District of Lantzville · District of Lantzville February 20 & 25, 20 I 9 Committee of the Whole Meeting Minutes -DRAFT Page 3 of3 MEETING RESUMED: 5:30 pm, Monday, February 25, 2019

Page No. 1

2-4

5-33

34-40

District of Lantzville lncoiporated June 2003

Agenda for the Committee of the Whole Meeting of the District of Lantzville to be held on Monday, April 8, 2019, at 7:00 pm in the Council Chamber, Municipal Hall, 2nd Floor - 7192 Lantzville Road, Lantzville, BC

1.

2.

3.

4.

Meetings Recorded by the District of Lantzville may be Viewed at www.lantzville.ca

ADOPTION OF THE AGENDA THAT the April 8, 2019 Committee of the Whole meeting agenda be

adopted, as presented.

PUBLIC INPUT PERIOD (Persons recognized by the Chair to speak must first state their name and address for the record, may speak once for up to 2 minutes (unless the Committee resolves otherwise), and are limited to providing comment regarding items listed on the agenda for this meeting (excluding public hearing topics). Comments must be directed to the Chair anti are not to be directed to individual Council members, staff or the audience.

APPROVAL OF MINUTES THAT the February 20/25, 2019 Committee of the Whole meeting minutes

be approved, as presented.

OFFICIAL COMMUNITY PLAN (OCP) DISCUSSION CONTINUED a) Background

b)

- February 20, 2019 Recommendation - February 6, 2019 Presentation

Councillor Savage's Recommendations for Changes to the OCP Background - Councillor Savage's Additional Information for February 20/25, 2019

COTW - February 25, 2019 COTW Motion

THAT the nine recommendations for changes to the Official Community Plan Draft #3 submitted by Councillor Savage be referred to staff to provide recommendations.

- Staff Response to Councillor Savage's Enquiries/Suggestions Regarding the Draft Official Community Plan

5. INTRODUCTION OF LATE ITEMS

6. PUBLIC CLARIFICATION/INPUT PERIOD (Persons recognized by the Chair to speak must first state their name and address for the record, may speak once for up to 2 minutes (unless the Committee resolves otherwise), are limited to asking clarification questions or providing comment regarding business discussed by the Committee at this meeting ( excluding public hearing topics). Comments or clarification questions must be directed to the Chair and are not to be directed to individual Council members, staff or the audience.

7. ADJOURNMENT THAT the Committee of the Whole meeting be adjourned.

P1

DRAFT Minutes of the Committee of the Whole Meeting of the District of Lantzville held on Wednesday, February 20, 2019 at 5:00 pm and Monday, February 25, 2019 at 5:30 pm in the Municipal Ball, Council Chamber, 2nd Floor - 7192 Lantzville Road, Lantzville, BC

PRESENT: Council: Mayor Mark Swain Councillor Will Geselbracht Councillor Karen Proctor Councillor Ian Savage Councillor Jamie Wilson

Staff: Ronald Campbell, Chief Administrative Officer Trudy Coates, Director of Corporate Administration Jamie Slater, Director of Financial Services Kyle Young, Director of Planning Fred Spears, Director of Public Works

Mayor Swain called the meeting to order at 5:00 pm and aclmowledged that the meeting was being held on the traditional territories of the Snaw-Naw-As, the Nanoose First Nation.

ADOPTION OF THE AGENDA MOVED and SECONDED, THAT the Committee of the Whole February 20, 2019 meeting agenda be adopted, as presented. CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY

PUBLIC INPUT PERIOD - Nil

APPROVAL OF MINUTES MOVED and SECONDED, THAT the January 14, 2019 Committee of the Whole meeting minutes be approved, as presented. ~ CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY

OFFICIAL COMMUNITY PLAN REVIEW & NEW ZONING BYLAW UPDATE MOVED and SECONDED, THAT the Committee of the Whole recommends THAT staffbe directed to amend the Official Community Plan Draft #3 to: 1) Add Development Permit Area (DP A) to address interface wildfire risks; 2) Add DP A to address potential geohazards associated with historic mining activity; 3) Increase emphasis on ecological values and require green shores approaches to shoreline

protection to be considered as a priority; 4) Add DP A to address farmland protection; and 5) Remove Development Approval Information Area (DAIA) requirements from the OCP and

establish a separate DAIA bylaw to comply with legislation CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY

The Committee discussed the remaining seven recommendations.

Councillor Savage left the meeting at 6:55 pm and returned to the meeting at 6:57 pm.

MEETING RECESSED: 6:57 pm MEETING RESUMED: 7:10 pm with all of Council in attendance. Also, R. Campbell, T. Coates, J. Slater, K. Young and F. Spears.

