Time:

3:34 p.m.

Place:

Council Chambers

Richmond City Hall

Present:

Joe Erceg, Chair

Robert Gonzalez, General Manager, Engineering and Public Works

Cathryn Volkering Carlile, General Manager – Community Services

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 13, 2010, be adopted.

CARRIED

2.

Development Permit DP 07-399354
(File Ref. No.:  DP 07-399354)   (REDMS No. 2797391)

APPLICANT:

Ledingham McAllister Communities Ltd.

PROPERTY LOCATION:

8600 Park Road (Formerly 6760, 6780, and 6800 Eckersley Road, 8500, 8520, and 8540 Park Road, 6751, 6760, 6771, 6780, 6791, 6800, and 6831 Park Place, and the Park Place Road Right-of-Way)

1.

Permit the construction of 296 units in three 4-storey apartment buildings over a 1-storey parking structure on a site zoned “Low Rise Apartment (ZLR23)”; and

2.

Vary the provisions of Richmond Zoning Bylaw 8500 to:

(a)

increase the maximum allowable projection for common entry features projecting into a public road setback, including any associated architectural features, cantilevered roofs, eaves, and gutters, as follows:

(i)

from 1.2 m to 3.2 m on Eckersley Road; and

(ii)

from 2.1 m to no setback required on Park Road;

(b)

increase the maximum allowable projection for unenclosed balconies projecting into a public road setback as follows:

(i)

from 1.2 m to 1.3 m on Eckersley Road; and

(ii)

from 2.1 m to 2.3 m on Park Road; and

(c)

permit one loading space along the subject site’s Park Road frontage (intended for recycling pick-up purposes) to encroach into the Park Road right-of-way provided that it does not obstruct the public sidewalk.

Applicant’s Comments

Architect Rob Ciccozzi and Landscape Architect Senga Lindsay accompanied Cameron Thorn, representing Ledingham McAllister Communities Ltd. Mr. Thorn stated that the applicant takes pride in the proposed development, and that the design team and City representatives have worked on the project over a three year period. He described the proposed development, located in the Brighouse Village area of Richmond’s City Centre, as 296 dwellings in three 4-storey, wood frame buildings, over a 1-storey, common parking structure.

Mr. Thorn provided the following information regarding the proposed development:

the design of the project conforms to the designations under the City Centre Area Plan (CCAP) which allows for low and mid rise residential buildings;

since the development went to the July, 2009 Public Hearing, and after the development was presented to the City’s Advisory Design Panel, the project has undergone further refinement;

overall benefits of the project include the applicant’s contribution of (i) over $6 million in benefits, and (ii) 21 affordable housing units on-site;

the proposed development incorporates features demonstrating equivalency to Leadership in Education and Energy Design (LEED) certification;

the provision of a transit pass implementation strategy that includes all 296 units being offered a 70% subsidy toward the purchase of a year long, 2-zone transit pass;

Contributions toward a bike lane along portions of Granville Avenue and Garden City Avenue;

numerous green elements, including the large landscaped ‘green’ courtyard over the common level of parking;

the flat portions of the building roofs are not ‘green’, but will be light coloured to reduce heat absorption and to present a clean appearance; and

the development will include ductwork, so that in the event that the City proceeds with a district energy system, the proposed development would be ready to tie in with the system.

Mr. Ciccozzi addressed the Panel and provided the following architectural details:

measures for aging in place are incorporated in all units, and include: (i) at least one bathroom per unit with blocking behind the bathroom wall to facilitate future installation of grab bars and/or handrails; (ii) all faucets have easy grasp handles; (iii) the sill height of windows is low; and (iv) there are entry intercoms;

the 1.9 floor area ratio (FAR) presented design challenges, but the concept and the architectural character lent itself well, despite tight spots;

it was critical to break up the massing to determine how the building facades connect to the street; communal entrances were brought down to the sidewalk and brought forward, there are varied balcony projections; and the stairways connect well with the perimeter sidewalks;

exit stairs are generous, and enhanced with terracing planters;

the walls of the individual residential units help define the internal formal walkway, or internal “street”;

the entrance from Park Road has frontage treatment designed to reduce the size of the recycling loading area;

building materials include shingles and brick; articulated bays of varying set backs provide subtle details; and

a small tower element accentuates the internal “street” by creating a break in the façade.

