1.

Minutes

It was moved and seconded

That the minutes of the meeting of the Development Permit Panel held on Wednesday, May 11^th, 2005, be adopted.

CARRIED

2.

Development Permit DP 04-287638
(Report: April 18/05 File No.:  DP 04-287638)   (REDMS No. 1477508)

APPLICANT:

Patrick Cotter Architect Inc.

PROPERTY LOCATION:

7171 Steveston Highway (formerly 7051, 7071, 7091, 7131, 7171, 7191 and 7211 Steveston Highway)

INTENT OF PERMIT:

1.

To permit the construction of 50 two-storey, 2 ½-storey and three-storey townhouse units at 7171 Steveston Highway (formerly 7051, 7071, 7091, 7131, 7171, 7191 and 7211 Steveston Highway) on a site zoned Townhouse District (R2 – 0.6); and

2.

To vary the provisions of the Zoning and Development Bylaw No. 5300 to:

a)

reduce the minimum front yard setback from 6 m to 4.7 m; and

b)

permit 12 tandem parking spaces.

Applicant’s Comments

Mr. Patrick Cotter, architect, with the aid of a model, briefly reviewed the issues that had arisen during the rezoning process, and, the mitigation of those issues by way of increased setbacks, tree retention, minimized overlook, and buildings that stepped down to the adjacent single family context.  Mr. Cotter also reviewed the public consultation process that had been undertaken to address the specific individual landscape treatment concerns of the adjacent property owners along the north property line.

Staff Comments

The Director of Development, Raul Allueva, provided a summary of the comments received as a result of the public notification process and the staff review of the project.  Mr. Allueva also mentioned the referral of this item from the May 11, 2005 Development Permit Panel meeting in order to allow for an increased notification area.

The comments received from area residents were summarized and responded to by Mr. Allueva, as follows:

-

one of the reference plans in the original package, A301, contained an upper storey window in a living area.  The plan was re-submitted without the window.

-

parking provisions.  The staff report indicated an oversupply of parking relative to the bylaw requirement.

-

protection of adjacent hedges.  Discussions have been held with immediate property owners which resulted in a commitment made by the application to protect adjacent hedges and existing vegetation where possible.  Also, a certified arborist report was on file.

-

drainage.  Perimeter drainage to contain on-site water is a requirement of the Building Permit.

-

adverse impacts of preloading and construction activities.  The applicant and the developer would fulfill the standard requirements for these activities and a security would be obtained to ensure compliance.

-

tree retention.  The majority of trees that were committed to being retained would be retained, however, a further investigation of the existing trees had identified that there were approximately 6 trees that were previously thought to be retainable that were not retainable.  A significant tree re-planting plan has been committed with approximately one third of those trees being of an increased calliper.

-

general rezoning issues.  The rezoning process, which following the regular Council process, was a matter of public record.

In response to a question from the Chair, Mr. Allueva indicated that the referral of traffic issues in the general area of Kimberley Drive and Bamberton Drive did not preclude the Panel’s consideration of this application as the referral was not directly related to this application.

Mr. Cotter then, in response to direction from the Chair, identified the changes made to the project, subsequent to the public hearing on the matter, in response to the concerns of area residents.

Gallery Comments

Ms. Judith Hutson, 7160 Kimberley Drive, distributed and reviewed material outlining a number of outstanding concerns that she had in regards to the project, and a picture of a photograph depicting the fence and vegetation conditions along her rear property line.  A copy of the submission is attached as Schedule 1 and forms a part of these minutes. 

Mr. Allueva, Mr. Cotter, and Mr. Masa Ito, landscape architect, provided the following in response to questions from the Chair:

-

clarification was given of the location of the 3 storey units.  The 2.5 storey units would have the same roof line as a 2 storey unit, but would contain additional living space in the attic.

-

Unit 7 at the rear is 2.5 storey.

