Place:

Council Chambers
Richmond City Hall
6911 No. 3 Road

Present:

Mayor Malcolm D. Brodie
Councillor Linda Barnes  (7:07 p.m.)
Councillor Cynthia Chen

Councillor Derek Dang
Councillor Evelina Halsey-Brandt  (7:07 p.m.)
Councillor Sue Halsey-Brandt
Councillor Rob Howard
Councillor Bill McNulty
Councillor Harold Steves  (7:08 p.m.)

Gail Johnson, Acting Corporate Officer

Call to Order:

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

1A.

Proposed Single-Family Lot Size Policy 5439

1B.

Zoning Amendment Bylaw 7907 (RZ 04-270312)

(5420 Granville Avenue; Applicant:  Les Cohen & Azim Bhimani)

Applicant’s Comments:

The applicants indicated that they were available to answer questions.

Written Submissions:

None.

Submissions from the floor:

Corisande Percival-Smith, 5760 Granville Avenue, questioned whether her property could be subdivided in the future with frontage facing Granville Avenue.

(Cllrs. Linda Barnes and Evelina Halsey-Brandt entered the meeting at 7:07 p.m.)

PH06/9-1

It was moved and seconded

That Single-Family Lot Size Policy 5439 for the properties located in the northeast portion of Section 13-4-7, located to the southwest of the intersection of Granville Avenue and No. 2 Road, be amended to permit 5420 Granville Avenue to rezone and subdivide to Single-Family Housing District, Subdivision Area B (R1/B).

CARRIED

(Cllr. Harold Steves entered the meeting at 7:08 p.m.)

PH06/9-2

It was moved and seconded

That Zoning Amendment Bylaw 7907 be given second and third readings.

CARRIED

2.

Zoning Amendment Bylaw 8055 (RZ 05-305370)

(9451 Blundell Road; Applicant:  Arcadian Architecture Inc.)

Applicant’s Comments:

The applicant indicated that he was available to respond to questions.

Written Submissions:

Alan Kitagawa, #6 – 7788 Ash Street (Schedule No. 1)

Submissions from the floor:

None.

PH06/9-3

It was moved and seconded

That Zoning Amendment Bylaw 8055 be given second and third readings.

CARRIED

Cllr. Chen, in accordance with Section 100 of the Community Charter, declared herself to be in a conflict of interest because her husband owned property in the area of Item No. 3, and she then  left the meeting – 7:10 p.m..

3.

Zoning Amendment Bylaw 8089 (RZ 06-336459)

(11860 Dunavon Place; Applicant:  Helen Chuk)

Applicant’s Comments:

The applicant indicated that she was available to answer questions.

Written Submissions:

None.

Submissions from the floor:

None.

PH06/9-4

It was moved and seconded

That Zoning Amendment Bylaw 8089 be given second and third readings.

CARRIED

Cllr. Chen returned to the meeting – 7:11 p.m.

4.

Zoning Amendment Bylaw 8090 (RZ 06-336742)

(10451 Williams Road; Applicant:  Malhi Construction Ltd.)

Applicant’s Comments:

The applicant was not in attendance.

Written Submissions:

Albert Drinovz, 11340 Seaton Road (Schedule No. 2)

Submissions from the floor:

None.

PH06/9-5

It was moved and seconded

That Zoning Amendment Bylaw 8090 be given second and third readings.

CARRIED

5.

Zoning Amendment Bylaw 8091 (RZ 06-334555)

(10691 Williams Road; Applicant:  Hui Chih Cheng)

Applicant’s Comments:

The applicant advised that he was available to respond to questions.

Written Submissions:

Albert Drinovz, 11340 Seaton Road (see Schedule No. 2)

Submissions from the floor:

None.

PH06/9-6

It was moved and seconded

That Zoning Amendment Bylaw 8091 be given second and third readings.

CARRIED

6.

Zoning Amendment Bylaw 8091 (RZ 06-334555)

(10231 Williams Road; Applicant:  Frank Isaak)

Applicant’s Comments:

The applicant was not in attendance.

Written Submissions:

Albert Drinovz, 11340 Seaton Road (see Schedule No. 2)

Submissions from the floor:

Margo Fowler, 10091 Dennis Crescent, voiced her opposition to the proposed development because of (i) the large amount of impervious material placed on existing residences adjacent to her home; (ii) the increased number of vehicles being parked in the laneway; (iii) the proposed small lot size and the large homes which would most likely be constructed on the new lots.  She also expressed concern about the increase in ‘wall to wall’ housing in the City.

PH06/9-7

It was moved and seconded

That Zoning Amendment Bylaw 8095 be given second and third readings.

CARRIED

PH06/9-8

It was moved and seconded

That Zoning Amendment Bylaw 8095 be adopted.

CARRIED

PH06/9-9

It was moved and seconded

(1)

That staff examine and set a standard for the types of soil to be used for infill on properties, and

(2)

That staff, with regard to smaller sized lots, examine the square footage of each home to be constructed on those lots, and the maximum usage, and

prepare a report to the Planning Committee on these matters.

