1.

Minutes

It was moved and seconded

That the minutes of the meeting of the Development Permit Panel held on Wednesday, February 26, 2003, be adopted.

2.

Development Permit 02-213185
(Report: Feb. 20/03  File No.:  DP 02-213185)   (REDMS No. 940564)

APPLICANT:

Whitford Mgt.  Ltd.

PROPERTY LOCATION:

7420 and 7440 Moffatt Road

INTENT OF PERMIT:

1.

To allow the development of 26 townhouse units on a site zoned Townhouse & Apartment District (R3); and that would:

2.

Vary the regulations in the Zoning and Development Bylaw to:

a)

reduce the front yard setback from 6m (19.685 ft.) to 3.55m (11.66 ft.);

b)

reduce the side yard setback from 6m (19.685 ft.) to a minimum of 4.572m (15 ft.) for buildings and 0.685m (2.25 ft.) for a garbage enclosure structure;

c)

reduce the rear yard setback from 6m (19.685 ft.) to 4.87m (16 ft.);

d)

reduce the width of parking drive-aisles from 7.5m (24.606 ft.) to 6.096m (20 ft.) for minor aisles;

e)

allow up to 16 vehicles to be parked in tandem; and

f)

reduce the number of visitor parking spaces from 6 (six) to 4 (four).

Applicants Comments

Mr. Roger Romses, Romses Architects Inc., introduced the members of the project team who were in attendance, Mr. McLean of Whitford Management, and Mr. D. Mitchell, DMG Landscape Architects.

Mr. Romses, with the aid of a site plan, a model, landscape plans and an artists rendering, described the subject site as being long, narrow and enclosed by 3.5 storey condominium buildings, which had restricted the design layout possibilities of the site.  Mr. Romses provided a further description of the site including: that the access from Moffatt Road had been located on the edge of the site so as to allow one cluster of units to front onto Moffatt Road; the internal roadway structure including the attempt to avoid a shotgun approach; the mixture of massing on the site; the retention of trees; the attempt to soften the impact of the centre road and buildings by increasing plantings; the use of trees, plantings and pavers to signal pedestrian crossings; and, the indoor and outdoor amenity spaces.

Mr. Romses said the building design was well articulated to provide vertical and horizontal depth to the buildings in addition to details that softened the impact and provided a comfortable scale to the development.  The proposed colour scheme is soft.  

Several small units of approximately 1,000 sq. ft. have been included, which complemented the provision of modestly priced units that accommodated the needs of young families.

Mr. David Mitchell, DMG Landscape Architects, described the landscape plan as including:  an outdoor space with a sizable patio for each unit; a friendly street frontage; sidewalks on both sides of the internal road; the integration of a large green space with a neighbouring green space; and, a central amenity area adjacent to the amenity building.

Staff Comments

The Development Co-ordinator, Holger Burke, said that staff recommended the issuance of the Development Permit.  Mr. Burke reviewed the requested variances and noted that staff did not consider the variances to be significant.

Mr. Romses and Mr. McLean then responded to several questions of the Panel by providing the information that:  during discussion with representatives of the property to the east it had been recommended that a connection to the existing pathway to the east not be undertaken at this time due to the number of disturbances that take place on the pathway;  the costs associated with the retention of existing trees was considered to be in lieu of a contribution to public art;  and, that the provision of two parking spaces for each unit mitigated the impact of the requested reduction to the number of visitor parking spaces.  Mr. Mitchell added that the provision of parking spaces in the amenity area was more difficult than it would first appear due to the grade at the base of the existing tree.

Mr. Romses indicated that he had no response to the Chairs question of what would prevent the amalgamation of the bonus room area and a portion of the area designated for parking to allow more living area.  He further indicated that the only possible way to provide additional visitor parking would be by invasion of the green space.

Correspondence

None.

Gallery Comments

Ms. G. Svisdahl expressed her concerns regarding the removal of existing trees from the site; the lack of sufficient buffer from the adjacent properties; a current squirrel and rat infestation; and, the lack of sufficient on street parking.  Ms. Svisdahl requested that further consideration be given to the request for a reduction to the number of visitor parking spaces required.

Mr. McLean responded to Ms. Svisdahls concerns with the information that i) careful consideration had been given to retaining as many trees as was possible; and, ii) that the overload on on-street parking was created by a lack of sufficient resident parking and not a lack of visitor parking.

Panel Decision

It was moved and seconded

That a Development Permit be issued for a property at 7420 and 7440 Moffatt Road, that would:

1.

Allow the development of 26 townhouse units on a site zoned Townhouse & Apartment District (R3); and that would:

2.

