1.

Minutes

It was moved and seconded
That the minutes of the meeting of the Development Permit Panel held on Wednesday, March 26^th, 2003, be adopted.

CARRIED

2.

Development Permit 02-215579
(Report: Mar. 26/03; File No.:  DP 02-215579)   (REDMS No. 986641)

APPLICANT:

Ah-Ten Holdings Ltd.

PROPERTY LOCATION:

9180 Hemlock Drive, 9200 Hemlock Drive and 6233 Katsura Street

INTENT OF PERMIT:

1.

To permit the development of a 4-building high-rise residential complex containing approximately 492 units on a property zoned Comprehensive Development District (CD/67); and

2.

To vary the regulations in the Zoning and Development Bylaw to:

a)

allow up to 60 vehicles to be parked in tandem;

b)

reduce the setback from Garden City Road from 10 m (32.808 ft.) to 5.5 m (18 ft.) for a generator room and lockers, and,

c)

vary the regulations in the Zoning and Development Bylaw to increase the maximum building height from 45m (147.638) to 47m (154.2).
 

Applicants Comments
 

The Chair advised that it had been necessary to re-advertise to notify of a variance to the maximum height of the building, and he asked the applicants represent to review those issues which had still been outstanding at the conclusion of the previous meeting on March 26^th, 2003.
 

Mr. Chris Turcotte, of VP Construction, and representing Ah Ten Holdings Ltd., accompanied by Mr. Larry Doyle, of Lawrence Doyle Architect Inc., referred to the concerns of Mr. Edward Ranson, of 9140 Ferndale Road, and advised that Mr. Ranson had forwarded correspondence to the Manager, Development Applications, Joe Erceg, to provide an update on the restoration of his property.  The Chair noted also that copies of correspondence (dated April 15^th, 2003) had been provided to the Panel, in which Mr. Ranson further addressed his concerns about the development now being considered.  It was noted that Mr. Ranson had indicated that the developer is 90% complete regarding the reparation for the damages done during the construction of the first retaining wall.  The staff at Cressey and their sub-contracts has been very helpful and the end result has a very professional look and feel. 
 

Mr. Turcotte then addressed the remaining issues, advising that the variance being requested to the maximum height requirement was needed to accommodate the overhead clearance required for the elevator machine rooms.  He stated that the variance if approved, would result in a maximum building height of 47 metres (2 metres higher than the maximum 45 metres permitted under the City's bylaws).

Staff Comments
 

The Manager, Development Applications, Mr. Joe Erceg, advised that when the application was first considered by the Development Permit Panel on March 26^th, 2003, the request for a variance in the maximum building height had been overlooked.  He explained that if approved, the maximum building height would be 47 metres rather than 45 metres.  Mr. Erceg also noted that the issue of tree removal had been discussed at the previous meeting, and stated that staff had met with the applicant on two occasions that meeting to discuss a number of issues, the first being the need for the applicant to make arrangements with Mr. Ranson and another property owner for the restoration of their properties.  Mr. Erceg advised that staff had been contacted by Mr. Ranson however staff were not aware if arrangements had been made with the other property owner.  He stated that also discussed and reviewed were the proposed landscaping plans to increase the amount of landscaping along the perimeter between Mr. Ransons property and the subject property.  Mr. Erceg advised that the applicant had been requested to submit revised landscaping plans prior to the application being forwarded to Council for approval.
 

Mr. Erceg continued, indicating that the final issue discussed with the applicant was the question of compensation in the neighbourhood for the removal of those trees both from the development site and those which were not located on the property.  He advised that the applicant had indicated that while he was not prepared to provide compensation for the removal of the trees, he was prepared to construct the proposed park earlier rather than later in the construction program.
 

Discussion then ensued among Panel members, staff and the delegation on the tree removal issue, during which Mr. Kirk advised that Council had given clear direction that the issue of the preservation of trees was very important especially in this development.  He agreed that the form of compensation which would be required would have to be resolved even before Council considered the application.  The Chair noted that the applicant had agreed to increase the size but not the number of trees to be planted along Mr. Ransons property.  Questions were raised about the number of trees which had been removed, however, staff indicated that that information was not available.  Mr. Erceg advised that although Plan 5 provided the location of some trees on the site, this drawing also included trees which had since been removed from the Garden City Road site of the property.  He stated, in response to further questions on this matter, that staff could review City records with respect to the previous Development Permit application to determine if that information was available.
 

