MINUTES
of a regular meeting of COMMITTEE OF THE WHOLE of the Municipal
|
PRESENT: |
Councillor H.
Braithwaite Councillor S. F. B.
Carson Councillor A. R.
Cassidy Councillor P. Copley Councillor
J. D. Herbert Councillor
N. B. Jensen (Acting |
|
STAFF: |
Municipal
Administrator, W. E. Cochrane Municipal
Clerk, L. Hilton Confidential
Secretary, K. Green Director
of Building and Planning, N. Beattie Municipal
Treasure, P. A. Walker Director
of Engineering Services, D. Fire
Chief, G. Adam Superintendent
of Public Works, P. Barnett |
Acting
RECREATION SECTION: (Chairman – Councillor
Carson)
|
1. |
2007-172 |
Re Minutes
of the Meeting |
(
Memorial Bench Program
Councillor Carson drew
attention to a proposed cost increase in the memorial bench program which will bring
the ten year maintenance costs more in line with neighbouring
municipalities.
It was noted that Oak
Bay Kiwanis has generously donated funds ($5,000) to use towards improving the
Commercial
Activity in Park - Request for Outdoor
Councillor Carson
advised that the request for an outdoor beer garden in association with the
Croquet Festival to be held at
MOVED
by Councillor Herbert
Seconded by Councillor Braithwaite,
That the report of the meeting of the
CARRIED
FINANCE AND REGULATORY SECTION: (Chairman – Councillor Braithwaite)
|
2. |
2007-173 |
MUNICIPAL
TREASURER, June 1, 2007 Re Monthly
Financial Report |
MOVED by Councillor Jensen
Seconded by Councillor Copley,
That the monthly financial reports for May 2007 be received.
CARRIED
|
3. |
2007-174 |
MUNICIPAL
CLERK, June 14, 2007 Re Regulation of Fireworks in |
The Municipal Clerk
explained that at its meeting of January 22, 2007 Council had tabled a
resolution with respect to drafting a more restrictive fireworks regulation
bylaw in line with the ‘western community model’ in order to provide an
opportunity to ascertain what regulations adjacent municipalities plan to implement
and to give consideration to adopting similar regulations as its neighbours. A summary of the models under consideration
throughout the region, she noted, is contained in the memorandum attached to
the agenda.
Responding to questions
from the Committee, Fire Chief Adam advised that the Fire Department’s
recommendation would be for a complete ban on the discharge and sale of family fireworks
in
Fire Chief Adam noted
that City of
It was suggested by a
member of the Committee that the tabled motion of January 22, 2007 should be
brought forward to the next meeting of Council to be dealt with, rather than
waiting for confirmation of what other municipalities in the region have
decided with respect to regulating fireworks.
MOVED by
Seconded by
Councillor Herbert, That it be recommended to Council that the tabled
motion of January 22, 2007, be brought back to Council for further
consideration.
Responding to a question
from a member of the Committee regarding safety
requirements and proper training with respect to fireworks discharge,
the Fire Chief noted that the Federal Government has an industrial fireworks
licensing/training program, however, there is no certified training available
for family or recreational discharging of consumer fireworks.
The question was then
called.
CARRIED
PUBLIC WORKS SECTION: (Chairman – Councillor
Herbert)
|
4. |
2007-175 |
MUNICIPAL ADMINISTRATOR, June 14, 2007 Re Curbside Recycling Service |
The Municipal
Administrator noted that the curbside recycling service is carried out by the Capital
Regional District (CRD) throughout the Greater Victoria area with the exception
of
Mr. Cochrane explained
that the Public Works Department has been experiencing operational difficulties
along with continuing staff injuries due to the program, and therefore the
possibility of letting the CRD resume the service was presented to Committee
and staff was requested to forward the proposal to the CRD for consideration
and report back on its response.
