Staff Report to Sustainable Development Advisory Committee - Bylaw No. 2082 (Zoning Amendment No. 679, Omnibus 60)

BACKGROUND

On September 6, 2022, Council gave First Reading of Bylaw 2082 – Omnibus 60, which outlines various amendments to Zoning Bylaw 300, addressing issues that have been brought to staff’s attention.
As a condition of First Reading, Council requested that two items be removed from the Bylaw such that they could be further researched:

1. Minimum space dimensions for attached parking garages.
2. Tandem parking in townhouse developments.

Following the resolution, staff have further reviewed best practices for these items and recommend Council move forward with implementing minimum garage dimensions and retain the current flexibility for tandem parking. In addition, accessible parking requirements have been added to the Omnibus, presented below. Should Council support these proposed amendments, they may wish to rescind First Reading of Bylaw 2082 and give First Reading to the bylaw as re-drafted.

COMMENTARY

Given the comprehensive nature of the Zoning Bylaw, it is common practice to identify amendments in response to administrative or design issues, and to ensure the bylaw is functioning as intended. All proposed changes have been consolidated into the table below, including a brief rationale for each amendment.

Proposed Changes and Rationale

1. Section 4, Parking Regulations — add as section 4.01.02 (2) to Zoning Bylaw No. 300

Proposed change:

• The minimum dimensions for attached garages is 3m x 6m for a single wide, single car garage, 3m x 12m for a single-wide, double car garage (i.e. tandem) and 6m x 6m for a double wide, double car garage, measured from finished interior surface

Rationale:

• The proposed amendment would establish a minimum internal clear space requirement. Staff are proposing this amendment to ensure parking spaces are suitable for parking of vehicles in an enclosed space, acknowledging that clearance to the walls of a garage is required in order to comfortably park. If insufficient clearance to walls and other vehicles is provided, people will be less likely to park in their garage and instead the owners occupy on-street parking spaces. This proposal is based on standard car sizes and the safe clearance required from the internal garage walls.

2. Section 6.91(1)(a) – Comprehensive Development 2 – Hull’s Field (CD2) Zone

Proposed change:

• Add the following as a permitted use: 2. Accessory Dormitories.

Rationale:

• This proposed change is designed to capture the short-term dormitories for athletes within the City’s properties near Starlight Stadium.

3. Section 6.58.01(1) – City Centre Pedestrian CCP Zone

Proposed change:

• Allow the following as a permitted use: 3. Apartments on the ground floor and/or second floor of a building, when located on a corner lot and facing the secondary street, which may not include Peatt Rd, Claude Rd, Goldstream Ave, Veterans Memorial Parkway, or Jacklin Rd;

Rationale:

• A corner lot faces two intersecting streets, with each side of a building facing one of the streets. Allowing additional residential uses along one side of the building would promote walk-up townhouse units with entrances at grade on the secondary street while still supporting commercial activity on adjacent commercial/pedestrian corridors.

4. Section 3.26.02

Proposed change:

• Section 3.26.02 would be amended by adding Table 1 as section 3.26.02(9) and renumbering remaining sections accordingly: 4. Refer to Bylaw 2082 for details.

Rationale:

• The purpose of this amendment is to consolidate all daycare capacity exemptions from each zone into the same section of the Bylaw.

5. Section 6.22.03 – One-and Two-Family Residential (R2) Zone

Proposed change:

• The lot area for a two-family dwelling use may be less than 600 m2, but not less than 500 m2, provided that the lot width is not less than 17m.

Rationale:

• This proposed amendment is expected to have minimal impact on the perceived character and scale of R2 neighbourhoods, particularly with the increased lot width, and may provide a lower-cost option for home ownership in lower density neighbourhoods. This would be an alternate option to the current two-family lot dimension requirements of 600 m2 with 15m lot width.

6. Section 3.02 - Prohibited Uses

Proposed change:

• The following would be prohibited in all zones: 6. A landscape retaining wall visible from neighbouring properties or municipal roads, that is constructed of smooth concrete blocks and/or are of a natural concrete colour, ranging from white to grey.

