|
APPELLANT’S SUBMISSION:
Mr. Jonathan Ehling, on behalf of
the property owner, submitted an application for an alternation to the main
floor and addition to the second floor including a new attached garage.
Mr. Peter Dutzi, owner, and Mr. Ehling
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 Capitol Hill
neighbourhood, in which the age and condition of single family dwellings vary. This slightly irregular
(skewed rectangular) interior lot is 137.2 feet deep along
its north (side) property line and has a frontage of approximately 60.0 feet onto Hythe
Avenue North to the east. The site is bordered by single family residential lots all
around. Along
the west (rear) property line, the property is restricted by an approximately
7.5 feet wide statutory right-of-way for sewer purposes. Vehicular
access to the subject site is proposed to be retained from the Hythe Avenue
North frontage; there is no lane access. The site observes a significant
downward slope of approximately 30.0 feet from the front to the rear.
The subject site is
improved with a one storey single family dwelling and an attached carport,
originally built in 1970. The site is proposed to be further improved with a
second floor addition and various exterior and interior alterations. The
second floor addition will contain a new attached garage and the existing
attached carport at the main floor will be enclosed and converted to a
livable space. The second floor addition and the main floor infill only are
subject of the requested three variances.
The first two
variances are related to building height.
The first a)
appeal is to vary Section 102.6(2) – “Height of Principal Building” of the
Zoning Bylaw from 24.3 feet to 32.83 feet, as measured from the rear average
grade, to allow construction of a second floor addition with a flat roof.
The second b)
appeal is to vary Section 102.6(2) – “Height of Principal Building” of the
Zoning Bylaw from 24.3 feet to 24.91 feet, as measured from the front average
grade, to allow construction of a second floor addition with a flat 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.
In this case, the second
floor is proposed to be built over the entire existing main floor, which is
approximately 45.0 feet wide and 40.0 feet deep. To the rear, the second
floor area is proposed to extend a further 2.0 feet, with a 5.0 – 8.0 feet
deep deck extending furthermore across the entire rear face. The proposed new
roof will extend 5.0 feet over the rear deck area. The proposed roof form
would resemble a “shallow” gable when viewed from the front and the rear. The
proposed slopes are: 2.23 in 12 on the north side and 3 in 12 on the south
side, which is just under the allowed maximum slope (4 in 12) for roofs to be
considered flat roofs.
It appears that the
building height relaxation requests are mainly related to the topography of
the site. A
substantial grade difference from the front to the rear of the subject site
contributes to the excess height.
With respect to the first a)
variance, the height calculation is based on the existing grade (which is
also the proposed finish grade) at the rear elevation. When viewed from the
rear elevation, the 8.53 feet height encroachment occurs over the entire
second floor, from a level approximately 2.0 feet below the top window line
(excluding clerestory windows). Although this is a substantial height
encroachment, there are several mitigating factors when considering the
massing impacts on the neighbouring properties.
With respect to the neighbouring
property directly opposite the subject site to the west (rear), which is at
much lower level than the subject site, considering that the height
encroachment area is more than 60.0 feet away from the subject sites’ rear
property line, and that the views from the neighbouring property are
predominantly directed towards the west, no significant impacts are expected.
Viewed from the south (side)
elevation, the proposed dwelling would appear over height essentially only at
the small western portion of the roof, over the rear deck area. Due to the
sloping terrain, the proposed dwelling would be partly underground, thus
substantially reducing the building height as viewed from this side
elevation. Considering the small scale of the over height area, the height
encroachment would not create substantial massing impacts on the neighbouring
property to the south.
When viewed from the north (side)
elevation however, the proposed dwelling would appear over height for most of
the entire building length; except at the northeast (front) corner. The
existing grades here are approximately 9.0 feet (east) to 5.0 feet (west)
lower than on the south side of the building. The height encroachment occurs
from a level approximately 1.0 feet below the top window line, or 2.0 feet
below the roof fascia board. A mitigating factor in this case could be that
the roof massing above the fascia board (5.0 feet in height) would not be
readily visible from the neighbouring property to the north, considering that
this is a flat roof. Also, the residence on this property does not have any
windows facing directly the subject site.
With respect to the second b)
variance, the height calculation is based on the existing grade at the front
elevation. When viewed from the front elevation, the 0.61 feet height
encroachment occurs just at the peak of the roof, and would not be noticeable
from the neighbouring dwelling across Hythe Avenue North to the east.
In fact, the subject dwelling would
appear as one storey in height when viewed from the street. This is because
the attached garage has been proposed at the southeast corner of the second
floor addition, just over the existing attached carport (converted to a
livable space). Consequently, the new driveway access would be approximately
8.0 feet higher than the existing driveway, which would help to alleviate the
current steep connection to the street.
In summary, considering the
challenging topography and existing conditions of the subject site, and since the requested variances would
have small impacts on neighbouring properties, this Department does not
objects to the granting of the first a) and second b) variances.
The third c) appeal is to vary Section
102.8(1) – “Front Yard” of the Zoning Bylaw from 24.61 feet to 22.70 feet to allow the
construction of the additions to the existing single family dwelling.
The intent of the Bylaw is to mitigate
the massing impacts of new buildings and structures on neighbouring
properties and to preserve a unified streetscape.
This variance is
directly related to the placement of the existing dwelling on the subject
site. The current dwelling observes a front yard setback of 21.7 feet at its
southeast corner (where the attached carport is located), which is legal
non-conforming with respect to the front yard requirement. Due to the
slightly skewed orientation of the dwelling in relation to the front property
line, the dwelling observes a larger setback of 26.4 feet at its northeast
corner.
As mentioned in the
comments under the first a) and second b) appeal, the proposed second floor
addition and the carport infill at the main floor are generally proposed
within the existing perimeter of the dwelling, except a slightly larger
setback is proposed at the southern portion of the front elevation. This
results in the slightly larger front yard setback (22.7 feet), which is the
subject of this appeal.
The front yard
encroachment area is limited to the small triangular area at the southern
portion of the front elevation. The 1.91 feet encroachment starts at the
southeast corner of the dwelling and gradually decreases to 0.0 feet
approximately at the mid-point of the front elevation. Given the small scale
of this encroachment, further alleviated by the fact that only the second
floor is visible from the street, the proposed front yard reduction would not
be noticeable from the surrounding properties.
Considering that the
proposed variance poses no impacts on neighbouring properties and the
existing streetscape, and is directly related to the existing dwelling
location, this Department does not object to the granting of this third c)
variance.
ADJACENT OWNER’S COMMENTS:
The homeowner of 371 Hythe Avenue
North appeared before the Board expressing concerns regarding loss of shade,
privacy, and neighbourhood characteristic.
The resident of 391 Hythe Avenue
North appeared before the Board expressing concerns regarding the
construction of the home at 341 Hythe Avenue North, effect of frontage, loss
of trees, and loss of neighbourhood characteristic.
|