Time:

3:30 p.m.

Place:

Council Chambers
Richmond City Hall

Present:

Joe Erceg, Chair
Jeff Day, General Manager, Engineering and Public Works
Cathryn Volkering Carlile, General Manager, Parks, Recreation and Cultural Services

The meeting was called to order at 3:30 p.m.

1.

Minutes

It was moved and seconded

That the minutes of the meeting of the Development Permit Panel held on June 14, 2006, be adopted.

CARRIED

2.

Development Permit DP 05-306362
(Report: May 17, 2006 File No.:  DP 05-306362)   (REDMS No. 1681857, 1938169) (Referred from the June 14, 2006 DPP Meeting)

APPLICANT:

G. A Construction Ltd.

PROPERTY LOCATION:

6551 No. 4 Road

INTENT OF PERMIT:

1.

To permit the construction of 12 townhouse units at 6551 No. 4 Road on a site zoned Comprehensive Development District (CD/155); and

2.

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

a)

Reduce the north side yard setback from 3 m to 2m to accomodate portions of the building; and

b)

Reduce the south side yard setback from 3 m to 2 m to accommodate portions of the building.

Applicant’s Comments

Masa Ito, landscape architect, reported that on June 27, 2006, his client Gary Aujla had authorized the 2:1 replacement ratio for planting of trees to replace the trees taken down on the property. He further reported that the applicant was willing to place a hedge along the north side of the property.

Mr. Ito stated that there was no drawing to present to the Panel due to the client agreeing to the conditions only the day before the Development Permit Panel (DPP) meeting.

In response to inquiries from the Chair, he stated that the applicant’s arborist has estimated that there were previously 6 trees on the property based on an archival photo, one of which was dead.  He confirmed that 10 replacement trees would be planted to replace the trees removed from the property.  When asked by the Chair if the arborist report had been discussed and agreed to with staff, Mr. Ito confirmed that the report had been discussed with staff. 

Mr. Ito indicated that they were willing to plant 10 replacement trees at 15 cm dbh.  He stated that they would need to investigate what stock is available and that if there is not sufficient space onsite, that they would need to determine an appropriate cash contribution for the trees that could not be accommodated onsite.

Staff Comments

Jean Lamontagne, Director of Development, reported that staff had received the arborist’s report on June 27, 2006, the day before the DPP meeting and that the report confirmed that 6 trees had been removed from the site, one of which was a dead tree. Mr. Lamontagne added that the replacement trees would be expected to be planted at a ratio of 2 to 1 with minimum 15 cm dbh in compliance with the Official Community Plan, bringing to 10 the total number of replacement trees.

Correspondence

None.

Gallery Comments

Mr. Fred Carron, 9820 Alberta Road, expressed his frustration at the removal of trees from this site and other sites along Alberta Road and stated he had not seen any significant replacement of trees. He stated his unhappiness at the deforestation of the MacLennan area due to densification and development. He asked that the City take an inventory of the remaining existing trees on Alberta Road to decide which should be retained and inform developers before they take the site preparation step. He acknowledged that the City’s new park at the corner of Garden City Road and Alberta Road is attractive, but his fear is that Alberta Road will look quite different if the removal of trees continues. He had no difficulty with removal of trees, but did have difficulty with not replacing them with significant trees. 

Panel Discussion

The Chair expressed his unhappiness with the applicant’s failure to act quickly after the June 14, 2006 DPP meeting and that no revised landscape drawings were available at this meeting for the public or the Panel to review. 

He stated that developers do not need a permit to preload a site, but that the City’s recently adopted tree bylaw stipulates that a permit to remove trees from a site is needed. Council has made it clear that if developers ignore the tree bylaw and remove trees the City will prosecute those developers. Further, there is no reason that an individual or a developer should remove trees before the permit process has been followed.

The Chair stated that there was no serious effort on the part of the developer and that he was disappointed in the applicant’s report, made by Mr. Ito, and hoped that it would not be repeated at the next presentation.   

Panel Decision

It was moved and seconded

That Development Permit DP 05-306362 be deferred to the July 26, 2006 meeting of the Development Permit Panel.

CARRIED

3.

