MINUTES

It was moved and seconded

That the minutes of the meeting of the Planning Committee held on Tuesday, May 8, 2012, be adopted as circulated.

CARRIED

NEXT COMMITTEE MEETING DATE

Tuesday, June 5, 2012, (tentative date) at 4:00 p.m. in the Anderson Room

PLANNING & DEVELOPMENT DEPARTMENT

1.

AGRICULTURAL ADVISORY COMMITTEE 2011 ANNUAL REPORT AND 2012 WORK PROGRAM

(File Ref. No.) (REDMS No. 3517976)

In response to queries, Terry Crowe, Manager, Policy Planning advised that: (i) the issue of soil deposition in the ALR will be looked at by the Agricultural Advisory Committee in 2012, in association with Metro Vancouver; and (ii) in July, 2012, staff will report to Planning Committee regarding the Richmond Agricultural Viability Strategy Update.

It was moved and seconded

That the 2012 Agricultural Advisory Committee work program be approved.

CARRIED

2.

APPLICATION BY KAIMAN ENTERPRISES CO. LTD. FOR REZONING AT 22560, 22600 AND 22620 GILLEY ROAD FROM SINGLE DETACHED (RS1/B) TO TOWN HOUSING (ZT11) – HAMILTON

(File Ref. No. 12-8060-20-8750, RZ 06-344606) (REDMS No. 3519618)

Brian Jackson, Director of Development, provided background information and advised that since the application was presented at the May 16, 2011 Public Hearing, several elements of the proposed development had been revised.

It was moved and seconded

That Bylaw No. 8750, for the rezoning of 22560, 22600 and 22620 Gilley Road from “Single Detached (RS1/B)” to “Town Housing (ZT11) – Hamilton”, be referred to the June 18, 2012 Public Hearing.

CARRIED

3.

SUPPLEMENTAL REPORT: APPLICATION BY WESTERN MAPLE LANE HOLDINGS LTD. FOR REZONING AT 9160 NO. 2 ROAD FROM SINGLE DETACHED (RS1/E) TO MEDIUM DENSITY TOWNHOUSES (RTM3)

(File Ref. No. 12-8060-20-8769, RZ 10-516267) (REDMS No. 3502618)

Please see Page 6 of these Minutes for action on this item.

4.

APPLICATION BY AMRIT MAHARAJ FOR REZONING AT 4820 GARRY STREET FROM SINGLE DETACHED (RS1/E) TO SINGLE DETACHED (RS2/A)

(File Ref. No. 12-8060-20-8825, RZ 11-582830) (REDMS No.3374326)

In accordance with Section 100 of the Community Charter, Councillor Linda Barnes declared herself to be in a potential conflict of interest, as she owns property in the Garry Street area, and left the meeting at 4:06 p.m.

It was moved and seconded

That Bylaw No. 8825, for the rezoning of 4820 Garry Street from “Single Detached (RS1/E)” to “Single Detached (RS2/A)”, be introduced and given first reading.

CARRIED

Councillor Barnes returned to the meeting at 4:07 p.m.

5.

APPLICATION BY CITY OF RICHMOND FOR REZONING AT 23591 WESTMINSTER HWY. FROM SINGLE DETACHED (RS1/F) TO SCHOOL & INSTITUTIONAL USE (SI)

(File Ref. No. 12-8060-20-8880/8881, RZ 12-601319) (REDMS No. 3482714)

In response to a query, Mr. Jackson advised that following the design process an operator for the new daycare facility will be selected.

It was moved and seconded

(1)

That Bylaw No. 8880 to amend the Official Community Plan Bylaw No. 7100, by repealing the existing land use designation in Schedule 2.14 (Hamilton Area Plan) for 23591 Westminster Hwy. and by designating it “Community Facilities”, be introduced and given first reading;

(2)

That Bylaw No. 8880, 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. 8880, 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. 8881, for the rezoning of 23591 Westminster Hwy. from “Single Detached (RS1/F)” to “School & Institutional Use (SI)”  be introduced and given first reading.

CARRIED

6.

