Jump to main content
2016 Agendas & Minutes

May 11, 2016 - Minutes

PDF Document Printer-Friendly Minutes

City of Richmond Meeting Minutes

 

Development Permit Panel

 

Wednesday, May 11, 2016

 

Time:

3:30 p.m.

Place:

Council Chambers
Richmond City Hall

Present:

Joe Erceg, Chair
Cathryn Volkering Carlile, General Manager, Community Services
Robert Gonzalez, General Manager, Engineering and Public Works

 

 The meeting was called to order at 3:30 p.m.

 

Minutes

 

It was moved and seconded

 

That the minutes of the meeting of the Development Permit Panel held on April 27, 2016, be adopted.

 

CARRIED

1.

Development Permit 15-708397
(File Ref. No.:  DP 15-708397)  (REDMS No. 4981603)

 

APPLICANT:

Townline Gardens Inc.



 

PROPERTY LOCATION:

10780 No. 5 Road / 12733 Steveston Highway



 

INTENT OF PERMIT:



 

1.

Permit the construction of two (2) 8-storey residential buildings and one (1) 4-storey residential building at 10780 No. 5 Road and 12733 Steveston Highway on a site zoned “Commercial Mixed Use (ZMU18) – The Gardens (Shellmont)”; and

 

2.

Vary the provisions of Richmond Zoning Bylaw 8500 to:

 

 

(a)

Increase the maximum height over a parkade structure from six (6) storeys and 25.0 m, to eight (8) storeys and 26.9 m; and

 

 

(b)

Allow a permitted projection of 1.8 m for unenclosed balconies into the side yard (north) setback.

 

Applicant’s Comments

 

Patrick Cotter, ZGF Cotter Architects, Inc., provided background information on the proposed development, noting that: (i) the subject application is the third and final phase of the overall master-planned development, (ii) the proposed two eight-storey concrete buildings were originally designed as six-storey wood frame buildings but no increase in height and volume was made, (iii) the two eight-storey buildings accommodate the unutilized permitted densities in earlier phases, (iv) the third phase is sited in the center of the site and does not impact neighbouring properties, (v) the mechanical penthouses in the two eight-storey buildings are located as far back as possible from the ‘Agricultural Park’ to the north, (vi) the projection of unenclosed balconies further into the north side setback would provide animation to the north elevation while also increasing natural surveillance into the park, and (vii) the four-storey Building F adjacent to the eight-storey building (Building E2) steps down to three stories along the interior courtyard.

 

In response to a query from the Panel, Steve Jedreicich, Townline Group of Companies, confirmed that the unused permitted densities in Phases 1 and 2 were utilized in Phase 3 of the overall development.

 

Jennifer Stamp, Durante Kreuk Ltd. Landscape Architecture, briefed the Panel on the overall landscaping scheme for the proposed development and highlighted the following:

 

§   

there is a generous Riparian Management Area (RMA) setback along the eastern edge of the subject site;

 

§   

a qualified environmental professional (QEP) engaged by the applicant has prepared a landscaping plan for the RMA;

 

§   

should a small portion of the northeast corner of the site be expropriated by the Ministry of Transportation and Infrastructure (MoTI) for infrastructure undertakings, it would have a minimal impact on the development of the subject site but would affect the vegetation in the RMA; and

 

§   

the main landscaping features for the subject development include (i) cedar hedging and thorny plantings in the Agricultural Landscape Buffer Area in the north, (ii) a barrier-free pedestrian mews and ramp that connect to the future public park to the north, (iii) a park overlook area, and (iv) a common amenity garden for Buildings E1 and E2.

 

Panel Discussion

 

In response to a query from the Panel, Mr. Jedreicich commented that should MoTI proceed with its planned infrastructure improvements, the RMA landscaping plan may have to be significantly redesigned depending on the potential extent of highway widening required.

 

In response to queries from the Panel, Mr. Jedreicich and Mr. Cotter confirmed that (i) the proposed number of affordable housing units complies with City requirements, (ii) improvements to the City-owned childcare facility will need to be completed prior to the occupancy of the proposed development, and (iii) a dog wash facility is provided in the proposed development.

 

In response to further queries from the Panel, Ms. Stamp advised that (i) a pedestrian path is provided along the north side of Building F, (ii) the proposed amenity garden contains a water feature, simple sheet of lawn, summer flower garden, children’s play area and dining area, (iii) the summer flower garden may be temporary as this area on the site could potentially be a future urban agriculture area, and (iv) there is a barrier-free access from the north side of the development to the amenity area.

