This site is in beta — data may be incomplete and features are still being added.
Committee of the Whole/Documents/TOWN OF VIEW ROYAL Planning & Development Report - DEVELOPMENT PERMIT APPLICATION 2021/08 – 1910/1920 WEST PARK LANE
Staff Report

TOWN OF VIEW ROYAL Planning & Development Report - DEVELOPMENT PERMIT APPLICATION 2021/08 – 1910/1920 WEST PARK LANE

May 11, 2021Pages 205–2103 sections

A staff report evaluating a development permit application to amend the landscape plan and vary retaining wall height requirements for the West Park Lane property.

May 5, 20211910/1920 West Park Lane152 residential units across two six-storey buildingsRequest to vary fence height on top of retaining wall from 2.0m to 6.0m

TOWN OF VIEW ROYAL

Page 205–210

Planning & Development Report

TO: Committee of the Whole DATE: May 5, 2021 FROM: J. Chow, Senior Planner MEETING: May 11, 2021 FILE NO.: 3060-20-2021/08

Page 205–210

DEVELOPMENT PERMIT APPLICATION 2021/08 – 1910/1920 WEST PARK LANE

RECOMMENDATION:

THAT the report dated May 5, 2021 from the Senior Planner titled “Development Permit Application 2021/08 – 1910/1920 West Park Lane” be received for information.

CHIEF ADMINISTRATIVE OFFICER’S COMMENTS:

I concur with the recommendation.

DIRECTOR OF DEVELOPMENT SERVICES’ COMMENTS:

I concur with the recommendation.

PURPOSE:

To introduce a development permit application to amend the landscape plan approved in Development Permit 2019/02 and to vary the permitted height of retaining walls that have been constructed.

BACKGROUND:

152 residential units in two six storey apartment buildings owned by Capital Regional District and Capital Regional District Housing Corporation were built on this parcel in late 2020. To facilitate the development, Development Permit 2019/02 permitted creation of a level building site through grade alteration by cutting into the slope on the west side of the site and filling on the east as shown in Figure 1.

Map showing cut and fill matrix for the building site
Map showing cut and fill matrix for the building site

Figure 1. Cut and fill matrix (Development Permit 2019/02)

PROPOSAL:

In the construction process, it was found that the north and west cut slopes were not stable (Attachment 2). Measures to make the site safe include the following:

  • Chain link fence on the west slope (Figure 2)
  • Mesh drapery to control any potential rock fall on the west slope (Figure 2)
  • Block retaining walls on the north and west edges of the parking lot (Figures 2 and 3) to stabilize the slope and protect against potential rock falls (Attachment 3)

The work was done following the recommendations of a geotechnical engineer (Attachment 4). Details for the north and west walls are shown in Attachments 5 and 6, respectively.

The approved landscape plan in Development Permit 2019/03 (Attachment 7) is proposed to be modified to relocate plantings in response to site changes and to mitigate the visual impact of the tallest retaining wall by planting a Sitka Spruce tree (up to 55-100m in height) and shrubs such as Yellow Twig Dogwood, and White Rhododendron that will have a spread between 1.2 – 3.0m (Attachment 8).

In support of the application the following is provided as attachments to this report:

  1. Location plan
  2. Letter from applicant, Broadstreet Properties - February 23, 2021
  3. Site Plan, Abele Architecture - January 10, 2020
  4. Geotechnical reports – Ryzuk Geotechnical, March 2019 – November 2020 (17 pages)
  5. North Wall detail, Abele Architecture – September 18, 2019
  6. West Wall Detail, Ryzuk Geotechnical - March 26, 2020
  7. Landscape Plan excerpt from Development Permit 2019/03
  8. As built Landscape Plans Outland Design Landscape Architecture, February 18, 2021 (2 pages)
Photograph of the west slope retaining wall and parking lot area
Photograph of the west slope retaining wall and parking lot area

Figure 2. West slope (1920 West Park Lane on left, Trans Canada Highway beyond)

Photograph of the north edge of the parking lot showing tiered retaining walls
Photograph of the north edge of the parking lot showing tiered retaining walls

Figure 3. North edge of parking lot (1950 West Park Lane beyond)

DISCUSSION:

Key issues include the following:

  1. How does the proposal address the relevant development permit guidelines?
  2. How does the proposal comply with zoning requirements?
  3. What are the next steps toward Council consideration of the proposal?

