April 15, 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
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, March 25, 2015, be adopted.

CARRIED

1.

Development Permit 14-657872
(File Ref. No.:  DP 14-657872)  (REDMS No. 4537814 v.2)

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, briefed the Panel on the proposed development, noting that (i) the entire existing perimeter hedge will be replaced with new hedges, (ii) 10 feet tall replacement hedges and wood fencing will be used for most of the site’s perimeter, (iii) some sections of the replacement perimeter hedge will be 15 feet tall and a section will have hedges but no wood fence, (iv) new five feet tall hedges will be provided along the driveways, and (v) a tree removal permit has been issued to a neighbour for the removal of three trees from an adjacent property.

Discussion ensued with regard to the applicant’s commitment to retain the existing hedges at the rezoning application process. In reply to queries from the Panel, Mr. Yamamoto noted that changes to the existing hedge were necessary due to its location along the property line and possible unsavoury appearance when trimmed.

In reply to queries from the Panel, Ms. Campbell advised that all of the existing hedges will be removed and replaced with new hedges. She added that upon the request of some adjacent property owners, sections of the property line will not have a fence and will only have a hedge.

Gallery Comments

Kathy Stephens, 8371 Heather Street, expressed concern with regard to (i) privacy and adequate screening of her property, (ii) trimming of the hedges, and (iii) health of the hedges.

The Chair advised that (i) the Development Permit continues with the property and that hedges cannot be removed or altered below the specified height, (ii) a landscaping security is held for one year following the completion of the proposed development, and (iii) distressed hedges are required to be replaced before the landscape security is released.

In reply to queries from the Panel, Ms. Campbell noted that the perimeter hedge and fence will be installed prior to construction of the proposed townhouses and that the hedges will be watered.

In reply to queries from the Panel, Wayne Craig, Director, Development, noted that (i) options are available to extend the landscape security, (ii) 90% of the landscape security is released after completing a landscape inspection of the site prior to final occupancy, (iii) 10% of the security is withheld for one year following completion, and (iv) the applicant estimates that the hedges would be in place approximately one to two years prior to final occupancy.

Discussion ensued with regard to the mature height of the proposed hedges facing Ms. Stephens’s property. Ms. Campbell noted that she anticipates that the mature height of the proposed hedges would reach 18 to 20 feet.

In reply to queries from the Panel, Jackson Lee, Jacken Homes, noted that the applicant would have no control over the future maintenance of the proposed hedges however; the applicant has made an offer to Ms. Stephens to install additional hedges on her property.

In reply to queries from the Panel, Ms. Stephens noted that screening of her property would be compromised since adjacent property owners have declined the offer from the applicant to plant hedges within their property.

In reply to queries from the Panel, Kerin Matthews, Mountain Maple Ltd., advised that hedges are typically only trimmed approximately three years after planting and was of the opinion that strata corporations generally have limited budgets allocated for hedge trimming.

Irene Webster, 8291 Heather Street, spoke of the proposed development, noting that concerns regarding the removal of three large trees on her property have be resolved.

Panel Discussion

In reply to queries from the Panel, Mr. Craig advised that is possible to register a legal agreement on title to maintain the perimeter hedges.

Correspondence

Ray and Rita Luetzen, 8351 Heather Street (Schedule 1)

Gallery Comments

Mr. Lee advised that concerns from adjacent property owners regarding the pruning of the proposed perimeter hedges have been resolved and that the proposed perimeter hedges will not be pruned below 15 feet in height.

Panel Decision

It was moved and seconded

That a Development Permit be issued which would permit the construction of 23 two-storey townhouse units at 9055 Dayton Avenue on a site zoned “Low Density Townhouses (RTL2).”

CARRIED

2.

Development Permit 14-657502
(File Ref. No.:  DP 14-657502)  (REDMS No. 4540854)

APPLICANT:

Kasian Architecture Interior Design and Planning Ltd.

PROPERTY LOCATION:

11380 Steveston Highway

INTENT OF PERMIT:

Permit the construction of a 558 m² addition to the building at 11380 Steveston Highway on a site zoned “Industrial Community Commercial (ZC6) – Ironwood Area.”

Applicant’s Comments

With the aid of a PowerPoint Presentation (attached to and forming part of these minutes as Schedule 2) Alan Nakaska, Kasian Architecture, briefed the Panel on the proposed development and noted that the proposed addition will incorporate a similar architectural design and use the same building materials and colour schemes as the existing development.

Mr. Nakaska spoke of the proposed design changes made to the proposed development since the initial submission and highlighted the following:

§   

the proposed building area was reduced;

§   

the north frontage was reduced by eight feet;

§   

glazing was added along the south façade;

§   

landscaping will be installed along the southern property line;

§   

the proposed addition will incorporate a glass canopy;

§   

there will be a direct pedestrian connection to the proposed addition;

§   

the public plaza adjacent to the site will be enlarged; and

§   

432 vehicle parking stalls are proposed and will include a more equitable distribution of small vehicle stalls throughout the site.

