March 25, 2015 - Minutes

Time:

3:30 p.m.

Place:

Council Chambers
Richmond City Hall

Present:

Joe Erceg, Chair
Dave Semple, General Manager, Community Services
Victor Wei, Director, Transportation

Minutes

It was moved and seconded

That the minutes of the meeting of the Development Permit Panel held on Wednesday, March 10, 2015, be adopted.

CARRIED

1.

Development Variance Permit 14-676341
(File Ref. No.:  DV 14-676341; Xr: TE 14-672413) (REDMS No. 4503862)

APPLICANT:

Rogers Communications Inc.

PROPERTY LOCATION:

11771 Fentiman Place

INTENT OF PERMIT:

Vary the provisions of “Richmond Zoning Bylaw 8500" to increase the maximum accessory structure height in the “Health Care (HC)” zoning district from 12 m (39.3 ft.) to 21 m (68.9 ft.) in order to permit the installation of a temporary telecommunications antenna pole at 11771 Fentiman Place.

Applicant’s Comments

Kiersten Enemark, Standard Land Company, briefed the Panel on the proposed application, noting that (i) the temporary telecommunications antenna pole is proposed for 11771 Fentiman Place with the original design, (ii) community consultation yielded no opposition to the proposed temporary site, (iii) the temporary communications antenna pole is anticipated to be operational until October 2015 at the latest, (iv) first responders rely on cellular service in the area, and (v) a proposed permanent site for the telecommunications antenna was found in the area and the applicant is working with staff to finalize its design.

Staff Comments

Wayne Craig, Director, Development, noted that a separate application for the proposed permanent telecommunication site is forthcoming and that the proposed temporary telecommunications antenna pole will be decommissioned once the permanent site is operational.

Correspondence

None.

Gallery Comments

None.

Panel Discussion

Discussion ensued with regard to maintaining cellular service in the area.

Panel Decision

It was moved and seconded

1.

That a Development Variance Permit be issued which would vary the provisions of “Richmond Zoning Bylaw 8500" to increase the maximum accessory structure height in the “Health Care (HC)” zoning district from 12 m (39.3 ft.) to 21 m (68.9 ft.) in order to permit the installation of a temporary telecommunications antenna pole at 11771 Fentiman Place; and

2.

That Richmond City Council grant concurrence to the proposed temporary telecommunications antenna pole installation for the site located at 11771 Fentiman Place for period of time extending up until October 1, 2015.

CARRIED

2.

Development Permit 13-641791
(File Ref. No.:  DP 13-641791)  (REDMS No. 4360213)

APPLICANT:

Urban Design Group Architects Ltd. on behalf of 0976440 B.C. Ltd., Inc. No. 0976440

PROPERTY LOCATION:

3011 No. 5 Road

INTENT OF PERMIT:

Permit the construction of a drive-through car wash and drive-through oil change service centre at 3011 No. 5 Road on a site zoned “Car Wash & Service Station (ZC35) – Bridgeport.”

Applicant’s Comments

Fariba Gharael, Urban Design Group Architects Ltd., briefed the Panel on the proposed application regarding (i) urban design, (ii) architectural form and character, (iii) landscape and open space design, and (iv) conditions of adjacency.

Patricia Campbell, PMG Landscape Architects, commented on the proposed landscape and open space design, noting that (i) street trees will be planted (ii) porous paving will be used, and (iii) bicycle lockers will be installed on-site.

Staff Comments

Mr. Craig commented on the proposed application noting that (i) the proposed development efficiently uses the space on-site, (ii) a servicing agreement is required for frontage improvements along No. 5 Road, and (iii) the proposed development will recycle grey water from the car wash operations and rain water from the building’s roof.

Correspondence

None.

Gallery Comments

None.

Panel Decision

It was moved and seconded

That a Development Permit be issued which would permit the construction of a drive-through car wash and drive-through oil change service centre at 3011 No. 5 Road on a site zoned “Car Wash & Service Station (ZC35) – Bridgeport.”

CARRIED

3.

