March 10, 2015 - Minutes

Time:

3:30 p.m.

Place:

Council Chambers
Richmond City Hall

Present:

Robert Gonzalez, Chair
Cathryn Volkering Carlile, General Manager, Community Services
Cecilia Achiam, Director, Administration and Compliance

Minutes

It was moved and seconded

That the minutes of the meeting of the Development Permit Panel held on Wednesday, February 25, 2015, be adopted.

CARRIED

1.

Development Permit 14-657872
(File Ref. No.:  DP 14-657872)  (REDMS No. 4491744)

APPLICANT:

Yamamoto Architecture Inc. 

PROPERTY LOCATION:

9055 Dayton Avenue (Formerly 9051 and 9055 Dayton Avenue)

INTENT OF PERMIT:

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

Applicant’s Comments

Taizo Yamamoto, Yamamoto Architecture Inc. and Patricia Campbell, PMG Landscape Architects, provided a brief overview of the proposed application regarding (i) urban design, (ii) architectural form and character, and (iii) landscape and open space design.

Mr. Yamamoto commented on site access and amenity areas, noting that access to the site will be via Dixon Avenue and Dayton Avenue and that there will be one amenity building, one amenity play area and one amenity gardening area.

Ms. Campbell spoke on the proposed landscape plan and noted the following:

§   

the children’s play area will feature natural play elements;

§   

a small community garden will be located on the west side of the site;

§   

the applicant is proposing to plant 86 conifers on-site;

§   

the applicant has met with adjacent property owners to propose options for screening;

§   

screening options include a six-foot fence with a ten-foot cedar hedge, a chain-link fence with a ten-foot cedar hedge or standalone ten-foot cedar hedges;

§   

the proposed screening options are supplemented with hedges and trees.

Panel Discussion

Discussion ensued with regard to the screening options chosen by adjacent property owners.

In reply to queries from the Panel regarding screening, Ms. Campbell noted that consultation was done with each adjacent property owner. Mr. Yamamoto added that options can be examined to retain the existing hedge.

Jackson Lee, Jacken Homes,  commented on the proposed application noting that (i) the applicant consulted with adjacent property owners with regard to privacy matters by going door-to-door and through written correspondence, (ii) the applicant is proposing that the perimeter fence and hedges be installed in four weeks’ time prior to construction, (iii) temporary fencing will be used during the installation of the new screening elements, (iv) the applicant has secured a source for the new hedges, and (v) the proposed fencing will be six feet tall and the hedges will be ten feet tall.

In reply to queries from the Panel, Ms. Campbell and Mr. Lee noted that (i) drip irrigation will be installed for the new hedges, (ii) the applicant will provide a landscape security as part of the development permit application, and (iii) the future maintenance of the hedges will be conducted by the development’s strata corporation.

Gallery Comments

Kathy Stephens, 8371 Heather Street, expressed concern with regard to (i) privacy matters, (ii) retaining the original perimeter hedging, (iii) the consultation and notification process related to the proposed application, (iv) perimeter drainage, and (v) potential negative effects of the proposed development to a tree on her property.

The Chair advised that the applicant made the effort to consult adjacent property owners with regard to the proposed perimeter screening. He added that the retention of the perimeter hedging was not a condition to the rezoning of the site and that a tree retention condition was placed with a 2:1 tree replacement ratio for any tree removed. Also, the City holds security for one year to ensure landscaping is maintained.

Discussion ensued with regard to flooding concerns and site preloading. The Chair noted that the applicant will be required to provide perimeter drainage on the subject site as part of the building permit process.

Irene Webster, 8291 Heather Street, expressed concern regarding (i) historical flooding in the area from insufficient perimeter drainage, (ii) the proposed perimeter hedges, and (iii) potential negative effects of the proposed development to trees on her property and the possible replacement of damaged trees.

Discussion ensued with respect to the tree retention plan and in reply to queries from the Panel, Mr. Craig advised that Ms. Webster is expressing concern that the trees on her property could be damaged from the proposed development, but are identified for protection in the proposed Tree Retention Plan. Ms. Webster added that she was of the opinion that the City should accountable if the trees cause any damage in the future.

