June 17, 2014 - Minutes

Date:

Tuesday, June 17, 2014

Place:

Anderson Room
Richmond City Hall

Present:

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

Mayor Malcolm Brodie

Absent:

Councillor Chak Au

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, June 3, 2014, be adopted as circulated.

CARRIED

NEXT COMMITTEE MEETING DATE

Tuesday, July 8, 2014, (tentative date) at 4:00 p.m. in the Anderson Room

It was moved and seconded

That the agenda be varied to consider Item No. 2 last.

CARRIED

COMMUNITY SERVICES DEPARTMENT

1.

Child Care Major Capital Funding Program 2014/15 - Province of BC
(File Ref. No. 07-3070-01) (REDMS No. 4235453)

Coralys Cuthbert, Child Care Coordinator, noted that the Province advised that local governments are not required to place a charge on the land title in favour of the Province if the City obtained the grant from the Child Care Major Capital Funding Program.

It was moved and seconded

(1)

That “The Gardens” child care project located at 10640 No. 5 Road, be endorsed for submission to the Provincial Child Care Major Capital Funding Program 2014/15; and

(2)

That the Chief Administrative Officer and the General Manager, Community Services be authorized to sign grant applications and agreements as required for this submission.

The question on the motion was not called as discussion ensued. 

It was moved and seconded

(1)

That “The Gardens” child care project located at 10640 No. 5 Road, be endorsed for submission to the Provincial Child Care Major Capital Funding Program 2014/15;

(2)

That the Chief Administrative Officer and the General Manager, Community Services be authorized to sign grant applications and agreements as required for this submission; and

(3)

That the City be authorized to grant a registrable charge in favour of the Province of BC against the title to the Lands restricting the ability of the City to sell, mortgage, transfer or lease (other than to the child care provider), or make other disposition of the property for a period of up to 10 years without the Province’s prior written consent if necessary.

CARRIED

PLANNING & DEVELOPMENT DEPARTMENT

3.

Application by Hollybridge Limited Partnership (Intracorp) for Rezoning at 6888 River Road and 6900 Pearson Way from Residential/Limited Commercial (RCL3) to Residential/Limited Commercial (ZMU27) - Oval Village (City Centre)
(File Ref. No. 08-4105-20; RZ 14-665416) (REDMS No. 4249044)

Wayne Craig, Director, Development, commented on the proposed application and noted the applicant is seeking to provide a cash-in-lieu contribution towards the City’s capital Affordable Housing Reserve Fund.

In reply to comments made by Committee, Cathryn Volkering Carlile, General Manager, Community Services, advised that approximately $3 million in interim funds have been committed to the affordable housing projects in the city centre. Also, she noted that a portion of the proposed cash-in-lieu contribution can be allocated to offset the interim funding committed to the city centre affordable housing projects.

Discussion ensued with regard to whether (i) the interim funding allocated for the affordable housing projects in the city centre will be sufficient; (ii) the proposed cash-in-lieu contribution will be needed for affordable housing projects in the city centre; and (iii) the construction affordable housing units be preferenced over cash-in-lieu contributions.

In reply to queries from Committee, Dena Kae Beno, Affordable Housing Coordinator, advised that the interim funds, together with the proposed cash-in-lieu contribution, can support the city centre affordable housing projects as well as subsidize housing costs for low-income families.

Discussion ensued with regard to receiving a partial cash-in-lieu contribution, with the remaining contribution given as affordable housing units. In reply to queries from Committee, Mr. Craig advised that discussions with the applicant would have to take place with regard to a partial cash-in-lieu contribution.

Discussion then ensued regarding receiving full or partial cash-in-lieu contributions for the city centre affordable housing projects.

In reply to queries from Committee, Ms. Carlile noted that funding not used for the city centre affordable housing projects can be reserved for future projects. She added that there are advantages to accepting either the full or partial cash-in-lieu contribution.

Discussion took place about the preference to see affordable housing units constructed over receiving cash-in-lieu contributions.

In reply to queries from Committee, Mr. Craig noted that the proposed development is anticipated to have a LEED Silver equivalent rating and be serviced by the City’s District Energy Utility.

