Committee of the Whole - Agenda - 2013 09 10

8/22/2019 Committee of the Whole - Agenda - 2013 09 10

1/138

Document: 239888

Council Special Committee of the Whole

Council Chambers, City Hall, 100 Newport Drive

TAKE NOTICE THAT a Special Committee of the Whole Meeting of theCouncil for the City of Port Moody will be held in the Council Chambers,City Hall, 100 Newport Drive, Port Moody on

September 10, 2013 at 7:00pm.

______________________________

Brent Dunsford, Assistant City Clerk

1. Call to Order

2. General Matters

3. Unfinished BusinessOfficialCommunityPlan

Pages 3-138

3.1 Report: Development Services Department, Planning Division datedAugust 28, 2013File: 6430-08

Recommendation:

THAT the Development Services report dated August 28, 2013

with respect to the Official Community Plan Update be forwardedto Council for consideration.

4. Adjournment


2/138

THIS PAGE LEFT BLANK INTENTIONALLY


3/138


4/138

Report/Recommendation to Commttee of the WholeOfficial Community Plan Update - Summary of Community Feedback, Opportunity for CouncilFeedba ck and Consideration of Next StepsAugust 28, 2013expected that the DRAFT O CR w ith Council 's comments from Septemb er 10th, 2013 will bebrought to the next OCR Town Hall meeting on September 30th for comment by the community.

AnalysisSummary of Community FeedbackIn total, 35 written feedback submssions were received since May 13, 2013 (Attachment 5).Them es noted in this feedback include:

More park, additional density/height within the Gateway sub-areaMore dog parks in new high density developmentNo high rises on Inlet - consideration of view impacts and preservation of green spaceMill Site - concerns with negative environmental impacts, feasibility of development,

view impacts of tall buildings; keep western part as industrial; includemarina/market/recreational areas

Heritage Mountain Shopping Centre - Keep to 4 storeys, increaseLower density/building heights aro.und Moody Centre Station (6-8 storeys)Concerns with traffic increase with new development - noise, parking, already at

capacity30 storeys too high for Inlet Centre Transit Oriented Development areaCoronation Park - higher than 3 storeysLack of recreational spaces - already too crowded; need updated Parks and Recreation

Plan; designate triangle site between Klahanie and Suterbrook as p ark land and includeconnection

Safety concerns - pedestrians, cyclist - impacts of increased trafficSupport for creating attractive, liveable, and walkable community that is safe and

aesthetically pleasingSt. Johns Street - no more than 4 storeysDo not compromise current lifestyle and aesthetic appeal with new developmentLike idea of new, creative architecture - consider range of building heightsConcerns with loss of industrial landNo need for rapid growth; consider impact to services and infrastructureNeed for seniors housing, assisted livingHeritage Commercial District - increase heights to 6 storeysSupport for plan - like emphasis on heritage character in Heritage Commercial DistrictMore emphasis on job creationCharles Street - increase heights above 3 storeysLike increased density in Clarke/St Johns/Barnet area if it will bring in more amenities

The two June Town Hall Meetings provided opportunities for the community to provide directverbal feedback on the DRAFT OCP (see mnutes in Attachments 3 and 4). Themes noted inthis feedback include:

Consideration of additional residential/commercial density within the Gateway sub-area,including the Andres Wines site

Reduced height/density for Coronation Park; keep at 3 storeys2

4


5/138

Report/Recommendation to Commttee of the WholeOfficial Community Plan Update - Summary of Community Feedback, Opportunity for CouncilFeedba ck and Consideration of Next StepsAugust 28, 2013

Higher density/height for Heritage Shoppers Mall siteDesignation of lands for seniors housingSupport for increased density in Moody Centre to allow for more green spaceEncourage more visual art, unique building design in keeping with "City of the Arts";

concerns with loss of small town characterConcerns with loss of industrial lands and associated impacts to tax base; feasibility of

high density development on Mill siteNeed for more green space along the waterfront and other parts of Moody Centre; more

parks, sports fields and gathering spaces; m ore daylighting of streamsNeed to create more employment opportunitiesConcerns with traffic and view impacts of development resulting from proposed changesDo not want to see Port Moody become another Metrotown or YaletownAdditional density in the Heritage Commercial District (up to 6 storeys)Need to highlight stream locations in OCPNeed for affordable housing, increased accessibility

Staff met with a representative from the Frase r Health Authority on July 19, 2013 to discuss theDRAFT OCP. Formal written feedback was later submtted on August 28, 2013 (Attachment6). The focus of this feedback related to looking at the OCP from a health perspective andnoted the following:

Support for the OCP's commitment to creating a complete community, environmentalprotection; actions/policies to address GHG emssions, energy reduction and climatechange impacts; promotion of transportation alternatives; measures to addressaffordable housing

Recommendations for policies to address potential exposure to environmental hazards(noise, emssions, odours, excessive heat) in urbanized areas and ensuring compatibilityof adjacent land uses

Recommendations for policies related to promoting food security and equal access tohealthy foods, priority for health and safety with respect to active transportationinfrastructure

Include "health" in the overall community vision and add "community health" as acommunity goal in the OCP

As directed by Council on March 12, 2013, early consultation on the DRAFT OCP with externalagencies w as initiated and the draft plan subseque ntly referred to adjacent m unicipalit ies andagencies. Feedback from TransLink was received in April 22, 2013 and presented to Councilon May 21, 2013. On August 30, 2013 additional feedback was received by the City ofCoquitlam (see Attachment 7) noting the following:

Support for higher density and transit-oriented uses around transit stationsEncourages strong inter-municipal communication and coordination as more detailed

planning proceeds on properties in the Coronation Park, along Barnet Highway and onDewdney Trunk Road

3

5


6/138


Encourages adding new policy to examine alternative improvement solutions for theMurray-Clarke corridor and continued joint discussions on broader Tri-City transportationchallenges

Request that future planning of the IOCO Special Study Area include a transportationimpact assessment of loco Road, David Avenue, Murray Street, Clarke Road and St.Johns Street with Coquitlam given the opportunity to comment on the findings

Regional Context Statement:Part 25 of the Local Governm ent Act requires that an Official Commu nity Plan include aRegional Con text Statement (RCS) which identifies the relationship between the OCP andMetro Vancouver's Regional Growth Strategy (RGS) and, if applicable, identifies how the Citymay explore making the OCP more consistent with the RGS over time. The goals of the RGSare: (1) Create a Compact Urban Area; (2) Support a Sustainable Economy; (3) Protect theRegion's Environment and Respond to C limate Change Impacts; (4) Develop CompleteCommunities; and, (5) Support Sustainable Transportation Choices.A draft Regional Context Statement (RCS) is included as Attachment 8. The draft RCSincludes a de tailed list of policies in the draft OCP that demon strate consistency with themunicipal actions outlined in the Regional Growth Strategy. Three draft maps showing regionalland use designations, urban centres and goods movements in Port Moody are also included asrequired in the RG S.The draft RCS proposes the designation of a new Frequent Transit Developm ent Area (FTDA)around the proposed Moody Centre rapid transit station. FTDAs are intended to be additionalpriority locations to accommodate concentrated growth in higher density forms of development.They are located along TransLink's Frequent Transit Network and are characterized by higherdensity residential, commercial and mxed uses and may contain community, cultural andinstitutional uses. It is anticipated that consultation with TransLink on the proposed FTDA willtake place p rior to finalizing the RCS .Staff will continue to work with Metro Vancouver staff to finalize the RCS. Depending on thenature of the proposed changes to regional land use designations in the Port Moody RCS,amendments to the Regional Growth Strategy may be requested. The Port Moody RCS wouldbe formally submtted to the Metro Vancouver Board for acceptance following Public Hearingand 3rd reading of the OCP amendment bylaw.

Next Steps:A number of admnistrative/housekeeping changes to the DRAFT OCP have been identified forinclusion with the next draft plan. These include:

Special Study Area land use designations for the Imperial Oil, Mill and Timber and PetroCanada (now Suncor) lands (Map 1) based on Metro Vancouver Board approval on July26, 2013.

Addition of development permit area guidelines for duplex forms of development(Development Permit Areas 1 and 2, Appendix 2)

4

6


7/138


Change in the land use designation for 101 Clearview Drive from Mixed Use - MoodyCentre back to Single Famly Low Density due to inadvertent inclusion in previous draft.

