1.

Minutes

It was moved and seconded

That the minutes of the meeting of the Development Permit Panel held on Wednesday, April 25, 2012, be adopted.

CARRIED

2.

Development Permit 11-592266
(File Ref. No.:  DP 11-592266)  (REDMS No. 3488241)

APPLICANT:

Kraftsmen Holdings Ltd.

PROPERTY LOCATION:

4151, 4171 and 4191 No. 4 Road

INTENT OF PERMIT:

1.

Permit the construction of 25 three-storey townhouse units at 4151, 4171 and 4191 No. 4 Road on a site zoned Town Housing (ZT67); and

2.

Vary the provisions of Richmond Zoning Bylaw 8500 to:

a)

Reduce the minimum lot size from 0.5 ha. (1.24 ac.) to 0.38 ha. (0.94 ac.); and

b)

Reduce the minimum north side yard setback from 3.0 m to 1.6 m to allow a garbage and recycling enclosure attached to the proposed Building 7 to encroach into the side yard setback.

Applicant’s Comments

Taizo Yamamoto, Yamamoto Architecture Inc., provided the following information regarding the 25 proposed townhouse units on No. 4 Road near Odlin Road:

·         

to the north of the subject site is the location of a new multiple-family development and to the south is another potential redevelopment site fronting No. 4 Road and Odlin Road;

·         

the proposed architectural form is taken from the architectural elements of the adjacent development, to the north, to create a strong streetscape along No. 4 Road;

·         

three of the proposed buildings will front No. 4 Road, and will feature steps up to the yard and steps up to the front entries, thus creating some animation and some vertical articulation of the units;

·         

the buildings located at the rear of the site are oriented east/west, with lots of light provided for the unit interiors;

·         

the applicant has communicated with Tomsett Elementary School, that is located to the west of the subject site, to allow a footpath connection from the subject site, through a locked gate, and to the school property, to allow residents to access the school and use the school field and play equipment;

·         

the outdoor amenity space is centrally located on the subject site, and because the proposed development was in mind when the site directly to the north was designed for development, cross-access is provided for a shared driveway between the two sites;

·         

the outdoor amenity space features play equipment including a “mushroom” type table with stools, and a climbing structure;

·         

permeable pavers will cover a large portion of the site to create textural interest and to distinctly indicate the site’s entry;

·         

the garbage and recycling enclosure is located at the entrance of the subject site;

·         

one detached convertible unit is included in the design, with all units having aging-in-place features;

·         

energy efficient appliances, and low-flow fixtures, are provided in all units;

·         

central air conditioning is incorporated, due to aircraft noise, and residents will have cooling and heating without having to open windows;

·         

individual units will have a strong front-to-back gable form accentuated by hip roofs, so that each unit has a “pop up” feature, that will help create smaller scale; and

·         

the proposed colour palette includes greys, with “punch out” colour applied to entry doors.

Panel Discussion

As a result of discussion that ensued among the Panel, staff, Mr. Yamamoto and Marlene Messer, Landscape Architect, PMG Landscape Architects Inc., the following advice was provided:

·         

one of the retained trees is located on the adjacent property, 4211 No. 4 Road, to the south, and the other protected tree is located on the adjacent property, 9671 Odlin Road, to the west of the subject site;

·         

the applicant will ask the school district for permission to install stone pavers to connect to the existing walkway to the school;

·         

the single shared access is sufficient, and was part of the overall plan, when the site to the north of the subject site was under discussion;

·         

the development to the north has 26 townhouse units, and the proposed development under discussion has 25 townhouse units, and staff encouraged the two applicants to work together with regard to the single access;

·         

access to the subject site is completely on the site to the north; the existing access includes a “bulge” in order to accommodate the recycling enclosure for the neighbouring site;

·         

the survey conducted by the arborist indicated the sidewalk elevation, and the proposed change in grade precluded the likely survival of the on-site trees;

·         

the architectural characteristics are similar to those of the townhouse units on the site north of the subject site, but reverse gables, stripped of decorative brackets, is one way to distinguish the two sites; and

·         

the school playground is approximately 60 metres, or half a block, to the northwest of the subject site.

