1.

Minutes

It was moved and seconded

That the minutes of the meeting of the Development Permit Panel held on May 24, 2006, be adopted.

CARRIED

2.

Development Permit DP 05-306362
(Report: May 17, 2006 File No.:  DP 05-306362)   (REDMS No. 1681857, 1894153)

APPLICANT:

G.A. Construction Ltd.

PROPERTY LOCATION:

6551 No. 4 Road

INTENT OF PERMIT:

1.

To permit the construction of 12 townhouse units at 6551 No. 4 Road on a site zoned Comprehensive Development District (CD/155); and

2.

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

a)

Reduce the north side yard setback from 3 m to 2 m to accommodate portions of the building;

b)

Reduce the south side yard setback from 3 m to 2 m to accommodate portions of the building.

Applicant’s Comments

Mr. Yoshi Mikamo, representing Tomizo Yamamoto Architect Inc., noted that the site is surrounded by many single family homes and that the architect’s goal is to reduce the mass of the proposed buildings to avoid the appearance of invading the area. For this reason, the massing of the proposed development has been reduced to a two-storey form along the length of both side-yard adjacencies in order to better interface with existing single-family residences.

Mr. Mikamo stated that the design introduces many traditional features, such as hip/gable roof forms to better respond to the homes already in the area. He remarked that the buildings include a materials palette that will generate visual interest by the use of wood grain vinyl siding, painted wood shingles and painted rake boards.

Referring to the landscape element, Mr. Mikamo reported that the site will be well presented with landscape elements such as trees and shrubs.

In response to a question to staff, Jean Lamontagne, Director of Development, noted that the applicant applied for rezoning before the City’s tree bylaw was enacted. There were no comments regarding tree preservation during the Rezoning process or during the associated Public Hearing.

In response to a question, Mr. Mikamo noted that each building has a convertible unit and with some structural changes, a chairlift can be introduced to the B1 units to convert them to fully accessible units. A chairlift can be accommodated in a unit’s washroom with minimal changes to the walls (no plumbing changes are required), and there is potential for future installation of grab bars and handrails to further aid the disabled.

Staff Comments

None.

Correspondence

None.

Gallery Comments

Mr. Fred Carron, 9820 Alberta Road, stated that his property is immediately north of the site and that recently he has watched three major developments be built in the neighbourhood and is concerned about the number of trees that have come down as a result. He believes that it behoves developers to replace trees with significant trees. With respect to the property at 6551 No. 4 Road, Mr. Carron requested the following:

a)

that the applicant plant significant trees on the property to replace trees that were taken down;

b)

that in addition to installing the proposed 6-foot fence along the property line, the applicant also plan a cedar buffer between his property and 6551 No. 4 Road (and that similar treatment be undertaken for other affected properties);

c)

that indoor amenity space be provided instead of accepting cash in lieu to accommodate birthday parties, etc. and that the City continue its efforts to introduce public amenity space into the neighbourhood; and

d)

that at the time the remaining parcels proceed with development, the variance considerations granted to recent projects are similarly granted.

In response to Mr. Carron’s comments the Chair asked Mr. Mikamo if trees had been taken down on city land as a result of this proposed development.

Mr. Mikamo responded that an arborist had been hired who had identified the number of trees and the size of the trees on site, but the arborist’s report identified no trees that should be retained. He further stated that the applicant has followed the City’s tree bylaw and has replaced each tree taken down with two trees.

When asked by the Chair if staff had seen the arborist’s report for this development, Mr. Lamontange responded that staff has not seen such a report.

The Chair stated that it was in the best interest of the applicant to deal further with the issue of replacement trees before the Development Permit be issued.

When asked by the Chair if the applicant was willing to address Mr. Carron’s suggestion of a hedge adjacent to a fence, Mr. Mikamo responded that they would be willing to take a look at the suggestion.

Panel Discussion

None.

Panel Decision

It was moved and seconded

That Development Permit DP 05-306362 be referred back to staff to:

a)

meet with the applicant to ensure the City’s two trees to replace one tree policy is upheld; and

b)

to investigate if a significant hedge can be placed along the north side of the property; and

c)

refer Development Permit DP 05-306362 to the June 28^, 2006 Development Permit Panel.

