THE CORPORATION OF DELTA ADVISORY DESIGN PANEL Minutes of the Regular Meeting of the Advisory Design Panel held Thursday, August 27, 2015 at 6:30 p.m. in the Tilbury Room at Delta Municipal Hall, 4500 Clarence Taylor Crescent, Delta, British Columbia. PRESENT: ABSENT: ALSO PRESENT: Call to Order Approval of Agenda Adoption o Minutes Hal Owens, Chair Daniel Kim Don Wuori John Hemsworth Michael Patterson Alex Cauduro, Planner Wendy Li, Recording Clerk The meeting was called to order at 6:28 p.m. MOVED By John Hemsworth SECONDED By Don Wuori, THAT the Agenda for the Regular Meeting of August 27, 2015 be received and approved as circulated. CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY MOVED By Daniel Kim SECONDED By John Hemsworth, THAT the Minutes of the Regular Meeting of May 28, 2015 be received and adopted as circulated. A. BUSINESS ARISING FROM MINUTES There was no business arising from the minutes. 5135 45 Avenue (B.01) Delegation Arrives B. NEW BUSINESS Memorandum from Alex Cauduro, Planner, dated August 18, 2015 re Rezoning and Development Permit Application at 5135 45 Avenue (0821044 B.C. Ltd. and T. E. Andres Home Building Ltd.) (LU007439) The delegation joined the meeting at 6:30 p.m. - Sage Kosa, Design Consultant - Fred Liu, Landscape Architect - David Riek, T.E. Andres Home Building Ltd. - Ted Andres, T.E. Andres Home Building Ltd. - Ken Vandervelde, Designer Advisory Design Panel Page 1
Staff introduced the proposal for a rezoning and development permit application for the subject property at 5135 45 Avenue in order to permit a four-unit fee simple townhouse development. The subject property is a vacant site located at the northwest corner of 45 Avenue and Evergreen Lane. The site is surrounded by a onestorey single family dwelling to the west, a two storey apartment building to the north, a two-and-one-half storey single family dwelling and two-storey coach house across Evergreen Lane to the east and single family dwellings across 45 Avenue to the south. There is a mix of two- and four storey apartment dwellings to the north along Evergreen Lane. Comprehensive Development Zone No. 453 proposed for the development would permit the following: maximum density of one townhouse per lot; a minimum of two parking spaces per unit with one located within an enclosed garage for each lot; maximum roof heights of 6.8 m and 8.5 m for Lots 1 and 2 and 10.6 m for Lots 3 and 4; and principal building setbacks as follows: 3.6 m for Front and Rear, 1.5 m for North side, 0 m for side, and 3.1 m for side on 45 Avenue. Staff noted that the Engineering department requires a road dedication of 2.14 m to establish a road width of 9 m from the centre line of the road along the Evergreen Lane frontage and a 3 m x 3 m corner truncation at the southeast corner of the property. Also, the property is located within the Ladner Village Development Permit Area, which encourages the formation of a livable village and a desirable commercial and residential mix. A Development Permit is required for form and character. Pedestrian and vehicular access to the development would be from Evergreen Lane. No visitor parking is proposed and is not required under Delta s Zoning Bylaw. Staff noted the application was reviewed and approved by the Community Planning Advisory Committee at their August 6, 2015 meeting with concerns noted regarding tandem parking, lack of visitor parking and lack of architectural variation at the west and north elevations. Additional comments regarding the proposal are provided by staff in the memorandum dated August 18, 2015. The delegation distributed copies of a revised south elevation plan to the Panel as additional information. In response to questions from the Panel, Staff advised that the corner truncation at the southeast corner of the property is required by the Engineering Department under Delta s Subdivision and Development Standard Bylaw. A truncation for the corner lot development to the east was also required by the Engineering Department. Corner Advisory Design Panel Page 2
truncations are typically requested to allow vehicles more turning latitude at corners of properties adjacent to the street. In regards to the building height of 6.8 m to 10.6 m proposed by the applicant, Staff advised that the applicant had taken into context the developments to the north and south in determining the proposed heights with the intention of transitioning from higher to lower heights in a north-south direction. In response to a question from the Panel, Staff advised that RM3 Multiple Family (Townhouse 25) Residential and RM4 (Multiple Family (Townhouse 40) Residential Zones are intended for townhouse development; however, the current Zoning Bylaw is outdated and such zoning is not commonly used. Comprehensive Development zones are typically prepared for such development proposals. The existing RM1 Multiple Family (Duplex) Residential zoning permits two units per lot