January 28, 2009 - Minutes
Development Permit Panel
Wednesday, January 28, 2009
Time: |
3:30 p.m. |
Place: |
Council Chambers Richmond City Hall |
Present: |
Joe Erceg, Chair Cathryn Volkering Carlile, General Manager, Parks, Recreation and Cultural Services John Irving, Director of Engineering |
The meeting was called to order at 3:30 p.m. |
1. |
Minutes |
|
It was moved and seconded |
|
That the minutes of the meeting of the Development Permit Panel held on Wednesday, January 14, 2009, be adopted. |
CARRIED |
2. |
Development Permit DP 07-389916 | ||||
|
APPLICANT: |
Coast Architectural Group on Behalf of 0768807 B.C. Ltd. |
| ||
|
PROPERTY LOCATION: |
11900 No. 1 Road and 4091, 4111 Chatham Street |
| ||
|
INTENT OF PERMIT: |
| |||
|
1. |
To permit the construction of a four-storey, 144-unit “Supportive Independent Living” (seniors) building and a new Army Navy Air Force (ANAF) 284 Club, on top of a 157-space subsurface parking garage on a site zoned “Comprehensive Development District (CD/199)”; and | |||
|
2. |
To vary the provisions of the Zoning and Development Bylaw No. 5300 to: | |||
|
|
a) |
Increase the proportion of allowed small car parking spaces permitted from 30% to 41%. | ||
|
Applicant’s Comments | |
|
Rodney Cottrellof Coast Architectural Group outlined the project and highlighted the following elements: | |
|
· |
one of the two main components of the project is a four-storey, 144-unit building for independent, not assisted, living for seniors; |
|
· |
the project’s second main component is the new Army, Navy and Air Force (ANAF) 284 Club. There is also a parking garage off Chatham Street, which is lower than No. 1 Road; |
|
· |
the massing of the residential area is larger than the ANAF Club space, with the building occupying an area of approximately 7,937 square metres of land at the northern entrance to Steveston Village; |
|
· |
three-storey townhouses and a four-storey building are located to the north of the subject site, and there is a single-family residence to the south of the site; to integrate with the surrounding structures, and to properly transition to No. 1 Road and to Steveston Park, the design team created a stepping down design in order to ensure that the massing of the building did not overwhelm the neighbourhood; |
|
· |
materials include wood board and batten, shingles, a metal roof component, and a colour palette of two tones of beige; |
|
· |
the façade of the ANAF Club fronting No. 1 Road presents a more commercial character than does the residential structure, while club design features are informed by traditional design forms found in the Village of Steveston; |
|
· |
accessibility is important throughout the building, with all common areas, administration areas, and access to every residential unit handicapped accessible; |
|
· |
five residential units are designed to be 100% wheelchair accessible upon completion of the project, while the other residential units are ‘accessibility ready’ and can easily be adapted to full accessibility; |
|
· |
sustainability features of the project include natural day lighting, natural ventilation, higher density with smaller building footprint, intensive green roof areas and interaction with the community; |
|
· |
the “H” shape configuration of the building was chosen to allow as much natural light into all units as possible, which lowers the reliance on electric lighting and HVAC (heating, ventilation and air conditioning); |
|
· |
the shape also provides the opportunity for two separate intensive green roof courtyards for leisure use and location of amenities; |
|
· |
the design reduces the amount of glare, and the incidents of runoff; another benefit of the shape of the building is outdoor use of the roof of the underground parking; |
|
· |
the building encourages and invites enhanced interaction between: (i) residents of the building (ii) ANAF club members, and (iii) members of the larger community, all of whom will be able to take advantage of the building’s features and amenities; and |
|
· |
the heritage of the Village is reflected in: (i) the building materials, (ii) a row of Cherry trees along the length of Chatham Street to mark the Japanese heritage of the site, and (iii) a small urban plaza with landscape elements at the southeast corner of the project. |
|
Masa Ito, landscape architect, remarked that the small urban plaza at the southeast corner of the project has a maple leaf ground motif, combined with a “Gate of Hope” featuring a Japanese design, in recognition of the Japanese Canadian heritage significance of the site. The paving treatment includes maple leaves and a circle, referring to the Japanese and Canadian flags. The plaza also includes a memorial wall plaque and bench for seating. These elements combine to create: (i) a sense of place, and (ii) a gateway, which provides an attractive entrance to Steveston Park. |
