September 27, 2023 - Minutes
|
Development Permit Panel
Wednesday, September 27, 2023
|
Time: |
3:30 p.m. |
|
Place: |
Remote (Zoom) Meeting |
|
Present: |
Cecilia Achiam, General Manager, Community Safety, Acting Chair James Cooper, Director, Building Approvals
|
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 Wednesday, August 23, 2023, be adopted. |
|
|
CARRIED |
|
1. |
(REDMS No. 7319330)
|
||
|
|
APPLICANT: |
Greater Vancouver Sewerage and Drainage District |
|
|
|
PROPERTY LOCATION: |
900 and 1000 Ferguson Road |
|
|
|
INTENT OF PERMIT: |
|
|
|
|
To facilitate upgrades through construction of secondary and tertiary treatment structures and related components for the existing wastewater treatment plant on a site designated Environmentally Sensitive Area. |
||
|
|
Applicant’s Comments |
|
|
|
Nelson Szeto, Metro Vancouver, with the aid of a visual presentation (attached to and forming part of these minutes as Schedule 1), introduced the project, noting that (i) the proposed upgrade of the existing facility would accommodate future population growth of serviced areas, and (ii) meet provincial and federal regulatory requirements. |
|
|
|
In addition, he spoke about the project goals, the ecological priorities, project stages, and delivery schedules, noting that the project is currently at the preliminary design stage and the secondary plant treatment facility is projected to be completed in 2035. |
|
|
|
Sarah Primeau, space2place landscape architects, with the aid of the same visual presentation, briefed the Panel on the project’s landscaping and ESA compensation scheme, highlighting the following: |
|
|
|
§ |
the proposed project site and design would minimize the ecological impact of the project; |
|
|
§ |
existing habitats around the project would be enhanced including the disturbed areas; |
|
|
§ |
an ESA Development Permit is required for the project as the entire site is currently designated as an ESA; |
|
|
§ |
there are five proposed ESA compensation areas for the project around the island with a total of 26.12 hectares, which is in excess of the required ESA compensation area of 23.08 hectares including previous ESA development permit commitments; and |
|
|
§ |
the applicant has committed to a monitoring program to ensure the long-term success of the project’s proposed ESA compensation scheme and a construction environmental management plan to protect existing habitats during construction . |
|
|
Matthew Woodruff, Local Practice Architecture + Design Ltd., spoke about the architectural component of the project, noting that (i) the proposed architecture complements the project’s ecological restoration and ESA restoration objectives, (ii) the plant’s façade will not be highly visible to the public, and (iii) a comprehensive sustainability plan for the whole Iona Island and sustainability strategies for individual building components have been developed. |
|
|
|
Staff Comments |
|
|
Wayne Craig, Director, Development, noted that (i) staff are satisfied that the proposed ESA compensation scheme would achieve a net gain and ecological area and ecological function, (ii) the existing structure on the site identified in the City’s Heritage Registry was deemed not suitable for retention or repurposing as noted in the letter attached to the staff report, (iii) a legal agreement will be secured as a consideration of this DP indicating the structure shall not be demolished until there is a comprehensive heritage commemoration, salvage and implementation plan prepared by a qualified heritage professional and submitted to and reviewed by City staff and the Richmond Heritage Commission, and (iv) the proposed barge facility that is currently under consideration as a means of getting construction material to/from the site is not part of the subject application. |
|
|
Panel Discussion |
|
|
In reply to queries from the Panel, the applicant noted that (i) the potential exemption of the project from the BC Environmental Assessment Act is yet to be determined, (ii) the proposed project has the capacity to service the projected growth in the number of people serviced without impacting the ESA, (iii) the potential expansion of ESA through habitat banking has not been considered in the scope of the application, (iv) adaptation strategies are included in the flood adaptation plan for the island, and (v) there will be monitoring of the growth of compensation planting and the condition of habitats surrounding the proposed ESA compensation areas. |
|
|
Correspondence |
|
|
None. |
|
|
Gallery Comments |
|
|
None. |
|
|
Panel Discussion |
|
|
