September 16, 2020 - Minutes

Time:

3:30 p.m.

Place:

Council Chambers
Richmond City Hall

Present:

Joe Erceg, Chair 
Cecilia Achiam, General Manager, Community Safety 
John Irving, 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 July 29, 2020 be adopted.

CARRIED

1.

GENERAL COMPLIANCE – REQUEST BY HAMILTON VILLAGE CARE CENTRE HOLDINGS LTD.  FOR A GENERAL COMPLIANCE RULING AT 23111 GARRIPIE AVENUE 
(File Ref. No.:  DP 20-906520 Xr: DP 17-771210)  (REDMS No. 6500176)

APPLICANT:

Hamilton Village Care Centre Holdings Ltd.

PROPERTY LOCATION:

23111 Garripie Avenue

INTENT OF PERMIT:

To consider the attached plans involving changes to the design of the proposed landscaping and to the approved ESA compensation to be in General Compliance with the approved Development Permit (DP 17 771210).

Applicant’s Comments

Travis Martin, van der Zalm + Associates, with the aid of a visual presentation (copy on file, City Clerk’s Office), provided background information on the proposed changes to landscaping and the Environmentally Sensitive Area (ESA) compensation area that were approved through Development Permit DP 17-771210, highlighting the following:

§   

a landscape wall is proposed at the northwest corner of the site to address grade changes around two existing trees which are being retained;

§   

the Western Red Cedar tree (#869) that was damaged during construction had to be removed and is being replaced with two new Western Red Cedar trees;

§   

the Pad Mounted Transformer (PMT) originally sited at the southeast corner of the site will be relocated along the Westminster Highway frontage as required by BC Hydro;

§   

the ESA along Garripie Avenue will be extended eastwards to compensate for the loss of ESA as a result of the relocation of the PMT;  

§   

a planted island on the Garripie Avenue frontage will be replaced with concrete to accommodate a new crosswalk across Garripie Avenue; and

§   

a low fence to enclose garbage containers at the solid waste staging area on the southeast corner of the site will be removed as solid waste is stored within the building.

In reply to queries from the Panel, Mr. Martin acknowledged that (i) the Western Red Cedar tree that was removed was 30 cm. diameter in size, and (ii) the grade of the proposed location for the two replacement cedar trees and the spacing between them would enhance their survivability and potential to grow and mature.

Gallery Comments

None.

Correspondence

None.

Panel Discussion

It was noted that the proposed planting of two smaller cedar trees as compensation for the removal of the significant cedar tree is not sufficient and a more substantial tree compensation package, which include planting of more replacement trees on-site and/or off-site, would be appropriate.

Panel Decision

It was moved and seconded

That the application be referred back to staff for the applicant to work with staff to provide a more substantial tree compensation package for the loss of a significant cedar tree on-site and be brought back for consideration at the September 30, 2020 meeting of the Development Permit Panel.

CARRIED

2.

DEVELOPMENT PERMIT 18-818403 
(REDMS No. 6344932 v. 3)

APPLICANT:

Konic Development Ltd.

PROPERTY LOCATION:

7151 No. 2 Road

INTENT OF PERMIT:

1.

Permit the construction of four townhouse units at 7151 No. 2 Road on a site zoned “Low Density Townhouses (RTL4)”; and

2.

Vary the provisions of Richmond Zoning Bylaw 8500 to:

(a)

reduce the minimum lot width on major arterial road from 50.0 m to 20.12 m; and

(b)

reduce the minimum front yard (east) setback from 6.0 m to 4.55 m.

Applicant’s Comments

Matthew Cheng, Matthew Cheng Architect Inc., with the aid of a visual presentation (copy on file, City Clerk’s Office), provided background on the proposed development including, among others, the project’s site context, site plan, floor plans, setbacks, grading plan, architectural form and character, and sustainability features, highlighting the following:

§   

the subject site is an orphaned lot and does not meet the required minimum lot width so the applicant is requesting a variance;

§   

there is a Cross Access Easement registered on Title of the existing townhouse development to the south (7321 No. 2 Road); however, a driveway to No. 2 Road is proposed for the subject site due to concerns raised by the neighbouring strata;

§   

an electrical room will be provided on the west side of the building;

§   

electric vehicle (EV) charging will be provided for each garage;

§   

a front yard setback variance is proposed to increase the separation between the townhouse building and the single-family dwelling to the west;

§   

no balconies will be installed on the west and south sides of the building to provide privacy to neighbouring residential developments;

§   

a convertible unit with future provision for a lift is proposed;

§   

the project meets EnerGuide 82 rating requirements as confirmed by the project’s Certified Energy Advisor;

§   

heat recovery ventilator (HRV) units are located facing  the church parking lot to the north to address potential noise issues with neighbouring developments; and

§   

local, renewable and durable building materials are proposed.

