1.

Minutes

It was moved and seconded

That the minutes of the meeting of the Development Permit Panel held on Wednesday, October 29^th, 2003, be adopted.

CARRIED

2.

Development Permit DP 01-192590
(Report: Oct. 15/03 File No.:  DP 01-192590)   (REDMS No. 1073686)

APPLICANT:

Alison Craig

PROPERTY LOCATION:

2480 River Road

INTENT OF PERMIT:

To permit the construction of a single-family residential dwelling on a site zoned Agricultural District (AG1) in an Environmentally Sensitive Area (ESA).

Applicants Comments

Mr. Kent Craig, of 3580 Rosamond Avenue, representing the applicant, advised that he and his wife were proposing to construct a two level, single-family home, over a full garage, on property with Agricultural District 1 zoning, which permitted this type of home.  He added that the surrounding properties were also zoned Agricultural District 1.
 

Mr. Craig advised that he and his wife had first obtained approval for the construction of a home on the subject property in 1995, however, it was not until after the permit process had been completed, that the adjoining neighbour disputed the common property line.  He further stated that as a result, the City Solicitor asked them not to proceed with construction until the property line issue was resolved to ensure that the City was not liable for any encroachment.  Mr. Craig advised that he and his wife agreed to the request on the understanding that they would not be placed in a worse position.  He noted that a number of years have passed and they would now like to proceed with construction of their home.
 

With reference to a statement made in the staff report that the City would like to purchase the property, Mr. Craig advised that discussions had been held with staff on this issue however there have not been any suitable properties available for substitution.  He stated that he and his wife had purchased the subject property because of the unique area.

Staff Comments

Mr. Brian Guzzi, Planner/Landscape Architect, advised that if approved, the application would allow the construction of a 4,700 square foot single family residential home on Agricultural District 1 zoned property located in an environmentally sensitive area.  He stated that although the applicant had removed a majority of the native vegetation as a result of preloading for the building, the applicant had agreed to retain three large fir trees located at the west corner of the property.  Mr. Guzzi noted that the City had supported the purchase of the property for future park development, but it had been determined that this property was not required.  In concluding his comments, Mr. Guzzi advised that staff were in support of the application.

Panel Discussion

In response to a question, advice was given that the subject property was a small triangle shaped lot with frontage on the south side of River Road; that the size of the home would be 4,700 square feet over the garage, and that the area required for the garage was not included in the Floor Area Ration for the living space.

Correspondence

None.

Gallery Comments

None.

Panel Decision

It was moved and seconded

That a Development Permit (DP 01-192590) be issued for 2480 River Road that would permit the construction of a single-family residential dwelling on a site zoned Agricultural District (AG1) in an Environmentally Sensitive Area (ESA).

CARRIED
 

3.

Development Permit DP 03-233901
(Report: October 20/03 File No.:  DP 03-233901)   (REDMS No. 1074553)

APPLICANT:

Sanford Design Group

PROPERTY LOCATION:

8951 and 8971 Bridgeport Road

INTENT OF PERMIT:

1.

To permit the construction of a 289.384 m (3,115 ft) addition to the existing motor vehicle repair shop at 8971 Bridgeport Road; and

2.

To vary the building setback and parking provisions of Zoning and Development Bylaw No. 5300 to permit the following:

a)

Reduce the road setback from 6 m (20 ft.) to 2.438 m (8 ft.) for the front portion of the existing building and the proposed building addition, along Bridgeport Road after the required road dedication;

b)

Reduce the setback for off street parking from 3 m (9.843 ft.) to 1.524 m (5 ft.) for an accessible parking stall along Bridgeport Road; and

c)

Reduce the width of the central drive aisle from 7.5 m (24.606 ft.) to 6.096 m (20 ft.) for vehicle access to the building from the rear of the site.

Applicants Comments

Mr. Michael Barley, Architect, representing the applicant, explained the project through the use of site plans, noting that the proposal was to increase the size of the original building through a small addition to the left side.  He added that the current use of the building (located on Bridgeport Road) was as an automotive repair facility.   Mr. Barley also used the site plans to explain the variances which were being requested, and the new colour scheme being proposed for the entire building.

Staff Comments

Mr. Guzzi advised that the application, if approved, would allow a 3,000 square foot addition to the existing building.  He then spoke about the variances being sought by the applicant, and noted that the character of the building a simple concrete block building, did not contribute significantly to the high profile location, but was of a similar quality to the previously approved building.  Mr. Guzzi further advised that the applicant had agreed to provide a 2 metre road dedication across the Bridgeport Road frontage, and therefore, staff were recommending approval of the application.

Panel Discussion

Reference was made to the variance being sought to reduce the width of the central drive aisle for vehicle access to the building from the rear of the site, and advice was given by Mr. Barley that the driveway was minor in nature to provide secondary access to the site and did not affect the function of the Bridgeport Road entrance.

Correspondence

None.

Gallery Comments

None.

Panel Decision

It was moved and seconded

1.

That a Development Permit (DP 03-233901) be issued for 8951 and 8971 Bridgeport Road that would permit the construction of a 289.384 m (3,115 ft) addition to the existing motor vehicle repair shop at 8971 Bridgeport Road; and

2.

