Time:

3:30 p.m.

Place:

Council Chambers

Richmond City Hall

Present:

Joe Erceg, Chair

Robert Gonzalez, General Manager, Engineering and Public Works

Dave Semple, General Manager, Parks and Recreation

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, September 29, 2010, be adopted.

CARRIED

2.

Development Permit DP 07-363924
(File Ref. No.:  DP 07-363924)   (REDMS No. 2938462)

APPLICANT:

Matthew Cheng Architect Inc.

PROPERTY LOCATION:

7411 and 7431 Moffatt Road

INTENT OF PERMIT:

1.

Permit the construction of 12 townhouse units at 7411 and 7431 Moffatt Road on a site zoned High Density Townhouse (RTH4); and

2.

Vary the provisions of Richmond Zoning Bylaw 8500 to:

a)

reduce the south side yard setback from 2.0 m to 1.36 m for a single-storey electrical closet attached to the building; and

b)

allow a total of 24 tandem parking spaces in 12 townhouse units.

Applicant’s Comments

Matthew Cheng, Matthew Cheng Architect Inc., advised that the landscape architect for the project was on her way, but was running late.

The Chair advised that it was the applicant’s responsibility to ensure that his whole team was present when the meeting was called to order at 3:30 p.m., and requested that the applicant telephone the landscape architect to determine her estimated time of arrival.

When Patricia Campbell of DMG Landscape Architects arrived at 3:40 p.m. Mr. Cheng provided details regarding the proposed development of 12 townhouse units on Moffatt Road in the City Centre.

Mr. Cheng stated that after the project was reviewed by the Advisory Design Panel the applicant incorporated the Panel’s suggested changes into the design plan.

In response to a query from the Chair, Mr. Cheng confirmed that the changes to the design plan were made after the July 19, 2010 Public Hearing for the rezoning of the subject site.

Mr. Cheng then provided the following information regarding the proposed development:

·          

three-storey townhouse units are proposed in two six-plex clusters;

·          

one six-plex fronts Moffatt Road and the other six-plex fronts the short internal drive aisle;

·          

the short internal drive aisle provides access to the site from Moffatt Road, and a north-south drive aisle provides access to the unit garages;

·          

the outdoor amenity area is located at the entry point in order to create a vocal point upon entering the subject site;

·          

an adjacent property, to the north, has redevelopment potential, and in the future the amenity area of the current proposal could be enlarged, and merged, with the outdoor amenity area of the future development to the north;

·          

each unit has a private outdoor space, consisting of either a front or rear yard, with balconies on the second floor;

·          

the grades surrounding the retention trees will reduce the impact of fill on the trees;

·          

articulated building forms include visual interest such as gable roofs and bay windows;

·          

pedestrian scale is provided at the ground level along the public street;

·          

proposed building materials include hardie shingle siding and hardie-plank siding, with culture stone features to articulate the facades facing Moffatt Road;

·          

a secondary stair is provided to all units at the back for direct access to the back yard from the living area;

·          

the granting of the first requested variance was a result of an additional 2.5 metre setback from the north property line for tree preservation; and

·          

the granting of the second requested variance would provide tandem parking.

In response to the Chair’s queries, Mr. Cheng provided the following information:

·          

the convertible unit is located beside the handicapped visitor parking stall;

·          

the colour palette includes a range of earth tones, contrasting trims, and culture stone surfaced column; and

·          

two lots to the south of the subject site is a townhouse development, featuring two-storey units in the front, and three-storey units at the rear.

Patricia Campbell, DMG Landscape Architects, provided the following information:

·          

24 replacement trees will be planted to replace the trees to be removed due to poor condition, or conflict with site plans;

·          

a Douglas Fir on the front yard is to be preserved on site;

·          

four London Plane trees on the adjacent property to the south are to be retained, and two other trees on the adjacent property to the north, are to be protected;

·          

a mix of tree species and ornament plants are included in the landscaping plan;

·          

each townhouse unit has its own private yard with a patio and a tree provided;

·          

the play area is planned so that this development, and a future development to the north, can share a common play space; and

·          

a low fence in the amenity area is provided to add protection to the landscaping and to define the area.

