April 30, 2014 - Minutes
 |
Development Permit Panel
Wednesday, April 30, 2014
|
Time: |
3:30 p.m. |
|
Place: |
Council Chambers |
|
Present: |
Joe Erceg, Chair |
|
The meeting was called to order at 3:30 p.m.
|
|
|
|
The Chair drew attention to a memorandum dated April 28, 2014 from the Director of Development (attached to and forming part of these minutes as Schedule 1), requesting that Item No. 4 – Development Variance 13-634940 be removed from the agenda. |
|
|
As a result, the following motion was introduced: |
|
|
It was moved and seconded |
|
|
That Development Variance 13-634940 (5311 Cedarbridge Way and 7771 Alderbridge Way) be deleted from the agenda. |
|
|
CARRIED |
|
1. |
Minutes |
|
|
It was moved and seconded |
|
|
That the minutes of the meeting of the Development Permit Panel held on Wednesday, April 16, 2014, be adopted. |
|
|
CARRIED |
|
2. |
Development Permit 11-595890 |
|
||||
|
|
APPLICANT: |
MQN Architects |
|
|||
|
|
PROPERTY LOCATION: |
9140 and part of 9200 Bridgeport Road |
|
|||
|
|
INTENT OF PERMIT: |
|
||||
|
|
1. |
Permit the construction of a new Car Dealership at 9140 Bridgeport Road and part of 9200 Bridgeport Road on a site zoned “Auto-Oriented Commercial (CA)”; and |
||||
|
|
2. |
Vary the provisions of Richmond Zoning Bylaw 8500 to: |
||||
|
|
|
(a) |
Reduce the west side yard setback from 3.0 metres to 0.0 metres; |
|||
|
|
|
(b) |
Reduce the south yard setback from 3.0 metres to 0.0 metres; |
|||
|
|
|
(c) |
Reduce the landscaping width of the front yard from 3.0 metres to 0.78 metres for a limited portion of the Bridgeport Road Frontage; and |
|||
|
|
|
(d) |
Reduce the north manoeuvring aisle width fronting the proposed building from 7.5 metres to 5.5 metres. |
|||
|
|
Applicant’s Comments |
|
|
|
Vicki Topping, MQN Architects, provided background information regarding the proposed development and highlighted the following: |
|
|
|
§ |
the existing two-storey wood building on the subject property is going to be removed as it is old and degraded; |
|
|
§ |
the existing building foundation will be re-used; |
|
|
§ |
on-site trees will either remain or be relocated within the site; |
|
|
§ |
the proposed building design is clean, crisp and European; |
|
|
§ |
display cars in the showroom are visible from Bridgeport Road; |
|
|
§ |
a vehicle display area facing Sea Island Way sits on an outdoor space above the proposed service bay; |
|
|
§ |
the wood screen at the rooftop level provides screening for the rooftop mechanical equipment and elevator shaft; and |
|
|
§ |
an exterior vehicle ramp will bring the vehicles into the building. |
|
|
In addition, Ms. Topping reviewed the (i) building design and elevations, (ii) vehicle circulation and pedestrian route within the project, (iii) movement of vehicles inside the building, (iv) underground and outdoor parking scheme, (v) proposed materials for the new building, and (vi) location of garbage and recycling. |
|
|
|
Also, Ms. Topping commented on (i) the proposed realignment of the north-south property line between the subject property and the adjacent property to the east, (ii) the provision for a frontage road to provide vehicle circulation throughout the site and access to the property to the west, and (iii) the elevation of the main floor of the building above the geodetic flood plain level. |
|
|
|
Wendy Armstrong-Taylor, Wendy Armstrong-Taylor Landscape Consulting and Design, gave an overview of the landscaping scheme and provided the following information: |
|
|
|
§ |
there are many mature trees on-site which are mostly Japanese Maples; |
|
|
§ |
all on-site trees will be retained; however, some will be relocated within the site; |
|
|
§ |
the proposed simple plant palette will complement the existing planting and is compatible with the building design; |
|
|
§ |
a paved walkway from the sidewalk runs directly into the building; |
|
|
§ |
additional planting is proposed along the west property line; |
|
|
§ |
a vehicle display area on grasscrete is located at the northwest corner of the site; and |
|
|
§ |
existing planters will be retained. |
|
|
Panel Discussion |
|
|
|
In response to a query from the Panel whether the applicant is proposing sustainability measures such as mechanical and geoexchange systems seen in similar development applications, Ms. Topping and Ms. Armstrong advised that (i) the applicant has not yet initiated discussions on the matter with electrical and mechanical engineers, (ii) proposed sustainability measures include utilizing the existing building foundation which reduces construction waste materials, relocating existing trees within the site, using energy saving equipment in the building and utilizing drought tolerant plants. |
