|
APPELLANT’S SUBMISSION:
Diana
Yu Guan, homeowner, submitted an application to allow for construction of a
new single family dwelling at 7991 Gray Avenue.
Ms.
Guan appeared before members of the Board of Variance.
BURNABY
PLANNING AND BUILDING DEPARTMENT COMMENTS:
The subject site, zoned R2
Residential District, is located in the Sussex-Nelson area which is a mature
single family neighbourhood. This irregular (roughly trapezoid shaped) corner
lot measures 80.53 ft. in width (along the west rear property line) and 99.94
ft. in depth (along the longer north side property line). The subject site
fronts onto Gray Avenue to the east and flanks McKee Street to the south.
Directly at the intersection of these two streets, Gray Avenue (which runs in
the south-north direction) offsets approximately 35.0 ft. to the west at
approximately 33 degree angle and continues further to the north. As a result
of this Gary Avenue alignment, the south-east portion of the subject lot is
significantly truncated. Single family dwellings abut the subject site to the
west and north. Vehicular access to the subject site is proposed to be
relocated from Gray Avenue to McKee Street; there is no lane access. The site
observes a substantial downward slope of approximately 10.0 ft. in the
north-south direction.
The subject site is
proposed to be re-developed with a new single family dwelling with a
secondary suite and an attached garage, for which four variances have been
requested.
The first a) appeal is to vary
Section 102.7(a) - “Depth of Principal Building” of the Zoning Bylaw from
44.16 ft. (based on 50% of the lot depth) to 67.83 ft. to allow the
construction of the proposed
single
family dwelling.
The intent of the Bylaw is to
prevent the creation of overlong houses which present a long “wall” to the neighbouring
properties.
In this case, the subject dwelling exceeds the maximum permitted building depth by 23.67 ft. and this
excess depth occurs along the whole width of the proposed dwelling (24.33
ft.), on all levels: cellar, main and upper level.
It is noted that the
subject site provides generous side yard setbacks: 26.33 ft. to the south,
(flanking McKee Street), and 29.87 ft. to the north (where a minimum side
yard setback of 4.9 ft. and 11.5 ft. from flanking street is required), which
would help mitigate massing impacts of the proposed excess building depth.
Additionally, the neighbouring property to the north is at a higher level in
relation to the subject lot and contains an accessory building in the rear
yard, at its southwest corner, which would further alleviate the impacts of this
variance request. It is also noted that the proposed building depth would be
consistent with the currently existing building on the subject site, which is
approximately 68.0 ft. deep. In fact, the placement of the proposed dwelling
would be similar to the location of the existing residence.
However, despite the
above noted mitigating factors, the requested building depth variance (23.67 ft.) is a
major variance and there is a concern that the 67.83 ft. long and two-storey
high north elevation will present
a long “wall” to the neighbouring property to the north. It is also noted that the need for this variance is
related to the design decisions with respect to the proposed orientation of
the dwelling towards McKee Street rather than Gray Avenue.
In summary, although it
is recognized that the site geometry presents a challenge, a need for this
variance is largely related to a design choice rather than related entirely
to a hardship. Therefore, this Department cannot support the granting of the
first a) variance.
The second b) appeal is
to vary
Section 102.8(1) – “Front Yard” of the
Burnaby Zoning Bylaw from 24.60 ft. to 13.99 ft. to allow the proposed single family
dwelling to encroach into the required front yard abutting Gray Avenue.
Section 6.12 – “Yards” of the Zoning Bylaw which allows specific projections
into the front yard will also be applicable.
The intent of the Bylaw is to
mitigate the massing impacts of new buildings and structures on neighbouring
properties and to preserve a unified streetscape.
In this case, the front yard averaging requirement does not apply as the
two properties to the north of the subject site, at 7981 and 7957 Gray
Avenue; observe shallow front yard setbacks of 21.66 ft. and 19.83 ft.,
respectively, and as such, do not trigger a need for the averaging as
stipulated by the Zoning Bylaw.
As discussed above, the
truncated south-east portion of the subject property results in an irregular
front (east) property line. Starting from the north-east corner, this front
property line runs for the first 24.6 ft. to the south and then turns at
approximately 33 degree angle and runs for the remaining 66.5 ft. to the most
southeast corner of the site.
The proposed siting
locates the dwelling in front of the angled portion of the front property
line. With the proposed generous north side yard (29.83 ft.), the dwelling
would not overlap the straight (northern) portion of the front (east)
property line. The proposed staggered design of the front (eastern) façade of
the dwelling reflects the angled alignment of the front property line.
The proposed front yard
setback of 13.99 ft. is measured perpendicular from the most south-east
corner of the dwelling (the closest point) to the angled portion of the front
property line. However, if the straight (northern) portion is considered, the
dwelling would observe a setback of approximately 27.0 ft., which
substantially exceeds the required front yard setback (24.6 ft.). In fact,
the proposed siting would place the subject dwelling approximately 5.34 ft.
behind the neighbouring residence immediately to the north. Therefore, this
variance would not create negative impacts on this residence.
With respect to the
neighbouring dwellings directly across Gray Avenue (east) and across McKee
Street (south), the proposed staggered design at the eastern facade of the
dwelling, in combination with distant siting of these residences, would help
reduce impacts of the front yard encroachment within the angled portion of
the front yard.
