September 16, 2008 - Minutes
 |
Planning Committee
|
Date: |
Tuesday, September 16, 2008 |
|
Place: |
Anderson Room |
|
Present: |
Councillor Harold Steves, Chair |
|
Absent: |
Councillor Rob Howard |
|
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 Tuesday, September 3, 2008, be adopted as circulated. |
|
|
|
CARRIED |
|
|
|
NEXT COMMITTEE MEETING DATE |
|
|
2. |
The next meeting of the Committee will be held on Tuesday, October 7, 2008, at 4:00 p.m. in the Anderson Room. |
|
|
|
PLANNING & DEVELOPMENT DEPARTMENT |
|
|
3. |
APPLICATION BY PENTA HOMES LTD. FOR REZONING A PORTION OF 6451 PRINCESS LANE FROM LIGHT INDUSTRIAL DISTRICT (I2) TO COMPREHENSIVE DEVELOPMENT DISTRICT (CD/115) |
|
|
|
Brian Jackson, Director of Development advised that if the proposed rezoning change for the northern portion of 6451 Princess Lane from Light Industrial District to Comprehensive Development District is made, in order to permit the creation of two single-family lots, that (i) the proposed rear yard setback of 12 metres exceeds the 6 metres as specified in the standard single-family zone, and (ii) a buffer will be provided between the two proposed lots and the Agricultural District on the east side of the subject site. |
|
|
|
In response to queries Mr. Jackson advised that: (i) the developer plans to develop the southern portion of the site but that a separate rezoning application has been received by the City for these future plans; and (ii) the southern part of the existing half road along the London Road frontage will remain as a lane, used by pedestrians accessing the dike, and providing vehicular access only for residents who currently use the lane to access their homes. Mr. Jackson stressed that there are no plans to turn the lane portion into a road. |
|
|
|
It was moved and seconded |
|
|
|
That Bylaw No. 8418, for the rezoning of a portion of 6451 Princess Lane from “Light Industrial District (I2)” to “Comprehensive Development District (CD/115)”, be introduced and given first reading. |
|
CARRIED | ||
|
|
4. |
APPLICATION BY TOWNLINE VENTURES 15 LIMITED FOR REZONING AT 7660 ACHESON ROAD FROM SINGLE-FAMILY HOUSING DISTRICT, SUBDIVISION AREA (R1E/) TO COMPREHENSIVE DEVELOPMENT DISTRICT (CD/28) |
|
|
|
Mr. Jackson noted that the plan to develop two front-to-back duplexes with a shared central driveway was a unique approach to developing four units. He added that staff and the developer would work together on the appearance of the built form. |
|
|
|
In response to a query Mr. Jackson advised that the two duplexes would be strata lots. |
|
|
|
Committee commended the developer for the provision of accessible features in all the units, as well as the front units’ design features such as widened doors, stairs, and corridors, and electrical elements for a future stairlift. |
|
|
|
It was moved and seconded |
|
|
|
That Bylaw No. 8423, for the rezoning of 7660 Acheson Road from “Single-Family Housing District, Subdivision Area (R1/E)” to “Comprehensive Development District (CD/28)”, be introduced and given first reading. |
|
CARRIED | ||
|
|
5. |
APPLICATION BY SADIQ H. KHAN FOR REZONING AT 6471/6475 WILLIAMS ROAD FROM TWO-FAMILY HOUSING DISTRICT (R5) TO SINGLE-FAMILY HOUSING DISTRICT, SUBDIVISION AREA J (R1/J) | |
|
|
|
Mr. Jackson advised that after the receipt of a Certified Arborist’s report and the completion of a site inspection by the City’s Tree Preservation Coordinator, efforts were made to retain additional bylaw-sized trees on the subject site. | |
|
|
|
It was moved and seconded | |
|
|
|
That Bylaw No. 8421, for the rezoning of 6471/6475 Williams Road from “Two-Family Housing District (R5)” to “Single-Family Housing District, Subdivision Area J (R1/J)”, be introduced and given first reading. | |
|
CARRIED | |||
|
|
6. |
(RZ 08-423764 – Report: August 26, 2008, File No.: 12-8060-20-8422) (REDMS No. 2490493, 292539, 2494832) |
|
|
|
Committee commended the applicant on the inclusion of a legal secondary suite and acknowledged staff’s assistance in the secondary suite being built in accordance with the City’s Interim Affordable Housing Strategy. |
|
|
|
It was moved and seconded |
|
|
|
That Bylaw No. 8422, for the rezoning of 8364 Ruskin Place 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 | ||
|
|
7. |
