# 646 Atkins Ave Rezoning Application - Presentation Meeting: Regular Council — September 23, 2024 Canonical HTML: [Open Langford]() Meeting record updated: 2026-10-19T07:20:27.821998+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: 50–59 ## AI-processed summary Applicant slide presentation summarizing the 646 Atkins rezoning proposal: location, current site, proposed subdivision to RS1 (six small lots + remainder), community engagement feedback, comparison to R2, and conclusions supporting 'missing middle' housing. ## Extracted text ### 646 Atkins Ave Rezoning Application - Presentation Source pages: 50–59 ## 646 Atkins Ave Rezoning Application - Presentation ### General Location Source pages: 50–59 ## General Location [Image 1: General location map - Central Langford] ### Zoomed In Location Source pages: 50–59 ## Zoomed In Location [Image 2: Zoomed-in location map - edge of City Center] [Image 3: Context map/photo showing transition zone] - Zoomed in location. - On edge of “City Center" - Transition zone from higher density “Downtown Core’ into lower density SFRs ### What it is currently Source pages: 50–59 ## What it is currently [Image 4: Photo/site plan of existing main house and lot] [Image 5: Photo/site view showing ADUs and bare land] R2 zoning: - 1 Main house - 2 ADUS - Shed - Bare land ### Proposal: “What we want to do” Source pages: 50–59 ## Proposal: “What we want to do” [Image 6: Diagram of proposed carve-off of front house] [Image 7: Concept diagram of rezoning and subdivision to RS1] 1) Carve off front house (R2, freehold) 2) Rezone “back” from R2 to RS1 3) Subdivide back into 6 RS1 lots (land strata) ### What it might look like Source pages: 50–59 ## What it might look like [Image 8: Example image of RS1 development - Foxwood Plc] [Image 9: Example site/streetscape - Foxwood Plc] [Image 10: Example dwelling types - Foxwood Plc] Example of similar RS1 density: Foxwood Plc, Happy Valley area ### Comparison to current R2 zoning Source pages: 50–59 ## Comparison to current R2 zoning - No change in maximum allowed density - No change in building heights or setbacks Under current R2 zoning can subdivide “back area” into 3 lots with max 6 units/lot Under proposed RS1 zoning can subdivide back into 6 lots with max 3 units/lot | Zoning | Lots (subdivide back area) | Max units per lot | Total max units | |---|---:|---:|---:| | R2 | 3 lots | 6 units/lot | 18 units | | RS1 | 6 lots | 3 units/lot | 18 units | R2: 3 lots x 6 units = 18 units max density RS1: 6 lots x 3 units = 18 units max density ### Precedent / Neighbourhood Character Source pages: 50–59 ## Precedent / Neighbourhood Character [Image 11: Neighbourhood photo showing RS1 precedent] There is already lots of precedent for RS1 zoning in this area / neighbourhood - Residential neighbourhood where high density DT core transitions into lower density residential - Moderate density RS1 seems suitable in keeping with character of neighbourhood ### Community Engagement Source pages: 50–59 ## Community Engagement [Image 12: Photo or map showing canvassing area / community engagement materials] - Canvassed local neighbourhood, gave 3 page printout, spoke in person with most - Area canvassed door to door - Generally neutral to supportive - Neighbours further away more neutral/indifferent - Direct neighbours more engaged - “Figured it was a matter of time until it was developed, glad it’s not high-rise condos” - Main concerns: tall buildings (don’t want high-rise condos), any loss of privacy, construction noise (temporary), traffic not really a concern - Fence: concerned about loss of privacy, fence is currently 8 ft, needs replacing, bylaw is 5.9 ft, want to retain height, ask for variance? ### Conclusion Source pages: 50–59 ## Conclusion - Current property has lots of bare land - not highest and best use - Development will add much needed “missing middle” housing supply - In keeping with character of neighbourhood - Already precedent for RS1 zoning in neighbourhood - No changes to density, heights or setbacks - 6 small lots will be more affordable than 3 big ones - More likely to be owner-occupied vs potential for 3 x 6-plex apartments (rentals) - Most neighbours generally supportive or neutral, mainly glad not high-rise condos [Image 13: Closing slide / “Thank you!”]