Ms. Lindsay drew the Panel’s attention to the following landscaping details:

the influence is European, specifically Parisian promenades and parkettes, with an abundance of plant material to provide a rich texture;

the internal “street” is a promenade flanked by trees, and starts from the grand staircase on Eckersley Road leading to the outdoor common area in the centre of the development that comprises three “rooms”, or distinct areas; smaller walkways lead from the common area to residential units;

one of the three ‘rooms’ features a grassed childrens’ play area, while another ‘room’, the fountain plaza, features a water element; benches are provided throughout the outdoor common area, and people can move freely and easily between the three distinctive areas; and

the lobby entries are accentuated with landscaping, including flowering shrubs, and edges softened with generous planting beds and lawn areas.

In response to queries from the Chair, Ms. Lindsay advised that:

there is a 3 metre, or 1-storey, grade difference between the street and the green roof of the parking structure;

to the east are two-storey multi family units, and the mature hedge along the subject site’s east edge would be maintained to provide privacy screening;

the parking structure’s east wall does not extend to the east property line but is separated by a three metre setback and a tall hedge; and

the BC Hydro Substation to the south of the subject site is behind a hedge, and additional plants, would be planted along the south border to enhance the buffer effect.

Staff Comments

Brian J. Jackson, Director of Development stated that staff supports the Development Permit application and the variances. He stated that following the July, 2009 Public Hearing, during which neighbours to the east and to the south of the subject site, had addressed issues related to noise generated from the electrical substation, BC Transmission Corp. has advised the City that in their strategic plan, the BC Hydro Substation to the south of the subject site is scheduled to be decommissioned by 2013.

Mr. Jackson noted that the issue of adjacency arose at the July, 2009 Public Hearing and that, working together, staff and the applicant addressed the issue in the following manner:

the project has been shifted away from its east property line so that the parkade is setback a minimum of 3 metres;

Building One, or the east building, exceeds the minimum permitted 6 metres building setback by 9.6 metres to the balcony face and 12 metres to the building face; and

Building Two, or the south building, exceeds the minimum permitted 6 metres building setback by 6.2 metres to the stair tower and 8.4 metres to the building face.

Mr. Jackson further advised that the plans before the Panel show that the parking structure is setback 3 metres from the property line, as per the subject zoning bylaw.

To ensure that plant material survives, the applicant will closely monitor the trees and shrubs to be planted along the parking structure at the property line.

At the July, 2009 Public Hearing a resident stated concern with traffic congestion, and Mr. Jackson advised that the applicant would provide an upgrade to Park Road and funds for an eventual future extension of Park Toad to the west. Eventually Park Road will punch through to the next block and this would address any potential traffic congestion in the area. Mr. Jackson reiterated that the applicant is also encouraging the use of public transit with the transit pass implementation strategy.

With regard to the variances, Mr. Jackson stated that: (i) they are requested for design purposes; (ii) not all unenclosed balconies require a variance; and (iii) the request to permit one loading space along the Park Road frontage is to allow one garbage and recycling loading bay for trucks perpendicular to and encroaching into the Park Road allowance.

In response to the Chair’s query regarding the provision of adaptable units, Mr. Jackson responded that the applicant had opted to include aging in place features in all of the units, instead of selecting a number of units as adaptable units.

Panel Discussion

In response to a query regarding the permeability of the materials to be used in the outdoor common amenity space, advice was given that two-colour, banded, unit pavers are planned, as well as tree grates. As the area is on the garage roof, water would drain off into a subsystem and into the drainage sewer.

