It was moved and seconded

That the order of the agenda be varied in order that Item 4 on the agenda be heard after Item 11.

CARRIED

MINUTES

1.

It was moved and seconded

That the minutes of the meeting of the Planning Committee held on Tuesday, February 4^th, 2003, be adopted as circulated.

CARRIED

NEXT COMMITTEE MEETING DATE

2.

The next meeting of the Committee will be held on Tuesday, March 4^th, 2003, at 4:00 p.m. in the Anderson Room.

URBAN DEVELOPMENT DIVISION

3.

APPLICATION FOR A FOOD PRIMARY LIQUOR LICENCE WITH AUDIENCE PARTICIPATION (KARAOKE) AT UNITS #1028 AND 1031 8300 CAPSTAN WAY

(Report:  Jan. 21/03, File No.:   ) (REDMS No. 946873)

The Manager, Zoning, Alan Clark, was present and, in response to questions, reviewed the general layout of the proposed facility, and indicated that the reason that this particular site had been chosen was not known.

It was moved and seconded

That the application by Rising Tide Consultants Ltd. to the Liquor Control and Licencing Branch for a Food Primary Liquor Licence with audience participation (Karaoke) be supported, and that the Liquor Control and Licencing Branch be advised:

(1)

The potential for noise if the application is approved has been reviewed and is not an issue.

(2)

The impact on the community if the application is approved has been reviewed, and, as the premise is located in a commercial development with no immediate residential presence it is deemed an appropriate location that would create no impact.

(3)

The establishment of a restaurant with a Food Primary Liquor Licence with audience participation (Karaoke) would not be contrary to its primary use.

(4)

The views of residents is not an issue because the restaurant is located in a commercial development away from any residential development, and therefore not affected.

( 5)

That the RCMP does not object.

CARRIED

Cllr. S. Halsey-Brandt joined the meeting 4:03 p.m.

5.

APPLICATION BY S297 HOLDINGS LTD. FOR REZONING AT 9420, 9460, AND 9480 CAMBIE ROAD FROM SINGLE-FAMILY HOUSING DISTRICT, SUBDIVISION AREA F (R1/F) TO COMPREHENSIVE DEVELOPMENT DISTRICT (CD/137)

(RZ 02-213334 - Report:  Feb. 3/03, File No.:  8060-20-7486) (REDMS No. 943673, 955925, 955945)

The Manager, Development Applications, Joe Erceg, briefly reviewed the report.

It was moved and seconded

That Bylaw No. 7486, for the rezoning of 9420, 9460, and 9480 Cambie Road from Single-Family Housing District, Subdivision Area F (R1/F) to Comprehensive Development District (CD/137), be introduced and given first reading.

CARRIED

6.

APPLICATION BY AMAR SANDHU FOR REZONING AT 8671 CANTLEY ROAD FROM TWO-FAMILY HOUSING DISTRICT (R5) TO SINGLE-FAMILY HOUSING DISTRICT, SUBDIVISION AREA B (R1/B)

(RZ 02-221217 - Report:  Jan. 30/03, File No.:  8060-20-7487) (REDMS No. 954322, 954376, 954378)

The Manager, Development Applications, Joe Erceg, briefly reviewed the report.

It was moved and seconded

That Bylaw No. 7487, for the rezoning of 8671 Cantley Road from Two-Family Housing District (R5) to Single-Family Housing District, Subdivision Area B (R1/B), be introduced and given first reading.

CARRIED

7.

APPLICATION BY JATINDER BHANGAV TO PERMIT A CHILD CARE PROGRAM AS A PERMITTED USE IN THE AGRICULTURAL DISTRICT (AG1) ZONE SPECIFICALLY AT 7471 NO. 6 ROAD

(RZ 02-205483 - Report:  Feb. 5/03, File No.:  8060-20-7488) (REDMS No. 928283, 930663, 930659)

The Manager, Development Applications, Joe Erceg, and Janet Lee, Planner, were present.  A discussion then ensued that included:

-

the role that provincial Community Care Facility officials provide in the regulating of child care facilities and programs;

-

whether an option would exist for another similar use facility in the ALR;

-

that the City liaises with the Health Board on a monthly basis to address any issues that may have arisen although it was noted that since the inception of the Child Care Policy no issues had come forth.