CITY CENTRE AREA PLAN (CCAP) TEXT AMENDMENTS: DENSITY CALCULATION CLARIFICATION FOR MINOR STREETS, LANES, MEWS, PARKS, AND OPEN SPACES NOT IDENTIFIED IN RICHMOND’S DEVELOPMENT COST CHARGE (DCC) PROGRAM

(File Ref. No. 12-8060-20-8888, 08-4045-20-10/2012-Vol 01) (REDMS No. 3517757)

It was moved and seconded

(1)

That Official Community Plan Amendment Bylaw No. 8888, which amends Official Community Plan Bylaw No. 7100 by making text amendments to Schedule 2.10 (City Centre Area Plan) to clarify the intent of the Plan in respect to lands voluntarily dedicated or otherwise transferred to the City by developers for use as “minor streets” (i.e., as designated under the Plan), lanes, mews, parks, and open spaces not identified in the Development Cost Charge (DCC) program for land acquisition purposes, and make clear that the City may, in its discretion on a project-by-project basis, include such lands in the calculation of “net development site” for the purpose of determining the maximum permitted floor area, be introduced and given first reading.

(2)

That Bylaw No. 8888, 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; and

(3)

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

That Bylaw No. 8888, having been considered in accordance with OCP Bylaw Preparation Consultation Policy 5043, is hereby deemed not to require further consultation.

CARRIED

7.

APPLICATION BY AVION HOMES LTD. FOR REZONING AT 7431 FRANCIS ROAD FROM ASSEMBLY (ASY) TO SINGLE DETACHED (RS2/E)

(File Ref. No. 12-8060-20-8900/8901, RZ 11-596457) (REDMS No. 3518170)

In response to a query regarding secondary suites, Mr. Jackson advised that the majority of applicants opt to construct a secondary suite, and the minority submit cash in lieu, thereby increasing the number of secondary suites available in the City.

It was moved and seconded

(1)

That Official Community Plan Amendment Bylaw No. 8900, to redesignate 7431 Francis Road:

(a)

from “Community Institutional” to “Neighbourhood Residential” in Attachment 1 to Schedule 1 of Official Community Plan Bylaw No. 7100 (Generalized Land Use Map); and

(b)

from “Community Institutional” to “Low-Density Residential” in Attachment 2 to Schedule 1 of Official Community Plan Bylaw No. 7100 (Specific Land Use Map);

be introduced and given first reading;

(2)

That Bylaw No. 8900, 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. 8900, 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. 8901, for the rezoning of 7431 Francis Road from “Assembly (ASY)” to “Single Detached (RS2/E)”, be introduced and given first reading.

CARRIED

8.

APPLICATION BY TIMOTHY TSE FOR REZONING AT 7840 BENNETT ROAD FROM SINGLE DETACHED (RS1/E) TO INFILL RESIDENTIAL (RI2)

(File Ref. No.:  12-8060-20-8902, RZ 09-496145) (REDMS No. 3496755)

It was moved and seconded

That Bylaw No. 8902, for the rezoning of 7840 Bennett Road from “Single Detached (RS1/E)” to “Infill Residential (RI2)”, be introduced and given first reading.

CARRIED

9.

APPLICATION BY VIRDI PACIFIC HOLDINGS LTD. FOR A ZONING TEXT AMENDMENT TO THE LIGHT INDUSTRIAL (IL) ZONING DISTRICT AT 16540 RIVER ROAD

(File Ref. No.:  12-8060-20-8908, ZT 12-610945) (REDMS No. 3527767)

Mr. Jackson advised that the applicant has applied for the text amendment to the zoning district that applies to 16540 River Road in order to remove: (i) the restriction on the maximum number of commercial vehicles that can be stored on site; and (ii) the provision that identifies that commercial vehicles parked, or stored, on the site must be related to transporting agricultural produce in Richmond.

Mr. Jackson stated that the applicant had encountered problems with finding enough agriculture-related trucks in Richmond. He added that the provisions for dump trucks and refrigerated trucks would remain in place.

A brief discussion ensued between Committee and Mr. Jackson, especially on the chronology of events for the 16,000 Block of River Road, as well as other River Road applications of a similar nature, and as a result of the discussion the following referral motion was introduced:

It was moved and seconded

That Bylaw No. 8908, to amend the “Light Industrial (IL)” zoning district, be referred back to staff.

CARRIED

10.

TELECOMMUNICATION ANTENNAS: AMENDMENTS TO ZONING BYLAW 8500 AND DEVELOPMENT APPLICATION FEES BYLAW 7984

(File Ref. No.:  08-4040-01) (REDMS No. 3522269)

In response to a query, Mr. Jackson advised that the City’s telecommunications protocol is given to companies who approach the City to enquire about the telecommunication antenna strategy.

