Date:

Tuesday, May 17, 2011

Place:

Anderson Room

Richmond City Hall

Present:

Councillor Bill McNulty, Chair

Councillor Greg Halsey-Brandt, Vice-Chair

Councillor Linda Barnes

Councillor Sue Halsey-Brandt

Councillor Harold Steves

Also Present:

Councillor Ken Johnston

Call to Order:

The Chair called the meeting to order at 4:00 p.m.

MINUTES

It was moved and seconded

That the minutes of the meeting of the Planning Committee held on Tuesday, May 3, 2011, be adopted as circulated.

CARRIED

NEXT COMMITTEE MEETING DATE

Tuesday, June 7, 2011, (tentative date) at 4:00 p.m. in the Anderson Room

DELEGATION

Patrick Simpson addressed Committee and advised that he was the Executive Director of SAFERhome Standards Society, a non-profit organization funded through the Ministry of Housing and BC Housing, to tell communities that they can build to the SAFERhome Standards today.

Mr. Simpson distributed a package of information regarding SAFERhome Standard Society (on file in the City Clerk’s Office) and drew Committee’s attention to 19 separate criteria for safer single family detached and multi-family attached homes, including, among others: (i) light switch positioning; and (ii) electric receptacle placement locations.

Mr. Simpson responded to queries from Committee, and discussion ensued among the delegation, Committee and Joe Erceg, General Manager, Planning and Development.

Mr. Erceg remarked that the City’s zoning bylaw incorporates some of the features outlined in Mr. Simpson’s literature, and that there are incentives to developers to incorporate universal features in their developments.

In closing, Mr. Simpson asked that Richmond be pro-active with regard to the SAFERhome Standards.

As a result of the presentation, and ensuing discussion, the following referral motion was introduced:

It was moved and seconded

That, in relation to the SAFERhome Standards Society, staff: (i) look at issues the City can implement; and (ii) undertake discussions with (a) small builders, and (b) the Richmond Committee on Disability.

CARRIED

PLANNING & DEVELOPMENT DEPARTMENT

1.

REVISED OCP “COMMUNITY INSTITUTIONAL” ASSEMBLY USE POLICY

(File Ref. No.:  12-8060-20-8758) (REDMS No. 3213486)

Terry Crowe, Manager, Policy Planning, provided background information regarding the Assembly Use policy, as outlined in the City’s Official Community Plan (OCP) and mentioned that staff had conducted a full consultation with various stakeholders, such as religious groups, as a result of a Council referral. A land economist had been hired for consultation purposes.

Mr. Crowe commented that there is no consensus among assembly groups, or between assembly groups and the City, with regard to a new Assembly Use policy. Despite this lack of consensus, the staff report outlined three separate options and recommended Option 1, which would amend the existing OCP to enable flexible rezoning choices for assembly use owners.

At the conclusion of Mr. Crowe’s remarks the Chair asked about the impact of Option 3, an option that would retain the current OCP definition of ‘Community Institutional’, and would mean that staff and Council would review any proposals on a case-by-case basis.

Mr. Erceg responded that Option 3 would provide more flexibility to assembly use owners and that Council would make the decision with regard to how much assembly use land would be retained by the owners, and how much would be used for affordable housing.

Discussion ensued between Committee and staff, and in particular on:

·         

the difference between assembly use properties in the City Centre, and similar properties outside the City Centre in terms of density bonuses;

·         

the definition of the OCP designation of “Community Institutional”;

·         

what community benefits assembly use owners offer the residents of the City, and what other community benefits are provided by other types of developers;

·         

whether assembly use owners want to be recognized and treated as developers;

·         

the likelihood of very few assembly properties being converted to other uses in the near future; and

·         

the question of whether religious institutions that own assembly use lands are, upon sale of the land, to set aside part of the land for affordable housing; and

·         

which option would provide a level playing field for assembly use owners.

Further discussion ensued regarding: (i) Committee’s stated desire to have more clarity on Option 3 as presented in the staff report; and (ii) the types of community benefits that City residents receive from assembly use owners.

The Chair then invited speakers to address Committee.

