Date:

Tuesday, July 16, 2013

Place:

Anderson Room
Richmond City Hall

Present:

Councillor Bill McNulty, Chair
Councillor Evelina Halsey-Brandt
Councillor Chak Au
Councillor Linda Barnes
Councillor Harold Steves

Mayor Malcolm Brodie

Also Present:

Councillor Linda McPhail

Call to Order:

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

AGENDA

It was moved and seconded

That the order of the agenda be amended to deal with Items 7 through 4 and then resume to the regular order of the agenda.

CARRIED

MINUTES

It was moved and seconded

That the minutes of the meeting of the Planning Committee held on Wednesday, July 3, 2013, be adopted as circulated.

CARRIED

NEXT COMMITTEE MEETING DATE

Wednesday, September 4, 2013, (tentative date) at 4:00 p.m. in the Anderson Room

PLANNING & DEVELOPMENT DEPARTMENT

7.

Application by Rocky Sethi for Rezoning at 10591 No. 1 Road from Single Detached (RS1E) to Coach Houses (RCH1)

(File Ref. No. 12-8060-20-9045; RZ 13-634617) (REDMS No. 3903682)

It was moved and seconded

That Richmond Zoning Bylaw 8500, Amendment Bylaw 9045, for the rezoning of 10591 No. 1 Road from “Single Detached (RS1E)” to “Coach Houses (RCH1)”, be introduced and given first reading.

CARRIED

6.

Application by Dava Developments Ltd. for Rezoning at 2671, 2711, 2811, 2831, 2851, 2911, 2931, 2951, 2971 and 2991 No. 3 Road from Light Industrial (IL) to Auto-Oriented Commercial (CA)

(File Ref. No. 12-8060-20-9041/9042/8479; RZ 11-566630) (REDMS No. 3898754)

Dave Semple, General Manager, Community Services, advised that Richmond Official Community Plan Bylaw 7100, Amendment Bylaw 8479 would be abandoned and that the parkland for the area would remain unspecified at this time.

It was moved and seconded

(1)

That Official Community Plan Bylaws 7100 and 9000, Amendment Bylaw 9041, to facilitate the construction of commercial uses on the subject site, by:

(a)

In Schedule 1, amending the existing land use designation in Attachment 1 (City of Richmond 2041 OCP Land Use Map) to redesignate the block bounded by River Road, No. 3 Road, Bridgeport Road, and the rear lane, including the subject site, from "Park" to "Commercial"; and

(b)

In Schedule 2.10 (City Centre), amending the existing land use designation in the Generalized Land Use Map (2031), Specific Land Use Map: Bridgeport Village (2031), and reference maps throughout the Plan to redesignate the block bounded by River Road, No. 3 Road, Bridgeport Road, and the rear lane, including the subject site, from "Park" to "Urban Centre T5 (45 m)"; to introduce the extension of minor Douglas Street from No. 3 Road to River Road; and to amend the area designated for park purposes within the Bridgeport Village area; together with related minor map and text amendments;

be introduced and given first reading;

(2)

That Bylaw 9041, 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 9041, having been considered in accordance with OCP Bylaw Preparation Consultation Policy 5043, is hereby deemed not to require further consultation;

(4)

That Richmond Zoning Bylaw 8500, Amendment Bylaw 9042, which makes minor amendments to the " CA" zone specific to 2671, 2711, 2811, 2831, 2851, 2911, 2931, 2951, 2971 and 2991 No. 3 Road and rezones that property from "Light Industrial (IL)" to "Auto-Oriented Commercial (CA)", be introduced and given first reading; and

(5)

That Richmond Official Community Plan Bylaw 7100, Amendment Bylaw 8479, be abandoned.

CARRIED

5.

Application by Johnny W.W. Leung Architect for Rezoning at 6433 Dyke Road from Single Detached (ZS6) - London Landing (Steveston) to Heritage Two-Unit Dwelling (ZD4) - London Landing (Steveston)

(File Ref. No. 12-8060-20-9028; RZ 13-631467) (REDMS No. 3849204)

Wayne Craig, Director of Development, advised that to ensure the form and character of the duplex responded to the neighbourhood guidelines and Council’s expectations the project was reviewed by the Heritage Advisory Committee and building elevations for the proposed duplex were included in the rezoning package (Attachment 4).  Staff would ensure that a building permit application is applied for, is issuable, and is in accordance with the design drawings attached to this report before the rezoning is adopted.

