REQUEST FOR DECISION
DATE: February 22, 2017 Report No. DEV-17-014
TO: Laurie Hurst, Chief Administrative Officer
FROM: Bill Brown, Director of Development Services
SUBJECT:
Title
Core Area Wastewater Treatment Plant Development Permit DP000077 - 337 Victoria View Road [Appendix “A”] (PID 030-006-813) Lot 1, Section 11, and part of Bed of Victoria Harbour Esquimalt District Plan EPP36468.
End
RECOMMENDATION:
Recommendation
That Council approve Development Permit No. DP000077 [Appendix “A”] for the Core Area Wastewater Treatment Plant, authorizing development with the following conditions:
• the construction, form, design, exterior finishes and specific features of the development as shown on architectural plans prepared by HDR|CEI Architecture Associates Inc. stamped, “Received February 20, 2017”;
• landscaping, specific features and green roof in accordance with the landscape plan prepared by LADR Landscape Architects Inc., stamped “Received February 20, 2017”;
• siting as detailed on the BC Land Surveyor’s Site Plan prepared by WSP Surveys (BC) Limited Partnership dated 2017-01-27;
• the Operations and Maintenance building designed and built to a LEED® Gold Standard; and
• installation and use of a high efficiency irrigation system that uses recycled water from the plant.
And that staff be directed to issue the permit subject to receipt of the required landscape security (staff indicating the amount received in the permit), and then register the notice on the title of the lot.
Body
RELEVANT POLICY:
- Official Community Plan
- Zoning Bylaw, 1992, No 2050
- Parking Bylaw, 1992, No. 2011
- Development Application Procedures and Fees Bylaw, 2012, No. 2791
- Advisory Planning Commission Bylaw, 2012, No. 2792
- Subdivision and Development Control Bylaw, 1997, No. 2175
- Host Community Impact 5-Year Agreement
- Community Impact Mitigation & Operating Agreement
- Amenity Reserve Fund Administration Agreement
- Statutory Right of Way for future public trail
STRATEGIC RELEVANCE:
The proposed development permit is not directly related to any of Council’s strategic priorities in the 2015 - 2019 Strategic Plan dated January 2016
BACKGROUND:
Purpose of Application
The purpose of the application is for Council to ascertain that in its opinion, the proposed development of the Core Area Wastewater Treatment Plant at Mcloughlin Point conforms with the Zoning Bylaw and the Official Community Plan’s development permit designation and guidelines, including design guidelines.
Timelines
December 20, 2016 - Development Permit Application Received;
January 11, 2017 - Design Review Committee
February 6, 2017 - Bylaw No. 2888 is given first and second reading;
February 9, 2017 - Design Review Committee
February 16, 2017 - Design Review Committee
February 20, 2017 - Public Hearing for Bylaw No. 2888;
February 20, 2017 - Bylaw No. 2888 given third reading and adopted; and
February 27, 2017 - Development Permit Application 000077 presented to Council for a decision.
Context
Owner: Capital Regional District
Legal Description: Lot 1; Section 11 and part of the bed of
Victoria Harbour; Plan EPP36468
Street Address: 337 Victoria View Road
Property Size: Metric: 14,213 m2
Existing Land Use: Vacant
Surrounding Land Uses:
North: Department of National Defense [Work Point]
South: Strait of Juan de Fuca
West: Department of National Defence [Work Point]
East: Victoria Harbour (Outer Harbour)
Existing Zoning: McLoughlin Point Special Use [I-3]
Existing OCP Designation: Industrial
Appendices:
Appendix “A”: Context Map
Appendix “B”: DP000077
Appendix “C”: Architectural plans and landscape plan
Appendix “D”: Site survey
Appendix “E” Design Guideline Response Report dated January 27, 2017
Appendix “F” Minutes of the January 11, 2017 Design Review Committee meeting
Appendix “G” Draft Minutes of the February 9, 2017 Design Review Committee meeting
Appendix ”H” Draft Minutes of the February 16, 2017 Design Review Committee meeting
Zoning:
|
Zoning Regulation |
Proposed |
|
|
|
|
No Building or Structure shall exceed a Height of 15 metres |
14.99 m |
|
Notwithstanding anything to the contrary in this section, the maximium height of a Building or Structure located within 20 metres of the High Water Mark is 5.0 m |
4.99 m |
|
Chimney’s may not exceed a maximum height of 16.5 metres as measured from Grade. |
16.5 m |
|
No Building shall be located within 5.75 metres of the Front Lot Line, and the main building for the site shall not be set back more than 6.25 metres from the Front Lot Line. |
6.0 m |
|
A landscaped buffer shall be located between the building and the High Water Mark which: |
As required |
|
Shall be a minimum of 4.5 metres in width for at least 85 % of the exterior perimeter retaining wall facing the marine boundary; |
|
|
Shall average an overall minimum 5.0 metres in width; |
|
|
Shall cover a minimum area of 1,250 square metres; |
|
|
Landscaping shall be of sufficient quality and quantity as to contribute to the screening of a wastewater treatment plant building and tanks from the marine environment. |
|
|
