July 17, 2017 - Minutes
 |
Regular Council meeting for Public Hearings
Monday, July 17, 2017
|
Place: |
Council Chambers |
|
Present: |
Mayor Malcolm D. Brodie |
|
Call to Order: |
Mayor Brodie opened the proceedings at 7:00 p.m. |
|
|
1. |
OFFICIAL COMMUNITY PLAN BYLAW 7100, AMENDMENT BYLAW 9628 RICHMOND ZONING BYLAW 8500, AMENDMENT BYLAW 9629 |
|
|
|
Applicant’s Comments: |
|
|
|
The applicant was available to respond to queries. |
|
|
|
Written Submissions: |
|
|
|
52 letters of support (Schedule 1) |
|
|
|
Submissions from the floor: |
|
|
|
None. |
|
PH17/7-1 |
It was moved and seconded |
|
|
|
|
That Official Community Plan Bylaw 7100, Amendment Bylaw 9628 be given second and third readings. |
|
|
|
CARRIED |
|
PH17/7-2 |
It was moved and seconded |
|
|
|
|
That Richmond Zoning Bylaw 8500, Amendment Bylaw 9629 be given second and third readings. |
|
|
|
CARRIED |
|
|
2. |
OFFICIAL COMMUNITY PLAN BYLAW 7100, AMENDMENT BYLAW 9676 RICHMOND ZONING BYLAW 8500, AMENDMENT BYLAW 9677 |
|
|
|
Applicant’s Comments: |
|
|
|
The applicant was available to respond to queries. |
|
|
|
Written Submissions: |
|
|
|
None. |
|
|
|
Submissions from the floor: |
|
|
|
None. |
|
PH17/7-3 |
It was moved and seconded |
|
|
|
|
That Official Community Plan Bylaw 7100, Amendment Bylaw 9676 be given second and third readings. |
|
|
|
CARRIED |
|
PH17/7-4 |
It was moved and seconded |
|
|
|
|
That Richmond Zoning Bylaw 8500, Amendment Bylaw 9677 be given second and third readings. |
|
|
|
CARRIED |
|
|
3. |
RICHMOND ZONING BYLAW 8500, AMENDMENT BYLAW 9682 |
|
|
|
Applicant’s Comments: |
|
|
|
The applicant was available to respond to queries. |
|
|
|
Written Submissions: |
|
|
|
Juwon Lee, 7733 Turnill Street, (Schedule 2) |
|
|
|
Submissions from the floor: |
|
|
|
Iris Lee, 7733 Turnill Street, expressed concern regarding access to the proposed townhouse development from Turnill Street and queried whether a risk assessment report could be shared with the residents for access through Garden City Road. |
|
|
|
In reply to queries from Council, Ms. Lee advised that the applicant did reach out to the residents and suggested some compromises; however she expressed concern with regard to the manner in which the applicant approached the Strata with information. |
|
|
|
In reply to queries from Council, staff advised that commitments made by the developer will be secured to ensure traffic calming measures are carried out as agreed to by the applicant. |
|
|
|
King Luk, representative for the applicant, advised that a meeting between the applicant and the Strata President and several other homeowners was held and discussion took place on concerns related to (i) traffic and posting speed limit signs, (ii) visitor parking signage, (iii) reduction and confusion of addresses, and (iv) inconveniences during construction. |
|
|
|
In reply to queries from Council, the applicant noted that access from Garden City Road will become a greenway for pedestrians and bikes as requested by the City. |
|
PH17/7-5 |
It was moved and seconded |
|
|
|
|
That Richmond Zoning Bylaw 8500, Amendment Bylaw 9682 be given second and third readings. |
|
|
|
CARRIED |
|
|
4. |
RICHMOND ZONING BYLAW 8500, AMENDMENT BYLAW 9724 |
|
|
|
Applicant’s Comments: |
|
|
|
The applicant was available to respond to queries. |
|
|
|
Written Submissions: |
|
|
|
None. |
|
|
|
Submissions from the floor: |
|
|
|
None. |
|
PH17/7-6 |
It was moved and seconded |
|
|
|
|
That Richmond Zoning Bylaw 8500, Amendment Bylaw 9724 be given second and third readings. |
|
|
|
CARRIED |
|
|
5. |
RICHMOND ZONING BYLAW 8500, AMENDMENT BYLAW 9731 |
|
|
|
Applicant’s Comments: |
|
|
|
The applicant was available to respond to queries. |
|
|
|
Written Submissions: |
|
|
|
None. |
|
|
|
Submissions from the floor: |
|
|
|
None. |
|
PH17/7-7 |
It was moved and seconded |
|
|
|
|