Staff Comments

Brian J. Jackson, Director of Development, advised that staff supports the application and the requested variances.

With regard to the 52 bylaw-sized trees on-site, Mr. Jackson noted that according to the project arborist only three were in good condition, and with the change in grade, they were unlikely to survive. As part of their tree-planting plan, the applicant proposes to plant 46 replacement trees on-site, and this number includes four large new trees in recognition of the larger trees that were among those removed. Mr. Jackson added that staff and the applicant have worked together to address the perception that trees are only being removed, not replaced.

In response to a query from the Chair, Mr. Jackson advised that with regard to concerns raised at the September, 2011, Public Hearing regarding disruption in the neighbourhood from construction trucks not adhering to appropriate construction hours, a Construction Parking and Traffic Management Plan was submitted by the applicant, and approved by the Transportation Department.

Gallery Comments

Shing Tak Mak, Unit 25-4099 No. 4 Road, accompanied by Alvin Cheung, Unit 11-4099 No. 4 Road, and Mr. Kwong, Unit 21-4099 No. 4 Road, addressed the Panel and expressed the following concerns:

(i)

the inadequate nature of the driveway that is to be shared by the proposed townhouse units at 4151, 4171 and 4191 No. 4 Road and the townhouse units at 4099 No. 4 Road;

(ii)

if the request to vary the minimum lot size at the subject site was granted, from 0.5 hectares to 0.38 hectares, it would increase the density on the subject site, a density over and above that at 4099 No. 4 Road; and 

(iii)

if the request to reduce the minimum north side yard setback to allow a garbage and recycling enclosure attached to the proposed Building 7 was granted, it would bring the proposed garbage collection space too close to residents living at 4099 No. 4 Road, who would be adversely impacted by garbage smells.

Mr. Cheung explained that townhouse residents at 4099 No. 4 Road do not accumulate garbage at one location on their site, but have arranged for individual garbage collection, thereby avoiding the issue of garbage smells at 4099 No. 4 Road.

Mr. Jackson addressed the delegates’ concerns and explained that Council can, through the rezoning process, address density, but the Development Permit Panel does not have the ability to change density.

He noted that: (i) the difference in density between the two sites is very small; (ii) the difference in density was due to the different lot sizes, and the proposed site may appear more dense due to the provision of the driveway on the site to the north; and (iii) both the subject site and the site immediately to the north of the subject site are zoned the same, with similar variances.

The Chair explained that, in terms of density, the difference in density was so small as to be unnoticeable. He added that the developer of the site where the delegates live sought, and received, almost the same lot size variance the applicant is seeking. He added that 0.5 hectares is the minimum lot size, that the applicant is requesting a variance to permit 0.38 hectares for the subject site, that 0.42 hectares was the variance granted at 4099 No. 4 Road, and that the floor area ratio is the same.

In response to a request from Mr. Kwong, the Chair advised that the Panel is not mandated to address the issue of density.

Mr. Jackson then commented on the garbage and recycling enclosure, and noted that it has a roof and doors. Its design is the same as the recycling enclosure that forms part of the development directly north of the subject site. He added that residents of the proposed development would bring their garbage to the enclosure.

The Chair thanked the delegates and remarked that the Panel would take their comments into consideration, would deliberate, and would make a decision regarding the application.

Correspondence

Residents of 4099 No. 4 Road, in Townhouse Units: 1, 2, 3, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12, 13, 14, 17, 20, 21, 22, 23, 25 and 26 (Schedule 1)

Panel Discussion

Mr. Jackson stated that the applicant’s request to reduce the minimum north side yard setback, from 3 metres to 1.6 metres, would allow the garbage and recycling enclosure to encroach into the side yard setback, and that the width between the two buildings is approximately 10 metres.