Development Permit 05-304533
(Report: March 7, 2006,  File No.:  DP 05-304533)   (REDMS No. 1704258, 1899095, 1935557, 1894221, 1826979) (Referred from the June 12, 2006 Council Meeting)

APPLICANT:

Am-Pri Construction Ltd.

PROPERTY LOCATION:

7071 Bridge Street

INTENT OF PERMIT:

1.

To permit the construction of 17 townhouse units at 7071 Bridge Street on a site zoned “Comprehensive Development District (CD/35)”; and

2.

To vary the provisions of the Zoning and Development Bylaw No. 5300 to reduce the front yard setback from 6 m to 2.1 m for a recycling enclosure and a garbage enclosure.

Applicant’s Comments

Masa Ito, landscape architect, reported that the applicant is willing to comply and to work with the City arborist to achieve the best outcome for the City and applicant. The applicant has retained a tree removal specialist.

Staff Comments

Jean Lamontagne reported that the applicant has been collaborative in this process and has met with City staff in a timely manner to address Council’s concern. Staff and the City’s arborist have worked together to find a proper solution to replace the removed trees. The applicant has retained Maple Leaf Tree Movers Ltd. (Schedule 1) and charged them with finding three (3) very large coniferous trees. In addition, the applicant has signed an agreement with the City to provide a security for maintenance of the new trees. The replacement trees are not required before a period of six months, so there is confidence on the part of the applicant and the tree experts he has retained, that suitable trees can be found.

Correspondence

None.

Gallery Comments

None.

Panel Discussion

Discussion ensued regarding the difference between a “very large” tree and a “large tree”. In seeking clarification and definition, the Chair asked the representative from Maple Leaf Tree Movers, along with the applicant, to address the Panel. During the discussion the following points were made:

Steve Hill, the contractor, has over 20 years of experience in transplanting trees, and the company has over 40 years of experience;

the damaged trees were 70 feet high;

        t

the security amount for each of the 3 proposed replacement trees is $8,000 and a 45 foot tree would cost this amount;

large trees can be found in the Fraser Valley area and are available for purchase and transplanting;

replanting a mature tree, with a root ball of 12 feet, is a very involved process, but there are a variety of trees that will be able to take root in the space provided at the site;

the trees chosen to be replanted on the site should have a history of transplanting or root pruning; each transplanted tree is different and not all trees will transplant well, but something like a Western red cedar will work and will transplant well;

two years is a reasonable amount of time for a tree to show that it will survive the transplant; if a tree is not thriving it will usually show in the first year and is usually due to the level of maintenance after the transplant;

the tree contractor will provide full maintenance and watering for the transplanted trees at the site for a period of 2 years, and when the irrigation system kicks in, irrigation will take the place of watering;

there will not be much soil settlement if the soil is compacted well; the contractor will remove sand from the transplant site and replace it with top soil, thereby providing the best conditions for vertical settlement;

in Richmond the high water table may affect the root system of a transplanted tree, but Maple Leaf Tree Movers Ltd., a Richmond company, has a success rate of between 90 and 95% in transplanting and maintaining trees.

The key elements of the replacement of the trees arrived at by the Panel and the applicant were: 3 evergreen coniferous trees, each with a minimum height of 35 feet, maintenance after planting to include watering, and no option to proceed with different trees without coming back to the City for specific approval. The applicant is responsible for the transplanting, maintenance and nurturing of the trees. Even if the trees do not transplant, it is the responsibility of the applicant to replace them and to extend the warranty for two years after the replacement trees are planted.  The applicant has to sign a contract. 

Jean Lamontagne added that if these provisions were not followed, and if the transplanted trees did not succeed, the applicant would have to come back and appear before the Development Permit Panel.

Panel Decision

It was moved and seconded

That a Development Permit (DP 05-304533) be issued which would:

1.

Permit the construction of 17 townhouse units at 7071 Bridge Street on a site zoned “Comprehensive Development District (CD/35)”; and

2.

Vary the provisions of the Zoning and Development Bylaw No. 5300 to reduce the front yard setback from 6 m to 2.1 m for a recycling enclosure and a garbage enclosure.

CARRIED

4.

Development Permit DP – 05-292371
(Report: June 1, 2006 File No.:  DP 05-292371)   (REDMS No. 1884647, 1767481)

APPLICANT:

Matthew Cheng Architect Inc.