Development Permit Variance 14-658670
File Ref. No.:  DV 14-658670)  (REDMS No. 4375579)

APPLICANT:

Habitat for Humanity Society of Greater Vancouver

PROPERTY LOCATION:

8180 Ash Street

INTENT OF PERMIT:

1.

Vary the provisions of Richmond Zoning Bylaw 8500 to:

a)

vary the minimum lot width from 12 m to 8.3 m for proposed Lot 5; and

b)

vary the minimum lot frontage from 6 m to 0.38 m for proposed Lot 4, to

2.7 m for proposed Lot 5 and to 0.60 m for proposed Lot 6; and

2.

Permit subdivision of 8180 Ash Street into six (6) lots zoned “Single Detached (RS1/B)” for the purpose of developing single-family dwellings.

Applicant’s Comments

Aaron Union, Abbarch Architecture Inc., briefed the Panel on the proposed development regarding (i) urban design, (ii) architectural form and character, (iii) conditions of adjacency, (iv) and landscape and open space design.

Mr. Union spoke of the proposed development, noting that:

§   

six residences with carports are proposed;

§   

three lots would have frontages along Ash Street;

§   

three lots would have frontages along Dayton Court with shared driveway access;

§   

one residence is fully accessible;

§   

the architectural form and character will be contemporary;

§   

all residences share common walkways and communal gardens; and

§   

an increased setback is proposed for Dayton Court fronting lots.

In reply to queries from the Panel, Mr. Union advised that the proposed Dayton Court fronting lots can accommodate on-site manoeuvring so vehicles may exit the site in a forward direction. He added that the proposed development is below the height maximum for single-family dwellings.

Jeffrey Philips, PWL Partnerships, commented on the proposed development’s landscape and open space design, noting that:

§   

the proposed development will include walkways and accessible patios;

§   

the homes will have access via Ash Street or Dayton Court;

§   

common areas will have good visibility;

§   

proposed amenities will include common plazas, a barbeque area, and a children’s play area;

§   

fruit bearing trees will be planted;

§   

each building has a lower height than permitted under the site’s existing zoning; and

§   

perimeter screening options will be discussed with adjacent property owners.

Panel Discussion

In reply to queries from the Panel, Tim Clark, Habitat for Humanity, noted that (i) Habitat for Humanity intends to register private cross-access easement agreements to allow homeowners to have access to shared amenity areas, (ii) the applicant will discuss perimeter privacy options with adjacent property owners, and (iii) the proposed development will be integrated with the surrounding community.

Ms. Clark spoke of the resident selection application process for Habitat for Humanity, noting that potential residents contribute approximately 500 hours of work towards building their home.

Discussion ensued regarding the (i) integration of townhouse development features into a single-family development such as the shared amenity spaces, and (ii) engaging the surrounding community in the proposed project’s building process.

Staff Comments

Mr. Craig advised that (i) the applicants have engaged in public consultation, (ii) the applicants have worked with Transportation staff to facilitate shared access to proposed Dayton Court fronting lots and on-site turn around, (iii) the proposed variances were consistent with an application approved by Council in 2011, and (iv) the previous Development Variance Permit was only valid for two years.

In reply to queries from the Panel, Mr. Craig noted that BC Housing was the previous applicant for the site however, the permit lapsed. He added that alternatively, BC Housing could have sold the site however; options were limited due to BC Housing’s affordability requirements for the site.

Gallery Comments

Janet Yeung, 8211 McBurney Court, expressed concern regarding the proposed development with respect to (i) the notification process, (ii) the public consultation process, (iii) provisions for emergency access, and (iv) the height of the proposed development.

In reply to queries from the Panel, Mr. Craig advised that (i) the notification requirements for the proposed development were expanded to include all homes along Dayton Court, (ii) Richmond Fire-Rescue was involved in a circulation review for emergency access, (iii) the proposed building height conforms to the zoning on-site, and (iv) the height of the proposed development is similar to the height of surrounding properties.

