Place:

Council Chambers
Richmond City Hall
6911 No. 3 Road

Present:

Mayor Malcolm D. Brodie
Councillor Linda Barnes
Councillor Derek Dang
Councillor Evelina Halsey-Brandt
Councillor Sue Halsey-Brandt
Councillor Rob Howard
Councillor Kiichi Kumagai
Councillor Bill McNulty
Councillor Harold Steves

David Weber, Acting City Clerk

Call to Order:

Mayor Malcolm D. Brodie opened the proceedings at 7:00 p.m.

1.

Zoning Amendment Bylaw 7679 (RZ 03-251048)

(7840 Garden City Road; Applicant:  Matthew Cheng Architect Inc.)

Applicant’s Comments:

The applicant was present to answer questions.

Written Submissions:

None

Submissions from the floor:

Mr. Kim Fong, 17-7733 Turnill Street, said that he was not opposed to the residential townhouses now that access had been provided through 9051 Blundell Road.  Mr. Fong questioned the status of the substantial existing trees on the subject property and especially those along the north property line.

PH05/2-01

It was moved and seconded

That Zoning Amendment Bylaw 7679 be given second and third readings.

CARRIED

2.

Zoning Amendment Bylaw 7764 (RZ 04-269086)

(4240 No. 5 Road; Applicant:  Rav Bains)

Applicant’s Comments:

The applicant was present to answer questions.

Written Submissions:

None

Submissions from the floor:

None

PH05/2-2

It was moved and seconded

That Zoning Amendment Bylaw 7764 be given second and third readings.

CARRIED

3.

Zoning Amendment Bylaw 7772 (RZ 04-271606)

(9831 Williams Road; Applicant:  Les Cohen & Azim Bhimani)

Applicant’s Comments:

The applicant was present to answer questions.

Written Submissions:

None

Submissions from the floor:

None

PH05/2-3

It was moved and seconded

That Zoning Amendment Bylaw 7772 be given second and third readings.

CARRIED

4.

Zoning Amendment Bylaw 7780 (RZ 04-269537)

(6791 Steveston Highway and 10977 Gilbert Road (Formerly 6811 Steveston Highway); Applicant:  Elegant Development Inc.)

Applicant’s Comments:

The applicant was present to answer questions.

Written Submissions:

G. Harris & L. Herzog, 10900 Gilbert Road – Schedule 1

M. Jackson – Schedule 2

Submissions from the floor:

None

In response to questions of Council Mr. Jay Minhas, the applicant, provided information regarding the access to the lane from Gilbert Road, the site access, and the size of the secondary units.

PH05/2-4

It was moved and seconded

That Zoning Amendment Bylaw 7780 be given second and third readings.

CARRIED

5.

Zoning Amendment Bylaw 7847 (RZ 04-278777)

(7560/7580 No. 2 Road; Applicant:  G. Virdi/P. Bowal)

Applicant’s Comments:

The applicant was present to answer questions.

Written Submissions:

W. & M. Poirier, 6380 Chatsworth Road – Schedule 3

P. Kushnir, 7600 No. 2 Road – Schedule 4

Submissions from the floor:

None

PH05/2-5

It was moved and seconded

That Zoning Amendment Bylaw 7847 be given second and third readings.

CARRIED

6.

Zoning Amendment Bylaw 7854 (RZ 04-274078)

(5091 and 5111 Francis Road; Applicant:  Les Cohen and Azim Bhimani)

Applicant’s Comments:

The applicant was present to answer questions.

Written Submissions:

S. & P. Grewal, 5151 Francis Road – Schedule 5

M. Cheung, Y. Peng and T. Cifci, 5051 & 5071 Francis Road – Schedule 6

T. & Z. Cifci, M. Cheung & Y. Peng – Schedule 7

G. & I. Tamayo, 5200 Cantrell Road – Schedule 8

G. & B. Larose, 5035 Francis Road – Schedule 9

V. Yasel & I. Prodan – Schedule 10

Petition of 20 residents opposed to the application – Schedule 11

Petition of 29 individuals in support of the application – Schedule 12

Correspondence from City staff submitted by the applicant – Schedule 13

Submissions from the floor:

Mr. George Larose, 5035 Francis Road, indicated that several more signatures had been received from area residents in opposition to the rezoning application, and he explained that only those residents directly affected by the proposal had been contacted.  Mr. Larose objected to the rezoning application due to the increased density, the negative affect the proposed new definition of the character of the street would have on property values, and the intrusion into the single family oriented character and the ambience of the neighbourhood.  Mr. Larose also expressed his concerns regarding access onto Francis Road, and the lack of street parking on Francis Road.