Attachments:1.Minutes of the May 21, 2013 Com mittee of the Whole Mee ting2.View perspectives showing varying building heights in Moody Centre and Coronation

Park3.Minutes of the June 8, 2013 OCP Special Town Hall Meeting4.Minutes of the June 18, 2013 OCP Special Town Hall Meeting5.Community Feedback received after May 13, 20136.Feedback received from the Fraser Health Authority dated August 28, 20137.Feedback received from the City of Coquitlam dated August 30, 20138.DRAFT Regional Context Statement

CommunicationsTo date, the O CP update proces s has involved the following public consultation oppo rtunities:

May 10, 2012 - Public Input Session in the Galleria;May - June 2012 - Public Feedback Survey on transit-oriented development principles;June 16, 2012- Design Charrette at Kyle Recreation Centre;January 17, 2013 - Moody Centre Community Association MeetingMarch 2013 - Early consultation with external agenciesMarch - May 2013: Consultation with civic committees5 Public Input Sessions:>April 22, 2013 - Kyle Centre

>April 24, 2013 - Recreation Complex Lobby>April 25, 2013-City Hall>April 27, 2013-City Hal>May 2, 2013-City Hall

April - May 2013: On-line engagement on DRAFT OCPMay 9, 2013: Meeting with School District 43June 8 and 18, 2013: Town Hall Meetings in Inlet TheatreMeeting with Fraser Health Authority - July 19, 2013

Information related to the OCP Update is available on the City's website. An OCP email updatedistribution list is being maintained as part of this process a nd su bscribers are no tified whe nnew information on the update is available. A general OCP contact email is also beingmaintained throughout this process to receive general inquiries and feedback on the OCP.Notice of the June 8th & 18th Town Hall meetings was circulated via established communicationchannels (website, email, twitter, facebook, outdoor display board). Ads were also placed in theTri-City News and flyers were delivered to every Port Moody household

5

7


8/138

Report/Recommendation to Commttee of the WholeOfficial Community Plan Update - Summary of Community Feedback, Opportunity for CouncilFeedba ck and Consideration of Next StepsAugust 28, 2013An add itional OCR T own H all Meeting is scheduled for Sep tember 30, 2013 in Inlet Theatre.Notice of this meeting will occur through the City website, OCP email list, twitter, facebook, TheFocus newsletter and newspaper ads. This meeting will be live-streamed. Additionalopportunities for interactive participant feedback during the event are also being explored.

Budgetary ImpactThe 2012 O CP Up date process is funded through the department operating budget.Council Strategic Plan ObjectivesThe 2012 OCP update process is consistent with the goals of Planning for the Future andEngaging the Community highlighted within the 2012 Port Moody Council Strategic Plan.

Sustainability ImplicationsWhe n com pleted, the updated O CP w ill provide a renewed vision for the future of areas affectedby the Evergreen Line that is transit-oriented, allowing people to drive less and walk, cycle anduse transit more.

Policy ImplicationsThe upd ated Official Comm unity Plan will provide policies to guide the long term future of theCity of Port Moody regarding land use.

AlternativesTHAT staff be directed to make changes to the Draft Official Com munity Plan and repo rt back toCommttee of the Whole.RecommendationsTHAT the Development Services report dated August 28, 2013 with respect to OfficialCommunity Plan Update be forwarded to Council for consideration.

6

8


9/138

Report/Recommendation to Commttee of the WholeOfficial Community Plan Update - Summary of Community Feedback and Next StepsAugust 28, 2013

Prepared by AwAarl fi

r\~RyD/ )

Mary De Paoli, MCIPManager of Planning KevinvRamsayCity Manager

irVl )Approvals

Supervisor (initials):Tim Savoie, MCIPDepartment Head (initial.

Corporate Review InitialsCorporate Services (Human Resources, Information Services, Legislative Services)Corporate CommunicationsFinancial ServicesCommunity Services (Cultural Services, Facilities, Recreation)Engineering and Parks Services (Engineering, Parks, Operations)Fire RescueLibraryDevelopment Services (Planning, Building, Bylaws & Licencing)SustainabilityPolice

Committee Review:List relevant committees Initials

Council Agenda InformationCom mittee of the W hole Date: September 10, 2013

7

9


10/138

THIS PAGE LEFT BLANK INTENTIONALLY

10


11/138

A T T A C H M E N T

City of Port MoodyMinutes

Committee of the Whole MeetingBrovold Room

Tuesday, May 21, 2013at 5:12 pmPresent: Mayor M.E. ClayCouncillor D.L. Dllworth

Councillor R.T. ElliottCouncillor R.G. GlumacCouncillor G.W. NuttallCouncillor Z. RoyerCouncillor R.A. Small

In Attendance: Kevin Ramsay - City ManagerNeal Carley - General Manager of Engineering and Parks ServicesMargot Davis - Manager of SustainabilityMary De Paoli - Manager of PlanningRemo Faedo - Fire ChiefRon Higo - General Manager of Community ServicesPaul Rockwood - General Manager of Financial ServicesColleen Rohde - City ClerkTim Savoie - General Manager of Development Services

1. Call to Order2. General Matters

3. Adoption of Minutes

City of Port Moody Council Committee of the Whole - May 2 1, 2013 1Document: 232905

11


12/138

4. Unfinished Business4.1 Report: Development Services, Planning Division dated May 10, 2013File: 6430-08

Moved, seconded andTHAT building heights be reduced to a maximum of 4 storeys inCoronation Park, excluding the corner lot at loco and Barnet, untilsuch time as a neighbourhood plan is completed.Moved, seconded and CARRIEDTHAT the foregoing motion be amended by deleting "4 storeys"and substituting "3-12 storeys excluding the gas station site atthe corner of Barnet and loco".

The motion as amended was put and CARRIED.Moved,secondedTHAT the recommendations identified in Attachment 8 titledPotential Housekeeping Amendments for Consideration andAttachment 9 titled Potential Revisions for Consideration Basedon Civic Committee Feedback, of the May 10, 2013 DevelopmentServices report, be included in the OCP for consideration.Moved, seconded and CARRIEDTHAT the foregoing motion be amended by adding: "with theamendment that the words "such as affordable housing" beremoved from the wording of proposed action item 11 ofAttachment 9.Separation was requested of each potential housekeeping amendmentin Attachment 8 and each potential revision based on civic committeefeedback in Attachment 9:The question on Item 1 of Attachment 8 was put and CARRIED.The question on Item 2 of Attachment 8 was put and CARRIED.

The question on Item 3 of Attachment 8 was put and CARRIED.Moved, seconded and CARRIEDTHAT Item 4 of Attachment 8 be deferred for further clarificationfrom staff.

The question on item 5 of Attachment 8 was put and CARRIED.City of Port Moody Council Committee of the Whole - May 21, 20132

OfficialCommunityPlan

Document: 232905

12


13/138

The question on Item 6 of Attachment 8 was put and CARRIED.The question on Item 7 of Attachment 8 was put and CARRIED.Voting against: Councillor RoyerThe question on Item 8 of Attachment 8 was put and DEFEATED.Voting against: Mayor Clay, Councillors Dilworth, Elliott, Glumac,Nuttall, Royer, SmallMoved, seconded and CARRIEDTHAT Item 9 of Attachment 8 be deferred.Moved, seconded and CARRIEDTHAT a new item 10 be added to the list on Attachment 8 tocorrect all references to Cultural Precinct to change that wordingto Cultural Plaza.Moved, seconded and CARRIEDTHAT the motion to include Attachment 9 titled PotentialRevisions for Consideration Based on Civic Committee Feedbackin the OCP be amended by changing the words "consider usingincentives" in Item 1 to "develop an incentive program".The question on the motion as amended was put and CARRIED.

Moved, seconded and CARRIEDTHAT the motion to include Attachment 9 titled PotentialRevisions for Consideration Based on Civic Committee Feedbackin the OCP be amended by adding "THAT key drainages such asKyle Creek, Schoolhouse Creek and Dallas Creek be identified onmap 2 as potential park designation along the setbacks of thesecreeks."

The question on the motion as amended was put and CARRIED.The question on item 2 of Attachment 9 was put and CARRIED.The question on Item 3 of Attachment 9 was put and CARRIED.The question on Item 4 of Attachment 9 was put and CARRIED.The question on Item 5 of Attachment 9 was put and CARRIED.

City of Port Moody Council Committee of the Whole - May 21, 20133Document: 232905

13


14/138

The question on Item 6 was put and it was:Moved, seconded and CARRIEDTHAT the motion to include Attachment 9 titled PotentialRevisions for Consideration Based on Civic Committee Feedbackin the OCR be amended by changing the words "will considerproviding incentives for" in Item 6 to "will develop an incentiveprogram to encourage" and the words "through the developmentof a density bonus program for the provision of communityamenities" be deleted.The question on the motion as amended was put and CARRIED.The question on Item 7 was put and it was:

Moved, seconded and CARRIEDTHAT the motion to include Attachment 9 titled PotentialRevisions for Consideration Based on Civic Committee Feedbackin the OCP be amended by incorporating into Item 7 thefollowing: "THAT a new policy be included in each of thedevelopment permit areas to state that given Port Moody'sdesignation as City of Arts there is an expectation that buildingdesign will incorporate unique features that promote and enhancethe City of the Arts designation.The question on the motion as amended was put and CARRIED.The question on Item 8 was put and it was:Moved, seconded and CARRIEDTHAT the motion to include Attachment 9 titled PotentialRevisions for Consideration Based on Civic Committee Feedbackin the OCP be amended in Item 8 by adding a section calledCultural Plaza to Section 15.4 of the Official Community Planwhich would describe the cultural plaza on city-owned landaround the existing arts centre.

The question on the motion as amended was put and CARRIED.The question on Item 9 of Attachment 9 was put and CARRIED.The question on Item 10 of Attachment 9 was put and CARRIED.