-

the additional removal of existing trees was based on the report of the certified arborist and that staff were in agreement with the removal and re-planting of those trees.  In addition, the Chair noted that: i) a security of $204,000 would be required of the applicant to a) ensure that the development fulfills the expectations and, b) would also act as a maintenance bond on the survival of the new trees planted; and, ii) that a development permit was attached to a property in perpetuity.

-

that extra plantings, in addition to those shown on the landscape plan, would be provided along Ms. Hutson’s property line.

-

that the planting of large trees was not permitted within the sanitary sewer right-of-way along the north property line, however, shrubs were permitted.

-

that the applicant team had met with Ms. Hutson and a number of other residents to discuss customized landscape designs, in addition to which a number of letters had been sent to area residents.

-

the hedge behind Ms. Hutson’s property would be retained.

-

in condensing the project towards the core of the site there was little flexibility in retaining the trees in the centre of the site.  All the trees in this area that have to be removed are as a consequence of the siting of buildings.  Concern was also expressed about the effect of grading on existing trees.  The bulk of the existing tree retention was around the perimeter of the site.

-

the owner was prepared to install new fencing along the north property line at the start of the project.  In addition, protective fencing would be provided for existing trees and shrubs.

-

Ms. Donna Chan, Transportation Engineer, indicated that the traffic survey conducted in the Fall of 2004 on Kimberley Drive and Bamberton Drive had found that the traffic counts were low and well within the expected volume of a local residential road, and that travel speeds were also reasonable, at the level characteristic of a local road, where the 85^th percentile speed is 53 km/h on Bamberton Drive and 47 km/h on Kimberley Drive.  The posted speed is 50 km/h. 

-

the sanitary and storm drain right-of-way along the rear of the property covered municipal utilities.  Large trees were not permitted in the area due to the impact of root systems on those utilities.

-

the bedrooms location along the north wall have windows that faced the side yards – with the exception of 2 units adjacent to the significant tree in the centre of the property that have one window below the sight line.  The north facing building elevations have small feature windows placed high on the wall to address privacy concerns.

-

the 6m setback along the north property line allowed additional and taller tree plantings closer to the building which would also aid privacy issues.

-

the first phase would begin on the eastern portion of the site, taking in the driveway and one building.  City bylaws that mandate construction activities and noise would be in effect during the 18 – 20 month construction period, in addition to which 24 hour security, and boarding and fencing off of the site, would occur.

The Chair referred to the Good Neighbour Brochure that contained tips and suggestions for being a good neighbour during construction and suggested the developer conduct construction activities in accordance with the guide.

Mr. Bob Robertson, 7091 Kimberley Drive, expressed his concerns about parking and traffic, and said that he thought that a traffic study should be undertaken prior to the issuance of the development permit.  Mr. Robertson said that he thought that the issue of shortcutting was skimmed over in the report, and that Kimberley Drive would be used as an access from Gilbert Road, or vehicles would cut through the other side and go around his subdivision, as vehicles could not cross a double solid line to turn directly into the site if travelling east along Steveston Highway.  Mr. Robertson asked what impact this shortcutting would have on Kimberley Drive and Bamberton Drive, and he expressed concern about the safety of young children in the area.  Also expressed were concerns about the amount of dust that would be generated, and, what quality assurance would be in place in terms of the finished product.

The Chair indicated quality assurance was provided through the Development Permit which would be tied to the Title of the land.

In addition to her previous comments, Ms. Chan said that:  i) in addition to the bylaw requirement for on-site parking, parking was available on Gilbert Road between 6 pm and 7 am Monday thru Friday and all day weekends, aside from the bus stop area;  ii) Bylaw 5870 did prohibit a person from parking a vehicle in front of any premises for more than 3 hours between 8am and 6pm unless the premise was the property or residence of the same person.  This bylaw is enforced on a complaint basis through calls either to the City Bylaw Enforcement Office of the RCMP.  Any parking on Bamberton Drive or Kimberley Drive by residents or visitors to the new development was no different from anyone else in the neighbourhood parking on these streets;  iii)  the volume of traffic anticipated from the proposed 50 unit development was relatively low and there were no concerns with the anticipated traffic volume; and iv)  that crossing a double line was permitted under the Motor Vehicle Act when accessing or egressing one’s property.