It was moved and seconded

That Richmond Zoning Bylaw 8500 Amendment Bylaw 9028, to create the “Heritage Two-Unit Dwelling (ZD4) - London Landing (Steveston)” and for the rezoning of 6433 Dyke Road from “Single Detached (ZS6) - London Landing (Steveston)” to “Heritage Two-Unit Dwelling (ZD4) - London Landing (Steveston)”, be introduced and given first reading.

CARRIED

4.

Application by Sandhill Homes Ltd. for Rezoning at 9080 No. 3 Road from Assembly (ASY) to Medium Density Townhouses (RTM2)

(File Ref. No. 12-8060-20-9030/9043; RZ 12-619503) (REDMS No. 3899821 v.3)

Mr. Craig stated that the site plan was revised to show the outdoor amenity space adjacent to the east property line providing a greater side yard setback.  Staff confirmed that property taxes have been paid since 2004 at the assembly tax rate. Staff are recommending that the density be slightly increased from 0.6 Floor Area Ratio (FAR) to 0.65 FAR; in exchange, the applicant would provide an additional voluntary contribution to the City’s Affordable Housing Fund Reserve.

In reply to a query, Mr. Craig advised that future assembly rezoning requests would be dealt with under the current policies within the Official Community Plan.  Currently, one other application to amend assembly to residential zoning is under review.

It was moved and seconded

(1)

That Official Community Plan Bylaw 9000, Amendment Bylaw 9030, to redesignate 9080 No. 3 Road from "Community Institutional" to "Neighbourhood Residential" in Attachment 1 to Schedule 1, be introduced and given first reading;

(2)

That Official Community Plan Bylaw 9000, Amendment Bylaw 9030, 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 Official Community Plan Bylaw 9000, Amendment Bylaw 9030, having been considered in accordance with OCP Bylaw Preparation Consultation Policy 5043, is hereby deemed not to require further consultation; and

(4)

That Richmond Zoning Bylaw 8500, Amendment Bylaw 9043, for the rezoning of 9080 No. 3 Road from "Assembly (ASY)" to "Medium Density Townhouses (RTM2)", be introduced and given first reading.

CARRIED

1.

Steveston Area Plan Amendment

(File Ref. No. 08-4200-00) (REDMS No. 3872453 v.5)

Terry Crowe, Manager, Policy Planning, gave a brief overview of the proposed Steveston Area Plan amendment and the outcome from the Stakeholder meeting, held on April 27, 2013 with 21 representatives attending, and the Public Open House, held on Saturday, May 4, 2013 with approximately 140 residents attending.  As a result of the consultation with Stakeholders and the public the following revisions were made to the proposed Steveston Area Plan:  (i) reduction of the maximum building height for properties on Moncton Street to 2 storeys; (ii) reduction of the maximum height for buildings on the north side of Bayview Street to 2 storeys with some potential for 2.5 storeys in the roof area for the south 50% of the building, and allow up to 3 storeys for the north 50% of the building (from the lane side); and (iii) reduction of the on-site residential parking requirements to 1.3 parking spaces per residential dwelling unit, with a minimum of 1.0 space per dwelling unit provided on site with the balance of 0.3 being preferably provided as on-site parking, but may be provided as a cash-in-lieu contribution, as Council determines.

Discussion ensued regarding (i) other options, such as no amendments to the Steveston Area Plan or major amendments in keeping with the previous area plan, and (ii) geodetic measurements and exceptions to the maximum storeys.

In reply to a query, Victor Wei, Director, Transportation, advised that Transportation staff worked closely with Policy Planning to ensure that the Recommended Long-Term Streetscape Visions for Bayview Street and Chatham Street would be compatible with the proposed Steveston Area Plan Amendment.

In reply to a query, Jane Fernyhough, Director, Arts, Culture and Heritage Services, stated that staff had initiated the process to prepare site-specific Conservations Plans for City-owned heritage resources.

