is inaccessible to anyone wi th a wheelchair and for that matter, with a stroller. To use a stroller I have to walk on the road, which as ment ioned is not safe due to the blind corners, high speed driving and lack of crosswalks.
6. The lighting is very poor on Strandlund, especial ly for those of us walking or riding bicycles. Wil l the development have adequate l ighting for people on the street and sidewalk, and how will it be ensured not to glare into the homes across the street.
7. There are two paths in that area, one under the highway, and one to the highway, that are used extensively in our family and by other residents. Wil l these be kept clear, wel l lit and have safe access? Wi th a large development wil l they be shadowing and making it unsafe to use them?
8. Loss of publ ic space and importantly, green space. Specifically this development would take away Communi ty Open Space as per the Official Communi ty Plan (Map 5). The proposed area has been a location that numerous people use, including ourselves, for walk ing our dog, playing with our kids, picking blackberr ies and enjoying some green space. There is very little accessible green space in our area, and no parks or playgrounds. Wi th the development being built will an area be kept for these activit ies? The plans provided make it hard to see placement of the development in the surrounding area.
9. Drainage. Our street has drainage into storm drains in the area, how will this development be built to contain water dra inage to the site, or t ie into the existing storm drain. As ment ioned there is considerable problem with f looding of the dirt path that is the only way to walk along Strandlund, and it is currently unsafe as is. I believe this may be a riparian area and would like to know how that is being addressed also.
10. Safety dur ing construct ion. During this development , how wil l safety of traff ic, cyclists and pedestr ians be assured with the narrow roadway and busy traffic? Will the bus stops be moved or guaranteed access?
11 . Impact on plant space. This proposed area has numerous plants and some trees that cover the green space that is part of the green belt area. Whi le I have ment ioned blackberr ies, the f lowers, plants, t rees and greenery are an asset to the area and something my family and I enjoy on almost a nightly basis. What plants, trees or other green opt ions wil l be proposed wi th the development? As ment ioned, this area is a part of the Langford green belt and riparian area designated in the official communi ty p lan.
Please ensure you notify us by email or mail of any meetings, proposal changes, or other activity to ensure that w e have our say as members of the neighbourhood.
Respectful ly,
Shannon Hayes 2553 Toth Place Victoria, BC V9B 5G3
2 P 4 1
ly^jarideiJCamp^
From:
Sent: To: Subject:
Grant Liebscher
Tuesday, November 15, 2011 9:07 AM
Dan&Holly Arnott; Ivo van der Kamp
RE: Strandlund Rezoning Application
Dan and Holly,
I am forwarding this email to my colleague Ivo van der Kamp, who is managing this file.
G r a n t L i e b s c h e r Planner City of Langford Planning Department 2nd Floor, 877 Goldstream Avenue Langford, BC V9B 2X8 phone: (250) 474-6919 fax: (250) 391-3436 website: www.cityoflanqford.ca P Please consider the environment before printing this email
From: Dan8iHolly Arnott [mailto:[email protected]] Sent: November-14-11 9:13 PM To: Grant Liebscher
Subject: Strandlund Rezoning Application
Hello Mr. Liebscher,
My name is Dan Arnott. My wife Holly and I are the homeowners of 655 Strandlund Avenue. We are writing to express our concerns with the proposed rezoning and development of 656, 660 and 664 Strandlund Ave. We feel that care must be taken that any proposed developments in and around Strandlund Ave, Duncan PI and Toth PI protect the character of our neighbourhood. Our neighbourhood offers unique, well kept, properties with a green and private character. Langford should take the steps required to protect the privacy of these properties and the neighbourhood character.
Specifically I have the following concerns with this development and it's affect on my family and my neighbourhood community. I hope that you can address these concerns as you meet with Leier Construction, the community and the Council.
1. Speed along Strandlund With the addition of more housing and density, the speed along this stretch of road would benefit from a reduction to either 40 km/h or 30km/h. There have been many close calls with pedestrians and occurances of speeding along this stretch. Despite a "SLOW DOWN - Children at Play" sign in front of my property, countless drivers ignore this and have even driven over it narrowly missing my playing children. Please work with the city of Langford on this so it becomes safer for all of us who live here and the new residents who will be moving here. Perhaps the installation of a few speed humps with accompanied signs (for the ease of identification of drivers as well as snow removal in the winter) would serve a valuable purpose here.