 

In response to a query from the Panel regarding the sustainability features of the project, Mr. Cotter advised that project’s main strategy to achieve energy efficiency is through thermally efficient exterior wall detailing of the proposed buildings.

 

Staff Comments

 

Wayne Craig, Director, Development, advised that (i) staff is supportive of the requested variances, (ii) 16 affordable housing units are provided in the proposed development, with the majority of these units being two- and three-bedroom units, (iii) the noise study submitted by the applicant indicates compliance with Canada Mortgage and Housing Corporation’s (CHMC) noise standards, (iv) the landscaping plan for the RMA along the eastern edge of the site is separate from the overall landscaping plan for the proposed development, and (v) improvements to the City-owned childcare facility are covered by a legal agreement to ensure facility completion by the applicant prior to occupancy of any buildings in the subject phase. 

 

In reply to a query from the Panel, Mr. Craig further advised that (i) details on planned infrastructure undertakings by MoTI  have not yet been finalized,  (ii) should the MoTI undertakings impact the proposed buildings on the subject site, the subject application would have to be brought back to the Panel and Council, and (iii) changes to landscaping within the RMA as a result of MoTI undertakings will be the responsibility of the applicant.

 

Correspondence

 

None.

 

Gallery Comments

 

None.

 

Panel Discussion

 

The Chair acknowledged support for the project, noting that the details have been well thought-out.

 

Panel Decision

 

It was moved and seconded

 

That a Development Permit be issued which would:

 

1.

Permit the construction of two (2) 8-storey residential buildings and one (1) 4-storey residential building at 10780 No. 5 Road and 12733 Steveston Highway on a site zoned “Commercial Mixed Use (ZMU18) – The Gardens (Shellmont)”; and

 

2.

Vary the provisions of Richmond Zoning Bylaw 8500 to:

 

 

(a)

Increase the maximum height over a parkade structure from six (6) storeys and 25.0 m, to eight (8) storeys and 26.9 m; and

 

 

(b)

Allow a permitted projection of 1.8 m for unenclosed balconies into the side yard (north) setback.

 

CARRIED

2.

Development Variance Permit 16-721776
(File Ref. No.:  DV 16-721776)(File Ref. No.: Xr. TE 16-721775)

 

APPLICANT:

TM Mobile Inc. (Telus)



 

PROPERTY LOCATION:

17080 Cambie Road



 

INTENT OF PERMIT:



 

1.

Vary the provisions of Richmond Zoning Bylaw 8500 to increase the maximum accessory structure height in the “Agriculture (AG1)” zoning district from 20 m (65.6 ft.) to 30 m (98.4 ft.) in order to permit the installation of a telecommunications antenna tower at 17080 Cambie Road; and

 

2.

Richmond City Council grant concurrence to the proposed telecommunications antenna tower for the site located at 17080 Cambie Road.

 

Applicant’s Comments

 

Jon Luegner, TELUS Real Estate and Government Affairs, 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 and highlighted the following:

 

§   

the applicant is proposing to install a 30-meter antenna tower within a 100-square meter fenced compound to be located within a 30-hectare farm and adjacent to Highway 91 to replace an existing tower located within the vicinity, located at 4060 No. 7 Road;

 

§   

Telus and the owners of the existing site were unable to agree on terms after the expiration of the lease agreement;

 

§   

the existing tower will be removed after the expiration of the lease agreement;

 

§   

the applicant is requesting Council’s concurrence to the proposed development as well as applying for a development variance permit as Richmond Zoning Bylaw allows a maximum height of 20 meters for an accessory structure in the subject site;

 

§   

the subject site is located outside of the adjacent Riparian Management Area (RMA) to the south and within the footprint of an existing farm road, thereby minimizing encroachment on agricultural land as much as possible;

 

§   

the proposed tower has a slender monopole design with flush-mounted antenna as opposed to the existing lattice frame tower which is more obtrusive and visible;

 

§   

Telus service levels within the coverage area of the existing tower are expected to improve with the installation of the proposed tower;

 

§   

Transport Canada and NAV Canada have confirmed that markings and lighting are not required for the proposed tower;

 

§   

the applicant has complied with Innovation, Science and Economic Development Canada’s (ISED) public consultation process and the City’s public notification requirements;

 

§   

the City’s Agricultural Advisory Committee (ACC) has considered and endorsed the proposed development;

 

§   

the applicant engaged the services of an agrologist  and consulted with NAV Canada to address ACC’s comments regarding the proposed tower’s potential impact to aerial application of fertilizer in nearby cranberry fields and the use of an “un-published” air strip located immediately to the east of the subject site ; and

 

§   

Transport Canada has confirmed that the proposed tower would not require additional painting and marking if it is sited at least 40 meters from the center line of the air strip to the east.

