February 16, 2016 - Minutes
 |
Planning Committee
|
Date: |
Tuesday, February 16, 2016 |
|
Place: |
Anderson Room |
|
Present: |
Councillor Linda McPhail, Chair |
|
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 February 2, 2016, be adopted as circulated. |
|
|
|
CARRIED |
|
|
|
NEXT COMMITTEE MEETING DATE |
|
|
|
March 8, 2016, (tentative date) at 4:00 p.m. in the Anderson Room |
|
|
|
COMMUNITY SERVICES DIVISION |
|
|
1. |
Richmond Intercultural Advisory Committee 2015 Annual Report and 2016 Work Program |
|
|
|
Committee wished to thank the Richmond Intercultural Advisory Committee for their work. |
|
|
|
It was moved and seconded |
|
|
|
That the Richmond Intercultural Advisory Committee (RIAC) 2015 Annual Report and 2016 Work Program be approved. |
|
|
|
CARRIED |
|
|
|
PLANNING AND DEVELOPMENT DIVISION |
|
|
2. |
Arterial Road Policy Updates |
|
|
|
|
Wayne Craig, Director, Development, briefed Committee of the proposed amendments to the City’s Arterial Road Policy, noting that: |
|
|
|
|
§ |
the proposed amendments will provide clarity and specificity to the existing Policy; |
|
|
|
§ |
the proposed amendments will provide opportunities to introduce new housing forms such as duplexes, triplexes and row houses in addition to the traditional housing forms such as townhouses and single-family homes along arterial roads; |
|
|
|
§ |
in addition to the new housing forms, staff are recommending changes to Development Permit guidelines for traditional townhouse forms along arterial roads related to orphan lots, rear yard setbacks and duplex building types adjacent to single-family homes; |
|
|
|
§ |
the proposed amendments will identify areas where duplexes and triplexes are suitable; |
|
|
|
§ |
staff have identified areas in the city where exclusive lane-access housing is appropriate; |
|
|
|
§ |
the proposed amendments have identified four areas where mid-block lane connections to the arterial road may be needed and as part of the implementation strategy, staff will be recommending a funding approach that will allow for the equitable development of mid-block connections for lane-access housing; |
|
|
|
§ |
areas of future study include provisions for double fronting lots along arterial roads and opportunities to increase density along the Railway Avenue corridor; and |
|
|
|
§ |
should the proposed amendments advance, consultation with stakeholders, Richmond School District No. 38, and the public will proceed. |
|
|
|
In reply to queries from Committee, Mr. Craig noted that (i) the population projections in the report are in keeping with the Official Community Plan (OCP) for residential growth outside the city centre, (ii) the proposed amendments would allow for on-site vehicle maneuvering space in duplex and triplex sites, (iii) up to six vehicle parking spaces along with one visitor parking space would be required in a triplex site, and (iv) row houses differ from townhouses in that row houses do not have a strata and row house owners own their specific lot title. |
|
|
|
|
In response to queries from Committee regarding density, Mr. Craig noted that staff are recommending a density of 0.6 FAR for arterial road duplexes and triplexes, which will facilitate appropriate dwelling sizes. He added that the recommended density is consistent with allowances for compact lot and coach house sites and should integrate well into the surrounding context. |
|
|
|
|
Discussion ensued with respect to the rental vacancy rates in the city and surrounding municipalities. |
|
|
|
|
As a result of the discussion, staff were directed to continue processing all in-stream development applications during the consultation process and advise the public that in-stream applications will be processed during the consultation process on the City’s website. |
|
|
|
|
Discussion then took place with regard to increasing density along the Railway Avenue corridor. |
|
|
|
|
In reply to queries from Committee regarding front-back duplexes accessed from a rear lane, Mr. Craig noted that vehicle parking will feature a driveway and a garage with two parking spaces in a tandem arrangement. |
|
|
|
|
Amar Sandhu, 11020 No. 5 Road, expressed concern with regard to the potential increase of time required to process rezoning applications and was of the opinion that development applications should proceed straight to the Development Permit process. |
|
|
|
|
In reply to queries from Committee, Mr. Craig noted that pre-zoning sites is not advised and that the rezoning process allows the City to secure amenities such as affordable housing and infrastructure. |
|
|
|
|
Discussion ensued regarding the time required to process development applications, and in reply to queries from Committee, Joe Erceg, General Manager, Planning and Development, advised that application time is partly dependent on the response of applicants and the City’s application processing time compares favorably to other municipalities. |
|
|
|
|
Discussion then ensued with respect to significantly increasing density along the Railway Avenue corridor and its possible effect on neighbourhood character. |
|
|
|
|
