Planning Committee Meeting Minutes - April 3, 2001

Date:

Tuesday, April 3, 2001

Place:

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, March 20, 2001, be adopted as circulated.

CARRIED

Wednesday, April 18, 2001, at 4:00 p.m. in the Anderson Room.

(RZ 00-175758 - Report: March 12/01, File No.: 8060-20-7200) (REDMS No. 306257,248552,248554)

The Manager, Development Applications, Joe Erceg advised that this matter had been referred to staff, at the February 19, 2001 Public Hearing, in order that staff could review the potential for reducing the number of lots. At the Public Hearing a number of area residents had expressed concerns relating to the location and access point of the proposed lane, the size of the lots and the effect on neighbourhood parking.

Mr. Erceg said that the applicant had modified the proposal in a number of ways. The entrance to the lane had been relocated to the south side in order to impact fewer lots and the large lots now provided an additional on site parking space.

During the discussion staff had with the applicant regarding reducing the number of lots, the applicant advised that reducing the number of lots would incur economic hardship and declined to amend the application.

Councillor Greenhill said she did not favor the third parking spot proposal as it reduced the usable lot space of already small lots.

Mr. David Chung, Dava Developments, referred to the letter he had submitted to staff, Attachment 4 of the report to Committee, which addressed the neighbourhood concerns.

Mr. Chung then explained that the length of the lots fronting No. 5 Road allowed for the setback for the garage to be increased to allow space for parking in front of the garage. The three issues Mr. Chung considered to be the most important were:

• that the houses and lot sizes across the street were very similar;

• that smaller lots were necessary for economic viability;

• that the anticipated increase to traffic and parking were neither significant or unusual.

Noreen Roud, 4631 Deerfield Crescent, said that she was against the proposed development and did not feel that smaller lots should be set in the midst of an established subdivision. Ms. Roud questioned whether the lane could be located between the proposed houses as opposed to being beside established homes.

Mr. Erceg provided information on the comparative sizes and setbacks of the new and established lots. Mr. Erceg also responded to a question from the Chair regarding the relocation of the lane to the middle of the site noting that discussion with the applicant and the Transportation Department had already taken place on this issue and there was no technical problem with such an arrangement.

John West, 4811 Deerfield Crescent, said that he would prefer fewer lots with a lane down the middle. Mr. West was concerned about increased traffic congestion and the impact of increased parking on Deerfield.

Shireen Kennedy, 4620 Deerfield Crescent, expressed her disappointment at not having been notified of the schedule of meetings pertaining to this issue. Ms. Kennedy felt that the number of lots on No. 5 Road should be reduced to three with access onto No. 5 Road. Ms. Kennedy also questioned how many people use their garages for parking purposes and not storage. She was concerned i) about the possibility of a rise in the burglary rate; and ii) the safety of children playing in the street.

Mr. Erceg clarified i) the notification area for the Chair, and ii) that the existing properties on Deerfield have access directly onto Deerfield.

Doug Harder, 4740 Deerfield Crescent, referred to 4551 No. 5 Road as having set the tone for development in the neighbourhood and that the current proposal should conform to that standard. Mr. Harper felt that all accidents and injuries arising out of the lane use would be the responsibility of the City. Mr. Harper was also concerned that there was not sufficient parking available to accommodate the new homes.

Councillor Barnes requested that Mr. Erceg advise her of whether an application had been received to subdivide the property at 4551 No. 5 Road.

In response to a question from the Chair, Mr. Erceg noted that the anticipated ten percent increase to the vehicle load during peak hours was considered to be very low by the Transportation Department.

Mr. Harder advised the Committee that, due to there not being a north/south bus route available on No. 5 Road (the closest bus access was Cambie Road) owners were reliant upon their vehicles.

Ms. Kennedy noted the three car garages provided for two new homes on Dallyn Road.

Mr. West expressed concern that a decrease in property value would be incurred by the properties located next to a lane access.

Mr. Chung said he felt that the parking issues were over exaggerated. He also felt that the issue of saleability had not been understood, noting that while a house might eventually sell, it could sell at a loss. Mr. Chung asked the Committee if temporary access to No. 5 Road could be granted until the lane went through to Dewsbury.

In response to a comment by Councillor McNulty that he agreed that people do not use their garages for parking, Mr. Chung said that he agreed that putting a three car garage in back would aid in reducing the parking on the street, and he reiterated that the length of the lots allowed for increased setback to allow for additional space in front the garages.

Mr. Chung was requested to provide an update of Attachment 2 to the staff report reflecting the change in lane entry location and also the additional on site parking.