Bob Harrison, 9591 McBurney Court, commented on the proposed development and expressed concern regarding (i) site access, (ii) emergency access, (iii) townhouse development features in a single-family development, (iv) the variances requested, (v) the site density, (vi) the architectural form and character of the proposed development conforming to the character of the neighbourhood, and (vii) developing the subject site into a residential development instead of a park.

Enrique Bravo, 9460 McBurney Court, spoke of the proposed development and expressed concern with regard to the proposed appearance of the proposed development and the avenues available for conflict resolution when a strata corporation is not present.

In reply to queries from the Panel, Ms. Clark advised that the proposed development will include common amenities however; the homes are individually owned. Also, she noted that the Habitat for Humanity homes cannot be sold on the open market, but must be sold back to the organization. She added that Habitat for Humanity works with homeowners to integrate in the community and have policies in place to address concerns from homeowners.

Henry Han, 8480 Dayton Court, expressed concern regarding the proposed development with respect to (i) the architectural form and character of the proposed development conforming to the neighbourhood’s character, (ii) the number of vehicle parking spaces available on-site, (iii) site density, and (iv) privacy with adjacent properties.

Brian Dagneault, 8435 Dayton Court, referred to a submitted petition (attached to and forming part of these minutes as Schedule 1) and spoke on behalf of neighbourhood residents, expressing concern with regard to the proposed development in relation to (i) public consultation, (ii) the proposed building setbacks, (iii) the architectural form and character of the proposed development conforming to the character of the neighbourhood, (iv) the availability of street and on-site vehicle parking, and (v) site density.

Mr. Dagneault then read from his submission (attached to and forming part of these minutes as Schedule 2) expressing concern regarding (i) the effect of the proposed development on the existing character of the neighbourhood, (ii) the proposed carport design, (iii) potential for an increase in traffic in the area, and (iv) the public consultation process and meeting location.

In reply to queries from the Panel, Mr. Union advised that the potential residents of the proposed development will be low income families and he anticipates that the amount of vehicles parking on-site will be limited.

In reply to queries from the Panel, Mr. Craig noted that the on-site parking complies with the zoning bylaw and that Dayton Court fronting lots provide space for vehicles to manoeuvre on-site even when all carports are occupied.

Discussion ensued with regard to the proposed development’s architectural form and character and Mr. Union noted that building materials include stucco and wood for the building, as well as metal for the roof. He added that the applicant can further review the building design, including potential changes to the roofs.

Nataliya Vostretsova, 9346 Dixon Avenue, expressed concern with respect to (i) the potential residents of the proposed development, (ii) the ownership of the units on-site, and (iii) maintenance of the proposed development.

In reply to queries from the Panel, Ms. Clark noted that Habitat for Humanity is an international organization that helps low income families attain homeownership.

Ms. Clark spoke of Habitat for Humanity’s application process, noting that (i) partner families must have an annual income of $35,000 to 65,000, (ii) partner families contribute work hours or “sweat equity” towards construction of their home, (iii) Habitat for Humanity remain owners of the property, (iv) housing costs are reviewed and calculated with the partner family, (v) partner families are responsible for property maintenance and Habitat for Humanity upholds maintenance standards for properties, (vi) Habitat for Humanity conducts an annual review of the partner families, (vii) Habitat for Humanity homes cannot be sold in the open market and must be returned to Habitat for Humanity if partner families wish to relocate, and (viii) partner families will receive the balance of equity payments once the homes are returned to Habitat for Humanity.

Chui Shum, 8320 Dayton Court, commented on the proposed development and expressed concern regarding (i) access to proposed Dayton Court fronting properties, (ii) common area maintenance, and (iii) traffic.

