Date:

Tuesday, November 17, 2009

Place:

Anderson Room

Richmond City Hall

Present:

Councillor Evelina Halsey-Brandt, Chair

Councillor Bill McNulty, Vice-Chair

Councillor Linda Barnes

Councillor Sue Halsey-Brandt

Councillor Harold Steves

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, November 3, 2009, be adopted as circulated.

CARRIED

NEXT COMMITTEE MEETING DATE

2.

The next meeting of the Committee will be held on Tuesday, December 8, 2009, at 4:00 p.m. in the Anderson Room.

It was agreed that to add the following to the agenda as Item 10A: (1) Farmland Fill, (2) Steveston Harbour Authority Planning, and (3) Child Care Advisory Committee.

PLANNING & DEVELOPMENT DEPARTMENT

3.

DRAFT TELECOMMUNICATION ANTENNA CONSULTATION AND SITING PROTOCOL

(File Ref. No.:) (REDMS No. 2715628)

Brian J. Jackson, Director of Development, advised the regulation of telecommunication antenna involves Federal Government jurisdiction, but staff has drafted a Telecommunication Antenna Consultation and Siting Protocol to ensure that the City has a coordinated land use approach to telecommunication antenna and supporting utilities. The protocol is intended to help minimize unnecessary proliferation of telecommunication antenna installations throughout the City, and would encourage applicants to site antenna on industrial land.

Mr. Jackson added that after Council reviews and comments on the draft Protocol, it would be distributed to telecommunication providers and other stakeholders, for discussion purposes, and that staff would report back to Committee with results of the discussion.

During a brief discussion between staff and Committee the following points were made:

§         

though the City does not have jurisdiction regarding where a telecommunications provider can place an antenna, the draft Protocol has guidelines that make it mandatory for a provider to undertake public consultation and co-location, siting, design and screening provisions; these guidelines would encourage providers to place antenna in industrial zoned areas; and

§         

staff will consult with other municipalities with regard to appropriate application processing fees, based on a cost-recovery model, to cover City costs and resources needed to process telecommunication antenna applications.

It was moved and seconded

That the Telecommunication Antenna Consultation and Siting Protocol (Attachment 1 to the staff report dated October 28, 2009) be approved for discussion with key stakeholders.

CARRIED

4.

MISCELLANEOUS AMENDMENTS BYLAW 8542 ARISING FROM RICHMOND ZONING BYLAW 8500

(File Ref. No.:) (REDMS No. 2715628)

It was moved and seconded

That Miscellaneous Amendments Bylaw 8542 Arising From Richmond Zoning Bylaw 8500 be introduced and given first, second and third reading.

CARRIED

5.

RICHMOND ZONING BYLAW 8500, AMENDMENT BYLAW NO. 8554

(File Ref. No.: 12-8060-02-04/Vol 02) (REDMS No. 2744743)

Mr. Jackson advised that Amendment Bylaw No. 8554 would ensure that applications receive proper zoning, in accordance with the Richmond Zoning Bylaw No. 8500.

It was moved and seconded

That Richmond Zoning Bylaw 8500, Amendment Bylaw No. 8554 be introduced and given first, second and third reading.

CARRIED

6.

AN ENHANCED OCP “COMMUNITY INSTITUTIONAL” DEFINITION AND NEW POLICY TO BETTER MANAGE “RELIGIOUS ASSEMBLY USES”: OCP AMENDMENT BYLAW NO. 8533

(File Ref. No.:  ) (REDMS No. 2751410)

Terry Crowe, Manager, Policy Planning, advised Committee that a clearer Official Community Plan (OCP) “Community Institutional” definition and policy is required due to increased interest from developers to buy, and religious property owners to sell, assembly lands and backlands. Staff proposes text amendments to the OCP in order to clarify the “Religious Assembly Uses” policy so that the City’s limited assembly land is not lost.

Mr. Crowe advised that the proposed solution is to: (i) retain at least 50% of each religious site with its own onsite parking; and (ii) allow only built affordable housing with its own onsite parking, where there is still room at the rear, or remainder, of the site.

Discussion ensued between Committee and staff on:

§          

religious property owners and potential developers would be required to build affordable housing units, not provide cash in lieu of units; the type of affordable housing units remains flexible; and

§          

densification of assembly sites could be explored; the degree of height would have to suit the surrounding neighbourhood.

Curtis Green, 8311 Aspin Drive, a member of the Vancouver Gospel Society, addressed Committee and remarked that his Society has questions with regard to the intent of the clarification of the definition and especially on: (i) the affordable housing component, and (ii) the desire for flexibility in the “Community Institutional” definition. 

