November 29, 2017 - Minutes

Time:

3:30 p.m.

Place:

Council Chambers
Richmond City Hall

Present:

Joe Erceg, Chair
Cecilia Achiam, General Manager, Community Safety
John Irving, Director, Engineering

Minutes

It was moved and seconded

That the minutes of the meeting of the Development Permit Panel held on November 16, 2017, be adopted.

CARRIED

1.

Development Variance 15-704583
(REDMS No. 5617123)

APPLICANT:

Matilde Abella

PROPERTY LOCATION:

10455 Bridgeport Road

INTENT OF PERMIT:

1.

Permit the retention of an existing non-conforming addition to the single-family dwelling at 10455 Bridgeport Road on a site zoned “Single Detached (RS1/D)”; and

2.

Vary the provisions of Richmond Zoning Bylaw 8500 to:

(a)

reduce the minimum required rear yard setback from 6.0 m to 3.85 m; and

(b)

reduce the requirement for live landscaping in the required front yard from 50% to 29%.

Applicant’s Comments

Adison Zavier, Kalypso Kreations – Design and Drafting, provided an overview of the subject development variance permit application and highlighted the following:

§   

the two proposed variances are requested to allow the retention of the non-conforming house addition at the rear of the dwelling and provide one vehicle parking stall for the proposed secondary suite in addition to the required two parking stalls for the principal dwelling;

§   

the existing additions and alterations to the house made by the previous owners without a building permit encroached into the required minimum rear yard setback;

§   

the existing landscaped area for the overall site is minimal and the proposed landscaping scheme will achieve the required 30 percent lot coverage for live landscaping;

§   

the new City requirement for live landscaping in the front yard will not be achieved due to the provision of required parking stalls; and

§   

new fencing will be installed at the front and rear of the property to provide screening to the parking stalls and the rear addition.

In response to queries from the Panel, Ms. Zavier advised that (i) the suggestion to increase the size of proposed trees and shrubs would be considered, (ii) there was no disclosure from the previous property owner to the current owner at the time of purchase regarding the non-conforming house addition, and (iii) the applicant will consider the suggestion to relocate the proposed parking stalls to reduce the paved area in the front yard.

In response to queries from the Panel, Wayne Craig, Director, Development, noted that (i) the subject site fronts a busy arterial road, (ii) staff had worked with the applicant to reduce the paved area in the front yard as much as possible while providing adequate space for vehicle turn-around on site, and (iii) staff has not conducted an exhaustive review of whether a reorganization or reorientation of the proposed parking stalls will result in further reduction of the paved area in the front yard.

Staff Comments

Mr. Craig acknowledged that the subject Development Variance Permit application is difficult as staff normally takes a dim view on proposed variances which legitimize construction conducted without a building permit.  However, Mr. Craig noted that (i) the applicant has provided letters of support from all three property owners regarding the two requested variances, and (ii) through the staff review, the landscaping for the site has been increased to conform with the overall landscape objectives for the subject property.

Gallery Comments

None.

Correspondence

None.

Panel Discussion

The Chair commented that the subject Development Variance Permit application be referred back to staff and considered at the Panel’s next scheduled meeting to (i) explore the reduction of the size of the paved area in the front yard, (ii) increase the landscaped area, and (iii) address the Panel’s concern regarding the type and size of proposed planting.

Panel Decision

It was moved and seconded

That Development Variance Permit application 15-704583 be referred back to staff and brought forward for consideration by the Development Permit Panel at its December 13, 2017 meeting, to be held at 3:30 p.m. in the Council Chambers, City Hall, in order for staff to work with the applicant to:

1.

explore the possibility of reducing the amount of paved area in the front yard and investigate further opportunities for increasing the landscaped area in the subject site, and

2.

review the proposed planting plan with a view to increasing the size of trees and shrubs to enhance the overall on-site landscaping and provide adequate screening of the existing non-conforming house addition from adjacent properties.

CARRIED

2.

Development Permit 16-741741
(REDMS No. 5610624 v. 2)

APPLICANT:

Vancouver Airport Fuel Facilities Corporation (VAFFC)

PROPERTY LOCATION:

15040 Williams Road

INTENT OF PERMIT:

Permit the construction of a Marine Terminal Facility for aviation/jet fuel delivery at 15040 Williams Road on a site zoned “Industrial (I)” and partially designated as an Environmentally Sensitive Area (ESA).

Applicant’s Comments

Mark McCaskill, FSM Management Group, introduced the environmental consultants and subject matter experts for the project and noted that the team had collaborated with regulators and engineers to address the referral motion at the October 11, 2017 meeting of the Panel.

Angus Johnston, Hatfield Consultants, briefed the Panel on the applicant’s response to each of the five items in the Panel’s referral motion and highlighted the following:

§   

an additional 702 square meters of planting will be introduced at the northeast and southwest portion of the site’s Environmentally Sensitive Area (ESA);

§   

the proposed additional ESA planting will increase on-site ESA planting by more than 200 percent (bringing the total on-site ESA planting area to more than 1,000 square meters), and increase the compensation-loss ratio to over five to one;

§   

approximately 60 trees and 2,500 shrubs will be added to the on-site ESA and Riparian Management Area (RMA) planting scheme, with the pot sizes of coniferous trees to be increased;

§   

Panel’s request to consider planting in the intertidal ESA was considered by the applicant; however, upon investigation, the project team’s fisheries and engineering experts’ qualified professional opinion is that the approach is not technically and scientifically viable;

§   

645 square meters of additional on-site non-ESA and non-RMA planting is proposed at a new trailside area in the northeast corner of the site and new three-meter wide planting strip adjacent to Williams Road RMA; there is also a 1.5-meter widening of one side of the proposed planting strip adjacent to the public trail;

§   

total on-site non-ESA and non-RMA planting area proposed to be added is approximately 1,300 square meters, increasing significantly the overall on-site planting compared to the original proposal;

§   

the applicant will include interpretive signage along the public trail corridor and at strategic locations; and

§   

the revised overall proposal substantially exceeds the City’s ESA guideline requirements.