APPLICATION BY TIMOTHY C.W. TSE FOR REZONING AT 7620 ACHESON ROAD FROM SINGLE-FAMILY HOUSING DISTRICT, SUBDIVISION AREA (R1E/) TO COMPREHENSIVE DEVELOPMENT DISTRICT (CD/28) |
|
|
|
It was moved and seconded |
|
|
|
That Bylaw No. 8426, for the rezoning of 7620 Acheson Road from “Single-Family Housing District, Subdivision Area (R1/E)” to “Comprehensive Development District (CD/28)”, be introduced and given first reading. |
|
CARRIED | ||
|
|
8. |
GREEN ROOFS AND OTHER OPTIONS BYLAW | |
|
|
|
Holger Burke, Development Coordinator stated that the draft “Green Roofs and Other Options Involving Industrial and Office Buildings Outside the City Centre Bylaw 8385 was developed by staff with input from members of the industrial and office building community. He further advised that the Bylaw’s primary objective is runoff control and storm water management, and its secondary objective is landscaping enhancements. He added that a bulletin, describing how the two objectives could be achieved, would accompany the Bylaw. | |
|
|
|
Discussion ensued with regard to: | |
|
|
|
· |
the Bylaw makes it mandatory that the total annual volume of storm water runoff from industrial and office building roofs be reduced by at least 20%; |
|
|
|
· |
the two ways to achieve the 20% reduction are: (i) a green roof on at least 75% of the building; and (ii) building to LEED Silver standards and meeting the LEED Storm Water Management Credit; staff predicts that these two options could be chosen by owners of office buildings; |
|
|
|
· |
a third option that is likely to appeal to warehouse owners, is to meet the 20% mandatory reduction in any one or a combination of other ways as determined by a registered professional; |
|
|
|
· |
the 20% reduction threshold is based on experience in other municipalities and scientific studies, and generally equates to the reduction of roof runoff from a green roof; |
|
|
|
· |
the Bylaw is intended to present a list of opportunities, and makes it clear that the point system is a flexible one, but that the 20% reduction is mandatory; |
|
|
|
· |
the Bylaw will be evaluated and reviewed, with Staff reporting back to Committee with results within two years; |
|
|
|
· |
the information that comprises the proposed Bylaw has been vetted by consultation with the: Urban Development Institute, National Association of Industrial and Office Properties, Architectural Institute of B.C., Association of Professional Engineers and Geoscientists of B.C., and B.C. Society of Landscape Architects; |
|
|
|
· |
the Bylaw will go into effect as of January 1, 2009; |
|
|
|
· |
no evidence has been received from the insurance industry regarding any concerns for industrial and office building which have green roofs; as long as developers have the options as outlined in the Bylaw, insurance would not present a problem; |
|
|
|
· |
staff anticipates that most developers will try to accommodate the Bylaw requirements on site but if there are extraordinary circumstances where off-site improvements where off-site improvements were preferred, staff would bring forward a report to Council for its approval of this alternative. |
|
|
|
The Chair commented that the Bylaw represents a step forward and that it would enhance local food production, something of importance as the population of the City increases. | |
|
|
|
It was moved and seconded | |
|
|
|
That “Green Roofs and Other Options Involving Industrial and Office Buildings Outside the City Centre Bylaw 8385” be introduced and given first, second and third reading. | |
|
CARRIED | |||
|
|
9. |
TELECOMMUNICATION TOWER PROPOSALS AT NO. 2 ROAD AND MONCTON STREET | ||
|
|
|
Mr. Jackson advised that recent changes to the wireless and cellular telecommunications industry have prompted inquiries and proposals to the City regarding telecommunications towers. While the approval and installation of new telecommunication towers fall under the mandate of Industry Canada, a Federal government agency, the inquiries have prompted staff to investigate appropriate amendments to the Zoning and Development Bylaw No. 5300 in order to clarify locational criteria for telecommunication towers and to develop a public consultation policy that proponents must follow when developing new towers. | ||
|
|
|
Discussion ensued on the following topics: | ||
|
|
|
