MINUTES

1.

It was moved and seconded

That the minutes of the meeting of the Planning Committee held on Tuesday, November 2^nd, 2004, be adopted as circulated.

CARRIED

NEXT COMMITTEE MEETING DATE

2.

The next meeting of the Committee will be held on Tuesday, December 7^th, 2004, at 4:00 p.m. in the Anderson Room.

URBAN DEVELOPMENT DIVISION

3.

WEST CAMBIE PLAN: PROPOSED PREFERRED LAND USE OPTION

(Report:  Nov. 5/04, File No.:   ) (REDMS No. 1351757)

The Manager, Policy Planning, Terry Crowe, provided information on the development of the preferred land use option, and used display boards to explain the option “A Complete and Balanced Community” in detail.  He also reviewed the process which would be followed if the staff recommendation was adopted by Council.

Discussion then ensued among Committee members on:

§           

the need to consider a community centre and recreation facilities in the area, possibly near the school facility; whether discussions had been held with the School Board regarding the concept plan; also, how much property was owned by both the School Board and the City within this area

§           

whether noise mitigation measures would be mandatory for low density developments

§           

the inclusion of Wal-Mart or any other ‘big box’ stores in the potential development of the area

§           

the feasibility of including higher density housing in the concept plan to assist in providing amenities

§           

the feasibility of including affordable and/or accessible housing

§           

the question of whether the greenways were linked to each other; and the provision of trails and a green plan

§           

the timing of the preparation of an implementation plan to support the proposed area plan

§           

the need to balance jobs and housing within the concept

§           

the need to consider additional green space within specific areas of the concept plan

§           

the feasibility of including residential developments with smaller floor spaces

§           

the question of whether there would be sufficient students within the catchment area to support a new school

§           

the question of whether the concept plan provided ‘liveable space’

§           

the feasibility of providing indoor amenity areas for children, as well as outdoor play areas

§           

the need to consider an appropriate mix of social and accessible housing, as well as secondary suites, within the concept plan

§           

the impact to the concept plan if residents living within the proposed green space or whose properties were on potential streets, and did not want to sell.

During the discussion, questions were raised about whether the City Centre boundaries should be expanded.  

Comments were made during the discussion about (i) whether the concept plan would meet the needs of existing and future residents; and (ii) the feasibility of incorporating the big box store design within a compact urban setting, and at the same time, ensuring that the result did not include a large open parking lot.

Reference was made to the Centre Point and Lions Point developments, (highrise towers with indoor amenity areas), and the comment was made that similar developments should be considered for the West Cambie area.

Mr. Ray Stolberg, of 9540 Odlin Road, referred to the proposed ‘community institutional’ area and commented that he felt that (i) the proposed park was in the wrong location; and (ii) the size of the school was restricted because of its proposed location.

Mr. Vijay Sidhu, of 9211 Odlin Road, stated that he was encouraged that many of the big issues, including the proposed Wal-Mart store and airport noise problems, had been addressed; however, he was concerned that too many components were being included in the concept plan.  He suggested that more emphasis should be placed on economics.  With reference to the provision of indoor amenities for those people living within an apartment or other residential building, Mr. Sidhu stated that taking into account individual requests would not result in another plan.

Mr. Lau, a resident of the area, expressed agreement with statements made earlier that higher density residential should be considered.  He questioned the purpose of the proposed Environmentally Sensitive Area (ESA), and information was provided that the area would remain as green space and provide a home to habitat.

A brief discussion ensued during which Mr. Lau commented that the value of the land had to be considered and whether residents would be willing to sell their properties. 

Mr. John Wong submitted a petition signed by 156 area residents who were opposed to a proposed Jamatkhana and Ismali Centre in the area of Cambie Road and Odlin Road.  However, he was advised by the Chair that the rezoning application was not being considered at this time, and that he had to keep his comments relative to the Alexandra Area Land Use Plan.  The Chair indicated that the petition would be put on file until such time as the rezoning application came forward.

Mr. Wong stated that the area needed more commercial and multi-family dwellings as this would help to resolve local housing problems.  He added that there should be no restrictions placed on the size of the school; that there be no more ‘light industrial’ in the area, and advised that he supported the concept of housing over street front retail stores, which would allow people to work downstairs and live upstairs.

It was moved and seconded

That the West Cambie Proposed Preferred Land Use Option, (as identified in the report dated November 5, 2004, from the Manager, Policy Planning),  be presented to the community for feedback.

Prior to the question on the motion being called, information was provided that the open houses would be held on December 9^th, 2004 at the East Richmond Community Hall, and on December 11^th, 2004, at City Hall.

Questions were raised about whether the comments made by the Committee and the delegations relating to the provision of affordable and accessible housing, including the possibility of secondary suites, would be included in the concept.  As well, options for Development Cost Charges or other charges to fully fund the concept so that community centres and recreation facilities could be accomplished.  Staff were also asked to review land which the City might wish to acquire for social housing, etc.