Questions were raised about what the developer intended to do to compensate for those trees which had been removed from the south perimeter of the park.  In response, Mr. Turcotte advised that the Red Oaks proposed for the south perimeter would be increased in size to 10 cm in calliper or larger if available.  He stated that the trees would be 20 to 25 feet in height when planted.  He added that 12 trees would be retained on the north side of the park.
 

Mr. Turcotte referred to the public park to be located immediately across Katsura Street and stated that the developer was prepared to initiate completion of the park immediately.  He added that subject to the approval of the City's Parks Department, the developer was prepared to become the project manager for the development of the park.
 

With reference to the questions about the number of trees which had been on the property, Mr. Turcotte advised that a tree survey plan completed in 1977 had been submitted with the application which showed the exact location of a majority of the trees.  He indicated the original and current proposals had identified those trees which were to have been retained, however, due to changes in the Garden City Road boulevard treatment, the trees were removed.

Correspondence
 

Edward and June Ransen, 9140 Ferndale Road (Schedule 1)

Gallery Comments
 

None.

Panel Discussion
 

A brief discussion ensued among Panel members on the proposal, during which Mr. Kirk stated that while he appreciated that the original application had been approved four years ago, Council was now very sensitive about tree issues.

Panel Decision
 

It was moved and seconded

That the application for Development Permit (DP 92-215579), for property at 9180 Hemlock Drive, 9200 Hemlock Drive and 6233 Katsura Street, be referred to the meeting of the Development Permit Panel scheduled for 3:30 p.m., on Wednesday, April 30^th, 2003, in the Council Chambers, and that staff:
 

(1)

review all available records to determine the number of trees which had been in existence on the property; and
 

(2)

investigate applicable compensation for the removal of the trees.

CARRIED

3.

Development Permit 02-218226
(Report: March 26/03 File No.:  DP 02-218226)   (REDMS No. 981345)

APPLICANT:

Jema Properties Consulting Ltd.

PROPERTY LOCATION:

7531 Moffatt Road

INTENT OF PERMIT:

1.

To permit the development of six (6) townhouse units on a site zoned Comprehensive Development District (CD/127); and,

2.

To vary the regulations in the Zoning and Development Bylaw:  

a)

to reduce the number of visitor parking spaces from two (2) to one (1); and

b)

to reduce the public road setback from 6 m (19.85 ft.) to 0.3 m (0.98 ft.) for a stair and entry trellis.

Applicants Comments
 

Ms. Olga Ilich, representing Jema Properties Consulting Ltd., and Mr. Wayne Fougere, of Fougere Architecture Inc., were present to respond to questions from the Panel.
 

Mr. Fourgere advised that the infill project consisted of six townhouse units with a floor area ratio of .78 and 40% site coverage.  He stated that the developer had endeavoured to retain as many existing trees on the site as possible; that a pathway would be constructed on the south side of the property; while garages for the six units would be located on the north side, with individual entries to each of the units.  Mr. Fourgere noted that the garages were sufficiently wide to accommodate two vehicles, except for one end unit which had been designed to be adaptable for accessible use.  He stated that the staircase in this unit would be wide enough to accommodate a stair glide, and that in lieu of a second vehicle stall in the garage, a ground level floor entry had been designed.

Staff Comments
 

Mr. Erceg advised that staff supported the project, as the variances being requested were considered to be minor in nature.  He stated that staff recommended that the project be approved.
 

Questions were raised by the Panel regarding the elimination of one visitor parking stall and whether there would be sufficient parking in the area to accommodate this additional stall.  In response, Mr. Erceg advised that on-street parking was available, and that when staff reviewed the project, staff were of the opinion that a requirement to include a second visitor parking stall on-site would have a negative impact on the project landscaping.
 

