MINUTES

1.

It was moved and seconded

That the minutes of the meeting of the Planning Committee held on Tuesday, August 19^th, 2003, be adopted as circulated.

CARRIED

NEXT COMMITTEE MEETING DATE

2.

The next meeting of the Committee will be held on Tuesday, September 16^th, 2003, at 4:00 p.m. in the Anderson Room.

URBAN DEVELOPMENT DIVISION

3.

BUSINESS REGULATION BYLAW NO. 7538, AMENDMENT BYLAW NO. 7581
(Report:  Aug. 21/03, File No.:  8060-20-7581) (REDMS No. 1056849, 1057880)
 

It was moved and seconded

That Bylaw 7581 which amends Schedule A of Business Regulation Bylaw No. 7538 to include unit 2250 8181 Cambie Road among the geographic areas in which a video arcade may operate, be introduced and given first, second and third readings.

CARRIED

 

4.

APPLICATION BY T. TAM AND ANNE LO FOR REZONING AT 8180 RAILWAY AVENUE FROM SINGLE-FAMILY HOUSING DISTRICT, SUBDIVISION AREA E (R1/E) TO SINGLE-FAMILY HOUSING DISTRICT, SUBDIVISION AREA K (R1/K)
(RZ 03-233573 - Report:  Aug. 7/03, File No.:  8060-20-7559) (REDMS No. 1039954, 1040125, 1040105, 1041267, 280167, 1050192)

Ms. Frances Clark, of 8160 Railway Avenue, expressed concern that the material which she had received from the Planning Department, indicated a lane crossing the rear of her property, and stated that she had been unaware of this proposal.  Ms. Clark also referred to the development sign posted on the subject property and indicated that when the sign had first been erected, the sign had indicated that the laneway was to extend to Blundell Road.  However, she stated that it was subsequently altered to eliminate the lane.  She also noted that the staff report had indicated that the City wished to develop a lane at the rear of the Railway Avenue properties as part of the process of redevelopment of these lots.

Ms. Clark advised that there were only two properties north of her which had not been redeveloped and commented that it would be many years before the majority of the properties would be redeveloped. 

Ms. Clark also spoke about a road widening dedication across the front of her property which had been taken many years ago for a railway station which was to have been constructed in the 1900s.  She expressed concern that the taking of property at the rear of her property would severely impact her property because of this additional dedication at the front.  Ms. Clark stated that there was no need for a lane, and suggested that if the laneway idea was abandoned, that the road be constructed through the centre of the subject property rather than along the northerly property line (which was her south property line), which she felt would be more favourable to the surrounding neighbourhood. 

The Manager, Development Applications, Joe Erceg, accompanied by Planner Jenny Beran, provided information on the City's Arterial Road Redevelopment and Lane Policies, and how these policies would impact properties in this area of Railway Avenue.  He advised that the lane shown on the rear of Ms. Clarks property was nothing more than a concept and would only be considered when her property was redeveloped.  With reference to Ms. Clarks suggestion to construct the road through the centre of the subject property rather than the north property line, he advised that the entrance to the laneway had been placed along the north property line so that when the property to the north (8160 Railway Avenue) was redeveloped, the developer would be required to provide an additional 2 meters to develop the laneway to its full width.

In response, Ms. Clark advised that her property was only nine years old and that she had no intention of redeveloping it within the foreseeable future. 

In response to questions, advice was given that the laneway would be constructed as part of the redevelopment of the subject property, and that the garages would be located at the rear of the lots to connect with the laneway.  Further information was provided that staff considered that the requirement to construct a full width lane entry was too onerous for the developers of two-lot subdivisions, and as a result, were requiring the construction of a lane two-thirds in width as a compromise.  It was reiterated that the remainder of the lane would only be constructed if the property to the north was redeveloped.

Ms. Clark spoke further on the lane issue, expressing concern that (i) construction of the lane on the north side of the subject property would require the removal of the hedge, and (ii) because only two-thirds of the lane was being constructed, it would not be properly finished.  She voiced concern also that the laneway would have a negative impact on the resale value of her property.

It was moved and seconded

(1)

That Lot Size Policy 5453, adopted by Council in November 1993 and amended in January 2001, be forwarded to Public Hearing with the amendment to exclude those properties fronting Blundell Road, Railway Avenue and Francis Road, (as shown on Attachment 5 to the report dated August 7^th, 2003 from the Manager, Development Applications). 
 

(2)

That Bylaw No. 7559, for the rezoning of 8180 Railway Avenue from Single-Family Housing District, Subdivision Area E (R1/E) to Single-Family Housing District, Subdivision Area K (R1/K), be introduced and given first reading.
 

Prior to the question on the motion being called, staff were requested to meet with Ms. Clark to review details regarding development of the lane prior to public hearing.

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

5.

