April 20, 2015 - Minutes

Place:

Council Chambers
Richmond City Hall

Present:

Mayor Malcolm D. Brodie
Councillor Derek Dang
Councillor Carol Day (entered at 7:02 p.m.)
Councillor Ken Johnston
Councillor Alexa Loo
Councillor Linda McPhail
Councillor Harold Steves

Michelle Jansson, Acting Corporate Officer

Absent:

Councillor Chak Au
Councillor Bill McNulty

Call to Order:

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

1.

TEMPORARY COMMERCIAL USE PERMIT RENEWAL APPLICATION (TU 14-670690)
(Location:  12631 Vulcan Way; Applicant:  Paul Cheung, Lions Communication Inc.)

Councillor Day entered the meeting (7:02 p.m.).

Applicant’s Comments:

The applicant was available to respond to queries.

Written Submissions:

(a)

Greg Roberts, 2691 Viscount Way (Schedule 1)

Submissions from the floor:

None.

PH15/4-1

It was moved and seconded

That a Temporary Commercial Use Permit be issued to Paul Cheung for a Temporary Commercial Use Permit Renewal at 12631 Vulcan Way for the purposes of permitting an evening night market event between May 8, 2015 to September 27, 2015 (inclusive), May 6, 2016 to September 25, 2016 (inclusive) and May 5, 2017 to September 24, 2017 (inclusive) subject to the fulfillment of all terms, conditions and requirements outlined in the Temporary Commercial Use Permit and attached Schedules.

The question on Resolution PH15/4-1 was not called as in response to a query from Council, Wayne Craig, Director of Development, advised that there are provisions in the Temporary Use Permit for the collection and disposal of litter in the area and that staff have spoken with the event organizer regarding said concerns.  Additionally, Mr. Craig advised that an on-site grease disposal container is available free of charge to the vendors.

The question on Resolution PH15/4-1 was then called and it was CARRIED.

2.

OFFICIAL COMMUNITY PLAN BYLAWS 7100 AND 9000, AMENDMENT BYLAW 9114, OFFICIAL COMMUNITY PLAN BYLAWS 7100 AND 9000, AMENDMENT BYLAW 9230, AND RICHMOND ZONING BYLAW 8500, AMENDMENT BYLAW 9115 (RZ 12-610630)
(Location:  5300, 5320, 5340 and 5360 Granville Avenue and 7260 Lynnwood Drive; Applicant:  Yamamoto Architecture Inc.)

Applicant’s Comments:

The applicant was available to respond to queries.

Written Submissions:

(a)

Carol Snaden on behalf of William and Lenora Felker, 5300 Granville Avenue (Schedule 2)

(b)

Clive Mason, Director of Facilities Planning, School District No. 38 (Richmond) (Schedule 3)

Submissions from the floor:

Rick Pearce, 7391 Lynnwood Drive, expressed concern regarding (i) access to the proposed development during construction, (ii) access during the construction of the proposed servicing upgrades along Ledway Road, and (iii) the development plans for the property to the east of the proposed north/south Lynnwood Drive extension.

Mr. Craig commented that a rezoning application has been received for the property to the east of the proposed Lynnwood Drive extension; however, said application cannot be presented for Council’s consideration until the proposed new road is secured.  He further commented that a servicing agreement will be required for the proposed development and the construction schedule will be determined through consultation with the City’s Engineering and Transportation Divisions to ensure that (i) the existing properties are not affected by the work, and (ii) the construction vehicles use Granville Avenue.

Mr. Craig stated that City inspections will be conducted prior to the opening of the proposed Lynnwood Road extension.  In addition, Mr. Craig noted that staff will ensure that the Construction and Parking Management Plan directs all construction vehicle traffic for the proposed development through Granville Avenue.

Karen McDonald, 7111 Lynnwood Drive, spoke in opposition to the application and requested clarification regarding the Lynnwood Road expansion and expressed concern with the proposed park improvement, drainage, and site grading for the proposed development requesting a wall be constructed to protect adjacent sites.  Ms. McDonald was of the opinion that single-family dwellings and additional park space would be preferred.

