May 27, 2020 - Minutes

Time:

3:30 p.m.

Place:

Council Chambers
Richmond City Hall

Present:

Joe Erceg, Chair 
Cecilia Achiam, General Manager, Community Safety 
Milton Chan, Director, Engineering

Minutes

It was moved and seconded

That the minutes of the meeting of the Development Permit Panel held on May 13, 2020 be adopted.

CARRIED

1.

DEVELOPMENT PERMIT 19-866690 
(REDMS No. 6433306)

APPLICANT:

GBL Architects

PROPERTY LOCATION:

5491 No. 2 Road

INTENT OF PERMIT:

1.

Permit the construction of a six-storey building containing approximately 80

purpose-built residential rental tenure units at 5491 No. 2 Road on a site zoned “High Rise Apartment and Congregate Housing (ZHR3) - Dover Crossing”; and

2.

Vary the provisions of Richmond Zoning Bylaw 8500 to:

(a)

reduce the minimum building setback from No. 2 Road from 6 m to 5 m;

(b)

increase the maximum building height from 18 m to 20.3 m for the west portion of the building; and

(c)

reduce the number of required parking spaces from 87 to 46; and

3.

Authorize the Chief Administrative Officer and the General Manager, Engineering & Public Works, to execute a servicing agreement with the owner of 5900 River Road, to install road works and utility works along No. 2 Road City land and remove and relocate eight City trees from No. 2 Road City land, based on the material terms and conditions set out in Attachment 6 of the staff report titled, “Application by GBL Architects for a Development Permit at 5491 No. 2 Road,” dated May 5, 2020 from the Director of Development.

Applicant’s Comments

Emily Brett, GBL Architects, with the aid of a visual presentation (copy on file, City Clerk’s Office), provided background information on the proposed development, including the site context design rationale, building elevations, sustainability features, site and floor plans, and accessibility strategy, highlighting the following:

§   

a bus ride from the subject site to the Brighouse Canada Line station would be approximately 10 minutes;

§   

a right-in and right-out vehicle entry/exit to/from the site is provided off the service road adjacent to No. 2 Road, and not directly off No. 2 Road;

§   

the existing multi-use pedestrian and bicycle paths fronts the south side of the project and provides connection to Dover Park; 

§   

a portion of the building along No. 2 Road is raised to provide a gateway character;

§   

the architectural form and character of the proposed building fits well with  neighbouring developments;

§   

the project incorporates several sustainability features and is required to achieve Step 2 of the BC Building Code; however, the applicant is targeting the higher Step Code 3;

§   

several Transportation Demand Management (TDM) measures are proposed to support the reduced resident parking;

§   

the proposed building setback variance from No. 2 Road will allow an efficient building layout on Level 1;

§   

the proposed building height variance is for the west portion of the building;

§   

all housing units incorporate Basic Universal Housing (BUH) features and four units are fully wheelchair accessible and are all located on the ground floor;

§   

the proposed 80 housing units have different affordability rates and includes some subsidized rental units;

§   

proposed mix of affordable housing unit types includes studio and one to three-bedroom units;

§   

the shadow study indicates minimal shadowing impacts on neighbouring developments;

§   

the west elevation has been visually broken down to provide an appropriate interface with the adjacent development to the west; and

§   

proposed cladding materials include, among others, cement panels with different textures.

Daryl Tyacke, ETA Landscape Architecture Inc., reviewed the main landscape features of the project, noting that (i) two separate outdoor amenity areas are proposed for the project, (ii) play structures are proposed for the children’s play area on the north side to provide active play opportunities, (iii) the outdoor amenity area on the west side includes, among others, a large gathering space and an urban agriculture which is accessible to a resident in a wheelchair, (iv) outdoor bicycle racks are located close to the lobby at the southeast corner, (v) significant street trees along No. 2 Road will be relocated off-site, (vi) oak trees are proposed to be planted along the east-west multipurpose pathway (vii) planting will be installed to screen ground floor units, and (viii) low-level lighting will be installed to avoid light pollution, particularly to the adjacent development to the west.

