April 13, 2016 - Minutes

Time:

3:30 p.m.

Place:

Council Chambers
Richmond City Hall

Present:

Joe Erceg, Chair
Cathryn Volkering Carlile, General Manager, Community Services
John Irving, Director, Engineering

Minutes

It was moved and seconded

That the minutes of the meeting of the Development Permit Panel held on March 30, 2016, be adopted.

CARRIED

1.

Development Permit 14-671945
(File Ref. No.:  DP 14-671945)  (REDMS No. 4556065)

APPLICANT:

Zhao XD Architect Ltd.

PROPERTY LOCATION:

9800, 9820, 9840 and 9860 Granville Avenue

INTENT OF PERMIT:

1.

Permit the construction of 18 three-storey townhouse units at 9800, 9820, 9840 and 9860 Granville Avenue on a site zoned “Medium Density Townhouses (RTM2)”; and

2.

Vary the provisions of Richmond Zoning Bylaw 8500 to increase the rate of tandem parking spaces from 50% to 62%.

Applicant’s Comments

Xuedong Zhao, Zhao XD Architect Ltd., provided background information on the proposed development, noting that (i) the proposal includes four triplex and three duplex buildings, (ii) the design of the townhouses fits well with the neighbourhood, (iii) the proposed massing, upper level setbacks and reduced window openings of townhouses address privacy concerns of the adjacent development to the south, (iv) a private outdoor space for each unit and a common outdoor amenity space are provided, (v) individual entries to the townhouse units along the street are emphasized through installation of gates, fencing and landscaping, and (vi) sustainable building materials include wood and hardie panel.

Mr. Zhao added that the concerns of the adjacent developments to the east and south expressed during the rezoning process have been addressed by the applicant.

Denitsa Dimitrova, PMG Landscape Architects, noted that (i) the landscape design incorporates existing trees on site and the existing grade is maintained to retain existing trees, (ii) each unit has a private yard with landscaping, lawn area and patio, (iii) pedestrian-oriented Granville Avenue streetscape includes low aluminum fencing with concrete columns, (iv) trellis structures with vines are proposed at both ends of the internal driveway, (v) a play area with active and passive components is incorporated in the outdoor amenity area, (vi) a social area is incorporated in the outdoor amenity area where the mail kiosk is located, (vii) wood fencing is proposed along the east, west and south property lines to provide privacy, and (viii) permeable paving is introduced in some areas along the internal drive aisle and visitor parking stalls.

Staff Comments

Wayne Craig, Director, Development, acknowledged support for the proposed tandem parking variance, noting that the additional tandem stalls to be supplied are in excess of the minimum Zoning Bylaw requirement and will increase the residential parking stalls provided on site. He added that six trees will be retained on site and the project has been designed to achieve EnerGuide 82 rating for energy efficiency.

Panel Discussion

In response to a query from the Panel, Ms. Dimitrova, confirmed that the bench at the outdoor play area is proposed to be located between the play equipment and the natural play area for better surveillance of children’s activities in the outdoor amenity area.

In response to a query from the Panel regarding the east and west adjacencies of the site, Mr. Craig advised that the two single family lots to the east are currently under a rezoning application to construct a townhouse development, and a cross access agreement has been secured to allow the connection of the subject site to the future development to the east and west.

Correspondence

Clive Mason, Richmond School District (Schedule 1)

Marci Timmins, A.R. MacNeill Secondary School, 6611 No. 4 Road (Schedule 2)

In response to a query from the Panel, Mr. Craig noted that the two pieces of correspondence on behalf A.R. MacNeill Secondary expressed concern regarding the potential traffic congestion in the area and safety concerns regarding the location and alignment of the subject site’s driveway with the school’s driveway. He further advised that (i) the anticipated increase in traffic generated by the proposed development would be minimal, (ii) the peak departure and return periods of the townhouse project are dispersed and the school peak traffic volumes are more concentrated, and (iii) the proposed alignment of the driveway of the subject site with the school’s driveway addresses safety concerns.

Gallery Comments

None.