When queried whether the applicant would construct the children’s play area and outdoor water feature during a first stage, or later stage, of construction, Mr. Thorn replied that they were included in the second phase, and that the applicant hoped for a good market climate so that the construction would be continuous and not undertaken in separate phases. 

Gallery Comments

Mark Harper, 12222 Ewen Avenue sought information regarding the value of the project per square foot, as well as the overall cost of the development.

In response, Mr. Thorn advised that, due to market forces, he was hesitant to respond to the per square foot cost of the project, but that overall the development was a multi-million dollar project, and that on landscaping alone, the applicant was investing approximately $600,000.

Correspondence

Mike and Jian Bristol, 8537 Citation Drive (Schedule 1)

Mr. Jackson advised that the correspondents’ concerns were: (i) sand blowing onto their property during the construction phase, and (ii) potential health consequences of vehicle fumes being vented in the direction of their home.

Mr. Jackson noted that the City is aware that this could be a problem when a site is preloaded in preparation for construction. The applicant must provide a construction plan to the City at the building permit stage, and indicate how they intend to proceed with pre-loading, and the possibility of blowing dry sand during the pre-load phase. He added that applicants undertake on-going monitoring activities in order to avoid the kind of occurrence the correspondents raise.

Secondly, Mr. Jackson advised that the applicant has proposed measures designed to prevent impacts on the homes on Citation Drive. The parkade’s air handling system includes several fans to exhaust stale air from the parkade towards Park and Eckersley Roads. The openings on the east side of the parking structure are intake openings, and that air is exhausted from a different location on the subject site, more than 50 feet away from the residential units on Citation Drive. The immediate east wall facing Citation Drive would not be an exhaust wall.

Panel Discussion

The Chair complimented both the applicant and staff on the work done on this project and stated that he was in support of the proposed development as presented to the Panel. 

Panel Decision

It was moved and seconded

That a Development Permit be issued which would:

1.

Permit the construction of 296 units in three 4-storey apartment buildings over a 1-storey parking structure on a site zoned “Low Rise Apartment (ZLR23)”; and

2.

Vary the provisions of Richmond Zoning Bylaw 8500 to:

(a)

increase the maximum allowable projection for common entry features projecting into a public road setback, including any associated architectural features, cantilevered roofs, eaves, and gutters, as follows:

(i)

from 1.2 m to 3.2 m on Eckersley Road; and

(ii)

from 2.1 m to no setback required on Park Road;

(b)

increase the maximum allowable projection for unenclosed balconies projecting into a public road setback as follows:

(i)

from 1.2 m to 1.3 m on Eckersley Road; and

(ii)

from 2.1 m to 2.3 m on Park Road; and

(c)

permit one loading space along the subject site’s Park Road frontage (intended for recycling pick-up purposes) to encroach into the Park Road right-of-way provided that it does not obstruct the public sidewalk.

CARRIED

3.

Development Permit DP 08-441302
(File Ref. No.:  DP 08-441302)   (REDMS No. 2796694)

APPLICANT:

Matthew Cheng Architect Inc.

PROPERTY LOCATION:

4360 Moncton Street

INTENT OF PERMIT:

1.

Permit the construction of 14 townhouses at 4360 Moncton Street on a site zoned “Town Housing (ZT41) - Bayview Street/English Avenue (Steveston)”; and

2.

Vary the provisions of Richmond Zoning Bylaw 8500 to:

(a)

reduce the minimum side yard setbacks from 4.3 m to: 2.2 m for the east side yard; 3.2 m for the west side yard at the building fronting onto Moncton Street; and 1.6 m for the west side yard at the rear building;

(b)

increase the maximum building height within 10 m of Moncton Street from 9 m to 10.1 m for gable dormer secondary roof elements; and

(c)

Permit 20 tandem parking spaces (in 10 townhouse units).