|
|
|
Discussion ensued regarding the architectural and landscaping treatments being proposed by the applicant to mitigate the tightness of the site, the prominence of the existing building foundation and the proposed zero lot lines at the south and west property lines. In response to a query, Ms. Topping stated the following: |
|
|
|
§ |
the existing building foundation will need to comply with the Province’s Energy Code and a stucco finishing system will likely be proposed for exterior insulation; and |
|
|
§ |
the project is currently in the design development stage and some of the details have yet to be developed. |
|
|
In response to a further query from the Panel, Ms. Topping advised that (i) a portion of the rooftop will be utilized as an exterior space for employees of the future occupant of the building, and (ii) there are currently around four potential occupants. |
|
|
|
Discussion ensued regarding the proposal for a zero lot line at the south property line and the need to (i) mitigate the visual appearance of the south side of the proposed development, and (ii) rehabilitate the space to the south of the property which was leased by the property owner from the Province. |
|
|
|
In response to a query from the Panel, Ms. Topping advised that (i) there is no proposed landscaping on the leased space to the south of the property because it is not part of the subject property, (ii) the vehicles previously parked on the leased space had been removed, (iii) there is some presence of asphalt on the leased space, and (iv) there is vegetation between the south property line and the road edge of Sea Island Way. |
|
|
|
Discussion ensued regarding the proposed zero south yard setback and the lack of buffering and landscaping along the south side of the property and the need for the applicant to consult with the Ministry of Transportation and Infrastructure for possible improvements to be undertaken on the Sea Island Way frontage. |
|
|
|
In reply to a query from the Panel regarding the visibility of the west elevation of the proposed building from the public realm, Ms. Topping advised that (i) the adjacent lot to the west of the subject property is vacant, (ii) the west elevation will be visible from the public realm although existing shrubs will provide some screening to the west façade of the building, (iii) the applicant will consider adding vegetation along the west side of the property, and (iv) composite aluminum panels are the primary materials proposed for the west façade of the building. |
|
|
|
Staff Comments |
|
|
Wayne Craig, Director of Development, advised that (i) there is a subdivision application associated with the subject site which includes a Servicing Agreement for frontage improvements along Bridgeport Road, (ii) due to the proximity of the site to the Kinder Morgan jet fuel line, the applicant is required to acquire permits from Kinder Morgan prior to any on- and off-site works, and (iii) one sustainability measure not mentioned in the discussion is the provision of two electric vehicle charging stations on-site. |
|
|
Correspondence |
|
|
None. |
|
|
Gallery Comments |
|
|
None. |
|
|
Panel Discussion |
|
|
The Panel expressed appreciation for some nice elements of the project, however, it was noted that more work needs to be done with regard to (i) providing details on the first level of the building and the underground parkade, (ii) consulting with the Ministry of Transportation and Infrastructure to rehabilitate and undertake landscaping improvements along the Sea Island Way frontages of the subject development and the adjacent property to the west, (iii) incorporating further sustainability measures, (iv) reviewing the suitability of the design and proposed materials for the proposed rooftop screen, and (v) further architectural and landscaping treatments on the west side of the development. |
|
|
Panel Decision |
|
|
As a result of the discussion, the following referral was introduced: |
|
|
|
It was moved and seconded |
|
|
|
That Development Permit application 11-595890 be referred back to staff for the purpose of further discussions with the applicant regarding (i) providing details on the ground level and underground parkade of the building, (ii) rehabilitation and landscaping improvements along the Sea Island Way frontage, (iii) incorporating further sustainability measures, (iv) the suitability of the proposed design and materials for the rooftop screen, and (iv) further architectural and landscaping treatments on the west side of the proposed development. |
|
|
|
CARRIED |
|
|
3. |
Development Variance 14-654101 |
|||
|
|
APPLICANT: |
Manjeet and Harman Biln |
|
|
|
|
PROPERTY LOCATION: |
