January 21, 2019 - Minutes
Regular Council meeting for Public Hearings
Monday, January 21, 2019
Place: |
Council Chambers |
Present: |
Mayor Malcolm D. Brodie, Chair David Weber, Corporate Officer |
Call to Order: |
Mayor Brodie opened the proceedings at 7:00 p.m. |
|
1. |
Richmond Zoning Bylaw 8500, amendment bylaw 9796 (RZ 16-732490) |
|
|
|
|
Applicant’s Comments: |
|
|
|
|
The applicant was available to respond to queries. |
|
|
|
|
Written Submissions: |
|
|
|
|
None. |
|
|
|
|
Submissions from the floor: |
|
|
|
|
Jim Davis, 9539 Sills Avenue, expressed concern regarding insufficient parking on Sills Avenue due to the new developments in the area, noting that the residents’ driveways are often blocked off with cars. Mr. Davis expressed further concern over the impact another development may have on parking in the area and impeding vehicle movement on Sills Avenue, noting that restricting parking to one side of Sills Avenue may resolve the issue. |
|
|
|
|
In response to queries from Council, Joshua Reis, Program Coordinator, Development, advised that staff investigated parking in the area following previous complaints at the first Public Hearing and no violations were found. It was noted that continued observance from bylaw officers should be continued in the area. |
|
|
|
|
In response to questions from Council, Mr. Davis remarked that Sills Avenue has one lane which makes it difficult to manoeuver around parked vehicles and that parking is usually an issue in the evenings and on weekends but parking is permitted on the road during those times. |
|
|
|
|
Wayne Craig, Director, Development, in response to queries from Council, advised that the City’s Traffic Control Bylaw does include regulations with respect to parking in front of another resident’s home and should this application proceed, staff could examine parking restrictions on Sills Avenue. He further noted that Richmond Fire-Rescue was involved in the review of the application and were satisfied with the access to the proposed subdivision, especially with the turnaround area provided on one of the lots. |
|
|
|
|
Discussion then took place on the potential impact to parking in the area of the proposed application and as a result, the following referral motion was introduced: |
|
|
PH19/1-1 |
It was moved and seconded |
|
||
|
|
That the Application by Pietro Nardone to rezone the west portions of the properties from the “Single Detached (RS1/F)” zone to the “Single Detached (ZS14) – South McLennan (City Centre)” zone, and to rezone the east portion of 7191 Bridge Street from the “Single Detached (RS1/F)” zone to the “Single Detached (RS2/C)” zone, be referred back to staff. |
|
|
|
|
The question on the referral motion was not called as discussion further ensued in regards to the traffic impact of providing an on-site turnaround or a through-road between Sills Avenue and General Currie Road. |
|
|
|
|
The question on the referral motion was then called and it was DEFEATED with Mayor Brodie and Cllrs. Loo, McNulty, McPhail, and Steves opposed. |
|
|
|
|
As a result of the discussion, the following referral motion was introduced: |
|
|
PH19/1-2 |
It was moved and seconded |
|
||
|
|
That staff: |
|
|
|
|
(1) |
investigate ways to mitigate street parking in the area around the proposed development at Bridge Street, including working with the developer to ensure adequate parking on each lot; and |
|
|
|
(2) |
examine installing traffic controls at the intersection of Sills Avenue and Bridge Street; |
|
|
|
and report back. |
|
|
|
|
The question on the referral motion was not called as discussion took place regarding staff communicating with the strata to provide information regarding parking to their residents and installing additional traffic controls. |
|
|
|
|
The question on the referral motion was then called and it was CARRIED. |
|
|
PH19/1-3 |
It was moved and seconded |
|
|
|
That the revised rezoning considerations for the application (RZ 16-732490) as outlined in Attachment D to the staff report dated December 13, 2018, be approved. |
|
|
CARRIED Opposed: Cllr. Day |
PH19/1-4 |
It was moved and seconded |
|
|
|
That Richmond Zoning Bylaw 8500, Amendment Bylaw 9796 be given third reading. |
|
|