Since that
time, said Mr. Cochrane, the CRD Board has considered the request and has
indicated it is willing to resume the provision of its curbside recycling
service in
When asked if Oak Bay
residents would see a change in service should the Capital Regional District’s
contractor take over the recycle collection of recyclables in Oak Bay, Mr.
Cochrane advised that the current CRD contractor indicated it would honour the
existing collection system and schedule, medical exemptions, and the use of the
wheeled totes at least until its contract with the CRD expires in 2012.
It was noted that the contractor
agreed to continue the curbside recycling service for the small number of
commercial and institutional premises which receive municipal garbage
collection service for a year and review the arrangement after that time. At that point, the businesses could make
their own arrangements for recycling collection or, perhaps, Council could
agree to pay the contractor to collect from those businesses. As for pickup at the Municipal Hall building,
said Mr. Cochrane, the contractor will continue to collect for now and then
review that service.
Mr. Cochrane, replying
to a question from a member of the Committee, commented that there would be no layoffs
of regular employees due to the proposed termination of the current curbside
recycling agreement.
With the proposed
termination of the curbside recycling contract, Mr. Cochrane said, the existing
truck will be surplus to municipal needs, and the Superintendent of Public
Works has consulted a local supplier, who indicated that the market value of
the truck is $42,500.
A member of the Committee
expressed his concern that by cancelling the existing contract the level of service
being provided to
MOVED by
Seconded by Councillor Braithwaite,
That it be recommended to Council that
a)
Council accept the offer of the Capital Regional
District to terminated the 2005 to 2012 curbside recycling agreement effective
August 1, 2007;
b)
that a revision to the Refuse and Recyclable Collection and Disposal Bylaw be introduced
to reflect the withdrawal from the direct provision of the curbside recycling
service; and
c)
that staff be authorized to sell the 2000 model
curbside recycling truck (cab, chassis and packer) to International Paper Industries
Ltd. for the amount of $42,500.
CARRIED
(Councillor
Cassidy against the motion)
|
5. |
2007-176 2007-176-1 |
DIRECTOR OF ENGINEERING SERVICES, June 14, 2007 BARBARA PRENDERGAST AND DARLENE CHASE, April 16, 2007 Re |
Barbara Prendergast,
2423 Hamiota Street, was in attendance to express her concern
regarding current and potential traffic and pedestrian safety issues along
Ms. Prendergast noted even
though
Additionally, said Ms.
Prendergast, consideration should be given to reducing the speed limit to 20
kilometres per hour, similar to other lanes within the Municipality that have
no sidewalks. Ms. Prendergast also suggested
that perhaps a barrier should be placed in the middle section of
Ms. Prendergast expressed
concerns regarding the Engineering Department proposal for one-way traffic,
westbound, on
The Director of
Engineering Services drew attention to the School Board and Safer School Travel
Committee that has been formed to address traffic pattern changes and issues
that may arise due to school reconfigurations in the district, noting that it
will be meeting at the Oak Bay Municipal Hall this week to further discuss improving
traffic flow around the school. He said
that the possibility of one-way traffic on
Responding to questions,
Mr. Marshall indicated that the 20 kilometre per hour speed limit and renewed
signage was supportable and that traffic calming measures such as speed bumps
could be considered to assist with controlling the traffic speeds in the
area.
Following further discussion
with respect to the issues raised, it emerged that members of the Committee were
open to changing the speed limit to 20 kilometres per hour on
Michael Yakubowich, 2390
Musgrave Street, commented that emergency vehicle access should be considered
it the context of the proposed installation of speed bumps along
With the
Mr. Yakubowich also
commented that with the potential increase in traffic volume, and with the ongoing
problem of speeding motorists, the danger to residents backing out of their
driveways will rise.