It was moved and seconded

That Bylaw No. 7488, for the rezoning of 7471 No. 6 Road to include Child Care program as a Home Occupation, limited to a maximum of 30 children among the permitted uses in the Agricultural District (AG1) zone specifically at the subject site only, be introduced and given first reading.

CARRIED

8.

RECOMMENDED COST SAVINGS FOR LANE IMPLEMENTATION

(Report:  Jan. 27/03, File No.:  6360-07) (REDMS No. 943226, 961545)

The Manager, Development Applications, Joe Erceg, and the Director, Engineering, Steve Ono, were present.  Mr. Erceg briefly reviewed the report.

A discussion then ensued during which the following information was provided:

-

that lane dedications at the rear of properties would continue;

-

in some cases access to the rear lane would be by right-of-way;

-

Neighbourhood Improvement Charges (NIC) in lieu of construction of the lane would be an option for developments yielding less than 4 lots;

-

a covenant on title indicating the lane dedication, but not the interim use of that dedication, would be required which in some cases would also provide for a re-arrangement of access;

-

the cost saving of reducing lane standards and eliminating curbs would be offset by an increase in City maintenance and operational costs;

-

prior to the actual construction of the lane, no infrastructure would be installed which could be problematic in terms of drainage in the interim period between the lane dedication and its construction.

-

Neighbourhood Improvement Charges are not specifically applied to the property for which they were collected but rather rotate as collections continue thereby offsetting any increase to the construction cost of the lane caused by inflation.

Mr. Ray Froh questioned the feasibility of allowing developments mid-block that would result in lane dedications and mentioned the liability and drainage issues that could arise from such dedications.  It was suggested that it would be more feasible to develop the lane from the ends of the block in. 

In response to a question, Mr. Erceg said that developments that yielded less than 4 lots were being provided with the  option of NIC charges in lieu of lane construction due to the onerous cost on small lot developments of building the access from the arterial to the future lane.

Mr. Martin Woolford, 5951 Egret Court, said that his property backed onto 2 properties on No. 2 Road, and he questioned what would result if one of those properties were to develop and not the other.  Mr. Erceg responded that although there would be a change in circumstances at the rear of Mr. Woolfords property, i.e. garages and an increased activity level, the requirement that the property being subdivided be provided with perimeter drainage should negate any drainage problems for his property.

Ms. J. Fletcher, 11251 No. 2 Road, expressed her concern that in the event the older homes that surround her property were to be redeveloped she would lose a portion of her lot or be the cause of her neighbourss ire.

Ms. P. Anderson, 11991 No. 2 Road, expressed concern that in the cases of properties on No. 2 Road that subdivided, the possible change in grade for the new development could result in retaining walls of 8 10 feet for the adjacent properties to the rear.

Mr. Meyer, 5971 Kittiwake Drive, questioned how a lane would be provided on a cul-de-sac.

A brief discussion then ensued on the proposed changes to the Lane Establishment Policy.

It was moved and seconded

(1)

That the current components of lane construction, (as outlined in the report dated January 27^th, 2003, from the Director of Engineering and Manager of Development Applications,, be endorsed;

( 2)

That staff, in the implementation of the Lane Establishment Policy:

(a)

accept the payment of a Neighbourhood Improvement Charge (NIC) as an alternative to the construction of a lane, in development situations where no public access is constructed or where there is no means to connect a lot to an existing lane or road; and

(b)

require public lane access with subdivisions of four or more lots or townhouses.

Prior to the question being called further discussion ensued on the proposed changes.  The question on the motion was then called and it was CARRIED with Cllr. Barnes OPPOSED.

9.

APPLICATION BY JERRY AND KARIN GIESBRECHT FOR REZONING AT 10291 BRIDGEPORT ROAD FROM SINGLE-FAMILY HOUSING DISTRICT, SUBDIVISION AREA D (R1/D) TO SINGLE-FAMILY HOUSING DISTRICT, SUBDIVISION AREA B (R1/B)

(RZ 02-205510 - Report:  Feb. 3/03; File No.:  8060-20-7489) (REDMS No. 957203, 280247, 961548, 957336)

The Manager, Development Applications, Joe Erceg, and Rob Innes, Planner, were present.

It was moved and seconded

That Bylaw 7489 for the rezoning of 10291 Bridgeport Road from Single-Family Housing District, Subdivision Area D (R1/D) to Single-Family Housing District, Subdivision Area B (R1/B), be introduced and given first reading.

CARRIED

Opposed:  Cllr. Barnes

10.