Mr. Sukh Grewal, 5151 Francis Road, said that he was strongly opposed to the application because of the negative affects on privacy, safety and security that would result.  Further to this, Mr. Grewal said that the alley between the two rows of townhouses would dead end at his property line; that his property value would decrease if located next to townhouses; that sunlight to his property would be affected; that he was concerned that his home, which was a year and half old, would be affected by settling; the congestion that would result from the doubling of density; and, that the townhouses did not fit within the existing character of the neighbourhood.

Mr. M. Cheung, and Mr. T. Cifci, 5071 and 5051 Francis Road respectively, spoke in objection to the project.  Mr. Cheung referred to the objections contained in his letter and requested that Council consider those objections.  Mr. Cifci expressed his concerns about the safety of small children playing outside; the loss of views; and, the increased noise that would result from 12 townhouses.

Mr. Bhimani, applicant, said that he understood the concerns of the neighbours of the potential development, and he indicated that the architect was present to answer questions.  Mr. Bhimani then spoke briefly of the increased sideyard setback required for townhouse development, and the removal of the rezoning sign that had resulted in a second public hearing on the application.

Mr. Grewal, speaking for the second time, indicated that none of the neighbours had been aware of the prior process on this application and that due diligence had not therefore occurred to this point.  Mr. Grewal felt that the architect should have discussed the proposed plans and the setbacks with the owners of the neighbouring properties.

Mr. Larose, speaking for the second time, said that when the original sign disappeared shortly after it had been installed in early December 2004, he thought it was because the City had turned the application down, and so he was shocked at the receipt of a notice for public hearing on the application.  Mr. Larose said that he was in favour of single-family homes only in this area.

PH05/2-6

It was moved and seconded

That Zoning Amendment Bylaw 7854 be referred to staff in order that it be amended to a single-family zoning proposal.

CARRIED

Opposed:  Cllr. Steves

7.

Zoning Amendment Bylaw 7866 (RZ 04-268666)

(9631 and 9651 No. 4 Road; Applicant:  Parmjit Randhawa)

Applicant’s Comments:

The applicant was present to answer questions.

Written Submissions:

None

Submissions from the floor:

None

PH05/2-7

It was moved and seconded

That Zoning Amendment Bylaw 7866 be given second and third readings.

CARRIED

8.

Zoning Amendment Bylaw 7870 (RZ 04-279382)

(8291 No.1 Road; Applicant:  Parm Dhinjal)

Applicant’s Comments:

The applicant was present to answer questions.

Written Submissions:

None

Submissions from the floor:

None

PH05/2-8

It was moved and seconded

That Zoning Amendment Bylaw 7870 be given second and third readings.

CARRIED

PH05/2-9

It was moved and seconded

That Zoning Amendment Bylaw 7870 be adopted.

CARRIED

9.

Zoning Amendment Bylaw 7871 (RZ 04-280369)

(8531 No. 1 Road; Applicant:  Robert Teo)

Applicant’s Comments:

The applicant was not present.

Written Submissions:

None

Submissions from the floor:

None

PH05/2-10

It was moved and seconded

That Zoning Amendment Bylaw 7871 be given second and third readings.

CARRIED

PH05/2-11

It was moved and seconded

That Zoning Amendment Bylaw 7871 be adopted.

CARRIED

10.

Zoning Amendment Bylaw 7872 (RZ 03-254683)

(9051 Blundell Road; Applicant:  Willow Construction Ltd.)

Applicant’s Comments:

The applicant was present to answer questions.

Written Submissions:

None

Submissions from the floor:

None

PH05/2-12

It was moved and seconded

That Zoning Amendment Bylaw 7872 be given second and third readings.

CARRIED

11.

Zoning Amendment Bylaw 7878 (RZ 04-273797)

(7751 Acheson Road; Applicant:  Woodridge Developments Ltd.)

Applicant’s Comments:

The applicant was present to answer questions.

