June 24, 2015 - Minutes

Time:

3:30 p.m.

Place:

Council Chambers
Richmond City Hall

Present:

Joe Erceg, Chair
Cathryn Volkering Carlile, General Manager, Community Services
John Irving, Director, Engineering

Minutes

It was moved and seconded

That the minutes of the meeting of the Development Permit Panel held on Wednesday, June 10, 2015, be adopted.

CARRIED

1.

Development Variance Permit 15-694988
(File Ref. No.:  DV 15-694988)  (REDMS No. 4588527)

APPLICANT:

Maybog Farms Ltd.

PROPERTY LOCATION:

2620 No. 6 Road

INTENT OF PERMIT:

Vary the provision of Richmond Zoning Bylaw 8500 to increase the maximum setback from a constructed public road abutting the property to the rear of a single detached housing building permitted in the “Agriculture (AG1)” from 50 m (164 ft.) to 130 m (426.5 ft.) in order to allow construction of a new house at 2620 No. 6 Road.

Applicant’s Comments

Todd May, Maybog Farms Ltd., briefed Committee on the proposed variance and spoke on the history of farming on the subject site. He noted that the proposed variance would facilitate the construction of the primary dwelling on-site, and added that the current dwelling on-site would be used for farm employees.

Mr. May referred to a map of the subject site, (attached to and forming part of these minutes as Schedule 1) and provided information on the different farm service areas that are critical to the farming operations. He noted that the proposed dwelling would be located south of the crop loading area and north of the gravel storage area, where soil conditions are poor. He added that the layout of the different farm service areas are critical to farm operations and must remain intact in order to maintain functionality, and as a result, Mr. May has advised that the proposed area for the dwelling is the optimal location within the farm.

Panel Discussion

Discussion ensued with regard to protecting farmland in the city and the potential to set precedence should the proposed variance proceed.

In reply to queries from the Panel, Mr. May noted that keeping the relationship of the farm service areas intact is critical to farm operations and as a possible consequence, relocating said areas could encroach onto the farmed areas and displace cranberry fields. He added that all possible alternatives were examined when deciding on the location for the proposed dwelling and that the proposed location minimizes the impact on farming operations and farmed land.

Discussion ensued regarding other possible options for the proposed dwelling, and in reply to queries from the Panel, Mr. May noted that the western portion of the farm that includes the farm services areas have relatively poor soil conditions for cranberries.

In reply to queries from the Panel, Dave Melnychuk, Agrologist for Maybog Farms Ltd., noted that the farm service areas and proposed house location are located in areas of less productive soil, where impact to cranberry production is minimized.

Staff Comments

In reply to queries from Committee, Wayne Craig, Director, Development, noted that should the proposed application proceed, a covenant on title will be secured to restrict the construction of the dwelling to the proposed location. He added that the City’s Agricultural Advisory Committee reviewed and endorsed the proposed variance.

Correspondence

None.

Gallery Comments

Anne Lerner, 12633 No. 2 Road, inquired on the location of the current and proposed dwellings and expressed satisfaction with the 50 metre setback requirement. Also, she expressed satisfaction with the farm operations and that the proposed dwelling would not displace farmed fields.

Panel Discussion

Discussion ensued with respect to the precedent setting nature of the proposed application and protecting farmland.

Panel Decision

It was moved and seconded

That a Development Variance Permit be issued which would vary the provision of Richmond Zoning Bylaw 8500 to increase the maximum setback from a constructed public road abutting the property to the rear of a single detached housing building permitted in the “Agriculture (AG1)” from 50 m (164 ft.) to 130 m (426.5 ft.) in order to allow construction of a new house at 2620 No. 6 Road.

CARRIED

2.

Development Variance Permit 14-658670
(File Ref. No.:  DV 14-658670)  (REDMS No. 4590741 v. 2)

APPLICANT:

Habitat for Humanity Society of Greater Vancouver Inc.

PROPERTY LOCATION:

8180 Ash Street

INTENT OF PERMIT:

1.

