1.

ZONING AMENDMENT BYLAW 7458 (RZ02-219324)

(10260 Bird Road; Applicant:  Arminder Jhutty)

Applicants Comments:

The applicant was not present.

Written Submissions:

None.

Submissions from the floor:

None.

PH02-01

It was moved and seconded

That Zoning Amendment Bylaw 7458 be given second and third readings.

CARRIED

2a.

ZONING AMENDMENT BYLAW 7459 (RZ02-219164)

(8340 Heather Street; Applicant:  Darcy & Tanya Dettling)

2b.

ZONING AMENDMENT BYLAW 7460 (RZ02-220252)

 (8320 Heather Street; Applicant:  Gurbachan Sidhu)

Applicants Comments:

The applicants were present.

Written Submissions:

M. Kramer, 8311 Heather St. Schedule 1

Submissions from the floor:

None.

PH02-02

It was moved and seconded

That Zoning Amendment Bylaws 7459 and 7460 be given second and third readings.

CARRIED

PH02-03

It was moved and seconded

That Zoning Amendment Bylaws 7459 and 7460 be adopted.

CARRIED

3.

ZONING AMENDMENT BYLAW 7461 (RZ 02-210430)

(5211/5231 Lapwing Crescent; Applicant:  Wang Leung Leung & Ming Shuen Leung)

Applicants Comments:

The applicant was present to answer questions.

Written Submissions:

J. & P. Krejberg, 11531 Lapwing Cres. Schedule 2

Submissions from the floor:

None.

PH02-04

It was moved and seconded

That Zoning Amendment Bylaw 7461 be given second and third readings.

CARRIED

PH02-05

It was moved and seconded

That Zoning Amendment Bylaw 7461 be adopted.

CARRIED

4a.

ZONING AMENDMENT BYLAW 7465 (RZ 02-216183)

 (7733 Heather Street currently zoned Comprehensive Development District (CD/126); Applicant:  City of Richmond)

4b.

ZONING AMENDMENT BYLAW 7466 (RZ 02-216183)

(7131, 7151,7171, 7191, 7195, 7211, 7231, 7271 and 7291 Heather Street; Applicant:  Polygon Developments 140 Limited)

Applicants Comments:

Mr. Kevin Shoemaker, Polygon Developments, provided each Council member and staff with a copy of the development proposal.  A copy is also on file in the City Clerks Office.  Mr. Shoemaker then introduced the members of the Polygon team and reviewed the project including the note that the single requested variance was in response to a staff request that visitor parking stalls be removed from the village green in order to present a better entry and provide a larger children's play area. 

Written Submissions:

None.

Submissions from the floor:

None.

PH02-06

It was moved and seconded

That Zoning Amendment Bylaws 7465 and 7466 be given second and third readings.

CARRIED

PH02-07

It was moved and seconded

That Zoning Amendment Bylaw 7465 be adopted.

CARRIED

5.

ZONING AMENDMENT BYLAW 7468 (RZ 02-207199)

(5440 Francis Road; Applicant:  S.K.M.B. Harchand Construction)

Applicants Comments:

The applicant was present to answer questions.

Written Submissions:

None.

Submissions from the floor:

None.

PH02-08

It was moved and seconded

That Zoning Amendment Bylaw 7468 be given second and third readings.

CARRIED

6.

ZONING AMENDMENT BYLAW 7469 (RZ 02-219197)

(10151 Lassam Road; Applicant:  Austin Kay)

Applicants Comments:

The applicant was present to answer questions.

Written Submissions:

None.

Submissions from the floor:

Mr. Craig Smith, 10140 Lassam Road, said that he thought the proposed development was out of character with the existing lot sizes and homes in the area.  In addition, Mr. Smith was concerned about the affect the proposal would have on traffic in light of the existing traffic calming in place for McKinney School.

Mr. Fred Chan, 10126 Lassam Road, said that he wanted the character of the area to be maintained and not to be surrounded by smaller homes.

PH02-09

It was moved and seconded

That Zoning Amendment Bylaw 7469 be given second and third readings.

CARRIED

7a.

OFFICIAL COMMUNITY PLAN AMENDMENT BYLAW 7471

(McLennan South (7491, 7511, 7551, and 7571 No. 4 Road; Applicant: City of Richmond (Porte Realty Ltd.)

7b.

ZONING AMENDMENT BYLAWS 7472 AND 7473 (RZ 02-213224)

(8491 Blundell Road currently zoned Comprehensive Development District (CD/35) 7491, 7511, 7551, and 7571 No. 4 Road proposed as Comprehensive Development District (CD/35);  Applicant: Porte Realty Ltd.)