2. Sidewalks Please seriously consider upgrading the current walking/jogging path that runs along that side of Strandlund to a permanent sidewalk. I t would be greatly appreciated and even more well used than it already is. I f it could connect Strandlund from Selwyn to the Millstream/Veterans intersection that would be ideal. Living on the other side of
P4 2
Strandlund, I see walkers and joggers routinely try to navigate the maze of puddles and mud that the trail turns into when it rains. Something more permanent would be appreciated. In addition some garbage cans (at bus stops) and the maintenance of those cans would be greatly appriciated, so as to reduce the littered look of the current trail.
3. Crosswalk If some serious consideration could be given to installing a crosswalk from Duncan across Strandlund, it would help in alleviating the harrowing experience of crossing Strandlund in the mornings and afternoons, especially when trying to get to and from the bus stop. Simple painted lines on the road with signs would be a start, or ones with the flashing lights would be even better.
4. Bus Stops The public and school bus stop is currently located on Strandlund right in front of the proposed development area. What consideration has been given to relocating it? Many individuals use this stop throughout the day and many more students use it in the mornings and afternoons. Please communicate with BC Transit and SD62 as you consider the bus stops.
4. Park Has any thought been put into creating a small public park in conjunction with your development? There are growing numbers of children and no green space for them to play. I know that many of the kids around here currently play in the "field" where your planned development is and having something that can include the new community with the existing one would be greatly apprceicated. As the city of Langford has pledged to conserve greenspace and promote parks, it would be nice to have some remaining greenspace after all the construction is complete. Even if this means one less townhouse, it would benefit the community much more than an extra residence.
5. Height What consideration been given to the height of this development? Most homes in this area are either one or two stories, and from the drawing, it appears that the townhomes are going to be 3 stories. I personally feel that 3 stories is too much and this should be re-considered.
6. Density I appreciate the building and selling is a money making business and that the developers have chosen to drop the number of townhomes from 16 to 7, though I couldn't imagine more than 7 in that small location! This is a low density area, not a medium density area. Why not leave the density as it and limit the building to 2 stories and keep the units as single family homes. If you do consider higher density, please keep the numbers small and consider the rest of us residents who will have to deal with the after effects that such a sudden increase would bring. Again consider something to give to the rest of us in the community like a small park as you develop this land.
7. Path to the highway
One of our neighbours expressed concern with the viability of the current asphalt path used to get from Strandlund to the Highway. It is used by many bicycle commuters to shorten their trip to work. Would this path remain accessible?
8. Parking What thought if any has been given to the amount of extra parking that will be needed for each additional townhome. What about the construction parking? I can already forsee that parking would be at a premium and cars will begin parking on the side of Duncan Place (too close to the fire hydrant as they already do). In addition, I work very hard at keeping the boulevard in the front of my house on Strandlund neat, tidy, green and clear of snow. Cars already thoughtlessly park on the grass and make it a muddy mess despite my best efforts. Could a permanent curb be built or installed to prevent such actions from ocurring, or perhaps some thought to upgrading the side of the road to have pull outs with proper parking spaces? How about a "No Parking" sign from the bus stop in front of 659 Strandlund to the corner of Strandlund/Duncan? Additional parking will be needed and a proper parking places with appropriate signage is a must.
9. "The Corner" I am very concerned already with the corner of Strandlund Ave and Duncan PI. There is a large ditch on the corner and vehicles always take it too sharp and too fast. I have a slow down sign close to the corner to emphasize my concern with
speed for my children who regularly play in our driveway, but also because of the ditch. When it snowed last year, many a car narrowly missed the ditch as they took the corner too sharp. Perhaps a permanent hazard sign warning of a ditch or even better a curb or cement barrier could be placed there to encourage the vehicles to slow down and to prevent a future "car in the ditch" disaster? The density of this development will only make this problem worse.
10. Lighting Is there a way to improve the lighting on Strandlund Ave and Duncan Place? I have found that this has become an increasingly popular place for teens to drink and break bottles on the weekends because of the dim lit area. I have personally observed them throw bottles and cans onto Strandlund Ave right in front of my house on Strandlund Ave and in front of my driveway on Duncan PI.
