|
APPELLANT’S SUBMISSION:
Gary Gao, on behalf of the property
owners, submitted an application to allow for the construction of a new
single family dwelling with a detached garage at 4892 Carson Place.
Mr. Gary Gao, Designer, Ms. Ji Hong,
Homeowner, and Mr. Jing Wang, Builder, appeared before members of the Board
of Variance.
BURNABY
PLANNING AND BUILDING DEPARTMENT COMMENTS:
The subject site, which
is zoned R2 Residential District, is located in the Sussex-Nelson
neighbourhood, in which the majority of the single family dwellings were
built in the 1960’s. This
irregular interior lot is 111.3 feet deep along its northwest (side) property line and has
a frontage of approximately 77.5
feet onto Carson Place to the northeast. The site is bordered by a
lane along the southeast (side) property line, which slightly curves to the
southwest and continues along the southwest (rear) property line. The
southernmost portion of the site is truncated, which is reflected in the
chamfered property line alignment in this location.
The subject site abuts single
family residential lots all around. Vehicular access to the subject site is
proposed to be relocated from the Carson Place frontage to the rear lane to
the southwest.
The site
observes a significant downward slope of approximately 18.0 feet from the
front to the rear.
The subject lot is
proposed to be re-developed with a new single family dwelling, with a
detached garage,
for which the following variance has been requested.
The appeal is
to vary Section 102.6(1)(a) – “Height of Principal Building” of the Zoning
Bylaw from 29.5 feet to 31.99 feet, as measured from the rear average grade,
to allow construction of a new single family dwelling with a sloping roof. The intent of the height
requirements of the Zoning Bylaw is to mitigate the massing impacts of new
buildings and structures on neighbouring properties and to preserve
the views.
It appears that the
building height relaxation request is partly related to the topography of the
site and partly related to the design choices. In this case, the height calculation
is based on the proposed grade at the rear elevation. A substantial grade
difference from the front to the rear of the subject site contributes to the
excess height. It is also noted that the proposed dwelling would observe a
height of 25.88 feet when viewed from the front property line, which is less
than the
maximum height allowed by the Zoning Bylaw (less by 3.62 feet).
When viewed from the rear elevation
the height encroachment occurs over the upper roof, which resembles roughly a
reversed “L” in plan, with the southwest portion running in a “front-to-
rear” direction and the northeast portion running in a “side-to-side”
direction.
As viewed from the rear elevation,
the proposed 2.49 foot height encroachment occurs over the southwest portion
of the upper roof and continues into the northeast portion and back from the
rear face of the building. The encroachment starts approximately at the
mid-point of the upper roof and continues to the roof peak.
With respect to the neighbouring
property directly opposite the subject site across the rear lane, considering
that the height encroachment area is more than 46.0 feet away from the
subject sites rear property line (plus the additional 20.0 feet of the lane
separation), no significant impacts are expected. The views from this
neighbouring property are predominantly directed towards Patrick Place to the
southwest. Furthermore, this property’s rear yard is fully screened by a tall
hedge and the portion of the northeast elevation (one storey high) visible
from the lane, does not have any windows facing the subject site.
Viewed from the southeast elevation,
the proposed dwelling would appear over height essentially only at the
southwest portion of the upper roof (starting approximately at the
mid-point), which is further away from the southeast side property line; the
height encroachment area would be at least 36.0 feet away from this property
line (plus the additional 20.0 feet of the lane separation). Considering the
small scale of the over height portion of the roof in combination with this
generous setback, the height encroachment would not be noticeable from the
neighbouring dwellings across the lane to the southeast.
Also, due to the sloping terrain,
the proposed dwelling would be partly underground, thus substantially
reducing the building height as viewed from the northwest side elevation. The
proposed dwelling would not appear over height as viewed from the neighbouring
property immediately to the northwest.
However, the requested variance is not exclusively
related to the sloping site.
The excess height of the proposed dwelling is also a result of design
choices, particularly with the proposed clear floor to ceiling height on the
two lower levels of the building being the major contributing factors. (The
proposed clear floors to ceiling heights are: 9.0 feet in the cellar, 10.0
feet on the main level and 8.5 feet on the upper level). It would be possible
to construct a dwelling with ceiling heights that would conform to the Bylaw.
(For example: 8.0 feet in the cellar, 9.0 feet or 9.5 feet on the main level
and 8.0 feet on the upper level.)
Furthermore, lowering the dwelling
more into the ground should also be considered; this would help distribute
the substantial grade difference more evenly throughout the site. This appeal
proposes to maintain a relatively flat front yard area, but to the rear of
the dwelling, with the detached garage proposed at the lane level, there is a
substantial grade difference between the main floor level at 176.5 feet and
the garage slab level at 159.38 feet. (The cellar is proposed at 166.26
feet). As a result, the pathway between the garage and the dwelling includes
an upward stair with 12 steps and another upward stair with 3 steps to the
main floor, or a downward stair with 8 steps to the cellar. There is no
sufficient information on the submitted site plan to verify how the 17.12
foot difference between the garage level and main floor level can be
negotiated by 15 steps, as the stair risers typically vary between 7-8
inches.
Otherwise, the submitted site plan
does not indicate grading in the rear yard; it is assumed therefore, that no
other grading changes are proposed. Currently, the rear yard terrain observes
a moderate slope of approximately 8.0 feet, which is retained at the lane
edges by an approximately 4.0 foot high retaining wall.
In summary, although it is
recognized that the topography of the subject site is a contributing factor,
the requested height variance is also the result of the design choices and it
is possible to construct this design with the building height in accordance
with the Bylaw.
Therefore, this Department cannot support the granting of this variance.
ADJACENT OWNER’S COMMENTS:
Correspondence was received from the
owners of 4871 and 4881 Carson Place advising they were opposed to this
variance.
|