July 29, 2020 - Minutes

Time:

3:30 p.m.

Place:

Council Chambers
Richmond City Hall

Present:

Joe Erceg, Chair 
Cecilia Achiam, General Manager, Community Safety 
Milton Chan, Director, Engineering

Minutes

It was moved and seconded

That the minutes of the meeting of the Development Permit Panel held on July 15, 2020 be adopted.

CARRIED

1.

DEVELOPMENT PERMIT 18-829083 
(REDMS No. 6474952)

APPLICANT:

Konic Development Ltd.

PROPERTY LOCATION:

8291 and 8311 Williams Road

INTENT OF PERMIT:

1.

Permit the construction of 10 townhouse units at 8291 and 8311 Williams Road on a site zoned “Low Density Townhouses (RTL4)”; and

2.

Vary the provisions of Richmond Zoning Bylaw 8500 to:

(a)

reduce the front yard setback along Williams Road from 6.0 m to 4.5 m; and

(b)

allow one small car parking space in each of the side-by-side garages (eight small car parking spaces in total).

Applicant’s Comments

Jiang Zhu, Imperial Architecture, with the aid of a visual presentation (copy on file, City Clerk’s Office), provided background information on the proposed development, highlighting the following:

§   

the proposed development is an infill project;

§   

the two three-storey buildings fronting along Williams Road have been stepped down to two storeys along the side property lines to provide an appropriate interface with adjacent single-family homes;

§   

the two-storey duplex units at the rear address the adjacent single-family homes to the north of the subject site;

§   

the centrally located shared outdoor amenity area at the rear of the site will receive maximum sun exposure and provide convenient access to all residents;

§   

a Tudor architectural style is proposed  and is consistent with the existing character of the neighbourhood;

§   

different architectural treatments are proposed for the roofs of the two three-storey buildings along Williams to differentiate the two buildings along the streetscape;

§   

the shadow analysis indicates that the rear two-storey duplex buildings will not impact the adjacent single-family homes to the north in terms of shadowing; 

§   

the sight line analysis demonstrates that neighbouring properties to the north will not be visible from the windows of  the three-storey buildings; and

§   

the project includes one secondary suite and one convertible unit.

Denitsa Dimitrova, PMG Landscape Architects, briefed the Panel on the main landscape features of the project, noting that (i) four existing trees along the north property line and  two significant hedges along the east property line are proposed to be retained and protected, (ii) a six-foot high wood fence along the west, east and north property lines is proposed to provide privacy from adjacent developments, (iii) the common outdoor amenity area has been designed to provide as much play opportunities as possible, (iv) a small playhouse and natural play elements are proposed for the children’s play area, (v) a wooden deck is proposed under the existing cherry tree on the outdoor amenity area, (vi) permeable paving treatment is proposed for the driveway, internal drive aisle and visitor parking spaces, and (vii) a pedestrian pathway is provided along the driveway and internal drive aisle.

In reply to a query from the Panel, Wayne Craig, Director, Development, confirmed that there is a statutory right-of-way registered on title over the driveway and internal drive aisle to facilitate access to/from adjacent future developments through the subject site.

In reply to queries from the Panel, Ms. Dimitrova noted that (i) the small size of the children’s play area limits the choice for play equipment due to required safety zones, and (ii) the applicant is proposing a small play house to develop the children’s social and imagination skills and natural play elements such as balance logs to provide active play opportunities.

Discussion ensued regarding the limited active play opportunities in the children’s play area and it was noted that the proposed play equipment may not meet expectations for the project to provide adequate active play equipment.

Staff Comments

Mr. Craig noted that (i) there is a Servicing Agreement associated with the project for frontage improvements and site utility connections, (ii) the proposed front yard setback variance is a function of a one meter wide road dedication on Williams Road and increased rear yard to allow the retention of existing trees along the rear property line, (iii) the small car parking variance for side-by-side garages is a technical variance and is consistent with other applications, and (iv) a lock-off suite is included in one of the 10 townhouse units.

Gallery Comments

None.

Correspondence

None.

Panel Discussion

It was noted that the proposed play equipment for the common outdoor amenity area does not meet expectations for active play opportunities.