11 . The Tunnel What is the purpose of this tunnel? Could it be gated off and locked for use when needed? There are regularly rude things being spray painted on it and suspicious activities going on inside it.
I appreciate you reading through this and making it all the way to this point in my email ! Thanks you for your concern and attention to these matters.
Sincerely, Dan and Holly Arnott 655 Strandlund Ave 250-479-5051
Th&Arnotty
I v o v a n d e r K a m p
Subject: FW: Rezoning of Strandland Ave.
From: ran leier [mailtoieaqlemisOitelus.netl Sent: Tuesday, November 15, 2011 4:48 PM To: Ivo van der Kamp Subject: Fw: Rezoning of Strandland Ave.
— Original Message — From: Arlene Leier To: [email protected] Sent: Tuesday, November 08, 2011 10:03 AM Subject: FW: Rezoning of Strandland Ave.
Arlene Leier Owner/Office Manager
Leier Construction
Tel: (250) 479-0915 ext. 222
Fax: (250) 479-0945 [email protected]
From: B Nelson [mailto:brendanelsontashaw.ca1 Sent: November-07-11 10:25 PM To: a rlene@leierconstruction .com Subject: Rezoning of Strandland Ave.
These questions are i n regard to the re zon ing o f 656, 660, 664 Strandland Ave . (7 uni t townhouse):
1) Where is the "v is i tor " park ing go ing to be and h o w many spaces fo r extra cars w i l l be al loted?
2) Is the 7 townhouse concept p lan the f ina l p lan or w i l l there be more "concept p lans" in the future that w i l l
need neighbourhood consent?
3 ) W i l l a garbage can, plus maintenance cost o f said garbage can, be placed outside on the t ra i l i n f ront o f your
property? The garbage that col lects along the t ra i l n o w is g row ing due to the increased number o f pedestrians i n
the recent past.
4 ) W i l l there be a s idewalk poured in f ront o f the property and w h o w i l l main ta in i t?
5) What does "mixed-use" 16 uni t mean? and is this "concept" s t i l l one o f your considerations?
Thank y o u for your t ime in answering these important questions.
Sincerely,
Brenda Nelson
2500 Duncan Place
V ic to r ia , B C
V 9 B 3P1
brendanelson@,shaw.ca
250-381-5938
l P4 5
Ivo van der Kamp
From: Sent:
To: Subject:
ron leier <[email protected]> Tuesday, November 15, 2011 4:49 PM Ivo van der Kamp
Fw: Delivery Status Notification (Delay)
Follow Up Flag:
Flag Status:
Follow up
Flagged
— Original Message — From: Arlene Leier To: [email protected] Sent: Monday, November 07, 2011 12:41 PM Subject: FW: Delivery Status Notification (Delay)
Arlene Leier
Owner/Office Manager Leier Construction Tel: (250) 479-0915 ext. 222
Fax: (250) 479-0945 arlene(5>leierconstruction.com
From: Ken Cruickshank rmailto:kccruid<[email protected] Sent: November-07-11 10:55 AM To: [email protected]: [email protected]: [email protected]: [email protected] Subject: Fwd: Delivery Status Notification (Delay)
Thank y o u fo r your letter dated October 14th in w h i c h y o u out l ine plans to develop 656,660 and 664 Strandlund
Avenue. I t r ied to prov ide m y feedback th rough the p rov ided e-mai l address ( in fo@leierconstruct ion.com) and
th rough ron(S),leierconstruction.com however both transmissions fa i led apparently because the mai lboxes were
I t was unclear f r o m your letter whether y o u were p lanning a 16 or 7 un i t townhouse complex . I am certainly in
favour o f a 7 un i t development however I feel that a 16 uni t complex w o u l d add too much density to the
neighbourhood. A s i t stands n o w there is not suf f ic ient services i n the area, as proven by the lack o f proper
s idewalks, so I am concerned about adding too much . A rev i ta l izat ion o f the neighbourhood is necessary and I
look forward to seeing what your project can do to spearhead such act ion. A g a i n thank you for i nv i t i ng input.
