1.

Zoning Amendment Bylaw 7804

(5311/5331 Clifton Road; Applicant:  Camino Construction Ltd)

Applicant’s Comments:

The applicant was not present.

Written Submissions:

Y. Li, 5291 Clifton Road – Schedule 1

K. Lehl, 5280 Clifton Road – Schedule 2

Submissions from the floor:

None
 

PH04/10-01

It was moved and seconded

That Zoning Amendment Bylaw 7804 be given second and third readings.

CARRIED

2.

Zoning Amendment Bylaw 7805

(8191 St. Albans Road; Applicant:  Douglas L. Massie, Architect)

Applicant’s Comments:

Mr. D. Massie was present to answer questions.

Written Submissions:

J. & E. Yu, 8155 Lucerne Place – Schedule 3

27 petition letters from area residents in support of the application – Schedule 4

Submissions from the floor:

None
 

PH04/10-02

It was moved and seconded

That Zoning Amendment Bylaw 7805 be given second and third readings.

CARRIED

3.

Official Community Plan Amendment Bylaw 7806 and Zoning Amendment Bylaw 7607

(11040/11080/11100/11106 No. 1 Road; Applicant:  ATI Construction Ltd.)

Applicant’s Comments:

The applicant was present to answer questions.

Written Submissions:

None

Submissions from the floor:

None
 

PH04/10-03

It was moved and seconded

That Official Community Plan Amendment Bylaw 7806 and Zoning Amendment Bylaw 7807 be given second and third readings.

CARRIED

4.

Zoning Amendment Bylaw 7809

(8560, 8580 and 8600 No. 3 Road; Applicant:  Paul Leong Architect Inc.)

Applicant’s Comments:

The applicant was present to answer questions.

Written Submissions:

Angela Chow, 8811 Gay Road – Schedule 5

Submissions from the floor:

None
 

PH04/10-04

It was moved and seconded

That Zoning Amendment Bylaw 7809 be given second and third reading.

CARRIED

5.

Zoning Amendment Bylaw 7813

(7531 St. Albans Road; Applicant:  K.Y. Properties Ltd.)

Applicant’s Comments:

The applicant was present to answer questions.

Written Submissions:

M. Fan, 157 – 8333 Jones Road – Schedule 6

Submissions from the floor:

None
 

PH04/10-05

It was moved and seconded

That Zoning Amendment Bylaw 7813 be given second and third readings.

CARRIED

6.

Zoning Amendment Bylaw 7814

(8271 Francis Road; Applicant:  Rocky Sethi)

Applicant’s Comments:

The applicant was not present.

Written Submissions:

None

Submissions from the floor:

None
 

PH04/10-06

It was moved and seconded

That Zoning Amendment Bylaw 7814 be given second and third readings.

CARRIED

7.

Zoning Amendment Bylaw 7815

(Rear Portion of 7351 No. 4 Road; Applicant:  Patrick Cotter Architect Inc.)

Applicant’s Comments:

The applicant was present to answer questions.

Written Submissions:

M. Hon, 7311 #4 Road – Schedule 7

Submissions from the floor:

Ms. Jean James, 7420 Bridge Street, objected to the height of the development, which would abut the rear of her property.  Ms. James spoke about other 3 storey developments on the block which towered over the existing trees, and said that she had thought that the original plan had included 2.5 storey adjacent to the single-family. 

Mr. Patrick Cotter, the applicant, provided clarification that there were no 3 storey units planned for the development.  Mr. Cotter said that the triplex buildings contained a 2.5 storey unit as the middle unit, and that the adjacent property contained 2 middle units with bedrooms under the gable.  Further to this, Mr. Cotter also said that no single family homes were located around the core of the site, and that a 6m setback had been provided from the west property line.
 

PH04/10-07

It was moved and seconded

That Zoning Amendment Bylaw 7815 be given second and third readings.

CARRIED

8.

Zoning Amendment Bylaw 7817

(8431 and 8451 No. 2 Road; Applicant:  Parmjit S. Randhawa)

Applicant’s Comments:

The applicant was present to answer questions.

Written Submissions:

None

Submissions from the floor:

None

PH04/10-08

It was moved and seconded

That Zoning Amendment Bylaw 7817 be given second and third readings.

CARRIED

9.