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

It was moved and seconded

That staff examine the options for a partial cash-in-lieu contribution that would provide affordable housing units in the proposed Oval Village (City Centre) development and offset the interim funding committed for affordable housing projects in the city centre.

The question on the referral was not called as discussion ensued regarding other options to offset the interim funding and receive the contribution only as affordable units.

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

It was moved and seconded

That staff examine options:

(1)

for a partial cash-in-lieu contribution that would provide affordable housing units in the proposed Oval Village (City Centre) development and offset the interim funding committed for affordable housing projects in the city centre;

(2)

to accept the proposed contribution only as affordable units; and

(3)

to offset the interim funding committed for the affordable housing projects in the city centre;

and report back.

                                                                                                               CARRIED

4.

Application by Cotter Architects Inc. for Rezoning at 3471 Chatham Street from the "Steveston Commercial (CS3)" zone to a site specific "Commercial Mixed Use (ZMU26) – Steveston Village" zone
(File Ref. No. 08-4105-20;  RZ 13-643436) (REDMS No. 4236626)

Mr. Craig briefed Committee on design revisions to the proposed development and noted the following:

§   

the proposed development remains three storeys in height, however design revisions were made to the roof structure;

§   

the rooftop amenities may be accessed by stairs or by elevator;

§   

a shadow analysis of the proposed development was completed; and

§   

the overall building design was reviewed for compliance with the Sakamoto Guidelines.

In reply to queries from Committee, Mr. Craig noted that (i) consideration for height variances will occur at the development permit process; (ii) the proposed development will be fully accessible; and (iii) the shadowing analysis indicated that the proposed structure did cast shadows to the west in the morning hours.

Sara Badyal, Planner 2, advised that the maximum height of the proposed development remains at three stories. However, she noted that changes to the overall design has resulted in a reduction in the massing on the roof.

In reply to queries from Committee, Ms. Badyal noted that after community feedback, the concrete art panels have been relocated to a highly visible location and the public bench has been removed.

Rob Whetter, Architect, Cotter Architects, briefed Committee on the design revisions to the proposed development after consultation with staff and highlighted the following:

§   

heritage elements incorporated in the design were based on the Sakamoto Guidlines;

§   

the massing on the roof was reduced;

§   

the proposed development will include 10 residential units;

§   

options are available to remove the elevator from the design;

§   

the roof deck is setback to eliminate any overlook;

§   

the proposed development is designed to transition with the single-family dwellings in the area;

§   

the number of decks have been reduced;

§   

the size of the windows have been reduced; and

§   

the shadow cast by the proposed development will be smaller.

Discussion ensued with regard to the location and design of the elevator shaft and in reply to queries from Committee, Mr. Whetter advised that the elevator shaft enclosure on the roof can be designed to be more visually pleasing.

Discussion then took place regarding accessibility to the proposed development and the demand for accessible units.

Mr. Whetter advised that the elevator shaft can be relocated to reduce its visibility from the street level.

Edith Turner, 3411 Chatham Street expressed concern with regard to the size of the proposed development in relation to exisiting buildings in Steveston Village and read from her submission (attached to and forming part of these minutes as Schedule 1).

Ralph Turner, 3411 Chatham Street expressed concern with regard to the size proposed development, and in particular, its shadowing over adjacent buildings. He read from his submission (attached to and forming part of these minutes as Schedule 2).

Discussion ensued with regard to options to reduce the elevation of the proposed development by removing the Steveston Village Heritage Conservation Grant requirement. In reply to queries from Committee, Mr. Craig advised that the Steveston Village Heritage Conservation Grant contribution from this development is approximately $296,000. Also, Mr. Craig noted that there are approximately 17 heritage buildings in Steveston Village and that the Steveston Village Heritage Conservation Grant provides funding for renovation of said heritage sites.

Discussion then ensued with regard to the number of active applications including provisions for the Steveston Village Heritage Conservation Grant and options to remove such requirement from these applications.

Loren Slye, 11911 3^rd Avenue, expressed his support for the proposed development’s design. Also, Mr. Slye read a submission from XXXX, XXXX (attached and forming part of these minutes as Schedule 3).