In reply to queries from Council, Mr. Craig provided the following information:

§   

the proposed Lynnwood Road extension is comprised of a north/south extension to Granville Avenue, as well as an east/west road connection; 

§   

a nine-metre wide park expansion is proposed along the southerly portion of the development abutting the north edge of McKay Park;

§   

the proposed development will be required to provide perimeter drainage; additionally, the new roads will include storm drainage to ensure that water runoff is directed into the City’s stormwater management system;

§   

the proposed development will be required to met the minimum floodplain elevation requirements; and

§   

through the Building Permit process, a geotechnical report will be required indicating any potential damage to the adjacent properties and the mitigating measures to be put in place.

Sergio Dratwa, 5551 Linscott Court, was of the opinion that the location map, included in the public notification, was inadequate and suggested that future notices include drawings showing the proposed development plan for the property.

Wen Chi, 7280 Lynnwood Drive, requested clarification on the construction and noise schedule for both the proposed single-family dwellings and the townhouse development along the north/south Lynnwood Road extension.  Mr. Chi expressed concern regarding adequate parking for the site and queried whether improvements to McKay Park were being considered in order to accommodate the proposed townhouse development.

In reply to queries from Council, Mr. Craig advised that Development Permit approval and Servicing Agreements are required prior to the commencement of any construction activities.  In terms of the proposed single family development, he indicated that the application had not been heard by Council and therefore construction timing is unknown at this time.  Mr. Craig further advised that off-street parking would meet the City’s requirements with respect to resident and visitor parking.

Jamie Esko, Park Planner, commented that staff will continue to monitor McKay Park to assess whether the current services provided are adequate to meet the needs of future residents.  Also, she commented that, should further services be required, a submission would be brought forward for Council’s consideration.

Barry Konkin, Program Coordinator-Development, provided information on construction hours as per Noise Regulation – Bylaw No. 8856 and advised that a copy of the City’s “Good Neighbour” brochure would be provided to the delegation.

Mayor Brodie acknowledged the conclusion of the first round of speakers.  Speakers then addressed Council for a second time with new information.

Ms. McDonald spoke to the current parking issues in the area.  She was of the opinion that the City’s parking requirements were inadequate and that the neighbourhood would be adversely affected by the proposed development.

In reply to a query from Council, Mr. Craig stated that, in the event 5300 Granville Avenue is redeveloped, the required parkland dedication would qualify for a Parkland Development Cost Charges (DCC) credit.

Staff was directed to inform the current property owners with regard to the Parkland DCC credit.

In reply to a query from Council, Ms. Esko advised that, with respect to the McKay Park and school site, a previous road configuration would have provided an opportunity for additional parkland; however, the proposed road configuration will provide a buffer between the new development and the park.

PH15/4-2

It was moved and seconded

That Official Community Plan Bylaws 7100 and 9000, Amendment Bylaw 9114 be given second and third readings.

The question on Resolution PH15/4-2 was not called as in reply to a query from Council, Ms. Esko commented that the nine-metre buffer would be added to the approximately 3.5 acres of City-owned parkland and not to the Richmond School District property.

The question on Resolution PH15/4-2 was then called and it was CARRIED.

PH15/4-3

It was moved and seconded

That Official Community Plan Bylaws 7100 and 9000, Amendment Bylaw 9230 be given second and third readings.

CARRIED

PH15/4-4

It was moved and seconded

That Richmond Zoning Bylaw 8500, Amendment Bylaw 9115 be given second and third readings.

CARRIED

3.

RICHMOND ZONING BYLAW 8500, AMENDMENT BYLAW 9214 (RZ14-665297)
(Location:  8231 Ryan Road; Applicant:  0825215 B.C. LTD.)

Applicant’s Comments:

The applicant was available to respond to queries.

Written Submissions:

None.

