1.

Minutes

It was moved and seconded

That the minutes of the meeting of the Development Permit Panel held on Wednesday, August 25^th, 2004, be adopted.

CARRIED

Due to the applicant for Item 2 not being present the Chair varied the order of the agenda to hear Items 3 and 4 first.

3.

Development Permit DP 03-254551
(Report: July 14/04 File No.:  DP 03-254551)   (REDMS No. 1307704)

APPLICANT:

Wensley Architecture Ltd.

PROPERTY LOCATION:

8700 and 8800 Bridgeport Road

INTENT OF PERMIT:

1.

To permit a large-format building supply retail store with rooftop parking at 8700 and 8800 Bridgeport Road on a site zoned Automobile-Oriented Commercial District (C6); and

2.

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

a)

Reduce the road setback from 6 m to 2.7 m for the trellis structures only along Bridgeport Road and to 2.1 m for the trellis structures only along Sea Island Way; and

b)

Increase the maximum permitted height from 12 m to 12.4 m for the trellis structures on the roof parking level and to 19.5 m for the two (2) decorative “flag poles” mounted on the south elevation of the proposed building only

Applicant’s Comments

With the aid of a model, context plan, and elevations, Mr. Barry Weih, Wensley Architecture Inc., provided an overview of the project which included the proposed at-grade and rooftop parking, the combination of different building materials, the high quality finishes including different textures and planes, the use of both spandrel and vision glass, and the rooftop screening.

Staff Comments

The Director of Development, Raul Allueva, said that the applicant had worked with staff to satisfactorily address the concerns raised by the adjacent property operator concerning rooftop screening and the hours of operation of the loading area.

The applicant then responded to questions from Panel members regarding the buffer zone between the subject property and the hotel; the scheduling of deliveries; the colour scheme; whether a food service was included in the project; headlight glare, and vehicle access.

Correspondence

None.

Gallery Comments

None.

Panel Discussion

Mr. Erceg said that he liked the project and that he appreciated the extent of the cooperation received from the applicant as the project offered more than the typical C6 development.  Mr. Erceg also noted his appreciation for the accommodation of the potential RAV alignment and the plantings within the parking area.

Panel Decision

It was moved and seconded

That a Development Permit be issued that would:

1.

Permit a large-format building supply retail store with rooftop parking at 8700 and 8800 Bridgeport Road on a site zoned Automobile-Oriented Commercial District (C6).

2.

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

a)

Reduce the road setback from 6 m to 2.7 m for the trellis structures only along Bridgeport Road and to 2.1 m for the trellis structures only along Sea Island Way; and

b)

Increase the maximum permitted height from 12 m to 12.4 m for the trellis structures on the roof parking level and to 19.5 m for the two (2) decorative “flag poles” mounted on the south elevation of the proposed building only.

CARRIED

4.

Development Permit DP 04-270943
(Report: August 25/04 File No.:  DP 04-270943)   (REDMS No. 1323774)

APPLICANT:

London Lane Development Corp.

PROPERTY LOCATION:

13160 Princess Street

INTENT OF PERMIT:

1.

To permit the subdivision of eight (8) single-family residential lots whose rear yards abut the Agricultural Land Reserve (ALR); and

2.

To reduce the minimum right-of-way requirement in Subdivision Control Bylaw No. 6530 for a local residential road from 17 m (55.77 ft.) to 12.5 m (41.01 ft.) and 15 m (49.21 ft).

Applicant’s Comments

Mr. Dana Westermark, applicant, noted that the application was part of the general rezoning of the area and that some issues had been addressed in the original rezoning application.  Mr. Westermark then spoke briefly about the proposed reduced road width which would include curb and gutter, a sidewalk on both sides of a portion of the road, a single sidewalk on another portion, and a landscaped boulevard.

Staff Comments

The Director of Development, Raul Allueva, had nothing further to add to the report.

Correspondence

None.

Gallery Comments

None.

Panel Discussion

Mr. Erceg said that the proposed variances were consistent with the previous rezoning application conditions.

Panel Decision

It was moved and seconded

That a Development Permit be issued which would allow the following:

1.

The subdivision of eight (8) single-family residential lots whose rear yards abut the Agricultural Land Reserve (ALR); and

2.

