July 21, 2015 - Minutes

Date:

Tuesday, July 21, 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

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 July 7, 2015, be adopted as circulated.

CARRIED

NEXT COMMITTEE MEETING DATE

September 9, 2015, (tentative date) at 4:00 p.m. in the Anderson Room

PLANNING AND DEVELOPMENT DIVISION

1.

Application by 0717844 B.C. Ltd. for a Strata Title Conversion at 12371 Horseshoe Way
(File Ref. No. SC 15-693380) (REDMS No. 4595363 v. 4)

Wayne Craig, Director, Development, briefed Committee on the proposed application, noting that the proposed strata title conversion was reviewed and complies with City policy.

In reply to queries from Committee, Mr. Craig noted that typically developments are strata titled prior to building occupancy. He added that Council approval is required if a building has been occupied for more than six months prior to a strata plan being submitted to the Land Title Office.

It was moved and seconded

(1)

That the application for a Strata Title Conversion by 0717844 B.C. Ltd. for the property located at 12371 Horseshoe Way, as generally shown in Attachment 1, be approved on fulfilment of the following conditions:

(a)

payment of all City utility charges and property taxes up to and including the year 2015;

(b)

registration of a flood indemnity covenant on title identifying a minimum habitable elevation of 2.9 m GSC; and

(c)

submission of appropriate plans and documents for execution by the Approving Officer within 180 days of the date of this resolution; and

(2)

That the City, as the Approving Authority, delegate to the Approving Officer the authority to execute the  strata conversion plan on behalf of the City, as the Approving Authority, on the basis that the conditions set out in Recommendation 1 have been satisfied.

CARRIED

2.

Application by AM-PRI Developments (2013) Ltd. for Rezoning at 5460, 5480, 5500, 5520, 5540 and 5560 Moncton Street from the "Single Detached (RS1/C & RS1/E)" zones to a new " Single Detached (ZS23) – Steveston " zone
(File Ref. No. 12-8060-20-009274/9275; RZ 14-674749) (REDMS No. 4600463)

Mr. Craig spoke on the proposed application and highlighted the following:

§   

the proposed rezoning application will facilitate the subdivision of the subject site into 30 smaller residential lots;

§   

the proposed Official Community Plan (OCP) amendments will provide updates to the Trites Area Land Use Map to reflect the property boundaries to the east and clarify the future road network to the south of subject site;

§   

the proposed application will include a cash-in-lieu contribution to the Affordable Housing Reserve Fund and a contribution to the Public Art Program;

§   

the applicant is proposing to install a Japanese garden along the site’s Moncton Street frontage;

§   

the Richmond Heritage Commission has reviewed and endorsed the proposed development; and

§   

the proposed development will be under a site-specific zone that (i) will limit the homes to two storeys, (ii) will provide access to the rear lane network, and (iii) a vertical building envelope was created to facilitate the form of housing that exists south of the subject site.

In reply to queries from Committee, Mr. Craig advised that the subject site is designated for single-family homes and that the bonus density provisions were used to secure the contributions to the Affordable Housing Reserve Fund. He added that the additions of secondary suites were discussed with the applicant; however, due to the size of the proposed homes, the applicant has indicated that adding secondary suites would not be feasible.

Discussion ensued with regard to the Floodplain Management Implementation Strategy, and in reply to queries from Committee, Sara Badyal, Planner 2, noted that the subject site and the corner lot on Trites Road falls outside of Area A and requires a 2.9 metre flood construction elevation.

Discussion then ensued with regard to grading and drainage and in reply to queries from Committee, Mr. Craig noted that upgrades to drainage will be facilitated through a servicing agreement. Ms. Badyal added that there will be transitional grading along older sections of Moncton Street where floodplain levels are lower than current standards.

In reply to queries from Committee, Mr. Craig advised that the size of the proposed subdivided lots will be similar in size to other compact single-family lots in the area.

