Planning Committee Meeting Minutes - June 20, 2000

Date:

Tuesday, June 20^th, 2000

Place:

W.H. Anderson Room

Richmond City Hall

Present:

Councillor Malcolm Brodie, Chair

Councillor Bill McNulty, Vice-Chair

Councillor Linda Barnes

Councillor Lyn Greenhill

Councillor Harold Steves

Call to Order:

The Chair called the meeting to order at 4:00 p.m.

It was MOVED and SECONDED

That the minutes of the meeting of the Planning Committee held on Tuesday, June 6^th, 2000, be adopted as circulated.

CARRIED

The Chair, after discussion with staff, advised that:

the meetings scheduled for Tuesday, July 4, 2000, and Tuesday, August 8^th, 2000, would not be held; and

that meetings would be held on Tuesday, July 18^th, and on Tuesday, August 22^nd, 2000, at 4:00 p.m. in the W. H. Anderson Room.

(Report: June 8/00, File No.: 4045-20-04-WA) (REDMS No. 157073) (Referral from the April 18, 2000 Planning Committee meeting.)

Development Coordinator Holger Burke reviewed the report with Committee members.

In response to questions about the status of the existing underground utilities, the following information was provided:

• extensions to the existing system would be addressed as part of the servicing agreement with the developer

• the utilities in the area were approximately 1 metre below the existing grade, and if the height of the subject property was raised, the result would be that the utilities could be an additional 2 metres lower than the new grade; the possibility could exist that the existing utility system would have to be abandoned and a new system constructed because the existing utilities would be too deep.

Mr. John White, of 6431 Dyke Road, addressed a number of issues in the staff report, including (a) the proposal to raise the internal road grades to a geodetic elevation of 2 metres; (b) the number of parking stalls required for mixed use as compared to industrial zoning; and (c) the impact which the height of the perimeter roads could have on the proposal to access underground parking by using ramps. He also voiced concern that his property would be 1.2 metres lower than the adjacent property.

Mr. White spoke about the heritage value of area ditches and he urged the Committee to not only preserve these ditches, but reject the proposal to raise the roads.

A brief discussion ensued on whether Princess Street would be raised, and advice was given that the road at its existing level is approximately 1.43 metres and that the elevation from the perimeter of the property inward would gradually be reduced.

Mr. Doug Phillip, 6211 Dyke Road, expressed concern about the proposal to raise the height of the road because of the impact which this might have on the future development potential of his property. He stated that the ramp which would be required to access underground parking would consume valuable property. Mr. Phillip suggested that paving of the road and improvements to the drainage system would eliminate the existing minor problems with the road.

Discussion ensued between the Chair and staff on the impact which the proposal to raise the level of the road might have on the ramp access system. Information was also provided on possible options with respect to the development of Mr. Phillips property.

Mr. White came forward and spoke about floodplain requirements and how these requirements could be achieved structurally rather than raising the ground level. The General Manager, Urban Development, David McLellan commented further on floodplain requirements as they applied to the provision of underground parking.

It was moved and seconded

That staff work toward the raising of internal road grades within the London-Princess area to a geodetic elevation of approximately 2.0 m (6.56 ft) GSC.

CARRIED

(RZ 99-170422 - Report: June 8/00, File No.: 8060-20-7145) (REDMS No. 142954, 157080, 156065, 138891, 138457, 156189, 70065)

Mr. Burke briefly reviewed the report with the Committee.

Mr. Tom Bell, representing Cedar Development Corporation, used site plans and photographs to give a detailed description of the proposed development. A copy of the reference material circulated with the staff report is on file in the City Clerks Office.

The Chair referred to the proposal of the developer to use hardy plank rather than wood for the exterior finish of the townhouses, and to the requirement indicated in the staff report that only paintable wood materials would be used for roofing, ... Advice was given that if so desired, the Committee could change that requirement.

Mr. Doug Phillips, 6211 Dyke Road, spoke in opposition to the proposed development as he felt it did not conform to the criteria contained in the Official Community Plan, Steveston Sub-Area Plan. He then quoted certain statements from the Steveston Sub-Area Plan which referred to the character of the proposed homes to preserve heritage of the Steveston area, and suggested that the proposed dwellings were inappropriate.

Mr. Curtis Eyestone, 6471 Dyke Road, spoke about the developments that had been planned for the Steveston area in years past which had been rejected because the proposals were not appropriate. He suggested that the subject property did not have to be rezoned and instead, the developer could be told to go away. Mr. Eyestone voiced his objections to the proposal, expressing concern that parking would not be sufficient and would spill over onto nearby properties. He also objected to the appearance of the proposed townhomes which he felt did not reflect the farming heritage of the area.

