MINUTES

1.

It was moved and seconded

That the minutes of the meeting of the Planning Committee held on Tuesday, October 28^th, 2003, be adopted as circulated.

CARRIED

NEXT COMMITTEE MEETING DATE

2.

The next meeting of the Committee will be held on Tuesday, November 18^th, 2003, at 4:00 p.m. in the Anderson Room.

URBAN DEVELOPMENT DIVISION

3.

PROVISION FOR SIGNAGE AMENDMENTS IN ZONING & DEVELOPMENT BYLAW 5300

(Report:  Oct. 22/03, File No.:  8060-20-7610) (REDMS No. 1046500, 1046676, 1046439)

The Manager, Zoning, Alan Clark, and David Brownlee, Planner, were present.

It was moved and seconded

That Bylaw No. 7610, to amend Section 703.01(a) of Zoning & Development Bylaw No. 5300, be introduced and given first reading.

CARRIED

4.

ZONING AND DEVELOPMENT BYLAW NO. 5300, AMENDMENT BYLAW NO. 7613

(ZT 03-250034 - Report:  Oct. 20/03, File No.:  8060-20-7613) (REDMS No. 1080708, 1080971, 1080918)

The Manager, Development Applications, Joe Erceg, and Bruce Murray, Development Review Technician, were present.

It was moved and seconded

That Bylaw No. 7613, which amends Zoning & Development Bylaw No. 5300 as it relates to projections into required side yards, be introduced and given first reading.

CARRIED

5.

MCLENNAN SOUTH SUB-AREA PLAN: SINGLE-FAMILY LOT SIZE POLICY

(Report:  October 20/03, File No.:  8060-20-7611) (REDMS No. 1075709, 1080686, 1080687, 1080684)

The Manager, Policy Planning, Terry Crowe, and Suzanne Carter-Huffman, Planner were present.  Mr. Crowe indicated that at the conclusion of the several public meeting process an ideal consensus had not been found and that as a result, the two options before Committee were representative of a balanced interest.

Cllr. S. Halsey-Brandt joined the meeting 4:05 p.m.

Ms. Carter-Huffman then, with a number of graphic displays, reviewed the process to date, the options before Committee, the development potential of the area, and an illustration of what the streetscape might look like should 12m lots be incorporated.  During the review, and in response to questions from Committee, the following information was provided:

-

it is proposed that the boundaries for multi-family development be limited to approximately 80m from Blundell Road and 100m from Granville Avenue;

-

it is anticipated that perceived development/cost inequities facing property owners near the proposed alignments of Sills and Keefer will not require intervention through the planning process as these lots will be highly sought after due to their superior access and timely development opportunities;

-

it is proposed that the alignment of new roads be allowed to be flexible where any deviation from the Circulation Concept contained in the sub-area plan will not result in a net increase in road or significant traffic impacts on residential liveability or character;

-

two lot size options were presented, both of which were indicated to be workable.  The recommended option provides for minimum frontages of 12m (39 ft) throughout the area, while the alternate provides for larger frontages, 18 m (59 ft.) minimum, along Bridge and Ash;

-

staff noted that, while the alternate option most closely reflects the City survey results indicating a preference for large lots along Bridge and Ash, the mix of lot-size designations could encourage speculation, rather than investment in large new homes along Bridge and Ash; 

-

staff noted that the recommended option would result in a mix of lot sizes along Bridge and Ash as redevelopment progresses, but it is anticipated that this process will be gradual and that the proposed design standards for new homes created through subdivision would help to ensure a complementary scale, character, and quality of building and landscape design;

Mayor Brodie joined the meeting during the above presentation 4:08 p.m.

Ms. Carter-Huffman also provided the context of the application before Committee in Item 6. 

