Time:

3:30 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 3:33 p.m.

1.

Minutes

It was moved and seconded

That the minutes of the meeting of the Development Permit Panel held on Wednesday, January 27, 2010, be adopted.

CARRIED

2.

Development Permit DP 08-429756
(File Ref. No.:  DP 08-429756)   (REDMS No. 2809329)

APPLICANT:

Oval 2 Holdings Ltd.

PROPERTY LOCATION:

6031 River Road

INTENT OF PERMIT:

1.

Permit the construction of multi-residential development consisting of four (4) high-rise building blocks and townhouses with a total square footage of approximately 65.479 m2 (704,820 ft²), which includes approximately 458 units (432 apartments units and 26 townhouses) at 6031 River Road on a site zoned “High Rise Apartment and Olympic Oval (ZMU4) – Oval Village (City Centre)”; and

2.

Vary the provisions of Richmond Zoning Bylaw 8500 to:

a)

reduce the minimum Public Road setback from 5.0 m to 3.0 m along Road “A”.

Applicant’s Comments

Architect James Cheng, of James KM Cheng Architects Inc., addressed the Panel and introduced John Ryan, Vice President, Development of ASPAC Developments Ltd., and Landscape Architect Chris Phillips, of Phillips Farevaag Smallenberg.

Mr. Cheng noted that the proposed development is the second phase of ASPAC's development of the Richmond Oval Neighbourhood. The first phase is the marketing structure at the east end of the Oval, and that phase has been completed.

In describing the second phase, Mr. Cheng noted that at 6031 River Road the residential development consists of four high-rise buildings covering approximately 700,000 square feet, and includes 432 apartment units and 26 two-storey townhouses fronting River Road. The proposal includes three levels of parking, with no commercial component. 

Mr. Cheng provided the following details of the proposed development:

·          

building heights conform with the City’s Official Community Plan (OCP) guidelines, with terraced building heights that range from a 14-storey tower at the south end of the site, to an 8-storey tower closer to the riverfront and a 4-storey building near the setback, along the dyke;

·          

one governing concept of the project is an East-West Promenade, the main pedestrian link between No. 2 Road Bridge and the Olympic Oval, that provides a pedestrian and a cycling path, and features a double row of trees on its north side;

·          

the Promenade for pedestrians and cyclists continues toward a ramped path that ‘zig-zags’ down toward River Road;

·          

the “Arrival Court” is located at the centre of the proposed development and provides: (i) access to the lobbies, (ii) access to the residential units, and (iii) access to the amenity areas;

·          

six separate recycling rooms prevent noise issues for residents;

·          

the impact of garbage collection on the street is designed to be minimized;

·          

the project design exceeds LEED silver standards, and almost meets LEED gold standards; and

·          

features on site include: (i) green roofs, (ii) green walls, (iii) water features and (iv) a bio-swale that extends between the development site and the dyke.

Landscape Architect Mr. Phillips made the following comments:

·          

it is important that the project contribute to the public realm of the dyke;

·          

the landscaping makes reference to native indigenous vegetation and agricultural plants;

·          

an internal garden with natural landscaping at the south end of the site provides views to a secondary route of natural grasses along the bio-swale;

·          

a public open space, ‘the Fish Trap Way’, is provided on private property at the east end of the subject site, and provides public access to the dyke;

·          

A proposed set of steps at the dyke edge to facilitate observing such river activities as rowing;

·          

a public area, open and formal lawn area, small children’s play area, and a water feature;

·          

the east-to-west Promenade is the second prominent landscaped area;

·          

the ‘zig-zag’ ramp has a 5% slope that is feasible for wheelchairs, cyclists and pedestrians;

·          

the north courtyard sits above River Road, while a landscaped berm faces River Road; and

·          

a variety of street trees are planted around the edges of the subject site.

Mr. Cheng, Project Architect, provided further information:

·          

high quality materials that do not demand high maintenance include: (i) three types of stone; (ii) extensive use of glass on the building facades and elevators; and (iii) metal edges are a feature of the penthouse level;

·          

a look-out point has been created to enable the public to view the transition area between the proposed development and the dyke along the waterfront;

·          

there is a series of viewing platforms to observe and enjoy the terraced water surfaces and landscaped central open space between the residential buildings;

·          

residential units include a variety of design layouts;

·          

there is an indoor swimming pool with a green roof to blend with the central landscaped space; and

·          

Crime Prevention Through Environmental Design (CPTED) features include: (i) extensive use of glazing to allow for good surveillance; and (ii) appropriate pedestrian scale lighting to illuminate the Fish Trap Way open space area.