Correspondence

James and Joanne Anderson, 8395 Dayton Court - March 24, 2015 (Schedule 3)

Mr. Anderson and Ms. Anderson, 8395 Dayton Court - March 24, 2015 (Schedule 4)

John and Lorraine Dowdall, 8455 Dayton Court - March 25, 2015 (Schedule 5)

Mr. Dowdall and Ms. Dowdall, 8455 Dayton Court - March 25, 2015 (Schedule 6)

Ms. Dowdall, 8455 Dayton Court - March 25, 2015 (Schedule 7)

Anna Popok, 9400 Dayton Avenue (Schedule 8)

Tay and Harvey Schwarzbauer, 7627 Dayton Court (Schedule 9)

Paul Lam, 8231 McBurney Court (Schedule 10)

Troy Junge, 8426 Dayton Court (Schedule 11)

Discussion ensued with regard to the architectural form and character of the proposed development and in reply to queries from the Panel, Mr. Craig noted that prior to subdivision, the proposed development would require registering a covenant on title, specifying design elements. He added that changes to the architectural form and character can be made prior to the approval of the subdivision application.

Panel Discussion

Discussion ensued with regard to (i) public consultation, (ii) reviewing the proposed development’s design, (iii) on-site visitor parking, and (iv) site access.

As a result of the discussion the following referral was introduced:

It was moved and seconded

That the staff report titled Application by Habitat for Humanity Society of Greater Vancouver for a Development Variance Permit at 8180 Ash Street, dated March 2, 2015, from the Director, Development, be referred back to staff to review:

1.

community feedback and additional community consultation for the proposed development;

2.

the proposed architectural design of the proposed development; and

3.

on-site vehicle visitor parking, site manoeuvring within the site and access to the site from Dayton Court;

and report back to the Wednesday, April 29, 2015 Development Permit Panel.

CARRIED

4.

Development Permit 14-659747
(File Ref. No.:  DP 14-659747)  (REDMS No. 4460911)

APPLICANT:

Dava Developments Ltd.

PROPERTY LOCATION:

2671, 2711, 2811, 2831, 2851, 2911, 2931, 2951, 2971 and 2991 No. 3 Road

INTENT OF PERMIT:

1.

Permit the construction of a development with two (2) two-storey commercial buildings totalling 2368 m² at 2671, 2711, 2811, 2831, 2851, 2911, 2931, 2951, 2971 and 2991 No. 3 Road on sites zoned “Auto-Oriented Commercial (CA);” and

2.

Vary the provisions of Richmond Zoning Bylaw 8500 to:

a)

reduce the required manoeuvring aisle width from 7.5 m to 6.0 m (Section 7.5.5); and

b)

reduce the required setback of parking from property lines abutting a road from 3.0 m to 2.7 m and reduce the required setback of parking from other property lines from 1.5 m to 0.0 m (Section 7.5.17).

Applicant’s Comments

Marco Ciriello, Lo Studio Architecture, briefed the Panel on the proposed development regarding (i) urban design, (ii) architectural form and character, (iii) conditions of adjacency, (iv) site access, and (v) vehicle parking.

Mr. Ciriello noted that (i) the site is divided into two sites by Douglas Road, (ii) the site is constrained by the Canada Line guide way, (iii) the north site is proposed to have retail on the ground floor and a restaurant on the second floor, (iv) the south site is proposed to have retail on the ground floor and offices on the second floor, (v) parking will be located along the western portion of the site adjacent to the rear lane, (vi) a statutory right-of-way is provided as a condition of rezoning in front of the retail spaces to create a wider sidewalk, and (vii) the ground floor features continuous shop front glazing and some glazing in the second floor.

Meredith Mitchell, M2 Landscape Architects, commented on the landscaping and open space design, noting that (i) the frontage will feature a wider walkway, (ii) an existing tree along the southeast corner of the south site will be retained, (iii) the roof will feature an attractive façade using different types of material that will be visible from the Canada Line, and (iv) the landscaping along the existing Canada Line building on-site will feature a decorative aggregate.

In reply to queries from the Panel, Ms. Mitchell advised that the proposed walkway is approximately 3.0 metres wide.

In reply to queries from the Panel with regard to pedestrian traffic utilizing the building’s canopy, Mr. Ciriello advised that the canopy is fairly continuous and in the areas where there are gaps, the building provides some overhang.