Florian Fisch, Durante Kreuk Ltd., spoke of the proposed landscape and open space design and noted that (i) the proposed public plaza has been enlarged, (ii) the proposed public plaza will be multi-functional (iii) there will be a wide sidewalk and a landscape strip along the eastern side of the proposed addition, and (iv) there will be a landscaped screen along the south side of the proposed addition.

Farouk Babul, Westbank Projects Corp., spoke of the consultation done with adjacent property owners and advised that the applicant proposed to install way-finding signs and align drive aisles to the adjacent site in order to address concerns expressed by the adjacent business owners however, an agreement could not be made.

In reply to queries from the Panel, Mr. Nakaska noted that efforts were made to minimize visual obstruction to the adjacent property.

Panel Discussion

Discussion ensued with regard to the proposed loading access area and Mr. Nakaska noted that the proposed loading area can be accessed entirely within the site.

In reply to queries from the Panel, Mr. Nakaska advised that historical bylaws at the time of design as well as tenant preference required specific dimensions for the proposed loading area. He added that due to the required dimensions, the area behind the proposed addition is the optimal location for the loading area.

Staff Comments

Mr. Craig wished to thank the applicant for their efforts in working with staff to address the urban design concerns.

In reply to queries from the Panel, Mr. Craig advised that the zoning bylaw does not require the loading area to be behind the building.

Correspondence

David Porte, Porte Realty Ltd. (Schedule 3)

In reply to queries from the Panel, Mr. Craig advised that the pedestrian connection is part of the Development Permit. He added that way-finding signs are permitted and may be provided by the applicant.

Gallery Comments

Beth Lee, 9591 No. 5 Road, owns a business adjacent to the proposed development and expressed concern with regard to the potential for (i) the visual obstruction of neighbouring businesses, (ii) an increase in truck traffic, and (iii) a shortage of vehicle parking space at the shopping plaza.

Johnny Ahmed, Richmond Martial Arts, owns a business adjacent to the proposed development and expressed concern with regard to (i) available vehicle parking space, and (ii) business signage.

Panel Discussion

In reply to queries from the Panel with regard to the relocation of the easement, Sonali Hingorani, Transportation Engineer, noted that a reconfiguration of the easement to the east could potentially have a 90 degree entrance to the southern property.

In reply to queries from the Panel, Mr. Babul noted that the applicant and Porte Realty Ltd. agree on the relocation of the access easement however are unable to agree on other aspects of the proposed application.

Discussion ensued with respect to alternate configurations of the loading area to allow for the proposed addition to be moved west.

In reply to queries from the Panel, Mr. Babul noted that it is technically feasible to relocate the loading area along the side of the proposed addition and move the proposed addition towards the west however as a consequence, the proposed addition would lose frontage and reduce exposure of the future tenants. He added that a hydro kiosk is located along the western property line and that reconfiguring the drive aisle adjacent to the loading area could potentially reduce vehicle parking space for adjacent business owners. Also, he noted that the applicant is willing to relocate the access easement and provide way-finding signs that meet City regulations at the applicant’s cost.

Discussion ensued regarding the applicant’s consultation with Porte Realty Ltd. in relation to relocating the access easement.

As a result of the discussion, the applicant was directed to consult with Porte Realty Ltd. on the relocation of the access easement and the installation of way-finding signs and the pedestrian connection.

Mr. Craig noted that staff can gather information with regard to the final agreement between the applicant and adjacent property owners prior to forwarding the application to Council.

Panel Decision

It was moved and seconded

That a Development Permit be issued which would permit the construction of a 558 m² addition to the building at 11380 Steveston Highway on a site zoned “Industrial Community Commercial (ZC6) – Ironwood Area.”

CARRIED

3.

Development Permit 14-677729
(File Ref. No.:  DP 14-677729)  (REDMS No. 4525605 v.2)

APPLICANT:

Buttjes Architecture

PROPERTY LOCATION:

13600 Smallwood Place

INTENT OF PERMIT:

Permit the construction of a 546.9 m² (5,887 ft²) addition at 13600 Smallwood Place on a site zoned “Vehicle Sales (CV).”

Applicant’s Comments

Brian Gee, Buttjes Architecture Inc., briefed the Panel on the proposed application regarding (i) urban design, (ii) architectural form and character, (iii) site access, and (iv) circulation of vehicles being serviced on-site.

Panel Discussion

In reply to queries from the Panel, Mr. Gee noted that the applicants are proposing to enclose the service centre and car wash to allow for all weather operation and that the architecture is integrated with the existing building.

Staff Comments

In reply to queries from the Panel, Mr. Craig noted that staff reviewed the proposed designs and that the Richmond Auto Mall Association supports the proposed application.

Correspondence

None.

Gallery Comments

None.

Panel Decision

It was moved and seconded

That a Development Permit be issued which would permit the construction of a 546.9 m² (5,887 ft²) addition at 13600 Smallwood Place on a site zoned “Vehicle Sales (CV).”

CARRIED

4.

New Business

5.

Date of Next Meeting:  Wednesday, April 29, 2015

6.

Adjournment

It was moved and seconded

That the meeting be adjourned at 4:48 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, April 15, 2015.

_________________________________

_________________________________

Joe Erceg
Chair

Evangel Biason
Auxiliary Committee Clerk