December 10, 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
Dave Semple, General Manager, Community Services

Minutes

It was moved and seconded

That the minutes of the meeting of the Development Permit Panel held on Wednesday, November 26, 2014, be adopted.

CARRIED

1.

Development Permit 12-618411
(File Ref. No.:  DP 12-618411)  (REDMS No. 4429250)

APPLICANT:

Globalive Wireless Management Corp.

PROPERTY LOCATION:

13280 Mitchell Road

INTENT OF PERMIT:

Vary the provisions of Richmond Zoning Bylaw 8500 to increase the maximum accessory structure height in the “Industrial (I)” zoning district from 20 m (66 ft.) to 40 m (132 ft.) in order to permit the installation of a telecommunication antenna monopole at 13280 Mitchell Road

Applicant’s Comments

Erika Riglik, Globalive Wireless Management Corp., briefed the Panel on the proposed application to install a telecommunication antenna and noted the following:

§   

the proposed telecommunication antenna would be installed in an industrial area;

§   

the proposed variance would increase the maximum height of the proposed antenna to 40 metres;

§   

the applicant was not able to utilize competitors’ telecommunication antennas;

§   

the proposed telecommunication antenna will be a thin structure and painted grey to blend with the surrounding landscape;

§   

there will be a significant buffer surrounding the base of the proposed structure;

§   

landscaping will be used to provide screening to the compound; and

§   

the proposed variance to increase the height of the proposed telecommunication antenna to 40 metres is anticipated to have a significantly larger coverage area compared to an antenna 20 metres in height.

Panel Discussion

In reply to queries from the Panel, Ms. Riglik advised that the proposed telecommunication antenna is not anticipated to be visually prominent from the Knight Street Bridge. She added that the height of the proposed telecommunication antenna is consistent with other telecommunication antennas in the city.

Discussion ensued regarding leasing the proposed antenna to other companies and in reply to queries from the Panel, Ms. Riglik noted that the antenna would have available space for future co-location and other companies would be subject to an application process to lease the proposed antenna. She added that telecommunication antennas are regulated so that the criteria for leasing would be based on available capacity.

Correspondence

None.

Gallery Comments

None.

Panel Decision

It was moved and seconded

1.

That a Development Variance Permit be issued which would vary the provisions of Richmond Zoning Bylaw 8500 to increase the maximum accessory structure height in the “Industrial (I)” zoning district from 20 m (66 ft.) to 40 m (132 ft.) in order to permit the installation of a telecommunication antenna monopole at 13280 Mitchell Road; and

2.

That Richmond City Council grant concurrence to the proposed telecommunication monopole installation for the site located at 13280 Mitchell Road.

CARRIED

2.

Development Permit 14-672823
(File Ref. No.:  DP 14-672823; Xr: HA 14-672825)  (REDMS No. 4405918)

APPLICANT:

Steveston Flats Development Corp.

PROPERTY LOCATION:

3471 Chatham Street

INTENT OF PERMIT:

1.

Permit the construction of a three-storey mixed-use building at 3471 Chatham Street on a site zoned “Commercial Mixed Use (ZMU26) – Steveston Village” including 10 apartment housing units in the upper floors and approximately 319 m² (3,438 ft²) commercial space on the ground floor; and

2.

Vary the provisions of Richmond Zoning Bylaw 8500 to increase the maximum permitted building height from 12.0 m to 15.4 m to allow elevator access to the roof deck level.

Applicant’s Comments

Rob Whetter, ZGF Cotter Architects Inc., with the aid of a visual presentation (attached to and forming part of these minutes as Schedule 1) gave a brief overview of the proposed development regarding (i) vehicle parking; (ii) urban design, (iii) architectural form and character, (iv) accessibility features, (v) conditions of adjacency, (v) the proposed building’s shadowing effect and setback, (vii) overlook from the balconies and deck, (viii) the roof deck, and (ix) the salvaged artwork panels used for public art installation.

Johnny Zhang, Maruyama and Associates Landscape Architects Inc., briefed the Panel on the landscape design of the proposed development with respect to (i) the tree species used on the parking area landscaping, (ii) the ornamental grasses used on the north edge of the proposed development, (iii) the off-site landscaping along Chatham Street, (iv) the green buffer in the undeveloped lane on the west side of the site, and (v) the landscaping and low picket fencing used to discourage loitering in the undeveloped lane on the west side of the site.

