July 29,2014 Special Committee of the Whole

Agenda           Minutes
 
3.1 Building Height Discussion
ontable
 
File: 6650-01

Additional Proposed Resolutions Submitted to City Clerk (Pages 3-4)
Minutes – Building Height, Size and Siting Public Forum (Pages 5-16)
Public Comments Received Via Web Submission, Email, Feedback Form (Pages 17-30)

Recommendations:
WHEREAS the issue of “mega” home size and situation on lots has resulted in a decreased enjoyment by neighbouring residents;
AND WHEREAS Council has agreed that this issue be dealt with in an expeditious manner;
BE IT RESOLVED THAT Staff be directed to report back at the first meeting in September with a plan for creating area specific zones for Ioco, Moody Centre and Glenayre;
AND THAT Staff immediately commence an expedited process based on community input and expectations on the issue of height, lot coverage, grade, view corridors and setbacks for the “Ioco single family residential area.”
 
 

Councillor Dilworth provided an overview of the recommendation that had been put forward by Councillor Nuttall at the July 22, 2014 Regular Meeting of Council and deferred for discussion at this meeting. It was agreed that discussion would focus initially around the overall process identified in the proposed resolution and then discussion would move to details of what Council would like to see analyzed by staff prior to coming back to Council for discussion at the next meeting in September.

CW14/080 Moved,
WHEREAS the issue of "mega" home size and situation on lots has resulted in a decreased enjoyment by neighbouring residents;

AND WHEREAS Council has agreed that this issue be dealt with in an expeditious manner;

BE IT RESOLVED THAT Staff be directed to report back at the first meeting in September with a plan for creating area-specific zones for loco, Moody Centre, and Glenayre;

AND THAT Staff immediately commence an expedited process based on community input and expectations on the issue of height, lot coverage, grade, view corridors and setbacks for the "loco single family residential area."

Moved and CARRIED
THAT the foregoing motion be amended by adding the following paragraph after the third paragraph ending with the word

"Glenayre":

AND THAT, subsequently, area-specific zones for other neighbourhoods, including Coronation Park, Noons Creek, Westport and College Park, also be developed;

The question on the main motion was put and CARRIED.

Discussion ensued with regard to specific points that had been proposed by various Council members in writing prior to this meeting. Council discussed amongst themselves and with various members of staff, the various bullet points proposed in the written submissions. As well as timelines and approaches to public consultation on this issue.

The City Manager explained that it would be possible for staff to come back with solid options for consultation and options for defined areas and commentary on proposed changes to the bylaw, including timelines; however, it was noted that additional staff resources may be required on a temporary basis in order to do so.

CW14/081
Moved and CARRIED
THAT the following potential changes to RS1 or area-specific zoning be considered as part of the expedited process involving community input:
 
1. That basements, finished and unfinished, be included in FAR calculations;
2. That all garages and carports be included in FAR calculations;
3. That regardless of slope, no podium shall extend higher than 0.5 metres (20 inches) above grade and that a new definition for "Podium" be inserted as follows: A podium is any structure such as exposed foundation walls, columns, stilts, retaining walls, fill or other means of elevating a building above grade;
4. That retaining walls required for house construction be limited in height to a maximum of 8 feet and not exceed a 1:1 slope from the side-yard property line (e.g. a 4-foot tall retaining wall shall be 4 feet from the property line);
5. That the 24-month timeline reference be removed from the definition of natural grade;
6. That the full height of a building with a peaked roof be measured to the top of the peak and capped at a maximum of 34.5 feet;
7. That double-height space (lofted entrance) be counted as twice the floor area in FAR calculations; and
8. That staff review the potential to increase rear yard and front yard setbacks and provide Council with options to address the problem of impacted view corridors.
 
CW14/082 Moved and CARRIED
THAT the following potential change to RS1 or area-specific zoning be considered as part of the expedited process involving community input:
That eave height be limited to that of the existing or the previous house on the lot as measured by geodetic elevations.
(Voting against: Councillor Royer)
 
CW14/083 Moved and CARRIED
THAT the following potential change to RS1 or area-specific zoning be considered as part of the expedited process involving community input:

That the definition of grade adopted in 2012 be rescinded and a new calculation be adopted using the average grade based on the lowest elevation of the front and rear of the property.

CW14/084 Moved and DEFEATED
THAT the following potential change to RS1 or area-specific zoning be considered as part of the expedited process involving community input:
That the full height of a building with a flat roof be defined and capped at 29 feet.
(Voting against: Mayor Clay, Councillors Dilworth, Royer and Small)
 
CW14/085 Moved and DEFEATED
THAT the following potential change to RS1 or area-specific zoning be considered as part of the expedited process involving community input:
That the amount of a lot area that can be paved over with impervious material be limited.
(Voting against: Mayor Clay, Councillors Dilworth, Nuttall and Small)
 
CW14/086 Moved and CARRIED
THAT the issue of limiting the amount of a lot that can be paved over with impervious material be deferred to the Environmental Protection Committee for comment.
 
CW14/087 Moved and CARRIED
THAT an allocation of up to $10,000 be identified to assist in the facilitation of this community consultation process.

3.2 Tree Bylaw Update
Report: Development Services – Planning, dated July 4, 2014 / File: 6410-04-01-2013

Recommendations:
THAT the draft Tree Protection Bylaw No. 2961, 2014 be forwarded to Council for consideration as recommended in the report dated July 4, 2014 from Development Services – Planning;
AND THAT the draft Municipal Ticket Information Utilization Bylaw No. 2011, No. 2896, Amendment Bylaw No. 3, 2014, No. 2962 be forwarded to Council for consideration as recommended in the report dated July 4, 2014 from Development Services – Planning.
 
Discussion ensued with regard to whether this was the appropriate time to address the draft bylaw presented in the report from Development Services - Planning. Concern was expressed that significant changes have been made in this draft bylaw without the benefit of public consultation. It was suggested that extensive public consultation should take place on this issue to allow the community to provide input.
 
CW14/088 Moved
THAT discussion of the draft Tree Bylaw be deferred until early January 2015.
 
Moved and CARRIED
THAT the foregoing motion be amended to read "until September 2014".
(Voting against: Councillors Dilworth and Nuttall)

The question on the main motion was put and CARRIED.