2.

Development Permit DP 05-290213
(Report: June 23, 2005 File No.:  DP 05-290213)   (REDMS No. 1589275)

APPLICANT:

Suncor Development Corporation/Centro Development Ltd.
ASJ Enterprises

PROPERTY LOCATION:

12251 No. 2 Road

INTENT OF PERMIT:

To permit the development of 54 two-storey and three-storey townhouse units at 12311 No. 2 Road and the rear portion of 12251 No. 2 Road.

Applicant’s Comments

Mr. Kush Panatch, Applicant, and Mr. Wayne Fougere, Architect, advised that they were available to answer questions.

Staff Comments

Mr. Wayne Craig, Program Coordinator - Development, advised that staff had no concerns.  He noted that the applicant had responded appropriately adjacency concerns raised during the rezoning of the site and that the proposal enabled coordinated development between the subject site and the area to the north.

Correspondence

D. Wong & Associates, 444 So. Flower Street, #3860, Los Angeles, CA (attached as Schedule 1 and forms a part of these minutes).

Amin Bardai, 12231 No. 2 Road (attached as Schedule 2 and forms a part of these minutes)

Gallery Comments

None.

Panel Discussion

In response to queries from the Panel, Mr. Fougere advised that:

·                     the play area was landscaped, fenced and gated;

·                     there was landscape hedging at the base of the building as well as between the parking area and the playground;

·                     the seating area in the playground consisted of 3 benches;

·                     a climbing frame and slide would be installed in the play area;

·                     permeable concrete pavers would be used along the middle of the central drive aisle to define the amenity space;

·                     the applicant would enter a sewer service agreement with the City and any landscaping or structures within utility Rights-of-way would be approved by the Engineering Department;

·                     the accessible units could be entered through the garage by means of a stair glide; and

·                     units would be buffered from the industrial development to the south by heavy landscaping which would include coniferous trees.

In response to a query from the Panel, Ms.. Donna Chan, Transportation, advised that this area of No. 2 Road was included in the city’s five year traffic improvement plan.

In response to a query from the Panel, Mr. Craig advised that this project would not impede the right of businesses to operate in the area.  He stated that the site would be heavily buffered. Mr. Panatch, Applicant, advised that a noise covenant would be registered on the property to advise potential purchasers of nearby industrial uses.

Mr. Joe Erceg, Chair, stated that he was pleased to see this well-planned project being brought forward without any request for variances.

Panel Decision

It was moved and seconded

That a Development Permit be issued which would permit the development of 54 two-storey and three-storey townhouse units at 12311 No. 2 Road and the rear portion of 12251 No. 2 Road.

CARRIED

3.

Development Permit DP 05-293101
(Report: June 16, 2005 File No.:  DP 05-293101)   (REDMS No. 1589275)

APPLICANT:

Lawrence Doyle Architect Inc.

PROPERTY LOCATION:

6351 Buswell Street

INTENT OF PERMIT:

1.

To permit the construction of a 16-storey residential tower with approximately 84 dwelling units, a three-storey parkade and eight (8) 3-storey or 3 ½-storey townhouses at 6351 Buswell Street on a site zoned Downtown Commercial District (C7); and

2.

To vary the provisions of the Zoning and Development Bylaw No. 5300 to:

a)

Reduce the manoeuvring aisle in the parking parkade from 7.5 (24.6 ft.) to 6.7 m (22 ft.);

b)

Vary the maximum permissible height from 45 m to 47 m; and

c)

Reduce the residential parking requirement from 138 spaces to 110 spaces

Applicant’s Comments

Mr. Doyle, Architect advised that:

·                     this project was close to the Perla Towers on Buswell Street and Saba Road;

·                     at the time the Perla project received its development permit approval, a development concept for the surrounding area was provided and the current proposal complies with the concept endorsed during the approval of the Perla Towers;

·                     a 0 m setback was proposed for the parking podium along the north and south property lines, this would allow for the parkade to abut the existing parkade and would allow the same for future developments to the south.  This allowed for a larger common area and better landscaping on the site; 

·                     townhouses would have usable green roofs, and the unit layout could be used as live/work accommodation;

·                     the floor plate was articulated and sculptured complimenting the design of the Perla Towers; 

·                     the variance in height was required to house the penthouse elevator; 

·                     in order to keep the parking podium from being extended towards Buswell Street, the applicant had negotiated to have a reduction in parking spaces;

·                     a right of way of 1 ½ metres was being provided to expand the rear lane to a minimum 6m width;

·                     the base of the building would be brick, and the remainder of the building would be a shade lighter than the base.  Glass and metal would also be used to complement the structure;

·                     growing trellises would be placed between the parking podium roofs of the proposed development and the Prla Towers to provide both security and privacy; and

·                     a pedestrian access with high quality pavers and a bridge across water feature would provide pedestrian access from Buswell Street.