Applicants Comments:

The applicant was present to answer questions.

Written Submissions:

Mr. Mano Walia, 7540 Bridge Street Schedule 3

Submissions from the floor:

Mr. Mano Walia, 7540 Bridge Street, a professional engineer, expressed his concerns regarding the possible removal of existing mature trees from the site due to the detrimental affect this would have on the existing single family development.  Mr. Walia also said that the concentration of higher density would be out of character with the existing single family area.  He then expressed his concerns regarding the impact the development would have on traffic.

Mr. Derek James, 7420 Bridge Street, described the existing character of Bridge Street, and said that the proposed development would completely change that character and deteriorate the value of the area.  Mr. James said that he had purchased his property on the understanding that the area would remain single-family with some small development allowed along the arterials.  Mr. James believed that the development proposed was not a minor development, and could precipitate further development.  Mr. James requested that further consideration be given to the maintenance of the area as it exists today.

Ms. Jean James, 7420 Bridge Street, was in complete agreement with the comments of the previous speaker, and said that she was worried that the current quality of life would be destroyed.  The loss of trees, traffic issues, and the investment of owners in their properties, were also cited as concerns.

Ms. Karen Stromberg, 7680 Bridge Street, said that the proposed amendment to the Official Community Plan was a surprise as the Plan had been reviewed at the time the Strombergs purchased their home and the area was supposed to remain a single-family neighbourhood.  Ms. Stromberg also said that the traffic issues needed to be addressed.

Mr. Stephen Nordin, 7491 Bridge Street, said that while he was not directly affected by the proposed development, he supported the comments of the previous speakers.  In addition, Mr. Nordin said that an opportunity existed for the City to interface the agricultural land on the east side of No. 4 Road with this development and that a long hard look at the development of the overall area should be undertaken in order that a number of issues, including transportation and environmental, be considered. 

Ms. Barbara Baanders, 7520 Bridge Street, said that she considered Bridge Street a paradise, and that she supported the comments of her neighbours.

Mr. Brad Eshleman, 7731 Bridge Street, referred to the Official Community Plan and said that the proposed development was a departure from that plan.  Mr. Eshleman said that Bridge Street offered a country-style neighbourhood and that long time residents were very concerned about the proposed changes.  It was Mr. Eshlemans opinion that the proposed development would cause problems for the area.

A resident of Bridge Street, a newcomer to the street and Richmond, said that he had undertaken extensive research prior to purchasing his property and that the decision to purchase on Bridge Street had been based on the street appeal and the character of the neighbourhood.  It was also said that upon moving to the neighbourhood it had not taken long to realize the passion of the residents for their neighbourhood.

Mr. Walia, speaking for the second time, said that he had attended the neighbourhood development meetings of 1995, which had been attended by passionate residents of Bridge Street.  Mr. Walia said that he disagreed with earlier comments of staff regarding setbacks, and that the proposal should be looked at by high quality urban developers. 

Ms. Stromberg, speaking for the second time, questioned whether the ring road would be a north/south road; whether existing owners would be forced to sell their properties to accommodate the road; and, how the density equated to 45 units.

Ms. James, speaking for the second time, questioned the placement of lane markers on the subject property.

Mr. David Porte, Porte Realty, the applicant, with the aid of a site plan, said that the project complied with the existing Official Community Plan FAR requirement.  Mr. Porte reviewed the access to the site; the results of the arborists survey of existing trees; the setback requirements, and the location of the 3 storey clusters.  Noting that the east/west portion of the new ring road would be provided as part of the development, Mr. Porte said that the reduced site coverage had allowed the creation of the large green area and increased setbacks such that every home would have a private backyard area.  Mr. Porte confirmed that no lane was proposed as part of the development.

PH02-10

It was moved and seconded

That Official Community Plan Amendment Bylaw 7471 and Zoning Amendment Bylaws 7472 and 7473 be given second and third readings.

CARRIED

PH02-11

It was moved and seconded

That Official Community Plan Amendment Bylaw 7471 and Zoning Amendment Bylaw 7472 be adopted.

CARRIED

8.

ZONING AMENDMENT BYLAW 7474 (RZ 02-215547)

(7071 No. 4 Road and 7060 Bridge Street; Applicant:  Dava Developments Ltd.)

Applicants Comments:

The applicant was present to answer questions.

