June 16, 2015 - Minutes

Date:

Tuesday, June 16, 2015

Place:

Anderson Room
Richmond City Hall

Present:

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

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, June 2, 2015, be adopted as circulated.

CARRIED

NEXT COMMITTEE MEETING DATE

Tuesday, July 7, 2015, (tentative date) at 4:00 p.m. in the Anderson Room

The Chair advised that Non-Farm Use of Farmland would be considered as Item No. 4A.

PLANNING AND DEVELOPMENT DIVISION

1.

Application by G & B Estates Ltd. for Rezoning at 3868, 3880 and 3900 Steveston Highway from the "Neighbourhood Commercial (CN)", "Gas & Service Stations (CG2)" and "Single Detached (RS1/A)" zones to a new "Neighbourhood Commercial (ZC36) – Steveston" zone
(File Ref. No. 12-8060-20-009252/9253; RZ 07-394294) (REDMS No. 4574015 v. 4)

Wayne Craig, Director, Development, briefed Committee on the proposed application, noting that it will facilitate the redevelopment of an existing shopping centre located at the intersection of No. 1 Road and Steveston Highway, and will include an Official Community Plan amendment to re-designate portions of the site from “Neighbourhood Residential” to “Commercial.”

In reply to queries from Committee, Sara Badyal, Planner 2, noted that the proposed development will be single-storey and will not include a second storey for residential apartments.

Discussion ensued with respect to other potential uses for the subject site that may include options for residential use.

In reply to queries from Committee, Ms. Badyal advised that (i) the subject site includes a small portion that is currently zoned for single-family residential, (ii) development application signs are erected on-site, and (iii) should the proposed application proceed, notification to residents in the area would be sent in advance of the Public Hearing.

David Sprague, representing G&B Estates Ltd., provided background information on the subject site and advised that the applicant wishes to retain the site’s retail uses and not incorporate residential uses. Also, Mr. Sprague was of the opinion that the proposed retail development will be beneficial to the neighbourhood.

In reply to queries from Committee, Mr. Sprague noted that the applicant has considered the potential to include residential units above the base commercial units; however, residential units would require an additional parking structure, which is currently economically unfeasible.

It was moved and seconded

(1)

That Official Community Plan Bylaw 7100 and 9000, Amendment Bylaw 9252,

(a)

to redesignate 3868 and 3880 Steveston Highway from "Neighbourhood Residential" to "Neighbourhood Service Centre" in Attachment 1 to Schedule 1 of Bylaw 9000 (City of Richmond 2041 OCP Land Use Map); and

(b)

to redesignate 3868 and 3880 Steveston Highway from "Single-Family" to "Commercial" in the Land Use Map of Schedule 2.4 of Bylaw 7100 (Steveston Area Plan);

be introduced and given first reading;

(2)

That Bylaw 9252, 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 found to be consistent with said program and plans, in accordance with Section 882(3)(a) of the Local Government Act;

(3)

That Bylaw 9252, having been considered in accordance with OCP Bylaw Preparation Consultation Policy 5043, is hereby found not to require further consultation; and

(4)

That Richmond Zoning Bylaw 8500, Amendment Bylaw 9253, to create the "Neighbourhood Commercial (ZC36) - Steveston" zone and for the rezoning of 3868, 3880 and 3900 Steveston Highway from the "Neighbourhood Commercial (CN)", "Gas & Service Stations (CG2)" and "Single Detached (RS1/A)" zones to the "Neighbourhood Commercial (ZC36) - Steveston" zone, be introduced and given first reading.

CARRIED

2.

Road Naming for the New Road Connecting Ackroyd Road to Elmbridge Way
(File Ref. No. 6360-05) (REDMS No. 4583496)

In reply to queries from Committee, Kathy Tong, Property Records Clerk, noted that the new extension of Ackroyd Road is accessible from No. 3 Road.

It was moved and seconded

That the name “Ackroyd Road” be selected for the extension of the east-west road located in Section 5 Block 4 Range 6, connecting Ackroyd Road to Elmbridge Way.

CARRIED

3.

