1.

Official Community Plan Amendment Bylaw 7591

(Applicant:  City of Richmond)

Applicants Comments:

The Manager, Development Applications, Joe Erceg, indicated that there was no additional information to that contained in the report.

Mr. Erceg and Ms. Jenny Beran, Planner, then responded to questions on various aspects of the proposed policy.

Written Submissions:

None.

Submissions from the floor:

Mr. Peter Mitchell referred to his written submission on the matter, and said that should ground floor space be difficult to provide on small developments the space could be located higher up in the building.  Mr. Mitchell also said that provision of small amenity space would offer developers an opportunity to differentiate their space from that of other projects.

PH 03/12-01

It was moved and seconded

That Official Community Plan Amendment Bylaw 7591 be given second and third readings.

CARRIED

PH 03/12-02

It was moved and seconded

That Official Community Plan Amendment Bylaw 7591 be adopted.

CARRIED

PH 03/12-03

It was moved and seconded

That the Cash in Lieu of Indoor Amenity Space Policy (attachment 1 to the report dated July 4, 2003 from the Manager, Policy Planning), be adopted. 

CARRIED

PH 03/12-04

It was moved and seconded

That staff provide a report within one year that would identify the effectiveness and also the problems associated with the implementation of the Cash in Lieu of Indoor Amenity Space Policy. 

CARRIED

2.

Zoning Amendment Bylaw 7593 (RZ 03-241733)
(3060/3080 Blundell Road; Applicant:  Rav Bains)

Applicants Comments:

The applicant was not present.

Written Submissions:

None.

Submissions from the floor:

None

PH 03/12-05

It was moved and seconded

That Zoning Amendment Bylaw 7593 be given second and third readings.

CARRIED

3.

Proposed Single Lot Size Policy (Section 31, 5 5) and Zoning Amendment Bylaw 7608 (RZ 03-226615)

(12340 Woodhead Road; Applicant:  Rav Bains)

Applicants Comments:

The applicant was not present.

Written Submissions:

None.

Submissions from the floor:

None.

PH 03/12-06

It was moved and seconded

That the properties located generally east of No. 5 Road along Woodhead Road, McNeely Drive and Cameron Drive in a portion of Section 31, 5-5, be permitted to subdivide in accordance with the provisions of Single-Family Housing District, Subdivision Area B (R1/B) in Zoning and Development Bylaw No. 5300 (ie. 12 m or 39.37 ft wide lots with a minimum lot area of 360 m2 or 3,875.13 ft2).

CARRIED

PH 03/12-07

It was moved and seconded

That Zoning Amendment Bylaw 7608 be given second and third readings.

CARRIED

4.

Zoning Amendment Bylaw 7610

(Applicant:  City of Richmond)

Applicants Comments:

The Manager, Development Applications, Joe Erceg, had no additional information to that contained in the report.

Written Submissions:

None.

Submissions from the floor:

None.

PH 03/12-08

It was moved and seconded

That Zoning Amendment Bylaw 7610 be given second and third readings.

CARRIED

PH 03/12-09

It was moved and seconded

That Zoning Amendment Bylaw 7610 be adopted.

CARRIED

5a.

Officical Community Plan Amendment Bylaw 7611

(McLennan South (Section 15-4-6); Applicant:  City of Richmond)

5b.

Zoning Amendment Bylaw 7604 (RZ 03-227858)

(7320 Bridge Street; Applicant:  Ellins Architect Inc.)

Applicants Comments:

Ms. Suzanne Carter-Huffman, Planner, provided an overview of the process to date which included the identification of four particular issues:  i) the lack of single-family boundaries;  ii) the inequities felt by those property owners whose land would be required for the two north/south roads;  iii)  the flexibility of the alignment of the north/south roads; and iv) lot size.  Mr. Carter-Huffman, with the aid of a number of graphic displays, then spoke to those issues and provided block by block indications of the survey results and also the development potential of the area.

Mr. John Beck, the applicant, spoke about the at-length discussions that he had held with almost every property owner in the area in an effort to determine what those property owners desired for their area.  The results of those discussions had indicated to Mr. Beck that the retention of large lots in the front with development of the backlands was most preferred.  Mr. Beck also spoke about i) the general acceptance that his project had received from area residents, ii) traffic issues; and iii) the condition of the subject property. 

Written Submissions:

R. & T.P.Y. Keasberry, 7091 Bridge Street Schedule 1.

Susan and Grace Stromberg, 7680 Bridge Street Schedule 2.

James and Linda Watson, 7680 Ash Street Schedule 3.

B. Eshleman, 7731 Bridge Street Schedule 4.

M. Alexander & B Eshleman, 9000 Granville Ave. & 7040 Garden City Road Schedule 5.

S. & P. Johal, 7251 Bridge Street Schedule 6.

Submissions from the floor:

Mr. Gerry Sieben, 9271 General Currie Road, said that he had attended a number of public meetings at which it had been indicated that fairly dense multi-family development would be allowed west of Heather Street.  Mr. Sieben then spoke about i) the existing development that would impede one of the proposed roads;  ii)  the possible extension of General Currie Road to No. 4 Road;  iii) the width of Heather Street south of Blundell;  iv) his support for large lots being retained between Heather and Ash with smaller lots allowed on the perimeter; and v) the additional green space that is provided by front garages.  Mr. Sieben concluded his comments with a request that members of Council view the area.