In reply to a query from the Panel, Ms. Brett acknowledged that the proposed material and colour palette for the project will fit well with neighbouring developments.

Staff Comments

Wayne Craig, Director, Development, noted that (i) there are two separate Servicing Agreements associated with the project: the one for the applicant includes site services and minor frontage works and the other for the adjacent property owner to the north includes the relocation of eight street trees to two City parks which provide irrigation given the size of the trees being relocated, (ii) the proposed development is being designed to meet the City’s aircraft noise sensitive development criteria, and (iii) there will be a series of housing agreements registered on the property to secure the rental rates and tenant eligibility criteria.

In reply to a query from the Panel, Mr. Craig advised that the timing of works in the Servicing Agreements will be coordinated with the construction schedule of the project.

In reply to queries from the Panel, Lloyd Bie, Director, Transportation, advised that (i)  the No. 2 Road improvements will improve the road geometry and enhance traffic safety of the proposed site access and on-ramp to No. 2 Road, (ii) the road works will  improve existing conditions, (iii) the proposed number of resident parking stalls for the project are comparable to those provided by five similar developments referenced in the parking and traffic study, (iv) there is a comprehensive package of Transportation Demand Management (TDM) measures proposed by the applicant, and (iv) there is no relaxation to the required visitor parking spaces.

Gallery Comments

Peter Clayton, 702-5860 Dover Crescent, expressed concern regarding the lack of parking spaces on Dover Crescent which could be aggravated by the reduced number of on-site resident parking spaces on the proposed development. He questioned how the traffic and parking study conducted by the developer’s traffic consultant supports their finding that parking on Dover Crescent will not be impacted.

In reply to Mr. Clayton’s query, Mr. Bie noted that (i) based on the study of the parking requirements of five residential developments in different locations having similar number and types of units as the proposed development, it was concluded that the proposed number of resident parking spaces for the subject development will be adequate, and (ii) the proposed number of visitor parking stalls for the subject development fully complies with the City’s Zoning Bylaw and will not be reduced.

Correspondence

Derek, Richmond resident (Schedule 1)

In response to Derek’s concerns, Mr. Craig stated that (i) concerns related to parking and driveway location in the proposed development have already been extensively discussed in the meeting, and (ii) the subject site is served by existing bus services on Westminster Highway and No. 2 Road south of Westminster Highway and both routes have frequent transit service during peak periods.

Kate Ward, 126-5880 Dover Crescent (Schedule 2)

In response to Ms. Ward’s concerns, Mr. Craig advised that (i)  vehicle access to the site has been discussed in the meeting, (ii) the proposed building setback variance from No. 2 Road is sufficient and the building will be designed to meet Canada Mortgage and Housing Corporation (CMHC) internal noise standards, (iii) on-site parking has been discussed in the meeting, (iv) the eight street trees along No. 2 Road will be relocated to two City parks, and (v) seismic safety of the building will be addressed via the Building Permit.

Bev Turick, 5880 Dover Crescent (Schedule 3)

In response to concerns raised by Bev Turick, Mr. Craig commented that staff has responded to these concerns via email and provided detailed information regarding availability of the minutes of the Panel’s meeting. 

[XXXX], [XXX]-5880 Dover Crescent (Schedule 4)

In response to [XXXX] concerns, Mr. Craig advised that (i) the project is required to provide geotechnical and structural engineering reports and comply with the BC Building Code, (ii) traffic concerns have been discussed in the meeting, (iii) construction is regulated by the City’s Noise Bylaw which specifies construction hours, (iv) a construction traffic and parking management plan is required to be submitted by the developer, and (iv) landscaping for the project has been discussed by the landscape architect.

[XXXX], [XXXX] (Schedule 5)

Mr. Craig noted the concerns raised by [XXXX] through several emails which have all been responded to by staff. In response to these concerns, Mr. Craig stated that (i) the proposed development will be required to comply with all BC Building Code provisions including firefighting access, (ii) the No. 2 Road improvements will improve overall safety and sightlines in the area, (iii) potential shading impacts of the proposed building were included in the applicant’s submission and staff report, and (iv) other concerns such as those related to traffic operations on No. 2 Road, the project’s driveway location, parking, transit service, construction activity, and existing street trees along No. 2 Road, have been discussed in the meeting,

Fanny Yan, 407-5880 Dover Crescent (Schedule 6)

In response to Ms. Yan’s concerns, Mr. Craig commented that (i) the subject development has been designed in accordance with Crime Prevention Through Environmental Design (CPTED) provisions, (ii) there is passive surveillance in all outdoor amenity areas, and (iii) the building will increase passive surveillance along its south and east frontages.