In reply to a query from the Panel, Mr. Craig noted that the space requirement for tree preservation in the outdoor amenity area poses a constraint on the size of the outdoor amenity area.

In reply to queries from the Panel, the owner of the subject property commented on the constraints to the size of the shared outdoor amenity area and the difficulty of providing a play equipment larger than the one currently proposed.

In reply to a query from the Panel, Mr. Craig confirmed that the side yard setbacks on the proposed development are currently slightly beyond the minimum requirement.

As a result of the discussion, direction was given to staff to work with the applicant to review the proposed play equipment in order to provide more active play opportunities for children in the shared outdoor amenity area prior to the application moving forward to Council.

Panel Decision

It was moved and seconded

That a Development Permit be issued which would:

1.

permit the construction of 10 townhouse units at 8291 and 8311 Williams Road on a site zoned “Low Density Townhouses (RTL4)”; and

2.

vary the provisions of Richmond Zoning Bylaw 8500 to:

(a)

reduce the front yard setback along Williams Road from 6.0 m to 4.5 m; and

(b)

allow one small car parking space in each of the side-by-side garages (eight small car parking spaces in total).

CARRIED

2.

DEVELOPMENT PERMIT 20-890821 
(REDMS No. 6489448 v. 2A)

APPLICANT:

Vivid Green Architecture Inc.

PROPERTY LOCATION:

5500 Williams Road

INTENT OF PERMIT:

Permit the construction of two duplexes at 5500 Williams Road on a site zoned “Arterial Road Two-Unit Dwellings (RDA)”.

Applicant’s Comments

Rosa Salcido, Vivid Green Architecture, with the aid of a visual presentation (copy on file, City Clerk’s Office) provided background on the proposed development, noting that (i) the subject property will be subdivided to create two properties each containing a duplex, (ii) the two duplexes share a common driveway and drive aisle, (iii) there is an existing right-of-way along the back of the property, (iv) individuality of each duplex unit is achieved through the individual unit entrances and use of materials and colours, (v) the proposed height of the duplex buildings is consistent with neighbouring single-family homes, (vi) existing trees on-site will be retained as much as possible; however, trees which conflict with the site layout will be removed,  (vii) each duplex unit is provided with a two-car garage, and (viii) one shared visitor parking space is provided for the two duplex buildings.

In addition, Ms. Salcido reviewed the site plan, the floor plans for the duplex units, proposed accessibility features, the layout for the convertible unit, and the elevations of the duplex buildings, including the location and design of windows on the side elevations to address privacy concerns of neighbours. Also, she reviewed the project’s sustainability features and proposed materials palette, which include materials that are easy to maintain.

Denitsa Dimitrova, PMG Landscape Architects, briefed the Panel on the main landscape features of the project, noting that (i) five existing trees on-site will be retained, (ii) each duplex unit will be provided with a private yard, patio, shade tree, and lawn area, (iii) a combination of solid and transparent perimeter fencing is proposed to provide separation from adjacent residential developments, (iv) low aluminum fencing is proposed along the streetscape, (v) permeable paving is proposed for the drive aisle and auto court consistent with Advisory Design Panel recommendations, and (vi) the large hedge on the neighbouring property to the south will be retained.

In reply to a query from the Panel, Mr. Craig confirmed that (i) three on-site trees in poor condition and one on-site tree in conflict with the driveway will be removed, and (ii) the City street tree which is being removed is in conflict with frontage improvements.

Staff Comments

Mr. Craig noted that (i) there is a Servicing Agreement associated with the subject development for frontage improvements and site services, and (ii) the applicant’s presentation was comprehensive. 

Gallery Comments

None.

Correspondence

None.

Panel Discussion

The Panel expressed support for the project, noting its attention to detail and provision for a significant amount of permeable pavers on the shared drive aisle. 

Panel Decision

It was moved and seconded

That a Development Permit be issued which would permit the construction of two duplexes at 5500 Williams Road on a site zoned “Arterial Road Two-Unit Dwellings (RDA)”.

CARRIED

3.

DEVELOPMENT PERMIT 20-893127 
(REDMS No. 6489448 v. 2A)

APPLICANT:

Design Work Group Ltd.

PROPERTY LOCATION:

11480 and 11500 Railway Avenue

INTENT OF PERMIT:

1.

