January 15, 2014 - Minutes

Time:

3:30 p.m.

Place:

Council Chambers
Richmond City Hall

Present:

Joe Erceg , Chair
Robert Gonzalez, General Manager, Engineering and Public Works
John Irving, Director, Engineering

1.

Minutes

It was moved and seconded

That the minutes of the meeting of the Development Permit Panel held on Thursday, December 12, 2013, be adopted.

CARRIED

2.

Development Permit 12-617455
(File Ref. No.:  DP 12-617455)  (REDMS No. 4103774)

APPLICANT:

Matthew Cheng Architect Inc.

PROPERTY LOCATION:

6511 No. 2 Road (formerly 6471, 6491, 6511 No. 2 Road)

INTENT OF PERMIT:

1.

Permit the construction of 15 townhouses at 6511 No. 2 Road (formerly 6471, 6491 and 6511 No. 2 Road) on a site zoned “Low Density Townhouses (RTL4)”.

Applicant’s Comments

Matthew Cheng, Matthew Cheng Architect, Inc., advised  that the following design changes on the subject development are proposed in response to the concerns raised by the Panel and owners of neighbouring properties:

§   

the height of the end units of the two street-fronting buildings was reduced from 2 ½ storeys to 2 storeys;

§   

two residential units were redesigned to reduce the tandem parking ratio, therefore the tandem parking variance will no longer be requested;

§   

the stairs at the end units of the buildings facing the street were relocated to allow additional articulation on the side elevations of the buildings; and

§   

transom windows above eye level were used and the proposed deck on the end unit was eliminated to respect the privacy of neighbouring homes.

Mr. Cheng also stated that a shadow analysis was conducted in response to the concern on the impact of shadowing on the adjacent property to the north.  He noted that since the end units of the two buildings on the north side are limited to 2 storeys and are set back 3.0 meters and 3.5 meters respectively from the north property line, the impact of shadowing on the adjacent property to the north would be minimal.

Denitsa Dimitrova, PMG Landscape Architects, Inc., stated that in response to the previous comments of the Panel, the proposed “Spider Web” play equipment on the children’s play area has been replaced with “Mushrooms”, Arch Climber and Vine Climber play equipment to provide more social interaction opportunities for children and to develop their motor skills.

Staff Comments

Wayne Craig, Director of Development, advised that he has no further comment on the proposed design changes by the applicant.

Correspondence

[ NAME ], [ ADDRESS ] (Schedule 1)

Mr. Craig advised that the correspondent, a resident of the property adjacent to the south of the subject development, expressed concern regarding (i) the end unit elevation along the south side of the proposed development and (ii) the tandem parking variance previously sought by the applicant.

In response to queries from the Panel, Mr. Craig commented that based on the letter dated December 16, 2013 (i) the correspondent’s concerns were based on the original design of the project, (ii) the design changes proposed by the applicant have adequately addressed the concerns of the Panel and residents of the neighbouring properties, and (iii) staff are satisfied with the applicant’s proposed changes to the landscaping, the play equipment on the outdoor amenity area, and the form and character of the buildings.

Gallery Comments

None.

Panel Discussion

The Panel expressed appreciation for the significant changes to the project being proposed by the applicant, particularly the height reduction of the end units and the changes to the design elements which address the privacy concerns of the neighbouring homes. The Panel also noted that the proposed changes have significantly improved the project and adequately responded to the concerns of the Panel.

Panel Decision

It was moved and seconded

That a Development Permit be issued which would:

Permit the construction of 15 townhouses at 6511 No. 2 Road (formerly 6471, 6491 and 6511 No. 2 Road) on a site zoned “Low Density Townhouses (RTL4)”.

CARRIED

3.

Development Permit DP 13-634111
(File Ref. No.:  DP 13-634111)  (REDMS No. 4049474 v4)

APPLICANT:

Integra Architecture Inc.

PROPERTY LOCATION:

6511 Buswell Street

INTENT OF PERMIT:

1.

Permit the construction of a 15-storey mixed use (residential/commercial) tower at 6511 Buswell Street on a site zoned “Downtown Commercial (CDT1)”; and

2.

