March 20, 2017 - Minutes

Place:

Council Chambers
Richmond City Hall

Present:

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

Claudia Jesson, Acting Corporate Officer

Absent:

Councillor Derek Dang

Call to Order:

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

1.

RICHMOND ZONING BYLAW 8500, AMENDMENT BYLAW 9624 (RZ 16-735119)
(Location:  9320 Dixon Avenue; Applicant: Ajit Thaliwal and Raman Kooner)

Applicant’s Comments:

None.

Written Submissions:

None.

Submissions from the floor:

None.

PH17/3-1

It was moved and seconded

That Richmond Zoning Bylaw 8500, Amendment Bylaw 9624 be given second and third readings.

CARRIED

2.

RICHMOND ZONING BYLAW 8500, AMENDMENT BYLAW 9659 (RZ 10-552879)
(Location:  9851, 9891/9911 Steveston Highway & 10931 Southgate Road; Applicant:  1002397 BC Ltd.)

Applicant’s Comments:

The applicant was available to respond to queries.

Written Submissions:

None.

Submissions from the floor:

Narayan Naidu, 10911 Southgate Road, posed questions regarding:

·         Expected commencement of construction;

·         When the applicant attempted to contact the neighbouring property owner; and

·         Whether the joint consent of residents is required to remove trees.

In response to Ms. Naidu’s question, staff advised that if a tree is jointly owned, the joint consent is required for tree removal.

Keith Leung, representative of the applicant, provided the following information in response to Ms. Naidu’s questions:

·         Construction will begin as soon as all permits are obtained, hopefully in four to six months; and

·         The real estate agent of the neighbouring property was contacted in January 2017 to enquire about the owner’s interest in selling their property and to advise of the development plans in the event that the owner did not wish to sell.

PH17/3-2

It was moved and seconded

That Richmond Zoning Bylaw 8500, Amendment Bylaw 9659 be given second and third readings.

CARRIED

3.

RICHMOND ZONING BYLAW 8500, AMENDMENT BYLAW 9668 (RZ 16-741244)
(Location:  7140/7160 Marrington Road; Applicant:  Westmark Developments Ltd.)

Applicant’s Comments:

The applicant was available to respond to queries.

Written Submissions:

None.

Submissions from the floor:

None.

PH17/3-3

It was moved and seconded

That Richmond Zoning Bylaw 8500, Amendment Bylaw 9668 be given second and third readings.

CARRIED

4.

RICHMOND ZONING BYLAW 8500, AMENDMENT BYLAW 9670 (ZT 16-740866)
(Location:  4331 and 4431 Vanguard Road; Applicant:  Christopher Bozyk Architects Ltd.)

Applicant’s Comments:

The applicant was available to respond to queries.

Written Submissions:

None.

Submissions from the floor:

None.

Discussion:

In response to a question from Council, staff confirmed that the site’s current “Industrial Retail (IR1)” zoning under the Official Community Plan would not change as a result of the application.

PH17/3-4

It was moved and seconded

That Richmond Zoning Bylaw 8500, Amendment Bylaw 9670 be given second and third readings.

CARRIED

5.

RICHMOND ZONING BYLAW 8500, AMENDMENT BYLAW 9673 (RZ 16-741547)
(Location:  11660/11680 Montego Street; Applicant:  Sansaar Investments Ltd.)

Applicant’s Comments:

None.

Written Submissions:

None.

Submissions from the floor:

None.

PH17/3-5

It was moved and seconded

That Richmond Zoning Bylaw 8500, Amendment Bylaw 9673 be given second and third readings.

CARRIED

6.

RICHMOND ZONING BYLAW 8500, AMENDMENT BYLAW 9680 (RZ 16-741423)
(Location:  9760 Sealily Place; Applicant:  Focus Construction Ltd.)

Applicant’s Comments:

None.

Written Submissions:

Sukh Uppal, 11220 Seaport Avenue (Schedule 1)

Submissions from the floor:

None.

Discussion:

In response to a question from Council, staff reported that the Bylaws Department and Transportation Department have advised that no parking issues have been reported in the past 12 months.

PH17/3-6

It was moved and seconded

That Richmond Zoning Bylaw 8500, Amendment Bylaw 9680 be given second and third readings.

CARRIED

7.

RICHMOND ZONING BYLAW 8500, AMENDMENT BYLAW 9681 (RZ 15-713048)
(Location:  4300, 4320, 4340 Thompson Road, and 4291, 4331, 4431 and 4451 Boundary Road; Applicant:  Kaimanson Investments Ltd.)

Applicant’s Comments:

The applicant was available to respond to queries.