Written Submissions:

Ren Kawaguchi, 9680 Granville Ave. Schedule 4

Cindy Ng, 7080 Bridge St. Schedule 5

Chris Lockett, 7071 Bridge St. Schedule 6

Ren Kawaguchi on behalf of Mrs. T. Kawaguchi, 9720 Granville Schedule 7

Susan and G. Stromberg,  J. Sangara, 7680 and 7271 Bridge St. Schedule 8

Submissions from the floor:

Ms. Karen Stromberg, 7680 Bridge Street, said that she had the same objections as those expressed on the previous item.

Ms. Jean James, 7420 Bridge Street, said that she was opposed to the development proposal as at no time were multiplex forms designated for Bridge Street as the whole street was to remain single-family.  Ms. James also expressed concerns related to traffic and the lack of calming measures on Bridge Street.

Mr. Derek James, 7420 Bridge Street, said that at the time McLennan South residents expressed their desire for development, Bridge Street residents were interested in having sewers installed but were definite in their determination that Bridge Street should remain single-family in character.  Mr. James said that he would have appreciated an opportunity to ask questions of the developer.

Mr. Steve Nordin, 7491 Bridge Street, expressed his concerns related to the intended flow of traffic and the maintenance of the single-family essence of Bridge Street.

Mr. Allan McBurney, 7171 Bridge Street, suggested that a south merge lane on No. 4 Road be provided in order to lessen the possibility of Bridge Street being used as an access to the shopping centre.  Mr. McBurney questioned whether the on-site parking provided would be adequate.

Mr. Brad Eshleman, 7731 Bridge Street, read a written submission that is attached as Schedule 9 and forms a part of these minutes.  He then said that he was confused by single-family, duplex and triplex references of the Official Community Plan, and questioned why townhouses were not included in the wording.  Mr. Eshleman, with the aid of a site plan, said that he was concerned about the new homes on the north end of Bridge Street that are adjacent to the subject property and the possibility that similar development could occur at the south end of Bridge Street.  Traffic issues were also an expressed concern.

Mr. David Chung, Dava Developments, offered the following in address of the previous concerns:  that it was possible to relocate a duplex building and two detached units in order to address the written concerns of a resident; 5 visitor parking spaces had been provided; the proposal was considered low density townhouse use; as many trees as possible would be retained; detached units would face Bridge Street; and, that a commitment was made for a more country-like development.

PH02-12

It was moved and seconded

That Zoning Amendment Bylaw 7474 be given second and third readings.

CARRIED

9.

ZONING AMENDMENT BYLAWS 7475 AND 7476 (RZ 02-218186)

(8411 Steveston Highway already zoned Coach House District (R9)7131 Bridge Street proposed as Coach House District (R9); Applicant:  Patrick Cotter Architect)

Applicants Comments:

The applicant was present to answer questions.

Written Submissions:

David Yu, 7151 Bridge Street Schedules 10, 11 and 12

Allan McBurney, 7171 Bridge Street Schedule 13

Judith Lockett Schedule 14

Chris Lockett, 7071 Bridge Street Schedule 15

Submissions from the floor:

Mr. Derek James, 7420 Bridge Street, said that he agreed with the previous comments of Mr. Eshleman regarding the Official Community Plan wording.  Mr. James cited block busting; the encroachment into the single-family portions of Bridge Street; and the use of Bridge Street as an access the shopping centre, in his objection to the development.

Ms. Lynda Clark, 7740 Ash Street, said that she had been involved in the consulting process from the onset and that she was concerned about the proposed relocation of the ring road, and, that multi-family should be allowed only on the outside of the ring road.  Ms. Clark was also concerned about the affect the new school would have on traffic and she suggested that traffic calming measures also be considered for Ash and Heather Streets. 

Ms. Karen Stromberg, 7680 Bridge Street, reiterated her earlier objections and then questioned how to initiate a wording amendment to the Official Community Plan that would recognize the wishes of Bridge Street residents. 

Mr. David Yu, 7151 Bridge Street, said that he had understood in 1995 that higher density would only be allowed on the perimeter and that an appropriate process should be undertaken prior to a change being made to the original plan.  The implications the new school would have on traffic; the lack of compensation for the portion of his property that would be required by the new road; the close proximity of the new road to his home; the affect that the large amounts of peat soil in the area and the use of heavy machinery would have on his home and the liveability of that home, were all cited in Mr. Yus objection to the development.

Mr. Allan McBurney, 7171 Bridge Street, stated his interpretation of the coach house designation and the fact that he considered the proposal multi family.  Mr. McBurney said that a relocation of the ring road would change the boundaries and could result in multi-family being extended closer to the centre of the subdivision.  The north quarter of Bridge Street was considered by Mr. McBurney to be adversely affected and he questioned why this should be so.  It was Mr. McBurneys opinion that the ring road should remain further to the north and link up to the  portions that already existed.