Mike Thorne, 8371 Heather Street, expressed concern regarding possible flooding from the proposed development and retaining the existing hedges as habitat for wildlife.

Panel Discussion

Kerin Matthews, Mountain Maple Ltd., commented on the existing hedging on-site and noted that the existing hedge was not properly maintained and could not be trimmed back further, and as such, a heavy snow load could cause parts of the hedge to fail. She added that she was of the opinion that the existing hedges have reached maturity and that new plants cannot be added without damaging the existing hedges.

In reply to queries from the Panel, Ms. Campbell noted that the existing hedge was planted inside the property line.

Discussion ensued with respect to retaining sections of the existing hedge and installing new fencing. In reply to queries from the Panel, Mr. Yamamoto advised that in order to maintain continuity and visual screening; replacement of the entire perimeter hedging is the recommended option. Mr. Yamamoto added that due to its current state, the existing hedge would be difficult to maintain.

Discussion then ensued with regard to the visual screening from the proposed perimeter hedges and Ms. Matthews noted that the replacement hedges will grow over a few years and provide dense visual screening.

In reply to queries from the Panel, Mr. Craig advised that (i) the future strata corporation will not be able to remove the proposed perimeter hedges and will be responsible for its maintenance, (ii) staff are aware of the local flooding concerns in adjacent properties and, (iii) perimeter drainage is required for the proposed development.

Correspondence

Wilson Leung, 9111 Dayton Avenue, (Schedule 1)

In reply to queries from the Panel, Mr. Yamamoto advised that the proposed heat pumps used on-site comply with noise bylaw guidelines. He added that there will be a heat pump located on the roof of the amenity building.

Mr. Yamamoto noted that information regarding the heat pumps and their proposed locations on-site is available from the applicant. The applicant was then directed to provide heat pump information to staff.

Panel Discussion

Discussion ensued regarding (i) the proposed replacement perimeter hedges, (ii) privacy concerns, and (iii) potential damage to the existing perimeter hedges.

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

It was moved and seconded

That the staff report titled Application by Yamamoto Architecture Inc. for a Development Permit at 9055 Dayton Avenue (Formerly 9051 and 9055 Dayton Avenue), dated February 10, 2015, from the Director, Development, be referred back to staff to examine options to address:

1.

privacy concerns of two adjacent property owners; and

2.

a viable long-term perimeter hedge solution.

CARRIED

2.

Development Permit 14-668373
(File Ref. No.:  DP 14-668373)  (REDMS No. 4497027)

APPLICANT:

Kirk Yuen of Cape Construction (2001) Ltd.

PROPERTY LOCATION:

13040 No. 2 Road

INTENT OF PERMIT:

1.

Permit the construction of a four-storey mixed-use commercial/residential building containing approximately 55 residential units and 349.3 m² (3,760 ft²) of commercial space at 13040 No. 2 Road on a site zoned “Commercial Mixed Use (ZMU24) – London Landing (Steveston);” and

2.

Vary the provisions of Richmond Zoning Bylaw 8500 to reduce the required number of off-street loading spaces from two (2) to one (1).

Applicant’s Comments

Tom Bell, GBL Architects Inc., gave a brief overview of the proposed development regarding (i) urban design, (ii) conditions of adjacency, (iii) architectural form and character, (iv) vehicle parking, and (v) building setbacks.

Mr. Bell noted that the proposed development is a four storey wood frame building with townhouse units on the first two floors and other apartment units on the upper floors. He added that the building is setback from all three shared property lines.

Mr. Bell spoke of the parkade and noted that the average height of the parkade wall along the north edge of the site will be five feet above grade and will feature a landscaped planter, walkway and railings above the wall. Also, the south edge of the parkade will be the same height as the neighbouring development.

Discussion ensued with regard to universal accessibility, and in reply to queries from the Panel, Mr. Bell advised that there will be ramp access at the rear of the site and that adaptable units will be interspersed throughout the proposed development.