Permit the construction of three duplexes at 11480 and 11500 Railway Avenue on a site zoned “Arterial Road Two-Unit Dwellings (RDA)”; and

2.

Vary the provisions of Richmond Zoning Bylaw 8500 to reduce the front yard setback to Railway Avenue from 6.0 m to 5.0 m for Proposed Lot 3.

Applicant’s Comments

Michael Lu, Design Work Group, Ltd., with the aid of a visual presentation (copy on file, City Clerk’s Office) provided background information on the proposed development, highlighting the following:

§   

two single-family lots will be subdivided to create three properties, each containing a duplex;

§   

each duplex will have a front and rear unit;

§   

Lots 1 and 2 will have a shared driveway and auto court and Lot 3 will have its own driveway and auto court;

§   

each duplex unit is three-storeys and consists of three bedrooms;

§   

the floor plan for each duplex unit is similar; however, each duplex has a unique architectural style to provide variety in the streetscape;

§   

two convertible units are proposed and all duplex units incorporate aging-in-place features; and

§   

the duplex units are suitable for young and aging families and for those who are downsizing.

Larry Fiddler, Landscape Designer, reviewed the main landscape features of the project, noting that (i) layered planting is proposed along the front property line which includes an evergreen cedar hedge, a mix of seasonal flowering shrubs, and large caliper trees underplanted with perennials and ornamental grass, (ii) permeable paving treatment is proposed for the drive aisles, (iii) a private outdoor space is provided for each unit, (iv) a six-foot high wood fencing is proposed along the perimeter of the subject site, (v) shrub border planting is proposed in front of the rear perimeter fence, and (vi) the proposed planting materials are low maintenance.

Staff Comments

Mr. Craig noted that (i) there is a Servicing Agreement associated with the project for frontage improvements and site services, (ii) the proposed front yard setback variance is specific for the southernmost duplex (Lot 3) only, (iii) the setback variance was identified at rezoning stage and no concerns were noted at the Public Hearing, and (iv) the setback from the building face to the back of the curb will be approximately 12 meters due to the width of the boulevard on Railway Avenue.

In reply to query from the Panel, Mr. Craig acknowledged that Lot 3 has been redesigned through the rezoning process to accommodate the visitor parking space which required a setback variance.  

Gallery Comments

None.

Correspondence

None.

Panel Decision

It was moved and seconded

That a Development Permit be issued which would:

1.

permit the construction of three duplexes at 11480 and 11500 Railway Avenue on a site zoned “Arterial Road Two-Unit Dwellings (RDA)”; and

2.

vary the provisions of Richmond Zoning Bylaw 8500 to reduce the front yard setback to Railway Avenue from 6.0 m to 5.0 m for Proposed Lot 3.

CARRIED

4.

DEVELOPMENT PERMIT 18-837117 
(REDMS No. 6492174 v. 2)

APPLICANT:

W. T. Leung Architects Inc.

PROPERTY LOCATION:

6333 Mah Bing Street

INTENT OF PERMIT:

1.

Permit the construction of a multiple-family residential development with two 15-storey high-rise buildings and a nine-storey mid-rise building, consisting of approximately 232 dwelling units and 364 parking spaces at 6333 Mah Bing Street on a site zoned “High Rise Apartment (ZHR4) – Brighouse Village (City Centre)”; and

2.

Vary the provisions of Richmond Zoning Bylaw 8500 to reduce the minimum lot area from 13,000 m² (139,930 ft²) to 8,227 m² (88,554 ft²).

Applicant’s Comments

Wing Leung, W.T. Leung Architects, Inc., with the aid of a visual presentation (copy on file, City Clerk’s Office) provided background information on the proposed development, including (i) the history of the overall project’s (Phase 1 and Phase 2) rezoning and development permit application, (ii) the project’s site context and site plan, (iii) siting of towers within the proposed development and relative to existing towers on adjacent residential developments, (iv) the project’s architectural form and character, and (v) the proposed materials palette, and highlighted the following:

§   

the subject development permit application is for Phase 2 of the Parks Residences development, which consists of two 15-storey towers and one nine-storey building designated as Towers C, D, and E;

§   

the rezoning application for the overall project started in 2004 prior to the adoption of the City Centre Area Plan (CCAP);