Ken Yoshikawa, 3571 Richmond Street, expressed his support for the proposed development and read from his submission (attached and forming part of these minutes as Schedule 4).

Discussion ensued with regard to the visibility of the elevator shaft on the rooftop of the proposed development and in reply to queries from Committee, Mr. Yoshikawa noted that the visibility of the elevator shaft did not concern him so long as it provides wheelchair access to the rooftop.

Dana Westermark, 13333 Princess Street, commented on the Steveston Village Heritage Conservation Grant and commented on different opportunities to utilize the Grant Fund.

Bob Hodder, 3506 Semlin Drive, commented on the shadowing effect of the proposed building. Mr. Hodder noted that there is a tree adjacent to the proposed development that currently casts a shadow on the neighbouring yard. In his opinion, due to the existing shadow from the adjacent tree, the shadowing effects from the proposed development on the adjacent yard would be minimal.

It was moved and seconded

That Richmond Zoning Bylaw 8500, Amendment Bylaw 9138 to: create a site specific “Commercial Mixed Use (ZMU26) – Steveston Village” zone; and to rezone 3471 Chatham Street from the “Steveston Commercial (CS3)” zone to the “Commercial Mixed Use (ZMU26) – Steveston Village” zone, be introduced and given first reading.

The question on the motion was not called as discussion ensued with regard to the proposed development’s (i) height and shadowing effect; (ii) rooftop amenity space; (iii) accessibility; and (iv) elevator shaft.

Discussion then ensued regarding the Steveston Village Heritage Conservation Grant program and heritage buildings in Steveston Village.

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

5.

Application by Tien Sher Land Investment Group Ltd. for Rezoning at 3391, 3411, 3451 No. 4 Road and Lot B, NWD PLAN 14909 from Single Detached (RS1/E) to Single Detached(RS2/B)
(File Ref. No. 08-4105-20; RZ 10-552482) (REDMS No. 4235324)

Mr. Craig briefed Committee on the proposed application and noted that the proposed application will include changes to the lot configurations.

Discussion then ensued regarding the site’s servicing requirements.

It was moved and seconded

(1)

That third reading of Richmond Zoning Bylaw 8500, Amendment Bylaw 8789, for the rezoning of 3391, 3411, 3451 No. 4 Road and Lot B, NWD PLAN 14909, be rescinded; and

(2)

That Richmond Zoning Bylaw 8500, Amendment Bylaw 8789 be referred to the Monday, July 21, 2014 Public Hearing at 7:00 pm in the Council Chambers of Richmond City Hall.

CARRIED

6.

Application by Barbara Stylianou for Rezoning at 5280/5300 Moncton Street from Two-Unit Dwellings (RD1) to Single Detached (RS2/B)
(File Ref. No. 08-4105-20; RZ 13-650616) (REDMS No. 4245187)

Discussion ensued regarding potential for garage houses and access to the site from the front of the property.

It was moved and seconded

That Richmond Zoning Bylaw 8500, Amendment Bylaw 9157, for the rezoning of 5280/5300 Moncton Street from “Two-Unit Dwellings (RD1)” to “Single Detached (RS2/B)”, be introduced and given first reading.

CARRIED

2.

Referral: West Cambie Alexandra Neighbourhood Business Office Area Review
(File Ref. No. 08-4375-01) (REDMS No. 4242481)

Terry Crowe, Manager, Policy Planning, commented on the staff referral process and the staff recommendation included in the staff report.

Discussion ensued with regard to the procedural process associated with including the staff recommendation on the agenda and receiving the staff report for information.

Patrick Burke, Senior Planning Coordinator, briefed Committee on the West Cambie Alexandra Neighbourhood Business Office Area Review and highlighted the following:

§   

the Richmond Economic Advisory Committee (EAC) was consulted for feedback on business office development in the West Cambie Study Area (Study Area) and indicated that the existing Area Plan Business/Office designation be retained;

§   

office space is classified by a sliding scale with the more desirable sites rated as Class A and less desirable sites rated as Classes B and C;

§   

an eight percent vacancy rate is ideal;

§   

if Class A and B sites are considered, the vacancy rate in the Study Area would be approximately six percent;

§   

the Study Area is along the frequent transit network and is within 800 metres of the Canada Line;

§   

the Study Area would attract high quality employment opportunities;

§   

the Study Area is accessible to both public transit and private vehicles; and

§   

the development of the Study Area for employment supports the City’s 2041 Official Community Plan (OCP).

