1.

Minutes

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

CARRIED

2.

Development Permit 03-249671
(Report: March 1^st, 2006 File No.: DP 3-249671)   (REDMS No. 1764909)

APPLICANT:

Paul Leong Architect Inc.

PROPERTY LOCATION:

8580, 8600 and 8680 Cambie Road

INTENT OF PERMIT:

1.

To permit the construction of a mixed-use light industrial building at 8580 Cambie Road, which is the third building of an existing mixed-use light industrial development, on a site zoned “Comprehensive Development District (CD/163)”; and

2.

To vary the provisions of the Zoning and Development Bylaw No. 5300 to reduce the number of required off-street parking spaces from 230 to 221 parking spaces for the entire mixed-use light industry development, including two (2) existing buildings and a third proposed building

Applicant’s Comments

Paul Leong, architect for the project, and the landscape architect were in attendance.  Mr. Leong described the project as being located between Brown Road and Odlin Crescent and directly opposite Sexsmith Road.  He advised that the project was the third building of a three building project and the subject building was two storeys with a parkade fronting onto Cambie Road.  The main floor would be approximately 11,000 square feet of retail space, with office space on the second floor.  The office lobby would be located on the south end of the building which would be next to the parking.  Mr. Leong then used a coloured rendering to describe the exterior finishes of the building. 

Staff Comments

Jean Lamontagne, Director of Development, advised that some of the uses in phases I and II had changed and as a part of this phase additional parking for the entire site was being provided.  In response to questions from the Panel, Mr. Lamontagne advised that the projects and the allocation of parking would be dealt with through the strata plan application process.

Panel Discussion

In response to questions from the Panel, Mr. Leong advised that (i) the banners on the sides of the building were intended to create colour and would provide an area for future permanent signage of the building; and (ii) the bike rack was located for convenience to the entry to the second floor but there was a significant plaza where a further bike rack could be located if necessary.

The landscape architect advised that there was a walkway on the west side of the project which was fenced off and lead to the back doors of the building.

Mr. Leong then responded to further questions on the number of parking spaces being provided, and he advised that because educational uses as well as retail uses had been proposed in the rezoning, this increased the number of parking spaces required for the existing buildings.  The developer wanted the opportunity to add educational uses on the site and was adding parking to support that use.

The Chair commented that he was happy to hear the project would have flexibility for future parking requirements because in the future the City may refuse to issue building permits for building improvements and business licences  where the applicant could not demonstrate they have adequate parking on the site.  Staff then responded to questions from the Chair on the matter of a restrictive covenant for airport noise on this site, and Ms. Badyal advised that  aircraft noise  attenuation only applied to residential uses and there was none existing currently nor any proposed for the future on this site. 

Gallery Comments

None.

Correspondence

Letter from Andy H. Shimizu, Manager, Administration & Corporate Planning, JTB International (Canada) Ltd. (Schedule 2).

Panel Decision

It was moved and seconded

That a Development Permit be issued which would:

1.

Permit the construction of a mixed-use light industrial building at 8580 Cambie Road, which is the third building of an existing mixed-use light industrial development, on a site zoned “Comprehensive Development District (CD/163)”; and

2.

Vary the provisions of the Zoning and Development Bylaw No. 5300 to reduce the number of required off-street parking spaces from 230 to 221 parking spaces for the entire mixed-use light industry development, including two (2) existing buildings and a third proposed building

CARRIED

3.

Development Permit 05-292371
(Report: March 2^nd File No.:  DP 05-292371)   (REDMS No. 1767481)

APPLICANT:

Matthew Cheng Architect Inc.

PROPERTY LOCATION:

9800 Alberta Road

INTENT OF PERMIT:

To permit the construction of six (6) townhouse units at 9800 Alberta Road on a site zoned “Comprehensive Development District (CD/155)”.

Applicant’s Comments

Mr. Mathew Cheng, architect for the project and the developer’s representative  were in attendance.  Mr. Cheng advised that the project was a six unit townhouse complex at Alberta Road and No. 4 Road, configured with 4 units at the front of the lot and two at the rear of the lot.  A cross-access agreement had been registered in favour of the neighbour to the west.  The vehicle access would be located on the west side and the pedestrian access located on the east side of the property.  Mr. Cheng stated that each unit would have a two car garage except for one unit which would have a carport which would provide a more open feel to the site and allow for better surveillance.  The exterior finishing was wood siding using two colours.

Staff Comments

None.

Panel Discussion

The Chair expressed his dissatisfaction with the project and made the following observations:

§            

The model displayed in Council Chambers was better than the submitted drawings.

§            

The plans demonstrated the need for the City to require bigger land assemblies to occur.

§            

The development permit application sign on the site was on the ground and seemed to have been down for a long time.  It was the developer’s responsibility under the bylaw to ensure that this was visible for the neighbours to see. 

§            

The site had been filled and the fill had been placed within the canopy drip line of the two trees on the south side of the property and they appeared to be at risk.  The fill needed to be removed from the tree drip lines immediately and the trees protected  until Council had the opportunity to review the proposal.

The Chair asked why the applicant’s arborist had indicated the tree in the front yard needed to be removed, and the  applicant advised that he believed that if it stayed, it would die.  Mr. Erceg continued by noting that one of the tree’s limbs had been removed, and he expressed the hope that this had not been caused by the developer’s machinery.  He then made the following additional comments:

§            

The project appeared to be a big three-storey box.  The applicant should seriously consider discussing the project further with City staff particularly in relation to the articulation and design of the buildings.

§            

The Applicant did not appear to seriously consider direction given by the Advisory Design Panel and staff.  Design response to comments was minimalistic. 

§            

There was landscaping on the east side of the property but nothing on the west side

§            

The future height of the development was a concern with three storeys on top of fill towering over neighbouring two storey homes.  There was a development across the street which was not built on fill  which may be a better way to proceed.

§            

The second and third floors of the project could be cantilevered to improve articulation and provide an opportunity for landscaping on the west side.

The Chair noted that the choice of siding was a positive feature of the design.

Mr. Day also expressed the opinion that the model looked better than the drawings largely because of the material and colours used.  He added that he would also like to see landscaping provided on both sides of the site.

Correspondence

None.

Gallery Comments

None.

Panel Decision

It was moved and seconded

That the application for a Development Permit DP 05-292371 be  deferred to a future meeting of the Development Permit Panel in order to allow the applicant to resolve design issues regarding the proposed project with staff.

CARRIED

4.

Adjournment

It was moved and seconded

That the meeting be adjourned at 4:01 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 29^th, 2006.

_________________________________

_________________________________

Joe Erceg, General Manager,
Urban Development Division
Chair

Valerie Wilmot
Executive Assistant, Corporate Services Department