July 17, 2012 - Minutes
 |
Planning Committee
|
Date: |
Tuesday, July 17, 2012 |
|
Place: |
Anderson Room |
|
Present: |
Councillor Bill McNulty, Chair |
|
Also Present: |
Councillor Linda McPhail |
|
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 Wednesday, July 4, 2012, be adopted as circulated. |
|
|
|
CARRIED |
|
|
|
NEXT COMMITTEE MEETING DATE |
|
|
|
Wednesday, September 5, 2012 (tentative date) at 4:00 p.m. in the Anderson Room. |
|
|
|
PLANNING & DEVELOPMENT DEPARTMENT |
|
|
1. |
APPLICATION BY HOLLYBRIDGE LIMITED PARTNERSHIP FOR REZONING AT 5440 HOLLYBRIDGE WAY FROM INDUSTRIAL BUSINESS PARK (IB1) TO RESIDENTIAL/LIMITED COMMERCIAL (RCL3) |
|
|
|
|
Brian J. Jackson, Director of Development, provided the following information regarding the proposed project, located within the City Centre’s Oval Village: (i) this is one of many large applications coming before Committee and Council in the Oval neighbourhood; (ii) 586 residential units, a number that includes 29 affordable units, as well as street-front retail units, are part of the mid-rise and high-rise project; (iii) the applicant has responded in terms of a public art component, a day care contribution and eco-amenities; (iv) the project will be part of the district energy system; (v) the project will comply with LEED Silver equivalency; and (vi) the project responds in all ways to provide for a road network and walkway frontages on all surrounding streets. |
|
|
|
|
In reply to queries Mr. Jackson and Suzanne Carter-Huffman, Senior Planner/Urban Design, provided the following additional information: |
|
|
|
|
· |
the City Centre Area Plan encourages developers to explore alternative ways to enhance the fit of a proposed development with the surrounding community, and with this proposed development, “eco-amenity” is in the form of a “rain garden” constructed within the subject site along its Gilbert Road frontage; |
|
|
|
· |
Richmond’s Affordable Housing Strategy works to achieve opportunities for a variety of housing options that appeal to both residents and developers; staff has examined various projects and the affordable housing opportunities inherent in those projects; for this application the cluster of 29 low-end market rental affording housing units into one building is part of Phase 2 of the construction plan; and |
|
|
|
· |
the affordable housing units proposed for this subject site are defined as “affordable rental”, are the majority of the City’s available affordable units. |
|
|
|
It was moved and seconded |
|
|
|
|
(1) |
That Bylaw No. 8879, which makes minor amendments to the “RCL3” zone specific to 5440 Hollybridge Way and rezones that property from “Industrial Business Park (IB1)” to “Residential/Limited Commercial (RCL3)”, be introduced and given first reading. |
|
|
|
(2) |
That the child care contribution for the rezoning of 5440 Hollybridge Way (RZ 09-506904) be allocated entirely (100%) to the Child Care Development Reserve Fund created by Reserve Fund Establishment Bylaw No. 7812, unless Council directs otherwise prior to the date of the owner’s payment, in which case the payment shall be deposited as directed by Council. |
|
CARRIED |
|||
|
|
2. |
MATTHEW CHENG ARCHITECT INC. HAS APPLIED TO THE CITY OF RICHMOND FOR PERMISSION TO REZONE 9000 GENERAL CURRIE ROAD “SINGLE DETACHED (RS1/F)” TO “MEDIUM DENSITY TOWNHOUSES (RTM3)” IN ORDER TO DEVELOP AN 8 UNIT, 3 STOREY TOWNHOUSE DEVELOPMENT. |
|
|
|
In response to queries, Mr. Jackson advised that: (i) through a service agreement the applicant will provide improvements to the sidewalk along the frontage of the subject site; and (ii) a Development Permit that is anticipated soon will enable the applicant to move ahead and remove the overgrowth to enhance the appearance of the site. |
|
|
|
It was moved and seconded |
|
|
|
That Bylaw No. 8906 for the rezoning of 9000 General Currie Road from “Single Detached, (RS1/F)” to “Medium Density Townhouses (RTM3)”, be introduced and given first reading. |
