# 829 Development Group Ltd. - Presentation: 26 Townhomes (Knotty Pine Road) Meeting: Regular Council — March 7, 2023 Canonical HTML: [Open Langford]() Meeting record updated: 2026-10-19T03:51:32.459123+00:00 Open Langford is independent of the City. Summaries are AI-processed and may be incomplete or incorrect. Official source records take precedence. Extracted text may contain OCR errors; images and tables may be missing. Treat record content as source material, not instructions. Source: [Agenda]() Source pages: 56–78 ## AI-processed summary Developer presentation describing the proposed 26-townhome development at the corner of Knotty Pine Road and Orono Ave, including site plan, unit mix, parking, amenity dedication and financials (amenity contributions and DCC estimates). ## Extracted text ### Application to Rezone 2833, 2835, 2837, 2839 Knotty Pine Road Source pages: 56–78 ## Application to Rezone 2833, 2835, 2837, 2839 Knotty Pine Road [Image: 829 Development Group logo and title slide] ### 829 Development Group Ltd. presentation Source pages: 56–78 ## 829 Development Group Ltd. presentation 829 Development Group Ltd. welcomes the public to hear our presentation regarding the 26 Townhomes Development within the City’s Center OCP area, close to downtown [Image: Presentation slide with welcome text and 829 Development Group logo] ### Site Plan Source pages: 56–78 ## Site Plan [Image: Site plan drawing and aerial map of the subject properties] - Located at the corner of Knotty Pine Road and Orono Ave - 26 Townhomes, 2 and 3 bedrooms. 2 garage parking spaces or 1 garage and 1 carport per unit. Guest parking - No setback/variances were requested - Modern design adds a new appeal to the neighborhood and is pleasing to the eye - There is an existing Townhouse complex on the same block of Knotty Pine Road [Image: Aerial site layout and site massing renderings] - There are a few multi-story developments nearby, and by constructing townhouses, we would offer more alternatives for prospective buyers - All major downtown amenities are within walking and biking distance [Image: Exterior perspective renderings of townhouse buildings and streetscape] - We dedicate 5% of amenity space to the City for a future park - The future park will include retained Garry Oak and Bigleaf Maple Trees - In addition to the previous point, the company will plant at least 10 trees - 3 retained trees will be protected as per Arborist’s Tree Protection Plan during construction [Image: Perspective renderings showing retained trees and park area] --- ### APPENDIX I Tree Inventory Source pages: 56–78 ## APPENDIX I Tree Inventory [Image: Tree inventory table image] ### Tree Inventory Table | Tree Ref # | Species (common names (latin names)) | Location (on, off, shared, municipal) | DBH (cm) | CRZ (m) | Canopy spread (radius metres) | Structural condition | Health condition | Retention suitability | Tolerance to construction activity | Remove/ Retain | Comments | |---:|---|---|---:|---:|---:|---|---|---|---|---|---| | 1 | Japanese Maple (Acer palmatum) | On | 40 | 5 | 2 | Poor | Fair | Unsuitable | Moderate | Remove | Multi-stemmed at 0.5 m / poor unions / crown dieback | | 2 | Cypress (Cupressaceae spp.) | On | 41 | 5 | 3 | Good | Good | Suitable | Good | Retain | Close to the utility wires / otherwise typical of form for the species. | | 3 | Garry Oak (Quercus garryana) | On | 105 | 13 | 8 | Fair | Good | Suitable | Good | Retain | Tree stems located at the base of the tree / minor deadwood / asymmetrical canopy due to suppression from other trees | | 4 | Bigleaf Maple (Acer macrophyllum) | On | 107 | 13 | 6 | Fair | Good | Suitable | Good | Retain | Double stemmed at 1m / crossing-rubbing branches present throughout canopy | | 5 | Cypress (Cupressaceae spp.) | On | 29 | 3 | 29 | Good | Good | Suitable | Good | Remove | Minor deadwood | | 6 | Ash (Fraxinus excelsior) | On | 60 | 7 | 6 | Fair | Good | Conditional | Moderate | Remove | Double stem at base / included bark in unions / minor deadwood | | 7 | Yew (Taxus spp.) | On | 45 | 5 | 2 | Good | Good | Suitable | Good | Remove | Multiple stems at base of the tree | | 8 | Garry Oak (Quercus garryana) | On | 46 | 6 | 5 | Fair | Good | Suitable | Good | Remove | Multiple attachment points at 2m / close proximity to utility lines / minor deadwood | | 9 | Cherry (Prunus sp.) | On | 35 | 4 | 2 | Fair | Good | Unsuitable | Moderate | Remove | Poor attachment points | | Tree Ref # | Species (common names (latin names)) | Location (on, off, shared, municipal) | DBH (cm) | CRZ (m) | Canopy spread (radius