Discussion ensued regarding the source of the statistics and differences between reported vacancy rates. In reply to queries from Committee, Blair Erb, Coriolis Consulting Corp., advised that the data used for the vacancy statistics were gathered from the Lower Mainland. He added that office vacancies are not evenly distributed, as often higher rates of vacancy are concentrated away from public transit, for instance in business parks.

Discussion ensued regarding the development mix in the Study Area. In reply to queries from Committee, Richard Wozny, Site Economics Ltd., noted that an area is typically considered residential in nature if the portion of employment space falls below 60% of the total area.

In reply to queries from Committee, Mr. Burke advised that the recommended development mix in the Study Area is 60% employment space and 40% residential space in order to minimize employment loss.

Discussion ensued with regard to total inventory of Class A and Class B space in the city. Mr. Burke noted that staff estimate that the city will require 12 million square feet of office space by 2041.

Discussion then ensued with regard to the demand for office space and a strategy to attract employment opportunities.

In reply to queries from Committee, Mr. Wozny commented on the employment lands available and density of the employment space in the Study Area and noted that development typically spreads out from the city centre into the suburban areas.

In reply to queries from Committee, Mr. Crowe noted that due to the future population growth in the region, he anticipates that the City will need to develop space for employment. Also, he added that the City’s Employment Growth Strategy would be in line with the City’s 2041 OCP and Metro Vancouver’s 2040 Regional Growth Strategy (RGS).

Discussion ensued with regard to the option to designate the entire Study Area for mixed employment space.

In reply to queries from Committee, Neonila Lilova, Manager, Economic Development, spoke of the EAC’s membership and noted that the EAC’s feedback are reflected in the staff report.

In reply to queries from Committee, Mr. Wozny noted that office tenants will be attracted to sites that would meet their needs. He added that employment areas that are in proximity to residential areas tend not to be desirable to prospective tenants. Also, he noted that residential areas tend to develop faster than commercial areas, and spur commercial development.

Mr. Burke was of the opinion that development will occur if the residential component of the development mix is limited.

Blaire Chisholm, Brook Pooni Associates, referred to her submission, (attached and forming part of these minutes as Schedule 5) and spoke of the development mix proposed by Westmark Development Group in the Study Area.

David Bell, Colliers International, referred to a review of office market space in the city and commented on (i) the supply of office space; (ii) the vacancy rate; (iii) the absorption rate of Class A and Class B sites; and (iv) future demand for office space.  

Mr. Bell noted that vacancy rates tend to increase exponentially outside an 800 metre radius around public transit access and the Study Area is outside of said radius. He was of the opinion that the city’s office market is driven by airport activity and population growth, which generates demand for more localized, service-based office users.

Matt McLean, Cushman and Wakefield, spoke of the office market conditions in the city and commented on (i) the current vacancy rate; (ii) the ideal proximity of office space to transit access; (iii) the ideal development mix; (iv) integration of commercial tenants into the community; (v) the ideal location and layout for employment space; and (vi) the types of tenants that occupy employment space in the city.

Howie Charters, Colliers International, commented on the office market conditions in the city and noted that the demand for office space is driven by residential development.

Discussion ensued regarding the Study Area’s current zoning designation and suitability for employment land development.

In reply to queries from Committee, Mr. McLean was of the opinion that Class A and Class B tenants gravitate towards sites that are close to transit and the city centre. Also, he was of the opinion that employment growth should be concentrated along transit corridors and the city centre.

Discussion ensued with regard to the addition of employment lands under current market conditions. Mr. Charters noted that based on current absorption rates, he projects that the absorption of the proposed addition of office space will take many years.

Discussion ensued with regard to the procedural process to receive either the staff recommendation or the staff report for information.