Reduce the minimum right-of-way requirement in Subdivision Control Bylaw No. 6530 for a local residential road from 17 m (55.77 ft.) to 12.5 m (41.01 ft.) and 15 m (49.21 ft).

CARRIED

2.

Development Permit DP 03-253222
(Report: August 9/04 File No.:  DP 03-253222)   (REDMS No. 1319414, 1307905)

APPLICANT:

Patrick Cotter Architect Inc.

PROPERTY LOCATION:

3251 Chatham Street

INTENT OF PERMIT:

To permit the construction of 105.6 m² (1,137 ft²) of commercial space and six (6) dwelling units at 3251 Chatham Street on a site zoned Steveston Commercial (Two-Storey) District (C4).

Applicant’s Comments

Mr. David Wooton, Patrick Cotter Architect Inc., with the aid of a model, said that the design of the mixed use residential/commercial building blended well with the surrounding residential development.  Mr. Wooton described the privacy features incorporated along the west property line, the finishing materials, new tree plantings, the special paving around the front entrance of the commercial unit, and the garbage and recycling location off the lane. 

Mr. Wooton then spoke about the roof hatch access that was preferred by the architect due to the minimized visual impact provided from Chatham Street.  Pictures of the access were provided.  Mr. Wooton indicated that during the building permit stage two main concerns had been identified – handrails, and how the access would close and latch when standing on the stairs.  It was Mr. Wooton’s opinion that the concept would not be supported and he requested that the Panel recommend that the Building Department review this.

Staff Comments

The Director of Development, Raul Allueva, said that although staff agreed with the proposed hatch treatment, they were not confident that a Building Permit could be obtained.

The Chair indicated that it was not within the mandate of the Panel to make recommendations to the Building Department.  He then offered two options to the applicant – a referral back to staff to allow further discussion on the hatch concept; or, proceed as is, with the possibility of a General Compliance to address the issue should the concerns of the Building Department be reconciled.  Mr. Wooton chose to proceed.

Further discussion then ensued between the Panel members, staff, and the applicant, with particular emphasis on privacy and overlook, the hedge and fence along the west property line, and the location of the commercial parking.

Correspondence

None.

Gallery Comments

A resident of 3220 Broadway, said that the model was not to scale.  He also indicated that the westerly portion of the lane was not open at present, and that only his neighbour used this lane at present.  The resident then expressed his concerns about the truck and commercial traffic in the rear of the property.

Mr. J. Hamm, 11880 5^th Avenue, also expressed concern that the back lane, which was not open, would be terribly congested.  Mr. Hamm questioned the number of units allowed on such a small site.

A second resident of 3220 Broadway said that she wanted to reinforce the parking issues as she thought serious problems would occur as a result of parking in the lane.  Drainage issues were also raised.

Mr. Dana Westermark, 13333 Princess Lane, suggested that perpendicular parking on Fifth Avenue was appropriate for additional parking for both retail and residential use, as well as the surrounding neighbourhood, and he asked the Panel to support this.  Mr. Westermark provided an example of previous adhoc parking arrangements that had been made along Fifth Avenue, during construction of several nearby projects, that were quite intrusive. 

Panel Discussion

Mr. Erceg said that he like the project, which was sensitively designed with great materials.  Further to this, however, Mr. Erceg said that the parking was poorly resolved and that he would be hesitant to move the project forward without the parking being addressed; that there was no functional way to get to the front of the building from the commercial parking location; and that while the possibility of street parking may exist it would raise concerns that would require consultation with area residents.

Mr. Kirk indicated his concern about the walking distance from the parking location, and said that he thought that if parking along Fifth Avenue was prohibited, it would be parked on anyway.

Ms. Volkering-Carlile said that privacy issues remained of concern, and that a referral to staff would allow a further opportunity to review the roof hatch concept.

Panel Decision

It was moved and seconded

That DP 03-253222 be referred to staff for resolution of the issues related to parking, pedestrian access from the parking area to the commercial space, and the roof hatch concept.

CARRIED

5.

Adjournment

It was moved and seconded

That the meeting be adjourned at 4:15 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, September 15^th, 2004.

_________________________________

_________________________________

Joe Erceg
Chair

Deborah MacLennan
Administrative Assistant