A landscape buffer shall be located in the Front Setback and shall be the entirety of the Front Yard, except for: |
As required. |
|
Places of entrance, egress and loading spaces, and |
|
|
the placement of generators, transformers and other similar structural appurtenances that are screened from the road and parking spaces. |
|
|
A landscape buffer a minimum width of 5.0 metres shall be located at or adjacent to the north property line of the site, which buffer may be located on adjacent lands. |
5m Buffer located on adjacent property. |
|
Sections 22 (1) and (2) do not apply to the retaining walls associated with the sea wall, landscaped buffer or located within the setback from the High Water Mark. |
|
|
The minimum number of required off street parking spaces for wastewater treatment plant use, and its included uses under Section 55 (1) (c), shall be two (2) spaces, with a maximum four (4) spaces, and may not be located within the setback areas from the HWM. |
Four (4) on-site parking stalls are provided. They are located outside of the 10 metre setback. One of the stalls is for persons with disabilities and one will have an electric vehicle charging station. |
|
The minimum number of required off street loading spaces for wastewater treatment plant use shall be two (2) spaces, and loading areas and loading spaces may be locates within the area of landscaped buffer for the Front Setback only, and partially off-site. |
Two (2) loading spaces are provided. |
|
|
|
Official Community Plan
The subject site is located in Development Permit Area No. 3 - Industrial
|
Design GuidelineComments |
|
|
|
|
|
9.5.5 (a) Buildings should be designed to minimize the intrusion into the privacy of existing surrounding homes. |
The areas of the building that are regularly occupied face towards the east, away from the housing across Victoria View Road. In addition, the employee parking area will be screened. There will be virtually no intrusion into the privacy of surrounding homes. |
|
9.5.5 (b) Buildings should be located to avoid casting shadows onto adjacent residential properties. |
Due to the location of the building it is unlikely to cast significant shadows onto the adjacent residential property. |
|
9.5.5 (c) Outdoor storage and parking areas will be screened by berms, fences, landscaping or solid noise-absorbing barriers or a combination of these methods. Landscaping should also be incorporated within the parking areas to “break up” large expanses of pavement. |
The parking area is screened by walls. No outdoor storage areas are identified. |
|
9.5.5 (d) The style and finish of new buildings should enhance the appearance of the industrial area, which is surrounded by urban residential development. |
The proposed design enhances the area. |
|
9.5.5 (e) Buildings should be designed to avoid doors and openings that would tend to direct noise in the direction of immediately adjacent residentially-zoned lands. |
There are no immediately adjacent residentially-zoned lands. Most doors and openings are away from surrounding lands. Doors and openings adjacent to lands containing residences are seldom opened. |
|
9.5.5 (f) Retention and protection of trees and the natural habitat is encouraged wherever possible. |
As a brownfield site there is very little natural habitat to protect. Efforts were made where possible. |
|
Consider the establishment of an 8.0 m buffer from the High Water Mark. |
The eastern portion of the building is set back 10.0 metres from the High Water Mark. The southern portion of the building is set back 7.5 metres from the High Water Mark. |
|
Consider the establishment of a 4.0 m heavily landscaped buffer within the 8.0 m buffer to hide the building(s) on the site; |
The average buffer width is 5.0 metres, with significant landscaping. |
|
Consider stepping buildings back on the site with the lowest buildings (the tanks) located closest to the shore; |
The building is stepped back with the maintenance and operations portion of the building in front shielding the larger processing plant portion of the building. |
|
Consider the establishment of a seawall using as its design precedent, the convention centre in Seattle; |
The seawall has been designed to conform to the design guidelines. |
|
Consider the establishment of an historical interpretation program; |
Five (5) historical interpretive signs will be installed. |
|
Consider the establishment of public access to the 8.0 m buffer area via a public dock; |
A statutory right of way will be registered on title to allow for the development of a public walkway in the future. A public dock was considered but does not accord with DND restrictions on access. |
|
Consider the incorporation of water features as public art within the design of the building; |
Water features were considered but not included as public art into the design of the building. There are additional opportunities for public art through zoning amenities and in accordance with Township policy. |
|
Consider design and construction in a manner that mitigates environmental and human health impacts (in particular those related to odour and noise), and contributes to the visual quality and scenic beauty of the harbor entrance; and |