That Richmond Zoning Bylaw 8500, Amendment Bylaw 9731 be given second and third readings. |
|
|
|
CARRIED |
|
|
6. |
RICHMOND ZONING BYLAW 8500, AMENDMENT BYLAW 9723 (AMENDMENTS TO THE ZONING BYLAW TO UPDATE REFERENCES TO THE NEW SIGN BYLAW 9700) |
|
|
|
Applicant’s Comments: |
|
|
|
Staff was available to respond to queries. |
|
|
|
In reply to a query from Council, Cecilia Achiam, General Manager, Community Safety, advised that staff encourage applicants to include English on their signage as part of the sign application process. |
|
|
|
Written Submissions: |
|
|
|
None. |
|
|
|
Submissions from the floor: |
|
|
|
None. |
|
PH17/7-8 |
It was moved and seconded |
|
|
|
|
That Richmond Zoning Bylaw 8500, Amendment Bylaw 9723 be given second and third readings. |
|
|
|
CARRIED |
|
PH17/7-9 |
It was moved and seconded |
|
|
|
|
That Richmond Zoning Bylaw 8500, Amendment Bylaw 9723 be adopted. |
|
|
|
CARRIED |
|
|
|
In accordance with Section 100 of the Community Charter, Councillor Derek Dang declared himself to be in a conflict of interest with respect to Item No. 7 as he has a business that deals with single-family dwelling construction and left the meeting at 7:25 p.m. |
|
|
|
7. |
RICHMOND ZONING BYLAW 8500, AMENDMENT BYLAW 9737 BUILDING MASSING OF SINGLE FAMILY DWELLINGS |
|
|
|
|
Applicant’s Comments: |
|
|
|
|
With the aid of renderings (copy on file, City Clerk’s Office), Wayne Craig, Director, Development, Barry Konkin, Program Coordinator, Development, and James Cooper, Manager, Plan Review, reviewed the proposed Single Family Dwelling Building Massing Regulation and spoke on the (i) minimum rear yard setback based on lot depth, (ii) rear yard and side yard setbacks for detached accessory buildings greater than 10 m2, (iii) projections permitted in minimum side yard setbacks, (iv) building height, (v) landscaping requirements, (vi) tree planting, (vii) length of continuous wall, (viii) front garage projection, and (ix) entry gates. |
|
|
|
|
Discussion took place on the Public Hearing notification process and the timeliness of consideration of this matter during the summer months. As a result, the following motion was introduced: |
|
|
PH17/7-10 |
It was moved and seconded |
||
|
|
|
That Richmond Zoning Bylaw 8500, Amendment Bylaw 9737 Building Massing of Single Family Dwellings be deferred to the September 5, 2017 Public Hearing to be held at Richmond City Hall at 7 p.m. |
|
|
|
|
The question on the motion was not called as in reply to queries from Council, Corporate Officer David Weber stated that all statutory notifications were met. |
|
|
|
|
The question on the motion was then called and it was DEFEATED. |
|
|
|
|
DEFEATED |
|
|
|
|
Written Submissions: |
|
|
|
|
(a) |
107 Petition form letters (July 11th to July 14th ) (Schedule 3) |
|
|
|
(b) |
Rita Bielli (Schedule 4) |
|
|
|
(c) |
Jas Sandhu, 8091 Williams Road, (Schedule 5) |
|
|
|
(d) |
Petition form letters from Richmond Home Builders Group (398 Signatures) (Schedule 6) |
|
|
|
(e) |
10 signatures relating to petition from Richmond Home Builders Group |
|
|
|
(f) |
Sobia Yaseen (Schedule 8) |
|
|
|
(g) |
Anonymous correspondence (Schedule 9) |
|
|
|
(h) |
Sharon MacGougan (Schedule 10) |
|
|
|
(i) |
Steve Coventry (Schedule 11) |
|
|
|
(j) |
55 Petition form letters (July 14th-July 17th) (Schedule 12) |
|
|
|
(k) |
Jas Sandhu (additional petition signatures on behalf of Richmond Home Builders Group) (Schedule 13) |
|
|
|
Submissions from the floor: |
|
|
|
|
Roy Sakata, 7471 Blundell Road, expressed concern in regards to the large houses being built and the negative impacts on neighbourhoods. He urged Council to make an informed decision and take into consideration the needs of the citizens of Richmond. Mr. Sakata expressed support for the recommendations set forth by City staff. |
|
|
|
|