Panel Discussion

Discussion ensued with respect to the landscaping used on the laneway on the west side of the site. In reply to queries from the Panel, Mr. Whetter and Mr. Zhang noted that a green buffer is planned for the laneway. Also, the landscaping along the laneway will have a picket fence and low vegetation to discourage loitering while maintaining good visibility.

Discussion then ensued regarding the movement of pedestrians within the site. Mr. Whetter advised that customers may use parking spaces along the street or on-site next to the laneway and walk to the shop entrances along the south side of the site. He added that in order to shorten the travel distance for wheelchair access, there is a walkway connecting the accessible parking space and the sidewalk on the north side of the site.

In reply to queries from the Panel, Mr. Whetter advised that the rooftop deck will be wheelchair accessible via an elevator and be restricted to residents of the proposed development.

Discussion ensued with regard to the elevator tower on the proposed development and alternative options for wheelchair access to the rooftop. Mr. Whetter noted that efforts to minimize the height of the elevator tower have been made. He added that the elevator tower was relocated to a central location on the roof to minimize potential shadowing.

The Chair spoke of concerns related to privacy and the potential overlook from the proposed development. Mr. Whetter advised that the number of balconies were reduced from the original rezoning application design. Also, with regard to privacy concerns, Mr. Whetter noted that there are evergreen trees on the neighbouring property and that the building wall setbacks would be further away behind the balconies.

Discussion then ensued with regard to the condition and the potential shadowing from the neighbouring evergreen trees and Mr. Whetter noted that the trees are in good condition.

Staff Comments

Wayne Craig, Director, Development, commented on the proposed development, noting that (i) a servicing agreement will be required for laneway improvements and frontage improvements along 3^rd Avenue and Chatham Street, and (ii) sustainability and energy efficiency features will be included.

In reply to queries from the Chair, Mr. Craig advised that the laneway along the northern edge of the site will be upgraded with vehicle access and parking. The laneway along the western edge is currently unconstructed and will be enhanced with landscaping.

Discussion ensued with regard to the long term plan for the laneway network adjacent to the proposed development. Mr. Craig noted that there are currently no plans to open the laneway on the western edge of the proposed development and that staff have reviewed the proposed landscaping.

Discussion then ensued with regard to the future potential closure of the lane on the western edge of the site. In reply to queries from the Chair, Sara Badyal, Planner 2, and Mr. Craig advised that there was infrastructure underneath the laneway and that staff would need to examine the feasibility of closing the laneway.

Correspondence

Ralph and Edith Turner, 3411 Chatham Street (Schedule 2)

In reply to queries from the Panel, Mr. Craig advised that concerns regarding the shadowing of the proposed development have been addressed at the rezoning process.

Gallery Comments

None.

Panel Discussion

Discussion ensued with regard to accessibility to the rooftop and alternatives to using an elevator. In reply to queries from the Panel, Mr. Whetter noted that the applicant has reviewed other options for access to the rooftop and that there could be opportunities to further reduce the height of the elevator tower.

Discussion then ensued with respect to (i) potential alternatives for wheelchair access to the rooftop, (ii) the future potential plans for the laneways, (iii) vehicle parking, (iv) landscaping, and (v) pedestrian flow and access.

Panel Decision

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

It was moved and seconded

That the staff report titled Application by Steveston Flats Development Corp. for a Development Permit and a Heritage Alteration Permit at 3471 Chatham Street, dated November 17, 2014, from the Director, Development, be referred back to staff examine:

1.

alternative options for wheelchair access to the rooftop;

2.

measures incorporated into the proposed development to address potential privacy overlook concerns from west facing balconies;

3.

long term options for the laneway network adjacent to the site; and

4.

options to enhance the landscaping to improve the pedestrian flow throughout the site; and

report back to the Wednesday, January 14, 2015 Development Permit Panel meeting.

CARRIED

3.

Development Permit 14-663759
(File Ref. No.:  DP 14-663759)  (REDMS No. 4433177)

APPLICANT:

Amar Sandhu

PROPERTY LOCATIONS:

7400, 7420 and 7440 Railway Avenue

INTENT OF PERMIT:

Permit the construction of 14 townhouse units at 7400, 7420 and 7440 Railway Avenue on a site zoned "Low Density Townhouses (RTL4)."

