Planning Committee Meeting Minutes - September 4, 2001
PLANNING COMMITTEE
Date: |
Tuesday, September 4th, 2001 |
Place: |
Anderson Room |
Present: |
Councillor Bill McNulty, Chair |
Absent: |
Councillor Kiichi Kumagai, Vice-Chair |
Call to Order: |
The Chair called the meeting to order at 4:16 p.m. |
MINUTES |
1. |
It was moved and seconded |
||
That the minutes of the meeting of the Planning Committee held on Tuesday, August 21st, 2001, be adopted as circulated. |
|||
CARRIED |
NEXT COMMITTEE MEETING DATE |
2. |
The next meeting of the Committee will be on Tuesday, September 18th, 2001, at 4:00 p.m. in the Anderson Room. |
DELEGATION |
3. |
MR. ENNO LEPNURM, OF #1803 955 MARINE DRIVE, WEST VANCOUVER, REGARDING HIS FORMER PROPERTY AT 8051 RIVER ROAD. |
|
Mr. Lepnurm was not in attendance. |
URBAN DEVELOPMENT DIVISION |
4. |
APPLICATION FOR DESIGNATED FOOD OPTIONAL (DFO) AREA CACTUS CLUB CAF, 5500 NO. 3 ROAD (Report: July 10/01, File No.: 8275-05) (REDMS No. 456512) |
||
The Manager, Zoning, Alan Clark, reviewed his report with the Committee. |
|||
It was moved and seconded |
|||
That the application of Cactus Club Caf for a Designated Food Optional (DFO) area be supported, and that the Liquor Control and Licencing Branch be advised: |
|||
(1) |
of this recommendation; |
||
(2) |
that Council has taken into account the community impact of the proposed food-optional area; and |
||
(3) |
that the RCMP does not object to the application. |
||
CARRIED |
5. |
(Report: July 10/01, File No.: 8275-05) (REDMS No. 456533) |
||
Mr. Clark reviewed the report with members of the Committee. |
|||
It was moved and seconded |
|||
That the application of Hanami Sushi Restaurant for a Designated Food Optional (DFO) area be supported, and that the Liquor Control and Licencing Branch be advised: |
|||
(1) |
of this recommendation; |
||
(2) |
that Council has taken into account the community impact of the proposed food-optional area; and |
||
(3) |
that the RCMP does not object to the application. |
||
CARRIED |
6. |
APPLICATION FOR A WINERY LICENCE BLOSSOM WINERY LTD., 5491 MINORU BOULEVARD (Report: Aug. 24/01, File No.: 8275-05) (REDMS No. 491452) |
||
Mr. Clark reviewed the report with members of the Committee. |
|||
It was moved and seconded |
|||
That the application of Blossom Winery Ltd. for a Winery Licence be supported, and that the Liquor Control and Licencing Branch be advised: |
|||
(1) |
that the City supports the application; and |
||
(2) |
that the RCMP does not object to this application. |
||
Prior to the question on the motion being called, in response to questions, Mr. Clark advised that the applicant wished to expand his current business into Richmond, as well as to grow the fruits required for the winery. He further advised that the licence, if approved, would be issued to the applicant for the subject property, and that a new application would be required if the operation was relocated. |
|||
The question on the motion was then called, and it was CARRIED. |
7. |
(RZ 01-187921 AND RZ 01-188959 - Report: Aug. 24/01, File No.: 8060-20-7270) (REDMS No. 467150, 468376, 467781) |
||
The Manager, Development Applications, Joe Erceg, reviewed the report with the Committee. |
|||
During the discussion which ensued among Committee members and staff on the proposed development, concern was expressed about the rapid increase in density as opposed to the surrounding properties. The opinion was expressed by Councillor Greenhill that there should be a gradual increase in density. In response, staff voiced the opinion that the site was appropriate for the proposed density because of its location on an arterial road adjacent to a shopping centre. It was further suggested that the development provided opportunities for senior citizens to live in their own homes without having to undertake the maintenance required for single-family homes. |
|||
Charan Sethi, the applicant for the project, in response to further questions, advised that: |
|||
|
the elevation of the subject property would not be increased prior to construction of the project |
||
|
location of the 2nd floor windows would be taken into consideration during construction to ensure that (i) the privacy of adjacent units was not unduly affected, and (ii) the smaller units received sufficient natural light. |
||
During the discussion, advice was given that even though the development resembled a single-family development, the applicant would be required to obtain the approval of the Development Permit Panel prior to adoption of the Zoning Amendment Bylaw. |
|||
Further advice was given in response to questions, that each of the existing lots would contain four units. Mr. Erceg stated that the applicant had indicated that he would like flexibility to subdivide the lots, and possibly strata each of the resulting housing units. Mr. Sethi added that every effort would be made to try and maintain the single-family appearance of the neighbourhood; and that strata titling the units would give the future owners a sense of pride that they actually owned that piece of land. |
|||
Concern was expressed that the proposed development, if approved, could change development in Richmond and increase population density in the future. Councillor Steves added that he felt that the proposed development would result in the construction of illegal suites, and he questioned what effect this type of construction would have on future development in the City. He referred to the proposed convertible housing project to be constructed in Steveston and suggested that the applicant could be applying to the City to build a similar development. |
|||
In response to the concerns voiced about the convertible housing project, the Manager, Policy Planning, Terry Crowe, advised that one of the recommendations adopted by Council was that the use of the zone not be considered in other parts of the City until the demonstration project and criteria to apply this zone elsewhere in Richmond, had been prepared and approved. |
|||
The General Manager, Urban Development, David McLellan, referred to a report submitted to Council some time ago regarding density adjacent to arterial roads. He suggested that if the Committee had concerns about the proposed CD/124 zone being a relaxation of housing regulations, then the Committee should deny the application. He further suggested that any explanation to the public, if the project proceeded, should stress that the zone would only be for those properties located on arterial roads and adjacent to shopping centres. |
|||
Further discussion ensued, during which advice was given that if an application for a C/D 124 zone was submitted, Planning staff would be reviewing the application based on development guidelines for arterial roads, and would not consider the use of this zone inside a single-family subdivision. |
|||
It was moved and seconded |
|||
That Bylaw No. 7270, for the rezoning of 7380, 7400, 7420 and 7500 Williams Road, from "Single-Family Housing District, Subdivision Area E (R1/E)" to "Comprehensive Development District (CD/124)", be introduced and given first reading. |
|||
Prior to the question being called, Cllrs. Barnes and Greenhill advised that the application should be referred to a public hearing for input from the public. However, Cllr. Steves was of the view that sufficient thought had not been given to the proposal. |
|||
The question on the motion was then called, and it was CARRIED with Cllr. Steves opposed. |
8. |
MANAGERS REPORT |
Mr. McLellan referred to the convertible housing project proposed for the Steveston area, and advised that there had not been any response to the proposal call sent out for the project. He indicated that a report would be submitted to the Committee on the next steps to take. |
ADJOURNMENT |
It was moved and seconded |
|||
That the meeting adjourn (4:32 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, September 4th, 2001. |
|
_________________________________ |
_________________________________ |
Councillor Bill McNulty |
Fran J. Ashton |