Official Community Plan Amendment Bylaw 7818 and Zoning Amendment Bylaw 7819

(5600 Parkwood Way; Applicant:  Sun Life Assurance of Canada)

Applicant’s Comments:

The applicant was not present.

Written Submissions:

None

Submissions from the floor:

None
 

PH04/10-09

It was moved and seconded

That Official Community Plan Amendment Bylaw 7818 and Zoning Amendment Bylaw 7819 be given second and third readings.

CARRIED

10.

Official Community Plan Amendment Bylaw 7820 and Zoning Amendment Bylaw 7821

(6620 Granville Avenue; Applicant:  Maeda Development Ltd)

Applicant’s Comments:

The applicant was present to answer questions.

Written Submissions:

None

Submissions from the floor:

Mr. Jack Caunce, 6600 Granville Avenue, said that he had spoken to the developer and that a number of issues had been agreed to, and some not.  Mr. Caunce asked what distance would exist between his building and that proposed.  Mr. Caunce then spoke about the 10 foot strip of land behind his property, and the understanding at the time of the development of the adjacent property that the road would come against Mr. Caunce’s property, which had not happened.
 

PH04/10-10

It was moved and seconded

That Official Community Plan Amendment Bylaw 7820 and Zoning Amendment Bylaw 7821 be given second and third readings.

CARRIED

PH04/10-11

It was moved and seconded

That Official Community Plan Amendment Bylaw 7820 be adopted.

CARRIED

PH04/10-12

It was moved and seconded

That staff review the ownership and status of the strip of land between the rear of Mr. Caunce’s property and the road.

CARRIED

11.

Zoning Amendment Bylaw 7822

(6440 Garden City Road; a portion of 6388 Katsura Street; and 9071, 9111, 9131, 9151, 9171, 9191 and 9211 Alberta Road; Applicant:  528450 B.C. LTD)

Applicant’s Comments:

The applicant was present to answer questions.

Written Submissions:

None

Submissions from the floor:

None
 

PH04/10-13

It was moved and seconded

That Zoning Amendment Bylaw 7822 be given second and third readings.

CARRIED

Councillor Dang, in accordance with Section 100 of the Community Charter, declared himself to be in a potential conflict of interest on Item 12 and he left the meeting: 7:36 pm.

12.

Zoning Amendment Bylaw 7827

(7560 Acheson Road; Applicant:  Townline Homes Inc.)

Applicant’s Comments:

The applicant was present to answer questions.

Written Submissions:

Y. Jis, 7560 Acheson Road – Schedule 8

Y. Lu, K. Yang, H. Liu, and S. Chen, 7571 and 7700 Acheson Road – Schedule 9

Submissions from the floor:

Mr. Z. Zhao, 7580 Acheson Road, said that although he supported the subdivision into 3 lots and the usage, he was opposed to the duplex on the east side for the following three reasons:  i)  the unique, peaceful atmosphere of Acheson Road, which was hard to find in the downtown area, should be preserved; ii)  there is no shortage of high density/housing in the downtown area;  iii) the parking provided will be insufficient. 
 

Ms. Claire Fanning, an adjacent property owner, said that she agreed with the previous speaker, and that she also had concerns about the parking.  Ms. Fanning also expressed concern about the impact of new development on the City’s infrastructure.
 

Ms. Lauren Melville, representative of Townline Homes, said that the options for providing the 4 parking stalls for the 4 units would be determined during the Development Permit process.  Ms. Melville also responded to questions regarding the affordability of the small unit, and the single-family character.
 

PH04/10-14

It was moved and seconded

That Zoning Amendment Bylaw 7827 be given second and third readings.

CARRIED

Councillor Dang returned to the meeting – 7:50 pm.
 

Councillor Howard, in accordance with Section 100 of the Community Charter, declared himself to be in a potential conflict of interest on the next item and he left the meeting:  7:53 pm.

13.

Official Community Plan Amendment Bylaw 7831

(The area bounded by Moncton Street, No. 2 Road, Andrews Road and Trites Road; Applicant:  City of Richmond)

Applicant’s Comments:

The Manager, Policy Planning, Terry Crowe, with the aid of presentation boards, provided a summary of the history of the development of the Trites Area planning process, and several of the key issues of the proposed Area Plan Bylaw, following which he responded to questions of Council.