In response to queries regarding garbage collection, Mr. Yamamoto advised that: (i) the applicant is willing to consider a door-to-door pick up, instead of residents taking their garbage to one location for pick up; (ii) the proposed location of the garbage and recycling enclosure was chosen because trucks would not be driving near the play area, or deep into the proposed development, on their way to pick up garbage and recycling material; and (iii) there is an opportunity for the shape of the proposed enclosure to be massaged so that it projects less into the north side yard setback.

The Chair remarked that the proposed development is laid out well, and that the concerns of density, are beyond the scope of the Panel. He noted that the proposed garage and recycling enclosure arrangement is a common one throughout the City, and that this common arrangement is not problematic at other locations. 

The Panel expressed support for the proposed development.

Panel Decision

It was moved and seconded

That a Development Permit be issued which would:

1.

Permit the construction of 25 three-storey townhouse units at 4151, 4171 and 4191 No. 4 Road on a site zoned Town Housing (ZT67); and

2.

Vary the provisions of Richmond Zoning Bylaw 8500 to:

a)

Reduce the minimum lot size from 0.5 ha. (1.24 ac.) to 0.38 ha. (0.94 ac.); and

b)

Reduce the minimum north side yard setback from 3.0 m to 1.6 m to allow a garbage and recycling enclosure attached to the proposed Building 7 to encroach into the side yard setback.

CARRIED

3.

Development Permit DP 12-602996 / HA 12-602998
(File Ref. No.:  DP 12-602996 / HA 12-602998)  (REDMS No. 3512815)

APPLICANT:

City of Richmond

PROPERTY LOCATION:

3811 Moncton Street

INTENT OF PERMIT:

1.

Permit the rehabilitation of the exterior of the Japanese Fishermen's Benevolent Society Building, a designated Heritage Building, in order to re-use the building as a wing of the Steveston Museum at 3811 Moncton Street on a site zoned Steveston Commercial (CS2); and

2.

Issue a Heritage Alteration Permit for 3811 Moncton Street in accordance with Development Permit (DP 12-602996).

Applicant’s Comments

James Burton, Architect, Birmingham and Wood Architects, provided the following information with regard to the rehabilitation of the exterior of the Japanese Fishermen’s Benevolent Society Building, which is designated as a Heritage Building, in order to re-use the building as a wing of the Steveston Museum, located at 3811 Moncton Street at 1^st Avenue in the Village of Steveston:

·          

the Japanese Fishermen’s Benevolent Society Building will undergo minimal changes;

·          

the planned interventions will rehabilitate the building’s exterior according to best practices for heritage conservation;

·          

where material has to be replaced, it will be done so carefully;

·          

one of the three main rehabilitation works for the building’s exterior is restoration of the original form of the front porch, using archival photos to inform details of the wood porch;

·          

the second of the three main rehabilitation works for the building’s exterior is the additional of a partially enclosed glazed connection between the Japanese Fishermen’s Benevolent Society Building and the Steveston Museum, the two buildings that share one site; and

·          

the third of the main rehabilitation works for the building’s exterior is: (i) a new door into the building in an existing door opening that will be used for an exterior door onto a patio; and (ii) a second new door that is within the glass enclosure that forms a new doorway for the connection of the two buildings.

Discussion ensued and the following additional information was provided by Mr. Burton:

·          

restoration of the roof involves cedar shingles, and this material matches that of the roof of the Steveston Museum; cedar shingles were applied to the original roofs of the two Heritage Buildings;

·          

the intention of the glazed connection is to not confuse the public as to what is new and what is old; and

·          

there are two buildings on the site and circumstances have placed them close to each other so they must function together, and the glass connection both recognizes the distinction and yet connects the museum function.

In response to a query Mr. Burton advised that the proposed restoration was presented to the Richmond Heritage Commission and to the Steveston Historical Society and the plan met with support from both entities.

Staff Comments

Mr. Jackson advised that staff supports the application and noted that the Architect has planned the restoration so that: (i) it respects the heritage aspect of the building; and (ii) a minimalist approach has been applied to this project.