Mr. John White, of 6431 Dyke Road, also voiced his objection to the proposed development. He suggested that rather than the 18 units proposed, there should be 5 buildings constructed each containing 4 units. He also expressed the opinion that the proposal now being considered did not meet the character requirements of the OCP and detracted from the ambience of the area. Mr. White urged the Committee to refer the matter back to staff for review to ensure that it more closely complied with the intent of the OCP.

Reference was made to the proposed land elevations for the development. Advice was given by staff that with respect to any proposal which required the property to be raised to comply with floodplain requirements, the developer was required to install the appropriate drainage and to step the property down to adjacent properties to ensure compatibility with adjacent properties.

Mr. John Madsen, 6391 Dakota Drive, expressed support for the development because of the opportunity the proposal offered to individuals to purchase an affordable heritage style home with access to the waterfront. In response to a question, he stated that the suggestion made by a previous speaker to construct fewer buildings which were larger in size, would make the housing units unaffordable to most people.

Mr. Greg LaRiviere, of 5169 Heron Bay, Delta, operator of Rods Building Supplies in Steveston, also voiced his support for the proposal and commended the developer for an excellent project.

Mr. Manfred Kuchenmueller supported the development, stating that it was difficult to find a reasonably priced family home located on the waterfront, and he expressed his appreciation for the manner in which the project had been designed and the style of the homes.

Mr. Ken Tromblett, an investor in the project, provided information on the initial development of the proposal, and indicated his support for the project. In reply to questions about the suggestion made to construct 5 buildings with 4 units each, he stated that the change would give the developer a wider market and the opportunity to earn more money; however, the developer had been very diligent in maintaining a low density for the project.

Mr. Bob Roots, 13286 55A Avenue, Surrey, voiced the opinion that the developer had adhered to the criteria established in the Official Community Plan with respect to the design of the project, and had maintained the heritage theme.

Mr. Dana Westermark, of Cedar Development Corporation, referred to statements made previously with regard to the area being a farming community, and stated that with the location of 2 canneries in the area at one time in the past, as well as a number of bunk houses, the area was fishing in nature. He stated that the development would be consistent with the historic uses in the area, and noted that the only plan would be to construct 18 townhomes. Mr. Westermark added that the proposal replicated the design of homes as they would have been in 1910.

It was moved and seconded

That Bylaw No. 7145, for the rezoning of 13400 Princess Street from "Light Industrial District (I2)" to "Comprehensive Development District (CD/115)", be introduced and given first reading.

Prior to the question being called, Planning Committee members voiced their support for the project, stating that the proposal fell within the guidelines contained in the Official Community Plan and supported forwarding the proposal to Public Hearing to obtain the views of Steveston residents. As well, the developer was commended for his indepth research on the heritage aspects to ensure that the homes reflected the appearance of homes in 1910.

The question on the motion was not called, as the following amendment was introduced:

It was moved and seconded

That the following be added as Part (2):

That the requirement contained in the staff report (dated June 8^th, 2000, from the Manager, Development Applications), .that only "paintable wood" materials .., be deleted, and that the developer be permitted to use "hardy plank" instead.

CARRIED

The question on the motion, as amended, was then called, and it was CARRIED.

(Report: April 11/00, File No.: 4045-20-04-WA) (REDMS No. 147505) (Tabled at the May 16, 2000 Planning Committee Meeting)

The Manager, Land Use, Terry Crowe, briefly reviewed the report with the Committee. In response to questions, advice was given that a Heritage Conservation Area was not used to create heritage but rather to protect existing heritage areas.

Mr. John White, of 6431 Dyke Road, reviewed the staff report, noting that it was not his intention of trying to create a new heritage district. He expressed concern that heritage aspects of the area could be lost if a Heritage Conversation Area was not established.

Considerable discussion then ensued among Committee members and staff on whether the area in question should be designated as a Heritage Conservation Area. Advice was given during the discussion that the City's Development Permit process, which addresses form and character of the project and would control any future changes, and the criteria contained in the Official Community Plan, would control the development of the project. Further advice was given that staff were also recommending that a covenant be registered on the property to bind future land owners with respect to making changes to the individual units.

Mr. Dana Westermark stated that his company had completed thorough research on the area to enhance certain aspects of the historical features of the area. He stated that he would be disappointed if the historical content was to disappear, and would support creation of a Heritage Conservation Area, with the inclusion of the adjacent properties to protect the development.