Application by First Richmond North Shopping Centres Ltd. for a Zoning Text Amendment to the "Neighbourhood Commercial (ZC32) - West Cambie Area" Zone for the Building at 9291 Alderbridge Way (on the Property at 9251 Alderbridge Way)
(File Ref. No. 12-8060-20-009256/9258; ZT 14-677144) (REDMS No. 4582072 v. 2)

Mr. Craig briefed Committee on the proposed application, noting that it will facilitate the relocation of an existing private liquor store to the SmartCentres site, and a neighbourhood survey was conducted in accordance with Policy 9307.

In reply to queries from Committee, Mr. Craig spoke of the proposed relocation of an existing private liquor store to the subject site and provided the following information:

§   

the Richmond RCMP and the Liquor Control and Licensing Branch have not advised the City of any issues associated with the private liquor store at its current location;

§   

the Parks Department and the Richmond RCMP have expressed no concern with respect to the proposed relocation of the private liquor store;

§   

although Garden City Park is within 500 metres of the proposed relocation of the private liquor store, Alderbridge Way is a major arterial road and as such, will act as a buffer between the store and the Park;

§   

a vegetative buffer on the subject site will further separate the liquor store from the Park; and

§   

the proposed relocation of the private liquor store will be more than 300 metres from the West Cambie Park.

It was moved and seconded

(1)

That Richmond Zoning Bylaw 8500, Amendment Bylaw 9256, for a Zoning Text Amendment to the "Neighbourhood Commercial (ZC32) - West Cambie Area" zone to allow a type 2 retail liquor store to be located in the building at 9291 Alderbridge Way (on the property at 9251 Alderbridge Way), be introduced and given first reading; and

(2)

That Richmond Zoning Bylaw 8500, Amendment Bylaw 9258, for a Zoning Text Amendment to the "Downtown Commercial (CDT1)" zone to remove type 2 retail liquor store as a permitted use at 8088 Park Road (on the property at 8080 Park Road), be introduced and given first reading.

CARRIED

4.

Proposed Zoning Bylaw Amendments to Regulate Building Massing and Accessory Structures in Single-FamilyDevelopments
(File Ref. No. 12-8060-20-009249; 08-4430-01) (REDMS No. 4574786 v. 3)

Barry Konkin, Program Coordinator-Development, and James Cooper, Manager, Plan Review, provided an overview of the proposed zoning bylaw amendments to regulate building massing and accessory structures in single-family developments and provided the following information:

§   

the proposed amendments are not anticipated to reduce the overall Floor Area Ratio (FAR) of new dwellings;

§   

two-storey dwellings will be limited to nine metres to the roof peak, thus eliminating the use of the roof’s mid-point for measurement purposes on two storey dwellings;

§   

maximum ceiling height will be tied to the structural component of the floor above, eliminating the use of dropped ceilings to achieve the height requirement;

§   

there is a trend towards higher ceilings in new dwellings;

§   

the proposed amendments will reduce overall building massing on the upper floors, which will increase adjacent properties’ daylight and privacy; and

§   

the proposed amendments will reduce massing on second floors and will complement recent zoning bylaw amendments, which regulated the building massing for 2.5 storey single-family dwellings.

Mr. Konkin then briefed Committee on the proposed amendments related to accessory buildings and highlighted the following:

§   

detached accessory buildings up to 70.0 m² may be located within the rear yard;

§   

all detached accessory buildings located entirely or partially in the rear yard, may cover no more than 40% of the rear yard’s area;

§   

the setback from the front lot line must be at least 20.0 metres;

§   

the setback from the exterior side lot line must be at least 7.5 metres;

§   

the maximum height for detached accessory buildings less than 10 m² is 3.0 metres for a detached accessory building with a pitched roof, and 2.5 metres for a detached accessory building with a flat roof; and

§   

the maximum height for a forward projecting attached garage constructed as part of a principal building is 6.0 metres to the roof ridge for a garage with a pitched roof, and 4.5 metres for a garage with a flat roof.

Mr. Cooper spoke to the enforcement of the proposed amendments, noting that the City will be able to suspend any suspected illegal construction activities until the builder is able to prove compliance.