§   

the development permit for Phase 1 was issued in 2013 and construction was completed in 2016 due to the financial crisis in prior years;

§   

Council required a 1:1 replacement for existing rental units on-site to be provided in Phase 1; 

§   

132 rental units were provided in Tower A of Phase 1 for the 128 existing rental units on-site in two three-story rental buildings;

§   

a central public greenway will be constructed through the middle of the subject site which will be aligned with Murdoch Avenue to provide connection between Minoru Park and Minoru Boulevard;

§   

the five buildings in Phases 1 and 2 have been sited to maximize the distance between towers;

§   

massing and orientation of towers on the subject site will provide view corridors towards the park for future developments to the east of the subject site;

§   

truck access and a three-point turn  are provided to maintain garbage and recycling collection for the adjacent residential development to the south;

§   

the proposed public art piece for the project has gone through the City’s public art process and has been approved by the Richmond Public Art Advisory Committee;

§   

separate indoor amenity spaces are provided for each tower; and

§   

pedestrian entrances to Towers C and D are located off the public greenway.

Richard O’Connor, Durante Kreuk Landscape Architects, provided background information on the main landscape features of the proposed development, noting that (i) the intent of the landscape design is to ensure that current views from Minoru Boulevard all the way through Minoru Park are kept clear, (ii) the public art piece on the public plaza located on the greenway is the focal point of the landscape design, (iii) lawn areas along the greenway help provide connection to the park, (iv) a variety of planting materials are proposed and balanced on either side of the proposed development, (v) pedestrian walkways will be installed along both sides of the greenway, (vi) the western walkway will connect to the existing walkway on the adjacent development to the north, and (vii) the outdoor amenity spaces on the podium roofs are landscaped and have been programmed for active and passive uses.

In reply to a query from the Panel, the project design team noted that the proposed treatment for the subject development’s south wall consists of brick cladding and vertical vine planting systems.

Staff Comments

Mr. Craig noted that (i) there is a significant Servicing Agreement associated with the proposal, including improvements to Mah Bing Street, construction of a central greenway between the two buildings, site services, and a greenway along the Minoru Park frontage, (ii) the subject development has been designed to achieve the City’s Aircraft Noise Sensitive design requirements, connect to the City’s District Energy Utility (DEU), and meet Step 2 of the Energy Step Code and LEED Silver equivalency, (iii) the proposed lot size variance is a technical variance as at the time of rezoning the lot was part of a larger lot which included Phase 1, (iv) the applicant is required to provide a geotechnical analysis and a  Construction Traffic and Management Plan prior to Building Permit issuance should the application move forward, (v) a detailed traffic impact assessment was provided by the applicant and was reviewed and approved by the City’s Transportation Department, and (vi) the traffic study indicated that parking is sufficient on the subject property and existing road networks and proposed road improvements are able to accommodate additional traffic generated by the proposed development.

In reply to queries from the Panel, Mr. Craig further noted that (i) the Public Hearing on the rezoning application for the subject property was held in 2006, (ii) the proposed development meets the City’s current energy and sustainability requirements, (iii) the City’s Affordable Housing Strategy came in after the project’s rezoning application was approved, (iv) Phase 1 of the project at the time of rezoning provided a 1:1 replacement for rental units which included market rental and seniors housing units, (v) the project complies with the City’s current Tenant Relocation Plan requirements, and (vi) the Servicing Agreement includes significant infrastructure works in Minoru Park.

Gallery Comments

Ricardo Vong, 7399 Murdoch Avenue, expressed concern regarding increased traffic and noise levels in the area during and after construction of the new building.

In reply to Mr. Vong’s concerns, Mr. Craig noted that the City’s Noise Regulation Bylaw regulates when construction hours can take place, which are between 7 a.m. and 8 p.m. Monday through Friday, between 10 a.m. and 8 p.m. Saturday, and no construction is permitted during Sundays and statutory holidays. In addition, he stated that the applicant is required to submit a Construction Traffic and Parking Management Plan prior to issuance of Building Permit.

In reply to a query from the Panel, Mr. Craig confirmed that a traffic study was provided by the applicant at rezoning and an updated version was submitted for the subject development permit application.

