January 19, 2015 - Minutes

Place:

Council Chambers
Richmond City Hall

Present:

Mayor Malcolm D. Brodie
Councillor Chak Au
Councillor Derek Dang
Councillor Carol Day
Councillor Ken Johnston
Councillor Alexa Loo
Councillor Bill McNulty
Councillor Linda McPhail
Councillor Harold Steves

Michelle Jansson, Acting Corporate Officer

Call to Order:

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

1.

RICHMOND OFFICIAL COMMUNITY PLAN BYLAW 9000, AMENDMENT BYLAW 9156 AND RICHMOND ZONING BYLAW 8500, AMENDMENT BYLAW 9155 (RZ 13-649524)
(Location:  10440 and 10460 No. 2 Road; Applicant:  Polygon Development 273 Ltd.)

Applicant’s Comments:

With the aid of a PowerPoint presentation (copy on file, City Clerk’s Office), Chris Ho, Vice President, Development, Polygon Homes Ltd., accompanied by Doug Shearer, Landscape Architect, Hapa Collaborative, and Keith Hemphill, Architect, Rositch Hemphill Architects, gave a brief overview of the proposed development and highlighted the following:

§   

public information sessions were held in February, April and November 2014 with over 2,200 households invited to attend the open house events;

§   

the proposed development includes an upgraded sanitary pump station,  a fully signalized intersection at Wallace Road and No. 2 Road, and a new child care facility;

§   

a four acre park is proposed for the east side of the development with two 30-feet public greenways, to the north and south, connecting the park to No. 2 Road; additionally, the proposed north/south townhouse units are setback 10-feet from the property line;

§   

street frontage enhancements are proposed along No. 2 Road, such as boulevard plantings and a new multi-use trail;

§   

a public art piece is proposed for the plaza area immediately north of the entrance;

§   

twelve three-storey affordable housing units are located throughout the proposed development;

§   

the amenity building is featured at the entrance to the proposed development;

§   

the proposed development is primarily a three-storey townhouse project; however, the end units of each townhouse block will be two-storey units to reflect the adjacent two-storey residential neighbourhood; and

§   

tudor style construction is proposed for the townhouse development.

Written Submissions:

(a)

Jason Ma, 6220 Goldsmith Drive – Dec. 16, 2014 (Schedule 1)

(b)

Steven May, 6240 Goldsmith Drive (Schedule 2)

(c)

Jason Ma, 6220 Goldsmith Drive – Jan. 5, 2015 (Schedule 3)

(d)

Bob Ransford, 5071 Steveston Highway (Schedule 4)

(e)

Petition Forms Received since Dec. 10, 2014 (Schedule 5)

(f)

Kostya Polyakov, 5780 Woodpecker Drive (Schedule 6)

(g)

Arnold Singh, 11080 Chickadee Court (Schedule 7)

(h)

Jennifer Silvera, 6791 Cairns Court (Schedule 8)

(i)

Scott Shillington, 9373 Hemlock Drive (Schedule 9)

(j)

Dave Straznicky, 4500 Westwater Drive (Schedule 10)

(k)

Michelle Li (Schedule 11)

(l)

Mark Sakai, 11762 Fentiman Place (Schedule 12)

(m)

Eric Coulombe, 3571 Pleasant Street (Schedule 13)

(n)

Terry Kaplan, 3088 Francis Road (Schedule 14)

(o)

Michael Louvet, 6140 Goldsmith Drive (Schedule 15)

Submissions from the floor:

Jackie Turner, 12251 Hayashi Court, spoke in favour of the proposed development and considered the plan respectful of the existing neighbourhood and suitable for older adults and young families. 

In reply to a query from Council, Ms. Turner was of the opinion that the proposed two and three-storey townhouse units, including a main level ensuite, are ideal for both families and older adults.

Julia Nickerson, 10560 Yarmish Drive, supported the proposal, citing it will provide (i) affordable housing for individuals new to the housing market, (ii) a variety of floor plans that can accommodate extended family members, (iii) improved traffic signals, and (iv) adequate greenspace for access to Steveston-London Secondary School and the proposed park.

Jason Ma, 6220 Goldsmith Drive, expressed concern regarding drainage in light of the proposed increase in grading, and questioned the adequacy of the proposed park and greenspace areas.