14


15/138

The question on Item 11 of Attachment 9 was put and it was:

Moved, seconded and CARRIEDTHAT the motion to include Attachment 9 titled PotentialRevisions for Consideration Based on Civic Committee Feedbackin the OCP be amended by deleting "such as affordable housing"and that a separate policy be developed which encouragesaffordable housing to be within new developments.The question on the motion as amended was put and CARRIED.Moved, seconded and DEFEATEDTHAT the maximum building height allowance be set at 6 storeysin Moody Centre east of the Barnet Highway and west of WilliamsStreet in order to ensure that the OCP remains compatible withPort Moody's small town heritage.Voting against: Mayor Clay, Councillors Dilworth, Elliott, NuttallMoved, seconded and CARRIEDTHAT staff produce an image that would illustrate the visualimpact of 20 storey towers if located on the waterfront fromdifferent view perspectives in the residential area of MoodyCentre and also showing varying heights on the lower riseproposed in Moody Centre.

Moved, seconded andTHAT items 1 to 9 of Attachment 10 titled Potential Revisionsbased on Community Feedback for Consideration be approved.Separation of the motion was requested:The question on Item 1 of Attachment 10 was put and DEFEATED.Voting against: Mayor Clay, Councillors Dilworth, Elliott, Glumac,Nuttall, Royer, SmallThe question on Item 2 of Attachment 10 was put and it was:Moved, seconded and CARRIEDTHAT the motion to approve Attachment 10 titled PotentialRevisions based on Community Feedback for Consideration beamended in Item 2 by adding "or underpass" after "overpass".Voting against: Councillor Dilworth


15


16/138

The question on the motion as amended was put and CARRIED.The question on Item 3 of Attachment 10 was put and CARRIED.

Councillor Dilworth left the meeting at 8:20pm.The question on Item 4 of Attachment 10 was put and CARRIED.Councillor Dilworth returned to the meeting at 8:23pm.The question on Item 5 of Attachment 10 was put and it was:Moved, secondedTHAT the motion to approve Attachment 10 titled PotentialRevisions based on Community Feedback for Consideration beamended in Item 5 to change Section 15.5.6 to indicate that above4 storeys the upper floors would be set back from St. JohnsStreet.

Councillor Royer left the meeting at 8:24 pm.The question on the amendment was put and DEFEATEDVoting against: Mayor Clay, Councillors Dilworth, NuttallThe question on Item 5 of Attachment 10 was put and CARRIED.

The question on Item 6 of Attachment 10 was put and CARRIED.Councillor Royer returned to the meeting at 8:27pm.The question on Item 7 of Attachment 10 was put and CARRIED.The question on Item 8 of Attachment 10 was put and CARRIED.The question on Item 9 of Attachment 10 was put and it was:Moved, seconded and DEFEATEDTHAT the motion to approve Attachment 10 titled PotentialRevisions based on Community Feedback for Consideration beamended in Item 9 by deleting "4-20 storeys" and substituting "4-12 storeys".Voting against: Mayor Clay, Councillors Dilworth, Elliott, Nuttall


16


17/138

The question on Item 9 of Attachment 10 was put and CARRIED.Voting against: Councillors Glumac, Royer, SmallCouncillor Small left the meeting at 8:41pm and returned at 8:43pm.Moved, seconded and CARRIEDTHAT, based on discussion at the May 14, 2013 reconvenedCommittee of the Whole meeting, a Town Hall meeting bescheduled for June 2013, date to be confirmed, to provideadditional opportunity for community consultation with respect tothe DRAFT Official Community Plan.Moved, seconded and DEFEATEDTHAT, in section 9.2.4 Industrial Business Development, policy 11(a) Suncor Lands and the first paragraph of policy 11 (b) IOCOLands be removed from the Official Community Plan untildirection is received from the public.Voting against: Mayor Clay, Councillors Dilworth, Elliott, Small

5. New BusinessQuarterly5.1 Presentation: City Manager and General Manager of CorporateReview of TeamServicesAction PlanFile: 1485-11

Moved, seconded and CARRIEDTHAT the City Manager's presentation of the Quarterly Review ofTeam Action Plan be deferred to the next meeting.

Provincial5.2 Report: Development Services, Sustainability Division, datedApplication forMay 10, 2013Pesticide Use #:File: 5280-95804-0004-13/15

Moved, seconded and CARRIEDTHAT the Development Services report Provincial Application forPesticide Use #: 804-0004-13/15 be deferred to the next meeting.

City of Port Moody Council Committee of the Whole - May 2 1, 2013 7Document: 232905

17


18/138

ProgressUpdate onCarbonNeutrality

5.3 Presentation: Manager of SustainabilityReport: Development Services, Sustainability Division, dated May 10,2013File: 0360-20-40Moved, seconded and CARRIEDTHAT the presentation Progress Update on Carbon Neutrality bedeferred to the next meeting.

6. AdjournmentThe Mayor declared the meeting adjourned at 7:17pm.

Certified correct in accordance with Section 148(a) of the CommunityCharter.

City ClerkConfirmed on theday of, 2013.

Mayor

City of Port Moody Council Committee of the Whole - May 2 1, 2013Document: 232905

18


19/138

19


20/138

20


21/138

21


22/138

22


23/138

23


24/138

24


25/138

25


26/138

26


27/138

JATTACHMENT__

Present:

Absent:In Attendance:


Council Special TOWN HALLCommittee of the Whole Meeting

Council ChambersSaturday, June 08, 2013a 902am

Mayor M.E. ClayCouncillor D.L. DilworthCouncillor R.T. ElliottCouncillor R.G. GlumacCouncillor G.W. NuttallCouncillor Z. RoyerCouncillor R.A. SmallKevin Ramsay - City ManagerMary De Paoli - Manager of PlanningTim Savoie - General Manager of Development ServicesMargaret Warwick - Acting City Clerk

1. Call to Order2. General Matters

Town HallMeeting - 2013OCP Presentationand PublicConsultation

2.1 PowerPoint Presentation followed by Public Input2013 Draft OCPFile: 1700-01Mayor Clay provided opening remarks and confirmed that there wouldbe further meetings on the subject prior to any decisions being made byCouncil. He noted the process has been underway for a number ofyears and the document under review has yet to be finalized. MayorClay confirmed that members of Council were here today to listen andgather input from the community and that there would be another TownHall meeting on Tuesday, June 18th commencing at 7:00 pm at whichtime further representations from the public will be heard.

City of Port Moody Council Committee of the Whole - June 8, 2013 1 Document 236380

27


28/138

The Manager of Planning then spoke to the map circulated entitled"Proposed Evergreen Line Sub-Areas May 22, 2013" which incorporatedsome of the changes identified at the Committee of the Whole meetingheld on May 21, 2013. She confirmed that the Areas under discussionwere as follows:

0 A Gateway B Spring Street C Heritage Commercial District D Murray Street Boulevard E Oceanfront District F Moody Centre Transit Oriented Development G Inlet Centre Station Transit Oriented DevelopmentShe then commented briefly on the overall proposals for each of theareas and provided artistic renditions of the various streetscapes.

The following speakers offered comments and asked questions.Kirk Segqie - representing Andres Wines/ Peller Estates,read from prepared remarks and commented on the historical highlightsof the property. The 2005 relocation of the company resulted inconsultations and discussions regarding an appropriate legacy whichcould include development of artists live/work studios; public artspresentation space; seniors accommodation; assisted livingaccommodation and day lodge for the Trans Canada Trail.He expressed disappointment that the Andres property is still showingas industrial when there is no port or rail access and is small for anindustrial site.He suggested that within the 400m radius there should be retail withsome higher-density residential and suggested that a 'mixed use'community would provide an increased tax base. Long term plans wouldinclude ground floor retail stores, variety of accommodation and accessto the Trans Canada Trail. He noted that there are no developmentplans for the property for the next few years but wants it to be what thecommunity wants and needs.Ann Kitchinq - Port Moody Arts Centre Society - agrees that the Andressite should be encouraged for arts oriented development to make astunning entrance to the community. She acknowledged that there mustbe high rises but it is necessary to ensure that they have different,exciting and interesting designs that keep as much green space aspossible.Jill Mcintosh - Coronation Park - started a petition on Sunday which willbe submitted in due course. She requested that the new OCP be suchthat their area is slated for gradual, modest changes as they want tocontinue to live in the area and have made improvements based on theirunderstanding that the area was to remain as is for short to mediumterm. They want to be able to sell their property as a "home" - not a tear-


