Planning Committee Meeting Minutes - April 18, 2001

Date:

Tuesday, April 18^th, 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, April 3^rd, 2001, be adopted as circulated.

CARRIED

Tuesday, May 8, 2001, at 4:00 p.m. in the Anderson Room.

APPLICATION BY LAWRENCE CONSTRUCTION LTD. FOR REZONING AT 7860 BENNETT ROAD FROM SINGLE-FAMILY HOUSING DISTRICT, SUBDIVISION AREA E (R1/E) TO COMPREHENSIVE DEVELOPMENT DISTRICT (CD/28)
(RZ 01-115083 - Report: March 26/01, File No.: RZ 01-115083) (REDMS No. 325206)

The Manager, Development Applications, Joe Erceg briefly reviewed the report with Committee members. In response to questions from the Chair, Mr. Erceg confirmed that if a property was developed with three or more units on each new lot, an applicant would be required to apply for a Development Permit.

It was moved and seconded

That Bylaw No. 7221, for the rezoning of 7860 Bennett Road from "Single-Family Housing District, Subdivision Area E (R1/E)" to "Comprehensive Development District (CD/28)", be introduced and given first reading.

CARRIED

2000 ANNUAL REPORT & 2001 - 2002 WORK PROGRAM
CHILD CARE DEVELOPMENT BOARD
(Report: April 6/01, File No.: 0100-20-CCDE1-01) (REDMS No. 279740)

The Manager, Policy Planning, Terry Crowe, briefly reviewed the report with the Committee, during which he expressed support for the undertaking of a needs assessment. He then introduced Ms. Kathy Stoessl and Ms. Nicky Byres, Co-Chairs of the Child Care Development Board.

The Chair referred to the recommendation of the General Purposes Committee that the Child Care Development Board be given a grant of $50,000 of casino revenue. He indicated that if necessary, any decision made on the recommendation now being considered by the Planning Committee which impacted the recommendation adopted by the General Purposes Committee, could be modified at the April 23^rd, 2001 Council Meeting.

Ms. Kathy Stoessl, of 5380 Hummingbird Drive, accompanied by Ms. Nicky Byres, of Springfield Drive, introduced members of the Board to the Committee.

Ms. Stoessl then provided Committee members with an overview of the Boards work during the past year, and spoke about the proposed 2001-2002 work plan for the Board. Following Ms. Stoessls report, Ms. Byres spoke about the proposed needs assessment. A copy of Ms. Stoessls and Ms. Buyers submission is attached as Schedule A and forms part of these minutes.

Discussion ensued among Committee members, the delegation and staff on the rationale for undertaking a needs assessment, even though one had been completed just 5 years ago. Information was provided that the intent of the assessment was to provide to the Board, detailed information on such matters as (i) possible child care models which might be available in other cities and municipalities; (ii) what other committees had done; and (iii) the types of child care services which are now and will be required for the next five years. Advice was given that the requested amount of $25,000 would allow the Board to hire a consultant to assist in undertaking the assessment.

In response to further questions about the proposed needs assessment and whether this assessment could be included with 3 other similar City studies currently being undertaken, advice was given that:

needs assessments would be required every 5 years approximately because of changing child care needs

including the child care needs assessment with other studies would not provide all the information needed by the Board; however, the Board was of the view that undertaking their assessment at the same time as the other studies could enhance these other studies

the Board was hopeful that their assessment would provide information on how to manage many child care issues.

Advice was also given that the first child care study undertaken 5 years ago had identified kindercare and school age child care as an issue, however the Board did not know what the parents wanted in the way of child care. The statement was made that with the implementation of the Provincial funding plan for child care, the demand for this type of service would be even higher and more affordable.

Questions were raised about whether other means might be available to undertaken the assessment rather than hiring a consultant. Advice was given that it was felt that the Child Care Development Board did not have the capacity to undertake such a study. Further advice was given that City staff did not have the time to commit to such an undertaking because of their current workload. However, Mr. Crowe indicated that the assessment would be a collaboration of the Board, associates, parents, and other affected parties, and added that methods were available to obtain the needed information.