Panel Decision

It was moved and seconded

That a Development Permit be issued which would:

1.

permit the construction of 18 three-storey townhouse units at 9800, 9820, 9840 and 9860 Granville Avenue on a site zoned “Medium Density Townhouses (RTM2)”; and

2.

vary the provisions of Richmond Zoning Bylaw 8500 to increase the rate of tandem parking spaces from 50% to 62%.

CARRIED

2.

Development Permit 15-697654
(File Ref. No.:  DP 15-697654)  (REDMS No. 4858900)

APPLICANT:

Canada Haotian Investment Ltd.

PROPERTY LOCATION:

8191 Alexandra Road

INTENT OF PERMIT:

1.

Permit the construction of a two-storey commercial building at 8191 Alexandra Road on a site zoned “Auto-Oriented Commercial (CA)”; and

2.

Vary the provisions of Richmond Zoning Bylaw 8500 to reduce the minimum west interior side yard setback from 3.0 m to 0.46 m.

Applicant’s Comments

Patrick Xu Yang, Pacific West Architecture, provided background information on the proposed development and noted the following:

§   

the proposed two-storey commercial building with restaurant uses will provide a new street-oriented commercial building to the block;

§   

the proposed building presents a coordinated, urban street image characterized by an almost continuous street wall along the street frontage;

§   

the entry driveway is located on the eastern edge of the site;

§   

surface parking at the back of the building is screened from the street by the building;

§   

a covered barrier-free sidewalk along the entry driveway will be provided between the parking area and the main entry of the building;

§   

the enclosed garbage and recycling facility is located at the back of the building  and away from the adjacent residential development to the north;

§   

a 1.8 meter wood fence and a five foot wide landscaping bed with evergreen hedge and trees is proposed along the north property line to protect the privacy of the adjacent residential development;

§   

the scale and massing of the proposed two-storey building fits well with the surrounding buildings;

§   

a pedestrian scale is achieved along Alexandra Road through architectural treatments and landscape features;

§   

light grey metal panels and two different tones of stucco finishes are used at the back of the building to add visual interest; and

§   

sustainability features include (i) permeable pavers on the entry driveway and a portion of the parking area, (ii) high Solar Reflectance Index (SRI) material roof, (iii) daylight sensors, (iv) low-consumption flush fixtures and low-flow rate faucets, and (v) high performance glazing.

Lu Xu, Landscape Architect, LUXU Studio, briefed the Panel on the landscaping of the project, noting that (i) pedestrian-friendly permeable pavers are introduced in front of the entry driveway, (ii) a covered pedestrian sidewalk is provided along the eastern side of the building, (iii) layers of different planting are integrated, (iv) appropriate plant species are planted at the front of the building, (v) free standing trellis with vine planting has been added along the east side of the entrance driveway, (vi) red maple, evergreen and deciduous trees will be planted at the parking lot, and (vii) bicycle parking is integrated at the front of the building.

Panel Discussion

In response to queries from the Panel, Mr. Yang and Ms. Xu confirmed that (i) the proposed bicycle parking at the front of the building will not conflict with the building entrance, (ii) the handicapped parking stall is located adjacent to standard car parking stalls and the loading area, (iii) the garbage and recycling area is enclosed and covered, and (iv) the loading area will not be used during the operating hours of the restaurant and will not conflict with the accessible barrier-free walkway.

In response to a query from the Panel, Mr. Craig advised that tenant signage will be subject to future permits in accordance with the Sign Bylaw.

In response to further queries from the Panel regarding the proposed variance to the minimum west side interior setback, Mr. Yang confirmed that (i) the presence of water pipes on the neighbouring building near the west property line of the subject site necessitated the proposed 0.46 metre setback instead of a zero lot line setback, (ii) the proposed variance would result in a few feet of space between the subject building and the existing adjacent building to the west, (iii) the exact distance of the adjacent building to the west from the west property line of the subject site could not be confirmed, and (iv) the applicant is willing to discuss with the property owner of the adjacent development to the west for the installation of a fence between the two buildings.