Vary the building setback and parking provisions of Zoning and Development Bylaw No. 5300 to permit the following:

a)

Reduce the road setback from 6 m (20 ft.) to 2.438 m (8 ft.) for the front portion of the existing building and the proposed building addition, along Bridgeport Road after the required road dedication;

b)

Reduce the setback for off street parking from 3 m (9.843 ft.) to 1.524 m (5 ft.) for an accessible parking stall along Bridgeport Road; and

c)

Reduce the width of the central drive aisle from 7.5 m (24.606 ft.) to 6.096 m (20 ft.) for vehicle access to the building from the rear of the site.

CARRIED

4.

Development Permit DP 03-244583
(Report: October 30/03 File No.:  DP 03-244583)   (REDMS No. 1059300, 1086763)

APPLICANT:

J.A.B. Enterprises Ltd.

PROPERTY LOCATION:

7060 Blundell Road

INTENT OF PERMIT:

1.

To allow development of four (4) two-storey townhouse units on one (1) lot containing a total floor area of 740.251 m2 (7,968 ft2); and

2.

To vary the provisions of Zoning and Development Bylaw 5300 to permit the following:

a)

Reduce the minimum lot size width from 30 m (98.425 ft.) to 29.57 m (97.014 ft.).

Applicants Comments

Mr. Amar Sandhu, representing J.A.B. Enterprises Ltd., advised that his proposal had been referred back to staff from Council to address tree retention on the subject property.  He advised that in response to Councils concerns, the size of two of the trees had been increased to a calliper of 15 centimetres.  He noted that problems had arisen with the efforts being taken to save one of the existing trees on the property, as the roots on this particular tree were very long and encroached into the foundations for the townhouse units. 

Staff Comments

The Manager, Development Applications, Joe Erceg, advised that this application had been referred back to staff by Council, and that as a result, the applicant had agreed to retain one tree and upgrade the size of two of the trees to be planted on the property.  He stated that there would be two significant trees removed from the site.  Mr. Erceg stated that the Development Permit Guidelines required that for each tree removed, that two trees of similar size be planted as replacements.  He further stated that although the current proposal was an improvement from the previous submission, the project still did not fall within compliance of the DP Guidelines, and that to achieve compliance, the applicant would need to increase the size of two additional replacement trees.

Panel Discussion

Discussion then ensued among Panel members, staff and the delegation on the matter of the trees.  In response to questions, the following information was provided:
 

the size of the trees being proposed for planting were all smaller than the recommended guideline of 15 centimetres required for replacement of significant trees

with the number of trees being proposed for planting by the applicant, the landscaping costs were increasing now $15,000 for four townhouse units, and would increase even more if two trees were increased to 15 centimetres

the planting of larger trees would limit the amount of yard space for each unit; however if City staff wished Mr. Sandhu to increase the size of the trees and remove others, then he would do so

Mr. Sandhu intended to plant eight trees, even though he felt he was only required to plant four with a calliper of 15 centimetres; however, staff expected him to plant eight trees plus four trees 15 centimetres in diameter

twelve trees in total would be planted on the subject property, and the applicant had agreed to increase the size of two of the trees to meet the guidelines for the replacement of two significant trees which were being removed; to fully comply with the replacement guidelines, the applicant would need to increase the size of two additional trees

there was no formula for the number of trees required for this type of development.

In response to further questions, advice was given the applicant was required to replace the two significant trees being removed from the property with four trees with a minimum calliper of 15 centimetres. 
 

Discussion continued with the applicant advising that he intended to plant twelve trees on the site.  The comment was made during the discussion that staff had not ask for this number of trees to be planted on the property.  In response, Mr. Sandhu stated that if that was the case, he would eliminate the twelve trees from the landscaping plant, and instead, plan four at the appropriate size.  Discussion ensued on this issue among the Panel members, staff and the delegation, as a result of which, Mr. Sandhu agreed to the suggestion that twelve trees be planted on the subject property; with two of the trees having a calliper of 15 centimetres.

Correspondence

None.

Gallery Comments

None.

Panel Decision

It was moved and seconded

That a Development Permit be issued for 7060 Blundell Road on a site zoned Comprehensive Development District (CD/23) which would:

1.

Allow development of four (4) two-storey townhouse units on one (1) lot containing a total floor area of 740.251 m2 (7,968 ft2); and

2.

Vary the provisions of Zoning and Development Bylaw 5300 to permit the following:

a)

Reduce the minimum lot size width from 30 m (98.425 ft.) to 29.57 m (97.014 ft.),

on the understanding that the applicant would plant twelve (12) trees, one of which would be an existing tree on the property, and that two (2) of the new trees would be increased in size to a calliper of 15 centimetres.
 

The question on the motion was not called, as a brief discussion ensued, during which it was noted that the proposed solution would meet the requirements of the City.
 

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

5.

New Business

None.

6.

Date Of Next Meeting:

The next meeting of the Development Permit Panel is scheduled to be held on Wednesday, December 10^th, 2003.

7.

Adjournment

It was moved and seconded

That the meeting be adjourned at 4:02 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, November 12^th, 2003.

_________________________________

_________________________________

Jeff Day
Chair

Fran J. Ashton
Executive Assistant, City Clerks Office