|
APPELLANT’S SUBMISSION:
A letter was received
from the contractor on behalf of the owners advising that the property is
sloped thereby requiring a height variance. Without the height variance the
driveway would be too steep to accommodate an attached garage.
Harb Man, representing the
homeowners, appeared before members of the Board of Variance.
BURNABY
PLANNING AND BUILDING DEPARTMENT COMMENTS
The two requested variances are
co-related, and will be discussed together.
The subject site is located in the
Clinton-Glenwood neighbourhood, which is an older, well established
neighbourhood. This corner lot, approximately 70.00 ft. wide by 104.00 ft.
long, fronts onto the east side of Royal Oak Avenue and the north side of
Keith Street. Abutting the subject site to the east and west (across Royal
Oak Avenue) are single family dwellings. The properties to the north, across
the lane, contain single family dwellings. Existing and proposed vehicular
access to the site is from the rear lane. The site observes a significant
downward slope from the northeast corner of the lot at the lane to the
southwest corner where Royal Oak Avenue and Keith Street intersect, dropping
18.74 ft. over 104.00 ft.
The first requested variance is to
allow;
1) The
principal building height, measured from the front average elevation will be
33.74 ft., where a maximum height of 29.50 ft. is permitted for sloping
roofs.
With respect to the first requested variance
to vary the building height, the intent of the Bylaw is to mitigate the
massing impacts of new buildings or structures on neighbouring properties.
With reference to this appeal, the
height calculation is based on existing natural grade at the front elevation,
which is Keith Street. The proposed height encroachment of 4.24 ft. would
extend across the entire Keith Street elevation (approximately 53.00 ft.
wide) and over 50% (approximately 25.00 ft.) of the elevation (as viewed from
Royal Oak Avenue. It is noted that the proposed dwelling would meet the
allowable maximum height (as measured
from the rear average elevation) at the lane.
The grade difference from the rear
to the front of the subject site contributes to the excess height at the
front elevation. The difference between the elevation at the corner of the
house at the northwest corner (where Royal Oak intersects with the lane) to
the southwest (where Royal Oak intersects with Keith Street) is 4.93 ft., and
the requested height variance is 4.24 ft.
This overheight situation is
exacerbated by the proposed location of the dwelling, which is the subject of
the second requested variance, which would;
2) Vary
Section 102.8(1) to permit a front yard depth of 24.60 ft. where 39.48 ft.
(based on front yard averaging) would be required.
In 1991,
Council responded to the public concerns with respect to the bulk and massing
of the newer and larger homes that were built in the established
neighbourhoods. Several text amendments to the Zoning Bylaw were made to
address these concerns, including requirement of a larger front yard where
the average front yard depth of the two dwellings on either side of the
subject site exceeds the required front yard applicable to the zone. The
larger front yard requirement should be calculated through the “front yard
averaging”. The intent of the amendment was to improve the consistency and
harmony of the new construction with the existing neighbourhood.
To calculate
the required front yard of the subject property, the front yard of the
two neighbouring properties immediately west of the subject site, at 5229 and
5249 Keith Street, were calculated. These front yards are 39.53 ft. and 39.42
ft. The resulting front yard requirement for 8462 Royal Oak would be 39.48
ft.
The variance that has been requested
is 24.60 ft. The point of measurement is one of the posts which is set 5.00
ft. from the south wall of the dwelling. The posts support a roof that spans
41.50 ft. across the majority of the Keith Street elevation. The top of this
roof is 24.00 ft. from finished floor elevation of the dwelling.
The proposed 24.60 ft. setback would
place the bulk of the house almost 15.00 ft. in front of the two houses
immediately to the east, 5229 and 5249 Keith Street. At this location, the
new house, with the additional 4.00 ft. height would present a 2 1/2 storey elevation to
Keith Street. It has the potential to block a portion of the southwestern
view from these properties, particularly from 5229 Keith Street.
In terms of the neighbourhood
context, this
corner house would be a very prominent departure from the established
streetscape of Keith Street. The majority of the existing dwellings on the
North side of Keith Street observe an average front yard setback of
approximately 39.00 ft. On the South side of Keith Street, there is a similar
pattern of consistent front yard setbacks. As such, this proposal would not
“fit in” with regard to the broader neighbourhood context. This is a major
variance that has been requested, and one which defeat the intent of the
Bylaw.
The design itself has created the
request for the front yard variance. A different design with different
programming could conform to the requirements of front yard averaging or
result in the request for a minor variance that would have less of an impact
on the adjacent properties.
It is also noted that design changes
could also reduce the requested height variance. For example, the 10.00 ft.
ceiling heights in the basement and on the main floor could be reduced to
8.00 ft. for the basement and 9.00 ft. for the main floor, which would remove
3.00 ft. from the requested height variance. The floor of the basement could
be sunk deeper into the ground. As the intention of the Bylaw in regulating
building height is to mitigate the massing impacts of new buildings and
structures on neighbouring properties, designs of new houses should be
adapted to conform to the Bylaw.
In summary, considering the
proposal’s potential impacts on the neighbouring properties, and the
existence of design options that could remove the need for this height
variance, this Department cannot support the granting of the first variance
to permit additional height.
Regarding the request for the front
yard variance, this is a major variance, and one which defeats the intent of
the Zoning Bylaw. Design options exist to minimize the new dwelling’s impact
on the established neighbourhood.
As
such, this Department cannot support the granting of the second variance to
permit a reduced front yard setback.
ADJACENT OWNER’S COMMENTS:
A letter in opposition to the
proposed variances was received from the homeowner at 5250 Patrick. Should
the height variance be allowed, it would adversely affect the view of the
author’s home as well as other homes on Patrick Street. The author advised
that he purchased the home because of the view and paid a premium for it. The
appeal, should it be allowed would also contribute to a loss of property
value.
No further correspondence was
received regarding this appeal.
|