March 13, 2019 - Minutes

Time:

3:30 p.m.

Place:

Council Chambers
Richmond City Hall

Present:

John Irving, Chair 
Laurie Bachynski, Director, Corporate Business Service Solutions 
Peter Russell, Senior Manager, Sustainability and District Energy

Minutes

It was moved and seconded

That the minutes of the meeting of the Development Permit Panel held on February 27, 2019 be adopted.

CARRIED

1.

DEVELOPMENT PERMIT 16-741329 
(REDMS No. 5737467)

APPLICANT:

0908206 BC Ltd.

PROPERTY LOCATION:

9560, 9580 and 9584 Granville Avenue

INTENT OF PERMIT:

1.

Permit the construction of 16 two-storey townhouse units at 9560, 9580, and 9584 Granville Avenue on a site zoned “Medium Density Townhouses (RTM2)”; and

2.

Vary the provisions of Richmond Zoning Bylaw 8500 to increase the maximum lot coverage for buildings from 40% to 45%.

Applicant’s Comments

Eric Law, Eric Law Architect, Inc., provided background information on the proposed development, noting that (i) the design of the proposed townhouse development is sensitive to its neighbouring two-storey townhouse developments and single-family homes, (ii) the requested increase in lot coverage will be mitigated by the proposed increases in lot coverage for porous surfaces and landscaping with live plants, (iii) two convertible units are proposed for the project, and (iv) the project has been designed to achieve an EnerGuide 82 rating for energy efficiency.

Donald Duncan, Donald V.S. Duncan Development Consultant, briefed the Panel on the main landscaping features for the project and highlighted the following:

§   

the proposed landscaping for the subject site is consistent with its single-family environment;

§   

the extensive use of permeable pavers in the project will enhance on-site stormwater management;

§   

coloured pavers are proposed for on-site pedestrian routes for better identification and to enhance safety to pedestrians;

§   

proposed interface with adjacent developments include, among others, wooden fencing with trellis elements on top in key locations;

§   

colourful trees and shrubs are proposed on the site to provide visual interest; 

§   

the large tree at the northeast corner will be retained and protected; and 

§   

the proposed children’s play area provides a variety of play and learning opportunities.

Staff Comments

Wayne Craig, Director, Development noted that (i) a Servicing Agreement associated with the project which includes frontage works and site service connections will be entered into prior to Building Permit issuance, and (ii) the proposed building lot coverage variance was identified at rezoning stage and no concerns were noted at the public hearing for the rezoning of the subject site.

Panel Discussion

In reply to queries from the Panel, the project’s design team acknowledged that (i) an arbour will be mounted on top of the proposed fence at both ends of the east-west internal drive aisle, (ii) there is no cross-access connection to the adjacent existing townhouse development to the west, (ii) rollover curbs are not provided along the pedestrian walkways on the internal drive aisle; however, a different colour treatment is proposed for the permeable paving on pedestrian pathways to enhance pedestrian safety, (iii) the outdoor amenity area is gated to provide safety to children, and (iv) wood fences will be installed on the east, west and south property lines.

In reply to further queries from the Panel, the design team noted that (i) the proposed height of the two-storey buildings in the subject site is slightly higher than the adjacent single-family homes to the east but below the maximum permitted height of 12 meters for townhouses, (ii) all parking stalls in the townhouse units are provided with Level 2 electric vehicle charging outlets, and (iii) garbage and recycling enclosures are located at the entry driveway to facilitate pick-ups.

Gallery Comments

Jenny Xu, Unit 8 7028 Ash Street, owner of the end unit of the existing two-storey townhouse development immediately adjacent to the west of the subject development, sought clarification regarding (i) the height of the proposed buildings on the subject site, (ii) the distance between the subject development and her property, and (iii) proposed measures by the applicant to address potential privacy and overlook concerns to the immediate neighbours to the west.

Rosa Liu, 9600 Granville Avenue, owner of the single-family home immediately adjacent to the east of the subject site, expressed concern regarding the damage to her property as a result of previous pre-construction activities undertaken in the subject site.

Ms. Liu noted that the concrete sidewalk and patio on her property and the wooden fence along her property’s west property line adjacent to the subject site were damaged as these were observed to be sloping down toward the subject site. She expressed concern that her property’s foundation could have been damaged as well.

In closing, Ms. Liu further noted that she had relayed her concerns to the project’s developer and queried whether the developer’s proposal to build a new retaining wall would impact the old retaining wall within her property.

With regard to the concerns raised by the neighbouring residents, the Chair advised that the Panel’s mandate is to review the form and character of the proposed development and that construction impacts could be coordinated with City staff and should be addressed by the developer.

With regard to the project’s proposed interface with the adjacent townhouse development to the west to provide separation and privacy, the project’s design team  acknowledged that (i) a six-foot high wood fence and hedging materials will be installed along the site’s west property line to provide a buffer between the subject site and the adjacent townhouse development to the west, (ii) the distance between the west side of the buildings on the subject site and the east side of the buildings on the adjacent townhouse development to the east is approximately six meters, and (iii) the site grade on the subject site will be raised to match the existing site grades on the adjacent properties.

In response to a query from the Panel, Mr. Craig confirmed that the building setback from the west property line of the subject site is slightly larger than the required minimum of three meters.

With regard to the project’s interface with the adjacent single-family home to the east, the design team acknowledged that similar fencing and hedging materials proposed along the west property line would also be installed along the east property line.