Curtis Green, Richmond Gospel Society, 91 Dixon Road, stated that: (i) if an assembly use owner, such as his own Society, has to sell its property, that action is borne out of need, and is not motivated by greed; (ii) the Society had no objections to the provision of affordable housing units, but a City mandated contribution to the Affordable Housing Statutory Reserve may sit in an account not providing affordable housing; and (iii) each assembly use owner, including the Richmond Gospel Society, provides a variety  of community benefits to its members and to the community at large, but each owner operates under Federal registered charitable organization status, and a variety of restrictions are imposed.

Mr. Curtis concluded that in his opinion, the three options outlined in the staff report were unfair, and unacceptable.

Bud Sakamoto, Buddhist Temple, 3680 Garry Street, spoke in support of Option 3 and he then noted the following: (i) all places of worship are community minded and each one provides benefits of some kind to everyone in the community; and (ii) the Temple’s land underwent a sub-division process that worked well. In closing he questioned how the City separates the taxable portion of assemble use land from the untaxable portion.

Mr. K. S. Campbell, St. Anne’s (Steveston) Anglican Church, No. 1 and Francis Road spoke in opposition to Option 1. He then read from a submission (on file in the City Clerk’s Office) and made the following points: (i) that Option 1 should be rejected by Committee; (ii) that staff come back to Committee with an amended proposal that recognizes that assembly use owners are not developers, and that they have Canadian Charter-enshrined rights, in addition to those of other landowners, that should be recognized; and (iii) assembly use owners want to be treated not as developers, but as land owners.

Mr. Campbell further remarked that Option 1 is bad policy for personal residences and is equally bad policy for assembly uses owners. He added that any policy decision to make assembly use property tax-exempt has been taken by a senior level of government, and the City has no jurisdiction to change the decision.

Francis Wong, Director of Finance, Roman Catholic Diocese of Vancouver, spoke in opposition to Option 1, and stated that faith organizations that own assembly use land view their land holdings as trust property, for the use of current and future generations. He noted that just two of many community benefits provided by assembly use owners include education activities and evening recreation activities, and he added that the Diocese has been involved in social housing initiatives for many years. Mr. Wong added that: (i) most assembly use owners have to use their land resources as best as they can to maximize the use of their properties; and (ii) the faith groups are charitable organizations and are governed by Canada’s charitable act.

Justin Harcourt, B.C. Conference of the United Church of Canada, spoke in opposition to Option 1, and commented that it places significant hardship on assembly use owners, and is unfair. He noted that many of the stakeholders who had participated in the consultation process told staff that they preferred to be treated like other landowners, not as developers.

Mr. Harcourt remarked that assembly use owners are predominantly religious groups, and that the groups are themselves the community benefit.

He stated that as the facilities that occupy assembly use lands age, significant maintenance and replacement costs are incurred. The only avenue to replace facilities involves sub-division of the lands, and most facility owners choose to not sell their lands.

Mr. Harcourt urged Committee to refer the report back to staff.

Ian Robertson, Treasurer, Diocese of New Westminster, Anglican Church of Canada stated that the proposed changes to the OCP as outlined in the staff report contain serious penalties to assembly use land owners, and he then read from a submission (on file in the City Clerk’s Office).

Mr. Robertson spoke about the adverse effects the proposed changes would have on the value of the assembly land, and the resulting requirement for deficit financing on the assembly use organizations.

Places of worship on assembly use lands provide a wide range of programs, and low cost facilities, as benefits to the community. Mr. Robertson added that assembly use land owners are concerned about affordable housing, and some have taken a leading role in providing this housing.

Mr. Robertson urged Committee to refer the report back to staff.

Discussion ensued between Committee and staff, and especially regarding the nature of Option 3. Mr. Erceg stated that under Option 3, when proposals to rezone use land come forward, staff would review the rezoning application on a case-by-case basis, and that Council would make the final decision regarding what assembly land may be retained, and what the community benefit would be.

As a result of the discussion there was general agreement that Option 3 was the preferred option. The following motion was introduced:

It was moved and seconded

That Option 3, as stated in the staff report dated May 11, 2011 from the General Manager, Planning and Development, be administered flexibly, particularly regarding assembly land.