CARRIED

3.

General Compliance – Application by Adera Equities Inc. for a General Compliance at 6033 Katsura Street (formerly 9180, 9186, 9200 and 9220 Westminster Highway)

(Report: May 16, 2006 File No.:  DP 05-292001)   (REDMS No. 1884667)

APPLICANT:

Adera Equities Inc.

PROPERTY LOCATION:

6033 Katsura Street (formerly 9180, 9186, 9200 and 9220 Westminster Highway)

Applicant’s Comments

Norm Couttie, of Adera Equities Inc., stated that the three changes requested are located at the southwest corner of the property. The changes are intended to maintain an appearance consistent with the original Development Permit submission.

Staff Comments

Jean Lamontagne, Director of Development stated that the applicant has been forthcoming and that all changes are in the spirit of the project.

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 05-292001 for an 84-unit multiple-family building at 6033 Katsura Street (formerly 9180, 9186, 9200 and 9220 Westminster Highway) that generally covers the following changes:

a)

Addition of openings in the exterior parkade wall at the southwest corner of the parkade;

b)

Deletion of the retaining wall and the landscape fill at the southwest corner of the site between the parkade and the property lines; and

c)

Adjustment to the landscaping at the southwest corner of the project.

CARRIED

4.

Canada Line – Bridgeport Station Design

(Memo: June 7, 2006 File No.:  10-6525-07-04-03/2006-Vol 01)   (REDMS No. 1898478)

Edward LeFlufy, Canada Line Rapid Transit Inc. (CLCO), stated that they are seeking advice from the Development Permit Panel as they move forward on the architectural design of the Bridgeport Station so that they can complete the final design report. He mentioned they have had the benefit of staff input and they will continue to work with staff.  

Mr. Chris McCarthy, Architect, InTransit BC, stated that the focus of the presentation was Bridgeport Station’s bus loop and the passenger pick up and drop off areas. The station site design used to have a broader bus loop, but through development and discussion, the bus loop has been narrowed to make it tighter, more efficient, and to create better pedestrian movement.

Stating that the station is due to be complete by July, 2008, Mr. McCarthy used a power point presentation to draw the Panel’s attention to the following:

·          

the creation of a development parcel of land on the north east corner of the site;

·          

the development of a car parkade negotiation;

·          

the station entry has been reconfigured and flipped;

·          

 the CP rail track has undergone reconfiguration and negotiation, and once CP rail lands are released, that will allow for consolidation of parcels of land;

·          

site and context issues include configuration, interface, pedestrian connections, bus island configuration and traffic issues;

·          

station design discussions include station character as well as materials and colour;

·          

there are 13 bays on the bus loop, accommodating 17 major bus routes;

·          

the storage capacity is on the south side of the bus loop;

·          

the site bicycle access is primarily from the south;

In response to a question from the Panel regarding the parkade, Mr. LeFlufy advised that the Canada Line is in negotiation with a third party and that the parking structure will satisfy transit needs and additional needs. He reported that the third party has aspirations for mixed-use and more than the 1,200 parking spaces required, some of which are exclusively for transit riders, and some of which are for the use of the third party. He stated that finalized letters of intent should be forthcoming in the next few weeks. The Chair encouraged the negotiating parties to consider a mixed-use project that will integrate appropriately with the existing Casino.

The station site context was addressed by Graham McGarva of VIA Architecture using power point images. In describing the station design he noted the following:

·          

Bridgeport Station is unique along the Canada Line because it is the “knuckle” where the alignment splits into two routes, and will be perceived as the major intermodal transit hub of the Canada Line;

·          

the station has an exposed platform 13 metres above the ground;

·          

a sheltering roof form and a glass enclosure will provide protection from the prevailing east and south winds;

·          

the primary access to the station has shifted from the west to the east;

·          

from the northwest there will be a bridge connecting the station to the parkade;

·          

the parkade will be taller than the station platform;