|
Panel Discussion | |
|
In response to a query from the Chair, regarding the difference between the first iteration of the design and the one presented to the Panel, Mr. Cottrell advised that earlier iterations of the building design had the ANAF Club sitting approximately 6 feet above the No. 1 Road sidewalk level, creating an undesirable separation from the street; the design presented to the Panel has the building at sidewalk level, thus enhancing the building/streetscape interface. | |
|
Discussion ensued between the Panel and the applicant about the proposed structure, and in particular on: | |
|
· |
the proposed building does not physically connect, but visually interacts with Steveston Park along the west edge via overlook and landscaping, which includes: (i) a planter wall no higher than 18 inches, (ii) cascading planting hanging from the second floor amenity area providing a landscape-laden edge, (iii) benches presenting seating opportunities, and (iv) a wide pedestrian walkway; |
|
· |
for security of the residents of the building, the courtyard located in the centre of the “H” configuration does not connect directly with Steveston Park; the design includes an open-air colonnade connecting to stair accesses at the north and south edges of the site; |
|
· |
the main upper roof is ashphalt shingle; the metal roof is applied to the lower roof elements and as a continuous skirt roof, extending all the way around the structure, except for the ANAF Club portion of the building; a canopy across the ANAF Club frontage on No.1 Road references the commercial uses located south of the site; |
|
· |
wood board and batten siding is featured on the building; |
|
· |
of the ‘accessibililty ready’ residential units, most are easily upgraded due to the required fundamentals being already in place; |
|
· |
the appealing building/streetscape interface features: (i) the canopy articulated into six different elements along No. 1 Road, (ii) more architectural detailing has been added to the lower levels, and (iii) window sills are placed in an irregular pattern to made the Club’s façade more appealing; |
|
· |
the Club’s main entrance is located at the intersection of No. 1 Road and Chatham Street, creating a welcoming corner; the addition of Cherry trees at this location, as well as trellis elements and benches, work together to beautify this, the corner that anchors the building; |
|
· |
as a sustainability feature, the designers explored a ground source heat exchange for the building, but were unable to make it fit with the proforma for the building, nor was the building adaptable to a geo-exchange heating and cooling process; a standard boiler will be used in the building; |
|
· |
the architect chose two separate shades of beige for the façade in order to: (i) break down the massing, and (ii) add visual interest; |
|
· |
a sheltered bus stop is located beside the building on No. 1 Road; |
|
· |
through the separate Servicing Agreement, provisions can be made for electrical outlets for future opportunities to illuminate the street trees during festive seasons; |
|
· |
the west courtyard provides for raised garden plots, and can accommodate storage for gardening and landscaping maintenance equipment; |
|
· |
bicycle racks are located in the small urban plaza; |
|
· |
people wishing to smoke can do so at the southeast corner plaza and in the courtyards; mechanical intakes will not be compromised by smokers who will abide by the Public Health Protection Bylaw No. 6989 and its provisions regarding restricted smoking; and |
|
· |
access to the site is based on a one-way vehicular circulation pattern eliminating the possibility of cars passing in both directions, and securing the safety of pedestrians on and around the site. |
|
The Chair queried the applicant with regard to the absence of a three-dimension model of the proposed building, and Mr. Cottrell responded that a model had been made of the building in an earlier iteration, but that since that time, the design of the project had changed. A second model had not been created as some of the changes had happened only ten days before the date of the Development Permit Panel meeting. | |
|
The Chair noted that a model was a requirement when presenting a project to the Development Permit Panel, and advised that an updated model would have been helpful. |
|
Staff Comments | |
|
Wayne Craig, Acting Director of Development, advised that during the design process the applicant had successfully addressed: (i) the massing along the No. 1 Road streetscape, and (ii) the sensitive interface between the building and Steveston Park. | |
|
Mr. Craig remarked that the project was reviewed by the Advisory Design Panel and by the Heritage Commission and that both had recommended the project be presented to the Development Permit Panel. | |
|
