January 20, 2015 - Minutes

Date:

Tuesday, January 20, 2015

Place:

Anderson Room
Richmond City Hall

Present:

Councillor Linda McPhail, Chair
Councillor Bill McNulty
Councillor Chak Au
Councillor Carol Day
Councillor Harold Steves

Mayor Malcolm Brodie

Also Present:

Councillor Alexa Loo

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, January 6, 2015, be adopted as circulated.

CARRIED

NEXT COMMITTEE MEETING DATE

Tuesday, February 3, 2015, (tentative date) at 4:00 p.m. in the Anderson Room

PLANNING & DEVELOPMENT DEPARTMENT

1.

Application by Nanaksar Gurdwara Gursikh Temple for Rezoning at 18691 Westminster Highway from Agriculture (AG1) to Assembly (ASY)
(File Ref. No. 12-8060-20-009044; RZ 02-208277) (REDMS No. 4477211)

Wayne Craig, Director, Development briefed the Committee on the proposed application and noted that portions of the site was previously approved for non-farm use, accompanied with a set of conditions. He added that almost all conditions set in the previously approved non-farm use application have been or will be addressed with the proposed rezoning application.

Mr. Craig identified one condition from the previously approved non-farm use application that placed a no build/development covenant on the Agriculture (AG1) portion of the site. Staff are recommending that the no build/development covenant be removed. Mr. Craig noted that the portions of the site retaining the AG1 would remain subject to the restrictions associated with AG1 zoning.

In reply to queries from Committee, Mr. Craig advised that since the approval of the non-farm use application approval in 2004, the accompanying rezoning application for the site was delayed due to technical issues and construction of the Nelson Road interchange.

Discussion ensued with regard to the location of the septic field and the site ’s installed connections to the City’s sanitary sewer force main.

Discussion then ensued regarding the removal of the no build/development covenant on site. Mr. Craig advised that the two existing parcels will be consolidated into one parcel and any additional structures proposed outside the Assembly (ASY) zone area would need to conform to AG1 zoning restrictions.

In reply to queries from Committee, Mr. Craig advised that there is a single-family dwelling on 18791 Westminster Highway (east property).

In reply to queries from Committee, Kevin Eng, Planner 2, noted that (i) zoning provisions allow owners the option of building a second single-family dwelling used for housing farm labour once the sites are consolidated, and (ii) the proposed new building Temple addition will be approximately 20,000 square feet and would host similar activities to the existing building such as prayers and dining.

Discussion ensued with respect to the farming history of the site. Mr. Craig noted that the site has a historical record of farming and the City will secure a farm plan and performance bond through the application.

In reply to queries from Committee, Mr. Craig advised that (i) the subject site of the Temple expansion was never used for farming so there will be no net loss of agricultural land on-site, (ii) the east property is used for farm staging, (iii) an Agricultural Land Reserve (ALR) Non-Farm use application is forthcoming to remove parking restrictions on the site, and (iv) additional restrictions can be placed on the site at Council’s discretion.

Discussion ensued with regard to the current parking available on-site and the  overflow parking along Westminster Highway. Mr. Eng advised that the current parking available on-site meets City requirements.

Discussion then ensued with regard to (i) safety concerns associated to parking along Westminster Highway, (ii) parking volumes during special events, (iii) using the gravel lot in the east property for parking and, (iv) removing the covenant restricting parking on the east property.

In reply to queries with regard to the no build/development covenant and building homes on-site, Mr. Eng advised that the zoning would have provisions for a single-family dwelling which cannot be used for dormitory purposes. Concerns were raised regarding the size and use for a dwelling on site. Mr. Craig noted that provisions in the AG1 zoning restrict the size and location of dwellings.

Discussion ensued regarding the effect of the Nelson Road interchange on truck traffic along Westminster Highway. Victor Wei, Director, Transportation, advised that restrictions on truck movement along Westminster Highway were put in place following the completion of the Nelson Road interchange.

In reply to queries from Committee, Mr. Wei advised that on rare occasions and during special events, parking can be permitted along Westminster Highway.

Discussion ensued with respect to the traffic along Westminster Highway and other examples in the city where vehicles are parked along a road near a place of worship.

In reply to queries from Committee, Mr. Craig noted that (i) the parking area would be located south of the farm building in the east property and would remain a gravel lot, (ii) structures on the property would be limited to a single-family dwelling or farm-related buildings, and (iii) an application to the Agricultural Land Commission (ALC) is required if additional non-farm structures are proposed.