Panel Discussion

Discussion ensued between the Panel and the applicant, and the following details were provided:

·          

the amenity space for this development will include play equipment for children aged 2 through 5, including a see-saw, with other play pieces added when a future development to the north is completed;

·          

this development includes a social area with benches, and an access path; and

·          

three visitor parking spaces are provided throughout the site, including one handicap accessible parking space located at the cross access at the north end of the subject site.

In response to a query regarding the configuration of, and space available for, garbage trucks and emergency vehicles to turn around in the drive aisle, Brian J. Jackson, Director of Development, advised that large vehicles can access the site, and the parking space meets the bylaw requirement.

In response to queries regarding the handicap accessible and visitor parking spaces, related to the size of the spaces as well as the presence of the trees surrounding the spaces, Mr. Jackson advised that:

·          

the spaces are standard and meet the bylaw requirements; and

·          

an arborist report from 2006 stated that at that time the trees on the adjacent site can be retained and would remain in place.

The Chair noted that two visitor parking spaces encroach into the dripline of some of the London Plane trees to be retained on the adjacent property. He queried whether the applicant had an arborist examining the situation, to ensure the health of the trees is not jeopardized.

Mr. Cheng advised that his client was in the process of having an arboritst look at the proposed site design.

The Chair stated that in the Panel’s recent experience, applicants had retained trees near planned patios, and the dripline issue had become problematic. He queried whether a retaining wall would also be constructed within the dripline.

The landscape architect advised that the existing retaining wall along the west and south property lines on the adjacent property would remain in place. 

Staff Comments

Mr. Jackson stated that staff supports the application and the two variances. He noted that the electric closet at the south of the site is adjacent to an existing driveway that accesses the property to the south. Trees to the south are located in the drive aisle and there is more parking to the south, in between the trees.

Mr. Jackson stated that the applicant had hired an arborist in 2006 to examine the trees and had recommended that two are in good condition, and that two others are not in good condition.

Mr. Jackson noted that the trees located in the midst of the existing parking stalls are to the south of the subject site. He added that prior to final approval of the development permit, the applicant has to hire an arborist and must indicate the tree protection plan.

In response to queries from the Panel, Mr. Jackson advised that if the applicant’s arborist submits a report that states that the construction phase places tree health in jeopardy, staff would recommend to the applicant that he bring the application back to the Development Permit Panel for its approval of the alternative landscaping plan.

Correspondence

Leonore Haudin, 126-7297 Moffatt Road (Schedule 1)

Mr. Jackson advised that Ms. Haudin resides immediately to the north of the subject site and that she expressed concern regarding: (i) the number of parking spaces per townhouse unit; (ii) if any resident of the proposed development have more than two vehicles, where would park the extra vehicles; and (iii) exiting Moffatt Road.

In response to a query from the Chair Mr. Jackson advised that all the concerns raised by the correspondent had been examined by Transportation staff, and that in his memo on the matter, Victor Wei, Director of Transportation, stated that the 27 parking spaces in the subject site plans exceed the bylaw requirements.

Tony Thomas, 224-7453 Moffatt Road (Schedule 2)

Mr. Jackson stated that Mr. Thomas had expressed the concern that residents could convert a tandem parking space into extra habitable rooms, or storage space.

Mr. Jackson advised that a restrictive covenant is in place to prevent this from occurring. He added that after the construction of developments, if neighbours complain to the City about parking stalls being enclosed, staff then investigates the alleged use of parking spaces for residential or storage purposes.

Elizabeth Tan, 4-7420 Moffatt Road (Schedule 3)

Mr. Jackson noted that Ms. Tan expressed concern with the small proposed side yard setback, and stated that he was not sure that her concern relates only to the electrical closet.

Mr. Jackson also noted that Ms. Tan’s other concern was related to the total number of tandem parking spaces on the subject site. He advised that each townhouse unit has two dedicated tandem spaces, and that the planning model for the City Centre is that two spaces per lower, or upper, unit is acceptable.

Gallery Comments

None.

Panel Discussion

Discussion ensued with regard to the status of the four London Plane trees on the adjacent property to the south that are to be retained.

