MINUTES

1.

It was moved and seconded

That the minutes of the meeting of the Planning Committee held on Tuesday, February 17^th, 2004, be adopted as circulated.

CARRIED

NEXT COMMITTEE MEETING DATE

2.

The next meeting of the Committee will be held on Tuesday, March 16^th, 2004, at 4:00 p.m. in the Anderson Room.

URBAN DEVELOPMENT DIVISION

11.

RICHMOND INTERCULTURAL ADVISORY COMMITTEE
2004 - 2010 RICHMOND INTERCULTURAL STRATEGIC PLAN AND WORK PROGRAM
(Report:  Feb. 19/04, File No.:  0100-20-RIADI-01) (REDMS No. 1118169, 990753, 979266, 1084258, 1117993, 1110072)

Mr. Balwant Sanghera, Chair of the Richmond Intercultural Advisory Committee (RIAC), introduced the members of the Committee who were present this afternoon.  He then stated that the RIAC was committed to promoting cultural harmony in the City.  Mr. Sanghera then spoke about the report and recommendations, advising that the Committee was seeking the establishment of a designated staff person to deal with multi-cultural issues in the City. 

Mr. Sanghera advised that Richmond was truly a multi-cultural community, however, the RIAC would like to see more interaction as there were still concerns with some groups who did not interact with others.  Mr. Sanghera also spoke briefly about signage issues in certain shopping centres.

Discussion then ensued among Committee members, staff and the delegation on

the proposal for a dedicated staff position and whether, if funding was not provided through partnerships, but instead by the City, other community partners would not fully participate in the implementation of the strategy because of the perception that the City was responsible

whether some of the strategic directions, such as Strategic Direction No. 10 and suggested specific initiatives, were not already being undertaken

with reference to Strategic Direction No. 6, whether the City had an Affirmative Action Committee.
 

During the discussion, the RIAC was congratulated on the preparation of an excellent report, however the suggestion was made that the strategic directions be organized into short, medium and long term goals as it was felt that it would be impossible to accomplish all of these goals in one year.  The suggestion was made that it might be better to have one person at each community centre who could speak more than one language as an alternative to creating a staff position.  Reference was made to Page 9 of the 2004 2010 Intercultural Strategic Plan Strategic Direction No. 6, subsection (b), and the comment was made, because the work was on-going, that the words continue to work with should be inserted at the beginning of that subsection.

(Councillor Barnes entered the meeting at 4:11 p.m., during the above discussion.)

Councillor Barnes, as the Council Liaison to the Richmond Intercultural Advisory Committee, stated that the RIAC had completed a tremendous amount of work.  Reference was made to the proposal for an intercultural centre, and at Cllr. Barnes request, Mr. Sanghera spoke about the need of various small groups to have an office, possibly as a business partnership.  He stated that this proposal needed to be examined in greater detail as it was a very ambitious program.

The Chair, in concluding the discussion, expressed the opinion that more than two youth should be appointed to the Committee.  He also spoke about the request for a staff position, stating that he would have to be convinced that the proposal was a good one. 

It was moved and seconded

That the 2004 2010 Richmond Intercultural Strategic Plan (attached to the report dated February 19^th, 2004, from the Manager, Policy Planning), be received.

CARRIED

It was moved and seconded

That :

(1)

within the 2004 2010 Intercultural Strategic Plan, Vision for Intercultural Life in Richmond, Introduction, Promote, that the order of the first two bullets be reversed; and
 

(2)

the matter of the proposed staff position be referred to staff for review.

CARRIED

10.

RICHMOND INTERCULTURAL ADVISORY COMMITTEE
2003 ANNUAL REPORT AND 2004 WORK PROGRAM AND BUDGET
(Report:  Feb. 19/04, File No.:  0100-20-RIADI-01) (REDMS No. 1119518, 1118836, 1119524)

Councillor Barnes spoke about the recommendation which proposed amending the Terms of Reference to allow the appointment of two youth representatives, expressing the hope that there were others who would be interested in participating on the RIAC, and she encouraged the RIAC to consider appointing interested individuals to a sub-committee.

It was moved and seconded

That the Richmond Intercultural Advisory Committee:
 

(1)

2004 Work Program be approved;
 

(2)

proposed 2004 operating budget of $5,000.00 be considered during the 2004 budget review process; and
 

(3)

Terms of Reference be revised to allow for the appointment of two youth representatives.

CARRIED

3.

APPLICATION BY MATTHEW CHENG FOR REZONING AT 5520 AND 5560 LUDLOW ROAD FROM SINGLE-FAMILY HOUSING DISTRICT, SUBDIVISION AREA E (R1/E) TO SINGLE-FAMILY HOUSING DISTRICT, SUBDIVISION AREA H (R1/H)
(RZ 03-253191 - Report:  Feb. 12/04, File No.:  8060-20-7669) (REDMS No. 1109798, 1124719, 1124799, 280115)
 

It was moved and seconded

That Bylaw No. 7669, for the rezoning of 5520 and 5560 Ludlow Road from Single-Family Housing District, Subdivision Area E (R1/E) to Single-Family Housing District, Subdivision Area H (R1/H), be introduced and given first reading.

