January 27, 2021 - Minutes
|
Development Permit Panel
Wednesday, January 27, 2021
|
Time: |
3:30 p.m. |
|
Place: |
Remote (WebEx) Meeting |
|
Present: |
Cecilia Achiam, Chair |
The meeting was called to order at 3:30 p.m.
|
|
Minutes |
|
|
It was moved and seconded |
|
|
That the minutes of the meeting of the Development Permit Panel held on January 13, 2021 be adopted. |
|
|
CARRIED |
|
1. |
DEVELOPMENT PERMIT 19-870332 |
||
|
|
APPLICANT: |
Matthew Cheng Architect Inc. |
|
|
|
PROPERTY LOCATION: |
7391 Moffatt Road |
|
|
|
INTENT OF PERMIT: |
|
|
Permit the construction of six townhouse units at 7391 Moffatt Road on a site zoned “High Density Townhouses (RTH1)” with vehicle access from 7411 Moffatt Road. |
|
|
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 information on the proposed development, including its site context, site plan, floor plans, proposed accessibility and sustainability features, fire truck plan, streetscapes, form and character, building elevations, and proposed materials and colour palette, highlighting the following: |
|
|
|
§ |
the front and rear units of the six-unit townhouse development are all three-storeys; |
|
|
§ |
there is a Statutory Right-of-Way (SRW) registered on the drive aisle on the adjacent property to the south at 7411 Moffatt Road to allow vehicle access to the subject site from Moffatt Road; |
|
|
§ |
details regarding the maintenance agreement for the shared drive aisle are still being discussed by the owner of the proposed development and the Strata Council of 7411 Moffatt Road; |
|
|
§ |
parking provided for the development meets the City’s Zoning Bylaw requirements; |
|
|
§ |
one convertible unit is proposed for the development; |
|
|
§ |
the project will achieve BC Energy Code Step 3 and sustainability features include, among others, the use of air source heat pumps and installation of Class 2 electric vehicle (EV) charging for all indoor residential parking spaces; and |
|
|
§ |
the quality of materials for the rear units are consistent with the front units. |
|
|
Denitsa Dimitrova, PMG Landscape Architects, provided an overview of the landscaping for the project, noting that (i) a private yard is proposed for each unit, (ii) a six-foot high wood perimeter fence provides privacy for adjacent developments, (iii) a low transparent fence and landscaping are proposed along Moffatt Road, (iv) no trees are proposed to be planted along the right-of-way (ROW) corridor along the west property line, and (v) the outdoor amenity area includes, among others, a children’s play area with play equipment. |
|
|
|
In reply to queries from the Panel, Mr. Cheng and Ms. Dimitrova acknowledged that (i) the outdoor amenity areas on the subject site and the adjacent development to the south will not be shared, (ii) a paved pathway is provided adjacent to the garbage and recycling area to allow the movement of bins to the drive aisle for pickup should the adjacent visitor parking area be occupied, (iii) the existing grade within the tree protection zone for the retained tree will be maintained and perimeter drainage will be provided, and (iv) wood chips are proposed for the children’s play area surface and will be contained within the area. |
|
|
|
Staff Comments |
|
|
Suzanne Smith, Acting Director, Development, noted that (i) there is a Servicing Agreement associated with the project, including the provision of a new sidewalk and landscaped boulevard, (ii) access to the subject site is provided through the Statutory Right-of-Way registered on the drive aisle on the adjacent property to the south at 7411 Moffatt Road, (iii) the applicant is working with the adjacent development on a draft maintenance agreement on the shared driveway, (iv) one convertible unit is proposed, (iv) all units include aging-in-place features, (v) the proposed development will achieve BC Energy Step Code 3, (vi) Level 2 electric vehicle (EV) charging station will be provided for each garage, and (viii) permeable paving treatment is proposed for the entire drive aisle and visitor parking spaces. |
|
|
In reply to queries from the Panel, Ms. Smith advised that (i) the proposed convertible unit includes an elevator to provide accessibility between Levels 1 and 2 and a stairlift to service Level 3, and (ii) the washrooms on Level 3 of the convertible unit are not designed to be accessible. |
|
|
In reply to queries from the Panel, Jordan Rockerbie, Planner 1, acknowledged that (i) the subject site is within the City Centre Area, (ii) the proposed number of residential parking spaces to be provided for the project meets the City’s Zoning Bylaw requirement, and (iii) parking for the project has been reviewed and supported by the City’s Transportation Department. |
|
|
Gallery Comments |
|
|
None. |
|
|
Correspondence |
|
|
Zhi (George) Quai, 7411 Moffatt Road (Schedule 1) |
|
|
Ms. Smith noted that residents of the adjacent development to the south (7411 Moffatt Road) expressed concern regarding, among others, the draft maintenance agreement for the shared driveway access, shared outdoor amenity spaces, potential construction noise and impact of the proposed development on the existing visitor parking stall and garbage and recycling enclosure on their property. |
