MINUTES

1.

It was moved and seconded

That the minutes of the meeting of the Planning Committee held on Tuesday, March 21^st, 2006, be adopted as circulated.

CARRIED

It was agreed to add two items to the agenda:

Item 10. Property Inspectors; and,

Item 11. Rave Parties.

NEXT COMMITTEE MEETING DATE

2.

The next meeting of the Committee will be held on Wednesday, April 19^th, 2006, at 4:00 p.m. in the Anderson Room.

CHIEF ADMINISTRATIVE OFFICE

3.

CANADA LINE – CAMBIE STATION RENAMING

(Report: Mar. 28/06, File No.:  10-6525-07-04-06 – Vol 01) (REDMS No. 1794439)

In discussion, Committee considered the demographics of the site and suggested that the name ‘Aberdeen Station’ would be readily identifiable in the community and synonymous with economic and population growth.

Mr. Greg Scott, P. Eng., LEED A.P., Director, Major Projects, responded to a query regarding the recommendation to change the name from ‘Cambie Station’, to avoid possible future confusion for users.

It was moved and seconded

That the name “Cambie Station” be changed to “Aberdeen Station”.

CARRIED

PLANNING AND DEVELOPMENT DEPARTMENT

4.

APPLICATION BY GERRY BLONSKI ARCHITECT FOR REZONING 9000 GRANVILLE AVENUE AND 7040 GARDEN CITY ROAD FROM SINGLE-FAMILY RESIDENTIAL DISTRICT, SUBDIVISION AREA F (R1/F) TO COMPREHENSIVE DEVELOPMENT DISTRICT (CD/128)

(RZ 04-271196 - Report: March 7^th, 2006, File No.: 8060-20-7948; 8060-20-8052) (REDMS No. 1500527, 1517542, 1779974)

Mr. Jean Lamontagne, Director of Development, commented that the proposed application complied with the objectives of the Area Plan, and would provide a small corner public space and a road dedication.

In discussion, Committee voiced concerns that a tree survey assessment was not provided for consideration at rezoning. Mr. Lamontagne advised that although a tree survey was on file, a tree assessment was not. Mr. Joe Erceg, General Manager, Urban Division Development, advised that the committee could direct staff to propose an amendment to the Official Community Plan (OCP), to require information regarding trees with the original application.

Staff was requested to provide a ‘GIS’ photographic map of sites in future application reports.

In response to queries from Committee Mr. Lamontagne advised that:

·            

Setbacks are similar to existing projects;

·            

The existing hedge would be retained and improvements made to increase the buffer; and

·            

The interim tree bylaw allows for the protection of the existing trees.

It was moved and seconded

(1)

That Bylaw No. 7948, to reduce the minimum lot size from 0.405 ha
(1 ac.) to 0.16 ha (0.40 ac.) in “Comprehensive Development District (CD/128)”, be introduced and given first reading; and

(2)

That Bylaw No. 8052, for rezoning 9000 Granville Avenue and 7040 Garden City Road from “Single-Family Residential District, Subdivision Area F (R1/F)” to “Comprehensive Development District (CD/128)”, be introduced and given first reading with the proviso that as many existing trees as possible are retained along the perimeter of the site and that appropriate replacement planting be required.

CARRIED

5.

APPLICATION BY HARI AND MOHINDER GILL FOR REZONING AT 5491 WALTON ROAD FROM SINGLE-FAMILY HOUSING DISTRICT, SUBDIVISION AREA E (R1/E) TO SINGLE-FAMILY HOUSING DISTRICT, SUBDIVISION AREA B (R1/B)

(RZ 05-321067 - Report: March 16^th, 2006, File No.: 8060-20-8036) (REDMS No. 1753100, 1782190, 1094880, 1782113)

Mr. Lamontagne described the project to create two single family lots according to Council approved policy, noting that some concerns from the neighbourhood had been received in regards to parking.

In response to queries from Committee, Mr. Lamontagne advised that:

·            

There are two sites on the same block that received rezoning to R1/B; this lot is larger and would provide 12.5 m frontage and more floor space;

·            

The parking provision in the previous subdivision is still to be investigated;

·            

The house to the west of the site is approximately 10-years old;

·            

The majority of the lots in the area have the capability of becoming R1/B and some would require consolidation to do so;

·            

The area is designated by Council policy but not zoned R1/B; there was a rigorous review of the policy in 2003;

·            

The applicant will be required to provide a parking plan for the public hearing; and

·            

The width of Walton Road meets city standards.

It was moved and seconded

That Bylaw No. 8036, for the rezoning of 5491 Walton Road from “Single-Family Housing District, Subdivision Area E (R1/E)” to “Single-Family Housing District, Subdivision Area B (R1/B)”, be introduced and given first reading.

CARRIED

6.

