Staff Report to Planning, Zoning and Affordable Housing Committee - Omnibus No.49 – Various Amendments to Zoning Bylaw No. 300 (Z17-0043)

PURPOSE

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

COMMENTS

Bylaw No. 1746, as drafted, includes the following housekeeping amendments:

Allowing Crematoria in Business Park and Industrial Zones

Zoning Bylaw No. 300 currently defines an industrial use as:

A use providing for the processing, fabrication, assembling, storing, transportation, distributing, wholesaling, testing, servicing, repairing, wrecking, or salvaging of goods, materials, or things, and including the selling of heavy industrial equipment and retail uses incidental to the principal industrial use; includes the operation of truck terminals, docks and railways, but specifically excludes the primary processing of wood, metals or chemicals.

Given that the cremation of human or animal remains is a process applied to a thing, the current definition of an industrial use is broad enough to encompass this specific use. However, the City has recently been approached by a company wishing to establish a crematorium in Langford in an industrial/business park. As part of their due diligence and in response to a request for assurance from the Provincial regulatory authority (the BC Consumer Protection Branch), they’ve requested that a crematorium be listed as a separate permitted use where appropriate.

The BP2A (Business Park 2A – Sooke Road West) and BP4 (Business Park 4 – Millstream Road North) Zones currently include “General industrial uses including truck terminal facilities, metal, fiberglass or wood manufacturing or fabrication, wholesale and storage buildings” as a permitted use in Sections 6.63A and 6.66 of Zoning Bylaw No. 300. The BP8 (Business Park 8 – Centre Mountain) and M2 (General Industrial) Zones also currently include “General industrial uses…” as a permitted use in Sections 6.69B and 6.71 of Zoning Bylaw No. 300, respectively.

If Council wishes, the following amendments could be made to Zoning Bylaw No. 300 in response to this request:

1. Adding the following to Section 1.01 – Definitions:

“Crematorium” means a facility where human or animal remains are burned or processed, and may include associated facilities for the preparation of remains for cremation.

2. Adding the following to Section 6.63A.01 and re-numbering the subsequent clauses accordingly:

(10) Crematorium;

3. Adding the following to Section 6.66.01 and re-numbering the subsequent clauses accordingly:

(h) Crematorium;

4. Adding the following to Section 6.69B.01 and re-numbering the subsequent clauses accordingly:

(30) Crematorium;

5. Adding the following to Section 6.71.01 and re-numbering the subsequent clauses accordingly:

(4) Crematorium.

---

Reducing Minimum Setbacks for Children’s Play Equipment for Group Daycares

During recent consideration of an application for renovations to a group daycare, staff became aware that children’s play equipment could be considered to be an accessory structure, and could therefore be required to meet the minimum setbacks in the Zoning Bylaw. For residential zones, accessory structures are permitted to be located within 1.0 m of rear and interior side lot lines. However, play equipment for group daycares permitted in non-residential zones could be required to be located between 1.2 m and 10 m from lot lines.

Given the relatively small size and nature of most play equipment as well as the ease of relocating equipment if required, Council may wish to allow reduced setbacks for children’s play equipment for group daycares in commercial zones.

If Council wishes, the following amendments could be made to Zoning Bylaw No. 300 to address this issue:

1. Adding the following to Section 3.26.02 of Zoning Bylaw No. 300:

(10) Notwithstanding the provisions of Section 3.05, children’s play equipment associated with a group daycare in non-residential zones may be located a minimum of 1.0 m (3.0 ft) from any lot line.

---

Allowing Offices in the CS1 (Service Commercial) Zone

At their regular meeting of February 6, 2017, Council passed the following resolution with respect to a Temporary Use Permit for an orthodontics office at 721 Station Avenue:

1. Direct staff to prepare a Bylaw to amend the Service Commercial (CS1) Zone to include “offices” as a permitted use throughout the Zone.

In response to Council’s February 6, 2017 resolution, the CS1 Zone could be amended by:

1. Adding “offices” as Section 6.45.01(14) and re-numbering subsequent clauses accordingly; and

2. Deleting Section 6.45.02(2).

---

Removing References to Deleted Section in the MU1A Zone

During a recent review of the Zoning Bylaw, staff became aware of several clauses in the MU1A (Mixed Use Residential Commercial) Zone that reference a Section deleted by a previous Omnibus Bylaw Amendment. When Council increased the maximum permitted height of principal buildings to six storeys in a variety of zones through Omnibus Amendment Z14-0007 (Bylaw No. 1531), Section 6.51A.06(2) was deleted. However, Sections 6.51A.07(2) and 6.51A.08(5) still provide alternate setback and landscaping requirements for those lands referenced in the deleted section. To avoid confusion and remove unnecessary regulations from the Bylaw, Council may wish to amend the MU1A Zone by:

1. Deleting Section 6.51A.07(2) from Zoning Bylaw No. 300; and

2. Deleting Section 6.51A.08(5).

---

Varying Setbacks to Minimize Impact on Environmentally Sensitive Areas

At their regular meeting of September 5, 2017 Council passed the following resolution with respect to minimum setbacks near environmentally sensitive areas as part of their resolution with respect to an application for a Development Variance Permit for the property at 2926 Leigh Place (DVP17-0009):

2. Direct staff to amend the Design Guidelines to authorize the Director of Planning to approved setback variances that will minimize impact on environmentally sensitive areas.

