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, January 26, 2011, be adopted.

CARRIED

2.

Development Permit 08-432193
(File Ref. No.:  DP 08-432193)   (REDMS No. 2592297)

APPLICANT:

Interface Architecture Inc.

PROPERTY LOCATION:

12351 No 2 Road

INTENT OF PERMIT:

Permit the construction of a 44-unit townhouse development at 12351 No. 2 Road on a site zoned “Town Housing (ZT48) - Trites Area (Steveston) and South McLennan (City Centre)”.

Applicant’s Comments

John Lo, Interface Architecture Inc., advised that the architect for the proposed 44-unit townhouse development was unable to attend the meeting, but that he would make a brief presentation and then respond to the Panel’s queries. Mr. Lo introduced Masa Ito, Landscape Architect for the project, and then made the following remarks:

·          

the proposed 44-unit townhouse development is at 12351 No. 2 Road, south of Moncton Street, on a site rezoned from “Light Industrial” to “Town Housing”;

·          

the rezoning application was made in 2007, but due to the economic slowdown in 2008, the original design of 39 townhouse units was increased to 44 townhouse units;

·          

the site’s long, rectangular shape presented a challenge; and

·          

to the west and to the south of the subject site are industrial properties; to the east across No. 2 Road, is farmland in the Agriculture Land Reserve, and to the north is a 54-unit townhouse development;

In response to the Chair’s query regarding the whereabouts of the project’s architect, Mr. Lo advised that he was out of town.

Mr. Ito made the following comments regarding the landscape and open space design:

·          

the No. 2 Road frontage is enhanced with landscaped front yards, and a mixture of evergreen and deciduous tree planting;

·          

on the east perimeter of the subject site Agricultural Land Reserve (ALR) buffer standards were followed in the landscape design elements;

·          

the interfaces to the industrial properties to the south and west include a pedestrian corridor, with landscape treatments;

·          

a low picket fence surrounding the play equipment area defines the open streetscape within the subject site, and leads to the common area cited in the centre of the proposed development.

·          

the common area is where residents can congregate, and includes both a seating area and a children’s play area; and

·          

landscape elements include flowering plants, a colonnade of shade trees, and seasonal flowers.

Panel Discussion

Discussion ensued with regard to the pedestrian corridor, and advice was offered that: (i) it would be lit, but the lighting would not interfere with residents’ living quarters; (ii) at present it measures three metres in width, but at a later date it would be increased to six metres; (iii) a chain link fence will run along the south and west sides of the walkway.

With regard to the potential of future development in the area, Mr. Lo advised that the area plan allowed the industrial buildings to be demolished at some later date, and that multi-family residential buildings could take their place.

In response to a query, advice was given regarding the following details of the outdoor amenity space: (i) there were seating areas for use by residents who choose to garden; and (ii) children’s play equipment as well as an open, grassy play area is available.

In response to the Chair’s query regarding the buffer area between the ALR land and the subject site, Mr. Ito advised that the AAC’s request for a hedge to prevent dust had been met in the landscape scheme.

In addition, Mr. Ito stated that: (i) with regard to the No. 2 Road frontage, improvements include a Scarlet Oak tree;  (ii) a Cherry tree was a feature of the front yard; and (iii) a Cedar hedge, measuring five feet in height, will also be a feature of the property.

Staff Comments

Wayne Craig, Program Coordinator Development, advised that staff supports: (i) the application; (ii) the ALR buffer scheme, for the six metre front yard setback along the eastern perimeter of the subject site; and (iii) the three metre public walkway along the south, and west edges, of the development site.

Mr. Craig stated that there is coordinated access between the subject site, and the site to the north where there is a 54-unit townhouse development, for emergency vehicles.

In conclusion Mr. Craig remarked that the proposed development includes two convertible units, and that all other units include aging in place features, including handrails, lever handles and blocking in washroom walls for future grab bar installation.

In response to the Chair’s query regarding the noise issue, Mr. Craig advised that a professional acoustical engineer had undertaken a study, including noise measurements, to investigate sound issues and had specified design and construction of the proposed dwelling units to meet standards specified by CMHC. He added that to mitigate noise from adjacent industrial properties south facing residential unit bedrooms would be fitted with additional drywall material, and additional glazing, in addition to mechanical ventilation with temperature control devices that would ensure comfortable living, with windows shut during summer months.

The Chair noted that to ensure mitigation of industrial noise potential indoors doors and windows in the proposed townhouse units would need to be closed. He further noted that the City is moving toward a new Noise Regulation Bylaw, one that features decibel frequencies identified as dBA and dBC, and queried if the acoustical work done on the application related to the draft Bylaw.

Mr. Craig advised that the draft Noise Regulation Bylaw had not been applied to the Interface Architecture Inc. application.