and would permit duplex development. The Official Community Plan designation for the subject property is RG Residential Ground-Oriented, which permits 62 units per hectare for density. The proposed density is 55 units per hectare, and would be permitted under the RG designation for the property. The townhouse housing form would also be permitted under this designation. Staff confirmed that CD Zone No. 453 is prepared specifically for this development proposal. The Development Permit regulates the form and character. The townhouse use would be in keeping with housing form permitted under the Official Community Plan designation. It was noted by staff that there are higher density developments (two- to four-storeys) located in vicinity of the subject property to the north along Evergreen Lane. In response to a Panel member s question, Staff explained that the proposed front property line is slightly further west in comparison to the developments on Evergreen Lane to the north. The Engineering Department had requested to have road dedication in order to be consistent with other developments along the block. The proposed new front setback would be 3.6 m. In response to a question from the Panel in regards to the rationale of changing the development from a duplex to a row house scheme, staff indicated that the Ladner Area Plan designates the subject property as RG. The Official Community Plan supports this proposed use and density; however, rezoning of the subject property is required to permit the use. Ms. Sage Kosa introduced and discussed the project noting that Unit 1 of the development on 45 Avenue is proposed to be handicapped accessible with the master bedroom on the main floor, and the other two designs would work well with families. There is a desire with the proposal to create housing stocks with a multigeneration appeal, and to fulfill a goal to provide housing close to amenity areas in Ladner Village. Advisory Design Panel Page 3
The design fits and would be complimentary in-style with some of the newer homes along 45 Avenue. It attempts to create a cohesive streetscape while providing some individuality to each of the four units. The front façade is varied with the use of different dormer roof forms, vertical bay elements, juliette balconies, and recessed entry ways. The siding is varied with hardi-plank and cedar shingles, the colour is selected from the Benjamin Moore Vancouver Heritage Foundation palette. The idea for the proposed development is to provide new and improved housing stock that will be affordable in comparison to single family detached dwellings and duplexes. The site is located close to the downtown core and would provide a microcommunity within a larger community in Ladner. Mr. Fred Liu presented the landscape plan noting that the primary objective for this development is to design elements that can blend into the surroundings. The front treatment of the landscaping would complement and enhance the buildings located behind the development. The proposed sidewalk on Evergreen Lane will connect with the existing sidewalk on 45 Avenue. The 2.1 m road dedication allows planting of two street trees and a strip of grass. Evergreens and low-level shrubs will be used in between townhouse units. The design team had narrowed down the driveway by allowing different paving material leading to the entrance of the four units. Additionally, a warm colour palette or a natural colour concrete is proposed for the in-walk pavement to go along with the patio. The design team proposed to plant small and large shrubs and Evergreens which provide strong foundation planting to the front façade. There will be low growing shrubs along the proposed 6 ft height fencing at the back of the development. There will be a 6 ft gate located at the front building and a 4 ft gate facing 45 Avenue. The existing trees located to the north are proposed to be replaced. There are two trees at the northwest corner. The design team proposes to plant Gleditsia, Magnolia, Styrax Japonica Rosea for the development, and there are grass areas for residential uses. There are gaps between each unit for maintenance access and there is a gate for each unit to create a front yard appearance. In response to the Panel, Mr. Liu confirmed that a solid fence is proposed for the back of the building and picket fence is proposed along the property line. The Panel had noted that the proposed architectural form results in a courtyard concept. There appears to be a conflict with residents walking across a large courtyard while the vehicle is parked. It was also noted that the units do not have an independent connection. In response to the Panel, Mr. Liu confirmed that each owner is responsible for maintenance and each unit has access to its own garage. In response to the Panel s questions, Ms. Kosa and Mr. Andres explained the rationale for the design and articulation for the development. They noted that the end unit on 45 Avenue is designed Advisory Design Panel Page 4