Andre Lo, Richmond resident (Schedule 7)

In response to Mr. Lo’s concern regarding parking, Mr. Craig noted that the subject has been discussed in the meeting.

Peter Clayton, 702-5860 Dover Crescent (Schedule 8)

In response to Mr. Clayton’s concerns, Mr. Craig noted that these concerns have been discussed in the meeting.

Karen Cho, Richmond resident (Schedule 9)

In response to Ms. Cho’s concerns, Mr. Craig noted that (i) the proposed building height variance and shadow analysis were included in the applicant’s presentation, and (ii) parking-related concerns have been discussed in the meeting.

[XXXX] (Schedule 10)

Mr. Craig noted [XXXX] concerns and commented that tenant eligibility is outside of Panel’s mandate and other concerns have been discussed in the meeting.

Colin A. Lowndes, Colin S. Lowndes, Donna Z. Lowndes, Vincenza J. Lowndes (nee Nardiello), 516-5860 Dover Crescent (Schedule 11)

Mr. Craig noted that the Lowndes household’s concerns are related to the removal of street trees, potential impacts of the proposed development on overall views of their building and unit, building density and property values. He commented that street trees along No. 2 Road will be relocated and that the other concerns mentioned are outside Panel’s mandate.

Laura Miller, 5880 Dover Crescent (Schedule 12)

Mr. Craig noted that Ms. Miller’s traffic and parking concerns have been discussed in the meeting.

Panel Discussion

The Panel expressed support for the project, noting that (i) the Panel appreciates the applicant’s presentation, (ii) the project is well designed, (iii) although there is a height variance, the project will fit well with its surrounding neighbourhood as shown by the model, (iv) the project is consistent with Council policy to address affordable housing needs, (v) the Panel appreciates the proposed mix of unit types, (vi) the outdoor amenity areas enhance the livability of the proposed development, and (vii) the Panel supports the protection and relocation of existing street trees along No. 2 Road.

Panel Decision

It was moved and seconded

1.

That a Development Permit be issued which would:

(a)

permit the construction of a six-storey building containing approximately 80

purpose-built residential rental tenure units at 5491 No. 2 Road on a site zoned “High Rise Apartment and Congregate Housing (ZHR3) - Dover Crossing”; and

(b)

vary the provisions of Richmond Zoning Bylaw 8500 to:

(i)

reduce the minimum building setback from No. 2 Road from 6 m to
5 m;

(ii)

increase the maximum building height from 18 m to 20.3 m for the west portion of the building; and

(iii)

reduce the number of required parking spaces from 87 to 46; and

2.

That the Chief Administrative Officer and the General Manager, Engineering & Public Works, be authorized to execute a servicing agreement with the owner of 5900 River Road, to install road works and utility works along No. 2 Road City land and remove and relocate eight City trees from No. 2 Road City land, based on the material terms and conditions set out in Attachment 6 of the staff report titled, “Application by GBL Architects for a Development Permit at 5491 No. 2 Road,” dated May 5, 2020 from the Director of Development.

CARRIED

2.

DEVELOPMENT PERMIT 19-876647 
(REDMS No. 6454598)

APPLICANT:

Easterbrook Milling Co. Ltd.

PROPERTY LOCATION:

17720 River Road

INTENT OF PERMIT:

1.

Permit the construction of a single detached house at 17720 River Road on a site zoned “Agriculture (AG1)” and designated as an Environmentally Sensitive Area (ESA); and

2.

Vary the provisions of Richmond Zoning Bylaw 8500 to:

(a)

increase the maximum farm house footprint from 60% to 72% of the maximum floor area to accommodate a secondary suite on the ground floor for farm workers; and

(b)

increase the maximum height for single detached housing from 9.0 m to

11.5 m.

