July 17, 2007 - Minutes
 |
|
Date: |
Tuesday, July 17, 2007 |
|
Place: |
Anderson Room |
|
Present: |
Councillor Harold Steves, Chair Mayor Malcolm D. Brodie (arrived at 4:22 p.m.) |
|
Absent: |
Councillor Bill McNulty |
|
Also Present: |
Councillor Cynthia Chen (arrived at 4:20 p.m.) |
|
Call to Order: |
The Chair called the meeting to order at 4:00 p.m. |
|
|
|
MINUTES |
|
|
1. |
It was moved and seconded |
|
|
|
That the minutes of the meeting of the Planning Committee held on Wednesday, July 4, 2007, be adopted as circulated. |
|
|
|
CARRIED |
|
|
|
NEXT COMMITTEE MEETING DATE |
|
|
2. |
The next meeting of the Committee will be held on Thursday, September 6, at 4:00 p.m. in the Anderson Room. |
|
|
|
PLANNING & DEVELOPMENT DEPARTMENT |
|
|
3. |
(RZ 07-355977 - Report: June 25, 2007, File No.: 12-8060-20-8235) (REDMS No. 2131753, 2136834) |
|
|
|
In response to a query, Jean Lamontagne, Director of Development confirmed that the development proposes up to 10 townhouses per building block. In addition, advice was given that the applicant proposes an outdoor amenity space at a central location on the site and includes an area designed for active children’s plan and an area for passive recreation. |
|
|
|
It was moved and seconded |
|
|
|
That Bylaw No. 8235, to amend to “Comprehensive Development District (CD/164)” to increase the maximum Floor Area Ratio from 0.95 to 0.97 and to the rezone 9351 and 9391 Ferndale Road from “Single-Family Housing District, Subdivision Area F (R1/F)” to “Comprehensive Development District (CD/164)”, be introduced and given first reading. |
|
CARRIED | ||
|
|
4. |
(RZ 07-370956 – Report: June 8, 2007, File No.: 12-8060-20-8265) (REDMS No. 2241441, 2242785) |
|
|
|
Mr. Lamontagne advised that the zoning application complies with the City’s Lane Establishment and Arterial Road Redevelopment Policies since it is a coach house residential development proposal with access to a new municipal lane. |
|
|
|
It was moved and seconded |
|
|
|
That Bylaw No. 8265, for the rezoning of 8500 Francis Road from “Single-Family Housing District, Subdivision Area E (R1/E)” to “Coach House District (R9)”, be introduced and given first reading. |
|
CARRIED | ||
|
|
5. |
(RZ 07365245 - Report: July 12, 2007, File No.: 12-8060-20-8268) (REDMS No. 2254948, 2120501, 2254677) |
|
|
|
Mr. Lamontagne advised that the CD/190 zoning district is tailored to meet the rural park uses intended to occur at the City’s Terra Nova Rural Park. The proposed CD District permits agricultural, horticultural, public park and educational institution uses. The education institution uses do not allow for public or private schools, which offer ordinary, public school system courses. |
|
|
|
Roland Hoegler, 6560 No. 4 Road addressed committee and inquired if the site would go back into the Agricultural Land Reserve (ALR). In response the Chair advised that that possibility might exist in the future. Mr. Hoegler also inquired why this rezoning application was on the Planning Committee’s July 17, 2007 agenda when his own rezoning application regarding property on No. 4 Road, initiated in 2006, had not yet been put before the Planning Committee. In response Terry Crowe, Manager, Policy Planning, advised that after staff has gathered more information with regard to one or more rezoning applications that apply to sites on No. 4 Road, he anticipates that September 2007 Planning Committee agendas will include No. 4 Road rezoning applications. |
|
|
|
In conclusion, Mr. Hoegler stated that the City’s signage regarding the rezoning application at 2631 and 2491 Westminster Highway was out of date and alluded to “School & Public Use District” rezoning, not to the current application for “Comprehensive Development District” rezoning. The Chair thanked Mr. Hoegler for drawing this information to the attention of the Committee and City staff. |
|
|
|
It was moved and seconded |
|
|
|
That Bylaw No. 8268, for the rezoning of 2631 and 2491 Westminster Highway from “Agricultural District (AG1)” to “Comprehensive Development District (CD/190)”, be introduced and given first reading. |
|
CARRIED | ||
|
|
6. |
(RZ 07-362690- Report: June 28, 2007, File No.: 12-8060-20-8270/8271) (REDMS No. 2230459, 2223913, 2223966) | ||
|
|
|
