September 16, 2015 - Minutes
 |
Development Permit Panel
Wednesday, September 16, 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 August 26, 2015, be adopted. |
|
|
CARRIED |
|
1. |
Development Permit 12-624819 |
||
|
|
APPLICANT: |
Matthew Cheng Architect Inc. |
|
|
|
PROPERTY LOCATION: |
8200, 8220, 8280 and 8300 No. 1 Road |
|
|
|
INTENT OF PERMIT: |
|
|
|
|
Permit the construction of 28 townhouse units at 8200, 8220, 8280 and 8300 No. 1 Road on a site zoned “Low Density Townhouses (RTL4).” |
||
|
|
Applicant’s Comments |
|
|
|
Kush Panatach, Centro Properties Group, commented on the proposed development, noting that he acquired the site from the original developer and the current applicant plans to retain the intent of the original zoning. He added that the proposed development will have a contemporary design and high-level finishing. |
|
|
|
David Cha, Matthew Cheng Architect Inc., briefed the Panel on the proposed development regarding (i) urban design, (ii) architectural form and character, and (iii) conditions of adjacency. |
|
|
|
Mr. Cha spoke of the proposed development’s design, noting that the proposed development will consist of 28 townhouse units and utilize materials such as brick and wood siding as part of its contemporary design. He added that the proposed development will feature a combination of asymmetrical and flat roof lines to reflect the forms of surrounding buildings. Also, he noted that the proposed development will primarily consist of three-storey townhouse along No. 1 Road, however; the building will step down to two storeys along the north, south and east edges of the site to provide transition to existing adjacent single-family homes. |
|
|
|
Denitsa Dimitrova, PMG Landscape Architects, briefed the Panel on the proposed development’s landscape and noted the following: |
|
|
|
§ |
each unit will have a yard; |
|
|
§ |
a trellis is proposed along the pedestrian entry; |
|
|
§ |
the adjacent bus stop will be screened; |
|
|
§ |
the proposed amenity area will include a play area with compound and natural play elements and benches; |
|
|
§ |
perimeter buffering will include 1.8 metre hedges and six foot high fencing; and |
|
|
§ |
permeable pavers will be used for the internal driveway. |
|
|
Panel Discussion |
|
|
In reply to queries from the Panel regarding the internal walkways, Ms. Dimitrova advised that landscape strips are planned on both sides of the walkway. She added that there will be a trellis at the walkway entrance and that the walkway would use decorative pavers. |
|
|
Discussion ensued with regard to walkway lighting and in reply to queries from the Panel, Mr. Cha noted that the walkways will be lit, however details of the lighting elements have not been finalized. |
|
|
In reply to queries from the Panel, Wayne Craig, Director, Development, noted that the outdoor amenity space was relocated to the eastern portion of the site and that there will be perimeter fencing and landscaping along that portion. |
|
|
Staff Comments |
|
|
Mr. Craig commented on the proposed development, noting that the proposed development will have one convertible unit and a servicing agreement will facilitate frontage improvements along No. 1 Road, which will include a future bus shelter. He added that the proposed development will retain the existing hedges on-site. |
|
|
Correspondence |
|
|
None. |
|
|
Gallery Comments |
|
|
Jim Barkwell, 8251 Coldfall Court, expressed concern regarding the proposed development with respect to (i) perimeter fencing and hedging, (ii) on-site grading, (iii) perimeter drainage, and (iv) the arrangement of balconies. |
|
|
In reply to queries from the Panel, Mr. Craig advised that (i) the proposed development will have 1.8 metre perimeter hedging, (ii) existing site grading will be retained along the east edge of the site, and (iii) the retaining wall will be stepped back 1.2 to 1.5 metres from the property line. |
|
|
In reply to queries from the Panel, Mr. Panatach noted that in order to meet flood plain requirements the site was raised and the grading will gradually step down to meet the existing grade at the property line. He added that there will be perimeter drainage. |
|
|