The question on the motion was not called as, in response to queries from Council, Mr. Craig noted that Council could specify the size of the secondary suites and that the maximum size of the secondary suite would be the lesser of 40% of the overall house size or 968 square feet. He further advised that the average sizes of secondary suites in Richmond are approximately 400 square feet for a studio suite, approximately 465 square feet for a one bedroom suite, approximately 670 square feet for a two bedroom suite, and approximately 824 square feet for a three bedroom suite. |
|
|
Discussion then took place regarding the potential size of the secondary suites and consulting the applicant, and as a result, the following tabling motion was introduced: |
PH19/1-5 |
It was moved and seconded |
|
|
|
That the motion to consider third reading for Richmond Zoning Bylaw 8500, Amendment Bylaw 9796 be tabled. |
|
|
CARRIED |
|
|
In response to questions from Council, Aleksandar Kos, Core Concept Consulting Ltd., representing the Applicant, commented that the design for the houses has not yet been initiated. Mr. Kos further noted that the Applicant will cooperate with staff regarding the recommendations for secondary suite size however the footprint of the house is still unknown. |
|
|
Mr. Craig, in further response from Council’s queries advised that the minimum size for secondary suites in a single family home is 355 square feet. |
|
|
The motion to consider third reading for Richmond Zoning Bylaw 8500, Amendment Bylaw 9796 was then lifted from the table and as a result of the discussion, the following amendment motion to the rezoning considerations was introduced: |
PH19/1-6 |
It was moved and seconded |
|
|
|
That 50% of the secondary suites be required at the maximum square footage allowable for the lot. |
|
|
The question on the amendment motion was not called as discussion took place on imposing maximum size criteria for secondary suites for the proposed application. |
|
|
The question on the amendment motion was called and it was DEFEATED with Mayor Brodie and Cllrs. Au, Loo, McNulty, McPhail, and Steves opposed. |
|
|
The question on the main motion for third reading of Richmond Zoning Bylaw 8500, Amendment Bylaw 9796 was then called and it was CARRIED with Cllrs. Day, Greene, and Wolfe opposed. |
|
2. |
Richmond Zoning bylaw 8500, amendment bylaw 9948 (ZT 18-818765) |
|
|
Applicant’s Comments: |
|
|
The applicant was available to respond to queries |
|
|
Written Submissions: |
|
|
None. |
|
|
Submissions from the floor: |
|
|
None. |
PH19/1-7 |
It was moved and seconded |
|
|
|
That Richmond Zoning Bylaw 8500, Amendment Bylaw 9948 be given second and third readings. |
|
|
The question on the motion was not called as, in response to queries from Council, Mr. Craig advised that should this application proceed, a development permit would be required and through that process staff could work with the applicant on the requirement for permanent irrigation for onsite landscaping. Discussion then took place on the building height and requested variances. |
|
|
The question on the motion was then called and it was CARRIED with Cllr. Wolfe opposed. |
|
3. |
richmond zoning bylaw 8500, amendment bylaw 9954 (RZ 18-829101) |
|
|
Applicant’s Comments: |
|
|
The applicant was available to respond to queries. |
|
|
Written Submissions: |
|
|
None. |
|
|
Submissions from the floor: |
|
|
None. |
PH19/1-8 |
It was moved and seconded |
|
|
|
That the revised rezoning considerations for the application (RZ 18-829101) as described in the staff memorandum dated January 17, 2019 from the Director, Development, be approved. |
|
|
CARRIED |
PH19/1-9 |
It was moved and seconded |
|
|
|
That Richmond Zoning Bylaw 8500, Amendment Bylaw 9954 be given second and third readings. |
|
|
CARRIED |
|
4. |
Richmond Zoning Bylaw 8500, Amendment Bylaw 9970 (RZ 18-800159) |
||
|
|
Applicant’s Comments: |
||
|
|
The applicant was available to respond to queries. |
||
|
|
Written Submissions: |
||
|
|
|
(a) |
Nasreen Alarakhia (Schedule 1) |
|
|
Submissions from the floor: |
||
|
|
Tracy Lo, 22571 Westminster Highway, expressed concern with regards to the access way and shared driveway, requesting that another exit be included in the new development or that a space be created behind the complex at 22571 Westminster Highway for an exit to the road for safety purposes. |