· |
farmlands dotted with telecommunication towers is not desirable, but the City’s AG1 zoning, as well as the Agricultural Land Reserve, permits telecommunication towers as a use while identifying minimum setbacks from property lines as well as a maximum foot print for the towers; | |
|
|
|
· |
the idea of co-location of towers in close proximity to one another or limit towers to a specific area, in order to minimize their effect and reduce the number, and is something staff can investigate; | |
|
|
|
· |
the investigation of telecommunications towers being part of an existing building can be included during the study of appropriate siting parameters; | |
|
|
|
· |
at present, some telecommunication towers exist on City buildings and on buildings on private property and there is no municipal regulation for their height; a stand-alone tower would fall under federal regulation, and changes to the City’s Zoning and Development Bylaw No. 5300 could give the City some control as well; | |
|
|
|
· |
staff would conduct discussions with Industry Canada and with members of the legal community in order to learn if stand-alone telecommunications towers can be prohibited or if they can be co-located; | |
|
|
|
· |
communications and wireless companies are not likely to co-ordinate with one another unless encouraged to do so by a City’s bylaw or policy; | |
|
|
|
· |
ultimately staff is seeking to prevent the unnecessary proliferation of towers. | |
|
|
|
It was moved and seconded | ||
|
|
|
(1) |
That information on the two telecommunication towers proposed by Cascadia Tower Inc. and Rogers Wireless contained in the report from the Director of Development dated September 3, 2008, be received for information; | |
|
|
|
(2) |
That City staff review and bring forward amendments to the Zoning and Development Bylaw 5300 to establish appropriate locational and siting parameters for telecommunication towers; and | |
|
|
|
(3) |
That City staff review and bring forward a policy that establishes a Local Telecommunications Tower Siting and Consultation Protocol. | |
|
CARRIED | ||||
|
|
10. |
HOUSING AGREEMENT BYLAW NO. 8344 TO PERMIT THE CITY TO ENTER INTO A HOUSING AGREEMENT TO SECURE AFFORDABLE HOUSING UNITS AND RENTAL UNITS – COONEY ROAD/ANDERSON ROAD/ECKERSLEY ROAD |
|
|
|
Joan D'Angola, Affordable Housing Coordinator advised that the development application preceded the City’s Interim Affordable Housing Strategy, but that the applicant agreed to provide both affordable rental and market rental units. She noted that the rental tenure for the affordable units is secure for a minimum of 25 years, due to the date of the development application being filed, but that development applications received by the City after Council adopted the Affordable Housing Strategy in 2007, affordable units are secure in perpetuity. |
|
|
|
In response to a query, Ms. D’Angola advised that Richmond’s affordable housing strategy and Whistler’s affordable housing strategies are two of the leaders in the province, and that unlike Richmond’s strategy that designates affordable housing sites, the City of Vancouver asks developers to designate units without any housing agreements. |
|
|
|
It was moved and seconded |
|
|
|
That Bylaw No. 8344 be introduced and given first, second and third readings to permit the City to enter into a Housing Agreement in accordance with requirements of the Local Government Act (Section 905). |
|
CARRIED | ||
|
|
11. |
HOUSING AGREEMENT BYLAW NO. 8377 TO PERMIT THE CITY TO ENTER INTO A HOUSING AGREEMENT TO SECURE AFFORDABLE HOUSING UNITS AND RENTAL UNITS – 6351/6391/6491 MINORU BOULEVARD |
|
|
|
It was moved and seconded |
|
|
|
That Bylaw No. 8377 be introduced and given first, second and third readings to permit the City to enter into a Housing Agreement in accordance with requirements of the Local Government Act (Section 905). |
|
CARRIED | ||
|
|
12. |
(Report: September 4, 2008, File No.: 12-8060-20-8427/8428) (REDMS No. 2495121, 2495773, 2493044, 2499095, 2497718, 2497866) | |||
|
|
|
Mr. Jackson stated that this project represents a milestone in the development of the City Centre in that it is the first major application to be presented to Committee since the 2008 adoption of the City Centre Area Plan (CCAP). | |||
|
|
|