In reply to a query, Barry Konkin, Program Coordinator - Development, noted that the analysis completed with the Heritage Conservation Strategy indicated that most of the proposed parking requirements could be met on-site.

Loren Slye, 11911 3^rd Avenue, stated that it had often been sighted that parking within Steveston was adequate and yet any day of the week a person cannot park in front of his house.  Employees are allowed to use the prime parking spaces forcing customers and visitors to park in the residential areas and suggested that “Residential Parking Only” signage be installed in high impact residential areas.  Mr. Slye expressed concern that rooftop gardens were not considered a storey when they are comprised of trees in excess of 40’ in height. In conclusion, he expressed that 83 completed survey forms was not adequate support for the proposed amendments.

In response to a query, Mr. Slye stated that the maximum 2.5 storey building height along Bayview Street would be a definite improvement.

Mr. Ralph Turner, 3411 Chatham Street, commended staff on various aspects of the Steveston Area Plan Amendment and the Recommended Long-Term Streetscape Visions for Bayview Street and Chatham Street proposals.  However, Mr. Turner expressed concern regarding (i) the inclusion of exceptions, (ii) the push for densification if preserving heritage was a priority, (iii) the rationale for permitting varying maximum heights on opposite sides of Bayview Street, and (iv) cash-in-lieu of parking not being a viable solution.  Mr. Turner stated that Steveston does not have a parking problem but a use problem with employees occupying prime parking spaces and paid parking areas not being utilized.  He concluded that rooftop gardens were not a part of historical Steveston and as a habitable space they should be considered a storey in the interpretation of the bylaw.

In response to a query, Terry Crowe advised that the rationale for the 20 m maximum height along the southside of Bayview Street was in keeping with the historical heights associated with cannery buildings.

Robert Kiesman, 3280 Richmond Street, a Director of the Steveston Harbour Authority, stated that the summation of the Stakeholders comments (PLN-14) did not adequately reflect the discussion at the Stakeholder meeting and reiterated his written comments included in the report (PLN-57).  Stakeholders and the public were quite clear that they did not want any exceptions to the two-storey maximum building height.

In reply to a query, Joe Erceg, General Manager, Planning and Development, noted that a developer cannot be denied the right to apply for an exception to the two-storey maximum building height.  The staff recommendation would likely not support the application and Council would not be obligated to approve the application.

Lorin Yakiwchuk, 5355 Lackner Crescent, expressed concern with the lack of a comprehensive heritage vision for Steveston village and sighted England’s practice concerning heritage villages and the recognition of their importance and value in economic terms (millions of pounds and tourist).  Do we know what kind of money is generated by tourism in Steveston or what could be developed long after the developers have left town?  Steveston is a distinct area within Richmond and the City should think of the heritage value within the village.

Discussion ensued regarding the Heritage Plan prepared by Mr. Bud Sakamoto and that further clarification is required by staff on the proposed amendments (e.g. maximum height and exceptions to the maximum storeys) including a comparison to the previous area plan requirements (2009).

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

It was moved and seconded

That the proposed Steveston Area Plan Amendment as outlined in the report from the General Manager, Planning and Development, dated June 27, 2013 be referred back to staff to bring clarification to the recommendations listed on page 18 of the report, including a comparison chart illustrating the existing plan and the proposed plan.

The question on the referral was not called as discussion ensued and staff was directed to include (i) pre-2009 requirements in the comparison, (ii) the drawings available to the public, (iii) the Sakamoto report, and (iv) information regarding eliminating rooftop gardens.  The question on the referral was then called, and it was CARRIED.

2.

RECOMMENDED LONG-TERM STREETSCAPE VISIONS FOR BAYVIEW STREET AND CHATHAM STREET

(File Ref. No. 10-6360-01) (REDMS No. 3890388 v.5)

Victor Wei, Director Transportation, gave a brief overview of the Long-Term Streetscape Visions for Bayview Street and Chatham Street noting that there was little support from the public for increased parking within Steveston. Public opinion suggested that wider sidewalks and improved streetscape features (e.g. benches) would be more appropriate.

Discussion ensued concerning (i) whether street or sidewalk improvements were required, (ii) the consideration of heritage features (i.e. planked sidewalk), (iii) tram service, (iv) permanent curb extensions, (v) designated accessible parking, and (vi) the off-street parking fund.

