Place:

Council Chambers

Richmond City Hall

6911 No. 3 Road

Present:

Mayor Malcolm D. Brodie

Councillor Chak Au

Councillor Linda Barnes

Councillor Derek Dang

Councillor Evelina Halsey-Brandt

Councillor Ken Johnston

Councillor Bill McNulty

Councillor Linda McPhail

Councillor Harold Steves

Gail Johnson, Acting Corporate Officer

Call to Order:

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

PH12/6-1

It was moved and seconded

That the order of the agenda be varied to consider Item #2 after Item #12.

CARRIED

1.

Zoning Amendment Bylaw 8750 (RZ 06-344606)

(Location: 22560, 22600, 22620 Gilley Road; Applicant: Kaiman Enterprises Co. Ltd.)

Applicant’s Comments:

The applicant was available to answer questions.

Written Submissions:

(a)

Wendy Walker, 4525 Fraserbank Place (Schedule 1)

(b)

John and Heather Kaplan, 22611 Gilley Road (Schedule 2)

(c)

Wen Jun Ma, 22551 Rathburn Drive (Schedule 3)

(d)

Devpreet Mangat, 22591 Rathburn Drive (Schedule 4)

(e)

Sawroop and Ranjit Bains, 22520 Gilley Road (Schedule 5)

Submissions from the floor:

Steve Whiteside, Rathburn Drive, expressed concern that his house would be adversely affected by pile driving, and by construction trucks driving by, and questioned who would pay if his home suffered damage as a result of the proposed development.

Wendy Walker, 4525 Fraserbank Place, expressed concern regarding: (i) Gilley Road, not Turner Street, providing vehicle access to the subject site; and (ii) safety hazards on Gilley Road due to the lack of sidewalks and the presence of ditches creating safety hazards for area residents. 

Jerry Heed spoke on behalf of his client, Michael Del Villar, who lives at 5100 Turner Street, and raised the following concerns: (i) earlier problems due to construction projects that have taken place on Turner Street that have resulted in cracks at Mr. Del Villar’s home; (ii) heavy construction trucks that shake area homes; (iii) the difficulty homeowners experience collecting from developers if damage is sustained by area homes; and (iv) poured concrete in the area that will always settle.

PH12/6-2

It was moved and seconded

That Zoning Amendment Bylaw 8750 be given second and third readings.

CARRIED

2.

Zoning Amendment Bylaw 8769 (RZ 10-516267)

(Location: 9160 No. 2 Road; Applicant: Western Maple Lane Holdings Ltd.)

See Page 9 for Council action on this item.

3.

Zoning Amendment Bylaw 8825 (RZ 11-582830)

(Location:  4820 Garry Street; Applicant:  Armit Maharaj)

In accordance with Section 100 of the Community Charter, Councillor Linda Barnes declared herself to be in a potential conflict of interest because she owns property in the area, and left the meeting at 7:19 p.m.

Applicant’s Comments:

The applicant was available to answer questions.

Written Submissions:

None.

Submissions from the floor:

None.

PH12/6-3

It was moved and seconded

That Zoning Amendment Bylaw 8825 be given second and third readings.

CARRIED

Councillor Barnes returned to the meeting at 7:20 p.m.

4.

Official Community Plan Amendment Bylaw 8880 and Zoning Amendment Bylaw 8881 (RZ 12-601319)

(Location:  23591 Westminster Highway; Applicant:  City of Richmond)

Applicant’s Comments:

Staff was available to answer questions.

Written Submissions:

None.

Submissions from the floor:

None.

PH12/6-4

It was moved and seconded

That OCP Amendment Bylaw 8880 and Zoning Amendment Bylaw 8881 each be given second and third readings.

CARRIED

5.

Official Community Plan Amendment Bylaw 8888

(Location:  City Centre Area; Applicant:  City of Richmond)

Applicant’s Comments:

Staff was available to answer questions.

Written Submissions:

None.

Submissions from the floor:

None.

PH12/6-5

It was moved and seconded

That OCP Amendment Bylaw 8888 be given second and third readings.

CARRIED

PH12/6-6

It was moved and seconded

That OCP Amendment Bylaw 8888 be adopted.