Written Submissions:

S. Kibble – Schedule 14

Submissions from the floor:

None

PH05/2-13

It was moved and seconded

That Zoning Amendment Bylaw 7878 be given second and third readings.

CARRIED

12.

Zoning Amendment Bylaw 7879 (RZ 04-275991)

(5540 and 5560 Garrison Road; Applicant:  Tara Development Ltd.)

Applicant’s Comments:

The applicant was not present.

Written Submissions:

None

Submissions from the floor:

None

PH05/2-14

It was moved and seconded

That Zoning Amendment Bylaw 7879 be given second and third readings.

CARRIED

13.

Zoning Amendment Bylaw 7881 (RZ 04-287060)

(8191 No.1 Road; Applicant:  Khalid Hasan)

Applicant’s Comments:

The applicant was present to answer questions.

Written Submissions:

None

Submissions from the floor:

None

PH05/2-15

It was moved and seconded

That Zoning Amendment Bylaw 7881 be given second and third readings.

CARRIED

PH05/2-16

It was moved and seconded

That Zoning Amendment Bylaw 7881 be adopted.

CARRIED

14.

Zoning Amendment Bylaw 7884 (RZ 04-286494)

(11000, 11020, 11040, 11080, 11100 No. 5 Road and 12000 Steveston Highway; Applicant:  Sandhill Holdings Ltd. and J.A.B. Enterprises Ltd.)

Applicant’s Comments:

Mr. Peter Lovick, architect, with the aid of several preliminary drawings, reviewed the proposed development, and the intended use of the three buildings.  Mr. Lovick referred to the traffic study completed by Hamilton & Assoc. which had indicated that with some small changes to the light at the intersection at No. 5 Road and Steveston Highway, the intersection and its access would be adequate until 2015.  Mr. Lovick then responded to questions of Council on several aspects of the proposed development.

In response to a question from the Mayor, the Director of Development, Raul Allueva, explained the difference between the process before Council of approving a land use designation for the subject property, and the provincial liquor licencing process required for a primary liquor licence application, as a part of which the provincial government would request comment from the City and also would consider the views of area residents.  Mr. Allueva indicated that area residents would be notified by the City at the appropriate time in the process.  Discussion then ensued among Council members and staff regarding this.

Written Submissions:

A. & P. Akizuki – Schedule 15

B. & M. Rollinson, 12100 Riverside Way – Schedule 16

J. Lott, 10911 Maddocks Road – Schedule 17

C. Day (2), 11631 Seahurst Road – Schedule 18

L. Robinson, 10620 Bromfield Place – Schedule 19

G. & T. Wilson, 11360 Kingsbridge Drive – Schedule 20

Richmond Citizens Coalition (3)– Schedule 21

P. & B. Ritchie – Schedule 22

R. Craig – Schedule 23

T. Gleason – Schedule 24

B. Wells, Operations Manager, Steveston Hotel – Schedule 25

M. & I. Friesen (2), 10711 Seamount Road – Schedule 26

Mr. Ganzberg – Schedule 27

J. Yates, 5940 Sandpiper Court – Schedule 28

H. Sandhu, 10471 No. 5 Road – Schedule 29

J. & P. Fleming, 10811 Southridge Road – Schedule 30

K. Tsang, 11480 Seahurst Road – Schedule 31

A. & B. Reynolds, 8280 Mirable Court – Schedule 32

V. Monjushko, 10411 Sealord Place – Schedule 33

H. Pastrick, 9651 Finn Road – Schedule 34

Memorandum from City staff – Schedule 35

D. Miller, Units 5 & 6, 11911 Machrina Way – Schedule 36

T. Gleason, Richmond Citizens Coalition – Schedule 37

J. Abelseth and Ales Struna, Nordlys Marketing Canada Inc. – Schedule 38

R. Craig, Richmond Neighbourhood Pub Owners Assoc. – Schedule 39

Ottho Law Group (2) – Schedule 40

D. Johnston, 11480 Seabay Road – Schedule 41

K. Thomas, 11171 Sealord Road – Schedule 42

L. Cross and P. Sowden – Schedule 43

T. Murphy, 9651 Finn Road – Schedule 44

A. No Sky – Schedule 45

A petition of 90 signatures of local business owners – Schedule 46

A concerned resident – Schedule 47

Submissions from the floor:

Ms. Carol Day, 11631 Seahurst Road, asked that the application be referred to staff as it did not meet past policy requirements for a pub use.  Ms. Day displayed a material board identifying existing liquor services.  Ms. Day then spoke about the need to replace redundant policies prior to a decision on this matter; the need to increase the notification area to include the area bounded by Francis Road, River Road, No. 4 Road and No. 7 Road; and, more appropriate uses for the remnant piece of property being sold by the City to the developer.