The question on the motion was not called as further discussion ensued, and in response to Committee queries, Mr. Erceg advised that, under Option 3:

·          

when rezoning applications by developers and/ or by assembly land use owners were received by staff, the applications would be treated the same way as they moved through the rezoning process; and

·          

the rezoning process includes bringing applications to Committee, where they are discussed and accepted or rejected.

The following comments were made:

·          

Committee did not want to see developers rush to faith groups who own assembly use land;

·          

the notion and definition of ‘community benefit’, and it was noted that it would be irrelevant if and when a residential development was constructed on assembly use land; and

·          

it was important to incorporate the word “retention” in the motion.

The question on the main motion was not called as an amendment was introduced:

That Option 3, as stated in the staff report dated May 11, 2011 from the General Manager, Planning and Development, be administered flexibly, particularly regarding the retention of assembly land.

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

2.

APPLICATION BY GBL ARCHITECTS INC. FOR A ZONING TEXT AMENDMENT TO THE “CONGREGATE HOUSING (ZR6) – ANAF LEGION (STEVESTON)” ZONE TO INCLUDE RETAIL, GENERAL AS A SECONDARY USE AT 11900 NO. 1 ROAD

(File Ref. No.:  12-8060-20-8761, ZT 11-567151) (REDMS No. 3196935)

In response to a query regarding the rationale by the ANAF Legion (Steveston) for permission for a commercial retail unit, and not office space, within the Legion Clubhouse, discussion ensued among Committee, staff and the applicant.

Staff advised that a retail unit would activate the street frontage to No. 1 Road.

Applicant Stu Lion, Architect, GBL Architects Inc., provided comment that during the development of the Legion Clubhouse it had been anticipated that there was potential for a tenant for the space.

Peter Mitchell spoke on behalf of the ANAF Legion, and remarked that: (i) membership at the ANAF Legion was falling; and (ii) it was possible that the unit could accommodate either a retail tenant or an office tenant.

Further discussion ensued and staff advised that retail and office space fell under the same type of zoning. 

It was moved and seconded

That Bylaw No. 8761, for a Zoning Text Amendment, to include “Retail, General” as a Secondary Use in “Congregate Housing (ZR6) – ANAF Legion (Steveston)” be introduced and given first reading.

The question on the motion was not called as: (ii) Committee advised the ANAF to carefully select a tenant for the space; and (ii) Mr. Lion advised that the space lends itself to a commercial use, and could not easily be converted into space for residential use.

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

Councillor Harold Steves left the meeting at 6:50 p.m. and did not return.

3.

AM-PRI CONSTRUCTION LTD. HAS APPLIED TO THE CITY OF RICHMOND FOR PERMISSION TO REZONE 9791 & 9811 FERNDALE ROAD AND 6071, 6091 & 6131 NO. 4 ROAD FROM “SINGLE DETACHED (RS1/F)” TO “MEDIUM DENSITY TOWNHOUSES (RTM2)” IN ORDER TO DEVELOP A 24 UNIT TOWNHOUSE DEVELOPMENT

(File Ref. No.:  12-8060-20-8763, RZ 10-554759) (REDMS No. 3202754)

In response to a query regarding a proposed access easement through the site to the west of the subject site, Brian Jackson, Director of Development, advised that the City’s Transportation staff has approved vehicular access to the site from Ferndale Road to the internal drive-aisle on the subject site, eliminating a cross easement, and that the applicant has secured access through another property.

In response to a query regarding tandem parking and how effective it is, Mr. Jackson advised that in response to a referral from Committee, staff is investigating issues involving tandem parking, and in addition, applicants such as Am-Pri Construction Ltd. are involved in street widening, in order to somewhat mitigate on-street parking issues.

It was moved and seconded

That Bylaw No. 8763 for the rezoning of 9791 & 9811 Ferndale Road and 6071, 6091 & 6131 No. 4 Road from “Single Detached, (RS1/F)” to “Medium Density Townhouses (RTM2)”, be introduced and given first reading.

CARRIED

4.

APPLICATION BY PAUL TANG AND TONY CHEN FOR REZONING AT 8691, 8711, 8731, 8751, 8771 AND 8791 WILLIAMS ROAD FROM SINGLE DETACHED (RS1/E) TO MEDIUM DENSITY TOWNHOUSES (RTM2)

(File Ref. No.:  12-8060-20-8739, RZ 10-545919) (REDMS No. 3174018)

Mr. Jackson noted that some residents near townhouse development sites sometimes state concern with regard to townhouse designs of two and a half stories, which look like three stories, and for this reason, staff is working with townhouse developers to reduce planned townhouse designs from 2 and a half stories, and 3 stories, to 2 story townhouses at key locations.