MOVED and SECONDED, THAT the Committee of the Whole recommends THAT staffbe directed to amend the Official Community Plan Draft #3 to remove the prescriptive density bonus for parkland. Opposed: Mayor Swain and Councillors Savage and Wilson DEFEATED

P2

District of Lantzville February 20 & 25, 2019 Committee of the Whole Meeting Minutes-DRAFT Page 2 of3

MOVED and SECONDED, THAT the Committee of the Whole recommends THAT staff be directed to amend the Official Community Plan Draft #3 to ensure that parkland acquisition is consistent with the designations in the OCP and Lantzville' s parks and trails plan. Opposed: Mayor Swain and Councillors Savage and Wilson DEFEATED

MOVED and SECONDED, THAT the Committee of the Whole refer the balance of the recommendations on the agenda for consideration at the Committee of the Whole meeting to continue at 6:00 pm on Monday, February 25, 2019 in the Council Chamber, 7192 Lantzville Road, Lantzville, BC. Opposed: Councillor Wilson CARRIED

MOVED and SECONDED, THAT the Committee of the Whole instructs staff to circulate the recommendations from Councillor Savage as additional information for the continuation of the COTW meeting on February 25, 2019. CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY

INTRODUCTION OF LATE ITEMS - Nil

PUBLIC CLARIFICATION/INPUT PERIOD • Bob Colclough, Aulds Road, commented on Council conduct, gamble of whether the OCP will be

too restrictive/deter applications, result in no additional parkland and missing link of no housing diversity

• Dave Scott, Harwood Drive, commented on the OCP being a visioningpolicy document, not a bylaw to lay out sizes, setbacks, etc. and risk of not attaining vision of green space, housing diversity and redevelopment of the Village core if OCP too restrictive.

• Graham Savage, Harwood Drive, commented on the risk of the OCP being too prescriptive, density tables in zoning bylaws, interpretations of green space, Parks Plan history.

MOVED and SECONDED, THAT Council allow the speaker to continue beyond the two-minute limitation. CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY

G. Savage commented on the importance of balance, risk of not attaining the diversity of housing. • Garry Gaudet, Tweedhope Road, commented on appreciation for prior speakers, citizen input, and

vision of diverse housing, very livable community, with parkland, trails and some commercial development.

Staff confirmed that staff are to distribute submissions received February 21, 2019 from Council members as additional information for February 25, 2019 and to place recommendations on a Council agenda after all recommendations have been finalized.

ADJOURNMENT MOVED and SECONDED, THAT the Committee of the Whole meeting be adjourned to resume on Monday, February 25, 2019 at 6:00 pm in the Council Chamber, 7192 Lantzville Road, Lantzville, BC. CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY

MEETING ADJOURNED: 7:55 pm, Wednesday, February 20, 2019

[Meeting rescheduled to resume at 5:30 pm on Monday, February 25, 2019.]

P3

District of Lantzville February 20 & 25, 20 I 9 Committee of the Whole Meeting Minutes - DRAFT Page 3 of3

MEETING RESUMED: 5:30 pm, Monday, February 25, 2019 with all of Council in attendance except ,-...., Councillor Geselbracht. Also, R. Campbell, T. Coates, J. Slater and K. Young.

The Mayor called the meeting to order at 5:30 pm and acknowledged that the meeting was being held on the traditional territories of the Snaw-Naw-As, the Nanoose First Nation.

OFFICIAL COMMUNITY PLAN REVIEW & NEW ZONING BYLAW UPDATE The Committee discussed the remaining recommendations for changes to the Official Community Plan Draft #3.

Councillor Geselbrachtjoined the meeting at 6:37 pm.

The Committee considered the document with the nine recommendations for changes to the Official Community Plan Draft #3 submitted by Councillor Savage.

MOVED and SECONDED, THAT the nine recommendations for changes to the Official Community Plan Draft #3 submitted by Councillor Savage be referred to staff to provide recommendations. Opposed: Mayor Swain and Councillor Savage CARRIED

MOVED and SECONDED, THAT the Committee schedules the next Committee of the Whole meeting to be Monday, April 8, 2019 at 7 :00 pm in the Council Chamber, Municipal Hall, 7192 Lantzville Road, to continue the Official Community Plan discussion. CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY

INTRODUCTION OF LATE ITEMS - Nil

PUBLIC CLARIFICATION/INPUT PERIOD • Barry French, Southwind Drive, commented on reference to private property, staff report the OCP is

too prescriptive, need to work with developers to achieve a mixed variety of housing and not ½ acre lots, and history

• Joan Moody, Millard Drive, commented on reference to the OCP survey at the last meeting and starting the OCP process over

• Dave Scott, Harwood Drive, commented on reorganizing the OCP, benefit of having environmental regulations in one section, and parkland options.