PROPOSED AMENDMENT TO THE LANE ESTABLISHMENT POLICY NO. 5038

AND

APPLICATION BY ROCKY SETHI FOR REZONING AT 11851 NO. 2 ROAD FROM SINGLE-FAMILY HOUSING DISTRICT, SUBDIVISION AREA E (R1/E) TO SINGLE-FAMILY HOUSING DISTRICT, SUBDIVISION AREA A (R1/A)

(RZ 02-219330 - Report:  Jan. 29/03, File No.:  8060-20-7483) (REDMS No. 929343, 442122, 936817, 935184, 933073, 933103)

The Manager, Policy Planning, Terry Crowe, and David Brownlee, Planner, were present.  Mr. Crowe presented a map denoting the arterial roads which required lanes, as well as those arterials suggested for inclusion into the Lane Establishment Policy.

Mr. Martin Woolford, 5951 Egret Court, provided, and then summarized, a written submission which is attached as Schedule 1 and forms a part of these minutes.   Also provided by Mr. Woolford was a neighbourhood petition containing 104 signature of opposition to the proposed rezoning.  A copy of the petition is on file in the City Clerks Office.

Ms. Adele Peters, 11460 Pintail Drive, said that she agreed with the comments made by the previous speaker, and referred to the letter she had submitted to the Planning Department on January 15, 2003.  Ms. Peters then cited her concerns of the affect of increased traffic accessing No. 2 Road; the potential grade differences and retaining walls; and, the possible flooding implications.  Ms. Peters said that she loved the school in the area, and that she was concerned that the single family character of Westwind could be lost.  In response to a question, Ms. Peters said that she would not support perimeter development in her subdivision as those properties also belonged to the single-family character of Westwind.

A resident of Pelican Court indicated that should No. 2 Road be widened from Steveston Hwy. to Moncton St. the traffic issues would be alleviated.

Ms. L. Meyer, 5971 Kittiwake, expressed concern that the lane would run along the side of her house.  She advised that she owned the corner lot on the north side of Kittiwake and No. 2 Road and that she had no intention of moving.

Ms. C. Dunham of 11511 Pintail Drive, cited traffic and the increased demand new development would have on Westwind School as her concerns.  Ms. Dunham also said that the uniqueness of the Westwind subdivision should be retained.

Mr. P. Dhillon, representing 5940 Goldeneye Place, said that he was disturbed that a lane could be constructed in the rear of his mothers home.  Mr. Dhillon also said that the Westwind subdivision and neighbourhood was something to be proud of due to its great characteristics.  The petition submitted by Mr. Woolford was referred to in the hope that the concerns of the neighbours would be appreciated.

Mr. R. Higo, 5960 Kittiwake, questioned the intent of the Lane Establishment Policy stating that in the instance before Committee the issues of safety and traffic flow could not be met due to the volume of traffic on Kittiwake and No. 2 Road.  Mr. Higo also expressed concern that the lane would pass beside his property and the traffic would be a disturbance; that he might not be able to exit his driveway; and, that increased parking on Kittiwake would occur.

Mr. Rocky Sethi, the agent for the owners of the subject property, said that he would attempt to address the good points raised by the previous speakers.  He then offered the following:

i)

the grade level would be raised to accommodate the rear lane only and would not be significant;

ii)

all lanes include drainage down the centre;

iii)

the investors in the subject property had two options of development subdivision or the construction of one large home.  Mr. Sethi indicated that the view encroachment to the properties to the non arterial lots would be lessened by a two lot subdivision;

iv)

new developments pay Development Cost Charges and contribute to school levies and facilities/parks in the area;

v)

developments such as that proposed provide the funds for road improvements such as those required on No. 2 Road;

vi)

no land is taken from any property other than that being re-developed; and,

vii)

a 33 ft. lot could accommodate 3 car parking;

It was moved and seconded

That:

(1)

the lane Establishment Policy No. 5038 and Bylaw 7483 be referred to staff for further consideration; and,

( 2)

that a transportation study be completed for the No. 2 Road, Railway Avenue, Trites Road and Moncton Street area to address:

a)

two road improvements scenarios for No. 2 Road:

i)

without a lane including widened lanes, and bike lanes;

ii)

widening No. 2 Road to four lanes; and,

b)

overall traffic flow.

CARRIED

11.

