city of langford monday, november 28thand~minutes/... · 2017-03-01 · city of langford planning,...

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


e) Application for Temporary Commercial Use Permit to Allow for a Skateboarding School at

#109 - 937 Dunford Avenue, zoned M l (Light Industrial)


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)


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)




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)


SECONDED: M. HALL


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)



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


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)


SITE AND SURROUNDING AREA

Figure 1 -Subject Property Location Map

P12


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.


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


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


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


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.


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.


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.


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.


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.


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


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;


Option 2


1. Require the applicant to redesign the proposal with fewer units.

Option 3


1. Reject this application for rezoning.

:ivdk


REZONING BYLAW AMENDMENT

2726 Peatt Rd

(Z11-0011)

Scale: N.T.S. Last Revised: May 11, 2011



2726 Peatt Rd

(Z11-0011)

Scale: N.T.S. Last Revised: May 11, 2011


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


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)


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


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.


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.


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


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


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


Page 7 of 9


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


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


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


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


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


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


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


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.


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


28 November 2011

Page 5 of 6

TEMPORARY USE PERMIT

937 Dunford Avenue

( TUP11-0005 )

Scale: N.T.S. Last Revised: Sept 16. 2011


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