1.

Minutes

It was moved and seconded

That the minutes of the meeting of the Development Permit Panel held on June 11^th, 2008, be adopted.

CARRIED

2.

Development Permit 06-352004
(Report: June 5, 2008 File No.:  DP 06-352004)   (REDMS No. 2460885, 2274382, 2312986, 2471187)

APPLICANT:

Andrew Cheung Architects Inc.

PROPERTY LOCATION:

3900 Moncton Street

INTENT OF PERMIT:

1.

Permit the construction of a two-storey mixed-use development at 3900 Moncton Street on a site zoned “Steveston Commercial (Two-Storey) District (C4)”; and

2.

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

a)

Increase maximum building height from 9 m to maximum10.06 m for false front parapets;

b)

Reduce the minimum parking setback from 1.5 m to 0.45 m to the south property line and from 3 m to 1 m to the lane;

c)

Permit 30% of off-street parking spaces to be for small cars (7 of 24 total parking spaces); and

d)

Reduce the minimum number of off-street parking spaces from 29 to 27 spaces (24 parking spaces provided).

Applicant’s Comments

Andrew Cheung, applicant, focussed on the issues which had been raised at the May 26^th, 2008 Council Meeting.  Using display boards, he reviewed the previous proposal and explained the changes which had been made to the design of the building.  Mr. Cheung advised that the building setback from the property line had been addressed by moving the building up to the property line to create a continuous line along the commercial storefronts.  He stated that as a result, there had been a small increase to the ground floor commercial area with the exception of the corner unit where it was necessary to achieve a 12 foot setback for the ground floor. 

Mr. Cheung further advised that as a result of change in building setbacks to the property line, the size of the garbage and bicycle areas had been increased, and the second floor had also been expanded to the property line.  He indicated that there were no other changes with respect to parking, other than the fact that the increase in the ground floor commercial area had resulted in one additional required commercial parking space, which he advised could not be accommodated onsite.  Mr. Cheung stated that he would instead be making a cash-in-lieu payment to the City

A brief discussion ensued between the Chair and the applicant on the configuration of the proposed design as it compared to the previous building design, during which it was noted that a small cut had been provided at the corner.

In concluding the presentation, the Chair thanked Mr. Cheung for his cooperation in addressing the issues raised by City Council.

Staff Comments

The Director of Development, Brian Jackson, advised that staff were recommending approval of the issuance of the Permit and the variances being sought by the applicant.  Reference was made to the first of two letters which had been received, and in response to the concerns expressed about parking, advice was given that the applicant had provided as much parking as possible on the subject property and would be providing cash-in-lieu for the space which could not be accommodated on the property.  He added that a co-op car would also be provided. 

Reference was made to the second letter received which dealt with building height, and advice was given that only a small portion of the building façade would be at the maximum height of 10.06 meters.

Correspondence

Harold and Gloria Bacon, #407 – 4111 Bayview Street (Schedule 1)

Unidentified resident and property owner in the Steveston area (Schedule 2)

Gallery Comments

None.

Panel Discussion

Reference was made by the Chair to the concerns voiced by City Council about the requirement for corner cuts.  In response, information was provided on the rationale for requiring these cuts.  Further information was provided that as a result of a survey undertaken by Transportation Department staff, a report would be submitted to the Planning Committee identifying those areas in Steveston where corner cuts were still required.  It was noted that the subject property was one of those sites which required a corner cut.

Panel Decision

It was moved and seconded

That a Development Permit be issued which would:

1.

Permit the construction of a two-storey mixed-use development at 3900 Moncton Street on a site zoned “Steveston Commercial (Two-Storey) District (C4)”; and

2.

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

a)

Increase maximum building height from 9 m to maximum10.06 m for false front parapets;

b)

Reduce the minimum parking setback from 1.5 m to 0.45 m to the south property line and from 3 m to 1 m to the lane;

c)

Permit 30% of off-street parking spaces to be for small cars (7 of 24 total parking spaces); and

d)

Reduce the minimum number of off-street parking spaces from 29 to 27 spaces (24 parking spaces provided).

CARRIED

The Chair again thanked the applicant for his cooperation in dealing with the concerns of City Council.

3.

Development Permit 07-377055
(Report: May 22, 2008 File No.:  DP 07-377055)   (REDMS No. 2446261)

APPLICANT:

Matthew Cheng Architect Inc.

PROPERTY LOCATION:

9071 & 9091 Williams Road

INTENT OF PERMIT:

1.

Permit the construction of nine (9) townhouse dwellings at 9071 and 9091 Williams Road 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 6.0 m to 5.00 m for the buildings and to 4.17 m for porch projections;

b)

Increase the maximum lot coverage from 40% to 42.7%; and

c)

Allow tandem parking spaces in three (3) of the nine (9) townhouse units.

