1.

Minutes

It was moved and seconded

That the minutes of the meeting of the Development Permit Panel held on Wednesday, December 14, 2011, be adopted.

CARRIED

2.

Development Permit 10-545704
(File Ref. No.:  DP 10-545704)  (REDMS No. 3420906)

APPLICANT:

Chen Design Studio

PROPERTY LOCATION:

7900 Bennett Road

INTENT OF PERMIT:

1.

Permit the construction of two (2) back-to-back duplexes at 7900 Bennett Road on a site zoned “Infill Residential (RI2)”; and

2.

Vary the provisions of the Richmond Zoning Bylaw No. 8500 to permit a 0.5 m building projection beyond the vertical height envelope.

Applicant’s Comments

Xi Chen, Designer, Chen Design Studio, advised that since the July 27, 2011 meeting of the Development Permit Panel, during which the Panel reviewed the proposed two back-to-back duplexes at 7900 Bennett Road, the following revisions to the development had been made:

·          

the garages have been: (i) detached from the principal building to create more amenity space; and (ii) shifted to improve access;

·          

a lattice fence had been developed to make the amenity space more open and more useable by residents; and

·          

revisions have been made to the landscaping scheme by making more planting area available.

In response to the Chair’s question, the applicant confirmed that the garages are now detached, not attached to residential units, so that each residential unit now had a rear yard space.

Staff Comments

Brian J. Jackson, Director of Development, stated that when the project was first presented to the Panel, rear residential units had no private amenity space, but that the applicant has addressed this issue, and now each rear unit includes a private amenity space. In addition, there is a small communal space, featuring a sandbox play element, to be shared by four units. Also, permeable paving for the outdoor access driveways  enhances the appearance of the development.

In response to the Chair’s query regarding vehicles turning in the lane, Mr. Jackson confirmed that the turning template is large enough for drivers to make turns.

Correspondence

Rob Bodnar and Norma Miller, 215 Creekside Drive, Salt Spring Island (Schedule 1)

Mr. Jackson advised that the correspondents were in favour of the proposed development, and expressed their desire that the City upgrade sidewalks on Bennett Road.

Gallery Comments

None.

Panel Discussion

The Panel expressed appreciation to the applicant for the changes made to the design scheme.

Panel Decision

It was moved and seconded

That a Development Permit be issued which would:

1.

Permit the construction of two (2) back-to-back duplexes at 7900 Bennett Road on a site zoned “Infill Residential (RI2)”; and

2.

Vary the provisions of the Richmond Zoning Bylaw No. 8500 to permit a 0.5 m building projection beyond the vertical height envelope.

CARRIED

3.

Development Permit DP 10-538908
(File Ref. No.:  DP 10-538908)  (REDMS No. 3435263)

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 Richmond Zoning Bylaw 8500 to:

a)

Reduce the 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; and

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 owner, and advised that he wished to address points raised in letters from neighbours regarding the proposed two-storey building for a licensed child care facility for approximately 60 children, at 8851 Heather Street. Mr. Massie stated that:

·          

traffic, the lack of sidewalks and the ditch on Heather Street are items beyond the responsibility of the applicant, who has no way of responding to these matters;

·          

Chercover Massie & Associates has designed other daycare centres and none of them create traffic issues in their neighbourhoods;

·          

as a typical Richmond street, Heather Street can handle many more cars than it does at present;

·          

the applicant has submitted evidence to City planning staff that shows that the volume of cars created by the proposed child care facility has minimal impact on the traffic on Heather Street;

·          

the number of parking stalls proposed for the site is dictated by the City’s zoning bylaw, and is designed to the standards of the bylaw, with the exception of the number of small car stalls, which is the reason behind the request for the variance;

·          

the proposed building has been designed to meet the B.C. Government standards for child care facilities;

·          

Community Care Facilities Licensing (CCFL), enforced by Vancouver Coastal Health, provides criteria for the design of child care centres, and the proposed design has been reviewed by the local CCFL office, and meets their criteria;

·          

the applicant did not create the floor areas, facilities, amenities and play areas criteria, but has, instead, met the criteria in order to obtain a license to provide child care in the proposed building;

·          

the City’s Advisory Design Panel, as well as planning staff, reviewed, and supports, the design and size of the proposed building;

·          

the proposed child care operation is a business operation, with no subsidy or funding available from government, and, due to the demand for the service and the demand for quality care, suitable experienced staff must be engaged for the facility;

·          

operators of child care facilities do not get rich by providing this necessary service;

·          

regarding the exterior lighting for the proposed building, the light fixtures will be down lights, which will not have any light projecting past the property lines at 8851 Heather Street;

·          

regarding the issue of fire hazard, raised by a neighbour, no fire hazard is posed by this project; a fire sprinkler system and a fire alarm system will provide more fire protection to the proposed building than a typical residential home, and the proposed building is designed to meet the current B.C. Building Code, which requires adequate exit facilities;