In reply to queries, Mr. Wei advised that major Provincial legislative amendments would be required to allow the City to use the funds designated for the development of off-street parking in Steveston for another use.  Sidewalk improvements would be completed as individual properties were redeveloped.  To complete the improvements at one time would require funding by the City.

Robert Kiesman, 3280 Richmond Street, expressed opposition to the staff recommendation primarily due to Steveston being a working commercial fishing harbour with an appreciable rustic atmosphere that would be lost by manicured streetscapes. In his opinion the survey results were skewed as there was not a clear option to do nothing included in the questionnaire. Mr. Kieseman stated that Steveston does not have a parking shortage as several parking lots are not being fully utilized and suggested that the 3 hour parking regulation be enforced.

In response to queries, Mr. Kiesman stated that he would not be in favour of the sidewalk improvements or the no parking zone along Bayview Street.

Loren Slye, 11911 3^rd Avenue, expressed concern with the cost associated with the proposed improvements and suggested that staff investigate parking options on 4^th Avenue.  Mr. Slye advised that there was an interest group looking into bringing a rubberized tram into Steveston.

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

It was moved and seconded

That the Recommended Long-Term Streetscape Visions for Bayview Street and Chatham Street as outlined in the report from the Director, Transportation, dated June 26, 2013 be referred back to staff to:

(1)

investigate sidewalk options; and

(2)

provide funding options for the sidewalks.

The question on the referral was not called as there was not a consensus from the Committee in support of the proposed streetscape vision.  Discussion ensued regarding a possible tram in Steveston and the implications of removing parking and prohibiting vehicular traffic on Bayview Street.  Staff was advised that the report include (i) no parking on Bayview Street and the subsequent implications to parking within Steveston and vehicular traffic on Bayview Street, (ii) heritage (i.e. plank) options for the sidewalk, and (iii) parking options on 4^th Avenue.  The question on the referral was then called, and it was CARRIED.

3.

Port Metro Vancouver Land Use Plan Update

(File Ref. No.) (REDMS No. 3900390)

It was moved and seconded

That, as per the report from the General Manager, Planning and Development, dated June 27, 2013, titled: Port Metro Vancouver Land Use Plan Update, the City Of Richmond:

(1)

Advise Port Metro Vancouver that, as the City continues to strongly object to any Port use of agricultural lands, the Port state in its final Land Use Plan that it will not use agricultural lands for Port expansion or operations; and

(2)

Advise the Minister of Transport Canada, the BC Minister of Agriculture, the Chair of the BC Agricultural Land Commission, the Metro Vancouver Board and all Metro Vancouver municipalities be advised of the above recommendation.

The question on the motion was not called as discussion ensued and there was agreement that the recommendation be amended to identify specific agricultural lands listed as “Undetermined” in the Port’s draft Plan (e.g., the Gilmore farm, Rabbit River farm, etc.).  Also, it was noted that the Port purchase appropriately zoned (e.g., Industrial) land as it becomes available adjacent or close to existing Port lands.  Staff was requested to provide copies of the current draft Port “Undetermined” map designations associated with the Port’s draft Land Use Plan to Council.

The question on the motion, which now reads:

“That, as per the report from the General Manager, Planning and Development, dated June 27, 2013, titled: Port Metro Vancouver Land Use Plan Update, the City Of Richmond:

(1)

Advise Port Metro Vancouver that, as the City continues to strongly object to any Port use of agricultural lands, the Port state in its final Land Use Plan that it will not use agricultural lands, including the Gilmore Farm, Rabbit River Farm, and other Port owned agricultural lands, for Port expansion or operations and that any future purchased land will abide by City zoning; and

(2)

Advise the Minister of Transport Canada, the BC Minister of Agriculture, the Chair of the BC Agricultural Land Commission, the Metro Vancouver Board and all Metro Vancouver municipalities be advised of the above recommendation.”

was then called, and it was CARRIED.

8.

MANAGER’S REPORT

None.

ADJOURNMENT

It was moved and seconded

That the meeting adjourn (6:02 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 16, 2013.

_________________________________

_________________________________

Councillor Bill McNulty
Chair

Heather Howey
Committee Clerk