~ Yours Sincerely,
K e n Cruickshank
675 Strandlund A v e
full.
V i c t o r i a B C V 9 B 3G2
Te l . : 250-744-4275
I
P46
I v o v a n d e r K a m p
Subject:
From: Sent:
To:
Cc:
Grant Liebscher Thursday, November 17, 201112:21 PM
romy bawa Ivo van der Kamp RE: townhouse development on strandlund
My colleague Ivo van der Kamp, is handling this file. I have forwarded your concerns to him.
Regards,
Grant
From: romy bawa [mailto:[email protected] Sent: November-17-11 11:55 AM To: Grant Liebscher Subject: townhouse development on strandlund
-Forwarded Message Attachment-From: [email protected] To: [email protected]; [email protected] Subject: townhouse development on strandlund Date: Wed, 16 Nov 2011 10:15:46 -0700
Hi Grant
I just wanted to voice my concern about this new development on strandlund ave. across from duncan place. I and my family is in complete opposition to this decision. We like our st. and the privacy plus low traffic that it provides at the moment. We love our trees and green effect around the house and in the neighbourhood do not want to loose it.
Townhouse will increase traffic,cause privacy concerns and may be theft issues plus not to mention it will act against our
property values.
so please count my vote against it.
Thanks
Raminder Bawa Bellbarbie Cres.
l P47
CITY OF LANGFORD
BYLAW NO. 1366
A BYLAW TO AMEND BYLAW NO. 300, LANGFORD ZONING BYLAW, 1999"
The Council of the City of Langford, in open meeting assembled, hereby enacts as follows:
A. Langford Zoning Bylaw No. 300,1999 is amended as follows:
1. Deleting from the R2 (ONE- AND TWO-FAMILY RESIDENTIAL) ZONE and adding to the RM7A
(MEDIUM-DENSITY APARTMENT A) ZONE the properties legally described as Lot 7, Section 109,
Esquimalt District, Plan 10426 (656); Lot 1, Section 109, Esquimalt District, Plan 28414 (660);
and Lot 9, Section 109, Esquimalt District, Plan 10426 (664); as shown shaded on Plan No. 1
attached to and forming part of this Bylaw.
2. Adding the following as Section 6.36A.06(6): "Notwithstanding Articles (4) and (5), on lands legally described as Lot 7, Section 109, Esquimalt District, Plan 10426 (656 Strandlund Avenue); Lot 1, Section 109, Esquimalt District, Plan 28414 (660 Strandlund Avenue); and Lot 9, Section 109, Esquimalt District, Plan 10426 (664 Strandlund Avenue) the minimum setback to the TransCanada Highway Lands is 4.6 m (15 f t ) . "
3. Adding the following line to Table 1 of Schedule AD:
Zone Bylaw
No. Legal Description Amenity Contributions
RM7A
(Medium-
Density
Apartment A)
1366 Lot 7, Section 109, Esquimalt District, Plan 10426 (656 Strandlund Avenue); Lot 1, Section 109, Esquimalt District, Plan 28414 (660 Strandlund Avenue); and Lot 9, Section 109, Esquimalt District, Plan 10426 (664 Strandlund Avenue)
$4,400 per multi-family dwelling unit, in excess of three, towards the General Amenity Reserve Fund;
B. This Bylaw may be cited for all purposes as "Langford Zoning Bylaw, Amendment No. 328 (656, 660, and 664 Strandlund Avenue), 2011" .
READ A FIRST TIME this day of, 2011.
PUBLIC HEARING held this day of, 2012.
READ A SECOND TIME this day of, 2012.
READ A THIRD TIME this day of, 2012.
APPROVED BY THE MINISTRY OF TRANSPORTATION this day of , 2012.
ADOPTED this day o f , 2012.