Robert Jack, 2393 Tod
Road,
said that as his only access is off of
The major issue, said
Mr. Jack, is when school or sports participants park along the lane, often
blocking access. Mr. Jack said that he
would not want to see the road blocked with a divider at the centre point of
the road, as suggested previously, but said he would support conditioning
motorists not to use
MOVED by
Seconded by
Councillor Braithwaite, That staff be requested to draft an amendment to the Streets
and Traffic Bylaw to reduce the speed
limit on Tod Road from 30 kilometres per hour to 20 kilometres per hour,
to be brought forward to Council for formal consideration, and further
that the existing parking signs along Tod Road be replaced and relocated where
necessary.
There
was further discussion regarding the issues raised, and it was suggested that
it would be useful to ask for comment from the Fire, Police, and Engineering
Departments regarding the possibility of installing speed bumps on
MOVED
by Councillor Cassidy
Seconded
by Councillor Braithwaite, That the motion be amended to include a request for
comments from the Police, Fire and Engineering Departments with respect to
adding speed bumps along
CARRIED
|
6. |
2007-177 2007-177-1 |
DIRECTOR OF ENGINEERING SERVICES, June 14, 2007 KATRINKA SIMPSON, [undated] Re Boulevard Encroachment Application – |
MOVED by
Seconded by
Councillor Cassidy, That it be recommended to Council that approval be given
for a boulevard encroachment adjacent to 2075 Goldsmith Street for the purpose
of installing landscaping, subject to
the new plantings being maintained at a height of 450 millimetres
(approximately 18 inches) or less and maintained 400 millimetres (approximately
16 inches) from the pedestrian sidewalk, parking bay and public roadway, and
subject to the owner entering into a boulevard encroachment agreement on terms
set by the Municipality.
CARRIED
There
was consensus to amend the order of the agenda.
LAND USE SECTION: (Chairman – Councillor
Cassidy)
|
7. |
2007-181 |
DIRECTOR OF
BUILDING AND PLANNING, June 5, 2007 Re |
MOVED by
Councillor Herbert
Seconded by Councillor Carson,
That it be recommended to Council that the proposed plans to construct a gazebo
at the rear of the property at
CARRIED
|
8. |
2007-182 |
DIRECTOR OF
BUILDING AND PLANNING, June 11, 2007 Re
Development Variance Permit Application – |
Keith Baker,
KB Design Inc., speaking on behalf of the applicants, noted that the
proposed new dwelling would require variances with respect to building height,
occupiable height and contextual setback.
A member of
the Committee commented that although the variances for height are not
excessive, he suggested that if they had not already done so, the applicants
should discuss the proposed variances with the neighbours. Mr. Baker replied that the owners live in
With respect
to the setback request, Mr. Baker indicated that given the topography of the property,
the proposed location of the home would enable a lower driveway elevation,
which would eliminate the need for installation of sprinklers, and would be
better in terms of use as the driveway would be less steep.
There was
discussion regarding the variances and concerns were raised regarding the
extent of the proposed contextual setback variance. The comment was made by members of the
Committee that with a bare lot it should be possible to build a house within
the existing regulations.
Mr. Baker
pointed out that the concept of contextual setbacks seems to be questionable in
that it could potentially change as neighbouring properties redevelop.
MOVED by Councillor
Jensen
Seconded by
Councillor Braithwaite, That it be recommended to Council that the request for
a development variance permit with respect to
The motion was withdrawn
with the permission of the seconder.
MOVED by Councillor Carson
Seconded by
Councillor Copley, That a resolution authorizing the issuance of a development
variance permit with respect to
DEFEATED
(Councillors Braithwaite, Cassidy, Herbert, and
Jensen against the motion)
|
9. |
2007-183 |
DIRECTOR OF
BUILDING AND PLANNING, June 11, 2007 Re
Development Permit Application – |
The Director
of Building and Planning explained that the owner of Caffe Misto would like to
add an outdoor seating area (six to eight seats) at the rear of the property,
which, Mr. Beattie said, would not interfere with the four existing parking
spaces. Mr. Beattie said he would
recommend that the applicant clear the overgrowth to improve access to the
parking spaces from the lane. It was
noted that the area would have a perimeter fence with a gate to access the
parking area.
