COMMITTEE REPORT: 240 Helmcken Road Development Variance Permit – Retaining Wall

TOWN OF VIEW ROYAL COMMITTEE REPORT

TO: Committee of the Whole DATE: May 6, 2019 FROM: J. Davison, MCIP RPP Planner MEETING DATE: May 14, 2019 FILE NO: 3090-020-2019-02

240 Helmcken Road Development Variance Permit – Retaining Wall

RECOMMENDATION

THAT the report from the Planner entitled “240 Helmcken Rd Development Variance Permit – Retaining Wall” dated May 6, 2019 be received for information.

CHIEF ADMINISTRATIVE OFFICER’S COMMENTS

I concur with the recommendation.

DIRECTOR OF DEVELOPMENT SERVICES’ COMMENTS

I concur with the recommendation.

PURPOSE OF REPORT

The purpose of this report is to introduce options for height variances for retaining walls along the northern side of the property. This is the second Development Variance Permit application addressing this issue.

BACKGROUND

This is the second, revised application for variances to the retaining walls on the property. The application for a Development Variance Permit was originally made after a stop-work order issuance for the retaining walls in question, and the first application was rejected by Committee of the Whole for being too high and visually intrusive.

The original application proposed placing fences on top of the two retaining walls, proposing a combined fence/retaining wall height of 3.1m for the front wall and 3.9m for the rear wall. The requested variances in the original application were as such:

Front Wall: 1.9m retaining wall plus 1.2m fence for a total height of 3.1m. This required one variance:

1. A variance from 1.2m to 3.1m for combined height of fence and retaining wall in a front yard (Section 4.8.3 Zoning Bylaw No. 900, 2014)

Rear Wall: 2.1m retaining wall plus 1.8m fence for a total height of 3.9m. This required two variances:

1. A variance from 2m to 3.9m for combined height of fence and retaining wall in a side or rear yard (Section 4.8.1 of Zoning Bylaw No. 900).
2. A variance from 2m to 2.1m for the height of the retaining wall (Section 4.8.11)

Committee felt that the combined fence/retaining walls were too high, especially for the more visible and impactful front wall.

It should also be noted that, prior to the construction of the new concrete retaining wall, there was a stone retaining wall 0.3m lower than the new wall at the back, and 0.5m lower than the wall at the front.

ISSUES AND ANALYSIS

The revised proposal’s requested option

The applicant has taken Committee’s views into consideration and is proposing variances to only the retaining wall height (from 2m to 2.2m on the rear wall and from 1.2m to 2.1m on the front wall).

Note that in the situation where the adjacent property is lower than the subject property, a retaining wall of up to 2m is permitted. Note that the maximum combined fence/retaining wall height of 1.2m in a front yard also applies, so the variance in the front wall is still from 1.2m to 2.1m.

4.8.11 Notwithstanding Section 4.8.9 a retaining wall may measure up to 2m measured from grade, where the existing grade of the subject lot is lower than the abutting lot. In this case, the combined height of a fence on a top of a retaining wall at the lot line must not exceed 2m, measured from the grade of the abutting higher lot (see illustration below).

Applicant’s Requested Option (Listed as Option 1 in the drawings)

1. The applicant is not proposing to cut down the height of the newly-poured wall, at 2.2m for the rear wall and 2.1m for the front wall.
2. The applicant is proposing an Open railing on the rear wall (BC Building Code minimum guard railing, which is exempt from variance as it is not considered fencing). The Town’s Zoning Bylaw permits a guard rail required to meet the provisions of the BC Building Code: 4.8.8. Fence height restrictions do not prevent the construction of guard rails required to meet the provisions of the British Columbia Building code, provided the guard rail is constructed with clear glass or has at least 50% of unobstructed clear space. The railing would provide more space in the rear yard versus stepping a fence back 1m from the wall.
3. The applicant is proposing that the front wall fence be 1.2m high and stepped back 1m from the retaining wall. Vegetation would be planted in the 1m gap between the top of the wall and the fence. This also does not require a fence height variance.

The requested variances are as follows:

• A variance from 1.2m to 2.1m for the height of the front retaining wall (Section 4.8.3 and 4.8.7)
• A variance from 2m to 2.2m for the height of a retaining wall (Section 4.8.11)

Below is the proposed option for the rear retaining wall, as Option 1.

Below is the proposed option for the front retaining wall:

Engineering

The wall has received engineering field report (attached). The retaining walls are sound from an engineering perspective and there is no barrier to the Town issuing a Building Permit for the walls should the variances be granted.

DISCUSSION

The primary concern for Council is weighing the balance of the benefit of the additional utility to the subject property against the visual impact that the retaining walls have on the adjacent property at 238 Helmcken Rd.

The applicant submitted drawings with ‘Option 1’ and ‘Option 2’ indicated; these options both require the same retaining wall variance, and neither option requires additional variance or Council approval. Option 1, the guard railing, is preferred by the applicant. It would be possible for Council to choose one or the other as conditions of the retaining wall variances.

Options for Council

1. Approve the variances to the retaining walls as drawn, at 2.2m for the rear wall and 2.1m for the front wall.
2. Require a detailed landscape plan (more detailed than supplied by the applicant at this time) with species requirements and numbers and sizes of plantings provided to soften the visual impact of the wall and fence combination, as a condition of the Development Variance Permit.
3. Require that Option 1 (guard rail on rear wall) or Option 2 (stepped back fence on rear wall) be taken as conditions of the Development Variance Permit.
4. Require that the retaining walls be cut down to a height that Council is comfortable with; keeping in mind that this would necessitate a sloping of the grade down to the top of the retaining wall to some extent. The modest increase in height over the old retaining walls was to facilitate a flat grade on the subject property with more utility than the existing grade.

RECOMMENDATION

THAT the report from the Planner entitled “240 Helmcken Rd Development Variance Permit – Retaining Wall” dated May 6, 2019 be received for information.

ATTACHMENTS

1. Subject Property Map
2. Applicant’s Statement – April 14, 2019
3. Survey – Brad Cunnin Land Surveying – July 17, 2013
4. Wall Plan and Elevation – Applicant – Undated
5. Field Review Report – Brimmell Engineering Ltd. – November 9, 2018
6. Site Photos
7. Letter from neighbour at 238 Helmcken Rd – February 24, 2019