Mr. Lamontagne advised that the proposed the scope of the commercial activity on this site is constrained through the Comprehensive Development (CD) district zoning. The range of uses includes workshops, trades and services, office and retail components. But, while the customized CD provides for a range of uses, it restricts the retail component to motor vehicle related sales and services, thereby ensuring that broader commercial functions do not occur on-site, and ensuring the industrial integrity of the site. Looking ahead to potential future use of the site, the CD schedule permits a limited range of industrial uses that would enable the site to accommodate industrial activities in keeping with the surrounding area. | ||
|
|
|
In response to a query with regard to the possible treatment of the ditch on site, Mr. Lamontagne advised that the Provincial Ministry of Transportation (MOT) owns the ditch but that the MOT does not support discharging storm water in the ditch unless the City takes ownership and maintenance of the ditch, and at this time the City is not ready to commit to ownership and maintenance. | ||
|
|
|
In response to a query, Mr. Lamontagne advised that the public right of passage, which accommodates a pedestrian/bike trail along the entire west side of the property, between Steveston Highway and Featherstone Way, and directly connects the site with Steveston Highway. | ||
|
|
|
It was moved and seconded | ||
|
|
|
(1) |
That Official Community Plan Amendment Bylaw No. 8270, to re-designate 12200 Steveston Highway from “Business and Industry” to “Commercial” in Attachment 1 (Generalized Land Use Map) to Schedule 1 of Official Community Plan Bylaw No. 7100, be introduced and given first reading. | |
|
|
|
(2) |
That Bylaw No. 8270, 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. 8270, 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. 8271 to create “Comprehensive Development District (CD/187)” and for the rezoning of 12200 Steveston Highway from “Agricultural District (AG1)” to “Comprehensive Development District (CD/187)”, be introduced and given first reading. | |
|
CARRIED | ||||
|
|
7. |
(RZ 07-370649 – Report: June 14, 2007, File No.: 12-8060-20-8272) (REDMS No. 2244513, 2247066) |
|
|
|
It was moved and seconded |
|
|
|
That Bylaw No. 8272, for the rezoning of 9571 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 | ||
|
|
8. |
(RZ 07-372806- Report: June 19, 2007, File No.: 12-8060-20-8273) (REDMS No. 2245410, 2247584) |
|
|
|
In response to a query, staff advised that the applicant had given the owners of 10140 Ruskin Road the opportunity to purchase a 0.57 metre wide strip of land. |
|
|
|
It was moved and seconded |
|
|
|
That Bylaw No. 8273, for the rezoning of 8360 Ruskin 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 | ||
|
|
9. |
(RZ 06-330060 – Report: June 25, 2007, File No.: 12-8060-20-8274) (REDMS No. 1902965, 2251512) | |
|
|
|
Mr. Lamontagne acknowledged that the site is complicated and has unique attributes. After the rezoning process, possible dedication of the Environmentally Sensitive Area (ESA) enhancement area will be reviewed in association with the forthcoming ESA Development Permit. | |
|
|
|
In response to queries, the following advice was given: | |
|
|
|
· |
the City’s Transportation staff undertook a lengthy review of the subdivision and concluded that, due to the size and nature of the application, and in anticipation of an increase in heavy truck traffic, it was advisable to widen the road, while at the same time preserving the south side ditch, but covering the north side ditch; |
|
|
|
· |
the City’s Engineering staff has examined the site, located midway between two major storm catchments, and Engineering is satisfied with the storm sanitary and water analysis that was provided; in addition, the sanitary sewer is not permitted within watercourse A in the Department of Fisheries and Oceans designated enhancement area that is to be provided; |
|
|
|
· |
the City maintains access to the established ESA area at the north end of the site and the applicant is preparing a maintenance plan; |
|
|
|
· |
there will be a total area watercourse loss of 2,643 square metres, but after the site is developed the quality of the watercourse on the site will have been enhanced by a proposed ratio of 2.93:1; |
|
|
|
· |
to the south a property owned by B.C. Ferry Services is currently zoned Agricultural District and Light Industrial District (I2); the site is currently under a rezoning application to rezone the portion of the site currently zoned Agricultural District to Light Industrial District (I2) in order to accommodate both current and future uses on the site; to date area residents have not approached the City with any concerns regarding this rezoning application. |
|
|
|
(Councillor Cynthia Chen arrived at 4:20 p.m. during discussion on this item.) | |
|
|
|
It was moved and seconded | |
|
|
|