28


29/138

down, particularly as the area is not and has not been zoned for multi-family. They acknowledge the need for higher density to supporttransit but suggested there is already a lot in the area that has alreadyimpacted their views and access to sunlight. She requested a maximumof three storeys be proposed for the neighbourhood.Arnold McLaughlin, speaking on behalf of K. Choi - (the owner of theHeritage Mountain Village Shopping Centre). He requested thatalthough the density for the site is currently 4 storeys, consideration begiven to allowing the privilege of a higher density - similar to the 30storeys near the station - given the proximity of the station to hisproperty. Reference was made to the earlier request in a lettersubmitted to the May 21st meeting regarding the OCR.Jean Donaldson. Port Moody, suggested there needs to be diversity inthe housing provided to enable seniors to age in place. Although theplan shows density increasing, there is no provision for senior'sretirement residences in Port Moody resulting in people having to leavethe community they have lived in for many years. We have a hospital,hospice and chronic care facility - but nothing for independent orassisted living. She requested that planners move to designate twospecific lands that could be used for multi-storey senior's residences -perhaps one at each end of the community. She also requests thatretention of green space be a priority.Marcello Trasolini, Port Moody, suggested that the plan shows nostation for the Gateway area - but does show 12 storey developments.He suggested that there is unequal treatment for properties in the area -with a variation from 6 to 12 to 30 storeys - but the tax rate will be thesame for 30 storey properties. He questioned why the Gateway andOceanside areas are being allowed higher densities? He expressedconcern that undesirable smaller developments will have limited greenspace provided and will be of a nondescript design. He suggested thatMoody Centre should be mid to high rise so that there is a commitmentto larger green space and public space for the people to enjoy. He alsorequested that this plan not be rushed through.Fred Soofi - Port Moody/Anmore, invested in Port Moody because thereis a lot of potential as a waterfront city. He suggested there is a need toencourage visual art in Port Moody and expressed concern that thecircles drawn around the stations don't reflect what some of the arearesidents want - e.g. the 30 storeys around the Inlet Centre - perhapsmore acceptable in the Gateway area but only 6 storeys are proposedthere - and no station at this time. Seniors could be in the west area butthere is no zoning proposed for that and there is grocery/doctors officesetc being proposed but suggests there could be better use of density inthe area. He advised that he does not support industrial use because ofpollution but high-tech industry could create more jobs and officebuildings to help keep the people close to their homes. There is a greatpotential if time can be spent on better planning.


29


30/138

Ruth Foster - Belcarra resident, as an environmental steward of thearea for many years, expressed concern with the loss of industrial landsin favour of residential development as it puts added pressure on theshrinking amount of agricultural land in the lower mainland. Shesuggested it was important to try to retain industry and blend it with otheruses such as a Granville Island style of mixed use expansion of RockyPoint. Reference was made to the 1998 Plan which suggested mixedl ight industrial/high tech development which if paired w ith green spacewould be highly sustainable. It is important to set aside green spacenow.

Mari Trott - Port Moody, questioned what young families are to do -where are the children who live in high rises to play? He suggested that30 storeys are too much - 12 storeys would be enough. He expressedconcerned about the proposal for the Flavelle site - suggesting that 3big high rises would block the mountains and questioned what wouldhappen to all of the Flavelle employees. He suggested that there are notenough roads to support the increased traffic.David Ritcev - Port Moody, expressed concern about park space andamenities and quoted from Policy 11 on page 40 relative to MoodyCentre and the statement "where feasible". He suggested Port Moodycan't handle any significant residential growth now let alone what isprojected so suggested the policy should be amended to read"necessary". He also expressed concern that there needs to be specialcircumstances where more is given back to the community - developersees numbers on the map as the height minimum. He agreed with thespeaker from Andres- if not industrial should be mixed employment area- if it is just residential and retail it becomes just another 'suburb'.Wants to see people on the streets during the day.Deb Niidam - Port Moody, suggested that although she has spokenmany times over the years, her concerns have not been addressed.She suggested there should be no more than 3 storey designs andobjected to the fact that the creeks, views and naturescape are beingimpacted by the construction of the tunnel - need to design and buildsomething that allows for nature to be maintained. She advised that shewants to be able to walk to shopping and amenities and is concernedthat the proposal for 6 storeys will not support retail development or astation. She expressed concern that high rises will further increase thecongestion in the area.Gregory Elgstrand - Port Moody, acknowledged that towers and densityare inevitable but there is an opportunity to make choices now. Heexpressed concern about the lack of communication regarding thismeeting. He advised that he returned to BC and established a culturalenterprise in Port Moody based on information in the 2001 Plan thatshowed the city as an arts and creative enterprise centre and despitemeetings with council, staff and leaders from the arts community he wasnot aware that radical changes were being proposed. He suggested thatin a natural setting like Port Moody, arts and creative enterprise should


30


31/138

be at the centre of development and questioned what a City of the Artsshould look like and suggested that the OCP does not address this andit should be at the core of all decisions. He suggested that the city mustdemonstrate to developers and speculators that they need to bring theirbest design, materials and construction so that development does reflectthe arts. He queried what can be done to make it affordable for artisansto live and work in the community. He suggested that developmentprevents attractive local retail outlets and attracts more major chainretailers/big box outlets. He suggested restricting the size of storefrontsto encourage smaller independent businesses. Referring to Chapter 10of the Plan regarding Arts and Culture and queried why, if this is the 3rdversion, has 3.2.9 remained unchanged. He questioned the use of the'transit-oriented' approach as it tends to make Port Moody a dormitorycommunity with 'work nodes' on a transit line. He questioned why thecity continues to use "incentives" and "bonusing" and suggested a flatdevelopment fee would be more appropriate.Mayor Clay noted that it was 10:50 am and the meeting was scheduledto close at 11:00 am.Barry Tyldesley - Port Moody, as a long time resident sees changes forthe better but doesn't want the city to become a dormitory. Hesuggested that we need research/development jobs so that people arein the city during the day. He expressed the hope that designs andcolours of development will be attractive and was supportive of theGranville Island concept and encouragement of R&D type jobs.Sean - Suterbrook Port Moody, suggested that more planning has beendone for area D than area G - with 30 storeys all around the stationwhich will only attract residential rather than a mix of residential,commercial and industry. He suggested that traffic is going to increaseas not everyone will use the skytrain. He quested that symmetry ofdesign be encouraged - not "sectors" - and suggested a real mix of lowrise, mid rise and high rise is needed for area G.Glen - lives in area G - advised that for 30 years he has enjoyed themountain views although some trees now block it - but they also helpblock out the apartments that have been built. City of the Arts shouldhave buildings that are visually pleasing - concerned that most of thehigher buildings used to be on the South side of St. Johns Street butnow apartments are being built up to 6 and 20 storeys - how are peoplegoing to be able to see the views and what is being done to make surenew structures are earthquake safe?Debbie Johnson - Port Moody, indicated that she has lived in a duplexin a single family area but the street seems to becoming an arterial evenwithout further development. Thought the OCP was originally based onsome form of rapid transit she doesn't understand why it seems to be sodependent on increased development. She expressed concern that theincreased heights and higher density and traffic on the north side of thestreet will seriously impact the value of her property and suggests that


31


32/138

the current proposals are diametrically opposed to the original plan.Reinhold Specht - Port Moody - expressed concern about the loss ofgreen space as development increases and was shocked to hear thatPort Moody has the highest growth factor in the area. He suggested thatif money is the priority the city will become just another 'Metrotown' or'Yaletown' which is not what he wants to see. He suggested that wemust keep in mind that with development, taxes go up and that we needto pull in the reins.Tyler Brown - Port Moody, indicated that he chose the Tri-City areabecause of its affordability, the mountains and green space, proximity tolakes and the fact that Port Moody is the City of the Arts with mixedhousing styles - not just all high rises. He advised that he bought asingle family house in Coronation Park and rents part of it as a mortgagehelper with 'family' renters that wanted to get out of apartments. Headvised that his property is next to the gas station and he does not wantto see any of the high density proposed for the area and he doesn't wantto live in another 'Metrotown' or 'Yaletown' as he chose a low density,arts focused community (without big box stores) where he could raise afamily, have a house and a yard.Use Leis- expressed concern regarding the late notice of the meetingand suggested the construction and design of high rises has got tochange and there are examples of lovely buildings all over the world.She suggested that we need to promote the arts - not just painting - butas a more cultural place. She suggested that we are losing sight of whatPort Moody stands for - a green community with parks - where can wehave another Rocky Point Park if there is such an increase in density.She inquired whether there is a plan for another big shoreline park asthe existing one is overcrowded and the plans don't seem to show anynew parks. She expressed concern about the lack of shopping availablein the community but more concerned about park land and howaggressive the developers can be in building large, high, close togetherbuildings. She indicated that she thought the intent of the EvergreenLine was to reduce traffic.Pamir - owner of Jakes Crossing/Burrard Public House and the vacantparking lot to the north suggested that he looked forward to being able tohave a 6 storey building on his property.David MacRitchie - advised that has an automobile repair business andwas concerned that development plans don't address how traffic will bemoved. As a resident of Coronation Park, he indicated he doesn't wantto move and likes the idea of walking to the skytrain but is not ready forhigh density development. He queried shy so much growth is required tosupport the Evergreen Line.Cecilia Trasolini - Port Moody, expressed concern regarding theproposals for area G as there are many young people in CoronationPark that would be impacted and suggested more information is needed