·          

the building code’s requirement to have fewer openings on side walls, adjacent to neighbouring houses, has been met in the design;

·          

there are no activities in a child care facility that will create a fire hazard, as only light meals are prepared on site, and children bring their own lunches from home;

·          

regarding the issue of the south side deck, raised by a neighbour, the purpose of the proposed deck is to provide an open area for quiet circle-type play, outdoor story reading, and instruction;

·          

the applicant’s intention is that all active play will happen in the play area located to the rear of the building, or in Dolphin Park across the street;

·          

the deck features a five foot high guard rail that meets the height mandated by CCFL;

·          

the guard rail is a metal grill work, backed by frosted safety glass, to prevent overlook from the deck onto the neighbour’s property; the glass guard will be heavier than a wood fence, and the weight of the rail barrier will increase the containment of noise from the deck;

·          

there are no windows on the upper floor which overlook the neighbour to the south because of: (i) the high rail on the deck; and (ii) the distance back from the property line; and

·          

there is a six foot high fence on the property line, and no window provides overlook from the proposed building to the neighbouring property.

Mr. Massie concluded that the applicant has attempted to provide solutions and to respond to the concerns raised by neighbours.

Rajinder Singh, Landscape Designer, Van Der Zalm and Associates Landscape Architecture firm, advised that:

·          

to address concerns raised by neighbours adjacent to the subject site a series of cedar hedges has been planted along the north property line, and a portion of the south property line will feature a cedar hedge;

·          

a trellis feature with evergreen vine planting will be placed on top of the fence for a portion of the south property line; and

·          

over time the cedar hedges would grow to surpass the height of the fence, and would provide noise mitigation.

Panel Discussion

Discussion ensued among Panel members, Mr. Massie and Mr Singh, and the following advise was provided:

·          

the proposed balcony guard ail has always been required to be a five foot fence, but since the project was discussed at the November 30, 2011 meeting of the Development Permit Panel, the fence’s detailing has been addressed;

·          

to ensure that children stay on the property and will not venture onto Heather Street and be endangered by the roadside ditch, the applicant’s intention is: to (i) totally contain the play area at the rear of the subject site; (ii) ensure that childen are under parents’ care when they are at the front of the building; and (iii) there is no formal gate planned at the front of the subject site, but there will be gates located at the rear main play area, as well as at the top and bottom of the exterior stairs leading to the play deck area; and

·          

parents dropping off children would do so on weekdays only, not on weekends, and would do so by pulling their vehicles onto the site, parking in the parking stalls, escorting the children into the building, then exiting the site.

Staff Comments

Brian Jackson stated that staff takes the concerns raised by the neighbourhood, regarding traffic, parking, and safety issues, very seriously. He advised that if the proposed site had a  single family development, it is possible that a larger building area would be allowed on the site.

Regarding the request for variances, Mr. Jackson noted that: (i) the requested 1.2 metre minimum interior side yard setback is identical to the minimum setback acceptable for a single family residence; (ii) the setback guidelines in the Assembly Zone apply to larger lots; and (iii) any assembly use on small lots requires a variance.

In response to a query from the Chair, Mr. Jackson advised that the applicant’s request for a parking variance is to increase the number of small parking spaces on the site.

Panel Discussion

In response to the Chair’s request, Donna Chan, Manager, Transportation Planning, provided an update regarding the consultation process undertaken by staff regarding traffic issues in the Heather Street neighbourhood.

Ms. Chan advised that in December 2011, Transportation staff sent a traffic survey to 19 homes in the  neighbourhood asking whether residents were in favour of speed humps as a traffic calming measure.

To date eight surveys have been returned, and of those four are in favour of the traffic calming measure and four are opposed to the traffic calming measure. Survey respondents have until Friday, January 20, 2012 to submit responses.

Ms. Chan added that when the survey process is complete, Transportation staff will report on the outcome to Council at the Monday, January 23, 2012 Council meeting.

In response to a query from the Panel, Ms. Chan advised that parking is permitted on Heather Street, but that there is very little opportunity to park there due to: (i) “No Parking” signs on the east side of the street, where the open ditch is located; (ii) driveways; (iii) fire hydrants; and (iv) required clearance from intersections.

Ms. Chan added that even with parked cars on Heather Street, it is possible for cars going in opposite directions to pass, if they alternate.

Gallery Comments

Raj Johal, 8880 Heather Street, spoke in opposition to the proposed building. He stated that he wants to see “No Stopping” signs in front of the subject site in order to avoid having to make calls to the City Bylaw office when parents park on the road, and not in the parking spaces provided on the site.