Strict standards are imposed related to noise and odour. The proposed design will contribute to the visual quality of the harbor - especially when the landscaping matures. |
|
Any proposed buildings or structrures must incorporate the findings of the “Modelling of Potential Tsunami Inundation Limits and Run-up” for the Capital Region that has been completed by the Capital Regional District’s Local Government Emergency Program Advisory Commission. |
The plant has been designed taking into account the “Modelling of Potential Tsunami Inundation Limits and Run-up”. |
|
|
|
|
Sustainability Standards |
|
|
|
|
|
Design the Operations and Controls building to a LEED® Gold Standard |
The operations and maintenance portion of the plant will be LEED Gold v.4 certified. |
|
Where feasible, design for on-site heat recovery, and plan for future, long-term, neighbourhood, heat-resource opportunities. |
Heating for the operations and maintenance portion of the building will be provided through a heat recovery system. A district energy system has not been incorporated into the design. |
|
Incorporate a green roof system into the Operations and Controls building and other buildings where appropriate. |
The operations and maintenance building will have a green roof covering a minimum of 1600 square metres and 80 percent of the roof. |
|
While much of the site is impervious rocky shoreline, where possible, introduce methods to clean and reduce stormwater runoff, incorporate rain gardens, and consider practical ways to re-use water. |
Incorporation of a green roof, rain gardens, and extensive vegetated buffer systems all contribute to cleaner and reduced stormwater run off. |
|
Restrict impact on the shoreline, except for those areas where wastewater lines enter or exit the treatment plant. |
Other than during the construction of the retaining/Tsunami wall system, there will be very little impact on the shoreline. |
|
|
|
|
View Considerations |
|
|
|
|
|
Building and design view impacts will be evaluated from the following locations: |
|
|
Shoal Point and Ogden Point; |
A visual analysis has been conducted and the proposed development deemed compliant. |
|
Songhees Walkway to West Bay; and |
A visual analysis has been conducted and the proposed development deemed compliant. |
|
From above. |
The Design Review Committee asked the architects to look at expanding the green roof to the process part of the plant but after an analysis that was deemed not practical. |
|
|
|
|
Marine Shoreline Character Design Considerations |
|
|
|
|
|
Building forms should respect the site. |
The building has been designed to incorporate forms and materials that are sympathetic to the site and help create a harmonious interaction between the site and the building. This is enhanced through the careful use of landscaping and the design of the wall system. |
|
Wall elements, relating to tsunami and associated catastrophic event protection, such as stepped walls and incorporate angled features, projections, wall terraces, and textures, should reflect the character of the rocky shoreline. |
The wall system has been designed to reflect the character of the rocky shoreline. |
|
|
|
|
Massing, Siting & Exterior Architectural Elements |
|
|
|
|
|
The design must demonstrate how the buildings and structures will fit into the site, responding to the shoreline in the forefront, and the evergreen tree line and rocky knoll backdrop. |
Through the judicious use of materials and colours, the architects have designed the building so that it fits into the landscape that surrounds it. |
|
Building heights should vary, but not exceed 15 metres, from the finished grade. |
The building is below the maximum height. |
|
Design aesthetics should be optimized with the use of appropriate, high quality materials. |
The Design Review Committee has determined that the materials are appropriate. |
|
Exterior building materials, including exterior details, must be selected to withstand intense weather and sea conditions, and must be of a high standard to ensure low maintenance. |
The architects have carefully analyzed the materials to ensure compliance with this guideline. |
|
Doors, overhead doors, and other closures (including hatches, grilles, and louvres) should be durable, thermally resistant, and suitably finished for the marine environment. |
This is a requirement of the LEED Gold standard. |
|
Windows should have high performance glazing, and be capable of providing natural ventilation, where appropriate. |
This is a requirement of the LEED Gold standard. |
|
Roof areas must consider views from above. |
Views were considered, including at the request of the Design Review Committee (see above and below). The roof of the operations and maintenance building will be a green roof. |
|
Clarifiers and aerated filters must be covered to meet noise and odour principles. |
All plant functions are enclosed. |
|
|
|
|
Lighting |
|
|
|
|
|