PROPERTY LOCATION:

9800 Albert Road

INTENT OF PERMIT:

1.

To permit the construction of six (6) townhouse units at 9800 Alberta Road on a site zoned “Comprehensive Development District (CD/155)”.

Applicant’s Comments

Mo Taha, the developer, and Matthew Cheng, architect, addressed the Panel. Mr. Taha reported that the Red Cedar tree in the front yard of the project has been retained and protective tree fencing had been installed. In response to an inquery from the Chair, Mr. Taha stated that any impact to the tree occurred before he became involved with the project and that he had been working with the arborist yo ensure the survival of the tree.  Fill had been removed from the root zone and new topsoil provided.  He remarked that if anything happened to the tree it would be replaced.

Mr. Cheng reported that the project had been lowered by 0.6 m and that the slab elevation and building height had been dropped by 0.3 m each, thereby making the height of the project more compatible with the height of adjacent buildings. The ground floor had been recessed on the west side of the property to allow more opportunity for landscaping. In addition, the building had been pushed back from the driveway. He advised that the roof forms had been articulated and that south facing cantilevered decks had been added to make the project more visually interesting.

In response to a question from the Panel regarding why the slab had not been lowered further, Mr. Taha responded that there might be problems if the project is lowered further. He stated that the slab grade of the project was now approximately 0.2 metres lower than a neighbouring property, and is compatible with the grade of the building to the west. He stated that the project now had a lower roof than the roof of the neighbouring building. 

In response to another inquiry from the Panel Mr. Cheng responded that the back doors had been removed to provide room for landscaping between the garages, but that they had been put back in response to suggestions provided by City staff.

Andrew Moolin, landscape architect, addressed the Panel reporting that landscaping had been changed and that planting opportunities beside the building were minor. More substantial material was located along the west edge including trees.  Although reluctant at first to locate trees in this narrow area, structural soil would be provided under the driveway to support the new trees.  Thirteen new trees had been put on the site, including 5 along the west side. Their size was between 7 and 8 cm dbh because trees of this size seem to withstand transplant shock better than larger trees.

Correspondence

Jean Lamontagne stated that one piece of correspondence had been received (Schedule 2) from Asha Singh, Richard Singh, Prahba Singh and Gurmel Singh living at 9821 Alberta Road, Richmond. Mr. Lamontagne mentioned some of the concerns raised in the letter: traffic problems near the local school, visibility as residents drive in and out, and property values.

He noted that as the landscape plan had been modified, the security would need to be modified as well. 

Staff Comments

Staff confirmed for the Panel that the project fits with the proposed zoning.

Gallery Comments

Mr. Fred Carron, 9820 Alberta Road, stated that one key to development in the City is to harmonize existing housing stock with new developments. There were 12 older properties on the south side of Alberta Road.  This project was the first development and will have an impact on future developments. He expressed his displeasure in this project looking like a big box. He mentioned that the development across the street from the site in question is 3 feet below grade and he die not see why this project cannot be dropped by a minimum of 2 feet so that the rooftop is no higher than the rooftops of adjacent and surrounding buildings. Mr. Carron expressed concern that the rear of his property will be lower than the development, and as a result, special measures are needed to ensure he did not experience drainage problems at the rear of his lot.  He stated that the developer should be complimented for the concerted efforts made to retain the tree at the front of the property.  He shared the developer’s opinion that they had had nothing to do with the damage done to the school property Oak tree.  He felt the cedar looked healthy and should be retained.  He asked the City to take stock of the existing trees along Alberta Road.   He was concerned that 6 cottonwood trees had been removed between the properties to the west.  He complimented the City on the street trees planted along Williams Road, but he did not feel that the trees planted along Alberta Road were appropriate. 

Panel Discussion

The Chair indicated that appropriate security would need to be provided for a replacement tree if it was needed with a warranty for an appropriate period of time.  He stated that there was a stump at the rear of the property and that at least one tree had been removed from the property.

In answer to a Panel question, staff advised that the parking at the site of this project exceeded requirements.

The Chair noted that the size of the proposed trees at 7 to 8 cm dbh was minimal and should be increased to at least 10 cm dbh.   He recommended that the applicant drop the project further; as low as possible, without raising  flood proofing or servicing issues.  The developer agreed to both conditions and to advise staff so that Council can be advised. 

