MINUTES

1.

It was moved and seconded

That the minutes of the meeting of the Planning Committee held on Wednesday, April 19^th, 2006, be adopted as circulated.

CARRIED

NEXT COMMITTEE MEETING DATE

2.

The next meeting of the Committee will be held on Tuesday, May 16^th, 2006, (tentative date) at 4:00 p.m. in the Anderson Room.

URBAN DEVELOPMENT DIVISION

3.

APPLICATION BY RAV BAINS FOR REZONING AT 10271 BIRD ROAD FROM SINGLE-FAMILY HOUSING DISTRICT, SUBDIVISION AREA E (R1/E) TO SINGLE-FAMILY HOUSING DISTRICT, SUBDIVISION AREA B (R1/B)

(RZ 06-330144 - Report: April 19^th, 2006, File No.:  12-8060-20-8065) (REDMS No. 1800367, 1621383, 1800422)

Mr. Jean Lamontagne, Director of Development, commented that the application was being fast tracked, that it complied with the current lot size policy for the Area, and that one boulevard tree would be removed. The applicant will work with Parks for replacement.

It was moved and seconded

That Bylaw No. 8065, for the rezoning of 10271 Bird 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

4.

APPLICATION BY 450470 BC LTD. FOR REZONING AT 4840 GARRY STREET FROM SINGLE-FAMILY HOUSING DISTRICT, SUBDIVISION AREA E (R1/E) TO SINGLE-FAMILY HOUSING DISTRICT, SUBDIVISION AREA A (R1/A)

(RZ 06-329556 - Report: April 10, 2006, File No.: 12-8060-20-8064) (REDMS No.1799628, 822951, 1799584)

Councillor Linda Barnes declared a possible conflict of interest and excused herself from discussion of this project.

In discussion, Committee noted appreciation regarding the inclusion of the GPS map in the report.

It was moved and seconded

That Bylaw No. 8064, for the rezoning of 4840 Garry Street from “Single-Family Housing District, Subdivision Area E (R1/E)” to “Single-Family Housing District, Subdivision Area A (R1/A)”, be introduced and given first reading.

CARRIED

5.

LANE ESTABLISHMENT AND ARTERIAL ROAD REDEVELOPMENT REVIEW/IMPLEMENTATION

(Report: 08-4105-00/Vol 01, File No.: 12-8060-20-8063; XR: 6360-00) (REDMS No. 1807712)

Mr. Jean Lamontagne, Director of Development, explained that the report referred to Bylaw No. 8063, which contained current Council approved policies, and that the purpose was to include it in the amendment to the Official Community Plan.

Mr. Holger Burke, Development Coordinator, referencing maps, photo presentation boards and a model, provided rationale regarding the Lane Establishment and Arterial Road Redevelopment Policies and introduced landscaping guidelines for single-family residential and coach house rezoning applications along an arterial road. He also referred to the design restrictions for multi-family developments noting new setback requirements to adjacent developments.

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

·            

After the development process was complete any added planting materials to city property would be at the cost of the city;

·            

A planting plan was required to ensure that the types of trees used would not be invasive;

·            

It was preferable that shrubs be planted on the inside of the fence and that they be low growing varieties in order to allow views from the house to the road and vice versa;

·            

Planning could put this information in a brochure that could be made available to developers and the public;

·            

Steveston Highway was a logical arterial road to allow densification, and quite often backyards faced on to the highway;

·            

The bylaw may be applicable in future redevelopment. The areas that have been identified are conceptual and in some areas it might be difficult for developers to amass enough properties;

·            

No. 2 Road south of Steveston Highway could be upgraded to major arterial, however, there was a recent application for a two lot subdivision which neighbours were opposing;

·            

There has been input from stakeholders but they have not been consulted on the final Bylaw contents. Staff will take it under consideration to do so;

·            

A registered landscape architect would be required in order that inspections be carried out by the professional rather than the onus being on the city;

·            

Lane charges have been made in one instance to date and engineering will be assessing costs; and

·            

One drawback to the Bylaw is that some developers with lots mid-block will not have access to lanes.

