January 11, 2017 - Minutes

Time:

3:30 p.m.

Place:

Council Chambers
Richmond City Hall

Present:

Joe Erceg, Chair
Cathryn Volkering-Carlile, General Manager, Community Services
Robert Gonzalez, General Manager, Engineering and Public Works

Minutes

It was moved and seconded

That the minutes of the meeting of the Development Permit Panel held on December 14, 2016, be adopted.

CARRIED

1.

Development Permit 16-731461
(REDMS No. 5065727)

APPLICANT:

Musson Cattell Mackey Partnership Architects Designers Planners

PROPERTY LOCATION:

8811 Bridgeport Road

INTENT OF PERMIT:

1.

Permit an exterior renovation at 8811 Bridgeport Road, on a site zoned “Auto-Oriented Commercial (CA)”.

Applicant’s Comments

Jacques Beaudreault, MCM Partnership, provided background information on the proposed renovation of the existing Hampton Inn building, noting that (i) the hotel building was built in the late 1990s and will be upgraded to the hotel’s new corporate standards and image in North America, (ii) the biggest work on the building would be replacing the current orange mansard roof with a more contemporary parapet, (iii) the existing orange roof of the porte cochere will also be replaced with a simpler parapet, (iv) the base of the building will be clad with wafer stone, and a new colour scheme will be introduced on the building, (v) a lighting system will be introduced to light the building, and (vi) a rubberized paving is proposed on the existing concrete surface on the entry driveway.

Patricia Campbell, PMG Landscape Architects, briefed the Panel on the proposed landscaping for the project, noting that (i) the existing tree and shrub landscaping on site is substantial and will be retained except one dead tree on the lane side which will be removed, (ii) the existing planting scheme is outdated and will be updated through new plantings; and (iii) new planters will be introduced at the top of the building base and an irrigation system will be provided.

Staff Comments

Wayne Craig, Director, Development, advised that staff appreciate the refreshing of the landscaping on the subject site.

Panel Discussion

The Panel expressed support for the proposed refresh of the hotel building and the enhancement of the landscaping.

Correspondence

None.

Gallery Comments

None.

Panel Decision

It was moved and seconded

That a Development Permit be issued which would permit an exterior renovation at 8811 Bridgeport Road, on a site zoned “Auto-Oriented Commercial (CA)”.

CARRIED

2.

Development Variance 16-733949
(REDMS No. 5129854 v. 2)

APPLICANT:

MQN Architects

PROPERTY LOCATION:

9580 Williams Road (Formerly 9580 & 9600 Williams Road & 10140 Gower Street) and 10060 Gower Street

INTENT OF PERMIT:

Vary the following provisions of Richmond Zoning Bylaw 8500 to:

a)

Increase the maximum permitted lot coverage from 45% to 48%;

b)

Reduce the minimum side yard setback from 6.0 m to 2.2 m for the west side yard and 4.7 for the east side yard; and

c)

Revise Transportation related requirements to:

i)

Increase the maximum on-site parking reduction with transportation demand management measures from 10% to 13%;

ii)

Reduce the minimum number of on-site loading spaces from 2 medium size and 1 large size loading spaces to 1 medium size loading space and manoeuvring for an additional medium size truck; and

iii)

Reduce the minimum number of on-site bicycle parking spaces from 31 to 8 Class 1 spaces and from 31 to 11 Class 2 spaces;

to permit the construction of a 199 bed residential intermediate care facility at 9580 Williams Road on a site zoned “Health Care (HC)” with associated existing garden at 10060 Gower Street.

Applicant’s Comments

Roger Green, MQN Architects, and Mary Chan-Yip, PMG Landscape Architects, with the aid of a visual presentation (attached to and forming part of these Minutes as Schedule 1), provided background information on the proposed development.

Mr. Green noted that the 45-year old existing care facility will increase its capacity from 101 to 199 beds, the existing two-storey central portion will be retained and improved with new three-storey north and south wings added.

Mr. Green further noted that (i) variances are being proposed for lot coverage, east and west side yard setbacks, on-site vehicle and bicycle parking spaces, and number of on-site loading spaces, (ii) the upgrading of the facility will be done in three phases, beginning with the construction of the south wing, (iii) the existing 2.2-meter west setback along Gower Street will be maintained to retain the existing kitchen and service area facing Gower Street, (iv) an enlarged parking area off Williams Road will provide parking for care facility employees and visitors, (v) the facility will be designed with a neighbourhood and house concept to enable the residents to move around in smaller compact units inside the building, and (vi) massing of the proposed building is broken down visually through variation in building heights, use of subdued colours, and introducing sloped roof forms and gable roof dormer bay elements.

