September 10, 2025 - Minutes

Time:

3:30 p.m.

Place:

Remote (Zoom) Meeting

Present:

Wayne Craig, General Manager, Planning and Development, Chair

Marie Fenwick, Director, Arts, Culture and Heritage

Milton Chan, Director, Engineering

MINUTES

It was moved and seconded

That the minutes of the meeting of the Development Permit Panel held on August 27, 2025 be adopted.

CARRIED

1.

DEVELOPMENT PERMIT 24-012258

 (REDMS No. 8078092)

APPLICANT:

Jim Ralph

PROPERTY LOCATION:

3200 No. 3 Road

INTENT OF DEVELOPMENT PERMIT:

Permit the construction of a hotel and residential development at 3200 No. 3 Road on a site zoned “Residential/Limited Commercial and Artist Residential Tenancy Studio Units (ZMU25) – Capstan Village (City Centre)”.

Applicant’s Comments

Jim Ralph, of Pinnacle International, introduced the project, and Doug Nelson, of Bingham + Hill Architects, and Dylan Chernoff, of Durante Kreuk Ltd., with the aid of a visual presentation (attached to and forming part of these minutes as Schedule 1), provided background information on the application, highlighting the following:

§   

in 2022, a Development Permit (DP 18-821292) was issued by Council for Phase 4 (the subject phase, which includes Building K and Building L), the final phase of the multi-phase Pinnacle Centre at Capstan Village and a Building Permit was subsequently issued later that year;

§   

in 2024, a Development Permit (DP 24-012258) application proposing changes to the previously approved DP (DP 18-821292) was considered and endorsed by the Development Permit Panel which includes, among others, changing the use and form of Building L from residential to hotel use;

§   

the subject proposal is proposing further changes affecting both Building K and Building L as part of the previously endorsed DP 24-012258;

§   

proposed architectural changes include, among others, revisions to the façades of Building K and Building L, modifications to the east elevation of the development adjacent to the auto court, revisions to the residential and hotel floor plans, and changing the arrangement of indoor amenity spaces;

§   

proposed change of material for the exterior wall at the northeast corner of Building L from metal to glass spandrel to deter graffiti and address Panel concerns at the previous consideration of the subject Development Permit application;

§   

proposed landscape changes include, among others, relocating the swimming pool and outdoor deck from the podium level to the rooftop of Building L and associated changes to the landscaping on the podium, increasing the number of private outdoor residential terraces on the rooftop of Building K, landscape changes at the entrance to and in the auto court, and installing a planter at the base of the wall at the northeast corner of Building L to restrict access to the wall to avoid graffiti; and

§   

there will be no changes to the proposed use, building height, number of storeys, gross floor area, and materials and colours of Building K and Building L.

Staff Comments

Joshua Reis, Director, Development, noted that (i) the construction of Buildings K and L is currently underway, (ii) there is a Servicing Agreement associated with the proposed development including utility works, frontage improvements including the future road improvement between No. 3 Road and Carscallen Road, and construction of adjacent parks, (iii) the proposed hotel use, height and densities are consistent with the zoning of the subject site, (iv) the applicant is required to register a legal agreement to ensure that the rooftop area is used in a manner that is consistent with the Aeronautical Zoning Regulations applicable to the site with respect to height, (v) the applicant has agreed to register a legal agreement regarding the use of the hotel suites and units to ensure that those units will not be stratified, and (vi) the applicant’s consultants have confirmed that the relocation of the pool to the upper level of Building L is structurally feasible.

Panel Discussion

In reply to queries from the Panel, the applicant noted that (i) a number of residential studio units have been combined to create one-bedroom units, thereby reducing the number of residential units while maintaining their gross floor area, (ii) the relocation of the swimming pool from the podium to the rooftop of Building L is proposed to provide for a bigger pool due to the large number of hotel units proposed, avoid the noise from the Skytrain, and allow more sunlight  exposure into the pool and deck area, (iii) the planter along the wall at the northeast corner of Building L is proposed to be installed to limit access to the blank wall to deter graffiti, (iv) the terraces on the rooftop of Building K are private outdoor spaces and are not intended for shared use, and (v) the applicant is applying for air space parcel subdivision to separate the residential units.