Peter Demchuk, 6611 Minoru Boulevard, Unit 1614, expressed concern regarding (i) the potential increase in noise and traffic that will be generated by construction activities in the subject site which would particularly impact seniors living in the area, (ii) the capacity of the existing Mah Bing Street to accommodate increased traffic, (iii) the potential impact of the proposed development on existing vehicle access to 6611 Minoru Boulevard including access to the property’s buildings and parking and loading areas, and (iv) the potential removal of two parking stalls on the property.

In reply to Mr. Demchuk’s concern regarding construction noise and traffic, the Chair noted that the City’s Noise Regulation Bylaw will be enforced during construction and the applicant is required to provide a Construction Traffic and Management Plan to address potential traffic congestion and maintain access to existing residential developments in the area. 

In reply to Mr. Demchuk’s concerns regarding increased traffic in the area and vehicle access to 6611 Minoru Boulevard, Mr. Craig noted that (i) the existing lane  fronting the subject site will be expanded into a city street to be called Mah Bing Street, which is similar to the street north of Murdoch Avenue, (ii) the proposed street improvement will run from the Murdoch Avenue intersection until the south property line of the subject development, and (iii) the proposed development will not impact vehicle access to buildings as well as loading and parking areas on the property at 6611 Minoru Boulevard.

With regard to the potential removal of two parking stalls at 6611 Minoru Boulevard, Mr. Craig clarified that their removal was proposed as one of the two options being investigated to maintain access to the property’s garbage and recycling loading area; however, there was no agreement on this proposal, therefore an alternative arrangement was proposed that would provide a statutory right-of-way on the southwest corner of the  proposed development adjacent to Minoru Park to allow the garbage and recycling truck to turn around and exit.

In reply to a query from the Panel, Mr. Craig confirmed that the garbage and recycling truck servicing 6611 Minoru Boulevard is currently accessing the site by driving across the subject development without a formal easement.

Bill Sorenson, 6611 Minoru Boulevard, spoke against the proposed alternate truck route to access the property’s garbage and recycling loading area, noting that it is circuitous and would impact vehicular traffic as well as pedestrian safety, particularly of seniors, on the lane fronting the northern building at 6611 Minoru Boulevard. He added that he would prefer the installation of a dedicated lane for truck access which provides a more direct route to the property’s garbage and recycling loading area through the two parking stalls on the property. In closing, Mr. Sorenson noted that he does not agree with the strata management and Council of 6611 Minoru Boulevard not responding to the applicant’s communications regarding garbage and recycling truck access to the property.

In reply to Mr. Sorenson’s concern, Mr. Leung stated that he had communicated several times with the strata management of 6611 Minoru Boulevard through the property manager regarding the applicant’s first option for truck access into the property which provides a more direct route through the two parking stalls. He added that he offered to pay compensation for the two parking stalls; however, the strata management did not respond and as a result, the applicant is proposing an alternate truck route to access and exit the property’s garbage and recycling loading area.

Nuno Porto, 6611 Minoru Boulevard, expressed concern regarding (i) the siting of buildings on the proposed development which impact pedestrian experience on Minoru Park, and (ii) the proposed development’s interface with adjacent residential developments, particularly with the property at 6611 Minoru Boulevard. He noted that the towers and townhouses on the proposed development are sited closer to the park than the existing two three-storey buildings on-site. Also, he suggested that the treatment for the three-storey podium wall along the south side of the subject development facing the existing tower to the south be reviewed in order to improve its interface with the park and the adjacent development to the south.

Meena Bangash, 6491 Minoru Boulevard, spoke about the situation of low-income tenants in the existing rental buildings on-site who are going to be displaced when the buildings are demolished. She noted that their situation is made more difficult by the pandemic as some tenants are experiencing job loss and will have difficulty finding rental units that they can afford. 

Juliet Mendoza, 6491 Minoru Boulevard stated that she has lived in the rental building for 13 years and queried about (i) the age requirement for seniors who are existing tenants in order to qualify for accommodation in the Phase 1 of the development, and (ii) the assistance offered under the applicant’s Tenant Relocation Plan.