Light fixtures should provide no more than the minimum lighting needed for their intended purposes, and not exceed levels recommended by the Illuminating Engineering Society for North America Recommended Practice Manual: Lighting for Exterior Environments. |
All lighting will be aligned with the Illuminating Engineering Society for North America Recommended Practice Manual: Lighting for Exterior Environments |
|
Light fixtures shields should be specified to reduce impacts on other properties, and when seen from the designated viewpoints. |
Light shields will be used in accordance the design guidelines. |
|
All lighting should be directed downward, and not into the night sky. |
Lighting will be directed downward. |
|
Energy efficient fixtures should be specified, with consistent colour for all lighting. |
All fixtures will be energy efficient. Multiple colours are not proposed. |
|
|
|
|
Landscape Elements |
|
|
|
|
|
Use of plant species that are designated hardy to harsh, and for salt spray environments; situate plants such that the force of the wind shapes their future forms; |
The landscape architect has carefully selected plant species that will adapt to the environment at McLoughlin Point. |
|
A retaining wall system designed to reflect the rugged and rough-textured surface of boulders and exposed-rock shorelines. |
The retaining wall system has been designed with finishes that reflect the surrounding environment. |
|
Outdoor storage and parking areas screened through the use of berms, fences, landscaping and/or solid noise-absorbing barriers; |
Wherever possible, landscaping has been used to screen outdoor parking areas. No outdoor storage areas are idenitifed. |
|
|
|
|
Guidelines for Seawall and Walls |
|
|
|
|
|
Walls must not protrude beyond the High Water Mark (HWM 1.804 m geodetic). |
The architects have confirmed that no walls protrude beyond the High Water Mark. |
|
The site must be protected by a continuous tsunami protection wall that has a top elevation of not less than 6.5 metres above the High Water Mark. |
The architects have stated that, “the site is protected by a tsunami wall with a top elevation of minimum 6.5 metres along the shoreline and north side. The thick concrete walls of the plant at the southwest and the west form a continuation of the tsunami wall.” |
|
The appearance of wall heights greater than 4.0 metres must be minimized by placing step walls in the tsunami protection wall. |
The architects have placed retaining walls in front of the Tsunami wall to reduce the apparent height of the Tsunami wall. |
|
Planted stepped walls should be a minimum depth of 1.0 metre horizontally to allow for landscape elements to be introduced. Where this is not possible, shallower multiple steps may be used. |
The planted stepped walls are typically 2.5 metres in width. |
|
All surfaces of the primary perimeter retaining walls must be finished with random board-formed recesses or other suitable architectural treatment. Vertical recesses should be spaced randomly. A smooth finish should be considered for secondary walls. |
The finishings have been carefully reviewed by the Design Review Committee and now conform to what the Committee believes results in the best design. |
|
The design should plan for development of a pedestrian pathway along the waterfront side of the site. |
The design included consideration of a future walkway. A statutory right of way will be registered on the property to allow for the possibility of a future waterfront walkway. |
|
|
|
|
Guidelines For Planting - General |
|
|
|
|
|
Distribution of plants will be limited due to salt spray and wind exposure, particularly on the south side of the site. |
The landscape architect and the Design Review Committee have carefully considered the distribution of plant species on the site. |
|
Planting will exclude lawns. |
No lawns are proposed. |
|
Mature plant heights must be at least 60 cm tall for all planted areas to shade undesirable weed species. |
Except for the ground cover, the majority of plants will have mature heights in excess of 60 cm tall. |
|
Planting densities must ensure that vegetated areas will have 100% plant coverage after two full growing seasons. |
The proposed planting scheme will meet this guideline. |
|
Planted areas will be irrigated with a high efficiency irrigation system. |
An irrigation system will be installed that uses recycled water from the plant. |
|
Plants should be drought tolerant and require minimal water after the two-year establishment period. |
All selected plant species meet this guideline. |
|
Green roofs must be installed fully established to minimize wind erosion and maintenance. |
The proposed green roof will be pre- vegetated sedum mats, fully established when installed. |
|
All plantings will be to BCNLA/BCSLA Landscape Standards. |
All plantings will comply with this guideline. |
|
|
|
|
Guidelines for Planting Along Seawalls |
|
|
|
|
|
Distribution of plants will be limited due to salt spray and wind exposure. |
Plant species have been carefully selected to conform to this guideline. |
|
Trees must be situated more than 10 metres from the south facing wall, as this will be a high wind velocity area. |
