February 26, 2014 - Minutes

Time:

3:30 p.m.

Place:

Council Chambers
Richmond City Hall

Present:

Joe Erceg, Chair
Victor Wei, Director, Transportation
Mike Redpath, Senior Manager, Parks

1.

Minutes

It was moved and seconded

That the minutes of the meeting of the Development Permit Panel held on Wednesday, February 12, 2014, be adopted.

CARRIED

2.

Development Permit 12-605094
(File Ref. No.:  DP 12-605094)  (REDMS No. 4088847 v.2)

APPLICANT:

Integra Architecture Inc.

PROPERTY LOCATION:

8080 Anderson Road and 8111 Granville Avenue

INTENT OF PERMIT:

1.

Permit the construction of a 14-storey mixed use development with 129 affordable housing units and approximately 2,090 m² (22,500 ft²) community service space at 8080 Anderson Road and 8111 Granville Avenue on a site zoned Downtown Commercial (CDT1); and

2.

Vary the provisions of Richmond Zoning Bylaw 8500 to:

(a)

reduce the Basic Universal Housing Features manoeuvring space at bathroom doorways as shown in the Development Permit plans;

(b)

reduce the number of required parking spaces from 163 to 67;

(c)

reduce the number of required class 1 bicycle storage spaces from 165 to 150; and

(d)

reduce the number of required medium-size on-site loading spaces from 2 to 1.

Applicant’s Comments

Duane Siegrist, Integra Architecture, accompanied by Rebecca Colter, PMG Landscape Architects, introduced the representatives of the six non-profit societies present as well as the project’s development consultant team.

With the aid of a PowerPoint presentation (copy on file, City Clerk's Office), Mr. Siegrist provided background information regarding the (i) site context, (ii) breakdown in terms of the number and location of affordable housing units in the tower to be managed by each non-profit society, and (iii) location of community service spaces in the tower which include the non-profit societies’ office spaces, coffee shop for job training, community centre space and community support space.

In addition, Mr. Siegrist provided the following details:

§   

the proposed project design could be integrated with the future development to the west through possible extension of the proposed tower’s three-storey podium form to the future development to the west;

§   

the architecture and landscaping of the project’s Granville Avenue frontage is aligned with the commercial and public character across the street; and

§   

the lobby of the residential tower fronts onto Anderson Road which is primarily a residential street.

Also, Mr. Siegrist reviewed and provided details on the floor plans, sections, sustainability features of the proposed project including its LEED Silver equivalency provisions, building elevations, and building materials.

Ms. Colter reviewed the landscaping features along the Anderson Road and Granville Avenue frontages as well as on the outdoor amenity spaces on the fourth level podium roof and roof decks at the fifth, sixth, seventh and eleventh floors and highlighted the following:

§   

the proposed development is an infill project which will set a precedent in the block;

§   

there are four primary entrances at the Anderson Road frontage, including separate entries to the loading bay and parkade, the main entrance to the tower and the coffee shop entrance;

§   

different kinds of paving have been designated at the building entrances off Anderson Road;

§   

the main landscaping elements along the Granville Avenue frontage include a large landscaped boulevard, sod lawn with street trees and decorative paving;

§   

the passive outdoor amenity space on the fourth level podium roof can be accessed from the north and south sides as well as from the small private patios to the east;

§   

the fifth floor roof deck has two separate outdoor areas;

§   

community planters are provided on the sixth floor roof deck for residents of SUCCESS affordable housing units;

§   

the seventh floor roof deck features an outdoor dining area; and

§   

a small outdoor amenity area is located on the eleventh floor roof deck.

Panel Discussion

Discussion ensued regarding the need for the provision of power lines and street tree lighting along the Granville Avenue frontage of the subject development. In response to a query from the Panel, Wayne Craig, Director of Development, advised that there are no existing power lines along the Granville Avenue frontage; however, the Servicing Agreement associated with frontage improvements on the subject property allows the opportunity to review the need for the provision of power for street tree lighting.