for elderly or disabled residents with the master bedroom on the first floor; Unit 2 is a traditional two-storey, and Units 3 and 4 served as an alternative design providing living quarters on the second and third floor with extra living space on the first floor. Mr. Andres also expressed that the proposed design has a European style and he wants to provide an alternative design and housing options for a more diverse population. The design team also confirmed that the second floor of the end unit serves as an extra space for alternative usage and has a view of the neighbour s roof. In response to the Panel s question, Mr. Ken Vander Velde had noted that the idea for the proposed development is to have a separate roof for each unit. In response to the Panel s questions, Mr. Liu confirmed that the red line and pavers on the driveway are used for the unit separation, and individual amenities at the back are proposed for each unit, but there are no public amenities at the front due to lack of space for private use and unit separation. Panel Comments Site Context: It is a difficult and challenging site; agree with the proposed townhouse use and rezoning. Overall design is attempting to fit with surrounding building forms and is fairly successful given the mixed building types. Close to downtown core. Difficult transition from higher density to single family along 45 Avenue. Site Layout: Building footprint is quite large relative to the size of the lot and the road dedication. Parking is limited and concern there is no visitor parking. Suggest applicant consider revising building footprint and enhancing parking. Applicant to look at ways to separate vehicles between Unit 1 and Unit 2 driveways. Supported. Building Design: Suggest extending the end unit to a two-storey building and dealing with the frontage on 45 Avenue in a more traditional way. Massing needs to be addressed. Consider revision to the end unit on 45 Avenue making it a twostorey building. Revise sloped portion of roof to a more symmetrical configuration. Provide front entry canopies and recesses at two or three storey units. Rear Elevation from adjacent properties is lacking in architectural variation. Applicant to look at precedents of mixing various house Advisory Design Panel Page 5
typologies that have been done in a more successful manner. Supports accessibility to Unit 1. Form and character appears disjointed and busy. Difficult to agree with the form and character of the building. Three different housing forms represented by one-storey two- storey, three storey designs, too much going on. Consider cottage roofs versus gable roofs for the three-storey buildings. Colours are fine. Exterior Finishes & Colours: Exterior finishes are residential in nature, however, use of real wood should be considered as an accent on areas such as dormers, gables. Colour scheme is attractive. Support the idea of using Ladner Village heritage colours. Too much going on, but generally ok transition from lower to taller building massing. Landscaping: Landscaping is generally good and well suited to this lot and surrounding area. Submit arborist report on large tree on adjacent property and the effect this building will have on it. Encourage the use of pavers throughout the driveways. Support the fencing concept. Signage: N/A Other Comments: Encourage that the landscape plan is accurately represented in the architectural sketch up model. -- Motion Endorsed MOVED By Don Wuori, SECONDED By John Hemsworth, THAT the Advisory Design Panel reviewed the Rezoning and Development Application at 5135 45 Avenue (0821044 B.C. Ltd. and T.E. Andres Home Building Ltd.) (LU007439) and recommends RESUBMISSION of a revised design that addresses the major concerns of the form and character of the building and 45 Avenue front elevation, and Design Panel s comments as noted in the minutes. CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY Delegation Departs The delegation departed the meeting at 7:37 p.m. Advisory Design Panel Page 6
5062 48 Avenue (B.02) Delegation Arrives Memorandum from Alex Cauduro, Planner, dated August 19, 2015 re Official Community Plan Amendment, Rezoning and Development Permit Application at 5062 48 Avenue (Delta Blue Construction Inc.) (LU007414) The delegation joined the meeting at 7:40 p.m. - Donald C. Andrew, Architect - Josh Bernsen, Forma Design Inc. Staff introduced the proposal of an Official Community Plan Amendment, Rezoning and Development Permit Application at 5062 48 Avenue for a two-and-one-half storey mixed-use commercial/residential building with retail on the ground floor and an eight two-bedroom apartment units on the upper floors. The site contains an existing two-storey mixed-use building with retail on the ground level and six one-bedroom apartment units above. Parking is located to the rear, accessible from a laneway. The existing