Trees are sited in compliance, with lower vegetation and shrubbery in the high wind velocity area. |
|
The following species are considered appropriate to use along the waterfront: |
All considered with the following used in the final landscape plan. |
|
Pinus contorta var. Contorta (Shore Pine) |
Proposed to be used. |
|
Arbutus menzesii (Pacific Madrone) |
Will not be used as this species does not plant well. |
|
Rozsa nutkana (Nootka Rose) |
Proposed to be used. |
|
Symphoricarpus albus (Snowberry) |
Proposed to be used. |
|
Arbutus unedo (Strawberry Tree) |
Proposed to be used. |
|
Myrica californica (Sweet Gale) |
Not proposed to be used. |
|
Lonicera pileata (Privet Honeysuckle) |
An alternative honeysuckle is proposed. |
|
Mahonia aquifolium (Oregon Grape) |
Proposed to be used. |
|
|
|
|
Guidelines for Planting Adjacent to Building Entrances |
|
|
|
|
|
Planting around the building entrances can be more design driven, and specific hard and soft landscaping should complement the building architecture. |
The entrances feature a combination of hard and soft landscaping. |
|
|
|
|
Guidelines for Screening on Victoria View Road |
|
|
|
|
|
To break up the mass of concrete walls, introduce screening (mostly of coniferous tree plantings) along the road frontage and adjacent to the site. Cluster trees to provide clear 8-metre wide gaps to allow for future maintenance access (from a crane). |
. A large number of coniferous and deciduous trees have been planted along the frontage of Victoria View Road in mounded beds that further aid visual screening of the site. |
|
A continuous shrub border will be required at the base of the wall to screen the lower retaining wall, and reduce the risk of vandalism. Shrubs in this area are to be native species only, with the exception of those adjacent to the two entrances, where lower evergreen screening is desirable. |
Extensive landscaping is proposed, including shrubs and vines with wall mounted trellis system. |
|
In situations with larger retaining walls, vines can be considered, but must be supported by cable systems. |
A trellis system will be used where required. |
|
The following species are considered appropriate for use in screening applications: |
|
|
Pseudotsuga menzesii (Douglas Fir); |
Proposed to be used to screen the building. |
|
Rosa nutkana (Nootka Rose); |
Proposed to be used to screen the building. |
|
Symphoricarpus albus (Snowberry); and |
Proposed to be used to screen the building. |
|
Parthenocissus tricuspidata (Boston Ivy). |
Proposed to be used to screen the building. |
|
|
|
|
Stormwater Management |
|
|
|
|
|
Stormwater from the internal roadways and parking areas will be treated to remove 80% of TSS from a 6-month rain event prior to discharge. |
The design will comply with this guideline. |
|
Treatment of roadway and parking run-off can come in the form of: |
|
|
A combination of rain gardens and bioswales adjacent to the parking and roadways, complete with raised overflow basins, and under drains connected to the storm drain system. |
Rain gardens and bioswales will be used to help control run-off. |
|
Aqua-pave permeable paving, complete with an under drain system in discrete areas where direction of run-off to a bioswale is not feasible; or |
Aqua-pave permeable paving will be used to help control run-off. |
|
A combination of these. |
The systems above will be used in combination to help control run-off. |
|
A conventional storm drain will be installed with an outfall to the ocean. All drainage from the site will eventually be discharged through this pipe. |
The project will comply with this guideline. |
|
The buildings will connect directly to the piped storm drain system. Building drainage will bypass the treatment system. However, a rain garden, stormceptor, or a similar end-of-pip treatment device could be installed if treatment of roof drainage is required. |
All building drainagle will connect to the storm drain system. |
|
|
|
|
Parking and Services |
|
|
|
|
|
Parking for visitors, plant and system operation staff, and CRD maintenance vehicles should be suitably screened through the use of berms, fences, landscaping, and/or solid noise-absorbing barriers to minimize visual impact. |
On-site parking areas are screened. |
|
|
|
|
Signage |
|
|
|
|
|
Limit signage to directional and identification as required for wayfinding. |
Limited signage will be used. |
|
|
|
|
Public Art and Education |
|
|
|
|
|
Public art shall be provided. The CRD and Township of Esquimalt will work together to confirm the process and requirements. |
The money and contractual arrangements for public art have been secured. |
|
Plans should include capacity for organized, educational site visits to learn about the functioning of the treatment system, the regional liquid waste management program, resource recovery, etc. |
An education centre has been incorporated into the design to facilitate education programs. |
See also the applicant’s response to each of the above guidelines in its submission entitled “Design Guideline Response Report” dated January 27, 2017.