Staff Comments

Mr. Craig advised that the site is constrained by the Canada Line and that the applicant worked with staff to achieve the City’s design objectives. Also, he advised that the proposed variances are related to the on-site parking and a reduction in the manoeuvring aisle width. He added that the reduction in manoeuvring aisle width allows for two-way traffic and there are also proposed setback variances to vehicle parking spaces on-site.

Gallery Comments

Henry Davies, 8560 River Road expressed concern regarding the proposed development with respect to (i) development notification signage on-site, (ii) notification process, and (iii) the proposed road dedication adjacent to the site.

Jack Chan, 8500 River Road, expressed concern with regard to (i) proposed developments in the area, (ii) the proposed road dedication adjacent to the site, and (iii) property values in the area.

Discussion ensued with regard to the road dedication process. The Chair noted that new road dedications are created through the rezoning process. As part of the rezoning process, developers allocate portions of the property for road dedication if required by the City. Also, he noted that current property owners are not obligated to relinquish land to the City for road dedication and that allocation for road dedication would typically only occur through a redevelopment application. He added that sites required for road dedication do not necessarily decrease in value since developers may require the site to proceed with development.

Discussion then ensued with respect to the City Centre Area Plan, and the Chair noted that the City conducted broad public consultation on the Plan three years ago with the conceptual plans for long-term development.

Mr. Chan noted that he was approached by developers with regard to acquiring portions of the rear lane. In reply to queries from the Panel, Mr. Craig advised that the development may proceed without acquiring portions of the rear lane.

Discussion ensued with regard to the proposed light standards on the adjacent property. Mr. Craig advised that a servicing agreement for frontage improvements is forthcoming and is required before the rezoning can proceed.

Correspondence

Mr. Davies, 8560 River Road and Mr. Chan, 8500 River Road, March 23, 2015 (Schedule 12)

Mr. Davies, 8560 River Road, March 25, 2015 (Schedule 13)

Discussion ensued with regard to development notification signage on-site and in reply to queries from the Panel, Mr. Craig advised that there is signage along the Bridgeport Road frontage.

Phillips Paul Barristers and Solicitors on behalf of Maxwell Holdings Ltd., 8500 River Road (Schedule 14)

Juan and Stephanie Recavarren, 8580 River Road (Schedule 15)

Thomas Fairbrother, 8540 River Road (Schedule 16)

In reply to queries from the Panel, Mr. Craig noted that through the rezoning of the subject property, the Official Community Plan was amended to introduce the Douglas Street extension to River Road.

Panel Discussion

Discussion ensued with regard to (i) the proposed road dedication adjacent to the site, (ii) the architectural form and character of the proposed development, and (iii) the forthcoming servicing agreement.

Panel Decision

It was moved and seconded

That a Development Permit be issued which would:

1.

permit the construction of a development with two (2) two-storey commercial buildings totalling 2368 m² at 2671, 2711, 2811, 2831, 2851, 2911, 2931, 2951, 2971 and 2991 No. 3 Road on sites zoned “Auto-Oriented Commercial (CA);” and

2.

vary the provisions of Richmond Zoning Bylaw 8500 to:

a)

reduce the required manoeuvring aisle width from 7.5 m to 6.0 m (Section 7.5.5); and

b)

reduce the required setback of parking from property lines abutting a road from 3.0 m to 2.7 m and reduce the required setback of parking from other property lines from 1.5 m to 0.0 m (Section 7.5.17).

CARRIED

The meeting was recessed at 5:53 p.m.

The meeting reconvened at 5:56 p.m. with all members of Development Permit Panel present.

5.

Development Permit 13-644888
(File Ref. No.:  DP 13-644888)  (REDMS No. 4448352)

APPLICANT:

Balandra Development Inc.

PROPERTY LOCATION:

8600 and 8620 No. 2 Road

INTENT OF PERMIT:

1.

permit the construction of nine (9) townhouse units at 8600 and 8620 No. 2 Road on a site zoned “Low Density Townhouses (RTL4);” and

2.

vary the provisions of Richmond Zoning Bylaw 8500 to:

a)

reduce the minimum lot width on major arterial road from 50.0 m to

43.29 m;

b)

reduce the front yard setback from 6.0 m to 5.4 m; and

c)

permit seven (7) small car parking spaces.