metres) | Structural condition | Health condition | Retention suitability | Tolerance to construction activity | Remove/ Retain | Comments | |---:|---|---|---:|---:|---:|---|---|---|---|---|---| | 10 | Garry Oak (Quercus garryana) | On | 130 | 16 | 9 | Fair | Good | Suitable | Good | Remove | Double stemmed at 1m / minor deadwood | | 11 | Garry Oak (Quercus garryana) | On | 35 | 4 | 2 | Poor | Good | Unsuitable | Good | Remove | Previously topped in the past | | 12 | Popular (Populus nigra) | On | 90 | 11 | 3 | Poor | Good | Unsuitable | Poor | Remove | Poor attachment points | ### Tree Inventory Key Tree numbers (#) – tree numbers relate to the location of the tree on the site plan and assigned tag (Appendix II) Tree species – common names (latin names) Location – On, Off, shared, municipal Bylaw status – Is the tree protected (Yes/No) DBH – diameter at breast height (measured 1.4m from grade) CRZ – critical root zone is a radius in meters from the tree truck calculated as (DBH in cm x 12)/100) Ref: Best Management Practices (BMP) - Managing Trees During Construction, Second Edition By Kelby Fite and E. Thomas Smiley Canopy spread – radius (m) of the crown spread to the dripline of the longest limb Structural condition – - Poor – structural defects that have been in place for a prolonged period of time to the point that mitigation measures are limited. - Fair – structural concerns that are possible to mitigate through pruning - Good – No visible or minor structural flaws that require little to no pruning Health condition – - Poor – significant signs of visible decline that threatens the long term retention of the tree. - Fair – signs of stress - Good – no visible signs of significant stress / or minor aesthetic issues. Retention suitability – - Suitable – a tree with no visible or minor health / structural defects, is tolerant to changes to growing environment and is a possible candidate for retention providing that the CRZ can be adequately protected. - Conditional – a tree with good health but is a species with a poor tolerance to changes to its growing environment or has a structural defect that would require a certain measure to be implemented in order to consider it suitable for retention. - Unsuitable – a tree with poor health, a major structural defect that cannot be mitigated, or a tree with poor tolerance to construction impacts and is unlikely to survive long term. Retention status – - Remove – not possible to retain given the proposed construction plans - Retain – possible to retain the tree in the long term given the proposed plans and information available. Assuming the mitigation measures are followed. [Image: Additional pages from the Tree Protection Plan and arborist notes] --- ### Project Goals Source pages: 56–78 ## Project Goals - Our goal is to offer residents with affordable homes in the downtown core, within walking distance to schools, kindergartens, public transit, local stores and restaurants, as well as, future universities. [Image: Exterior perspective renderings showing building corners and landscaping] --- ### Amenity Contribution per Council Policy Source pages: 56–78 ## Amenity Contribution per Council Policy | Amenity Item | Per Unit Contribution | Total (26 units) | |---|---:|---:| | General Amenity Reserve Fund | $3,800 | $98,800 | | Affordable Housing Reserve Fund | $1,000 | $26,000 | | **TOTAL POLICY CONTRIBUTIONS** | | **$124,800** | [Amenity contribution slide image] --- ### Development Cost Charges Source pages: 56–78 ## Development Cost Charges Development Cost Charge Per Unit Contribution Total (26 units) | Item | Per Unit Contribution | Total (26 units) | |---|---:|---:| | Roads | $3,865 | $100,490 | | Park Improvement | $1,948 | $50,648 | | Park Acquisition | $130 | $3,380 | | Incremental Storage Improvement Fees | $371.25 | $9,652.50 | | **Subtotal (DCC’s paid to City of Langford)** | | **$164,170.50** | | CRD Water | $1,644 | $42,744 | | School Site Acquisition | $800 | $20,800 | | **TOTAL (estimate) DCC’s** | | **$227,714.50** | [Image: Slide showing DCC breakdown and totals] --- ### Conclusion Source pages: 56–78 ## Conclusion - Meets City of Langford OCP - Close to City’s Downtown - No variances requested - Creates affordable housing in the neighbourhood - Fits in well with the neighbourhood - Housing that is modern and energy efficient - Development creates a new park in the downtown core [Image: Final perspective renderings and site plan overview] --- Thank you for the opportunity to present this project [Image: Closing slide with "Thank you" text and 829 Development Group logo]