1.

Minutes

It was moved and seconded
That the minutes of the meeting of the Development Permit Panel held on January 29^th, 2003, be adopted.

CARRIED

2.

Development Permit 02-204964
(Report: January 22/03, File No.:  DP 02-204964)   (REDMS No. 938438)

APPLICANT:

Charles Scott

PROPERTY LOCATION:

6340, 6360 and 6380 Cooney Road

INTENT OF PERMIT:

1.

To allow the construction of 19 three-storey townhouses on a site zoned Comprehensive Development District (CD/121); and

2.

To vary the regulations in the Zoning and Development Bylaw to reduce the minimum lot width from 40 m (131.233 ft.) to 39 m (129.953 ft.).

Applicants Comments
 

Mr. Tom Yamamoto, architect for the project, used site plans and photographs to explain the location of the subject site in relation to both the surrounding properties and the types of developments constructed on those properties.  He also used a scale model to explain how (i) the townhouse units would be sited on the property, and (ii) access would be provided.  Mr. Yamamoto added during his review, that the plans had been amended to incorporate a children's playhouse as an amenity.

Staff Comments
 

The Manager, Development Applications, Joe Erceg, advised that the design concept now being considered was as proposed at the time of the rezoning approval for the subject property.  He noted that although density was slightly high, good open space had been provided.  Mr. Erceg added that staff were of the view that the project conformed with the relevant guidelines, and recommended that the permit be issued. 

Panel Discussion
 

Discussion ensued among Panel members and Mr. Yamamoto on various aspects of the proposed development, including the location of the amenity room; the possible use of the recreation room within each unit as an additional bedroom; the direction in which the sales market would be directed (i.e. to young families or to empty nesters); and where strollers could be stored if the intent was to attract young families.

Correspondence
 

None.

Gallery Comments
 

Mr. Roland Hoegler, representing his father, Alois Hoegler of 8951 Spires Road, expressed concern that the developer was seeking a variance to reduce the lot width from 40 metres to 39 metres, when at the time of third reading of the rezoning bylaw, no mention had been made of such a requirement.  Mr. Hoegler also expressed concern about the potential loss of privacy because a number of the townhouse units would face his fathers property, rather than having the backyards abut his fathers backyard. 
 

Also addressed by Mr. Hoegler was the issue of whether properties on Spires Road would have the potential for future development.  He questioned why the Spires Road area had not been redeveloped and suggested that staff should review potential development scenarios for this area to determine if projects more than two stories in height would be permitted.
 

Mr. Hoegler also expressed concern about the manner in which the demolition of the former dwellings on the subject properties had been handled, especially when it was discovered that there had been asbestos in the gyproc, and that a homeless person had been residing in one of the dwellings, and he questioned whether the construction of the townhouse project would be handled in the same way.
 

The Chair, David McLellan, in response to Mr. Hoeglers questions about future redevelopment potential, advised that it was not anticipated that major redevelopment would occur in the Spires Road area, as a decision had been made to endeavour to keep that area intact and to concentrate development west of Cooney Road along major arterial roads. 
 

Discussion then ensued between Mr. McLellan and Mr. Hoegler on the feasibility of developing his fathers property in the future, during which Mr. Hoegler asked for assurance that development potential would exist.  Mr. McLellan noted that the request was beyond the ability of the Panel and that such a decision would lie with Council. 
 

At the request of the Chair, Mr. Yamamoto addressed Mr. Hoeglers concerns about the demolition of the former homes on the subject property, the removal of the asbestos material from the property, and the homeless person who had been residing in one of the dwellings. 
 

At the request of the Chair, Mr. Erceg provided information on the variance request to reduce the minimum lot width from 40 metres to 39 metres and on why this request had not been addressed at the time the rezoning bylaw was approved.  He noted that as a condition of rezoning, there was a requirement to widen Cooney Road, and that at the time of rezoning, it had been anticipated that 40 metres would be available.  Mr. Erceg explained that approval of the variance would not push the development closer to the easterly property line.  He also explained that as part of the Development Permit process, the applicant had been requested to revise his landscaping plan to ensure maximum privacy for the adjoining properties.
 

