1.

Minutes

It was moved and seconded

That the minutes of the meeting of the Development Permit Panel held on Wednesday, May 12^th, 2004, be adopted.

CARRIED

The Chair advised that the following matters would be added to the agenda as additional items:

(1)

Development Permit 04-009984, for property at 4011 No. 5 Road; and

(2)

General Compliance Request from Ah-Ten Holdings Ltd. for property at 6233 Katsura Street and 9180 Hemlock Drive (DP 02-215579).

2.

Development  Permit DP 03-230077
(Report: May 3/04   File No.:  DP 03-230077)   (REDMS No. 1220915, 1027666)

APPLICANT:

Killeck Metz Bowen Rose Architects and Planners Inc.

PROPERTY LOCATION:

4111 Bayview Street

INTENT OF PERMIT:

1.

To permit a mixed-use development with both commercial retail space and 34 multiple family residential units at the corner of No. 1 Road and Bayview Street on a site zoned Comprehensive Development District (CD/99); and

2.

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

a)

allow a portion of the fourth storey to encroach within 3.2 m (10.5 ft.) of the required 20 m (64.6 ft.) setback (on the fourth floor only) along a property line abutting No. 1 Road.  (The minimum proposed building setback on the fourth storey from No. 1 Road is 16.8 m (55.0 ft.);

b)

allow a portion of the ground floor along the Bayview Street frontage to have a setback of 3.6 m (12 ft.) instead of the minimum required 4.3 m (14.1 ft.);

c)

allow a portion of the veranda on the ground floor along the Bayview Street frontage to have a setback of 2.1 m (7 ft.) instead of the minimum required 3 m (9.8 ft.); and

d)

allow the manoeuvring aisle width in the underground parkade to be reduced from 7.5 m (24.6 ft.) to 6.7 m (22 ft.).

Applicants Comments

Mr. John Clark, representing the applicant, used a model to explain the development to the Panel.  He advised that there were three main issues with the design (i) the provision of access to the waterfront through the complex; (ii) the significance of the corner on which the project would be located, in terms of the existing village and the historical elements which had to be considered, and (iii) pedestrian movement. 
 

Mr. Clark then reviewed the changes which had been made to the proposal, noting that with respect to the provision of public access to the waterfront, the developer was providing a registered easement to connect with the existing City trails; had designed user-friendly access.  He further advised that the design had been altered to allow more sunlight into the complex, and the top floor of the complex had been pushed back from the street line.  As well, an additional easement had been provided to allow pedestrian links from the internal courtyards to No. 1 Road and to Bayview Street; and that efforts had been made to incorporate as much plaza space as possible in front of the building to soften the ground floor fronting No. 1 Road.
 

Mr. Clark stated that the commercial component of the first floor would be constructed to Provincial flood plain requirements, and that additional elements, such as planters, would be added to reduce the amount of exposed concrete on the building on the No. 1 Road frontage.  He then used an elevation plan and photographs to explain the use of exterior materials and lighting to complete the building.  Landscape plans were used to explain the proposed landscaping for the project.
 

Reference was also made to the minor variances being sought, which Mr. Clark advised were needed to offset the extra setback which was being provided along Bayview Street and No. 1 Road.  He further advised that there would be no residential access to the commercial parking area.

Staff Comments

The Director of Development, Raul Allueva, provided information on variances being requested by the developer which dealt with minor setback requirements.  He advised that City staff were supporting the development application.  Mr. Allueva also referred to two conditions listed in the staff report and advised that these had been addressed - a Letter of Credit had been submitted for landscaping, as well as a consolidation plan.

Panel Discussion

In response to questions from the Panel, advice was given by Mr. Clark that the colour scheme of the proposed building would conform to the heritage scheme adopted for the Imperial Landing site.  He further advised that the retaining wall to be erected on No. 1 Road would be constructed of stone Allen block or bricks.

