1.

Zoning Amendment Bylaw 7470

(8300 & 8320 Ryan Road; Applicant:  Garden City Homes Ltd.)

Applicants Comments:

The applicant was present to answer questions.

Written Submissions:

Fourteen petition letters received from owners and residents of Leonard and Ryan Roads Schedule 1.

Submissions from the floor:

Mr. S. Newman, 10871 Rosecroft Crescent, expressed his concern that 10 units located in a residential area would create an eyesore.  Mr. Newman also questioned the notification process.

Ms. A. Bloomfield, 10931 Rosecroft Crescent, expressed concern that those properties to the rear of the subject property had not been included in the notification process due to the properties being located outside of the 50m notification area because of the intervening park.  Ms. Bloomfield requested that a decision on the matter be delayed to allow the neighbourhood an opportunity to further review the application.  In response to a question from the Mayor, Ms. Bloomfield said that she was opposed to the application as she felt it would change the character of the area and also because she wanted to protect the neighbourhood from the encroachment of development.

Mr. D. Cabral, 10951 Rosecroft Crescent, said that he had spoken to a number of people who were opposed to the application and he questioned what would be required to stop the application from proceeding.  Mr. Cabral felt that i)  the development would stick out like a sore thumb as it was not in keeping with the character of the community; and, ii)  that it would be sad to see the start of this type of development in the area.

Mr. Tom Yamamoto, Tom Yamamoto Architects Ltd., architect for the project, said that if the property had been developed as originally presented the three large single family homes that would have resulted would have been more out of character than the smaller scale project under consideration.

PH03-01

It was moved and seconded

That Zoning Amendment Bylaw 7470 be given second and third readings.

CARRIED

2a.

Zoning Amendment Bylaw No. 7484

(8811/8831 River Road; Applicant:  Great Canadian Casinos Inc.)

2b.

Land Use Contract 126 Amendment Bylaw No. 7485

(8320, 8340, 8440 Bridgeport Road and 8311, 8351 Sea Island Way; Applicant:  Carousel Ventures Ltd.)

Applicants Comments:

Mr. Randy Bell, Suite 309, 1010 Chilko Street, Vancouver, architect for the project, and Mr. Al Watt, Great Canadian Casinos, were present.

With the aid of a site plan, elevations, and an artists rendering, Mr. Bell provided an overview of the project that included:  the layout of the building and the site; identification of the portions of the existing building that would be utilized; the location of a right-of-way that will provide a continuous waterfront access intended to connect to future adjacent developments;  the future development potential of the Marpole Basin; the possibility of a rapid transit connection being sited in front of the facility; the various components of the proposal; and, the Rocky Mountain lodge theme of the design including a naturalistic landscape and the use of natural planting materials.

Written Submissions:

Mr. Richard Harper, Lehigh Heidelberg Cement Company Schedule 2.

Submissions from the floor:

Mr. John Wong, 3858 McKay Drive, said that a good job had been done on the proposal but he cited the following as his concerns:  the waste disposal for the marina; whether the construction of the seawall would have an environmental impact; whether an environmental study was required; whether the number of proposed parking spaces was sufficient; whether security, including lighting, would be adequate; and, whether activities would be restricted to Family Entertainment-type uses.

Ms. S. Reid, 10177 125A Street, Surrey, said that she was not in favour of the rezoning application.  Ms. Reid said that the incorporation of Skytrain into a casino was irresponsible; that the casino use would impact other businesses; that liability issues would arise; that bankruptcy rates and health indicators would rise, and that actual spending on problem-gambling related issues was 2.5M.  Ms. Reid indicated that there was much misinformation relating to the increase to crime as a result of gambling.  Ms. Reid asked that Council further explore how the casino would impact the community and also that a referendum be held on the matter.  An information packet submitted by Ms. Reid is on file in the City Clerks Office.