Mr. Konkin commented on the possible alternative bylaw options for interior ceiling height. He noted that Bylaw No. 9265 would reduce the maximum permitted ceiling height to 3.7 metres and would maintain the 10 m² floor area exemption for over-height areas used for entries and stairs. Bylaw No. 9266 would permit a maximum ceiling height of 5.0 metres prior to over-height area being counted as part of the floor area, and would maintain the 10 m² exception for entries and stairs.

In reply to queries from Committee, Mr. Craig noted that, should the proposed amendments advance, they would be considered at a Special Public Hearing tentatively scheduled for July 6, 2015.

Discussion ensued with regard to the effectiveness of the proposed amendments and in response to queries from Committee, Mr. Craig advised that proposed amendments, including lower ceiling heights, will impact the form of development and will reduce the overall massing in single-family dwellings.

Discussion then took place on the role of architectural design in the increased massing in new developments.

In reply to queries from Committee, Joe Erceg, General Manager, Planning and Development, noted that the proposed amendments, in combination with regulations for 2.5 storey dwellings, should effectively control the overall volume of new developments; however, the proposed amendments are not intended to address issues related to dwellings perceived to have poor architectural design. Moreover, he noted that Council may consider alternative bylaw options that would further restrict or lessen the proposed massing regulations.

In reply to queries from Committee, Mr. Craig advised that the proposed amendments have provisions for exemptions to the 3.7 metre ceiling height limit, including a 10 m² area for the entries and stairwells, and a 15 m² area that could be located elsewhere in the dwelling, provided that specific setback requirements are met.

In reply to queries from Committee, Mr. Erceg noted that the base single-family zoning will apply once overlying Land Use Contracts are terminated; therefore staff are advising that the proposed amendments be implemented prior to addressing issues related Land Use Contracts.

Discussion ensued with respect to enforcement options for the proposed amendments and Mr. Craig noted that no additional enforcement powers are required; however, the bylaws will clearly state the building regulations and staff will be requesting additional submissions during the Building Permit process to verify zoning compliance.

In response to queries from Committee, Mr. Craig noted that staff do not recommend the use of volumetric measurements to establish building parameters, and accessory buildings larger than 10 m² will be considered part of the overall floor area. Also, Mr. Cooper noted that a dwelling’s stairwell does not necessarily contribute to reducing overall massing.

In reply to queries with regard to height measurements of 2.5 storey dwellings, Mr. Craig noted that the purpose of allowing the additional height is to conceal the upper half storey within the sloping roof.

Discussion ensued with regard to reducing the overall massing by reducing the second floor ceiling height, and Mr. Craig noted that, by tying the ceiling height to the structure, false dropped ceilings are eliminated and the floor area is accommodated in an effective manner.

In reply to queries from Committee, Mr. Cooper noted that the proposed amendments will not restrict a builder from building higher ceilings; however, should builders choose to construct higher ceilings, the building’s footprint and overall size would then be reduced.

In response to queries from Committee with regard to historical changes to Richmond Zoning Bylaw No. 8500, Mr. Craig noted that the adoption of the flood protection bylaw and concerns associated with 2.5 storey dwellings led to the amendment to measure height to the roof’s mid-point.

Discussion ensued regarding construction violations related to space above a garage and Mr. Craig noted that staff has seen a trend to accommodate high interior spaces within dwellings. He added that based on staff assessments, the most common unpermitted conversions would be converting space over the garage into habitable space.

In reply to queries from Committee, Mr. Erceg noted that the current trends in architectural designs involve higher ceilings in single-family dwellings. He added that the proposed amendments should reduce possible mis-interpretation of the bylaw.

In reply to queries from Committee, Mr. Craig advised that staff are currently not aware of a three-storey dwelling in the city and that 2.5 storey homes with flat roofs may be perceived as three-storey homes. He added that bylaw amendments adopted earlier this year would address issues related to building height in 2.5 storey dwellings.