Mr. Green stated that previously the Vancouver Gospel Society has attempted to sell its property but has had difficulty in doing so and the proposed policy may also make it difficult.

Mr. Crowe clarified that the proposed text amendments to the OCP, with the stipulation of built affordable housing, would decrease the speculation on the land by developers, and would also retain religious assembly land needed by residents, especially during the expected population growth in the City. 

Mr. Green noted that the proposed text amendments may not accomplish what they set out to, and that it would be difficult to achieve built affordable housing units. He concluded his remarks by noting that the text amendments seem to remove flexibility.

In response to a query regarding whether he has approached other levels of government, Mr. Curtis advised that he is unaware of Provincial or Federal funding available.

Discussion continued between Committee and staff regarding:

§          

whether the City could become involved in the sale of the Vancouver Gospel Society lands;

§          

if the City, on behalf of representatives of the Vancouver Gospel Society, could discuss the situation with BC Housing; and

§          

how developers could be encouraged to develop the Vancouver Gospel Society sites.

As a result of the discussion Committee directed staff to provide Mr. Curtis with a BC Housing contact.

Garth Robertson, 9411 Francis Road, Vancouver Gospel Society, addressed Committee and stated that the Society’s two small churches served the local community, but as time passed, as the neighbourhood changed, and as people moved away, the need for the Society’s services and programs declined.

He remarked that he understood the intent of the text amendments and clarification, but was unclear how the changes would affect the Society’s land that is zoned “Neighbourhood Residential”. He requested clarification on the process a developer must undertaken if the Society identified a potential buyer for its site zoned “Neighbourhood Residential”.

Mr. Crowe provided advice with regard to the process.

It was moved and seconded

(1)

That Richmond Official Community Plan Bylaw 7100, Amendment Bylaw No. 8533, proposing text amendments to Schedule 1 of Richmond Official Community Plan Bylaw 7100 by replacing the definition of “Community Institutional” and establishing a new policy to better manage religious assembly uses in “Community Institutional” designated areas, be introduced;

(2)

That Bylaw No. 8533 having been considered in conjunction with:

§         

the City’s Financial Plan and Capital Program; and

§         

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

be hereby deemed to be consistent with said program and plans, in accordance with Section 882(3) (a) of the Local Government Act; and

(3)

That Bylaw No. 8533 consultation be as per the City Policy on consultation during an OCP Amendment, namely the Public Hearing and that no further consultation is required.

CARRIED

7.

APPLICATION BY SELBY PROPERTY INVESTMENTS (1983) LTD. FOR REZONING AT 10211 ST. EDWARDS DRIVE TO PERMIT A LICENSEE RETAIL STORE (PRIVATE LIQUOR STORE)

(File Ref. No.:, RZ 08-409269 -) (REDMS No. 2748624)

Mr. Jackson advised that the Sandman Signature Hotel & Resort Vancouver (Sandman Resort) has undergone renovations, and the intent of the rezoning application is to permit a new Licensee Retail Store (LRS), a private liquor store, to be located inside the lobby of the resort complex.

The applicant submitted an application to the Provincial Liquor Control Licensing Branch (LCLB) some years ago, for an LRS for its Bridgeport Road site. Though technically a ‘relocation application’ by the LCLB, City staff was advised that, due to the fact that the address for the proposed LRS was changed from Bridgeport Road to the St. Edwards Drive address of the Sandman Resort, that the applicant’s proposed LRS is a new LRS and that no approval, or license, has been issued by the Province.

Mr. Jackson noted that the Sandman Resort hired an independent market research company to collect public opinion on the proposed new LRS, but that the survey had a response rate of 12%. Staff, concerned with the veracity of the survey, requested a new survey, but the applicant neither addressed the concern, nor fulfilled the request.

Mr. Jackson stated that a 42-name petition submitted by neighbours who comprise the Caithcart Residents Association strongly opposes the application.

Rob Toor, Corporate Counsel for the applicant, addressed Committee and made the following points:

§         

the Province has had a moratorium on new LRS stores since May of 2004, but an LRS-in-principle has been received by the applicant, as noted in correspondence dated February 20, 2008;

§         

the proposed liquor store would be situated inside the lobby of the resort with no direct exterior door leading outside, and would primarily provide service to resort guests;

§         

individual survey participants are not identified due to privacy rules;

§         

the applicant has addressed the concerns expressed by residents, including those living on Caithcart Road; and

§         

RCMP staff has reviewed the proposal and have no concerns.