In response to a query from the Panel, Mr. Henry representing the applicant, advised that there were enhanced accessibility features, such as grab bars, width of doorways, doors which swung out, and large bathrooms throughout the building.  In addition, if accesibility was required, the applicant would work with the buyer to provide these features. 

Staff Comments

Mr. Craig advised that the project complied with city centre guidelines in the Official Community Plan.  In response to a query from the Panel, Mr. Doyle advised that the area around the pedestrian access to the parking area would be heavily landscaped.

Correspondence

Owner of suite, 8100 Saba Road, #1101 (attached as Schedule 3 and forms a part of these minutes).

Residents of 6340 Buswell Street (attached as Schedule 4 and forms a part of these minutes).

Helen Schorak, 8100 Saba Road, Suite 1603 (attached as Schedule 5 and forms a part of these minutes).

Ling Pang, 8100 Saba Road #608 (attached as Schedule 6 and forms a part of these minutes).

Melvin, Vivian and Lillian Yard, 6331 Buswell Street (attached as Schedule 7 and forms a part of these minutes.

Gallery Comments

Gary Cross, 8238 Saba Road, Richmond – stated his concerns about lack of parking and increase in traffic in the area.

In response, to a query from the Panel, Ms. Lock representing the applicant stated that in similar buildings, there was usually a surplus of parking, because they were oriented close to transit, and were marketed accordingly. 

In response to a query from the Panel, Mr. Craig advised that the parking variance being sought was similar to other variances granted in the area and the site met all the requirements for visitor parking.  Ms. Chan, Transportation Department, stated that she was unaware of any traffic and parking problems in the area,  however, she noted that the city was in the process of negotiating enhanced transit services for this area. 

Ms. Lilian Yard, 6631 Buswell Street, stated her concerns regarding increased density of traffic, increased use of the side lane which was too small, lack of privacy, blocked views, and laundry on balconies.  In response to a query from the Panel, Mr. Craig advised that the project met the City’s guidelines with regard separation between towers, and that a
1.5 m right of way was being provided to ensure a minimum 6.0 m wide lane was available in the interim.

Mr. Jury – 6331 Buswell, #1506, stated his concerns that:

·                     variances being requested did not comply with the City Centre’s guidelines for development and that the development required more variances than those being requested;

·                     the building floor plate was too large and the tower was too close to the Perla Towers;

·                     the Perla towers would be affected through loss of sunlight in the garden area which was used by residents of both towers.  This would be most severe during spring, fall and winter;

·                     the rear lane servicing this site as well as other sites in the area was too small and the widening of this lane should be addressed prior to development.  There would be access problems, as well as increased traffic problems due to construction traffic.  The lane had no sidewalks, no lighting and should have a chain link fence installed on one side;

·                     cars which were not visiting the Perla used its visitor’s parking lot;

·                     the Perla’s lobby would look onto a bare wall which should be enhanced; and

·                     the development should be moved west 10-15 feet.

Mr. Erceg, Chair, advised that the city centre area plan provides guidelines for developers and staff, and noted that staff had advised that the project met the development guidelines of the City;

In response to a query from the Panel, Ms. Achiam, project planner, advised that:

·                     extra floor plate space was added to reduce the building’s parking podium and thus provide additional separation between the Perla lobby area and the proposed parking podium;

·                     the tower separation measurement was a guideline which is interpreted as the separation between building habitable areas not from balcony edge to balcony edge;

·                     it was inevitable that all high buildings had some overshadowing, and noted that the applicant had provided a sun and shade diagram which indicated that this would not be a problem to the Perla Towers;

·                     the variance for the height of the building was requested so that the penthouse elevator could be integrated into the design of the building;

In response to a query from the Panel, Mr. Doyle advised that:

·                     the applicant will enter into a servicing agreement with the city for road improvements and service connections;

·                     the lower part of the parking podium would be decorated with brick, and that based on direction from the Advisory Design Panel, the remainder of the wall would be treated with landscape.  He stated that this had been done and a revised plan would be forwarded to staff before the Development Permit application was submitted to Council for approval.  He noted that he would also work with the Perla residents strata council to mitigate their concerns, and provide additional landscaping on the pedestrian access to the parking structure.