32


33/138

before a reasonable decision can be made. She referenced the Area Dproposals for 4 and 6 storeys and requested clarification. As a realtor,she suggested that if the circle in area C is correct, property values willgo down if higher buildings are built in front of existing properties. Sheindicated she would like to see flexibility/variety of floors and if propertiesare being assembled there should be an allowance for green space.Pat Merrett - Port Moody - indicated she has seen the city grow from apopulation of 10,000 and knew there would be change andacknowledges that Council has tried to do the best for the communitybut now sees the pressure to develop higher density. She advised thatshe doesn't want to see the Flavelle site converted to housing as weneed more park land and a creative way to hold on to the foreshore forthe future. She noted that the San Remo development is a goodexample of how a referendum and land swap can result in park area andtrails being preserved. She requested that Council not let high risesblock the views of the North Shore.Patricia Comer - Port Moody - indicated she is involved in arts as achoreographer for Stage 43 and suggested that art can be expressed inmany different ways and now, as a writer she uses the parks andsurrounding areas in her writings. She expressed concerned aboutdensity and densification and the potential harm of car exhaust onnatural areas like Noons Creek. She noted that animals and their habitatare being destroyed and requested that the Police Department do moreto protect people's gardens. She noted that the area has really changedand she rarely walks the streets anymore because of the 'river of steel'(cars from one end of the city to the other).Marion Lalonde - Coronation Park - suggested it is a beautiful area thatshould be left as a single family area like the area south of St. JohnsStreet. As an artist, she indicated she would like to see a larger venuemade available for their monthly meetings.Gary McGowan - Port Moody - indicated he has seen developmentincrease all over the lower mainland, but is concerned about theaccessibility to the shoreline and suggests that the nicest areas to liveare those near parks and greenways. He noted that there is a greenwayalong the skytrain line from Metrotown to Joyce and Edmonds thatconnects all the parks and lots of bike paths that are used by walkers(including those with strollers). He expressed concern that bike pathson the street are unsafe and will not be well used, whereas if a linearpark could be established through Port Moody - perhaps along thebottom of the Chines - it would be well used. He indicated heappreciated that Council's efforts are impacted by the decisions ofsenior levels of government.Greg Cossev - Carleton Place - indicated he agreed with many of theearlier comments - particularly with respect to area A and developmentof 6 storeys and green space. He noted that Coronation Park is a greatarea and queried the future of the school site that has been closed for


33


34/138

several years and, further, what is the future of the single access road(Balmoral).Mayor Clay thanked everyone for attending and invited members ofCouncil to make closing remarks.Mayor Clay then confirmed that there would be another Town Hallmeeting on Tuesday, June 18th at 7:00 pm in the Council Chambers andencouraged everyone to attend but made the request that "new"speakers be afforded the opportunity to speak first. He noted that it isimportant that everyone be heard and indicated that no one should beafraid to speak to Council at these meetings.

6. AdjournmentThe Mayor adjourned the meeting at 11:55am.

Certified correct in accordance with Section 148(a) of theCommunity Charter.

Acting City ClerkConfrmed on theday of, 2013.

Mayor


34


35/138

A T T A C H M E N T . 4-


Council Special Town HallCommittee of the Whole Meeting

Council ChambersTuesday, June 18, 2013

at 7:05 pm

Present: Mayor M.E. ClayCouncillor D.L. DilworthCouncillor R.T. ElliottCouncillor R.G. GlumacCouncillor G.W. NuttallCouncillor R.A. Small

Absent: Councillor Z. Royer

In Attendance: Kevin Ramsay - City ManagerMary De Paoli - Manager of PlanningTim Savoie - General Manager of Development ServicesColleen Rohde, City Clerk

1. Call to Order

Town HallMeeting - 2013OCPPresentationand PublicConsultation

2. General Matters2.1 PowerPoint Presentation followed by Public Input

2013 Draft OC P C onsultat ionFile: 6430-08Mayor Clay welcomed everyone in the audience and outlined theprocess to be followed for the meeting.

The Manager of Planning then provided an explanation of what anOfficial Community Plan (OCP) is and made a presentation overviewof the draft OCP and specifically the changes proposed to the current

Document: 237575

35


36/138

plan. She also outlined the public input process to date.

The Mayor provided an additional explanation on what this draft planrepresents as a long term vision for the city which is currently in draftform and may change through this public consultation process.

Public Input:Svend Hansen. Port Moody, expressed the hope that the integrity ofthe police department and fire department be maintained. He alsonoted the importance of park and open space.

David Spence, Port Moody, referred to his written submission on theOCP and expressed interest in moving away from the conceptualdesigns of a concrete jungle of glass and steel and expressed thepreference of more conceptual designs that reflect the human soul andcontributes to positive community interaction and the things that keepa city liveable and viable for this and future generations. He alsoindicated he favours the curvilinear design rather than the verticaldesign of buildings.

Trudy Norton, Port Moody, expressed concern for the loss of habitatthat development brings even far from the actual development site.She expressed concern with how Port Moody can absorb such growthas is proposed in the OCP. She also expressed concern with changingmost of the industrial land to residential which reduces the diversityand sustainability of the tax base.

Kathy Lecko, Port Moody, questioned how traffic would be affectedand where the streams and parks are shown on the maps. Shequestioned how all the increased population would impact traffic. Shealso asked about potential schools.

Hazel Mason. Port Moody, expressed concern with densification, trafficand the impact that large buildings and additional population will haveon the environment. She questioned where additional parks would be.She added that this plan does not address a number of considerationsthat would have to be addressed for this to be a complete plan.

Helen Daniels. Port Moody, expressed support for the revitalization ofwest Port Moody and Moody Centre into a transit oriented community.She suggested that property and business owners in Moody Centreneed more density in order to thrive and succeed and that well planneddensity can provide the elements necessary for a community. Sheindicated support for the key element of public transportation includedin the plan. She asked that people not limit their vision forrevitalization, for transit options and for increased amenities to makethe inevitable change positive. She suggested that the western end

City of Port Moody C ouncil Com mittee of the Whole-June 18, 2013 2

36


37/138

needs the same amount of attention that the eastern end of thecommunity has received.

Rod MacVicar, Port Moody, noted that the CPR tracks form a barrierthrough Port Moody that separates the people from the ocean front. Headded that the Evergreen Line will form an additional barrier whichcuts people off from the ocean. He referred to all the streams thatcross the tracks which are not highlighted on the OCP map.

Demir Mirkovic, Port Moody, inquired whether this plan has some kindof relative permanency or longevity that people can rely on. Heexpressed concern that anyone who thinks they have a legitimatereason could request revision and change to the OCP. He referred toletters and a petition about Heritage Mountain Shopping Village frompeople of Newport Village and the adjacent area expressing oppositionto highrise buildings on Heritage Mountain Shopping Plaza. He addedthat what exists there now is an established community and any typeof large construction project in their midst is a detriment to views andthe health of people living in this community.

Demir, Port Moody business owner, referred to a letter he had writtento the City. He advised that he owns the Burrard Public House and thelot behind and indicated he wants to build something nice with shopsand residences. He indicated that he likes the idea of the Spring Streetpromenade. He advised that development would not be viable at the 3storey height and requested 6 stories on their Kyle Street site.

Sandra Williamson, Port Moody, spoke to Area A indicating she wouldlike some kind of gathering place or community centre, a library, ahotel to attract people to spend their money here, shops and servicesand a walkable community with free parking and recreational areas forchildren.

Deb Niidam, Port Moody, advised that she supports the westerngateway and wants to make the area walkable. She introduced FrankDucote who is an urban planner who has worked on rapid transit linesand asked him to speak for her. She expressed a desire for moredevelopment in western Port Moody.

Frank Decote, Frank Ducote Urban Design, spoke as requested by theWest Port Moody Special Study Area Group with respect to the areaknown as the Western Gateway area. He noted that the communityand Council have indicated they want a third sky train station to servethe western part of the city and if that is the case, densities in that areawould have to be much greater. He suggested a fresh look needs to betaken relative to the western part of Port Moody. He noted that thereare a number of issues that need to be addressed for the western endof Port Moody including services, walkability, housing diversity,work/live and artisan facilities. He also noted that there is strong

City of Port Moody Council Committee of the Whole-June 18, 2013 3

37


38/138

support from property owners in the area for comprehensive planningfor the Western Gateway area.

Jillian Hull, Port Moody, expressed a desire for redevelopment in thewestern end of the city in Area A. She suggested that the Andres sitebe pulled out of industrial zoning and redeveloped with mixed usedevelopment. She suggested the 28 storeys showing on the mill sitebe removed until there is a full geotechnical study as the area is builton fill. She also noted that schools and parks are not shown on themaps. She suggested a post-secondary school should be attracted toPort Moody. She suggested a designated area for a cultural district inthe western area of the city including Moody Centre to attract visitorsand businesses. She also expressed environmental concerns.

John Grastv. Port Moody, noted that the OCP is a guide to servicing.He referred to the economic study conducted in 2003/04 which wasdone because the people in the western end of Port Moody neededservices. He noted that the study identified service gaps which stillexist today. He suggested the lack of a regional transportation plan is agap in the OCP.

