March 18, 2014 - Minutes

Date:

Tuesday, March 18, 2014

Place:

Anderson Room
Richmond City Hall

Present:

Councillor Bill McNulty, Chair
Councillor Chak Au
Councillor Linda Barnes
Councillor Harold Steves

Absent:

Councillor Evelina Halsey-Brandt

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 Tuesday, March 4, 2014, be adopted as circulated.

CARRIED

COMMUNITY SERVICES DEPARTMENT

1.

Final Endorsement of the British Columbia Provincial Rental Housing Corporation’s Alternative Legal Mechanism to Secure Additional Affordable Housing in the Remy Development, through Termination of Housing Agreement (9340 - 9400 Cambie Road) Bylaw No. 9059
(File Ref. No. 08-4057-01) (REDMS No. 4014244)

In reply to queries from Committee, Dena Kae Beno, Affordable Housing Coordinator noted that rental agreement templates are regularly reviewed to incorporate any Council approved changes to said agreements.

It was moved and seconded

That the Termination of Housing Agreement (9340-9400 Cambie Road) Bylaw No. 9059, to authorize the termination, release and discharge of Housing Agreement (9340-9400 Cambie Road) Bylaw No. 8406, be introduced and given first reading.

CARRIED

PLANNING & DEVELOPMENT DEPARTMENT

2.

Richmond Response: Proposed 2013 Port Metro Vancouver Land Use Plan
(File Ref. No. 01-0140-20) (REDMS No. 4166504)

Discussion ensued with regard to the proposed Port Metro Vancouver Land Use Plan (PMV Land Use Plan), and Committee commented on the importance of preserving agricultural lands in the City. Also, Committee  referenced an article from the February 21, 2014 edition of the Surrey Leader titled, “Forge industrial reserve using core review, port urges” (attached to and forming part of these minutes as Schedule 1) which reported that Port Metro Vancouver proposes to create an industrial land reserve.

In reply to queries regarding the approval process for the PMV Land Use Plan, Terry Crowe, Manager, Policy Planning, noted that the Port Metro Vancouver Board approves the PMV Land Use Plan and does not require federal government consent. Also, Mr. Crowe noted that the City is proactive in taking steps to collaborate with Metro Vancouver and Port Metro Vancouver on several industrial studies.

Staff were directed to advise Port Metro Vancouver, along with Richmond Members of Parliament and Richmond Members of the Legislative Assembly, that the City opposes the use of agricultural lands for any proposed industrial land reserve.

Discussion ensued with regard to Port Metro Vancouver’s jurisdiction over land use in relation to local zoning bylaws. As a result of the discussion, staff were directed to advise the provincial government that the City is opposed to any provincial intervention to overrule local zoning bylaws.

It was moved and seconded

(1)

That Council advise Port Metro Vancouver that it is providing only conditional support for the proposed 2013 Port Metro Vancouver Land Use Plan and requests that the Plan be revised to state that the Port will not use or expand on agricultural land, and the “Special Study Area” designations in Richmond be deleted and replaced with an “Agricultural” designation, before it is presented to the Port Metro Vancouver Board of Directors for approval; and

(2)

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

CARRIED

3.

Application by Kulwinder Sanghera for Rezoning at 11111 Williams Road from Single Detached (RS1/E) to Compact Single Detached (RC2)
(File Ref. No. 12-8060-20-008932; RZ 12-611497) (REDMS No. 4166096)

It was moved and seconded

That Richmond Zoning Bylaw 8500, Amendment Bylaw 8932, for the rezoning of 11111 Williams Road from “Single Detached (RS1/E)” to “Compact Single Detached (RC2)”, be introduced and given first reading.

CARRIED

4.

Application by Raman Kooner for Rezoning at 9140 Dolphin Ave from Single Detached (RS1/B) to Single Detached (RS2/K)
(File Ref. No. 12-8060-20-009129; RZ 13-650300) (REDMS No. 4166693)

It was moved and seconded

That Richmond Zoning Bylaw 8500, Amendment Bylaw 9129, for the rezoning of 9140 Dolphin Ave from “Single Detached (RS1/B)” to “Single Detached (RS2/K)”, be introduced and given first reading.

CARRIED

5.

Application by 0800705 B.C. Ltd. for a Zoning Text Amendment to the High Rise Apartment (ZHR7) - Lansdowne Village (City Centre) Zoning District at 7117 Elmbridge Way
(File Ref. No. 12-8060-20-009113 ;ZT 13-650975) (REDMS No. 4151206)

Wayne Craig, Director, Development commented on the proposed zoning text amendment, noting that it would include the current definition of “live/work dwelling.”