In reply to Ms. Mendoza’s query regarding the age requirement for seniors, Mr. Leung noted that seniors in existing rental buildings on-site should be 65 years or older to qualify for accommodation in affordable rental units in Phase 1; however, all rental units are currently occupied.

In reply to Ms. Mendoza’s query regarding the Tenant Relocation Plan, Mr. Craig reviewed the various components of the Tenant Relocation Plan which include notification, right of first refusal, relocation assistance, compensation and communication with tenants. In addition, he noted that with regard to relocation assistance, the developer is required to hire a Tenant Relocation Coordinator to assist tenants free of charge in finding similar accommodations within the City or in another location at the tenant’s discretion. 

In reply to queries from the Panel, Mr. Craig advised that (i) the minimum four month’s notice to end tenancy would be served upon issuance of demolition permit for the subject development, (ii) issuance of the demolition permit is subject to the developer meeting certain conditions prior to the application proceeding to Council, and is not anticipated to occur prior to the beginning of 2021, (iii) a Tenant Relocation Coordinator has been hired by the developer to provide relocation assistance to tenants, and (iv) the minimum compensation for existing tenants is three months free rent or lump sum equivalent and is increased depending on the number of years the tenant has resided in the building.

In reply to queries from the Panel, Mr. Leung noted that (i) the developer was required to demolish the existing rental buildings on-site two years after Phase 1 was constructed; however, the developer had agreed to delay its implementation to minimize displacement of existing rental tenants,  (ii) approximately 118 tenants are currently living in the two rental buildings and five tenants are moving out at the end of the month, (iii) information regarding preferences of tenants in terms of relocation assistance is not currently available; however, letters have been sent out to existing tenants regarding the relocation process, (iv) the applicant will conduct open house sessions with tenants should conditions allow or will personally reach out to them, (v) in 2016, existing tenants were given the right of first refusal for rental units in the Phase 1 development and 19 tenants were accommodated in Phase 1, (vi) beginning in 2018, month-to-month rentals were introduced for new tenants in anticipation of the demolition of existing rental buildings, and  (vii)  the Tenant Relocation Coordinator is ready to assist in the relocation of tenants and the developer has offered a compensation package as part of the Tenant Relocation Plan.

Correspondence

Yuewen Gong, resident of Carrera Building 2 (Schedule 1)

In reply to Mr. Gong’s concerns, Mr. Craig noted that (i) the proposed development complies with the City’s building separation guidelines, and (ii) the development’s outdoor amenity areas comply with the City’s requirements.

Jessy (no last name provided), a resident of 7333 Murdoch Avenue (Schedule 2)

In reply to geotechnical concerns, among other concerns mentioned in the above correspondence, Mr. Craig advised that a geotechnical report by a certified engineer will be required prior to Building Permit issuance should the application move forward.

Ho Siu M. and Leung Ching M., 6611 Minoru Boulevard (Schedule 3)

Mr. Craig noted that the concerns expressed in the above correspondence regarding potential geotechnical issues as well as noise and dust during construction have been previously discussed.

Shao He He, 803-7368 Gollner Avenue (Schedule 4)

In reply to concerns cited in the above correspondence, Mr. Craig noted that (i) there is a shadow analysis provided by the applicant included in the meeting’s agenda package, and (ii) the proposal complies with the City’s tower separation guidelines.

Charing Chong, 1306-7333 Murdoch Avenue (Schedule 5)

Mr. Craig noted that the above correspondence expressed concerns related to potential traffic generated from the proposed development, potential implications to wildlife and vegetation in the park, and construction noise related to the proposed development.

Lexy Clayburn, resident of Minoru Gardens (Schedule 6)

Mr. Craig noted that the above correspondence expressed concern regarding (i) tenant displacement during a pandemic, (ii) ability of tenants to find alternative accommodations, particularly affordable housing units in the City of Richmond, (iii) access to information from the Tenant Relocation Coordinator regarding relocation assistance, and (iv) the proposed variance sought in relation to the proposed development. In addition, Mr. Craig further noted that the proposed variance to reduce the minimum lot area is a technical variance associated with the subdivision of Phase 1.

Kamran Bangash, 6491 Minoru Blvd. (Schedule 7)

Mr. Craig noted that the above correspondence expressed concern regarding tenant displacement and the ability of existing tenants to find alternative accommodations and requested that the property owner conduct a Tenant Needs Survey for all tenants to get more information about their situation.

