Staff Report: Development Variance Permit – 291 Beaumont Avenue

DEVELOPMENT VARIANCE PERMIT – 291 BEAUMONT AVE

RECOMMENDATION:

THAT Council refuse Development Variance Permit 2012/06 for a variance to building height as calculated from the lower of average natural or finished grade from 7.5m to 9.2m. The variance is per the plans attached to the report from the Planning Technician at the September 4th 2012 Council Meeting;

ALTERNATE RECOMMENDATION:

THAT Council approve Development Variance Permit 2012/06 for a variance to building height as calculated from the lower of average natural or finished grade from 7.5m to 9.2m. The variance is per the plans attached to the report from the Planning Technician at the September 4th 2012 Council Meeting;

AND THAT an appropriate stormwater management solution be completed to the satisfaction of the Engineering Department as a condition of the Development Variance Permit.

AND THAT an appropriate wastewater management solution be completed to the satisfaction of the Engineering Department as a condition of the Development Variance Permit.

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 present the application for a Development Variance Permit for 291 Beaumont Ave in an R-1: One Family Residential (Large Lot) zoning to allow for the construction of a single-family house with a suite. The existing dwelling and accessory buildings have been removed.

BACKGROUND:

The subject property is zoned R-1A: One Family Residential. The lot is situated at the corner of Beaumont Ave and Pallisier Ave, and is of a typical size for the neighbourhood at approximately 745m2. The front yard faces Beaumont at a steep angle and the Director of Engineering has required that no driveway access be on Beaumont Ave due to visibility concerns.

PROJECT INFORMATION:

Proposal

The subject property is subject to the requirement to obtain a Development Variance Permit (DVP) pursuant to Section 922 of the Local Government Act. This DVP focuses on the consideration of proposed variances impacting the use and enjoyment of the adjacent properties.

The proposed allows for a 2.5 storey house to be situated on a fee-simple lot. It is a sloping lot and the applicant wishes to add fill to the property to bring the grades up to street level on the flanking side yard and front yard. The variance (from 7.5m to 9.2m) is the result of the average finished grade being raised 1.1m and the house being measured as 8.1m in height from the finished grade (7.5m is the maximum height in the zone).

The applicant has submitted the following information in support of their application:

• Applicant’s Statement – Marianna Mazza
• Complete set of Building Plans - Java Designs – August 15, 2012
• Current Copy of Title

The proposed Development Variance Permit addresses the following aspects:

• A variance to the building height as calculated from the lower of natural or finished grade, from 7.5m to 9.2m.

Issues and Analysis

The principal issue for the committee to consider in this application is whether the variances are appropriate and whether the use and enjoyment of the neighbouring properties will be unduly affected by this variance.

Height

The property in question has likely been leveled at some point, where the grade has been lowered and a steep backfill in the flanking and front yards has replaced a more regularly sloping lot. There is no information either provided by the applicant or on file, however, as to pre-development grades. It is clear that the site has existed as such for much of the last century. As such, Staff is using the existing grade as natural grade.

The applicant wishes to build a contemporary craftsman-style house with the main entrance to the house at street level. As such, the average grade on the property is being raised by 1.1m. Furthermore, the house itself is a further 8.1m tall from that finished grade – 0.6m taller than what would be allowed in the R-1 zone even if the final grades were used rather than existing. Together, this means a 9.2m high house rather than the 7.5m tall house allowed. In staff’s opinion the site is being designed for the house rather than the house being designed for the site.

Staff’s main concern with this site is the changing grades and the height and design of the house. Staff would like to see a house on this site which is sensitive to the neighbourhood context and the sloping topography. Staff is of the opinion that the design of the house does not in any way address the sloping nature of the site, or take into consideration the impact on the neighbours. The neighbours at 295 Beaumont will have a 9m building face immediately adjacent; the bottom of which is approximately 1.5m higher than the floor plate at 295 Beaumont.

Staff is of the opinion that overlook onto adjacent properties, given the height difference proposed, will likely be significant and out-of-scale with the existing neighbourhood.

Given the variances requested, Staff would recommend that a slope-adaptive design be considered for the site; a terraced house which steps away from the neighbouring downslope house and which reduces the visual impact on the neighbour would be preferable.

Servicing

Staff’s other major concern is that stormwater and sewer connection issues have not been resolved, and will be a condition of the Development Variance Permit. Staff is not comfortable with the lack of information provided thus far, and is not confident that a solution is in hand for the site at this point.

Of particular concern is that the addition of fill to the site, the increased slope and the increase in impermeable surfaces on the site will cause a net increase in runoff onto 295 Beaumont Ave, and possibly other properties. The Engineering Department will need to be satisfied with the on-site stormwater management system as a condition of the Development Variance Permit.

Staff also requires that the sewer pipe location, condition and diameter be established with a camera and that the sewer connection is satisfactory as a condition of the Development Variance Permit.

POLICY IMPLICATIONS:

This application highlights the need for slope-adaptive guidelines within the context of the Land Use Bylaw and Soil Deposit/Removal regulations.

CONCLUSION:

Staff is uncomfortable with this application. While there is some reason to think that the property has been graded in the past, it has existed in its present condition for some time now and Staff is not aware of the precise pre-development grades. Staff is of the opinion that if grades are returned to street level on the site and a variance is required to build a 2.5 storey house, a slope-adaptive design for the house should be considered to minimize impacts on the adjacent properties – in particular to 295 Beaumont Ave. Staff is also not yet convinced that the development will not yield increased stormwater runoff onto 295 Beaumont and other sites due to the addition of fill on the site and to the increase in impermeable surfaces on the site.

Staff is of the opinion that this variance requested and the design of the house will have an undue impact on the use and enjoyment of the adjacent properties. Rather than try to build a ‘typical’ spec-design suitable to a flat building site by altering the site and imposing on the neighbours, Staff would want to see a design which takes the site into account. The design is in no way deferential to the site conditions or the scale of the neighbourhood, and the application is not supportable by Staff.

RECOMMENDATION:

THAT Council refuse Development Variance Permit 2012/06 for a variance to building height as calculated from the lower of average natural or finished grade from 7.5m to 9.2m. The variance is per the plans attached to the report from the Planning Technician at the September 4th 2012 Council Meeting;

ALTERNATE RECOMMENDATION:

THAT Council approve Development Variance Permit 2012/06 for a variance to building height as calculated from the lower of average natural or finished grade from 7.5m to 9.2m. The variance is per the plans attached to the report from the Planning Technician at the September 4th 2012 Council Meeting;

AND THAT an appropriate stormwater management solution be completed to the satisfaction of the Engineering Department as a condition of the Development Variance Permit.

AND THAT an appropriate wastewater management solution be completed to the satisfaction of the Engineering Department as a condition of the Development Variance Permit.

SUBMITTED BY: J. Davison, MCIP, Planning Technician

REVIEWED BY: L. Chase, MCIP, Director of Development Services