Gallery Comments

Ms. Llen Toy, owner of Seacoast Produce at 12235 No. 1 Road, questioned how many retail stores would be included in the proposed development, and expressed concern about the provision of parking for the complex as it was her view that the proposed underground parking would not be utilized by patrons.
 

In response, advice was given that the parking being provided by the applicant was in excess of the City's Zoning & Development Bylaw requirements.  Further advice was provided by Mr. Clark that the ground floor could accommodate a maximum of six stores however the space could be altered to create larger spaces for fewer tenants, depending on the needs of the tenants.  He added that decisions had not yet been made on the types of tenants which would be occupying the space.  Mr. Clark reassured Ms. Toy that it would be difficult to accommodate a giant type of store as the space available was limited.
 

With reference to the provision of underground parking, advice was given in response to further questions from Ms. Toy, that the area would be open during the day however access would be closed off at night.  He added that the parking area was being designed to be an inviting and well lit space.
 

Ms. Toy then expressed her concern about the negative impact which the addition of the new businesses could have on the village character of Steveston and on existing businesses.  In answer, Mr. Clark indicated that he had found that the introduction of new businesses attracted people to the area who would not normally come, and added that because Steveston was a great place to explore, he was of the opinion that the new development would be an asset to other businesses in the area.
 

In concluding the discussion, the Chair noted that City Council had made a decision to allow a limited amount of retail use on the site at the time of rezoning and that the project was in compliance with the site zoning. 

Panel Discussion

A brief discussion ensued, during which Mr. Allueva advised that there were no variances required to height or setbacks relating to the adjacent building.
 

Correspondence

Kris Meisterman, CRA, Meisterman Appraisals, #270 12420 No. 1 Road (Schedule 1)

Panel Decision

It was moved and seconded

That a Development Permit be issued that would:

1.

permit a mixed-use development with both commercial retail space and 34 multiple family residential units at the corner of No. 1 Road and Bayview Street on a site zoned Comprehensive Development District (CD/99); and

2.

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

a)

allow a portion of the fourth storey to encroach within 3.2 m (10.5 ft.) of the required 20 m (64.6 ft.) setback (on the fourth floor only) along a property line abutting No. 1 Road.  (The minimum proposed building setback on the fourth storey from No. 1 Road is 16.8 m (55.0 ft.);

b)

allow a portion of the ground floor along the Bayview Street frontage to have a setback of 3.6 m (12 ft.) instead of the minimum required 4.3 m (14.1 ft.);

c)

allow a portion of the veranda on the ground floor along the Bayview Street frontage to have a setback of 2.1 m (7 ft.) instead of the minimum required 3 m (9.8 ft.);

d)

allow the manoeuvring aisle width in the underground parkade to be reduced from 7.5 m (24.6 ft.) to 6.7 m (22 ft.).

CARRIED

3.

Development  Permit DP 03-251106
(Report: May 11/04  File No.:  DP 03-251106)   (REDMS No. 1117234, 1117234)

APPLICANT:

Patrick Cotter Architect Inc.

PROPERTY LOCATION:

10200, 10220 and 10222 No. 1 Road

INTENT OF PERMIT:

1.

To permit the construction of eight (8) two-storey townhouse units along the rear property line and eight (8) three-storey townhouse units along No. 1 Road at 10200, 10220 and 10222 No. 1 Road on a site zoned Townhouse District (R2 - 0.6); and

2.

To vary the provisions of the Zoning and Development Bylaw No. 5300 to reduce the minimum required setback to the lane from 3.0 m to:

a)

2.3 m for the southeast unit, and 1.7 m for the electrical closet; and

b)

1.5 m for the southwest unit, 0.6 m for the recycling enclosure, and 0.9 m for the electrical closet respectively.

Applicants Comments

Mr. William Harrison, representing the applicant, used a scale model to explain the 16 unit townhouse development, of which 8 detached units would face the rear property line and 8 attached units would face No. 1 Road.  Further advice was given that access to the units would be provided through a new lane along the south edge of the site and a  common shared driveway; and that the back row of units would match the height of the existing homes behind the site.
 