In response to a query from the Panel, Mr. Siegrist commented that based on the positive experience of non-profit societies regarding the provision of urban agriculture in affordable housing projects, he is of the opinion that the community planters on the sixth floor roof deck of the subject development will be utilized by the residents of SUCCESS-managed  affordable housing units.

In response to queries from the Panel regarding the basis for the proposed large reduction of required parking spaces, Mr. Siegrist stated that (i) the target residents lack the potential for car ownership as they are basically in need of affordable housing , (ii) based on his  experience working with senior care complexes and non-profit societies, the ratio of required parking spaces relative to the number of senior residents is approximately one-third to one-quarter, (iii) the requested parking variance is supported by a traffic impact and parking study conducted by the applicant’s traffic consultant, (iv) the parking study considered the experience of a similar facility in Richmond, and (v) majority of target residents use public transit.

In response to a further query from the Panel, Mr. Siegrist reviewed the details of the weather protection canopies along Anderson Road and Granville Avenue, noting that the large canopy at the lobby on Anderson Road extends approximately nine feet from the building façade.

In response to a further query from the Panel, Mr. Siegrist commented that the provision of separate loading and parking entries along Anderson Road were based on safety considerations for parkade users and the different height requirement for the loading space. Also, he stated that architectural and landscaping treatments are being proposed to mitigate the dominance of the loading and parking entries on the building façade along Anderson Road.

In response to a query from the Panel, Ms. Colter reviewed the details of the landscaping treatment and site furnishings along the Granville Avenue frontage.

Discussion ensued between the applicant and the Panel on building signage and it was suggested that (i) the applicant review the design and location of the signage and (ii) the applicant develop cohesive signage guidelines for the proposed development, including materials, type, font size and location prior to the Development Permit advancing to Council.

Staff Comments

Mr. Craig commented that in addition to the requested parking and loading spaces variances, the applicant is also requesting to reduce the Basic Universal Housing Features manoeuvring space at bathroom doorways as shown in the Development Permit plans. He noted that the applicant has demonstrated that the residential units are wheelchair accessible and that the subject development permit application was submitted prior to the inclusion of additional manoeuvring space requirements in the Zoning Bylaw.

Mr. Craig also advised that (i) 5% of total parking spaces will have electric vehicle (EV) charging stations, (ii) an additional 20 % of total parking spaces will be pre-ducted for future installation of EV charging stations, (iii) the proposed development meets the OCP standards for aircraft noise mitigation, and (iv) the City will incorporate public art in the proposed development.

In response to a query from the Panel, Mr. Craig stated that as per confirmation by the project architect, the residential units are wheelchair accessible.

Correspondence

None.

Gallery Comments

None.

Panel Discussion

The Panel expressed support for the application and noted (i) the significant details provided in the presentation of the project, (ii) the rationale for the requested parking variance, and (iii) the benefits that the project would bring to the City.

Also, the Panel directed staff to work with the applicant to formulate a package of signage guidelines for the proposed development in terms of the sizes, fonts, materials type and locations of the signage in order for the applicant to develop a logical and cohesive signage design.

Panel Decision

It was moved and seconded

That a Development Permit be issued which would:

1.

permit the construction of a 14-storey mixed use development with 129 affordable housing units and approximately 2,090 m² (22,500 ft²) community service space at 8080 Anderson Road and 8111 Granville Avenue on a site zoned Downtown Commercial (CDT1); and

2.

vary the provisions of Richmond Zoning Bylaw 8500 to:

(a)

reduce the Basic Universal Housing Features manoeuvring space at bathroom doorways as shown in the Development Permit plans;

(b)

reduce the number of required parking spaces from 163 to 67;

(c)

reduce the number of required class 1 bicycle storage spaces from 165 to 150; and

(d)

reduce the number of required medium-size on-site loading spaces from 2 to 1; and

staff to work with the applicant to formulate a package of signage guidelines for the subject development in order for the applicant to develop a cohesive signage design.