Mr. Doug Phillips, 6211 Dyke Road, questioned whether the heritage residential and the mixed use components would be included, and advice was given that only the heritage residential area would comprise the Heritage Conservation Area, if created. A brief discussion ensued, during which questions were raised about the feasibility of including London Farm and the Princess Street road end. As a result of the discussion, the following motion was introduced:

It was moved and seconded

That staff prepare an amendment to the Official Community Plan to create a Heritage Conservation Area for the Heritage Residential area of London/Princess, including London Farm and the Princess Street road end, for presentation to Council through the Planning Committee in September, 2000;

That a public consultation process be initiated, and

That the bylaw come into effect upon completion of the Cedar Development Corporation project at 13400 Princess Street.

The question on the motion was not called, as the following amendment was introduced:

It was moved and seconded

That the following be added as Part (4), That staff report on the compatibility of including the residential area north of Princess Lane with the Heritage Conservation Area."

CARRIED

The question was then called on the motion as amended, and it was CARRIED.

(RZ 00-085803 - Report: May 31, 2000, File No.: 8060-20-7143) (REDMS No. 155979, 156334)

It was moved and seconded

That Bylaw No. 7143, for the rezoning of 5671 Moncton Street from "Single-Family Housing District, Subdivision Area E (R1/E)" to "Single-Family Housing District, Subdivision Area C (R1/C)", be introduced and given first reading.

CARRIED

(AG 00-084344 - Report: June 7/00, File No.: AG 00-084344) (REDMS No. 153432)

Mr. Burke reviewed the report with Committee members. In response to questions from Committee members on this matter, the following information was provided:

• the Zoning & Development Bylaw did not allow a second dwelling on the property - the Agricultural District limits the subject property to only one single-family dwelling, thus making the second dwelling legal, non-conforming

• the second dwelling would have to be located on 8 hectares of property

• in this case, the mother could not apply for the subdivision because she has no legal title to the property as the lease is not a registered lease

• if the mother submitted an application because she did have a lease for the property, the decision would lie with the Agricultural Land Reserve Commission as to whether the application complied with their criteria

• the owners would not be permitted to build another dwelling to replace the smaller house, if that building was demolished

• if it was determined that the smaller house was non-conforming, the owners could increase the size of the larger dwelling

• the minimum 8 hectare lot size requirement for a second dwelling is a requirement imposed by the City

• to allow the applicants to construct a new home on the property, the Agricultural Land Reserve Commission would have to determine if they would permit a second dwelling on a 10 acre lot; if the new home was permitted, the applicant would have to submit an application to amend the Zoning & Development Bylaw to permit the second dwelling

• care would have to be taken because the pressure for non-farm use is extreme throughout the Agricultural Land Reserve; this is not something that the City would want to encourage; if a second home was permitted, over time there would be pressure to subdivide it out of the Agricultural Land Reserve

Discussion ensued on whether subdivision should be permitted and the options which were available, such as increasing the size of the larger home, if it was determined that the smaller home was the non-conforming house.

Mr. Gerry Hol, accompanied by his wife Lynda, addressed Committee on their application. A copy of Mr. Hols submission is attached as Schedule A and forms part of these minutes. Mr. Hol also circulated to the Committee, a notarized letter signed by his mother-in-law, which provided information regarding the history of the property. He then responded to questions from Committee members on the two houses and the lease arrangement.

Discussion continued among Committee members and staff on possible options which might be available to resolve the situation. As a result, the following referral motion was adopted:

It was moved and seconded

That the report (dated June 7^th, 2000, from the Manager, Development Applications), regarding an Agricultural Land Reserve Appeal Application for Subdivision by Gerard Hol and Lynda Hol at 12400 No. 3 Road, be referred to staff for further discussions with the applicants on various options, and to obtain information from the Agricultural Land Reserve Commission on this matter.

Prior to the question being called, staff were directed to review City regulations to determine if it was a City restriction that existing homes could not be expanded.

The question on the motion was then called, and it was CARRIED.

(SC 98-153681 LU 00-086975 - Report: May 3/00, File No.: 8060-20-7132) (REDMS No. 149867, 82582, 156637, 150126)

Mr. Burke reviewed the report with Committee members. Mr. McLellan expressed concerns about the continued existence of the Land Use Contract for the subject property. He then provided information on the use of Land Use Contracts by the City during which he noted that the City had been trying to eliminate all Land Use Contracts.