Applicant’s Comments

Taizo Yamamoto, Yamamoto Architecture Inc., gave a brief overview of the proposed development regarding (i) urban design, (ii) architectural form and character, (iii) vehicle parking, (iv) the overlook and setback, and (v) sustainability features.

Mr. Yamamoto advised that different design schemes were examined, noting that ground oriented duplexes and detached units with traditional residential character are proposed to address concerns regarding neighbourhood character. He added that the proposed setback exceeds bylaw requirements and the proposed internal drive aisle will be built to accommodate future access to adjacent sites.

Mr. Yamamoto spoke of the vehicle parking, noting that the proposed development will have no tandem parking spaces. Also, he added that the proposed development will have additional visitor parking spaces, have one convertible unit and will be built to EnergGuide 82 standards.

Patricia Campbell, PMG Landscape Architects, commented on the proposed development’s landscape and open space design noting that, (i) seven existing trees on-site will be retained and conifers will be added, (ii) permeable pavers will be used, (iii) the amenity space will be centrally located, and (iv) a children’s play area, bike parking and benches will be included in the amenity area.

Panel Discussion

In reply to queries from the Panel regarding the site’s grading, Mr. Yamamoto noted that the proposed development will be built to the floodplain requirement and yards will slope down to existing grade.

Discussion ensued with respect to the size of the amenity area. Ms. Campbell advised that the amenity area meets requirements and will include play elements such as a playhouse and tunnel.

In reply to queries from the Panel, Ms. Campbell noted that the proposed landscaping will include columnar trees between each unit.

Discussion ensued with respect to the gathering spaces in the proposed development and in reply to queries from the Panel, Ms. Campbell advised that the units will include a patio. She added that the proposed development will have a landscaped buffer and perimeter fencing.

Staff Comments

Mr. Craig commented on the proposed development, noting that a servicing agreement will be required for frontage improvements along Railway Avenue.

Correspondence

None.

Gallery Comments

None.

Panel Decision

It was moved and seconded

That a Development Permit be issued which would permit the construction of 14 townhouse units at 7400, 7420 and 7440 Railway Avenue on a site zoned "Low Density Townhouses (RTL4)."

CARRIED

4.

Development Permit 13-637372
(File Ref. No.:  DP 13-637372)  (REDMS No. 4433177)

APPLICANT:

Dava Developments Ltd.

PROPERTY LOCATIONS:

22560, 22600 and 22620 Gilley Road

INTENT OF PERMIT:

1.

Permit the construction of thirty-five (35) three-storey townhouse units at 22560, 22600 and 22620 Gilley Road on a site zoned “Town Housing (ZT11) – Hamilton;” and

2.

Vary the provisions of Richmond Zoning Bylaw 8500 to increase the rate of tandem parking spaces from 50% to 100% to allow a total of seventy (70) tandem parking spaces in thirty-five (35) three-storey townhouse units.

Applicant’s Comments

Mr. Yamamoto gave a brief overview of the proposed development and noted the following:

§   

the access to the site was changed to Gilley Road following public consultation;

§   

pedestrian connections and frontage improvements are proposed for the western portion of the site and along Gilley Road to Westminster Highway;

§   

the site will have a grade change of one level and as a result, adjacent properties to the south are fronted with two storey units;

§   

the proposed development is oriented to maximize the number of units fronting directly to the street;

§   

the proposed development will utilize tandem vehicle parking in the units; and

§   

the amenity area will be centrally located and would be open to solar exposure.

In reply to queries from the Panel with regard to the site’s grade level, Mr. Yamamoto noted that tandem vehicle parking is preferred to reduce changes to the footprints of the units and site layout.

Ms. Campbell gave a brief overview of the proposed development’s landscape and open space design and noted the following:

§   

the existing ditch was retained and sections enhanced to remove invasive plants and plant additional native species;

§   

a pedestrian bridge was installed over the ditch with connections to the walkway along Gilley Road;

§   

the internal pedestrian walkway will have connections between the units to the amenity area;

§   

the amenity area will have play structures, seating boulders, benches and plantings;

§   

the site will use permeable paving;

§   

the site lacks usable existing trees and replacement trees will be incorporated; and

§   

pedestrian walkways will be lit using bollard lights.

Panel Discussion

In reply to queries from the Panel regarding the site’s south east corner, Mr. Yamamoto noted that a walkway would provide access to the electrical room and step down to the drive aisle. He added that a retaining wall would be required to transition the grade to the adjacent property to east. Also, he noted that the retaining wall will step down and use a combination of a timber, concrete and visually permeable picket fencing.