Denitsa Dimitrova, PMG Landscape Architects, reviewed the proposed landscape features for the project, noting that (i) two off-site trees at the southwest corner of the site will be retained, (ii) a low aluminum transparent fence will be installed to enhance the streetscape and will be set back two feet to allow planting that will provide visual interest, (iii) a six-foot high wood fence is proposed along the north and west sides of the proposed development to provide a buffer to neighbouring developments, (iv) the existing six-foot high fence along the south side will be retained, (v) the common outdoor amenity area will be located on the west side of the subject site to provide a buffer to the single-family dwelling to the west, (vi) the proposed play equipment in the common outdoor amenity area provides various play opportunities for children, and (vii) two different colours of permeable pavers are proposed.

Staff Comments

Wayne Craig, Director, Development noted that (i) the two proposed variances associated with the project were identified at rezoning stage, (ii) a front yard setback variance is requested due to a road dedication being provided along No. 2 Road and to increase the building’s separation to the single-family dwelling to the west, (iii) an acoustical report provided by the applicant indicates that there are no traffic noise issues as a result of the reduced front yard setback, (iv) the lot width variance is a technical variance due to the site geometry and the site being an orphaned lot, and (v) there will be a Servicing Agreement for frontage works at Building Permit stage.

In reply to queries from the Panel, Mr. Craig acknowledged that (i) a fence along the south property line separates the subject site and the adjacent townhouse development to the south, (ii) there is limited space for landscaping along the south property line due to the proposed east-west internal drive aisle, and (iii) the side yards of two townhouse units in the adjacent townhouse development to the south abut the south property line of the subject site.

Panel Discussion

In reply to a query from the Panel, Ms. Dimitrova noted that a slight grade change and a fence provide separation between the children’s play area and the visitor parking stall.

In reply to a query from the Panel, Mr. Craig noted that (i) the City permits the concurrent review of the Building Permit and Development Permit applications, and (ii) the project meets the grandfathering provisions adopted by Council when the Step Code was introduced, which require that the Building Permit application be submitted prior to December 31, 2019 while the Development Permit application was under review.

In reply to a query from the Panel, Mr. Cheng noted that in his opinion, the project’s proposed sustainability features are similar to those proposed by projects targeting Energy Step Code 3.

In reply to queries from the Panel, Mr. Cheng and Ms. Dimitrova confirmed that (i) brick cladding and a high level window are proposed for the garbage room on the building’s east façade which fronts onto No. 2 Road, (ii) an evergreen hedge is proposed in front of the building’s east façade, and (iii) there are opportunities to enhance the exterior cladding treatment of the garbage room consistent with the residential character of the neighbourhood, such as incorporating residential windows.

Gallery Comments

None.

Correspondence

Alex Chang, Lesperance Mendes Lawyers, on behalf of the owners, Strata Plan BCS3356 located at 7231 No. 2 Road (Schedule 1)

Mr. Craig noted that Mr. Chang’s concern regarding the subject development using the driveway on the adjacent site to the south is unfounded as a driveway will be provided on the proposed development that will provide direct access to No. 2 Road.

In reply to queries from the Panel, Mr. Craig acknowledged that (i) the project’s use of the driveway on the adjacent townhouse development to the south was being investigated at the  rezoning stage, (ii) it was determined through the rezoning and public hearing process that the subject site would be granted its own driveway to No. 2 Road, and (iii) a Statutory Right-of-Way (SRW) will be registered over the entire internal drive aisle on the subject site to provide legal access to existing and future developments to the south should the No. 2 Road and Comstock Road intersection become signalized in the future.

Panel Discussion

Staff was directed to work with the applicant to (i) enhance the architectural treatment of the garbage room on the building’s east façade and incorporate additional landscaping in front of the building to improve the No. 2 Road streetscape, and (ii) ensure that the project’s proposed sustainability features are retained through the Building Permit process, prior to the application moving forward for Council consideration.

Panel Decision

It was moved and seconded

That a Development Permit be issued which would:

1.

permit the construction of four townhouse units at 7151 No. 2 Road on a site zoned “Low Density Townhouses (RTL4)”; and

2.

vary the provisions of Richmond Zoning Bylaw 8500 to:

(a)

reduce the minimum lot width on major arterial road from 50.0 m to 20.12 m; and

(b)

reduce the minimum front yard (east) setback from 6.0 m to 4.55 m.

CARRIED

3.

