February 25, 2015 - Minutes
 |
Development Permit Panel
Wednesday, February 25, 2015
|
Time: |
3:30 p.m. |
|
Place: |
Council Chambers |
|
Present: |
Joe Erceg, Chair |
The meeting was called to order at 3:30 p.m.
|
|
Minutes |
|
|
It was moved and seconded |
|
|
That the minutes of the meeting of the Development Permit Panel held on Wednesday, February 11, 2015, be adopted. |
|
|
CARRIED |
|
1. |
Development Permit 14-677603 |
|||
|
|
APPLICANT: |
Bil Ahira |
|
|
|
|
PROPERTY LOCATION: |
10760 Aintree Crescent |
|
|
|
|
INTENT OF PERMIT: |
|
||
|
|
1. |
permit the construction of a Coach House at 10760 Aintree Crescent on a site zoned “Single Detached with Granny Flat or Coach House – Edgemere (RE1);” and |
||
|
|
2. |
vary the provisions of Richmond Zoning Bylaw 8500 to allow the coach house to be located 2.0 m from the southern interior side lot line. |
||
|
|
Applicant’s Comments |
|
|
Joel Marples, 8703 Young Road, Chilliwack, BC, provided a brief overview of the proposed application regarding (i) urban design, (ii) landscape and open space design, and (iii) architectural form and character. |
|
|
Mr. Marples noted that that the proposed development will be setback approximately 2.0 metres from the south property line to reduce shadowing on adjacent properties to the north. |
|
|
Panel Discussion |
|
|
|
In reply to queries from the Panel, Mr. Marples noted the following: |
|
|
|
§ |
the design of the coach house would match the design of the main house; |
|
|
§ |
the design of the coach house would include grey stucco, dark trim and wood elements; |
|
|
§ |
the garage parking will be for the main house and would be directly off the lane; |
|
|
§ |
there will be fencing along the lane and a small courtyard for the coach house; |
|
|
§ |
the entrances to the coach house will include be a front door adjacent to the garage and a rear door to the yard; |
|
|
§ |
parking for the coach house will be on an adjacent gravel area; |
|
|
§ |
landscaping of the coach house area will include low ground cover plants, shrubs and pavers; and |
|
|
§ |
five replacement trees will be planted on-site. |
|
|
Staff Comments |
|
|
In reply to queries from Committee, Wayne Craig, Director, Development, noted that the proposed variance is due to a technical drafting error in the zoning and that the correct setback restriction would be 2.0 metres from the southern property line to limit shadowing on adjacent properties. Also, he noted that staff will bring forward an amendment to Richmond Zoning Bylaw 8500, Section 8.14.6(3) to clarify matters related to coach house setbacks later in 2015 as part of a package of housekeeping amendments to the Zoning Bylaw. He added that the applicant has worked cooperatively with staff to meet design guidelines for the neighbourhood. |
|
|
Correspondence |
|
|
None. |
|
|
Gallery Comments |
|
|
Sam Sandhu, 4691 Tilton Road, expressed concern with regard to the development permit process and the delays to the proposed application. He was of the opinion that the development process is cumbersome and escalates the costs of coach house development. |
|
|
The Chair advised that with respect to coach house development, the requirements for the development permit was established by Council. Also, the approved development permit guidelines were established to address design concerns from residents. |
|
|
Bil Ahara, 3441 East 48 Avenue, Vancouver, BC, expressed concern with the delays and added costs of the proposed application in relation to the development permit process. |
|
|
Panel Discussion |
|
|
In reply to queries from the Panel, Mr. Marples noted that the gravel parking area will include cedar fencing and that the applicant can examine opportunities for landscaping along the fence line. |
|
|
Mr. Craig noted that the two coach house parking stalls are close to the minimum dimensions and there are landscaping opportunities along the north side of the parking area. |
|
|
Discussion ensued with regard to the development permit process and opportunities to add landscaping along the gravel area. |
|
|
As a result of the discussion, staff were directed to review opportunities for landscaping along the gravel parking area with the applicant. |
|
|
Panel Decision |
|
|
|
It was moved and seconded |
|
|
|
That a Development Permit be issued which would: |
|
|
|
1. |
permit the construction of a Coach House at 10760 Aintree Crescent on a site zoned “Single Detached with Granny Flat or Coach House – Edgemere (RE1);” and |