·                     there would be development problems with other sites in the area, if the building was moved back, and this would be problematic from a fire protection viewpoint due to increased distance from Buswell Street.  He noted that overshadowing would be minor.

Resident, 6411 Buswell Street, stated his concern with the lack of parking in the area and queried where construction workers would park.  Ms. Lock advised that the applicant was aware of the parking restrictions in the area and would ensure that access to parking lots would not be obstructed during construction.  In response to a query from the Panel,
Ms. Achiam advised that the applicant had to provide a construction and traffic management plan to be approved by the City’s transportation department, prior to the issuance of  a Building Permit.

Mr. Steven Zirko, 6331 Buswell Street, #208, stated that he was concerned that the development was too close to the building in which he lived.  He stated that this would negatively impact his standard of living, the value of his suite would be lowered and the noise during construction would be unbearable.  Mr. Erceg, Chair advised that the city had a good neighbour brochure and bylaws which provided information on construction hours and noise.

Resident, 6340 Buswell Street, stated her concerns about the increased traffic, the use and destruction of her driveway by construction trucks, sewer connection for the development, and of the shadowing of her home by the proposed buildings.

Mr. Robert Gonzalez, Director, Engineering and Public Works, advised that the site would have a sewer connection designed as part of the site’s Servicing Agreement.

Ms. Flora Quan, Perla Building, Suite 1708, advised that her suite would be affected through loss of sunlight, lack of privacy and its value would depreciate because of the proximity of the new development.

In response to a query from the Panel, Mr. Doyle advised that the applicant realized this was a sensitive site, and a lot of time and effort was spent on the siting of the building, the design of the landscaping, and materials used for the development.  He noted that the space and height of the building would not impede sunlight to other buildings.

Mr. Erceg, Chair, reiterated that both staff and the Advisory Design Panel had advised that the project met the city centre’s design guidelines for residential development.

In response to a query from the Panel, Mr. Doyle advised that the building could not be pushed to the southwest corner as this would complicate emergency access and move the building too far away from Buswell Street .  He stated that if the building were pushed back, it would be aligned with the Perla building which was the least desirable location for privacy overlook, and advised that moving the building away would also affect the spacing of future projects and compromise developments to the west of Perla.  He also advised that there would be building code issues if there was not enough distance from the center line of the lane to the building’s windows

Panel Discussion

Mr. Erceg, Chair, stated that there appeared to be strong feelings in the  neighbourhood concerning this project.  He noted that the variances requested were not uncommon and that similar variances have not been a problem in the past.  He advised that the Advisory Design Panel had reviewed and recommended this project and requested that a revised landscape plan and building elevations for the greening of the parkade wall be inserted into the package before the development permit application was submitted to Council for approval. 

Panel Decision

It was moved and seconded

That a Development Permit be issued which would:

1.

Permit the construction of a 16-storey residential tower with approximately 84 dwelling units, a three-storey parkade and eight (8) 3-storey or 3 ½-storey townhouses at 6351 Buswell Street on a site zoned Downtown Commercial District (C7); and

2.

Vary the provisions of the Zoning and Development Bylaw No. 5300 to:

a)

Reduce the manoeuvring aisle in the parking parkade from 7.5 (24.6 ft.) to 6.7 m (22 ft.);

b)

Vary the maximum permissible height from 45 m to 47 m; and

c)

Reduce the residential parking requirement from 138 spaces to 110 spaces

CARRIED

4.

Adjournment

It was moved and seconded

That the meeting be adjourned at 5.28 p.m.

CARRIED

Certified a true and correct copy of the Minutes of the meeting of the Development Permit Panel of the Council of the City of Richmond held on Wednesday, July 13^th, 2005

_________________________________

_________________________________

Joe Erceg
Chair

Desiree Wong

Recording Secretary