Staff Comments

Brian J. Jackson, Director of Development, stated that staff supports the Development Permit application and the variance. He remarked that ASPAC’s project represents a paradigm shift for Richmond, in the high quality of the development overall, and the materials.

Mr. Jackson noted that the relationship of the buildings to the dyke is unique and that the open space responded to the City’s guidelines as set out in the Request For Proposals. The applicant has met all rezoning requirements with the exception of the variance requested.

Mr. Jackson added issues regarding a change of grade have been addressed in a sensitive manner, as have various issues, such as ‘eyes on the street’ safety and security, adequate levels of privacy, and access to public open spaces.

Panel Discussion

Discussion ensued among the Panel, staff and the presenters, and the following information was given:

·          

(i) the City dyke trail would be designed to the City’s dyke trail standard, and the applicant would connect to the dyke trail with a main pathway link provided by a paved connection; (ii) the construction of the paved link would not impact negatively on the Fraser River Estuary Management Program; (iii) grasses and other native plants would enhance the paved connection; and (iv) all riparian objectives would be met;

·          

a short ramp and a portion of a stone wall would be exposed near the paved link between the dyke and the pathway, and would receive landscaping treatments;

·          

deciduous trees would be planted along the waterfront, and a combination of Shore Pine and Maple would be featured in the courtyards;

·          

the ‘zig-zag’ ramp is designed for use by wheelchairs, cyclists and pedestrians, and consideration has been given to potential skateboarders, and measures would be taken to prevent skateboarding damage to the ramp;

·          

the existing City dyke elevation is 3.50 metres, the dyke will be raised to 4.5 metres, and the dyke’s future proposed elevation is 4.70 metres; the proposed buildings are set above the future proposed dyke height;

·          

the open space with landscaping and seating established at the upper end of the East-West Promenade would attract residents and members of the public to stop, sit, and enjoy the riverfront views;

·          

ASPAC and the City would work together to plan an efficient and seamless design for the interface between the property and the City’s portion of the dyke, north of the property line;

·          

in addition to the two CPTED features mentioned by Mr. Cheng, other CPTED principles applied to the project include: (i) apartment units at the ends of buildings are oriented toward the street, to increase ‘eye on the street’ surveillance; (ii) townhouse doors are pushed right out to the street thereby eliminating hiding places; (iii) all arrival points on the site are secured; (iv) visitor parking is separated from residential parking; and (v) instead of smooth walls at street level, rough stone surfaces were deliberately chosen to discourage graffiti spraying;

·          

with regard to phased building, the entire underground parking level will be constructed at the same time, with the two towers closest to No. 2 Road bridge constructed first, followed by construction of the two towers closest to the Olympic Oval;

·          

confirmation was given that the proposed development includes eight adaptable units for universal accessibility;

·          

the Fish Trap Way public open space is sited on private property and a public right-of-way will be registered to ensure unrestricted access and use of the landscaped space providing access to the dyke; ASPAC is obligated to design, install and maintain all landscaping in the space; and

·          

the green roof areas are over the north lobby, the south lobby and, as the building steps back, the terraces would feature planting areas, as well as green walls in three other locations.

Correspondence

None.

Gallery Comments

None.

Panel Discussion

The Chair remarked that the proposed buildings set a high quality standard for the design of developments in the City.

Panel Decision

It was moved and seconded

That a Development Permit be issued which would:

1.

Permit the construction of multi-residential development consisting of four (4) high-rise building blocks and townhouses with a total square footage of approximately 65.479 m2 (704,820 ft²), which includes approximately 458 units (432 apartments units and 26 townhouses) at 6031 River Road on a site zoned “High Rise Apartment and Olympic Oval (ZMU4) – Oval Village (City Centre)”; and

2.