Janice Woodrow. Port Moody, advised that she was attracted to moveto Port Moody because of the development in Inlet Centre. Sheexpressed concern that the livability of Port Moody should bepreserved. She expressed the perspective that Newport Village is awell designed community that encourages people to walk and shewants to make sure it stays that way. She referred to the HeritageMountain Shopping Centre and expressed the view that it should havebeen dealt with as part of Newport Village. She indicated support thatthe Heritage Shopping Centre property is designated as mixed useand redevelopment should be to a maximum height of 4 storeys. Shespoke to the design principles of spatial separation noting that NewportVillage already has more towers than other areas and doesn't needany more. She also indicated support for the principles of steppingdown in the form of development, infill housing which is supposed torelate to the surrounding properties and that the plan should try tomake the development of Port Moody appeal to existing residentsrather than someone who might live here in the future.

Ron Simpson, Port Moody, referred to the OCP principle ofmaintaining the small town character of the city. He questioned whythe OCP does not seem to reflect this small town character vision.

Jill Mcintosh, Port Moody, submitted a petition from people inCoronation Park which expressed the desire to retain single familyhousing in that area. She indicated that the area is covered by acovenant that restricts heights to 20 feet. She suggested more parkland and day-lighting of streams. She suggested it is important to knowwhat the plans are for the current Fire Hall #1 site.

City of Port Moody Cou ncil Committee of the Whole - June 18, 2013 4

38


39/138

Lana Harris. Port Moody, spoke regarding Area D expressing theunderstanding that the city's traffic committee wants to be included inthis plan from the beginning. She understood from comments madethat transportation planning comes after the OCR. She suggestedmore parkland will be required for a higher population and questionedwhether putting high rises in the community supports the concept ofsmall town character.

Arnold McLaughlin. Port Moody, representing the owner of HeritageMountain Village Plaza, requested on behalf of his client that this sitebe moved from 4 storey designation to coincide with the 30 storeyheights that are shown on other sites in close proximity to his site. Henoted that this OCP is a vision for 20 to 30 years from now. Thereason for the request now is that the density designation would be forsome time in the future. The owner requests an OCP designation of 4to 30 storeys given that the final determination would be done througha public hearing process at some point in the future.

Jillian McMillan, Port Moody, expressed disappointment that there isno western station in Moody Centre but acknowledged that the densityin the area is not sufficient to support a station at that location. Sheexpressed support for taller buildings on the western slope aboveBarnet Highway. She also spoke to the corners of Barnet Highway andSt. Johns Street being a good location for commercial activities. Sheasked that the Andres site be included in the OCP and not leftindustrial. She suggested the name of the Gateway area be changedto Westport.

Peter Dasniers, Port Moody, suggested that the OCP pits sub-areasagainst sub-areas. He noted that the area where he currently lives isshown as green space. He spoke to the Mill and Timber property andsuggested that the Mill and Timber site be purchased by the city forpark. He noted that much of Moody Centre is built in an area that issubject to landslides which is a concern if there is an earthquake Hesaid heights of buildings sho uld be determined b y how high the firedepartment can respond. He suggested this OCP be rejected and PortMoody remain with the current OCP. For the regional contextstatement population projection, he suggested no towers are needed.He suggested that the residents be allowed to vote on the OCP in the2014 election. Regarding comments about density in Area A, hereferred to documents that showed high rise buildings on the Andressite some years ago and suggested that that's the type of developmentthat the Gateway people want but the location next to a chemical plantand other industrial uses is not a suitable,

Elaine Golds, Port Moody, suggested this plan overlooks communityvalues as it is based on too much residential growth. She suggestedthat more soccer fields would be needed which are not shown on the

City of Port Moody C ouncil Com mittee of the Whole-June 18, 2013 5

39


40/138

plan and that the plan should show where amenities like parks andsports fields will be located. With respect to Area A she suggested itdoes not make sense to have a station at the western end of PortMoody. She suggested a linear trail in Area A area so people can walkdown the hill. She also noted that the locations of all the streams arenot shown on the OCR map and buildings are shown as being overexisting creeks which provide important habitat. She suggested thatsteams need to be incorporated into the plan now and that day-lightingcreeks be part of this plan. She suggested that a development plan bedeveloped first to create green corridors from the Chines to ShorelinePark. With respect to the Mill and Timber site, she suggested itbecome an extension of Rocky Point Park and most of the area shouldbe designated green space and amenities for wildlife should beconsidered. She expressed concern for talks about a marina at thisproperty and that the owners will want to increase the land space bybuilding into the inlet. She expressed the view that the plan is not fullyfocussed on building a complete community.

Craig Rudd, Maple Ridge, advised he owns a building in Port Moodyand expressed concern about the impact of talking about the density ofa particular lot when all other lots around it are lesser density. Hesuggested some more dialogue with the businesses and what isneeded in that sector to discuss how densification on one lot wouldaffect the neighbour.

Janet Yu. Port Moody, indicated she owns a commercial property onClarke Street and has collected a 50 signature petition frombusinesses on Clarke and St. Johns Streets. She noted that thepetition recommended that the business areas designated for 3storeys are not fair when the properties next to them are 6 storeys.She recommended that the 3 storey areas be changed to 4 levels sosmaller buildings would not be surrounded by much taller buildings.She noted that 4 levels can still reflect heritage elements. She alsosuggested that the existing commercial zoning not be changed tomulti-family.

Stephen McGowan, Port Moody, referred to the history and heritagecharacter of the Coronation Park area as being as important as theheritage area in Moody Centre which has 3 storey height limits. Hesuggested that Sky Train would be unnecessary if there was a bettertransit system years ago and this is putting pressure on rezoningcommunities. He suggested there will never be enough density toreally support Sky Train.

Willy Marten, Port Moody, agreed that change is coming and can beboth good and bad. She questioned how this plan will improveaccessibility in the city and create walkable communities. Shesuggested this plan is not senior friendly but rather youth friendly andthe plan talks about less reliance on vehicles but seniors needvehicles. She expressed the concern that development on the

City of Port Moody Cou ncil Committee of the Whole - June 18, 2013 6

40


41/138

waterfront will be multi-million dollar dwellings not affordable housing.She expressed opposition to putting residential development next toindustrial areas which will force out the industrial base.

George Assaf, Port Moody, expressed the view that these are a lot ofchanges which require a lot of consultation and encouraged that therebe more of these types of Town Hall meetings. He noted thatincreased services like police, fire, health care and other services willbe required to serve this density. He expressed the opinion that thereis too much residential density and not enough commercial space.

Caroline Mullan, Port Moody, expressed the view that this is adevelopment plan for developers. She suggested that the expressionof the vision in the OCP is not reflected on the map. She expressedconcern for the three study areas and that the Mill and Timber landshould be an extension of Rocky Point Park, She noted the trafficproblems this will bring, the lack of green space and parks and theneed for protection of streams.

George Elestrand, Port Moody, noted that Port Moody is a difficultplace for businesses to remain viable particularly in Moody Centrebecause it is not walkable. He suggested that all businesses in PortMoody have difficulty because the local population is not sufficientlylarge and growth is necessary to support business. He noted that PortMoody is also not great for parking that supports businesses. He notedthat if local businesses are not viable, jobs will be few and people willhave to commute out of the city to work. He suggested Port Moodyshould have more people while maintaining the core of the sense ofcommunity that should be protected. He also suggested that the planneeds to include measures to deal with increased traffic passingthrough Port Moody from new development areas in Coquitlam.

Phil Boname. Urbanics Consultants, spoke on behalf of Andrew PellerLtd, owner of the Andes Wines property. He questioned whether theplan has fully understood and leveraged the intrinsic attributes of thecommunity like the inlet and better connectivity to that feature. Hequestioned whether we are exploiting the inner infrastructure notingthat Port Moody has a high population of artists and the plan shouldtake greater account of that. He suggested the heritage conservationarea is unique and should be highly leveraged, improved andprotected. He advised that for his client's property they propose mixeduse and stacking to use land more efficiently and create open space.He suggested his client's plan is a quality plan unlike many of theelements of this draft OCP.

Bonq-Hwan Kim. Port Moody, suggested that this OCP is going toofast. He spoke to the correlation between population and highrisesnoting that the community will change over time but should not berushed because of the coming of the Evergreen Line. He also spoke in

City of Port Moody Coun cil Committee of the Whole - June 18, 2013 7

41


42/138

favour of retaining the recreation amenities in the city. He suggestedthat the population of Port Moody is already high.

Colin Petrie, Port Moody, spoke to the Coronation Park area andexpressed concerns regarding the support and infrastructure that goesalong with development. He noted that the police are not seen walkingthe streets and with growth crime is increasing, while the services havenot yet caught up to the density we have and that should be addressedbefore there is more density.

Hong Ja Kim, Port Moody, expressed concern that the air quality inPort Moody has changed so more thought needs to be given tosustainability of the surroundings and deal with infrastructure such asroads and parking spaces.

Petition: 3001 Terravista Place residentsPetition: Coronation Park residents

Members of Council then provided closing comments.

3. AdjournmentThe Mayor declared the meeting adjourned at 10:32pm

Certified correct in accordance with Section 148(a) of theCommunity Charter.

