Time:

3:30 p.m.

Place:

Council Chambers

Richmond City Hall

Present:

Robert Gonzalez, Chair

Dave Semple, General Manager, Parks and Recreation

John Irving, Director, Engineering

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, June 29, 2011, be adopted.

CARRIED

2.

Development Permit 09-506909
(File Ref. No.:  DP 09-506909)   (REDMS No. 3191807)

APPLICANT:

W.T. Leung Architects Inc.

PROPERTY LOCATION:

6331 and 6351 Cooney Road

INTENT OF PERMIT:

Permit the construction of a 14-story tower with roof deck containing 77 apartment dwellings and 2 live/work units at 6331 and 6351 Cooney Road on a site zoned “High Rise Apartment (ZHR8) Brighouse Village".

Applicant’s Comments

Mr. Leung, Architect, W.T. Leung Architects Inc., provided the following details regarding the proposed 14-storey residential tower, with 77 apartment units, plus two live/work residential units fronting Cooney Road:

·          

40% of the apartment units are two bedrooms, and will appeal to families;

·          

there is to be a 7.5 metre-wide lane along the south property line to link with a future north/south lane parallel to Cooney Road;

·          

to the north of the subject site is a 14-storey residential tower and it is separated from the proposed development by 116 feet, or approximately 36 metres, more than the zoning bylaw requirement;

·          

the three-storey parkade fronts Cooney Road, and the lower storeys are hidden behind the live/work units;

·          

a landscaped terrace is featured on the roof deck and provides a children’s play area, seating areas for parents/guardians, and urban garden plots for cultivation by residents;

·          

one indoor amenity area is on the ground level, near the lobby, and another indoor amenity area is part of the fourth level, and is directly linked to the roof deck’s outdoor amenity area;

·          

the roof of the low rise portion of the proposed development is treated with textured gravel designs;

·          

brick masonry is incorporated as a façade material on the lower elevation;

·          

the north portion of the tower features window elements; and

·          

provision exists for a future public art installation on the ground level.

Staff Comments

Wayne Craig, Program Coordinator-Development, advised that staff supports the application and noted the refinement of the building design. He added that the proposed development includes 10 adaptable units that allow for conversion with aging-in-place features. Mr. Craig noted that the primary vehicular access is along the south property line, from the new lane, and that the lane will provide for access to another, future development, to the south of the subject site.

Panel Discussion

Discussion ensued among the Panel, Mr. Craig and Mr. Leung, and the following advice was provided:

·          

there is an existing sanitary line along the south property line of the adjacent property to the north, and a private driveway for the neighbouring property, not a public lane, is also located there;

·          

the setbacks comply with the requirements of the zoning bylaw, and in the City Centre it is not uncommon to have zero metre sideyard setbacks;

·          

details of the rooftop outdoor amenity area include: (i) a garden; (ii) a lawn area; (iii) a play area; (iv) a paved area appropriate for a barbeque; (v) a seating area that can accommodate large shade umbrellas; (vi) and landscaped edges;

·          

the ground floor plan includes: (i) a water feature on either side of the front entrance; (ii) a footbridge spanning the water; (iii) and a corner space that could accommodate a future public art feature; and

·          

regarding privacy for residents of the residential tower to the north of the proposed development, the proposed building is setback, there is no parking on the roof of the proposed parkade, and tall planting and a green wall along the parkade wall will alleviate views from the lower apartment units in the adjacent tower; in addition to a green wall and windows in the stairwell of the parkade, there will be a planter box pattern to animate the parkade façade.

Gallery Comments

Gary Cross, 503-8238 Saba Road, commented that as a resident of the City Centre he lives in an area undergoing a lot of development, and he expressed the following concerns:

(i)

the untidy and unappealing appearance of the subject site, including graffiti on the 12 foot hoarding erected around the site, and the City’s requirements of the applicant/developer to tidy the site and the surrounding area;

(ii)

disruption of the neighbourhood, including the creation of dust, for the prolonged period of the construction phase;

(iii)

construction companies may not respect the City’s noise bylaw and may use heavy power tools late into the night and early on Sunday mornings; and

(iv)

the inconvenience of closed sidewalks in the Saba Road neighbourhood during construction and, if sidewalks are available to pedestrians, the wooden structure around and over them may not be outfitted with lights to improve pedestrians’ vision.