The landscape plan was also reviewed, during which advice was given that the existing hedge had been retained to provide a buffer between the existing residential development and the new proposal.  It was also noted that the project had been designed to conform to the existing single family character of the area with respect to massing and the use of materials.

Staff Comments

Mr. Allueva advised that he nothing to add.

Correspondence

None.

Gallery Comments

Mr. Ching Li, of 10240 No. 1 Road, expressed concern about the location of the lane adjacent to his home.  He indicated that he would not have purchased his home last September if he had been aware of the proposed development.  He questioned whether (i) the lane could be relocated to the middle of the subject property, and (ii) the proposed fence to separate his home from the proposed development could be erected prior to construction of the project.
 

In response to Mr. Li's questions and concerns, advice was given by Mr. Harrison that the applicant was aware of Mr. Lis concerns about the location of the lane and construction of the fence.  He advised that the consideration had been given to relocating the lane but the result would be a negative impact on the project and that the current location was preferred by City Transportation staff.

Panel Discussion

Discussion ensued among Panel members and Mr. Harrison on the matter of planting landscaping or screening along the fenced property line, during which information was provided that the applicant would: 

(1)

erect the fence prior to commencement of construction; and

(2)

meet with Mr. Li to discuss the provision of a landscape buffer on Mr. Lis property.

Reference was made to the proposed configuration of the lane, and advice was given that a right-of-way had been agreed to along the southern property line to provide development flexibility for properties to the south.
 

In concluding the discussion, the Chair commended the applicant for his effort in developing a project that addressed community concerns which had been raised at the Public Hearing on this matter, and requested that the applicant have a discussion with the neighbour and provide additional landscaping along the fence.  Mr. Harrison was requested to advise the Director of Development of the arrangement made with Mr. Li prior to the application being submitted to the next Council meeting for approval.

Panel Decision

It was moved and seconded

That a Development Permit be issued that would:

1.

permit the construction of eight (8) two-storey townhouse units along the rear property line and eight (8) three-storey townhouse units along No. 1 Road on a site zoned Townhouse District (R2 - 0.6); and

2.

 vary the provisions of the Zoning and Development Bylaw No. 5300 to reduce the minimum required setback to the lane from 3.0 m to:

a)

2.3 m for the southeast unit, and 1.7 m for the electrical closet; and

b)

1.5 m for the southwest unit, 0.6 m for the recycling enclosure, and 0.9 m for the electrical closet respectively.

CARRIED

4.

Development  Permit DP 03-252267
(Report: May 5/2004 File No.:  DP 03-252267)   (REDMS No. 1244474, 1125979)

APPLICANT:

Adera Equities Inc.

PROPERTY LOCATION:

9533 Granville Avenue (formerly on a portion of 9531, 9611 Granville Avenue, all of 9551, 9571 Granville Avenue and a portion of 6611 No. 4 Road)

INTENT OF PERMIT:

To permit 31 three-storey townhouses on a site zoned Comprehensive Development District (CD/142).

Applicants Comments

Mr. Norm Couttie, representing the applicant, advised that the staff report was very thorough; that variances were not being requested as the project was straight forward, and that he did not intend to make a presentation.  In concluding his remarks, Mr. Couttie expressed pleasure at being able to work with the Richmond School District on the proposal.
 

Staff Comments

Mr. Allueva advised that he had nothing further to add.
 

Correspondence

None.

Gallery Comments

None.

Panel Discussion

None.

Panel Decision

It was moved and seconded

That a Development Permit be issued that would permit 31 three-storey townhouses on a site zoned Comprehensive Development District (CD/142).

CARRIED

5.

Development Permit DP 03-252735
(Report: May 3/04 File No.:  DP 03-252735)   (REDMS No. 1220877, 1121334)

APPLICANT:

Am-Pri Construction Ltd.

PROPERTY LOCATION:

9288 Keefer Avenue (formerly 7740, 7760 and 7780 Heather Street)

INTENT OF PERMIT:

1.

