1.

Minutes

It was moved and seconded

That the minutes of the meeting of the Development Permit Panel held on July 20, 2006 be adopted.

CARRIED

2.

Development Permit DP 05-293675
(Report: June 26, 2006 File No.:  DP 05-293675)  (REDMS No. 1747427)

APPLICANT:

359664 BC Ltd.

PROPERTY LOCATION:

8291 and 8311 No. 2 Road

INTENT OF PERMIT:

1.

To permit the construction of 12 townhouse units at 8291 and 8311 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 the permitted lot coverage from 40% to 42%;

b)

Reduce the north side yard setback from 3 m to 2 m with a maximum 0.2 m room projection at the second floor; and

c)

Reduce the front yard setback from 6 m to 4.5 m for a mailbox structure with roof.

Applicant’s Comments

Tom Yamamoto, Architect, addressed the Panel on behalf of the applicant, 359664 B.C. Ltd., and stated that the project is designed to match the character of the street and the neighbourhood. There is a central amenity area.  The design offers similar or smaller building massing than the neighbouring duplex massing.  The three proposed duplexes at the rear have 2 storeys. He advised that originally the driveway was on the north edge of the site, but that after the rezoning process, Public Hearing, and discussions with City staff, it was relocated to the south side. The south edge location offered a more sensitive open space transition to the neighbouring duplex, which was recessed and had a 4-foot side yard setback.  He noted that the neighbouring duplex to the north of the site also had a straight 4-foot side yard setback.

In response to questions from the Panel, Mr. Yamamoto advised that:

·      

in two units, in each building, there is third floor attic space which is habitable space and includes windows on the front and on the side;

·      

the mailbox is a small structure located in the outdoor amenity area beside the recycling box collection area, and has been relocated so that it is no longer beside the driveway; this small scale project would generate a small amount of traffic on this major arterial road and that 1.8 m fencing was proposed along the south edge to mitigate the impact of the driveway on the neighbouring home. 

Mary Chan-Yip, a Principal with DMG Landscape Architects advised the Panel that the mailboxes were shown in the correct location on the site plan and L1 landscape plan (or plan #3A). The landscape design reinforced the street friendly environment in the area. Each yard along No. 2 Road is reinforced with a low picket fence and with evergreen shrub material, providing an effective separation between the private and public realm. 15 cm calliper trees were proposed along No. 2 Road for a mature streetscape. Along the central drive aisle of the site, six cm calliper trees will be planted in order to provide internal scale.   

In response to questions from the Panel, Ms. Chan-Yip advised that 26 trees that were removed from the site are being replaced with 25 new trees and the applicant will make a cash contribution to the City.  She advised that tree-planting opportunities were limited on the site.  There was a sanitary sewer right-of-way along the west edge of the site and Engineering would not permit tree planting in this area.

Staff Comments

In response to questions from the Panel, Jean Lamontagne, Director of Development advised that:

·         

the proposed variance from 40% to 42% complies with the Rezoning application that was approved by City Council;

·         

it is not uncommon for the City to approve a mailbox variance, citing, for safety reasons, that a more visible mailbox is preferable.

Gallery Comments

Mr. Johnson Lee addressed the panel and expressed his concern that the driveway adjacent to his home, 8273 No. 2 Road, would have a negative impact on the occupants of his home. He stated that the vehicles using the driveway would create noise beneath the home’s windows. Mr. Lee referred to a letter, dated July 17, 2006, which he submitted to the City (Schedule 1). Mr. Lee also expressed concern with the lot coverage variance, side yard setback variance and proposed location of the project’s mailbox. 

Panel Discussion

Discussion ensued with the following points being raised:

·         

in discussion with the City’s traffic department, it was suggested that the project’s driveway should accommodate eventual widening from 6 m to 7.5 m so it would minimize the number of driveways and would provide for a wider access in the future, should other properties in the area be redeveloped on this major arterial road;

·         

the proposed fence between Mr. Lee’s home and the site’s driveway is 6 feet high and should shield the car headlights so that they are not visible to residents of Mr. Lee’s home;

·         

although the developer would have no difficulty providing a cedar hedge for the neighbour’s property, it would not be feasible on Mr. Lee’s property due to a retaining wall and 6-inch gap between the sidewalk and the house;

·         

putting the driveway in the middle of the site would mean losing the amenity area and/or having to encroach on both side yards which could raise view issues; in addition the City would lose the ability to expand the driveway in the future;

·         

a narrower driveway may raise safety concerns, such as accessibility to the site by fire-rescue vehicles;

Correspondence

Johnson Lee, 8273 No. 2 Road, dated July 17, 2006 (Schedule 1)

Zong Wen Yu, 8351 No. 2 Road, dated July 17, 2006 (Schedule 2)

Gar Man Lee, 8271 No. 2 Road, dated July 18, 2006 (Schedule 3)

Tseng Chih-Li, 8251 No. 2 Road, dated July 18, 2006 (Schedule 4)

Zong Wen Yu, 8351 No. 2 Road, dated July 20, 2006 (Schedule 5)

Yin Fong Leung, 8273 No. 2 Road, dated July 21, 2006 (Schedule 6)

Panel Decision

It was moved and seconded

(1)

That Development Permit DP 05 – 293675 be referred to staff to explore driveway relocation or incorporation of a landscape buffer;

(2)

That Development Permit DP 05 – 293675 be referred to staff for the purpose of exploring the potential of relocating the driveway from the south side of the lot to a central location;

(3)

That staff explore ways to improve the landscaping buffer adjacent to the driveway along the south side of the lot, should driveway relocation not be feasible; and

(4)

That Development Permit DP 05 – 293675 be brought forward at the August 30, 2006 meeting of the Development Permit Panel.