In response to queries from Council, Wayne Craig, Director of Development, advised that:

§   

perimeter drainage will be installed on the entire development site; thus ensuring that storm water runoff is contained and directed into the existing storm drainage system;

§   

the development of the greenway areas will proceed as part of the park planning process and their design will provide additional drainage, and, where possible, maintain the existing grade;

§   

the park planning process will provide opportunity for public input on the form and character of the proposed park; also, and the park plan will require Council’s approval prior to the adoption of Zoning Bylaw Amendment No. 9155; and

§   

ownership of the greenways, park, and child care facility will be transferred to the City.

In reply to a query from Council, Mr. Ma was of the opinion that the public information sessions may have received a great number of responses and a less controlled outcome had (i) the City conducted the sessions, and (ii) more than two options favourable to the developer been presented.

In response to a query from Council, Mike Redpath, Senior Manager, Parks, advised that the park planning process will include a series of information sessions to receive public input on preliminary and final design concepts.

Mr. Craig noted that the open houses held by the developer were consistent with other privately proposed developments.  He further noted that the open houses were well attended by Parks, Transportation, and Planning Division staff, providing the public opportunities for direct feedback to staff.

Thomas Leung, 6431 Juniper Drive, spoke in favour of the proposed development commending its design, park improvement, affordable housing provision, child care facility, and public art component.  Mr. Leung also congratulated the City for its management of growth, enabling densification through townhouse and condominium development that is affordable for the younger generation.

Ronen Zilberman, 6091 Goldsmith Drive, expressed concern regarding parking and construction hording, where developers apply for City permits to use public areas for unloading purposes, during the construction phase. Also, he commented on the possibility of the rental costs associated with the affordable housing units.

Mr. Craig advised that, during the Building Permit process, the developer is required to provide a Construction Parking and Management Plan to identify designated parking areas for all trades, as well as, how deliveries would be received.  He further advised that (i) the construction process will likely be phased, thereby allowing opportunity for portions of the site to be used for parking, (ii) the Building Permit process allows for the potential use of City property for delivery purposes (i.e., construction hording), and (iii) the affordable housing rates are established by Council.

Paul Ge, 6271 Spender Drive, expressed concern with the potential uses of the park area for active sports.

Mr. Craig noted that park uses will be determined through the park planning process.

PH15/1-1

It was moved and seconded

That Richmond Official Community Bylaw 9000, Amendment Bylaw 9156 be given second and third readings.

The question on Resolution PH15/1-1 was not called as Council expressed support for the proposed development, and made reference to the proposal’s thoughtful design, park and open space, integrated affordable housing units, child care facility, and infrastructure upgrades.

The question on Resolution PH15/1-1 was then called and it was CARRIED.

PH15/1-2

It was moved and seconded

That Richmond Zoning Bylaw 8500, Amendment Bylaw 9155 be given second and third readings.

CARRIED

2.

RICHMOND ZONING BYLAW 8500, AMENDMENT BYLAW 9176 (RZ 14-667788)
(Location:  9620, 9660 and 9700 Cambie Road; Applicant:  City of Richmond)

Applicant’s Comments:

The applicant was available to respond to queries.

Written Submissions:

None.

Submissions from the floor:

None.

PH15/1-3

It was moved and seconded

That Richmond Zoning Bylaw 8500, Amendment Bylaw 9176 be given second and third readings.

CARRIED

3.

RICHMOND ZONING BYLAW 8500, AMENDMENT BYLAW 9184 (RZ 14-667490)
(Location:  3920 Lockhart Road; Applicant:  Jhujar Construction Ltd.)

Applicant’s Comments:

The applicant was available to respond to queries.

Written Submissions:

None.

Submissions from the floor:

John Murry, 7631 Thormanby Crescent, expressed concern with regard to drainage and queried whether the existing cedar hedge along the rear property line would be retained.

Mr. Craig stated that perimeter drainage is a Building Permit requirement.

Barry Konkin, Program Coordinator-Development, commented that grading can be achieved in the rear yard to retain the hedge along the property line.

In response to queries from Council, Mr. Murry commented that the proposed residential units, while not ideal, were anticipated and that the existing cedar hedge will continue to provide privacy for his property.

In reply to queries from Council, Mr. Craig advised that typically Big-O tubing with a silk cover is used for drainage; however, the developer would be able to provide specific information related to the proposed development.  Also, he advised that information related to the referral with regard to the 2.5-storey residential zoning will be presented at a future Planning Committee meeting.