Discussion ensued with regard to the size of the proposed tree replacement and in reply to queries from the Panel, Ms. Campbell advised that the proposed trees will include five to six centimetre deciduous trees and a ten centimetre feature tree in the amenity area. The proposed trees will include residential scale columnar conifer trees approximately 3.5 to 4.0 metres in height.

Staff Comments

Mr. Craig advised that the servicing agreement associated with the proposed development will provide frontage improvements along Rathburn Drive and Gilley Road. The improvements along Gilley Road and will include pavement widening, and pedestrian walkway improvements on south side of the road. Also, the servicing agreement will include a north-south walkway through the development site and an east-west walkway on-site beside the drainage canal.

In reply to queries from the Panel regarding construction traffic, Mr. Craig noted that staff have responded to concerns with respect to construction activity and that on-site traffic management will be in place. Mr. Craig added that as part of the building permit process, an updated construction management plan and on-going monitoring of the site will be required.

Fred Lin, Senior Transportation Engineer, commented on the road improvements along Gilley Road and noted that the section of Gilley Road from the site entrance to Westminster Highway will be widened to accommodate two-way traffic. A 1.5 metre pedestrian walkway will also be added along the southern portion of Gilley Road from the site entrance to Westminster Highway. Mr. Lin added that the walkway would separate pedestrians from the road and that the walkway connections to east of the site will be completed once eastern sites are developed.

Correspondence

None.

Gallery Comments

A Richmond resident spoke of the ditches adjacent to the site and queried if the ditches would be filled in order to widen the road.

The Chair commented on the ditches adjacent to the site and noted that the road will be widened without filling the ditches since the ditches are a riparian area protected under Provincial regulation. The Chair added that the ditches will be enhanced to remove invasive plant species.

Mr. Lin advised that the temporary walkway from the edge of the site to Westminster Highway will be a paved shoulder and marked with paint. He added that the City is working with the applicant on additional delineations between the road and the walkway.

Discussion ensued with regard to pedestrian safety related to the proposed road improvements.

Discussion then ensued regarding the north side of Gilley Road. Mr. Lin noted that the grass boulevard on the north side of Gilley Road will be retained.

The Chair advised that further review of the proposed road enhancements can be done to examine improvements to pedestrian safety.

Panel Discussion

Discussion ensued with regard to (i) feedback from residents with respect to construction traffic, (ii) the proposed pedestrian connections, (iii) the proposed development meeting EnerGuide 82 standards, and (iv) pedestrian safety.

Panel Decision

It was moved and seconded

That a Development Permit be issued which would:

1.

permit the construction of thirty-five (35) three-storey townhouse units at 22560, 22600 and 22620 Gilley Road on a site zoned “Town Housing (ZT11) – Hamilton;” and

2.

vary the provisions of Richmond Zoning Bylaw 8500 to increase the rate of tandem parking spaces from 50% to 100% to allow a total of seventy (70) tandem parking spaces in thirty-five (35) three-storey townhouse units.

CARRIED

5.

Development Permit 14-667322
(File Ref. No.:  DP 14-667322)  (REDMS No. 4422072)

APPLICANT:

Pinnacle Living (Capstan Village) Lands Inc.

PROPERTY LOCATIONS:

3291, 3331, and 3371 Sexsmith Road

INTENT OF PERMIT:

1.

Permit the construction of a one-phase, residential development containing 400 dwelling units at 3291, 3331, and 3371 Sexsmith Road on a site zoned “Residential/Limited Commercial and Artist Residential Tenancy Studio Units (ZMU25) – Capstan Village (City Centre);” and

2.

Vary the provisions of Richmond Zoning Bylaw 8500, as amended by zoning amendment Bylaw No. 9135, to:

a)

reduce the minimum required number of on-site, loading spaces for large-size vehicles from one (1) to nil;

b)

increase the maximum distance that balconies may project into the required road setback near the intersection of Sexsmith Road and Hazelbridge Way from 1.0 m (i.e. one third of the minimum required setback) to 1.31 m;

c)

increase the maximum distance that architectural features may project into the required road and park setback from 0.6 m to 2.24 m; and

d)

increase the maximum distance that canopies may project into the required road and park setback from 1.5 m (i.e. 50% of the required setback) to 2.92 m.