Rationale:

• The purpose of this amendment is to promote retaining walls with more attractive materials (e.g. stone masonry, bricks or sand-blasted concrete with interesting patterns or other suitable finish).

7. Section 1.01 – Definitions

Proposed change:

• Add the following definition: 7. Landscape Retaining Wall - means a wall that retains any earthy material that prevents it from sliding, eroding, or moving.

Rationale:

• There are currently no retaining wall guidelines or definitions within Zoning Bylaw 300. This definition is required in order to distinguish retaining walls from other “structures”, which would trigger setback requirements.

8. Section 4.01.07 – Accessible Parking

Proposed change:

• Section 4.01.07 – Accessible Parking – would be amended by adding the following accessible parking requirements: 8. See 4.01.07(1)(2)(3) below.

Background / Rationale:

• Bylaw 300 currently does not include a ratio for accessible parking in residential developments because the BC Building Code (“BCBC”) used to set the standards for accessible parking.
• In 2018 the BCBC removed the requirements for accessible parking to allow local governments to retain or establish their own requirements and bylaws.
• Prior to the BCBC adopting its own specifications (circa 2012), the City of Langford had its own regulations for accessible parking (both ratios and space dimensions).
• To address the regulatory gap between the BC Building Code and the City’s bylaw, staff are proposing to revert to the 2012 Zoning Bylaw 300 provisions.
• It is noted for Council’s reference that the space dimensions are provided in accordance with the 2020 Building Accessibility Handbook, issued by the Office of Housing and Construction Standards.

Section 4.01.07(1) – Accessible Parking Accessible parking spaces must be provided as follows:

Plus 1 for each residential unit designed or intended to be used by a disabled person (included in the overall parking spaces count)

(2) Accessible parking stalls must be sized and located as follows:

1. With minimum width of 3.9 m and a minimum depth of 5.8 m or a minimum width of 2.75 m (9 ft), provided an additional 1.2 m wide loading zone or access isle is included and is shared with an adjacent accessible parking space. The minimum functional width of each accessible space must be 3.9 m; and
2. Be clearly identified as accessible parking only;
3. Be connected to the building entrance by a marked access route that avoids travel behind parked vehicles.

(3) Accessible parking spaces for commercial uses must be provided as follows: 4) A minimum of 1 accessible parking space shall be provided where Table 1 of Section 4.01.01 requires the provision of more than 10 and fewer than 30 off-street parking spaces, excluding those required for dwelling units, and for every 50 spaces or part thereof in excess of 30.

FINANCIAL IMPLICATIONS

There are no financial implications for the above noted amendments.

LEGAL IMPLICATIONS

There are no legal implications for the above noted amendments.

OPTIONS

Option 1
THAT the Sustainable Development Advisory Committee recommend:

1. That Council rescind First Reading of Bylaw 2082 and proceed with consideration of First Reading of Bylaw 2082 as re-drafted.

OR Option 2

THAT the Sustainable Development Advisory Committee recommend:

1. That Council take no action with respect to Bylaw 2082 until such time as the following items are addressed and reviewed by the Sustainable Development Advisory Committee:

a. ________________;
b. ________________;
c. ________________;

SUBMITTED BY

David Sametz, MCIP, RPP, Planner II – Long Range Planning

Concurrence:
Leah Stohmann, MCIP, RPP, Deputy Director of Planning and Subdivision
Concurrence:
Donna Petrie, Senior Manager of Business Development and Events
Concurrence:
Yari Nielsen, Director of Parks, Recreation and Facilities
Concurrence:
Matthew Baldwin, MCIP, RPP, Director of Planning and Subdivision
Concurrence:
Katelyn Balzer, P.Eng., Director of Engineering and Public Works
Concurrence:
Michael Dillabaugh, CPA, CA, Director of Finance
Concurrence:
Marie Watmough, Deputy Director of Corporate Services
Concurrence: Braden Hutchins, Director of Corporate Services
Concurrence:
Darren Kiedyk, Chief Administrative Officer