He noted that the applicant has taken this opportunity to provide services within the city centre and this enhances the City’s objective to ensure that when development occurs, additional public amenities are provided. | |||
|
|
|
In summarizing the project Mr. Jackson highlighted the following features: | |||
|
|
|
· |
a total of 630 units, including 583 units distributed among 5 towers as well as townhouses; | ||
|
|
|
· |
a proposed City community facility, the City Centre South Community Centre (33,000 square feet); 20,000 of the space to be leased to the City at $1 per year; | ||
|
|
|
· |
a proposed Post Secondary Education Institution (Trinity Western University College campus – approximately 22,000 square feet); the space to be leased to the University at $1 per year; | ||
|
|
|
· |
the provision of $400,000 for public art; | ||
|
|
|
· |
upgrades to extant infrastructure as well as new road; and | ||
|
|
|
· |
the provision of transportation management techniques to reduce parking. | ||
|
|
|
Mr. Wing Ting Leung of W. T. Leung Architects addressed Committee and remarked that throughout the design and planning process his firm had enjoyed good working relationships with staff in the Planning and Development Department, as well as many other departments, including Parks, Engineering and Finance. | |||
|
|
|
Mr. Ting Leung used boards and two models to demonstrate the features of the proposed development. General discussion ensued and the following topics were discussed: | |||
|
|
|
· |
the five towers will have varying heights thereby enhancing Richmond’s skyline; | ||
|
|
|
· |
noise mitigation covenant is entered into by developers in Richmond, and acknowledges that the presence of the Vancouver International Airport creates some aircraft noise in the City, and that this project is located in an area deemed ‘moderate aircraft noise’; | ||
|
|
|
· |
there are enough loading bay areas throughout the development to accommodate all activities on site; | ||
|
|
|
· |
the applicant has advised that they will be an active and enthusiastic participant in the public art process; | ||
|
|
|
· |
the mix of public amenity space and private amenity space will benefit everyone; | ||
|
|
|
· |
the applicant proposes to design the project to the LEED standards. | ||
|
|
|
Lawrence Lim addressed Committee regarding the question of the need to provide public school education in the City Centre for the anticipated increase in population. | |||
|
|
|
In response to Mr. Lim’s remarks, Terry Crowe, Manager, Policy Planning, advised that the Richmond School Board has identified the need for a new public school in the City Centre and that the School Board and the City are working together to explore ways to ensure that new school capacity is provided in the City Centre. | |||
|
|
|
It was moved and seconded | |||
|
|
|
(1) |
That Bylaw No. 8427, to amend the land use designation with the addition of “Institution” to 5891, 5931 No. 3 Road & 5900 Minoru Boulevard in the Generalized Land Use Map (2031) and Specific Land Use Map: Lansdowne Village (2031) in Schedule 2.10 (City Centre Area Plan) of Official Community Plan Bylaw No. 7100 as being amended by OCP Amendment Bylaw 8383, be introduced and given first reading. | ||
|
|
|
(2) |
That Bylaw No. 8427, 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. 8427, having been considered in accordance with OCP Bylaw Preparation Consultation Policy 5043, is hereby deemed not to require further consultation. | ||
|
|
|
(4) |
That Bylaw No. 8428, to create “Comprehensive Development District (CD/198)” and for the rezoning of 5891, 5931 No. 3 Road, 5900 Minoru Boulevard and a surplus portion of No. 3 Road from "Limited Industrial Retail District (I4)" and "Automobile-Oriented Commercial District (C6)" to "Comprehensive Development District (CD/198)", be introduced and given first reading. | ||
|
CARRIED | |||||
|
|
13. |
(Report: September 4, 2008, File No.: 12-8060-20-8432/8433) (REDMS No. 2470640, 2500190, 2474574, 2452960, 2500718, 2499449, 2498717) | |||
|
|
|