building is proposed to be demolished. The subject property is bounded by a two-storey mixed-use building to the east and west, commercial buildings to the north across 48 Avenue and a four-storey apartment to the south across a laneway. The proposed development complies with the use and height in the Mixed-Use (Ladner) 2 Official Community Plan designation, but the proposed density of 103 units per hectare slightly exceeds the permitted density of 100 units per hectare. Therefore, an Official Community Plan Amendment is requested. A rezoning of the subject property from C1-L Core Commercial Ladner to Comprehensive Development Zone No. 451 is also required in order to permit the development of the proposed mixed-use building. The highlights of Comprehensive Development Zone No. 451 are listed as follows: Maximum building height of 10.6 m; Proposed parking of 1.5 spaces per apartment unit or 12 parking spaces, which meets with the residential parking requirement under the Delta Zoning Bylaw; and Zero parking stalls for visitors and commercial. The applicant proposes to contribute cash-in-lieu of $3,200 per parking space to Delta s parking off-site reserve fund in-lieu of providing the required 10 commercial parking spaces on site. The site is located within the LV1 Ladner Village Development Permit area. The objective of the Development Permit area is to encourage the formation of a livable village and a desirable commercial and residential mix. A Development Permit for form and character is required for the proposed development. Staff noted that the proposed application was reviewed and approved by the Community Planning Advisory Committee on August 6, 2015. However, the Community Planning Advisory Committee expressed concern about the proposed 6 m driveway aisle Advisory Design Panel Page 7
width and lack of provision of secured bicycle for parking or residential units. The applicant confirmed a 7 m driveway aisle is proposed and the revised design meets with Delta Zoning Bylaw requirement. In addition, bicycle rack on the street is proposed. Additional staff comments were provided in the memorandum dated August 19, 2015. Staff noted that the applicant worked with staff extensively throughout the application process to this point. In response to the Panel s question, staff advised that the subject property is currently zoned as C1-L Core Commercial and it does not permit residential as a principal use; the proposed development proposes a residential area that exceeds the commercial area, thus rezoning of the subject property is required. Staff also advised that it is not uncommon for applicants to contribute to the off-site reserve fund in-lieu of providing parking. There are three parking lots in Ladner and the fund is used for providing more parking spaces. Mr. Donald Andrew provided an introduction of the proposed application noting his intent to collaborate with the Panel. The subject property is located at the heart of Ladner Village; it is surrounded by old two-storey buildings. The current state of the building is decrepit and not a heritage building. It was likely built in the 1950 s or 1960 s. Some of the highlights for the proposed development are listed as follows: 1. To establish a two-storey front style building with a half-storey above which would be blended into the roof and setback. 2. To establish a retail frontage along 48 Avenue, which is pushed back to expand the sidewalk and install overhangs over the retail units, 3. Three retail units are proposed with entry from 48 Avenue. Access from 48 Avenue to the residential entry lobby, into the parking garage and out to the lane is also proposed. The retail units have access to the parking primarily for garbage disposal, which is separated from residential garbage disposal area. Commercial and residential recycling is located at an open area with fencing. Bicycle storage could also be provided in the parking area. 4. For the upper floors, there is enclosed stairs for accessing the semi-public and semi- private courtyard. 5. Each unit has a private patio, wooden screens and hedges. 6. The residential units are about 1,000 ft 2 each with two bedrooms; the second bedroom is located near the front door and can be used for office space because it is accessible to the front door without accessing to the entire unit. Master bedrooms are located at the second floor with larger balconies. 7. The proposed lot is a standard 66 ft wide standard Ladner lot. Commercial retail units can be broken into smaller narrower Advisory Design Panel Page 8