At this point Ms. Carter-Huffman spoke further about the area of single-family designation in McLennan South, the approximate location of the two proposed roads, the traffic calming measures that would be included, the required widths of north/south roads, and the requirements contained in the Official Community Plan with regard to garages and driveways. 

Mr. Ray Sebastian, 7511 Bridge Street, said that he also had attended a number of neighbourhood meetings during which great effort had been made to keep all residents happy.  Mr. Sebastian spoke about the number of properties, some of which were rental properties, that appeared to waiting for redevelopment and expressed his opinion that should 59 ft. lots be maintained those properties would not redevelop to large houses as they were not supported by current real estate markets.  Mr. Sebastian expressed his support for the compromise offered by Planning Department staff, which he said would work if it were well monitored.

Mr. A. Daviel, 7100 Ash Street, said that he was in favour of the split sizes but also that if he had had to choose between all large or all small lots, he would have chosen the 59 ft. lots.  In addition, Mr. Daviel said that a decision by Council would allow the issues to be addressed.

Ms. Jean James, 7420 Bridge Street, spoke in favour of 59 ft. lots.  It was Ms. James opinion that at the time the Official Community Plan for the area had been adopted the intent had been to retain the large lots on Bridge Street.  It was also Ms. James opinion that the community meetings that had been held should have been held in order to allow the resident concerns to be heard as opposed to the residents hearing the presentations of the developers.  Ms. James said that she was not opposed to the proposed development but rather 39 ft. lots.  An objection was made by Ms. James regarding the information provided as to how many homes existed in the area with an assessed value in excess of $200,000.  In conclusion, Ms. James said that the whole plan, which included the road system, was flawed.

Mr. Doug Nazareth, 7480 Ash Street, said that he agreed with the previous speaker, and further that he had involved himself in previous discussions on the Official Community Plan and that the plan presented today was diametrically opposed to those discussions.  Mr. Nazareth supported 59 ft. lots on Bridge and Ash Streets, and he requested that Council view the area. 

Mr. Gilbert Chan, a realtor and former 10 year resident of Bridge Street, spoke about the number of houses that have an improvement value, the significant lot depths, and the expectation that the resulting traffic flow into the area would not differ greatly from that of single-family development.

Mr. Brad Eshleman, 7731 Bridge Street, said that he had submitted a number of letters to the City regarding development in the McLennan South area that had included the results of both a City survey of area residents, and his own survey.  Mr. Eshleman then provided a graphic that combined the results of the two surveys and which evidenced the areas of support for 39 ft. lots and also the overwhelming support for 59 ft. lots on certain portions of Bridge and Ash Streets.  Mr. Eshleman said that the voice of the majority would prefer a alternative option that would apply specific zoning to certain areas.  Mr. Eshleman then read a number of comments made by those residents who had participated in his survey.  In concluding his comments, Mr. Eshleman said that balance, and a decision, was needed. 

Mr. Ranjeet Sangara, 7271 Bridge Street, thanked Mr. Eshleman for the work he had undertaken on behalf of area residents and then expressed his concern that the issues were yet again being discussed.  Mr. Sangara said that he had moved to the area to live in rural Richmond and that planners and developers were changing the lives of area residents.  It was Mr. Sangaras preference that at least a small area of Richmond remain as it was.  Mr. Sangara requested that Council take a look at the area, and do what 87% of area residents asked for.

Mr. Beck, speaking for the second time, said that he had not heard anything that should prevent his project from proceeding, but that he had heard some last ditch efforts, some untruths, and a lot of misunderstanding about the 87% mentioned in the survey results.  It was Mr. Becks opinion that 87% represented those who wanted to maintain 59 ft. frontages but that 70% of  that representation were also in favour of smaller lots.  Mr. Beck then reiterated the effort he had expended on listening to the concerns of area residents while working carefully with Planning staff over the past eight months.  Mr. Beck agreed that it was time for Council to make a decision on the matter.

Mr. Sebastian, speaking for the second time, said that he found the results of Mr. Eshlemans survey interesting, and, after questioning the results, suggested that Planning staff should properly review those results.  Mr. Sebastian also spoke about the existing 45 ft. lots in the area and questioned why then would 39 ft. lots be considered a problem.

Ms. James, speaking for second time, spoke about the importance of those who attend the meetings and offer written submissions.  Ms. James reiterated that owners of Bridge and Ash Streets in majority preferred 59 ft. lots and then questioned why Mr. Beck could not have a 59 ft. frontage on Bridge with 39 ft. in the back.  Ms. James provided a photograph of Mr. Becks property for Council consideration.

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

PH 03/12-10

It was moved and seconded

That Official Community Plan Amendment Bylaw 7611 be referred to staff in order that the alternate option contained in the report (dated October 20^th, 2003 from the Manager, Policy Planning), or any other appropriate variation on that option, be brought forward.