CARRIED

3.

Development Permit DP 05-306362
(Report: June 19, 2006 File No.:  DP 05-306362)   (REDMS No. 1938169, 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

Tom Yamamoto, Architect, presented the applicant’s arborist’s report and tree replacement strategy (Schedule 7). The applicant will supply and install replacement trees on the site. There will be a total of ten 15-cm trees planted around the lot to replace five trees taken down.

Staff Comments

Mr. Lamontagne referred the Panel to his Memorandum, dated June 19, 2006 (Schedule 8), and stated that the applicant had satisfactorily addressed the issue of installing a cedar hedge against the fence along the north property line, and in addition had satisfactorily addressed the issue of supplying and installing replacement trees on the site.

Correspondence

None.

Gallery Comments

None.

Panel Discussion

In response to a query from the Panel, Mr. Lamontagne stated that the cedar hedge would be along the north property line in response to the Panel’s specific request, and that along the south property line there would be a tree and shrubs.

Panel Decision

It was moved and seconded

That a Development Permit be issued which would:

(1)

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

(2)

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.

CARRIED

4.

Canada Line  – Aberdeen, Lansdowne and Richmond – Brighouse Stations

(Report: July 19, 2006 File No.: 10-6525-07)   (REDMS No. 1889578)

Edward LeFlufy, Canada Line Rapid Transit Inc., introduced Mr. Chris McCarthy, Architect, InTransitBC and Eric Steadman, Architect, of the firm Busby Perkins and Will.

Mr. McCarthy used a power point presentation to highlight the following points: (Schedule   9).

·         

3.3 km of the Canada Line are served by the Aberdeen, Lansdowne and Richmond-Brighouse stations along No. 3 Road, which link three major retail destinations;

·         

the Richmond-Brighouse station is the south terminus of the Canada Line and will be served by a bus mall;

·         

a station-oriented retail strategy is being completed;

·         

it is estimated that by the year 2021 the estimated peak hour ridership at Aberdeen will be 260 passengers; at Lansdowne, 300 passengers; and at Richmond Brighouse, 2,280 passengers;

·         

with regard to roles and responsibilities of the parties involved in the Canada Line, the City of Richmond’s role is that of development control within the City, while InTransitBC is responsible for the stations and guideway, CLCO is responsible for property negotiation, and TransLink is responsible for detailed design and construction of the bus loops;

·         

the project design accomplishments include a straightened guideway alignment along No. 3 Road, guideway bent structures have been eliminated north of Capstan Way, a dual elevated guideway is provided between Bridgeport Station and Aberdeen Station, and a single elevated guideway is provided south of Lansdowne Station;

·         

the Aberdeen Station has shifted to the south in order to improve the guideway alignment, and there has been a relocation and re-orientation of the Alderbridge station to the new Lansdowne station site;

·         

the Richmond-Brighouse station is located on the east side of No 3 Road; the station has been reoriented with its entry to the south; there is a bus mall scheme agreement newly in place; the station has up and down escalators, which was possible, as this station has a single platform design;

·         

with regard to design of the Richmond stations, the general approach has been to create a ‘family of stations’ that are visually distinct from Vancouver and Airport stations; the design principles include openness and transparency for safety and views and transit-oriented development;

·         

the three stations have distinctive roof forms as well as glazing that emphasizes transparency and openness.

Mr. Steadman described the stations and noted the following points:

·         

the stations are considered civic buildings and their importance was taken into consideration during the design process;

·         

the stations have been designed with safety and comfort in mind so that the stations will encourage the use of transit and a reduction of dependence on cars;

·         

the stations will incorporate such elements as curved wood roof structures, a glazing system, and high quality finish materials to clearly identify them as a family of stations;

·         

the wood elements will relate the stations to other high quality civic spaces in the City of Richmond, such as Richmond City Hall and the Olympic Speed Skating Oval;

·         

in addition, wood refers to Richmond’s industrial and seafaring heritage and will provide contrast to harder concrete elements of the Canada Line, such as the guideway;

·         

glazing is key as it will emphasize transparency at the platform level which will assist passengers as they find their way from the station and to the surrounding neighbourhood;

·         

light steel framing supports the glazing and roof structures;

·         

there is a consistent base building design supplemented with bold colours to differentiate the elements of the stations and one station from another, similar to a strategy that may be employed for the ancillary block cladding;

·         

public areas of the stations will incorporate durable tile floor finishes and metal panel wall finishes;

·         

station signage is incorporated into system-wide service chaseway elements at the platform and concourse level.