Mr. Johal referenced the City’s zoning bylaw and commented that the proposed building is a commercial building, and that the setback requirements in the bylaw that apply to a school or a pre-school should apply to the proposed child care facility. He added that a compromise between the requested 1.2 metre interior side yard setback, versus the current 7.5 metre setback, would be to settle on a 3 metre setback.

As a result of Mr. Johal’s request for signage, a brief discussion ensued between the Panel and Ms. Chan regarding signage to discourage parents from parking on the street. As a result of the discussion Ms. Chan advised that staff would look into the idea of “No Stopping” signage on Heather Street

Barbara Thomas-Bruzzese, 8700 Dolphin Court, submitted correspondence and photographs (attached to these Minutes as Schedule 2). She stated that she was strongly opposed to the application to construct a two-storey building for a licensed child care facility.

Ms. Thomas-Bruzzese, 8700 Dolphin Court, outlined her concerns, and drew attention to: (i) the size of the site is not large enough for the proposed development; (ii) the size of the proposed building is approximately twice the size of the largest homes on the street; (iii) the location of the site is at a narrow part of Heather Street with a ditch on the east side with limited room to park on the shoulder of the street; (iv) the residential character of the neighbourhood, and how the new owners of the subject site have neglected their yard for more than six months and the former building on the site has been stripped; (v) the number of people that would occupy the premises on a daily basis; (vi) the number of children proposed for the facility is in excess of the number of child care spaces needed in the Broadmoor Area as outlined in the City’s 2009-2016 Richmond Child Care Needs Assessment and Strategy; (vii) Dolphin Park has been referred to erroneously as Heather Park; and (viii) noise concerns.

Mrs. Thomas-Bruzzese requested that the Panel reject the proposed development.

Donald Lee advised that he spoke on behalf of Alice Chan, 8871 Heather Street who was absent, but who had submitted two letters opposing the proposed development (attached to these Minutes as Schedule 3 and Schedule 5).

Mr. Lee listed the following concerns as outlined in Ms. Chan’s correspondence: (i) road safety; (ii) signage being ineffective in governing people stopping in the area; (iii) the proposed development’s narrow parking lot, necessitating drivers having to back out of the site and blocking traffic; (iv) noise, from children and honking cars from the child care facility, disrupting the peace and quiet in neighbour’s backyards; (v) the upper floor balcony facing bedrooms at 8871 Heather Street; and (vi) the demand for a child care facility in the area is low.

Lorne Soo, 8875 Heather Street, advised that he agreed with the concerns from other speakers, especially with regard to increased traffic on Heather Street, that could total up to 120 cars per day. He was opposed to the proposed development, and expressed puzzlement that the application could have made progress, in light of the neighbours’ concerns.

Christine Tu, 8899 Heather Street, spoke in opposition to the proposed development. She stated that: (i) the street was too narrow to accommodate added traffic and should be widened; (ii) there should be sidewalks along both sides of Heather Street; (iii) the open ditch presents a problem; (iv) the area is not safe for children; (v) people coming to the child care facility will park in front of homes; (vi) neighbours who leave for work, and their children who leave for school, will experience delays as a result of child care parents arriving between 7 and 9 a.m.; and (vii) she wants the neighbourhood to remain quiet and accessible.

Lisa Chan, 8871 Heather Street, spoke in opposition to the proposed development, and stated that: (i) the planned upper floor balcony facing her home was evidence that there was inadequate outdoor play space on the site; (ii) noise would be a problem for neighbours; (iii) the rainy, cloudy and cool nature of Lower Mainland weather was a problem; and (iv) the ditch, as well as the potential for black ice on the road during winter, were problems. The building was too small for the children.

Linda Chen, 8591 Heather Street, spoke in opposition to the proposed development. She noted that: (i) teaching staff would take up most of the parking spaces on site; and (ii) if there is a staff person for every six children, that would amount to 10 teachers.

Mr. Massie advised that: (i) the City’s bylaw requires that nine parking spaces be provided for the child care facility teachers; (ii) there would be 12 teachers on staff; and (iii) that  number of teachers, and the number of parking space, meets the City’s and the CCFL’s requirements.

A resident at 8931 Heather Street drew the Panel’s attention to a petition dated July 7, 2011 (on file in the City Clerk’s Office) signed by Heather Street residents in opposition to the proposed development. He then queried why there was inadequate signage on the subject site.

Mr. Jackson advised that the applicant erected a sign on the subject site that provided information regarding the development permit application. He added that the site did not have a rezoning application sign because the size was already zoned for “assembly use”, and for this application, no rezoning was necessary.

Mr. Miao, 8933 Heather Street, spoke in opposition to the proposed development and stated that his concerns were related to: (i) noise; (ii) traffic issues; and (iii) parking issues. He requested that the Panel reject the development permit application.