Further discussion ensued on the issue of eliminating one visitor parking stall, during which it was noted that although the developer was required to provide nine resident and two visitor parking spaces, the developer was actually providing eleven plus one, as the developer had increased resident parking by reducing the visitor parking.  The comment was made that resident parking should not overflow onto the street.  During the discussion, the developer was applauded for developing one unit with the potential for accessibility in the future.
 

Reference was also made to the location of the proposed trellis adjacent to the street, and questions were raised about whether there had been any incidents with other projects where the trellis had been hit by residents entering or leaving the complex.  Information was provided by Mr. Fourgere that he was not aware of any such incidents.

Correspondence
 

Ronald Ross and Isabel Wong, #40 7611 Moffatt Road (Schedule 2)

Scott Karsen, #109 7591 Moffatt Road (Schedule 3)

Gallery Comments
 

None.

Panel Decision
 

It was moved and seconded

1.

That a Development Permit be issued for a property at 7531 Moffatt Road that would allow the construction of six (6) townhouse units on a site zoned Comprehensive Development District (CD/127); and that would:

2.

Vary the regulations in the Zoning and Development Bylaw to:

a)

reduce the number of visitor parking spaces from two (2) to one (1); and

b)

reduce the public road setback from 6 m (19.85 ft.) to 0.3 m (0.98 ft.) for a stair and entry trellis.

CARRIED

4.

Development Permit DP 02-220699
(Report: March 18/03 File No.:  DP 02-220699)   (REDMS No. 965351)

APPLICANT:

Onni Development Capital Corporation

PROPERTY LOCATION:

12333 English Avenue

INTENT OF PERMIT:

1.

To allow the development of 45 townhouse units containing a total floor area of 6,521.100 m (70,194.83 ft); and,

2.

To vary the provisions of Zoning and Development Bylaw 5300 to permit the following:

a)

increase maximum building height from 12 m (39.370 ft.) to 13.106 m (43.0 ft) for twelve (12) cupolas;

b)

reduce the minimum private outdoor amenity space from 37 m (398.278 ft) to a minimum of 22.559m (242.83 ft) including space less than 3m (9.843 ft.) by 3m (9.843 ft.) for forty-five (45) units; and,

c)

allow tandem parking for 23 units.

The Chair suggested that as this application and the one following (Item 5) were being proposed by the same developer and were very similar, that the comments made for this application also be applied to Item 5.
 

Applicants Comments
 

Mr. John Clark, representing Killick Metz Bowen Rose Architects, accompanied by Mr. David Emri, of Onni Group, advised that the applications now being considered represented another phase in the development of the Imperial Landing site. 
 

Mr. Clark then used site plans and a scale model of the development to explain:  (i) the relationship of the initial phases of construction to the proposed project; (ii) how access would be provided both to the street and the waterfront through the creation of a pathway from the town centre to the water front; (iii) the provision of a separate accesses for recycling and garbage collection and mail pickup; (iv) the location of accessible visitor parking in one area; (v) the location of an amenity building for the use of the residents as well as a fenced children's play area.
 

Mr. Clark further advised that 35% of the townhouse units would have driveway parking, and that a variance being sought would provide tandem parking as it was the intent of the developer to provide as much parking as possible within the proposed width of the development.  With reference to the variance to variance being requested to reduce the minimum private outdoor amenity area dealt specifically with the desire to provide turning lanes and green space.  Mr. Clark noted that Urban Development staff had requested the applicant to review the possibility of setting the buildings back even more, and as a result, the units had been set back with the result that the setback requirements were now at 16 feet approximately.
 

Mr. Clark reported that the site had been sunk and the road lowered as much as possible so that while the roof peaks of the buildings were within height requirements, the proposed cupolas required a height variance.  He referred to the extensive staff requirements for the project, and expressed the hope that that list could be satisfied, and provided information on the steps taken by the developer to address those concerns.  Mr. Clark added that small art projects would be located at certain sites throughout the development, and that the developer was hoping to obtain some of the artefacts which were relevant to the marine history of the area, as well as providing public seating areas.
 