CARRIED

6.

Zoning Amendment Bylaw 8890 (RZ 11-586782)

(Location: 6471, 6491, and 6511 No. 2 Road; Applicant: Matthew Cheng Architect Inc.)

Applicant’s Comments:

The applicant was available to answer questions.

Written Submissions:

(a)

Wendy Leung, 5791 Garrison Road (Schedule 6)

(b)

[ NAMES ], [ ADDRESS ] (Schedule 7)

Submissions from the floor:

Mr. Rigjit spoke on behalf of his brother who lives at 6451 Garrison Court, and expressed surprise that City staff had not communicated with his brother, or other residents to the west of the subject site, regarding the rezoning application.

Sam Sammy, spoke on behalf of his parents who reside on Colbeck Road expressing concern that the only egress from the subject site was a right turn onto No. 2 Road, and remarked that the intersection at Westminster Highway and No. 2 Road was an accident zone.

PH12/6-7

It was moved and seconded

That Zoning Amendment Bylaw 8890 be given second and third readings.

CARRIED

7.

Zoning Amendment Bylaw 8893 (RZ 12-600991)

(Location:  6471 Blundell Road; Applicant:  Xi Chen (Chen Design Studio))

Applicant’s Comments:

The applicant was available to answer questions.

Written Submissions:

None.

Submissions from the floor:

None.

PH12/6-8

It was moved and seconded

That Zoning Amendment Bylaw 8893 be given second and third readings.

CARRIED

8.

Zoning Amendment Bylaw 8895 (RZ 10-522194)

(Location:  11340 Williams Road; Applicant:  Khalid Hasan)

Applicant’s Comments:

The applicant was not in attendance.

Written Submissions:

None.

Submissions from the floor:

None.

PH12/6-9

It was moved and seconded

That Zoning Amendment Bylaw 8895 be given second and third readings.

CARRIED

9.

Official Community Plan Amendment Bylaw 8900 and Zoning Amendment Bylaw 8901 (RZ 11-596457)

(Location:  7431 Francis Road; Applicant:  Avion Homes Ltd.)

Applicant’s Comments:

The applicant was available to answer questions.

Written Submissions:

(a)

Roy Budai, 7451 Francis Road (Schedule 8)

Submissions from the floor:

None.

PH12/6-10

It was moved and seconded

That OCP Amendment Bylaw 8900 and Zoning Amendment Bylaw 8901 each be given second and third readings.

CARRIED

10.

Zoning Amendment Bylaw 8902 (RZ 09-496145)

(Location:  7840 Bennett Road; Applicant:  Timothy Tse)

Applicant’s Comments:

The applicant was not in attendance.

Written Submissions:

(a)

Wen Jun Mo, 7808 Bennett Road (Schedule 9)

(b)

Rob Bodnar, 215 Creekside Drive, Saltspring Island (Schedule 10)

Submissions from the floor:

None.

PH12/6-11

It was moved and seconded

That Zoning Amendment Bylaw 8902 be given second and third readings.

CARRIED

11.

Zoning Amendment Bylaw 8904

(Location:  City-Wide; Applicant:  City of Richmond)

Applicant’s Comments:

Staff was available to answer questions.

Written Submissions:

(a)

Jerry Flynn (Schedule 11)

(b)

Leon Leroux, Rogers Communications, #1600-4710 Kingsway, Vancouver (Schedule 12)

Submissions from the floor:

Ken Barlow, Rogers Communications, advised that Rogers fully supports the proposed amendment Bylaw 8904.

PH12/6-12

It was moved and seconded

That Zoning Amendment Bylaw 8904 be given second and third readings.

CARRIED

PH12/6-13

It was moved and seconded

That Zoning Amendment Bylaw 8904 be adopted.

CARRIED

12.

Zoning Amendment Bylaw 8884 (RZ 11-585209)

(Location:  7731 & 7771 Alderbridge Way; Applicant:  Onni 7731 Alderbridge Holding Corp. and Onni 7771 Alderbridge Holding Corp.)

Applicant’s Comments:

The applicant was available to answer questions.