Comments were made that:

·          

the Panel wanted to hear from an arborist regarding the health and hardiness of the trees;

·          

the advantage of the applicant’s original site plan was that parking spaces would not encroach into the driplines of existing trees;

·          

feasibility of parking spaces between two trees should be explored by an arborist; and

·          

the applicant’s landscape survey indicates that trees are close to the property lines and are at different grades; an arborist’s report could clarify the location of the tree’s limbs.

There was general agreement that the application should be referred back to staff, and should come back to the Panel for further consideration, after an arborist has submitted an up-to-date report.

Panel Decision

It was moved and seconded

That Development Permit application 07-363924 be deferred to the next Development Permit Panel meeting, scheduled for Wednesday, October 27, 2010 at 3:30 p.m. in the Council Chambers at Richmond City Hall, for the purpose of further exploration of tree retention, and the submission by the applicant of an Arborist’s Report.

CARRIED

3.

Development Permit 09-494270
(File Ref. No.:  DP 09-494270)   (REDMS No. 2974081)

APPLICANT:

Matthew Cheng Architect Inc.

PROPERTY LOCATION:

8091 and 8131 No. 2 Road

INTENT OF PERMIT:

1.

To permit the construction of a 10-unit townhouse complex at 8091 and 8131 No. 2 Road on a site zoned “Medium Density Townhouses (RTM3)”; and

2.

To vary the provisions of Richmond Zoning Bylaw 8500 to:

a)

reduce the front yard setback from 6.0 m to 4.5 m;

b)

reduce the lot coverage for landscaping with live plant material from 30% to 22%;

c)

increase the lot coverage for buildings from 40% to 43%; and

d)

permit 12 tandem parking spaces.

Applicant’s Comments

Patricia Campbell, DMG Landscape Architects, advised that after the September 29, 2010 meeting of the Development Permit Panel, the landscaping plan has been changed to provide more landscaping elements on the subject site. She provided the following additional details:

·          

small patios serve as a yard for each townhouse unit;

·          

the amenity area features landscaping on the south side of the project, along No. 2 Road, including small trees;

·          

the  play area includes a seating/social area;

·          

the parking stall near the outdoor amenity/play area is near the handicap parking stall; and

·          

the maximized landscaping includes four more trees added to the site plan.

Staff Comments

Mr. Jackson advised that:

·          

the applicant has slightly shifted the site plan to allow a 2 foot x 11 inch planting strip along the north end of the driveway;

·          

the applicant has found another small portion of the site to qualify as soft landscaping; and

·          

the applicant has increased the landscaped area from 22% to 25%, so that the variance sought is reduced.

A brief discussion ensued between the Chair and Mr. Jackson, and the following advice was provided:

·          

the 30% coverage for live plant material came forward in the City’s new Zoning Bylaw No. 8500, and in the earlier Zoning Bylaw No. 5300 there was no live plant material requirement, so on small sites, applicants are doing everything they can to fulfill the new 30% requirement; and

·          

staff will monitor the situation and if it is difficult for applicants to achieve 30% coverage on small sites, a housekeeping amendment to the Zoning Bylaw might be in order in the future.

In response to a query from the Chair, Mr. Jackson advised that the inclusion of one visitor parking stall and one handicap parking stall meets the requirements of the Bylaw.

Correspondence

None.

Gallery Comments

None.

Panel Decision

It was moved and seconded

1.

That a Development Permit be issued which would permit the construction of a 10-unit townhouse complex at 8091 and 8131 No. 2 Road on a site zoned “Medium Density Townhouses (RTM3)”; and

2.

To vary the provisions of Richmond Zoning Bylaw 8500 to:

a)

reduce the front yard setback from 6.0 m to 4.5 m;

b)

reduce the lot coverage for landscaping with live plant material from 30% to 25%;

c)

increase the lot coverage for buildings from 40% to 43%; and

d)

permit 12 tandem parking spaces.

CARRIED

4.

New Business

None.

5.

Date Of Next Meeting: Wednesday, October 27, 2010

6.

Adjournment

It was moved and seconded

That the meeting be adjourned at 4:20  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, October 13, 2010.

_________________________________

_________________________________

Joe Erceg

Chair

Sheila Johnston

Committee Clerk