AMENDMENTS TO THE ARTERIAL ROAD REDEVELOPMENT POLICY

(Report:  Jan. 30/03, File No.:  8060-20-7240) (REDMS No. 927858, 439247)

The Manager, Policy Planning, Terry Crowe, briefly reviewed the report and the staff recommendation.

It was moved and seconded

(1)

That the Arterial Road Redevelopment Policy be amended, (as shown on Attachment 1 to the report dated January 30, 2003, from the Manager of Policy Planning), for areas outside of Neighbourhood Centres to:

(a)

permit townhouses in the range of 0.6 FAR; and

(b)

permit single family housing to be built at a density of 0.6 FAR for properties along arterial roads where lanes are required;

( 2)

That work be initiated by staff to create a 0.6 FAR townhouse zone and amend the R1 zone to permit 0.6 FAR for areas outside of the neighbourhood centres; and

( 3)

That in 2004, staff present Council with a process to explore a Neighbourhood Centre Redevelopment Model in order to provide better guidance to neighbourhoods and the development community as how best to manage change in the Neighbourhood Centres.

CARRIED

4.

APPLICATION BY GREAT CANADIAN CASINOS INC. FOR REZONING OF A PORTION OF 8811/8831 RIVER ROAD FROM AUTOMOBILE-ORIENTED COMMERCIAL DISTRICT (C6) TO COMPREHENSIVE DEVELOPMENT DISTRICT (CD/87)

AND

APPLICATION BY CAROUSEL VENTURES LTD. TO AMEND LAND USE CONTRACT 126 OVER 8320, 8340, 8440 BRIDGEPORT ROAD AND 8311, 8351 SEA ISLAND WAY TO PROHIBIT A CASINO AS A PERMITTED USE

(RZ 02-211434 / LUC 03-223306 - Report:  Jan. 30/03, File No.:  8060-20-7484/7485/6880/6927) (REDMS No. 933998, 709597, 953446, 951327, 944496, 951325)

The Manager, Development Applications, Joe Erceg, briefly reviewed the report. 

Mr. Randy Knill, Randy Knill Architects Ltd., with the aid of a site plan, reviewed the proposed development including the proposed extension of Garden City Road; the public amenity areas; the pedestrian links, and a possible transit alignment.  Mr. Knill indicated that the proposal would include a 200 suite hotel, various food services, a 650 seat dinner theatre, a banquet facility/conference area, a spa/fitness centre and the Great Canadian Casino Head Office. 

Mr. Knill then, in response to questions, provided the following information:

i)

that construction of the proposed development, including 2 lanes of the Garden City extension, would be complete in approximately one year;

ii)

that Great Canadian would operate the marina;

iii)

a circulation path along the marsh would be located well back from the bank;

iv)

only the existing market place would be retained in the new development; and,

v)

that early indications of economic development are evident.

It was moved and seconded

(1)

That Bylaw No. 7484, for the rezoning of a portion of 8811/8831 River Road from Automobile-Oriented Commercial District (C6) to Comprehensive Development District (CD/87), be introduced and given first reading.

( 2)

That Bylaw No. 7485, which amends Land Use Contract 126 (Bylaw 3612) in order to exclude a casino use as a permitted use at 8320, 8340, 8440 Bridgeport Road and 8311, 8351 Sea Island Way, be introduced and given first reading. 

( 3)

That Bylaw No. 6880, for the rezoning of 8811/8831, 8671, 8840  River Road, 2420 No. 3 Road, Lot 6880 and Lot G Duck Island from Automobile-Oriented Commercial District (C6) to Comprehensive Development District (CD/87), be abandoned.

( 4)

That Bylaw No. 6927, for the rezoning of 8320, 8340, 8440 Bridgeport Road and 8311, 8351 Sea Island Way from Land Use Contract 126 to Automobile-Oriented Commercial District  (C6) be abandoned. 

Prior to the question being called a request was made that the items be dealt with separately.

The question was called on Part 1 and was CARRIED with Cllr. S. Halsey-Brandt OPPOSED.

The question was called on Part 2 and was CARRIED with Cllr. S. Halsey-Brandt OPPOSED.

The question was called on Part 3 and was CARRIED.

The question was called on Part 4 and was CARRIED.

12.

MANAGERS REPORT

There were no reports.

ADJOURNMENT

It was moved and seconded

That the meeting adjourn (6:53 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, February 18^th, 2003.

_________________________________

_________________________________

Councillor Bill McNulty
Chair

Deborah MacLennan
Administrative Assistant