Written Submissions:

(a)

Mike Rasberry, Tim Hortons Restaurant, 125-7771 Alderbridge Way (Schedule 13)

(b)

William Cao, Legal Counsel, Tim Hortons, The TDL Group Corp. (Schedule 14 and Schedule 15)

(c)

Helmut Eppich, Chairman of the Board, Richard Eppich, CEO and President, Ebco Industries Ltd., 7851 Alderbridge Way (Schedule 16 and Schedule 17)

(d)

Beau Jarvis, V.P. Development, ONNI Real Estate Development, 300-550 Robson Street, Vancouver (Schedule 18)

(e)

Sally Mercer, 303-8880 No. 1 Road (Schedule 19)

Submissions from the floor:

William Cao, Legal Counsel, Tim Horton’s, TDL Group Corp., accompanied by Mike Rasberry, provided background, advising that no formal offer or written communications had been received from ONNI and none of the three alternate locations suggested by ONNI were suitable.

Mr. Cao stated that the Tim Horton’s restaurant has a right to continue to do business at its Alderbridge Road address. He then requested that Council consider allowing the parties sufficient time, between six and 12 months, to deal with the lease issues.

A representative of the Jones New York store, 7771 Alderbridge Way, stated that he had received no communication from ONNI. He employs eight people at his retail store that is on the subject site, and he commented that it was important for him to know what the future holds.

Beau Jarvis, V.P. Development, ONNI Real Estate Development, accompanied by John Middleton of ONNI, advised that ONNI has not issued notice to end tenancy agreements, nor has ONNI made any offers to retailers on the subject site. He stated that ONNI has the ability to build out the proposed development in phases, and construction could be phased around the Tim Hortons restaurant.

Council members urged ONNI to initiate a communication plan to keep the tenants apprised of further plans.

PH12/6-14

It was moved and seconded

That Zoning Amendment Bylaw 8884 be given third reading.

CARRIED

2.

Zoning Amendment Bylaw 8769 (RZ 10-516267)

(Location: 9160 No. 2 Road; Applicant: Western Maple Lane Holdings Ltd.)

In accordance with Section 100 of the Community Charter, Councillor Derek Dang declared himself to be in a potential conflict of interest because he owns property in the area of 9000-block No. 2 Road. He left the meeting at 8:11 p.m., and he did not return.

Applicant’s Comments:

Wayne Fougere of Fougere Architecture Inc., 230 West Broadway, Vancouver, Architect for Western Maple Lane Holdings, provided the following details regarding changes that the applicant has now committed to in regard to the proposed townhouse development:

·         

there is a reduction from 18 to 15 strata homes;

·         

instead of one adaptable home on the site there will be two;

·         

each unit will have a garage that accommodates three vehicles parked side-by-side; and

·         

visitor parking has increased from three to five spaces.

Mr. Fougere noted the proposed development would be built at the existing grade and the City will control the final design concept.

Mr. Jackson advised that: (i) Council can add a restrictive covenant regarding the applicant’s reduction from 18 to 15 units; (ii) the increase in parking spaces exceeds the bylaw requirements.; (iii) the applicant and architect have addressed concerns raised by residents of the neighbourhood; (iv) instead of 15 townhouse units the subject site could accommodate four large single-family homes, but at an increased grade and at the expense of all trees on the site; and (v) the City’s 2006 Arterial Road Policy allows townhouse units on arterial roads, and No. 2 Road falls within that Policy. In addition Mr. Jackson noted that staff supports the changes as outlined.

Victor Wei, Director, Transportation, advised that: (i) traffic patterns in the neighbourhood have been studied by City staff; and (ii) the City has no plans to remove the barriers installed in the Maple Lane neighbourhood.

