January 14, 2015 - 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

The Chair advised that the order of the agenda would be varied to consider Item No. 2 first.

Minutes

It was moved and seconded

That the minutes of the meeting of the Development Permit Panel held on Wednesday, December 10, 2014, be adopted.

CARRIED

2.

Development Permit 14-672823
(File Ref. No.:  DP 14-672823, Xr: HA 14-672825)  (REDMS No. 4473123)

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 14.75 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 with regard to (i) alternative options for rooftop accessibility, (ii) measures incorporated into the proposed development to address potential privacy overlook concerns from west facing balconies, (iii) long term options for the laneway network adjacent to the site, and (iv) the options to enhance the site’s landscaping to improve pedestrian flow.

Mr. Whetter commented on alternatives to elevator access to the rooftop of the proposed development, noting that other options such as incline and vertical lifts are less convenient and are usually restricted to single occupant use. Also, he noted that the installation of incline or vertical lifts would potentially require the redesign of the upper floors. He added that he was of the opinion that an elevator installation is the best option for universal access to the rooftop.

Mr. Whetter then spoke of the proposed elevator access and noted that a different elevator design will lower the overrun by two feet compared to the original design. As a result, the proposed height variance will be reduced to 2.75 metres. Also, he noted that the overrun will have a better design integration with the building.

Discussion ensued regarding the overlook and setback associated with the proposed development. Mr. Whetter advised that in order to address privacy concerns, no cantilever balconies will be installed. Instead, balconies will be set into the building.

Mr. Whetter commented on the proposed development’s west-facing balconies and noted that (i) three out of four corners of the building will have identical design treatment with a standardized kitchen and living and dining areas are flanked by an eight-foot deep patio, (ii) the west-facing balcony will be setback seven feet from the property line and adjacent living spaces will be pushed approximately 15 feet from the property line, (iii) the closest distance between the building’s balconies and a neighbouring balcony will be 100 feet, (iv) evergreen trees along the property line and an upstand wall on the patios will restrict views to the neighbouring property.

Mr. Whetter noted that the proposed development will include recessed bays, which break up the building into house sized elements, reducing apparent mass and shadowing effects.

Discussion ensued with regard to enhancing landscaping to improve pedestrian flow  throughout the site. Mr. Whetter noted that the rear lane adjacent to the proposed development is a dead-end lane with little traffic, making it friendly for pedestrians. He added that the removal of curbs is proposed for the rear lane parking area. Also, he noted that greenery will be maintained and bollards and wheel stops installed in the rear lane parking area.

Mr. Whetter noted that he believes that the proposed development is the only market housing in the area with all universal design suites.

Panel Discussion

Discussion ensued with regard to alternative elevator designs. In reply to queries from the Panel, Mr. Whetter advised that the applicant worked with Richmond Elevator and consulted with other elevator companies on options for the lowest elevator profile possible. He noted that to achieve a lower profile, the elevator design used overhead hooks instead of a hoist beam.

In reply to queries from the Panel, Mr. Whetter noted that the applicant examined other elevator options available such as an in-ground elevator, but found it was unsuitable for the site. He added that elevator alternatives such as stair lifts would require a redesign of the upper floors and are not universally accessible.

Discussion ensued with respect to privacy concerns associated with the proposed development and changes to balcony design during the phases of the approval process. Mr. Whetter commented on the orientation of the balconies and the reduction of the number of balconies from the original design. He noted that currently three balconies face west and that the living spaces are significantly setback to provide a breakdown in the building massing.

Staff Comments

Wayne Craig, Director, Development, commented on the adjacent lane, west of the proposed development, noting that there is significant City infrastructure under the lane. He advised that staff recommends that no changes be made to the lane and that the lane remain as City property.

Correspondence

None.

Gallery Comments

Ralph Turner, 3411 Chatham Street, made an inquiry with regard to the adjacent laneway and the proposed development’s elevator.

