1.

Minutes

It was moved and seconded

That the minutes of the meeting of the Development Permit Panel held on Wednesday, November 12, 2003, be adopted.

CARRIED

2.

DEVELOPMENT PERMIT  DP 03-233036
(Report: November 19/03  File No.:  DP 03-233036)   (REDMS No. 1031934)

APPLICANT:

Dava Developments Ltd.

PROPERTY LOCATION:

7060 Bridge Street

INTENT OF PERMIT:

1.

To allow the development of 22 two-storey townhouses on a site zoned Townhouse District (R2); and

2.

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

a)

reduce the side yard setback from 3m to 0 for a garbage/recycling/mail enclosure; and to 1.55 m (5 ft.) for one (1) building on the south boundary, one building on the west boundary  and two (2) buildings on the north boundary, and to

b)

allow one car to be parked in tandem.

Applicants Comments

Mr. David Chung, representative of Dava Developments, and Mr. Tom Yamamoto, architect, were present.

Mr. Chung provided an explanation of the tree removal that had taken place on the site.  It was noted that an average of 4 5 ft. of peat had had to be removed from the site prior to the preload being installed, and that this process had caused the removal of all the shrubbery and trees with the exception of those on the periphery of the site.  Mr. Chung indicated that a tree survey had been undertaken at the outset of the project. 

Mr. Chung then spoke about the design that had resulted from the application of the design guidelines through the rezoning process, and which had received the support of Council and area residents.  However, two existing trees had been found to be problematic to that design, and as a result an indication had been given that the design should be modified to incorporate the two trees.  Mr. Chung questioned what should take precedence in a situation such as this, the design guidelines, the requests of staff, or,the requests of area residents etc. 

Mr. Chung expressed his concern that the report was not indicative of the actual circumstances of the site, which included the 4 ft. grade level difference to No. 4 Road, the preload and peat situation, and the requests of the neighbourhood.  In addition, Mr. Chung said that the two trees in question had not been in good health.

Mr. Tom Yamamoto, with the aid of a model, site plans and an artists rendering, then spoke about the considerable time that had been spent on building issues such as clustering, the provision of open spaces along the drive aisle, and the location of the play area.  Mr. Yamamoto noted the link to the walkway to the south, and identified the location of two future access points.  The requested variances were reviewed, and the efforts to protect the existing trees on the adjacent property on the southeast corner were identified. 

A photograph was provided of an example of the centre drive aisle option of two concrete tire strips with planting in between, which the applicant indicated was not favoured.  Mr. Yamamoto also reviewed the privacy conditions, and, in response to the concerns of the neighbour to the south, indicated that the structures for the garbage recycling areas would be kept under 6 ft. in height.

Staff Comments

The Manager, Development Applications, Joe Erceg, gave advice that the rezoning had recently been adopted and that the design before the Panel was indicative of the commitments made by the developer at the Public Hearing on the matter in response to the concerns of the area residents, which had pertained to the arrangement of buildings and the location of amenity areas.  It was Mr. Ercegs opinion that a redesign of the project would have been at the expense of those commitments.  Noting that a significant Horsechestnut tree had been retained, Mr. Erceg said that the applicant had agreed to the usual replacement ratio of replacing trees, and that the project now met the Official Community Plan requirements.  Mr. Erceg then spoke about the setback requirements of a CD zone, which was used for similar type projects and for which a 5 or 6 setback would be acceptable.

Correspondence

Ms. Cindy Ng, 7080 Bridge Street Schedule 1.

Gallery Comments

None.

Panel Discussion

The discussion that ensued amongst the Panel, staff and the applicants included i) that the project was one of the first developments of its type in the area; ii) that the option of the two paving strips in the centre aisle was not a proven method and that the more conventional asphalt paving was preferred by the applicant; and, iii) that an aerial photograph had been used to reference the probable number of trees that had been removed from the site.

Panel Decision

It was moved and seconded

That a Development Permit be issued for 7060 Bridge Street that would:

1.

Allow the development of 22 two-storey townhouses on a site zoned Townhouse District (R2); and

2.

Vary the regulations in the Zoning and Development Bylaw to :

a)

reduce the side yard setback from 3m to 0 for a garbage/recycling/mail enclosure; and to 1.55 m (5 ft.) for one (1) building on the south boundary, one building on the west boundary  and two (2) buildings on the north boundary, and to

b)

allow one car to be parked in tandem.

CARRIED

3.

GENERAL COMPLIANCE - REQUEST BY PETER FONG FOR A GENERAL COMPLIANCE RULING AT 3591 AND 3611 CHATHAM STREET

(Report: December 1/03 File No.:  DP 02-222274)   (REDMS No. 1099784)

APPLICANT:

Peter Fong

PROPERTY LOCATION:

3591 and 3611 Chatham Street

Applicants Comments

Mr. Kevin Lee, architect, said that the geotechnical report had recommended that the building be setback from adjacent buildings, which had resulted in modifications being made to the design and layout of the proposed development.  In addition, the exterior finish had been changed to hardiplank siding.  A breezeway had also been added to the east and west sides of the building which would improve accessibility. 

Staff Comments

The Manager, Development Applications, Joe Erceg, indicated that staff had no objection to the request.

Correspondence

None.

Gallery Comments

None.

It was moved and seconded

That the attached plans be considered in General Compliance with Development Permit DP 02-222274 for a mixed-use development in Steveston Village at 3591 and 3611 Chatham Street.

CARRIED

4.

DISCUSSION REGARDING THE REQUIREMENT OF 'MODELS' FOR DEVELOPMENT PERMIT APPLICATIONS.

(Report: November 28/03   File No.:  4105-01)   (REDMS No. 1098005)

The Manager, Development Applications, Joe Erceg, said that Why Not? feedback had indicated that the provision of models for all projects was a hardship.  Advice was then given by Mr. Erceg that the current bylaw required that models be provided for all projects unless exempted by the Manager of Development Applications and that at present, projects of 4 townhouses or less received that exemption. 

The Panel members were then asked for their comment on how beneficial models were considered to be to the process.  The comments provided were as follows:

-

the function of models was questioned.  Mr. Erceg responded that the purpose of a model was to allow Council and members of the public to better understand how a project might look and also to provide the context of adjacent conditions.  In addition, Mr. Erceg said that the models were used by architects when presenting their projects, i.e. to the Advisory Design Panel.

-

a model allowed for a better appreciation of the scale of a project, especially in regard to adjacent conditions; 

-

the presentation of colour and form were critical and could be more difficult to grasp if a model were not provided;

-

the presentation of the streetscape was also considered critical;

-

it was considered to be in the best interests of a project to present a model; and,

-

the exemption of smaller projects should remain the responsibility of the Manager, Development Applications.

Mr. Brian Guzzi, Planner, spoke about the loose nature of the guidelines with regard to how models are to be provided, and he also spoke about the different purposes of a massing model and a detailed model.  It was suggested that for purposes of form and character a detailed model was important.  Mr. Guzzi also suggested that the type of model required should be specified at the time an application is made.

In response to the comments provided, Mr. Erceg said that the process of requiring models for all but projects of 4 townhouses or less, would be continued.

5.

Adjournment

It was moved and seconded

That the meeting be adjourned at 4:19 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, December 10^th, 2003.

_________________________________

_________________________________

Jeff Day
Chair

Deborah MacLennan
Administrative Assistant