 

Panel Discussion

 

In response to a query from the Panel, Mr. Luegner confirmed that the applicant is willing to accommodate the concerns of the owner of the adjacent property to the east regarding the proximity of the proposed tower to the air strip. He added that subject to the direction of the Panel and the report of the geotechnical study, the proposed tower and compound could be moved as far south as possible, with the southern fence of the compound abutting the RMA.

 

Staff Comments

 

Mr. Craig confirmed that staff have recently met with the applicant and the owner of the adjacent property to the east regarding concerns on the proximity of the tower to the air strip, noting that (i) the current location of the proposed tower does not require additional painting, (ii) moving the tower and compound further south would not require additional variances and is supported by the City’s Environmental and Sustainability staff.

 

In response to a further query from the Panel, Mr. Craig advised that the applicant is also proposing to plant native species in lieu of cedars in the RMA area at the south side of the compound.

 

Correspondence

 

None.

 

Gallery Comments

 

Todd May, Co-Chair of the City’s Agricultural Advisory Council and a farmer in the subject area, expressed concern regarding the original siting of the tower and compound which encroach on a farmed area and will potentially impact the operation of the fixed-wing aircraft currently providing aerial application of fertilizer to majority of farms in the area.

 

Mr. May advised that he supports the proposal to move the tower and compound as far south as possible to mitigate safety concerns associated with the operation of the fixed-wing aircraft operating in the air strip immediately to the east of the subject site.

 

Also, Mr. May clarified that (i) the airstrip located immediately to the east of the subject site is a recognized private aerodrome by Transport Canada, and (i) should the proposed tower be moved to the north, Transport Canada would require additional marking and lighting for the tower.

 

Panel Discussion

 

In response to a query from the Panel, Mr. May stated that he would understand if geotechnical conditions would not warrant the movement of the proposed tower to the south.

 

In response to a query from the Panel, Mr. Craig advised that Panel may provide direction to staff to include the proposed changes to the development as conditions prior to Council consideration of the subject development application. He further advised that the subject application could be brought back to the Panel if the proposed changes could not be made due to geotechnical considerations.

 

In response to a further query from the Panel, Mr. Craig commented that the subject application does not need to go back to the City’s Agricultural Council Committee as the proposed changes do not increase the height of the tower and size of the compound.

 

Panel Decision

 

It was moved and seconded

 

1.

That a Development Variance Permit be issued which would vary the provisions of Richmond Zoning Bylaw 8500 to increase the maximum accessory structure height in the “Agriculture (AG1)” zoning district from 20 m (65.6 ft.) to 30 m (98.4 ft.) in order to permit the installation of a telecommunications antenna tower at 17080 Cambie Road subject to the applicant undertaking the following:

 

 

(a)

move the proposed tower and foundation as far south as possible;

 

 

(b)

shift the proposed 10-meter by 10-meter compound for the tower to the south to be immediately adjacent to the Riparian Management Area (RMA);

 

 

(c)

replace the cedars to be planted on the south side of the compound with native species;

 

2.

That the subject application be brought back to the Development Permit Panel for further consideration should the geotechnical study being conducted by the applicant finds the above changes not feasible; and

 

3.

That Richmond City Council grant concurrence to the proposed telecommunications antenna tower for the site located at 17080 Cambie Road subject to the above actions to be undertaken by the applicant.

 

CARRIED

3.

New Business

 

It was moved and seconded

 

That the Development Permit Panel meeting tentatively scheduled for Wednesday, May 25, 2016 be cancelled.

 

CARRIED

4.

Date of Next Meeting:   June 15, 2016

5.

Adjournment

 

It was moved and seconded

 

That the meeting be adjourned at 4:31 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, May 11, 2016.

_________________________________

_________________________________

Joe Erceg
Chair

Rustico Agawin
Auxiliary Committee Clerk

5/19/2016 5:06:21 PM