Vary the regulations in the Zoning and Development Bylaw to:

a)

reduce the front yard setback from 6m (19.685 ft.) to 3.55m (11.66 ft.);

b)

reduce the side yard setback from 6m (19.685 ft.) to a minimum of 4.572m (15 ft.) for buildings and 0.685m (2.25 ft.) for a garbage enclosure structure;

c)

reduce the rear yard setback from 6m (19.685 ft.) to 4.87m (16 ft.);

d)

reduce the width of parking drive-aisles from 7.5m (24.606 ft.) to 6.096m (20 ft.) for minor aisles;

e)

allow up to 16 vehicles to be parked in tandem.

Prior to the question being called Mr. Kirk said that he was aware of the parking issues of Moffatt Road.  The Chair, Mr. McLellan, concurred that the parking problems were caused by residents parking on the street and suggested that the installation of parking meters on Moffatt Road could alleviate the situation.  After noting the excellent site planning and the good retention of trees, Mr. McLellan also suggested that the addition of two visitor parking stalls, while preserving the green space, was desired, and he asked staff to review with the applicant options of achieving this, i.e. the shortening of one garage to provide a covered area.  Mr. McLellan asked staff to ensure that the revisions that accommodated the decision of the Panel were made.

The question on the motion was then called and it was CARRIED.

3.

Development Variance Permit DV 02-218068
(Report: February 12/03 File No.:  DV 02-218068)   (REDMS No. 885146)

APPLICANT:

S.K.M.B. Harchand Construction Ltd.

PROPERTY LOCATION:

5440 Francis Road

INTENT OF PERMIT:

To vary the minimum frontage and width requirement for a site zoned Single-Family Housing District, Subdivision Area C (R1/C) from 13.5 m (44.291 ft.) to 13.475 m (44.209 ft.) in order to accommodate a two (2) lot residential subdivision.

Applicants Comments

The applicant was present to answer questions.

Staff Comments

Mr. Holger Burke, Development Co-ordinator, noted the minor nature of the requested variance.

Correspondence

None.

Gallery Comments

None.

Panel Discussion

The Chair gave advice that several other approvals had been granted under similar circumstances.

Panel Decision

It was moved and seconded

That a Development Variance Permit be issued for 5440 Francis Road that would vary the minimum frontage and width requirement for a site zoned Single-Family Housing District, Subdivision Area C (R1/C) from 13.5 m (44.291 ft.) to 13.475 m (44.209 ft.) in order to accommodate a two (2) lot residential subdivision.

CARRIED

4.

Development Variance Permit DV 03-223181
(Report: February 13/03 File No.:  DV 03-223181)   (REDMS No. 959397)

APPLICANT:

Progressive Construction Ltd.

PROPERTY LOCATION:

12440 Trites Road

INTENT OF PERMIT:

To vary the minimum road right-of-way width for a local residential roadway in Subdivision Bylaw No. 6530 from 17 m (55.774 ft.) to 15 m (49.213 ft.) and 15.5 m (50.853 ft.) for two (2) proposed new roads servicing a proposed 29-lot single-family residential subdivision.

Applicants Comments

Ms. Alison Davies, Progressive Construction, was present to review the requested variances.  Ms. Davies explained that the pavement width of both roads would remain at the 8.5m standard, but that a sidewalk would be provided on one side of each road only. 

Staff Comments

Mr. Holger Burke, Development Co-ordinator, said that the application was similar to one approved for the property immediately to the north of the subject property.  Mr. Burke also noted that the concerns raised in the two letters received on the matter were in response to a belief that the road reduction would take place on Trites and Andrews Roads, which would not be the case.

Correspondence

A. Kemmerzell White & Stephen White, 416 5600 Andrews Road Schedule 1.

U. Rieger, 204-5700 Andrews Road Schedule 2.

Gallery Comments

None.

Panel Discussion

The variances as requested were considered appropriate.

Panel Decision

It was moved and seconded

That a Development Variance Permit be issued that would vary the minimum road right-of-way width for a local residential roadway in Subdivision Bylaw No. 6530 from 17 m (55.774 ft.) to 15 m (49.213 ft.) and 15.5 m (50.853 ft.) for two (2) proposed new roads servicing a proposed 29-lot single-family residential subdivision at 12440 Trites Road.

CARRIED

5.

Adjournment

It was moved and seconded

That the meeting be adjourned at 4:05 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, March 12, 2003.

_________________________________

_________________________________

David McLellan
Chair

Deborah MacLennan
Administrative Assistant