spaces as needed. Variation is provided at the front by recessing the building with small juliette balconies and adding bay windows at the second floor level. 8. The design team has proposed to use heritage colour schemes and use panel materials instead of sidings. Staff had commented on the use plank siding instead of panel products and use brighter colours for canopies. In response to a Panel s question, Mr. Andrew confirmed that the green panel is extended to the ground of the building. The building modulates within 3 ft to add variation. Mr. Josh Bernsen gave an overview of the landscape plan. Due to the limitations of the first floor in providing landscaping, the design proposed to install three bike parking stalls in front of the retail, sitting benches and planting in the lane. For the courtyard, the challenge is to achieve privacy for each unit and a public space at the center of the courtyard. The privacy between the units is achieved by wood screens, hedges with seasonal colours. The paving for public area is done by 12 x 12 slab pavers and delineated a by 6 concrete band; 18 x 18 slab pavers for the private patio space. In response to the Panel s question, Mr. Bernsen confirmed that Juncus effusus, Carex buchananii and Common Crus and benches are proposed in the courtyard area to fulfill the Green Grown Index requirement. In response to the Panel s comment in relation to the entry from the street to residential stairwell, Mr. Andrew noted that wider landing and cutting the corner of the retail can be considered. Panel Comments Site Context: Development is conceived to the context and is an improvement to the existing building. Fits in with village scale and massing. Great idea to have the articulation increase for the area. Project should celebrate the residential presence. Site Layout: Site layout is well resolved given the multiple uses and circulation requirements. Loading/unloading, separation of commercial/residential garbage appear to function well. Make residential door more pronounced. Consider opening light to the lower lobby entry space. Consider bedroom as living room. Building Design: Concerns with the two-storey line, might be losing the two storey line across. Consider putting the bedroom facing the courtyard and the living Advisory Design Panel Page 9
space facing 48 Avenue. Consider installing elevators for diverse age-groups. Architectural character and massing area is well resolved and integrates commercial and residential space. Simplify roof at residential portion. Strengthen horizontal parapet along street edge. Support the architectural building vernacular. Unsure as to the need for a pitched roof at the ½ storey level. Top residential floor a bit incongruent from the street side. Reconsider residential articulation of the roof. Exterior Finishes & Colours: Reconsider the roof pitch in order to be coherent with the surrounding historic buildings. Emphasize the residential entry and a bench should be installed. Application to consider using metal roof on residential roof and simplifying ridge line. Suggest applicant use wood siding in areas close to outside amenities areas. Applicant to utilize robust cladding material especially at commercial frontage (ie metal panels, brick, etc). Do not use inexpensive panels in lieu of traditional higher grade panels. Consider a metal roof line to unity the residential component. Landscaping: Applicant to look for areas to add soft landscaping elements where it can work to exchange amenity spaces. Consider another small tree instead of the Vine Maples in the courtyard. Consider an Evergreen Hedge in the Lane planter. Eliminate the bench at the front elevation not required and appears an afterthought move the bench and incorporate at residential entry. Signage: Consider signage areas at each retail/commercial unit may want to provide slightly larger sign band. Other Comments: Provide a drawing of the courtyard because it is a powerful scheme that makes each unit livable. The courtyard becomes a special amenity detailing is important. Advisory Design Panel Page 10
-- Motion Endorsed MOVED By John Hemsworth, SECONDED By Daniel Kim, THAT the Advisory Design Panel recommends APPROVAL of the Official Community Plan Amendment, Rezoning and Development Permit Application at 5062 48 Avenue (Delta Blue Construction Inc.) (LU007414) SUBJECT TO further review by staff of the Advisory Design Panel s comments as noted in the minutes. CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY Delegation Departs 2015 Six-Month Progress Report (B.03) -- Motion Endorsed The delegation departed the meeting at 8:25 p.m. Council Report from Advisory Design Panel Six-Month Progress Report Mr. Hal Owens gave an overview of the Six-Month Progress Report of the Advisory Design Plan. MOVED By John Hemsworth SECONDED By Don Wuori, THAT the Advisory Design Panel endorses the report. CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY Next Meeting Terminate The next meeting is to be rescheduled pending Panel members availabilities. MOVED BY, John Hemsworth SECONDED BY Don Wuori, THAT there being no further business, the meeting terminate. CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY The meeting terminated at 8:29 p.m. Chair Certified Correct: Recording Clerk Advisory Design Panel Page 11