||
|
|
Mr. Craig, in response to questions from Council, advised that a traffic review was conducted by the Transportation Department and single access was determined to be sufficient. |
||
|
|
In response to queries from Council, Ms. Lo commented that she was made aware of the other potential developments in the area prior to purchasing her property; however parking has become an issue for residents in her complex. She further expressed concern in regards to the impact an additional development would have on traffic congestion and parking, noting that another exit way could mitigate congestion. Ms. Lo also spoke to a request made to the City regarding upgrading the crosswalk at Westminster Highway to a lighted pedestrian controlled signal. |
||
|
|
In response to questions from Council, Mr. Craig advised that (i) the Ministry of Transportation and Infrastructure would need to be consulted for additional access to be granted into the area and that the land is a combination of Provincial Westminster Highway right of way and City land, (ii) driveway access into the proposed development would be sufficient to allow space for a fire truck to access the current and proposed development, and (iii) staff can investigate upgrading the crosswalk at Westminster highway to a pedestrian activated signal. |
||
|
|
Terrence Liew, 22571 Westminster Highway and strata council member, expressed concern regarding the impact on the proposed development to traffic congestion and parking and remarked that creating an additional access point to the property could be beneficial. Mr. Liew further commented that reducing the number of units in the proposed development could allow more space for parking. |
||
|
|
In response to questions from Council, Mr. Liew remarked that parking has been an ongoing issue in their area, noting that the strata is reluctant to place restrictions on parking and take enforcement action and that parking in their complex is tandem parking. |
|
|
Raman Kooner, representing the applicant, spoke to the meeting held with the strata council for the neighbouring development, noting that trees were discussed and it was recommended that the strata contact the City in regards to tree issues and the creation of a driveway through. Mr. Kooner further commented that in his experience, tandem parking in complexes generally works with no parking issues provided that the tandem parking spaces are used to park vehicles. He also remarked that parking enforcement by the strata council generally resolves any parking issues. |
|
|
In response to queries from Council, Mr. Kooner advised that there is a covenant on title that does not allow habitable space in garages and noted the applicant is willing to continue working with the neighbouring property on any issues. |
PH19/1-10 |
It was moved and seconded |
|
|
|
That Richmond Zoning Bylaw 8500, Amendment Bylaw 9970 be given second and third readings. |
|
|
The question on the motion was not called as the following referral motion was introduced: |
PH19/1-11 |
It was moved and seconded |
|
|
|
That the Application by 1137183 BC Ltd. to rezone the subject property from the “Single Detached (RS1/F)” zone to the “Town Houses (ZT11) – Hamilton” zone, be referred back to staff. |
|
|
DEFEATED |
|
|
The question on the main motion was then called and it was CARRIED with Cllrs. Au, Day, Greene, and Wolfe opposed. |
|
|
In accordance with Section 100 of the Community Charter, Councillor Linda McPhail declared a conflict of interest as her husband is part of the ownership group with the applicant and left the meeting – 8:19 p.m. |
|
5. |
Richmond Bylaw 8500, amendment bylaw 9977 (ZT 18-841250) |
|
|
Applicant’s Comments: |
|
|
The applicant was available to respond to queries. |
|
|
Written Submissions: |
|
|
None |
|
|
Submissions from the floor: |
|
|
None. |
PH19/1-12 |
It was moved and seconded |
|
|
|
That Richmond Zoning Bylaw 8500, Amendment Bylaw 9977 be given second and third readings. |
|
|
CARRIED |
|
|
ADJOURNMENT |
PH19/1-13 |
It was moved and seconded |
|
|
|
That the meeting adjourn (8:20 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 21, 2019. |
|
|
|
Mayor (Malcolm D. Brodie) |
|
Corporate Officer (David Weber) |