Committee sought clarification from Mr. Tuer with regard to the LCLB’s approval of the LSR. Committee was advised that the applicant received “approval in principle” in February, 2008.

Trish Langston, 10271 Caithcart Road, and a member of the Caithcart Residents Association, addressed Committee and expressed the following concerns with regard to the proposed LRS:

§         

there is no need for a liquor outlet at the Sandman Resort when area residents can purchase liquor at three separate liquor outlets already located in the neighbourhood;

§         

the applicant is interested in a liquor store, though the application refers to a “wine” store; and

§         

if the City approves the application, the applicant might move the liquor store from the lobby to the resort’s Shark Club.

Ms. Langston noted dissatisfaction with the applicant with regard to other concerns, such as traffic and adjacency issues, drawn to the applicant’s attention, but not addressed by the applicant to the neighbours’ satisfaction.

In response to the Chair’s request for clarification with regard to the location of the proposed LRS on site, staff advised that should the City approve the rezoning application to permit an LRS, the rezoning would apply not to a specific location within the Sandman Resort, but to the resort site in its entirety. The specific location within the overall site would fall under the jurisdiction of the LCLB.

Scott Johnston, General Manager, Sandman Resort, addressed Committee regarding the adjacency concerns expressed by Ms. Langston. He stated that the property is under construction and undergoing significant remodelling. The adjacency issues are a matter of timing and construction workflow.

He added that the resort shares the north property line with the single-family Caithcart Road homes and that landscaping plans are proposed, but that they are subject to the rezoning application being approved.

Mr. Johnston concluded his remarks by stating that the appearance and safety of the Sandman Resort property is of importance.

Discussion ensued between Committee and staff and in particular on:

§          

the status and condition of the vacant, single-family lot near the west end of Caithcart Road;

§          

the applicant does not have an LRS license for the Sandman Resort location;

§          

if the application is denied, the applicant can re-apply, after a 12-month waiting period; and

§          

at the May, 14, 2008 meeting of the Development Permit Panel, a permit for the alteration of the Sandman Resort’s St. Edwards Drive facade, and the construction of a restaurant patio, were discussed, and Caithcart Road residents attended that meeting to express their concerns with adjacency issues.

Ms. Langston again addressed Committee and clarified that the applicant never advised the residents that the adjacency landscaping issues were contingent on the success of the rezoning application.

It was moved and seconded

That the application for the rezoning of 10211 St. Edwards Drive to permit a Licensee Retail Store (private liquor store) at the Sandman Signature Hotel & Resort Vancouver Airport be denied.

The question on the motion was not called as Mr. Toor again addressed Committee to advise that: (i) any LRS not located by the end of 2009 is no longer valid; (ii) the applicant would sign a covenant to restrict the LRS location to the lobby of the resort to ensure it is not relocated to the Shark Club; and (iii) the applicant is willing to provide the landscaping elements requested by the Caithcart Road residents.

Discussion ensued among Committee members. The Chair noted that, due to adjacency issues not addressed prior to the rezoning application, it was difficult to know whether the adjacency issues would be addressed should the rezoning application be approved.

The question on the motion was then called and it was CARRIED.

8.

APPLICATION BY JHUJAR CONSTRUCTION LTD. FOR REZONING AT 8811 HEATHER STREET FROM SINGLE DETACHED (RS1/B) TO SINGLE DETACHED (RS1/K)

(File Ref. No.:  12-8060-20-8530, RZ 07-380065) (REDMS No. 2712010)

It was moved and seconded

That Bylaw No. 8530, for the rezoning of 8811 Heather Street from “Single Detached (RS1/B)” to “Single Detached (RS1/K)”, be introduced and given first reading.

CARRIED

9.

APPLICATION BY FARRELL ESTATES LTD. TO AMEND “INDUSTRIAL LIMITED RETAIL (ZI1)” TO ADD “RETAIL, LIQUOR 2” AS A PERMITTED USE IN ORDER TO PERMIT A PRIVATE LIQUOR STORE AT UNIT 2175 OF 21000 WESTMINSTER HIGHWAY

(File Ref. No.:  12-8060-20-8552,  ZT 08-421561 -) (REDMS No. 2736384)

Mr. Jackson reported that staff supports the application for the relocation of the existing Maritime Beer & Wine Store from 6911 Graybar Road to 21000 Westminster Highway.

He added that there is adequate parking at the Westminster Highway location, and the neighbourhood survey demonstrates support, and very little opposition, from both businesses and residents.

It was moved and seconded

That Bylaw No. 8552, to amend “Industrial Limited Retail (ZI1)” to add “Retail, Liquor 2” as a permitted use at 21000 Westminster Highway, be introduced and given first reading.

