1.

MINUTES

It was moved and seconded

That the minutes of the meeting of the Development Permit Panel held on
February 15^th, 2006, be adopted.

CARRIED

2.

DEVELOPMENT PERMIT DP 04-267205
(Report: February 21, 2006; File No.:  DP 04-267205)   (REDMS No. 1767509)

APPLICANT:

Paul Leong Architect Inc.

PROPERTY LOCATION:

6468 Cooney Road (formerly 6440, 6460 & 6480 Cooney Road

INTENT OF PERMIT:

1.

To permit the construction of twenty (20) townhouse units at 6468 Cooney Road (formerly 6440, 6460 & 6480 Cooney Road) on a site zoned Comprehensive Development District (CD/133); and

2.

To vary the provisions of the Zoning and Development Bylaw No 5300 to reduce the rear yard setback from 6.55 m (21.5 ft.) to 5.4 m (17.8 ft.) for the building’s ground floor only.

Applicant’s Comments

Mr. Leong, Architect, advised that this project consisted of 20 three-storey townhouses built on a parking podium, which would be screened at the rear of the site by a landscape berm and a wooden fence.  An amenity play area and additional liveable green space was provided on the parking podium.  There was also additional greenery provided between unit entries.  Each unit had access to an individual garage.  Brick veneer and vinyl material would be used to create a strong podium design.  At grade living space, front entries and additional landscaping had been provided to units along Cooney Road to maintain the pedestrian character of the area. 

He advised that a letter had been received from neighbours to the east raising concerns about the variance requested.  He stated that area in which the variance was requested was not liveable space, it faced the garages and driveways of neighbouring townhouses.  He also noted that the hedges along the common property line, which had been accidentally removed by the demolition company, had now been replaced and this hedge would completely screen the proposed setback area.  

In response to queries from the Panel, Mr. Leong advised that:

§            the amenity area was on the podium level, it consisted of a rubberized surface and included a climbing structure and a slide, which had been modified to fit the space.

§            the project met the city’s standards for amenity space provided, and noted that this measurement did not include the bermed area at the back of the site;

§            this project would be marketed primarily to young couples without families;

§            there was no private green space for the rear units, however, the area in the future lane rights-of-way could be used for lawns until the lane is constructed;

§            this project was not density driven, it was laid out in such a way that if/when the future lane was built, the buildings would have a buffered setback;

The Chair then advised that while not opposed to the project’s rear yard design in his opinion, other recent townhouse developments had provided better useable private outdoor space at grade.  In response to further queries from the Panel, Mr. Leong advised that. 

§            there were two accessible corner units which had enlarged washrooms and accessible stairs; all other units were designed to be converted into accessible units if needed as all stairways would accommodate a lift if required;

§            if the adjacent site to the south is developed, the existing Cooney Road access would be closed and converted to a visitor parking and landscape area.  A new shared driveway with the corner site to the south would be provided with the ultimate driveway access from Cook Road;

§            the design had not changed between the rezoning stage and the Development Permit stage.  Mr. Terry Brunette, Planner, corroborated that the design was consistent with that presented during the rezoning.

Staff Comments

Mr. Jean Lamontagne, Director of Development, advised that the applicant had reviewed the letter received from the owners of 8431 Cook Road who were concerned about the reduction of the rear yard setback variance requested.  Staff also noted that enhanced accessibility features would be provided throughout the development.

Correspondence

Petition from 7 owners of townhouses at 8431 Cook Road (Schedule 1).

Gallery Comments

Mr. Man Kam Wong, representing owners of Units 1-6, 8431 Cook Road stated their concerns about the setback variance requested by the applicant.  He advised that if this request were granted, the units on the site would be too close to the existing townhouse units at 8431 Cook Road. 

Panel Discussion

Chair stated he was satisfied that this project had not changed since rezoning.  He noted that the variance requested should not have an impact on the neighbouring townhouse site.

Panel Decision

It was moved and seconded

That a Development Permit be issued which would:

1.

Permit the construction of twenty (20) townhouse units at 6468 Cooney Road (formerly 6440, 6460 & 6480 Cooney Road) on a site zoned Comprehensive Development District (CD/133); and

2.

Vary the provisions of the Zoning and Development Bylaw No 5300 to reduce the rear yard setback from 6.55 m (21.5 ft.) to 5.4 m (17.8 ft.) for the building’s ground floor only.

CARRIED

3.

APPLICANT:

Andrew Cheung Architects Inc.