CARRIED

4.

APPLICATION BY LES COHEN/AZIM BHIMANI FOR REZONING AT 9871 WILLIAMS ROAD FROM SINGLE-FAMILY HOUSING DISTRICT, SUBDIVISION AREA E (R1/E) TO SINGLE-FAMILY HOUSING DISTRICT (R1 - 0.6)
(RZ 04-255356 - Report:  Feb. 12/04, File No.:  8060-20-7668) (REDMS No. 1122118, 1123486, 1123374)

Councillor Barnes questioned whether there were any problems with drainage within the subject area.  Advice was given that the moratorium on development on Williams Road extended from No. 4 Road to No. 5
Road, and that drainage in the 9000 block of Williams Road was not an issue.

It was moved and seconded

That Bylaw No. 7668, for the rezoning of 9871 Williams Road from Single-Family Housing District, Subdivision Area E (R1/E) to Single-Family Housing District (R1 - 0.6), be introduced and given first reading.

CARRIED

5.

APPLICATION BY W. T. LEUNG ARCHITECTS INC. FOR REZONING 6311 AND 6331 COONEY ROAD FROM TOWNHOUSE DISTRICT (R2) TO DOWNTOWN COMMERCIAL DISTRICT (C7)
(RZ 03-238768 - Report:  Feb. 16/04, File No.:  8060-20-7670) (REDMS No. 1119744, 1124848, 1124827)

Senior Planner/Urban Design, Suzanne Carter-Huffman, accompanied by the Acting Manager Development Applications, Holger Burke, was present to respond to questions.

Discussion ensued among Committee members and staff regarding the proposed rezoning.  Reference was made to the restrictive covenant on the property and whether such a negative covenant could be registered against the property.  Advice was given that such a restriction was permitted.  Further advice was given that City's Law Department had reviewed the proposal and had no concerns about the proposed covenant.

Reference was made to the proposal to include an art gallery within the complex, and Mr. Wing Leung, representing the applicant, and the architect for the project, advised that this space would be made available at no cost to community groups, including children's art programs.  He explained that when the area was not being used, that his client would display his own private art collection to ensure that the space was never vacant.

Mr. Leung further advised that this gallery would be located at ground level in the lobby of the building; would have its own independent access from Cooney Road; that adjacent to the entrance would be an outdoor landscaped garden, and that this area was not intended to be for profit use.

Ms. Carter-Huffman noted that the building design was sensitive to the surrounding area in that the building was not being constructed to its maximum allowable height of 16 storeys.  Reference was made to the concerns of adjacent residents that the project was being constructed too close to nearby buildings and advice was given that there would be 78 feet between buildings. 

Reference was made to the proposed art gallery and to the location of public art at the entrance to the facility, and questions were raised as to how the applicant would deal with vandalism.  Mr. Leung advised, in response, that it was his belief that if public art was well done and well maintained, then people tended to respect the art.  He added that there would be surveillance because of the location of the gallery in the lobby of the facility.

It was moved and seconded

That Bylaw No. 7670, for the rezoning of 6311 and 6331 Cooney Road from Townhouse District (R2) to Downtown Commercial District (C7), be introduced and given first reading.
 

Prior to the question on the motion being called, the developer and the architect were congratulated on the presentation of a proposal which was sensitive to the concerns of the neighbourhood.

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

6.

APPLICATION BY DONALD CHAN FOR REZONING AT 6360 WILLIAMS ROAD FROM SINGLE-FAMILY HOUSING DISTRICT, SUBDIVISION AREA E (R1/E) TO SINGLE-FAMILY HOUSING DISTRICT, SUBDIVISION AREA K (R1/K)
(RZ 03-251977 - Report:  Feb. 5/04, File No.:  8060-20-7667; xref: 4045-00) (REDMS No. 1121442, 1122301, 1122303, 280037, 1121614)
 

It was moved and seconded

(1)

That Lot Size Policy 5417, adopted by Council in December 1988, be rescinded.
 

(2)

That Bylaw No. 7667, for the rezoning of 6360 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.

CARRIED

7.

APPLICATION BY MICHAEL LI FOR REZONING AT 11551, 11571 AND 11591 STEVESTON HIGHWAY FROM SINGLE-FAMILY HOUSING DISTRICT, SUBDIVISION AREA E (R1/E) TO PROPOSED NEW TOWNHOUSE DISTRICT (R2 - 0.6)
(RZ 03-232158 - Report:  Feb. 12/04, File No.:  8060-20-7663, 7547/7571/7664) (REDMS No. 1117257, 1081817, 1110004, 1120335, 1120395, 1111410, 1120338, 1118745)

Planner Jenny Beran was present to respond to questions.