In reply to queries from Committee, Mr. Craig noted that the proposed public consultation is consistent with the public consultation followed on previous revisions of the Arterial Road Policy; however, staff can amend the proposed public consultation at Council’s direction. |
|
|
|
|
Discussion ensued with regard to the proposed public consultation, and it was suggested that newspaper advertisements be used to advise the public of the planned open houses for the proposed amendments. |
|
|
|
|
In reply to queries from the Committee, Mr. Craig noted that staff can provide information on the number of properties that will be potentially affected by the proposed amendments. |
|
|
|
|
It was moved and seconded |
|
|
|
|
That the proposed amendments to the Arterial Road Policy as provided in the January 27, 2016 staff report titled “Arterial Road Policy Updates,” be approved to proceed to public and stakeholder consultation. |
|
|
|
|
CARRIED Opposed: Cllr. Day |
|
|
|
3. |
Provincial Government Legislation of the Building Act |
||
|
|
|
James Cooper, Manager, Plan Review, briefed Committee on the Province enacting the Building Act (the Act), noting that: |
||
|
|
|
§ |
the legislation’s objectives will be to improve consistency in the implementation of building regulations province-wide and will respond to innovative advancements in building methods; |
|
|
|
|
§ |
the Act will centralize building regulation authority at the Provincial level; |
|
|
|
|
§ |
the Act may affect City policy objectives by conflicting with building regulations in City bylaws; |
|
|
|
|
§ |
the Act will standardize qualification requirements for building officials and City Building Approvals staff will require certification to Provincial standards; and |
|
|
|
|
§ |
staff will review bylaws and advise Council of any potential areas of conflict. |
|
|
|
|
In reply to queries from Committee, Mr. Cooper advised that implementation of the Act is done in phases and many administrative rules are still not in place. |
||
|
|
|
Discussion ensued with respect to the potential impact of the Act, and in reply to queries from Committee, Mr. Erceg noted that requirements that are applied at time of rezoning, such as servicing and affordable housing agreements, should not be impacted. He added that requirements that are in a bylaw and outside of the rezoning process, may be affected by the Act. He further noted that staff will examine options to preserve all City requirements that may be affected by the Act. |
||
|
|
|
Discussion then took place regarding the Province’s potential influence on development in the city and the benefits that come from rezoning. |
||
|
|
|
In reply to queries from Committee, Mr. Erceg advised that the City has highly trained Building Approvals staff and that Provincial requirements are rigid with respect to the testing and certifying of building officers. |
||
|
|
|
In reply to queries from Committee, Mr. Cooper noted that the Act was introduced to address inconsistencies in building regulations between municipalities which potentially affected developers building across multiple municipalities, trade agreements and certification of materials and methods. He added that the Act will permit innovation and will supersede municipal authority; however, Provincial review of non-traditional developments may take a longer time compared to the current municipal process. |
||
|
|
|
Discussion then ensued with respect to the historical development approval policies in the Province and the City and the high building standards of the City. |
||
|
|
|
It was moved and seconded |
||
|
|
|
(1) |
That the staff report titled “Provincial Government Legislation of the Building Act,” dated January 20, 2016, from the Senior Manager, Building Approvals, be received for information; |
|
|
|
|
(2) |
That a letter be written to the Honourable Rich Coleman, Deputy Premier and Minister Responsible for Housing, with copies to Richmond Members of the Legislative Assembly, expressing Richmond City Council’s concerns in relation to the recently enacted Building Act, in particular, that: |
|
|
|
|
|
(a) |
the new Building Act interferes with Council directives expressed as Building regulations within City Bylaws that may be affected by the Building Act; and |
|
|
|
|
(b) |
the legislation lacks flexibility in addressing methods to certify and train municipal building officials; and |
|
|
|
(3) |
That the City request additional information on the above matters from the Ministry, including the administrative rules that will be in place to administer the Act and that the Ministry provide opportunities to meet with the City in relation to the issues and concerns raised. |
|
|
|
|
The question on the motion was not called as discussion ensued with regard to feedback on the Act provided by the building industry. |
||
|
|
|
The question on the motion was then called and it was CARRIED. |
||
|
|
4. |
MANAGER’S REPORT |
|
|
|
None. |
|
|
|
ADJOURNMENT |
|
|
|
It was moved and seconded |
|
|
|
That the meeting adjourn (5:02 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, February 16, 2016. |
|
_________________________________ |
_________________________________ |
|
Councillor Linda McPhail |
Evangel Biason |