Reference was made to the Boards request for $100,000 to be deposited from the Casino Revenue Fund into the Child Care Development Statutory Reserve Fund, and to the feasibility of approving an amount of $50,000 in 2001 and a similar amount in 2002. In response to questions about future expenditures from the Child Care Statutory Reserve Fund, advice was given that the revenue from that fund would be used for one-time capital costs and that the needs assessment would help the Board to ensure that the funds were correctly used.

A question was raised as to whether the consulting costs to complete the assessment had been included in the City's consulting budget, as well as being recommended in the staff report now being considered, and staff were asked to confirm that that amount had been deleted from the consulting budget.

As a result of the discussion, the following motion was introduced:

It was moved and seconded

That the 2001 - 2002 Work Program of the Child Care Development Board be approved.

That the proposed child care needs assessment be referred to staff to determine:

(a)

what support could be provided by staff;

(b)

the options which were available to conduct the needs assessment; and

(c)

the anticipated costs to complete the assessment.

(3)

(a)

That $50,000 of casino funding be immediately placed into the Child Care Development Statutory Reserve Fund, and

(b)

That consideration be given in the next Casino Fund allocation (Fall, 2001) to place an additional $50,000 into the Child Care Development Statutory Reserve Fund.

CARRIED

Reference was made to the Casino Revenue Fund, and staff were requested to provide to the April 23^rd, 2001 Council Meeting, information on a rolling total, disbursements, etc., for this fund.

PROPOSED CONVERTIBLE HOUSE DEMONSTRATION PROJECT (Report: February 15/01, File No.: 4057-07) (REDMS No. 329598)

Terry Crowe commented briefly on the proposal. Planner Rob Innes then reviewed the options available, as well as the advantages and disadvantages of each option.

Discussion then took place among Committee members and staff on the project and the profit which the City could expect to earn. Advice was given that a project value had not been established but would be determined when the proposals were received from interested builders. In response to further questions the following information was provided:

plans and design guidelines would be prepared by the builder for which ever option was chosen

the longer that the City remained involved in the project, the more revenue which would be generated to the City

Option 1 would allow the City to remain involved in the project for a longer period of time while Option 2 would have the City selling only the property to a builder in a quicker timeframe

the property improvement costs would be part of the 2001 Land Acquisition Reserve bylaw and would come from the Industrial Reserve

Concern was expressed about the previous failed attempt to undertake a convertible housing project, and staff were cautioned about ensuring that the project now being considered was not over-managed or overpriced.

Concern was also voiced by the Chair that selection of Option 1 would result in any profit earned by the City being taken up with administrative costs. He suggested that the City could achieve its goals for the project through the private sector and still have control over design plans, administrative costs, etc. as long as the property was sold with those conditions attached.

As a result of the discussion, the following amended motion was introduced:

It was moved and seconded

That the convertible house demonstration project (as per Option 2 in the report dated February 15, 2001, from the Manager, Policy Planning) be approved.

That staff:

take the necessary steps to subdivide into two 33 ft. (10.05 m) lots, the City owned lot at 3860 Regent Street to facilitate this development;

seek proposals from qualified builders, as per Option 2, to develop a convertible house demonstration project, and;

review the proposals, select a preferred builder and manage the process through to completion.

That no further action to be taken to apply the CD/44 zone in other parts of the City until this demonstration project and criteria to apply this zone elsewhere in Richmond, are prepared and approved.

Prior to the question being called, a brief discussion ensued, during which Councillor Barnes suggested that the City would have a difficult time in finding a builder who would be willing to make exceptions. At the request of the Chair, City Solicitor Paul Kendrick provided information on the development of the Odlinwood project.

The question on the motion was then called and it was CARRIED with Cllrs. Barnes and Steves opposed.

At this point in the meeting, Mr. Jan Knapp, a resident of Odlinwood Road, came forward to speak on the issue of convertible housing. He questioned whether the CD/44 zone, which was already part of the Zoning & Development Bylaw would be available to individuals who submitted applications for rezoning their properties to this designation. He referred to the previous Committee meeting held on this matter, at which time staff had been directed to comment on his request to rezone his and his sons property to CD/44, and stated that he had not yet received a response.