With respect to the conservation of the 4091 Chatham Street Heritage Building on-site, Mr. Craig noted that: | |
|
· |
the heritage building will be relocated and conserved at another site and the applicant will contribute funds to this endeavour; |
|
· |
in addition, the applicant has offered janitorial and cleaning services; and |
|
· |
the Townline Group of Companies has offered to construct the concrete foundation for the relocated heritage building. |
|
||
|
With regard to the small urban plaza at the southeast corner of the site, the Chair expressed the desire that a discussion with members of the Steveston community take place, and he inquired of staff if the consultation could be done, and if so when. | |
|
Mr. Craig responded that there is time for the discussion to take place as the project would not come before Council until all conditions of the Development Permit have been met. Mr. Craig cited the standard Servicing Agreement for road improvements to No. 1 Road and Chatham Street, along with associated utility upgrades, as the primary requirements the applicant would have to meet before the request for the Development Permit could be presented to Council for consideration. | |
|
The Chair thanked the applicant for the thorough presentation and for the design development process of the proposed building. |
|
Correspondence |
|
None. |
|
Gallery Comments |
|
None. |
|
Panel Decision | ||
|
It was moved and seconded | ||
|
That a Development Permit be issued which would: | ||
|
1. |
Permit the construction of a four-storey, 144-unit “Supportive Independent Living” (seniors) building and a new Army Navy Air Force (ANAF) 284 Club, on top of a 157-space subsurface parking garage on a site zoned “Comprehensive Development District (CD/199)”; and | |
|
2. |
Vary the provisions of the Zoning and Development Bylaw No. 5300 to: | |
|
|
a) |
increase the proportion of allowed small car parking spaces permitted from 30% to 41%. |
|
CARRIED |
3. |
Development Permit 08-448057 | |
|
APPLICANT: |
Doug Massie, Architect |
|
PROPERTY LOCATION: |
7551 Westminster Highway |
|
INTENT OF PERMIT: | |
|
To permit the alteration of the Westminster Highway ground floor facade of the West tower of the existing Best Western Richmond Inn Hotel at 7551 Westminster Highway on a site zoned Downtown Commercial District (C7). |
|
Applicant’s Comments | |
|
Doug Massie, Architect, Chercover Massie & Associates remarked that the existing Best Western Richmond Inn Hotel is undergoing a rebranding to become a Sheraton Hotel. As part of the transition, the following work was identified: (i) the ballrooms redecorated and the rooms upgraded, (ii) the kitchen, dining room and lobby upgraded, (iii) the fitness centre relocated from its current small space to a larger space, (iv) reconfiguring the beer and wine store, and (v) reconfiguring the food and beverage services throughout the hotel complex. | |
|
Mr. Massie highlighted the following features of the proposed alteration of the ground floor façade of the hotel’s West Tower, which faces Westminster Highway: | |
|
· |
new glazing would be inserted into the west and south façades; |
|
· |
the current raised patio and enclosure would be removed; and |
|
· |
paint will be applied to the façade. |
|
Staff Comments |
|
Mr. Craig stated that staff supported the development permit and noted that the proposed façade improvements have no impact on the overall existing hotel complex form and character. He added that the renovations would provide improvements to the property’s ground floor facing Westminster Highway. |
|
Correspondence |
|
None. |
|
Gallery Comments |
|
None. |
|
Panel Discussion |
|
In response to a query from the Chair, Mr. Massie advised that the hotel improvements had been assessed in phases, which explained why the applicant was not seeking another development permit. |
|
In response to a further query regarding landscaping, staff advised that a development permit recently issued for the site included landscaping improvements in the surface parking lots fronting onto both Westminster Highway and Elmbridge Way. |
|
Panel Decision |
|
It was moved and seconded |
|
That a Development Permit be issued which would permit the alteration of the Westminster Highway ground floor facade of the West tower of the existing Best Western Richmond Inn Hotel at 7551 Westminster Highway on a site zoned Downtown Commercial District (C7). |
|
CARRIED |
4. |
It was moved and seconded |
|
That the Development Permit Panel meeting tentatively scheduled for Wednesday, February 11, 2009 be cancelled. |
|
CARRIED |
5. |
Adjournment |
|
It was moved and seconded |
|
That the meeting be adjourned at 4:30 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 28, 2009. |
_________________________________ |
_________________________________ |
Joe Erceg Chair |
Sheila Johnston Committee Clerk |