It was moved and seconded

(1)

That the proposed “Richmond Zoning Bylaw 8500, Amendment Bylaw No. 8904,” concerning maximum heights for telecommunications antennas, be introduced and given first reading; and

(2)

That the proposed “Development Applications Fees Bylaw 7984, Amendment Bylaw 8905,” concerning fees for Telecommunications Antenna Consultation and Siting Protocol applications, be introduced and given first, second and third readings.

CARRIED

11.

MANAGER’S REPORT

No Manager’s reports were given. 

3.

SUPPLEMENTAL REPORT: APPLICATION BY WESTERN MAPLE LANE HOLDINGS LTD. FOR REZONING AT 9160 NO. 2 ROAD FROM SINGLE DETACHED (RS1/E) TO MEDIUM DENSITY TOWNHOUSES (RTM3)

(File Ref. No. 12-8060-20-8769, RZ 10-516267) (REDMS No. 3502618)

The Chair advised that, at the conclusion of the discussion on the land use matter at 9160 No. 2 Road, and if at that time Committee’s decision was to send it to the June 18, 2012 Public Hearing, the item would first go to the Monday, May 28, 2012 Council meeting. He then called upon Mr. Jackson, Director of Development, to provide background information on the application by Western Maple Lane Holdings Ltd.

Mr. Jackson advised that Planning Committee discussed the rezoning application on July 5, 2011, and after that date the applicant had decided to revise the proposal, and then requested that the application be removed from the September 7, 2011 Public Hearing agenda. Mr. Jackson noted that on March, 29, 2012, Thomas Leung, Director, Western Maple Lane Holdings Ltd., hosted an open house, attended by 57 residents who live near the subject site, and that the majority of those at the open house had expressed their opposition to the proposal to permit the development of 18 three-storey townhouse units on the subject site.

Mr. Jackson described the following adjustments made to the application since it was first considered by Committee in July, 2011:

·          

area residents have expressed concerns regarding the location of vehicle access to the proposed townhouse development on Maple Road, and the applicant considered relocating the entry driveway from Maple Road to No. 2 Road, but decided to keep the entry driveway on Maple Road in consultation with City staff; the proposed driveway location on Maple Road has been shifted west, to reduce potential impacts on the single-family homes to the east of the subject site;

·          

in response to concern expressed by residents of the neighbourhood, that the design of the proposed townhouse units was not in keeping with the single-family residential character of the area, changes have been made so that the townhouse units fronting Maple Road resemble the appearance of large duplexes; and

·          

as a result of traffic safety issues expressed by residents of the neighbourhood, the applicant is committed to paying for the design and construction of traffic signals and staff supports signalizing the Maple Road intersection as part of the development, for smoother traffic on No. 2 Road, and access from the Maple Road subdivision.

Mr. Jackson then addressed the issue of alternative land use of 9160 No. 2 Road, and advised that instead of townhouse units, the lot could accommodate seven single-family lots with rezoning, and if seven single-family homes were erected, it was possible to have seven secondary suites, a situation that could lead to fourteen families accommodated on the site.

Through the rezoning process, and the development permit process, staff can exert more control regarding trees on site, and additional landscaping for multiple family projects.

Mr. Jackson also stated that staff is not supporting any further intrusion into the Maple Road subdivision, as the development of townhouse units are limited to the City’s arterial roads.

In response to queries Mr. Jackson provided the following advice::

·          

regarding the diverters that were installed mid-block on Maple Road several years ago, in response to speed and traffic short-cutting on Maple Road, the diverters would remain on Maple Road; and

·          

regarding the height of the proposed townhouse units, townhouse unit developments are built at the existing grade, lower than surrounding streets, unlike single-family homes that require more fill to bring them up to the flood plain grade, and the profile of the proposed units will appear to be lower.

Victor Wei, Director, Transportation, addressed Committee and advised that Transportation Division staff had reviewed the traffic consultant’s work, and in addition, due to safety concerns expressed by Maple Road residents, Transportation Division staff had conducted traffic counts and performed an operational analysis at the intersection of No. 2 Road and Maple Road.

The proposed development: (i) would generate nine or 10 cars during morning and afternoon commutes; (ii) would have a negligible impact on traffic operations; and (iii) delays would be marginally increased. Mr. Wei noted that the applicant is prepared to install traffic lights to reduce traffic delays.

