April 30, 2025 - Minutes

Time:

3:30 p.m.

Place:

Remote (Zoom) Meeting

Present:

Wayne Craig, General Manager, Planning and Development, Chair

Lloyd Bie, Acting General Manager, Engineering and Public Works

Milton Chan, Director, Engineering

MINUTES

It was moved and seconded

That the minutes of the meeting of the Development Permit Panel held on April 16, 2025 be adopted.

CARRIED

1.

DEVELOPMENT PERMIT 24-040880

 (REDMS No. 8013405)

APPLICANT:

Dream Casa Development

PROPERTY LOCATION:

2051 Anson Avenue

INTENT OF PERMIT:

1.

Permit the construction of a rear yard infill building at 2051 Anson Avenue on a site zoned “Small-Scale Multi-Unit Housing (RSM/L)”.

2.

Vary the provisions of Richmond Zoning Bylaw 8500 to reduce the minimum interior side yard along one of the side lot lines from 4.0 m to 1.5 m for the front principal building.

Applicant’s Comments

Gurjot Punia, Dream Casa Development,  with the aid of a visual presentation (attached to and forming part of these minutes as Schedule 1), provided background information on the proposed development, highlighting the following:

§   

the project has been designed to provide an appropriate interface with existing neighbouring properties;

§   

an entry porch is proposed for the coach house in the rear yard to enhance the visual appearance of the front façade fronting onto the rear lane;

§   

a landscaped outdoor space is proposed at the back of the coach house;

§   

garbage and recycling bins are proposed to be located in the rear yard for shared use of residents of the coach house and the front principal building;

§   

on-site parking is provided for the proposed development, including two parking spaces in the garage for the front principal building and one surface parking stall for the coach house with all vehicles accessing the site from the lane;

§   

the proposed landscaping for the subject site includes, among others, planting of two new trees, shrubs and grasses;

§   

the proposed exterior cladding materials for the coach house and front principal dwelling include Hardie-board panels, asphalt shingles, fluted channels and stones, which are consistent with the character of the neighbourhood;

§   

the proposed coach house includes a living room and kitchen on the ground floor and two bedrooms on the second floor;

§   

windows are proposed on the north and south elevations of the coach house; however, no windows are proposed on the east and west elevations to avoid overlook into neighbouring properties; and

§   

on-site security cameras are proposed to be installed facing the rear lane for the residents’ safety and security.

Staff Comments

Joshua Reis, Director, Development noted that (i) the subject property was rezoned in June 2024 to permit small-scale multi-unit housing (SSMUH) in accordance with the provincial legislation (Bill 44) along with approximately 27,000 other properties in the City including the Burkeville neighbourhood, (ii) the proposed rear yard infill unit is consistent with the “Small-Scale Multi-Unit Housing (RSM/L)” zoning of the subject property, (iii) registration of an aircraft noise sensitive covenant on Title is required as part of the Development Permit to ensure that aircraft noise mitigation measures are incorporated into the building design, (iv)  the proposed variance for one of the interior side yard setbacks on lots 15.0 metres or wider to be reduced from 4 metres to 1.5 metres for the front principal building is supported by staff as the subject property is approximately 15.24 metres wide, the proposed setback is generally consistent with the setback requirement for other lots along Anson Avenue and in Burkeville that are less than 15.0 metres wide, and the  proposed variance would provide space for living areas for the proposed two-bedroom secondary suite on the ground floor in the front principal building, and (v) the principal building in the front yard does not form part of the subject development permit application aside from the proposed side yard setback variance.

Panel Discussion

In reply to queries from the Panel, the applicant noted that (i) on-site lighting will be downward-focused to avoid light spillover onto neighbouring properties, and (ii) the proposed surface paving material for the on-site pedestrian walkways and the surface parking stall for the proposed coach house is concrete; however, the applicant is willing to use permeable pavers.

In reply to queries from the Panel, staff confirmed that (i) the minimum side yard setback requirement for properties zoned “RSM/L” that are less than 15.0 metres wide is 1.2 metres on both sides; however, the subject property is approximately 15.24 metres wide and the minimum side yard requirement for this lot width is for one of those side yards to be 4 metres in width, hence the applicant is proposing a variance to 1.5 metres in width for both sides, and (ii) the proposed landscaping for the project is consistent with the City’s guidelines and includes the planting of native species.

