April 16, 2014 - Minutes

Time:

3:30 p.m.

Place:

Council Chambers
Richmond City Hall

Present:

Dave Semple, Chair
John Irving, Director, Engineering
Lani Schultz, Director, Corporate Planning

1.

Minutes

It was moved and seconded

That the minutes of the meeting of the Development Permit Panel held on Wednesday, March 26, 2014, be adopted.

CARRIED

2.

Development Variance 13-627930
(File Ref. No.:  DV 13-627930)  (REDMS No. 4196619)

APPLICANT:

Rogers Communications Inc. c/o Standard Land Company Inc.

PROPERTY LOCATION:

Highway 99 – Westminster Highway off-ramp

INTENT OF PERMIT:

1.

Grant concurrence to the proposed telecommunication antenna monopole installation for the site located on a provincially owned highway road right-of-way (Highway 99 – Westminster Highway off-ramp); and

2.

Vary the provisions of Richmond Zoning Bylaw 8500 to increase the maximum height for accessory structures from 20 m to 35 m for a site located on a provincially owned highway road right-of-way (Highway 99 – Westminster Highway off-ramp) for the development of a 35 m tall telecommunication antenna monopole on land zoned “Agriculture (AG1)”.

Applicant’s Comments

Sam Sugita, Rogers Communications Inc., gave an overview of the proposed telecommunication antenna monopole installation and commented on its design and siting. He noted that the proposed telecommunication antenna monopole is anticipated to improve cellular coverage in the surrounding area.

Panel Discussion

Discussion ensued with regard to possible alternatives to the proposed monopole design. In reply to queries from the Panel, Mr. Sugita advised that poles made from trees are more susceptible to weathering and therefore is not an appropriate alternative to the current monopole design. Also, he noted that placing the antenna on existing hydro poles would not be possible due to the limitations in the structural design of the hydro poles.

Discussion then ensued with regard to the proposed enclosed compound that would contain supporting equipment for the monopole antenna. In reply to queries from the Panel, Mr. Sugita noted that the proposed compound would be secured using a barbed-wire chain-link fence and screened with cedar hedging.

The Panel raised concerns with the visual aesthetics of the barbed-wire fence and it was noted that the fence could be masked by the cedar hedges or can be removed altogether if required.

Staff Comments

In reply to queries from the Panel, Wayne Craig, Director, Development, anticipates that the proposed monopole antenna will have no significant impact to wildlife habitat and native vegetation and that all trees on the site will be retained.

Correspondence

None.

Gallery Comments

Mark Watanable, 12560 Westminster Highway, raised concern with regard to possible adverse health effects and an increase in noise from the proposed monopole antenna. In response to queries, Mr. Sugita noted that the proposed monopole antenna abides by Health Canada standards and that no significant increase in noise is anticipated since a generator will not be installed.

Panel Discussion

Discussion ensued with regard to the integration of the proposed monopole antenna into the surrounding landscape. The Panel directed staff to work with the applicant on possible landscaping options to integrate the proposed monopole antenna enclosure in a more aesthetic manner.

Panel Decision

It was moved and seconded

That:

1.

Richmond City Council grant concurrence to the proposed telecommunication antenna monopole installation for the site located on a provincially owned highway road right-of-way (Highway 99 – Westminster Highway off-ramp); and

2.

A Development Variance Permit be issued which would vary the provisions of Richmond Zoning Bylaw 8500 to increase the maximum height for accessory structures from 20 m to 35 m for a site located on a provincially owned highway road right-of-way (Highway 99 – Westminster Highway off-ramp) for the development of a 35 m tall telecommunication antenna monopole on land zoned “Agriculture (AG1)”.

CARRIED

3.

Development Variance 13-634940
(File Ref. No.:  DV 13-634940)  (REDMS No. 4183696)

APPLICANT:

Onni 7731 Alderbridge Holding Corp.