Vary the provisions of Richmond Zoning Bylaw 8500 to:

a)

reduce the minimum Public Road setback from 5.0 m to 3.0 m along Road “A”.

CARRIED

3.

Development Permit DP 09-472862
(File Ref. No.:  DP 09-472862)   (REDMS No. 2797354)

APPLICANT:

797460 B.C. LTD.

PROPERTY LOCATION:

9371 and 9411 Alexandra Road

INTENT OF PERMIT:

That a Development Permit be issued which would permit the construction of mixed-use residential/commercial development that consists of two – four-storey buildings to accommodate a 139 unit residential apartment complex which includes eight (8) affordable housing units and a 369m² commercial space at 9371 and 9411 Alexandra Road on a site zoned “Residential/Limited Commercial (ZMU16) – Alexandra Neighbourhood (West Cambie)”.

Applicant’s Comments

Marco Ciriello, Project Architect addressed the Panel and described the proposed development as a two building complex, with four levels, comprising 139 apartment units above one level of parking and a small commercial space, fronting onto Alexandra Road, in the West Cambie neighbourhood. At the rear of the site is the location of the future extension of Tomicki Avenue. The design approach was a combination of consideration of urban design and architecture.

Mr. Ciriello provided the following information regarding the proposed apartment complex:

·          

the entrance to the complex is through a drive aisle that resembles a cul-de-sac, a feature that (i) accommodates easy manoeuvring for vehicles, and (ii) a drop off area for passengers;

·          

there is a small retail component at street level, fronting Alexandra Road, with residential units above;

·          

visitor parking and commercial parking is located in a covered parkade under the complex;

·          

the central park area, where the two buildings meet, expresses the entrance that is announced by a glass canopy;

·          

the indoor amenity area is located on the ground level;

·          

the ground floor units feature large private patios with access to the outdoor amenity space in the central courtyard, as well as a private area defined by fences and buffered with generous landscaping;

·          

upper floor units feature ample balconies as private outdoor spaces;

·          

materials include brick finishing along the lower perimeter, with Hardi-board siding on upper levels;

·          

unit sizes range, with some featuring one bedroom, others with one bedroom plus den, two bedrooms plus den, and some units with three bedrooms; and

·          

there are 8 units secured for affordable housing.

Landscape Architect Jacqueline Lowe drew the Panel’s attention to the following landscaping details:

·          

the entry off Alexandra Road is distinguished through: (i) landscaping elements including planters, and (ii) a subtle grade change;

·          

a public art piece, a water feature, is located inside the complex;

·          

the common entry features a translucent glass canopy, and the paving pattern below reflects the canopy above;

·          

the outdoor amenity area is enhanced with a lot of sunlight, and features: (i) an open lawn space, (ii) a children’s play area, and (iii) landscape elements;

·          

the location of the indoor amenity space means safety and security through passive surveillance from surrounding units;

·          

bicycle parking is located in the underground parkade, with short-term bicycle racks on the ground level; and

·          

screening by planters and cascading vines create a temporary screen between this development and subsequent neighbourhood developments.

Staff Comments

Mr. Jackson stated that staff supports the Development Permit application. The project responds well to its unique conditions, and represents the beginning of the ‘high street’ in the West Cambie area. He advised that even though there is no development to the east and west of the subject site, the applicant’s proposed development represents a leap of faith in the developing area, and staff appreciates the applicant’s efforts in this regard.

Mr. Jackson added that staff supports the modern design and the mixed-use approach.

Panel Discussion

In response to queries from the Panel, the Mr. Ciriello and Ms. Lowe advised that:

·         

the children’s play space is located in the outdoor amenity area and consists of lawn space and seating places;

·         

the east and west walls of the parkade level would be finished with hanging vines to mitigate the visual impact of the walls; and

·         

the applicant’s intent is to construct the development in no more than one phase.

Correspondence

John Yun, 6711 Dunsany Place (Schedule 1)

Gallery Comments

John Yun, 6711 Dunsany Place, submitted: (i) correspondence dated February 6, 2010 (Schedule 1) and (ii) correspondence dated March 25, 2009 (on file in the City Clerk’s Office).