Vary the provisions of Richmond Zoning Bylaw 8500 to:

a)

vary the minimum lot width from 12 m to 8.3 m for proposed Lot 5; and

b)

vary the minimum lot frontage from 6 m to 0.38 m for proposed Lot 4, to 2.7 m for proposed Lot 5 and to 0.60 m for proposed Lot 6; and

2.

Permit subdivision of 8180 Ash Street into six (6) lots zoned “Single Detached (RS1/B)” for the purpose of developing single-family dwellings.

Applicant’s Comments

Aaron Urion, Abbarch Architecture Inc., briefed the Panel on the proposed application and the design modifications proceeding the March 25, 2015 Development Permit Panel meeting, and highlighted the following:

§   

there is space on-site for vehicles to turn around;

§   

one visitor vehicle parking space was added for the lots fronting Dayton Court;

§   

vehicles may enter and exit the lots fronting Dayton Court in a forward direction;

§   

architectural elements in the surrounding neighbourhood were incorporated into the proposed design;

§   

the project will use high quality building materials;

§   

roofs will be triangulated to match the architectural character of adjacent homes;

§   

the height of the proposed buildings will be below permitted levels; and

§   

the lot’s grading was lowered; however, will meet the City’s flood protection standards.

David O’Sheehan, Abbarch Architecture Inc., advised that the applicant has made adjustments to the proposed development in response to feedback from the community.

Stephani Samaridis, Habitat for Humanity Society of Greater Vancouver Inc., noted that the applicant has made an effort to address vehicle parking concerns by adding marked visitor vehicle parking on-site. Also, she advised that based on experience with Habitat for Humanity’s other properties, it is anticipated that partner families with multiple vehicles will be unlikely. She added that the proposed development is not a duplex and is considered to be single-family homes with secondary suites.

Staff Comments

In reply to queries from the Panel, Mr. Craig noted that staff have reviewed the proposed application and are satisfied with the proposed modifications to the proposed development. He added that should the application proceed, a registration of a covenant on title will be secured at the subdivision stage to ensure that the future buildings will comply with the architectural designs presented to the Panel.

Gallery Comments

Harvey Schwarzbauer, 8426 Dayton Court, expressed concern with regard to the proposed development. He read from his submission and submitted a petition from neighbourhood residents opposing the proposed development (attached to and forming part of these minutes as Schedule 2).

Joseph Yang, 8440 Dayton Court, expressed concern regarding the proposed development and was of the opinion that the proposed development does not comply the zoning bylaw and that the number of proposed dwellings will negatively impact the neighbourhood.

Anna Mcalpine, 8415 Dayton Court, expressed concern with respect to garbage collection and emergency vehicle access to the proposed development.

In reply to queries from the Panel, Mr. Urion noted that there are designated areas to store garbage and recycling carts in each unit. Mr. Craig added that Environmental Programs staff are satisfied with the proposed garbage and recycling collection plans. Also, Mr. Craig noted that there is a secondary emergency access to Dayton Court from Ash Street.

Teresa Wong, 8471 Dayton Court, expressed her concern regarding the proposed development with respect to the potential increase in traffic and the community consultation process.

Sunny Shum, 8320 Dayton Court, expressed his concern regarding the proposed development with respect to the (i) the potential for an increase in traffic, (ii) the need for visitor parking on-site, (iii) the projected number of resident vehicles on-site, and (iv) the dimensions of the visitor parking spaces.

Bradley Dowdall, 8455 Dayton Court, expressed his opposition to the proposed development and commented on the potential impact to traffic in the area. Also, he was of the opinion that the proposed development is too cramped and does not integrate well with the neighbourhood.

Marshall Ching, 8466 Dayton Court, expressed his opposition to the proposed development and was of the opinion that the potential increase in traffic would be a safety hazard for neighbourhood residents.

Doug Hamming, Habitat for Humanity Society of Greater Vancouver Inc., noted that vehicles will be able to enter and exit the site in a forward direction. Also, he was of the opinion that the architectural form and character of the proposed development was revised to be consistent with the neighbourhood.