Vary the provisions of Richmond Zoning Bylaw 8500 to reduce the residential parking rate from the standard City-wide parking rate to the City Centre Zone 1 parking rate.

Applicant’s Comments

Duane Siegrist, Integra Architecture Inc., with the aid of artist renderings (attached to and forming part of these Minutes as Schedule 2) reviewed the City planning and design objectives for the project, noting that a primary objective is to emphasize the commercial use appearance at the street.  Mr. Siegrist also spoke of (i) the rationale for the project’s urban response, (ii) the use of building elements, (iii) the building concepts including the urban context, solar access, building and parking entries, and housing location to animate the street.

Also, Mr. Siegrist spoke about (i) the solar shading study and its influence on the building design, (ii) the lighting analysis, (iii) the alignment of the proposed tower to the potential development to the west, and (iv) the basic universal features and aging-in-place features of the proposed development. Mr. Siegrist noted that building materials include stone panels in the dark areas, metal panels, spandrel glass, landscape screens and storefront systems at the lower level.

Ron Smith, Forma Design Inc., provided the following information regarding the landscape design of the parking structure roof deck:

§   

the two large patio areas for common use on the north and south sides of the podium level are connected by a narrow walkway/trike path  along the west edge;

§   

the two large patios at the opposite ends of the podium level both have integrated but separate areas for adults and children;

§   

the sandbox is the children’s version of urban agriculture at the south side; and

§   

gardens are located on the north and south sides of the podium level.

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

§   

a private roof deck on the penthouse is provided for the luxury units on the upper floors and is designed to have an urban overlook; and

§   

shifting the indoor amenity space southward in order to increase the outdoor amenity area on the north side of the podium level would decrease the amount of indoor amenity space.

In response to a query from the Panel, Mr. Craig advised that the proposed development complies with the minimum Official Community Plan requirement for the amount of indoor and outdoor amenity spaces and even exceeds the minimum indoor amenity space requirement by 10 percent.

In response to further queries from the Panel, Mr. Siegrist stated the following:

§   

sidewalks along the Cook Road and Buswell Street frontages will be reconstructed;

§   

on the adjacent lot to the west of the subject site is a 2-storey wood frame and partially steel constructed building;

§   

the applicant took into consideration the City’s guidelines on building separation and possible locations of potential developments in the area in the design and siting of the proposed tower; and

§   

the five affordable housing units are located throughout the building.

In response to queries from the Panel, Mr. Craig advised that (i) the three properties to the west of the subject site have the same owner, (ii) the applicant’s schematic concept drawing and shadow analysis demonstrate that the proposed tower separation from the adjacent properties to the west complies with the City’s guidelines, and (iii) the location of the proposed building allows the proposed extension of the pedestrian realm along Cook Road.

Staff Comments

Mr. Craig advised that there is no rezoning associated with this development permit, so staff are supportive of the requested parking variance since the site is located within the City Centre Zone 1 area and the owner has agreed to provide the following:

§   

five affordable housing units; and

§   

a comprehensive Transportation Demand Management (TDM) package including the (i) provision of  a continuous canopy and benches along the Buswell Street frontage, (ii) upgrade of the existing traffic signal at the Cook Road and Buswell Street intersection, and (iii) provision of electric vehicle charging stalls.

Also, Mr. Craig mentioned that the applicant has agreed to (i) Servicing Agreements for road frontage and infrastructure improvements, and (ii) participate in the Public Art Plan through a financial contribution of approximately $56,000.

Mr. Craig further noted that the proposed building is District Energy Utility (DEU) - ready and designed to meet aircraft noise mitigation standards.

Correspondence

Jimmy Tham, Sylvan Learning Centre, 8171 Cook Road (Schedule 3)

Mr. Craig stated that Mr. Tham, representing Sylvan Learning Centre located directly across Cook Road from the subject site, expressed concern regarding the potential noise and safety hazards during the construction stage of the proposed development.

In response to the concerns expressed by Mr. Tham, Mr. Craig stated that (i) the applicant is required to submit a construction traffic management plan, (ii) the applicant has advised pile driving will not be used during construction, and (iii) the City’s Noise Bylaw regulates the noise and construction hours.