CARRIED

3.

Development Permit 12-612510
(File Ref. No.:  DP 12-612510)  (REDMS No. 4147318)

APPLICANT:

Polygon Development 192 Ltd.

PROPERTY LOCATION:

8311, 8331, 8351, and 8371 Cambie Road and 3651 Sexsmith Road

INTENT OF PERMIT:

Permit the construction of a three-phase, residential development containing 528 dwellings units at 8311, 8331, 8351, and 8371 Cambie Road and 3651 Sexsmith Road on a site zoned “High Rise Apartment (ZHR12) Capstan Village (City Centre)”.

Applicant’s Comments

Chris Ho, Polygon Homes, accompanied by Gwyn Vose, IBI/HB Architects, and Jennifer Stamp, Durante Kreuk Architects, introduced the project and gave a brief overview of the site context.

Mr. Vose reviewed the siting and architectural form and character of the three towers, the two mid-rise buildings, the amenity building, the residential townhouses, and the landscaped roof decks and highlighted the following:

§   

the western tower has a unique “flat-iron” expression;

§   

the central tower has a square and compact form;

§   

the eastern tower terraces down towards the north;

§   

residential townhouses wrap around the eastern, southern and western edges of the property;

§   

the large landscaped podium rooftop at the north side rises eastward towards the amenity structure; and

§   

the four storey amenity building at the northwest corner provides direct access to the large outdoor deck and rooftop.

In reply to a query from the Panel, Mr. Ho confirmed that the mid-rise forms accommodate the density bonus granted to the project and provide a strong urban edge to the proposed large City park.

Ms. Stamp reviewed the landscaping scheme for the project which include, among others, the (i) landscaped open spaces adjacent to the building entries, (ii) raised patios fronting the townhouses, (iii) mid-block public pathway fronting the townhouses along the east side of the development, and (iv) planting of various species of trees at the north side of the development’s parking podium which fronts onto a strip mall.

Also, Ms. Stamp reviewed the proposed amenities on the rooftop outdoor space on the parking podium and noted that the pedestrian pathways are barrier-free.

In response to a query from the Panel, Mr. Ho reviewed the possible pedestrian routes from the main entries to the development to the existing Aberdeen Canada Line station and to the future Capstan Canada Line station.

In response to a further query from the Panel, Ms. Stamp advised that the applicant is currently in discussion with Engineering regarding the surface treatment on the proposed crosswalk at the northeast side of the future diagonal road. Mr. Ho added that the public art to be located at the proposed park will be integrated with the entry plaza across.

Staff Comments

Mr. Craig stated that the applicant will contribute funding towards the construction of the future Capstan Canada Line station secured through rezoning. In addition, he provided the following information:

§   

Transportation Demand Management measures include (i) special crosswalk across Cambie Road, (ii) improvements of the Hazelbridge Way frontage along the proposed park, (iii) provision of Electric Vehicle (EV) charging stations in 20% of parking stalls, and (iv) pre-ducting of additional 25% of parking stalls for future installation of EV charging stations;

§   

80 residential units or approximately 15% of total units are Basic Universal Housing (BUH) units; and

§   

the development proposal is (i) District Energy Utility (DEU) ready, (ii) designed to meet LEED Silver equivalency, and (iii) meets the OCP standards for aircraft noise mitigation.

Correspondence

None.

Gallery Comments

Sandra Melin, 8420 Cambie Road, expressed concern regarding the current traffic congestion along Cambie Road and the hazards of making left turns onto Brown Road. She queried whether installation of traffic lights is being considered at the intersection.