Vince Miele, Richmond Centre for Disability, spoke in favour of the proposed development and its accessible features. He was of the opinion that there is insufficient universally designed structures in the Lower Mainland and that an elevator is the best option for access throughout the proposed development.

In reply to queries from the Panel, Mr. Miele noted that he has used other lift systems and was of the opinion that the alternatives to the elevator, such as stair lift systems, were less efficient and convenient.

Charmis Deboer, 10351 Springhill Crescent, commented on the challenges of access for paraplegic individuals and spoke in favour of the proposed development’s accessible design. Also, she spoke of the various challenges associated with other lift systems.

Tony Beatty, 8311 Saunders Road, spoke in favour of using an elevator for rooftop access. He commented on the inefficiencies of switching between two lift systems when accessing the roof, especially during emergency situations.

Tom Parker, 8520 Granville Avenue, spoke in favour of the proposed development and supports the use of an elevator design for rooftop access.

Panel Discussion

Discussion ensued with regard to (i) design changes to address rooftop access and privacy concerns, (ii) universal access, (iii) design changes to balcony design, and (iv) the lowest elevator technology available.

Staff were then directed to confirm that the proposed elevator access for the proposed development uses the lowest elevator technology possible before the proposed application is presented to Council.

Panel Decision

It was moved and seconded

1.

That a Development Permit be issued which would:

(a)

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

(b)

vary the provisions of Richmond Zoning Bylaw 8500 to increase the maximum permitted building height from 12.0 m to 14.75 m to allow elevator access to the roof deck level; and

2.

That a Heritage Alteration Permit be issued for the site at 3471 Chatham Street in accordance with Development Permit 14-672823.

CARRIED

1.

Development Permit 14-657872
(File Ref. No.:  DP 14-657872)  (REDMS No. 4423108)

APPLICANT:

Yamamoto Architecture Inc.

PROPERTY LOCATION:

9051 and 9055 Dayton Avenue

INTENT OF PERMIT:

Permit the construction of 23 two-storey townhouse units and a two-storey amenity building at 9051 and 9055 Dayton Avenue on a site zoned “Low Density Townhouses (RTL2).”

Applicant’s Comments

Taizo Yamamoto, Yamamoto Architecture, gave a brief overview of the proposed development regarding (i) urban design, (ii) conditions of adjacency, (iii) architectural form and character, and (iv) vehicle access to the site.

Mr. Yamamoto advised that the applicant is proposing the removal and replacement of the remaining portions of the perimeter hedging due to overgrowth pruning requirements and site pre-loading impacts. He noted that the applicant has spoken with adjacent neighbours regarding options for the replacement of the perimeter hedges.

Denitsa Dimitrova, PMG Landscape Architects, gave a brief overview of the landscape and open space design, noting the following:

§   

the applicant is proposing to remove and replace the remaining portions of the existing perimeter hedging;

§   

two types of fencing options were offered to adjacent neighbours;

§   

each unit will have a patio;

§   

the amenity space will have programming for adults and children;

§   

the play areas will include playground equipment and natural play elements to provide different play opportunities; and

§   

permeable pavers will be used on the driveway.

Panel Discussion

In reply to queries from the Panel, Mr. Yamamoto advised that the amenity space will be a clubhouse-type of building.

Discussion ensued with regard to the commitment made by the applicant to retain portions of the perimeter hedges during the rezoning process.

In reply to queries from the Panel, Mr. Yamamoto advised that portions of the perimeter hedging would have to be removed for maintenance and servicing upgrade purposes, noting that if portions of the perimeter hedging are trimmed, the hedge would become asymmetrical. He added that a different species of hedges are proposed to replace the original hedges. The proposed new hedges would use less space on-site and be easier to maintain.

Discussion then ensued with respect to (i) presenting the proposal to replace the current perimeter hedges after the rezoning process, (ii) the support received for the proposed replacement of the perimeter hedging and installation of fencing from the adjacent properties, and (iii) justification for the removal of the perimeter hedging.