Amit Sandhu, AM-PRI Developments (2013) Ltd., spoke on the proposed application, noting that the proposed development will provide relatively affordable single-family housing and that the proposed Japanese garden will be an asset to the community.

In reply to queries from Committee, Mr. Sandhu advised that due to the size of the proposed lot and buildings, installing secondary suites would not be feasible. He added that landscaping on-site can address potential impacts related to the industrial zone south of the subject site.

In reply to queries from Committee, Ms. Badyal noted that there will be a servicing agreement to facilitate frontage, road and bus stop upgrades. She added that the upgrades were reviewed to minimize impact to road and pedestrian connections and maintain bus service.

Lyn ter Borg, 5860 Sandpiper Court, expressed support for the proposed development and the proposed Japanese garden and landscaping. She noted that the long-time resident families have made suggestions to name the new roads after heritage village names such as the Town of Mio.

Discussion ensued with regard to encouraging development on small compact single-family lots and in reply to queries from Committee, Joe Erceg, General Manager, Planning and Development noted that more area is needed to be designated for small lot development. He added that most of the existing lot sizes are protected by the City’s 702 Lot Size Policy and that a neighbourhood-by-neighbourhood review would be required to pursue potential changes to said policy.

The Chair advised that the City has a road naming policy and suggestions for road names may be submitted to the City.

It was moved and seconded

(1)

That Official Community Plan Bylaw 7100, Amendment Bylaw 9274, to replace the Trites Area Land Use Map in Schedule 2.4 (Steveston Area Plan) thereof, be introduced and given first reading;

(2)

That Bylaw 9274, 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 9274 and this report, having been considered in accordance with OCP Bylaw Preparation Consultation Policy 5043, is hereby found not to require further consultation; however, out of courtesy, they be sent to the Richmond School Board for information purposes and the Richmond School Board may provide comments at the Public Hearing; and

(4)

That Richmond Zoning Bylaw 8500, Amendment Bylaw 9275, to create the “Single Detached (ZS23) – Steveston” zone, and to rezone 5460, 5480, 5500, 5520, 5540 and 5560 Moncton Street from the “Single Detached (RS1/C & RS1/E)” zones to the “Single Detached (ZS23) – Steveston” zone, be introduced and given first reading.

CARRIED

Discussion ensued with respect to encouraging small lot subdivision in the city.

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

It was moved and seconded

That staff investigate the potential for small lot subdivision in the city and report back.

CARRIED

3.

Application by 1006738 BC Ltd. for Rezoning at 11811 Dunford Road from Single Detached (RS1/E) to Single Detached(RS2/A)
(File Ref. No. 12-8060-20-009270; RZ 15-697230) (REDMS No. 4620626)

Mr. Craig briefed Committee on the proposed application, noting that the proposed rezoning is consistent with the area’s lot size policy, and added that there is potential to retain the existing house on-site.

In reply to queries from Committee, Mr. Craig advised that proposed subdivision would have two lots and retain the existing house. He added that there is future potential for a three lot subdivision; however, the existing house must be removed.

It was moved and seconded

That Richmond Zoning Bylaw 8500, Amendment Bylaw 9270, for the rezoning of 11811 Dunford Road from “Single Detached (RS1/E)” to “Single Detached (RS2/A)”, be introduced and given first reading.

CARRIED

4.

Proposed Zoning Bylaw Amendments to Regulate Building Massing and Accessory Structures in Single-Family and Two-Family Developments
(File Ref. No. 12-8060-20-00980/9281; 08-4430-01) (REDMS No. 4630710)

Barry Konkin, Program Coordinator, Development, briefed Committee on the proposed amendments to regulate building massing and accessory structures, and highlighted the following:

§   

stakeholder input from two workshops hosted by staff was received;

§   

the proposed amendments will address issues related to interior ceiling height and vertical building envelope;

§   

the staff report includes alternative bylaws that could be adopted should Council opt to vary certain technical aspects of the proposed amendments;

§   

the proposed amendments would eliminate the use of drop ceilings in new construction;