The Chair invited the applicant’s acoustical engineer, Aaron Peterson of Brown, Strachan Associates to address the Panel.

In response to the Chair’s queries Mr. Peterson advised that:

·          

during the acoustical study of the proposed townhouse units the existing noise bylaw maximum theoretical levels of noise had been applied, assuming multiple noise sources, and this design noise level exceeds the maximum dBA and dBC noise levels permitted in the City’s draft Noise Regulation Bylaw;

·          

the noise level standards adopted for the inside of the proposed townhouse units are lower than the noise levels permitted in the City’s draft Noise Regulation Bylaw;

·          

the acoustic study design noise level of 69 dBA, or roughly 75 dBC, took into account the 65 dBA daytime noise level in the City’s existing Noise Regulation Bylaw, as well as the potential for multiple industrial units, and this equation was used as the project’s design level, which was higher than those outlined in the City’s draft Noise Regulation Bylaw;

·          

during the acoustic study both “intermediate zone” and “quiet zone” noise levels were applied at the maximum level outlined in the City’s Noise Regulation Bylaw; and

·          

the dBA and dBC noise frequencies and levels outlined in the City’s draft Noise Regulation Bylaw depends on zoning, and the project would still meet the draft Noise Regulation noise levels and the interior noise level standards as set out by the Canadian Municipal Housing Corporation.  

Panel Discussion

In response to a query directed at staff regarding how the ALR buffer scheme, for the six metre front yard setback along the eastern perimeter of the subject site, compares with similar sites in the City, where a development is adjacent to ALR land, Mr. Craig advised that this proposed development’s treatment is consistent with others in the vicinity.

In response to a query directed at the applicant, Mr. Lo advised that the mechanical ventilation provided in the bedrooms of the proposed townhouses would eliminate the need to open the windows.

Gallery Comments

Steve Pecarsky, Vice President, True World Foods Inc., 12417 No. 2 Road, submitted a drawing (attached to these Minutes as Schedule 1) to illustrate the proximity of the proposed townhouse units to the industrial properties.

Mr. Pecarsky commented that townhouse units that currently occupy addresses along Andrews Road are very close to industrial buildings and that noise travels easily from the industrial buildings into the Andrews Road townhouse units. He commented that the proposed townhouse units should be situated as far from the adjacent industrial buildings as possible, to allow the sound to dissipate as it travelled between industrial and residential buildings.

Mr. Pecarsky stated that with True World Foods equipment shut down, the company had measured a 40-decibel noise level.

The Chair noted that:

·          

a three metre public walkway along the south and west edges of the development site ensured that the proposed townhouse units would be further from the industrial buildings, than the Andrews Road townhouse units are from the industrial buildings; 

·          

measures that go beyond any measures taken in older projects will be applied that attenuate noise, such as improved windows, construction techniques to deaden sound; and

·          

the City does not want to create a situation of conflict, where this proposed project is concerned, especially in light of the draft Noise Regulation Bylaw.

Mr. Yuzawa, President of True World Foods clarified comments made by Mr. Lo, with regard to envisioned redevelopment of industrial properties fronting onto Trites Road, and stated that he did not foresee any redevelopment in the near future. He stated that his company has invested heavily in equipment, and that he saw True World Foods at its present location, even for the next twenty-five years.

Mr. Yuzawa stated that the City has to consider both business and residential structures when it considers rezoning issues, and that it is everyone’s desire to enjoy peace.

The Chair noted that the Panel’s mandate extends to consideration of the design and layout of proposed developments, but does not extend to questions of zoning. He recognized that the interface of residential and industrial sites in the neighbourhood where True World Foods conducts its business has had its issues and challenges.

The Chair went on to say that he believes the industrial site at 12417 No. 2 Road will be there for some time, and for the applicant to suggest otherwise was not necessarily the case. For this reason the Panel had to consider the impact of noise transmission.

Correspondence

None.

Panel Discussion

The Chair stated that:

·          

the applicant, the architect and the acoustic engineer have paid attention to noise issues with regard to the proposed townhouse development on a site that was formerly used for industrial activities, but he noted that the architect was not in attendance at the meeting; and

·          

there was no written material in the application package from the acoustic engineer, Community Bylaws Department, or Health Department confirming compliance with City’s draft Noise Regulation Bylaw, and for this reason he suggested that the Development Permit 08-432193 be deferred.

There was general agreement that deferring Development Permit 08-432193 was an acceptable action.

The Panel also requested information from a mechanical engineer that mechanical ventilation meant that there was no requirement to have the proposed townhouse unit windows open in summer months.

Panel Decision

It was moved and seconded

That Development Permit 08-432193 for 12351 No. 2 Road be:

(i)

deferred to provide an opportunity for staff to submit (a) a written brief to the Development Permit Panel regarding the compliance of the project with the City’s new Noise Regulation Bylaw, and (b) a statement from a mechanical engineer ensuring that mechanical ventilation meant no requirement to have the proposed townhouse unit windows open in summer months; and

(ii)

be an agenda item at the Wednesday, March 2, 2011 meeting of the Development Permit Panel, to take place in the Council Chambers, Richmond City Hall, 6911 No. 3 Road.