APPLICATION BY RAV BAINS FOR REZONING AT 8400 HEATHER STREET FROM SINGLE-FAMILY HOUSING DISTRICT, SUBDIVISION AREA B (R1/B) TO SINGLE-FAMILY HOUSING DISTRICT, SUBDIVISION AREA A (R1/A)

(RZ 05-328448 - Report: March 14^th, 2006, File No.: 8060-20-8054) (REDMS No. 1781094, 1781246)

Mr. Lamontagne offered that the report related to a lot subdivision, noting that similar developments existed in the area along Heather Street.

In response to queries from Committee Mr. Lamontagne advised that:

·            

The Parks’ Department has reviewed the trees to be removed from the boulevard and anticipates they will be replaced with better varieties; and

·            

R1/A zoning allows a 9-metre lot width. R1/K zoning allows a 10-metre width.

It was moved and seconded

That Bylaw No. 8054, for the rezoning of 8400 Heather Street from “Single-Family Housing District, Subdivision Area B (R1/B)” to “Single-Family Housing District, Subdivision Area A (R1/A)”, be introduced and given first reading.

CARRIED

7.

MCLENNAN SOUTH SUB-AREA ROAD IMPLEMENTATION STRATEGY FINANCING EQUITY

(Report: March 20^th, 2006, File No.: 08-4045-20-10-MS) (REDMS No. 1773793)

Mr. Lamontagne provided an outline of the streets to which Development Cost Charge (DCC) credits would be applied.

In discussion, Committee expressed concern in regard to the equity of expenses and DCC credits. It was also a concern that future development might be inhibited, should a latecomer agreement be instigated.

In response to queries from Committee staff advised that:

·            

DCC credits cannot be applied to all roads; in some cases DCC rebates would be available. The City of Richmond should not fund the roads and servicing for new developments;

·            

The project is similar in equity to that achieved in the West Cambie example, although the lots in this site run east/west, rather than north/south;

·            

In meeting the Provincial requirements, achieving absolute equity is an elusive goal. Not all developments have equal marketing opportunities (corner lots, for instance, are in a preferable position);

·            

Consideration of reasonable density increases could be used to offset inequality through the public approval process. Other considerations include keeping right-of-ways to the minimum, dedication of land, and building half-roads; and

·            

In general, staff would support the conditions found in Option 2 of the report regarding latecomer agreements. Latecomer agreements have high administration costs and developers would have some risk in not being able to recoup their initial investments. It would be possible to attach an administration fee to the latecomer agreement. There could be liability issues for the City of Richmond.

Mr. Patrick Cotter, Architect, representing an application regarding 7720 Bridge Street at Keefer, advised that they would fully support latecomer agreements to offset costs, in addition to the DCC credits for the dedicated roadway. He requested clarification of the non-monetary compensations such as increased density, relaxed setbacks, and site coverage, etc. A particular concern was to move the alignment of Keefer Avenue. Staff responded that realigning Keefer Avenue would adversely affect properties to the north, noting that a final decision would be made in the future.

Mr. Joe Erceg, General Manager, Urban Development Division, commented that many of the issues were already under discussion and that it would continue to be an interactive process between the staff and the applicant with recommendations to the Planning Committee.

Mr. Amar Sandhu, Developer for the application at 7511 Bridge Street, expressed concern as to the length of time it was taking to process the application. He noted that it was an unexpected hardship to dedicate land both to the north/south road and east/west road, while also providing upgrades to the servicing for the project’s frontage and along the north/south road. Committee was advised that these costs were in addition to a letter of condition he had received from the City of Richmond and that it was unfair to attach new and unexpected expenses to the project.

In response to a Committee query, staff advised that the east/west road was planned for the convenience of the developer.

In response to Committee concern Mr. Lamontagne reviewed the practice in other communities, where the cost of local roads and services were at the expense of the developers, noting that in some instances latecomer agreements were in place.

It was moved and seconded

(1)

That latecomer agreements be offered to rezoning applicants having to dedicate and construct the following new roads east of Ash Street in the McLennan South Sub-Area Plan:

(a)

the north-south local road between Ash Street, Bridge Street, Keefer Avenue and development; and,

(b)

where the full width of Keefer Avenue, Sills Avenue or Bennett Road is required; and

(2)

That administration costs of the latecomer agreements be incorporated into the fees.

CARRIED

8.

ENHANCED PUBLIC ART PROGRAM MANAGEMENT

(Report: March 23^rd, 2006, File No.: 11-7000-09-01; xr 05-1810-01) (REDMS No. 1790125, 1795141)

Mr. Terry Crowe, Manager, Policy Planning provided an overview of the success of the Public Art Program, and the private sector funding that was available for a temporary full-time Public Art Co-ordinator. He further explained that the proposal is to transfer the program and funds to the Recreation and Cultural Services budget who would hire a qualified person for the position to manage both public and non-public art priorities.