The suggestion was made during the discussion that staff consider extending the ESA area further west, and eliminate the mixed use (orange) area which extends into the ES area.

The General Manager, Urban Development, Joe Erceg, advised that adoption of the recommendation would allow staff to present the concept to the public.  He further advised that all the concerns expressed by Committee members and the delegations would be addressed as part of this public consultation process. 

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

4.

(RZ 03-231923 - Report:  Oct. 12/04, File No.:  12-8060-20-7648/7649/7759) (REDMS No. 1344540, 1349531, 1349288)

Discussion ensued among Committee members and staff on this matter.  A question was raised about whether the development would provide accessible housing, and staff were requested to ensure that accessibility was addressed as part of the Development Permit process.

A further question was raised about whether staff were preparing a report relating to accessibility and whether certain requirements should be implemented which would require developments over a certain size to provide a certain number of accessible units.

Discussion ensued on the action being taken by staff to address this issue, during which information was provided that a representative of the Richmond Committee on Disability (RCD) was a member of the Advisory Design Panel and that the Panel had created a sub-committee to deal with this matter; that meetings had been held with the RCD, and that the RCD was meeting with the Urban Development Institute on the same issue.

The question was again asked about the timing of a report to Council on the issue of accessibility, as concern was expressed about the perception that the City was not doing anything on this matter.  As a result, the Chair asked that a memorandum be prepared on the discussions which had been held with the Urban Development Institute.  Staff were requested to also provide statistics on the number of accessible units which had been constructed in Richmond over the past number of years, and to include information on the number of ‘adaptable’ units which had been constructed.

Also briefly discussed was the proposed floor area ratio for the project, and the proposed NIC charges to the developer.

It was moved and seconded

(1)

That Bylaw No. 7648, for a previous application to amend Schedule 2.10B of Official Community Plan Bylaw No. 7100 (Acheson Bennett Sub-Area Plan), to increase the maximum permitted height from 2 1/2 storeys to 3 storeys, BE ABANDONED.

(2)

That Bylaw No. 7649, for a previous application for the rezoning of 7831 Bennett Road from "Single-Family Housing District, Subdivision Area E (R1/E)" to "Comprehensive Development District (CD/120)", BE ABANDONED; and

(3)

That Bylaw No. 7759 to:

(a)

reduce the maximum building height from 12 m (39.4 ft.) to 9 m (29.5 ft.), with a maximum of 2 ½-storeys, on Acheson and Bennett Roads, west of No. 3 Road, in the Acheson Bennett Sub-Area in “Comprehensive Development District (CD/120)”; and

(b)

rezone 7831 Bennett Road from "Single-Family Housing District, Subdivision Area E (R1/E)" to "Comprehensive Development District (CD/120)",

be introduced and given first reading.

CARRIED

5.

APPLICATION BY PAUL LEONG ARCHITECT INC. FOR REZONING 6440, 6460 AND 6480 COONEY ROAD FROM TOWNHOUSE DISTRICT (R2) TO COMPREHENSIVE DEVELOPMENT DISTRICT (CD/133)

(RZ 04-263030 - Report:  Nov. 5/04, File No.:  12-8060-20-7788) (REDMS No. 1312958, 1313033, 1313216)

(Cllr. Howard left the meeting – 5:11 p.m.)

It was moved and seconded

That Bylaw No. 7788, to create “Comprehensive Development District (CD/133”) to permit development of 20 townhouse units, and to rezone 6440, 6460, and 6480 Cooney Road from “Townhouse District (R2)” to “Comprehensive Development District (CD/133)”, be introduced and given first reading.

CARRIED

6.

APPLICATION BY PARMJIT RANDHAWA FOR REZONING AT 6511/6531 WILLIAMS ROAD FROM SINGLE-FAMILY HOUSING DISTRICT, SUBDIVISION AREA C (R1/C) TO TOWNHOUSE DISTRICT (R2 – 0.6)

(RZ 04-272351 - Report:  Oct. 25/04, File No.:  12-8060-20-7840) (REDMS No. 1340554, 1345735, 1343860)

It was moved and seconded

That Bylaw No. 7840 for the rezoning of 6511/6531 Williams Road from “Single-Family Housing District, Subdivision Area C (R1/C)” to “Townhouse District (R2 – 0.6)”, be introduced and given first reading.

CARRIED

7.

APPLICATION BY ALINE GRIMM FOR REZONING AT 8600 HEATHER STREET FROM SINGLE-FAMILY HOUSING DISTRICT, SUBDIVISION AREA B (R1/B) TO SINGLE-FAMILY HOUSING DISTRICT, SUBDIVISION AREA K (R1/K)

(RZ 04-277187 - Report:  Oct. 28/04, File No.:  12-8060-20-7850) (REDMS No. 1348676)

It was moved and seconded

That Bylaw No. 7850, for the rezoning of 8600 Heather Street from “Single-Family Housing District, Subdivision Area B (R1/B)” to “Single-Family Housing District, Subdivision Area K (R1/K)”, be introduced and given first reading.