CARRIED

3.

Development Variance DV 10-542375
(File Ref. No.:  DV 10-542375) (REDMS No. 2974416)

APPLICANT:

Provincial Rental Housing Corporation

PROPERTY LOCATION:

8180 Ash Street

INTENT OF PERMIT:

1.

Vary the minimum lot width from 12 m to 8.3 m for proposed Lot 5; and

2.

Vary the minimum lot frontage from 6 m to 0.38 m for proposed Lot 4, to 2.7 m for proposed Lot 5 and to 0.60 m for proposed Lot 6 to:

a)

to permit subdivision of 8180 Ash Street into six (6) lots zoned “Single Detached (RS1/B)” for the purpose of developing affordable single-family dwellings. 

Applicant’s Comments

Declan Rooney, Engineering Consultant, advised that he was accompanied by Naomi Brunemeyer, Manager, Regional Development, B.C. Housing Management Commission He noted that the was unable to attend the meeting, but that Andrea Rubee was in attendance to represent the architect.

Mr. Rooney advised that:

·          

the request for variances is to permit the subdivision of 8180 Ash Street into six lots for six separate single-family dwellings to allow: (i) greater affordability; (ii) reduced land values, and (iii) reduced servicing costs;

·          

the request to vary the lot frontage is due to the constrained frontage on property on Dayton Court;

·          

a common driveway access is proposed to service lots 4, 5, and 6, and is contained within the common access easement, and statutory right-of-way; and

·          

The architect has designed a variety of floor plans, and each of these requires no setback variances.

Ms. Brunemeyer provided background information related to: (i) the Provincial Rental Housing Corporation’s (PRHC) regulations and housing options; (ii) the maintenance of affordable housing units and the impact of cost of living; (iii) the affordability of the project; and (iv) the rationale for the subdivision of the site into six lots. In particular she mentioned that:

·          

this project is a PRHC pilot project, and the first where the land is owned by the Provincial Rental Housing Corporation

·          

the PRHC home ownership program is relevant to the proposed development project;

·          

the location is ideal for affordable home ownership; and

·          

the target population is first time homeowners, with a low to moderate income, estimated at approximately $61,000 per year.

Staff Comments

Mr. Craig reported that staff supports the proposed variances and that the requested variances provide sufficient frontage for the proposed subdivided lots.

Panel Discussion

The discussion centred the driveway access to the proposed new lots. The Panel expressed reservations regarding: (i) the length of the driveway; (ii) the safety factor involved when residents back up the length of the driveway to access the cul-de-sac; and (iii) the narrow width of the proposed driveways. A further concern was raised with regard to the surface of the emergency lane, and why it was shown as being paved.

Advice was given that the City’s Transportation staff had reviewed the driveway access, and had accepted the applicant’s plan, but that Richmond Fire Rescue had not been asked to review the emergency lane.

The Chair noted that a scenario could arise whereby three vehicles belonging to residents of three homes, as well as three vehicles belonging to occupants of the homes’ secondary suites, might be in the driveway at the same time, with some driving in, while others would be attempting to reverse out. He queried whether any other schemes for driveway access had been examined.

Ms. Brunemeyer advised that to date the details had not been worked out, but that PRHC was prepared to investigate alternative scenarios, and to examine the feasibility of widening the driveway.

The Panel further noted that access by pedestrians would also be an issue, if the driveway scheme was not altered, and that an alternative scheme should be proposed to manage the vehicle/pedestrian interface.

Ms. Brunemeyer advised that PRHC was prepared to examine this issue.

The Chair remarked that the despite a double drive way design for the lot at the east end of the subject site, it presented a tight spot for any emergency vehicle access, and he suggested that this driveway could be designed in a different manner.

In response to the Chair’s remarks, advice was given that the applicant could: (i) provide a detailed design of the servicing elements; (ii) examine widening the driveway to create a turning radius; and (iii) perhaps increase the common access and the statutory right-of-way.

A comment from the panel noted that the cul-de-sac is used as plays space by neighbourhood children, and that it was important to ensure safe access and egress, now and in the future, to ensure that neighbourhood children are safe.

Gallery Comments

None.

Correspondence

Mr. Craig read into the record the following pieces of correspondence:

Bruno Ngan, resident of the Ash Street neighbourhood (Schedule 2)

Mr. Ngan expressed concern regarding the lack of notification.

Brad Wang, resident of the Ash Street neighbourhood (Schedule 3)

Mr. Wang expressed concern regarding (i) the lack of notification, and (ii) the speed with which the application was proceeding.