CARRIED

10.

APPLICATION BY LAINE & CHRISTINA BOSMA AND LILAC BOSMA & CHRIS HAWKEY FOR REZONING AT 80/100 LANCASTER CRESCENT FROM TWO-UNIT DWELLINGS (RD1) TO SINGLE DETACHED (RS2/D)

(File Ref. No.:  12-8060-20-8438, RZ 08-406864 -) (REDMS No. 2508100)

Mr. Jackson advised that the applicant had: (i) applied for permission to sub-divide the Burkeville site into two single-family residential lots, and (ii) opted out of the density bonus, which coincides with the staff proposal to prohibit secondary suites on the site, to ensure that there is no increase in the number of dwelling units within areas, such as Burkeville, affected by aeronautical operations.

In response to the Chair’s comment that the neighbourhood should have every opportunity to be advised of applications, and her query regarding whether it was necessary to expand the notification process to all Burkeville residents, staff advised that an expanded notification process had been undertaken when an earlier application for a coach house had been received, but that in this case, the applicant is splitting an existing duplex.

In response to a query regarding the Environmentally Sensitive Area at the northeast corner of the site, applicant Chris Hawkey advised that the landscape plan includes two new trees and a combination of shrubs and ground covers.

It was moved and seconded

That Bylaw No. 8438, for the rezoning of 80/100 Lancaster Crescent from “Two-Unit Dwellings (RD1)” to “Single Detached (RS2/D)”, be introduced and given first reading.

CARRIED

10A.

ADDITIONAL ITEMS

(1)

Farmland Fill

Councillor Harold Steves noted that an undeveloped roadway, running north from Granville Avenue, is City land, but that observed fill activities on this site during evenings and weekends have had a detrimental effect on Granville Avenue.

Staff advised that they were considering options, including the physical closure of the access from Granville Avenue, until they are able to identify the owners of the trucks and equipment involved.

Secondly, Councillor Steves noted a property at No. 4 Road where weekend fill activity had been observed, and photos taken.

Staff advised that the owner of the tractor-trailers have been contacted and put on notice, with regard to illegal dumping. If inspection staff observes the contractor using City roads, written confirmation of the location of dumps would be warranted, thereby making it difficult for the offending contractor to operate.

Staff also advised that efforts have been made to contact the owners of the No. 4 Road residence.

The Chair requested that staff advise what actions the City has taken to address these issues.

(2)

Steveston Harbour Authority Planning

Councillor Steves advised that the City could expect to receive correspondence from the Steveston Harbour Authority (SHA) Planning Committee in the near future regarding, among other topics, a proposal to create a joint City-SHA planning committee and the Authority’s idea to hire a planner to create a five-year plan for the Harbour.

(3)

Child Care Advisory Committee

Councillor Sue Halsey-Brandt, Council Liaison Representative to the City’s Child Care Advisory Committee, stated that members of the Child Care Development Board have expressed the desire to be advised of child care components in new developments in order to better fulfill their advisory role.

11.

MANAGER’S REPORT

(1)

Condominium Towers at No. 3 Road and Westminster Highway

Mr. Jackson advised that Planning staff had met with the architect of the Camona condominium tower development and that the architect had agreed to changes in order to mitigate the view of a tenant residing in the Paloma condominium tower, due to the erection of a wall. Architects for both developments continue to meet and discuss the situation.

Mitigation involves: (i) shaving the wall along the top; (ii) painting the wall; and (iii) the addition of a mesh screen affixed to the wall to encourage plants to grow up the wall and the planting of appropriate climbing shade plants.

The Chair remarked that staff should examine the situation to: (i) ascertain how this issue arose, and (ii) ensure that the situation does not arise again with other developments, as the City Centre grows in population and densifies.

(2)

Official Community Plan  –  2041 Update

Mr. Crowe advised that the public consultation phase of the Official Community Plan – 2041 Update had begun, and he drew Committee’s attention to the survey circulated as an insert in local newspapers and available on the City’s website at www.richmond.ca/OCP-update.

(3)

Draft Regional Growth Strategy (RGS)

Mr. Crowe reported that the Metro Vancouver Board of Directors recommended that the draft RGS be distributed to the 22 member municipalities for comment. He added that staff would bring the Draft RGS to Committee on December 8, 2009.

ADJOURNMENT

It was moved and seconded

That the meeting adjourn (5:54 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, November 17, 2009.

_________________________________

_________________________________

Councillor Evelina Halsey-Brandt

Chair

Sheila Johnston

Committee Clerk