Mr. Brad Eshelman, 7731 Bridge Street, indicated that he had been speaking with Ms. Carter-Huffman since February.  Mr. Eshelman distributed, and then reviewed, the results of a survey that he had undertaken in the area, a copy of which is attached as Schedule 1 and forms a part of these minutes.  Mr. Eshelman then requested that Committee consider a third option that would allow development in those areas that could provide smaller lots, which would avoid the speculation indicated.  The concept of greener fronts was favoured, and Mr. Eshelman said that a bylaw or zoning restriction for less paving and more greening would be supported by the neighbourhood.  Mr. Eshelman felt that a desire and need existed for 1/4 acre lots in the area, and that an alternate plan would provide consistency within the neighbourhood and for the development community, whose market was for smaller lots.

Discussion then ensued among Committee members, staff and Mr. Eshelman, that included the following:

-

based on information provided to date by the development community, the development of the backlands would not generate sufficient money to cover the cost of roads;

-

the City survey results indicated that large lots should be located along Bridge and Ash;

-

should large lots be favoured throughout the entire area a further investigation would be required for putting roads through;

-

an agreement that the results of the City survey would be broken into a block by block format, prior to the Public Hearing on the matter;

-

the recommended option could be taken forward to Public Hearing along with additional options for review.  Should an additional option be preferred, an investigation would then be required on such issues as determining the viability of development in the area should the lot size be set at 18m (59 ft) and road construction impacted;

-

the fear felt by some residents that prevented their participation in the survey; and

-

the reasons for relocating a portion of Le Chow as opposed to extending General Currie Road in Item 6.

Mayor Brodie left the meeting 4:55 p.m.

Mr. John Beck, the applicant for Item 6, spoke about the survey that he had conducted as part of his proposed development.  A copy of the survey is attached as Schedule 2 and forms a part of these minutes.  Noting that the difficulties in achieving consensus for the area was common knowledge, Mr. Beck said that he had spent 1 2 hours with each resident included in his survey, and that average sized lots and a heritage character was supported.  The owner of the adjacent property to the north of Mr. Becks proposed development was in support of the project and favoured the removal of some of the dead growth trees in the area.  Mr. Beck said that he was tired of the process of public meetings being influenced by several strong presenters, and further, that no decision has been made.  Mr. Beck also said that it was important to remember that if developers were unable to make money by developing in McLennan South, the roads would not be established and the areas backlands would remain inaccessible. 

Correspondence received on the matter is attached as Schedule 3 and forms a part of these minutes.

It was moved and seconded

(1)

That Official Community Plan Amendment Bylaw No. 7611, to amend Schedule 2.10D (McLennan South Sub-Area Plan) by introducing a number of text and map amendments aimed at permitting medium-sized R1/B-type lots (e.g. 12 m/39 ft. minimum frontage) throughout the area designated for Residential, Historic Single-Family, 2 storeys max., 0.55 FAR, be introduced and given first reading.

(2)

That Bylaw No. 7611, having been considered in conjunction with:

(a)

The City's Financial Plan and Capital Program, and

(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.

(3)

That Bylaw No. 7611, having been considered in accordance with the City Policy on Consultation During OCP Development, is hereby deemed not to require further consultation.

Prior to the question being called Cllr. S. Halsey-Brandt requested, and received, confirmation that both options would be presented at Public Hearing.

The question was then called and it was CARRIED.

6.

APPLICATION BY ELLINS ARCHITECT INC. FOR REZONING AT 7320 BRIDGE STREET FROM SINGLE-FAMILY HOUSING DISTRICT, SUBDIVISION AREA F (R1/F) TO COMPREHENSIVE DEVELOPMENT DISTRICT (CD/139) IN ORDER TO PERMIT A SEVEN LOT SINGLE-FAMILY RESIDENTIAL SUBDIVISION WITH A NEW PARTIAL ROAD ALONG THE NORTHERN BOUNDARY.

(RZ 03-227858 - Report:  October 22/03, File No.:  8060-20-7604) (REDMS No. 1068619, 1083591, 1087124, 1072861, 1073056)

The Manager, Development Applications, Joe Erceg, and Eric Fiss, Planner, were present.

Mr. Beck, in response to a question, said that the relocation of Le Chow provided an advantage in that an intersection was eliminated, and further, that the development of 7 smaller lots was financially more viable due to the significant road costs involved.