Design Review Committee
The Design Review Committee reviewed the plans on January 11, 2017; February 9, 2017 and for a final time on February 16, 2017 (see appendices “F”, “G”, and “H”).
At its January 11, 2017 meeting they passed the following motion:
The Esquimalt Design Review Committee recommends that the Development Permit Application for the Core Area Waste Water Treatment Plant return to the Design Review Committee with revised drawings. The Motion Carried Unanimously.
At its February 9, 2017 meeting, the DRC considered revised plans and passed the following motion:
The Esquimalt Design Review Committee recommends that the Development Permit Application for the Core Area Waste Water Treatment Plant return to the Design Review Committee with revised drawings. The Motion Carried Unanimously
At the February 9th meeting, although the applicant agreed to return to DRC a third time, there was some uncertainty that an additional meeting could be scheduled prior to the Public Hearing. Therefore, the DRC unanimously passed a Motion recommending approval subject to the applicant giving further consideration to three aspects of the design: 1) revisions to the façade of the Tertiary Treatment building; 2) revisions to the building’s design in order to create a more harmonious relationship between the Operations and Maintenance portion of the building and the Primary and Secondary Treatment portion of the building; and 3) revisions to the Green Roof design to potentially extend it across the other buildings.
At its February 16, 2017 meeting the Committee considered further revised plans and passed the following motion:
That the Esquimalt Design Review Committee recommends that the development permit application for the Core Area Waste Water Treatment Plant be forwarded to Council with a recommendation for approval with the following conditions:
That the applicant:
1. Consider more articulation of the retaining wall systems; and
2. explore the use of board form concrete or dark brick to help marry the tertiary building to the landscape.
The Motion Carried
The architects have responded to the Design Review Committee’s suggestions from their February 16, 2017 meeting by:
1) Using vertical board form texture on all of the retaining walls and tsunami walls.
2) By revising the precast concrete panel texture to be a horizontal board-form texture similar to the other parts of the plant buildings at level 1.
The architect has stated that, “These revisions address the concerns of the DRC that there were too many materials in the palette and the desire to see more of the board form texture applied to the O&M building at level 1”.
ISSUES:
1. Rationale for Selected Option - The proposed development conforms to both the Zoning Bylaw and the development permit designation and guidelines, including design guidelines, outlined in the Official Community Plan
2. Organizational Implications - There are no extraordinary organizational implications associated with the approval and issuance of the development permit for this project.
3. Financial Implications -There are no significant financial implications associated with the approval of the Development Permit.
4. Sustainability & Environmental Implications - The operations and maintenance portion of the building will be built to a LEED® Gold certified standard.
5. Communication & Engagement - By law no public engagement is required as part of the Development Permit review and approval process.
ALTERNATIVES:
1) Recommendation:
That Council approve Development Permit No. DP000077 [Appendix “A”] for the Core Area Wastewater Treatment Plant, authorizing development with the following conditions:
• the construction, form, design, exterior finishes and specific features of the development as shown on architectural plans prepared by HDR|CEI Architecture Associates Inc. stamped, “Received February 20, 2017”;
• landscaping, specific features and green roof in accordance with the landscape plan prepared by LADR Landscape Architects Inc., stamped “Received February 20, 2017”;
• siting as detailed on the BC Land Surveyor’s Site Plan prepared by WSP Surveys (BC) Limited Partnership dated 2017-01-27;
• the Operations and Maintenance building designed and built to a LEED® Gold Standard; and
• installation and use of a high efficiency irrigation system that uses recycled water from the plant.
And that staff be directed to issue the permit subject to receipt of the required landscape security (staff indicating the amount received in the permit), and then register the notice on the title of the lot.
2) Alternative:
That Council provide guidance to the applicant on necessary changes in order for Council to deem the application in conformance with the relevant design guidelines.