|
|
2. |
vary the provisions of Richmond Zoning Bylaw 8500 to allow the coach house to be located 2.0 m from the southern interior side lot line. |
|
|
CARRIED |
|
|
2. |
Development Permit 14-676361 |
||
|
|
APPLICANT: |
Greater Vancouver Sewerage and Drainage District |
|
|
|
PROPERTY LOCATION: |
1000 Ferguson Road |
|
|
|
INTENT OF PERMIT: |
|
|
|
|
Permit the Greater Vancouver Sewerage and Drainage District to construct a 550 m2 screening and degrit building, a 20 m diameter thickener, 25 m2 thickener Pump station and four 36 m2 digester mixing pump buildings (one for each of the existing digesters) at 1000 Ferguson Road on a site designated an Environmentally Sensitive Area (ESA). |
||
|
|
Applicant’s Comments |
|
|
|
Colin Meldrum, Metro Vancouver, Ken Medil, Project Manager, CH2M Hill, and Kevin Simpson, CH2M Hill, briefed the Panel on the proposed project and noted the following: |
|
|
|
§ |
the proposed upgrades to the waste treatment facility will free capacity and maintain quality of discharged material; |
|
|
§ |
the proposed project will include four small buildings to house digesters and a two-storey building to house screening equipment; |
|
|
§ |
a vegetation survey in line with the Richmond Environmentally Sensitive Area guidelines was completed; |
|
|
§ |
an assessment of wetland and wildlife habitat was completed; |
|
|
§ |
the proposed Compensation Plan is proposing a 3 to 1 ratio to compensate for trees removed on-site; and |
|
|
§ |
the proposed replanting follows the Ministry of Environment riparian planting guidelines of one tree or shrub for every square metre of area. |
|
|
Panel Discussion |
|
|
In reply to queries from the Panel, Mr. Meldrum advised that the proposed project has been approved by the Ministry of Environment as part of a plan to add secondary capacity to the facility by 2030 and the proposed improvements will be required to accommodate regional growth. He added that the proposed upgrades will assist in the screening of other material, such as sand, gravel and plastics that accompany wastewater, and will result in a higher quality discharge. |
|
|
In reply to queries, Mr. Simpson noted that approximately 100 trees along with invasive plant species will be removed for the proposed project. |
|
|
Staff Comments |
|
|
Mr. Craig noted that staff are satisfied with the work done on the proposed compensation plan and that it is anticipated that the proposed compensation plan will produce higher quality and more productive habitat. |
|
|
In reply to queries from the Panel, Mr. Craig noted that the City has received a letter of assurance from Metro Vancouver that the proposed landscaping will be installed on-site and that there will be a three year monitoring period. |
|
|
Correspondence |
|
|
None. |
|
|
Gallery Comments |
|
|
None. |
|
|
Panel Discussion |
|
|
Discussion ensued with regard to the generally positive impact of the proposed compensation plan and facility upgrade to wildlife habitat and wastewater discharge. |
|
|
Panel Decision |
|
|
It was moved and seconded |
|
|
That a Development Permit be issued which would permit the Greater Vancouver Sewerage and Drainage District to construct a 550 m2 screening and degrit building, a 20 m diameter thickener, 25 m2 thickener Pump station and four 36 m2 digester mixing pump buildings (one for each of the existing digesters) at 1000 Ferguson Road on a site designated an Environmentally Sensitive Area (ESA). |
|
|
CARRIED |
|
3. |
Development Permit 13-645286 |
|||
|
|
APPLICANT: |
Andrew Cheung Architects Inc. on behalf of 684267 B.C. Ltd. |
|
|
|
|
PROPERTY LOCATION: |
8151 Anderson Road |
|
|
|
|
INTENT OF PERMIT: |
|
||
|
|
1. |
Permit the construction of a fifteen (15) storey high-rise building and a six (6) storey mid-rise building to create approximately 111 units, and ground level commercial units at 8151 Anderson Road on a site zoned “Downtown Commercial (CDT1);” and |
||
|
|
2. |
Vary the provisions of Richmond Zoning Bylaw 8500 to reduce the residential parking rate from the standard City wide parking rate to the City Centre Zone 1 parking rate. |
||
|
|
Applicant’s Comments |
|
|
|
Kassra Tavakoli, Andrew Chung Architects Inc., and Alain Lamontagne, Durante Kruek Ltd., provided an overview of the proposed development regarding (i) urban design, (ii) architectural form and character, (iii) landscape and open space design, and (iv) parking space design. |
|
|
|