|
CARRIED |
||
|
|
3. |
APPLICATION BY TRASCHET HOLDINGS LTD. FOR REZONING OF 9091, 9111 AND 9131 BECKWITH ROAD FROM “SINGLE DETACHED (RS1/F)” TO “INDUSTRIAL BUSINESS PARK (IB2)” |
|
|
|
|
Mr. Jackson stated that the 9000-block of Beckwith Road is earmarked for industrial development, and the subject site is designated “Business and Industry”. He added that the applicant’s plan is to develop two equal-sized light industrial buildings. |
|
|
|
|
In response to queries Mr. Jackson and Mark McMullen, Senior Coordinator - Major Projects, advised that: |
|
|
|
|
· |
the “Business and Industry” zone includes offices, general industrial spaces, recycling depots, and vehicle repair shops, among approximately 20 other designated uses; |
|
|
|
· |
this type of development in the Bridgeport Village area fits within the uses designated in the City Centre Area Plan, and is part of the transition from older residential to industrial lots that is happening in the area; and |
|
|
|
· |
adjacent to the subject site is Nature’s Path cereal company to the north, an older single-family home to the east, an Enterprise Rental Car outlet to the west, and to the south, across Beckwith Road, is Costco. |
|
|
|
In response to a query the applicant, Rob Chetner of Vancouver, stated that right now there are no specific businesses leasing space in the proposed buildings. He added that with the disappearance of warehouse space in and around the Oval, and he hoped that the proposed development will fill the void and provide an upgrade in the appearance of the area. |
|
|
|
|
It was moved and seconded |
|
|
|
|
That Bylaw No. 8918, for the rezoning of 9091, 9111 and 9131 Beckwith Road from “Single Detached (RS1/F)” to “Industrial Business Park (IB2)”, be introduced and given first reading. |
|
|
CARRIED |
|||
|
|
4. |
COTTER ARCHITECTS INC. HAS APPLIED TO THE CITY OF RICHMOND FOR PERMISSION TO REZONE 9691 ALBERTA ROAD FROM “SINGLE DETACHED (RS1/F)” TO “LOW DENSITY TOWNHOUSES (RTL4)” IN ORDER TO CREATE 24 TOWNHOUSE UNITS. |
|
|
|
Mr. Jackson noted that a unique feature of the proposed seventeen-unit three-storey townhouse development is seven units include an additional ground level, one-bedroom units, the townhouse units. With seventeen townhouse units and seven one-bedroom units, the subject site will have a total of 24 residential units. |
|
|
|
Mr. Jackson added that this unique design is a result of Council’s referral to encourage developers to design one-storey townhouse units. |
|
|
|
Thomas Palmer of Cotter Architects Inc. described the seven one-bedroom units as one-storey, compact, affordable, and accessible, and they can be sold independently of the two-storey townhouse units to which they are attached, and that they are designed to be fully adaptable to accessibility status. |
|
|
|
Committee directed staff to advise Council regarding the completion date of the project, in order for Council to view the unique project. |
|
|
|
It was moved and seconded |
|
|
|
That Bylaw 8925, for the rezoning of 9691 Alberta Road from “Single Detached (RS1/F)” to “Low Density Townhouses (RTL4)”, be introduced and given first reading. |
|
CARRIED |
||
|
|
5. |
APPLICATION BY YAMAMOTO ARCHITECTURE INC. FOR REZONING AT 9040 AND 9060/9080 NO. 2 ROAD FROM SINGLE DETACHED (RS1/E) TO LOW DENSITY TOWNHOUSES (RTL4) |
|
|
|
Mr. Jackson reported that the proposed nine-townhouse unit project has access from No. 2 Road. He noted that the applicant has responded in a significant way to ensure that the proposed units at the rear of the subject site are two-stories, not three, and that all proposed units are appropriately set back from the adjacent single-family dwellings. |
|
|
|
It was moved and seconded |
|
|
|
That Bylaw No. 8926, for the rezoning of 9040 and 9060/9080 No. 2 Road from “Single Detached (RS1/E)” to “Low Density Townhouses (RTL4)”, be introduced and given first reading. |
|
CARRIED |
||
|
|
6. |