Written Submissions:

(a)

Kelvin Leung, 28-6099 Alder Street (Schedule 20)

(b)

Peter Kho, 9293 Romaniuk Drive (Schedule 21)

(c)

Rong Zhang, 6431 Maple Road (Schedule 22)

(d)

Anita Fung, 114-8751 General Currie Road (Schedule 23)

(e)

Ajmer Ghag, on behalf of 5260 Maple Road (Schedule 24)

(f)

Mun Ling Cheung, 5451 Maple Road (Schedule 25)

(g)

Man Ying Lee, 6240 Maple Road (Schedule 26)

(h)

Gord Turner, 6631 Juniper Drive (Schedule 27)

(i)

John Cantello, 6120 Maple Road (Schedule 28)

(j)

Felix Fei Lu, 6071 Martyniuk Place (Schedule 29)

(k)

Vincent Chan, 5386 Maple Road (Schedule 30)

(l)

Henry Borr, 9291 Romaniuk Drive (Schedule 31)

(m)

Frida Schweber, 6451 Juniper Drive (Schedule 32)

(n)

Dolly Bains, 5328 Maple Road (Schedule 33)

(o)

Thomas C. Leung, Director, Western Maple Lane Holdings Ltd., 250-8833 Odlin Crescent (Schedule 34)

(p)

Ivo and Stane Bjelos, 6100 Maple Road (Schedule 35)

(q)

Annie Olivia Hau, 6491 Maple Road (Schedule 36)

(r)

Richard Fernyhough, 9211 Romaniuk Drive (Schedule 37)

(s)

Shirley Schwabe, 6600 Juniper Drive (Schedule 38)

(t)

Reg and Brenda Ewaskow, 6126 Rekis Avenue (Schedule 39)

(u)

Wade Gork and Jennifer Wong, 6140 Rekis Avenue (Schedule 40)

(v)

Nettie Walters, 6011 Maple Road (Schedule 41)

(w)

Sammy and Anna Chung (Schedule 42)

In addition, petitions in support of and opposed to this application are on file, City Clerk’s Office.

Submissions from the floor:

Maureen Mcdermid, 6480 Juniper Drive, spoke in support of the project and commented that: (i) diversity enhances a neighbourhood; (ii) arterial roads can accommodate townhouse infrastructure; (iii) the applicant has made changes based on concerns stated by area residents; and (iv) the project is not only an asset, but also a good land use.

Roger Cheng, 3331 Trutch Avenue, spoke in support of the project and commented that in terms of land use, there is a strong demand for townhouse accommodation, and that this type of housing brings diversity to neighbourhoods.

Klaas Focker, 6220 Maple Road, spoke of the proposed new traffic lights and requested that they be installed before construction on the subject site.

Blane Powell, 6360 Martinyuk Place, spoke in opposition to the project and stated concerns regarding: (i) potential traffic problems in the area; and (ii) the lack of a sidewalk on one side of his street. units on a side street.

Resident, Juniper Drive, spoke in opposition to the project and stated that area residents want to continue to enjoy the nature of their neighbourhood and preserve it as a place with no exhaust fumes. He added that he was concerned about the densification along arterial roads.

Michael Chu, 9226 Romaniuk Drive, spoke in opposition to the project and remarked that he wants the neighbourhood to remain safe and peaceful. He expressed concern about the area’s traffic pattern and proximity of too many traffic lights. He remarked that his property value might be compromised, and questioned who would want to buy a single-family house with 15 townhouse units nearby.

Eric Yim, 10577 Kozier Drive, spoke in support of the project and noted that townhouse units would bring diversity to a single-family home area. He stated that the true value of a home is not always measured in dollars, and said that townhouse units would bring families into the area, thereby strengthening the community. He remarked that the project would have positive benefits, and would contribute to property values in the area.

Mr. Bhullar spoke in support of the project and stated that his adult children cannot afford to purchase a single-family home in the City, and that townhouse developments provide affordable housing for the next generation.

A resident of No. 2 Road, spoke on behalf of the residents of 10320 Williams Road, expressing support for the project and noted that young people who cannot afford a single-family dwelling can afford a townhouse unit.

Basil Kallner, 6951 Whiteoak Drive, spoke in support of the project and stated that townhouse units: (i) do not negatively impact the neighbourhood; and (ii) provide alternative housing choices for young adults the age of his grandchildren.

Paul Ly, 6571 Maple Road, spoke in opposition to the project and the densification it represented and described growing up in a townhouse unit. Experience taught him that townhouse unit residents use their garages for storage and park their cars on the street. He purchased his home on Maple Road because it was a safe and quiet area.

