January 25, 2006 Minutes


City of Richmond Meeting Minutes

Development Permit Panel

Wednesday, January 25th, 2006

 

Time:

3:30 p.m.

Place:

Council Chambers
Richmond City Hall

Present:

Mike Kirk, General Manager, Human Resources, Chair
Robert Gonzalez, Director, Engineering
Victor Wei, Acting Director, Transportation

The meeting was called to order at 3:30 p.m., at which time the Chair announced that Item No. 3 would be dealt with prior to Item No. 2.

 

1.

MINUTES

 

 

It was moved and seconded

 

 

That the minutes of the meeting of the Development Permit Panel held on
January 11th, 2006, be adopted.

 

CARRIED

 

3.

DEVELOPMENT PERMIT DP 05-312653
(Report: January 4, 2006 File No.:  DP 05-312653)   (REDMS No. 1716562)

 

 

APPLICANT:

Patrick Cotter Architect Inc.

 

PROPERTY LOCATION:

12251 No. 2 Road

 

INTENT OF PERMIT:

 

 

1.

To permit the construction of 36 townhouse units at 12251 No 2 Road on a site zoned “Townhouse District (R2 – 0.7)”; and

 

 

2.

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

 

 

 

a)

Increase permitted lot coverage from 40% to 43.2%;

 

 

 

b)

Reduce the minimum required rear yard setback from 3 m to 2.25 m for 0.75 m deep room projections limited to the first storey only on the southwest building; and

 

 

 

c)

Permit 40 tandem parking spaces in 20 townhouse units.

 

 

Applicant’s Comments

 

 

Mr. Patrick Cotter, architect for the project, explained that the subject property was a long linear site, and that as a result of building height restrictions placed over certain portions of the property as a result of the Trites Area Plan, two storey buildings would be located along the north and south boundaries, and three storey structures would be in the centre of the project.

 

 

In reviewing the design and massing of the buildings, Mr. Cotter spoke about the heritage aspects of the area, and advised that the building exteriors would consist of forms and materials which were reflective of fishing industry buildings over the past 100 years and would also make reference to the existing materials in the area. 

 

 

Mr. Cotter then addressed some of the issues which dealt with setbacks and ‘overlook’ which had resulted in duplex units being proposed on the north side to provide an interface with the existing single family homes to ensure that the housing forms were similar in size to single-family residences.  He noted that on the westerly boundary of the property a building block of four townhouses would be constructed and that adjacent to the townhouses situated in the centre of the property, would be an outdoor amenity area, which included children’s play equipment.  Mr. Cotter advised that cross-access agreements had been entered into with the developer to the property to the south to provide access to the property from No. 2 Road through a shared driveway entrance.  Mr. Cotter then provided information on an emergency access easement through the site to the adjacent property to the south.  He stated that the proposed traffic circulation pattern and the restriction to two-storey over a good portion of the site had resulted in a fairly dense development at the core of the project, and the placement of the open space on the south side to act as a buffer and to provide interest to the south side residents.

 

 

Mr. Cotter referred to the setback and site coverage variances, which related to the need to have buildings conforming to the two-storey height requirements of the Trites Area Plan.  He noted that the two-storey units did not have the benefit of full underground parking because of floodplain issues, and because the developer had made the choice not to raise the grade of the site, the decision was made to construct raised decks in the duplex backyards.  He further advised that site coverage was similar to the project to the south, however, because of the Trites Area Plan requirements and the need to reduce the height of the perimeter buildings to two storeys, a variance was being sought in the amount of site coverage permitted.

 

 

Staff Comments

 

 

 At the request of the Chair, Development Coordinator Holger Burke responded to the concerns expressed by the representatives of Fairwind Ventures Ltd., making the following comments:

 

 

§          

the increase in site coverage was within the permitted FAR allowed in the zone;  it was noted that the lot coverage variance was because of the use of the ‘R2-07’ zoning district and that the proposed lot coverage was in line with other developments in the area, including the project to the south

 

 

§          

with regard to the lack of landscaping at the project entrance, advice was given that the applicants were providing a six metre setback along the north property line, even though only three metres was required.  The increased setback along with the emergency access driveway to the site required that the buildings were moved closer to the southerly property line and as a result, reduced the room for landscaping at the project entry. 

 

 

 Mr. Burke also commented on the concerns raised by an adjacent property owner, Mr. Amin Bardai, of 12231 No. 2 Road, and noted that the developer, Mr. Jay Minhas, had agreed to undertake the repair work.

 

 

 Mr. Burke referred to the requested variance to reduce the minimum required rear yard setback adjacent to the westerly property line and advised that the variance related to the ground floor only and did not apply to the entire building.

 

 

 In response to the concerns about the lack of landscaping at the project entrance, the landscape architect for the project used artists’ renderings to explain the landscaping, which would be provided, at the site entrance.  Information was also provided on the extent of the sidewalk from the main entrance through the property.

 

 

 A Panel question was raised about whether there was appropriate lighting and separation between the play area and the shared driveway.  In response advice was given that lighting would be provided and that landscaping and a low level fence would separate the play area from the driveway to prevent children from running into the driveway. 