Donald Chan, Jhujar Construction Ltd., commented that (i) two-storey residential units are proposed for the development, (ii) the drainage, including the piping, will comply with City requirements, and (iii) privacy will continue to be achieved through the retention of the existing cedar hedge and the existing lot depth of approximately 44-metres.

In reply to queries from Council, Mr. Chan could not comment on the drainage for the neighbouring property but stated that he would ensure that the proposed development complies with City drainage requirements.  He further commented that while the zoning allows for a minimum rear yard setback of six-meters, it is anticipated that the setback be greater than the requirement due to the existing lot depth.

PH15/1-4

It was moved and seconded

That Richmond Zoning Bylaw 8500, Amendment Bylaw 9184 be given second and third readings.

CARRIED

4.

RICHMOND ZONING BYLAW 8500, AMENDMENT BYLAW 9186 (RZ 14-668415)
(Location:  6500 Granville Avenue; Applicant:  Sandhill Homes Ltd.)

Applicant’s Comments:

The applicant was available to respond to queries.

Written Submissions:

None.

Submissions from the floor:

None.

PH15/1-5

It was moved and seconded

That Richmond Zoning Bylaw 8500, Amendment Bylaw 9186 be given second and third readings.

The question on Resolution PH15/1-5 was not called as in reply to a query from Council, the Acting Corporate Officer confirmed that the Notice of Public Hearing was provided to residents within a 50-metre radius of the subject property resulting in 23 mailings for 18 parcels.

The question on Resolution PH15/1-5 was then called and it was CARRIED.

5.

RICHMOND ZONING BYLAW 8500, AMENDMENT BYLAW 9190 (RZ 13-649998)
(Location:  10591, 10611 and 10631 Gilbert Road; Applicant:  Yamamoto Architecture Inc.)

Applicant’s Comments:

The applicant was available to respond to queries.

Written Submissions:

(a)

David Price, 10440 Whistler Place (Schedule 16)

(b)

Julie Huang, 10386 Whistler Place (Schedule 17)

(c)

Ling Yun, 10380 Whistler Place (Schedule 18)

(d)

Winston Feliciano, 10420 Whistler Place (Schedule 19)

Submissions from the floor:

David Price, 10440 Whistler Place, spoke in favour of the proposed development, however expressed concern regarding the Douglas Firs identified as Nos. 65, 66, 67 of the arborists’ report/drawing on Attachment 4 of the staff report and queried whether the proposed increase in grading was considered.

Mr. Craig advised that the arborist report was reviewed by the City’s Tree Preservation Coordinator and site modifications were factored into the report. He further advised that, as a condition of rezoning, the project Arborist will be required to provide a Tree Survival Security and a post-construction assessment of the trees.  It was noted that the City does not release said Security until a post-construction assessment has been received indicating what, if any, damage occurred to the trees as a result of the construction.

Discussion ensued and it was suggested that the applicant and staff review the retention of the trees from a safety perspective in addition to their margin of survivability.

In reply to a query from Council, Mr. Craig stated that (i) the arborist report identified the maximum allowable fill in the area, (ii) a retaining wall may be required around the southwest corner of the property and, if so, details of said wall would be confirmed through the Development Permit process.

Laurence and Tina Kiing, 10711 Gilbert Road, expressed concern regarding (i) the height of the proposed development blocking the existing view, (ii) potential hazards to trees during construction, (iii) noise during construction, and (iv) the proximity of the project to the south property line.

Mr. Craig commented that (i) a combination of two and three-storey townhouse units are proposed for the development with the units along the perimeter being two-storey units, (ii) the retention of the trees is based on best practices and the information provided indicates the trees are viable for retention, (iii) the developer will be required to provide a Construction Parking and Management Plan to indicate where the trades and deliveries would take place, (iv) construction hours are governed by Noise Regulation – Bylaw No. 8856 (2012) and enforced by the City’s Community Bylaws Division, and (v) a side yard setback of approximately 10-feet is proposed for the project.

In response to a query from Committee, Mr. and Mrs. Kiing stated that single-family residential units would be preferred as there is a concern that the multi-family development may increase noise and traffic in the area.

Jerry Adler, 10366 Whistler Place, expressed concern that the proposed townhouse complex would change the nature of the neighbourhood and would result in a reduction of greenspace, sunlight, and privacy.  Additionally, Mr. Adler was concerned that the interior driveway is designed to continue north and south which suggests that there will be further townhouse development on Gilbert Road.   Mr. Adler requested clarification on (i) which townhouse development requirements under the Arterial Road Policy were not met by the proposed development (PH-296), (ii) whether requesting the applicant to acquire adjacent properties along Gilbert Road is a standard City procedure (PH-297), (iii) the measures being explored to reduce the building height (PH-301), (iv) when the opportunity to increase the rear yard setback would take place (PH-301), (v) drainage, and (vi) construction noise.