Steven Guthrie, 3480 Rosamond Avenue, spoke on the large homes in his neighbourhood blocking the sunlight in backyards. Mr. Guthrie spoke in favour of Bylaw 9737 and urged Council to take into consideration the views of the majority of citizens of Richmond and accept the recommendations set out by staff. |
|
|
|
|
Rajeev Jain, 9580 Saunders Road, spoke on changes proposed by the City regarding a house he was building. Mr. Jain noted that it is challenging to preserve trees and have a larger backyard due to zoning regulations. |
|
|
|
|
Clive Alladin, 3800 Bayview Street, spoke on the Net Zero Energy Program. Mr. Alladin was of the opinion that a portion of the proposed bylaw is in direct conflict with energy saving and good building practices and designs. |
|
|
|
|
Robert Williamson, 8166 Mirabel Court, spoke on the public consultation process and was of the opinion that it was very well conducted. Mr. Williamson spoke in favour of the staff recommendations. |
|
|
|
|
Jim Wright, 8300 Osgoode Drive, read from his submission (attached to and forming part of these minutes as Schedule 14) and spoke in favour of the proposed bylaw. |
|
|
|
|
Gary Cross, 8238 Saba Road, expressed concern in regards to affordability of housing in Richmond for young families. Mr. Cross urged Council to make more livable neighbourhoods in Richmond with more affordable homes. |
|
|
|
|
Cindy Lee, 7720 Malahat Avenue, commented on the effects of massing in her neighbourhood and throughout the city, noting that shadowing from large homes reduces neighbouring homes’ sunlight. Ms. Lee expressed concern in regards to the entry gate and concrete fences noting it does not foster a sense of community. Also, she spoke in favour of the tree planting requirement in the proposed bylaw. |
|
|
|
|
Barinder Sanghera, 5388 Francis Road, was of the opinion that the current bylaw is sufficient. Mr. Sanghera spoke on the (i) rear yard and front yard setbacks, explaining he would like more flexibility in the front, (ii) landscaping options and would like more choice on where to place the trees, (iii) entry gate, advising that he has never had an issue with the current setback. Mr. Sanghera is opposed to the rest of the proposed bylaw and noted that he would like to have the freedom to build the house he wants. He urged Council to look at each situation separately and carefully. |
|
|
|
|
John Lee, 9820 Baits Road, spoke in opposition to the proposed bylaw and requested more time to review the materials provided and postpone the Public Hearing. |
|
|
|
|
Anne Piche, 11800 6th Avenue, suggested that the Steveston area be exempt from the proposed bylaw given that it generally has smaller lots and lanes in the area provide space between the lots. Ms. Piche expressed concern in regards to imposing one bylaw for all neighbourhoods. She noted that massing is not an issue in her neighbourhood, and requested that RS1/A zones be excluded from the proposed bylaw changes. |
|
|
|
|
In reply to queries from Council, staff noted that there are a number of RS1/A properties outside of Steveston area and that the proposed bylaw will not result in any floor space loss relative to smaller lots. |
|
|
|
|
Paul Dylla, 6526 Gibbons Road, stated that he participated in the public consultation process and was very encouraged with the open houses. Also, he was of the opinion that walls and gates are not conducive to making better communities and neighbourhoods. Mr. Dylla expressed concern in regards to unaffordable homes and not actively encouraging the building of neighbourhood communities. |
|
|
|
|
Don Flintoff, 6071 Dover Road, spoke on large homes in his neighbourhood and lack of privacy in the backyard. Mr. Flintoff advised that he is in favour of the survey conducted by staff. Mr. Flintoff expressed concerns regarding the public not having adequate time to review the materials before the Public Hearing. |
|
|
|
|