Submissions from the floor:

None.

PH15/4-5

It was moved and seconded

That Richmond Zoning Bylaw 8500, Amendment Bylaw 9214 be given second and third readings.

CARRIED

4.

RICHMOND ZONING BYLAW 8500, AMENDMENT BYLAW 9218 (RZ 11-586707)
(Location:  8395 Ruskin Place; Applicant:  Robert Kirk)

Applicant’s Comments:

The applicant was available to respond to queries.

Written Submissions:

None.

Submissions from the floor:

None.

PH15/4-6

It was moved and seconded

That Richmond Zoning Bylaw 8500, Amendment Bylaw 9218 be given second and third readings.

CARRIED

There was agreement to vary the order of the agenda to deal with Item No. 6 – Richmond Zoning Bylaw 8500, Amendment Bylaw 9228 at this time.

6.

RICHMOND ZONING BYLAW 8500, AMENDMENT BYLAW 9228 (RZ 14-662478)
(Location:  8760 and 8780 Rosemary Avenue; Applicant:  Anwer Kamal and Nabeel Abrahani)

Applicant’s Comments:

The applicant was available to respond to queries.

Written Submissions:

None.

Submissions from the floor:

None.

PH15/4-7

It was moved and seconded

That Richmond Zoning Bylaw 8500, Amendment Bylaw 9228 be given second and third readings.

CARRIED

5.

RICHMOND ZONING BYLAW 8500, AMENDMENT BYLAW 9223
(Location:  City-wide; Applicant:  City of Richmond)

Applicant’s Comments:

Mr. Konkin provided background information on the proposed revisions to single-family and two-unit dwellings building height and half-storey building area regulations and it was noted that the proposed amendment would:

§   

prohibit a flat-roof portion containing a half-storey of habitable space;

§   

limit the roof framing containing a half-storey to a minimum of a 5:12 pitch;

§   

introduce setback requirements for half-storey areas to achieve further articulation and variation in building mass;

§   

introduce limits to the height of both gable end and shed dormers;

§   

prohibit balconies or decks on a half-storey area to enhance privacy and reduce over-look; and

§   

reduce the single-family height for a flat roof dwelling from 9.0 metres to 7.5 metres.

Mr. Konkin advised that the proposed zoning amendments do not apply to Land Use Contracts.  Also, he advised that the proposed bylaw amendment does not address concerns raised regarding the interior ceiling height requirements and the five-metre exemption for over-height areas over staircases and entryways.

As a result of the presentation, the following referral was introduced:

PH15/4-8

It was moved and seconded

(1)

That staff investigate options to better control issues related to overall building massing and construction of high ceilings, including but not limited to:

(a)

what other municipalities are doing;

(b)

enforcement options; and

report back through Planning Committee;

(2)

That staff consult with stakeholders, residents, architects and home designers on the matter; and

(3)

That staff refer the matter to the Richmond Advisory Design Panel for analysis and comment.

The question on Resolution PH15/4-8 was not called as in response to queries from Council, Gavin Woo, Senior Manager, Building Approvals, provided background information on roof line and cathedral ceiling measurements.  Mr. Woo advised that inspection and enforcement of suspect construction activity is conducted on a complaint basis.

Mr. Craig commented that the 2008 amendments were related to (i) maximum height calculations for single-family homes, and (ii) half-storey building heights.  Also, he noted that the City’s Flood Plain Designation and Protection Bylaw No. 8204, adopted in 2008, identified new minimum slab elevations for single-family homes.  It was noted that the referral before Council referenced building massing, which includes the examination of building height calculations.

The question on Resolution PH15/4-8 was then called and it was CARRIED.