City ClerkConfrmed on theDay of, 2013.

Mayor

City of Port Moody Co uncil Committee of the Whole - June 18, 2013 8

42


43/138

5"ATTACHMENT ^

Port Moody BCAugust 22, 2125

Mary De Paoli, MCIPManager of PlanningDear MaryRe: Draft OCPI have enclosed 4 pages of comments - 3 pages on Gateway 15.5.1 page 84, policy 3 and 1 pageon Section 6.18, Seismic Events.I have also enclosed a copy for the Mayor and Councillors.My comments include colour photos

Thank youPeter Dasnieres

43


44/138

August 14,2013To: Mary De Paoli, Manager Of Planning,Comm ents on the Draft OCPGateway 15.5.1, page 84, policy 3, 6- storeys? "compatible with adjacent land use"The proposed 6-storeys buildings on the south side of the 2100 block Clarke Street are not com patible with theexisting 8-2 storey homes built with council's approval in 1995.Therefore, the south side of the 2100 block of C larke Street should be restricted to 2 - 3 storeys as pe r policy 3.

MiPeter Dasnieres

Photo 1View looking east from the kitchenwindow of #7-2125 Clarke StreetNote roses - depend on sunlightNo sun - no flowers or vegetables

Photo 2End wall 5 storey (64 ft) building as seenfrom Grant & St. John Street.Note: if a 6-storey (78ft) building is built, thepresent east view from # 7(photo 1) will be blockedand replaced by the view of an end wall as seen inphoto 2 & 3

-A..J

Photo 3, represents a concrete or block wall of aproposed 6 storey (78ft) building as per the draftOCP. This wall is not compatible with Policy 3page 84 with the adjacent land use of the existing 2storey homes as approved by council ml995.Policy 3For multi-family residential designatedproperties south of Clarke St and north of St JohnsSt, building heights up a maximum height of 6storeys will be considered where it is compatiblewith adjacent land uses and where the developmenwould not create adverse traffic impacts

44


45/138

August 15, 2013To: Mary De Paoli, Manager Of Planning,Comm ents on the Draft OC PGateway 15.5.1, page 84, policy 3, 6-storeys? "compatible with adjacent land use"The proposed 6-storeys buildings on the north side of 2100 block Clarke Street will replace the scenic trees andmountain views enjoyed by the residents of the 8 - 2 storey homes on Clarke and the6-3 storey homes at 2125 Spring Street. Council's approved these homes in 1995 a nd 2007.Therefore, the north side of the 2100 block of Clarke Street should be restricted to 3-storeys as shown on page12, Andre's - The Gateway at Moody Centre, Land Use Committee dated April 16,2008.Alternatively, the 2100 block of C larke Street is within the Gatew ay Spe cial Study Area an d perhaps the de tailplanning and public consultation should take place before changing the existing residential land use.Peer Dasneres

Photo 1View from 2nd floor of 07 - 2125 Clarke Streetshowing the trees and Mountain View in the distance.This view would be replaced by a 6-storey buildingas per the draft OCP

Photo 2Show s a 5 - storey building imposed on photo 1The building blocks the view from 07-2125 Clarke StreetThe tree is approx.64 ft tall and a 6 - storey buildingwould be 14 ft above the top of the tree

'i, (SpiimzSt.

r. ! HI ljJ*,#


46/138

August 14, 2013To: Mary De Paoli, Manager Of Planning,Com ments on the Draft OCPGateway 15.5.1, page 84, policy 3, 6-storeys? "compatible with adjacent land use"The proposed 6-storeys buildings on the south side of the 2100 block C larke Street are not compatible with theexisting 8 - 2 storey homes built with council's approval in 1995.Therefore, the south side of the 2100 block of C larke Street should be restricted to 2 - 3-storeys as per policy 3.

Peter Dasnieres

bPhoto 1The top of the 45 ft hydro pole is 39 ft above the sidewa lkA 6-storey building (78ft) is twice the height of thehydro poleThe Gateway Vision in Sketch 1, page 84 proposes

6-storey buildings on e ither side of the 8 ho mes at 2123 &2125 Clarke Street. In reality, this vision eliminates themorning and evening sun year round.6-storey buildings arnot compatible to the existing 8-homes.

Photo 2Shows at 5-storey building floor to be 6-storeys

short one

2115 Spring Street2125 & 2123 C larke

Sketch 1Shows the Gateway vision as proposed by theOC P Design C harette and contrary to Policy 3.This vision proposes green space between Clarke andSt. John Street by eliminating!4 homes (includes 6 hom esat 2115 Spring St). The cost to the City approx 14 milliondollar .A cheaper alternative for the City is to buy the 7vacant residential lots on the north of Clarke Street for$4.4 million((more expense if 6-storeys are allowed first)The 7 vacant lots will provide much-needed park &recreation area for the Gateway vision of the Draft OCP.Policy 3For multi-family residential designated properties soutof Clarke St and north of St Johns St, building heights up amaximum height of 6 storeys will be considered where is compatible with adjacent land uses and where thedevelopment would not create adverse traffic impacts

46


47/138

Port Moody, BCAugust 21, 2013To Mary De Paoli, Manager of PlanningRe: Draft OCP S ection 6.18, page 34 Seismic Eve nts

The p aragraph is misleading and should be re-written toreflect that Moody Centre from the Barnet Highway toloco road is in a moderate to high-risk liquefaction zone

and prone to soil liquefying in the event of a strong earthquakeas per GeoMap Vancouver. This paragraph refers to Map 13,and covers the Chimes area south of Ivy Street?The paragraph should also refer to M ap 14 which includesall of Moody Centre and loco road as shown on GVRD:Liquefaction Hazard Map and GeoMap Vancouver 1998.Peter Dasnieres

./-J ; , VU"" /iquDfactlon Hazard " " " T .

Frcns to Uqutfadfco ./ ;W >--/. J','F " , !ba;v. --S.;

| Uvci vKDiM AtiUfrtpjin GVRD: Liquefaction Hazard Map j| 'Jp l-an i jSIJ Ij PJ [re# 'G1; iNs-" ~' v"During an earthqu ake loose water-saturated silts and sands at shallow depthmay lose their strength and transform into a fluid (liquefaction). Deepersediments are more consolidated, have higher confining pressures, andconsequently are less likely to liquefy. When sand beneath a layer of silt orclay liquefies, the capping layer m ay "glide" laterally under the influence ofgravity towards a slope, such as the bank of a nearby river channel, causingground cracking. Foundations of highways, bridges, and buildings, as well asburied sewer and gas lines, can be damaged by such movements. Liquefactioncan also trigger landslides at the front of the Fraser delta. The red zone showsareas of relatively loose, saturated lowland sediments (i.e. lowlands).Liquefaction is likely to occur during a strong earthquake in those parts of thered zone where there is shallow subsurface sand and coarse silt, for examplethe Fraser delta.his map provides only a generalized interpretation of liquefactionisceptibility during an earthq uake and sh ould not be used for localtotechnical evaluation.

6,18 Seismic EventsGreater Vancouver's location places it at1) some risk fromearthquakes. The Provincial Building Code and the City'sBuilding Bylaw require for all new buildings used for assembly,personal care, detention, or high hazard industrial use, andfor all new residential, commercial or industrial buildings, thatthe foundations and building structures be designed to resistearthquake forces to a level specified in the BC Building Code,as amended from time to time.The nature of local soils and geograph y influences the degreeof risk. 2) Most of Po rt Moody is covered by so ils, typically til ls,that were consolidated in the most recent glaciation and theseare considered 3) excellent foundation materials and stable, if ndisturbed by excavation or erosion.4) The Geological Sun/ey of Canada identifies a rim of landsaround the head o f Burrard Inlet compo sed of unconsolidatedsediments that ma y be suspectibie to liquefaction in anearthquake of sufficient severity. Liquefaction refers to a lossof strength that may occurin loose soils lying below the watertable, when exposed to prolonged shaking from a majorearthquake.5) 4reas where liquefaction may possibly occur areshown on Map 13. The geology of these areas is complex andthe specific risk on an y particular site can on ly be determinedby sub-surface investigationComment:1) some risk should be great risk when the public is told texpect wide spread damage from a strong earthquake ofmagnitude 6 or better in the next zero to 300 years.The word 2) "Most' is misleading when the GVRD mapand Map 14 shows !4 of Port Moody is prone to soill iquefaction in a m oderate to high earthquake a nd the draOCP is confined to Moody Centre (Barnet to loco road)3)excellent foundation material and stable -add - couldliquefy during a strong earthquake -as #4 per GeoMapVancouver.4)GeoMap Vancouver and GVRD Liquefaction Hazardmap shows all of Moody Centre and loco road susceptiblto Liquefaction not ju.st the Chimes5)shown o?i Map 13 and add map 14.Seismic POLICY67. Where an application is made for subdivision or theconstruction of a new principal building within thesLibject areas as identified in M ap 14, it is prudent torequire submission of a geotechnical report that includessubsurface investigation. Such report may recommend measureto reduce risk of injury or property dama ge. Developm ent PermArea 5 guidelines implement this policy and include situationswhen exemptions may apply(Chapter 16 and Appendix 2CommentThe word "it is prudent to " change to shall be required,'prudent" means maybe and allows staff at their discretioto ask for a geo technical report. Staff relies on advice frothe owner's geotecnhical experts (staff answers to questio36 & 37, Firehall referendum) when recommending DPAto Council for approval. The Draft OCP once passedregulates development and sets the parameters for councdecisions (now and in the future) regardless of public inp

http://geoscan,ess.nrcan.Kc.ca/cgi-bin/starfindei,/0?path=geoscan.dowiiloade.fl&id=:fastlink&pass=&fonnat:=FLDOWNLOADE&search=R=209909