In discussion, Committee commented on the increased interest and exponential growth of activity in the public art programs, noting that it was a tribute to the commission and previous staff. Additionally, the bonus of receiving private funding was recognized.

The synopsis of public art works was appreciated, and clarification regarding non-public art projects was sought. Kate Sparrow, Director, Recreation and Cultural Services, referenced non-public art examples including the Arts Strategy, Richmond Art Gallery, Arts Centre Outreach Programs, and community art projects such as the Easter Twin Gathering Place.

A question was raised as to how the contract for the proposed Oval Public Art Program would impact the position. As well, in a response to a query regarding formulas for donations, Mr. Erceg noted that the West Cambie project approach could be a template of a strategy where there would be distinct parameters for Affordable Housing and Child Care programs, but that Public Art would remain on a voluntary basis.

Mr. Crowe commented that a Public Art Co-ordinator is needed because of the number of Public Art projects being managed. Ms. Sparrow noted that the position would assist the implementation of other major projects such as the Oval Public Art Program and the No. 3 Road Public Art Program. She advised that the goal was to enhance and maintain the quality of the Public Art Program

Ms. Willa Walsh, Art Commission member, commented that the Public Art Program had been moving ahead. It was added that the City of Calgary had imposed mandatory contributions, which created remarkable results. Ms. Walsh reported that top ranked artists are working on current Richmond public art projects and that the Commission supported a permanent full-time position.

It was moved and seconded

That, (as per the report dated March 23, 2006 from the Manager, Policy Planning and the Director, Recreation and Cultural Services, entitled: Enhanced Public Art Program Management), Option 2 – Enhanced Public Art [PA] Program Management, be approved which includes:

(1)

In 2006, transferring the full responsibility for the Public Art Program, from the Policy Planning Department, to the Recreation and Cultural Services Department (RCS),

(2)

In 2006, RCS employing a qualified permanent, full time Public Art Co-ordinator, to manage the Public Art Program;

(3)

For 2006, allocating $93,000 from any 2005 Surplus, to pay for the Co-ordinator,

(4)

For 2007 and onward, RCS staff are to:

§         

encourage a wide range of community, private and stakeholder involvement in and contributions to the Public Art Program,

§         

with Development Application staff, negotiate with developers who voluntarily participate in the Public Art Program, to ensure that sufficient funds are available, annually, to fund a Public Art Co-ordinator, primarily from non-City contributions;

§         

as part of annual Public Art Program budgets, prepare annual proposals, to finance the Public Art Co-ordinator, primarily from non-City contributions;

§         

over time, when the City’s Oval and No 3 Road - Canada Line Public Art Programs and Implementation Strategies are brought forward, identify longer term funding options for a Public Art Co-ordinator and public art projects.

CARRED

9.

MANAGER’S REPORT

Mr. Erceg advised that the 2006 projects underway included the City Centre Plan Review, the Steveston Heritage Study, the GVRD Liveable Region, and the Official Community Plan Update.

It was reported that the Affordable Housing Strategy had been sent to five different consultant firms and responses had been received from an additional three consultants. It was anticipated that a consultant would be hired in April 2006 and the first stakeholder meeting would be held in the first week of May 2006. In response to a query, it was advised that an assessment of demand and supply would be one of the first priorities.

Staff was requested to schedule a workshop with the Committee regarding the City Centre Area Plan and OCP, and an update on the Liveable Region Strategy, preferably on two evenings early in May 2006.

It was further reported that the Terms of Reference for the Steveston Village Heritage Conservation have been distributed to selected consultants, and that the next step would be public open houses.

Mr. Crowe advised that Richmond was continuing with technical work on the Official Community Plan with plans to take proposals to the public in 2007. Workshops would be an integral part of determining target growth population and identifying goals and actions necessary to implement the Liveable Region Plan.

10.

PROPERTY INSPECTIONS

Councillor Sue Halsey-Brandt acknowledged receipt of a letter from the Canadian Association of Home and Property Inspectors, and queried whether Council would have a role in assessing accountability.

It was moved and seconded

That the concerns contained in the letter from the Canadian Association of Home and Property Inspectors dated March 28, 2006 regarding the accreditation of property inspectors be referred to staff for a report to the Planning Committee.

CARRIED

11.

RAVE PARTIES

Councillor Sue Halsey-Brandt referenced a letter received concerning a Rave Party held in March 2006 in Richmond.

Staff advised that there was a permit process in place and that a discussion regarding concerns about Rave Parties was scheduled for the next Community Safety Committee meeting.

ADJOURNMENT

It was moved and seconded

That the meeting adjourn (6:22 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, April 4^th, 2006.

________________________________

_________________________________

Councillor Harold Steves
Chair

Vivian Guthrie, Recording Secretary

Raincoast Ventures Ltd.