MAYOR (Certified Correct)
CORPORATE OFFICER
Bylaw No. 1366
Page 2 of 2
I HEREBY CERTIFY THIS TO BE A TRUE COPY
OF PLAN No. 1 AS DESCRIBED
IN SECTION A1 OF BYLAW No.1366 MAYOR
ADOPTION:
CORPORATE OFFICER
Scale: N.T.S. Last Revised: November 3. 2011
City of Langford www. cityoflangford. ca
Staff Report
to
Planning, Zoning and Affordable Housing Committee
Date:
Department:
Application No.:
Subject:
November 28, 2011
Planning
TUP11-0005
Application for Temporary Commercial Use Permit to Allow for a Skateboarding
School at #109 - 937 Dunford Avenue, zoned M l (Light Industrial)
PURPOSE Debbie Qayum has applied for a Temporary Commercial Use Permit to allow for a skateboarding school
and office along with accessory uses such as manufacturing, retail sale and repair of skateboards in an
existing building on the property at #109 - 937 Dunford Avenue, which is zoned M l (Light Industrial).
BACKGROUND
There are no previous development applications concerning the subject property.
APPLICATION DATA
Table 1: Application Summary
Applicant: Debbie Qayum
Owner: same
Civic: #109 - 9 3 7 Dunford Avenue
Legal: Strata Lot 3, Section 79, Esquimalt District, Strata Plan VIS5358
Lot size 3,012 m 2 (32,421 f t 2 )
Present Zoning: M l (Light Industrial)
Present OCP: Neighbourhood
DP Areas None
SITE AND SURROUNDING AREA
The subject property is situated on the south side of Dunford Avenue and lies adjacent to the E&N
Railway. The site is currently occupied by a two-storey building with parking to the side. Various
businesses occupy the units, which consist of an entrance and small warehouse on the ground floor and
office space upstairs.
2nd Floor • 877 Goldstream Avenue • Langford, BC Canada • V9B 2X8 T - 250-478-7882 F - 250-478-7864
TUP11-0005 - #109 - 937 Dunford Avenue
28 November 2011
Page 2 of 6
Table 2: Surrounding Land Uses
Zoning Use
North R2 (One- and Two-Family Residential) and PI
(Neighbourhood Institutional)
Residential and Assembly
East M l (Light Industrial) Industrial
South C3 (District Commercial), M l (Light Industrial) and
M2 (General Industrial)
E&N Railway, Commercial
and Industrial
West M l (Light Industrial) Industrial
COUNCIL POLICY
Council has no specific policies wi th respect to temporary use permits. Applications for temporary
commercial use permits are considered on their individual merit. However, Council does regulate
temporary use permits through Part 3 of Zoning Bylaw No. 300. Sections 3.27.03(1) and 3.27.04 of the
P51
TUP11-0005 - #109 - 937 Dunford Avenue
28 November 2011
Page 3 of 6
Zoning Bylaw give Council the right to require that the form & character of the building meets the guidelines for commercial properties and require information pertaining to the property, a storm water management plan or parking plan, for example. Other information may also be required but may not pertain to this application as no physical alterations to the building or property are planned.
COMMENTS The applicant wishes to establish a facility for a skateboard company that wil l include their corporate
office, a shop to build and repair skateboards, a retail component, as well as an area to teach classes.
The M l (Light Industrial) zone does not allow for these types of uses, therefore, a temporary use permit,
or rezoning, is required.
ZONING BYLAW Pursuant to Sec. 921 of the Local Government Act, the City may issue a Commercial Temporary Use
Permit (TUP) for a period of up to three years. The Local Government Act also allows a temporary use
permit to be extended for up to a maximum of an additional three years. If the holder of a TUP wishes to
conduct the temporary use beyond this six (6) year period, they are required to make a new application
to Council for a TUP or apply for rezoning.
Council may wish to note that the owner is prepared to apply for rezoning to allow for the proposed
uses on the subject property. However, due to the length of t ime it takes to complete a rezoning
application, and the associated fees, the owner is requesting a TUP at this t ime.
PARKING Development Permit DP-02-14 was issued for this property in October 2002 to allow for an 11-unit 1,704
m2 (18,382 ft2) strata office/warehouse. Based on the proposed light industrial uses at that t ime, the
number of required parking spaces was 16. The number of parking spaces that was provided totaled 3 1 ,
an additional 15 spaces.