Correspondence

None.

Gallery Comments

None.

Panel Discussion

The Panel expressed support for the proposal, noting the applicant’s attention to detail. Additionally, the Panel encouraged the applicant to work with staff regarding their application for air space parcel subdivision.

Panel Decision

It was moved and seconded

That a Development Permit (DP) be issued which would permit the construction of a hotel and residential development at 3200 No. 3 Road on a site zoned “Residential/Limited Commercial and Artist Residential Tenancy Studio Units (ZMU25) – Capstan Village (City Centre)”.

CARRIED

2.

DEVELOPMENT VARIANCE PERMIT 25-019257

 (REDMS No. 8132067)

APPLICANT:

Site Path Consulting Ltd.

PROPERTY LOCATION:

4611 Viking Way

INTENT OF DEVELOPMENT PERMIT:

1.

Vary the provisions of Richmond Zoning Bylaw 8500 to increase the maximum permitted height for an accessory structure from 20.0 m to 27.0 m, to facilitate construction of a telecommunication monopole tower on a site zoned “Industrial Business Park (IB1)”; and

2.

Grant of concurrence by Richmond City Council to the proposed telecommunication monopole tower at 4611 Viking Way.

Applicant’s Comments

Brian Gregg, of Site Path Consulting, with the aid of a visual presentation (attached to and forming part of these minutes as Schedule 2), provided background information on the application including the necessity for installing the proposed telecommunication tower, coverage objectives, rationale for selecting the proposed site, and tower design and site plan, highlighting the following:

§   

there is increasing demand for network connection driven by the rising number of data-intensive devices such as smartphones, tablets and laptops;

§   

the proposed monopole tower would infill existing coverage gaps in the light industrial and commercial areas including the business parks surrounding the proposed location of the tower;

§   

the proposed site was selected as the installation of the proposed tower is consistent with the zoning of the site and complies with the requirements of Council Policy 5045 - Telecommunications Antenna Consultation and Siting Protocol;

§   

the applicant has tried to look for opportunities for co-location on existing towers in nearby areas but was unsuccessful as those towers did not have sufficient space available at the required elevation needed for their infrastructure;

§   

a flush-mounted monopole tower is proposed which provides more visual interest than other tower designs;

§   

cedar fencing and hedge planting are proposed to provide screening to the tower from the street and enhancements to existing on-site landscaping are also proposed; and

§   

the proposed tower has been approved by Transport Canada and NAV Canada and had no concerns with regard to its proposed height.

Staff Comments

Mr. Reis noted that (i) cedar fencing and additional landscaping are proposed to further screen the proposed tower at ground level, particularly from Highway 99, (ii) the existing on-site landscaping will be retained and additional planting is proposed, (iii) the proposed tower structure will occupy approximately three parking stalls on the subject site which continues to be compliant with its zoning and required parking under the City ‘s Zoning Bylaw after the installation of the facility, and (iv) the applicant has confirmed that the proposed tower can support and accommodate future co-location of future antennas.

Panel Discussion

In reply to queries from the Panel, the applicant noted (i) the proposed tower does not require approval from the Canadian Radio-Television and Telecommunications Commission (CRTC), and (ii) should another network provider make a co-location request for the subject tower in the future, they will need to submit a co-location request to the Telus co-location department in accordance with well established procedures, and as per federal tower sharing requirements, Telus would be obligated to respond to a request for co-location and offer a position on the tower.

Correspondence

None.

Gallery Comments

None.

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 permitted height for an accessory structure from 20.0 m to 27.0 m, to facilitate construction of a telecommunication monopole tower on a site zoned “Industrial Business Park (IB1)”; and

2.

That Richmond City Council grant concurrence to the proposed telecommunication monopole tower at 4611 Viking Way.

CARRIED

3.

New Business

It was moved and seconded

That the Development Permit Panel meeting tentatively scheduled on Wednesday, September 24, 2025, be cancelled.

4.

Date of Next Meeting:  October 16, 2025

ADJOURNMENT

It was moved and seconded

That the meeting adjourn (4:14 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, September 10, 2025.

_________________________________

_________________________________

Wayne Craig

Chair

Rustico Agawin
Committee Clerk