To permit 34 three-storey and 2 two-storey townhouses on a site zoned Comprehensive Development District (CD/129); and

2.

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

a)

reduce the road setback to the porch elements along Keefer Avenue from 4 m (13.1 ft.) to 3.5 m (11.5 ft.);

b)

reduce setback to the entry gateway on Keefer Street from the minimum required 2 m (6.6 ft.) to 1 m (3.3 ft.);

c)

reduce the road setback to the chimneys along Keefer Avenue from 4 m (13.1 ft.) to 3.4 m (11.1 ft.);

d)

reduce the setback of the recycling enclosure along Keefer Avenue from 2 m (6.5 ft.) to 0.1 m (.3 ft.);

e)

reduce the east side yard setback for Building 8 from the required 6.0 m (19.7 ft.) to 4.5 m (14.8 ft.);

f)

to reduce the south side yard from the required 6.0 m (19.7 ft.) to 3.3 m (10.8 ft.); and

g)

reduce the setback of the recycling enclosure along Heather Street from 2 m (6.5 ft.) to 1.3 m (4.2 ft.).

Applicants Comments

Mr. Tom Yamamoto, architect for the project, explained the proposed development with the use of a scale model, noting that the 34 three and two storey townhouse units would be constructed around an open space located in the centre of the development.  He further advised that the main access to the complex would be from Keefer Avenue.  Mr. Yamamoto also reviewed the variances being requested to road and side yard setbacks, and addressed the impact of the proposal on the existing neighbourhood.

Staff Comments

Mr. Allueva stated that he had no specific comments, but in reference to the variances being requested by the applicant, advised that the project was generally in compliance with the existing Comprehensive Development District zone and that it had been understood that a number of minor variances would be reviewed as part of the Development Permit application process.  He stated that staff were satisfied that the project now being considered was reasonable in nature.

Correspondence

None.

Gallery Comments

None.

Panel Discussion

A brief discussion ensued, during which Mr. Yamamoto advised, in response to questions that the low fence to be constructed along the frontage of the property in the area of the entry gate, would be constructed of brick and ornamental posts.  He added that a substantial amount of standard playground equipment would be installed in the amenity area.

Panel Decision

It was moved and seconded

That a Development Permit be issued that would:

1.

permit 34 three-storey and 2 two-storey townhouses on a site zoned Comprehensive Development District (CD/129); and

2.

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

a)

reduce the road setback to the porch elements along Keefer Avenue from 4 m (13.1 ft.) to 3.5 m (11.5 ft.);

b)

reduce setback to the entry gateway on Keefer Street from the minimum required 2 m (6.6 ft.) to 1 m (3.3 ft.);

c)

reduce the road setback to the chimneys along Keefer Avenue from 4 m (13.1 ft.) to 3.4 m (11.1 ft.);

d)

reduce the setback of the recycling enclosure along Keefer Avenue from 2 m (6.5 ft.) to 0.1 m (.3 ft.);

e)

reduce the east side yard setback for Building 8 from the required 6.0 m (19.7 ft.) to 4.5 m (14.8 ft.);

f)

to reduce the south side yard from the required 6.0 m (19.7 ft.) to 3.3 m (10.8 ft.); and

g)

reduce the setback of the recycling enclosure along Heather Street from 2 m (6.5 ft.) to 1.3 m (4.2 ft.).

CARRIED

6.

Development Permit 04-009984
(Report: May 19/04 File No.:  04-009984)   (REDMS No. 1281414, 1134620)  (Referred from the May 12^th, 2004 DPP Meeting)

APPLICANT:

Jay Prasad

PROPERTY LOCATION:

4011 No. 5 Road

INTENT OF PERMIT:

1.

To allow development of a one-storey commercial building with a total area of 300 m2 (3,227 ft2); and

2.