1. Development Permit Area Guidelines

The proposal is subject to the guidelines of two development permit areas.

The proposal complies with the Sensitive Terrestrial Ecosystems Development Permit Area guidelines to address steep slopes by following a geotechnical engineer’s recommendations to stabilize the slope.

The proposal addresses the Mixed Residential Development Permit Area guidelines with modifications to the approved landscape plan in Development Permit DP2019/02 to mitigate the impacts as illustrated in Figure 4. The applicant indicates “premium textured lock blocks” were used as there is no space for further planting to screen the walls.

Architectural rendering of proposed landscaping at maturity
Architectural rendering of proposed landscaping at maturity

Figure 4. Rendering of landscaping at maturity

2. Zoning

A variance is requested to vary the permitted height of a fence on top of a retaining wall from 2.0m to 6.0m to permit a 1.4m fence on top of a 4.6m retaining wall.

The works are not visible from a public road, including Trans Canada Highway. While the tallest retaining wall will be visible from units under construction at 1950 West Park Lane, the top of the wall is below the grade of those units and would not affect views over the site.

The variance can be supported because compliance with the Zoning Bylaw would result in negative environmental and topographic impacts. To comply, the slope would have to be terraced with a series of lower retaining walls. The consequence on this steep slope would be additional tree and soil removals as the system of walls ‘chase’ the grade as conceptually illustrated in Figure 4. It would also encroach into the proposed natural state covenant area on the adjacent property at 1950 West Park Lane.

Diagram comparing a single tall retaining wall versus multiple terraced walls
Diagram comparing a single tall retaining wall versus multiple terraced walls

Figure 4.

In conjunction with the variance, staff would recommend that a covenant be registered with a geotechnical report that confirms the site is safe for the use intended, sets out requirements for periodic inspection of retaining walls and cut slopes, and provides recommendations for maintenance of all retaining walls over 1.5m.

3. Next Steps

Subject to comments from the Committee of the Whole meeting, the application can be scheduled for Council consideration following notification of the requested variance.

If approved, issuance of the DP would be subject to the provision of sealed copies of the design plan and field review reports prepared by the registered professional for all retaining structures greater than 1.5 meters in height submitted to the Building Official and acceptance of the works by the Building Official. A building permit is required for all retaining structures over 1.5m that were not part of previous building permits issued on the property.

RECOMMENDATION:

THAT the report dated May 5, 2021 from the Senior Planner titled “Development Permit Application 2021/08 – 1910/1920 West Park Lane” be received for information.

SUBMITTED BY: Jeff Chow, MCIP, RPP Senior Planner

REVIEWED BY: Lindsay Chase, MCIP, RPP Director of Development Services

ATTACHMENTS

  1. Location plan
  2. Letter from applicant, Broadstreet Properties - February 23, 2021
  3. Site Plan, Abele Architecture - January 10, 2020
  4. Geotechnical reports – Ryzuk Geotechnical, March 2019 – November 2020 (17 pages)
  5. North Wall detail, Abele Architecture – September 18, 2019
  6. West Wall Detail, Ryzuk Geotechnical - March 26, 2020
  7. Landscape Plan excerpt from Development Permit 2019/03
  8. As built Landscape Plans Outland Design Landscape Architecture, February 18, 2021 (2 pages)
Page 205–210

Document Images

(3)
Document image
Document image
Document image
Extracted from: 2021 05 11 Committee of the Whole Agenda - Agenda - Pdf