ADJOURNMENT MOVED and SECONDED, THAT the Committee of the Whole meeting be adjourned. CARRIED UNAN™OUSLY

MEETING ADJOURNED: 6:40 pm, Monday, February 25, 2019

Certified Correct:

Trudy Coates, Director of Corporate Administration

Confirmed this day of , 2019.

Mark Swain, Mayor P4

BACKGROUND - Presentation Attached Referred to Committee of the Whole February 6, 2019 - Recommendation considered at February 20/25, 2019 Committee of the Whole:

THAT the Committee of the Whole recommends THAT staff be directed to amend the Official Community Plan Draft #3 to: • Add Development Permit Area (DP A) to address interface wildfire risks • Add DP A to address potential geohazards associated with historic mining

activity • Increase emphasis on ecological values and require green shores

approaches to shoreline protection to be considered as a priority • Add DP A to address farmland protection • Remove Development Approval Infonnation Area (DAIA) requirements

from the OCP and establish a separate DAIA bylaw to comply with legislation

• Remove prescriptive density bonus for parkland • Ensure that parkland acquisition is consistent with the designations in the

OCP and Lantzville' s parks and trails plan • Either include parkland and land acquisition in a community amenity

contribution policy and negotiate on a case-by-case through the rezoning process or, for certain smaller infill lots, include this as a financial amenity contribution requirement in the zoning bylaw (note: in accordance with s.482 of the LGA, density bonusing in exchange for amenities is most­appropriately located in a zoning bylaw)

• Remove density summary tables. Keep anticipated number of dwelling units. Keep supported land uses and general guidelines for development

• Use net density (or fonn-based policies) and minimum lot areas rather than gross density -> more relatable and relevant

• Highlight the Owen Road area in the OCP as an area that requires additional planning and land use analysis

• Re-organize OCP sections into more distinct policy areas and land use designations.

P5

-

7J -...J

Outline

• History/ Process

• Policy Issues and Recommended Framework

• Zoning Bylaw

• Possible Next Steps and Timing

. Questions

2

,~ ~ ~iP

Lctnti-~

-History

PHASE 1 PHASE 2 PHASE 3 PHASE 4 PHASE 7 PHASE 8

Create a Create a Understand ing Develop a PHASE 5 PHASE 6 Dr;,11 )C • 0 ,yl,,,.

"Snap Shot" Communications Community Conceptual Assess Dr a't na thP. 1\r,1,,11clrr A· (11 • ~

of Current Strategy

"Needs and Plan for Moving Oot,on:; OCP W,,,d•"'.J 110 Rev "W cH ,I

Conditions Wants· Forward G• ,, 11, i\(1""'' . r

July - Aug 2016 July - Aug 2016 Sept - Oct 2016 Oct - Nov 2016 Nov 2016 - Apr 2017 Apr - Jul 2017 Jul - Nov 2017 Nov 2017 - July 2018

Concurrent Water Master Plan Process ComplPtPrl Nc-,,,,,,1:-(,, 2017 0 ...... ....•...•..••.•.......... •.......•........•....................................

Events & Engagement

3

Minetown Day Comm, ,r11ty

K,r:koff EvPnt _, I • d,(,

OCP Review Select Committee Input ...l... ------------------------ ._..,,.. 2 - 3 - 4 - 5 6

Workshop Opt1011s Rc v,ev, I

Re finement

Public Open House

Draft D,rcc tio n~

Workshop A D,sruss,on 0 11

P10lim1n,1ry Opt ,rm,; & Ev,1lu,1t1t1n C111<"1<1

\: .,

',.

Community­wide Survey

Rf'v1ew111q Dr;i ft Dir0t.11on«

Kitchen Table Discussions

Exp lonn::_~ Pot,m1,c1I D11 ~c 110ns

. .' .. ) ,

I,, -• ,

7 - 8 - 9 • 10 11 --t First

Draft OCP Second

Draf t OCP ~ . I• • • 1(~ • . '"'-· ','i

First Draft OCP Public

Review .\;

Third Draft OCP

\j I '{1

OCP Public Hearing

Final OCr I • • I

-Local Government Act

An official community plan {OCP) is a statement of objectives and policies to guide decisions on planning and land use management

An OCP does not commit or authorize a municipality to proceed with any project that is specified in the plan.

All bylaws enacted or works undertaken by a council after the adoption of an OCP must be consistent with the OCP.

4

-

""CJ _. 0

Draft OCP

"We live in an ever-changing world." (pl draft OCP)

"An Official Community Plan ("OCP" or "Plan") is a policy document that describes a community's long-term plans for change and how these plans will be achieved." (pl

draft OCP)

5

#~'.. 'I .JP

L((tttz.~

~

(Jt '--0 ~

z -~

a, E

ta '--u.. -c a, -c C

a, E

,

E

0 u

a, a: -c C

ta V

, a, :l V

, V

,

->

u

·--0 0.