In reply to queries from Committee, Mr. Craig gave examples of possible commercial uses permitted under the current definition of “live/work dwelling” such as a doctor’s office or a hair salon.

It was moved and seconded

That Richmond Zoning Bylaw 8500, Amendment Bylaw 9113, to amend the “High Rise Apartment (ZHR7) – Lansdowne Village (City Centre)” zoning district for the property at 7117 Elmbridge Way to delete Section 19.7.11.1 (Other Regulations) which defines a “live/work dwelling” within this zone, and rely on the definition of “live/work dwelling” under Section 3.4 (Use and Term Definitions), be introduced and given first reading.

CARRIED

6.

Application by Citimark-Western Alberta Road Townhouse Ltd. for Rezoning at 9671 Alberta Road from Single Detached (RS1/F) to Medium Density Townhouses (RTM2)
(File Ref. No. 12-8060-20-009117;  RZ 13-638852) (REDMS No. 4157817)

Mr. Craig provided introductory comments with regard to the proposed project’s urban design and noted that upgrades will be made to the pedestrian walkway along the western edge of the site.

Discussion ensued with regard to potential sustainable energy features that may be incorporated in the proposed project. Staff were then directed to work with the applicant to explore potential sustainability measures that may be incorporated into the proposed project prior to Public Hearing.

In reply to queries from Committee, Mr. Craig noted that staff are working on initiatives for Council’s consideration that would address City policies on sustainable energy options for new developments.

Wayne Fougere, Architect, Fougere Architecture Inc., highlighted possible sustainable energy features that may be incorporated into the proposed project such as provisions for solar panels and electric car outlets. Also, he noted that the project meets EnerGuide 80 standards.

It was moved and seconded

That Richmond Zoning Bylaw 8500, Amendment Bylaw 9117, for the rezoning of 9671 Alberta Road from “Single Detached (RS1/F)” to “Medium Density Townhouses (RTM2)”, be introduced and given first reading.

CARRIED

7.

Mr. Craig provided background information and noted that the proposed development meets the location criteria for townhouse designation on an arterial road. Mr. Craig added that the area adjacent to the proposed project was assessed for future development, however due to variations in lot sizes and depth, a continuous back lane between Linfield Gate and Lancing Road would be difficult. As a result, designating future development in the area for townhouses would be appropriate since a back lane would not be required. Mr. Craig then commented on the proposed development’s urban design and parking scheme, noting that units located at the back of the site have been converted from duplex units to single detached units. Also, Mr. Craig commented that the applicant also proposed a rowhome design for the site; however due to a lack of support from the neighbourhood following a public consultation, the design was not pursued.

Discussion ensued with regard to the 2041 OCP Bylaw 9000 Arterial Road Redevelopment Policy (Arterial Road Policy) in relation to the proposed development.

In reply to queries from Committee, Mr. Craig noted that the proposed project includes provisions for convertible units as well as wheelchair accessible parking.

Edwin Lee, Planning Technician-Design, noted that the neighbourhood’s objection to the applicant’s rowhouse proposal was due in part to concerns related to density and the availability of visitor parking.

Discussion ensued with regard to proposed development’s tree retention plan and sustainability aspects.

Discussion further ensued with regard to future development of public transit along the Railway Avenue corridor and the potential densification of the surrounding area.

In reply to queries from Committee, Taizo Yamamoto, Architect, Yamamoto Architecture Inc. (Architect) stated that the applicant will work with staff to explore sustainable energy options available for the proposed project.

In an effort to address neighbourhood concerns, Mr. Yamamoto commented that the proposed development’s architectural form and character was designed to complement the neighbourhood’s existing single-family streetscape. Also, he commented that properties adjacent to the proposed development will back onto green space as oppose to a back lane if single-family dwellings were considered.

In reply to queries from Committee, Mr. Yamamoto advised the neighbourhood identified parking availability and density as key concerns for preferring townhomes over rowhomes.

Also, Mr. Yamamoto was of the opinion that the site’s proximity to schools and other amenities will be an attractive feature of the proposed development for young families.

Discussion ensued with regard to road and transit improvements adjacent to the proposed development along Railway Avenue and Mr. Craig advised that the developer will be responsible for frontage improvements along the site.

In reply to queries from Committee, Sonali Hingorani, Transportation Engineer commented on the proposed transit upgrades and highlighted that sidewalk upgrades to bus stops along Railway Avenue are scheduled for 2014, and that such improvements will facilitate some accessibility to bus stops.