Written Submissions:

H. Janssen, 11960 Flamingo Court – Schedule 10

C. & E. Mannhardt, 12021 Osprey Court – Schedule 11

D. Fairholm, 12231 Trites Road – Schedule 12

D. Burgess, #324-5700 Andrews Road – Schedule 13

J. Carswell, #417-5800 Andrews Road – Schedule 14

J. & A. Leger, 5800 Andrews Road (2) – Schedule 15

J. Emerick,  #313-5800 Andrews Road – Schedule 16

D. Nicholl, #412-5800 Andrews Road – Schedule 17

Richmond Food Bank – Schedule 18

M. Lehmann, 5851 Plover Court – Schedule 19

K. & C. Olson, #301-5700 Andrews Road – Schedule 20

S. Breen, 12032 Osprey Court – Schedule 21

Submissions from the floor:

Mr. Ed Montague, on behalf of the Richmond Food Bank Society, and as a member of the Board since 1993, acknowledged his five colleagues that were also in attendance, and referred to the letter submitted by the Richmond Food Bank Society that outlined the impact the proposed vision might have on the Food Bank.  Mr. Montague then spoke about the growing community serviced by the Food Bank, and expressed concern about the affect a re-location might have on accessibility, volunteer accessibility, and further marginalization of the poor.
 

Mr. Michael Gagnon, 5600 Andrews Road, said that he was opposed to the A4 area and that the designated areas should be more clearly identified.
 

Ms. Jo-Anne Rocque, 5800 Andrews Road, said that she had watched the area being developed, and that the map was confusing as she thought some of the development along Andrews Road was 3 storey.
 

Ms. Jennifer Nakai, 5620 Moncton Street, read a written submission which is attached as Schedule 22 and forms a part of these minutes.
 

Mr. Ken Takahashi, 5580 Moncton Street, expressed concern that: i)  no clear access had been identified to the rear of his property;  ii) the new development may not be provided with appropriate drainage; and, iii) the walkways would also require proper drainage.  Mr. Takahaski also said that the walkway on the west side would require a fence.
 

Mr. G. Rafter, 5740 Moncton Street, said that he was generally pleased with the response of Council to the concerns of residents, but he also agreed that some ambiguity existed in the presented material.  Mr. Rafter said that he would prefer a better definition of the T2 (two storey townhouses) and T3 (3 storey townhouses) within the panhandle, and he asked for an explanation of compatible floodproofing.
 

Mr. Tanaka, whose mother resides at 5520 Moncton Street, expressed his concern that the backlands of Moncton Street not be blocked off.
 

Mr. S. Lawson, 11660 – 6^th Avenue, on behalf of a proposed new development at 12251 No. 2 Road, said that the developer planned to deal with adjacency issues in a very careful manner that would include a 6m setback from the north property line.  Mr. Lawson displayed a proposed site plan that included both T2 (2 storey) and T3 (three storey) units.
 

Mr. A. Burnett said that he agreed with the previous comments, and in particular that specificity was needed for the different parcels.  He then spoke about the construction in the area, traffic congestion and parking, including that he did not think A3 (three storey apartments) were viable from a parking perspective.  Concern was expressed that A4 (four storey apartments) not being encouraged was only a gentle suggestion, and clarity was requested around the actual height of A3 and A4. In response to the request staff presented the height information and indicated that it would be included in the material found on the City website.
 

Ms. Sally Breen, 12032 Osprey Court, expressed her opinion that the proceedings felt like a public consultation and not a public hearing and that she felt that there was a incredible opportunity to create a gem of a neighbourhood with higher density in a liveable area that contained open green space.
 

Ms. Janice Chapman expressed concern that no mention had been made in the proposed Plan as to the number of units per acre;  that single-family residential frontages should have been 44 – 50 ft. instead of 33 ft.; and that compliance would be difficult in the future.  Ms. Chapman felt that Planners should plan a community so that residents could enjoy life, whereas the proposed Plan presented a linear plan of the owners’ needs.  Ms. Chapman questioned why sites were not consolidated to form a community.  Ms. Chapman found it suspicious that owners of land in T2 and T3 areas were allowed townhouses, yet A3 and A4 owners were allowed large buildings.  It was also questioned whether a covenant would be required on those properties abutting the adjacent A4 area that would advise of the possibility of 4 storey over parking.  Ms. Chapman supported T2 and T3 based on certain levels of density – but she wanted a say in that density.  Ms. Chapman did not support A3 and A4 and she referred to a 1999 consensus of residents that identified they were not in support of apartments.
 