PROPERTY LOCATION:

9231 Beckwith Road

INTENT OF PERMIT:

1.

To permit the construction of 472 m² (5,080 ft²) restaurant building (teahouse/café) at 9231 Beckwith Road on a site zoned Automobile-Oriented Commercial District (C6); and

2.

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

a)

Reduce the minimum required Road Setback from 6 m (19.685 ft) to 3 m (9.842 ft) for the building and permit fabric awnings to project a further 1.07 m (3.5 ft); and

b)

Reduce the width of manoeuvring drive aisles from 7.5 m (24.6 ft) to 6 m (20 ft).

Applicant’s Comments

Francis Lao, Architect, representing the applicant, provided a brief overview of the site context and advised that this was a small coffee/tea shop development, with limited cooking facilities on a small site.  He stated that the design was a British inspired Tea House and that the building had been sited close to the street to enhance the pedestrian environment.  It was further noted that all parking was situated at the rear of the site. 

Staff Comments

Mr. Jean Lamontagne, Director of Development, advised that the site was close to a trail right way to the north.  The applicant would have bicycle parking available, and it was possible to have a link from the back of the site to the trail if the applicant wished to do so.

Correspondence

None.

Gallery Comments

None.

Panel Discussion

None.

Panel Decision

It was moved and seconded

That a Development Permit be issued which would:

1.

Permit the construction of 472 m² (5,080 ft²) restaurant building (teahouse/café) at 9231 Beckwith Road on a site zoned Automobile-Oriented Commercial District (C6); and

2.

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

a)

Reduce the minimum required Road Setback from 6 m (19.685 ft) to 3 m (9.842 ft) for the building and permit fabric awnings to project a further
1.07 m (3.5 ft); and

b)

Reduce the width of manoeuvring drive aisles from 7.5 m (24.6 ft) to 6 m
(20 ft).

CARRIED

4.

DEVELOPMENT PERMIT DP 05-312653
(Report: February 28^th, 2006;  File No.:  DP 05-312653)   (REDMS No. 1774654, 1764306, 1765543)

APPLICANT:

Patrick Cotter Architect Inc.

PROPERTY LOCATION:

12251 No. 2 Road

INTENT OF PERMIT:

1.

To permit the construction of 36 townhouse units at 12251 No 2 Road on a site zoned “Townhouse District (R2 – 0.7)”; and

2.

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

a)

Increase permitted lot coverage from 40% to 43.2%;

b)

Reduce the minimum required rear yard setback from 3 m to 2.25 m for 0.75 m deep room projections limited to the first storey only on the southwest building; and

c)

Permit 40 tandem parking spaces in 20 townhouse units.

Applicant’s Comments

Mr. Patrick Cotter, Applicant, advised that the landscape plans for this project had now been revised in accordance with Council’s request.  Additional trees (9 evergreens), had been added.  Two trees had been changed from evergreen to deciduous.  A pedestrian pathway into the site had been incorporated into the driveway design and additional landscaping was provided along the common drive aisle.

In response to a query from the Panel,

§            Mr. Kavolinas, Landscape Architect, advised that trees adjacent to the garages of the units along the north property line could not be provided because space was limited due to the increased north yard setback. 

§            Mr. Kavolinas also advised that trees would be between 5 cm for deciduous or 3.0 m for evergreen and that this size tree should provide an immediate presence. 

§            Mr. Cotter also advised that the planting being proposed meets or exceeds the amount and intensity of planting shown during the rezoning stage.

Staff Comments

Mr. Jean Lamontagne, Director of Development, advised that the applicant had been requested to address the concerns of Fairwind Ventures Ltd., owners of the property to the south of this site, and noted that this had been satisfactorily accomplished. 

Correspondence

None.

Gallery Comments

None.

Panel Discussion

None.

Panel Decision

It was moved and seconded

That a Development Permit be issued which would:

1.

Permit the construction of 36 townhouse units at 12251 No 2 Road on a site zoned “Townhouse District (R2 – 0.7)”; and

2.

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

a)

Increase permitted lot coverage from 40% to 43.2%;

b)

Reduce the minimum required rear yard setback from 3 m to 2.25 m for 0.75 m deep room projections limited to the first storey only on the southwest building; and

c)

Permit 40 tandem parking spaces in 20 townhouse units. 

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, March 15^th, 2006.

_________________________________

_________________________________

Joe Erceg, General Manager,
Urban Development Division
Chair

Desiree Wong
Committee Clerk