CARRIED

7.

Zoning Amendment Bylaw 8096 (RZ 06-328581)

(9980 Shell Road; Applicant:  0735643 BC Ltd.)

Applicant’s Comments:

The applicant indicated that he was available to respond to questions.

Written Submissions:

Albert Drinovz, 11340 Seaton Road (see Schedule No. 2)

Submissions from the floor:

None.

PH06/9-10

It was moved and seconded

That Zoning Amendment Bylaw 8096 be given second and third readings.

CARRIED

PH06/9-11

It was moved and seconded

That Zoning Amendment Bylaw 8096 be adopted.

CARRIED

8.

Zoning Amendment Bylaw 8097 (RZ 06-332827)

(10311 Williams Road; Applicant:  Vijay Mohan)

Applicant’s Comments:

The applicant indicated that he was available to respond to questions.

Written Submissions:

Albert Drinovz, 11340 Seaton Road (see Schedule No. 2)

Submissions from the floor:

None.

PH06/9-12

It was moved and seconded

That Zoning Amendment Bylaw 8097 be given second and third readings.

CARRIED

9.

Official Community Plan Amendment Bylaw 8098, Zoning Amendment Bylaw 8099, and Sale of Portion of Park Bylaw 8084 (RZ 05-303677)

(11251, 11295 and 11331 Mellis Drive; Applicant:  Mennonite Intermediate Care Home Society of Richmond)

Applicant’s Comments:

The applicant stated that he was available to respond to questions.

Written Submissions:

P. K. Chan, 3800 Bargen Drive (Schedule No. 3)

Submissions from the floor:

Bernard Jones, 3680 Howell Court, voiced his opposition to the proposal, stating that (i) the proposed six storey addition to be constructed on the existing three storey building would result in a very large structure which he felt was too big for the area; (ii) it should not be necessary to take a portion of the adjacent park (with the subsequent removal of trees) to accommodate the development; and (iii) the resulting structure would play a major role in shadowing his property, especially during the winter months. 

Mr. Jones also voiced concern about the parking situation in the area as it related to the care home and church property, especially when special functions were held, advising that the overflow of vehicles parked on either side of the adjacent roadway made the easy movement of vehicles difficult.

Diana Gopp, 3691 Howell Court, stated her concerns about the height of the proposed addition to the care home, noting that the new structure (i) would tower over the existing adjacent residential homes, (ii) would create shadowing and (iii) could have a negative impact on the value of these homes.  Ms. Gopp also voiced concern that a portion of the park was being acquired to accommodate the development, which would result in the elimination of the perimeter track and the removal of trees.

Violet Goosen, 11631 Mellis Drive, expressed concern about the potential for an increase in traffic as a result of the proposed addition to the existing care home.  She stated that the building size would increase by 2 ½ times, which would mean a similar increase in the number of personnel, emergency vehicles (with all three responders) and delivery trucks at the care home.  Ms. Goosen also commented on the difficulty which large vehicles had in negotiating the narrow driveway leading to the care home. She also suggested that in spite of the results of the traffic study which had been undertaken, that as many as 1,000 people attended the church when special events were held, well over the 124 predicted in the traffic study.  Ms. Goosen referred to the narrow entrance to the church property which she felt had not been intended to be a road, and suggested that the driveway on the north side of the property could be used to provide access to the church.  She also commented on the illicit late night activities which often occurred in the church parking lot.

Eileen Rosella, #107 – 11240 Mellis Drive, voiced concern about (i) the parking on either side of her street because the church did not provide sufficient on-site parking, and (ii) the amount of traffic in the area.  She also expressed her opposition to a portion of the park being acquired for the proposed development.

Robert Isaac-Renton, architect for the project, accompanied by Gordon Milner, the Care Home Administrator, provided an overview of the development profile, during which he addressed the concerns raised by the previous speakers regarding the issue of shadowing on the adjacent properties, the lack of parking, and the overall size of the structure.

Mr. Milner provided information about the history of the existing Pinegrove Place Mennonite Intermediate Care home and the proposed expansion of that facility.  He responded to concerns expressed by the previous speakers about such issues as the narrowness of the facility driveway; the lack of sufficient on-site parking especially when special events were held at the church; and the potential increase in the number of delivery trucks visiting the site.  He also provided information that the portion of the park running track affected by the development would be relocated, and that trees would be planted to replace the trees being removed to accommodate the new structure.

Bernard Jones, 3680 Howell Court (supplementary presentation), spoke further about the building shadow which he felt would be cast across his property during the winter months. 

Mr. Isaac-Renton (supplementary presentation) addressed the matter of the building shadow across Mr. Jones’s property.

PH06/9-13

It was moved and seconded

That Official Community Plan Amendment Bylaw No. 8098 and Zoning Amendment Bylaw 8099 each be given second readings.