I P11

-DPAs - Natural Hazards - Interface Wildfire Risk

7

Currently no DPA for interface wildfires

If DPA added, a Development Permit application would be required prior to subdivision or development

Wildfire fuel management, building materials - consistent with FireSmart principles, review by professional required for larger subdivisions (~10 or more lots) and development

projects

Recommendation: add DPA to address interface wildfire risks

-

7J ....I.

(,:)

DPAs - Natural Hazards - Historic Coal Mines

Currently no DPA for historic mining activity

. If DPA added, a Development Permit application would be required prior to subdivision or development (DPA to match green area on map to right)

Geohazard risk

City of Nanaimo has DPA in place ,

• Review by geotechnical engineer

8

required

Recommendation: add DPA to address potential geohazards associated with historic mining activity

-=--+----I

N

D

-DPAs - Natural Hazards - Coastal Protection

DPA for coastal protection but emphasis is on natural hazard issues

. Applies to 15 m upland of natural boundary

. Review by qual ified environmental professional.

9

Recommendation: increase emphasis on ecological values and require green shores approaches to shoreline protection to be considered as a priority

-

-u ...... u,

DPAs - Farmland Protection

.

.

.

•

.

Currently no DPA for farmland protection in place

If DPA added, a Development Permit application would be required prior to subdivision or development (DPA to apply to areas adjacent to ALR - green areas on map to right).

The objective is to protect land in the ALR from the impacts of incompatible land uses (e.g. residential)

Buffering, setbacks, signage, farm impact covenants

Recommendation: add DPA to

10 address farmland protection

_ _j

' • I • ' ,1 0 I

I

• I I .. I : ~, •, .. 't• .. · :· ... ;,_ . , .. f

' •,i-, I •, - '.t• • ", ~-.~•:t_-,1: "a•• ' I I' I; •

I, , '11 I I .J;v, • . '1-.,!_ , I I ' . , ~ ;: - ~ . - I I ,. . ' . . I ~ ~1 . . - . I

I tr Jlf,• JC~t}"1"1. ,:;, :. • 1

1 ~ l I ···.:: · 'l .

1';',,: • • • i i•• I •t

• I

' 1 I~

. '

. I f_ '

. ·- .. !

-'

' .

\

-Development Approval Information

Under Section 485 of the LGA, a local government may designate a Development Approval Information Area (DAIA) in the OCP.

Under s.486 of the LGA, the process and substance of the DAIA must be established by separate bylaw.

With a bylaw in place, Council, an officer or an employee may require information from the applicant

Applies to zoning bylaw amendments, development permits and temporary use permits.

Recommendation: remove DAI requirements from OCP and establish a separate DAIA bylaw to comply with legislation.

11

~ )

-Development Approval Information

12

8 5.7 Dens i ty Bonus Criteria

70!:ilt .5 Otruirv ~OftUS Cn:tr!:

0 Communlt\' Water and Communnv 5e111er suoply

0 Hazard and GeotechnKal mapp1ne. ass~sment. and protemon

0 Bioloev rnventory and Veeetauon Cover mapoinc aM assessmen1, 1111th orotect1on of

Environmentally 5ensruve Areas (e.g., dedicatoon of watercourse. covenant of rrpanan area]

0 Watercourse. Storm Water Management, and Hydroeeoloi'f Assessment. wnh watercourse.

wetland. nparian arta, and aquifer orotcct10n, ~torm water source controls. erosion and sed,ment

control~

0 Transponatlon and Traffic analysis. road 1mproveme:nu. and m1t1gattna measures

0 Statutory Parkland Dedication (5%) or cash In lieu as determrnea by tne Din net

0 Trail linkages where snown on OCP maps (Journeyways. greenways, puolrc ways)

0 De,·elooment permit drawings and gu1dehne lmolementatron as required (e.c .. including form ana

character for multt-fam1ty. commercial. indusi:nal, and mo"d•use proJCCts)

0 Environmentall1• Sensinve Area land/ water ded1ca11on to Dlm,ct or approved Non-Government 0rgan11at10n (NGO)

0 Commun11V Amenft\' Contnbuuon or eQL!Mllent investment ,n oublK trails

0 Pubhc engagement on parkland/ tra~s system and completed mapping / repon to address

Forest backdrop gu,del,nes (e.e .. maxrmum clearm;; dimension o1 ZSO m between forest btmers)

• Vegetat~d buffers to edJacent res,denual / ALR areas

• Locatoons. bnkages. and mmrmum wraths or proposed public open space and •orest buf'ers. in

context wnh e-,mng buffers on ad1acent lands (e.g .. along E&N rail comdor or public n,hts of way)

• Phased/ hmned clearing plan for development areas. 1ncludmg schedule for retamrng forest cover on ur>developed lotS

0 ~dlcauon of parkland add1tlonal to the s,. statutory m1n1mum or cash 1n 1,eu as determ,ned by the

Distnct, wnh density bonus In accordance with the calculat,ons on Table 4

D Fundin& of Dmnct of Lanuv,lle and nelchl>ournood 11cnace at the nearest entrance into Lantzvtlle

te.g . Island Highway at Superior Road. Ware Roaa. or Aulds Road, Lonuville Road at Scheck Road)

T'Jt,.,o OA..roco~ .... M-V.i, $, .~OJ! ~.OC1t 0C>100$•,...(:r,c-'•r.:-•-l.,,N,d~l JO.; SOj .SO., "" 5 7!