Ms. Campbell spoke of the proposed landscape and open space design and noted the following:

§   

the proposed development will have an urban streetscape along No. 2 Road and will include street trees;

§   

access to the site will include ramps and stairs;

§   

amenity features will include community garden space, a child play area, child play structures and patio areas;

§   

landscaping will include hedges and a variety of trees; and

§   

the site will connect to the City’s greenway to the northeast across a right-of-way on the neighbouring site.

Panel Discussion

In reply to queries from the Panel, Ms. Campbell noted that (i) the commercial units will have access to a covered outdoor patio space, (ii) hosebibs will be installed in the common patio and in each residential patio space, (iii) irrigation will be installed for the landscaping on-site, and (iv) and the orchard will be in a grassy area, however will be accessible via a ramp.

Staff Comments

Mr. Craig advised that there is a variance associated with the proposed application to reduce the number of truck loading spaces from two to one. The loading space provided will be shared between residential and commercial units and appropriate legal agreements related to the shared use will be secured.

Mr. Craig noted that there is a servicing agreement for frontage improvements along No. 2 Road.

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 a four-storey mixed-use commercial/residential building containing approximately 55 residential units and 349.3 m² (3,760 ft²) of commercial space at 13040 No. 2 Road on a site zoned “Commercial Mixed Use (ZMU24) – London Landing (Steveston);” and

2.

vary the provisions of Richmond Zoning Bylaw 8500 to reduce the required number of off-street loading spaces from two (2) to one (1).

CARRIED

3.

General Compliance Ruling for “Phase 2”
Development Permit 13-642725
(File Ref. No.:  DP 13-642725)  (REDMS No. 4486028)

APPLICANT:

Amela Brudar - GBL Architects

PROPERTY LOCATION:

8888 Patterson Road and 3333 Hazelbridge Way

INTENT OF PERMIT:

That the attached plans involving changes to the design of the Phase 2 building at 8888 Patterson Road and 3333 Hazelbridge Way (addressed as 8988 Patterson Road) are considered to be in General Compliance with Development Permit (DP 13-642725).

Applicant’s Comments

With the aid of a visual presentation (attached to and forming part of these minutes as Schedule 2) Amela Brudar, GBL Architects, provided an overview of the proposed application and noted the following:

§   

proposed design changes will accommodate Vancouver Coastal Health (VCH) and structural design requirements, however the overall design of the proposed development would be sustained or improved;

§   

design changes are proposed for the amenity areas, the roof top mechanical areas, and the landscaping and park;

§   

the basketball court has been relocated from level three to level two to raise the ceiling height;

§   

the swimming pool will be accessed through change rooms and will have adult and children areas;

§   

additional mechanical equipment for boilers, water tanks and HVAC components are located on the rooftop;

§   

the mechanical equipment on the roof top will be enclosed or screened using metal panels;

§   

straight columns will be used instead of V columns along the amenity area; and

§   

there will be a canopy on the swimming pool area for shading.

Grant Brumpton, PWL Partnerships, spoke of the proposed changes to the landscape and open space design and noted the following:

§   

amenity programming was reorganized to accommodate for the proposed design changes;

§   

elements of the swimming pool area were redesigned to comply with VCH requirements;

§   

the amenity space is three feet narrower, however all original programming remain in place;

§   

screening was added in the pavilion area to address privacy concerns in areas facing the pool and private residential units;

§   

patios and walls along the Garden City Road have been lifted by 0.67 metres and plant screening has been added to compensate for the lift;

§   

amenities such as play and urban agriculture areas remain but have been rearranged on Level 11 to accommodate for the added mechanical structures;

§   

the water feature will be flowing over a weir and will be located right up to the road;

§   

the Garden City Road frontage will have seating elements and a tiered landscape with multi layers of vegetation, including edible plants;

§   

the ramp system will utilize a 5% grade;

§   

air intake vents will be integrated into some of the park’s play structure; and

§   

the electrical kiosk in the lobby has been replaced with a gas meter, which will be screened by plant material.

