|
APPELLANT’S SUBMISSION:
Mr. Dat Huynh, on behalf of the
property owner, submitted an application to allow for the construction of a
warehouse addition to an existing warehouse building at 4050 Graveley Street,
with a nil side yard setback where a minimum side yard setback of 19.69 feet
is required.
Ms. Margaret Bezdan, President, Geo.
Bezdan Sales Ltd., appeared before members of the Board of Variance.
BURNABY
PLANNING AND BUILDING DEPARTMENT COMMENTS:
The subject site, zoned M3 Heavy
Industrial District, is located in the West-Central Valley neighbourhood. The M3 District is
intended for the accommodation of special types of industry and heavy
industrial activities.
This interior lot, approximately 145.5
feet wide and 131.8 feet deep, fronts onto Graveley Street to the north. Directly across Gravely
Street to the north
are two lots containing residential dwellings. To the west, east and south
the subject site is bordered by
lots containing various industrial developments. Vehicle access to the site is
provided from Graveley Street; there is no lane access. The subject site is
restricted by the 10.0 feet wide sanitary easement along the south (rear)
property line. The subject site is improved with a two-storey warehouse
building, built in 1972, and associated parking and landscape areas.
The subject site was in front of the
Board of Variance on two previous occasions.
In 1988, the Board of Variance
granted the subject property permission to retain an attached accessory
building (storage shed) to the rear of the existing warehouse building for
two years (BV 3440). The accessory building observed a nil rear yard setback
where a minimum rear yard setback of 9.84 feet is required. This Department
did not object to the temporary retention of the accessory building, which
has since been removed.
The second time, in May 2016, the
Board of Variance granted permission for construction of a warehouse addition to the
existing warehouse building observing a nil east side yard setback, where a
minimum side yard setback of 19.69 feet is required (BV 6224). This Department, again,
did not object to the addition, which was never constructed.
In order for the Preliminary Plan
Approval (PPA18-00084) to proceed, the applicant requests that the following
variance to be granted: the construction of a warehouse addition to an
existing warehouse building, with a nil side yard setback, where a minimum
side yard setback of 19.69 feet is required.
The intent of the Bylaw,
when adopted, was to upgrade the quality of industrial development in order
to increase its compatibility with other land uses. The existing, approximately 21.50 feet
high warehouse building, occupies the western two-thirds of the site, with
the remaining lot area utilized for parking/loading and front yard
landscaping. The existing building observes a nil side yard setback along the
west side property line.
The 58.75 feet wide by 34.08 feet
deep single storey addition is proposed in the south-east corner of the
subject site. The addition would be aligned with the existing building to the
rear and would span across the entire remaining lot width, from the east
building face to the east side property line. As a result, the 19.69 feet
wide portion of the proposed addition, along the east side property line,
would encroach into the required east side yard setback.
The proposed single storey warehouse
addition matches the 21.50 feet height of existing building and is slightly
higher than the neighboring building to the east. The massing of the proposed
addition was drastically reduced, in comparison to the proposal previously
granted by the Board, which was 39.0 feet in height. With the current proposal,
the proposed warehouse has been enlarged at the ground level, rather than
adding a storey above the existing parking and loading area. Consequently,
the addition will create no negative visual impacts. The proposal will also
eliminate a portion of the existing office mezzanine inside the existing
building to reduce the total parking requirements.
To the east, the proposed addition
would abut the neighbouring single storey building, which observes a nil
setback along the shared side property line. This building observes a nil
setback at both side property lines and is legal non-conforming with respect
to the side yard setback requirements. The front and rear face of the
proposed addition would be approximately in line with this existing building.
Directly to the south, the proposed addition would face the parking area of
the neighbouring property at 1679 Gilmore Avenue. The existing building on
this property, as well as the existing building on the adjacent property to
the west (4055 First Avenue), front onto Gilmore Avenue to the east and First
Avenue to the south respectively. These buildings have no windows facing the
subject property.
Impacts on the neighbouring
residential dwellings across Graveley Street to the north would be negligible
due to a generous front yard setback in this location of approximately 85.0 feet.
The location of the proposed addition at the rear of the property, as noted
above, minimizes the impacts of the proposed nil setback. Further, the
subject property is constrained by the lack of a rear lane, which increases
the space required for on-site maneuvering of vehicles and thus reduces the
buildable area of the site. As such, this proposal appears to reach a balance
between satisfying parking and loading requirements, minimizing impacts on
the neighbourhood and meeting the applicant’s development needs.
Further, there is precedent for a
similar side yard setback relaxation within the subject block. The
neighbouring property immediately to the west (4040 Graveley Street) was
granted a relaxation of the side yard setback to nil, where a minimum side yard
setback of 19.69 feet is required, by the Board of Variance in 2002 (BV
5015). Several other properties in the vicinity, constructed prior to the
adoption of the setback requirement, also enjoy nil side yard setbacks on
both sides.
In view of the above, although the
proposed variance is not strictly the result of hardship, this
Department does not object to the granting of this variance.
ADJACENT OWNER’S COMMENTS:
No submissions were
received regarding this appeal.
|