Applicant’s Comments

Wayne Fougere, Fougere Architecture Inc., briefed the Panel on the proposed development, with respect to (i) urban design, (ii) architectural form and character, and (iii) vehicle parking.

Mr. Fougere commented on the proposed development noting that (i) the proposed development will consist of nine townhouses, (ii) five units will face No. 2 Road and two duplexes will be located along the eastern portion of the site, (iii) there will be one adaptable unit, (iv) the exterior will feature brick materials, (v) the outdoor amenity will be centralized within the proposed development, and (iv) all units will have two vehicle parking spaces.

Staff Comments

Mr. Craig advised that the applicant worked with staff to reduce building height for units along the rear property line and the development will be designed to achieve EnerGuide 82 standards.

Panel Discussion

In reply to queries from the Panel, Mr. Fougere noted that each unit will have bicycle storage.

Correspondence

So Yim and Wong Yin, 8591 Delaware Road (Schedule 17)

In reply to queries from the Panel, Mr. Craig advised that the proposed development meets the bylaw requirement for vehicle parking on-site.

Petition Received on March 24, 2015 (Schedule 18)

Petition Received on March 25, 2015 (Schedule 19)

Fred and Peggy Baaske, 8561 Delaware Road (Schedule 20)

Sea Seng Lo and Wai Peggy Lo, 8611 No. 2 Road (Schedule 21)

Chun Yeung  Lee, 8731 No. 2 Road (Schedule 22)

In reply to queries from the Panel, Mr. Craig advised that the applicant has addressed concern regarding perimeter hedge maintenance with adjacent property owners.

Gallery Comments

None.

Panel Decision

It was moved and seconded

That a Development Permit be issued which would:

1.

permit the construction of nine (9) townhouse units at 8600 and 8620 No. 2 Road on a site zoned “Low Density Townhouses (RTL4);” and

2.

vary the provisions of Richmond Zoning Bylaw 8500 to:

(a)

reduce the minimum lot width on major arterial road from 50.0 m to
43.29 m;

(b)

reduce the front yard setback from 6.0 m to 5.4 m; and

(c)

permit seven (7) small car parking spaces.

CARRIED

6.

Development Permit 14-658285
(File Ref. No.:  DP 14-658285)  (REDMS No. 4497016)

APPLICANT:

Western Gardenia Garden Holdings Ltd.

PROPERTY LOCATION:

7571 and 7591 St. Albans Road

INTENT OF PERMIT:

1.

Permit the construction of sixteen (16) three storey townhouse units on a consolidated lot including 7571 and 7591 St. Albans on a site zoned “High Density Townhouse (RTH4);” and

2.

vary the provisions of Richmond Zoning Bylaw 8500 to:

a)

reduce the minimum building side yard setback from 4.5 m to 3.9 m at the southeastern corner of the building;

b)

increase the maximum bay window projection from 0.6 m to 0.9 m to the south property line adjacent to Jones Road; and 

c)

allow seven (7) small car parking stalls at the site. 

Applicant’s Comments

Mr. Fougere briefed the Panel on the proposed development, noting that (i) the proposed development is surrounded by multi-family dwellings, (ii) the proposed development is three storeys high and the ground floor is on a podium, (iii) the proposed drive aisle and the parking stalls are covered, (iv) the proposed development has 16 units with one adaptable unit, (v) the proposed development has a traditional character that blends with the neighbourhood, and (vi) portions of the site were not raised to flood plain level in order to retain trees.

Staff Comments

Mr. Craig noted that the proposed development includes a variance to permit seven small car stalls and that the overall parking on-site exceeds zoning bylaw requirements. He added that the proposed development will be built to achieve EnerGuide 82 standards.

Correspondence

None.

Gallery Comments

None.