Panel Discussion

In reply to queries from the Panel, Mr. Brumpton noted that (i) public and private areas will be defined by using the water feature and vegetation, (ii) paving material will be textured to deter any skateboarding activities on-site, (iii) the exposed wall adjacent to the Garden City Road ramp system will use a stone veneer and will feature vines, and (iv) the shrubbery along the Garden City Road frontage will not impact the adjacent sidewalk.

Staff Comments

Mr. Craig wished to acknowledge the applicant’s effort in working with staff to maintain the original design intent. He added that the proposed changes to the park landscaping design were reviewed by the Parks Department.

Correspondence

None.

Gallery Comments

None.

Panel Decision

It was moved and seconded

That the attached plans involving changes to the design of the Phase 2 building at 8888 Patterson Road and 3333 Hazelbridge Way (addressed as 8988 Patterson Road) are considered to be in General Compliance with Development Permit (DP 13-642725).

CARRIED

4.

Development Permit 14-660646
(File Ref. No.:  DP 14-660646)  (REDMS No. 4498706)

APPLICANT:

Treviso Development Ltd. (0954462 BC Ltd.)

PROPERTY LOCATION:

22691 and 22711 Westminster Highway

INTENT OF PERMIT:

1.

Permit the construction of eleven (11) three-storey townhouse units at 22691 and 22711 Westminster Highway on a site zoned “Town Housing (ZT11) – Hamilton;” and

2.

Vary the provisions of Richmond Zoning Bylaw 8500 to allow tandem parking spaces in eleven (11) townhouse units.

Applicant’s Comments

Sig Toews, Jordan Kutev Architects, provided a brief overview of the proposed application regarding (i) urban design, (ii) architectural form and character, and (iii) conditions of adjacency.

Mr. Toews noted that the proposed development will have 11 townhouse units. He added that access to the site is through Westminster Highway and the proposed development meets Hamilton Area Plan guidelines. Also, he advised that the site grade will be raised by two feet.

Mary Chan Yip, PMG Landscape Architects, commented on the proposed development’s landscape and open space design and noted the following:

§   

units along Westminster Highway will have a semi-private yard and will feature a low fence, green buffer with shrub material and three layers of trees;

§   

the outdoor amenity space is located along the south edge of the site and will feature play elements, a community garden and fruit trees;

§   

McLean Park is within walking proximity;

§   

the small scale development allows opportunities for street play on site;

§   

the courtyard can offer play opportunities;

§   

the site elevation will be raised to address flood plain concerns;

§   

retaining walls will be used to meet grades of adjacent properties;

§   

the townhouses are elevated 1.55 metres, the street level is elevated 0.7 metres and entrance to the building is graded up; and

§   

perimeter drainage will handle run-off from the site.

Panel Discussion

In reply to queries from the Panel, Ms. Yip noted that there will be perimeter fencing on-site and will have a contemporary design to reflect the proposed development’s architectural form and character.

Staff Comments

Mr. Craig advised that (i) a variance is associated with proposed development to increase the ratio of tandem parking on-site, (ii) rezoning of the site occurred prior to Council direction to limit tandem parking on new developments, (iii) the increase in tandem parking allows for lot coverage less than the maximum permitted, (iv) a covenant registered on title for all townhouse units ensures that tandem parking is not converted into habitable space, (v) there will be a servicing agreement for frontage improvements along Westminster Highway, and (vi) the proposed development will be designed to meet EnerGuide 82 standards.

In reply to queries from the Panel, Mr. Craig advised that there will be one convertible unit proposed on-site.

Panel Discussion

Discussion ensued with regard to tandem parking and bicycle storage in the garage.

Correspondence

None.

Gallery Comments

None.

Panel Discussion

Discussion ensued with regard to the proposed development’s architectural form and character.

Panel Decision

It was moved and seconded

That Development Permit be issued which would:

1.

permit the construction of eleven (11) three-storey townhouse units at 22691 and 22711 Westminster Highway on a site zoned “Town Housing (ZT11) – Hamilton;” and

2.

vary the provisions of Richmond Zoning Bylaw 8500 to allow tandem parking spaces in eleven (11) townhouse units.