Discussion ensued regarding the alternative bylaw options and Mr. Craig noted that Bylaw No. 9265 would be more restrictive than the proposed amendments as it would reduce the maximum permitted ceiling height to 3.7 metres and maintain the area exempt from the floor area calculation at 10 m². Bylaw No. 9266 would be more permissive compared to the proposed amendments as it would permit a maximum ceiling height of 5.0 metres before the over-height area is counted twice for floor area, and would leave the exemption area at 10 m². He added that the exemption areas of 10 m² and     15 m² were based on a review of issued permits and the space designed by builders, and that this could be modified if required.

In reply to queries from Committee. Mr. Erceg noted that under the proposed amendments, builders would be able to build the permitted density and FAR; however, if more over-height space is preferred beyond the 10 m² and 15 m² exemptions, the size of the house would be reduced.

Mark Sakai, representing the Greater Vancouver Home Builders’ Association, expressed concern related to the proposed amendments and read from his submission (attached to and forming part of these minutes as Schedule 1).

In reply to queries from Committee with regard to zoning regulations in other municipalities, Mr. Sakai noted that zoning policies are not necessarily transferrable from one municipality to another due to varying environmental factors. Mr. Sakai then commented on the amendment process and was of the opinion that more community consultation and policy review was needed to fully address issues.

Neil Cumming, 5771 Gannet Court, spoke on the proposed amendments and expressed concern with regard to (i) the possible misinterpretation of the regulations, (ii) the timeline of the possible termination of Land Use Contracts, (iii) the footprint of dwellings under the proposed amendments. Mr. Cumming suggested that new developments should reflect the state of the current neighbourhood and that new zoning be created where larger homes may be built.

Dana Westermark, representing the Urban Design Institute, commented on the proposed amendments and expressed concern with respect to (i) possible misinterpretation of the regulations, (ii) the potential for the regulations to create poorly designed homes, and (iii) the possible homogeneous appearance of homes. Also, he was of the opinion that the design of adjacent homes be taken into account in the approval of new dwellings, noting that the interface of the new dwellings should gently transition to the existing adjacent homes. Further, he added that the majority of builders follow the City’s regulations and that the building community would be eager to participate in a discussion with stakeholders.

Discussion ensued with regard to (i) reducing instances of possible misinterpretation of zoning bylaw regulations, (ii) blending new dwellings into existing neighbourhoods, and (iii) placing a moratorium on new construction during the bylaw amendment process.

In response to queries from Committee, Mr. Erceg noted that the City cannot impose a moratorium on new construction, and the City of Vancouver has additional powers to control the design of new construction that are not available to the City.

Sam Sandhu, 4691 Tilton Road, spoke on the effect of immigration on housing in the city and expressed concern with regard to the short timeline of the bylaw amendment process, and the potential division between builders and residents.

Cllr. Au left the meeting (5:40 p.m.) and returned (5:42 p.m.).

Vancouver Resident, 6526 Dawson Street, commented on the proposed amendments and was of the opinion that the proposed amendments will not decrease massing. He suggested that the exterior design of potential new developments in relation to adjacent homes be considered prior to approval, and additional community consultation be done on the matter.

Cllr. Day left the meeting (5:47 p.m.) and returned (5:48 p.m.).

In reply to queries, Mr. Craig noted that the City’s regulatory abilities differ from those of the City of Vancouver. He added that the City cannot deny applications based on the exterior architectural design of the development. Also, he noted that amendments to Area Plans, extended public consultations and significant City resources would be required should the City wish to pursue designating all single-family areas as Development Permit Areas.

John ter Borg, 5860 Sandpiper Court, expressed concern related to building massing in the city and read from his submission (attached to and forming part of these minutes as Schedule 2). In reply to queries from Committee, Mr. ter Borg noted that the City does not provide builders with a design drawing checklist and that said checklist would work in parallel with the zoning bylaw.

In reply to queries from Committee, Gavin Woo, Senior Manager, Building Approvals, advised that there is an informal checklist available for staff use to check design drawings to ensure zoning bylaw and BC Building Code compliance.

In response to queries from Committee, Mr. Craig advised that the exterior designs of new townhouse developments are reviewed by staff, the Advisory Design Panel, and by Council. Also, he added that along arterial roads, lots adjacent to townhouse developments are typically designated in the Official Community Plan for townhouses.

