|
APPELLANT’S SUBMISSION:
Mr. Sukhdev Sandhu, on behalf of the
property owner, submitted an application to allow for the construction of a
new single family dwelling with secondary suite and attached garage.
Mr. Sandhu and the designer, Mr. Raj
Singh, 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 neighbourhood in which the
age and condition of single family dwellings vary. This slightly irregular (trapezoid shaped) large interior lot,
approximately 144.1 ft. wide by 117.7 ft. deep (along the shorter west side
property line), fronts with the east portion of the north property line onto
Mawhinney Close to the north and Ellerslie Avenue to the south. The subject
site abuts the green “Pollywog Tributary 1” buffer zone of the single family
lots to the north and west; there are single family dwellings across
Mawhinney Close to the north, a vacant residential lot to the east and
“Pollywog Creek” across Ellerslie Avenue to the south. Vehicular
access to the subject site is proposed from Mawhinney Close; there is no lane
access. The subject property observes a substantial downward
slope of approximately 23.1 ft. from the northeast corner to the southeast
corner. “Pollywog Tributary 1” runs roughly parallel along west
property line as well as a drainage Right of Way.
Due to the presence of “Pollywog
Tributary 1”,
this proposal is subject to the Streamside Protection and Enhancement Area
(SPEA) regulations provided in Section 6.23 of the Zoning Bylaw. A Section 219 covenant is
registered on the Title to protect the SPEA, including a ‘no-build’ zone
49.21 ft. (15 m.) wide extending from top of the bank line.
Along the south property line, there
are two Rights-of-Way (R.O.W.): a Sanitary Sewer R.O.W and a B.C. Hydro
R.O.W, which is approximately 80.0 ft. wide. Although, this property is
22,390 sq.ft. in size, the area remaining for permitted development is 3,255
sq. ft.
The subject lot is proposed to be
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 for construction of a retaining wall in the required front
yard along the eastern property line with varying heights of up to 4.26 ft.,
where a maximum height of 3.51 ft. is permitted.
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 proposed new retaining wall would permit the creation of a
moderate 5.5% slope for the driveway from the front property line to the
garage. The retaining wall is proposed along the entire east side
property line adjacent to the vacant residential property. A conforming 3.5
ft. high aluminum fence would be positioned on top of the retaining wall.
The use of
retaining walls, fences and guards is common when dealing with challenging
site topography such as that of the subject site. In this case, the retaining
wall drop down from the driveway level at the property line into the
neighbouring property, so the total 4.26 ft. height of retaining wall and
3.50 ft. fence on top of it, would be visible from the neighbouring property
to the east of the subject site and from Mawhinney Close at street level. However, it
should be noted that the future neighbour to the east may face the same
challenge of a steep driveway, and may choose the same solution, by raising
their garage slab elevation to level out the slope of the driveway, and
practically eliminating the need for the retaining wall between the two
driveways of the neighbouring properties.
Considering
the challenging topography of the subject site and the unknown future
impact on the vacant neighbouring property, this Department does
not object to the granting of the first a) variance.
The following two appeals are
related to the principal building height and are co-related.
The second b) appeal is
to vary Section 102.6(1)(a) – “Height of Principal Building” of the Zoning
Bylaw from 29.5 ft. to 35.54 ft., as measured from the rear average
elevation.
The third c) appeal is
to vary Section 102.6(1)(a) – “Height of Principal Building” of the Zoning
Bylaw from 29.5 ft. to 30.95 ft., as measured from the front average
elevation.
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.
With respect to the
second b) appeal, the proposed dwelling observes a rear elevation height of
35.54 ft. from the Ellerslie Avenue property line, which is substantially
(6.04 ft.) greater than the allowed maximum height. In this case, the height calculation
is based on the existing average grade at the outermost face of the rear
elevation. It should be noted that the grade difference between the front and
the rear of the subject site is one of the contributing factors to the excess
height of the rear elevation. The affected over height area includes the
whole roof as seen from the south. However the only impact is on the
streetscape as there are no immediate neighbours to the south of the subject
site due to the Pollywog Creek conservation area across Ellerslie Avenue, to
the west due to “Pollywog
Tributary 1” and currently vacant lot to the east.
It should be noted that despite the
difficult site topography and the legal limitations in the west and south
portions of the property, the building area is located between the required setbacks,
and the
requested variances
are not the cause of these restrictions. The over height nature of the
proposed dwelling is a design choice, and the major contributing factor is
the clear floor to ceiling height proposed on all 3 floors of the building:
9.0 ft. clear in the secondary suite/rec. room basement, 10.0 ft. clear on
main level and 9.0 ft. clear height on the upper level.
With respect to the
third c) appeal, the proposed dwelling observes a front elevation height of
30.95 ft., which is 1.45 ft. more than the allowed maximum building height.
The over height area is located in a relatively small area in the center of
the sloped roof. This proposal would slightly affect south views from the properties
directly across the Mawhinney Close to the north, which are located at
approximately 10.0 ft. higher elevations than subject dwelling.
In summary, the second b) variance is
a major variance which appears to be the result of design choices rather than
a hardship, and the variance could easily be lessened with design
modifications. The
requested third c) variance to the height requirements of the Zoning Bylaw would create some impacts
on the views from the neighbouring
properties across Mawhinney Close.
For these
reasons, this Department cannot support of the granting the second b) and
third c) variances.
The fourth d) appeal is
to
vary Section 102.6(1)(a) - Height of Principal Building” of the Zoning Bylaw
from 2 ½ storey to 3 storey.
According to the Zoning
Bylaw a storey is considered a “half storey” if it contains less than 50% of
the gross floor area of the storey immediately below. The proposed 1,709 sq.ft.
second floor, which consists of four bedrooms, four bathrooms, lounge and a
high volume space open to the foyer below, is 76% of the size of the 2,237
sq.ft. main floor. The second floor as proposed exceeds the permitted 50%
size by 528 sq. ft., which is a major variance. However, while being clearly
a design choice and not a hardship, the increased second floor area will have
a limited negative influence on the properties on the other side of Mawhinney
Close, which are situated approximately 10.0 ft. above the subject property.
However, the proposed excess height, in combination with the fact that the
entire rear elevation would appear as a three-storey form, would create
negative massing impacts on the Ellerslie Avenue street scape.
Therefore, because the request for a variance is the result of a design choice and lack
of demonstrated hardship, this Department cannot support of the granting the
fourth d) variance.
ADJACENT OWNER’S COMMENTS:
A letter was received
from 7056 Mawhinney Close in opposition to the appeal. The owner and her
daughter also appeared and expressed concern with the loss of sunlight to the
garden and patio on the west side.
No further submissions
were received regarding this appeal.
|