Panel Discussion

In response to queries, Mr. Burton stated that:

·          

the new glazed connection is constructed using a painted steel frame with tempered glass; this creates a skin so that the rain is kept out, and yet the glass does not touch either of the existing Heritage Buildings;

·          

in trying to affect the existing Heritage Buildings as little as possible, the roofline cuts across a window frame, a necessary design to avoid snow loading on a lower roof of the Steveston Museum; and

·          

a roof that is higher than the windows on the Japanese Fishermen’s Benevolent Society Building would adversely affect the rear roof of the Steveston Museum.

Gallery Comments

Peter Mitchell, 6271 Nanika Crescent, spoke in his capacity as Vice-President of the Army, Navy and Air Force (ANAF) housing project on No. 1 Road in the Village of Steveston, and stated that the Japanese Fishermen’s Benevolent Society Building was originally sited on the ANAF property before it was moved to the Steveston Museum site. He advised that the ANAF is happy to see that the restoration work was commencing on the relocated Heritage Building.

Speaking as a resident of the City, Mr. Mitchell posed questions to the Architect regarding trees and green space, access to the site, and internal doors. In response, Mr. Burton provided the following advice:

·          

regarding trees and green space, there is no change to the landscaping, except the addition of a gravel pathway into the green space between the building and the property to the north, creating a more inviting access to the park from 1^st Avenue; and no trees are being removed from the site; and

·          

interior works will be specified at a later date, but the intention is to leave inside doorways intact.

Correspondence

None.

Panel Discussion

The Panel supported the application, while one Panel member expressed reservations regarding the glass and steel structure. There was general agreement that it was good to see effort put into the enhancement of the City’s Heritage Buildings. 

Panel Decision

It was moved and seconded

1.

That a Development Permit be issued which would permit the rehabilitation of the exterior of the Japanese Fishermen's Benevolent Society Building, a designated Heritage Building, in order to re-use the building as a wing of the Steveston Museum at 3811 Moncton Street on a site zoned Steveston Commercial (CS2); and

2.

That a Heritage Alteration Permit be issued for 3811 Moncton Street in accordance with Development Permit (DP 12-602996).

CARRIED

4.

Development Variance Permit 12-603451
(File Ref. No.:  DV 12-603451)  (REDMS No. 3513761)

APPLICANT:

British Columbia Marine Employers Association

PROPERTY LOCATION:

11000 Twigg Place (formerly part of 11060 and 11200 Twigg Place)

INTENT OF PERMIT:

To vary the provisions of Richmond Zoning Bylaw 8500 to increase the maximum height for accessory structures from 20.0 meters to 50.0 meters, at 11000 Twigg Place (formerly part of 11060 and 11200 Twigg Place) on a site zoned “Industrial (I)”.

Applicant’s Comments

Brian Dagneault, Daniel Dagneault Planning Consultants, Richmond, advised that, regarding the development of a container handling training facility proposed at 11000 Twigg Place Phase 4 of the Mitchell West Industrial Park. He noted that properties to the east, north and south are developed, and the property to the west of the subject site is a vacant lot.

Mr. Dragneault stated that the request to vary the maximum height for accessory structures, if granted, would allow two steel cranes to be located at the western side of the subject site.

John Beckett, Vice-President of Training, Safety and Recruitment, for B.C. Maritime Employers Association (BCMEA) provided the following background information: (i) BCMEA trains workers to safely move goods and containers off and on freighters and ships; (ii) BCMEA is consolidating its training on one site, the Mitchell Island site, to achieve efficiencies; (iii) BCMEA’s key role is to ensure a well trained workforce and the Twigg Place location will help them make that happen; (iv) training requires a safe and controlled environment; (v) BCMEA will purchase a Pedestal Crane for installation on the Twigg Place site, with a working height is 43 metres; (vi) the Mitchell Island site is an appropriate location for a training facility due to its central geographic location and its flat and undeveloped nature; and (vii) the requested height variance is for the 43 metre Pedestal Crane and a second crane that has a reach of 50 metres.