Gallery Comments

None.

Panel Discussion

The Panel agreed to support the proposed project, noting that although it did not go through the rezoning process, the applicant had responded well to the development permit guidelines and design aspects.

Panel Decision

It was moved and seconded

That a Development Permit be issued which would:

1.

Permit the construction of a 15-storey mixed use (residential/commercial) tower at 6511 Buswell Street on a site zoned “Downtown Commercial (CDT1)”; and

2.

Vary the provisions of Richmond Zoning Bylaw 8500 to reduce the residential parking rate from the standard City-wide parking rate to the City Centre Zone 1 parking rate.

CARRIED

4.

Development Permit DP 13-641796
(File Ref. No.:  DP 13-641796)  (REDMS No. 4013268 v10)

APPLICANT:

Townline Gardens Inc.

PROPERTY LOCATION:

10820 No. 5 Road

INTENT OF PERMIT:

1.

Permit the construction of a 5-storey, mixed-use commercial and residential building (Building D – ‘The Camellia’) at 10820 No. 5 Road on a site zoned “Commercial Mixed Use (ZMU18) – The Gardens (Shellmont)”; and

2.

Vary the provisions of the Richmond Zoning Bylaw 8500 to reduce the parking rate for rental housing units from 1.7 spaces per residential unit (1.5 spaces for residents plus 0.2 spaces for visitors) to 1.2 spaces per residential unit (1.0 spaces for residents plus 0.2 spaces for visitors).

Applicant’s Comments

Al Johnson, DA Architects + Planners, and Tiffany Duzita, Townline Group of Companies, provided the following details regarding the proposed development:

§   

Phase 2 of the overall development includes the U-shaped building (Building D) on the north end of the site located close to the corner of No. 5 Road and Steveston Highway;

§   

Phase 2 faces a dedicated “Agricultural Park” and a temporary sales centre to the north where the future child care facility will be located;

§   

the centre of the overall development is a vibrant community;

§   

the underground parking garage is accessed from No. 5 Road;

§   

the indoor amenities for Building D are provided  in Building A (Phase 1 of the overall development) which is currently under construction ; and

§   

the indoor amenities in Building A include a multi-purpose gym, a meeting/fitness room, washrooms and change rooms.

Also,  Mr. Johnson reviewed the architectural design of the proposed building and the building materials used, noting that the building is a hybrid, with two lower levels of concrete and two upper levels of wood.

In reply to queries from the Panel, Mr. Johnson stated that (i) the depth of the balconies have been increased as per recommendation from the Advisory Design Panel, (ii) the current development proposal has a greater number and variety of units than the previous proposal, and (iii) there is actually more articulation on the north elevation of the building than what is shown in the model.

In response to queries from the Panel, Mr. Johnson reviewed the entry points to the commercial area on the south side and to the residential units on the north side of the building from an accessibility standpoint.

In response to queries from the Panel, Ms. Duzita and Mr. Johnson provided the following information:

§   

all commercial parking spaces have been provided in Phase 1 and 29 commercial parking stalls in Phase 2 have been allocated for residential parking in order to meet the required residential parking spaces for Phase 2;

§   

internal Road “A” is a privately- owned road but open for public use; parking is not allowed on this road;  the proposed underground parking in Building D can be accessed from Road “A”; and

§   

parking spaces for users and visitors of commercial units in Building D (Phase 2) are provided in the underground parking in Building A (Phase 1).

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

§   

the proposed variance in residential parking rate has been supported by (i) a parking study based on comparable existing rental housing projects in Richmond, and (ii) Transportation Demand Management (TDM) measures.

§   

the rental tenure for both market and affordable housing units are secured by separate housing agreements with the City ; and

§   

there will be a covenant preventing the “stratafication” of the proposed development.

Staff Comments

In addition to his previous comments regarding the proposed residential parking variance and housing agreements,  Mr. Craig stated the following:

§   

there are three fully accessible units in the project;

§   

the applicant’s participation in the Public Art Plan was secured through the rezoning process;

§   

TDM measures secured at the time of rezoning include (i) two transit shelters, (ii) two co-op parking stalls on the parking podium, and (iii) end-of-trip bike facilities in Building A; and

§   

as an additional TDM measure, the applicant will provide 2-zone transit passes for all residential units in Building D for a period of one year.

