APPELLANT’S SUBMISSION:
Jonathan
Ehling submitted an
application to allow for the construction of a new single family home.
Jonathon
Ehling and Hu Hong appeared before members of the Board of Variance at the
Hearing.
BURNABY PLANNING AND
BUILDING DEPARTMENT COMMENTS:
The
subject site, which is zoned R4 Residential District, is located in the
Marlborough neighbourhood, in which the age and condition of single and
two-family dwellings vary. This interior lot, approximately 60 ft. wide and
112 ft. deep, fronts onto Oakglen Drive to the northeast. Abutting the
subject site to the northwest, southeast, directly across Oakglen Drive to
the northeast and across the lane to the southwest are single family
dwellings. The site observes an upward slope of approximately 14.3 ft. in the
north-south (front to rear) direction. Vehicular access to the site is
provided from the rear lane.
The
applicant proposes to redevelop the site with a new single family dwelling
including an accessory detached garage, which is the subject of three appeals.
The
first a) and second b) appeal concern building height and are co-related.
The
first a) appeal proposes a building height of 29.6 ft., measured from the
rear average elevation, where a maximum height of 29.5 ft. is permitted for
sloped roofs.
The
second b) appeal proposes a building height of 31.3 ft., measured from the
front average elevation, where a maximum height of 29.5 ft. is permitted for
sloped roofs.
The
intent of the Bylaw in regulating building height is to mitigate the massing
of new buildings or structures and their impacts on neighbouring properties.
In
both cases, the height calculation is based on existing natural grade at the
rear and front elevation respectively. As noted above, the grade difference
from the south (rear) to the north (front) corner of the subject site
contributes to the excess height of both elevations.
With
reference to the first a) appeal, the proposed height encroachment of 0.1 ft.
would be limited to a negligible roof peak area of the main roof, and
therefore would not be of concern.
With
reference to the second b) appeal, the proposed height encroachment of 1.8
ft. would be limited to a small roof peak area on the main roof. This roof
encroachment would occur approximately 10 ft. away from the front face of the
subject dwelling, or approximately 45 ft. away from the front property line.
Both the scale of the encroachment and the substantial setback would be
mitigating factors with respect to the massing impacts of the over height
portion of the residence on the neighbouring property across Oakglen Drive to
the northeast.
The
height encroachment area, when viewed from the neighbouring properties to the
northwest and southeast, would be generally limited to small triangular roof
peak areas on the main roof. Considering the small scale of these
encroachments, which are related to the downward sloping terrain in the
south-north direction, little impact is expected on the neighbouring
properties to the northwest and southeast.
In
summary, given the site’s challenging topography and the proposal’s limited impacts on
neighbouring properties and the existing streetscape, this Department does
not object to the granting of the first a) and second b) variances.
The
third c) appeal requests a front
yard setback of 33.75 ft., measured to the front porch posts of the proposed
single family dwelling, with a further projection for roof eaves of 1.5 ft.,
where front yard averaging requires a minimum setback of 41.48 ft.
In
1991, Council responded to public concerns regarding the bulk and massing of
newer and larger homes that were being built in existing neighbourhoods.
Several text amendments to the Zoning Bylaw were made to address these
concerns, including a requirement to set new construction back from the front
property line based on an average of the two dwellings on either side of the
subject site. The intent was to help to ease new construction into existing
street frontages with minimal impact.
In this case, the front yard
averaging calculations are based on the front yard setbacks of the two
dwellings at 5615 and 5625 Oakglen Drive immediately west of the subject site
and on the front yard setbacks of the two dwellings at 5645 and 5655 Oakglen
Drive immediately east of the subject site. These front yard setbacks are
39.6 ft., 35.3 ft., 43.9 ft. and 47.1 ft. respectively.
As noted above, the front yard
setback is measured to the front porch posts. With the exception of the two
bay windows at the main floor and two bay windows at the upper floor, the
main body of the proposed dwelling would be set back an additional 2.5 ft.,
resulting in a distance of 35.25 ft. to the front property line. In addition,
there are 13 ft. wide by 9 ft. deep open decks (with corner posts) proposed
on both the main floor and the upper floor at the northeast corner of the
dwelling.
The proposed siting would place the
subject dwelling 1.65 ft. in front of the neighbouring dwelling to the
northwest and 10.15 ft. in front of the neighbouring dwelling to the
southeast.
With respect to the neighbouring
dwelling to the northwest, if the actual ‘corner to corner’ relationship is
considered, the subject dwelling would project 9.25 ft. in front of this
residence (according to the provided survey, this residence observes a
distance of 45.7 ft. from the front property line to its southeast corner).
If the recessed corner areas (open decks) are considered, the projection
would be only 0.25 ft. Also, the proposed 6.7 ft. northwest side yard
setback, which is slightly larger than the minimum required side yard setback
(4.9 ft.), and the fact that the neighbouring dwelling does not feature any
windows facing the subject dwelling, would somewhat mitigate the massing
impacts of the proposal. However, there is a concern that the proposed siting
of the subject dwelling would dominate the neighbouring one-story dwelling to
the northwest and its front yard, which is at lower elevation.
With respect to the neighbouring
dwelling to the southeast, if the actual ‘corner to corner’ relationship is
considered, the subject dwelling would project 7.15 ft. in front of this
residence. The southeast elevation of the proposed residence, which extends
past the neighbouring home to the southeast, consists primarily of roof and
wall elements, with few windows and no overlook. However, these elements
would impede the views from the front feature windows of the neighbouring
dwelling, which are oriented to the northeast.
Further,
the siting of the proposed dwelling would be approximately 6 ft. closer to
the front property line than the existing one-storey dwelling on the subject
site, which observes an approximately 40 ft. front yard setback. In view of
the above, the existing massing relationship between the subject property and
the adjacent properties to the northwest and southeast would be substantially
changed.
With
regard to the broader neighbourhood context, there is an established block
front, with the majority of lots observing front yard setbacks in the range
of approximately 40-45 ft. Therefore, with the exception of one lot (at the
far north terminus of the subject block), the proposed siting would result in
the most forward placement in the subject block. Therefore, the intent of the
Bylaw to provide for transitioning of a new construction into the existing
context would not be met.
Since
this request would create negative impacts on the neighbouring properties and
the existing streetscape, this Department cannot support the granting of this
third c) variance.
ADJACENT OWNER’S
COMMENTS:
No correspondence was received
regarding this appeal.
|