Mr. Bob Light, 10751 Palmberg Road, asked for clarification of the wording of the Comprehensive Development zone, which was provided by the Manager, Development Applications, Joe Erceg.  Mr. Light said that he supported the rezoning application as it would allow development of an area that had not developed as intended.  Further, Mr. Light said that gambling was not the issue at hand as it had already been dealt with and that drinking and smoking were the cause of more deaths than gambling.

PH03-02

It was moved and seconded

That Zoning Amendment Bylaw 7484 and Land Use Contract 126 Amendment Bylaw 7485 be given second and third readings.

CARRIED

Opposed:  Mayor Brodie

Councillor Dang

3.

Zoning Amendment Bylaw 7486

(9420, 9460, and 9480 Cambie Road; Applicant:  S297 Holdings Ltd.)

Applicants Comments:

The applicant was not present.

Written Submissions:

I. Lai Schedule 3.

J. Wong Schedule 4.

J. Lau Schedule 5.

Submissions from the floor:

Mr. John Wong, 3858 McKay Drive, read a written submission that is attached as Schedule 6 and forms a part of these minutes.  Mr. Wong also submitted a petition of 200 signatures in opposition to the rezoning application, a copy of which is on file in the City Clerks Office.

Mr. J. Lau, 3660 Cunningham Drive, questioned whether the interest of the purchaser of the property should be considered by Council; whether the 240 ft. frontage was adequate for semi-trailers of up to 75 ft. in length; whether the impact of vibrations on the residents of Cambie Road was considered; and, he noted the lack of quantified impacts on the neighbourhood.  Mr. Lau said that there was a lot of room in the area for multi-family development.

Mr. R. Field, 9571 No. 6 Road, the owner of a property on Odlin Road directly behind the proposed development, said that he thought the area was zoned for housing.  Mr. Field said that Alexandra Road was run-down and that the addition of a car lot would not benefit the situation.  Mr. Field referred to the Oaks and Odlinwood subdivisions and questioned why more housing, including affordable housing, would not be appropriate.

Mr. S. Lal, 10431 Odlin Road, said that he was expressing not only his own concerns, but also those of the neighbourhood.  The concerns cited were the environmental and transportation impacts of the proposal including site clean-up and whether a transportation study would be undertaken.  Mr. Lal felt that as one of the last pieces of undeveloped land the subject property should be quickly developed as residential with some commercial use.  It was Mr. Lals opinion that the effects of being on a flight path could be overcome if legal methods of mitigation were imposed.  Mr. Lal requested that the application be declined as he was also concerned about the effect that the proposal, if approved, would have on property values.

Ms. Stella Wong, 3828 Cunningham Drive, said that she was very concerned about the impact the proposal would have on traffic and she noted the accident history of the No. 4 Road and Cambie Road intersections. 

Ms. A. Gosen, 9500 Cambie Road, said that she had owned her property for 25 years in addition to owning a property behind the subject property for 45 years.  Ms. Gosen questioned how consideration could be given to locating a car lot in the middle of a residential area described as the gateway to Richmond.  Ms. Gosen expressed her frustration over having garbage left on her property and over having had fences removed by the applicant which had jeopardized her livestock, actions for which Ms. Gosen said the applicant would not respond.  Ms. Gosen also said that plenty of room was available for car lots on No. 6 Road;  that her property was taxed heavily for future uses, which she did not understand;  and, that the applicant had demolished huge cedar trees and a heritage house.

Ms. S. Keller-Bhanji, 9200 Odlin Road, the owner of the property to the rear of the proposed car lot, expressed confusion over the rezoning application and she questioned what would prevent this type of development occurring on Odlin Road.  Ms. Keller-Bhanji confirmed that cedar trees had been removed from the subject property; that oil tanks were lying around; and that no fence repair had taken place which posed a hazard for the livestock.  Ms. Keller-Bhanji said that she felt the area was run-down and neglected. 