CARRIED

5.

Development Permit 14-671600
(File Ref. No.:  DP 14-671600)  (REDMS No. 4500024)

APPLICANT:

Am-Pri Developments (2012) Ltd.

PROPERTY LOCATION:

9580, 9600, 9620, 9626, 9660 and 9680 Alexandra Road

INTENT OF PERMIT:

Permit the construction of 96 three storey townhomes at 9580, 9600, 9620, 9626, 9660 and 9680 Alexandra Road on a site zoned “Town Housing (ZT67) – Alexandra Neighbourhood (West Cambie).”

Applicant’s Comments

Mr. Yamamoto briefed the Panel on the proposed development regarding (i) urban design, (ii) architectural form and character, (iii) conditions of adjacency, (iv) amenity spaces, and (v) public art.

Mr. Yamamoto noted that (i) the applicant is proposing 96 townhouse units over six lots along Alexandra Road and Alderbridge Way, (ii) there is a right-of-way greenway that runs along the northwest corner of the site and a wildlife corridor will be provided in the vegetation strip along the eastern edge of the site, (iii) most unit entrances will be off the street or common walkways, (iv) entrances will be off the driveway for units adjacent to the greenway, (v) there will be one amenity area on the centre of the site and a smaller amenity area on the eastern section of the site, and (vi) the developer has hosted a Public Art Studio at Emily Carr University of Art and Design as part of their Public Art response.

Darren Miller, Stantec, briefed the Panel on the landscape and open design and noted that (i) a three metre wide native species vegetation strip will run along the eastern edge of the site, (ii) the amenity area will include playground equipment and natural play elements, (iii) paving patterns are designed to give prominence to various crosswalk areas, (iv) the units will have higher shrub level planting, and (v) the two amenities spaces promote walking on-site.

Panel Discussion

In reply to queries from the Panel, Mr. Miller noted that seating benches will be installed throughout the site.

In reply to queries from the Panel, Mr. Yamamoto advised that the mailboxes will be located inside the amenity room.

Discussion ensued with regard to shared access with the adjacent property to the west and emergency access. In reply to queries from the Panel, Mr. Yamamoto noted that the proposed development will provide shared access, however the adjacent property will have a separate emergency access. He added that the site plan does not have provisions to create another driveway loop within the neighbouring site and that the ends of the drive aisles may be treated with bollards.

Discussion then ensued with regard to the design of the greenway on the northwest edge of the site, and Mr. Miller noted that landscape designs are in the preliminary stages and are under discussion with staff as the greenway will be part of the servicing agreement.

In reply to queries from the Panel, Mr. Miller noted that there will be a variety of play equipment in the amenity area that will suit all age groups. He added that the other amenity area will not have play equipment, but will have tables and seating elements.

In reply to queries from the Panel, Mr. Yamamoto, noted that there are 10 convertible units integrated throughout the proposed development.

Staff Comments

In reply to queries from the Panel, Mr. Craig noted that (i) there is a greenway along the northwest corner of the site, (ii) the servicing agreement will provide for the greenway and frontage improvements along Alexandra Road, (iii) the proposed development will have indoor amenity space, (iv) the proposed development will be designed to achieve EnerGuide 82 standards, and (v) the proposed development is not in the West Cambie Alexandra District Energy Utility area, however will achieve the City’s sustainability requirements.

Correspondence

None.

Gallery Comments

None.

Panel Decision

It was moved and seconded

That a Development Permit be issued which would permit the construction of 96 three storey townhomes at 9580, 9600, 9620, 9626, 9660 and 9680 Alexandra Road on a site zoned “Town Housing (ZT67) – Alexandra Neighbourhood (West Cambie).”

CARRIED

6.

New Business

7.

Date of Next Meeting:  Wednesday, March 25, 2015

8.

Adjournment

It was moved and seconded

That the meeting be adjourned at 5:28 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 Tuesday, March 10, 2015.

_________________________________

_________________________________

Robert Gonzalez
Chair

Evangel Biason
Auxiliary Committee Clerk