In response to the Chair’s direction to address Mr. Cross’ concerns, Mr. Leung remarked that:

(i)

he would advise his client that the subject site needs to be weeded and tidied up;

(ii)

his client does not desire a long construction period, so the neighbourhood should not be disrupted for more than 27 to 30 months preload and construction;

(iii)

dust should be addressed by the contractors responsible for (i) the preload process, and (ii) the construction period, and there is provision in the tender for water to be applied to the site to mitigate any dust problem;

(iv)

general contractors hired to construct the development should adhere to the hours of construction as outlined in the City’s noise bylaw; and

(v)

hoarding to protect pedestrians during construction is painted white on the interior, and will be lit, to enhance sight, and overall protection.

The Chair advised that, in terms of graffiti, the City sets standards for clean-up, and that when a complaint call is received, the City acts to ensure that within 24 hours of the call those responsible for the graffiti surface eradicates the graffiti. He added that if this procedure is not followed, City workers are dispatched, and the cost of the clean up is charged back to those responsible for the graffiti surface.

The Chair directed Mr. Leung to advise his client regarding the solutions to Mr. Cross’s concerns, and added that, if the City receives a complaint call from a resident regarding construction sites not adhering to the noise bylaw, enforcement officers are dispatched.

Mr. Wang, 101-8288 Saba Road, stated that he is a resident of the residential tower to the north of the subject site, and that he is concerned that an engineering, or a geotechnical, problem has led to the sinking of the land beneath his tower. He remarked that when his tower was built the surrounding walkway was flat, but that the south side of his tower has sunk, and the walkway was repaved but is sinking again. 

Mr. Wang concluded his remarks by commenting that if the proposed 14-storey residential tower is built to the south of the tower where he lives, he is concerned that the pre-load and the construction phases would create more trouble regarding the sinking problem.

Mr. Craig advised that as part of the City’s building permit process a geotechnical report, by a certified professional engineer, must be done to detail how the site, and neighbouring sites, will be impacted by construction. This standard procedure provides geotechnical assurance for construction safety.

The Chair advised that the geotechnical concerns outlined in Mr. Wang’s two pieces of correspondence (attached to these Minutes as Schedule 2 and Schedule 3), outlining concerns regarding settlement of his residential tower, would be reviewed in the building permit process.

Further, the Chair directed staff to keep Mr. Wang informed of the process as it moves forward.

Mr. Leung stated that as part of a development’s normal procedure, adjacent sites can allow a developer to conduct a survey of their buildings, and to use monitoring equipment on their buildings, to assess the impact on surrounding sites before, during and after the pre-load period.

In response to a query from the Chair regarding the preload, Mr. Leung advised that: (i) the proposed development sits on a foundation, not below the street elevation; and (ii) the height of the preload on the subject site will vary.

Walter Debruse, 6280 Cooney, accompanied by one of his Cooney Road neighbours, stated his concern that the backyard of his single-family residence across the street from the subject site already experiences significant shading, and that the proposed development will add to the shadowing problem, and further affect the lack of sunshine that reaches his garden.

Discussion regarding shadowing ensued among the Panel, Mr. Leung, and Mr. Craig, and the following comments were made:

·          

the architect measured a 45 degree sun angle thrown by the proposed development;

·          

typically there is a minimum 24 metres required between residential towers as outlined in the Official Community Plan (OCP), with road width providing substantial separation; and

·          

in this case the minimum building setbacks exceed those in the OCP.

Correspondence

Bill Lai, 8238 Saba Road (Schedule 1)

Mr. Craig stated that Mr. Lai’s concern regarding view and privacy issues had been addressed during the discussion.

Mr. S. Wang, #1001-8288 Saba Road (received July 11, 2011)(Schedule 2)

Mr. S. Wang, #1001-8288 Saba Road (received July 12, 2011)(Schedule 3)

Mr. Craig advised that Mr. Wang was in attendance, and that his concern regarding settling had been discussed.

Panel Discussion

There was agreement that the design elements, including the generous amenity space, the rooftop gardens, and the live/work units, demonstrated that much thought had gone into the design of the proposed development, and that there would be minimum impact on the adjacent residential tower, due to the distance between the two structures.

The Chair noted that staff would follow up on the settlement concern stated by Mr. Wang, and that all comments by speakers were a matter of record.

Panel Decision

It was moved and seconded

That a Development Permit be issued which would permit the construction of a 14-story tower with roof deck containing 77 apartment dwellings and 2 live/work units at 6331 and 6351 Cooney Road on a site zoned “High Rise Apartment (ZHR8) Brighouse Village".