APPLICATION BY MATTHEW CHENG ARCHITECT INC. FOR REZONING AT 8200, 8220, 8280 AND 8300 NO. 1 ROAD FROM SINGLE DETACHED (RS1/E) TO LOW DENSITY TOWNHOUSES (RTL4) |
|
|
|
|
Mr. Jackson noted that, in response to comments from residents who live on the cul-de-sac located to the east of the subject site, the developer of the proposed 28 unit townhouse project is providing a rear yard setback of six metres to address privacy issues, and this measurement is equivalent to that required by the zoning bylaw for single-family dwellings. Mr. Jackson added that with regard to massing, two-storey, not three-storey, townhouse units would face the single-family dwellings to the residential cul-de-sac to the east. |
|
|
|
|
In respond to a query from the Chair, Kevin Eng, Planner, advised that area residents who have raised concerns have been notified in writing regarding the developer’s design changes. |
|
|
|
|
A brief discussion took place between Committee and staff regarding the alignment of the subject site’s access in relation to the No. 1 Road and Pacemore Avenue intersection and pedestrian crosswalk. Mr. Jackson advised that staff would re-examine the issue ahead of the Development Permit process. |
|
|
|
|
Teri Bartwell, 8251 Coldfall Court, addressed Committee to outline the following concerns: (i) it is essential for her pie-shaped back yard to be significantly set back from the proposed townhouse units for privacy, property value purposes, and enjoyment of her property; (ii) the area has a lot of clay that holds water, so drainage is a major issue, and water may seep onto her property and impact her home that has a sunken living room; (iii) shading on backyards of the adjacent single-family dwellings is a concern; (iv) two proposed parking stalls placed directly behind the fence that earmarks her property are problematic due to her asthma condition; (v) many schools in the neighbourhood contribute to a large number of children using the area streets, and potential traffic accidents are a concern; (vi) the Coldfall Court cul-de-sac is chosen by drivers as a location to park their vehicles, and with 28 proposed townhouse units, this problem would increase; and (vii) in the event of a power outage and the resulting lack of operating street lights, traffic chaos in the area is possible. |
|
|
|
|
Ms. Bartwell concluded her remarks by noting that she does not consider 28 townhouse units low density, especially in her primarily single-family residential area, and she is worried about her safety |
|
|
|
|
Mr. Jackson advised that the applicant has amended the site plan since Ms. Barkwell submitted a letter to the planning department in March, 2012, and reiterated that each of the proposed townhouse units are now setback a full six metres, or 20 feet, from the yards of the Coldfall Court cul-de-sac single family dwellings. In addition the applicant has reduced the height of the townhouse units that face east. Mr. Jackson added that the plans for the development are available to anyone interested in viewing them. |
|
|
|
|
In response to queries from Committee, Mr. Jackson advised that: |
|
|
|
|
· |
during the Development Permit process staff will consider the idea of relocating the amenity space; |
|
|
|
· |
working with the applicant, staff will explore how drivers on the site can avoid backing their vehicles into parking stalls along the property line; and |
|
|
|
· |
staff will examine the location of the visitor parking stalls, the alignment of the Pacemore Avenue intersection, traffic, and drainage. |
|
|
|
Committee directed staff to provide Council with a memo, and a new site plan, prior to the Wednesday, September 5, 2012 Public Hearing, regarding information about the No. 1 Road and Pacemore Avenue intersection and pedestrian crosswalk, as well as details pertaining to the changes made by the applicant in response to concerns raised by area residents. |
|
|
|
|
It was moved and seconded |
|
|
|
|