Mr. Yun advised that he was speaking on behalf of the owners of 9431 Alexandra Road (Yun Holding Ltd. and 0802262 BC LTD.), a property immediately to the east of the subject site. He stated that the proposed development affects future development along Alexandra Road. Mr. Yun’s two concerns were:

·          

he holds the defaulted mortgage of the current owner of 9431 Alexandra Road, a one acre lot, and, should the proposed development move ahead, the 9431 Alexandra Road lot would be ‘orphaned’ and not developed to its maximum potential; and

·          

he did not receive a City notice for the Public Hearing of July 20, 2009 during which the rezoning of 9371 and 9411 Alexandra Road was discussed by City Council, and there was a general lack of communication.

Mr. Jackson advised that he had spoken to Mr. Yun  at the rezoning stage and had offered advice with regard to the one-acre lot at 9431 Alexandra Road. Mr. Jackson stated that there is potential for 9431 Alexandra Road to be consolidated with property to the east of the subject site. The lot referred to by Mr. Yun, and the property to the east of the subject site, are designated for residential uses, and, if consolidated, the resulting larger lot could be developed. 

The Chair advised Mr. Yun that the one-acre lot at 9431 Alexandra Road is not ‘orphaned’ as properties to the east can be developed. He added that the applicant’s proposed project does not impact lots to the east, including the one at 9431 Alexandra Road.

Panel Decision

It was moved and seconded

That a Development Permit be issued which would permit the construction of mixed-use residential/commercial development that consists of two – four storey buildings to accommodate a 139 unit residential apartment complex which includes eight (8) affordable housing units and a 369m² commercial space at 9371 and 9411 Alexandra Road on a site zoned “Residential / Limited Commercial (ZMU16) – Alexandra Neighbourhood (West Cambie)”.

CARRIED

 4.

Development Permit DV 09-480570
(File Ref. No.:  DV 09-480570)   (REDMS No. 2786336)

APPLICANT:

Matthew Cheng Architect Inc.

PROPERTY LOCATION:

9700 No. 3 Road

INTENT OF PERMIT:

That a Development Variance Permit be issued which would vary the provisions of Richmond Zoning Bylaw 8500 to increase the maximum lot coverage for buildings in the Medium Density Townhouses (RTM1) zone from 40% to 44.55% and that the proposed changes to the architectural form and landscaping plans be considered in General Compliance with the approved Development Permit (DP 07-386208).

Applicant’s Comments

Matthew Cheng, Architect, sought permission from the Panel to vary the maximum lot coverage, to develop 20 townhouse units on the subject site, from 40% to 44.55%. Council had approved the applicant’s Development Permit on January 26, 2009, and building permits for the subject development had been issued in June, 2009. Subsequently, inaccuracies in the development plans and calculations had been brought to Mr. Cheng’s attention, and he admitted to having made the following mistakes:

·          

the original lot coverage of 39.99% on the Development Permit drawings was an error, and the final lot coverage should have been stated as 44.55%;

·          

porches, fireplaces, the electrical room and all other features equalled a 44.55% maximum lot coverage for buildings, equalling more than the allowable site coverage;

·          

he had not updated the data on the “lot coverage for buildings” when he made minor changes to the building design in the Development Permit stage; and

·          

the original plans indicate two (2) bylaw-sized trees are to be retained on site but these trees were removed subsequently due to the raise of site grade.

Mr. Cheng stated that he proposed to mitigate the impact of the requested increased lot coverage of buildings by: (i) providing additional permeable paving on the internal drive aisle, and (ii) upsizing the planting materials along No. 3 Road.

Regarding specifics of the landscaping plan, Mr. Cheng advised that the landscape architect had attempted to find space on the site for replacement trees, but that the site is crowded and the revised landscape design includes 61 new trees, 17 short of the required trees.

Mr. Chen noted that the revised landscape design includes a proposal to provide cash-in-lieu for the balance of the required replacement trees. He added that the landscape architect has increased the sizes of planting materials within the landscaping area along No. 3 Road.

Staff Comments

Mr. Jackson stated that: (i) Planning staff discovered the applicant’s inaccuracies in the applicant’s original plans during the General Compliance review; and (ii) Planning staff had communicated to the applicant their displeasure regarding the inaccurate plans.