In response to a query from the Panel, Mr. Craig advised that so far, no service provider has expressed interest in the co-op parking.

Correspondence

Emily Emberson, Shellmont area resident (Schedule 4)

Mr. Craig commented that Ms. Emberson expressed concern regarding the residential parking variance requested by the applicant.  Mr. Craig noted that the required parking for market rental housing is 1.5 stalls per unit which the applicant is requesting to be reduced to one parking stall per unit. Also, Mr. Craig stated that the parking study submitted by the applicant which include a detailed analysis of comparable rental housing projects in the City demonstrate that the reduced parking rate is adequate.

Gallery Comments

None.

Panel Discussion

The Panel agreed to support the proposed project, noting the significant number of proposed market rental and affordable housing units, the TDM measures proposed by the applicant, and the sustainability features of the proposed development.

Panel Decision

It was moved and seconded

That a Development Permit be issued which would:

1.

Permit the construction of a 5-storey, mixed-use commercial and residential building (Building D – ‘The Camellia’) at 10820 No. 5 Road on a site zoned “Commercial Mixed Use (ZMU18) – The Gardens (Shellmont)”; and

2.

Vary the provisions of the Richmond Zoning Bylaw 8500 to reduce the parking rate for rental housing units from 1.7 spaces per residential unit (1.5 spaces for residents plus 0.2 spaces for visitors) to 1.2 spaces per residential unit (1.0 spaces for residents plus 0.2 spaces for visitors).

CARRIED

5.

Development Permit DP 13-642725
(File Ref. No.:  DP 13-642725)  (REDMS No. 4071535 v1)

APPLICANT:

Amela Brudar - GBL Architects

PROPERTY LOCATION:

8888 Patterson Road

INTENT OF PERMIT:

1.

Permit the construction of the second phase of a five-phase, residential development at 8888 Patterson Road on a site zoned “High Rise Apartment and Artist Residential Tenancy Studio Units (ZHR10) – Capstan Village (City Centre)” for a high-rise building containing 246 market dwellings and 17 affordable housing units (to be secured via a Housing Agreement), together with publicly-accessible open space and park; and

2.

Vary the provisions of Richmond Zoning Bylaw 8500 to:

a)

reduce the minimum allowable setback from a lot line abutting Garden City Road for portions of the building having a height greater than 28.0 m, for the purpose of permitting a cantilevered roof and balconies, from 50.0 m to 48.6 m; and

b)

increase the maximum allowable building height for portions of the building located less than 50.0 m from a lot line abutting Garden City Road, for the purpose of permitting enclosed stair staffs, an elevator penthouse, and an indoor residential amenity space, from 28.0 m to 33.4 m.

Applicant’s Comments

Amela Brudar, GBL Architects, provided the following information regarding the proposed development:

§   

the five-phase multi-family residential development sits on a 7 ½ acres site which is divided into three quadrants;

§   

the building permit for Phase 1 has already been issued; and

§   

the subject development permit application is for Phase 2 of the multi-phase development, which includes a 15-storey building, the Neighbourhood Park to the south, and the Patterson End Park to the north.

Ms. Brudar, with the aid of artist renderings (attached to and forming part of these Minutes as Schedule 5) also reviewed the phasing plan, building sections, indoor amenity spaces, and parking and floor plans for the proposed building. In addition, Ms. Brudar provided the following details:

§   

the proposed building has a clean and contemporary look;

§   

17 affordable units are distributed throughout the proposed building;

§   

proposed building materials include window walls with spandrel glass, metal panels, and brick frames; and

§   

all residential units at grade are provided with direct access from the street to animate the street.

Grant Brumpton, PWL Partnerships, provided the following information regarding the landscaping of the proposed development:

§   

landscaping for Phase 2 builds on the landscaping for Phase 1;

§   

a primary element of the landscaping for Phase 2 is the sense of moving water;

§   

the Neighbourhood Park directly facing the south elevation of the proposed building is a privately owned space with public access; and

§   

the applicant worked with City staff to develop the maintenance manual in order to clarify expectations between the developer and future strata management regarding the maintenance of the Neighbourhood Park.