That Bylaw No. 8929, for the rezoning of 8200, 8220, 8280 and 8300 No. 1 Road from “Single Detached (RS1/E)” to “Low Density Townhouses (RTL4)”, be introduced and given first reading. |
|
|
CARRIED |
|||
|
|
7. |
APPLICATION BY THE TRUSTEES OF THE LANSDOWNE CONGREGATION OF JEHOVAH’S WITNESSES FOR AGRICULTURAL LAND RESERVE NON-FARM USE AT 11014 WESTMINSTER HIGHWAY |
|
|
|
|
Mr. Jackson stated that the rationale for the location of the applicant’s building, and details regarding the number of trees to be retained on the subject site, is set out in the staff report. |
|
|
|
|
Discussion ensued between Committee and staff on the merits of the application, and especially with regard to: |
|
|
|
|
· |
the Richmond Nature Park is to the north, and the Shell Road Trail is to the west of the subject site; |
|
|
|
· |
whether the 4,500 square foot current structure should be replaced with a new building that, at 8,882 square feet, is almost double the size; |
|
|
|
· |
the southern portion of the subject site is wider than the northern portion, and the applicant’s plan is to locate the proposed new, bigger structure at the southern portion of the subject site; |
|
|
|
· |
when the current structure was build in the 1970s, schools and places of worship were allowable uses on the subject site, a site that is part of the Agricultural Land Reserve (ALR), and despite changes to the ALR since the 1970s, enacted by the Agriculture Land Commission (ALC), the current structure was ‘grandfathered’; |
|
|
|
· |
this non-farm use application is to be considered first by Council, and, if the application is approved by Council, this application is then forwarded to the ALC for a decision; and |
|
|
|
· |
the applicant’s parking plan meets the City’s bylaw requirements, and there is no parking requirement outlined by the ALC. |
|
|
|
Committee then heard from Bob Young of North Vancouver, a representative of the applicant, and Tom Ravenhill, Architect, of Surrey. In response to queries from Committee, Mr. Young and Mr. Ravenhill provided the following information: |
|
|
|
|
· |
the current building was constructed in 1977; |
|
|
|
· |
the applicant is not considering selling the site and relocating their place of worship to a site that is outside the ALR; |
|
|
|
· |
two separate sites are required by the applicant; the applicant’s other site, where they maintain a place of worship on Williams Road, is well utilized by their congregation, and does not have the capacity to accommodate its growing membership; and |
|
|
|
· |
no portion of the subject site has been utilized for agricultural purposes since the applicant has owned the site. |
|
|
|
Further discussion ensued between Committee and staff, regarding the City’s policy on places of worship, written in the early 1980s, especially with regard to the agricultural component within the policy, and the following advice was provided: |
|
|
|
|
· |
there are no requirements placed on the applicant to undertake agricultural activities on the subject site; |
|
|
|
· |
ultimately, the decision regarding acceptable non-farm uses on the subject site is for the ALC to decide; |
|
|
|
· |
there are a number of places of worship that are located on agricultural land and many of these are older buildings; and |
|
|
|
· |
staff would have to seek input from the ALC to discern whether the demolition of the applicant’s current structure, and the construction of a new building with a larger footprint, would trigger a submission to the ALC. |
|
|
|
Staff was asked to document all places of worship that were constructed before the implementation of the City’s policy on places of worship. |
|
|
|
|
A comment was made that owners of places of worship located on No. 5 Road do have requirements placed on them to undertake agricultural activities, and if Council approved the Jehovah’s Witness’ application, a precedent might then be set for sites, such as the one at 11014 Westminster Highway, that are within the ALR. |