CARRIED

3.

Development Permit 10-538908
(File Ref. No.:  DP 10-538908)   (REDMS No. 3193121)

APPLICANT:

Doug Massie Architect of Chercover Massie & Associates Ltd.

PROPERTY LOCATION:

8851 Heather Street

INTENT OF PERMIT:

1.

Permit the construction of a two-storey building for a licensed child care facility for approximately 60 children at 8851 Heather Street on a site zoned Assembly (ASY); and

2.

Vary the provisions of Zoning Bylaw 8500 to:

a)

Reduce minimum interior side yard from 7.5 m to 1.2 m

b)

Reduce the minimum public road parking setback from 3 m to 1.5 m

c)

Permit 54% small car parking spaces on a site with less than 31 parking spaces (8 small car parking spaces of total 15 spaces).

Applicant’s Comments

Doug Massie, Architect, Chercover Massie & Associates Architecture and Engineering, spoke on behalf of the applicant, and provided the following details regarding the proposed two-storey child care facility for approximately 60 children, located on Heather Street, across from Dolphin Park:

·          

the site is zoned for “assembly use”, currently contains a vacant church building, and does not require a rezoning application;

·          

the proposed building measures approximately 492 square metres, on a site measuring 1,103 square metres;

·          

the proposed building includes child care rooms on the ground floor for the youngest children, and child care rooms on the second floor for children aged three to five years of age, with an outdoor children’s play area in the rear yard that can accommodate 40 children at one time;

·          

a front surface parking area meets the bylaw requirements;

·          

the landscape plan includes generous landscaping on, and around, the site;

·          

the outdoor children’s play area was designed by the landscape architect;

·          

the City’s Advisory Design Panel reviewed the project on two separate occasions, and the building design was changed to make its appearance more ‘friendly’, by including such elements as a sloped roof, with gabled ends;

·          

building materials include brick and stucco, with a colour palette that includes appropriate colours such as sand, grey, white and brown;

·          

regarding adjacency, there are two new single-family subdivision developments, to the north and to the south of the subject site, fronting Heather Street, and across the street, to the east of the subject site is the City-owned Dolphin Park;

·          

the applicant has a licensing agreement with the City, to permit children in the care of the proposed child care centre to use Dolphin Park;

·          

the applicant recently became aware of concerns expressed by neighbours regarding the safety hazard presented by the ditch along Heather Street; and

·          

the applicant is seeking three variances.

Landscape Architect Mark Van Der Zalm drew the Panel’s attention to the following details of the proposed landscaping scheme:

·          

the scheme reflects the attempt to combine sustainable site priorities and the creation of privacy for a play environment;

·          

the Heather Street edge buffer screens the surface parking area;

·          

a continuous Cedar hedge along the north and south edges of the surface parking area provides screening from the neighbours;

·          

the surface parking area features permeable pavers, as does the main entry plaza;

·          

canopy trees bordering the parking area will provide shade for parked vehicles;

·          

the children’s play area in the rear yard is fully enclosed with a solid wood fence and lockable gates;

·          

the rear yard play environment is meant to be an “adventure” area that includes: (i) a small hill; (ii) a lawn space for play; (iii) an open play area featuring rubber paving; and (iv) a wooden deck;

·          

one existing Japanese maple tree will be retained by transplanting it on site, and two trees that are centrally located, but in poor condition, will be removed; and

·          

the overall scheme is one of lush, highly programmed landscaping.

Staff Comments

Mr. Craig reported that staff supports the application, and he commended that the applicant, and the design team, on working with staff and members of the Advisory Design Panel, to design a building that is residential in character.

With regard to the requested variances, Mr. Craig noted that:

·          

the request to reduce the minimum interior side yard is set back similar to variances requested for single-family homes;

·          

the requests to reduce the minimum public road parking setback and to permit small car parking spaces on the site with less than 31 parking spaces are not related to the proposed building, but to parking;

·          

if the request to reduce the minimum public road parking setback is granted it would reduce the landscape width along Heather Street, but sufficient room would remain to provide screening; and

·          

if the request to permit 54% small car parking spaces on the site was granted, it would: (i) ensure that on-site manoeuvrability is not compromised; and (ii) provide enough spaces on site to avoid queuing of cars or parking along Heather Street as parents/guardians dropped off, and picked up, children.