Mr. Clark advised that the building clusters had been redesigned to reflect the comments of the Advisory Design Panel in terms of trying to have historical references which were not in line with the Steveston character.  He added that there four or five units would be designed with accessible features, however there were code issues with respect to the four storey corner units.  Mr. Clark stated that the plans for these specific units were now being reviewed by Building staff and that he was hopeful that an acceptable solution could be found.

Staff Comments
 

Mr. Erceg advised that staff supported the proposed development and appreciated the cooperation of the applicant in dealing with staff concerns.  He noted that the first two variances being sought were common to other projects on the former BC Packers site, and that tandem parking had been used in other developments with success.  Mr. Erceg stated that staff were recommending that the permit be issued.
 

Reference was made to the proposal to lower the internal road, and Mr. Erceg provided information on the rationale for this concept.  Information was also provided, in response to further questions, that the community park would be grassed and that seating would be provided, along with benches for parents to watch their children at play.  Support was given by Ms. Carlile for the provision of a covered play area.

Correspondence
 

None.

Gallery Comments
 

None.

Panel Discussion
 

A brief discussion then ensued between the Panel and the delegation on how public access would be provided through the development to reach the waterfront.

Panel Decision
 

It was moved and seconded

(1)

That a Development Permit be issued for 12333 English Avenue on a site zoned Comprehensive Development District (CD/101), which would allow the development of 45 townhouse units containing a total floor area of 6,521.100 m (70,194.83 ft); and
 

(2)

Vary the provisions of Zoning and Development Bylaw 5300 to permit the following:
 

a)

increase maximum building height from 12 m (39.370 ft.) to 13.106 m (43.0 ft) for twelve (12) cupolas;

b)

reduce the minimum private outdoor amenity space from 37 m (398.278 ft) to a minimum of 22.559m (242.83 ft) including space less than 3m (9.843 ft.) by 3m (9.843 ft.) for forty-five (45) units; and,

c)

allow tandem parking for 23 units.

CARRIED

5.

Development Permit 02-220758
(Report: March 19/03 File No.:  DP 02-220758)   (REDMS No. 965820)

APPLICANT:

Onni Development Capital Corporation

PROPERTY LOCATION:

12300 English Avenue

INTENT OF PERMIT:

1.

To allow the development of eight (8) townhouse units containing a total floor area of 1,186.819 m (12,775.24 ft); and

2.

To vary the provisions of Zoning and Development Bylaw 5300 to permit the following:

a)

increase maximum building height from 12 m (39.370 ft.) to 13.106 m (43.0 ft) for two (2) cupolas;

b)

reduce the minimum private outdoor space per dwelling unit from 37 m (398.278 ft) to a minimum of 24.46m (263.3 ft) including space less than 3m (9.843 ft.) by 3m (9.843 ft.) for eight (8) units; and,

c)

allow tandem parking for four (4) units.

Please see Item 4 of these minutes for discussion pertaining to this application.

Panel Decision
 

It was moved and seconded

(1)

That a Development Permit be issued for 12300 English Avenue on a site zoned Comprehensive Development District (CD/101), which would allow the development of eight (8) townhouse units containing a total floor area of 1,186.819 m (12,775.24 ft); and
 

(2)

Vary the provisions of Zoning and Development Bylaw 5300 to permit the following:

a)

 increase maximum building height from 12 m (39.370 ft.) to 13.106 m (43.0 ft) for two (2) cupolas;

b)

reduce the minimum private outdoor space per dwelling unit from 37 m (398.278 ft) to a minimum of 24.46m (263.3 ft) including space less than 3m (9.843 ft.) by 3m (9.843 ft.) for eight (8) units; and,

c)

allow tandem parking for four (4) units.
 

The question on the motion was not called, as Mr. Clark provided information on (i) access points and the relationship of the site with the surrounding properties; (ii) the location of visitor parking on both ends of the development; (iii) the increase in green space for public use; and (iv) the provision of public artefacts.
 

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

6.

Date Of Next Meeting:       Wednesday, April 30^th, 2003

7.

Adjournment

It was moved and seconded

That the meeting be adjourned at 4:24 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, April 16^th, 2003.

_________________________________

_________________________________

David McLellan
Chair

Fran J. Ashton
Executive Assistant, City Clerks Office