Applicant’s Comments

Matthew Cheng, architect and representing the owner, advised that the owner was proposing to construct a nine unit townhouse complex on the subject property.  He noted that the subject property was surrounded by existing single-family homes, and that as a result, the units fronting Williams Road would be restricted to 2 ½ storeys in the middle and taper down on both sides to 2 storey units to match the scale of the buildings on the opposite side of the street.  He added that the units in the rear would be 2 stories in height.  Mr. Cheng also reviewed the proposed building setbacks, during which he noted that a portion of the property would be dedicated for a future lane.  He then used display boards to explain the exterior appearance of the building structures.  

Concern was expressed by the Chair about how similar this project was to other developments designed by Mr. Cheng, and he was questioned about what made this particular project unique.  In response, Mr. Cheng advised that among other things, the colour schedule for this project was different in that instead of using white paint on the trim around the doors and windows, he was proposing to use the colour ‘beige’. 

Landscape Architect Tenille Thompson then reviewed the proposed landscaping for the subject property, explaining that hedging, along with flowering shrubs, would be planted along the front of the property to provide privacy to residents.  As well, an amenity space would be provided which included a sitting area, along with a play area for the children.  Further advice was given that private patios would be provided at the rear of the property, which would be delineated by low fencing and landscaping along the edges to provide privacy for the residents.

In response to questions about the equipment to be included in the children’s play area, advice was given that because of the lack of space, only a teeter-totter could be included.  Further information was provided that permeable pavers would be used in the outdoor amenity area and around the play equipment.

Staff Comments

Mr. Jackson advised that staff were recommending approval of the Permit and the associated variances.

Correspondence

None.

Gallery Comments

Fred Reinarz, 9211 Pinewell Crescent, indicated that he was totally opposed to the proposed development as he felt it was inappropriate for the site.  He also voiced concern about the lack of sufficient parking for the project and suggested that the residents would be parking on nearby streets, as had occurred on other parts of Williams Road.  He also advised that at the present time, the road was blocked by construction vehicles which prevented bicycle access and forced pedestrians to walk around the obstructions.

Mr. Reinarz also expressed concern about the preloading which was taking place and the impact of the vibration on adjacent homes.  He also complained about the hours of operation, noting that work at the property often started early in the morning, and he spoke about the difficulties he had encountered in trying to have this issue addressed.

In response to a question from the Chair regarding the parking issue, advice was given that the project provided two spaces per unit, in addition to two visitor parking spaces.  Confirmation was also given that the parking variance being sought by the applicant was to allow tandem parking spaces in three of the units.

Reference was made to the preload issue, and advice was given by the Chair that that was a civil issue which could not dealt with by the City.  He indicated however that he would ask the owner of the property and the architect to return to the podium to address this issue in greater detail.

Reference was made to the hours of operation on the subject site, and the Chair spoke about the City’s Noise Bylaw and the standard hours of operation which were in place.

At the request of the Chair, the owner of the property, Rick Sian, and Mr. Cheng returned to the podium.  In response to questions, Mr. Sian advised that the preloading which had been undertaken according to geotechnical requirements had been completed on this date.  He stated that because a roller had been used instead of a compactor, there had been no vibration occurring.  The Chair commented however that sometimes damage could still occur on neighbouring properties.

In response to further questions, advice was given that the existing tree on the property would be protected, and that the trees on the surrounding properties would be fenced off and not be disturbed by the pending construction.

Henry Pietraszek, representing his mother who resided on property located east of the proposed development, advised that she was concerned about the noise and vibration caused by the preloading of the property.  He voiced his objection to the statements made by the owner that there had been no vibration, stating that at approximately 7:00 a.m. every morning for the past while, his mother’s home began to shake as a result of the work taking place next door.  Mr. Pietraszek advised that his mother’s life style was being compromised by the vibration and noise, and he indicated that he was happy to hear that the work had been completed.

A brief discussion ensued, during which the Chair suggested that Mr. Pietraszek meet with staff following the meeting to obtain details about the City’s Noise Bylaw with respect to hours of operation and noise levels, as well as the appropriate telephone numbers to call in the event that noise issues should occur in the future.  The Chair commented that vibration was a reality at the time of development, and he suggested that Mr. Pietraszek would be wise to take before and after photographs to document any damage which might occur during construction.  He reiterated that this was a civil matter and that the City would not get involved.

Panel Decision

It was moved and seconded

That a Development Permit be issued which would:

1.

Permit the construction of nine (9) townhouse dwellings at 9071 and 9091 Williams Road 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 6.0 m to 5.00 m for the buildings and to 4.17 m for porch projections;

b)

Increase the maximum lot coverage from 40% to 42.7%; and

c)

Allow tandem parking spaces in three (3) of the nine (9) townhouse units.

CARRIED

4.

Adjournment

It was moved and seconded

That the meeting be adjourned at 4:10 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 25^th, 2008.

_________________________________

_________________________________

Joe Erceg
Chair

Fran J. Ashton
Recording Secretary