CARRIED

8.

APPLICATION BY GBL ARCHITECTS GROUP INC. FOR REZONING AT 8080 FRANCIS ROAD FROM ASSEMBLY DISTRICT (ASY) TO COMPREHENSIVE DEVELOPMENT DISTRICT (CD/159)

(RZ 03-243383 - Report:  Oct. 28/04, File No.:  12-8060-20-7860) (REDMS No. 1353384, 1352671, 1352905)

(Cllr. Howard returned to the meeting – 5:14 p.m.)

The Director of Planning, Raul Allueva, reviewed the report with the Committee, and the history of the application. 

Discussion then ensued among Committee members and staff on whether the applicant and/or staff had considered the feasibility of providing assisted housing.  Advice was given that assisted housing would normally be provided through apartment living, however, area residents were totally opposed to any form of apartment building.  Further advice was given that consideration had been given to developing a portion of the complex with low rental housing but this was not possible because of the complicated agreements which would be required.  Concern was also expressed about the funds being collected by the City as part of the Affordable Housing Statutory Reserve Fund, and yet affordable housing was not being provided within the City.

Reference was made to the proposed floor area ratio (FAR) of .7, and questions were raised about what the developer could have been applied for by the developer.  Information was provided that the existing Assembly zoning permitted a FAR of .5, and that an even larger assembly use on the property would provide even more problems with respect to setback and parking issues.

Reference was made to the suggestion that congregate housing be provided, and advice was given that the developer was told that the City could consider congregate housing, however, the developer indicated that he did not wish to pursue that option.  Questions were raised about the feasibility of ‘fast tracking’ the application if the applicant reconsidered his decision not to pursue the provision of congregate housing.  Advice was given that staff would make every effort to ‘fast track’ the application, however, concerns were expressed about the delaying the project.

Cllr. Steves indicated during the discussion that he was not prepared to support the application, noting that assembly properties had always been maintained as assembly properties.  He voiced the opinion that the application should be referred to staff for the development of a project which was more in line with the current assembly designation.

Mr. Julio Gomberoff, architect for the project, reviewed the history of the proposed redevelopment of the subject property with the Committee, during which he noted that congregate housing would require a 3 to 4 storey building, which was totally unacceptable to area residents. 

Mr. Jon Henderson, of 8271 Rideau Drive, accompanied by Ms. Marian Stack, of 8231 Rideau Drive, addressed a number of concerns which area residents had about the proposed development.  A copy of Mr. Henderson’s submission is attached as Schedule A and forms part of these minutes.

Mr. Gomberoff (supplementary presentation), addressed the concerns raised by Mr. Henderson in his submission, through the use of site plans to further explain the proposal.  He referred to Block 5, and spoke about (i) the property setbacks, which were approximately 12 meters from the front property line, and (ii) the adjustments which had been made to the roof line with respect to height and the location of windows.  He also addressed the impact of the units on the adjacent properties with respect to shadowing, which he felt would be a non-issue.

Mr. Massey Morris, representing the Eitz Chiam Congregation, explained that when the church property had been originally purchased, members had also purchased homes in the area so that they would not have to drive on the Sabbath.  He stated that if the synagogue was to move to No. 5 Road, the distance would be too far for the members to walk.  Mr. Morris further advised that the property was too big for the synagogue’s needs and that the funds were needed to redevelop their No. 3 Road facility.

It was moved and seconded

That Bylaw No. 7860, for the rezoning of the easterly portion of 8080 Francis Road from “Assembly District (ASY)” to “Comprehensive Development (CD/159) be introduced and given first reading.

The question on the motion was not called, as Councillor Steves indicated his opposition to the development of ‘assembly’ designated property for market housing.  However, Cllr. Howard commented that the proposal seemed to provide an innovative solution to development problems through the use of large property setbacks, which were greater than the setbacks of adjacent properties, and reduction of the roof line to two stories at the 40 foot mark on the property.

Cllr. Barnes indicated that she would support the application being forwarded to public hearing to hear the opinions of the neighbourhood about the proposal.  However, she indicated that while she credited the developer for finding a solution, she was not convinced that the redevelopment of ‘assembly’ land to market housing was the best solution.  The Chair and Cllr. Sue Halsey-Brandt also supported the application being forwarded to a public hearing.

The question on the motion was then called, and it was CARRIED with Cllr. Steves opposed.

9.

MANAGER’S REPORT

Rezoning vs. Development Permit Issues

The Director of Development, Raul Allueva, advised that staff would be submitting a report to the next meeting on the differences between the rezoning and development permit process. 

Mr. Erceg spoke further on the information which should be provided on each application, and a brief discussion ensued on the information which the Committee wished to see in the reports, and on the format in which this information was presented.

ADJOURNMENT

It was moved and seconded

That the meeting adjourn (5:53 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, November 16^th, 2004.

_________________________________

_________________________________

Councillor Bill McNulty
Chair

Fran J. Ashton
Executive Assistant – City Clerk’s Office