December 19, 2022 - Minutes
|
Regular Council meeting for Public Hearings
Monday, December 19, 2022
|
Place: |
Council Chambers |
|
Present: |
Mayor Malcolm D. Brodie, Chair Evangel Biason, Acting Corporate Officer |
|
Call to Order: |
Mayor Brodie opened the proceedings at 7:00 p.m. |
|
|
1. |
(Location: 3360, 3380, and a portion of 3440 Sexsmith Road (east of the proposed extension of Ketcheson Road); Applicant: IBI Group) |
|
|
|
Applicant’s Comments: |
|
|
|
The applicant was available to respond to queries. |
|
|
|
Staff noted that following consideration of first reading, staff and the applicant investigated the Herrling Residence further and that subject to those discussions, the developer has agreed not to demolish the structure, and that prior to proceeding with any development on the phase 2 portion of the site, the Herrling Residence will be moved to the phase 3 portion of the development site, which is not subject of this application. It was further noted that the Herrling Residence would be integrated into the future redevelopment of the phase 3 site. |
|
|
|
Written Submissions: |
|
|
|
Form letters expressing support (55 received) (Schedule 1). |
|
|
|
Submissions from the floor: |
|
|
|
None. |
|
|
|
Discussion ensued regarding (i) compliance with the City’s affordable housing and market rental policies, (ii) LEMR rental rates, (iii) the removal of trees, and (iv) a legal agreement to be registered on title, requiring the developer to agree to no demolition of the Herrling Residence and movement of the structure to the 3rd phase of the development. |
|
|
|
It was noted that staff provided a memorandum, dated December 14, 2022 (copy on-file, City Clerk’s Office) outlining proposed changes to rezoning considerations. |
|
PH22/11-1 |
It was moved and seconded |
|
|
|
|
That, subject to the revised rezoning considerations outlined in the memorandum received from the Director, Development, dated December 14, 2022, Richmond Official Community Plan Bylaw 7100, Amendment Bylaw 10390, be given second and third readings. |
|
|
|
CARRIED |
|
PH22/11-2 |
It was moved and seconded |
|
|
|
|
That, subject to the revised rezoning considerations outlined in the memorandum received from the Director, Development, dated December 14, 2022, Richmond Official Zoning Bylaw 8500, Amendment Bylaw 10389, be given second and third readings. |
|
|
|
CARRIED |
|
|
2. |
RICHMOND ZONING BYLAW 8500, AMENDMENT BYLAW 10418 (RZ 21 944801) (Location: 20411 & 20451 Westminster Highway; Applicant: Choice School for Gifted Children Society) |
|
|
|
Applicant’s Comments: |
|
|
|
The applicant was available to respond to queries. |
|
|
|
Written Submissions: |
|
|
|
None. |
|
|
|
Submissions from the floor: |
|
|
|
None. |
|
PH22/11-3 |
It was moved and seconded |
|
|
|
|
That Richmond Zoning Bylaw 8500, Amendment Bylaw 10418 be given second and third readings. |
|
|
|
CARRIED |
|
|
3. |
RICHMOND ZONING BYLAW 8500, AMENDMENT BYLAW 10423 (RZ 17‑782750) (Location: 6851 and 6871 Elmbridge Way; Applicant: Landa Oval Development Ltd.) |
|
|
|
|
Applicant’s Comments: |
|
|
|
|
The applicant was available to respond to queries. |
|
|
|
|
Written Submissions: |
|
|
|
|
Duncan Chiu, Marriott International (Schedule 2) |
|
|
|
|
Riyaz Devji, Az Zahraa Housing Society (Schedule 3) |
|
|
|
|
Dana Graf, Richmond resident, (Schedule 4) |
|
|
|
|
Er Jun Ma, Richmond Resident, (Schedule 5) |
|
|
|
|
Submissions from the floor: |
|
|
|
|
David Feldstein, Richmond resident, spoke to concerns regarding the proposed widening of the laneway for the project, noting that traffic for the neighbouring Ora development is reliant on the same shared laneway and that increased utilization of the laneway for the larger residential and hotel development would be untenable without adding an additional lane or providing a cut-in to allow for deliveries/short term parking. |
|
|
|
|
Le Tian Li, Richmond resident, provided current videos of the slow movement and ongoing traffic congestion in the shared laneway, noting the major factors being service and delivery trucks. |
|
|
|
|
A Richmond resident, provided a video of the high volume of traffic in the shared laneway and suggested the entrance to the new development be off Elmbridge Way instead of the same laneway, and also noted concerns with respect to the location of the hotel loading bay and egress to the garbage area. |
|
|
|
|