Panel Decision

It was moved and seconded

That a Development Permit be issued which would permit the construction of six (6) townhouse units at 9800 Alberta Road on a site zoned “Comprehensive Development District (CD/155).

CARRIED

5.

Development Permit DP 06 - 327868

APPLICANT:

Jagtar Singh Sihota

PROPERTY LOCATION:

6780 No. 4 Road

INTENT OF PERMIT:

1.

The construction of a local commercial building, consisting of ground floor commercial space and one (1) second floor dwelling unit on a site zoned Local Commercial District (C1).

Applicant’s Comments

Mr. Jagtar Sihota, the applicant, and Mr. Nirbhai Virdi, architect, addressed the Panel.

Mr. Virdi’s presentation included a letter, with two attached drawings, which he distributed to the Panel (Schedule 3). He used the drawings to illustrate the proposed new design which Mr. Virdi said addressed all safety, access and leasing concerns that his client, the applicant, had regarding the project.

Mr. Virdi’s presentation included a letter (Schedule 4) which he read to the Panel. The applicant believed that the location of surface parking at the front of the building would make the site more marketable to prospective tenants. The applicant believed that if the parking was located at the rear of the building, the commercial units would not be leasable, the site would be unsafe for children and women, that there would be issues of crime at the site, and that residents’ lives would be disrupted with undue noise. To illustrate his concerns he used a model of the proposed building.

Staff Comments

Jean Lamontagne stated that a Development Permit had been recently issued for the project in October of 2005. Staff met with Mr. Sihota and Mr. Virdi a few months ago to discuss the project and the parking lot issue. Mr. Lamontagne felt that the issues raised in the applicant’s letter could be dealt with in accordance with the original Development Permit through detailed design.

Correspondence

None.

Gallery Comments

None.

Panel Discussion

The City’s OCP states that a street front should be lively and animated, and for that reason parking lots were being moved to the rear of buildings. Discussion ensued regarding the original design versus the new design as proposed by the applicant’s architect. The Chair stated that the proposed redesign is a very suburban model with a sterile pedestrian environment, and is a model from which the City is moving away. The City’s guidelines had changed to avoid having buildings surrounded by a sea of parked cars.

The Chair stated that the original design was a good one with provisions for landscaping, seating, pedestrian walkways, and bicycle racks made in the original design.   It was felt that some of the elements could be modified to lessen some of the concerns raised by the applicant without moving the building on the site.

Ms. Cathryn Volkering Carlile suggested that an alternative might be to move the residential entry to the Granville Avenue elevation. 

The Chair commented that the applicant’s concerns regarding crime, as well as the concerns about access to the proposed residential units above the commercial units, did not require the building being moved back, and did not justify changing the building’s configuration.

Mr. Jeff Day stated that he could understand the applicant’s concerns but that the City was trying to get away from a sea of parking at every intersection.  It was felt that a different access for the residential entry and strategic location of the residential parking could be found instead of reverting to an older form of development.  There was a concern that approving this older form of development would create an undesirable precedent. 

Panel Decision

It was moved and seconded

That a Development Permit be denied which would permit the construction of a local commercial building, consisting of ground floor commercial space and one (1) second floor dwelling unit, at 6780 No. 4 Road on a site zoned Local Commercial District (C1).

Staff were asked to work with the applicant to explore the possibility of addressing the applicant’s concerns of safety and pedestrian residential access through a General Compliance to the approved Development Permit.

CARRIED

6.

New  Business

1.

Regarding the question of DPP meetings in August, 2006, staff will review which meeting in August can be cancelled.

2.

The Panel raised the issue of landscaping maintenance on properties where a Development Permit has been issued, and staff advised that the City undertakes to check the landscaping maintenance for one year after installation. If it is determined that landscaping maintenance is unsatisfactory, the City can either withhold release of the landscaping security or another action could be taken.  After the maintenance period had passed, the matter would be dealt with through Community Bylaws. 

7.

Adjournment

It was moved and seconded

That the meeting be adjourned at 5:20 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, June 28, 2006.

_________________________________

_________________________________

Joe Erceg
Chair

Sheila Johnston
Committee Clerk