Discussion ensued regarding the parking along Westminster Highway and the safety of cyclists using the bicycle lane. Mr. Wei advised that cyclists remain safe and that on the occasions that vehicles park along Westminster Highway, vehicles are parked away from the bicycle lane.

Discussion then ensued with respect to (i) using the gravel lot on the east property for overflow parking, (ii) safety concerns related to parking along Westminster Highway, (iii) truck traffic along Westminster Highway, (iv) overflow parking on arterial roads from church services in the city, (v) exploring the removal of parking restrictions on the east property at the present time, (vi) following the ALC process to remove restrictions on the subject site, (vii) allowing for proper public consultation on the proposed rezoning changes, and (viii) opportunities to plant fruit trees in the buffer area between non-farm and farm-use parcels.

In reply to queries from Committee, Mr. Craig advised that there are currently no restrictions prohibiting the planting of fruit trees on-site.

Harp Hoonjan and Jinder Berar, Nanaksar Gurdwara Gursikh Temple, spoke on the proposed application and provided the following information:

§   

the applicant was able to meet the requirements to proceed with the proposed project;

§   

the subject site was developed in 1979 and has been actively farmed;

§   

the east property was acquired in 1989;

§   

there are safety concerns with regard to overflow parking along Westminster Highway;

§   

issues related to the green zone and sanitary connections have been addressed;

§   

the Nelson Road interchange project used one and a half acres of the east property, relocated a farm building and impacted a flower garden;

§   

the staging area and the gravel area in the east property will remain unchanged;

§   

planting fruit trees is possible in the east property;

§   

there is no intention to build a large house or secondary house on-site since there is no need for additional housing;

§   

the congregation is active in the farming community; and

§   

the Nanaksar Gurdwara Gursikh Temple is open to the community.

Discussion ensued with regard to the activities in the Temple and the need for expansion. Mr. Hoonjan noted that the Temple is used for prayers as well as weddings, funerals and other special events. Mr. Hoonjan added that there is a two year waiting list to host weddings at the Temple. The proposed expansion will be able to accommodate multiple events simultaneously.

In reply to queries from Committee, Mr. Berar commented on the agricultural activities on-site, noting that approximately 10,000 lbs of produce are produced annually.

Discussion ensued about the timeline of the application to remove parking restrictions on-site. Mr. Hoonjan noted that the application has been submitted.

In reply to queries from Committee, Mr. Craig advised that it is within Council’s discretion to pass a resolution to endorse the application to remove parking restrictions on the east property.

Discussion ensued with regard to the number of special events the Temple hosts in a year. Mr. Hoonjan noted that the Temple is a highly used facility with approximately eight to fifteen special events per year in addition to lunar calendar events, full moon celebrations, weddings and funerals.

In reply to queries from Committee, Mr. Hoonjan advised that the applicant has no intention of building a secondary house on-site. Mr. Berar added that the applicant already had another home on a separate site in the city.

Discussion ensued regarding community access to the Temple. Mr. Hoonjan noted that the facility is open to the community. He added that on most occasions, the main parking area is sufficient to meet demand and that users of the parking area are patrons of the facility.

Discussion then took place with regard to the reasoning behind the placement of the no build/development covenant on-site. It was noted that during that time, there were concerns related to the septic field in place on-site.

In reply to queries from Committee, Mr. Craig advised that the removal of the parking restrictions on the east property would require Council and ALC approval. The applicant has submitted a separate application for the removal of the parking restrictions on the east property.

Joe Erceg, General Manager, Planning and Development, advised that Committee can proceed with a resolution that would endorse a recommendation to the ALC that would remove parking restrictions on the east lot.

It was moved and seconded

(1)

That Richmond Zoning Bylaw 8500, Amendment Bylaw 9044, for the rezoning of a portion of 18691 Westminster Highway from “Agriculture (AG1)” to “Assembly (ASY)”, be introduced and given first reading;

(2)

That the requirement for a no build/development legal agreement identified in Council’s May 14, 2001 resolution in relation to Agricultural Land Reserve non-farm use application (AG 00-175102), be removed; and

(3)

That the ALR application (AG 14-668409) by the Nanaksar Gurdwara Gursikh Temple for a non-farm use for the 5 acre (2 ha) south portion of 18791 Westminster Highway to allow for the existing agricultural parking and staging area to also be utilized for temple special event and overflow parking be endorsed and forwarded to the Agricultural Land Commission.