Mr. Jackson stated that the applicant is requesting a rezoning to construct a mixed-use development consisting of 144 residential units for seniors and a new Army Navy Air Force (ANAF) 284 Club. Currently on the subject site is a heritage building with affiliations to Richmond’s Japanese community, 4091 Chatham, which the applicant considered conserving on the site, but it was decided that in conserving the building, there would be a reduction in residential units, thereby impacting the financial feasibility of the planned four-storey building. The applicant is proposing that there be an area on site where Japanese heritage can be celebrated. In addition the applicant proposes to contribute $50,000 for the relocation off the site. | |||
|
|
|
Mr. Jackson further advised that after community consultation as well as discussions with interested parties, staff recommends that the 4091 Chatham Street heritage building be conserved and relocated. Site relocation options were considered and the grass area north of Garry Point Park caretaker building and on the west side of the berm is recommended future site of the heritage building. | |||
|
|
|
Discussion ensued between Committee and staff regarding: | |||
|
|
|
· |
the original uses of the heritage building by members of Steveston’s Japanese community, and the need to make every effort to preserve the building on the subject site even if it means relocating it from its current Chatham Street location to another part of the site; | ||
|
|
|
· |
the consultation undertaken by staff included discussions with residents representing the City’s Japanese-Canadian population; | ||
|
|
|
· |
the value of any heritage structure that remains in its original location versus the value of a heritage structure that is relocated to a new context; | ||
|
|
|
· |
through the design process it was determined that it was not financially feasible to retain the heritage building on site and at the same time accommodate the desired 144 residential units in a low rise building; | ||
|
|
|
· |
if the ANAF was to increase its contribution from $50,000, it could jeopardize the Club’s ability to maintain low rental costs for its senior residents and the fewer financial resources they would have to fund their traditional services to members; | ||
|
|
|
· |
the idea of further discussions between staff and the ANAF regarding the Club’s financial commitment to the heritage building; | ||
|
|
|
· |
the importance of maintaining the integrity of both the heritage building and the proposed ANAF development; | ||
|
|
|
· |
further exploration of potential site relocation options, including the current condition of the heritage building, the footprint it would create if it was relocated behind the Steveston Museum on the 3811 Moncton Street site; | ||
|
|
|
· |
the orientation of the proposed building, and its H-shape enhances the nature light throughout the site, including the courtyard; | ||
|
|
|
· |
the applicant and the architect team decided against going higher than 4 storeys due to financial considerations; above four stories, structures use concrete which increases the marketable square footage costs by approximately $70, thus making the units unaffordable to the ANAF’s target market of seniors; | ||
|
|
|
· |
the majority of the residential units feature one bedroom, less than 25% of the units feature two bedrooms; small appliances are included in the units, and there is a full meal serviced provided in the common dining area; and | ||
|
|
|
· |
the ANAF will directly subsidize by 10% expenses for the club’s members who choose to reside in the new development. | ||
|
|
|
Architect Rodney Cottrell, Coast Architecture Group, addressed Committee and remarked that the development carefully balances good quality materials and high standards of design with affordability for future residents. The ANAF has a 60-year-history on the site, it has been active in the Village as a charitable service club, and the project is a way to move viably into the future. | |||
|
|
|
Florence Gordon addressed Committee and commented that she is involved with the ANAF with regard to marketing the proposed units to residents, and remarked that the club is aware that not all veterans are seniors and that some younger veterans returning from Canada after serving in Afghanistan look to ANAF members as elder mentors. | |||
|
|
|
Jim Tanaka, of the Nikkei Fisherman’s Project Committee (NFPC) addressed Committee and stated that he does not support Garry Point Park as the relocation site for the heritage building. He supports relocating it to the Steveston Museum site on 3811 Moncton Street where the heritage building will be at the centre of the Village and not far to the west of Steveston. | |||