Gurpreet Virdi, Richmond resident, spoke in support of the development. |
|
|
|
|
Simon Tan, Richmond resident, spoke in support of the development. |
|
|
|
|
Herbert, Richmond resident, spoke to concerns of shadows created on his unit and current views potentially blocked by the new development, and queried opportunities for parks, amenities, public transit and additional parking to support the increased density. |
|
|
|
|
In response to concerns submitted to Council, staff advised: |
|
|
|
|
§ |
the shared laneway will be widened with a wide 7.5m driving surface, with the lanes each 3.75m, where 2.75m is the minimum; |
|
|
|
§ |
walkability is based on having a sidewalk along the appropriate laneway; |
|
|
|
§ |
delivery and garbate operations should be happening on the Ora site not in the laneway, enforcement personnel have been advised to increase enforcement in the area; |
|
|
|
§ |
there are no existing lane cut-outs on this particular site and all visitors and deliveries to the site are required to be on their site, not on the roadway; |
|
|
|
§ |
the design of the building, form and orientation has been designed to maximize sunlight exposure, and an assessment of shadows was undertaken by the applicant; |
|
|
|
§ |
the project complies with the City’s specific guidelines for establishing minimum tower separation both amongst and among the development site as well as to neighbouring sites; |
|
|
|
§ |
the development will be providing dedicated indoor amenities and outdoor amenity space for the residential units, available to all market rental and affordable housing units; |
|
|
|
§ |
the new road on the west side of the site will be implemented with the project, then the laneway will be one driveway access to the site and the new road with two travel lanes, one in each direction, will have another driveway access, pedestrian infrastructure and on street parking; and |
|
|
|
§ |
the applicant is making a cash contribution in excess of $6m in response to the project taking advantage of the village centre bonus which applies to this area, and is intended to be used for future city facilities to be determined at a future date. |
|
|
|
A brief discussion ensued with respect to providing additional time to review traffic concerns raised. Staff noted a review timeline of three to four months. |
|
|
PH22/11-4 |
It was moved and seconded |
|
|
|
|
That the staff report titled Application by Landa Oval Development Ltd. for Rezoning at 6851 and 6871 Elmbridge Way from Industrial Business Park (181) to High Density Mixed Use (ZMU52) - Oval Village (City Centre), dated October 24, 2022, from the Director, Development, be referred back to staff for further review. |
|
|
|
CARRIED |
|
|
4. |
RICHMOND ZONING BYLAW 8500, AMENDMENT BYLAW 10425 (RZ 22‑009258) (Location: 10851/10871 Bird Road; Applicant: Rick Bowal) |
|
|
|
Applicant’s Comments: |
|
|
|
The applicant was available to respond to queries. |
|
|
|
Written Submissions: |
|
|
|
None. |
|
|
|
Submissions from the floor: |
|
|
|
None. |
|
|
|
A brief discussion ensued with respect to the tree retention. |
|
PH22/11-5 |
It was moved and seconded |
|
|
|
|
That Richmond Zoning Bylaw 8500, Amendment Bylaw 10425 be given second and third readings. |
|
|
|
CARRIED |
|
|
5. |
|
|
|
|
Applicant’s Comments: |
|
|
|
The applicant was available to respond to queries. |
|
|
|
Written Submissions: |
|
|
|
None. |
|
|
|
Submissions from the floor: |
|
|
|
None. |
|
PH22/11-6 |
It was moved and seconded |
|
|
|
|
That the Single-Family Lot Size Policy 5442, Sections 19-4-6 and 20-4-6, be amended to exclude 8220 Gilbert Road. |
|
|
|
CARRIED |
|
PH22/11-7 |
It was moved and seconded |
|
|
|
|
That Richmond Zoning Bylaw 8500, Amendment Bylaw 10428 be given second and third readings. |
|
|
|
CARRIED |
|
|
6. |
(Location: 3540, 3800, 3866, 3880 and 3900 Bayview Street and 12551 No. 1 Road (Steveston Area Plan); Applicant: City of Richmond) |
|
|
|
Applicant’s Comments: |
|
|
|
The applicant was available to respond to queries. |
|
|
|
Written Submissions: |
|
|
|
Linda Barnes, Richmond resident (Schedule 6) |
|
|
|
Evan Dunfee, Richmond resident (Schedule 7) |
|
|
|
Submissions from the floor: |
|
|
|
Loren Slye, Richmond resident, spoke in opposition of the proposed amendments to the Steveston Area Plan and zoning bylaw. |
|
|
|