The type of uses proposed by the applicant do not all fall into a category of uses for which the City has parking requirements. Mainly, the skateboarding school does not have specific parking requirements in Zoning Bylaw No. 300, so it is uncertain what kind of impact the proposed uses will have on the availability of parking spaces on the property. Based on the parking requirements for permitted uses in the M l zone, it is likely that the proposed uses will not further increase the need for parking on site. The skateboarding school could attract clients that are not yet of driving age or do not have a vehicle. However, the proposed uses could also bring users from outside Langford, making the parking demand difficult to determine. Public transportation options are available within walking distance of the subject property. Bus stops are located on Dunford Avenue, which is also serviced by the Langford Trolley.
As this is an application for a temporary use permit, Council may allow for this use for up to three years,
during which t ime on-site parking can be monitored. Should a rezoning application be brought forward,
Council may require a parking study as part of the rezoning process.
Council may choose to require a rezoning application, in order to permanently allow for the proposed
uses to occur on site, however, the rezoning process will take approximately 6 months to complete.
Council may wish to issue the temporary use permit, to permit the applicant to operate her business, for
a period shorter than three years, while still allowing sufficient t ime for the applicant to complete the
rezoning process.
TUP11-0005 - #109 - 937 Dunford Avenue
28 November 2011
Page 4 of 6
SEWERS
The subject property is currently serviced by municipal sewers.
NEIGHBOURING IMPACTS
The applicant has submitted a signed letter f rom the Strata Council for the building f rom which she
would like to operate her business, stating that the Council for Strata Plan VIS5358 has no issue with the
proposed business being operated from the unit in question.
OPTIONS
That the Planning, Zoning and Affordable Housing Committee recommend:
That Council:
OPTION 1
1. Issue a Temporary Use Permit for a skateboarding school on the property at #109 - 937 Dunford
Avenue, for a period of 12 months; and
2. Require that the owner apply for a rezoning amendment within 6 months of issuance of the Temporary Use Permit, to continue to allow for a skateboarding school on the subject property;
OR
OPTION 2
1. Reject this application for a Temporary Use Permit;
Ivo van der Kamp Planner I
Mike Leskiw Parks Manager
Bob Beckett
Fire Chief
Michelle Mahovlich, P. Geo.
Deputy Manager, Engineering Treasurer V _ j \ d x r t i n ist rato r
:ivdk
TUP11-0005 - #109 - 937 Dunford Avenue
28 November 2011
Page 5 of 6
TEMPORARY USE PERMIT
937 Dunford Avenue
( TUP11-0005 )
Scale: N.T.S. Last Revised: Sept 16. 2011
TUP11-0005 - #109 - 937 Dunford Avenue
28 November 2011
Page 6 of 6
TEMPORARY USE PERMIT
937 Dunford Avenue
( TUP11-0005 )
Scale: N.T.S. L a s t Revised: Sept 16. 2011
P55
City of Langford vv • w w . ci t yo fJa n g fd rc l.ca
Staff Report
to
Council
November 21,2011
Planning
Statistical Information for October 2011
New Applications
Application Received Issued Civic Address Proposal
1. DP11-0048 18 Oct 11 Bear Mountain, Stage 12, 2224 Nicklaus Drive and 2200 Spirit Ridge
Environmental DP
2. DP11-0049 28 Oct 11 967 Langford Parkway Hull's Corner - freestanding sign
3. SDP11-0032 12 Oct 11 12 Oct 11 2755 Veterans Memorial Pky Boston Pizza - 1 facade