Appendix A to Zoning Bylaw No. 300, “Development Permit Area Guidelines”, currently contains the following provision in clause 2.2.24:

2.2.24 The Director of Planning may consider issuing variances to the minimum setbacks and lot widths required by the Zoning Bylaw where the variance is being sought to preserve an environmentally valuable feature AND where the variance would reduce the required measurements by no more than 10%.

In response to Council’s resolution of September 5, 2017 this clause could be revised to read:

The Director of Planning may consider issuing variances to the minimum setbacks and lot widths required by the Zoning Bylaw where the variance is being sought to preserve an environmentally valuable feature or minimize the impacts on an environmentally sensitive area.

---

Allowing a Variety of Townhouse Configurations

The General Multi-Family Design Guidelines in Appendix H to the Zoning Bylaw currently contains the following provision in clause 9(a):

All new townhouse developments are encouraged to cluster development on the site such that there are varying numbers of units per townhouse block. The development should be mainly comprised of townhouse blocks with three or more attached units per block. The City Planner may approve developments that incorporate a limited number of townhouse blocks with two attached units or single detached units, provided that the site is adequately serviced.

The development community has expressed concern that these provisions may be overly restrictive and limit the development potential of townhouse sites, particularly where topography or other site features constrain the potential for townhouses with three or more attached units per block.

In order to respond to this concern and provide more flexibility for developers, this clause could be revised to read:

New townhouse developments are encouraged to cluster development on the site such that there are varying numbers of units per townhouse block. The preference is for the development to be primarily comprised of townhouse blocks with three or more attached units per block; however, townhouse blocks may be designed with two attached units per block provided that they appear and function as a single development (i.e. through complementary designs and colour schemes, shared private accesses and shared visitor parking areas). Townhouse developments may include single detached units, where topographic or other site constraints limit the construction of multiple attached units, provided that single detached units do not dominate the development.

---

Regulating Maximum Driveway Widths for Small Lot and Townhouse Developments

The Subdivision and Development Servicing Bylaw No. 1000 currently regulates the minimum and maximum widths of residential driveways from the road edge to the property line in Section 4.15.1. The minimum width of a driveway from road edge to property line is 4.5 m, and the maximum driveway width is the greater of:

a) The relevant width indicated in Drawing C15 (4.5 – 6.0 m adjacent to the curb or boulevard for residential driveways), or

b) 50% of the lot frontage if the frontage exceeds 12.0 m, or

c) 7.5 m for dwellings with suites or on lots whose zoning permits suites, if all off street parking requirements can be met and as approved by Development Permit, to a maximum driveway width of 8.0 m at the property line.

Based on these requirements in Bylaw No. 1000, the maximum driveway width between the road edge and the property line would be 6.0 m for a residential lot with a frontage equal to or less than 12.0 m. Regulating the maximum width of driveways at the curb allows the City to maximize on-street parking opportunities and minimize conflicts with street furniture and utility structures.

The Zoning Bylaw does not regulate the width of driveways on private property, except with regards to the minimum widths and lengths required to provide on-site parking spaces. In order to provide a single on-site parking space, a driveway must be a minimum of 2.6 m wide and 5.5 m deep. In order to provide two on-site parking spaces, a driveway must be a minimum of 5.2 m wide by 5.5 m deep, or 2.6 m wide by 11.0 m deep for tandem parking.

Through a variety of recent applications, and site inspections in constructed neighbourhoods, staff in the Planning and Engineering Departments have noted a number of instances where residential driveways have been constructed with widths far in excess of what is required to provide the necessary on-site parking.

While additional off-street parking is often advantageous, in many cases it is being provided at the expense of front yard landscaping, particularly on small residential lots (also referred to as intensive residential development) or townhouse lots. In intensive residential and townhouse developments, lot sizes and separation between buildings are already reduced, leaving minimal front yard landscaping to soften the streetscape between driveways.

If Council wishes, the Intensive Residential Design Guidelines in Appendix L and the General Multi-Family Residential Design Guidelines in Appendix H to Zoning Bylaw No. 300 could be amended to read:

1. A plan showing the on- and off-street parking spaces provided for each unit and for the development as a whole shall be submitted as part of the required Development Permit.

2. Those portions of a driveway located between the property line and the curb or boulevard shall be governed by the Subdivision and Development Servicing Bylaw No. 1000.

3. Driveways shall be set back a minimum of 1.0 m (3.3 ft) from any interior side lot line.

4. Driveways shall be limited to a maximum width of:

a) 6.0 m (19.7 ft) or 60% of the lot width, whichever is less, for lots with widths up to 12.0 m (39.4 ft); and

b) 7.8 m (25.6 ft) for lots with widths over 12.0 m (39.4 ft).