DEVELOPMENT PERMIT 18-829141 
(REDMS No. 6435610 v. 6)

APPLICANT:

Townline Ventures Inc.

PROPERTY LOCATION:

5591, 5631, 5651 and 5671 No. 3 Road

INTENT OF PERMIT:

To permit the construction of a high-density, mixed-use development consisting of three residential towers and a mid-rise building that includes 363 residential units and 20 low-end market rental units, and an office tower over a single storey mixed-use podium with street oriented commercial, retail and community amenity uses at ground level at 5591, 5631, 5651 and 5671 No. 3 Road.

Applicant’s Comments

Peter Odegaard, MCM Architects, with the aid of a visual presentation (copy on file, City Clerk’s Office), provided background information on the proposed development, including its site context, site plan, and form and character, highlighting the following:

§   

the proposed development includes spaces for office, residential,  retail/commercial, and City-owned community amenity uses in the centre of the City Centre Area;

§   

two of the four levels of parking are below grade, resulting in a low podium expression around the buildings;

§   

the existing City lane along the west side of the subject site will be widened to create a new north-south road;

§   

all vehicle, loading and garbage and recycling access is provided through a single parkade entrance located at the north end of the site from the new north-south road;

§   

the proposed linear park fronts onto the south side of the subject site along Lansdowne Road;

§   

the architecture of the buildings reflects their mixed-uses;

§   

the office tower is articulated with angled corners and edges and is sited at the prominent southeast corner of the site;

§   

angled balconies are proposed for the residential towers;

§   

the outdoor amenity spaces are located on the podium roof; and

§   

public art, which is a light installation, will be incorporated on the ceiling of the two pedestrian breezeways.

In reply to a query from the Panel, Mr. Odegaard noted that (i) public art is located at the two pedestrian breezeways on either side of the office tower building which can be accessed from No. 3 Road and Lansdowne Road and provide connection to the parkade, and (ii) the breezeways are publicly accessible during regular business hours.

Justin Benjamin-Taylor, Durante Kreuk Landscape Architecture, reviewed the main landscape features of the project, noting that (i) there is a 10-metre dedication along the Lansdowne Road frontage for the installation of the linear park, (ii) the outdoor amenity area on the podium has been programmed and delineated for common residential, office and private uses, (iii) the common residential outdoor amenity area includes active and passive uses including, among others, a children’s play area, an outdoor pool, a quiet garden, a dog run with wash station, outdoor kitchens and dining areas, and (iv) pedestrian circulation routes are provided from the two podium exits.

In reply to queries from the Panel, Mr. Odegaard and Mr. Taylor acknowledged that (i) ballasted roofs are proposed for the four towers primarily due to height restrictions and will not be accessible, (ii) the roof lines of the project are differentiated and the residential tower roofs are sloped, (iii) the top of the tower is the roof parapet of the elevator overrun, (iv) an intensive green roof is proposed on the mid-rise building rooftop, and (v) there would be no added significant benefits for installing green roofs on the rooftops of towers as water infiltration is taken care of by the overall design of the buildings.

Staff Comments

Mr. Craig noted that (i) a City-owned community amenity space is included in the proposed development that has been designed in consultation with City stakeholders, (ii) there is a significant Servicing Agreement associated with the project for the significant road improvements along Lansdowne Road, the construction of a new north-south road along the west side of the site, and improvements to No. 3 Road, (iii) the linear park will also be designed through the Servicing Agreement process, (iv) the public art installation within the breezeways was reviewed and endorsed by the Richmond Public Art Advisory Committee (RPAAC) on May 22, 2019, (v) an on-site low carbon district energy utility plant will be constructed and transferred to the Lulu Island Energy Company, and  (vi) acoustical measures have been incorporated in the design of the development to address aircraft noise and the adjacency of Canada Line to the subject development.

In reply to queries from the Panel, Mr. Craig acknowledged that (i) the linear park will be designed through a Servicing Agreement process in consultation with City staff, (ii) the City-owned community amenity space and the project’s residential units front onto the new north-south road, (iii) the project meets the City’s Affordable Housing Strategy requirements, (iv) the affordable housing units will be distributed among the three residential towers, and (v) the design of the bicycle lane will be part of the Servicing Agreement that will be reviewed by City’s Transportation and Engineering staff.

Gallery Comments

None.

Correspondence

None.

Panel Discussion

The Panel expressed support for the project, noting that it is well done and the provision of two levels of below grade parking enhances the appearance of the streetscape.  

Panel Decision

It was moved and seconded

That a Development Permit be issued which would permit the construction of a high-density, mixed-use development consisting of three residential towers and a mid-rise building that includes 363 residential units and 20 low-end market rental units, and an office tower over a single storey mixed-use podium with street oriented commercial, retail and community amenity uses at ground level at 5591, 5631, 5651 and 5671 No. 3 Road.