Correspondence

None.

Gallery Comments

Richard Mayencourt, a Burkeville resident, spoke against the project’s proposed variance to reduce the minimum required interior side yard setback for one of the side yards from 4.0 metres to 1.5 metres, noting that it is unnecessary given the size of the proposed building and would set a precedent for future similar developments in the neighbourhood.

Lori Cockerill, a Burkeville resident, expressed concern about the potential increase of on-street parking in the neighbourhood as a result of the proposed development. Also, she queried about (i) the number of bedrooms in the proposed coach house and front principal building, (ii) the rezoning of properties in the Burkeville neighbourhood from single family to small-scale multi-unit housing use, and (iii) whether the proposed side yard setback variance for the proposed development would set a precedent for future similar developments in the neighbourhood.

In reply to the query regarding the number of bedrooms in the proposed development, the applicant confirmed that (i) two bedrooms are proposed for the coach house, and (ii) the front principal building includes a secondary suite with two bedrooms on the ground floor and four bedrooms on the second floor.

In reply to the concern about the potential increase in on-street parking in the neighbourhood, staff noted that the provision of three on-site parking stalls for the proposed development meets the City’s “RSM/L” zoning requirements.

With regard to the query on the rezoning of properties in Burkeville neighbourhood from single-family to small-scale multi-unit housing use, staff noted that (i) in December 2023 the Provincial Government through Bill 44 required municipalities to rezone existing single-family lots to provide from three to six units on each lot depending on the lot size by June 30, 2024, (ii) the provincial legislation (Bill 44) meant that the City was required to rezone approximately 27,000 lots across the City, (iii) as a result of the provincial legislation, the City amended the zoning of lots greater than 280 metres in size including those in the Burkeville neighbourhood to allow the construction of up to four units for each lot, and the new “RSM/L” zoning took effect in June 2024, and (iv) the proposed development complies with the City’s new “RSM/L” zoning requirements.

With regard to the query on the proposed interior side yard setback variance, staff noted that (i) lot widths of properties along Anson Avenue are between approximately 14.63 metres to 15.24 metres, and (ii) new principal dwellings that could be constructed in the Burkeville neighbourhood on lots with widths less than 15.0 metres would be able to have a setback of 1.2 metres on both side yards without a variance. In addition, the Chair advised that any proposed variance granted by the Panel is not precedent setting as every proposed variance is considered based on its own merits.

With regard to a further query regarding the applicability of Bill 44 to the Burkeville neighbourhood, the Chair advised that in addition to Bill 44, there was another piece of provincial legislation (Bill 47) that required municipalities to allow a certain minimum density within 800 metres of a transit station which would have covered eleven lots in Burkeville but was opposed by the City in the case of Burkeville area as it is separated from the Aberdeen Station by the Fraser River.

Victoria MacCuish, a Burkeville resident, expressed concern regarding (i) garages being converted into habitable spaces, (ii) potential increase in demand for on-street parking in the neighbourhood, and (iii) flooding in some areas in the neighbourhood due to the higher elevation of newer homes relative to the older homes.

Also, she queried about (i) the size of the proposed coach house and whether it is adequate to avoid the conversion of the garage into habitable space, (ii) proposed measures to mitigate flooding in some parts of the area, and (iii) the City’s requirements with respect to the required amount of permeable surface area for developments in the neighbourhood.

In reply, staff noted that (i) the size of the proposed coach house is 230 square feet, (ii) as per the City’s “RSM/L” zoning, the maximum coverage for buildings on the lot is 45 percent, and the minimum requirement for live landscaping on the property is 20 percent, (iii) the project meets the zoning requirements for building coverage, percentage of non-porous surfaces and landscaping requirements, and (iv) the applicant is required to provide on-site perimeter drainage as part of the building permit process to ensure stormwater is managed on-site. 