-Parkland

- Residential Designation (OCP policies):

•

"'For subdivisions, the gross development density of areas designated Residential

outside the Village area is 5 units per hectare"

"Density Bonus units will be considered at a rate of 1 uph for each additional

10% of the total site area dedicated to park over the required 5% dedication."

13

1 hectare (ha) = 2.5 acres (ac)

Based on these policies, to go from½ acre minimum parcel areas to¼ acre parcel areas through the rezoning and subdivision process, 55% of the property would either need to be dedicated as parkland or cash-in-lieu provided. With a land value of $400,000, this would mean a $220,000 parkland amenity contribution. This would make a subdivision not ~~ . *~ financially viable. r-J~

L((ntt-~

-Parkland

Implications of parkland density bonus:

• Owners will not rezone to allow for smaller parcel areas.

• Land will be developed with½ acre parcels which, in some cases, will be inconsistent with the smaller surrounding properties. ½ acre parcels are not an efficient use of the land relative to the property taxes required to service those neighbourhoods (e.g. water, sewer, roads, active transportation, transit).

• If owners are not applying to rezone, the parkland amenities anticipated in the OCP policies will not be achieved.

Implication of significant and broad public parkland requirements:

14

• The District may sti ll acquire up to 5% parkland under the LGA for subdivisions involving at least 3 new additional parcels, but these may be small pieces of land that are more difficult to use and maintain than larger consolidated parks, and that are inconsistent with and contradictory to the locations identified in the OCP and the District's parks and trails plan (see next slide) ~ti

~ _,, ~ttfi.~

-

""O I\) 0

Parkland

Map 6 from draft OCP

--

lU-,.tl.,f"l~Ulil•.,,i

I

15

~-I -

, I

-Parkland

• Recommendations:

• Remove prescriptive density bonus for parkland.

• Ensure that parkland acquisition is consistent with the designations in the OCP and Lantzville's parks and trails pl_an.

• Either include parkland or land acquisition in a community amenity

contribution policy and negotiate on a case-by-case through the rezoning process or, for certain smaller infill lots, include this as a financial amenity contribution requirement in the zoning bylaw (note: in accordance with s.482 of the LGA, density bonusing in exchange for amenities is most-appropriately located in a zoning bylaw).

This will allow the District to be more strategic about where and when to acquire land for a variety of purposes, including parkland.

Walkways, pathways and any buffering or landscaping requirements in theA zoning bylaw and DP guidelines are separate from parkland. ~ \ - ' '

16 L4ntz.Vif&

Parkland

-Scenario 1- draft OCP, no rezoning

3 new ½ acre lots

Statutory parkland dedication: 5% or $24,200

No amenities

Scenario 2 - draft OCP, rezoning

6 new ¼ acre lots

Statutory parkland dedication: 5% or $24,200

Parkland amenity: 50% dedication or $242,000 cash-in-lieu

Likely not viable

Scenario 3 - recommended, no rezoning

6 new ¼ acre lots

Statutory parkland dedication : 5% or $24,200

Amenity zoning - e.g. $2,000 / lot for land acquisition = $12,000

17

Density Summary Tables

-Village Special Planning Areas

7J I\) (,.)

18

., ....... ,

DISTRICT OF

LANTZVILLE OFFICIAL

COMMUNITY PLAN

MAP NO. SA

Village Special Plan Areas

Legend

BYLAW NO. SO.XX. 2017

_\ N

Village South Special Planning Area Density Summary Table

Density. Height. and Green Space Ranges

4. Maximum Base Gross Density of resident ial units shall be as shown in Table 8. If all density bonus

conditions and criteria expressed in Part Two, Sect ion 8.5 were met to the satisfaction of the

Dist rict. the allowable Maximum Gross Density with all density bonuses in Table 8 would be pcrm11tcd.

