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 3:30 p.m.

1.

Minutes

It was moved and seconded

That the minutes of the meeting of the Development Permit Panel held on Wednesday, May 12, 2010, be adopted.

CARRIED

2.

Development Permit 06-350001
(File Ref. No.:  06-350001)   (REDMS No. 2773096)

APPLICANT:

Matthew Cheng Architect Inc.

PROPERTY LOCATION:

9631, 9651 and 9671 No. 4 Road

INTENT OF PERMIT:

1.

To permit the construction of 12 townhouse units at 9631, 9651 and 9671 No.4 Road on a site zoned Low Density Townhouse (RTL3); and

2.

To vary the provisions of Richmond Zoning Bylaw 8500 to:

a)

reduce the north side yard setback from 3.0 m (9.84 ft.) to 2.31 m (7.59 ft.) for a single storey electrical closet attached to the building;

b)

reduce the south side yard setback from 3.0 m (9.84 ft.) to 2.36 m (8.35 ft.) for a single storey electrical closet attached to the building; and

c)

allow tandem parking spaces in four (4) of the 12 townhouse units.

Applicant’s Comments

Matthew Cheng, Matthew Cheng Architect Inc., provided an overview of the proposed 12 townhouse units located on No. 4 Road, north of Williams Road, and drew the Panel’s attention to the following details:

·          

eight townhouse units front No. 4 Road, with four units located at the rear of the lot;

·          

the proposed townhouse development is the first of its kind in the single-family neighbourhood and for that reason the applicant carefully considered the massing which would transition from three stories, and step down to two stories at the side and rear edges; 

·          

expectations are that adjacent properties to the north and south will be redeveloped with duplexes in the future;

·          

after analysis, the applicant found that two four unit townhouse blocks fronting No. 4 Road is the most appropriate scale for the neighbourhood;

·          

since the development was presented to the Advisory Design Panel, the applicant has redesigned the roof form to feature a simple hip roof;

·          

an earlier iteration of the units’ entrances was replaced by the current design featuring a single gable roof porch for separate entries; and

·          

the hip roof for the townhouse blocks presents a smaller massing.

David Rose, Landscape Architect, PD Group Landscaping Architecture Ltd., described the proposed landscape scheme, and in particular:

·          

street trees along No. 4 Road contribute to the streetscape elevation;

·          

pilasters, with railings and gates between, formalize the streetscape;

·          

there are some trees framing the units’ back yards, but limitations to planting are relative to the statutory Right-of-Way (ROW) at the rear of the property;

·          

the amenity area is situated in a central open courtyard; and

·          

a screen obscures the Hydro transformer situated at the southeast corner.

Panel Discussion

Discussion ensued among the Chair and Mr. Cheng and Mr. Rose. In response to the Chair’s queries, the applicants provided the following advice:

·          

privacy is provided for residents of single-family homes facing the rear townhouse units by privacy fencing and a continuous hedge at the back fence line that will grow to approximately six feet in height;

·          

the rear townhouse units have a minimum 4.5 metre rear yard setback; and

·          

the ground floor of the rear townhouse units features a master bedroom, with two bedrooms and main living areas on the second floor.

Staff Comments

Brian J. Jackson, Director of Development stated that staff supports the Development Permit application and the variances. He reported that unlike typical narrow townhouse units, the applicant proposes rear townhouse units that feature a wide layout. This design is conducive to a master bedroom on the ground level, main living areas and two bedrooms on the second level.

Mr. Jackson advised that the townhouse units’ 4.5 metre rear yard setback is typical, and that the single family homes to the west of the proposed townhouse units are also generously setback from their property line, thereby ensuring privacy for all. 

He reported that two single storey electrical closets are planned for the development, but that the requested variance to reduce the north side yard setback from 3.0 metres to 2.31 metres was for the electrical closet attached to the building at the ground level.

Mr. Jackson noted that permeable pavers are proposed on over 30% of the hard surface onsite, to encourage a reduction in rainwater run off.