Kenny Wong, 8380 Dayton Court (Schedule 4)

Mr. Wong protested the application and expressed disappointment regarding the lack of information on the intended use of the subdivision, without consultation with the community.

Dr. Nataliya Vostretsova, whose office is at #515-757 West Hastings Street, Vancouver (Schedule 5)

Dr. Vostretsova expressed concern regarding: (i) insufficient signage posted on site; and (ii) if the PRHC’s intended use of the land undergoes changes.

A group of six residents at McBurney Court (Schedule 6)

The group of McBurney Court residents submitted a petition and stated its concern regarding: (i) insufficient signage posted on site; and (ii) if the PRHC’s intended use of the land undergoes changes.

Shirley Kwong, Dayton Court (Schedule 7)

Ms. Kwong was concerned that some residents of Dayton Court with not notified, nor had the advantage of seeing postage signage regarding the application. She expressed her concern regarding the number of parking spaces for potential homeowners and their tenants.

In response to the Chair’s query regarding signage having been placed on Ash Street, but not on Dayton Crescent, Mr. Craig advised that it was preferable that signage be placed on both Ash Street and Dayton Crescent.

In response to a further question from the Chair, regarding the extent of the notification that was sent from the City to the residents surrounding the subject site, Mr. Craig advised that the City’s standard notification criteria had been followed, and that all those residents who lived within 50 metres of the subject site had received mailed notification of the proposed development.

The Chair commented that part of Dayton Court might have fallen outside the 50-metre range.

Panel Discussion

The Chair commented that the correspondence indicated that the neighbours of the subject site feel they have not been consulted. He asked whether the applicant was willing to host a neighbourhood meeting, in order to let people know more about the proposal.

Ms. Brunemeyer stated that the PRHC would be willing to host a neighbourhood meeting at which information would be provided to Ash Street and Dayton Court neighbours.

The Chair suggested that the applicant: (i) seek input from the community; and (ii) examine different technical approaches and devise design options that are workable.

The Chair then noted that: (i) the proposal warranted a notification area that extended beyond the typical 50 metres; and (ii) that a sign should be placed on Dayton Court.

The Panel commented that an elevation of the building would be a helpful component to place the proposed development in context, and requested that an elevation be presented when the application came back before the Panel. 

The Chair reiterated this comment, and noted that a context plan to show how the proposed development fit into the neighbourhood would be helpful.

Ms. Brunemeyer stated that at a future meeting the Panel would like to see a streetscape elevation to provide context for the project.

Panel Decision

It was moved and seconded

That:

(a)

Development Variance 10-542375 be referred back to staff, for further examination;

(b)

before Development Variance 10-542375 comes before the Development Permit Panel at a future meeting: (i) the notification are be expanded to include all properties along Dayton Court; and (ii) signage be posted on both Ash Street and Dayton Court.

CARRIED

4.

Development Variance DV 10-549791
(File Ref. No.:  DV 10-549791) (REDMS No. 3062961)

APPLICANT:

664525 BC Ltd.

PROPERTY LOCATION:

5731 Maple Road

INTENT OF PERMIT:

1.

Vary the front yard setback from 6.0 m to 4.5 m; and

2.

Vary the rear yard setback from 6.0 m to 4.5 m.; to

a)

permit the construction of a new single-family dwelling at 5731 Maple Road on a site zoned Single Detached (RS1/B).

Applicant’s Comments

Applicant Amar Sandhu, of 664525 BC Ltd., accompanied by Rod Lynde, Designer, and stated he was available to respond to queries from the Panel regarding the request to vary the minimum front and rear setbacks for a proposed residential dwelling at 5731 Maple Road.

Staff Comments

Mr. Craig advised that the requested variance provided for a City utility along the western perimeter of the subject site. Mr. Craig added that the second story of the proposed new single-family dwelling is set back further than the requested 4.5 metres.

In response to a query from the Chair, Mr. Craig advised that the requested variance would ensure that there is some articulation to the proposed residential building, and that when the property was rezoned, the sanitary Statutory Right-of-Way was widened.

Gallery Comments

None.

Correspondence

None.

Panel Decision

It was moved and seconded

That a Development Permit be issued which would vary the provisions of Richmond Zoning Bylaw 8500 to:

1.

vary the front yard setback from 6.0 m to 4.5 m; and

2.

vary the rear yard setback from 6.0 m to 4.5 m.; to

a)

permit the construction of a new single-family dwelling at 5731 Maple Road on a site zoned Single Detached (RS1/B).

CARRIED

5.

New Business

6.

Date Of Next Meeting: Wednesday, March 2, 2011

7.

Adjournment

It was moved and seconded

That the meeting be adjourned at 4:41 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 16, 2011.

_________________________________

_________________________________

Joe Erceg

Chair

Sheila Johnston

Committee Clerk