Tobtr H: V1llog,. South SPA• dtm1ty \ummary

Base Gross Density

ESA Dedication Bonus

Park/ Trail Bonus

Cluster/ Housing Choice Bonus

Innovation Bonus

Max. Gross Density with all Density Bonuses

Approximate Range of Potential Units (assuming 19 ha gross area developed)

Building Height

Protected Open Space Targets

» 10 uph {units per hectare)

n N/A

» Up to 2.0 uph max

» Up to 0.5 uph max

• Up to 0.5 uph max

» Res,drnt ial SF and MF: 13 uph

» 190 to 247 units depending on uptake of density bonus and mix of single•fomily to multi•family housing forms

» Maximum height of two•storeys. plus allowance for slope

Public park space: 20%

» Plus semi-private· space which is encouraged to include ponds. wetlands, and scmi•public courtyard areas

• scm,.p,ivarc means strata ,ommon orco with pubhc access covc11onc or cau1volcflf

V)

QJ

..c ~ >

'--ro E

E

:::J

V)

>

....., ·-V) C

Q

J

0

V)

OJ ..c ~ >

L..

ro E

E

::J

V)

>

+-'

·-V) C

OJ 0

-~

I 0 N

P2

5

-

-a I\) CJ)

Density Summary Tables

Implications:

• Density numbers do not align with the supported land uses

• Land owners are likely to proceed under current zoning provisions

• Since gross density used across whole land use designation, no guidance on individual land use and development applications

• Limits ability to negotiate for community amenity contributions

Recommendations:

• Remove density summary tables

• Keep anticipated number of dwelling units

• Keep supported land uses and general guidelines for development

• Use net density (or form-based policies) and minimum lot areas rather than gross density-> more relatable and relevant

Rezoning and development permit applications will still require Council approval

21

~~ r,1 L((tttJ.~

ro Q

J L

.. <

(

-0

ro 0 a:: C

Q

J

~

0 N

N

I P

27

-

-u I\) (X)

Owen Road Area

• Recommendation: Highlight the Owen Road area in the OCP as an area that requires additional planning and land use analysis.

• In the interim, rezoning applications will be considered by Council on a case-by-case basis.

23

-

"U I\) co

Organization of OCP

• Recommendation: Re-organize OCP sections into more distinct policy areas and land use designations

• Will improve readability and clarity

24

,, L~nti-~

-

""CJ (.u 0

Zoning Bylaw

. New zoning bylaw to be developed in 2019

. Existing bylaw created in 2005 but based on 1987 RDN zoning bylaw for electoral area

. Needs to be consistent with OCP and specific to Lantzville context

. Proposed to be completed and presented concurrently with new OCP

Include zoning for density bonusing based on the provision of amenities

25

-

"'O (.v _,_

Principles for Policy and Regulatory Framework

• Ability to realize the community's vision

• Appropriate phasing of new development and growth management

• Maintain the character of (and reduce the impact on) existing established neighbourhoods

• Ensure that special planning areas go through the rezoning process

• Ensure that appropriate community amenities are provided as part of new development

~ '_,, I, ~'::: OfJ"'

26 '--~"~" ~

-

-u (,.) I\)

Proposed Next Steps and Timing

• February 6 to March 6 - update draft OCP, prepare draft Zoning Bylaw and community amenity contribution policy.

• March 18 - present policy and regulatory framework to Council (regular meeting)

• March 27 - public open house - present draft OCP and zoning bylaw

• April 15 - consideration of 1st and 2nd readings of OCP and zoning bylaw

• May - Public Hearing (depending of timing of ALC comments)

June 10 - adoption of OCP and zoning bylaw

27

"'~ I _,P '~ L l( 11tz.\ri£&

V1

C

0 ·--1-' V

) Q

J :::J C

f I 0

0

N

P3

3

£(Abtl\1tfed ~ ~tici/1~ ~f( aJ Ad<Jsfi~oJ \V\fol'~~~)~ J~t~tot~;;,, Let me preface by saying most of the recommendations below are simply housekeeping

items and make little difference in the big picture. I am submitting them to fix contradictions

in the plan and clean up some language. If they have the result of bogging down the process ~

with endless discussion and editing, it's not worth it. There are a few recommendations

however which I believe will improve flexibility and potentially effect results in a good way.

Each recommendation is wordy due to being explicit in the what and why. I certainly

welcome input on any of them and would be happy to amend.

My recommendations

1. In special plan areas and Residential designated land, base density in the ocp should be

the same as current zoning. Why? Because any uplift in zoning should be accompanied by

something for the community. An uplift in rezoning should not be given away for free. In

both "Residential" land designation and in special plan areas, there is a rezoning uplift given

away for free - an increase from a minimum lot size of 1/2 acre to two lots per acre which

equate to .38 to .475 acre lot sizes.

Also, by having a base density of minimum 1/2 acre lot sizes, there will be a greater increase

in benefit to the property owner, when applying density bonusing. Put another way, the t4'-.,

lower the base density, the greater the increase in the number of lots, when density

bonusing is applied. This makes density bonusing more enticing for the person subdividing.