Judy Rea, 8435 Dayton Court, expressed her opposition to the proposed development and was of the opinion that the proposed development would increase traffic in the area.

Candice Chan, 8080 Ash Street, expressed concern that the proposed development would negatively impact pedestrian safety and traffic. Also, she made a suggestion that flashing lights at the entrance of the site be added to alert pedestrians of vehicles entering and exiting.

Kenny Wong, 8380 Dayton Court, expressed concern with regard to the potential negative effect of additional traffic on the safety of children in the neighbourhood.

Brian Dagneault, 8435 Dayton Court, spoke in opposition to the proposed development and expressed concern with regard to the interpretation of the zoning bylaw to define the proposed development as single-family dwellings.

Ms. Lerner spoke on the proposed secondary suites, noting that the proposed secondary suites may have a similar effect to a duplex-type of development.

In reply to queries from the Panel, Mr. Craig advised that staff have reviewed the proposed development and they are considered to be single-family dwellings with a secondary suite. He added that the City’s zoning bylaw provisions for secondary suites include measures such as, limiting the area to a maximum of 90 m² and 40% of the total floor area of the dwelling. Also, secondary suites cannot be subdivided or stratified. He further noted that the proposed development’s secondary suites comply with all zoning bylaw requirements and this would be reconfirmed at the Building Permit stage.

Harikrishna Upath, 8360 Dayton Court, expressed his opposition to the proposed development and commented on the current lack of street parking in the neighbourhood and possible traffic from the proposed development.

Janet Yeung, 8211 McBurney Court, expressed her opposition to the proposed development and was of the opinion that the proposed development should exceed the minimum technical requirements.

Mei Au, 8160 Ash Street, expressed concern with regard to the parking and emergency vehicle access requirements of the proposed development.

Mr. Dagneault, further expressed concern with regard to the interpretation of the proposed development as single-family dwellings and the potential impact of the proposed development on street parking in the neighbourhood.

Correspondence

Harikrishna Upath, 8360 Dayton Court (Schedule 3)

Orest and Shelly Smysnuik, 8226 Ash Street (Schedule 4)

Shawn Hawkins, 9260 McBurney Drive (Schedule 5)

Joseph Yang and Tina Yen, 8440 Dayton Court (Schedule 6)

Benjamin Lin and Beverly Chang, 8040 Ash Street (Schedule 7)

Doug and Catherine Clark, 8200 McBurney Court (Schedule 8)

Eddie and Nazneed Parakh, Jenangir and Rita Parakh, 8491 Dayton Court (Schedule 9)

Panel Discussion

Discussion ensued with regard to (i) the fact that the same variance was previously granted to the site, (ii) historical ownership of the subject site, (iii) design improvements to the proposed development, (iv) access to the site, (v) visitor vehicle parking, (vi) the potential to further enhance the neighbourhood by adding more families, (vii) encouraging the applicant to continue discussions with their neighbours, and (viii) the limited impact the proposed development would have on traffic in the neighbourhood.

Panel Decision

It was moved and seconded

1.

That a Development Variance Permit be issued which would vary the provisions of Richmond Zoning Bylaw 8500 to:

(a)

vary the minimum lot width from 12 m to 8.3 m for proposed Lot 5; and

(b)

vary the minimum lot frontage from 6 m to 0.38 m for proposed Lot 4, to 2.7 m for proposed Lot 5 and to 0.60 m for proposed Lot 6; and

2.

To permit subdivision of 8180 Ash Street into six (6) lots zoned “Single Detached (RS1/B)” for the purpose of developing single-family dwellings.

CARRIED

3.

New Business

4.

Date of Next Meeting: Wednesday, July 15,  2015

5.

Adjournment

It was moved and seconded

That the meeting be adjourned at 5:27 p.m.

CARRIED

Certified a true and correct copy of the Minutes of the meeting of the Development Permit Panel of the Council of the City of Richmond held on Wednesday, June 24, 2015.

_________________________________

_________________________________

Joe Erceg
Chair

Evangel Biason
Auxiliary Committee Clerk