A brief discussion ensued between Committee and staff and the following information was provided:

·          

traffic lights along No. 2 Road, including the lights the applicant is prepared to install, would be synchronized and would ease traffic flow;

·          

the proposed development meets the zoning bylaw requirements by having four visitor parking spaces, and the inclusion of two side-by-side, not tandem, parking spaces per unit;

·          

the issue of conversion of townhouse unit parking garages into residential space has been examined by staff and it was ascertained that if a townhouse unit resident converts parking space into residential space, the conversion voids the construction warranty and invalidates the construction protection for all units, so townhouse strata councils ensure that conversions do not occur; and 

·          

staff has not received complaints, such as those expressed by Maple Lane neighbourhood residents, regarding townhouse units located at the corner of other arterial roads/neighbourhood roads in the City.

Wayne Fougere of Fougere Architecture Inc., 230 West Broadway, Vancouver, Architect for Mr. Leung’s Western Maple Lane Holdings, provided the following details with regard to the proposed townhouse development:

·          

all proposed townhouse units feature three bedrooms;

·          

the square footage of the units, ranging from between 1035 and 1421 square feet, ensure that all proposed units are affordable;

·          

the site layout has been revised and now has one four-plex, and seven duplexes, which is a significant change from the originally proposed layout;

·          

the entry driveway has been moved approximately 60 feet to the west of No. 2 Road, and if the entry driveway had provided access from No. 2 Road, it would have had a negative impact on nine units in the senior apartment building that is to the south of the subject site;

·          

the floor area of each proposed townhouse unit has been slightly reduced since the earlier design was presented;

·          

the project meets the intent of the Official Community Plan, and the applicant is not requesting any variances; and

·          

eight of the garages are slightly larger than the other 10 garages, and the eight larger garages could accommodate three small vehicles, such as Toyotas.

Richard Fernyhough, 9211 Romaniuk Drive, spoke in opposition to the application. He noted that almost 100% of the residents in the Maple Road neighbourhood have expressed opposition to the application for a myriad of reasons. He enjoys the quiet and safe nature of his neighbourhood. He believes that traffic on No. 2 Road is getting worse, and that a new set of traffic lights would not be effective.

Nick Loenen is President of the Christian Reformed Housing Society, No. 2 Road, and the Society is responsible for the 26-unit senior apartment building that is to the south of the subject site. He remarked that twenty years ago his Society applied to the City for rezoning to enable the construction of the apartment building. He was initially opposed to the application by Western Maple Lane Holdings, but the architect worked with the Society and the resulting reduction in the height of the proposed townhouse units, the change in the location of the windows, and the shifting of the entry driveway, the residents of the apartments are reasonably happy. 

John Ptucha, 6420 Maple Road, spoke in opposition to the application. He did not want to see any change in the zoning, and preferred single-family detached homes to townhouse units. He stated opposition to densification, and said that townhouse units would create a dynamic change to the ambience enjoyed by residents of the area. He was not against development, but objected to a possible change in the zoning. 

Mike Ng, 6091 Maple Road, spoke in opposition to the application. He believed that a new traffic light would not work, and noted that traffic along No. 2 Road is already “stop-and-go”. He expressed concern regarding modification of townhouse units, and the resulting occupancy.

Olivia Hau, 6491 Maple Road, spoke in opposition to the application. She wants the Maple Road neighbourhood preserved the way it is now, and favours single-family homes over townhouse units. She values how the neighbourhood children can safely walk to area schools, and believed that 18 townhouse units would increase traffic, and accidents. She described townhouse unit development as high density, not medium density, and stated that the design adjustments did not address the neighbours’ concerns.

Paul Ly, 6571 Maple Road, spoke in opposition to the application. He believed that the architect should design residences that fit the single-family neighbourhood. 18 townhouse units do not fit the medium density definition because that number would increase the residential units in the area by 48%. He wanted trees on the subject site preserved, and questioned how the new traffic light could guarantee that access to the senior apartment building would not be blocked by a line of traffic.

Trudy Lai, 6571 Maple Road, spoke in opposition to the application. She said the Maple Road neighbourhood is quiet and serene and that residents want that environment to remain. She believes that townhouse units do not conform to the character of the neighbourhood, and questioned why townhouse units were being considered for the area when densification was taking place in other parts of the City. She stated that the area’s opinion was evident in the large number of letters of opposition, and the two petitions submitted by area residents.