Jeff Jiang, 3550 West 35th Avenue, Vancouver, representing the Chinese Construction Renovation Association of Canada, commented on the process in which zoning and building construction bylaws are introduced and/or updated and the importance of the building community being aware of such changes. |
|
|
|
|
Brad Dore, 9051 Blundell Road, distributed renderings of single-family homes (copy on file, City Clerk’s Office), and illustrated how different rear yard depths would be constructed with varying lot sizes. Also, Mr. Dore spoke on measures in which could increase privacy and provide better intimacy and articulation of a home via the 60/40 rear yard setback option noted in his handout. |
|
|
|
|
Rod Lynde, 8171 Claysmith Road, expressed concern with the proposed bylaw restricting design styles for homes. Mr. Lynde spoke on implementing the bylaw on irregular shaped lots and the limitations that would be imposed on such lots. He also proposed several changes that he would like to see to the recommended bylaw to accommodate various lot sizes. |
|
|
|
|
Jas Sandhu, 8091 Williams Road, queried the results of the online survey as presented as he believed the figures did not accurately reflect the turnout by builders and further queried how staff propose recommendations to Council following a public consultation process. Also, Mr. Sandhu spoke of his previous submission to staff regarding the proposed single-family building massing regulations. |
|
|
|
|
Mukhtar Pahl, 8631 Williams Road, expressed concern with the proposed bylaw and was of the opinion the bylaw would restrict builders from creating different house styles. |
|
|
|
|
Samuel Yau, 8420 Pigott Road, spoke in opposition to the setback regulation however was in favour of the suggested 60/40 split. Mr. Yau commented that he is a second generation resident and requires the extra space to accommodate his extended family and having a restricted setback limits the space on the first floor for a secondary suite, in turn placing the suite on the second floor. |
|
|
|
|
[NAME], [ADDRESS], commented on the effects of massing in neighbourhoods and the city, noting that shadowing from large homes reduces neighbouring homes’ sunlight and privacy. She expressed concern regarding the loss of green space and trees due to paving. [Name] spoke in favour of the public consultation process and staff’s recommendations. |
|
|
|
|
Gursher Randhawa, 6300 Woodwards Road, spoke on the design and layout of houses for the people buying them. Mr. Randhawa expressed concern with regards to restriction on the creativity for new and different layouts and many houses looking similar. He commented on the compromises made by the builders to be sympathetic towards the Richmond citizens but allowing some freedom towards design of the house, while addressing the issue of massing. Mr. Randhawa was of the opinion that massing was mostly about the upper floor and by changing the proposed bylaw to pertain to the upper floor it would afford the ground floor more flexibility to allow space for a secondary suite. He also noted that the 9.1 m maximum for an attached garage makes it very difficult to get a third car into the garage and urged Council to consider 9.8 m for extra storage space or a mud room. Mr. Randhawa requested that an allowance be made for a covered patio outside to make the backyard bigger and more livable. He concluded by noting that the builders are trying to find a compromise to determine a good solution to satisfy everyone. |
|
|
|
|
Raman Kooner, 3399 Moresby Drive, distributed information on suggested changes to the proposed bylaw (attached to and forming part of these minutes as Schedule 15) and spoke on the rear yard setback and noted he preferred the sliding scale for setbacks based on lot depth. He suggested that building depth be focused on the second storey and that the wording in the proposed bylaw be adjusted to reflect this suggestion. Mr. Kooner concluded by commenting on smaller lot sizes and suggesting that certain lots be exempt from the proposed bylaw to allow for more flexibility. |