|
|
In reply to the residents’ concerns, Ms. Smith commented that (i) the existing visitor parking stall and the garbage and recycling enclosure on the adjacent development to the south will not be impacted by the proposed development and the shared driveway access, (ii) the use of outdoor amenity areas on the subject site and the adjacent development to the south will not be shared between the two developments due to lack of agreement, (iii) the applicant will be required to submit a Construction and Traffic Management Plan prior to Building Permit issuance that would address construction related concerns, including potential use of visitor parking stalls on the adjacent development to the south, and (iv) an acoustical report by a registered professional is required to be submitted by the applicant prior to Development Permit issuance to ensure that potential noise impacts of any equipment to adjacent developments will be addressed. |
|
|
Panel Discussion |
|
|
Discussion ensued regarding the lack of agreement between the owner of the subject property and the Strata Council of 7411 Moffatt Road regarding the maintenance of the shared driveway access. |
|
|
In reply to a query from the Panel, Ms. Smith noted that the Statutory-Right-of-Way (SRW) registered on the drive aisle on 7411 Moffatt Road provides the legal basis for the shared use of the driveway access; however, staff would like to see the two parties agree on shared driveway maintenance prior to Development Permit issuance. |
|
|
In reply to a query from the Panel, Mr. Cheng acknowledged that cost-sharing for the maintenance of the shared driveway access is still an outstanding issue. |
|
|
In reply to a query from the Panel, Ms. Smith advised that in order for the application move forward to Council, the maintenance agreement on the shared driveway access would be considered a condition for Development Permit issuance. |
|
|
The Panel then expressed support for the project, noting that (i) the design of the project fits well with its neighbourhood context, (ii) the applicant’s efforts to retain and protect the existing tree is appreciated, and (iii) the provision for on-site parking meets the City’s Zoning Bylaw requirement. |
|
|
Panel Decision |
|
|
It was moved and seconded |
|
|
That a Development Permit be issued which would permit the construction of six townhouse units at 7391 Moffatt Road on a site zoned “High Density Townhouses (RTH1)” with vehicle access from 7411 Moffatt Road. |
|
|
CARRIED |
|
2. |
DEVELOPMENT VARIANCE 20-907740 |
||
|
|
APPLICANT: |
Harnek Bindra |
|
|
|
PROPERTY LOCATION: |
6460 No. 5 Road |
|
|
|
INTENT OF PERMIT: |
|
|
Vary the provisions of Richmond Zoning Bylaw 8500 to reduce the minimum interior side yard setback for agricultural buildings and structures from 4.5 m to 3.0 m to permit the existing single-family dwelling to be converted into an agricultural building at 6460 No. 5 Road on a site zoned “Agriculture (AG1)”. |
|
|
Applicant’s Comments |
|
|
Taj Bindra, representing the applicant, with the aid of a visual presentation (copy on file, City Clerk’s Office) provided background information on the application, noting that (i) there was no active blueberry farm operation when the property was bought in late 2018, (ii) the existing residential building on the property will be retained and repurposed for agricultural use, (iii) the garage of the existing building will be demolished to allow for access to the farm, (iv) the proposal would be economically and environmentally advantageous, and (v) interior and exterior renovations to the existing building are proposed to make it more suitable to its intended agricultural use. |
|
|
In reply to queries from the Panel, Mr. Bindra noted that (i) the existing interior side yard setback for the existing single-family dwelling is three meters, (ii) the proposed storage on the second floor can be accessed from the ground floor through the existing stairs, and (iii) there will be changes on the existing second floor to remove components that are not necessary for the repurposed building. |
|
|
In reply to a query from the Panel, Steven De Sousa, Planner 1, acknowledged that the proposal is consistent with the zoning of the subject site and the proposed interior side yard setback variance is necessary to allow the conversion of the existing residential building into an agricultural building. |
|
|
Staff Comments |
|
|
Ms. Smith noted that (i) the existing residential building that will be converted into an agricultural building will support farm operations and is consistent with the City’s program to repurpose existing buildings to reduce the amount of landfill, (ii) the conversion of the building from residential uses to agricultural will be subject to a legal agreement secured prior to Building Permit issuance, (iii) the building will not impact Environmentally Sensitive Areas (ESAs) on the site, (iv) an interior side yard setback variance is proposed for the existing building, and (v) letters of support for the application have been provided by owners of adjacent properties to the north and south. |