47


48/138

Mary De PaoliFrom:Sent:To:Subject:

Mike ClayJuly-30-13 8:59 AMMary De PaoliFW : Suggestion for future highrise developme nt in PoMo

FYj too.Original Message

From: Don and Mavis WheatleySent: Monday., Duly 29, 2013 8:10 PMTo: Mike ClaySubject: Suggestion for future highrise development in PoMoWe have have sent in our comments on the proposed OCP document but in addition would like torecommend for your consideration and inclusion in the OCP that any future high densitydevelopment also provide a dog run or dog park. In the past the emphasis has been onproviding children's playgrounds but most of the proposed developments are for smallerresidences in high rises which as we presently experience do not include many children but doinclude many dogs. This seems to be the trend for the future and one that should beconsidered and planned for. It is not uncommon for residential areas in the US to accommodatedog owners with a pet area when developed within city limits. It seems to make more sense inthe new demographics of the area and the demands made on our parks by the new residents. I amsure many a dog owner would prefer walking closeby to their residence for their pets dailyneeds and socialization especially in inclement and colder weather. Trust this suggestionwill be seriously considered and incorporated in the next OCP document.Don & Mavis Wheatley.

1

48


49/138


David MedzonJuly-21-13 9:32 A MMary De Paoli; OCROC R

Hi Mary.,I am a resident of Port Moody (Mercier Rd.) and obtained your card at the municipal boothduring the Golden Spike Days.I am concerned and against the proposal to build 28 story apartments on the mill, site andwould ask you and council to consider only housing that would not rise higher than thecurrent mill as it is now. I propose no more than 4 stories (multifamily residential) as acompromise.This would allow to retain the beauty of the inlet rather than focus on detracting from itfor the sake of pleasing the short term goals of a developer.My recommendation is to form a bylaw that would have any tall buildings be relegated to acertain distance from the shoreline ensuring a preserved green space and unhindered viewaround the shores of the inlet. I would not allow high rises on the inlet side of the traintracks. This would still allow for plenty of opportunities to build up residency near the newskytrain. This shows foresight that Port Moody is a city that understands the long term valuein preserving its natural beauty.Thank you for your consideration. I look forward to hearing from you.Sincerely,Dave Medzon

l

49


50/138


Sue FowlerJuly-15-13 5:23 PMOCRMoody Centre

As there was not enough time for everyone to speak at the Dun 18 2013 meeting I would justlike to make a quick comment.It appeared at the meeting that the residents of Area A would like to see more growthincluding high rise buildings on the old Barnet" hotel site and nearby.The residents of Moody Centre do not want to see 20 storeys in the middle of the old town.Why not change the density high rise to the Area A and reduce the height of buildings in theArea F down to 6 - 8 storeys? This appears to be what the people want.When you ride the skytrains that exist at this time there are not high rises at everystation. There are going to be high rises at Burquitlam and loco isnt this enough density?

l

50


51/138


Mark Reddekopp . ^July-08-13 4:31 P MOCPHello

Good Day to you.What specifically will be done, if anything, to alleviate vehicle congestion along the Clarke / Murray corridorsfrom Bamet Hwy into loco/Newport area?Are there any plans for an additional lane or additional bridge crossing over the tracks?Is there an estimation on how many people work downtown that will actually use the new Evergreen transit linkonce installed?The problem for me is that given the cost, the time in transit and the multiple links required to get to transit it isdifficult for those who work in retail / offices or industries outside of the immediate vicinity of the proposedtransit spots. I understand that this cannot be built for every person or every situation but I am wondering whatthe proposed decrease in traffic will be from Port Moody to the downtown core. Council must recognize thatthe traffic congestion is quiet dramatic at certain periods of time.Thank you for your consideration.Mark Reddekopp

i Panorama DrivePort Moody, BC V3H5M2

i

51


52/138

Mar^_De_PaonFrom:Sent:To:Subject:

Diane SimmonsJuly-02-13 1:03 PMMary De PaoliFwd: OCP meeting -Tues May 21st 2013

FYI tooSent from my iPhoneBegin forwarded message:

From: Linda Jackson Date: 2 July, 2013 10:25:45 AMPDT~ To: Council Subject: Fw: OCP meeting - Tues May 21st 2013

Message that was sent out to neighbours after 1st meeting on May 21st. helping them tounderstandwhat took place.Also sent to Mayor Clay.

From

Sent: Wednesday, May 22, 2013 8:50 PMSubject: Fw: OCP meeting - Tues May 21st 2013Hi all - don't go to sleep reading thisOk - attended this meeting. Yes. along with Sheri, Jill, Phil, and another fellow from Edinburgh Dr.Elaine and I were there. It started just after 5pm. (early for working people)We stayed till 8.10pm. And it was still going on. You can go into overload at one of these thing:First - SOUND was terrible. Speakers did not talk into mikes right in front of them. Talked withhands near mouth, lookingaway from mike. Seemed to talk directly to each other at points.There was a constant coughing by one person. Sometimes moved back but most times right nearmike andcut out what little could be hear. If that sick - stay home. If they did not want'"us to hear - donot have a public meeting ok.I got the impression it was a Council to Port Moody staff meeting. We may as well not been there.As for the format - Not 1007o sure of format.Yep - the document is BIS (HUGE) But has several hundreds of pages not needed in it -(YOURFEEDBACK SHEETS)

l

52


53/138

Don't know what happened to the word ""privacy" in this document." (there is little privacy - ifyour name on it - it is there.)Word to all - best to fill these feedback forms out on line if possible. Then only comments arethere, and not your nameaddress or email address as I, and anyone else is able to looking at.

The meeting began with an overview of Port Moody OCR draft/feedback from Mary DePaoli. -I will go right to the Coronation Park section ok. (little else talked about)And yes the Coronation Park section, I am not sure why anyone else attended this meeting. Itwas allCoronation Park, over and over and over. One would think no other area was affected by this OCP.But seems we must hayebeen the most vocal people.It was said 250 forms filled out. 140 on line 110 on paper and 74 letters & emails, (math doesnot work for me - to me 324 ok)Inlet Ctr - Coronation Park part of this - that is us ok.General - 54 - like, 12 - neutral, 34 - did not likeOptions - 51 - like, 16 - neutral, 33 - did not likeBuilding form: 5 storey - 11 12 storey - 57 20 storey-32 ended as 4 - 12 seemed best.Comments - 30 storey to high, 5-12 ok with less density with more green space, and trafficconcerns.Main concerns: 1 - density 2 - traffic 3 - more parks/open space. Ok - more parks? howbig? like backyards uselessareas? -who uses them? I see them around and no one in them. Are they part of building projects(private). What are they???What is the green area talked about suppost to be? Are they big enough for a baseball game, orsoccer?Want more town meetings. Ok seems to have set dates as June 8 and 18. Back to council inSept (fall)When asked staff why reply not till Fall - people do not do these things in July/Aug. on Vacationsect. fair enough answer.A motion was put on floor to limit height to 4 storeys all over Port Moody, and not the - up to 30 -as in OCP. moved, seconded.Feedback: oh yeh feedback. The wording was changed and changed. Not sure in end what it was 'but seems thefriendly amendment finally passed. Meaning 4-20 left.Also told to come back with more possibilities like - low density, medium density and mix of both.At one point mentioned removing Coronation Park area from Section "G". Not sure where thatended up after discussion.It was mentioned we are a "unique" area! No more unique than any other area ok. Every area inPM has something unique ok.We seem to have lost the "30 storeys" picture, except for the "ESSO" site. Yep "ESSO" ok not"Chevron", and it is located at thecorner of loco and Barnet - not loco and Guildford as on one page.It was also stated that the Esso land may be a little small for a 30 storey building and would haveto go into Coronation Park a bit.I guess 2 or 4 houses are a little more happy or sad !!!!!!

2

53


54/138

Also talked about - look at range of heights - from many sides/angles. Comment was expensive todo drawings.Cost came into it. (Me - what is cost at this point. It could not be the value of one piece ofproperty here ok.)Mentioned computer programs can do this.Then heard it could be part of some program already owned by planning dept. - nice eh - they donot know what they have?

fact - we already know that Sutterbrook towers cut out late afternoon/evening sun fromhouses.

Some councillor said we have had enough input, another said we could have more. Never too muchThere is not an urgent

Documents

Committee of the Whole - Agenda - 2013 09 10