The Panel expressed support for the project, noting that (i) the proposed upgrade of the existing wastewater treatment plant is appreciated, (ii) the project is well designed, and (iii) the evolution of the project in the future would be positive based on the current plan. |
|
|
Panel Decision |
|
|
It was moved and seconded |
|
|
That a Development Permit be issued at 900 and 1000 Ferguson Road to facilitate upgrades through construction of secondary and tertiary treatment structures and related components for the existing wastewater treatment plant on a site designated Environmentally Sensitive Area. |
|
|
CARRIED |
|
2. |
(REDMS No. 7313233) |
||
|
|
APPLICANT: |
Jacky He |
|
|
|
PROPERTY LOCATION: |
6531 Francis Road |
|
|
|
INTENT OF PERMIT: |
|
|
|
|
Permit the construction of two front-to-back duplexes at 6531 Francis Road (one on each lot after subdivision) with shared vehicle access from Francis Road, on lots zoned “Arterial Road Two-Unit Dwellings (RDA)”. |
||
|
|
Applicant’s Comments |
|
|
|
Jiang Zhu, Imperial Architecture, with the aid of a visual presentation (attached to and forming part of these minutes as Schedule 2), provided background information on the proposed development, highlighting the following: |
|
|
|
§ |
the proposed development includes two front-to-back duplexes separated by a shared drive-aisle in the middle; |
|
|
§ |
the central courtyard in the middle of the shared drive-aisle fronting the garages will be used for vehicle manoeuvring; |
|
|
§ |
the appearance of each duplex building is differentiated through the use of different roof shapes and colour tones, among others; |
|
|
§ |
each unit is provided with two side-by-side resident parking spaces; |
|
|
§ |
balconies on the second floor of the front units face the internal drive-aisle; and |
|
|
§ |
the project includes one convertible unit. |
|
|
Eason Li, Homing Landscape Architecture, with the aid of the same visual presentation, briefed the Panel on the main landscaping features of the project, noting that (i) existing trees on the site will be retained and protected, (ii) one existing tree will be relocated, (iii) permeable pavers for the shared drive-aisle and pedestrian pathway are differentiated through the use of different colours, (iv) each unit is provided with a private yard space, (v) wood decking is provided for the rear units to create outdoor patio spaces and in order to maintain the grade, (vi) wood planters with trellises are proposed to separate the front and back units, and (vii) the overall landscape design meets the porous surface area requirement for the project. |
|
|
|
Staff Comments |
|
|
Mr. Craig noted that (i) there is a Servicing Agreement associated with the project for frontage improvements and site services, (ii) contracts with a certified arborist to supervise tree relocation and tree protection during construction are required, (iii) the project will achieve BC Energy Step Code Level 3 through the use of air source heat pumps, among others, and (iv) the air source heat pumps for heating and cooling have been designed and located to comply with the City’s Noise Bylaw requirements. |
|
|
Panel Discussion |
|
|
Discussion ensued regarding potential landscaping treatments to break up the continuous wall along the west and east property lines. As a result of the discussion, the applicant was advised to work with staff to investigate opportunities to incorporate landscaping treatments, e.g. installing a high evergreen hedge on the central portion of the fencing to break up the continuous wall/fencing prior to the application moving forward for Council consideration. |
|
|
Discussion ensued regarding the need for further differentiation of the front façade of each building. As a result of the discussion, the applicant was advised to work with staff to investigate further opportunities to differentiate the front façade of each duplex building. |
|
|
Correspondence |
|
|
None. |
|
|
Gallery Comments |
|
|
None. |
|
|
Panel Decision |
|
|
It was moved and seconded |
|
|
That a Development Permit be issued which would permit construction of two front-to-back duplexes at 6531 Francis Road (one on each lot after subdivision) with shared vehicle access from Francis Road, on lots zoned “Arterial Road Two-Unit Dwellings (RDA)”. |
|
|
CARRIED |
|
3. |
(REDMS No. 7288456)
|
||
|
|
APPLICANT: |
6333 Cooney Road Limited Partnership |
|
|
|
PROPERTY LOCATION: |
6333 Cooney Road |
|
|
|
INTENT OF PERMIT: |
|
|
|
|
To permit the construction of a high-rise building containing approximately 81 dwelling units at 6333 Cooney Road on a site zoned “High Rise Apartment (ZHR8) – Brighouse Village (City Centre)” |
||
|
|
Applicant’s Comments |
|
|
|