Ms. Jean James, 7420 Bridge Street, said that the area plan was being manipulated, in a manner that would not have been approved by residents in 1995, in order to suit the developer.  Ms. James suggested that the matter be taken back to the residents of the area.

Ms. Jas Sangara, 7271 Bridge Street, a resident for 12 years, said that multi family should be on the perimeter only with Bridge Street retained as single family.  Ms. Sangara also expressed her concern regarding the relocation of the ring road.

Mr. John Wong, 7160 Ash Street, indicated that the ring road, if extended from the proposed road, would go right through his house.

Ms. Shylla Koruz, 7731 Bridge Street, said that she had been a member of the  working committee for the area plan in 1995 and that she was confused by the location of the ring road.  Ms. Koruzs understanding had been that the multi- family would be located on the perimeter with Ash and Bridge Streets retained as lower density; and Heather Street and Garden City Road as higher density.  Ms. Koruz expressed concern about the undetermined location of the ring road, and the lack of established lot sizes.

Mr. Brad Eshleman, 7731 Bridge Street, said that he shared the concerns of the previous speakers.  Mr. Eshleman noted the affection and concern the residents had for their area.  The Goals for McLennan South Neighbourhood were reviewed by Mr. Eshleman, and the encroachment into the guidelines by the proposed development were noted.  The proposed relocations of the ring road did not make sense to Mr. Eshleman, who said that the area residents were concerned and did not want any further encroachment.

Mr. Patrick Cotter, the architect and the applicant, with the aid of a site plan, said that at the direction of staff he had taken the location of the ring road and started to work on the project in a way that brought increased density while remaining sensitive to the Sub-Area Plan, the context, and the neighbourhood.  The single-family streetscape had been maintained by a separation of units from the garages, and also between the garages themselves, in a way that was typical of the variety seen on the streets in the area.  Mr. Cotter also reviewed the applicable bylaw requirements, the increased setback on flanking streets, the base density of the form and character, and, the favourable rental accommodation factor of the development.

It was moved and seconded

That Zoning Amendment Bylaws 7475 and 7476 be given second and third readings.

Prior to the question being called the following motion was made:

PH02-13

It was moved and seconded

That the regular meeting of Council for the purpose of Public Hearing proceed past 11:00 p.m.

CARRIED

A discussion then ensued that resulted in the following referral motion:

PH02-14

It was moved and seconded

That Zoning Amendment Bylaws 7475 and 7476 be referred to staff for:

i)

a further consideration of configuration options with the applicant;

ii)

an analysis of the location of the ring road including the criteria used for relocating portions of the ring road; and,

iii)

a definition of coach house being single-family or multi-family housing.

CARRIED

10.

ZONING AMENDMENT BYLAW 7478 (RZ 02-218208)

(7531 Moffatt Road; Applicant:  Jema Properties Consulting Inc.)

Applicants Comments:

The applicant was present to answer questions.

Written Submissions:

G. Mimandilla, 212 7571 Moffatt Road Schedule 16

T. Shuster, 217 7571 Moffatt Road Schedule 17

Submissions from the floor:

None.

PH02-15

It was moved and seconded

That Zoning Amendment Bylaw 7478 be given second and third readings.

CARRIED

11.

ZONING AMENDMENT BYLAW 7479 (RZ 02-217709)

(7611 Acheson Road; Applicant:  Parmjit Gill)

Applicants Comments:

The applicant was present to answer questions.

Written Submissions:

None.

Submissions from the floor:

None.

PH02-16

It was moved and seconded

That Zoning Amendment Bylaw 7479 be given second and third readings.

CARRIED

12.

ZONING AMENDMENT BYLAW 7549 (RZ 02-218219)

(10611 Shepherd Drive; Applicant:  Westshore Capital Inc)

Applicants Comments:

The applicant was present to answer questions.

Written Submissions:

None.

Submissions from the floor:

None.

PH02-17

It was moved and seconded

That Zoning Amendment Bylaw 7549 be given second and third readings.

CARRIED

13.

ADJOURNMENT

PH02-18

It was moved and seconded

That the meeting adjourn (11:16 p.m.).

CARRIED

Certified a true and correct copy of the Minutes of the Regular Meeting for Public Hearings of the City of Richmond held on Monday, February 17^th, 2003.

_________________________________

_________________________________

Mayor (Malcolm D. Brodie)

Acting City Clerk (David Weber)