Applicant’s Comments

Matthew Cheng, Architect, remarked that the proposed small-scale development comprised 12 townhouse units, on a site in the City Centre McLennan South Sub-Area. He drew the Panel’s attention to the following details:

the architectural character is complimentary to that of the townhouse units to the east, across Ewen Avenue;

the low pitch skirt roof is incorporated to lessen the building massing;

the proposed height was 3-stories, not the previous 4-stories, as well as the siting and orientation of the buildings respect the massing of the existing adjacent townhouse developments and single-family homes;

an elevated front yard helps mitigate the higher flood construction level requirements of the Flood Plain Covenant; the entrance to each unit is approximately a half-storey higher than the yard and creates a natural transition from the street;

tandem parking is proposed in the units fronting onto Moncton Street;

units include a combination of façade treatments, dormer treatments, gables, projecting bays, as well as skirt and gable pitched roofs; and

building materials include Horizontal Hardi-plank siding, Hardi-board and batten, wood trim, garage doors with transom windows and wood shake appearance asphalt shingle roofing material; no vinyl siding would be used.

In response to a query from the Chair, Mr. Cheng advised that the walkway between the buildings is not a public walkway, is interior, and is intended for the residents of the proposed townhouses.

Fred Liu, Landscape Architect provided the following information:

the communal outdoor amenity space is provided at the south edge of the development, including fencing, children’s play area with a climbing structure with slide, lawn area and bench seating for supervision; large trees create a screen from the sun, making the area useable and pleasant;

on-site, private yards are raised by only two feet and create a transition from the street level;

fencing provides privacy along the south and east property lines;

The plant list includes selected native plants, a variety of shrubs, ground cover, vines, perennials, and Honey Locust, the ‘theme tree’, chosen to pull the landscaping elements together;

to minimize repetition and to maximize visual interest, two types of flowering small trees would be planted throughout the site; and

paving treatment on the central landscaped pedestrian route includes permeable interlocking pavers that offer some permeability.

In response to a query from the Chair, Mr. Liu stated that residents would need to walk across the public lane right-of-way to access the amenity area, that interlocking pavers had been removed from the plan at staff request, and that there is no identifiable delineation on the paving treatment of the central pedestrian route to indicate where pedestrians should walk and where vehicles should drive. 

Mr. Jackson added that Planning staff and Engineering staff has discussed the idea of decorative brick paving in the rear lane, but that long term maintenance and liability issues are to be considered. In the public realm Engineering staff favours public rear lanes not having decorative brick paving. He noted that the lane on the subject site is a public right-of-way, and so decorative paving was not suggested by Planning staff.

The Chair expressed concern that with the outdoor amenity space located, not centrally, but remotely, at the south end of the site, it would be beneficial to residents walking toward it to sense that they are on a pedestrian, not a vehicular, route.

Mr. Jackson responded that Planning staff is working with the Engineering Department on a menu of ideas, including stamped or coloured asphalt.

Panel Discussion

Discussion ensued between the Chair and Mr. Cheng regarding the height of the site, and it was established that: (i) all liveable areas of the residential units are above the flood construction level; (ii) the building height is measured from the crown of Moncton Street; and (iii) the neighbouring townhouses included the same building height variance for the secondary gabled dormer roof features, and the feature would be impacted if the Panel denied the requested height variance.

Staff Comments

Mr. Jackson stated that staff supports the Development Permit application and the variances. He noted the retaining wall on the Moncton Street frontage had been lowered from an earlier iteration of the site design, and stated that the lower retaining wall would no longer require guardrails.

Since issues of height and vehicle access from Ewen Avenue were raised at the September, 2008 Public Hearing, the applicant had: (i) lowered the three and a half storey design to 3-stories; (ii) relocated the garbage and recycling area from the Ewen Avenue streetscape to an internal location; (iii) widened the space between the two buildings; (iv) examined the elevations of the property to the east and improved the design to better fit into the neighbourhood; and (v) had applied for the height variance as a result of adding roof articulation.