|
|
|
|
Navtej Dhot, 5880 Dover Crescent, commented on the proposed setback requirements and noted that there will not be a significant building area to achieve buildable FAR on the ground floor. He was of the opinion that taking away space from the first floor will cause more massing by adding it to the second floor. Mr. Dhot spoke on the difficulties of building on corner lots and the limited possibilities of building secondary suites with smaller building spaces. He also remarked on the proposed 9.1 m attached garage space and suggested increasing the space to 9.8 m to allow for extra storage and space for a mud room. Mr. Dhot believed that the proposed bylaw required more research and more collaborative efforts. |
|
|
|
|
Lynda ter Borg, 5860 Sandpiper Court, was of the opinion that proposed Bylaw 9737 will result in different designs for houses. She spoke in favour of the proposed bylaw, remarking that it is a good compromise for everyone. |
|
|
|
|
Wei Gang Li, 7431 Ludlow Place, commented on cultural norms with regard to multi-generational living, noting that many Chinese families require additional interior square footage to accommodate their families. |
|
|
|
|
Ajit Thaliwal, 12355 Cameron Drive, presented information on current homes that fall under the current building bylaws that address the issue of massing. He expressed concern with regard to the proposed bylaw and stated that the changes will reduce the space on the first floor to be able to include a secondary suite. Mr. Thaliwal was of the opinion that 12 months is not sufficient time to be able to see a real change taking place and suggested staff review the matter over a 24 month period. Mr. Thaliwal suggested that all RS1/A lots should be exempt from the proposed bylaw. |
|
|
|
|
Max Shi, 8500 Anderson Road, spoke in favour of proposed Bylaw 9737 as it lends itself well for additional interior square footage and permits better interior design. |
|
|
|
|
Sam Sandhu, 4691 Tilden Road, was of the opinion that one solution will never address the needs of all the people and queried the potential to determine solutions on a neighbourhood basis. |
|
|
|
|
David Bollo, Richmond Street, expressed concern regarding potential interior floor plans for narrow lots and queried how one may achieve an open concept. Also, Mr. Bollo queried how the proposed regulations would impact narrow lots with regard to driveway configurations and landscaping. |
|
|
|
|
Kathryn McCreary, 7560 Glacier Crescent, urged Council to maintain that no attached garage project more than 9.1 m from the front wall of a single detached dwelling and expressed concern regarding reducing the rear yard setback in order to accommodate a secondary suite. |
|
|
|
|
Marion Smith, 6580 Mayflower Drive, expressed appreciation for the amount of work put into the proposed bylaw amendment including the detailed online survey. Ms. Smith spoke in favour of staff’s recommendations and wished to see Bylaw 9737 move forward as presented by staff. |
|
|
|
|
Bob Ethier, 10471 Truro Drive, spoke in favour of an attached garage projection more than 9.8 m from the front wall of a single detached dwelling as he believed that this space was needed for storage. He commented on the need for secondary suites as a result of the cost of homes in Richmond. Mr. Ethier requested that research and advice from professionals and other experts be at the forefront when Council votes on proposed Bylaw 9737. |
|
|
|
|
Tong Tau stated that he was opposed to Bylaw 9737. |
|
|
|
|
Mayor Brodie acknowledged the conclusion of the first round of public speakers. Two speakers then addressed Council for a second time with new information. |