Discussion took place among Committee members and staff on the proposed rezoning, during which in response to questions the following information was provided:

approval of the rezoning application would mean that the existing lane would not be used to provide vehicular access to the subject site because of strong area resident opposition to the use of the lane by the townhouse development; access to the townhouse development would be provided from Steveston Highway; as a result, the applicant had not been asked to upgrade the lane

with regard to the questions about whether this proposal was the best use for the lane and whether allowing access from Steveston Highway was the best use, advice was given that in this instance, the new residents would not be required to travel through the existing single-family residential neighbourhood and that this was what the majority of the single-family residents in this area wanted.
 

During the discussion, reference was made to correspondence received from Edward and Agnes Kroeker, of 11640 Seahurst Road, who expressed concern about the proposal to provide pedestrian access through the townhouse development.  (A copy of the correspondence is on file in the City Clerks Office.)  Information was provided in the letter about the damage which had occurred to his property as a result of irresponsible pedestrian traffic. 

Discussion continued on the use of the lane, during which information was provided that while staff would prefer to have the lane upgraded and better utilized, area residents had indicated that they wished to have the lane remain in its present state.  The comment was made during the discussion that if staff relaxed the City's lane policy requirements for this development, then the same relaxation should occur in other areas.

Further information was provided, in response to further questions, that area residents did not want any access provided to the lane from the townhouse development. 

Ms. Carol Day, of 11631 Seahurst Road, thanked staff for their efforts to make residents happy.  She stated that residents realized that this project was only the first of many more developments for the area, and she suggested that a future driveway running east and west through the development now being considered, could connect with these future developments rather than pursuing the provision of access to the existing lane.

Ms. Day also advised that she was not in favour of the pedestrian walkway, and talked about the garbage and kicked in fence boards which occurred on a regular basis.  She suggested that the developer eliminate this walkway and provide additional visitor parking, or as an alternative, restrict the use of the walkway to townhouse residents only and install a keyed gate to allow access.

Ms. Day spoke about the need for additional visitor parking, noting that residents were concerned that visitors to the townhouse development would be parking on Seahurst Road, which she felt, could not support both resident and visitor parking.  She asked that if visitor parking became an issue, that consideration be given to erecting signs which restricted parking to Seahurst Road residents only. 

Mr. Bob King, of 11500 Seahurst Road, expressed agreement with the statements made by the previous speaker, and thanked staff for accommodating the residents wishes.

Mr. King also expressed agreement with the statements made about the pedestrian walkway, noting that there was a potential for 150 townhouses in this area and expressed concern that the residents of those future townhouses would have access to his neighbourhood.

Mr. King advised that he supported the upgrading of the lane but not at the expense of allowing residents of the townhouses to have access to the lane.

Mr. Malcolm Campbell, of 11580 Seahurst Road, expressed concern about parking on Seahurst Road, noting that employees of the Ironwood Shopping Centre were parking on Seahurst Road and Seaward Gate and using the pedestrian access to reach the shopping centre.  He voiced the opinion that resident permit parking would be needed in the future.

Mr. Campbell also spoke about the upgrading of the existing lane, stating that upgrading of that portion of the lane which abutted the proposed development would result in only 25% of the total lane being upgraded.  He expressed concern that if it was the City's intention to upgrade the lane as the area was redeveloped, then the upgrade would be spread over 25 to 30 years.

Mr. Sukhbir Salh, of 11660 Seahurst Road, expressed concern about the pedestrian walkway, stating that because the City had allowed a vacant lot to be used as a public walkway, that his fence had been vandalized on several occasions and garbage had been strewn around the area. 

He also expressed concern for the safety of teenagers who chose to cross Steveston Highway where the walkway ended rather than at the intersection.  Mr. Salh concluded by stating that by allowing pedestrian access to remain, that the residents of the new development would take the brunt of the crime.

Discussion then ensued among Committee members and staff  on the possible elimination of the pedestrian walkway from the development proposal.  Advice was given that if the walkway was eliminated, then the Development Permit Guidelines for this area would have to be amended to eliminate the walkway requirement.

During the discussion, suggestions were made with respect to improvements which could be made to improve the walkway, such as installing lighting and constructing the walkway in accordance with the principles of CPTED (Crime Prevention Through Environmental Design). 

Reference was made to the parking issues occurring on Seahurst Road and Seaward Gate, and staff suggested that they could again approach the landlords of the Ironwood Shopping Centre about this issue.

