Inside Langford

Three developments were discussed at last week’s Planning, Zoning, and Affordable Housing Committee meeting, last week. Two of the proposals met with the committee’s approval as requested by the developer, and one did not. Below are highlights of the meeting.

=========================================

The first matter on the agenda was a proposal for “approximately” 32 townhouse units at 3350 Happey Valley road. Parking was at issue: the architect, representing developer Paul King, requested variances to reduce parking requirements fromm two parking spots per townhouse to one parking spot per bedroom (meaning two spots for a two bedroom townhouse, but only one spot for a one bedroom townhouse). Their argument was that if was a two bedroom home with a one bedroom basement suite that only three parking spots would be required.

The proponent submitted a number of letters from what they indicated were residents in the area. Committee member Steve Harvey questioned that after reviewing the letters, indicating that none of them appeared to be from people who lived in the area of the proposed development.

Another committee member wondered if there were any wheelchair accessible units, and was told that at this time there were none but that they could put in ramps to some of the homes, he supposed.

When it was time for the public to offer comment, the themes of parking and traffic dominated. One resident indicated that the traffic study referred to in the staff report was performed before other new developments in the area were completed, and the traffic had increased in the neighbourhood since those new neighbours moved in. Other neighbours reported problems getting out of their existing driveways and commented on the lack of sidewalks for school children.

City of Langford engineer John Manson indicated the building permit would come with improved frontage. On an interim basis they may allow parking on Happy Valley road, but noted that they are building a parallel road system to Happey Valley with a long-term intention to take all of the access points off of Happy Valley (meaning, long-term, driveways will be on side streets, not on the “main drag”).

Steve Harvey questioned about scalloped parking spots, and wondered if they will be maintained. John Manson indicated they might not all remain.

Developer Paul King had indicated he had knocked on doors in the neighbourhood, but one resident questioned that. He said that Paul King had not come to him. In his defence, Mr. King claimed he had knocked on the resident’s door three times. The resident countered that he was a full-time single Dad who spent most of his time at home and found the claim unlikely. The resident then offered his property as a potential cul de sac location. Lillian Szpak said some people here may be interested and asked if he was seriously offering to sell.

Engineer John Manson indicated that “The development is a compromise on the driveway,” referencing complaints from neighbours that the development’s driveway was in a location that concerned them. “Development does not always occur where we want the lights.”

John Manson did express concerns about the fact that there would be three stratas sharing a road and sharing street parking, and later that shared services (such as sewer) could be an issue. He indicated that these concerns needed more looking into.

Throughout, committee member and local developer Malcolm Hall had been emphatic that he would not speak until after all the public had spoken despite encouragement from Councillor Szpak to do so earlier in the meeting. Mr. Hall argued that pushing the envelope in design was good when the proposal was innovative, smart, and sensitive to the neighbours. This proposal did not meet those three tests and he strongly encouraged the committee not to recommend approval of the variance request because of that.

Committee member Norma Stewart questioned why scalloped parking should be allowed when the intention is for all driveways to eventually be removed from Happy Valley. Engineer Manson replied that arterial routes in Greater Vancouver sometimes have parking and that it appears to work just fine there.

Malcolm Hall proposed that the motion the committee endorse insist that the development adhere to the parking bylaw, noting that allows for seven in-line/tandem parking spots (earlier he had mentioned that seven in-line spots effectively translates to three or four spots). Councillor Denise Blackwell indicated her agreement, noting she also sits on another committee which she said has become “the no parking committee”. The wording of the motion included a suggestion from Steve Harvey that the number of bike racks in the proposed development be increased from four to eight. A clause dealing with construction parking being accomodated on-site during the building was also added. The committee approved the motion without the developer’s requested variances.

=========================================

The next proposal to be discussed, 2899 Kettle Lake Drive, met the parking bylaw, but also creatively restricted use of the development’s car-ports to car-only. One frequent refrain in committee meetings is that parking issues are exascerbated in some neighbourhoods by people turning their car-ports and garages over to storage, or other uses.

There was a question from the committee about why Fire Chief Bob Beckett had not been signing off on development proposals, but Councillors Szpak and Blackwell indicated that he was on vacation and that others at the fire department were looking over the proposals instead.

The committee recommended approval of the variances.

=========================================

The final proposal, 3365 Happy Valley being rezoned from “Agricultural 1″ to “Medium-Density Apartment” to allow for “approximately” 22 apartments, brought a concern from a neighbour of the development about an environmental reserve, and hoped that the requested variances would be appropriate for maintaining the environmental integrity of the area. City Planner Matthew Baldwin indicated that this would be looked at during the Development Permit phase, and would involve a report from a professional biologist.

Neighbours of the development indicated that the area had numerous problems with dumping and that calls to bylaw had produced no results. Councillor Lillian Szpak informed them that Langford’s Bylaw Enforcment department needed two signed letters submitted before they can act, and Councillor Denise Blackwell suggested getting licence plate numbers would be really helpful, and then suggested that Matthew Baldwin talk to bylaw because no one from the department was present at the meeting.

Concerns were expressed about construction parking, and the proponent suggested he would try to approach a neighbouring development about accomodating construction parking, for a fee.

The committee recommended approval of the variances.