4. SDP11-0033 13 Oct 11 2800 Jacklin Road Sabthai Thai Restaurant - 1 facade
5. SDP11-0034 20 Oct 11 20 Oct 11 141-2956 Westshore Pky C8iS Motorcycles & Savage Cycles - 1 facade
6. DVP11-0029 26 Oct 11 Kettle Creek - lots on Burlington
Vary maximum height of single-family dwellings
7. DVP11-0030 27 Oct 11 969 and 971 Glen Willow PI Vary frontage improvements
Date:
Department:
Subject:
2nd Floor • 877 Goldstream Avenue • Langford, BC Canada • V9B 2X8 T • 250-478-7882 F • 250-391-3437
November 2 1 , 2011
Planning Stats for October
Page 2 of 4
Current Applications
Type of Application In Process Issued Current Month
Agricultural Land Commission 2 0
Development Permits* 11 1
Sign Development Permits 10 3
Development Variance Permits 16 1
OCP Amendments 2 0
Temporary Use Permits 2 0
Zoning Amendments 38 3
TOTAL 81 8
•Average number of days to process was 36
Applications Received to Date
ALR DP ADP DVP OCP SDP ASDP Strata TUP Zoning Total
1994 0 7 0 3 4 0 0 2 0 10 26
1995 3 14 1 9 6 0 0 0 0 15 48
1996 4 24 0 6 7 0 0 0 0 15 56
1997 1 22 0 12 16 0 0 0 0 28 79
1998 2 24 0 17 16 0 0 0 0 24 83
1999 2 24 1 11 11 0 0 0 0 19 68
2000 1 22 0 19 8 0 0 2 0 24 76
2001 0 34 9 21 12 0 0 0 1 23 100
2002 3 46 7 29 8 32 2 0 0 27 154
2003 3 60 13 40 12 28 0 0 0 22 178
2004 1 47 14 36 17 29 0 0 1 38 183
2005 1 61 21 38 16 51 0 0 1 31 220
2006 6 65 26 15 18 76 2 0 1 37 246
2007 0 71 15 29 23 74 3 0 0 48 263
2008 5 56 21 19 2 52 l 0 0 35 191
2009 2 39 14 20 2 53 l 0 1 26 158
2010 0 70 8 26 2 43 l 0 2 20 172
2011 0 49 0 30 1 34 0 0 5 28 147
Total 34 735 150 380 181 472 10 4 12 470 2448
November 21 , 2011 Planning Stats for October Page 3 of 4
250
200
150
100
Applications Received By Year To Date
Illlllill 1994 1995 1996 1997 1998 1999 2000 2001 2002 2003 2004 2005 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010 2011 , Agricultural land Reserve
Development Variance Permits
Amended Sign DPs
Zoning Amendments
* Development Permits
Official Community Plan Amendments
Strata-Title Applications
; • Amended Development Permits
Sign Development Permits
Temporary Industrial Use Permits
P58
November 21,2011
Planning Stats for October
Page 4 of 4
Fees Collected By Type of Application by Month and /Year
ALR DP DVP Rezoning PH SDP TUP Monthly
Total Total to
Date
Jan $40,837 $4,925 $18,216 $11,000 $1,150 $76,128 $76,128
Feb $33,020 $5,047 $2,200 $500 $40,767 $116,895
Mar $16,204 $15,181 $150 $31,535 $148,430
Apr $8,795 $5,875 $7,947 $2,200 $1,250 $2,350 $28,417 $176,847
May $44,259 $9,400 $21,042 $8,800 $250 $83,751 $260,598
Jun $15,701 $1,175 $10,053 $6,600 $1,325 $34,854 $295,452
Jul $3,804 $4,700 $5,305 $350 $14,159 $309,611
Aug $4,270 $1,175 $3,000 $8,800 $700 $17,945 $327,556
Sep $14,585 $1,175 $2,897 $2,200 $450 $1,175 $22,482 $350,038
Oct $9,607 $2,500 $500 $12,607 $362,645
Nov $362,645
Dec $362,645
Total $191,082 $30,925 $88,688 $41,800 $6,625 $3,525 $362,645
2011 $181,475 $28,425 $88,688 $41,800 $6,125 $3,525 $350,038
2010 $339,882 $29,055 $50,075 $24,300 $6,600 $449,912
2009 $600 $177,908 $24,330 $133,750 $26,400 $10,800 $373,787
2008 $3,600 $286,539 $19,990 $149,982 $55,311 $11,445 $526,867
2007 $277,015 $31,577 $130,696 $91,473 $14,405 $545,167
2006 $3,150 $372,655 $15,425 $139,796 $40,600 $14,800 $586,426
2005 $300 $412,137 $34,195 $178,171 $36,400 $10,270 $671,474
2004 $261,296 $30,920 $167,845 $45,766 $525,766
2003 $1,200 $178,048 $39,965 $182,920 $24,850 $427,983
2002 $97,072 $37,851 $61,082 $20,262 $224,788
Respectfully submitted,
-•^AanUes»r€^o\J»T, MCIP" t City Planner
:tlc
P59