Mr. Eric Ho, Vice-President of a company adjacent to the subject property, said that he was strongly opposed to a liquor store and pub at this location and he cited reasons of security, public safety, adequate alcohol servicing in the area, the physical safety of female employees, and the close proximity of a public library, to support his objection.

Mr. Ulf K. Ottho, Ottho Law Group, read a written submission which is attached as Schedule 48 and forms a part of these minutes.

Ms. Tina Gleason, King Road, noted the significant difference in the number of signatures received in support of, and opposed to, the application under consideration.  Ms. Gleason then spoke about the impact of the busy intersection at No. 5 Road and Steveston Highway on neighbourhood streets; that not much could be done to alleviate the impact of the proposed establishment on the intersection; the lack of concern given to area residents’ opinions; the lack of sufficient policing for the freeway at present; and, that all users of the freeway should have a say in the decision.

Ms. Lenore Radom, 10095 No. 5 Road, said that there were sufficient pub/liquor services in the area; that the remnant property being negotiated would be better utilized in aiding the flow of traffic from the industrial area and Steveston Highway; and, the need to address the traffic situation at the intersection of No. 5 Road and Steveston Highway before adding to the problems.

Mr. G. Golms spoke about the precedent that would be set for business owners from other jurisdictions within 5 km. of the City to apply for a similar process.

Ms. Brandy Brundage, who indicated that she was speaking on behalf of all waitresses and bartenders, said that she had worked in the liquor service industry in Richmond for many years, and that the ability to earn a decent living had declined due to the number of establishments in the City.  Ms. Brundage felt that further competition would add to that decline.

Mr. Johal, Swinton Crescent, said that he and his wife walked to Ironwood Shopping Centre, and that he supported a neighbourhood pub that i) would provide a different atmosphere and culture than those existing services, and ii) was on land located on an opposite corner to the residential subdivision.  Mr. Johal felt that competition would bring lower prices, and he said he didn’t

understand i) the negative comments about access when the Riverport pubs and the Kingswood pub were within minutes of the proposed location, and ii) the relevance of the previous comments about increased crime resulting from the pub use, or the concern about the proximity of the library.  Mr. Johal noted that the Kingswood Pub was not within a reasonable walking distance from his home, and, that drinking in restaurants was often in the presence of children.

Mr. J. Collins, 11660 Williams Road, said that although he had nothing against pubs and/or liquor outlets, it did not make sense to violate City policy, especially as the applicable policy had been rescinded with no clear direction as to how the City should proceed.  Mr. Collins supported the comments of previous speakers.

Ms. Daphne Keith, 10671 No. 5 Road, said that although the corner in question had to be developed in a commercial manner, the pub did not belong there as access to the busy intersection could not be avoided.

Mr. Dhiman, 9360 Sidaway Road, said that he did not see a neighbourhood pub designation being any different than a ‘Keg’ pub or a ‘Kelsey’s’.  Mr. Dhiman said that the purchase of a business licence was not a monopoly, and that the main concern at this time was whether the subject property was a suitable location to build the proposed establishment.  Mr. Dhiman said that there would always be complaints about a pub location as there was never a ‘right area’.

Mr. Sukh Sahl, 11660 Seahurst Road, said that he was undecided as to appropriate land use, but that he was disturbed by the two groups of self-serving individuals that lacked sincerity.  Mr. Sahl said that while he lived in the area, he often left Richmond to frequent pubs in other municipalities as the pubs in the neighbourhood are not that good.  Mr. Sahl said that he did have concerns about the pub, in terms of its size and character, and also what would result if the business proved unviable, and said that the questions needed to be answered.

Mr. James Day, 11631 Seahurst Road, said that in dealing with the best use for this land, what should be looked at was what the neighbourhood did not have in the way of services.  Mr. Day suggested that a professional building of lawyers, doctors, dentists, accountants, etc. might be more appropriate.  He then spoke about the liquor facilities in the area, which he considered adequate.