Edward LeFlufy stated that the station concourses were approximately 600 mm higher than the adjacent sidewalk level.  For the purpose of this Panel meeting, Canada Line had contracted Phillips Farevaag Smallenberg to prepare a hypothetical study to illustrate how this grade difference could be addressed using the Lansdowne Station as an example.  It showed the appearance of the station concourses as they could be developed. He advised that site analysis had been undertaken and that landscape elements such as urban orchards, water features, open spaces, vestibules, etc., could be incorporated in the forecourts at the stations in the future.  

He reported that at the Richmond-Brighouse Station, a third party would be developing residual properties.

Staff Comments

Joyce Chang, Project Manager, Major Projects Team spoke briefly, and said that overall the work done on integrated development at the stations has been very positive. She stated that the City is pleased with the bus mall at the Richmond-Brighouse station and the City would like to see integrated or associated development at all the stations.  She commented positively that the guideway alignment had been straightened, that the dual guideway had been restored, and that there would be a single guideway from Lansdowne Station to the Richmond-Brighouse Station.

She referred the Panel to her memo, dated July 19, 2006 (Schedule 9) and highlighted four points:

·            

down escalators are an essential way to move people at the station and the City strongly requests CLCO to consider down escalators in all stations;

·            

the City would prefer to see a financial contribution by CLCO or efforts made by InTransitBC towards integrating the grade difference in the station concourse level and grade level of the boulevard for greater passenger convenience; it is appreciated that information has been provided on concepts to address grade transition at stations but it is important for the City to be informed on how these ideas will be implemented and at what cost;

·            

the City has indicated to InTransitBC a strong preference for retail at each of the No. 3 Road stations, and the City is seeking a commitment that a retail component will be included by opening day.

Panel Discussion

Discussion ensued with the Panel receiving the following information:

·            

the architects will look at all options for cladding materials, including opaque glazing; the architects were encouraged to consider polycarbonate cladding for the ancillary space;

·            

CLCO is open to City recommendations regarding the distinguishing colours for each station;

·            

the maintenance schedule is the responsibility of the operations and maintenance group, once the stations are built; anti-graffiti coatings for glass were proposed in the stations, and wood elements would be kept out of reach yet still visible; this strategy has proven effective on the Millennium Line; CLCO understood the significance of the use of wood;

·            

street trees and the design of the stations’ entry plazas is the responsibility of the City;

·            

CLCO is developing an advertising program which is primarily targeted at the guideway level; 

·            

bicycles will be accommodated on the trains, and in the 2,500 lb capacity elevators, which are the same as other stations; without down escalators at the stations, some transit riders would need to use the elevator which conflicts with cyclist use of elevators; CLCO was strongly urged to reconsider use of bicycle runnels parallel to the stairwells, but the idea was rejected by the operator; bicycle racks and lockers will be provided in each of the stations;

·            

pick up and drop off (“kiss and ride”) locations will be considered for each station;

·            

there is a gap between the station roofs and the exterior glazing which is larger on the west elevations as the prevailing winds come from the east; there is a roof overhang to mitigate the impacts of wind and wind-driven rain; 

·            

the stations were designed to be distinctive from one another; in response to public input, Richmond stations were designed to be a “family of stations”;

·            

the curbside sidewalk at the Lansdowne Station in the landscape concept is too narrow, adjacent to the bike path and bus stops; pedestrians should be rerouted to the east side of the station through the “urban garden”;

·            

at other existing stations, light levels are programmed to lower at night;

·            

there may be an opportunity to look at incorporating an illumination display similar to that used in Torino, Italy, through the Urban Integration Fund;

·            

the material study model would be made available for display at City Hall; 

The Chair summarized the Panel discussion by saying that the City has passed a formal recommendation requesting that CLCO reconsider the provision of down escalators at all three stations, and reiterated Richmond’s strong preference for the provision of both retail kiosks and a commercial-retail unit at each of the three stations  for opening day of the Canada Line. CLCO was commended on the quality of the presentation.

Panel Decision

It was moved and seconded

(1)

That staff continue to work with CLCO to incorporate design changes to the Aberdeen, Lansdowne and Richmond-Brighouse Stations (as outlined in the memorandum dated July 19, 2006 from Joyce Chang, Project Manager, Major Projects Team) and;

(2)

That staff reinforce with CLCO representatives that CLCO be requested to revisit the down escalator issue, and;

(3)

That staff reinforce with CLCO representatives that CLCO make provisions for retail activity at the Aberdeen, Lansdowne and Richmond-Brighouse Stations.

5.

Date Of Next Meeting:

It was moved and seconded

That the Development Permit Panel meeting tentatively scheduled for Wednesday, August 16, 2006 be cancelled, and that the next Development Permit Panel is scheduled for 3:30 p.m., Wednesday, August 30, 2006.

CARRIED

6.

Adjournment

It was moved and seconded

That the meeting be adjourned at 5:35 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 26, 2006.

_________________________________

_________________________________

Jeff Day
Chair

Sheila Johnston
Committee Clerk