In response to the query, Suzanne Carter-Huffman, Senior Planner-Urban Design, advised that as per the comprehensive traffic impact analysis done at the rezoning stage, the developer had committed to provide traffic signal upgrades in a number of intersections in the area via a Servicing Agreement. In addition, Ms. Carter-Huffman commented that the proposed special pedestrian crossing across Cambie Road will be illuminated.

Ms. Melin further commented on the necessity of installing traffic lights at the Cambie Road and Brown Road intersection where vehicles are making left turns onto Brown Road to access the entrance to Richmond Funeral Home.

In response to the comment, Ms. Huffman stated that the exact locations for the traffic signal upgrades have not yet been determined; however, the City will look into Ms. Melin’s concern. Also, Ms. Huffman advised that Ms. Melin contact City staff to further discuss the matter. 

Panel Discussion

The Panel expressed support for the project, noting that it is a unique and well thought out project. 

Panel Decision

It was moved and seconded

That a Development Permit be issued which would permit the construction of a three-phase, residential development containing 528 dwellings units at 8311, 8331, 8351, and 8371 Cambie Road and 3651 Sexsmith Road on a site zoned “High Rise Apartment (ZHR12) Capstan Village (City Centre)”.

CARRIED

4.

Development Permit DP 13-627880
(File Ref. No.:  DP 13-627880)  (REDMS No. 3945273 v.3)

APPLICANT:

Matthew Cheng Architect Inc.

PROPERTY LOCATION:

7451 and 7471 No. 4 Road, a No Access Property on General Currie Road, and a Lane to be Closed

INTENT OF PERMIT:

1.

Permit the construction of a 20 unit townhouse complex at 7451 and 7471 No. 4 Road, a No Access Property on General Currie Road, and a Lane to be Closed on a site zoned “Medium Density Townhouses (RTM3)”; and

2.

Vary the provisions of Richmond Zoning Bylaw 8500 to increase the percentage of parking stalls provided in a tandem arrangement from 50 percent to 70 percent.

Applicant’s Comments

Matthew Cheng, Matthew Cheng Architect Inc., reviewed the site context, building setbacks, proposed road improvements and the architectural form and character of the buildings. In addition, Mr. Cheng provided the following information:

§   

the permissible Floor Area Ratio (FAR)  for the project is 0.70, and the applicant is proposing 0.693 FAR;

§   

the proposed building heights and massing along No. 4 Road and General Currie Road conform to the area plan guidelines;

§   

the townhouse units are clustered in two and three unit building clusters to respect the neighbouring properties;

§   

the visitor accessible parking is located adjacent to the proposed convertible unit in Building B;

§   

the outdoor amenity space faces the proposed driveway which is accessed from the proposed extension of General Currie Road; and

§   

improvements are proposed to the outdoor amenity space, the base of the buildings, and lay-out of washrooms as per recommendation of the Advisory Design Panel.

Rebecca Colter, PMG Landscape Architects, gave an overview of the landscaping scheme and provided the following information:

§   

the outdoor amenity space provides a focal point in the proposed development;

§   

permeable pavers will be installed at the site entrance, outdoor amenity space, visitor parking stalls, pedestrian walkway and other sections of the internal drive aisle;

§   

each townhouse unit will have its own private outdoor space;  and

§   

the proposed planting along the street frontages provides a modern landscaping character.

Panel Discussion

In response to queries from the Panel, Ms. Colter stated that children can access the children’s play area through the driveway edge marked with permeable pavers to indicate that it is an interior pedestrian walkway. Also, Ms. Colter noted the limited space available for play equipment; however, the proposed play equipment has play value.

The Panel expressed concern regarding the “mini-storage” appearance of the row of four single garage doors on the south elevation of Building A, to which the applicant responded by suggesting that (i) further design development can be made on the garage doors, and (ii) lighting fixtures be installed on the exterior wall of the garages. Also, the applicant mentioned the upright planting and ground covers in between the individual garage doors which are not shown in the elevation.