Mr. McLellan stated that the Steveston town site was facing considerable changes within the next 25 years, and if the Land Use Contract was allowed to continue, City staff would be forced to negotiate with all the people on the strata title in order to regain control of the City's property. For these reasons, he was not in favour of the proposed amendment to the Land Use Contract.

Mr. Bert Hol, representing Corona Holdings Ltd., referred to correspondence sent by David McLellan, and advised that his fathers proposal was to return all the angle parking stalls located along 2^nd Avenue to the City, however the parking related to the building use would remain in the control of the applicant. He suggested that the proposal would also help to correct certain parking situations in the area.

Discussion then ensued among Committee members, staff and the delegation on the options which were available if the amendment to the Land Use Contract was denied. With reference to the parking spaces and loading bay on the public right-of-way, advice was given that the Traffic Bylaw contained a provision which allowed use of a public road allowance for private purposes, and Mr. McLellan suggested that it might be possible to make a similar arrangement for the subject property.

Mr. Hol stated that 2 of the loading bays were located on 2^nd Avenue, but not on the Corona Holdings property, and he voiced concern that these stalls could be removed from the development. Mr. Hol suggested that the only way to maintain them as part of the development was through the Land Use Contract.

Mr. McLellan stated that this was his concern, that future development plans for this area, such as expansion to existing transit routes, would be impeded by the fact that the City had little control over the public right-of-way.

Mr. Gerry Hol, 12400 No. 3 Road, owner and builder of the building at 3740 Chatham Street, addressed the Committee on this matter. A copy of his submission is attached as Schedule B and forms part of these minutes.

Discussion then took place among Committee members and staff on the conditions of the Land Use Contract, and whether any other options existed which would allow the City to recover its property.

It was moved and seconded

That the application for a Strata Title Conversion by Corona Holdings Ltd. for the property located at 3740 Chatham Street be approved on fulfilment of the following conditions:

Payment of all City utility charges and property taxes, including the year 2001 if the subdivision proceeds after September 30, 2000;

Submission of appropriate plans and documents for execution by the Mayor and City Clerk within 180 days of the date of this resolution by Council; and

Adoption of Bylaw No. 7132 to amend Land Use Contract 070.

That Bylaw No. 7132 to amend Land Use Contract 070 with Corona Holdings Ltd. for the property located at 3740 Chatham Street be introduced and given first, second and third readings.

The question on the motion was not called, as concern was expressed about several issues, including (i) the lack of response from tenants in the building; (ii) the fact that by approving the applications, the City would have to negotiate with 17 individuals or a strata corporation in order to discharge the Land Use Contract in the future; and (iii) approving the strata title conversion would change the legal structure of the land and would improve the position of the landlord.

The question on the motion was then called, and it was DEFEATED.

OPPOSED: Cllr. Brodie

Greenhill

McNulty

It was moved and seconded

That the report (dated May 3^rd, 2000, from the Manager, Development Applications), regarding an application for strata title conversion and an amendment to a Land Use Contract for property at 3740 Chatham Street, be referred to staff to investigate the possibility of compensating the owner for parking stalls in exchange for the elimination of Land Use Contract 070, Bylaw No. 7132.

CARRIED

(Report: May 29/00, File No.: 7000-00) (REDMS No. 154854)

The Manager, Land Use, Terry Crowe, reviewed the report with the Committee. Considerable discussion then took place among Committee members and staff, during which Mr. Crowe further explained the changes which had been made to the proposed guidelines. Discussion took place on a number of issues relating to the guidelines, and as a result, the following referral motion was introduced:

It was moved and seconded

That the report (dated May 29^th, 2000, from the Manager, Land Use), regarding Deaccession Guidelines for Removing Art Work From City-owned Sites, be referred to staff to:

more clearly define:

the word deaccessioning;

removal versus relocating;

to add the words "or other appropriate bodies" after the words "Public Art Commission" wherever they appear in the proposed guidelines.

CARRIED

It was moved and seconded

That staff prepare a report to Committee by September, 2000 regarding (i) the allocation of resources, both financial and personal, with regard to public art, and (ii) the status of any works in progress.

Prior to the question being called, Mr. Crowe explained that the information requested would be included in a complete review currently being undertaken by staff on public art.

The question on the motion was then called, and it was CARRIED.

It was MOVED and SECONDED

That the meeting adjourn (7:25 p.m.).

CARRIED

Certified a true and correct copy of the Minutes of the meeting of the Planning Committee of the Council of the City of Richmond held on Tuesday, June 20^th, 2000.

_________________________________

_________________________________

Councillor Malcolm Brodie

Chair

Fran J. Ashton

Executive Assistant