|
|
Gallery Comments |
|
|
None. |
|
|
Correspondence |
|
|
None. |
|
|
Panel Discussion |
|
|
The Panel expressed support for the project and appreciated the applicant’s proposal to repurpose the existing residential building for agricultural use. |
|
|
Panel Decision |
|
|
It was moved and seconded |
|
|
That a Development Variance Permit be issued which would vary the provisions of Richmond Zoning Bylaw 8500 to reduce the minimum interior side yard setback for agricultural buildings and structures from 4.5 m to 3.0 m to permit the existing single-family dwelling to be converted into an agricultural building at 6460 No. 5 Road on a site zoned “Agriculture (AG1)”. |
|
|
CARRIED |
|
3. |
CAPSTAN CANADA LINE STATION – TRANSLINK – PRESENTATION AND OVERVIEW OF THE PROPOSED STATION DESIGN |
||
|
|
APPLICANT: |
TransLink |
|
|
|
PROPERTY LOCATION: |
No. 3 Road and Capstan Way |
|
|
|
Applicant’s Comments |
|
|
|
Nick Foster, OMB 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, design objectives, the Capstan Village Neighbourhood, precedents, site plan, design of the platform and station building, and floor plans, highlighting the following: |
|
|
|
§ |
the design of the proposed Capstan Canada Line station responds to its neighbourhood context and has considered future increases in ridership; |
|
|
§ |
the design of the proposed station has been driven by the fact that unlike other existing Canada Line stations in Richmond, the proposed station cannot be attached to the existing guideway due to structural reasons, |
|
|
§ |
the proposed station is modeled on and an improvement of the existing Lansdowne and Aberdeen Canada Line Stations; |
|
|
§ |
TransLink is not responsible for building the public realm around the Capstan Canada Line station but is coordinating with the City to integrate the station and public realm plans; |
|
|
§ |
the station building is fully glazed and transparent except for certain portions on its northern (back) facade; |
|
|
§ |
a commercial retail unit (CRU) is proposed inside the station; and |
|
|
§ |
public art will be installed inside and outside the station. |
|
|
Staff Comments |
|
|
Ms. Smith noted that (i) the proposed station is subject to an alternative design process with comments provided to TransLink to guide ongoing design efforts, (ii) the design and construction of the transit plaza and other public realm spaces and features surrounding the proposed station are not included in TransLink’s scope of work, and (iii) design development and TransLink’s coordination with staff is needed with regard to north side activation, service use mitigation, public realm coordination, and bird strike considerations in the building design. |
|
|
In addition, Suzanne Carter-Huffman, Planner 3, noted that (i) design development and coordination between TransLink and staff in certain areas will ensure a smooth transition from conceptual design to actual operation, and (ii) staff is asking TransLink to take proactive measures for the proposed station if they had previous experience with bird strikes on their existing stations. |
|
|
In reply to a query from the Panel, Ms. Carter-Huffman acknowledged that (i) at the rezoning stage, the neighbouring Concord Galleria project had agreed to provide two accessible washrooms that could be used by people in the area including transit riders, and (ii) Concord Galleria is responsible for the maintenance of these washrooms. |
|
|
Panel Discussion |
|
|
In reply to queries from the Panel, Mr. Foster and Tomer Curiel, TransLink, noted that (i) there is no public vehicular access from the kiss-and-ride area to the station plaza, (ii) bird roosting and fly through are more of a concern to TransLink stations than bird strikes and there are design improvements on the proposed Capstan Canada Line station to address bird-related concerns, (iii) TransLink will consider installing signage for public washroom wayfinding, (iv) the CRU can only be accessed by the public from outside the station, and (v) the design intent for the CRU is to be as visually transparent as possible from the outside. |
|
|
Gallery Comments |
|
|
None. |
|
|
Correspondence |
|
|
None. |
|
|
Panel Decision |
|
|
It was moved and seconded |
|
|
That the applicant continue to coordinate and work with staff for further design development with regard to the four areas identified in the staff report, which include the activation of the north side of the proposed Capstan Canada Line Station, service use mitigation, public realm coordination, and bird strike mitigation. |
|
|
CARRIED |
|
4. |
New Business |
|
|
It was moved and seconded |
|
|
That the Development Permit Panel meeting tentatively scheduled on Wednesday, February 10, 2021 be cancelled. |
|
5. |
Adjournment |
|
|
It was moved and seconded |
|
|
That the meeting be adjourned at 4:52 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 27, 2021. |
|
_______________________________ |
_____________________________ |
|
Cecilia Achiam |
Rustico Agawin |