That Bylaw No. 8274, for the rezoning of 12751 Rice Mill Road from “Agricultural District (AG1)” to “Light Industrial District (I2)”, be introduced and given first reading. | |
|
CARRIED | |||
|
|
10. |
(RZ 06-334710 – Report: July 3, 2007, File No.: 12-8060-20-8275) (REDMS No. 1729489, 2237473, 2014261, 2246755, 2008396) | ||
|
|
|
(Mayor Malcolm Brodie arrived at 4:22 p.m. as discussion on this item began.) | ||
|
|
|
Mr. Lamontagne stated that the rezoning application was consistent with existing single-family residential units along both Francis Road and Martyniuk Place. The proposed four new single-family lots are in keeping with the overall character of the neighbourhood. | ||
|
|
|
Ted Danyluk of 6220 Francis Road advised that he was supportive of the rezoning application at 6340 Francis Road and 6351 Martyniuk Place. In addition, he commended City staff for the excellent support demonstrated throughout the rezoning application process. | ||
|
|
|
It was moved and seconded | ||
|
|
|
(1) |
That the following recommendation be forwarded to Public Hearing: | |
|
|
|
|
(a) |
That Single-Family Lot Size Policy 5428 for the properties contained in Section 30-4-6, be amended to permit the southerly 36.24 m (118.9 ft.) of 6340 Francis Road to subdivide in accordance with Single-Family Housing District, Subdivision Area B (R1/B). |
|
|
|
(2) |
That Bylaw No. 8275, for the rezoning of 6340 Francis Road and 6351 Martyniuk Place from “Single-Family Housing District, Subdivision Area E (R1/E)” to “Single-Family Housing District, Subdivision Area C (R1/C)” and “Single-Family Housing District, Subdivision Area B (R1/B)”, be introduced and given first reading. | |
|
CARRIED | ||||
|
|
11. |
(RZ 07-370928 – Report: June 25, 2007, File No.: 12-8060-20-8276) (REDMS No. 2246739, 2249385) | ||
|
|
|
It was moved and seconded | ||
|
|
|
That Bylaw No. 8276, for the rezoning of 8151 No. 3 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 | ||||
|
|
12. |
PROPOSED TRAFFIC CALMING MEASURES – DALLYN ROAD AREA (Report: July 2, 2007, File No.: 10-6450-09-01) (REDMS No. 2240618) | |
|
|
|
In response to queries, Victor Wei, Director, Transportation, advised the following: | |
|
|
|
· |
when Transportation staff mails out information regarding the proposed traffic calming measures to area residents, the mailed material will: (i) outline the proposed traffic calming measures, (ii) invite feed back, and (iii) allow for any other options area residents would like the City to explore; |
|
|
|
· |
the recommended traffic diverter median proposed for Dallyn Road will be designed to make it difficult for drivers to make right turns, and the design of the median will be supplemented by signage that will discourage drivers from making right turns; |
|
|
|
· |
there will be bike access near the recommended traffic diverter median. |
|
|
|
It was moved and seconded | |
|
|
|
(1) |
That the proposed traffic calming measures for the Dallyn Road area, as described in the attached report, be forwarded to area residents for comment and indication of support by means of a survey to be mailed out immediately. |
|
|
|
(2) |
That subject to the support of the area residents, staff proceed with the implementation of the proposed traffic calming measures. |
|
CARRIED | |||
|
|
13. |
BASIC UNIVERSAL HOUSING GUIDELINE – ZONING BYLAW AMENDMENT (Report: July 11, 2006, File No.: 12-8060-20-8244) (REDMS No. 2068685, 2227115) | |
|
|
|
John Irving, Director, Building Approvals responded to queries by providing advice on: | |
|
|
|
· |
the basic universal housing guidelines are a set of building features to facilitate universal access to, and use of, a residential unit, and includes access and use by a person with a physical disability; |
|
|
|
· |
the guidelines outlined in the report resulted from comprehensive consultation between three parties: (i) City staff, (ii) members of the Richmond Committee on Disabilities, and (iii) representatives of the Urban Development Institute (UDI); |
|
|
|
· |
the guidelines, as outlined in the proposed amendment, are not a requirement but they do encourage developers to take advantage of the floor area ratio (FAR) exemption inherent in the proposed Amendment Bylaw 8244; |
|
|
|
· |
there are two basic components to the guidelines: (i) accessibility features in an individual living space, and (ii) accessibility features in common areas; |
|
|
|
· |
reference in the proposed Amendment Bylaw 8244 regarding 20 square feet (1.86 square metre) being exempted from the maximum FAR is included due to UDI’s feedback stating that this quantity of floor space was acceptable. |
|
|
|