It was moved and seconded

(1)

That Bylaw No. 8063, proposing text amendments to Schedule 1 of Official Community Plan Bylaw 7100 to implement the review of the Lane Establishment and Arterial Road Redevelopment Policies, be introduced and given first reading.

(2)

That Bylaw No. 8063, having been considered in conjunction with:

(a)

the City’s Financial Plan and Capital Program; and

(b)

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

be 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. 8063 not be referred to any other agencies under the City Policy on Consultation during OCP Amendment because it is consistent with and clarifies the existing Official Community Plan.

(4)

That, subject to the adoption of Bylaw No. 8063, the following policies be rescinded:

(a)

Arterial Road Redevelopment Policy 7017;

(b)

Lane Establishment Policy 5038; and

(c)

Revised Interim Strategy for Managing Rezoning Applications During the Review of the Lane Establishment and Arterial Road Redevelopment Policies.

CARRIED

6.

MANAGER’S REPORT

(1)

Affordable Housing

Mr. Holger Burke, Development Coordinator, advised that consultants have been hired and that feedback from two stakeholder meetings has been exciting in nature. A public open house would be scheduled later in May 2006.

In response to queries from Committee, staff advised that:

•

The consultants would be working on an interim strategy in regard to ‘hot’ issues and a completion date for the entire project was the end of the year; and

•

One of the first items to be addressed would be market assessment (demand/supply).

(2)

City Centre Plan

Mr. Joe Erceg, General Manager, Urban Development Division, referenced the City Centre Plan Workshop held May 1, 2006, and advised that another meeting would be scheduled in order to complete the agenda. Committee was assured that information would remain in-camera until staff was directed otherwise.

Staff was requested to research two 1980 architectural city centre concepts (one from Bruno Freschi Architects) showing a grouping of civic buildings on the site adjacent to City Hall.

(3)

Steveston Study

Mr. Terry Crowe, Manager, Policy Planning, advised that five consultant proposals were under review. It was anticipated that a decision would be made within a week.

(4)

Official Community Plan/Liveable Region Strategic Plan Review

Mr. Terry Crowe, Manager, Policy Planning, reported on a meeting in regard to what was meant by a ‘complete community’ held April 28, 2006. He explained that in the Liveable Region Strategic Plan (LRSP) the community model was one in which residents could live, work and play, which Richmond had responded well to. It was noted that a workshop in regard to the Official Community Plan would focus on growth strategies.

Committee commented that the industrial plan was of interest and that more information was required in regard to visible and ‘invisible’ industries.

Mr. Crowe commented on the growth concentration areas and possible limitations due to the flood plain. He observed that there were other natural hazards throughout the lower mainland.

In response to questions from Committee, it was advised that:

•

Richmond has a Memorandum of Understanding regarding growth, seismic and flood proofing; once the studies are completed due diligence to maximise growth potential will have been exhibited;

•

The LRSP was approved by all members of the GVRD; and

•

The GVRD has no authority over land use.

(5)

Other

Mr. Joe Erceg, General Manager, Urban Development Division, reported the resignation of the Urban Development Institute liaison to Richmond and provided an update on RAV. He advised that there were improvements in terms of vertical and horizontal alignments of the guidelines, and expressed concern about the lack of detailed drawings for the station design. It was cautioned that there had been no commitment to incorporating retail components into the stations and that once the project had been presented to the Development Panel, the city would have no recourse but to accept the design.

In response to questions from Committee, it was advised that:

•

Staff was anticipating drawings that would incorporate the design principles showing how safety features would be achieved; and,

•

Overheads from a recent workshop were available for review.

ADJOURNMENT

It was moved and seconded

That the meeting adjourn (5:15 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, May 2^nd, 2006.

________________________________

_________________________________

Councillor Harold Steves
Chair

Vivian Guthrie, Recording Secretary

Raincoast Ventures Ltd.