PROPERTY LOCATION:

5311 Cedarbridge Way and 7771 Alderbridge Way

INTENT OF PERMIT:

Vary the provisions of Richmond Zoning Bylaw 8500 to further reduce the visitor parking requirement from 0.15 spaces/unit, as per Development Permit (DP 12-615424), to 0.10 spaces/unit for the development located at 5311 Cedarbridge Way and 7771 Alderbridge Way on a site zoned “High Density Low Rise Apartments (RAH2)”.

Applicant’s Comments

Eric Hughes, Onni 7731 Alderbridge Holding Corp., gave a brief overview of the methodologies of the traffic and parking studies related to the application to reduce visitor parking on the proposed development.

Panel Discussion

In reply to queries from the Panel, Mr. Hughes advised that the residential developments used for the parking studies were fully occupied.

Staff Comments

In reply to queries from the Panel, Victor Wei, Director, Transportation advised that the proposed parking rate will not be used as the standard rate for future developments. He noted that requests for reduced parking rates in future developments can be examined on a case-by-case basis.

Panel Discussion

Discussion ensued with regard to the long term demand for street parking in the surrounding area. In reply to queries from the Panel, Mr. Wei advised that the proposed on-site parking has the capacity to meet demands of the residents, reducing the reliance on street parking.

In reply to queries from the Panel, Mr. Hughes commented on current parking regulations and was of the opinion that the current parking rates do not reflect the current demand for parking. He noted that the proposed development will include an integrated intercom for the two parking garages so visitors can access more parking in the event that there is a shortage of parking in one of the garages.

Mr. Wei commented on the proposed parking rates and transportation options for residents, noting that the reduced rates can meet future demand for parking.

Correspondence

None.

Gallery Comments

None.

Panel Discussion

Discussion ensued with regard to the availability of parking once the development is complete. In reply to queries from the Panel, Mr. Craig, advised that the allocation of parking will be under the direction of the property’s management. Mr. Craig added that the Panel could request the developer post a bond to address a future shortfall in visitor parking but details of such an arrangement would require further discussion with the applicant.

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

Panel Decision

It was moved and seconded          

That Development Variance 13-634940, be referred back to staff to examine methods that would secure additional parking capacity for future demand in the proposed development and report back to the April 30, 2014 Development Permit Panel.

CARRIED

4.

Development Permit 14-658462
(File Ref. No.:  DP 14-658462)  (REDMS No. 4189380)

APPLICANT:

Robert Ciccozzi Architecture Inc.

PROPERTY LOCATION:

7688 Alderbridge Way

INTENT OF PERMIT:

Supplement approved DP 12-626615 by permitting construction of a larger amenity building and associated landscaping alterations, than approved under DP 12-626615.  All other aspects of the proposed development shall be in compliance with DP 12-626615.

Applicant’s Comments

Robert Ciccozzi and Shannon Seefeldt, representatives from Robert Ciccozzi Architecture Inc., and Mark Synan, Van der Zalm and Associates, gave a brief overview of the proposed amenity building with respect to (i) urban design, (ii) architectural form and character, and (iii) landscaping and open space design.

Panel Discussion

Discussion ensued with regard to the indoor features of the pool and options to integrate the indoor features with outdoor features of the amenity building.

In reply to queries from the Panel, Mr. Ciccozzi noted that the pool area needs to be contained in order to maintain a constant level of humidity. 

Discussion then ensued with regard to the design of trusses supporting the amenity roof and options to enhance the exterior roof appearance and associated landscaping. In reply to queries from the Panel, Mr. Craig advised that staff can work with the applicant to refine the landscape design.

Correspondence

None.

Gallery Comments

None.

Panel Decision

It was moved and seconded

That a Development Permit be issued to supplement approved DP 12-626615 by permitting construction of a larger amenity building and associated landscaping alterations, than approved under DP 12-626615.  All other aspects of the proposed development shall be in compliance with DP 12-626615.

CARRIED

5.

New Business

None.

6.

Date Of Next Meeting:  April 30, 2014

7.

Adjournment

It was moved and seconded

That the meeting be adjourned at 4:24 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 16, 2014.

_________________________________

_________________________________

Dave Semple
Chair

Evangel Biason
Auxiliary Committee Clerk