September 10, 2014 - Minutes

Time:

3:30 p.m.

Place:

Council Chambers
Richmond City Hall

Present:

Joe Erceg, Chair
Dave Semple, General Manager, Community Services
John Irving, Director, Engineering

1.

Minutes

It was moved and seconded

1.

That the minutes of the meeting of the Development Permit Panel held on Wednesday, July 30, 2014, be amended to read as follows in the second Panel Discussion under Item No. 2:

“The Chair spoke of the proposed reduction in visitor parking and noted that the 0.125 spaces/unit rate will provide a buffer in the event that more visitor parking spaces are required than the surveys indicate. In addition, due to undeveloped sidewalk connections, access to the Canada Line is restricted. Furthermore, it was noted that the Panel is not inclined to consider any further visitor parking reductions for this project. Also, concern was raised that the reduction in visitor parking spaces commoditize the parking spaces and comes at the expense of available public parking.”

2.

That the minutes of the meeting of the Development Permit Panel held on Wednesday, August 27, 2014, be adopted.

CARRIED

2.

Development Permit 13-646028
(File Ref. No.:  DP 13-646028)  (REDMS No. 4267725)

APPLICANT:

Sandhill Homes Ltd.

PROPERTY LOCATION:

9080 No. 3 Road

INTENT OF PERMIT:

1.

Permit the construction of 12 townhouse units at 9080 No. 3 Road on a site zoned "Medium Density Townhouses (RTM2)"; and

2.

Vary the provisions of Richmond Zoning Bylaw 8500 to:

a)

reduce the minimum lot width on major arterial road from 50.0 m to 43.3 m;

b)

reduce the front yard setback to Unit A at the southwest corner of the site from 6.0 m to 5.18 m;

c)

increase the rate of tandem parking spaces from 50% to 67% to allow a total of sixteen (16) tandem parking spaces in eight (8) three-storey townhouse units; and

d)

replace three (3) standard residential parking stalls with small car stalls - one (1) in each of the side-by-side double car garages.

Applicant’s Comments

Yoshi Mikamo, Yamamoto Architecture Inc., and Marlene Messer, PMG Landscape Architects Ltd., gave a brief overview of the proposed application regarding (i) urban design, (ii) architectural form and character, and (iii) landscaping and open space design. Mr. Mikamo noted that access to the site is through an existing driveway on the south side of the site and that the driveway will not be extended farther north or east. Mr. Mikamo added that the proposed development will be two and three storeys in height and that the proposed development will include one convertible unit and have accessible parking.

Mr. Mikamo noted that the proposed amenity area is located on the south east corner of the site. He then commented on the tree retention plan and advised that there is a proposal to remove one tree on-site due to the tree’s poor condition.

Mr. Mikamo commented on the sustainability features of the proposed development including (i) Low-E Energy Star rated windows, (ii) Energy Star rated appliances, (iii) low flow fixtures, and (iv) individual temperature controls in each room.

Ms. Messer spoke of the proposed landscaping features with respect to (i) the natural play elements in the amenity area, (ii) the edible plants proposed for the site, and (iii) the permeable pavers that will be used in the driveway.

Panel Discussion

In reply to queries from the Panel, Ms. Messer advised that the amenity area will include natural play elements but will not have traditional play structures.

Discussion ensued regarding the variance to reduce the minimum lot width and the front yard setback to Unit A. Mr. Mikamo advised that the proposed variances would allow the site’s streetscape and setback to be consistent with the adjacent townhouse development.

In reply to queries from the Panel, Ms. Messer described the natural play elements of the amenity space including a ramp, a stage deck, balance beam logs and large flat boulders. She also noted that the amenity space will include seating and that edible plants will be added.

Staff Comments

In reply to queries from the Panel, Wayne Craig, Director, Development, advised that the adjacent lot on the north side of the site was a former gas station and is currently designated as a commercial site in the Official Community Plan. He noted that there is currently no indication that a gas station is proposed for the site and that commercial rezoning of the site may be required in the future.

Panel Discussion

In reply to queries from the Panel, Mr. Mikamo advised that there are trees proposed along the north side of the site.

Mr. Craig commented on the developer’s efforts to retain trees on the site. He noted that the lot width variance was proposed as a result of the proposed development occurring on an orphaned site. He added that the setback variance on Unit A is consistent with the variance granted for the adjacent townhouse development which will result in a consistent streetscape along No. 3 Road. Also, he advised that there is an additional visitor parking space on-site.

Discussion ensued regarding Council’s direction on a reduction of tandem parking. In reply to queries from the Panel, Mr. Craig advised that the development permit was submitted prior to the bylaw amendment related to tandem parking approved by Council in March 2013. He added that staff have worked with the developer to modify the number of tandem parking spaces to work towards reflecting the changes in the bylaw, however a variance is required.

Correspondence

None.

Gallery Comments

None.

Panel Decision

It was moved and seconded

That a Development Permit be issued which would:

1.

permit the construction of 12 townhouse units at 9080 No. 3 Road on a site zoned "Medium Density Townhouses (RTM2)"; and

2.

vary the provisions of Richmond Zoning Bylaw 8500 to:

a)

reduce the minimum lot width on major arterial road from 50.0 m to 43.3 m;

b)

reduce the front yard setback to Unit A at the southwest corner of the site from 6.0 m to 5.18 m;

c)

increase the rate of tandem parking spaces from 50% to 67% to allow a total of sixteen (16) tandem parking spaces in eight (8) three-storey townhouse units; and

d)

replace three (3) standard residential parking stalls with small car stalls - one (1) in each of the side-by-side double car garages.