|
|
|
Brad Dore, 9051 Blundell Road, was of the opinion that a one-year review of the proposed regulations would not be fruitful as additional time would be needed for a sufficient number of homes to be constructed under the proposed bylaw. |
|
|
|
Gursher Randhawa, 6300 Woodwards Road, was of the opinion that a majority of people are in favour of regulations that would allow builders flexibility to build unique homes. He requested that the surveys and petitions submitted be considered and that Council be cognizant of unanticipated results due to regulation changes. |
|
PH17/7-11 |
It was moved and seconded |
||||
|
|
|
That Section 10 of Richmond Zoning Bylaw 8500, Amendment Bylaw 9737 be amended by deleting the Section in its entirety and replacing it with the following: |
|||
|
|
|
“Section 8.1.6.6 is deleted in its entirety and replaced with the following: |
|||
|
|
|
|
“.6 |
The minimum rear yard is the greater of 6.0 m or 25% of the total lot depth, up to a maximum of 10.7 m; except: |
|
|
|
|
|
|
(a) |
For a lot with a lot area less than 372 m2 and with a lot depth less than 28 m, the minimum rear yard is 6.0 m; |
|
|
|
|
|
(b) |
For a lot containing a single detached dwelling of one storey only, the minimum rear yard is 6.0 m; |
|
|
|
|
|
(c) |
For a corner lot where the exterior side yard is 6.0 m, the rear yard is reduced to 1.2 m.” |
|
|
|
CARRIED |
|||
|
PH17/7-12 |
It was moved and seconded |
|
|
|
|
That Richmond Zoning Bylaw 8500, Amendment Bylaw 9737, as amended, be given second and third readings. |
|
|
|
The question on the motion was not called as the following amendment motions were introduced: |
|
PH17/7-13 |
It was moved and seconded |
|
|
|
|
That Richmond Zoning Bylaw 8500, Amendment Bylaw 9737 be further amended at Section 10 by inserting the words “required setback” after the words “up to a maximum” in the proposed Section 8.1.6.6. |
|
|
|
CARRIED |
|
PH17/7-14 |
It was moved and seconded |
|
|
|
|
That the Public Hearing of July 17, 2017 proceed past 11:00 p.m. |
|
|
|
CARRIED |
|
PH17/7-15 |
It was moved and seconded |
||||
|
|
|
That Richmond Zoning Bylaw 8500, Amendment Bylaw 9737 be further amended to reflect the following provisions regarding rear yard setbacks: |
|||
|
|
|
1. |
The minimum rear yard setback is: |
||
|
|
|
|
(a) |
the greater of 6 m or 20% of lot depth for a maximum width of 60% of the rear wall of the first storey; and 25% of the lot depth for the remaining 40% of the rear wall of the first storey and any second storey or half storey above up to a maximum required setback of 10.7 m. |
|
|
|
|
|
(b) |
6 m provided that the lot: |
|
|
|
|
|
|
i. |
is less than 372 m2 in area; or |
|
|
|
|
|
ii. |
is less than 28 m in depth; or |
|
|
|
|
|
iii. |
is located on an arterial road where the minimum required front yard setback is 9 m; or |
|
|
|
|
|
iv. |
contains a single storey home. |
|
|
|
|
(c) |
1.2 m for corner lots where the exterior side yard is 6 m. |
|
|
|
|
CARRIED |
|||
|
PH17/7-16 |
It was moved and seconded |
|
|
|
|
That Richmond Zoning Bylaw 8500, Amendment Bylaw 9737 be further amended by revising the definition of “continuous wall” to only apply to an exterior wall above the first storey of the house. |
|
|
|
DEFEATED |
|
|
|
The question on the main motion, to give second and third readings to Richmond Zoning Bylaw 8500, Amendment Bylaw 9737, as amended, was then called and it was CARRIED with Cllr. Day opposed. |
|
|
|
Council then directed staff to bring forward for consideration amended Richmond Zoning Bylaw 8500, Amendment Bylaw 9737 for Adoption to the July 24, 2017 Regular Council meeting. |
|
|
|
ADJOURNMENT |
|
PH17/7-17 |
It was moved and seconded |
|
|
|
|
That the meeting adjourn (11:21 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, July 17, 2017. |
|
|
|
|
|
Mayor (Malcolm D. Brodie) |
|
Acting Corporate Officer |