COMMITTEE OF ADJUSTMENT CASE

Transcription

1 COMMITTEE OF ADJUSTMENT CASE 30 Clubhouse Road, Woodbridge October 19, 2017 Prepared for: Jason Gabriele 78 Rushworth Cres Kleinburg, Ontario LOJ1C0 Prepared by: FRANKFRANCO ARCHITECTS T E info@frankfranco.com Pine Valley Drive Vaughan, Ontario L4L 1A6

2 CONTENTS Descriptions Planning Justification Arguments Justification Conclusion

3 SUBJECT LANDS DESCRIPTION The subject property is located at 30 Clubhouse Road in Woodbridge and has the legal description Part of Lot 3 of Registered Plan The property is located on the south side of Clubhouse Road and does not have any existing structures on the subject land. The subject property is currently zoned as Rural Residential RR. The predominant land use surrounding the property is single family detached dwellings. The property has a frontage of 98.99m, a lot depth of 62.32m, and a lot area of 4046 SQ.M. NEIGHBOURHOOD DESCRIPTION The subject property is located in a low-density residential area around the National Golf Club of Canada and in close proximity to open green spaces including Boyd Conservation Area. The nearest major intersection is Pine Valley Drive and Langstaff Road. The neighbourhood consists of some older one and two story dwellings, however, many of the properties in the neighbourhood have undergone renovation, or have been redeveloped with new estate dwellings. The houses feature a wide range of architectural materials, styles, and building forms. OFFICIAL PLAN & OFFICIAL BY-LAW The proposal for 30 Clubhouse Road is to construct a new single-storey detached dwelling unit. The intent of the proposal is to provide a new house to suit the family s spatial needs and modern lifestyle. The design of the house compliments and improves the existing neighbourhood in its scale, height, and massing and is respectful of the natural environment on and around the lot. The subject property is designated as RR in the City of Vaughan Zoning By-Law The permitted uses for the lands are residential detached houses. The proposed land use and built-form complies with what is permitted in the Vaughan Zoning By-Law.

4 The table below provides an analysis of the zoning requirements and the proposed development. TABLE 1.1 LOT SIZE/GFA STUDY ZONING STANDARD REQUIRED IN RR EXISTING PROPOSED MAX LOT COVERAGE (BUILDING ONLY) SQ.M (10%) N/A SQ.M (15.4%) MAX LOT COVERAGE (BUILDING & ROOF OVERHANGS) SQ.M (10%) N/A SQ.M (18.76%) NO. OF STORYS N/A N/A 1 MAX BUILDING HEIGHT 9.5 M N/A 7.12 M MAX BUILDING LENGTH N/A N/A 26.9 M MAX BUILDING WIDTH N/A N/A 41.6 M MIN FRONT YARD SETBACK TO MAIN EXTERIOR WALL 15M N/A 15M MIN FRONT YARD SETBACK TO ROOF OVERHANG 15 M N/A 9.28 M MIN REAR YARD SETBACK 15 M N/A 21.5 M MIN INTERIOR SIDE YARD SETBACK 4.5 M N/A 4.53 M MIN EXTERIOR SIDE YARD SETBACK 9 M N/A M DRIVEWAY WIDTH 6M N/A 6M A minor variance is required to permit the proposed development. PLANNING JUSTIFICATION A Minor Variance application has been submitted to permit construction to the existing site and requires relief of zoning provisions for the following item: Vaughan Zoning By-Law [Zone Requirement Table Schedule A to By-Law 1-88] Maximum Lot Coverage. The maximum lot coverage for a dwelling unit is 10% or 404.6m². The proposed lot coverage is 15.4% or 623.7m² to the building and 18.76% or 759.2m² to the building and roof overhangs. [Zone Requirement Table Schedule A to By-Law 1-88] Minimum Front Yard Setback. The minimum front yard setback to a dwelling unit is 15m. The proposed front yard setback is 15m to the exterior wall, 9.28m to the cantilevered overhang.

5 ARGUMENTS - JUSTIFICATION The proposal is to construct a new single-storey detached dwelling unit to suit the family s spatial needs and lifestyle. The proposed lot coverage to the exterior walls of the house is 5.4% over the allowable lot coverage in RR zones. When we include the outside covered areas (the building s overhangs), the lot coverage is exceeded by 8.76%. The outdoor covered areas are intended to add light mass balancing the scale and proportion of the east and west wing. The proposal architecturally addresses the site s ascending topography by proposing a low profile bungalow rather than building a two-storey dwelling unit. In doing so, it becomes difficult to stay within the allowable lot coverage. Our intent is to build a single-storey house with a low roof line in order to reduce the overall scale in relation to the mature trees, and blend in with natural landscape surrounding the site. While accommodating the family s spatial requirements that are modest in relation to the buildable areas typical for the community, a single story dwelling does by nature increase the lot coverage. We believe this proposal is more respectful of the site and should be considered minor. FIG. 1 PROPOSED LOT COVERAGE AND HEIGHT VS. MAXIMUM LOT COVERAGE AND MAXIMUM HEIGHT The proposed lot coverage is consistent with the size of new homes in the neighbourhood and is proportional to the lot size. Variances for maximum lot coverage were granted and determined minor for the following properties: Pine Valley Crescent (Required: 10%, Approved: 21.56%) File A152/13 [+11.56%] - 90 Balding Avenue (Required: 10%, Approved: 21.07%) File A270/16 [+11.07%] Pine Valley Crescent (Required: 10%, Approved: 20.55%) File A106/16 [+10.55%] - 11 Pine Valley Crescent (Required: 10%, Approved: 17.75%) File A205/16 [+7.75%] Clubhouse Road (Required: 10%, Approved: 17.71%) File A324/16 [+7.71%] Pine Valley Crescent (Required: 10%, Approved: 17.3%) File A136/11 [+7.3%] Pine Valley Crescent (Required: 10%, Approved: 17.01%) File A180/02 [+7.01%]