Applicant’s Comments

John Bingham, Bingham and Hill Architects, and Peter Kreuk, Durante Kreuk Ltd., with the aid of a visual presentation (attached to and forming part of these minutes as Schedule 3) gave a brief overview of the proposed development with regard to (i) urban design, (ii) architectural form and character, (iii) landscape and open space design, (iv) the phases of development (v) vehicle access, (vi) vehicle parking, (vii) connections to the neighbourhood park, and (viii) streetscape improvements.

Mr. Bingham commented on the parking and amenity features and noted the following:

§   

there will be more than 200 public vehicle parking spaces;

§   

the private and public vehicle parking areas will be separated;

§   

the affordable housing units will be integrated all throughout the development; and

§   

amenity features include a swimming pool, an exercise room, gymnasium space, lounges and a common kitchen.

Mr. Kreuk spoke of the landscape features and noted the following:

§   

play structures for children will be included;

§   

open lawn areas, outdoor gathering spaces and edible gardens are planned;

§   

a walkway loop will be installed on the roof deck; and

§   

the amenity building will have a green roof.

Mr. Bingham and Mr. Kreuk commented on the proposed roof deck and noted that it will be on the ninth level and would feature community gardens and wheelchair access. Mr. Kreuk added that the proposed roof deck will have good solar exposure.

In reply to queries from the Panel, Mr. Kreuk spoke of the proposed urban agriculture area and noted that provisions for gardening, potting tables, composting, a children’s play area and gathering spaces are proposed.

Mr. Bingham commented on the orientation of the towers in the proposed development and noted that the proposed towers are oriented so the suites will not have a direct view with each other. Mr. Bingham added that all proposed towers will have a private green roof.

Mr. Bingham then commented on the phases of construction and noted that temporary vehicle access to the site will be dismantled and a permanent access installed along Hazelbridge Way.

Panel Discussion

In reply to queries from the Panel, Mr. Bingham advised that the 17 proposed Artist Residential Tenancy Studios (ARTS) units will be integrated in the proposed development along the street level. He added that each of the ARTS units will have double volume space, an overhead door, balcony space and individual access.

Mr. Kreuk noted that the section of the site on the corner of Sexsmith Road and Hazelbridge Way would provide a good location for a public art contribution.

Discussion ensued with regard to the distribution of the ARTS units.

Staff Comments

Mr. Craig advised that the proposed development will include 11 affordable housing units, 17 ARTS units, and 49 basic universal housing units.

Mr. Craig noted there will be approximately 250 public parking spaces included in the proposed development with six electric vehicle car-share spaces. He added that 20% of the resident parking spaces will be electric vehicle ready and 25% of the parking spaces will have rough-ins for future electric connections.

Mr. Craig added that the proposed development is district energy ready and is designed to meet the City’s aircraft noise mitigation standards.

Correspondence

None.

Gallery Comments

None.

Panel Discussion

The Panel wished to commend the applicant on the project.

Panel Decision

It was moved and seconded

That a Development Permit be issued which would:

1.

permit the construction of a one-phase, residential development containing 400 dwelling units at 3291, 3331, and 3371 Sexsmith Road on a site zoned “Residential/Limited Commercial and Artist Residential Tenancy Studio Units (ZMU25) – Capstan Village (City Centre);” and

2.

vary the provisions of Richmond Zoning Bylaw 8500, as amended by zoning amendment Bylaw No. 9135, to:

a)

reduce the minimum required number of on-site, loading spaces for large-size vehicles from one (1) to nil;

b)

increase the maximum distance that balconies may project into the required road setback near the intersection of Sexsmith Road and Hazelbridge Way from 1.0 m (i.e. one third of the minimum required setback) to 1.31 m;

c)

increase the maximum distance that architectural features may project into the required road and park setback from 0.6 m to 2.24 m; and

d)

increase the maximum distance that canopies may project into the required road and park setback from 1.5 m (i.e. 50% of the required setback) to 2.92 m.

CARRIED

6.

New Business

7.

Date of Next Meeting: Wednesday, January 14, 2015

8.

Adjournment

It was moved and seconded

That the meeting be adjourned at 5:14 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, December 10, 2014.

_________________________________

_________________________________

Joe Erceg
Chair

Evangel Biason
Auxiliary Committee Clerk