5780 Bittern Court |
|
|
|
|
INTENT OF PERMIT: |
Vary the maximum lot coverage in “Land Use Contract (006) Bylaw No. 2938” from 33% to 40% in order to permit construction of a new two-storey single detached dwelling at 5780 Bittern Court. |
|
|
|
|
Applicant’s Comments |
|
|
|
Manjeet Biln, co-owner of the subject property, provided background information regarding the subject Development Variance permit application and highlighted the following: |
|
|
|
§ |
the Land Use Contract (006) approved under Bylaw No. 2983 permits the construction of a three-storey dwelling with a maximum lot coverage of 33% on the subject property ; |
|
|
§ |
the applicant is proposing to build a two-storey single-detached dwelling and is requesting to increase the lot coverage from 33% to 40%; and |
|
|
§ |
the requested increase in lot coverage will mainly be at the back end of the subject property. |
|
|
Mr. Biln provided original copies of eight letters from neighbouring property owners expressing support for the proposed construction of the two-storey dwelling (attached to and forming part of these minutes as Schedule 2). |
|
|
|
Mr. Biln and Mr. Kam Dahia, Kam Dahia Design, reviewed the elevations and design of the proposed two-storey development, noting that the intention is to break up and minimize its vertical massing. |
|
|
|
Keith Ross, K.R. Ross and Associates, provided a brief overview of the landscaping scheme of the proposed development and highlighted the following: |
|
|
|
§ |
a well landscaped boulevard is proposed in front of the house; |
|
|
§ |
existing trees at the northeast corner of the property will be retained; |
|
|
§ |
other on-site trees close to the existing house will be removed; |
|
|
§ |
replacement trees will be planted at the frontage and interior side yard; |
|
|
§ |
the existing six-foot fence along the interior side yard and along a portion of the west property line be retained; and |
|
|
§ |
the location of the existing driveway along Trumpeter Drive will be retained. |
|
|
Panel Discussion |
|
|
|
In response to queries from the Panel, Mr. Ross advised that (i) interlocking concrete unit pavers are being proposed as surface paving for the driveway, patio, and walkways, and (ii) there will be improvements on the existing six-foot fence should it be necessary. |
|
|
|
Staff Comments |
|
|
|
Mr. Craig commented that three existing trees will be retained and the applicant is required to submit (i) a security to the City to ensure the survival of trees, (ii) a contract with a Certified Arborist, and (iii) a Letter of Credit for landscaping. |
|
|
|
In response to queries from the Panel, Mr. Craig advised the following: |
|
|
|
§ |
under Land Use Contract 006, the maximum built area for the subject property would cover approximately 5,600 square feet; and |
|
|
§ |
the development plan submitted by the applicant will form part of the Development Variance Permit, which will be registered on the land title of the subject property; also, should Council approve the Development Variance Permit, the future construction of the project will need to be in accordance with these plans. |
|
|
Correspondence |
|
|
None. |
|
|
Gallery Comments |
|
|
None. |
|
|
Panel Discussion |
|
|
The Panel expressed appreciation for the amount of work and resources invested by the applicant with regard to the design and landscaping of the proposed development, noting that the proposal will fit well with the neighbourhood. |
|
|
Panel Decision |
|
|
It was moved and seconded |
|
|
That a Development Variance Permit be issued that would vary the maximum lot coverage in “Land Use Contract (006) Bylaw No. 2938” from 33% to 40% in order to permit construction of a new two-storey single detached dwelling at 5780 Bittern Court. |
|
|
CARRIED |
|
4. |
Development Variance 13-634940 |
|||
|
|
APPLICANT: |
Onni 7731 Alderbridge Holding Corp. |
|
|
|
|
PROPERTY LOCATION: |
5311 Cedarbridge Way and 7771 Alderbridge Way |
|
|
|
|
INTENT OF PERMIT: |
Vary the provisions of Richmond Zoning Bylaw 8500 to further reduce the visitor parking requirement from 0.15 spaces/unit, as per Development Permit (DP 12-615424), to 0.10 spaces/unit for the development located at 5311 Cedarbridge Way and 7771 Alderbridge Way on a site zoned “High Density Low Rise Apartments (RAH2)”. |
|
|
|
|
Please see Page 1 for action on this matter. |
|
5. |
New Business |
|
|
None. |
|
6. |
Date of Next Meeting: Wednesday, May 14, 2014 |
|
7. |
Adjournment |
|
|
It was moved and seconded |
|
|
That the meeting be adjourned at 4:20 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, April 30, 2014. |
|
_________________________________ |
_________________________________ |
|
Joe Erceg |
Rustico Agawin |