Francis Clark, Secretary, Richmond Disability Resource Centre (DCR), accompanied Arlen Johnson, Treasurer and Vice Chair, and DCR member Tom Parker, address Committee and expressed hope that the City would embrace the proposed Basic Universal Housing Guideline – Zoning Bylaw Amendment. She stated that other municipalities, include North Vancouver, had already adopted universal design. | |
|
|
|
Ms. Clark commented that the issue involves not only accessibility in residences where the disabled live, but also accessibility in locations where the disabled visit friends and family. She also pointed out that some developers refuse to build beyond the requirements of the current building code to meet accessibility needs, but that some developers are beginning to do so as a matter of course. | |
|
|
|
Mr. Johnson stated that the consultations with the City and UDI had proven to be a long and slow process. He pointed out that in California, the building code stipulates that accessibility features are incorporated throughout an entire building, and not just one level apartment units in a building containing an elevator and one level ground floor townhouse units, as is the case in the proposed Basic Universal Housing Guideline – Zoning Bylaw Amendment. He concluded that the issue is more about “usability” than it is about accessibility. | |
|
|
|
Mr. Parker stated that, in the 1960s, the important issue was that there be supplementary recommendations to building codes. Later, it was building codes required that accessibility features be designed for public buildings. accessibility. In England, in 1993, the issue of accessibility to the main floor in each dwelling was debated. In conclusion, Mr. Parker remarked that between 7 and 15% of the population has accessibility challenges. | |
|
|
|
In response to a query, the representatives of DRC stated that they support the Basic Universal Housing Guideline – Zoning Bylaw Amendment. | |
|
|
|
Discussion ensued regarding the status of the Province’s proposed standard universal housing bylaw, the workgroup that is in place addressing the features of the standard universal housing bylaw, and the pace of the review undertaken by the Building Policy Branch of the workgroup’s findings and recommendations. | |
|
|
|
A suggestion was made that an amendment be made to the recommendation, directing that a letter from the City be sent to the Province requesting that the standard universal housing bylaw be formulated and provided soon. | |
|
|
|
The Chair stated that the guidelines outlined in the City’s Basic Universal Housing Guideline – Zoning Bylaw Amendment would encourage developers who want to meet the needs of all residents, disabled or otherwise. | |
|
|
|
Dana Westermark, Oris Development, spoke in support of the Basic Universal Housing Guideline – Zoning Bylaw Amendment and stated that: developers are in favour of basic universal housing guidelines, he thinks the move to provide universal access is overdue, there is a lot of merit in the City’s Basic Universal Housing Guideline – Zoning Bylaw Amendment, that it is an interim step and a step in the right direction. | |
|
|
|
He remarked that the 20 square feet (1.86 square metre) being exempted from the maximum FAR was a challenge in small units, but that in large units it is not a challenge, and that the appropriate turning radius for a wheelchair is achievable. In the future the City could revisit the FAR. | |
|
|
|
In response to a query, Mr. Irving advised that the 20 square feet (1.86 square metre) being exempted from the maximum FAR was considered an incentive, not compensation. | |
|
|
|
As the result of a suggestion, staff was directed to keep track of how effective the proposed guidelines were, until the provincial standard universal housing bylaw was made available. In addition, staff was asked to determine where the threshold is, in regard to the 20 square feet (1.86 square metre) being exempted from the maximum FAR. | |
|
|
|
It was moved and seconded | |
|
|
|
That: | |
|
|
|
(1) |
the proposed Amendment Bylaw 8244 (Floor Area Ratio Exemption for Basic Universal Housing Features) to amend the Zoning and Development Bylaw 5300 be introduced and given first reading; and |
|
|
|
(2) |
a letter be sent to the Hon. Rich Coleman, Minister Responsible for Housing, and to the three local MLA’s, requesting that the provincial standard universal housing bylaw be formulated and provided to the City as soon as possible. |
|
CARRIED | |||
|
|
14. |
STEVESTON VILLAGE CONSERVATION PROGRAM: CONSERVATION STRATEGY (Attachment 2) (Attachments 3, 4, and 5) | |
|
|
|