In response to queries from the Panel, Mr. Green acknowledged that (i) the existing setback along the center portion of the east edge of the site is 3.6 to 4.6 meters but will be increased to 4.7 meters and a setback variance is requested, (ii) the existing loading activity on Gower Street will be retained and an additional loading area will be located adjacent to the main entrance off Williams Road, and (iii) the upgrading of the facility will not result in an increase in the number of deliveries to the facility; however, a higher volume of materials per delivery is anticipated.

Ms. Chan-Yip noted that the proposed landscaping scheme for the project supports the proposed tree protection, facilitates pedestrian movement around the site and provides needed amenities for facility residents. Also, she stated that (i) a hedge at the western edge of the site adjacent to the parking lot will be retained, (ii) a pedestrian walkway is proposed off Williams Road leading to the main entrance of the care facility, (iii) the Williams Road frontage will be upgraded, (iv) three internal courtyard amenity areas will be provided within the site, in addition to the existing garden along the west edge of the site, (v) the internal courtyard amenity areas will provide seating, open space and planting, (vi) existing hedges along the edges of the site will be retained, (vii) the existing grade will be maintained along the perimeter of the site to protect existing trees, and (viii) gated walkways will be provided along the perimeter of the site.

In response to queries from the Panel, Ms. Chan-Yip confirmed that (i) the gated walkway will not completely encircle the proposed building, (ii) all existing hedges on-site and neighbours’ trees will be retained, (iii) existing perimeter wood fence will be upgraded, and (iv) planting in the internal courtyards will be irrigated and receive adequate sunlight exposure.

In response to a queries from the Panel, Mr. Green advised that minimal exterior lighting will be introduced along the east side of the site to address safety and the comfort of neighbours and facility residents as lighting will be coming from adjacent rooms, and (ii) a shower and change room will be provided at the staff locker location.

In response to queries from the Panel, the care facility owner confirmed that there is a no-smoking policy within the premises of the facility.

Staff Comments

Mr. Craig advised that (i) the proposed variance for lot coverage was calculated only against the Williams Road property due to zoning boundaries; however, the lot coverage for the overall site including the Gower Street garden property would be below the 45 percent maximum permitted lot coverage, (ii) a legal agreement on title to the Gower Street garden property will be registered to ensure the long-term retention of the outdoor garden exclusively for the use of care facility residents, (iii) a 5.7 meters setback variance is proposed along the northern portion of the site’s east edge, in addition to the proposed 4.7 meters setback variance along the central portion of the east edge of the site, (iv) a legal agreement on title will be registered to limit truck activity on Gower Street, including limiting delivery hours from 8:00 a.m. to 5:00 p.m. Monday through Friday, and (v) there are transportation demand measures associated with the subject application to address the proposed parking variance.

Also, Mr. Craig acknowledged that (i) the applicant conducted public consultation through door to door visits to neighbouring homes, and (ii) the applicant is required to submit a construction and parking management plan which includes details regarding deliveries to the site and construction vehicle parking. In response to a query from the Panel, Mr. Craig confirmed that the construction and parking management plan is required prior to the issuance of a building permit.

Correspondence

Val Yamamoto, 9711 Swansea Drive (Schedule 2)

Raymond Ng, 9560 Williams Road (Schedule 3)

Mr. Craig noted that Ms. Yamamoto is seeking clarification from the applicant regarding the three proposed setback variances along the east side of the proposed development, noting that the resident’s backyard is adjacent to the proposed south wing addition where a 6.0 meter side yard setback on the east side of the subject site is being proposed by the applicant.

Mr. Craig noted that Mr. Ng expressed concern regarding the existing hedge along the facility’s west property line encroaching into the east side of his property and the adverse impacts of upgrading the existing facility including increased noise, smoke emission, food smells, rodent population and volume of traffic in the area, and more exhaust fumes coming from cars in the parking lot adjacent to Mr. Ng’s property.

In response to the concerns expressed by Mr. Ng, Mr. Craig stated that it is the understanding of staff that (i) the applicant has a contract with a pest control company, and (ii) the applicant will contact Mr. Ng to coordinate the trimming of the existing hedge adjacent to Mr. Ng’s property.

