APPELLANT’S SUBMISSION:
Mr. Dave Hayre submitted an
application for the construction of a new single family dwelling with a
secondary suite and detached garage.
Mr. Hayre appeared before members of
the Board of Variance.
BURNABY
PLANNING AND BUILDING DEPARTMENT COMMENTS:
The subject site, which
is zoned R5 Residential District, is located in the Willingdon Heights
neighbourhood, in which the age and condition of the single and two family
dwellings vary. This
interior lot, approximately 50.0 feet wide and
121.9 feet deep, fronts onto Napier Street to the north. The subject site abuts single
family residential lots on all sides. Vehicular access to the
site is proposed to be relocated from the Napier Street to the rear lane to
the south.
The subject lot observes a downward slope
of approximately 6.4 feet from the north (front) to the south (rear) and of
approximately 5.7 feet from the east (side) to the west (side).
The subject property is
proposed to be re-developed with a new single family dwelling, with a
secondary suite and a detached garage, for which two variances has been
requested. Both variances are related to the proposed principal building
height.
The first a)
appeal is to vary Section 105.6(1)(a) – “Height of Principal Building. Single
Family Dwelling” of the Zoning Bylaw from 29.5 feet to 30.66 feet, as
measured from the rear average grade, to allow construction of a new single
family dwelling with a sloping roof.
The second b)
appeal is to vary Section 105.6(1)(a) – “Height of Principal Building. Single
Family Dwelling” of the Zoning Bylaw from 29.5 feet to 30.31 feet, as
measured from the front 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 the
new buildings and structures on neighbouring properties and to preserve
the views.
It appears that both
building height relaxations are partly related to the topography of the site
and partly related to the design choices.
A moderate grade difference of
approximately 6.1 feet from the north-east corner of the proposed dwelling to
the south-west corner contributes to the excess height. Additionally, the
existing grading at the north-west corner of the proposed dwelling drops by
approximately up to 2.0 feet, due to the driveway access which currently
slopes downwards at the north-west portion of the subject site.
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 all
three levels of the building as the major factor. The proposed clear floor to
ceiling heights are: 9.0 feet in the cellar, 10.0 feet on the main level and
9.0 feet on the second 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.
Further, the proposed
upper roof form is also a contributing factor. The upper roof is considered
to be a sloping roof, with the proposed roof pitch and the proposed sloping
roof area just meeting the definition of “Roof, Sloping” in the Zoning Bylaw.
The upper roof is proposed to have a pitch of 4 in 12, where a pitch of 4 in
12 or greater is required, and would cover 80.3 percent of the surface of the
roof as measured in plan view, where at least 80 percent is required.
The remaining 19.7
percent of the main upper roof consists of a large roof deck (248.1 sq. ft.),
placed roughly off center and to the west of the upper roof area. It also
consists of a small feature flat roof (68.9 sq. ft.) over the elevated
decorative element which is proposed at the front elevation. (There is also
an exterior stair, leading from the second floor level to the roof deck on
top, which is excluded from the overall sloping roof area calculations.)
With regards to the first a) appeal,
the height encroachment of 1.16 feet (as measured from the
rear average grade) occurs
mainly across the upper portion of the guardrail which surrounds the roof
deck. According to the submitted drawings, the upper portion of the guardrail
would be constructed of safety glass. The height encroachment also extends
over the very tip of the main upper roof and partly over the smaller upper
roof (over the interior stair leading to the roof deck) beyond.
With regards to the second b)
appeal, the height encroachment of 0.83 feet (as measured from the
front average grade) occurs
primarily at the upper portion of the elevated decorative
element. This element is located slightly off center and to the east of the
front elevation.
The height encroachment also extends across the upper portion of the proposed
roof deck guardrail beyond.
Although the over height portions of
the overall roof massing are relatively small in scale and would not create
substantial impacts on the neighbouring dwellings or the existing
streetscape, it is possible to make small modifications to this roof design
which would lessen or potentially eliminate a need for the building height
relaxations.
In summary, although it is
recognized that the topography of the subject site is a contributing factor,
the requested height variances are also the result of the design choices. Therefore, this
Department cannot support the granting of both variances.
ADJACENT OWNER’S COMMENTS:
No correspondence was received
regarding this appeal.
|