§   

the proposed amendments would limit the height of accessory buildings less than 10 m² in area to 3.0 metres for buildings with a pitched roof and 2.5 metres for buildings with a flat roof;

§   

the proposed amendments would limit the maximum height of accessory buildings greater than 10 m² in area to 4.0 metres for buildings with a pitched roof and 3.0 metres for a building with a flat roof;

§   

the setback from the exterior side lot line for accessory buildings will increase as lot width increases;

§   

the recommended bylaw amendments would limit the interior ceiling height to a maximum of 3.7 metres; and

§   

the proposed amendments would allow for an overheight area for entrances and stairs and for another portion of the house.

In reply to queries from Committee, Mr. Konkin advised that the proposed bylaws provide flexibility for builders. He added that Council may provide further direction to restrict the overheight areas.

James Cooper, Manager, Plan Review, spoke of the proposed amendments with respect to the building envelope and noted the following:

§   

the proposed amendments to the building envelope addresses the volume of the house and defines where the house may exist according to the size of the lot;

§   

the proposed amendments will not reduce the floor area of the homes, but defines where the area may be distributed;

§   

no changes to building envelope regulations are proposed for lots less than 12 metres;

§   

lots between 12 to 18 metres in width would have maximum 5 metre sidewalls with the roofline rise at a 45 degree angle; and

§   

lots greater than 18 metres in width would have the roofline rise at a 30 degree angle.

Mr. Cooper commented on enforcement aspects of the proposed amendments and noted that it would take place in three phases: (i) during the plan check, (ii) during construction by means of a field review, and (iii) post-construction by means of a site review. Also, he noted that during the plan check, additional drawings and information will be required from the builder and an enhanced construction checklist will be available.

Discussion ensued with regard to (i) the resources available for enforcement, (ii) the frequency of inspections, and (iii) additional inspections during the development process.

In reply to queries from Committee, Mr. Cooper noted that the proposed amendments would provide clarity for inspectors. He added that City Building Inspectors may partner with Community Bylaws staff on the post-construction review.

Mr. Erceg noted that the proposed amendments would be more effective to enforce and would address issues related to drop ceilings. He added that, if necessary, staff can seek more enforcement resources from Council in the future.

In reply to queries from Committee with regard to post-construction enforcement, Mr. Erceg advised that City Building Inspectors may be accompanied by Community Bylaws staff during post-construction reviews and that enforcement action would continue to be complaint based. He added that during the plan review process, staff may flag applications that could have the potential for future violations based on building design.

In reply to queries from Committee, Mr. Cooper noted that builders will have contact information available to the public; however, the public will not have oversight during construction of a development. Mr. Erceg added that public input is received during the rezoning and development permit review; however, Building Permits do not allow for this under the existing regulatory framework established by the Province.

Discussion ensued with respect to (i) the lack of confidence in local builders by the community, (ii) illegal dumping of construction waste, (iii) construction during statutory holidays, and (iv) the completion of construction in a reasonable timeframe.

In reply to queries from Committee, Mr. Erceg noted that there have been recent bylaw amendments to address noise and construction during statutory holidays and on Sundays. He added that if recent amendments are approved, builders will be required to post contact information on-site.

Discussion ensued regarding construction timelines, and in reply to queries from Committee, Gavin Woo, Senior Manager, Building Approvals, noted that builders must report for inspection at certain intervals during construction. He added that the building permit may be cancelled if there is no construction activity for six months.

Samuel Yau, 8420 Pigott Road, expressed concern with regard to the proposed amendments and was in opposition to the proposed changes restricting maximum ceiling heights.

Simon Then, 6538 Fleming Street, Vancouver, expressed concern regarding the proposed amendments and in particular, the proposed changes restricting maximum ceiling heights. He then spoke of some of the construction practices in the City of Vancouver and noted that there is demand for larger homes by larger families.