Panel Discussion

In response to a query regarding privacy for single-family homes to the north and south of the proposed building, Mr. Massie advised that the new houses on either side of the subject site are new, and they feature a minimum number of widows on the facades that face the rear yard of the proposed building, thereby ensuring that there would be minimal impact of activity in the building’s rear yard on the neighbours.

Mr. Massie added that: (i) the applicant would attempt to have the children in the youngest age category use the rear yard; (ii) there is no overlook issue because access to the second storey balcony is restricted; and (iii) there is minimum overlook from decks.

In response to a query regarding the site’s grade, Mr. Massie stated that there will be no change in grade between the subject site and the two single-family lots to the north and south. The neighbouring Heather Street properties are at the flood plain level, and the proposed development meets the existing flood  plain requirement.

Gallery Comments

Raj Johal, 8880 Heather Street, submitted (i) a letter, (ii) a petition and (iii) photographs (attached to these Minutes as Schedule 5) to the Panel, and spoke in opposition to the proposed building.

Mr. Johal made the following points:

·          

the presence of the child care building would increase traffic along Heather Street, between Dolphin Avenue and Francis Road, and the additional car trips per day by parents/guardians of the 60 children at the facility would add to congestion, and create safety concerns, for residents and their children;

·          

the traffic flow poses a safety concern, due to unknowns such as: (i) will cars be forced to back out of the building’s site and onto Heather Street; (ii) will traffic along Heather Street be blocked; and (iii) is there to be a drop off lane;

·          

the deep ditch that fronts Heather Street at Dolphin Park limits the safety of two-way traffic, and the possibility exists for a car, or child, to fall into the ditch, as the children walk to Dolphin Park, a small park that would have problems if another additional 60 children played there;

·          

sidewalks are provided on only one half of the west side of Heather Street, and no sidewalks exist on the east side of the street, creating risks with children walking to the proposed building on the road; there is limited street lighting and this further increases danger, especially during winter months; and

·          

the petition is signed by persons who live in the quiet, single-family residential neighbourhood who believe that the addition of a childcare facility, one that appears to be a “monster home”, would negatively impact the feel of the established neighbourhood.

In response to the Chair’s request, Mr. Massie addressed Mr. Johal’s comments:

·          

it is anticipated that parents/guardians will arrive at the child care building over a two hour period, between 7:00 and 9:00 a.m, and again from 4:00 to 6:00 p.m., some in car pools, and some on foot, so there should not be any traffic jams;

·          

the applicant has committed to providing as much parking direction as possible, in order to manage the parking issue, for safety reasons;

·          

the new streetlight on Heather Street will be retained, but relocated slightly; and

·          

the building was specifically designed in order to equal the scale of other buildings in the area.

Mr. Massie added that St. Alban’s Day Care, on St. Alban’s Road, is a day care with greater enrolment than that proposed by the applicant, and that the parking count is approximately the same as that required by the applicant, and that St. Alban’s cars must go into the driveway, and cannot park on the street.

Panel Discussion

The Chair stated that the Development Permit Panel addresses form and massing, but does not discuss zoning.

In response to the Chair’s request for staff comments, Sonali Hingorani, Transportation Engineer and Mr. Craig advised the following:

·          

parking on site meets the bylaw requirement, and the parking design is intended to prevent vehicles from backing out onto Heather Street; the “sign in” policy of the child care centre requires parents to park, enter the building, and then exit properly, not idle in their vehicles;

·          

the City’s transportation staff is aware of traffic speeding concerns in the area, and a traffic calming survey will be undertaken during the autumn of 2011; depending on the outcome of the survey, traffic calming measures may be implemented, but those are independent of the application for a development permit;

·          

the City’s transportation department is comfortable with the size and characteristics of the parking area for the proposed development, and given the nature of the morning and afternoon peak period of delivery and pick up of children, there will be better disbursal of traffic than if the building was a preschool; and

·          

the adjacent roadway system has the capacity to accommodate additional traffic generated by the proposed building.

In response to queries from the Panel, Mr. Craig provided the following information:

·          

the City ultimately plans to construct a continuation of the sidewalk south of the subject site to Francis Road with future development, and recent rezoning of the property to the south of the proposed building allows the City to move forward with the option of addressing traffic safety concerns; and

·          

the cost of extending the sidewalk on the east side of the street adjacent to Dolphin Park would need to be included in the list of annual capital projects.

In response to further queries, Mr. Massie advised that:

·          

day care hours are from 7:00 a.m. to 6:00 p.m.; and

·          

garbage and recycling containers are the size of those used by residents, and are located in an enclosure at the south side of the building, where they would be collected once a week, probably on Saturday to avoid cars parked on site, by a private removal contractor.