The question on Resolution No. PH06/9-13 was not called as the following amendment was introduced:

PH06/9-14

It was moved and seconded

That Schedule A attached to Bylaw 8098 and Schedule A attached to Bylaw 8099 be amended to correct the error in the dimension of the site, (as recommended by the Director of Development in his memo dated August 31, 2006 and as shown on the revised Schedules).

CARRIED

The question on Resolution No. PH06/9-13, as amended by Resolution No. PH06/9-14, was then called and it was CARRIED.

PH06/9-15

It was moved and seconded

That Official Community Plan Amendment Bylaw No. 8098 and Zoning Amendment Bylaw 8099 each be given third readings.

CARRIED

PH06/9-16

It was moved and seconded

That Albert Airey Park – Sale of Portion of Park Bylaw No. 8084 be given second and third readings.

CARRIED

10.

Zoning Amendment Bylaw 8102 (RZ 05-317472)

(7080 No. 3 Road and 8080 and 8084 Granville Avenue; Applicant:  Rize Alliance (Richmond I) Properties Ltd.)

Applicant’s Comments:

The applicant indicated that he was available to respond to questions.

Written Submissions:

None.

Submissions from the floor:

None.

PH06/9-17

It was moved and seconded

That Zoning Amendment Bylaw 8102 be given second and third readings.

CARRIED

11.

Zoning Amendment Bylaw 8103 (RZ 04-286496)

(6351 and 6391/6491 Minoru Boulevard; Applicant:  W.T. Leung Architects Inc.)

Applicant’s Comments:

The applicant stated that he was available to respond to questions.

Written Submissions:

Johannes Vlasveld, 1105-6631 Minoru Blvd. (Schedule No. 4)

J. W. (Bill) Sorenson (Schedule No. 5)

Mrs. Joy Wood (Schedule No. 6)

Submissions from the floor:

Graham Farstad, Arlington Group Planning & Architecture, #1030 – 470 Granville Street, Vancouver, representing the property owners of the buildings at 6451 and 6551 Minoru Boulevard.  He indicated that his clients were not opposed to the project, which they felt would be an asset to the area, however, because his clients were not planning to redevelop their properties at the present time, they were concerned about the impact of construction of the new buildings on the adjacent buildings, especially during construction of the building foundation.  Mr. Farstad indicated that his clients wanted to maintain as little disruption to their tenants as possible.

An individual representing her mother, a resident of 6491 Minoru Boulevard, questioned how the transition would affect the existing residents while construction was taking place, and whether the existing buildings would be demolished prior to construction of the new development.

Peter Demchuck, #1614 – 6611 Minoru Boulevard, voiced concern about (i) the impact of construction on the adjacent buildings, and questioned whether any guarantees would be put in place to allow for compensation for any damage which might occur; (ii) the construction of the new road and whether this road would be constructed prior to, or after, construction of the new buildings; (iii) construction noise; and (iv) dust occurring during preloading and construction of the new development and whether any protection would be erected to prevent dust from drifting into the adjacent parkade.  Mr. Demchuck also questioned how construction vehicles would access the property.

Wing Leung, architect, accompanied by Doug Miller, project architect, responded to the questions raised by the previous speakers.  Mr. Leung advised that the four proposed buildings would be constructed in two phases, with the completion of the associated road work and traffic signal installation prior to construction of the first two buildings in phase one.

Mr. Leung then provided information on the proposed construction schedule, which would see the completion of the rental building in phase one, to provide an opportunity for those tenants who would be displaced as a result of the demolition of the existing buildings, to rent units in the new building.  Mr. Leung also explained the procedures which would be put in place to address any possible damage to adjacent buildings which might occur as a result of construction of the new development, and addressed geotechnical issues.  He stated that every effort had been taken to ensure that the impact of the proposed development would be minimized on neighbouring properties.

Mr. Farstad (supplementary presentation), complimented Mr. Leung on his approach in dealing with the issues raised by the speakers regarding his development.

PH06/9-18

It was moved and seconded

That Zoning Amendment Bylaw 8103 be given second and third readings.

CARRIED

12.

Official Community Plan Amendment Bylaw 8107 and Zoning Amendment Bylaw 8078 (RZ 04-286813)

(13251 Princess Street and 6211 Dyke Road; Applicant:  Oris Development (London Landing) Corp.)

Applicant’s Comments:

The applicant indicated that he was available to respond to questions.

Written Submissions:

None.

Submissions from the floor:

None.

PH06/9-19

It was moved and seconded

That Official Community Plan Bylaw No. 8107 and Zoning Amendment Bylaw 8078 be given second and third readings.

CARRIED

ADJOURNMENT

PH06/9-20

It was moved and seconded

That the meeting adjourn (9:08 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 Wednesday, September 6^th, 2006.

Mayor (Malcolm D. Brodie)

Corporate Officer, City Clerk’s Office
(Gail Johnson)