Staff Comments

Mr. Craig commented that (i) the associated Servicing Agreement includes frontage improvements along Alexandra Road and (ii) staff will discuss with the applicant appropriate measures to address the narrow gap between the proposed building and the west property line.

In response to a query from the Panel, Mr. Craig confirmed that there is also a slight gap between the existing building to the west and the west property line of the subject site. He added that any proposed screening between the two adjacent buildings would require the cooperation of the property owner of the neighbouring building.

Correspondence

None.

Gallery Comments

None.

Panel Decision

It was moved and seconded

That DP 15-697654 be referred back to staff to:

1.

investigate the exact distance of the west side of the proposed building in the subject site  from its west property line;

2.

examine the existing condition of the adjacent building to the west and its exact distance from the subject site’s west property line;

3.

enable the applicant to hold further discussions with staff and initiate discussion with the property owner of the adjacent building to the west of the subject site regarding appropriate treatment to address the narrow gap between the two buildings; and

report back to the April 27, 2016 Development Permit Panel meeting.

CARRIED

3.

Development Permit 15-700370
(File Ref. No.:  DP 15-700370) (REDMS No. 4926276)

APPLICANT:

Yamamoto Architecture Inc.

PROPERTY LOCATION:

9560 Alexandra Road

INTENT OF PERMIT:

Permit the construction of 20 three-storey townhouse units at 9560 Alexandra Road on a site zoned “Town Housing (ZT67)”.

Applicant’s Comments

Taizo Yamamoto, Yamamoto Architecture, Inc., provided background information regarding the proposed development and highlighted the following:

§   

a 20 meter wide area along the northern edge of the subject site will be provided for the east-west greenway which extends to the townhouse development to the east;

§   

the site lay-out and design of the townhouses were dictated by the narrowness of the site;

§   

the proposed driveway has been relocated from the western edge to the eastern edge of the site as a result of discussion during the rezoning process;

§   

the project is designed to achieve EnerGuide 82 rating and pre-ducted for solar hot water;

§   

one convertible townhouse unit is provided and all townhouse units are provided with aging-in-place features;

§   

low-pitched roofs with varied forms are consistent with the adjacent developments; and

§   

proposed materials include, among others, hardiplank siding and vinyl framed windows.

Denitsa Dimitrova, PMG Landscape Architects, briefed the Panel on the proposed landscaping, noting that (i) a four meter wide ESA strip with native vegetation is proposed along the Alderbridge Way frontage, (ii) existing trees within the 20 meter wide greenway at the north of the site will be retained, (iii) a planting strip is proposed along the eastern side of the internal drive aisle adjacent to the neighbouring property to the east, (iv) the proposed outdoor amenity space includes a children’s play area, play equipment, structural and natural play surface areas, a bench and a bicycle rack, (v) a four foot fence is proposed along the north and west property lines and a six foot fence along the east property line, and (vi) unit pavers are introduced in some areas along the internal drive aisle and visitor parking spaces.

Panel Discussion

In response to queries from the Panel regarding the subject development’s proposed interface with the adjacent future City-owned park to the west of the subject site, Mr. Yamamoto confirmed that (i) the higher elevation of the western edge of the subject site relative to the existing grade of the adjacent park was necessitated by the provision of a walkway along the western edge with level access to the townhouse units, (ii) the proposed materials for the retaining wall adjacent to the park include lock blocks with varied textures and patterns to provide visual interest, (iii) the design of the future park is still to be determined, and (iv) a four foot wood fence will be installed above the retaining wall.

In reply to further queries from the Panel, Mr. Yamamoto stated that (i) the height of the proposed retaining wall is approximately four feet, (ii) the proposed walkway will improve accessibility to the townhouse units, and (iii) a wood picket fence is proposed on top of the retaining wall but a more transparent material could be considered.

In response to queries from the Panel, Mr. Craig advised that (i) the exact design and grading of the future City park is yet to be determined, (ii) staff has ensured that the height of the proposed fence on top of the proposed retaining wall would be minimized and that the fencing material to be used would be transparent, (iii) the developer of the subject development has agreed to contribute approximately $13,000 for planting within the park to soften the western edge of the subject site, and (iv) the existing grade of the future park needs to be maintained to retain and preserve existing trees on site.