Responding to
a question regarding notice to neighbours, the Municipal Administrator said
that a development permit application, without variances, does not require
notification. However, he said, staff
could be requested to advise the neighbouring properties of the proposed plans,
although Council would want to be careful in applying any comments that might
be perceived to its decision making process, as the focus of the application is
the proposed design.
Further
discussion touched on the potential noise level and the possibility of
restricting hours of the outdoor seating area, and it was noted that the owner
could be asked whether or not he was willing to enter into a covenant in that
regard.
MOVED by Councillor Carson
Seconded by Councillor Braithwaite,
That a resolution authorizing the issuance of a development permit with respect
to
CARRIED
(Councillor
Herbert against the motion)
There was discussion regarding
the adjacent properties, and a member of the Committee suggested that the two neighbours
to the rear of
MOVED by Councillor
Carson
Seconded by Councillor
Copley, That staff be directed to send a notice to the two neighbours adjacent
to the rear of
CARRIED
PUBLIC WORKS SECTION CONTINUED: (Chairman – Councillor
Herbert)
|
10. |
2007-178 2007-178-1 2007-178-2 2007-178-3 2007-178-4 2007-178-5 2007-178-6 2007-178-7 2007-178-8 2007-178-9 2007-178-10 2007-178-11 2007-178-12 2007-178-13 2007-178-14 2007-178-15 2007-178-16 2007-178-17 2007-178-18 2007-178-19 2007-178-20 |
DIRECTOR OF ENGINEERING SERVICES, June 14, 2007 NORMAN AND LUCILE HUTCHINGS, June 11, 2007 RICHARD KUTCHER, June 13, 2007 DICK AND DIANE PAYNE, June 13, 2007 DAVID, KERRY, CONNOR, LIAM AND OLIVE KING, June 13, 2007 DRELENE GIBB, June 13, 2007 ANDRÉE SCOTT, June 13, 2007 KEN SCOTT, June 13, 2007 JAMES AND HEIDI STRICKLAND, June 14, 2007 RON AND MARY HARTLEY, June 12, 2007 FREDERICK MALLETT, June 14,
2007 JIM AND DIANE CATHRO, June 14, 2007 LARRY AND DIANE DAVIS, June 14, 2007 MICHAEL AND CARLA PERRY, June 14, 2007 BOB GUBBE, June 14, 2007 GREGORY BLUE, June 14, 2007 GRAFTON BOOK SHOP, June 18, 2007 JIM KIRK, June 18, 2007 PENNY FARTHING PUB AND LIQUOR STORE, June 18, 2007 Re Proposed Parking Lot – |
Councillor
Herbert provided an overview of the proposed parking lot at
Noting
that the meeting was to review a modified concept plan for the proposed parking
lot and to obtain public input on the possible land use change, Councillor
Herbert invited members of the public to address the Committee of the Whole.
Jim
Kirk, 2228 Oak Bay Avenue, commented that the
parking fund has been substantially funded by many of the Oak Bay Village
businesses and it would seem appropriate to use the funds as they were
intended. Mr. Kirk noted that this block
is the only one with no ancillary parking lot associated with it. He felt that it is a good parking lot plan,
which includes landscaping and he commended Council for its proposal.
In
response to Councillor Herbert requesting a description of the plans, the
Director of Engineering Services noted that the landscaping would likely be
similar to that of the parking lot located on
Mark
Stein, 1647 Monterey Avenue, commented that he lives
across from the Fire Hall and in 15 years has never had difficulty parking in
the Oak Bay Village area. Mr. Stein said
that there is ample parking and it is not necessary to create more. He felt that even with the proposed landscaping
buffer to be planted between the proposed parking area and the neighbouring
residents, the lot would degrade the adjacent property values and it would
detract from the quality of life for those living in the immediate vicinity.
Mr.