Margaret Robins, a Burkeville resident, expressed concern regarding (i) the number of units in the proposed development, (ii) the impact of the proposed development on on-street parking in the neighbourhood as it would create conflict among residents, (iii) the possibility of converting the garage into a habitable or storage space, and (iv) project’s on-site drainage system and the occurrence of flooding in front of their property.

Also, she queried about the location of the proposed side yard setback variance and whether the front principal building is centered on the lot.

In reply, staff noted that (i) the proposed side yard setback variance is being applied to the east side yard of the subject property, and (ii) the front principal dwelling is centred on the lot and the setback on either side of the building is 1.5 metres. 

Andy Baxter, a Burkeville resident, queried about the possibility of introducing an on-street residential parking program in the neighbourhood whereby residential parking passes are issued only to residents in the neighbourhood for on-street parking in the area.

In reply, the Chair advised that (i) the City’s parking requirements for the “RSM/L” zone are higher than what the Province requires for small-scale multi-unit housing developments, (ii) the three parking spaces provided in the proposed development comply with the City’s Zoning Bylaw, and (iii) the proposed resident permit parking pass program is outside the purview of the Panel but can be referred to the City’s Transportation Department for review.

Mark Reid, a Burkeville resident, queried about the location of the proposed side yard setback variance in the subject property and sought clarification regarding information provided on the Notice of Development Permit mailed to neighbouring properties of the subject property.

In reply, the Chair noted that the proposed side yard setback variance is for the front principal dwelling and advised that a member of Planning staff will be available at the Council Chambers after the meeting to provide further information and answer questions from members of the public.

Amanda Porcheron, a Burkeville resident, expressed concern about the impact of the proposed development to the neighbourhood’s community feel.

Panel Discussion

The Panel directed staff to work with the applicant to (i) consider the use of permeable pavers in lieu of concrete for the surface paving treatment of the on-site pedestrian pathways and surface parking stall, and (ii) register an additional legal agreement as a condition of Development Permit issuance that would prohibit the conversion of the two-car garage into any habitable space.

Also, the Panel advised the applicant to engage with residents of neighbouring properties, inform them of the project’s construction process and address their concerns.

Panel Decision

It was moved and seconded

That a Development Permit be issued which would:

1.

permit the construction of a rear yard infill building at 2051 Anson Avenue on a site zoned “Small-Scale Multi-Unit Housing (RSM/L)”; and

2.

vary the provisions of Richmond Zoning Bylaw 8500 to reduce the minimum interior side yard along one of the side lot lines from 4.0 m to 1.5 m for the front principal building.

CARRIED

2.

DEVELOPMENT PERMIT 25-008025

 (REDMS No. 8013360)

APPLICANT:

Dream Casa Development

PROPERTY LOCATION:

2211 Anson Avenue

INTENT OF PERMIT:

Permit the construction of a rear yard infill building at 2211 Anson Avenue on a site zoned “Small-Scale Multi-Unit Housing (RSM/L).

Applicant’s Comments

Gurjot Punia, Dream Casa Development, with the aid of a visual presentation (attached to and forming part of these minutes as Schedule 2), provided background information on the proposed development, highlighting the following:

§   

two parking spaces are provided for the front principal building in a garage off the lane and one surface parking stall is provided for the coach house with access from the lane;

§   

through future tenancy agreements, the owner proposes to limit the number of vehicles allowed per unit;

§   

a front porch is proposed on the front façade of the coach house to enhance the appearance of the rear lane;

§   

shared garbage and recycling bins and air source heat pumps are proposed to be located in the rear yard;

§   

decorative fence is proposed along the east and west side yards of the subject property;

§   

proposed landscaping for the subject site includes, among others, planting of trees, shrubs and grasses;

§   

the proposed surface paving treatment for the on-site pedestrian pathway and surface parking stall will be changed from concrete to permeable pavers; and

§   

the proposed design for the coach house in the subject property is similar to the design of the coach house at 2051 Anson Avenue.

Staff Comments

Mr. Reis noted that (i) the subject property is zoned “Small-Scale Multi-Unit Housing (RSM/L)” which was applied to the property in June 2024 in accordance with the Province’s Bill 44, (ii) the proposed rear yard infill development is consistent with the City’s Zoning Bylaw, (iii)  an aircraft noise sensitive use covenant will be registered on Title to ensure that aircraft noise mitigation measures are incorporated into the building design, (iv) there is no proposed variance associated with the project,  and (v) the front principal building is not part of the subject development permit application.