Mr. Jackson noted that the applicant has proposed: (i) additional permeable paving on site, and (ii) cash-in-lieu for the balance of the required replacement trees.

In response to a query from the Chair, Mr. Jackson advised that the site’s previous owner had removed two trees after having received a tree removal permit from the City. He added that the trees had to be removed due to the increase in site grade in accordance with the Flood Plain Designation and Protection Bylaw.

Panel Discussion

The Chair stated that he was not pleased with the inaccuracy of the information associated with the original application, and that his confidence in the architect had been shaken. He remarked that the project before the Panel was not the applicant’s only project that suffered from lack of attention to detail. The Chair stressed that it was the applicant’s responsibility, not the Panel’s nor staff’s, to ensure the accuracy of the applicant’s plans. The Chair remarked that, if this happened again, it would not be out of the question for the Panel to seek an independent, third party to review the architect’s plans to confirm accuracy of the plans and calculations.

Correspondence

Michael Chung, 8031 Williams Road (Schedule 2)

Gallery Comments

Ross Lumb, 9811 Pigott Road, addressed the Panel and advised that he was speaking on behalf of approximately six other neighbours who reside in single-family homes fronting Pigott Road, to the east of the subject site.

Mr. Lumb stated the following concerns: (i) there had been very little consultation with neighbours regarding the development; (ii) the removal of the two bylaw-sized trees seemed to make a mockery of the City’s tree bylaw; (iii) the smaller variety of trees planned for the site are much smaller than the trees formerly on the site; (iv) the requested variance appeared to push the proposed townhouses closer to No. 3 Road; and (v) the development plans did not appear to include viable visitor parking spots, and overflow vehicles would not be able to park on No. 3 Road.

Mr. Lumb stated that the neighbours’ desire is to see larger trees on the site to provide a buffer between the single-family homes to the east and the subject site.

The Chair and Mr. Jackson addressed the following issues raised by Mr. Lumb and provided the following advice:

(i)

Parking: the applicant is providing two parking spaces per townhouse unit, and this exceeds the bylaw requirements; and

(ii)

Trees:  the two bylaw-size trees had to be removed due to the increase in site grade in accordance with the Flood Plain Designation and Protection Bylaw; staff supports the idea that large trees could replace the removed trees along the south property line, but a sewer service line at that location of the subject site precludes the planting of large replacement trees. There may be other locations for tree planting on the site.

A brief discussion ensued between the Panel and staff, and the following information was provided:

·         

the two (2) existing trees that were designated for retention and subsequently removed from the site were located at the south end of the proposed drive aisle; the other trees that were removed from the site were identified for removal during the Rezoning and Development Permit stages;

·         

the landscape plan provides for a variety of shrubs as well as a six foot fence at the rear right-of-way, to screen the subject site from the neighbouring residential lots;

·         

the existing cedar hedge at the north end of the site may have been removed;

·         

the change in the sit grade requires a total of 39 bylaw-sized trees be removed; and

·         

the size of replacement trees or large shrubs that can occur in the sewer right-of-way is unknown at this time.

Panel Discussion

A suggestion was made by the Chair that the application be sent back to staff given the concerns of the neighbours regarding trees that were to be retained, and screening in the back yards.

There was general agreement on the part of the Panel that the application warranted further scrutiny and for this reason should be referred back to staff for further review of the plan’s landscaping components.

Mr. Jackson advised the Panel that the review could take place in a timely fashion, and furthermore, that the Chair could call a Special Development Permit Panel meeting to assess the applicant’s Development Variance application 09-480570 should the matter be resolved earlier than the next scheduled meeting.

Panel Decision

It was moved and seconded

That Matthew Cheng Architect Inc.’s Development Variance Permit Application (DV 09-480570) be referred back to staff for further discussion regarding modifications to the landscape design, and brought forward to either (i) the March 10, 2010 Development Permit Panel meeting, or (ii) a Special Development Permit Panel meeting, time permitting.

CARRIED

5.

New Business

None.

6.

Date Of Next Meeting: Wednesday, March 10, 2010

7.

Adjournment

It was moved and seconded

That the meeting be adjourned at 5:12 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, February 10, 2010.

_________________________________

_________________________________

Joe Erceg

Chair

Sheila Johnston

Committee Clerk