Further, with respect to the broader
neighbourhood context,
the placement of the proposed dwelling slightly behind the residence
immediately to the north (and consistent with the current
dwelling on the subject site), as well as its stepping design
addressing the angled portion of Gray Avenue, would fit within the existing
context.
In view of the above,
this Department does not object to the granting of the second b) variance.
The third c) appeal is
to vary Section 102.10 - “Rear Yard” of the Zoning Bylaw from 29.5
ft. to 5.09 ft. to allow the construction of the proposed single family dwelling.
The intent of the Bylaw
is to mitigate the massing impacts of new buildings and structures on
neighbouring properties and to ensure sufficient outdoor living area in the
rear yard.
The subject dwelling
encroaches into the required rear yard by 24.41 ft. on all floor levels, with a window bay (6.67 ft.
wide) protruding an additional 1.5 ft. on the main floor. The proposed
dwelling directly overlaps the neighbouring residence to the west; this
residence is fronting onto McKee Street and observes a side yard setback of
approximately 4.0-5.0 ft. along the shared property line. There is a concern
that the two-storey form of the new dwelling will create large impacts on the front yard of the neighbouring
property to the west, although the current dwelling on the subject
site (which is one-storey high) observes a similar setback and is located
further to the south as compared to the siting of the proposed dwelling.
With respect to outdoor living area,
a large green area would be available in the generous north side yard (almost
30.90 ft. wide).
However, as noted under
comments for the first a) appeal, a need for this variance is related to the
proposed orientation of the dwelling towards McKee Street rather than Gray
Avenue.
In summary, the 24.41 ft.
encroachment into the required rear yard is significant and will create
impacts on the neighbouring property to the west. Further, this variance
appears to be a result of the design choice. Therefore, this Department
cannot support the granting of the third c) variance.
The fourth d) appeal is
to vary Section 6.14(5)(a) - “Fences” of the Zoning Bylaw from 3.51 ft. to
3.80 ft., 4.56 ft. and 5.06 ft. with respect to the maximum permitted height
for fences and walls located in the required front yard.
The intent of
the Bylaw in limiting the height of retaining walls to a maximum of 3.51 ft.
in the required front yard is to ensure unified ‘open’ front yards and to
limit the massing impacts of such structures on neighbouring properties.
In
this case, the proposal is to alter the front yard along the Gray Avenue frontage, from a
continuously sloping terrain, with a drop of approximately 7.0 ft. in 35.0 ft., to terraced structures that provide flat
planters and an exterior access/sunken patio for the secondary suite. In
order to negotiate the grade difference retaining walls are proposed, some of
which exceed the permitted height. The most northern retaining wall, which
starts at the north-east corner of the dwelling and continues towards Gray
Avenue, is proposed to be 3.80 ft. high, marginally higher (0.29 ft.) than
the permitted height (3.51 ft.). The retaining walls around the access
area/sunken patio are proposed to be 5.06 ft. (north) and 4.56 ft. (south) in
height. Both retaining walls are not visible from the street and therefore,
would not impact the neighbouring properties.
However,
although the site geometry and topography is a contributing factor, again, a need
for this variance appears to be related to the design decision to orient the
dwelling’s frontage towards McKee Street, with the Gray Avenue side
containing more private activities (sunken patio), as oppose to typically
more formal arrangements of front yards.
In
view of the above, this Department cannot support the granting of the fourth d)
variance.
In conclusion, it
appears that all four requested variances are a result of the assumed site
orientation with a frontage onto McKee Street to south, a rear yard to the
north and a side yards to the west and east (flanking Gray Avenue). This
assumed site orientation reflects the current dwelling’s appearance on the
subject site. The current dwelling, which was built around 1957 and before
the Zoning Bylaw was elected (1965), is legal non-conforming with respect to
the front yard, rear yard and bulling depth.
According to the City
records, a 12 ft. front yard along Gray Avenue and 21.6 ft. side yard along
McKee Street was identified as per Permit 7663-A. Further, this historically
established orientation is consistent with the majority of the lots in the
subject block (four, including subject lot, out of five lots). A new
development proposal must be based on the same orientation principal in
addition to all other current Zoning Bylaw requirements. (A legal
non-conforming status ceases to exist with a new development.)
Nevertheless, with
respect to the second b) variance, this Department’s position is that there
are sufficient grounds for hardship with respect to the front yard variance
request, considering the restrictive site geometry and minimal impacts on the
neighbourhood, and there are no objections to the granting of this second b)
appeal only.
ADJACENT OWNER’S
COMMENTS:
An email was received from 4655
McKee Street expressing concern with the excavation work, proposed retaining
wall and the negative impact this may have on her 2 60+ year old cedar trees.
A City of Burnaby tree inspector advised that the excavation would not have
any serious effect on the health of the trees in front of 4655 McKee Street.
A petition letter in support of the
variances being requested was received signed by residents of 7930, 7950,
7970, 7980, 7981, 7990, 8015, and 8049 Gray Avenue; and 4655 McKee Street.
The petition read as follows:
“This is to confirm
we are aware of the Guan’s new construction plans, and we do not oppose the
variances in the Board of Variance Letter.”
No further submissions were received
regarding this appeal.
|