A discussion then ensued on the possibility of the lane access being provided from No. 5 Road which resulted in the following amended recommendation:

It was moved and seconded

That Bylaw No. 7200, for the rezoning of 4591 No. 5 Road from "Single-Family Housing District, Subdivision Area E (R1/E)" to "Single-Family Housing District, Subdivision Area C (R1/C)" and "Single-Family Housing District, Subdivision Area A (R1/A)", be referred to a Public Hearing prior to which Attachment 2 of the staff report would be amended to:

move the temporary lane access from Deerfield Crescent to No. 5 Road and relocate the access to the middle of the property;

increase the width of the lots fronting Deerfield Crescent;

recess the garages for lots fronting No. 5 Road by a minimum of ten feet from the lane; and

amend the rezoning requirements accordingly, including registration of a "no build" covenant on the lot containing the temporary lane access.

CARRIED

It was moved and seconded

That the notification area for Public Hearing be increased to include Dewsbury Court and Drive, No. 5 Road, Deerfield Crescent and Dumont Street.

CARRIED

(RZ 96-000113 - Report: March 9/01, File No.: 8060-20-7217) (REDMS No. 285624,285625,285627)

The Manager, Development Applications, Joe Erceg reviewed the staff report noting that at the time the report was prepared it had been assumed that the existing houses on the subject property would be demolished prior to the Planning Committee meeting. Mr. Erceg suggested that the applicant be required to demolish the houses prior to referral of this rezoning to Public Hearing.

Mr. Ken Foulk, Creekside Architects, advised the Committee that the tender process for demolition of the houses was complete and that the contract for demolition would be signed during the next week.

In response to a question from Councillor Greenhill, Mr. Erceg confirmed that the west side setback comprised the majority of the trail and that the trail would be relatively close to the building. Mr. Erceg advised that the setback would be taken into account during the Development Permit process.

Councillor Greenhill questioned whether the backyard would be grassed.

It was moved and seconded

That Bylaw No. 7217, for the rezoning of 8131 and 8151 General Currie Road from "Townhouse and Apartment District (R3)" to "Comprehensive Development District (CD/118)", be introduced and given first reading and that the applicant be required to demolish the existing houses on the subject property prior to referral to Public Hearing.

CARRIED

Councillor Greenhill left the meeting.

(Report: March 1/01, File No.: 6470-01) (REDMS No. 299666)

The General Manager, Urban Development, David McLellan noted the matter was an issue of public safety and worthy of Council support. Noting that YVR have conducted their own safety reviews, Mr. McLellan expressed concern that Transport Canada continue the monitoring process.

It was moved and seconded

That:

The Vancouver International Airport Authority (YVRAA), Transport Canada, NAV Canada and other relevant agencies, be requested to conduct regular and ongoing monitoring and safety reviews of the float aircraft operations and landing patterns over the middle arm of the Fraser River, and adjacent residential and commercial areas of the City to ensure compliance with current operational procedures; and

The YVRAA and other relevant agencies be requested to share the results of these safety reviews with the City and area residents.

CARRIED

MANAGERS REPORT

The General Manager, Urban Development, David McLellan provided an update on the selection process for the Group Home Task Force members. One appointment had been received to date, from the Vancouver/Richmond Health Board, and a staff process had been defined for the random selection of individuals from the 2001 Assessment Rolls.

Mr. McLellan also advised the Committee that he had been contacted by a Taiwanese Mandarin Group requesting a representative on the Committee. Mr. McLellan has asked the group for clarification of who they represent. Mr. McLellan suggested that when the Task Force first meets they could be asked if the Taiwanese group could have representation. Council ratification of this would then be required.

Councillor Greenhill returned to the meeting.

In response to a question from Councillor McNulty on the status of the City's negotiation for the MOT lands, Mr. McLellan advised that Suzanne Carter-Huffman was in the process of preparing a report that would be complete early in May, 2001.

Councillor Steves questioned the SunTech Development Corporation rezoning application status. Mr. McLellan suggested that this topic be deferred to the next Planning Committee meeting in order that Suzanne Carter-Huffman could be present to verbally address the issue.

The Manager, Development Applications, Joe Erceg, advised that Land Reserve Commission approval had been received for i) the hospice on No. 4 Road, and ii) the removal of the Richberry Farms lots on Westminster Highway from the ALR.

Mr. Erceg provided an update on the application for temple expansion on Westminster Highway, noting that a letter had been sent to the applicant asking for clarification of items contained in the staff referral. A staff report will be prepared as soon as possible upon receipt of a satisfactory response from the applicant.

Councillor McNulty inquired as to the whether interest was still evident for a rowing club in Richmond. Mr. McLellan said he had not from the party in question for some time.

The Manager, Policy Planning, Terry Crowe, briefly presented the Provincial Streamside Protection Regulation initiative noting that the City would eventually have to enter into an agreement with the Province and that staff were working to identify options of how the regulations would be applied.

It was moved and seconded

That the meeting adjourn (4:43 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, April 3, 2001.

_________________________________

_________________________________

Councillor Malcolm Brodie

Chair

Deborah MacLennan

Administrative Assistant