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

a)

Reduce the side yard setback from 3 m (9.842 ft.) to 0.91 m (3.0 ft.) for the building wall along the west property line and permit roof overhangs to project a further 0.91 m (3.0 ft) up to the west property line;

b)

Permit small structural columns to project 0.406 m (1.333 ft.) into the required road setback of 0.914 m (3 ft.) along the Cambie Road and No. 5 Road frontages; and

b)

Permit roof overhangs to project 0.914 m (3 ft.) into the required road setbacks up to the existing property line along Cambie Road and No. 5 Road.

Applicants Comments

Mr. Peter Chu, architect for the project and representing the applicant, reported that a meeting was held with the East Richmond Community Association to review revisions to the proposed development, and that the Association supported the revised proposal.  Further advice was given that the concerns of the Panel had been addressed, and that the architect was now proposing a pitched roof with gables and metal louvers to complement the form and character of existing buildings in the neighbourhood.  Mr. Chu added that bicycle racks had been introduced adjacent to the parking area.
 

Staff Comments

Mr. Allueva advised that the result of the improvements to the project design was a need for a variance to reduce the side yard setback along the west property line to allow the roof overhangs to project 0.91 metres into the setback.  In concluding his statements, Mr. Allueva thanked the applicants for their cooperation in meeting with the East Richmond Community Association.

Correspondence

None.

Gallery Comments

None.

Panel Discussion

Panel members congratulated the applicants for the improved building design, indicating that the new proposal was a more appropriate building for the area.

Panel Decision

It was moved and seconded

That a Development Permit be issued for 4011 No. 5 Road on a site zoned Comprehensive Development District (CD/113) which would:

1.

Allow development of a one-storey commercial building with a total area of 300 m2 (3,227 ft2); and

2.

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

a)

Reduce the side yard setback from 3 m (9.842 ft.) to 0.91 m (3.0 ft.) for the building wall along the west property line and permit roof overhangs to project a further 0.91 m (3.0 ft) up to the west property line;

b)

Permit small structural columns to project 0.406 m (1.333 ft.) into the required road setback of 0.914 m (3 ft.) along the Cambie Road and No. 5 Road frontages; and

b)

Permit roof overhangs to project 0.914 m (3 ft.) into the required road setbacks up to the existing property line along Cambie Road and No. 5 Road.

CARRIED
 

7.

GENERAL COMPLIANCE - REQUEST BY AH-TEN HOLDINGS LTD. FOR A GENERAL COMPLIANCE RULING AT 6233 KATSURA STREET AND 9180 HEMLOCK DRIVE
(Report: May 19/04 File No.:  DP 02-215579)   (REDMS No. 1250773)
 

APPLICANT:

Ah-Ten Holdings Ltd.

PROPERTY LOCATION:

6233 Katsura Street and 9180 Hemlock Drive

Staff Comments

Mr. Allueva briefly reviewed the request for general compliance, noting that the request dealt with a compilation of a number of small changes to the existing Development Permit, and included amendments to (i) the existing amenity space to change the amenity area to a guest suite, with the strata retaining ownership of the suite; (ii) internal floor plans and minor adjustments to unit area; (iii) in Phase I, revisions to the amenity area and building on the fourth floor with relate to the addition of an exterior deck and water feature, and (iv) in Phase II, reconfiguration of the amenity area and building on the fourth floor to allow for a swimming pool.

Correspondence

None.

Gallery Comments

None.

Panel Discussion

Panel members commented that the General Compliance items were improvements to the original project.

Panel Decision

It was moved and seconded

That the proposed changes be considered in General Compliance with the approved Development Permit (DP 02-215579) at 6233 Katsura Street and 9180 Hemlock Drive, which generally covers minor revisions to the building faade, amenity areas and typical unit layout.

CARRIED

8.

Adjournment

It was moved and seconded

That the meeting be adjourned at 4:29 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, May 26^th, 2004.

_________________________________

_________________________________

Joe Erceg, General Manager, Urban Development Division
Chair

Fran J. Ashton
Executive Assistant, City Clerks Office