Further to this, Mr. Erceg indicated that should Le Chow swing to connect to Bridge a section of ring road would not then be required. 

It was moved and seconded

That Bylaw No. 7604, for the rezoning of 7320 Bridge Street from "Single-Family Housing District, Subdivision Area F (R1/F)" to "Comprehensive Development District (CD/139)", be introduced and given first reading.

CARRIED

7.

REVISED AMENITY SPACE REQUIREMENTS FOR MULTI-FAMILY HOUSING

(Report:  October 9/03, File No.:  8060-20-7591) (REDMS No. 1030646, 1029998, 1063296, 1029952)

The Manager, Policy Planning, Terry Crowe, and Jenny Beran, Planner, were present.  Mr. Crowe said that the current policy, which addressed the requirements of the City for multi-family developments for indoor and outdoor developer owned amenity space, was 10 years old and that discussion had been undertaken with the Urban Design Institute and the Greater Vancouver Home Builders Association.

Ms. Beran reviewed and then responded to questions on the information contained in the report, and provided a chart indicating amenity space requirements as at present, and those that would be required under the revised policy.

During the discussion that ensued further information was provided that:

-

Strata Council action could be undertaken for altering outdoor amenity space which could include the provision of play equipment;

-

the funds placed in the City's Recreation Facility Reserve account would be distributed City wide;

-

the Development Permit process provided an opportunity for a review of the location and function of amenity space;

-

projects intended for adult market housing groups could provide outdoor amenity space of a more passive nature which could then be retro fitted in the future, should circumstances require;

-

the policy revisions would result in the City's requirements being more comparable to other districts;

-

those projects currently in process would continue under the existing policy; and

-

an evaluation of the revised policy would be undertaken in 2004.

Mr. Peter Mitchell, 6271 Anika Crescent, thought the proposal, although excellent, was flawed in that developers on projects of less than 20 units would prefer to contribute to the Cash in Lieu option as opposed to providing space.  Mr. Mitchell suggested that the City look at the possibility of reducing the indoor amenity space for small developments, which could then be useful for provision of guest suites, a recreation facility, individual parties, or day-care conversions, etc. 

It was moved and seconded

(1)

That Official Community Plan Amendment Bylaw No. 7591, which amends the Indoor and Outdoor Amenity Space Guidelines in the Development Permit section of the Official Community Plan Bylaw No. 7100, be introduced and given first reading.

(2)

That Bylaw No. 7591, 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.

(3)

That Bylaw No. 7591, having been considered in accordance with the City Policy on Consultation During OCP Development, is hereby deemed not to require further consultation.

(4)

That the Cash In Lieu of Indoor Amenity Space Policy (Attachment 1 to the report dated July 4, 2003 from the Manager, Policy Planning) be adopted upon final reading of Bylaw No. 7591.

CARRIED

8.

MANAGERS REPORT

The Acting General Manager, Urban Development, Chuck Gale, requested and then responded to feedback received on the Project Why Not Priorities previously distributed to members of Council.  During the discussion reference was made to the Customer Information Cards that will be utilized in the process and suggestions were made for revisions to the cards: namely that to allow us the opportunity to improve our service to you, now and in the future, be deleted from the second sentence and added to the first sentence; and that a bullet format be used.

Cllr. Barnes requested that secondary suites scoping report be separated out from the Affordable Housing project and brought forth.

Cllr. Howard requested that development of the CP right-of-way lands be placed on a list for future consideration, and that any material on the matter be circulated at that time.

The Manager, Development Applications, Joe Erceg, reported on the recent report card issued by the National Association of Industrial & Office Properties (NAIOP), which looked at taxes, Development Cost Charges, permit issuing times etc.  For the first time NAIOP surveyed its membership to determine which municipality is the most open to business.  Of 20 municipalities included in the survey, Richmond ranked as #2. The Committee suggested that staff share this information with the media and consider using it in information for economic development.

ADJOURNMENT

It was moved and seconded

That the meeting adjourn (6:25 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, November4^th, 2003.

_________________________________

_________________________________

Councillor Bill McNulty
Chair

Deborah MacLennan
Administrative Assistant