Staff Comments

Mr. Craig commented that the (i) the proposed development provides a four meter wide vegetated ESA strip planted with native trees and shrubs along the Alderbridge Way frontage similar to the approach taken by adjacent townhouse development applications to the east, and (ii) the proposed development has been designed to achieve the City’s aircraft noise mitigation standards and EnerGuide 82 rating for energy efficiency.

In response to a query from the Panel, Mr. Craig confirmed that Parks Department has reviewed the landscaping proposal for the subject development including the cash contribution agreed to by the developer for planting along the western boundary of the subject site. 

Correspondence

None.

Gallery Comments

None.

Panel Discussion

The Panel expressed concern regarding the interface of the subject development’s west side with the future City-owned park, noting that (i) more details need to be provided regarding the design of the park, e.g. grade of the park and existing trees to be retained, (ii) the combined height of the proposed retaining wall and the fencing above would be approximately eight feet, and (iii) the proposed cash contribution by the developer of approximately $13,000 would not be sufficient to cover the high cost of providing landscape screening to the proposed retaining wall.

Panel Decision

It was moved and seconded

That DP 15-70033 be referred back to staff to:

1.

provide more details on the design of the future City-owned park adjacent to the western property boundary of the subject site;

2.

investigate ways to minimize the proposed retaining wall and review the proposed fencing on top of the retaining wall along the western perimeter of the subject development to provide a softer transition to and better interface with the adjacent park;

3.

minimize the cost for the City to provide landscape screening within the  park and adjacent to the retaining wall along the western property boundary of the subject site; and

report back to the April 27, 2016 Development Permit Panel meeting.

CARRIED

4.

Development Permit 15-700800
(File Ref. No.:  DP 15-700800) (REDMS No. 4881981)

APPLICANT:

GBL Architects Inc.

PROPERTY LOCATION:

8800 Hazelbridge Way and 3300 and 3311 Ketcheson Road

INTENT OF PERMIT:

1.

Permit the construction at 8800 Hazelbridge Way and 3300 and 3311 Ketcheson Road of the final two phases of a five-phase, high-rise, multi-family residential development, which two phases shall contain a total of 525 dwellings, including 493 market units and 32 affordable housing units (secured with a Housing Agreement), together with four (4) affordable, work-only, art studios and publicly-accessible open space, on a site zoned “High Rise Apartment and Artist Residential Tenancy Studio Units (ZHR10) – Capstan Village (City Centre)”; and

2.

Vary the provisions of Richmond Zoning Bylaw 8500 to:

(a)

Increase the maximum allowable building height for the east building within 50.0 m of a lot line abutting Garden City Road from 28.0 m to 31.5 m for an enclosed stair shaft, elevator penthouse, and guardrail;

(b)

Reduce the minimum allowable road and park setbacks for the west building from 3.0 m to:

(i)

0.0 m from the South Walkway and Art Studio Terrace Statutory Right-of-Way in the vicinity of the art studios; and

(ii)           

2.82 m from the Hazelbridge Way Sidewalk Widening Statutory Right-of-Way near the building’s northwest corner; and

(c)

Increase the maximum allowable projections into the required yards:

(i)

For the east building, from 1.2 m to 1.47 m for a cantilevered roof at the building’s southwest corner; and

(ii)           

For the west building, from 1.0 m to 1.37 m for balconies at the west tower’s south side.

Applicant’s Comments

Amela Brudar, GBL Architects, and Grant Brumpton, PWL Partnership, with the aid of a visual presentation (copy on file, City Clerk’s Office) provided an overview of the proposed development.