CARRIED

4.

DEVELOPMENT VARIANCE 20-896703 
(REDMS No. 6496446 v. 4)

APPLICANT:

Dagneault Planning Consultants Ltd.

PROPERTY LOCATION:

2151, 2511, 2611, 2651 No. 7 Road and PID 001-928-899

INTENT OF PERMIT:

1.

Vary the provisions of Richmond Zoning Bylaw 8500 to:

(a)

reduce the minimum front yard setback for agricultural buildings and structures from 7.5 m to 1.87 m;

(b)

reduce the minimum interior side yard setback for agricultural buildings and structures from 4.5 m to 0.58 m; and

(c)

reduce the minimum lot area from 2.0 ha to 0.34 ha at 2651 No. 7 Road in order to resolve an encroachment issue with the existing agricultural buildings and structures along the south property line of 2611 No. 7 Road; and

2.

Allow the existing agricultural buildings and structures at 2151, 2511, 2611, 2651 No. 7 Road and PID 001-928-899 on a site zoned “Agriculture (AG1)” to remain and facilitate a proposed subdivision.

Applicant’s Comments

Brian Dagneault, Dagneault Planning Consultants Ltd., with the aid of a visual presentation (copy on file, City Clerk’s Office), provided background information on the subject application, highlighting the following:

§   

the property owner is a long-time farmer in Richmond and intends to transfer the subject properties zoned “Agriculture (AG1)” to their children for farm succession planning and continuance of farming operations;

§   

the subject properties consist of four parcels and will be subdivided to align the property lines with existing farm operations, provide each parcel direct access to No. 7 Road, address an encroachment issue involving existing agricultural buildings and structures on-site, and facilitate the transfer of the parcels for farm succession planning;

§   

the proposed subdivision plan would reduce the number of parcels from four to three and require setback variances for existing agricultural buildings and structures which do not comply with the current minimum setback requirements; 

§   

the proposed subdivision and adjustments of existing property lines would allow existing buildings on-site to remain in their current locations; and

§   

the subdivision proposal includes slightly moving the south property line of 2611 No. 7 Road to the south to resolve an encroachment issue with existing buildings on the south side of the subject site.

In reply to queries from the Panel, Mr. Dagneault acknowledged that (i) the proposed subdivision will rationalize existing property lines to align with actual farm activities, (ii) under the proposed subdivision, existing Lot 3 and Lot 4 are combined into one lot and existing Lot 2 remains basically the same, (iii) moving the boundary line between Lots 3 and 4 would create a panhandle on the new lot to provide Lot 1 access to No. 7 Road, (iv) the south property line of existing Lot 4 will be slightly shifted south to capture the buildings which currently encroach into the Remainder Lot 5, and (v) the subdivision proposal will allow the existing buildings on-site to be apportioned to each of the property owner’s children.

Staff Comments

Mr. Craig noted that (i) the proposed subdivision would reduce the number of parcels within the Agricultural Land Reserve (ALR) which is supported by City policy, (ii) the proposed subdivision would result in three lots with residential development potential and not create an additional lot with residential development potential, and (iii) the proposal was reviewed and supported by the Food Security and Agricultural Advisory Committee.

In reply to a query from the Panel, Mr. Craig acknowledged that although setback variances are proposed in the subject application, it will resolve an encroachment issue with existing agricultural buildings and structures on-site.

Gallery Comments

None.

Correspondence

None.

Panel Discussion 

The Panel expressed support for the application, noting that the proposed subdivision is moving in the right direction.

Panel Decision

It was moved and seconded

1.

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

(a)

reduce the minimum front yard setback for agricultural buildings and structures from 7.5 m to 1.87 m;

(b)

reduce the minimum interior side yard setback for agricultural buildings and structures from 4.5 m to 0.58 m; and

(c)

reduce the minimum lot area from 2.0 ha to 0.34 ha at 2651 No. 7 Road in order to resolve an encroachment issue with the existing agricultural buildings and structures along the south property line of 2611 No. 7 Road; and

2.

This would allow the existing agricultural buildings and structures at 2151, 2511, 2611, 2651 No. 7 Road and PID 001-928-899 on a site zoned “Agriculture (AG1)” to remain and facilitate a proposed subdivision.

CARRIED

5.

Date of Next Meeting:  September 30, 2020

6.

Adjournment

It was moved and seconded

That the meeting be adjourned at 5:02 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, 2020.

_______________________________

_____________________________

Joe Erceg 
Chair

Rustico Agawin 
Committee Clerk