In reply to queries from Committee, Mr. Craig noted that the City of Vancouver has limited maximum ceiling height to 3.7 metres and that the Vancouver Charter, provides the City of Vancouver additional authority to oversee building design that are not available to the City.

Charan Sethi, 10571 Granville Avenue, expressed concern with regard to the potential effects of the proposed amendments to in-stream applications. Also, he was of the opinion that builders are generally responsible and that there is market demand for larger homes.

Discussion ensued regarding the aesthetic aspects of high ceilings and the subjective nature of architectural design. Mr. Sethi noted that there is demand for homes with high ceilings.

In reply to queries from Committee, Mr. Erceg advised that there are options available to address in-stream applications such as granting development variance permits and delaying the implementation date of the proposed amendments.

In reply to queries from Committee, Mr. Sethi expressed that he supports enforcement of bylaws and that enforcement would address non-compliant builders.

Discussion ensued regarding complaints received by the City regarding illegal construction and Mr. Woo advised that the City receives approximately 600 complaints annually. He added that of the complaints, there were only two cases where drop ceilings were converted into a second floor.

In reply to queries from Committee, Mr. Erceg noted that a homeowner would not be in compliance of the bylaw if garage space is primarily used for non-vehicle storage or is converted into habitable living space.

Discussion then took place with regard to placing heavy fines on violators.

Shu Guo Zhou, 7431 Ludlow Place, with the assistance of an interpreter, expressed his opposition to the proposed amendments.

Cllr. Steves left the meeting (5:44 p.m.) and returned (5:49 p.m.).

Mark Sakai, Greater Vancouver Home Builders’ Association, spoke on 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, Mr. Sakai commented on the City’s Good Neighbour Program and how aspects of the Program were used in other municipalities.

Ivan Krpan, 8451 Fairbrook Crescent, expressed his opposition to the proposed amendments and was the opinion that (i) the consultation process was flawed, (ii) the City needs to create more incentives for builders to comply with the bylaw, and (iii) the City’s bylaw enforcement was inadequate for build sites.

In reply to queries from Committee, Mr. Krpan noted that he was of the opinion that the proposed amendments will not prevent excessive massing of buildings and that architects may be able to circumnavigate the proposed amendments. He added that definitions and regulations should be simplified to remove potential loopholes.

Khalid Hasan, 6086 Russ Baker Way, expressed concern regarding the proposed amendments in relation to the results of the comment forms distributed at the public consultation workshop and the potential for the loss of business as a result of potential uncertainties from the proposed amendments. Also, he noted that there is a demand for homes with high ceilings since they create a bright airy space and that neighbourhoods should be consulted with regard to the proposed amendments. He added that the proposed amendments will not be effective for lots less than 18 metres wide since the massing would be pushed further into the backyard.

In reply to queries from Committee, Mr. Erceg advised that comment sheets from the workshop were provided to Council and that the staff report provides an overview of the consultation done.

Nick Poon, 2200 Shell Road, spoke in opposition to the proposed amendments and was of the opinion that (i) the current bylaws were only challenged by few residents, (ii) regulating subjective aspects of architectural design sets a negative precedent, (iii) architects will be able to circumnavigate the proposed amendments, and (iv) densification is required to generate affordable housing.

In reply to queries from Committee, Mr. Craig advised that the proposed amendments to vertical building envelope regulations should prevent designs of cube-shaped homes.

Raman Kooner, representing the Small Builders Group, expressed concern with regard to the proposed amendments and noted that (i) builders can build homes with larger Floor Area Ratio (FAR) in other municipalities compared to Richmond, (ii) the Small Builders Group supports the 5.0 metre ceiling height limit tied to the building structure, and (iii) there is market demand for homes with high ceilings. Mr. Kooner added that the Small Builders Group is satisfied with most of the proposed amendments; however, they would like to request that status quo regulations be extended to lots up to 15 metres in width.

Discussion ensued with regard to the vertical building envelope provisions in sections 4.18.2 and 4.18.3 in the proposed Richmond Zoning Bylaw No. 8500, Amendment Bylaw No. 9281.