The Chair commented that the essential difference between the proposal and the neighbouring town house development is that this proposal does not have the pop up 4^th-level areas. Mr. Jackson stated that there is no direct vehicle access from Moncton Street to the site, English Avenue or Ewen Avenue. The development was accessed from the rear lane.

With regard to the requested variances, Mr. Jackson noted that: (i) the side yard set backs do not impact the neighbourhood, (ii) the issues of variance for height is for the gable dormers, and that there are similar ones to the east, and (iii) the tandem parking variance is supported by staff because it provides for a lower floor that is more functional, and is similar to the existing development to the east.

Gallery Comments

Mike Harper, 12222 Ewen Avenue, noted that before the applicant had applied to develop this site, the location of the former BC Packer’s office building, the neighbourhood had expected that a private school would be developed and constructed on site.

He then stated his concern that if a Development Permit was issued to the applicant: (i) it would not be advantageous to residents already living in the neighbourhood; (ii) he was unsure of the financial situation of putting the single-family lots on the market and potential ensuing problems; and (iii) there could be years of construction in the area.

In response to Mr. Harper’s query regarding whether English Avenue would be opened up, Mr. Jackson advised that neither English Avenue nor Ewen Avenue would be opened up to Moncton Street for vehicle traffic.

Jeff Jones, 7-12333 English Avenue spoke in favour of the project and noted that the nature and appearance of the project was in keeping with the residential units already in the neighbourhood and that the project would provide a buffer for his residence.

Mr. Jones put three separate queries to the Panel regarding: (i) vehicle access points to accommodate future residents of the proposed development, opening up Ewen Avenue or English Avenue would impact the neighbourhood in a negative fashion; (ii) uncertainty if lots fronting Moncton Street would be rezoned for townhouse units; and (iii) walkways within the site.

Staff responded to Mr. Jones and advised the following:

(i)

with regard to vehicular access, the applicant would create a public lane, an extension of the public lane to the east and south of the site, and drivers would use this lane to travel across Ewen Avenue and then onto Bayview Street and Moncton Street, thus avoiding the creation of more traffic through the neighbourhood;

(ii)

the proposed Development Permit does not include the new single family lots, which are located to the south of the subject site, and the original BC Packers office building site includes townhouse zoning and single-family lot zoning; and

(iii)

The development includes a private walkway through the site to Moncton Street. Ewen Street ends at an existing greenway pedestrian connection to Moncton Street and a lane that services existing townhouse units to the east; and the public greenway would remain in place. There is a further pedestrian connection to Moncton Street through the Easthope sidewalk system.

In response to a further query from Mr. Jones, the Chair advised that, at this time, he could not provide information with regard to the City owned vacant property to the west of the subject site.

Correspondence

None.

Panel Discussion

The Chair noted that before the application goes to Council for consideration, delineation of a pedestrian path to the amenity area must be addressed. There was general agreement among Panel members that pedestrian pathway delineation should be included in the development plans, and further, that the type of pavement material, and treatment, form part of a discussion between staff and the applicant.

Staff received the Panel’s comments as direction.

Panel Decision

It was moved and seconded

That a Development Permit be issued which would:

1.

Permit the construction of 14 townhouses at 4360 Moncton Street on a site zoned “Town Housing (ZT41) - Bayview Street/English Avenue (Steveston)”; and

2.

Vary the provisions of Richmond Zoning Bylaw 8500 to:

(a)

reduce the minimum side yard setbacks from 4.3 m to: 2.2 m for the east side yard; 3.2 m for the west side yard at the building fronting onto Moncton Street; and 1.6 m for the west side yard at the rear building;

(b)

increase the maximum building height within 10 m of Moncton Street from 9 m to 10.1 m for gable dormer secondary roof elements; and

(c)

permit 20 tandem parking spaces (in 10 townhouse units).

CARRIED

4.

Development Permit DP 09-500638
(File Ref. No.:  DP 09-500638)   (REDMS No. 2785190)

APPLICANT:

Inspire Group Development Corp.