Amit Sandhu, 9751 No. 6 Road, expressed concern with regard to the possible effects of the proposed amendments on smaller lot developments and read from his submission (attached to and forming part of these minutes as Schedule 3).

Bob Ethier, 10471 Truro Drive, expressed concern with regard to the proposed amendments and noted that there is market demand for larger homes. He was of the opinion that more time be allotted for community consultation between stakeholders.

Graham Taylor, 8571 Fairhurst Road, expressed support for the proposed amendment and expressed concern with regard to (i) demolition of homes in the city, (ii) the effect of larger dwellings on local real estate prices and (iii) the inspection and enforcement process.

Kathryn McCreary, 7560 Glacier Crescent, expressed concern related to building massing in the city and read from her submission (attached to and forming part of these minutes as Schedule 4).

In reply to queries from Committee, Ms. McCreary was of the opinion that builders circumvent the zoning bylaw and has reported suspect developments to the City.

John Roberts, 9120 Chapmond Crescent, commented on the historical aspects of Richmond Zoning Bylaw No. 8500 in relation to building massing. He expressed concern with regard to (i) the incremental changes to zoning bylaw, (ii) the need for further community consultation on the proposed amendments, and (iii) the negative effects of large dwellings on adjacent homes. Also, Mr. Roberts was of the opinion that builders do not respect local residents and that the proposed amendments should move forward to Public Hearing.

In reply to queries from Committee, Mr. Roberts described the negative effects of large dwellings on existing adjacent homes including (i) a loss of sunlight from shadowing, (ii) a loss of privacy, and (iii) the lack of integration of new developments into the existing neighbourhood.

Khalid Hasan, 12220 Westminster Highway, distributed images of new dwellings adjacent to existing homes (attached to and forming part of these minutes as Schedule 5). He noted that builders generally follow the City’s regulations and was of the opinion that new developments are relatively the same size as the existing adjacent homes. Also, he was of the opinion that more time should be allotted for further community consultation on the proposed amendments.

Lynda ter Borg, 5860 Sandpiper Court, expressed concern related to building massing in the city and read from her submission (attached to and forming part of these minutes as Schedule 6).

Cllr. Loo left the meeting (6:47 p.m.) and did not return.

Raman Kooner, representing the Richmond Small Builders Group, expressed concern related to the proposed amendments and read from his submission (attached to and forming part of these minutes as Schedule 7).

Gursher Randhawa, 3311 No. 6 Road, expressed concern related to the proposed amendments, and was of the opinion that the proposed amendments needs further community consultation and refinement, and there is a market demand for homes with higher ceilings.

Charan Sethi, 10571 Granville Avenue, expressed concern related to the proposed amendments and was of the opinion that (i) the proposed amendments require further review, (ii) the proposed amendments should not be effective city-wide, and (iii) most of the issues related to building massing stem for poor architectural design.

In reply to queries from Committee, Mr. Craig confirmed that the zoning bylaw is effective city-wide with the exception of site-specific zoning.

Anne Piche, 11800 6^th Avenue, expressed concern with regard to the proposed amendment in relation to (i) the need to protect existing neighbourhoods, (ii) the need for more bylaw enforcement, (iii) the trend of more infill homes within the neighbourhood, and (iv) the ability to rebuild damaged portions of existing homes under the proposed amendments.

John Montgomery, 5880 Sandpiper Court, expressed support for the proposed amendments and was of the opinion that the said amendments should proceed.

In reply to queries from Committee, Mr. Craig noted that staff can examine the potential implication of the proposed amendments on the vertical envelopes of narrow lots, and an open discussion of the proposed amendments in the form of a workshop with Council is not possible under the Local Government Act.