Mr. J. Sandhu, 10375 Gilmore Crescent, said that it was good to have heard both sides of the debate, and he acknowledged the concerns evident on both sides.  Mr. Sandhu then spoke about the remnant property and the benefit of adding it to the parcel included in the application; and, the benefits of an adult-atmosphere that would be provided by a neighbourhood pub.

Mr. Raj Sandhu provided examples of the commonality of concerns related to drinking and driving, following which he said that he, a responsible drinker,  enjoyed the atmosphere of a pub where guys can hang out and be loud.  Mr. Sandhu said that the one neighbourhood pub in the area was old and run down, and had a lack of parking, whereas the proposal in question was exciting, and state-of-the art, with ample parking provided.  He then questioned what other business would benefit this location. 

Mr. Michael Penner, a resident of Seahurst Road, spoke in opposition to the proposal. With a focus on the land use, Mr. Penner said that he did not stop for gas at the intersection of No. 5 Road and Steveston Highway due to the heavy traffic volume, and he therefore wondered if the proposed use was a good use for this location.  Having not been aware that the City owned the remnant piece of land at this location, Mr. Penner suggested the land be used to improve the traffic conditions, and he questioned the logic of selling the property to only have to purchase it back when Steveston Highway was widened to the projected 6 or 8 lanes.  Mr. Penner said he hoped that the proposal was defeated.

Mr. Norman Wriggleworth, spoke about the bothersome smoke that emanates from big fires lit at Garry Point Park.  Mr. Wriggleworth also spoke about the flat tires on his bicycle that result from broken glass.  He felt that more police were needed on the street; that a curfew would be in order for those under 19 years of age; and, that too many underage youth were able to obtain liquor from liquor stores.

A resident of Williams Road said that a pub was not needed at this location, that the Kingswood Pub was fantastic, and, that local area residents should be asked whether another pub was wanted.

Mr. M. Tilbe, 10531 No. 1 Road, said that although the issues were confusing, the main issue was whether this was a suitable location for a neighbourhood pub.  Mr. Tilbe further said that businesses couldn’t be stopped because monopolies would be created.

A resident said that Richmond was growing as a City, that baby boomers were growing older, and places were needed where one could go to have a good time.  Full support was given to the application.

Mr. Amar Sandhu, 8671 Cambie Road, the applicant, spoke about the process that would be involved should Council approve the application.  Mr. Sandhu then spoke about the benefits of the proximity of the pub to the residential area; the lobbying undertaken by pub owners in Richmond that want total control; the result of the comprehensive traffic study undertaken; and, the difficulty of renting office space in today’s market.  Mr. Sandhu then responded to questions of Council on various aspects of the proposal.

PH05/2-17

It was moved and seconded

That the regular meeting of Council for Public Hearing proceed beyond 11:00 pm.

CARRIED

PH05/2-18

It was moved and seconded

That Zoning Amendment Bylaw 7884 be given second and third readings.

CARRIED

Opposed:  Cllrs. Barnes

E. Halsey-Brandt

S. Halsey-Brandt

Steves

PH05/2-19

It was moved and seconded

That at the onset of the Liquor Primary application being received by the City for property at 11000, 11020, 11040, 11080, 11100 No. 5 Road and 12000 Steveston Highway, staff shall request Council direction on the applicable procedures which shall include that:

i)

a survey be conducted as part of the process based on the Public Hearing notification for the rezoning application; and

ii)

a public meeting be conducted for further discussion and input.

Prior to the question being called discussion ensued on the nature of the survey as a result of which the following amendment was introduced:

PH05/2-20

It was moved and seconded

That the public opinion survey be conducted in relation to pub operations only.

The question on the Resolution PH05/20 was called and it was DEFEATED with Cllrs. Barnes, Dang, E. Halsey-Brandt, S. Halsey-Brandt, Howard, Kumagai, McNulty and Steves opposed.

The question on Resolution PH05/19 was then called and it was CARRIED with Cllrs. Dang, Howard, Kumagai and McNulty opposed.

ADJOURNMENT

PH05/2-21

It was moved and seconded

That the meeting adjourn (11:55 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 21^st, 2005.

Mayor (Malcolm D. Brodie)

Acting City Clerk (David Weber)