James Burton, Birmingham and Wood Architects & Planners, used a PowerPoint presentation to summarize the Steveston Village Conservation Program: Conservation Strategy. He highlighted the following: | |
|
|
|
· |
the strategy provides an analysis of Steveston’s core values, character, and defining elements; |
|
|
|
· |
the strategy vision was based on input from stakeholders in Steveston including, among others, residents, citizens of Richmond, business and property owners in the Village; |
|
|
|
· |
the eight core themes in the strategy’s historical context statement are: aboriginal use, agricultural roots, cannery legacy, fishery legacy, small frontier town, transportation hub, cultural diversity and continuing community; |
|
|
|
· |
it is important to balance heritage conservation policies with incentives; |
|
|
|
· |
the urban design policies for Steveston should encourage the conservation of the Village’s heritage character; |
|
|
|
· |
the implementation program is the second phase of the Steveston Village Conservation Program and will involve the establishment of an appropriate set of tools; |
|
|
|
· |
a partial list of possible tools include: heritage designation, monetary grants, heritage property tax exemption and support services; |
|
|
|
Mr. Crowe distributed a memorandum regarding information as to whether or not the proposed Steveston Village Conservation Strategy identifies that any of the buildings affected by a current development application be conserved in some way. There are currently four development applications, one of which does have identified heritage value. (The memo is attached to these Minutes as Schedule 1.) | |
|
|
|
Discussion then ensued among Committee members, Mr. Burton, Dana Westermark and Graham Turnbull, representing the Richmond Heritage Commission (HC), and staff on: | |
|
|
|
· |
when the Implementation Program is prepared and submitted to Committee in the future, it should outline incentives for development in the Village and not focus only on rules for Steveston heritage conservation; |
|
|
|
· |
it is a challenge to focus not just on regulations but on viable policies that will enhance the character and nature of the Village; |
|
|
|
· |
the Conservation Strategy and the forthcoming Implementation Program could encourage both Provincial and Federal agencies to assist in the future development of Steveston; |
|
|
|
· |
the City’s Transportation Division has been actively reviewing requirements in the Conservation Program, such as on-site loading, and it recognizes that some sites in the Village are quite small, and that further allowances for loading zones on streets and in laneways may be necessary, due to the unique nature of Steveston; options regarding parking relaxations in the Village area are also being explored; |
|
|
|
· |
density bonusing, while cited as an incentive, does not always prove to be an incentive; |
|
|
|
· |
the Conservation Strategy documents elements of Steveston as it is, and the Implementation Strategy will outline how to achieve heritage protection in the Village; |
|
|
|
· |
the fifty-four individual heritage resources in Steveston cited in the Conservation Strategy are defined as character-defining elements; |
|
|
|
· |
Steveston has to: (i) respond to a new economic environment, (ii) adapt to a transition in the types of stores and amenities in the Village, and (iii) ensure that development is conducted so that it preserves yet evolves the Village; |
|
|
|
· |
during the research period, the consultants considered the conversion of commercial-to-industrial development in Steveston, but did not consider the industrial-to-commercial development taking place; |
|
|
|
· |
the importance of Steveston as not just a shopping destination, but as an active employment neighbourhood; |
|
|
|
· |
regarding individual land use, land values vary among uses, while the tax rate is high; it would be an incentive for Steveston land owners to convert the uses of their land to higher value in order to reduce taxes; |
|
|
|
· |
industrial land uses will migrate out of Steveston unless there is a decrease in taxes; total tax exemption for industrial sites in Steveston should be examined because at one time all of Steveston was commercial/industrial; |
|
|
|
· |
it is important for industrial fencing in the Village to be transparent in order for passers-by to see industrial activities taking place and the cinder block wall erected between the heritage Court House and the Steveston Hotel is an example of a wall that inhibits, rather than enhances, views in the Village; |
|
|
|
· |
