City Council - March 27, 2023 - Minutes - City of Richmond, BC

13 . APPLICATION BY MATTHEW CHENG ARCHITECT INC. FOR REZONING AT 7511 ST. ALBANS ROAD FROM “SINGLE FAMILY DETACHED (RS1/E)” ZONE TO “HIGH DENSITY TOWNHOUSE (RTH1)” ZONE (File Ref. No. 12-8060-20-10446, RZ 18-818548) (REDMS No. 6969884, 7162722, 6220845, 7141632) R23/6-7 It was moved and seconded That Richmond Zoning Bylaw 8500, Amendment Bylaw 10446, for the rezoning of 7511 St. Albans Road from “Single Family Detached (RS1/E)” zone to “High Density Townhouse (RTH1)” zone, be introduced and given first reading. Discussion took place on (i) the registered easement on title, (ii) outdoor amenity space, (iii) increasing density and reducing driveways, (iv) working with the developer to ensure proper care and maintenance of the existing driveway, and (v) tree protection, In reply to queries from Council, staff advised that (i) the driveway at 7433 St. Albans Road is the standard city width, (ii) maintenance of the driveway can be discussed and determined through an agreement between the current strata and the developer, (iii) the easement at 7433 St. Albans was secured through a rezoning in 2001, and (iv) the proposed development will be three storeys with a small roof deck. As a result of the discussion, the following referral motion was introduced: R23/6-8 It was moved and seconded That the staff report titled “Application by Matthew Cheng Architect Inc. For Rezoning at 7511 St. Albans Road From “Single Family Detached (RS1/E)” Zone to “High Density Townhouse (RTH1)” Zone” be referred back to staff to communicate with the residents of 7433 St. Albans to discuss options for vehicle access and reduce proposal to four (4) units. The question on the referral motion was not called as further discussion took place on the responsibility of the conveyance professional to notify purchasers of easements on Title. The question on the referral motion was then called and it was DEFEATED with Mayor Brodie, Cllrs. Heed, Hobbs, Loo and McNulty opposed. In reply to further queries from Council, staff noted that (i) a traffic study was undertaken on the driveway and it was deemed capable of accommodating the additional vehicles, (ii) there are multiple ways to enter into an agreement for maintenance of the shared driveway, and (iii) the easement is registered on each lot and the common driveway. The question on the main motion was then called and it was CARRIED with Cllrs. Day, Au and Wolfe opposed.

非商业公共资料研究与事实报道；仅展示核对事实所需的已评估摘录及本站中文说明。版权归原作者或发布机构；不表示来源机构认可本站。原文、来源及使用条款见链接。 来源使用条款 ↗