Panel Discussion

Discussion ensued between the Panel and the delegates, and especially on the proposed landscaping scheme. In response to a query regarding landscaping treatment on the south side of the subject site, the side that faces a proposed residential development across the Fraser River, the delegates advised that some practical aspects, such as riparian rights and log and barge storage, would create impediments to the idea. Mr. Beckett noted that no training activity would take place on the river. He added that there would be a hard surface on the ground, right up to the river’s edge.

Discussion continued and in particular on whether, as part of the original English Bay subdivision, there was any right-of-way for a Mitchell Island dike. Staff advised that no dike right of way exists on Mitchell Island.

Staff Comments

Mr. Jackson advised that staff supports the requested development variance and that the proposed use of the subject site, training of shoreline operators for the major ports in B.C., would have a minimal impact on the existing landscape elements. He noted that staff did not feel it was appropriate to contribute to the dike, that the applicant’s use is an interim one, and that the applicant was not asked to contribute to the dike. 

Discussion ensued between the Panel and Mr. Jackson, and in response to a concern that the subject site might, in the future, be diked, Mr. Jackson advised that the way the two proposed cranes are configured would not prevent the City from locating a dike there, and that despite the proposed training activities on the subject site, there would still be access to the site from the foreshore.

At the request of the Panel, Mr. Jackson stated that before the application went before Council, staff and the applicant would discuss the idea of a landscaping scheme along the south side of the subject site.

Gallery Comments

None.

Correspondence

None.

Panel Discussion

The Panel agreed that the proposed use of the site was a good one for Mitchell Island. The Chair reiterated that staff and the applicant would look at what, if anything, by way of landscaping, could be done along the south side of the subject site.

Panel Decision

It was moved and seconded

That a Development Variance Permit be issued which would vary the provisions of Richmond Zoning Bylaw 8500 to increase the maximum height for accessory structures from 20.0 meters to 50.0 meters, at 11000 Twigg Place (formerly part of 11060 and 11200 Twigg Place) on a site zoned “Industrial (I)”.

CARRIED

5.

Development Permit 12-603496
(File Ref. No.:  DP 12-603496)  (REDMS No. 3522935)

APPLICANT:

Fusion Project Management Ltd.

PROPERTY LOCATION:

8900 No. 1 Road

INTENT OF PERMIT:

To permit store front improvements to the existing commercial building at 8900 No. 1 Road on a site zoned “Neighbourhood Commercial (CN)”.

Applicant’s Comments

Larry McPherson, Fusion Project Management Ltd., Vancouver, provided the following information regarding the proposed modification of the facade of the existing commercial building at 8900 No. 1 Road, near Francis Road, to enable the applicant to undertake a leasehold improvement at the subject site, in order to operate a financial service outlet:

·         

the existing commercial building contains two store spaces;

·         

some existing windows will be replaced;

·         

the canopy will be removed;

·         

a projected parapet will be added and the parapet colour scheme is grey, with orange and blue corporate colours of the tenant included; and

·         

the existing landscaping will be expanded with the addition of flowers and shrubs.

Staff Comments

Mr. Jackson advised that staff supports the application and the various cosmetic improvements. The proposed landscape scheme will be updated but will not impede sightlines for area drivers and pedestrians.

In response to a query, Mr. Jackson advised that over $50,000 would be spent on renovations to the exterior of the commercial building.

Gallery Comments

None.

Correspondence

None.

Panel Decision

It was moved and seconded

That a Development Permit be issued which would permit store front improvements to the existing commercial building at 8900 No. 1 Road on a site zoned “Neighbourhood Commercial (CN)”.

CARRIED

6.

New Business

It was moved and seconded

That the Development Permit Panel meeting tentatively scheduled for Wednesday, June 13, 2012 be cancelled, and that the next meeting of the Development Permit Panel be tentatively scheduled to take place in the Council Chambers, Richmond City Hall, at 3:30 p.m. on Wednesday, June 27, 2012.

CARRIED

7.

Date Of Next Meeting: Wednesday, June 27, 2012

8.

Adjournment

It was moved and seconded

That the meeting be adjourned at 4:45 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 30, 2012.

_________________________________

_________________________________

Joe Erceg

Chair

Sheila Johnston

Committee Clerk