the established two-storey limit for buildings along Moncton Street has served to maintain the integrity of the heritage streetscape of Steveston; |
|
|
|
· |
new Steveston residents are drawn there because of the heritage nature of the Village, and yet the heritage nature of the Village is compromised by new residents being attracted to move there; |
|
|
|
· |
consideration should be given to a policy that restricts Steveston land owners from assembling a number of different lots and combining them to create one larger lot; |
|
|
|
· |
as the Village continues to develop, a “cookie-cutter” effect should be discouraged so that a variety in the appearance of buildings is maintained, not the appearance of “sameness”; |
|
|
|
Mr. Westermark stated that traditionally, Steveston stakeholders have had challenges in reaching agreement, but that the process undertaken to create the Steveston Village Conservation Program has seen unanimity achieved on such topics as the identified core values. | |
|
|
|
Mr. Turnbull commented that in addition to the $50,000 that was allocated by the City to undertake the Steveston Village Conservation Program, the HC received $75,000 from the Real Estate Foundation of B.C. as well as $50,000 from the Heritage Society of B.C. | |
|
|
|
It was moved and seconded | |
|
|
|
(1) |
That the Steveston Village Conservation Program: Conservation Strategy (as per the report dated July 3, 2007, from the Manager, Policy Planning) be approved in principle subject to the preparation of an Implementation Program; and |
|
|
|
(2) |
That staff be instructed to prepare a Steveston Village Conservation Program: Implementation Program. |
|
CARRIED | |||
|
|
15. |
A HERITAGE CONSERVATION OPPORTUNITY - 4091 CHATHAM STREET BUILDING (Report: July 10, 2007, File No.: 06-2025-20-014) (REDMS No. 2243020, 2244022) | |
|
|
|
Mr. Crowe advised that he was available to respond to queries from Committee. Discussion ensued with regard to the $406,000 cost to preserve and relocate 4091 Chatham Street. Advice was given that the figure provides a guideline only, and that the figure could be reduced when decisions regarding the site options for the building are made. | |
|
|
|
Further advice was given regarding: | |
|
|
|
· |
staff will continue to explore future ownership of the building, where it could be re-located, and how it would be restored; |
|
|
|
· |
the deadline for such decisions would be Labour Day weekend, 2007, but could be extended to November, 2007; |
|
|
|
· |
a team approach would be used to make decisions in a timely fashion; |
|
|
|
The Chair mentioned that the Britannia Heritage Shipyard should not be ruled out as a possible relocation site. He commented that another site to consider was one immediately west of the new Steveston Water Park. | |
|
|
|
Bob Strasser, a member of the Board of Directors, Army Navy and Air Force Legion Branch (ANAF) Steveston Unit No. 284, addressed Committee and stated that retention of the buildings at 4091 Chatham Street, and 41111 Chatham Street is not feasible due to ANAF’s plans to fully redevelop the property it owns at Chatham and No. 1 Road. He further stated that the ANAF did not want to see either 4091 or 4111 Chatham Street destroyed, and that, while ANAF’s deadline is Labour Day Weekend, the Legion is willing to be flexible, and to extend the deadline to ensure that decisions that suit all parties are made. | |
|
|
|
Jim Tanaka and Frank Kanno, representing the Nikkei Fishermen’s Project Committee (NFPC), addressed Committee. Dr.. Tanaka remarked that at a recent meeting of the Nikkei Fishermen’s Project Committee it was decided that since this project involving 4091 Chatham Street is of such importance, and since the NFPC is already engaged in other projects, a new committee would be created to deal with decisions to be made with regard to 4091 Chatham Street. This new committee, with the working title of Heritage House Preservation Committee, would have an arm’s length relationship with the NFPC. | |
|
|
|
It was moved and seconded | |
|
|
|
That staff continue to work with the Army Navy & Air Force Legion Branch, Nikkei Fishermen’s Project Committee, Richmond Heritage Commission, Steveston Historical Society (Museum) Board and potential private owners to determine the most viable solution to conserve the 4091 Chatham Street building, and report progress as required. | |
|
CARRIED | |||
|
|
16. |
(RZ 04-287989 – Report: June 22, 2007 , File No.: 12-8060-20-8191/8192) (REDMS No. 2240953, 2078108, 2078085, 1882963, 2069374, 2069375) | ||
|
|
|