Dave Leung, Westbank Corp. and Daniel Hawreluk, Kasian Architecture and Interior Design, with the aid of a visual presentation (attached to and forming part of these minutes as Schedule 3), introduced the project and provided background information on the proposed development, highlighting the following: |
|
|
|
§ |
there have been design changes from the previously approved development permit to the current proposal including, among others, improvements in the public realm, architectural expression of the building, landscaping and changes in parking; |
|
|
§ |
live-work townhouse units are proposed along Cooney Road to provide for an interesting street frontage; |
|
|
§ |
Transportation Demand Management (TDM) measures are proposed for the project which include, among others, additional bicycle parking and provision of two car-share vehicles; |
|
|
§ |
the proposal includes 20 adaptable units; and |
|
|
§ |
penthouse units are located on the tower rooftop. |
|
|
Ken Larsson, Connect Landscape Architecture, with the aid of the same visual presentation, briefed the Panel on the main landscape features of the project, noting that (i) the proposed landscaping has been enhanced to complement the new design of the building, (ii) roof gardens are proposed on different levels of the building; (iii) the common outdoor amenity area on Level 4 has been improved to provide more variety of uses, (iv) the indoor amenity pavilion is located adjacent to the common outdoor amenity area to improve the indoor-outdoor relationship, and (v) the proposed planting palette allows for layered planting and provides visual interest. |
|
|
|
Staff Comments |
|
|
Mr. Craig noted that (i) there is a Servicing Agreement associated with the project for frontage works and site services, (ii) the Servicing Agreement includes the construction of the new City lane along the south edge of the building, (iii) the new City lane will be used to provide future access to the neighbouring properties to the south should they redevelop in the future, (iv) the project has been designed to achieve BC Energy Step Code Level 2 with a Low Carbon Energy System, (v) the Low Carbon Energy System has been designed for future connection to the City’s District Energy Utility (DEU), (vi) the building has been designed to achieve the City’s aircraft noise mitigation requirements and the Canada Mortgage and Housing Corporation (CMHC) interior noise standards, and (vii) the provision of intensive green roofs on various parts of the building is appreciated by staff. |
|
|
Panel Discussion |
|
|
In reply to queries from the Panel, the applicant noted that (i) the proposed development will use triple low-e glazing system and air source heat pumps for heating and cooling to achieve energy efficiency, (ii) the development includes 81 residential units each provided with a balcony, (iii) modular green screens are installed on the podium walls at the north and west elevations of the building, (iv) green roofs are provided in the project, (v) the small mechanical unit on the tower rooftop is surrounded by landscaped buffers, and (vi) a dog wash area is provided in the parkade. |
|
|
In reply to a query from the Panel, Mr. Craig noted that the project’s TDM measures include, among others, the provision of electric vehicle charging station for car share parking spaces. |
|
|
Correspondence |
|
|
Ting Ling Wong, 1507-8288 Saba Road (Schedule 4) |
|
|
In reply to the concerns of Ting Ling Wong, Mr. Craig noted that (i) the density of the proposed development was determined through the rezoning application that was approved by Council, and (ii) the development will have to comply with the BC Building Code, in particular to sections relating to fire prevention and protection. |
|
|
Thompson Lee and Clara Lee, 1501, 1601, and 1602 Saba Road (Schedule 5) |
|
|
In reply to Mr. and Ms. Lee’s concerns regarding the potential geotechnical impact of the construction of the proposed development at 6333 Cooney Road on their existing building, Mr. Craig noted that geotechnical reports including proposed mitigation measures are required to be submitted by the applicant and approved by the City prior to Building Permit issuance. |
|
|
Gallery Comments |
|
|
Gary Cross, 503-8238 Saba Road, expressed concern regarding the past and current condition of the property at 6333 Cooney Road, noting that the subject property has been neglected for a long time. He further noted that currently, the subject property is unsightly and the overgrowth of blackberry bushes is affecting pedestrian circulation and safety along the sidewalk. |
|
|