Ms. Brudar provided the site context for the proposed development, reviewed the main features of Phases 1, 2, and 3 of Concord Gardens development (which are under construction), provided background information on the subject development, i.e., Phases 4 and 5, and highlighted the following:

§   

the larger Concord Gardens development will comprise a total of 1,201 dwelling units including 1,125 market units and 56 affordable units and 20 professional artists (ARTS) units;

§   

the subject development, i.e. Phases 4 and 5 located in Lot 2 includes 525 dwellings, 493 of which are market units and 32 are affordable units, and four ARTS units along Sexsmith Road;

§   

the subject development proposal consists of two high-rise buildings over a shared two-storey parking structure;

§   

the U-shaped east building in Phase 4 is a stepped high and mid-rise building that transitions from 15 storeys to 10 storeys at Garden City Road;

§   

the west building in Phase 5 is comprised of 16-storey twin towers connected by an 11-storey building and includes four ARTS units along Sexsmith Road;

§   

a community of buildings is proposed in the larger development; however, each building is unique in terms of materiality and has slight variation in colour schemes compared to other buildings;

§   

the proposed two-level parking is contiguous underneath the whole Concord Gardens site with four access points, with the main entry for Lot 2 located in the west building off Hazelbridge Road extension; and

§   

a public walkway Statutory Right-of-Way (SRW) along the south side of Lot 2, an art studio public open space SRW and utility SRW in the west building are provided.

Mr. Brumpton briefed the Panel on the landscaping scheme for the subject development, noting that the proposed landscaping conveys the notion of a carpet and that regional shapes and forms, i.e. the archipelago and pool of water, provide the unifying elements in the overall landscaping.

Mr. Brumpton highlighted that (i) Phase 4 includes the completion of the south side of the Neighbourhood Park, (ii) a community garden is provided along the south side of Phase 4, (iii) an accessible terrace is incorporated along the frontage of the Sexsmith Art Studios, (iv) a landscaped terrace to the south of the ARTS studios provides an inviting entrance to the south walkway, (v) there are shared outdoor amenity spaces at the mid-rise rooftops of Phases 4 and 5, (vi) landscaped seating pavilion and gardens and water garden and terrace  are provided in Phases 4 and 5, respectively, (vii) shared outdoor amenity spaces are incorporated at the tower rooftops, and (viii) a private outdoor amenity space is provided for each residential unit.

Staff Comments

Mr. Craig advised that proposed community gardens are subject to an operating agreement in which the City is a part of. Also, Mr. Craig acknowledged staff support for the requested variances for the proposed development.

Mr. Craig further advised that the proposed development (i) is ready to be connected to a District Energy Utility (DEU) when one becomes available, (ii) has been designed to meet the City’s aircraft noise mitigation standards, and (iii) will contribute funding towards the construction of the Capstan Canada Line station.

Also, Mr. Craig noted that the future development to the south of the subject site will have the same elevation to the proposed walkway on the south of the subject development and provides an opportunity to expand the walkway and address wheelchair accessibility. He further noted that the road elevation of Ketcheson Road will be maintained when the future development to the south will extend the road to Capstan Way.

Correspondence

None.

Gallery Comments

None.

Panel Discussion

In response to a query from the Panel, Mr. Craig confirmed that electric vehicle charging receptacles are provided in the subject development’s parking stalls with a ratio of 30 percent, which is higher than the requirement of 20 percent under the Official Community Plan. Suzanne Carter-Huffman, Senior Planner, Planning and Development, noted that Phase 2 (Lot 1) of the Concord Gardens development provides quick charging stations for electric vehicles which can be accessed by visitors from Lot 2.

In response to queries from the Panel, Ms. Carter-Huffman confirmed that the operating agreement on the proposed community gardens ensures that (i) the community gardens will be operated consistent with the City’s objectives, (ii) the City will provide input on the choice of the operator, and (iii) should the community gardens cease to operate in the future, the City will decide regarding its use, including possible redesign and reconstruction.

In response to a query from the Panel, Ms. Brudar acknowledged that there would be legal agreements in place among different stratas in Concord Gardens development to allow future residents cross access within the various phases of the bigger development. Ms. Carter-Huffman confirmed that the legal agreements registered on title prior to rezoning allow movements of vehicles between various sites and phases within the bigger development.

Panel Decision

It was moved and seconded

That a Development Permit be issued which would:

1.