In reply to a query from the Panel, Mr. McCaskill advised that the operational requirements of the project were considered in determining the extent of the proposed three-meter wide planting strip adjacent to the Williams Road RMA.

In reply to a query from the Panel, Mr. Craig stated that the proposed viewing platform will be constructed on the City land (Lot K) to the north of the subject site and will be developed in conjunction with the dike and trail system to be installed by the City in the area.

Discussion ensued regarding the lack of proposed planting along the waterfront of the subject site and it was noted that planting was successfully integrated in the waterfronts of other areas north of the subject site.

In reply to a query from the Panel, Mr. Johnston commented that (i) engineering requirements for the proposed rip-rap would not make planting along the waterfront feasible, and (ii) the site’s hydraulic conditions, including high velocity river flows, would adversely affect the viability of planting.

In reply to the same query, Ron Byres, Moffatt and Nichol, reviewed the technical and engineering rationale for the re-grading and design of the proposed rip-rap along the waterfront. He noted that construction materials for the proposed rip-rap include boulders and stones, and introducing materials such as soil, gravel and sand to accommodate planting would negatively impact the structural integrity of the rip-rap and would not ensure the survivability of plants.

In reply to a further query from the Panel, Mr. Byres acknowledged that algae could grow on the proposed rip-rap and the spaces between the rocks offer refugia for key fish species and organisms in the lower food chain.

In reply to the same query from the Panel, Cory Bettles, Hatfield Consultants, briefed the Panel on what could possibly grow in the site’s intertidal ESA given the existing water conditions.  Mr. Bettles noted the difficulty of predicting the exact type of vegetation that could grow in a dynamic environmental system. However, he further noted that the proposed structures and as well as the addition and re-grading of the new rip-rap could facilitate the growth of micro and some macro level vegetation as well as provide habitat to macroinvertebrates. 

In reply to queries from the Panel, Linda Dupuis, Hatfield Consultants, noted that (i) it is preferable to plant a lot of smaller deciduous trees in the site’s ESA as they could better adapt to local growing conditions and could be planted densely to outcompete invasive species, and (ii) planting of larger deciduous trees requires greater spacing which provides opportunity for invasive species to grow.

Staff Comments

Mr. Craig noted that the applicant has explained well the changes to landscaping in response to the Panel’s referral motion. With regard to the item in the referral asking staff to review the cost estimate for the proposed viewing platform, Mr. Craig advised that (i) Planning staff had discussed the matter with Parks staff, (ii) the viewing platform proposed to be located in the adjacent City lot (Lot K) would be installed on top of the dike behind the high water mark, and (iii) Parks staff had verified the cost estimate for the proposed viewing platform which is attached in the staff report.

In reply to queries from the Panel, David Brownlee, Planner 2, advised that (i) the proposed viewing platform is similar to the design of viewing platforms in the area, (ii) staff initiated the proposed viewing platform, and (iii) projecting the proposed viewing platform beyond the high water mark would require an approval from the Department of Fisheries and Oceans (DFO).

Gallery Comments

None.

Correspondence

None.

Panel Discussion

The Chair acknowledged that the applicant has introduced additional planting areas in response to the referral motion at the Panel’s October 11, 2017 meeting; however, he noted that (i) the applicant needs to investigate further opportunities to expand the area of planting particularly at the northwest portion of the site in addition to the proposed three-meter planting strip adjacent to the RMA along Williams Road, (ii) the rationale for the additional planting of smaller trees in the ESA is acknowledged; however, the total area of proposed planting is too small compared to the extent of the foreshore area that will not be planted to accommodate the loading facility, (iii) staff need to review the advice given by the applicant regarding the viability of planting in the intertidal ESA in relation to similar projects which staff have had direct experience in, (iv) staff could solicit additional opinion from City sources regarding opportunities as well as constraints for enhancement in the site’s intertidal ESA, (v) staff could consider a financial compensation package for habitat enhancement elsewhere if intertidal ESA planting is not feasible in the subject site, and (vi) staff need to review the scope of the proposed viewing platform.

In addition, other members of the Panel noted that (i) the applicant could do more in the intertidal ESA in addition to the proposed rip-rap, and (ii) locating the pedestrian trail away from the waterfront requires a bigger gesture in terms of the scope of the proposed viewing platform.

Panel Decision

It was moved and seconded

That Development Permit  16-741741 be referred back to staff to:

1.

investigate opportunities to expand the area of on-site planting particularly at the northwest portion of the site in addition to the proposed three-meter wide planting strip adjacent to the Williams Road RMA;

2.

explore further opportunities to increase the total area of proposed on-site planting considering the extent of foreshore area that will not be planted to accommodate the loading facility;

3.

review the advice given by the applicant regarding the viability of planting in the site’s intertidal ESA in relation to similar projects which City staff have had  direct experience in, including:

(a)

soliciting additional opinion from third party experts in the field regarding opportunities as well as constraints for enhancement in the site’s intertidal ESA;

(b)

considering a financial compensation package for habitat enhancement in other areas if intertidal ESA planting is not feasible in the subject site; and

4.

review the design and scope of the proposed viewing platform with the Parks Department to determine whether the type and size of the viewing platform should be revised.

CARRIED

3.

Date of Next Meeting:  December 13, 2017

4.

Adjournment

It was moved and seconded

That the meeting be adjourned at 4:20 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, November 29, 2017.

_______________________________

_____________________________

Joe Erceg
Chair

Rustico Agawin
Auxiliary Committee Clerk