Prior to the question being called direction was given that recommendations based on i) the survey results offered by Mr. Eshleman; and ii) the possible various alignments of 59 ft. and 39 ft. lots, be provided.  It was then noted that the direction could result in more than one option being brought forward.

The question was then called and it was CARRIED.

PH 03/12-11

It was moved and seconded

That Zoning Amendment Bylaw 7604 be given second and third readings.

CARRIED

6.

Zoning Amendment Bylaw 7613

(Applicant:  City of Richmond)

Applicants Comments:

The Manager, Development Applications, Joe Erceg, had no further information to that contained in the report.

Written Submissions:

None.

Submissions from the floor:

None.

PH 03/12-12

It was moved and seconded

That Zoning Amendment Bylaw 7613 be given second and third readings.

CARRIED

PH 03/12-13

It was moved and seconded

That Zoning Amendment Bylaw 7613 be adopted.

CARRIED

7.

Zoning Amendment Bylaw 7617 (RZ 03-246677)

(8240 Francis Road; Applicant:  Rafiq Shaikh)

Applicants Comments:

The applicant was present to answer questions.

Written Submissions:

Mr. R. Shaikh, 4580 Pendlebury Road Schedule 7.

Submissions from the floor:

None.

PH03/12-14

It was moved and seconded

That Zoning Amendment Bylaw 7617 be given second and third readings.

CARRIED

8.

Zoning Amendment Bylaw 7618 (RZ 03-248592)

(10100 Cambie Road; Applicant:  Nobob Properties Ltd.)

Applicants Comments:

The applicant was present to answer questions.

Written Submissions:

C. Sum and L. Wong, 10111 Bryson Drive Schedule 8 (two letters).

S. Chiang, 4040 Fisher Drive Schedule 9.

J. Wong Schedule 10.

Submissions from the floor:

Mr. Bryson, a representative of an adjacent property owner, spoke about a row of trees along the south property line which he wished to see retained if possible.

A representative of the applicant indicated that all effort would be made to retain the trees if their location allowed this.

PH03/12-15

It was moved and seconded

That Zoning Amendment Bylaw 7618 be given second and third readings.

CARRIED

9.

Zoning Amendment Bylaw 7623 (RZ 03-242687)

(7400 Heather Street; Applicant:  William R. Rhone)

Applicants Comments:

The applicant was present to answer questions.

Written Submissions:

None.

Submissions from the floor:

None.

PH03/12-16

It was moved and seconded

That Zoning Amendment Bylaw 7623 be given second and third readings.

CARRIED

10.

Official Community Plan Amendment Bylaw 7624 and Zoning Amendment Bylaw 7625 (RZ 03-247433)

(9251 and 9291 No. 3 Road; Applicant:  Rocky Sethi)

Applicants Comments:

The applicant was not present.

Written Submissions:

None.

Submissions from the floor:

None.

PH03/12-17

It was moved and seconded

That Official Community Plan Amendment Bylaw 7624 and Zoning Amendment Bylaw 7625 be given second and third readings.

CARRIED

PH03/12-18

It was moved and seconded

That Official Community Plan Amendment Bylaw 7624 be adopted.

CARRIED

11.

Zoning Amendment Bylaw 7627 (RZ 03-236251)

(5500/5502 Blundell Road; Applicant:  Raymond Ching)

Applicants Comments:

The applicant was present to answer questions.

Written Submissions:

None.

Submissions from the floor:

None.

PH03/12-19

It was moved and seconded

That Zoning Amendment Bylaw 7627 be given second and third readings.

CARRIED

12.

Zoning Amendment Bylaw 7629 (RZ 03-243983)

(7540, 7560 Garden City Road and 7491, 7511, 7531, 7551, 7571 Heather Street.; Applicant:  Adera Equities Inc.)

Applicants Comments:

The applicant was present to answer questions.

Written Submissions:

L. & M. DeWinter, 9100 General Currie Road Schedule 11.

Submissions from the floor:

Mr. Gill, 7591 Heather Street, said that an improved notification of policy amendments should be undertaken.  Further to this, Mr. Gill said that he was not opposed to the development but that some concerns and issues of the neighbourhood were being ignored.  Mr. Gill requested that Council review the proposed Floor Area Ratio of the project.  Mr. Gill then expressed concern about the number of units per cluster and the height of the building which he said the applicant had been unable to address satisfactorily.

Mr. Tony Chao, a representative of the owners of 7600 Garden City Road, spoke about the impact to his parents property that would result from the proposed bend to Turnill Street.

Mr. Norm Couttie, Adera Equities, with the help of visual aids, responded to the concerns put forth by Mr. Mr. Chao and Mr. Gill and outlined the changes that had been made to mitigate the residents concerns.

PH03/12-20

It was moved and seconded

That Zoning Amendment Bylaw 7629 be given second and third readings.

CARRIED

13.

ADJOURNMENT

PH 03/12-21

It was moved and seconded

That the meeting adjourn (10:08 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, December 15^th, 2003.

_________________________________

_________________________________

Mayor (Malcolm D. Brodie)

Acting City Clerk (David Weber)