Ms. Linda King, of 11500 Seahurst Road, spoke further about upgrading the existing lane, providing information on flooding which occurred in the lane.  She expressed concern that the proposed development, if constructed on higher ground, could cause additional water runoff into the lane.  Ms. King suggested that upgrading of the lane should be considered because of the amount of construction which was occurring in the area. 

Ms. King also spoke about the walkway, and provided information on the problems which occurred with some pedestrians.

A brief discussion ensued, during which information was provided to the delegation on the process to be followed if they wished to have the lane upgraded through the City's Neighbourhood Improvement Program.  Reference was made to the drainage problems which were occurring in the area, and the comment was made that it could be possible to use funds from the City's Development Cost Charges revenue.  However, the comment was also made that the usual practice was to require the developer to pay for the improvements if they were using the land. 

Further information was provided that drainage would be installed around the perimeter of the subject property as part of the development process which might help to address the problem.  Concern was expressed that the residents were being imposed upon by the proposed development and should not be forced to pay for the improvements to the lane.

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

It was moved and seconded

That staff request the developer to address the following issues at the Public Hearing on the rezoning of 11551, 11571 and 11591 Steveston Highway (RZ 03-232158):

(1)

the design and need for the proposed pedestrian walkway;

(2)

visitor parking overflow;

(3)

safety issues with respect to the proposed pedestrian walkway and the unimproved lane;

(4)

the possibility of the developer upgrading the existing lane, particularly to address drainage problems; and

(5)

whether the developer would provide any other funds to the City.

CARRIED

It was moved and seconded

(1)

That Bylaw No. 7663, which would update the Development Permit Guidelines for Area B in the Ironwood Sub-Area Plan, Schedule 2.8A of Official Community Plan Bylaw No. 7100, be introduced and given first reading.
 

(2)

That Bylaw No. 7663, 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. 7663, having been considered in accordance with the City Policy on Consultation During OCP Development, is hereby deemed not to require further consultation.
 

(4)

That Bylaw No. 7547 to introduce a new townhouse district zone R2 0.7 be abandoned.
 

(5)

That Bylaw No. 7571 to rezone 11551, 11571 and 11591 Steveston Highway from Single-Family Housing District, Subdivision Area E (R1/E) to Townhouse District (R2 - 0.7), be abandoned.
 

(6)

That Bylaw No. 7664, to rezone 11551, 11571 and 11591 Steveston Highway from Single-Family Housing District, Subdivision Area E (R1/E) to the Townhouse District (R2 - 0.6), be introduced and given first reading.

CARRIED

8.

APPLICATION FOR A STRATA TITLE CONVERSION BY PACIFIC ARCHITECTURAL INC. FOR THE PROPERTY LOCATED AT 3631 NO. 3 ROAD
(SC 03-250149 - Report:  Feb. 12/04, File No.:  SC 03-250149) (REDMS No. 1120417)

Mr. Burke, in response to questions from Councillor Barnes regarding the strata title conversion, explained that:

the existing owner of the building would be retaining ownership of a number of the strata lots and leasing the lots to tenants

staff did not foresee any change in the maintenance or appearance of the building

a strata-titled building could be successfully redeveloped

the applicant had agreed to give to the City, a 2 metre road dedication for the proposed RAV line, and to place a covenant on the property to require a lane at the rear of that property at the time of redevelopment 

the outdoor area of the Knight & Day restaurant was being eliminated to comply with parking requirements.
 

It was moved and seconded

That the application for a strata title conversion by Pacific Architectural Inc. for the property located at 3631 No. 3 Road be approved upon fulfilment of the conditions agreed to by the applicant (as outlined in the report dated February 12, 2004, from the Acting Manager, Development Applications.)

CARRIED

9.

CHILD CARE DEVELOPMENT BOARD 2003 ANNUAL REPORT AND 2004 WORK PROGRAM
(Report:  Nov. 18/03, File No.:  0100-20-CCDE1-01) (REDMS No. 1094435, 1105661, 1120725)

Ms. Lesley Richardson, and Ms. Sue Graf, Co-Chairs of the Child Care Development Board, introduced Ms. Sreedevi Kuttamkulangarat, a member of the Board to the Committee.  Ms. Richardson advised, in response to questions that both Ms. Agnes Thompson and Ms. Nicky Byres had retired from the Committee. 

A brief discussion ensued, during which the Chair congratulated the delegation on an impressive report.

It was moved and seconded

That the Child Care Development Board proposed 2004 Work Program be approved, and that a letter be sent to the Board thanking Agnes Thompson and Nicky Byres for their many years of service.

CARRIED

10.

MANAGERS REPORT

There was nothing to report.

ADJOURNMENT

It was moved and seconded

That the meeting adjourn (5:32 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, March 2^nd, 2004.

_________________________________

_________________________________

Councillor Bill McNulty
Chair

Fran J. Ashton
Executive Assistant, City Clerks Office