Permit the construction at 8800 Hazelbridge Way and 3300 and 3311 Ketcheson Road of the final two phases of a five-phase, high-rise, multi-family residential development, which two phases shall contain a total of 525 dwellings, including 493 market units and 32 affordable housing units (secured with a Housing Agreement), together with four (4) affordable, work-only, art studios and publicly-accessible open space, on a site zoned “High Rise Apartment and Artist Residential Tenancy Studio Units (ZHR10) – Capstan Village (City Centre)”; and

2.

Vary the provisions of Richmond Zoning Bylaw 8500 to:

(a)

Increase the maximum allowable building height for the east building within 50.0 m of a lot line abutting Garden City Road from 28.0 m to 31.5 m for an enclosed stair shaft, elevator penthouse, and guardrail;

(b)

Reduce the minimum allowable road and park setbacks for the west building from 3.0 m to:

(i)

0.0 m from the South Walkway and Art Studio Terrace Statutory Right-of-Way in the vicinity of the art studios; and

(ii)           

2.82 m from the Hazelbridge Way Sidewalk Widening Statutory Right-of-Way near the building’s northwest corner; and

(c)

Increase the maximum allowable projections into the required yards:

(i)

For the east building, from 1.2 m to 1.47 m for a cantilevered roof at the building’s southwest corner; and

(ii)           

For the west building, from 1.0 m to 1.37 m for balconies at the west tower’s south side.

CARRIED

5.

Development Permit 15-712474
(File Ref. No.:  DP 15-712474) (REDMS No. 4957379)

APPLICANT:

Mo Maani

PROPERTY LOCATION:

10231 Ainsworth Crescent

INTENT OF PERMIT:

Permit the construction of a coach house at 10231 Ainsworth Crescent on a site zoned “Single Detached with Granny Flat or Coach House – Edgemere (RE1)”.

Applicant’s Comments

Ramon Gonzalez, VictorEric Design Group, provided the site context for the proposed coach house and highlighted the following:

§   

the proposed coach house has similar character and finishes to the proposed principal single-family dwelling;

§   

coach house windows are located on the west side facing the lane to provide passive surveillance of the lane and allow maximum light penetration to the coach house;

§   

primary pedestrian access to the coach house is from the rear lane and has secondary access through a pathway from  Ainsworth Crescent;

§   

the variation of materials and colours on the ground and upper floor is intended to visually  break up the massing of the primary façade of the coach house which is facing the lane; and

§   

sustainability features include provision of Energy Star appliances, thermal efficient doors and windows and an evenly distributed Heat Recovery Ventilation system.

Alina Kouneva, Alina Gardens, Inc., commented that the landscape design of the proposed coach house is intended to provide a welcoming space at the front of the entry way and around the patio. She noted that the main landscaping features include (i) a combination of shrubs, flowering plants, and a deciduous tree to be planted in the area between the main entry to the coach house and the rear lane, (ii) a four foot fence to create privacy between the coach house and the main house, (iii) core grass surface parking with gravel treads, (iv) a shared garbage and recycling enclosure against an existing six foot wood fence, and (v) a custom horizontal slat fencing to separate the coach house from the main house.

Staff Comments

Mr.Craig acknowledged support for the proposed development, noting the proposal’s attention to detail and the installation of permeable paving for the single surface parking.

Correspondence

None.

Gallery Comments

None.

Panel Discussion

The Panel expressed appreciation to the quality of design of the proposed coach house and the applicant’s presentation of the proposal.

In response to a query from the Panel, Ms. Kouneva confirmed that the proposed single surface parking stall is intended for the tenant of the coach house and the two parking spaces in the garage off the lane are provided for the principal dwelling.

Panel Decision

It was moved and seconded

That a Development Permit be issued which would permit the construction of a coach house at 10231 Ainsworth Crescent on a site zoned “Single Detached with Granny Flat or Coach House – Edgemere (RE1)”.

CARRIED

6.

Date of Next Meeting:   April 27, 2016

7.

Adjournment

It was moved and seconded

That the meeting be adjourned at 5:21 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 13, 2016.

_________________________________

_________________________________

Joe Erceg
Chair

Rustico Agawin
Auxiliary Committee Clerk