Mr. B. Powell, 6360 Martiniuk Place, spoke in opposition to the application. He believed that some of the garages of some of the proposed townhouse units would be developed into a residential suite, or, that residents would use garages for storage, forcing cars to park on already crowded area streets. He has witnessed traffic accidents, and he believes a new traffic light on No. 2 Road would lead to more accidents. He questioned the small number of visitor parking spaces on the subject site, and also questioned why the proposed development included 18 townhouse units, instead of a lower number. Mr. Powell remarked that even if developers plant replacement trees, it does not mean the trees will remain.

In response to a query from Committee, Mr. Jackson advised that applicants must go through the development permit process, and as part of that process, they provide financial security for the survival of newly planted trees. Should those trees be removed, and if the City receives a complaint about the removal of trees, the City can approach the developer.

Stephen Yick, 6113 Maple Road, spoke in opposition to the application. He was not against development, but believed that 18 townhouse units and four visitors parking stalls was inappropriate for the subject site. He believes that the zoning bylaw is out of date, and he avoids No. 2 Road because of the heavy volume of traffic. He showed Committee a map featuring individual homes in the Maple Road neighbourhood and that indicated residents that were opposed to the proposed development.

Ms. M. Chan, 5700 Maple Road, spoke in opposition to the application. She has been in the Maple Road neighbourhood for only a few months, but believes that, with no other townhouse units in the area, it was ridiculous to build 18 townhouse units on the subject site. She was concerned that the driveways are so close together, and that accidents in the No. 2 Road area would happen.

Justine Chan, Romaniuk Drive, spoke in opposition to the application. She noted that No. 2 Road is designated as a disaster response route, and questioned how increased traffic along No. 2 Road would affect rescue efforts if there were a disaster. She questioned how the installation of new traffic signals on No. 2 Road would improve traffic. 

The applicant, Thomas Leung, 6431 Juniper Drive, addressed Committee and advised that the arterial road policy had been in place for many years, and that the type of development he planned at 9160 No. 2 Road encourages more walking to neighbourhood amenities such as shopping centres, and less traffic. He stated that City policy does not condone multi-family homes inside subdivisions, but townhouse developments on arterial roads create alternatives in the housing market.

Mr. Leung stated that in 2009 he purchased the subject site knowing that a townhouse development was permitted, and he pointed out that townhouse units had been built on Woodward, and others had been built on No. 2 Road at Williams Road.

He remarked that he has been a developer in the City since 1980 and he keeps in mind the benefit of his developments to the City. Mr. Leung added that he has tried hard to address the concerns expressed by residents of the Maple Road neighbourhood.

Discussion ensued between staff and Committee regarding: (I) the issue of parking on area roads; and (ii) without rezoning, the subject site could accommodate three very large single-family homes.

(Cllr. Steves left the meeting at 5:47 p.m., and returned at 5:50 p.m.)

In response to a query, Mr. Jackson advised that according to the arterial road policy, townhouse units are permitted, but not mandatory, at 9160 No. 2 Road, and other similar sites.

At the conclusion of the discussion the following motion was introduced:

It was moved and seconded

(1)

That Bylaw No. 8769, for the rezoning of 9160 No. 2 Road from “Single Detached (RS1/E)” to “Medium Density Townhouses (RTM3)”, be forwarded to Public Hearing, to be held on Monday, June 18, 2012; and

(2)

That the Public Hearing notification area be expanded from the standard 50 m radius to include the area shown in Attachment 14 of the Report to Committee dated June 17, 2011.

The question on the motion was not called as further discussion ensued among Committee. A comment was made that Committee had heard comments from delegates, and at the June 18, 2012 Public Hearing, delegates would be heard by all Council members. A further comment was made that if Committee did not forward the application to the Public Hearing, it meant changing the arterial road policy.

The Chair requested staff to provide: (i) a model of the proposed development featuring the access/egress driveway and the model would assist Council in visualizing the height of the proposed townhouse units and how it would look in relation to Maple Road and No. 2 Road; and (ii) a copy of a map featuring individual homes in the Maple Road neighbourhood, indicating residents who are opposed to the proposed development.

The question on the motion was then called and it was CARRIED, with Cllr. Chak Au OPPOSED.

ADJOURNMENT

It was moved and seconded

That the meeting adjourn (6:01 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, May 23, 2012.

_________________________________

_________________________________

Councillor Bill McNulty

Chair

Sheila Johnston

Committee Clerk