Applicant’s Comments

Stephen Easterbrook, with the aid of a video presentation (copy on file, City Clerk’s Office), provided background information on the proposed development, highlighting the following:

§   

the applicant has been engaged in farming operation in the area for a significant period of time, including, among others, an organic egg farm and multiple organic crop farming;

§   

the proposed single detached family house will replace the existing single-family dwelling on the subject site and is intended for the use of the applicant and his  family and existing farm workers who will be accommodated in the proposed secondary suite; 

§   

a farm house footprint variance is requested to accommodate the proposed secondary suite for farm workers; however, the proposed development still complies with the maximum floor area and farm home plate area in the “Agriculture (AG1)” zone;

§   

the proposed development would help address farm security and biosecurity concerns in the area; and

§   

the organic farm operation on the subject site could mitigate the loss of on-site Environmentally Sensitive Area (ESA) as a result of constructing the proposed residential development.

In reply to queries from the Panel, Mr. Easterbrook acknowledged that (i) farm workers are currently living in the existing single-family dwelling and will be accommodated in the secondary suite of the proposed residential development, and (ii) the location of the secondary suite on the ground floor will provide adequate living space for the farm workers and privacy to the applicant’s family.

In reply to queries from the Panel, Mr. Craig confirmed that (i) the proposed residential development will be located on an ESA, and (ii) the City’s Food Security and Agricultural Advisory Committee considered and supported the proposal, including the farm home plate orientation.

Staff Comments

Mr. Craig noted that (i) approximately 80 percent of the subject site is designated as an ESA, (ii) the City’s Official Community Plan (OCP) exempts agricultural activities from ESA compensation requirements, (iii) staff reviewed the proposed ESA compensation for the residential development portion of the subject site, (iv) the proposed ESA compensation scheme includes native planting within the Riparian Management Area (RMA) along the front of the subject property and installing a linear hedgerow along the east property line, (v) the proposed ESA compensation planting plan was prepared by a Qualified Environmental Professional (QEP) and reviewed by staff, (vi) there is a legal agreement to ensure a three-year annual monitoring of the ESA planting by a QEP, and (vii) appropriate securities are required to ensure the planting and retention of the new ESA through the development permit process. 

In addition, Mr. Craig reviewed the two proposed variances, noting that (i) the maximum farm house footprint or the ground floor area will be increased by approximately 12 percent to accommodate the secondary suite, (ii) the proposed building height variance includes the top of the chimney, and (iii) neighbours have expressed support for the proposed design of the residential development.

In reply to a query from the Panel, Mr. Craig confirmed that the building height is measured to the top of the chimney.

Gallery Comments

None.

Correspondence

 None. 

Panel Discussion

Discussion ensued regarding potential design options for the residential development including an alternate location for the secondary suite that would not require any variance. It was also noted that (i) Council’s decision limiting home sizes on agricultural lands should inform the consideration of the proposed variances, (ii) there appears to be no compelling argument to support the proposed variance to the maximum house footprint in order to accommodate a secondary suite, (iii) there is a lack of guarantee for the continued use of the secondary suite by farm workers in the future, and (iv) redesigning the proposed  residential development could eliminate the need for a height variance.

As a result of the discussion the following referral motion was introduced:

It was moved and seconded

That Development Permit Application 19-876647 be referred back to staff and brought forward for consideration at the Panel’s June 10, 2020 meeting, to be held at 3:30 p.m. in the Council Chambers, City Hall, in order for staff to work with the applicant to consider (i) negotiating a restrictive covenant limiting the use of the proposed secondary suite on the ground floor exclusively for farm workers, and (ii) redesigning the proposed single detached housing in order to comply with the Richmond Zoning Bylaw’s maximum height requirement and not require a height variance.

CARRIED

3.

Date of Next Meeting:  June 10, 2020

4.

Adjournment

It was moved and seconded

That the meeting be adjourned at 4:59 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, May 27, 2020.

_______________________________

_____________________________

Joe Erceg 
Chair

Rustico Agawin 
Committee Clerk