Written Submissions:

(a)

Westwind Ratepayers Association for Positive development (Schedule 4)

(b)

Westwind Owner, Online Submission #822 (Schedule 5)

(c)

Ron and Verna Stricker (Schedule 6)

(d)

James Strilesky (Schedule 7)

(e)

Memorandum, Director of Development (Schedule 8)

(f)

Kathryn McCreary (Schedule 9)

(g)

Graham Taylor, 8571 Fairhurst Road (Schedule 10)

(h)

Lynda ter Borg (Schedule 11)

(i)

Patrick Hill, 5791 Bittern Court (Schedule 12)

(j)

Heather McDonald and Jack Olsen, 5640 Wagtail Avenue(Schedule 13)

Submissions from the floor:

Lynda ter Borg, 5860 Sandpiper Court, spoke to concerns related to building height and massing and read from a written submission (attached to and forming part of these minutes as Schedule 14).

In reply to a query from Council, James Cooper, Manager, Plan Review, commented that accessory buildings less than 10 square metres do not require a building permit and that the maximum height for an accessory building is 5.0 metres under the City’s regulations.  In regard to the two-storey accessory structure identified by the delegation, Mr. Cooper noted that the size, form and location of said building complies with the City’s regulations.

In response to a query from Council, Mr. Craig advised that the proposed amendment would require that multi-pitched roofs with any flat portion be measured to the peak of the flat portion.  He further advised that, under the proposed amendment, buildings would not be permitted to exceed the maximum height of 7.5 metres for any flat-roof portion of the structure.

As a result of the discussion, the following amendment was introduced:

PH15/4-9

It was moved and seconded

That Resolution PH15/4-8 be amended by adding the following as Part 4:

“That staff investigate the regulations related to the height and design of accessory buildings.”

The question on Resolution PH15/4-9 was not called as staff was directed to examine the past 20 years of the City’s zoning regulations related to accessory buildings.  The question on Resolution PH15/4-9 was then called and it was CARRIED.

Resolution PH15/4-8 as amended by Resolution PH15/4-9 now reads as follows:

“(1)

That staff investigate options to better control issues related to overall building massing and construction of high ceilings, including but not limited to:

(a)

what other municipalities are doing;

(b)

enforcement options; and

report back through Planning Committee;

  (2)

That staff consult with stakeholders, residents, architects and home designers on the matter;

  (3)

That staff refer the matter to the Richmond Advisory Design Panel for analysis and comment; and

  (4)

That staff investigate the regulations related to the height and design of accessory buildings.”

With the aid of a PowerPoint presentation, John ter Borg, 5860 Sandpiper Court, raised concerns regarding building massing and read from a written submission (attached to and forming part of these minutes as Schedule 15).

Kathryn McCreary, 7560 Glacier Crescent, spoke to concerns with respect to massing, great rooms, and excessive ceiling heights and read from a written submission (attached to and forming part of these minutes as Schedule 16).

Mayor Brodie acknowledged the conclusion of the first round of speakers.  Speakers then addressed Council for a second time with new information.

Lynda ter Borg was of the opinion that the interests of future generations must be protected and referenced an article by Peter A. Allard (refer to Pages 30 to 34 of Schedule 14).

Kathryn McCreary spoke to the rationale in permitting the demolition of homes 10 years young in light of the City’s efforts to reduce, reuse, and recycle.

Robert Williamson encouraged the City to develop a communication strategy on the City’s review of the zoning regulations related to building massing and other matters.

PH15/4-10

It was moved and seconded

That Richmond Zoning Bylaw 8500, Amendment Bylaw 9223 be given second and third readings.

The question on Resolution PH15/4-10 was not called as in reply to a query from Council, Mr. Craig advised that the floor area ratio regulations could be changed at Council’s discretion.

The question on Resolution PH15/4-10 was then called and it was CARRIED.

PH15/4-11

It was moved and seconded

That Richmond Zoning Bylaw 8500, Amendment Bylaw 9223 be adopted.

CARRIED

ADJOURNMENT

PH15/4-12

It was moved and seconded

That the meeting adjourn (8:59 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, April 20, 2015.

Mayor (Malcolm D. Brodie)

Acting Corporate Officer
(Michelle Jansson)