Brian Veljacic, Richmond resident, owner of lease property 3900 Bayview Street, spoke in opposition of the rezoning, noting the effect it would have on his proposal to build a home on the waterfront. |
|
|
|
Evan Dunfee, Richmond resident, spoke briefly to his written submission, reiterating strong opposition of the rezoning, noting mixed use commercial and residential buildings are the gold standard for sustainability and livability, and referencing an excerpt from the Steveston Area Plan, adopted in 2009, that supports heritage retention for the area, with large cannery style buildings. |
|
|
|
Dana Westermark, Richmond resident, spoke in opposition to the proposed policy changes, noting the rezoning is at odds with the objective of building residential above commercial developments and that more needs to be done to address the need for increased population in Steveston Village, with more eyes on the street, keep the area safe which, over time, will see the village become a vibrant livable community. |
|
|
|
Ken Chow, Architect, expressed concern with the proposed policy changes, noting the waterfront parcels should be part of a more comprehensive area plan strategy with the focus on the need for more population growth in Steveston Village to support the local business community as well as an increased focus on tourism. Mr. Chow also spoke briefly to the no residential issue that pertains to 3900 Bayview Street. |
|
PH22/11-8 |
It was moved and seconded |
|
|
|
|
That Richmond Official Community Plan Bylaw 7100, Amendment Bylaw 10371 and Richmond Zoning Bylaw 8500, Amendment Bylaw 10372, be given second and third readings. |
|
|
|
The question on the motion was not called as discussion ensued with respect to waterfront access for the public and the lack of public consultation. |
|
|
|
As a result of the discussion, the following referral motion was introduced: |
|
PH22/11-9 |
|
It was moved and seconded |
|
|
|
That Richmond Official Community Plan Bylaw 7100, Amendment Bylaw 10371 and Richmond Zoning Bylaw 8500, Amendment Bylaw 10372 be referred to staff to review a process of public consultation in the context of the existing Heritage Plans, and report back. |
|
|
|
The question on the referral motion was then called and it was DEFEATED with Mayor Brodie and Cllrs. Day, Gillanders, Heed, McNulty and Wolfe opposed. |
|
|
|
The question on the main motion was then called and it was CARRIED, with Cllrs. Au, Hobbs and Loo opposed. |
|
PH22/11-10 |
It was moved and seconded |
|
|
|
|
That Richmond Zoning Bylaw 8500, Amendment Bylaw 10394 be given second and third readings. |
|
|
|
CARRIED |
|
PH22/11-11 |
It was moved and seconded |
|
|
|
|
That Richmond Official Community Plan Bylaw 7100, Amendment Bylaw 10392 and Richmond Zoning Bylaw 8500, Amendment Bylaw 10393, be given second and third readings. |
|
|
|
The question on the motion was not called as a brief discussion ensued with respect to the previsions of the building height and submissions received with respect to the rezoning. |
|
|
|
The following referral motion was then introduced: |
|
PH22/11-12 |
It was moved and seconded |
|
|
|
|
That Richmond Official Community Plan Bylaw 7100, Amendment Bylaw 10392 and Richmond Zoning Bylaw 8500, Amendment Bylaw 10393 be referred to staff to review a process of public consultation in the context of the existing Heritage Plans, and report back. |
|
|
|
The question on the referral motion was then called and it was DEFEATED with Mayor Brodie and Cllrs. Day, Gillanders, Heed, McNulty and Wolfe opposed. |
|
|
|
The question on the main motion was then called and it was CARRIED, with Cllrs. Au, Hobbs and Loo opposed. |
|
PH22/11-13 |
It was moved and seconded |
|
|
|
|
That Richmond Official Community Plan Bylaw 7100, Amendment Bylaw 10371 and Richmond Zoning Bylaw 8500, Amendment Bylaw 10372, be adopted. |
|
|
|
CARRIED |
|
PH22/11-14 |
It was moved and seconded |
|
|
|
|
That Richmond Zoning Bylaw 8500, Amendment Bylaw 10394 be adopted. |
|
|
|
CARRIED |
|
PH22/11-15 |
It was moved and seconded |
|
|
|
|
That Richmond Official Community Plan Bylaw 7100, Amendment Bylaw 10392 and Richmond Zoning Bylaw 8500, Amendment Bylaw 10393, be adopted. |
|
|
|
CARRIED |
|
|
|
ADJOURNMENT |
|
PH22/11-16 |
It was moved and seconded |
|
|
|
|
That the meeting adjourn (9:53 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, December 19, 2022. |
|
|
|
|
|
Mayor (Malcolm D. Brodie) |
|
Acting Corporate Officer (Evangel Biason) |