|
|
|
Mr. Tanaka suggested an endowment fund be created for the heritage building, and when asked by Committee, he replied that fundraising was something the NFPC was willing to do. | |||
|
|
|
Graham Turnbull addressed Committee and said he spoke as Chair of the Steveston Historical Society and was also the Chair of the Richmond Heritage Commission. He noted that: (i) the Society was in opposition of the heritage building be relocated to the Steveston Museum site, he supports the heritage building remaining on the current site, although not necessarily at 4091 Chatham Street, that the house has lost some of its heritage value because it originally faced No. 1 Road; and (ii) he is concerned at the large scale of the ANAF development, and that the design to bring such a large structure right out to the sidewalk may have a negative impact on future development proposals for the Village of Steveston. | |||
|
|
|
Discussion continued on the merits of relocating the heritage building. | |||
|
|
|
It was moved and seconded | |||
|
|
|
That the 4091 Chatham Street Heritage Building be relocated to the Steveston Museum site at 3811 Moncton Street. |
| ||
|
|
|
The question on the motion was not called, as Committee provided their comments on whether the motion should be added to the staff recommendation as Part (5) or whether it should be a motion separate from the staff recommendation. Committee agreed that the motion would not stand alone, but would be an amendment to the original staff recommendation. | |||
|
|
|
Discussion concluded with comments being made by Mr. Crowe, regarding research already undertaken by staff that indicated that the heritage building could be accommodated on, and share the site of, the Steveston Museum site. Staff was directed to submit a memo to Council detailing this research before the Monday, September 22, 2008 Council meeting. | |||
|
|
|
As a result of the discussion it was agreed that the motion would amend the original staff recommendation as Part (5). | |||
|
|
|
It was moved and seconded | |||
|
|
|
(1) |
That Bylaw No. 8432, to redesignate 11900 No. 1 Road, 4091 and 4111 Chatham Street: | ||
|
|
|
|
(a) |
from “Neighbourhood Service Centre” to “Mixed-Use” in Attachment 1 to Schedule 1 of Official Community Plan Bylaw 7100 (Generalized Land Use Map); and | |
|
|
|
|
(b) |
from “Commercial” to “Multiple Family” in the Steveston Waterfront Neighbourhoods Land Use Map in Schedule 2.4 of the Official Community Plan Bylaw 7100 (Steveston Area Plan) | |
|
|
|
|
be introduced and given first reading; | ||
|
|
|
(2) |
That Bylaw No. 8432 having been considered in conjunction with: | ||
|
|
|
|
(a) |
the City’s Financial Plan and Capital Program; and | |
|
|
|
|
(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. 8432, having been considered in accordance with OCP Bylaw Preparation Consultation Policy 5043, is hereby deemed not to require further consultation; and | ||
|
|
|
(4) |
That Bylaw No. 8433 to create “Comprehensive Development District (CD/199)” and for the rezoning of 11900 No. 1 Road, 4091 and 4111 Chatham Street from “Steveston Commercial (Two-Storey) District (C4)” and “Single-Family Housing District, Subdivision Area E (R1/E)” to “Comprehensive Development District (CD/199)”be introduced and given first reading. | ||
|
|
|
(5) |
That the 4091 Chatham Street Heritage Building be relocated to the Steveston Museum site at 3811 Moncton Street. | ||
|
CARRIED OPPOSED: Cllr. Harold Steves | |||||
|
|
14. |
MANAGER’S REPORT |
|
|
|
(1) |
City Centre Area Plan (CCAP) |
|
|
|
|
No report was given. |
|
|
|
(2) |
Steveston Study |
|
|
|
|
No report was given. |
|
|
|
(3) |
Official Community Plan (OCP) |
|
|
|
|
No report was given. |
|
|
|
(4) |
Liveable Region Strategic Plan Review (LRSP) |
|
|
|
|
No report was given. |
|
|
|
ADJOURNMENT |
|
|
|
It was moved and seconded |
|
|
|
That the meeting adjourn (6:16 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, September 16, 2008. |
|
_________________________________ |
_________________________________ |
|
Councillor Harold Steves Chair |
Sheila Johnston Committee Clerk |