Cllr. Au left the meeting (6:28 p.m.) and returned (6:29 p.m.).

In reply to queries from Committee, Mr. Kooner expressed his opinion that the proposed amendments would have a significant impact to building massing in new homes.

Cindy Piper, 2024 East Pender Street, Vancouver, spoke on the proposed amendments and read from her submission (attached to and forming part of these minutes as Schedule 2).

Calvin Lee, 8591 Fairhurst Road, expressed concern that the proposed amendments may affect his ability to build his home. Also, he noted that there is demand for homes with high ceilings and that restricting ceiling height in new homes may adversely affect the market. He added that he would prefer that regulations do not change and that more public consultation be pursued on the matter before amendments are implemented.

Gursher Randhawa, 8311 No. 6 Road, expressed his opposition to the proposed amendments. He was of the opinion that (i) resident complaints during the workshops stem from other factors such as small backyards, affordability, and bad building practices and not building massing itself, (ii) the process to implement the proposed amendments is biased, and (iii) the size of proposed homes have already been affected by the proposed amendments.

Jim Wright, 8300 Osgoode Drive, expressed concern with regard to the proposed amendments and read from his submission (attached to and forming part of these minutes as Schedule 3).

Gabrielle Huang, 7865 Cumberland Street, Burnaby, expressed concern that the proposed amendments could affect her ability to purchase a home with a high ceiling in the city. She noted that high ceilings are an attractive feature and suggested that the City implement area specific zoning for larger homes.

In reply to queries from Committee, Mr. Craig advised that considerable time and resources will be required to consider area specific zoning in the City.

Kathryn McCreary, 6560 Glacier Crescent, expressed concern regarding the proposed amendments with respect to (i) addressing drop ceilings in new construction, (ii) the effectiveness of the City’s Good Neighbour Program, (iii) building projections into side yard setbacks, and (iv) the comment forms used at the City’s workshop for the proposed building massing amendments.

Bob Williamson, 8166 Michael Court, expressed support for the proposed amendments, noting that the proposed amendments are a first step to reduce the size of new homes in the city.

Lyn ter Borg, 5860 Sandpiper Court, expressed concern with regard to the proposed amendments and read from her submission (attached to and forming part of these minutes as Schedule 4).

Discussion ensued with respect the construction of new 2.5 storey homes in the city.

John ter Borg, 5860 Sandpiper Court, expressed concern with regard to the proposed amendments and was of the opinion that the 5.0 metre ceiling limit contributes to the increase in height and massing of new homes.

Sam Sandhu, 4961 Tilton Road, expressed concern with regard to the proposed amendments and was of the opinion that the consultation process has caused division in the community and that the City should consult each neighbourhood in Richmond.

Bob Ethier, 10471 Truro Road, commented on the proposed amendments, noting that delegates that have spoken during the Planning Committee meeting do not necessarily reflect the opinions of all stakeholders.

Steve Dhanda, 10880 No. 5 Road, spoke in opposition to the proposed amendments, and suggested that the City examine construction guidelines specific to different areas of the city.

In reply to queries from Committee with regard to Land Use Contracts, Mr. Erceg advised that (i) the proposed amendments would affect the base zoning, which would apply should the Land Use Contracts be terminated, (ii) Provincial legislation indicates that if a Land Use Contract is terminated by Council, the property owner would still have one year to build under provisions of the Land Use Contract, and (iii) should the property owner claim hardship, an application may be made to the Board of Variance to extend the Land Use Contract.

In reply to queries from Committee, Mr. Erceg noted that there are approximately 16,000 properties under City zoning and that the City has heard concerns from residents regarding the building massing of new homes.

Discussion took place with regard to issues related to building massing causing division in the community and addressing topics related to building massing, construction noise, building height and Land Use Contracts in a methodical manner.