Ms. L. Matsuma, 5500 Moncton Street, said that she encouraged a road being built in the back of the property to facilitate re-development of the backlands because it would aid the elderly owners of the properties who were finding the upkeep of the large lots onerous.
 

A discussion then ensued among Council members and staff on various aspects of the Plan as a result of which the following referral motion was introduced:
 

PH04/10-15

It was moved and seconded

That Official Community Plan Amendment Bylaw 7831 be referred to staff for the following:

i)

removal of the A3 (3 storey apartment) and A4 (4 storey apartment) uses;

ii)

clarification on the placement of the T2 (two storey townhouses) and T3 (three storey townhouses) areas in general;

iii)

advise whether the current industrial designation should remain;

iv)

review the appropriateness of single-family dwellings to the west of the walkway on Moncton Street and whether the single-family should be replaced with townhouses;

v)

discussion with the Steveston Harbour Authority on the plans for their land and how their plan might interrelate with this area;

vi)

discussion with the Steveston Harbour Authority as to whether they would be interested in developing an industrial building;

vii)

identification of where the current businesses located in the Trites area could re-locate;

viii)

a review of the potential park land in the area;

ix)

whether developer amenity contributions could be allocated to park acquisition in the area; and

x)

a review of whether density is better expressed in units per acre or by Floor Area Ratio.

CARRIED

Councillor Howard returned to the meeting – 10:10 pm.

14.

Official Community Plan Amendment Bylaw 7825 and Zoning Amendment Bylaw 7826

(12311 No. 2 Road and a portion of 12251 No. 2 Road; Applicant:  Suncor Development Corporation, Centro Development Ltd., ASJ Enterprise)

Applicant’s Comments:

The applicant was present to answer questions.

Written Submissions:

J. Nakai – Schedule 23

L. Herzog – Schedule 24

J. Hargreaves – Schedule 25

O. Ilich – Schedule 26

Submissions from the floor:

Ms. J. Chapman, expressed her concerns about density, the lack of consolidation of the land, and parks.  Ms. Chapman felt that development of the area as a whole would better serve the community.
 

Ms. Yvonne Kitade, 5600 Moncton Street, said that her mother was hoping to develop her backland, and that she hoped that options would remain available to them should the present application be approved.  Ms. Kitade also spoke about flooding problems that occur during the winter months.
 

Ms. Jennifer Nakai spoke of her concern about access to the backlands.  She then said that if her property was to be sold it would not be sold in an open market because the only interested purchaser would be the owner of the adjacent parcel.  Ms.  Nakai expressed her frustration with the various information she has received, and said that she was concerned that she, her mother, and the Takahashi’s would be frozen out.
 

Ms. Olga Ilich, Suncor Development Corporation, and Mr. Kush Panatch, Centro Development Ltd., responded to questions from Council regarding adjacency issues and also the proposed setbacks and landscaping.
 

Mr. Sean Lawson, 11660 - 6^th Avenue, spoke in support of the application.  He then said that both T2 and T3 allowed consideration of the adjacency issues, and would provide better options along the north property line.
 

Mr. Amin Bardai, 12231 No. 2 Road, said that he was concerned about density.  He then spoke about the traffic volume and dangerous incidents that have occurred on No. 2 Road. Mr. Bardai also said that he felt that there should be a community plan and not a piecemeal approach to the development.
 

PH04/10-16

It was moved and seconded

That Official Community Plan Amendment Bylaw 7825 and Zoning Amendment Bylaw 7826 be given second and third readings.

CARRIED

PH04/10-17

It was moved and seconded

That Official Community Plan Amendment Bylaw 7825 be adopted.

CARRIED

PH04/10-18

It was moved and seconded

That staff review the need for a traffic signal at the intersection of Moncton Street and No. 2 Road.

CARRIED

ADJOURNMENT

PH04/10-19

It was moved and seconded

That the meeting adjourn (10:50 pm.).

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, October 18^th, 2004.

_________________________________

_________________________________

Mayor (Malcolm D. Brodie)

Acting City Clerk (David Weber)