Stein drew attention to the parking area adjacent to the
Responding
to a query from a member of the Committee, the Municipal Administrator
commented that the Municipality does not have any control when it comes to
parking on private property such as that adjacent to
Harold
Bird, 1555 Hampshire Road, stated that he has been
in
Diane
Davis, 1534 Hampshire Road, stated she lives across
the street from the proposed parking lot and recently took pictures of the
area, which she distributed to the members of the Committee. Ms. Davis then read out her letter attached
to the agenda (correspondence item no. 2007-178-12) commenting further that the
Safer School Travel Committee is not aware of the proposed addition of a
parking lot, and therefore has not had the opportunity to consider it in the
context of ensuring the safety of students with the reconfiguration of the
schools.
In
recently observing the pedestrian and traffic patterns of the area, Ms. Davis said
she counted 19 vehicles that had driven to the neighbourhood pub in a short
period of time during the week, noting that back when the pub was approved, it
was not expected to generate much vehicular traffic. Ms. Davis noted one of the businesses backing
onto
Martin
Taylor, 1539 Wilmot Place, said that he is opposed
to the proposed parking lot and felt that it was being dealt with in isolation
and the whole issue should be looked at in the context of climate change. Mr. Taylor questioned the impact demolishing a
house to build a parking lot would have on the environment. He commented that there is plenty of parking,
however employee parking is an issue and suggested freeing up customer parking
by using some of the money from the parking fund for staff parking at
Responding
to a member of the Committee, the Municipal Administrator advised that the
parking fund has been contributed to by developers rather than providing
parking, and is required, under provincial legislation, to be used for the
development of parking. He advised that
he did not think the legislation envisages using the funds to “buy back” the
use of spaces already provided for by developers as required.
Bruce
Williamson, 1655 Hampshire Road, said his first thoughts
in relation to a house being removed to provide parking were about the
potential impact on climate change. Mr.
Williamson commented on the timing of the proposal, saying it conflicts with a
recent ad placed in the Oak Bay News by the Climate Change Task Force asking
for input on three topics that touch on this issue. It was suggested by Mr. Williamson that the
Task Force be assigned to look at the parking situation in the Village and report
back with its recommendations to Council.
Mr.
Williamson commented that the Village and the surrounding residential area is a
wonderful combination with its shared boundaries as it is now, urging the
Committee not to make piecemeal changes, or changes on a lot by lot basis. Personally, he said, he feels the municipal
lot should remain residential. He said
the house could continue as a rental home or it could be sold by the
Municipality.
He
reiterated previous comments that there is a lot of parking available already
in the village, and that a proper survey should be conducted before any
decision is made.
Carla
Perry, 1415 Monterey Avenue, stated that she is
opposed to the addition of a parking lot to the area. Ms. Perry said she lives next door to the
municipal parking lot across from the Monterey Centre, and that with the
plantings and well cared for garden it makes a wonderful neighbour. However, she said that is irrelevant to this issue
and it is not an adjunct to the Village. Adding a parking lot will change the Village
and will only encourage more vehicular traffic to the area, she said.
Ron
Hartley, 1531 Hampshire Road, tenant of the property
under discussion, said there is never an issue of parking at any time in the
area. Regarding the issue of delivery
trucks that had been raised by previous speakers, Mr. Hartley said that as a
delivery truck driver himself, he would be willing to adjust the delivery times
as requested by a business owner to alleviate congestion in an area as required
noting that the same should be the case for drivers of trucks delivering to the
Village. He suggested permitting
deliveries within a certain time frame thus freeing up the ‘loading zone’ for
vehicle parking outside the delivery hours.
Mr. Hartley said he originally had planned to live in
Rick
Lee, 1598 Monterey Avenue, said he is protective
of the neighbourhood and wants to preserve what makes it
Mr.
Lee recommended that the property at
Responding
to questions from the Committee, Mr. Lee said that a buffer zone would be
expected to protect residents from noise, pollution and pedestrian traffic, in
whatever form that would take.
