March 17, 2009 - Minutes
 |
Planning Committee
|
Date: |
Tuesday, March 17, 2009 |
|
Place: |
Anderson Room Richmond City Hall |
|
Present: |
Councillor Evelina Halsey-Brandt, Chair Councillor Bill McNulty Councillor Harold Steves |
|
Absent: |
Councillor Linda Barnes Councillor Sue Halsey-Brandt |
|
Also Present: |
Councillor Greg Halsey-Brandt |
|
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, March 3, 2009, be adopted as circulated. |
|
|
|
CARRIED |
|
|
|
NEXT COMMITTEE MEETING DATE |
|
|
2. |
The next meeting of the Committee will be held on Tuesday, April 7, 2009, at 4:00 p.m. in the Anderson Room. |
|
|
|
PLANNING & DEVELOPMENT DEPARTMENT |
|
|
3. |
(RZ 08-434507 - Report: February 23, 2009, File No.: 12-8060-20-8455) (REDMS No. 2520358, 2526272) | |
|
|
|
In response to queries Brian J. Jackson, Director of Development advised that: | |
|
|
|
· |
the existing R1/E zoning in Burkeville permits secondary suites; |
|
|
|
· |
aside from this development proposal, there has been limited rezoning in the unique and tightly-knit neighbourhood of Burkeville; |
|
|
|
· |
staff proposes a new CD/203 (Comprehensive Development District) for this rezoning application to address potential concerns from other Burkeville residents regarding the introduction of coach house units in their predominantly single-family dwelling neighbourhood; |
|
|
|
· |
the placement of a rezoning sign on the subject property has informed residents of Burkeville of the rezoning application; one resident contacted City staff to express concern regarding privacy issues should the applicant succeed in replacing the existing garage with a new, detached garage containing a 2nd storey residence, and the second resident who responded indicated support; |
|
|
|
· |
the proposed CD/203 zone would regulate any overlook, or privacy, issues; and |
|
|
|
· |
if other residents of Burkeville follow the lead of this applicant, and apply for similar development on their lots, applications would have minimum lot width and lot area standards under the various policies. |
|
|
|
A comment was made that Burkeville’s inventory of residences includes a mix of older and new character dwellings on larger lots, with very few new homes being built. | |
|
|
|
The Chair expressed concern that only a limited number of Burkeville residents would receive a notice from the City of rezoning application 08-434507 before it was considered at the April 20, 2009 Public Hearing, and requested that staff notify all Burkeville residents prior to the April 20, 2009 Public Hearing. | |
|
|
|
Mr. Jackson stated that staff would undertake a mail-out of public hearing notices to all Burkeville residents prior to the April 20, 2009 Public Hearing. | |
|
|
|
It was moved and seconded | |
|
|
|
That Bylaw No. 8455, to create “Comprehensive Development District (CD/203)” and for the rezoning of 3051 Catalina Crescent from “Single-Family Housing District, Subdivision Area E (R1/E)” to “Comprehensive Development District (CD/203)”, be introduced and given first reading. | |
|
CARRIED | |||
|
|
4. |
(RZ 05 – 317846 Report: February 27, 2009, File No.: 12-8060-20-8472) (REDMS No. 2506268, 2580508, 2584466) | |
|
|
|
Architect Wayne Leung, accompanied by Stephan Vogleanger, spoke on behalf of the applicant, ATI Investments Ltd. and drew Committee’s attention to the following features of the proposed high-rise residential building, comprising 80 units and 112 parking stalls: | |
|
|
|
· |
the development is sited at the south-west corner of Cooney Road and Westminster Highway, a high profile location at a transitional point in the City Centre, with other high-rise residential structures to the west and older, low-rise residential apartment buildings to the east; |
|
|
|
· |
the proposed building varies in height from a four-storey podium to a 10-storey tower; the mass of the building along Cooney Road gradually steps down from the 10-storey to the four-storey structure, thus aiding in better transition with the adjacent older, lower buildings; |
|
|
|
· |
the applicant is contributing a donation to the City’s public art fund for future use, for a public art piece to sit at the corner where Cooney Road intersects with Westminster Highway; |
|
|
|
· |
the applicant had considered providing a green roof on top of the four-storey residential podium, but insurance companies provide coverage and warranty for green roof developments that are atop parkades, not residential units; the applicant noted that a green roof would be provided on top of the parking; |
|
|
|
· |
the applicant has made provision for the extension of the existing east-west lane, parallel to Westminster Highway; the extended lane will enhance vehicular access to and from the area; |
|
|
|
· |
extension of the lane will create a small, residual lot on the south side of the proposed lane extension; via an offer to purchase for a nominal amount, this small lot will be transferred to the City’s ownership, prior to completion of the proposed development; the applicant suggested that prior to the lot being transferred to the City, residents could use it as a community garden plot; and |
|
|
|
· |
the six accessible units include features that facilitate the process of “aging-in-place”; in addition, all units will provide door widths of 2 feet, 10 inches to accommodate wheelchairs. |
|
|
|
In response to a query regarding the public art component for the proposed development, Mr. Leung advised that the applicant recognizes that the location presents an ideal opportunity to feature a piece of public art, and that the applicant would make a contribution to the City’s Public Art Statutory Fund for use in a future public art project. | |
|
|
|