Staff Comments

Mr. Craig advised that public correspondence received is included in the staff report and that no additional public correspondence have since been received.

Mr. Craig noted that the proposed development will be built to EnerGuide 82 standards and will include an indoor amenity building.

Gallery Comments

Wilson Leung, 9111 Dayton Avenue, expressed concern with regard to potential flooding on his property as a result of pre-loading the subject site. In reply to Mr. Lam, the Chair advised that City regulations require that storm water is managed on-site and that perimeter drainage is designed to capture runoff.

Panel Discussion

Discussion ensued with regard to the effect of the proposed hedge removal and replacement on the adjacent properties.

In reply to queries from the Panel, Mr. Yamamoto noted that sections of the existing hedges have been removed and sections have been pruned. The Chair cautioned the applicant on making significant alterations to the existing hedges prior to City approval.

Jackson Lee, Jacken Homes, advised that the trimming of the hedges were done by landscape professionals and were completed without damaging the hedges.

Discussion ensued regarding the consultation done with respect to the proposed hedge removal and replacement.

Mr. Lee advised that door-to-door consulting of adjacent properties was done to propose the replacement of the perimeter hedging and installation of perimeter fencing. Mr. Lee added that the proposed perimeter hedging and fence installation is intended to retain the privacy of the adjacent properties.

In reply to queries from the Panel, Eric Sze, Jacken Homes, advised perimeter drainage is required because of the grade changes to the site.

With regard to the neighbourhood consultation done, Mr. Lee noted that neighbouring properties were provided with letters and landscape plans detailing the proposed replacement of the existing hedges. He added that approximately 14 properties are potentially affected by the proposal.

Mr. Sze advised that the applicant received no expressed opposition to the proposed removal of the existing hedges on the condition that replacement hedges and fencing are installed. He added that the replacement hedges will be approximately eight to ten feet high.

In reply to queries from the Panel, Mr. Sze noted that existing hedges were not uniformly planted, and in some areas were planted too far in from the property line. The Chair stated that the hedges were planted in the same location during the rezoning process when the applicant committed to retain them. In response, Mr. Sze advised that the applicant underestimated the effect of the existing hedges on the proposed development.

Mr. Lee noted that the species of the replacement hedging will be tall and narrow and will be specifically for perimeter hedging.

Correspondence

Mr. Craig highlighted correspondence received from Kathy Stephens and Raymond Luetzen, which expressed concern regarding the proposed removal of sections of the perimeter hedging. He added that the townhouse properties adjacent to the proposed development have consented to the installation of new fencing and replacement of the perimeter hedging.

In reply to queries from the Panel, Sara Badyal, Planner 2, noted that there are letters from four adjacent property owners who are opposed to the proposed removal of the existing perimeter hedging.

Panel Discussion

Discussion ensued with regard to (i) presenting the proposal to replace the existing hedges after the rezoning process, (ii) the consultation done with adjacent neighbours, (ii) the opposition expressed by adjacent neighbours, (iv) the installation of new fencing, and (v) the architectural form and character of the proposed development.

The Chair expressed concern with regard to the lack of information associated with the proposed replacement of perimeter hedging and installation of new fencing.

Panel Decision

It was moved and seconded

That the staff report titled Application by Yamamoto Architecture Inc. for a Development Permit at 9051 and 9055 Dayton Avenue, dated December 8, 2014, from the Director, Development, be referred back to staff to examine the proposal to replace existing perimeter hedging and install fencing along the property line and report back.

CARRIED

3.

New Business

It was moved and seconded

That the Wednesday, January 28, 2015 Development Permit Panel meeting be cancelled.

CARRIED

4.

Date of Next Meeting:  Wednesday, February 11, 2015

5.

Adjournment

It was moved and seconded

That the meeting be adjourned at 4:52 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 14, 2015.

_________________________________

_________________________________

Joe Erceg
Chair

Evangel Biason
Auxiliary Committee Clerk