·          

transit riders can use stairs, or an escalator to access the station platform;

·          

the neighbourhood for the Bridgeport Station is in transition, but has a history of river-oriented industrial buildings so the station is intended to be evocative of this heritage, using a visible steel structure, expressed trusses, metal skin and simple functional forms;

·          

protection from wind and wind-driven rain at all levels is provided by glazed walls and overhanging roofs;

·          

the skeleton structure of the station, with as much glazing as possible, will maximize views at each level;

·          

the glazing will enhance transparency and visibility which will increase transit riders’ sense of security;

·          

continuous security provided by roving security personnel will make transit riders feel safe in the station;

·          

the station will celebrate visual ingenuity of architectural structure, where metallic and concrete products are presented elegantly to enhance the station’s identity;

Discussion ensued and questions from the panel were addressed regarding details of the station design:

·          

retail space has been incorporated into the station;

·          

the architect is considering a vertical glaze at the north end of the station to protect transit riders from significant and discomforting northwest winds;

·          

the architect is addressing how to protect transit riders from prevailing air currents coming from the east as riders wait on the platform, and preventing the platform from becoming a wind tunnel;

·          

the glazing is likely to be clear without any elements such as frosting;

·          

the pedestrian bridge will be complete by the station’s opening day;

·          

the view from the north side of the station is the parkade, and it is too early to judge what the parkade’s appearance will be;

·          

open spaces with potential for landscaping will be identified at the development permit stage;

·          

the study of transit stations points to activity spaces, not open spaces, as the best option;

·          

the development permit will apply only if a deal is completed with the third party in negotiation for building the parkade;

·          

the stations along Richmond’s No. 3 Road are a cluster, or family of stations, but the Bridgeport Station has unique characteristics since it is located in a distinct neighbourhood at the north end of No. 3 Road and is removed from the commercial district to the south. The Panel encouraged the use of wood to establish a connection with other stations within the City;

·          

as a result of public input at an open house, metal is being proposed as the material of choice for all Richmond stations, although no decision has been made and wood soffits might be used;

·          

glazing and glazing module could be a point of commonality for all Richmond stations, as could horizontal and slender elements in the stations’ designs;

·          

honed concrete block with stone panel finish could be the materials used in washrooms to make them less plain;

·          

InTransit BC has a retail program that has identified retail opportunities at each station; many buses using Bridgeport Station point to retail opportunity at the station; activity has to be generated around a station to support retail at a station;

·          

the finishing details being considered for pedestrian areas include porcelain ceramic tiles of high quality; the Chair encouraged the GVTA to carefully consider materials used in the pedestrian areas so that the station does not end up being surrounded by a sea of asphalt;

·          

the configuration of the bus loop as presented in the site plan is considered the most balanced and conceptually to be the best one;

·          

there will be ten bicycle lockers located on the bus exchange island under the station.

Staff Comments

Joyce Chang, Project Manager, Major Project Team noted that the City prefers having a decentralized bus storage area and prefers that buses be spread out rather than compiling into one loop area. Further, she identified the need for a better feel for transportation movements with regard to the park-and-ride component, and questioned what impact those movements would have on pedestrian movement at the station. She stated that more development had to be done on ideas to protect transit riders from rain and wind at all levels of the station. She also mentioned that, besides up escalators, down escalators should be considered. In closing she referred the presenters to her memo to the Development Permit Panel, dated June 7, 2006. (Schedule 1)

The Chair stated that he wants to hear back from the presenters on the issues of: the use of wood at the station, the platform apron, proposed materials for the station, and pedestrian connections.

It was moved and seconded

That staff continue to work with CNCL to implement the design revisions to the Bridgeport Station (as outlined in the memorandum dated June 7, 2006 from Joyce Chang, Project Manager, Major Projects Team).

CARRIED

5.

New Business – None.

6.

Date Of Next Meeting: June 28, 2006

7.

Adjournment

It was moved and seconded

That the meeting be adjourned at 5:05  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, June 14, 2006.

_________________________________

_________________________________

Joe Erceg
Chair

Sheila Johnston
Committee Clerk