Garry Mcdermid, 6480 Juniper Drive, spoke in support of the project and disputed the idea that property values for single-family homes in the area would fall. He advised that property values would remain high if residents properly maintained their yards and houses.

Denis Liao, 6191 Maple Road, spoke in opposition to the project and remarked that: (i) if a townhouse unit resident had a party, cars would be parked along Maple Road; (ii) the project would create traffic problems in the area; and (iii) car accidents would occur at area intersections despite the presence of traffic lights.

Nelson, 6571 Juniper Drive, spoke in opposition to the project for the following reasons: (i) it will bring many people to the area and the Maple Road neighbourhood will be the victim; (ii) No. 2 Road is already very busy; and (iii) there are not enough visitor parking stalls on the subject site and Maple Road will see an increase in parked cars.

Albert Ng, 6471 Magnolia Drive, spoke in opposition to the project and was concerned that one single-family house lot could not accommodate 15 to 18 townhouse units.

Resident of 6231 Maple Road, spoke in opposition to the project and stated that because the subject site is not a large one there would be problems with cars parking in front of his house.

Henry Soo, 6031 Martyniuk Place, advised that he spoke on behalf of ten residents and spoke in opposition to the project. He remarked that Richmond needed high density areas, but that the Maple Lane area benefited from the good environment created by single-family homes. He added that single-family homes can be economical if two or three generations of a family lived in them.

Mr Bjelos, 6100 Maple Road, spoke in opposition to the project and expressed concern that property values, and not safety issues, were not addressed. He preferred to see single-family homes on the subject site.

Trudy Lai, 6571 Maple Road, spoke in opposition to the project and commented that the Arterial Road Policy is not mandatory, nor is it a blanket endorsement for every site. She was concerned that after having enjoyed the serene environment of her neighbourhood the influx of 15 townhouse units would ruin the qualify of her lifestyle. She added that townhouse units are out of character, not compatible and not harmonious with her neighbourhood. She drew Council’s attention to the high number of homes and high number of residents who had filed petitions stating opposition to the project.

Sandra Qi, 6060 Maple Road, spoke in opposition to the project and said that area residents work hard to protect their area’s environment. She was concerned that if the townhouse units are built, drivers will make turns on the yards of residents, cars will be parked in front of residents’ yards and garbage will be thrown into residents’ yards.

Stephanie Ng, Martyniuk Place, spoke in opposition to the project and said that: (i) Maple Lane is not an arterial road; (ii) it was wrong to place the proposed development’s vehicle access on Maple Lane; and (iii) drivers will have to take a long time to make a left turn onto No. 2 Road. She was concerned about the impact on the environment, the influx of population, the increased garbage, noise and light pollution if the townhouse units are built. She noted that the neighbourhood would be strangled with more cars.

Mr. Chow, Martyniuk Place, questioned: (i) why the proposed development’s vehicle access was on Maple Lane; and (ii) how one block of No. 2 Road could accommodate four traffic lights.

Tiffany Wong spoke in support of the project and noted that a townhouse unit is an affordable housing choice for young people, and working people with various income levels, who want to live in the City.

John Galvin, Langley, spoke in support of the project and advised that he has collaborated with the applicant on a number of developments. He described the No. 2 Road project as worthwhile, and noted that the applicant had made a number of costly changes to the project. The expanding population and young people need homes.

Steve Yick,  6113 Maple Road, spoke in opposition to the project and stated that it would have a shocking impact on the neighbourhood. He added that: (i) the applicant’s changes to the design did not solve the project’s problems; (ii) density in the area was a problem; (iii) heavier traffic would be introduced into the area; and (iv) he had concerns with the project’s frontage.

Mr. Pu, 6433 Maple Road, spoke on behalf of his family and stated their opposition to the project. They were concerned about the negative impact on the environment of the neighbourhood and that the tranquility and peacefulness of the neighbourhood would be affected by townhouse units.

A resident spoke in support of the project.

Joyce Wong, 6280 Maple Road, spoke in opposition to the project and noted that single-family homes would be welcomed on the subject site but not townhouse units. She was concerned about: (i) increased traffic and a lack of parking in the area; and (ii) and the decline in safety.

