1.

Minutes

It was moved and seconded

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

CARRIED

2.

Development  Permit DP 02-212789
(Report: January 31/03 File No.:  DP 02-212789)   (REDMS No. 933753)

APPLICANT:

Am-Pri Construction Ltd.

PROPERTY LOCATION:

8080 Bennett Road

INTENT OF PERMIT:

1.

To permit the construction of a 38-unit townhouse complex on a property zoned Townhouse & Apartment District (R3); and that would:

2.

Vary the regulations in the Zoning and Development Bylaw to:

a)

permit up to twenty tandem parking spaces; 

b)

reduce the sideyard setback from 6 m to 3 m for five (5) buildings;

c)

reduce the front setback from 6 m to 4 m to allow bay windows and porches to project;

d)

reduce the rear yard setback from 6 m to 4 m to allow balconies and bay windows to project, and

e)

relax the visitor parking requirement from 8 to 6 to allow for more tree-planting.

Applicants Comments

Mr. Tom Yamamoto, architect for the project, with the aid of a model, context plan, elevations and a site plan, explained that some minor modifications had been made to the original submission.  Noting that the subject property was the last undeveloped lot in the immediate area, Mr. Yamamoto reviewed the surrounding properties and the types of development on those properties. 

Mr. Yamamoto also reviewed the proposed public right of passage right-of-way along the eastern property line; the relocation of the amenity building and open area to allow the creation of one large open area in the centre of the project; the elimination of one unit along Bennett Road to allow passage through to the open area; and, the split of buildings on the south edge in order to reduce massing.  Also reviewed by Mr. Yamamoto were the changes to Unit E, to accommodate the concerns of the neighbour, and the requested variances.

Staff Comments

Mr. Holger Burke, Development Co-ordinator, gave advice that the report had indicated that the rezoning of the subject property was to be approved by Council on February 24, 2003, however, the rezoning application was scheduled for the March 10^th, 2003 Council meeting.

In addition, Mr. Burke said that the project offered positive elements in its provision of indoor amenity space, the public walkway, the frontage improvements to No. 3 Road, the number of existing mature trees retained, and, a contribution to the Affordable Housing Fund.

Mr. Burke reviewed the concerns, around the setback variance, of the adjacent neighbour on the south east corner, Mr. Barclay, and said that Unit E would be a 2 storey unit with a 4.5 metre setback.  While the possibility existed to pull the building back to 6m Mr. Burke expressed concern about the additional notice that would be required if the rear yard setback was reduced for building area. 

In regard to the request for a relaxation to the number of visitor parking stalls required, Mr. Burke said that the suggestion had originated from staff in order to allow the provision of more landscaping.

The recommendation of staff was that the Development Permit be issued.

A discussion then ensued among the Panel, staff and Mr. Yamamoto, on various aspects of the proposed development, including the maintenance and standard of the public right-of-way; whether Mr. Barclay had been informed of the modifications; the applicants preference for extra parking or the retention of trees; the building setbacks for the adjacent property to the east; and, the number of parking stalls per unit.

Correspondence

Mr. D. Barclay, #108-8120 Bennett Road Schedule 1.

K.M. Stonoyev 8120 Bennett Road Schedules 2 and 3.

Gallery Comments

Mr. Barclay, 108-8120 Bennett Road, said that he was aware of the modifications that had been made but that he still was concerned about the location of the pathway and a reduction to the 6m required setback.  It was Mr. Barclays hope that the cedar hedge, (preferably pyramidalis) be located between the path and the property line.  Mr. Barclay also expressed concern about the requested reduction to visitor parking, and also the use of tandem parking.  In response to a question from the Chair, Mr. Barclay emphasised that he did not want his privacy compromised; and that his preference would be for Unit E to be a 2 storey unit.

Panel Discussion

Mr. Day said that he would prefer that the pathway be brought to the west side of the existing tree in the south east corner to lessen the impact on the neighbouring property.  Mr. Day also expressed concern about the proposed reduction to visitor parking in light of Councils recent input on the lack of parking in the area.

In response to a question from Mr. Kirk regarding the possible paving of the public pathway, Mr. Burke said that the provision of a new hedge along the eastern property line would pull the pathway closer to the existing tree which could be problematic in the event the pathway was paved as asphalt could affect the roots of the tree.

The Chair, Mr. McLellan, said that he would prefer to see as much of the pathway paved as possible.  Mr. McLellan agreed that pulling the pathway to the west side of the existing tree was preferable.  In addition, Mr. McLellan said that he favoured a 4.5m setback with a 2 storey building, as opposed to retaining a 6m setback with a 3 storey building; and that the number of visitor parking stalls should remain at 8 due to the project being amenable to young families and the resulting need for adequate visitor parking.

Mr. McLellan said that it was not necessary for the project to be re-submitted to the Development Permit Panel as staff could address the submission of revised drawings that accommodated the suggestions of the Panel with the applicant.

Panel Decision

It was moved and seconded

That a Development Permit be issued for 8080 Bennett Road that would:

1.

Permit the construction of a 38-unit townhouse complex on a property zoned Townhouse & Apartment District (R3); and that would:

2.

Vary the regulations in the Zoning and Development Bylaw to:

a)

permit up to twenty tandem parking spaces;

b)

reduce the sideyard setback from 6 m to 3 m for five (5) buildings;

c)

reduce the front setback from 6 m to 4 m to allow bay windows and porches to project;

d)

reduce the rear yard setback from 6 m to 4 m to allow balconies and bay windows to project, and

e)

relax the visitor parking requirement from 8 to 6 to allow for more tree-planting.

Prior to the question being called a request was made that each item of the recommendation be dealt with separately.

The question on item 1 was then called and it was CARRIED.

The question on Item 2(a) was called and it was CARRIED.

The question on Item 2(b) was called and it was CARRIED.

The question on Item 2(c) was called and it was CARRIED.

The question on Item 2(d) was called and it was CARRIED.

The question on Item 2(e) was called and it was DEFEATED with Mr. McLellan and Mr. Day opposed.

3.

Adjournment

It was moved and seconded

That the meeting be adjourned at 4:06 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 26, 2003.

_________________________________

_________________________________

David McLellan
Chair

Deborah MacLennan
Administrative Assistant