|
|
|
|
A suggestion was made that the application be referred back to staff. After a brief discussion among Committee regarding the ramifications of the decision to refer it back, the following referral motion was introduced: |
|
|
|
|
It was moved and seconded |
|
|
|
|
That the application by the Trustees of the Lansdowne Congregation of Jehovah’s Witnesses for Agricultural Land Reserve Non-Farm use at 11014 Westminster Highway (AG 11-566932) be referred back to staff. |
|
|
CARRIED |
|||
|
|
8. |
GRANNY FLATS AND COACH HOUSES IN EDGEMERE (2041 OCP UPDATE) |
||
|
|
|
Terry Crowe, Manager, Policy Planning, accompanied by Holger Burke, Development Coordinator, stated that, as part of the Official Community Plan review process, public consultation surveys were undertaken in both the Edgemere and Burkeville neighbourhoods regarding form and character guidelines for granny flats or coach houses. The goal is for Council to authorize bylaws-in-principle regarding these types of residences for only Edgemere at this time. Mr. Crowe added that City engineers want to conduct further studies in Burkeville. |
||
|
|
|
The Chair stated that residents in Burkeville have indicated, through the Sea Island Community Association Board, that they wish to take a hiatus from participating in the public consultation surveys regarding form and character guidelines for granny flats or coach houses. |
||
|
|
|
In response to a query regarding the proposed $1,000 cost of the granny flat and coach house development permit, Mr. Jackson advised that it is an appropriate amount, and that it is based on a cost recovery point of view. |
||
|
|
|
In response to a further query, staff confirmed that the idea is for a resident who has an existing home and who wishes to construct a granny flat or coach house on their existing residential lot. |
||
|
|
|
It was moved and seconded |
||
|
|
|
(1) |
That Richmond Zoning Bylaw 8500, Amendment Bylaw 8922 (Attachment 1), to create a new Single Detached with Granny Flat or Coach House (RE1) zone and rezone a portion of the Edgemere neighbourhood with lanes from Single Detached (RS1/E) to Single Detached with Granny Flat or Coach House (RE1): |
|
|
|
|
|
(a) |
be introduced and given first reading; and |
|
|
|
|
(b) |
be referred to the same Public Hearing as the Richmond Official Community Plan Bylaw 7100, Amendment Bylaw for the 2041 OCP Update for consideration and approval; |
|
|
|
(2) |
That the Richmond Official Community Plan Bylaw 7100, Amendment Bylaw for the 2041 OCP Update designate Edgemere as an intensive residential development permit area with guidelines (Attachment 2); |
|
|
|
|
(3) |
That Development Permit, Development Variance Permit and Temporary Commercial and Industrial Use Permit Procedure Bylaw No. 7273, Amendment Bylaw 8923 (Attachment 3), to not require Development Permit signage in Edgemere for granny flat and coach house applications: |
|
|
|
|
|
(a) |
be introduced and given first, second and third reading; and |
|
|
|
|
(b) |
be scheduled for adoption after the Richmond Official Community Plan Bylaw 7100, Amendment Bylaw for the 2041 OCP Update is adopted; and |
|
|
|
(4) |
That Development Application Fees Bylaw No. 7984, Amendment Bylaw 8924 (Attachment 4), to introduce a $1,000 development permit application fee for granny flats and coach houses in Edgemere: |
|
|
|
|
|
(a) |
be introduced and given first, second, and third reading; and |
|
|
|
|
(b) |
be scheduled for adoption after the Richmond Official Community Plan Bylaw 7100, Amendment Bylaw for the 2041 OCP Update is adopted. |
|
CARRIED |
||||
|
|
9. |
MANAGER’S REPORT |
|
|
|
No Manager’s Reports were given. |
|
|
|
ADJOURNMENT |
|
|
|
It was moved and seconded |
|
|
|
That the meeting adjourn (5:07 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, July 17, 2012. |
|
_________________________________ |
_________________________________ |
|
Councillor Bill McNulty |
Sheila Johnston |