To give one example: A 5 acre property needs to dedicate 5% park and 20% for roads and

services. In this scenario, the property would yield 7 half acre lots or 10 lots at 2 lots per

acre. The ocp draft gives away this 3 lot increase for free.

2. Remove all pictures (not diagrams) from the ocp- In many cases they don't fully

represent the written words. The 2005 ocp did not have pictures. Also most of the pictures

present just one particular style of architecture.

3. Remove 11. 7 .3 #40 - because it prescribes a particular-architecture style. Both the Village ~ Improvement report and the draft ocp recommend to not have just one type of architecture.

The reasons for this are P34

1. tastes in architecture vary amongst residents, and

2. Advanced green technologies will influence the design of a building, from the angle of a

~oof for solar panels, or the placement of windows for passive solar heat or minimizing heat

1055.

3. Provincial Energy Step Code is coming soon which will also influence architectural

requirements.

Remove the following for the same reason :

-Figure 79 Right after 11. 7 .3 # 42

-Figure 80 Remove "Avoid boxy ••• etc.

-# 45 , 46, 47 This was from the 2005 ocp

-#53, #54, #55

4.) 11. 7.3 # 9 Eliminate. Why? This might be applicable in the village, for business

surveillance, but not throughout all land uses. For privacy reasons some residents would like

to block off the street with greenery which is very common. Also, for the village, it

~ntradicts # 13 which is to promote vegetation, and contradicts C # 44 which promotes a

variety of architectural expressions.

If fellow councillors don't want to delete 11. 7 .3 #9 then at least add the words "where it

doesn't effect or diminish greenspace". Why? Because we're trying to green up our village

centre, not have it barren, for the sake of surveillance. It contradicts# 13 which is to

promote vegetation, and contradicts C # 44 which promotes a variety of architectural

expressions.

5) 11.10 DPA V111- Insert "and to all applicable private lands within 15 m of that section

of the railway right of way, which is adjacent to Hwy 19 as shown on Map 10. Why? Because

the small fringe of trees bordering the Gee property are under the jurisdiction of the railway

and Highways, and could be removed. If a tree buffer is maintained on the edge of the Gee

~operty, it will diminish noise and exhaust fumes. It wouldn't effect ocean views.

P35

6.) Section 7 .1 third bullet down - "In Special Plan Areas outside the Village, encourage a

range of housing choice. While these areas should be dominated by single family family

housing in various lot sizes, other choices may include limited areas of multifamily housing." ~

Recommendation - replace the phrase "should be dominated by'' with "may have". Why?

Because this will allow more options for housing choices, which is what residents want.

Strata seniors cottages were a very popular idea during the ocp process and are included as

a housing choice in the ocp draft. The Clark Dr special plan area is near a mobile home park,

and a marijuana dispensary, "blending in with neighbourhoods" argument wouldn't apply.

On Ronald Rd there are only 14 adjacent homes on Philip. They would likely be happier with

low patio homes not blocking their view as opposed to big houses. The East Lantzville special

plan area - This is at a main entry point to Lantzville. An opportunity to have something

special as opposed to yet more average houses on average lots • We have almost nothing

but houses on lots and residents have clearly requested more housing choices.

Of note, in non village special plan areas, the ratio of strata homes to fee simple homes was

not vetted in the ocp process. It was just acknowledged the majority wanted housing

choices. Hence, this refined detail could be determined during each rezoning process. I

suspect a beautifully designed strata development would be supported more than a

standard subdivision.

Delete the word "limited". Replace the the term "multifamily housing" with "strata homes".

Why? Because the term strata homes allows far more variety of choices - patio home style,

townhouse style, tiny homes, seniors cottages, attached or detached homes ••• The term

"multifamily" means multiple homes in the same building, which is just one example of

housing choice.

7 .) 5.27 Residential designated land

#1 "Permitted uses within areas designated Residential include single~family homes •••

Recommendation -change the term "single family homes" to "fee simple single family

homes or strata single family horn.es"

Why? Because some of the Residential designated properties are large, like the 18 acres on

Fernmar, 11.37 acres lot 10 Owen Rd, amd 10.07 acres lot 8 Owen Rd. If these have nothing

but more houses on lots, Lantzville will eventually look like one big standard, cookie cutter ~

subdivision. Strata homes can mean seniors cottages ••• patio homes ••• tiny houses ••• pocket

neighbourhoods.net ••• all grouped around a common property. This provides interest to the

P36

landscape, more interaction of neighbours to prevent loneliness, and more housing choice

as requested by residents.

r--,... fhe strata owners can also maintain the property's roads,sewers, water pipes, gardens, and

lawns which saves the District maintenance costs. Some strata properties also look after

their own bylaw enforcement including parking. The other plus to strata homes, is they

often attract residents with a lighter footprint. 2 or 3 vehicle families with a boat and 2 big

dogs, generally don't move into patio style homes, cottages, tiny houses •••

Another advantage is if there is a property with lots of unbuildable land, strata homes can

be more compact in the buildable portion of the land, leaving a large greenspace which

could be ESA land, wetland, riparian area ••• The strata residents would all enjoy this

greenspace. In the fee simple single family home model, it is likely each home would own its

own portion of the greenspace, rather than a large common area promoting social

interaction.