Gallery Comments

Terry Stashuk, 10171 Gower Street, noted that (i) 10 to 15 years ago, the movement of trucks and heavy equipment loading and unloading huge piles of soil on the empty lot of the facility had been bothering the neighbourhood, (ii) the residents are concerned on the impacts to the neighbourhood of the planned three-year construction period to expand the facility, (iii) a small driveway off Gower Street located at the southern part of the facility property is being accessed by large trucks and heavy equipment for pre-loading activities, and will likely to be accessed for future construction-related activities, and (iv) a neighbour has complained about cracks in his windows as a result of pre-loading activities.

Mr. Stashuk also questioned the impact of the height of the proposed development to the single-family homes in the neighbourhood and in response to a query from the Panel, Mr. Green noted that the current zoning of the subject site allows a building height of up to 12 meters, while the height of the proposed three-storey north and south wings is 11.95 meters. In response to the same query, Mr. Craig confirmed that the maximum allowable height for a new single-family dwelling is nine meters.

Mr. Stashuk further noted that (i) a neighbour has expressed concern regarding losing cherry tree screening along the Gower Street frontage of the facility facing his neighbour’s property, and (ii) delivery and garbage collection trucks backing onto Gower Street due to lack of on-site truck turn around area are posing safety risks to pedestrians and motorists and generate a lot of noise.

In response to a query from the Panel, Mr. Green acknowledged that the proposed design of the receiving area of the facility along Gower Street will enable delivery trucks to make a three-point turn on-site even if cars are parked on the other side.

In response to a query whether the facility’s receiving area could be relocated to the main entrance on Williams Road, Mr. Green noted that locating the receiving area close to the care facility residents’ living areas would adversely impact the well-being of residents, especially those with dementia.

Shiraine Haas, 10131 Gower Street, expressed concern regarding current and potential adverse impacts of the proposed development on the neighbourhood, noting that (i) the current level of noise and traffic on Gower Street generated by garbage and recycling pick-ups and truck deliveries to the care facility is expected to worsen when the facility will be upgraded, (ii) her parents plan to stay permanently in their property and will be affected by the proposed development, (iii) the proposed three-storey additional building fronting their property will impact their privacy and potentially affect the trees in front of their property, (iv) the emergency generators of the facility pose a noise concern, (v) Gower Street is currently being used for care facility employee and visitor parking, reducing available on-street parking spaces for residents in the area and further congesting the narrow street, and (vi) care facility employees have been observed smoking near the facility’s loading area along Gower Street.

In addition, Ms. Haas expressed her hope that all truck deliveries will be made at the facility’s main entrance off Williams Road when the facility will be upgraded.

In response to queries from the Panel, Mr. Green acknowledged that (i) the scale of the proposed development necessitates the provision of two entrances along Gower Street, (ii) the facility’s two Gower Street entrances are not designed to be the main entry for visitors, and (iii) adequate parking spaces for staff and visitors are provided at the outdoor parking area adjacent to the facility’s main entrance off Williams Road.

Raymond Young, 9791 Swansea Drive, stated that and he and his in-laws live in a duplex east of the existing two-storey facility. He expressed concern regarding his property’s lack of privacy due to the absence of screening at the portion of the east side of the facility fronting the back of his property and questioned whether his concern could be addressed by landscaping and/or planting trees on the east edge of the facility’s property. Also, he expressed concern that the back of his property could potentially be facing a three-storey building.

In addition, Mr. Young also questioned whether the facility could introduce measures to mitigate the noise emanating from care facility residents with dementia.

In response to a query from the Panel, Mr. Green acknowledged that the existing building is old, has older windows, and not well-ventilated; however, the upgraded care facility will have operable windows, a more controlled indoor environment and will meet the current energy standard for buildings.

In response to a further query from the Panel, Mr. Green confirmed that (i) there is an existing hedge along the southern portion of the east property line, and (ii) there are no existing trees along the northern portion of the east property line and no new tree or hedge planting is being proposed due to the tightness of the site and the tree planting prohibition on the sanitary sewer Statutory Rights-of-Way (SRWs) located east and north of the proposed building.

Ruth Tsui, 10111 Gower Street, noted the adverse impacts of the facility to the neighbourhood and was of the opinion that Gower Street has been turned into a back alley lane due to the frequent use of the street by delivery and garbage collection trucks and by care facility visitors and employees for parking and smoking area.

Ms. Tsui further noted that Gower Street is located in a predominantly residential neighbourhood and suggested that majority of the present and future uses of Gower Street by non-residents in the area should be diverted to the facility’s main entrance off Williams Road.