In reply to queries from the Panel, Mr. Tavakoli noted that the parking would be above grade and would be screened using a barcode pattern façade to allow for ventilation. He added that the storage rooms will be included to the parking area and as a result, vehicles will be parked further away from the façade. Also, in addition to screening, the façade will act as a public art component. |
|
|
|
Mr. Lamontagne spoke of the landscape and open space design of the proposed development and noted the following: |
|
|
|
§ |
landscaping along Anderson Road will include trees, tree grates, paver boulevards and a standard concrete sidewalk; |
|
|
§ |
landscaping along Buswell Street would have a mix of urban and residential character and include a row of street trees with a lawn boulevard; |
|
|
§ |
a row of street trees will be planted within the property line; |
|
|
§ |
common amenities will be located on the main podium level and will include children play areas, outdoor living spaces, a dining area, a kitchen and lounge area; |
|
|
§ |
the amenity area will be fully accessible; |
|
|
§ |
edible planting material can be integrated along the south face of the building; and |
|
|
§ |
the amenity area can be used by multiple groups simultaneously. |
|
|
In reply to queries from the Panel, Mr. Lamontagne, noted that there will be access to water in the kitchen amenity area on the podium and that there are no planned dedicated gardening areas for residents. |
|
|
|
Discussion ensued with regard to water access in the garage area, and in reply to queries from the Panel, Mr. Tavakoli noted that hose bibs will be available in the garage area. He added that dog washing sinks are not available in the garage area however, the applicant can examine options to add the feature. |
|
|
|
In reply to queries from the Panel, Mr. Tavakoli advised that (i) the commercial floor area will have provisions to allow for division between tenants; (ii) commercial tenant signage will be allocated to an area above the doors, underneath the glass canopy, and (iii) sign guidelines for commercial tenants will be introduced. |
|
|
|
Staff Comments |
|
|
|
Mr. Craig spoke of the proposed development and noted the following: |
|
|
|
§ |
the site will be serviced by a private geothermal utility for heating and cooling; |
|
|
§ |
47 basic universal housing units are included; |
|
|
§ |
the applicant has taken advantage of the affordable housing density bonus and eight units will be secured for affordable housing through a Housing Agreement; |
|
|
§ |
the proposed development will meet the City’s aircraft noise mitigation standards; |
|
|
§ |
a servicing agreement will provide frontage improvements along Anderson Road, Buswell Street and a rear lane to the north of the site; |
|
|
§ |
there will be an inaccessible green roof on the lower portion of the building; |
|
|
§ |
the comprehensive transportation demand package will include contributions towards future upgrades to traffic signals and crosswalks in the area as well as sidewalk weatherproofing; and |
|
|
§ |
seven pedestrian benches will be included in front of the site. |
|
|
In reply to queries from the Panel, Mr. Craig advised that (i) a bus mall adjacent to the Brighouse Station is planned and it is anticipated that buses will be routed to that location, (ii) the affordable housing units meet all City requirements and will be distributed through three floors in the building, and (iii) the proposed development location would qualify for City Centre Zone 1 parking rates with the provided parking exceeding the Zone 1 requirements. |
|
|
|
In response to queries from the Panel, Mr. Craig noted that if the site was to proceed through a rezoning, the City Centre Zone 1 parking rates would apply. |
|
|
|
Correspondence |
|
|
Joyce Chang, 8111 Anderson Road (Schedule 1) |
|
|
In reply to queries from the Panel, Mr. Craig advised that the building’s height meets the existing site zoning. |
|
|
Gallery Comments |
|
|
None. |
|
|
Panel Discussion |
|
|
Discussion ensued with regard to the proposed development’s urban design and architectural form and character. |
|
|
Panel Decision |
|
|
|
It was moved and seconded |
|
|
|
That a Development Permit be issued which would: |
|
|
|
1. |
permit the construction of a fifteen (15) storey high-rise building and a six (6) storey mid-rise building to create approximately 111 units, and ground level commercial units at 8151 Anderson Road on a site zoned “Downtown Commercial (CDT1);” and |
|
|
2. |
