|
APPELLANT’S SUBMISSION:
Mr. Lee, VictorEric Design Group, on
behalf of the property owner, submitted an application to allow for the
construction of a new single family dwelling with a secondary suite and
attached garage.
Mr. Vanhunenstijn, Project
Development Director, VictorEric Design Group, 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 Sperling-Broadway neighbourhood in
which the age and condition of single family dwellings vary. This undeveloped
through lot is an irregular (trapezoid
shaped) interior
lot, approximately 60.9 feet wide by 183.27 feet deep along the shorter west
side property line and 202.54 feet deep along the longer east side property
line. The subject site fronts onto Ellerslie Avenue along its angled southern
property line and onto the Mawhinney Close cul-de-sac to the north. This is
where a vehicular access to the subject site is proposed (from Mawhinney
Close); there is no lane access.
The subject site abuts single family
lots along the east side property line and across the Mawhinney Close
cul-de-sac to the north. There is a multi-family development across Ellerslie
Avenue to the south (sheltered by Pollywog Creek green area) and an
undeveloped residential lot immediately to the west of the subject lot. This
neighbouring lot is currently proposed to be developed with a single family
dwelling and is a subject of the previous Board of Variance Appeal # BV 6336.
The subject property
observes a substantial downward slope of approximately 22.84 feet from the
northwest corner to the southeast corner. The site is constrained by the BC
Hydro SROW along the south (angled) property line, approximately 85.0 feet
(25.6 metres) wide, overlapped by a sanitary SROW roughly within its southern
portion. These SROWs occupy almost a half of the entire site. According to the
submitted topographical survey, the lot area is 11,664 square feet.
The appeal proposes the subject site
to be developed with a new single family dwelling with a secondary suite and
an attached garage,
for which two variances are requested.
The first a) appeal is
to vary Section 102.6(1)(a) – “Height of Principal Building” of the Zoning
Bylaw from 29.5 feet to 34.81 feet, as measured from the rear average
elevation, for the proposed single family dwelling with a sloping roof.
The intent of the height requirements
of the Zoning Bylaw is to mitigate the massing impacts of the new buildings
and structures on neighbouring properties and to preserve the views. The proposed dwelling
observes a front (northern) elevation height of 26.14 feet, which is 3.36 feet
less than the allowed maximum height.
Therefore, this proposal would not
affect the views from the properties across the Mawhinney Close cul-de-sac to the
north, which are at substantially higher elevations.
The requested variance is for the
rear elevation height. In this case, the height calculation is based on the
proposed average grade at the outermost face of the southern elevation; this
elevation is assumed to be the rear elevation. It should be noted that the
grade difference between the front and the rear of the subject site is a
contributing factor to the excess height of the rear elevation.
The proposed height encroachment of
5.31 feet occurs over the entire roof area starting from approximately the
gutter level. However, with respect to massing impacts of this major
encroachment, a generous rear yard setback of over 88.0 feet would
essentially eliminate any impacts on the Ellerslie Avenue streetscape (there
are no immediate neighbours to the south of the subject site due to the
Pollywog Creek green area across Ellerslie Avenue).
With respect to the west and east
side elevations, with the exception to the two light well areas (one on each
side), the proposed dwelling would appear as within the allowed maximum
height limits. Therefore, no substantial massing impacts are expected on any
future development on the neighbouring vacant lot to the west and to the
neighbouring residences to the east. Also, the front portion of the proposed
dwelling, which would overlap the neighbouring residence at 7056 Mawhinney
Close (northern lot), is only one storey high. The proposed dwelling would
not overlap the neighbouring residence at 3015 Ellerslie Avenue (southern
lot).
However, the proposed height of
34.81 feet, as viewed from the Ellerslie Avenue property line, is substantially
greater than the allowed maximum height. Despite the challenging site
conditions, the requested variance is not exclusively
related to these conditions.
The excess height of the proposed dwelling is also a result of design
choices, with the proposed clear floor to ceiling height on all three floor
levels of the building: 9.0 feet in the basement, 10.0 feet on the main level
and 9.0 feet on the upper level, being the major contributing factors.
Further, the site programming chosen
has established the point where the rear elevation is measured. It is a
design choice to attach a two car garage to the rear (south) elevation of the
dwelling and have vehicular access off the Mawhinney Close cul-de-sac (north).
This has created an approximately 128.0 feet long driveway along the east
(side) property line, which terminates in the large turnaround directly in
front of the garage doors, further to the south.
If this design was revisited, and
other options explored, the height at the rear elevation could be lowered.
Perhaps, by relocating the garage to the front (north) of the dwelling, a
more compact floor layout could be achieved, which would also help lessen a need
for a building depth relaxation discussed under the second b) variance
comments.
In the
consideration of the above, this
Department cannot support the granting of the first a) appeal.
The second b) appeal is to vary
Section 102.7(b) – “Depth of Principal Building” of the Zoning Bylaw from
60.0 feet to 74.00 feet to allow construction of a new single family
dwelling. The intent of the principal building depth requirements of the
Zoning Bylaw is to prevent construction of dwellings that present long imposing
walls, so that the massing of the building impacts the neighbouring
properties.
In this case, the “main”
two storey body of the dwelling would be approximately 41.0 feet deep, with
the remaining one storey high portions projecting approximately 18.0 feet at
the main level from the front (north) elevation and approximately 15.0 feet
at the at the basement level from the rear (south) elevation. Further, these
one storey portions would observe various setbacks from the “main” two storey
building face, such that no portion of the dwelling, which would be in line
with the “main” two storey building face, would exceed 50.5 feet in depth. Therefore, the proposed
dwelling would not create a long imposing wall appearance as viewed from the
west and east property lines.
Considering the above,
the massing impacts of the excess depth would be minimal on the neighbouring
properties to the west and east. However, similar to the comments under the
first a) variance, the requested variance appears to be the result
of a design choice rather than hardship.
For this reason, this Department cannot
support the granting of the second b) appeal.
ADJACENT OWNER’S COMMENTS:
A letter was received
from 7056 and 7068 Mawhinney Close in opposition to the appeal.
The owners of 7056 and
7068 Mawhinney Close also appeared and expressed concern that the size of the
structure would be out of character for the neighbourhood and overshadow the
adjacent dwelling.
|