In response to a question from the Chair, Mr. Allueva said that an additional 10 parking spaces had been provided and that a number of units also contained parking pads in front of the unit.

Mr. Bob Conklin, 7040 Kimberley Drive, said that a number of his concerns had already been addressed by Ms. Hutson and Mr. Robertson.  He then spoke about his concern that the 5.5m setbacks at two corners, to accommodate projections, that had not been presented to Council, and that two significant trees on the site had been misrepresented.  Mr. Conklin said that one tree, which was actually a Horse Chestnut tree and not a Cottonwood as presented, was being removed due to its being in the way and not because of its health.  Mr. Robertson then asked how high the development would be in relation to the properties to the north, referred to the clarification that some 3 storey units were in fact only 2.5 storey, and asked whether the emergency access lane would be fenced in.  He also noted that more parking would occur on Kimberley Drive than on Bamberton Drive, and that complaints about parking in excess of 3 hours rarely received a response.

In response to questions from the Chair, Mr. Allueva, Mr. Cotter, Mr. Ito and Ms. Chan provided the following:

-

minor modifications to Units 1 and 8 included a single storey projection for fireplaces and were considered acceptable by staff and in conformance with site zoning;

-

the removal of the significant Horsechestnut tree was required due to the additional buffer space that was provided and the resulting lack of flexibility to the siting of the buildings.  The tree was noted to be in fair condition as it was affected by spanworm and 25% leaf loss.

-

the lowest floor elevation would be at the existing road grade.  The grading of the perimeter area would fall to the existing grades around the perimeter.  Drainage would be placed at the perimeter.

-

Bamberton Drive, Steveston Highway and Gilbert Road all have existing sidewalks.

Mrs. Conklin, 7040 Kimberley Drive, a 27 year resident, said that she had called the City on numerous occasions about the parking in front of her house but that no response was received.  Mrs. Conklin also said that she was concerned that the speed of traffic along Steveston Highway would not allow for ease of access to the subject property, and that additional traffic would occur as children would have to be driven to school and because there was not a store within walking distance.  Mrs. Conklin asked what would be done if the traffic concerns did become an issue once the project was built.

The Chair reminded those present that the purpose of the Development Permit Panel meeting was to look at form and character issues, and not rezoning issues.

Ms. Hutson, speaking for the second time, said that a number of significant concerns still existed and she asked that a decision be delayed until such time as accurate plans could be drawn up and one more public consultation meeting could be held with the neighbourhood.  Ms. Hutson thanked the developer for agreeing to install a fence, and complimented the development in spite of her concern that it better integrate with the neighbourhood.

Mr. Cotter said that all of the information was available at his office and that he and his staff would be happy to review that information if an appointment was made to do so.  Mr. Cotter also said that all of the information had been available at City Hall subsequent to the Advisory Design Panel meeting.  Mr. Cotter said that the project had received a fairly positive recommendation from the Advisory Design Panel, and that all of the Panel’s recommendations had been met, including contact with the property owners to the north and individualized landscape treatments. 

Correspondence

Mr. S. Baker and Mrs. D. Baker (2), 10891 Bamberton Drive – Schedule 2

Mr. H. Karlinsky (2), 7511 Manning Court – Schedule 3

Mr. G. Norton, 10911 Bamberton Drive – Schedule 4

Mr. R. Conklin (2), 7040 Kimberley Drive  – Schedule 5

Panel Discussion

Mr. Erceg said that the application had been contentious through the rezoning, and that the rezoning had been adopted by Council.  Further to this, Mr. Erceg said that the Panel, in looking at form and character, had heard that the developer had been sensitive in terms of design, that the form and character guidelines had been made, and, that traffic issues had been addressed.  Mr. Erceg said that this was one of the best designed and highest quality projects seen in some time, and that he supported the project.