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

It was moved and seconded

(1)

That Official Community Plan Bylaw 7100 and 9000, Amendment Bylaw 9122 to amend Schedule 2.11A in the 2041 Official Community Plan Bylaw 7100, to change the existing Business Office designation to Mixed Use (30% Employment:70% Residential) designation, be introduced and given first reading.

(2)

That Official Community Plan Bylaw 7100 and 9000, Amendment Bylaw 9122, 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 found to be consistent with said program and plans, in accordance with Section 882(3)(a) of the Local Government Act.

(3)

That, in accordance with section 879 (2)(b) of the Local Government Act and OCP Bylaw Preparation Consultation Policy 5043, Official Community Plan Bylaw 7100 and 9000, Amendment Bylaw 9122, be referred to the following bodies for comment for the Public Hearing:

(a)

Vancouver International Airport Authority (VIAA) (Federal Government Agency), and

(b)

The Board of Education of School District No. 38 (Richmond).

(4)

That City staff be directed to consult with VIAA staff regarding the proposed recommendation, prior to the Public Hearing.

The question on the motion was not called as discussion ensued with regard to aspects of the Study Area including (i) the proposed SmartCentres development adjacent to the site; (ii) the residential development and infrastructure already in place; (iii) current and future market demand for office space; (iv) the movement of office tenants into the city; (v) the absorption rate of office space; (vi) the ideal development mix; and (vii) the ideal location for employment lands.

In reply to queries from Committee, Mr. Crowe noted that a retail mix would have retail tenants on the ground floor with office space on the higher floors.

Discussion then ensued regarding aspects of the Study Area including (i) proximity to transit access; (ii) the types of commercial tenants; (iii) future capacity of employment lands; and (iv) preservation of agricultural land.

The question on the motion was then called and it was DEFEATED with Mayor Brodie, Cllrs. Barnes and Steves opposed.

Further discussion ensued regarding the suitable development mix for the Study Area.

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

It was moved and seconded

(1)

That Official Community Plan Bylaw 7100 and 9000, Amendment Bylaw 9121 to amend Schedule 2.11A in the 2041 Official Community Plan Bylaw 7100, to change the existing Business Office designation to Mixed Use (60% Employment:40% Residential) designation, be introduced and given first reading.

(2)

That Official Community Plan Bylaw 7100 and 9000, Amendment Bylaw 9121, 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 found to be consistent with said program and plans, in accordance with Section 882(3)(a) of the Local Government Act.

(3)

That, in accordance with section 879 (2)(b) of the Local Government Act and OCP Bylaw Preparation Consultation Policy 5043, Official Community Plan Bylaw 7100 and 9000, Amendment Bylaw 9121, be referred to the following bodies for comment for the Public Hearing:

(a)

Vancouver International Airport Authority (VIAA) (Federal Government Agency), and

(b)

The Board of Education of School District No. 38 (Richmond).

(4)

That City staff be directed to consult with VIAA staff regarding the proposed recommendation, prior to the Public Hearing.

The question on the motion was not called as discussion ensued regarding market conditions for adding office space and the suitable development mix for the Study Area.

The question on the motion was then called and it was CARRIED with Cllrs. McNulty and Steves opposed.

7.

MANAGER’S REPORT

None.

Discussion then ensued regarding the Regional Affordable Housing Strategy Update discussion paper from Metro Vancouver (attached to and forming part of these minutes as Schedule 6).

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

It was moved and seconded

That staff examine the Regional Affordable Housing Strategy Update from Metro Vancouver and report back.

CARRIED

Discussion then ensued regarding a report from the Richmond School District No. 38, (attached to and forming part of these minutes as Schedule 7) discussing the Seismic Mitigation Program.

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

It was moved and seconded

That staff examine the report from the Richmond School District No. 38 discussing the Seismic Mitigation Program and report back.

CARRIED

ADJOURNMENT

It was moved and seconded

That the meeting adjourn (6:33 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 17, 2014.

_________________________________

_________________________________

Councillor Bill McNulty
Chair

Evangel Biason
Auxiliary Committee Clerk