Mr. Lamontagne commented that when the February 19, 2007 staff report on the rezoning was presented to Planning Committee at the March 20, 2007 meeting, Committee referred the report to staff for further consideration on a variety of the plan’s elements. | ||
|
|
|
Mr. Lamontagne briefly reviewed the June 22, 2007 staff report on the rezoning and highlighted the following changes the applicant has made to the design proposal: | ||
|
|
|
· |
the amount of public open space provided onsite, at the foot of Easthope Avenue, has been increased; the public open space will be secured by public rights of passage; | |
|
|
|
· |
the additional open space was accommodated through changes to site planning that included relocating commercial space on-site, removing a surface parking lot, reconfiguring the parking structure layout and adjusting proposed residential and commercial areas to match the proposed maximum permitted density; | |
|
|
|
· |
commercial space was relocated on-site; the stand alone commercial building (Building B on the plans) was removed and two additional units were added to the east end of the commercial building; | |
|
|
|
· |
the 11-space surface commercial parking lot was removed to accommodate the additional public open space; | |
|
|
|
· |
the parking structure layout was reconfigured and resulted in four additional parking spaces, divided between commercial and public parking; | |
|
|
|
· |
65 public parking spaces will be provided both at the end of English Avenue in a surface lot, and in the parking structure; | |
|
|
|
· |
both residential and commercial area increased by approximately 48 square metres to match the proposed maximum permitted density. | |
|
|
|
Mr. Lamontagne further advised that: | ||
|
|
|
· |
upon review of the potential to place a museum and/or library in the second level of the large two-storey commercial building at the west end of the site, the applicant is not interested in locating either a library or a museum at this location, due to challenges including: (i) design, (ii) economic feasibility, and (iii) time constraints; | |
|
|
|
· |
upon review of the potential of purchasing the City-owned land at 4320 Moncton Street, and the possibility of entering a P3 agreement on 4020 Bayview Street, the applicant is not interested in the land purchase, as the scale of development would be too small, and therefore is also not interested in entering into a P3 arrangement; | |
|
|
|
· |
the applicant has stated that the Maritime Mixed Use (MMU) is not economically feasible on the site and is requesting a wider range of permitted uses to include more conventional neighbourhood commercial uses, and to separate the commercial and residential land uses to separate portions of the site. | |
|
|
|
Discussion ensued among Committee members and staff regarding: | ||
|
|
|
· |
initial discussions approximately ten years ago, regarding the B.C. Packer’s site, made reference to a possible public amenity use of the site, such as a community centre or a library branch, but these ideas were never clarified and no decisions or action were taken based on their discussion; | |
|
|
|
· |
the existing zoning district permits a 1 metre setback and the applicant’s design proposal complies with this setback; some on-site buildings have a greater than 1 metre setback; | |
|
|
|
· |
the applicant proposes a grocery store at street level at the west end of the site, with a restaurant planned for the second of the two stories; | |
|
|
|
· |
with regard to the public open space at the foot of Easthope Avenue, it would be secured by public rights of passage right-of-way as a condition of rezoning, and would be designed in consultation with the City’s Parks Division; | |
|
|
|
· |
parking for the proposed residential building would be tanked, and because of this the building’s first floor would be slightly over street level. | |
|
|
|
Discussion ensued regarding the permitted uses under the current definition of the MMU zoning designation. The permitted uses include commercial entertainment, fish auction, food catering establishment, laundry and dry cleaning, light industrial, retail trade and service, among other uses. | ||
|
|
|
There was discussion on permitted density on-site. Based on the discussion, the following referral motion was introduced: | ||
|
|
|
It was moved and seconded | ||
|
|
|
That Rezoning Application 04-287989 be sent back to staff for analysis of the ratio of residential-to-commercial components. | ||
|
|
|
The question on the motion was not called as further discussion ensued and Committee heard from two delegations. | ||
|
|
|