Discussion ensued between Mr. Cross and the applicant regarding the timeline for the completion of the project and construction hoarding. Mr. Cross noted that while he does not oppose the project, he wanted to ensure that construction would be well managed and efficient and the subject property kept clean and tidy and not impact pedestrian circulation and safety in the construction area. |
|
|
In reply to Mr. Cross’ construction-related concerns, the applicant noted that the project contractor would address his concerns. The applicant further noted that construction hoarding is also their priority concern as it is part of their marketing strategy. |
|
|
Mr. Cross also brought to the Panel’s attention the concern of a member of the public in the gallery who is a resident of 6340 Buswell Road, noting that the resident is concerned that his view would be obstructed and sunlight exposure limited by the proposed development as he lives on the ground floor of the existing low-rise apartment building to the west of the subject site. |
|
|
In reply to the concern of the resident of 6340 Buswell Road, Mr. Craig advised that the proposed development meets the City’s tower separation guidelines. Also, he clarified that the current application is for a development permit application and not for general compliance as there are significant changes to the design of the project from the one previously approved by Council. |
|
|
Panel Discussion |
|
|
The Panel expressed support for the project, noting that the current proposal is an improvement over the previous one. |
|
|
Panel Decision |
|
|
It was moved and seconded |
|
|
That a Development Permit be issued which would permit the construction of a high-rise building containing approximately 81 dwelling units at 6333 Cooney Road on a site zoned “High Rise Apartment (ZHR8) – Brighouse Village (City Centre)”. |
|
|
CARRIED |
|
4. |
(REDMS No. 7342153)
|
||
|
|
APPLICANT: |
Sandeep Mann |
|
|
|
PROPERTY LOCATION: |
10408 Dennis Crescent |
|
|
|
INTENT OF PERMIT: |
|
|
|
|
To permit the construction of a coach house at 10408 Dennis Crescent on a site zoned “Single Detached with Granny Flat or Coach House – Edgemere (RE1)”. |
||
|
|
Applicant’s Comments |
|
|
|
Navtej Dhot, Astonish Design and Detailing Ltd., with the aid of a visual presentation (attached to and forming part of these minutes as Schedule 6), provided background information on the proposed coach house, highlighting the following: |
|
|
|
§ |
the proposed coach house and two-car garage for the main house will be located on the east side of the property adjacent to the existing rear lane; |
|
|
§ |
an unenclosed parking space is provided for the coach house; |
|
|
§ |
a shared garbage and recycling enclosure for the residents of the main house and coach house is proposed; |
|
|
§ |
the coach house will be provided with a private open space; |
|
|
§ |
proposed pedestrian access to the coach house is from the rear lane and through the pedestrian walkway from Dennis Crescent along the north side of the subject property; |
|
|
§ |
two deciduous trees are proposed to be planted on the property; and |
|
|
§ |
the proposed exterior cladding materials and colours for the coach house are consistent with those of the main house. |
|
|
Staff Comments |
|
|
Mr. Craig noted that (i) the proposed coach house has been designed to achieve BC Energy Step Code Level 3 with the provision of an air source heat pump for heating and cooling, (ii) the proposed heat pump will be designed to meet the City’s Noise Bylaw, and (iii) the applicant has agreed to plant two new trees in the subject property as a condition of Development Permit issuance. |
|
|
Panel Discussion |
|
|
Discussion ensued regarding the coach house wall facing the main house and as a result of the discussion, the applicant was advised to work with staff to investigate opportunities to install a high window on the ground floor to allow more sunlight exposure to the living space of the coach house. |
|
|
Correspondence |
|
|
None. |
|
|
Gallery Comments |
|
|
None. |
|
|
Panel Discussion |
|
|
The Panel expressed support for the project, noting that more coach houses in the City would be desirable to provide more housing choices for the City’s residents. |
|
|
Panel Decision |
|
|
It was moved and seconded |
|
|
That a Development Permit be issued which would permit the construction of a coach house at 10408 Dennis Crescent on a site zoned “Single Detached with Granny Flat or Coach House – Edgemere (RE1)”. |
|
|
CARRIED |
|
5. |
New Business |
|
|
None. |
|
6. |
Date of Next Meeting: October 12, 2023 |
|
|
ADJOURNMENT |
|
|
It was moved and seconded |
|
|
That the meeting adjourn (5:14 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 27, 2023. |
|
_________________________________ |
_________________________________ |
|
Cecilia Achiam |
Rustico Agawin |