A Richmond resident, 7360 Railway Avenue, expressed concerns with regard to the proposed development’s public consultation process and was of the opinion that residents were not given adequate notification to provide input. Also, he expressed concern regarding the proposed increase in density and traffic in the area.

In reply to queries from Committee, Mr. Craig noted that the February 25, 2014 public information meeting was organized by the applicant; however he  added that the concept of the proposed development was completed in consultation with staff, based on feedback from the neighbourhood.

Helen Sheardown, 7360 Railway Avenue, expressed concern regarding the distribution of the notification for the public information meeting and was of the opinion that the proposed development would negatively affect the single-family character of the neighbourhood.

In reply to queries from Committee, Mr. Craig noted that the proposed development’s setbacks would be five meters from the rear property line and that the minimum setback for a single-family development is six meters from the rear property line.

In reply to queries from Committee, Mr. Craig advised that staff verified the public information meeting invitation for accuracy and specified the notification area.

Amar Sandhu, Sandhill Homes Ltd., was of the opinion that adequate notification was given to nearby residents regarding the public information meeting for the proposed development. Also, Mr. Sandhu stated that he believes that the proposed development would enhance the neighbourhood by attracting young families.

In reply to queries from Committee, Mr. Sandhu advised that the developer will work with staff with regard to the potential energy sustainability options available for the proposed development. Also, he added that the costs of each unit have not been finalized.

It was moved and seconded

(1)

That Bylaw 9015, for the rezoning of 7400, 7420 and 7440 Railway Avenue from “Single Detached (RS1/E)” to “Low Density Townhouses (RTL4)”, be introduced and given first reading; and

(2)

That the Public Hearing notification area be expanded from the standard 50 m radius to include the area shown in Attachment 5.

The question on the motion was not called as discussion ensued regarding densification along arterial roads.

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

8.

Application by Townline Gardens Inc. for a Zoning Text Amendment to the Commercial Mixed Use (ZMU18) – the Gardens (Shellmont) zone to permit waiving the Affordable Housing Requirements for Market Rental Units in Phase 2
(File Ref. No. 12-8060-20-009112; ZT 14-656053) (REDMS No. 4147794)

Mr. Craig provided background information on the proposed application and noted that the affordable housing requirement will remain for the first phase of development but would be removed from the proposed 144 market rental housing units.

Discussion ensued with regard to the size of the affordable housing units and Mr. Craig noted that the developer has agreed to set aside larger units for affordable housing in future phases of the development.

In reply to queries from Committee, Mr. Craig noted that the Affordable Housing Strategy does not have a specific policy regarding to market rental units; however it is anticipated that the review of the Affordable Housing Strategy would explore adding such policies.

It was moved and seconded

That Bylaw No. 9112, for a zoning text amendment to the “Commercial Mixed Use (ZMU18) – the Gardens (Shellmont)” zone to waive the affordable housing requirements for the 144 market rental housing units within Phase 2 in Building D located on PID: 028-631-561 Lot C Section 31 Block 4 North Range 5 West NWD Plan EPP12978 (10820 No. 5 Road), be introduced and given first reading.

CARRIED

9.

MANAGER’S REPORT

(i)

Richmond Response: Industry Canada’s Proposed Amendments to Antenna Tower Siting Procedures

Mr. Crowe provided background information, noting that Industry Canada is seeking feedback from the City regarding the proposed amendments. Mr. Crowe added that once the proposed amendments have been approved, City bylaws will need to be amended to be consistent with the proposed changes.

(ii)

Proposed Metro Vancouver Regional Growth Strategy Amendments

Mr. Crowe referenced a memorandum dated March 14, 2014, (attached to and forming part of these minutes as Schedule 2) on proposed amendments to Metro Vancouver’s Regional Growth Strategy and noted that the amendments, (minor text and map changes), do not affect the City and as such staff will advise Metro Vancouver that the City has no objections to the proposed amendments.

Discussion ensued with regard to regional planning and municipal autonomy. Mr. Crowe commented on to a recent court case regarding jurisdictional matters between Metro Vancouver and the Township of Langley and advised that staff will provide a memorandum updating Council on such matters.

(iii)

Bill 17 – First Reading

Mr. Craig gave an update on Bill 17, noting that it was given first reading. He advised that Bill 17 includes provisions for the termination of land use contracts and that a memorandum updating Council on Bill 17 will be brought forward.

ADJOURNMENT

It was moved and seconded

That the meeting adjourn (5:15 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, March 18, 2014.

_________________________________

_________________________________

Councillor Bill McNulty
Chair

Evangel Biason
Auxiliary Committee Clerk