Mr. Konkin advised that the only requirement of the Arterial Road Policy not met by the proposed development is with regard to the remnant sites to the south of the subject properties; acquiring the properties to the south would make for a more complete development proposal.  He further advised that a Statutory Right-of-Way will be required to be registered on title to provide future access to the north and south properties. Mr. Konkin noted that the matters pertaining to building height, rear yard setback, and drainage will be addressed through the Development Permit process.

In terms of the construction hours, Mr. Konkin stated that Noise Regulation – Bylaw No. 8856 (2012) specifies that (i) construction can begin at 7 a.m. and end at 8 p.m., Monday through Friday, (ii) must not start before 10 a.m. and end at 8 p.m. on Saturday, and (iii) between 10 am and 6 pm on Sunday.

In response to a query from Council, Mr. Adler stated that the proposed development, with the five-meter rear yard setback, will impact the privacy, enjoyment, and value of the Whistler Place properties.

Jacob Leon, 10571 Gilbert Road, expressed concern for pedestrian safety during the construction of the proposed development.

Jessie Huang, accompanied by her mother, Julie Huang, 10386 Whistler Place, expressed concern that the proposed townhouse development may infringe on neighbourhood privacy and generate more noise.  Ms. Huang also expressed concern with regard to (i) height, (ii) security during construction, and (iii) construction noise.

Mr. Craig stated that (i) an approximate height of 9-meters is proposed for the two-storey townhouse units, (ii) construction sites are generally fenced and secured by the developer during the construction phase, (iii) construction hours are enforced by the City’s Community Bylaws Division, and (iv) the proposed three-storey units are located in the center of the development facing Gilbert Road.

Lloyd McMahon, 10571 Gilbert Road, requested information on whether the existing hedge along the north property line will be replaced.

Mr. Craig commented that full details on the hedge and/or fence will be available through the Development Permit process

In response to a query from Council, Mr. Craig commented that the building form and character for the proposed development will be addressed through the Development Permit process and that the decision before Council is for the land use in terms of the townhouse and the density proposed.

PH15/1-6

It was moved and seconded

That Richmond Zoning Bylaw 8500, Amendment Bylaw 9190 be given second and third readings.

The question on Resolution PH15/1-6 was not called as discussion ensued regarding the need for further discussion between the developer and the neighbouring property owners.  As a result of the discussion, a motion to refer the application back to staff for further consultation with the developer and neighbours was introduced; however failed to receive a seconder.

In response to a query from Council, Mr. Craig noted that staff would receive any public correspondence through the Development Permit process and the information would be provided to the project designer and the Development Permit Panel (DPP).  He further noted that direct notification to residents within a 50-metre radius of the proposed development will take place prior to any future DPP meeting.  Mr. Craig commented that, where possible, the City works with the developer to find an appropriate response to any concerns provided to staff.

The question on Resolution PH15/1-6 was then called and it was CARRIED with Cllr. Day opposed.

6.

RICHMOND ZONING BYLAW 8500, AMENDMENT BYLAW 9200 (RZ 13-647246)
(Location:  9611, 9631 and 9651 Blundell Road; Applicant:  Yamamoto Architecture Inc.)

Applicant’s Comments:

The applicant was available to respond to queries.

Written Submissions:

None.

Submissions from the floor:

None.

PH15/1-7

It was moved and seconded

That Richmond Zoning Bylaw 8500, Amendment Bylaw 9200 be given second and third readings.

The question on Resolution PH15/1-7 was not called as in reply to queries from Council regarding the proposed townhouse height, Mr. Craig advised that a combination of two and three-storey townhouse units are proposed; however it is predominantly a three-storey townhouse development given that it is within a specifically identified area plan.  He further advised that the three-storey units are located along Bridge Street, Blundell Road, and at the rear of the proposed development.

The question on Resolution PH15/1-7 was then called and it was CARRIED.

ADJOURNMENT

PH15/1-8

It was moved and seconded

That the meeting adjourn (9:00 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, January 19, 2015.

Mayor (Malcolm D. Brodie)

Acting Corporate Officer
(Michelle Jansson)