Richard
Kutcher, 1630 Hampshire, suggested that through
signage, the public could be made aware of the underground parking available at
Mark
Stein, 1647 Monterey Avenue, speaking to the
Committee again, concurred with previous speakers noting that there is always
plenty of parking in the area.
Michael Yakubowich, 2390
Musgrave Street, recommended finding another place to spend the money, but
not in that spot.
Diane
Cathro, 1576 Hampshire Road, said she objects to the
proposed parking lot and the short notice given to the residents on the
proposal, which did not allow time to pull thoughts together before the meeting. Ms. Cathro expressed her surprise that
The
Municipal Administrator noted that the notification sign on the property and
the newspaper advertisement are part of the public consultation process required
to take place prior to a public hearing, should the proposed parking lot go
forward to that point.
Diane
Davis, 1534 Hampshire Road, drew attention to the
photographs she circulated earlier in the meeting depicting the use of the
existing parking in the Village, adding that there were a number of vehicles
attempting to get into the parking area behind Pharmasave even though there
were other available parking spots in the area.
Ms.
Davis expressed her concern that with the additional traffic that would be
generated through the proposed parking, and the school reconfiguration, the
situation is an accident waiting to happen.
Jim
Kirk, 2228 Oak Bay Avenue, adding to his previous
comments, recalled that
In response to questions
from the Committee, the Municipal Administrator advised that, should the
Committee wish to go forward with the proposal, an amendment to Zoning Bylaw
would be required. Additionally, he said, although the Official Community
Plan contains the objective of evaluating properties around the village as they
come up for sale as potential parking sites, an amendment to the Official
Community Plan would still be required to permit the rezoning to an
institutional use.
Staff would need to be directed
to draft the necessary bylaws for Council’s consideration and to set a date for
a formal public hearing after that time, if the Committee wishes to move
forward, he said.
Further
discussion ensued with respect to the proposed project and its implications on
the surrounding area. Questions were
raised regarding the current condition of the house at
It
was suggested by a member of the Committee that when considering the proposed
parking lot, it be in the context of a larger vision that would encompass a
more pedestrian, scooter and cyclist friendly Village, which would include
widening the sidewalks in some areas. It
was suggested that the Engineering Department supply information on what street
parking would be lost to accommodate wider sidewalks in the most narrow
portions of
During
the Committee’s deliberations, although some concerns were expressed that the
proposal with respect to the parking lot at 1531 Hampshire Road may not in the
best interests of the municipality, it was the majority view of the Committee
that more information should be brought forward for further evaluation and
discussion at the Committee of the Whole level.
Members of the Committee agreed that the traffic and parking
studies supplied in relation to the Penny Farthing Public House development
should be brought forward for review and that staff recommendations for
augmenting the existing parking studies should be requested.
With respect to proposed
modifications to the proposed parking lot layout, there was agreement that the
land use issues should be considered prior to Engineering staff updating the
plan.
MOVED by
Seconded by
Councillor Jensen, That correspondence items no. 2007-178 to 2007-178-20
be received, and that the following information be prepared and brought forward
for consideration at a future meeting of the Committee of the Whole:
a)
a staff report on the condition of the building at
b)
the traffic and parking studies that were supplied
during the application process for the Penny
Farthing Public House development, along with staff recommendations for
augmenting the information contained in the existing studies; and
c)
a staff report estimating the number of street parking
spaces that would be lost should portions of the sidewalks in the narrow
sections of
CARRIED
It was noted
that the requested information likely would come back to Committee of the Whole
after the summer, and that should the project proceed, it would be a 2008
project in any event.
|
11. |
2007-179 |
MUNICIPAL
ADMINISTRATOR, June 12, 2007 Re Storm
Water Management Alternatives |
MOVED by
Seconded by
Councillor Carson, That the draft bylaw attached to the memorandum from
the Municipal Administrator dated June 12, 2007 (correspondence item no.
2007-179), as amended, be brought forward to the next meeting of Council for
formal introduction.