Discussion ensued with regard to overlook and privacy, and in reply to queries from the Panel, Mr. Panatch noted that the units adjacent to the single-family homes will be two-storeys and the retention of existing perimeter trees will mitigate overlook concerns. |
|
|
Panel Discussion |
|
|
Discussion ensued with regard to (i) architectural form and character with respect to the surrounding neighbourhood, (ii) exterior finishing, and (iii) natural play elements in the amenity area. |
|
|
In reply to queries from the Panel, Kevin Eng, Planner 2, advised that the Advisory Design Panel requested that the project consider additional convertible units. |
|
|
Panel Decision |
|
|
It was moved and seconded |
|
|
That a Development Permit be issued which would permit the construction of 28 townhouse units at 8200, 8220, 8280 and 8300 No. 1 Road on a site zoned “Low Density Townhouses (RTL4).” |
|
|
CARRIED |
|
2. |
General Compliance Ruling |
||
|
|
APPLICANT: |
Christopher Bozyk Architects |
|
|
|
PROPERTY LOCATION: |
11100 Cambie Road |
|
|
|
INTENT OF PERMIT: |
|
|
|
|
That the attached plans involving changes to the development design be considered in General Compliance with Development Permit (DP 13-643519). |
||
|
|
Applicant’s Comments |
|
|
Christopher Bozyk, Christopher Bozyk Architects, alongside David Monti, Wales McLelland Construction, briefed the Panel on the changes to the proposed landscaping due to plans by BC Hydro to relocate power lines underground. Mr. Monti noted that changes to landscaping include the removal of the retaining wall and replacing the eight foot fence with a glazed windscreen wall. |
|
|
Al Tanzer, LandSpace Design Inc., commented on the proposed modifications to landscape design, noting that the proposed landscape design will meet the City’s requirements. He added that planting trees will not be a viable option, however, vines, ornamental rocks and some shrubbery can be installed. He further noted that there will be underground water storage and a rain garden at the front of the property with the drainage going into a bio swale. |
|
|
Staff Comments |
|
|
Mr. Craig spoke of the proposed changes in landscape design, noting that landscaping has been enhanced in other portions of the site unaffected by the BC Hydro lines and that the proposed breezeway along the western portion of the site will meet the intent of the original Development Permit application. |
|
|
Correspondence |
|
|
None. |
|
|
Gallery Comments |
|
|
None. |
|
|
Panel Decision |
|
|
It was moved and seconded |
|
|
That the attached plans involving changes to the development design be considered in General Compliance with Development Permit (DP 13-643519). |
|
|
CARRIED |
|
3. |
Development Permit 14-674133 |
||
|
|
APPLICANT: |
Western Verona Garden Holdings Ltd. |
|
|
|
PROPERTY LOCATION: |
9211 and 9231 No. 2 Road |
|
|
|
INTENT OF PERMIT: |
|
|
|
|
Permit the construction of ten (10) townhouse units at 9211 and 9231 No. 2 Road on a site zoned “Low Density Townhouses (RTL4).” |
||
|
|
Applicant’s Comments |
|
|
|
Wayne Fougere, Fougere Architecture Inc., briefed the Panel on the proposed development and noted the following: |
|
|
|
§ |
the proposed development will consist of 10 townhouse units with 0.6 Floor Area Ratio; |
|
|
§ |
the exterior will utilize stone and hardi panels; |
|
|
§ |
the proposed development will meet the City’s flood plain requirements; |
|
|
§ |
existing trees along the north west corner of the site will be retained; |
|
|
§ |
the proposed amenity space will be designed for use by a future development; and |
|
|
§ |
there will be opportunities for play elements in the amenity space to incorporate the site’s grade change. |
|
|
Daryl Tyacke, ETA Landscape Architecture, commented on the proposed landscape and open space design, and noted the following: |
|
|
|
§ |
the potential for future road widening of No. 2 Road could impact the bus stop and condense yard space; |
|
|
§ |
removable perimeter fencing would be utilized in the event that No. 2 Road is widened; |
|
|
§ |
the play area is located on two levels and would be connected via a slide and a sloped walkway; |
|
|
§ |
garage aprons will utilize permeable pavers; and |
|
|
§ |
hedges along the western portion of the site will be utilized for screening. |