A brief discussion ensued with regard to green roofs. Mr. Jackson advised that all green roof elements on high-rise developments in Richmond are on top of parkades and are not on top of residential units. Further, it was stated that planter boxes on rooftops are not considered part of a green roof element. Mr. Leung remarked that a waterproofing membrane to collect rainwater is part of a green roof design. | |
|
|
|
In response to a query to clarify future plans for the small, residual lot on the lane, Mr. Jackson advised that any future development plans for the lot would rest in the hands of the City. | |
|
|
|
It was moved and seconded |
|
|
|
That Bylaw No. 8472 to create “Comprehensive Development District (CD/202)” and for the rezoning of 8420 Westminster Highway and 6140, 6160, 6180 Cooney Road from “Townhouse & Apartment District (R3)” to “Comprehensive Development District (CD/202)”, be introduced and given first reading. |
|
CARRIED | ||
|
|
5. |
RICHMOND'S PRELIMINARY COMMENTS ON METRO VANCOUVER'S DRAFT 2009 REGIONAL GROWTH STRATEGY (Report: March 6, 2009, File No.: 01-0157-20-RGST1) (REDMS No. 2579258, 2582702) | ||
|
|
|
In response to queries Terry Crowe, Manager, Policy Planning advised that: | ||
|
|
|
· |
the City’s next opportunity to provide comments on the Regional Growth Strategy (RGS) will be in May 2009; the City’s opportunity to provide comments on the final RGS proposed strategy will be in late 2009 or preferably after the 2010 Olympics (i.e. March 2010); and | |
|
|
|
· |
Metro Vancouver (MV) will make information on the RGS available to the public late during the week of April 16, 2009. | |
|
|
|
Discussion ensued between staff and Committee with regard to MV’s timetable and in particular on: | ||
|
|
|
· |
the accuracy of MV maps identifying Richmond’s “Industrial” and “Industrial/Commercial” areas and if these are to be included in the RGS; | |
|
|
|
· |
MV’s Frequent Transit Development Corridors concept and how it applies to Richmond; and | |
|
|
|
· |
the need to clarify with MV on the municipality’s role in managing changes to the RGS, once approved. | |
|
|
|
The Chair expressed concerns that: (i) MV’s process to amend the RGS once approved is not clear, (ii) Richmond should not give up its autonomy to the MV Board as the City can manage many land use decisions itself, and (iii) with Richmond poised to review its Official Community Plan (OCP) the RGS should reflect and incorporate Richmond’s planning goals, not the other way around. | ||
|
|
|
Discussion continued during which Mr. Crowe advised that the staff report emphasizes that the City not give more decision-making authority to the Metro Vancouver Board. | ||
|
|
|
The Chair noted the importance of completing Richmond’s OCP review before MV’s RGS was finalized. Mr. Crowe commented that the identified sequence to date has been: (i) the City conducts OCP studies and uses the findings to have the RGS reflects its needs; (ii) the Metro Vancouver Board approves the RGS, and (iii) the City has two years to update its OCP to complement the new RGS. | ||
|
|
|
It was moved and seconded | ||
|
|
|
That: | ||
|
|
|
(1) |
Richmond’s summary comments (Attachment 3 in the report from the General Manager, Planning and Development, dated March 6, 2009), be forwarded to the Metro Vancouver Board with a request that the comments be considered in the preparation of the draft Regional Growth Strategy; and | |
|
|
|
(2) |
the Metro Vancouver Board be advised that more detailed comments will follow in May 2009 after the MV public consultation program is completed. | |
|
|
|
The question on the motion was not called as discussion on the motion commenced. | ||
|
|
|
Reference was made to the wording of Recommendation No. 1 and as a result it was agreed that Recommendation No. 1 would be amended to add the word ‘staff’ before the word ‘comments’. | ||
|
|
|
Discussion continued regarding an amendment to Recommendation No. 2. It was agreed that Recommendation No. 2 should be amended to read: | ||
|
|
|
the Metro Vancouver Board be advised that more detailed comments will follow in 2009 after Richmond City Council has had an opportunity to give more consideration to the draft Regional Growth Strategy. | ||
|
|
|
The question on the main motion, as amended, which now reads as follows: | ||
|
|
|
That: |
| |
|
|
|
(1) |
Richmond’s summary staff comments (Attachment 3 in the report from the General Manager, Planning and Development, dated March 6, 2009), be forwarded to the Metro Vancouver Board with a request that the comments be considered in the preparation of the draft Regional Growth Strategy; and | |
|
|
|
(2) |
the Metro Vancouver Board be advised that more detailed comments will follow in 2009 after Richmond City Council has had an opportunity to give more consideration to the draft Regional Growth Strategy. | |
|
|
|
was then called and it was CARRIED. | ||
|
|
6. |
MANAGER’S REPORT |
|
|
|
(1) |
Steveston Study |
|
|
|
|
No report was given. |
|
|
|
(2) |
Official Community Plan (OCP) |
|
|
|
|
No report was given. |
|
|
|
(3) |
Regional Growth Strategy |
|
|
|
|
(Please see Item 5 – Pages 5 and 6 of these Minutes.) |
|
|
|
(4) |
Social Planning Strategy |
|
|
|
|
No report was given. |
|
|
|
(5) |
8640 Garden City Road (REDMS No. 2578300) |
|
|
|
|
Mr. Jackson reported that staff had met with the owner of the property at 8640 Garden City Road, and advised the property owner that an application for zoning or subdivision would not meet with support for the individual lot and that additional properties would require a permit for redevelopment. |
|
|
|
ADJOURNMENT |
|
|
|
It was moved and seconded |
|
|
|
That the meeting adjourn (5:01 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, March 17, 2009. |
|
_________________________________ |
_________________________________ |
|
Councillor Evelina Halsey-Brandt Chair |
Sheila Johnston Committee Clerk |