Written Submissions:

Jose Gonzalez, 7171 Ash Street (Schedule 2)

Submissions from the floor:

Barb Bowman, 4420 Thompson Road, posed questions regarding:

·         Expected commencement of construction;

·         The configuration of the access to Thompson Road; and

·         Whether the environmental concerns were addressed in the proposal.

In response to Ms. Bowman’s questions, staff advised that:

·         Access, with connections to both Thompson Road and Boundary Road, is provided as part of the proposal;

·         Off-site compensation will be provided in the City-owned park on the west side of Thompson Road with the planting of trees and shrubs; and

·         On-site compensation will be provided through the planting of trees and shrubs adjacent to the pedestrian corridor through the site.

In response to the question from Ms. Bowman, Melvin Yap, Kaimanson Investments Ltd. advised that construction would commence as quickly as possible after all permits are obtained, hopefully in 12 months.

Discussion:

In response to questions from Council, Mr. Yap advised:

·         Six three-bedroom and handicap accessible townhouses will be provided for affordable housing; and

·         The floor plan of the affordable housing units has been selected, however, the specific units on the site have not yet been designated.

PH17/3-7

It was moved and seconded

That Richmond Zoning Bylaw 8500, Amendment Bylaw 9681 be given second and third readings.

CARRIED

8.

RICHMOND ZONING BYLAW 8500, AMENDMENT BYLAW 9682 (RZ 15-701939)
(Location:  7760 Garden City Road; Applicant:  Incircle Projects Ltd.)

Applicant’s Comments:

The applicant was available to respond to queries.

Written Submissions:

Iris Lee, 16 – 7733 Turnill Street (Schedule 3)

In response to a question from Council, staff advised that the purpose of the existing easement is to provide access and after a thorough review,  staff confirmed that the easement is in place and on Title for the benefit of the proposed redevelopment site and can be used for the development.

Submissions from the floor:

Kim Fong, 7733 Turnill Street, commented on the additional risks to the safety of young children that will be created by additional traffic utilizing the existing access to 7733 Turnill Street. Mr. Fong stated his preference that vehicular access be provided via Garden City Road. This safety concern was also raised when the 7340 Turnill Street property was developed.

In response to a question from Council, Mr. Fong reported that he believed that the easement was for the private use of 7733 Turnill Street when he purchased his property in 2003.

Iris Lee, 7733 Turnill Street, expressed concern with the impact of the opening of the driveway to the safety of her young children and with the potential for the owners of the adjacent development to drive at unsafe speeds while utilizing the driveway.

In response to a question from Council, staff advised of the measures that could be taken by the strata council to mitigate the concerns expressed by the residents of 7733 Turnill Street.

In response to questions from Council, Ms. Lee advised that she was not aware of the existence of the easement when she purchased her residence and that she had selected the property because it was at the end of the road, that will now be extended to provide access to the proposed development.

Dixon Choi, 7733 Turnhill Street, expressed concern about danger that will be posed to young children as a result of the increase traffic. Mr. Choi questioned whether access could be provided via Jones Road.

In response to a question from Council, staff reported that an easement does not exist to provide access from Jones Road.

In response to a question from Council, Mr. Choi reported that he had not been informed of the existence of the easement when he purchased his residence.

Kim Fong, 7733 Turnill Street, addressed Council a second time and questioned whether a restricted right-turn access from Garden City Road would be acceptable to the City and the applicant.

Discussion:

Staff provided the following information in response to questions from Council:

·         The easement is registered on Title and it is the duty of the realtor to disclose all charges on Title;

·         The arterial road status of Garden City Road and the greenway adjacent to Garden City Road were factors when considering providing right turn only access to and from Garden City Road;

·         The staff recommendation is to provide access utilizing the existing easement;

·         The subject lot is the only remaining site to be redeveloped that would utilize the existing easement for access; and

·         The applicant and the strata council of 7733 Turnill Street could work together to implement traffic calming measures through a private arrangement between the two strata councils.

It was moved and seconded

That the application be referred to staff to clarify whether the easement was on title prior to 2003 and to consider options for alternate access to address the concerns of the neighbouring residents.

DEFEATED
Opposed: Mayor Brodie
Cllrs. Loo,
Johnston
and Steves

It was moved and seconded

That Richmond Zoning Bylaw 8500, Amendment Bylaw 9682 be given second and third readings.