Rao Zeeshan, 6491 Minoru Blvd. (Schedule 8)

Mr. Craig noted that Mr. Zeeshan expressed concern regarding tenant displacement and ability to find alternative accommodations within the city.

Ramakanth Gade, 6391 Minoru Blvd. (Schedule 9)

Mr. Craig noted that the above correspondence expressed concern regarding tenant displacement and challenges in finding potential alternative accommodations within the city.

Meena Bangash, 6491 Minoru Boulevard) (Schedule 10)

Meena Irshad, 6491 Minoru Blvd. (Schedule 11)

Mr. Craig noted that the above two pieces of correspondence expressed concern regarding the displacement of existing tenants of apartment rental buildings on-site and their ability to find alternative housing within the city.

April Denosta, 6491 Minoru Blvd. (Schedule 12)

Mr. Craig noted that Ms. Denosta is asking for information regarding the timeline for demolition of the existing rental buildings on-site.

Andrea Roca, 6611 Minoru Blvd. (Schedule 13)

Nuno Porto, 6611 Minoru Blvd. (Schedule 14)

Mr. Craig noted that the above two pieces of correspondence share the same concerns which include (i) proximity of the proposed development to Minoru Park, (ii) proximity to the adjacent development to the south, (iii) potential impacts related to construction of the proposed development, and (iv) treatment of the south wall of the subject development.

In reply to queries from the Panel, Mr. Craig confirmed that (i) the proposed development is set back six meters from the park to the townhouse units while the western edge of the parkade in the adjacent development to the south is along the west property line, (ii) the proposed development will provide a right-of-way on their property for the installation of the north-south walkway fronting the townhouse units in the proposed development.

Mirene Raphael, (no complete address indicated) (Schedule 15)

The abovementioned correspondent expressed regret for not being able to attend the July 29, 2020 Panel meeting.

Shelvin Chandra, 301-6491 Minoru Blvd. (Schedule 16)

Mr. Craig noted that staff had responded to the above mentioned correspondent’s query regarding the availability of and access to the minutes for the July 29, 2020 Development Permit Panel meeting.

Panel Discussion 

A suggestion was made to defer the subject development permit application to a future meeting of the Panel due to Panel concerns regarding (i) the proposed truck access for the collection of garbage and recycling at the adjacent residential development to the south, (ii) the applicant’s Tenant Relocation Plan, including how it is communicated to tenants of existing rental buildings, and potential displacement of existing tenants, and (iii) the proposed treatment for the south wall of the Tower D/E podium in the subject site adjacent to the existing tower to the south.

Panel Decision

It was moved and seconded

That DP 18-837117 be deferred to the Development Permit Panel meeting scheduled for Wednesday, September 30, 2020, at 3:30 p.m. at the Council Chambers, Richmond City Hall, for the purpose of the applicant working with staff to address the following issues:

1.

review the proposed truck access to allow garbage and recycling collection for 6611 Minoru Boulevard (adjacent development to the south of the subject site) and investigate opportunities for a more direct route;

2.

review the proposed treatment to the south wall of Tower D/E podium to improve the project’s interface with the side of the existing tower to the south; and 

3.

ensure the attendance of the project’s Tenant Relocation Coordinator at the Panel’s September 30, 2020 meeting to provide a report on the following: 

(i)

the project’s Tenant Relocation Plan and the Coordinator’s communication with tenants of existing rental buildings on-site (6391 and 6491 Minoru Road) regarding the Plan; 

(ii)

the tenants’ preferences in terms of types of needed relocation assistance; and

(iii)

information regarding the number of tenants needing relocation assistance and proposed measures to assist in relocating the tenants.

CARRIED

5.

New Business

It was moved and seconded

That the Development Permit Panel meetings tentatively scheduled on Wednesday, August 12, 2020 and Wednesday, August 26, 2020 be cancelled as there are no agenda items scheduled for the two meetings.

6.

Adjournment

It was moved and seconded

That the meeting be adjourned at 6:12 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, July 29, 2020.

_______________________________

_____________________________

Joe Erceg 
Chair

Rustico Agawin 
Committee Clerk