Panel Decision

It was moved and seconded

That a Development Permit be issued which would:

1.

permit the construction of sixteen (16) three storey townhouse units on a consolidated lot including 7571 and 7591 St. Albans on a site zoned “High Density Townhouse (RTH4);” and

2.

vary the provisions of Richmond Zoning Bylaw 8500 to:

(a)

reduce the minimum building side yard setback from 4.5 m to 3.9 m at the southeastern corner of the building;

(b)

increase the maximum bay window projection from 0.6 m to 0.9 m to the south property line adjacent to Jones Road; and 

(c)

allow seven (7) small car parking stalls at the site. 

CARRIED

7.

Development Permit 14-677534(File Ref. No.:  DP 14-677534)  (REDMS No. 4525740)

APPLICANT:

Onni 7771 Alderbridge Corp. Inc.

PROPERTY LOCATION:

7008 River Parkway and 7771 Alderbridge Way

INTENT OF PERMIT:

1.

Permit the construction of a 324-unit apartment project in two (2) six-storey buildings over connected concrete parking structures located at 7008 Alderbridge Way and 7771 Alderbridge Way; and

2.

Vary the provisions of Richmond Zoning Bylaw 8500 to:

a)

reduce the required exterior side yard setbacks for portions of partially below-grade parking structures from 3.0 m to 0.0 m on the west side of the site along Cedarbridge Way;

b)

reduce the required interior side yard setback for limited portions of partially-below grade parking structures from 1.5 m to 0.0 m along the east property line of the site;

c)

reduce the required rear yard setback for the attached below-grade parking structures from 1.5 m to 0.0 m on both sides of the future property line that will separate the two (2) future lots to be subdivided within the site;

d)

reduce the required visitor parking from 0.20 spaces/dwelling unit to 0.15 spaces/dwelling unit for the development; and

e)

reduce the requirement for the provision of one (1) WB-17 loading space to zero (0).

Applicant’s Comments

Taizo Yamamoto, Yamamoto Architecture Inc., briefed the Panel on the proposed development, noting that (i) the applicant is proposing changes to Building 3 to provide additional parking within a second above-grade parking level, (ii) the proposed grading changes will create two amenity zones, and (iii) the lower level wall will be screened using landscaping.

Panel Discussion

In reply to queries from the Panel, Mr. Craig noted that the proposed grade changes will not detract from the usability of the amenity spaces.

In reply to queries from the Panel, Mr. Yamamoto advised that displaced units will be located in the upper floors of the proposed development.

Eric Hughes, Onni Corp., commented on the parking on-site, noting that the proposed changes in design were related to additional customer demand for parking and as a result, the number of vehicle parking on-site exceeds rezoning bylaw requirements.

Staff Comments

Mr. Craig advised that a greenway connection will be provided along the south side of the proposed development.

Correspondence

None.

Gallery Comments

None.

Panel Decision

It was moved and seconded

That a Development Permit be issued which would:

1.

permit the construction of a 324-unit apartment project in two (2) six-storey buildings over connected concrete parking structures located at 7008 Alderbridge Way and 7771 Alderbridge Way; and

2.

vary the provisions of Richmond Zoning Bylaw 8500 to:

(a)

reduce the required exterior side yard setbacks for portions of partially below-grade parking structures from 3.0 m to 0.0 m on the west side of the site along Cedarbridge Way;

(b)

reduce the required interior side yard setback for limited portions of partially-below grade parking structures from 1.5 m to 0.0 m along the east property line of the site;

(c)

reduce the required rear yard setback for the attached below-grade parking structures from 1.5 m to 0.0 m on both sides of the future property line that will separate the two (2) future lots to be subdivided within the site;

(d)

reduce the required visitor parking from 0.20 spaces/dwelling unit to 0.15 spaces/dwelling unit for the development; and

(e)

reduce the requirement for the provision of one (1) WB-17 loading space to zero (0).

CARRIED

8.

New Business

9.

Date of Next Meeting: Wednesday, April 15, 2015

10.

Adjournment

It was moved and seconded

That the meeting be adjourned at 6:21 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 25, 2015.

_________________________________

_________________________________

Joe Erceg
Chair

Evangel Biason
Auxiliary Committee Clerk