Joan Spring, 4111 Bayview Avenue, stated that she enjoyed living in Steveston and that the hundreds of pedestrians that used the waterfront animated the promenade. She made the point that in her opinion the “laundry and dry cleaning” permitted use was inappropriate. | ||
|
|
|
Dave Fairweather, 12931 Railway Avenue, expressed his disappointment in the applicant’s revised plans. He stated his belief that the applicant’s priority is to protect the residential density of 69 units, which in his opinion is excessive density and fails to respect the concerns of the neighbourhood’s residents. | ||
|
|
|
Regarding the plans for commercial buildings on-site, Mr. Fairweather stated that the elimination of the 11 aboveground parking spaces adjacent to the proposed commercial units are a cause for concern. | ||
|
|
|
In closing Mr. Fairweather noted that the City should recognize the importance of creating a special, public place at the site in order to commemorate the role that the waterfront has played in the development of Steveston. (Mr. Fairweather’s letter containing the above comments are attached to these Minutes as Schedule 2.) | ||
|
|
|
Further discussion ensued, and clarification was provided on the number of residences allowed on-site, with advice given that the zoning allowed for 80, but that the applicant was proposing 69 residences. | ||
|
|
|
A comment was made that discussions regarding density on this site have been on going for almost a decade. In addition, dissatisfaction was expressed, that when rezoning for the site was undertaken in May, 2001, it was recognized at that time that the MMU permitted uses on the street level, beneath a second story of residential units, was unworkable. | ||
|
|
|
The Chair stated his concern that instead of more density, what was needed on-site was more open space and more park space. He further stated his belief that the applicant’s revision of the plans was not acceptable. | ||
|
|
|
Discussion continued briefly, with the suggestion being made that a second part of the referral to staff be added in order to further explore site coverage, building heights and building usage. | ||
|
|
|
Joe Erceg, General Manager, Planning and Development, advised Committee that during discussions with the applicant, it was a struggle to not see an erosion in the amenity package the applicant was prepared to offer. He said that it was possible that if the application was referred back to staff there was a possibility that the applicant would abandon the rezoning application, and would view the Development Permit process as a viable option. | ||
|
|
|
The question on the referral motion was then called: | ||
|
|
|
It was moved and seconded | ||
|
|
|
That: | ||
|
|
|
(1) |
Rezoning Application 04-287989 be sent back to staff for analysis of the ratio of residential-to-commercial components; and | |
|
|
|
(2) |
staff examine site coverage, building heights and building usage proposed by Onni Development (Imperial Landing) Corp. at 4020 and 4300 Bayview Street. | |
|
CARRIED Opposed: Mayor Brodie Councillor Rob Howard | ||||
|
|
17. |
MANAGER’S REPORT |
|
|
|
(1) BCIT - Mr. Lamontagne reported that the BCIT campus development and construction on Sea Island is proceeding without a building permit application, as it is allowed under BCIT’s right of exemption as a provincial agency |
|
|
|
More recently, BCIT is proposing to rezone the property to allow for commercial tenants to locate in the partnership wing of the campus. This will require building inspection in order to allow the tenants to move in. |
|
|
|
As no building permit has been issued, the City has carried out no inspection. City Solicitor and BCIT Counsel are working at indemnifying the City, which would allow for the tenants to move in once the rezoning has been reviewed and approved by Council. |
|
|
|
Off-street parking and dyke protection are two other issues that are being finalized. |
|
|
|
(2) |
City Centre Plan – No report was given. |
|
|
|
(3) |
Official Community Plan – No report was given. |
|
|
|
(4) |
Liveable Region Strategic Plan Review – No report was given |
|
|
|
Before the meeting was adjourned, Committee members thanked Jean Lamontagne for his diligence and guidance throughout the two years he was Director of Development with the City of Richmond, and expressed best wishes to Mr. Lamontagne as he assumes the position of General Manager of Planning and Development at the City of Surrey. |
|
|
|
ADJOURNMENT |
|
|
|
It was moved and seconded |
|
|
|
That the meeting adjourn (7:23 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, July 17, 2007. |
|
_________________________________ |
_________________________________ |
|
Councillor Harold Steves |
Sheila Johnston |