1.

Minutes

It was moved and seconded

That the minutes of the meeting of the Development Permit Panel held on May 10, 2006, be adopted.

CARRIED

2.

Development Permit - DP 05-304533
(Report: May 1, 2006 File No.:  05-304533)   (REDMS No. 1826979, 1704258 (Attachment 2))

APPLICANT:

Am-Pri Construction Ltd.

PROPERTY LOCATION:

7071 Bridge Street

INTENT OF PERMIT:

1.

To permit the construction of 17 townhouse units at 7071 Bridge Street on a site zoned “Comprehensive Development District (CD/35)”; and

2.

To vary the provisions of the Zoning and Development Bylaw No. 5300 to reduce the front yard setback from 6 m to 2.1 m for a recycling enclosure and a garbage enclosure.

Applicant’s Comments

Tom Yamamoto, architect, reported that he has revised the design to include an increased minimum Bridge Street setback of 11 m for the northeast unit and that he has generally improved the project proposal to have a character close to the original scheme while maintaining a children’s play area in a central location away from the street.

Masa Ito, landscape architect, reported the revised landscape plan has been provided to compensate for the trees that were damaged during demolition. Five new substantial specimen size trees in the Bridge streetscape are to replace the evergreen frontage image.  The landscape plan includes six new large specimen trees, deciduous and Evergreen to replace the three removed trees.

Staff Comments

Jean Lamontagne, Director of Development, advised that the revised plan is more in line with the rezoning application, specifically the open space along the street, and the slightly reduced children’s play area is maintained in a central location away from the street. He further advised that the proposed replacement trees are in accordance with the OCP guidelines.

Correspondence

None.

Gallery Comments

None.

Panel Discussion

The Chair stated that the project had been improved and commended the Applicant and staff for their work.  It was thought that it was better to have the play area in an internal location.

Panel Decision

It was moved and seconded

That a Development Permit be issued which would:

1.

Permit the construction of 17 townhouse units at 7071 Bridge Street on a site zoned “Comprehensive Development District (CD/35)”; and

2.

Vary the provisions of the Zoning and Development Bylaw No. 5300 to reduce the front yard setback from 6 m to 2.1 m for a recycling enclosure and a garbage enclosure.

CARRIED

3.

General Compliance - Request By Patrick Cotter Architect Inc. For A General Compliance Ruling At 7171 Steveston Highway

(Report: April 25, 200 6 File No.:  DP 04-287638)   (REDMS No. 1804028)

APPLICANT:

Patrick Cotter Architect Inc

PROPERTY LOCATION:

7171 Steveston Highway

MANAGER’S RECOMMENDATIONS:

That the revised plans be considered to be in General Compliance with Development Permit DP 04-287638 for a 50-unit townhouse development at 7171 Steveston Highway that generally covers the following changes:

1.

Revise front elevations of Buildings 14 & 15;

2.

Add dormers on Buildings 12 & 16; and

3.

Revise landscaping/berming along Steveston Highway.

Applicant’s Comments

Patrick Cotter, architect, advised that the architectural issues included the street frontage.  He advised that as construction advanced it was clear that the original idea for berming along Steveston Highway was compromised by the final sidewalk location which reduced the grade transition space. The result is a nearly full flight of stairs at the entrance of the end units facing Steveston Highway. He proposed enhancing the elevation with the addition of a small dormer porch element, supported by two columns on a stone-clad landing in buildings 14 & 15 flanking the development entrance. Mr. Cotter assured the panel that the proposed modifications maintain the basic form and character of the development. In buildings 12 & 16, there was a roof height issue resulting from interior sloped ceilings.  The addition of small dormer roof elements was requested to provide full height interior ceilings.

Masa Ito, landscape architect, addressed the proposal of an alternate landscape and fence treatment along the Steveston Highway frontage to provide sound attenuation for the back yards. Mr. Ito reported that a retaining wall would maintain the character of the street appearance of a berm and that at the west and east ends of the project site, a solid wood fence would be atop the retaining wall in the back yards. The total height would be 6 feet measured from the patio.

In response to questions from the Chair, Mr. Cotter advised that the General Compliance request was prompted by the discovery during construction that the grading along Steveston Highway had to be adjusted to meet Engineering Department sidewalk design requirements. The result is the proposed flight of stairs and retaining walls. The retaining walls will provide for additional berming in front of the units between the street and buildings, and landscaping will be maintained in front of the walls and fences.

Staff Comments

Jean Lamontagne clarified that the dormer additions are located on Buildings 12 and 16, at both the north and the south ends, and would therefore not directly affect the neighbours or the character of the development.

Correspondence

None.

Gallery Comments

None.

Panel Discussion

None.

Panel Decision

It was moved and seconded

That the revised plans be considered to be in General Compliance with Development Permit DP 04-287638 for a 50-unit townhouse development at 7171 Steveston Highway that generally covers the following changes:

1.

Revise front elevations of Buildings 14 & 15;

2.

Add dormers on Buildings 12 & 16; and

3.

Revise landscaping/berming along Steveston Highway.

CARRIED

4.

Canada Line – Operations And Maintenance Centre

(REDMS No. 1814143, 1893272)

PROPERTY LOCATION:

Van Horne Way

Edward LeFlufy, Canada Line Rapid Transit Inc. spoke briefly about site issues which include the edge treatment and fencing; about building issues, which include the roof form and building materials; and about other issues, including viewing opportunities and site security.

Mr. Chris McCarthy, Architect, InTransit BC, stated that work on the functional design of the OMC started in 2005, and that detailed design work is about to begin, with construction to start in July, 2006 and completion scheduled for December, 2007.  The site would be used for train storage and deployment.  The site contained electrified guideways and needed to be secured for public safety.  The land assembly resulted in excess land.  Three parcels north of Van Horne Way would be sold for development. 