Discussion then ensued with regard to making adjustments to Richmond Zoning Bylaw No. 8500, Amendment Bylaw No. 9279 to remove the additional 15 m² overheight area and the 1.5 metre ceiling height allowance for 2.5 storey homes.

In reply to queries from Committee, Mr. Erceg advised that under Council direction, staff can remove provisions for the 1.5 metre ceiling height allowance for 2.5 storey homes; however, staff believe this height is required to conceal the half storey roof form.

Discussion took place with regard to the bylaw approval process, and in reply to queries from Committee, Mr. Erceg advised that should they proceed, the proposed amendments would be brought forward to Council, then Public Hearing in September 2015.

In reply to queries from Committee with respect to area-specific zoning, Mr. Erceg advised that customized zoning is not typical and that examining each neighbourhood would take significant staff time and resources. He added that the issues surrounding building massing will remain unaddressed during the time it takes to research custom zoning and the City will not be able to place a moratorium on new building permit applications.

Discussion ensued with regard to utilizing a down zoning system similar to what is used in the Corporation of Delta. In reply to queries from Committee, Mr. Konkin noted that in the Corporation of Delta, homeowners within a specific area have the opportunity to downzone the property, should there be a consensus amongst area residents; however, the process is time consuming and individual homeowners retain the ability to rezone their property back to the original zoning.

In reply to queries from Committee, Mr. Erceg noted that should the proposed amendments proceed, the proposed amendments would apply to all single-family lots in the city without Land Use Contracts. He added that the proposed amendments would provide clarity and precision to the current regulations.

It was moved and seconded

(1)

That Richmond Zoning Bylaw 8500, Amendment Bylaw 9280 to amend the zoning regulations for building massing, interior ceiling height and floor area calculation, and accessory structure locations within single-family, coach house and two-unit dwelling zones be introduced and given first reading;

(2)

That Richmond Zoning Bylaw 8500, Amendment Bylaw 9281 to amend the residential vertical lot width building envelope within single-family, coach house and two-unit dwelling zones:

(a)

be updated at section 4.18.2 and 4.18.3 to change the figures “12.5 m” to “15 m”; and

(b)

be introduced and given first reading ; and

(3)

That staff report back to Planning Committee in one year on the implementation of the proposed zoning amendments to regulate building massing and accessory structures in single-family developments.

The question on the motion was not called as discussion ensued with regard to (i) the possible effect of the proposed amendments on Land Use Contracts, (ii) the possibility of restricting subjective aspects of architectural design, (iii) reviewing the proposed amendments in the future, (iv) having appropriate setbacks to adjacent properties, and (v) the definition of ceiling height. 

In reply to queries from Committee, Mr. Craig noted that the proposed amendments will restrict the ability to add drop ceilings. Mr. Cooper added that the proposed measurement of ceiling height will be tied to the building’s structure.

The Chair requested further clarification in relation to the proposed measurement of ceiling height in cases of exposed beams. Mr. Erceg advised that staff will be able to provide clarification with respect to ceiling height measurement prior to the next Council meeting.

It was suggested that the motion on the floor be amended to replace Richmond Zoning Bylaw No. 8500, Amendment Bylaw No. 9280 with Richmond Zoning Bylaw No. 8500, Amendment Bylaw No. 9279.

In reply to queries from Committee, David Weber, Director City Clerk’s Office, advised that the proposed amendment was out of order as it negated the main motion by proposing an alternate bylaw and further that the motion on the floor must be considered prior to introducing another bylaw in a new motion.

There was agreement to deal with Parts (1), (2), and (3) separately.

The question on Part (1) was then called and it was CARRIED with Cllrs. Day and Steves opposed.

The question on Part (2) was then called and it was CARRIED.

The question on Part (3) was then called and it was CARRIED.

5.

MANAGER’S REPORT

None.

ADJOURNMENT

It was moved and seconded

That the meeting adjourn (8:22 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 21, 2015.

_________________________________

_________________________________

Councillor Linda McPhail
Chair

Evangel Biason
Auxiliary Committee Clerk