DEFEATED
Opposed: Cllrs. Au,
Day,
McNulty,
and McPhail

Discussion:

Representatives of the applicant responded to questions from Council and noted:

·         The overall safety of providing access through Garden City Road and the impact on the greenway were balanced against the provision of access via 7733 Turnhill Street;

·         Applicant is willing to work with the strata council of 7733 Turnill Street to implement traffic calming measures;

·         Contact was initiated with the strata council of 7733 Turnill Street via telephone calls and written correspondence regarding the proposed development and no concerns were identified;

·         Road maintenance, visitor parking and amenity space is being provided as part of the development application; and

·         Signage and traffic calming measures, such as speed bumps, could be installed throughout the complex.

In response to questions from Council, staff confirmed:

·         The use of the easement is being recommended because it is consistent with the plan developed in 2003;

·         An additional driveway will introduce a new conflict point on Garden City Road and will create safety concerns for cyclists and pedestrians utilizing the greenway; and

·         The necessity for two separate legal entities to be established due to the elapsed time between the two developments.

In response to questions from Council, the architect for the proposal, advised that:

·         The development cannot be reconfigured to provide access from Garden City Road; and

·         The townhouses are three-bedroom units and will likely be purchased by other families with young children.

Council suggested that the developer meet with the strata council of 7733 Turnill Street to discuss the concerns with the access arrangements.

PH17/3-8

It was moved and seconded

That the application be referred to staff to review issues raised at the Public Hearing regarding access; and

That staff advise the applicant to undertake communication with the strata council of 7733 Turnill Street.

CARRIED

9.

RICHMOND ZONING BYLAW 8500, AMENDMENT BYLAW 9683 (RZ 15-716841)
(Location:  3411/3431 Lockhart Road; Applicant:  Aman Hayer)

Applicant’s Comments:

The applicant was available to respond to queries.

Written Submissions:

None.

Submissions from the floor:

None.

PH17/3-9

It was moved and seconded

That Richmond Zoning Bylaw 8500, Amendment Bylaw 9683 be given second and third readings.

CARRIED

10.

DEVELOPMENT PERMIT (DP 16-741981)
(Location:  10788 No. 5 Road; Applicant:  Townline Gardens Inc.)

Applicant’s Comments:

The applicant was available to respond to queries.

Applicant’s Comments:

John Markulin, Bryson Markulin Zickmantel Structural Engineers, advised that the development proposal is being amended to remove the proposed ten-storey apartment building and to proceed with three (3) three-storey townhouse buildings, containing a total of 23 units, on the eastern edge of the site adjacent to Highway 99.

In response to questions from Council, Mr. Markulin confirmed that:

·         The amended development proposal would result in reduced density;

·         The plan is being revised in response to the proposed changes to the Steveston Highway/Highway 99 interchange; and

·         The phasing of the construction of the tower and the townhouses is not the preference of the applicant.

Written Submissions:

Ralph and Lenore Radom, (Schedule 4)

Yvonne Bell, 10431 Mortfield Road (Schedule 5)

Frank Suto, (Schedule 6)

Erika Simm, (Schedule 7)

Submissions from the floor:

Erika Simm, read aloud a written submission in support of the amended proposal. She stated her preference for the previously proposed ten-storey apartment building.

Stefan Emberson, spoke in support of the previously submitted development plan and the construction of a four-storey apartment building instead of the 23 townhouses.

Resident, spoke in support of the original plan that was initially supported by the community due to the inclusion of a senior’s centre and medical centre. They expressed concern with the reduction in the size of the units in the new proposal, the orientation of the new development on the site and the resulting impact on the skyline and the change to the character of the existing neighbourhood.

In response to a question from Council, staff reviewed the changes to the development plan and the recommendation that the 15 affordable units be located in the eight-storey apartment building.

Resident addressed Council a second time and expressed concern regarding the City’s application process.

Ms. Simms addressed Council a second time and stated that the original plan included concepts, not concrete plans for a medical centre and senior’s centre. The amended development plan is in response to changed circumstances.

Discussion:

Staff provided the following information in response to questions from Council:

·         The staff recommendation is based on the development plan submitted by the applicant; and

·         The increase from a six to an eight-storey building was vetted by the Development Permit Panel, approved by Council in 2016 and the development permit was issued.

PH17/3-10

It was moved and seconded

That DP 16-741981 in accordance with the DP plans provided in Attachment 2 of the March 16, 2017 memorandum titled “Development Permit Application 16-741981 Townline Gardens Inc. for 10788 No. 5 Road” be brought forward to a future Council meeting for consideration of DP issuance, subject to an amendment of the Housing Covenant registered on title as outlined in Table 1 of the memorandum.

CARRIED

Opposed: Cllrs. Day and Steves

ADJOURNMENT

PH17/3-11

It was moved and seconded

That the meeting adjourn (8:35 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, March 20, 2017.

Mayor (Malcolm D. Brodie)

Acting Corporate Officer
(Claudia Jesson)