 

 

Gallery Comments

 

 Mr. Greg Rafter, of 5740 Moncton Street, voiced concern about the massing of the buildings on the north side of the property, and about the future of the mature hedge on his property when the perimeter fencing was constructed.  In response, Mr. Minhas advised that he would ensure that the proposed fence would be constructed in such a way that the hedge would not be at risk.  The Chair asked that staff ensure that both parties met to resolve the problem.

 

Correspondence

 

 Amin Bardai, 12231 No. 2 Road (Schedule 1)

 

Panel Decision

 

 It was moved and seconded

 

That a Development Permit (DP 05-312653) be issued which would:

 

1.

permit the construction of 36 townhouse units at 12251 No 2 Road on a site zoned “Townhouse District (R2 – 0.7)”; and

 

2.

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

 

 

a)

Increase permitted lot coverage from 40% to 43.2%;

 

 

b)

Reduce the minimum required rear yard setback from 3 m to 2.25 m for 0.75 m deep room projections limited to the first storey only on the southwest building; and

 

 

c)

Permit 40 tandem parking spaces in 20 townhouse units.

 

CARRIED

 

2.

DEVELOPMENT PERMIT DP 05-302414
(Report: January 4th, 2006;  File No.:  DP 05-302414)   (REDMS No. 1687310)

 

 

APPLICANT:

Ah Ten Holdings Ltd. and

Hemlock Drive Development Limited Partnership

 

PROPERTY LOCATION:

6288 Katsura Street and 9371 Hemlock Drive

 

INTENT OF PERMIT:

 

 

1.

To permit the construction of two (2) five-storey residential buildings, consisting of approximately 232 dwelling units, over a single-storey parking structure on a site zoned Comprehensive Development District (CD/68); and

 

 

2.

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

 

 

 

a)

Increase the maximum permitted building height from 15 m to 15.4 m for the fifth floor of the building and vary the maximum permitted height from 15 m to 18.15 m for a small portion of each of the two (2) buildings for an architectural appurtenance to accommodate the required vertical clearance above the elevator shaft;

 

 

 

b)

Permit four (4) tandem parking spaces;

 

 

 

c)

Reduce the manoeuvring aisle within the parking structure from 7.5 m to 7.3 m; and

 

 

 

d)

Vary the south (Hemlock Drive) setback only to the entry canopies of the two (2) residential lobbies from 7.62 m to 1.8 m.

 

 

 

Applicant’s Comments

 

 Mr. Rostitch Hemphill, architect, accompanied by Nadia Said, and Jason Turncotte, advised that the project now consisted of two five-storey buildings, which have been sited as low as possible into the ground.  He noted, however, that a variance to the building height was being requested to increase the building height and to ensure the required vertical clearance for each of the elevator shafts is provided.  He noted that the buildings were terraced down to the park to allow improved views to the adjacent City park.

 

Nadia Said then reviewed the design changes made in response to concerns expressed by the Planning Department and the Advisory Design Panel.  Using a site plan she reviewed the location of the amenity building and the building elevation revisions made as a result of the Advisory Design Panel review.  Mrs. Said further advised that no children’s play equipment is provided because of the sites close proximity to the City park playground.

 

Staff Comments

 

 Mr. Burke referred to the correspondence received from Ms. Jane Hong, a resident of 9339 Alberta Road, and indicated that her primary concerns appeared to be about the height of the building.  He noted that the maximum building height had been established a number of years ago, and commented that the height variance being requested by the applicant was relatively minor.  Mr. Burke stated the building height variance was only 0.4 metres for the majority of the building although a small portion of the building height was higher in order to accommodate the elevator shafts.  He further advised that staff were comfortable that the variance would not prove to be too onerous for the adjacent development to the south as the building setback and Hemlock Drive separated the site from the development to the south.

 

 In response to a Panel question, staff gave advice that the building height was compatible with other developments in the area and the City Park to the north.

 

Correspondence

 

 Jane Hung, #69 – 9339 Alberta Road  (Schedule 2)

 

Gallery Comments

 

 None.

 

 

Panel Discussion

 

 The Chair advised that he would be supporting the project as he liked the opening to the park.  He added that the variance being requested for the south property setback was large, but only applied to a small portion of the area in question.

 

Panel Decision

 

 It was moved and seconded

 

That a Development Permit be issued which would:

 

1.

Permit the construction of two (2) five-storey residential buildings, consisting of approximately 232 dwelling units, over a single-storey parking structure at 6288 Katsura Street and 9371 Hemlock Drive on a site zoned Comprehensive Development District (CD/68); and

 

2.

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

 

 

a)

Increase the maximum permitted building height from 15 m to 15.4 m for the fifth floor of the building and vary the maximum permitted height from 15 m to 18.15 m for a small portion of each of the two (2) buildings for an architectural appurtenance to accommodate the required vertical clearance above the elevator shaft;

 

 

b)

Permit four (4) tandem parking spaces;

 

 

c)

Reduce the manoeuvring aisle within the parking structure from 7.5 m to
7.3 m; and

 

 

d)

Vary the south (Hemlock Drive) setback only to the entry canopies of the two (2) residential lobbies from 7.62 m to 1.8 m.

 

CARRIED

4.

Adjournment

 

It was moved and seconded

 

 

That the meeting be adjourned at 3:58 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, January 25th, 2006.

_________________________________

_________________________________

Mike Kirk
Chair

Fran J. Ashton
Executive Assistant, City Clerk’s Office

 

 

 

In this section