MINUTES

It was moved and seconded

That the minutes of the meeting of the Planning Committee held on Tuesday, May 17, 2011, be adopted as circulated.

CARRIED

NEXT COMMITTEE MEETING DATE

Tuesday, July 5, 2011, (tentative date) at 4:00 p.m. in the Anderson Room

The Chair advised that a discussion regarding Hours of Operation at Construction Sites would be added to the agenda as Item 4a.

PLANNING & DEVELOPMENT DEPARTMENT

1.

APPLICATION BY MOHINDER GILL FOR REZONING AT 7140/7160 BEECHAM ROAD FROM TWO-UNIT DWELLINGS (RD1) TO SINGLE DETACHED (RS2/B)

(File Ref. No. 12-8060-20-8731, RZ 10-544622) (REDMS No.3169195)

It was moved and seconded

That Bylaw No. 8731, for the rezoning of 7140/7160 Beecham Road from “Two-Unit Dwellings (RD1)” to “Single Detached (RS2/B)”, be introduced and given first reading.

CARRIED

2.

APPLICATION BY ZHI YONG CHEN FOR REZONING AT 7980 BROADMOOR BOULEVARD FROM SINGLE DETACHED (RS1/E) TO COACH HOUSES (RCH)

(File Ref. No. 12-8060-20-8765, RZ 10-529089) (REDMS No. 3207500)

Discussion ensued between staff and Committee regarding the concept of coach house development.

In response to a query Brian Jackson, Director of Development, advised that coach house development is allowed on arterial roads where there is an existing operational rear lane.

Further discussion ensued and advice was given that during the review of the 2041 Official Community Plan, staff are surveying responses by residents whether coach house development is something they wish to see in their neighbourhoods. 

It was moved and seconded

That Bylaw No. 8765, for the rezoning of 7980 Broadmoor Boulevard from “Single Detached (RS1/E)” to “Coach Houses (RCH)”, be introduced and given first reading.

CARRIED

3.

APPLICATION BY MATTHEW CHENG ARCHITECT INC. FOR REZONING AT 9731 AND 9751 CAMBIE ROAD FROM SINGLE DETACHED (RS1/E) TO LOW DENSITY TOWNHOUSES (RTL4)

(File Ref. No. 12-8060-20-8786, RZ 08-422838) (REDMS No. 3162217)

It was moved and seconded

That Bylaw No. 8768, for the rezoning of 9731 and 9751 Cambie Road from “Single Detached (RS1/E)” to “Low Density Townhouses (RTL4)”, be introduced and given First Reading.

CARRIED

4.

APPLICATION BY CORNERSTONE ARCHITECTURE (SCOTT KENNEDY) FOR REZONING AT 3531 BAYVIEW STREET FROM LIGHT INDUSTRIAL (IL) TO STEVESTON CONSERVATION AREA (SC1) CORE AREA

(File Ref. No. 12-8060-20-8780, RZ 10-547511, HA 10-547513) (REDMS No. 3223312)

Discussion ensued between staff and Committee regarding the proposed three storey, mixed use commercial/residential building, with an office, restaurant and retail component, with 22 residential units over a parkade, located in Steveston at 3^rd Road and Bayview Street.

The discussion focused primarily on:

·          

a possible future increase in the dike elevation on Bayview Street;

·          

surface parking is located “below grade” due to the unique nature of the site’s grade;

·          

to compensate for the parking stall deficiency in the plan the applicant will: (i) construct an extension of the sidewalk on the north side of Bayview Street, east to 2^nd Avenue; (ii) construct a pedestrian crosswalk at Bayview Street and 3^rd Avenue; and (iii) provide an electric vehicle plug-in;

·          

the reduction of on-site parking spaces would have to be consistent with the Steveston Heritage Strategy principles;

·          

the form and character of the proposed development, including whether brick cladding was in keeping with the heritage of the Steveston Village; and

·          

the proposed contribution of over $298,232 for additional density to the Village Heritage Conservation Grant Program has been reduced by the applicable affordable housing contribution. 

Applicant Dana Westermark, accompanied by Architect Scott Kennedy, addressed Committee and drew attention to the following details of the proposed development:

·          

the idea is to suggest an evolution of the site over time;

·          

the design rationale includes residential units on the Bayview Street frontage featuring a newer, more modern façade, with the 3^rd Avenue frontage more industrial;

·          

a more ‘landmark’ building expression is planned for the corner of 3^rd Avenue and Bayview Street;

·          

brick cladding is optional, and at this point is just one idea for cladding;

·          

the proposed form and character is not dissimilar to that of other buildings in the Village;

·          

character windows are reminiscent of the Hepworth Block on Moncton Street;

·          

the design in its entirety would not read as a single, monolithic building, but would read as several smaller buildings;

·          

Bayview Street is relatively inactive at this time, and the proposed development would bring activity to Bayview Street, between 2^nd and 3^rd Avenues; and

·          

pedestrian traffic would be facilitated with the construction of the extension of the sidewalk on the north side of Bayview Street, east to 2nd Avenue.