In response to queries from the Panel, Mr. Cheng advised that (i) the 2 ½ storey building to the south of the proposed development will not shadow the outdoor amenity area, and (ii) the proposed redesign of the garage doors will result in the provision of an indoor handicapped parking stall.

Staff Comments

Mr. Craig advised that the project’s landscaping plan includes an agricultural buffer on the east side which was reviewed and supported by the Agricultural Advisory Committee. In addition, Mr. Craig stated that (i) two street trees will be retained along the No. 4 Road frontage as part of the Servicing Agreement, and (ii) a large hedge planting along the south property line is proposed to provide separation from the adjacent townhouse development to the south of the subject site.

Also, Mr. Craig noted that the requested tandem parking variance will provide an additional 12 resident parking spaces beyond the Bylaw requirement.

Correspondence

None.

Gallery Comments

John Doughty, 6404 Meadow Place, Delta queried whether General Currie Road will be developed right through No. 4 Road. In response to the query, Mr. Craig advised that a two-way half road will be constructed along a portion of General Currie Road between LeChow Street and No. 4 Road fronting the subject development.  Also, Mr. Craig noted that currently, there are development proposals which will open up a portion of General Currie Road between Ash and Bridge Streets.

In response to a further query, Mr. Craig advised that over time, General Currie Road will connect from Ash Street to No. 4 Road.

In response to a further query, staff advised that traffic improvement measures are being proposed as per development proposals on Bridge Street and No. 4 Road and over time, a traffic light may be installed at the General Currie Road and No. 4 Road intersection if warranted by the traffic volume in the area.

A Richmond resident, with the aid of an interpreter, queried regarding the   proposal for a lane closure on the subject site. In response to the query, Mr. Cheng pointed out the proposed road improvements.

A resident of 7511 No. 4 Road queried on the extent of the separation between the subject development and the adjacent townhouse development to the south.

In reply to the query, Mr. Craig advised that (i) the buildings on the south side of the proposed development have a minimum of three meters setback from the south property line, (ii) a six foot high wood fence is proposed along the south property line, and (iii) a ten-foot hedge planting is proposed between the property line and the building face. In addition, Mr. Craig noted that the adjacent townhouse buildings to the south of the subject development have setbacks ranging from three to five meters from their own property line.

Panel Discussion

The Panel noted the positive design features of the proposed development such as the treatment of the end units; however, the Panel reiterated the necessity for the applicant to make a thorough redesign of the row of garage doors in all of the buildings..

In response to the comments of the Panel, Mr. Cheng expressed willingness to work with staff in the redesign of the garage doors prior to the Development Permit being forwarded to Council.

Panel Decision

It was moved and seconded

That a Development Permit which would:

1.

permit the construction of a 20 unit townhouse complex at 7451 and 7471 No. 4 Road, a No Access Property on General Currie Road, and a Lane to be Closed on a site zoned “Medium Density Townhouses (RTM3)”; and

2.

vary the provisions of Richmond Zoning Bylaw 8500 to increase the percentage of parking stalls provided in a tandem arrangement from 50 percent to 70 percent;

be issued on the condition that the applicant meet with City staff to (i) review and make a thorough redesign of the row of garage doors in all buildings, and (ii) re-examine the play value of the proposed play equipment in order to incorporate suitable play equipment on the children’s play area.

CARRIED

5.

New Business

It was moved and seconded

That the Development Permit Panel meeting tentatively scheduled for Wednesday, March 12, 2014, be cancelled.

CARRIED

6.

Date Of Next Meeting: Wednesday, March 26, 2014 (tentative)

7.

Adjournment

It was moved and seconded

That the meeting be adjourned at 5:33 p.m.

CARRIED

Certified a true and correct copy of the Minutes of the meeting of the Development Permit Panel of the Council of the City of Richmond held on Wednesday, February 26, 2014.

_________________________________

_________________________________

Joe Erceg
Chair

Rustico Agawin
Auxiliary Committee Clerk