Eddie spoke in support of the project and advised that he could not afford to purchase a single-family home, but that he had purchased a townhouse unit developed by the applicant. He added that his family enjoyed a nice townhouse unit that is close to single-family homes. Concerns expressed were unreasonable. 

Carol Day, 11631 Seahurst Road, spoke in opposition to the project and cited her experience with a project of a similar nature in her own neighbourhood. She stated that the City should densify the City Centre, but not residential neighbourhoods outside the City Centre. She suggested that if a survey was undertaken by the City, that it would be helpful. Also, the Arterial Road Policy is a curse and needs to be changed to something more sensible.

Eddie Chan, Blundell Road, spoke in support of the project and said that he lives in a townhouse unit, and drives on No. 2 Road on a daily basis. He has observed how development had transformed the road, and added that townhouse units are an option for older residents who are downsizing from a single-family home.

PH12/6-15

It was moved and seconded

That the meeting be extended past 11:00 p.m.

CARRIED

Resident of 6131 Maple Road spoke in opposition to the project and stated that cars would be parked on Maple Road because there were not enough visitor parking stalls on the subject site. She was concerned that her peaceful lifestyle would be destroyed by the project and that the applicant would use the peaceful nature of the Maple Road neighbourhood to boost sales for the proposed townhouse units.

Nick Loenen, President of the Christian Reformed Housing Society, No. 2 Road, spoke in support of the project and advised that twenty years ago his Society applied for, and received, rezoning to enable the construction of the 26-unit senior apartment building on No. 2 Road. Initially he was opposed to the current applicant’s design, because the nine apartments facing north would be impacted by vehicular access to No. 2 Road, and he was pleased that the revised access was from Maple Road. He stated that residents of his facility were happy with the proposed new traffic signal, and that the subject site was a transition property, between a site with an apartment block and sites with single-family homes.

Gilbert Yeung spoke in support of the project and noted that a diversified population was an asset. He said that the only place to construct townhouse units was on the fringes of the City Centre, and that many young people can afford a townhouse unit, but not a single-family home. He stated that Maple Road residents are members of the whole community, not just their area, and he added that the proposed development would enhance the value of the area’s single-family properties.

Diana Leung, 6099 Alder Street, spoke in support of the project and stated that the developer had addressed many of the concerns raised by area residents. In addition the developer had hired an appraiser who advised that property value in the area would increase, and had hired a traffic consultant who advised that there would be a minimal impact on the area with the addition of townhouse units and their residents’ vehicles.

Tony Cheung, 6571 Juniper Drive, spoke in opposition to the project and noted that traffic issues would arise if townhouse units were constructed in a single-family home neighbourhood.

Resident, 6191 Maple Road, spoke in opposition to the project and stated that while she supports townhouse units, they are not suitable at the subject site. She then stated the following concerns: (i) traffic; (ii) speeding vehicles; and (iii) unsafe left hand turns.

The applicant, Magdalen Leung, 6431 Juniper Drive, advised that as developers, she and her husband Thomas Leung, had developed sites in the City since the 1980s, and that some of those sites feature townhouse developments. She noted that they had heard comments from those who supported the project and those who opposed the project, and some comments were speculation and conjecture. She noted that the City’s Arterial Road Policy creates alternatives in the housing market. In conclusion she advised that the development was given due process.

Trudy Lai, 6571 Maple Road, spoke a second time, and noted that the other townhouse developments the applicant referenced were not directly relevant to the proposed development at 9160 No. 2 Road.

PH12/6-16

It was moved and seconded

That Zoning Amendment Bylaw 8769 be given second and third readings.

CARRIED

OPPOSED: Councillor Chak Au

Councillor Harold Steves

PH12/6-17

It was moved and seconded

That as a requirement of fourth reading of Zoning Amendment Bylaw 8769 (RZ 10-516267) a restrictive covenant be registered limiting the number of townhouse units to fifteen (15).

CARRIED

Direction was given to staff to re-examine access being provided off No. 2  Road, during the Development Permit process.

ADJOURNMENT

PH12/6-18

It was moved and seconded

That the meeting adjourn (11:50 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, June 18, 2012.

Mayor (Malcolm D. Brodie)

Acting Corporate Officer

City Clerk’s Office (Gail Johnson)