At the request of the Chair, City Solicitor Paul Kendrick provided his opinion on the matter, advising that the City could not say no to an application being made, however, the City did have the right to determine if and where rezonings would occur. This included taking no action taken until the demonstration project had been completed, and the appropriate criteria approved for the development of similar projects in other areas of the City.

Mr. Knapp expressed his dissatisfaction with the answer, noting that he had applied to the City for the rezoning of his property to the CD/44 zoning district prior to the recommendation now being made.

PARKING ISSUES IN STEVESTON TOWN CENTRE
(Report: March 15/01, File No.: 6455-01) (REDMS No. 311763)

Joe Erceg commented briefly on the report. Development Coordinator Holger Burke elaborated on the report, during which he reviewed the five issues which had been referred to staff for comment at the November 7^th, 2000 Planning Committee meeting, as well as the recommendations now being made by staff.

Discussion then ensued among Committee members and staff on the proposal, during which the suggestion was made that a Steveston citizens advisory committee be asked to provide their comments on parking issues generally and on the staff report. The comment was also made that additional research should be completed prior to taking any action to register notices on title, because many of the buildings adjacent to First, Second and Third Avenues may actually be sitting in the road right-of-way because of a surveying error made many years ago.

At the request of the Chair, Paul Kendrick provided information on the issues surrounding the proposed recommendation and the ramifications which could result, especially if portions of buildings were located in road rights-of-way. Discussion then continued on what action the City should be taking, if any, during which the General Manager, Urban Development, David McLellan indicated that although he had signed as concurring with the recommendations, he no longer agreed with Part 1. The suggestion was made by Mr. Kendrick that perhaps the staff report should be referred to a citizens advisory committee for their comment. However, concern was expressed about the safety issues regarding material being stored in lanes, and advice was given that that process could be implemented.

Also discussed by Committee members and staff was the situation created at Steveston Station where a security gate had been installed which denied the public free and clear access to the parking area.

As a result of the discussion, the following motion was introduced:

It was moved and seconded

That the question of initiating a process to file notices on the title of properties in the Steveston Town Centre which encroach into lanes, be referred to the Manager, Building Approvals for further review.

That the Community Bylaws Department enforce the removal of any material stored in a lane to ensure public safety and fire access within the Steveston town centre.

That the Transportation and Community Bylaw Departments take steps to form a citizens advisory committee to examine parking issues in the Steveston Town Centre area, which would make and submit recommendations to the Planning Committee, with a progress report being made to the Committee in one month's time.

That the Steveston Station situation be referred to the Law Department to examine (i) the security gate issue specifically, and (ii) the issue of accessibility in general.

Prior to the question being called, the suggestion was made that staff include on the citizens advisory committee, individuals who were opposed to the establishment of pay parking in the Steveston area.

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

MANAGERS REPORT

Joe Erceg provided information on the development application received for the redevelopment of the Aberdeen Centre, which had been reviewed by the Advisory Design Panel and would now be submitted to the Development Permit Panel. He briefly reviewed the parking variance being sought by the applicant.

David McLellan referred to the Greater Vancouver Regional Districts Liveable Region Strategic Plan which was currently under review, and advised that staff were of the opinion that a more comprehensive review was needed than that being proposed by the GVRD. He stated that the plan should be more realistic with respect to Richmond's employment, population growth and concentration in the City, as well as housing, compact community initiatives and social issues, which must be addressed. A brief discussion ensued on this matter, during which the Planning Committee agreed with the points made by Mr. McLellan.

Reference was to the transportation issue, and a brief discussion ensued on the need for a light rail transportation system to the City, during which Mr. McLellan provided information on a report being presented to an upcoming TransLink meeting on transportation.

Councillor McNulty referred to the Public Hearing held April 17^th, 2001, and advised that he had requested information on what property taxes would be for commercially zoned properties as compared to those with an "I/4" designation. The Manager, Zoning Allan Clark then provided a brief summary of the information which he had gathered on the request. He indicated that he would provide a memo to Council once he had completed his review.

It was moved and seconded

That the meeting adjourn (6:00 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 Wednesday, April 18^th, 2001.

_________________________________

_________________________________

Councillor Malcolm Brodie
Chair

Fran J. Ashton
Executive Assistant