Discussion ensued among Committee, Mr. Westermark and Mr. Kennedy, and especially on:

·          

past public meetings hosted by the applicant, during which Steveston residents expressed good support for the general design approach;

·          

soft, muted colours are proposed for the retail unit store fronts;

·          

the flat roof block of buildings do not fit into the ‘Maritime Victorian’ architectural character of Steveston’s heritage according to Councillor Steves;

·          

a raised platform across the front of the building reflects grade changes on the site, and in future could feature an outdoor component of a restaurant, adding further animation to the street and site; and

·          

the proposal is consistent with the heritage design specifications of the Steveston Area Plan – Development Permit Guidelines.

A three-person delegation, comprising (i) Ralph Turner, Chair of the Gulf of Georgia Cannery Society, (ii) Jim Kojima, Chair, Steveston Community Society, and (iii) Bruce Rozenhart, President, Steveston Historial Society, addressed Committee.

Mr. Turner expressed the following concerns regarding the proposed development:

·          

the number of on-site parking spaces is inadequate to accommodate the building’s future residents, business owners, and visitors to the building;

·          

the destination of the funds from the applicant, for bonus density;

·          

the City’s general amenity fund is not a Steveston-specific fund, receiving a contribution of approximately $25,000 in lieu of actual indoor amenity facilities; and

·          

rooftops being inaccessible.

Mr. Turner also queried, and received advice regarding, how the owners of the 17 heritage buildings in Steveston would apply to the Steveston Village Heritage Conservation Grant Program.

Mr. Kojima stated that the number of proposed parking sites assigned to the development is a concern, and the low number of parking sites would have a negative impact on the Village.

He expressed pleasure that the contribution of $298,232 for additional density is proposed to be used in the approved Steveston Village Heritage Conservation Grant Program.

Mr. Kojima concluded his remarks by advising that: (i) the Provincial Government has been requested to provide affordable housing initiatives by the ANAF Legion (Steveston), the Buddhist Temple, and the Lion’s Manor; and (ii) by the end of June, 2011, Mr. Rozenhart is suggesting a Steveston Heritage Committee.

Mr. Rozenhart expressed concern regarding the parking provisions of the proposed development, and stated that there is a heightened sensitivity to development in Steveston Village. He noted that the Village is a successful tourism destination, and that means greater traffic and a large impact on the whole Village.

He noted that the proposed development is coming before Committee as one of the first proposals that follows the Steveston Area Plan – Development Permit Guidelines, and he queried whether James Burton, the City’s consultant during the Guidelines’ process, had been involved in the present design scheme presented by the applicant.

Staff advised that Mr. Burton had been involved with the applicant’s proposal.

Mr. Rozenhart requested that the City’s application form for the Steveston Village Heritage Conservation Grant Program be made available for viewing.

The Chair thanked the delegates for their comments.

Committee requested that:

(i)

staff provide information regarding the Steveston Area Plan – Development Permit Guidelines; and

(ii)

transportation staff meet with the delegates to discuss the parking issue.

Discussion among Committee ensued and the following comments were made:

·         

the parking issue needed to be re-addressed;

·         

a parking plan for the site should be provided to Committee;

·         

a definition of “small scale development” is requested; and

·         

whether a reconsideration of design guidelines should be done.

Staff was directed to provide copies of the Steveston Area Plan – Development Permit Guidelines to Council, and to submit a definition of “small scale development”.

As a result of the discussion the following referral motion was introduced:

It was moved and seconded

That the application by Cornerstone Architecture for Rezoning at 3531 Bayview Street be referred back to staff to examine:

(i)

parking requirements, and especially the ratio of stalls per residential units;

(ii)

whether the residential component meets the bylaw requirements; and

(iii)

whether the proposed facades and the design of the roof element on Bayview Street is in keeping with the Steveston Heritage Strategy

CARRIED

4a.

Hours of operation at construction sites

Discussion ensued between Committee and staff regarding recent complaints received from residents who live near construction sites and who are disturbed by the noise created by construction activities between the hours of 7:00 a.m. and 8:00 p.m. Monday through Saturday, as well as the hours of 9:00 a.m. to 6:00 p.m. on Sundays and holidays.

In response to a query, Joe Erceg, General Manager of Planning and Development, advised that construction companies put up a bond, to ensure that they adhere to construction hours outlined in the City’s noise bylaw. 

A comment was made that any future changes to the construction site hours of operation should not apply to homeowners who wish to undertake small construction projects, on the interior of their homes, during weekends.

As a result of the discussion the following referral motion was introduced:

It was moved and seconded

That staff:

(i)

examine the hours of construction, as outlined in the noise bylaw as they relate to construction sites;

(ii)

compare Richmond’s hours of construction parameters with those from other municipalities; and

 report back to the Planning Committee.

CARRIED

5.

MANAGER’S REPORT

Terry Crowe, Manager, Policy Planning reported that:

(i)

Planning staff continues to host open houses in a variety of Richmond neighbourhoods, as part of the 2041 Official Community Plan update process; and

(ii)

the City and School Board worked together to attract students to submit artwork to illustrate the cover of the to-be-published 2041 Official Community Plan Update, and the two students who had been identified as winner and runner up would be presented with financial scholarships at the June 27, 2011 Council meeting.

ADJOURNMENT

It was moved and seconded

That the meeting adjourn (5:45 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, June 21, 2011.

_________________________________

_________________________________

Councillor Bill McNulty

Chair

Sheila Johnston

Committee Clerk