Also, Mr. Brumpton, with the aid of artist renderings, reviewed the landscaping on the Patterson Road End Park, the proposed building and the Neighbourhood Park.

In response to a query from the Panel, Mr. Brumpton advised that the Neighbourhood Park can be accessed from Garden City Road through the stairs and ramp system with 5% grade.

In response to further queries from the Panel, staff commented that (i) the Neighbourhood Park has been designed and presented as a public park, and (ii) the present design of Patterson Road is interim but currently provides for 2 to 3 point turns for vehicles at its terminus adjacent to the Patterson End Park.

In response to a query from the Panel, Ms. Brudar mentioned that the applicant intends to maximize the balcony spaces and there is no intention to have them enclosed.

In response to queries from the Panel, Suzanne Carter-Huffman, Senior Planner-Urban Design, Planning and Development, advised that (i) balcony enclosures are currently not a concern in the City Centre Area developments although there have been such cases noted in the past, (ii) the indoor amenities in the proposed building such as the gym, swimming pool, and banquet hall and ballroom are intended to serve all phases of the project, and (iii) the bowling alley will not compromise the design and operational maintenance of the park.

Staff Comments

Mr. Craig commented that staff is agreeable to the location of the 17 affordable housing units which includes a clustering of family oriented townhouse units around the northeast corner of the proposed building. He noted that the total area of the City-owned and privately-owned parks to be developed is approximately 1.5 acres.  Also, he stated that the proposed project has substantial electric vehicle (EV) charging stations, noting that (i) 30% of the parking stalls are equipped with 120-volt charging stations, (ii) 25%  of the parking stalls are pre-ducted for future EV charging, and (iii) six additional 240-volt quick-charge stations are being proposed.

Mr. Craig further mentioned that (i) the two variances requested by the applicant are for very minor projections, and (ii) the public art proposal was approved by the Public Art Committee during the rezoning stage.

In response to queries from the Panel, Mr. Craig advised that (i) the Patterson Road End Park is City-owned and operated, (ii) the Neighbourhood Park is privately-owned and maintained, (iii) the developer worked with Parks staff to develop the park’s maintenance manual which will be attached to Right-of-Way agreement registered on title, and (iv) the future strata management will be responsible for the maintenance of the Neighbourhood Park.

Correspondence

None.

Gallery Comments

Francis Choy, 5460 Jaskow Drive, queried on the construction materials to be used in the project. In response to the query, Ms. Brudar advised that the proposed building materials include, among others, metal and glass panels and bricks.

Panel Discussion

The Panel agreed to support the project, noting its sustainability features and significant indoor and outdoor amenities.

Panel Decision

It was moved and seconded

That a Development Permit be issued which would:

1.

Permit the construction of the second phase of a five-phase, residential development at 8888 Patterson Road on a site zoned “High Rise Apartment and Artist Residential Tenancy Studio Units (ZHR10) – Capstan Village (City Centre)” for a high-rise building containing 246 market dwellings and 17 affordable housing units (to be secured via a Housing Agreement), together with publicly-accessible open space and park; and

2.

Vary the provisions of Richmond Zoning Bylaw 8500 to:

a)

reduce the minimum allowable setback from a lot line abutting Garden City Road for portions of the building having a height greater than 28.0 m, for the purpose of permitting a cantilevered roof and balconies, from 50.0 m to 48.6 m; and

b)

increase the maximum allowable building height for portions of the building located less than 50.0 m from a lot line abutting Garden City Road, for the purpose of permitting enclosed stair staffs, an elevator penthouse, and an indoor residential amenity space, from 28.0 m to 33.4 m.

CARRIED

6.

New Business

7.

Date Of Next Meeting: Wednesday, January 29, 2014

8.

Adjournment

It was moved and seconded

That the meeting be adjourned at 5:26 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 15, 2014.

_________________________________

_________________________________

Joe Erceg
Chair

Rustico Agawin
Auxiliary Committee Clerk