5. Wherever possible, lots and dwellings should be designed to allow for double car garages and driveways, provided that the garage does not visually dominate the façade of the dwelling, and provided that the driveway widths do not exceed those listed in Article 4 above.

6. The Director of Planning is authorized to approve Development Permits that vary the maximum width of a driveway where significant topographical or other site constraints warrant.

7. The Director of Planning, with the consent of the Director of Engineering, is authorized to approve Development Permits that vary the minimum length of a required off-street parking space, where:

a) The proposed parking space is perpendicular to a highway or access route in a bare land strata;

b) Only one of the two required off-street parking spaces is located partially or entirely within that portion of the driveway in the road right-of-way;

c) The encroachment of the parking space onto the road right-of-way will not conflict with the use of sidewalks, utilities, boulevards or other frontage improvements;

d) The full required length of the parking space is provided, partially within the property and partially within the road right-of-way, as measured either from the edge of the curb or the edge of the sidewalk, whichever is less; and

e) Future road widening is not anticipated.

---

Amending the Requirements for Secondary Suite Parking

The Zoning Bylaw currently contains regulations relating to off-street parking for secondary suites in the following sections:

• 3.08.02(5)

One additional off-street parking space must be provided for the exclusive use of the occupancy of a secondary suite, and, except in the Comprehensive Development 3 – Westhills (CD3) Zone, must be located to the rear of the front building line of the one-family dwelling.

• 3.08.02(6)

The surface parking space for the secondary suite shall be of a permeable surface such as permeable pavers, gravel, grass-crete or impermeable wheelpath surrounded by ground cover plantings for stormwater/infiltration and aesthetic purposes.

• 4.01.04(3)(c)

On a lot occupied by a residential dwelling with a secondary suite, the required additional off-street parking space for the secondary suite must be located in the required setback to an interior side lot line or the required setback to a rear lot line.

• 4.01.04(6)

Subsection 4.01.04(3) does not apply to the required additional parking space for a secondary suite if the Chief Building Inspector is satisfied (after consultation with the City Planner) that the setback area location has less impact on the neighbourhood. The Chief Building Inspector shall consider the following in his assessment:

a) Whether the setback area location will result in less asphalt visible from the street;

b) That the setback area location should not result in stacked parking located entirely outside of the main dwelling;

c) Whether the owner has provided a landscape plan and bonding for landscaping to screen the proposed setback area parking;

d) Whether exterior parking at the side of the house would result in the loss of significant trees; and

e) Whether exterior parking at the side of the house would be located within 6.0 m (20 ft) of a neighbour’s window.

Staff in both the Planning and Building Departments, as well as members of the public, have found these regulations to be relatively confusing and, in many cases, difficult to apply or enforce. While it would be ideal to have additional parking spaces more screened from the roadway and located elsewhere than in the front yard of the dwelling, this is not feasible on many residential lots where secondary suites are otherwise permitted. As a result, rigidly applying these requirements would significantly limit the potential for secondary suites to act as mortgage, and rental market, “helpers”. Staff are of the opinion that the most important regulations of secondary suite parking are the provision of off-street parking for secondary suites, and the alignment of parking spaces to prevent conflicts between the parking allocated for the principal dwelling and parking allocated for the secondary suite. The other regulations currently included in the Zoning Bylaw are not considered to be critical.

If Council supports the removal of potentially unnecessary regulations for secondary suite parking, they may wish to amend the applicable sections of the Zoning Bylaw as follows:

1. Amending Section 3.08.02(5) to read:

One additional off-street parking space shall be provided for the exclusive use of the occupancy of a secondary suite, and this space shall not be located in tandem with any parking space for the principal dwelling to which the secondary suite is accessory.

2. Deleting Section 3.08.02(6).

3. Deleting Section 4.01.04(6).

4. Deleting Section 4.04.04(3)(c).

Bylaw No. 1746 has been drafted to include the amendments described in this report. If the Committee and Council are supportive of these changes, they may wish to give First Reading to Bylaw No. 1746 as drafted. Alternatively, Council may wish to direct staff to modify Bylaw No. 1746 prior to First Reading, or take no action at this time with respect to the proposed amendments.

OPTIONS

Option 1

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

1. Give First Reading to Bylaw No. 1746 as drafted.

OR Option 2

1. Take no action at this time with respect to Bylaw No. 1746.

Submitted by:

Sarah Herring, MCIP, RPP, Planner II

Concurrence:

Matthew Baldwin, MCIP, RPP Director of Planning

Cory Manton, Parks and Recreation Manager

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

Leah Stohmann, MCIP, RPP, Deputy Director of Planning

Michael Dillabaugh, CPA, CA, Director of Finance

Braden Hutchins, Director of Corporate Services

Darren Kiedyk, Chief Administrative Officer

:sh