vary the provisions of Richmond Zoning Bylaw 8500 to reduce the residential parking rate from the standard City wide parking rate to the City Centre Zone 1 parking rate. |
|
|
CARRIED |
|
|
4. |
Development Variance Permit 14-670015 |
||
|
|
APPLICANT: |
Lansdowne Congregation of Jehovah’s Witnesses |
|
|
|
PROPERTY LOCATION: |
11014 Westminster Highway |
|
|
|
INTENT OF PERMIT: |
|
|
|
|
Vary the provisions of Richmond Zoning Bylaw 8500 to reduce the interior side yard (west property line) from 7.5 m to 2.3 m and interior side yard (east property line) from 7.5 m to 6.9 m in order to permit the rebuild of the existing assembly hall within the same building footprint on the “Assembly (ASY)” zoned site at 11014 Westminster Highway. |
||
|
|
Applicant’s Comments |
|
|
|
Bob Young, DST Architecture, provided an overview of the proposed application and noted the following: |
|
|
|
§ |
the applicant is proposing the demolition of the existing building; |
|
|
§ |
the proposed new building will remain one storey and will have the same footprint and foundation as the existing building; |
|
|
§ |
vehicle parking will be located behind the building; |
|
|
§ |
there is a single-family house on the east side of the site and the proposed building will encroach on the eastern setback by approximately 0.5 metres; |
|
|
§ |
a fence along the eastern perimeter of the site will be replaced at the applicant’s cost; |
|
|
§ |
there are no residential properties bordering the western side of the site; and |
|
|
§ |
the western setback is proposed to have a larger variance however, the setback is consistent with the existing building. |
|
|
Panel Discussion |
|
|
In reply to queries from the Panel, Mr. Young noted that one or two existing trees may have to be removed to allow for the installation of an accessible ramp. He added that the applicant is in consultation with an arborist to minimize the number of trees removed on-site. |
|
|
In reply to queries from the Panel, Mr. Young noted that the proposed application will allow for the (i) modernization of the building, (ii) relocation of the main entrance to the rear of the building, (iii) introduction of a more practical floor plan, and (iv) replacement of the auditorium floor. |
|
|
Discussion ensued with regard to the riparian management area and Mr. Young advised that the building already encroaches on the riparian management area and anticipates that the demolition and construction activities associated with the proposed application will not impact said area. |
|
|
In reply to queries from the Panel, Mr. Young noted that (i) the landscape plan includes improvements to the perimeter landscaping, (ii) no changes are planned for the front grass area, and (iii) signage may be placed either on the building or on the front lawn area. |
|
|
Staff Comments |
|
|
Mr. Craig acknowledged the applicant’s effort in presenting a building design that reflects a residential character. |
|
|
In reply to queries from the Panel regarding the riparian area adjacent to the site, Mr. Craig noted that (i) the riparian area runs along the western edge of the site, (ii) a landscape bond will be secured as part of the proposed application’s consideration, (iii) there will be on-going maintenance of the area by sustainability and building staff, and (iii) the applicant is required to provide fencing for the riparian area during the construction. |
|
|
Panel Discussion |
|
|
Discussion ensued with regard to agricultural activities on the backlands of the site and in reply to queries from Committee, Mr. Young noted that there are no plans to agriculturally develop the backland area of the site. |
|
|
Correspondence |
|
|
None. |
|
|
Gallery Comments |
|
|
None. |
|
|
Panel Decision |
|
|
It was moved and seconded |
|
|
That a Development Variance Permit be issued which would vary the provisions of Richmond Zoning Bylaw 8500 to reduce the interior side yard (west property line) from 7.5 m to 2.3 m and interior side yard (east property line) from 7.5 m to 6.9 m in order to permit the rebuild of the existing assembly hall within the same building footprint on the “Assembly (ASY)” zoned site at 11014 Westminster Highway. |
|
|
CARRIED |
|
5. |
New Business |
|
6. |
Date of Next Meeting: Tuesday, March 10, 2015 |
|
7. |
Adjournment |
|
|
It was moved and seconded |
|
|
That the meeting be adjourned at 4:45 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 25, 2015. |
|
_________________________________ |
_________________________________ |
|
Joe Erceg |
Evangel Biason |