|
|
Discussion ensued with regard to the proposed convertible unit and Mr. Fougere noted that the two bedroom, tandem unit will be used as the convertible unit. |
|
|
|
Staff Comments |
|
|
Mr. Craig commented on the proposed development, noting that (i) existing trees on-site will be retained, (ii) open space was oversized to accommodate potential future development of the properties north of the site, (iii) additional visitor vehicle parking was included, (iv) the proposed development will meet EnerGuide 82 standards, and (v) a servicing agreement was secured to facilitate frontage improvements along No. 2 Road. |
|
|
In reply to queries from the Panel, Mr. Craig advised that the City has secured a right-of-way for potential future road widening of No. 2 Road. |
|
|
Panel Discussion |
|
|
In reply to queries from the Panel regarding the amenity area, Mr. Tyacke noted that (i) the play area surface will utilize rubber flooring, (ii) trees will have an open canopy, and (iii) most of the plantings will include grasses and low plant material. |
|
|
Correspondence |
|
|
None. |
|
|
Gallery Comments |
|
|
Mandy Mach, 9260 Laka Drive, expressed concern with regard to the future sewage connections from the proposed development. |
|
|
In reply to queries from the Panel, Edwin Lee, Planning Technician – Design, advised that service connections will be located along the north west portion of the site, however; connection designs have not been finalized. |
|
|
The Chair spoke on potential service connections, noting that design for service connections have not been finalized and adjacent property owners would be notified should any future service connects impact adjacent properties. |
|
|
Panel Decision |
|
|
It was moved and seconded |
|
|
That a Development Permit be issued which would permit the construction of ten (10) townhouse units at 9211 and 9231 No. 2 Road on a site zoned “Low Density Townhouses (RTL4).” |
|
|
CARRIED |
|
4. |
Development Permit 15-694729 |
||
|
|
APPLICANT: |
Jacken Investments Inc. |
|
|
|
PROPERTY LOCATION: |
10591, 10611 and 10631 Gilbert Road |
|
|
|
INTENT OF PERMIT: |
|
|
|
|
Permit the construction of 14 townhouse units at 10591, 10611 and 10631 Gilbert Road on a site zoned “Low Density Townhouses (RTL4).” |
||
|
|
Applicant’s Comments |
|
|
|
Karen Ma, Yamamoto Architecture Inc., briefed the Panel on the proposed development regarding (i) urban design, (ii) architectural form and character, and (iii) conditions of adjacency, and noted the following: |
|
|
|
§ |
the proposed development will consist of two and three storey townhouse units; |
|
|
§ |
a hemlock tree at the rear of the site will be retained; |
|
|
§ |
the proposed development will be built to meet EnerGuide 82 standards; |
|
|
§ |
the amenity area will be centrally located; |
|
|
§ |
the proposed setback of 6.0 to 7.5 metres exceeds minimum requirements; |
|
|
§ |
units adjacent to the neighbouring single-family homes will be two-storeys; and |
|
|
§ |
pavers will be used in the drive aisle. |
|
|
Ms. Dimitrova briefed the Panel on the proposed landscape and open space design and noted the following: |
|
|
|
§ |
existing trees on-site will be retained; |
|
|
§ |
each unit will have a private yard enclosed by a low transparent aluminum fence; |
|
|
§ |
the proposed development would utilize a six foot wood perimeter fence; |
|
|
§ |
a trellis will be installed at the end of the internal driveway; |
|
|
§ |
play area will include compound and natural play elements; |
|
|
§ |
amenity area will include benches; and |
|
|
§ |
permeable pavers will be utilized on-site. |
|
|
Panel Discussion |
|
|
In reply to queries from the Panel, Ms. Dimitrova noted that the existing grade along the western property line will be retained. |
|
|
In reply to queries from the Panel, Ms. Ma advised that there will be door-to-door garbage pick-up, however; there will be a common area available on-site should the future strata corporation prefer centralized garbage pick-up. |
|
|
Discussion ensued with regard to the space in between the buildings and in reply to queries from the Panel, Ms. Dimitrova noted that the area will be a side yard adjacent to the townhouse units. |
|
|
Staff Comments |
|