APPLICATION BY AMARJIT SANGHERA/SURINDER PUREWAL FOR REZONING AT 9791 WILLIAMS ROAD FROM SINGLE-FAMILY HOUSING DISTRICT, SUBDIVISION AREA E (R1/E) TO SINGLE-FAMILY HOUSING DISTRICT, SUBDIVISION AREA K (R1/K)
(RZ 03-235761 - Report:  Aug. 12/03, File No.:  8060-20-7572) (REDMS No. 1030488, 1051419, 1051429)
 

It was moved and seconded

That Bylaw No. 7572, for the rezoning of 9791 Williams Road from Single-Family Housing District, Subdivision Area E (R1/E) to Single-Family Housing District, Subdivision Area K (R1/K), be introduced and given first reading.
 

Prior to the question on the motion being called, staff advised, in response to a question about the temporary access, that (i) a covenant would be registered on the property to require closure of the access in the future, and (ii) the City would hold a bond to ensure that the access was closed.

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

6.

APPLICATION BY GURDEV AND JEETA PUREWAL FOR REZONING AT 10240/10242 BIRD ROAD FROM TWO-FAMILY HOUSING DISTRICT (R5) TO SINGLE-FAMILY HOUSING DISTRICT, SUBDIVISION AREA B (R1/B)
(RZ 03-237207 - Report:  Aug. 18/03, File No.:  8060-20-7575) (REDMS No. 1030612, 532059, 1053615, 1053620)
 

Planner Kevin Eng advised, in response to questions about the proposal to retain a portion of the existing duplex, that the structure had originally been two single family homes which had been joined together to create a duplex, and that intent was to retain and renovate one of the original dwellings.

During the brief discussion which ensued, Committee members expressed support at the efforts of City staff and the applicant to retain all but one of the existing trees on the property.  Reference was made to the removal of the one tree, and questions were raised about whether staff followed up with developers to ensure that those trees which were removed, were replaced.  Advice was given that Development Permit Guidelines permit staff to pursue the matter with multi-family developments more so than with single-family projects. 

Mr. Erceg noted that a referral report on tree removal from private properties would be submitted to Committee in the near future and would be addressing some of these issues. 

It was moved and seconded

That Bylaw No. 7575, for the rezoning of 10240/10242 Bird 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 PATRICK COTTER ARCHITECT FOR REZONING AT 10200, 10220 AND 10222 NO. 1 ROAD FROM SINGLE-FAMILY HOUSING DISTRICT, SUBDIVISION AREA E (R1/E) TO A NEW TOWNHOUSE DISTRICT (R2 0.6)
(RZ 02-221885 - Report:  Aug. 18/03, File No.:  8060-20-7509/7511/7578/7579/7580) (REDMS No. 1041383, 1055753, 1045027, 1045014, 1055036)

Mr. Erceg, accompanied by Ms. Beran, advised that since the referral of the original application from the May 20^th, 2003 Public Hearing, the application had been expanded to include two additional properties. 

He advised that many of the issues considered at the Public Hearing had been concerned with the proposal to construct a lane, loss of vegetation and building height, and had subsequently been addressed by eliminating the lane which alleviated the pressure to remove the vegetation, and by restricting the building height for some buildings to two storeys.  He stated that staff were recommending that the revised application be forwarded to Public Hearing.

Mr. Mike Barnsley, of 4093 Cavendish Drive, referred to correspondence (dated August 24^th, 2003) which he had submitted regarding the proposed application.  (A copy of the correspondence is attached as Schedule A and forms part of these minutes.)  Mr. Barnsley recognized and expressed appreciation for the efforts of City staff and the developer in addressing many of the concerns raised by area residents, however, he indicated that he did not support the application for personal reasons.  He stated that he realized that the project was the redevelopment of properties along an arterial road and was part of the long term planning process to convert single-family housing to multi-family developments.  Mr. Barnsley questioned however when the decision would be made that enough was enough, and whether this project was needed for this particular location.

In response, Ms. Beran noted that specific concerns had been resolved the hedge would be retained, the laneway would not be constructed and the height of the buildings had been established at two storeys.  With respect to redevelopment along arterial roads, Mr. Erceg stated that the purpose was to remove individual driveways and thereby reducing the number of access points on an arterial road.  With respect to population projections in the City's Official Community Plan and the Regional Context Statement, advice was given that even with the redevelopment of properties fronting arterial roads, the City would not surpass its population projections in 2021.

Mr. Barnsley spoke further on the goal of the arterial road policy, which was to remove driveways from such roads, commenting that it seemed more likely that there would be more traffic and congestion resulting from one driveway servicing 33 homes, rather than from three driveways for six single-family dwellings.  He also provided information on studies undertaken in the United States which indicated that homes which abutted rear lanes were more likely to be vandalized.  In response, Ms. Beran advised that consultation with the local RCMP had indicated that was not the case.

In answer to further questions, advice was given that the Arterial Road Redevelopment Policy endeavoured to focus population density around neighbourhood shopping centres.

Mr. Patrick Cotter, applicant, indicated that he was available to answer any questions which the Committee might have.

Reference was made by the Chair to the petition signed by 27 local residents who were opposed to the proposed rezoning, and he questioned staff as to how these individuals would be advised of the upcoming Public Hearing.  As a result, the following motion was introduced:

It was moved and seconded

That the twenty-seven individuals who signed the petition submitted by Mr. Mike Barnsley as part of his submission dated August 24^th, 2003, be included in the notification process for the Public Hearing on this matter.