                                                                                                                                   CARRIED

3.

Development Variance 14-665249
(File Ref. No.:  DV 14-665249)  (REDMS No. 4305450)

APPLICANT:

Priority Permits Ltd.

PROPERTY LOCATION:

6951 Elmbridge Way

INTENT OF PERMIT:

1.

Allow facia, canopy and projecting signs for the commercial uses in the development; and

2.

Allow installation of two (2) additional freestanding signs along Elmbridge Way for the existing mixed-use building located at 6951 Elmbridge Way.

Applicant’s Comments

Jordan Desrochers, Priority Permits Ltd., and Eric Hughes, Onni Group, briefed the Panel on the proposed application that includes facia and canopy signs and two additional freestanding signs along Elmbridge Way. Using visual aids, Mr. Hughes described the design and locations of the proposed commercial frontage and freestanding signs. Mr. Hughes anticipates that the commercial portion of the development will open in October, 2014.

Panel Discussion

In reply to queries from the Panel, Mr. Hughes showed the location of the frontage signs in relation to the anchor tenant and the commercial retail units. He added that a variance would be required to allow canopy signs on-site and that tenants would be responsible for applying for individual sign permits.

Discussion ensued with respect to T&T Supermarket’s signage plan and Mr. Hughes noted that the said signage plan was currently not available.

Mr. Hughes and Mr. Desrochers gave a brief description of the design and function of the proposed freestanding signs noting that (i) the pedestrian directional signs would be approximately seven feet tall, (ii) the sign along the corner of Elmbridge Way and Hollybridge Way and would be approximately 16 feet in height, (iii) the signs would be porous in design to reduce visual impact, (iv) parking directions will be included on the signs, (v) the signs will not use a light box, and (vi) aluminum panels along with low energy consumption LED lights will be used.

In reply to queries from the Panel, Mr. Craig advised that the pedestal tenant signs are not part of this proposed application.

Staff Comments

In reply to queries from the Panel, Mr. Craig advised that Sign Bylaw No. 5560 does not permit canopy or facia signs for Residential/Limited Commercial (RCL3) zone. He added that an amendment to Sign Bylaw No. 5560 and/or a Zoning Text Amendment to the RCL3 zone to allow signage for the commercial portion of a mixed use development will be brought forward to Council for review. Also, he noted that since the businesses on-site are scheduled to open soon, an application for a variance permit was being pursued to facilitate signage when the businesses open.

Mr. Craig spoke of the proposed signage and noted that the proposed main freestanding sign will be approximately 16 feet tall and the total signage area would be approximately less than half of what is typically permitted in Sign Bylaw No. 5560. He noted that the canopy and facia signs would be located along the commercial retail units and that individual tenants will be responsible to apply for sign permits. Also, he added that the size of the canopy and facia signs would need to comply with Sign Bylaw No. 5560.

Discussion then took place regarding the location and the aesthetics of the proposed freestanding signs in relation to the building’s design and architecture.

Correspondence

Crystal Yan, 6971 Elmbridge Way (Schedule 1).

Discussion ensued with regard to the location of the proposed freestanding signs in relation to the addresses of the correspondence received.

Gallery Comments

None.

Panel Discussion

Discussion ensued regarding (i) the design of the proposed freestanding signs in relation to the design of the buildings on-site and the surrounding neighbourhood, (ii) whether the proposed freestanding signs were needed to direct customers, and (iii) other areas in the Lower Mainland with higher population densities, such as Vancouver, with little or no commercial freestanding signs at new commercial developments.

In reply to queries from the Panel, Mr. Craig advised that the proposed freestanding signs were reviewed by Transportation staff for sightline clearance at the intersection.

Mr. Hughes spoke of the design and features of the proposed freestanding signs and was of the opinion that the sign’s design blends with the architecture in the area.

Steve Bernier, Onni Group, provided input on the proposed freestanding signs and noted that based on feedback received, tenants of the development have expressed interest in the installation of freestanding signs. Also, he noted that the proposed commercial units have significant setbacks and could face visibility challenges. He added that one of the anchor tenants, T&T Supermarket, is a specialty grocery store and attracts customers living outside the area. He was of the opinion that customers who are unfamiliar to the area would benefit from the direction that the proposed freestanding signs provide.

Panel Decision

As a result of the discussion, the following motion was introduced:

It was moved and seconded

That a Development Permit be issued which would vary the provisions of Sign Bylaw No. 5560 to allow facia, canopy and projecting signs for the commercial uses in the development.

CARRIED

Discussion then ensued regarding the proposed additional freestanding signs and the possible implications for future applications if the permit was granted.

As a result of the discussion, the following referral was introduced:

It was moved and seconded

That staff work with the applicant to examine options for the installation of freestanding signs on the subject site and report back.

CARRIED

4.

New Business

5.

Date Of Next Meeting: September 24, 2014

6.

Adjournment

It was moved and seconded

That the meeting be adjourned at 4:28 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, September 24, 2014.

_________________________________

_________________________________

Joe Erceg
Chair

Evangel Biason
Auxiliary Committee Clerk