PROPERTY LOCATION:

9888 Keefer Avenue

INTENT OF PERMIT:

1.

Permit the construction of 12 townhouse units at 9888 Keefer Avenue on a site zoned “Low Density Townhouses District  (RTL3)”; and

2.

Vary the provisions of the Richmond Zoning Bylaw 8500 to:

a)

b)

permit 16 tandem parking spaces in eight (8) townhouse units.

Applicant’s Comments

Taizo Yamamoto, Yamamoto Architecture Inc., Vancouver, advised that a Development Permit was issued in June, 2007 for a 12 townhouse development at 9888 Keefer Avenue, but that construction did not take place within the two-year timeframe to validate the Development Permit. For that reason, Mr. Yamamoto advised first that he was appearing before the Panel with the same development, and secondly, that the current development proposal design did not include any major changes to the development that was previously approved by Council.

Mr. Yamamoto drew the Panel’s attention to the following details:

the outdoor amenity area is located in a central location and three large trees, and their mature root systems, are being retained at that location;

the garbage dumpster structure was relocated from Keefer Avenue to the Amenity area, and the mailbox stand is incorporated in the same location; and

proposed building materials were upgraded to include horizontal Hardi-plank siding, Hardi-board and batten, wood trim, and the garage doors feature transom windows and wood shake appearance asphalt shingle roofing. No vinyl siding would be used. Cultured stone was added to the base of the buildings and to fence columns with metal fencing.

Masa Ito, Ito and Associates, Landscape Architect, advised that the landscape plan that comprises the landscape design includes a variety of shrubs, ground covers, vines, perennials, annuals, ferns, ornamental grasses and lawn planting, had not changed since June, 2007 when the Panel had considered the earlier application.

Staff Comments

Mr. Jackson stated that staff supports the Development Permit application and the variances. He noted that the variances had not changed from the approved Development Permit. He further stated that: (i) the differences in the architectural form and character between the 2 storey and the 3 storey townhouse units provided pleasing and variable facades to the street frontage; (ii) the retention strategy for four on-site trees was beneficial; and had resulted in (iii) the variance for a maximum of 1.5 metre to permit porch projections, which were reasonable. 

Panel Discussion

When queried by the Panel regarding playground equipment, Mr. Ito stated that the grassed portion of the outdoor amenity area featured passive play equipment, and that active play equipment was a feature of the nearby neighbourhood park in the McLennan South neighbourhood. He added that the retention of the three trees in the amenity area precluded the addition of active playground equipment due to the tree’s mature root system.

Correspondence

None.

Gallery Comments

None.

Panel Decision

That a Development Permit be issued which would:

1.

Permit the construction of 12 townhouse units at 9888 Keefer Avenue on a site zoned “Low Density Townhouses District  (RTL3)”; and

2.

Vary the provisions of the Richmond Zoning Bylaw 8500 to:

a)

reduce the Exterior Side Yard Setback to Keefer Avenue from 6 m to 4.3 m and to permit porch projections of a maximum of 1.5 m; and

b)

permit 16 tandem parking spaces in eight (8) townhouse units.

CARRIED

5.

Memorandum from the Director of Development Regarding the Status of the Development Permit Application (DP 06-333170)
(File Ref. No.:  06-333170)   (REDMS No. 2777452)

APPLICANT:

Matthew Cheng Architect Inc.

PROPERTY LOCATION:

8680 No. 3 Road

It was moved and seconded

That Matthew Cheng Architect Inc.’s Development Permit Application (DP 06-333170) be referred back to staff and brought forward to a future meeting of the Development Permit Panel.

CARRIED

6.

New Business

None.

7.

Date Of Next Meeting: Wednesday, February 10, 2010

8.

Adjournment

It was moved and seconded

That the meeting be adjourned at 4:59 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 27, 2010.

_________________________________

_________________________________

Joe Erceg

Chair

Sheila Johnston

Committee Clerk