CARRIED

In response to a question about a request made on the petition that the developer be required to maintain all the existing trees and hedges on the eastern boundary of the property, Mr. Cotter confirmed that all the existing trees and hedges would be retained.

It was moved and seconded

(1)

That Bylaw No. 7509, which was to amend the Steveston Area Plan by re-designating 10200 No. 1 Road from Institutional to Multiple Family, BE ABANDONED.
 

(2)

That Bylaw No. 7511, which was to introduce a new Townhouse District (R2 0.6) zone and to rezone 10200 No. 1 Road from Single-Family Housing District, Subdivision Area E (R1/E) to Townhouse District (R2 0.6), BE ABANDONED.
 

(3)

That Bylaw No. 7578, to re-designate 10200 No. 1 Road from Institutional to Multiple Family, and 10220 and 10222 No. 1 Road from Single Family to Multiple Family, on the Land Use Map in Schedule 2.4 of Official Community Plan Bylaw No. 7100 (Steveston Area Plan), be introduced and given first reading.
 

(4)

That Bylaw No. 7578, having been considered in conjunction with:
 

(a)

the City's Financial Plan and Capital Program;

(b)

the Greater Vancouver Regional District Solid Waste and Liquid Waste Management Plans;
 

is hereby deemed to be consistent with said program and plans, in accordance with Section 882(3)(a) of the Local Government Act.
 

(5)

That Bylaw No. 7578, having been considered in accordance with the City Policy on Consultation During OCP Development, is hereby deemed not to require further consultation.
 

(6)

That Bylaw No. 7580, to introduce a new Townhouse District (R2 0.6) zone be introduced and given first reading.
 

(7)

That Bylaw No. 7579, to rezone 10200, 10220 and 10222 No. 1 Road from Single-Family Housing District, Subdivision Area E (R1/E) to Townhouse District (R2 0.6), be introduced and given first reading.
 

Prior to the question being called, the developer was thanked for taking positive action to address the concerns of the area residents.  Cllr. Howard also commented to Mr. Barnsley about the possible intrusiveness of a large single-family home which would not face the same restrictions as a multi‑family development.

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

8.

RICHMOND COMMUNITY SERVICES CENTRE, HOUSING & EMERGENCY SHELTER PROJECT PROGRESS REPORT & SCPI APPLICATION
(Report:  Aug. 25/03, File No.:  4057-20-RCSC2) (REDMS No. 1053242, 934846, 989437)

The Manager, Policy Planning,  Terry Crowe, indicated that he had nothing more to add.  Considerable discussion then ensued among Committee members and staff on the proposal, during which the following concerns and issues were addressed:

how the amount of the proposed square footage for each agency to be included within the building had been determined; and how it would be determined if a commercial, a training outlet, or a use associated with one of the partners would be located on the ground floor

who would be responsible for management of the project

the need to ensure that the proposed building design and space provided the flexibility to offer various options with respect to entrance views and access to the building from the street

the approval of funding for the project, and whether there would be any financial implications to the City in the future

how the social service community agencies to be located in the building had been selected

the need to make the building very attractive and have high urban design standards

the need to examine the Caring Place model

the need to ensure that the new building and its functions did not compete with Caring Place and other similar facilities

the financial stability of the social service community agencies proposed for inclusion within the new building; and the need to ensure that occupants of the facility were financially stable so that the City would not incur unnecessary costs

the need to include a statement in the documentation which would clearly set out the degree of participation and financial contribution by the City in the project

the need to ensure that the future operating costs of the building were clearly defined to ensure that these costs did not become too cumbersome for the occupants.
 

During the discussion, Committee members offered their support for this project.

It was moved and seconded

That Council:

(1)

Endorse the SCPI (Supporting Communities Partnership Initiative) funding application to design, develop and construct the Richmond Community Services Centre, Housing & Emergency Shelter Project,  and as presented in the SCPI application (Attachment A to the report dated August 25^th, 2003, from the Manager, Policy Planning),
 

(2)

Request the Greater Vancouver Housing Corporation to contribute funds for the development of affordable housing units as part of the Richmond Community Services Centre, Housing and Emergency Shelter Project.
 

Prior to the question on the motion being called, staff were requested to include in the feasibility study, a statement which would protect the City against increasing costs.

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

9.

MANAGERS REPORT

(a)

Mr. Erceg provided information on a workshop to be put on by staff for the Greater Vancouver House Builders Association on Tuesday, September 9^th, 2003 to provide useful tips and information on the development process.  A brief discussion ensued, during which the suggestion was made that the notes from the workshop be posted on the City's web site.
 

(b)

Mr. Crowe advised that the final revisions were being made to the Fraser River Port Authority Accord, and that the report on this matter would soon be submitted to Committee.

ADJOURNMENT

It was moved and seconded

That the meeting adjourn (5:20 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, September 3^rd, 2003.

_________________________________

_________________________________

Councillor Bill McNulty
Chair

Fran J. Ashton

Executive Assistant City Clerks Office