Dave Hay, 8691 Heather Street, spoke in opposition to the proposed development and stated his concern with the lack of parking. He also noted that the on site parking spaces were inefficient, as drivers would be forced to drive in, and then back out. He stated that the ditch should be filled in and paved over. He then questioned how high the cedar hedge would grow in the side yards.

Mr. Singh noted that the smaller size type of cedar species that was selected would grow well, with pruning maintenance, in a confined space. 

Mr. Chen, 8591 Heather Street, spoke in opposition to the proposed development. He was concerned that the shoulders of Heather Street turn soft in the rain, and when cars try to pass on the street, and have to use the softened shoulder to do so, there is a risk cars and their drivers can fall into the ditch.

A brief discussion ensued between the Panel and Ms. Chan regarding the nature of traffic on Heather Street. Ms. Chan noted that it is a low volume road. If there is a car parked on the side of the road, it is typical that one car proceeding down the road will continue, while a car coming in the opposite direction will pause.

Jim Bruzzese, 8700 Dolphin Court, spoke in opposition to the proposed development. He: (i) asked about noise mitigation at the rear of the subject site; (ii) what would happen if his fence, the one that separates the rear of the subject site from his Dolphin Court property, is damaged; and (iii) noted that just because the nature of Heather Street provides little opportunity to park, that does not mean that people will not do so, and may let their cars idle, then return to their running cars after having taken their children to the care facility.

As a result of Mr. Bruzzese’s remarks, and Mrs. Thomas-Bruzzese’s photographs, discussion ensued between the Panel, Mr. Massie, and Mr. Singh.

Mr. Singh advised that the design for the rear yard of the proposed child care facility included: (i) a play surface featuring soft material that would absorb sound; (ii) a grassed play area; and (iii) new ground cover planting along the current hedge.

In response to a query from the Chair, Mr. Singh stated that: (i) the portion of the hedge above the line of the Thomas-Bruzzese fence would remain; (ii) the lower portion of the hedge has been trimmed; and (iii) a variety of ground cover elements would be added along the base of the hedge. 

The Chair noted that the photographs indicated that recent pruning had exposed some gaps in the hedge, and he suggested that the applicant not prune any further, and instead select some landscaping elements to fill in the gaps.

With regard to the issue of signage on the site, Mr. Massie advised that the sign that had initially been erected had gone missing, and that since its disappearance, a second sign had been erected on the site. The Chair commented that the temporary disappearance of the sign did not invalidate the process.

Correspondence

Barbara Thomas-Bruzzese, 8700 Dolphin Court (Schedule 2)

Alice Chan, 8871 Heather Street (Schedule 3)

Amar Johal, 8880 Heather Street (Schedule 4)

Alice Chan, 8871 Heather Street (Schedule 5)

Panel Discussion

The Chair acknowledged that the project was a contentious one, but advised that the mandate of the Development Permit Panel is to examine building form and character, not zoning issues. He noted that a child care facility is a permitted use on the site, and that if the requested variances were rejected, the applicant could still apply for and pursue a child care facility for the site.

The Chair further stated that the applicant had taken steps to mitigate the impact of the proposed facility.

The Panel expressed support for the idea to have “No Stopping” signage on Heather Street in order to discourage parents of children from dropping off their children anywhere other than on the subject site. In addition, the Panel advised that no further pruning of the existing hedges take place.

The Panel further noted that: (i) communication with neighbours was important; (ii) the applicant should address the sensitivity of the neighbourhood; (iii) City transportation staff would be engaged in the traffic issues; and (iv) the applicant should immediately clean up the subject site. 

As a result of the discussion, the following conditions were to be added to the motion:

·          

the applicant clean up the site before the Development Permit proceed to a meeting of City Council;

·          

that the City transportation staff review and confirm that the suggested “No Stopping” signage can be installed on Heather Street before the Development Permit proceed to a meeting of City Council; and

·          

that the City’s traffic survey results in the Heather Street neighbourhood be available to Council.

Panel Decision

It was moved and seconded

That a Development Permit be issued which would:

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 Richmond Zoning Bylaw 8500 to:

a)

Reduce the 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; and

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);

after such time as the following conditions have been met:

That:

(1)

the applicant clean up the site before the Development Permit proceed to a meeting of City Council;

(2)

the City transportation staff review and confirm that the suggested “No Stopping” signage can be installed on Heather Street before the Development Permit proceed to a meeting of City Council; and

(3)

the City’s traffic survey results in the Heather Street neighbourhood be made available to Council.

CARRIED

4.

New Business

5.

Date Of Next Meeting:  Wednesday, January 25, 2012

6.

Adjournment

It was moved and seconded

That the meeting be adjourned at 5:10 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, January 11, 2012.

_________________________________

_________________________________

Joe Erceg

Chair

Sheila Johnston

Committee Clerk