In addition, Mr. Craig noted that (i) perimeter drainage will be installed along all property lines on the subject site, (ii) the applicant intends to match the site grade on the subject site to the existing site grade on the adjacent property to the east, and (iii) the applicant intends to retain the existing retaining wall to the east; however, the developer had indicated that he could replace the east retaining wall if necessary.

Khalid Hasan, developer for the project, confirmed that (i) the existing retaining wall to the east is within the neighbour’s property, (ii) a new retaining wall along the east property line of the subject site could be installed if necessary, (iii) the site grade on the subject site will be raised to match the existing grade on the adjacent property to the east, and (iv) he has agreed to replace the damaged fence and three wooden gates in the neighbouring property.

Correspondence

Rosa Liu, 9600 Granville Avenue (Schedule 1)

Mr. Craig noted that in her letter, Ms. Liu expressed concern regarding issues with respect to potential property damage resulting from site preparation works and previous demolition of existing single-family homes on the subject site, and requested that the developer fulfill his commitment to address these issues.

Panel Discussion

The Panel expressed support for the project, noting that (i) increasing the site grade to match the existing grades on adjacent developments will help address adjacency concerns, (ii) the form and character of the proposed development is appropriate, and (iii) the proposed development works well with its site context.

Panel Decision

It was moved and seconded

That a Development Permit be issued which would:

1.

permit the construction of 16 two-storey townhouse units at 9560, 9580, and 9584 Granville Avenue on a site zoned “Medium Density Townhouses (RTM2)”; and

2.

vary the provisions of Richmond Zoning Bylaw 8500 to increase the maximum lot coverage for buildings from 40% to 45%.

CARRIED

2.

DEVELOPMENT VARIANCE 18-825820 
(REDMS No. 6107581)

APPLICANT:

Urban Design Group Architects Ltd.

PROPERTY LOCATION:

12033 Riverside Way

INTENT OF DEVELOPMENT VARIANCE PERMIT:

Vary the provisions of Richmond Zoning Bylaw 8500 to:

1.

reduce the number of required vehicle parking spaces from 92 to 89; and

2.

reduce the minimum required standard vehicle parking spaces from 50% to 40%, to permit a childcare facility with a maximum 26 staff and 136 children to be located on a site at 12033 Riverside Way zoned “Industrial Business Park (IB1)”.

Applicant’s Comments

Fariba Gharaei, Urban Design Group, with the aid of a video presentation (attached to and forming part of these Minutes as Schedule 2) provided background information on the proposed development and highlighted the following:

§   

the proposed parking variances are requested to accommodate a new childcare facility on the ground floor of an existing three-storey office building;

§   

there are currently 92 parking spaces provided for the three-storey building;

§   

the total number of parking spaces required for the entire property as a result of the proposed addition of a childcare facility is 102 spaces; however, the Zoning Bylaw allows a 10 percent reduction to the minimum required parking spaces provided that Transportation Demand Management (TDM) measures are provided;

§   

10 existing parking stalls are proposed to be removed to accommodate an outdoor play area for the proposed childcare facility;

§   

the remaining parking stalls will be re-striped to increase the number of small car parking spaces to provide 89 parking stalls, 14 of which will be restricted to short-term parking during peak demand hours for the childcare facility;

§   

changes to existing landscaping to accommodate the proposed outdoor play area include the removal of a portion of an existing landscaped area, addition of a new lawn and installation of perimeter fencing to enclose the play area; and

§   

outdoor and indoor bicycle parking will be provided for the proposed childcare facility.

Julia Lim, the project’s traffic consultant, with the aid of a video presentation (attached to and forming part of these Minutes as Schedule 2) reviewed the results of the parking study conducted for the project.

Ms. Lim referenced the observed site parking demand, parking demand for comparable properties with office and childcare uses, and projected peak individual parking demand for the childcare facility to support the provision of 89 parking spaces for the subject property.

In addition, Ms. Lim noted that the project’s proposed TDM measures include cycling end-of-trip facilities and a two-year, two-zone employee public transit pass program for childcare staff.

Staff Comments

Mr. Craig advised that staff had consulted with Vancouver Coastal Health Authority during the review process and noted their support for the proposed childcare facility on the subject site.

In addition, Mr. Craig clarified that (i) the total number of required parking stalls for the subject property including the office uses and childcare facility as per the City’s Zoning Bylaw is 102 parking stalls, (ii) the applicant’s proposed TDM measures allow for a 10 percent reduction of the required parking stalls or a minimum of 92 parking stalls, and (iii) the applicant is only able to physically fit 89 parking stalls on the site, so a parking variance is requested.

Gallery Comments

None.

Correspondence

None.

Panel Discussion

The Panel expressed support for the project, noting the applicant’s thorough presentation of the project and clear rationale for the requested parking variances.

Panel Decision

It was moved and seconded

That a Development Variance Permit be issued which would vary provisions of Richmond Zoning Bylaw 8500 to:

1.

reduce the number of required vehicle parking spaces from 92 to 89; and

2.

reduce the minimum required standard vehicle parking spaces from 50% to 40%, to permit a childcare facility with a maximum 26 staff and 136 children to be located on a site at 12033 Riverside Way zoned “Industrial Business Park (IB1)”.

CARRIED

3.

New Business

It was moved and seconded

That the Development Permit Panel meeting scheduled on Wednesday, March 27, 2019 be cancelled.

CARRIED

4.

Date of Next Meeting:  April 10, 2019

5.

Adjournment

It was moved and seconded

That the meeting be adjourned at 4:34 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, March 13, 2019.

_______________________________

_____________________________

John Irving 
Chair

Rustico Agawin 
Committee Clerk