In reply to queries from the Panel, staff confirmed that (i) the subject property is approximately 14.6 metres wide and the required side yard setback is 1.2 metres on either side as the lot is less than 15 metres in width, and (ii) the proposed placement of buildings on the subject property is virtually the same as on the property at 2051 Anson Avenue.

Panel Discussion

In reply to a query from the Panel, staff noted that the size of the proposed surface parking stall for the coach house meets the City’s Zoning Bylaw requirement for small car parking stall.

In reply to a query from the Panel, the applicant noted that they will consider variation in colours for buildings on the proposed development to differentiate them from the buildings on the property at 2051 Anson Avenue. 

Correspondence

None.

Gallery Comments

Andy Baxter, a Burkeville resident, noted that laneway homes usually provide a single car garage and expressed concern regarding the proposed double car garage in the proposed development as it could potentially be converted into a habitable space due to the size of the living space in the proposed coach house.

In reply, staff noted that the size of the proposed double car garage complies with the City’s Zoning Bylaw. In addition, the Chair advised that the Panel would recommend that a legal agreement be registered that would prohibit the conversion of the proposed double car garage into any form of habitable space.

Victoria MacCuish, a Burkeville resident, queried whether an entrance is provided for the front principal dwelling from the garage off the lane.

In reply, the Chair confirmed that a direct pedestrian door from the back of the garage and a pedestrian pathway between the garage and the front principal dwelling are provided in the proposed development. 

Lori Cockerill, a Burkeville resident, queried whether all single-family homes in the Burkeville neighbourhood have been rezoned to small-scale multi-unit housing under Bill 44 and whether the City has considered increasing public transit in the area due to anticipated  increase in housing density and number of cars in the area.

In reply, staff confirmed that the entire Burkeville neighbourhood has been rezoned from single-family to small-scale multi-unit housing in accordance with Bill 44.

With regard to increasing public transit in the Burkeville area, the Chair advised that transit services are outside the purview of the City as it is the mandate of Translink; however, Council is supportive of and advocates for the provision of additional transit services and other transportation amenities to address Bill 44’s impacts to Richmond communities.

A Burkeville resident expressed concern regarding the current on-street parking situation in Burkeville due to the area’s proximity to the Vancouver International Airport and BCIT Campus and the lack of public transit in the area. She noted that non-residents often park their vehicles in the Burkeville area which conflict with the on-street parking needs of residents in the area.

A Burkeville resident queried about the possibility of installing a ride-sharing station in the neighbourhood to address the transportation needs of residents.

In reply, the Chair advised that ride-sharing is outside the purview of the Panel as it is operated by private entities; however, the City supports and advocates for the provision and increase of the availability of ride share and other transportation initiatives throughout the City. 

Panel Discussion

The Panel directed staff to work with the applicant to (i) ensure that the proposed on-site pedestrian pathways and surface parking stall are constructed of permeable pavers in lieu of concrete, (ii) revise the landscape plan for the project to include a variety of species to be planted on-site in order to provide variation to the proposed landscaping for the property at 2051 Anson Avenue, (iii) introduce a different colour scheme for the buildings on the subject property to differentiate them from the buildings on the property at 2051 Anson Avenue, and (iv) register an additional legal agreement as a condition of Development Permit issuance that would prohibit the conversion of the double car garage into any form of habitable space.

Panel Decision

It was moved and seconded

That a Development Permit be issued which would permit the construction of a rear yard infill building at 2211 Anson Avenue on a site zoned “Small-Scale Multi-Unit Housing (RSM/L)”.

CARRIED

3.

New Business

It was moved and seconded

That the Development Permit Panel meeting tentatively scheduled on Wednesday, May 14, 2025 be cancelled.

4.

Date of Next Meeting:  May 28, 2025

ADJOURNMENT

It was moved and seconded

That the meeting adjourn (4:41 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, April 30, 2025.

_________________________________

_________________________________

Wayne Craig

Chair

Rustico Agawin

Committee Clerk