6 - 317 Pine Valley Crescent (Required: 10%, Approved: 16.9%) File A030/04 [+6.9%] Pine Valley Crescent (Required: 10%, Approved: 16.84%) File A232/09 [+6.84%] Pine Valley Crescent (Required: 10%, Approved: 16.45%) File A055/06 [+6.45%] Pine Valley Crescent (Required: 10%, Approved: 16.33%) File A59/01 [+6.33%] The front yard setback is also directly related to the irregular shape of the land and the retaining wall at the rear forming the ridge of what can be considered the rear yard. The topography is challenging to provide a reasonable area of rear yard and the manner we have chosen to site the proposed home is to square it to the retaining wall. This gives the proposal a modest rear privacy yard that is usable for the family. The proposed home orientation does have an effect on the front yard setback in a small area to the north west corner of the lot. We also believe this to be a modest request respectful to the site and should be considered minor. While the main exterior wall of the house does meet the minimum front yard setback of 15m for RR zones, the roof overhang along the north elevation extends 1.83m beyond the exterior wall, thus reducing the front yard setback to 9.28m. The orientation and placement of the house was carefully determined based on the shape of the lot and the existing topography. The intent was to reduce the overall impact on the site by designing with the landscape. Moving the building back on the site would solve one variance and compromise both side yard setbacks, and the rear yard setback. Further, the impact would minimize the useable area in the privacy backyard. The roof projection, which is in violation of the front yard setback, is on the opposite side of the property from the only neighbouring house, is lower in height and set behind the dwelling s east wing. Therefore, the projection beyond the front yard setback will have no impact on the neighbour s site lines or access to daylight. Since there are no houses in front of the subject property, the roof projection will have no adverse effect on neighbouring lots. FIG. 2 AREA COMPROMIZED IF FRONT YARD SETBACK IS ACHIEVED

7 FIG. 3 PORTION OF ROOF OVERHANG EXCEEDING FRONT YARD SETBACK Variances for front yard setbacks were granted and determined minor for the following properties: Pine Valley Crescent (Required: 15m, Approved: 8.0m) File A030/04 [-7.0m] Pine Valley Crescent (Required: 15m, Approved: 11.79m) File A232/09 [-3.21m] Pine Valley Crescent (Required: 15m, Approved: 13.43m) File A180/02 [-1.57m] CONCLUSION We feel the evidence contained within this report proves that the requested variances pass each of the four tests required under Subsection 45(1) of the Planning Act. TEST 1 THE GENERAL INTENT OF THE OFFICIAL PLAN IS MAINTAINED: The proposal is in keeping with the intent of the Vaughan Official Plan. The proposal is sensitive to and respectful of the existing character of the area and is consistent with the planned function of the area. TEST 2 THE GENERAL INTENT OF THE ZONING BY-LAW IS MAINTAINED: The proposal is in keeping with the intent of the Vaughan Zoning By-law The required variances are only proposed where it is functionally necessary. The variances do not represent significant departures from the regulations of the zoning by-law and are consistent with the intent and purpose of the by-law. The intent of the lot coverage provision is to prevent dwellings which are inconsistent in scale to neighbouring properties. As previously stated, the highest point of the house is 7.12m and the allowable height for RR zones is 9.5m. Though the proposal exceeds the allowable coverage due to the single story, it has no adverse visual impact on the neighbouring property. The proposed house is respectful of the existing topography and works to blend in with the natural landscape. For these reasons, the intent of the by-law is maintained. The intent of the front yard setback is to ensure the massing of the building does not overpower the street. The portion of the proposed building that does extend beyond the front yard setback is a cantilevered roof overhang with a thin screen while the exterior wall of the dwelling is set back to comply with the minimum front yard setback. The thin profiles of the roof and screen will have minimal impact on the visual presence from the street and will not impact neighbouring properties.

8 TEST 3 THE VARIANCE IS MINOR: The variances are minor in nature; the additional coverage required will not noticeably increase the scale of the proposed dwelling above what is permitted by the current zoning standards and what has been previously approved by the committee in this neighbourhood. The front yard setback to the cantilevered overhang does not have any adverse impacts on the streetscape nor will it impact the single neighbour to the east of the subject property. The proposed variances do not impede the function of the by-laws, nor do they negatively impact the neighbourhood, and should thus be considered minor. TEST 4 THE VARIANCE IS DESIRABLE: The variance is desirable because it will produce a proposal that is similar to and compatible with other dwellings in the community. The proposed design aligns with the executive feel of the area while being respectful of the existing geography, allowing the natural features on site to remain a predominant characteristic of the neighbourhood. In conclusion, this proposal and its variances are in keeping with the character of the existing neighbourhood in its scale, height, and massing. It suits the context of the neighbourhood, adds curb appeal, and reduced the physical impact on the existing geography of the site.