In addition, Ms. Tsui expressed concern regarding (i) the possibility of the applicant using Gower Street for construction-related activities, and (ii) the noise coming from the facility’s emergency generator directly facing her property and from the existing wind turbine on the roof of the facility.

It was also noted that the current volume of traffic along Gower Street and its potential increase in the future due to the upgrading of the facility pose safety risks for children crossing the street on their way to James Whiteside Elementary School and for people riding bicycles in the area.

Clinton Neal, 9811 Swansea Drive, noted one incidence of damage to property as a result of pre-loading activities and expressed concern regarding potential damages to properties in future construction activities in the area.

The Chair advised that residents in the neighbourhood could take photographs of their property before and after the construction of the proposed development and note any damage to their property as a result of construction-related activities undertaken by the applicant. The Chair further advised that affected residents discuss the matter directly with the applicant.

Panel Discussion

The Chair stated that the project has many positive features; however, he noted that the concerns expressed by the care facility’s neighbours are legitimate and should be addressed by the applicant through further consultation. He added that the applicant needs to provide information on the management of construction and parking activities during the three-year period, formulate a plan to control care facility visitor and employee parking as well as smoking on Gower Street, and provide a rationale for the two proposed facility entrances along Gower Street.

Panel Decision

It was moved and seconded

That:

(a)

Development Variance Permit application 16-733949 be referred back to staff for  further discussions with the applicant and for the applicant to (i) hold further consultations with residents in the neighbourhood to address present and future adverse impacts of the existing and proposed development to the neighbourhood, (ii) provide information on the management of construction and parking activities for the three-year construction period including proposed uses of Gower Street for construction purposes, and (iii) formulate a plan to control care facility visitor and employee parking as well as smoking on Gower Street; and

(b)

the subject application be brought back for consideration by the Development Permit Panel at the January 25, 2017 meeting of the Panel.

CARRIED

3.

Development Variance 16-743379
(REDMS No. 5214026 v. 3)

APPLICANT:

Cypress Land Services Inc., on behalf of TM Mobile Inc. (Telus)

PROPERTY LOCATION:

3911 No. 3 Road

INTENT OF PERMIT:

1.

Vary the provisions of Richmond Zoning Bylaw 8500 to reduce the interior side yard setback from 3.0 m (9.8 ft.) to 2.025 m (6.65 ft.) in the “Auto-Oriented Commercial (CA)” zoning district in order to permit the construction of a 14.9 m (48.9 ft.) high monopole antenna tower at 3911 No. 3 Road.

Applicant’s Comments

Chad Marlatt, Cypress Land Services, Inc., with the aid of a visual presentation (attached to and forming part of these Minutes as Schedule 4), noted that due to an increased demand for wireless services, Telus is proposing to upgrade an existing facility along No. 3 Road by replacing an existing wood monopole antenna with a new steel tower with the same height to increase its capacity to serve the community.

In addition, Mr. Marlatt  stated that the (i) applicant is asking to reduce the required 3 meters side yard setback to 2.025 meters to accommodate the construction of the foundation of the proposed tower, (ii) a door-to-door public consultation was conducted by the applicant in the neighbourhood, (iii) a six-foot cedar hedge is proposed along the north property line to provide screening to an adjacent window supply company, and (iv) there is an existing mature planting along the No. 3 Road frontage of the existing Telus facility.

In response to a query from the Panel, Mr. Marlatt advised  that he will communicate to the applicant the suggestion to enhance the older existing planting along the No. 3 Road frontage of the facility.

Staff Comments

None.

Correspondence

Del Jiang and Qian Gong (no address stated) (Schedule 5)

Mr. Craig noted that the two residents indicated their opposition to the construction of the proposed replacement tower.

Panel Discussion

The Panel noted that the existing Telus facility and proposed replacement tower is located in an emerging neighbourhood and the older landscaping needs to be enhanced.

Panel Decision

It was moved and seconded

That DV 16-743379 be referred back to staff for further discussions with the applicant to improve the existing and proposed landscaping for the Telus facility especially along its No. 3 Road frontage and brought back for consideration by the Panel at the January 25, 2017 meeting of the Panel.

CARRIED

4.

Date of Next Meeting:  January 25, 2017

5.

Adjournment

It was moved and seconded

That the meeting be adjourned at 5:35 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, January 11, 2017.

_______________________________

_____________________________

Joe Erceg
Chair

Rustico Agawin
Auxiliary Committee Clerk