In reply to queries from Committee, Mr. Erceg advised that (i) should the proposed amendments proceed, there will be further opportunities for public consultation prior to the Public Hearing, (ii) there are provisions for the reconstruction of damaged dwellings that do not conform to the proposed amendments, (iii) the proposed amendments were thoroughly reviewed by staff, (iv) the proposed amendments can be refined in the future, (v) should the proposed amendments be deferred, the City will continue to issue building permits under the existing bylaw, (vi) approximately 25 to 35 building permits are issued every month, (vii) the proposed amendments will be complementary to the amendments brought forward addressing flat roofs on 2.5 storey dwellings, and (viii) the proposed amendments will address false ceilings and reduce building massing.

The staff recommendation was introduced, but failed to receive a seconder.

As a result, the following referral was introduced:

It was moved and seconded

(1)

That the staff report titled Proposed Zoning Bylaw Amendments to Regulate Building Massing and Accessory Structures in Single-Family Developments, dated June 10, 2015, from the Director, Development, be referred back to staff ; and

(2)

That staff report back to the July 21, 2015 Planning Committee.

The question on the referral was not called as discussion took place on the following:

§   

the potential to further refine the proposed bylaw amendments;

§   

the introduction of a building permit checklist;

§   

the effect of large dwellings on adjacent existing homes;

§   

options to enforce the proposed bylaw amendments;

§   

the potential for further public consultation and a workshop with stakeholders, including information published in the local newspaper;

§   

the effect of the proposed amendments on sites under Land Use Contracts;

§   

the feasibility of a workshop with stakeholders in light of the proposed Public Hearing’s timeline;

§   

adherence to the current massing regulations’ intent; and

§   

the potential number of building permits issued under the current regulations should the proposed amendments be deferred.

In reply to queries from Committee, Mr. Erceg noted that a staff review of the amendments and a potential workshop cannot be completed within a two week timeframe.

The question on the referral was then called and it was DEFEATED with Cllrs. Au, Day, and Steves opposed.

The Chair advised that the staff report titled “Proposed Zoning Bylaw Amendments to Regulate Building Massing and Accessory Structures in Single-Family Developments,” dated June 10, 2015, from the Director, Development, would proceed to the Regular Council meeting on June 22, 2015, without a recommendation.

As a result of the discussion, staff were directed to provide Council with information related to the items discussed at Committee and in particular, options for the enforcement of the proposed amendments.

In reply to queries from Committee, Mr. Erceg advised that a building permit checklist is not something that is typically embedded in the zoning bylaw.

4A.

NON-FARM USE OF FARMLAND
 (File Ref. No.)

Discussion ensued regarding the reported sale of health products, derived from a closed health supplement store, at a farm near the intersection of Blundell Road and Sidaway Road.

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

It was moved and seconded

That staff investigate the reported sale of non-farm products at the farm located near the intersection of Blundell Road and Sidaway Road and report back.

CARRIED

Discussion ensued with regard to the movement of dirt along the west side of Sidaway Road between Blundell Road and Steveston Highway. The Chair advised that the City has issued permits for that site.

5.

MANAGER’S REPORT

(i)

YVR Master Plan

Terry Crowe, Manager, Policy Planning, updated Committee on the upcoming 2017 – 2037 YVR Master Plan. He noted that staff have established a City Team and have held discussions with YVR staff. He added that the YVR Master Plan will be prepared in four phases: (i) a Public Survey, in the Fall of 2015, (ii) Scenarios and Options, early in 2016, (iii) Draft Plan, late in 2016, and (iv) Finalization, early in 2017. Also, he noted that YVR will be conducting approximately ten consulting opportunities for Richmond residents until the Fall of 2016.

Discussion ensued with regard to the piles of dirt reported north of Larry Berg Park.

As a result of the discussion, staff were directed to investigate the said piles of dirt and report back.

The Chair advised that some members of Council had an opportunity to tour the McArthurGlen Outlet Mall. Also, she noted that there are plans for the outlet mall to connect to the City’s dike trails.

(ii)

Lingyen Mountain Temple Open House

Mr. Craig advised that the Lingyen Mountain Temple has an Open House scheduled for June 23, 2015 and staff will be in attendance.

ADJOURNMENT

It was moved and seconded

That the meeting adjourn (7:54 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 16, 2015.

_________________________________

_________________________________

Councillor Linda McPhail
Chair

Evangel Biason
Auxiliary Committee Clerk