Mr. L. Ratsoy, the applicant, with the aid of a site plan, provided the following information during his review of the project:  a horseshoe design access was provided to accommodate the truck use; the number of trucks per day attending the site would vary, however, deliveries would be scheduled during off-business hours; a cedar hedge would be provided to shield neighbouring properties from light; a cedar hedge with grass areas would be provided along the street edge to mitigate the view to the lot from the street; the facility would be used strictly for storage purposes; the lighting would be on motion detectors that could be overridden by truck operators to lessen the impact on the neighbourhood; and, the security fencing to be provided would inhibit the lighting impact on the neighbours.

In response to questions, Mr. Ratsoy said that two appointments had been made to meet with Ms. Gosen but that she had not attended; the refuse on Ms. Gosens property was left by the previous owners and had only been exposed as a result of clearing the edge of the property; and, that no sign of a fence was evident at the time of the clearing.

Ms. Gosen, speaking for the second time, questioned whether the lot was considered a storage lot only if prospective vehicle purchasers would be taken to the lot.  Ms. Gosen said that her neighbours could confirm that a fence had been in place on her property; that the existing residents had a right to a decent neighbourhood, and that there appeared to be no benefit to paying high taxes.

Mr. Wong, speaking for the second time, expressed his concerns regarding the high collision intersection of No. 4 Road and Cambie Road and questioned whether the semi-trailers would add to the situation by blocking traffic.  The effects of truck noise and lighting on the neighbours was also raised.

Mr. Field, speaking for the second time, questioned why No. 6 Road could not be used; and, what the notification process included.

Mr. Lal, speaking for the second time, asked that Council decline the application.

It was moved and seconded

That Zoning Amendment Bylaw 7486 be given second and third readings.

Prior to the question being called a discussion ensued that resulted in the following referral motion:

PH03-03

It was moved and seconded

That Zoning Amendment Bylaw 7486 be referred to staff for:

1.

further consideration of neighborliness and development issues including identification of future long term uses appropriate for the area;

2.

a review of the truck access, both ingress and egress; and,

3.

a review of the taxation of residents in the area.

CARRIED

Opposed:  Councillor Kumagai

4.

Zoning Amendment Bylaw 7487

(8671 Cantley Road; Applicant:  Amar Sandhu)

Applicants Comments:

The applicant was present to answer questions.

Written Submissions:

None.

Submissions from the floor:

None.

PH03-04

It was moved and seconded

That Zoning Amendment Bylaw 7487 be given second and third readings.

CARRIED

PH03-05

It was moved and seconded

That Zoning Amendment Bylaw 7487 be adopted.

CARRIED

5.

Zoning Amendment Bylaw 7488

(7471 No. 6 Road; Applicant:  Jatinder Bhangav)

Applicants Comments:

The applicant was not present.

Written Submissions:

None.

Submissions from the floor:

Mr. Bob Light, 10751 Palmberg Road, expressed his concerns regarding a zoning amendment that would allow a particular use on a specific site only; and the use of a residential dwelling for a non-residential use.  Mr. Light cited a number of structural changes, such as sprinklers, fire separation between floors, emergency lighting, etc., that could be required to accommodate the change in use of the building and he suggested that staff must enforce the building code.  Mr. Light questioned the need for a daycare in the area, especially in light of the closure of Sidaway School.

PH03-06

It was moved and seconded

That Zoning Amendment Bylaw 7488 be given second and third readings.

CARRIED

PH03-07

It was moved and seconded

That Zoning Amendment Bylaw 7488 be adopted.

CARRIED

6.

Zoning Amendment Bylaw 7489

(10291 Bridgeport Road; Applicant:  Jerry and Karin Giesbrecht)

Applicants Comments:

The applicant was present to answer questions.

Written Submissions:

None.

Submissions from the floor:

None.

PH03-08

It was moved and seconded

That Zoning Amendment Bylaw 7489 be given second and third readings.

CARRIED

7.

ADJOURNMENT

PH03-09

It was moved and seconded

That the meeting adjourn (9:25 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, March 17^th, 2003.

_________________________________

_________________________________

Mayor (Malcolm D. Brodie)

Acting City Clerk (David Weber)