CARRIED

2.

Application by Hi-Aim Builders Ltd. for Rezoning at 7100 No. 2 Road from Single Detached (RS1/E) to Compact Single Detached (RC2)
(File Ref. No. 12-8060-20-009208; RZ 10-545413) (REDMS No. 4475100)

Mr. Craig briefed Committee on the proposed application, noting that an extension of the adjacent rear lane is proposed in order to provide vehicle access to the site.

It was moved and seconded

That Richmond Zoning Bylaw 8500, Amendment Bylaw 9208, for the rezoning of 7100 No. 2 Road from “Single Detached (RS1/E)” to “Compact Single Detached (RC2)”, be introduced and given first reading.

The question on the motion was not called as discussion ensued with regard to (i) opposition from neighbouring properties, (ii) the curve in the proposed lane creating a blind corner, (iii) straightening the proposed rear lane, and (iv) utilizing the triangular parcel created from the proposed curve lane as parking space.

In reply to queries from Committee, Mr. Craig noted that staff have examined the proposed lane’s functionality and reviewed alternative lane geometry. He added that the lane could become a straight-shot lane.

Discussion ensued with regard to public consultation done for the proposed development. Mr. Craig noted that staff have spoken with some of the residents that have provided written concerns. He added that the correspondence attached in the staff report was from 2011 and no additional correspondence have since been received.

Juan Miguez, 6011 Comstock Road, spoke in opposition to the proposed development and expressed concern with regard to (i) additional traffic from the proposed lane extension, (ii) tandem parking on the proposed development, (iii) overflow street parking on Comstock Road, and (iv) additional vehicles from the proposed development’s secondary suite.

Mr. Miguez commented on options for vehicle access to the site and provided a drawing of an alternative option for vehicle access along No. 2 Road (attached to and forming part of these minutes as Schedule 1).

Discussion ensued with regard to tandem parking and owners converting parking spaces into suites. Mr. Miguez noted that his suggested design has provisions for parking and suites.

In reply to queries from Committee, Mr. Miguez expressed concern with regard to the possible blind spot from the curvature of the proposed lane and the traffic from the lane extension.

Discussion ensued with regard to the paving of front yards and the lack of landscaping that his proposed development option would create.

In reply to queries, Mr. Miguez noted that his suggested design will have provisions for more green space. He added that he is willing to work with the developer and City staff on addressing concerns with the proposed development.

 Khalid Hasan, Hi-Aim Builders Ltd., commented on the proposed development and highlighted the following:

§   

the development application was submitted to the City in 2010;

§   

the applicant considered multi-family options and coach houses on the site, however due to concerns expressed by neighbouring properties, the proposed development was revised to single-family houses on two lots;

§   

the proposed development continues the pattern of development on adjacent properties, requiring the extension of the rear lane;

§   

vehicle access to the site is via a rear lane due to regulations restricting driveways on arterial roads;

§   

the triangular parcel cornering the lane will belong to and be maintained by the south lot;

§   

the applicant has worked with staff on lane functionality;

§   

a two metre frontage along No. 2 Road is dedicated for future road improvements;

§   

the lane will be developed with street lights; and

§   

the proposed development satisfies requirements for parking and green space.

Discussion ensued with regard to lane access to the site and the densification of the development. Mr. Hasan noted that it is possible to include an additional secondary suite, however other requirements such as parking would need to be considered.

In reply to queries from Committee, Mr. Hassan advised that the applicant is willing to work with the adjacent property owners to address concerns. He noted that the application was revised to a proposed single-family development as a result of neighbourhood consultation.

Discussion ensued with regard to the triangular parcel and other examples in the city where lots are divided by a road. Mr. Craig advised that some lots in multi-family developments are occasionally divided by a road. He added that the applicant is required to submit a landscape plan that would address the landscaping of the triangular parcel.

In reply to queries from Committee, Mr. Craig noted that the Arterial Road Policy requires rear lane access to the site. Mr. Craig added that he anticipates that the lane will extend north as adjacent lots are developed.

Barry Konkin, Program Coordinator-Development, noted that direct driveway access to No. 2 Road creates additional safety concerns closer to the intersection of No. 2 Road and Granville Avenue.