In describing the building, Mr. McCarthy noted the following:

·         

the building will be prominent and seen from the guideway structure as well as from the Oak Street Bridge and the Fraser River;

·         

Security fencing was initially proposed on the Oak Street bridge and upon review has been eliminated;

·         

A landscape architect had been retained and trees were being relocated, fitting in with city objectives.

In describing the building, Mr. Kevin Hanvy, architect, Omicron, noted the following:

·         

 The project was a two storey building

·         

the project was a two storey building with the main feature of a two storey train hall and supporting facilities;

·         

the roof is a shallow curve arcing up to the west, and the roof structure of the train hall is a framework of steel trusses;

·         

to the north of the train hall is a 2-storey space running east to west; the ends of this structure contain the main building entry (east end) and the train entry to the maintenance bay (west end);

·         

the OMC is predominately a metal skinned facility; three different cladding profiles with three different colours are proposed in an effort to vary the profile and the orientation to reinforce the design concept.

In response to a question from the Panel, Mr. Hanvy advised that after presentation to the Advisory Design Panel design changes had been made to the roof form and building materials.  The roof was south facing, mono and low pitched with metal cladding.  The roof had been broken up, a raised element introduced, and membrane roofs used.  Although the building would be metal clad, a variety of profiles were introduced to articulate the different uses and building mass components. 

In answer to a question from the Panel, Mr. Hanvy confirmed that the west side of the site will be most visible from the Oak Street Bridge. Discussion ensued regarding the visual impact the OMC would make as transit riders approach the site with concern being expressed that the OMC will not present well because the least attractive building elevations are the most visible.

Masa Ito, Landscape Architect, advised the Panel of the following points:

·         

the fence line will be set back approximately 10 feet into the property along River Road, allowing for tree planting and landscaping in front of the fencing in this area;

·         

the parking layout has been modified to gain more landscape area;

·         

trees will be planted within the Van Horne Road right of way to enhance the site.

The Chair commented that the proposed landscaping leaves a large part of the huge site untreated, with most of the landscaping on the east side of the site. He described the chain link and barbed wire fencing as inappropriate and noted that the entire site is fenced. He further stated that with more thought the design team could look at creating more pockets of green throughout the site to provide a more appropriate gateway presentation.

Mr. McCarthy responded that the facility is a working yard and that discussions with operations and maintenance personnel identified the majority of the site will be used for laydown, storage, and long-term maintenance. In terms of screening and edge treatment, an effort has been made to deal with public facings, but the fence’s primary function is security.

Discussion ensued regarding details of the fencing in general and the fencing of the parking lot and building entrance. The Chair then summarized the Panel’s concerns:

·         

the outside design presentation of the OMC building as well as other parts of site  have not received enough thought;

·         

the prominent gateway site will present in an unattractive way when viewed from the Oak Street bridge or the Canada Line train;

·         

there is not enough landscaping throughout the site and there is an opportunity to do more;

·         

much technical build construction information has been presented, but crucial details of the project design and landscaping are missing;

·         

despite all the design work involved to date, there are critical elements of this project that should be considered further;

·         

if this project was going through the City’s regular process, he would not support the project, as proposed, to Council.

Staff Comments

Joyce Chang, Project Manager, Major Project Team spoke briefly, and referred to her memo to the Panel, dated May 24, 2006, explaining why the design of the OMC falls outside the regular City of Richmond process to review projects of this kind:

·         

the Design Advisory Process (DAP) identified within the Richmond Access Agreement (RAA) exempts the Canada Line project from the normal City of Richmond Development and Building Permits process;

·         

the DAP identifies an 8 step process with a 16 week timetable that involves 2 public open houses, 1 presentation to the Richmond Advisory Design Panel (ADP) and 1 presentation to the Richmond Development Permit Panel (DPP) by Canada Line representatives (CLCO)

Jean Lamontagne, referring to his memo to the Panel, dated May 24, 2006, raised the following points:

·         

the current submission contains information on only the main operation and the maintenance facility; the other buildings on the site should have similar architectural language and material treatment;

·         

the train yard has a series of additional fences and areas which should be looked at with the intent of adding landscape treatment to break up the ballast surface areas;

·         

in the site’s employee/visitor parking lot there are opportunities for additional landscape treatment, as per the Development Permit guidelines; small car parking stalls and additional landscape areas should be introduced;

·         

the roof plans show no mechanical systems; there should be a roof plan indicating location and size of mechanical systems, including proposed screening treatment;

·         

the fence design for the front portion of the OMC building, along Van Horne Way, is shown as being chain link fence with barbwire at the top; this should be a more decorative type of fencing for that portion (as was mentioned at ADP);

·         

there are no detailed landscape plans with an accompanying list of plant material and proposed plant sizes.

In response, Mr. McCarthy advised that 4 to 6 roof top mechanical units would be located and screened behind the curved parapet of the train like building element.

In response to the final point, Masa Ito reported that a detailed list of landscape plans, complete with plant material and proposed plant sizes, is being prepared.

It was moved and seconded

That CLCO (Canada Line representatives) be requested to incorporate the design changes outlined in the May 24, 2006 memo from the Director of Development and the revised memo (May 24, 2006) from the Project Manager, Major Projects Team into the Operations and Maintenance Centre (OMC) design.

CARRIED

5.

Date Of Next Meeting:       June 14, 2006

6.

Adjournment

It was moved and seconded

That the meeting be adjourned at 4:45 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, May 24, 2006.

_________________________________

_________________________________

Joe Erceg
Chair

Sheila Johnston
Committee Clerk