Reference was made to the proposed right-of-way for a future lane, and the applicant was asked to ensure that the lane right-of-way be clearly marked on any marketing material so that future owners could not complain that they were unaware of the proposed lane.

Panel Decision
 

It was moved and seconded

That a Development Permit be issued for a development at 6340, 6360 and 6380 Cooney Road that would:
 

1.

Allow the construction of 19 three-storey townhouses on a site zoned Comprehensive Development District (CD/121); and

2.

Vary the regulations in the Zoning and Development Bylaw to reduce the minimum lot width from 40 m (131.233 ft.) to 39 m (129.953 ft.).
 

The question the motion was not called, as the Chair indicated his agreement with the comments of Mr. Erceg about the privacy issue.  He also indicated that he was satisfied that the recommended variance did not compromise the design of the site.
 

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

3.

Development Permit 02-221723
(Report: January 24/03; File No.:  DP 02-221723)   (REDMS No. 929955)

APPLICANT:

Husky Oil Marketing

PROPERTY LOCATION:

9060 Bridgeport Road

INTENT OF PERMIT:

To allow a new 324.221 m (3,490 ft) Husky Market gas station with a car wash and small retail store on a reconfigured site and which would vary the provisions of Zoning and Development Bylaw 5300 to reduce the minimum road setback along Garden City Road from 3 m (9.843 ft.) to 1.829 m (6.0 ft.) for two (2) staff parking stalls.

Applicants Comments
 

Mr. Richard Kolodziej, of 3776 Yale Street, Burnaby, representing the applicant, explained that a gas bar with convenience store and a carwash was being proposed for construction.  He noted that landscaping had been proposed around the perimeter of the site, and that a 6 foot high fence would be constructed along the east property line.

Staff Comments
 

Mr. Erceg advised that staff were recommending that the permit be issued.  He noted that staff in the City Law and Engineering Departments were working with the Ministry of Environment to with respect to remediation issues, and he suggested that the application not be forwarded to Council for approval until these issues had been satisfactorily addressed, which should be in approximately two to three weeks.

Panel Discussion
 

The General Manager, Parks, Recreation & Cultural Services, Cathyrn Volkering Carlile, expressed concern that people would walk through the berm to access the corner of Sea Island Way and Garden City Road, and she suggested that that issue should be taken into consideration.  In response, Mr. Kolodziej indicated that adjustments may be required to the berm once the project had been completed and the gas station was open for business. 

Correspondence

None.

Gallery Comments

None.

Panel Decision
 

It was moved and seconded

That a Development Permit be issued for 9060 Bridgeport Road on a site zoned Comprehensive Development District (CD/136), which would allow a new 324.221 m (3,490 ft) Husky Market gas station with a car wash and small retail store on a reconfigured site and which would vary the provisions of Zoning and Development Bylaw 5300 to reduce the minimum road setback along Garden City Road from 3 m (9.843 ft.) to 1.829 m (6.0 ft.) for two (2) staff parking stalls, subject to the placement of a note on the plans with regard to the possible future installation of paving stones to accommodate pedestrian traffic through the berm.

CARRIED

4.

General Compliance Request by Riversong Inn Ltd. for a General Compliance Ruling for 3900, 3940, 3960, 3971 and 3980 Bayview Street and 12280 1^st Avenue
(Report: February 6/03;  File No.:  DP 00-180949)   (REDMS No. 957387)
 

APPLICANT:

Riversong Inn Ltd.

PROPERTY LOCATION:

3900, 3940, 3960, 3971 and 3980 Bayview Street and 12280 1^st Avenue

Panel Decision
 

It was moved and seconded

That the plans (attached to the report dated February 6^th, 2003, from the Manager, Development Applications), be considered to be in general compliance with the approved plans for Development Permit DP 00-180949, Bayview Street (Riversong Inn Ltd.).

CARRIED

5.

Adjournment

It was moved and seconded

That the meeting be adjourned at 4:26 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, February 12^th, 2003.

_________________________________

_________________________________

David McLellan
Chair

Fran J. Ashton
Executive Assistant, City Clerks Office