Mr. Kirk noted the limited terms of the Panel’s review of the project in that it was difficult to comment on such issues as traffic.  Mr. Kirk also noted that excess parking had been provided on site.

Mr. Scott said that he felt the proponent had addressed and answered the questions put forth and that he was therefore comfortable in supporting the project.

Panel Decision

It was moved and seconded

That a Development Permit be issued which would:

1.

permit the construction of 50 two-storey, 2 ½-storey and three-storey townhouse units at 7171 Steveston Highway (formerly 7051, 7071, 7091, 7131, 7171, 7191 and 7211 Steveston Highway) on a site zoned Townhouse District (R2 – 0.6); and

2.

vary the provisions of the Zoning and Development Bylaw No. 5300 to:

a)

reduce the minimum front yard setback from 6 m to 4.7 m; and

b)

permit 12 tandem parking spaces.

CARRIED

3.

Development Variance Permit DV 04-274515
(Report: December 15/04 File No.:  DV 04-274515)   (REDMS No. 1367531)

APPLICANT:

Al Rahman Farms

PROPERTY LOCATION:

15460 Westminster Highway

INTENT OF PERMIT:

To increase the maximum required setback from a public road in the Agricultural District (AG1) zone from 50 m (164 ft) to 60 m (197 ft) to accommodate a new single-family dwelling at 15460 Westminster Highway.

Applicant’s Comments

Mr. Steve Palmier, Steve Palmier Architecture, was present on behalf of Al Rahman Farms to request that the application be withdrawn from the agenda.

The Chair asked Mr. Palmier to convey to the applicant that staff were exceptionally busy at this time and that should the application be brought forward in the future, that the applicant be prepared to see the application through.  Mr. Erceg also referred to the additional costs that were incurred by the application.

The item was then withdrawn.

4.

Development Permit DP 05-297562
(Report: April 29/05 File No.:  DP 04-297562)   (REDMS No. 1515387)

APPLICANT:

Sanford Design Group

PROPERTY LOCATION:

5660 Parkwood Way

INTENT OF PERMIT:

1.

To permit the construction of a 2,174 m² (23,402 ft²) car dealership building at 5660 Parkwood Way on a site zoned Automotive Park District (AUP); and

2.

To vary the provisions of the Zoning and Development Bylaw No. 5300 to reduce the minimum public road setback of parking from 3 m to 0.9 m; and side and rear yard setbacks of parking from 1.5 m to 0.9 m to the north and 0 m to the east and south.

Applicant’s Comments

Mr. Dave Sanford, of Sanford Design Group, briefly reviewed the rezoning process and noted that the design was established within the design control documentation of the Automall.

Staff Comments

The Director of Development, Raul Allueva, said that staff were happy with the design, which had undergone a design review by the Automall, and that the application complied with the Official Community Plan Guidelines. 

Correspondence

None

Gallery Comments

None

Panel Discussion

The Chair thanked staff for fast-tracking the application.

Panel Decision

It was moved and seconded

That a Development Permit be issued which would:

1.

permit the construction of a 2,174 m² (23,402 ft²) car dealership building at 5660 Parkwood Way on a site zoned Automotive Park District (AUP); and     

2.

vary the provisions of the Zoning and Development Bylaw No. 5300 to reduce the minimum public road setback of parking from 3 m to 0.9 m; and side and rear yard setbacks of parking from 1.5 m to 0.9 m to the north and 0 m to the east and south.

CARRIED

5.

Adjournment

It was moved and seconded

That the meeting be adjourned at 5:00 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, May 25^th, 2005.

_________________________________

_________________________________

Joe Erceg
Chair

Deborah MacLennan
Administrative Assistant