|
Mr. Craig commented on the proposed development, noting that the proposed development will have side-by-side vehicle parking in all units and that there will be one convertible unit. |
|
|
Correspondence |
|
|
None. |
|
|
Gallery Comments |
|
|
A Richmond resident expressed concern with regard to the construction timeline of the proposed development and the potential for trees on her property to be damaged. |
|
|
In reply to queries from the Panel, Jackson Lee, Jacken Investments Inc., advised that the date to begin construction has not been finalized. |
|
|
Panel Decision |
|
|
It was moved and seconded |
|
|
That a Development Permit be issued which would permit the construction of 14 townhouse units at 10591, 10611 and 10631 Gilbert Road on a site zoned “Low Density Townhouses (RTL4).” |
|
|
CARRIED |
|
5. |
Development Permit 15-700390 |
||||
|
|
APPLICANT: |
Harjit Sandhu |
|
||
|
|
PROPERTY LOCATION: |
10691 Dennis Crescent |
|
||
|
|
INTENT OF PERMIT: |
|
|||
|
|
1. |
Permit the construction of a coach house at 10691 Dennis 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: |
|||
|
|
|
a) |
allow a coach house to be located 3.0 m from the northern interior side lot line; and |
||
|
|
|
b) |
allow a portion of the parking spaces for the lot to be accessed from Dennis Crescent. |
||
|
|
Applicant’s Comments |
|
|
Amir Sandhu, 228-1020 No. 5 Road and Harjeet Sandhu 10691 Dennis Crescent, briefed the Panel on the proposed application, noting that (i) the proposed coach house would use similar materials and colour to the main house, (ii) landscaping would provide privacy and include shrubs, (iii) primary pedestrian entry to the coach house would be off the rear lane, (iv) the living area would be in the main floor and the bedrooms on the second floor of the coach house, and (v) the two car garage would be located beside the living area on the main floor. |
|
|
Staff Comments |
|
|
Mr. Craig spoke of the proposed variances associated with the proposed application, noting that the variance to locate the coach house 3.0 metres from the northern interior side lot line is required since the building cannot encroach within an existing sanitary right-of-way on the property line. Mr. Craig added that the second proposed variance would allow vehicle access to the principal residence from Dennis Crescent. |
|
|
Correspondence |
|
|
None. |
|
|
Gallery Comments |
|
|
Gerry Albus, 10291 Aragon Road, expressed privacy concerns with regard to the height of the proposed coach house and the potential overlook to the adjacent yard. He added that he was of the opinion that the proposed coach house could potentially lower property values in the area. |
|
|
The Chair noted that second level windows are for the bedroom and are oriented away from adjacent properties. |
|
|
In reply to queries from the Panel regarding privacy, Mr. Craig advised that the two storey element is the southern portion of the coach house over the garage and the only windows facing the rear lane are the bedroom windows. |
|
|
Panel Discussion |
|
|
Discussion ensued with regard to (i) limiting windows facing the rear lane, (ii) access to the main house along Dennis Court and rear lane access to the coach house, and (iii) the coach house being oriented to face the main house. |
|
|
Panel Decision |
||
|
|
It was moved and seconded |
||
|
|
That a Development Permit be issued which would: |
||
|
|
1. |
permit the construction of a coach house at 10691 Dennis 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: |
|
|
|
|
a) |
allow a coach house to be located 3.0 m from the northern interior side lot line; and |
|
|
|
b) |
allow a portion of the parking spaces for the lot to be accessed from Dennis Crescent. |
|
|
CARRIED |
||
|
6. |
New Business |
|
|
It was moved and seconded |
|
|
That the Wednesday, September 30, 2015 Development Permit Panel meeting be cancelled. |
|
|
CARRIED |
|
7. |
Date of Next Meeting: Wednesday, October 14, 2015 |
|
8. |
Adjournment |
|
|
It was moved and seconded |
|
|
That the meeting be adjourned at 4:58 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, September 16 , 2015. |
|
_________________________________ |
_________________________________ |
|
Joe Erceg |
Evangel Biason |