A comment was made that in addition to the Williams Road subject site, there is potential for development of townhouse units on Garden City Road, and that cross access for vehicles is required.

A further comment was made that during the Development Permit process, the entrance will be investigated vis-à-vis the entrance to the school.

It was moved and seconded

That Bylaw No. 8739, for the rezoning of 8691, 8711, 8731, 8751, 8771 and 8791 Williams Road from “Single Detached (RS1/E)” to “Medium Density Townhouses (RTM2)”, be introduced and given first reading.

CARRIED

5.

APPLICATION BY MAY MAY WO CHAN FOR A STRATA TITLE CONVERSION AT 7311/7331 LINDSAY ROAD

(File Ref. No.: SC 10-557884) (REDMS No. 3202185)

It was moved and seconded

(1)

That the application for a Strata Title Conversion by May May Wo Chan for the property located at 7311/7331 Lindsay Road be approved on fulfilment of the following conditions:

(a)

Payment of all City utility charges and property taxes up to and including the year 2011;

(b)

Registration of a flood indemnity covenant on Title; and

(c)

Submission of appropriate plans and documents for execution by the Approving Officer within 180 days of the date of this resolution; and

(2)

That the City, as the Approving Authority, delegate to the Approving Officer, the authority to execute the strata conversion plan on behalf of the City, as the Approving Authority, on the basis that the conditions set out in Recommendation 1 have been satisfied.

CARRIED

6.

APPLICATION BY WESTERN ST. ALBANS VENTURE LTD. FOR REZONING AT 7500, 7520, 7540 AND 7560 ST. ALBANS ROAD FROM SINGLE DETACHED (RS1/E) TO HIGH DENSITY TOWNHOUSE (RTH4)

(File Ref. No.:  12-8060-20-8759, RZ 10-519918) (REDMS No. 3185380)

In accordance with Section 100 of the Community Charter, Councillor Greg Halsey-Brandt declared himself to be in a potential conflict of interest as he lives in a residence that adjoins the subject property, and he left the meeting at 6:53 p.m., and did not return.

In response to a query regarding staff’s response to residents on the west side of Queen’s Gate who expressed concern that removal of trees would eliminate a landscaped buffer, Mr. Jackson advised that: (i) the applicant has worked with staff to ensure that most of the trees on the east side of the subject site have been retained; and (ii) one of the proposed residential units is within three metres of a tree and that unit has been specially designed so that it has a minimal impact on the tree.

Mr. Jackson added that staff is satisfied that all issues regarding traffic and trees have been addressed.

It was moved and seconded

That Bylaw No. 8759, for the rezoning of 7500, 7520, 7540 and 7560 St. Albans Road from “Single Detached (RS1/E)” to “High Density Townhouse (RTH4)”, be introduced and given first reading.

CARRIED

7.

MANAGER’S REPORT

(a)

Richmond Agricultural Advisory Committee

Discussion ensued among Committee and Mr. Crowe and Mr. Erceg regarding: (i) the idea of having a representative from the Advisory Committee on the Environment (ACE) continue on the Agricultural Advisory Committee (AAC); and (ii) the need for another community representative on the AAC who is familiar with agricultural transportation and food distribution issues. 

Further discussion took place regarding AAC quorum, and how it would be achieved when less than the full complement of Committee members were present at a meeting.

Staff was directed by Committee to: (i) retain the ACE representation on the AAC; (ii) investigate a possible increase in the membership of AAC with a community representative familiar with agricultural transportation and food distribution issues; and (iii) examine the issue of achieving quorum.

ADJOURNMENT

It was moved and seconded

That the meeting adjourn (7:00 p.m.).

CARRIED

Certified a true and correct copy of the Minutes of the meeting of the Planning Committee of the Council of the City of Richmond held on Tuesday, May 17, 2011.

_________________________________

_________________________________

Councillor Bill McNulty

Chair

Sheila Johnston

Committee Clerk