Mr. Johal stated that the St. Alban’s child care centre could not be compared to the proposed child care centre under discussion, as the features of Heather Street are different from the features of St. Alban’s Road.

Mr. Johal concluded his remarks by noting that: (i) it was unclear when sidewalks would be constructed on Heather Street; (ii) potential traffic calming measures would not address the fundamental safety problems he raised; (iii) even over a two hour period for child delivery and pick up, the presence of the ditch makes two cars travelling in two directions, over a two hour period on Heather Street a safety issue; and (iv) with a minimum of seven or eight on-site parking spaces used by child care centre staff he questioned what kind of parking would occur along the street.

Barbara Thomas-Bruzzese, 8700 Dolphin Court, advised that she lives behind the lot of the proposed building, and she expressed her surprise that an applicant was considering building a child care facility for up to 60 children on a street that featured a ditch, and stated her opinion that the idea was not in the best interest of children. 

Ms. Thomas-Bruzzese submitted a letter to the Panel (attached to these Minutes as Schedule 6), and made the following remarks:

·          

the vacant church on the subject site was small, and was used for gatherings not unlike the nature and size of family gatherings, and the site is not an appropriate location for a two-storey child care facility, nor was it an appropriate size for a facility that planned three toddler groups on the ground floor, plus a group of three to five year olds on the second floor;

·          

she was shocked that the Dolphin Park playground was thought to be an alternative play area, and believed that it was the responsibility of the facility owners to provide a play area, and not use a City park that may not always be available for a large day care group;

·          

child care facilities range in quality, and children need space inside and outside a facility of this kind, and not an outside space that is a parking lot, where vehicles are required to back up on site in order to access the street;

·          

Heather Street’s ditch runs the entire length of the street, a street that is adequate for one vehicle at a time, but not for two-way traffic; and

·          

it is appropriate for the applicant to find an alternative location that meets the Zoning bylaw.

The Chair advised that the project meets the Assembly zoning designation of the subject site.

In response to Ms. Thomas-Bruzzese’s query regarding at what point will  the application go to an agency responsible for child care facilities, Mr. Craig replied that the applicant has been in contact with Vancouver Coastal Health, the entity responsible for childcare licensing.

Mr. Massie further advised that the Community Care Facility Licensing office (CCFL) has been presented with the applicant’s plans, including the applicant’s development permit application, and the CCFL has had only one or two comments for the applicant.

In response to the Chair’s query regarding whether or not the CCFL has presented any roadblocks to the applicant, Mr. Massie advised that: (i) the CCFL had asked questions, but no roadblocks had been presented; and (ii) the interior space exceeds the CCFL requirement with an additional music room incorporated into the building’s design.

Correspondence

Raj and Nina Johal, 8880 Heather Street (received July 12) (Schedule 4)

Mr. Johal, 8880 Heather Street (received July 13) (Schedule 5)

Barbara Thomas-Bruzzese, 8700 Dolphin Court (Schedule 6)

Panel Discussion

The Chair noted that: (i) many outstanding questions had been raised; (ii) although staff had invested a lot of thought into the parking, traffic, and safety issues, he wanted to see further consultation with the community before supporting the project. 

There was general agreement that such issues as: (i) the adequacy of the parking plan; (ii) the issue of vehicles having to back in/back out; and (iii) accessing Dolphin Park across the road, would benefit from the project being referred back to staff for further examination.

It was noted that achieving agreement on the issues that were raised by the delegates would be challenging, but that the traffic flow, among other issues, had to be clarified. Another comment concerned the fact that City parks, including small ones like Dolphin Park, are available to everyone, including day cares.

In conclusion, the Panel agreed that good work had been done by the applicant, architect, landscape architect, and City staff, and that the project was worth additional work.

Panel Decision

It was moved and seconded

That Development Permit 10-538908 be referred back to staff for further:

(a)

consultation with residents of the neighbourhood; and

(b)

examination of on-site parking/manoeuvring and pedestrian and vehicle traffic on Heather Street.

CARRIED

4.

New Business

5.

Date Of Next Meeting:          Wednesday, July 27, 2011

6.

Adjournment

It was moved and seconded

That the meeting be adjourned at 5:17 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, July 13, 2011.

_________________________________

_________________________________

Robert Gonzalez

Chair

Sheila Johnston

Committee Clerk