Mr. Jackson concluded his remarks with the information that two convertible units have been incorporated into the architect’s design.

Panel Discussion

In response to queries from the Panel, the applicant’s advised that:

·          

the townhouse units fronting No. 4 Road enjoy a six metre deep front yard that spans the width of the unit;

·          

on-site screening measures between the proposed development and the single-family homes to the north of the site include privacy fencing, an existing hedge, some new plants along the north edge, as well as a large existing tree at the northwest corner;

·          

the children’s play house proposed in the outdoor amenity area would appeal to children from ages two to six years; a bench is available for parents; low planting is proposed along the edge of the play area to promote visibility; and

·          

a mature cedar tree is to be removed as it is located too close to a rear unit, and is atop the statutory ROW; to compensate for the loss, a new specimen cedar tree is to be planted in the amenity area.

A brief discussion ensued between the Chair and Mr. Cheng about whether the removal of the mature cedar tree could have been avoided if the building’s footprint had been designed differently. Mr. Cheng advised that removal could not have been avoided.

Gallery Comments

Mildred Sealy, 9691 No. 4 Road, stated that she lives at the corner of No. 4 Road and Saunders, to the north of the subject site, immediately adjacent to the proposed development. In response to her questions regarding: (i) the impact of the townhouse development on her property given the proximity of the development, and (ii) would the electrical closets on site create noise and would there be a noise level increase when the townhouse units were occupied and the number of vehicles accessing the site increases, Mr. Jackson advised that:

(i)

the single-family home setback, and the townhouse unit setback provide a generous space between the structures; had a single-family residence been proposed for the lot adjacent to the Sealy home, the setback would not have been as wide as that provided by the townhouse unit type of development; and

(ii)

the electrical closets, one at the north end and one at the south end of the site, will not be noisy, and landscaping elements will provide visual cover for the closets; it is not a given that more noise would be created when the townhouse units are occupied.

Mr. Cheng added that there was no proposal to change the fencing that presently separates the Sealy home from the subject site, and furthermore, the wall of the townhouse unit that faces the Sealy home does not feature a large window.

A suggestion was made that after the Panel meeting was adjourned, the applicant should meet with Ms. Sealy to further explain the buffer between the two lots.

The Chair noted that a Public Hearing for the rezoning 9631 and 9651 No. 4 Road was held on February 21, 2005, and that a second Public Hearing for the rezoning of 9671 No. 4 Road was held on October 19, 2009, and that no concerns regarding the rezoning applications were expressed at either of the Public Hearings.

In response to a query from the Chair, Mr. Rose advised that a new fence, six feet in height, as well as a significant amount of planting, is planned along the property line that separates the Sealy home from the closest townhouse unit.

Lindsay Warner, 9831 Bakerview Drive, advised that she lives to the west of the subject site and asked if: (i) the existing fence on the property line would be removed, and (ii) the property line would be moved.

The Chair advised that if the existing fence is within their property, it should not be moved. Mr. Rose added that if the fence requires replacement, a new section of fence would be put in.

Correspondence

None.

Panel Decision

It was moved and seconded

That a Development Permit be issued which would:

1.

permit the construction of 12 townhouse units at 9631, 9651 and 9671 No.4 Road on a site zoned Low Density Townhouse (RTL3); and

2.

vary the provisions of Richmond Zoning Bylaw 8500 to:

a)

reduce the north side yard setback from 3.0 m (9.84 ft.) to 2.31 m (7.59 ft.) for a single storey electrical closet attached to the building;

b)

reduce the south side yard setback from 3.0 m (9.84 ft.) to 2.36 m (8.35 ft.) for a single storey electrical closet attached to the building; and

c)

allow tandem parking spaces in four (4) of the 12 townhouse units.

CARRIED

3.

New Business

None.

4.

Date Of Next Meeting: Wednesday, June 16, 2010

5.

Adjournment

It was moved and seconded

That the meeting be adjourned at 4:04 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, May 26, 2010.

_________________________________

_________________________________

Joe Erceg

Chair

Sheila Johnston

Committee Clerk