8.) In the ocp, use accurate terms to describe housing. Strata ••• detached ••• attached ••• fee

~pie ••• one storey ••• 2 storey ••• multifamily ••• fee simple apartments .•• strata apartments.

Condo, patio home, townhouse are imprecise terms which are a description of style, and are

open to different interpretations. The Strata Act applies to B.C. , the Condominium act

~pplies to other provinces, so the legal term "condominium" doesn't apply to B.C.

9.) 11.7 .3 #3 The definitions of Intensive Residential and Multifamily are inaccurate and

should be improved.

If Intensive residential means any development on a parcel smaller than 500 sq m, then this

would exclude a 48 unit apartment building on a 3/4 acre lot. Yet such a building certainly is

intensive residential.

If multi-family means any strata development, then it would include strata developments

like the one on Morello Rd where there is one home per each 2.5 acre strata lot. This clearly

is not multi-family. And it excludes fee simple apartment buildings which are definitely

~ulti-family.

These are the definitions I would suggest.

P37

* Intensive Residential means any development which is on a parcel (fee simple or strata)

smaller than 500 square metres in area or which has a gross density of 6 or more units per ~

acre.

(Why 6 units per acre? Because 500 sq m lot sizes are the result of gross density of 5 or 6

units per acre. It depends on how much of the land goes to park and roads/services.)

*Multi family means a building which contains two or more units. (This is the most common

definition of multi family.)

Once this is done, every time the word multi-family appears in the ocp the words "or strata

development" should be

added. This will preserve the intent of the ocp author, while avoiding the confusion of

having multi-family defined

incorrectly. If left as is, the incorrect definition of multifamily will become confusing in the

future.

P38

Staff Response to Councillor Savage's Enquiries/ Suggestions Regarding the Draft Official Community Plan

Submitted by Kyle Young, Director of Planning

1. " ... base density in the ocp should be the same as current zoning ... "

I agree but for different reasons. The way the OCP is currently written is causing confusion. For some people, "base density" is taken to mean a density that will be approved with little to nothing provided in return from the proponent, which is not true.

2. "Remove all pictures (not diagrams) from the ocp"

Pictures are a normal part of many OCPs and can make an OCP a more user-friendly do~ument. Representative photos that are included for the purpose of demonstrating supported land uses can be problematic if there isn't agreement on the vision and supported land uses. I would prefer not to rule out the use of photos and other imagery altogether.

3. "Remove 11.7.3 #40- because it prescribes a particular architecture style."

I do not agree with removing this Guideline, Figure 79, Figure 80, #45, #46, #47, #53, #54, or #55. The purpose of form and character Development Permit Guidelines is to influence the design of sites, landscaping, and buildings. If the vision for design detailed in the DPA guidelines is incorrect, then it should be revised to accurately reflect the community vision.

4. "Remove 11. 7 .3 #9"

I do not agree with removing this Guideline. Where a Development Permit is required, it is important that we always review it through the lens of Crime Prevention Through Environmental Design (CPTED). Architects and Landscape Architects will correctly apply CPTED to the specific site and situation. Sites can be designed to include abundant greenspace and still be safe.

5. "11.10 DPA VIII - Insert "and to all applicable private lands within 15 m of that section of the railway right of way, which is adjacent to Hwy ·19 as shown on Map 10."

With the 20 m road dedication required by the Approving Officer along the northern boundary of the Gee Property, this leaves a 65 m separation between future private property and the traveled surface of the highway. Adding a further 15 m planted buffer may be excessive.

6. Section 7.1 replace the phrase "should be dominated by'' with "may have"

I agree.

Section 7.1 Delete the word "limited". Replace the term "multifamily housing" with "strata homes"

I do not agree with replacing multifamily housing with strata homes. "Strata" is a type of ownership and, by itself, does not provide any direction on supported housing forms.

P39

7. 5.27 change the term "single family homes" to "fee simple single family homes or strata single family homes"

I do not have any concerns with this but keep in mind that strata parcels - either bare land or buildings - can be owned in fee simple. It is more correct to say "conventionally-subdivided single family parcels or strata-titled single family parcels or housing."

8. "In the ocp, use accurate terms to describe housing."

I agree that terms used in the OCP must be accurately defined.

9. "11.7.3 #3 The definitions of Intensive Residential and Multifamily are inaccurate and should be improved."

I agree that the definitions need improvement.

P40