January 16, 2013 - Minutes

Gallery Comments

None.

Staff Comment

In response to an inquiry, Mr. Craig advised that the cell tower development variance application was presented to the Development Permit Panel in October 2011. It was referred back to staff with specific direction, which the applicant has now addressed.

Applicant’s Comments

Chad Marlatt, Manager, Land Project Manager, Standard Land Company, advised

§ 

that the property is long and narrow with the length of more than 250 metres.  The tower site was originally located approximately 30 metres from the south property line.  The site has been relocated with a 60 m setback from the south property line to accommodate any future road along the rear of the property;

§ 

at the prior meeting there were four issues that were of concern to the Panel.  The first was that the City had not adopted their telecommunications policy and therefore Standard land Company was premature in bringing the application forward.  The Policy has since been adopted and the City of Richmond’s Zoning Bylaw has been revised to allow Telecommunication Towers;

§ 

the tower is a basic lattice design type.  The design is largely driven by the amount of equipment that is proposed for the site.  The tower will accommodate three separate telecommunication carriers, promoting the co-location of TELUS, Rogers, and Mobilicity.  The three carriers have equipment ranging from approximately 25 to 45 metres on this tower. The tower was designed to provide the necessary structural support for the proposed equipment and to allow for easier upgrading should additional equipment be required;

§ 

the compound layout is fairly simple with the tower in the middle and a few outdoor passages and shelters at the base to hold radio equipment;

§ 

the fencing around the perimeter will be chain link.  As well, on three sides of the site, cedar fencing will be constructed to provide a solid visual screen; and

§ 

an analysis of a 20m tower installation as opposed to the proposed 45 m tower was completed noting that a tower installation complying with zoning at a height of 20 m (66 ft.) would provide significantly decreased amounts of coverage than the tower proposed at   45 m (148 ft.).  It is estimated that as many as 12 total individual 20 m (66 ft.) towers in the surrounding areas would need to be installed to provide similar service coverage that one 45 m (148 ft.) tower is able to accommodate.

Panel Discussion

In reply to queries from the Panel, Mr. Marlatt provided the following information:

§ 

the tower can be painted green if the Panel desires.  Typically they would not paint a tower in an open area as, in their view, the tower is less noticeable if left galvanized; and

§ 

although it is technically possible to mount the antennas laterally, which would potentially reduce the tower height, practically it would require multiple and larger support structures which would be more expensive and require further technical assessment.

Staff Comments

Mr. Craig advised that staff’s primary review was for conformity to Council’s newly adopted Telecommunication Antenna Consultation and Siting Protocol.  The application does conform to the protocol and the applicant has responded to the four areas of the previous referral. 

Staff considered the Siting Protocol which identified industrial sites as preferred locations and also provides a processing option for increased height through a Development Variance Permit. 

Mr. Craig stated that there would be a number of issues that would come into play with a lower structure mainly more towers would be required.  One of the guiding principles in Council’s policy is to limit the proliferation of towers and ensure co-location among service providers which this proposal does.  By looking at this higher structure in one location we are able to avoid, potentially, twelve structures in multiple locations within the same vicinity.

Correspondence

None.

Gallery Comments

None.

Panel Discussion

The Panel commented that, though the structure itself is not attractive, the elimination of multiple towers by permitting the proposed variance was considered a positive move.