Staff Report to PZAH Committee: Omnibus #43 – Secondary Suites in the RS4 Zone (Z15-0026)

PURPOSE

The purpose of this report is to outline various housekeeping amendments to Zoning Bylaw No. 300, which are proposed to fulfill previous Council resolutions as well as to address issues that have been brought to staff’s attention.

Home Occupation

There have been several business license applications received in recent months for home based businesses relating to driving services, such as Driving Miss Daisy. Taxi, limousine, and courier type businesses are currently prohibited as a home occupation, as they would typically involve the marshalling of vehicles. However, there is a trend towards decentralizing these types of businesses such that they occur on an individual basis, rather than a larger scale that would involve multiple vehicles. The requests received would essentially operate as a home office, with the owner using a personal vehicle to pick up and drop off passengers, or, in the case of a courier service, items. This should have negligible impact on the neighbourhood, compared to any other type of home office, so Council may wish to amend the home occupation regulations accordingly.

Projections

Section 3.18 of Zoning Bylaw No. 300 sets out regulations for the type of features that may project into the setbacks specified in the individual zones, and the degree to which they may project. The regulations are described in paragraph form, and staff often receive complaints that it’s difficult to read and interpret. As such, Council may wish to replace this section with the table below, which more clearly lays out the permitted projections for the different features and lot sizes.

Accessory building setbacks are governed by Section 3.05 of the Zoning Bylaw. Currently, the minimum required setbacks for an accessory building are 1m from an interior side or rear lot line, and the setback specified in the applicable Zone for exterior side and front lot lines. Council may wish to allow eaves and gutters of accessory buildings to project into these setbacks to the same degree as the eaves/gutters of a principal building with a similar setback.

Fence Height

Council adopted Bylaw No. 1146 in 2008, which, among other omnibus changes to Zoning Bylaw No. 300, created regulations to restrict the height and style of fences along dedicated roads and in Residential Zones. With respect to fences along roads, the maximum height has been set at 1.2m (4ft) and the style of fence must be of a permeable nature (such as picket or wrought iron). In Residential Zones, the maximum height of a fence along all other lot lines has been set at 1.8m (6ft), and may be of a solid nature if desired. The intention of this regulation was to prevent the “tunnel effect” which occurs when 1.8m solid board fences are constructed along property lines adjoining a road, effectively cutting off the property from the street.

However at the same time, residents often wish to construct a solid board fence in excess of 1.2m along roads for at least a portion of their property, typically to contain a backyard space with a certain degree of privacy and containment for children, animals, etc. Council may wish to consider modifying the existing fence requirements as they relate to fences along roads adjoining properties containing one-family, two-family or townhouses uses, such that owners may construct a 1.8m solid board fence along that portion of the lot that fronts a road but is at least 1.8m behind the front building face. So, any fence constructed in front of the front building face (i.e. in the front yard) would retain the 1.2m permeable style requirements, but any portion constructed 1.8m behind the front building face could be 1.8m, and solid, in order to delineate the back yard space. Furthermore, Council may wish to exempt a gate or arbour type feature from the maximum height, as these features provide visual interest.

P1B Zone

Council adopted Bylaw Nos. 1472 and 1590 to rezone the City’s properties at 3021 and 3017 Glen Lake Rd, respectively, to the P1B (Neighbourhood Institutional B) Zone to allow for a Rugby Canada Training facility. In developing this Zone, “offices” were included as a permitted use, with the intention that a Rugby Canada office could be established at that location. However, since it was added as a stand-alone permitted use, any type of office could technically be established at that location. If Council wishes to restrict the office use to one that relates to the intended principal gymnasium/training function of the property, they may wish to amend this office permitted use to be accessory only.

RS4 Zone

Council adopted Bylaw No. 1568 on July 20, 2015, which among other changes, created a new RS4 (Residential Small Lot 4) Zone and rezoned the property formerly addressed as 301 Phelps Ave to this new Zone. As described in the staff reports prepared for the Planning, Zoning and Affordable Housing Committee and Council, part of this proposal was to allow for suites within the one-family dwellings within this Zone, which has a minimum lot size of 400 m2. The default minimum lot size for secondary suites, as described in Section 3.08 – Secondary Suites of Zoning Bylaw No. 300, is 550 m2. In order to allow for secondary suites on any lot smaller than 550 m2, the applicable Zone must specifically state this. This was omitted from the secondary suites permitted use in the RS4 Zone, so Council may wish to correct this in Bylaw No. 1608.

Indoor Recreation Facility / Recreational Facilities

These two very similar terms are defined in Part 1 – Interpretation, and often elaborated upon with the permitted uses where they occur within Part 6 – Zone Regulations. Indoor Recreation Facility often refers to a business that offers a recreation-related service, such as gymnasiums and health clubs whereas a Recreational Facility includes both indoor and outdoor uses that are larger scale and more community oriented, such as arenas, swimming pools, community centres, etc. However the descriptions of these uses tend to vary from zone to zone, and where one type of business is specifically noted in one zone but not another, it can cause some confusion. Council may wish to expand upon the definitions for these uses to include the examples given in the individual zones, and amend the zones such that specific examples of uses are not given. This will ensure that these uses are interpreted in a consistent manner where permitted. Furthermore, an inquiry was recently received to open up an indoor gun range in areas where Indoor Recreation Facilities are permitted, so if Council does not wish for this use to be included within this term, they may wish to specifically exclude it for clarity.

Gas Stations vs. Cardlock Station

It has been observed that several gas stations in neighbouring municipalities have converted to commercial card lock stations recently. Commercial cardlock stations are not open to the general public, but rather serve corporate users for the purposes of servicing fleet vehicles. This use is arguably more industrial in nature than a typical gas station, as it does not serve the public or include any accessory uses (i.e. restaurant, convenience store) which are often incorporated into gas stations. The only cardlock station currently operating in Langford is located within the M2 (General Industrial) Zone on Henry Eng Pl. Council may wish to allow cardlock gas stations in the M2 Zone to accommodate the existing station and allow for others to emerge in similar industrial areas, and insert a new definition for gas stations that specifically excludes cardlock stations in order to prevent them from occurring elsewhere.

Bylaw No. 1608 has been drafted to include the changes described in this report. If Council is supportive of these changes, they may wish to give First Reading to Bylaw No. 1608 as drafted. Conversely, Council may wish to modify Bylaw No. 1608 prior to First Reading, or take no action at this time with respect to these changes.

OPTIONS

Option 1

That the Planning, Zoning and Affordable Housing Committee recommend that Council:

1. Consider giving First Reading to Bylaw No. 1608

OR

Option 2

1. Take no action at this time with respect to Bylaw No. 1608

Respectfully Submitted,

Submitted by:
Leah Stohman, Deputy Director of Planning

Concurrence:
Matthew Baldwin, MCIP, RPP Director of Planning

Concurrence:
Mike Leskiw, Parks and Recreation Manager

Concurrence:
Michelle Mahovlich, P.Eng, P.Geo, Director of Engineering

Concurrence:
Brent Molnar, Manager of Land Development

Concurrence:
Steve Ternent, Director of Finance

Concurrence:
Jim Bowden, Chief Administrative Officer

:ls