In reply to queries from Committee with regard to alternative vehicle access points to the site, Mr. Craig advised that the City owns dedication in the area around Livingston Place that, if required, could be used for vehicle access when adjacent sites are developed.

Discussion ensued with respect to traffic calming in the proposed lane. Mr. Wei advised that the curve in the proposed lane would slow traffic. Also, he noted that staff will be able monitor the traffic speeds in the proposed lane.

As a result of the discussion, a motion to refer the application back to staff for further public consultation was introduced; however failed to receive a seconder.

The question on the motion was then called and it was CARRIED with Cllr. Day opposed.

The Chair advised that there will be additional opportunities for public consultation prior to the Public Hearing and notification will be given to neighbouring properties.

Mayor Brodie and Cllr. Loo left the meeting (5:36 p.m.) and did not return.

3.

Application by Peter Yee for Rezoning at 8151/8171 Lundy Road from Two-Unit Dwellings (RD1) to Single Detached (RS2/B)
(File Ref. No. 12-8060-20-009185; RZ 14-668270) (REDMS No. 4433783)

Discussion ensued regarding public consultation with respect to the proposed application. Mr. Craig noted that no correspondence has been received and that development of Single-Family Lot Size Policy 5423 would have included community consultation.

It was moved and seconded

That Richmond Zoning Bylaw 8500, Amendment Bylaw 9185, for the rezoning of 8151/8171 Lundy Road from “Two-Unit Dwellings (RD1)” to “Single Detached (RS2/B)”, be introduced and given first reading.

CARRIED

4.

Application by Evernu Developments Inc. for Rezoning at 9751 Steveston Highway and 10831 Southridge Road from Single Detached (RS1/E) and Single Detached (RS1/B) to Compact Single Detached (RC2)
(File Ref. No. 12-8060-20-009187; RZ 14-669571) (REDMS No. 4418919)

Mr. Craig briefed Committee on the proposed application to subdivide two lots into five smaller lots, noting that the applicant is proposing to extend the existing rear lane from Southdale Road eastward to Southridge Road.

In reply to queries from Committee, Mr. Craig noted that the landscape setback along the south property line is required to establish a buffer which identifies the urban/rural interface. A legal agreement on title notifies prospective purchasers that the property is across from active agricultural land.

Discussion ensued with regard to neighbourhood consultation. Mr. Craig advised that staff have been in contact with some of the adjacent property owners including a property to the north of the subject site, 101811 Southridge Road. Mr. Craig noted that should the application proceed to Public Hearing, resident notification would include properties within a 50 metre radius from the subject site.

In reply to queries from Committee, Mr. Craig advised that should the proposed application proceed, resident notification will be distributed after the application receives first reading. He added that residents have the opportunity to provide correspondence to staff which is then forwarded to Council for consideration at the Public Hearing.

Discussion ensued with regard to resident concerns surrounding the density of the development and vehicle parking. Mr. Craig advised that the proposed development would provide for improvements along Southridge Road. Also, he noted that the rezoning would allow for double car garages and the ability to park four vehicles on each lot.

Mr. Erceg advised that should the application proceed, residents would have opportunity to provide input through the Public Hearing process. Also, Council would have the option to refer the item back to staff to consider a reduction in the number of subdivided lots if preferred.

In reply to queries from Committee, Mr. Craig advised that (i) the applicant is proposing to provide secondary suites on four out of the five lots, (ii) the City’s Affordable Housing Strategy would require only three secondary suites for the proposed development, and (iii) vehicle access to the site will be through the rear lane.

In reply to queries from Committee, Reuben Zilberberg, Evernu Developments Inc., advised that it is not economically feasible to reduce the number of proposed subdivisions from five to four. Also, he noted that reducing the number of secondary suites would be contrary to the Official Community Plan (OCP) which prefers the densification of lots.

It was moved and seconded

That Richmond Zoning Bylaw 8500, Amendment Bylaw 9187, for the rezoning of 9751 Steveston Highway and 10831 Southridge Road from “Single Detached (RS1/E)” and “Single Detached (RS1/B)” to “Compact Single Detached (RC2)”, be introduced and given first reading.

CARRIED

Opposed: Cllr. Day

Discussion ensued regarding the height of newly constructed buildings on raised soil.

ADJOURNMENT

It was moved and seconded

That the meeting adjourn (5:50 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, January 20, 2015.

_________________________________

_________________________________

Councillor Linda McPhail
Chair

Evangel Biason
Auxiliary Committee Clerk